I ■ 
 
 ^^H 
 
 mJ 
 
 

 *W 
 
 »* <J> Ci. ♦ 
 
 
 ; ^°- •£»» »°%. v 
 
 
 v^:.i^/^ 
 
 • * AjSaifc\ *.£&.•* 4P*&kS. < 
 
 A 9* .!••- *> 
 
 
 
 ,4^ 
 
 
 
 > '£■?•" S*\ -wF *** -W" /% W 
 
 <r °+ •»• a ^ •"• <** °a '^vT' a? 
 
»* * 4 °* -ta^** j- ^ vSw; £°+ -JSKv 
 
 
 
 
 
 f.^^ 
 
 1* .."•• *c 
 
 V 0°" # # ^ 
 
 
 
 
 0* VAV% 
 
 A 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 <* *'TT^\o* 
 
 ^L *• • * • A 
 
 m-'V" <v~»:sr«v 9 v^**^ %'T^*/ 
 * v »^k-\ / ( a.A ♦^*^ik-\. <? • 
 
 "V • 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 ^•/ ^™/ % :r ^'/ ^*^^\^ 
 
LEXILOGUS; 
 
 OB 
 
 A CRITICAL EXAMINATION 
 
 OF 
 
 THE MEANING AND ETYMOLOGY OF NUMEROUS GREEK 
 WORDS AND PASSAGES, 
 
 INTENDED PR 1 NCI PALL Y FOR 
 
 HOMER AND HESIOD. 
 
 By PHILIP BUTTMANN, LL.D. 
 
 LATE PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN, AND LIBRARIAN OF THE 
 ROYAL LIBRARY. 
 
 TRANSLATED AND EDITED, WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES AND COPIOUS INDEXES, 
 
 By the Rev. J. R. FISHLAKE, 
 
 LATE FELLOW OF WADHAM COLLEGE, OXFORD. 
 
 THIRD EDITION, REVISED. 
 
 L O N D O N : 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 1846. 
 

 OXFORD: T. COMBE, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 A TRANSLATOR is generally expected to preface 
 his Work by some account of his Author, and some 
 explanation of his subject. In the present instance in- 
 formation on either of these points is less than usually 
 requisite. With regard to the former, the name of 
 Buttmann needs no introduction wherever ancient Greek 
 is studied ; and for the latter, the Author's own Preface 
 will explain the nature of his Work far better than can 
 be done for him. A few words on one or two minor 
 details are all therefore which can be necessary. 
 
 Buttmann very modestly entitled his Work, a " Lexi- 
 logus, or Helps to the Explanation of Greek words, in- 
 tended principally for Homer and Hesiod." Fearing 
 that so indefinite a title might induce a belief of the 
 Work being merely an elementary book for younger stu- 
 dents, a larger kind of Clavis Homerica for school-boys, 
 I have endeavoured to alter it to one more declaratory of 
 its true character. For while every reader of Homer, nay, 
 every student of Greek, will find in the philological inves- 
 tigations of the Lexilogus new and valuable information, 
 without which he can never thoroughly understand the 
 language either in its Epic infancy or its Attic vigour, — 
 at the same time it will prove to the really critical stu- 
 dent an invaluable guide and companion in exploring the 
 deeply-hidden treasures of ancient Greek literature. He 
 
 a2 
 
iv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 will be delighted and astonished at the profound research, 
 the extensive erudition, and solid judgment with which 
 each word and each family of words is examined and 
 traced from the old Epic poetry through every succeed- 
 ing stage of the language, through every writer in which 
 it occurs, and every analogy in which it can be advan- 
 tageously compared. He will find a novel system of 
 investigation, admirably calculated to ascertain on the 
 surest grounds the true sense of an author, reconciling 
 discrepancies, and solving difficulties which have baffled 
 the ingenuity of ancients and moderns. But by enlarging 
 on these points I shall be only doing an injustice to my 
 author : the Work will better speak for itself. 
 
 I have made another minor alteration by a fresh ar- 
 rangement of the Articles. Buttmann wrote and pub- 
 lished as he met with a difficult or doubtful word in the 
 course of his readings. I have arranged the Articles 
 alphabetically ; a change which I could not have ventured 
 to make, had there been a chance of the Lexilogus being 
 continued at any future time : but as the Author, alas ! 
 has been taken away in the midst of his literary career, 
 all hopes of that nature are for ever at an end. 
 
 The additions which I have made are very trifling : 
 here and there a few short notes explanatory of German 
 words or phrases, which I have taken care to distinguish 
 from those of the Author by inserting them within 
 brackets, and marking them with " Ed." I have like- 
 wise added the opinions of the German lexicographers 
 Schneider and Passow whenever they happen to differ 
 from or elucidate those of Buttmann. When references 
 are made to German writers, I have generally given a 
 translation of the passage referred to ; as in the case of 
 Schneider's Lexicon and Buttmann's large Grammar 
 which he entitles " Ausfiihrliche Sprachlehre." When, 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. v 
 
 however, he refers to his Grammar, properly so called, 
 of which an English translation has been published, I 
 have thought it sufficient to give the reference only. 
 
 And here I might perhaps be excused were I tempted 
 to extend this Preface by indulging in the recollection 
 of past days, and dedicating a page or two to the me- 
 mory of the Author, whose friendship I enjoyed, and in 
 whose literary acquirements I found delight and assist- 
 ance during the greater part of three years : but I must 
 content myself with referring those who wish to see some 
 account of his life or character to a short biographical 
 memoir of him prefixed to the translation of his Greek 
 Grammar. Meanwhile let me indulge in the hope, that 
 by the following version of his Lexilogus I may be raising 
 an honourable and lasting tribute to his memory ; con- 
 fident as I am, that if the present publication do not raise 
 his literary fame in this country to the same proud pre- 
 eminence which it enjoys in Germany, the fault will be 
 not in the Author but in the Translator. 
 
 J. R. F. 
 
 Little Cheverel, Wilts. December, 1835. 
 
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 IN preparing this second Edition of the Lexilogus, I 
 have carefully read and compared it anew with the ori- 
 ginal, by which I have been able to correct some errors 
 of translation, and to render, I hope, more intelligible 
 many passages which were obscure or ambiguous. I 
 have also added a few Notes and Illustrations, for some 
 of which I am indebted to the kindness of a young 
 Cambridge Friend, whose communications I take this 
 opportunity of acknowledging, both in justice to the 
 contributor, as well as with the hope that others may be 
 induced to confer on me the same favour. 
 
 J. R. F. 
 
 Little Cheverel, Wilts. January, 1840. 
 
 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. 
 
 WHEN the second Edition of the Lexilogus was put 
 to press, I flattered myself that I understood, and had 
 translated correctly every sentence in the work. I have 
 since found that I was mistaken ; and therefore in pre- 
 paring this third edition every line has been carefully 
 examined and compared again with the original. I have 
 thus detected several mistranslations, for which the ab- 
 struseness of Buttmann's style and still more of his 
 arguments will, I trust, be some excuse. I now hope 
 and believe that I have not left many imperfections of 
 this kind. These corrections and a few additional notes 
 are the principal advantages offered by this edition. 
 
 J. R. F. 
 
 Little Cheverel, Wilts. January, 184(>. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 WHENEVER I have been engaged in examining Ho- 
 mer somewhat more critically than usual, an observation 
 has always forced itself upon me, that with regard to the 
 explanation of his language more remained to be done, 
 and might be done, than is generally supposed. In par- 
 ticular, I found that even very superior philologists, 
 swayed partly by the authority of tradition, partly by the 
 undoubted meaning which some words have in the later 
 writers, and partly by an etymology apparently satisfac- 
 tory, have imagined that in many words they saw their 
 way perfectly clear, or at least essentially so, and there 
 fore they never instituted a more accurate examination, 
 of which such words are still capable. 
 
 And although I was aware that short accounts and 
 concise explanations may generally be sufficient for the 
 more advanced scholar, yet, at the same time, I thought 
 that I might find an opportunity of being useful to young 
 philologists also, by setting them the example of a mode 
 of investigation which cannot be sufficiently recom- 
 mended; namely, that of unravelling an author's usage 
 of words as much as possible from himself. In the case 
 of Homer there is the strongest inducement to follow 
 this method, nay, we are driven to it of necessity, as we 
 have nothing cotemporary with him. At the same time 
 however this plan is rendered easier in Homer than in 
 
viii AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 most other writers by a work of rare industry, the merits 
 of which are not known so generally as they ought to 
 be, — Damm's Homeric Dictionary 1 . It is true that the 
 book has great and striking defects, of which the prin- 
 cipal is that want of order in the arrangement of words 
 which makes it so inconvenient for use. And what 
 renders this fault the more striking is, that the author, 
 who had no idea of a perfect arrangement, unless it 
 were opposed to the usual plan of dictionaries, in which 
 system is sacrificed to alphabetical order, and unless it 
 were grounded on etymological arrangement, as the only 
 method calculated to attain its object and produce ad- 
 vantageous results, — that he, in the praiseworthy attempt 
 to put this idea into execution, should fall into the oppo- 
 site error, and ground his arrangement on an etymology 
 not merely speculative from beginning to end, but (which 
 no one will dispute) completely arbitrary 2 . This defect 
 is however for the most part compensated, on the one 
 
 i This ought to be its title, if it were named from that which con- 
 stitutes its peculiar merit : it is now entitled " Novum Lexicon Grse- 
 cum etymologicum et reale, cui pro basi substratae sunt concordantise 
 Homericse et Pindaricae. Collegit C. T. Damm. Berol. 1765." 4to. 
 
 2 If compilers of not only large and small dictionaries, but also of 
 verbal indexes to particular authors, should ever adopt an arrangement 
 grounded on etymology as the only method of bringing perfectly before 
 the student the true richness and extent of a language, I certainly do 
 not anticipate their falling into the same extreme as the excellent Damm 
 has done ; but mischief is to be apprehended wherever the true princi- 
 ple of etymological arrangement is misunderstood, even though it be to 
 a less extent, as we see in Stephens's Thesaurus and in many vocabu- 
 laries. A lexicographer should follow, not that etymology which is 
 true and capable of proof, but that which is acknowledged and felt. 
 Nay, even families of words, whose mutual relationship cannot be 
 doubted, must still be separated (if a separation can be easily made) for 
 practical purposes, without however each being injured in its particular 
 circle, and the separation must be pointed out by references. Gesner's 
 caution on this point in his Latin Thesaurus might be recommended 
 for imitation, if he had not destroyed the greatest part of the advantage 
 of this method by separating the compounds from the simples. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. ix 
 
 hand by the great advantage resulting from those words 
 which are known and acknowledged to belong to each 
 other being thus brought into one and the same point 
 of view, and on the other hand by an alphabetical Index. 
 Far more perplexing is the want of arrangement in the 
 Articles themselves, particularly the longer ones, where 
 the author gives, it is true, at the beginning of each a 
 short review of the different turns which the meaning- 
 takes, but afterwards adds in detail the individual pas- 
 sages, principally according to the forms (i. e. the cases, 
 tenses, &c.) which occur, and according to the numerical 
 order of the books ; a plan useful in one respect, but 
 by which the far more important and principal ob- 
 ject, the chain of meanings, is lost, and the most tire- 
 some repetitions are introduced. Yet it is but fair 
 that we should reflect, that as an arrangement com- 
 bining all advantages would have been far more difficult 
 and laborious, it would probably have been impossible 
 for the diligent schoolman to have compiled his useful 
 work without those looser and lighter details 3 . These 
 very defects however again give occasion, as is com- 
 monly the case, to an exertion calculated in the highest 
 degree to promote the study of Homer, in as much as 
 whoever uses the book for a slow and critical reading 
 of his works, can now arrange every such article accord- 
 ing to his own ideas and views, and elicit more accu- 
 rate results. And it is in this labour that I principally 
 wish to set an example to young philologists in this little 
 
 3 I should wish that in every article the passages should follow ac- 
 cording to their meaning ; and then at the end of the longer articles 
 the different forms might be placed together, with some references, for 
 the more unusual ones, to the passages as quoted before. For a cor- 
 rect review of all the forms of a word which occur in a writer is indis- 
 pensable to the critic. 
 
x AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 book * ; still however in such a manner, that while I re- 
 commend with full conviction, as contributing in the 
 highest degree to a more intimate knowledge of Homer's 
 language, that even the most common and universally 
 known words should be treated in this way, I have here 
 selected those only in which I discovered in the course 
 of my experience erroneous views and opinions more or 
 less common, or in which I have hoped to be able to 
 bring forward something which has generally been over- 
 looked. 
 
 I am however so far from disdaining the other ways 
 in which the sense of an old Epic word may be critically 
 examined, that I think it much rather coincides with 
 my general object to give an example of those also. 
 In all cases then in which Homer himself does not fur- 
 nish sufficient materials for a comparison, I have con- 
 sulted the nearest succeeding period, and that not only 
 in the other old Epic Records and Fragments (the He- 
 siodic, Homeridic, and Cyclic*), which must also be 
 
 4 As I have here undertaken to recommend this mode of studying an 
 author, it appears to me worth while to add one or two rules for the 
 instruction of those who have had less experience than myself. In the 
 first place, in order to understand the leading senses, we should take a 
 cursory review of the whole article with Damm's explanations, which, 
 being mostly old traditionary ones, are necessary to be known ; after- 
 wards, every passage quoted by Damm should be again examined, as 
 far as possible, in Homer himself ; not only because corrected readings 
 are not unfrequently received into our present text, but because it can- 
 not but happen that, in such a list, passages by being separated from 
 the context sometimes serve to give an erroneous idea of the author's 
 meaning, and sometimes, being taken by the reader in only one point 
 of- view, lead him into fresh mistakes. I would also recommend to 
 every one who can obtain that rare book, " W. Seberi Argus Horaericus 
 s. Index Vocabulorum in omnia Homeri Poemata. Amst. 1649." 4to., 
 to use it with Damm, because each not unfrequently supplies the de- 
 fects of the other, and the older w T ork often furnishes the student with 
 a quicker review of passages than the later one. 
 
 * [For an explanation of this term, see note, p. 457. — Ed.] 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xi 
 
 included in the plan of an Homeric Dictionary, but I 
 have examined likewise with great confidence the poets 
 of the flourishing periods of Greece ; for I become more 
 and more persuaded every day by constant experience, 
 that in judging of and explaining the works of genius 
 of Homer's pure time, there is little or perhaps no rea- 
 son whatever for supposing an usage of succeeding poets 
 to have arisen from their having misunderstood the mean- 
 ing of Homer's words, in as much as these poets had not 
 yet begun to search with the coldness of art for dead 
 words, but used those only which came down to them 
 from antiquity through living tradition. 
 
 The third rank in my investigation belongs to gram- 
 matical tradition, as it is undeniable that in this also 
 much has been transplanted from that olden time when 
 poets and rhapsodists still felt with certainty the lan- 
 guage of Homer. But as philosophical and grammatical 
 subtleties by degrees disturbed the purity of those sources, 
 the ferae sense was frequently driven out by false inter- 
 pretations springing from an unhistorical mode of treat- 
 ment, or else it is found buried under a confused heap of 
 explanations, and must be developed by having recourse 
 to whatever may be offered by the other sources. Still, 
 I frequently commence my inquiry with those common 
 interpretations which are for the most part known to all, 
 in order that by calling attention to their insufficiency 
 and faultiness I may show the necessity of a more funda- 
 mental investigation. But to this same grammatical tra- 
 dition belongs also, as every one knows, the usage of the 
 later poets after Alexander. In them, we feel at once, 
 from the slightest perusal of their works, that every spark 
 of rhapsodical tradition is extinguished. We see that 
 they learned as we do from written pages, and sought to 
 make the language of the poets their own, as they under- 
 
xii AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 stood it by a process of study, which consequently ren- 
 dered it to them a dead language. Hence I have made 
 another use of those poets, and one of much greater im- 
 portance toward the object of this book, by showing in a 
 variety of instances that their use of language was of 
 that nature, in order that it might become the more 
 evident how cautious we ought to be in every critical 
 and grammatical use to which we wish to apply those 
 writers. And if in doing this I should have here and 
 there done any one of them an injustice, in an esthe- 
 tic sense, by attributing to ignorance deviations from 
 Homer which proceeded from poetical powers of in- 
 vention, others will soon be found ready to assist in 
 honouring him. But to spend my time among the later 
 of those late poets, even for this object, appeared to me 
 a superfluous labour. 
 
 Grammatical and etymological inquiries made by the 
 moderns should always be our last resource. I do not 
 think that this principle is attended to by every one as it 
 ought to be; for myself I have made it an invariable rule. 
 Where the meanings of words cannot be discovered at all, 
 or not with sufficient certainty, by the former methods, I 
 then introduce, and then only, etymological investigation, 
 which is naturally more or less decisive according to cir- 
 cumstances, and, I may add, according to the reader. It 
 is true, that where the meaning is made sufficiently clear 
 by the utmost possible comparison of passages and writers, 
 there I certainly do not hesitate to introduce anything 
 which I may think I have discovered respecting the 
 descent or derivation of a word, whether it be in con- 
 firmation of or as a supplement to this branch of the 
 science : but in that case I generally place it, as some- 
 thing not strictly belonging to the object of my book, 
 either in the notes or separated in some other manner, 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xiii 
 
 that the reader may be fully convinced of the inde- 
 pendence and internal certainty of the rest of the in- 
 vestigation ; or if he sees neither charm nor utility in an 
 etymological examination, he may pass it over unnoticed. 
 I have felt myself the more impelled to oppose thus 
 pointedly that mode which sets out with speculation, as 
 I have seen during the course of my investigations many 
 instances of a superficial etymology (consequently one 
 which presented itself very early), either obstructing the 
 knowledge of the true and exact sense of a word, or, in 
 cases where the sense is evident, mixing up with it col- 
 lateral ideas quite foreign to Homer, and thence inter- 
 polating into a number of passages thoughts which he 
 never had, and consequently falsifying his poetry,— a 
 worse fault than leaving it unintelligible. 
 
 In laying before the public a number of these investi- 
 gations, I call this volume the first, only because it ad- 
 mits of repeated continuations, without knowing whether 
 or when I shall be able to produce even a second, and 
 whether, if I should, it will be desired. In a book there- 
 fore which is only a first part, any choice or arrangement 
 of articles was indifferent ; consequently I found it best, 
 in order to accomplish a definite object with this little 
 volume, to begin my search in the first book of the Iliad 
 for words on which I might say something satisfactory, 
 or at least useful. And every word which came in my 
 way in this manner, I not only examined as fully as I 
 could for the whole of Homer, and for other authors, as 
 far as they belonged to my plan, but I frequently in- 
 cluded (and generally with equal copiousness) cognate 
 words also, or others which might in any way throw light 
 upon an Homeric word, or which might be embraced in 
 the same inquiry; and I have also added some articles 
 
xiv AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 
 
 whose subjects do not occur so soon as the beginning of 
 the Iliad, but to which I was led thus early by the free 
 unshackled nature of my investigation. All words, how- 
 ever, in which I could add but little information to what 
 is easily accessible in dictionaries or in explanatory and 
 other grammatical works, I have passed over entirely, as 
 I always suppose my reader to have some experience, 
 and to be not entirely without books ; and I wish at the 
 same time also to lay occasionally before the scholar 
 something not unworthy of his attention. I thus pro- 
 ceeded far in the Second Book of the Iliad, and stopped 
 when I thought I had enough for my first volume. Every 
 one, therefore, who has experienced the use of such in- 
 vestigations as these for the understanding of Homer, 
 may take my book and begin his Homer anew : and he 
 will find, with regard to the explanation of words, no- 
 thing unexamined which needed a certain degree of in- 
 vestigation, but at the same time enough to make him 
 acquainted with my method ; so that if he is satisfied 
 with it, he may take it up where I have left off. And as 
 I proceed further, (if indeed I ever continue my work,) I 
 may gradually leave this didactic object more and more 
 out of sight, confining myself as I go on to those words 
 which admit of being treated in a more scientific way, or 
 in which I have to introduce some particular views of my 
 own. In these examinations opportunities could not but 
 occasionally present themselves for contributing some- 
 thing toward the criticism of the readings, and in some 
 articles (in 13. 23. 24. 46. 53. 58.*, for instance) this is 
 the principal object in view. 
 
 * [In the alphabetical arrangement of the translation these articles 
 stand thus: 30. 43. 71. 81. 97. 104. — Ed.] 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE. xv 
 
 And lastly, in composing this little book a most suit- 
 able opportunity has offered itself for discharging an old 
 debt. In the third edition of my Grammar I subjoined 
 an Excursus on the old Epic forms avrjvoQa and ivrjvoOa 
 with some other anomalous perfects, and I there offered 
 my explanation of them, which I drew out as much in 
 detail as appeared to me necessary with regard to some 
 other digressions there made. It so happens that we fre- 
 quently omit grounds which lead too far into generalities, 
 because we wait to ascertain whether the same combina- 
 tions, which are familiar to us, will occur to others also. 
 The objections of an acute and learned critic proved to 
 me the necessity of my giving a perfect detail of every- 
 thing belonging to my theory ; for which, as most of the 
 objects belong to the verbal criticism of the oldest Epic 
 poets quite as much as to any others, I think this a most 
 suitable place. It may be supposed that in the course of 
 thirteen years I have made many corrections in particular 
 parts of this investigation ; at the same time I will not 
 adduce as a confirmation of it, that I have adhered to it 
 on the whole and in all essential points ; although I feel 
 confident that no one will accuse me of that petty self- 
 conceit, which is unpardonable in a writer. 
 
 The text of Homer, which I have always followed, is, 
 as may be supposed, that of Wolf, the edition of the Iliad 
 of 1804, the Odyssey of 1807, of which it is necessary to 
 remind my readers, as it is said that a new edition is in 
 the press, in which it is possible that some points of 
 which I have here treated may be different from what I 
 have supposed them to be. 
 
 Berlis, i 81 8. 
 
AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 AS a Second Edition of this First Volume was called for 
 before I had finished a Second Volume, I thought it due 
 to the possessors of the First Edition to add nothing, 
 even where it might be required, but to defer every- 
 thing of that kind to a Supplement to be annexed to the 
 Second Volume. I have therefore confined myself en- 
 tirely to corrections and amendments of narration and 
 expression; here and there I have supplied a hasty 
 omission, or chosen a more suitable example, and done 
 whatever in other respects appeared too trifling to be 
 reserved for the Supplement. 
 
 Berlin, November, 1824. 
 
BUTTMANN'S LEXILOGUS 
 
 I . 'Aaaroy, aaros, aro?. 
 
 I. IN these forms we have a striking proof of the uncertainty 
 of both old and modern grammarians. Without any grounds 
 they explain each of these alphas, sometimes as a mere diae- 
 resis, sometimes as a contraction, sometimes as a privative, and 
 sometimes as a intensive, and even, where it appears convenient, 
 the two first alphas as two privatives neutralizing each other 
 (vid. Eustath. ad II. £, 27 1 .) : and the consequence is, that 
 either of the above forms, with one, two, or three alphas, may 
 thus be derived from the verb to satiate or the verb to harm, 
 may have a negative, positive, transitive, or intransitive sense, 
 and thence in different passages of doubtful meaning, the same 
 word would be explained in opposite senses. Every language 
 however is extensively governed even in its daily usage by 
 fixed principles, from which it were well never to deviate with- 
 out an absolute necessity. 
 
 2. One such established principle, which must be always 
 attended to, is this, that the resolution of the long a into two 
 can only take place, where it arose originally from contraction, 
 whether from aa or ae, but never where the a is long in itself 
 and by mere formation : we may therefore have ida, op&qv, 
 opaaaOaL) but the resolution can never take place in edo-a>, 
 opdfxa, opdro? l . Let us apply this principle to the radical 
 
 1 The form Kepdara may possibly be adduced as contrary to this rule, 
 since we cannot adopt nepaas Ktpaaros as the original form, but must 
 allow that nfpaara is lengthened from Kfpara. I might leave this with- 
 
2 I. 'Adaros, &c. 
 
 verbs of these forms, and we shall see that aaaacrOai is not a 
 mere lengthened form of daaaOat,, because before the termina- 
 tion era, ado-Oat, there is no contraction but mere formation. 
 'Adco is therefore the ground-form of ddaaadai ; and this is 
 confirmed by the digamma in the Pindaric avdra. The verbal 
 adjective in ros from this verb is consequently aaros. 
 
 3. There are some verbal forms with the meaning of to sa- 
 tiate, which lead us to a theme a<o, aa-at, d\x^vai ; pass, drai ; 
 adv. abrjv formed from the root with the adverbial termination 
 brjv. The Hesiodic third person aarai (see note 1. on dvriqv) 
 is an unusual and even doubtful resolution of arai : but what- 
 ever it may be, it cannot be sufficient to warrant our adopting 
 an older form ddca (ar?/xfc, da^at) with this meaning also. The 
 verbal adjective in ros is therefore dros, and cannot be resolved 
 into two alphas any more than can bparos. 
 
 4. According to this ddaros means invulnerable, inviolable; 
 aaros insatiable. From aaros came by contraction dros. In 
 the same way, indeed, from ddaros might have been formed 
 aaros, but it is easily conceivable that experience would teach 
 the Greeks to refrain from this, lest it might create confusion ; 
 and thus the meaning of ddaros was fixed to be inviolable, &c, 
 that of aaros, dros, insatiable. 
 
 5. Of the two last forms dros alone occurs frequently in 
 Homer, both in Hesiod. But if we compare the two verses 
 of Hesiod 
 
 Sc. 59. Avtov Koi narepa 6v*Apr)v arov nokiyioio. 
 
 Theog. 7 r 4* Kdrros re, Bpiapecoy re, Tvrjs r aaros 7ToA€/xoio 2, 
 
 out further remark as one of those exceptions, which may occur in any 
 rule, without misleading a translator who goes on sure grounds. But 
 the case is otherwise. None but the later grammarian Epic poets have 
 Kepdara, repdara, which they considered as an imitation of the Homeric 
 Kpdara. In this they were mistaken : for in such words as Kpaas, \das, 
 the roots are upa, \a ; and Kpdas, Xdas, is the perfect, Kpds, \ds the 
 contracted form. On the contrary, in Keparos as well as in qbpearos, the 
 penultima, if long, is to be considered merely as it is in opviOos, kvtj- 
 /xTSoy, &c. Such resolutions are certainly, therefore, contrary to the 
 rule given above ; but it is to be recollected that Aratus, who uses them, 
 is not Homer, and his forms are not, as Homer's are, founded in truth. 
 2 On the orthography of Tv^, left uncertain by Bentley on Hor. 
 Od. 2, 17, 14., I am unwilling to speak decisively. I am of opinion, 
 
I. 'Aaaros, &c. 3 
 
 suspicion falls on the form aaros, which never occurs else- 
 where ; and this suspicion is strengthened by the second radical 
 a being short, while in the inflexions of the verb (aaat, aaaiixi) 
 it is constantly long 3 . None however will think these argu- 
 ments decisive unless they are first satisfied that the two poems 
 were written by the same person. 
 
 6. Having now fixed the meaning of aaaros, we find a diffi- 
 culty in adapting it to the three passages of Homer where it 
 occurs. In II. £, 271. it is the epithet of the Styx, where 
 Somnus says to Juno, 
 
 "Aypei vvv poi op.oo-o~ov adarov 2rvyos v8<op. 
 
 But in the Odyssey it is the epithet of a contest ; first in <j>, 9 i ., 
 where Penelope delivers to the suitors the bow and the quoits, 
 and promises herself as the prize of the victor. At the sight of 
 their master's bow the two herdsmen burst into tears, at which 
 Antinous exclaims, 
 
 KXaierov egeXBovre, KaravroQi ro^a Xmovre 
 Mm]crTT)pecrai.v aedXov adarov' ov yap 6l'a> 
 'Prj'idicos rode ro^ov ivf-oov ivravvecrdai. 
 
 The second passage is in x> 5-> where Ulysses, after he has 
 succeeded in the contest, says, 
 
 Ovtos pev dr) ae6Xos aaaros €KT€re\eo~rai. 
 
 How unsatisfactory the explanations of this word in these pas- 
 sages have generally been, may be seen in the contradictory 
 glosses and notes of translators and commentators. They who 
 very properly sought after some one term suited to all three 
 passages, found only the idea of terrible, to force which they 
 were obliged to have recourse to the a intensive, taking the 
 word in an active sense, and rendering it very dangerous, very 
 hurtful, very dreadful. All this force, however, produced no 
 epithet suited to the contest ; for how could that be tailed 
 dangerous or terrible which brought with it no other danger 
 than that which accompanies every contest, the danger of losing 
 the prize ? It could have, therefore, no meaning in the mouth 
 
 however, that it is contracted from yvlov ; and I think Tvrjs the original 
 and more correct form, as being more agreeable to analogy, Tvyrjs a 
 corruption which arose very naturally from the Lydian name Gyges. 
 3 Vid. also aaros in Note 3. on ddijaai. 
 
 B 2 
 
4 I. 'A&aros, &c. 
 
 of Ulysses. Hence some of the grammarians did not blush to 
 explain the word in the first passage, where it is the epithet of 
 the contest, by TroAv/SA.a/Se's ; in the second, where it is the epi- 
 thet of the same contest, by aj3\a(3is. 
 
 7. It seems to me, that if of three passages one most readily 
 and easily admits the literal and simple meaning of the word, 
 that meaning must be at once adopted. Such a one is undoubt- 
 edly, inviolable ; and this is exactly the epithet most suited to 
 the Styx, the swearing by which was the most inviolable of all 
 oaths. And the thing is so clear, that this single passage fixes 
 the sense of the word in the Iliad without troubling ourselves 
 about the Odyssey. With regard to this latter, unwilling to 
 depart too far from the meaning in the Iliad, I at first thought 
 of adopting, with Schneider, the active sense of not bringing 
 or causing harm, harmless, an epithet not unsuited to such a 
 contest as opposed to a combat of life and death. But then I 
 saw that the immediate context, in the former of the two pas- 
 sages, connected with it by yap, became by this translation 
 totally unconnected. In ov yap prfibCois then we must look for 
 the ground of the meaning of aaaros, and that can be no other 
 than not to be despised, not to be thought lightly of, or some such 
 meaning. It is perfectly agreeable with the analogy of the 
 Greek language, that a&aros with the sense of inviolable should 
 take an ethical or moral meaning. Inviolable, therefore, may 
 give us the idea of that which we ought not to offend, ought not 
 to speak ill or slightingly of; in short aaarov in these two 
 passages seems to me to be much the same as ovk ovovtov in 
 II. 1, 164., an honourable, distinguished contest, one not to be 
 despised or treated slightingly *l 
 
 8. The only other passage where aaarov occurs in the old 
 writers, is in Apoll. Ehod. 2, 77., where it has its natural 
 meaning of invincible, as opposed to y^pziav in the sense of vin- 
 cible. The word, indeed, seems to have long remained in use 
 
 * [Schneider in his Lexicon takes it in these two passages in an 
 active sense, as not bringing harm, harmless ; though in the latter, Od. 
 X, 5., he admits that the interpretation of Eustath. noXvfiXaprjs may be 
 adopted. Passow in his excellent abridged and amended edition of 
 Schneider calls it a decisive contest, the result of which must be valid and 
 irrevocable. — Ed.] 
 
2. 'Aaorat, &c. 5 
 
 in some of the dialects, but in a form not easily recognised." 
 Hesychius has the gloss ddfiaKToi, afiXafizis, which the com- 
 mentators have sadly maltreated, nay, some have at once altered 
 to ddaroi, though it is a genuine Laconian gloss. The (3 arose 
 from the digamma between the two alphas of ada (vid. 2.), 
 and ktos is the well-known Doric termination of adjectives 
 formed from verbs in a(&> or du> ; therefore, ddfiaKroi, ddaroi, 
 d/3Aa/3eij, uninjured, unhurt (used probably of men). 
 
 9. Thus far in the pure Greek writers. Anything occurring 
 in the later Epic poets at variance with what has been said 
 above, belongs probably to them alone. Apoll. Rhod. t, 459. 
 has also daros (- \j ^) vftpis ; but I cannot believe that he 
 formed daros, as the Scholiast tells us, with a intensive, using 
 the second a, which must come from the double a of the verb 
 ddcrai, as short. I rather conjecture that he accented it aaros, 
 which gives the same sense without the unnecessary idea of in- 
 tensiveness, and that he has merely taken the liberty of using the 
 verbal adjective in tos in an active sense. Quintus 1, 217. has 
 ddpcros darov; which is evidently the Odpaos drjrov of II. <fi, 395. 
 Either then Quintus wrote drjrov or read in Homer darov. 
 Whichever he did is to us of no importance. The Homeric 
 form dr)ros deserves, however, a separate article. 
 
 2. 'Aaaou, arrj, are'cov, deortypcov. 
 
 1. In my Grammar I have touched on the form of the verb 
 ado), as far as relates to the doubtful quantity of the two alphas, 
 and have stated that the form in which both alphas are ex- 
 pressed is to be considered as the ground or radical form. This 
 last I have also had occasion to confirm in treating on ddaros. 
 
 2. If we look through all the different passages in Homer 
 in which the verb and its derivatives occur, it is impossible not 
 to observe, beside the universal idea of harm and suffering 
 harm, an occasional one of its being through the person's own 
 fault, error, or imprudence. Some have supposed this latter to 
 be an original idea necessarily and inseparably connected with 
 the word, and have therefore more or less twisted and forced all 
 the passages of Homer to suit it (vid. Damm's Lexicon) ; but 
 
6 2. 'Aaaai, &C. 
 
 the old derivative clclcltos, the more exact meaning of which has 
 been discussed at some length in the preceding article, is com- 
 pletely at variance with this supposition, and cannot possibly 
 admit of this occasional idea either as an epithet of the Styx, 
 II. £, 27 t., or of the contest with the bow of Ulysses, Od. $, 
 91. Xi 5- 1' ne passages, in which this occasional idea can most 
 plainly be dispensed with, are in Hes. Op, 229. 
 
 Ovdenor WvdiKauri /act' dvdpdai Xipios o7riySet 
 
 and in 350, 
 
 ...... Kaica Kepdea la arrjaiv. 
 
 But there are in Homer also passages, in which the thought 
 must be unnaturally forced to make it admit of fault or impru- 
 dence, as in II. 0, 237., where the verb and the substantive are 
 joined; 
 
 Zev rrdrep, rj pd tip* fjdr} vncppeveaiv (3aai\fja>v 
 Tyd* cirrj aaaas, Ka'i piv peya Kvdos dirrjvpas ; 
 
 Agamemnon says this without reference to his early misconduct 
 in having quarrelled with Achilles ; it is merely an exclamation 
 on seeing the Greeks flying without any fault on his part. It is 
 the same in II. /3, 1 1 1,, where he says to the Greeks, 
 
 Zevs pe p,iya Kpovldrjs ant) ivedrjae ftapelfl. 
 
 and where he immediately afterwards attributes this injury to 
 the deceitful promises of Jove. All these passages show that 
 the general idea of to harm or injure, harm or injury, is the only 
 one necessarily and inseparably belonging to these words. 
 
 3. This original idea, however, (by means of the phrase 
 aacrat fypevas, to injure the understanding, mislead, render foolish, 
 stupify,) was transferred to the mind or understanding, so that, 
 whenever the context led that way, daa-ai alone gave the same 
 idea as when joined with <f>ptvas, still always with a decided 
 reference to some harm or injury arising from that state of 
 mind. We may see this particularly exemplified in Od. </>, 
 293., where expressions of this kind occur repeatedly in the 
 game passage ; 
 
 Oivos ae rpaxt peXirjdrjs, oare kox aWovs 
 BXa7TTei, 6s av piv ^avhov e\rj, pr)o y a'laipa ttiutj. 
 
2. 'Aaorat, &c. 7 
 
 Oivos Ka\ Kevravpov ayaKkvTov Eupvr/coi/a 
 "Acktcj/ iv peydpa fj.eya6vp.ov Ileipidooio 
 'Ey Aanidas i\66vff' 6 §' «r« (ppevas aaaev oh<o, 
 Maivopevos Kaic epe£e dopov Kara. TleipiQooio. 
 
 The Centaur was then dragged out of the house, and there 
 mutilated. The poet goes on. to say, 
 
 6 Se (ppeo~\v fjcriv da<rdc\s 
 
 "H'Uv r)V a.TT)V o^eoav dealcppovi 6vpco. 
 
 4. That the word fcaCcppwv (striking as the repetition may 
 appear in the two last verses), gives the same idea as aaaab 
 tppevas, is certain from other passages; e. g. from II. v, 183. 
 \j/, 603. Od. 0, 470. And yet, notwithstanding this, some, 
 as Schneider, derive it from afjvai to blow; others, as Apoll. 
 Lex., from ahai to sleep. How forced these derivations are, 
 must be felt by any one who examines the original passages. 
 Schneider, indeed, has also the same derivation which is given 
 here, and so has Apollonius, but in the latter it is under the 
 word aaaicpptov. Let no one, however, suppose, that this latter 
 form, though found also in Hesychius and Eustathius, is a 
 genuine reading. It is a correction of the grammarians, who 
 saw the true derivation, and thought this the only manner in 
 which they might legitimate it ; that is to say, because the 
 verb has either two alphas or one long (acre), but the ad- 
 jective a€(TL(pp(av has one short. This difficulty, however, might 
 be more easily removed. It is certain that aaaCcbpcav is the 
 regularly grammatical form ; but the second a was changed to 
 c, from the ear being accustomed to such forms as akcpeo-ifiocos, 
 ra/xecrtxpooj, ^aecrif/XjSporo?. 
 
 5. Let us now go back to the verb, and to the passage of 
 Od. <£, 293. quoted at length in section 3.; and by comparing 
 it with Od. A., 61. 
 
 'Acre p,e dalpovos alaa KaKrj kci\ dOiacpaTos oivos, 
 
 and with k, 68. 
 
 Aao~du p! erapoi re kcikoI npos Toicrl re vnvos, 
 
 we may observe that it is not quite clear and decided whether 
 the active, aaaaC rwa, admits of the transition from the general 
 meaning to hurt, to the more limited one to mislead, render 
 
8 2. 'Aao-cu, &c. 
 
 foolish, stupify, &c. The passive aao-drjvai occurs frequently 
 in the former and general sense. The middle, on the contrary, 
 ada-aa-Oaty takes wholly and exclusively the latter, that which 
 relates to the mind or understanding. And, indeed, since 
 aaadfiriv literally signifies, / have misled myself, made myself 
 foolish, &c, this form throughout gives the idea of its being the 
 person's own fault, or, according to the philosophy of the times, 
 the fault is attributed to the misguidance of some Deity. Hence 
 then the passive ao.<r6rjv(u is also frequently used like the middle. 
 This is quite clear in II. r, 136. 137., where Agamemnon thus 
 speaks of his former misconduct in his quarrel with Achilles; 
 " Thus also I," says he, " when Hector was slaughtering the 
 Argives at the ships, 
 
 Ov 8vvdprjv \e\a6eo-6* arrjs, rj irparov dda-Q^vT 
 
 This plainly refers to the origin of all their misfortune, to his 
 unreasonable conduct in the beginning of the quarrel. He then 
 proceeds to say, 
 
 AXX eVei daadprjv, Kal pev (ppevas e^eXero Zeus. 
 
 Again he uses dacrd^v alone in precisely the same sense in 
 II. t, u 6. 119., for which in another place (II. A., 340.), where 
 mention is made of foolish thoughtless conduct, the idea is more 
 fully expressed by ddo-aro oe p,iya Ovixu. The passive daaOrjvaL, 
 however, in the remaining passages where it occurs (II. r, 113. 
 7T, 685. Od. b, 503. Hymn. Ven. 254. Hes. Op. 281.), and 
 where foolish, thoughtless, or wicked conduct is spoken of, bears 
 a reference, more or less, to the folly of the action as well as 
 to the injurious consequences resulting from it. But I will not, 
 by passing judgment on each separate passage, prevent the re- 
 flecting reader from exercising his own judgment. 
 
 6. It remains only to remark that in II. r, 91. drr\, f\ iravras 
 darai, at verse 129. where the same phrase is repeated, and 
 at verse 95. kclI yap 6ij vv ttot€ Zrjv dcraro, Tovirep apurrov, &c. 1 , 
 the middle occurs in a purely active sense. 
 
 1 This use of the middle voice, repeated three times in one book, and 
 in the same Episode, and never occurring again in Homer, might raise 
 a critical question in examining individual parts of Homer's works ; but 
 I will not enter on such an examination here. I will only remark how 
 easily forms, which were not originally in Homer, might have crept into 
 
2. 'Aacrcu, &c. 9 
 
 7. The passages, in which the substantive &tt] occurs in the 
 original and general sense, have been mentioned at the begin- 
 ning of this article. With reference to the mind or understand- 
 ing it occurs much more frequently; sometimes with the full 
 construction, as in II. it, 805. cltt) fypivas elAe, spoken of Patro- 
 clus standing as stupifled; in r, 88. where Agamemnon says, 
 the Gods in the beginning of that quarrel fxol (frpealv €jjl(3cl\ov 
 6rr\v and in k, 391. where Dolon complains 
 
 HoWrjai (x arrjo-t, iraptK voov fjyayev "Ektg)/) 
 
 and sometimes clty] stands alone with the possessive pronoun, as 
 in II. a, 412. that Agamemnon 
 
 Tva> 
 
 *Hi/ aTrjv, or aptarov 'A^aiwi' ovbev ericrcv' 
 
 in 1, 115. 
 
 'Q yepov, ovti \jscvoos ifxhs aras KareXegas' 
 'Aaard/xTju, &C. 
 
 and in Hes. Op. 93. This reference to the understanding re- 
 mains then also the sense, where such errors or follies are at- 
 tributed to the misguidance of the Gods, as in the passage quoted 
 at the beginning of this paragraph from II. r, 88. and again at 
 v. 270. still with the same reference to the understanding, but 
 in a more general sense ; 
 
 ZeO ndrep, rj [Mcyakas aras avdpevai didolaOa' 
 
 and where Helen says in Od. 8, 261. 
 
 arrjv 8e fxereCTTfvou, rjV ' ' K^pobirrj 
 
 A a>x ore p fjyaye K€?<re, &C. 
 
 This comparison of parallel passages shows a regular use of 
 language, and should therefore teach us, that in separate pas- 
 sages of this kind, where the context admits of both meanings, 
 
 even the old text, and pushed out others. The reading of Aristarchus 
 in v. 95. Z 6 vs aa-aro is indeed condemned by the context (vid. Heyne); 
 but who can depend on aa-aro, t6v in a passage where aao-e , rbv might 
 have stood, and would have been more natural and more Homeric ? And 
 as to ddrat, if we consider that the pres. act. da would admit of its last 
 syllable being lengthened, as Spa id. do, it shows the possibility, that an 
 old form dda might have existed in the mouths of the rhapsodists, but 
 have been thrust out by the more convenient ddrai. 
 
10 2. 'Aacmi, &c. 
 
 we ought not to translate hrt\ in its general sense, but to give 
 the poet credit for having used it in its more accurate and 
 limited one. For instance, Voss thus translates the former of 
 the two last-quoted passages, " Father Jove, thou dost in- 
 deed cause men to commit great errors" but the latter passage, 
 where the expression is precisely the same, he renders less 
 satisfactorily with this very different meaning, " And I lamented 
 the harm which Venus caused, when she induced me to leave 
 my country*." 
 
 8. In an usage which has produced two such different mean- 
 ings as misfortune and fault, it is conceivable that cases may 
 have occurred, in which both ideas were at the same moment 
 present to the mind of the poet, and which would so much the 
 more naturally coalesce and appear as one, in as much as the 
 things themselves, represented by those ideas, were in those 
 times often confounded together, and sometimes natural evil 
 was punished as moral, sometimes (as we have repeatedly seen 
 above) faults were excused as being the effect of fate. Such 
 an inseparable union of these two ideas seems to be in drrj at 
 II. a), 480. where it expresses the situation of one who has fled 
 from his country for having killed a man; or at t, 501. where 
 clty] is personified. From the German language not having one 
 word to represent the two ideas, Voss in translating these pas- 
 sages was obliged to choose between them, and he judiciously 
 preferred that of fault. 
 
 9. Among the derivations of arr) with a 2 short is arica; of 
 which I wish to correct the common acceptation, that it is 
 the same as ark®. The Ionic change of the termination aw 
 with eco ought not alone to be a sufficient ground for such an 
 
 * [The original German runs thus, Vater Zeus, traun grosse Verblen- 
 dungen gibst du den Mannern. — Und ich beseufzte das Unheil, das 
 Afrodite gab, da sie dorthin mich vom Vaterlande gefiihret, &c. — Ed.] 
 
 2 'Ardw, dreo>, drv£o>, dre/xj3<o, drdaOaXos. The shortening of a vowel, 
 even when that vowel arose from contraction, as in arrj, was very na- 
 tural in the ancient state of the Greek language, whenever a word was 
 lengthened in its derivatives, and the accent withdrawn from the long 
 syllable. The adoption of a root arco with a short, from which those 
 lengthened forms would be produced, and again of draw, from which 
 would be formed, by dropping the r, ddw and aco, presents improbabili- 
 ties which strike us at first sight. 
 
3- 'AyyeA.tr;, dyyeAtr??- 11 
 
 acceptation in our lexicons, unless meaning and usage corro- 
 borate it, which is not the case here. 'Are'co is a verb oc- 
 curring only in the Ionic writers, Homer (II. v, 332.) and He- 
 rodotus (7, 223.), and always in an intransitive sense; which 
 sense is deduced from the particular meaning of art] {folly, 
 thoughtlessness) ; and of which arv((a is a term of stronger 
 meaning. In the two passages of Homer and Herodotus men- 
 tioned above the participle only {areovra, ariovres) occurs, 
 which consequently means thoughtless, foolishly rash, desperate. 
 The verb drdco, on the contrary, which occurs only in the Attic 
 drama, is always found in the passive, and in a purely passive 
 sense; therefore, if we suppose an active ardd>, it must have 
 a transitive meaning, deduced from the general sense of drri 
 {harm, injury) ; drw/xat therefore will be, I suffer harm or 
 injury, experience misfortune, as in Soph. Antig. ] 7. Eurip. 
 Suppl. 182. The two verbs active are therefore; area, I am 
 thoughtless, foolish, &c. ; drdo), / bring into harm or misfor- 
 tune 3 . 
 
 "Aaroy j vid. aaaros*. 
 ' kfipoTafav, dfipoTT] ; vid. afifipocrios. 
 
 3. 'AyyeXlrj, ayyeXtr]?. 
 
 1. The word dyyeA.tr/ occurs frequently in the Epic poets in 
 this its undisputed form and meaning : sometimes, however, we 
 find dyyeAtrrs and dyyeAtrrz; in a construction unusual for ay- 
 yeAtrr, of which the prevailing explanation handed down to us 
 was by means of a substantive, 6 dyyeAtas, Ion. dyyeAtrry, the 
 
 3 The words added in Schneider's Lexicon to the meaning of draw, 
 " particularly of such harm as thoughtlessness causes," proceeded from 
 a hasty comparison of this dr&fiai with the Homeric ddaaaOai. In all 
 the passages of the Tragedians where it is found, there is never the 
 slightest reason for supposing the idea of thoughtlessness to be implied 
 in the verb, even though the action or conduct described might have 
 proceeded from thoughtlessness ; and in many passages, as in the two 
 just quoted above, the idea is impossible. 
 
\% 3. AyyeAirj, ayyzXir}?. 
 
 messenger, which made all those passages easy and the con- 
 struction consistent. In later times, however, this masculine 
 substantive has been rejected, and Hermann Tollius in a par- 
 ticular Excursus to Apollonii Lex. has transferred them all 
 back to ayyekir]. In some instances he has not succeeded 
 satisfactorily ; and Hermann in his treatise De Ellipsi et PI. 
 p. 158. has endeavoured with the same view to explain them 
 more grammatically. Still, however, as all doubt and diffi- 
 culty appear to me very far from having been removed, a more 
 accurate examination may not be superfluous. 
 
 2. In entering on this discussion I think it will be best to 
 begin by giving some examples of ayyeXCrj where the usage 
 and construction are plain and undisputed. In Od. k, 245. 
 Eurylochus comes to Ulysses with the information of Circe 
 having changed his companions into swine, which is thus ex- 
 pressed, 
 
 EvpvXoxos 8' al\js rj\6e 
 
 'Ayyekirjv erapcov epecov Kai abevKea norpov. 
 
 literally translated, " bringing him tidings and the fate of his 
 companions," instead of "tidings of his companions and of their 
 fate." In Od. r], 263. Ulysses relates of Calypso, 
 
 Km Tore 8rj pe KeXevo~ev eiroTpvvova-a veecrOai, 
 Zrjvbs vif dyyeXlrjs, rj Kai voos eYpdVer' avTTJS' 
 
 i. e. "under the influence of a message from Jupiter to her." 
 In Od. 7T, 334. 
 
 Ta> de (TvvavTrjTTjV, Krjpv£ Kai bios v(])op(36s, 
 Trjs avTTjs eveK dyyeXlrjs, epeovre yvvaiKi' 
 
 where the union of two constructions is observable ; " on ac- 
 count of the same message, that is, to announce it to the lady." 
 Thus also oTpvvtiv or knoTpvveiv ayyeXir]v tlvl, Od. 7r, 355. 
 a), 353. means, " to send a hasty message to any one ;" and 
 again more fully in 0,41. 
 
 rbv 8' oTpvvai ttoKiv elato 
 
 'AyyeXiqv epeovra 7repi(j>povi HrjveXoTreiTj , 
 
 "send him (Eumseus) to carry a hasty message " 
 
 3. On the other hand, the passages in which dyyeA.6?s and 
 ayyeXtyv have been explained (as mentioned above) by a mas- 
 
3. 'Ayyekirj, ayytkir}?. 13 
 
 culine substantive 6 ayyeAfys, are the following. And first of 
 the nominative. In II. y, 206. Antenor thus speaks to Helen, 
 
 *H8t) yap kcu Bevpo nor rf\v8e dlos 'OcWtrevy, 
 2ev ev€K dyyeXirjs, crvv dprj'icpiXa MeveXda' 
 
 the construction here would be, 'Obvo-atvs fjkvOtv ayyekirjs (for 
 ayyekos), aev €V€kcl. In v, 252. Idomeneus says to Meriones, 
 who was entering the camp, " Art thou wounded, 
 
 'He rev dyyeXirjs per ep rjXvBes ;" 
 
 ayytkirjs twos, " as the announcer of something." In II. a>, 640. 
 speaking of Copreus, 
 
 os Evpv(r6rjos avaKros 
 
 'Ayyekirjs oixveoTce $Lr] 'HpciKXrjeir], 
 
 " who was accustomed to go as the messenger of Eurystheus to 
 Hercules." The accusative is found in the two following pas- 
 sages. In II. 8, 384. 
 
 "EuB* avr dyyeXirjv eVl Tvdrj crreTXav 'A^atoi. 
 
 the construction would be, 'Axaioi k-nidreikav TvUa ayyekir)v, 
 " they sent Tydeus as their ambassador." In A., 140. Agamem- 
 non says of Antimachus, 
 
 Os 7TOT iv\ Tpa>u)v dyopfj MeveXaov avcoyev 
 'AyyeX/^i/ eX66vra avv dvriOecp 'OSvc^'i 
 Avdi KaraKTelvar 
 
 the construction would be, hs awye KaTdKTeivai Mevtkaov ay- 
 ye\ir\v ikOovra, "to kill Menelaus, who was come as ambas- 
 sador." 
 
 4. If we do not adopt this mode of explanation, we must 
 suppose two forms of speech expressing the same leading idea ; 
 Zpyop.ai, oiyv& dyyeAtry? (genitive), and €pyop.ai ayyzkir\v, zttl- 
 ore'AAo) ae ayyekC-qv. The old and usual manner of explaining 
 such a case is, to suppose that preposition, which suits most 
 naturally the thought, to be omitted; thus here in the case of 
 the genitive, eWa is supplied, which we see expressed in the 
 example quoted above from Od. 77, 334. ; and in the case of 
 the accusative, we must supply els, which we also find added 
 in Schol. ad II. A, 140. Generally speaking, and without re- 
 ference to the present question, I do not object to this mode of 
 explanation, provided it be handled philosophically. That is 
 
14 3* 'AyyeAirj, ayyeAi???. 
 
 to say, such a preposition is not, properly speaking, omitted I 
 but as every oblique case is a noun containing in itself the idea 
 of a preposition, the genitive or the accusative takes, in such 
 a situation as we are speaking of, that preposition which the 
 context requires. Thus in epx^Oac ayyeXir\v, the accusative^ 
 as in so many other Greek constructions, is the case of the more 
 distant object, as we say in English, "to go an errand, go a 
 journey* ," for " to go on an errand, on a journey" without, 
 therefore, the preposition being really omitted 1 . In the same 
 manner the genitive expresses different meanings of a sentence, 
 of which some are so peculiar to that particular case, that it 
 can be brought by syntax under certain leading ideas as rules ; 
 others are more isolated, and of these some remain only in 
 poetry, as koviovtcs Tredtoio, Oepeo-Oau irvpos, toppLrjO-q 'Ana/Aav- 
 ros (II. £, 488.) ; others have maintained their place in prose, 
 as (r}X& ere rov ttXovtov, XafiiaOai irohos, ovtg>$ avoias e\€t : and 
 with these we may very fairly class 'ipyo^iai ayyeAfysf? since 
 the idea of the preposition, which is not expressed, arises of 
 itself from the context. We have only to add, that in all the 
 passages above quoted, this mode of explanation, as compared 
 with the former, alters nothing in the construction, in as much 
 as the nominative ayyeXi-qs taken for ayyekos, and the oblique 
 case ayytXirjs or ayyeXirjv standing like an adverb, are both 
 attached to the verb. In the first passage, then, the con- 
 struction must be ijXvdev ayyeXirjs, "he came with a message" 
 or "in an embassy, 1 ' aev eW/ca " on thy account;" and in the 
 fourth passage, knio-retXav Tvhr\ ayytXtrjv, "they sent him on 
 an embassy." And in the second only it seems more agreeable 
 
 * [. . . . From them I go 
 
 This uncouth errand. — Milton's Paradise Lost. 
 The corresponding illustration used by Buttmann is, Botschafi laufen 
 for auf Botschaft laufen. — Ed.] 
 
 1 This is also the meaning of Hermann's explanation, that here we 
 have one of those mixtures of two modes of expression so common in 
 Greek ; that is to say, ep^eo-^at with (pepeiv dyyeXiav, because this latter 
 consists in going as well as the former. In other words, epx€<r6ai, 
 which elsewhere takes after itself only a remote object with the aid of 
 a preposition, takes here the case of the nearer object, as in the 
 
 expression c/>ep«i> ayyekiav. 
 
 t [So in vulgar English, to go 0/ a message. — Ed.] 
 
3» 'AyyeAiri, dyyeAiris. 15 
 
 to this mode of explanation to join dyyeAtrjs rev " with some 
 kind of message," not to consider them as two separate genitives, 
 the one governing the other, " with a message of something." 
 
 5. I think I have now put this mode of explanation also in 
 a full and clear light. And presenting, as it does, even taking 
 any passage separately, little more unusual than we see in many 
 other Homeric constructions, with which commentators feel no 
 difficulty, it must appear surprising that the adoption of a mas- 
 culine substantive 6 ayyeklrjs should have been introduced 
 merely by means of these passages; and that too, not by the 
 casual conjecture of a grammarian, (as some are ascribed to 
 Zenodotus,) but, as far as we can ascertain, a mode of expla- 
 nation handed down from remote antiquity. For wherever we 
 search with the expectation of finding that mode which is the 
 older, in the Scholia, in Apollonius, in Hesychius, &c, this is 
 the established one ; while Eustathius is quite silent on it, and 
 only once (y, 206.) speaks expressly of the other, which we will 
 in future for the sake of brevity call the feminine mode of ex- 
 planation. This latter, on the contrary, is announced only as 
 an opinion of Zenodotus ; for it is expressly said, that at II. 0, 
 640. where the doubt is whether ayyektrjs was considered to be 
 a genitive or a nominative, he read dyyeAiriz;, which in that place 
 can only be the accusative of 7) dyyeAi'77 ; and at II. y, 206. where 
 2e£ €V€k ayyzkirjs has given rise to the same doubt, that he 
 read 2rjs, evidently in agreement with the genitive dyyeAt'rjs, 
 but as evidently a mere artificial reading. For in this last pas- 
 sage the masculine mode of explanation is indubitably the most 
 natural construction, ijkvOev dyyeAir??, a^v eW/ca : not, indeed, 
 that the other is incorrect, if we keep to the reading aev ; ijkv- 
 dev dyyeAirrs (with a message) atv eW*a*, whereas rjkvOev (rev 
 eW ayyekirjs is harsh and obscure : hence the construction, 
 ijkvOeu €V€kcl ayyekir]s cei), appeared preferable ; (vid. Eusta- 
 thius :) but then the language required, instead of the personal 
 <rtv, the possessive 07)?, which accordingly Zenodotus placed in 
 the text. For it was supposed that ayyektrj aw or err) dyyeAi'77 
 might here mean " the message concerning thee" in the same 
 
 * [Thus also Passow in his excellent Greek and German Lexicon 
 explains the construction by x"P lv ayyeXius <roi> cvtita. — Ed.] 
 
16 3* 'AyyeAtr/, ayytktiqs. 
 
 way as in Od. k, 245. quoted at p. 12. ayytktrjv frdpuv means 
 " tidings of or concerning thy companions." But in this latter 
 the tidings are of the absent companions of Ulysses, and of their 
 fate, while in the former Ulysses comes to Troy, where Helen 
 was, with a commission which concerns her : now this also must 
 be ayyekir] 'EAei^s, or, if addressed to her, ayyektr) arj *. Apol- 
 lonius, who gives the preference to the masculine mode of ex- 
 planation, speaks thus in dispraise of the opinion of Zenodotus : 
 ZrjvoboTos be tovto ayvor\<ras ypafet, &c. And the Schol. A. runs 
 thus.: tj bnrXrj, 6tl ZrjvoboTos ypdcpet, crrjs ev€K ayyekCrjs. Ov Aeyet 
 be (scil. 6 TTOLYjTrjs) (rvvrjOtos rjfMV, rfjs crrjs ayyekias X^P lv ^ &^ ^y* 
 ye\Cr]s avrl tov fryyekos. 
 
 6. It is clear, then, that in the time of the Alexandrine 
 grammarians the masculine mode of explanation was the esta- 
 blished one. And when we recollect that the feminine mode 
 employed the most familiar form, and, as we have seen before, 
 seemed to offer itself for adoption so easily by the mere omis- 
 sion of a preposition, we can hardly conceive that the masculine 
 mode of explanation would have been the established one, if it 
 had not been handed down from the most remote antiquity. 
 Besides, if the feminine explanation be considered the genuine 
 one, there is this very striking and singular appearance, that 
 Homer, without any reason, uses indiscriminately ZkOeiv ayye- 
 \ir)v and ikOelv ayyeki-qs : which remark becomes of more im- 
 portance, when we consider that, on the other hand, by the 
 adoption of the masculine 6 ayyeklrjs the difference of case is in 
 every instance required by the construction, though the con- 
 struction is always of a similar kind. And in the same way 
 other doubts may also present themselves ; as, for instance, in 
 y, 206. rjkvde aev ev€K ayyekCris, where, as has been remarked 
 before, the only natural explanation is that which adopts the 
 masculine 6 ayyeklrjs; whereas, if we take the feminine f) ay- 
 yekit], the passage requires the accusative rather than the ge- 
 nitive, ijkvOe — (rev h'€K ayyekirju : a remark which must be 
 exactly reversed in 6, 384., and hence the before-mentioned 
 indiscriminate use of the two cases becomes much worse than 
 if the construction admitted either indifferently. Again, in o, 
 
 * [Thus we find dyycXlrj ipr), " information concerning me," II. r, 
 336.— Ed.] 
 
3- 'Ayyckirf, ayyekCr]?. 17 
 
 640. the singular ayyeAfys, if by it we understand a message, 
 and not a messenger, is unnatural, because the context implies 
 a repetition of messages, so that one might in that case be in- 
 duced to propose as a correction, 6s Evpvadrjos clvclktos *Ay- 
 yeAias olxye<JKZ 
 
 7. We must now examine the only passage out of Homer 
 which belongs to this disquisition. In the Theogonia 781. are 
 these verses, not very well connected with the context, it is true, 
 but therefore the less to be suspected : 
 
 Havpa de Qavpavros Ovydrrjp TroSat uxea 'Ipis 
 'Ayye\ir)s 7ro)Xeirat in evpea vcora BaXdcro-qs. 
 
 Here the genitive ayyekCrjs is as admissible in construction 
 with TTG)k€LTcu as it is in the Homeric passages, while, on the 
 contrary, the masculine explanation is not possible. But then 
 here is a various reading, ' Ayyekir). One should certainly be 
 rather unwilling to suppose that ayyektr) meant both " a mes- 
 sage" and " a female messenger." But if, on the other hand, 
 we consider that words with such a twofold meaning are by no 
 means uncommon in all languages, — for instance, in the Latin in 
 the case of the masculine nuntius ; if we consider that ayyekCr) 
 in this sense bears the same relation to the masculine ayyekiris 
 as Ta\kit\ does to ra^ir]s ; that, further, since ayyekos did not 
 suit the verse, the phrase 9 \pis 'AyyeA.67 TrwAetrat seemed to 
 offer itself naturally as a parallel of the other masculine ayye- 
 ki-qs, and was perfectly intelligible ; that, on the other hand, 
 without adopting this, the origin of that various reading must 
 be ascribed to mere accident, — for what grammarian would 
 have dared make it for the occasion ? — if we consider all this, 
 I think we must class this passage with the others of Homer ; 
 and then it only remains for us to choose between the two 
 modes of explanation which have formed the great question of 
 this article. For my own part, I do not hesitate to declare in 
 favour of that which I also believe to be the most ancient. 
 
 8. Meantime I will endeavour to spare others trouble by 
 laying down briefly what I consider to be the most probable 
 manner of resolving the points in question. Let us suppose 
 that in the older Greek language tkOziv dyyeA6/j and ayyekti]v 
 (gen. and accus. fern.) were both in use, and that the doubt as 
 
 c 
 
18 4* 'Ayepaoxps. 
 
 to which was the more correct usage arose in the time of the 
 rhapsodists, not in that of the poet. In that case, in some 
 passage where either the one or the other of these words oc- 
 curred, and where the construction was harsh, there might 
 have arisen an idea of a substantive 6 ayyeXt-qs even in times 
 of very remote antiquity. If this mode of explanation were 
 afterwards adopted by some great authority, as, for instance, by 
 Aristarchus, all those passages would be for the first time 
 brought into uniformity by establishing a nominative -rjs, and 
 an accusative -rjv, according to the construction ; and even 
 ayyeXCrj might have been admitted into the Theogonia. The 
 reading of Zenodotus, ayyeXirjv in o, 640. is then by this sup- 
 position to be looked upon as one of those doubtful points 
 handed down to him, and of which he maintained the correct- 
 ness. Any observations, however, as to the one or the other 
 of these constructions being more or less natural, must on the 
 whole depend, as it does in so many other cases of Epic criti- 
 cism, on the greater or less improbability of its acceptation; 
 and this must be left for each to determine according to his 
 own judgment*. 
 
 4. *Ay€pcoxo9. 
 
 1. The grammarians have taken sufficient care to let us know 
 that this word is used by Homer in a good sense, but by the 
 later writers in a bad one. The Lex. Etym. begins its article 
 with these words, prjropLKrj fj Aef t? : that is to say, the word, 
 which occurs frequently in Homer and Pindar, is never found, 
 as far as I am aware, in pure Attic Greek, but from the 
 time of Polybius it is very common in prose as well as verse. 
 Doubtless, then, the word had always remained in use in the 
 dialects of Asia, and from them passed, by means of the Asiatic 
 schools of rhetoric, into the language of the rhetoricians, who 
 formed the later prose, and whose style, even in words and 
 forms, was always contrary to the Attic. 
 
 2. In these later writers the meaning of ayep<t>x°$ is wild, 
 
 * [Passow rejects entirely the masculine substantive as quite unne- 
 cessary. — Ed.] 
 
4- 'A yepwyos. 19 
 
 untamed, unmanageable ; a sense which, as applied to animals 
 only, is good as well as bad 1 , but when applied to men becomes 
 most generally some such meaning as arrogant, haughty, e. g. 
 Plut. Am. Fratr. c. extr. The observation of the grammarians 
 that Homer uses ayepcaxos always in a good sense is certainly 
 correct ; but from the varied nature of their explanations, as 
 €vtl/j.os } (T€yi.v6s, avhpeios, it would be difficult to ascertain the 
 exact meaning of the word, or in what sense they understood 
 it in the different passages where it is found ; nay, they have 
 even given a different etymology as the foundation of different 
 meanings. In Homer we find ayepvxos a frequent epithet of 
 the Trojans, and once of the Mysians (k, 430.), but always as 
 soldiers and warriors ; again, in the catalogue of the ships, of 
 the Rhodians ; beside which it is given only to Pericly menus. 
 Now from these passages we can gather nothing more than that 
 it is an epithet suited to soldiers and warriors as such ; but they 
 do not enable us to ascertain the exact sense which lies at the 
 root of the word. The mythological account of Periclymenus 
 (the only hero who has this epithet, and to whom Hesiod also 
 has given it in Fragm. 22. Gaisf.) is not come down to us with 
 sufficient minuteness to enable us to. say that it is a personal 
 epithet peculiar to him. Mythology only tells us that Neptune 
 had given him the power of changing himself into any kind of 
 animal, by which he was able to resist Hercules for a long time. 
 One hint we may perhaps gain, that when the word is used as 
 an epithet of a people, they are generally Asiatics, still without 
 implying any want of courage, for the Mysians are called in 
 other places ayyi\iay^oi and KapT€p66v\xoi. 
 
 3. Pindar has it as an epithet of illustrious actions, ayep(o- 
 yvv €pyfj.aT(i)v, Nem. 6, 56. ; of victory in general, 01. 10, 96.; 
 and of riches, itXovtov arecfidvo)^ ayipuxov, Pyth. I, 96.; which 
 last passage may perhaps bring to our recollection that the 
 only Greek nation which has this epithet in Homer is the 
 
 1 There is a gloss in Lex. Seg. 6. p. 336. 'Ayepax"? raOpoy irepvus 
 v7T€p67rT7]s, 6pu(Tus. However correct the expression ravpos dyipcoxos 
 may be (vid. Himer. Eel. 12, 6.), still the explanation does not accord 
 with it. Undoubtedly it ought to be 'Ayep^X *' y«Spo$\ vepvos, &c, 
 for these meanings occur in different glossaries, and Hesychius has, 
 amongst others, yavpos. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 5- 'Ay pa, aypeiu. 
 
 wealthy Rhodians. Add to this, that its later sense, in which 
 it was rather a term of reproach, was vireprjQavia and avOabia, 
 and I think I see the one idea which pervades all this in 
 haughtiness, whiclji, among the Asiatic nations and the wealthy, 
 showed itself in external display : when, therefore, the more 
 ancient Greeks expressed this sense by ay€p(*>x°s-> they attached 
 to it no idea of reproach ; so that the explanation aefivos appears 
 to me to have a particular reference to external dignity and 
 show 2 . Besides, it is worthy of remark that while Pindar uses 
 the word only in a good sense, Archilochus and Alcseus used 
 it even as early as their times in a reproachful one. Vid. Eu- 
 stath. in note %. 
 
 4. On the derivation of ayipayos I can say nothing to con- 
 firm or assist what others have said before, which is the more 
 singular, as the word appears to be formed of such plain ele- 
 ments. Of all the attempts of the grammarians, the most 
 passable is that of yepaoyps with a intensive. And if I were 
 to render it by an honourable man, many would no doubt be 
 satisfied with the translation. This explanation accords, how- 
 ever, too little with established usage for me to adopt it as my 
 own, which I could only do by substituting the a redundant for 
 the a intensive, which indeed in some words does take place, 
 but here has too little analogy to be supported. 
 
 5. "Ay pa, aypelv. 
 
 I. Of the verb ayptiv Homer has only the imperative ay pet, 
 which he uses as a mere interjection, age ! " come ! ; " but 
 he has many evident derivatives from it, as iraXivdyperos, (&- 
 ypelv, &c. However, the real use of the verb in ancient Greek, 
 with the simple meaning of to take, is put beyond a doubt by 
 the fragment of Archilochus, "kypu 6' olvov epvOpbv airb rpvyns, 
 Brunck's Anal. 1, 41. 
 
 2 Eustath. ad II. j8, 654. §77X01 6Y <f>a<riv 17 Xe£i? ovtojs tovs o-e/xvovs, 
 wy y A\K/j.av (BovXctcu. This last expression is new to me, although it 
 must point to the meaning of the word in A Ik man, since immediately 
 after fiovXercn, follows 'AXkcuos 8e (ftao-t kcu 'A/o^iXo^oy dyepooxov tov 
 ctKO(Tfiov Kai d\d£ova oidcv. 
 
5. ''Ay pa, aypeiv. 21 
 
 2. The almost exact agreement of meaning between this 
 verb and aypa, aypevetv (game, prey, to catch, to seize,) can 
 leave no doubt of their immediate connexion. My object in 
 the present article is only to prevent a mistake which frequently 
 occurs in the derivation. In general aypa is derived either 
 from aypos or from ayeipo), with either of which the word co- 
 incides as to meaning very well, yet with neither so exactly as 
 to make one feel that such derivation must necessarily be the 
 true one. And there is this disadvantage in it, that as soon as 
 one of these derivations is adopted, the sense of aypeiv, and 
 whatever is formed from it, must be deduced from that particu- 
 lar meaning of aypa, hunting or game, as being the only sense 
 favourable to it. In that case we must trace it thus : aypeiv 
 is properly to hunt game in the fields, then it comes to mean 
 generally to catch or lay hold on, and thence simply to take ; 
 which last sense is contained in -nakivayperos, II. a, 526., 
 where Jupiter says, Ov yap efxbv tt a\tv ay perov, " none of my 
 resolutions can be taken hack again, they are irrevocable ;" and 
 the other sense is in mvpaypa, an instrument for laying hold on 
 things in the fire, a pair of tongs. But this way of tracing the 
 meanings of a word is one which must offend any one at all 
 skilled in etymological investigation, though others may be 
 satisfied with it, and may think it quite agreeable to the simple 
 language of antiquity to call a resolution iraXivayperov, taking 
 the metaphor from an animal, which the hunter, whenever it 
 escapes from him, pursues and endeavours to retake. To cor- 
 rect such misrepresentations, which frequently confuse and ob- 
 scure the explanation of a word, I here offer my opinion. 
 
 3. The sense of to hunt is not a pure ancient meaning of 
 aype.1v. Stephanus quotes but one instance of it, viz. in an 
 epigram of Phanias in Brunck's Anal. 2. p. 54. ; and since 
 it was a verb become quite obsolete in common language, it is 
 evident that only such a poet would have allowed himself, com- 
 mon as the change of eo and eve* otherwise is, to have used, 
 even once, for the sake of the metre, aypeiv for aypevetv. The 
 proper meaning of the verb aypeiv (of which, as has been said 
 before, only the imperative in its particular vnterjectional usage 
 remained in the common language of the older times,) was un- 
 doubtedly to take hold on, to take; and it was nothing more 
 
22 6. 'Aftjo-cu, &c. 
 
 than another form of alpziv, as is evident from the intimate 
 connexion of the vowel i with the consonants j and g. Thus, 
 from PATO, whence py\yvv\xi, came another form paico, with a 
 similar meaning. 
 
 4. The imperative of this dypeXv became (like age in Latin, 
 or tenez in French,) a common interjectional particle; the rest 
 of the verb disappeared before the other form aipe&>, leaving 
 behind some derivatives, at the head of which stands aypa, 
 literally meaning a catch, whence, 1st, game, 2nd, hunting; 
 and hence aypeveiv, to which some poet or other added aypeiv 
 as a sister form. Without further investigation we may now 
 trace from the true radical word and radical meaning aypeiv, 
 to take or lay hold on, the other derivatives nvpaypa, faaypiov, 
 faypeiv, TTaXivdyperos, avrayperos; and this last in particular 
 strikingly confirms my opinion ; for the avrdyperos of Homer, 
 Od. 77, 148. Et yap ircas etii avraypera irdvTa fipoToi(nv, is, as every 
 one knows, the avOaiperos of common language. 
 
 6. 'Adrjcrac, afievai^ ecofiev, a8r)i>, aSoy, ddrjfJLOPeci/. 
 
 1 . In Homer, but nowhere else, are found the forms abrjo-eiev 
 and ahr)KOT€s, from a verb abelv, abrjcrcu, to feel disgust or dis- 
 like. With this is joined another Homeric word, a complete 
 airag dprjuivov, from II. A, 88. abos, disgust, weariness. And 
 as this last has the first syllable short, and the others the first 
 syllable long, some of the grammarians have introduced into 
 Homer the reading abbr\(reiev, dbb-qKores, similar to what we see 
 in tbbtio-ev and dbbeis. (See note J. on Oeovbrjs.) Again, the 
 substantive abos is brought into connexion with the Epic verb 
 avai, to satiate. To make this grammatical we must adopt a 
 theme A AH, from which on the one side shall come the verbal 
 substantive abos, on the other the formation acrat ; but then the 
 quantity is against it. We see, therefore, that the connexion 
 of these forms with each other, and with that which seems to 
 follow so naturally, with satur, is by no means free from diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 2. The participle dbt]KOT€s is always found in the construc- 
 tion KapLaTij) abriKorts, and the idea attached to it is disgusted, 
 
6. 'ASwat, &c. 23 
 
 wearied, satiated, which connects it with d.aai. But twice (II. 
 k, 98., Od. jtx, 281.) we find joined Kafxdr^ abrjKores rjbe kol 
 v-nvto). The Scholiast in a straightforward manner explains 
 v7tv(d at once by aypvnvla. Heyne, following the example of 
 Eustathius, says the same with great circumlocution, that the 
 thing very often stands for the want or deficiency of it, as if 
 one should say that a ship was lost through the steersman, 
 that is to say, through his not being at the helm. Therefore, 
 satiated, wearied with sleep is to mean with the want of it! 
 Impossible 1 . On. the other hand, we may say, to be oppressed 
 with sleep (a word generally implying a painful feeling) ; and 
 Horace's well-known imitation of Homer, ludo fatigatumque 
 somno (Ode 3, 4, 11.), though the expression be somewhat 
 bolder than the original, yet, if translated thus, makes the sense 
 good and complete, which it could not be if rendered by satia- 
 tum. In short abrjKores does not give the idea of satiety, but that 
 of pain, disgust, dislike ; and this meaning is confirmed by the 
 exactly parallel passage in Od. £ 2. virva kol Kajutarw apr)p,ivos. 
 If, however, any one still inclines to the usual interpretation 
 of abrjKOTes, and supposes vm/a> to have been added by the poet 
 without thought, let him examine d§?io-eie in Od. a, 134. a little 
 more accurately than seems to have been generally done. The 
 stranger guest arrives; Telemachus prepares him a seat apart 
 from the suitors, 
 
 firj £elvos dvirjdels opvpaySco 
 Aemz/o) dbrjo-eiev vnep<pLaXoL(Ti fitreXOoov. 
 
 The idea of satiety cannot possibly find a place here ; and who- 
 ever reads the passage, without having previously made up his 
 mind as to the meaning of abrjo-e^v, must at once feel that it can 
 only express mere disgust or dislike. 
 
 3. Thus much as regards the meaning. That ab^Kores, 
 from whatever verb it come, cannot have the a short, and con- 
 sequently that the grammatical assistance of the 85, making 
 abbrjKores, is superfluous and ungrammatical, follows of itself 
 
 1 Another Scholiast compares with it the expression fica-Tos xmvov : 
 the comparison is very fair ; but no one can mean that the expressions 
 full of sleep and satiated with sleep can be used for each other. 
 
24 6. 'A&jo-cu, &c. 
 
 from the perfect form. The temporal augment, which sup- 
 plies the place of the reduplication of the perfect, is never 
 omitted in the Epic poets when the vowel is short, with the 
 single exception of the verb avcaya, which no longer occurs as 
 a perfect : it is, therefore, impossible that so evident a perfect 
 as the participle before us can throw it aside. But where the 
 vowel was long by nature, there the augment was never 
 wanted ; as, for instance, the long a does without the augment 
 7] (which otherwise is only visible when it lengthens a word), 
 in the aor. "Wei (whatever be its meaning), and in the part. pf. 
 aprnjiivos. The true formation of the verb before us is, there- 
 fore, a8ea), abr](ra, abrjKCt, all with a long. 
 
 4. As far as relates to the quantity, then, there is no reason 
 for rejecting the connexion of the verbs abijcraL and acat. The 
 substantive abos, which in this respect differs from both, shall 
 be considered hereafter. At present let us examine the mean- 
 ing of acrcu, which in the active voice has both a transitive and 
 an intransitive sense. The spears fly, \ikai6neva xp°°s acrat, 
 "to feed on human flesh." Phoenix, reminding Achilles of his 
 childhood, says to him, II. 4, 489. " Thou wouldst not partake 
 of any meal unless I took thee on my knee and 
 
 "Oyjsov t aaaipt npoTa/xoiv Kai oivov iiruTx&v" 
 
 Again, in II. r, 307. the sorrowing Achilles begs the chiefs 
 
 Mr) /ne Trpiv criTOto kcXcvct* prjde fforrJTOs 
 "KaaaOai (£>i\ov rjrop. . . . 
 
 Strong contraries these to that abrjo-ai befavy, all of them ex- 
 pressing an agreeable pleasurable feeling of satiety. And if 
 this verb is once used with a sarcastic insinuation of getting 
 too much, yet this, as in our expression of " getting enough of a 
 thing," is easily to be observed ; as when Polydamas, II. o-, 281., 
 says of the Greeks, that if any one of them shall choose to try 
 an attack under the walls of Troy, he will have to return, 
 
 eVet k ipiavx*vas "imrovs 
 ILavToiov dpofxov aar) vno 7Tt6\iv rfkaaKafav' 
 
 where an ironical allusion is made to the pleasure which the 
 spirited horses would feel in galloping about. Similar to this, 
 but without any sarcastic insinuation, is II. <o, 717. aazo-Qz 
 
6. 'ASfrcu, &c. 25 
 
 KKavdjiolo, "then you may take your fill of weeping," and \jr, 
 157. ydoto nev iom kol aaai, " it is possible for one even to have 
 enough of weeping." In all these passages there is no idea of 
 dislike or disgust, but always of pleasure and satisfaction. 
 
 5. These forms just quoted with the meaning of satiety point 
 decidedly to a theme AA12, which, however, must necessarily 
 have the a long. But some other forms lead us away from that 
 theme, e. g. II. <p, 70. 
 
 emk 
 
 . . . Ufievrj xp°bs a [lev at dvdpo/ieoio. 
 
 That this form belongs through its meaning to the intransitive 
 acrat, is clear; as also that it is the infin. pres. for &€lv, dejueixu. 
 Those who adopt a present AAX2 wish to read or pronounce it 
 afjLfAtvai, contrary to all analogy ; much rather would the ana- 
 logy of Zbixevcu give ah^vai. To a^vai may be added the pres. 
 pass, arai according to Hesychius, or aarai with the sense of 
 the future from Scut. Here. ior.(vid. note on clvticLv) : and the 
 pres. d&> is therefore to be considered as in use in the language 
 of the Epic poets. From the same theme is evidently derived 
 the adj. aros, insatiable, compounded of d and cltos. 
 
 6. Here we must also mention the unusual form ew/x^y in 
 II. r, 402. in the address of Achilles to his horses : " Take care 
 to carry your master safe in a very different way (from what 
 you did Patroclus)* 
 
 * A.\fs Aavawv is Ofxikou, enei x €a>[xev 7roXe/xoio." 
 
 The various readings worth mentioning are eco/aey, &[X€v (He- 
 sych. in 'EireC— , p. 1321.), and k eutfx^v. Of k&ixtv from edw, 
 none of the commentators, as far as I know, ever had a 
 thought ; and indeed the construction would be against it. If 
 we read &o/xez*, it must be the aor. 2. subjunct. of fy/xi : but 
 this also is unknown in this construction. For my part, I think 
 it may be a question, whether tr//utt, which, it is true, in Homer 
 is invariably both itself and in its compounds transitive only, 
 may not have had also the neuter meaning, to go from, to leave 
 
 * [I have translated the passage according to its generally received 
 meaning, but Buttmann renders it thus : "At other times you were 
 accustomed to carry your master back safe to the Greeks whenever we 
 had had enough of war." — Ed.] 
 
26 6. 'ASfaai, &C. 
 
 behind, which in later Greek avCrjfxi had. For instance, we see 
 that €p(aew (which I shall examine in its turn) has properly 
 the positive meaning of, " to move, to rush forwards," but by 
 the addition of the genitive it has the sense of e£epcoeiz/, "to 
 
 move away from, move backwards from :" in the same way 
 
 might t77/xi TtoXiixoio in Homer have the same meaning as the 
 more complete construction avirjfu afterwards had. But I leave 
 this as a mere possibility, and proceed to that for which I intro- 
 duced the mention of k&fxev. — By a rare coincidence, all the 
 scholiasts and glossators, without one exception, explain the 
 "word by irkr]p(j)d&fj.€v, KopeaO&fjLev. Heyne is satisfied with that 
 explanation, and supposes an ellipsis taken from e£ zpov etvat, 
 which occurs elsewhere in the sense of to be full, satisfied: 
 but certainly of all ellipses the most incomprehensible, " I send 
 of the war" for " I send away," i. e. " I drive away from my- 
 self the desire of war." In the grammarians, it is true, both 
 these expressions are found mentioned together (vid. Eustath. 
 ad 1. and Hesych. in 'E7rei— , p. 1323.) ; but what is there not to 
 be found in the grammarians ? It is impossible that those who 
 explained Iw/xez/ simply by Kopeo-6S>iJL€i> should have wished to 
 be understood in that way : the fact is, they had this translation 
 of the old word by tradition, and some one of them, reversing 
 the usual mode of explanation, tried among other things to ex- 
 plain the translation by quoting the original. 
 
 7. The Etym. M. under the word "Abrjv gives quite dif- 
 ferent explanations of k&ixev, from which we will cite only two, 
 according to the one of which we must adopt a verb eo>, / sa- 
 tiate, according to the other aw, &, as, a, with the same mean- 
 ing, whence aaeiv, &c. Setting aside, then, the mistakes and 
 misconceptions of the later grammarians, we see that there 
 was an old admitted tradition, that ew/xez; meant Kopeo-dcofxev, 
 and that it belonged to that aco, to which belong a^evca. and 
 aaaixpoos: from aco comes the subjunctive ao)p,€v with a long, 
 and thence according to a well-known analogy may come Ico/^er. 
 With accent and aspirate, which were an amusement of the 
 grammarians, we need not trouble ourselves. If we follow this 
 derivation, the reading must be €7ret k ecofxev ; and in any case 
 it is clear that an old tradition as early as the most ancient 
 commentators admitted the theme to be not abu but cud. On 
 
6. 'A#Jo-a«, &c 27 
 
 the other hand, if my former supposition be preferred, we must 
 read cirei x ^(ofiev : for the properispomenon there is no ground 
 whatever. Again, in the one case it is the aorist, in the other 
 the present ; either sense, " when we have left" or " when we 
 have had enough of — the war," suits the context. After having 
 well considered it, I prefer the latter, as a very ancient tradi- 
 tionary explanation. 
 
 8. The adverb abrjv, fully, enough, to satiety, belongs also 
 to this inquiry. The first syllable of this word is generally 
 short; as in II. v* 315. 0% \xiv abrjv eAoWt, and in Hes. ap. Ath. 
 10, p. 428. c. ootls abtjv ttlv€l. But as it occurs long at II. e, 
 203., it is there written a.bbrjv. This word also is by some de- 
 rived from AAI2, which theme on account of the before-men- 
 tioned abos is taken to be short, contrary to the quantity of 
 ao-at : and a substantive is supposed, abrj, of which this adverb 
 is the accusative. — But brjv is undoubtedly a common adverbial 
 ending, as in ftdbrjv. Now, as we have seen a-jxtvai and a-ros, 
 so is a-brjv clear and confirmatory of all which has been said 
 above. "Abbrjv is therefore an unnecessary addition; for abrjv 
 with a long from aw, ao-at, is much more agreeable to analogy 
 than with a short ; and abrjv with a short arose from the syllable 
 being shortened, as fi&brjv and the dual (3drrjv were shortened 
 from ^rjbrjv, firjirjv -. Still it is singular that the derivative of 
 this adverb abrjcfjayos should be so commonly found written 
 abbrjcfrayos in the MSS. and in the later writers even in prose. 
 If it were found long in verse, the same observations would 
 apply to it as to abrjv, but I find it universally short ; in Soph. 
 Philoct.313. Theocr. 22, 1 15. Callim. Dian. 160. ; and therefore 
 now the good editions, at least of the old writers, have judi- 
 ciously restored abrjcp&yos'K This adverb, then, properly sig- 
 
 2 It comes to the same thing, whether this account be admitted, or 
 whether we suppose that ao> in its flexions has a short as well as a long : 
 in which latter case, the form auras, which has heen mentioned before 
 in its place, might easily be justified. Vid. ddaros sect 5. 
 
 3 Probably the being accustomed to see in II. e, 203. (which passage 
 plainly contains the etymology of dSq^dyo?) eioo&rres ebfifvcu ciddrjv, 
 written with 65, was the cause why we so often find d88r)<f)dyos. In 
 .'Elian V. 11. i, 27. and 9, 13. this last is the reading of the text, as 
 well as in Athen. 10. p. 416. b., where, however, we may conclude from 
 Schweighauser's note, the reading in the MS. to be the correct one. 
 
28 6. 'ASfaai, &c. 
 
 nines, enough, fully, as when II. e, 203. Pandarus says of his 
 horses daOores eb^vai abr]v, " accustomed to eat their fill ;" but 
 the idea soon passes to over-fulness, or too much, (so with us, 
 to satiate is used in both senses,) as in the fragment of Hesiod 
 quoted above, ocras tibrjv vivei, olvos be ol zirXero fiapyos, and the 
 same therefore holds good in abrjcpdyos. 
 
 9. Not so clear is another expression in which this word oc- 
 curs three times in Homer; as in II. v, 315. ol puv dbr\v eAoWi 
 kcll io-av[x€vov TToXifioio' in r, 423. ov AtJ£g> irplv Tp&as abrjv 
 kXdaai noXiixoio' in Od. e, 290. aXX! eft \xkv \xiv cf)i]fxt frbrjv kXdav 
 KCLKOT-qros. These passages seem to favour the opinion of those 
 who look on abrjv as an accusative :. for the explanation given 
 is, iXavvetv ds abrjv tov ttoXcjaov. This explanation, however, 
 is certainly not sufficient to induce us to abandon the view 
 which we have before taken of abrjv, and which is so agree- 
 able to analogy. "Abrjv eXavvetv appears to me to mean, probe 
 ezercitare, and the genitive to determine the thought to the 
 particular object in the Homeric manner, as XovevOai Tiorajioio, 
 
 TTprjO-CU TTVpOS. 
 
 to. Since, then, in all the forms belonging to aval there is 
 nothing to indicate a root A A—, and, although in certain 
 passages the meanings of curat and dbrjaai approximate very 
 nearly to each other, still abrjcraL, as we have seen, has not the 
 idea of satiety and pleasurable repletion ; we must consider these 
 two as separate verbs. Let us now class with dbrja-at the word 
 dboXiaxrjs, which cannot well be derived from abrjv, and be- 
 sides, notwithstanding its length, has its first syllable always 
 long, and we shall see great probability in the observation of 
 the old grammarians, that abrjo-cu is contracted from arjbijaai*. 
 The strongest testimony in proof of this is Phrynichus in App. 
 Soph. p. 22. who, speaking of the word dboXeax^v, expressly 
 says that the Ionians pronounced drjbCa as a trisyllable. And 
 in Hesychius we find the glosses dbrjs, d5es, and dbta in a sense 
 confirmatory of this derivation 4 . The verb in its first form 
 
 * [Passow in his Lexicon says, " Buttmann considers aSc'w as con- 
 tracted from drjbeoy, and thus accounts for the length of the alpha : 
 but this contraction with the alpha privative is contrary to all ana- 
 logy."— Ed.] 
 
 4 See a long note in Hesych. p. 94. 
 
6. 'AAjo-ai, &c. 29 
 
 dr^Seo) is incapable of admitting the augment (vid. Buttmann's 
 ausf. Sprach. sect. 84. obs. 4. 5 ), and therefore the a remained 
 unchanged in the contraction (abrjKOTes). 
 
 11. We must now come to some decision on the substantive 
 abos. The only passage where the word occurs is II. A, 88, 
 speaking of a woodman, 
 
 ^HfjLos be dpvTOfios nep dvrjp coirKiacraTO belnvov 
 Ovpeos h (Hrjo-o-rjcnp, enei r eicopecro~aTO ^eipay 
 Tapvcov bevbpea fiaxpa, ados re p.iv Ikcto 6vp.6v. 
 
 It must be confessed that abos here, considered by itself, may, 
 as well as e/copeWaro, arise out of the simple idea of enough or 
 sufficiency. But as e/copeWaro precedes, and the word 6v\x6s is 
 joined with the word abos, we see that the one general idea is 
 divided into two. The man has laboured enough, and begins to 
 feel a dislike and unwillingness to labour any longer. The quan- 
 tity of abos, which is equally opposed to both abTJo-ai and daai, 
 need not embarrass us ; for as the word never occurs elsewhere, 
 there is nothing to hinder us from reading with Heyne, 
 
 Tdp.vcov bevbpea fxaKp', abos re, &C. 
 
 That is to say, the forms abr\s, dSeco, even supposing them to have 
 been no older than that which is to us the earliest period of the 
 Greek language, were yet quite old enough for a substantive 
 neut. in 0? to be formed from them : which indeed, in a word 
 known to be a compound as soon as uttered, would be contrary 
 to all analogy. 
 
 1 2. The derivation of another word, generally admitted to 
 be from abr\aai, I must, however, reject ; namely, that of the 
 verb abr]iioveiv, which has a short, as in Nicand. ap. Ath. 7., 
 p. 282. /. and Strato. epigr. 68. The syllable may, indeed, 
 have become short, as in dr<S/xai, araadakos ; but to admit this 
 supposition, the derivation of the verb abr^iov^iv from abrjcrai 
 must be as natural and easy as the derivation of those words 
 is from ar-q. Whereas so far from that being the case, this is one 
 
 ft In verbs beginning with ev the augment yv is more used by the 
 Attics than by any others : where, indeed, the ev is an integral part of 
 the verb, as in evx^o-Oai, the Attics preferred rjvxd^rjv, rjv^dixrjv, while 
 the common usage was evxdfxrjv, et^d^v : but in the case of evpio-Kco, we 
 seldom find even in the Attic writers rjvpio-Kov, r)vpe6r)v, generally evpi- 
 o-Kov, cvpov, (vpeOrjv, and the perfect is alwavs evprjKa. 
 
30 6. 'ASfaai, &c. 
 
 of those derivations, to dimmish the number of which will be 
 rendering a great service to philology ; I mean such words as 
 have been classed together under the same root from a mere 
 similarity of letters and syllables, and then suffered, in the ex- 
 planation of passages and in the lexicons, torturings and twist- 
 ings of meaning, which the word never had, in order to bring 
 the idea nearer to the supposed root. Wearisomeness of mind, 
 disgust, trouble, anxiety, &c, are the leading meanings of abr]- 
 ixovdv in the lexicons, and prevent the right understanding 
 of passages ; while the old glosses give the true explanations, 
 such as ayuviqv, aitopeiv, afjLrjxavdv, 6avp.a(€iv, ideas which are 
 quite inapplicable to abrjcrcu, although it is generally by dis- 
 agreeable events that men are brought into great perplexity lead- 
 ing to trouble and distress of mind ; for this is the meaning which 
 the word has in Plato, Xenophon, Demosthenes, as well as all 
 the later writers. In Plato Theaet. p. 175., " if a common lawyer 
 is once drawn into the district of philosophy, he is like a man 
 who finds himself on a giddy height ; abr\p,ov&v re Ka\ airop&v 
 kcli fiapftapifav yekvTa irapfyzi" In Xen. Hell. 4, 4, 3. &<tt 
 kviovs . . . abrjuovrjcrai rets \j/vxas Ibovras rrjv avifieiav. In Dem. 
 de f. L. p. 402., speaking of a woman threatened with violence, 
 ahriiJLOvovcrrjs be rrjs avOptoirov. The lexicographer, then, would 
 do well to strike out of the lexicons every word which does 
 not express this idea, and then erase entirely the adjective 
 abrj{ji(t)v, which, as Stephanus remarks, was adopted by Eusta- 
 thius only that he might through it derive abrjixovtiv and abr)- 
 fj,ovCa from abrjacu. 
 
 13. But as I have once introduced these words, I will en- 
 deavour to give as full and satisfactory an account of them as 
 possible. The form abrmovia may suggest to us that abrjijL&v, 
 if such a word ever existed, was not a verbal adjective, which 
 might be formed from abrja-ai like vornxoav from vorjo-ai ; nor like 
 aTTpaypKov, which, whether it be traced through irpayfia or not, 
 must be a verbal adjective from irpa£ai, as avorjuav is from 
 vorjcraL. Now these verbal adjectives usually form their abstract 
 in -ocrvvr], as \kvy][kO(ivvr\, airpaypioavvr]. On the contrary, eu- 
 ba(p.(t)v, beia-ibatiKov, which are not verbal adjectives, form ev- 
 bamovia, beunbaiixovia ; and with these corresponds abiq^ovia. 
 That the Greeks always had these analogical rules in their 
 
6. 'ASijcrai, &c. 31 
 
 mind whenever they spoke and wrote, is not to be expected ; 
 but I mention this only as a suggestion and not a proof. 
 Let us examine, however, the examples which are contrary to 
 this. First, r}y€fjLu>v is certainly a verbal word, and yet it forms 
 r\yz\xovia ; but in answer to this, rjy^cav is not an adjective like 
 vor\\i.<av expressing some property, (whence there is a difference 
 in the accent,) nor is riyefiovta, the abstract noun, expressive 
 of such property ; but rjytfjLvv is a substantive, and j]yt\xovla 
 an office or occupation. Again, from a-Kiw^mv Schneider has 
 aitrjfwvCa and a-nrjiJLoo-vvr] ; the latter only is agreeable to ana- 
 logy ; for Trrjfxa comes from ttiJOo), iranx® > but 7777/xa, a7Trnjm>v 
 were poetical words, from which Callimachus formed for him- 
 self a new poetical word ; a-niq^ovir] therefore, which he chose 
 to form according to the more common analogy of words in 
 —[a, belongs to him and not to the Greek language. A 
 much more striking expression is ahar)ixovirj in Od. co, 244. 
 But there, independently of any observations of mine, the text 
 ought long ago to have admitted aharjixoavvr) from the Cod. 
 Harlej. and Apollonii Lex. in v. — On the other hand, what I 
 am saying on adr/novta would be contradicted by the form 
 abrjiioavvr] being actually used by Democritus (ap. Stob. Serm. 
 6. p. 82. Gesn.), if this were not a single instance from which 
 no general usage can be established 6 . Supposing, then, that 
 there always was an unattic form abrjfioavvri besides abrmovia, I 
 suspect, from this latter being the regular and usual form, that 
 abr)y.ovelv came from a very different source from those verbal 
 adjectives. I have two grounds to strengthen this suspicion. 
 The first is, that this word is extremely rare in poetry, and in 
 general is not frequent in the older writers, while in the later 
 authors we see it always becoming more common as we descend, 
 and it is therefore probable that it had been formed in the 
 
 6 It is singular that the Antiatticist, p. 80. should assert that dfirz/xo- 
 avvr] is found in Xeuophon's Memorabilia. Ruhnken conjectured ddarj. 
 fioavvr), so that Xenophon must have used, 3, 9, 6, this poetical word 
 for dventaTijixoa-vvTj. He did not however himself put much value on 
 this conjecture, which in fact cannot be received ; for the Antiatticist's 
 sole design was to restore by examples drawn from Attic writers words 
 and forms which have been rejected by the Atticists as unattic and 
 common ; but uba^^avvr] can have nothing to do with that kind of 
 rejection, nor, consequently, anything with the restoration. 
 
32 7- 'AcW?. 
 
 language of common life only. The other is, that Hesychius,, 
 besides abr)p,ov&, has also this gloss ; 'Ao^jmeizj* 6avpLd(eiv, amopziv, 
 abrjfjLoveXv. We know that with the word brjfxos is joined the 
 idea of home. It appears to me therefore that abrjpos. dbruxeiv, 
 abiifxovelv arose from some phrase in familiar language like our 
 jocular expression not to be at home, meaning that one is igno- 
 rant of the thing in question, and i" am not at home in this, it 
 is all strange and perplexing to me *. The explanatory word 
 davjiaCtLv is to be understood in a similar sense, of one to whom 
 everything around is strange, who is surprised at everything he 
 sees or hears. Compare Plutarch de Exil. 6. = 8, 372. Reiske. 
 dAA' rjixels, axnrep [xvpiJLrjKes r) juteAtrrai \xvpp.r]Kias (Jllcls r) KV\jf£\r]S, 
 abrjpLovovixev kclI gevoTtadovfxev, ovk elbores ot/ceta iravra 7roiet- 
 aOcu kcll voixi&iv axrirep Zcttlv. 
 
 7. 'A&voy. 
 
 1. In order to comprehend rightly the difficulties offered by 
 the word dbtvos, I shall begin by taking a general review of the 
 senses in which it is used in Homer. It is an epithet, some- 
 times as an adjective, sometimes as an adverb, 
 
 1st,) of the heart, dbivbv k%>, II. ir, 481. Od. r, 516. The for- 
 mer passage, where it is found in the account of a wound, shows 
 that it is used entirely in a physical sense : 
 
 2nd,) of a swarm of bees, II. (3, 87. t)vt€ eOvea etcrt /ueAto-- 
 (rdatv abivdu>V or of flies, ib. 469. f)vT€ fAvidtov dbi.vduv tdvta 
 iroXXd, where a comparison is made between these and a moving 
 mass of combatants : 
 
 3rd,) of the number of sheep constantly consumed by the 
 suitors of Penelope, Od. a, 92. b, 320. ot re /mot atet MrjA 1 abiva 
 a(j)d(ov(rL kcll tlkiTTobas ekiKO&Jiovs : 
 
 4th,) of sighing and groaning, II. r, 314. pLvrjadpicvos 6' dSV 
 v&s dv€V€LKaro' a-, 124. abivbv aTovaxrjaai' \jf, 225. and Od. o>, 
 317. dbtva vTovayiGtov' II. o>, 123. and Od. r\, 274. abiva arcvd- 
 \ovra : 
 
 5th,) of crying and lamenting, II. a> ? 510. k\cu dbivd' 
 
 * [The German expressions used by Buttmann are " nicht daheim 
 sein, not to be at home," and " mir ist unheimlich, I am not at home 
 here, all is strange to me."— Ed.] 
 
j. 'A<W ? . 33 
 
 Od. b, 721. abivbv yooctxra' II. o-, 316. \> 43°- ^> F 7- <*>-> 747- ^ t_ 
 j>o£ Z£ripy€ yooio. Under this head we must also class Od. 7r, 
 216. KAatou 8e Atyeco?, abivcorepov rjr ol&vol, ^rjvai r) alyvmol 
 ya\xty<)ivvyjES, oXai re t€kvcl 'Aypo'rat egeikovro' for although in 
 this passage the comparison lies between abtvbv and the cry of 
 birds, yet kXolov is to be understood before abivvTepov, and 
 also the cry with which the comparison is made is a cry of la- 
 mentation : 
 
 6th,) of the lowing of young kine, Od. k, 413. which ahivbv 
 fjLVK(i>iJL€vaL apL(pi6iov(JLv Mr]T€pas' consequently, as the context 
 shows, not a lowing of sorrow, but of joy : 
 
 7th,) of the Sirens, Od. \fr, 326. 'Ho' cos ^eipr\v(j>v afovaav cj)66y- 
 yov aKov(T€V. 
 
 2. Although by this review of the different passages we 
 may not be able to fix at once the meaning in each with suffi- 
 cient accuracy, yet, from thus comparing them together, one 
 thing is clear, that all the meanings which can occur in them 
 proceed from one, and that one is the epithet of the heart, dense 
 or compact ; which physical idea the word retains, according to 
 the Homeric usage, in the other passage Od. r, 516. as a fixed 
 epithet of the heart, although there its physical state has no- 
 thing to do with the context : ttvklvclI be /xot d/ic^ abivbv kt\p 
 '0£e tat fieXzb&vaL obvpofxevqv ZpeOovcriv. In this sense the etymo- 
 logical agreement of this word with abpos seems to me as clear 
 as the light, and both forms are connected together, like Kvbpos 
 and Kvbvos 1 , xj/vbpot and xj/ybvos. The difference of the spiritus 
 (which in the Ionic dialect is in itself immaterial,) is quite 
 done away by the Scholium on II. (3, 87. baavvrtov to abt- 
 vddiv. a-nb yap rod abr\v /cat abr)vo$ (sic) rj Kivrjais, and by other 
 similar remarks : for if this pronunciation had not been equally 
 in use with the other, the grammarian would not have fixed 
 it in this way for the sake of the mere etymology, since also 
 SAro, for instance, in spite of its derivation from aAAo//at, re- 
 tains the lenis ' 2 . 
 
 1 Hesiod has always Kvbvrj, c, 257. 6. 328, 442. which Graevius, con- 
 trary to the authority of almost all the MbS., would change into the 
 Homeric Kvdpr). 
 
 2 'Adrju, adevos, a gland or acorn, (for this is one of the derivations of 
 the grammarian,) was also written both with and without the aspirate. 
 
 D 
 
34 7- 'A&i/o 
 
 yo?. 
 
 3. From this idea proceeded those of numerous, strong, vio~ 
 le?it, and, speaking of the voice, loud, loud-sounding. That 
 this is the most simple road by which we can at all find our 
 way through all the passages to the epithet of the Sirens, is 
 manifest ; and it is entirely a mistake of the grammarians, 
 which ought not to be repeated, to explain abtvos (merely for 
 the sake of that one passage) by rjbvs, f]bv<fia)vos, even though 
 the derivation from fjbvs considered separately were not con- 
 trary to analogy. In the same way all the other explanations of 
 the grammarians come to nothing (vid. Hesych. in v. et Intpp. 
 Eustath. ad II. {3, 87. p. 195. ed. Basil.): for their olnrpov was 
 intended, without any etymological foundation for it, merely 
 for the passage where abtvos is an epithet of sighs and lament- 
 ations ; their keitrov merely for the epithet of the bees, flies, 
 and even of the sheep, which were thus to be placed in oppo- 
 sition to the oxen ; their r\pzixa for an explanation of abiv&s dre- 
 v€lkclto (vid. Eustath. as above) ; their airakov for the epithet of 
 the Sirens ' 3 . 
 
 4. The difficulty is now to affix to each particular passage 
 the meanings given above. But these run so into each other, 
 that if one were to begin with the epithet of the Sirens, loud, 
 loud-sounding, one should be able to bring with great ease all 
 the other passages, with the exception of the first, under this 
 same idea ; for the bees and flies from their humming, and the 
 sheep from their shrill bleating, might very well take this as a 
 fixed and regular epithet. If, on the other hand, we were to 
 reverse this order, and, beginning with the epithet of the heart, 
 proceed thus, thick, dense, numerous, abundant, all the passages, 
 with the exception of the last, would be explained most easily 
 and satisfactorily. And this latter I consider to be the correct 
 way, partly because it accords exactly with the probable line 
 which etymology would take, partly because by this mode 
 most of the passages would preserve their poetical imagery. 
 Where mention is made of the bees, flies, and sheep, the idea 
 which immediately occurs in all three passages is that of num- 
 bers. Consequently abtvos there is the same as aOpoos, con- 
 
 3 The explanatory word \cvkov is, as the commentators on Hesy- 
 chius justly remark, merely a corruption of Xctttov. 
 
7. 'ASivJs. 35 
 
 fertus. In the passage of the sheep abiva has indeed been 
 taken adverbially to mean " the suitors slaughtered them in- 
 cessant!?//' but this after aid is completely inadmissible, and 
 particularly as it is separated from aid by other words. It 
 must therefore be an adjective ; and this perhaps might have 
 induced some to look in abiva for a regular epithet of sheep, 
 as there is, in the latter member of the sentence, of oxen, koX 
 elkiirobas e'Ai/cas /3oi>9. But it is not at all necessary that the 
 former substantive should have such an epithet because the 
 latter has. The word abivos is here a particular epithet de- 
 scriptive of this particular case ; the cattle which the suitors 
 slaughtered were always (aid) driven thither in herds or num- 
 bers (abiva). 
 
 5. In the passages classed under the numbers 4, 5, 6. the 
 leading idea is indisputably that of quantity ; but it is not easy 
 to decide whether dpi(9/x(3 or oyKip. The commentators incline 
 generally to the former, and to the idea of a repeated and con- 
 tinued groaning, lamenting, lowing, &c. But let any one ex- 
 amine some of these passages a little more accurately, and he 
 will immediately feel that the* more suitable epithet is that of 
 a violent, deep, heavy sound. For instance, in II. r, 314. 
 
 (Achilles) MvqcrafjLevos abiv&s aveveUaro, <fxavr]a4v re 
 
 How ill does a repeated, continued sighing suit as the prelude 
 to a speech ! on the other hand, how beautifully does it sound, 
 "he sighed deeply" \ In the same way, kKoi abiva, II. w, 510., 
 spoken of Priam at the feet of Achilles weeping for Hector, is 
 much more natural as, " he wept violently, bitterly, a Jlood of 
 tears" than a long and repeated weeping. And when in Od. 
 77, 216. the weeping of Ulysses and Telemachus (which, in- 
 deed, like every violent lamentation, must be of some continu- 
 ance,) is compared with that of birds lamenting the loss of their 
 young, in these words, KXaiov be ktytcos, abivvrepov rfr 1 oloivoi, 
 it is evident at first sight that it would be impossible to trans- 
 late it, " they wept loudly, more continuously — longer — more re- 
 peatedly — than birds, whose, &c." On the contrary, it is plain 
 that the idea given by abiv&repov must correspond with that of 
 Atyewy. It can therefore be no other than that of violently, 
 in which is comprehended also the meaning of kiyv. We see, 
 then, that in all these passages we must confine ourselves to the 
 
 d 2 
 
36 7- 'AAi/of. 
 
 ideas of violent, strong, abundant, plentiful, and that through 
 these the other ideas of long-continued, loud, &c. do naturally 
 introduce themselves into the different passages, according to 
 the particular circumstances of each. 
 
 6. But we must not pass over unnoticed, that an usage, on 
 which the epithet of the Sirens here depends, had fixed this 
 abtvos with its meaning of violent, plentiful, (as far as related 
 to actions,) wholly to the operations of the voice. Otherwise 
 how could it have been used in Homer in this combination 
 fourteen times, and never in connexion with any other powerful, 
 violent, or continued action or operation ? But as soon as 
 this usage was established, it followed as a necessary conse- 
 quence, that the idea of loud, which, in sound, is properly in- 
 cluded in that of violent, became the leading idea. I under- 
 stand therefore by abtvbv ixvK(a[X€vat, ctbtvbs yoos, kKol ctbtvd, a 
 loud lowing, lamentation, or weeping. And this is the only 
 way of explaining how persons can be called abtvas, and how 
 we can arrive with certainty at the expression of the loud- or 
 clear-singing Sirens ; while the grammarians, who cannot give 
 up their awe^es, explain it, in a -manner inconceivable to all 
 but themselves, by (rvvey&s aeibovcras ; as indeed in one of the 
 passages of abtvbv Krjp they have not hesitated to give a-vve^s 
 \vnov\Aevov . 
 
 J. The usage of the poets nearest in point of age to Homer 
 varies in some slight degree from his, but always so that the 
 ground idea still remains. In the Hymn. Cerer. 67. where 
 Ceres says of her daughter to the Sun, Trjs abtvrjv oii aKovcra 
 bf aldipos arpvyeroto f/ I2ore fiia(oy,£vT)s, it is exactly the Homeric 
 meaning : for to understand it perfectly we want only to hear 
 the violent, loud cry of Proserpine ; its being a cry of lament- 
 ation or complaint is implied in the thing itself. In Sophocl. 
 Trach. 847. abtva baKpva are not to be compared exactly with the 
 Homeric Kkatetv abtva, because the latter evidently points to 
 sound, to lament violently, i. e. loudly ; while the former is a 
 violent, i. e. a plentiful flood of tears, which idea the Scholiast 
 acknowledges. And, lastly, Pindar in Pyth. 2, 98. plainly means 
 by baKos abtvbv xaKayoptav, the violent, <feep-piercing bite of ca- 
 lumny, and the nanov of the Scholiasts is, as an explanatory 
 word, decidedly bad. 
 
8. 'Ar}p, yepios. 37 
 
 8. In Apollon. Rhod. on the contrary, who takes great de- 
 light in a learned expression, we recognise immediately the 
 ignorant imitator, when, for instance, at 3, 1 104. in a quiet 
 tranquil conversation of Medea with Jason he says, Kat \iiv 
 aKYjyeiiivr] ahivQ> upoa-nrv^aTo [j.v6<t>, using abivos entirely on 
 account of the speech "being of a plaintive nature. Again, at 
 4, 1422. (speaking of Orpheus begging water for the Greeks,) 
 A X2s (f)dTo Xl(to6ijl€vos abivfj oiri, where the Scholiast is of opin- 
 ion that the word expresses the weak voice of the thirsty 
 petitioner ; certainly the words cannot express, as in the former 
 passage, anything mournful, though they may imply suppli- 
 cating. At all events, ahtvos stands here in strong contrast 
 with the passages where it expresses something strong, violent, 
 fixed, as 4, 1528. in ar-r\\ 2, 240. in /0780s ; and 3, 616. and else- 
 where, in vnvos. Lastly, at 3, 1206. where mention is made 
 of a garment, which Hypsipyle gave to Jason abivrjs fJLvqjjLrj'iov 
 evvrjs, it stands most probably for fjbvs. With such uncertainty 
 has this word been used by so learned a poet, who knew his 
 Homer by heart ! 
 
 3 'A8o? ; vid. adrjacu. 
 'Aealfppcoi/ ; vid. daaat. 
 
 8. 'Arjp, fjepLOs. 
 
 1. Voss in his critique on Heyne's Homer, p. 327. has brought 
 forward certain things on ar\p and r\ipios, by which many old 
 mistakes have been corrected. But as I do not agree with him 
 in all he says there, I will go through the whole according to 
 my view of it ; wishing it to be understood that wherever I say 
 anything in common with Voss, I am indebted to him for it. 
 
 2. I must first remind my readers of what Damm has re- 
 marked before, that we must adopt for Homer the declension 
 ar\p, rjcpos, and that arising from evident causes, which, how- 
 ever, in the later Ionic dialect ceased to have any influence ; 
 whence Hippocrates (de Aer. Aq. Loc. p. 453, 43. 454, 23. ed. 
 
8. 'A 
 
 rjp, rjepiOS. 
 
 Basil.) has in the nom. 9777/0. — As to the gender, some have 
 supposed it twofold, according to the two meanings attributed 
 to the word, that when it signifies air it is masculine, when 
 darkness it is feminine. Dorville in the Crit. Van 11. p. 108. 
 and Voss as quoted at the beginning of this article, give a 
 more correct account. Without any reference to its meaning, 
 the feminine is the Epic usage, the masculine that of the later 
 writers ; an observation which was overlooked, because the 
 word so seldom occurs in Homer and Hesiod in the sense of 
 air without the collateral idea of fog or mist. On the other 
 hand, it has the appearance of a masculine in Homer in the 
 sense of darkness, when on account of the metre the mascu- 
 line adjective stands instead of the feminine ; r\ipa irovkvv 
 
 €\€V€ V *. 
 
 3. But when Voss says that * f ar\p in Homer and Hesiod 
 never means air in our sense of it, but haze or mist, and that, 
 as this extends according to their idea of it from the earth to 
 the clouds and ether, it thence means, the misty atmosphere 
 which surrounds the earth, and thence again generally ob- 
 scurity" this appears to me to be a mode of representing it, 
 by which the interpretation gains nothing, but only the one- 
 sided character of the idea is changed. This is most evident 
 by the translation which Voss gives in support of his opinion 
 of II. £, 288., where Homer is describing in plain and simple 
 words the lofty fir on which Somnus was perched, rj tot kv V I8?7 
 MaKpoT&Tr) 7T€(bvvm hi! rj ipo. 9 alOep 'iKavzv, " which highest of 
 Ida's firs rose through the thick haze to ether." Whether the 
 ancients held particular opinions of the nature of our lower ah* 
 and of its relation to the clouds and to ether, whether in their 
 abstract idea air was not so pure as some moderns now think it 
 to be, these are different physical and philosophical considera- 
 tions, but not a different usage of language between ar/p and air. 
 In that case would anv Greek word ever be found that should 
 be exactly synonymous with an English one ? At all events we 
 could then only acknowledge a difference of usage, if the word 
 which the ancients used for the lower air contained something 
 
 * [It would appear that originally (3a6us and nov\vs were adjectives 
 of only two endings. — Ed.] 
 
8-. 'A^o, i}eptog. 39 
 
 etymological, which, as soon as it reached the ear, should bring 
 to the mind dampness and thick haze. But d?jp comes as plainly 
 from the idea of aetv to blow, as aldrjp does from aWeiv to bum, 
 glow, by which the relation of the one to the other is expressed ; 
 because the ancients, who thought, and with justice, that our 
 atmosphere was thicker and damper, represented the perfect 
 purity and clearness of the upper regions of the air as of a fiery 
 nature. And how can there be imagined a more exact agree- 
 ment with our usage than where Hesiod, 6, 697. describing the 
 earth set on fire by the lightning of Jupiter, says $\o£ 8' rjipa 
 hlav tuavev, which Voss translates, " the flame mounts into the 
 sacred air?" 
 
 4. I am of opinion that the way to explain it more correctly 
 is this, that the ancients considered fog to be nothing more 
 than a thickened air, and again, darkness to be a very thick 
 fog deceiving the eyesight. According to this, ar\p in Homer 
 has not a twofold sense, as we know some words have, where 
 ideas essentially different are represented by the same expres- 
 sion, without thereby appearing to the mind as essentially the 
 same : but ar\p is in reality in that old language of Homer 
 throughout the same, and only modified as to quality and 
 quantity by additional ideas, which are sometimes given in ex- 
 press epithets, as TroWrj, p,ikaiva, sometimes show themselves in 
 their operations and effects. Homer, therefore, and Hippocrates 
 too, may have used ar\p or r]r\p, without any additional expression, 
 sometimes for air, sometimes for fog or vapour, without being 
 conscious that they were giving it a twofold meaning. And if we 
 take passages from the oldest Epic poets and arrange them in a 
 certain order, we may gradually go from our idea of air through 
 the others, fig and darkness, without in any way remarking a 
 radical separation. Trace it, for instance, through Hes. 6, 697. 
 Horn. II. f, 288. e, 770. (r/epoetSe? like the distant hazy air.) 
 Hes. e, 546. 7. Horn. Od. v, 189. 352. II. e, 864. Od. t, 144. 
 II. p, 368 — 71. e, 776. v, 444. 446. Hes. 0, 9., until we have 
 the full idea of darkness in the epithet r/epo^oin? 'Eptvvvs l . 
 
 1 The old grammarians illustrate drjp in the sense of fog, darkness, 
 by dopa<Tia, which seems to be one of their usual etymologies come to 
 light again. 
 
40 8. 'Ayp, yepios. 
 
 5. From a-qp comes as a regular adjective in common use 
 alpios, consequently Ionice rjiptos; which form occurs in Homer 
 four times. II. a, 497. and 557. of Thetis 
 
 'Heplrj 8' dveftr) pkyav ovpavbv OvXvpirov re 
 
 and 
 
 'Hepfy yap aoiye irape&ro, kcli Xd/3e yovvcov. 
 
 y, 7 . of the Cranes warring against the Pygmies 
 
 'Hepuzi §' cipa Talye kciktjv epiba 7rpo(pepovTai. 
 
 Od. i, 52. of the Cicones, who, after having been driven off, 
 get reinforcements and return ; 
 
 H\6ov eneiO', oaa cj)vXKa kcu av$ea ylyverai atpj], 
 'Repioi. 
 
 Of these passages the third appears to preserve completely the 
 usual meaning as derived from ar\p ; and also in the first ^epir; 
 might be explained by hi ?)epo9, as some old grammarians do 
 both passages in Eustathius. But except those, all the opinions 
 of the grammarians, which have come down to us, explain 
 rj€pi.os in all four passages by opOpivos, deriving it from r\pi 
 early with e inserted. That this is really the sense of the 
 word in the second passage cannot be doubted ; the first must 
 necessarily be the same as the second ; and in the fourth both 
 analogy and context leave no doubt of the meaning being the 
 same as the first and second. But in the third the context 
 seems as evidently to require the meaning derived from aijp, 
 air, and even to point out a contrast between the Cranes and 
 the Trojans hastening to the combat, the former in the air*, 
 the latter on the earth. Now it is not the same word having 
 a twofold meaning which should prevent our adopting this 
 last interpretation ; but a correspondence of construction might 
 very well do so. If we find but once in Homer's language 
 fjipios 7rot<3 in the sense of / do it early in the morning, there 
 ,sems no reason why the same construction should be trans- 
 lated here in a different sense. But the case before us is still 
 stronger, for this construction not only admits of this translation, 
 but it does not admit of any other. Whoever has observed with 
 
 1 ["The meaning of in the air, through the air, <Sr. is quite unknown 
 to this form ;" Passow's Lexicon. — Ed.] 
 
8. 'A»JjO, tjepiog. 41 
 
 attention the Homeric language and the language in common 
 use, will grant me that the mode of speaking, according to 
 which a verb is joined with an adjective instead of an adverb, 
 must be limited to ideas of time, as kuvv^os, rip.epiv6s, rpiraio? 
 7rot&), &c.*, except indeed some certain words particularized by 
 usage, as aa-y^vos, k6ekovrr\^, and some ideas of order, as TrpG>- 
 tos, vcTTtpos. But ideas of place in such a construction, as 
 tvakios TToXefjiL^L, yjepvaios (pverat, and such like, are never 
 found in prose nor in Homer ; they occur only as poetical ex- 
 pressions in the poets of the succeeding age ; as Eurip. Med. 
 441. aldepLd 6' aviirra (Atdwj), Arat. 134. (of justice) eirrar 
 tiiovpavir] 2 , a poetical expression for " she flew to heaven." 
 For these poets make for themselves bold and ornamented ex- 
 pressions ; whereas the old Epic poets have, on the contrary, a 
 fixed usage of language, which they never change in order to 
 become poetical. To translate r\ipios Trotw in the sense of / do 
 it in the air, is as contrary to this usage as the other translation, 
 / do it early in the morning, is agreeable to it. Homer figures 
 to himself, therefore, in the passage in question, that the Cranes 
 in the southern parts of the world, like our birds of passage in 
 the northern, arrive in the night, and fall on the Pygmies early 
 in the morning. 
 
 6. The passage of Virgil's Georg. 1, 375. (imbrem) Aeriae 
 fugere grues, must not be cited as a fresh proof of the Roman 
 poet having misunderstood Homer contrary to the general ex- 
 planation of the critics ; because in Virgil it is not a description 
 of the annv. il passage of the Cranes, but a single casual ap- 
 pearance of them, and because aerius is so common in Virgil 
 (aeriae palumbes, aeria ulmus, &c), that he might very well have 
 used it in this passage, where it suits the sense so exactly, 
 without being liable to the imputation of having mistaken (even 
 supposing that he had the Homeric passage in his mind) 
 Homer's similar expression and different meaning. 
 
 7. But there is a general unwillingness to separate -qipios 
 from cbjp. Voss, who understands all the four passages of 
 7/6/ho? in Homer of the early morning, speaks of the morning 
 
 * [So cVSios, II. X, 725. — Ed.] 
 
 2 This readmg of the MSS. is supported by the context against the 
 common reading vnovpavtrj. 
 
42 8. 'AjJjO, r)epios. 
 
 haze, and translates rfiptos " in the hazy dawn of morning *." 
 In support of this meaning it may be said, " This is exactly the 
 case which was wanted to confirm the meaning of thick haze 
 as given before to ar/p; fjeptos expresses etymologically to the 
 ear, fog, ar/p, and this both poets and their hearers immedi- 
 ately connected with the idea of early in the morning." But 
 in answer to this it may be said, the two first passages, parti- 
 cularly the second, prove to the impartial reader that usage has 
 confined this word wholly to ideas of time. Supposing, then, 
 the word to come plainly and indisputably from a-qp ; supposing 
 the lively fancy of Nature's observers to connect fog always 
 with the idea of morning f ; still language must distinguish the 
 case where the poet wishes to mention expressly fog from that 
 where he does not wish to mention it. Now in the second 
 passage it is impossible that Juno can say, " for in the misty 
 morning Thetis embraced thy knees." 'He/uos, therefore, in 
 this passage is nothing more than early in the morning^ or, 
 to be more particular, early this morning ; consequently in the 
 other passages it must also be early in the morning; and as 
 long as the other idea (which indeed lies in the thing, though 
 not in the expression,) is not indispensably necessary for the 
 understanding of the context, neither explanation nor transla- 
 tion ought to introduce it. 
 
 8. But must, then, ^epios be derived from arjp, r)£posl The 
 grammarians derive it from r\pi, early, to which it bears the 
 same relation as rjeXtos to rj\ios, r)£ to rj. Well-known analo- 
 gous sounds very frequently fix in unlearned times the forma- 
 tion of words ; from ijptos was formed rjtpcos, because it ran along 
 so fluently, in the same way as from €?jou (Ipitv, &c), the infin. 
 of which must necessarily have sounded like Xvai, was formed 
 Uvai, which was apparently favoured by the analogy of Uvai 
 (from r lr)\xi, Ufxeu). But if we suppose that the adverb ijpt, it- 
 self is contracted from rjtpu then I should say, at least accord- 
 ing to my ideas of etymological proceeding, that these forms 
 
 * [Passow in his lexicon prefers, with Voss, deriving it from drjp to 
 Buttmann's derivation from rjpi ; which last he would also trace back 
 to dr)p. — Ed.] 
 
 t [This might possibly be the case in these northern climes, but 
 surely not under the clear skies of Greece. — Ed.] 
 
8. 'Arjp. rjepios. 43 
 
 of words, ?}(Ob', a<os, aids, aurora, rjpt,, o.vpLov 3 , evpos 4 , ought not 
 to be separated from each other. Again, all these may be con- 
 nected (particularly if we compare the word avpa) with aco and 
 arjp by thinking of the fresh morning air : but we cannot pro- 
 ceed far on such ground as this without feeling how uncertain 
 our etymological steps must be. This consideration alone pre- 
 vents me from ranking tap with the above words with that con- 
 fidence with which others do it, probable as this connexion cer- 
 tainly is both in itself, and by the analogy of the German, in 
 which frith means ' early, 5 Friihling ( the spring 5 .' 
 
 9. Beside r]ipios in the sense of matatinus as derived from 
 rjpi, the language of Homer could very well dispense with an 
 ijepios derived from ar\p ; and thus all ambiguity arising from 
 one word with two meanings was completely avoided. In the 
 later Epic poets, indeed, it is quite otherwise : they were fond 
 of, and sought after, this ambiguity of usage as a mark of 
 learning. Thus in Apoll. Rhod. 3, 417. 'Hcptos (euyvvpii (36as 
 
 3 Exactly as in German morgen as an adverb means to-morrow, as a 
 substantive, morning. The Boeotians used aas for to-morrow. Hesych. [In 
 English too the original meaning of morrow seems to have been morn- 
 ing, as in the old phrase of "good morrow." So in Scott's Rokeby, 
 " Smiling noon for sullen morrow." On the other hand, the Scotch 
 still use the morn for the morrow. And we find in the old ballad of Sir 
 Patrick Spens, published in Scott's Border Minstrelsy, " Our gude ship 
 sails the morn." — Ed.] 
 
 4 From Tjus and (ocpos, the two cardinal points of the compass in the 
 Homeric age, are evidently derived the names evpos and £e<pvpos. 
 
 5 Lexicographers place without hesitation rjp as a nominative with 
 the twofold meaning of morning and spring. On this subject one remark 
 is worthy of notice, that cap, capos (spring), is not usually found con- 
 tracted in the Epic poets ; for only in Hesiod c, 460. and 490. we find 
 tap and tapi shortened by synaeresis, and Stesichorus is, perhaps, the first 
 poet in which rjpos (twice in Schol Aristoph. Pac. 797. and 800. Suchf. 
 P- 37- 38-) occurs as a common flexion. On the contrary, the adverb rjpi, 
 in the morning, is found only in this form, and in the lengthened one of 
 the adjective rjepios. Therefore the word cap must have been contracted 
 very early in this sense, but late in the sense of spring. This is certainly 
 not impossible ; but' the line of connexion as traced above makes the 
 immediate affinity of r)pi with rjws very much more probable, The old 
 rude form HOP, AYOP, morning, dropped the vowel in its derivations, 
 ?}pL, avpwv, which latter adverbial neuter of avpios and this were syno- 
 nymous with the Homeric r)epios. That 'Hwj was personified by the 
 poets under the name ripiyeucia, proves only that this derivation of the 
 word rjpi, as is very easily to be conceived, had long been forgotten. 
 
44 
 
 rjTO$, ait]T09. 
 
 kcu beUkov a>p7]v Uavofxai dju^oto, the meaning is evidently 
 early in the morning ; but then in other places it as evidently 
 means misty, hazy ; thus, i, 580. Thessaly lying in the distant 
 horizon, and 4, 267. 270. Egypt are called yepcr); which last 
 country, with some other countries and islands, is said to have 
 originally had the name of aepta or riepir) (vid. Hesych. v. depia, 
 Etym. M. v. ijepfy) ; an appellation which appears to me, like 
 most such old names of countries found in the ancient geogra- 
 phers, to be explicable only by references to the epithets of old 
 Epic poets. In the sense of dark, and exactly synonymous 
 with rj€po€is, it is used by Aratus 349. speaking of a space 
 without any stars. But the grammarians give us still a third 
 meaning: in Hesych. we find, fjepiov p.£ya, ke-nrov, p.zkav ; 
 with which we may compare aepozv /xe'Aaz>, (3a6v, /xeya. The 
 Scholiast, indeed, explains the passage of Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1239. 
 where mention is made of the sandy coast of the Syrtes, 'HepCrj 
 ft ap.aOos TtapaiciKkLTaL, by the following gloss, ttclv tq irokv kol 
 ba\jnk€s fjepoev Aeyerat ; but other proofs of this meaning I have 
 not. found *. However, the explanatory word p,iya appears to 
 be meant of such flat lands stretching far into the distant 
 haze; as rjepirj in the passage quoted above is explained by 
 
 the context, v. 1245 — 7 «x os & *^ €V elaopoavras 'Hepa 
 
 kol pLtydk-qs v&Ta x^ ov ^i V*P L & t<ra Trjkov virepTdLVovTa birjveKts' 
 where the 6' before Iva, and the comma before tJc'/m, should be 
 erased. 
 
 9. "ArjTos, alrjTO?. 
 
 t. Each of these two forms is in the old Epic poetry a foraf 
 clprjpiivov; the former in II. <f>, 395. as an epithet of daring or 
 boldness, addressed by Mars to Minerva, 
 
 Tittt avr co Kvvdpvia deoiis epidi gvve'Xavveis 
 Qdpaos arjrov exovaa, P-eyas ^ &* Gvpos dvrJKev ; 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon under depios I find the following : " Even 
 in prose Diod. Sic. allows himself to use such expressions as, depiov 
 
 peyeOos, fi^KOs, depia nefiia to peyeQos, Gives (ifipov depioi, to express Size 
 
 or magnitude, the word originally signifying only a great height." 
 It would seem, therefore, that depios was frequently used in this way, 
 but not rjepios. — Ed.] 
 
9. "ArjTO?, alrjTog. 45 
 
 the latter in II. o-, 410. spoken of Vulcan, 
 
 9 H, kcu an aKfioderoco 7reAo)p airjTov dvearr]. 
 
 Numerous as the accounts are which the grammarians have 
 given of these forms, most of them amount to this, that both 
 are the same, and signify great ; which is most evident in the 
 Venet. Schol. to <r, 41 o. So that this alone gives one an idea 
 of its being an old tradition. 
 
 2. This most simple interpretation has at least one advan- 
 tage, that by adopting it we shall have no need of following 
 etymology in a vain conjectural search after some particular 
 meaning for each of the two passages ; as, for instance, in such 
 a search some of the grammarians seem to have found, for 
 alrjrov, Ttvp&hes, which in this sense and construction is evi- 
 dently forced from dripa 1 . As little satisfactory is, for drjrov, 
 the explanation insatiable, which, although in some respects 
 suited to Odpcros, still is not grammatical. It must, however, 
 be old, as Nicander in his Ther. 783. uses the word precisely 
 in the particular sense of insatiable, probably grounding it on 
 this passage. But the Odpcros ddrov of Quintus (mentioned 
 above at the end of the article on ddaros,) leads us to conjec- 
 ture for II. cf), 395. a twofold reading of the old grammarians, 
 some of whom, indeed, explained h\rov as Ionic for ddrov, but 
 others at once read ddrov ; a reading which hardly deserves 
 mention. Still' less did the grammarians succeed in obtaining 
 from etymology one interpretation common to both passages, 
 although some tried the idea of Karairveopitvov, TrvevcrrtKov for 
 that purpose ; in which it is ludicrous to observe how Vulcan 
 and his bellows must work together ; vid. Daram. But when 
 Apollonius in his lexicon, setting out with this derivation, 
 makes the extraordinary addition, rb yap <£wo>/xei>oz> (that 
 which is inflated) \xiya ytverai, it is quite evident that the 
 meaning of great was familiar to the commentators, and most 
 of them only tried how they might discover some etymological 
 ground for it' 2 . 
 
 1 Schneider's explanation of air^Tov, sooty, as he gives no derivation 
 for it, I can only suppose to be borrowed from this nvpwdes, as more 
 adapted to a person like Vulcan. Schneider himself does not seem to 
 place much reliance on it. 
 
 2 I do not mention all the other different attempts made with this 
 
46 9' "A?7T09, alrjTOS. 
 
 3. That is to say, doubtless the Greeks of the old classical 
 age understood the word and both the passages in the sense 
 of great. Of this we have a most express testimony in Hesy- 
 chius, who says that iEschylus used it in this sense, ''Ar/rovs, 
 /xeyaAaj, Aloyv^os 'AddfiavTi. We see that iEschylus used the 
 word so clearly and simply to express something great, that 
 the grammarians had no doubt or hesitation in so stating it. 
 And the usage of the poets of that time has this very strong 
 proof, that they did not adopt the old Epic expressions with 
 grammatical learning, but took them with a lively feeling of 
 their meaning. 
 
 4. Still it is impossible that the word a'tyros can have had 
 so exactly the mere prosaic idea of great; it must have re- 
 presented that idea in a poetical manner. We must therefore 
 endeavour to find out the proper sense by a little induction, 
 still attending to etymology. That the idea of greatness exists 
 in both the passages of Homer is certain ; but in one of them 
 this idea is already expressed by the word Trtkup: we must 
 therefore look for an idea which in this passage may be an 
 idea of greatness so naturally strengthened and made more 
 forcible, that in the other passage it may in itself express 
 greatness. Such is, in the language of the people, the idea 
 of astonishing, terrible, prodigious *. Let us now compare 
 with it the old Epic word alvos. The termination vos is, as 
 we see plainly in arvyvos, ae^vos from cre/3o//ai &c, an old 
 passive verbal form. As, then, b€uvos from beiaai means 
 something large and terrible, so alvos certainly comes from 
 some verb in a similar manner and has a similar sense. 
 Another such passive termination is tos. By all this the 
 connexion of alvos and ahyros becomes evident, and our 
 principal object is attained, viz. that of ascertaining in both 
 those passages a nikvp betvov and a Bdpaos beivov. In order, 
 
 same object ; they may be sought for in their proper places by any one 
 who thinks it worth his while to look for them. The moderns appear 
 to think that the surest way to succeed is by means of the idea of ciaros, 
 invulnerable, consequently powerful, &c. Vid. Heyne and Schneider. 
 
 * [This last adjective is not in Buttmann, but it seems to me to an- 
 swer exactly his description of the epithet which he was in search 
 of.— Ed.] 
 
io. 'A'/'^Ao?, aplfyXos. 47 
 
 however, at last to come nearer to the radical verb, I will com- 
 pare with aiir}Tos another word ayrjTos, which approaches very 
 nearly to it in form and meaning, differing only in containing 
 the laudatory sense of the verb aya^ai. This subsidiary idea 
 is, however, formed only by usage ; astonishment is evidently 
 that which lies at the root of all these words; as it does also 
 in the form a(o\xai, which has gone over to the meaning of re- 
 verence, and so has formed again, in a manner similar to the 
 others, an adjective ayvos. We can now very well adopt the 
 supposition that the i in alrjTos, as in paico (vid. aypa, sect. 
 3.), arose from the y, and was quite lost in arjros. We may 
 also adopt a form AI2, AIX2, AZX2, ATil, with which the 
 analogy of the verbal terminations -ao>, and -d{&> sufficiently 
 agrees. 
 
 5. According to this account, the accenting of the word 
 atrjTos is the only thing to surprise us, as far indeed as accents 
 in the Homeric text can surprise. And this also will cease, 
 when we see in the Schol. to a, 410. that the grammarians 
 were as divided in opinion on the accenting of the word as they 
 were on the other points. The accent, which a-qros and at-qros 
 commonly have, arose from the supposition that they were, 
 properly speaking, compounded with a. Here we must leave 
 the question (as we easily may) ; for the accenting of the Ho- 
 meric text is to the learned only a part of its history. 
 
 ' A0ea(j)aTO9 ; vid. #€ovceAo?. 
 
 10. ' AidrjAos, apitjrjXos. 
 
 i. The meaning of the word athqkos in Homer is placed 
 beyond a doubt by a review of the passages in which it occurs. 
 Three times it is an epithet of Jire, II. /3, 455. 1, 436. A, 155., 
 twice of Mars, and once of Pallas as reproached by Mars, II. e, 
 880. 897. Od. 6, 309., twice of the crowd of suitors wooing 
 Penelope, Od. it, 29. \//, 303., and once of Melanthius, as he 
 was conveying arms to the suitors, x, 165.; to which may be 
 added the adverbial form II. c/>, 220. of Achilles incessantly 
 
48 IO. 'A'tSrjXog, aplfyXos. 
 
 slaughtering the Trojans, av be KreiWis aibrjkm. In many of 
 these passages the idea plainly is consuming, destroying, destruc- 
 tive ; and since this is the only one which suits all the pas- 
 sages, and suits them extremely well, it must stand as the 
 established meaning in Homer. The other explanations of the 
 grammarians are evidently mere etymological attempts to find 
 meanings suited to certain passages ; particularly where it is 
 explained by dazzling, which only suits the passages where it 
 is an epithet of fire ; and against this there is one weighty ob- 
 jection, that in all three passages the fire is mentioned as in 
 destructive operation 1 . 
 
 2. To the Homeric usage belongs also the old various read- 
 ing in II. e, 757. The text has, Zed Trarep, ov v€p.€(ri(rj "Apet 
 To.be Kaprepa epya ; Instead of this reading, which, through 
 the undeserved authority of Aristarchus, has become the pre- 
 vailing one, there was another, rdbe epy atbrjka, to which Heyne 
 gives the preference, and which, in the sense established above, 
 is here particularly suitable, as agreeing with the exegetical 
 verse following, 'Oara&Tiov re kol\ olov airukeo-e kabv 'Ayai&v. 
 On the contrary, Kaprepa epya, 872. in a similarly sounding 
 verse, Zev narep, ov vep.eo-i(r\ op&v rdbe Kaprepa epya ; where 
 there is no various reading, is much better suited to a passage 
 which speaks only of the daring attacks of Diomede on the 
 Gods. 
 
 3. But when the old lexicographers explain aibr)kos by abrjkos 
 also, this is an explanation which by nothing but force can be 
 made to suit any of the passages in Homer ; there is, however, 
 good foundation for it, not in Homer, but in Hesiod e, 754. 
 where the advice is given 
 
 /x^S' Upolaiv eV aWofievoMTi Kvprjaas 
 Ma>[X€V€iv didT)\a' 6cos vv tl kcu ra vefxe&aq. 
 
 Interpreters have never succeeded in explaining these words, 
 
 1 In an old epigram which (with the stone on which it was engraved) 
 is come down to us, and is in Brunck's Adesp. 692., rv^a is called dt- 
 SciXos, that is, not dark, uncertain, as it has been explained, but destruc- 
 tive, by a mere mechanical imitation of Homer. The person on whom 
 the inscription was written was taken off by an early death, and there- 
 fore fortune is reproached as taking away whatever it gives us. 
 
io. 'AtSyXog, aplfyXog. 49 
 
 on account of aibrjXa. In order to discover in them the Ho- 
 meric meaning of aibrjXos they took it adverbially, and some- 
 times joined it with veneao-q, sometimes with fiupieveLV. In the 
 former case the construction would be contrary to the language 
 of these didactic aphorisms, which are never obscured by a 
 complicated structure of the sentence, but by their brevity and 
 simplicity. The latter they explained by a^uo? a^avtcrpiov^ 
 " ridicule not to your own destruction." One can suppose it 
 possible that it might have been an ancient mode to add im- 
 mediately after a verb signifying some wicked conduct, an 
 adverb specifying the consequence of such conduct ; but then 
 there would hardly follow an exegetical sentence joined to it by 
 vv, which here answers to the Latin quippe. At any rate, fi(o- 
 ixevtiv dio^Aa, " ridicule to thine own destruction," must always 
 be a forced translation. Nor is there in either of these two 
 interpretations any reason for the use of the word fidifxeveiv ; 
 for who would have had an idea of ridiculing a sacrifice ? The 
 fact is, that in every part of the religion of the ancients there 
 were sacred customs, the origin of which was concealed from 
 the people, and sometimes unknown even to the priests and 
 prophets ; there were certain of these peculiar to each people, 
 to each family, and even to each house. It was very possible, 
 therefore, that a thoughtless person who met with such by 
 chance {Kvpr\(ras). might ridicule what he did not understand. 
 This meaning of the poet. Clerk saw for once correctly; but 
 he must needs say something foolish, and therefore defended 
 against Hesiod the supposed derider of heathenish and super- 
 stitious customs* 1 . 
 
 4. Again, when in a fragment of the 'Hoiatj in the Schol. 
 Pind. Pyth. 3, 14. it is said of the crow that he 
 
 e0pacrei/ epy atbr)\a 
 $oi/3<u (iKepa-eKOfXTj, 6V tip 'icr^i/f cyrjfic Kopami/, 
 
 we cannot avoid thinking of and comparing with it the ep/ 
 aibrjka which is the various reading of II. e, j$y. as quoted 
 
 * [In the small edition of Hesiod by Schrevelius, with a Latin trans- 
 lation, and with a lexicon of the words used in Hesiod by Pasor, pub- 
 lished at Leyden in 1750, dtfyXa is correctly translated arcana, but 
 
 derived from di8r)s, infernus. — Ed.] 
 
50 io. 'AiStjXos, aplfyXos. 
 
 above. But the sense of that passage is evidently too strong 
 for this, where nothing annihilating or destructive can be meant, 
 but only something offensive to Apollo ; and though these epy 
 aibi-jXa might very naturally prove afterwards destructive to the 
 actors, yet that could not be introduced into this account of 
 the information given by the crow : tcfrpaaev epy aibrjXa. In- 
 disputably, therefore, the meaning of atb-qXa is here also secret 
 things, things concealed in darkness. For ey^/xe is merely a 
 modest term to express the illicit intercourse of Ischys and 
 Coronis*, as we know from history; see Apollod. 3, 10, 3. 
 Paus. 2, 16. p. 171. — In what sense Sophocles has used the 
 word in Ajax 608. seems to me more doubtful. The Chorus 
 there expresses its fear of being sent to Hades, which it calls 
 tov cLTTOTpoirov aibrjXov qbav. The context favours either 
 meaning; but the Scholiast explains it only by dark. — The 
 sense in which Apollonius Rhodius uses it may be seen in his 
 writings ; the meaning of invisible, if not the sole, is the pre- 
 vailing one. 
 
 5. To unite these two meanings (destructive and i?ivisible) 
 by etymology, it might seem desirable to derive the word 
 from 'AtSr/?, as some have done; that is to say, as vbpyjXos, 
 virvqXos, mean full of water, full of sleep, so aibrjXos would be 
 full of Hades, i. e. full of destruction or full of invisibility. 
 But this appears to me a strange kind of origin for a word in 
 common use ; and that it was so is easily seen, particularly in 
 Hesiod. To this derivation is also opposed the accent, which 
 must have been handed down genuine, otherwise the gram- 
 marians would not have always written it so contrary to ana- 
 logy. But the accent will be quite regular, if we adopt the fol- 
 lowing line of formation, ibziv, lbr)X6s, aibi]Xos. It is true, the 
 verbal adjectives of this kind (jui/x^Ao?, cnyr)X6s, airarrjXos, &c.) 
 have an active sense, which is inapplicable here. But these 
 established analogies between form and meaning arose by de- 
 grees, and in those older times of the Greek language ibr]Xds 
 might as well have been visible, aibr]Xos invisible. More 
 striking is the transition to the causative meaning, making in- 
 
 * [It is used in the same way in Od. a, 36. of .4£gisthus and Cly- 
 teninestra. — Ed.] 
 
io. ? A'/(5j/Xo9, aplfy\o$. 51 
 
 visible, destroying, destructive *. But this transition also occurs 
 frequently in the older language ; and it is difficult to imagine 
 any other way of deriving this idea (which we are snre the 
 word has) from the negative of ibelv, which, we are equally 
 sure, is in atbrjXos ; and this way is, as far as I can see, the one 
 most generally adopted 2 . 
 
 6. On the other hand, I am fully sensible that what I have 
 said of the passages out of Homer is not so conclusive but that 
 some may suppose the meaning of invisible, even although it 
 had been the proper meaning of aibi^kos, to have become quite # 
 extinct, and that they can bring all the older passages men- 
 tioned above (for Apollon. Rhod. would then be put out of the 
 question) under the other idea of destructive. For instance, 
 let it be supposed that the idea of exterminating, destructive, 
 made a transition to the more general one of bad, wicked, im- 
 pious ; then the epithet of Hades in Sophocles may be ranked 
 under the former, while under the latter and more general 
 sense, still however in use as early as Homer's time, would 
 come the epithet of the suitors, and of Melanthius, with the 
 two passages of the tpy aibiqXa ; and then, if /zco/xevetu aibr,\a be 
 supposed to mean to indulge in impious ridicule, the other dif- 
 ficulties which I mentioned above in speaking of that passage 
 will appear more easily surmountable. This plan certainly 
 does not satisfy me ; but I have mentioned it in order to make 
 the following investigation independent of it. For, by folio vv- 
 
 * [Passow, in his last improved edition of Schneider's Lexicon, has 
 adopted Buttraann's derivation and explanation. " 'AifyXos, ov, (a priv. 
 and I8elv) making invisible ; hence exterminating, annihilating, destruc- 
 tive ; this is always its sense in Homer as epithet of Mars, of the suitors, 
 of fire. (2nd pass, invisible, obscure, unknown, Hes. Op. 754. Soph. Aj. 
 608. Secret, unforeseen, unhoped for. See Buttmann's Lexil." — Ed.] 
 
 2 The corresponding epithet aiaros seems to have taken exactly the 
 same line. In Homer it has the sense belonging to it as an adjective 
 in tos, that of " one of whom no one knows anything more," whence 
 annihilated, destroyed, II. £, 258. But in the beginning of the lost Hymn 
 to Pallas by Lamprocles or Stesichorus it is an epithet of this goddess, 
 according to a reading not very certain, it is true, but very difficult to 
 be altered. Vid. Stesich. Fragm. ed. Suchfort. p. 41. In that passage 
 the word can have no other than the causative meaning aiarovaa (see 
 Od. v, 79. cYiaTvauav) exterminating ; and so it expresses in a respect- 
 ful manner the same idea, which utbrfKos does in a reproachful one, when 
 applied to Pallas in Homer. 
 
 E 2 
 
52 IO. 'AtSrjXos, aplfyXos. 
 
 ing that plan aib-qXos with its second, syllable short, and with 
 the meaning of exterminating, bad, wicked, is to be kept quite 
 separate for all the passages quoted above; but the meaning 
 of invisible is not, therefore, less sure in the cognate forms now 
 to be mentioned, of which the quantity is different. I leave 
 that plan, therefore, to the private judgment of each individual, 
 and will now continue my investigation according to the view 
 which I first took of it. 
 
 7. There are full grounds in the old Epic poetry for a form 
 atCbekos in the sense of invisible ; for the grammarian in the 
 
 •Etym. M. in v. quotes a verse from a poem of Hesiod, where 
 it is said of the thievish Autolycus, 
 
 This form is evidently analogous to euceAo?, ikcAo? from euco, 
 and at the same time is connected with di87?Aoj; for deiSeAo?, 
 aibr]\os, are nothing more than another example of words in 
 which two neighbouring syllables change their quantity, as 
 aTT€Lpi(rios, a.TT€p€L(no$. But this deiSeAos was found in some 
 poems now lost in the other leading sense as well as in that of 
 invisible. Cyrill. Lex. ms. ap. Tittm. ad Zonar. v. "'Aio^Aos : 
 'Aei8eAoz>, (fiofiepov, novqpov. aibrjXov, abrjkov, acpavrj. See also 
 Etym. M. 2J, 35. The lengthened form aeibektos had also 
 the same twofold meaning. Etym. M. 'Aetbekiov, kclkov, upv- 
 (pcuov, abrjkov. "'Atibektos, Karaparos. Hesych. 'Aet8eAioj, Kara- 
 paros, btivos. This last form, again, answers exactly to the 
 det/ceAtos of the Epic poets, which has become more in use than 
 deucAoj; and Ruhnken's correction to 'Aibrjkos in Hesychius 
 was therefore too hasty 3 . 
 
 8. I shall here introduce a form, of which there are plain 
 traces in the grammarians. Hesych. Al(r]\6s, abrjkos. Etym. 
 
 3 The word da'SeXos has a new meaning in Nicand. Ther. r, 20. 
 where it is said of the constellation Orion that det'SeXov iar^piKTai in 
 the heavens. Here the sense evidently is shining ; and 'Aclde/ia, Xu/x- 
 npd in Hesychius has been very properly amended to 'Ae/fieXa. But 
 this meaning is not to be explained, as the grammarians do, either by 
 a intensive or by del 877X0? : but these later Epic poets gave to the form 
 clei'SfXos the same meaning which they acknowledged dtdrjXos to have as 
 an epithet of fire ; vcopoyjs, dazzling. 
 
io. 'A'l'SrjXog, apify\o$. 53 
 
 M. At£??Aoi> 4 , a(pavTov. Heindorf. when quite young, proposed 
 to apply this to II. /3, 318., and to read 
 
 Top /xeV <u £77X01/ 5 6r)K€V Btbs oantp ecprjvev, 
 
 instead of apiCflXov, now the universal reading of the text. 
 That the gloss, as it stands in the Etym. M., relates to this 
 verse, is beyond a doubt. This is quite clear from the gloss 
 in Apollonii Lexicon, where to the one explanation of 'A'/StjAozj, 
 acpaves, is added: 07rep kclI aeCCrjkov Aeyer Tbv fxev aet(r}kov 
 8r}K€v Oebs oa-nep ty-qvev. And the Etym. M. in another place, 
 i. e. under aib-qXos, p. 41, 44. quotes the same passage thus : 
 6/aoiW /cat Tbv fiev atb-qkov 6tjk€ Oeos. On this point we must 
 consult the following scholia in the Venetian Manuscript which 
 follow close on each other : 
 
 Tbv }X€V apiCflkov drjuev Oebs ocnrep tcprjve] otl Zr]v6boTos yp&cpet, 
 apihrjXov, kcll tov e\6fX€vov TTpoo-eOrjKev. to yap aptbrjXov ayav e/x- 
 <pavh, oirep airCOavov. b yap tav (a later and worse expression for 
 6 yap av) irkaaj] tovto avatpel. ktyei, /uezrroiye otl 6 (prjvas ambv 
 6ebs Kal abrjXov litovqatv. 
 
 Aaav yap (xlv ^77/ce Kpovov tiols dyKvAojutrjrea)] dfleretrai' Trpotiprj- 
 rat be atrta. 
 
 Here is a great want of connexion. But first, so far is clear 
 and certain, that some rejected the verse 319. but Zenodotus 
 retained it. "The ca 1 use of the rejection," says the second 
 Scholiast, " has been already mentioned." But this is no- 
 where to be found, and there seems to have been lost some 
 such passage as stands in the Victorian Scholia (Heyn. Add. 
 ad lib. 2. p. 687.); "because it is more probable that the 
 god who had been the cause of the serpent's appearing was 
 the cause of his sudden disappearance" (TnOavdoTtpov yap, 
 ambv K.a9&7ra£ a<pavrj TrcTTotrjKtvaL top Kal cprjvavTa Otov). 
 
 4 The reading dtfrXov (with the diaeresis) in the last Leipsic edition 
 is a decision which may possibly be made on some good grounds, but 
 such a one ought not to be introduced into books hastily or with any 
 appearance of force. The more accurately copies are made from the 
 originals, the better and more useful. 
 
 5 That this is really an old reading, we know now from the Ambro- 
 sian Fragments of the Iliad published by Mai, in which the verse was 
 so written at first hand. See Buttmann's edition of them at the end of 
 his scholia of the Odyssey, p. 589. 
 
54 io. 9 At$rj\os 9 apifyXo?. 
 
 Hence, then, it is clear that the author of this criticism read 
 in the preceding verse some word which meant a<pavrj. Let 
 us read now the first scholium without regard to the aplCqkov 
 in the preceding verse, and I think, without spending much 
 time in criticizing the pointing and the reading, we may con- 
 sider this to be its meaning : " Zenodotus reads aptbr]kov, and 
 retains the following verse ; for apibiqkov means, very con^- 
 spicuous. But this is improbable ; for by this expression he 
 does away what he had first said." The meaning of which 
 is, that this commentator considers the transformation of the 
 serpent into a stone as contradictory to the expression apibrjkov. 
 Zenodotus, on the contrary, one plainly sees, thought there 
 was a contradiction between the serpent being made to disap- 
 pear by being turned into a stone which was visible. The 
 conclusion of the scholium fixes the following antithesis as 
 the true sense of Homer, that " the same god which had made 
 the serpent appear, made it also disappear." The commen- 
 tator, whose opinion is expressed in this scholium, evidently, 
 therefore, explains the Homeric word by abrjkov ; and yet the 
 universal reading of the text is apiQqkov. Hence one is tempted, 
 in order to bring the lemma to agree with the scholium, to 
 read, instead of aptCrjkov, one of the forms which we have 
 brought forward from Hesych. Etym. M. and Apollon. Lexicon. 
 But this attempt is again obstructed by our reading, not with- 
 out great surprise, in Etym. M. v. apifykos, that certain gram- 
 marians thought api(r)\os to have also the meaning of abrjkos by 
 supposing the p to be inserted. Aristarchus, however, whose 
 school we principally recognise in these scholia, was not satisfied 
 with this mode of proceeding. Without, therefore, troubling 
 myself with the lemma, I see plainly in the scholium itself the 
 two contrary opinions of Aristarchus and Zenodotus, the former 
 reading atb-qkov (with t long) or some form of similar mean- 
 ing, the latter reading aptb-qkov. Whether the rejection of the 
 following verse, and the grounds for doing it referred to in the 
 second scholium, proceeded also from Aristarchus, must be 
 left undecided. At all events it is agreed that the verse (318.) 
 is genuine and ancient, and that, consequently, before these 
 criticisms, it appeared very passable with the meaning of 
 aibrjkos. Nay, that this, if not the common reading, was at 
 
io. 'A'/i^Ao?, aplfyXo?. 55 
 
 least a very general one down to Cicero's time, is plain from his 
 translation of these verses, de Divin. 2, 30. 
 
 Qui luci ediderat, genitor Saturnius, idem 
 Abdidit, et duro firmavit 6 tegmina saxo. 
 
 9. Now first, as far as the word api&Xos belongs to this 
 investigation, it is apparently connected with (fjXos ; according 
 to which derivation it would give here and there an apparent 
 sense to the passage. But as Homer uses it also as an epithet 
 of lightning, of the sound of the trumpet, and such like, it is 
 clear that it accords with bijXos, and that some cause or other 
 in this its compound state, (instead of apibrjXos with t short, 
 which never occurs in Homer,) made the second syllable in the 
 old Ionic language long ; from which then (whether by actual 
 pronunciation, or by the old poets committing it to writing, or, 
 lastly, by the filing down of the grammarians) came api(r]Xos, 
 by the change of the b into £ or, which is the same thing, by 
 the insertion of a a before the b 7 . It is, however, possible 
 that Zenodotus always wrote apibrjXos pronounced with a long 
 1; whence in the scholium quoted above, where the word is 
 mentioned as his reading, it appears written according to his 
 orthography 8 . 
 
 io. Of atbrjXos we have already seen that the quantity of 
 both its second and third syllable is changeable ; aibrjXos, aet- 
 beXos. In the passage in question (II. /3, 318.), where it is an 
 old various reading with apifyXos, it must have both its second 
 and third syllable long ; which, however, need not create any 
 doubt or hesitation, when we see in Homer 'Obvarjos, 'Obvv- 
 acos, and 'Obvaarjos. From this name, indeed, occurring so 
 often in these three forms, they have become the only esta- 
 blished and acknowledged manner of writing it ; but otherwise 
 
 6 See below at note 10. 
 
 7 See my opinion stated somewhat more definitely under note 1 2. 
 
 8 In the post- Homeric poets dpidrjXos is also found with t short. 
 Simonides has it so in Epig. 59. (65.) Brunck's Anal. 1, 139. fieya 
 UrjXiov a t dpibaXos "Ocraa ; so has also Apoll. Rhod. and the still later 
 poets. But dpi^rjXos also occurs in the sense of ^Xos ; not, however, 
 earlier than Callimachus, Epig. 54., also in Meleag. Epig. 1. and in 
 others. This meaning ought, therefore, no longer to have precedence 
 in the lexicons, still less to be quoted as Homer's. 
 
56 IO. 9 A'tSf]\og 9 aplfyXos* 
 
 there is nothing to prevent its being written also 'Obvvrjos, 
 'Obvatlos, "'Obvaaelos. For the word aidr/Aos, which does not 
 occur again in this quantity w w in Homer, a threefold read- 
 ing may be adopted for those texts which had it in this passage ; 
 viz. at b 7] k os, by which the quantity is left to the reader (see 
 the passage as quoted above at Sect. 8. from the Etym. M.) ; 
 a'i(r]\os (see also Hesych. and Etym. M. quoted at the same 
 place) ; and delbrjkos, which recommended itself by its analogy 
 with dtibekos. From a confusion of the two last forms arose in 
 Apollon. Lexic. the inadmissible form dzi(r)kov 9 . 
 
 ii. The common reading api^Aos is thus explained: " Ju- 
 piter has turned the serpent into a stone, and this serpent of 
 stone remains as a monument." But how can it be supposed 
 that an Epic poet could have represented such a play of the 
 imagination with so little of the distinctness of a picture ? He 
 would have undoubtedly brought before the mind of the hearer 
 this miraculous figure, whether standing or lying, which was to 
 remain as a monument of the transformation, and not have 
 merely said, " He turned it into stone." Besides, there is an- 
 other circumstance which would be almost as astonishing, that 
 I find in the ancients themselves, down to Eustathius, not the 
 least trace of this view and explanation : for the apibrjkos, 
 which Zenodotus or others before him thought they must write 
 in reference to the kaav €0r]K€, was evidently only a help to 
 reconcile the contradiction which they found between the invi- 
 sibility and the stone 10 . To this we must also add the perfectly 
 
 9 Tollius on Apollon. Lex. seeing the inadmissibility of this form, 
 thinks he can furnish his author (from Eustath. ad Od. 6, 309.) with 
 the form deibrfkos, which I have given above only from analogy. But 
 he mistakes, and so does Heyne. The form there is deldeXos. 
 
 10 Some further trace of the common acceptation of this passage may 
 possibly be thought to exist in the latter of the two verses of Cicero 
 quoted above, which is now written in all the editions 
 
 Abdidit, et duro formavit tegmina saxo. 
 
 But even if this were the true reading, still the word Abdidit would 
 prevent anything confirmatory of that acceptation being drawn from the 
 subsequent clause of the sentence, and formavit would be, therefore, 
 nothing more th&n fecit. This, indeed, is not probable; still less can 
 we approve of giving up the reading of all the old editions and some 
 of the manuscripts to favour a various reading which was obliged to 
 
IO. 'At&yXoj, apltyXog. 57 
 
 useless expression oanrep ty-qvev; of which, if we read aihr]kos, 
 we see at once the object and the sense by means of the anti- 
 thesis, as shown in the Scholium above quoted. The words 
 kaav yap jxlv eOrjKev have, then, the sense which the words plain- 
 ly bear : " he turned it into a stone." That is to say, this is 
 one of the more definite forms by which the imagination some- 
 times makes the appearance and disappearance of things in tales 
 of wonder, not less wonderful, for that must not be, but, as it 
 were, more on a level with common sense, and more propor- 
 tioned to the power of thought ; so that sometimes the former 
 seems to be a magical production from one of the stones lying 
 about in the field, sometimes the latter is imagined to be a trans- 
 formation into one of them. 
 
 12. Whether this reading ought to be restored to our text 
 or not I leave to others, if it were only to spare myself the 
 
 come almost mechanically to firmavit. But this same defective criticism 
 has been actually put in practice in Tibull. 2, 5, 23. Romulus tfternce 
 nondum formaverat urbis Mcenia consorti non habit anda Remo. Wytten- 
 bach, Bibl. Crit. 1,3, p. 84. has doubts, and with justice, of the ex- 
 pression formare mcenia. But the reading firmaverat he appears to 
 consider, and I think incorrectly, as referring to the walls being 
 made secure or made sacred by the death of Remus ; so apt is one to 
 be seduced into this meaning by the words of Propertius, 3, 8, 50. et 
 caso mcenia firma Remo. For as the sense in Tibullus must be, " Rome 
 was not yet built," it would be most strange to express that sense by a 
 circumstance which was completely an accessory to its building, al- 
 though it might be very well added afterwards as a poetical exube- 
 rance. The words mcenia firma cceso Remo do also express very well 
 the thing which was brought to pass by means of the death of Remus ; 
 but firmat mcenia non habitanda Remo could at most signify only that 
 the safety of the city had depended on the removal of Remus ; which 
 was the meaning neither of Propertius nor Tibullus. In short, every 
 one feels that formaverat or firmaverat can stand only for struxerat. 
 On the other hand, Wyttenbach has brought forward a passage very 
 much to the purpose, with the same variety of reading, from Claudian's 
 Rapt. Proserp. 1, 236. Devenere locum, Cereris quo tecta nitebant Cyclo- 
 pum firmata manu. Formata would be as tame and poor an expression 
 in this passage as it is in Tibullus ; and yet firmata is not to be under- 
 stood as meaning merely strengthened, but it is evidently a full poet- 
 ical expression for firmiter exstructa ; in the same way is firmaverat mce- 
 nia for mcenia firma exstruxerat ; and therefore again in Cicero firmavit 
 tegmina is the same as indidit tegmina firma — duro saxo : for the trans- 
 formation into stone, whatever the reading may be, is described as 
 having taken place by the being covered over with stone, which is lite- 
 rally expressed by Abdidit. 
 
58 II. Am>?, eiraivt}. 
 
 w 
 
 deciding in which of the three ways we ought now to write it. 
 The analogy which produced the reading aifyXov I consider 
 doubtful; for if the t in apC-br}Xov is to be lengthened, one 
 analogy is introduced; if in a-ib-qXov, another is necessary. 
 To write aib-qXov is contrary to common usage, which does not 
 allow of a long i in forms coming from dbca. And lastly, as 
 to aeibr\Xo$, the principles of sound criticism forbid our using 
 any form, least of all introducing it into Homer, unless it has 
 come down to us in a sure and authentic manner. And in this 
 case there is reason to suppose that Homer never did use this 
 form, but that as soon as he wanted the second syllable long, 
 he used (fourthly) the form aetbiXtos, which has all the mean- 
 ings in common with the others n , but is too different from any 
 of the readings which have actually come down to us, for us to 
 propose its adoption in the passage in question. Here, then, 
 we have a most striking example how almost impossible it is 
 in Homeric criticism, with all our best wishes and exertions, to 
 surmount the difficulties of the standing text. And although 
 fully convinced that ap[(r]Xos was not originally in this passage 
 in Homer's verse, still we must retain this reading, as the only 
 one which has come down to us grounded on authentic docu- 
 ments 12 . 
 
 Airjros ; vid. a^ros*. 
 
 1 1. AtVoy, kiraivr). 
 
 i. The word alvos is in its principal meaning nearly synony- 
 mous with ju£0o9, a speech, narration ; but it has also the par- 
 
 11 See above at note 3. 
 
 12 I will here add my etymological conjectures on these forms. I 
 think the form IdrjXos lies at the root of both compounds ; for I consider 
 the common word drjXos to be only an abbreviation of ldr]\6s, as in ckt]- 
 \os y KrjXelv, where will be found a similar opinion. The compound with 
 dpi- was therefore properly dpi-ibrjXos, from which the second 1 disap- 
 peared, and the digamma remaining before the 8, made the preceding 
 syllable long ; whence it is very possible that this digamma before 8 
 changed itself into a, and dpifyXos is therefore a genuine old form. In 
 the compounding of didrjXos there are less analogical grounds for the 
 lengthening of the second syllable by means of a or £, particularly as 
 the forms etfiw, eldos already offer instances of the lengthening of t 
 into ft. 
 
II. Alvog, eiraivr\. 59 
 
 ticular idea of praise, which is established as one of its senses 
 in the language of Epic poetry by the two passages of Od. 
 cf), no. tC /xe xPl wripos aXvov ; and II. \^, 795. In Herodotus, 
 8, 112. praise is called olvq. These are evidently verbal sub- 
 stantives, which according to all analogy suppose a verb alvw, 
 and in it the meaning of praise ; with which, indeed, the gloss 
 in Hesychius agrees : Alwv 1 , fiapvrovcos, luaiv&v rt. The verb 
 alvia, which is the one in common use, has taken, as is fre- 
 quently the case, the derivative form after the substantive. This 
 verb means only to praise ; but in the stem or radical verb alva 
 there was undoubtedly also the meaning of to say, and that too 
 as the radical sense, from which proceeded the meaning of 
 praise ; much the same as in Latin laudare originally meant to 
 name aloud, name or mention' 2 . That avaivo\xai is no compound 
 of this au>a), see art. 21. sect. 10 3 . 
 
 1 In the printed copies of Hesychius it is alvcbv, by a misunderstand- 
 ing of the word fiapvTovcos. 
 
 2 See Gellius 2, 6. where, although badly, the illaudatus Busiris of 
 Virgil is explained by this original meaning of laudo. In the common 
 language of the Roman authors we never rind laudo in this sense except 
 it is joined with the word testem or auctorem ; and only in modern Latin 
 is laudare alone used in the sense of to quote or make mention of. Ade- 
 lung in his German Dictionary makes a very just comparison between 
 this word and the German participles obbelobt, oftbelobt, [used in the 
 technical language of German law, for above-mentioned, often-mentioned, 
 while in common language belobt merely means be-praised] : and if any 
 one should suppose that the idea of praise is properly the ground of all 
 these expressions, because, strictly speaking, we rely as authorities only 
 on those whom we can praise and recommend as worthy of credit, I an- 
 swer, that I do not think it probable the ancients would have said, " I 
 praise as a witness, I extol as an authority such and such a one ;" but 
 much rather the reverse, that in this, as in all languages, from the 
 weaker sense arose gradually, by the repetition of single cases, the 
 more forcible meaning; and so from the idea of to name aloud, quote, 
 mention, came that of to praise, extol*. If now we search after cognate 
 words of the verb aivctv in the simple sense of speaking, we find the 
 Latin aio ; and the Greek alaa is in respect to its derivation exactly like 
 the Latin fatum. 
 
 ; 3 Of the two ways of compounding there rejected I would remark, 
 
 * [Thus, " I have heard it much spoken of" is almost equivalent to 
 " I have heard it much praised." — Ed.] 
 
60 II. An/09, eiraLvrj. 
 
 1. The epithet of Ulysses -noXvaivos is generally understood 
 of praise ; and thence the more ancient commentators saw in 
 II. A, 430. where Socus says, 
 
 9 J2 y Obv(T€v irdkvaive, BoXcov ar r}8e novoio, 
 
 an irony, for which they have been blamed, and not without 
 justice, if their rejection of the regular sense arose from their 
 objection to praise in the mouth of an enemy. But it cannot 
 be denied, that, if ttoXvcllvos means much praised or celebrated, 
 the expressions in that passage do not suit well together. Some 
 of the ancients, however, explained the word by irokvixvOos also; 
 which, if understood to mean loquacious, might be an epithet 
 suited to Nestor, but by no means to Ulysses. But the word 
 euros in its sense of a speech has a particular and limited mean- 
 ing. Mv6o$ is in general any speech, conversation, narration ; 
 ahos is only a speech full of meaning, or cunningly imagined. 
 Such it is in the only passage of Homer where it has not 
 the meaning of praise, Od. £, 508. It is there used of the 
 short and pithy narrative of Ulysses, the cunning object of 
 which Eunvaeus understands and applauds. In Hesiod, e, 200. 
 it is a moral fable, and in other old writers sometimes a fable, 
 sometimes a proverb. How, then, can it be for a moment 
 doubted, that iroXvaivos, an epithet given exclusively to Ulysses, 
 relates solely to that particular sort of speeches which marks so 
 strikingly his character ? 
 
 3. Much more difficult is the explanation of the Epic epi- 
 thet of Proserpine kiraivri, which occurs twice in the Iliad, four 
 
 however, that the one with the negative dv would be the preferable ; 
 first from the analogy of the Latin nego formed from ne and aio ; in 
 which, however, the transition to the first conjugation answers to that 
 which in Greek is required by the regular rule. For as from dlcere is 
 formed not judicere but judicare, as from ne and aio not negere but ne- 
 gare, so also in Greek nothing could be regularly compounded of a'iva> 
 by the addition of the negative particle but duaive<o. In this case, there- 
 fore, recourse must be had to examples of irregular composition, which 
 certainly do occur ; vid. drUiv in Theogn. 621. and Macrob. de Verbo ; 
 dvn.\xdp6ai, Plut. de Plac. I. 27. But in investigating the derivation of 
 any common usage of language we must consider not single exceptions, 
 which are very generally somewhat too individual, but as much as pos- 
 sible only fixed analogies. 
 
II. Atvog, eiraivr}. 61 
 
 times in the Odyssey, and twice in the Theogonia. Except in 
 these passages it is never met with. First then, the lexicons 
 must be corrected, in which kitaivos, y\, 6v stands with two re- 
 gular and distinct meanings, which, however, are taken only 
 from the different explanations given by the grammarians of the 
 same passages, without any mention of the word being confined 
 entirely so Proserpine 4 . 
 
 4. Of these two explanations (for a third given by Eusta- 
 thius is not worth mentioning) the one is, that it stands for 
 k-naivzrr], in which case it is generally taken for an euphemis- 
 mus ; the other is, that it is the same as alvr\. That the old 
 grammarians, who were so much in the dark about the form- 
 ation of words, should have proposed such explanations, does 
 not astonish me ; but from the moderns I should have expected 
 some discussion or some hesitation expressed at such explana- 
 tions. Of the two, the latter is more generally approved of, 
 on account of the sense. But that ancient language of Homer's 
 time knows nothing whatever of the mere compounding of an 
 adjective with a preposition, which is not explained by some 
 sentence or expression, as kitihe^ios from k-n\ begta, or e7rairto?, 
 which properly does not come from atnos bat from ah Lav im- 
 (p€p€iv. To say that the Zttl in iiratvos is redundant, or that 
 it adds to the force of the simple, is mere words and not criti- 
 cism. As for the other meaning of k-naiverri, I know of no 
 other admissible way of explaining it, but by supposing that 
 titaivos (for so it must be accented in every case) comes from 
 alvos in the same way as the above-mentioned t-nahios, eirt- 
 Xpvvos and the like ; that is to say, in the sense of vtivi alvos 
 tTTtvTiv or €7r«£epeTcu. Certainly not an analogy conclusive 
 enough to oblige us to admit so tame and unmeaning an ad- 
 jective as praiseworthy for an epithet of the infernal goddess 
 Proserpine. These considerations appear to me weighty enough 
 to justify my offering a conjecture of my own, which, however, 
 is ready in its turn to yield to any new opinion better than those 
 which have hitherto been handed down to us. 
 
 4 An assertion made in the notes of Jacob's Anthologia, on occasion 
 of a conjecture of Scaliger on Epigr. 30. of Crinagoras, that this epi- 
 thet was given to both goddesses who presided over the Mysteries, has 
 neither ground nor authority. 
 
62 II. Alvog, €7raivrj. 
 
 5. We have seen that this epithet has been given only to 
 Proserpine, but I would also observe that she has it only when 
 she is joined in the construction with Pluto. II. 1, 457. 
 
 Beol §' erihetop iirapas 
 Zeus re KaraxOovios m\ inaivrj Hepcrecpopeia. 
 
 h 5 6 9- 
 
 KikXtjo-kov^ *A.tdi]v Ka\ iirmvrjv Hepaefpoveiav. 
 
 Od. k, 534. A, 47. 
 
 €TTevga<r6cu Se Beoiaip 
 'l(pdifX(o t 'Aidy kcu iiraLPrj Uepcrecpoveiqi 
 
 k, 491. 563. of such who go 
 
 ~Els 'AiSao dop,ovs kcu e7rcuvrjs Tlepcrecpopeias. 
 
 Hes. d, 768. 
 
 *Ev6a Qtov xdoptov npoadev dopoi r)xV €VTes 
 'icpOi/xov r 'AiSea>, kcu €7ratvi]s JJepaeCpovelas. 
 
 and a little further, 774. in the same words, 
 
 7rv\ea)P eKToaOep lopra 
 'lcpOtfxov t 'At§eG> kol eTraivrjs Heparecpopeias. 
 
 And as if to prove that this epithet is inadmissible except in 
 this connexion, we find that in the same book of the Odyssey, 
 where it does so occur once, viz. A. 47., the goddess is named 
 alone three times, 212. 225. 634. and though in the same part 
 of the verse and where the same epithet would suit the rhythm, 
 yet it is always ayavrj Yltpo-tfyoveia. From this, however, so 
 much is evident, that this way of joining the name of Proserpine 
 with that of Pluto was an old Epic formula handed down even 
 to Homer and our oldest Greek poets from still earlier times, 
 and which they used unchanged. Now at the first of the pas- 
 sages quoted above, II. t, 457. the old Scholia in Heyne have 
 preserved the reading 
 
 kol eV aura) Hepaecpopeta. 
 
 My conjecture, therefore, is that this in clvtu is an old gloss of 
 e7r' alone, and that the old formula was this 
 
 "icpdipos t 'Aidrjs kci\ eV alvf] lie pare(p6pcia. 
 
 Compare among other similar passages II. v, 800. irpb [xkv cl\aol 
 
12. Ai'oXo?, eoXrjTO. 63 
 
 ap7)poT€s, avrap en akXoi. On this simple idea others have cer- 
 tainly fallen, but they covered and obscured it, because this em 
 does not suit equally well all the above-mentioned passages. 
 Now it appears to me an imaginable case, that this formula, 
 which suits excellently well in connexion with klk\yi(tk€lv and 
 €7T€v£a(r6cu, became, by the ear and the mouth being from old 
 times accustomed to it, established in passages where it was less 
 natural; as, for instance, in the genitives of the last-quoted 
 passages. And, trifling as such a confirmation may seem, I will 
 not withhold it, that at Od. k, 534. a Vienna manuscript actually 
 has Kal €tt alvfi Utpcrecfyovziq. 
 
 6. It appears to me also worthy of remark, first, that in 
 one of the passages where ayavr) stands, Od. A., 634. there ex- 
 isted a various reading knaivr) (vid. Clarke ad 1. and Hemst. ad 
 Lucian. Necyom. 10.), but without taking root; secondly, that in 
 one of the old magical formulas in Lucian, as mentioned above, 
 which gives Proserpine this same epithet, it stands as before 
 in connexion, not indeed with Pluto, but with another of the 
 infernal deities, 
 
 Kai vv^iav 'JLKarrjv, Kai enaivrjv Tleparecjioveiav. 
 
 For so have the critics restored it from alireivrju, (a mistake 
 easily made in transcribing,) yet without remarking, at least 
 without recording the remark, that it is an hexameter verse 
 interwoven with the prose context. 
 
 I 2. AioAoy, eoXrjTO. 
 
 1 . Aio'Aos is one of those words on which everything essential 
 with regard to its sense in Homer has long since been said %nd 
 acknowledged to be said, and yet neither in the lexicons nor 
 the notes of commentators are to be found the requisite fixed- 
 ness and certainty of meaning ; arising solely from the fault, 
 that in explaining separate passages the force of the word in 
 all the passages of Homer taken together is not kept suffi- 
 ciently concentrated in one point of view. Aiokos vibrates in 
 meaning between diversity in time — moveable, — and diversity 
 in space — different, of different colours. It may very well be 
 
64 12. AtoXo?, iokrjro. 
 
 imagined that these two relative senses might have been found 
 together as early as Homer. This, however, must not be decided 
 from separate passages, where it is possible that one person 
 might prefer (for instance in alokos o$ts) the idea of flexible, 
 another the idea of varicoloured ; but from one view of its usage 
 in all the passages of Homer taken collectively. 
 
 2. The most decisive passage for the meaning of moveable is 
 II. r, 404. irobas alokos 1777709, the nimble-footed horse ; and next 
 to this the verb alokkv in Od. v, 27. which stands for the turning 
 of a piece of meat backwards and forwards before the fire, h6a 
 kclI evOa alokket. With this we may join KopvOatokos, which has 
 never been taken by any judicious interpreter in any other 
 sense than the above ; and we have then ample proofs to esta- 
 blish this meaning. The wasps might very well bear the epi- 
 thet of varicoloured ; but since in II. /m, 167. the expression is 
 o-(f)rJK€s ixio-ov aiokoi, none but a grammarian could have given 
 it this meaning when joined with /xeow (see Schol. and Apollon. 
 Lex.). In no insect is flexibility more evident than in the wasp, 
 where the lower part of its body is joined as it were by a point 
 with the upper. The gadfly, indeed, has the epithet simply in 
 Od. x , 3°°- 
 
 Tas (the COWS) [xev r alo\os olarpos e(f)oppr}Se\s eftovrjcreV 
 
 but the expression of varicoloured suits this insect far less than 
 the former ; and, on the other hand, the quick motion of the 
 insect, continually flying backwards and forwards, repeatedly 
 driven off and as often returning, is so characteristic, and the 
 idea of all this so appropriate to the passage, that here also it 
 seems impossible to hesitate. The maggots, or worms , which 
 
 are eating a dead body, II. x> 509. Nw 8e <re Alokcu evkal 
 
 Zhovrai, admit, indeed, of the idea of a diversity in space ; but 
 every one must have observed, that in this passage the quick 
 motion of this multitude of reptiles is the great, prominent, and 
 striking point in the description; the proper meaning, there- 
 fore is, moving swarms of maggots. Much more probable is 
 it, as I have already mentioned, that a doubt should arise con- 
 cerning the serpent ; but still, when it is considered that the 
 spiral windings of the serpent are characteristic of that reptile, 
 and that the effect of the picture is much stronger, if we repre- 
 
12. AtoAo9, eoXrjTO. 65 
 
 sent to ourselves the Trojans seized with terror at seeing the 
 serpent dropped by the eagle, and lying before them (as Voss 
 translates it) coiling himself up, we shall see no necessity for 
 translating the epithet in this passage otherwise than we have 
 rendered it before of the other animals. 
 
 3. There remains now only the armour, which we will first 
 take as we find it collectively in II. e, 295. apafi-qae be revx* 
 hi 1 CLVT& Aloka irapLcpavocovra. Again, we find separately at A, 
 
 374., OvprjKa Alvvt cltto <TTr)6€(T(pL iravatokov' at 8, 186. 
 
 Yilpvaaro (ti)crrr]p iravaiokos' at 77, 222. f/ Oj ol iiroCrja-ev <r a- 
 
 kos alokov k-nrafioeiov. Here, then, indecision in the explana- 
 tion of alokos is very natural ; nay, as its other meaning does 
 exist in the language, it is easily to be conceived that in speak- 
 ing of such things as these it would have the preference, parti- 
 cularly as Ttvyea uotKika yaknti are so frequent, and as shield, 
 coat of mail, and belt are so distinguished amidst the armour 
 by splendour, ornament, and diversity of workmanship ; whence 
 also a superior coat of mail, II. it, J 34., is called iroiKikos doT€- 
 poets, and at k, 149. the o~clkos is iroiKtkov. Nor should one be 
 inclined without hesitation to call the heavy shield of Ajax, 
 with Voss, agile. I grant that these are the passages where 
 the two ideas most of all play into each other ; but then only 
 because it is the flexibility of the whole armour, which properly 
 causes its diversity of colour and the quick transition from 
 one shade to another. To instance this in particulars, it is 
 essential to the coat of mail that all its parts should favour 
 the different motions of the body. Consequently it is com- 
 posed of different parts, and those parts are composed of rings 
 and scales ; these, when put together, necessarily cause a di- 
 versity of appearance, which, however, is only visible by the 
 motion of the armour. The shield, indeed, is firm and solid 
 in itself, but the constant motion of the arm which carries it 
 produces the same effect; and however large a shield may be, 
 still the skilful armourer was obliged to make it proportionably 
 light and wieldy ; and the hero who bore it must have been able 
 to manage it with ease, or it would not have done him the ser- 
 vice of a shield, which in its very nature must be alokos or easily 
 moved in any direction. The same results are found also in 
 the compounds of alokos. Thus alokoirukos refers to the quick 
 
 F 
 
66 12. Af'oAo?, eoXrjro. 
 
 and active guiding of the horses, alokodcaprjg is one who moves 
 his coat of mail easily or moves himself easily in his coat of mail, 
 an expression which becomes more clear by being compared 
 with KopvdaLoXos, which admits of no other meaning, and would 
 certainly have been alokoKopvs if the metre had allowed it. The 
 belt, which must go tight round the waist, is composed of parts 
 and very flexible : in the same way what is called by Homer 
 juurprj, is likewise made of metal and worn under the fao-Trip ; 
 therefore, the idea of varicoloured is never once attached to it. 
 II. b, 185. a\ka TT&potdtv Elpvaaro (toOTr\p re iravaioXos 178' virivepOep 
 Z&fxa re kcu /JLLTpT], ttjv xaA/ojes- KcifjLOv avbpes. Now in this part of 
 the body above all others suppleness and flexibility are essen- 
 tial, and on that is founded also the epithet aiokopLiTprjs, II. e, 
 707. — Because, therefore, as we have said before, the idea of 
 varicoloured and of changing quickly from shade to shade does 
 of itself accompany the idea of moveableness, this latter alone 
 is to be admitted as the radical meanirfg in all these passages of 
 Homer. 
 
 4. In a multiplicity of other things also itolklXos and aloKos 
 may be used with the same leading sense ; as when Ulysses is 
 called by Homer 7roi/c6Ao/x7Jr?7s and Sisyphus by Hesiod in Fr. 
 ap. Schol. Pind. Pyth. 4, 252. cuoAo/x^rrjs ; that is to say, the 
 former gives an idea of a diversity of plans, the latter of a 
 rapidity of change from one plan to another. But in the same 
 way as tiolkIXos is an epithet of things to which the idea of 
 moveableness does not belong, or which it does not suit as a 
 poetical epithet, for instance, couches, garments, Od. a, 132. 
 II. e, 735., a curiously-tied fastening, Od. 6, 448. ; so we have 
 seen above aiokos joined to things which are not iroiKiAa. Thus, 
 then, judicious criticism requires, that in passages where both 
 ideas suit the sense, that alone should be selected which the 
 word has elsewhere. 
 
 5. Another circumstance tends to prove the uniformity of the 
 meaning of this word in Homer, that in very old poems imme- 
 dintely succeeding his age the word is used for varicoloured so 
 decisively as it never is met with in his writings. For in Hymn. 
 Merc. 33. the shell of the tortoise, the slowest of all animals, 
 is called alokov oarpaKOv. I will not bring forward the pas- 
 sage of Hesiod's Shield of Hercules to prove that the grapes 
 
12. AioAo?, eoXrjTO. 67 
 
 being of different colours as they ripen in summer is expressed 
 by or 6\x<\>aKts alokkovrat ; for by this expression we need not 
 understand their difference of colour, but the rapid change of 
 their colours as they ripen ; at the same time we see here a 
 transition from the first meaning to the second, such as we 
 have not found in Homer. Besides, as a convincing proof 
 that the meaning of moveable is the only original one, it pre- 
 vails so decisively through every period of the Greek language, 
 that the other is to be regarded only as a poetical extension 
 of it. In prose, indeed, the word very seldom occurs : Schnei- 
 der, however, in his Lexicon quotes from Aristotle aiokas 77/xe- 
 pas, "changeable days;" and the word aUkovpos, alkovpos arises 
 most certainly from that strong and snake-like motion of the 
 tail which is so characteristic of cats, and not from its being of 
 different colours, which might as well be said of any other part 
 of its body 1 . 
 
 6. The aloka vv£ of Sophocles Trach. 94. 132. is brought 
 into comparison with the 66r\ vv£ of Homer by one of the ex- 
 planations of the Scholiast. And certainly when one sees that 
 in both these passages, the first of which is an address to the 
 sun, *Ov aloka vvf; £vapi(op.£va tlktzl, KaT€vvd(ei re, and in the 
 
 other, fjiivet yap ovt aloka vv£ jSpoTolcnv , that in both these 
 
 the night is represented as in its passage and in a state of 
 change, there seems considerable ground for thinking that 
 Sophocles used aloka as a learned imitation of the Oorj of Ho- 
 mer. However, considering that the same poet certainly uses 
 alokos for varicoloured, when he makes Philoctetes say (Philoct. 
 1 157.) "the birds glut themselves e/xa? aapKos aiokas" which 
 can admit of no other meaning ; and that Euripides in the se- 
 cond fragment of his Pirithous gives to the night the epithet of 
 alokoxpois ; I cannot but decide in favour of the other interpre- 
 tation for Sophocles, " the starry night." And certainly it is 
 more suitable that in both passages the night should borrow an 
 epithet from any thing, rather than from what is said in the 
 remainder of the sentence itself*. 
 
 1 The derivation brought forward by Salmasius (Ex. Plin. p. 1009.) 
 from alXeiv, 6co7rev€iv (Hesych.) and ovpd springs from the same ori- 
 ginal idea. See the note at the end of this article. 
 
 * [Passow in his improved edition of Schneider's Lexicon gives the 
 
 F 2 
 
68 12. AloXog, eoXrjro. 
 
 7. I join with this word the verb eokrjro in Apoll. Rhod., 
 which modern commentators generally derive from aioAo?. I 
 had compared it in my Grammar with ixefxoprjTat, beboKrjfxat, fiefio- 
 \7]vto, and derived it from €tAo> in the sense of, was squeezed, 
 pressed. Btickh has upon this the following remark on Pind. 
 Pyth. 4, 414. mihi simplicior et magis perspicua a voce eoAea> 
 (aioAeco) derivatio videtur, quanquam eoAetz/ et eiAeiz/ affinia esse 
 non nego. Hence with reference to this form of Apollonius 
 Rhod. he changes in Pindar cuoAAet, which was contrary to 
 the metre, into coAet, and adds, constat enim veteres sic et pro- 
 nunciasse et partim scripsisse. All this requires a more accurate 
 discussion. 
 
 8. To the genuineness of the verb aloXelv no objection can 
 be made. In the lexicons may be seen aioXavOai and a7rato- 
 Xelv with its derivatives. Hippocrates uses aloKaaOai rf] yvcafjirj 
 of the changeable mind of a sick person, and Euripides Ion. 
 549. has Tama fxe airaiokei, "this makes me uncertain what to 
 say, puzzles me." It was therefore very natural, in the two 
 passages to which Bockh's note refers, to think of this verb. 
 But that it is also a more simple derivation to derive eokrjTo from 
 atoAeo) than from any other verb, I cannot allow. The more 
 simple derivation is not that which meets the eye or the ear 
 more quickly than another, but that which accords with well- 
 known rules and analogies, bringing with it the fewest things to 
 be taken for granted. In the present case the first thing to be 
 taken for granted is that e comes from at, a thing by no means 
 grounded on any satisfactory analogy. That the ancients pro- 
 
 following meanings of aloXos : 1st, quick, agile, turning or moving it- 
 self easily or quickly ; nodas aloXos, nimble-footed, II. r, 404. Used 
 elsewhere in Homer of serpents, worms or maggots, and gadflies. Me- 
 aov alokoi, applied to wasps, as being particularly flexible in the middle 
 of their body, II. /u, 167. Homer has also aloka reject and aloXov (raws, 
 by which some understand, " easily or quickly moved, light ;" others, 
 " varicoloured," of colours shifting quickly from shade to shade. 2nd, 
 of many colours, varicoloured, of colours which shift quickly from one 
 shade to another ; vv^ aloXos, the starry night, Sophocl. Multiform, 
 varied. Metaph. changeable, uncertain, crafty, cunning, deceitful, \//-e0- 
 dos, Pind. N. 8, 42. as compared with noiKiXon \JkutWt, Olymp. 1, 46. 
 AioXot wepai, changeable, uncertain days on account of the weather, 
 Aristot. Probl. 26, 14. — Ed.] 
 
12. Al6\o$ 7 eoXrjTO. 69 
 
 nounced at like e cannot be asserted so unequivocally as Bdckh 
 does. For no one will maintain that the same mouth pro- 
 nounced -nais like pes, and also made by 'diaeresis irais ; or that 
 the ancients, whom we are here reviewing, could have pro- 
 nounced Mala like Mea. It is only within certain limitations 
 carefully marked out, particularly when we are speaking of a 
 period of such antiquity, that we can adopt the supposition, 
 that in a part of the dialects the pronunciation of e for at did 
 take place in those early times. (Vid. Buttmann's Ausfiihr. 
 Sprach., sect. 5. obs. 6*.) The analogy of aiu>pa tatpa, and 
 yata yea, is not sufficient to prove it ; for in these two cases we 
 have not the pronunciation of at for e, but the change of at into 
 e, exactly as a is changed into e in Ados \ed>s, fxvaa pivia. Ac- 
 cording to this analogy, from alokeiv could come only ecoAety ; 
 and therefore the o> must be again shortened to form eoAet. 
 
 * The Latins write the Greek at and 01 by ce and ce ; e. g. Qalbpos 
 Phcedrus, 'A^atos Achceus, KoiXr) Ccele, Tlolas Poeas. Only some few 
 names in aia, 01a retain the i in the Latin, probably because it passed 
 into aj ; as Mala, Tpota, Maja, Troja, ('A^aia was in pure Greek a word 
 of four syllables, 'A^aia, whence it naturally became in Latin Acha'ia, 
 Achaja : Alas also became Ajax.) In the same way the Greeks wrote 
 for Caesar Kalaap, for Cloelia KXotXta. Necessarily, therefore, these 
 diphthongs must have been very similar to each other in the old pro- 
 nunciation of both languages ; the cause of which lay undoubtedly in 
 this, that ce, ce had not originally the sounds which they have gene- 
 rally now in German and English, but as true diphthongs came very 
 near the sounds at, 01 a. This becomes more certain by the writing of 
 Comcedus, as it is still less conceivable that the long w should have been 
 pronounced by the Latins like at. Further, as such contractions and 
 resolutions as nais and 7rai9, ois and ols, and even in the Latin poets 
 Albui and Albce, always remained familiar to the ear ; all this added to 
 the names Maja, Troja, shows that the sounds at, 01 were at all events 
 the older pronunciation, but by no means an obsolete one, which, there- 
 fore, we are justified in adhering to in Greek. In later times the pro- 
 nunciation of ce for ai became the current one in Greece ; while for 01, 
 they took not ce, but the long i — Buttm. A. S. 5, 6. 
 
 a In order to see the possibility of this, we may compare the Flemish 
 ae, which is written differently from the aa of the Dutch, and conse- 
 quently is a diphthong, while the latter is purely a lengthening of the a. 
 The oe has in these languages no corresponding pronunciation but the 
 sound of u: and it is remarkable, that in Latin poena passed over into 
 punio, mania into munio. Rigidius, in Gell. 19, j 4., expressly says that 
 in ce, an c was sounded after the a. 
 
70 12. AloXog, €o\t]TO. 
 
 This also is possible ; provided there were but one thing to be 
 granted to favour this derivation. But then again eoXrjro must 
 stand for r\6\r]To, which third supposition is still more arbitrary 
 than the others. That is to say, if there existed such a verb as 
 eoAew for aioAeco, the imperfects without the augment would 
 indisputably be eoAei, eoAeiro ; but iokrjro is according to its 
 termination a plusquam-perfectum, and contrary to all Epic 
 analogy, without the augment arising from the reduplication of 
 the perfect, and to adapt its time to the sense and the passage 
 in question other suppositions must be granted which would 
 destroy all simplicity of explanation. On the contrary, with 
 regard to form, my derivation is perfectly simple; for I have 
 only to say, as btbtypLcu has a similar form of the same meaning 
 btboKrjfjLai, (compare 11. b, 107. with 0, 730.), exactly so has eeAjuat 
 (II. v, 524. and elsewhere) — eoXrjixai. (Vid. Buttmann's Ausfuhr. 
 Sprach., sect. J 12, 9*.) 
 
 9. But to explain this more in detail. The verb etAco, with 
 the meanings of to push, press, drive, beat, is, in its more sim- 
 ple forms eAcrat, eeAjuat, &c, an old Epic word, which I shall 
 discuss in its turn in a separate article. With this verb, then, 
 which has the digamma, as is clear from the form eeAjuat, I com- 
 pare the verb Zokrjro, and understand it to mean in Apollonius 
 Rhod. 3 , 47 1 . 
 
 *H fiev ap as eoXrjro v6ov pe\e8rjpa(ri Kovprj, 
 
 she was pressed down, oppressed ; with which the explanations 
 of the scholiasts and old lexicographers, herapaKTo, h ayoavia 
 rjv, €7rTor]To, tobvvrjTo, agree remarkably well. Only in the Etym. 
 M. there is a remark, that it is also written with at; and the 
 
 * Many barytone dissyllables, which have an e in the radical sylla- 
 ble, make sister forms by changing the vowel into o, and taking the 
 termination eco : cpep&> and (fropeai, rpepto and rpopeoo, (fiefiopai commonly 
 c/)o/3eo/L«H ; so also iropOeoa, Sopeoo, /3popew, noreopat. Or the radical sylla- 
 ble has o), and the termination is dec : crrpoxpaa) for crrpe<pa>, rpco^aw for 
 rpe'^co ; SO also 8a>pda>, /Upcojuao), vcopdo), rpa)7raco, 7rooraopcu. According to 
 the first formation some have sister-forms in the perfect only : bebo- 
 icrjfiivos for bedeypevos from bcicofxai or bex°pai ; and therefore also ckto- 
 vrjKa, ptpop^rai, eoXrjro, from ktcivco, (Mfipopai, fi'Xo) ; also @efi6\T)p.ai from 
 
 /3uAAa). — Butlm A. S. 112, 9. 
 
12. AfoXo?, €0\t]T0. 71 
 
 idea of connecting it with. alokdadai was strengthened by ob- 
 serving that in the speech of the damsel immediately before the 
 verse in question there is a considerable hesitation of purpose 
 shown by her first trying to banish from her mind all sympathy 
 for Jason, and then giving utterance to it. An imperfect, there- 
 fore, (but no plusquam-perfectum,) with the sense of ouoAetro, 
 might stand here perfectly well ; at the same time it is anything 
 but necessary : for the expression, " her mind was pressed, or 
 weighed down (eeAro, eokrjro) with cares," brings before our eyes 
 those feelings of the damsel as a necessary consequence of it, and 
 as depicted in the preceding speech. 
 
 10. Without doubt, then, Apollonius Rhod. found this word 
 in the older Epic language ; one plain proof of which is the 
 Pindaric ioket; for the certainty of this amendment of Bockh 
 is rendered by the metre unquestionable, and the reading of the 
 manuscripts, aio'AAet, has no more weight against it than the va- 
 rious reading alok-qro has in the verse of Apollonius Rhod. be- 
 fore us. This eo'Aet is therefore the regular imperfect of the 
 digammaed verb okdv — eokovv, eo'Aet. The sense too is equally 
 correct ; Ylvp bt viv ovk eo'Aet irapL^appidKOv %eivas e^er/^ats, " the 
 flame (from the fire-breathing steeds) did not oppress, disturb, 
 drive away Jason :" for that the sense of alokkeiv, aiokziv, " he 
 did not suffer himself to be moved from his purpose," also 
 suits this passage, arises only from this circumstance, that these 
 ideas taken in a moral sense are always united or connected 
 together. For the full confirmation, however, of this reading 
 we have only to consult the gloss of Hesychius, which gives 
 us the present of this verb : 'OAei, tvoykti, e^okoOpevet. Un- 
 doubtedly this gloss has generally been overlooked, from an 
 idea that it belonged to okkvvai, oAeiy ; and perhaps some may 
 have been inclined to consider it as a comic expression, as we 
 say of a troublesome or tiresome person, " he is enough to kill 
 one." But oAei from okkvpa can only be the future. And the 
 explanation ZgokoOptvet, being solely a word of the later Greek, 
 must have been placed there by one of the late grammarians. 
 'E^oxAet is therefore without doubt the only old explanation ; 
 and in two other glosses of Hesychius it actually does stand 
 alone, 'OAaet, €vo\k€i, kcll 'OAa0ei o/xoiW The accent of these 
 two last forms is without doubt incorrect; for a form dAaeco 
 
72 13* y A.K€COV, OLKTjV. 
 
 is scarcely conceivable. On the contrary, 'OAew, 'OAaco, and 
 'OAatfco are perfectly analogous forms, the two first like 7roreo/xat 
 and TTOTaofjiaL from irerofjicu, the last like 6pfj,d6(a and others. 
 To prove that the idea of €vo\kelv, to be troublesome or bur- 
 densome, is very near akin to that of to press down, oppress, 
 will require no discussion. I think, therefore, I "may now con- 
 fidently propose the three forms dAei, eo'Aei, and iSkrjTo as all 
 coming from the verb v EA<t>, et'Aco with the idea of, to press, press 
 down, oppress' 2 . 
 
 ii. As to the verbs alokkeiv and eiAciv having been originally 
 the same, I see nothing to indicate it. The latter verb we may 
 find plain enough as a root in "EAw, e'Ao-ai, to beat, strike, push, 
 &c, if we look to art. 87. sect. 4. But aio'AAco comes according 
 to all analogy from aioAos, which is undoubtedly an adjectival 
 form with its root in the first syllable : and the old comparison 
 of this word with aeAAa appears to me by no means to be re- 
 jected; for aeAAa comes already recommended to our notice by 
 its connexion with Atokos, the god of the winds. All these, 
 then, come from ao> : the diphthong at is the very common 
 change of a before a vowel, and aioAoj therefore means blowing, 
 flapping, moving, &c. 3 
 
 13. 'A/ceo)^, CLKrjv. 
 
 1. As Homer uses not only dfceW, but also certain of its 
 cases, such as aKeovaa, II. a, 565. 569. clk€ovt€, Od. £, 195., no 
 doubt has been entertained of its being the participle of a verb 
 clk€q> ; which, with the substantive olkt\, and its supposed accusa- 
 
 2 Whether the gloss of Hesychius cvk-qro, iirtyvpTo, hcrdpaKro, is to 
 be explained as an error of transcription for i6\rjTo, or a various read- 
 ing, of it, or whether this latter form, after the disappearance of the 
 digamma, was contracted in the dialects to cvXtjto, I leave to others to 
 determine. 
 
 3 Compare with this in the Etym. M. aei'XXeii/, 6a>neveiv kol aacdWeiv : 
 in Hesych. aeXXft, $iAei, KaKaufvei : ai'XetJ/, 8a}7reveiv, with the notes. For 
 it is clear that these meanings come from the idea of <raiveiv, and there- 
 fore from the motion of the dog's tail betokening fondness. 
 
13. 'A/ceW, GLKTjV. 73 
 
 tive dK7Ji>, has been compared with ^/ca, and all considered as 
 of the same family of words, with the idea of rest, stillness. 
 I shall hope to show in a separate article in its proper place, 
 that 77*0, belongs to another root with a very different radical 
 idea. As for d/cea>z>, if it be properly a participle, it is difficult 
 to explain how it ever could have come to pass that this sin- 
 gular and masculine form should have been, contrary to all 
 analogy, used and joined both with the feminine and the plural ; 
 as in II. 6, 459. 
 
 ■"Hroi ' A6j]vaiT] a.Kea>v r)v ovre tl eiirev. 
 
 and in Od. <p, 89. 
 
 'AAA' d/cecov 8aivvcr6e KaOrjfifvoi.. 
 
 I follow, therefore, the explanation of those who have derived 
 aKriv from yaiveiv with the a privative. The Ionic change of 
 X and k is familiar enough by such words as K€Kabov, beKOfjiai, 
 &c, and in this family of words in particular is confirmed by 
 the verb Kea£a>, I cleave, i. e. yatvtiv itolco. 'AktJv, therefore, 
 is an adverbial form from x«^i>, \aiveiv, confirmed by the ana- 
 logy of aTTpicLT-qv. For instead of adverbs were used, particu- 
 larly in the older Greek, many cases of adjectives ; for in- 
 stance, the accus. sing, and plur. of the neuter, and the dative 
 and accus. sing, of the feminine, as heivov, iKirayka, Koivfi, fxa- 
 Kpdv. In the same way we may account for many adverbial 
 forms derived from lost adjectives, as 71X770- iW, 8ixt) (for 8ixS) 
 and 8ixa? ircpav. Let us now suppose an adjective clkclos, non 
 hiscens, silent; then the ana of Pindar (vid. article 7^/ca, &c.) 
 will be either the neuter plur. of it for a*aa, or the dat. fern, 
 for a.Kaq. For the accus. fern, axaav would have come in the 
 Ionic dialect a.K€r]v and a k 77 v, and from the neut. sing, clkclov 
 would be formed anew, according to the analogy of tkaov tkeuv. 
 It is true that in these forms we see a difference of accent ; but 
 that we see in many others also, of whose origin we have now 
 lost all traces (compare 8ix*/ anc ^ ^X a )j nor ^ s ** possible for 
 us to ascertain how much of the accenting of these old poetical 
 forms was genuine ancient tradition, and how much arose from 
 the etymological suppositions of the grammarians. The ety- 
 mological sense of the forms before us was indisputably no 
 
74 13' 'A/ceW, aKrjV. 
 
 longer felt even in a very early period of the Greek language. 
 And this was the cause of axewv, so frequently found in sen- 
 tences whose subject was a masc. sing., being considered as an 
 adjective or participle, and inflected accordingly. In the Ger- 
 man language there is a very similar case in the old interjection 
 lieber! which certainly almost every German would at once say 
 is the masc. sing, of an adjective, and consequently would look 
 upon its use in those passages of Scripture where it is addressed 
 to a female or to more persons than one (as in Genesis xii. 13. 
 and xxxiv. 8.) as a grammatical error. But lieber ', like leider, 
 is an adverbial form, originating in the old dative. Leider means 
 mir zum Leide, lieber means mir zur Liebe *. And as from the 
 mistake in supposing cUeW to be a participle, arose aKkovaa, 
 clk€ovt€ even as early as Homer's time, so the later writers went 
 further, and Apollonius Rhod. 1, 765. has even the verb d/ceotj. 
 From a similar source must have come that solitary instance of 
 the subst. ctKifi, in the Hesychian gloss olkt\v rjyes, rjau^av rjyes. 
 The adj. a,K.a\6s comes from aKrjv. The transition of meaning 
 from silent, quiet, to the idea of tranquil, quiet, without being 
 disturbed or interrupted, which, however, in Homer is not a very 
 apparent sense except in Od. £, J95«> is so natural that it re- 
 quires no discussion. 
 
 2. From this explanation of clk€(ov as an adverb it may per- 
 haps be allowed that anew baivvade is a very natural expres- 
 sion ; but aK€a>v joined with a verb substantive may possibly 
 
 * [To make this illustration somewhat intelligible to the English 
 scholar who may not understand German, it should be observed, that 
 the German adjectives are inflected like the Greek and Latin, with dif- 
 ferent terminations for case, gender, and number ; that lieber, as an 
 adjective, is the nom. masc. sing, answering to the Lat. cams ; but that 
 in old German, as in the translation of the Bible, it is used as an inter- 
 jection or adverb. In the two passages referred to above in Genesis it 
 is translated in our Bible, "I pray you," in the former of which it is 
 addressed by Abraham to Sarah, in the latter by Hamor to the sons of 
 Jacob ; consequently, as masc. sing, it does not appear to accord gram- 
 matically with either of these passages. But as an adverb or interjec- 
 tion taken from the dative, and signifying, as literally as it can be trans- 
 lated, " for my pleasure or gratification, to please or gratify me," it is 
 an admirable illustration, as addressed to a German scholar, of dm, aKrjv, 
 or uKtav, according to Buttmann's derivation of them. — Ed.] 
 
14. 'A/coo-T^cra?. 75 
 
 be objected to, and it may be said that in that case it should 
 be an adjective (consequently, according to my supposition, 
 aK€Q>$ for aKao9,) and not an adverb. But the expressions ttAt;- 
 criov rjv, where the adjective TrXrjvCos might be used, and crlya 
 eoro), will satisfy this doubt, and remove all objection to the 
 unnatural masc. sing, in wv in those constructions. 
 
 1 4. 'AfcocrTrjO-as. 
 
 1. The verb aKoorrrja-as is a aira£ dpr)p.evov, being found only 
 in a simile which occurs twice in Homer, II. (,506. 0, 263. 
 
 Q,s 8 ore tis (Ttcitos lttttos afcocrr^cra? eVt (pdrvrj 
 Aca/JLOV a7roppr]^as 6elr\ nebioio upoaivcov, 
 
 &c. The accounts given by the grammarians of this word, 
 which has so completely disappeared in the post-Homeric 
 writers, and which offers no comparison of passages, must be 
 examined with great caution, since there are no external 
 evidences to guide us in distinguishing between what is of an 
 historical nature and what is mere etymological speculation. 
 Amidst a mixed mass of this kind (vid. Eustath., Schneider, 
 &c.) there is one and only one derivation, from d/coor?}, barley, 
 which at once strikes so forcibly both the eyes and the un- 
 derstanding, that we are impelled to examine whether there 
 is any foundation for it, and whether it will bear investigation. 
 I shall therefore collect from the Scholia and glosses whatever 
 bears essentially on this particular derivation. Hesych. 'A/coorrj* 
 Kpi6r\ irapa Kvnpiois. 'AKoo-rrjcray Kpidiaaras, ahrifyayrjaas. Eustath. 
 ' AKoarrjaai $€ to TTokyKpidrjaaL kclto. tovs ttglKcuovs, r\yovv to /cpi- 
 diauai. a.KO(TTal yap al KptOal. oirep cpaalv e£ 'O/xrjpoi/ pikv ov beC- 
 kvvtcli 1 , irapa be ye 'NtKavbpu (Alexiph. 106.) ko1 aWois /cetrai. 
 ol oe iraXaioi $acrt, /cat Traaas tcls Tpo<fias irapa OeaaakoLS clkoo-tcls 
 
 1 In Apollonius, where the same gloss stands in an abbreviated shape, 
 it ought to be written thus : onep e£ 'Ofxrjpov [SeiKvvvai ov] 8vvr)(TovTai. 
 The words in brackets are not in Apollonius.* The grammarian rejects 
 this explanation. 
 
76 H. 
 
 ,KO(TTt]aras. 
 
 \4yeo-Qcu. Schol. Yen. B. ol be ras Kpid&s (^aai napa 0eo-<xaAois 
 a/coo-ras elvai. 
 
 2. From these accounts we can have no doubt of the oc- 
 currence of the word olkoo-t^ barley ; and a very probable deri- 
 vation of it from a/07, on account of the beards which distin- 
 guish this species of grain, furnishes a confirmation not to be 
 rejected 2 . That Homer never used the word d/coo-rrj itself is 
 no objection to this derivation, nor that it was borrowed from 
 the Cyprians or Thessalians. Heyne has judiciously observed, 
 that old words which disappeared from common use were still 
 visible much later in certain dialects. Idioms of this kind were 
 noted while Greek was still a living language, partly for the 
 very purpose of explaining Homer and other ancient writers ; 
 and thus such words as this were introduced into the glossaries. 
 'AkoottJ, therefore, was a genuine old name for barley; and 
 though in Homer's time and in his particular country it might 
 not have been the common name for it, still an expression taken 
 from this word might very well have been in use in the lan- 
 guage of common life 3 . 
 
 2 Heyne gives this derivation ; but in one respect he has just reversed 
 the real fact by setting out with it as though it had been historically 
 transmitted down to us. Melior ratio (says he) extat in Schol. br. ciko- 
 o-Telv ductum ab dKoarrj spica, arista, et ipsce fruges, hordeum, voce antiqua 
 ab clkt], acies, ducta ; unde fuit okoco acuo, aKoarrj spica acuminata : ag- 
 noscit hoc etymon etiam Valcken., Sfc. From this one should of course 
 conclude that all the above was quoted from the old grammarians : but 
 no such thing. From spica inclusive to the end it is all etymological 
 reasoning of Valckenaer, which indeed is essentially correct. So in the 
 lexicons, that which appears to the lexicographer to be the original 
 meaning generally stands first, and then comes a chain of intermediate 
 senses, until at last we find that which is in common use, which fre- 
 quently is the only true one. In this manner a great deal of false in- 
 formation is sent into the world and finds admission into the heads of 
 students, where it keeps firm hold from the correctness of the method 
 by which it is traced. Thus in this case the first meaning given to 
 dKocrrr), namely, spica, arista, is false. 'Akoo-ttj, acuta, certainly meant 
 only this one species of grain, and was therefore synonymous with Kpidrj, 
 on which see note on art. 87. sect. 9. That Hesychius has also a gloss, 
 Kocrral, KpiOcu, is no objection to this derivation : it only shows that this 
 name was in such common use, that he has served it as he has so many 
 other words, viz. lopped off its first syllable. 
 
 3 The assertion that food in general was called by the Thessalians 
 aKoarai appears to me suspicious, although, as is frequently the case, 
 
14. 'A/coo-T*Sa-a?. 77 
 
 3. Such a common familiar expression, therefore, was o\ko- 
 (TTrjo-as, according to the opinion of those who explained it by 
 
 it is repeated many times in the Scholia and glosses. In the greater 
 Scholia it is thus joined with one of the false derivations of dKoarrjaas : 
 
 ^AKOO-TTjaas, okos ttJs (rrdaecos Xaftcov, Tovreariv 'tafia. Kal KpiOidaas. kv- 
 plcos at ndo~ai Tpo(pa\ aKoarai KaXovvrai napa Qeaaakols. cos Ka\ T$LKav8pos. 
 napa to ?<jTao~6ai to. adopara rpecpopeva iv a\\a> Kaipco napa\a$oov. Here 
 is a number of mutilated sentences which prove nothing. Of these 
 that which ends with napd Gevo-aXols cannot well have KvpLcos, which, 
 therefore, Eustathius left out. But in the smaller Scholia, napd Qeo-- 
 craXols, as well as a great deal besides, does not appear ; by the omission 
 of which the remainder is more connected and seems to draw nearer 
 the truth. j/ Akos — 'iapa. Kvpicas 8e navai at rpocpai aKoarai KaXovvrai, napa 
 to ?crTao~6ai to. aoopara Tpecpopeva iv dWoo Kaipoo. For this the Schol. 
 
 Ven. B. which I have quoted above, merely says that barley was called 
 by the Thessalians aKoo-Tal ; and this is the only passage, among so 
 many, which as kcu NiW/Spos suits, for this writer speaks only of roasted 
 barley, onTaXerjo-iv cocoo-rals. Those words, then, napa 6., cos ko\ N., 
 must be taken away, and koXovvtul will then be immediately followed 
 by napa to lo-TauQai, &.c, as it is in the lesser Scholium. I suppose, 
 therefore, that in the old commentary the explanation of cikos ttjs o-tcl- 
 o-eoos- probably stood first; next followed that of KpiOiaaas and of dxoo-r^, 
 barley ; to which was added, not from historical information but from 
 etymological sagacity, " Kvplcos, i. e. properly speaking duoo-TaL was the 
 name for food in general ;" and then comes the ground of this in the 
 words napa to to-TaaOai, &c, which however are still obscure, probably 
 because the unlearned collector omitted something essential. But it is 
 highly probable that duoo-Tr) again was derived from clkos, of which idea 
 those words (without napaXaficov, which is not in the lesser Schol. nor 
 in the Etym. Gud. v. aKoaTrjaas, and was probably tacked on from mis- 
 understanding the meaning of iv aXAw Kaipco) appear to be a periphrasis ; 
 thus, " food is called duoo-Tal from anos, because bodies by means of food 
 (rpecpopeva) are placed in a different state from what they were before." 
 Compare Aristot. Polit. 7, 16. Schneid. 7, 14, 7. (in marriages we must 
 take the advice of medical men with regard to the procreation of chil- 
 dren ;) 01 yap laTpoi rovs Kaipovs tcov crcopaTcov iKavcos Xiyovcriv. I grant 
 
 that in some particulars it may have been very different from what I 
 have conjectured ; one thing, however, I think is certain, that this gram- 
 marian derived duoo-Tr) from cikos, and particularly when I compare with 
 it the following gloss in Etym. Gud. : "Akos, Oepdnevpa' Kvplois de rep 
 aidrjpu) Oepaneveiv els aKT]V dnti-vcrpevcp (as uKecrT-qs is both a mender and 
 
 a physician) 'ivQev koXtov larpov <$>pvy(s d k o o~ t rj v \eyovaiv. In the in- 
 dex it is incorrectly altered to aKcaTrjv, as if the Phrygian tongue must 
 follow the analogy of the Greek. In the gloss is also mentioned the 
 Greek word aKearpia, and in conclusion is added, ovtcos evpov iv vnopvr]- 
 p.aTi tt}s 'Widbos. It is possible that this may be taken from a remark 
 on aKos II. 1, 250. but more probably from some detailed observation 
 
78 I4« 'Aicotrnjca?. 
 
 KpiOiavas ; for I do not consider this explanation to be an his- 
 torical tradition, but an idea of the grammarians ; an idea, 
 however, by no means to be rejected. The word KpiOiav was 
 mostly used to express the ill effects occasioned by horses being 
 overfed. KptOav was also a correct form .like x°^ v - And this 
 form is used by iEschylus in Agam. 1633. (1652.) exactly in 
 the sense which suits the passage in Homer, KpiOoavra ti&Xov, 
 "the high-fed steed." Pollux, who, lib. 7. cap. 5., quotes this 
 passage with one from Sophocles, introduces it with these words : 
 To VTT€p€ixi:€7rki]a6aL kcll VTTepKtKOpeo-dcu ano rrj? jud^s vi:epp.a(qv 
 ekeyov ol Trakcuol, ol 5e vkoi KptOiqv 4 . Without racking our 
 brains about those writers older than iEschylus, who used the 
 word vTTep[jLa(qv, so much we see with certainty that the form 
 ending in —av with this meaning is very old. The supposition, 
 therefore, that in those earliest periods of the language a verb 
 aKoorrqv with this sense was in use, and that this aKoo-rrjaas came 
 from it, has certainly great probability. Only the aorist being 
 used raises some doubt ; for according to that analogy one should 
 have expected aitoo-Taw iul (pdrvr). The past tense points rather 
 to a verb with some such meaning as " to have good feeding, 
 have plenty of barley ;" but here again there is a want of clear 
 analogy. In this respect, therefore, the explanation is not so 
 satisfactory as might be wished 5 . 
 
 4. A very erroneous assertion is made by Schneider in his 
 lexicon, that the reading of aKoarrjcras is extremely uncertain. 
 
 on the verse which contains aKoo-r^o-as, in which a/coo-rat was derived 
 from aKos in the manner mentioned above, and the Phrygian word d<o- 
 arr\<:, a physician, was compared with it. 
 
 4 This form, as quoted by Pollux from yEschylus, offends against the 
 metre, Kpidi5>vTa ntokov ; but in the fragment of Sophocles stands Kpida- 
 arjs, which is also unmetrical and corrupt, ecos otov KpL6coarjs o'lvov : per- 
 haps it should be eW otov Kpi6a>o~av o'lvov, consequently a bold applica- 
 tion of the word to the insolence arising from wine and high living. 
 
 5 The verb Tvo\vKpid7)o-as in Eustathius would express very nearly the 
 last- quoted idea : such a verb, however, nowhere ©ccurs, and it was 
 therefore certainly formed in order to explain something. What this 
 was I find from the gloss quoted above in note 2, Koo-ral, KpiSal; for 
 this also has a relation to the Homeric word. That is to say, in order 
 to make the above desirable sense applicable to this word, some ex- 
 plained the a as an a intensive, by the help of which might be traced 
 the origin of the form Koo-rai, aKoorea), i. e. iro\vKpiOe<o. 
 
15. ' A/uL/3p6(rto9, &c. 79 
 
 On the contrary, not only is this the sole reading in all the 
 existing editions of Homer, but no other is quoted by any of 
 the old critics. Schneider in his haste mistook for real read- 
 ings the forms by which the grammarians in their attempts to 
 amend this questionable word sometimes tried to explain it 
 etymologically. Thus, for instance, the olovel axocrrrjaas of the 
 grammarian Aristonichus (vid. Etym. M. and Hesych.) was in- 
 tended only to embody in a sensible and visible shape the sup- 
 position of the k in a/coorvjo-a? originally coming from x-> aD( i 
 that the word meant as much as ku ayei ytvofievos Sia ttjv (tt&- 
 (tlv ; a derivation, bad as it is, far better than the others which 
 Eustathius brings forward. Another and a much worse at- 
 tempt, as mentioned by Schneider, would suppose the word to 
 mean the dirty state of the horse from standing long in the 
 stable. Undoubtedly these two ideas, the being weary of stand- 
 ing in the stable, and the feeling of dirtiness which raises a wish 
 for bathing, are the two which, as far as regards the sense, one 
 should most naturally guess at. But much as I have turned 
 and twisted the word aKocmfiaas within the limits of analogy, it 
 has baffled every attempt. I think, therefore, that we must rest 
 satisfied with the result of what has been stated above, although 
 it may leave something to be desired ; and so much the more, 
 as from the repetition of ol Ttdkaioi in the quotations of Eusta- 
 thius, it appears very evident that this explanation has in its 
 favour the oldest tradition. 
 
 ' AXe^uv ; vid. yjpaioixtiv. 
 
 'AArjvai ; vid. elXeiv. 
 
 'AXioujtos ; vid. Xcd^co. 
 
 15. ' Afifip6(Tio?, anfipoTO?, dfipoTT), dfipordfav, 
 
 rjfJLfipOTOV. 
 
 i. In general there is too great an inclination to derive the 
 epithet d/x/3poo-ios from ambrosia, and to connect it almost every- 
 
80 15. 'A/mftpoo-ios, &c. 
 
 where with the idea of a delicious odour or vapour ; which, 
 when it is the epithet of hair, garments, ointment, and such like, 
 is certainly a very natural one. To understand, however, its 
 true meaning, we must first dismiss entirely all idea of this am- 
 brosia, which has established itself completely in the later 
 poetry. In Homer d/x/3poVtos is never a mere poetical word 
 by which earthly odours and the like are compared with am- 
 brosia, like vtKT&peos in II. y, 385. That such is not the case 
 with afjifipoo-Los is evident from this, that in his poetry those 
 objects never have this epithet, except when they are the hair, 
 garments, and ointments of deities. If, further, we compare 
 II. a), 341. and Od. a, 97. where it is the epithet of the san- 
 dals of Mercury, and observe that the garments and ointments 
 of the deities take the epithet of afxfipoTos (II. it, 6 jo. Od. 0, 
 365O quite as well as that of apiftpoo-ios ; it will be evident that 
 these two words are in fact synonymous, and that the idea of 
 ambrosia is not in the word, but only in particular cases in the 
 thing. 
 
 2. That is to say, apLfiporos means immortal; debs apfiporos, 
 lttttol 6,fji(3poTOL, alp,a apfiporov, and the like. Everything also 
 which belongs to the gods, and is around them, partakes of the 
 immortal nature ; everything is imperishable, and has in itself 
 a power which makes it imperishable and insusceptible of hurt : 
 eijuara apfipOTa, tkcuov apfiporov, &c, particularly in Od. e, 
 346. the Kprjbtpivov apLpporov, which secured Ulysses from danger 
 as long as he had it around him. Now it would be but natu- 
 ral for such objects to be joined with an adjective immediately 
 derived from apfipoTos ; such as apfipoaios, of an immortal nature, 
 rendering immortal, or in a general sense, divine, proceeding 
 from a divinity. Thus it is used of the song of the Muses in 
 Hesiod 6, 69. ap.[3poa[ri pLokirfj, and in one of Homer's Hymns 
 
 to Diana (27, 18. Wolf.) al 8' api(3po(TLr)v oif Wicrai ; and so 
 
 generally in the older poets, as vharos d/x/3poo-toio, of the sea in 
 the Cyclic Titanomachia in Athen. 7. p. 277. d. Again in Pin- 
 dar we have apfipoaia Zirza, ap(3p6(naL QLXoTaTes'Atypob'iTas, Pyth. 
 4, 532. Nem. 8, 2. Nay, in the flymn to Mercury 230. Maia 
 herself is called vvptyr) apL^pocrtr], consequently exactly syno- 
 nymous with apfipoTos, immortal. 
 
 3. First then, in the apL(3p6aios irtirXos of Venus there is 
 
15. ' A/uLfipocrios, &c. 81 
 
 as little idea of any ambrosial odour as in the d/x/3/ooo-iois 7re8t- 
 Aoty of Mercury. And although in the dju^poo-tots irXoKafiois of 
 Juno decking and beautifying herself to captivate Jupiter (II. £, 
 177.) there could not but have been the divine odour of oint- 
 ment, an idea which naturally offers itself to the imagination; 
 yet here, as well as in the d/x/3poo-tois x ttt7ats 0I * Jupiter ratifying 
 his promise by his nod (II. a, 529.), the epithet means nothing 
 more than the general sense of the divine celestial locks of a 
 deity. And in short the ointment of the gods is called (II. yjr, 
 187.) zkaiov aixfipocnov, in the same way as at Od. 0, 365. it is 
 called ajj.(3poTov ; and in the same way as the fodder of the im- 
 mortal steeds of Mars (II. e, 369.) is called dbap apLftpoaiov, their 
 mangers (0, 434.) have the same epithet ; and as in general all 
 things which tend to nourish or support immortality, whether as 
 food, as drink (Steph. Thes. in v.), as ointment (II. tt, 670.), or 
 as a cosmetic wash (II. £, 170.), are also called as substantives 
 afj.(3po(TLr]. 
 
 4. It cannot be said of this last-mentioned word that eScoSrj 
 is understood, because dju/3poo-i7i is used, as we have just seen, 
 in such various senses, where 680)677 could not be admitted ; d/x- 
 fipoo-ia, therefore, must without doubt have been originally a 
 substantive from aixfiporos, like aOavaaia from aQavaros, meaning 
 immortality. Thus, for instance, as the deities wash themselves 
 with beauty (Od. cr, 192.), so they eat and drink immortality. 
 An idea this which was still familiar to the later Greeks, as we 
 may see by the use of aOavaaia in Lucian's Dial. Deor. 4. extr. 
 vvv oe airaye ambv (Ganymede), a> *E/)jut?j, kciX 77 iovtol tt)s aOavacrias 
 aye oivoyor\(rovTa rjiuv. 
 
 5. All these passages, however, do not at all help us to un- 
 derstand how afippoa-Los, which is the epithet of the sleep of 
 Agamemnon, II. (3, 19. and used in the sense generally sup- 
 posed to be derived from ambrosia, can be translated by sweet. 
 The vast number of passages in which sleep has an epithet like 
 ykvKvs, vrjbvfjios, vr/yperos, &c, and the whole picture as repre- 
 sented in this passage, 7re/n 8' d/x/3poo-60j k^^vO' vttvos, show 
 plainly that here the word must contain some idea expressive 
 of the nature of sleep ; and therefore this appears to me to be 
 the only passage where it is used in a poetical and not in its 
 common sense. To express the strengthening healing nature 
 
 G 
 
82 i^. 'A/uL^poa-109, &c. 
 
 of sleep, the poet selects an epithet used to point out that 
 strengthening eternizing power which exists in heavenly objects. 
 It is therefore an epithet somewhat improper, as is vrjyperos, yet 
 not without truth ; since sleep is not the work of man, nor does 
 it contain in itself that which is perishable, but it is the great 
 gift of the gods (II. ??, 482. vttvov b&pov zKovto), is altogether like 
 a supersensible supernatural influence, and thence is in itself a 
 celestial existence. 
 
 6. But is the night also called a{xj3poo-irj vv£ (II. /3, 57.), 
 because this epithet is given to sleep, as is generally supposed 
 to be the case \ I think not. But the thing is somewhat 
 perplexed by the epithets ajifipoTos and afiporr) being both 
 given to the night. This last word is most generally explained 
 to mean without men, and in confirmation of it is quoted from 
 iEschylus Zprj/jLLa afiporos. But this form appears to be akin 
 to afipoTu&iv (II. k, 65. pL-qTrcos a/3porafo/xez> a\Xrj\otXv, " lest 
 we miss each other"), while on the other side it is evidently 
 connected with rjpLppoTov, the Epic sister-form of rjpLapTov, 
 apLapre'tv. 
 
 7. To put all this in a clear light, we must first join together 
 those words which beyond all question belong to each, other. No 
 critical grammarian will separate rjuPporov from rjp,apTov; 
 and from this aorist apLfipoTelv came (lengthened quite accord- 
 ing to analogy) afipoTa(ziv, agreeing exactly with it in mean- 
 ing : the shortening of the first syllable is metrical necessity. 
 These words and forms then belong to each other. As certainly 
 identical are ap,(3p6o-Los and aju/3/>oro?, at least in both being 
 derived from a and (3por6s, and again apporr) stands for ap.- 
 (3poTos on account of the metre, as Nv£ aftporr] begins the 
 hexameter. Least of all can the difference of termination os 
 and 77 be any ground for supposing a difference in the words, 
 since it is well known that the language of Epic poetry can form 
 compounds with a and others in the fern, in ??. In these two 
 verses, Od. A, 330. 
 
 Tiplv yap Kev kcu vvf; (frO'ir cipfiporos' dXAa kcu &pr), 
 
 and II. I 78. 
 
 Ni>£ dj3poTTj' rjv Kai rfj a7r6(T)((0VTai Trdkepoio, 
 the former might have apporr] as well as a/ut/3poros, and the 
 
15. 'Ayu/3|0oVfO9, &c. 83 
 
 latter might, if necessary, have afiporos. But here there is 
 no necessity; and in each passage the form which is used is 
 the best for the verse. That the feminine in 77 of this word 
 never occurs elsewhere proves nothing, since these are the only 
 two verses where the word appears in a feminine construction. 
 On the contrary, ap.(f)L(3poTos } which is subject to the same 
 laws as afipoTos, occurs four times, ao-7Tibos ap.<pL(3poTr]s, or 
 —a, -rjv f in all which cases the common form was equally ad- 
 missible. It is therefore quite certain that whatever vv£ apL- 
 ppoTos is, vv£ appoTr) is the same. The next question then 
 is, whether iw£ a/x/3poros is the same as vv£ apifipoo-Lr]. But 
 can any one doubt of that who has read in Homer eAatw api- 
 (3poT(j> and dju/3poo-t(p eAcua), apLfipora et/otara and ap,fipo<riov hia 
 iriirXov ? 
 
 8. And now the last question, as to the meaning of this word 
 in its threefold form, answers itself; for no one will -think of 
 giving ap.fip6(rios and apLfiporos here a different meaning from 
 what they have in all the other passages : afiporr] for instance 
 cannot mean without men because ap.fipoo-'iY] cannot have that 
 meaning. In all three forms, then, the sense is, the divine, 
 sacred night; an epithet which, it appears to me, needs an 
 explanation much less than many of the uses of 6dos, Upos, &c, 
 in Homer l . Our explanation has also as great a claim to 
 
 antiquity as the others. Apollon. Lex. in v 01 be ttjv 
 
 adavarov, e£ ov fj 6eia voelraL. Schol. min. Nvf afiporr]- d/x/3po- 
 <Tia, 6eCa. Schol. Ven. rj bnrArj, otl tJtol Kara irapdkeLyjnv tov /x, 
 avTl tov ap.^porr], olov dOdvaros, rj dfiporr), k&6' fjv fiporoi p,r} (pot- 
 tGhtiv 2 . The use of this word in iEschylus need not lead us 
 astray ; not that he understood dfiporri to mean in Homer with- 
 
 1 According to the lexicons dppoTT) alone means the night. It is 
 possible that a later poet may have used the Homeric word so. But as 
 I can nowhere find any proof of it, I conjecture that it rests only on 
 the unmeaning observation of Eustathius on II. £, 78. ore yap d^porrj 
 
 povov p-qOcirj, XfiVet to vv£. 
 
 2 Our explanation lies hidden also in the corrupted gloss of Hesy- 
 chius, 'A/Spor^. dfipoTTjdeia : for this, according to Schow, is the exact 
 reading of the MS. which Musurus unskilfully changed into the present 
 reading, 'A^porf}. dfipoTrjo-la. The true reading is indisputably 'A^por^, 
 dpftpoTT], 0€ia. 
 
 G 2 
 
84 15. 'AfAfipOCTlOS, &c. 
 
 out men (though it is just possible he might), but because a/3/>o- 
 ro? is in this sense a perfectly analogical word, which iEschylus 
 himself might have formed without any precedent, and have 
 used in this sense without at all looking back to Homer. But 
 here again this must be left to a critique on iEschylus, for after 
 all afipoT-q is but a various reading in Prometh. 2 3 . 
 
 9. As to the formation of anftpoTos, it might be very well 
 explained, if it were the only word of its family, by the v which 
 is originally attached to the a privative, like ajx^ao-ir]. But 
 (fyOLo-ifjiftpoTos, Tepyj/CfippoTos, &c, present the same appearance. 
 To say that /x was inserted euphonice gratia, might be a satis- 
 factory reason in many similar compounds which are unique 
 (whereas this form is the most common one), but even there 
 only until a better explanation can be given. And in this case 
 we have offered us an undeniable derivation in p.6pos, fate, 
 death. Hence came popTos, which as a sister-form of (Bporos 
 was in some of the dialects ; for certainly Callimachus did not 
 introduce it into his poems on merely etymological speculation ; 
 Fragm. 271. ebe^afxcv aorca juootoi*. And the Lat. mors, 
 morior, mortuus, mortalis, confirms this. The metathesis, so 
 natural in the older period of the Greek language, changed this 
 ixopros into ftpoTos, like pLoXew, (3\(ao-K<i>' /ueOu, /3A.iVtg)* fxaXaicos, 
 /3A.a£. See (3\ltt€lv. But the radical jx remained before the /3, 
 whenever it was immediately preceded by a vowel {anfiporos, 
 &c), as in /uoAeti>, fiifAfiXcaKa, {3ka>o-K<a, and in rjnapTov, ij[x(3poTov; 
 but at the same time it might be omitted when the verse re- 
 quired it; thence afiporos, aiupifipoTr], and afipora&iv from a/x- 
 
 (3pOT€LV. 
 
 3 That is to say, Eustathius on II. £, 78. quotes merely afiporos iprj- 
 fxia from iEschylus ; others, and amongst them a Scholium in Villoison, 
 mention more fully aftporov ds eprjfxlav. Heyne on II. k, 65. says that it 
 stands at the beginning of the Prometheus : but there we read now 
 afiarov ds iprjpiav, which is indisputably quite as good. On this various 
 reading, to which the gloss in Hesychius afiporov, d7rdv0pa>7rov, clearly 
 belongs, we may gain some information from Hermann. 
 
 * [Buttmann here refers his reader to Schneider's Lexicon, from 
 which I give the following extract : " Mopros, 6, fj, (from popos) the same 
 as its derivative ftporbs, mortal, Callim. Fr. 271. Thence popToftaros, 
 6, f/ ; vavs popro^drrj, the bark of Charon, which carries mortals after 
 death over the Styx, Hesych. : Lat. mortuus." — Ed.] 
 
1 6. 'A/xoXyoy. 85 
 
 I o. Here then must fall to the ground every attempt to bring 
 the verb afipora&iv into immediate etymological connexion 
 with afiporos, a mistake easily caused by the similarity of the 
 principal syllables ; for some derived the verb from a and j3po- 
 tos, supposing it properly to mean aberrare db homine ; and 
 they connected with it ijfjL(3poTov also, but did not venture to 
 add ap.apruv. Others began with afipoTT], night, and supposed 
 both verbal forms (still omitting apLaprew) to mean, (e I wander 
 about in the night, and lose my way, miss my object." But 
 every one must feel that these and all similar attempts are any- 
 thing but natural modes to trace the origin of a verb which was 
 in common and familiar use. I think, then, we cannot do bet- 
 ter than admit the separation of afipoTa&iv and afiporos, recom- 
 mended as it is by all analogy, and include the former among 
 the forms of a/xapravo), whose etymological affinity, as long as we 
 are ignorant of it, we can easily do without 4 . 
 
 1 A/xeyapTO? ; vid. fxeyaipco. 
 "Ajxevou, ; vid. adrjaat. 
 
 1 6. 'A/ioAyw. 
 
 i. Whoever sees the expression apokyu, without knowing 
 anything of the context of those passages in which it occurs, 
 would at once decide that it must come from 6\p,iXyeiv ; and 
 this decision would influence him in his explanation of those 
 passages, as he would look upon the idea of to milk as the 
 
 4 According to my conjecture dpapravco belongs to the root p. epos, 
 part, peipuv, to impart or give a share of. From this was formed, by 
 an analogy which is no further visible in the common formation of the 
 Greek language, but in this case is undoubted, a negative verb dpepdeiv, 
 to give no share to, i. e. to deprive or rob. A similar verb was afxaprelu 
 (aorist; compare art. 106. note 5.), with an intransitive meaning, to 
 be without one's share, i. e. not to obtain, to miss. The other changes 
 follow from the above ; and of the mutability of the aspirate this is not 
 the first proof, particularly of cases where the etymology had escaped 
 the observation of persons in general. The resemblance of dpa to 
 apaprdva satisfied them. 
 
86 1(5. 'A/uLoXyw. 
 
 acknowledged meaning. It is well known that this has actually- 
 been the case in explaining afAoXya. We, however, regular as 
 this decision may appear, will endeavour to treat of the collec- 
 tive passages of Homer, where it occurs, without the assistance 
 of aniXytiv. In II. A, 173, the Trojans are described as "flying 
 over the field, like oxen :" 
 
 "Kcrre Xecov ecpofirjve fxokobv iv vvktos djj.o\ya>. 
 
 In 0, 324. is the same metaphor: 
 
 .... acrr rje ffotov dyikrjv rj ncov /ley ola>v 
 Qrjpe Suo Kkovicocri p.e\aivr)S vvktos dpoXyco 
 *E\66vt iganivrjs, <rr)[xdvTopos ov 7rapeovTos. 
 
 In x, 28. Achilles shines like the dog-star, whose bright rays 
 
 Qalvovrai iroKkoicri /xer do~Tpdo-i vvktos dpoXya, 
 
 and at 317. the same hero is compared to the evening star : 
 
 Olos 5' daTrjp eiai p,eT darTpdcri vvktos dpoXya 
 JLawepos, os koWio-tos iv ovpava 1o~TaTcu do~Tr)p. 
 
 In Od. 8, 841. Penelope awakes after the disappearance of the 
 vision with delighted feelings : 
 
 "Sis 01 ivapyes ovetpov iTreavvTO vvktos dpoXycp. 
 
 2. If the student of Homer had once become accustomed to 
 that somewhat strange association of ideas contained in the 
 phrase " the milking-time of the night" (and the ear easily 
 becomes accustomed to anything,) he must, as we see, have 
 proceeded some very considerable way in his Homer, supposing 
 him to have begun with the Iliad, before he would have had 
 any doubts as to what precise time this might be ; and when 
 such a doubt came across his mind, it is easily to be conceived 
 that, considering the idea of to milk in ajuoAyw as an acknow- 
 ledged thing, he would merely look upon it as one of those 
 problematic questions, of which there are so many in Homer. 
 In the first two passages, guided by the idea of milking, he 
 would understand it to mean the milking-time, or twilight, in 
 whose deceitful gloom a wild beast might approach very near 
 his prey. In the third and fourth passages the shining of the 
 other stars with the dog- and evening- star would indeed point 
 out to him that it must mean actually the night ; but still the 
 " milking -time" stands once for all so clearly before his eyes, 
 
1 6. 'A/iAokyw. 87 
 
 that he imputes the doubt not to the word but to the thing, 
 and tries, by inquiring into the customs of the times or the 
 nature of the thing, either to bring the time of milking into 
 the night, or the appearances mentioned by the poet into the 
 twilight. 
 
 3. Those who carry the idea of twilight through all the 
 passages, suppose, as far as I know, a late and an early hour 
 of milking, in order to take in both twilights*. The passage of 
 the vision then becomes very easy ; and as to that of Sirius 
 there is a strong proof in favour of this meaning. For it is 
 there expressly said, 6s pa r SiT(opr]s dcriv, to which is afterwards 
 added, " that it is a sign of ill and brings fevers to mortals." 
 All this fixes the season to be the middle of summer or the 
 dog-days. But at that time Sirius does not appear at all in 
 the night, but has just begun to show himself a little before 
 sunrise, and so continues rising earlier and earlier, until, after 
 a considerable lapse of time, he makes his first appearance at 
 midnight. Here, then, the morning twilight, as Eustathius 
 has also made it appear, seems as certainly meant, as in the 
 other passage the evening twilight is marked by the mention 
 of the evening star. In order to have the other stars visible, as 
 the poet has mentioned them, that precise period of the twilight 
 must be selected, in which the stars in general shed a faint light, 
 while those two bright stars are in full splendour. 
 
 4. But after all, I would ask, whether this last representa- 
 tion can be satisfactory for the expression (x, 28.) api(j\Xoi hi 
 61 avyal Qaivovrai ttoXXoIo-l /xer dvTpdcri ; whether it can be 
 satisfactory as a comparison of Achilles among the other com- 
 batants before Troy? Is it not clear that whoever pictures to 
 himself this object, must, in order to form the comparison pro- 
 perly, imagine to himself Sirius in the night in full splendour 
 outshining all the other stars, however brilliant ? Is it not clear 
 that this is the meaning of ttoXXo'lo-l ^ter arnpdviv, and also of 
 the other passage /xer aaTpdcnv, where the number of the stars 
 is not defined, and consequently unlimited ? And how came 
 
 * [Gottling, in his edition of Hesiod, seems rather surprised that 
 Buttmann has not compared with a/xoXyos the Hesiodic epithet anpo- 
 Kve(f)aios, (Op. 565.) translated in Passow's Lexicon, "at the beginning 
 of the morning or evening twilight." — En.] 
 
88 16. *A/uLo\y$. 
 
 the poet to spoil his picture* by expressly mentioning, of all 
 things in the world, the twilight? Nvktos apioXyu can, there- 
 fore, be only, what every one's sense and feelings tell him it 
 must be, the depth of the night. As to the meaning of 6s pa 
 t oTT(0pr)s tlo-L, it was not intended to mark the time which the 
 poet had in his mind, but to define the particular star exactly 
 like the 'Aorep' dirwplv^ kvaXiyKios in e, 5., in which, as in 
 the passage before us, the star is represented in its highest 
 brilliancy, consequently in the night; oore /uaXtcrra Aaparpbv 
 TTapufiaCvrjorL XeXovpiivos coKeavolo. And in the same way in the 
 passage before us what is added of its being portentous of ill 
 and of fevers is merely the poet's amplification of the proper- 
 ties of the star, which he here introduces with particular pro- 
 priety as symbolical of Achilles threatening destruction to the 
 Trojans. For no poet of nature would confine himself so strictly 
 to facts as to think himself bound to suppress these properties 
 because Sirius is thus portentous of ill only when he appears 
 in the morning, consequently not in his greatest brilliancy; 
 but he carelessly joins two truths which are in themselves un- 
 connected : 
 
 AaprrporaTos pev 6'S' eori, kcikov be re ar/pa rervKTai. 
 
 5. There can be no doubt then, that, supposing the deriva- 
 tion of apioXyco to be perfectly unknown, the only meaning 
 which we can adopt as suited to all the five passages where it 
 occurs, can be no other than " the depth of night." And ac- 
 cordingly we find in all the old explanations of the word, be- 
 side "the time of milking and the evening" this also, "accord- 
 ing to others midnight" I will not trouble myself nor my 
 readers with inquiring whether the ancients milked in the 
 night ; for it is sufficient to say that, even if they did, it would 
 have been ridiculous in them to mark the depth of night by an 
 action which takes place in the day and in the evening also ; 
 this would in fact be saying, " in the night, when it is as dark 
 as it is when people milk in the dark" 
 
 6. But I have a great aversion, particularly as regards lan- 
 guage and logic, to throw away words on a thing on which 
 poetic feeling alone can decide, and indeed has long since de- 
 cided. In fact, under the name of simple and ancient, many a 
 burden is laid on poor Homer which ought rather to be called 
 
16. 'A/uLoXyw. 89 
 
 silly and childish. The idea of marking time in general and 
 in great natural phenomena by the hour of milking is not to 
 be entertained for a moment. BovXvtos must not be cited as a 
 similar case. That is in truth a great and beautiful idea, full 
 of spirit and meaning; the moment at which it may be sup- 
 posed, that in the whole agricultural world the wearied steer is 
 loosed from his daily labour. On the other hand, what is the 
 hour of milking ? a time perfectly arbitrary, generally regulated 
 by particular arrangement, and occurring many times in the 
 day. It is impossible, therefore, that anokyos, like fiovXvros, 
 should have been a general and familiar term for fixing a cer- 
 tain point of time in common life, whether it be supposed to 
 have expressed the twilight or the darkness ; still more impos- 
 sible is it that the poet should have selected this particular ex- 
 pression to give his reader a lively picture of the precise time 
 which he intended to mark. 
 
 7. Nvktos ajiokyu means, then, nothing more than (what an 
 unprejudiced comparison of the different passages would teach 
 us) in the depth of night. And this explanation we find also 
 (as has been said above) in all the old grammarians, and in the 
 scholia to the two passages of the oxen attacked by wild 
 beasts; nay, in one of them (0, 324.) this explanation stands 
 regularly drawn out, and the moonless midnight adopted as an 
 acknowledged meaning, while the other explanation of the 
 milking is not once mentioned ; at most of the other passages, 
 however, as well as in Hesychius, in the Etym. M., &c, this 
 last is found. But what is of more value than the explanation 
 of a grammarian, is the use of the word in Euripides as quoted 
 by Hesychius : 'AfioXybv vvktol EvpLirCbrjs 'AXKfxrjvr] ^ocpepav kol 
 (TKoreivriv. Here, then, djuoXyos is used as an adjective, which 
 may be either that Euripides took the liberty of making this 
 trifling change, or that he adopted the adjective as so handed 
 down to him from ancient tradition. Quite as certain, if well 
 considered, is the still higher authority of iEschylus in the 
 fragment quoted by Athenseus 11, p. 469. extr. where the de- 
 parting sun is mentioned as irpocfyvyoiv Upas vvktos ap-oXyov 1 . 
 
 ' ! The whole fragment is indeed by no means as yet cleared of cor- 
 ruptions ; but the word npocpvyeop leaves no doubt of the correctness of 
 
90 i6. 'AfijioXyw. 
 
 I do not suppose any one will say that here the sun is repre- 
 sented as flying before the twilight, as that again gives way to 
 the night. Nvktos d/xoA.yoV can here mean nothing but the 
 darkness of the night. And to this we may add another au- 
 thority, far inferior, it is true, but sufficient to show that at no 
 period did the poets understand this expression of Homer to 
 have any other meaning. Orph. Hymn. 33, 12. to Apoll. 
 
 vuepOi re kcu hi apioXyov Nvktos Iv 7](jvyir\(nv 'Pitas vipOe 
 
 hihopKds, where apioXyos stands alone in the sense of the deepest 
 darkness, for vvktos certainly belongs to Iv rjvvxir\o-iv * \ 
 
 8. But what now is the proper meaning of the word ? The 
 reader need not fear that I am going to imitate those gram- 
 matical chamelions, and to explain aptoXyos now (by means 
 of jme'Ayco, mulgeo, I milk,) to mean the time when they do not 
 milk. Such an attempt as this I leave with many others much 
 worse (see Etym. M.) to those who choose to examine them; 
 and I will first bring forward what has grown up on historic 
 ground. Eustathius on II. o, says that, according to the gloss- 
 ographers, the Acheeans call apioXybv tt}v aKfMriv. These 
 Achaeans, we know, are no imaginary people; and a gloss of 
 Hesychius, although an unauthenticated one, which stands in 
 the same place, 'AjuoAya{a, jueo-^/x^pttet, gives very consider- 
 able weight to that explanation ; for mid-day is the a*//,?} of 
 the day, and some older poet perhaps had said rjpap apoXyafri. 
 So much the more certain is now, therefore, the explanation of 
 the iw.(a apLoXyairj of Hesiod e, 588. as given by Proclus on 
 the passage, and in the Etym. M. v. Ma£a 2 , that it means the 
 same as abater to yap apioXybv ivl tov aKpiaiov TiOerai. In 
 this, too, some of the grammarians thought they saw a milk- 
 cake, and understood by that a cream-cheese or milky cake, 
 to which the explanation of Eratosthenes -noip,eviK7]v refers. 
 
 the passage as far as it has been found necessary to quote it above, 
 whatever may be the opinion of the words which precede (ot>§' els), and 
 which certainly, as they stand, are very puzzling. 
 
 * [I find vvktos a/xoXyo) also in Homer's Hymn to Merc. 7. which 
 Buttmann has not mentioned, but where it can only mean " in the 
 darkness of the night," or " in the depth of the night." Perhaps the 
 latter sense suits the context better than the former. — Ed.] 
 
 2 Compare Athen. 3. p.i 15. a. and Bernhardy Eratosthenica, p. 209. 
 
16. 'AyuoA<y<». 91 
 
 This would not satisfy me. But these grammarians again 
 make a sad business of their aKfxaia, considering it to be only 
 synonymous with Kpariar-r]. Doubtless the older interpreters 
 thought something more definite was meant by this word; and 
 what can that be but a cake which by the well-known usual 
 means was brought to rise and ferment ? The same fonn a\xo\- 
 yaios comes to us now in another passage under a new point 
 of view. In the 98th Epigram of Leonidas of Tarentum 
 (Brunck's Anal. 1, 246.) a shepherd is desired to sprinkle a 
 grave with the milk of a sheep apLoXycuov fxaarbv avao-xofievos. 
 If in this expression we see nothing more than an epithet (of 
 the udder) drawn from milking, it is the poorest that can be 
 imagined. But if we compare with this what has been said 
 before, and particularly the passage of Hesiod, the only passage 
 where the word as thus formed occurs*, we have immediately a 
 more definite idea presented to our mind : an udder in its aKfxfj 
 is a full, distended udder. 
 
 9. According to this, vvktos afxoXyos is the depth or dead 
 of the night, without, however, limiting it to the exact point of 
 midnight. About one watch before and one watch after mid- 
 night joined together would form a period of time which in all 
 times has been called the middle of the night, the depth or 
 dead of the night;- and in the first part of this time the even- 
 ing star frequently appears in full brilliancy. The Homeric 
 use of afjioXyos made it by degrees be supposed to mean only 
 darkness: and so ^Eschylus uses vvktos aptoXyov in the frag- 
 ment quoted above merely for the darkness of the night ; for the 
 meaning of aKfxrj suits that passage as little as does the twi- 
 light; and in Orpheus, as we have seen, ap.oXyos stands alone 
 for darlmess. 
 
 10. And now that the principal point is brought, as I hope 
 it is, to a certainty, I will add a few words on the etymology. 
 
 * [I find in the Supplement to Schneider's Lexicon the following : 
 " rjfj.eplr)v (TKOToeo-aav dfioXyairjv, Orac. Sibvll. 14, 2 1 4." and there trans- 
 lated " dark." In Passow's edition of Schneider " pa£a afxoXyairj" from 
 Hesiod is rendered "milk-bread," pain an lait ; " according to others, 
 i. q. cifxopfialu, peasant's bread," like our household or brown bread ; 
 " or again, i. q. aKfxain, light well-baked bread." — Ed.] 
 
92 1 6. 'AfAoXyw. 
 
 Let us look again at the passage in the epigram of Leonidas, 
 and I would ask, is it mere chance coincidence that the idea 
 of milking, which has so constantly been thought to belong to 
 afjioXyos, should there occur in connexion with that of aK/x?}? 
 Decidedly not. Leonidas lived in the most flourishing period 
 of the Alexandrian era. He had everything, which we have 
 quoted above, before his eyes much more vivid and more com- 
 plete than we can. In his search for far-fetched expressions 
 he might have found an epigram, a very excellent opportunity 
 to use the Hesiodic word at the same time both in its true and 
 in its literal sense. Now the expressions of such a poet may 
 possibly contain information, or furnish hints, worthy of no- 
 tice ; nor should such be suppressed, even for the chance 
 that a play of the poet's imagination might be the accidental 
 cause of a happy conjecture. In the present instance I should 
 be so much the less inclined to do it, as the opinion of another, 
 independent of such a play of words, coincides with my own. 
 For I had imparted to Lachmannen the results of my inves- 
 tigation, as I have given it above, and it struck him, without 
 knowing anything of the epigram, but guided merely by the 
 idea of d/xeAyeiu, that perhaps the image of a full, swelling 
 udder, might be the groundwork of this expression, signifying 
 fullness and completeness. And if perchance here again that 
 which is insignificantly small and not apparent, when placed 
 in comparison with the vast phenomena of nature, should not 
 immediately answer the comparison ; yet certainly the striking 
 points of the image, joined with the literal meaning of the 
 word, will always present themselves more and more to the 
 imagination. Figurative expressions pass into the language 
 of common life, and cease to be figurative. Let us suppose 
 that in the early simplicity of the pastoral times the expression 
 for a distended udder was, "it is kv afxokyu;" nothing would 
 then be more natural than to transfer the figure to all things 
 that were similarly kv aKfjLrj. And what could be more similar 
 than a cake at the moment when it was swelling and rising in 
 a state of fermentation? Then it was ev djuoAyw. The figu- 
 rative expression passed like a proverb into the language, and 
 became familiar in common conversation, even when it would 
 not have struck the poet as an immediate image; exactly as 
 
17. 'Aim(f)iKiJ7reX\op. Q3 
 
 with us a number of such expressions are in common use ; only 
 that in our polished language many of those whose literal mean- 
 ing at once strikes the ear, are limited by considerations as to 
 whether they are elegant or common expressions, a distinction 
 unknown to the old language of Epic poetry. 
 
 17. ' A/JL(f)lKV7r€Woi> . 
 
 1 . The word apLcpLKvireXXov is always found in Homer joined 
 with Senas, and is therefore an adjective, aiifaKvireXXos, 6, rj. 
 One explanation of it is, that KvireXXov comes from kvtjtg), and 
 means a TioTr\piov eW k€kv<J)g>s, i. e. a cup with the edge curving 
 inwards; and apL^LKvireXXov will then mean that it curves in- 
 wards all round (Eust. ad II. a, 584.). Others derived it from 
 Kvcf)6sf curved, and understood apLcpiKvireXXov to express that it 
 was curved on both sides, i. e. that its round form was made up 
 of two curves (Schol. Villois. Apollon. Lex.). Aristarchus en- 
 deavoured to explain the curvature by two handles (Etym. M.), 
 whilst others supposed the kvttzXXov to have no handle at all 
 (Hesych. v. KvirtXXov). We see that all this is mere conjecture, 
 and conjecture without coming to any decision. 
 
 2. To begin with kvttcXXov. It is evident that this word, 
 coming from a root which signifies a cavity, is the same ap- 
 pellation for a vessel to contain fluids, which we find, some- 
 times of a larger and sometimes of a smaller size, in all cog- 
 nate languages to this day; as for example, Kvufir], whence a 
 dialect /cv/3/3a (in Hesychius irorripiov), Lat. cupa, Germ. Kufe, 
 Kubel, French cuve and coupe, Engl. cup. KvireXXov is there- 
 fore a diminutive, meaning, without any additional idea, a cup, 
 and synonymous with biiras. ' Afx(f)LKV7reXXos then is, according 
 to the analogy of d/x<£ioro/xo?, afxefxaros, &c, something which 
 has a KvireXXov on both sides or at both opposite ends; and 
 thus from the formation of the word we trace out the very 
 utensil of which we find the description in the following pas- 
 sage of Aristotle (H. A. 9, 40., or in Schneid. 9, 27, 4.), where 
 he is describing the cells of bees to be dju^orojuot, with one 
 opening above, and another below, and divided by a floor: 
 -rrepl fALav yap (3&(Tiv bvo Ovpibts tlalv, (oairep t&v a^LKvniXX^v, 
 
94 1 8. 'A/uLCpig. 
 
 rj iazv ivrbs fj 8' Zktos. This passage contains not merely Ari- 
 stotle's explanation of Homer's expression, for which purpose 
 only it has been usual to quote it ; but it shows that the idea 
 of an object being a^LKvireWos was common and familiar to 
 every one in Aristotle's time ; consequently either the Greeks 
 had then such vessels, and called them by that name, or this 
 word was still known to every one as an ancient form, of which, 
 perhaps, there remained some old instances, and everybody 
 understood such to be meant by the Homeric biiraa-tv a[x(f)LKv- 
 7reAAots. 
 
 3. We must not imagine that the cup made in this form 
 was intended for some particular use ; on the contrary, we see, 
 that although it is not unusual for a beautiful cup of exquisite 
 workmanship to have in Homer this epithet, yet it was a very 
 common form; for example, in II. t, 656. Od. v, 153. every 
 one who drank had such a cup, and on every occasion of 
 drinking to each other, or of pouring out a libation, the vessel 
 used is called, if the verse requires something to complete it, 
 afjL(f)LKin:€\\ov } which same vessel is again called merely kv- 
 ireXXov. As nothing stands firmer than the round rim of a 
 hollow vessel, so nothing was more natural in the early and 
 simple times of art than to hollow out a piece of wood or any 
 other material at one end for drinking, and at the other end to 
 stand on, whence arose double cups, which might be used for 
 drinking at either end. -This form might, perhaps, have given 
 occasion to some particular and pleasing manner of ornament- 
 ing, and hence as often as the poet wished to describe a cup 
 with all the particular details belonging to it, this form was 
 present to his imagination. 
 
 l8. 'AfJL(j)L?. 
 
 1. That aiJL(f)L and a[x(f)Cs are properly the same, like /xe'xpt 
 and //e'xpts, appears principally in that which is the ground of 
 every preposition, in the adverbial meaning ; for example, II. <£, 
 507. afji(f)l 6' ap djut^poVto? kavbs rpe'jue, around the body: Od. 6, 
 476. OaXepr] 8' rjv api<ph aAotc^rj, around the flesh : II. #,481. (3adh 
 
1 8. 'A/i^/y. 95 
 
 be re Tdprapos ap.(j)Ls : Od. £, 292. apapl be Xeifxcav. It appears, 
 however, at least in Homer, to be an established rule that d/x$is 
 never stands as a preposition in its common meaning and usual 
 position. After its ease it certainly does sometimes stand, as, 
 II. £, 274. and Hes. 0, 851. Kpovov ap.(f)ls eovres ; Od. {, 166/EvQa 
 hire a(f) ayopr) kclXov HovibrjLov ap,(f)is : fc, 400. Kw<A.ot>7ras . . . . 1 pa 
 fjLiv afxcph "£Ilk€ov. See also Hymn. Cer. 289. Hence the lan- 
 guage furnished no reason for altering, with some manuscripts, 
 the old reading of Od. o>, 45. and 65. iroWa be a apujns Aaicpva 
 OeppxL \eov Aavaot' — iroXXa be ct apic^Cs MrjXa KareKTavop^ev. and 
 taking away the s from the end of the verse. It stands also 
 after the dative at II. e, 7 2 3* KapLirvXa KVKXa....(rib7]pe<ti a£ovi 
 apL<f)LS. 
 
 2. The ideas arising out of the radical meaning of the word 
 are in the form apicfris so different, that in order to select and 
 arrange them correctly, we ought to have them all in our view 
 at the same time. I will first, therefore, bring forward some 
 passages in which the original meaning around is evident and 
 necessary. For instance, II. w, 488. Kelvov Ttepivaierai ap^cjus 
 eovres TeLpovcn. In 0-, 519. in the description of the shield, the 
 two deities that accompany the train of old men, &c. are KaAo> 
 Kal / J teyaAa).... , A/x0ts b\pi£riX(i), "radiant all around." At £, 123. 
 TtoXXol 6e <j)VT&v eaav opxarot api^is, " in the country around." 
 In the funeral games, \j/, 330., Nestor points out to his son the 
 goal chosen by Achilles for the charioteers, namely, an old 
 trunk of a tree and two stones 
 
 'Ei; £vvoxr)(riv 6§ov' Xelos §' lirTTodpofxos dfxifiis. 
 
 The old interpreters explained the first part, and I think cor- 
 rectly, of a wide track in the open plain becoming somewhat 
 narrower at the point where the old monument stood ; but d//$ts 
 they took in the opposite sense of x^P^, or still more forced : 
 Heyne, however, understood it quite correctly of the wide plain 
 arotmd, appropriated to the chariot race, and within which 
 stood Achilles when he pointed out the barriers in the distance 
 (v. 359.)- Others see in this passage the course winding round 
 the monument ; but then it must have been an old course regu- 
 larly drawn out for the purpose ; whereas this monument was 
 selected by Achilles for a goal or mark quite arbitrarily and 
 
96 1 8. 9 Afi(f>U. 
 
 by his own choice, and Nestor, v. 332., only conjectures that 
 it might have formerly served for a goal. And last of all, to this 
 class of meanings belongs the idea ap.(f>ls Ibew, " to be circum- 
 spect, look around with care and foresight." Thus, in Hesiod 
 €, 699. where marriage is recommended, but it must be done 
 with circumspection, Havra judA' apicpls lbo>v, p.rj yetroo-t yapixara 
 yrj^s; and with the genitive of the thing considered or ex- 
 amined, II. /3, 384. Ev bi Tis a/)/xaros apLcfrh Ibav iroXeptolo pLebiaOoi. 
 Both which passages, however, with regard to the digamma, 
 must be mentioned again. See below, sect. 12. 
 
 3. The idea of around was afterwards limited to on two sides, 
 on both sides. With this coincides in both languages the idea 
 of d/x<£co, ambo, and the compounds ap,(p[a-TopLos, dju$t8e£tos, 
 ambidexter, ambiguus, &c. Beside the compounds, I know 
 of no certain instance in Homer of the form an<j>l in this more 
 limited meaning ; for when a number of men are described as 
 encamped on both sides of the stream, a^cfn poas 7rora/xoto, 
 II. A, 732., this differs little from the common meaning of 
 around. Once, however, in Hesiod I find the form ap,$i used 
 of two objects lying one on each side of another object, and 
 that, too, as an adverb, namely, at a, 172. "Hb-q yap <r(f)iv e/cetro 
 ixiyas Ai?, d/x$t Se Kcvnpoi Aoiol. But the form apL<f)Cs occurs in 
 this sense in the following passages of Homer. In II. A, 633. 
 speaking of a large goblet, ovara 5' clvtov Ticra-ap iaav, boial 
 be 7reAetdSes aptx/us ckclotov' and at 748. UevTrJKOvra §' e\ov bt- 
 cfrpovs bvo b' apL(j)ls Hkclotov 4>wres obhg ekov ovbas. Further 
 as an adverb, at II. <£, 162., of the combat between Achilles 
 and Asteropaeus, 
 
 6 §' avecr)(€TO dlos 'A^iXXcvs 
 IlrjXidda [xeXtrjv' 6 §' dpaprrj bovpacriv dpcjns 
 "Upas y AcrTcpo7rcuos' inel 7repide£-t.os rjev' 
 Kai p irepa pev 8ovp\ (tclkos fiakep, &c. 
 
 Here afixfrCs plainly means utrinque, " on both sides," i. e. with 
 both hands, and the dative bovpaaw is, according to the inter- 
 vening passage, divided into ere/oo> p,€v — ra> b y erepw — . In 
 this passage, however, the word Trepibi^tos is very remarkable. 
 The explanation of it by 7rept— , very, is insufferable; while all 
 that we have hitherto said of the meaning of utrinque, belongs 
 
i8. 'A^/ff. 97 
 
 entirely to a\x$L and those words akin to it. Nowhere in the 
 whole range of the Greek language are -nept and its derivatives 
 to be found in this sense. Evidently, therefore, the poet, as an 
 hexameter verse does* not admit of ap.$ib(%Los, had recourse to 
 Tr€pibe£ios, because in all other combinations irept is essentially 
 synonymous with dficpi. 
 
 4. From the idea of on both sides proceeds (when the object 
 which is between stands as the subject of the sentence) the idea 
 of separation, the origin of which one sees in the mention of 
 the yoke, although, properly speaking, that joins the oxen^ : to- 
 gether; II. v, 706. 
 
 T<u fiev re {jvybv oiov ev^oov dfi(p\s etpyei. 
 
 Literally, the yoke keeps one steer on each side, and conse- 
 quently separates them. And this idea becomes now the lead- 
 ing one, as in Od. a, 54. speaking of Atlas, 
 
 e^ei be re KLOvas avros 
 Manpas, at yaidv re Kai ovpavbv dp<fi\s e\ovaiv, 
 
 "keep from each other," i. e. separate. Hence the expression 
 apicph ^x €LV i n Homer varies according to the different turns 
 which its meaning takes. For while in the example just given 
 it means to kee*p apart from each other, it is afterwards used of 
 the horses, which keep or carry the yoke on both sides of them, 
 Od. y, 486. 
 
 Ot be 7ravr}ixepioi crelov £vybv dp(f)ls e^oirf?. 
 
 A third meaning of this expression, with ap^is in its first 
 sense, occurs in Od. 0, 340., where Mercury wishes that he 
 were bound with thrice as many chains as confined Mars and 
 Venus : 
 
 Aeap.61 fieu Tpls toWoi dnelpoves dfi<fi\s e^oieu, 
 
 " might keep me firm all around." 
 
 5. That which is separated one from the other might, how- 
 ever, have previously been one whole ; and therefore a^$i?, like 
 hi\a elsewhere (di'xa uplaai, vyicrai, &c.) means in two, as II. A, 
 559. of an ass, 
 
 co brj noXKa irep\ poirah! dfi(f)\$ idyrj, 
 
 " have been broken in two." For in this passage it cannot mean 
 
 H 
 
98 1 8. 9 AfjL(f}h. 
 
 all around it, on every side of it, because, as the scholiast justly 
 observes, these words do not relate to the blows of the boys 
 described in the line following, but to the treatment which the 
 ass had formerly received, and which had made it so insensible 
 to beating. 
 
 6. From the idea of separation arises again a new use of 
 a^ts, exactly the opposite of its first meaning, by which it 
 points out the relation which the one part alone bears to the 
 others; in which, however, there may be one or more objects 
 on either side ; e. g. II. 0, 444. 
 
 At 6° otai Aios dp.(fns 'Adrjvalrj re ko\ "Hptf 
 "Hir^y, qiibe ri \iiv rrpoaccjidivcov, &C, 
 
 that is, "each of the two sat apart from Jove 1 ." And Od. f, 
 
 .... fidXa §' coKa 6vpr\& ea djxCJHS iicelv&p, 
 
 " soon I was gone, far away from them." Again, in II. \jr, 
 393-5 speaking of the horses whose yoke was broken, 'A/x^is Sbov 
 Spa/xeV^y, " sideways from the road." And in Od. tt, 267., where 
 Ulysses says of Jupiter and Minerva, 
 
 Ov \ikv rot Kelvco ye noXvv xpovov dfi(j)\s eaeadov 
 <&v\o7ridos Kpareprjs, 
 
 " they will not be long absent from the battle," i. e. will soon 
 take part in it. And absolutely, at a distance, away, absent; 
 as in Od. r, 221., 
 
 Q, yvvai, dpyakeov, t6(T(tov \pdvov dfKJns tovra 
 Eln€p.€v' 
 
 and so also in Od. w, 218. This phrase aficfns Zovtcl has two 
 meanings; the context of each passage must decide which is 
 to be preferred. For as we have just seen that it makes no 
 difference in the meaning of adepts, whether it be used of one 
 or more persons, so dju^ts copras may be said of more than 
 one in this same sense; and yet, as we see from II. o>, 488,, 
 
 1 This is the interpretation of one scholiast, while another observes 
 from this passage that Juno and Minerva sat in Olympus eKarepoddev, 
 one on each side of Jupiter. But this sentence is evidently connected 
 with the following one by ovBe ; and the manner of their sitting, and 
 their silence, are both the effects of their being offended with Jupiter. 
 
1 8. 'A^'y. 99 
 
 mentioned above in sect, 2., it may have a directly opposite 
 meaning. This is also evident in II. t, 460., where Phoenix 
 says of the friends who surround him, and endeavour to dissuade 
 him from flying, 
 
 H p.kv noXXa %tcli koi ave^noi dftfjus iovres 
 Avtov \i<r(r6fx€V0L KareprjTVOV iv peydpouriv. 
 
 7. When afjufrts is used to point out in actions or in operations 
 of the mind the relation which two or more persons reciprocally 
 bear to each other, it expresses what each person for himself 
 does or thinks, without its according with the other, nay some- 
 times when it is in direct opposition ; e. g. II. v, 345. 
 
 To) 8' dp.(f>\s (f)poveovT€ dim Kp ovov- vie Kparaia' 
 
 because Jupiter assisted the Greeks, Neptune the Trojans. And 
 
 of many in number, at II. /3, 13. ov yap eV a/x^ts ^AO&vcltoi 
 
 (f)pa(ovTai. Therefore when in Od. x> 57- tne suitors offer 
 Ulysses, " everything of thine which has been consumed," 
 
 Tiprjv dp,<p\s ayovres ieaco(rd(3oiov eiccKTTOs 
 dnoddxTopLeu, 
 
 the meaning of it is, " each for himself shall give thee the value 
 of twenty oxen." And now we shall not fail to understand the 
 meaning of Od. r, 46. 
 
 *H Be fx odvpofxepr) elprja-crai dp(f)\s e/cacrra, 
 
 " will ask me everything one after the other." Further, when 
 at II. Xj 117. Hector is considering whether it would not be 
 better to return to the Greeks everything which Paris had taken 
 from them, 
 
 dfxa 5' dfxcjils 'Axcuols 
 ''AXX' dno8da(ra(r6ai, oacra nrohis rjde KtKevOev, 
 
 it does not mean " to the Achaeans around ;" nor, as it is ex- 
 plained in one scholium, "besides;" nor "the one half;" but, 
 to the Achseans, " man by man" And lastly at II. o, 709., 
 where the battle close to the ships is described ; 
 
 Tovnep dr) nep\ vrjos 'A^aiot re Tpaies re 
 Arjovv dXkr)\ovs avToorxcdov' old* dpa rorye 
 T6£a>p ainds dp.(f)\s p.euou, oude r ukovtow, 
 'AM' uly eyyvOev la-rdpcuoL eva Bvpov exovres 
 'O^eVi drj 7rc\eK€(T(Ti Kal dgii>r)(Ti pA^ovTO, &c. 
 H 2 
 
100 i8. 'A^/y. 
 
 adepts here does not mean " from a distance/' as some have sup- 
 posed, in opposition to avTocrythov, the antithesis lies in the 
 verse following, and adepts is correctly explained in the scholium 
 by xvpis cLkXrjXdiv, and in Eustathius by ibiq. 
 
 8. From this multiplicity of meanings, proceeding from and 
 blending with each other, a doubt may often arise as to the 
 sense of a/x</>i9 in particular passages ; for instance, in II. cr, 502., 
 where, in the description of the litigation represented on the 
 shield, both disputants are mentioned, and then follows, 
 
 Aaol §' dfx<j)OTepoi(nv kityyuvov dp<p\s dpcoyol. 
 
 Here a^ts may be explained by around; but then apoayoi 
 would look very bald after it. I understand apicpls apayoi to 
 mean, " some helping the one, others the other." Schol. min. 
 Xcopls eKarepo) ol thiol, (3or)6oC 2 . — Again, at II. ju, 434., speaking 
 of the woman weighing the wool for spinning, 
 
 "'Hre uradpov exovaa Kai elpiov dp(f>\s dveXicei 
 'l(ra£ovcra' 
 
 that aji(f)Ls belongs to az>eA./cet is plain, as the scholiast remarks, 
 from the rhythm, which does not allow of a pause after d/x^is ; 
 it must therefore be " she makes on both sides, (i. e. both) hang 
 equal." 
 
 9. In II. y, 113. the word requires a more particular exa- 
 mination. The preparations for the single combat of Menelaus 
 and Paris are there described ; and it is said of the leaders of 
 both armies, 
 
 Kai p LiTTTovs pev epvgav eVt crrixas, i< §' ejSav auroi, 
 Tei^ea t egedvovro, ra pev Karedevr iiri yairj 
 U\r)<r[ov dXXrjXap, 6\iyr) $ r\v dp(pils apovpa. 
 
 The scholiast and Eustathius, and all the later commenta- 
 tors now lying before me, understand adepts here to mean 
 between. It is true that this meaning may be drawn from the 
 
 42 Instead of dp.(poT€poiariv iirr^nvov there is a reading mentioned in 
 Schol. Ven., dp(poT£p<o6ev inlnwov, which Heyne did not know how to 
 explain satisfactorily. It certainly ought to be inoirrwov, " the people 
 were in a ferment on both sides, some in favour of the one, others of 
 the other." 
 
t8. 'A/Mpls. 101 
 
 form of the expression, as it might have been also from that of 
 the yoke mentioned before, To> \xkv re (vybv...ap.(pls eepyei, 
 for the yoke which presses the oxen outwards toward each side 
 is between both. But from that idea there is one more step to 
 be taken before we can reach this; and to take that step we 
 must find an example in some other passage, or we must be 
 driven to it in this by necessity. Such examples, however, I 
 have not been able to discover; for in II. ??, 342., where it is 
 said of the ditch protecting the rampart of the Grecians, "H y,' 
 ittttovs kcll kabv ipvKdKOL a[jL<pls kovvd, no one will prefer the idea 
 of between, (that is, between the rampart and the crowd that was 
 pressing towards it,) to the common and natural explanation of 
 the ditch drawn round the semicircular camp. As to the pas- 
 sage of II. y, before us, we must first observe, that those who 
 understand the irKrjaiov dA.A7jA.c0y to refer to the two armies, and 
 the apovpa to mean the pLeraixpaov, evidently mistake it alto- 
 gether. It is supposed that these two points may be proved 
 from the context; but I think I shall be able to show from the 
 context that this view of them is a false one. At v. 77. Hector 
 makes the Trojan ranks recede a little (Tpa>o)v cWepye (pa- 
 Aayyay), and he himself prepares to address the. Grecians ; on 
 which Agamemnon restrains his troops from shooting and 
 throwing at him. These troops, therefore, are standing at some 
 distance from him, yet within bow-shot. Consequently there 
 is now plenty of room between the two armies for a single 
 combat: the horses of the foremost combatants are drawn 
 up e7rt crrtxas, i. e. along the ranks of the foot-soldiers; the 
 heroes lay their arms down close by their chariots, and place 
 themselves near them; as is expressly said again at v. 326. 
 after the long episode of Helen on the walls of Troy : Ot ^ev 
 (the heroes on both sides) eVetA' X(ovto Kara ori'xas, fj^t 
 eKao-70) "Iitttol ... kclI ... rev^ e/cen-o. That the space be- 
 tween the two armies and the heroes, who were looking on, 
 ought to be sufficiently large for the advancing and retreat- 
 ing movements of such a single combat, is self-evident; and 
 whoever wishes to see it should read v. 378., where Mene- 
 laus, after having dragged Paris some little way, retains the 
 helmet in his hand after the throat-strap had been broken, and 
 throws it toward the Grecians tinhLvrivas. How then could 
 
102 1 8. 'AfiQk. 
 
 the poet describe the peraiyjAiov to be oXtyr) frpovpa ? All this 
 I was obliged to picture to myself, before I could get rid of the 
 preconceived opinion, which hindered me, as it does others, 
 from understanding the words, Tevx ea &' Q&vovto, tcl iazv 
 KareOevT em yairj UXtjcflov aXXrjXuv, in their plain and natural 
 sense and connexion : the heroes laid their arms down, each 
 near those of the other, and thus formed, by seating themselves 
 near their arms, an assembly of spectators and judges of the 
 combat. Thus the expression of there being but little space 
 between the arms of each individual would be quite correct ; 
 but equally correct is it to say that there was d\iyr) &povpa u a 
 little space," d/x^tj " around each pile of arms." 
 
 io. In the poets after Homer the form dju^ts is not of fre- 
 quent occurrence ; and in those cases which do occur I see no 
 reason why I should anticipate all the possible meanings that 
 may be drawn from those which I have laid down above, by 
 criticism employing itself in explaining difficulties or fixing 
 readings. Perhaps the use of the word by Parmenides in one 
 of the Fragments in Simplicius (Fulleborn, 105.) may deserve 
 particular notice ; 
 
 ~Ev tco <roi nava marbv \6yov rjde vorjpa 
 3 Afi(f)\s aXrjdeirjs. 
 
 At least I know of no other passage where this form preserves 
 so completely the meaning, construction and position of djuc/>t, 
 de. I will also mention the use of this word in the oracle given 
 to Crcesus in Herodot. 1, 85. 
 
 Mr) ftoukev TroKvevKTOv 'irjv dva boapar anovtiv 
 XlaiSo? (J)deyyopevov. rode croi ttoKv Xoo'iou dp(p\s 
 Efifxevai. avdr)(Tei yap £v rjpari Trptorov dv6X(3co. 
 
 The construction is best thus, ro'Se vol X&lov (earli') afxcpls ttvac, 
 " it is better for thee to be without it" i. e. apLcfis scil. clvtov, 
 literally " far away from it," like aptcpls cfrvXoinbos above, at 
 sect. 6. 
 
 1 1 . We will now examine a passage in Pind. Pyth. 4, 450. 
 which is explained in two different senses. Both of these are 
 mentioned by the scholiast, and have been discussed by Bockh, 
 but we will submit them to another examination. Pindar says 
 that the Argonauts celebrated games at Lemnos eV0dro9 adepts ; 
 
18. 'Aju^/y. 103 
 
 which, according to the scholiast, has two meanings, irorepov 
 TTJs ecrOfJTOs xu)ph riytovCo-avTO, Tovriari yv\ivo\, r\ to apicpts clvtI 
 
 TT]S 7T€pL b€KTtOV Xp&VTCLl yap Ttj ki^€L KCU €774 TOVTOV Xv ?? TO 
 
 tiraOkov eo-^y. The second explanation is there preferred, 
 and with this Bockh agrees*. The latter grounds his inter- 
 pretation on Olymp. 4, 31, &c. (where it appears that this 
 contest consisted in running in armour,) and on an express 
 mention of this meaning, as quoted by the scholiast from 
 Simonides ; koI yap kol irapa 2i//&>z>t6fl kaTiv f} IcrTopCa, otl irepl 
 ZadrJTos fjyvvLo-avTo. This however does not satisfy me ; for in 
 that passage of 01. 4, 31. the running in armour is the only 
 contest mentioned, because what occurs there relates to that 
 alone ; whereas in those funeral games in honour of Thoas 
 (see Schol. ad 01. 4, 31.) there were undoubtedly general 
 gymnastic contests, as in other funeral games, in the famous 
 ones of Pelias for instance. If now Simonides had spoken of 
 those games somewhat more in detail, the mention of the 
 garment there as one of the prizes was very natural. In Pindar, 
 on the contrary, who merely touches on the stay of the Argo- 
 nauts in Lemnos and on these games, in a few words, 
 
 *Ev t aK€avov TTehayeacri fiiyev 7t6vtco t ipvBpco, 
 
 AayLViav r Wvei yvvaiKcov dvBpo(f)6va>V 
 
 '4v6a kcu yvloav aed\oi.s eVeSa'£az/ro Kpicrw iadarog dp(j)LSj 
 
 the mention of this unmeaning circumstance appears to me 
 strange and misplaced ; or, what is still stronger, if, as I sup- 
 pose, there were also other contests besides the running in 
 armour, such a mention of one prize for all of them was not 
 possible, because each contest had its particular prize. On 
 the contrary, the mentioning that they were naked contests was 
 not indeed strictly necessary ; but this expression refers so 
 naturally and beautifully to yviw and eTTtheCgavTo, that I wonder 
 how any one, who considers the context, can understand it 
 otherwise ; and if therefore Pindar had, wheti he wrote it, 
 the other meaning in his mind, he would have drawn upon 
 himself just and deserved reproach. 
 
 11. And now to go back to the different use of ap.<j)C and 
 
 * [Dissen, in his edition of Pindar, forming the 6th volume of Jacob's 
 Bibliotheca Grseca, agrees with Bockh, and objects to Buttmann's in- 
 terpretation, but his arguments are not to me convincing. — Ed.] 
 
104 i 9 . 'A 
 
 veveiicaTO. 
 
 a[ji(j)Ls, we have seen in sect. 3. (with the exception of the 
 passage from Hesiod) the meanings of ulrinque, seorsim, &c. 
 confined entirely to the form a[x<pLs ; for the three passages 
 from Homer where a^obis stands before Hkclo-tov, tKwrTa, (see 
 sect. 3. and 7.) cannot justify us in changing it there, on ac- 
 count of the digamma, to dju^t; since the word e*aoros, as is 
 well known, cannot be reduced to any certainty on this point 
 (see Heyne's Excursus on the Digamma) ; and I, at least, am 
 not acquainted with any other passages where dju^ij before the 
 digamma would cause a difficulty. As for the original meaning 
 around, and that which is immediately connected with it, the 
 form d/xc/)t is constantly the prevailing one, and we seldom see 
 the other for metrical reasons preferred to it ; only in the ad- 
 verbial meaning of around the use of d/x<£ts and apicpi seems to 
 depend entirely on the convenience of the verse, In the two 
 passages, then, quoted above, at sect. 2. instead of a^h Ibcov, 
 we should adopt, with Heyne on II. /3, 384., as the genuine 
 reading, a^iMv. „ 
 
 I9. 'Av€V€LKaTO. 
 
 i . In the passage where Achilles laments the death of Pa- 
 troclus, we find this line, (II. r, 314.) 
 
 Mvrjadfievos §' dBivcos dvevelicaTO, (fxavrjcrev re. 
 
 And then follow the words of the lamentation. As the verb 
 aveveLKaaOai does not occur again in all Homer, we must en- 
 deavour to find out its meaning, as far as is possible, from the 
 word itself, and the context of this passage. The scholiasts, 
 in this respect, give us no assistance. KaTaOev tt)v tfxovrjv 
 aOpoav €K fiaOovs avrjveyKev. — 'A0po&>? kol ikeeiv&s kclI ohrpajs 
 aviKpa£ev' 77 olovel avearevage koX ttoKv ijyayt nvev^a. These 
 are their explanations. Of this the most certain, as drawn 
 from the etymology of the verb, is the deep-drawn breath. But 
 then are we to understand it to mean a loud cry caused by this, 
 or a deep sigh previous to it? It appears to me, from the con- 
 text of this passage, that after Mz^trd/xe^os, and just at the be- 
 ginning of a long speech, a loud cry is the most ill-suited thing 
 in the world 1 . The commentator too adduced only the one 
 
 1 How Heyne could from the aftwm and the dOpoav of the scholiast 
 arrive at the explanation which he has given, continuo has voces in ore 
 habuit, 1 cannot at all conceive. 
 
19. 'AveveiKCLTO. 105 
 
 meaning of the word dbtvos for this passage ; but we have seen 
 under the article dbivos, that the idea of loud, loud-sounding is 
 but a subordinate meaning, in as much as the word is used of 
 everything powerful and abundant, for instance, of a violent 
 sighing and lamentation. And this common junction of dbiva 
 with (TTovaxifriv makes therefore the same meaning probable 
 in the passage before us, where nothing can suit the context 
 better than a sigh or groan ; which, however, by the expression 
 avzvtLKaro, is not described in this case as striking the ear by 
 a loud sound, but depicted by a deep-drawn breath. We will 
 therefore confine ourselves to that one part of the scholiast's 
 explanation, as Apollonius has only that in his lexicon; ave- 
 (TT€va^€v^ olov avrjveyK€ rbv crTevayp,6v ; and Hesychius, 'Az>e- 
 viyKdTo (for so it is written there), karrivo^ev e/c fidOovs. 
 
 2. In Herodotus the same word occurs (and in the same 
 form but once), in the well-known passage of Croesus on the 
 burning pile ; and every one will recognize at first sight the 
 exact similarity of expression in these two Ionians. (1, 86.) 
 Ta> be KpotacD earecori eirl ttjs irvprjs eo-eA.0e6i>, KaiTtep kv KaxaJ 
 
 loVTl TOCTOVTto, TO TOV 2ok(i)VOS Ct)S be dp(X [JLLV TTpOGTrjvaL 
 
 TOVTO aV€V€LKap.€VOV T€ KCLL CLV CL(TT €V&£ CLVTCL €K 7TOk\i]S 
 
 T)(rvyjli)s es rph dvojiacrai 2o'A.g)z/. Of all things a loud cry is 
 the least suited to this passage ; for no one will for a moment 
 think of connecting the sense of dveveiKdp.evQv (situated as it 
 is) with dvop.a<rai 2oAa)^, by carrying it over dvao-revd^avTa. 
 One should much rather say that it is an old usage in Greek 
 to join dveveUacrOai and dvao-Tevdgcu, in order to bring before 
 the mind of the reader the deep-drawn breath and groaning of 
 one who is in great distress. And thus I think iElian understood 
 it, of whom the following fragment is preserved in Suidas ; 
 'O be avqvzyKOLTo dpa arevd^as kol rpls eKa\ecre rbv So'Aoora, 
 although the grammarian has explained the verb "'Avrji^eyKaro 
 there by e* (3d6ovs eftorjcrev. But it is quite evident that iElian 
 has only varied a little in this passage the exact words of He- 
 rodotus, and felt a pleasure in clothing the learned Ionic verb 
 in his Attic dress. I am not aware that this aoristus medii is 
 ever found elsewhere in this construction, either in the old 
 prose or in the Attic dialect. 
 
 3. The aoristus passivi, on the contrary, does occur in He- 
 
106 i 9 . 'A 
 
 veveiKaro. 
 
 rodotus, but again only once, and in a passage calculated to 
 unsettle our opinion of the former passage. It is spoken of 
 Astyages, who is beginning to recognize his grandson in Cyrus, 
 (t, 1 1 6.) 'EK7rA.ayeis be tovtoktl e7ri yjpovov a(j)0oyyos rjv fxoyis 
 St brj /core aveveuxOeh et^e* and then follows a calm, cool speech 
 of Astyages, relating to something else. A sigh or groan 
 can have nothing to do in this passage ; and the whole context 
 with the word jxoyis proves much rather that avevuydtis 
 means here, " after he had recovered himself." And thus 
 it agrees in everything essential with the use which the later 
 authors (amongst whom Demosthenes is perhaps the earliest, 
 p. 210, 15.) make of the active form of this verb, as intransitive, 
 and sometimes also of the passive; airqveyKev*, av^vix^ " ne 
 came to himself again, recovered himself, came to life again." 
 Vid. Steph. Thes. in Ind. v. aveveyKG). Hesych. avevexOeis, 
 avapLtocras. The middle voice is also, as far as theory goes, 
 capable of bearing this same meaning, and a certain similarity, 
 which exists between the two passages of Herodotus, might very 
 well induce us to understand aveveiKa\xevos in the same sense as 
 aveveixOeLs ; particularly as in the former passage it is ex- 
 pressly added e/c iroWrjs fjo-vxfys 2 - But then again, the sim- 
 plicity of the language of Herodotus will not allow us to suppose 
 that he used the middle and passive of the same verb in pre- 
 cisely the same sense ; and he could not possibly have spoken 
 of Croesus " coming to himself," unless he had previously men- 
 tioned his being in a speechless state, as he has in the second 
 passage. But the words Zk. iroXXrjs fjcrvxfys are placed after 
 av<Eveu<a[jL€Vov, instead of before, and express nothing more 
 than a silent meditation, being placed in that part of the 
 passage where they stand, because the meaning connects them 
 closest with es rph ovo^acrai : as thus, " But when that came 
 before his mind, he sighed deeply, and from having been until 
 then perfectly silent and quiet, he cried out three times on 
 Solon." 
 
 4. We are now certain enough of the meaning of the word 
 
 * ['Ek to>v rpavjxaT(ov dvrjveyKf, Pint. M. Anton. 43. — Ed.] 
 
 ' 2 Or dyj/vxiT)?, Xfino^vxtrjs, according to the various readings ; both 
 which, however, the context, rightly considered, rejects. 
 
20. ' Avew, avew. 107 
 
 to examine, without fear of being led astray, the imitations of 
 Apollonius. This poet evidently understood by the ahum 
 avevtUoLTo of Homer, a loud cry, supplying in that passage an 
 accusative, which in his own poem is everywhere expressed; 
 and he has thus abandoned the part of an imitator, without 
 gaining anything by appearing in his own person as an ori- 
 ginal: 3, 4.63. ^Hkcl 8e fivpo}jL€vr} Atyecos aveveUaro pxQov' Tltttz 
 
 fi€ h€i\air)V.... 635. ahivi\v 6' aveveiKaro cfxavqv' AetX?) iyuv 
 
 4, 1748. (Euphemus) Oeoirponias 'E/caroto ©u/xw TrepLTTafav ave- 
 v€lkclto (pa>vr)(T<-v re, and then follows a very cheering prediction. 
 Nor does Theocritus succeed better, 23, 18. ovtg> 8' aveveiKaro 
 cf)(i)vriv "AypLt iral /cat arvyve 
 
 20. "Aveco, aveco. 
 
 ] . This word is in some respects exactly similar to <x/ceW, 
 with which it also agrees in meaning. The form avea occurs 
 seven times in the two poems of Homer, and always in the 
 sense of still, silent, without noise, as is plain from its being 
 generally opposed to speaking. In all these passages it relates 
 to a plurality of persons, and is therefore generally considered 
 as the plural of an adjective aveus. But in one passage the 
 same expression is used of a woman, and there it is written 
 without the iota subscript, aveca, Od. \js, 93. *H 5' cbeco hi]v t\(tto. 
 One scholiast also has been careful enough to remark on II. /3, 
 323. <S5e \x\v bia tov V kill 8e tov *H 8' avea brjv rjorro l , \topls tov t. 
 That is to say, as has been observed elsewhere, in this passage 
 avtv is an adverb according to the form of oil™, acpvd). And it 
 is indeed remarkable how these grammarians and all succeeding 
 critics have been puzzled at the omission of a little subscript 
 line in one passage. Still more wonderful is it, that having 
 once settled this difference, they should adopt it here only where 
 the singular makes it necessary, and should not have seen that 
 the same construction with the verb rjo-0cu requires the same 
 
 1 In Villoison is ol 8' avea> fy fjaav, but this is evidently a corrupt 
 reading, as the thing itself and a comparison of passages prove. 
 
108 20. "Aveco, avew. 
 
 form at Od. /3, 240., olov &7ravr€s ? Ho-0' &v€(a, in which all leave 
 the 1 subscript untouched : whereas it is grammatically certain 
 that Homer must have either spoken cbew without the t in both 
 passages, or if he had said av€<p here, he could not have said in 
 the other passage anything but avem; of which reading how- 
 ever there is no trace. 
 
 2. This consideration and the comparison of clktjv kyivovTo 
 ought, however, to lead further ; that is to say, to the conclu- 
 sion that in the other passages there is nothing to hinder our 
 considering aveca as an adverb in the phrases aveoo iyivovTo, avea 
 r\<rav. An observation to this purpose, quoted only by Damm, 
 had been made long ago by Eustathius on Od. i/r, but made, it 
 seems, in vain ; To be aveoa arjfxeiStbes ecrTtv eiripp^ixa ov kcu bibca- 
 (Jiv VTTovoiav, Koi 70, Ot 6' av em rjo~av, tolovtov elvau kclQcl kclI to, 
 1 ' A6r\va 8' d/ceW rjv, boKel eTrCpprjjjLa elvat bia to, d/ceW baivvcrOe. 
 Apollonius speaks more in detail, though not more clearly, to 
 the same purpose, Be Adv. p. 554. 577., from which it appears 
 that the School of Aristarchus supposed the word to be always 
 an adverb. The critics, who again differed from this, thought 
 themselves, it seems, fettered by the actual existence of an ad- 
 jective areas, with which, it is true, the junction of elvai and 
 yevevQai would be more natural. 
 
 3. If, however, we search for this adjective, we nowhere find 
 it. For the instance which Alberti on Hesychius quotes from 
 Herodotus 5, 27. (28.) as an elegant expression, has been long 
 acknowledged to be a corruption ; and the undoubted and ex- 
 cellent correction of La Barre, aveais for avem, has at last 
 found the place which it deserved in the text of Schweighauser. 
 With this all trace of the word avem has, as far as I know, 
 disappeared ; for aveoi in Hesychius is for certain only a various 
 reading from the passages of Homer. That in all those we 
 ought to read aveca without the t subscript, according to the 
 rule of that one passage where the t has been always omitted, 
 can no longer, then, be doubted ; and we have here a notable 
 instance on what accidental circumstances the explanations of 
 the old grammarians partly depended. "Avem was an obsolete 
 word. If the passage in which it is joined with the singular 
 had stood in the first book of the Iliad as well as in the last but 
 one of the Odyssey, nothing is more certain than that from that 
 
20. "Avew, avetp. 109 
 
 one all the other passages would have been considered correct. 
 But as they stand in Homer, the eye generally met with only 
 that great majority of passages, where aveco being joined with the 
 verb substantive gave most naturally the idea of an adjective ; 
 and as there are plurals ending in w, the ear had heard such a 
 sound long before the grammarian meddled with it ; who, think- 
 ing it a regularly established fact, employed himself in exa- 
 mining the deviation from it in Od. \jr 2 . 
 
 4. As an adverb, then, it follows the analogy of adverbs in 
 a). And the nature of such a word appears always to bring 
 with it the idea that it is formed from an adjective, of which 
 it is some case, say the dative or genitive, slightly modified. 
 With this idea we naturally turn to o^tcro), irpoo-o, a<f)v<i), and 
 even to av&, /carw, &c. ; so that one should be inclined to say 
 that usage has fixed the termination o> on those adverbs, which 
 as adjectives have become obsolete, or, perhaps, never came 
 into use. In the case of ovra alone, which with ovtvs comes 
 from ovtos, we must suppose a form in 0$ as the most natural, 
 or at least the most common of all those forms. y Ai>ea>, then, 
 as an adverb, will accord with every etymological view in 
 which we may have regarded the adjective ; it may, for in- 
 stance, be akin to hveos, it may be compounded of av priva- 
 tive and a radical word signifying a voice or sound ; a deriva- 
 tion which, where e only remains to trace the root by, may 
 be easily conjectured, but with difficulty fixed. But how are 
 we to accent it ? There is every reason to suspect that it re- 
 tains the accentuation with which it has been handed down 
 to us, aveot, from its being considered as the plural of the ad- 
 jective av€d)s. The most natural mode of accenting it would 
 be <Wg), like dirto-v ; or if we suppose its adjective to have 
 been accented like evveos, avtv would not be surprising, any 
 more than o-o^m, Kparzpm. Under such circumstances, it is 
 best to retain, with all due reservation, what is handed down 
 to us; and the more so, as those same old grammarians, who 
 
 2 Apollonius Rhodius has the word three times, always in connexion 
 with avavhoi, from which however it does not necessarily follow that 
 he considered it to be an adjective. The adverbial form, which his 
 Codd. offer, may very well be joined with an adjective, as if one should 
 say ol Be &lya kcl\ dOopvfioi irapr)\dov. 
 
110 21. 'AvtjvoOev, &c. 
 
 acknowledged it to be an adverb, did so accent it, as is clear 
 from a passage of Apollonius De Adv. p. 577 s . 
 
 2,\. ' ' hwqvoQtV) ivqvoOev, €VL7rTco, eveirGo, avcoya, acopro, 
 and other verbal forms. 
 
 1 . The two forms, so similar to each other, avr\vo6ev and kvr\- 
 vo6e occur only in the language of the Epic poets, both in but 
 few instances, and the latter only when compounded with kiti 
 and Kara. We will first mention the passages in which they 
 are found. 'AvrfvoOe occurs in II. A, 266., where it is said of 
 Agamemnon when wounded that he still went about fighting, 
 
 *0(\>pa ol aljx en Bep/xov dvrjvodev i£ a>TeiXrjs' 
 
 and in Od. p, 270., where Ulysses, standing before his own 
 palace, says he can tell that a feast is going on within, 
 
 .... eVel Kviaar] pkv dvrjvoBev, iv de re (froppiyg 
 'H.7rv€i. 
 
 The word, therefore, evidently means the rising or issuing forth 
 of the blood from the wound, or of the vapour and smell from 
 the house. 
 
 2. 'EvrivoOe compounded with zttl we find in II. (3, 219., 
 where Thersites is described, 
 
 &o£6s erjv Ke(pa\r)v, yjrebvr} §' eTrevrjvode Xdxvr). 
 
 In II. k, 134. speaking of Nestor, 
 
 y Ap<fi\ 5' apa -xkaivav Trepov^aaro <j)oiviKO€(Tcrav 
 At7rXrjv, eKTablrjv, ovXt] §' ineprjuode \d)(yq. 
 
 3 They derived the adverb uvea from the adjective apcas, and thence 
 thought that they might accent it thus ; a supposition in itself not in- 
 correct, since, for instance, the genitive termination <ov in tcov epivkcojv 
 and the like must also be regulated according to the nominative in coy. 
 In truth the supposition of the existence of this adjective was always 
 grounded on that imaginary aveco. But that supposition offends against 
 no rule of the Greek language : nay more, if we suppose such a Word 
 as avtios, without sound, the change to aWco? was almost necessary. 
 
21. 'AvyvoOev, &c. Ill 
 
 In Od. 0, 365., where the Graces anoint Venus with oil, 
 
 .... ota 6eovs eitevr\vo6ev alev eovras, 
 
 which verse is repeated in the Hymn to Venus v. 62. Com- 
 pounded with Kara it occurs in Hesiod. a, 269., where it is 
 said of 'Ax^vs personified, 
 
 Ela-TT]K€L' 7roXKrj Be kovis Karevrjvodev Sfiovs. 
 
 We see that in both these compounds, kin and Kara, the mean- 
 ing is the same ; and that naTzvrivoOev in the last passage was 
 preferred only on account of the metre. The dust lying upon 
 and covering the shoulders will assist us, then, in fixing the sense 
 in the two passages where mention is made of the wool and of 
 the woolly hair ; and the meaning of the word is therefore 
 simply to be, sit, or lie upon, as spoken of one thing covering 
 another more or less. We have therefore no reason whatever, 
 in the Hymn to Ceres, v. 280., where speaking of her suddenly 
 re-appearing in the divine form it is said, 
 
 . . . TjJXe Be (peyyos dno xp°os dBavdroio 
 Adfine deds, £av6a\ Be KOfxai Karevrjvodev a>fj.ovs, 
 
 to understand the verb of the waving motion of the hair ; still 
 less reason is there for supposing it to mean the sudden waving 
 of the hair downwards : but the use of the imperfect (A.a^7re, 
 &c), and a comparison with the passage in Hesiod, show that it 
 merely means the hair covers the shoulders, lies upon them. 
 
 3. And now having clearly seen that ZirevrivoOtv and Kare- 
 vrjvoOe are used in common for each other, we can better decide 
 on the bold use which Apollonius makes of the word, when 
 at 4, 276. he says of a thing long past, irov\vs yap ah-qv en-e- 
 vqvoOev oXoav, and again at 1, 664. he ventures to make a new 
 compound, where Hypsipyle, after she had declared her opin- 
 ion to the assembled women, adds, 'H/uerep^ /xeV vvv toCtj 77a- 
 pevrjvoOe; iatjtls. It is, indeed, difficult to say with certainty 
 the exact sense in which Apollonius used these forms. We 
 can find in Homer little to elucidate their meaning in these 
 two passages ; whether, for instance, this Alexandrian, fol- 
 lowing some grammatical view of his own, might have con- 
 nected them with the idea of motion. But it is not at all 
 
112 21. 'AvyvoOev, &c. 
 
 necessary to adopt this idea. The perfectly simple explanation 
 of the Homeric ki:evr\vo6e, which for instance we find in Apollon. 
 Lex., €ttt}v, €tt4k€lto, and which is therefore certainly very old, 
 may have been the cause of Apollonius Khodius using this 
 cvrjvodev as a mere variety of expression for the verb substan- 
 tive, as thus, twKvs €7reoTt xpovos, and ndpea-n, TiapaKtirai /urjrts 
 
 7J[JL€T€pr]. 
 
 4. As to the time of these forms, avqvoOev in the second 
 passage and ivrjvoOev in the third have plainly the meaning of 
 the present, and both are therefore according to form perfect ; 
 and in this Apollonius imitated them : but in all the other pas- 
 sages they are joined in the context with the past, and both 
 forms are therefore also imperfect. On this subject there is 
 nothing further to be said, since also the third persons of dci'Sia, 
 yzyoava, av<aya are without the least doubt imperfect or aorist, 
 e. g. detdte II. <r, 34., yiyvve, II. o>, 703., avaye Od. 0, 97. That 
 is to say, as these perfects had so completely the meaning of the 
 present, they began to form also an imperfect or aorist in ov 
 immediately from them, instead of the plusquam-perfectum 
 which properly should supply their places. And hence the 
 third person, without its proper augment, was the same in sound 
 as the perfect form : but from avaya there occur also the forms 
 av<t>yov, av<ay€Te, &c. 
 
 5. From the great similarity of these two perfects it has 
 always been thought from the earliest times that they ought 
 to be united etymologically also ; and as some of the old gram- 
 marians explained avqvoOa to be 2nd perfect* from av04b>, with 
 the Attic reduplication and inserted, as in ayrjoxa (in which 
 case the idea of to rise or spring up would be taken from the 
 flowering or budding of plants) ; so others explained Zv-qvoda to 
 be precisely the same, in as much as wool, hair, oil, and dust 
 lie lightly on objects, as a blossom does. In the Etym. M. 
 this derivation is rejected, but the grounds given for rejecting 
 it are as bad as those often given there in support of deriva- 
 tions. For these we must refer the reader to that work and to 
 the other grammarians. We will mention only the best deri- 
 
 * [With us it is called, most improperly, the perfectum medium. 
 —Ed.] 
 
21. 'AvJjvoOev, &c. 113 
 
 vation which we fin$ among the later grammarians. These 
 could not resist the appearance of the words, according to which 
 both forms would be one and the same verb, but compounded 
 with two prepositions ; and accordingly they supposed a perfect 
 fjvoOa, whose theme should be £v66g). The simple odco was 
 thought to exist, and not without probability, ist, in the 
 lengthened form a>0o), a)0e&>, 2nd, in the deponent oOofxai, / 
 concern myself about any one, attend to him, have a regard for 
 ox fear of him, which has been compared with the Lat. moveor ; 
 again, the compound ev66<a was recognized in the first part of 
 the epithets kvoaiyOoiv, kvvocriyaios, eivoaityvkkos, and in the 
 poetical substantive zvoans, a violent agitation or shaking, an 
 earthquake (Hesiod). It is impossible to show the absolute 
 untruth of separate parts of such combinations ; but in investi- 
 gations of that sort, the value of which depends on the union 
 of probabilities, it is sufficient to point out that which is de- 
 ceptive in each. 
 
 6. And first as to the application of all this to the Homeric 
 passages, it appears to me, that since the proof of this deriva- 
 tion is made to depend on the existence of such words and ideas 
 as vQeiv, to push or thrust, evoats, a violent agitation ; one 
 should expect to find in the meaning of those forms as they 
 occur in Homer, (if there be any grounds for such derivation,) 
 the idea of a violent or at least of a quick motion. For the 
 proper significancy of (L6elv and eVoo-ts lies only in the idea of 
 violence or impetuosity ; take away that idea, and you destroy 
 •the point of the comparison. Now avi]vode in Homer gives ex- 
 actly the idea of a most gentle motion ; in II. X, 266. it is 
 not the spouting of blood from a fresh wound, but its gentle 
 trickling from the wound until it dries, and the wound becomes 
 stiff (see v. 267.), and during which time the hero is still ranging 
 about the field and fighting ; and in the Odyssey that which 
 makes Ulysses suppose that there is a banquet going on in his 
 house is not smoke, Kairvos, which might be supposed to rise 
 in rapid whirls, but it is the Kvlcraa, or the vapoury smell of the 
 fat, which exhales gently and issues forth in every direction. 
 Again evrjvoda is, as we have seen above, entirely free from 
 even the idea of motion ; not that one cannot imagine to 
 oneself (for what might not a poet's ever-active and creative 
 
 1 
 
114 21. 'AvyvoQev, &c. 
 
 mind produce ?) the woolly hair rising up # on end, or moving, on 
 the head of Thersites, or the oil shining as if in motion ; nay, 
 usage might transfer a word, originally taken from the idea of 
 motion, to the lifeless wool of the cloak, or to the dust lying 
 motionless : but then the certain, or at least highly probable, 
 derivation must be already known from external appearance ; 
 here, on ' the contrary, the derivation is the very thing we are 
 in search of, and that in a great measure from the meaning. We 
 are not therefore justified in passing any hasty decision, but 
 must merely say that both compounds of evr\vo6ev give, in the 
 five passages in which they occur, as nearly as possible the 
 idea of simply to be upon, to lie upon, in which a gentle motion 
 may sometimes be supposed to exist, though it is very far from 
 ever forcing itself on our notice. But then all similarity of 
 meaning is gone between this word and ivoa-ts in kvoaiyObiv 
 and elvoaifyvWos, which are Homeric words full of meaning. 
 
 7. Further, as to the verb 6do\xai; if it be separated from the 
 context in which the old word stands in the only two passages 
 where it occurs, it is easy to raise the idea to that of a care which 
 might be borrowed from physical force or impulse, of which 
 however here only the motion can be used. But to prove this 
 there is no evidence whatever. If Homer wishes to say that 
 one person is acting without paying any regard to another's dis- 
 like of what he is doing, he says, that ovk akcyCfa ovft oOerai 
 the other. Hesychius has beside this word a large number of 
 other forms from the same root, with no stronger collateral 
 idea than that of shyness or timidity ; and whatever has been 
 added of kiv&v by other grammarians arises only from their 
 wishing and endeavouring to connect oOo^ai with tvoo-is: (see 
 Eustath. on II. a, 181 *.) But if dOa is not proved to have this 
 meaning, Zvoda> falls entirely to the ground, in which theme 
 the has been supposed merely on account of that connexion. 
 
 1 Others have endeavoured to connect oOopai rather with oaareo-dai, 
 oTTcadai ; an idea not to be despised, on account of the meaning of 
 shyness. In German one cannot but observe the similarity between 
 scheuen, ' to be shy,' and schauen, ' to look ;' and as a provincialism the 
 latter word is used instead of the former. Compare also the substantive 
 tifia for ofifia in Nicander and Hesychius. 
 
2i. 'AvyvoQev, &c* 115 
 
 When we are investigating the older Greek language we are in 
 general much too liberal, as I shall presently show, with prepo- 
 sitions in composition. The o in zvoo-ls has certainly no more 
 meaning than the v in aw, clvvo-ls, which however no one has 
 explained as compounded with dvd. But if in dv(a, dvva), avv^ 
 o-tj, avvo-Upyos, I find the meaning of to complete in the syllable 
 dv, of which I know nothing further, but which may possibly 
 belong to the same family of words as dvd; there is nothing 
 to hinder me from tracing back Zvoo-ls, evo<TLy6^v to evo*, ez/o'o), 
 and giving to the syllable kv the meaning of to shake 2 , which, 
 if you will, may belong to the same family of words as the 
 preposition €v 3 > 
 
 8. Nor is the analogy of conjugation by any means clear 
 
 2 Perhaps euvco with the idea of tumult may belong to this ? 
 
 •^ I will here take the liberty of attacking an arbitrary alteration of* 
 Brunck, which he has made in a word of this same family. In Eurip. 
 Bacch. (v. 585. seq.) in a chorus which announces the earth-shaking 
 arrival of Bacchus as the avenging god, was this passage, difficult of ex- 
 planation, and with no various reading : nebov x^ovos evoai norvia, a, a, 
 raya ra U.ev6ecoi fxeXatipa diaTivdgeTai nearjfiaaLV. Musgrave made a 
 slight emendation to rie'Scoi/, and joined norvia^Evoai nedcov x#oj/ds, as an 
 exclamation addressed to the shaking of the earth already felt. Brunck 
 without more ado rejects this, and writes, iieBop, <a xBav, evo8i, ttotvicl, 
 explains '4vo6i to be an imperative, gives the verse a name, and seems 
 to think he has settled the question off-hand. Such an explanation as 
 this arises from the false ideas which men formerly had of the grammar 
 of the Greek language. It was thought not only that everything which 
 appeared regularly formed according to any grammatical rales ought 
 to be adopted, when it was found ; but that it was allowable even to 
 form such as occasion might require, and introduce them into the works 
 of the old writers. But because there is such a word as 1\a6i, it does 
 not follow that there must be such a one as evo8i. Nowhere does there 
 occur a form eucopi, or anything which could come from it ; least of all 
 ought it therefore to be introduced into the Attic drama. But to a chorus 
 inspired with Bacchic frenzy, thirsting for vengeance, announcing an 
 earthquake, and looking forward to it with delight, to such a chorus it 
 would be very appropriate to address the earthquake in the vocative 
 case, thus personifying it as divine. For one piece of information I 
 willingly acknowledge myself indebted to Elmsley, namely, that the 
 plural ra neda is inadmissible : I am therefore contented with one 
 slight emendation, and read thus, Iledov xdovos "Evoai norvia. a, a. 
 For that an exclamation like these two sounds must necessarily precede 
 such an announcement, I am by no means convinced by Hermann's 
 note. 
 
 I 2 
 
116 21. 'AvyvoOev, &c. 
 
 and satisfactory in these two forms, as soon as they are brought 
 to a theme ENO0I2. In the adoption of a perfect fjvoda, 
 formed from the present Zvoda, there is something at variance 
 with what we find elsewhere. Scarcely ever was a perfect 
 yet formed without some other mark of difference beside the 
 temporal augment and the termination in a; for in rj\a } fr° m 
 ayv, the perfect is announced by the change of the letter, in 
 olha by the change of vowel, and in kiki]6a and such words 
 by the reduplication. Perfect certainty, indeed, is not to be 
 expected in the investigation of grammatical analogies ; but 
 no one could venture, without great danger of being led into 
 error, to separate the forms avr\voda, kv-qvoOa, from the analogies 
 in ikrjkvda, eprjpLira, zvr]Voya, ebrjboKa, ayrioya,, eyprjyopa, and 
 others ; from which one should expect to find in the first sylla- 
 ble of those two forms, as in these, the pure reduplication, and 
 in the o of the penultima the change of vowel. But that which 
 seems to have been least considered is the supposed connexion 
 of these two forms. Both verbs are to be derived from the 
 same simple verb ; if therefore avr\vo6a be compounded of avd 
 and ijvo6a, it is absolutely necessary that zvr\vo6a should also 
 be compounded of kv and ijvoOa. Then (for who would ex- 
 plain ivrjvoOa to be a reduplication, but avrivoOa not ?) there is 
 no instance of a verb, which in the same writer sometimes 
 has this reduplication and sometimes not ; and as a writer could 
 not say eirek-qkyda and avr/kvOa, ktrevrivoya and avi^vo\a, as 
 little could he say k-n-zvr\voQa and av-rjvoOa. Now let it be re- 
 membered that rjvoOa itself is said to be a compound. We will 
 not stop here to consider that which the analogy of oAwAa, 
 opcapa, ob&ba almost demands, that is to say, that from odea 
 must come ora>0a, and consequently from kvoQa ZvorcaOa, like 
 atrokaika ; whereas ijvoOa, like ijvopa, rjiroka, or the like, is un- 
 heard of. We will also put up with the decompound avr\voQev, 
 although ijvtodev, avaQtv would be quite sufficient; and evrjvo- 
 6zv or ZitrivoOev, if such stood there, might be defended in the 
 sense of it moved itself therein or thereupon ; but why use e7r- 
 ev-rjv-odt for so simple an idea as, for instance, of the wool on 
 the cloak or the oil on the skin ? Here the meaning of two 
 prepositions most intimately connected with the sense must 
 have been entirely lost by daily usage ; a supposition in itself 
 
 
21. 'AvrjvoOev, &c. 117 
 
 improbable, but in Homer absolutely impossible ; for in his 
 writings almost every preposition is still separable. But if we 
 say that evrjvoOa is formed by Attic reduplication, avf\voQa must 
 necessarily be so too ; and thus we arrive, according to the 
 simplest analogy, at two grammatical and perfectly different 
 themes, ANE0X2 and ENE012. 
 
 9. Before I continue the examination of these two verbs, I 
 cannot refrain from showing somewhat more in detail, that in 
 general we are much too hasty in supposing old verbs from 
 their appearance to be compounded of prepositions. We should 
 remember that the syllables av, air, ei>, eir, St, kclt are some of 
 the most common and familiar in the language, and therefore 
 present themselves to our notice in great numbers in the general 
 formation of words ; consequently they must appear sometimes 
 at the beginning as well as in the middle of words, without being 
 therefore identical with the prepositions of a similar meaning ; 
 and that even where they really are so, a derivation from such 
 a preposition, or from the common root, is just as possible as 
 the being compounded of some verb and the same preposition. 
 As this is acknowledged to be the case in those verbs whose 
 latter part is too small to become easily the second part of a 
 compound word, like avvv; or in those which are plainly de- 
 rived at once from another word, as aviaa) from avia, dtatraw 
 from hiaiTa : so even where this is not the case, it is necessary 
 for us to be on our guard against the possibility of being de- 
 ceived. 
 
 10. Thus the following verbs are, according to all correct 
 criticism, not compounded with prepositions : 
 
 'A-nciA-eco. If we consider that cbreiAat and atitike'iv are not 
 mere threats, but generally express vauntings, as in II. v, 83., 
 and that even of past exploits, as in 0, 1 50., it is clear that the 
 idea of to speak aloud is here, as in evxzcrOcu, avx^v, the ground 
 or radical idea. Hence I connect it with aTreAW, aneWafriv, 
 the Doric names for the assembly of the people, and for the 
 haranguing in that assembly ; and from this I look for the root, 
 as in ?77rv&>, in the two first le'tters, which probably belong to the 
 same family of words as e-nos, ox/f. 
 
 'AiraTaa, cLTiaTT), might very possibly mislead us, from the 
 long a being shortened in the Attic arcafxaL, were it not for 
 
118 21. 'AvyvoOev, &c. 
 
 the evident affinity between aitarr) and diracpeXv. But this last 
 is a reduplication from &7TTeo-0ai, dcpri, and expresses the Lat. 
 palpare. Certainly, therefore, d-rtdrr) also comes by an Ionicism 
 from acpav. 
 
 5 Avcllvoiacu. For the derivation of this word alvos and cuWa> 
 are generally brought forward, and in the preposition avd some- 
 thing about raising up is sought for ; but to raise up supposes 
 something already existing, whereas dvatvevOai means to deny 
 or refuse. It must therefore be compounded with the a priva- 
 tive; but this is opposed by the primitive form of the verb 
 ending only in -&>, -o/xat (see Grammar, sect. 106, obs. 3.). 
 Since however the a privative if complete would be dv-, nay 
 perhaps avd- (compare dvdtbvos), and, like every particle used 
 in composition, must have had originally its own meaning as a 
 separate word ; further, since -aiva is a common verbal ending, 
 I look in the root dv- for the idea of no, and dvaivoi is there- 
 fore, / say no, I deny, whence dvaivo\iai will have the same 
 meaning with reference to something of my own, i. e. I refuse*. 
 According to this the first r\ in r\vr\vd\n\v is the regular augment, 
 and the second the inflexion of the aorist. 
 
 AiaKovto) I have traced back to dtw/cco : see art. 40. sect. 3. 
 But 
 
 AtwKG) also might be mistaken for a compound by casting 
 a hasty and partial glance at o)kvs. However, a comparison of 
 the forms iookw and htco will prevent the mistake. 
 
 'Eirefyco. We can find no probable traces of a simple of this 
 verb. But if we suppose it to be itself a simple, and compare 
 0e'A.o>, e0eAo), we have itdfa, ttU$ls, €7retyo), an appearance of 
 affinity not to be rejected ; as also in German drucken ' to press,' 
 and dfdngen i to squeeze,' are akin. 
 
 4 Compare also the negative idea in avev, without. If now dvrjXerjs 
 
 pr)\er)s, dvypidpos v^pcB/JLOi, &C., be compared with prjnoipos, pr)7rep6r)S, 
 
 &c., and these again with the Latin ne ; it is clear that the privative 
 dv- (and consequently also the Latin in-, the German ohn-, un- 3 
 and the English un-,) is nothing more than the negative ne, which in 
 all the languages of this family we sometimes find actually existing, 
 and sometimes can with confidence suppose to exist. See also the 
 question, whether dvaivojxai be a compound or not, referred to in art. II. 
 note 3. 
 
21. 'AvrjvoOev, &c. 119 
 
 "'Evatpo), and 
 
 KaOaipb) are no more compounds of alpu) than /xeyat/xo is, 
 which will be examined in its place. But so strong was the 
 appearance of it, that the change of r into (a change incon- 
 ceivable in such a case) was admitted without hesitation, and 
 the meaning forced in order to prove KaOatpw to be a compound 5 . 
 But why should not KaOapos have its root in the first syllable, 
 and KaOaipo) be deduced from it, according to the same analogy 
 as ttolklXXo) from ttoikiXos, pLaXdo-crd) from [aclXclkos, &c. 6 ? 'Evaipa 
 might indeed, as far as its form was concerned, suit that deri- 
 vation; but then the preposition kv would be perfectly inex- 
 plicable, nay, it would be exactly contrary to the idea of atpo). 
 Notwithstanding that, I cannot bring myself to the opinion of 
 those who derive kvaipa from evapa, however analogous it may 
 be in form. For not only does kvaipeiv never mean so much as 
 (tkvX€V€lv, but (which is much more strange) this first meaning 
 must have so completely disappeared, that one might even say 
 Xpoa kclXov kvaipeaOai of a woman who spoils or destroys her beau- 
 tiful skin by mourning and lamentation. 'EvaCptiv must therefore 
 of itself mean to destroy, kill, and h'apa must come from it 7. 
 
 1 1 . I must here remind my readers of the twofold manner of 
 
 5 Although a'tpeiv, to take away, may very well be joined with the 
 idea of an impurity to be taken away ; yet it is a most forced construc- 
 tion to make the same form, merely strengthened by Kara, govern the 
 accusative of the thing from which the impurity is to be taken. Here 
 the 6 should have been welcomed, as enabling us to reject this deriva- 
 tion with certainty. The verb a'lpu is contracted from delpco, which, 
 according to the pure analogy of ancient Greek, is formed from drjp ; 
 as in German Luft means ' air,' and thence liifien (pronounced liften, 
 whence English ' to lift') is 'to raise up/* 'Aetpco and atpco have there- 
 fore never hud the aspirate ; and although such changes, as we see in 
 the Attic qdrjs, are possible, yet we must have stronger proof of the 
 meaning than lies in that explanation of KaOaipco, before we can be in- 
 duced to acknowledge it. 
 
 6 As soon as we acknowledge the root of KaOapos to be in the first 
 syllable, we have Keduos akin to it, (like yjredvos and tyadapos,) and Lat. 
 castus ; and if we suppose some such idea as blank to be the ground- 
 idea, we have also mivos. 
 
 7 Since eWpoi means the infernal regions, it is a conjecture not to be 
 
 * [And in Scottish lift means 'air' or ' sky:' see Johnson's Diet. — So 
 also in the old ballad of Sir Patrick Spens in Scott's Border Minstrelsy, 
 " When the lift grew dark and the wind grew loud." — Ed.] 
 
120 21. 'Ai/jji/o&ri/, &c. 
 
 compounding verbs. The one which we will call the inseparable 
 mode, is that where the whole when compounded takes a proper 
 derivative form, so that the second part does not admit of separa- 
 tion as an independent word ; while the first is generally a dif- 
 ferent part of speech from the second, and more frequently than 
 any other a preposition, as in vvvepyta, eyxetpew. The other, or 
 the separable mode, consists in the mere joining together of two 
 unchanged words, indeed strictly speaking of merely a verb and 
 a preposition preceding it ; which junction admits of none but 
 the necessary euphonic changes, (air-, aqb-, crypt,-, &c.,) as airo* 
 /3aAA&), GrvfJLTTa<Tx<a. In common language these two modes of 
 compounding are become almost equally inseparable ; in as much 
 as, on the one side, those compounded in the latter way do not 
 admit of being separated in common discourse much more than 
 the former, and, on the other side, the former take the augment 
 in the middle of the word as well as the latter {kveyei-povv like 
 <rvv€7Ta(rxov). But the higher we mount up into antiquity, the 
 more separable, or the more capable of tmesis, is this second 
 species. Thus in the Ionic dialect of Herodotus we still find 
 the separation made by certain particles, as air a>v ebovro for 
 cmihovTo ciiv. But in Homer these separable compounds are 
 almost always to be considered as distinct words ; because, in 
 one respect, each part shows its separate force and meaning, as, 
 to mention a particular instance, the preposition generally stands 
 with the verb as an adverb, but more frequently preserving its 
 proper force as a preposition belongs to some neighbouring 
 noun, as €Kbeov fjpuowv ; in another respect, the preposition of 
 every such verb, according to the convenience of the sense or 
 verse, may be sometimes separated from the verb by other words, 
 sometimes placed after it. The inseparable mode of compound- 
 ing, on the contrary, is as inseparable in Homer as it is in the 
 later writers, e. g. avrttyepifa, npoixayifa, citaiyltw, eyyi»aco, ey- 
 yvakifa. There is the same difference in compounding verbs in 
 
 rejected that ivatpeiv properly means to send to the infernal regions* kill, 
 destroy. According to closer analogy indeed it should be eueipco ; but 
 the change of vowel in the aorist, rjvapov, ivapiiv, might have produced 
 a retrograde effect on the present, as in dep&> (eSdprjv) daipa>, and exactly 
 as in German the proper infinitive was schweren, ' to swear,' indie, 
 piaster, ich schwor, * I swore,' whence arose the infinitive now in com- 
 mon use schworen. 
 
21. 'AvqvoOev, &c. 121 
 
 the German language ; only that in this, from want of a variety 
 of derivative endings, the two kinds of forms differ in the infini- 
 tive in accent only. Stellen* is the infinitive of a simple verb 
 meaning ' to place ;' compounded with um, a particle signifying 
 * around,' it is either umstellen, with the accent on the first syl- 
 lable, or umstellen, with the accent on the second. The former 
 is the loose or separable mode of compounding, the latter the 
 fixed or inseparable: the former may be translated 'to place 
 around, 5 the latter i to surround;' thus, for instance, Ich stelle 
 die Worte um, * I place the words around, or about ;' but Ich 
 umstelle die Stadt mit Truppen, ( I surround the town with 
 troops.' Again, in forming the past participle, the former takes 
 the augment ge in the middle of the word, the latter admits of 
 no augment ; e. g. e I have (umgestellt) placed the words about,' 
 f I have (umstelM) surrounded the town with troops.' Here we 
 cannot but feel the great similarity which there is between this 
 separable mode of compounding in German and that of Homer, 
 e. g. aiTokovct), airekovo-a, YldrpoKkov Xovaetav cltto fiporov ; 
 only that in German the separation, except in the infinitive, is 
 become an established rule, while the language of Homer had 
 the power of separating or not at its own convenience. 
 
 12. I have been obliged to premise these known points in 
 order to make it evident that in the wide difference which is 
 still visible in Homer between the two modes of compounding, 
 the taking of the augment could not yet have become irregular 
 in the way that it did in later times as mentioned above. The 
 separable mode of compounding has never then the augment 
 before it, and all such cases as tKaOevbov, r/cfyLovv, rjvetxofxrjv, 
 belong entirely to the later Greek 8 . The mere mention of this 
 
 * [The example given is Buttmann's ; the Editor has merely inserted 
 here and there an explanatory sentence to make it more intelligible to 
 the English reader. — Ed.] 
 
 8 I might also add r^nidTaTo, as Homer has only inia-Taro ; but this 
 I look upon as accidental. I am convinced, however, that the great 
 difficulties which this verb offers as a compound are only to be removed 
 by deciding that it is no compound, but a particular radical verb for the 
 meaning of to know, to understand, the root of which begins with the it, 
 without however therefore being connected with itivtis. The etymo- 
 logical unravelling of it would lead me much too far for my present 
 object, since on account of the deceitfulness of analogies the Teutonic 
 forms verstehen, understand, must necessarily be introduced. 
 
122 21. 'AvjvoOev, &c. 
 
 must therefore be quite sufficient to convince every one that 
 the common reading of Od. 7r, 408. ^EXOovres 8' €k&6l£ov, which 
 would be the only instance of all the acknowledged com- 
 pounds of this kind in Homer, has crept into his writings 
 from the usage of later times, and was quite unknown to him. 
 The verb l(ov meant they sat themselves, and kclQ- was added 
 to it, being properly separate, as it is in German and English, 
 they sat themselves down. The true reading, therefore, ac- 
 cording to strict rule would be, 'EA0oVres 8e kclQZ(ov ; and 
 in the numerous other passages where it is now written in 
 Homer kclOl^ov, Ka6i(e, kol6l(€v, this mode of accenting arose 
 entirely from the mistaken idea that the augment at the begin- 
 ning had been omitted by the Ionic dialect : consequently, in 
 strictness, it ought to be written everywhere kclOICov ; but since 
 the omission of the temporal augment, without any necessity 
 from the metre, is justified by eATiero, apx e > an d similar cases, 
 we may, not to deviate from an old tradition (see Schol. II. y, 
 426.) without necessity, retain also kclOlCov; and consequently 
 in the passage above quoted we must read 'Ekdovres 8e kclOl- 
 (ov*. 
 
 13. No less certain is also the opposite case in the inseparable 
 mode of compounding. The forms irpoe^rjTeva-a, kveK(>>ixia(ov, 
 &c. belong to the language of after-times ; and certain as it is 
 that Homer would not have said avretyepifr, because there is 
 no simple $ep<£&>, so certainly also is avTefioX-qae contrary to 
 Homeric analogy. For although there is a perfect fi€f$6\rnxai 
 for /3e/3A?7/xafc (compare Gram. Anom. v. /3aAAa>, and Wolf 
 Prsef. ad II. p. 43.), yet there was no such verb as /3oA.eo>, (3o- 
 krjaai; and d,vTij3okrjorai is a fixed and inseparable compound. 
 Since then avTtfiokrjcrev and avrifiokricrev is an old various 
 
 9 I have recommended the retaining of the accentuation of <d6i(ov 
 as it has been handed down to us. See, however, the note in my 
 Ausfiihrl. Sprachl., sect. 84. obs. 8., where I have mentioned the un- 
 certainty of this usage in the present, that is, the Woman text of Ho- 
 mer, in which we find indeed vn6eiKe, but always Ifcv, e(ju£e. And since 
 in the case of Kaftevde, II. a, 611., this accentuation is preferred also by 
 the grammarians, it seems perhaps better to preserve uniformity, and 
 accordingly to write always vnouKe and Ka6l(€. 
 
21. 'AvjvoOev, &c. 123 
 
 reading in Homer 10 , it is for us to decide between them, and 
 our decision must depend on the above analogy. 
 
 1 4. If now we consider thoroughly all which has been here 
 collected together, the result will be, with the highest proba- 
 bility of its being correct, that those apparently compound 
 verbs, whose mode of being compounded, if certain, would be 
 the separable mode, and which in Homer have the augment or 
 the Attic reduplication before them, are not really compounds, 
 unless the sense puts their being so beyond a doubt, which how- 
 ever is not the case with any one of them. To this question 
 belongs then the verb €vlttt(d or eViW&). But this verb has 
 entangled itself, particularly in the accounts of the grammarians, 
 so frequently with the verb iveird), that we must first endea- 
 vour to distinguish accurately the use and the forms of both. 
 
 15. The verb trend) offers itself to our notice as a sister-form 
 of direlv, only that in Homer at least it occurs oftener with the 
 more precise meaning of to relate, declare, name (avbpa eWen-e, 
 fxvrjo-T-qptov Odvarov tvtirovaa, &c). The present of the indica- 
 tive is not indeed found in Homer, but it is in Pindar (eve- 
 Tret, Nem. 3, 131.) and in others; and the meaning of the pre- 
 sent is evident enough in Homer in the participle as it stands in 
 II. A., 643. Od. o), 414. In undoubtedly the same meaning and 
 construction occur also the forms evianres, hiaiiev, subjunct. 
 €vi(T7T(d, optat. ivt(TTTOLfXL, imper. evicr7re, infin. IvKnttiv, fut. kvi- 
 o-irrio-o). For these forms a present eVto-7ra> has also been fixed 
 upon, associated with a theme Ivivnia. But the critical gram- 
 marian will clearly perceive, from merely seeing these in juxta- 
 position, joined with the observation that there is no instance 
 of an indicative ezno-7rco, that these forms together make out an 
 aorist, ijvKnrov, zvio-nov, the regular infinitive of which is con- 
 sequently ivLo-irelv 11 , and from which, as from so many other 
 
 10 See Heyne on II. X, 808. (809.) It is to be remarked that in this 
 passage in the Venetian text stands di/re/SdX^o-e, but in the Lemma of 
 the Scholium dvTi^oXrjac. 
 
 11 In Hesiod 0, 369. occurs the infinitive evio-neiv. I think that it 
 must be accented ivicnvciv there also ; for the poet having mentioned a 
 long list of names, the idea that a man could not name them all would 
 stand best in the aorist, which expresses an action to be completed, to 
 be ended. 
 
124 21. 'AvyvoOev, &c. 
 
 aorists, has been formed a future kvLv-nriGM. But Homer has 
 also another future, €vl\^(o, which occurs in exactly the same 
 construction in U. 77, 447. Od. (3, 137. A, 148. This too may- 
 be formed according to the strictest analogy from that same 
 aorist, as we see also in bib&aKca -af &>, aXvaw -v£a>, that the a is 
 rejected. 
 
 16. From this verb £v£it<o, aor. fjVLcntov, Ivumziv, Homer 
 has separated by construction and meaning the verb ivLirroi, 
 of which there is a sister-form evCo-aca, and a twofold aorist 
 rjVLTrcnrev and Ivkvmrzv. These forms always have the meaning 
 of to reprove or reproach, although not necessarily with the idea 
 of strong invective, as sometimes even a very mild reproof is 
 intended, and it is said of Ulysses soliloquizing, Od. v, 17,, 
 Kpabi-qv 8' rjVLTraTT€ (jlv6(d' TirXaOi brj Kpabtr)' koi Kvvrepov aAAo 
 nor fr\r)s. It must be confessed, indeed, that from this pas- 
 sage alone one could not attach to riviTia-ne more than the 
 meaning of " he addressed." But when it is seen that this 
 soliloquy is introduced with Srrjdos 8e 7rA?j£ay, and Ulysses 
 plainly reproaches himself for not regarding with complacency, 
 as for the last time, the bold impudence of the women-servants ; 
 when it is seen that these forms have in all other passages the 
 meaning of reproof, sometimes milder, sometimes harsher, a 
 just criticism will not allow of our separating this one pas- 
 sage from so many others. Since then ivLiTTO), with its sister- 
 forms, does not once occur with the simple meaning of to say 
 without the idea of reproof; and the verb kviitetv on the other 
 hand has always the meaning of to say, relate, but never ac- 
 companied with the other idea ; it follows in the first place that 
 usage has decidedly separated these two verbs. That Zvltttg) 
 is frequently accompanied by ovdheo-L, yak*™ [av6(j>, and such- 
 like expressions defining its force, is caused by its having in it- 
 self a more general meaning, implying milder as well as stronger 
 reproof; which view of it is strengthened by the passages where 
 the verb stands alone, yet evidently meaning to reproach, par- 
 ticularly by II. a), 768. 'AAA' et tCs /*e kclI aAAos evl ixeyapouriv 
 €vCtttol. 
 
 17. There is no doubt, then, that criticism has been per- 
 fectly justified in rejecting the tenses of ivfoim which appear 
 as various readings, with the meaning of to reproach, in II. y, 
 
21. 'AvrjVoQev, &C. 125 
 
 438. Xi 497- w » 2 38- 768. The more remarkable is the uncer- 
 tainty still existing in our Homer between kvkvntrzv and kvk- 
 vLcrirtv. The latter was formerly the reading in II. o, 546. and 
 552., but now in both places evivmrev has been restored from 
 the manuscripts. Only once is kvivivitzv still found, and in this 
 verse, II. f, 473. 
 
 Tov §' alcrxp&s ivivwrnev 'O'iXrjos ra^vs A'las, 
 
 where indeed I cannot find, at least in Heyne, any various 
 reading quoted. But this circumstance would hardly have any 
 weight against the verse in Od. a-, 321. 
 
 Tbv §' alaxpcos ivevmre Me\avOa> KaWnrdprjos. 
 
 If, however, there should still remain a doubt, it must be re- 
 moved by this remark, that the forms kvi-neiv, ivuritsv, evfya), 
 always govern the accusative of the thing only, and never mean 
 to address or speak to ; while on the contrary kviiTTG), and all 
 the forms belonging to it, govern the accusative of the per- 
 son only, to speak harshly to, reproach any one, to which is 
 sometimes added the dative of the thing, kvinr^iv tlvcl ovd- 
 htviv. 
 
 18. But now comes the question respecting the ground- 
 work of the form €vcvlttt€v. The reduplication at the begin- 
 ning, and the construction, show the word to be an undoubted 
 aorist, exactly similar to the other form -qvinaTi^. But then the 
 r is only used to strengthen the present and imperfect, entering 
 into no other tense (such lengthened forms as TviTTrjad) only 
 excepted), and least of all into the aorist. Hence the reading 
 ivivi-nev, which stood in many passages of both poems in all 
 the editions proceeding from the Florentine 12 , and which is 
 confirmed in all passages by the best manuscripts, ought 
 long ago to have entirely driven out both those false forms. 
 The Venetian manuscript has it in all four passages of the Iliad, 
 o, 546. 552. 7r, 626., and also y\r, 473., where Heyne, as has 
 been already said, is silent; and the Harleian manuscript has 
 
 13 See Ernesti and Heyne on II. o, 546. 
 
126 21. 'AvrjvoOev, &C. 
 
 it in all the passages of the Odyssey 13 . But Heyne quotes 
 this reading for the three first passages of the Iliad, and Alter 
 for the Odyssey, from many other manuscripts also : the former, 
 indeed, cites it always as a gross fault of prosody. But that 
 the* t in this verb is radically long, is proved by the verbal sub- 
 stantive evlirrj and the other aorist rjVLTrcnrc. Hence the form 
 tvivlirov is the regular aor. 2. (by carrying it back to the simple 
 form, or to the pure characteristic of the verb) with the redu- 
 plication, as in ijyayov, clXclXkov, &c. (see Gramm. sect. 77. 
 obs. 11.), in the same way as rfvCiraire is the same aorist, ac- 
 cording to the analogy of tpvKaicz, (see Gramm. sect. 78. obs. 
 12.). Nor is the long vowel at all contrary to the nature of 
 the aorist 2. ; while the Homeric aorist iri-rrX-qyov is an exact 
 parallel of kvivlirov by the reduplication, by the long vowel, and 
 by -nkri<T(T<d or tiA^tto), which, beside being long by nature, is 
 in the present a strengthened form ; kvivntrtv, on the contrary, 
 is exactly the same barbarism as TTtTrkrjcrcre would be. It is 
 now, therefore, clear, that both false readings, kvkvvnrov and 
 kvivMTTtov, in all the passages and their various readings, arose 
 from an ignorant anxiety to preserve the metre. Nor can these 
 corruptions be of great antiquity ; for not one of the glossogra- 
 phers, as far as I know, has either of these forms, but all have 
 the genuine one, and that only 14 . 
 
 19. The various reading hiirco (see Heyne on II. y, 438. 
 and compare him on w, 768.) occurs indeed also in the pre- 
 sent ; and this might appear to be an acceptable discovery, 
 because the form €vltttu in Pindar Pyth. 4, 358. abeias kvi- 
 tttwv ikiTLbas, stands exactly in the sense of tvi™ ; so that it 
 might be considered settled that €vlttg) means / reprove, eve-no) 
 or tvLTTTG) I say. But this kvl-nto occurs only in very solitary 
 instances, and not once in those principal manuscripts which 
 
 13 See Porson on Od. v, 77. 320. 325. t, 65. 90. (f>, 84. yjr, 96. Only 
 at ir, 417. the reading iveenrev is evidently a mistake of the pen for 
 
 eVtVlTTCV Or €V€V€17T€V. 
 
 4 i See Suidas v. eWwrei>, and Schow on Hesych. p. 1230, where we 
 see that Musurus instead of 'Evevrjneu, which stands in the Cod., first 
 made the present gloss 'Evevnrrev. The same ivcvmcv, which lies con- 
 cealed also in Hesychius under the corrupted gloss ewerrcv, has been 
 pointed out by Ruhnk. Ep. Cr. I. p. 40., and as he there quotes the verse 
 of II. o, 546. with cve'viufp, it appears that he preferred this reading. 
 
21. 'AvtjvoQev, &c. 127 
 
 have always in the aorists Ivkvmov. It is evidently, there- 
 fore, a mere solitary fault. But the various reading evume, 
 ivCcriTOL, &c. in the sense of to reprove, arose entirely from the 
 two acknowledged forms Zvltttm and ez>iW&>. Between these 
 two, then, the reading of Homer does really fluctuate, and* to 
 decide between them is very difficult, not perhaps as to where 
 we are to read the one and where the other form, but whether 
 and how it is conceivable that in the same poem two forms 
 exactly equivalent in quantity and sound, have been used for 
 each other ; for that one of them has a stronger meaning than 
 the other, an accurate comparison of passages (II. y, 438. 
 0, 198. x> 497- w, 238. 768., Od. a), 161. 163.) and of various 
 readings does not allow of our supposing, and every attempt 
 to do so is opposed by this fact, that in the historic tense 
 appear only the forms with the 77, rjviiraTTev and evhurev, which 
 no one would think of dividing between Zvlttto) and ivCo-ato*. 
 There remain then only two things ; 1 st, the possibility that 
 the twofold form may be one among many traces of the poems 
 which go under Homer's name having been composed by many 
 persons ; with regard to which, criticism must still be conti- 
 nually engaged in examining the reading of separate passages ; 
 2dly, the possibility that in early times a less genuine form had 
 crept into the place of the genuine one. If we retain this last 
 supposition, everything speaks in favour of the form ^tWw, 
 because it certainly could not have been interpolated ; but the 
 form evLTTTto might very easily have been so, by means of kvair], 
 €v4vlttt€v, rjVLirairev ; and because eznWco is so well supported by 
 the analogy of TreWo) ; for all the tenses formed from this verb 
 also (7r€\//a), 7re7r€7rrat, &c.) have the w, and the present ir£nra>, 
 which approaches nearer to those tenses, occurs first in the 
 writers posterior to Homer 15 . 
 
 20. We are now fully qualified to give a decided opinion, 
 
 * [Passow has admitted into his lexicon, as two sister-forms, fvinrco 
 and eVtVo-o), with the same general meaning of to reproach ; and evi<rna>, 
 as a sister-form and almost a synonym of iVfWco. — Ed.] 
 
 15 Nor does the present of oS/^o/iac, 6<f>0fjvai, with the tt ever occur; 
 but only the present with aa in the sister-form oo-cro/xat, which see in 
 its place. Compare also (pd^r, fern, (frdao-a. 
 
128 21. 'AvjvoQev, &C 
 
 that the verbs ivi™ and kvvnria are not only separated by- 
 usage, but that most probably they are not at all akin to each 
 other. The appearance of their being so arose from the false 
 supposition that iveir^tv means to address or speak to ; this 
 however it never does, but governs, as we have seen, always 
 the accusative of the thing only; kvi-nrtiv, on the contrary, if 
 we consider in it merely the idea of to say, to speak, has always 
 the meaning of to speak to, and hence it governs regularly the 
 accusative of the person only ; the single exception to this being 
 II. o, 198., where, by the intervention of another verb, the 
 usual construction is destroyed, and the word governs two da- 
 tives, one of the person, the other of the thing. The Pindaric 
 evLirreiv for tviireiv is distinguished also by the same construc- 
 tion, governing, as we have seen, the accusative of the thing. 
 And since Ivinr^, I say, bears exactly the same relation to 
 evi-noi as tlktco does to t^kco, we can acknowledge it in Pindar 
 in each sense as genuine, without mixing it up etymologically 
 with the Homeric cvChtm, I reproach. For the improbability 
 of the one being-akin to the other is completed by the form of 
 the word ; as the t here is radically long, whence also the 
 verbal substantive of the one is ivmrf, of the other kvo-nr\. Con- 
 vinced by all this, Ruhnken in his Ep. Crit. I. p. 40. has de- 
 cided in favour of the two verbs being separate, but he has 
 given his decision much too concisely ; and in pronouncing it, 
 he has fixed upon, but still with the same conciseness, another 
 derivation, namely from 'ltttco, I press, the t of which is also 
 radically long in tiros, tWa). 
 
 21. But here interposes a question from which arises my 
 greatest doubt, whether a verb compounded in the separable 
 mode, as kvi-nron from foro) would be, can be so old as to take the 
 augment, and still more the reduplication joined to the preposi- 
 tion. We have already dismissed on internal evidence a number 
 of apparent compounds, which might have been adduced as in- 
 stances of it ; and I think that the two forms with which this 
 article began have been so thoroughly shaken from their founda- 
 tions, that they cannot be brought in proof; so that, as far as I 
 know, there remains only tvrjvoxa, which might serve for that 
 purpose, and this I shall endeavour soon to clear up. But that 
 it may not be supposed that my opinion is fixed by my having 
 
%U *AvtvoOev, &c. 129 
 
 taken a partial view of only this side of the subject, I wish it to 
 be considered how weak the meaning of reproof is in kvi-mm 
 without any necessary idea of vexation or annoyance, as was 
 evident from some examples mentioned above, and on the other 
 hand, the strong feeling of it which the verb lttt(h has even in 
 Homer. For whoever on reading II. /3, 193., where it is said of 
 Agamemnon raya 8' Ixj/erai vlas 'Axai&z;, should think only of 
 reproaches and vexation, must have forgotten the passage of a> 
 454. of Apollo, \iiya 8' Ixjfao Xaov 'AyaiG>v. And is the prepo- 
 sition &) if it never increases the force of the word, to mean 
 therefore nothing ? For the relation to the person would be ex- 
 pressed by using a transitive verb, governing the accusative of 
 the person, and not by the preposition iv. Or how is it pos- 
 sible generally to suppose that the ideas pretnere, Icedere, could 
 pass by composition into a meaning, which should then merely 
 make some approach to the idea of to reprove ? Yet all this is 
 to serve only to show those who do not suffer themselves to be 
 led away merely by letters, that whatever there was in this 
 derivation apparently clear, or only probable", falls entirely to 
 the ground, and that two letters so changeable as e and v ought 
 not to hinder us from considering the word as a primitive. I 
 say primitive in a practically- grammatical sense ; as, for in- 
 stance, eAeyxoo is a primitive, because that affinity which it once 
 had to some other word or words is no longer traceable ; and 
 exactly so it is with Zvltttg). The word does and must belong 
 to some family of words, and in earlier times some other form 
 must have existed, similar to this, and traceable to it. Thus, 
 as ZpvKtoi (from which comes tpvKdKe, exactly analogous to rjvi- 
 TrcLTTe) and epvco belong to a more simple form pvo), pvoptai ; as 
 iOiku) belongs to dtkoj ; as ip^Liro) is evidently akin to pi-mm, 
 pLirrj ; so in eviir™, hnrf}, the root, which contains the meaning, 
 lies only in the syllable vl-n ; and z/etKeco, which corresponds so 
 nearly with it in sense, has quite similarity enough to it in form 
 to induce the etymologist to class both, with great probability of 
 being correct, under the same family of words. 
 
 22. As to the word ivi-ira) 16 , its being a compound would be 
 
 16 The old grammarians, although they supposed eV«Vo) to be a com- 
 pound, yet did not on that account adopt any modification of the sense. 
 Vid. Apollon. de Synt. 4, p. 327. Bekk. 
 
 K 
 
130 21. 'AvnvoOev, &c. 
 
 here somewhat more conceivable, and indicare, which is not 
 unfrequently a very proper translation, as well as the German 
 ansagen (sag* an), ' to announce, declare,' would appear to offer 
 some analogy ; although the analogy of the Greek, as we have 
 hitherto seen it, does not seem to me to come quite up to it. 
 This doubt As increased by the very common reduplication of 
 the v, making evveire. If now this be the preposition kv, it is 
 singular that though we know the lengthened forms of it, etV, 
 Ivi, dvi, which are sufficient for all cases, though we know tlva- 
 Atos, elvobtos, yet evveire stands alone. If, further, the idea of to 
 announce, declare, expressed by kv, was so natural to the Greeks, 
 how comes it that this is the only composition not continued 
 through any of the other parts of the verb, so that they never 
 said €V€ltt€v, kveardvl I well know my self, and have often 
 enough expressed my conviction, that usage of language is not 
 accustomed to allow itself to be asked the reason for its being 
 so or so : but here the question is only to weigh the probabilities 
 of a certain supposition. And so we may well wonder, why in this 
 compound alone the digamma of the root EIIX2, eiros was so 
 passed over that it was allowable to say kviirovres {y \j — w), &c. ; 
 while 7rdp€L7r<0v, airotLire, and even yjqviv airotLTTiov attest the 
 continued perception of that aspirated sound 17 . In fine, (for I 
 well know that an answer may be given to each of these re- 
 
 17 That a few instances do occur of dnenrovros, direareyxv is true ; 
 but no one, who is not ignorant of the subject, would think of men- 
 tioning them nowadays. From these very instances we can with con- 
 fidence appeal to any one, who considers the passages, whether they are 
 not the strongest proof of Homer's poems having been handed down by 
 oral tradition. Even allowing that Homer could have said dnemelv, 
 still I think it is clear that the poet who at II. r, 35. began the verse 
 with Mrjviv anocmav, would not have said at v. 75., when referring to 
 the same circumstance, Mrjviv dneinovTos ; and particularly as instead 
 of /xeyadvfxov IlrjXciavos there were plenty of synonyms to finish the 
 verse, which would have fitted Mrjviv dnoeinovTos, as, for instance, ojiv- 
 fxovos Aicwc/5ao, dyavov HrjXeicovos, 'AxtAX/)os 6eioio. For who cannot 
 
 easily imagine that thousands of these forms must have been constantly 
 varying in the mouths of the rhapsodists ? And as ^ftpec-a, npvXteaa, 
 iirecaa and such like were allowable, and that, too, in the principal 
 caesura of the verse, (as at II. /3, 342. 7, 367.,) the passage of Od. a, 9 1 . 
 might have originally had lidaiv fxvrja-Trjpeacr dnoeiireiJ.€v, which in later 
 recitation slid off into Ildaiv fj.vr](TTr)p€cr(Tiv dneinefiev. 
 
21. ' AvrjvodeV) &c. 131 
 
 marks as soon as a strong probability can be drawn from some 
 other source,) by what force will it be possible to explain kv 
 as a preposition in hour], the verbal substantive of ez,-eVa> ? In 
 such sentences as tot€ ft a^tyl p-a\r) cvo-nr) re heh]ei the word 
 kvo-nr) is certainly not a substantive of weaker sense drawn 
 from the idea of an address, a declaration, a narration. For 
 the verb eW7r&> never expresses, as we have before seen, the 
 calling out to, or addressing , a person, which might have been 
 introduced at all events, but which never could be made to suit 
 avk(ov avpLyyav t kvour): and as little Hes. 6, 708., where it 
 is said of a storm and thunder, <ptpov & iaxqv t kvoTtr\v re. 
 In short, it is certain and acknowledged that kvour) is nothing 
 more than a sound, voice, cry, and therefore goes back to the 
 simple meaning of the root EII£2, to which o\j/ and rj-nvd) belong* 
 and from which is derived the common meaning of eheiv and 
 
 iv€7T€Ll>. 
 
 23. And now, to offer my own opinion, I believe hiim to 
 be nothing more than a lengthened form of EFII2 or Ein£2. 
 To see that this is a very credible supposition, we have only to 
 compare the three substantives o\\r, dfxcpij, and kvonf], which 
 have nearly the same meaning, and whose etymological affinity 
 to each other has never been doubted by any one. The ad- 
 dition or removal of a nasal in the root is a thing well known, 
 from Ad/ux/^ojuai for Kr\tyo\mi, from Ae'Aoyxa, irt-novda, and many 
 similar cases. The verbal substantive o^f} points out to us 
 therefore a theme, which is evidently the same as EIIX2, EI 1112, 
 and which, according to the uncertainty of the old sounds be- 
 tween the aspirate and tenuis, may, and indeed must be, EM Till. 
 Let us look around, and we have no difficulty in finding a par- 
 allel case. If we consider the word oy/cos, a burden, to be a 
 verbal substantive, it answers to (popros, and leads us to a 
 theme ETK£L, I bear or carry ; and this with such certainty, 
 that I have no apprehension that any one, particularly after all 
 I have so lately said on the subject, will suppose fytyKov, 
 tveynelv to be compounds. With full confidence, therefore, I 
 now repeat my view of the subject, which I long ago offered in 
 its proper place, viz. that ijveyKov is merely a reduplication like 
 aA.aA.Koy and ijyayov ; and I refer my reader to art. 31. sect. 2. 
 for an account of the € inserted or omitted between two conso- 
 
 k 2 
 
132 2i. 'Ai/if i/o0€i/, &c. 
 
 nants 18 . "AXglXkov then, with its substantives, ahKrr]p, dA/crj, 
 belongs to the root of the verb dAe£c«>, which of itself, but still 
 more by its aorist aktgaordcu, supposes a theme AAEKX2: 
 iikyos is an old verbal substantive from dAeyo); and opyr], ac- 
 cording to its true meaning, a verbal substantive from optyca, 
 whence both dpyvtd and opoyvia. In the same way opicpri is a 
 verbal substantive, derived immediately indeed from EM 1112, 
 but also from iveiro), from which comes in another manner the 
 synonymous tvoirrj ; and so then oyKos too comes immediately 
 from ETK£l, whence rjveyKov, but also from ENEKX2, whence 
 rjv^xOrjv and kviqvoxa. In order to unite the x °f this l as t 
 form with the k in kveyK&v, I refer to the grammar (of which 
 the main object is not to decide on disputed points of ety- 
 mology, but to understand similarity of formation,) for the 
 similar case of a perf. i. with the change of the vowel. At 
 the same time whoever sees in £vr\voya the verb ex&>, is no 
 less correct in his - supposition ; only, as I hope it is now 
 clear, not by the help of the preposition (for e'xo) of itself is 
 already (jiepo)), but by means of the nasal by which e'xo) leads 
 to ErX12 and ErKU ; as we see dju^ connected with ei7roi> 
 and ivtTTto. The Ionic ^eua arose from ijvtyKov, and by mis- 
 usage passed over into the aor. pass. rivdyO-qv. This, again, 
 throws light upon d-nov, d-ndv, the diphthong of which need 
 not be looked for in the augment, as opaprj and even® show 
 us the nasal sound from which the diphthong of etirov came ; 
 a change long ago recognized in grammar before the o- in 
 0-7reio-a>, TTtiaopLcu, Tvireis. After this exposition there is only 
 the aorist zvio-nov, kvumeiv, which can still create a doubt; 
 for as its second part gives us eWco, t(nr&>, a radical form or 
 stem already strengthened, it appears difficult not to consider 
 the kv in this case as a preposition. I have been too much 
 
 18 I confine myself here to the e on account of the more perfect ana- 
 logy. But that other vowels under other circumstances have the same 
 capability follows of course, and will be shortly exemplified by the 
 vowel o. And I may here mention a case with a. No one would think 
 of separating k6vci(3os from the word of similar meaning ko/x7tos, and this 
 latter is unanimously traced back to the same root as Konra. Certainly, 
 then, Kona, ko/a7to?, Kovafios, is a striking parallel case to e7ra>, £/x7ra>, 
 euenco. 
 
21. 'AinjvoOev, &C. 133 
 
 in the habit of seeing that no truth produced by induction and 
 combination can with certainty be considered as an exclusive 
 one, to think of rejecting, however clear it might be. every 
 compound word of the older Greek which has the appearance 
 of being compounded in the separable manner, and yet does 
 not admit of a separation. What in one period of a language is 
 of frequent occurrence, and supported by strong analogies, may 
 at another period begin to appear singular and uncommon. 
 That eveiTd) is no compound I have proved, I hope, not by 
 drawing conclusions from one side of the question only, but by 
 numerous analogies coinciding with each other : at the same 
 time it is possible that there might have existed besides a real 
 compound kvi<rn(a, being much the same as it is actually explained 
 to be ; nay, the similarity of the sound might have led to the 
 confounding of the two forms, and to their being used in common. 
 But there is nothing in the case of zviv-nov to force us to suppose 
 it a compound, and as such it certainly has a somewhat strange 
 appearance. For if we could once see this whole system of 
 the lengthening and shortening of words before us at one view, 
 we should acknowledge that a further strengthening of kvi-nca 
 and ivtaiTd) is noways supported by analogy; the form eto-Kco, 
 from et/c(o, is a very similar case; and the circumstance that, 
 contrary to usual analogy, the aor. 2. evio-nov, kvicrneiv, is by this 
 position different from the present tvtirto, has a parallel case in 
 €7TOfJLai, aor. kaTrofjLrjv. 
 
 24. Let us now turn back to the forms avrjvoOtv, evrjvode, 
 confirmed in our opinion of their not being compounds, and of 
 the o, as in £vo-nr\ and kvrivoya, being a change of vowel from e ; 
 and at the same time authorized in adopting not only ANE0XZ 
 and ENE012, but also AN0& and EN0X2 as the theme of 
 both. And now the old derivation of the first form from 
 av0€<o appears again in a favourable light, only that we must 
 understand it somewhat more correctly. We have already 
 frequently seen that what has appeared to commentators in 
 general to be a metaphor taken from the common meaning of 
 a word, was in fact nothing more than an old simple meaning. 
 And so it is here. The blood in Homer does not " blossom" 
 from the wound, nor does the smoke from the house ; but both 
 issue forth : although the opinion which I gave in my grammar 
 
134 251. 'AvtjVoOev, &C. 
 
 that the common verb av6rj(raL even in Od. A, 320. had not yet 
 taken the meaning of to bloom, but was used in the general 
 sense of to spring forth,- — that opinion, upon more mature con^ 
 sideration, I have changed. But avr\voQz, coming from the 
 radical theme ANE0I2 or AN012, has the radical meaning of to 
 issue forth : from this AN0X2 comes then very naturally avdos, 
 properly a verbal substantive, and then with the definite meaning 
 of a flower ', a blossom, from which comes again in a derivative 
 form and meaning the verb avOiv. The root of all these I look 
 for in the particle ava, from which they are formed, not com- 
 pounded. For if the idea of avri could be enlarged into a simple 
 verb avTOfxcu, in the same way from ava or av might be formed 
 ave0<a or av0a>, since 0o> is an old verbal ending still preserved in 
 |o-0a>, <£Aeye0co,- and other verbs, 
 
 25. Surely no one will now wish to tear the verb kvqvoQa 
 from this analogy, although I know of no other forms of words 
 which would be derived from EN0X2 or ENE0X2 retaining the 
 v. The derivation of the verb AN012, av-qvode from ava, as 
 proposed above, may indeed induce us to derive this other verb 
 in the same way from ev; and then eWea might, with the trifling 
 change of one sound, belong to it. Bat then again we have in 
 ZirevrivoOe a part of that troublesome accumulation which is so 
 perplexing in the common explanation of the word. If kvr\- 
 voOe by its derivation from kv meant lay upon, of what use 
 was the addition of em? Nor indeed is kv the genuine word 
 to express this sense in old Greek ; for in kvhvvai, ev does not 
 express the covering lying on the body, but the pressing of the 
 body into the covering. And ivrea may quite as well belong 
 to the root of evvv\ii. I am therefore the more fully con- 
 vinced of the truth of the derivation which I before proposed, 
 as bringing it into evident analogy with kv€7Td> and kvr\voya. 
 If we separate the idea of k-ni from kitevrjvode, there remains the 
 idea of sitting or being fixed somewhere. That this is the phy- 
 sical ground-meaning of the verb e0o> appears most highly pro- 
 bable, by the substantive rjdos, which means a seat and the cus- 
 toms, habits, or character ; and also by the striking analogy of the 
 German words Sitte and Gewohnheit, both meaning f a custom 
 or habit,' the former evidently derived from sitzen, ' to sit,' and 
 the latter from wohnen, ' to dwell.' To this family of words then 
 
21. ' Kvrjvodev, &c. 135 
 
 belongs, as every one must see, our EN0X2, ENE0I2, as in 
 the other case evena and 6/X977 are related to eVos and ei7reti>, 
 and as ErKil, oy/cos, kvey6r]v, kvqvaya, are to Iy^* 
 
 26. There are still a few perfects which have some analogy 
 with those hitherto treated of, and which we will therefore next 
 consider. First however, we must observe here that some 
 verbs have, instead of the e, either (as mentioned in art. 52. 
 sect. 2.) an ei or an r\ between two consonants, which in reality 
 belong as little to the root as the e does in the cases above 
 mentioned. Thus we have (in art. 52. sect. 2.) epei8a>, d<j>€ik(o, 
 ayeipto, eyeipoo, and (in art. 106. sect. 4.) aprjyci) akin to a/xcew. 
 The change of vowel in this case then is usually into a long 
 vowel, and in fact into o>; for as the change from pi\yvv\ki is 
 Ippcoya, pa>£, pcoyaAeo?, so we see the same change from apr/yca 
 in the subst. dpcoyrj. We know, however, from grammar that 
 the Attic reduplication prefers in the third syllable the short 
 vowel ; therefore from eyetpco comes kypr\yopa. Now the old Epic 
 perfect avcaya is undoubtedly to be judged according to this 
 analogy. The nearest theme of it would, therefore, be ANHrX2. 
 To this form there is nothing to be objected. I suppose, there- 
 fore, the rf, as it is in aprjyco, and as the e is in eviir® and 
 rjvcxOrjv, t0 be not essential to the word ; and so following 
 strictly the before-mentioned analogy, I come to a theme 
 AITX2. Now since avcoya has never any other meaning than 
 that of the Lat. j'ubere, — which implies, it is true, the command 
 of the master, but may also be used of a servant, child, friend, 
 or such like, telling another what he is to do, — I cannot but 
 retain the conjecture which I formerly hazarded, that it belongs 
 to the same family of words as ayyeAoj, ayyeAAw. At the 
 same time I feel how uncertain this conjecture is, and shall 
 therefore be satisfied if the above-mentioned analogies prevent 
 its being considered as a compound or as the perfect of a present 
 avcoya ; see above sect. 8. Perfectly analogical, however, is the 
 supposition, that from a defective perfect, with the meaning of a 
 present, fresh tenses are formed, as from a present; and, to 
 mention one instance, an imperfect ijveoyov ; compare sect. 4. of 
 this article. 
 
 27. One half of what the grammarians have said on the 
 Epic form onapro has always been pure conjecture. Some 
 
136 21, 'AvrjVoQev, &c, 
 
 derived it from atpta by epen thesis, others from alcapta) by- 
 syncope ; truth, as is frequently the case, lies between the two. 
 In the verb ae(p<o the et is radical, since it is indisputably de- 
 rived from ar\p ; see above, note 5. The common meaning 
 of aetp€Lv, tottere, ' to raise up,' is the causative meaning of ' to 
 hang or be suspended,' which alwpia expresses more definitely, 
 The substantive atripa, suspension, is considered as the verbal 
 substantive of atupe'co ; but it is much more natural to suppose 
 it the root of atcopew and the verbal substantive of ae(p(t>, with 
 the common change of a into at and et into a>. The simple 
 perfect of detpco must therefore be rjcapa ; and as the rules for 
 the change of the vowel are so little fixed, we may very fairly 
 suppose that the same change was continued in the perf. 
 pass, (of which we shall by and by see other instances), which 
 would consequently be ?/cop/xat, from which the 3rd pers. of 
 the pluperf. without augment is ampro. Since, however, 
 quantity is of no consequence in the change of the vowel, as 
 we see in kt€lv(o cktovcl, ayeCpa) subst. ayopd ; we can from the 
 subst. aopTrjp infer a perf. -rjopa, rppfiat; and then from jjopro 
 may come avpro by means of the same change of position in 
 the augment which we see in eajpro^bz;, k&pyeiv for rjopra^ov^ 
 rjopyeiv. And this explanation appears to me at least to be more 
 analogical than any other, particularly as in Homer the substantive 
 aoprrip corresponds exactly in meaning with acapro. Nor should 
 the various reading aopro on any account induce us to doubt 
 the truth of the common reading with the o> ; for as the former 
 sounds so natural, we may be sure that the latter, which has 
 given the grammarians so much trouble, would never have been 
 retained in the pronunciation if there had not been some very 
 decisive tradition in its favour. 
 
 28. The perfect etcotfa appears to be explicable only by the 
 analogy of Zolkcl, zokira (see Heyn. Exc, 3. ad II. T9. p. 739.). 
 But it is worthy of notice that the first syllable has not in 
 Homer the digamma, as the other perfects above quoted have ; 
 which, consequently, is an objection to the explanation that 
 from FEGa comes FEF&QA, as from FElKil fEfOIKA; 
 added to which, the et in eicoOa, which besides is a common 
 form, cannot by this mode of derivation be supported on any 
 correct grounds. For instance, btCboiKa may be a very good 
 
21. 'AvyvoOev, &c. 137 
 
 nalogy for fEIfOIKA (eioiKa), if there were such a word, 
 oecause in both verbs (Set'co, et/cw) the et is in the root, but 
 not for FE1FQQA (dcoda), as the only known root is k6 or r\6. 
 On the contrary, I am perfectly satisfied with the common ex- 
 planation, which from !0a) arrives quite regularly by means of 
 the augment at the perfect eWa, and supposes co to be inserted ; 
 and I support it on the following grounds. The wish and en- 
 deavour so evident in the Greek language to give great weight 
 to the perfect, and the o or w occurring in the perfects and in 
 the substantives akin to them more than any other vowel, as 
 in avd>ya, acopro, atwpa, eScoSrj, kvr\voya, &c, all this created an 
 obscurely-felt analogy, according to which eWa was lengthened 
 to tlada, or in other words was traced back to a supposed theme 
 EE0X2. According to this supposition, then, €O)0a is a common 
 Ionicism. In another way, this analogy includes eflwKa, used 
 by the Dorians for elwda, the explanation of which must be 
 joined with that of ZbijboKa. 
 
 29. The verb edco, on account of the confusion which would 
 arise from its being conjugated regularly, has wound its way, 
 as every one knows from grammar, through a multifarious 
 anomaly. Of this description, among others, is the aor. pass., 
 which instead of rjo-Orjv is rjberrdrjv ; from e8ea) it is said ; but 
 that comes to the same, unless we are to understand that 
 such a present really existed. The truth is, that as in the old 
 Greek it was allowable to inflect both with and without the e, 
 for instance ixayoixat ixaxeo-ofAai and Tev^ofxaL TevgofAcu, so the 
 e was admitted into the form rjbeadrjv in order to preserve and 
 make audible the radical 8, which would otherwise have dis- 
 appeared before the termination. See Grammar, sect. 86. 
 obs. 15. This is the case in ebribeafiat, and consequently also 
 in e8^8e/ca ; but the perf. act. is never found written thus ; the 
 obscure analogy mentioned above threw the change of vowel, 
 which elsewhere appears only in the radical syllable, in this case 
 on the vowel belonging to the termination, making ibr/bona ; 
 and this change went on in the Epic language to the passive 
 also, ZbrjboTcu. We see an exactly analogous case in the perf. 
 TT€iTT(t)Ka. According to the analogy of many verbs, parti- 
 cularly of 8e/xa> 5e8//r//ca, the perf. of 11ETX2 (7rt7iTQ>) would be 
 irtTTTr)xa ; but the endeavour to make the forms of the different 
 
138 21. *Ai/i}i/o0ei/, &c. 
 
 verbs coming from the root IIETX2 plainly distinguishable from 
 each other, was the cause, in this perfect belonging to 7t£7jtg>, of 
 the change of vowel w instead of 77 being admitted into the in- 
 flexion, and also into the derivatives mwis, TTT&fxa ; for which, 
 therefore, it is quite unnecessary to suppose a present ITTOX2. 
 In the same way we have no need whatever of a theme EA012 ; 
 nay, unless we do it from a love of uniformity, we need not have 
 recourse to that e (edrjSeKa) in order to arrive at ebr/boKa. For 
 it is clear that, as in the other forms the e was admitted for the 
 use before mentioned, so also in the perfect, the 0, which is 
 more familiar in this form, might have been admitted in the same 
 way, perfectly independent of the e in r\h£(r6r)v : but this will be 
 seen more fully in the next section, where khr\hoKa is again men- 
 tioned in conjunction with ayr\oya. We have an instance of the 
 same in the before-mentioned e'0G>/ca 19 . In this verb there is no 
 trace remaining in any other tense of an auxiliary vowel, e, rj, 0, 
 or (a. It would therefore be astonishing that we should try to 
 get to it through e0oa> or through idrja-co, dOyica, ei0a>Ka, l^co/ca, 
 when we can suppose quite regularly that the root kd was sepa- 
 rated from the termination kcl by the vowel familiar to the per- 
 fect. If this case had occurred in the aor. 1 . it would have been 
 tWeo-a ; if it had been the Attic reduplication, it would have been 
 k6r)6oKa ; but being neither of these, the more weighty-sounding 
 vowel a) was preferred ; e0a>Ka. A very similar case is that of 
 the Biblical word d^eco^rat, which must not be thrown aside 
 as a later barbarism, since not only is a<j>€(t>Ka mentioned as 
 Doric by Suidas, but this very acfrevKa is explained by Herodian 
 in Etym. M., and still more circumstantially in Lex. Seguer. 
 p. 470, 14. 15. It existed, therefore, indisputably in some 
 
 19 Hesych. eBaxan (very properly corrected to iOdxavTi), datdaa-iv. 
 Hence Koen has judiciously amended, in Gregor. Cor. in Dor. j6o., 
 r)6a> followed by <ai to Wana. But perhaps he ought to have left the 
 rj ; for rj6(OKa may very well be the Doric perfect for cWcoKa. The 
 other Hesychian gloss is also very remarkable, Evedaxev, etatOev. The 
 ev here seems redundant and useless, and we may therefore turn our 
 thoughts to the digamma (although, on the grounds mentioned above, 
 e'ia>0a does not seem calculated for that purpose) ; for since rjtios and 
 e'0vos plainly have the digamma in Homer, there is no doubt that 
 originally, although not in Homer, it belonged to the family of W<o. 
 For the digamma of e'0«o see the end of art. 96. 
 
21, 'AvjvoQev, &c. 139 
 
 pretty common dialects ' 20 , and from them was transferred into 
 the so-called Alexandrine. Herodian derived it very well from 
 the Ionic <ir]Ka with the change of vowel. Since, however, this 
 €7]Ka itself came from the formation 770-00, &c. only through an 
 Ionic pleonasm (for in ir?/xt there is no old digamma as in 
 €oikcl), so here also no fault can be found with the opinion, that 
 the short perfect form elica was lengthened by the insertion of 
 the go so common in the perfect. And the continuation of this 
 change of vowel in the passive {acpitovrai) may be classed 
 with the Homeric forms eSrjSorat and acapro. 
 
 30. The last verb belonging to this question is the perfect 
 ayr/oxct, a form found fault with indeed by the Atticists, but 
 still a very good and old Greek form occurring as early as 
 Lysias. In this word the endeavour to satisfy an analogy but 
 obscurely felt is very evident. For according to the common 
 rule the perfect is r)x.a, which the Attics also use. With the 
 Attic reduplication it would be ayq\a. For the o therefore 
 we see no good ground whatever, as there exists no trace of a 
 lengthened form of ay on as there is of alpca and qb(a. Here, 
 then, is again a lengthening by which the perfect is made 
 similar to the cases of ebijboKa, €vr\voya, aviqvoOa ; and hence we 
 have only to follow the grammatical method, by which single 
 tenses are ranged under the presents of separate verbs, and 
 to say that the verb ayo>, in order to form this perfect, was 
 lengthened to AETO, of which the is the change of vowel. 
 But historical information has placed the thing in a different 
 light, although still remote from its proper analogy. In the 
 Etym. M. is an explanation which proceeds by means of the 
 form ayr\yoya. This form is not a mere grammatical supposi- 
 tion, but really existed in the language, and is still found in 
 inscriptions" 21 . The grammarian in the Etym. appears to me in 
 
 20 In my Ausfiihrl. Sprachl., in a note to sect. 108, 4., I have attri- 
 buted the corresponding form dvewTai to Herodotus. The text has 
 (2, 165.) dveovrai es to fxdx^ov. Stephanus conjectured dveoovrai, and 
 his conjecture is confirmed by this being actually the reading in the 
 valuable Florentine Codex. 
 
 21 See Chish. Ant. As. p. 50. (Deer. Sigeensium, v. 15.) ttjix pao-i- 
 \(iav eif neifa — diadcaiv ay^yo^e : Dor. Testam. ap. Gruter. p. ccvi. 
 col. I. V. 26. II. v. 9. CCXvii. col. I. V. 12. ayayo^a, (rvi/ayayo^o, orvv- 
 ayayo^em Pluperf. for -rj, commonly -fiv. 
 
140 21. 'AvqvoOev, &C. 
 
 this instance to have stated the true grounds of the insertion of 
 the syllable yo, which is, that there might be the same conso- 
 nant in the second and third syllable. That is to say, the ear, 
 accustomed to hear the same consonant twice in the Attic re- 
 duplication, missed it in the regularly inflected perfect ayrjxa. 
 The same remark will hold good of thjboKa. From e§o> came 
 regularly tjkcl; the reduplication tbrjKa would not have been a 
 true one; the second 8 therefore, which otherwise must have 
 been lost before the termination, was separated from the k 
 by the o ; and as kcl is a pure termination, this was following a 
 true analogy. But in the ay^ya, which it was wished to avoid, 
 ya was not a pure termination, since the characteristic of the 
 verb is represented by the letter x : therefore an obscurely-felt 
 and incorrect analogy was followed by inserting yo and retain- 
 ing the x > so that in this singular instance the characteristic 
 of the verb is repeated three times. It is true that dyrjyo/ca, 
 as formed from ctyeo-co, would be more strictly analogous ; but 
 such a form as that could be produced only by a grammatical 
 confidence of the grounds on which it proceeded, such as we 
 cannot suppose in the primitive framers of a language. The 
 Etym. M. quotes besides a Boeotian form ayeioya ; most per- 
 sons will be, perhaps, inclined to consider it with him as a cor- 
 ruption of ay-qoxa ; I prefer, as more natural, to trace it thus, 
 ayrjyoxa, (y into C) ay^Coya, ay^o\a. 
 
 31. If we now briefly recapitulate the principal points of 
 this article, we shall see the more plainly, that the representa- 
 tion of the grammarians, which explained the o or w in many 
 of the above-mentioned forms by merely saying that it was in- 
 serted, was by no means erroneous, although it was susceptible 
 of being developed on better grounds. We have seen that the 
 vocal sounds e, et, 77, in the verbs opiyca, 6<jf>eiAa>, apr/yca, may 
 be explained at least quite as well, with relation to epyij, 
 ocpXelv, apKew, by saying that they are inserted in the former, 
 as that they are omitted in the latter forms. We have re- 
 marked, that it by no means follows, that whatever peculiarity 
 there is in a tense, considered according to the system of gram- 
 mar as derivative, must have existed also in some correspond- 
 ing present ; and hence if, induced by d\K?j and cl\cl\kov, we 
 suppose a theme AAK12, and from e'x^ anc * oyKos fix on a 
 
 . 
 
22. 'KvTiav. 141 
 
 verbal form ErKXl, still it does not follow that for akt^avOai 
 and £vexdr\vai there must have existed also a present AAEKX2, 
 ENEKX2, but the e may quite as well have been admitted at 
 once into the aorist. Further, we have seen the change of 
 vowel from e, ei, and 17 into o and o> in the perfect and the sub- 
 stantive, as in ivoTTTj, opoyvia from ei>e7ra>, opeyca ; in eypr/yopa, 
 ayopa from lyetpco, dyetpa) ; in ijopro or acopro from deipco ; in 
 aptoyrj from ap-qya). But from the first acknowledged prin- 
 ciple it follows, that if there be no e, et or 77 in the present or 
 other tenses, the vowel may first be admitted in the perfect, 
 and consequently, according to the analogy of the perfect, that 
 vowel would be o or w; and so then we have not only explained 
 the form avqvoda, according to the analogy of ETK12 kveyfir\vai 
 ...hrivoxa, to come from the theme AN0X2, which we recog- 
 nized in avOos and avOelv, but we have also supposed the themes 
 EN012 and .AITX2 for evrjvoOa and avayya. In these, therefore, 
 the o or 00 is correctly said to be inserted, and that according 
 to a perfectly regular analogy ; and so it appears very con- 
 ceivable, that according to an analogy only half or very ob- 
 scurely understood, in the same way as awpro appeared to be 
 formed from alpct), so also an <o was inserted in et#a to form 
 etco0a, and an o, with or without the consonant of the redupli- 
 cation, to form ayr)yo\a, ayrioya, and khr\hoKa. I am very far, 
 however, from considering this whole account as sure and in- 
 disputable truth obtained from historical facts ; I shall be satis- 
 fled, if it be thought that I have attempted with success to 
 unite the separate historical data in one probable and intelli- 
 gible analogy. Nor have I the least doubt that, partly by 
 the help of historical facts new data on some of these forms 
 being brought to light, and partly by careful examination, the 
 phenomena of the language being judiciously combined, many 
 a point now detached and isolated may be made more probable 
 and brought nearer to certainty. 
 
 22. 'AvTiav. 
 
 c 
 
 I. The verb avriav in the Epic poets is thus inflected : 
 dirrioa> (for avTL&a)), avrtaqv, fut. avTiddia, aor. avTiavai ; in which 
 last forms the a in the inflexion is short, contrarv to the analog 
 
142 22. *Avti<xv. 
 
 of such derivatives in — ao. But since in general from adjee* 
 tives in —toy no verbs in — tda> are usually formed, we see at once 
 that the forms avna<rcu, &c., come from the present avri&Ca 
 (Pind.), which cannot enter into the composition of an hex- 
 ameter ; whence the Epic poets introduced from necessity the 
 cognate form in —taw. The deponent form too avTtaao-Oe, the 
 only one which occurs, arose out of the necessity of the metre. 
 That is to say, the resolution of d into ad does not take place in 
 the language of Homer before the r ; in other words, the ter- 
 minations dre, arai are not capable of being lengthened to atir*, 
 ddrai 1 , and the metre would not admit of avTiarz; hence re- 
 course was had to "the passive form avrcao-de, in which the 
 lengthening of the a is customary. And, lastly, it must be ob- 
 served that the form avTiav (dzmo'a>, &c.) is sometimes a decided 
 present, as in II. a, 31. \j/, 643., sometimes the so-called Attic 
 future for avTido-a), &c, as in v, 752. Od. a, 25. 
 
 2. As to the meaning and construction of this verb, its 
 radical meaning is to come or go towards, and the context 
 shows whether the meeting be a hostile or an amicable one. 
 When it relates to persons, it expresses with the dative a casual 
 coming towards, a chance meeting, with which is mostly joined 
 
 a sense of harm or misfortune, as ejuw fxivet avTioacriv 10078' 
 
 avriacreias €K€lv(i>, II. £, 127. (p, 151. 431* Od. cr, 146. In 
 other relations the case is not expressed, as II. k, 551. 0, 
 297. Od. /u, 88. v, 292. p, 442. But with the genitive it 
 means an intentional coming towards or meeting, sometimes in 
 the sense of a hostile meeting or attack, as II. 77, 231. 'H^ei? 
 
 1 With yeyddrc (Batrach. 143.), which is no word of Homer, it is 
 somewhat different : for this is a regular perfect (yeyddre), only with the 
 anomalous quantity caused by the influence of the frequently occurring 
 word yeydaai. On the contrary, the form ciarai (wu-) Scut. Here. 101. 
 for arai from aa, to satiate, may be adduced as a real resolution of the 
 a before the t ; for the supposition that the double a is original here, as 
 it is in dd(o } to injure, is refuted by the other forms (see art. 1. sect. 3.). 
 It is true that this also is not an Homeric form, and might possibly be 
 defended on distinct and separate grounds of its own, particularly as its 
 radical part is so small as to consist of a mere a ; but then, again, the 
 reading does not appear to me quite certain. For in the verse *H /x?)i/ 
 Kai Kparepos nep io)v ciarai TvoKifioLo there is no metrical necessity for the 
 resolution, and Hesychius has, perhaps, taken from hence the gloss 
 arai, irXrjpovTat. 
 
22 
 
 . % Avriav. 143 
 
 6' elfxev rotoi ot ai; <xe'0ez; avridaaLfxev ; sometimes in an amicable 
 sense, as Od. o>, $6. of Thetis, who comes to assist in the funeral 
 rites of her son, 
 
 "Epx^rai ov iraihbs reOvrjoros dvTioaaa, 
 
 where this participle is a future. 
 
 3. From this first and principal meaning arises another, of 
 a person going toward a thing in order to take a fart in it, 
 unde?°take it, therefore properly implying an intentional going 
 toward; hence in such sentences the verb has invariably the 
 genitive only, although the idea of its being intentional is again 
 lost in various ways. To this belong such expressions as av- 
 Tidaai ttovov, Trokifiov, epycov, dtOkwv, II. fx, 356. 368. v, 215. 
 \jr, 643. Od. Xj 38. Among these the instance of atOkav is 
 that of a much-desired, agreeable participation, an idea still 
 stronger as applied to a banquet, II. o>, 62. Fiacre? o' avridaaOe 
 Oeol ydjjLov. In the same sense it is used of the gods' who 
 receive, enjoy a sacrifice, Od. a, 25. avnomv kKaroix^rjs. y, 436. 
 r\\0€ 5' 'AOrjvr] \p5>v avriocaaa. II. a, 67. dvridaas aiy&v KViao-qs. 
 And so in a general sense to receive, partake of, Od. (, 193. 
 
 Ovt ovv iadr/TOs devrjcreai, ovre rev aXXov, 
 Q.V intoix iKerrjv Takaneipiov dvTidcravTa. 
 (j), 402. 
 
 At yap dr) toctovtou 6vt)(tios dvridaeieu 
 l Qs .... dvvTjcreTai' 
 
 where tovovtov, as a mere adverb, answers to ws, and conse- 
 quently 6vr\(nos, according to the above constant analogy, be- 
 longs to dvTidcreie 2 . 
 
 4. This verb governs an accusative in only one instance, viz. 
 in the well-known passage of II. a, 31. 
 
 npiv piv <ai yrjpas tneicriv 
 
 [<ttov inoi)(opevqv Ka\ ipov Xe^os avriouxrav. 
 
 2 There is a German provincialism exactly similar to these latter 
 meanings of dmqv; viz. enigegen nchmen, for empfangen. [In English 
 also to meet with is frequently used in the sense of to receive, but in so 
 far different from the Greek that it is always to receive unintentionally 
 and unwillingly, as " he will meet with the punishment which he de- 
 serves." — Ed.] 
 
144 23. " Airavpdv, &c. 
 
 In this passage we must not for one moment think of translating 
 avriav by to share or partake of, a translation which would make 
 the Greek imply something wished for and desired, whereas 
 the participation here spoken of we know from the context to 
 be exactly the contrary. There is no doubt, therefore, that the 
 explanation preferred by the old grammarians, €vrpe7rC(ov(rav, 
 is the correct one. The grounds of this meaning may be seen 
 in the use of this verb with the genitive, as quoted above from 
 Od. to, 56., where avriav signifies to come to for the purpose of 
 attending upon, of taking care of the funeral rites of a dead 
 person : and in the passage before us, where the predicate of 
 the proposition is not a person but a thing, this meaning be- 
 comes more obvious by the use of the accusative case; for 
 KlyjEos avriav would undoubtedly mean to partake of or share 
 my bed. Here, therefore, avriav is the same as rropcrvveiv in 
 II. y, 411. and Od. y, 403., where the expression Ae^oj liopav- 
 vetv is, like Ae'xo? avriav, an old euphemismus for sexual inter- 
 course ; which idea has been thence adopted by succeeding 
 writers. Compare Eurip. Suppl. 56. c/n'Aa TroirjaapLeva Aejcrpa 
 7roVet ceo. Hel. 59. \zKTp vTToaTpaxrco tlvl. Theocr. 6, 33. where 
 Polyphemus wishes that Galatea may aroptaeiv kclXcl bip^via 
 racrd' €7n vdo-co. Apoll. Rh. 3, 40. of Venus, who ivrvvecnce \i\os 
 'Hc^atcrroio *. 
 
 5. A deviation from the above use of avriav occurs in the 
 later poets with the genitive in the sense of to entreat, importune, 
 Apoll. Rh. 1, 703. 3, 694. See Scholia. 
 
 "Avcoya ; vid. avrjvoOev. 
 
 9 A7rdpxofJLai ; vid. apxoptai. 
 
 23. * Anavpav, airovpas, eiravpeiv. 
 
 t. Of the verb cnravpda) in this form there occur in Homer, 
 and indeed in all the ancient writers, only three forms which we 
 can speak to with certainty: cnr-qvpcav J. pers. sing, and 3. plur. 
 
 [This sense will not apply in Hymn. Cer. 144. — Ed.] 
 
23. 'Airavpav, &c. 145 
 
 a-K7)vpa$ % ainivpa. These, according to form, are imperfect, but 
 they are always used in the general narrative as aorists. To 
 these the common editions of Homer would add from Od. b, 646. 
 a-nrjvpciTo. But Wolf has adopted the various reading airr]vpa> 
 which is found in Eustathius (in his Commentary, not in the ad- 
 joining text,) and in the Cod. Harl., where it is written a-nrjvpa; 
 for it certainly is not clear whence airrjvpaTo, a form deviating 
 entirely from the others, could have crept into this single pas- 
 sage ( V H a€ fity <x4kovtos airrjvpa vija fx^katvav), without any 
 necessity from the metre. On the other hand, however, it must 
 be confessed, one does not see how the corruption of the com- 
 mon reading took place ; and hence we must always look on 
 aTTrjvparo as an old form, carrying with it quite as much cer- 
 tainty as many in Homer which have been admitted from re- 
 mote antiquity. If we would consider this also as an imper- 
 fect, we must suppose a present in -o.p.at from a verb in -[ml. 
 But it is more natural to consider it at once as an aorist from 
 the simplest verbal form ATP12. 
 
 2. It has been acknowledged as long ago as the times of the 
 old commentators that the participles airovpas, a-novpa^vos Y 
 correspond exactly with the above forms both in meaning and 
 usage. The latter of these two occurs only in the shield of 
 Hercules (iJ3-), and that in a passive sense. Nor have the 
 greater part of the grammarians from very remote times been de- 
 terred by the unusual change of av — ov from considering these 
 participles as the aor. 1. of the simple radical verb. Indis- 
 putably such isolated cases as this, of an uncertain radical vowel 
 or change of vowel, are perfectly consistent with the nature of 
 an ancient language before the invention of writing and the 
 knowledge of grammar, when analogies were indeed formed, 
 but did not offer themselves to the mind in such masses as 
 they have since. On the other hand, a syncope like that sup- 
 posed by some of the old grammarians, viz. a-novpiaas from 
 ac\)opi((t), was quite unnatural even in such a language, to say 
 nothing of the force done to the meaning ; for we need only 
 
 1 The inf. dnovpai in the lexicons, &c. belongs merely to the gram- 
 marians, who formed it from dnovpas for their own grammatical use : 
 see Steph. Thes. 2, 1476. a. 
 
 L 
 
146 1$, 'A7rcivpav, &c. 
 
 mention the Homeric &k\oi yap ol airovpivaovcnv apovpas, II. \> 
 489., to make it at once evident that here the context gives 
 the idea of bounds or limits, but in all the other passages 
 where airovpas stands, there is no sign of such an idea. Much 
 more general and complete is the correspondence of airovpas 
 with aTrrjvpa, as in II. A, 334. kKvtcl revx* wmpp&i an d 43 2 - Ka < 
 T€i>x* airo-upas 2 , &c. 
 
 2 It is however remarkable, and must not be passed over in silence, 
 that Pindar, who never has drrr)vpa, &c, and only once dnovpas, uses it 
 in exactly the same combination of words as Homer does dnovpi&iv ; 
 
 namely in Pyth. 4, 265. aypovs. . .tovs dnovpas dpcripodv tok€<ov vefieai. 
 
 Hence it may be supposed with great probability that Pindar derived 
 the Homeric dnovpas from opos, d<f>opi£a>. And so it would remain 
 merely as a remarkable proof of a very ancient mi r interpretation of 
 Homer ; for dnovpas for dnavpas was in Pindar's time as great a de- 
 viation from analogy, as if it had stood for dirovpia-ai ; and the scientific 
 skill, which would decide that the former appears more possible than 
 the latter, we cannot suppose to have existed in Pindar's time. But 
 what if the dnovplo-o-ovaiv of our Homeric text owed its origin merely 
 to a very old forced interpretation ? We see that the other verb is 
 written in Homer, wherever there is an augment, with rjv ; wherever 
 there is no augment, with ov. Let us now suppose that from this 
 most ancient aorist (dnovpai, or as a or. 2. dnovpelv, to take away,) was 
 formed, as is so frequently the case, a future ; this would be aTrovprjcrco. 
 Indeed many manuscripts, at the head of which we may place the ex- 
 cellent Harleian MS., do read dirovprjo-ovo-iv; and the Venetian scho- 
 liast has the same reading in the lemma of his scholium, in which he 
 explains the verse simply by d<fiaipr)<rovTai. It appears to me most 
 probable, that from this various reading, which we see is an old one, 
 arose the common reading of the text in this manner, that they fancied 
 they saw in the passage something of boundaries and of the diminish- 
 ing of an inheritance (as Voss has very beautifully rendered it), and 
 they altered the reading to suit that idea. But, 1st, not only this 
 verb, but generally neither 6pi£a> nor its compounds ever occur in any 
 other part of Homer. 2nd, dcpopi&iv tlv'l rt, " to take from any one 
 something by removing his boundaries," although a very conceivable 
 combination, is not to be found in the later use of this verb, except 
 in a passage of Isocrates (ad Philipp. p. 252. Wolf.), where however 
 the dative is wanting, and the general manner of expression seems to 
 belong more to the later orator than to the old poet. 3rd, the idea of 
 a mere diminishing the patrimony of Astyanax, and removing the 
 boundaries, is by no means so suited to the sense of the passage as 
 may be imagined. Andromache in her lamentation must be supposed 
 to say to her child, " Others will take away from thee thy patrimonial 
 
23« " Airavpav, &c. 147 
 
 3. We may now inquire whence the old grammarians knew 
 that the radical form of this verb was ATPI2, ATPAO ; for 
 since, beside the forms with ov, there occur only those aug- 
 mented forms with rjv, which in the oldest copies must have 
 been written ei>, the radical diphthong may just as well be 
 supposed to have been ev as av. That the verb may have still 
 remained extant to later times in some dialect or other is pos- 
 sible ; but there is no trace of it in any of the grammarians, 
 not in Hesychius, nor in the Etymologicum ; and if any one 
 should suppose from Schneider's article on this verb in his 
 Lexicon that Hippocrates used it, he is misled by the imper- 
 fection of the quotation there given. In one of the passages 
 there cited (Be Nat. Pueri, Edit. VDL. vol. 1. p. 157.), it is 
 said of a graft, kclI irp&Tov air av pio Ktrai airb rrjs iKptabos rrjy kv 
 t<5 bevbpiu €V€ov<rr]s. However we may wish to consider this as 
 a newly -formed present from airavpao) (like d/x/SAio-KG) from 
 afxj3\6(i), and the like), still the meaning is too remote for us 
 to allow it to be the same verb. The sense of the middle 
 verb in this passage is to derive profit or advantage from, dram 
 nourishment to itself from, enjoy. But from this very thing it 
 is clear that it must be kitavpivKeTai, which is the common 
 expression of Hippocrates in this sense ; e. g. De Morbis IV. 
 
 (vol. 2. p. 121.) €TTaVpl(TK€T UL 0070 TOV CTCO/OtaTO? TT)KOfJL€VOV, aild 
 
 p. 134. ovk hv ki:avpi(TK€TO rjpLtv (to a5>p.a) tt/j i/cju.d8os kirapKiov*. 
 and a little after the very passage of which we are speaking, 
 it is said of the graft now grown larger, eiravpLo-KtraL aird tt}s 
 yrjs €\k(ov tt]v t/c/xd6a. It is most improbable that Hippocrates 
 should have used sometimes airavp- sometimes iiravp- in the 
 same sense. The other passage (De Morb. IV. vol. 2. p. 156.) 
 runs thus : yapizi to ttotov is tt)v KOikirjv, ano be rrjs kol\lt)s 
 is to dAAo crw/ua airavpio-KeTai. Here we should have a new 
 meaning, it is expended, disperses itself into ; a meaning to 
 which there is nothing in any other part of Hippocrates to 
 
 lands." If now we read in Homer anovprjvovcriv, there is no necessity 
 for our supposing that Pindar misunderstood Homer, or ever thought 
 of opos ; but the Homeric usage of words was present to his mind as 
 it was to that of all the poets, and so he used dnovpas as the participle 
 of the verb in the same sense and combination as Homer had used the 
 future. 
 
 1- 2 
 
148 23* 'A.7ravpav 9 &c. 
 
 lead us. 'ATravptWerat here would be a pure passive, which 
 necessarily supposes in actual use an active aTxavpivKia, I con- 
 sume^ expend, which should approach pretty near to that airav- 
 paco, V" take away ; but then it would stand a single isolated 
 instance in this passage, without ever occurring again in the 
 extensive works of Hippocrates, or even in the whole range of 
 the Greek language. But Fcesius, as early as his time (CEco- 
 nom. Hippocr. in v.) corrected it thus : airb tt]$ kolXltjs to ak\o 
 crG>fxa €iravpio-K€Tcu, and this verb is actually given in a Vienna 
 manuscript. The insertion of the preposition es arose from the 
 termination of the word preceding it 3 . 
 
 4. The grammarians then, it seems, ascribed the diphthong 
 av to the verb airavpqv merely from comparing it with the verb 
 iiravpio-KeOat, of which aTravpio-KzOai may have been an old 
 various reading with a similar meaning (see below in the note 
 the gloss of Erotian). Both verbs certainly came from the same 
 source. We will now examine this other more accurately. 
 
 5. In post-Homeric Greek we find only the middle voice of 
 this verb, and I have shown in my grammar (Yerb. Anom. v. 
 ATP-) that we must place as the present €iravpi(rKO[xaL, which 
 occurs in Homer, Hippocrates, and elsewhere; the more sim- 
 ple form being merely an aorist, whence the infinitive must be 
 written k-navpio-dai, which accentuation is found also in Eurip. 
 Iph. Taur. 529 4 . But this same aorist had also, like other simi- 
 lar aorists, a more Ionic sister-form with the a or the so-called 
 aor. 1, medium. Compare, for instance, evpopLrjv and evpopi-qv 5 , 
 
 3 The gloss of Erotian which belongs to this passage, diravpiaKiTai, 
 drroAXilerai, Fcesius corrects to aTroWvrai or dnoXveTai ; but the cor- 
 ruption lies deeper than this. It originated in the XX. The word as 
 it originally stood was AIIOAAYEI : when some one had corrupted this 
 to AIIOAAYEI, it was very natural that a second should turn it into a 
 passive. Heringa on Erotian contents himself with altering it to dno- 
 Xaverai, which he takes without hesitation in an active sense. 
 
 4 In Apoll. Rh. also (1, 677.) in all the old editions it is written 
 inavpeaOai, and the scholium expressly remarks, that as paroxyt. it is 
 an aorist for dnoXnvcrai, and as proparox. a present for dnoXavetu. On 
 the contrary, at v. 1275. it is invariably written, even in the Editio 
 princeps iiravpeaBai ; and the same in Andocides De Reditu, near the 
 beginning, in the Aldine and in the Cod. Wratisl. 
 
 5 See the instances quoted in Matthias's Gr. Gramm. p. 1 88. Obs. 7. 
 (or p. 240. of Blomfield's Edit.). 
 
23. *A.iravpav, &c. 149 
 
 d><r(f)p6firiv and d)(T(f>pdfxr]v (oaifipavTo, Herod, 1, 80.). 'Eiravpa- 
 aOai is therefore an unobjectionable form, occurring not merely 
 in the later writers 6 , but for instance in Hippocrates in the 
 Oath, c. 3. iiravpaoOai /cat /3tov kclI riyv-qs (where there is no 
 mention of any various reading in -eo-0ai), and also in the Ionic 
 letter to Hystanes ascribed to him, Ilepviuv he okfiov ov pot 6ep.is 
 iiravpaordat,. 
 
 6. In many of the infinitives above quoted we miss the plain 
 sense of the aorist ; but as this is also the case in the form in 
 -aaOai, it cannot contradict the remark respecting the accent on 
 -eoQai, since the indicative eiravpopLau, as we plainly see, does 
 not exist. It is possible, however, that usage might have ex- 
 tended by degrees the sense of the infinitive to that of continua- 
 tion also, and so the difference of accent given by the scholiast 
 of Apollonius B-h. (see note 4.) came to be observed. But then 
 in both the passages of Apoll. Rh. — certainly at least in the first 
 (1, 677.) — it must be written eiravpeo-Oat. 
 
 7. The most common meaning of this middle voice is un- 
 doubtedly to derive advantage or nourishment from ; in Homer 
 however it has this meaning in one passage only, II. v, 733., 
 where it is said of a sensible man, rod be re ttoWoI euavpC- 
 (jkovt avOpaiTOL. Hence the custom of considering as ironical 
 those cases where the verb is used in a bad sense, as in that 
 of deriving ^advantage, &c. ; for instance, II. a, 410. tva 
 Tidvres iiravpcavrat (3a<ri\r}os ; and again, (, $52>' °» l l' O^. 
 a-, 106. But this view of it is erroneous. The twofold rela- 
 tion arose from the one original general meaning, to draw from, 
 have from, derive from. This is proved by those cases where 
 irony is not applicable, as in that most palpable instance of the 
 well-known saying of Democritus, (Stob. Eth. 2, p. 205.) 
 d$' (ov r\\dv rayaOa yiyverai clito tu>v clvt&v tovtm kcu to, 
 KaKa eiravpicrKOLixeOa : and so also in the passage of Herodotus 
 (7, 180.) so remote from all idea of irony, raya 8' au tl kcll 
 tov ovvoiicltos eTTavpoLTo. The asperity in the passages quoted 
 from Homer lies, therefore, not in the word, but in the thought 
 itself. 
 
 6 See Suid. v. cnavpacrBaL ; Valck. ad Herod. 7. 180. 
 
150 23. *A<rravpav 9 &c. 
 
 8. The active voice of this verb belongs entirely to the Epic 
 poets, and to those who copied it from them. Homer has only 
 the aorist of the subjunct, and infin,, e-navpa, -77?, -rj, iiravptlv or 
 iiravpi^ev. The present I find in the form in -Co- km only in 
 Theogn. 115. (Brunck. Ed., orin, Gaisf. Ed.) Ot 8' ayaBol to 
 [kkyivrov ziiavpLo-Kovo-t, TtaQovrts, Hesiod has it in -ca>, (Op. 417.) 
 
 speaking of Sirius in the winter, Baiov "Epx^rat thjl&tlos, 
 
 TiXeiov be re vvktos iiravpeTI, 
 
 9. This active has in many passages evidently the meaning 
 of to enjoy; for instance, in II, a, 302., Hector says to the 
 Trojans, " Give your property to the people for them to spend 
 it, T&v nva fieXrepov Icttiv €iravp£p,£v ijirep 'A^atous:" so also 
 in Od. p, 8 j. Hence if this same form be used of inanimate 
 objects, the idea is supposed to be figurative, namely, that 
 those objects are endued with feeling ; particularly in the in- 
 stance of the spears, II. A, 573. Uapos X/°°' a Acuicoi/ ZiravptLV 
 'Ev yairj ivravTo : so also A, 391.; in which passages is sup^ 
 posed a metaphorical idea of enjoying, tasting ; an idea in 
 itself by no means bad, particularly as in the first-mentioned 
 passage it is added, Xi\ai6p,zva XP°° S So-at; but at II. v, 649. 
 where the combatant is the subject of the sentence, p.rj ns \poa 
 \a\K(p eiravpr], this figure cannot be admitted, 
 
 10. We see, therefore, that in every instance the general 
 idea lies at the foundation of the word; and as its evident 
 affinity to airavpav leads us, as the simplest idea, to that of to 
 take, this will be to take to itself, get, obtain, partake, draw 
 or derive from : so many expressions must in our modern lan^ 
 guages be collected together for want of one single comprehen- 
 sive term to express the full meaning of this Greek verb. The 
 collateral idea is introduced in every instance by the mean- 
 ing of the context. Consequently, the spear, or he who wields 
 it, attains, reaches, strikes the body ; exactly as in \j/, 340. where 
 a charioteer in the lists is warned in guiding his car round the 
 stone which marks the course, XiOov akiaaOai tTtavptiv, " to 
 
 7 I know of no various reading for this passage ; whereas at verse 
 238., as we shall by and by see, we read also dnrjvpa, which however 
 would not be quite suitable here in connexion with epx fTa *- I consider 
 therefore enavpeco as a genuine separate form. 
 
23. 'Airavpdv, &c. 151 
 
 avoid touching the stone, striking upon it." In the passage 
 of Hesiod respecting Sirius, the figurative idea of an inani- 
 mate object being endued with feeling is the more appro- 
 priate, but <( he enjoys more the night," is not a correct 
 thought. The true idea therefore here also is the general 
 one, although we can hardly translate it literally in a modern 
 language, " he takes to himself more of the night, comes more 
 in contact with it 8 ." 
 
 1 1 . With regard to the case which it governs, the difference 
 originally was this ; that when the relation of the verb to the 
 object was immediate, i. e. supposed to be an immediate taking, 
 consuming, striking, the accusative case followed ; on the other 
 hand, if rather the consequences or fruits of anything were en- 
 joyed or derived, the genitive, or, when the construction was 
 complete, airb with the genitive. This will be found to hold 
 good in the generality of cases, although usage, in this as in 
 other things, has not always strictly adhered to the distinc- 
 tion. The middle form has in Homer that mediate relation 
 four times, in three of which (II. a, 410. v, J33. o, 17.) the 
 genitive is used ; and in the fourth (£, 353.) the case is not 
 expressed. This relation appears also more natural to the 
 middle voice. Hence in a fifth passage (Od. a, 106.), ju?} nov 
 tl kclkov kcli ^(ov knauprf, I should prefer the old various 
 reading iiravp-ps. 
 
 1 2. In Homer then the two compounds airavpav and iirav- 
 p€iv, ZiTavptcrdaL, are sufficiently distinguished by difference of 
 meaning ; but in the other poets, even the oldest, we find the 
 same various reading which we met with above in Hippocrates. 
 In Hesiod e, 238. the well-known sentence 
 
 IIoXXaKt Kal £v/x7ra(ra noXis kclkov dvbpos inavpa. 
 
 is thus written in most of the manuscripts ; but another reading, 
 
 8 This meaning of reaching, touching, is found more expressly in a 
 third compound npoo-avpeiv, 7rpo(Tavpi{civ, which we know only from the 
 gloss of Hesychius, and which Seidler has now first introduced into an 
 old text by a happy emendation of Sophocl. Antig. 619. Hermann 
 remarks there, that also in Nicand. Ther. 763. enavprj is explained by 
 a^rjTai. How the ideas of to take, to lay hold on, to touch, pass into 
 each other, may be seen explained in Buttmann's notes on Sophocl. 
 Philoc. 657. 1398. 
 
152 23* 'A7rauj0ai/, &c. 
 
 backed by very old quotations and authorities (see Graev. ad 
 loc.) is air-qvpa, which aoristic imperfect is so desirable in this 
 passage, that one is very unwilling to attribute it to an error of 
 transcription*. And when in Eurip. Androm. 1029. we read 
 (speaking of Clytemnestra) Avrd r , IvaXka^ava <povov Oavarco, 
 TTpos t€kv(ov air^vpa, where there is no appearance of any various 
 reading ; it is clear that as early as that time the verb airavpav 
 in the Epic poets was considered, at least as a various reading, 
 to have the meaning of k-navpiaOai. But there is nothing to 
 hinder us from supposing that airavpav had from the earliest 
 times this meaning, something like auferre. In iEschyl. Prom. 
 28. the word is somewhat more doubtful; 
 
 Totavr anrjvpai rov (fii\avBpo)7rov Tponov. 
 
 Hitherto no one but Stephens has brought forward k^-qvp^ as 
 a various reading to this passage. There is this objection to it, 
 that it would be from Ziravpaadca, a form which can hardly be 
 attributed to an Attic writer. On the other hand, carrfvp^ 
 would be that tense of the middle voice (a-n-qvpapyv) which we 
 have seen at the beginning of this article to be very doubtful 
 in Homer. However, the middle appears to me so defensible 
 in this passage of ^Eschylus, and so suited to it, having regu- 
 larly and correctly the meaning of fyipcaOai, auferre, ' to derive 
 from,' that iEschylus may very well be supposed to have formed 
 it, though he did not find it in any older poet. The form 
 kitavpeiv is used absolutely by Pindar (Pyth. 3, 365.) in the 
 sense of to receive (harm) from; kol yeiroVoor irokkol k-nav- 
 pov 9 . 
 
 13. The sense of these two compounds, thus playing into each 
 other, confirms the opinion that they both belong to one simple 
 form ; and there are therefore quite sufficient grounds for fixing 
 
 * [Gaisford in his edition of the • Poetse Minores Grseci' has dnrjvpa 
 in the text. — Ed.] 
 
 9 It is not correct to say that inavpov is used in this passage by 
 Pindar absolutely. The use of the word is not made more absolute by 
 its having no accusative case of the harm, than it is in tva ndvres enav- 
 pcovrai fiao-ikrjos. The omission of the genitive of the person from whom 
 the harm is received is quite usual, and to be supplied by tovtov, or in 
 this case by avrrjs, with reference to the offending damsel. 
 
2$. ' A-wavpav, &c. 153 
 
 on the diphthong av for the verb a-navpav. Notwithstanding 
 this, however, I cannot but think that the simple form of these 
 verbs is to be sought for in the verb evptlv, which has always 
 remained in use, and which differs from those compounds only 
 by the change of the aspirate, (a difference very common in the 
 older writers, and in the Ionic dialect,) and by a third change 
 of vowel. However, evpziv bears the same relation to that 
 avpqv and avpelv, as zvyop.ai does to avy£o> ; and we thus come 
 nearer to the change of the vowel ov in airovpas ; compare 
 (TTrevba) (Tirovbri, and generally the change of e to o. Besides, 
 ei/pelv corresponds very much with k-navpeiv in the termina- 
 tions of its tenses ; evpiaKO), evpov, zvpeiv, eupiarOai, evpacrdat : 
 i r navpi(TKO\xai, tirrjvpov, tTtavpeiv, iiravp^crOaL, eTravpaa-dat. And 
 lastly, a still nearer correspondence in the usage of the two 
 verbs is to be found in an epigram of Nossis, (No. 4.,) where it 
 is said of a courtezan, eiravpo^va \xa\a ttoXXclv Kttjctlv air 
 oIkclov o-w/uaros dyAatas-. Here iiravpiorOat with the accusative 
 is used exactly in the simple sense of zvpeo-Qai or evpaadat. — 
 The Latin haurire has been already compared by others with 
 i-rravpelv, and, as it appears, not without foundation. But then 
 the Greek apvziv should not be omitted 10 . And if I were to 
 pursue this idea that iiravpelv and evpelv are connected with 
 haurire, and consequently with apveiv, I should next adopt the 
 supposition that apvoa was also APfH ; wherefore in avpca or 
 AF PX2 we have the same change in the position of the fori; 
 as in 6eovhr\s and Trpovatkeiv. Nor have I any hesitation in 
 
 10 It is singular that so plain a contracted imperfect as anr)vpaiv, 
 airqvpa, should be in Homer so completely an aorist ; and one might be 
 tempted to substitute instead of those forms dnrjvpov, dnrjvpe (ei/), as an 
 old form changed in after-times : particularly as Hesychius has a7rr)vpov, 
 d(f>€iXavTo, (the addition to this gloss is most satisfactorily accounted 
 for in the Note to Alberti's edition,) and Zonaras has dirr^vpoiv : the 
 latter, however,, explains it as the aorist 2. of dnavpSa, aTTavpr)<ra> ; from 
 which it appears necessarily to follow, that he read and was speaking 
 of dnrjvpov. But dn^vpoav cannot be displaced from II. a, 430. by 
 dmyvpov ; we must therefore go one step further, and write dnrjvpovT : 
 while the 3rd person dnrjvpa in jEschyl. Pers. 954., and in the passage 
 of Eurip. Androm. 1029. quoted above — in both instances a pure aorist 
 — shows that this was the reading in Homer at least as early as the 
 time of Pisistratus. 
 
154 24. 'Att/j^ yaia. 
 
 putting down as a parallel case avv<a, ANfX2, ava>, avofxai, since 
 nothing is more common than that what in one case produces 
 a diphthong, in another merely lengthens the vowel. 
 
 24. 'An Ir) yaia. 
 
 1 . It is well known that a part of the grammarians explained 
 'AttCt) yaia (II. a, 270. and y, 49.) as the old name of the Pe- 
 loponnesus ; while the two passages in the Odyssey (77, 25. 
 and 7t, 18.), where nothing is said of the Peloponnesus, plainly 
 show that amos is an old adjective from ano, like clvtlos from 
 clvti, and means distant. It must not however be supposed 
 that the older Greeks in the times of the tragedians were in 
 this same error, and that hence came the use of the name 'Ama 
 in iEschylus, Sophocles, and others, for the Peloponnesus. An 
 old saying as early as iEschylus, and which he introduces in 
 his Suppl. 275., derives this old name of the Peloponnesus from 
 a most ancient personage named Apis, of whom there exist very 
 differ ent mythological accounts. We may see the passages in 
 which these accounts are given collected together in Berckel. 
 ad Steph. in v., and in Wassenbergh. ad Paraphr. Horn. p. 42. 
 This Apis, we see at once, is the old mythical personification 
 of the name of the people and country, which mythology has 
 derived from him ; therefore of 'Ama, and of the 'Ainboves or 
 'Ambavrjes, the old name for the Arcadians ; see Eustath. ad 
 Dionys. Perieg. 415 *. The explanation of Heyne on II. a, 270., 
 
 1 There is a multiplicity of traces which concur in proving that in 
 this word Apis, Apia, lies the original name of a most ancient people, 
 which inhabited the European coasts of the Mediterranean. The my- 
 thical personages Pelops, Cecrops, Merops, compared with the names 
 of countries and people, as the Peloponnesus and the Meropes (in Cos), — 
 and in the same way the names Dry opes Dry ops, Dolopes Dolops, — show 
 that Ops, Opes, corresponding with the Opicis, Opscis, in Italy, and 
 meaning the same as Apis, were ancient names of people ; and that the 
 first syllable in those names served to distinguish the different families 
 or tribes, as the Pelopes, Cecropes, Meropes, &c. The Abantes in Euboea, 
 the Aones in Bceotia, the Ausones and Osci in Italy, are but varieties 
 of the same name. And now, from having observed these last forms, 
 
24* 'At/j/ 'yam. 155 
 
 who maintains, contrary to the express testimonies of the geo- 
 graphers and grammarians, nay of iEschylus himself, that the 
 name Apia never existed as a geographical name, but is en- 
 tirely and originally poetical, rests on old misrepresentations. 
 Whoever' considers the true nature of poetry, particularly of 
 the poetry of the ancients, and the mythical and geographical 
 names occurring in it, easily sees that the poetical names, par- 
 ticularly all the oldest, are purely most ancient real names, 
 which poetry has preserved to us ' 2 . 
 
 2. There is another circumstance well worthy of our notice, 
 that the appellative airCr] in Homer has the a short (e£ octitjs 
 ycLLrjs), but in the geographical name it is always long : yrjs 
 oaonrep ' A 77 tas, Soph. O. C. 1 303. Avrrjs be x^P as 'Actios 
 irehov robe, iEschyl. Suppl. 275. Kar' v ACTt8a, (said of the 
 country) Theocr. 25, 183.; and this is also the quantity not 
 only of ' k-ibavr)es, but also of the primitive name 'Actis, ac- 
 cording to which is regulated that of the Egyptian Apis also ; 
 and it is inconceivable how the greater part of the editors 
 could write this name from the earliest times with an acute 
 accent, and that sometimes in passages where the quantity 
 teaches otherwise. lipomas d/xe/xCTrcos 'Aths 'Apyeuz \60vi, JEtS- 
 chyl. Supp. 284. Et comes in pompa corniger Apis erat, Ovid, 
 Amor. 2, 13, 14. It is however remarkable that Sophocles, 
 
 we shall at once recognize the Pelopes and the Pelasgi as identical. 
 The termination asgi contains therefore again the old name of the family 
 or tribe (Opes, Apes, Asgi, Aones, like Opici, Osci, dusones); and as we 
 know the name of that people was also Pelargi, we have thus the old 
 name of the Peloponnesus, Argos, which is again found in Thessaly and 
 Acarnania, brought into the series. With these is connected very natu- 
 rally the old name of the inhabitants of Phrygia, Lvdia, &c, the Ascanii, 
 and the more simple ancient name of the country itself, Asia. Nor can 
 it any longer be considered as a mere visionary scheme, if in the Hebrew 
 tradition, which so plainly calls the 'Idoves or Ionians Javan, we find 
 also these Ascanii, and whatever is connected with them, in Askenas ; 
 and it is uncertain whether the most western trace of this race is not 
 to be sought for in the name of the Ausci and Vascones. 
 
 2 I mean those names which occur in the old poets as real names. 
 It is totally different with those supposed old names of countries which 
 we find in the geographers, and which I consider to be mostly a mis- 
 understanding of some poetical epithets, as 'Hfpirj, used of Egypt, and 
 the like : see 'A^p, sect. 9. 
 
156 2$. 'A.TToepcra.1. 
 
 in the same piece in which he uses 'Ama of the Pelopon- 
 nesus, further on at v. 1685. has the same word, also with the 
 long a, in the sense of a distant country, yrj airta. If we 
 may trust to our present knowledge of the lyric stanza, So- 
 phocles thought himself obliged to use the Homeric word in a 
 quantity more familiar to the Attic ear. An exactly opposite 
 instance is found in a passage of Ehianus mentioned by 
 Steph. Byz., 
 
 tov Se kXvtos €Kyev€T y Ams, 
 
 "Os p 'Amrjv ecpdrige Kai dvepas 'Anidavrjas. 
 
 Here then the proper name is short. But this is far less striking 
 than the other. The later Epic poet regulated himself accord- 
 ing to the Homeric prosody, even when he used the word in a 
 different sense. And it is possible that Rhianus took airit] in 
 Homer for the name of the Peloponnesus. 
 
 35* ' Awoepaai. 
 
 1 . Three times in the Iliad there occur forms of an aorist cltto- 
 dpo-aL ; viz. in II. £, 348. where Helen wishes that she had been 
 thrown into the sea immediately after her birth ; evQa /xe nvfi 
 aTToepo-e, " there the wave would have washed me away y" again 
 at (p, 283., where Achilles is afraid of being overwhelmed by 
 the flood of the Scamander, like a young swine-herd, (f Ov pa r 
 €vav\os airoepo-rj, " whom the torrent loashes away as he is ford- 
 ing it in a storm;" and lastly at <£, 329. where Juno has the 
 same fear for Achilles, Mr; \xiv anoepcreie \xiyas iroTapibs fiaOvbiwqs, 
 " lest the flood should wash Mm away." The sense is therefore 
 perfectly clear ; but we want to know where we are to place 
 this verb, as its simple € per at is nowhere extant in this sense, nor 
 is there any trace to help us, except the very evident one of the 
 old digamma. This we see in the hiatus after the preposition, 
 particularly in the last two passages, where the o in the Arsis, 
 as if by means of this hiatus, is long ; that is to say, by means of 
 the double aspiration in AIKWEPSHI. 
 
 2. The most generally received opinion is that these forms 
 belong to eppw, the old formation of which was epvai, instead 
 of the one afterwards in use epprjaai. The digamma is indeed 
 
2$. 'Airoeparcu. 157 
 
 recognizable in this verb also in hOdbe 2pp<av, avrap 6 eppcoi>, 
 II. 6, 239. o-, 421., and as it appears to come from pe'co, we 
 have only to suppose that it originally had this more definite 
 meaning of moving in a stream, and was also used in a causa- 
 tive sense, to cause to hasten, cause to flow, and in the passages 
 before us, to cause to swim, cause to float, wash along ; for the 
 destructive part of the sense lies in each case entirely in the 
 preposition airo, to wash ojf or away. Easy however as these 
 suppositions are, taking each separately, we must recollect 
 they are three, with no trace of them elsewhere, and that too 
 in a verb otherwise in pretty general use ; a consideration which 
 may fairly make us hesitate in adopting this derivation. We 
 may therefore be allowed to choose for ourselves, and try 
 another. 
 
 3. The formation epcrat leads still more naturally to a 
 theme EPAX2, and this reminds us of apbo>, according to the 
 Ionic analogy of epo-rjv, aparjv. The verb dpSco has the general 
 meaning of to water ; but a more definite one was, to bring 
 into the water and move anything about in it ; as, for instance, 
 to drive cattle into the watering-place, which was thence pro- 
 perly called apbfios, II. cr, 521. 'Ez> 7rorajucp o9l t apbpibs 
 €r]v TrdvT€(r<ri (3otol(tlv. This verb also had the digamma, 
 which, though elsewhere obliterated, is only the more evi- 
 dent in the compound veoapb-qs, II. <£, 345. Compare also the 
 word epat], whose digamma is seen in the Homeric form Upcrr], 
 and whose affinity to ap8co, I water, shows the same change 
 of vowel, a into 6. I suppose, therefore, that epSco meant, 
 1st, I water, whence tpo-q, dew; 2nd, i" wash, whence apbfxos, 
 a washing and watering place ; its compound airotpbd), I wash 
 away. 
 
 4. In fact this supposition is but an easy modification of the 
 first ; for as the affinity of the words eppco, apba, zaar], and of 
 their meanings to peco is pretty certain, so the difference be- 
 tween the two views of the question is merely this, that the 
 causative idea belonging to pea>, eppco, i* run, flow, is accord- 
 ing to the one laid in eppco, according to the other in a parti- 
 cular form ep8co, which has the same relation to eppco as a/xe'p8co 
 has to dp,eipco. And thus we have this result as certain, that 
 the verb epcrat, for which, as for many other aorists, we cannot 
 
158 2,6. ^AirOCVVOd, aTTOQH*). 
 
 fix on at present with any degree of certainty, meant to wash; 
 that it comes from the radical word pelv, and belongs to the 
 same family with all the words and forms quoted above. 
 
 26. ' A7ro^vi/cOy airo^vco. 
 
 1. To my great astonishment, no question, as far as I know, 
 has been raised on the form ano^vvai from ctarofwa>, Od. 1, 
 326. In that passage Ulysses gives his companions a piece 
 cut off from the huge limb of a tree, which was intended by the 
 Cyclops for his staff. He relates the circumstance thus : 
 
 Kai napeSrjx irdpoKnv, airo^vvai §' eKeAeutra. 
 Ol 8* SfxaXov 7TOLT](raw eya> §' edoaxra Tvapaards 
 "Atcpov, a<pap §€ Xafioiv cnvpaKTeov iv nvpl Krfkew. 
 
 The word aTTogvvw, according to the simplest analogy, comes 
 only from d£vs, ogvva), and therefore Ulysses commands his 
 companions to sharpen or point the piece of wood, which he 
 however immediately afterwards relates as being done by him- 
 self. No one, indeed, but Eustathius expressly explains the 
 word thus ; and he, in order to get rid of this difficulty, adds, 
 that the companions of Ulysses had only made it somewhat 
 taper, but that Ulysses had finished it by pointing the extremity 
 (aKpov). But the very nature of the thing contradicts this, 
 for every bough tapers of itself towards the end. Happily 
 Homer is in this passage his own scholiast in the words ol 5' 
 SpiaXbv iroix]ctav : and tradition has handed it down to us ; for 
 the common Latin translation renders the word by levigare, 
 and Daram places the verb ano^vvoa quite carelessly under 
 
 fu&), CLTTO^Vd). 
 
 2. Now aTTo£v(ti is the true and proper word for to make 
 smooth, by scraping or shaving off the outer rind or skin : a 
 proof of this is the word £vo-t6s, which means the shaft or 
 handle of a spear prepared in that way ; and in this sense 
 Homer uses also the verb itself, II. i, 446., where to the ex- 
 pression " if a God would make me young again" is added 
 yrjpas a-mo^vaas, with evident reference to the rough and 
 wrinkled skin, which must be, as it were, scraped off for that 
 
26. 'A7ro£uyft), airo^vto* 159 
 
 purpose. Nothing would, therefore, be more natural than to 
 read also in the passage in question aTrogvacu 8' e/ceAewa : and 
 that this was really the old recognized reading, I conclude, not 
 only from the total silence of all the grammarians, except 
 Eustathius, and of all the lexicographers, who never could 
 have passed over unnoticed this sense of airo^vvai, deviating 
 from the common meaning of cltto£vv(d, and corresponding ex- 
 actly with that of airogvd), and that too in Homer ; but I draw 
 this conclusion also from the words of Lucian, who in Dial. 
 Marin. 2. introduces Polyphemus relating his misfortune, and 
 saying of Ulysses, o §e airo^vo-as rbv jj.o\kbv kcu Trvpaxras ye 
 irpocreTL irv(f)k(i)<T€ jute naOtvhovTa. The critics, indeed, rather 
 suppose the reading in Lucian to be false, and would alter it 
 to a-no^vvas ; and certainly Lucian might have so written it ; 
 but as the Cyclops very naturally attributed the whole proceed- 
 ing to Ulysses, he might just as well have said, giving a short 
 account of it, M he shaved the bough smooth, and put the end 
 in the fire," passing over unnoticed that which necessarily fol- 
 lows of itself, the end being taper or pointed. And in the same 
 way Homer might very well have spoken without thought of 
 the shaving or scraping only, in which he might have included 
 the idea of its being pointed; and nothing but the express 
 distinction which is there made between a-no^vvat and do&aat 
 makes it absolutely necessary for the reading to be altered. 
 And thus then I recognize in the expression of Lucian an 
 evident trace that the reading of Homer should also be cltto- 
 £{>crai. 
 
 3. A trace of an opposite character, and which has thence 
 been adduced to confirm the alteration of Lucian's reading, is 
 found in Euripides. He, like Lucian, had evidently the pas- 
 sage of Homer in his mind, when he makes Ulysses say with 
 reference to the bough, (Cycl. 455.) — 
 
 *Oi> (f)aayavco rw5' i^ano^vvas a<pov 
 Ely nvp Kadrjo-oo. 
 
 But this is no confirmation of the common reading of Homer's 
 text ; for it is evident that Euripides has passed over the 
 shaving of the bough, and intended by ^aiio^vvas anpov to 
 express the efloWa aKpov of Homer ; which, indeed, the scholiast 
 
160 26. 'A7ro£m/fc), cnrol*vGty. 
 
 of Homer does explain by aiKagwa. And from the very circum- 
 stance of this word being added in Homer as the gloss of e0oWa 
 we can better understand and explain how it crept into the pre- 
 ceding verse, where previously stood aiTogvaai, a word so like it 
 both in sense and form. 
 
 4. That an emendation so plain and necessary, one which 
 must undoubtedly have struck others before, should never once 
 have been proposed, must surely have arisen from this cause, 
 that another form of the verb, viz. the present, occurs again 
 in the Odyssey in exactly the same situation, It is said of 
 the Phaeacians, £, 269. 
 
 "Evda 8e vrjwv 07rXa peXaivdcov aXeyovaiv, 
 
 Tie la-para Kai (nrelpa, kol amo^vvovaiv e per pa. 
 
 Here, again, the moderns explain it to make pointed or taper, 
 because, as Stephens remarks, oars do taper toward the ex- 
 tremity. Still, however, every one must certainly have felt the 
 unsuitableness of the expression ; and in opposition to it, tra- 
 dition, which here also speaks of shaving or scraping off, is in 
 this passage still stronger than in the former one, in as much as 
 it embraces Eustathius also, who says, to 8e airogvvovo-iv bvva- 
 tcu tclvtov T<5 Xerrrvvovcnv 77 Kai airo £vova l. And the com- 
 mon scholiast has expressly cpKoibv irept^ova-bv. It is impos- 
 sible that any one should, contrary to this external and internal 
 evidence, still adhere to the idea of o£vva> ; and some, therefore, 
 observing the reading of both passages to correspond so exactly 1 , 
 have ventured with Damm to suppose a verb ano-^vvoa as an- 
 other form of airogvto ; in which analogy does not entirely fail 
 them, as bvo) and bvvv, Ova and Ovvco, ibpvo) and Ibpvvdrjv may 
 be adduced in support of it. Notwithstanding this, however, the 
 supposition is incredible. If there had occurred in Homer a verb 
 a7ro£wG), in a different sense and derivation from the common 
 one, it is impossible but that the grammarians, who we have 
 seen did explain it, should have remarked this peculiarity, and 
 that it should have found its way into the lexicons. Nay, we 
 may add without fear of contradiction, that if Homer had used 
 
 1 The reading ano&Lvovaw in the Cod. Harl. is not worth our notice, 
 as 0, I, «, are commonly mistaken for each other. 
 
2J. 1 AirpiaTriV. 161 
 
 such a word as cn:o-£vv(>>, he would also have said in that third 
 passage yrjpas airogyvas, since there is no metrical reason for 
 the difference, and surely no one will say that there is a 
 distinction between the Iliad and the Odyssey in this gvv and 
 
 5. The result is undoubted. The verb cltto^ihd must stand 
 in all three passages, and therefore at Od. f, 269. we must 
 read airogvovo-Lv kper^L The length of the v, which is per- 
 fectly regular, but was not looked upon as certain, has been the 
 cause of the one verb being by mistake altered to another so 
 similar to it. And thus, then, we have a double instance on 
 which we can depend, of a reading in Homer which must be 
 corrected ; and yet there is no mention in any of the old com- 
 mentators of this twofold reading, nor has it been hitherto found 
 in any manuscript. 
 
 y hirovpas ; vid. awavpav. 
 
 27. ' hTrpidrrjv. 
 
 We have before spoken of the adverb clky/v, and in con- 
 firmation of its being an adverb we compared it with anpikTr\v. 
 Now this latter would never have been known to be an adverb 
 if we had found it only in II. a, 99., where anpiaTy\v, ava-notvov 
 appear to refer to the preceding word Kovp-qv. But in Od. 
 
 £, 317. Ulysses speal#ing of himself says, "EvOa /xe eKo/xur- 
 
 a-aro <t>€ibu>v "Hpcoj a-npiaTi\v. Rhianus, according to a Har- 
 leian gloss, wrote airpidb-qv; but this was evidently a gram- 
 matical correction according to the analogy of adverbs in brjv. 
 The more correct way of stating the whole appears to me to be 
 this. Among those cases which serve for adverbs, is, as we 
 have seen above in the article on clkyiv, the accus. fern, as /xa- 
 Kpdv, avTiftirjv, (JvvaiKT7)v (Scut. Here. 189). To these be- 
 long also cbK-qv and a-npiar^v. The adverbs thus coming from 
 verbal adjectives in tos, consequently those ending in r-qv, as 
 well as also the neuter forms in tov and ra, took a softer pro- 
 
 M 
 
162 28. *ApKio*. 
 
 nunciation (like oyboos, eftbofjios, from oktco, k-nra) ; and thus 
 brjv, bov, ba became proper adverbial forms, which were also 
 partly modified in the accent, e. g. Kpv(3br]v, ava<pavbov, ava- 
 §avba, and having, thus the force of proper adverbial termina- 
 tions they attached themselves to other forms, as Xoydbrjv, &c. 
 'Airptabriv, avvaiybriv would certainly then be forms agreeable 
 to the analogy which afterwards became more general ; but on 
 that very account the aupLaT-qv in the Odyssey, which at first 
 sight seems so objectionable, cannot be an accidental mistake ; 
 and therefore at II. a, 99. ditpidr-qv, clvolttolvov must likewise be 
 taken adverbially, with which also the meaning of avairoivov 
 agrees much better 1 . 
 
 ' ApifyXog ; vid. atdrjAos. 
 ' ApKeiv ; vid. xpaiaixeiv. 
 
 28. "ApKios. 
 
 1. It will be seen by the article on \paio-ixeiv, apKelv, that 
 we suppose the meaning of apKLos, enough, sufficient, to be cer- 
 tain, although the verb dpKetv is not found in Homer in that 
 sense. The affinity of the ideas to help, to be useful to, to 
 suffice, and so old an usage of the verb as that of Herodotus, 
 apK^ofiai tovtois, and last of all the exactly corresponding ex- 
 pression ixiadbs apKios, Od. a, 358. II. k, 304., appeared to 
 justify that meaning. Still, however, the opinion was pre- 
 cipitate, as long as the word remained unexamined in all its 
 combinations ; for there are many passages extant where that 
 idea is of no assistance whatever. 
 
 2. To these belongs, first, the passage at II. /3, 393. where 
 
 1 In Herodotus 1, 5. iOeXovrrjv also is used adverbially, as in that 
 passage it is joined with the fern, uvttjv, and the adjective edeXovrfjs 
 can be only masculine, and never occurs in -ttj. On that very account, 
 however, the adverbial form eOeXovrrjv cannot, like those mentioned 
 above, be explained as from an old adjective ; but the familiar use of 
 the adverbial forms in rjv was the cause of ideXovrrjv also beingused so. 
 
28. "Ap/aof. 163 
 
 Agamemnon threatens whomsoever he shall find away from the 
 battle and skulking among the ships ; 
 
 ov oi e7T€lTa 
 
 "ApKiov ivveiTcu (pvyeeiv Kvvas rjS' oltovovs. 
 
 The scholia wish to give apiaov here, the meaning at least of 
 to help, which lies in apuziv, by taking the subject of apKiov £<ttl 
 as general, and translating it in some such way as this, " there 
 shall be nothing there to assist him in escaping death." But 
 beside the harshness of this combination, another passage stands 
 in opposition to it, which cannot be taken in this way, and 
 which yet evidently belongs to the same kind of expression, 
 II. o, 502. where Ajax, enraged at the Greeks, who are giving 
 way before the Trojans storming their camp, reproaches them 
 with these words, 
 
 AtScbs, 'Ap-yetoi. vvv apKiov r) atrokecrOai 
 'He aacoOrjvai kol a.7TG>o~acr9ai kclko. vqcov. 
 
 The scholiast does mention, indeed, here also the explanation 
 of tifyiXmov ; but one feels at once how tame an expression it 
 is in itself, but more particularly after " O shame !" to say, " now 
 it is good or useful either to die or to save ourselves by a brave 
 resistance." Hence the scholiast produces another explanation 
 €Toifxov, which stands in Apollonius's Lexicon for the first 
 passage also, and which certainly does contain an idea suitable 
 to both, " it shall not be within his reach or power to escape 
 death," — " now it is in our power either to die or conquer." 
 And this explanation is particularly strengthened by one cir- 
 cumstance, that the idea of erotpiov appears most plainly to 
 belong to a verse of Hesiod (e, 349.), otherwise so difficult of 
 explanation, where the poet recommends a neighbour to return 
 faithfully that which has been lent, 
 
 i2f av xprjifav <a\ is. varepov apiaov fvprjs, 
 
 where froifxov will refer equally well to the readij lender as to 
 the thing ready to be lent. It seems to me also that from the 
 idea of apKtlv, to help, defend, and thence apKLos, able and 
 willing to help, would come very naturally the more general 
 idea that on which or on whom one can rely ; and it is very 
 conceivable that this might have been used in the Language of 
 common life without the idea of utility, consequently of bad 
 
 M 2 
 
1 64 28. "ApKiog. 
 
 things as well as good. " There shall be nothing on which he 
 can rely, nothing to give him any well-grounded hope of 
 escaping the dogs and birds ;" an expression quite as strong 
 as " he shall certainly not escape them." — " Now may we rely 
 upon it that we shall either die or conquer and save ourselves ;" 
 i. e. ' one of these two is certain.'' 
 
 3. Let us now. apply this idea of certain to the expression 
 fMaObs apKios, and we shall find that it gives us a meaning for 
 this expression which can scarcely be dispensed with in the 
 following passage of Hesiod, e, 368. 
 
 Murdos §' dvBpl (f)l\cp elprjpevos apiaos eir}. 
 
 Plutarch in Theseus 3. speaking of the wisdom for which the 
 old Pittheus was celebrated, and which showed itself in didactic 
 apophthegms like those of Hesiod, quotes this verse as having 
 originally been said by Pittheus. It is difficult to conceive 
 how this verse could have gained such celebrity as a didactic 
 maxim, if it had contained nothing more than interpreters have 
 generally seen in it, viz. a recommendation to give sufficient 
 wages ; and why exactly </>tA.<a ? and wherefore the word dpr)- 
 fjiivosl The true sense of the verse might have been easily 
 guessed at from the verse following ; for in Hesiod the two 
 verses succeed each other thus, 
 
 Murdos 8' dvdpl (pi\(0 elprjpevos apKios etrj. 
 Kai re KaoriyprjTop yeXdaas iir\ pdprvpa Oeadai. 
 
 It is evident here that the sense, which in both verses is essen- 
 tially the same, rises in intensity from the friend to the brother*; 
 that is to say, that in agreements or contracts with a friend or 
 even with a brother, we should make everything firm and cer- 
 tain, not depending on mere words. This is a sense worthy 
 of being embodied in a maxim or proverb, and which here in 
 the second verse is made most pointed by the word yeAao-as. 
 And this sense we find uniformly given, as far as the general 
 idea goes, in the scholia of Proclus on v. 354., and Grsevius 
 also has it ; but neither of them interprets the passage literally 
 word for word. Yet Grsevius, in his explanation fac ut primum 
 cum Mo paciscaris de mercede, quam sibi deberi putat, seems 
 by the latter words to translate apKiov, and to imitate almost 
 
 * [Compare Proverbs xvii. 17. 18. 24. and xxvii. 10. — Ed.] 
 
28. "ApKtos. 165 
 
 exactly the explanation of the other scholiast Moschopulus, pa- 
 aObs €(tto) avix7T€(()(t)vr]fji€vos Ikclvos rfj yv(ap.r\ avTov. Here, 
 then, we have again the common explanation of apKios; and 
 we see that Grsevius placed the point of the maxim in the word 
 dp-qixevos only, which he joined immediately with drj ; by which 
 means aptaos becomes a mere epithet of \iia66s, and as to the 
 groundwork of the maxim quite superfluous. The common 
 rules of grammar are indeed not offended against by this mode 
 of construing ; but instead of [uaObs apiaos elprjpiivos etr; (i. e. the 
 wages which are thought sufficient to be paid by one friend to 
 another should always be specifically agreed on), to say iMadbs 
 €Lpr}fj,€vo$ apKios dr\, is a limitation of the words by which 
 the effect of the maxim is completely narrowed, since every 
 one who hears it knows at once that apKios et-q must be the pre- 
 dicate of the sentence, and, consequently, if it means nothing 
 more than Ikclvos, we have only the poor tame meaning which 
 we mentioned before. "ApKios, then, in this passage can have 
 no other meaning than that which- we have supposed it to have 
 in the other passages, viz. €Toip.ov, that which can be relied on, 
 sure, certain. 
 
 4. And as the expression [xto-Obs apKios has this meaning in 
 Hesiod, we can hardly suppose that it can have a different one 
 in Homer, II. k, 303. 
 
 lis k£v p.01 rooe epyov inroaxopevos reXeaeiev 
 Aoopco eVi peyaXfo ; picrdos 8e ol apKios carat. 
 Aaaco yap 8i<fipov re, &C. 
 
 Now when a large gift has been already promised, why add 
 immediately after that it should be a reward large enough to 
 satisfy the receiver \ Yet this, and much more of the same 
 sort, is frequently imputed to ancient forms of expression and 
 old modes of thinking ; and then in the translation it is changed 
 into something a little less objectionable : whereas a more ac- 
 curate examination of the sense of the expressions might give 
 the whole a completely different turn. A comparison of this 
 passage with those of Hesiod shows clearly that here, in ad- 
 dition to the magnitude of the gift, the poet intended to repre- 
 sent the certainty of the promised reward. Nor will any one, 
 I should suppose, object to this by saying that the yap of the 
 following verse necessarily refers to luaObs apKios, for it may 
 
166 %%. "ApKiog, 
 
 refer quite as well or better to Acopw jueydAo), to which apKios 
 is immediately attached as a necessary stipulation. The same 
 meaning may also be very well given to Od. <r, 358., where 
 there is nothing in the context decisive of either sense. For 
 if I offer to take any one into my service, it is of as great, or 
 even greater, importance to him to be promised "thy wages shall 
 be sure/' than " they shall be large enough to satisfy thee," 
 which last idea is indeed properly included in that of wages. 
 
 5. And, lastly, when Hesiod in e, 499. reproves the needy 
 sluggard, 
 
 "Hfxevov iv XecrxjJ, to> prj (3los apmos e'ir), 
 
 the poet's description will suit, it is true, perfectly well one who 
 has not enough to live on : but whatever may be the meaning of 
 apKcos in the other passages, it must be the same here ; and cer- 
 tainly the admonition is quite as good if addressed to one whose 
 means of providing the necessaries of life are so uncertain, that he 
 does not know what he shall live on from one day to another. 
 And similar to this is the advice given at v. 575. that at harvest 
 you should be active in housing the corn, and should rise early 
 
 to labour tva tol fitos apKtos etrj, (i that you may make sure of 
 
 providing yourself with sustenance." 
 
 6. Since, then, in all the old Epic passages, in which apKtos 
 seemed at first sight to mean enough, sufficient, the idea of eroi- 
 /xos, that which can he relied on, sure, certain, is at least quite 
 as natural; I would confirm the correctness of our view of the 
 subject by this additional proof, that in the later poets it is 
 never so. In these the only admissible idea is always able, 
 sufficient; as in Apoll. Rh. 2, 799. fjvriv eyo> rlaai x^P lv 
 apKios elfju Tl<to) upocfypoueGis. In Callim. Cer. §5., where a 
 body of gigantic men are described as oXav ttoKlv apKioi apai. 
 In Theocr. 8, 13. " what shall we place as the prize," 6 k\v 
 hpuv apKiov €177 ; and in many other similar passages quoted by 
 Stephens. 
 
 7. Besides, it is evident how near akin to each other the 
 ideas able, capable, sufficient, certain, are, and how easy it 
 would be to trace and describe how they arise out of and blend 
 with each other. But although we can now no longer prove 
 from the form apKios that the idea of sufficient belonged to this 
 family of words as early as Homer's time, yet it will make one 
 
29. "Apyofxai, &c. 167 
 
 thing more certain, that the idea of the Latin arcere (see art. 
 1 06. sect. 4.) cannot be the foundation and primary meaning of 
 the word apKtlv. 
 
 29. " Apxp/JLai, €7rdpxofiai, Kardpypnou, afTrdp^ofxat. 
 
 1. The expression k-nap^acrOai beTrato-criv (as in II. a, 471. 
 N(op,r]crav 8' apa iracnv ZirapgafjitvoL benaecrcnv) has been always 
 interpreted by the older commentators to mean the pouring out 
 of a libation ; or if they have mentioned any other meaning, they 
 have always given this the preference. The different scholia 
 on this passage run thus : 'Eirap^dixevot tJtol tov itiveiv apyi]v 
 noiiqcravTts /cat airap£afjL€Voi kcli criTZLcravTts rot? deois. — To 
 inapgdfitvoL, iinx^avT€S- 6 8e vovs ovtms. ttj olvoxdy e^tY/a^res 
 bUbtoicav iracnv' 7) airapgapievoi airovbr]v toZs deols, iracnv 
 kv&\xr)<jav. Hesych. 'Eirap£apL€VOL' cnreicravTes, kiticrravTes. In- 
 stead of the last word it has been proposed to read iinx^cLVT€<i, 
 which would be a very admissible correction, if it were not 
 for Od. o-, 425., N(aixr]a€v & lipa iracnv imcrTabov. ol be deolcnv 
 SireicravTes ... itlov ... , from which it is very probable that in 
 the other passages some interpreters looked for the meaning 
 of this emcrTabov in the word €7rao£a/xej>ot, and not entirely 
 without reason, as we shall see hereafter. Eustathius on Od. $, 
 263. explains indeed €irap£aa$cu by eirl rot? cpOacracn irakiv 
 &p£a<rdaL (p. 759, 9. Basil.), but he does it merely to explain 
 the origin of the expression ; for a little before (p. 758, 44.) 
 he says, KeAeuet tov olvo\6ov kirap^acrQai kirl crirovbf). In this 
 confusion the word o-ntiaavTes is not indeed used accurately, 
 since not those who poured out, but those who were drinking 
 the wine, performed the libation. But the expressions dirap^d- 
 
 fjitvoi <nrovbi]v €V(afxr](rav, and £irap£acr0ai eirl auovbrj, show 
 
 plainly in what sense the superior grammarians understood the 
 expression. 
 
 2. This interpretation, however, has not satisfied modern 
 commentators, who generally wish to strip the word of its re- 
 ligious meaning. Gronovius (Obss. 1, 4.) translates it literally 
 by * incipientes poculis/ and completes the sense by supplying 
 
168 ig. "Ap^o/nai, Sac. 
 
 vinum dare circum. If this explanation be put into plain lan- 
 guage, it means that vcopLrjaav kirap^d^voL stands for kir-qp^avTo 
 or rip^avro vcafxav, which will hardly be acknowledged by any 
 one to be Homeric. Voss in his Critique on Heyne's Homer, 
 p. 324., takes his stand on the words of Eustathius, em rots 
 <f)0d(Ta(TL itahiv ap£ao-6cu, and thinks from them that he may 
 premise as a thing already known, that the passage literally 
 translated means, " they distributed to all around, beginning 
 again with the cups." " For now," says he, " as they were to 
 drink anew in honour of the god, the cup-bearers had to repeat 
 their office, as at II. i, 174. Od. y, 338. <p, 270., and carried the 
 wine round again." In the same way, he supposes, the ancients 
 must have acknowledged the idea of a repetition in iiriKprjo-ai, 
 Od. 77, 1 64. ; and therefore because this repetition does not take 
 place at Od. a, 147 — 149., the verse ought not to be inserted 
 there. It is well known how unphilosophically and contrary to 
 Greek rules the Greek grammarians, particularly the later ones, 
 proceeded in their interpretation of words ; and in the instance 
 of Eustathius before us, his explanation does not deserve the 
 respect which has been paid to it. Whoever is not swayed by 
 his authority will at once feel that enapyjEvdai cannot have this 
 meaning, or at least that it is a very forced one ; in the same 
 way as in eirLKprjo-ai, which means nothing more than to mix 
 two things together by adding one to the other, as, for instance, 
 to mix wine with water. Schneider in his lexicon takes k-nap£. 
 to mean going from left to right, because in handing the wine 
 they always followed this direction, as is certainly most evident 
 from Od. <\>, 141. "OpvvcrO' e^eiris emb^ia irdrres kralpoi 'Apgapitvoi 
 tov \capov odev re irep oivoyoevti. But this explanation is de- 
 ceptive. I grant that when it is said, " the cup-bearer began to 
 hand the wine," the idea of " from left to right," as one well 
 known, might have naturally suggested itself to the hearer. 
 But it does not therefore follow, that if Homer wished to say in 
 his usual circumstantial manner, " the cup-bearers handed the 
 wine round from left to right," he could also say, " they handed 
 the wine round beginning." 
 
 3. Let us now turn again to the way in which the ancients 
 explained it. That in every passage where the expression 
 occurs it refers to drinking, that this drinking takes place 
 
29- "Ap^o/uai, &c. 169 
 
 after the usual repast in honour of some deity, and in which 
 consequently the principal thing is the libation, these are 
 points acknowledged by all. At II. a, 471. it is not indeed 
 expressly mentioned that those who were drinking did (cntiv- 
 btiv) pour libations, but both the context and analogy prove 
 that they did. And, consequently, this is the cause why the 
 verse is not found at Od. a, 148. ; for there it is nothing more 
 than the early commencement of the usual repast of the 
 suitors; but at a, 418. and cp, 263. it is a description of the 
 cup passing round as a religious observance after supper 
 before they retire to rest, where, therefore, this formula is not 
 omitted. 
 
 4. Now as to the expression itself, apxeadcu, KarapyjeaQai 
 is a word used in religious ceremonies, in describing which it 
 may stand instead of other simple words (whose meaning lies 
 in the context), in order to connect therewith the idea of the 
 beginning of the religious rite or the consecration of the victim : 
 as in Od. y, 445. at the commencement of the sacrifice, 
 NeVrcop Xepvtfia r ovkoxyras re Karif/px*™, where it stands 
 for to initiate, or perform the first part of the ceremony 1 . But 
 it stands likewise in its proper sense for to take away from 
 a whole or from a store, as to take the first-fruits or some- 
 thing for consecration. So where separate pieces of flesh are 
 cut away for a burnt sacrifice, Od. £, 427., 6 §' wjuotferetVo av- 
 fivTrjs TlavToOev apyJ>ixevos jtxeAeW ; where the literal transla- 
 tion to begin would be perfect nonsense ; for he began with 
 only one limb, but he took away from all some flesh for sacri- 
 fice. Keeping, then, always in our mind the idea of conse- 
 crating the victim, we may look upon apx^Oat in connexion 
 with each passage as the simple idea of to take away, take 
 part of, take from, with the collateral idea supplied by the 
 preposition. ' Airapxeo-Oai is therefore exactly identical with 
 apx^a-OaL, but in Homer it occurs only of the consecrating the 
 hair of the victim : as II. t, 254. Kaiipov airo rp'ixas b\p£a- 
 
 1 This sense is frequent also in prose ; and hence Lucian in Somn. 3. 
 uses it in joke of the blows which he received the first day from his new 
 master : a-KVTaXrjv XafHaiv ov 7rpao3s fxov KaTTjpga.ro. [It appears that both 
 in this passage of the Odyssey and in that of Lucian the word is equi- 
 valent to our expression " he began with." — Ed.] 
 
170 29- "Ap^o/mai, &c. 
 
 fxtvos, and elsewhere : on the other hand, in irpoo-apxccrOai and 
 €7rapxt(r0aL there is in addition the collateral meaning of the pre- 
 position. The former compound occurs in Plato Theset. sect. 3$. 
 (p. 168. c), where Heindorf suspected the correctness of the 
 reading: Tavra, go 0eo8o)pe, rw ercupw crov eis fiorjOeCav irpoa-- 
 Y]p£&fj.r)v kolt £ixi)v bvvapuv a-fxiKpa crno apiLKp^v. The figu- 
 rative expression taken from a dedication or consecration 
 is here evident ; and 7rpb$, which properly speaking might be 
 dispensed with, serves only to mark more clearly the relation 
 of the verb to the person. And, consequently, in knap^aa-Qai 
 also the simple apgacrdcu expresses the taking away or taking 
 a part of anything to consecrate or dedicate it, and M marks 
 the relation of it to the individuals to whom it is given or 
 amongst whom it is divided. It does, therefore, certainly in 
 some measure represent the idea of tTnarabov, e7U0T(Wes (see 
 above, sect. 1.), — the cup-bearers went to each individual, gave 
 a part to each individual, — only that the idea of kirap^aaOai is 
 fuller and richer ; although the sense arising from that idea, 
 as contained in the whole sentence, might also be dispensed 
 with 2 . 
 
 5. It is remarkable that the word endp^aadat occurs also in 
 the bare sense of to impart, offer, supply with, in the Hymn to 
 Apoll. v. 125., where Themis, who nourishes the young Apollo, 
 veKTCLp T€ kcu d[xj3po(Ttr]V epareivrjv ' ' k6avdrr\(Tiv \epcrlv euripgaTO. 
 Here then we should have a very early proof of the imper- 
 fect way in which the post-Homeric poets, in their imitations 
 of those oldest masters, seized on and used their expressions. I 
 will, however, allow it to be possible that the author of this hymn 
 is intentionally poetical in this instance, and selected this word 
 in preference to a common one, because the child was one of 
 the superior gods. But whether this were so or not, it follows 
 indisputably from this passage, that as early as the times of the 
 rhapsodists, to which this hymn belongs, the word k-n&p^aaBai, 
 wherever it occurred in the Epic poets, gave the idea of to im- 
 part or offer to individuals ; by which therefore the explanation 
 
 2 Koppen on II. a, 471. has (with the exception of the force of «rl) 
 understood and explained the word in all essential points as I have 
 done here. 
 
30. Avrwg, avroog. 171 
 
 here given of the Homeric expression receives the fullest con- 
 firmation, which in this respect it is possible to have. 
 
 'AreW and arrj ; vid. aacrat,. 
 s Ato? : vid. adaros. 
 
 3O. AvTOOS, CLVTCQS. 
 
 1. The wavering of the old copies between the readings 
 avT<as and clvtms has been so repeatedly settled, that the former 
 is now generally acknowledged to be the only correct form ; 
 and the connexion between the different meanings has been 
 traced. This latter was done, in all essential points, with suf- 
 ficient minuteness by Damm, and also by Heyne on II. y, 220. 
 But as the opinions and decisions of the grammarians are too 
 easily rejected, particularly by the latter commentator l , as 
 imaginary refinements and useless subtleties, it will be perhaps 
 not superfluous to collect together once more in one view all 
 the points of any importance. 
 
 2. The opinion of the grammarians is given at full length 
 in a scholium on II. a, 133. Avtws 2 , \xarr\v. kclI cittlv tirip- 
 prjfjia fieo-OTTjTos, kcu xj/ikovrai irpbs avrihtadTok^v rod kripov rod 
 o-qpLaCvovTos to ovtws' kol xj/LkovTai, btoTL to o-TeprjTiKov a \jn\ov- 
 toli. And then follows the derivation from ero's, true, real, 
 of which the converse would be clztos, and adverbially ahas, 
 whence avrm, as from vats, ypaes, — vavs, ypavs. The Etym. M. 
 gives nearly the same account. Hesychius has AiJrws* M 
 
 pi€V TOV \iaTOLlOV KCU KCLTCLKeVOV AvTOt)? yap €TT€€(T €plO~aivO\XZV (II. 
 
 /3, 34 2 -) * 7 ™ ^ T0 ^ 6fJLOL(*>s, u)(ravTO)s' (f>ayipi€P /cat "nUp.€V 
 
 avrcos, (Od. 7r, 143.) So stands the gloss in the printed 
 copies; but we learn from Schow that in the MS. it stands 
 Avtg)s Avtos yap Faulty as this is, it is evident 
 
 1 Grammaticum invention, says he, speaking of the present subject at 
 II. a, 133. quo uti licet, si placet. A species of philological decision 
 which we wish never to see imitated. 
 
 2 Villoison has, in spite of the explanation which follows, both in 
 the text and in the lemma of the scholium, avros. Wassenbergh has 
 consequently in both cases afro?. 
 
172 3°* Avtci)?, aurm. 
 
 enough that the original gloss made a distinction between 
 avTtos and avrvs ; and, consequently, the almost similarly-sound- 
 ing gloss of Apollonius may be corrected so as to confirm the 
 same. From this harmony of opinions it is clear, that we have 
 here before us the decision of some high authority in the old 
 Homeric criticism, most probably of Aristarchus himself. But 
 beside this there existed another opinion. Eustathius found in 
 the sources from which he drew his information nothing further 
 than that, avTm was an ^Eolic form : he says on II. /3, 1 20. t&v 
 h y clvt&v (t&v AioXtwv), o>s xjnktoTLK&v, kcll to avrcas' ov yap avav- 
 TLppr}T<s)s baavveTcu, ws (pav€LTcu kclI hiptaOi. Compare on /3, 342. 
 y, 220. Hence we see that in the oldest copies of Homer there 
 was a wavering and uncertainty between avrcas and avras, which 
 one part explained by a difference of dialect, and then disputed 
 which of the two was the genuine Homeric form ; while others 
 had recourse to the more refined idea of settling a difference of 
 meaning, and accounting for it by the above difference of ac- 
 centuation. Between these two we have to make our decision. 
 The uncertainty of the aspirate is the same as we shall see in 
 irjos; for at the time of which we are speaking avrm was no 
 longer in common use, and its form brought to mind clvtos as 
 well as ovtos, avT-q. To deter us, however, from adopting the 
 explanation of Aristarchus there is not only its internal im- 
 probability, (to prove which indeed needs no very detailed 
 examination,) but the impossibility of separating the different 
 passages of Homer and of placing them regularly under those 
 two leading senses, as every observer will easily perceive from 
 the selection of passages which I shall presently bring forward. 
 
 3. I set out, then, by supposing with Damm and Heyne 
 that avro)?, without troubling myself about its origin, is a sister- 
 form of ovr(t)s; for thus far we are justified in asserting, partly 
 because the form with the aspirate is an undisputed one, while 
 the unaspirated form is adopted only for certain cases ; and 
 partly because the demonstrative radical meaning is, at least 
 in some of the passages, undoubted. It is, however, nowhere 
 to be taken as purely and exactly synonymous with o#ro>s, 
 thus ; for in the Epic language this i; hardly conceivable, as 
 oin-co? itself is of frequent occurrence in it, and there is no 
 metrical reason for the one being substituted for the other. 
 
 
30. Ai/tgos 1 , avrcog. 173 
 
 Probably, therefore, usage had adopted that sister-form in 
 those early times, when some particular stress was to be laid 
 on thus. Such an instance is, first, when it forms a strong 
 antithesis, as kclI avras, even thus, even as things now are, i. e. 
 even without such a cause, without those circumstances, II. a, 
 520. 6, 255. 1,595* 
 
 4. Again, ayrus forms this antithesis, sometimes when it 
 places that which is original, unchanged, in opposition to com- 
 mon changes, as II. \jr, 268. of a caldron, kevKov €0* avions, still 
 in that its original state completely unblackened with fire ; 
 
 and o), 413. of the body of Hector, dAA' ert kcTvos Ketrat 
 
 Avrm kv Kkio-ir\(ri, in that state in which he was before, still 
 free from corruption; and sometimes also when that which is 
 common and of every-day occurrence is placed in opposition to 
 that which is uncommon, great, or supernatural ; e. g. Od. £, 
 151. 'AAA' eyw ov$' avTas /xi^o-o^at, akka <ruv opKco. And again, 
 II. k, 50. where it is said of Hector that he had performed 
 great deeds, Avrm, ovtc deas vlbs cpCkos ovtc Qeolo. With this 
 was mixed up very naturally the idea of neglect, in which 
 sense it occurs very frequently indeed, and that too with the 
 antithesis not expressed but understood; as at II. a-, 338. where 
 Achilles says to the dead body of Patroclus, T6(j)pa 8e /xot irapa 
 vrjvcrl Kopoiviai Keiatai avrcos. Compare Od. v, 281. 336 f. And 
 thus it is attached to all sorts of words and phrases which 
 contain a reproach, a contempt, a looking down upon, as on some- 
 thing bad, mean, weak, &c. Thus Agamemnon reproaches 
 Menelaus for his compassion as ill-timed, II. (, 55. rir\ b\ av /c?j- 
 beat aijTm ' Avbp&v ; and hence at (f>, 106. I would defend rCrj 
 okofyvpzai ax/Tats against the great majority of authorities who 
 recommend the reading o&ras. Again at Od. p, 309. where 
 Ulysses asks whether the speed of the dog corresponds with his 
 appearance, *H avrvs, oIoCt* rpa7re^€s Kvves avbp&v YCyvovrai, 
 or "is he of that worthless kind that mere house-dogs are?" 
 Similar to this is the d/cAees avrvs, the vrjmos avrws spoken 
 
 * [See also II. a, 198. where aCrus means "just as you are, i. e. with- 
 out arms." — Ed.] 
 
 t [Compare also rolos used in the same disparaging sense, II. yjr t 
 246.— Ed.] 
 
174 3°* Al/TW?, CWTWS. 
 
 of children, &c. In the same way avrvs is very naturally 
 associated with all words which contain the idea of useless, 
 vain, &c; e. g. with the idea of wandering about, (II. v, 104. 
 \j/, 74.) And further in such expressions as epyov avrm 
 CLKpaavrov, avrcas ircotTta, juth//- avrcos, avepLcaktov cwrcos, avrots 
 axOos apovpris, (II. /3, 138. p, 633. v, 348. <£, 474. Od. », 
 
 379-) 
 
 5. Hence it is perfectly conceivable that a word so stamped 
 by usage as avrm might by itself alone introduce into a sen- 
 tence the idea of vain and useless, as soon as the context in 
 some measure led to it; as at II. it, 117. of the spear of Ajax, 
 cut in two by Hector's sword, to- pkv TeXafxcovtos Alas TI77A.' 
 avTcas Iv \tip\ koXov bopv. At a, 133. Agamemnon says, *H 
 iOikets, ocfjp' civtos €\j]s yipas, avrap €p? clvtu>s T Ho-0cu bevo- 
 fxevov ; At o, 128. Minerva approaching Mars says to him, 77 
 vv tol avTG)s Qvar ctKovepiev kcrriv. At /3, 342. Avtcos yap iireea-cr 
 epibaCvofjitv, &c. As to giving an opinion on the remaining 
 passages as they stand in Damm, or comparing this usage 
 of avT<x)s with similar usages in other languages, for instance, 
 of the German so, and the English so or thus, we willingly 
 leave it to individual examination. Nor will we say anything 
 further of the mistaken explanations given by others of such 
 passages, in which the true force of clvtvs must, we think, 
 be made sufficiently evident by the review which we have 
 taken. 
 
 6. Beside the force of the antithesis mentioned above, there 
 is contained in the idea of avrm, so or thus, the force of ac- 
 cordance or agreement, as when we say just so, exactly so, in 
 the same way as ; and that aura)? has this meaning also is most 
 evident from two passages, not Homeric, but still very ancient. 
 Hesiod in his Theogonia 702. describes the spectacle and 
 noise of the battle of the gods with the Titans to have been 
 Avtg)s ws ore yaia kcll ovpavbs evpvs vrrepdev VMKvaro. And 
 Anacreon has even joined a dative with it (as he would have 
 done with ojuotW, oacravTois, kcltcl ravrd), as we see from a frag- 
 ment in Athenaeus, 12, p. 534., kol aKtabio-Krjv ZXe^avTLvqv (popel 
 yvvai£iv clvtus. As this meaning is generally rare, it may not 
 be surprising that I can quote but one instance of it from Ho- 
 mer ; nor ought this circumstance to raise a suspicion against 
 
30. Ain-to?, avrwg. 1J5 
 
 the correctness of the explanation. It is from II. 8, 17. where 
 Jupiter bids the deities consider, 
 
 O7roos ecrrai ra.8e epya. 
 
 "H p avns noXepov re kclkov Ka\ <J)vXottiv alvrjv 
 "Opaopev, r; (fiiXorrjra per dpcporepoiai fidXcopev. 
 
 Ei §' avras rode Tvao~L <pl\ov kol rjbv yevoiro, 
 "Hroi pev olKeoiro noXis Upidpoio avaKros, &C. 
 
 Here avrcos is considered to be simply ovtus; but in addition 
 to the reason given above why this is not probable, (a reason 
 sufficient in itself,) we have here the cumbrous accumulation 
 of ovtvs ro'8e, an accumulation not easily to be accounted for, 
 as natural language would admit but one of them. Either, then, 
 robe refers to the latter of the two proposals of Jupiter, and 
 Tiaaiv avT(as means ttclctlv 6/xoiW; or, as I am more inclined to 
 suppose, Jupiter thinks that by the manner in which he has put 
 the two questions for their choice, he has made it sufficiently 
 plain that his own opinion is in favour of the second ; and there- 
 fore he goes on at once to say, " If, now, this be pleasing and 
 agreeable to all of you in the same way (as it is to me), then 
 may," &c. 3 From this same meaning the grammarians, as we 
 
 -3 If, indeed, the writing avrcos with the lenis stood on any better 
 grounds than its being an yEolicism, which there appear to me intrinsic 
 reasons for doubting, I should almost conjecture that that way of writing 
 it did really and properly belong to this meaning. For although it is 
 possible that the origin of the idea in that same way might have taken 
 place (as supposed above) merely from laying a particular emphasis on 
 the idea so or thus, yet there appears to me to be a more natural way 
 of tracing it. It is well known that the simple pronoun avrds has some- 
 times in old Epic Greek the meaning of 6 avros, as, for instance, in aura 
 KeXevda, and such expressions. Now in this sense it is capable of an 
 adverbial acceptation. For as from koXos, good, comes KaXcbs, in a good 
 way or manner, so it appears that from the Epic avros, the same, may 
 come an adverb, avrats, in the same way. And if this form did exist, 
 certainly the yEolians accented it avrcos. But in the poets of other dia- 
 lects there is no ground for this accentuation ; and if, therefore, there 
 be any foundation for that conjecture, the passages above quoted from 
 Hesiod, Anacreon, Homer, and wherever any similar ones may be found 
 elsewhere, must certainly have been written avr&s ; which, however, by 
 a very easy transition passed over into the similar form avrcos or avrcos, 
 and at last gave occasion to all the remarks and interpretations of the 
 grammarians. If it were possible to reduce this conjecture to the most 
 convincing certainty, still, however, as avrcos is a form unheard of in 
 
176 3°* AvTwy, ai/Tft)?. 
 
 have seen above in the gloss of Hesychius, explained Od. 7r, 143*, 
 where it is said of old Laertes, lamenting the departure of 
 Telemachus, 0#7T(o \iiv (pacnv (payefxev kol me'/oiez; currcos, " in the 
 same way," &c. (i. e. as he did before). But this last appears 
 to me too forced, and atfrco? in this passage seems evidently to 
 be used in its most simple sense, and to refer to the daily and 
 customary eating and drinking of men in general, as opposed 
 to the abstinence of Laertes, — e in that same way in which men 
 usually do.' 
 
 7. There is another quite peculiar case of clvtoos in the ex- 
 pression cos 6' clvtoos, or, as it is supposed to be more accurately 
 written, cos cV clvtoos. This case is common to Homer, with all 
 other writers, and is a separation of cocraurcos, by which the idea 
 of in the same way is most fully and commonly expressed. 
 According to this way of writing it, that form would therefore be 
 a junction of the demonstratives cos and clvtoos, a thing scarcely 
 conceivable, any more than that 6 ovtos or 6s ovtos should ever 
 as an adjective have the sense of idem, ' the same.' But from 
 this very consideration it naturally follows, that since when 
 we want an adjective we use 6 olvtos, the natural adverb of it 
 must be cos cwrcos. I think it needs only this consideration to 
 make it certain, that this is the true origin of that compound 
 particle, whilst the rest of the accentuation and aspiration in 
 coo-aura)?, cos 5' aw-cos, must have arisen from getting by mistake 
 into the form clvtoos 4 . 
 
 all our old copies, we ought never to be induced to admit it into the 
 text of Homer, from that deference so justly due to ancient authorities, 
 which will be found strongly recommended in the following note, and 
 which in our days is so much laid aside, to the great injury of classical 
 literature. 
 
 4 Whether this mistake be attributable to some real ancient usage, 
 or merely to the decisions and arbitrary laws of the grammarians, I 
 would not take upon myself to decide ; although in cases of accent and 
 aspirate, a great deal may be justly attributed to them. It is, however, 
 a conceivable case, that because axravras, although only a juxtaposi- 
 tion of words, like napaxprj^a and the like, still appears as a proper com- 
 pound, it underwent in the usage of common life the process properly 
 belonging to compounds of having the natural accent thrown backward 
 from the end of the word ; and this is the more probable as the simple 
 avTcos did not exist in the current language of the day. As to the aspi- 
 rate, it was scarcely possible to be heard after the in axrdavrcos, and it 
 
177 
 
 31. "A<ji>em\ 
 
 i. In the word afevos we have merely to be on our guard 
 against an inaccurate etymology. The grammarians, ancient 
 and modern, all following an inadmissible derivation, will con- 
 nect it with something about a year's produce or income. But 
 if we look through the passages where this substantive and its 
 more frequently recurring adjective acpvtios are to be found, we 
 see plainly that it means nothing more than the simple idea 
 of the wealth and abundance in which a person is living. For 
 instance, in the afavos kcu ttKovtov a<pv<T(rziv, which Achilles 
 asserts that Agamemnon will never succeed in doing before 
 Troy ; in the acpveibs /3toroto (11. £ 14.), and a(f)V€Los pjAotcri, 
 (Hes. e, 116. Loesn., and note to v. 119. Gaisford). And hence 
 also Hesiod (0, 112.) uses it even of the wealth which the gods 
 once divided amongst each other ; f 'X2s r a(p€vos hacaavro kcu 
 
 b)S TLfJLCLS biikoVTO *. 
 
 2. In order to introduce my opinion on the derivation of the 
 word, I must first mention, that in the presence or absence of 
 an e in the same root, as in akyos and dAeyco l s in akKr\ and 
 dAefo), in opyrj, opyvia, and opeyco, and therefore also in afevos, 
 cxfyvtLos, it is not at all necessary that the more complete form 
 should be the original one, and the other an abbreviation of it, 
 but just the reverse of this may be quite as likely. I recognize 
 therefore, in this case, merely the root a<pv with and without e. 
 And indeed there did once exist to a<f)vos; for the Etym. M. 
 in v. quotes from Pindar, ol b" a<prei ireiroWao-iv. But Hesychius 
 
 must naturally, therefore, have been suggested by the opinion of some 
 grammarian. Further than this, however, we ought not to go in such 
 conjectural points, where all historical criteria of ancient truth fail us ; 
 and even the accenting of cos in <£$• 6' avrcos appears to me not quite free 
 from the reproach of being a half-measure, if it be not found in some 
 manuscript or other, which I very much doubt. 
 
 * [Passow, in his Lexicon, prefers the old derivation of the gram- 
 marians to that of Buttmann ; and certainly the former is confirmed by 
 the annona of Tacitus. Doederlein derives it from dtyvw, d^vo-aw. See 
 II. a, 171. — Ed.] 
 
 1 See art. 2 1. sect. 23. 
 
178 3 2 - 'A^eW. 
 
 has the following gloss, acpvvet, acpvyvet 2 , d\fii(€L. This verb 
 and the substantive presuppose a more simple adjective, which 
 we will form in us, acpvvs, eta, v, in the same way as (3apvvd>, to 
 fiapos come from fiapvs, Kparos, Kparvvoi from Kparvs, and the like. 
 And of this acpvvs the adjective in common use, acpvetos, is a 
 lengthened form. But acpvvs, again, I consider to be nothing 
 more than an old abbreviation of a<p0ovos, originating in the 
 every-day language of Greece. The meaning of this latter word 
 was originally confined, as is plain from its ethical relation, to 
 the possession of property. It became afterwards more general, 
 and meant everything numerous, whilst its abbreviation acpvvs 
 with its derivatives retained only the limited sense. 
 
 3. But what are we to say of Hesiod e, 24., where the word 
 stands as a masculine, eis acpevov cnreubovra ? To that passage 
 there is a various reading, bicptvos. And at v. 6$$., where the 
 text has ovk acpevos cptvycov, there is again a various reading 
 acp€vov. Callimachus, indeed, who in his Hymn. Jov. 96. has 
 undoubtedly the masculine form, Ov& aptrrjs acpivoio, must 
 have taken it from some precedent equally undoubted. But 
 no other poet could have allowed himself such a liberty, when 
 only two verses before he had written hihov S' aperr/v r a(f)€v6s 
 re. On Hesiod we must not lay the blame of having quite 
 unnecessarily made this variation, even though it occurs in two 
 verses separated so widely. As the neuter is recommended both 
 by analogy and the usage of the other oldest poets, I consider 
 the masculine to be a misuse, which was first introduced into 
 the language in a later period, and so crept into some of the 
 copies of Hesiod *. 
 
 32. 'A;(eW. 
 
 I. In Homer's Hymn to Pan, v. 18. it is said of the nightin- 
 gale, in all the manuscripts, 
 
 Qprjvov t7wrpo)(eovcra ^e'ei fxeXiyrjpvv doibrju. 
 
 2 The dfcvvt'fi which stands in the printed text is a false emendation 
 of Musurus. See Schow. 
 
 * [Passow, in his Lexicon, is of opinion that Hesiod really did use the 
 masculine form, and that some of his successors imitated him. — Ed.] 
 
32. 'A^eW 179 
 
 As this reading cannot be right, Ilgen reads, 
 
 Qprjvov eViTrpo^eovo-' a^eet pekiyqpvv doidrjv. 
 
 But this also is objected to, and Ruhnken's correction layti 
 is preferred, and admitted into the text in Hermann's and 
 Wolf's editions. And thus the wound is hidden ; which it 
 never would have been, if that laudable custom had been once 
 universally adopted, of looking on the text of the ancients 
 as something too sacred to be meddled with rashly, and of 
 admitting nothing into it which has not a certain degree of 
 proof and philological certainty, on which point a tacit agree- 
 ment would soon be formed among true critics. Ilgen's pro- 
 posed reading is no alteration of the text; it has that degree 
 of certainty which arises from ancient authority. It is true 
 that the objections to it are not entirely unfounded. ' ' A\£€iv 
 aoihr\v, simply for aeihetv ayjovaav aotbijv, would perhaps not 
 be objected to; but Qprjvov tTmrpoyJovo-a d^eet aoub-qv is an 
 expression more than surprising in so distinguished a poet. 
 Who would not, therefore, thankfully admit, under the text, 
 Ruhnken's correction ? Let documentary truth, as mentioned 
 above, always remain in the text before the eyes of the philo- 
 logical reader, and then whatever may still be concealed in such 
 a traditionary reading will be brought to light much quicker 
 and much oftener than it now is. 
 
 i. In the Hymn to Ceres, 479. this advantage is still left 
 us. The mysteries are there called 
 
 2e/zvd, to. t ovncos ecrri nape£ipev t ovre nvBecrOai, 
 Ovt d^eetV peya yap tl Qeoav ciyos icr^dvei avd-qv. 
 
 There is in the text here a correction of Valckenaer, ayos 
 for the axos of the manuscripts, which is so evidently an im- 
 provement, that it may claim a full right of admission ; and 
 there is in the notes a proposal of Ilgen to read owe xavciv 
 for the unintelligible ovt ayiziv. 
 
 3. The excellent critics who have given their time and at- 
 tention to the Hymns would surely have been struck with the 
 word a\c€iv thus occurring twice in these poems, had they not 
 been shackled by a preconceived opinion that the undoubted 
 meaning of this verb was to groan, lament. From the fetters 
 of such an idea 1 am freed by the gloss of Hesychius, 
 
 N 2 
 
180 3 2 - 'A^eW. 
 
 Meyax^o-eraf juteya /3o77<xei. To this one of the commentators 
 subjoins with great simplicity, Quasi /me'y' axweTat, and again 
 Toup adds, with the same simple brevity, Dorice scilicet. I 
 cannot, indeed, refute the opinion which supposes this to 
 be taken from a lyric metre ; but how improbable is it that, 
 among the innumerable Doricisms of that kind which axn- 
 crerat would be, just this one should have found a place in 
 Hesychius ! On the other hand, the words bear the Epic 
 stamp of juiy' dy6r\<ra$, juey' layjzv, jxiy ^o\os, of which the 
 two latter are also in Hesychius ; and naturally so, because 
 such compound expressions were written also as one word, and 
 were looked upon as real compounds. It did not strike any 
 one that d for -q is indeed a Doricism, but that a for 77, although 
 of rarer occurrence, is an Ionicism 1 . Thus Hesiod, instead 
 of rifivetv, used at the end of the verse a\ivovra x«M<*fo as 
 given in Etym. M. v. yj[jlv(o. And in a similar way the Epic 
 poets of the same period for tjx^ €LV used ayjetiv, the meaning 
 of which verb exactly suits both the above quoted verses. The 
 other sense of the same word need not puzzle or mislead us ; 
 for first, ayktw is to sound, to emit a sound, therefore not yet 
 an Homeric dialect; and secondly, in the sense of to sigh, to 
 groan, only the participle axevv, ax^ovo-a is to be found, which 
 however is repeatedly used. Still less should the two verbs be 
 confounded, as coming from the same parent stem. 'Ax^v 
 belongs to axo/xai, axos ; but clx^lv, to sound, belongs to tjx^. 
 
 4. Now that we have the verb ax^eiv three times quite 
 distinct before us, it will perhaps present itself in future less 
 disguised; and that too again in the Hymns. In the Hymn 
 
 1 In some words and forms the Ionians also have a for 77, but always 
 short, e. g. in Trdprj for nfjpa (Heraclid. ap. Eust. II. a, 24. p. 22, 14. 
 
 Od. p, 89. p. 478, 12. Basil.), in dfKpia^aTea, dfj,(pL(T^a(riT) for -7/reco, 
 -rjo-ia ; and hence, on account of the metre, in some tenses, as fiepaKvla 
 from pe/jLrjKa. And so this Ionic a, even when it stands in a syllable 
 long by position, must be pronounced short ; for instance, in the fol- 
 lowing Ionic forms, fxevafififjia for fAearjpfipla, Ae'AacrTai, XeXaa/xevos (from 
 \r)0a>), Aa£ts for Xrj&s (Dor. Xagis). — Greg. Cor. in Ion. 45. 52. Eust. 1. c. 
 In this way is explained the adj. na-fievos, which came from the perf. or 
 apr. sy,ncop. of fj8op.ai, and passed into the common language of the 
 day. — Bvttmanns Ausfuhrl. Sprach. sect. 27. obs. 17. 
 
32. 'Ayeeiv. 181 
 
 to Venus, 253. this goddess says, that she who had so often 
 seduced the gods into amorous connexions with mortals, durst 
 no longer, as she had herself yielded to a similar weakness, men- 
 tion the subject among the immortals : 
 
 Ni5i> 8i 8rj ovkcti fxot crrovax^creTaL e^ovofirjpai 
 Tovto fxer dOavdroKriv. 
 
 As it has been long suspected from the context that the first 
 syllables of arovaxweTaL conceal the word a-TOfxa, I allow 
 that nothing was more natural than to expect to discover in the 
 remaining syllables some word to signify the opening of the 
 mouth. And thus Hermann's and Wolf's texts have admitted, 
 to the satisfaction of many readers, the conjecture of Bernh. 
 Martinius, aro^ia x.etVerat ; in support of which is cited, from 
 Od. a, 17. Ovhbs 5' aficpoTtpovs o6e x et0 ~ erat > " ^ s threshold 
 has room for both of us." But fully convinced as I am that 
 the verbs x.avb&veiv an ^ x^°" KetI/ > x aV€ ^ v are etymologically 
 the same, yet I must (and in this case the obligation is the 
 stronger), separate grammatically what usage has already 
 divided. The verbs x c * (7KCt) > tx avov -> K *X r ) va > x avo ^f Mai '> an( ^ 
 Xavbdvto, exabov, Ke'x.az>8a, x^ (TO l xai > are by meaning and usage 
 so completely separated, the one from the other, that no form 
 of the one ever occurs in a single instance in the sense of the 
 other; and the diphthong of x € ^ (TO t JiaL follows as surely from 
 the vb in \avbdv<a, Ke'xaz;8a, as TreCaofxaL does from Triirovda, 
 tt€v6os. If then, after the first correction has amended the 
 word to o-ro/xax^o'trat, the remainder x^? " 6 ™ 1 be not given 
 unchanged to x^ aK(a to form another future beside x avo ^f JLaL ) 
 this verb, well as it suits the meaning of the sentence, cannot 
 be made of any use. But who will adopt a form otherwise 
 unknown, when another offers itself for our acceptance ? The 
 future middle of the verb dx^tv lies before our eyes in the 
 first-mentioned gloss of Hesychius. The words ovk4tl iaol 
 oro'// axwerai i^ovofjiijvaL tovto give therefore an exactly 
 similar meaning, " my mouth will no more utter a sound in 
 mention of this." 
 
 5. I suppose that this ax^iv was the older form, whence 
 came 17x0s an( l t)x^lu ; with reference to which it is worthy 
 of remark, that among the explanations of the epithet 'Axata, 
 
182 33. j, Ao)to?, awTelv. 
 
 which Ceres bore in Attica, there stands in the Etym. M. this 
 also, 77 on fxera KVfxj3d\a)v r\\ov(ja ttjv Koprjv e^rei. At the 
 same time, it appears to me very probable that this dx€G> is 
 indeed, properly speaking, of the same family as x«w, x" "* ^ 
 as we see the same twofold meaning in our English word, ' to 
 crack,' in the German Maffen, and in the Latin crepare. We 
 can therefore very fairly connect the sense of non hiscere, which 
 is so particularly natural in the last-quoted passage, with the 
 general tenor of our representation ; but in the quotation from 
 the Hymn to Ceres, Ovt a^eew suits the context much better 
 than Ovre xavetv, because ayitiv there governs the same accu- 
 sative as irvdifrOai, 
 
 "Acopro ; vid. avqvoOev, &c. 
 
 33. "Acoto?, aoireiv. 
 
 1. The lexicons acknowledge two forms of this word, to 
 &oi)tov and 6 acdros, of which they prefer the neuter, considering 
 the masculine as only a sister-form of less frequent occurrence. 
 We will begin with correcting this error. The Homeric pas- 
 sages do not indeed furnish us with any means of deciding on 
 the gender ; Pindar, however, has frequently clu>tos and aoaroi, 
 but never the neuter. In the later poets, from the time of Apol- 
 lonius (4, 176.), the neuter does occur; but this will not jus- 
 tify us in considering the established usage of Pindar to be a 
 Doricism. It is possible, however, that the lexicographers He- 
 sychius, Suidas, and the Etymologus, considering whatever was 
 more ancient as necessarily more rare and glossarial, noted 
 the masculine form as the special and particular one. This 
 opinion we must reverse, giving the precedence to acoros, as 
 the old and genuine form used by Pindar, and ranking the 
 neuter, for which we find no authority older than the Alexan- 
 drines, as a later usage. 
 
 2. With regard to the meaning of the word likewise the 
 lexicons (even the earliest) mislead us. Does not every one 
 suppose that ao>ros means a floiver, or blossom, being only a 
 more poetical word for avSo<s ? And yet it is not so. Let us 
 
33* "AtoTO?. awreiv. 183 
 
 lay aside for a moment the Homeric use of the word, which 
 most readers of Homer will recollect not to have been per- 
 fectly clear, and let us turn to Pindar, who is almost too fond 
 of it 1 . It occurs in his Odes seventeen times, always in the 
 figurative sense of something very fine , or of the best and most 
 beautiful of its kind ; in short, it is used for that which in most 
 cases, in a mere matter of opinion, may be expressed by flos, 
 the flower or bloom of any thing ; but Pindar never uses it 
 of a flower or a blossom in its proper and simple sense. And 
 all the other poets, without exception, use it in a similar man- 
 ner. To give an example of the utility of this negative kind 
 of information, we may turn to an old epigram of an uncertain 
 author, (Anthol. Cephal. 13, 28., Anthol. Jacob, i, j$., Brunck. 
 Anal. 1, 141., Simonid. 70. or 76.) where, speaking of being 
 crowned with garlands, it is said pobvv clvtols, which has been 
 translated rosarum fioribus in an edition of Callimachus, to 
 whom this epigram has been by mistake attributed. (See 
 Blomfield's Callim. Epig. 49.) It does not appear that any 
 one has been struck with this expression, being probably sa- 
 tisfied with the translation rosarum fioribus ; but not so would 
 have been the poet, who intended, by the addition of acorot, 
 to exalt his roses above ail other roses, in the same way as 
 Pindar marks the superiority of certain heroes by the expres- 
 sion, fjpaxav acorot, Nem. 8, 15. 
 
 3. I doubt not that the above observations may have oc- 
 curred to other philologists as well as to myself; but one thing 
 I very much fear, that they will for the most part remain 
 firm in the opinion that cuoro? means the blossom in a meta- 
 phorical sense. If these persons mean to say that the proper 
 sense of acoros was still extant at that time as an ancient or 
 poetical sense, but that it happens not to have been preserved 
 in any passages now remaining, I answer, that this is a mere 
 assertion without proof, which we can fully and more than suf- 
 ficiently refute, not only by the before-mentioned pobow acorot?, 
 but, that no one may accuse us of arguing in a circle, by its 
 being joined with aTcfyavuv ; as when Pindar, 01. 9, 30., says, 
 
 To (f)i\r)Tov KO( 7To\v)(pT)aTou rw Uiv8up(0 uwtov, EllStath. ad II. /', 
 
 599- 
 
184 33* "Awtos, awTeiv, 
 
 o0€v (from Delphi and Olympia) ore^djxoy &g>tol kXvtclv Ao- 
 Kp&v ZirazipovTL imrip tiyXaobevdpov. The poet who can say, 
 in order to express the most excellent of its kind, ' the flower 
 of songs/ * the blossom of life,' and so on, yet could not say, 
 in order to express the most illustrious or excellent of victorious 
 wreaths, * the blossom or the flower of wreaths,' because in 
 this case both ear and sense would be offended by the proper 
 meaning of the word being suggested to the mind from the 
 affinity between flower and wreath. It is clear, therefore, from 
 this single example, that in Pindar's time no one on hear- 
 ing the word awros thought of a blossom or flower, as the 
 proper meaning of the word existing at that time in the 
 language. But if this be the case, neither is it a metaphor 
 taken from the idea of a blossom or flower ; for an expression 
 becomes a metaphor only when the person who makes use of 
 it knows its proper meaning; and either from his own ima- 
 gination, or from following some usage of figurative language, 
 he employs the word in its metaphorical sense. The com- 
 mon explanation of the word acoros prevents, therefore, the 
 correct understanding of it ; for whoever, not considering that 
 the word nowhere means blossom or flower in its proper 
 sense, gives to it, when he finds it expressive of something the 
 most beautiful or excellent of its kind, the metaphorical idea 
 of blossom or flower, that person attributes to the poet a figure 
 which he never dreamt of; a worse fault than misunderstand- 
 ing a figure which he really intended *. There would be no- 
 thing, therefore, left but to suppose that the word meant in the 
 
 * [Buttmann makes no mention of a passage in ^Eschylus in which 
 &a>Tov occurs, Supp. 680. 
 
 "H^as 8' civdog abpcnTOv 
 v Eora>* prjb y ' A<f>pobiTas 
 TLvudrcop /3poroXoiy6y "A- 
 -prjs Kepaeuv aa>Tov. 
 
 From Hcotov following here so closely on avOos, one can hardly avoid 
 thinking that the poet understood them as synonymous words, and 
 intended to keep up the same figure : yet on the other hand, from the 
 frequent use of Kcipa with ko^v, x a ' tTa * an( l the like, both in the Iliad 
 and Odyssey (see also yEschyl. Choeph. 169. 186.), we might rather 
 conclude that the poet has here drawn his metaphor from that simple 
 idea which Buttmann supposes toward the end of this article, — Ed.] 
 
33* V Aft)T09, onoreiv, 185 
 
 oldest period of the language blossom or jlower in its proper 
 sense, but that this meaning became quite obsolete, and that it 
 retained only the metaphorical one. This is certainly possible, 
 and if it can be proved by historical facts, it would be of some 
 value in an inquiry into language in general ; if it cannot be so 
 proved, it is of no value at all. 
 
 4. "We have been obliged to premise thus much, in order 
 that we may not be influenced by any preconceived opinion in 
 the consideration of Homer's use of awroj. The first passage 
 where the word occurs in that poet is at II. 1, 661. where the 
 damsels prepare a couch for Phoenix by spreading 
 
 Kcoed re p^-yoy tc \ivoio tc Xenrov ucotov. 
 
 Here no one hesitates for a moment to apply to Homer the 
 usage of succeeding poets, and to understand by it the very 
 finest linen. Again, when in the other passages of Homer, 
 where the thing spoken of is wool, it is called olbs acaros, this 
 expression is somewhat different ; still it is such, that when at 
 Od. a, 443. where Telemachus sleeps KGKakvp,}i£vos olbs dcorw, it 
 is understood to mean the softest wool, this also would agree 
 very well with the common usage of the word. But at II. v, 
 599. and 716. the sling is called ivcrrpocpos olbs awros. Now is 
 this the place, where the poet is speaking of a compact and 
 hard-twisted sling, to introduce the idea of the finest, the softest, 
 and the most beautiful wool ? The same doubt recurs as forcibly 
 at Od. 1, 434. where Ulysses entwines his hands in the wool of 
 the great ram : 
 
 avrap \cp(T\v dwrov Oecnrfaioio 
 
 No)Xe/iecos (TTp((p$€\s ixoprjv rerX^drt Ovfjito. 
 
 In explaining Oeaireo-Los (see art. 66. sect. 5.) in this passage 
 by divine, splendid, preeminently beautiful, it ought to be re- 
 marked that that expression contains the idea of enormously 
 thick and compact, as the thing itself there plainly shows ; an 
 idea totally incompatible with that of acoroj, as hitherto ex- 
 plained. One thing, however, is clear, that in all those pas- 
 sages the thing meant was simply tvool ; and though some might 
 still persevere in endeavouring to support the before-mentioned 
 interpretation, by saying that the wool intended by this express 
 
186 33* *Aft>T09, acoTelv. 
 
 sion was « the best and most excellent in the sheep,' — or that, 
 supposing the existence of that reputed ancient meaning blossom 
 ox Jlower, it was called by way of eminence c the blossom of the 
 sheep V but that this poetical expression was become to a certain 
 extent so completely Epic, that the poet used it with reference 
 to those common subjects without any poetical view, — still even 
 that interpretation is not applicable to this last passage ; for if it 
 were admitted, clo>tos must have its genitive case after it. Nay, 
 even if we suppose that ' the bloom of the sheep* was an old 
 Epic expression for wool, still Voss would hardly bring himself 
 to translate the passage thus : 
 
 aber ich selber 
 Wahlte den stattlichsten Bock, der weit vorragte vor alien; 
 Diesen fasst' ich am Riicken, und unter den wolligen Bauch hin 
 Lag ich gekriimmt, und darauf in der wunderherrlichen Bl'ute 
 Hielt ich fest die Hande gedreht, ausdaurendes Herzens*. 
 
 And it may with truth be observed that the same would hold 
 good of every other metaphor which we might endeavour to lay 
 down as a groundwork for explaining the word ao>ros. In this 
 passage, the expression, whatever it is, must necessarily be one 
 used in its proper sense ; and that which Voss, with genuine 
 poetic feeling, has actually placed in his translation, is un- 
 doubtedly the true one : im herrlichen Flockengekrausel, ' in the 
 superb mat of wool.' "Acoros must necessarily have meant in 
 that more remote period, even in the common language, a lock 
 of wool, or collectively ajleece 3 . 
 
 5. As soon as we have admitted this, it is hardly possible to 
 suppose that the first passage (II. t, 661.), Xivoio clvtos, can 
 have been used by Homer in the sense in which the succeeding 
 
 2 As, for example, in Apollon. Lex. in v. 
 
 * [Which may be thus literally translated : 
 
 But I myself 
 Chose out the stateliest goat of all the flock ; 
 I seized him, and beneath his woolly paunch 
 I lay curled up, and in the wondrous bloom 
 Twining my hands, held firm with persevering heart. — Ed.] 
 
 3 Apollonius has only once the Homeric use of the word, viz. 4, 176., 
 
 speaking of the golden fleece, Toaaov erjv naurr) xpvaeov i(pvTTcp6ev ci(OTou. 
 
 Callimachus, Theocritus, and others use it like Pindar. 
 
33« "Acotos, aooTeiv. 187 
 
 poets used it, for the finest of linen. But by a more accurate 
 examination of it the truth now becomes self-evident. Aivov 
 is properly not linen, but the plant of which the linen was 
 made, — the flax ; and although it is now very natural that the 
 same word should be used for the flax-pla?tt, for the flax pro- 
 duced from it, and for the thread and linen made of it, yet this 
 does not prevent XCvolo ckdtos from being explained according 
 to the analogy of olos acoros. For as a lock (floccus) of that 
 which comes from the body of the sheep is wool, so a lock of 
 that which comes from the flax-plant is nothing more than 
 flax ; and as the wool is often mentioned instead of the cloth 
 made from it, so Xivoio awros (floccus lini) means nothing more 
 than simply linen. 
 
 6. The meaning thus drawn from a comparison of passages 
 is confirmed by the etymology of the word which corresponds 
 with it most naturally. v Acoros is the Lat. floccus. As this is 
 derived from flo, so that comes from arjixt ; and both mean the 
 Uyht and airy locks of the sheep or of the flax-plant. 
 
 7. But if this be the proper and simple meaning of the word, 
 and also (as we plainly see it is) the older sense and the one 
 in use in Homer's time ; it follows that no other but this, or 
 one very nearly akin to it, can be the idea from which comes 
 the metaphorical sense used by Pindar. Here, then, all hope 
 of introducing the idea of blossom or flower must be totally 
 lost. But the sense of flock or down (floccus) will, in another 
 way, do us the same service. Without doubt awros was used 
 to mean also the downy pile or nap of cloth, that delicate 
 \ayvr) which constitutes the fineness and beauty of cloth, and 
 which proves its newness, as on the other hand defloccatce 
 vestes in Latin are the same with detritce, clothes which by wear 
 have lost their nap, and consequently their freshness and 
 beauty. That from such an object of every-day life were taken 
 figurative and proverbial expressions, is agreeable to the sim- 
 plicity of those early times; whatever moved, as it were, above 
 or upon any body or any number of things, as the best and 
 most beautiful, was called the flock or down of it, the floccus 
 or awros of it. The proper sense of the word was meanwhile 
 lost after Homer's time in the common language of daily life; 
 and then it disappeared in its figurative application, so that 
 
188 <$$. "Awtos, awTeiv. 
 
 Pindar used the word in many combinations which a literal 
 comparison with the original proper meaning no longer allows. 
 
 8. Necessary as it appears to be to connect the verb acoretv 
 immediately with &q>tos, still it will be a difficult task for any 
 one to accomplish who keeps analogy always in view. The 
 verb occurs only as spoken of sleep ; but in both the passages 
 of Homer where it is found, it has the accusative vttvov with it. 
 This favoured the explanation of the grammarians, anavQL&iv. 
 But it is to be hoped that it will not give any fresh encou- 
 ragement to the explaining of the word clvtos by avOos, as 
 that mode of explanation, refined and forced as it is in itself, 
 is quite inadmissible in these two passages where sleep is for- 
 bidden; as, II. k, 159. tC tt6.vvv\ov vttvov acoret?; and Od. 
 k, 548. Mtjk€ti vvv zvbovres da>reire yXvKvv vttvov. On the 
 contrary, some might perhaps be satisfied with my interpreta- 
 tion, if I were to suppose that the verb avT&v expresses more 
 briefly the same meaning as the passage of Od. a, 443., where 
 Telemachus sleeps wrapped up, 0109 a6r<o. But neither is it 
 consistent with analogy to form a verb thus for such a mean- 
 ing, nor would it, when joined with the accusative vttvov, give 
 us a just and correct sense. On the other hand, it was long 
 ago proposed to leave the word clvtos out of the question, and 
 to derive the word immediately from aw in the sense of to 
 sleep, as we find that sense in aecrav and lavo>. But it is very 
 much to be feared that such a repetition of the same idea in 
 zvbovres dor tire vttvov might make most readers look on it 
 as little better than our saying ' the sleep of the sleeping 
 sleepers,' or ' the singers sang a song ;' at the same time it 
 is not to be denied that such repetitions are by no means un- 
 common in the simple language of the ancients*, particularly 
 when the words are of different families. That is to say, man, in 
 the simplicity of early times, hears in each differently sounding 
 word a different collateral idea, although he is not himself con- 
 scious of it. Now in evbttv it must be evident to any one who 
 compares the passages of Homer where it occurs, that the lead- 
 ing idea is to lie down. Of a^relv, which is a form lengthened 
 from the verb aetv to increase its force, I doubt not that it 
 
 * ["I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps," Revela- 
 tions 14, 2. — Ed.] 
 
34. BXirreiv. 189 
 
 originally expressed by a poetical onomatopoeia the idea only 
 of to snore; and then to sleep a snoring deep sleep; in which 
 sense the accusative v-kvov was added to it, according to the 
 usual Greek idiom, merely to have a substantive for iravvvyj,os or 
 yXvKvs, the epithets used for defining what kind of sleep it was. 
 
 Beffpvxa ; vid, (3p6£ca. 
 
 34. BAiTTew *. 
 
 1. In giving my opinion of the derivation of apiftpoTos from 
 popos, /3poTos, mors, mortalis, I had occasion to notice that par- 
 ticular formation of language, according to which, especially in 
 Greek, ftp and fik frequently come from /x followed by a vowel 
 before p or A. As many cases of this kind are looked on in a 
 different light, it is necessary to go through the principle of this 
 formation, as completely as it can be done on historical grounds. 
 With this view, but also with this limitation, I will here make 
 some additions to what has been said in the article on apLpporos, 
 and endeavour to give a more satisfactory detail of what may 
 have been mentioned there too briefly. 
 
 2. I must first remind my readers of the certainty of the 
 principle itself, after which it will only remain to show to what 
 particular cases it may be correctly applied. This certainty is 
 evident without further proofs from the single instance (resting 
 on firm historical grounds) of /3A&>o-/cg>, which bears the same 
 relation to fxokelv as dpcorrKca to dopelv, and which possesses, be- 
 sides, a middle point of support (not, indeed, that such a one is 
 wanted,) in /xe'ju/3AG>/ca. The case of p.6pos, ap.[3poTos, /3poroj, and 
 of the forms belonging to them, would, even if its own evidence 
 were deficient, receive support enough from the former case to 
 produce perfect conviction. 
 
 3. Here also induction comes to our assistance by intro- 
 ducing cases which, taken separately, would have less meaning 
 and weight. Every linguist knows well that the ramification 
 
 * [Originally written as a supplement to article 15. sect. 9. — Ed.] 
 
190 34- BA/tt€*i\ 
 
 of such principles spreads into dialects very remote from the 
 written language, and he therefore has recourse to glossaries, 
 particularly to that of Hesychius. In this he finds Be/3p(tyte- 
 v(t>v explained by dpapixivaiv, the connexion of which two forms 
 is supported by the glosses "E/x/Soarai and "EpifipapLevr) for etjuap- 
 tcli, d\AapnevT]. These forms do not bear any mark of having 
 been made by the grammarians, as we find thousands which 
 do in the Etymologicum, though but few in Hesychius. Such 
 forms were invented by the grammarians in order to explain 
 some other form actually occurring in the written language, the 
 analogy of which was not evident; these, on the other hand, 
 lead to nothing of the sort, nay, they rather deviate from the 
 usual grammatical analogy. We may therefore take it for cer- 
 tain, that instead of efyiaorat, or, as required by the prevailing 
 analogy, ixipaprm, certain dialects had also /3e/3parai and c/u- 
 (3paTdL ; this last for e/x/xaprat, to which we are led by the analogy 
 of tfjLiJLopa ; and here then we have again the same metathesis 
 and its consequences. At the same time, these forms support 
 the case of fxopos and fiporos particularly and immediately, since 
 those, as well as these, take their origin from the same idea 
 of fate, and the same root jxetpa). I will only mention the 
 case of iJidpTTTO} and (3pd\j/aL (Hesych. Bpa\j/(u, avkXafie'iv), which 
 strikingly agrees in analogy with the others. For further 
 particulars I refer to Schneider's Lexicon* and the notes in 
 Hesychius. 
 
 4. To the gloss BA.et Hesychius has the explanations fiXco-aec, 
 d/xe'Ayei, ftabiCei. Of the first two we will proceed to speak 
 by and by. Against the last have been made sundry uncritical 
 
 * [The following is an extract from Schneider's Lexicon : 
 Mapirco and fxdpnro), poet, the same as avWafxfidvay, &c, &c. The 
 root is nanoi, whence in Hesiod. Scut. 231. and 251. ixairetiv and pt- 
 pdrrouv. Thence fipafyaC avWa^elv, dvaXcoaai, Kpv\jnu, 0rjpev<rai, Hesych. 
 — "EftpaTTTfV eKpvxjsev, ear(f>v^eu. Again, efipaxj/ev eKpv^/ev, emeu, KareCpa- 
 yev ; from fipdnTCiV iirOUiv, Kpinrreiv, d<pavi£eiv. r&> crrofxaTi cXkuv, fj 
 arevdCecv, Hesych. — The last explanation appears to refer to Ppd&iv. 
 As from poXio-Koy has been made /3Xcoo-kg>, and from fjpapTov fjixpporov, so 
 from pdpnTO) has been formed (3dp7TTco, by metathesis (3pdnTa>. Perhaps 
 to these belong ftpaKelv, fipaKels, awie'vcu, awie'is, Hesych. (like vvWap- 
 $dveiv, compreliendere, ' to comprehend,') from /3pa^/ut, which again is 
 derived from /3e/3paKa. — Ed.] 
 
34- BXirreiv. 191 
 
 attacks. We must however firmly defend every word against 
 which suspicion has been raised without any traceable grounds. 
 A very slight acquaintance with Hesychius is sufficient to 
 teach us, that when he is explaining a word which, as coming 
 from different roots or from different branches of a root, has 
 different and totally unconnected meanings, he puts them down 
 without hesitation, one after the other. Let us then look at 
 BAei, (3abi(€i, as a particular Hesychian gloss. What reason 
 can we have for rejecting the comparison of this word with 
 juoAeti;? One thing we do find, — and it enables us to prove 
 the connexion more accurately and certainly, — which is, that 
 in the contraction of ixoXeiv to ,8Aei there remains no trace of 
 the o ; by which, therefore, the case is somewhat different from 
 that of /3A.coo-/ca) and the grand analogy belonging to it. But 
 let us recollect that by the change of vowel the verbal form 
 fjioXelv probably belongs to a root with e; and then we are 
 met immediately by /neAAeiu, of which the pure idea, as it arises 
 in the mind, must have had likewise its physical meaning. 
 And what can this be but to go ; as in French je vais perdre, 
 in Latin perditum ire, &c. Nay, fxeAa), /^teAet /not, can hardly be 
 anything else, if literally translated, than it goes to me, or, to 
 make the sense more complete, it goes to my heart *. When 
 therefore Hesychius gives us from some of the dialects fikelv in 
 the sense of fiahi&iv, who would wish to separate it from such a 
 word as this jueAa), jue'AAco, to which it bears the same relation as 
 k\z(h, K\e£(a does to the known root /ceAco ? But this fxiXtiv cor- 
 responds quite as well in its common meaning also with the 
 analogy previously laid down here ; in as much as, beside the 
 Homeric fxeV/3Aerai, there were in the dialects also forms with a 
 simple (3 : for instance, in Hesych. Be/3Aeo-[9at, /oieAAetu, (ppovrt- 
 (€lv. Btfiktiv, iiz\k€Lv : in both which glosses I have no hesita- 
 tion in approving of the correction /^e'Aeiz>. 
 
 5. The principle then of this affinity of sounds is certain, so 
 that the application of it to individual cases has at least as 
 much probability, as in those where it lies more on the surface. 
 
 * [Both these sentences literally rendered, the former as well as the 
 latter, are in constant use in German, es geht mich an, or es geht mir zu 
 herzen ; in French, cela me va au occur. — Ed.] 
 
192 34- BXlrreiv. 
 
 I have for instance declared myself favourable to that opin- 
 ion which connects j3\ltt€lv, to take the honey from the hive, 
 with fx4\i. BkCvai, to tcl KTjpta OXfyai t&v /oteAto-ow, cltto tov 
 fjiikt, jj,€Xl(o). Etym. M. BAirreiz/, to acfraipeiv to /xeAi cltto t&v 
 K7]pid)v. (and) BAtcrat, Kamvicrai fxeA/Wa? Kal e£eAao-at t&v 07x77- 
 v&v, virep tov to ixiki TpvyrjaaL. Hesych. Here we see, that 
 in whatever way the ancients took their honey from the hive, 
 it was called /3\itt€lv, which might be the foundation of the 
 opinion so decidedly given, that fikiTTtiv comes from /xe'At. 
 Notwithstanding this, however, I by no means despise or re- 
 ject the other opinion, which may be found in Schneider's* 
 and in Biemer's Greek and German Lexicons, that /3AiVreii> 
 comes from a more simple root, with the idea of to handle, to 
 press or squeeze out BAet* fikiaaei, d/ueAyei, Hesych. BAtr- 
 
 T€LV loTt TO CKpCLLpt'iV TO /XfAl CLTTO T&V KT)pLO>V. Kal TT€Lpd(€LV, Kal 
 
 to y\rr\ka(pqv, Kal to €kttl4£€lv 9 tcl KrjpCa t&v pLekiaoStv Okifiztv. 
 Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 794. To which we may add the verb 
 fi\ifjLa{€iv, to feel or handle, particularly to feel hens in order 
 to ascertain whether they have eggs in them or not ; for 
 that this verb has been used also in the same precise sense as 
 (3\iTT€iv (see Etym. M. and Suid. in v.) I am not yet willing 
 to admit as certain. If then we see the word (3KCtt€lv, with 
 the meaning of to milk, thus brought to one common funda- 
 mental idea, it is worthy of remark, that here again also we 
 are met by the root MEA in jueAyet^, 'to milk,' mulgere, and 
 that in addition to this last word the more general idea offers 
 itself to us again in mulcere, ' to stroke down.' This confirms 
 me in the wisdom of adopting one general principle, to ab- 
 stain as much as possible from pronouncing positively which 
 of two or more words comes from the other; or which sound 
 in a family of words is the primitive one, whence the others 
 proceed chronologically and genealogically. I might probably 
 
 * [Schneider in his Greek and German Lexicon says of @\itto>, — 
 Some derive it from fieXi, /ieAirra>, as /3Aa| from fiaXaicos, and j3\6htkco 
 from fjLoXco. Again BA/o), i. q. (3\i£e>, and jSXiWu, another form of jSAaco, 
 /3Aca>, and fiXvco. As pXvfa, j3Xvcrora> is the same with <p\v£o>, <f>\vtr<ra, 
 so does /3X«a, j3\('£o>, /3XiWg) differ from (plKia, <£>Xtj3<o, 0Xi/3co only by the 
 aspirate and dialect ; its original meaning therefore is to squeeze, press, 
 suck, milk. — Ed.] 
 
34- BXtTT€iJ/. 193 
 
 be allowed to derive trie more general ideas of to stroke, stroke 
 doton, handle, or feel, from some more particular idea such as 
 to milk ; in order to support the more convenient derivation of 
 the German verb melken, ' to milk/ from the substantive milch, 
 ' milk,' and consequently also (3kiTT€Lv from /ueAt. But this 
 twofold appearance induces me for the present, at least as the 
 more natural, to place as the groundwork of my derivation that 
 idea which is common to both. I suppose therefore a stock or 
 root MEAII2, with the idea of i to stroke down, 5 f handle,' 
 palpare, mulcere, with which are connected the German and 
 English adjective mild, and ^Cktxos, with the verb /xeiAiWeiz>, 
 iEschyl. fjL€\icr(T€Lv. The physical idea of the word passed 
 over on the one side into the form /ueAya), melken, ' to milk,' 
 whence the German adjective melk, Engl. i milch,' and the 
 German substantive Milch, Engl. e milk,' the name given to the 
 liquor obtained by milking, i. e. by stroking down and pressing 
 the teat of the cow; whilst on the other side arose from the 
 unchanged root the substantive \xkki. These two words are 
 therefore, strictly speaking, one and the same word and thing ; 
 but they fixed themselves in the one branch of the language on 
 the more definite idea of honey, in the other on that of milk. 
 At the same time in the Greek the root MEA passed over, ac- 
 cording to the analogy more prevalent in that language, into 
 BA ; whence (Skew, (3Kltt€lv, and /3At/xaj/ ; and so it remains 
 undecided whether the word /3AtVra> comes from the root im- 
 mediately, or through y,iki. The connexion of fikirov with 
 fjiiki, arising perhaps from the idea of sweetness, is supported 
 by a trifling analogy l . 
 
 6. As little reason have we to be afraid of supporting the 
 derivation of /3Ad£ from ixakaKof ; particularly as we must first 
 presuppose the verbal stem from which (3ka£ taken by itself 
 would come ; for the form Bka(eiv, fio)patv€iv in Hesychius 
 comes, according to all analogy, at once from ftkag. As a con- 
 firmation of which we may adduce the quantity (rbv /3Aa/ca), 
 
 1 BAiVoi/, the potherb called arach or orach, the Atriplex of Linnaeus, 
 is called in German Mclde. Compare also Hesych. MeXt'rta, ra /3iVra, 
 which has been already amended by others to /3Ai'ra ; for it is evident 
 that the explanation there given must have been a word in common and 
 familiar use. 
 
194 2t5- BovAo/ucu, eOeXco. 
 
 which in the case of /3Aio-ai is done away. In the Ionic form 
 the word would have taken an rj, as Opdao-ca, T£rpr)ya (see 
 art. ioo. sect. 3.) ; and thus we may also add the word fikr)- 
 Xpos, weak, connected with it much in the same way as (3K<o- 
 6po$ is with (3\(ao-K«). But the present case leads us still further 
 by means of the Homeric d/3A?rxpos, in which the a has been 
 long since acknowledged to be not intensive, but without 
 signification, exactly as the stem from which jjlclXclkos springs 
 has such an a in a//aAo9, weak, tender, {apva, II. x-> 3 TO - ye- 
 povra, Eurip. Heracl. 75.) a word certainly in meaning natu- 
 rally connected with a(3Xr)Xpds, and not less in orthography 
 also ; for a/xaAos, &fiXr)xpos may be very well qompared with 
 
 CL[JLapT€LV, afipOTCL&lV. 
 
 35- BouAo/acm, €#eAft>. 
 
 1. Of these two verbs efleAco is of far more frequent occur- 
 rence, and the most general expression for wishing; but it ex- 
 presses in particular that kind of wish in which there lies a 
 purpose or design, consequentlv a desire of something the exe- 
 cution of which is, or at least appears to be, in one's own 
 power; on the other hand ftovkopLai is always confined to that 
 kind of willingness or wishing in which the wish and the in- 
 clination toward a thing are either the only thing contained in 
 the expression, or are at least intended to be particularly 
 marked. Hence it expresses a readiness and willingness to 
 submit to that which does not exactly depend on oneself, as 
 at II. a), 226. et hi \xoi alaa TtOvapLevcu irapa vrjvalv 'Axai&v x a ^~ 
 KoxLTvvtov, BovXofjLCLL (I am ready and willing, &c). In the 
 same way it is also used of a woman who can only do as others 
 wish, Od. 0, 21. Ktivov fiovXeTca oXkov otyeXXtiv, 09 kcv ottvlol. 
 And of a mere wish or desire, II. 0, 51. kcu el fxaXa fiovXtTat 
 aXXrj. 
 
 2. Hence it is remarkable, that whilst the active wish, which 
 looks forward to its accomplishment as soon as circumstances 
 shall allow, is in all other cases expressed by kOeXeiv (II. rj, 364. 
 -navT efleAct) Sofxevca. t, I20. h\r efleAoo apeaat, &c), fiovXonai is 
 used in this sense of the Gods only; e. g. II. a, 67. A I; k4v 
 
35* BouAo/ua« 5 tOeXco. 195 
 
 TTcas . . . Bovkerai avrtdaas rjfuv airb kocyov apLvvai ; and more fre- 
 quently thus, "EtKTopt ifiovktro Kvbos opi^at, Tpcoeorcri be fiovkero 
 vCktjv, &c. (II. 7], 21. fx, 174. a), 39. Od. 8, 275. See also II. A, 
 319., where the older editions had eOeket. See Heyne.) In 
 this expression there is evidently something of respect, as in 
 our verb to will, since in speaking of those above us we par- 
 ticularly remark and mention the inclination, the favour, the 
 concession, which in them connects the wish almost immediately 
 with its accomplishment. 
 
 3. From this meaning of inclination toward a thing which 
 is evident in @ovkop.ai, it is used, without any other word joined 
 with it, when beside the wish there is a preference of one 
 thing to another. In short, fiovkopLat, but never eOekco, stands 
 singly in Homer for ' to prefer,' matte, and that when speak- 
 ing of an active as well as of a passive wish. The passages 
 where it is followed by r\ are frequent and well known, as II. 
 a, 117. \jr, 594. Od. A, 488. ir, 106. But to these belong also 
 those passages where this sense is evident only from the 
 antithesis in the preceding sentence, as in II. a, J 12. €7ret irokv 
 {3ovkop.cu clvttjv OIkol eyew, an< ^ ^ n the expression Ken kg to 
 (3ovkoCpi.r)v, kcu Kti> 7toXv Kepbiov i]zv. In this case sometimes 
 eBekeiv and fiovkeaOat are plainly put in opposition to each 
 other, as in Od. p, 226. ovk edekrio-ei "Epyov eitoiyevQai, akka 
 7TTa>cro-(t)v Kara brjfjiov BovkeTai airifav fioaKetv rjv yacrrep avak- 
 tov, and so also t, 95. This meaning of (3ovkea0ai is easily 
 overlooked, if one does not observe the antithesis, as at Od. o, 
 88. Bovkopicu rjbr] velaOat, where it is not a rude "/ wish" (ede- 
 Aco), but a friendly tw I would rather now return home," in 
 answer to the option left to him by Menelaus. Compare like- 
 wise Od. 77, 387. p, 187 ] . 
 
 4. On the contrary, it is peculiar to eOekeiv to be used with- 
 out any other word joined with it for bvvacr6aL, particularly 
 in the negation ovk eOeket, as at II. </>, 366. Ovk eOeke -npo- 
 
 1 BovXecrBai is seldom met with in this sense in prose. Sturz has 
 found it once in Xenophon, Anab. 2, 6, 4. (6.), where, however, it is 
 discoverable only by the antithesis ; igbv paOvfxelv, fiovXerai novflv. In 
 Alexander's Letter in Gellius 20, 5. it is followed by rj : eyo> hi (iovKoi- 
 firjv av rais ncp\ ra apiara epTrupiais 77 reus dvvufxeai ftiacpepeiv. 
 
 O 2 
 
196 3$. HovXo/uLai, iOeXco. 
 
 p€€Lv, aAA' lax*™, and in other passages. See Damm. Bov- 
 Xca-dat, in which, properly speaking, is contained the mere wish 
 or the being willing, in itself and by itself, cannot be so used; 
 but kOzkziv may, in as much as it never expresses the wish of 
 a person who is not convinced of the possibility of his wish 
 being gratified. 
 
 5. As for the rest, kQtXtiv is, as we have said, the more 
 general expression, and hence it occurs also in cases where we 
 have seen fiovkeaOcu used ; very frequently, for instance, of the 
 Gods, or to express a mere wish, as at II. 77, 182. 'E£e0ope 
 KXrjpos Kvverjs ov ap ijdekov avroi. Bovkeadat, on the con- 
 trary, is limited to the cases above mentioned ; to it belongs 
 exclusively the construction with rj, and that with the bare 
 accusative, as Tpcoeaat 8e /3o7JAero vUrjv, in which manner 
 €0ik(a does not occur; for in the example quoted above from 
 II. 77, the preceding verb IkOop&v is understood again after 
 rjOekov. 
 
 6. In modern times the verb fiovkeaOai in its abridged form 
 /3o'Aercu, /3o'A.eo-0e, was first admitted into Wolf's Homer. To 
 scholars the question is nowadays pretty clear (see Schneider's 
 Lexicon*, and Heyne on II. A, 319.); but it may be as well 
 to put those who are not accustomed to such points on their 
 guard against false views of the subject. 
 
 7. No language, in expressing its sounds by writing, has 
 ever yet succeeded in keeping pace with the real diversity of 
 those sounds as expressed in speaking. The signs by which 
 sounds are expressed have always been produced by chance 
 circumstances, not by pure invention. Hence in all languages 
 many sounds, nearly allied to each other, are united under one 
 sign. Ear and eye then mingle and confound their own de- 
 cisions, and we get accustomed to consider as really different 
 those sounds only which have different signs, and to look upon 
 those which are united under one sign as mere modifications of 
 the same sound. The ancient Greeks, like some of the oriental 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon we find " BdXo/xcu for /3ouXo/ucu, II. X, 3 19. 
 Od. a, 234. vvv & erepa)? iftoXovro 6eol, where the usual reading is efid- 
 \ovto. Od. 77, 387. ftoXeaOe. Theocr. 28, 15. iftoWofiTjv. The root is 
 /3oXg>, the Lat. volo." — Ed.] 
 
$$. BouAoywat, eOeXoo. 197 
 
 nations even now, had only one sign, the 0, to express the 
 sounds o, u *, u. For the ii, however, there arose in very early 
 times a separate sign, by the use of a form of the sister- 
 consonant V or digamma — T or v. The o therefore still re- 
 mained, particularly in words of Ionic origin, the sign of only 
 the sounds o and u. In that, indeed, they were not poorer 
 than the Germans are now in their e ; for every one versed in 
 the physiology of language knows well that o and u are less 
 different than the different modifications of the German ef, 
 which we, deceived by appearances, consider as essentially 
 the same, while we look on o and u as essentially different 
 from each other. And here it should be remarked that be- 
 tween the sounds of ell vowels there are intermediate sounds. 
 As long as the attention of a nation is not awakened to the 
 sounds of its language by those who cultivate the liberal arts, 
 its musicians, rhetoricians, grammarians, &c, it is difficult to 
 say (as in the case of the ancient Greeks) whether they really 
 made a clear distinction in their pronunciation of o and u, or 
 whether they had, particularly in separate races or dialects, an 
 obscure middle sound for their o. Nor until those arts have 
 made some progress in improving a language, does this point 
 become clearer. The Greeks, however, were brought to the 
 earlier solution of this question by an additional necessity ; they 
 endeavoured in some sounds to express the quantity in writing. 
 Now the difference of the sounds of o and u is naturally more 
 easily perceived when the vowel is pronounced long. As soon 
 therefore as the sound of long o was expressed by o>, it was 
 necessary to find out a sign for long u, whilst the short o still 
 remained in that respect uncertain. Now as the sound of u ap- 
 proaches on the one side to that of o, and on the other to that 
 of it, a sign was formed by the union of o and v placed side by 
 
 * [The German sound of u is like our o in do, or the oo in boot, and 
 
 e 
 
 the it or u is exactly the French u. The reader should bear in mind 
 that wherever in the following remarks (for instance in p. J99, note 4.) 
 mention is made of the sound of this letter, the German pronunciation 
 of it, not the English, is intended. — Ed.] 
 
 t [And we may add the English and French e also ; for what can be 
 more completely distinct than the sounds of e in (the present of the 
 verb to) read, bread, certain ? — Ed.] 
 
198 35* BovXojULai, iOeXw. 
 
 side, or the one above the other thus, ov or « ; exactly as in 
 some of the modern languages, the German for instance, they 
 write os or o to express the sound which is between o and e. 
 From this way of writing it, and because the common dialects 
 used it only to express a long sound, arose the idea among the 
 grammarians of ov being a diphthong, an idea transferred into 
 our grammars, and now become, as it were, an established one ; 
 in the same way as there have been given similar false accounts 
 of the German a and o, 
 
 8. The difference, then, between the sound of the short o 
 and of the short u has come down to us without any sign or 
 mark by which we might discover whether the ancients really 
 had any such difference, and if so, how far it went in their 
 pronunciation ; and it is therefore a point on which we must be 
 content to remain in ignorance. One case however has been 
 discovered by the metre ; namely, that whereas ov is no true 
 diphthong, but only a long vowel, an instance occurred in the 
 older poetry of the quantity of a certain word not being fixed ; 
 and, therefore, as we find Kdkos and /caAos, £r]p6s and £e/?oj, so 
 we find also fiovXeo-Oai with the first syllable short, In the 
 oldest manuscripts of Homer ov, o> and o were all written with 
 the o, and the metre alone showed the difference of quantity. 
 When, however, copies were made according to the later mode 
 of writing, that verb was written, in all common cases where 
 it occurred, (3ov\€o-$cu. More accurate copies might have re- 
 tained the reading j36\eo-6at in those passages where the metre 
 required the first syllable to be short, but in all others it was 
 written (3ov\ea9ai even then, and the other reading has never 
 come down to us in any of our copies. In the passage of Od. 
 ir, 387. the writing with ov s which is so visibly contrary to the 
 metre, has remained even to our times ; 
 
 Ei fi' v/juu ode jj.v6o$ d<pavbdvei } dWa (3ov\ecrdc 
 Avtov re {coeii/ Koi i'xeiu irarptoia ivavra' 
 Mr) ol ^pJy/Liar' eVeira d\is 6vpr]be edcofxev. 
 
 I give the passage at length, to show that fiovkeadai stands 
 here in the sense which is so peculiar to it. That is to say, it 
 means not merely to wish, but ' if you would rather,' as the 
 antithesis plainly shows. But in the two other passages the 
 
35* BouAo/xou, eOiXa). 199 
 
 metre, which appeared to suffer, was the means of introducing 
 an emendation. II. A, 319. 
 
 end vecpeXrjyepeTa Zevs 
 
 Tpaxrlv drj ideXei dovvai Kparos rjenep fjp.lv. 
 
 Here ediXew, contrary to the universal analogy of Homer, ap- 
 pears with t) in the sense of matte. The best manuscripts have 
 the true reading fiovktrai, and the Venetian scholiast on the 
 passage expressly explains it so ; r\ barkr], on /3o'Aerat avri tov 
 fiovktrcu 2 . Here then we have another trace of the true read- 
 ing in those older and more accurate copies. And, lastly, in 
 Od. a, 234. the common reading is 
 
 N0i> 8' irepais ifiakovro 6eo\ mica prjTiocovTes, 
 
 but in the manuscripts and in the scholia the various readings 
 are Zfiokovro and kfiovkovro ; and Hesychius has, evidently with 
 reference to this passage, the following gloss : 'E(3o'\ovto' tfiov- 
 \ovto, €(3ovk€V(ravTo. Wolf, however, has retained here the com- 
 mon reading, which, explain it as you will (see Steph. Thes.), 
 still remains ;3 without any satisfactory parallel example ; whilst 
 ZfiovXovTo, as spoken here of the gods, stands quite in its proper 
 sense, according to what has been said above, and even the con- 
 struction with the adverb may be illustrated by II. o, 51. /cat et 
 jxaAa /3ouAerat aAAft. 
 
 9. From all that has been said, it is now clear that in the 
 three passages above mentioned, this verb, even if it is written 
 with an o, should be pronounced buletai, bulesthe, ebulonto 4 . 
 And for this purpose I think it would be better if we were to 
 reserve the character « (which is every day less and less used 
 
 2 The observation of Macrobius in his work De Verbo Grceco et La- 
 tino (p. 308. ed. Bip.) refers to this passage. He says that the letter 0, 
 " adjecta u, produeitur, eademque retracta corripitur, PovXerat, /3oXerat, 
 T(Tpd7rovs TeTpanos." 
 
 ;i The explanation of it by perefiaKov (see Schol.) is contrary to the 
 midd. voice, which can admit of only some such explanation as (3a\\ax6ai 
 es voi)v y iv\ (ppcvL, &c; an ellipsis that does not, however, occur elsewhere. 
 
 4 This rule is naturally calculated only for us moderns. As to the 
 ancients, we cannot possibly know whether they always had for the a 
 middle sound between our and u, or whether they pronounced it in 
 some words more like o, in others more like u; or, lastly, whether the 
 sound of u was really lost in the common language of Greece, and re- 
 mained only in the /Eolic dialect and in such antiquated forms. 
 
200 3 5 - Bpo&h &c. 
 
 as a substitute for ov) entirely for this and other similar cases 
 that we meet with in the more rare dialects and in foreign 
 names 5 . 
 
 36. Bpo^cu, $po)(r)vaL, /3e/3/?i>xa. 
 
 i . There are many verbal forms which, in their letters and 
 partly also in their meaning, come very near to the verb /3pe- 
 X€tz>, the vowel of which is so changeable, — fipaxyvcu, fipoxn, 
 inroj3pvxLo$, — whence it may be useful to review them all, in 
 order to be convinced of the difference of the stems or roots 
 from which they spring. At the same time one thing will 
 thereby be made evident, that they cannot possibly be used 
 for each other ; in as much as each form, the derivation of which 
 may be doubted, is fixed by usage, so that no form really similar 
 in sound belongs to two roots of a different meaning. Thus 
 
 5 As, for instance, when in the later writers such names as 'PaVsXot 
 occur : always however excepting those cases where constant usage has 
 already changed the Latin u into the Greek o or v, as in 'Poo/xvXoy, nd- 
 tt\ios, &c. For the rest, it is easy to be seen that the ^Eolic dialect 
 corresponded with the Latin in this as in so many other points, in as 
 much as that alone of all the more common dialects had a full-sounding 
 short u ; and that dialect wanted only a wider range of literature and 
 more regular grammarians to have furnished us with the means of 
 deciding with correctness on the orthography and pronunciation of 
 many of its words and forms. Meantime we may cite one instance as 
 indisputable, that in order to read correctly a well-known fragment of 
 Alcseus, we must write not opava but spava ; and most probably the 
 instances of the iEolie v for o, which the grammarians have preserved, 
 like vpocos, ovvp.a, are all to be understood of the short u; nay, it is 
 even a question, which I will not now stop to consider, whether this dia- 
 lect did not pronounce the v in general (consequently the v in vvv, o-uy, 
 vTrep also,) like the Latin u, and, therefore, had both u and v (JEol. Y 
 and F ) in common with the Latins. To corroborate what has been said 
 above of the short ov of the ^Eolians, we may add the express assertion 
 of the grammarians ; for instance, Priscian. 1,6. ** Illi enim (the yEolians) 
 OovyciT-qp pro 6vydrr]p, ov corripientes, vel magis v sono u soliti sunt pro- 
 nunciare, ideoque ascribunt o, non ut diphthongum faciant, sed ut so- 
 num v ^Eolicum ostendant." And in Schol. ad Dionysii Thracis Gram- 
 maticam, p. 779. it is expressly said of the o placed before the v by the 
 Boeotians (to o t6 npoTiBepeuov napa Botcorois rov v), that it does not 
 alter the quantity, as they pronounce Kovves short, as the other Greeks 
 do kvvcs. 
 
36. Bp6£ai, &c. 201 
 
 the Homeric aorist fipa\€iv is distinguished from fipeytiv not 
 only by the sense, as being a word formed from the sound of the 
 thing signified, like our crack, crash, &c, but also as a form ; for 
 this latter verb has no aor. 2. act., but only an aor. 2. pass. /3pa- 
 yjivai. Further, as the a in fipaxe'tv is not a changeable vowel, 
 but rather an essential part of the word, it is certain that beside 
 the stem or root BPEX-, whence fipayr\vai, there is a separate 
 root BPAX-. 
 
 2. 'Avafipox^v is somewhat more likely to mislead us, in 
 as much as it is used with reference to water ; as at Od. A, 586. 
 where the water flying from the thirsty Tantalus is thus de- 
 scribed, Too-a&x ftbcap aTroAeV/cer' avafipo\£v : and the change 
 of vowel from e to o in the aor. 2. is not without example : 
 compare epitope. But a comparison of avafipo\£v with kgltcl- 
 fipogtiev and avafipogtie will show us where the real connexion 
 lies. The passages where the two latter occur are these ; Od. b, 
 
 222. of the wondrous drug of Helen,* Os to Karappo^eiev , 
 
 ' whoever swallows it down ;' and p., 240. of Charybdis, 'AAA.' 
 or avafip6£ei€ Oakao-o-iqs aKpvpbv vbvp, where it is the same as 
 Ka.Ta(3p6£€Lev, and opposed to e£e/xeo-eiei>, v. 237.; the meaning 
 therefore is, " But when she has swallowed up again the salt 
 sea-water." Consequently the sense of vboip avafipoxzv must 
 also be " the water being swallowed up again," that is, retiring 
 back again into the ground. But in this case we have the aor. 1., 
 and as a change of vowel never occurs in that tense, the o must 
 be in the stem or root, BPOX-, and the theme must be BPOX12. 
 With this is connected the substantive /3pox^oj, and no less the 
 word fipoxos, a noose or slip-knot; as in German Schlinge is ' a 
 noose,' and the verb scldingen, which properly means l to form 
 into a noose,' means also i to swallow:' and there is sufficient 
 similarity between the act of swallowing and that of drawing 
 together a noose l . 
 
 3. And, lastly, as to the stem or root BPTX-, I refer my 
 readers (as far as relates to ftpvxa) and (3pvK(o, to gnash the 
 teeth, bite, and eat) to my note on Soph. Philoct. 745. The 
 poetic perf. fieftpvxa may, according to its form, belong to 
 
 1 Strove has quoted Kara^po^ai from Apollonius Rhodius and Dio- 
 nysius Perieg. in the sense of swallowing up large objects. See Butt- 
 mann's irregular verbs under (iifipcoo-KO). 
 
202 3 6 - Bpo&h &c. 
 
 flpvx® ; but it is strongly attracted toward (3pvx&op,ai, to roar 
 (as a lion, see Ammon. v. cfxovelv, Aristoph. Ran. 823. to bel- 
 low, as a bull, Sophocl. Aj. 322.)? by the striking analogy of 
 fjLVK&ojjiaL and ju^kciojoich, each of which has in the old language 
 of poetry just such a perfect with the same meaning, p.ip.vKa 3 
 fj,€[j,r]Ka. Both verbs, (3pvx<* and (3pvxaop,ai, are words formed 
 from the sound of the thing signified, which (though each takes 
 its origin, as the meanings prove, from a different sound) have 
 formed themselves in the language on the same stem or root 
 BPTX-, although grammarians and lexicographers endeavour 
 to connect them together partially. Homer has the present 
 tense of neither verb, only the perfect )3^3/>vx a » and that, like 
 yi.ip.vKa and /xeju^Ka, in the sense of the present, according to 
 the analogy given at length in the Ausfuhr. Sprachl. sect. 113. 
 obs. 13*. [See also Matthias's Greek Grammar, p. 505. obs. 3. 
 Blomf.] Homer uses this word three times, of the roaring of 
 waters, II. />, 264. Od. e, 412. /x, 242. Now it is evident that 
 this meaning (to connect which with that of fipvx® Damm has 
 given himself much useless trouble) can take its rise only from 
 the still stronger idea of the roaring of animals, as Schneider 
 
 * [The passage referred to is the following : 
 
 Obs. 13. Very frequently the meanings of the present and of the 
 perfect are so similar to each other that usage confounds them. Thus, 
 strictly speaking, /zeAci means it goes to the heart, the Epic pefArfhe, it 
 lies at the heart ; hence both mean it concerns or pains me. In this 
 way the real difference of many perfects which are used exactly as pre- 
 sents may be easily imagined ; as pres. to become, to do progressively, 
 to begin to do ; perf. to be, to do fixedly and decisively ; as rreiSofiai, I be- 
 lieve, nenoLda, I am confident, rely on; and so av8dva> and eaS'n, 6dXKa) 
 and TiOrjka, Krjdoficu and k€kt)8cl, &c. Although in most of them the 
 difference cannot be made clear, at least to us and in our languages, as 
 in \e\r]6a, [xefirjua, 7T€<pr}va, 'dokira, dedoptca, oScoSa, yeyi]6a, Ke'xprjfxai, aXd- 
 A?7/xai (from aXaoju.ai), KeKoneos ; yet we can trace in many instances that 
 the perfect has, in addition to the meaning of the present, an expres- 
 sion of certainty and completeness. The application, however, of all 
 this to particular cases must be always left to private judgment, in as 
 much as many words admit of being taken in different views. It must 
 be observed particularly, that the following verbs, signifying a sound 
 or call, have quite commonly in the perfect the simple meaning of the 
 present, as KfKpaya, I cry out, XeXaKa, KexXayya, rerpiya, ftefipvxa (@pv- 
 xdopai), fiefivKa (fivKaopai) , fiefxrjKa (pTjudopai), so that the real present of 
 these seldom occurs. — Ed.] 
 
 
36. Bpo^ai, &c. 203 
 
 has proved to a certainty by the collection of cognate verbs 
 which he has compared together under the article wpvoo in his 
 Lexicon 2 . Again, Homer uses /3e/3pu)(cos, II. v, 393. tt, 486. of 
 
 s Only that Schneider in his Lexicon has not been careful enough to 
 separate expressly this word from ($pvx<>>, frendeo. Under the word 
 wpvco he places Ppvx* among the forms which mean to roar or bellow, 
 because he refers (34f}pvxa back to that theme ; and under the word 
 &pvx<o he derives a verb i3pi>xopai (probably instead of f3ef$pvxa)j which 
 should mean the same as Ppvxdopai, from fipvx<o,frendeo. 
 
 [To give the English scholar, who may not understand German, a 
 perfect knowledge of Buttmann's meaning, it will be necessary to give 
 at length the articles to which he refers, as they are found in Schneider's 
 Lexicon and Supplement. 
 
 BpvKco, -£«, to bite, bite in pieces, devour, swallow up, poet. ; ptipdiaov 
 ra ndrpcpn fipvicci, Diphilus ap. Athen. p. 292. C. "0\a p.4\r) (BpvKav av 
 KaTanioc, Diod. Sic. lib. 16. Ml. h. a. 4, 34. 5, 3. In Nicand. Alex. 
 226. ppvicov o-rofia is the same as pepvicos, the mouth shut close. It is 
 one and the same as Ppcocricco, &pox6'<-&, piftpcoo-Kco, and comes from 
 /3opco, Latin voro, ' to eat, bite, devour;' whence fiopdco, fiopea>, (Sopvco, 
 thence (3opd<rKco, contr. fipwo-Ka), fiopona, (Spotta, fut. j3po£<o, whence 
 (3p6x0os; again, fiopvKca, contr. (Spy™, Jos. 16., the difference between 
 which and Ppi>x<>> consists merely in the x> an d the latter means parti- 
 cularly the gnashing of the teeth in eating or otherwise. 
 
 Bpvx<o, -£&>, the same as (3pvKa> ; but particularly, to strike the teeth 
 together, gnash the teeth with rage, impatience, &c. Thence (Bpvxopai, 
 same as fipvxdopai. In Soph. Philoct. 745. the present reading is 
 fipvKopai instead of (Spvxopai. See also <0pvop.cu. 
 
 Hut in the Supplement to Schneider's Lexicon $pvx<* stands thus : 
 Bpvx<0, -|w, appears to be the same with or very near akin to fipvicco, 
 fipvxopuu, (3pvxdopai. In Homer it is used of the roar of dashing 
 waves, 11. p, 264. Od. p, 242. But at II. v, 393. and it, 486. kcIto 
 rawo-dels Be(3pvx<os is explained by dentibus frendens, ' gnashing the 
 teeth.' Hesychius has from some similar passage explained fofipvxdTes 
 by 6vpo(povovvT(s. Compare Apollon. Rhod. 2, 831. In Sophocl. Trach. 
 1072. tocrre napdevos fiefipvxa /cXcucoi/, the schol. explain it by uva(36u>, 
 to cry aloud. Kkalovrd pe ku) fipvxvpevov, Alciphr. i, 35. appears to 
 be an imitation of the preceding. In Philoct. 745. the old reading was 
 fipvxopai, which Brunck has altered to Ppvicopai. "QXero fipvxfcu d\\, 
 Philippi Epig. 77. swallowed up in the sea, belongs to fipvicoi. Archise 
 Epig. 12. 6r)KTbv obovra fipvxw, dentibus frendens. In Hippocr. p. 604, 
 21. 01 6B6ut€s Ppvxovo-i, the teeth chatter in a shivering fit . 
 
 "SLpvio, upvopai, expresses the cry, howling, or roaring of hungry dogs, 
 wolves, or lions. 'Slpvov Kvpa, Antipat. Sid. Epig. 8. 'Slpverai otdfia 
 OaXdo-arjs, Dionys. Per. 83. The Latin rugirc fully expresses the mean- 
 ing of the Creek word, and comes, like rugere, met are, from ipxxo, 
 epvyai, epevyopat, which last in its aorist is used also in the sense of to 
 
204 3 6 - Bpo&h &c. 
 
 the cry sent forth by one lying mortally wounded. The scho- 
 liast indeed, and those who follow him, explain it by grinding 
 the teeth, and support this interpretation by stating that the 
 dying actually do so. But it is only necessary to examine the 
 passages to feel how ill this agrees with the poet's description, 
 and how naturally a cry of pain suits it. For, besides its proper 
 meaning of to roar or bellow, j3pvxao~0cu expresses to utter 
 any violent cry or scream, as fipvxqOtis in Soph. (Ed. T. 1265., 
 kfipvyaro in Trach. 904., and (Sifipvx*, 1072. By this in- 
 terpretation a uniformity of usage is preserved, not merely in 
 Homer, but in general. Bifipvxa belongs, as far as the sense 
 goes, exclusively to (3pvxao-0cu : in the sense of gnashing the 
 teeth only the pres. and imperf. fipvx®, efipvyov were used ; 
 and this too, as it appears, not in the language of Epic poetry. 
 
 4. There now remains for our examination the very difficult 
 form in II. p, 54. 
 
 Olov Se rpeCpei epvos dvrjp cpiOr)\es iXairjS 
 Xoopw iv olonoXco, 06* a\is dva(3e(3pvxev v8<ap. 
 
 Here is neither the roaring of waters, nor any sound which can 
 be compared with the grinding of teeth ; the sense however is 
 clear, the poet is speaking of the bursting forth or springing 
 up of water. But the grammarian does not remain satisfied 
 with having ascertained the meaning ; he tries to satisfy himself 
 on the formation of the word and its analogy. And thus have 
 arisen various opinions, some explaining the word differently, 
 others proposing to alter the reading. As I have not succeeded 
 
 roar, II. v, 403. Theocr. 13, 58. For these are used also 6pva>, apvco, 
 
 copvopai ; again, opvyta, opvydvco. Hesychius has opvydvet, epevyeTai ; 
 again, opverat, vXaKTel, and bpvy/xos for dpvypevos, i. e. opvyopevos, 
 j3pvxa>pevo$. As from epvyd<o comes epvypdco, epvypalvco, SO from 
 opvyco comes opvypdco ; thence dpvpados and dpvpaydos, a loud noise. 
 The words wpvyrj, copvypbs, and chpvdfxos are evidently derived from the 
 form (opvyco ; and from this or from 6pvya> is formed by contraction 
 (3pvx(o, (Spvxdoj. 
 
 In Passow's improved edition of Schneider fipvxdopai stands thus : 
 Bpvxdopai (from fipvx<o), or less frequently (Spvxavdopai, to roar, 
 bellow, howl, Lat. rugire ; as an expression of pain both in men and 
 animals, but properly of the lion, Lobeck's Sophocl. Aj. 320. And, ge- 
 nerally, to make any deep and hollow rumbling sound, as that heard in 
 an earthquake. It is used of the crying of children, Nicand. Alex. 221. 
 but here others read fipavxavdopai or fipavKavdopai. — Ed.] 
 
36. Bpofri, &c. 205 
 
 in finding any one explanation decisively convincing, I shall 
 give all the different views and opinions of those who have 
 treated on it, noting particularly the least tenable, in order that 
 they may be avoided in future. 
 
 5. And first, then, are we to suppose a third root BPTX-, 
 that is, a third of those similarly-sounding onomatopoeias, with 
 the meaning of to spout forth like ivater ? The similarity of the 
 roots might possibly be no objection, as the forms which are 
 found with each of the three distinct meanings would be dif- 
 ferent; for to fipvx €l > he gnashes his teeth, and fitfipvxe, he 
 roars, we should have to add fieppvx** & spouts forth. But 
 herein lies a new difficulty. We know from grammar that no 
 verb which has the same consonant in the present and perfect 
 as its characteristic (perf. 2. or perf. middle), takes in the per- 
 fect a short vowel. The exceptions to this rule, — that is to 
 say, 1st, the 0, as in k€kottci, t£tokcl ; 2nd, the syllable after 
 the Attic reduplication, as in iXrjkvOa, a\ij\upa ; and 3rd, the 
 Epic shortening of the rj into a found only in the participles 
 (recrapvla, reOaXvla, &c, — these exceptions are so defined that 
 they make the rule appear only the more fixed, and f$£f5pvxa 
 is therefore a startling anomaly. The grammarians were not, 
 however, struck by this. Apollon. Lex. ''Avafitppvxe- ru>v 
 TteTioirjixivtoV bta pLLpLrjo-iv, olov avafi£fiy]K€ fx^rd tlvos rix ov - If 
 this explanation be received, we must suppose that the form 
 itself, not standing in need of any present tense in co, was formed 
 at once as it now stands, in imitation of the sound signified, a 
 perfect with a short syllable ; fieftpvxev, it spouts forth. 
 
 6. Schneider in his Lexicon* mentions, secondly, the reading 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon dvaftpvxo stands thus : 
 
 'Ava!3pvx<6, a word which occurs only in dvafie,3pvxev v8a>p, the water 
 issues forth, II. p, 54., where others read -8e8pvKe from -Bpixo, the same 
 as dvaBXi/o*, to burst or issue forth, iElian. v. h. 3, 43. Thus p and A 
 are changed in y\a>aaapyos, -rikyos, and many others. Others have 
 read -Bej3poxc, and explained it by dvanenooKe, but without any suitable 
 meaning. The interpretation of Apollonius, dvaBeB^Kfv perd tlvos 
 rjx ov > gives reason to suppose that he, with others, must have read -(34- 
 ftpaxf, as Apollon. Rhod. evidently did, from his imitation of the pas- 
 sage, dvefipaxe Sn/m8os vbcop, i, i 1 47. I prefer the reading dvaBtBpvxe, 
 and derive it from -Bpvfa, the same as dvaBkvfa. (The root is un- 
 doubtedly connected with Bkvfa, Bkva>, Bpvu>.) — Ed.] 
 
206 3 6 - Kpo&L, &c. 
 
 (whether of one or of many manuscripts I know not ; — Heyne 
 had it from a Moscow one,) fiefipvKev, but he prefers (3<E(3pvx€, 
 from (3pv(<*>, which should be the same as (3kvfa. If now we 
 adopt fitfipvKa, it follows that this quantity, particularly in 
 Homer, who uses only a few perfects ending in -kcl, and all with 
 a long vowel in the penultima, like bihvKa, fiefiX-qica, (see the 
 Ausfuhrliche Grammatik*, sect. 97. obs. 7.) must be very im- 
 probable. Schneider's opinion, however, contains more im- 
 probabilities than this ; for, first, there is only a verb j3pvo) and 
 a verb fikvfa, both in the sense of to shoot forth luxuriantly, 
 and properly used only of plants, as we actually find fipvei 
 used only two verses below avafi£fipvy€v in Homer; in other 
 writers it is found in the sense of to spout forth, like water or 
 any other fluid. If now we suppose, with Schneider, a present 
 j3pv(o) 3 there is no ground for forming a perfect in -y^a ; for 
 f3\v£(o at least makes /3\vo-o), &c. And, lastly, neither fipvco 
 nor /3Av£a> has ev*r the thing shooting or spouting forth as its 
 subject, but the expression is always fipvziv avdtcri, vbari, &c, 
 or at all_ events with the genitive. Here then we have sup- 
 position upon supposition ; and uncertainty, so far from being 
 removed, is consequently greatly increased. 
 
 7. Schneider gives, thirdly, avafiifipayev as an old reading, 
 but he forms this conjecture only from the expression fierd 
 Tiros riyov in Apollon. Lex., and from a passage of Apollon. 
 Rhod. 1, 1 147., which he considers an imitation of the pas- 
 sage in Homer ; tot avifipayt bi\j/dbos avrm 'E/c Kopvcfjijs 
 6XKt]ktov (that is to say vbcop). But independently of the con- 
 sideration that here are no grounds for the probability of there 
 
 * [The passage referred to runs thus : 
 
 Obs. 7. In the old Epics the perf. 2. (perf. med.) is by far the pre- 
 vailing form, whilst of the perf. 1. occurs only the form in -<a with a 
 vowel preceding, as dedvKa, (3e(3\r]Ka, pifipaxa, reddparjKa, and these in 
 very limited number ; of the impuris, however, we find the perf. 2. only. 
 Hence Homer has from kotttco, KeKon^, while the Attics use K€Ko<f>a. We 
 must not, however, overlook the 3. pi. perf. pass, in -<f>arai t -xarai, as 
 occurring in the Epic poets. On the other hand, many a perf. 1. may 
 have been current in the dialects where the common language has the 
 perf. 2., as we see SedoLna and 8e8ia stand side by side in this latter. 
 So the Dorians (Plut. Ages. 607. e.) used aKovica for the common 
 aKTjKoa. — Ed.] 
 
36. Bp6%ai, &c. 207 
 
 having been a perf. /3e'/3pax e > the thing itself teaches us that 
 the grammarian meant by tjx.6s tls only a gentle issuing forth ; 
 but the poet Apollonius Rhodius is describing a stream of water 
 bursting suddenly by divine power from a mountain which had 
 been until then dry. It is evident, therefore, that he chose, 
 uninfluenced by the other passage, the word fipayelv as ex- 
 pressing a rushing or bursting noise, which is exactly contrary to 
 our passage in Homer. 
 
 8. There is, fourthly, an actual reading of Zenodotus avafii- 
 fipoxev, consequently an ancient one, which deserves our at- 
 tention. At first sight we might suppose this to be the cor- 
 relate of the before-mentioned Karafipogca belonging to the 
 root BPOX-, and as K.aTa(3p6£cu means to swallow down, this 
 would be to throw up. But it must be recollected that in 
 speaking above (sect. 2. of this article) of Karafipo^ai we saw 
 that avafipo^ai and avafipoyzv meant just the contrary of to 
 throw up, and had essentially the same sense as KaTa(3p6£ai, 
 differing only by the latter meaning to swallow down, the two 
 former to swallow up or back again. And even if we were to 
 suppose that the word might have such a twofold sense as to 
 throw up and to swallow up, still the idea conveyed by that 
 fipogcu, which is something violent and momentary, corre- 
 sponds as little as possible with the idea in the passage in 
 question, which is that of water issuing forth continually and 
 gently. The reading of Zenodotus points therefore undoubtedly 
 to the verb fipiytiv. It is true, indeed, that there is no other 
 known instance of a perfect /3e'/3poxa ; but then we must re- 
 member that we are not justified in rejecting a form found in 
 an old authority because it does not occur elsewhere, provided 
 it be but consistent with analogy, and still more a real read- 
 ing. Now as we can say with perfect correctness to vbup 
 fiptX €L T *1 V yv v > so an absolute or neuter use of the verb will 
 appear not unnatural, by which the poet might have said vbup 
 avafiifipoxev (the perf. in the sense of the present), ' water 
 issues forth and irrigates the land.' 
 
 9. Fifthly, a hint, though perhaps a slight one, in favour 
 of the common reading, avajitfipvxtv, may be drawn from the 
 Homeric expression v-nofipvxa, under water, at Od. c, 319. 
 Tov 8' ap vTTofipvxa 6t}k€ ttoXvv xP° V0V i " it kept Ulysses a 
 
208 3 6. Bp6£ai, &c. 
 
 long time under water." Some of the grammarians considered 
 the expression as an adverb : whence Aratus 426. said of a ves- 
 sel sinking, imofipvyci vavTikkovTai. Others separated it, v-nb 
 fipvxa : and thence Oppian did not hesitate to use fipvxa as an 
 accusative case for the sea es vzaT-nv </)eperat /3pu'xa, Halieut. 
 2,588*. But the plain analogy of such expressions as tov 
 fjiev api(r)kov OrJKev 6ebs and yvla 6' zOrjKev ikaqbpd shows that 
 viiofipvya is an adjective, for which it is not necessary for us 
 here to form a nominative. If one were wanted, it would 
 doubtless be by metaplasmus imofipvxos ; but inroj3pvxi'Os was 
 more in use, as in Homer's Hymns, in Herodotus, and else- 
 where. Now this word indisputably comes from /3pex&> : for/3/)e- 
 X€cr6at is used of objects which are completely under water ; for 
 example, in Xenoph. Anab. 4, 5, 2. hiifiatvov (3pexdpievoL irpbs 
 tov ofxabakov, " they passed through, being under water up to 
 their middle." According to the more common analogy it would 
 therefore be v-nofipoxos, for which we have here, by a rather un- 
 usual change of vowel, v ; with which may be compared ovop.a, 
 aixovvpLos, and, as a case exactly similar, ayeipca, dyopd, ayvpts, 
 ayvpTrjs* But if this change of vowel were in the derivatives, 
 we must allow the possibility of its having been also admitted 
 into the inflexions of the verb, and that from /3pex w "was 
 formed not only fiefipoxa but (3€ppvx a > tne short vowel of 
 which, on this supposition, has nothing to startle or surprise 
 us. In those most ancient monuments of Greek literature there 
 are constantly found single forms which do not adapt them- 
 selves to any particular analogy, but only to the more gene- 
 ral, as €lkrjkov6a, kdcfyOrj, ZpLvrjfJLVKe, airovpas, &c. The va- 
 rious reading of Zenodotus, avafiifipoxzv, comes then by 
 this supposition into a fresh and proper point of view. Be- 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon we find these words explained in the fol- 
 lowing manner : " 'Yiro^pvxa, Od. e, 319. for v7ro(3pi>x.iov, or it may be 
 read separately two fipvxa." Again, " 'Ynofipvxos, 6, r), under water ; 
 Qeo-o-aKirjv yeveadai, imofipvxa, Herod. 7, 1 30. like Od. e, 3*9- used 
 adverbially. It is used in the same way in Arati 425. Oppiani 1, 145. 
 3, 599. 4, 39. Quint. Sm. 13, 485." To this is added in the Sup- 
 plement : " The nominative case, of which no example is given in the 
 Lexicon, is found in Phil, de Animal, p. 344." Schneider has also in 
 his Lexicon, " Bpvg, ftpvxos, fj, the deep, the depths of the sea," and he 
 cites as an example the passage of Oppian above mentioned. — Ed.] 
 
tf. Aatypw. 209 
 
 side the anomalous fiifipvya, which is come down to us from 
 the old language, there had been also formed, at least in the 
 mouth of criticising philologists, the other form agreeable to 
 the great and general analogy. In the same way as we have 
 explained the avafiifipoyev of Zenodotus, so we now under- 
 stand avafiifipvxtv also ; and the variety of the reading is there- 
 fore only a variety of the form. 
 
 10. We have found nothing, then, during our investigation 
 so fixed on historical grounds as to be perfectly satisfactory ; 
 and we have only, therefore, to make our choice between 
 three suppositions resting on general analogy : viz. the fourth, 
 avafiefipoxtv, formed according to strict analogical rules, and 
 supposed to belong to the verb avafipiya, though the con- 
 nexion is not very plainly to be traced, nor is the authority of 
 the reading very strong : the fifth, avafiiftpvxtv, also from 
 avafipexu, Dut formed anomalously ; the authority of the reading 
 very great, and with the analogy of V7r6(3pvxa: the first, the 
 same reading, ava(3€{3pvx € »i without a derivation from any verb, 
 but supposed to be a word formed at once in the perfect from 
 the sound of the thing signified, it bursts or issues forth. 
 
 37. Aatypcov. 
 
 1. The word baitppuv admits of a twofold derivation, one 
 from 8ats, the fight, according to which it would mean ivarlike ; 
 the other from har\vaL, to learn, experience, according to which 
 it would signify prudent, full of knowledge and experience. To 
 mention at once the passage most decisive in favour of the 
 latter sense, from the former being totally unsuitable, we may 
 name Od. o, ^^., where it is an epithet of the wife of Laertes. 
 We might possibly, therefore, be tempted to decide, without 
 further inquiry, that it must have this meaning everywhere 
 else. For, indeed, though it be indisputable that a simple word, 
 derivable from more roots than one, can have, and actually 
 has, in different situations quite different meanings, yet it ap- 
 pears scarcely conceivable, that a compound word, made as it 
 were for the occasion, could have in the same poet two distinct 
 meanings when used in the same situation, that is, as the epi- 
 thet of a person who is praised for some one quality which lie 
 
 v 
 
210 $J. Aai(ppo)v. 
 
 is supposed or represented to possess. And however decisive 
 the sense might be in some cases, as in the instance of the wife 
 of Laertes mentioned above, still in many others where it was 
 not so clear there would constantly remain a doubt as to the 
 poet's meaning. 
 
 2. But notwithstanding this it is impossible to deprive bai- 
 <j>pn)v in Homer of the sense of warlike. We are not to suppose 
 that there can be but few instances where the epithet prudent 
 or sensible may not be quite as applicable to the same person 
 as warlike. There are plenty of such, where the genuine mean- 
 ing of the poet must decide in favour of the one or of the other. 
 We do not wish, for example, to deny that Achilles or Dio- 
 medes is sensible and intelligent ; but if these heroes, placed in 
 a situation where the context has no reference to any quality of 
 the understanding, have a certain epithet applied regularly to 
 themselves, every one feels that it can be no other than one 
 which refers to their bravery. If now Ulysses, at II. k, 402. 
 says to Dolon that he is aiming at a high prize, that is to say, 
 to get possession luiKav AlaKtbao baicppovos, or if at e, 181. a 
 Trojan, recognizing Diomedes, says, Tvbeiby \xiv ey&yz batypovi 
 iravra tto-KG)' these passages are perfectly decisive that baifypoav 
 here refers not to the understanding, but to bravery ; and the 
 same may be said of the passage in II. A, 427., where Socus, 
 unknown except from what is there said of him, plays the part 
 of a spirited though unfortunate warrior, and at v. 456. has 
 this epithet, 2o>KOto baicppovos ofipip.ov eyyos "Efco re \pobs eA/ce. 
 To these we may add also such combinations as the often recur- 
 ring baifypovos , i7T7ro5ajuoio. 
 
 3. The twofold sense of the epithet 6a icftpcov exists therefore 
 beyond a doubt in the poems of Homer ; but this circumstance 
 is accompanied by one very striking fact, that all the passages 
 where baitypuv plainly relates to the understanding occur in 
 the Odyssey and in the last book of the Iliad, both of which 
 have been attributed, from a very early period, and on very 
 strong grounds, to a different author from that of the Iliad*. In 
 II. u>, 325. in which book the word occurs but once, it is the 
 epithet of Priam's herald, Idseus; and in the Odyssey it is 
 
 * [By a similar coincidence befjLuiov is frequently used in the Odyssey, 
 but in the Iliad is found in the last book only. — Ed.] 
 
37- Aatcppwv. 211 
 
 given to the wife of Laertes, to the artificer Polybus, 0, 373., 
 and to the unicarlike king Alcinous, (, 256. 0, 8. 13. Again, 
 when at Od. a, 48. Minerva says 'AAAa jaol a^cf) 'Obvafj'i baicppovt. 
 oaierat r\Top Awjuio'pa), or when Penelope says b, 687. (3iotov 
 K(iTaK€Lp€T€ iTokkov, Kti](tlv Tr\\€ixa\oio ba'k(f)povos, it is evident 
 at first sight that this simple fixed epithet can mean nothing but 
 that prudence which was the characteristic of Ulysses, and so 
 prominent a quality in the young Telemachus. And the same 
 remark which we have made of bai(f)povos, litis obaiioio in the 
 Iliad, will hold good with regard to the frequently repeated 
 ba'typova, 7TOLKikoiJ,i]Tr]v in the Odyssey. 
 
 4. In the first twenty-three books of the Iliad the epithet 
 is given only to well-known acknowledged warriors, or to 
 those who are introduced as such, and in no one instance is 
 there any inducement to translate it by prudent, except perhaps 
 where it is given to Priam (t, 651. A, 197. o, 239.); but 
 Priam is also called elsewhere eii/x/xeA.irys, as well as the brave 
 Euphorbus and his brothers (p, 9. 23.). In the Odyssey, on 
 the other hand, as soon as, from the decisive instances men- 
 tioned above, we have fixed on the meaning prudent, there does 
 not occur one example to oblige us to deviate from it. Those 
 to whom this epithet is given are indeed princes and heroes, 
 but they are unknown except from the mention there made of 
 them, and there is nothing to prevent our calling them wise 
 rulers and intelligent men (a, 180. o, 518. (/>, J 6.); and to 
 these we might add without hesitation the otherwise quite un- 
 known suitor Polybus (x, 243.), if it were not that the other 
 meaning of warlike, so common in the Iliad, may seem to 
 strike us as a more suitable epithet to one who is described as 
 still fighting against Ulysses and his friends*. 
 
 5. If now we take a general view of what has been said, we 
 find an identity of meaning in the Iliad, and another in the 
 Odyssey, such as we should always wish to find in poems which 
 have been handed down by the mouth of the rhapsodists, and 
 such therefore as deserves our particular attention. 
 
 6. In the poems of Hesiod bai<ppo)v appears to have the 
 
 * [According to PaSBOw's Lexicon the Mom. Hymn. Dein. follows 
 the usage of the Odyssey. — Ed.] 
 
 )' l 
 
212 $8. Aearotf, doaarararo.^ 
 
 meaning of warlike both in the Op. 652. as an epithet of the 
 brave king Amphidamas, and still more decidedly in the Scut. 
 119., where Iolaus is exhorted to show himself in a contest as 
 baiffipav as he had previously been. Pindar, on the other hand 
 (Pyth. 9, 148.), gives the epithet to Alcmena. In what sense 
 the word is used in the lyric passage in iEschyl. Theb. 920. 
 it is difficult to say : the poet has evidently asserted his lyric 
 rights in the use of it. The yoos is there called batyptov, ov 
 cfrikoyaOris : now if we look no further than these words, the 
 explanation which supposes the word compounded of baifrtv 
 qbpivas appears very suitable and satisfactory enough, by which 
 it would mean heart-rending. But this will not consist with 
 ba'iKTTip preceding it : 
 
 ...... da'iKTTjp yoos 
 
 Avtocttovos, avTOTTrjpcov, 
 Acu<ppa>v, ov <pi\oya8r)S, 
 Aaicpvx*(>w ex <ppevos, &C. 
 
 Hence I think that .ZEschylus compounds the word as it. is in 
 the Iliad. And as in the expression ov (pt\oyo£i]s there is a 
 kind of personification, so it appears to me that it may be said 
 in the same way of yo'os, (which ov qbiXet tj]v yrjdocrvvrjv, as 
 being contrary to it,) that it $iA.et or qbpovel Tip baiba, as 
 supplying it with nourishment. 
 
 38. AearcLL, Soaaaaro. 
 
 1. Whenever Homer describes any one as having been in 
 doubt, and after consideration making up his mind what course 
 to pursue, he uses this verse, 
 
 'Q,de de ol (ppoveovri dodcrcraTC Kepftiov eivai. 
 
 For example at II. v, 458. Od. e, 474. Now supposing a 
 person not only to have had no knowledge of the verb boao-- 
 o-auOai from any other quarter, (which has been every one's 
 case from the earliest times of Homeric explanation,) but to 
 have believed that nothing more was known about it, such a 
 person would still have felt quite certain of the meaning of the 
 
 
38. Ararat, SoacaaTO, 213 
 
 word, and of the sense of each passage where it occurs. For 
 it is as clear as the light, both from the connexion of the 
 words and from the sense of each passage, that bodaaaro 
 means it seemed, e'8ofei>. Whoever then, considering this as a 
 well-known fact, began to examine the word, could have been 
 only in danger of mistaking the etymology ; the meaning of 
 the poet remained uninjured. In tracing its derivation the 
 verb boKetv would naturally present itself; for a k too much 
 or too little can be no objection to the affinity of two words : 
 and thus the scholiast on II. v, 458. produces a perfectly 
 harmless derivation. 
 
 2. Not so however those who started from apparent etymo- 
 logy. Aotrf is a doubt ; iv boirj that, to be in doubt, is a Ho- 
 meric expression (II. 1, 230.), and kvboi6.(eiv, to doubt, formed 
 from it, is found in Thucydides. Now as all the passages in 
 question imply a state of doubt, a superficial opinion was ready 
 to be pronounced at once ; a simple verb botdCco was supposed, 
 of which the Homeric word might be a metrical abbreviation. 
 This was the idea of some of the ancients in the Etym. M. 
 in v. ; and of the moderns according to Valckenaer's learned, 
 but nothing more than learned, discussion ad Ammon. 1, 16. 
 The similarity of the letters blinded them to the dissimilarity in 
 the sense. If the etymology were correct, boaacraTo must 
 mean he doubted within himself. But in all the passages in 
 question the doubt lies in the former part of the description, 
 and is generally detailed most circumstantially, as for instance 
 at II. v, 458. 
 
 Arjtyoftos 8« didvftixa peppfjpifjev, 
 
 H Tivd nov Tpaioov erapiocraiTO peyadupaiv, 
 *A\js civax(oprj(ras' *) 7re iprjaaiTo Kai oios. 
 Qfte de ol (ppoveovTt dodaaaTO Kiphtov eipui 
 Brjvai tV hlveiav. 
 
 Now in this passage how is it possible to carry on the idea of 
 the doubt to the latter part of the paragraph? The impossi- 
 bility of doing this was felt ; and so to help themselves "out, 
 while they approved of the explanation it appeared, they 
 added this: Sed quce nobis meliora cidentnr, taMa fere sunt in 
 quibas tuto pedem nondum liceat figere, ike. (Valck. loc. cit.) 
 
214 3 8 - A * 
 
 carat* ooacraraTO. 
 
 A most cautious and qualified expression this, by which the 
 verse, ten times repeated in both poems, gains nothing. 
 
 3. The opinion which the moderns had thus formed of the 
 word must have been greatly strengthened by observing how it 
 was used in Homer's imitators. In Apollonius Rhod. (3, 819.) 
 they found not only bot,d(€o-K€ fiovkas of a person still unde- 
 cided, and boidfyvro Xevo-o-eiv (4, 576.), they thought they saw 
 (distant and indistinct objects); but also ointoTe bovnov... 
 bo da or at, 3, 955., when she perceived, that is, thought she heard 
 a sound, and lastly, 3, 770., the very plain expression k^ojiivri 
 boao-varo, she sat in doubt and indecision. But our critical 
 knowledge teaches us not to consider everything which we 
 read in Greek authors as the usage of the Greek language. 
 Aoi6j£a>* was certainly never in use, and ivbotdfa is no legitimate 
 compound, but a verb formed from the expression kv botf]. 
 Apollonius however thought, and not without reason, that as a 
 poet he might form such a word as boidfa. But then came in 
 the feeling of the grammarian. Looking on the impersonal 
 Homeric boda-o-aro as the very same verb, he thought himself 
 justified in abbreviating his personal verb boid(tiv in the same 
 manner. Still, however, one sees how much even this gram- 
 marian-poet felt himself restricted by an ear accustomed to 
 Homer. He only uses in that way the aorist bodo-aac; he 
 would never have ventured upon bodfctv. In Virgil's imita- 
 tion, too, JEn. 11, 550., omnia secum Versanti subito, vix hcec 
 sententia seclit, the vice appears to me to be an endeavour to 
 introduce, as well as his poetical feeling Would allow," the 
 expression botr}, which some interpreters had supposed to exist 
 in bodcro-aTo ; an attempt exactly similar to that of Voss in 
 his translation, " This determination appeared at last to him 
 doubting to be the best." In both expressions the doubt is 
 carried on to the very brink of the resolution ; which cannot be 
 the meaning of bodaaaro, if it be formed from Sot?/. 
 
 * [Both Schneider in his Lexicon, and Passow in his improved edition 
 of it, admit boidfa. The former quotes no instance of its actual occur- 
 rence in any author; the latter translates it to double; and thence in- 
 terprets the middle voice to be doubled or divided, that is, to be in doubt; 
 adducing as an instance of the active voice fiotd^o-Ke, Ap. Rh. 3, 819., 
 of the middle Soid&vTo, 4, 576. — Ed.] 
 
38. Ae'araz, Sodaa-aTO. 215 
 
 4. The only passage where this aorist occurs, except in the 
 above oft-repeated verse of Homer, should have sufficed to prove 
 that boiri has no connexion with boao-varo. Nestor advises his 
 son in the chariot-race to keep the left horse so near to the stone 
 which marked out the course, 
 
 Qs av aoi 7r\r)p.vr) ye boda-aerai anpov liceaOai, 
 
 " that the nave of your wheel may appear to touch the edge 
 of it." Aod(T(T€TaL (for --qrat) the scholiast explains by cpavra- 
 aOfj, vo[U(rdf} ; and correctly so. There is here an appearance ; 
 whence bo£y would have expressed the* same thing ; but of a 
 doubt there is not the remotest idea, any more than there is in 
 the other passage, where however there is a doubt in the pre- 
 ceding verse. If now that etymology is to stand, we must say 
 that boaaa-aro originally gave the idea of a doubtful appearance, 
 but by time and usage that part of the meaning which implied 
 doubt was lost. In that case the poet indeed is saved ; but the 
 etymology is unsatisfactory and useless toward the discovery of 
 the meaning. 
 
 5. With this aorist we may join an imperfect, as found in 
 all the editions before Wolf at Od. £ 242., where Nausicaa 
 says to her attendants, of Ulysses beautified by the divine aid 
 of Minerva, 
 
 JJpocrdeu pev yap dr) p.01 deuceXios boar eivai, 
 NCj> be deolaiv eouce 
 
 Here again there is a seeming or appearance of something, 
 which however in this case did not cause even the possibility of 
 a doubt, but produced perfect certainty ; the appearance did in- 
 deed cause a doubt in the mind of Nausicaa, as expressed in 
 the representation which she gave of her recollecting what the 
 former state of Ulysses was, as compared with his present; 
 but the word boaro refers to the time when he appeared to be, 
 and really was, acuce'Aios. This verse also ought therefore to 
 have prevented the false derivation ; though we must confess 
 that to us it appears to furnish the most intricate point of the 
 investigation. Before Wolf, indeed, the common reading of the 
 editions was boaro ; but the best manuscripts and the oldest 
 
S16 38. Aearai, Sodcrcraro. 
 
 editions, the Aldine for instance, have biaro*; the Lemma 
 of the greater and lesser scholia (in the old edition) have the 
 same; and Eustathius explains only this latter reading. He- 
 sychius has Aecirar (palverat, 80/cet. Aedfirjv kboKiixa(ov^ eSofa- 
 £ov. And lastly the Etym. M. has, under bearac, this very pas- 
 sage of Homer with the reading of biaro. No old lexicographer 
 has the form bdaro. That it was introduced as a various read- 
 ing through the existence of bodaa-aro, and that, as soon as it 
 was so introduced, biarau was put in the background as a cor- 
 rupt reading, were necessary consequences of each other. But 
 there was another consequence as necessary, that modern cri- 
 ticism should again bring forward the only authenticated read- 
 ing, whatever the grounds for its authenticity might be. The 
 derivation of this Se'arcu, in the Etym. M. and in the scholium, 
 from bdm biba^at \ serves only to confirm the opinion that bearo 
 was the reading recognized by the grammarians, and that they 
 never once connected this word with bodcrcraro. We however, 
 even before we proceed to their etymology, do connect them 
 together, because the change of vowel between e and is very 
 common, and strict regularity in these changes is not to be ex- 
 pected in the old language. 
 
 6. I think now we must start from bearo : and thus the 
 
 * [Passow in his improved edition of Schneider's Greek and German 
 Lexicon has, " Ae'aro* the only remains of an old verb deafiai, to appear 
 or seem: it occurs only in Od. C> 2 4 2 « aeuceXios dear elvcu, he seemed 
 or appeared, &c. for idoKei. Before Wolf, the common reading was 
 Boar elvai." Schneider formed both dodaaaro and 86aro from 8od£<o, 
 for boidfa, to doubt. Passow in his first edition of Schneider formed 
 boda-aaro in the same way ; but in his fourth and last edition he has 
 struck out 8odfa entirely, and says that there can be no doubt of the 
 true derivation being from donelv, for which he refers to Buttmann's 
 Lexilogus. He also follows Wolf in rejecting 86aro without hesita- 
 tion. — Ed.] 
 
 1 The evident corruption in the Milan scholium, kcu ylvcrai dno tov 
 beco bevco, Ka\ e£ avrov devaco beda/xat, is, by a comparison of it with the 
 Etym. M., doubtless to be corrected thus, k. y. d™ tov 8aia> 8da>, rat i. a. 
 bdo-a Mdapat. The Etym. explains this data by naia. As it is incon- 
 ceivable how any one could get from this idea to that* of Sok* I, I con- 
 jecture it must have been some confusion of the later grammarian. 
 The older one, who is the source from which all the rest is drawn, had 
 probably in his mind baioa, 8da>, deduct. 
 
39* Ae/X>7, SeleXog, &e. 217 
 
 derivation from bdo) I find very reasonable ; which I trace thus. 
 No doubt the verb bebaa, barjvai begins like elbevcu, from the 
 idea of to see, discern, knoio. This granted, it is very probable 
 that there was an old verb bdarat, videtur, from which accord- 
 ing to analogy (for example, pivda fxvea, pea for PAA, Oedop.ai 
 from dd(o) came bearat, and it was equally natural that as the 
 word grew more into use the radical vowel should be lost by 
 a change into o. This may remind us of a similar appearance 
 in the verb Oadacro), which will be found examined in its proper 
 place, and to which therefore I refer. 
 
 39. Ae/Ar;, £e/eAoy, &c. 
 
 1. The lexicons give us a very correct view of the exact 
 meaning of betKr], as used in the older period of the Greek lan- 
 guage ; that is to say, that it meant, not the evening in the 
 usual and common acceptation of the word, but the afternoon ; 
 at the same time it becomes the more necessary to pro- 
 duce a well-grounded conviction of this truth by bringing for- 
 ward the passages where it occurs, because both the old gram- 
 marians and the usage of the word by very excellent writers 
 of a later period, have again tended to render the meaning of 
 it uncertain. That first and proper sense of it will appear, 
 if rightly considered, evident enough in the Homeric division 
 of the day at II. <£, 1 1 1. "Eaoerai t) t/ws r) beikr] ?) fxicrov rjfiap, 
 where all three parts must be portions of, and make up, the day, 
 as Achilles is speaking of the battle in which he expects one 
 day or other to be slain. And in the same way, though in 
 a very much later author, in Dio Chrysostom, Or. 66., the 
 parts of the day follow each other, and bttk-q is placed between 
 jj.eo-7] ixfSf )ta and tenrepa. See also Pollux 1, cap. 7. The most 
 striking examples of this sense are however in Xenophon, as 
 may be seen in Sturz. Lex., and particularly in those passages 
 where betkr] is mentioned unconnectedly, and the series of events 
 which followed shows that it must have meant the early part 
 of the afternoon. Thus in Anal). 1. S, tt. (Sturz. ,.). Kat 7/6/7 re 
 rjv fierrov Tjpitpas xai ov-nu) Karatyavtis rjaav oi TrokepLLof qvUa bk 
 
218 39* Ae/Xi;, SeUXog, &c. 
 
 be(Kr] iyivero, €<pavr) Kovioprbs, k. t. A., where there follows a 
 description of the gradual appearance of the enemy, of their 
 drawing up in order of battle, and then of the great battle of 
 Cynaxa, all of which happened in the same day. A passage if 
 possible still more decisive is that of 7, 3, 9. and 1 o. (Sturz. 4, 5.), 
 where Seuthes speaks of some villages not too far off for them 
 to take their dinner (apio-rov) with ease ; and immediately after- 
 wards their arrival there is described as happening rrjs SeiA^?, 
 without the least idea or mention of its being later than usual. 
 The distance therefore was nothing more than a good morn- 
 ing's march, which being completed immediately after noon, 
 tt]s beCkys, they took dinner. And the same usage of the word 
 is found also in Herodotus 9, 101., where he says that the 
 battle of Plateea took place 77/ocol* ert 7775 fjpizpris, that of Mycale 
 7rep6 betk-qv. 
 
 2. Frequently however the word, standing alone as in the 
 previous instance, is used, no less correctly, for the more ad- 
 vanced part of the afternoon, whether this meaning be apparent 
 from the context, or there be no occasion for denning the exact 
 sense of the word; as in Xenophon 3, 4, 34. (Sturz. 21.) 4, 2, 1. 
 For since btikr], as we have seen in the beginning of this 
 article, is used so decisively for the early part of the afternoon, 
 it follows of course that in the same writer (and, we may add, 
 particularly in that dialect in which he has written) it never 
 could have been used for the evening also. Nor could Xeno- 
 phon ever have expected, that when he wrote, in the Anab. 3, 
 3,11. (Sturz. 8.), cootc rrjs rjfxipas 6kr]s btrjkOov ov irkiov Ttkvrz 
 kclI etKoo-t crrabtoiv, akka betkrjs a<f)LKOVTO eis tcls Kco/xa?, he should 
 be understood to have meant by betkr] the evening. It may 
 be very fairly said of an army which, after a march constantly 
 interrupted by the enemy, reaches a certain point somewhere 
 about four o'clock, where it intends to pass the night, that, 
 after marching the ivlwle day it had advanced only two miles 
 and a half, and had arrived in the afternoon at a certain point ; 
 and as the context shows that the time meant was one draw- 
 ing toward the evening, the word bdkr\ was quite sufficient 
 to mark it. But further, as this word thus used cannot be 
 considered as opposed to the same word when used simply 
 as the early part of the afternoon, it follows that it must be 
 
39* Ae/\*7, $eie\o$, &c. 219 
 
 used, if not in opposition to, at least to mark distinctly a time 
 different from, the evening *. 
 
 3. In the later times of the language, however, the usage 
 did certainly exist of employing beuK-q simply, not in the sense of 
 the afternoon generally, but only of that later part of it which 
 we call evening; consequently, in direct opposition to the early 
 morning ; as, for instance, is plain from Apollonius Rhod. 3, 
 417., where iEetes thus defines the ploughing of the dreadful 
 field and the combat with the earth-born men as a day's work, 
 'Hepios (evyvvpa (3oas, /ecu beUkov wprjv Ylavo^xai a\xr]Tolo : with 
 which we may compare the account of the actual performance 
 of the exploit by Jason, which at v. 1407. concludes with these 
 words, ^Rfxap tbv kcll ra rereAecr/ae^os rjev azOkos. Examples to 
 the same purport, drawn from common prose, may be seen in 
 Stephanus, as quoted from Plutarch. This use of the word, 
 however, in Lucian appears to me particularly striking, in Lexiph. 
 2., where the walk after the buirvov is expressed by to beiktvbv 
 irepihivqa-ofjieda^ and that in the mouth of a person affecting the 
 old Attic dialect. But certainly the use of beukivos in this pas- 
 sage does not belong to the old Attic language, but was a com- 
 mon expression of the language of Lucian's own time, as is 
 evident from the example of the same word in Jupit. Trag. 15. 
 us 7T €p m arr\<jai\ki to beiktvbv ev Kepa/u,etK(3. It is certain however 
 that this sense of the word beCKr] was as early as Aristotle ; for 
 what is said of Zephyrus at Probl. 26, 35., irpbs ttjv btikrjv Tivel, 
 TTptoC 5" ov, can be understood in no other sense than that it is a 
 wind which rises toward sunset. Compare Lucian. Dem. Enc. 3 1 . 
 6paa€b)s k^avaaTavTas, eiro, TtT7}%avTa$ ovk els fJLCLKpav, biK-qv t&v 
 btikiv&v 7TV€VfidT0)v. Nor is it at all inconceivable that this 
 limitation of its meaning was insensibly carried on from before 
 sunset to the twilight which gradually dies away after sunset ; 
 which last meaning must have obtained as early as the time 
 of Theocritus, as in Idyll. 21, 39. one fisherman, relating a 
 dream at the request of another (Aeye (jlol 7rore MKTo$"0\lni'), 
 thus begins : 
 
 1 Hence we may judge how unsuitable the interpretations are which 
 Sturz haw placed at the head of those passages that appeal - to mean the 
 advanced part of the afternoon, viz. tempus vespertinum, and still worse 
 crepusculum. 
 
220 39- A " X ^ SeleXog, &c. 
 
 AciXivov cos Karedapdov iv dvaXioio~i hovoktiv, 
 
 (Ovk rju pav nokvaiTos' eVei Benrvevvres iv oapa, 
 
 Ei p-epvij, ras yacrrpos e(p€i86peB') eldov ip.avTbv, &C. 
 
 Compare Apollon. i, 1160. where the Argonauts early in the 
 morning have to contend with the winds, which virb beieXov 
 r]€pi6ovro, that is, evidently, the evening before. Hesychius 
 says, v. befeXos : ovtg) yap kcu f] ko"nipa i bsiXwrj kcll beCXr], &vo- 
 fxacrTai. 
 
 4. Among the old Attics however, and among the Ionians, 
 hdk-r] was always, as we have before said, the whole of the 
 afternoon ; and consequently, if it were required to mark dis- 
 tinctly the earlier or later part of it, it was necessary to add 
 Trptoia or d\\ria. We find proofs of this both in the grammarians 
 and in different writers. Phot. v. irpaita : AeCX-qv irpcoiav, to 
 irp&Tov tt)s beiXrjs fxepos. Mceris. AetAry? irpwta?, to \x€tcl €ktyjv 
 &pav btikiqs 6\jf (as, irpos kvntpav 2 . Thus we find beiXrj 6\j/Ca 
 used in Herodot. 7, 167. Thuc. 3, 74. Demosth. c. Eubulid. 
 p. 1301. penult., in which last passage later writers would have 
 
 2 Mceris adds: icar I8iav 8e 8eiXr)s ov Xeyovariv 'Attikoi' Xeyerai 8e 
 fiovou 8eiXr)s icaff" eavrb irapa rots "EXXtjo-lv. This assertion that the 
 Attics did not use the word deiXrjv by itself, but that only the "EXXrjves 
 or Koivoi did, is, as we have seen, properly speaking contrary to the 
 truth, and, indeed, it has no meaning ; for the whole afternoon must 
 have been so called. What, however, Mceris really intended to say 
 has been said more clearly by Thomas Mag., where, to his explanation, 
 quoted in the following section, he adds this, to 8e durl rod deiXrjs oyjrlas 
 deiXrjs povov Xeyew, anXas'EXXTjviKov. But this assertion of Thom. Mag. 
 is again questionable, in as much as Xenophon uses BeiXrjs of this later 
 time of the day : but, as I have remarked above, Xenophon speaks 
 thus only when the more precise point of time is evident from the 
 sense of the passage ; but Thom. Mag. and Mceris are speaking of the 
 usage of the later times, in which 8eiXr]<> by itself was used only of the 
 hours toward sunset. On the other hand, an assertion of Phrynichus, 
 App. Soph. v. aKpariaaaOai, p. 23., is in another respect less accurate. 
 AeiXrjv yap, says he, koXovctlv 01 ' AttikoI to rrepl tijv evdriju koi 8(KciTr]v 
 Spav ; by which, therefore, the earlier hours seem to have been ex- 
 cluded. But, without doubt, Phrynichus is here speaking in opposition 
 to the later usage of the word, i. e. the using 8elXr) by itself, almost 
 entirely for the evening. And in fact, according to our own customs, 
 the afternoon might be defined either, as in the gloss of Mceris, with 
 mathematical accuracy, the time after twelve o'clock, or, as in that of 
 Phrynichus, the time about three or four o'clock. 
 
39- Ae/Xiy, SeleXos, &c. 221 
 
 said merely 7iepi beikrjv ; for the voting is there related to have 
 begun belk-qs 6\/rta?, so that it became dusk before they had 
 finished. Aetk-q Trpiaia, also, in the sense given by the gram- 
 marians, is found in Herodot. 8, 6., where it is said that the 
 barbarians, iirel re brj is ras 'A^eras irepl beikrjv 7Tpa>ir]v yevojxlvqv 
 airiKCLTo, were unwilling to sail straight toward the Greeks to 
 attack them, lest they should fly, and the night coming on should 
 save them from being taken. 
 
 5. I have given the last passage at length, because it is 
 clear from thence, as it is indeed from all which has been 
 hitherto said, that beCkr] upcaia is a part of the afternoon. But 
 in the later times of the language there arose great confusion 
 in the meaning. The expression beikrj o^ia (as well as beikrf 
 alone, which now became common) continued to retain the 
 same meaning, particularly in those writers who affected the 
 Attic dialect; for example in Lucian, Cronosol., 14. JElian, 
 N. A. 1, 14. Alciphr. 3, 5. And in course of time we find 
 placed in opposition to this expression, under the name of beukr) 
 7rp(»ia, not the early part of the afternoon, but the morning. 
 In the lexicon of Timaeus, however, in the explanation, Adk-qs 
 TTpcaias^ rfj irpb apiuTov &pq. beCkys dxj/ias, rfj irpb beiitvov, there 
 must be some error 3 . One mistake may be easily conjectured 
 and amended from Hesychius, where we read the following 
 gloss, agreeing with the genuine usage of the word : Adkij 
 irptoia, f) fj,€T apio-rov &pa. But both explanations are found 
 together in Suidas : Aeikr) dx/n'a, rj 7rept bvcnv rjkiov. be(kr) 
 7rpGH'a, 77 irpb apivTov &pa' r\ juera to (kpio-rov. And all doubt, 
 if any remained, would be removed by the still plainer yet 
 more startling gloss of Thorn. Mag. Aetk-qs lorn?, kcu beCkys 
 fxto-rnxfipLas, koX btikrjs dxjfLas, 'AttlkoL Here the word 'Arrt- 
 koL as referring to all three expressions, is certainly wrong, 
 and, I apprehend, sufficiently refuted by what has been said 
 above; but these startling expressions do really occur in the 
 
 :3 This gloss does not refer to Plato, but, like many others of this 
 grammarian, to Herodotus, whose two passages, already quoted by us, 
 are mentioned by Ruhnken in his Notes, without however his remark- 
 ing that the one in which SelXrjv npatrju occurs is in truth, as we have 
 shown above, contrary to the explanation given by the grammarian, 
 and consequently was misunderstood by him. 
 
222 39- Ae ^ SeUXog, &c. 
 
 writers of the later times ; Synes. (ap. Steph. in v.) Xvo-avres 
 
 €K Bevbcbetov irpb §€1X779 ewas, /uoAts VTiep fxeaovcrav rj^ipav « 
 
 TrapYfX\a£aiA€V. Ach. Tat. 3, 2. ire pi yap }A€(rr}pL{3pLav beCXrjv 6 
 [xkv rjktos reAeW ap-na(erai (was completely obscured). And 
 to these may now be joined the expression ntpX betXrjv e<T7re- 
 pav, in Ach. Tat. 3, 5. Herodian 2, 6, 9, 3, 12, 16. In these 
 passages, then, we see each part of what is properly the day 
 called 8etA77, and the name which marks the particular part 
 meant, as midday and evening, not added adjectively, as in oxf/ia, 
 &c, but put in apposition ; at which usage, and at Thorn. Mag. 
 calling it, without further remark, Attic, I cannot but express 
 my surprise, as indeed I do also at this beiXr) kairepa being at- 
 tributed, in another gloss by Suidas, to the Attics ; AeiXrjs 
 7TpG)ias kcll beiXrjs kairipas. ovroi Xeyovmv "'Attlkoi. Meanwhile, 
 until I meet with a better explanation, I shall suppose all this 
 to have arisen from a blundering mania for speaking Attic. 
 As the use of the word 8etAri, in the sense of the early part of 
 the afternoon, had disappeared, but the expression beiXrj d^ria 
 still remained in use as an Atticism, there was formed in an 
 erroneous manner a new antithesis to it, that is to say, the time 
 immediately after sunset, as opposed to the time before sunset ; 
 and this misuse soon brought in others after it, which would 
 not repay the trouble of attempting to elucidate. But that 
 Suidas and Thomas Mag. ascribe to the Attics those expressions 
 which we do not find in any ancient writer, proves only that 
 they were not all in real use, but merely used in the language 
 of the later rhetoricians (a language made up of use and misuse), 
 to whom the writers above quoted so strictly and properly be- 
 long, and whose language, — not indeed in the opinion of Phry- 
 nichus and Moeris, but certainly in the estimation of Thomas 
 Mag. and other quite late grammarians, — might have very well 
 passed for pure Attic. 
 
 6. If now we go back again to the Epic use of the word, 
 we find in Homer, beside the before-mentioned betK-q, the ex- 
 pression beieXov ij/xa/), which in Od. /?, 606. is used, exactly 
 as the former was, of the afternoon ; for the same day conti- 
 nues through the following book, and not until verse 304., after 
 the account of the fight between Ulysses and Irus, and Pene- 
 lope descending and receiving the presents of the different 
 
39* A«Xi;, <We\o?, &c. 223 
 
 suitors, is it said \ikvov 6' hit ecrirepov tkOelv. Again, when 
 Hesiod (e, 808.) says of the elvas fxeVo-77, i. e. the nineteenth day 
 of the moon, that it is tmbeUka k&Cov r\p.ap, this is explained 
 by Moschopulus fi€Ta rrjv fxea^^piav 4 ; and beyond a doubt 
 correctly, for the comparative here evidently divides the day 
 into its two halves. But when at II. <£, 232. we read elaoKtv 
 Zkdr) AeteAo? 6\j/€ bixav, ataaar) 5' €p(j3(t)Xov apovpav, this is not 
 the Attic beukr] 6\j/La, with which it has been compared, but by 
 the force of bvav the actual sunset or evening. The 6\jre is 
 therefore, strictly speaking, redundant, and appears to me to 
 be used with reference only to the time past, something in this 
 way : " thou shouldst assist the Trojans until the sun sinks late 
 in the west." 
 
 7. From the epithet evbcUXos will arise an entirely new in- 
 vestigation, carrying us at once from the consideration of time 
 to that of place. This epithet occurs in Homer only in the 
 Odyssey, where it is one of the fixed epithets of Ithaca ; once, 
 however, it is used more generally, at v, 234., where Ulysses, 
 not recognizing his native island, inquires, 
 
 H 7rov tls PTjcroiv evfttUXos, r)e tls clktyj 
 KeTr' a\\ KeKkipevr) epi^oikaKos r)7reipoio ; 
 
 It is therefore an epithet of islands in general, or of some cer- 
 tain islands. Now, as the more exact sense of it is not to be 
 obtained either by any plain derivation or by a comparison of 
 the Homeric passages, some traditionary account of its mean- 
 ing would be acceptable ; but the explanations in the scholia 
 run so confusedly into each other, that no authority can be dis- 
 covered in them. Those who keep to beUXos can do so only 
 by understanding the word to mean the evening, or rather the 
 west, remarking at the same time that islands derive the ex- 
 cellence of their temperature from lying toward the west : 
 others have recourse to brjkos, and its resolution into 8eeA.o?, 
 and imagine that it is an epithet particularly suited to islands, 
 as having a natural boundary ; and lastly, others (see Eustath. 
 
 4 Tzetzes explains it even by rfj fxearjixftpia. Not that this deserves 
 any further consideration, than as showing how established the tradi- 
 tion was that the deUXos of the Epics meant some part of broad day, for 
 otherwise these late grammarians would never have thought of it. 
 
224 39- A«Xiy, &/e\off, &c. 
 
 ad i, 21. p. 333, 5. compared with schol. ad fi, 167. t, 21.) derive 
 it from €v and etXr;, with 0* inserted ; consequently, for evetXos, a 
 word used by Theophrastus (see Schneider ad Hist. Plant. 6, 8, 
 2.) in the sense oiapricus, 'sunny 5 , 5 
 
 8. If we consult post-Homeric usage, it is a circumstance in 
 our favour that we can call to our aid ancient poets who never 
 imitated a word without having a living knowledge of it, such as 
 Pindar and the poetical author of the Hymn to Apollo. The 
 former has the word twice, 01. 1, 178., as an epithet of the 
 Cronium Hill, and Pyth. 4, 136. of the plain of Iolchos, on which 
 passages the scholia give nothing new : in the Hymn to Apollo 
 it is said at v. 438. 
 
 *l£ov §' is Kpiorjv evbeUXov d/i7reAdecrcrai>. 
 
 Both plains, that of Orisa and that of Iolchos, are similarly 
 situated, inclining southerly toward a gulf. To these we may 
 add Aspledon, which, with its environs, according to an old 
 tradition recorded by Strabo, once bore the name of EvSei'eAos 
 (compare what has been said in art. 8. sect. 9.), and which had 
 before it a plain running, in an almost similar manner, toward 
 the lake Copai's. To such a situation, to most islands, and to a 
 hill, no idea can be so suitable as that of apricus, ' sunny ;" at 
 the same time it is an idea derived from that one of all the ex- 
 planations of the grammarians which has the least etymological 
 foundation ; whence however we may perhaps conclude, that it 
 was a meaning not of their own forming, but handed down to 
 them ; as it is now, I believe, the meaning generally adopted. 
 Nor would it be easy to imagine any other single meaning which 
 brings all the passages so well together. 
 
 9. But whence is evbtUXos to get this meaning? We 
 have nothing to do but to treat the above-mentioned deriva- 
 tion which the ancients have given of the word when taken 
 in this sense, as we would any other of their etymolo- 
 gies that proceed from a mistaken principle. In this com- 
 
 5 This is also the derivation of those who explain the word by cvKpa- 
 tos ; see Etym. M. in voce. Schneider, by mistake, in his Lexicon 
 makes them derive it from evdia. 
 
39* Ae/\>;, SeleXos, &c. 225 
 
 pound the b is not inserted, but the composition ev-btUXos shows 
 at once that 8eteA.o? meant the heat of the sun. And if we refer 
 back to the fact, now we hope sufficiently well ascertained, that 
 SeteAos and beikr) is the afternoon, it will lead us to the same 
 conclusion; for the afternoon is the time when the sun's heat, 
 beginning about midday, becomes most powerful. But btii\v), 
 bd\r\ bears the same reference to etAr; as Siwkco does to tw/cco, as 
 bar]\x(siv, baiixoav 6 (Archilochus) to alfxcav, as bd (or yd, yala) to 
 ala, and to these I subjoin, from long-settled conviction, as brj 
 to 77, the identity of which particles is further confirmed in the 
 forms iirecq, tlyj, onr) for kirtibr), tl brj, otl 877 7 . 
 
 10. To the different points of investigation in this article 
 belongs also the verse of Od. 77, 288. on account of a various 
 reading ; for deciding on which we must first examine the 
 common reading of the text. Ulysses is briefly informing the 
 queen Arete, how, after he had escaped from shipwreck, he had 
 
 6 Let me here guard myself against the imputation, that because I 
 have set down this form of words thus, I consider barjfxcov to be the ori- 
 ginal idea of daipcov, deity, spirit, however certain others may deem it. 
 
 7 What has hitherto kept in the background the really very obvious 
 remark, that 8*1X77 is the old form for eHXrj, is, perhaps, a dislike to the 
 derivation, generally considered certain, of the word ei'Xrj, or (what is 
 supposed, without any regular foundation for the supposition, to be. the 
 radical sound) eXr?, from rjXios. Affinities of this kind however have 
 but little certainty, and must give way to any other which may come 
 recommended by stronger historical traces. The word dXij was indeed 
 used of the light of the sun ; but its original and radical meaning was, 
 as its compounds and derivatives dXrjdeprjs, e'lXt]cris, eveiXos, &c. show, 
 the suns warmth. Hence it strikes me as a very natural derivation, to 
 deduce the word SeieXos from 8aia>, by which its meaning would be 
 something like burning, the sun's burning heat, an idea particularly ap- 
 posite in those countries where the afternoon heat burns up every ob- 
 ject. That there are again other forms of words with as strong a simi- 
 larity as these, which yet take a very different direction, must not too 
 easily lead us astray ; for such words as dficXor, 61X77, aXea, culor, k<u'o>, 
 daio), avco (to dry up), furnish etymologists with probabilities only, not 
 with certain conclusions, either positive by their similarities, or nega- 
 tive by their difference. The forms fiei'Xrj, dfUXos, taken by themselves, 
 appeared to offer an etymological connexion with the verb delv, to be in 
 want of; but this, too, we shall unhesitatingly dismiss, when we con- 
 sider that to decrease or be on the wane, (the only suitable meaning to 
 be deduced from this idea of the afternoon), is still a very different one 
 from that of to be in want 0/ or deficient in. 
 
 Q 
 
226 39- Ae/Aiy, SeteXos, &c. 
 
 slept in the wood, and on his awaking had met with Nausicaa. 
 He relates it thus : 
 
 v Ev0a pev iv (pvXkoi(Ti (piXov reTirjpevos rjrop 
 ~Ev8ov iravvvxt-os ko.1 in r]5) kcu picrov rfpap, 
 AixreTo r rjzXios Kat pe yXvKvs vnvos dvrJKev. 
 *Ap(pnr6\ovs §' eVi 6iv\ rerjs evorjaa 6vyaTpos y &C. 
 
 As these words run, and according to the analogy of Awero r 
 r\£kio<$ (tkl6o>vt6 T€ irao-cu ayviai, they can only mean that he 
 waked at sunset. Now we find it circumstantially detailed in 
 the preceding book (Od. £.), that the princess and her damsels 
 had already eaten and played, and were now on the point of 
 returning home with their garments washed (v. no.) when 
 Ulysses came forward. It was therefore, as we should say, 
 evening, that is, the sun was approaching its setting. But we 
 know at the same time how many things passed after this be- 
 tween Ulysses and Nausicaa, viz. his bathing, eating, &c, before 
 they set out for the town ; after which (as the poet relates it, 
 speaking in his own person), on their arrival in the grove before 
 the town, it is again said in the same words at v. 321. 
 
 AvaeTO t rjeXios kcu rot kKvtov aXcros Ikovto. 
 
 Nay, even this second point of time still falls so early in the 
 day that Minerva finds it necessary to make Ulysses, who is 
 going from thence into the town, invisible. Hence in both 
 passages we are told by the scholia that we are to take bva-ero 
 in the sense of an imperfect, 7rpos bvcrpLas cl7T€k\lv€v, els hvatv 
 £kX.lv€to : which however is quite contrary to the usage of the 
 Greek language, as ebvcreTo and ifirjcreTo are always aorists ; see 
 Buttmann's Ausfuhr. Sprachl.* sect. 96. obs. 10., and compare 
 amongst an infinity of other passages where bvo-ero occurs, II. ir, 
 729. Od. p, 336. This, however, does not prevent the aorist, 
 in so common a formula as hvuero rjikios for the evening, ex- 
 pressing a certain extension of time, and comprehending a short 
 
 * [The passage referred to is too long to give entire ; we extract the 
 following abridgment : 
 
 " Obs. 10. We have also the case where the aor. 2. takes the <r of 
 the aor. 1., of which the most complete instance is the common aorist 
 facaov, neaelv, eke. To this class belong all those forms which are 
 
39- AelXrj, SeleXo?, &C 227 
 
 period both before and after sunset ; whence therefore Ulysses, 
 as he passed from the grove to the king's palace, observing 
 everything, had need enough to be invisible. But if from the 
 evening, which had now (77, 188.) really set in, we reckon back 
 to the moment of Ulysses awaking (£, 110.), and consider how 
 many things had happened in that space of time, it is totally 
 impossible that the poet — who, when speaking in his own per- 
 son of the arrival of Ulysses before the town in the early part 
 of the evening while it was still light, had said Awero r rjtkcos 
 — should now make Ulysses on his arrival at the palace use in 
 his narration the same expression to mark a point of time which 
 had elapsed so long before. 
 
 1 1 . I well know what shifts criticism might call to our aid 
 in such a doubtful point ; but before we have recourse to any 
 of these, I wish to examine anew the well-known reading of 
 Aristarchus at 77, 288. 
 
 AelXero r rjeXios, mi /xe yK.VK.vs virvos dvr/Kev. 
 
 It is singular that this reading should have disappeared from 
 
 commonly considered as anomalous derivatives from the fut. 1., and 
 which we will collect here. 
 
 l£ov, Epic aorist from 1kw. 
 
 , a , . . , i Epic aorists from (3alva) and 8vva> 
 
 c/3no-6To, imperat. pSTiaeo, I / sv/ x , .,, 
 
 ,»; • r . *' < (or dvofiai) and svnonymous with 
 
 edvaaro, imperat. dvaeo, \ ), * » fl ' „« J 
 
 1 [ the act. aor. cfyv, e8w. 
 
 Xe^fo, opaeo, deiaeo, agere, olcre, Epic aor. imperatives. 
 
 olaepev, olcrefjLevai, Epic aor. infin. : see II. y, 120. Od. y, 429. 
 These imperatives are not examples of an imper. fut. but aorists ; nor 
 is Igov an imperfect, but an aorist formed from the future. The more 
 natural way will be to treat all the above forms as aorists coming at 
 once from the stem itself, and therefore with reference to the common 
 aorists anomalous, but independently of them having their own evident 
 analogy. That is to say, as we have before seen that the aorists in ov 
 and a, in ere and are, in 6\ii)v and dfirjv, differed originally from each 
 other only as being different dialects, so it is quite conceivable that the 
 same differences took place also in the formation of the aorist with the 
 <t. In a word, the old language formed the aorist partly with, partly 
 without, the o- ; and with regard to the termination, partly in ov, partly 
 in a, &c. ; ervrra, erviro-a, ervnov, ervnaov. Usage established itself 
 (except in verbs with X, /*, v, p,) in favour of the terminations <ra and 
 ov, but still retained some remains of the formations in a and <rov. And 
 if we meet with any tenses with the <x, which are neither futures nor 
 aorists, grammatical analysis may be permitted to derive them from 
 either the one or the other." (Buttm. Ausf. Sprach. I.e.) — En.] 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 39- AelXr], SeleXos, &c. 
 
 the editions, and, if we may judge from the five Vienna manu- 
 scripts, from the manuscripts also ; while it appears to have 
 been for a long time (as it is not at all surprising that a reading 
 of Aristarchus should have been) the prevailing reading ; for 
 Eustathius has it in the text, and sets out with it in his Com- 
 mentary; and, as I have shown above, when speaking of the 
 scholia, the scholium of Cod. E., as well as that found in the 
 common collection of old editions, refer only to this reading ; 
 in such a way, however, that in Schol. E., as is quite evident, 
 Aristarchus is defending his own reading against the others. 
 The rejection of this reading was undoubtedly owing to the 
 verb being entirely unknown except in this instance *. Now 
 such a reason can have weight only in the case of the reading 
 being considered as a correction made by Aristarchus. That 
 Aristarchus did occasionally correct the text from conjecture, 
 no one can doubt; but that he formed from conjecture a verb, 
 of which there are no traces elsewhere, and placed it at once in 
 the text of his Homer in so decisive a manner that it remained 
 an established reading in the copy which emanated from his 
 pen, seems to me much more like any other ancient critic than 
 like him. I think myself therefore justified in considering 
 deiAero to be an old reading handed down from an earlier 
 period, which Aristarchus merely defended against the others 
 at that time established. If I am not mistaken in this point, 
 we cannot but conclude that it is the true reading now ; for it 
 follows almost necessarily that the other must have existed 
 in addition to this, and must have originated in this. Again, 
 Eustathius is quite justified in recommending this reading from 
 its resemblance to the Homeric division of the day, as above 
 mentioned, "Eo-o-ercu 7) 7)0)9 77 SeiA.77 77 \xicrov r^xap : and to this I 
 have only to add, that the verb belkero, which there are strong 
 reasons for considering a mere derivative of 6eieAoj, 8eiAr?, and 
 which yet comes forward in the form of a primitive, may be 
 defended by flep/xere, 0epjuero, by oirXeadaL from oirkov, and by 
 the contents of note 5. art. 106. 
 
 * [" Atqui posterior ista vox (fct'Xcro) Homero prorsus inusitata." 
 
 Clark.— Ed.] 
 
39. Ae/\>?> SeleXos, &c. 229 
 
 12. Lastly, there comes from 8eieA.oj another acknowledged 
 aira£ dpj)\kkvoy ', the verb 8et€Atr)o-at occurring at Od. p, 599. 
 Eumaeus takes his leave of Telemachus to return into the coun- 
 try, and concludes with a wish, to which the latter answers 
 
 ^Ecrorrrai ovtcos, arra. crv 5' *PX € ° SeteXt^cray. 
 'HSidev 5' livai Kai ayeiv Uprfia KaKd. 
 
 Some of the commentators understand the word of an inter- 
 mediate meal between the morning and evening one ; others 
 merely of passing the afternoon in any place ; and the latter 
 appear to have been the majority. These understand, for in- 
 stance, that Telemachus commands the old man, by the words 
 €px*o SeteAtrjcra?, not to go until later in the day, explaining it 
 thus : " Go, but not until you have spent the afternoon here ;" 
 an antithesis which the poet certainly would not have laid on 
 a mere participle. And it is contradicted by what immediately 
 follows. For as soon as Telemachus had finished speaking, 
 Eumseus eats and drinks and then departs during the afternoon ; 
 v. 606. 17877 yap koX kwqkvO^ heUXov rifiap : on which verse see 
 above sect. 6. Nothing can speak more decisively than this 
 in favour of the other meaning, which was rejected by the 
 grammarians merely, say they, because Homer knew only three 
 meals, and this would therefore be a fourth ; see Athen. 5, 
 p. 193. b. They might have gone further, and have said only 
 two meals ; for to this number has the intelligent reader of 
 Homer long ago reduced the three names, apia-rov, belirvov, 
 hop-nov, on account of the inaccurate manner in which they 
 were used ; for apivrov is always the early meal or breakfast, 
 but the two other names are used of both meals and never of 
 a third. Any deviation from this rule depended on time and 
 circumstances. And thus then it might very well happen that 
 in the long space which intervened between the morning and 
 evening meal a person might take something. And such is the 
 meaning of the fragment of Callimachus quoted by Eustathius 
 and the scholiast, and which in a note on the latter I have thus 
 restored : 
 
 AeicXirjv alrovariv, liyovcn de \ €l P a ^ un k'pyov, 
 
 of workmen, who impudently require an intermediate meal 
 which was not customary. And in the instance in Homer it 
 
230 
 
 40. /XiaKTOpog. 
 
 was very natural that Telemachus should invite Eumaeus, who 
 was going home before the usual and proper -time of the 
 evening meal, to take an afternoon's luncheon. The verse of 
 Callimachus, as confirmatory of this explanation, proves also 
 thus much, that the words SeteAt^ and 5eieAt^o-at are evidently 
 connected together ; and consequently the former, even if it was 
 made by Callimachus for his own use, shows that in his time 
 the Homeric verb was understood in that sense ; which, when 
 corroborated by so much internal evidence, is quite sufficient. 
 
 Aevre ; vid. evT€. 
 
 4O. AtOLKTOpO?. 
 
 i . This epithet of Mercury is explained by the grammarians 
 in different ways, as may be seen in Eustath. ad II. /3, 103. 
 and Od. a, 84., Etym. M. in v., Hesych. in v., Zonaras in v. 1 
 We will, however, notice here the only derivation which is 
 founded on correct principles, viz. that from Siayco : whence 
 is formed the verbal adjective bi&KTcop, and from its genitive 
 again a new nominative hi&Kropos. This last only requires to 
 be understood more philosophically, and no fault can be found 
 
 1 By comparing Zonaras with a quite unintelligible derivation in the 
 Etym. M. rrapa to tceap t£>v TereXevrrjKOTcov tcopifciv, we are enabled to 
 correct this latter. Instead of to iceap it should be to to. KTe'pea, by 
 which we see quite enough to induce us not to trouble ourselves with 
 so miserable an etymology. But there is one a trifle better, which I 
 will bring to light, as no one else has. Eust. ad Od. it, 471. (p. 615. 
 Bas.) mentions that some explained the ippala or heaps of stones thus, 
 that Mercury first, ola Krjpvg koi BiaKTopos tcadrjpas ray odovs, had thrown 
 the stones aside out of the way, and that people now did so, to\ 68ovs 
 t<5 'Eppfj as diaKTopco iiacadaLpovTes. It is evidently intended here to 
 connect the name diaKTopos with the verb KaOaipeiv, a connexion which 
 Eustathius has obscured by the imperfect manner in which he has given 
 it. He ought to have said, that as some deduced the word from didropos 
 with the k redundant, so others explained it with the t redundant by 
 Su'iKopos from Kopelv, to sweep, whence also has been derived (axopos. 
 See below, note 4. 
 
40. AiaKTopog. 231 
 
 with the manner of its formation. For as o? is a nominative 
 termination as well as s alone, or any other final letter of the 
 root, a word may be formed with the one as well as the other 
 termination, and inflected accordingly ; for example, [idprvp or 
 fiaprvs and ndprupos, (f>vXa$ and cfrvkaKos. When the analogies of 
 the formation of words were still less fixed, a verbal adjective in 
 ra)/> might end just as well in ropos also. The former was the 
 regular analogy, but bt&KTopos kept its ground in the old metrical 
 passages which have come down to us. 
 
 2. But the verb itself was understood by those grammarians 
 as referring to two different things, some of them supposing 
 Mercury to be so called curb tov bidyeiv tols ayyekias, others cbrd 
 tov hidyeiv ras \}/vxd$. It is inconceivable why Hemsterhuys on 
 Lucian. Contempl. I . gave the preference to the former, as bid- 
 yeiv in such a sense is neither usual nor suitable, nor sufficiently 
 characteristic of Mercury; but in the general sense of trans- 
 portare, or the more particular one of transvehere, and with 
 reference to persons, it is a very proper and fitting expression. 
 (See Stephan. Thesaur., Sturz. Lex. Xenoph., and Hemsterhuys 
 himself on other passages.) This explanation of the name was 
 so familiar even with the ancients, at least in the later times 
 of Greece, that Charon calls himself in Lucian, with evident 
 reference to that name, the gvvbiaKTopos of Mercury. And 
 since the office of Mercury as a ^xotto^ttos was one so nearly 
 connected with mankind, an epithet taken from thence was a 
 very natural one ; and we may therefore rest well satisfied with 
 this explanation. 
 
 3. Still, however, I cannot suppress my own opinion, which 
 is this. As it appears most natural that so constant an epithet 
 should bear a reference to the principal office of the god, and 
 designate him as the herald of the deities, I consider bidnropos 
 to be of the same family with biaKovos, which latter word is 
 found in the grammarians among the explanations of the former, 
 but without any further etymological discussion. The common 
 derivation of the latter word, from bid and kovis, is not indeed 
 favourable to the affinity of these two names : but this deri- 
 vation is certainly false, however strongly it may seem to be 
 supported by a comparison with the verb lyKovzlv, to hasten. 
 
Z32 
 
 40. /ItaKTopog. 
 
 For if bi&KOvos and btaKoveiv were derived from bud, it would 
 be impossible that trie a could be so decidedly long, that the 
 Ionians should say btrjKovos, ba^Kovhtv 2 , What then is btaKovosl 
 Like bi&KTopos, from btaKTap, it is a variety of biaKuv, which was 
 also in use in the common language of Greece (see Schow, 
 Charta papyracea, where it occurs more than once, p. 18. 22.), 
 and of which we may see a parallel case in kow&v, used by good 
 writers for koimvos. But such substantives and names in a>v 
 very frequently come from participles, as, for example, ehcav 
 from a/ceo, a7]b<s>v from aeCbca, aW<ov from ai0&>, &c. Al&kovos was 
 originally therefore, in my opinion, a participle of the same verb 
 of which btciKTOip is the verbal substantive ; consequently btaKTvp 
 does not come from bidyco, but from bi&Kd) or btrjKoo. But this 
 latter, with the same change of vowel as we have in 0<Skos and 
 demos, in rpcoyco and rp-qyoi (trpayov), in pr\y(ti, pr\yvv[ki and ip- 
 pcaya, pwyaAeo?, &c, is identical with bi<oK<a in its intransitive 
 sense of to run, a sense which has always been more rare than 
 its transitive one; see Schneider's Lexicon* in v., Sturz. Lex. 
 Xenoph. in v. num. 6. 7., Abresch. ad iEschyl. 1, 13. p. 80. 
 That is to say, there is originally in 5io) and bLcoKca, as in so 
 many verbs of all languages, an intransitive as well as a transi- 
 tive meaning, or, to speak more accurately, an immediate and 
 
 2 I do not suppose that any one will adopt the opinion, in itself so 
 improbable, that the length of this syllable was caused by its being 
 otherwise inadmissible in the hexameter. The hexameter would have 
 lengthened the first syllable, as in dOdvaros, and in did itself. (Am fxep 
 dcmidos, &c.) ; but prose would never have troubled itself to produce 
 such a change. The form 8it)kovos in Ionic prose ought to have been 
 sufficient of itself to put a stop to that derivation. 
 
 * [From Schneider's Greek and German Lexicon under &a>/c<a I ex- 
 tract the following ; " Without any case, as a neuter, it means to run 
 swiftly, airovdalcos 6e<o, according to Eustathius ; for example, dpopco 
 diwueiv, as opposed to eneaBai fiddrjv, Xen. Anab. 6, 5, 25. (Sturz. 15.) 
 ' Ava7rr)8r)(ravT€s ih'mnov, they leaped on their horses and rode hastily away, 
 Anab. 7, 2, 20. (Sturz. 11.)" But Passow in his improved edition of 
 Schneider, after having quoted many instances of its transitive meaning, 
 adds, " It appears to be used intransitively of a charioteer for to drive 
 along, II. \//>, 344. 424. ; in Xen. of a horseman, to gallop off ; and of a 
 footman, to run ; but in all these instances we must understand Ittitovs, 
 dpfia, 7r6das, as we find the expressions thus completed in other 
 writers," — Ed.] 
 
40. A*a/cTOjOo?. 233 
 
 a causative meaning, but so that the former, as the more simple, 
 is the radical one ; which will be in this case to run. But in 
 time other words and forms were made to express this meaning, 
 and thus the causative sense, to make to run, drive, became the 
 prevailing one 3 . . Alclkovos, therefore, derived from this hia>K.eiv, 
 to run, with the change of vowel above mentioned, properly 
 means the runner ; whence a messenger, a servant, always re- 
 taining the free and honourable idea implied in the original 
 word ; which idea became still more honourable in the other 
 antiquated form dia/cropos, and so was an epithet well suited to 
 the messenger or herald of the gods 4 . 
 
 3 Exactly in the same way the German verb jagen unites both mean- 
 ings, the intransitive to run, gallop, the transitive to cause to run, drive* ; 
 while the frequentative verb jackern has the intransitive meaning only. 
 Nay more, these German forms [the German pronunciation is iagen, as 
 a dissyllable, or yagen] are precisely the same as those Greek ones, which 
 the Homeric Ighcij, la>xf*6s seem to me to put beyond a doubt. The 
 form dice took the additional idea of fear, which then became the pre- 
 vailing one in the forms hiopai, dedoiKa, 8e8iTTopai, properly to run from, 
 causatively to frighten away. 
 
 4 The same honourable meaning which did<ovos has in Greek, existed 
 in old German in the word Degen, which (as every one acquainted with 
 that language knows) has no connexion with the modern German 
 word Degen, ' a sword,' Ital. dag a, Fr. dague," Engl, dagger. Degen, 
 old Frankish thegan, meant in very old German, ' a servant in general,' 
 expressed in modern German by Diener, whence the modern German 
 verb dienen, ' to serve/ as buiKovelv from didKovos. The etymologist, 
 who has not hitherto observed these affinities, must see in them a 
 strong argument in favour of what I have said on Biclkovos in a former 
 note : since, if this word were really compounded of did, the striking 
 similarity between the Greek diaKovos, diaKovdv, and the German Degen, 
 dienen, must he merely a delusion of chance. So far however is clear, 
 that both the German and Greek word come from the same root, in 
 Greek foo^o, in German now only jagen ; which, however, most pro- 
 bably, like the Greek taico, is a sister-form coming from an old root 
 originally beginning when complete with a d. 
 
 I will here add a further conjecture, that the word (duopos also is the 
 same as biaKovos and didicTopos : nor is it any objection to this supposi- 
 tion to say, that the a in (dicopos should be short ; (the decision in the 
 Etym. M. is wrong;) for the vowel of such radical syllables may be in 
 different forms of words both long and short. If it be said that v«0Kopos, 
 a word of similar meaning, conies from Kopdv, to brush, it will require a 
 great degree of force to twist (duopos to anything like this idea, and 
 there is no trace of the existence of such a verb as SictKopelv. If on the 
 
 * [And so in colloquial English, " to run a coach." — Ed.] 
 
40. AiaicTopog. 
 
 4. There are still two observations with reference to the ac- 
 counts which the lexicons give us of this bc&KTopos, which I do 
 not think it superfluous to mention ; first, that in the pure old 
 poetry the name is never given but to Mercury, and, further 
 than that, is not used appellatively ; secondly, that the form 
 Slclktvp, although according to analogy it must be considered 
 as the groundwork of the other, was not in actual use. What- 
 ever is at variance with these two observations belongs solely 
 and entirely to the later and more artificial poetry ; yet even 
 when found in that it deserves and requires some investigation. 
 The gloss in Hesychius Alclktopctl, f/yefwo-i, fiao-iXevviv, appears 
 to me indeed to be taken from some poet, who, taking the 
 common derivation of the word from diayw, used it as an 
 appellation of certain royal leaders or chiefs. Much more 
 striking is the occurrence of the word in the following epigram 
 of Bianor from the Cephalanian Anthologia, jo, ioi. (Jacob's 
 Anth. vol. %. p. 310.) on a cow ploughing and followed by her 
 calf: — 
 
 'Hj/i'Se Kai yepaov to ye&Topov ottKov ipecrcrei, 
 
 K.a\ top vnovdaTLav^ poo~)(ov ayei ddfiaXis, 
 Bovtciv pev Tpofxeovaa diaKTopa, t6v 8e pevovaa 
 
 Nrjmov, dfx(f)OTepa>v €vo~TOxa (f)eiBofj,€va. 
 "\o~xe , apoTpoftiavXe ired&pvxe, prjde biJo^rjs 
 
 Tdv biiikols epyois Si7rAa fiapvvopevav. 
 
 That so polished a poet as Bianor should have thus thrown 
 away on an animal an epithet exclusively applied to a god, is 
 
 other hand, with reference to all that has been said above, we consider 
 the analogy of Zev?, Atos, Jovis ; Diabolenus, Jabolenus, Zabolenus 
 (Salm. ad Jul. Capit. in Anton. Pio c. 12.); Jadera, Diadora, Zara 
 (Mannert, part 7. page 329.) ; 8/atra, Lat. zeta, and such like (which 
 may be found in Salm. 1. c, et ad Trebell. Poll, in Claudio c. 17., et ad 
 Lamprid. in Heliogabalo, c. 30., Gesn. Thes. in Di and in Diseta) ; — if 
 we consider these and other similar analogies, it is difficult to look upon 
 £aKopos in any other light than as another form of did<ovos ; in the same 
 way as even now in the languages of the north of Europe the sacristan 
 or sexton is called Degn, and in French the same change in the termi- 
 nation has made diacre from diaconus. — That some derived SiaKTopos 
 also from the imaginary verb dicacopelv, we have seen above in note 1. 
 
 5 The editors ought never to have changed this perfectly analogical 
 form (compare /xovias, (ppovrjpaTias, KepaTias), which the manuscript 
 gives, into vnovdaTiov. 
 
40. AioLKTopog. 235 
 
 perfectly inconceivable. But the solution of the difficulty is 
 not far off. From the verb, which is here the usual one, and 
 actually occurs in the fifth verse, Bianor made a perfectly 
 analogical substantive and wrote b ia> KTop a. The lexicons 
 have already btomrrjs. It is very different when Callimachus in 
 the Fragment (164.) quoted in the Etym. M. uses dtd/cropos of 
 the owl; 
 
 'AAXa derjs, fjris pe biaKTopov eXXa^e IiaXXas'. 
 
 This transferring of the epithet of Mercury to the sacred owl ■ 
 of Minerva is not unworthy of the poet, and proves that Calli- 
 machus understood the word in its essential points as we do. 
 On the other hand, there is a very unusual meaning of it in an 
 oracle in Lucian Pseudomant. 33., where Pythagoras and Homer 
 are recommended to a father as tutors for his son, in the follow- 
 ing verse : 
 
 Hvdayoprjv, iroXepcov re bi&KTopov ivQXbv aoibov. 
 
 These words are an oracle made by the impostor Alexander, 
 and belong therefore to the very late times of Greece. Un- 
 doubtedly the versifier understood the word, according to a 
 very common explanation of it, as standing for faaropos, that 
 is, rpavos, o-cKpijs. It belongs therefore here, with kadkov, to 
 aoihov, and 7rokip.(i)v is merely the genitive depending on the 
 last word 6 . 
 
 6 The word btaKropla stands in the older lexicons of Rob. Constan- 
 tinus and Stephanus in the sense of service, the office of a messenger, 
 but without any example ; then follows a passage of Theophrastus where 
 it has no meaning, and where some read diaropla, shrillness of sound. 
 Schneider adopts this emendation, but cites as an example of diaKTopia 
 a very late poet, Julianus iEgyptius (Epigr. 11.), who probably made 
 this word himself to describe in his joking style the office of the pen- 
 knife ; and no doubt the article in Rob. Const, had this passage only in 
 view, as both there and in Julian it is the Ionicism BiaKTopir). [Passow 
 in his last improved edition of Schneider cites both Julian and Mus. 6. 
 as an example of SiaKropia.] AtaKTopvs, dprjviKcos, in Hesychius has 
 been very judiciously amended by Hemsterhuvs to diaKTopv, elpT]vu«p. 
 It will then refer to II. /3, 103. 
 
236 
 
 Aodaaaro ; vid. dearat. 
 
 41. 'Raws, edavos. 
 
 1 . The forms kayos, kavov, kavy, kavov, davov occur frequently 
 in the Iliad, in the Odyssey never : in every case they are 
 used where something is to be put on, in most cases of some 
 kind of robe or garment. It was not, therefore, to be expected 
 that the grammarians would think there was any reason for 
 supposing those forms to be more than one and the same word, 
 merely because they were used sometimes as substantive and 
 sometimes as adjective, and the quantity of the a always varied 
 according to that change of usage. Besides, all appeared to 
 proceed easily and smoothly from the root eco, eWv/xt. 'Eavos 
 was something to be thrown round the person or put on, con- 
 sequently a good epithet for a robe or garment, and with the 
 exception of ireirXos would even mean the garment itself. 
 
 2. I would by no means attempt to affix any one particular 
 meaning to this or that formation or termination so firmly, as, 
 on this ground alone, to reject or pronounce impossible any 
 certain usage of the older language; but in the case before 
 us there is one observation which I think deserves a more at- 
 tentive consideration than it has generally met with; namely, 
 that in classifying the different passages of Homer according 
 to the use of the word as substantive or adjective, we have 
 at once an exact separation of the quantities. Five times 
 it is used as an adjective, and the a in each case is long ; 
 five times it is a substantive, and as often the a is short; an 
 induction which nothing but the extreme of thoughtlessness 
 can attribute to chance. For to say of kavS> Xltl, II. a-, 352. 
 and \jt, 254., that the former word is a substantive and the 
 latter an adjective by metaplasmus for Air<j>, could only be the 
 result of an imperfect and half-considering criticism, which had 
 either neglected to compare the passages of II. 0, 442., where 
 \tra stands alone, and Od. a, 130., where it even has epithets 
 
41. f Eai/o?, e$ai>6$. 237 
 
 joined with it, or which explained this Atra in some other way 1 . 
 This circumstance of the difference of quantity in the substan- 
 tive and adjective, receives additional weight from the usage of 
 some good poets of a later period who use the substantive always 
 short; thus it is in the Hymn. Cer. 176., in Antimachus, from 
 whom Hesychius quotes kavqqbopos, and in three passages of 
 Apollon. Rhod. 4, 169. 1155. 1189. Of the adjective I cannot 
 find any decisive passages ; see one of Sappho in this article, 
 sect. 5 2 . 
 
 3. We will now collect together the passages of Homer 
 where kavos means simply a robe or garment; for instance, II. 
 <f>, 507. it is said of the robe of Diana, 'A/x<£t 5' ap ap.fip6crios 
 kavos Tpqji€. At £, 178. of Juno, 'Ajut^t 6' ap 1 apifipocnov kavbv 
 €<rad\ ov ol ^AOrjvq "E£va acrKrjaao-a. At y, 385. Venus goes to 
 Helen, Xeipl be veKrapeov kavov eriva^e Xafiovaa. And at 419. 
 Helen, Bt) oe Karaayop^evr] kav& apyrjn (fraeivco. Lastly, at it, 9. 
 the child holding by its mother's garment is Elavov aTtTop.evr\. 
 These passages give with certainty a substantive, 6 kavos, which 
 is synonymous with Treirkos, only that veirXos has a more general 
 meaning, including that of a carpet, &c, whilst kavos by its de- 
 rivation from evvvp.i was naturally restricted to the proper 
 meaning of a garment. The unanimous explanation of the 
 
 1 No one will any longer mistake kavos to be a various reading of 
 ibavos, the epithet of oil (see Heyne on II. £, 172. and sect. 7. of this 
 article), at least in the way that Heyne recommends it for that pur- 
 pose. 
 
 2 Hesychius indeed, who has for the substantive a dialectic form 
 lavov (see note 3. of this article,) has also 'lavoKpoKa, Xenra, which can 
 only be compounded of the adjective, and, consequently, if the word be 
 from an hexameter line, would prove the usage of the short vowel in 
 the adjective. But one can easily perceive of how little weight such 
 an uncertainty is, when placed in the balance against the regularity of 
 Homer's quantity as mentioned above ; for the word may be taken from 
 a lyric measure, it may be from a still later poet than those above men- 
 tioned ; and even the meaning given is no proof; for Hesychius at the 
 same time derives lauoKp^depvos from lav, a violet. At least it is evident 
 that Schneider's conjecture in his Lexicon (v. iavos,) that hwoKplfietxvos, 
 as well as lavonpoKos, can be explained bv Xenros, may with equal reason 
 be exactly reversed ; and lav6<poKos y as well as lavoKpifapvos, be derived 
 from 'iov, a violet ; from which the latter is indeed derived by both He- 
 svchius and Suidas. 
 
238 4 1 * f Eayo9, eSavog. 
 
 grammarians, that it means a female robe or garment, as it 
 really does in all the five passages of Homer, lies not in the 
 word, but in the thing, because none but females among the 
 Greeks wore garments (ireirkovs) so large as to wrap round the 
 whole body. See Pollux 7. c. 13. 
 
 4. Now the adjective kdvos is really the epithet of a gar- 
 ment; as at e, 734. 0, 385. of the garment or robe of Minerva; 
 beside this, it is also the epithet of a cloth or linen with 
 which a corpse is covered (o-, 352.), or which is thrown over 
 the urn containing the ashes of the dead ; and, lastly, it is the 
 epithet of the tin with which the greaves were made (a-, 613.), 
 Tev£e bi oi Kvrjfubas kavov Ka<T<riT€poLO. If we examine these 
 passages more accurately, the derivation of the adjective from 
 evvvfM will appear far less probable than it might at first have 
 done. There is indeed in them all something which covers 
 or wraps up, for even the tin is intended to inclose the legs ; 
 and we may conceive it possible that as TreirXos, like the 
 English word garment, is a word of general meaning, a Greek 
 might originally have said ttzitXos kavos, a garment worn round 
 the body, i. e. a robe. But is this conceivable in a poetical 
 language like that of Homer ? Is it conceivable, that when it 
 is said of Minerva, Wk-n\ov pkv Kariyevev kavbv irarpbs iii 
 ovbtt, this kavos means nothing more than 'worn round her, 
 worn as a part of her dress V That a proper and suitable 
 epithet is here requisite, was felt by almost all the comment- 
 ators. Hence the explanations Xeirros, juaA.a/cos, evbiaxyros, Aei/- 
 kos, kafjiirpos, ev(6br)$, ttoikiXos, &c (Hesych. in four contiguous 
 articles, Schol. II. cr, 352. 612. and others,) by which one sees 
 that they are partly conjectural, partly adapted to the different 
 passages. 
 
 5. If now, without paying any regard to etymology, we 
 seek for an epithet explanatory of this adjective which may 
 suit the garment and the linen covering, as well as the tin, 
 the idea of shining, white, would of itself be a very appro- 
 priate one; but the passage <j, 352. speaks decidedly against 
 this. For after it has been there said that the companions of 
 Patroclus had covered his corpse kava KltC, it is immediately 
 added KaOvircpOe be <j>apc'i Aev/cc5. One sees, therefore, that 
 in speaking of the linen, although it may have been white too, 
 
41. r E(W?, eSavog. 239 
 
 yet there was no intention to refer to its colour and shining ; 
 the epithet, therefore, could not have been taken from thence. 
 There remain therefore only these two ideas, which play so 
 easily into each other ; I st, fine, thin ; 2d, flexible, soft ; and 
 between these two I should decide in favour of the second, be- 
 cause fine?iess or thinness is not at all a property of tin as a 
 metal, nor is it appropriate to the tin plates of which the greaves 
 were made, any more than to the other metal which composed 
 the rest of the armour ; nay, it is less suitable to the soft tin, 
 in as much as this, if particularly thin, would be no protection. 
 The garment of Minerva, therefore, was soft and yielding; so 
 was the linen used for the inner covering of any object ; and 
 flexible, soft is the proper epithet of tin. A verbal confirma- 
 tion of this meaning, drawn from that poetry which is the next 
 in date after the Epic, is furnished us by a fragment of Sappho 
 (see Schneider's Lexicon *, v. kavos), where a beautiful woman 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon we find kavos thus treated : 
 'Eavos, 6, or kavbv, to, II. y, 385. and 419. a garment, or rather a veil, 
 cava dpyrjTt cpaeuva. At II. er, 352. kav<o Air! KaXvyjrav, it is doubtful 
 
 whether it be a substantive or adjective, but at e, 615. it is an adjec- 
 tive, meaning white or thin tin; and thus also should the adjective be 
 explained in the remaining passages. Mention has also been made 
 of elavos and lavos. Hesychius has elavov, evdinxvrov, which refers to 
 Homer's kavov Kao-cnTepoio ; again, iwpov, Iparlov yvvaiKeiov ; and, fur- 
 ther, lavov, Ifxdriov. Another very different meaning and derivation is 
 given by both Hesych. and Suid. in the following; lavoKpoKos, 6, r\, 
 (tcpoKT]) \e7TTos, of fine thread, finely woven. In the same way may be 
 explained lavoKp^depvos, which both Hesych. and Suid. derive from lov. 
 Gregorius on Hermogenes, p. 914. quotes from Sappho Ipariov kavov 
 paXaKcorepa. Antimachus has said rjws kavrjcpopos, and therefore used 
 kavos as a substantive, like Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1155. kavovs ev<*>8eas, and 
 
 1189. no\vKp.t)Tovs. In Hom. Hymn. Ven. 6$. apfipoo-'up kava> (eXai'<u) 
 some read kdava. 
 
 Passow in his improved edition of Schneider arranges and alters it 
 thus: 
 
 'Eavos, rj, 6v, an old adjective, strictly speaking known from the Iliad 
 only, and used solely of things which are worn or put on, and which re- 
 commend themselves for wearing by their beauty or lightness and con- 
 venience ; hence the derivation from ewvpt is probably the true one : 
 7rkrr\os kavos a clear or light veil, worthy of being worn, II. e, 734. 6, 385. 
 'Eava Xiri, with fine and white linen, beautifully made for wearing, II. 
 cr, 352. yjr, 254. 'Eavos Kaaatrepos, tin beat out into thin plates for 
 greaves, therefore made Jit for wearing, II. a, 613. Thence came the 
 
240 4 i. 'E 
 
 avog, edavog. 
 
 is said to be Ifxariov kavov jxakaK^ripa. The quantity in this, 
 as being a fragment, is not clear. In order to make it agree 
 with the Homeric quantity, we have only to complete the verse 
 in some such way as this, 
 
 I ifiariov | — u ia\vov fxaKaKcolrepa. 
 
 6. These results are sufficient for the great object of ex- 
 plaining Homeric words, viz. that we may understand their 
 meaning : and should any one be determined to retain the 
 common derivation of both words from ea>, ivvvyn, there can be 
 no decisive objection to it, as the idea of flexibly soft maybe 
 easily connected with that of covering or wrapping up. But 
 then again there is nothing in favour of that derivation but old 
 prepossessions. We should say that it were much better to 
 derive kavos, a garment, at once from e<o, exactly according to 
 the same analogy (the accent excepted, which no one will con- 
 sider as of any authority in a word purely Epic) as aTtcfravos, 
 a wreath, from ari^oa : by which we do away with the supposed 
 ellipsis of iriuXos, as nothing similar occurs in the use of crre^a- 
 vos. And since kavos as an adjective is so regularly and de- 
 cidedly distinguished from the substantive by its quantity, there 
 is nothing to hinder us from supposing it to be a separate word, 
 the proper derivation of which, like that of so many other ad- 
 jectives, is no longer to be found 3 . 
 
 substantive-meaning of the neuter to kavov (supply etpa or Ipdriov), a 
 beautiful robe, worthy of being worn by goddesses or superior women, 
 H. y, 385. 419. |, 178. 4>, 507. Also elavov is used in n, 9. The quan- 
 tity of Alpha is both long and short. Clarke on II. y, 385. and Herm. 
 Orph. Arg. 880. suppose it to be long in the adjective and short in the 
 substantive, a rule which only holds good in the Iliad. Later poets use 
 it as it suits the verse. — Ed.] 
 
 3 The length of the a decides me in considering this letter as a part 
 of the root. In the same way as rpavos, davos are acknowledged verbal 
 adjectives from TPAI2 (riTpdat), AAfl (baico), so idvos would lead us to 
 a root EAO ; and I cannot help thinking that in the meaning of the 
 common verb ida, if it be taken physically, as every root originally 
 must be, there lies something which answers very well to the idea of 
 yielding, flexible. On the aspirate it is hardly worth losing our time to 
 say a word ; for if we take it for granted that a garment was called from 
 evvvpi — idvos, it was almost a necessary consequence that idvos, which 
 was an epithet of garments, &c, should, at a time when both words 
 were no longer in common use, assimilate itself to the former by taking 
 
41. 'Eaj/09, eSavos. 241 
 
 7. With the examination of kavos we join that of Idaho's, on 
 account of its similarity, and because kavos is in fact a various 
 reading for kbavos in the only passage where the latter occurs, 
 II. £,172. where Juno anoints herself 
 
 XiV' eXa/o>, 
 
 'A/A/S/jocrt'o), i8ava>, to pa 01 redvoopevov rjeu. 
 
 In the manuscripts indeed, as far as I know, and in the gram- 
 marians, no various reading is given • but a few quotations 
 of this verse by other authors (see Heyne) give kav<2, and in 
 Hymn. Ven. 63., where it is interpolated, all the editions, except 
 the most modern, have kavco. I have no hesitation, however, 
 in receiving kbavu as the true and established reading, not be- 
 cause the quantity of the other is contrary to the universal usage 
 of Homer as mentioned above, but because there is nothing to 
 induce the critic to prefer the reading of the Homeric verse 
 approved of by all the grammarians, to a various reading intro- 
 duced in a manner so very conceivable. This ISaz/w the gram- 
 marians explain by ^5et; and in doing so they make an obser- 
 vation, surprising at first sight (see Schol. and Etym. Gud.), 
 that adjectives in -avos, formed from verbs, shorten the radical 
 vowel of the verb, as from ua> comes lkclvos, from 7T€l0g) mOavos, 
 and therefore from rjb(o kbavos. One thing these grammarians 
 did not observe, although they quote an instance of it in rpojyo) 
 rpayavos, that this shortening of the vowel takes place by revert- 
 ing to the vowel of the root ; but this vowel in the case before 
 us is a, as the Doricism of rjbo), rjbvs, and the verb avbavto, abtlv 
 prove ; by which, therefore, the evidence of this derivation falls 
 to the ground. One might, perhaps, feel inclined to consider 
 -bavos as a mere termination, as in -nevKtbavos, ptyebavos: but to 
 a person who examines etymology in a serious historical man- 
 ner, without indulging himself in fancifully playing with ideas 
 and meanings, the root e offers nothing either from tr\p.i or 
 
 the aspirate also. If now we pay no attention to what the gramma- 
 rians say of accent and aspirate, it is very probable that the substantive, 
 according to the analogy of o~T€<pavos, was written eavos, but the adjec- 
 tive, according to the analogy of deivos, rpavos, was iaw6s. And, with 
 regard to the accent, the former is confirmed by the dialectic form "la- 
 vw, ipi'iTtov, in Hesychius. 
 
 R 
 
242 42. 'EdcpOrj. 
 
 evvvpa or rjnai, which can satisfy him as an expressive epithet 
 for a precious ointment. To have brought such an investi- 
 gation as the above even to this point of uncertainty, I con- 
 sider a service ; and I will therefore only suggest the possibility 
 of kbavos being perhaps a stronger and higher meaning of eos 
 or eos, good (see art. 43. sect. 4.), which, beside the other words 
 mentioned above, may be compared with ovribavo<s i tirjKebavos 4 ; 
 so that the reader may choose between this suggestion and the 
 explanation of the grammarians. For, as to this last, I only 
 object to the evidence by which it was attempted to be sup- 
 ported. But who can pretend so to limit the euphonic changes 
 in a language, as to declare it improbable that from abavos, as 
 the word must have properly sounded, came ibavos ? 
 
 42. r Ed(j)07j. 
 
 1 . The verb kdcpdrj occurs in the two following passages ; viz. 
 in II. v, 543. where iEneas attacking Aphareus 
 
 Acupov Tvyj/, eVi ol rerpappevov, ogei bovpi, 
 
 and it is immediately said of the latter, 
 
 'j&Kkivdrj §' erepaxre Kaprj, eVi §' dcnrls id<p0r] 
 Kat Kopvs, dpcfn be ol Bdvaros ^vro Ovpopaiarr]?' 
 
 and at f, 419. of Hector struck near the neck by Ajax with a 
 huge stone, 
 
 *Q,s eWo-' "EicTopos com ^a/idi pevos iv Kovirjaiv 
 X.€ipos b* €KJ3a\€i/ eyx_os, err avrco §' dcnrh ed(j)6r) 
 Kat Kopvs, dp(p\ be ol fipdxe Tet^ea noiKiXa ^aX«a). 
 
 None of the commentators, as far back as we can now trace 
 therrr, retained any regular traditionary knowledge of kacpOrf, 
 and therefore they endeavoured to get at it by examining the 
 context and seeking for some analogy of formation. Aristarchus 
 
 4 If prjKebavos were but a real word. But I strongly suspect that it 
 has come into the lexicons entirely from the endeavours of the gram- 
 marians to form the word paKebvos from prjKos. 
 
42. r Ea<£0>/< 243 
 
 decided in favour of the verb ZnzvQai : to which derivation be- 
 longs also the explanatory iiiiKaTrixOr], k^iKaT7]vi^6r] (see Schol. 
 Min. on the first passage and Schol. Ven. on the second) ; al- 
 though in Apollon. Lex. the explanatory word Kar-qvexOr] is sepa- 
 rated from wri KoXovO-qcre by ivtoi be. Tyrannio objected to the 
 change of the vowel a, and preferred the passive of clttth), making 
 it €Trl...kd(p6r], for ecprj^Or), inflicta est. In Hesychius we find 
 cKdfxcpOr], e/3Aa/3r/, which we must connect with the Schol. Min. 
 on the second passage, em/care/caj^^ 8e airy fj ao-iris : this, how- 
 ever, is hardly conceivable, unless we suppose that some earlier 
 commentator had introduced as a grammatical or other amend- 
 ment l&xPrif i. e. eayq : but even if this were so, the breaking or 
 bending of the shield, though it might very well be caused by 
 the blow of the stone in the second passage, cannot hold good 
 in the first, where the only blow is made by a spear piercing the 
 neck. 
 
 %. If now we examine the context, it will appear that the 
 sense and construction of eirC in both passages must be decided 
 by the second, where the description is fuller and more com- 
 plete. The expression in this latter is Xeipbs 8' enfiaXev ey- 
 Xo?, eV avrw 8' acnrls la$&7, and here olvtu appears to refer 
 to him, the falling combatant. How is it then in the other 
 passage, where it is said, ^EkXCvOt] 8' erepbxre Kap-q, em 8' avnls 
 kd(f)dr]l In whatever sense the verb is taken here, one can- 
 not imagine what the shield and helmet can do merely on the 
 head of the dying warrior. We must therefore suppose, (as 
 it necessarily follows that after his head was bent on one side 
 he fell,) that the word eni. must be understood in this pas- 
 sage, as in the other, to refer to him falling. What then must 
 become of the shield and helmet when the warrior falls ? No- 
 thing, that we can suppose to be intended by the poet in 
 these two passages, but to fall likewise. Now as far as con- 
 cerns the shield, this interpretation of the preposition, * it fell 
 on him,' will suit very well (as at p, 300. neve irprjvrjs em veKp<2) : 
 but what a singular circumstance it would be for the helmet, 
 which in other cases is described as rolling away to a distance 
 when the combatant falls, to be said in these two instances, 
 just as if it were anecessary consequence, to fall upon the man ! 
 We must therefore understand M in the sense of after that, 
 
 B 2 
 
244 .. 4*. '£«<£&/. 
 
 thereupon; much the same as at it, 66 1, irokces yap !ir cwr(S /ca7r- 
 7reow; or at v, 395. 6 d 1 ew 1 oww (immediately after him) Arjfxo- 
 \eovTa...vv£€v: or at \//-, 290. rw 6' lirt TvSctSrjS' copro, or oyx^q I*' 
 oyxvy, & c - 1^^ s w i^ correspond with what is said in the scho- 
 lium to £, 419. afjLa yap oAo> avyKar-qvixOr) to) crw/xan. The sense 
 of the passage would therefore be this ; " Hector fell ; he 
 dropped the spear from his hand, and shield and helmet fell 
 after him ;" by which we must consequently suppose that the 
 helmet fell separate from the shield : that is to say, in both pas- 
 sages, the warrior is struck in front of the neck, by which the 
 fastening of the helmet under the neck is loosened, and as the 
 man falls the helmet drops from his head. And in this same 
 sense, as we have said above, is the Wi in the first passage also 
 to be understood. 
 
 3. But according to this sense of the passage, what precise 
 meaning are we to attach to the verb tdcfrOrj ? The most suitable 
 one, as the idea of the falling body is already expressed, would 
 certainly be iiraKoXovOe'tv : but then an idea so purely neuter as 
 this * cannot be properly expressed by a passive form, (as kd<p0r] 
 for eWero would be,) particularly as eWero is so familiar a word : 
 and as to the change of vowel, even though hpdcfydrj may be con- 
 ceivable in the later Ionic dialect, in which we find rpcnr<a, yet 
 ed(f)6r] from eVeo-flat must in Homer always appear strange and 
 unaccountable. If we have recourse to a-nretv, to fasten, ctare- 
 o-Qai, to be fastened, to fix or hold firm on anything, the passive 
 form is very proper ; but then we cannot bring out the idea 
 without the assistance of M, and we must therefore again render 
 hf avT& eacfrdr], ' struck or fell upon him,*' inflicta est in ipsum ; 
 and then we cannot but wonder how the helmet could fall upon 
 the body. 
 
 4. In addition to these difficulties, we have also the form 
 of the augment kdcfyOrj, for there is not a single instance of the 
 syllabic augment before a vowel, without some appearance of 
 the digamma ; and both e7r&>, Itto/ach, and cltttw, a7rro/xat, belong 
 
 * [Buttmann in the original introduces here the German verb folgen 
 (to follow) as the meaning in question of idcfidr] and inaKokovOeiv ; but 
 as the English verb ' to follow' is not purely neuter like folgen, I have 
 omitted it in the translation, and 1 know of no expression to supply its 
 place. — Ed.] 
 
42. 'Ed^On. 245 
 
 exactly to those verbs which have nowhere any trace of the di- 
 gamma. If then the critical philologist cannot discover a third 
 verb from which he may derive this €a<pdr), there remains only 
 the possibility, that one of the two verbs, iiro) or cta-rco, might 
 have had the digamma in the earliest times of the language, 
 and that kd(pdr] in Homer is a relic of it : and in this case the 
 probability would be greatly in favour of eireaOat,, which still 
 has an s in the Latin sequi, in the same way as se, socer, the Ger- 
 man Sitte (Gr. rjdos), compared with the words admitting the di- 
 gamma, €, tKvpos, rjOos. 
 
 5. If then, in a question balanced as this is between two 
 opinions, it remains only to decide in favour of that to which 
 there are the fewest objections, I incline toward kd<p6r) from 
 effeo-0at : and starting with this, I will proceed to examine the 
 construction again. There is no question but that it is Homer's 
 general custom to refer amov, avrov, avT&, in one member of a 
 sentence, to the person mentioned in the corresponding mem- 
 ber ; but the pronoun is also sometimes referred by him to some 
 less striking object, to a thing, and may then be rendered by 
 it ; for instance, in Od. p, 269. Tiyv(acrK(t> cV otl ttoXXoI kv avr& 
 (in it, in the house) halra TiQzvrai. At 1, 205. Maron gives 
 Ulysses wine, ^H-bvv, aKrjpdacov, Oeiov 7totov ' ovbe tls clvtov 
 'Hci'Sij 8/xgW. Let us apply this to the present case, and we 
 see that in the verse, Xeipos 8' €Kj3aXev €yyos, iii avrta 6' derm? 
 €a<p6r h the most natural relation of the pronoun is to the 
 spear. Now e/c/3a/W means nothing more than that he dropped 
 the spear ; if then by €tt\ . . . tcKpOrj it is intended only to say 
 that upon the falling of the spear, shield and helmet fell like- 
 wise, it is not easy to discover why this should be made ,to 
 refer so particularly to the falling of the man. But whatever 
 is said here of the spear, must in the other passage (where 
 l-ni stands alone, instead of kir avrw) hold good of the head. 
 Now when I see that at II. \f/, 232. KkCvdrj Ke/c/^co? is said of 
 one who lays himself down to sleep, and at Od. r, 470. a\j/ 5' 
 €T€p<t)<T eKKCOr) is used of a kettle which is overturned, and 
 
 again I find at II. k, 472. zvrea -nap avroiaiv \0ovl zce/cAiro, 
 
 — I think that in 'EkXlvOtj §' erepcoae Kaprj, iirl 8' dairls e&cfjQy 
 Ken Kopvs, we may very fairly conclude that kd^Or) is used in 
 the sense of to follow. For in order to complete the sense of 
 
246 43* E^o?, erjog, 
 
 tyiireaOcu it is quite enough to say that, first the head sinks and 
 then the arms ; in the same way as, when speaking of persons, 
 we read at II. b, 6$. ravd' vtto€L^ojj(,€v dAA^Aoio-tz; 2ot fjikv eyo) av ft 
 ijjLoC' e7Tt 8' €\jfovraL Oeol clWol : and again, of all the gods acting 
 in concert, Od. fx, 349. iirl S' eWcoi/rat deol &kkoL*. 
 
 'E&zj/os ; vid. eavos. 
 
 43. 'E^oy, erjo?. 
 
 I, The form krjos occurs as an unequivocal genitive of the 
 adjective ivs in the three following passages ; viz. Od. 0, 450. 
 
 ITcuda yap dvdpos irjos iv\ fxeydpois duraXXa), 
 
 (the son of a man of rank and substance :) Od. £, 505., where 
 Ulysses says of himself in his guise as a beggar, that if he were 
 now in youth and strength Eumseus and his companions would 
 give him a garment, 
 
 'A/LK^orepov (piXorqri nai aldnl (fxoros irjos. 
 
 And II. r, 342,, where Jupiter says to Minerva, speaking of 
 Achilles, 
 
 TeKVov ip,bv, 8rj irdfnrav airo'i^eai dvdpos irjos' 
 
 ^H vv roi ovK€Ti Trdyxv fxera <ppe<r\ /xe/x|3Xer' 'AxiXXevs ; 
 
 Let us look next at the four following passages ; viz. II. a>, 422. 
 where Mercury says to Priam, 
 
 "Q,s rot Krjdourai (xdmpes deol vlos EH02. 
 
 * [Schneider's Lexicon, under id^drj, says : " It is generally explained 
 by €Trr)K6Xoi)6r)o-€, and derived from e<pe7rop.ai : but this is contrary to 
 analogy ; it had much better be formed from i^divrco for ty^Or) in the 
 sense of enrjicoXovdrjcr* : for idcjydrj was used for rjcfiOr}, as idXr) for 17X77, 
 
 edyrj for fjyr), eaXca for fj\a>. It is written also edcpdr), as IS idyr}." — 
 
 Passow, in his last edition of Schneider, writes idcpOrj, and translates 
 eVl 8' do-7r\s edcfydt], ** the shield fell over him," so that it reached the 
 ground ; adding, that it is " probably from cltttco, £<pdnTa>, aor. pass, for 
 rj<t>6ri, i(fir)<p0r). Others," says he, " write idcpOr), and derive it (very 
 improbably) from 67ro/xui ; that is to say, in\ — edcpdrj is for ((peo-nero, 
 1 the shield followed after.' " — Ed.] 
 
43. 'E^o?, erjo$. 247 
 
 At verse 550., where Achilles says to Priam, 
 
 Ov yap ri 7rpT]^€is dmxrjiievos vios EH02. 
 
 At II. 0, 138., where Minerva says to Mars, respecting Asca- 
 laphus, 
 
 To) (t av vvv KeXofiai peOepev x°Xov v *°$ EH02. 
 
 And at II. a, 393., where Achilles says to Thetis, speaking of 
 himself, 
 
 7repicrx€o rraibos EH02. 
 
 If any one, after a comparison of the four latter passages with 
 the three former, should still doubt whether the EH02 in all of 
 them is the same word, let him only compare with the first of 
 the latter four the following from Od. y, 379., where Nestor says 
 to Telemachus, of Minerva, 
 
 "H toi <a\ Trarep ia&kbv iv 'Apyeiouriv irlpa- 
 
 and with all four these two ; II. 7r, 573. 
 
 .... arap Tore y icrBXov avetyibv i£evapif-a$ 
 
 and e, 469. 
 
 'AXX' oyer £k (pXoio-ftoio (raa>(Top,ev iaBXov eraipov' 
 
 and we think he will then be satisfied that in those four 
 passages, as in the three former, it must be written Zrjos : and 
 that this adjective, like the more common one of (pikos else- 
 where, supplies so well the place of the possessive pronoun 
 o-oto, (which in a relative idea like that of son can be very 
 well dispensed with, and in these cases would destroy the me- 
 tre,) that the sense even gains by its admission ; as the same 
 adjective in other passages is joined with the genitive of pos- 
 session, for instance zvs ttclls 'Ay^tVao, vlbv Zvv YIpidpLOLo. 
 And whoever is offended with the epithet evs in the last of 
 those four passages as an expression of self-praise, and again 
 in the second where Achilles gives it to his enemy whom he 
 had slain, mistakes the nature of the fixed epithets and the 
 language of the heroic age. 
 
 2. The old grammarians (see particularly Apollon. Lex. in v.) 
 add irpo(rr}vovs to the explanation ayaOov, and that with especial 
 reference to the last passage, -ntpiayjeo iraibos ctjos : partly 
 perhaps from the wish to soften down the idea of self-praise, 
 
248 43* 1 E?/09, erjog. 
 
 but partly also as a parallel of <£iAos, which likewise stands 
 elsewhere instead of the possessive pronoun, and of which 
 TTpo(rr\vr]<i is the correlative, (tyikos implying loved by me, itpov- 
 r]vris, attached to or loving me,) as is evident from the imita- 
 tion of Apollonius Rhodius quoted at the end of this article. 
 This explanation by irpoa-r]vrjs may be very well applied to some 
 of the other passages, but in no one instance can it be a reason 
 for our at all deviating from the most simple meaning of the 
 word evs. Now as this particular passage is exactly one which 
 might be most likely to make us hesitate in giving it the sense 
 of tvs, it shows us plainly that those who introduced Trpoo-rjv^s to 
 define the meaning of it, derived Zijos in this and all the other 
 passages from eus. 
 
 3. If now we search after the authorities for the other 
 explanation, according to which krjos in the four last-men- 
 tioned passages is supposed to stand for aov, we find it in 
 the uncritical crowd of the common scholia, of Eustathius, and 
 of the Etym. M. ; but in all the older authorities we look for 
 it in vain : and, what must carry great weight, we not only find 
 no trace of it in the Venetian scholia, not once as the rejected 
 interpretation of some other person, but in one of these very 
 passages (o, 138.), as in one of the other three (r, 342.), it is 
 expressly explained by dyaOov, though in all of them, both in 
 the text and scholia, is written krjos, as also at g>, 528. kaav for 
 ka<av. Beside this, at three of the four passages, viz. a, 393. 
 o, 138. &>, 550., and even at one of the three others, (where the 
 meaning of dyaOov is certain,) viz. r, 342., the reading of 
 Zenodotus, eoio, is mentioned, accompanied, in two of the 
 passages, by an objection that it brings a change of person, and 
 that he could have used it only from ignorance of the form 
 €tjos, of the good 1 . Hence, therefore, it is plain that at the time 
 when this grammatical question was raised no one had any 
 
 1 On o, 138. *H §i7rA?7 oti Zt)v68otos ypd(fici vios iolo' tovto 8e iv ro> 
 nepi rivos Xoycp (in the third person) riderai, vvv be npos npoa-toTrov eart 
 (this might mean, in the second person ; but undoubtedly the reading 
 should be irapa irp. as in the following scholium) kcu Sel ypafaiv e'^09. 
 rjyv6r]K€ Be ttjv \e£iv. eori yap erjos dyaOov, kol dorrjpes idcov. On r, 34 2 - 
 dubpos crjos^ rj 8nr\t] on Z. ypd(f)ei iolo' tovto 8e naph to np6aa>n6v eo~Tiv — 
 ifjos 8e, tov dyaOov. 
 
43- 'EJJo?, e>}o?. 249 
 
 notion or knowledge of an erjoj, which stood for kov, and so for 
 (rod. In the lexicon of Apollonius too, there is only erjos, 
 explained by ayaOov, TTpoarjvovs ; while ItJos with the other 
 explanation is wholly omitted : and lastly, (which is very 
 decisive,) the learned grammarian Apollonius of Alexandria, 
 who in his book on the Pronoun has collected and explained 
 all the Greek pronouns, even the most rare of the different 
 dialects, makes no mention of this supposed Homeric krjos. 
 
 4. It will be impossible for us to conceive how the judg- 
 ment of those who first introduced into our Homer the dif- 
 ference between erjos and krjos could have become so perverted, 
 unless we try to figure to ourselves the march of Homeric cri- 
 ticism. The form €7Jos, like so many other Homeric expres- 
 sions, became quite unknown to the common language of 
 Greece. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that it 
 should be uncertain whether it ought to be aspirated or not : 
 nay, some darkly felt analogies induced a custom, which at 
 last became fixed and constant, of aspirating EH02 as well 
 as EA&N, as we see, not only in the above-mentioned quota- 
 tions from the Venetian Homer, but also in the plain and ex- 
 press directions of the grammarians ; for instance, in the Lexi- 
 con de Spiritibus, in Valckenaer ad Ammon. p. 214, 215 : 
 while et'j, in the same work, p. 220, is as expressly directed 
 to be written with the lenis. From such a fixed rule as this 
 we might very naturally be led into error in writing these words, 
 if we did not recollect that those grammarians were speaking 
 of words not then in common and familiar use, but learned 
 words ; and that in such cases we have as good a right to an 
 opinion as the critics of that time. Now there are many verses 
 in Homer ending with vlos erjos, naibbs krjos, and others of a 
 very similar character with iratbos kolo 9 -rrarpos eoto, that is to 
 say in the third person, where the possessive pronoun suits the 
 verse very well. It would have been indeed surprising if these 
 terminations had not been confounded together, and interchanged 
 with each other ; and as an usage undeniably ancient had made 
 the possessive pronoun of the third person in certain cases 
 (see below note 4.) common to both the second and third 
 persons, kolo, when found in connexion with the second, was not 
 so striking as it otherwise would have been. We must not sup- 
 
950 43* ^W> €?oy. 
 
 pose that Zenodotus, who is accused, certainly with great in- 
 justice, of very arbitrary proceedings, invented this reading : 
 he found it in existence, adopted it, and made it consistent, by 
 rejecting the reading krjos in every instance where it supplied 
 the place of the possessive pronoun 2 . Such was the state of 
 things at that period which alone, whenever we can discover it, 
 must be the basis of all our Homeric criticism, But now came 
 the times of the less learned and more indecisive grammarians, 
 who were fond of playing on words and letters. These, finding 
 in the innumerable copies of Homer then existing, sometimes 
 kijos, sometimes krjos (for the latter naturally still remained), 
 began now to refine on this difference ; and while they decided 
 correctly on kvs, kijos, they thought they were carrying on the 
 idea of Zenodotus, as to the form krjos, by explaining it to be 
 the genitive of ( ET2 or C EET2, a sister-form of kos. The last 
 step was taken by those grammarians who wished to introduce 
 uniformity into all the expressions of Homer. These limited krjos 
 exclusively to the instances of the second person, and in all 
 those of the third, without an exception, wrote kolo : so that 
 it now appeared as if Homer had in those passages been driven 
 by the metre from o-oto, and had had recourse to the common 
 third person ; but that, being desirous of making some distinc- 
 tion, he had taken a more rare sister-form of it, and appropriated 
 it to the cases of the second person. And thus we see how one 
 step of false criticism naturally led to another. 
 
 5. We shall observe, at the first glance, if it be but pointed 
 out to our notice, how contrary it is to probability and common 
 sense, that a form which properly belonged to the third person 
 should never have been used in that person; and how un- 
 poetical it was in the poet, when he had once given this univer- 
 sality to the third person, not to have rendered it plainly per- 
 ceptible, by making the form quite common 3 . As to the question 
 
 2 That he could have reckoned the case of II. r, 342. as one of these, 
 and understood dvdpos iolo to refer to Achilles as the favourite of Mi- 
 nerva, is indeed surprising, but nothing more. 
 
 3 True uniformity would have been, if erjos were a genuine form, to 
 have placed it always at the end of the verse, and wherever in the middle 
 a consonant was required ; but in all other cases to have written kolo. 
 
43* 'E^o?, e^o?. 251 
 
 whether the change of cros for 8s or eo's should be attributed to 
 Homer on such slight grounds, we have no occasion to discuss 
 it here 4 . Nor need we enter any further into the doubts which 
 may be entertained respecting the form evs or kevs, gen. krjos, 
 for kos, gen. eoto, which stands also in Homer, and in Homer 
 only 5 . Without examining either of these points, I think there 
 can remain no doubt of the correctness of the reading e7Jos in 
 
 4 The question depends entirely, beside what has been said, on the 
 criticism of three verses in Homer; II. r, 174. av de <ppea\v fj<nv lavOfjs. 
 yp. <fipeo~\ crfjcnv. Od. a, 402. Kr-qpara 6° avros e^ot? koL bcopauLv olaiv 
 avaacrois. yp. Sco/xacrt aoiiriv. Od. v, 320. (ppecriv ycriv %x <ov ^da'iypevov 
 rjrop, for epfjviv. Generally speaking, the reflective form would be ad- 
 missible in all these three passages, because in all of them a relation is 
 actually thrown back on the subject of the sentence. But in a poet 
 like Homer, and one too who has used this form (if he really has used 
 it) so seldom, we must suppose that he chose it from some particular 
 motive ; that is to say, only where the sense own may be affixed to the 
 pronoun. Wolf has therefore very judiciously restored in the first 
 passage the reading o-fjo-iv, because there is nothing there to distinguish 
 it from other passages where the acknowledged reading is cppeo-l o-jjai 
 (as at II. £, 221. 264. 7T, 36., &c.) ; and with the same judicious unwil- 
 lingness to correct unnecessarily, he has left untouched in the second 
 passage the far better authenticated reading olaiv, because this passage, 
 from the idea of own being admissible in it, is visibly different from Od. 
 o, 542. where nothing but 8upaai aolaiv is or can be read. The third 
 passage is distinguished from both the others by this, that the form epfj- 
 aiv cannot by any means be brought into the verse, and the idea of own, 
 which would be a reason for retaining 770-1, has as little business in this 
 passage as it has in those of (ppeal afjai, referred to above. Hence it is 
 remarkable that this very passage (Od, v, 320.321. see Schol. Harl.) 
 has been from other causes declared to be spurious from very remote 
 antiquity, — an opinion strongly confirmed by the confusion which this 
 verse makes with the context : we must only remember to leave un- 
 touched the verses 322. 323., which another scholium includes in the 
 same condemnation. Since then dapaaiv olaiv stands one isolated instance 
 in all Homer, I do not believe it to be a genuine one, as the various 
 reading d&paai aolaiv is so trifling a difference, and the idea of own, 
 though, as I have observed above, admissible, is shown by the context 
 to be perfectly unnecessary. — I should pass the same judgment on the 
 (ppealv rja-iu, yp. <ppca\ o-rjanv in Hesiod, e, 379. as I have in Homer; 
 although in that heterogeneous poet, whose writings afford no such in- 
 ductive proof as Homer's do, such an opinion must be less certain. 
 
 5 We must not mix up with this discussion the Doric iovs, which is 
 the gen. of the pronoun substantive for ov or do, and which those gram- 
 marians least of all looked for in Homer. 
 
252 43' 'Ew, eijo?. 
 
 all the seven passages enumerated at the beginning of this 
 article 6 . 
 
 6. But as we may fairly suppose that Homer used this erjos 
 instead of the possessive pronoun, not wholly on account of the 
 metre, but in some cases (where that did not compel him,) to 
 suit the e0os of certain passages, we ought to direct our attention 
 anew to the three following, where irjos stands as a various 
 reading of the regular eoto of the third person : for instance, 
 II. f, 9 — ii. of Nestor, 
 
 & Sls emcov aaKos elXe rervyfxevov vlos eoio 
 
 yp, irjos 
 K.€L[X€vov iu k\hti7), Qpaavprjdios IrcTrohdpoLO, 
 XoXkw 7rafx(pcuvoV 6 §' e\ awniba narpos eoio. 
 
 (No various reading.) 
 at II. o-, 71. of Thetis, 
 
 0£v be KooKX/craaa ndpr) Xa/3e 7rai86s eoto. 
 
 yp. irjos. 
 
 and again at v. 138. 
 
 & Qs Spa cpci>vr)o~ao-a 7raktv rpdireff' vlos ioto. 
 
 yp. irjos. 
 
 I must confess that according to a superficial impression made 
 on my mind by these three passages, (not that the point can be 
 fully understood without a more fundamental examination of 
 them,) the reading irjos appears to me very preferable ; while 
 among the other passages where eoto occurs, as II. f, 11. 266. 
 r, 399. yfr, 360. 402., with those which have ejoioto, as Od. a, 413. 
 A, 457. v, 339., there are very few in which I should search 
 about for the various reading irjos. 
 
 7. The other Epic poets whose works have come down to 
 us, whether earlier or later, have neither irjos nor krjos, except 
 Apollonius Rhodius, in whom we find (1, 225.) irjos as a various 
 reading of eoto, and a reading of the text of the older editions, 
 as also in the fuller scholiasts. 
 
 6 This is also the opinion of Heyne and other modern commentators ; 
 but they do not appear to me to have examined the question funda- 
 mentally. See Heyne's note on Tl. a, 393. Wolf also, in his latest edi- 
 tion of the Iliad, reads irjos in those four passages. 
 
44* EtXen/, &c. 253 
 
 OvSe piv ovf? avroio nd'is peveatvev "Akchttos 
 'iqbOipov UeXiao 86pois 'ivi Ttarpos iolo 
 Mipvafciv. yp. irjos 
 
 Modern editors have rejected it ,- but surely this difficult form 
 can scarcely have crept by an error of transcription into this 
 single passage. I think with Heyne (on II. a, 393.) that -iraTpbs 
 irjos must there be understood to mean of his good, loving father; 
 and Apollonius Rhodius followed therefore the old explanation 
 7Tpoo-r]vovs (see above, sect. 2.), which suits this case perfectly 
 well, as Pelias wished Acastus not to leave him*. 
 
 'EtfeAo) ; vid. fiovXoixai. 
 
 44. EiAe?y, e'Xcrai, aXrjvai^ €IXl7TOV9, &C. 
 
 I. The words and forms which proceed from the verb dkelv, 
 or are connected with it, furnish a great many difficulties to the 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon we find, — 
 
 " 'Erjus, irregular genit. for arov, in Homer, as nai86s irjos : but irjos is 
 genit. of ivs, q. v. 
 
 " 'Ev?, 6, Ion. r)vs, like ko\6s, beautiful, good, excellent, brave ; thence the 
 genit. irjos, II. 0,393. From this is derived the ev used in prose; and 
 some derive the neut. SooTop idoov, the give?* of good things, from the genit. 
 irjuv, others from eat, others from ia, rd. According to this, ios would 
 be the same as the Ionic form ivs ; and id, rd, the same as rd dya6d." 
 
 In Passow's edition of Schneider is the following : 
 
 " 'Erjos, gen. masc. to ivs : occurring five times in the II., twice in the 
 Od. In four of these passages was formerly written irjos, explained to 
 be an irregular genit. of aov : but Damm, Wolf in his last edition of 
 the Iliad, and Buttmann in his Lexilogus, following the best of the old 
 commentators, have changed the latter untenable form, in all passages 
 where it occurs, into the former. 
 
 " 'Eur, 6, good, excellent, brave, noble. An Epic word frequent in Homer, 
 who, besides the uom. and once the accus. ivv, II. 0, 303., uses only 
 two irreg. genit.: viz. 1st) the genit. sing, irjos, five times in the II. and 
 twice in the Od., with dvbpos, (pcoros, naidos, and vios ; and 2ndly) the 
 gen. plur. neut. idav, as from a nomin. rd 'EA, good things, good for- 
 tune, II. a), 528. Geot SooTjjpes idwv, Od. 0, 325 : compare also v. 335. and 
 Horn. Hymn. 17, 1 2. 29, 8. Except this genit. the word is always masc. 
 in Homer, but of the Ion. form r)vs he has also the neut. r)v. On the 
 other hand iv, or as it is more frequently written tv, and used by the 
 Attics, is always an adverb." — Ed.] 
 
254 44- EiXefr, &c. 
 
 critical philologist, partly by the variety of ways in which they 
 are written and formed, as we find eiAo> and etAeo>, eiAo> and eiAtw, 
 €tAAo> and eiAAo), t'AAa), eAo-at, akr\vai and aXfjvat, all good au- 
 thorized forms ; and partly by the variety of meaning, as we 
 find to thrust, push, strike ; to shut, fasten ; to turn, roll up, 
 wind up, wrap up, — senses sometimes evident of themselves, 
 sometimes offered by the commentators. It shall be my en- 
 deavour to bring this perplexing maze into some kind of order 
 and certainty ; but always, be it remembered, by tracing the 
 steps of history or tradition ; for as to the other method, that of 
 fixing on some one radical meaning from which all the others 
 may be deduced, and considering in what way they may with 
 probability be traced from one to the other, — such a method as 
 this, the easiest of any in its execution, which may always be 
 brought to succeed, even when the ideas do not really correspond 
 with each other, — I would wish, as far as my exertions can go 
 on occasions like the present, to discourage and repress. In the 
 case before us the principal point is, what are we to say of the 
 meaning to turn, roll up ? For while we always find in Homer 
 the above-mentioned forms in the sense of to thrust and shut in, 
 yet in the grammarians and lexicons we see the principal mean- 
 ings attached to them are those of to roll or wrap up ; and in- 
 deed so much so, that they are often ranked, without any visible 
 reason for it, as the radical meaning. All this we will endeavour 
 to unravel by tracing, as we have hitherto done, the actual 
 usage, without suffering ourselves to be swayed by any previ- 
 ously formed opinion, such as the apparent or real connexion of 
 these forms with kkiaaeiv. 
 
 2. I set out with the forms e'Ao-cu and eeA/xat, which give us 
 the most simple root EA, according to which we may suppose 
 a theme EAI2 or EAAX2 as the radical one. The form of the 
 augment eeA/xat, and the hiatus before 'ikaai, in II. a, 409. lead 
 us at once to the digamma ; consequently we have fEAAX2 : and 
 hence also, as in some other verbs of this kind, the redundant € 
 in the infinitive ee'Ao-cu, II. cf>, 295. The meaning of this aorist 
 in all the passages of the Iliad is quite plain, to shut or hem in, 
 whether a single individual, as the Trojans did Ulysses, A, 413. 
 "Eko-av 8' Iv fxia-aoLcrt fxera o-^h'cti Tirj^a TiOevrts, or a whole army 
 in the space round the ships, or in the town, a, 409. Tovs 5e Kara 
 
44* EcXe/i', &c. 255 
 
 i:pvp,vas re kcll djuc^ aAa eAa-ai 'A^ato^s. cr, 294. 0aAdo-cn/ r lAcrai 
 'Axatov?. <£, 225. 7rpli; eAo-ai (Tpoaas) Kara dorv. <£, 295. Ilptz/ 
 Kara *\kio<pL kKvtol rtiyta kabv eikaat Tpmicbv os /ce (fyvyrjcn. And 
 with this agrees the perf. pass. (0,662. Ola-Oa yap o)s Kara &<rrv 
 €€kfjL€0a. fx, 38. 'Apyetot 8e . . . Nrjvaiv eirl yka<\>vpr\(riv eeA/xei/01. 
 a, 287. hkp.zvoi €vbo6t TTvpyvv: used again of an individual at 
 v, 524.; viz. of Mars, who, ^Horo Atos (3ovkfj(nv iekp.€vos, as he, 
 with the other gods, was obliged to remain in Olympus. 
 
 3. Very different from the above meaning is the use of this 
 form in the Odyssey, where however it occurs but once, that is 
 to say, in one twice-repeated verse, e, 132. rj, 250. 
 
 vqa Bor/v dpyrJTi Kepavva 
 
 Zevs ekaas iaeao-ae fiecra iv\ o'lvom irovrco. 
 
 Therefore eAcras- means striking. Here, however, the old various 
 reading ekdaas (see the scholia) deserves our serious considera- 
 tion. For the fact is, that eAdVai throughout Homer is the 
 proper and usual word for to strike, as in the Iliad tov crKrjirTp^ 
 €kd(ra(TK€Vy — 6 8' avyiva fiia-crov ekao-azv, — &c, and here in the 
 Odyssey of the blow of Neptune, so analogous to the stroke 
 of Jove's thunderbolt, b, 507. rpiaivav tkiav x 6 / 50 "^ oripaprjo-iv 
 "Hkaae Tvpair]u irirprju : and v, 164. where he turns the ship of 
 the Phseacians to stone, Xcipl Kara-np^vel tkaaas. It is difficult 
 therefore to conceive how this e'Ao-a?, in a sense unknown to it 
 elsewhere, has found its way into that one verse instead of the 
 usual word ; and why, without any metrical cause, at one time 
 eAdcras is used, at another eAo-as. This difficulty, however, is 
 not removed by our admitting the reading ekda-as into the text 
 in this passage : every genuine old various reading is of equal 
 weight with the text ; and whatever is surprising in the latter, 
 remains surprising also if transferred to the former. Here then 
 we will leave this point, until we have informed ourselves fur- 
 ther on this family of words. 
 
 4. We have supposed a theme EAAI2 according to the most 
 simple analogy, as it actually does exist in kc'AAco, Ke'Acrai. But 
 Homer himself furnishes us also with a tolerably simple present 
 in the part. pass. €£Ao'/xei>os, according to the analogy of o</>ei'Aa>, 
 and of K€Lp(» l/cepcra ; with which we must also join the formation 
 
256 44- EiAefr, &c, 
 
 in e'a>, evident in some of the other tenses. The agreement in 
 meaning of these two forms, etAco and etAeco, with each other, 
 and with eAcrat, eeA/uat, is clear from one passage, II. 0, 215. 
 The Greeks are there forced back to their fortifications ; and it 
 is related in the imperfect tense that all the space between the 
 walls and fosse TlXyjOev ojjlov tuitoiv re kcli dvhp&v do-nio-tdw Et'Ao- 
 HzvtoV etAet 8e flow drdXavros "Aprji f/ EKTo>/). Here the imperfect 
 etAet stands in evident relation to the participle etAo'juewn, which 
 in the sense of the present or imperfect is precisely the same as 
 eeAjueVot is in that of the perfect. The Greeks were forced back 
 in a body and shut up in that narrow space ; and he who forced 
 them back was Hector. So etAo'/xeuot is generally used, not in 
 the passive but in a reflective sense, of men collected together in 
 a crowd ; II. e, 782., the two goddesses came to the Greeks, 66l 
 TrAetorot koI aptcrroL "Eo-racrav dpLifil fiCrjv Aio/xrj8eo? t7i7ro8a//,oto Et- 
 Ao/x,e^oi, Xeiovaiv eot/co'res ^ixoqbdyoio-Lv. And at e, 203. Pandarus 
 says, he was unwilling to take his horses with him to Troy lest 
 they might be straitened for fodder, dvhp&v etAo/xe^o)^, that is, 
 where so many persons had collected and crowded together 1 . 
 The form etAe'co occurs further in the exact sense of the above- 
 mentioned e'Ao-cu, at II. or, 447 . ''Ayaiovs Tpwej e7Tt 7rpvfJLvr)o~iv eet- 
 Xeov (EfETAEON). And at Od. /*, 210. ore KvkXu^ EtAet eVt 
 <nrifi yXacpvp^ (kept us shut up)^ &c. 
 
 5. All these forms belong therefore necessarily to each other; 
 and to them we may add, as I have shown in my Grammar, the 
 form idXrjv, dXr\vai : for on the uncertainty of the aspirate we 
 must hereafter come to some general decision. This form is the 
 aor. pass, of EAAI2 or etAco, exactly as eardX-qv is from ore'AAa), 
 €Kapr]v from Ketpw 2 . The agreement in meaning between this 
 
 1 Shut in together, (as it is generally translated here, of persons shut 
 up in a besieged town,) appears to me not to have been Homer's idea ; 
 besides, he would have expressed it rather by ieXpevoi. 
 
 2 The supposition of a verb akrjpi, and the deriving of all the forms 
 belonging to this investigation (which have the a) either from dXe'o, to 
 avoid, or from aXees, confetti, are clumsy contrivances of the older and 
 later grammarians. The most ancient grammatical tradition treated 
 them as we do. This is shown not only by the shorter glosses avpc- 
 aTpdcj)T), avyKXeicrOevTes, &c, in the scholiasts and in Apollon. Lex., but 
 
44. ElXetu, &c. 257 
 
 and the above forms is clear from the following passages ; II. x, 
 12. (of the Trojans whom Achilles had forced back into the 
 town), Ot bri tol eis clcttv akev. a-, 76. iravres M irpvpLvrjaLV dA.77- 
 fjL€vai vlas 'hyai&v. (f>, 60 J. irokts 6' t/JLTTkrjTo akivrvv (exactly the 
 same as above irkyjOev etAo/xeVcoz'). e, 823. 'Apyetovs eKe'Aewa akrj- 
 lAtvaL kvOahe ttclvtcls, ' to collect themselves here together.' To 
 which belongs also \jf, 420. ytuxipiov aktv vhvp, ' water collected 
 together, and shut up in a narrow space.' We have now, then, 
 the verb according to Homeric usage complete. The present is 
 properly eiAa>, but was changed by a very easy transition to the 
 lengthened form eiAew, still retaining however its more simple 
 form in the present passive dkofiat ; much as in common Greek 
 (TTtpofxai is in use as the passive of arepiw. The remaining 
 flexions were (e'Ao-oo) eAcrat, eeA/xai, idk-qv, dkr\vai. In all these 
 connected forms however the digamma is announced by the 
 usual signs. 
 
 6. In some of the examples quoted above we have already 
 seen that this sense of shutting or hemming in is not always 
 founded on some external force, but sometimes on the will or 
 choice of the person so shut up ; with which agrees also the 
 idea of a body of men being drawn or collected together into 
 one place by their leader, as in Pindar 01. 10, 51. kv Yiiaa e'A- 
 (tclls okov re crTparbv keiav re iraaav, spoken of Hercules collect- 
 ing together his army. Hence comes the well-known use in 
 Homer of the passive akrjvat, of a person drawing up his body 
 together ; as we find it used in the most literal manner at II. v, 
 408. of Idomeneus crouching or concealing himself behind his 
 large shield ; Tfj vtto 7ras eaAr^, to 5' v-nzpnraTo y6.kK.zov zyyos. 
 And in this narrowest sense of to conceal the active eAo-cu oc- 
 curs, not indeed in Homer, but in that very ancient elegiac 
 
 the proof of it may be found more at length in Eustathius, who, on 
 II. v, 408., after having explained idXr) by o-weiXrjdrj, avuearpaqbr}, adds 
 yiu€Tat ana rov eiXov, ov nadrjTiKos dopio-ros dX-qv, &C., where the word dXov 
 cannot be intended to come from alpdu. And even supposing that Eu- 
 stathius might have misunderstood the older grammarian, still we see 
 what the meaning of this latter was by another observation in Eusta- 
 thius, where not only is ieXpcvot compared with Kurd I'hjtv dXrjfievai, but 
 there is also added, <p[\ai 8e noirjTalf Xe£eis to e'Xaai Kd) dXi'inevat KCt\ eeX- 
 ficvot kcii edXr) Ka\ aXfi'f. 
 
258 44- EiXbik, &c. 
 
 poet Callinus, v. 1 1 . Kat for' ao"7rt8os &\kiiwv rjrop v E\o-as. The 
 drawing up the body in a crouching posture, by a person fear- 
 ing immediate death, we see in II. it, 403., where Thestor ex- 
 pecting Patroclus to kill him kv\ bicppy rja-ro aXeis : and v, 278., 
 where .ZEneas, when his shield is pierced through, holds it before 
 him at a distance, and draws himself up together, klveias 8' idXr] 
 kclI airb e6ev a<rntt? dveaxev. Such a contracting of the body 
 together is a particular characteristic of beasts of prey, who draw 
 themselves up in a crouching posture before they spring on 
 their victim; as at II. v, 168. of the lion, edXrj re xavoav irepC r 
 a(f)pbs dhovTas Tiyverai : and it is also used in the same way of 
 a warrior, who, whilst he is preparing to rush on his enemy 
 or expecting his attack, draws himself up together, or, as we 
 say, puts himself in an attitude of attack or defence ; as at 
 <j), 571. 'AxiArja dXeh fxivev: and thus there is a very easy and 
 natural connexion with any 'premeditated attack, without any 
 stress being thereby laid on the particular position in which the 
 body previously was; II. x> 3°8. Od. a>, 537. Olix-qaev be dXeh 
 coot alerbs vxjniTeTrj et?. 
 
 7. It is evident that in all the meanings of the passages hi- 
 therto quoted there is no appearance whatever of the idea of 
 to turn, roll, or wrap up, or of anything akin to it. Hence, if 
 such an idea occurs here and there in the explanations of the 
 grammarians, it proceeds merely from their own opinions of 
 dkziv. At the same time it must be confessed that in cases 
 where the word means the collecting together a number of 
 persons or a quantity of a thing, the meaning can be expressed 
 perfectly well by (Tvcrrpicpea-OaL ; and consequently, if we look 
 merely to the sense of such a passage in particular, it can be ex- 
 plained by that term. But that this is not the original mean- 
 ing of etAetV, must be sufficiently plain from what has been said 
 above. Nor is even to shut up, evident as this idea is in many 
 of those passages, the primary and radical idea ; as we see most 
 clearly at II. <j), 8., where a part of the combatants is driven 
 or forced into the river, rjpiCa-ees he 'Es nora^bv dXevvro, in which 
 they swim about, are slain by Achilles, &c. ; but they do not 
 stand, as in some other passages, hemmed in between the per- 
 son who is forcing them and the object which stops them. But 
 from such passages as Od. X, 573., where the poet describes 
 
44. EiAefr, &c. 259 
 
 Orion Qrjpas o/jlov dkevvra kglt a&fyobzXbv Aei/xwm, we see how 
 the idea of shutting up arises from that of pressing and driving 
 onward. The reflective idea (to crowd or collect together), as 
 expressed by elkofxevoi, of those who crowd round Diomede, may- 
 be cited as an additional instance, and is expressed, like so many 
 other verbs, by the aorist passive, zakr]v : and thus all the mean- 
 ings of aXr\vai are brought into a regular series. 
 
 8. But this same primitive meaning of ei'Aeiz/, to force or drive 
 before one, is also the meaning of the verb kkav, ekavveiv ; with 
 this difference however, that in d\elv there is the idea of a 
 limit or boundary, but ikav expresses an unlimited driving ; the 
 additional force of this latter meaning being given to the root 
 EA- by the ending aco 3 . The same verb has also the acknow- 
 ledged sense of to beat, which can be connected with the other 
 only by supposing that to strike, push, or thrust, is the primitive 
 meaning of this verb, and consequently of the whole family of 
 verbs which we have been examining. But in art. 87. we meet 
 with the word oA?5, barley trodden out, as a verbal substantive of 
 this radical verb EAX2, and aAeco, to tread, bruise, or grind, as 
 a more forcible derivative of this same root. And now then 
 that various reading in the Odyssey, tkaas — eAacras, comes 
 before us in a new point of view : for it is impossible that a 
 reading so unusual and startling as that is could have taken 
 firm footing in that passage, had it not originally come from the 
 old language of Greece. Nay more, ikdaas being expressly 
 quoted as the reading of Zenodotus, shows that the other stood 
 on much firmer historical grounds than even that ; a fact which 
 we should be concealing, if we were to adopt the reading eAao-as 
 in that passage. 
 
 9. To the Homeric use of the verb eiAo> we may add the 
 substantive eiAap. The inanimate object represented by this 
 word is described (as is very commonly the case), like a living 
 agent, by its effects. Thus a fortress is said to repulse an assail- 
 
 3 Ibycus, with the license of a lyric poet, used rjXaaTo fiovs for ^Xa- 
 aaro, Etym. M. p. 428, 29. But the verse of Simoniucs in the same 
 Et. M. p. 634, 6., Kai tt)s omaOfv opaoOvpr)* f]\o-ufirjv, is corrupted, as 
 the quantity of opaodvprj shows. Perhaps it should be opo-oOvprjs rjXcvd- 
 \ir]v, scil. avrov, 'I escaped from him through the back-door;' as in 
 Horace, postico fallc dinntem. 
 
 s 2 
 
260 44- EfX<&*, &c. 
 
 ant. The most natural construction of the word is that in Od. e, 
 257., where the well-made sides of the ship are called an eiAap 
 KVfjLdTos, as driving off, repelling the waves ; and the wall in the 
 Iliad is called eiXap vrjStv re /cat avr&v, as surrounding and de- 
 fending from hostile attack the ships and the army. 
 
 10. If, then, it is quite clear that in the usage of the Epic 
 poet there is nothing whatever which can give this family of 
 words the idea of to turn, twist, or roll up, but that so far from 
 it their only meaning is the very different one of to beat, push, 
 or drive, we must have recourse next to the later and prosaic 
 use of them, of which we can find no examples older than those 
 in the Attic laws. We have there a very ancient grammarian 
 in the person of Lysias, who in his Oration c. Theomn. p. 117. 
 mentions many old law-terms no longer in common use in his 
 time, and amongst others the following ; "Oart? 8e a-irtCkkr) 
 (var. read. airikkr}) rfj 6vpa, ivbov tov kX4ittov ovtos. The con- 
 struction is somewhat clumsy; but one sees that the thief 
 is shut off from an escape, prevented from . escaping ; conse- 
 quently the idea here is an opposite relation to that which forms 
 the groundwork of the well-known legal term e^ovkr]. The 
 verb from which this last substantive comes is very correctly 
 explained by Harpocration in v., — whether he reads e£e'Aeti> or 
 ef eAAeti> or e£ etkkeiv is of no consequence (see Not. in Harpocr.), 
 — not in that strange way in which it is generally explained 
 by rolling out, turning a person out of that which belongs to 
 him, but by Zgetpytiv, tKpakkeiv; although even this last word 
 is not to be understood always of turning a person out of 
 what he is already in possession of, but of not admitting him, 
 of preventing him from taking possession of that which was 
 his right. And in this same sense stood the verb itself in 
 an old Attic law quoted by Demosthenes c. Pantam. p. 476., 
 of a person who prevented another from working his mine ; 
 lav TL9 e£etAA?7 (var. read. e^eiA??) tlvcl rrjs ipyaatas. This mean- 
 ing, the preventing a person from doing a thing, shutting or 
 keeping him out of it, is therefore the correlative of the other 
 cLTreiktLv, to prevent or hinder a person from going out, the keep- 
 ing him in, and this not only in the passage relating to the 
 thief, as quoted above from the old law, but also in a pas- 
 sage of Homer, II. /3, 294. of a ship prevented from sailing ; 
 
44. Efcfc &c. 261 
 
 oz;77ep aeWai Xeijuepicu eiAe'oocrii/ optvofxevr) re 0aAa(ro-a. Again we 
 see plainly the difference between this igtiketv and igekavvetv, 
 notwithstanding that the same idea is common to them both : 
 i^eXavveiv is to drive a person out of that place wherein he 
 actually is ; i^eikeiv is at most to prevent his going in, to drive 
 or thrust him away so that he shall not enter. 
 
 ii. In Herodotus we find the most frequent recurrence of 
 the compound KareiAeii/, and always used of a number of per- 
 sons KaTetkrjOivTes or KaT€i\rjfjL€VOL is to ret^o?, is tt\v aKpoirokiv, 
 is tov Uapvr]o-(Tov, iv dAtyw x^P^ & c - I* 1 the same way at 3, 
 45. tcl T€Kva Kcti ras yvvaiKas is tovs vetouoUovs o-vv€L\ri(ras : con- 
 sequently the meaning is invariably to squeeze or crowd together 
 and shut up. And this same usage remains in the Attic writers : 
 for instance, in Thuc. 7, 8 1. avei\r)Q£vTes yap h tl \a>pLov <a kvk\(d 
 ret^os TrepiTJv. Again in Xen. Hell. 7, 2, 8. ol be toOovixevoi vtt' 
 avTu>v...eis zKolttov o-vveikovvTo. Hippocrates has it in a similar 
 sense of inanimate objects, Coac. vol. i. p. 588. KaTeikovp.evos elao) 
 iptvyfjios, kept back or suppressed. With this agrees exactly a 
 passage in Plato's Tima3us, p. 76. b. of the vapour which ascends 
 from the body, but being by the external air tt&Klv ivTos vtto to 
 bepiia d\\6p,evov (var. read. ei'AA-, eiA-, etA-, eiAov-, and in Pro- 
 
 C1US lAA-) KCLT€ppl(oVTO. 
 
 12. After this it will be impossible for us to go from these 
 ideas of squeezing or pressing together, shutting up together, in 
 the explanation of two passages in the tragedians where this 
 verb is compounded with vtto. Euripides, in a fragment of his 
 (Edipus, (see in Valck. p. 194.) says of the Sphinx, Ovpav 8' 
 L>7^elAAow , (var. read, virlkk-) vtto KeovTo-novv (3clo-iv 'EKa6e(eT0. 
 It is universally agreed that this is said of the Sphinx just 
 overcome ; and therefore, in order to introduce, agreeably to 
 the preconceived meaning of the word, something of turning 
 and twisting, the verb is either understood to mean to wag 
 the tail (see Schneid.*), or it is compared with the passage in 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon we rind the following article : 
 
 " 'Y7riAAu>, same as vneiXa). see <iAo>, i'AAo>. Ovpav vnfiXelv, remulcerc 
 
 caudam, ' to drop the tail between the legs and wag it,' as a fawning 
 
 dog does. In Eurip. ap. AL\. h. a. 12, 7. used of the Sphinx, ovpav 
 
 i>7T€iAXa<ra, where Gesner reads vnuKovo-a, and the Vienna MS. has 
 
262 44- Et'KeeV, &c. 
 
 Virgil's iEneid n, 813. of the wolf, " caudamque remulcens 
 subjecit pamtantem uteroP The comparison is a very apt one ; 
 but as the manner in which the tail moves is self-evident, there 
 can be nothing in vitziKXtiv but subjicere, ' she sat down with 
 her tail thrust under her! And with this corresponds exactly, 
 though in a metaphorical sense, the meaning of the same word 
 in Soph. Antig. 509., where, after Antigone had said to Creon 
 of the bystanders, that they would all approve of what she had 
 done, d //r/ yXSxraau ey/cXetVot cpofios, she applies to him the same 
 idea in other words, vol 8' vttlKXovo-l oro'/ua. Neither the earlier 
 usage of the verb, nor the context accurately understood, can 
 lead us to the sense generally given to these words, torquent os 
 suum secundum te ; for they are not spoken of those who flatter 
 the tyrant, but of all those present who are silent through fear, 
 and suppress their feelings. 
 
 13. We come now to that expression of Plato, of which so 
 much has been said, yijv etAAo/xe^z' (with the usual various 
 readings) Trepl tov fact, ttclvtos TtoXov TtTafievov, Tim. p. 40. b. 
 After all the foregoing examples it would be totally incon- 
 ceivable that the verb should in this case all at once and en- 
 tirely lay aside its usual meaning, and express, as some of the 
 commentators explain it (see Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 69.), a rota- 
 tory motion in its fullest sense, that is, the constant revolution 
 of a body round its axis, and that too in the very book where, 
 as we have so lately seen, the same word occurs in its usual 
 sense. We at least, who have traced the word from its earliest 
 use thus far, cannot give it in this passage a sense different 
 from all the others ; and as we have seen its meaning par- 
 ticularly marked sometimes by into, sometimes by avv, &c, so 
 here also it must mean to press or be pressed round the axis, 
 that is, to press from all sides toward the axis. Nor let any 
 one object to the use of the present: the powers which first 
 formed the world and still hold it together are represented as 
 in continual action ; the earth is in a state of constant pressure 
 
 vnlWaaa ; it must be vniXatra. Sto/jlu. im., subjicere, obnoxium habere 
 os, * to keep the tongue in. subjection to any one,' Soph. Ant. 509. 
 Timseus Ruhnk. p. 7 1 . In Philo 3, p. 260. a MS. has v7T€i\ov(ttjs for 
 i>7T€iKuvar]s, yielding." — Ed.] 
 
44. EiXefr, &c. 263 
 
 toward its pole or axis, and so forms a ball round it; which 
 use of the word answers exactly to that according to which 
 the same verb means to wrap round, envelope. Here too we 
 find, mixed up in the description, something which carries 
 us on to a bending, rolling, and with that to a turning ; but 
 this is nothing more than a collateral idea crept in, not from 
 the meaning of the word, but through the thing described. 
 Let us turn now to the passage of Herodotus 4, 6j. where 
 it is said of the soothsayers who divine by means of a bundle 
 of rods, €7T€av (jxxKtkovs pafibwv pLeyakovs iveUcovTat, Oivres x a M a ' 
 bL€^€\icraov(n clvtovs, Koi £ttl \kiav €Kaa-T7]v pafibov TiOivTts Ozcmi- 
 Covul' dfxa re Xiyovres tolvtol (tvv € iki ov a 1 ray pafibovs dirtcr®. 
 Here bie^ekCaa-eiv and avveikelv are certainly correlatives. But 
 if we look at the latter by itself, there is nothing whatever in 
 it to make us think of a bending and rolling; for the Scythian 
 diviner takes up one rod after another, and unites all together 
 again in one bundle ; so that avveikziv is, consequently, nothing 
 more than constringere, which meaning is also the ground of 
 the middle dkkofiivqv in Plato. But the undoing of this bundle 
 may, on account of the use of bitgekCcrcrtLv, be very well ren- 
 dered an unrolling or unfolding. And hence then it comes 
 to pass that in all similar cases, where something, by being 
 forced or driven over and over, is either pressed together into 
 itself, or externally wound and wrapped round, as in the an- 
 cient rolls or books, and in the binding up a wound, the most 
 common correlatives even down to later times are KaT€cki]craL 
 (eyKaretATJo-at, kyKarikkziv, Hippocr.), to put together, bind up, 
 and clvz\(tt€iv, to unroll, unbind ; never KareAtrreizj, for that kclt- 
 eiAr/crai ; but sometimes ai^eiArjcrat, in the sense of to undo, as 
 being merely the doing away that which is done by KaTetXrjaai, 
 something like the Latin recludere from claudere. (Compare 
 Lobeck on Phryn. pp. 29, 30.) In the same way it is used by 
 Thucydides 2, 76. where, in the description of a blockade, clay 
 is wrapped up in mats of plaited or twisted straw, lv Tapaols 
 KaXapLov TTTjkbv Zvtikkovres: here the verb is used com- 
 pounded with eV, because the action described is that of press- 
 ing in firmly and tying up, in undoing which the most natural 
 word would be e^A^rreiv. 
 
 14. If then, by a course of verbal criticism, carried on re- 
 
264 44- EiXrir, &c. 
 
 gularly and correctly from Homer down to Plato, including 
 even the last-quoted passage of this writer, we have seen that 
 elkeiv has always essentially the same sense of pressing and 
 shutting, and that there has been no reason in any one in- 
 stance why we should understand the same verb in the sense 
 of to turn round, — it must appear strikingly extraordinary (per- 
 haps not much less so than if we had found it in Plato him- 
 self) that Aristotle, Plato's nearest follower in Grecian litera- 
 ture, should have understood the verb in that same passage 
 of Plato in the sense of to turn ; and that he did so seems be- 
 yond a doubt, as he has quoted the passage in his treatise 
 De Coelo, 2, 13. as a decided instance of this meaning. As to 
 what may be said on this point with regard to the thing itself, 
 how decidedly certain Plato's meaning is in this respect, and 
 in what way we may explain Aristotle's mistaking his mean- 
 ing, — on these points I refer to the old philosophers, who 
 have expressed their astonishment at it, to Plutarch, Galen, 
 Proclus, Simplicius, whose opinions are quoted by Ruhnken 
 in Tim. Lex,, and to Bockh in his Program de Platonico sy- 
 stemate coelestium globorum, &c, Heidelb. 1810. 4to. I will also 
 mention the grammatical remark added by Simplicius 4 ; to be 
 I Wo jae vq v el bca rod l ypdcperat, ttjv Trpoabebefxevrjv <Tr)p,aivei. 
 kg! ovrai kol ' AitoWmvlos 6 TT0L7]Trjs (1, 1 29.), Ae<r/ixoi9 tA.Ad-- 
 ju e v v, Tovrea-Tiv evbebepiivov, [xeydXcav va>T(av e^ectxrev. kol "Ofxr]- 
 pos (II. v, $72.), iWdacv, TovTto-Ti 8607x019, ov (3(a beo-fiovv- 
 res ayovcnv. el be bib, rrjs et bi<p66yyov ypd^erat, kol ovrca tt)v 
 K(i)X.vo[jievr)v a-qp^aivet, o)s Alo~xy\os ev Baao-apcus. Hence we 
 see that a distinction did exist, whether early or late, whe- 
 ther well or ill-grounded, between the writing or pronuncia- 
 tion of elk and Ikk, at least among those learned in grammar, 
 according to which the latter was supposed to mean to wrap 
 up, bind; and the oldest grounds for this were sought for in 
 the Homeric substantive Ikkdbes, bands, chains. Now we ob- 
 serve from Simplicius, that, even if there be any ground for 
 
 4 In the commentary on this book of Aristotle, fob 129. b., with the 
 readings corrected according to Bockh. Only I have left untouched 
 the poetical passages which are quoted incorrectly, as they cannot mis- 
 lead us. 
 
44. BiXw, &c. '265 
 
 the distinction, it makes no alteration in this case, as the former 
 mode of writing the word has a meaning essentially agreeing 
 with that of the latter ; in proof of which he could adduce of 
 the simple verb but one passage, that from iEschylus, where 
 dk\6(A€vos had the sense of KO)A.Wfxei>os, or, as Hesychius says 
 of the same passage, tlpyoixevos 5 . We should not be able to 
 furnish him with a more suitable passage from the collection 
 which we have made above ; but we should certainly be able to 
 produce the same result by placing together and comparing 
 the whole usage of the word. And thus Aristotle's explanation 
 of Plato's dkkojxivr]v becomes only the more surprising. If 
 Aristotle really did use it in the sense of to turn or revolve, 
 one might certainly be inclined to think that it must have had 
 that meaning in the language of his time. This supposition 
 is not, however, so necessary as may at first sight appear. 
 Aristotle was an etymologist, and in pursuing his etymological 
 inquiries the same might happen to him which does to others. 
 The verb was evidently in his time, particularly as a simple 
 verb, nearly or quite obsolete, and still partially used in only 
 a few expressions. Plato, who adopted on various occasions, 
 but always with discrimination, old and rare words, selected 
 this for the passage in question ; and Aristotle, mistaking Plato's 
 opinion of the thing spoken of, and misled by the irepi im- 
 mediately following the word, attributed to it here the meaning 
 of a revolving motion. At any rate the examination of it as a 
 living word ends with Plato ; and the result is, that the only 
 meaning which this verb had throughout (if on the other hand 
 we consider the sense of to beat as obsolete) was that of to 
 press, to fasten, with their derivative meanings ; but the sense 
 of to turn, to roll, was quite unknown to it, and only found its 
 way into it in certain cases as a collateral idea, arising from 
 the nature of the thing spoken of. There remain now for our 
 consideration only some cases and passages, which we have 
 hitherto deferred that we might not interrupt the regular course 
 of the investigation. 
 
 15. There is one meaning of this verb which is known to us 
 
 5 How little this distinction also was attended to, we see, among 
 other things, from the explanation which some grammarians gave of 
 the word eXXo^, that it is the same as iXXox//-, 8u\ ro f'tpyccrOai (Pwuijs : 
 because IWfcrOat is upytaBai : Ath. 7, p. 308. c. 
 
266 44- EiXcFiv&c 
 
 only through a quotation from a lost lexicon of Pausanias, and 
 one from another grammarian, both mentioned by Eustathius 
 on II. v, 572. Havaavias ei7iw, elkaeiv, crrptfiXovv, itU&iv. 
 /xaAiora §e kiri vypcov OLKeCa rj kigis olov (TTCKpvX&v kclt clvtov 
 rj ekcu&v. kcll eiAeiz; to avvayzLV (frrjcrl els tclvto ora^vAds. 
 €T€pos Se t€xvlkos (f>7](Tiv, eikelv €Km4{€iv eAaia? 77 ore/uufwAa. 
 Whatever inaccuracy or obscurity may have crept into these 
 quotations, one thing is evident from them, that etAetz, and 
 perhaps elkdetv also, was used in some dialect of common life 
 in the sense of to press, squeeze the grapes. It is certainly 
 very singular how such a meaning as o-rptftkovv can here 
 again enter into the explanation of dkeiv ; and when this 
 verb is taken in conjunction with the Latin torcular, and 
 another Greek verb of similar meaning, Tpairelv, in Homer 
 (Od. 7], 125.) and Hesiod (Scut. 301.), it becomes almost im- 
 possible to avoid thinking of a turning wine-press. And yet 
 I am firmly convinced that this meaning (to turn) does not 
 lie at the root of either of these two Greek verbs. The verb 
 rpa-ntiv is understood, according to the established tradition 
 of the grammarians, of treading the grapes, the only idea which 
 can suit the description in Hesiod. And so little idea was 
 there in that passage of a turning wine-press, that the gram- 
 marians derived it indeed from rpeVa), but only on account 
 of the Tpoirrj or change of the must into wine. I have not the 
 least doubt that the Greek language preserved in this verb 
 the family of words which pervade the modern European 
 languages, in the German treten, to tread, trappen, to stamp*. 
 Still less reason is there for doubting that this use of etAeu> 
 comes from that which we have above acknowledged to be its 
 original meaning, to push, thrust, stamp, with which is connected 
 the idea of to grind in dArj and aKtiv. And undoubtedly the 
 olive also had its Greek name eAda from its undergoing this 
 operation. 
 
 16. I think I can add very considerable weight to this view 
 of the subject by the Epic epithet of oxen, elkiirohes. If the 
 word be derived, as it properly is, from d\tlv, and we give it 
 the meaning of eAiWeiy, the result will be a most unnatural 
 one ; for the expression will be far more the characteristic of the 
 
 [We may add our verb to trip. — Ed.] 
 
44- B*A«v 3 &c. 267 
 
 tread of horses than of oxen. Voss saw by his talent of obser- 
 vation that the characteristic of oxen was the heaviness and 
 clumsiness of their tread; and Hippocrates (de Articulis 7.) 
 assigned as the cause of their being eiAt7ro8es more than other 
 animals, that their joints are more loosely set {yjiXapa). This 
 property made them, therefore, peculiarly calculated for tread- 
 ing out the corn, which operation is again an analogous one to 
 those already mentioned of the grapes and olives, and, I think, 
 sets this epithet of dXinohes *, stamping ivith their feet, in its 
 correct light. 
 
 .17. Aristophanes (Nub. 762.) makes Socrates say, in far- 
 fetched expressions, to Strepsiades who was reflecting on a pre- 
 vious question, 
 
 Mr) vvv 7rep\ cravruv elAAe (var. iXXe) rr)v yvooprjv de\, 
 'AXX' dnoxaXa tt)v (frpovTib' is top depa. 
 
 The antithesis is evidently with airoyakav, and etAAe &c. is 
 therefore ( do not entangle thyself, do not wrap thyself up in thy 
 thoughts;' ttkkuv tl -nepi ri means therefore here, as in the 
 passage of Plato, to bind something firm around an object, and 
 the ' around' lies in irepi Xenophon (de Ven. 6, 15.) uses the 
 expression efi'AAot/o-cu to. lyv 7 ) °f hounds picking out a difficult 
 scent, as where different scents cross each other. Schneider 
 on this passage quotes others from Herodian where efeAiVreu; 
 has this same meaning. Both are taken metaphorically from 
 the unfolding of something wrapped or covered up ; as e£iAAeiy 
 is the doing away that which is signified by tkkeiv, much the 
 same as we say to wrap and unwrap, cover and uncover. 
 
 1 8. Very difficult, after all this discussion, is the passage 
 in Sophocl. Antig. 341., where it is said that man 0ewz; 
 
 TCLV V7T€pTCLTaV yCLV LtffiQlTOV aKapLCLTCLV CLTiOTpV^Tai, elkopLtvw f 
 
 * [Both Schneider in his Lexicon, and Passow in his last edition of 
 the same, understand etXlno&es in the sense of trailing heavily their 
 feet, particularly the hinder feet, and cite Hippocrates in confirmation 
 of it. Passow expressly objects to Buttmann's interpretation, " stamp- 
 ing with the feet." — Ed.] 
 
 t [Passow in his Lexicon mentions that the Aid. and one very good 
 MS. have naWopwoiv, which would appear to be the true reading. — 
 Ed.] 
 
268 44- EtXefr, &c. 
 
 (var. iWontvoov) apoTpuv eYos ets hos, iTnreta) yevei 7To\€vo)v. 
 I cannot perceive, from all that has been hitherto collected 
 together, that the passive or middle sense of this verb furnishes 
 any idea suited to this passage, unless indeed we think of the 
 plough as being pushed and driven forward by the ploughman : 
 but then this is opposed by the mention of the horse imme- 
 diately following ; as we no sooner hear of the animal which 
 draws the plough, than we naturally think of the man not as 
 pushing the plough, but guiding it. Still, however, I do not 
 think this explanation should on that account be rejected 
 without further consideration. The scholiasts have been in- 
 duced by the regular recurrence expressed in fros ets fros, to 
 understand it in the sense of revolving. A passage of a later 
 poet, Nicander, may give us a somewhat different view of it ; 
 he advises the flying from a huge and terrible serpent to be 
 effected in this way ; <£>ei)ye & ael ctko\l7Jv re kclI ov \xiav arpa-nov 
 tk\b)v. If from this passage we determine in favour of the 
 sense of motion backwards and forwards or to and fro for the 
 other earlier example, this meaning certainly suits the plough 
 particularly well ; with which we may compare the words lk\6s 
 and tAAcov/f, expressing a similar motion of the eyes ; and this 
 usage will then belong to that frequentative sense which still 
 remains. 
 
 19. The passive form of this verb occurs again in another 
 sense, which has been compared with the Latin versari, and that 
 as early as Herodotus, who (2, 76.) distinguishes one species 
 of the ibis from the common sort with this expression, t&v kv 
 TToal d\ev\xiv(siv toZctl avQp(airoi(Ti : where £v iroal means no- 
 thing more than near at hand ; as at 3, 79. €kt€lvov iravra 
 tlvcl tS>v payav rbv iv iroal yivo^evov, every one who chanced 
 to come near them, to come in their way. I do not find a second 
 instance of this use of the word in succeeding writers until 
 Aristotle, who in his Hist. Anim. 10, 25. says of the bees, 
 when they do not fly out, bXh! kv rfj eubiq avrov av^Xovvrai : 
 and, lastly, in Max. Tyr. 28, 58. of persons who are always en- 
 gaged in lawsuits, oi irpbs ras biKas elkovpLevoi. In this expres- 
 sion dkzicrdai answers to our phrase to be busy about anything. 
 And as nothing has occurred to show that the idea of to move 
 and turn about and around is a radical one in this word, we 
 
44. E/\en/, &c. 269 
 
 must suppose that it found its way into use from the frequenta- 
 tive meaning of the present. That is to say, the meaning of 
 to be pushed or to push and thrust oneself readily takes in the 
 present, particularly in Greek, the collateral idea of com- 
 monly, constantly, which, when we are speaking of the space in 
 which this is done, naturally and of itself calls up the idea of 
 backwards and forwards, or the corresponding one of around 
 and about. To this appears to belong the meaning which the 
 word has occasionally in the later Greek, to wind around ; for 
 example in Theocr. 1,31. kclt avrbv (on the cup) e'Ai£ eiAetrai, 
 ' the ivy winds* around.' In the above-mentioned sense of 
 to bustle about, be busily engaged, the verb dXtivOai, with its 
 strengthened form elkivhdaOai, is synonymous with KvXivheiaOai ; 
 but we must speak of these forms more at length in a separate 
 article. 
 
 20. As to the different ways in which the radical verb of 
 this family is written, thus much may be said with certainty, 
 that all the varieties which have been brought forward in the 
 course of this investigation are genuine, that is, are drawn from 
 and grounded in the earlier periods of the language ; as is evident 
 from this, that all the differences concerning the aspirate, the 
 vowel, and the consonant, are mentioned in separate observa- 
 tions of the grammarians, and sometimes one is preferred, 
 sometimes another. The difference of the spiritus arises from 
 the loss of the old digamma, by which the original verb was 
 aspirated or not. According to the nature of the dialects we 
 may be quite certain that the aspiration, in this as in many 
 similar doubtful cases, belonged properly to the Attics, and 
 the other mode of pronunciation to the Ionians and the later 
 koivoIs. Thus then, the forms idk-qv and d\r\vai, which were 
 elsewhere very commonly but contradictorily written kdk-qv and 
 akijvai, are now with reason written uniformly in Homer ac- 
 cording to the Ionic dialect, as we may suppose they were spoken 
 by the younger rhapsodists. There is still a peculiar form of 
 this family of verbs (if indeed it be a member of this family) in 
 
 * [Perhaps the word in this passage of Theocritus might have given 
 a Greek the original Homeric idea of the ivy clinging and pressing to 
 the cup. — Ed.] 
 
270 44 . EtAefr, &c. 
 
 TTpoaeXe'iv, which we shall make the subject of a separate ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 21. If we now run briefly over some certain or probable 
 derivations from this family of verbs, we have first dXrj or tXr], 
 with its derivatives iXabov and ojouAoj, all in the sense of dense 
 bodies and crowds of people, and derived immediately from 
 eiAeiz;, as we have seen it above at sect. 4. of this article. And 
 the Hesiodic use of iXahov in e, 285. Trjv \xkvToi KaKOT-qra kclI 
 IXahov €(ttlv kXicrOcu, which hardly admits of a metaphor drawn 
 from crowds of men, comes immediately from the idea of a 
 dense compressed mass of anything. There is the same idea of 
 compressing or tying up together in iXXds, of which we have 
 spoken above, as also in eXXebavos (or -oV), the band with which 
 the sheaf of corn was tied, or the sheaf itself, II. 0-, $$$. Of 
 €l\va> we shall presently speak in a separate article, from 
 which verb is derived not improbably the word iXvs, mud, as 
 being a thing which passes over and covers. The sense of 
 volvo, which lies in eiAwso, we shall mention in its proper- 
 place ; and while we hold the possibility of its having grown 
 out of the frequentative sense of eiAeiu, we do not deny that 
 another root EA-, having really the meaning of turning or 
 winding, and to which the words eAiWo) and e'Ai£ seem to guide 
 us, might possibly have crept into the spacious storehouse 
 of the Greek language. But in either case we have this one 
 certain result, that the verb etAco, eiAe'co, in this form and in the 
 words evidently derived from it, had not in any instance the 
 sense of winding and turning. 
 
 22. I cannot conclude this article without here referring 
 to the word ovXos, curled or matted like ivool, which will be 
 found (see art. 88.) derived correctly indeed from eiAeu>, (though 
 agreeably to general opinion the groundwork of the meaning is 
 supposed to be the curled or winding nature of the separate 
 parts of an object,) and that derivation itself confirmed by ov- 
 Aa/xo's, as globus virormn*. This last, however, is corrected 
 by what has been said before, since it comes from elXelv 
 in the same way and with the same sense as iXrj does, and 
 
 * [And perhaps oXfios, a round stone, II. A, 147. derived by Passow 
 from EAO, ei'Aa>, elXvco, 1AA0, volvo ; but by Buttmann from 6Acu, ovKai, 
 aAf'co, molo. See note, p. 451. — Ed.] 
 
44. EcXefi/, &c. 271 
 
 means a compressed or crowded body of men; just as the 
 Latin globus by no means comes from a root signifying to turn 
 and wind, but, with glomus, KA<3/xa£ and gleba, expresses a 
 compressed mass, a lump or ball. Nor is the above explana- 
 tion of ovkos at all satisfactory to me, because in the oldest 
 Greek such curled or winding objects when taken separately 
 have never this epithet, but it is given only to anything made 
 soft and stuffed out by a thick mat of hair or wool ; thus in 
 Homer it is an epithet of the woolly fleeces and coverings, 
 and also of a head of hair, not falling down in curls, but cover- 
 ing the head with a thick and elastic mat, the ovkov rpty^cojuta 
 of an ob\oKapr\vov. From this, the only meaning found in 
 the older Greek, it will be easily seen that all else which is 
 brought forward in the lexicons proceeds from some poetical 
 continuation and metaphorical use of the original idea. For 
 instance, as the epithet of a wreath or chaplet of violets in 
 Stesichorus (p. 28, 5. Suchf.), Icav re KopwvLbas ovkas, it ex- 
 presses perfectly well the thick and cushion-like surface of a 
 chaplet wreathed with small flowers. But all this comes very 
 naturally from the compressing and packing together expressed 
 by the verb elXeiv. From /caretAe^, in the sense of wrapping 
 or covering up, comes the epithet Karovka? for the dark night, 
 used by the post-Homeric poets. See Schneider*. 
 
 EI\l7tovs ; vid. eW&v, &c. Sect. 1 6. 
 
 * [From Schneider's Lexicon I extract the following : 
 " KarovXat, ados, fj t epithet of the night, like 6Xor] vv£, the dark night, 
 Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1695. and Sophocl. Nauplius in Fhotius. Others read 
 
 KareiXas. HeSVC'hiuS has KareiXada, fjpepav yc.i\icpiVT]v, and dXas, (tko- 
 Tetvrj ; also elXv, fxeXav ; and, again, eXvcrTa, tipneXos fieXatva ; 4Xi(3orpvs, 
 (ipneXos tis pe'Xaivu." 
 
 In Passow's last edition of Schneider we have : 
 
 " KaruvXds, rj, vv£, the dark night, Soph, and Ap. Rh. Others write 
 KareiXas from ti\a, while kutovXus conies from ovXos, 6Xos. The mean- 
 ing is however the same, thick darkness, such as (according to a well- 
 known expression) might be felt, spissa nox." — Ed.] 
 
272 
 
 45- ElAJeo, eXvadrjvat. 
 
 1. The forms belonging to the themes elKvoa and kkvca stand 
 in sensible relation, in meaning as well as orthography, to that 
 great- variety which we have seen under etAca. Indeed, elXvo), 
 which in Homer has in its inflexions the v long, as elhvo-to, et'Au- 
 jucm, has invariably in the same poet no other meaning than that 
 of to wrap, envelope, or cover over, as vtfyikr], vvkt'i, \jrafjLd6(o 9 
 o-aKtaiv, &c, whence d\vp,a in Od. £ 179. is any covering for 
 the body; which meaning appears, therefore, to come originally 
 from elkfjo-ai, in the sense of to envelope, wrap up. See art. 44. 
 sect. 13. 17. 
 
 2. The verb €kva> is to be considered, therefore, in this oldest 
 Greek not as a mere contraction of elkva, but as essentially 
 different from it. It is true, that the passage of Od. t, 433., 
 where Ulysses is concealed under the belly of a large ram, 
 Kacri7]v vtto yaarep ikvaOeh KetpL^v, and that exactly corre- 
 sponding one of Archilochus (Fr. 69. Liebel.) e/>G>? virb Kaphirjv 
 €kv(r0€is, if they were the only two passages where the word 
 occurs, might indeed be translated in a sense drawn from the 
 idea of to cover over; but the passage of II. co, 510. where 
 it is said of Priam KkaV abwa -npo-napoiOe irobcov 'Ax^yos ekv- 
 <t0€l$, is decisive against this interpretation ; and although this 
 last is not of itself sufficient to determine the sense, yet all three 
 together show plainly that it means the body compressed or 
 drawn up together ; in the first passage coiled up for conceal- 
 ment, in the last crouching down in the attitude of a suppliant. 
 It is evidently, therefore, only a more expressive word for d,\et9 
 (see art. 44. sect. 6.), the root EAI2 having taken a more forcible 
 form in va> for that very purpose. 
 
 3. A striking deviation from these passages is found in II. \j/ y 
 393. where the yoke of the horses which draw the chariot of 
 Eumelus breaks in two, the horses run aside out of the road, 
 pvp.bs 5' €7rt yaiav k\v(r6r). Though the word used here were 
 the least known in the whole Greek language, yet from the 
 thing signified the meaning is clear and certain, — " the pole 
 
45* E«Xw», eXv&Orjvai. 273 
 
 came to the ground." This Schneider * saw in his Lexicon ; 
 but I believe this was all he saw, so completely has the word 
 been obscured, partly by the conjectures of etymologists, and 
 partly by the unmeaning explanations of scholiasts and com- 
 mentators. If it still remain doubtful, the substantive ikvfia 
 will decide it. This is the share-beam, or that part of the 
 plough which ended in the share. Now the exact direction 
 given to this for the performance of its office, namely, inclining 
 downwards and so pushed into the earth, is precisely that in 
 which the pole would drop in the case of the yoke breaking. 
 As this then is certainly the true sense, I think it equally certain 
 that ZkvaOrivai, in this meaning as well as the others, comes ori- 
 ginally from EAI2, eko~cu, through its more forcible variety eAva> ; 
 for we have admitted to push, thrust, drive, or beat, to be the 
 undoubted original idea of this radical verb. 
 
 4. The examples which I have given are sufficient to show 
 that these presumed differences are not merely casual. I mean 
 that, even if all this really comes from EAX2, eiAco, yet that 
 the old language intentionally made a distinction, using the 
 form beginning with et for the idea of to cover, and the one with 
 e for to compress and to push -f\ In addition to which there is 
 a difference in the quantity ; for the cr in ZkvcrQtLs indicates the 
 shortness of the v in its inflexions, although the substantive 
 
 * [From Schneider's Lexicon : 
 
 " 'EXvco, iXvco, from eXw, e'iXoo, dXea>, also i'XXco, to wrap up in, cover; 
 whence eXvrpov, a covering, case ; pvpos eVi yalav eXvcrdj], i. q. napeXvOr), 
 Ztt€(J€v, avv€i\r]6r], stuck into the earth, II. yjs, 393. Trpo-napoiBe nobcov 
 eXva6e\s, lying before his feet, II. a>, 510. kcito. 7777X010 eXvaOels, Oppiani 
 Hal. 2, 89. concealed; £v\ KTepeeo-aiv eXva6e\s veioQi yairjs, Apollon. I, 
 2^4* See elXvco. ElXvo), e'tXvpi, -vaco, also dXva), clXvpt, from (Xco, 
 fi'Xo), to roll, turn, or wind round anything, to wrap up in, envelope, cover, 
 hide; II. p., 286. n, 640, cp, 318. vecpecov dXvppevov aXXcou, Arati 413. 
 0X1777 Se piv elXvai axXvs, 432. nepi£ eiXvpeva kclttvio, Apollon. Rhod. 3, 
 I 291. Midd. to roll oneself along, drag oneself along slowly or with 
 difficulty, crawl along like children and worms ; wrap or cover oneself up, 
 hide, elXvaOels, Theocr. 25, 246." 
 
 This last is evidently either a mistranslation or a misquotation of 
 Schneider ; dXvadeis in Theocritus being used in a very different sense. 
 See below at the end of sect. 4. of this article. — Ed.] 
 
 t [This will hold good in the Homeric language, but the later writers 
 confounded both forms and meanings. Passow's Lexicon. — Ed.] 
 
 T 
 
. 2/4 45* Et\Jo), eXwOrjvai. 
 
 eAv/xa deviates again from that rule. But the succeeding poets 
 entirely lost sight of these distinctions. Thus Apollonius Rhod. 
 3, 281. says of Love, aww 5' vtto fiaibs ZkvaOds Aln-ovibrj, and 
 immediately after, at 296. T0109 £770 Kpabirj eikvpiivos aWero 
 kdOprj Ovkos "Epws, speaking in both passages of Love hiding 
 himself, and in the second in evident imitation of the words of 
 Archilochus : he has therefore used eZAv/xeVo? and ekvcrOds 
 without any distinction. Again at 3, 1291. 7re/)i£ dkvfxiva 
 KaTTVio, and soon afterwards of Jason surrounded with the flames 
 of the fire -breathing bulls, ha (frkoybs eWap ikvadeCs : he has 
 therefore used the two forms indifferently for the other meaning. 
 To these we may add the passage 1 , 1 034. of a person slain 
 by Jason, 6 5* 1 ivl xJraiJLaOoLcrLv ekvadeis Molpav aviirk^a-ev, con* 
 sequently in the sense of ' stretched out,' provolutus, to which 
 meaning I cannot find any corresponding one either in Homer 
 or elsewhere. Theocritus, 25, 246. writes dkvcrOeis in the sense 
 of the Homeric eAwflcis, that is to say, of the lion drawing him- 
 self up or crouching, to spring on his opponent. And a writer 
 of the middle Comedy in Athenseus, 7. p. 293. d. has dkvcra 
 with the v short, in the sense of to wrap up in, envelope. 
 
 5. There is another use of this verb in Sophocles, and that 
 a most peculiar one, in two passages in Philoct. 291. and 702. 
 in both of a crawling or dragging oneself along, or at least of 
 such a painful and laborious pace as comes nearest to that of 
 crawling; ElkvopLrjv bvo-T-qvos i^ikKcav iroha Tlpbs tovt dv and 
 elkvojjievos, Tiais drep o)s (ptkas TiOrjvas. 
 
 6. Whilst then the theme ikvo) is accurately connected by 
 meaning with the root EAX2, dk<o, — the theme tlkva), as used 
 by Homer and Sophocles, seems to have a particular identity 
 of meaning with volvo ; and as eiA.ua> had undoubtedly the di- 
 gamma (see Od. £,479. e, 403.), the Latin verb corresponds 
 with it pretty clearly. The Epic frequentative verb dkvcfrdfa, 
 dkvcfrao), of the flame rolling or whirling up, proceeds probably 
 from the same idea. At the same time, there is not in dkvia 
 properly and strictly any meaning of to turn. Nevertheless 
 I am too much afraid of partially mixing up many ideas in 
 one, not to admit the possibility of a really twofold root, 
 .FEA-, to push or thrust, and F EA-, to turn or wind ,• so that to 
 the former should belong ekcrai, €iA.a>, tkaco, ikvca, to the latter 
 
46. 'Ei'ovcefi/, 'ia-Ketv. 275 
 
 eiAvw, eAtWo). And thus, while I think that I have laid down 
 with certainty the principal directions which usage has taken l s 
 I am at the same time willing to suppose that in this, as well 
 as in the article on eiAo), some things may admit of a very 
 different decision from that which I have given. 
 
 46. 'EioTcew, XorKtiv. 
 
 1. The Epic verb eicrK&> has its fixed and certain meanings, 
 to think similar, liken, compare, and to make similar, assimilate. 
 No less fixed is the digamma before the e, and the correct 
 way of viewing it is therefore FEFISKQ, from fEIKH, like 
 bebiorKoixat. (/ greet, Od. 0, 150.) from beiK.vvp.i (II. t, 196.). 
 But to this there arises one objection at 11. <p, 332. where Juno 
 calls on Vulcan to attack Xanthus, and says to him, avra 
 <T€t)ev yap tzavdov btp-qevra (Jlclxj] rfta-KOfxev elvat. This form 
 is a regular imperfect, et<rK(a, rj'LoKOP, or FEF12K&, EFEFI- 
 2K0N (as at Od. b, 247. aAAw b' avrbv <£g)tI KaTaKpvTtTvv 
 ij'i(TK€v) ; but the context is against this tense ; for there is no 
 reason whatever for our supposing a previous consultation of 
 the Gods to which Juno may refer in this imperfect; and a 
 present rjio~K(i) (fHflSKH) is contrary to all analogy. The true 
 way is to compare it with babCo-Ko^ac (Od. y, 41.), and fur- 
 ther with bttboLKa and 8ei8iWo^cu. For in this same way eloLKa, 
 that is, fEIfOIKA (II. a, 418.), was formed out of eoua (fE- 
 fOIKA) from eUca ; and consequently fEIflSKXl out of FE- 
 
 1 If we consider the Latin volvo, we recognize in it that kind of re* 
 duplication in which the end of the second part is lopped off, and the 
 whole root is visible only in the first, as in Tropnr), bulbus, the German 
 verbs mahne?i, dulden, &c. [the English words turtle, poppy, velvet] . To 
 these we may add dXva), in as much as from the root FEA- is made 
 fEAfQ, of which two digammas in the Ionic the first became the aspi- 
 rate, the other was changed into the v. Now it is possible that in 
 the simple original verb there was no other idea than that simple mo- 
 tion which we have seen in ei'Aa>, i\da>, &c., and that the reduplication 
 first introduced into this family of words, as a kind of frequentative 
 meaning, the idea of to roll, wind, and turn ; which then, being already 
 become scarcely audible in dkvu, lost itself more and more in other 
 forms, and so at last fell again into the simple root. But it may b l 
 otherwise, and the etymologist should never lose sight of all the dif- 
 ferent possibilities. See note 2, p. 352. 
 
 J j 
 
276 4.6, 'EiV/cetv, '[<tk€lv. 
 
 F I2KX2, that is, elfokfo out of e/'<rKa> ; and this present dlo-Ko^v 
 is therefore to be recognized in that rjia-Ko^v handed down to 
 us in the above passage of the Iliad. None of this, however, is 
 the Ionic elongation of e into et ; but 8et and fEI are the redu- 
 plicated radical syllables of AEIKX2, AEJX2, and 5EIKI2. See 
 the Ausfiihr. Sprachl. under beUvvpu and deio-at*. 
 
 2. With this verb coincides in sense the shortened form 
 toTca). II. A, 798. 7r, 41. At Ke (re ra> (At k e/xe crol) l<tkovt€s 
 aTioo-^vrai TtokefjLOio : as at e, 181. Tvbetbrj pnv tyvye batcfypovi 
 navm eto-KO). Again, Od. §,279. of Helen standing near the 
 wooden horse, Ylavrvv ' ApyetW (jxdv-qv Io-kovcf akoyoicriv : there- 
 fore (fxdvrjv 'l(tk€lv tivi is, to make one's voice like that of another 
 person, much the same as o~\ yap avTrjv iravrl e'to-Ketj, said by- 
 Ulysses to Minerva, Od. i>, 313. 
 
 3. The more striking is it that "Iovce should at the same time 
 be said to mean, he spoke. That this sense does occur frequently 
 in Apollonius Rhod. is perfectly undeniable ; for instance, after 
 the delivery of a speech at 2, 240. "Io-kzv 'Ayqvoplbrjs, and again 
 at 3, 439. "Igkzv cbr^Aeyecos. In the older Epic, however, we 
 know of it in only these two Homeric passages ; Od. r, 203. of 
 Ulysses, after his fabricated account to Penelope : 
 
 "lcrKe yJAev^ea noWa \eycov irvpoMnv 6/xoia. 
 
 and x, 31. of the suitors after the delivery of their speech re- 
 proaching Ulysses for having shot Antinous : 
 
 "l(TK€P eKaaros dvrjp, eTreirj <fid<rav ovk ide\ovra 
 "Avdpa KaraKTelvai. 
 
 * [I extract from the above-named work of Buttmannthe following: 
 
 " Acldey/Adi, SeiSe'xarai, Sei'SfKro, &c. have the syllable of reduplication 
 8«, because it is the radical or stem- syllable, as in ddcrai. These 
 forms belong not to dexopai, but to feuo'v/u, in the sense of to greet, 
 welcome, drink to, and to them we may add a word of similar meaning, 
 SeiSto-Ko/iat ; whence Apoll. Rh. I, 558. said, detdio-Kero irarpX, in the 
 common sense of ifc'uatve. The ground-idea is undoubtedly the pre- 
 senting the hand, cup, &>c, with which the idea of to show corresponds 
 very well. 
 
 tc Aeidoma, deidia, idddipev were used by the Epics because, like 8ei- 
 8enTo, the diphthong was in the radical syllable. From BeiBia arose a 
 present deldco, of which only this person occurs." 
 
 The above will be found more at length in the translation of Butt- 
 mann's Irregular Verbs, published since the first edition of this work. 
 —Ed.] 
 
4.6. 'Eio7c«y, 'luKeiv. 277 
 
 That these two passages of Homer read quite simply and na- 
 turally, if "lane be rendered by he spoke, is not to be denied ; 
 but when considered in and by themselves, it is not conceivable 
 how a word, which in all other cases had a certain decided 
 meaning, could in these two passages have one so totally dif- 
 ferent. And if we wish to suppose a separate but similarly 
 sounding root la-neiv, to say, we are opposed by the unreason- 
 ableness and improbability of it, as there is no trace whatever 
 of any relatives of such a word. 
 
 4. Hence there was a supposition in very early times that 
 l(tk€lv was here misunderstood, and consequently that the imi- 
 tation of Apollonius Rhod. and others was false. And first in 
 Apollonii Lex. (in v. and under elcrKovres) the word IcrKtv, which 
 can be taken from only these two passages of Homer, is ex- 
 plained by dKa&v, ufioiov ; and the same in Hesychius. Eusta- 
 thius remarks on the first passage as follows : to be "luKev ol 
 \xev y\o)0(Toypdcf)OL avrl tov e\eyev knhixovTai, ol be aKpt/3eorepot 
 olvtX tov ij'Co-K€V, 6 kcrTiv, eUa^ev aiteiKOvifav TTpbs dK^detav. 
 The scholium on this passage is nearly the same ; and on the 
 second passage, x> 3 1 -* the scholium, as given by Barnes, 
 has these words, akkoi fxev to eXeyev vr)\j,aiveiv fiovXovTai, where 
 it is therefore plain that there was originally another part, 
 now lost, expressing that some understood it here also to 
 mean e'Uo^ev. Eustathius explains it, indeed, in this second 
 passage by ekeyev, but remarks at the same time that this 
 passage (yupiov) was supposed by the ancients to be interpo- 
 lated, because it seems ridiculous that all the suitors should 
 say this at one time, like the chorus of a tragedy, and because 
 Homer in such cases says, &be be tls eheaKev: contrary to 
 which criticism, however, he afterwards defends the disputed 
 passage, which necessarily comprehends the verses 31, 32, ^^. 
 But the scholium in the Vienna Codex on this verse runs 
 
 thus ; Ovb€770T€ "O/XTJpOJ C776 TOV kkeye TO L(TK€, aAA.' C77i TOV 
 
 tolioiov. ijiruTriTai ovv 6 b tarr K€vacrTi]9 €K tov v IcTKe \j/evbea 
 irokkd. Schol. Apollon. I, S34. to be laKev evTavOa fxev clvtl tov 
 ekeyev, napa be 'O/^/pw clvtI tov oj/jlolov K Schol. II. 77, 41. 
 
 1 Another scholium, on 3,396. to 8e taicfv 'OfirjpcKws, might be brought 
 to accord with this of 1, 834. by Bupposihg that the scholiast on the 
 
278 ^6. 'EiVffeti/, 'l<TK€tv. 
 
 XaKOvres. 6[jlolovvt€s. ol he vea>repoi iirl rov keyovres t6,ttov<tl ttjv 
 ke£t,v. 
 
 5. The result of all that has been said appears to amount to 
 this, that a spurious form, tcr/cez;, he spoke, resting on no analogy- 
 whatever, had crept into the Epic poetry of the rhapsodists by 
 some misunderstanding or other ; that its spuriousness did not 
 escape the notice of some of the grammarians, while others, 
 amongst whom are the Alexandrine poets Apollonius, Theocri- 
 tus (22, T67.), and Lycophron (574.)? imitated it without hesi- 
 tation 2 . More accurate grammarians endeavoured to account 
 for this usage by supposing some misunderstanding of the pas- 
 sages in Homer. That of Od. r. does indeed offer very good 
 grounds for the explanation which the scholiast proposes, irokka 
 \jsevhr) keycap eUa^ev ooare ojuoia elvai akiqOecnv : but there 
 would be some difficulty in forcing the second passage, that 
 of Od. x> to bear the same explanation, although it is a co- 
 incidence singular enough, that the words immediately succeed- 
 ing "IvKtv eKaaTos avr\p, viz. eireir) (j)dcrav ovk eOekovra " ' Avhpa 
 KdTaKTeivai, do imply a conjecture, an opinion. Still it is im- 
 possible to understand the words in question to mean c thus 
 each man conjectured/ &c, or, ' thus spake each man dissem- 
 bling/ &c. ; for the threat in the preceding verses was certainly 
 not feigned, nor did the suitors feel any kindness toward the 
 stranger (against whom they were before so exasperated for 
 having succeeded in stringing the bow), from supposing that 
 he had killed Antinous ' accidentally. ' So convinced however 
 were those grammarians of the impossibility of 1<tk.€iv meaning 
 to say, that they imagined it to be the work of a Stao-Kevaor?}?, 
 and supposed the misunderstanding of r, 203. to be the origin 
 of the usage in the later poets. 
 
 6. For my part, I am in doubt whether to prefer this opinion 
 or one still bolder. For instance,^ after repeated consideration 
 of these passages, it has always struck me that, even in the 
 first, the most natural mode of expression is, { thus spake he;' 
 
 former passage understood the flattering speech of Jason to be a feigned 
 one ; but as that scholium is wanting in the Paris Codex, it may have 
 been added later. 
 
 2 Simonides Epig. 59. (65.) has it in its genuine sense of to con- 
 jecture. 
 
47 • "E/07A09, euKr]\o$. 279 
 
 but €lkcl(€v or (E7t\(ltt€v alone for ra£r' or &s l-TrAarrey certainly 
 could not stand in such a context. Hence I conjecture that 
 Homer originally used here some other imperfect with that 
 same most natural meaning ; nor can I think of any other so 
 likely as to-irtv, a word which, it is true, does not occur in any 
 real text, but which, as an imperfect, is supported by the 
 strongest analogy (compare to-^e, II. 0, 657.); and is connected 
 with the aorist imperative eo-Trere, II. /3, 484., if we suppose that 
 this, according to the analogy of tcr^co, 'io-\ov, imperative cyis, 
 o^ere, stands for a-irire, as ko-neo-Qai for (Tireo-dai. It is very 
 conceivable that when the language of Epic poetry survived 
 only in the mouths of the rhapsodists, two forms so similar as 
 tcr7re and tcr/ce became confounded in their transmission down- 
 wards, and that lo-ne disappeared entirely. 
 
 47. "Ek^Aos*, (vky/Xo?. 
 
 1. That ZktjXos and evK-qKos are forms of one and the same 
 adjective is universally acknowledged, and is rendered certain 
 by a comparison of the passages in which they occur. But as 
 the derivation of the word is obscure, and the subsequent usage 
 of it wholly poetical, we must, from this very comparison of 
 passages, which in Homer are numerous enough, settle also 
 the proper meaning of the word. From this process one result 
 is easily obtained, — that in Homer its meaning is nearly equi- 
 valent to tranquil, but only with the idea of a freedom from 
 all anxiety, interruption, danger, or other uncomfortable feelings ; 
 for a person is said to be ZicqXos or ei^Ao?, not only while he 
 is resting, sleeping, eating, or playing, but also while he is using 
 any kind of active exertion. Thus the Trojans (II. p, 340.) 
 are unwilling that the Greeks should carry off to the ships the 
 body of Patroclus e/ojAoc ; and at (, 70. these latter are ex- 
 horted to leave the dead bodies of their enemies untouched, 
 that they may plunder them tKrjkoi after the battle ; nay fur- 
 ther at p, 371. it is expressly said, Evky]Kol i:oXi\xi(ov v-n aldipi, 
 in opposition to those who were fighting in darkness, dust, 
 and the perilous press of battle around the body of Patroclus. 
 The idea given by the word is therefore never an absence of 
 
280 47' "E/c^Aor, €VKr]\og. 
 
 motion or of labour, but expresses only that nothing unpleasant 
 or vexatious (which interrupts labour as well as rest) is pro- 
 duced by trouble or care. And with this accords very well 
 the expression used acrimoniously of one who interferes with 
 others, that he should remain €ky)\os in his own jurisdiction, as 
 Neptune says (o, 194.) of Jupiter. On the other hand, it is 
 a faulty application of the radical idea of the word, when Theo- 
 critus, 25, 100., uses it simply for idle, unemployed, and that too 
 as opposed to an occupation which is described as cheerful and 
 exhilarating : 
 
 *Ev6a jJL€V OVTIS €K7]\0S, a7T€ip€(TLa)V 7T€p ioVTODV, 
 
 Elarr]K€i Tvapa (3ova\v dvrjp Kexprjfievos epyov, &C. 
 
 2. That Hesiod's use of the word could have differed essen- 
 tially from this Homeric usage is not to be supposed.; and yet 
 it would appear to have been so from reading the following 
 verses, e, 668. : 
 
 Trjpos S* evKptvees avpai m\ tvqvtos dnripcov, 
 EvktjXos' Tore vrja 6of)v dvepouri 7ri0r)(ras 
 'EXicepev is ttovtov, (poprov S' ev Tvdvra rideaOai. 
 
 Here evK-qXos would seem to express mere stillness, and that 
 of inanimate objects, of which there is no instance, either in 
 Homer or in the oldest succeeding poets. Nor can we sup- 
 pose Hesiod to use in these mere household maxims that kind 
 of poetry which would here personify the sea, and then call it, 
 as offering no present danger, evK-qXos. And yet such must be 
 its meaning if we read Hesiod's text thus. But take away the 
 punctuation, and it is no longer so. If we place the colon after 
 airrjiJLO)v, and connect tvKrjkos with kXKepiev, the passage gains 
 both in punctuation and sense. Then we have here too that 
 tranquillity of mind opposed to anxiety and danger, which is 
 the leading idea in the Homeric use of the word. 
 
 3. The inaccurate supposition that the general meaning of 
 eKr/Xos was tranquil in the sense of still, quiet, was also an 
 obstacle to the understanding of a passage, otherwise difficult, 
 in the Hymn. Merc. 477. Of these Homeric hymns we can 
 premise one thing, that the old Epic usage of words is still na- 
 tural to them. The mental tranquillity and confidence, which 
 we have already observed in the meaning of the word, suits 
 
47- "Ek^Ao?, evKqXos. 281 
 
 this passage also ; only that here is no question of danger. 
 Mercury has shown Apollo the lyre, and on his admiring ex- 
 ceedingly the newly invented art, he presents it to him with 
 these words : " Courage ! henceforth thou mayst bear it with 
 perfect confidence to the festive board :" that is, " it will not 
 fail thee." To this sense the whole context leads, and particu- 
 larly the repeated expression 2ot 8' avrdyperov kern harjfjLevcu 
 o,ttl [jLevoLvqs, i. e. w thou canst learn whatever thou choosest, 
 and wilt therefore be able to play this lyre without trouble." 
 I do not think this explanation will be rejected by any one who 
 observes the striking similarity, although under quite different 
 circumstances, between the passage of Hesiod which I have 
 just before cleared from obscurity, 
 
 EvktjXos Tore vr/a 6otjv av([i.oi(Ti 7udr)(ras 
 c EXk€/x6i/ is ttovtov, (j)6pTOV 5' ev Trdvra rideadai, 
 
 and this passage in the Hymn to Mercury, 
 
 EvKr)\os fiev eneira (fiepeiv is balra OaXeiav, 
 Kai x°pov IfxepaevTa, ml is (pikoKvdta Kcopov, 
 TLll(f)pO(TVVT]V VVK.TOS re /ecu rjpaTOs^-. 
 
 4. In Apollonius*, on the contrary, is seen at once the mis- 
 taken imitation of Homer ; for he sometimes uses it, and that 
 repeatedly, of the stillness of inanimate objects: 4, 1249. e ^- 
 k?/Ao) be KardyjzTO navra yaXrjvrj, and (if any one should rather 
 look upon this as an intentional metaphor,) 2, 935. evKr\kr\(nv 
 7TT€pvy€(T(TLv, and 3, 969. of trees, At re Trapacrcrov eKrjkoi ev ovpecriv 
 €ppi((s)VTai N^e/xir/. At other times he uses it of persons, it is 
 
 1 It appears unnecessary to read \xlv in the first of these verses, as 
 the lyre is mentioned by name in the preceding one. I understand 
 ev<ppoa-uvrjv to be put in apposition with it. 
 
 * An older instance than Apollonius of the non-Homeric use of the 
 word to express the stillness and absence of motion of inanimate things 
 occurs in the Hymn. Cer. 45 1 . 
 
 'Es 8' apa 'Pdpiov c£f, rf)€p((r(3tov ovdap apovprjs 
 To npiu' drcip rare y ovn (fxpeaftiov, dWu eKrjkou 
 'EaTT)K€t navucf)v\Xov. 
 
 But this appears to me only an additional proof that this hymn has no 
 claim to anything like that high antiquity which stamps the others. 
 Buttm. Appendix. 
 
282 47* 'E/c^Aof, euKrjXo?. 
 
 true, not however to point out calmness of mind, but mere 
 simple silence, and that too when joined with mental emotion; 
 as, 3, 2:19. Evky]\ol 6' virep ovbbv €7retr efiav: and 2, 861. where 
 the Argonauts, in great distress and perplexity (aurjxavbiaiv) 
 at the loss of two of their companions, a\bs -npo-napoiQe tt€<t6vt€s 
 "Evtvttcls €VKrika)s dkvixivot, do not think either of eating or 
 drinking. 
 
 5. The Hesiodic phrase iratb^v euK-qkriTeipa, e, 462., might 
 possibly be adduced as a proof that the idea of silence lies in 
 evK-qXos. But whoever thinks thus does not consider that in 
 that passage the children are supposed to be crying for bread, 
 and when it is given them they become €vkt]\oi, i. e. quiet and 
 contented. Still greater injustice is done to Pindar : for in 01. 
 9, 87., where it is said of Jupiter, Qvyarp . . .'OiroevTos avapnao-ais 
 eicaXos fMY^fy MaivaXioiaiv kv (kipaij, the scholiast actually ex- 
 plains it by XaOpa, and the more modern commentators follow 
 his interpretation 2 . But secresy, as the whole context tells us, 
 is not at all necessary in that passage, and the true sense is 
 that Jupiter indulged his lust high up among the mountains 
 in undisturbed tranquillity. 
 
 6. It has been supposed that evKrjXos may be the older form 
 of the two, and derived from ev and KT)keiv ; without however 
 reflecting that it would then have a much too positive sense, 
 whereas it never occurs exactly in this positive sense ; and that 
 even in a form of more intense signification, evKi]\.r)Tos, i. e. 
 highly delighted, it must then have taken a negative sense, equi- 
 valent at most to such a term as agreeable, comfortable, and not 
 always even to that. But every appearance of this derivation 
 vanishes at once by the transition of the particle et> into e, a 
 transition without the slightest analogy whatever 3 . Hence 
 
 2 Damm however is an exception : his explanation of the word in 
 Homer and Pindar is essentially correct. 
 
 3 One thing which speaks strongly against this derivation is the 
 very circumstance of the old grammarians never having stumbled upon 
 it, although it stands so manifest. The older commentators, at II. a, 
 554. merely speak of the change from eKr)\os to cvktjXos, as a point well 
 ascertained ; the Etym. M. has under both forms many derivations 
 such as his generally are, but not this, which is found, among several 
 others, only in Eustathius on II. a, 554. p. 112, 49. Basil. 
 
47 • "EitiyXo?, euKr)\o$. 283 
 
 Schneider in his Lexicon supposes an old adjective ktjXos, tranquil, 
 from which may come, on the one hand tvKrjkos and eKTjXos, and 
 on the other Kr]kdv, which verb would therefore have had ori- 
 ginally the idea of tranquillizing, and now for the first time that 
 of delight and pleasure. But this supposition brings only the 
 form €vkt]\os into any analogy. For the prefixing of an e with 
 the aspirate, or still more with the digamma (see II. e, 759. 
 C, 70. l, 376. A, 75. o, 194. p, 340.), in order to form e/c^Aos 
 from kt]\6s, is equally without example. This last observation 
 rather proves to me that the radical syllable is in the beginning 
 of the word, e/c-, particularly as -rjXos is a well-known adjectival 
 termination. It is true that this termination has in airaT-qkos, 
 v\l/r]\6<>, &c. the accent on the final syllable, but such is the 
 prevailing tendency of the Greek language to throw back the 
 accent, that it is generally done whenever the derivation of a 
 word is no longer plainly traceable 4 . To ascertain this deriva- 
 tion may perhaps yet be possible, perhaps not : but as this can 
 hardly have any influence on our explanation of it in the different 
 passages where we have found it, I leave it undecided 5 . 
 
 7. As to the transition from e/c^A-os to €vkt}\os, we feel at 
 once that the digamma of the former is at work here ; and even 
 
 4 We have for instance the word oppos, which in both its meanings 
 is properly a verbal in pos. See eppa. 
 
 5 As far as form goes it is hardly possible not to consider the three 
 words eVcoi/, sktjti, €kt)\os (all having the digamma) as verbals of one 
 and the same root. Whether the result of the above investigation (that 
 eiajXos is properly used only of persons, and generally of mental feel- 
 ings) would lead to the same point, I shall not offer an opinion. By 
 a derivation not so sensible to the ear as the one which we rejected 
 above, it is at least possible to form a transition from the idea of volun- 
 tary, willing, to those other meanings contented, comfortable, undisturbed. 
 — And now I feel the more certainty in rejecting Schneider's opinion 
 in one point, agreeing with him as I do in every other, and derive Kr/Aew 
 from e/<7/Aos*, as pavpovv (Hes. e, 323.) comes from dpavpos, ko>x(vciv 
 from oko)xv> &c. And this derivation is confirmed by the Hesiodic eu- 
 Kr)\r)T€ipa, which word in fact contains a verb fi^Xe'co formed without 
 contraction from the other form evKijXos, and that in the exact sense 
 which Schneider considers the ground-meaning of k^Xcu, the calming 
 of the passions. 
 
 * [In Schneider's third and last edition of his Lexicon he has altered 
 that one point to an agreement with Buttmann. — Ed.] 
 
.284 47* "E/c^Xo?, eijKtjXog. 
 
 the mere transposition from fEKHA02 to EfKHAOS would 
 perhaps be satisfactory. But we can bring forward a still 
 plainer analogy. That many words in old Greek took an e as 
 a prefix, without gaining thereby any additional meaning, was 
 first pointed out by Bockh (ad Plat. Min. p. 148.), and used 
 for the purpose of explaining some forms. It is evident that 
 of this kind is the Homeric e in ZeLKocnv, eebva, eeATrerai, and 
 others. Now as all these words in their shorter form belong 
 to those acknowledged to have the digamma (ava €lko(tl per pa, 
 fjLvpta ebva, en ekirerat, &c.), we must write the longer forms 
 thus, EfElKOSIN, EfEANA, EfEAIIETAI : without which 
 supposition, it would be inconceivable how these words, already 
 beginning with an e, could take another e contrary to all har- 
 mony of sound. By a similar process, for eKrjkos we must now 
 write r"EKHA02 ; but as the e here is not as in the others, long 
 by the diphthong or by position, EfEKHA02 became at once 
 Er"KHA02, in the same way as by means of the augment 
 eirekero, eirero^v became en-Aero, enro^-qv. Herein it is evident 
 that -the rise and preservation of the form evKrjkos was promoted 
 by the apparently significative power of the syllable e£, exactly 
 as from Ef AAE came evabe into Epic usage. 
 
 8. I will further confirm this view of the subject by a case 
 exactly similar. The Argonaut Eurytus, Evpvros, is called by 
 the older writers "Epvros ; see Burm. Catal. Argon. It is easy 
 to say that the latter is a poetical license for the former ; but 
 what kind of versification must that be which would allow a 
 name so admissible into any metre as Evpvros is, to be short- 
 ened, according as circumstances might require, into "Epvros? 
 Or if (which is undoubtedly the correct supposition) the poets 
 followed in this case a really twofold pronunciation, how can it 
 'be supposed that so significative and full-sounding a name 
 could have been corrupted, even by the common people, into 
 "Epvros? Beyond all dispute therefore "Epvros, as being the 
 form applied to this Eurytus the Argonaut, and to no other of 
 that name, and being found in such pure authorities as it is, 
 is the true way in which the name is written in the tradition 
 of the race or family to which this hero belongs ; and it may 
 now be very readily supposed, that the form Evpvros is a later 
 corruption of it, caused by the name having been borne by many 
 
47« "Eic^Xo?, €VKt]\og. 285 
 
 others ; unless indeed, we should say that the same appearance 
 would go still farther, and point to evpvs as its root. 
 
 9. Among the inseparable particles that strengthen the sense 
 of a word are two, dpi- and epi-, which are exactly similar, at 
 least in meaning ; although it is difficult to conceive how the 
 same dialect and the same poet could use sometimes an a, 
 sometimes an e with a similar object. This alone is sufficient 
 to prove with certainty that the root of each is different. And 
 as it is certain that dpi- belongs to the same root as dpeiW, 
 aptvTos, and consequently comes from the idea of good, so epi- 
 belongs to the same family as evpvs, and arises from the idea 
 of bodily size. Hence dpi- is used in the old Epic and Lyric 
 poets principally to mark out a great capability, either in an 
 active or passive sense, for something or other; as apCyvooTos, 
 apLcppabrjs, easy to be known, apihaKpvs, given to crying, dpi- 
 o-(pa\ris, very deceitful, &c, but it never properly implies size 
 or extent, which is particularly the meaning of epi-, e. g. in 
 kpiavyevts, epiirXevpos, ZpLKvpLW, epio-ratyvXos : and hence it makes 
 an easy transition to the idea of a spreading sound, an extending 
 fame, as in epi/3pe/^er?y?, kpiyhovnos, (which may be compared 
 with evpvoira,) ipio-fxapayos, ipipLVKris, epiKvbris ; or to that of 
 luxuriant growth, as ipiOrjXrjs (compare tvpvcpvris). It is true 
 that the augmentative force of this particle is carried on to 
 some ideas which have nothing to do with size or extent, as in 
 kpi(rdzvr}s, epiri/xoj ; but this is also the case in eupvcrOevijs, which 
 in Homer indeed, where it is the epithet of Neptune, may 
 allude to the wide extent of his dominion, but in Pindar is the 
 epithet of many inferior heroes and rulers, and in 01. 4, 17. is 
 even joined with the aptrat; so that the Homeric epithet of 
 Jupiter, kpL(r6zvr\s, may very fairly be considered as the older 
 form of evpvcrOevris. 
 
 10. This identity of epi- and tvpv- is seen still more decidedly 
 marked in the name of another Argonaut, 'Epi/3wrr]9, who was 
 also called, for instance by Herodorus (according to Schol. 
 Apollon. 1, 71.) Evpv/3drr/s ; a circumstance which Burmann 
 in his Catal. Argon, has very properly compared with Eurytus. 
 He has also conjectured that this 'Epi^corr;? is the same as the 
 Evpvfiaras mentioned by Pausan. 5,17. as present with Jason, 
 Peleus, and other Argonauts at the funeral games of Pelias. 
 
286 47* ' E/c^Xo?, euKr]\o<s. 
 
 It can hardly be doubted that it is so. The hero, then, was 
 called 'Epi(3d)Tr}s or EvpvftvTrjs, and the name has thus for the 
 first time a true significancy. The second form might have been 
 written quite as analogically Evpv(3oTr]s, for the sake of the 
 hexameter ; which would then have changed itself almost neces- 
 sarily by an earlier or later corruption into the more glibly- 
 running name Evpvftarrjs 6 . 
 
 ii. In order now to derive evpvs in the above-mentioned 
 way from that more simple form to which kpi- belongs, this 
 latter must have had the digamma ; of which, however, often 
 as ept- occurs in Homer, we find none of the usual traces. But 
 it has been long an acknowledged fact, that by no means all the 
 words and forms which ever had the digamma retain it still in 
 Homer. Thus kkeiv has it no longer, of whose digamma e'Acop 
 is a proof; nor has avrip, whose digamma we ascertain from 
 other sources ; nor opav and aipeu>, from which could not have 
 been formed aoparos and airoaipeiv without the digamma. It 
 is no wonder then that a root, which was nothing more than a 
 particle prefixed to some compound words, should have lost 
 this aspirate. But fortunately there is still a trace of it, which 
 we may discover in the same way as we have above. 'Hepi- 
 /3oia is the name of a mythic woman in II. e, 389. That this 
 is the same name as that borne by others, 'E/}£/3ota, has been 
 always admitted, and justly so ; for the names of women with 
 which the mythic genealogies are filled, are in a very striking 
 manner purely poetical, consequently significative names. Who- 
 ever therefore is unwilling to allow the name ''HepCfioi.a to have 
 a ludicrous kind of meaning, will not reject that observation of 
 ours, according to which the name becomes analogous to the 
 masculine name 'Epi^njs. Now the form 'RepCfioia is evidently 
 nothing more than the dactylic pronunciation of 'Eepifioia ; by 
 which this name comes into the same class as the above-men- 
 
 6 I would not attempt to identify in the same way the questionable 
 name 'Epvakos (11. 7r, 411.) with Evpva\os, as the long a in the former 
 is so decidedly against it, and it is not to be supposed that the 
 poet would have chosen for an imaginary personage a name not 
 strictly analogical. I have therefore only to agree with Heyne, who 
 has adopted the reading 'EpvXaos, formed quite as analogically as 
 
 epVCTLTTToXl?. 
 
48. 'EXeA/£«i/. 287 
 
 tioned hUocriv, hhva, &c. For when names were newly formed, 
 the rule of formation was that they should have a real and 
 poetical meaning ; but when, in the pronunciation of the people 
 or for poetry, a name formed itself externally in some other 
 way, then the ear and habit inclined toward words and sounds 
 that were known ; and in this manner the form "Wepifioia arose 
 and prevailed. 
 
 48. 'EAeA/£€H>. 
 
 1. The verb eAiWco expresses merely a simple turning and 
 rolling. To diversify and add force to this sense recourse was 
 very naturally had to doubling the first syllable, and giving to 
 the derivative verb a different termination, making eAeAi^a) ; for 
 this is the only form that occurs in the present, and not eAeAio-o-co, 
 which has been erroneously introduced as the theme of eAe'At£ez>, 
 &c., but which ought to be erased from the lexicons. That 
 present is found in the Hymn to Minerva (28, 9. Wolf.) and 
 sometimes in Pindar. The form eAe'AiKro, which may have been 
 regarded as the pluperfect of €AiWg>, is also by its meaning 
 drawn towards this verb, and is therefore aoristus syncopatus *. 
 
 2. The most natural meaning of this reduplicated verb is a 
 tortuous motion, e. g. of the serpent and of lightning : thus at 
 II. /3, 316. (of the serpent) Trjv 8' eAeAi^ajueros uripvyos kafiev: 
 and at A, 39. of a serpent represented on a shield, Zif avrti 
 eAeAtJcro bp&KG>v : again of lightning, in Pind. N. 9, 45. KpovCcav 
 aaT€poirav eAeAif cuj. It is also used for expressing other quick 
 vibratory or brandishing motions, as at II. i>, 558. eyx°? °" et0 '- 
 fxevov eAeAi/cro : again in a Lyric passage in Plut. Quaest. Conviv. 
 9, 15. of the foot of a dancer, €AeAi£o/xei>os 7ro6t : and in Pind. 
 01. 9, 20. Py. 1,7. of playing on the lyre, iktkifrtv (poppuyya. 
 Whence, in a general sense, to cause to tremble, shake, as to 
 shake Olympus, II. a, 530. 0, 199. Hymn. Minerv. 1. c; again 
 at II. x> 44^- "Js & 1 cAeAtx0>/ yvla, her limbs trembled; and 
 at Od. p., 416. of the ship struck by lightning, i) 5' ik€k(\6r] 
 
 * See Buttmann'e Gramm. Beet. 99, 12, 2. e. 
 
288 49* 'Ei><5e'£fa, e7ri$e£ia. 
 
 3. The idea of turning round is also expressed by this verb, 
 as by the simple eAicro-G) ; but the additional force of meaning 
 which the verb possesses in its reduplicated form is sensibly felt 
 at Od. e, 314,, of the wave whirling round the raft, irepi be 
 oyeb^v eAe'Ai£ez> : and so it is used also of a single turning round, 
 whenever it is wished to express a sudden turning to fly, or on 
 the contrary a sudden turning from flight to stand firm ; thus at 
 II. p, 278. [xdka yap (rcfreas <ok eAe'At£ez> Alas, and again cXeA^x^- 
 aav, ekeXixOtvres, II. & 106. 109. A, 588.; while to express the 
 same turning round without the same force of expression the 
 simple form ekCo-crecrdai is used, II. p., 74. kXiyOzvTuv vit ^Axai&v, 
 i. e. ' if they should turn from flight.' 
 
 4. Yery different from the above is the verb eAcAlfciz', to 
 utter a loud erg (eAeAe£), which occurs in ordinary prose, and 
 has- the same inflexion. 
 
 "EXacu ; vid. elXeiv. 
 *EAvo-0r)vai ; vid. eiXvco. 
 
 49. 'Ei/Se^a, iiriSe^ia. 
 
 1 . Whether either of the two expressions Zvbegca and €7rt8ef ta 
 have in Homer the sense of dexterous, skilful, can be decided 
 only by a survey of the passages in which they occur. They are 
 these: II. (3, 353. (of Jupiter) 
 
 'A<rrpa7rra>z> imBegi epalaifia a-rjfiaTa (f)aiva>v. 
 
 h 236~. 
 
 Zeus Se orcfiiv Kpovidrjs ivdt^ia (rrjfxara <j)alva>v 
 * Aarpdnrei. 
 
 Od. (j>, 141. (the invitation to the suitors to try in turn the 
 bow of Ulysses) 
 
 "Opvvarff ££eir)s emdt^ia 7rdpres iralpoi, 
 y Ap£dfxevoi tov x^pov, o$€V T€ nep olvoxoevet. 
 
49- *Ei/Je£;ia, eir taenia. 289 
 
 II. a, 597. (of Vulcan), 
 
 Avrap 6 toIs aWoicri deols evBe£ia rracriv 
 
 rj, 184. (of the lot by which Ajax was elected to oppose Hector 
 in single combat) 
 
 Krjpvg 8e (fiepcov civ opCkov cnravrr) 
 
 Aelg ivdegia ttuctlv dpcaTTjeaaiv 'Axatcov. 
 
 Od. p, 365. (of Ulysses begging of the suitors) 
 
 B77 §' "ipev alTr)accv evdegia (para eKaarov, 
 nduTocre x ei P opeyccv, a>? el TTrcc\6s Trakai e'ir]. 
 
 Of these passages the two first, show that both forms are used 
 to express literally the right side. But since of the four others 
 the first only (which speaks decidedly and plainly of direction,) 
 has the expression €7riSe£ia, and the three others without any 
 metrical necessity have the other expression ; this might seem 
 to favour the opinion that Zvbzgia in these three last meant 
 dexterous. This meaning appears, for instance, to suit particu- 
 larly well the passage of II. a, and in Od. p. the context w? el 
 htcoxos -naXai el-q favours the idea of dexterity, which may 
 then be very well adopted for II. rj. also. Since however in all 
 four passages the sense certainly does imply a following in suc- 
 cession, it is evident at once that ivbigta, as well as e77i5e£ia, 
 belongs to this idea, particularly as £vbi£ia does not occur again 
 in all Homer where it can mean (ev koX ^irwra/xeVtos) dexterous. 
 And this opinion is further confirmed by observing that in all 
 these four passages the idea expressed by itdvres, irdatv, (pcora 
 Zkckttov is immediately preceded by the expression e77i8e'£ia or 
 ei/ficfia, and consequently attaches to the one as well as to the 
 other of these, ' to all in a direction from left to right." 1 
 
 2. There is no doubt therefore that the passage of Od. (p. 
 must be taken as a foundation for and a guide to all the rest. 
 At the banquet there was a certain fixed place where they 
 began to pour out the wine. This place is pointed out with 
 more than usual precision in that passage ; for it is said of 
 Leiodes, who first rose according to the invitation of Antinous, 
 
 "Os ocpi Ovoctkoos euKe, it a pa KpTjTrjpa be KuXoV 
 r l£V pvxoLTaros alei, 
 
 V 
 
290 49- 'Ei/^o, eiriS^ia. 
 
 In the innermost part of the chamber then, where they performed 
 their sacred ceremonies, and where he who presided over them 
 sat, stood the goblet ; there began the pouring out of the wine, 
 and thence the cup went round in succession from left to right. 
 Now whatever else took place on other occasions where a succes- 
 sion was observed, the same was done in this their arrangement 
 for drinking, by way of an auspicious omen. It is self-evident 
 therefore that when any assembly was arranged in a kind of 
 circle, the herald, cup-bearer, &c. began with the person on his 
 right hand, in order that it might go on in the same direction. 
 
 3. As to the form of the words evbigia and embegia, they 
 are neuter adjectives used adverbially, originating from a pre- 
 position with its case, and having pretty much the meaning of 
 one ; as viracnTLbia TrpoTTobt^eLV for vir acnribi. They stand 
 therefore for ev be&q and enl begia, which are both essentially 
 the same, e. g. Xenoph. Anab. 6, 4, 1. enl begua els rov YIov- 
 tov elo-irXeovTL : and 5, 2, 17. ol ev begtq oTkol. Consequently 
 the two compound forms also are identical ; and although the 
 metre might not force the poet to use one in preference to the 
 other, yet harmony might direct his choice ; since it is by no 
 means indifferent where a spondee stands and where a dactyl. 
 Let us suppose that, of the two, evbegia was the more current 
 term in the language of the reciter, it will be at once felt that 
 he preferred eiubegta in two of the above passages, in order to 
 break the chain of spondees which continue from the beginning 
 of the line. 
 
 4. The grammarians however give this very reasonable dis- 
 tinction between ev begia and evbegta, that the former announces 
 its contrary 4 on the left hand" 1 as soon to follow, the latter does 
 not; on the application of which to our editions I shall say 
 nothing (see Hesych. v. evbegia et ibi Intpp.). The same dis- 
 tinction may however certainly be made between eirl begia and 
 embe^ta; as in Herod. 7,39. to jxev em begta r% 68ot>, to be kit 
 apio-Tepa: and thus we can justify the difference of expression 
 between II. rj, 238. and the examples given above : 
 
 Oi6' eVi be£ia, oiff en apicrTepa vco^rjaac fiwv. 
 
 Compare also Lobeck on Phryn. p. 259. 
 
 5. For the rest, it is very natural, that as both religion and 
 
$0. ^K7Tia-T€(p(i). 291 
 
 custom enjoined the direction from left to right, this, added to 
 the greater readiness for taking that direction, soon gave the 
 person who did so the appearance of dexterity ; and this idea, 
 as well as the other, certainly presents itself to our minds in 
 reading both II. a, 597. and Od. 0, 365. " He moved from left 
 to right, like an experienced cup-bearer, like a practised beg- 
 gar," &c. But neither of these three forms has in Homer the 
 actual meaning of dexterity which 8e£to9 and e-mb^tos acquired 
 in the language of later^imes. As early however as the Hymn 
 to Mercury, 454. evbegios is so used ; where Apollo, admiring 
 the musical skill of Mercury, says that nothing has ever so much 
 pleased him of all 
 
 Ota vidav 6a\ifjs ivbet-ia epya 7rehovTa.1l. 
 
 'YtvrjvoOev, ivL7TTco 9 evejrco ; vid. awqvoOev. 
 
 'E0A777-0 ; vid. alokos. 
 
 'Ytircuvq ; vid. aivos. 
 
 y R7rdpxofJL(u ; vid. dpxo/xai. 
 
 'YiiriSe^La 5 vid. iv8e£ia. 
 
 'Enl-ripa, e7nr)pavos ; vid. rjpa. 
 
 50. 'E7noTe'0cy. 
 
 I. The Homeric expression K/)nr?jpas iireo-TexIravTo ttotoIo can 
 hardly nowadays be reckoned among the ambiguous and pro- 
 blematical expressions of Homer's text, nor can there be any 
 
 1 The form cvbcgios never came into common use. Nor is it ever in 
 the physical meaning of its root otherwise than poetical, e. g. in Callim. 
 Epig. i7. r Qi 8e av fir) 7tu€V(tjjs tvM £iof : the same may be said of it 
 when used adverbially. 
 
 U 2 
 
292 5°- 'E7n<rT6(/>a>. 
 
 longer a doubt of its meaning nothing more than they filled the 
 cups quite full of wine. Heyne (on II. a, 470.) has brought to- 
 gether everything which can throw light on this explanation ; 
 and if he has not been sufficiently decisive in giving his opinion, 
 it arose solely from a habit, which had become to him a second 
 nature, never to reject entirely any position that appeared 
 to have one tenable point, but to leave as problematical what- 
 ever he could. The addition of the genitive tiotoio, and the 
 comparison of the expression (0, 232.) Ulvovres Kp-qTrjpas Zttl- 
 <TT€(f)€a$ otvoio, have placed that explanation beyond all doubt 
 in the opinion of the most intelligent judges ; at the head of 
 whom stands Aristotle, in the following passage of his Sympo- 
 sium preserved in Athenseus (15. p. 674. extr.) ...to Se ore^eiy 
 7rXrip(i)(TLV tlvol a-qixaivei. "Ofxrjpos' Kovpot be KprjTrjpas eireo-Texf/auTO 
 ttoto'lo .... 
 
 2. But some of the grammarians, who adopt this same 
 meaning, explain the word e7no-re<£o/xai by juexpi o-Tecpavrjs 
 irkr}p6(t), with whom I cannot agree, not thinking that the 
 root crre<^a) can be used to express that compound idea ; and 
 without hesitation I declare my preference of the other expla- 
 nation found in the scholia, virep to ^^Aos eirkripoiXTav, wore 
 boK€iv ZcrTecpOal t<3 vyp&' which agrees precisely with Athe- 
 nseus 1, p. 13. d. If for instance a vessel be filled as full as 
 possible, the liquor rises somewhat above the rim, and forms a 
 kind of cover, or, if you will, a crown. Without now insisting 
 particularly on this literal over-fulness, we can very well sup- 
 pose that the expression eino-Te^eo-dat, arising undoubtedly from 
 this appearance, may have passed over into a common hyper- 
 bolical expression for complete fulness. But still we must not 
 forget the context in Athenseus ; kcu TavTa eirpao-aov (i. e. they 
 filled the vessel in the manner before described above the brim) 
 
 TTpOS oldHVOV TL0€[A€lfOL, 
 
 3. And here it is to be observed, that the older commentators 
 and grammarians, the whole body of scholiasts — Apollonius, 
 Hesychius, Suidas, Eustathius — agree in this explanation ; and 
 the other idea of the literal crowning of the wine is not men- 
 tioned by one, not even by Eustathius, who on other occasions 
 has been very successful in hunting out false interpretations. 
 For of the four glosses of Hesychius which refer to this expres- 
 
50. 'Ei7ri(TT6(j)0i). 293 
 
 sion, the following — 'Eino-Tecpeas oiv<a' ZTTLo-TetyavcofjLevovs (sic: 
 see Schow.) — need not be considered as a deviation from that 
 universal agreement, in as much as Athenaeus also explains 
 €7TLa-Ti(f)€crdaL elsewhere by the addition of axrre 8ta tov ttotov 
 €7ncrT€(f)avov(r0aL. But in our lexicons emor^xo and emo-rec^s 
 ought no longer to be interpreted by to crown; for the verb 
 is never found except in these passages of Homer and in some 
 occasional literal imitations of them ; and en-tore^?}? occurs 
 only, as far as I know, in the twenty-first fragment of Archi- 
 lochus, where Thasus is said to be vXrjs ayptas k-niarefyris. 
 In this passage there is no reason whatever for imagining the 
 figurative idea of a crown, for the genitive does not admit of it, 
 nor would it at all agree with the context, which intends to 
 lower and vilify the island, rjbe 8' axrr ovov p&xls "EcrTTjKev v\r]s 
 ayptas k-nia-T^ris. It means no more than covered over, and 
 therefore explains very clearly the Homeric olvoio e7rioTe$eay, 
 as this again does the eTTeo-rtyavTO tiotoXo. 
 
 4. Amidst this certainty which reigns over the meaning of 
 the Homeric expression, Virgil's imitation of it is extremely 
 startling : for who can say that " et socii cratera coronant" 
 (Georg. 2, 528.) is not an imitation of Kovpoi p!kv KprjTrjpas e7reore- 
 yj/avro ? Or if this be left undecided, have we not in the follow- 
 ing an almost literal translation of II. a, 469 ? 
 
 Avrap eiret nocrios koi edrjTvos e£ epuv euro, 
 Kovpoi pep KprjTrjpas ineaTeyj/avTO noTolo. 
 
 .^Eneid 1, 723 : 
 
 Postquam prima quies epulis, mensaeque reraotae, 
 Crateras magnos statuunt et vina coronant. 
 
 Which last verse is again given with a trifling alteration at lib. 7, 
 147, as Homer sometimes repeats his corresponding one. It 
 was therefore very excusable if the old commentators, whom 
 Servius had lying before him, expected to find the sense of the 
 Homeric ^toro/rao-flai, as we have given it above, not only in 
 this passage of the ^Eneid (1, 723.), but also at 3, 525. where 
 it is said, " Turn Pater Anchises magnum cratera corona Indu'/f, 
 implevitque mero," and which must of course have a similar 
 
294 5°- 'ETTto-Te^ 
 
 meaning with the former 1 . I myself had made some efforts 
 to reconcile my mind to this forced interpretation of the two 
 passages of Virgil ; but having done so, I confess I had con- 
 siderable difficulty in getting rid of the impression, so as to 
 listen to Hottinger's fundamental exposition of them (in Mus. 
 Turic. I. p. 266. sqq.), in which he defends the simple inter- 
 pretation of the words. He has collected the following pas- 
 sages, viz. Soph. (Ed. Col. 485 — 8. (472 — 5.), Alexis ap. 
 Athen. 11, p. 472, a., Xenophanes Coloph. ib. p. 462. c. 
 Theocrit. 2, 2., Tibull. 2, 5, 98., Stat. Theb. 8, 225., Silv. 
 3, 1, 76. ; and the inference to be drawn from these is, that 
 the custom of crowning and decorating their cups and vessels 
 at banquets and religious ceremonies was so universal, even 
 from the heroic ages, that whatever boldness of expression we 
 may be willing to concede to Virgil's language, it is impossible 
 to interpret those passages with corona and coronare in any 
 other than the literal sense of the words. And should it even 
 be allowed that an hypallage, as vina coronare for crater as co- 
 ronare vino, were defensible here and elsewhere, nay, were 
 quite Virgilian, yet it would be inadmissible in a case like this, 
 in which the other meaning comes at once so naturally that we 
 cannot mistake it; and the more so, as by altering the pas- 
 sage to " Crateras magnos statuunt, vinoque coronant," the 
 poet would have given the desired meaning, the language 
 would have been quite poetical enough, it would have been a 
 truer imitation of Homer, and would have completed the verse 
 better. 
 
 5. What then are we to think of this deviation of Virgil 
 from Homer ? The three principal persons who may be con- 
 sulted on it, Hottinger, Voss, (who gives in his Georgics 2, 527. 
 the result of Hottinger's investigation,) and Heyne, do not ex- 
 plain themselves clearly. But as they all consider it to be an 
 adaptation of later customs to the heroic ages, and defend it as 
 such, they appear to suppose that Virgil understood the true 
 meaning of the Homeric expression, and intentionally used the 
 
 1 Villoison ad Apollon. Lex. v. inevTtyavTo, speaking of vina coronant, 
 has lately declared himself also of this opinion. 
 
51. ''EiriTriSes. 2Q5 
 
 corresponding Latin one with a different meaning. But this 
 would seem to be a poor play on words, and one which, from 
 its giving an appearance of a want of classical knowledge 
 (for the Greek word would then be taken in its common sense) 
 could not have been pleasing. That a twofold interpretation of 
 Homer's expression was common among the Greeks I cannot 
 believe, reasoning from the unanimous opinion of all the critics 
 from Aristotle downward being in favour of the one, and the 
 total silence of all antiquity respecting the other, which was so 
 striking that it could not have escaped observation. But I can 
 very readily suppose in Virgil an actual deficiency of classical 
 knowledge in particular instances like this. The erudition of 
 those Roman scholars consisted in having frequently read the 
 numerous Grecian models then extant, and heard scholastic 
 explanations of some of them, particularly of Homer ; but that 
 the grammatical disquisitions on every particular passage were 
 always in their mind and before their eyes is not to be sup- 
 posed. The more genius a poet had, the more he felt himself 
 raised above such trifling details ; and with a mind thus enriched 
 by Homer, Virgil was sure of producing a poem calculated to 
 delight his countrymen, even though he might chance here and 
 there to have understood an Homeric verse not exactly as its 
 author meant. 
 
 51. 'Ft7TLTr)8e9. 
 
 1. The word en-ir^Ses occurs in Homer only twice, at II. a, 
 142. and Od. 0, 28., and in both passages this accentuation is 
 the common one, or at least that adopted by the best gram- 
 marians ; while the same word, when it occurs as an adverb 
 in the later writers, has the acute accent on the antcpcnultima. 
 The grounds which the grammarians give for this Homeric ac- 
 centuation puts it, however, pretty much beyond a doubt 
 that it originates with them ; and it exhibits therefore a striking 
 proof of the unsoundness of these our teachers (lor such they 
 still continue to be) in their grammatical judgment. For 
 instance, in the first passage, which describes the equipping of 
 a vessel, 
 
296 5 1 ' 'ETTfT^e?. 
 
 *Es 5' eperas eViT^Ses dyeipopev, es 5' €KaTopi3t]V 
 Qelopev 
 
 they explain it to be a contraction of the accusative plural £tu~ 
 TYjbias ; and in the other passage, 
 
 Mvrjcrrrjpcov a - ' emTTjdes dpuTrrjes Xoxoaxriu, 
 
 it is to be the nominative eTnrrjbees, the contraction taking place 
 in both cases on account of the metre. In illustration of this 
 they cite bvaKkea at II. (3, 115. for bvankeia, a/cXees at II. tj, 100. 
 for a/cXee'ey, and 73-aAfcjonrere?, which, like the word in question, is 
 supposed to stand for -Us at Od. e, 27. and for -ea? at II. it, 395. 
 It requires only to make this statement, to see at once that gram- 
 matical criticism will not bear it out. In bvvKkea for cwKAeea 
 the elision is correct, and confirmed by other analogous cases, 
 as (pofiio for 0o/3eeo. But every one knows that this can only 
 take place where three vowels meet*. 'A/cAecs for d/cAeees may 
 therefore be justified; but ^ctAi/m-eres and iinTrjbes (whether as 
 an elision for -ees, -4a$, or, as some of the grammarians propose, a 
 mere metrical abbreviation for -et? as the contraction of both 
 cases,) would be forms without an example in the old Epic poetry. 
 2. I say in old Epic poetry, because I can bring from an 
 Alexandrine Epic poet an instance of this form which is not, I 
 think, known. In the scholia of Chceroboscos to the rpa[i- 
 [xarLKol kclv6v€s of Theodosius (see Bibl. Coisl. Cod. 176.) from 
 fol. 209. (Bekker. Anecd. p. 1253.) stands the following frag- 
 ment of Callimachus, 
 
 01 re (3i07r\ctV€S ay pop an dypov 
 
 Qoireocnv 1 . 
 
 But Callimachus, who is always on the look out for anything 
 unusual, cannot be quoted in proof of what is really Epic lan- 
 
 * [A similar elision takes place in English where there is a 
 meeting of three or even of two vowels : e. g. seest for see- est, gavest 
 for gave-est, &c. — Ed.] 
 
 1 Bekker's manuscript has (prjTaaiv with <poi written over it. The frag- 
 ment appears to me to be from the Hecale, from which Hesychius has 
 quoted the word Trjcpdyoi with the explanation rreurjTcs, anopoi, which, if 
 joined to the above words in some such way as this, Frjcpdyoi dvepes 01 re, 
 &c, suits them very well, as does the whole verse in connexion with 
 another fragment quoted also from the Hecale and thus restored by 
 Bentley (fr. 41.); riov 8e c Trdvres odlrai *Hpa <piko£evir]s' e\€ yap reyos 
 aKkrjicFTOv, 
 
51- 'J^TriTySes. 297 
 
 guage ; and the most which can be gathered from this fragment 
 is, the probability that already in his time the Homeric forms 
 iirLTrjbes, 7raAi/x7reres were understood in the manner mentioned 
 above, and that he did not fail to imitate them. Since, however, 
 Callimachus in particular introduced into his hexameters any- 
 thing uncommon from all the dialects, I think it much more 
 probable that the iEolic, to which belong the verbal forms in 
 es and ev for ets and €tv, did actually change the plurals from 
 ets to e's. This probability is much increased by another frag- 
 ment which the same Chceroboscus (Bekker. p. 1187.) has pre- 
 served also from Callimachus, and in which is found the nomin. 
 sing, in e? for ets (gen. evros). 
 
 MaXoes rfkOe x°P°* 
 
 for MaAo'eis, i. e. the Chorus of 'AiroWtov MaAdeis in Lesbos ; 
 see Steph. Byz. in MaAoeij. This iEolicism was probably sup- 
 posed by the older grammarians to exist in 7raAt/ui7reres, &a, 
 according to the well-known uncritical hypothesis that all the 
 dialects are to be found in Homer ; and thus their explanation, 
 though by no means admissible, would yet be more reasonable 
 than the totally unfounded elision of e and a in the terminations 
 eey and eas\ 
 
 3. If now the sense of the word in these Homeric passages 
 were not at variance with this, we should have nothing more 
 to do than to adopt the above explanation, bow to the authority 
 of Callimachus, as one of the oldest grammarians, and suppose 
 that these forms were rare and antiquated expressions. But a 
 glance at the passages shows at once, to any one who is merely 
 put in the right track, that it is in every instance a neuter in es, 
 attached adverbially to the verb, and supplying the same sense 
 as its adjective would give if joined to a noun. This is so evi- 
 dent, that we cannot except even a/cAee'y, although that would be, 
 as a masc. plur. (according to what was said above) quite agree- 
 able to analogy ; for who would not prefer taking it adverbially 
 in the following passage? (II. 77, 100.) 
 
 'AAX' Vficls (j.ev ndvTes vfivp kcu yaia yevoicrOt 
 Hfievoi av6i €Kckttoi a.KT]pioi dickfes avrios. 
 
 The masculine in ?Js of -naKiix-ntris docs not, it is true, occur 
 
298 £i. ^TrirrjSes. 
 
 anywhere ; but the analogy of TrpoireTris, irepnr€T7js will give it, 
 and the adverbial neuter of this suits so naturally both these 
 passages, (Od. e, 27.) 
 
 Mvr)(TTrjpes §' iv vrji TrakipTrerts aTTOvecavTai 
 
 and (11.77,395.) 
 
 ILarpoKkos 8 ewel ovv irpcoTas irreKepat (paXayyas, 
 *Ayjf eVt vijas eepye TTaXipireTes, 
 
 that no grammarian, how ancient soever he may be, has au- 
 thority enough to force upon us a form of the nom. and ace. 
 plur. so completely at variance with all the rules of Homeric 
 grammar. 
 
 4. In the same way, no one, looking at eTur^Ses in the pas- 
 sages quoted above, can despise, as a point of no importance, 
 its coalescing so well with the context as an adverb. Nor is 
 there anything in the form of the word to hinder our pro- 
 nouncing it, as we have the others, to be a neuter : and if we 
 admit the present accentuation to be a tradition existing in the 
 olden times of the declamation of Homeric poetry, we shall 
 then have ZTriTrjbis with its old proper accent as the neuter of the 
 adjective ZmTrjbrjs, is; and we may compare the proparoxyton 
 Mrr}b€9 of later times, as the grammarians do, with aXrjdes. 
 But one thing ought to be mentioned, which I have not seen 
 observed by any one, that the adjective £mTr]bris does not occur 
 in any of the remains of antiquity; for the superlative im- 
 TrjbiaraTos, which Schneider mentions under errmjfieios as a 
 various reading of Herodotus, scarcely deserves our notice, 
 the reading of the text emnjSccSraros being the usual form 
 throughout his writings. Let us leave then the existence of 
 the adjective undecided, as we have nothing to guide us in our 
 inquiry, and endeavour to ascertain the meaning of the adverb 
 iTrrnjSes or Mrribes from itself, i. e. by a comparison of the two 
 passages. 
 
 5. As Homer uses the word only twice, it is quite fair and 
 allowable to call in to our aid its later usage, particularly as 
 that was not an imitative but a real one. The general meaning 
 of ZTTiT-qbes, and its compound e£e7rfrr;8ey, which became very 
 common in the later authors, was intentionally, premeditatedly, 
 with forethought and consideration : see Steph. Thesau. in v. 
 
51. 'ETrrr^e?. 299 
 
 Plat. Crito, p. 43. b. Xenoph. Oyrop. i, 6. 2. Eurip. Iph. A. 
 476. It may also frequently be translated for that very pur- 
 pose, as in Aristoph. Pac. 142. 'EmT^oes tlypv TrrjbdXtov, w XP 7 ?* 70- 
 fjiai. It is true that none of these translations suit exactly either 
 of the passages in Homer, but still it is clear from comparing 
 the two together, that the fundamental idea is, as it ought to be 
 in order to attain its object, and not as it may chance to be. The 
 meaning in the first passage then will be, " Let us collect rowers 
 as many as are proper" and in the second, " The chiefs of the 
 suitors are lying in wait for thee in numbers suitable to the occa- 
 sion." More than this is not necessary for our understanding 
 Homer's meaning. 
 
 6. But now comes the question, What is the derivation of 
 this evidently compounded word? It is a very striking cir- 
 cumstance, that whilst the kni is so easily seen and understood, 
 the latter part of the word defies all our endeavours to trace 
 a root. ?Sow as the litl here so plainly signifies to the, I do 
 not think that any of the usual modes of composition will suit 
 the case, nor do I believe in an adjective €771777877?, of which 
 that might be the neuter ; but like irapaxpri^, c<j>€£rjs, e^at^^r/y, 
 KaO&TTtp, I look in emV^s for a preposition with its case : and 
 I find that such sentences as the following, i as is necessary 
 for that thing,' l for that very purpose/ would be expressed 
 most simply by hsi with a case of the demonstrative pronoun, 
 obe, rjbe, robe ; from which union of words, not discernible in 
 the common language of the day, arose I apprehend the ad- 
 verb enCrrjbts, whence was afterwards formed an adjective em- 
 rrj6eio9, which, like the verb ZTnTrjbeuo), does not occur so early 
 as Homer 2 . 
 
 'Epirjpavos, eplrjpos, eplrjpe? ; vid, rjpa. 
 
 2 As the old language could sl^ray from roTo-Sf to rourSeo-t, it is pos- 
 sible that it might do the same from r«$e to radecri, still keeping tlu: 
 first syllable unchanged. And from enl rudeo-iv might perhaps come 
 €7titt)8€s by an elongation very natural in compound words, by cutting 
 off the termination, and by a mode of accenting common to cases of 
 apparent composition. 
 
300 
 
 55. "Ep/xa. 
 
 1. On the Homeric meanings of gpfxa Schneider has col- 
 lected in his Lexicon whatever is essential. The word has two 
 leading senses, and in each of these are other words akin 
 to it. 
 
 i.) ep//a, a prop or support, particularly of vessels drawn up 
 dry on the land; metaphorically, of young warriors, epjia no- 
 Xrjos, the prop of the city. Akin to this is ep/xfc, Tvos, the post or 
 foot of a bed. 
 
 2.) epfia, an earring: akin to it is opjxos, a necklace. 
 
 2. The stem or root of this form has always been acknow- 
 ledged to be, for the second meaning, in the verb dpeiv, serere, 
 nectere, ' to string,' e. g. pearls, &c. on a string, wire, or the 
 like ; and for the first meaning, in kpdheiv, to fix against, sup- 
 port; for a proof of which latter explanation and derivation we 
 may cite Pindar (as the Schol. on II. 7r, 549. has done), who 
 certainly had the Homeric expression in his eye when he called 
 Theron in 01. 2, 1%. 'ipaapH ' AKpdyavros. That the spiritus 
 is no objection to either of these derivations is shown by the 
 analogy not only of 6pa>, 6pw\xi — oppios (the road whence ves- 
 sels sail), bppxLv ; ap(t>, apapetv — ap\xa, ap/xo^o), appiOvCa; but by 
 the well-known verbal substantive of dpttv — eip/xo's, from which 
 opfxos (a necklace, radically different from the other opp.os) 
 originally differed only by the change of the vowel: compare 
 Kopp,6s from Ketpco, otoA/lcos from oreAA.a>, and oA/xoj, of which 
 mention is made in art. 87. note 6. The derivation of epjua, 
 an earring, from eipa), is therefore clear and certain. But 
 for the root of ep/xa, a prop, we must neither with the ancients 
 take exactly tfpetcrjua, nor with the moderns must we soar into 
 the clouds in search of EPI2. What I have said under afevos 
 of e, holds good of it also when lengthened into et : its exist- 
 ence in the middle of many words may be quite as well ex- 
 plained to be a lengthening of the radical form, as its absence 
 may be considered an abridgement of it in dfetKecv ScfyXeXv, ZyeC- 
 ptiv iypiaOat, aydpeiv aypopevos. We may also compare a/xe£/3c«> 
 
52. "E^a. 301 
 
 with the radical d/x$t, Lat. amb-, and aketcpa) with the German 
 salben, ( to anoint'. In this way then we have, for epetfio), a 
 shorter form epbo), or epSco, through the verbal substantive ep/xa, 
 as good as demonstrated ; in which, however, it is by no means 
 necessary to identify it with the well-known verb tpheiv, to do l . 
 3. But this derivation from epeibetv may also come very 
 aptly to satisfy us of the meaning of ep/xa in II. 6, 117. where 
 a sharp arrow is called ixekaivicav zpp? obvvdtov, without our 
 troubling, ourselves to examine all the ancient and modern 
 objections which criticism has brought against it : see Apollon. 
 Lex. v. "Epjotara and Heyne ad loc. Against the explanation 
 in Eustathius, ep w al obvvat, olov tvoiKovcn kol ivepeCbovrai, 
 uxttc oirov avro elcrekOr} e/cet kol Oavaatfxovs obvvas (rvvetaip- 
 yeaOai, there is only one thing to be said, that the comparison 
 is too physical. But with the comparison of epfia tt6\t]os I 
 am much more satisfied, although the scholium in which it is 
 brought forward appears to make it in another sense. Exactly 
 what brave and stout warriors are to their fellow-citizens, is the 
 sharp arrow to the pains of the wound made by it. The species 
 of personification which lies in this is by no means unknown 
 to Homer, in whom for example the arrows fly about ' full 
 of eagerness to feed on the flesh of the combatants.' The 
 dark cruel pains place all their hopes and confidence * in so 
 sharp an arrow " 2 . 
 
 1 A trace of affinity to this epSw, epeideo, may be found also in the 
 German word hort, which is exactly synonymous with eppa in the ex- 
 pression eppa noXrjos. See also note 3. 
 
 * [Passow prefers the idea that " the arrow which, by pressing deep 
 into the wound lays the foundation of pains, or presses them deep into 
 the wounded person, is therefore the bring er, producer of pains." — Ed.] 
 
 2 To this same figurative idea of confidence belongs the expression 
 of a later poet, Phanias, who in Epig. 3. calls a ruler for drawing lines 
 eppa nopeias aapodiToo. But when, in an epigram of Simonides 85. (91.) 
 — where the general reading, even in the Anthologia of Cephalas, is 
 (speaking of Periander) or no6 y v\j/invpyov 2fjpaive Xaols cppH i'xwv Kopiv- 
 6uv, — Jacobs compares it with the Homeric tppa 7r6\rjos, this, in the 
 expression eppa <?x €iv > 1S not s0 clear and convincing as to justify us in 
 giving up at once the reading of the MS. ripp €\u>v y for an emenda- 
 tion proceeding from an unknown hand. The expression r«/»/» %x uv 
 twos does, we know, exist ; and although it generally refers to objects 
 which can be granted or refused to others, as for instance in Eurip. 
 
302 5^. "Epna. 
 
 4. Among the post-Homeric meanings of this word is that 
 where epjua or fj kpfias means a sunken rock or bank in the sea. 
 How bad the old derivation of this sense was from epvco, epvjoia, 
 i. e. KCdkvixa, requires no specification. As vessels sail or rather 
 strike upon such places, which idea exists also in epeibo), nay- 
 is the ground-idea of it 3 , we might be satisfied with this deri- 
 vation. But no one can pronounce with certainty on such, 
 because the relative meanings of ipeibeuv in their separate ap- 
 plications play into each other in too many ways. It appears 
 to me that the following view of the subject is better calculated 
 to comprehend more under one idea. Any heavy load, as a 
 large stone or rock, a mass or hill of sand, may from their 
 weight, by which they tend downward and press upon, epei- 
 hovrai, be called eppia. Thus the ballast of a ship is ep/xa, 
 although here again the idea of holding firm, and as it were 
 supporting plays in with it; and when epp,a on the chariot- 
 course means the starting -place, the original idea there, as in 
 all boundary-marks, was that of a huge stone secure by its 
 weight from being displaced. And now we may go on to com- 
 pare in Hesychius and the other glossographers, epixaKts, epfxaiov, 
 heaps of large stones placed in the public ways, which are, it is 
 true, supposed to come from 'Ep/x?)?. But here we find brought 
 into play old confusions and circumvolutions in the ideas of 
 the people, by which the name and ground-idea of c Epp,r}9 
 himself, beside the ep/xai?, is drawn into this etymological inves- 
 tigation ; in confirmation of which remark I will only add an 
 expression in the epigram of Philoxenus (Anal. 2, p. 58.), 
 where it is said of one who placed a figure of Mercury as the 
 starting-post, 'Ep/xcb a$€Tr\piov epfjia Otjkcv : although if any one 
 should say that Philoxenus intended only a play on the words, 
 I have nothing to say to the contrary. 
 
 5. To this discussion belongs a passage of Euripides, Helen. 
 
 Orest. 1343. ypw repp ex <ov crcor^piay, yet as it is also used of the gods, 
 Eurip. Supp. 617. cnrdvT(ov repp e^oi/res, as having the supreme will and 
 power, there seems to be no reason why it may not be used of the 
 power of an absolute monarch over a state. 
 
 3 With epeibco, ep8w, we may again compare the English hurt, French 
 heurter ; as well as a similar affinity between the German verbs stossen 
 (to push), stutzen (to push violently), and stutzen (to prop). 
 
53- 'Epve<r0ai 9 &c. 303 
 
 860., where it is said qf the gods that when a brave man falls 
 in battle they 
 
 Kov(pT} KaTafLniaxovaiv iu rvp(3oi x® 0Vl > 
 KaKovs 8' e<j) eppa arepeov iKJSaWovai yr)$. 
 
 It may possibly be wished to leave the second verse as it stands 
 here, and to understand it of one lying unburied on the hard 
 earth ; but that the gods grant or refuse a grave is not a true 
 thought. Men bury the good and the bad, but the gods re- 
 gard each when in the grave (h tv^u) as he deserves. The 
 true antithesis in the passage was however felt by some, and 
 tpfACL yr\<s correctly explained to mean the tumulus or mound 
 raised over the grave. Now as this lies like a load on the 
 person buried under it, others preferred adopting the emenda- 
 tion of Scaliger ; Ka/coi? S 1 ecj) epfxa vTtpebv e/x/3aAAoiKu yr\<$. 
 But this is too bold an alteration, and is still untrue, for it is 
 not the gods who throw the mound upon him. They were 
 wrong in rejecting the vcf) of Stephens, as taken by him from 
 the manuscripts; 
 
 Kaicovs S' v<p y eppa arepeov eK^dWovcrt yrjs. 
 
 'EKpaXXeiv is the proper expression for throwing out a corpse 
 or leaving it unburied, and is here used very beautifully by a 
 kind of oxymoron. Him whom men have already interred, the 
 gods leave under his tumulus (here for particular reasons called 
 epjua), as far as regards them uninterred, i. e. (as is clear from 
 the first verse and the epithet orepeov) without making the 
 earth lie lightly on him. 
 
 53. 'EipveaOai, epvaOcu, pveaOat, pvcrOcu. 
 
 1. Among the different modifications of meaning in this 
 verb, the most prominent are the two following: 1. to draw, 
 2. to save, protect. A difference of form has followed this 
 difference of meaning in part, but not in the way which some 
 of the commentators suppose, who appropriate the quantity vs 
 to the first and vs to the second meaning ; and hence they write 
 the forms of the first meaning, when the metre requires the 
 
304 5 $. 'EpvecrOai, kc. 
 
 syllable to be long, with vaa, but those of the second always 
 with va. They have never, indeed, attempted to account for 
 this by having recourse to a difference of derivation. Still it 
 may not be superfluous to show here fundamentally that all 
 these significations arise from ipveiv, to draw, and at the same 
 time to point out how they do so. 
 
 2. The idea of the middle voice of ipvew is / draw to me, 
 after me, I draw for myself, &c. Thus of the flesh to be drawn 
 from the spits, II. a, 466. epvaavro re iraura ; of a person whom 
 another draws toward himself, Od. 7,-481. Tfj 5' ereprf (xtipty 
 €0€v aaaov ipvaaaro, (f)cavr]aiv re. To this belongs also the 
 drawing of the bowstring, Od. <£, 125. rph \xkv fjav (the bow) 
 7reA.ejutf ev, ipvaaeaOai fxeveaivodv : the drawing of the sword 
 from the side, II. b, 530. ipvaaaro Se £t$os 6(6 : a person 
 drawing his own spear out of the wound which he had inflicted, 
 or from any other thing which it had penetrated, Od. k, 165. 
 bopv x&\k€ov e£ coreiAr/s Elpvaapaqv : and II. <fi, 200. *H pa, /cat e/c 
 Kprjp.volo ipvaaaro x^ K€0i; *yX 0S : the drawing their own vessels 
 into the sea in order to sail home, II. £, 79. ipvaaipitOa vrjas, 
 a little before which we find merely the active. In the same 
 way a person draws a dead body toward himself to get it into a 
 place of safety, and that, whether it be the body of a friend, 
 e. g. II. p, 104. et ircas ipvaafatOa vtKpbv (the body of Patroclus) 
 nrjktibri 'AxtA.rjt: a, 152. 'Ek /3eAeW ipvaavro v£kvv (the same 
 body), &c. ; or that of an enemy, II. £, 422. Ot be fxiya la- 
 Xovres iiribpay^ov vUs ' ' kyjou&v 'EknonevoL ipvtadat (Hector who 
 was knocked down) : at a, 174. Ot be ipvaaaaOau ttotI "IAlov 
 rjvefxoeaaav Tpwe? imOvovau (the body of Patroclus). In these 
 two latter cases the active ipvziv, £kK€iv is also frequently used. 
 But in the middle, as used above, the idea is evidently to bring 
 a body into a place of safety, whether to plunder or to save it, 
 for oneself. 
 
 3 . From this idea of dragging from amidst a crowd of ene- 
 mies comes the general idea of to save. Thus at II. e, 344. 
 it is said of iEneas insensible from the blow of the stone, Kal 
 tov pi€V iiera \€p(rlv ipvaaaro ^>ot/3oj 'A7roAAo>z> Kvaviy v€(f>ekrj : 
 at A, 363. to Hector escaped from the spear of Diomede, 
 vvv avri a ipvaaaro <f>. 'A. : at v, 93. avrap ifxe Zei>? Elpvaaf? 
 (saved me from Achilles), oy pot iuojpae p,ivos kai\\rr]pa re 
 
53. 'EpueaOat, &e. 305 
 
 yovva: at t, 248. (to Achilles), 'AAA.' ava, el [xepiovas ye vtas 
 
 ''Ayai&v TeLpofxevovs epveorOat 1 vtto Tpcoav opvpiaybov. And thus 
 it is used as synonymous with aawcrac at II. k, 44. Od. x, 372., 
 and in the more general sense of a reception, deliverance, &c, 
 as at Od. £,279. 6 be (the king) epvao-aro Kai \i e\er\o-ev, took 
 me under his protection, received me a suppliant. Hence 
 in the sense of to ransom, II. y^ 351. XP vcr § epvaao-dai avuyoi. 
 Still in all these passages we can trace the existence of the 
 original idea of to draw or snatch (out of danger). But the 
 word is further used of a deliverance continued beyond the 
 mere act by keeping in a state of safety, and therefore passes on 
 to the idea of to protect, clef end ; as at £ 403. otos yap epvero 
 "\X10v "Ektwp : at 0, 274. (of the stag or wild-goat), Tbv \iev r 
 rj\L(3aros Tterpr] koli baaiaos vkrj Eipuo-aro, preserved, saved it from 
 the dogs; at 6, 1S6. napoiQev Elpva-aro ^coo-njp, in front my girdle 
 protected me ; and at a, 276. Hcttv be TTvpyot/Txj/rjXat re nvkai ,.. . 
 elpvacrovTaL' 2 . 
 
 4. Now as the idea of saving is not originally in the word, 
 
 1 Among the examples given in this and the preceding section are 
 two with the form ipveadai, of which I have shown in the Ausfuhrl. 
 Sprachl. in the list of verbs*, and at sect. 95. obs. 17., that it is an old 
 Epic future for epixreaQai. In these two passages the present is not 
 admissible, as is shown also by the aorist epvaacrdat, which is found in 
 all the other examples of this meaning, (the sudden snatching, draw- 
 ing, or saving from a crowd of enemies,) and which would therefore 
 have stood in these two passages also, but that after the verbs cXnopat 
 and pefxova the future is much more common. 
 
 2 The two examples with the aorist (ipvo-aro must be more accu- 
 rately distinguished from the continuous sense of the imperfect ipvero 
 in the first example, and that of the future dpvo-aovTai in the fourth. 
 It is true that both of these two, as well as the others, imply a lasting 
 protection ; but still the example of the wild-goat, Toy \iiv r* rj\i(3a,Tot 
 neTpT) Kal ddaiaos v\r) Elpvaaro, expresses first and foremost the mo- 
 mentary act of receiving into protection; therefore it strictly means, 
 took it under its protection, saved it, &c. And so in the passage of II. 
 8, 186. where Menelaus says, "The arrow has not wounded me mor- 
 tally, but my girdle saved me," it certainly implies the Lasting pro- 
 tection which such a girdle affords; but the aorist is used to express 
 the moment when it warded off that one particular hurt. 
 
 * [This will be found in Buttmann's Irregular Verbs, of which a 
 translation has been lately published. — Ed.] 
 
 x 
 
306 53- 'EpvearOai, &c. 
 
 but any one (without reference to that idea), nay, even an 
 enemy, may be snatched away to prevent his doing harm, (e. g. 
 at II. €,456. where Apollo is wishing Mars to remove Diomede, 
 Ovk av by) roV8' avbpa /u-ax 7 ? 5 epvaaio juereA0G)i>,) it follows that 
 the idea in this word, as in so many others, is completely two- 
 fold, i. e. the word may refer not only to the object saved or 
 protected, but also to that against which protection is desired, 
 e. g. at II. e, 538. 'H (the shield) 5' ovk eyx ? epvro : conse- 
 quently it means to ward off, impede, II. f3, 859. 'AAA.' ovk oig>- 
 voIqtw ipvcrcraro KTJpa \xiXaivav, and 6, 143. avrjp bi k€V ovtl Alos 
 voov dpxxToaiTo : in which sense, therefore, ZpvKca is formed 
 from it. 
 
 5. A collateral meaning is to keep, observe^ watch ; for both 
 of the two objects — that which I may wish to protect, and that 
 against which I may wish to protect myself— must be watched, 
 observed. Thus at Od. 77,463. Telemachus says of the suitors 
 lying in wait for him, rj en //,' avr elpvarat otKab' iovra ; at Od. 
 77, 459. pL7)b€ cpptalv dpvaaaiTo, nor keep the secret within his 
 own breast; at \jr, 229. rj vu>'iv etpvro Ovpas ttvklvov Oakap^oio, the 
 female slave who then watched, i. e. was then in the constant 
 habit of watching; at II. a, 239. otre OepuaTas Upbs Alos dpvarai, 
 who observe justice, watch over its administration; at II. o>, 584. 
 Mr) 6 {xkv Kpabirj xo'Aou ovk ipvcratro, watch over, restrain his rage : 
 whence arises the idea, to observe, keep, obey ; as at II. cp, 230. 
 ov crvye fiovkas Elpvcrao Kpovtwos, rot fxd\a 77oAA' eWreAAeu 
 Tpuxrl TTapecrrapLevaL : and at a, 216. Xprj fxkv crtyto'iTtpov ye, Oea, 
 eiros dpvcrcracrOai. 
 
 6. From this comparison of passages we see clearly the ra- 
 dical identity of all these meanings, as far as they proceed from 
 each other. Further, it is clear that usage had not established 
 any difference between the forms, in as much as the originally 
 short v in kpvoa, epvo-G), remains also short in the meanings to save, 
 watch, &c. (see above, elpvcraro from II. b, 186. o, 274. v, 93., 
 elpvcrao from <p, 230., ipvaacrOcu from \, 351., epvcrairo from 0), 
 584.); and that, consequently, according to the analogous simi- 
 larity of formation once observed, as soon as this syllable 
 becomes long to suit the metre, it is now correctly written wa- 
 in all the meanings. On the quantity of the v followed by a 
 vowel no dependence can be placed, as it is well known that 
 
$$. '~Epv€(r6ai t &c. 307 
 
 the poet can in this case shorten the long syllable as well as 
 lengthen the short one 3 . 
 
 7. The form without a copulative vowel, epvTo, dpvro, &c. 4 , 
 has, wherever it is observable, the v long, which is singular on 
 account of the future tpvaa), &c. But this formation again does 
 not belong to the meaning to save only. At Od. x< 90- w e find 
 zlpvTo 8e <pao~yavov 6£v, which however is the only passage I 
 know of where it means to draiv ; and therefore we may very 
 well suppose of this form that it gave the preference to the 
 meaning to save, protect. The only passage where this v is also 
 short, and that too in the passive meaning to be watched, shut in, 
 Hes. 6, 304. f) 5' €pvr dv 'Api\xoKnv, ought not therefore to be 
 looked on as an interpolation, as Heyne considers it in his 
 Exc. IV. on II. a, p. 178. 
 
 8. Still more decided is the transition to the meaning to save 
 in the form pvtaQai, syncop. aor. pvadai 5 , which never occurs 
 but in this second leading sense, and in the active is quite out 
 of use ; although here also the derivatives pvrr]p, pyroap, and 
 pvrov (see Lex.) are proofs of the ground-meaning to draw ; 
 and the shortness of the v before the o- is evident in this form 
 also from the passage of II. 0, 29. Tov fxkv eytov 'ivOev pvvapjqv 
 which single instance is quite sufficient, as the passages with 
 this form are in Homer but few. There is therefore no reason 
 why in the Epic poets, as well as elsewhere, we should not always 
 write, when the syllable is long, pvaaaro, ippvero-aro. Indeed 
 consistency requires it to be always so ; for that the Attics after- 
 wards use pva-aaOat long is an usage which originated with them, 
 
 ;i Heyne in his Exc. IV. on II. a, thinks it necessary to fix a radical 
 difference between epveaOiu, epvaacrdm to draw, and pveadai, pvaaaBai, 
 ipvaaaOcu to save; and hence in ;ill the passages in which the short 
 syllable is against him he looks out for some old mistake, since pvrcu, 
 pvro, e'lpvro may have originally stood for pvcrac, pvero, clpv<raro : — a 
 vain attempt. 
 
 4 Whether and where these forms are imperfect, or syncopated 
 aorist, or pluperfect, 1 shall examine more at length in the Ausfuhrl. 
 ftprachl. under 'Epv<o in the list of verbs. [As the above work was 
 untranslated when the first edition of the LezilogBB was printed, a 
 translation of the account here referred to was added at the end of 
 this article. It has been since published under the title of Buttmaon'a 
 Irregular Vei^s. — Ed.] 
 
 •' CEd. Tyr. 1352. eppvTo Kui'tcruHifv. 
 
308 53- 'EpvetrOai, &c. 
 
 as pvvap,7)v alone with the rest of the analogy sufficiently proves 6 . 
 The arbitrary way of writing some of these forms as adopted in 
 Homer is particularly striking in kppvaaro, which occurs three 
 times, viz. II. o, 290. v, 194. Od. a, 6., in precisely the same 
 sense as the forms of ipvofxcu, e. g. at Od. x> 37 2- Zpvo-aaTo kol 
 iaatocrev, and at II. 0, 290. ippvu-aro, kol iaddxrev. Here it is 
 evident that these are forms of the same verb differing only 
 metrically, and therefore the corresponding syllable must also 
 be written the same ; consequently kpvcrcraro, eppvaaaro. But 
 for the first syllable of ippva-aro we are also indebted to the 
 capriciousness of the grammarians. From EPT2ATO, of the 
 two the older way of writing, it was as easy to form elpvaaaro 
 as kppvcraTo. The preference was given to the former in the 
 sense of to draw, eipvacraro fyao-yavov ogv, II. x> 306., and the 
 above comparison of passages shows that it might be written in 
 the same way in the sense of to save. Nay, from the similarity 
 of form it must have been so, and pvecrOcu, pva6at, ought only 
 to be used where the verse requires this abridged form. But 
 this belongs to the numerous incongruities which have been 
 made sacred in Homer by ancient criticism. 
 
 [Extract from the Ausfuhrliche Sprachlehre. 
 
 y Epvd) or elpva), to draw, used only by the Ionics and Epics, 
 has v in the inflexion. The middle makes a transition to the 
 meaning of to save, and in this sense only we find a shortened 
 form pvo[xai. This latter is used also in Attic prose, and in 
 Attic poetry has the v long in the inflexion, ippvo-dfxrjv. But 
 in the Epics it is short even there, II. 0, 29. pvo-dp,r\v: hence in 
 these, if the metre require a long syllable, this form too should 
 be written with aa ; but the editions generally have kppvaaro, 
 pvaaro, even where the v is required to be long. 
 
 In the passive of this verb it is sometimes difficult, parti- 
 cularly amidst the difference of meaning, to distinguish the 
 tenses. The perfect passive has on account of the reduplica- 
 tion, even when formed from epvca, the syllable el as augment. 
 According to the sense the forms dpvvrai or elpvarat pluperf. 
 
 6 On this also 1 shall treat more at large in the AiBfuhrl. Sprachl. 
 [See above. — Ed.] 
 
y 5 . 'EpuearOat, &c. 309 
 
 dpvvro, dpvaTG, II. £, 75. <t, 69. o, 654. belong with certainty 
 to this last description. In Od. \, 90. it may be doubted whe- 
 ther dpvro is pluperf. or syncop. aor. At all events, as the 
 radical syllable of the syncop. aor. corresponds with that of 
 the perf. pass., it would appear, at least for the Epic language, 
 that the 1 . sing. perf. pass, was formed not with the a but with 
 the long v. 
 
 In the sense of to save, watch, &c. we have frequently 
 e/wo-tfat, epvro, dpvro, &c. with v, but these cannot be perf. or 
 pluperf. either according to sense, or, where the long syllable 
 is wanting as the augment, according to form. They can only 
 be aorists (syncop. aor.) when they mean a saving or snatching 
 away completed at the instant; whereas most of the passages 
 are decisive in favour of a continued action. Thus dpvro, 
 epvro, 2. per. tpvvo, are plainly imperf. at II. o>, 499. 8, 138. 
 v, $$$. \, 507., in all which passages the meaning is was pro- 
 tecting, &c. corresponding exactly with the imperfect zpvero in 
 II. C> 4°3- I n the same way dpvvro, pvaro, II. //,, 454, 0", 5 '5* 
 Od. p, 201. are used of the protection of bolts, ivalls, guards, 
 &c. ; and a similar meaning of a continued action is always 
 in the infinitives dpvadai, ZpvcrQai, pvvQai, Od. y, 268. t, 194. 
 II. o, 141. It is therefore clear that all these forms belong to 
 the syncope of the pres. and imperf (for which see sect, no, 6. 
 of this work) dpvero dpvro, kpvevdai epvoSat. Nay, the in- 
 dicative itself, zpvrai he watches, is used not only by Apoll. 
 Rhod. 2, 1208., but Homer has the 3. plur. dpvarai in 11. a, 
 239. Od. 7r, 463. in the sense of to watch, observe, which there- 
 fore, agreeably to the passages above quoted, is not to be ex- 
 plained from the idea of the perfect, and consequently can be 
 only a present. 
 
 There remain some passages which the sense of the aorist 
 seems to suit better than that of the imperfect, as at II. e, 23. 
 538. Zpvro, Soph. (Ed. T. 1352. (lyric) tppvro: these however 
 are sufficiently explained by the greater freedom of the older 
 language with regard to the historical tense. 
 
 I have shown at sect. 95. obs. 17. of this work, that in the 
 Epic language the future of iputo is the same as the present, 
 The same is to be said of the middle ipveadcn,, 11. f, 422. 1, 248. 
 f, 195., as Homer, after the verbs to hope } t$ inlaid, when 
 
*$10 34. 'tjpcoeiv, epwrj. 
 
 speaking of a single event, never uses these infinitives in the 
 present, but always in the future or aorist. 
 
 There are two Hesiodic forms still to be mentioned : 1.) e, 816. 
 infin. elpvfxevat with v ; consequently exactly analogous to the 
 formation in \ii, as beiKVVfjLtvcu for heiKvvvai. 2.) 0, 304. ipvro 
 also with v, and in & passive sense, was watched, guarded.] 
 
 54. 'Epwciis, epcorj. 
 
 1. The meanings of the words ipcaetv and epcori lead to two 
 most opposite things, violent motion and rest. At II. 0, 358. 
 bovpbs €pG)ri is the motion of the hurled spear; on the other 
 hand, at 77, 302. 7rok€fxov ft ov yiyver ipaq must be translated 
 " there was no rest or cessation of the war." In the same way 
 the verb is used at a, 303. of the streaming of the blood ; and, 
 on the contrary, at /3, 179. 'AAA.' Wl vvv Kara kabv 'Axcll&v, pLr]bi 
 t epwet, i. e. " nor be sluggish." Hence the grammarians have 
 given, without any qualification whatever, under ep&)fj — 6pp,ri and 
 KaraTTavo-Ls, and under ipcarjaaL — rjcrvyavai, yjapriaai (see Etym. 
 and Hesych.). A comparison however of the different passages 
 "where the word occurs will make all this consistent. 
 
 2. That the word belongs to the family of pi jo is undoubted ; 
 the verb pa>op.aL, expressive of an undulating wavy motion (as of 
 a crowd, of the hair, &c), comes nearest to it, bearing the same 
 relation as pvopLcu does to €pva>. Its simple-ground^meaning is 
 in the passage quoted above, II. a, 303. Al\j/a tol at\xa Kekaivbv 
 epwrjo-et irepl hovpi : its derivative sense is in ipwrj in the passages 
 where it expresses the flight of arrows or the throw of a spear 
 (as at II. 8, 542. A, 357. 0, 358.), the rushing for 10 ard of a man 
 (II. £, 488. 6 ft ovy^ vitk\xs.ivev epco-qv n-qveke&o clvclktos), the swing 
 of the winnower and of the wood-cutter (II. v, 590. y, 62.). 
 These meanings remain unchanged in such phrases as efepwTJo-ai 
 of the horses springing on one side, in II. ^,468. At ft ££rj- 
 pwrjcrav eirtl fjievos eAAa/3e Qv\k6v : or when they run back at 
 6, 122. vTT€pa>r)(rav he ol tinroi: with which last the passage of 
 xfr, 433. al ft r)pd)7](Tav dmWo>, exactly agrees. But now as the 
 idea of from, off from, lies also in the genitive, the expression 
 
54* 'EjOGoaV, epwrj. 311 
 
 ipo)€iv TTokefAOio, yapp,7)$, (II. z>, 776. f, IOI. p, 422. r, 1 70.) 
 without any adjunct, will mean literally to withdraw from, 
 hasten away from the war ; which is in fact as much as to 
 leave off, desist, cease ; which idea, without the exactly literal 
 sense to hasten away being implied in it, the word has in the 
 passages above quoted; and also in ipcorjcrav KapL&roio, Hymn. 
 Cer. 302. the earliest passage where the idea of going home is 
 particularly added. But the genitive may also be omitted, 
 when the object, from which the person or thing removes, is 
 evident from the context, as at Od. /x, 75. of the cloud always 
 hanging round the rock, to piev ovttot epwet. And thus this 
 idea became so firmly united to €po>dv, that it stands absolutely 
 for to withdraw, desist, as in the passage of II. /3, 179. above 
 quoted, which is the only one of its kind, and where the 
 antithesis makes the sense clear. But in the expression iroktp.ov 
 ft ov yiyvsf ipcorj, the genitive is to be taken more literally ; it 
 is, for instance, as if it were ovtls rjpcaei iroXipiov : exactly as in 
 prose we have airaXkayri fiiov, dv^opas, &c. from airak\6,TT€(rdaL 
 (3lov, (TVfjKpopas. 
 
 3. This verb, like so many others, passed over into the trans- 
 itive sense, and meant literally to cause to retire, drive back ; 
 as at II. 1/, 57. it is said of Hector, TC kc kol ko-a-vp.ivov irep 
 iparjo-aiT anb vrj&v : and so also in the substantive Zptcov /xe^eW 
 cmepcoevs, II. 0, 361. he who makes to retire, drives bach; in both 
 which cases, however, the idea of from or backwards lies in the 
 preposition, and epueiv therefore remains nearer to its simple 
 meaning. 
 
 4. In the use which later writers make of this Homeric word 
 there are two passages which deserve our notice. The first is 
 a remarkable one in Theocritus 13, 74. of Hercules who left 
 the Argonauts, Ovvzkcv ripcorjae TpiaKOVT6.(vyov 'Apyoj : which 
 would have come nearer to the Homeric usage, and have been 
 agreeable to the nature of the verb, if instead of the accusative 
 it had been the genitive, ypurpre TpiaKovra(vyov 'Apyovs. The 
 other is quoted from Callimachufl by the Etym. M. and Suid. 
 in v. 
 
 Orjpos cpwrjaas 0X001/ Kfpas. 
 
 See Bentl. Fragm. 249. Suidas explains the verb here by 
 p.zusi(ras, Kartagas, which would be a singular deviation of 
 
312 54- 'EjOweiV, epcoiy. 
 
 meaning. It appears to me better to begin with the gloss of 
 the Etym. M., confused as it is. There we find as a derivation 
 of the word epoorj the following : 77 cltto rrjs epaa-eas' ^wis yap rts 
 kclI clttokXvctis €(ttlv q)s KaAAt/xa^o?, epa>?jo-a9 ^?7poy 6\obv Kepas* 
 to ets tt)z> €pav Karayayvv. That is to say, the grammarian 
 derives ipav, to pour out from epa, the earth, and supposes 
 kpasiv to have pretty nearly the same meaning ; unless per- 
 chance we have here two derivations confounded together by 
 some mistake or other, one from ipav to pour out, the other 
 from epa the earth. In either case the derivation is bad ; but 
 the meaning of Callimachus seems to me to be hit upon cor- 
 rectly. The words are spoken of the taming of the bull of 
 Marathon in the Hecale 1 , from which therefore this fragment 
 is taken, and from the context of the same comes also the 
 375th of Ernesti, 
 
 .... 6 fiev elXicev, 6 S' o.tt€to v<c6pbs obiTrjs, 
 
 which Ernesti supposed to refer to the carrying away of the 
 Minotaur from Crete. This verse, when completed by lV 12s 
 elircbv, described the leading off the bull when tamed, by an 
 imitation of a verse from Homer, agreeably yet not too closely 
 parodied, A 12s ei7r&>j> 6 p&v rjpx, 6 5' a/x eWero IvoOeos cfycas. 
 That my explanation is the true one is clear from Plutarch 
 Thes. c. 14. e^rjXOev iirl top MapaOatviov ravpov .... kcu ^etpoo- 
 o-d[JL€Vo$ €7T€b€L^aro %G>vra ota tov avreos eAdcras' etra 
 T(3 'AttoWuvi rw AeKcfuvico KariOvcrev. These two fragments 
 evidently mark two different points of time in this transaction. 
 -The pulling the head of the bull down to the ground by the 
 horn is a correct picture of the commencement of the taming ; 
 the grammarian in the Etymologicum took it from the pas- 
 sage, which he had complete before him, but he thought he 
 might derive kpmtiv from epa. The verb has, however, here 
 only the idea of the powerful and swinging motion by which 
 the head was pulled downwards, and that too in a transitive 
 sense. That Theseus did not break off the horn, as Suidas 
 translates it, is now self-evident ; for not only would that be a 
 
 1 See the epigram of Crinagoras in Bentl. Fragm. Callim. 40., or in 
 Brunck's Anal. 2, 144. 
 
55- Eure, &c. 313 
 
 poor invention of the poet, but in that case the sacrifice could 
 not have taken place. The sacrificing of the bull was in the 
 fable a kind of proof of the hero's exploit. An inferior per- 
 sonage might have destroyed the monster, but to sacrifice the 
 bull the heroic strength of Theseus must bring him to the altar 
 not merely alive but unmutilated. 
 
 Ei)<5e/eAoc ; vid. SelXrj. 
 FiVKrjXos ; vid. €KY)A09. 
 
 55. Eure, TjVTZ, 8€VT€. 
 
 1. If we throw aside some of the passages belonging to 
 this investigation, the use of the particles eSre and fjVTt will 
 be decidedly distinct ; and so much so, that no one would think 
 of considering them as originally the same, without being at 
 the same time impelled to do that which is a check to all in- 
 vestigation, viz. to join together etymologically whatever is 
 similar. If we proceed however with proper deliberation, evre 
 will be found to be a dialect from ore, into the elementary 
 causes of which latter word no one would venture to penetrate, 
 unless invited by some certain intimations 1 . I ought rather, 
 
 1 Schneider's supposition, that evre came from the genitive ev re for 
 ov re, i. e. ov is not satisfactory, because there is not the least ground 
 for using the genitive of the pronoun for this idea of time. And then 
 ore requires a similar explanation : for which purpose it would be better 
 to take the accusative o,re for naff o,re, in that (i.e. in the time) when... ; 
 but, on the other hand, there is a difficulty in the syllable re, which in 
 the correlative rore is not capable of any radical explanation whatever, 
 unless we suppose this demonstrative to be formed at once catachresti- 
 cully according to that relative. All this is possible ; but if we can get 
 nothing more than possibilities, the investigation is at an end. That 
 all these correlatives come from the articles o, to, &c., partly from mere 
 inflexion, partly from being joined with other words, is certain : and 
 hence it has struck me with regard to another word more definitely 
 expressive of time, ttjvikci, that there may have been an old word IS, 
 FlS, answering to the Latin vice*, consequently n)v Ua for hue rice, 
 
 * [On this word see note in Peile's Agamemnon of /Kschvlus, 
 p. 386.— Ed.] 
 
314 55- ~E<vt€, &c. 
 
 I think, to bring forward a conjecture of my own respecting 
 rjvT€ 9 which Schneider has slightly mentioned in his Lexicon, 
 that it comes from ff eSre or ff ore (as from ovofia avtovvpLOs) with 
 the aspirate changeable, as in the correlative of rrj/uos, r/pios for 
 rjfjios. For that fj for ws in such derivations occurs in Homer's 
 language, see art. 104. sect. 6. The elliptical &s otc always 
 brings before the mind the verb which is understood, as at II. 
 6,463. 7]ptTT€ b\ o)s ot€ nvpyos, " he fell, as when a tower falls;" 
 and Od. A, 368. Mvdov b\ m or aotbbs, iincrTafxivoDi KareA.e£as, 
 " thou hast told thy tale skilfully, as when a poet tells any- 
 thing :" and t\vt€, which came into the Epic language from an 
 older dialect, was weakened down to the mere common meaning 
 of as ; but still the accent bears the trace of ore or evre lying 
 concealed under it. 
 
 %. That t)vt€ stands for evre is therefore, according to this 
 view of the subject, not possible, and as far as I know there is 
 nothing like it in the language. On the other hand, we have 
 handed down to us eSre for rjvTe twice as a various reading in 
 Homer. In II. y, 10. the reading of the text is, 
 
 ~Evr opeos Kopv(f)fj(ri voros Kare^evev 6fxi)(\rju 
 Qs apa tcov vrrb tto(T(t\ Kovlcrakos copvvr deWrjs. 
 
 We will take no notice of those (see Schol.) who propose to read 
 €vre for ore here also ; but there is quoted in the scholia, as an 
 old various reading, 'Hvt opevs. This however must be re- 
 
 avTLKa for rr)V avrrjv %Ka like avdrjpcpou for rrjv avrrjv rj/iepav. How strongly 
 this conjecture is corroborated by the accent is evident at first sight. 
 To this we may add another supposition, catachrestical it is true, 
 namely that TrjvUa, from mere similarity of termination with the adjec- 
 tival forms ravra, rocravra, was changed, in order to increase its force, 
 to TrjvLKavra, a formation which could not be made from that accusa- 
 tive. And this supposition is fully justified by the far more startling 
 appearances in Trjpovros and ivOevrev, which can have come into the lan- 
 guage in no other way than by a mechanical imitation of that analogy. 
 See Gram. sect. 72. b. 5. and sect. 103, 6. — Again, rrjpos, rjpos may be 
 explained as compounded of the article and rjpap, consequently for 
 Trjixap, r)pap, and answering to avrrjpap, which is evidently a correlative, 
 though retaining only its literal meaning of the day. 
 
$$. Evre, &c. 315 
 
 jected, because Homer always writes opeos at full length. By 
 writes we mean also pronounces ; for we never find opeos in 
 Homer's metre written as a dissyllable, any more than rei'xeoj, 
 o-r?j0eo9, or any other similar genitive of this form which 1 can 
 call to mind. The other passage is in II. r, 386, where, speak- 
 ing of the arms of Achilles, the old reading is, 
 
 Tffl 8' rjvre Tire pa ylyver , aeipe be noipeva Xaa>v, 
 
 with the various reading evre. Wolf, according to a decision of 
 Aristarchus and from the Cod. Ven. has adopted aure, so that it 
 may be said with emphasis, " they were to him as feathers, and 
 raised him up." I will not venture an opinion on the figure ; 
 but I am not willing to purchase it with a completely idle and 
 useless awe. For there is nothing whatever in the verses 
 preceding to which avre might express opposition, or even mere 
 difference, and 8e is only copulative : " Achilles tried on his 
 
 armour to ascertain Et 01 i(f)appL6cr(r€L€ , Ta> §' rjvre Trrepa 
 
 yiyvtTo " I consider therefore the form of tjvt€ contracted 
 
 into a dissyllable to be the one unquestionably belonging to 
 this verse, and I leave others to choose between the various 
 readings in both passages rjvre and eSre, deciding for myself in 
 favour of Hvr opeos, rjvre nrepd. 
 
 3. A singular usage is that where rjvre stands after the com- 
 parative instead of f) in II. 8, 277., of the goatherd; 
 
 Tai be T avevQev eovrc jxeXavrepov rjvre nlaaa 
 
 ftaivero (namely the cloud). 
 
 The singularity of this usage is observed in the scholia on the 
 passage and on Apoll. llhod. I. 269. 
 
 d i2s ex eT0 tXat'ovo - ' dbipwrepov rjvre Kovprj. 
 
 but they explain it falsely in both passages, that the compa- 
 rative is put for the positive. It is however worthy of remark 
 that this verse of Apollonius appears much more like an imita- 
 tion Of Od. 7T, 216. 
 
 KXaioj/ be Xiyea>s, iibivtorepov rjr ol<ovoi. 
 
 For this ?/re, or ?/ re, is quite as unexampled in the sense of f) 
 quam, as rjvre, and the re here has no such grounds to rest on 
 as it has where 1) is a disjunctive copulative in II. r, 148. 
 
316 S5- E ^ &c « 
 
 f napacr\ep,ev , r) r kyjixev, " to offer , or (i. e. or also) to 
 
 retain " Hence in that passage attention must be paid to the 
 various reading of one or more Vienna manuscripts tjvt ol otw- 
 voi 2 ; a corruption from which we may suppose the true various 
 reading to have been abivvrepov t]vt olavoC, and which, after all 
 that has been said above, I do not hesitate to prefer to any 
 other. The circumstance of tjvt€ appearing to stand in such a 
 phrase may be compared with the common German expression 
 grosser wie du*, and the like ; although there is also an old for- 
 mula rj ore, analogous to fj ore in the other phrase, which offers 
 itself for our adoption. 
 
 4. By an evident corruption the word rjvre stands in some 
 fragments of Anacreon quoted in Hephsestion, which, as far as 
 I know, have never yet been corrected. They are these, con- 
 sequently the beginnings of odes : Meydkco 6' -qvre p? "Epas 
 iKo\j/€u wore x a ^ K€ ^> Heph. p. 40. Pa. (Fisch. fr. 25.) : Uapa 
 b 1 rjvre UvOoixavhpov, Heph. ib. (Fisch. fr. 53.) : 'ApOels 5' 
 y]vt cltto AevMos, Heph. p. 70. (Fisch. fr. 58.). We know 
 that Hephsestion was fond of quoting the beginnings of odes 
 of this kind as specimens of different sorts of verse. That this 
 was the case in the first fragment is evident from the words 
 with which he begins his quotation : Kal rw ^pa\vKarakr]KT^ 
 
 he ' ' kvaKpi(jav oka aa-piaTa (rvviOiqKe' MeyaAa) Who then 
 
 can doubt that the two verses which he here quotes are the 
 beginnings of such odes ? Equally certain is this in the third 
 fragment above quoted, which he cites as a specimen of those 
 songs in which the short verse precedes the longer one ; an 
 arrangement which can be shown only by producing the begin- 
 ning of the song. It is certain, then, that the be in these verses 
 cannot of right belong to them. I will not therefore give myself 
 any further trouble to show the impossibility of bringing -qvre 
 (or, if you please, evre,) in the first and second fragment into a 
 regular connexion with the context; but I will at once write 
 
 2 This is the reading of Alter's text, given according to the Cod. 58.; 
 from four others he mentions no various reading, and from the Cod. 
 133., which is particularly quoted, only the common one. 
 
 * [In German wie generally means as, but it may also mean than ; 
 e. g. gross wie du, * as large as thou ;' grosser wie du, ' larger than thou.' 
 In Latin also quam sometimes means as, sometimes than. — Ed.] 
 
5$. Edre, &c. 317 
 
 btvre as the true reading; of which word I will show by a 
 comparison of different passages, that in that older language, 
 and particularly by Anacreon, it is used in a sense somewhat 
 different from the common one. 
 
 5. That is to say, bevre is in such passages nothing more 
 than an animating interjection, or even merely for the purpose 
 of calling attention ; of which usage we find the groundwork 
 as early as in Homer. At II. 7?, 350. Antenor says to the 
 
 chiefs assembled in council, Aevr ayzr ' 'Apyeirjv 'Ekevrjv 
 
 Atoonev 'Arpeibrjo-LV ayecv : literally, " Come, let us give Helen 
 to the Atridae, &c. ;" and at Od. 0, 133. Laodamas says to the 
 Phseacians assembled at the games, Aevre, fyikoi, tov ^tTvov 
 tpuixzOa, " Come, friends, let us ask the stranger, &c. :" in 
 both which passages, as we see, there is no idea of actual mo- 
 tion*. Now Anacreon uses it in a similar way in a fragment 
 quoted by Strabo 14, p. 661. (Fisch. fr. 72.), where we have 
 two regular iambic dimeters acatalectic with pure anapaests in 
 the odd places, if we change the incongruous participle riQi^vai 
 into the infinitive, instead of altering it with Coray into the 
 masculine, an emendation by which some manuscripts endea- 
 vour to conceal the wound : 
 
 Aia devre Kapioepy€os 
 'O^cti/oto X ei P a Tidrjjievai. 
 
 " Up ! put your hand through the Carian handle" (see Schol. 
 and Eust. on II. 0, 193. Herod. 1, 171.); i.e. "seize the shield." 
 
 6. And now we may see how the usage of this interjection 
 becomes extended, in the Anacreontic fragment in Heph. p. 22. 
 (Fisch. fr. 123.) 
 
 Mvcltcii bevre (f)aXoKpos "A\e£is. 
 
 This fragment belongs to the specimens with which we set out ; 
 for Turnebus was the first who wrote Sd3re here, without 
 making any remark on it ; the manuscripts (see Gaisford) have 
 b-qvT€. Pauw understands this btvre not incorrectly : for while 
 he translates it hue agite ! he appears to consider it as a comic 
 invitation to hasten to the laughable drama. Still I would 
 
 * [We use 4 Come!' and the French make use of ' Allons !' in the 
 same way — Ed.] 
 
318 55- E "™> &c - 
 
 not have this expression taken too literally, as I see in it no- 
 thing more than " Listen, people !" in which I am confirmed 
 by a comparison of the passages still remaining. Atheneeus 14. 
 p. 599. has an Anacreontic ode beginning thus : 
 
 2(pmpr] devre pe 7rop(pvper} 
 BdXXoov xP V(ro <ofir]s "Epcos 
 
 2vpna[^€LV TTpoKaXcltai. 
 
 The similarity of the beginning of this ode to that other, of 
 which we have the first words with the false reading 8' rjvre, will 
 now assist us in correcting it thus : 
 
 MeydXco devre p "Epcos eKo^rev cocrre ^aAfceus 
 UeXeKei, xeipepiy $ eXovaev iv x a pdbprj. 
 
 We see that the word here merely supplies the place of an invi- 
 tation to listen to what is intended to be said ; and therefore we 
 cannot be surprised, at finding it in the two other passages given 
 above, which when completed run thus : 
 
 Uapa Sevre ILvdopavhpov 
 Karedvv "Epcora (pevywv, 
 
 and 
 
 Ap6e\$ devr cnro AeuKaSo? 
 
 IleTpijs es noXiov Kvpa KoXvpfico pe6vcov epa>Ti. 
 
 The first of these is obscure, from being suddenly broken off; 
 and in the second the word rjvre might perhaps be tolerated, 
 if it were not certain, as we stated before of this fragment, 
 that it was the commencement of the ode. The poet therefore 
 speaks of that, with which he is comparing his condition, as 
 a reality. The examination of a larger fragment of the same 
 poet in A then. 10. p. 427. (Fisch. Od. 57.), in which, as we 
 may conclude from the corruptions, the word heme did occur 
 twice, I must defer to another opportunity, as it would require 
 too much time and space ; and I will only propose a conjecture 
 that this same usage is also concealed in a fragment of Alcman 
 in Athenaeus 13. p. 600. f. 
 
 "Epcoy pe 8' aire Kvnpidos eKan 
 TXvkvs KaTQifimv Kapbiav laiuet. 
 
 As we know nothing of the continuation of this fragment, there 
 
$6. 'E^eTreu/o;?, &c. 319 
 
 could not be the least objection to the word avre ; but the po- 
 sition of be furnishes a trace which we would not wish to lose 
 even by reversing the words to "Epcas be y! avre. In other 
 respects the passage is quite free from faults ; for enan must 
 have had in Alcman, as in Homer, its usual digamma. The 
 two catalectic trimeters show then that they are the fragment 
 of an ode, which consisted wholly of such, like the ode of the 
 same poet from which three and two verses of the same metre 
 are taken in Athenseus 3. p. 110. f. and 14. p. 648. b. (Welck. 
 num. 17. and 28.). Now by comparing this with two of the 
 Anacreontic fragments quoted above, I cannot help thinking 
 that this also was the beginning of an ode, in which that same 
 bevre, a word quite natural it seems to this lost branch of poetry, 
 was introduced to enliven the sentence : 
 
 "Epcos pe 8evTe Rvrrpidos eiian 
 TXvkvs KaTeiftav mpbiav laivei. 
 
 which we should translate, " See how Love at the command of 
 Venus, sweet Love besprinkling me, softens my heart." 
 
 56. 'Kx^TrevKT)^ 7r€VKe8avo?, 7reu/caAt/xo9. 
 
 1. That the Homeric adjectives exeirevKris an( ^ nevKebavos 
 are connected with the word irevKr], the fir- or pine-tree, can 
 scarcely admit of a doubt. But in what meaning are we to look 
 for the root ? Is the idea of the tree the first, as lying most 
 on the surface, and do those words contain that idea as a 
 metaphorical one ? or does the idea of bitterness lie originally 
 in tt€vk7], and the tree take its name from that quality, and 
 in such a way too that those forms independently of the tree 
 would be formed from the stem or root TrevK-q, bitterness ? In 
 this investigation we must not overlook 771 /epos, which is used 
 in Homer in the same sense as those words, (for instance, ttl- 
 Kpos oioTo's,) and clearly comes from the same root; as also 
 in the words ttcvkt), irta-aa, pix, the sounds ev and t change from 
 one to the other. 
 
 2. In the first case it is difficult to conceive that the idea of 
 bitterness should have been taken by abstraction from the fir in 
 
320 $6. '&X €7reVK ^ &c - 
 
 particular and its resinous gum, when that quality is far less 
 striking in this tree than in so many other objects in which it 
 is naturally more prominent ; and equally surprising is it 
 that so bold a metaphor could be made use of as to call a sharp 
 arrow at once ixeirevKes, fir-containing. Besides, in that case 
 this derivation must have come down from the olden time : for 
 •mKpos, by its deviation in form, presupposes it to have existed 
 in an earlier age, while those others are immediate derivations 
 and compounds, formed at different times according to the 
 laws of analogy. On the other side, the supposition that the 
 tree is named from its bitterness is contradicted by the general 
 extension of this radical name for that species of tree through 
 so many cognate languages,— for who would wish to separate 
 tt€vkt] [pronounced by the Germans poike], picea, ttltvs, pinus, 
 Fichte, Fohre, fir ? — whilst there is nowhere else any appearance 
 of a root containing the idea of bitterness. 
 
 3. I think I shall arrive at the truth in another way. The 
 common radical idea is not that of bitterness but of pointedness. 
 In the European words pit, Spitze, (a point), pike, pugo (pungo) 
 lies the root. As soon as we suppose that these names of trees 
 originally meant the pointed-tree or pricking -tree, the idea is 
 at once so far satisfactory. And now if we look at mKpos 
 in its oldest sense in Homer, we instantly see that the ground- 
 meaning is penetrating, sharp, of which bitterness is only a 
 subdivision, which did not become the prevailing sense until a 
 later period. In Homer the sharp pungent smell* of the seals 
 is called TTiKprj odjotrj, a root laid on a wound is iru<pri, and so are 
 salt-water, tears, and metaphorically pain. 
 
 4. Every accurate examination of the older Greek language 
 leads with full and complete evidence to roots which, in certain 
 meanings, have disappeared from the common language of later 
 times. So in the case before us the Latin pungo answered to 
 a Greek form FITKX2, IIETKil, whence m/cpos (like Qvrpov 
 from <J)V(*>, cf)VT€V(y>) sharp, pointed, and TtevKr) the point, which 
 latter was lost in this sense, but left behind it those deriva- 
 tives with a meaning like micpos. With these were joined, as 
 in the other languages, the names of that species of tree de- 
 
 [The French would call it ' une odeur piquante.' — Ed.] 
 
57* 'E^Oo^oTr^a-a/. 321 
 
 rived from irewr], and corresponding with it in form ; from 
 which again came irCo-aa, pix; very naturally, the production 
 named after the tree. 
 
 5. The word irevKaXtfjios, which never occurs but as an epi- 
 thet of the understanding (cppeal 77evK.a\ifj.r}(n), might be brought 
 into the same family in the sense of sharp, penetrating ; but I 
 am unwilling to give the word $py\v an epithet, the physical 
 sense of which has so little connexion with the physical sense 
 of cj)prjv ; and I remain therefore in favour of the usual opinion, 
 which explains it as synonymous with ttvklvos. For this also is 
 an epithet of cfrpives (II. £, 294.), with which latter the verb 
 T7VKd((t) is again brought into connexion, when it is said (II. 0, 
 124. and elsewhere), that the mind is filled with anything. 
 But the eu is merely a lengthening of the v, in itself short, 
 which in this long word is lengthened for the same reason as 
 the a is in adavaros : an exactly parallel case to this is in Aei>- 
 yaAeos, which bears precisely the same relation to kvypos as 
 7T€i//caAi/u,os does to ttvkvos. 
 
 $J. y F,)(0oSo7n](raL, 
 
 1. The verb e^Ooboiiija-aL in II. a, 518. is, as far as I know, a 
 aira$ elprjfxivov in the whole range of Greek literature. But 
 ZxOoboiros (from which it is formed) occurs sometimes in the 
 poets, and once in prose in Plato. For we may be pretty con- 
 fident that the passages brought forward by Ruhnken ad Tim. 
 in v. are all taken from the older writers. Plato's use of the 
 word is particularly deserving of remark, and, in an examination 
 whether he adopted pure Epic words, might be classed with his 
 use of Kprjyvos. 
 
 2. Another question is whether the adjective has an active 
 sense (hating, hostile), or a passive one (hated, hateful); for 
 the lexicons do not speak decidedly on this point. Among 
 the poetical passages in Ruhnken arc first those the con- 
 text of which is decisive in favour of the former sense, Soph. 
 
 Aj. 950. (932. 924.) rota cbeoreWfe? o>p.6(f)p(i)V ex^oSo7r' 
 
 'ArpetSaty. Aristoph. Acharn. 227. olai nap tpov 7roAe/xos 
 cx^o5o7ros enteral- and the passage of Apoll. Rhod. quoted below. 
 
322 57- 'E x 0o<W;7<ra<. 
 
 Two others, — Soph. Philoct. 1132. (1137.), where it is used of 
 a man, and Plato Com. ap. Poll. 6, 25. where a medicine is 
 called so, — may be very well translated in the same sense ; 
 and so also may, if I mistake not, the passage in Plato de Legg. 
 7. p. 810. d. The person supposed to be speaking is giving an 
 account, which must end in the complete rejection of the Epic 
 and other poets, and goes on to say : KtXevtis yap by p.€ rrjs avrrjs 
 obov 'iyeadai 1 kyOoboirov yeyovvias ttoWois, trroos & ovk kkdrTocriv 
 hepois 7rpo(T(f)iXovs. It seems to me that in this passage hated 
 would not be so suitable a meaning as hostile: for the main 
 point in the passage is, the bringing forward principles quite 
 unusual, which will offend or be at variance icith the ideas of 
 many persons*. 
 
 3. This same meaning is also the most natural in the Homeric 
 tydoboitricr ai, which is evident by the word €$7Jcreis : 
 
 H 8f) Xoiyia epy, ore li ex6o8o7rrj(ra.i e<fif)(Teis 
 'Hprj, orav fx ip(6rj<riv oveideiois eVeWo-ii>. 
 
 Jupiter foresees that, if he does what Thetis desires him to do, 
 Juno will reproach him for it, and he shall then be provoked to 
 behave toward her in word or deed in a hostile manner. 
 
 4. The derivation of the word is obscure, but I think the 
 grammarians are for once in the right. They consider the b 
 as inserted. That is to say, when the second part of a com- 
 pound word begins with a vowel, some consonant is introduced 
 in order to separate the second part from the first, and make 
 the separation more audible. In the Latin we have the d in 
 prodire, prodesse; and I find it in another Greek compound, 
 which is generally explained in a different way. To derive the 
 forms akkobanos, f]jjLeba7r6s from bdirebov or ebacpos, is contrary 
 
 1 This verb, which is wanting in the text, is from a conjecture ap- 
 proved of by Ruhnken. 
 
 * [It is with the greatest diffidence that I venture to differ from 
 Buttmann, but I cannot avoid thinking that the passive sense suits this 
 passage better than the active, particularly as cxdodoirov seems opposed 
 to 7rpocr(f)i\ovs, the former in the sense of disliked by, the latter of agree- 
 able to. Schneider and Passow in their lexicons give both senses, and 
 quote as authorities Sophocles and Plato, but without assigning either 
 meaning to any particular passage. — Ed.] 
 
58. 'HydOeos. 323 
 
 to analogy. I think they arose from an old anastrophe aXXov 
 ano, fjfiajv or fjfjLtTtpov cltto 2 . And so also is ixOohoiTos : but 
 of the two derivations proposed by the grammarians (see 
 Eustath.), that from cty is to be rejected; for it is too restricted, 
 and the more general one cannot be formed from it. But the 
 derivation from ottto) is confirmed by the analogy of yapoiros. 
 'EyOoho-nos then is properly hostile-looking* ; from which the 
 general meaning comes very naturally. Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1670. 
 uses it (accidentally or not ?) in this which I suppose to be its 
 original sense : 
 
 ix6ob<moi<TLv 
 
 "Oppacri xaXKeioio TdXco ejjLeyrjpep onconds. 
 
 Ew/zez> ; vid. ddrjaaL. 
 
 58. 'Hya#eos\ 
 
 The first syllable in rjyddtos is without doubt a mere length- 
 ening of the word, as in ^aflo'ei?, ^e/xo'et?, rjyepeOovraL, rjepe- 
 Oovrai, rjvopirj, r\kd(TKov(nv. Both the derivations therefore^ 
 that from aya\xai (according to which it would perhaps be a 
 lengthened form of ayaOos), and that from ayav 0etos, would be 
 admissible. But the latter has much clearer analogy in its 
 favour ; for the compounding with aya~, dropping the v, is found 
 also in dya/cAiro? and many proper names, and the synonymous 
 word (ddeos is an exactly parallel case. To this we may add 
 that r]ydOeos in Homer and Hesiod, in Pindar aydOeos, is used 
 only of cities, countries and mountains, to which the idea of 
 
 2 Should this derivation be thought the true one, we may then con- 
 sider the interrogative Trofianos to be much the same as the German 
 wovon [the English whercfroni] : but in ev&dmos the fi is not inserted, 
 the word coming from eudov and and, as tvftddtv does from tudov with tin- 
 particle Bev annexed. 
 
 * [Passow, after having mentioned in his Lexicon the different de- 
 rivations of this word, adds that "probably it is no compound, but a 
 lengthened form of ex^pos, like dWobands, Tjiu&ands, Sec, which opinion 
 is favoured by the accent." — Ed.] 
 
 y 2 
 
324 59- 'HibW 
 
 divine, sacred, belongs as a fixed epithet. Apollonius (3, 981. 
 4, 113T.) uses it still more generally of any divine or sacred 
 place. Whence it is clear that the older writers understood it 
 to mean nothing more than 0eios, and the other derivation be- 
 longs therefore to the later grammarians. 
 
 'Hepio? ; vid. arjp. 
 
 $g. 'Hioets\ 
 
 1. At II. e, 36. we read eir rjioivn 2/ca/xcb8/)<«>, and the great 
 majority of the commentators in explaining its meaning look 
 to the word rj'icov, rj'iovos, which appears both in sound and sense 
 to be akin to it. Heyne, indeed, is satisfied with the expla- 
 nation of ripis septus, while he rejects, and with reason, one 
 explanation which speaks of beautiful banks, as not possible 
 in an adjective so formed, and another, which renders it " on 
 the banks of Scamander," as an expression not agreeable to 
 Homer's general language. Eustathius looks for the origin 
 of the epithet in the "probability" of the banks being hilly. 
 But then this must be the proper meaning of rj'iiov, as it is in 
 oxdrj. Whereas in most, if not all, of the passages where Homer 
 uses the expression rj'icov, he is speaking of a level bank or coast 
 of sand, as that along the sea before Troy. And in general all 
 who derive the word from ri'ia>v, touch very slightly or not at 
 all on the circumstance that it is never used but of the sea- 
 shore ; a point which, according to my idea, ought alone to 
 have been sufficient to cause the rejection of every explanation 
 of this kind. 
 
 2. There is another old explanation — a very bad one it is 
 true — from Xov, a violet, whence rj'Coeis is to mean violet-covered, 
 flowery, and the flowery stream will be, a stream with flowery 
 banks : now from the very circumstance of this etymology being 
 so forced, I cannot but conjecture that those who produced it 
 saw themselves forcibly drawn to it by some grounds or other 
 of which they felt sure ; and on which we probably can speak 
 
59- 'HibW 325 
 
 with more certainty than they could, although the Venetian 
 scholia and the lexicon of Apollonius were silent on this word. 
 According to this my conjecture, the older grammarians were 
 of opinion that fj'Coeis gave the idea of a pasture or meadow ; and 
 those etymologists, as they could not derive the word from any 
 expression signifying grass, had recourse to one meaning flowers. 
 It is not my usual custom to find new explanations in the Epic 
 language of Quintus ; but as those grammarians are silent on this 
 point, it is not unimportant for us to observe that the poet, 
 speaking of geese and cranes feeding, says (5, 299.), 
 
 rj'ioev nebiov KaTafio<rKOfxevoi(riv. 
 
 We may be sure that he did not use the word in this way on 
 account of the above unintelligible etymology, but because rfioeis 
 was handed down to him as meaning grassy. Let us suppose 
 this to have been the sense in Homer's time, and we have a 
 very suitable epithet for the Scamander, which flowed through 
 the grassy plains of Troy. Thither Minerva led Mars, and bade 
 him seat himself, on account of the softness and agreeableness of 
 the situation. It was not intended by the poet that he should 
 place himself on a hill in order to overlook and watch the 
 battle ; but if such an elevated situation were in Homer's mind, 
 the banks of the Simois offered him one in a site both high and 
 delightful ; and where we afterwards see the gods and among 
 them Mars himself actually seated, II. v, 151. 
 
 3. We now find ourselves therefore standing on the same 
 ground as the old commentators ; we have a meaning for 
 the word rjutets, which both the thing itself and tradition render 
 in the highest degree probable, and we may next look about us 
 in search of a derivation. According to the analogy of other 
 adjectives in deu we must suppose a substantive HION or -02 
 or -A ; whether such a one ever actually existed we know 
 not. But should not the well-known Epic word dafxevi] be 
 derived from this very word, which we suppose must have ex- 
 isted in the old Epic language ? Ela^vr] is a piece of moist 
 grass-land, a meadow or pasture such as is generally seen round 
 a morass (hence in Homer it is always eia/xei>7/ JIAcds), where 
 poplars grow and innumerable herds feed; while later poets, 
 as Apollonius 3, 1202. and Demosthenes the Bithynian, in 
 
326 59- ' H * 
 
 ioei$. 
 
 Steph. Byz. v. 'Hpaia *, call also by this name tracts of land 
 which are flooded ; in which however we see that the ground of 
 this latter usage is still the same idea of a low pasture-land, 
 sometimes entirely under water, and sometimes a green meadow : 
 hence in Apollonius 4, 3 1 6., as well as in Homer, the herds of 
 cattle feed in the etajuemts. Of this word the most generally 
 received etymology (see Schneider f) is that of rj/xai, because 
 in the common language ra Kadrjixtva was used to express low 
 situations. Considered however independently of this meaning, 
 the derivation is of a somewhat deceptive kind; for eiarai is 
 compared with elaixevrj, without reflecting that in the former 
 there is a good and well-known foundation for the alpha, but 
 in the latter there is none whatever : and when the gram- 
 marians (for instance in Schol. II. b, 483.) recommended the 
 pronouncing it elafxepri, with the aspirate, we clearly see that 
 they were contending on etymological grounds against the cur- 
 rent pronunciation. Hence we are fully justified in joining 
 this dafjLtvrj with that 'HION from which comes the adjective 
 rj'Coets. If now there be any truth in the derivation of elafxevi] 
 from rjixai, there is nothing to hinder us from deriving rj'C6m 
 from the same. At all events we must allow that both Greek 
 words give us the idea of a meadow ; that we can render rj'Coets 
 very well by meadowy, surrounded by meadows ; and that it 
 were no vain undertaking to show the accordance of the letters 
 in the German and the Greek words 1 . 
 
 * [He says of a shallow harbour, dofxevfj de ko\ ov f$a9os icrri 6a~ 
 \d(rcrr)s. — Ed.] 
 
 t [The passage referred to in Schneider's Lexicon is this : 
 
 " 'Elafxevrj, f), or more correctly elafieur], from elafxevos, from tiarai. 
 Ion. for fjvrai, sitting, lying, like mBriptvos tokos, a low situation, Suid. 
 Hesych. and ^Eliani v. h. 3, 1., whence Hesychius explains elayxvbv by 
 vrjvefxov, koIXov, fioravaidr] ," &C. — Ed.] 
 
 1 The German word Aue [signifying a tract or district of marshy or 
 meadow land] belongs evidently to the simple root signifying water, 
 which runs through all the European languages. But elaixevrj may 
 have meant literally a watery tract of land, and such words as fi'/So) for 
 Xct'/3w, clap, moisture, alovav, to sprinkle, are very favourable to this sup- 
 position. Only we must remember that the word HION no longer 
 struck the ear of a Greek with the mere verbal idea of water, any more 
 than Aue now does the ear of a German [or meadow that of an English- 
 man], and therefore ^toeis, meadowy, was no bad epithet for a stream. 
 
327 
 
 6o. 'Hfca, rjKtaro9. 
 
 i. If the adverb r/Ka agreed exactly in meaning with oWcoi> 
 and aK.r]v, which we have examined before, the difference of the 
 first syllable would be no objection to their being all three of 
 the same family, as the words ?/Kecrro9, TJirtipos, rj-rrehavos, 
 r/ktKTtop exhibit clear proofs that in the old Ionic language the 
 a privative was changed* into rj. And in fact, if we had no 
 other passages with which to compare the Pindaric am (Pind. 
 Pyth. 4, 277* cLKa 8' avrayoptvo-tv koX YIektas, " Pelias an- 
 swered him calmly") than such as II. y, 155. 'H/ca irpos a\- 
 AtJAous into. TTTepoevr ayopevov, " they spoke low to each other/' 
 one would hardly wish to separate the two ideas. But this 
 passage of the Iliad is the only one which comes very near 
 to the meaning of aiceW and aK-qv. Let us compare now the 
 following passages. At II. \jr, 336. Nestor is teaching his 
 son that, in guiding his horses round the goal, he should in- 
 cline yjk in aptcrrepa, 'a little to the left;' and in the same 
 way at Od. v, 301. Ulysses avoids the ox-foot thrown at him 
 rJKCL -napCLKXivas K€(f)a\rjv. It is plain that in both these pas- 
 sages the sense has nothing whatever to do with a silent or 
 tranquil inclination, but that the person inclined in a slight 
 degree, a little. And so it is the epithet of a slight blow, 
 push, wind, the brightness of a shining body, Od. 0-, 91. 93. 
 II. a), 508. v, 440. or, 596., and of a slow pace, tjkcl klovtols, 
 Od. p, 254 *. In all these passages there is not only no idea 
 whatever of stillness or silence, but in all except the first the 
 meanings cannot be deduced from the idea of stillness and calm- 
 ness without considerable difficulty and force ; as for instance 
 at Od. 0-, 93. the blow given was so far from being a soft or 
 gentle one, that it smashed the bones of Irus and made the 
 blood burst from his mouth, so that ?/Ka stands there only in 
 opposition to such a blow as would have stretched him dead on 
 the spotf. Consequently the idea given by ?)/ca is not a positive 
 one implying a negative quality as in clktiv, but only a relative 
 
 * [Also of a smile, Hes. Theog. 547. — Ed.] 
 
 f [The word seems used in this passage expressly for the purpose 
 of magnifying the strength of Ulysses, by representing what in fact 
 was a very violent blow, to have been in his estimation quite a Blight 
 one. — Kd.] 
 
60. ^H/ca, rjKKTTOS. 
 
 idea implying diminution, and this is no other than weak. This 
 idea will bring all those passages to an uniformity of meaning, 
 and it is only through the context that it acquires the sense of 
 low, slow ; into which it passed over completely, but very natu- 
 rally, in such phrases as rJKa ayopevetv, kUiv. 
 
 2. According to this I suppose -qua to be the genuine posi- 
 tive of rjcrcrov, rJKLa-ra ; and the spiritus, if it does not belong 
 entirely to the old etymologists, is the Ionic lenis, which was 
 sometimes adopted without any apparent reason in single forms 
 of a family otherwise aspirated throughout, and was perhaps 
 used here on account of the transition from one meaning to a 
 cognate one, from slightly to softly, gently 1 . If then, on the 
 one side, the difference of the spiritus is no objection to my 
 supposition, on the other it is confirmed by the digamma : for 
 rJKa has still evident traces of it in Homer, — air^a-aro rJKa, avrov 
 .r\Ka, — nor is there one passage to the contrary; and though 
 rjo-otov has in Homer no traces of it, yet its compound arjTTrjTos 
 carries it continually. The positive of rjoro-cav, tJkkttos may 
 have been fjKvs, as that of Oao-crav, Tayivros is rayios, and thus 
 rJKa or rJKa bears the same relation to the one as raya does to 
 the other. 
 
 3. And for that reason I cannot follow the old grammarians 
 in writing tJklcttos at II. y\r, 53 r . For they thought that because 
 rJKa in the more definite sense of slow was once separated from 
 the more general meaning of rjo-o-ov, rJKicrTa, therefore t]kkttos, 
 which occurs in that passage only, was the adjectival superlative 
 of that adverb with the same meaning : 
 
 Bdp8i(TTOi pev yap ol e<rav KuWirpixes tiriroi, 
 'Hkuttos S rju avros iXavvepev app iv dyu>vi. 
 
 And certainly if that were true, we might, amidst the general 
 uncertainty prevailing in the oldest accentuation and aspiration, 
 rest very well contented with the lenis here also. But if it be 
 understood in that way, it gives a very silly meaning : " he 
 had the slowest horses, and was himself the slowest of chariot- 
 eers.*" As the cause of the unfortunate issue of that race is 
 shared between the horses and the driver, it would be a false 
 
 1 The Etym. M. in fJKiarros has the form fjKa in an obscure gloss ; from 
 which it may be inferred, either that the pronunciation was unsettled 
 between rj<a and T)<a, or that my explanation of the word was not un- 
 known to the old grammarians. Comp. Schol. B. on II. \^, 53 1. 
 
6i. 'HX//3aT09. 329 
 
 thought to ascribe the slow driving to the latter as his parti- 
 cular fault. Still it is evident at first sight that the charioteer 
 was rjao-tov linTrjXaTTis, and that he had ppabvrepovs tinrovs ; and 
 so it was explained in the early times, as we find from the 
 scholia, by those who did not go about in search of grammatical 
 subtleties. The a-nag dprjixhov which we have here is therefore 
 the adjectival superlative of rjaacov *, not occurring in any other 
 passage of the older writers, though it could not have entirely 
 disappeared from the language ; for iElian would have hardly 
 said in his prose (N. A. 4, 31. 9, 1.) tJkkttos Orjpqv, rj'/aoros Kpv}xbv 
 4>ip€Lv, if he had had no other precedent than this of Homer. 
 
 61. 'HA//3aros\ 
 
 1. 'HAi/^aro? in Homer is always the epithet of Tiirpt]. It is 
 evidently a compound word, but its derivation is not clear ; 
 hence it has been generally attempted from very early times 
 to conjecture the meaning from the passages in which the word 
 occurs, and from that again to deduce the derivation. The 
 leading idea, which the great majority of passages both in 
 Homer and elsewhere has always given to the reader, is that 
 of a steep height, difficult or impossible to be climbed. As this 
 meaning can be made out with certainty, we will endeavour first 
 to do so thoroughly, and then examine the peculiarities or con- 
 tradictions which accompany it. 
 
 2. The passage of II. 0, 273. is of such a kind as of itself to 
 put the above-mentioned meaning beyond a doubt. It is there 
 said of a stag and a wild goat pursued by the hunters, 
 
 Top fieu t tjXi&citos Trirpr) Kai 8d(TKios v\rj 
 'Eipvcrar ovb apa re (T(fii Ki^/xti/cu a'icrifxov rj(V. 
 
 As it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the somewhat inac- 
 curate structure of the sentence, the rock refers to the goat, as 
 
 * [Passow's article on this word is the following : " "Ukio-tos, rj, ov, 
 superl. adj. from the adv. rjica, found only at II. >//■, 531. tjkhttos fKav- 
 vefiev, the slowest in driving. Others read tJkkttos, the common superl. 
 of rjao-av, the worst of drivers : but as ^loroy is otherwise unknown to 
 the Homeric language, the other reading should be retained as a relic 
 of the oldest verbal formation."- — Ed.] 
 
330 6i. 'HXiparos. 
 
 the wood does to the stag, and as it is quite necessary that the 
 separate epithet joined with each of those objects should express 
 that in which the certainty of safety lies ; so it is equally certain 
 that rikCftaTos refers to the steep height, as that bao-Kuos does to 
 the thickness of the covert. With this passage we must join 
 those also where the same meaning offers itself as the most 
 natural, or where it seems to be correct and beautiful. This is 
 the case at Od. k, 88. of the rock which runs round the harbour; 
 where it is to be observed, that the singular nirprj r)\if3aros does 
 not mean one single rock only, but expresses quite as well a 
 lofty wall of rock, in the same way as at v. 4. the chain of rocks 
 which runs like a wall round the island of iEolus is called Xktctt] 
 iriTprj. Again, at II. 0, 619. 7rirprj 'HA.t/3aro? fieydkrj, is the huge 
 rock on the sea-coast which braves the wind and waves ; and at 
 Hes. a, 422. rjkifiaros, without any other epithet, is the rock 
 struck by Jupiter's thunder. The passages also where the word 
 is a fixed epithet, (as at Od. v. 196. of the rocks of Ithaca, at 
 II. it, 35. of the rocks which Patroclus says must have been the 
 parents of the stubborn Achilles, at Hes. 6, 786. of the rock 
 from which the Styx springs,) — although in all of them the idea 
 of height is not exactly a necessary one,— yet associate them- 
 selves in the same sense with those others where that meaning 
 is more clear and decisive. 
 
 3. That the ancients understood the word in this sense is 
 shown also by the usage of the following classical epochs. In 
 Theognis v. 176. a fatal leap, Trerp&v kglt Yikipdrav, is joined 
 with a leap into the deep sea. In Pindar 01. 6, no. the hill 
 Cronius, which elsewhere is called the sunny, is distinguished 
 by this epithet ; Xkovto 8' 7^77X010 irirpav akifiaTov Kpoviov *. In 
 Aristophanes Av. 1732. the Olympic throne of Jove is called 
 rjkiftcLTOL Opovoi ; a combination attributable to the ingenuity of 
 the poet. And, lastly, in the Hymn to Venus v. 268. the con- 
 nexion of this verse with the foregoing is not perhaps quite so 
 clear, but the context in the following one makes it perfectly 
 certain that 7]A.t/3arot is there the epithet of lofty trees ; an ap- 
 plication of the word which does not occur elsewhere, and 
 which appears to me to betray the industry of a later epoch 
 
 [It is used also in iEschyl. Supp. 350. = 363. — Ed.] 
 
61. 'HX/jSaTo?. 331 
 
 in poetry than that in which we are justified in placing those 
 poems ; but this remark may perhaps belong to only these two 
 verses, on which see Hermann's Introduction, p. 95. And in 
 order to carry on the poetical use of the word beyond the pure 
 age of Greek poetry, we may add to these the usage of Apol- 
 lonius, with whom this word is very common as the epithet of 
 0/309, or occasionally of other words signifying elevation, and 
 always in the plain and necessary sense of a steep height ; from 
 which passages I will only select one, aKprj Tr&vToOev -qXifiaTos, 
 2,361. 
 
 4. But what appears to confirm this to be the genuine mean- 
 ing is, that it occurs also in ancient prose. For when Xenophon 
 in his Anab. 1, 4, 4., in the description of a fortified pass in 
 Cilicia, says, virepOtv 5e rjcrav irirpat ?]At/3arot, it is absurd to sup- 
 pose that he selected intentionally a poetical expression for such 
 a sentence. In the same way Polybius also uses the word, 
 4, 41. tK^apabpovura kcli hiaKoiiTovTa tottovs rjkij3dTovs. And when 
 we consider that this expression, without having exactly re- 
 mained in constant use in the everyday language of Greece, 
 passed by degrees from the language of poetry into that of 
 polished prose, it supposes that this meaning of the word had 
 been transmitted down from an earlier period, and was already 
 become old in Xenophon's time. 
 
 5. This meaning then we must look upon as the true and 
 genuine leading sense of the compound word riXiflaros, even 
 without knowing the literal signification of its component parts ; 
 and whatever militates against this must be brought forward as 
 a problem to be solved. The first thing of this kind which we 
 meet with is in Homer himself, where the rock with which the 
 Cyclops shuts up his cave (Od. 1, 243.) is called ^Ai/taros. It is 
 true that here we need not go far in search of a reason for this 
 use of the word. We may say that it is a fabulous exaggeration 
 of the size of the giant and of everything around him. But this 
 explanation is not quite satisfactory. Proportion must be pre- 
 served even in exaggerations of the imagination : the giant is a 
 huge monster, but still there is a proportion kept up between 
 him and the strangers, which can be comprehended, and is, if 
 we may use the expression, tangible. He seizes two of Ulyew 
 companions like puppies ; he devours them, but still he is con- 
 
332 6i. 'HX/jSaToy. 
 
 tented with two at a meal ; and the draughts of wine which he 
 takes from Ulysses's leathern bottle, though many arid deep, 
 are still enough to make him drunk ; and so in other things. 
 Thus the stone is huge, it is true, but still its size is in some 
 measure limited by the negative sentence that two-and-twenty 
 waggons would not have sufficed to remove it from its place. 
 This description gives us the idea of a huge mass, not of a rock 
 towering high in air. In spite of all, however, we must suppose 
 some hyperbole in the passage in order to solve the problem. 
 Neither the language nor the imagination of a poet of nature 
 can be restrained thus by laws. As soon as poetry becomes 
 fabulous, as soon as, in order to give pleasure by creating 
 astonishment, it rises from surrounding nature into the mon- 
 strous, it loses proportion also, which it certainly would not be 
 very anxious to preserve, in order to feed the listening crowd 
 with poorer food. I have mentioned above one instance of the 
 proportion which the giant bears to the strangers, but the poet 
 has given another in his description of the Cyclops at the very 
 beginning at verse 190. 
 
 Kai yap 6avfx ercrvKro 7re\(opiov, ovde ewfcei 
 'Avbpi ye (TLTotyaya), aXAa pico vXrjevri 
 'YyjtTJXcbi/ opecov, ore (fyaiverai oiov an aWcov, 
 
 Now, certainly, one who in size resembles a woody cliff or 
 promontory, may very well be supposed to break off one of the 
 precipitous rocks on the sea-coast in order to close the entrance 
 of his cave. For that the poet wishes to represent the rocky 
 mass to be not a mere stone, but one of the neighbouring rocks, 
 is evident from his calling it not irerpov but irirp-qv, which latter 
 form Homer, as well as succeeding writers, always uses of fixed 
 rocks only, except in the passage before us, and a little further 
 on where he makes the giant break off the top of a large hill 
 and throw it into the sea, concluding the description with these 
 words (486.), 
 
 'E/cXvo-^i; de 6d\a(T(ra Karepxopevrjs vnb nerprjs. 
 
 From all that has been said we see how the disproportion is 
 caused by the direction which the poet has chosen to take. On 
 this point however I would remark, that here we have not 
 
6i. 'HXiparos. 333 
 
 only the poet before us, but that certain ideas and expressions 
 had already been transmitted down for his adoption. And 
 in particular I would mention, that in the descriptions handed 
 down of the giants we find familiar and in a certain degree 
 established representations of their seizing and hurling whole 
 mountains, as for instance in the battle of the Titans in Hesiod 
 (0, 675.), where the hundred-handed giants are described as 
 
 Herpas r)\i(SaTovs o-Tifiapjjs iv xepcriv e^oi/res. 
 
 6. I think all this stands on grounds so sure in themselves, 
 that I may very well now expect that no one will be mis- 
 led by a passage certainly somewhat strange in Strabo, 17. 
 p. 818. The geographer there says, that he has sometimes 
 seen in Upper Egypt on both sides of the public roads iri- 
 rpov 7]\ifiaTov (TTpoyyv\ov, Xeioz; luav&s, kyyvs crcpcupoeibovs, of a 
 black and hard stone; and at the end he says the largest of 
 these stones might be ticelve feet in diameter, none under six 
 feet. In this passage the use of the word deviates so consi- 
 derably from all the older writers, unless we should think 
 perhaps of joining with it the stone of the Cyclops, that 
 Schneider* in his Lexicon supposes from this single passage 
 that the word may have had a collateral meaning, a modifica- 
 tion of the original one. But to suppose that a word contained 
 a meaning which might have had an influence on the passages 
 of the earlier writers, and which yet we do not observe in any 
 one of them, is a supposition not to be entertained for a 
 moment: and equally improbable is it that there should be a 
 meaning peculiar to Strabo > or to this later epoch of the lan- 
 guage ; for as the roundness and smoothness, the hardness and 
 colour, of the stone are contained in the other epithets, there 
 remains nothing for this one but its size. And we may there- 
 fore rest very well satisfied with the alternative, that either this 
 epithet of large rocks had become generally applicable in the 
 
 * [Schneider explains rj\i$aTos by the mere general terms " high, 
 deep, like ultus," and adds that in the passage of Strabo " the word lias 
 another collateral meaning." His account is very meagre and superficial. 
 Not so that of Passow, which is full and satisfactory, but still has no- 
 thing worth adding to Buttmann. — Ed.] 
 
334 6i. 'HXlparov. 
 
 common language of the day to every huge mass of stone (for 
 the word used here is irdrpos, not iter pa) ; or that the passage in 
 question is an isolated one, as we know that the later writers did 
 sometimes use the expressions of the earlier authors according 
 to their own judgment ; in which case the stone at the mouth 
 of the Cyclops' cave may very probably have served as a prece- 
 dent. 
 
 7. On the other hand, more important both in itself and by 
 its antiquity is the following deviation from Homer's usage, that 
 the word is also an epithet of caves and places not deep. In 
 Hesiod 0,483. Ehea conceals the young Jupiter in Crete 
 
 "Avrpcp iv rjXifiaTcp £a9irj<; vrrb Kevdeai yairjs 
 Alyaia iv opei. 
 
 In Euripides Hippol. 732. the Chorus wishes itself fjXifiaTOLs vtto 
 K€v6pi(aatv, in order that there — (I wish I could see this locality 
 fixed on some certain grounds) — they might be turned into 
 birds, &c. And, lastly, it is mentioned in the Etym. M. that 
 Stesichorus called Tartarus ?}Ai/3cu-os in the sense of deep. We 
 might understand the passage of Hesiod, as the scholiast does 
 {lv ko[A(£> kcll v^/tj\£), of a cave lying in a lofty and trackless 
 mountain ; but then the expression 1)770 KevOtat yaiiqs would lead 
 us amazingly astray. I think, therefore, that we must be satis- 
 fled in all three passages with the explanation of the Etym. M. 
 and of the Schol. Eurip. (fiaQvTarois) , and seek for the solution 
 of any difficulty in the analogy between high and deep, an ana- 
 logy recognized by other languages. But as rj\LJ3aTos is evidently 
 a compound word arising from certain definite collateral ideas, 
 while in high and deep these are by no means the same, we must 
 now see whether etymology will lead to any results. 
 
 8. The most common derivation, and which seems to offer 
 itself the most readily, is that from rjkcos; in which we need 
 not be alarmed by the aspirate ; not only because that de- 
 pended on the caprice of the oldest revivers of Homer, and 
 at II. o, 273. there is mentioned as an old various reading 
 Tbv \kiv y fjAifiaTos (see the scholium on v. 619., where how- 
 ever it is said that this reading was not adopted by those 
 to whom it was handed down) ; but because also in the living 
 language of Greece the aspirate fluctuated so frequently. 
 
62. *Hpa, &c. 335 
 
 Now certainly for a lofty rock on which the sun shines the 
 whole day this is one of the most appropriate epithets ; but then 
 it is just the contrary as an epithet of caves and of Tartarus. 
 And if we adopt it, we must at the same time suppose that the 
 meaning of the word as applied to heights was the true and 
 proper signification, but that its application to depth arose en- 
 tirely from the imagination of the poet (Hesiod), who might not 
 have noticed the literal sense, because it did not force itself on 
 the ear ; a supposition which in such old Epic usage as that of 
 the Theogonia does not appear to me admissible. 
 
 9. On the other hand, if we suppose that the word according 
 to its original sense was really an expression equally applicable 
 to height and depth, I know of no idea suited to such an appli- 
 cation but a synonym of a/3aroj or hvafiaros. And such a one 
 can hardly be coined out of the syllable t]Kl by any other means 
 than by adopting the other ancient etymology, which supposes 
 it an abridgment of r}Xir6^aros, according to the analogy of ?}At- 
 TofjLTjvos, riXiroepyos, in which words lies the idea of missing or 
 failing in ; so that rjkifiaTos would express the facility of making 
 a false step in ascending a precipitous height or descending a 
 steep declivity*. 
 
 Hp/3poTov ; vid. afifipocno?. 
 
 62. 'Hpa, eV/r/pa, i7rnf)pavo?, eptrjpo?, epirjpes. 
 
 1. The passages where the forms Tjpa and e7n'?//)a are found in 
 our Homer are the following: II. £, 132. 
 
 01 to napos nep 
 
 Gv/xoj rjpa fapovTts dfacrTaa , oi>8( fid^ovrat. 
 
 * [Passow in his Lexicon gives the same two derivations as Butt- 
 mann does, and agrees with him in preferring the latter. He adds from 
 the Leips. Litt. Ztg. (Leipsic Literary Gazette) 1S26. p. 2206. u third, 
 AAG, aKdopai, that from which the footstep slips. — Ed.] 
 
336 62. *Hpa, &c. 
 
 Od. y, 164. of those who side with Agamemnon and wish to 
 remain still at Troy, 
 
 Avtis eV *ATpei8ri * Ayapipvovi r\pa (frepovres. 
 
 At it, 375. one of the suitors says of the people of Ithaca, 
 
 Aaot §' ovkcti 7ra.fj.7rav i(f) rjfxiv ypa (pepova-iv. 
 
 At 0-, 56. Ulysses stipulates in his pugilistic combat with Irus, 
 
 M77T19 eV "ipco rjpa (j)epcov ipe X €l P l ' ira X (e ' v 
 
 At II. a, 572. it is said of Vulcan, interposing between the 
 wrangling deities and recommending concord, 
 
 Mrjrpl <\)iKrj €7rir)pa <f)€po>v XcvKcoXeVco "Hpy' 
 
 and at 578. he advises his mother 
 
 Ilarpi (f)l\(o €7rir)pa <pepeiv Ait. 
 
 That all these six passages, with immaterial changes of form, 
 give the same meaning, is clear. There is, properly speaking, 
 no such idea in them as to assist; and though in the fourth 
 passage this idea harmonizes with the sense, yet it is merely 
 by accident. In every instance the meaning is xapfeo-dai, to 
 gratify, do or say something which may give pleasure to another. 
 Now as this is the idea in the first of those passages in the 
 simple expression r\pa tyzpziv, it follows that the accusative rjpa 
 must have pretty nearly the same meaning as the accusative 
 yapi-v- 
 
 2. The same simple form occurs also in the well-known oracle 
 which Hercules received 1 , 
 
 9 Hpa yap dv6pa)7roio-i (j)epav kKcos a(f)0iTOv e£«s* 
 
 in which passage there are certainly more signs of the meaning 
 to assist, but still some force is clearly requisite to bring it 
 out, on account of the play on the name ( H/>aicAi}$. And the 
 rjpa Koixifrw, to help, to cure, in Orph. de Lapid. 755. is a later 
 application of the Homeric expression. The next step which 
 has been taken, that of proceeding from the explanation of the 
 
 Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 662. Suid. in 'HpaKkrjs gevi&Tcu. 
 
62. *Hpa, &c. 337 
 
 accusative r\pa by tyjv xaptz/ 2 to the use of ^pa in the adverbial 
 sense of x&piv, on account of, belongs likewise to the later poets 
 only 3 . 
 
 3. With regard to derivation, that from epos, Zpav, in which 
 lies the idea of desiring, is far less suitable than the generally 
 received one from apco, dpeo-/ca>, to fit or suit oneself to any one, 
 please him, be pleasing or agreeable, with which agrees exactly 
 the word 6vp.r)pr]s A , and the participle apixevos, as used in Scut. 
 Here. 116. jidka yap vv ol apfieva etirev, i. e. agreeable. 
 
 4. With this corresponds also the word epC-qpos as the 
 epithet of a friend; for when Idomeneus (II. 8, 266.) promises 
 Agamemnon to be to him kplrjpos Iraipo?, it can only mean 
 suitable, agreeable. This too is the only way in which the 
 same epithet can be brought to suit the singer (Od. a, 346. &c.) 
 who pleases everybody. And the grammarians unanimously 
 explain it by ev apapm, r}pp.ocrfiivos, evapfioaros. The plural 
 €pCrjp€s (we have frequently £pir]pes kralpot) is nothing more 
 than a metaplasmus for ipliipoi ; a change very conceivable in 
 those times, when forms were not yet so regulated by analogy, 
 and consequently that which was more agreeable to mouth 
 and ear was frequently preferred to that which was more 
 analogical. 
 
 5. Whether, now, rjpa be the neuter plural of an adjective, 
 or the accusative singular of a substantive *, is a point which 
 might remain undecided. But the verb (pepeiv appears to 
 me to favour the substantive, particularly by the analogy of 
 yapiv (pepew. The supposition of a nominative ?Jp, feminine 
 or masculine, which Herodian makes in Eustathius, is there- 
 fore grammatically quite correct, without its being necessary 
 
 2 Etym. M. in v. and the gloss of Hesychius quoted at sect. 7. of 
 this article. 
 
 3 Callim. Fr. 41. Dosiad. in Ara secunda. Hence \vc must hesitate 
 before we attribute the word to Sophocles in such a way as this; in 
 a passage too in which it must have a more far-fetched meaning, and 
 where the ear at once tells us it can only be rj pa. See Hermann on 
 Soph. Aj. j 77. 
 
 4 Hence the Schol. Soph. (Ed. T. 1094. explains rrrtrjpa $4p9iv by t<\ 
 
 Svfirjprj npocTf^eiu. 
 
 * [Both Schneider and Passow are of opinion that (Trii^m is the neut. 
 plur. of an adjective envjpos. — En.] 
 
 z 
 
338 62. *Hpa, &c. 
 
 that this nominative should have actually existed ; and the 
 existence of the adjective iplrjpos is so far from favouring the 
 supposition of a similar simple adjective rjpos, that we might 
 rather draw from it a contrary conclusion ; for in none of the 
 other words compounded with kpi- do we find, on separating 
 the syllables, an adjective ; but from other parts of speech, by 
 prefixing kpi- and adding an adjectival form, are composed at 
 once adjectives, as kpiKvhris, €ptj3pop,os, eptrt/xo?, corresponding 
 exactly with kpir)pos as formed immediately from.apo), or if you 
 will from rjp, and rendering it most improbable that there should 
 have been such a simple as rjpos, there being no such simple as 
 
 TLjJLOS. 
 
 6. From the junction then of this same root with a pre- 
 position might arise an adjective, without presupposing the 
 existence of the simple rjpos. Thus we should have kiriripos, 
 like eTTLKXoTTos, z-niopKos, &c. And indeed it was an old point 
 of dispute among the grammarians, whether in the two last of 
 the passages quoted above we should write kniiqpa fyipeiv or 
 kiii rjpa (f)€p€t,v. To decide this question we must first throw 
 aside all later usage, and try to explain Homer by himself. 
 Now as we have in the first passage the simple rjpa, reasonable 
 criticism requires that when we find iirCrjpa (if we so write it) 
 in an expression exactly similar, we should consider it to be a 
 word of the same kind as rjpa. Either, therefore, both are sub- 
 stantives, — but who can think a compound substantive M-qp to 
 be probable? — or both are adjectives, which we have just seen 
 in the case of rjpos to be improbable. But the most convincing 
 proof against the reading of eTrirjpa may be drawn from the se- 
 cond and two following passages, on which three I might there- 
 fore fairly expect some clear explanation from those who read in 
 the two last euLrjpa. Some of these commentators have quoted 
 the above three passages without due consideration as examples 
 in favour of the simple rjpa. They did not consider that when 
 the same poet says in one place 
 
 eV hrpeihrj 'Ayapepvovi rjpa (pepovres, 
 
 and in another 
 
 Mrjrpl (j)i\r) EHI HPA <pep<ov, 
 
 this, according to all reasonable judgment, is one and the same 
 
62. *Hpa, &c. 339 
 
 expression; so that it is impossible to join k-ni with fytpeiv in 
 the former case, and with rjpa (by writing tiriripa) in the latter 5 . 
 Hence we can hardly think otherwise than that all who favoured 
 the reading of iirt-qpa, must have supposed in the former case a 
 tmesis, not of im^epovTes, but of iui-qpa. But this is contrary to 
 all experience and all the philosophy of language ; for every 
 preposition which does not govern a case becomes at once an 
 adverb, that is, attaches itself in thought to the verb or to the 
 whole sentence, not to one of the other parts of the sentence ; 
 which is the only correct view of the tmesis. 
 
 7. A part of the old grammarians then acknowledged (and 
 correctly) no other reading than rjpa in any of the passages ; 
 whence arose the gloss of Hesychius, as it stands in the edition 
 of Alberti (vol. i. p. 1648. 1. 8.), and which, if we follow the 
 manuscript (see Schow), must be written thus : 9 Hpcr tJtol ovtms' 
 r) yo.piv, fiorjOeiav, tiriKOVpiav, Ylarpl c/hAco Zirl r\pa <pep(t)V Ad' r) tcpr]. 
 That is to say, we have here placed together rj pa, certainly, 
 7] pa, favour, and rj pa, he spoke; because all these forms were 
 written the same in the old copies. Aristarchus, on the other 
 hand, who was anything in the world but a philosopher, de- 
 clared himself in favour of kr/vqpa ; and, as is but too com- 
 mon, the authority of a name prevailed against reason and solid 
 argument. Remarkable is the voice of defeat as sounded by the 
 Schol. on II. a, 572. K.al tneKpaTrfatv r) ' AptdTap^ov Kairoi Koyov jjlt) 
 zyovaa. 
 
 8. In addition to the fear of altering the text of Aristarchus 
 on insufficient grounds, modern scholars have also been de- 
 terred from rejecting the inadmissible eirCr^pa by other reasons, 
 which may be found in Wolf's Prolegom. to the Iliad of 1785, 
 in Schellenberg on Antimachus Fr. 87, and in Heyne on II. a, 
 572. The particular objection of the last commentator was 
 to the expression itself, grounded on the supposition that we 
 cannot well say yapiv faKpipeiv. I take this objection to mean 
 that €TTL<ptpeLv may be used elsewhere in a hostile sense ; for 
 instance, with y/ipa," Apr)a { \ Schneider, indeed, in his Lexicon 
 
 • r > This is the meaning of Brunck'B brief decision on Rliiaii. r, 21. 
 6 Heyne was too hasty in his objection that the verb hntyiptw is not 
 Homeric. It does occur in the tmesis (the only way in which it can 
 
 Z 2 
 
340 62. *Hpa 9 &c. 
 
 draws a comparison* between this expression and a similar 
 one, with a friendly meaning, in Thucyd. 8, 83. ult. opyas Zttl- 
 <p€p€iv tlvL But this, beside not being Homeric, is of a dif- 
 ferent kind, and means ' to direct all one's inclinations and 
 exertions toward some person or his party.' But a shorter 
 and more satisfactory answer to that objection may be made 
 by recollecting that the expression, which in II. a, 572. 578. is 
 disputed, does, according to the observations made above in 
 section 6., actually stand undisputed in the three passages in 
 the Odyssey, and consequently can be used. If, however, there 
 be anything startling in this expression, I hope to be able to re- 
 move it. 
 
 9. ^Hpa (f)4peLV was, in the sense of to be agreeable, to gratify, 
 so current an expression, and the substantive was so completely 
 forgotten as a separate word, that rjpacjytpeiv seemed to the ear 
 to be a single word, like haKpvyiovcra, avipvo-av, €virda)^€LV, and 
 such like. Hence in those four passages the two words are not 
 separated by any third word. And in the same way as men 
 were led to strengthen the cognate ideas apr\yeiv, ap,vvetv, by 
 joining them to a preposition and thus forming kiiapr\y€iv, eira- 
 fjLvveiv, so they said (if we may be allowed for a moment to write 
 it so) €TTL7]pa(f)€p€Li^, and then admitted the tmesis eV 'Aya^ipivovt, 
 fjpa(f)€p€iv, as in M Tptotcraiv apr}£at : just as the later prose writers 
 ventured to say avrevnaayeiv. To compare it with the Homeric 
 Kara haKpv yiovcra, which Wolf is correct in writing separately, 
 would I think be unfair, as this latter is no compound in the 
 sense of KarabaKpvovaa (shedding tears), but a real transposition 
 of the words for haKpv Karax^ovaa, which in em r\pa cf)€p€iv is the 
 very point in doubt 7. 
 
 be admitted into an hexameter) at II. 0, 516. Tpwalv e(2>' imroddfioicri 
 (fieptiv 7ro\v8a,Kpw "Aprja. Larcher in the Hist, de l'A. d.l. to. 47. p. 1 79., 
 in a note on the Etym. M. v. fjpavov, speaks on this question much as 
 Heyne does, but there is nothing new in what he says. 
 
 * [Schneider says that the expression of Thucydides does not exactly 
 correspond with that of Homer. — Ed.] 
 
 7 Still I would never at once write rjpafyeptiv, eTmjpafepeiv, for the 
 sake of a theory, which, like many others, may be overturned by a sin- 
 gle historical observation. A respect for documentary evidence within 
 certain limits becomes no one more than him who professes to examine 
 fundamentally. 
 
62. ^Hpa, &c. 341 
 
 10. Far less can the reading of Aristarchus be rendered ne- 
 cessary by the actual occurrence of the adjective iirtripava in 
 Od. r, 343. For in the first place eirtripava is not z-nt-qpa; and 
 in the second, this would be comparing sentences of a totally 
 dissimilar formation. The expression in that passage of the 
 Odyssey, Qvhi ri jixot irobdviTrrpa Trob&v iinripava 6v{jl<2 Tfyz^erat, 
 cannot make it even probable that we must write e-n-t^pa (frtptiv 
 Tiviy if there be other grounds for doubting this reading. As 
 for that still more forced alteration of Aristarchus, by which 
 tTTL-qpa is thrust into this passage also by reading iirC-qp' ava 6v/jl<S 
 Tiyverai, it has been most justly and properly rejected. Nor 
 ought the critic to be acquitted of want of judgment in this 
 instance, in opposition to the plain and unequivocal account in 
 the Lexicon of Apollonius 8 . 
 
 1 1 . Homer himself then furnishes us with all that is neces- 
 sary ; and it would be a most erroneous and deceptive mode of 
 proceeding, if, in order to decide on the reading in Homer, we 
 should think it necessary to examine the post-Homeric poets, 
 however old, as to whether hrhjpos were a form in use or 
 not. This however we will do, but not with that object. 
 Brunck indeed went too far the other way, when in a note on 
 Rhianus 1, 21. he carried on his conclusions — correct as far 
 as they regarded Homer — to all other authors, and wished 
 to banish the word altogether from the language. In Sopho- 
 cles (Ed. T. 1094., where we have in a chorus &>? k-ni^pa 
 cj)€povTa rots (fiois rvpavvois, and where Brunck most extraor- 
 dinarily retains this reading, without retracting his former de- 
 cision, the passage is so exact an imitation of the Homeric 
 passages, that whatever can be said of them would seem to 
 hold good of this also ; and the utmost, therefore, we have to 
 do is to acknowledge with respect the pen of the Alexandrine 
 critics in the reading of Wvqpa. My opinion however is not 
 
 B 'Enirjpa, ttjv fX(T emicovpias X (l i nv ' M-qTpi </>tA,v firhjpa rfnpcov. tv fit 
 T<5, Ovde ri p.01 TiobdvLTTTpa 7Toda>v eTrir/p' auu 8vfia>, tu htlKOVpiJTuA rrjs 
 "^vx^s. ovtcos 'Apiarapxo?. For to read here emqpmnt would he con- 
 trary to the plain meaning of Apollonius, as the words t« tmKovprjrudi 
 can only refer to the first word of the gloss, 'Eni^pa. Compare Ekutath. 
 ad loc. 
 
342 62. *Hpa, &c. 
 
 that they first introduced it, even in" Homer: I feel much more 
 persuaded that this reading, like many others, had long been 
 unsettled; otherwise Apollonius Rhodius in his poem of the 
 Argonauts (4,375.) would not have written so positively "Depp' 
 lirirjpa (f)€pa)fJLaL koiKora \iapyocrvvr\o-iv. For as surely as this 
 reading is false in Homer, so surely is Brunck wrong in read- 
 ing in this passage km r\pa cpepcofjiai. Medea is here saying 
 with bitterness to Jason, that he had better kill her " that she 
 might thereby receive the thanks or reward due to her folly." 
 Here the simple (fxEpcopicu is indispensable ; and Apollonius, who 
 thought he read in Homer k-nirjpa cpipetv twl, formed from it 
 for his own use kirir]pa cpipeaOai. The epigrammatic poet Pha> 
 dimus, who belongs to about the same time, acted in the same 
 way; he joins eirt-qpa b4\0aL (Epigr. 1.), in order to use it as the 
 correlative of eTn'^pa cpeptiv. — In Rhianus the reading is uncer- 
 tain, because he has exactly the Homeric expression, and we 
 know not how he wrote it. In such cases we can only be guided 
 by the manuscripts. But that Antimachus used the word Zirirjpa 
 as a substantive does not follow, as Schellenberg (p. 113.) thinks, 
 from the following gloss of Hesychius : 'Eirwjpa* 9 rrjv fier €ttl- 
 Kovplas yapiv fxeydkrjv' rj e/c ttjs irepiovtrCas, cos ' AvrCfiaxps, So 
 far from it, I cannot find any other meaning in e/c Tiepiova-tas, 
 (for the grammarian meant this phrase in a good sense, i. e.from 
 excess of spirits, to gratify, give pleasure,) than if I were to write 
 eirl ripa. — But there occur other forms of the adjective i-uLrjpos. 
 The iirCrjpov in the second Triopeian Inscription, v. 19. (see 
 Jacobs ad Anal. Brunck. 2. p. 302.) is however the most un- 
 meaning. A poet of so late a period as he is, and one always 
 on the look out for learned expressions, might have formed this 
 word for himself out of the already generally received e-niripa. 
 But we find also two glosses of this word in Hesychius, where 
 they now appear thus : 
 
 "EiTTlTJpOS' ilTLKOVpOS, €TTt9vfJLr)Tl]S. 
 
 'Eirirjpos' (3or)66s, x&ptv dirobibovs. 
 
 9 In the MS. it is, according to Schow, mufpos, which however 
 appears to have been very properly altered by Musurus to iivir^pa. In 
 the manuscripts the a is frequently written with such long projecting 
 points that it is very easily mistaken for os (oc). 
 
6%, *Hpa, &c. 343 
 
 But instead of the first 'Eiriripos the MS. has 'Emr/pav, and in- 
 stead of the second it has 'Emr/ pos, as Musurus has erased a 
 letter (see Schow) between r) and p. This strengthens Pierson's 
 conjecture proposed in the Verisim. p. 105. that instead of the 
 first ZiTLripos we should read 'Eirirjpavos ; and the second stands 
 on very uncertain grounds 10 : nor, if it be genuine, can we know 
 to which of the later writers it refers. 
 
 12. On the other hand we have two instances of 'Euirjpos 
 in very ancient poets. In Lesches, in a fragment of the little 
 Iliad quoted by Tzetzes ad Lycophron. 1263., the Greeks give 
 Andromache to Neoptolemus, e-niiqpov a/*a/3oju«>oi yipas avhpi. 
 And Empedocles, in a fragment quoted by Aristotle De Anima 
 1, 5. (Sturz. vers. 208. ), gives this word as an epithet of the 
 earth : 'H de \da>v iirt-qpos Iv tvartpvoLs yoavounv. But in 
 both these instances k-ni-qpos is evidently an adjective, and the 
 epithet of a substantive standing near ; and this appearance 
 therefore is the less able to furnish any proof of the reading 
 in Homer. So far from that, it is very natural that the effect 
 of Zttl should be, as it is in rjpa Ziri^peiv, to cause the forma- 
 tion of an adjective by compounding it of Zirl and ?/pa; and 
 this might have been k-n'uqpos as well as k-nuipavos. At the 
 same time we must not forget the uncertainty of readings in 
 fragments. Now, as in the epithet of the earth we cannot in 
 anyway perceive the force of em (toward whom is* it suitable 
 or pleasing?), and as Philoponus in his commentary on Ari- 
 stotle explains this word by €vapp.o(TTos, which we have seen 
 above among the explanations of Zpi-qpos, I cannot but conjec- 
 ture, and I think with reason, that this last-mentioned genuine 
 and old Epic word should be restored to both those fragments. 
 How particularly suited it is, though not exactly in the Homeric 
 sense, to the philosophical ideas of Empedocles, must be at 
 once felt; and in Leschcs it expresses the same as would be 
 expressed by eiriripavos and by Zirtripos *, which is now not 
 unjustly suspected. 
 
 10 Pierson leaves it as it stands, considering all from hrUcovfrng to 
 
 dnobibovs as explanations of 'Kn-o'/pn'oy.— For the rest, imOvfiijT^- BDOold 
 be eVi^u/z^Toi-. 
 
 * [Passow reads eiritfpa as one word in the two passages of Homer 
 and in the (Ed. T. of Sophocles. He adds," Buttroann m hit Lexilogna 
 
344 6$. Sadcraeiv, OoaCeiv. 
 
 13. The form kinripavos in post-Homeric usage has been 
 somewhat perplexed, according to my view of it, from two 
 roots meeting in the same form. For according to glosses 
 which can be depended on, ijpavos is the same as Kolpavos ; 
 and thus imripavos fluctuates between the meanings of agree- 
 able, helper, ruler. For very copious information on jjpavos, 
 rjpaviv and kmripavos we may refer to Pierson, to whose quo- 
 tations belongs also another verse of Empedocles (Sturz. vers. 
 421.), where Pythagoras is called Ylavroioiv re p.aki(iTa aoty&v 
 iiTLrfpavos tpycav. See also Schneider's* Lexicon, and the be- 
 ginning of the inscription of Herodes Atticus, YIotvl 'Aflr/z/acoy 
 €7nrjpav€ Tpiroyivena. 
 
 Hi5re; vid. evre. 
 
 63. Qadacreiv, Ooa^etv. 
 
 1. The verb Oaacreiv, to sit, is known to us from the Attic 
 poetry, particularly from Euripides. A substantive, 6 Oclkos, 
 the seat, in the same writers, shows by its quantity that the a 
 of the verb, as well as of the substantive, is not only long by 
 position, but long also in itself, as in irpda-cro), irpayos. With 
 this agrees exactly the double alpha in the Epic form of this 
 verb, in Oaaa-a-i^v, Od. y, 336., Oaaao-eiv, II. t, 194. And I 
 take this opportunity of again rejecting the idea that the Epic 
 
 rejects the word, and proposes to read both in Homer and Sophocles 
 em rjpa ; but his grounds for doing so are not convincing." — Ed.] 
 
 * [From Schneider's and Passow's Lexicons I compile the following : 
 " 'Enirjpavos, ov, adj. agreeable, grateful, enirjpava Bv/xS, Od. t, 343. — 
 After Homer the meaning fluctuates between agreeable, suitable ; and 
 (by its connexion with fjpavos, Koipavos,) helping, protecting, ruling, master 
 of; in this latter case it governs a genitive : o-o<fi5>v epycov in. Empe- 
 docles. voos ncudevatos Kai operas en. yevofxevos, master or possessor of, 
 Stobeeus Phys. p. 856. dams cik6vt<ov en. protecting against, Anal. 2. 
 p. 40^. no. 1. vevpcov en. strengthening, Athen. 1, p. 5. vrjvalu emi]pavos 
 opyios, agreeable or suitable to, Dionys. Perieg. 617. Compare appeva 
 elnev, Hes. Scut. Il6., and appeva napelxpv, 84." — Ed.] 
 
6$. Qadcrareiv, QoaCeiv. 345 
 
 poets lengthened the long vowel merely on account of the 
 metre. This, I repeat, is never the case ; but where it appears 
 to be so, it is either a contraction occurring elsewhere but sus- 
 pended in one particular instance, or it is a real contraction 
 resolved into two vowels of similar sound, as in opaacrdai from 
 opaudai, which is itself contracted from opatvQai. Thus Oacraou, 
 yJakkov, drjpts, /3<3Aos, ir&kos, and a number of others, are never 
 lengthened by the Epic poets ; but they are right in saying 
 Aaas, KpddTos, which, as I have shown in note i. of art. I. are 
 original forms without contraction, or in other words are already 
 in resolution. We must therefore, on account of the Epic 6a- 
 ao-ao), acknowledge in 6 do-ad) a contraction ; and as in this case 
 we have no reason for resolving the a into two different vowels 
 (as aOkos into atdkos) we must look on the Homeric 6adaa(a 
 as the resolved, or, more strictly speaking, the radical, not the 
 lengthened form. 
 
 2. With this again accords very well the form 6od((a, which 
 in two passages in the Tragedians is explained like the Homeric 
 dado-ao). iEschylus in the Suppl. 6io. says of Jupiter, 
 
 'Ytt dpxas §' ovtlvos 6od£a>v 
 to pelov Kpeicraovcov uparvvci' 
 ovtlvos avoaOev rjpevov <xe/3et Kara). 
 
 The old and only explanation from the time of the Scholiast is, 
 ' sitting under no one's dominion.' And in Sophocles QEd. T. 2. 
 (Edipus asks the supplicating Thebans, 
 
 Tivas rto& eSpas rdade poi dodfcre 
 'iKTrjpiois KKddoiaiv i^zo-Teppevoi, 
 
 The scholium is : dod&re Kara hidkvo-iv avrl rov Odao-ert. ij flows 
 irpoK&Orin-Oe. Doubtless the explanation, which in this latter 
 scholium stands first, and in the scholium to ^Eschylus stands 
 alone, was the general and traditionary one ; and hence Plutarch 
 (De Aud. Poet. p. 22. e.) introduces this very verb as one ex- 
 ample among others of a word of twofold meaning in the poets. 
 Qod(eLv, says he, means cither a motion, as in Euripides, ?) rb 
 Kade&a-Qat, kclI OadaartLV ws 2<k/>okA?j? : and then he quotes the 
 passage above. It is impossible that Plutarch could have men- 
 tioned this meaning with such confidence if he had not known 
 
346 6$. Qadcrcreiv, Ood'^eiv. 
 
 that this was the general, and, as he at least must have thought, 
 the undisputed explanation. 
 
 3. Certainly this interpretation of a word, appearing so plainly 
 to be derived from 606s , must have been striking; and this alone 
 was undoubtedly the cause which induced even Greek inter- 
 preters of Sophocles, as we see in the scholium quoted above, 
 to try and unite the idea of quick motion with that of sitting ; 
 an explanation which has been lately supported by Erfurdt and 
 Hermann as the only true one. According to these it must 
 mean, " Cur hanc mihi sessionem festinatis ?" Whatever can 
 be advanced in support of such an interpretation every one may 
 easily supply for himself. Even Hermann adduces only some 
 general principles ; and therefore I refer the reader to those 
 two commentators, merely remarking that I am far from con- 
 vinced by the notes of either of them. Everything in the pas- 
 sage betokens that the supplicants, who were seated in front of 
 the palace, had been already there a considerable time, when at 
 length the king goes out to inquire the cause of their coming. 
 Here is nothing to give the idea of a calamity suddenly break- 
 ing out, to avert which the citizens rush in haste to the king ; 
 but it is the account of a pestilence which had already lasted a 
 long time, and had at last induced the citizens to seat them- 
 selves as suppliants before the palace : a proceeding which, I 
 can certainly imagine, might well have been introduced by a 
 solemn supplicatory procession, but not by anything with which 
 the idea of haste would accord. Whoever has still doubts on 
 this point, may read, in addition to that address to the citizens 
 of Thebes, 
 
 Ttvas tto6" e'Spas racrSe jxoi Bod^ere ; 
 
 this of Theseus to Hercules, who is described sitting on the 
 ground, muffled up and in deep distress, in Eur. Here. Fur. 
 1 2 14. 
 
 . . . . ere tov Bdcraovra 8vctt7]Vovs edpas 
 AuSgj. 
 
 4. With regard to the passage of iEschylus, Erfurdt declares 
 that he does not understand it : of one thing only he seems 
 convinced, that the common explanation " nullius sub impcrio 
 sedens" is beyond measure silly. Hermann says only that 
 
6$. Qaaaraeiv, Ooa^eiv. 347 
 
 Ooafav there does not mean sitting. He reserves therefore to 
 himself the alternative of explaining it from the idea of Ooos ; 
 an explanation which physically cannot be wrong, but which 
 must be very striking if it is to supersede with me the thought 
 which lies in the usual explanation. For the sentence is not a 
 mere bald assertion, that Jupiter is not a subject; but it is said 
 of him in opposition to all other kings and all the other gods, 
 that he is the only ruler who has no higher ruler above him. 
 And therefore it is said that he Kparvvei, with which idea 0oa£et 
 in the sense of the Epic Baaa-aziv accords extremely well; and 
 to this again the expression avcaOev 7]fxhwv refers with much 
 more meaning, as to one who is supposed to be likewise in a 
 sitting posture. Nor is the tautology, which has offended some 
 of the commentators, one unworthy of a lyric poet. The prin- 
 cipal thought is divided into two ideas; first, that he is inferior 
 to none inpoiver, nor subject to any more powerful than himself 
 (KpdTvvav and Kpziavovts, as words of the same family, standing 
 in evident relation each to the other) ; secondly, that he has no 
 one above himself to look up to with awe or fear. This is surely 
 no tautology, where no idea is repeated a second time. And 
 even should any one think that /cdrco, after vii apxas Ooafav is 
 superfluous, he will be assisted by Pauw, who proposes to erase 
 this Kara, as being more than the metre of the corresponding 
 strophe will allow of; or perhaps he may be relieved by a happy 
 conjecture of some better critic than Pauw. As it now stands 
 the literal sense is this ; " Not sitting under the dominion of 
 anv one has he less power than more powerful ones ; he (below) 
 does not look up with awe to any one sitting above." Whatever 
 other questions may arise from the words as they there stand, 
 I leave unnoticed : they are so trifling in comparison witli the 
 truth of the whole, that we feel at once that they may be easily 
 removed by sensible interpretation or simple criticism. 
 
 5. This 0o6.{(s), in my opinion, does not come from $o6s, as 
 Valckenaer supposes, who. according to his well-known unsound 
 etymology, does not hesitate to derive Oaacrio, OadiTao), nay all 
 words which mean to sit or set down, from hastening to a seat. 
 I go no further back than to the root 0E- in TtSf]fu } which, as 
 every scholar will see, is different from the root ©E- in 04to, 
 whence 0OOS seems to come. Why this r<»<>t ill 0(L('nr,T O ) I- 
 
348 6$. Oadcrareiv, Qoa(eiv. 
 
 sounded 0A- I know not; I only see that it is so, and at the 
 same time I perceive that in another dialect in that wide field 
 of the ancient Greek language, from which the lyric poets and 
 tragedians took their less* usual, but to the ears of their contem- 
 poraries not unknown sounds, — that in such a dialect the a of 
 the radical syllable was lost before the other a by being changed 
 into o; just as we have seen in a former article that boda-aaro 
 belongs to a verb whose present is hiarai, and which we have 
 with great probability derived from ba<*>. The termination a(<a 
 bears the same relation to the other form as in o-<£a(a), o-^arra) ; 
 and this 6oafa would probably when inflected have taken the p. 
 This word then the old tragedians took from that source, which 
 they preferred to any other ; from what was indeed at some one 
 time, and in some place or other, the common language of the 
 day ; whilst the other Ooafa, which signifies to rush and storm, 
 belongs without doubt to those words formed by the poet ana- 
 logically for his own use. Nay, I have no hesitation in con- 
 jecturing that Euripides, or whomsoever he followed in this, 
 transferred intentionally, by a kind of play on the word, the old 
 form (which was in use in another sense, but for which there 
 was no ostensible derivation) to the sense of doos, as this latter 
 struck the ear the moment the verb was uttered : and it appears 
 to me to be greatly in confirmation of my conjecture, that 
 Euripides uses the word in this latter sense only, iEschylus and 
 Sophocles only in the former. 
 
 6. But in order to be able to pronounce with certainty on 
 this point, we must examine another word used by the trage- 
 dians, the compound ZinOoafav in the two following passages : 
 iEschyl. Choeph. 853., where the chorus of young women, look- 
 ing forward to the murder-scene between Orestes and JEgisthus, 
 exclaim in their anxiety, — 
 
 Zf v, Zcv, tl Xeyw ; ivoOev api-cofuu 
 TaS' €7T€VxoiX€vr} KairiOod^ovcr ; 
 'Ytto §' evvoias 
 IIcos \<tov emovcr ai/vcroo/xat ; 
 
 1 Perhaps this may explain the meaning of Goagos (Hesych.), one of 
 the names of Apollo, as sufferers seated themselves in his temples in 
 particular, supplicating relief or advice from his sanative and oracular 
 power. 
 
6$. Oadcro-av, QoaCeiv. 349 
 
 and the end of Eurip. Med., where Jason, imprecating ven- 
 geance on Medea, who was flying away with the bodies of their 
 children whom she had murdered, says, — 
 
 'AXX' ottoctov yovv irdpa <ai dvvapat, 
 TaSe Ka\ 6pr)vu> Karndoa^co 
 Maprvpopevos daipovas, as pot 
 Tckv aTTOKTeivacf , &C. 
 
 Hermann, who quotes these two passages also, but who cannot 
 in the compass of a note enter into a full examination of them, 
 says only thus much, that they, like the others, have the verb 
 in its genuine signification, that is to say, in the sense of Ooos. 
 I can only repeat here what I have said in the former case. 
 There is no doubt whatever that ingenuity may bring the ob- 
 scure verb into the sense of 6oa(o> from Ooos ; but I still doubt 
 whether it can be done in such a way as to have that degree of 
 clearness requisite in poetry. And with this I might rest satis- 
 fied : but Schneider in his Lexicon makes some observations on 
 this word which deserve all our attention. He compares it with 
 the known verb ImdetaCtiv or iiridcaCew, to complain to the gods, 
 but still in such a way that he deduces linOoa&iv here also from 
 the idea of sitting and supplicating. If he is right, the uniform- 
 ity of usage in iEschylus is preserved ; and that Euripides used 
 the word doafa once in its old signification, will surprise and 
 mislead no one. At all events, the meaning, as similar to that 
 of €7u6€a(€Lv, is evident (among other examples of this verb) in 
 the following : Pherecrates ap. Eustath. 
 
 "Ycrrepoi/ dparai Kanidecifci rw narpi' 
 
 and Plato Phscdr. p. 241. b. where the boy follows the person 
 who is leaving him 
 
 dyavaKTciov Kal emOedfav- . 
 
 Now to me it seems impossible to consider as two distinct verbs 
 
 - There is a various reading emOeuifav in some very good MSS., as 
 in the Clark. &c, and we find in Thueydidcs occasionally cin0eui£civ, 
 (■mOaaapos, without, as it appears, any various reading. Notwithstand- 
 ing this I am inclined to consider tm6(d(tiv as the older form, on ac- 
 count of the more simple etymology tovs Qtovs itaktlv hri run. It is true 
 
350 6$. Oadcrcreii', Ood^eiv. 
 
 the forms imBed^m and €itl6q&{€lv, which we see a fixed usage 
 has joined by a koli to verbs signifying* some powerful expres- 
 sion of feeling, as liteuyeaOai, Oprjveiv, apavOal tlvl, ayavaKTtlv, 
 and which give the idea of violent lamentation or complaint : 
 but either we must read in the two tragic passages kmQed&iv, 
 or this word must have received in an old dialect the change of 
 e into o. There is a third supposition possible, namely, that 
 €Tn6oa{€iv may be in its derivation distinct from tmOedCeLv, but 
 that from similarity of sound usage has confounded them ; in 
 which case I should always prefer Schneider's derivation of 
 6o&{tLv to the possible one from 606$. 
 
 7 . With Otic-ad) is connected, as we have before said, Oclkos ; 
 consequently we might expect to find in the Epic language 
 6daKos : and it is a striking circumstance that we do find 6&kos 
 and its lengthened form Oocokos exclusively Epic. This proves 
 however that Oookos is a contraction, either from ao or oa. But 
 doaKos only is agreeable to Greek analogy (compare OvXclkos, 
 (f)vkag and (jyvXaKos, (j)dpp,aKov, pLakaKos) : and this leads us to the 
 verbal form dod{o) : nor ought we to be more astonished at find- 
 ing daaaao) in Homer with (Ooclkos) 6G>kos, 66g)kos, than we are 
 at seeing hodaa-aro by the side of biaro 3 . 
 
 that we might also say ra 6eia, instead of rows' Oeovs ; but as Oeidfcw, 
 iK6eLa(ei,v, &c. were in existence in a somewhat different etymological 
 way, it was very natural even without that for dmBedfav to pass over 
 into the same form. 
 
 3 We have adopted as the root of the forms treated of in this article 
 GE-, or 0A-, not with the causative meaning to place, (which in Ttdrjfii 
 is undoubtedly only the derivative one, as to cause to stand is in lorq/u :) 
 but with the meaning of to sit, in which sense it has given place in 
 common usage to other forms. Hence the probability of its connexion 
 with the old verb 6eaaaadat, to supplicate, arising from the posture of 
 suppliants which we have seen in doa&w. See Schneid. Lex. To this 
 I would add the word ^re?, which I do not derive from the idea of lo- 
 ■care operant, but from that of to sit, as the Germans say the Sassen 
 [Saxons] or Insassen [inhabitants] ; that is to say, the original settlers or 
 old inhabitants of the country. This name was originally Bares, which 
 form Hesychius quotes expressly as Cretan ; in the same way as the 
 form Oadcro-co gives us the root 6A-. I suppose then that BdaKos, a seat, 
 is formed immediately from that very ancient verbal form now lost ; 
 and from this name, according to all analogy, comes at once the verb 
 OadacTG), like <papjj,daaco, paXdaaco. Thus the double a in Oadaa-ca is 
 
64. OeoXjOoVo?, Qeoirpoiriov, &c. 351 
 
 64. QeoTrpoiros, Oeoirpoiriov, &c. 
 
 1. The derivation of the word Oeoirpo-os from TrpoeVo) does 
 not in itself deserve to be at once rejected, as such elision-like 
 contractions are conceivable in old compounds, and are not 
 perhaps without example. The simple analogy however, which 
 leads to irpi^oi, deserves a prior examination ; but in making 
 this we must not allow ourselves to be misled or startled by the 
 common meaning of this word, to become, suit. Homer has 
 not this meaning at all, and it is therefore clear that it was first 
 formed from the older one, to be distinguished, be pre-eminent, 
 which in Homer is the constant sense of irpiirco, iieTa-pi-nv, €k- 
 7Tp€~rjs,&c. But old meanings of words are not to be sought for 
 in the Epic language only ; in the lyric usage, and through this 
 in the dramatic, there are many significations which we must be 
 careful not too frequently to explain away as bold metaphors, 
 appropriate as these are to lyric poetry. Combinations like 
 those produced by the word before us may put us on our guard 
 against such an error. iEschylus uses the word of everything 
 which forces itself forioard, penetrates through, of everything 
 which forces itself on any sense. For if it were confined to 
 the sight, the transferring of it to the smell, as in Again. 1322. 
 e 'Op.oios dr/xos, cuairep eK rcupov, irpiirei, could scarcely avoid 
 being ridiculous; and besides, at v. 331. of the same tragedy 
 it is used of sound, and again Pindar N. 3, 118. says abso- 
 lutely j3oi] TTptiTtL, " a shout comes forth." With this may be 
 joined a new sense from a comparison of these two passages ; 
 JEsch. Agam. 30. 'lAtov ttoKls 'EaAco/cez;, m 6 (ppvKTos ayyik- 
 \o)v irpinei; and Eurip. Ale. 515. Tt XP 7 V a K0U P? T ffie 7:€V ~ 
 Otpno 77/567766?. I cannot think that in the second passage the 
 usual explanation of ri xPW a f° v r A *• c - ^ i( * Tt ' w ^ tn wpAreif 
 (insignis es) used absolutely, will be preferred before the ex- 
 planation of TTpivGW by (TTiiAaLveLs, which also suits so well the 
 
 fully explained : for to append -daaw as a mere termination, like -o£», 
 is not according to analogy : though a word formed in -do-crco may be 
 changed to -d(<o, as acfx'iTTG) is into a(f)it(a). 
 
352 65. GeovSfa. 
 
 passage of JEschylus. To this let us add the glosses of Hesy- 
 chius, npiirov, repas, Kvirptoi, TIpeirTa, (pavrdo-fxara, €lk6i>€s, and 
 it will be difficult to separate the OtoirpoTros, who interprets the 
 signs given by the gods, from this family of words. II. //, 228. 
 
 'Qde % vTTOKptvaiTO BeoirpoTvos, 6s (rd<f)a 6vpa 
 Eldetr) repdav, Kal ol 7reidoia.ro XaoL 
 
 That is to say, probably the old expression was 0eos -npzirei. " a 
 god sends a sign ;" the sign sent was called QtoTtpoinov, and the 
 interpreter of it Otoirpo-nos 1 . 
 
 2. If we wish to go further, and give to the radical word irpeTro) 
 its proper etymological place, it appears to me to belong to those 
 numerous modifications, so natural in every old language, of 
 the form and meaning of IIEPX2, TTeipco, 7repaa), &c, to press 
 through ; and to have taken to itself the definite meaning of to 
 press fonoard, burst forth, consequently also to came to press 
 forward, send forth, and, after its own peculiar form, to be a 
 reduplication, as in the same family of words -nop-mf] is 2 . 
 
 65. Qeovdrjs. 
 
 j. I consider the Homeric word Oeovbrjs to be essentially 
 distinct from those which I shall have to treat of in the next 
 article. In general it is considered to be a contraction from 
 dtoeibrjs, a word of exactly the same meaning as tfeoet/ceAos. 
 But as the sense of 0eoi;8?js, in the passages where it occurs, 
 is at once felt to deviate from the meaning of those other words 
 (0£(tk€\os, &c), there has been drawn from the idea of god-like 
 the more general one of godly, and that again understood to 
 
 1 I lay no great stress on the gloss of Suidas, Tlpomov, pavrev/xa' 
 koL OeoTvpoTTLov, to €K Oecov fxdvTevpa, in order that I may suppose npo- 
 ttlov to have existed as a simple ; although it does accord remarkably 
 well with the glosses of Hesychius. Besides, the question gains no- 
 thing by it. m 
 
 2 That is to say, the second syllable of the original reduplication, 
 which doubles the whole radical syllable, is frequently cut short, and 
 so arose for example such words as malmen, dulden, treten, [German 
 infinitives] volvo, palpo, ftXdftc* (a form of /3aXAo)), KpUco (a reduplication 
 of the same root whence come Kpoaluat, Kpova), and others. See note, 
 P-275- 
 
6$. Oeovfyg. 353 
 
 mean pious, holy, upright. Many a person must surely have 
 felt that in this explanation is mixed up -something not Greek, 
 or, to speak more intelligibly, something un-heathenish. The 
 higher we mount up into antiquity, the less (in moral qualities) 
 must we look for the godlike or godly in what we call holy ; we 
 must seek it rather in the great, the beautiful, or the wonderful. 
 Thus dtoeibrjs, like deotLKeXos, is throughout Homer an epithet of 
 none but heroes as such, whatever they may be in other respects, 
 — for instance, of the chiefs of the ungodly suitors. 
 
 2. Little as I rely on the verbal derivations of even the older 
 grammarians, I still consider it a very strong preliminary ob- 
 jection to any etymological explanation, that although quite ap- 
 parent to any observer, and thence almost universally adopted 
 by the later grammarians, it has been entirely overlooked by the 
 older ones. The derivation above mentioned from 6eo€ibijs is 
 indeed found in those commentators, who have everything good 
 bad and indifferent, Eustathius and the common scholiast ; but 
 it is wanting even in the Etym. M., while on the contrary there 
 and in the other glossographers and scholiasts are found far 
 more startling derivations, as, for instance, in the second half 
 of the word they look sometimes for abdv (probably the oldest 
 derivation in the lexicon of Apollonius, and which is refuted in 
 the Etym. M.), sometimes for the ebrj of the gods, sometimes 
 for the verb avbav. Now as the derivation from OeoeLbijs seems 
 so easy and striking from similarity of form, and is so agreeable 
 to analogy, it is evident at once, that from the plain meaning 
 which the word has in Homer, pious, those old Greeks had 
 more difficulty, from their ideas of things, in connecting that 
 meaning with 06oei5?is\ than with any of the other supposed 
 derivations above mentioned. 
 
 3. To this we may add from the form of the word another 
 reason, which was unknown to those grammarians. Elbos be- 
 longs to those words which are so decidedly digammaed, that a 
 contraction or crasis with it in the Homeric Language cannot for 
 a moment be entertained. Homer could therefore only say 
 Oeoeihijs; and the case is thus completely made oat, that Oeovbijs, 
 which it is clearly seen must have originated in a much more 
 ancient time, cannot come from tlbosK 
 
 1 In apparent contradiction to what I have asserted, that the con- 
 
 \ a 
 
354 6$. QeovSrjs. 
 
 4. I trust that these observations taken together will so far 
 have an effect on the readers of Homer that they will not suffer 
 that false derivation to have any influence, mediate or imme- 
 diate, on the explanation of his meaning. The passages where 
 OtovSris occurs are the following. In opposition to a savage 
 people, regardless of right and wrong, are repeatedly placed 
 those who are <pik6£€ivoL, Kai crcpiv voos eori Otovbrjs (Od. (", 
 121, &c.) ; and at Od. r, 364. the nurse speaks of Ulysses as 
 deovbia Ovfjibv €\ovTa, and explains this immediately by the 
 words 
 
 Ov yap 7ra> tis Toacra fiporcav Ail repmictpavvco 
 Yllova prjpC eKrf ovd' e^airovs eKaropfias. 
 
 And in the same way in the passage of Od. r, 109., where 
 after fiaortXrios aixvpLovos is added, o(tt€ Oeovbrjs 'Avbpacnv £v 
 "KoXkoiai Kal IcpOlfjioLcn avavcrobv EvbiKtas ave^rjcn, evbiKia contains 
 the reason of the king being called Otovbrjs. The old gram- 
 marians therefore were essentially correct, although they modified 
 the word a little to suit individual passages, in explaining it 
 (see particularly the principal gloss of Hesychius on deovbrjs) by 
 Oeoaefiris, ewe/3?}?, bUcuos^ tiyvcanav, and Plutarch (ad Princip. 
 Inerud. c. 3.) by Beov Xoyov ex<*>v. 
 
 5. The general idea contained in these epithets can hardly 
 arise from anything else, than from that whence the thing it- 
 self proceeded in all the most ancient religions, namely, from 
 fear of the gods. Thus Eumaeus tells Ulysses (Od. £, 389.) 
 that he would treat him hospitably ACa £iviov SeiVas, and 
 again (x, 39.) the suitors are reproached for the unjust con- 
 
 traction of Oeoeidrjs in Homer is impossible on account of the digamma, 
 we read in Od. v, 194. 
 
 TovveK ap dXXoetSea (paivecrKeTO naura auaKTi. 
 
 But in the Cod. Harl. stands (paiuero with a better meaning than <pai- 
 v€ctk€to, which cannot possibly belong to the passage. There is no 
 doubt therefore that this reading is not only to be defended in the way 
 that Porson has done, but is the only one to be retained ; that is to say, 
 by supposing that it was pronounced AAAOffEIAEA (palvero, like 
 EffAAEN. Besides, I would observe that if Oeoeidrjs could be con- 
 tracted, 8eov8r)s would be incorrect, as the et here is not a lengthened 
 «, but a lengthened t. The contraction therefore could be only Oeoidi]?. 
 
6$. OeovSrjS; 355 
 
 duct of which they were guilty Ovbe Oeovs beiaavres, &c. Now 
 as he who casts away all fear and shame is called ade?js (kvou 
 a56"eey), so he who thinks and acts uprightly is one icho fears 
 God, 0eo8e?/?, which form, it is true, does not occur, because it 
 was changed at once into Otovbijs ; a change furthered by the 
 particular nature of the 8 in deurai, which in the older language 
 lengthened the preceding syllable' 2 . 
 
 6. Apollonius Rhodius follows strictly the Homeric meaning 
 of the word: as at 2, 11 80. ot re tfeouoees rjbe bUcuoL. At 3, 
 586. ^Eetes says of Phrixus 69 7rept Travroyv aeivav fi€i\i)(ir} re 
 Otovbeir] t €k<ekcl(tto. And the epithet has the same meaning 
 when it is applied at 2, 849. to the prophet Idinon, and at 4, 
 1123. to the upright Alcinoiis. In the Argonautica of Orpheus 
 too the epithet is used correctly, for when among many names 
 of plants is mentioned kvkKclials re Oeovbrjs, Pliny 25. chap. 9. 
 gives the explanation, by saying of this very plant, " in omnibus 
 serenda domibus, si verum est, ubi sata sit nihil nocere mala 
 medicamenta." Here therefore it is a purely poetical epithet, 
 which Hermann in his too great haste joined in the same con- 
 demnation with another reading 0eoeto?js, rejected on account 
 of its offending against the metre, and substituted for it r toet- 
 8?js. On the other hand, in the Orphean Book of stones, where 
 the poet calls a stone, which was not in this sense salutary, but 
 wonderful and prophetic, Ozovbta irirpov, I recognize only the 
 
 2 See AEIQ in the list of anomalous words in my Grammar, and 
 Dawes Misc. Crit. p. 165. 168., whose supposition, that originally 
 a digamma was pronounced after the 5 in this family of words, is most 
 highly probable. An exactly parallel case to it will be found in the 
 word dis, which can have arisen only from AYI2, A : 12. See Gram. 
 sect. 16. obs. 2. note. The form Oeodtr]? therefore could not properly 
 come into an hexameter. It would have been possible indeed to have 
 shortened the vowel before this <*>, as is once done in uSto}?, II. 7, 117; 
 but this would not have helped the metre. All difficulties were remedied 
 by the elision of the e, making Btohi/s, and afterwards there remained 
 nothing- of the digamma bat the quantity of the preceding syllable; it 
 was then pronounced Btodrjt with o Long, that is with ov, as £de«'f was 
 spoken with the long- a. j^hus came OawHi)* and odfc's (a long) into 
 Homer; the latter of which was not written ufrftfis until a somewhat 
 late period, a> probably in the older copies the pronunciation ofadtc'f, 
 and (^fi.\a-(u and u-|7roSft-|ovi(rn was left to the reader's knowledge of 
 verse. 
 
 a a 2 
 
356 6$. GeovSfc. 
 
 later sense of godly ^ divine^. In the same way Quintus 
 Smyrnseus in his imitation, where we meet with no critical 
 nicety of expression, uses it exactly like 0eioj, Oeairia-io^, and 
 the like : as when for instance ( i , 64.) he applies it as an 
 epithet of a violent rain, or (at 3, 775.) to the island intended 
 for the residence of the deified Achilles. But when the learned 
 Alexandrine poet Eratosthenes, in his epigram de cubo dupli- 
 cando, Analect. 1, p. 478. gives this epithet to the mathema- 
 tician Eudoxus, where it can relate only to his understanding, 
 it does not follow that he misunderstood the word in Homer ; 
 he probably thought that he might use this same form for 
 Oeoeibris, as this last admits of being so contracted agreeably 
 to analogy 4 . 
 
 3 Compare Hesychius deovbea, Oeiadij ; although the author coined 
 this gloss primarily for Od. r, 364. But the word given as the ex- 
 planation is striking ; for Oeicoh^s is used elsewhere only of sulphur 
 (6e7ov). Perhaps the grammarian wished to compare the supposed 
 Homeric contraction with the otherwise common form in -dadrjs, which 
 is also deduced from -oetS^y. So far indeed the comparison would be 
 an unhappy one, as it must in that case be Beadrjs. 
 
 4 In prose Oeoeidrjs remained in constant use (as for instance in Plat. 
 Phaed. p. 95. c. and Lucian, Imag. 1 1.), because it was well known that 
 in this and some other families of words the old digamma still had an 
 influence by preventing the elision, and therefore they said d\\oei8r)s, 
 6p6oeirr]s, &c. But are we to believe the information of Suidas, at which 
 Eustathius (on II. y, 37. p. 286. Basil.) expresses his astonishment? 
 QeaibecrrciTos, says the former, Beov Ibeav e^cov. elne 8e 'Avrtfptov iv 
 rco 7repi 'Ofxovoias ovras' "AvOpconos, 6s (pr)(ri p.kv ndvTcov 6t]pia>v ^eatSe- 
 (ttcitos yeve'adat. That the original author of this gloss should have 
 misunderstood a word formed from albfurBai Oeovs, is not to be sup- 
 posed ; nor does the sense of the passage quoted admit of such a sup- 
 position, as os (p7)o~i — yeveo-0at is evidently a proud assertion of man, 
 and can mean nothing else than, as Suidas here understands it, the 
 likeness of man to God. So much therefore is clear, that Antinhon 
 deviated from the form tieoeibrjs. But then he could only have ventured, 
 in order to avoid the collision of the three vowels, on leaving out one 
 of them, and thus have made deeideo-Taros ; which form came to the later 
 grammarian corrupted to Oeaideo-Taros. 
 
357 
 
 66. GeV/ceAoy, Oecnris, Oecnrecrio?, Oea(j)aT09, 
 d0ea(f)aTO9. 
 
 i. The words Oeo-Kekos, dea~Ls, and deafyaros explain each 
 other in form. They are compounds of 6e6s, with only the 
 radical syllable 6e appearing. For the o- in Oeacparos is not the 
 o- of the nominative, which properly speaking can never remain 
 in the compound; but here, as well as in Oeoaboros, the a is 
 only an euphonic sound strengthening the word, as in vaKeo-na- 
 kos, &c. But in Oevicekos and Oecr-nis (the former of which is 
 explained by the more full synonym deoeUekos, a form also in 
 use), the c belongs to the second part of the composition ; since 
 it is known that from cikco came To-ko> and from el-new also 
 ea-Trere. The former then stands for Oe-io-nekos, the latter for 
 Be-evnis. 
 
 2. OeoeUekos and OeaKekos mean properly godlike; and 
 thence, like that which is godly or divine, i. e. supernatural, 
 wonderful. Afterwards, by a very natural usage, the full and 
 plain form OeoeUekos, which in Homer is only an epithet of 
 superior heroes, was used to express the literal meaning of 
 godlike, and 6errKekos retained only that of wonderful ; OeaKeka 
 epya, wonderful exploits, labours, things ; i'ticro be Oeo-nekov avrw, 
 he teas wonderfully like him, (II. \f/, 107.) 
 
 3. In the same manner OtacfraTos and Oeo-nis or deo-neo-ios are 
 originally synonymous. All three mean spoken by God, speaking 
 or spoken by divine inspiration. The first meaning is without 
 the slightest change in fleV^aro?. Qea^arov, Oeacpara, are some- 
 times oracles, sometimes ancient decrees of God, fata; for example 
 in Od. 1,507. II. 6, 477. But as deities work and bring to pass 
 by their word or command, it is a very natural transition that 
 all those words should signify also anything caused by a god : 
 and in this the form Qdacfmros remains true to the literal mean- 
 ing, in as much as nothing but what proceeds really from a god 
 is called by this word; thus at Od. r h 143. OtacfmTos irjp is the 
 thick mist poured around I'ly-ses by Minerva. 
 
 4. The proper sense of Ota-u is that of something inspired 
 by a god : it is the epithet of song and of the singer, Otir-is 
 
358 66. OecnceAo?, &c. 
 
 aoibi], Oicnris aotbos ; and thence Oeo-rrupbt'LV, OcairCSeiv. In an- 
 other sense it is used of the great phenomena of nature. 0ecr7rts 
 dekka occurs in the Hymn. Yen. 208., and Oecnnbaes (from bato)) 
 is an established epithet of fire, as much as to say divinely- 
 blazing, because the appearance of a blazing and spreading fire 
 is, of all the common phenomena of nature, the most like an 
 immediate effect or production of a deity. 
 
 5. In flecnreo-io?, which is derived from 0eo-7ris, the sense of 
 dirtM is quite lost, except that aoibrj Oecnrecrir} (like Oicnns else- 
 where) occurs in II. /3, 600,, to which it appears also to belong 
 as an epithet of the Sirens in Od. \x, 158. In general it is no- 
 thing more than dews; as II. 0,591. j3r)kbs Oecnsicnos, the abode 
 of the gods; Od. v, 363. avrpov decnreaiov, the grotto of the 
 nymphs ; whence flecnreo-t?? is put adverbially for 0da pLotpa or 
 Oeiq ftovkfj in II. /3, 367. In its most general sense it is the 
 epithet of any great appearance, of anything superior and ex- 
 cellent, whether proceeding from nature or man, as the tjxV 
 6ea-TT€(TLr} of noisy people ; obpLrj fjbe'ia Qevntcrir}, the excessively 
 delightful smell of wine, Od. 1, 211.; yakKos Oeo-Trea-ios, the 
 splendidly - dazzling brass, II. /3, 457.; clvtos Otanio-Los, the 
 divine, superb wool, Od. t, 434. When therefore, in addition 
 to this greatness or superiority, anything really proceeds or may 
 be considered to proceed from the gods, (as all that is great 
 does proceed from them,) still the form deanrimos does not in 
 Homer give that idea: for instance in such passages as these, 
 where the intervention of the deity is expressly mentioned; 
 II. p, 118. Qeo-TTtaLOV yap acpiv cf)6(3ov !/x/3aA.e <J>oi/3o9 'Airokktov. 
 and /3, 670. Keu crcpiv 0€<nri<riov Trkovrov Kare^eve Kpovfov. Con- 
 sequently also at II. l, 2. the Oeo-irecrirj <f)v& of the Achaeans 
 is> not to be explained as a supernatural flight, occasioned by 
 the gods. It is a great and general flight, caused by Hector 
 and the Trojans. For although this was approved of and en- 
 couraged by Jupiter, yet his was only that mediate influence of 
 the deity without which in general nothing took place in the 
 Homeric battles. 
 
 6. Of rare occurrence and not Homeric is the form Oicrinos, 
 which occurs in its original sense in the fragment of Hesiod 
 quoted by Clemens Strom. 1, p. 337. (123. 124.) [In Gaisford's 
 Poet, Min. Gr, Frag. 54.] 
 
66. 0eWXo?, &c. 359 
 
 Movcrdcov, ax t audpa TrohvCppabeovra ridden 
 Qecmiou, av8t]€ura' 
 
 where the collectors of the fragments write, I know not on what 
 authority, 6£(tkz\ov. Again it stands simply for Oeios as a mere 
 address to a person — Oicnnz /coupe — in the Oracle of Bacis in 
 Aristoph. A v. 977. 
 
 7. G<E(T(paros then, as stated above, although properly syno- 
 nymous with Oeairecnos, has always the literal idea of that which 
 proceeds from God, never the secondary one transferred to 
 everything great or vast. This sense however it acquires by 
 means of the negation. ' AOeaqbaros always means immeasurable, 
 endless. This striking appearance is not to be explained by 
 having recourse to so poor an aid as the so-called a intensive. 
 The apparent contradiction of a negative form of speech is 
 frequently explained by an ovhe ; as we say for instance, when 
 wishing to praise an object highly, ' it is worth its weight in 
 gold* or l gold cannot pay for iV The ground of this is no- 
 thing more than an excessive hyperbole, which is expressed 
 most clearly by the old grammarian in Hesychius : 'AOiaqba- 
 tov ttoXv, aTrapcLKoXovOrjTov l , kclI ocrov ovft av debs qjaTtaeiev 
 ©V inrtpfiokriv irkrjdovs. Such hyperboles took their rise in 
 cases where they were in some measure justified by feeling ; 
 they afterward became common; and thence aOeacparos came 
 to mean nothing more than the explanation given by one scho- 
 liast of adeanparos opifipos ; viz. bv ovhtls olos Zcttlv eppL-qvevaai 
 Ao'yoj. Still however the hyperbole, " what even a god would 
 not say," appears to me to have been originally excusable, 
 because it was used only in circumstances where the collateral 
 sense was unfortunate, horrible, or otherwise bad. To this class 
 belong most of the expressions in which it occurs, as for instance 
 the only one in which it is found in the Iliad, of a great and 
 terrible rant ,• as at y, 4. the cranes yjeip.Ciiva qjvyov kclI aQzatyaTov 
 oLxfipov ; at k, 6. Jupiter hurls his lightning, Ttv^uv ij -noKvv 
 OLifipov aOecKparov, ?}e \d\a(ai\ *H v(d>€TOV I again from the 
 examples in the Odyssey, the vast and terrible sen roused by 
 
 1 In the manuscript it is 7rap<uto\ovBrjTOv t which in the text is changed 
 into ftv<T7rapaKo\<w0T)Toi>. The av following is an interpolation from 
 Apoll. Lex. 
 
360 67. Goo's. 
 
 tempest, rj, 273. v i2p«>ei> be dakacrcrav aOecrcparov : the long fright- 
 ful night, X, 372. o, 391.: the pernicious excess of wine, A, 61. 
 T Acre /xe baifAovos cucra kclkt} kcu aO eorcpar os olvos : and in Hesiod's 
 Theogonia, 830. the many voices of the hundred-headed Ty- 
 phosus. But even the injurious and frightful parts of the idea 
 were lost in the every-day language of life, and there remained 
 only that of immensity and excessiveness, as in the German 
 ungeheuer, erschreeklich* ; and thus the Odyssey has the word 
 twice applied to agreeable objects in the mere sense of immea- 
 surable, innumerable; as at v, 244. speaking of Ithaca, 'Ei> [xev 
 yap ol ottos dOea^aros, ev be re olvos : and at v, 2 1 1 . of the cattle 
 of Ulysses, Nvv 8' at pev yiyvovrai aOeo-fyaroi. Nay, Hesiod in 
 his "Epya uses it even of the richness of his poetical talent, when 
 he promises Perses, that although quite inexperienced in nautical 
 matters, he will show him fxeTpa TroXvcpXoLo-fioio OaKdaa-qs (com- 
 pare 646. 647. with 659.), and then adds (660.) Movcrai yap p 
 eb(ba£av dOeacpaTov vpcvov aetbeiv. 
 
 QodiJEtv; vid. Qadaaeiv. 
 
 67. Qoos. 
 
 1. To the adjective 6ods, beside its well-known sense of 
 swift, is ascribed by the grammarians (see Hesych. Etym. M., 
 &c.) such a variety of meanings, partly general, partly Homeric, 
 and the word really occurs in Homer in so many passages 
 which, separately considered, do favour other meanings, par- 
 ticularly those of brave, pointed, that it seems necessary for 
 us first to be convinced that it really has in that poet its 
 most usual sense of swift. This question is however at once 
 placed beyond a doubt by the adverb 6o&s, which occurs fre- 
 quently, and never in any other sense, as well as by the expres- 
 sion dobv apfxa, II. p, 458. Again, it would be a violence which 
 
 * [Thus terrible and dreadful are colloquially used by us. See John- 
 son's Diet. — Ed.] 
 
6j. Qoos. 361 
 
 no sensible reader could approve of, to explain the passage of 
 the lion wounded by the shepherd, \i, 306. *'E/3Ar/ro . . . doijs 
 cltto x* L P°s clkovtl, by a Irate hand ; nor is it conceivable how 
 any one could have ventured to interpret the banquet com- 
 manded by the king Alcinous, Od. 6, 38., avrap eVeira 6oi]v 
 ak€yvv€T€ haira, by balra ayaOrjv (because forsooth 606s 1 means 
 ayaOos i- e. brave), or by still more silly explanations (see 
 Etym. M.), when a banquet quickly prepared was so easy and 
 natural a meaning. 
 
 2. As this sense then is thus firmly established, we must 
 now proceed to settle the meaning in those passages where, 
 from the context only, there still remains, at least at first sight, 
 some doubt between this and one of the other supposed mean- 
 ings. For instance, the epithet of pointed might be very well 
 applied to the ship from the shape of its beak ; but then dobv 
 apfxa leaves no doubt as to the meaning of 0or) vavs. Again in 
 speaking of the scourge or whip, /xaortyt Oofj (II. p, 430.), we 
 might possibly think of its being felt principally by means of 
 its point or end ; and when at Od. x> 83. it is said, 'Ev 6e ol rJTraTL 
 7r7?£e Oobv /3eAo?, we certainly seem to see the point penetrating 
 the liver ; but as in the latter case the weapon is an arroic, and 
 in the former the scourge wounds by the rapidity of its stroke, 
 — nor is there any one passage where a weapon less charac- 
 terized by swiftness, the sword for instance, is called 6069, — 
 there is no occasion whatever for a deviation from the well- 
 known and common meaning. 
 
 3. There is somewhat more difficulty in deciding on those 
 passages where brave suits the sense well. The pure, unmixed 
 idea of swift I should least of all think of looking for in those 
 cases where the word is a simple epithet of Mars or of a war- 
 rior, particularly in such passages as II. e, 430. Tavra 5' "Aprfi 
 6oco koX 'AOrji'ij irai'TCL /meA?j<rei, where it is opposed to the un- 
 warlike Venus ; and I should say the same of II. ft, 758. t&v 
 litv npoOoos dobs yyefjLovcvev. Here the only natural idea is 
 that of brave, warlike, in its more general sense : but this ex- 
 pression also developes itself very easily, as 606s implies not 
 only bodily swiftness, but promptness of resolution ; which 
 
 1 Hesvch. Qotjv oXfyvvcTf daira, tvjv uya6i)v. 
 
362 6j. Q069. 
 
 kind of transition to the meaning of brave is plainly seen in 
 those passages, where a determination to meet danger is noti- 
 fied by an expression added to the word Ooos ; as at II. e, 536. 
 where it is said that the Trojans honoured the companion of 
 
 iEneas, 
 
 .... eVft 606s eaxe fxera TtpcoTOKTi pa.-^o'Oai. 
 
 But when at v. 571. it is said, 
 
 Alveias S' ov pfivc Ooos nep ecov TroAefucrTrjS, 
 
 and when at tt, 494. Sarpedon exhorts Glaucus, 
 
 vvv (re fxaka xpr) 
 
 Alxpr)Tr)i> r epevai kcu OapaaXeov TroXepio-Trjv' 
 NOi/ rot eekdeaOco noXepos kcikos, el Ooos ecrai, 
 
 in the explanation of Ooos in these two passages every attempt 
 to preserve the common meaning must be useless, and 606s must 
 mean plainly and simply brave 2 . 
 
 4. And now comes the question on the verse of II. 7r, 422., 
 which was sometimes accented thus : 
 
 Albas to Avkiol. 7t6(T€ (pevyere ; vvv Boot icrre' 
 
 and in which there was a doubt, of little or no importance, 
 whether the three last words are to be taken interrogatively or 
 not. In either case the sense was reproachful : " Are ye now 
 swift in flying?" or with sarcastic surprise, " Now ye are 
 swift !" The explanation of Eustathius suits both : 'OveibCCsi 
 be 6 koyos rovs avbpi(€o-0ai \xkv fipabels o^vKtvrjTovs be cpev- 
 yeiv. But as the succeeding word yap (AvTrjaca yap ey&> 
 tovo^ avepos) did not seem to follow that sense very con- 
 nectedly, it was thought better to understand the sentence as 
 imperative, and 606s in the sense of brave ; which explanation 
 is given also by the second Venetian scholiast, who compares 
 with it, and it would seem very aptly, the before- quoted verse 
 494. Nvv tol eekbeaOca irokefxos Kaubs, el 606s eaai. And con- 
 sequently the present reading is, vvv 600I lore. It appears 
 however to me, that what is thus gained in grammatical con- 
 
 2 In the former of the two passages Voss renders it by the German 
 word rustig, 'active;' but in the latter he translates it at once, "if thou 
 art (beherzt) courageous." 
 
6y. Goos. 363 
 
 nexion with the context following, is lost in the strictly psycho- 
 logical connexion. Is it possible in one and the same breath 
 — for if anything is anywhere spoken in one breath, it is the 
 three parts of this verse — is it possible to reproach any one as 
 a shameless coward, and then seriously to say to him, " Now be 
 brave ?" Even the comparison of this verse with 494. must have 
 shown at once that such an imperative sentence could be ad- 
 dressed only as an incitement to those who were already brave 
 and fighting. Voss felt this, and therefore rendered it — the 
 only way in which it could be rendered in opposition to such a 
 reproach — " Riistig gewandt nu?iT "Now be active and alert!" 
 Against which the only thing is that it is not in the original. 
 Heyne objects to the reading and explanation which I first 
 mentioned, that #009 never occurs elsewhere but in a good 
 sense. This is certainly true ; because swiftness is really a 
 desirable quality : but for that very reason the sarcasm against 
 one who applies it to a bad end is excellent, and so Homeric, 
 that on this ground only, if on no other, we might well be un- 
 willing to give it up. For if instead of the German word schnell, 
 ' swift,' we take one more plainly expressive of praise, " Now 
 be (riistig) active !" every one must feel the point of the excla- 
 mation to belong to that era when Ooos, 7708(0/07?, &c. gave 
 of themselves alone the idea of great praise. On the other 
 hand, it is absurd, as the prominent sense of 606s seems to be 
 swift, to call out to those who were running away swiftly and 
 command them to be swift, or quick, and not add to turn round 
 andjight. I cannot therefore make up my mind to give up that 
 first explanation ; and as the Greeks, and particularly Homer, 
 so often connect ydp with a thought not expressed in words, I 
 think the explanation of Eustathius quite satisfactory. In the 
 exclamation of reproach, " For shame ! whither are ye flying ? 
 Now ye are swift !" — there is implied a summons to turn and 
 stand ; and with this the context will connect itself very well, 
 " for I myself will meet that man," &c. 
 
 5. There is another meaning of 606s, sharp, pointed, a mean- 
 ing unquestionably found in the later poets, as Oo<av ([ATrXeiov 
 obovTuv, Apoll. Rhod. 3, 1281. Ooois yo/x(/>oiy, 1, 79. 7reAe- 
 Kcao-iv, 4, 1683., which also we cannot deny to have existed 
 in that most ancient Epic language. For instanc c, the verb 
 
364 6j. Soog. 
 
 OoSxrat at Od. l, 327. where Ulysses sharpens to a point the 
 large branch of a tree, eyw .8' iOooxra irapaa-ras 'Ak/joV, supposes 
 the root 606s to be then an old word ; and again in the well- 
 known passage of Od. o, 299. speaking of the voyage of Tele- 
 machus, 
 
 "EvOcv S' av vr)<roi(Tiv iirnrpoerjKe Bofjariv, 
 
 this sense seems to be most certain, as neither of the two others 
 which we have verified above can be thought of for a moment. 
 The poet is there describing the voyage of Telemachus back to 
 Ithaca, in which he sails along the coast of the Epeans toward 
 the islands distinguished by the above epithet. In this descrip- 
 tion the situation of the Echinades is so clearly marked out 
 that no one can mistake them. Strabo says in book viii. 
 p. 350, 351., where he traces this voyage, Qoas ft etprjKe ras 
 dgeias' t&v ''Exivabkiv ft elalv avrai: and in book x. p. 458. 
 speaking of the Echinades, he says, 8>v to, re AovXCxiov eort, 
 Ka\ov<Tt 8e vvv Aokiyav, kcll at '0£etcu KaXovfjLtvai, as ttolt]- 
 tyjs 0oas ei7Te^. Here it is evident that 'O^etat was really the 
 current name for some of the Echinades, in the same way as 
 Dolicha was, by which latter some have been so far misled as 
 to place Dulichium among these islands. That by these were 
 meant the islands of Homer is plain from the site ; in addition 
 to which we see clearly how the name 'E^at, 'E-^ivabes agrees 
 with '0£eiai. That is to say, these islands lay at the mouth 
 of the Acheloiis, being formed by that river emptying itself into 
 the sea ; consequently they stretched out to seaward in a num- 
 ber of points, the shape into which they would necessarily be 
 formed by the efflux of the stream. This gave them the form 
 of a hedgehog ; and the outer islands were therefore, very aptly 
 called of etat, or, according to an older synonym of this word, 
 6oaL Hence, then, we see plainly why this is the only pas- 
 sage in which Homer uses 606s in the sense of pointed ; namely, 
 because it is not an epithet given by him to these islands, but, 
 as the whole context helps to prove, their proper name. The 
 adjective 606s was not current, in the sense of pointed, in the 
 language of Homer's time ; there was only a derivative of it, (a 
 circumstance common enough in the history of language,) the 
 verb OoGxrai, and the name of these islands. In other poets it 
 
67. Qoos. 365 
 
 might have been retained as a common expression ; and it is 
 not, therefore, necessary that we should suppose the use of the 
 word in this sense by Apollonius to be a misusage or misunder- 
 standing of Homer's expressions 3 . 
 
 6. But the most difficult question yet remains, — in what 
 sense the night has the epithet 0or\ in Homer, and (as far as I 
 know) in him alone. The passages are the following. In II. k, 
 394. 468. a), 366. 653. stands 
 
 Borjv dia vvKxa pzkaivav 
 
 joined sometimes with Uvai, at others with Ibeiv tlvol, said of 
 one who goes somewhere or discovers some other person in the 
 obscurity of the night. And in the same way the companions 
 of Ulysses complain, Od. /x, 284., that he will not suffer them 
 to land, 
 
 'AXX' avTu>s Sia vvkto. Sotjv akakijcrOcii avcoyas. 
 
 Again, at II. fx, 463. Hector storms the Grecian camp, 
 
 Nvkt\ 6ofj araXavTos v-noama' \dfX7re Be ^aX/coi 
 2/iepSaXea). 
 
 And, lastly, at £, 261. Somnus for fear of Jupiter flies to Nox ; 
 Jove abstains from punishing him, the reason of which is thus 
 given : 
 
 "Afcro yap [xrj Nv/cti 6ofj airoOvpia epdot. 
 
 7. Commentators have not been wanting who have kept to 
 the simple literal meaning of the word, which they explained 
 
 ; 3 The point thus ascertained, that 606s had the sense of sharp, pointed, 
 in the oldest periods of the language, affords, at least in my opinion, a 
 remarkable instance of the uncertainty of what would appear to be a 
 certain etymology. Goo's, swift, has been always from the oldest times 
 derived from &'&>, with which it agrees in meaning and orthography. 
 But 606s, pointed, can hardly come from 6a.v, to run, nor from the idea 
 of swift, as an earlier meaning. One should much rather be led by the 
 analogy of ogvs, in which there was a similar transition to the sense of 
 swift, to suppose that pointed is also the ground-meaning of 606s, and 
 that consequently the word is not derived from Odv but from some 
 other root. Undoubtedly the verb 6i)yav is at least akin to it, which 
 makes me think it probable that mpj, Bavauv, also originally came 
 from the same idea. 
 
366 6^ Goos. 
 
 according to their idea of the thing, namely, that the night 
 was called Oorj, because it came on so quickly. But these in- 
 terpreters must have felt that their decision was at variance 
 with their own senses, as the gradual transition from day to 
 night is a daily process of nature. Equally unfortunate in 
 their conjectures were those who supposed the word to refer to 
 Night being represented with wings ; for this is but another 
 image for describing the same thing. Hence others gave up 
 searching after the truth of the thing, and endeavoured to find 
 it in the feelings, supposing the expression to imply the swift- 
 ness with which Night appears to pass away, in comparison 
 of the day, by means of sleep. And, lastly, there were com- 
 mentators who tried to explain it by the meaning of pointed ; 
 and the explanation which they hit upon is really remarkable, 
 as being mathematically true. Their mode of explanation is 
 thus proposed by Heraclides in Alleg. Horn. 45. Every opake 
 body which is lighted up by a larger body necessarily throws 
 on its opposite side a shade terminating in a point ; conse- 
 quently the earth, which is illumined by the sun, a larger body 
 than itself, throws a conical shade into space. But the night 
 is acknowledged to be nothing more than this shade cast by 
 the earth ; therefore the night is pointed. It is besides re- 
 markable to what an extent they have thought tit to carry the 
 observation, that some words have always the same fixed epi- 
 thet ; as, independently of any other value which the above 
 explanations may possess, not one of them could ever enter the 
 mind of a reasonable poet in such a combination as ikvai or 
 ibelv dorjv bia vvktcl y^iXaivav. In such difficulties as these it 
 was very excusable if some fell into the idea of adopting for 
 this one junction of 606s with vv£ a meaning different from its 
 other meanings by a difference of root, and which was besides 
 quite obsolete. Thus some conjectured that its root might be 
 Beds, making it the same as 0eib? ; others took Oeca, tlOtjiml, 
 explaining it by Oztlkos, khpaios, an idea which might be sup- 
 posed to suit the night, partly as bringing us to rest, partly as 
 being itself without motion, and consequently the opposite of 
 606s as used in prose 4 . Mere attempts these, pretty clearly 
 
 4 See Schol. and Eust. on II. k, 394. and Etym. M. in v. 
 
6y. Ooos. 367 
 
 proving that they despaired of ever rinding a reasonable ex- 
 planation. 
 
 8. As often as I pronounced sentence of rejection on all the 
 above explanations, I always felt something rather restraining 
 me from rejecting the first: in that one there still appeared 
 to be some truth, as far as concerned the feelings. Nothing 
 is more common than the expression, that the night has sur- 
 prised a labourer, a wanderer ; while the same can be said of 
 the day only in very particular instances, and even in most of 
 those we are not willing to confess that it does so. In the 
 way, too, that Heraclides from other sources describes this ex- 
 planation (although he prefers that of the pointed shade), there 
 is something in it which we cannot entirely deny. The night, 
 says he, follows the course of the sun, and as each place is 
 abandoned by the latter it is immediately darkened by the 
 former ; agreeably to what Homer himself intimates, when he 
 says in another place that the light of the sun goes down into 
 the ocean 
 
 "ILXkov vvktcl peXaivau eVt feiBoipov apovpav. 
 
 In short, the night appears like a being following the footsteps 
 of the sun, and immediately seizing on everything as soon as he 
 leaves it. 
 
 9. One thing however I do not think, viz. that 606s has here 
 exactly the pure simple meaning of swiftness ; but I suppose 
 that idea to be mixed up with other collateral ideas arising out 
 of it ; just as we have seen was the case in the first-mentioned 
 usages of this word, and particularly where it was an epithet 
 of Mars. The night is swift, and being so it follows the sun 
 irresistibly and incessantly ; and, what is mixed up with the 
 idea of a warrior incessantly and irresistibly pushing on, it is 
 destructive and hostile. Let us look back once more on the 
 word 6£vs to unravel this complication of ideas. But here 
 there is no difficulty, for it unravels itself, if we keep steadfastly 
 in our recollection that Mars is called 6£vs in the expressions 
 HLfj.voiJL€V 6£vi> "Aprja, eytipop.£V dfhv "Apr)a, and t&v vvv alfia 
 KeXcuvbv ... .ZvKtbaa 6(hs " Apr}? : and in Pindar ()1. 2, 73. the 
 avenging fury is o£e? 'Eptviws. That is to say. this idea of 
 swiftness, which was quickly combined with that of rage, of 
 active hostility, betokening the rapid approach of danger (whence 
 
368 67. Boos. 
 
 also voa-os o£eia), was from the earliest times compared with a 
 quickly-deciding point or sharpness; and 6£vs, therefore, has 
 the meaning of the German fall *. This, then, is the very- 
 meaning which we are justified in looking for in 606s when it 
 is an epithet of Mars or of deathful warriors. It is true that 
 we have already in this case ascribed to it the idea of bravery ; 
 but all languages afford numerous instances of such a multi- 
 plicity of relative ideas combined in the formation of one epi- 
 thet, though, after all, this variety of meaning is seldom per- 
 ceptible except in a language which is not our mother-tongue. 
 Thus, for instance, the Latin word fortis, which sets out with 
 the general idea of strength, has the particular meaning of 
 bravery and spirit ; it then goes at once through that of a firm 
 manly character to the every-day idea of an excellent upright 
 man ; and vir fortis is the laudatory appellation of a good but 
 ordinary character in the peaceful and social relations of life. 
 If, then, this appellation be given to one who shows himself to 
 be vir fortis both in peace and war, we, who have no analo- 
 gous word with just this twofold meaning f , may doubt for a 
 moment, when it occurs, in which sense to take it; but the 
 truth is, that the word, arising as it does from one common idea, 
 is frequently in individual objects melted down again into one 
 joint idea, which appears to the person, in whose mother-tongue 
 the word is, as by no means a twofold meaning, but completely 
 one and the same J. For 6o6s, then, we have abstracted first 
 
 * [We have no expression that I know of exactly synonymous with 
 this word. It betokens rapidity, but is I believe seldom used, unless 
 it be intended to convey an accompanying idea of awe or fear ; thus the 
 violent and precipitous rush of a torrent, & furious rage, & furious whirl- 
 wind, an awfully sudden death, might all be expressed in German by 
 this epithet. — Ed.] 
 
 f [It seems not to have struck Buttmann that both Germans and 
 French have a very similar expression. Thus the former say ein braver 
 Mann, and the latter un brave homme, un brave garcon, something as we 
 should say ' an excellent man,' ' a fine fellow ;' consequently the original 
 idea of courage is entirely lost sight of, although perhaps the appella- 
 tion would hardly be given to one who was notoriously deficient in it. 
 We find vaillant used in a similar way in old French ; "II alia visiter 
 une vaillant dame, que avoist epousee son premier maistre," Bayard's 
 Life, p. 292. — Ed.] 
 
 X [Buttmann has unconsciously given the strongest proof of the truth 
 of this opinion by not having himself thought of the German expression 
 
6j. Oo6?. 36£ 
 
 from the idea of the quick, ever-ready, active warrior, bravery ; 
 and now from that of the quick, violent, susceptible character, 
 hostility. In Mars we have a most sensible instance of these 
 ideas coalescing ; but the idea which is common to him and to 
 Night, when both are called Qooi, is that of terrible, dreadful. 
 And had there been no other passages than on the one side 0o<5 
 arakavTos *Apr)'i, and on the other NvktI 6ofj arakavTos t>7rco77ta, 
 this is certainly the idea which would have been formed of 6069 
 in both these cases from the very earliest times ; as indeed btivi] 
 does actually stand as one of the explanations given by the 
 grammarians of Oorj vv% (see Hesych.). For only observe with 
 what epithets the word is found in other passages. Not merely 
 when Night is described as decidedly unfortunate or unfriendly, 
 but as a fixed and natural epithet, we read in II. k, 188. of the 
 sentinels on watch, that sleep did not visit their eyes, Nwcra 
 4>v\a<T(roiJ.€voL(TL Ka^qv : and of the Cimmerians, as having eter- 
 nal night, it is said (Od. A, 19.), 'AAA.' iirl vv£ oAot/ Terarai 8et- 
 Aourt fiporoZaiv. And is it not the terriWeness and frightfulness 
 of Night which in Od. A, 606. is the ground of the comparison 
 made between it and Hercules in the world below, before 
 whom all the shades are struck with terror? 6 6' ipe^vfj vvktl 
 eoi/ccos Tvpvbv to£ov e'x^y, &c. ; and consequently the idea is 
 similar in II. pi, 463. of Hector bursting into the fortified camp 
 of the Greeks ; 6 6' ap €(r6op€ c^aidijuo? f 'E/cra)/) NvktI 6ofj arakav- 
 
 TOJ VTTtoTTLa. 
 
 10. I translate therefore 607] vv£ by {die jahe Nacht) the 
 quick and fearful* night ; and if this be once admitted as the 
 established meaning of the Homeric epithet, it will certainly 
 be always intelligible to the hearer and full of expression* 
 " Night," says a German proverb, " is no man's friend;" the 
 
 mentioned in the last note, and which must have struck any one but a 
 German us a case exactly in point. With regard to the similar French 
 expression not having occurred to him, it may be perhaps accounted 
 for by his ignorance of colloquial French, as he read that language, hut 
 did not speak it. — En.] 
 
 * [" Buttmann in his Lexilogus" (says Passow in his Greek and 
 German Lexicon, speaking of tins passage) " understands 6oij vv£ to 
 mean not merely the rapidity with which the night Comes on, hut the 
 terrors and dangers by which it is accompanied." — Ed.] 
 
 b b 
 
370 68. Ka/xoVre?. 
 
 dangers which threaten the nightly wanderer are formed into a 
 quick, irritable, hostile goddess. Even the other deities are 
 afraid of her who is (II. f, 259.) 0€<av fyx^retoa koX avbp&v; and 
 Jupiter himself in the midst of his rage refrains from doing 
 what might be vvktl 6ofj ai:oQv\xia. Nor is the epithet less 
 natural when the night is not personified ; for as of ds KcupoC 
 are dangerous times, so by this word 6or\ it may be intended to 
 mark the swiftness and imminency of dangers, which threaten 
 men who go hia vvkto, p,£\aivav. 
 
 11. Whatever other doubts may arise respecting the meaning 
 of 0or) as joined with vv£ (apparently a solitary combination), 
 they may all, I think, be completely solved by considering the 
 nature of epithets in the old language in general, and in poetical 
 language in particular. That 606$, long before Homer's time, 
 meant really and properly pointed, we have already seen with 
 full certainty. But while a word, or some certain usage of a 
 word, is gradually disappearing from a language, it remains 
 longest in regularly established epithets, sometimes where they 
 have assumed the nature of a proper name, as in ©oat vrjo-ot., 
 sometimes where they have become almost proverbial, or at 
 least familiar and convenient to the Epic metre ; and thus this 
 meaning of Boos, which was otherwise become uncommon, re- 
 mained in Homer in the expression 6or\ vv£, exactly as Kparvs^ 
 though completely obsolete, still remained as the epithet of 
 Mercury. 
 
 & 
 
 *\<TK€IV ; Vid. U(TK€LV. 
 
 KaXivdeiaOai, &c. ; vid. Kv\iv8eiv. 
 
 68. K.afJLOPT€9. 
 
 i. Ot Kafx6vT€s meant in the old Epic times the dead; and 
 this usage remained (only changing to the perfect, oi k^hy]- 
 kot€s) down to the later prose ; for Cornutus, Be Nat. Deor. I., 
 following the writers of the old classical times, whom I shall 
 
68. Kctfiovres. 371 
 
 quote by and by, says KtKpLrjKtvai yap Keyofiev tovs TCTeXevTrjKOTas. 
 Let me, however, warn my readers not to suppose from what 
 I have said that either this infinitive or any other part of the 
 verb, except the above-mentioned participle, occurs in the old 
 writers; for although we find this explanation in Hesychius 
 under Ka\xeiv, Kcnivei, /ce/c/^Ke, it always relates to the participle 
 only. 
 
 2. I know not how it is that a correct explanation of this 
 usage, singular as it certainly is, has nowhere been given ; for 
 that of Damra, " defuncti laboribus et miseriis vita? humanse," 
 bi those who have escaped from their labours and miseries," is 
 not according to the genius of that antiquity in which the souls 
 are rather described as losing the power and activity of life : 
 and Ernesti's opinion, who finds a complete analogy for Ka- 
 Ixovtzs in the word functus, vita functus, I confess I do not 
 rightly comprehend ; except that he too appears to understand 
 Ka\xovres to mean those who have laboured, and whose labours 
 are now finished. That the word is an euphemism every 
 one must, I think, allow ; but I am also of opinion that this 
 has been assisted by the alliteration of the two verbs of 
 similar inflection. Instead of davovres, retf^/core?, the dead, 
 the deceased, was used Kafiovres, KeKpaqKores, i. e. the weary, 
 or the enfeebled. And thus far, but no further, we are led 
 by the usage of the word elsewhere. Completion is ex- 
 pressed by the aorist KUfxelv only when it is followed by the 
 accusative of the work completed, as in II. <r, 614. Avrap iirel 
 na.v& o-nka Kcifx^v kKvtos ' AnQiyvijets : but when the verb is 
 intransitive, it expresses the consequences of labours and suf- 
 ferings, as Kaixirr]v be \wi lttttol and the like. Hence KafxeTv 
 is also elsewhere an euphemism for defeat and destruction^ 
 words not always willingly used even of an eneni) ; e. i>. 
 Find. Pyth. 1, 156. toj> (the ode) ibi$avr a/x(/>' apcra, -noXe- 
 
 fxi(i)V avftp&v KOfWVT&v: and ,-Ksehyl. Theb. 2l6. 6 vavTryi 
 
 evp€ p.i)yavy]V cram^/Hav Nca>S Ka/40t/<rtyS 7rorriw irpos KVfJMTi' where 
 the vessel is not merely in danger of being Lost, for the 
 expression would then be Kaixvovaip, but it is actually lost. 
 This kind of euphemism did not therefore soften the idea; it 
 only avoided the unpleasant word. But still the word Oarelv, 
 it will be said, was used, and beyond all comparison more frc- 
 
 15 1) 2 
 
372 • 68. Kafiovret. 
 
 quently than the other : but this is the case with almost all 
 euphemisms, particularly with those expressive of death ; they 
 have their origin in a period when the fear of alarming is more 
 than usually prevalent ; they are used, or not, according to the 
 peculiarities of persons and circumstances ; and though they 
 again disappear, they yet remain half established in certain 
 phrases and relations, in which they are used in even the most 
 enlightened times among the embellishments of verse and 
 prose. 
 
 3. And so it is in the case before us. Nor is the usage here 
 confined, as was before observed, to the participle only, but to 
 the plural of the participle, and to a construction, which in very 
 polished language requires the definite article ; lastly, to the 
 state of the dead after death. Now therefore I hope to form a 
 more precise and accurate idea of this euphemism ; namely, that 
 it is one by which the dead, whom we consider as still acting 
 and feeling, and consequently as the objects of our kind offices, 
 of which they are conscious, are represented as still living in 
 another state, but deprived of their earthly powers. 
 
 4. That this account of Ka^ovres is correct, within these re- 
 strictions, may be seen from a comparison of the following well- 
 known passages: II. y, 278. of the infernal deities, 0*1 v-nzvepde 
 kclhovtcls 'AvOpatTTovs rivvvcrOov : again, II. \fr, 72., and Od. a), 14. 
 yj/vxal etScoAa KayLOvrcav : and still more to the purpose, from its 
 containing a greater accumulation of particulars, Od. A, 475. zvOa 
 re veKpol y A<fipab<z€s vcllov(tl, fipoT&v dhtoXa Kap-oi'Ttov . From which 
 last example, in the mouth of Achilles, himself dead, and speak- 
 ing from experience, it is manifest how little this expression is 
 an euphemism, taking the figure in its use of softening the 
 meaning. Instead of the idea of annihilation, the word gives 
 the lowest degree of existence above annihilation ; which cer- 
 tainly would be in most cases an euphemism, or at least a quali- 
 fying expression, but is something not to be borne for the shade 
 of such a one as Achilles. 
 
 5. We first meet with the form KeKfjLrjKores in the Attic dia- 
 lect. iEschylus, who in the Suppl. 239. still uses the Epic 
 
 form KaKet 8tKa^et Zevs aAAos kv Kafjiovrnv wraras biKas, 
 
 had just before at v. 164. called the same Pluto Zrjva tu>v 
 KtKfjLrjKOToiv. Thucydides 3, 59. makes the Platreans say to 
 
68. Kafiovrcs. 373 
 
 the Lacedaemonians, Uerat ycyvofxeda vpL&v t&v TtaTpdibiv tckjxav 
 /cat €TUKa\oviA€da tovs K€KfjL7]KOTas l . Plato de Legg. 4, p. 7 lo> - a - 
 recommends to honour ancestors according to existing customs, 
 to ixhpLov rots K€KfjL7]KoaL vi\xovTa : and Aristotle in his Ethics 
 J, u. toward the end, makes mention of an inquiry irepl tovs 
 KtKfjirjKOTas, whether they can still partake of the good or evil of 
 this life, and how far the welfare or misfortune of their surviving 
 friends affects them (o-vpLfiaXKeaOal tl rots K€Kfxr}KO(TLv), without 
 having however an essential influence on their zvhanxovia: by 
 which therefore we see that k^k^kot^s was in the language of 
 the philosopher connected, as a customary expression, with the 
 idea of evdatfiovia, with which koliaovtcs in the speech of Achilles 
 above quoted accords very ill indeed. 
 
 6. This combination of passages is so decisive in favour of 
 what we have supposed to be the sole usage of this expression, 
 that I may now call the attention of my readers to a deviation 
 from it in Euripides. This tragedian, who in the Troad. 96. 
 calls the graves Upa t&v k€kixt}kotg)v, answering exactly to the 
 usage detailed above, or to the dis manibus of the Latins, makes 
 Adrastus in the Suppl. 756. inquire after the fate of the other 
 dead bodies (not those of the princes), 6 8' aXkos ttov Ke/cjotq- 
 KOT(av 6%\os : to which he receives for answer, Ta<fi<>> bebovTcu 
 npos KiOaip&vos tttv^cus. Here the dead bodies are called *e- 
 K/xr^/coVes by one who does not know whether they are buried 
 or not. After all that we have hitherto seen, we must there- 
 fore suppose this to be another instance of Euripides' custom' 2 of 
 deviating from the ordinary use of a word, and giving it, not 
 without grammatical or ethical sagacity, a meaning unusual, yet 
 well grounded and easily discoverable. Every Greek ear, as 
 soon as it heard this passage, knew it to signify the manes, and 
 
 1 It is true that this regular form is found in only one of the Paris 
 manuscripts ; but Stephens has it as a various reading, 'find it is the 
 only one acknowledged by the scholiasts and Pollux in ([noting the 
 passage. I consider it therefore to be the genuine form, as no ground 
 whatever can be imagined for the Epic tUKfuqStrat, which is the reading 
 of all the other manuscripts ; but which therefore, ;is long as the source 
 of the corruption remains undiscovered, is ver\ properly retained in 
 the text. 
 
 ' 2 See art. 63. sect. 5. 
 
374 6g. KeXaivog, &e. 
 
 at once understood the meaning of the poet, who gives this ap- 
 pellation to the dead, at the moment when the natural duty of 
 interment, refused before, had been now performed. 
 
 Kardpxp/JiaL ; vid. ap^o/Aou, &C- 
 
 6g. KeAaivos, fieXa?, &C. 
 
 An Excursus to Buttmann's large Greek Grammar (Ausfuhrl. 
 Sprachl.), vol. 1. sect. 16. obs. 2*. 
 
 i . The Epic word k^Xclivos exhibits in sound so evident a con- 
 nexion with the common w T ord fieXas, fJLtXavos, ixeXaiva, that it 
 is not possible to avoid considering it to be a dialectic variety ; 
 and the only wonder is, how two letters which appear to have 
 so little affinity could change from one to the other. I have 
 therefore laid it down in my Greek Grammar l as a general 
 rule, that most cases of this kind may be explained by supposing 
 that in the old language there existed a form containing both 
 letters ; and I leave the inquiry still open for particular cases, as 
 to whether the fuller form was the parent of the two others, or 
 whether it was only the form which one took in its transition to 
 the other. 
 
 2. A common acknowledged instance of this kind may be 
 found in the two letters w and g, as exhibited in a number of 
 
 * [The observation referred to is this : " Obs. 2. There are also cases, 
 though rare, of words undeniably akin, in which are changes of letters, 
 not closely related to each other in the above-mentioned way. The fol- 
 lowing are acknowledged instances : fxoyis, more Attic than the com- 
 mon n6\is : fcoelj/, Ionic for voelv ; tceXaivos, KcXaivf), an old form for ixeXas,- 
 HeXaiva." — Ed.] 
 
 1 That is to say, in my intermediate Grammar, in a note to sect. 16. 
 which I intended to have annexed, when made more full and com- 
 plete, as an Excursus to my large Grammar (Ausfuhrl. Sprachl.) ; 
 but as it is more properly a subject for lexicography, I prefer giving 
 it here. 
 
6g. KeXati/09, &c. 375 
 
 well-known examples in the European languages ; e. g. warrant, 
 garant ; vastare, gaster (gater) ' 2 ; for the point of union of both 
 forms is evidently in gw, whence came also gu (Ital. guastare) ; 
 and in this instance we are sure that w was the original sound, 
 whence came gw, the medium of transition to g. 
 
 3. Still further apart are the sounds s and k in the words 
 <jvv and cum. The form £vv unites them : for there are many 
 traces in the iEolic dialect showing that the Greek double let- 
 ters had their origin in a transposition of their fundamental 
 sounds : see in the Ausfiihrl. Sprachl. the note to sect. 22. obs. 3*. 
 It is probable, therefore, that KTN (cum) is the radical form, 
 to whieh, as in so many other cases, was appended a a-, .2KTN, 
 and from which again came avv ; a process confirmed by a com- 
 parison with a-Kvka, avXav, as the former half of it is brought 
 to a certainty by the forms £wos and kolvos 9 which are so evi- 
 dently akin to (vv and cum. Compare also Ktipziv, novpa, £vp€iv, 
 £vpov. 
 
 4. The forms bis and bis, although b and (3 are immediately 
 akin to each other, must also be regarded in a similar light; 
 for the old Latin duis formed from duo, which bears the same 
 relation to bis as duellum does to helium, is evidently the me- 
 dium of transition. But in this case the fuller form is certainly 
 
 2 See also art. 96. sect. 4. with the note. 
 
 * [The observation and note referred to are as follows : " Obs. 3. In 
 the pronunciation of double letters was mixed up also a transposition* 
 and in particular o-ki^o?, aicevos, andXis, aneWiou, are quoted as IEolic 
 for £i'$or, £evos, yj/dXis, yj/eWiov. This transposition may have been fre- 
 quently formed to soften the pronunciation ; and the contents of the 
 preceding observation (obs. 2. where axduos is said to be quoted by the 
 grammarians as yEolic for geuos, and TIcXotts for IltXov^, &c.) joined with 
 these may serve to show that the yEolians generally wrote in the be- 
 ginning of their words ctk«W, crneKkiov, in the middle and at the end 
 UpaKS, Upanariy JJe'Xons a . 
 
 " a This was also Scaliger's view of it (ad Euseb. p. 115. a.). It is 
 however certain that £ and yjs frequently arose from an original <tk, an. 
 Thus, for instance, %vv and £iW, as we find from comparing them with 
 cum and koivos ; thus tyid (a small stone) is the same with aria, which 
 can be explained only by an intermediate form with an (sue Riemer v. 
 o-ri'a) ; and the superlative ta\aTOt (c.vtrcmus) shows that the proposi- 
 tion c| was originally sounded as B2K or E2X, with a vowel at the end, 
 perhaps 1." — Ed.] 
 
376 6g. KeXaivos, &c. 
 
 the root. That is to say, bvo, duo, two, zwo *, are undeniably 
 the same word: from bvo, duo (dvo) came ATI2, duis (dvis), 
 as in German from zwo came zioier (twice). But from dvis 
 came both his and VIS, of which bis is a slight modification. 
 The same is seen still plainer in two other numerals : from bv(o 
 (AfX2) comes evidently on the one side, by leaving out the F, 
 b(ob€K<x, and on the other, by dropping the b, the iEolic Fikolti 3 
 and the Latin mginti ; while the last trace of both consonants 
 disappears in eiKau, c'lkoo-i, 
 
 5. A still more striking analogy is offered by the German 
 language in the provincial forms JVasen, Wocken, for Rasen, 
 Rocken, which it would be difficult to bring together without 
 wr as the bond of union, and which an examination of the dia- 
 lects gives us. For, on the one hand, there is a provincialism 
 (Hessian) Wrasen ; and on the other, we are justified in sup- 
 posing an old form Wrocken by the English term work, wrought; 
 with which we must again join zpyov and pcfat, which forms in 
 the iEolic dialect could only have been Fipyov and Fp£%ai : see 
 pe{o> in the list of verbs in the Ausfuhrl. Sprachl.f Compare 
 also ringen and its provincialism wrangen, ( to wrestle.' 
 
 * [Old German for two, now a provincialism or rather patois among 
 the peasantry in the south of Germany : the word in general use is 
 zwei. — Ed.] 
 
 3 See Koen. ad Greg. Cor. in Dor. 88. 
 
 f [Extract from the Ausfuhrl. Sprachl. now published as " Butt- 
 mann's Irregular Verbs." 
 
 " c Pe£<o, / do, pe£(0, eppega or epega . . . . ; or ep8<o, ep|a), ep£a . . . . ; 
 perf. eopya, pluperf. toopyeiv. Of the passive we find only p^l vaL \ as 
 epxfyv and eepypai are formed only from the verb epyoa, eipyco. Verbal 
 
 adj. f>€KTOS, f>€KT€OS. 
 
 " In order to form a correct judgment on the connection of these 
 forms, we must first keep in view the mutual change of the a middle let- 
 ters y and S, with which is connected the transition of y to £ occurring 
 in other verbs, as icpdfa, Kpayeiv. The next thing to be observed is that 
 the forms epSco, epga, with the substantive epyov, have in the old lan- 
 guage the digamma; while the aspirate joined with the p frequently 
 passed over in the dialects into the digamma ; for instance in the JEo- 
 lic fipodov, i. e. wrodon, for podov, a rose. We must therefore consider 
 ep^ai as werxai, pegai as wrexai, eopya as weivorga, in order to discover 
 in them the same appearance as we find in 8epK<o, dpaKetv, 8e8opKa. 
 And here the Germanic languages offer us a comparison so palpable 
 and unsought for that we cannot but make use of it ; viz. in the English 
 
 a Consonants are divided into aspirated, smooth, and middle. 
 
6g. KeXaivog, &c. 377 
 
 6. I come now to the examples quoted in my Greek Gram- 
 mar, and first to kozlv, an Iono-Doric form for voelv: see zko- 
 ?7o-e, Callim. Fr. 53., and kou>, Epicharm. ap. Athen. p. 236. b. 
 Now no one in his senses will think of separating vovs, voziv 
 from yv&vai, yiyv&o-Ktiv, ayvoziv. And thus we have at once the 
 form KNOEIN, which we may compare with yvafavs Kvafyevs, 
 yvafMTO) KvdfjLiTTG), Kvuvos Tvdxros. The great European family 
 of languages comes in also to our aid ; the plainest instance 
 is the English verb to know ; and the German verb kennen 
 answers to its synonym Kovvelv in JEschylus Suppl. 171. See 
 also Hesych. in v. 
 
 7. In the same way the supposition of an intermediate form 
 KMEAAN between ksKclivos and jxiXav becomes a certainty, 
 by the information in the Etym. M. of a form tcl KixikeOpa, which 
 one of the most learned of the grammarians, Pamphilus (see 
 Suidas concerning him), has mentioned in his great glossary, 
 and explained by tcls boKovs. The word was therefore a dialect 
 of tcl n<Ekadpa, the beams and framework of the roof, which from 
 their blackness had received this name from the earliest times 4 . 
 
 8. Less evident is the supposition of an intermediate form 
 between poyis and poKis, scarcely, and between 6 p.6yos and 
 6 fiokosj pains, labour ; here the bond of union must be y\. In 
 support of this the form 6 /otwAo? offers itself, as containing a 
 trace of some such intermediate form in the length of its syllable ; 
 or perhaps 6 fxox^os may be preferred as a cognate idea. 
 
 9. But suppositions of this nature are always more sure at the 
 beginning of words, where in particular the pronunciation seeks 
 for assistance of every kind. And here we have another very 
 striking but certain and long-known example, in a word which 
 in the same language branches into five different forms, all 
 passing from one to the other in this manner ; viz. (o^os, bvfyos, 
 
 verb work, from which comes the perfect wrought, and the substantive 
 wright; in which the w before the r is not pronounced; therefore 
 wriyht is p/icnys." — En.] 
 
 4 At first I had carelessly copied this gloss from the first edition of 
 Schneider's Lexicon, as a word in the dialect of the Pamphylians. I 
 now see for the first time that this ridiculous mistake, which lias been 
 disseminated as widely as possible by a series of editions of Schneider's 
 and Hiemer's Lexicons, and of my own Greek and German Grammar, 
 originated in an error of Stephens. 
 
378 Jo. K^T0)€(7(7a, /uLeyaKrjrrjs. 
 
 yv6(j)os, Kvtyas, vecfros. That {ocfros, darkness, is intimately con- 
 nected with ve<j)os 9 a cloud, would perhaps be hardly conjectured. 
 But as a £ is much the same as a 8, we have A04>02 ; between 
 these stands, as the intermediate form, the common expression 
 bvo<pos, whence through yv6<fio$ we come straight and plainly to 
 Kv£cj)as, ve<fios*. 
 
 JO. Kr)T(jO€(T(ra, fxeyaKrjTT}?. 
 
 i. The well-known epithet of Lacedsemon in II. /3, 581. and 
 Od. 8, 1. Kr]T(o€o-(ra, it was at first thought possible to understand 
 literally, as from ktjtos, the whale or some huge sea-fish ; and 
 among others iElian in his Hist. An. 17, 6. gives this explana- 
 tion, adding that huge sea-monsters of this kind infested parti- 
 cularly the Lacedaemonian coast and neighbourhood of Cythera. 
 This explanation, as was naturally to be expected, met with very 
 little approbation; as such an epithet, strange and unusual in 
 itself, appeared quite unsuited to a country which certainly has 
 a coast, but is not generally speaking a maritime country. 
 
 2. A more admissible explanation is that given in the scholia 
 and almost everywhere else ; viz. large, by a comparison with 
 the whale; with which the word jxeyaK-qT^s was thought to accord 
 extremely well as the epithet of a ship. I would here first ob- 
 serve, what others have already thrown out as a point for consi- 
 deration, that Sparta was very far from having the character of 
 being a large town in comparison with others ; at least in the 
 Homeric times, to which these interpreters transferred their 
 idea (formed from the state of the world in a later period) of a 
 town large enough to present to the mind the image of a huge 
 animal lying in a deep place. Or should it be said that Lace- 
 dsemon in these passages meant, according to the older usage of 
 language, the country of Lacedaemon in general, and not the 
 mere metropolis ; in that case it is not at all conceivable how, or 
 in comparison with what other land, we can imagine Lacedasmon 
 to be a large country. 
 
 * [A well-known instance of the same nature may be cited in the 
 Latin dies and the French jour, which are to all appearance quite un- 
 connected, until we fill up the intermediate links of the chain as thus, 
 dies, diurnus, Ital. giorno, Fr. jour. — Ed.] 
 
70. Krjrcoeo-o-a, /ueyaKTjTW. 379 
 
 3. But however that may be, I must again protest, with all 
 due respect, against the childishness of this expression. Even 
 Eustathius was offended at it. After having explained it in the 
 way above mentioned, as the epithet of a ship in II. 0, 222. p. 594., 
 he adds, a(f) ov Kara tivols, el kcll ttclvv afXiKpo-npeiTios, aAA' ojucos /cat 
 AaKebafatov /ajrcoeo-cra. On the other hand, a later mode of ex- 
 planation gives this silly trash the usual philosophical colouring, 
 and completes the mischief by suggesting the idea of mere bald 
 generalization, informing us that such derivatives of ktjtos meant 
 in the old language any huge size 1 . Now if we apply this in- 
 formation to the neyaKrJTea tiovtov, Od. y, 158., and to the dolphin, 
 which is itself a ktjtos and yet has this epithet at II. c/>, 22., we 
 have the choice whether these expressions are to be considered 
 as poetical epithets, (in which case we have the absurdity imme- 
 diately before us,) or whether the supposition is, that the com- 
 parison with the animal has disappeared ; by which an expres- 
 sion, so evidently coined as /ueyaKT^s is, was explained to be a 
 prosaic adjective. Still in the latter case K-qTutaraa must be 
 softened down, for a translator would hardly venture to render 
 it * huge Lacedsemon.' 
 
 4. Strabo 8, p. 367. mentions another reading Kaierazo-aav, 
 which Eustathius and the scholiast on Od. b, 1. ascribe to Zeno- 
 dotus. Of this word all give a twofold explanation. One of these, 
 from KaUra, (otherwise called Kaka}xlv6r), a kind of mint growing 
 in great quantities in Laconia,) cannot with any reason enter 
 into our consideration for one moment as the Epic epithet of 
 a town or country, although Callimachus has made a very apt 
 imitation, introducing it as an epithet of the Eurotas: see Fragm. 
 224. as corrected by Bentley. The other explanation is more 
 suitable. Ta /caiara (from /caiap, -aros) or ol /ccuarat, also kclUtoi, 
 were the clefts and hollows supposed to have been caused in 
 former times by earthquakes, and which, according to Strabo, 
 were numerous in Laconia ; as one of them in particular, called 
 by way of eminence 6 xatdras or Kai&bas, is sufficiently known as 
 the place into which criminals were thrown. Still however this 
 
 1 See Hemsterhusius (from whom indeed have proceeded moat of the 
 errors in the field of philosophical etymology) 00 Luc. Timon. ± ( >.; and 
 
 Tollius, who on Apollon. Lex. in v. stopa the mouth of the respectable 
 Eustathius with this authority. 
 
380 Jo. K*7Tc6e(r<ra, /txeyaK^rtj^. 
 
 reading, to say the best of it, can help us only in the case of 
 Kr]T(a€(T(ra ; ixeyaKr\rr]s remains with its derivation from ktjtos, a 
 marine animal ; and we should therefore be obliged to content 
 ourselves with understanding it, when an epithet of the ship, as 
 figurative, but when an epithet of irovros, as literally descriptive 
 of the real habitation of those animals ; while we must look upon 
 fjLtyaKrjTeos b€k<p?i/os with much the same satisfaction and pleasure 
 as we should upon /xeya/3otot> ravpov. Besides, KrjTtoto-cra was 
 evidently the established traditionary reading, heard, read, and 
 adopted in the best period of the Greek language, and which 
 therefore we ought not to give up so easily merely because we 
 hear of another reading*. 
 
 5. I have myself great doubts whether this KaieT&to-ara was ever 
 a real reading. Hesychius, under the explanations of KrjTattacra 
 has both kolKt] and KaXaixtvdcob-qs ; and that this may not be re- 
 jected as an uncritical medley, let us see the regular grounds of 
 these interpretations in the lexicon of Apollonius : AaKebal^ova 
 KrjT(£>€(T<Tav. to fxev vyi.es \xiya kvtos eyovvav, on koI eirl ttjs vqos. 
 Tives be otl eis rjv KTjTrj eKfipavcreTai. rives be Ka\a[XLvd(abr]' /cat era 
 yap (pvrbv fj KaXapavdos vit evivv KaAetrat. But quite independent 
 of the gloss K7]T(aeo-o-a Hesychius has also the following : Krjra, 
 KaXafjiivOr) 2 . From all this it is perfectly clear, that from the syl- 
 lable kt)t- were deduced both kvtos, a hollow, and the 'plant mUra ; 
 and with these it embraced also the other meaning attributed to 
 the so-called reading Kaieraeo-aa, viz. that of a cleft in the earth; 
 and KcueT&eo-o-a was therefore only another expression for ktj- 
 Tveacra, formed in imitation of it, but out of other elements. 
 
 * [One of our modern scholars proposes rather confidently to read 
 Krjweao-av ; but Homer's text is not to be altered on mere conjecture. 
 That so easy and palpable an amendment is not found in any MS. 
 Scholiast or Commentator, is quite sufficient to condemn it at once. 
 We should have met with it before, if there had not been some in- 
 surmountable objection to it. Perhaps such a one will be seen in its 
 derivation (xaico or a supposed subst. ktjos=6vos), according to which it 
 will be a fit epithet for Qakapos, II. £, 288., but a very unfit one for 
 Lacedsemon. — Ed.] 
 
 2 By means of this Krjra comes the reading K<uraets-, as it stands twice 
 in Schol. Od. 8, 1., and indeed the Cod. Harl. and Ambr. agree with 
 it in this ; a consideration of some weight against the amendment <ai- 
 eracts : see Porson. . 
 
JO. K^rcoecrcra, ^eya/oSr^?. 381 
 
 This interpretation of Katerdeaaa very naturally soon pro- 
 duced an amendment, which at last assumed the character of 
 a reading. 
 
 6. Let us now return to these old interpretations, and exa- 
 mine them critically. The explanation \kiya kvtos t^ovcra ap- 
 pears to belong principally to ixeyaKrjTrjs, with which it stands 
 connected in the scholia and glosses ; but in Apollonius, as we 
 have seen just above, and in the scholium to Od. 6, I., it stands 
 also with K-qTtoeo-aav. With a similar view, that is to say in order 
 to find in the syllable ky]t- the idea of a cleft or chasm, others 
 sought to discover an affinity to it in ra Kaiara. 1 find, even 
 without that etymology, sufficient grounds for this interpreta- 
 tion in the common meaning of the word ktjtos. It is certain, 
 for instance, that hollow, chasm, is the proper meaning of this 
 word, which thus became the natural appellation of those large 
 depths in the sea frequented by whales, sharks, and such like. 
 And now the etymology follows very naturally in the verb ycuo, 
 XavKG), from the old form of which with the k we have before 
 derived not only a/ceW (as may be seen in the article on that 
 word), but also Kea((o, to cleave, from which verb proceed those 
 very forms Ktabas, Kaidhas, ra Kaiara, &c. 
 
 7. In this its oldest and proper sense the epithet [xeyaKrirrjs 
 is therefore given by Homer to the dolphin, literally, ' frequent- 
 ing the vast abysses of the sea,' while the other fish, which he 
 is in the habit of devouring, are described in the passage 
 already quoted (II. (p, 22.) as flying before him : in the same 
 way it is joined with the ship, which is so called, without any 
 comparison, from its hollow or capacious belly ; but above all 
 these is that one vast abyss the sea itself, therefore called in 
 very old poetry fiaOvK-qr-qs : see Theogn. 175. with Bekker's 
 note. With regard to the epithet Krjrcoeaaa, one thing should 
 have prevented our understanding it in the same sense as the 
 old grammarians did, whom Schneider follows, as fxeya kvtos 
 zyovaa, that is, descriptive of the deep valley in which Laee- 
 damion lies ; because it is impossible that J Lomer could then 
 have joined together Koikiqv AaKthaiixova Krircotaaav. The dif- 
 ference of form, in jueya/o/rrjy and K^rweo-o-a, will be a better 
 guide to us; as adjectives in ets, €<r<ra. er, signily, according 
 to the most common analogy, an abundance of that of which 
 
Jo. K^rwecnra, lueyaK^Tr]^. 
 
 such adjectives are made up : thus Kryrcoecra-a, exactly in one of 
 the senses of that /cater^eo-o-a, will mean ' having many chasms 
 and hollows.' 
 
 8. What prevented this explanation being more generally 
 recognized was no doubt the opinion that AaKebaifjitov at Od. 8, 1. 
 was to be understood in its most limited sense, as the town 
 of that name, to which certainly the epithet of ( lying in a deep 
 situation* would be very suitable, but not that of ' having many 
 chasms.'* We must therefore briefly examine how this name is 
 used. That Lacedsemon in its older sense meant the country 
 so called, but that the town was named ^irdprr] (a thing almost 
 self-evident) is manifestly clear from the two verses of II. 
 (3, ,58 1. Ot 8' tlyov kolAtjv AaKebaipiova KrjTtotcrcrav, <£>apiv re 
 ^Eirdpr-qv re, &c. That the later custom, which reversed this, 
 is also found in Homer, and that by this name was meant some- 
 times the whole country, sometimes the town, is asserted by 
 Strabo, but only from that single passage of Od. 8, 1., and is 
 proved by him in the following manner: " At Od. </>, 13. it is 
 related, that Ulysses received his celebrated bow as a present 
 from Iphitus, whom he met in Lacedsemon ; rd ol gelvos Aa*e- 
 baLixovL 8a>Ke Tvxwa? - and in the next verse but one, speaking 
 of the same meeting, it is added, To) 8' ev Mecro-^r/ £vpLfi\rjTr)v 
 dXXiqXouv. Consequently in the time of the Trojan war Mes- 
 sene belonged to Lacedsemon, and was comprehended here under 
 that name. Again, at that very same place in Messene where 
 Ulysses and Iphitus had formerly met, that is to say at Pherse 
 {&r)pai), Telemachus afterward passes the night on his journey 
 to Menelaus. This is mentioned in Od. y, 488. ; and as the 
 journey is continued the next morning, it is said, only eleven 
 verses afterward, Od. 8, 1., ot 8' T£ov koiKtjv Aa/ce8cuju,om IC77- 
 Ttoeo-aav. Now since in the first-mentioned passage (Od. <£, 
 j 3.) Lacedsemon, taken as the country of that name, compre- 
 hended Pherre in it, it follows that Lacedsemon means here 
 (in Od. 8, 1 .) the town : otherwise Telemachus would travel 
 from Lacedsemon to Lacedsemon." Thus far Strabo. I think 
 the mere recital of these conclusions must have sufficed to 
 refute them. That Homer, as from a point in Ithaca, should 
 even once describe a place in Messene as being iv AaKtbat- 
 Iaovl, is remarkable enough; for it is exactly in accordance 
 
7i. KXeiros, &c. 383 
 
 with the more modern science of statistics, by which the pro- 
 vince is comprehended under the name of the governing coun- 
 try : but this does not do away the fact that the true and proper 
 Lacedaemon is the valley of the Eurotas, divided from Messene 
 by Mount Taygetus. If now in another quite distinct passage, 
 where the poet has not so described it, where he has named Mes- 
 sene not Lacedaemon, the arriving in Lacedaemon properly so 
 called is mentioned under this name (AaKe8ai/xa>z/), this, much 
 more than the other, is the natural and common usage of lan- 
 guage : on the other hand, when a little before Lacedaemon had 
 been mentioned as the country of that name, the poet could not 
 immediately call the town of Sparta by the same name of Lace- 
 daemon. 
 
 9. The result therefore of what has been said is this : Lace- 
 daemon is the name of the country so called, and receives all 
 the attributes of a country, even when the poet in naming it 
 has really in his mind the idea of an arrival at Sparta. For in 
 those times when there was no large capital city, but the country 
 was inhabited in districts and patches, with one central point, 
 where the governing power resided, they might indeed use the 
 name Lacedaemon in both ways, without its necessarily having 
 thereby a twofold meaning ; they might use Lacedaemon as the 
 town of that name, but in a wider sense ; that is, as the bond 
 which united together the different inhabited patches, while 
 Sparta always signified no more than the spot on which stood 
 the principal town itself. This difference disappeared in later 
 times, as the districts became concentrated in the town, which 
 thus received both appellations, while for distinction's sake the 
 whole country took the new name of Laconia. 
 
 7 1 . KXeiTos, kAtjtos, kAvto?, t7]A€k\€lt6v, r^Ae/cA^roy, 
 tt]\€kAvt6s. 
 
 1. The two adjectives KAeirds and k\vtos come from two 
 different verbs, KAew, KAeiw, / celebrate, and kAvcd / hear; 
 but in signification they agree, the former meaning one much 
 celebrated, the latter one much heard of, i. e. celebrated. 
 
384 yt. KXeirog, &c. 
 
 And in Homer they are so completely synonymous, that with 
 this and their similarity of form they may be considered as almost 
 the same word ; for when the metre requires a long syllable, 
 k\wos is used ; in the contrary case, kXvtos. This is particu- 
 larly evident in the compounds, ayaKXeurbv ®paorvpfr)br]v, ayanXv- 
 tov 'Iboixevrja : bovptKXeiTo? MeviXaos, 'Ibofxevevs bovpucXvTos : vav- 
 <tik\€itolo AvpLavros, <&air]Kes vavviKXvToi. 
 
 2. But not only what is really and strictly celebrated, but also 
 whatever appears to the poet as worthy of being so celebrated, 
 consequently everything great, magnificent, excellent, is called 
 Kkeiros and kXvtos ; which become therefore mere epithets ex- 
 pressive- of praise. Thus we have frequently kXzlttiv kKarofjLfirjv: 
 at Od. 6, 417. kXvtcl b&pa, magnificent presents, and elsewhere 
 kXvtcl Ttvyea, splendid armour; Minerva teaches epya...KXvTa 
 epyaCto-dat,, Od. v, 72., and the like. In the same way we find 
 also the compounds ayaKXeirfjs kKarop.Q^s, Od. y, 59., and aya- 
 kXvto, bcofxara of Alcinous, Od. r\, 3 . 
 
 3. Among the compounds are also tt)X€kX€ltos and r?)Ae- 
 kXvtos, far-famed, celebrated far and wide ; e. g. II. £, 321. 
 <&o(vlkos rr/A.eKAe6TotOj and Od. a, 30. T-qXtKXvTos 'O/oe- 
 
 4. The epithet r^AeKAetrot is given in the Iliad to the allies 
 of the Trojans ; but in that case there is always a various read- 
 ing rr]X€KXr]roL, the meaning of which is perfectly true as said of 
 these allies, viz. summoned from a distance. Between these two 
 the text of all the editions, until very lately, has fluctuated ; 
 nor do I know one which has the same reading in all the five 
 passages, e, 491. f, in. t, 233. A, 564. p,, 108. Wolf and 
 Heyne were the first to introduce uniformity into their editions, 
 by reading in all of them r^AeKA^rot t-nUovpoi. It is unfor- 
 tunate that they decided in favour of this form. That the ex- 
 istence of the old various reading can prove nothing whatever 
 is clear, for in the earliest writing the two forms could not 
 be distinguished from each other ; and even in the passages 
 where rr;Ae/cAetros can mean nothing but ' far-famed," still the 
 same various reading is found ; see Heyne on II. £, 321. That 
 Sarpedon at II. e, 478. says of himself, Kal yap iycov t-niKov- 
 pos koiv p.aXa tt]X60€p tj'/cg), proves only what was known without 
 that information, viz. that the allies did certainly come from 
 
7i. KA«TOff, &c. 385 
 
 distant countries ; but it does not prove that Homer was obliged 
 to borrow for them an epithet from that circumstance. That 
 this reading, as well as the others, should find supporters as 
 soon as it appeared is no wonder, as its meaning chanced to 
 suit those passages ; nor can we draw any conclusion in favour 
 of it from another fact, viz. that Apollonius in his Lexicon has 
 and explains TrjkeKkrjroC only ; for we find that Hesychius has 
 only tt)\€k\€ltoi, Ttoppco evbogoL. We are therefore reduced to 
 the necessity of deciding for ourselves ; and my own opinion is, 
 that no critic, ancient or modern, who should compare the pas- 
 sages as we have done, could allow himself to write in all the 
 others KAeiroj, ayaKktLTos, &c, and njAeKAeiros, but in those 
 five relating to the allies TrjAeKkrjros. 
 
 5. But what ought at once to decide the point is this, that 
 the desired uniformity cannot possibly be attained by this read- 
 ing, as the €7TLKovpoL are as often called kKcltoi. Heyne felt 
 this, and therefore regretted that he had not read in every case 
 kXtjtoi, which certainly does appear as a various reading here 
 and there: see his Notes on f, 227. A, 220. and 563. The 
 word Kk-qros occurs also twice in Homer as the real and precise 
 designation of persons, or as the predicate of the sentence, viz. 
 in II. t, 165. Od. p, 386. ; but how little it is fitted for a poeti- 
 cal epithet was felt by all those who, before Heyne, made no 
 objection to r^Ae/cA^roi, but never admitted KkrjroC. Nay, even 
 if k\t}toi had been universally adopted, uniformity would not 
 have been attained, for at II. /x, 101., where the verse will admit 
 of neither k\€ltu>v nor r^Ae/cAen-coy, we find ay a /cAe lt &v €7rt- 
 kov pa>v. If the question still wanted a coup de grace this must 
 give it. 
 
 6. It is clear from many opinions of the most celebrated old 
 grammarians, that however intimately they were acquainted 
 with their Homer, they had not that mechanical and general 
 view of his language which we find in our own Damm. The 
 poet who really had in his storehouse of language icAciro?, 
 dyaKAecroj, and T^keKketTiU, as we have seen Homer had, — in 
 whose mind the common meaning of these three forms was really 
 a fixed attribute of the Trojan allies, — such a one could hardly 
 use the first two forms in that way, and avoid the third so stu- 
 diously as to choose instead of it a word of almost the same 
 
 c c 
 
386 ji. KXefTo?, &c. 
 
 sound, Trj\€Kkr)TOL ; a word too which is neither found elsewhere 
 in the same poet, nor indeed in any of the other remains of an- 
 tiquity. 
 
 7. What appears to have particularly favoured the introduc- 
 tion of this various reading is its corresponding with another 
 epithet of the allies, TroXvKKrjTos- This appellation is given to 
 them in II. 8, 438. and is the predicate of the sentence ; 'AAAa 
 yk&crcr e/xe'/xiKro, T7o\vK\r)Toi o' €(rav avbpes : and hence it occurs 
 once as a mere fixed epithet for these allies, viz. at k, 420. where 
 Dolon says of them, in opposition to the waking Trojans, Tiokv- 
 kXtjtol 6" iiTLKovpoi Evbov(nv. I will not stop here to observe, 
 that the meaning of 7rokvK\r]Tos is really much more marked 
 and more distinct than that of t^Ack-A^tos ( ; summoned from 
 afar') ; or that it has more truth, as many of the allies came 
 from places very near : but I feel that the comparison of this 
 epithet with the other may serve to confirm the above criticism, 
 in as much as, in the first place, a various reading of this word 
 with the €i is never found, (for though Porphyry, quoting the 
 second passage in his Queestiones, does write it so, it is not 
 therefore to be reckoned as a various reading because of this 
 solitary instance ;) and secondly, because we never meet with 
 the combination of kAcitos with iroAv, any more than that of 
 kXvtos, (easily as it might be introduced as an epithet,) either 
 in Homer or any of the Epic poets : in the lyric poet Pindar it 
 does indeed occur, but only once *. 
 
 8. It may perhaps be worth mentioning, that in the Alexan- 
 drine poets there is no imitation of the word r^Ae/cA^ros, only of 
 r^Ae/cAetroy, viz. in Apollon. Rh. 3, 1097. 
 
 9. On the accentuation of these forms I wish for informa- 
 tion from others. Contrary to general analogy (e. g. of irnep- 
 btivos, navbeivos, evxp-qaTos, irayxpW T °Si tviriGTos, and in Homer 
 
 of TT0\v7TLKp0S, TT€pLCTK.€7rTOS, €VKTlTOS) H^€(TTOs)^ all the COni- 
 
 pouncls of KAetro? and kAutos, at least in the Homeric poems, 
 are, like their simples, oxytons ; as r^AeKAetroy, tt)\€k\vt6s, 
 dya/cAetros, ayaKXvros, TrepLKkvTos, SvofxaKKvTos, vclvo-ikXvtos, vav- 
 o-iK-Aaros : according to which, in Hymn. Apoll. 31. and 219. it 
 
 * [Namely in 01. 6, 120., but it is also found in Frag. Incert. 86. as 
 quoted by Aristides. — Ed.] 
 
71. KXerro?, &c. 387 
 
 must be accented vavaLKkeiTri, -rjs. But I do not wish to enter 
 into an examination of other poets. In Homer irokvKkr]Tos is the 
 fixed accentuation in both passages ; an analogy which un- 
 doubtedly TT]\4Kkr)Tos ought to follow : consequently the ac- 
 centuation thus handed down is another ground for r^Ae/cAecroy 
 being the old and genuine reading. 
 
 [Supplement to the above article on T-qkeKkeiTos, 8fc. f in the original 
 at the end of the second volume.] 
 
 1. I have left it a problematical question why all the com- 
 pounds of KAeiros and kKvtos in Homer are, contrary as it 
 would seem to analogy, oxytons. I will now try to extract 
 the wished-for information from the five following scholia, in- 
 volved and obscure as they appear to be, particularly at first 
 view. 
 
 ochol. l. On Od. a, 30. 'O^vTovrjTeov to TrjkeKkvTos, w? ayaKkv- 
 tos. el fxev ttt(i)tlk6v kclt apx^v o-vvTedeirj, fiapvveTaL' el be aAAo tl 
 to)V vrrep \iiav o-vkka/3r]V, o^vveTat. bib arjixetovpieda to vavcriKkvTos 
 6%vvo[ievov. to be bovpiKkvTos ev -napaOecret ecrTiv. 
 
 vSchol. 2. On II. k, 109. Tvbetb-qv bovpi KkvTov 1 . To k\vtos, el 
 
 TTTdiTLKOV KaT&pXOL, €V CrVvde(Tei €OTL t TogoKkvTOS, OVOfAaKkvTOS' el 8f 
 
 cltttutov, (pvkaaaei tov ambv tovov, irepLKkvTos, ayaKkvTos- bib 0-77- 
 
 fJ.€L(s)T€OV TO VUV(TLKkVTOS 6£vi>6fJL€VOV. OTL yap aVV0€TOV 60TI, bljkoV 
 
 £k tov \xeveiv to a r?J9 vavo-L Sort*?)?, kclt ibiav yap irapa ra> 
 TTOirjTj} 77 bia tov r] Aeyerat r) 81a tov e 2 . ev be avvdeaei bta tov a, 
 NavcrtKaa, Navo-tOoos. to fxev ovv bovpi KkvTOS ev Trapao-wOeo-ei 
 eaTLv. 
 
 Schol. 3. On II. X' 5 r - "OvofxaKkvTOf. 'AplaTapxos v(j) ev 
 
 1 In quoting the Venetian scholia I write the words in question here 
 without any accent, as Villoison does the whole. Bekker too, in his 
 edition, does not give them as they stand in the original Codex, (on 
 which, as on manuscripts in general, very little reliance is to be placed 
 in these minute points, bb nee may see by comparing the last scholia 
 on the Odyssey quoted here,) hut he accents them according- to the 
 principles of grammar. 
 
 2 That is to say vtvai, which stands also in the Etym. M. (v. vrjvs) 
 among the Homeric forms: probably an old various reading, which has 
 disappeared from the text in the process of its purification. 
 
 CC2 
 
388 7 1 - KA«tos, &c. 
 
 <w? TTao-iiJLtXovo-a. kv 8e 'Oo^o-creta ovofxa k\vto$ AWcav, Kara ira- 
 paOecnv. d be, fyacriv (write cf)7]oiv), ovk kuTtv e£ ovbeTepov kcli 
 apcreviKOV avvOerbv, ri eart to 'AaTvavag kclI TtoirnxaToypafyos ', 
 Kara crvvdecnv ovv kcrTiv m to to£ok\vtos irapa Tlivhapip, kcll itepi- 
 kXvtos. 
 
 Schol. 4. On Od. £ 22. NawiKAeiroto AvfJLavTos...evLOL be vaval 
 KAeiroio, kv bvcrl [xepeo-t Koyov. ap.eivo)V be fj irputTr], vavcriKkeiTolo, kv 
 rots KCLTa vclvtlktjv epyots kvbo£ov. 
 
 Schol. 5. On Od. 77, 39. NawtKAvrot, a>? ayafcAfrot ei> o-vvOeaet 
 kcu kclt ogeiav Tacriv. r\ yap vaval boTLKYj iiapa rw 7rot^r^, 6Vaz> /car 
 iSiW Aeyrjrat, 8ta rov 77 ypdcfyeTab, cos ot juiej> ^apa vr]vo~(, &c. 
 
 2. From schol. 1. and 2. we gather the following rule, that 
 when kKvtos is compounded with a tttg>tik6v, (i. e. has a de- 
 clinable word for its prefix,) it is kv o-vv6eo~ei ; that is, it is a 
 proper compound, and is accented on the antepenultima, as 
 to£6k\.vtos 9 6vo{jLaK\vTos : but when it has an indeclinable 
 word, kXvtos retains its accent, and the compound is therefore 
 accented on the last syllable, as TreptK^vTos, ayaKXvTos, and 
 consequently also t7]\€kXvto9. Hence by antithesis it follows, 
 that compounds of this latter kind are kv irapaOio-et, i. e. not 
 properly compounded, but their two members only placed next 
 to each other; or they arise from mere juxta-position ; for in- 
 stance, from Trjke kXvtos, far famed, irepi kKvtos and ayav 
 kKvtos, much famed ; which in truth therefore does not lie 
 in the in declinability of the former part of the word, but in the 
 thought ; as there do not chance to be any compounds of kKvtos 
 with particles, which according to the thought would be inse- 
 parable, like biakevKos, vwipOvfwf. According to the first part 
 of our scholia we must consider therefore as really avvOeTa and 
 ftapvTova, all that are compounded with a noun : in which we 
 are told to remark (o-^/xetwreo^) as an exception vawuAvroj, 
 which is a ovvOztov and yet is oxyton, i. e. has the acute ac- 
 cent on the last syllable. The reason why it is a vvvQeTov is 
 given in schol. 1. compared with schol 5., viz. because the 
 first half is not the pure dative, which in Homer is vr]va(, not 
 vavcTi. The word tttqutlkov is not therefore to be understood 
 generally of any forms of nouns, but we must interpret the 
 scholia more clearly and more precisely thus ; k\vt6s (and 
 
7i. KXeiros, &c. 389 
 
 /cXetros also) is said to be kv vvvQivzi, and is consequently a 
 baryton, i. e. has the accent on the antepenultima, when a 
 tttwtlkov, bat not a real case (iiT&crLs) , precedes it; for in this 
 case the whole would be a irapadeais. If then vtjvo-lkXvtos, or 
 vr\v<rl kKvtos, be found in Homer, this, according to the rule, 
 would be accented like bovpLKkvros, or bovpl kKvtos : for in this 
 last example the expression iv irapaOiaei in schol. i. appears 
 to me the true reading, but kv TtapaavvQiaei in schol. 2. to be 
 a corruption 3 . 
 
 3. If now bovpiKkvTos be a irapadeais, it is remarkable that 
 according to schol. 2. ovofxaKkvTos must be a true (jvvOeTov, 
 where still the ovofia may be very well explained to be the 
 accusative : but the remark is repeated in schol. 3., where 
 dvopLaKXvTos "AKttjs in II. x> 5 1 - ^ s P^ced in opposition to the 
 ovofxa kXvtov (celebrated name) in Od. r, 183. which is Kara 
 irapadecriv. The grammarians therefore held a twofold opinion ; 
 and Aristarchus rejected the junction of kXvtos with the accu- 
 sative, either generally, or in 6Vo/xa/c Autos in particular, as this 
 word does not mean ' celebrated by means of his name,' but 
 rather ' having a celebrated name.' For that in this case also 
 they looked not merely to the form of the first part, according to 
 which ovojxa would be really a regular case, but to the thought, 
 is plain from schol. 4., in which the writing vaval KAeiroib is 
 with good reason rejected on account of the meaning, and vavvi- 
 KkeiTolo is explained to mean c celebrated for naval deeds.' 
 Indeed that might be applied also to hovptKkvros ; but here the 
 dative appears to have been too evident to the grammarians 
 both in form and sense ; this point therefore we will not discuss 
 with them. 
 
 4. Thus far the scholia are consistent; and it is therefore 
 but reasonable, that where we find them to disagree, we should 
 attribute it to the fault of those who put the scholia together. 
 Of this kind is the word irepLKkvTos in schol. 3., which is there 
 joined with TogoKkvros, as a otjv0€top, contrary to the plain 
 
 3 Probably there stood here at first a false reading iv awdta-d, and 
 in correcting this arose B new fault, the double compound in question. 
 We know that napaavvOecris and napaavudtrou mean in the grammarians 
 nothing more than derivation from a compound, which can have no- 
 thing whatever to do with the sense here. 
 
390 J 2. KoXcdo?, KoXwav, 
 
 assertions of schol. %. : but above all, the beginning of schol. 5. 
 is in a hopeless state, if vavviKkvToi and ayaKkvToi have the 
 acute accent on the last syllable, as I have proposed in my 
 edition of the scholia to the Odyssey. Consistency requires 
 something like the following : NavaiKkvTOL, cos ayaKkvroi, kclt 
 o^lav Tacnv, cr^/xefctoreW, are iv avvOtcrzL 6v. ff yap vavcrl, Sec. 
 That is to say, the meaning must be this : Navo-LKkvTot, which is 
 kv (TvvOeasi, and yet has the acute accent on the last syllable, 
 is (like dya/cAvrot, which is iv irapaOio-ei) to be considered as 
 an exception. Again, the comparison of 6vop,aKkvros with irao-i- 
 p,kkovo~a in schol. 3. is not according to rule ; for there are good 
 grounds for supposing 7racnp.£kovo-a, like baKpvx^v and some 
 others, even if written as one word, to be a mere TrapaOzais, 
 with which the grammarians therefore might, according to their 
 principles, have compared riqkzKkvTos and bovpiKkvros, but not 
 dvop.aKk.vTos, which there and in schol. 2. is treated as a proper 
 o~vv0€t6v. 
 
 5. Resuming our first question, we find then that the ac- 
 centuation of TrjktKkeiTos, rrikeKkvros, &c. in our Homer arose 
 from an opinion, that every compound, which, according to 
 the thought, was a mere juxta-position of two parts of speech 
 joined together syntactically, or which (like bovpLKkvros) ap- 
 peared to be such, retained the accent of the second word 
 unchanged. But this was the case with almost all the com- 
 pounds of Kkeiros and Kkvros; and although vavo-iKkvros, vavvi- 
 Kkebros, did not, according to the above theory, belong to that 
 class, yet the apparent 7rapd6€cns had such an influence on this 
 form also, that it was not changed, but noted as an exception ; 
 while dvopiaKkvTos, as is evident from schol. 3., remained in 
 dispute. In our Homer this accentuation is now made uniform 
 throughout, and in my opinion correctly so ; as long as it is 
 not wished to take the greater liberty of accenting in general 
 everything, with the same uniformity, according to the existing 
 analogy of compounds. 
 
 72. KoAa)oy ? KoAcpav. 
 
 1. The meaning of the words koAwoj, Kokyav, is undoubted. 
 They imply a shrill chattering, joined, at least in the two pas- 
 
72. KoAct>09, KOXOMTLV. 391 
 
 sages of Homer where they occur, with the idea of scolding and 
 wrangling. Thus at II. (3, 212. it is said of Thersites that he 
 alone eKoA.ua, wrangled shrilly; and in the same sense at II. 
 a, 575. 'E2> 8e 0€ol(tl koXvov kXavverov, where I understand it 
 merely of the quarrelling of Jupiter and Juno only, with which 
 they disturbed the other deities, and do not with Heyne join 
 ivekavverov Oeolcrt ; as I understand ZXavveiv tl to mean to set 
 anything in motion, as at II. 77, 6. the sea with the oars, and the 
 like; the meaning therefore here would be, "you raise a noisy 
 wrangling among the gods 1 ." 
 
 2. With regard to the etymology, the grammarians agree 
 unanimously that it is a metaphor taken from koXolos, the jack- 
 daw; which was the common explanation of II. ft, 212. in the 
 time of Gellius ; see his Noct. Att. 1, 15. The name of the 
 bird occurs in Homer, and the difference of the writing or pro- 
 nunciation, as it could not be made visible in the oldest writing, 
 is to be considered as traditionary 2 . But against the view here 
 taken of this etymology I must enter my protest : it is one of 
 those which on the surface look plain and indubitable, and yet 
 are perfectly unnatural. Let us only state clearly how we are 
 in the habit of reasoning. If we say that koAwos is really de- 
 rived from KoAoioy ; this is contrary to all grammatical analogy. 
 Or if we suppose that both are properly the same word ; it is 
 contrary to all logical analogy to say that a scream has been 
 called a jackdaw; even though we should be willing (as Pollux 
 has KoKoiav of the cry of the jackdaw), to suffer such an ex- 
 pression as KoAwa, ' he jackdaws,'' for ' he screeches like a 
 jackdaw.' 
 
 3. And here the German language gives us a most complete 
 analogy. As Dohlc, a jackdaw, comes from dahlen, to chatter, 
 so KoAoiov comes from a similar root, which means a cry or 
 scream, and with which are connected, as we must at once feel, 
 
 1 Some of the scholia in explaining it use eVirfiWf, others iytiptrt, 
 
 2 This, for instance, holds good of the t subscript also, as c7coAa>w 
 is expressly mentioned in ;m old scholium (see lleyno on II. (3, 212.) 
 as a reading of Philoxenus. Although it appears to me very probable 
 that the familiar explanation of these words by means of the cry of the 
 bird had an influence on this way of writing it, and that the older tra- 
 dition was KoAwdf, koXwuv. Compare roXovqv in note 3. 
 
392 73- KovplSiog. 
 
 Kak£(*>, iceko), KikofxaL*. From this root comes the abstract word 
 Koktoos, as well as the came of the bird, Kokotos ; or if we con- 
 sider both as identical in form, then we have the abstract as 
 well as the concrete formed in os; and from Kokvos, a scream, 
 was made a new verb Kokuqv ; which by others was formed also 
 in eo>, as we learn from the example in Antimachus quoted 
 by Eustathius, Schellenb. Fr. 27. "Qs pa tot 'ApyeiW KoAwet 
 <TTpaTo$: for this must certainly be the true reading for e/co- 
 k<p€L, the a) being shortened as in some well-known similar 
 cases This account is confirmed by the gloss of Hesychius, 
 Kokoiri, <f)(t>vrj. And when the same grammarian among the 
 meanings of wkos has also 06pvfios, this is not to be rashly 
 rejected as a mere corruption of Kok<p6$; for the word ko\o- 
 vvpTos, properly signifying a noisy swarm or multitude, leads 
 us to the very word, and thus we draw near to the root with 
 the greatest clearness 3 , 
 
 4, Toward the explanation of this word we have here gained 
 thus much ; that we are not to attribute to Homer, particularly 
 in the expression tKokcoa, an intentional comparison with the 
 jackdaw, however correct such a comparison may appear to be 
 in that expression. 
 
 J £. KovplSlO?. 
 
 t. The derivation of Kovpibios from Kovpos, Kovprj, — a deri- 
 vation which strikes us as soon as we look at the word, — has 
 been the cause of much error, particularly in the unphilosophical 
 endeavour to express the supposed etymology in translations 
 and explanations ; although experience teaches us that many a 
 word, derived undeniably from some other, often loses entirely in 
 course of usage the meaning of the original stem. Kovpibtos Trocrty, 
 KovptbCr] akox_os are translated, in all cases where there is nothing 
 to oppose it, as in II. e, 413. A., 243. &c, by youthful. Where 
 that term is not admissible, — as in Od. o, $55. of the wife of 
 
 * [Doederling in his Lect. Horn. 1. p. 4. rejects the connexion with 
 Kakea), but allows that with KeXo/xca. — Ed.] 
 
 3 The glosses of Hesychius koXovclu and «oXoy/x/3a, synonymous with 
 Ko\a>au, appear to show that the word remained in the mouth of the 
 common people and ceased to be a poetical expression. 
 
j$. KovplStos. 393 
 
 Laertes, or in A., 492. o>, 199. where Clytemnestra kills Aga- 
 memnon, her Kovpihiov 7t6(tlv, — there it is supposed to allude to 
 a marriage contracted in youth or with a virgin, to the first 
 husband, or the like. For this we need only consult Danim, 
 particularly to see how neatly he helps himself through II. r, 
 298., where however all is of no avail. The only correct way, 
 in this and many similar cases, is to collect and place side by 
 side all the passages where a word occurs, and to see whether 
 we cannot find, without any regard to etymology, some one idea 
 pervading them all ; which alone must be used even where the 
 meaning drawn from the etymology of the word has introduced 
 itself into the context also ; otherwise we are in danger of attri- 
 buting to the poet ideas which he never had. 
 
 2. If now we compare all the passages where Kovptbios oc- 
 curs, so far is clear, that it means wedded, and is opposed to 
 the union between master and slave, or to concubinage. This 
 is declared most plainly in the passage above quoted from II. 
 r, 298. where Briseis, who had lived with Achilles as slave and 
 concubine from the time of his slaying her husband, says that 
 Patroclus had promised to make her the Kovptbtrj a\oxos of 
 Achilles. But even without such a seusible antithesis as the 
 above, this meaning exhibits itself plainly in other passages. In 
 Od. i>, 45. Ulysses says to all the Phseacians, that they should 
 remain at home and cheer their Kovpihias yvvaiKas ; and at II. o, 
 40. Juno calls the marriage-bed of herself and Jupiter Kovpihiov 
 Ae'xoj. It is true, that at Od. o, 22. the Kovpihios $iAo?, as the 
 first husband, is opposed to a second in whose favour the wife 
 is to forget the other; and at Od. r, 580. <£, 78. the house of 
 Ulysses is called by Penelope her Kovpihiov h(ap.a, in opposition 
 to that to which she should follow one of the suitors, which 
 would still be a regular marriage. But in both these passages 
 the once regularly wedded and beloved husband, or the house 
 of such a husband, is feelingly opposed to a second marriage con- 
 cluded while the first husband was perhaps still alive. Compare 
 Od. \(/, 150. 151. At all events, the very expression here used, 
 Kovpihiov 8wjua, shows that Kovpihios can never mean youthful; 
 otherwise Kovpihiov hQ>p.a would be c the house of my youth/ 
 i. e. my paternal house. The idea of marriage is evident there- 
 fore in KovpCfaos, the true, legitimate, through which the words 
 
394 73 # KovplSio?. 
 
 avr\p, yvvri (Od. a>, 196. v, 45.) first receive the idea of husband, 
 wife : while with noons and dkoxos this epithet is joined for the 
 sole purpose of marking the above-mentioned antitheses. But 
 in the expression KovpCbtos <f)(kos this latter word evidently has 
 its common meaning ' dear,' and KovpCbtos alone therefore stands 
 for husband. 
 
 3 . This view of the meaning of Kovpibtos is fully confirmed by 
 Herodotus, who in 1, 135, 5, 18. expresses by this epithet the 
 opposition between the wife and the TtakkaKis l . 
 
 4. With regard to the etymology, the derivation from Kovpos 
 must not yet be thrown aside; and perhaps there may be some 
 grounds for it in the expression Kovprj in Od. a; 279. (278.) 
 where it stands for a bride, in a sentence indeed where wooing 
 is the subject of the context; but in no case is the idea of youth 
 to be found in Kovptbios, nor can this derivation be considered as 
 proved. Much better will it be, as every thing speaks in favour 
 of some other derivation, to leave to chance the possibility of 
 producing something which may give us the idea of regular, 
 legitimate, or perhaps of pure, chaste (compare Kopziv), or even 
 the precise idea of the marriage-ceremony 2 . 
 
 1 The perfect accordance of all the passages mentioned ought there- 
 fore to prevent us from understanding KovpLSios, wherever it may occur 
 elsewhere, in the sense of youthful ; e. g. in Eveni Epigr. 12. Kovpidiovs 
 rjdr) OaKdfxcp Xvaraaa xiroovas. Here it means ' bridal garments.' 
 
 ' 2 Whoever considers that the German h so often answers to the 
 Greek k, as in ko7\os, Germ, hold, Engl, hollow, — in KaXdprj, Germ. Halm, 
 Engl, halm (or ' straw'), — in kvcov, Germ. Hund, Engl, dog, &c, — such 
 a one will not think me foolish in calling attention to the same relation 
 between Kovpidio? and the German Heurath, in old German Heurde, 
 (Engl. ' marriage/) for the purpose of observing some traces which may 
 perhaps be worth following up. Such a trace appears to me to lie in the 
 word Kvpws, compared with the word Kvpelv, to obtain, and with <olpavos. 
 These ideas may indeed be very well joined with that of a female slave 
 and concubine ; but we must not overlook the information of the gram- 
 marians (Schol. Aristoph. Equ. 969.), that <upios yvvamos was used only 
 with reference to a wife, as beo-norr)? was to a female slave. And even 
 if that were not the case, it is usage which in general first gives words 
 their meaning ; exactly as in German Heurath, ' marriage,' is acknow- 
 ledged to come from the same idea (heuern, ' to hire') as the word Hure, 
 ' a whore,' does ; which two words have therefore obtained their opposite 
 meaning from usage only. The German word Herr^ Lat. herus, is con- 
 nected with the above, and h and k thus answer exactlv to each other. 
 
395 
 
 74- K/wJyuoff. 
 
 i. As Kpr\yvos, a word of rare occurrence in general, appears 
 in Homer only once, viz. in II. a, 106. 
 
 Main i KaKGiVy ov Trotmore fioi to Kp-qyvov eiires, 
 
 a dispute in explaining its meaning is not to be wondered at. 
 By some of the grammarians it was translated good, by others 
 true. That the former is the correct meaning must be clear 
 from the context. Agamemnon does not doubt of the truth of 
 the prophet's interpretation, but like such monarchs he is en- 
 raged with one who announces to him evil tidings, whether true 
 or false. Of a later real and (what is still more) Ionic usage 
 of the word in common life we have an instance in a passage of 
 Hippocrates, Coac. Prsenot. p. 425, 16. dAA' ovhe yovvarav novos 
 xpriyvov ; for here there can be no reason for supposing it to be 
 intentionally preferred as an expression of antiquity. Still 
 more deserving of our consideration in this respect is the pas- 
 sage in Plato's Alcib. 1, 9. p. 111. e. ovk kiricTTavTat, ovbt KprjyvoL 
 bibdo-KaXoL dai tovtov. In Doric prose we have also an example 
 of the Pythagorean Lysis (Gale p. 737.), ttot ovbtv Kpr\yvov 
 <txo\&(ovt€s. A still later usage, and certainly an intentional 
 imitation of Homer, we find in the author of the Vita Homeri 
 c. 15. and in the 38th Epigram of Asclepiades : in all these 
 instances in the sense of good. So much' the more remarkable 
 is the passage in Theocritus 20, 19. 
 
 Uoi/ieves ('inure /xot to Kpqyvov, ov ku\6s epfxi ; 
 
 We must not for a moment suppose it possible that in his 
 strange use of language the word may have meant true as well 
 as good. The fact is, that the sense of true was brought into 
 existence entirely by the nature of the Homeric passage (which 
 at first sight admits of both meanings), and a way was thus 
 opened for the attempts of some of the critics to introduce reason 
 into Homer, where they imagined they discovered something 
 contrary to reason; and Theocritus, the Alexandrian, furnishes 
 one among many instances of such interpretations of Homer 
 
396 75- KiAmW, &c 
 
 passing afterwards by means of imitation into the real usage of 
 the poets. All however did not hinder this same Theocritus 
 from following the usual meaning of Kp-ijyvos in Epigr. 20. 
 
 2. On the etymology of the word, whether it belongs to the 
 family of Kparvs, Kpdo-crvv, or, by an Ionicism, from xprjaOat, 
 XP^o-t/xo?, I have nothing certain to offer. From the relations in 
 which it is found I think the latter the more probable. The y 
 would then belong to the termination : compare a^iyvos. 
 
 75. KvAlvSeus, KaXivSelo-Ocu, &C. 
 
 1. Kv\ivb(a is a verb which has remained in constant use 
 ever since the time of Homer, with the leading sense of a turning 
 or rolling motion, as of stones (iribovbe KvkivbtTo Aaas avcubrjs) ; 
 but it also took very early the form in -eco (see Lex. Xenoph.) : 
 the sense of turning we may therefore adopt as its original 
 one. KvXLvbd) is generally supposed to be a form strengthened 
 from Kvkiv : but I am of opinion there are better reasons for 
 thinking that KvkCvbca is the older form, whence the future 
 kvXI(t(o 1 comes quite as naturally, and the cr in the passive e*v- 
 kia-Qrjv more so ; and that -ivba), analogous to the more common 
 ending -tfw, Dor. -t88w, is a termination affixed to the root itself, 
 by which it was perhaps wished to express something answer- 
 ing to the heavy motion of a stone. Homer has only KvXtvbca 
 (which occurs very often) and tKvkCo-Orjv ; but as early as 
 Pindar we find also kvXCco, which form I think arose out of the 
 future in -ta-w. The meaning passed on figuratively to other 
 kinds of motion, as of the waves, of the uncontrollable course 
 of anything, &c. ; beside which it was already used in Homer's 
 time for the turning or rolling backwards and forwards on one 
 spot, KvkivbecrOai Kara Koirpov, and such like. Hence figura- 
 tively, but always with the collateral idea of reproof, it was 
 said of men who are continually turning about or busying them- 
 selves in certain places or certain occupations. This rolling 
 about, in a physical sense, in the sand or dust, referred, as is 
 
 Compare UpofiaXio-ios from npofiakivOos. 
 
75- KvXlvSetv, &c. 397 
 
 well known, to the ancient mode of attending on and treating 
 the bodies of men and horses ; in which sense the Attics had 
 another verb analogous to this, viz. akivb eta at (whence 
 also akivhr\6pa, volutabrum), and in the active (to make the 
 horse roll, lead him out to roll) d k to- at, used however only in 
 its' compound efaA.tj-at. See Piers, ad Mcer. p. 52. And 
 hence also the middle verb akivhtlvOai was used in a figurative 
 sense ; see Hippocr. ap. Steph. in v. kvakivhiovrai irokkfjau crvfi- 
 cpopfjai. To these we may add a third very common form, but 
 found only in the middle voice, also used solely of this rolling 
 of animals, and in a figurative moral sense, viz. Kaktvbeio-Ocu, 
 which passed more into the language of every-day life; and 
 lastly a fourth, etAtz;8eto-0at, kveikivheio-Bai, which, perhaps by 
 chance, occurs only in a moral sense. 
 
 2. Nothing is more difficult than to distinguish etymologi- 
 cally from each other these forms, which I have here placed 
 together ; and equally difficult is it to connect them with each 
 other, that is to say, in such a manner that any traces of his- 
 torical truth in favour of either of them may be discoverable ; 
 for otherwise nothing indeed is easier than to form such a series 
 as K.vk-, Kak-, ak-, elk-, or the converse et'A-, ak-, Kak-, Kvk-. 
 Perhaps now such a trace may lie in the following circumstance, 
 that of all these forms, not one, except Kvktvho), Kvklo), has ex- 
 actly the precise meaning of the turning or rolling onwards. 
 For that single passage in Aristophanes Nub. 33. 'AAA' 00 /uteA.' 
 e£?/Ai/ca? €/xey' t/c to>v e/^a)^, "thou hast rolled me out of all my 
 property," not only does not contain that physical sense of 
 rolling, but is probably nothing more than a comic use of e£a- 
 AtVas from the preceding verse, (used there of leading out a 
 horse to roll,) with the literal force of the e£ preserved. Further, 
 as KakivhtlcTOai, if we consider it to be merely a different pro- 
 nunciation of KykivhtXcrQai, bears too plainly to be mistaken the 
 mark of having been corrupted in common use, — and yet this 
 form is used by the best authors in the highest style of writing, 
 while on the other hand the forms dk-, ak-, KakivhziaQ ai, have 
 the analogy of ilkrj, dAe'a, color, in support of their belonging 
 to each other, — I conjecture that the two roots or stems, dkov- 
 ixai (which, as we have seen in the article on eiXciv, began with 
 the idea of pushing or tlunstinq, and had almost the same 
 
398 7 6 - Aeye^f &c. 
 
 meaning of turning or busying oneself about anything) and kv- 
 Xtvhco (of which the proper sense is to turn and roll), have 
 coalesced by mere chance in this particular meaning, so that 
 in the language of every-day life frequentatives similarly formed 
 have arisen from them. For that eiAiy6eio-0ai is not found 
 earlier than in Josephus and Plutarch, proves nothing more 
 than that, beside the Attic a\Taai 9 formed from EA12 by the 
 change of vowel, akivheiorOai had also taken the form with the 
 et in the dialects of common life 2 . 
 
 J 6. Aeyeiv, Ae^ai, Xe^aaOat. 
 
 i. Three various meanings of the forms kiyeiv and Ae£cu are 
 on the whole certain; viz. i. to say; 2. to choose and collect; 
 3. (Aefai in particular) in the Epic poets, to lay to rest. In an 
 examination of these meanings the first question is, whether 
 they are connected with each other, and if so, how ? The 
 second is, to decide which of these meanings belongs to each 
 passage. We will begin with the second question, leaving the 
 first for the present untouched. 
 
 2. When in II. /3. the sacrifice and banquet are finished, Nes- 
 tor says to Agamemnon (v. 435.), 
 
 MrjKeri vvv hy]& avdi \eycofie6a, fxrj^ en 8r}pov 
 ' Afil3aX\a>fji,s0a. epyov 
 
 This ktyufxeOa we find explained in each of the above three 
 senses. Aristarchus understood it to mean o-vva6poi{tofjL€da, 
 paraphrasing it with this explanation, ijl7]K€tl vvv enl nokvv 
 
 2 Still less reason is there for suspecting the form dXivdovfxai to be 
 an error of transcription, because it has the various reading aXivd- in 
 Plutarch and Alciphron : see Bast, Ep. Cr. p. 210. and Schneider's 
 Lexicon. It exists in two other passages, one in Josephus (B. J. 4,. 
 9, 10.) quoted by Schneider under evei\ivdea>, and another by Stephens 
 from Synesius. It is not therefore possible to imagine how this form, 
 deviating as it does from the Attic, could have arisen and kept its 
 ground in learned writers, if there had not been old and good reasons 
 for its existence. 
 
?6. Aeyeiv, &c. 399 
 
 \povov avrov aw t] 6 p o t cr // e v o t >,xi v w ju, € v : by which this ex- 
 planation is at once condemned; for that such cannot be the 
 sense of the present, needs not a moment's consideration. In 
 Eustathius and the minor scholiast it is explained to sit still, to 
 rest, and, as it were, lie down. If this meaning were so near 
 the surface, it is scarcely possible that Aristarchus should not 
 have noticed it. But my opinion is, that those older gram- 
 marians knew or felt that the present Aeyco, kiyofxat, in the sense 
 of to lay and to lie down, was not Greek. In the whole range 
 of Epic poetry, early or late, there never occur in this sense 
 any but the aorists e'Ae£e, eAefaro, eAeKro. But no critic will 
 adopt a form which occurs nowhere else, particularly in a pas- 
 sage of which the reading, as we shall presently see, is not at 
 all fixed or certain. There remains then only the meaning of 
 Aeyetu, to say, speak, which we must examine in connexion with 
 the different readings. 
 
 3. From the scholia we see that the present reading of this 
 passage is that of Aristarchus. The reading of Zenodotus, as 
 there given, is too short by a syllable, Mt]k4tl vvv ravra Aeyco- 
 \xe6a: but that of Callistratus runs thus, M^/cert brj vvv avQi A.. 
 Of these the reading of Zenodotus is evidently in favour of the 
 sense of speaking, and so agrees with the same expression four 
 times repeated, 'AAA' aye /^/cert ravra XeycafxeOa, II. v, 292. 
 v, 244. Od. v, 296., and Mevrop, \xr]K€Ti r. A., Od. y, 240. But 
 in those four passages the words in question ocCur in each 
 instance in the course of a dialogue, which they are intended 
 to break off; whereas in the passage of II. /3. it is quite the 
 contrary, for here there is no previous conversation, but the 
 words are introduced by the well-known Tots apa fxv6(av yp^e . . . 
 This then tells against the reading of Zenodotus in the scholia. 
 But who will say which of the three above-mentioned read- 
 ings is the old traditionary one, or whether there is not a 
 fourth I Even the reading of Aristarchus is called only ?; 'Apt- 
 orrapxov, and quoted from (at ' ' ApLaTap\ov Ae'£ets) his explana- 
 tions of words. We have certainly, therefore, quite as good 
 grounds for considering the reading of Zenodotus to be the 
 traditionary one, or at least to be a traditionary one. Nay, 
 the very argument mentioned above as telling against it, inti- 
 mates that this reading was really handed down by tradition, 
 
400 j6. Aeyetv, &c. 
 
 and changed for some such reason as that mentioned. At 
 all events, there can be no doubt that, as the phrase jtxr/KeVt 
 Xeyca^eOa in the two different expressions of II. /3. and of the 
 four passages above quoted (whatever the reading may be) has 
 the same force and tendency, it must have the same mean- 
 ing. If now we apply this meaning to the reading of Ari- 
 starchus, brjO' avQi Aeycojuetfa, we must understand keyeo-dai as 
 absolute, which Aristarchus evidently wished to avoid, for other- 
 wise he would certainly have understood and explained this 
 passage analogously to those others. On the other hand, all 
 is clear if we consider ixr]K€TL ravra \eydi\xe6a as a customary 
 formula for breaking off a conversation ; and that when Nestor 
 rose from table, at which there had naturally been some con- 
 versation, though the poet does not mention it, he broke it off 
 with these words. In order now to reconcile the two readings, 
 we shall want to complete the reading of Zenodotus, as muti- 
 lated by the scholiasts, thus, M^/cert vvv br) ravra A.. But this 
 is not an Homeric position of the particle br) ; the construc- 
 tion requires Mt)k4tl brj vvv r. A. as in the reading of Callistratus. 
 This br\ vvv therefore I consider genuine ; and Aristarchus must 
 have been the first to have reversed the two words, in order 
 to be able to make brjOa out of them. The correctness of the 
 reading ravra keycofxtOa will very soon receive an additional 
 confirmation. 
 
 4. Some of the ancients maintained that the verb Xiyeiv 
 does not occur in Homer in the sense of to say, speak; see 
 Eust. on II. v, 275. v, 244. Steph. Thes. 2, p. 606. g. Eu- 
 stathius, and with him some later commentators, thought this 
 sufficiently disproved by the phrase which we have been con- 
 sidering, and by some others. To me, however, the question 
 appears to deserve at least a closer examination. That is to 
 say, it is certain that from the meaning to choose out, gather up, 
 collect, which is so common in Horner, there arose, through the 
 idea of to reckon up, relate, the meaning of to announce, tell, 
 say ; and the question is, how far the word had proceeded in 
 this course in the old Epic language. And first then, thus 
 much is certain, that Aeyet, e'Aeye, eAe£e, used like (fyrjaC, €(f>rj, 
 et7T€, was unknown to that old language. On the other hand, 
 of such expressions as either belong to common usage or lead 
 
j6. Aeyeiv, &c, 401 
 
 to it, there are in Homer the following. At II. v, 275. Idome- 
 neus says to Meriones, who had just been referring to proofs 
 of his valour, Oio' apeTrjv 616s ecrac tC ae xprj ravra kiyeadcu ; 
 that is, not merely efaeiv to say, but properly to reckon up, 
 enumerate, and so in a general sense to bring forward, name. 
 Again, at Od. /x, 165. in the active voice, tcl e/cao-Ta Xeywy 
 hapoLa-L T7L<f)av(TKov. To which belongs also that frequently- 
 recurring compound naTakegai, as at Od. <a, 302. /caraAefo) oaa 
 vnio-yjETo vol h&pa, and so in a general sense of giving any 
 information, account, or relation. It is evident that all these 
 expressions proceed not from the idea of to speak, say, but 
 quite clearly from the idea of to collect, arrange, enumerate. 
 And thence by a very easy transition comes *, as in German, 
 to relate (see sect. 7. of this article). Thus at Od. \p-, 308. ocra 
 K-qbe (-OrjKZV 'AvQp&iroLS, ocra r civtos ol(vva$ lp.6yr](Ttv YIclvt 
 lAeye. At Od. A, 374. (to Ulysses, desiring him to relate,) av 
 hi p.01 Aeye OeaKtka epya: to which belongs also r, 203. *1(tk€ 
 tytvbea TTokka kiycav, as the thing spoken of is a feigned narra- 
 tion. The only passage where the word at all agrees with the 
 later usage of it is that of II. /3, 222. of Thersites ; tot clvt 
 "* Ayap.ep.vovi 8ta> .... key ovetbea: but as the word is used in 
 every other passage of Homer in the sense of enumerating, 
 it appears to be selected here to express the long string of 
 abuses which Thersites immediately afterwards repeats against 
 Agamemnon. 
 
 5. At all events it is clear, from this comparison of the dif- 
 ferent passages, that in Homer this verb has necessarily an ac- 
 cusative case after it, which might be omitted only where it 
 could be inferred from the preceding part of the context. 
 Therefore in the sentence ply]k€tl tclvtcl keycofieOa, the accusative 
 TavTa is essential to it, as referring to the narratives and con- 
 versations which preceded, or which, in the case of the feast 
 in II. (3, are presumed to have preceded. On the contrary, 
 ktyeaQcu taken absolutely, in the sense of to speak, talk, would 
 
 * [Not only in German, but in most, if not all, of the modern Euro- 
 pean languages, we find this very natural transition. Tims in German 
 ziihlcn or herziihlen, ' to reckon," erz&hlen, 'to relate;' in French compter 
 and racontcr ; and in English to count and recount; the verb tell and the 
 substantive tale both used in eith< 1 sense. — Kn.] 
 
 J)d 
 
402 j6. Aeyeiv, &c. 
 
 be an usage to be compared only with that of the active in the 
 later Greek, as betvos Keyeiv and the like. 
 
 6. Lastly the compound hiaXkytadai also is found in the Epic 
 language, but in a form of the middle voice, hidk^aadai, in the 
 often-repeated formula 'AAAa tltj [mol Tavra (fylkos dieAe'f clto Ovixos : 
 only this must not be superficially considered as a soliloquy ; but 
 biakiyeaOai is very correctly explained in Damm by disputare, 
 ' to discuss,' literally ( to reckon backwards and forwards ;' 
 whence arose in common language the idea and the expression 
 of a dialogue. 
 
 7. That the physical idea to gather up, take up separately, is 
 the radical meaning of this verb, is proved also by its remark- 
 able coincidence with the Latin legere and the German lesen * ; 
 nay, the proof is the clearer, because the idea when transferred 
 to language is different in the Greek from what it is in the 
 Latin and German. In these two we see how the separate 
 knowledge of marks or characters on a stone, a table, &c. ap- 
 peared to the simple understanding as a picking up and collecting 
 of them; with which corresponds in the Greek avayLyvobo-Ktiv, 
 and still more particularly the Ionic k'niXk^ao-Qai, to read. On 
 the other hand in the Greek the simple verb Xeyeiv proceeded 
 without doubt through the idea of gathering up and arranging 
 stones or the like to that of counting them ; and thence, as in all 
 languages, to that of recounting or relating ; which last idea was 
 by degrees generalized into that of to say. Compare the English 
 verb to tell, and still more the Danish verb tale, which is syn- 
 onymous with it. 
 
 8. The expression aifjLacnas Xiyetv Od. a, 359. is, in the 
 physical sense of the word, a very remarkable one. It means 
 to raise a hedge or fence, because the most simple way of doing 
 this was, by merely collecting together, piling up and arranging 
 stones in the manner of a dry wall. See the scholiast, and 
 Mceris, who explains atjua<na by XtdoXoyta 1 . 
 
 * [The verb lesen in German, like legere in Latin, means both ' to 
 gather' and ' to read.' — Ed.] 
 
 1 The explanation ' to collect or gather together thorns' must not be 
 used. If indeed aifxcurid originally meant a thorn-hedge, this meaning 
 was obsolete even in Homer's time. 
 
76. Aeyeiv, &c. 403 
 
 9. And now, lastly, as to the meaning to lay, to lie, I can 
 very well believe that those who are in the habit of explaining 
 all similarly sounding roots to be identical, may know how to 
 trace this, like the others, from the foregoing meaning ; perhaps 
 indeed from the laying down different things in order, although 
 the word is used only of laying down living objects to rest. 
 There is however a passage which appears to favour such a 
 derivation. When at Od. 8, 451. Proteus reckons up his seals, 
 and amongst them the strangers concealed in their skins, it is 
 said 
 
 .... nacras S' ap enax^ro, AeVro §' dpidpov. 
 'Ey §' rjfieas npaiTovs \eye Krjreaiv, ovde n Qvpco 
 'QiaSr) doXov eivai. €7T€iTa 8e AeVro ko\ avros. 
 
 Here certainly one is very strongly, tempted to explain the verb, 
 which recurs three times in three lines, to be the same, and 
 belonging to the same root. " He counted the number of the 
 seals ; he reckoned us amongst them, and then he lay himself 
 down with them as though he were reckoned one of the num- 
 ber." But this would be a strange mixture of ideas. Above at 
 v. 413. Idothea says nearly the same thing in these words : — 
 
 Avrap enrjv irauas TrepTraaaerai r)8e t'S^rat 
 Ae£erat iv p.t(r(rr](rt, voptvs wy 7rcoecrt prp\<ov. 
 
 Here is no reference to the previous reckoning and mustering 
 the seals, nor any kol avros, which would be a necessary addi- 
 tion if this Ae£ercu were to be translated as we have done Ae/cro 
 above ; but Ae^ercu here means merely ' he will lay himself 
 down to rest,' and Ackto therefore in the other passage has the 
 same meaning. But the kcli avros does not refer to the lore- 
 going Ackto or Aeye, but to what is said two verses above of the 
 seals; at fi€v eiretra 'Efijs zvvu(ovro rrapa pt]y\xivi 0aAaa-<n/y : and 
 no one can suppose that on account of their lying down in 
 regular order, A€kto was afterwards used of their keeper lying 
 down in the midst of them, as that word is constantly used of 
 single objects. 
 
 10. I shall content myself therefore with supposing in the 
 Greek Ae£cu (as in the German verb legen, ' to lay,') a separate 
 root, although written exactly the same as that first Atya>. Bat 
 
 i) d 2 
 
404 77- Aia£ft>, &c. 
 
 I maintain, even in opposition to the old grammarians, that it is 
 not written the same ; but that because e'Ae£a is common to both 
 roots or stems, and the y appears in kzyfievos (Od. •%, 196.), it 
 seems to be so. And we need only compare b£yp,€vos, and appeal 
 to the regular verbal substantives, to Ae'xos, 6 Ao'xos, and f/ Aexw, 
 in order to be convinced, in my opinion, that the root or stem 
 of the verb to lay is in the Greek AEX 2 . 
 
 J J. Aid£oo, aA/acrroy, XeAirjfievo?. 
 
 r. In the majority of passages where the verb kid(op,ai occurs 
 it has the sense of to go aside, turn away from, as the gram- 
 marians also generally explain it. Thus at II. x> 12. Apollo 
 says to Achilles, whom he had by a delusion drawn off from 
 pursuing the enemy, " thou troublest thyself 110 more about the 
 Trojans, who are driven into the city, av be bevpo Amo-^s," 
 that is, according to the explanation of the grammarians, irap- 
 e^€Kkivas bpopno, €^€Tpdi:r]s T779 evdetas obov. Again at Od. e, 462. 
 of Ulysses saving himself from the stream, 6 ft ck 7rora^oto 
 kiCLo-deis- At II. \/^, 231. Ylrjkeibrjs ft airo 7rvpKair]s krepcacre At- 
 atrfleis, going away or aside from the pyre. And so v6<r<f)L 
 Aiao-#ets, II. a, 349. A, 80. Almost one of the plainest instances 
 of the same sense is at II. co, 96. of the waves, which make way 
 for the goddesses as they rise from the depths of the sea, which 
 turn aside and yield them a passage, d/x$i ft dpa acpi Atd£ero 
 
 2 The form \6xos indeed is generally derived from Xeystv, to select ; 
 but it is not probable that so old a verb as Ao^o-cu should be derived 
 thus, unless the lying in wait were the radical idea. And still less 
 reason is there for supposing that to be the radical idea, when Ao'xos 
 expresses the very act of lying in wait, as at Od. d, 395 : compare 441. 
 On the other hand, as the meaning of Ao'xos, as a band or company of 
 men, is also an old one (Od. v, 49.), it is very conceivable that a num- 
 ber of soldiers, who might be placed perhaps as a guard or an ambush, 
 might be called a Ao'xos. The numerous words with the o proceeding 
 from the same form, and having a reference to child-birth, including 
 ciXoxos, confirm this view of the subject. And we may also observe 
 that 6 \6\os and to Xe^os bear the same relation to each other as those 
 verbal substantives mentioned at the beginning of the article "Cp<os. 
 
77- Aid^co, &c. 405 
 
 KVfxa 6akd(TJ-i]s. And so in a more general sense to retire, ivith- 
 draw, as Od. 8, 838. of the vision vanishing away, ora0/xoio 
 irapa Kkrj'iba kiaaOrj 'E? ttvolcls avefxwv. But the sense of turn- 
 ing aside is still plainer when joined with xmaiOa, where it has 
 the force of vneKKkiveLv : as at II. 0, 520. Tw be Meyqs ctto- 
 povuev ib(ov' 6 8' viratda Xidadr] Y\ovXvbd}ia$' kol tov \xev din]^- 
 j3poT€v... : and $, 255. where Achilles flies from the pursuing 
 stream by turning aside out of its way, vnaiQa be. roib XiaaOels 
 <t>evye. 
 
 2. In the smaller number of passages lies the idea of to fall, 
 sink; as II. o, 543. of a combatant wounded behind, 6 & dpa 
 ■np7]vr}<$ kXiaaOri : and v, 418. of another struck in the same way, 
 irpoTL ol b" 1 e\a(3' evrepa x 6 /^ Xiao-deCs : and again of the same 
 person at 420. "Kvrepa yep™ e\ovra, XtaCofxevov irporl yavn. 
 With these agrees II. \//-, 879. of the dying bird, avv be Trrepa 
 nvKva XCaaOev, its wings dropped; in which interpretation the 
 reading of Aristarchus Xlaacrev makes no other difference, than 
 that this would be the only instance of the active voice of this 
 verb, ' the bird dropped its wings.' The' gloss of Hesychius re- 
 lating to this passage, eXtaaeu. eriva^ev (compare also Xid(ei), 
 gives this word therefore a meaning not confirmed elsewhere ; 
 nor indeed is it suitable here, as the poet is evidently describing 
 the last moments of the dying bird {avy^ev aneKpeiiavev), when 
 breath and the powers of life are leaving it, and it is too late 
 for a convulsive motion, such as the clapping of the wings. The 
 word iTVKvd is therefore here and at A., 454. to be understood as 
 the regular and constant epithet of the wing, like x^ a ^ vr ] ^vKirq, 
 \6xm TrvKvrj. At the same time it cannot be denied that the 
 reading of Aristarchus has much in its favour : Avx*v a-neKpeiia- 
 aev, avv be irrepa vvkvol Xuaaaev. 
 
 3. If now we compare these two leading senses, we shall 
 see that they differ in the two collateral ideas, aside and doxon- 
 wards, which are sometimes indeed added, and if not, are sup- 
 plied by the context. The common idea therefore is KXivetv, 
 to bend or fnrn, and this sense will render the majority of both 
 kinds of passages quite intelligible ; as ' bending sidewards/ 
 'thou hast bent or turned aside hither, 1 'the waves bent or 
 turned aside,' and 'lie bent himself down to tin- earth,' ' the 
 bird bent its wings together.' And this is fully confirmed by 
 
406 77- Aia£o>, &c. 
 
 the adjective d\(a<nos, literally unbending, unyielding, not to be 
 turned ; and thus it became the epithet of a violent, uncontrol- 
 lable, incessant tumult, battle, lamentation, &c, as at II. /x, 471. 
 (3, 797. &), 760. ; and as an adverb at 0, 549. "Avcr^co, /atj8' 
 aXiqvTOV obvpeo. 
 
 4. All the other explanations given by the grammarians of 
 these words and forms I pass over in silence ; and it will now 
 be easily seen that they all arose, as usual, either from a partial 
 view of the passages, or from the usual misleading of etymo- 
 logy, as is the case here with \Cav and the like 1 . We see, for 
 instance, that there is no idea whatever of haste in any of the 
 above-mentioned passages; and as little in the well-known 
 passage of Euripides Hec. 100. 'EKafirj airovbf) irpbs (r ektda-Orjv 
 Tas beaiTocrvi'as aKrjvas TTpoXnwvcr ... , where the idea of haste lies 
 only in the word which expresses it, and the verb is explained 
 by the verse following ; according to which therefore it means 
 nothing more than it does in some of the Homeric passages, i. e. 
 merely a departure from the proper place of stay or residence. 
 See Hermann. 
 
 5. On the other hand, the idea of haste does lie decidedly 
 and exclusively in the Homeric participle AeAtry/^ei'os. From its 
 form this participle would certainly seem to belong exactly to 
 our verb, as the forms in dfa and aco so frequently coincide ; 
 and there is another case, /Std^o/xat, e/3i?jcraro, /3e/3iV e > very si- 
 milar to the one before us. Besides, the idea of haste might be 
 drawn from that of bending, as one who runs in haste does in- 
 cline forwards. But setting aside the consideration that in 
 this way we might draw almost any inference whatever, this 
 idea certainly does not suit those passages where the descrip- 
 tion is not of running, but only of eagerness in action, as II. 6, 
 465. f 'EA/ce b" 1 viT€K fteXiav keXi-qiiivos, o(ppa Td\Krra Tev\€a 
 crvXrj(T{L€, where this combatant must certainly have bent or 
 stooped down, but not for the purpose of haste. Since then 
 the participle always expresses haste or eagerness, but never 
 has the sense of Xi&fa, and again this latter never occurs with 
 the other meaning, we are necessarily led to suppose a radical 
 
 1 I have no doubt of Xidfa being etymologically akin to kKLvw, as 
 Kve<pas is to vtyos, ^Ata/jos to Xiapds, &C. 
 
jS. Meyaipu), aixeyapTO?. 407 
 
 difference between them. Let us now take a survey of the four 
 passages of kekirjpiivos, viz. the one just quoted, that at e, 690. 
 'AAAa Trapri'igev kekirjpitVGs, 6(f)pa Ta^iora "QacuT ^Apyeuovs' and 
 jit, ic6. 7r, 552 > Baz; 8 1 Wt;? Aai'a<3u kekii-]piivot, and we see that 
 the idea of haste is only a collateral one, while the principal idea 
 is eagerness, desire. I have no hesitation therefore in agreeing 
 with the grammarians, who saw in this participle not only the 
 same stem or root to which kikaioixai belongs, but this verb it- 
 self in its more simple form AiAao) ; that is to say, they took 
 AeAi77/xej>os for k€ktkr)p.ivos. For we know that before a lan- 
 guage is written such sacrifices are very commonly made to 
 soften the pronunciation, which in a later sera would be barba- 
 risms or unformed language : an instance of which we have in 
 the omission of a A from the same cause in eVn-ayAos for eKirka- 
 yAo?, and in irvekos for irkvekos from irkvvto. 
 
 6. In the time of the older grammarians this explanation must 
 have been the only current one, as Apollonius joins the word 
 with the genitive, e.g. 1, 1164. AeAi^/xeW rjiretpoto, and uses also 
 a tense of the verb itself (for elsewhere only the participle 
 occurs) exactly in the sense of to desire, wish, with an infinitive, 
 e.g. 3, 1 158. ovb y avbijaat aveipo\x4vr\ AeAt^ro. 
 
 78. Meyalpco, d/jLeyapros. 
 
 I. The derivation of the verb /xeycupco, and the mode of 
 tracing its meaning, have been long correctly understood in all 
 essential points : the only mistake has been the introducing of 
 the verb uXpu. Meycupco is formed immediately from fxtyas, in 
 the precise sense of \xiya Troiovp-ai or bttvov ttolovplcll, I look on 
 it as something great, it appears to me great, too great, too much 1 . 
 And thus we have at once joined with it the idea of annoyance, 
 and of meg, which then becomes the prevailing meaning. This 
 
 1 There are sufficient etymological grounds for deriving the p in pt- 
 yaipco from the s in ptyas, and we may cite ye'pus, ytpalpa in confirma- 
 tion of it. But this latter verb comes yet more immediately from yt- 
 papos, as Kcidaipoi does from Kadup<k. Consequently in the former case 
 we are led to peyapov ; which make- it probable that fUyapos, a- well as 
 /AeyaAos, was a form of peyas , of which the neuter only remained ellipti- 
 cal, ' the large room of the house, the great hall.' 
 
408 j8. Meyaipoo, a^iiyaprog, 
 
 is the clearest way of tracing its sense in the two passages of 
 II. \fs, 865. and Od. y, 55. In the former of these it is said, 
 Teucer missed the dove— p,£yqp€ ydp oi roy 'AiroKkav — but he 
 hit the string. Here we can clearly trace the train of thought : 
 Apollo was unwilling to grant it to Teucer, as being something 
 too great for him ; but he granted it afterwards to the prayer of 
 Meriones, Compare Hymn. Merc, 465. We may see the same 
 in the other passage in the prayer to Neptune, /xrjSe pLeyijpys 
 'H/mv evyoixivouri TtkevrrjcraL rdbe zpya, the proper sense of which 
 is, the petitioner prays for something great, and begs the god 
 not to refuse it as too great ; but in other instances the idea is 
 not so full and circumstantial in the mind of the petitioner, and 
 hence it is only a strong expression for disliking to grant a 
 thing, refusing it ; which sense it has in its simplest form at II. 
 77, 408. where the Trojans are not refused leave to bury their 
 dead ; KaraKetiixev ovtl /xeycupo). 
 
 2. This verb is somewhat more obscure, when, instead of the 
 action refused to be done, the thing or object refused is added 
 in the genitive. Thus at II. 8, 54. Juno oiFers to permit Ju- 
 piter to destroy her dearest cities, and adds, Tacou ovtl eyw 
 TTpocrO" tcrrapLaL, ovbe /ueyatpco. For that the genitive rcW is 
 here common to the two verbs, which unite to make up the 
 joint idea of protecting those cities, is clear from another pas- 
 sage, (which is elucidated in its turn by the above,) viz. II. v, 
 563. where Neptune, in order to save Antilochus, weakens the 
 force of the spear hurled at him by Adamas : ap.evr\v(*>o-ev be ol 
 alyjxy)v Kvavo^aiTa Yloa-eibaodv (3lotolo /xeyrjpas. That the life 
 here mentioned can be no other than that of Antilochus, is evi- 
 dent at first sight. But the question is, whether the dative, to 
 which pLeyripas refers, and which is not expressed here, is Adamas 
 himself or his spear. If the former, the expression is strikingly 
 harsh, ' refusing him the life,' that is to say, ' refusing to per- 
 mit him to take away the life of his enemy*.' At least some- 
 thing must in that case be supposed to be granted him, in op- 
 position to the life which was refused him, for example to 
 wound his enemy. Hence the only correct explanation is that 
 at last adopted by Heyne, and made quite clear by the previous 
 
 * [Yet we meet with a not very dissimilar phrase in Scripture ; 
 Thou hast not asked the life of thine enemies," 1 Kings iii. j 1 . — Ed.] 
 
yS. Meyalpoo, a/ueyapTOs. 409 
 
 passage. The god deprives the spear of its force, and refuses 
 (it) the life, i. e. refuses to permit it to take away the life of 
 Antilochus. Thus by referring the refusal to the spear, there 
 is a sufficient contrast to the life refused, viz. that the shield, 
 as mentioned immediately afterwards, is pierced by it. 
 
 3. The idea of refusing or objecting to lies also in Od. 0, 
 206., where Ulysses challenges all the Phasacians to contend 
 with him,*H ttv£, ?}e irakrj, ?) /cat Tioalv, ovtl jueyaipa), where the 
 verb implies a refusal accompanied with a disdainful feeling 
 toward the persons challenged; as it is explained just after- 
 ward at v. 212. ovirzp riv avaivo\j,ai ov& d#ep''£a>. But this 
 last verb refers immediately to the person, while on the other 
 hand, ov {jLeyaCpv, as is always the case, refers to the action 
 not refused to be done : nor is there any intimation whatever 
 in Homer that it can be used quite absolutely in the sense of 
 to wish evil to any one. When therefore at II. o, 473. Ajax 
 says to Teucer, whose bow had fallen on the ground with its 
 string broken, that he had better let bow and arrows lie there, 
 e7ret afv4\€ve Oebs, Aavaolat ixeyiqpas, the latter verb refers, as 
 before, to the shot : " a god grudges or refuses the Grecians thy 
 shot." Lastly, we have the idea of displeasure, annoyance, 
 growing out of that of heivbv -noieiaQai at Od. j3, 235. ; where 
 Mentor says to the Ithacans, juz^orrjpaj . . . ovtl jueyaipco "Epbetv 
 ipya Plata, "for they," says he, "risk their lives by it; but 
 aAAw dr/jiuo v€fjL€(rL£ofj,aL." 
 
 4. Apollonius 4, 1670. has invented a perfectly new use 
 of this verb, joining it with a simple accusative : €xOoootto'l(tlv 
 "OpLfiao-i x^k€lolo TaAco k\x£yr)ps.v 0770)77619. Here pLtyatpeLV means 
 to consider or treat as an enemy, and taking it in a more definite 
 sense, to bewitch, ' fascinare.' As the addition of the genitive 
 in this passage makes it impossible to add the dative of the 
 person even in thought, ^eycupa> has quite changed its original 
 relation ; and thus we have a new proof how blindly or arbi- 
 trarily those poets acted in forming their usage of words from 
 the old Epic. 
 
 5. For the adjective ap.£yopTos we deduce therefore, from 
 the common meaning of jxtyalpu, the: .sense of not an object for 
 cmy, unenoiable. Hence its acknowledged meaning in many of 
 
410 j8. 'M.eyalpWf a/ueyapros- 
 
 the passages of the old poets is, unfortunate, wretched, mourn- 
 ful. But as <p0Gvio) and /xeyatpw are similar in meaning, it has 
 been the custom to consider (in Homer for instance) a^yapros 
 as synonymous with afydovos, i. e. to mean abundant, great. 
 Now in all the passages quoted for this purpose the word stands 
 joined with unfortunate or mournful objects; for instance at 
 11. (3, 420. ttovov 6° cLfxeyapTov ocpekkov. At Hesiod. 0, 666. (of 
 the deities warring with the Titans) ixayyv 5' apiiyapTov eyetpav 
 UavTts, drjXtiai re kcu apazves. At Od. k, 400. Ulysses asks 
 the shade of Agamemnon, " Did Neptune destroy thee, y Opcra9 
 apyakiw avifxcav apLeyaprov avTjj/qv ;" Now it would be sin- 
 gular that this particular word should always occur in this 
 relation in an improper sense, (that is to say, of a number of ob- 
 jects which are not the object of envy,) and should not be found 
 once in its natural relation of a<fi6oi>os to property, riches, &c. 
 Besides, the thought given in the passage of Hesiod by this 
 interpretation would not be a correct one : " All the deities, 
 female as well as male, waged an immeasurable war." Here 
 apuzyapros can be nothing but a fixed epithet, in a sense Exactly 
 similar to ba\ kvypfj in a similar kind of phrase just before 
 (v. 650.). And in no other sense does it occur in the trage- 
 dians, as may be seen by the passages quoted in Schneider's 
 Lexicon*, to which we may add one from the comedian in his 
 Thesm. 1049. For even the passage cited by Schneider from 
 Eurip. Hec. 191. ap,4yapra kclkG>v, as an instance of the meaning 
 of great, endless, speaks loudly in favour of the other meaning ; 
 particularly as it is far less natural for Polyxena, on receiving 
 intelligence of her approaching sacrifice, to say, " O mother, 
 what numerous, endless woes thou tellest me," than " what cruel, 
 wretched woes," &c. The scholiast too explains it not by acpOova, 
 but by a<p06vr]Ta, bia to elvai kiav kclkcl' rots yap tolovtols ovbels 
 <p9ov€T. In short, in every passage, as, for instance, in all the 
 Epic ones, we can substitute kvypos for ap,£yapTo<s with most 
 perfect suitableness to the sense. 
 
 * [Schneider quotes from ^Eschyl. Prom. 402. dpeyapra, * wretched 
 sufferings, such as no one could envy.' From the Suppl. 657. noipva 
 dpeyapros, ' a wretched band, more to be pitied than envied.' — Ed.] 
 
79- MeraWdv. 411 
 
 6. This is also the only correct meaning of a\xiyapros when 
 it is an epithet of men, as when Eumaeus is twice addressed in 
 the Odyssey (/>, 219. $, 362.) reproachfully, afiiyapre ovft&Ta. 
 With this we need only compare II. v, 119., where a coward 
 is called kvypos ; and particularly Od. i, 454., where Polyphemus 
 complains in language similarly reproachful, that an avrjp kclkos 
 avv \vypols erapoicri- has blinded him. In this case therefore 
 afxeyapTos is very properly understood to mean bad, miserable, 
 'worthless ; by which means the person is treated as a thing. 
 If now, in this case also, we start from the idea of unfortunate, 
 that is, poor, beggarly, we shall go astray from the analogy of 
 the expression a\iiyapjos. For since /oieyaipco, as we have seen, 
 never refers absolutely to a person, but always has a reference 
 to something which one grudges to another, or objects to an- 
 other's having ; so there is no reason for understanding a\ikyapros 
 in that case otherwise than as said of an object f which one 
 should grudge or envy to no one ;' a very expressive term as 
 used of a man who is thereby vilified as a lor etched, worthless 
 fellow. JEschylus may indeed appear to have gone a step 
 further than others, in making the suppliants call themselves 
 (Suppl. 657.) iroCfjiva ap.£yapTos: but here is introduced the image 
 of a flock or band, which is a thing ; the unhappy speakers call 
 themselves therefore very aptly ( a band in no enviable situa- 
 tion,' i. e. in a wretched one. 
 
 MeyaKy'iTr)? ; vid. ktjt coeaa a. 
 MeAay ; vid. KeXaivos. 
 
 79. MeraAA<p. 
 
 1. Wc certainly do here and there meet with allusions to the 
 correct etymological view of the words fierakkav and pitTaXkov 
 (sec Diimm toward the end of the article MeraAAaw) ; but yet 
 there is no account drawn out with sufficienl precision and 
 correctness, to prevent our apprehending that some: interpreters 
 
412 79- MeraWav. 
 
 may still explain the Homeric verb as an expression drawn from 
 mining. Mer' akka means after another, i. e. in the sense of 
 [xerd, the German nach [and English after], in such phrases as 
 to go, seek, inquire after. The curiosity of a man inquisitive after 
 other things than those immediately around him, was therefore 
 very naturally represented by joining these two words in the 
 form of a verb, ixzraXkqv, which must have originally had an 
 absolute sense, to inquire after other things^ he inquisitive. It 
 then took an object, and in this construction was introduced 
 into the Epic language. With a person as the object it now 
 meant to interrogate, examine : with a thing as its object (which 
 however might also be a person) it meant to inquire after some- 
 thing, examine into it, inform oneself about it. But its most 
 general meaning in Homer, in this construction as well as the 
 other, is its original sense of a careful and even inquisitive in- 
 vestigation ; as at II. a, 550. Jupiter says to Juno, M??ri <rv 
 ravra eKacrra oietpeo jji-qbe jueraAA.a. It is however conceivable 
 that in this sense it may in time have lost some of its force, 
 not only in an interrogatory address, but in any general one ; 
 and that /xeraAA.ao-e in Pind. 01. 6, 106. is so to be understood, 
 ' he addressed him ;' but on this passage I do not feel confidence 
 enough to speak more decisively 1 . 
 
 2. With regard to the substantive /xeraAAoi>, I consider it to 
 be a kind of abstraction from the sense of the verb, answering 
 
 1 Bockh, following the scholiast, in favour of whose interpretation 
 Damm had before declared himself, thinks that Pindar may have used 
 the word not improperly in a particular meaning, ' to show oneself soli- 
 citous about a person's welfare.' If by this it is meant that Pindar has 
 used the word here with lyric boldness, the opinion does not satisfy me ; 
 for neither in the word itself, nor in the construction of the passage, is 
 there enough to give the hearer or reader notice of such a sense ; on 
 the other hand, it is possible for the word to have arrived at such a sense 
 in the usage of the poets, but of this proofs are wanting. Heyne has 
 recommended the explaining it as a mere address ; and this explanation 
 has certainly thus much in its favour, that supposing the present reading 
 of the text to be the true one, most readers will understand it in this 
 sense, and imagine it to be a peculiar application of the old Epic word. 
 The corrections attempted are not satisfactory. That of Hermann, 
 /ueruXAdo-avri Iv, is liable to the same objection as in the other passages 
 of Pindar, in which he wishes to introduce this pronoun, namely, that 
 according to the analogy of £piv and riv it cannot be enclitic. 
 
8o. N^a-reo?. 413 
 
 exactly to the French word foidlle, and expressing originally a 
 rummaging or searching into, and, secondly, the place where 
 such a search is made. But this cannot be proved, as we never 
 find the word in any author before the invention of writing, 
 when it has at once the definite meaning of searching in the 
 earth, but so that it comprehends not only mines but stone- 
 quarries also. Much later is the usage where it stands for the 
 minerals themselves dug out of these mines, and the latest of all 
 that which confines it to what we call ores and metals. 
 
 80. N?7yareos\ 
 
 1. Heyne rejects, and with great justice, all the explana- 
 tions given by the grammarians of the word vrjyareos, except 
 one ; which explanations may be found in their writings by any 
 one who is fond of seeing miserable examples of want of judg- 
 ment 1 . But I have not been lucky enough to meet with any 
 better one than the following, which is also the most common, 
 namely, that it stands for ve^yaros (from yetvca, yiyaa, like 
 toltos from rctVco), hecome new, newly made, which meaning is 
 also the best suited to the sense of the only two passages in 
 Homer where it occurs, viz. II. (3, 43. £, 185. of the king's tunic 
 and the veil of the goddess, which are said to be kclKov, vqya- 
 Teov KaA<5, vqyarku). The composition of vcriyaros is quite ana- 
 logous to verjyevijs, Od. 8, 336. 
 
 2. Now the form before us may be deduced from vtyjyaros 
 by contracting the two first syllables, and lengthening the ter- 
 mination. But this mode of lengthening (in place of which that 
 in 109 would be more agreeable to analogy, as votcltos, va-ra- 
 Ttos, &c.) is to my mind harsher than (which may perhaps ap- 
 pear astonishing) the opinion adopted by the old grammarians, 
 that vrjyareos came from verr/aTos by changing the place of the €. 
 It is true, that the grammarian, who comes to such a decision as 
 this without philosophical and physiological grounds, but merely 
 
 1 Suidas has collected a number of explanations without the least 
 foundation; and Schneider lias done them too great honour in paying 
 any attention to them. 
 
414 8i. NjSvfjLoe. 
 
 from outward appearances, can only be right by chance. To 
 me the reason seems to be plain : I consider it to be one of 
 those cases where the formation of the verse had an influence 
 on the framing of the word. Nojyaros' was indisputably a word 
 in common use. When the singers wished to introduce into 
 their verse kclKov ve-qyarov, they changed the place of the €, not 
 arbitrarily, but from an obscure feeling of analogy, which was 
 thus satisfied that eos was a common termination, and vrj a be- 
 ginning more familiar to the ear than the other. The number 
 of the syllables and the value of the quantities remained the 
 same, and the verse had a more harmonious cadence. 
 
 3. As far as regards the post-Homeric usage of the word, the 
 passage in Hymn. Apoll. 122., where it is an epithet of the 
 swaddling-clothes of the infant Apollo, agrees exactly with the 
 usage of Homer. In Apollonius 4, 188. it is also the epithet of 
 a garment or covering, but so that the idea of new does not ne- 
 cessarily present itself. But we have in the same poet at i. 775. 
 
 vrj-yarerjo-i Ka\.vfir)(TLv; which indeed the scholiast explains by 
 
 veoKaTaa-KevdaTOLs ; but the whole passage is still obscure. Com- 
 pare the scholium, and Schneider * on Traards and irdcrao), in 
 conjunction with Hesych. v. Ttdcrat. 
 
 8 1 . NrjSvfios. 
 
 I. The word viqhv^os occurs in Homer twelve times, and al- 
 ways as a fixed and regular epithet of sleep. The meaning of 
 it according to the earliest and most common acceptation is 
 sweet, refreshing, as it is considered to be derived from rjbvs, 
 which itself is an epithet of sleep in Od. a, 364. But with this 
 is connected a question as old as most of the criticisms on 
 Homer, whether the true form of the word be vijbvuos, or (which 
 comes nearer to the original derivation) ijbvfjLos. In five pas- 
 
 * [The two references here made to Schneider's Lexicon refer to 
 Apollonius 1, 729. dalda\a noW enenao-ro (where Brunck reads eW- 
 /cao-ro), explained hy nouciWeiv : and to 1, 789. where kuXt) irao-ras is 
 explained to be the same as 7rp6doixos, a kind of vestibule, through which 
 Jason was conducted from the court into the inner apartment. — Ed.] 
 
8i. NjJVos. 415 
 
 sages (namely, at II. /3, 2. k, 91. £, 242. Od. 8, 793. /x, 311.) 
 it is preceded by a word capable of receiving the separable v, 
 e. g. Aia S 1 oi»k e'x e vr\bvixo<s vnvos, where therefore it may also be 
 divided as €\€v rjbvfxos. See the scholia and Eustathius on this 
 passage, and the Etym. M. on both forms. In the other cases, 
 where the v cannot be removed, (at least in this manner,) as at 
 II. k, i87.*X2s t&v vrjbv^ios vttvos, and \jr, 63. where vrjbvfjios begins 
 the verse, the grammarians quote these passages as a proof that 
 this is the true reading in the other five 1 . Hence therefore it 
 is evident that in the Homer handed down to those gram- 
 marians, vrjbvfxos was really the received reading ; nor, as far as 
 I know, is ijbviJLos now found in the manuscripts as a various 
 reading in any one of those passages. In Homer therefore, 
 considered as handed down to us, vr\bv\xo<s must be the established 
 reading, according to all the rules of sound criticism. 
 
 2. But the rarity of this form is certainly striking. How 
 came it that from fjbvs was formed vr/bvpios^ The formation, 
 like that of many others, is certainly possible ; but the Greek 
 language furnishes no analogy 2 . Aristarchus, as an accurate 
 grammarian, felt this ; but in the narrowness of his views he 
 thought it a great help to give vrjbvixos a different meaning, 
 
 1 Schol. II. k, '.8/. f) dinXr), oTi aacpcos to vqdvpos o~iv tu> v, kcl\ iir\ ra>u 
 dfKpc^uXcov ovv ovt(os ypdcperai. ^r, 63. J7 SittAt), on o-a<pa>s dno rov v apte- 
 ral to ovopa. 
 
 2 It is true that the pronoun viv comes undoubtedly from Xv, but yet 
 I would not quote it here as a parallel case. Such small constantly- 
 recurring words are in their nature very variable ; and this change is a 
 most natural one, as there was already a v in the word, Ixuhnken, in 
 his Ep. Crit. I. p. 92., has brought vrjXlrrjs for t)Xltt]s or aAiV^s into the 
 same class with vftvpos ; but this is not borne out by sound criticism ; 
 for the explanation of some of the grammarians vt]Xitt}s, afiapr<o\6s 
 depends entirely on a misunderstanding of Od. -n-, 317.*, and all that 
 Ruhnken has brought forward on this word and on vt]Xit6ttoivos requires 
 to be mad'. 1 much clearer by the light of criticism than he has made it. 
 Nor is vTjTpeKTjs for arptKrjt a case at all similar ; as the only change 
 here is that of the inseparable particles vtj- and a-, which arc of simi- 
 lar meaning; from which, and the verb rpt<o, both forms come quite 
 naturally ; drpcfcqs from rpico, like tvfivKecos from dva>. 
 
 a [NqXn-ijff in Od. tv, 317. seems to haw beep completely misunder- 
 stood by Aristarchus and the other grammarians. It is formed from 
 the negative particle vn- and dXc/npr, consequently the sense is, not in 
 fault, innocent. The sentence is repeated in Od. r, 498. \> 4'**. — Ed»] 
 
416 8i. WjSvfios, 
 
 deriving it from vt)- and bvao, and explaining it by aveKbvros, 
 from which one does not easily free oneself, consequently syn- 
 onymous with vr\yp€Tos, which is found joined with vrjbvixos at 
 Od. v, 79. 80. Whether this meaning could be a fixed epithet, 
 was a consideration which did not trouble him ; though it was 
 easy enough to see what a contradiction it made when said of 
 the guards on watch at II. k, j 87. that " sleep, from which it is 
 difficult to be roused, did not visit their eyes all the night." 
 
 3. If modern criticism possessed the materials which lay at 
 the disposal of an Aristarchus, a satisfactory answer would pro- 
 bably have been given lon*g ago to many disputed questions, 
 and to this perhaps amongst others. But even a small store 
 well used goes a considerable way. We will first then ob- 
 serve that although the form rjbvixos is not found in Homer as a 
 various reading, yet it is, if I may use the expression, an Epic 
 various reading. The scholiasts on Homer (II. /3, 2.) cite it 
 from Antimachus in this fragment, €7r€L pa ol rjbv^os eXOcav, 
 where the other form is not admissible. Again it stands in a 
 situation equally indisputable in two passages of the old Hymn 
 to Mercury, 241. TTpoKaktvpLtvos yjbvfjLov vttvov^ and 449. Evcppo- 
 (rvvqv kclI epG)Ta kg! rjbvfJLOv vttvov kXzcrOai ; and an authority per- 
 haps still older is given us by Tzetzes on Homer (p 4. Herm.), 
 where we see Hesiod reproached for having corrupted many 
 words of Homer, for instance for having said 'IAe^s for 'Oi'Aeu?, 
 and rjbvpLOs for vribvpLos. From which we see that this form did 
 occur in some of the poems attributed by antiquity to Hesiod, 
 and which at all events belong to the Cyclic period*. These 
 authorities, as well as the usage of Alcman, from whom the 
 Etym. M. quotes fjbvfjiicrTaTos, and that of Simonides in the 
 probably anapaestic verse, cited by the scholiast at II. /3, 2. 
 Ovtos be tol rjbvjjiov vttvov txav, are very much against the 
 probability of rjbvpLos having arisen from grammatical specula- 
 tions on the Homeric word. We will suppose that Alcman and 
 Simonides borrowed the word entirely from the Epics ; then 
 from all that has been said above thus much follows, that in the 
 traditional songs of the rhapsodists was heard sometimes rjbvp.os, 
 sometimes vrjbvpLos. Nay more, as rjbvfjLos is drawn from such 
 
 * [Those who do not understand the term Cyclic may see it ex- 
 plained at p. 457. — Ed.] 
 
8i. N^u/uoj. 417 
 
 old sources, vribvfios on the contrary is found in none of the 
 older writers except in the passages of Homer above mentioned, 
 and three others in the Homeric Hymns, viz. Hymn. Ven. 172. 
 Hymn. Pan. 16. Batrach. 47. I do not hesitate to conclude 
 from this, joined with the analogy of the form, that rjbvfj.os alone 
 is the genuine word. 
 
 4. "HbviJLos, for instance, belonged to the words which had 
 the digamma, as did f)bv$, in which the digamma is so undoubted 
 that not a single passage can be quoted to the contrary ; and 
 in its derivative ?j8os there is nothing opposed to the digamma 
 except eo-aerai, which precedes it twice (II. a, 576. Od. cr, 403.), 
 and which therefore without further ado is to be changed with 
 Heyne into earat. There is nothing then to prevent our sup- 
 posing, that wherever mjbviJ.os now stands, originally stood ijbv- 
 fxos ; at Od. \l, 366. for instance e^iaavro rjbvuos vnvos is as good 
 as at II. cj), 508. aveCptro rjbv yeXaaaas : and (peptiv kcl\ ijbvfxov 
 vttvov (II. 77, 454.) is as good as cf)ikov kcu i)bv ykvono (77, 387.). 
 This hiatus, when the digamma had disappeared from the lan- 
 guage, was at first tolerated by the ear of the rhapsodists in 
 these passages, as in so many others ; but where the separable v 
 could be introduced, as in Aia 8' ovk ex e rjbvfios xmvos^ the later 
 reciters did not object to soften the hiatus in this natural 
 manner ; they spoke it cxevrihvfws. 
 
 5. Now came the time, still a very remote one, when this 
 adjective was no longer in common use, but belonged to the 
 thousand forms, known only from the old poetry, and in 
 which the sense of such fixed epithets as this was obscure to 
 all, to many quite unknown. The ear therefore knew not how 
 the words in those Homeric passages should be separated, 
 whether exe injbvfios or €\ev tJ8v/xoj. Hence both crept into 
 popular recitation, as the rhapsodist was no scholar, and still 
 less a critic : consequently the corrective, offered by those pas- 
 sages where the v was quite wanting, never came to his aid 
 in any way ; and two • of these passages even assisted the 
 delusion, namely, II. k, 187. A i>s rwr ijbvfjios vttvos, and £, 354. 
 "'Axai&v ijbviJLos vuvos. From the uncertainty which thus arose 
 in the pronunciation of the word, the incorrect vijbvuos natu- 
 rally crept into those passages also in which no other v was 
 near (as 11. f, 253. tt, 454. xf/, 63. Od. p, 366. r, 79.) ; 
 
 1 e 
 
418 8s. Nam, &c. 
 
 but where it always found room without injuring the metre, be- 
 cause the v merely occupied the place of the old digamma. It 
 is no wonder, that vqbviAos, being agreeable to the ear, prevailed 
 over its sister -form in Homer; and it would have done so 
 everywhere else had not some of the earlier post-Homeric poets, 
 in whose language the digamma no longer existed, used rjbvfxos 
 in those passages where rjbvfjLos with the digamma (and con- 
 sequently vrjbviJLos) could not have been admitted, as in those 
 verses of the Hymn and of Antimachus. But that a poet and 
 grammarian like Apollonius should use rjbvfxos and not vrjbvpios 
 (ov KV€(f>as rjbviJLos vitvos, 4, 407.), is a proof that in the older 
 editions of Homer rjbviJLos not only existed as a various reading, 
 but that before the time of Aristarchus it was preferred by the 
 more learned to the other form. Still however the judgment 
 of these scholars, who so frequently suffer themselves to be led 
 astray by etymological speculations, would prove nothing if 
 we had not (as was before said) the usage of poets, whom we 
 cannot conceive capable of such a weakness, to decide us in 
 favour of rjbvjjLos and make vqbvixos appear to be an ancient error 
 become common. 
 
 82. Ngh, i>a>, o-(/)g>'l, or<pco, vcotrepos, cnpcotrepos, o-(J)co€ 7 
 (T(j)€, a(j)[i/, crtyas. 
 
 1 . As most of these forms belong only to the Epic language, 
 this would seem to be the proper place to collect together the 
 most certain accounts which we have of them. 
 
 2. Herodian taught, as we see in the schol. to II. a, 574. *, 
 that a<fi<a is the stem or root, of which o-cp&X is merely a length- 
 ened form; that o-tyca is the common dual termination in co, 
 and consequently has the acute accent, as this termination does 
 not admit the circumflex. Hence a suspicion might arise 
 that the writing v<o, a-<p(o (instead of v&, o-$(2, from v&'C, (rcfyco'C) 
 originated entirely in this theory. But that way of writing it 
 
 1 2<£a>* 7rpa>T66(TOV avrrju (firjaiv 'HpwSiai/oy, ov< cnro rrjs (T(f)a>'i' 816 
 o^vverai' to yap <o tcop dv'Ucou dntaTpanTCU rrjv nepi(r7TQ>p.€vr)v. 
 
82. Nwi; &c. 419 
 
 is too firmly fixed iu usage -, for us not to recognize in that ob- 
 servation the grammarian who explains according to his own 
 ideas an appearance which presented itself to him. Now 
 of this kind is the explanation which would suppose, with- 
 out any philosophical or really experimental grounds, that a 
 letter, appearing more frequently in the less common form, 
 is merely an addition made to the word. But any one who 
 suffers no theorist to mislead him, will recognize in v&'i the old 
 form, which was contracted into v&, but which lost the heavy 
 tone in the course of daily pronunciation: while in writing, 
 the i, which was only etymological, very properly fell away, 
 leaving vat 3 . 
 
 3. Whoever considers languages philosophically will soon 
 clearly perceive, that a dual, regularly and uniformly distinct 
 from the plural, is not among the earliest necessities of a lan- 
 guage, nor does it appear from the records of literature to be 
 anything original. On the contrary, it is plain that dual forms 
 in general are mere chance modifications of the plural form, 
 which usage, always aiming at copiousness, adopted gradually 
 and unobserved, to mark such a difference ; while a regularity 
 formed as gradually fixed this difference again on usage. No 
 
 2 Compare Etym. M. v. v£>, an article as empty as it is long, but 
 where these forms are directed to be written without the 1 subscript, 
 with this observation, dAA' f) napddoats ovk olde to t iyK.eip.evov. It will 
 be readily allowed that whatever we here bring forward respecting va>, 
 <T(fxb, holds good likewise of the particle npa, which is contracted in the 
 same way from npot, and its termination cut off: see Timaei Lex. in v. 
 and the note on Plato's Crito 1. 
 
 3 For the satisfaction of those who desire more particular etymolo- 
 gical grounds for the above, I subjoin the following. The terminations 
 f and t are merely abbreviations of the more full plural form es, eis, 
 Latin es, is ; in the same way as in the genitive terminations uo, coo, 
 oco, the o is an abbreviation of that which was originally the general 
 termination of genitives, oy. The termination e became limited, excepl 
 in the plurals appe, vppe, a-tpe, entirely to the dual (<"vHpe, nciifie). The 
 form t appears pure in only the old Epic duals vu>'i, o-c/joh ; impure in the 
 plural terminations <u and cm, corresponding with the Latin <R and 7. 
 And lastly, it is quite obliterated (as is e too) in the dual terminations 
 a and 00, which, as we learn from the analogy of v&l, vdo, are again in 
 every instance abbreviations from ai, wt, or at, cue. But the.^e are frag- 
 ments of a more comprehensive theory, which \ am perhaps injuring 
 by giving them thus isolated. 
 
 ]•: c 2 
 
420 82. N«i; &c. 
 
 literary remains which have come down to us are old enough 
 not to have been composed long after the dual had so originated, 
 consequently none are too old to have it ; nor has any language 
 lived so long as not to be able to do without a dual, although it 
 may have possessed one and lost it again. For all languages, 
 from the earliest time, have been and still are fluctuating be- 
 tween individual copiousness and poverty. Homer has a fixed 
 and completely formed dual, but this does not prevent our still 
 finding in his works traces of an older time when these forms 
 were not so fixed. Such are the well-known plural dual-forms, 
 which no art can remove from Homer, and of which it is only 
 astonishing that they appear so seldom. 
 
 4. But v&'i and o-cp&'l occur throughout Homer, and as far as 
 I know without a single exception, as evident duals. For 
 although Damm, p. 864., maintains that the former is used for 
 the plural plerumque, yet I have not found one among the 
 passages noted by him where there are not plainly two persons 
 to whom it is to be referred. Would any one, for instance, at 
 II. v, 326. explain v&'iv merely by rjiMv, i. e. cjjloi, instead of 
 making it refer to Idomeneus and Meriones ? Or shall it be said 
 at II. o, 217. that vmv points to all the gods, instead of Jupiter 
 and Neptune only ? On the other hand, later writers (Quintus 
 for instance) use v&'Cv without hesitation as a plural for fjiuv 4 . 
 
 4 See for example Quint. 1, 213. 369. 725, &c. Struve has touched 
 on this point in a lecture entitled "Observations on passages in the Greek 
 writers," No. 7., where he says that this is, as far as he knows, the only 
 exception to a remark made by me in my Grammar, that the use of the 
 dual as a plural is confined to verbs and participles. The case is how- 
 ever somewhat different ; for there the inflexion only is spoken of, whilst 
 vaiv has nothing dual in its termination (compare retv, rjfiiv, &c.) ; but 
 an old usage appropriated to the dual the root itself of this pronoun, va>, 
 which in Latin, the cognate language of Greek, is plural. On the con- 
 trary, a real exception is 6r)pr)Tr)pe, in Oppian, 1,72. But exceptions 
 ought to be drawn only from those writers who help to form rules. That 
 Quintus may have borrowed his vmv from an older Epic poet, is pos- 
 sible, but it is only just possible : that Oppian's B^prjrrjpe is a mistaken 
 imitation, is in my opinion certain. Among the rules for regulating the 
 usages of Greek, or for composing a Greek Thesaurus, this should be 
 one, — not to place these writers, as we see frequently done nowadays, 
 in the same rank with those whose scholars they were, as we now are. 
 
 T will here add some observations on va>'i. There were introduced into 
 
82. Nwi, &c. 421 
 
 5. According to this there can be no doubt of vvtrepos and 
 <T(pmT€pos relating only to two persons. That this is the case 
 with vb)iT€pos in one of the only two passages where it occurs 
 (II. o, 39.), and where it is used of Jupiter and Juno as a wedded 
 pair, cannot be doubted. With regard to the other passage 
 (Od. (j., 185.), it is true that the supposition of the Sirens being 
 only two in number arises in Homer entirely from the use of 
 the dual form ; but who can suppose that Seiprjvouv, which 
 occurs twice (Od. /u, 52. 167.), and this vw>lripr]v (forms never 
 found as plurals) should be used here together, by an enallage 
 already mentioned as of great rarity, merely to deceive us? 
 
 6. The same holds good of acpmrepov also, which occurs 
 only once in the well-known speech of Achilles to Minerva, 
 II. a, 216. X/rr) p.€V cfpooirepov ye, 0ea, tiros elpvaoraaOai. The 
 idea of (rcfxairepov standing here by a surprising enallage for 
 reov, ought never to have been entertained for a moment 5 . It 
 was more excusable to be swayed by the sense, and to take 
 it for vpihepov, " You deities must be obeyed." But all that 
 has been said above concurs to put beyond a doubt the expla- 
 nation, which is now indeed the current one, of " you two, 
 
 the language of the earliest Greek people (to attempt the unravelling 
 of which would here lead us too far) two quite different plural forms 
 for the first and second personal pronoun, voo'i and ^/ieT?, crcfrwi and 
 v/j-eU ; which, as they were so completely different in sound, usage 
 separated into dual and plural. This process was already complete 
 before Homer's time, in the language of that tribe or race to which 
 he belonged. That part of the Italian people which was akin to the 
 Greeks, but used the Latin language, (among whom the necessity of a 
 dual does not seem to have developed itself,) established in their usage 
 one form only, as plural, which in the first person is the same as the 
 Greeks used for their dual, vu>'i, nos ; a plain proof that the dual in 
 this form is entirely accidental; and equally accidental, with regard 
 to the dual, is the sound of the o, which appears to be characteristic 
 in i/o), <rcf)u>, tovtg), &c. It is remarkable too that the present Italian 
 not is the old Greek word unchanged. This will appear somewhat 
 astonishing to any one who thinks that the road for tracing an Italian 
 word up to antiquity must lead through the Latin. But do not the old 
 Greek forms ld> (Bceot.), tv, tol, tv, i, still exist in the modern lan- 
 guages, Ital. io, Fr. tu, toi, Germ, ihn, Low Germ, he? Amidst the most 
 monstrous changes of language individual forms arc often preserved in 
 an astonishing state of purity. 
 * See Etym. M. in v. 
 
4>22 82. Nwl\ &c. 
 
 thine and Juno's." The reciter intentionally chose this form, 
 which the ear so seldom met with, in order to make it at once 
 perceptible that Achilles intended only the two goddesses, who 
 were in this case the sole agents (see v. 208.) ; although after- 
 wards (218.), by a very natural transition to a more general 
 mode of expression, he speaks of all the deities collectively. It 
 was not until the later Epics that the faulty usage of changing 
 one word for another was applied to this o-^coirepo?, as well as to 
 other pronouns, particularly by Apollonius, who uses it exactly 
 like a(pir€pos in the multifarious senses which that word has in 
 his writings 6 . 
 
 7. The genitive and dative v&'Cv, o-fpmv, have a fixed v, with- 
 out which they would be the same as the nominative and ac- 
 cusative. Nor have v&'C, tn/xS't ever been properly used as a 
 dative, though the ignorance of later times may have occa- 
 sionally mistaken them, as in Lucian's Solcecista c. 6. a person 
 is laughed at for saying v&'i tovto 80/cei: and this may have 
 been increased by passages misunderstood, as II. 5, 286. 2(/>&u 
 fjiev, ov yap '£oik oTpvvi^v, ovri Ktkzvca. But Heyne does 
 
 6 In Antimachus acfycotrepos was kept within the reasonable limits of 
 relating only to the dual of the second person ; consequently he formed 
 it from a^xoe, as we learn from Apollon. de Pronom. p. 141. But Apol- 
 lonius Rhodius certainly did not set out with this derivation, otherwise 
 the dual meaning would be at least the leading one in his usage, whereas 
 the word does not once occur as a dual third person in his whole poem ; 
 but we only find o-fe'repos and o-cfxairepos (forms corresponding in their 
 root) clumsily used for each other, — an exchange probably adopted be- 
 fore him by the later rhapsodists, to whom that old Epic language was 
 no longer a mother-tongue. Now crcpe'repo? has, 1. the relation of the 
 third person (not reflective) in all numbers ; and thus a<fi<*>LTepos stands 
 for his in Apollon. 1, 643. " The Argonauts gave iEthalides the staff of 
 Mercury, o-cpw'irepoio TOKtjos:" 2. that of the reflective third person in all 
 numbers; thus again o-^wiVepos is used for ' his own' (suus) 3, 600. "The 
 Sun had warned him to avoid dokov yeve'OXrjs o-<p<o'iT€pr)s, of his own poste- 
 rity:" and 3. that of the pure reflective without a person, consequently 
 relating equally to either; and so we find crcpcoiVepoj for thine, 3, 395. "If 
 thou desirest to subdue any people a^airepoia-Lv vno cncrj-rrrpoun," which 
 we must not suppose to be a false imitation of the Homeric passage 
 mentioned above ; for o-cfxoiTepov, taken in the sense of thine, would be 
 in that passage without any reflection ; but it stands here in Apollon. 
 for o-iperepos, which holds good as a general reflective for all numbers 
 and persons, e. g. for thine in Theocr. 22, 67. afareprjs pr) faideo rexvrjs. 
 
82. N£i', &c. 423 
 
 Eustathius an injustice when he makes him say that Homer in 
 this passage used o-^xSi' for acp&Xv to suit the metre ; on the con- 
 trary Eustathius agrees with all good commentators, saying that 
 Homer in the passage in question used on account of the metre 
 a new construction 1, namely Ktkevetv tlvcl without an infinitive, 
 whereas in this case the dative is more common 8 . 
 
 8. But even the form with the v is in danger, in one or two 
 passages, of being taken for the nominative or accusative, which 
 it has been attempted, contrary to all analogy, to adapt to the 
 verse by means of this v. One of these passages is Od. \jf, 52. 
 'AAA** eirev, o<ppa a(pS>'Cv Zvcppoavvqs lTTifir\TOV 'AjLt^orepco <pikov 
 rjrop. But here ajicporepd) is the nominative, and acpmv the 
 dativus commodi to rjrop instead of the genitive, " that you both 
 may give up to joy the heart to you" i. e. your heart: and no 
 one would have doubted about this solution if there had not 
 been a far more disputable passage at II. 77, 99. There Achilles 
 says to Patroclus, 
 
 Mr)T€ tis ovv Tpdoatv 6a.va.TOV (f)vyoi, oo-aoL eaaiv, 
 Mr)re tis y ApyeL(ov, vco'iv 5' eicdvpev oXeOpov. 
 
 Such is the text in the general editions before Wolf, who fol- 
 lows the old grammarians in the Venetian scholia. That is to 
 
 7 '0</>eiXoi/ ypacftrjvai <r(j)coiv avrX tov v\uv, iva #, crcfiwiv ovtl KeXevco. . . . , 
 ofias 81a fierpov evxprjariav (iXXeos Kaivoos aircbodr) Ka6" erepoiav avvra^iv. 
 
 8 Damm, under KeAeveo, will furnish examples of both kinds. But in 
 the passage above mentioned he wishes to join o-^wi' kcXcvco oTpwtfiev 
 scil. Xaovs : which the following verse (Avto> yap fidXa Xaov dv&yerov 
 I(f)L fxdxeo-dat) might seem very much to favour, and by which o-ffiwi 
 would be in its usual construction. But orpwefiev atanding without a 
 case is too harsh a construction for the other not to force itself upon 
 us at once as the more natural. 
 
 Another passage, where v£>'i appears as a dative, is in Eurip. Iph. 
 Aul. 1207. Kt 8' €v XeXeKTai von, /xr) 81) ye KTavt/s Ttjv o~r\v re KUfxrjV nalda. 
 But tin* need not mislead us; for as the context requires the first pers. 
 sing., we must suppose; that Euripides has united in a plain iambic 
 two things unheard of before, ucin for vunv, and this dual form for i)yuv y 
 
 i. e. e/ioi. The passage therefore still wants the assistance of the critic. 
 Musgrave's proposal of reading yvuQi seems to me an amendment not 
 to be rejected; but then the rest must run thus, El (V tu XiXeKTui, yvu>$i, 
 jjufie ye Krdvjjs, &C. 
 
424 82. N»i", &c. 
 
 say, these, in order to have the dative in this passage, consider 
 the verb as an infinitive, and therefore accent it thus, e/<5i;juez>. 
 Consequently they acknowledge the v in this infinitive to be 
 short, and suppose that the metre alone makes the syllable 
 long. 
 
 9. I must here detain my readers for a moment. This ac- 
 centuation of the grammarians, if the word be really the infini- 
 tive, is false. The infinitives in -jue*>ai and -[A€v, which do not 
 allow of being separated from each other, most certainly shorten 
 the long vowel preceding the common termination vai, as in 
 bovvai — b6[jL€vaL, boixev 0€ivai — Oi^vai, difjiev : to which bvvai 
 — bvfjLepat, SvfjLev, appears to be an exactly parallel case. But 
 the v of the aorist ibvv is not to be compared with the change- 
 able vowel in ebvv, bovvcu, bore, hovvai, but with the regularly 
 long vowel in eyviav, yv&vai, eyvcare, yvu>[X€vai' efirjv, firjvai, 
 efirnjLev, j3rj^evaL 9 , in which the short vowel in fi&Trjv is an ex- 
 ception. Hence the long v in zbvre (Od. o>, 106.), in ebvTr\v 
 (II. f, 19.), and in bvdi, bvre: and hence, as without an excep- 
 tion we always write bo^vai, so on the other hand bv^evat is 
 always found without an exception with the long v, as in II. y, 
 241. {, 185. 411. £, 64. r, 313. But if the v in bv^vat be 
 long by nature, it will remain long also in the shortened form ; 
 and bvfjitv would therefore even as an infinitive have its circum- 
 flex. Here then we have a clear instance how little those 
 grammarians were secured by their antiquity and nationality 
 against introducing into their authors forms and accents not 
 Greek; and the common traditional text v&'iv b' inbv^v is 
 therefore, as far as concerns the individual forms, perfectly 
 correct. But those grammarians had in their mind the analogy 
 of {tvyvvfjievaL, (cvyvv^ev, in which the case is totally different. 
 In those presents in -v[al the v is, excepting in the singular in- 
 dicative, naturally short, as in (evyvvfjiev, (evyvvTe, (evyvvvai, 
 &c. ; at II. 77, 145. it is therefore (as a metrical exception only) 
 long in the infinitive (zvyi'VfjLev, as the passage itself where it 
 stands announces ; so that there is no necessity for either the 
 reading recommended by Hermann (de Ellipsi et Pleon. p. 232.), 
 
 9 See my Grammar, sect. 95. obs. 7. and sect. 99, 12, 2. c. 
 
82. N™, &c. 425 
 
 (evyvvunev, nor for the accentuation adopted by Wolf, fcvyvv- 
 
 fJLtV 10 . 
 
 10. But however correct the forms v&lv and tKhvixev may- 
 be, the infinitive would make a very incorrect construction. 
 Suppose yevoiTo to be understood with vSSv: — But this kind of 
 elliptical wishing is scarcely ever met with elsewhere in the 
 simplicity of the Epic language ; for as soon as an infinitive 
 expressing a wish is used, the subject becomes the accusative. 
 And, to settle this point by one question, Why did not Homer 
 say tKbvvai oktQpov, as he has elsewhere said bvvca ofjuXov! 
 Nothing therefore remains but that eKbvfiev should be the opta- 
 tive 11 , which besides is supported by the construction of the 
 sentence, and we shall then have a case where v&'iv must be 
 the nominative. But Heyne very justly inclines to the reading 
 of v&% o' €K.hv[x€v SktOpov, which is not only found in some Codd., 
 but adopted by Eustathius, in whose commentary we see v&X 
 plainly written. An ignorance of the more ancient forms had 
 very early introduced the v to suit the apparent necessity of 
 
 - 10 My suspicion of Wolfs reading, which I mentioned in the first 
 edition of this work, I so far retract, in as much as the old grammarians 
 might certainly have established fcvyvvpcv quite as well as TiOrjpevai. 
 Still Hermann's &vyvvpnev appears to me more analogical, as I have 
 explained in my large Grammar (Ausfiihrl. iSprachl.). There is how- 
 ever one objection to both, that deviations from the customary reading 
 must not be lightly made in such instances as these, where the con- 
 sequences, if followed up, would lead in a number of other cases to 
 arbitrary decisions or the introduction of unusual forms. The scholar 
 knows already how he must look upon Su'Xe Kao-LyvrjTe, and alokos o0ty, 
 and 0X0770-1 <f)pea\ Ova : we will leave him also (evyvvpev avcoyev. 
 
 11 To write this word, as Hermann proposes, eic8v7fi.ev, is one of those 
 extreme cases to which we are led (as was remarked in the preceding 
 note) by an ignorance of consequences. And here I cannot avoid prais- 
 ing the caution of an old grammarian, Apollonius of Alexandria, who, 
 according to Chceroboscus ad Theodosii Canones, fol. 316. r. (Bekk. 
 
 1292 ), wrote the optative of ofivvfxi — u^vvrju, (and not, as according to 
 analogy he might have written it, ufxvviqv.) because the optative passive 
 must be written 6pvvpr)v* . Compare Eustath. ad 11. /. c. p. 1060,31. 
 32. Basil. 
 
 * [If we follow in this verb the strict analogy of verbs in »/u, the 
 active optative would be dppvUjv, and the passive 6fun/lfU]9 : but as this 
 diphthong is never found before a consonant, the passive became o/zvu- 
 \lt)v, and then to preserve conformity the active was written ofxpvrjv. 
 See the act. opt. <pvr)> Thcocr. 15 94. and Buttmann'i Irregular Verbs, 
 p. 73 26:. — Ed.] 
 
426 8a. N&; &c. 
 
 the metre, and thus furnished a subject for the ingenuity of the 
 more learned grammarians. 
 
 II. The dual of the third person, crfyi, a^ativ, is distin- 
 guished from that of the second (beside the accent, of which 
 hereafter) only by the e of the first form, which moreover occurs 
 only as an accusative, never as a nominative ; and this for no 
 other than that general reason, according to which the singular 
 also has no nominative, and the plural (in Homer at least) none ; 
 but the investigation of this belongs to grammar 12 . Besides, 
 in the ancient writers the difference between the second and 
 third person by means of the terminations € and i was not 
 much to be depended on; and as some poets of considerable 
 antiquity used in the first person v&€ instead of v&'i (Apollonius 
 de Pronom. p. 373. quotes it from Antimachus and Corinna), 
 so (rcfr&e for the second person is also agreeable to analogy ; and 
 indeed a part of the grammarians did actually write it so at 
 II. 77, 280. instead of o-^wt 13 . Whether the exact observance of 
 this difference in the text as handed down to us really existed 
 in the old language, or whether we are to attribute it to those 
 who revised the works of the old poet, lies far beyond all our 
 means of deciding 14 . 
 
 12 What may be found in Fischer ad Well. vol. 2. p. 202. of a nomi- 
 native acps>e, accusative acpooe, arises entirely from a misunderstanding 
 of the passages quoted there from the grammarians. 
 
 13 Apollonius (de Pronom. p. 374.) says this of the Homeric critic 
 Ixion, and it is found also in a Vienna manuscript. See Heyne. 
 
 1 4 This unusual appearance of an almost complete identity between 
 forms of the second and third person is not grounded on any old change, 
 (such as those mentioned before in note 6., and which, as was there ob- 
 served, are unknown to Homer,) but entirely on this, that both persons 
 came originally from the demonstrative power of the pronoun. But 
 the demonstrative form was 0- as well as r, as we see by the derivatives 
 ar]fx(pov, o-rjres, the Latin sic, the German and English so. This 5 was 
 again polished off in the most common forms, as in 6, is, ibi, and many 
 others. We see therefore a possibility of the forms av, tv, se, a<pe, e, 
 iv, &c. being in their initial letters and aspirates (i. e. in their root) 
 akin to each other and to the demonstrative. But the terminations also, 
 which expressed the various sorts of relations, became quite as much 
 changed in the daily language and in the dialects ; and thus arose that 
 multiplicity of pronominal forms, which usage again was continually 
 distributing into different meanings, without keeping constantly in view 
 the original characteristics of each element. Thus we see the c (which 
 is commonly a termination of the dual) in rtppe, vppe, as plural, and 
 in efic, o-e, e, as accusative of the singular, to which there is nothing 
 
82. NSr, &c 427 
 
 12. A similar contraction of this o-^we into a^d* was adopted 
 by some of the grammarians, and not indeed without an author- 
 ity, viz. that of Antimachus : rw /cat acfxo yeCvaro iir\rr]p (Apollon. 
 de Pronom. p. 363.). But in Homer there is no authority for 
 adopting it, as the case of II. p, 53 1. may be considered an elision, 
 and in fact it is written Et /xrj crcpo) Alavre 15 . 
 
 13. There are better grounds for saying that the dual o-^we, 
 a<pa)iv is shortened to crepe, acpiv (this however merely when they 
 are datives) ; only that these forms are the same as the plural, 
 and cannot therefore be brought forward as duals in particular, 
 because the plural always contains the dual in itself. 2<£e 
 stands for crcpas, as well as cijujue, v^xe do for rums, vfjias ; and 
 <r<pi, acpiv is as natural an abbreviation from crcpicn, acpCcnv. In 
 
 analogous in the whole language ; and the initial s, which in the Latin 
 appears to be characteristic of the third person, is in Greek peculiar to 
 the second. I have been obliged to premise all this in order to place 
 the following account in its correct light. 
 
 It is well known that the pronoun e (ov, ol) has in the old language 
 the digamma, consequently it was ve ; in Latin it has an s, making it 
 se. According to an analogy which I have proposed elsewhere (Greek 
 Grammar, sect. 16. note 2.) I unite these elements into sve as the older 
 form, of which crepe is a bolder pronunciation. From this stem or root, 
 crcp, have arisen the dual and plural of the third person, with all their 
 various lengthened and shortened terminations which are in use ; and 
 among the shortened ones sprung up again this same crepe (see below), 
 which had already the force of a singular ; all useful in verse, and 
 everywhere intelligible by the context. But in the nominative of the 
 second person, <xv, we have plainly the same elements as in that sve for 
 the sound a<p. The caprice of usage has also actually established it in 
 the dual cr<pui, utpuztv ; and to prevent its being confounded with the 
 dual of the third person, (where neither the context nor the slightness 
 and uncertainty of the difference would help to point it out,) care was 
 taken to mark it by the accent ; as o-^xae, crepmv. — In favour of the sve 
 which I have adopted, we have besides the evidence of the u in rat and 
 8UU8, which, spoken as svi and svus, lead us to the Greek possessive 
 crcpus. Usage lias distinguished the possessive of the second person 
 <t6s from this last, because there was an absolute necessity for such a 
 distinction ; otherwise this tro'9 might have been acpos quite as well as 
 that dual a(p<o'i : and in the forms tui and /////>*, the t of which answers 
 to the Greek 0- in crv, the same u is again visible as in st/i, suns; and 
 the u therefore in the one is quite as much connected with the cp in acpwi 
 as the 11 in the other is. — And, Lastly, the old iEolic dative rvi in Tvt'Sf 
 for Tjjde shows that the elements of ail thifl lie in the pure demonstrative 
 power of the pronoun, and thus confirms that with which 1 Bet out. 
 
 15 On the other hand, acfx'o in the second person is written thus, ;<-. 
 at II. X, 782. I'pic t)e /xdX' T]6e\(Tou. 
 
428 82. Nwl\ &c. 
 
 the older Epics, however, o-^e certainly appears to have been 
 more appropriated to the dual. See II. A, in. 115. (in the 
 latter passage the dual arises from comparing it with the 
 former), Od. 6, 271. <£, 192. 206., Scut. Here. 62., against which 
 I can find but one passage, II. r, 265. 16 In the later Epics 
 the plural prevails : but in the other poets (the tragedians 
 for instance) it stands, as is well known, for all numbers 17 ; a 
 circumstance which supposes the progress of a real usage in 
 language, as the scientific views of those genuine poets could 
 not have been directed to such poor tricks as the change of one 
 form for another ; besides it is self-evident that o-(p4 is quite as 
 likely to be another form of e, se, as it is (according to the above 
 analogy) of o-<pas 18 . 
 
 14. The dative <r<piv is, as a plural, common to the Epic, 
 Tragic, and Ionic prose writers. By a very rare usage it was 
 known also as a singular ; yet never perhaps in the form acpi, 
 as <r<piv fell into the analogy of l\iiv, tlv, Iv ; only that these 
 always retain their accent; acptv on the contrary is enclitic as 
 a singular as well as a plural. Of this usage I am aware of 
 only four certain instances 19 , of which two are Epic passages 
 in the Homeric Hymns (Hymn. $8. or 19. ad Panem, v. 19. 
 and Hymn. 30. ad Matr. Deum, v. 9.), according to the most 
 natural construction (compare v. 8 — 11.), and two are Tragic, 
 viz. JEschyl. Pers. 756. Soph. (Ed. Col. 1490. 20 
 
 16 "Otis <t<\> dX/r/;rat dpoao-as, namely rovs Oeovs. The great prepon- 
 derance of crepe as a dual might perhaps induce us to fill up the elision 
 in this passage with crcpL, and cite in confirmation of it Od. d, 807. ov 
 p,ev yap n Beols dXiTrjfxevos iemv. But this construction of the participle 
 as a noun can prove nothing against the decisive use of the verb at 
 Od. 8, 378. 'AOavdrovs akireadai, and e, 108. 'AdrjvaLrjv dXirovro. 
 
 17 See Brunck. ad iEschyl. Prom. 9. 
 
 18 See note 3. In the remains which are come down to us of the 
 common language of Greece, that is the prose, crepe never occurs ; for 
 the passage of Herodotus 3, 53. fj avros crepe dneXOcbv ex*w, where it 
 relates to two preceding things, viz. rvpawiba and oIkov, and conse- 
 quently stands for a neuter plural, is so plainly in accordance with the 
 constant usage of Herodotus to read acpea, that it is inconceivahle how 
 Valckenaer could speak of this amendment as one so uncertain. 
 
 19 Except those in Orpheus, whose singularities must always be 
 excepted : see Herm. ad Orph. p. 792. 
 
 20 The passage of Od. o, 523. is better referred to all the suitors, as 
 Voss and others have it: that of Hes. Scut. 113. must relate to Mars 
 and Cycnus. 
 
82. Nm, &c. 429 
 
 15. Against the usage of always writing cr^eW, a<p£as, in 
 Homer in this their resolved form, even when they are to be 
 pronounced as one syllable, nothing can be said ; at the same 
 time it appears but right, that if the monosyllable arising out of 
 a<pias must be spoken short, and consequently both vowels do 
 not flow into each other, but the former is directly dropped, it 
 should be written with only one vowel. The same takes place 
 even between two words ; in which case the contraction of the 
 two syllables is left to the pronunciation, but the elision is 
 always expressed by the apostrophe. Barnes and Heyne were 
 correct therefore in writing, after the example of some Codd., 
 in II. €, 567. fxeya be a(f)as airoa^keie ttovolo, where the usual 
 reading acpeas stands in striking opposition to the rjiias, which 
 all write thus in Od. it, 372. T^Ae/xaxor ^778' rj{xas inreKcpvyoL' ov 
 yap did). And this very acpas, thus abbreviated, I find in the 
 large fragment of Parmenides in Sextus (adv. Math. 7, 111.) 
 v. 12. Kcu a(f)as vnepOvpov ap.(f)ls e^et. 
 
 16. Lastly, as far as regards the accentuation, this only can 
 be said with certainty, that the oblique cases of the dual of both 
 the first and second person v&'L, acpwC, are never handed down 
 to us as enclitic ; on the contrary, the oblique cases of the third 
 person beginning with <r(f> are commonly, as far as concerns 
 Homer, treated enclitically; thus, brj o-^coe, 677 o-cjxa'iv, brj crcpeas, 
 brj a(f)€(i)v, brj ct^kjlv- 1 . We must not therefore make an enclitic 
 of the acutely accented crcfio), but it is correctly written Zevs o-<£o> 
 els "Ib-qv k4\€t kkQep.ev ottl Taxio-ra, as also the Schol. Ven. ex- 
 pressly directs - 2 . For if we wish to make an enclitic of acjxa, 
 
 21 Why the circumflexed forms acpuv, <r<f)as always retain their accents 
 in common language, while a^eW, a<ptas, which are spoken the same, 
 are enclitics, it is difficult to say. I suppose that it was wished not to 
 deprive the8e contracted forms of their external mark of contraction, 
 the circumflex ; not, however, that they were on that account pro- 
 nounced less enclitically. 
 
 22 Kai to Zevs kuI to a(f)a) iyKhniov tovtIvtl (3afWT0vrjT€0u, «T«1 bfVTtpov 
 Trpoau>nov co-ri ku\ /zeraXa/x/3uj>frni tls to vfius. The word tyK.\iveii> we see 
 is used here of the grave accent in the connexion of the words with 
 each other (see article 104. sect. 7. and Schol. Od. (, 149) ; for in no 
 other sense can the word Zfvs he subjected to anything of the kind : 
 but if Zeus- be accented thus, o-<p<l> cannot be treated as an enclitic in the 
 usual meaning of this term, for then the other word would have the 
 
430 83. 'OXoolrpo-^og. 
 
 vca must necessarily be treated the same, which no one thinks 
 of doing 23 . We must adhere then to what is handed down to 
 us 24 , however unsatisfactory may be the reasons adduced why 
 vca and acfxo are not to be treated as enclitics as well as o-e, aov, 
 <roi, and the like 25 . 
 
 83. 'OAoo/rpo^oy. 
 
 1. In II. v, 137. the course of Hector, at first rushing unre- 
 strained against the enemy, but then suddenly checked in his 
 career, is compared to a stone or piece of rock torn off by a 
 mountain-torrent, and rolling downwards, until arriving in the 
 plain below it all at once becomes stationary. Such a stone or 
 rock is called dkooirpoxos in the following passage : 
 
 ' AvriKpv [X€[xaa>s, oXooirpoxos a>s cltto nerp-qs, 
 r OvT€ Kara <TTe(f)dvr]s 7rorafx6s xeijxdppoos ecxrrj. 
 
 The word remained in use, although varying in its orthography, 
 through the whole of the Ionic and Attic seras. For Herodotus 
 8, 52. relates that the Athenians in the Acropolis, upodiovr^v 
 
 acute : the fact is, that with regard to the preceding word, it is indeed 
 opBorovos, i. e. retains its tone or accent, but with regard to the follow- 
 ing word it is again a baryton. 
 
 23 The case would occur in Od. 7r, 306. 
 
 24 The directions to do so are expressly given in Apollon. de Pronom. 
 p. 369 ; compare p. 358. a. 
 
 25 If we wish to compose from the accounts of the grammarians a 
 theory at least consistent, although we may not be able to satisfy our- 
 selves on historical and physiological grounds, we must set out with 
 this rule, that a properispomenon is not capable of being enclitic, (see 
 Apollon. de Pronom. p. 307. b. 308. c, where the rule is incorrectly 
 extended to all barytons). This is the case with v&i, v&'iv, <r<pa>'i, vfywiv. 
 It is conceivable that the ear, once accustomed to these forms always 
 retaining their accent, preserved the same rule in their abbreviations as 
 they were gradually introduced, vmv (va>), va>, acfxpv (a<pa), cnfia). And 
 for this same reason must also the dual of the third person, which is 
 not known from tradition to retain the accent (for it occurs only, as far 
 as my knowledge goes, as an enclitic), be written, independent of its 
 enclitic nature, o-cfxoe, o-<pmv ; so inconsistent are the grammarians : see 
 Apollon. de Pronom. p. 373. sqq. and Etym. M. v. acfrcbe. 
 
83. 'OXooiTpo-^os. 431 
 
 t&v fiapfiapw irpbs ras Trvkas, okotTpoxovs airUaav : and Xenophon 
 in his Anab. 4, 2, 3. in similar circumstances, where the Greeks 
 were approaching a height, says that T-qviKavra eKvXivbovv ol 
 fiapfiapoL oXoLTpoxovs ap,a£iaiovs, /ecu p.€i(ovs koll ek&TTovs XiQovs. 
 I have written the word in these passages according to the pre- 
 ponderating tradition ; and indeed in both the prose instances 
 the writing it as a word of four syllables with Aot is pretty cer- 
 tain 1 ; but with regard to the aspirate, it naturally depended in 
 the Homeric verse on the grammarians. The reading with the 
 lenis has maintained its ground in Homer; but that with the 
 aspirate had also its authority, as may be seen in the scholia, in 
 Apollonius, &c. 
 
 2. By these passages taken from the pure olden times thus 
 much is clear, that the word was used as a substantive - ; and 
 that it did not mean any large piece of stone such as is found in 
 the fields, but a mass of rock, which rolls down from a height 
 either of itself or by the hands of an enemy. And, inde- 
 pendently of any hostile idea, its derivation from okoos is the 
 most natural which can be imagined. Our ideas of the power 
 of such a piece of rock, of its weight and impetus increasing as 
 it rolls down, so that nothing can stop it, but it must be left to 
 take its headlong course, dashing to pieces everything in its 
 way, could not easily be expressed by a more suitable term 
 than a roller -of -destruction. So that the explanation of those 
 grammarians, who derive the word from o\os by means of such 
 forced interpretations as may be seen in their writings, can only 
 be made conceivable by supposing that the reading of 6\oi- 
 Tpoxos with the aspirate had earlier or later really become 
 general in the current language of Greece. In Herodotus 
 it is not improbable that the Tonic dialect excluded the pure 
 aspirate, and Schweighaeuser therefore adopted, perhaps cor- 
 rectly, the reading oAotrpo^oi;? from one single Florentine ma- 
 nuscript. But to the Attic tongue the aspirate was quite as 
 
 1 It is true that in Xenophon the common manuscripts have SKorpd- 
 xoii-, but the reading <u, which agrees with that of Herodotus, is copied 
 
 correctly from at least one. 
 
 2 For the passage of Xenophon, as quoted by Suidas, where the word 
 Xidovs stands before oXoirpo^ovs, is of no weight against such concurrent 
 testimony. 
 
432 83. 'OXoo/r^oxo?. 
 
 natural, which therefore in this abbreviated form slid into an 
 apparently different signification. 
 
 3. The word occurs again in Herodotus 5, 92. in an oracle 
 which announced the birth of Cypselus, the destroyer of the 
 sovereignty of the Bacchiadae ; in which it is said, Aafiba kvel, 
 re£et ft okooirpoxov, h be Ttecrelrai ' Avbpacri fiovvdpxpuri, &c. 
 Thus Schweighaeuser has correctly written it, according to the 
 quotation of the same oracle in Eusebius, instead of the unne- 
 cessary hiatus of be okoCrpoxov found in all the manuscripts of 
 Herodotus. And the sense of this oracle clearly confirms our 
 acceptation of the word. But that the idea of round (which the 
 grammarians gathered partly from the latter half of the word 
 compared with rpo^os, a wheel, partly from the word okos itself, 
 and which Eustathius besides explains to proceed from the 
 stones rubbing ofT their roughness by mutual collision) is not 
 contained in the word, is certain from the Homeric passage 
 alone, in which the piece of rock is described as torn off at once 
 from its native height. For the fact itself, it was sufficient that 
 the rock should not present any considerable flatness ; as then 
 its rolling down would be the consequence of its weight and the 
 steepness of the descent. However a surface approaching to 
 the cylindrical would much diminish that usage of its destruc- 
 tiveness ; and so it is very conceivable, particularly as the ex- 
 pression KvXivbeiv was in this instance the proper one, that 
 Democritus, who had a poetical style and many peculiar ex- 
 pressions, called the KvXivbpiKov a-xij^a (as we are informed by 
 the Schol. Horn, and Etym. M.) oXooirpoyov. 
 
 4. The more striking is the decided deviation from the above 
 usage in Theocritus 22, 49., where the body of the pugilist 
 Amycus, and his muscles in particular, are thus described : 
 
 'Ei/ he. fxves (TTepeotcri (ipa^Locn aicpov vir co/jlov 
 r/ Eara(rav rjvre TTerpoi oXoolrpoxot, ovare kv\lv8(ov 
 Xeipappovs norafios peydkats nepu^eae hivais. 
 
 As the firm round projecting muscles are here compared with 
 this word, it must evidently mean the larger gravel or pebbles 
 of a stream or torrent ; which is so very considerable a devia- 
 tion from the usage of the older writers, that Xenophon in the 
 passage above quoted mentions in particular after the oAotrpo- 
 
84- f 'O|0/CO9, OpKLOV. 433 
 
 yens a/xa^taioty the jxei(ovs kcll tkarrovs KlOovs, which were also 
 hurled down. It is therefore clear that shortly before the Alex- 
 andrian sera the word had received for the first time, through 
 a defective understanding of the older usage, this meaning of a 
 large round rolling pebble 3 . 
 
 84. *QpKO?, OpKLOV. 
 
 1. Against the well-known usual derivation of the word op/co? 
 no objection can be made. Coming from the same stem or root 
 as rb epKos, (like 6 fiokos and to /3eAos, 6 fiopos and to puEpos,) it 
 is traced up to the original meaning of an oath, by virtue of 
 which it holds, as it were, him who promises anything, ivithin 
 the limits of his promise. Nor has any one been puzzled with 
 regard to the exact meaning attributed to the word ; as every 
 one easily explains to himself whatever may appear peculiar in 
 Grecian usage compared with our word oath, by giving it a 
 figurative turn. In this way however the proper ancient idea 
 of a word is not unfrequently lost, as is the case in my opinion 
 with the one before us. 
 
 2. For instance, in our word oath, at least in our present 
 association of ideas, (for on the etymology of the German word 
 Eid I have nothing particular to remark,) we set out from the 
 act of swearing ; since the word is to us either the abstract idea 
 of the thing, or the form of words used in taking it. This 
 abstract idea is supposed to be personified or embodied in cer- 
 tain phrases ; and thus all the passages of the ancients arc ex- 
 plained without any perceptible obstacle. But the Greek word 
 does not, as we have seen, originate in such ideas of the under- 
 standing, but in something physical ; and this is, according to 
 my observations, essential to our forming a right judgment 
 of the ancient usage of the word. That is to say, as opKos 
 
 3 Theocritus may have adopted this meaning and still kept to the 
 Epic form oXooirpo^oi or oXooirpo^oi, between winch and 6\o6Tpo\oi the 
 manuscripts fluctuate. That the reading of rjvrf (necessary in that 1 
 has Homeric authority, we have seen in the article on that word. 
 
 Valckenaer however prefer* reading 7^131 oXoiVpo^ot. 
 
 Pf 
 
434 84. "OpKOS, OpKlOV. 
 
 literally means the fence or cheeky it is not properly the act of 
 swearing with the mouth, like Schwur, serment, juramentum, 
 4 oath ;' but it was originally the object which checked or re- 
 strained within certain limits the person so bound; in other 
 words, it is that by which a person swears. When it is said then 
 at II. o, 38. 
 
 "lata) vvv rode Tata Kai Ovpavos evpvs vnepdev, 
 Kcu to KdT€ij36fievov 2rvyos v8a>p, oare pey kttos 
 *OpKos deivoraros re neXei paKapeaai 6eol(Tiv, 
 
 these last words do not refer to the whole preceding formula of 
 swearing, but they relate to the Styx alone ; and even then, not 
 to the swearing by the Styx, but the Styx itself is the optos, the 
 thing which restrains, which bears witness, and in case of per- 
 jury punishes. And this will be the more easily believed, as no 
 other mode of interpretation renders the expression in Hesiod 6, 
 784. natural. In that passage Jupiter dispatches Iris 
 
 6eS>v peyav op<ov iveinai 
 
 Tr)\66ev iv XP V(T *V ^P ^*? ^oXvcovvpov vdcop 
 Vvxpbv, o r €K n€Tpr)s KaraXeifterai ^Xi/Saroio. 
 
 And now another Homeric expression improves in simplicity of 
 thought ; when, for instance, it is said of the river Titaresius, 
 (II. /3, 755.) as a reason for the wonderful appearance which it 
 presents, 
 
 ''OpKOv yap 8eivov ^rvyos vSaros ecmv cmoppa>£. 
 
 With which may be compared Hesiod 0, 400. where the Styx 
 comes in person to Jupiter to demand honour and precedence 
 for herself and children, and where it is then said, 
 
 Tr)V 8e Zevs rlprjae itepicraa 8e dwpa e8<oKew 
 Avttjv pev yap eSrjKe 6ea>v peyav eppevai opuov. 
 
 In the same sense also "OpKos is said by Arrian (see Eustath. 
 ad Od. 1. c.) to have been the name of a river in Bithynia, by 
 which the people there swore, and which drew the perjured 
 into its stream. 
 
 3. From this idea of opicos may be explained another esta- 
 blished usage posterior to Homer. We read in Origen that 
 Archilochus punished Lycambes for having broken the ties of 
 
84. "OpiCOS, OpKLOV. 435 
 
 hospitality existing between them 1 , as described in this verse: 
 
 "Opitov 8' evo(T(f)i(rdr)s peyav, akas re ica\ rpaire^av' 
 
 where opKos, as plainly as anywhere else, means nothing but the 
 pledge. And the same form of expression we find again in a 
 very late period in Lucian pro Lapsu 5. rj TerpaKTvs 6 fxey lotos 
 opKos clvt&v: and de Calumn. 17. piy lotos opKos rjv airaoLv 'Hc^ai- 
 otlquv : and again in the formula of swearing in Vitar. Auct. 4. 
 Ov fj.a tov \xkyLOTov opKov, tcl riirapa : while in other languages 
 it would be a logical confusion to say, per jur amentum, ' by my 
 greatest"oath, 5 or any similar expression. 
 
 4. In this sense then it was also more natural that "OpKos 
 itself should be personified in a general way. He is the wit- 
 ness of an oath, the avenger of perjury, described either as taking 
 vengeance himself, or as having the Furies for avengers. Both 
 representations are in Hesiod 6, 23 t. 
 
 "OpKov & ', 0$ 8f] 7rXeio-roi> €7TI\0ovlovs avOpcorrovs 
 Ylrjpatvei, ore <iv ris €KOiv erriopKOV opoaar}' 
 
 and in e, 217. where a warning is given against injustice, with 
 the addition, 
 
 AvriKa yap rpk^ei opKos apa CKoXifjai ouqjo'iv' 
 
 where the expression shows a personification of "OpKos and the 
 'S.KokLcu Alkcll (as Horace personifies the Fides arcani prodiga) ; 
 but the meaning is, that Horcus follows close upon the per- 
 verters of justice, in order to punish those who commit perjury. 
 Lastly at e, boo. where the common reading runs thus : 
 
 'Ev ncp7TTT) yap (parriv 'Epivvvas dp(pnro\eveiv 
 "OpKov rivvvpevas, Tuu"Epis Tff« rrqp eniopnois. 
 
 This passage might create some difficulty, as tlvvvoOol certainly 
 means to avenge; but then it is always in the sense of to punish, 
 and opKos cannot possibly mean perjury. Bat GraBvius has 
 produced on sufficient authority the reading *OpKov y€iv6p€vov*, 
 
 1 Ori°\ c. Cels. lib. 2. p. 76. ku! <Wi5i£W y( 6 ndptos 'lapfhwoths rbv 
 
 i\vKap{5r)v Ttis pera a\as Ka\ Tp<'nr((uv avvdrjKus dOfTijO-auTa (jn]<ri np6s aiTov. 
 — I have inserted the words AvKcipfav ras instead of the faulty Avicdp- 
 (BavTa. 
 
 * [ quintani fuge ; pallida.- Orcua, 
 
 Eumenidesque sata\ — Virg. Georg. 1, 277. — Ed.] 
 
 Vf 2 
 
436 84. "O|0/C09, OpKLOV. 
 
 which is confirmed by the preceding word a\x$nro\€V€iv . For 
 this word nowhere means to go or range about, nor has it ever 
 any other meaning than to attend upon, take care of. The fifth 
 day of the month then, according to an old saying, was the 
 birthday of Horcus ; the Furies attended on the new-born child ; 
 consequently they protect him, and avenge any injury offered to 
 him. In this sense of "QpKos Pindar also swears by him, Nem. 
 II, 30. Nat fxa yap "OpKov 2 . 
 
 5. There are but few passages in the oldest writers which 
 cannot be explained without any force, if we set out with this 
 sense of the word opKos. For even in such cases as II. \jr, 42. 
 — €ttI 8' opKov d'fjLoao-ev Ov pLa 7Jr\v ooti? re — I see no reason 
 why we should not suppose that in the poet's mind Jupiter was 
 put in apposition to opuov, exactly in the same sense as opKos is 
 actually found in apposition to Zei;s in Pindar Pyth. 4, 297. icap- 
 Tepbs opKos a\k\ii \xapTvs lorco Zevs 6 yzviOkios apLcpoTepots. Fur- 
 ther, the expressions fxeyas opKos, Kaprepbs opuos, suit much better 
 the idea of the witness or pledge of the oath, than they do the 
 oath itself; e. g. II. a, 239. 6 be rot [liyas eWerat opKos' that 
 ^ is to say, the sceptre which had been just described : and in 
 the same way, a few verses before, /cat M \kkyav opuov ofiovfjiab' 
 Nat jua robe aKTJTTTpov, &c. Although we here see how natural 
 the transition is in this expression from the witness or pledge of 
 the oath to the form which comprises it ; yet I still think that 
 in the case of v, 313. 
 
 v Htoi p,zv yap vco'i iroXe'as w/nocrcrajuef opKOVs, 
 
 we shall only hit the poet's real meaning by interpreting the 
 expression according to our previous supposition. For Juno 
 does not here mean that she has sworn the destruction of Troy 
 in many and oft-repeated oaths, but in one single oath, which 
 indeed is a multifarious one, and in which she swore at the 
 
 2 The expression of the punishing power of "Opicos remained in very 
 late authors. In Pausan. 2,2. mention is made of a sacred place in the 
 temple of Palaemon : *Os §' av ivravOa .... enlopKa onoarj ovde/JLia earl prj- 
 xavrj 8ia<pvye7v tov opKov. The explanation of the genitive with eWfca 
 is contrary to all usage ; but 8ia<pvyelv twos is in use among the later 
 writers; as in Petri Epist. 2, 1, 4. airo^vyovres rijs qbOopas : and in this 
 way the sense in Pausanias is clear. 
 
84. "Optcog, opKiov. 437 
 
 same time by many different objects ; as in that, the beginning 
 of which we have quoted above from II. o, where this same 
 Juno swears by earth and heaven, and by the Styx, and then 
 by the head of her husband and her marriage-bed. To this 
 class belongs also the other oath of Juno at f, 278. where 
 it is said, Oeovs 8' ovopnqvev airavras Tovs VTtoTaprapiovs 0% 
 Tir^e? Kaktovrai. For we see from these instances, that in a 
 formal oath made on any solemn occasion the person swearing 
 recited separately the individual names which might be in- 
 cluded in one comprehensive appellation. There is indeed a 
 later usage, in which the plural number opKou certainly does 
 betoken a repetition of the oath ; but I should rather cite that 
 as a contrast to confirm the above explanation of Homer's ex- 
 pression. In the second of the Dialog. Meretr. of Lucian, at 
 the very beginning, the jealous mistress says to her lover, ol 
 toctovtol be opKoi ov$ dixoaas . . . otyovrai. As the later usage 
 is here announced by the nature of the thing itself, (for the 
 oaths of lovers are innumerable,) so is the older usage in the 
 other instance ; for it befits a deity to swear but once, and then 
 solemnly. 
 
 6. In saying this, however, it is by no means our opinion 
 that the common meaning of opKoy, an oath, does not occur at 
 all in the Epic language. The transition of the ideas into each 
 other, as we have remarked above, is too natural for such an 
 opinion to be maintained for a moment ; for instance in the 
 well-known expression, end (V 6p.oarev re TeKevrrjaev re rbv opicov, 
 the meaning of TeXevrrjaat rbv opuov can be no other than the 
 full and complete recital of everything by which I swear, con- 
 sequently of the oath. And thus between the two relations of 
 the word upKos, viz. the pledge of the oath and the oath itself, 
 there arose an ambiguity of expression to be decided by the 
 context. For while we saw the Styx quoted above in the former 
 sense as Oeu>v p.eyuu upKov ( lies. 0, 400.), so on the other hand at 
 Od. /3, 377. it is said of an old woman, yprjbs oe Oe&v fxeyau 
 opKov d-TTCu/x^, the plain meaning ol' which is. *• she swore an 
 oath by the gods." Compare Xen. Cyrop. 2,3,12. itvv Ot(ov 
 opKO) Aeyw, rj p.r]U, &C. 
 
 7. The strong expression of Herodotus, SpKovi circkativeiv, 
 (apt as the phrase may seem to be for expressing beings who 
 are sent to punish the perjured,) I cannot admit to have that 
 
438 84. "Op/cog, opKiov. 
 
 meaning. It is true, that the passage 1, 146. might contribute 
 to lead us into such an error if pointed in the following 
 manner; bia tovtov be rov cpovov (i. e. on account of the murder 
 of their fathers and former husbands) al yvvaiKts avrai, vo/jlov 
 6ip.evai, a(f)C(TL avrrjcri opKOvs kirr^kaaav . . . , fxr/Kore opioaLTrjaaL 
 toTs avbpa<n. Misled by this punctuation, Schweighaeuser in 
 his Lex. Herod, directs us in the other passage (6, 62.) after the 
 words zttI tovtokti (upon this) be opKOvs eTnqkao-av, to supply 
 aWrjXoLcn. We ought rather to collect from this latter passage, 
 that in the former the eni in eTT-qkao-av refers to the thing, and 
 vo\xov 6ep,evai must be joined to a-^tVi avrfjo-L. "Opuov eirekdcraL 
 means therefore in both passages c to lay a solemn oath on a 
 thing, bind oneself to it by an oath.' With reference to the 
 person swearing Herodotus uses irpoo-ayeiv opKov in the fol- 
 lowing passage, 6, 74. (of Cleomenes) o-vvkttqls tovs 'ApK&bas 
 eirl TT] UnapTr], akkovs re opKOvs irpocraycav o-<£t, 77 piev e\jr€a-0at 
 cr^eas avT& rfj av egrjyrJTcu,, kclI brj kcll is N&vaKptv itokiv irpodvpios 
 tjv tG>v ' ApK&btov tovs irpotcrTe&Tas ayivecav e^opKovv to 2,Tvybs 
 vbvp. The construction of the passage is, " He bound the 
 Arcadians with all sorts of oaths to follow him wherever he led 
 them ; among others, he was desirous of conducting their chief 
 men to Nonacris, in order to make them swear by the river 
 Styx, which rises near that city." We cannot but feel that the 
 original idea of opKos still predominates in this passage ; and 
 thus opKov Ttpovayuv tivL must be understood to mean, ' to pre- 
 scribe to a person the object by which he is to swear.' With 
 the Attics originated the expressions b'pKovs TTOLeivdcu, bovvac (to 
 take an oath), kafielv (to receive an oath from another, make a 
 person swear to a thing), &c. * 
 
 8. There is a derivative form of opKos, viz. opKiov . This, 
 like many words of the kind, might be considered as a neuter 
 adjective of opiaos : but it appears to me safer to suppose that 
 it has the force of the so-called vtiokopkttlkov, by which the 
 Greek language frequently endeavours to individualize an ideaf, 
 
 * {^OpKOvs edoaav kcu ekafiov irapa &apva(3d£ov, Xen. Hell. 1,3, 7. — 
 Ed.] 
 
 f [Passow, on the contrary, says in his Lexicon that "opiciop is by no 
 means to be considered as a diminutive of opKos, but rather as a neuter 
 of opKios, by supplying in most cases Upov or lepd." — Ed.] 
 
85. 'Opuwara. 439 
 
 as fii(3\os fiifikiov, yjpv&os \pvcriov, pj\pos fx-qpiov, <popros <f>op- 
 tlov. According to one rule indeed these words so formed 
 ought, when they are dactyls, to be paroxytons ; but Kvpuov, 
 TToip.vLov and others are exceptions to that rule, and to them will 
 belong opKiov also. This word occurs in Homer as a plural 
 only ; in Herodotus, Thucydides, &c. more commonly in the 
 singular. According to the rule of these derivatives it would 
 have the more definite meaning of a contract or agreement on 
 oath : and as this is concluded by a sacrifice of lambs, the 
 throats of which are cut by the contracting parties (II. y, 292. 
 ? H, kol curb o-Top.ayovs apv&v rap.*. vr\\i'i x.aA.Kw), this is sufficient 
 to explain the meaning of op/aa rajueii>, without the necessity 
 of supposing that op/aa was used in this single phrase in another 
 sense, viz. as an adjective, op/aa scil. Upela : particularly as the 
 analogy of the Roman custom and of the Latin language in the 
 formula ferire fcedus agrees with it so decidedly. At all events, 
 it is clear that as early as Homer's time the expression was 
 understood in no other sense, as he was able to join (II. y, 73. 
 94.) <pL\oTr)Ta kcu opKia mora Tapielu. More remarkable is the 
 use of the word op/aa, when at II. y, 245. speaking of what 
 took place before the celebration of the sacrifice, it is said, 
 KrjpvK.es 8' ava aarv Oe&v cpipov op/aa 7rtora, * Apve bva) kcu 
 olvov : and again at v. 269. /crjp^Ke? ayavol "OpKia iriara Ot&v 
 avvayov. In these passages I see clearly that the. proper 
 meaning of op/cos, as we have given it above, is transferred to 
 the form opKiov ; but in a somewhat modified and more definite 
 sense, that is to say, in the sense of bodily objects which serve 
 as a pledge or sign of the oath. And we find a corresponding 
 usage in the poets which followed Homer ; as when in Pindar 
 the betrothed Eriphyle is called the opKiov ttio~tov of future 
 peace, and at 01. 11, 6. the Hymns are the -nio-rbv opKiov of 
 future fame. 
 
 85. Op/irj/jiaTa. 
 
 1. It will be difficult to find a word in the Homeric text, in 
 the interpretation of which, whether we follow the commen- 
 tators or (if I may judge of others by myself) our own inquiries, 
 
440 85. 'OpwiAara. 
 
 we are so puzzled and perplexed as in the word opju^juara. 
 Nor is this to be wondered at, as we have no means of com- 
 paring it ; for the word occurs in Homer twice, it is true, but 
 then in a repetition of the same verse, and in no other writer 
 whatever 1 . If under these circumstances the result of our 
 inquiries should be certainty, we must arrive at it by all the 
 ways, right or wrong, which may offer themselves. 
 
 2. The two passages of Homer are II. (3, 356. and 590. 
 where the great object of the campaign is stated to be 
 
 Ti<Taa6ai 'EXevrjs opfxrjfxard re (rrovaxas re. 
 
 At first sight every one will and must consider the two last sub- 
 stantives as similar expressions, contributing to form one and 
 the same leading sense ; and as opixaivuv means to reflect upon, 
 think anxiously about, the old explanation of oppj/xara by cares, 
 vexation (the only explanation found in Hesychius and the oldest 
 interpreters), is so agreeable to the context, that nothing but a 
 doubt arising from some external source could again unsettle 
 our opinion. Now a leading doubt of this nature did arise very 
 early from the fact of Helen following Paris voluntarily ; and 
 as she frankly and plainly says so at Od. b, 261. &c, those 
 who ascribe the Iliad and Odyssey to different writers (called 
 in the scholia ol x^P^ovTes) adduce the contradiction in this 
 verse as one of the proofs in support of their opinion. But the 
 opponents of this doctrine, who are the majority in the great 
 collection of the scholia, could find no other means of weak- 
 ening this proof than by joining the genitive c EA.eVr/s with irepi, 
 and supposing the cares and sighs of the Greeks about Helen 
 to be mentioned as the object of their revenge. Another pretty 
 instance of the way in which these Greeks treated their lan- 
 guage 2 ! 
 
 3. But there was an easier way of removing the objection 
 
 1 Stephens and Schneider speak indeed of another meaning of the 
 word opp,r}p,a elsewhere, but they cite no authorities ; and the assertion 
 would appear therefore, as the word is clearly and plainly a verbal sub- 
 stantive, to rest only on the etymological interpretation of some later 
 commentator. 
 
 2 Heyne too suffers this so-called interpretation, or rather his own 
 vexation at finding neither of these opinions satisfactory, to have such 
 an influence on him, that he declares the whole verse, of which the con- 
 
85. 'Opixtj/xara. 441 
 
 of those critics who would separate the two poems. In II. y, 
 173. &c. as well as in the Odyssey, Helen gives it to be under- 
 stood plainly enough that her quitting her husband was volun- 
 tary. But the fascination of Paris acting on a weak woman 
 was, and continued to be, a kind of violence committed on her : 
 what was therefore her own fault, was at the same time the in- 
 fluence of Venus dazzling and blinding her, and consequently 
 a misfortune ; and so it was soon followed by repentance and 
 tears, and a longing for home, all of which is expressly related in 
 the passage of the Odyssey. Nay, not merely was this change 
 of mind to be expected, but the Greeks had information of it 
 from prisoners and spies, particularly from Ulysses, whose secret 
 conference with Helen is mentioned in the same passage. And 
 thus the words of Helen, to koI Kkaiovaa re'r^Ka, II. y, 176. and 
 clttjv be h€t4o-t€voi>, Od. 8, 261. considered in this way give the 
 most satisfactory explanation of the expression 'EXei^s opjurj/oiara 
 re <iTova\a<5 re. 
 
 4. This consideration would certainly be perfectly satisfac- 
 tory to every reader, if there were only one of these pas- 
 sages, viz. II. )3, 590., where it is said of Menelaus, fjidXtara 
 8e Uto OvfjLip TiaaaOat 'Ekivrjs opixruxard re aTova\ds re. But 
 in the earlier passage, v. 356., it is certainly very surprising 
 that Nestor, addressing all the Greeks, should propose ven- 
 geance for the repentance and vexation of a thoughtless woman 
 who had left a husband for a lover, as the great object which 
 every one of them should have in view, and the great argument 
 by which he might hope to restrain them all from a precipitate 
 return to their own homes. It may well be supposed that this 
 comparison of the two passages must have very early given rise 
 to a conjecture, (announced however first by Heyne,) that in 
 the oldest Homeric text the verse might have stood only in the 
 second passage, where it expresses the natural feelings of the 
 still loving and forgiving husband; but that by the treacherous 
 memory of the rhapsodists it had been inserted like so many 
 other verses in a false place. This supposition will have doubt- 
 
 struction is perfectly clear, to be harsh and ambiguous. " Dura et 
 ambigua versus scntcntia. Aul cnim ipsius Helens sunt dp/M}/iara et 
 <TTova\n\, aut aliorum propter illam," &c. 
 
442 85. 'Op/uLtjjuiaTa. 
 
 less satisfied many, as indeed it took me by surprise when, in- 
 dependently of Heyne, I first entertained it. But our opinions 
 do not always continue the same. 
 
 5. If we look more accurately into the former of the two 
 passages, we shall see that the verse in question is by no means 
 one which we can there dispense with, as we can with so many 
 other stray verses in different parts of Homer. The Greeks, 
 says Nestor, ought not to think of returning home 
 
 TLpiv Tiva nap Tpaxov dXo^a KaraicmprjBrjvai, 
 Ticraadai §' 'EXevrjs opp-qpard re aroua^ds re. 
 
 The manner of taking vengeance stands here in such plain re- 
 lation to the offence received by the rape of Helen, that it is 
 impossible the mention of it can be entirely owing to a thought- 
 less rhapsodist. As soon therefore as we come again to this 
 point, another suspicion arises ; namely, whether the explana- 
 tion which we have given of oppLrnxara be the correct one. The 
 verb SppLCLiveiv never in any instance occurs in the sense of afflic- 
 tive care, but always with the idea of reflection, of deliberating 
 what to do ; generally indeed, as might be expected from the 
 stem or root opjj.av, accompanied by a quickness or warmth of 
 feeling, but in almost all cases without the slightest collateral 
 idea of vexation, which in some few passages lies not in the 
 word but in the context. It is therefore to be expected that the 
 expression op/x^/xa, if it comes from opixaiveiv, should betoken only 
 a deep thought and consideration : this may certainly be appli- 
 cable to Helen, but it would not be the first word to present 
 itself in depicting a situation demanding vengeance. Let it not 
 be said that, even if we should succeed in attaching another 
 meaning to dpfjar/pLara, still the arovayaX *E\4vqs would always be 
 liable to the objection of unsuitableness as a motive for influ- 
 encing the Greeks. Should we succeed in finding that opfxrj- 
 pLaTa may mean the separation of Helen from her husband, then 
 may her vexation, as the consequence of that, be mentioned 
 with it in any and every sentence as a part belonging to the 
 whole. 
 
 6. And such explanations do offer themselves to our notice. 
 Eustathius, indeed, knows no other meaning for opfxruxaTa than 
 the voluntary voyage of Helen to Troy. But if the word be so 
 
85. 'OpiJ.rnj.ara. 443 
 
 understood, then TLoraadat would necessarily express the punish- 
 ment of Helen, which is not to be thought of for an instant. And 
 even if we are willing to allow that 6pp.r\p.aTa does not actually 
 and plainly express the voluntary part of the act, still it would 
 be an extraordinary expression to say, " avenge the voyage and 
 the sighs of Helen." If 6pp.rip.ara refers to the former of these, 
 it must express that event as the act of the seducer, for rtVao-^at 
 to be an appropriate word to join with it. And so it is under- 
 stood by one interpreter in the small scholia, who to the first 
 interpretation of vexation adds fxaXXov 8e apirayrjv. Damm makes 
 this still plainer by understanding it of the ravisher * rushing 
 on his prey. 5 And certainly, as 6pp.qv and 6pp.y\Qr\vai rivos do 
 sometimes occur in Homer of a hostile attack, 6ppijp.d tivos 
 might mean ' an attack on some one."' But neither can this in- 
 terpretation of the passage be true, as we must then adopt the 
 idea of violence done to Helen, in contradiction not only to the 
 Odyssey, but also to the sense of II. y, 173, &c. which cannot 
 be mistaken, and to the most common account of the event. 
 Besides, in this way of explaining it, one other point has not 
 been at all considered, viz. that there would then be no grounds 
 whatever for the use of the plural in the simple language of 
 Homer, at least in the momentary idea of a rape ; and of long 
 voyages no one will think for an instant. 
 
 7. On the other hand, this very plural leads us back again, 
 whither we must return, to urouayas. The resemblance be- 
 tween these two words, which we mentioned at the very begin- 
 ning of our article, becomes by this plurality complete. This 
 and authority must decide us, as all else only serves to perplex. 
 One thing we might promise, that if we had but a trace how 
 ^Eschylus or Pindar or Plato understood the expression, we 
 would blindly adopt it. This knowledge however fails us. 
 But the way in which the oldest of the scholiasts speak of 
 it, leaves not a doubt remaining that no other meaning of 
 the word than the one there given was handed down to 
 them. On the certain conviction that oppa^xara like crrova- 
 yai meant only vexation and care, one part of them founded 
 a proof of contradiction between the Iliad and Odyssey, and 
 the other part referred the word in the most forced manner to 
 the vexation of the Greeks, — a certain proof that all the ex- 
 
444 86. "0<rarofJLai 9 occra. 
 
 planations of opfxav as a rape or a voyage were unknown in 
 the older time. Let this therefore be our authority ; and, sup- 
 ported by this, we will examine the difficulties once more. That 
 which did not come to us in the regular straightforward way, 
 still, given as we here find it, is not to be rejected. 'Opjurj/xara 
 may, according to etymology, mean any violent emotions of the 
 mind, and usage might have joined it generally with (TTovayj&i, 
 although it is come down to us in this one verse only. If now 
 we were to read but once that all the Greeks sallied forth to 
 avenge on the wives of the Trojans the vexations and sighs of 
 the ravished Helen, we should at once know how to explain 
 this poetical fact. In Grecian story Helen was the beloved, the 
 mistress, of all Greece. Fifty princes had been her suitors, and 
 had pledged their word to each other, that though only one 
 could gain her, yet ail would make common cause with that 
 one against any who by injuring her should injure him. In 
 this respect then all Greece was the husband of Helen, and 
 consequently the poet could well transfer to all the Greeks the 
 feelings which he ascribes to Menelaus. 
 
 86. "Oaaofia^ oaaa. 
 
 i . The most natural analogy explains the verb 6Wo/xai to be 
 a sister-form of oVrco (Spaa) ; not merely on account of oWc, 
 the eyes, but because the era appears elsewhere as a sister- 
 form of Trr, for example in iricraca 7re7jra>. And we have so 
 plain an instance of its meaning of to see in Od. r), 31. Mrjbi 
 tw av6p(£>TT(i)v iipoTioo-a-eo fjirjb' epeet^e, that any other examples, 
 particularly of the usage of the later writers, would seem quite 
 superfluous. Hence comes very naturally the idea of fore- 
 seeing, which becomes the leading sense ; for example, in 
 Od. a, J 54. of Amphinomus, who foresees his impending fate, 
 br} yap kclkov oWero 0i>jua> ; and in Od. e, 389. of Ulysses, who 
 faces death, ttoXXcl bi ol Kpabtr] irpoTiowtT 6ke0pov. Hence 
 arises the idea of prognosticating, foreboding, as proceeding 
 from beings which have in themselves a presentiment of some- 
 thing to happen, and therefore serve as a prognostic to others ; 
 
86. "Ovaro/mai, ocrcra. 445 
 
 for example, at II. £, 17. of the sea, which by its agitation fore- 
 tells a storm, 'O<xo-o'/xei>oz> Xcyeoyv avipaav \ai\\/r\pa K&kevda. The 
 prognosticating, however, by means of looks and mien appears 
 to be the particular sense of this verb; as in Od. (3, 152. of the 
 eagles soaring over the assembly of the people, and foreshowing 
 destruction, 'Es 8' Iherrjv ttolvtcov KtcfraXas, oaaouro o' oXtdpov: 
 and in II. co, 172. Iris says to Priam, Ov fxev yap tol eyo> nanbv 
 dacropLevrj rob' LKava>, 'AAA 1 ayaOa (ppoviovcra. With this is mixed 
 up imperceptibly an intentional 'predetermination ; and Hesiod in 
 his Theogonia 55 1 . says of Jupiter, kclkcl 8' 6Wero 6vpL<p QvrjTols 
 avdpGoTTOLaL, tol koX TeXeeaQai 1/jteAAey. 
 
 2. In the passage of II. a, 105. ILaKyavra Trpamora kclk oo-cro- 
 fxevos TTpoo-ieLirev, the first and most simple meaning may cer- 
 tainly be used, he looked at him malevolently; but doubtless 6V- 
 ataOaL is chosen as the more expressive word, to show that his 
 look threatened and foreboded evil. 
 
 3. In Od. v, 81. Penelope wishes that Diana would kill her, 
 oQp* ''Obvarja ^Oaao^vrj kcli yaiav vtto arvyeprju acpLKOtpirjv, which 
 correctly understood will mean, " having Ulysses always in her 
 mind's eye :" and the same at a, 1 15. where a hope is added, 
 and it is said of Telemachus, "'Ovaop.evos iraTep eo-QXbv kvl <ppe- 
 
 <t\v, d TToOev iXQtov 6dr). As these passages show clearly 
 
 the transition from the bodily sight to that of the mind l , they 
 serve to trace the word from its first meaning to that of fore- 
 seeing, and fully confirm our statement, which supposes to see 
 to be the radical meaning, from which all the others are to be 
 derived. 
 
 4. According to this account, the opinion of other gram- 
 marians, that the word oWa, a voice, is the root of oWo/uat, falls 
 to the ground of itself. For independently of the consideration, 
 that as Scraea-daL is used of seeing literally with the eyes of the 
 body, we must therefore suppose two quite different radical 
 verbs, oWo/xat I see, and oa-aojiat I speak, and still be unable to 
 arrange those meanings correctly, — independently, I say, of tins. 
 
 1 The verb irpoTiowopai in the speech of the dying Hector to Achilles, 
 'H a cv yiyvaxTKCov npoTi6(T(Top.ai, ol>8' Sp* epeWov Utiaav, II. x> 35^., 
 evidently contains an union of both ideas. " I see thee exactly as thou 
 art." 
 
446 86. "Octcto/agu, ocrcra* 
 
 the passages in which the compound 'nporioaaeaOai is used in 
 the sense of to foresee do not at all admit of the other explana- 
 tion; for then TrporC must stand for irpo, which is impossible. 
 It is also to be observed, that though all the grammarians ex- 
 plain oaaofxai in this latter way, yet I do not know of a single 
 passage in the later poets where oacreodai has that meaning ; on 
 the contrary, there are many in Apollonius where it has the 
 usual sense of to see. 
 
 5. The source of this mistaken explanation was the expect- 
 ation of finding in the substantive 6Wa in Homer the meaning 
 of a foreboding, prophetic voice ; and many are still of this opin- 
 ion, but they are quite wrong. A prophetic voice is called 
 in Homer SpLcprj (II. v, 129. Od. y, 215.), or (pr/M (Od. /3, 35. 
 v, 100.), or K\er]ba>v (Od. <r, 117.)? on the contrary, oacra in the 
 same poet is never anything but the voice of rumour, report, 
 as seen most plainly in Od. <o, 413. "Ocrcra 8' &(T ayyeXos 2>/ca 
 Kara titoXlv (p^ero Travrrj Mvr](TT'qp(t)v Oavarov kviirovcra ; whence 
 there can be no doubt of its meaning- being the same at II. (3, 
 93. of the Grecians preparing for their departure, pera bi (nptatv 
 "Oovxa bebrjec 'OTpvvova ievai, Atos ayyekos. Hence it is re- 
 markable that scholars (for example Ruhnken ad Tim. p. 197.) 
 who explain the above passages in that sense, yet in the case 
 of Od. a, 282. (repeated at /3, 216.) adhere firmly to the ex- 
 planation of those who suppose ocroa in these passages to mean 
 a (priixr] sent from Jupiter, i. e. a voice or message prophetic, 
 and significative to the hearer without the consciousness of 
 the speaker. The words are addressed to Telemachus, who 
 is about to travel in order to obtain tidings of his father, and 
 run thus : 
 
 Ep^eo Trevcropevos narpos Srjv ol^opivoio 
 ' Hv ris toi einijcn fiporcov, rj oacrav aKovcrys 
 'Ek Aids, fjre ixaXtcTTa (fiepet ickeos avOparroLcnv. 
 
 It is true that the expression zk Abbs is here made use of, and 
 is certainly put in opposition to the saying of man. But it must 
 be recollected that in the other passage (II. (3, 93.) the rumour 
 or report of men is also called Acbs ayyeXos. That is to say, 
 a distinction must be made between that which a man, who has 
 himself seen anything or been otherwise informed of it, imparts 
 
86. "Oo-o-oiAdL, ocrara. 447 
 
 to another, and that which arises from common fame, the com- 
 mon report of men. This latter has almost always an obscure 
 origin, and spreads with such wonderful rapidity, that the an- 
 cients looked upon it as not proceeding from men, but as some- 
 thing divine ; hence it is said to come e*c Atos, or is personified 
 as a divine being and the messenger of Jove *. In no other way 
 can the latter part of the sentence, 77're //aAtora <fiep€t kX4os 
 avOpdi-noKriv, be explained consistently with the rest. Tele- 
 machus might, therefore, in the course of his travels find some 
 one who had been informed of the particulars of his father's 
 place of abode and fate ; but he might also arrive at places 
 where some general rumour of Ulysses had been already spread, 
 while no tidings whatever had reached Ithaca. 
 
 6. After the meaning of the word is thus ascertained from 
 Homer himself, we shall not be misled by any usage of other 
 poets and writers, which can have no "retrograde effect on that 
 of Homer. When, for instance, in Pindar 01. 6, 1 c6. the voice 
 of Apollo answering his son is called narpia oacra, and in Apol- 
 lonius 1, 1087. 1095. the voice of a foreboding bird is called 
 oWa, these passages do not at all correspond with the proper 
 meaning of the word in the Homeric passage : in these it is no 
 such involuntarily-spoken prophecy as in Homer ; nay, the poets 
 just quoted have used oacra here merely as synonymous with o\j/ 
 (for the divine and prophetic lies in the epithets) ; and in this 
 they had also an ancient precedent in the Theogonia 10. and 43. 
 where the Muses are described as TiepiKohXza oaaav Itlaai, ap.- 
 (SpoTov oaaav Ulcrai. As oaaa then is used in the Theogonia 
 for the voice, and for any sound in general, — for instance, at 
 832. of the lowing of the bull, at 701. of the noise made by the 
 fighting of the gods, and in the Hymn to Mercury 443. of the 
 sound of the lyre, — all this is to be observed and distinguished 
 from the definite usage of the word in Homer ; but this same 
 general meaning made it natural that it should also be used in 
 the case of anything being foreboded. And as it gradually be- 
 came less used in that general sense, it retained in the common 
 prose of the day, as an old word, the presaging sense only, as 
 in Plato and in the passages quoted by Ruhnken from other 
 
 * [Compare Hes. Op. 762. — Ed.] 
 
448 87. OvXal, ovkoyyTai. 
 
 writers. Hence was formed also the verb oTT€vecr0at, which 
 the grammarians confounded with the Homeric verb oo-<reo-0cu. 
 See K-uhnken, Mceris, and Pierson. 
 
 87. OvXai, ovXoxvrai. 
 
 1. The generally received account of ovkoyyTai in Homer 
 is this, that it means whole barleycorns, which were strewed 
 over the sacrifice and the altar, and that it is so called napa 
 to ovkas, Tovricmv okas, yj.eiv Tas Kpidas. Now. as what the 
 Romans used for a similar purpose was called mo/a, which 
 means grain coarsely ground, we see here a difference between 
 the Greek and the Italian usage. The former is explained by 
 the Greek custom of retaining in their sacred offices the most 
 ancient mode of living ; consequently they used whole corn, 
 merely a little roasted and mixed with salt, because it was so 
 eaten before the invention of that simplest way of managing the 
 grain by treading it out. See Heyne's Opuscula i.p. 368. 369., 
 Voss on Virgil's Eclog. 8, 82., Schneider's Lexicon under Ov- 
 kai and OvkoyyTa. This account of the old Grecian usage is 
 supported also by plain passages of the grammarians ; above 
 all by Suidas : OvkoOvreiv 1 , KpiOas kniyiziv toXs Ovfxao-tv ovkas 
 yap ekeyov Tas KptOas Kara avriOecriv t&v \f/ai(TTwv, airep rjv 
 akcpLra vtto TTJs fJivkr/s KaT€\j/r}VL(rfxiva 2 . Tas yap ovkas TTpoaOzv 
 
 1 Schneider's Lexicon in the article on this word has ovkoxvrelv. 
 
 2 This word is evidently a corruption, as the meaning of yf/rjvifa is 
 quite different. Nor can the gloss in Suidas tyrjvLgai, £vaai, ao(3rjcrai, 
 be made to apply to this in any way. Under yp-aiard Suidas has the 
 corruption somewhat differently; airep rjv aX^ira vnb pvXrjs KareyJAr)- 
 t i a p.ev a. This is altered to k<xt €\jt rj y p,e v a. Toup, on y^ato-rd, in- 
 forms us in his positive manner that it must be Karc^rrjixeva, resting 
 on the authority of Suid. \j/av, Spakt^eiv, kenrvveiv. But learned as 
 these scholars were, they were the more so from having the usage of 
 Sophocles floating before their eyes, who in the Trach. 698. has tcare- 
 yfrr/KTtu x^ovi, having a little before used yjrfj. The meaning in this pas- 
 sage is to bruise in pieces, change to dust. This is therefore very much 
 in favour of that amendment ; particularly as \\raiard is before explained 
 dirb rrjs tov fxvkov Tre/H^o-eos-, of the circular friction of the mill-stone. 
 It is however inconceivable how that Kare^i/ia/uei/a or -yf/rjTiapeva could 
 arise out of -\\rr)yp,4va. Whence I think that the word was originally 
 
87. OvXal, ovXoyvTai. 449 
 
 f-KOTTTor ovbeirot) tt)s KaT€pya(rlas avr&v evpr\p.£vv]s. kgli tcl? p!kv 
 Kptdas jue'xpt vv v 5kas y^i ov cr iv ol €7tl6vovt€s Tats (tttov- 
 bals, e7T€t avufiokov Trjs irakaias Tpotyrjs' tcl be Troirava Trjs aprt 
 copas, tovtzcttl Trjs avOis. Schol. II. a, 449. OvXoxvTas. TLVes 
 tcl kclvgl hi &V eire\eov tcls ovkas' at irpbs avTibtao-Tok^v elpr\v- 
 Tai t6)V \lrat(TT(av 3 . airapxr) be Trjs irpoTepas £o)rjs airtbibovTo 
 rot? 6eols al KpiOaL. irpb tS>v irvp&v yap evprjvTai, «al curb tov 
 7rpOKpL6r)vaL t&v fiakdvoav ovtqus &vop.do-Qr}vav. — OvkoyyTas 4 , 
 ovkas. €t(7i be Kptdal p.€Ta ak&v p.ep.iyp.evaL, as eTteyj.ov rot? 
 Upovpyovfxh'ots £<aois irpb tov dveorOat, r/rot irokvuk-qdeias \a- 
 pw, rj p<vi]\ir)v TTOLovpizvoL Trjs apyaias j3pcoo~€<os. a>? yap (prjaL 
 Oe6(f)pao-Tos ev t<3 Trepl evprjpL&TtoV, irplv r) /xa#cocrti> ol avOpwiroL 
 akelv tov brjfjLrjTpLaKOV Kapirbv, ovtg) crcoa? ai)Tas ijcrOtov. oOev 
 ovkas 5 auras (frrjcrLV 6 TiOLr]Tr]S. Eustath. ad II. 0,449. P- IO °' 
 II. Basil. — at ovkal upoefiakkovTo, ahives ttjv dpyr\v okai ?/rot 
 o-<Sat r)a6iovTO irplv rj yeveaOai tcl tov dkeTov. bib Kal ovkal 
 kiyovTai Kara TTpoakrjxj/LV tov v, okal akkcas ofpeikovo-ai ke- 
 yeadai. Schol. Apollon. 1, 409. OvkoyvTas be ol p.ev Ta Kavd, 
 eirel be avT&v <p€p€Tai tcl 7rpbs Ovaiav. ol be tcls Kpidas, eireibr] 
 ovkas (perhaps ovkas) evefiakkov rot? /3co/xots. Apollon. Lex. 
 
 KaT€\l/aicrfxeva, used with the view of explaining y(/aicrTd, as the verb 
 i/mi'a) was not a very common one elsewhere ; at least I know it onlv 
 from the passage of Porphyry (which I shall have to cjuote hereafter), 
 where it is also used with ^aiaros, but so that it may be doubted what 
 it exactly means. As I cannot here satisfy myself about this word, I 
 must refer to Fees. CEc. Hippocr. v. y^ata-Typ pd(av. From the pos- 
 tages there quoted, compared with that of Porphyry and this in Snidas, 
 it appears to me that ^aUiv properly meant to moisten the coarsely- 
 ground corn, and make it into dough, of which were made the altar- 
 cakes offered up at the end of the sacrifice, as the salted barley was at 
 the beginning. 
 
 8 This is the reading in Wassenberg. In Villoison, on the contrary, 
 it is ras ov\as' kiu KpiOai be npos dvTibiuo-ToXTjv toiv \jr. : the words from 
 airapxh to Kpidu'i are wanting. 
 
 1 In the old collection of the scholia and in Wassenberg this stands 
 as a separate scholium, but Villoison gives it connected with the former 
 one, thus ; wvopaadrjaav. Kpidas be pe&' dXoiV pep. ene^op tois l(povpyr)- 
 pevois C' & c « 
 
 • r > Thus the Schol. min. and Leid. ap. Wassenbergh. Villoison, on the 
 other hand, and the Etym. M. (in which stands this Bame scholium), 
 have oXas. 
 
450 87. Ovkat, ovko-^yrai. 
 
 v. Ov\o)(yTas : — orav de Aeyet, koX ovXoyyras avekovro, craves 
 o)v avTas ras Kptdas crr)fxaiv€i, otov ras okas x €0 f JL ^ va9 ^ 7Tl T & v 
 
 (TTTOvb&V. 
 
 2. We will for the present say no more of the antiquarian 
 supposition that the Greeks strewed the sacred barley whole. 
 But before we leave the subject, we will endeavour to prevent 
 any one taking the etymology of the word as one of the proofs 
 ' of this supposition. If ovkoxvTat had been the only word used, 
 its etymology, combined with those testimonies above detailed, 
 would certainly have made it very probable. But there occurs 
 also in Homer Od. y, 441. and in the later writers, for this same 
 sacred barley, the simple word ovkat itself, This word however 
 is always an oxyton, an accentuation contrary to all analogy. 
 The sound of the adjective is oky, Ion. ovkrj : if now by the 
 omission of Kptdri, KptOai, it were used as a substantive, whence 
 came the change ? for neither in Greek nor in German are the 
 accent and pronunciation of an elliptical adjective ever changed. 
 But should any one doubt whether this accent were transmitted 
 down to the grammarians, still less would these latter have in- 
 troduced it of themselves, — they who rather, as we see, use 
 every means to make us feel the correctness of ovkas Kptdas. 
 And still more forced would seem to be the attempt to distin- 
 guish this word by its so-called radical accentuation of ovkat 
 from another ovkat signifying scars. Nay, even if we overlook 
 all this, what is to be said to the form dkai, as good Attic writers 
 called the sacrificial barley? See Aristoph. Equ. 11 67. Pac. 948. 
 960. The Ionic dialect, which generally substitutes the lenis 
 for the aspirate, does so more particularly in certain changes of 
 the vowels, as in okos ovkos, and also in opos ovpos, obos ovbos : 
 but where in the Attic dialect is the analogy for this okac 
 coming from okcu ? 
 
 3. In addition to this comes a doubt of another kind. The 
 name ovkat, ovkoxyrai is evidently the ancient name, that 
 which was handed down from the olden time with the thing 
 itself. How came it then that the sacrificial barley was so 
 studiously called by a name signifying ivhole, at a time when 
 grinding was scarcely, if at all, known ? The language would 
 not have had recourse to this appellation until a later time, 
 when the use of unground corn was something remarkable. 
 
87. OvXal, ovXoyyTaii 451 
 
 Do we not therefore see here the inexperienced etymologist, 
 who unreflectingly supposes that what appears remarkable to 
 him must have appeared so to the primitive framers of a lan- 
 guage ? 
 
 4. To these doubts may be added a positive trace. What 
 the Greeks called ovXai, dXai, the Latins called mola. It seems 
 to me that the following analogy is clear enough for us to infer 
 the same relation between mola and Skat, as we find between 
 \iia — ta: Mars, mas, maris — "Aprps, app-qv : pdXr], pLauxaXrj — 
 ala, axilla : p.ov6vXevG> — ovOvXevd) : poaxos (in the sense of a 
 branch) synonymous with Sax *- Further, as the Latin mola is 
 an old verbal substantive of molere, so is also 6A?j a regular 
 verbal form, and the synonymous verb offers itself to us at once 
 in dAea), which by the change of vowel is only another form of 
 eAco, a verb still extant in Homer (Od. e, 132. Zei/s ekcras e/ce- 
 aao-t) in the sense of to strike ; and to beat, beat in pieces, is well 
 known to have been the fundamental idea of grinding in that 
 early time, when corn was not yet rubbed but trodden to pieces. 
 As \iovj) then comes from [ikvu ; Tpoirr] from rpk-rna, rpa-nut ; 
 To\ir) from tcplvg), rapcM ; /3oA?j from /3a\Aa> ; so is 0A.77 (as it 
 speaks for itself) a verbal substantive from eXa, aAeo> 6 . But 
 the Latin and German verbs molere, maiden, are naturally and 
 etymologically the same with this Greek verb, of which, if 
 another proof were wanting, we have the information of Hella- 
 dius, that aXevpov, evidently derived from dAea), has another 
 form piaXevpov 7 . 
 
 5. Let us now shut our cars for a moment against the 
 
 6 From the same verb doubtless comes (and this is a further con- 
 firmation of the above) the word 6X/io? *, a mortar, in which the aspi- 
 rate is introduced, exactly as in oppos from etpto and from o/>co, &ppa and 
 apuofa from apoi. See Art. 52. sect. 2. 
 
 7 Chrestom. p. r 8. Ed. Meurs. An Phot, p. 867. lhcseh. "On to <t\(v- 
 
 pov Kara nXeovao-fjiov tov fx iarXv evptlv jutKfvpov kcu to pui fte (K TOV lh 
 
 yeyovbs Kara n\(ovao-fi6v f^ei t6 \l. It would be agreeable to the more 
 correct principles to Bay, that in those forms where the ^ is wanting it 
 is cut off, and consequently the Latin and German form would be thus 
 proved to be the older. In this ease therefore we should naturally look 
 around in search of the radical idea to heat. This is unfortunately lost, 
 but malleus and mulcare are plainly derivatives of it. 
 
 * [But see note, p. 270. — En.] 
 c. g 2 
 
452 87. QvXal, ovXo^yrai. 
 
 account which we have met with of the whole barley in the 
 Grecian sacrifices : and let us ask ourselves the question, 
 Whether, if we had never heard of that usage, but knew only 
 the mola of the Romans and the okai of the Greeks, and had 
 before our eyes the analogy above described, we should not 
 think that we had a decisive etymological proof that those two 
 sister-nations used in their sacrifices corn coarsely ground ? 
 
 6. Hence then a suspicion may arise, whether that historical 
 information, like many others with which we are acquainted, 
 does not owe its origin more or less to the etymology of 0A09, 
 ovkos ; as it is well known that etymological speculation was 
 a family failing of the Greek grammarians. Nor let us be led 
 astray by the name of Theophrastus, as occurring in one of the 
 passages quoted in its favour. Theophrastus says nothing more 
 than what we knew without him, " that men, before they in- 
 vented the treading or bruising of corn, ate it whole." For the 
 application to the ovkai "of the poet" evidently does not belong 
 to Theophrastus, who was not obliged to resort to Homer for 
 okaC or ovkai, as the thing was so called all around him ; but it 
 belongs to the grammarian from whom the Etym. M. and the 
 scholiast have taken this remark. 
 
 7. The same Theophrastus is said indeed to have spoken 
 more clearly on this point in Porphyry de Abstin. 2, 6. Tav- 
 tclls (rats KpiQals) an apxrjs fj.ev ovkoxvTelTo Kara raj Trpcaras 
 Ovcrtas to tS>v avdptoiraiv yevos- varepov be ipet^afxevoiv re avras kol 
 tt]V rpo(pr)V ^/aicrafjL€L>(i)V .... tov akrjkeafjiivov (3lov irapa rbv irpoaOev 
 liaKapio-QkvTos, airrip^avro re rrjs \jfaLo-0€La-r}9 rpoipTJs irp&rov ets Trvp 
 rot? deols. 56ev in koX vvv irpos r<3 reAet r&v 6vr]kS>v rot? xj/ato-Qe'Lcn 
 6vkr\iiao-i xpodfieOa 8 . But it should be remarked, that though 
 Porphyry names Theophrastus many times from section 5., he 
 by no means does it in such a way that this writer is to be con- 
 sidered the author of all which is there advanced ; hence, then, 
 none of the separate propositions in which he is not immediately 
 named (he is not, for instance, in section 6.) can be with any 
 certainty attributed to him. Whatever therefore can be gathered 
 from this passage — and it is neither much nor clear — is of no 
 further value than as the opinion and authority of one more of 
 the later writers. 
 
 8 See above, note 2. 
 
87. OvXal, ovXo^yrai. 453 
 
 8. But the supposed difference between the Greek and the 
 Roman usage is merely a remark of the moderns grounded on 
 the above information, and compared with the somewhat verbose 
 description which Servius gives on Virg. Eel. 8, 82., of how the 
 Roman mola was bruised, ground, and prepared with salt. No 
 trace of a distinction maintained with such formality is to be 
 found in that writer in whom every one would look for it, — 
 Dionysius of Halicarnassus. On the contrary, that author 
 (7. 72. p. 478. 479. Sylb.) shows the exact agreement of the 
 Roman with the Homeric usage in sacrifices, namely, that the 
 former prepared the victim ATJ/x^rpos Kapnovs eiuppavavTes, with 
 whom he then compares the Homeric heroes as ovXals XP *^- 
 vovs. He who goes on to show how, amidst all the differences 
 produced by nationality and time in the customs of the two 
 people, they still essentially agreed, would surely have men- 
 tioned that difference of usage, and given the reasons for it, 
 if it had been something so notorious ; as he has in fact con- 
 trasted the far or fea of the Romans with the barley of the 
 Greeks. But as he draws a distinction between (ka and KptOrj, 
 while on the contrary he uses Arnj.r]Tpos Kapirot and ovXat as 
 expressions intended to give only the same common general 
 idea, it is evident that had he known ovkai to have that mean- 
 ing, he could and must have avoided naming it here, if he 
 wished not to touch on the difference as being one of no essen- 
 tial importance. 
 
 9. I hope now to be able to satisfy my readers by the fol- 
 lowing account. 'OArJ, oAat, ?nola, was the old name for grain 
 in general; in its strictest sense, for that which was ready-pre- 
 pared for food by treading or grinding: but it was very natural, 
 that this name, taken from the process through which the grain 
 passed, should be the same genera] name for grain which it had 
 borne previously to that first simple process; in the Bame way 
 as both the Germans and English call by the same name of corn 
 (Germ, horn) the grain prepared for grinding and the green 
 plant still standing in the field, Equally natural is it that this 
 name should have remained appropriated to that species of 
 grain which was first in general use, \i/.. to barley, as in Ger- 
 man the name Korn [answering to the English word corn, and 
 signifying grain in general], i^ given more particularly to rye 
 
454 87. OvXal, ovXoxyTCu. 
 
 [the grain most used in Germany], as in French wheat is called 
 froment. And as a proof that this account is the only correct 
 one, another species of grain akin to barley bore the name of 
 okvpa. With regard however to the barley itself, the old name 
 0A.7J was driven out of common use by another word Kpudrj 9 , and 
 the former then retained exclusively the sacred meaning. The 
 most ancient simple process by which grain was prepared for 
 food was by merely treading it out, the object of which was not 
 so much to bruise the corn as to free it from the chaff. Now it 
 cannot be supposed that there existed any tradition whatever of 
 the times before men had learned even to tread out the corn. 
 But that, before the invention of baking, the raw corn was 
 moistened and salted to give it a relish, and that the mola salsa 
 or oAat was an offering of this the oldest kind of farinaceous 
 food, is a very natural and probable supposition. The only 
 thing necessary in this case was to preserve a visible contrast 
 between this and the fine flour or baked dough of the later 
 times. Raw barley, coarsely-ground barley, or barley-grit are 
 all in this respect one and the same thing ; although it is 
 possible, nay, in the minuteness of the sacerdotal regulations 
 it is very probable, that in the form and manner of preparing 
 this mola there were different observances in different temples. 
 But no supposition of a regular and constant distinction be- 
 tween the Greeks and Romans, the one using the barley whole 
 and the other coarsely ground, possible as the thing may be in 
 itself, is to be entertained without the express testimony of the 
 ancients. 
 
 10. That it is far more probable for the Skat of the Greeks, 
 like the mola of the Latins, to have been also barley somewhat 
 trodden and bruised, of which in all cases could be made a 
 kind of dough, is shown by the jest in Aristophanes Equ. 1 167. 
 where Cleon offers Arj/xoj a p,a(C(ri<ir)v 'Ek tG>v 6XG>v t&v e/c Uvkov 
 \iz\kay\ikvr\v. But where coarse grit was in use, there it is evi- 
 dent that this coarsely-trodden barley, necessarily mixed with 
 
 9 When I compare the word Kpl with Kpvos and oKptoeis, and the Latin 
 hordeum with horrere, it appears to me probable that the horridum, the 
 pointed, prickly beard, which particularly characterizes barley, is the 
 origin of this name. 
 
87. OvXai, ovXoyyrai. 455 
 
 a great deal of whole grain, must have been opposed to meal, 
 as if it had been whole barley, ivhole corn. Thus, therefore, 
 we must interpret the hi kcll vvv in the passage in Suidas ; and 
 thus certainly might have arisen in a very early period (perhaps 
 as early as Theophrastus) the etymology of the word ovXoyyrai 
 from oXos, ovXos ; although it is also possible that from this 
 etymology was first formed the exact supposition that in the 
 Homeric times they really did use in their sacrifices corn 
 literally whole. From such suppositions, (brought forward in 
 the shape of historical facts,) which we can no longer read 
 in their original authors, arose first the confused and contra- 
 dictory scholia and glosses, such as those which we have quoted 
 above, and from which men fancy they can draw antiquarian 
 proofs. 
 
 1 1 . That the prevailing testimony in the case before us is in 
 general nothing but speculation of the grammarians is clear 
 also from this, that the explanation there given was by no 
 means universally current, as very many good scholia and 
 glosses do not at all mention it. For instance we have in 
 Hesych. 'OAat, Kpidai, airapyai. Qvkas, /cptflas. OvKoxvtcls, .... 
 KpiOas irecppvypuzvas. And from the corrupted gloss 'EmTreXaviai, 
 oXal, kcll -noirava, we see at least that the subject of it is a piece 
 of dough, or a baked cake, which nevertheless is explained by 
 oAat. By comparing this last with the gloss 'EpLiriXava, iro-nava, 
 I would propose to read it 'ETMieXava, at 6Aat, kcll ttottclvcl. 
 Probably epurikava and iirLireXava were the names for cakes 
 which were laid upon the animal for sacrifice, and therefore 
 another form of the mola. Suid. 'OAat kcll ovXai, at /xe#' ak&v 
 
 fJL€[JLLyiJL€VCLL KplOoi KCLL TOtS Ov\xa(TLV €TTl(3aXX6pl€VClL. MoSCllOp. ad 
 
 Horn. II. a, 449. OvXoxvtcls ZXeyov ra kclvcl hi 3>v at ouAat €\€ovto' 
 ovXal hi daiv at KpiOal, euTavQa be at pLera aX&v p.ep.iyp.evai KpiQai 
 keyovrai una p.epows, as Im . . . . (lege eirexeov) rw /3coua) -npb rov 
 Upovpy?](raL to. iepela. Schol. Horn. Od. y, 441. oukav, eXaiofipo- 
 \ovs KpiOas. 
 
456 
 
 88. OuAoy, ovAios, ouAe. 
 
 i. The epithet ov\o$ occurs in so many and such completely 
 different kinds of expression in Homer, that it is extremely diffi- 
 cult for us, even supposing a twofold leading sense proceeding 
 from a twofold root or stem, to see our way through it. If we 
 look at the form of the word in search of its meaning, the most 
 natural supposition will be that ov\os is the common Ionicism 
 for 6'A.os ; but this is the very sense with which we can make the 
 least progress in explaining the Homeric passages, although 
 Gesner (ad Orph. Arg. 955.) and Damm endeavour, in a man- 
 ner forced beyond example, to reduce almost everything to that 
 sense. Far greater progress may be made by deriving the word 
 from dAeii>, by virtue of which ovkos is the same with oAoo's ; but 
 this again leaves out a number of passages, in which, if we form 
 our judgment from what the context evidently requires, we 
 should generally be satisfied with the sense of soft, woolly ; 
 which meaning is again supported by what we know to be its 
 common use in prose, in which it means crisp or curled. 
 
 2. If we pass in review all the Homeric passages, we shall see 
 that it is the epithet, 
 
 1.) of the y\alva and the Tdinjs, II. tt, 224. a>, 646. Od. 5, 
 50. 299. r], 338. k, 451. p, 89. r, 225., to which must be 
 added the ovKr\ \&xvr) of the y\°^ va ) H- K s J 34- 
 
 2.) of the hair of the head, Od. f, 23 t. \j/, 158., to which be- 
 longs also ov\oKapy)vos in Od. r, 246. 
 = 3.) of Mars, II. e, 461. 717. 
 
 4.) of Achilles, II. $, 536. 
 
 5.) of the dream, II. (3, 6. 8. 
 
 6.) of the cry of the starlings or daws, and of the fugitives, 
 
 II. p, 75 6 - 759- 
 
 7.) of a loaf of bread, Od. p, 343. 
 
 8.) of a month, Od. w, 118. 
 No one will ever succeed in bringing these passages under any 
 two of the three leading senses given above without proceed- 
 ing in an unphilosophical manner. On the contrary, at first 
 
88. 0£\oc, &c. 457 
 
 sight they range themselves thus : first, the passages i . and 
 2.; secondly, from 3. to 6. inclusive; thirdly, 7. and 8. ; which 
 three divisions we must now consider separately. 
 
 3. The Ionicism of ovkos for 0A.09 is indeed difficult to be 
 proved from any other source than the Homeric passages which 
 we are here examining; but it is undoubted, not only from 
 such compounds as ouAojiieA???, ovkopekia, ovkoOvo-ta, but also 
 especially from the other form okos never appearing in any of 
 the remains of Epic poetry which have come down to us, 
 whether Homeric, Hesiodic, or Cyclic*; where also we never 
 find opos, a boundary, but always ovpos. It is evident therefore 
 that this, like many other things, escaped the observation of the 
 later Epics, Apollonius and Oallimachus, who use the form okos- 
 In Homer, on the contrary, we find without any appearance of 
 force ovkos for okos in two of the verses above referred to ; viz. 
 in Od. a), 118. (of a distant journey), 
 
 M 771/1 S' tip ovXcp Tiavra neprjcrafiev cvpea novrov, 
 
 and Od. p, 343. 
 
 "Piprov t ovKov eXcov rrepiKaWtos e< Kaveoio 
 Kai Kpeas, (os ol X €L P es £X ( * v ^ avov ap(f)i^a\6vTt. 
 
 To which may be added from the Homeridic poetry Hymn. 
 Merc. 113. 
 
 HoXXa Se Kdyxava KaXa 
 
 OvXa kaftoiv enedtjKev 
 
 (of the tohole pieces of wood laid on the fire after it was made), 
 and again at v. 137. 
 
 QvKottoc? , ov\oKapr)va nvpos KaT(bdp.var avT^fj, 
 
 and from the later imitation of Aratus 717. Why I do not 
 quote ovkoxyras also, is evident from the account given of it in 
 the last article. 
 
 4. Equally certain also is the meaning of ovkos as derived 
 
 * [Under this term were included all the early Greek poet- who 
 imitated Homer by describing in Epic poetry some circumstances of 
 
 the Trojan war or of the destruction of Troy, as well as those who 
 chose their subjects from the earliest mythological stories of Greece 
 until the return of Ulysses. For a copious account of them 
 Hevne's Excursus 1. ad yEneid. 2. — En.] 
 
458 88. OdXog, &c. 
 
 from okdv. For, in the first place, the formation is perfectly 
 analogical, as the verb itself in its participle ovkopevos lengthens 
 the first syllable ; and both forms okoos and ovkos stand ex- 
 tremely well side by side to supply the necessity of the metre, 
 and even to mark a difference of meaning, in as much as the 
 former retains that of dAetz; more literally than the other does. 
 In the more general sense of bad, horrid, ovkos occurs, without 
 any force and very consistently, in the passages above men- 
 tioned from 3 to 6. This epithet, for instance, is most natu- 
 rally given to Mars, but equally so to Achilles also, as the ap- 
 pellation is applied to him by the Trojans (II. <£, $$6.), Aetbta 
 yap, fjLT] ovkos avrjp Is ret^os akr]Tcu. And it quite accords 
 with the language of the common people to call a screaming cry 
 a vile, horrid cry ; nor can the expression be used more appropri- 
 ately than at II. p, 755. et seq., where it is said, that as starlings 
 or daws, when they see the hawk, fly away, ovkov KtKkriyovTts, 
 so did the Greeks flying before iEneas and Hector. And lastly, 
 with regard to the dream (II. (3, init.), it might appear a de- 
 bateable point whether the epithet should be understood here 
 in that sense, because it is used in the eighth verse as a word 
 of address where nothing is meant unkind or offensive. Hence 
 it has been wished to apply to it the idea of soft; but, beside 
 that it never occurs in this more definite idea of softness, we 
 must recollect that what may be a very suitable epithet for 
 sleep is a very unsuitable one for a dream. The error was 
 that a fixed epithet was expected here, whereas it is evidently 
 a distinctive one. So far, therefore, those were in the right who 
 wished to explain ovkos by crrpefikos, only that they misun- 
 derstood the difference which belongs to the passage. For this 
 dream speaks quite plainly and straightforwardly, not in riddles; 
 but what it says is not true. Dreams were of two sorts, decep- 
 tive and true, as we know from Od. r, 560. et seq. And as in 
 that passage (v. 568.) Penelope gives her dream, which she 
 thinks a deceitful one, the passionate epithet of atvos (""AAA* e/xot 
 ovk €VT€v0ev — from the true gate — dtofxcu atvov oveipov 'Ekde^v), 
 so here the really deceptive dream, which Jupiter sends to 
 Agamemnon, is called in the cooler narrative ovkos, pernicious ; 
 and with this significant epithet Jupiter, according to Homeric 
 usage, addresses it very appropriately. 
 
88. OSXoy, &c. 459 
 
 5. It is worthy of mention as an error of the later Epic, that 
 Apollonius, resting on the authority of ovkos and ovkofievos, 
 frequently uses ovkoos for 6\oos ; for if this form had really 
 existed in the older language, it would surely have appeared 
 under some similar necessity of metre in the writings of the 
 oldest Epic poets also. 
 
 6. The third leading meaning of the word ovkos results from 
 the passages mentioned above under Nos. I. and 2., and is ra- 
 dically different from the others 1 . As an epithet of the yXaiva 
 and of the \ayvr) on the \Kdiva it gives the idea of hairy, woolly. 
 This however appears not to suit equally well the two pas- 
 sages under No. 2., viz. Od. £, 231. and \//-, 158. Kabbt K&prjTos 
 OvAas rJKe k6{jlcis. But even here the epithet ovkas must pre- 
 vent our thinking of long softly-flowing hair, which would suit 
 well an Apollo or a Paris, but not an Ulysses. The term kcl- 
 69ik€ depicts merely a head of hair falling down thick and full, 
 and ovkas denotes it to be in large locks, bushy, curly. And 
 in this sense only can it be also an epithet of the head itself, 
 as when the aged herald Eurybates is called (Od. r, 246.) ov- 
 XoKaprfvos, curly-headed. With this agrees also the usage of suc- 
 ceeding prose writers, as Herodot. 7, 70., where ovkorarov rpl- 
 Xw/xa denotes the woolly, curly hair of the negroes, who thence 
 are called in other writers ovkorptx^s. In Pollux 2. chap. 3. 
 ovkos with its compounds is quoted from the language of com- 
 mon life as used of hair, and in 4. chap. 19. it is cited more 
 than once, among the characteristics of tragic personages, as 
 the mark of arrogance and rudeness, exactly similar to the 
 fioaTpvyoiai yavpu (TTpar-qyu in Fragm. 9. of Archilochus. 
 Hippocrates too has the word in precisely the same sense as 
 Homer, using ovkcp epuo of wool, as we learn from Erotian, 
 who explains it by p.akaK<2 ; and in so doing he is quite correct 
 as to the sense ; only it is clear from what has been said that 
 the radical idea is not softness, but the winding, curly ringlets 
 
 1 I call radically different, not only such words and meanings as no 
 longer announce their derivation to the speaker, but those in which, 
 supposing that originally an affinity really existed (hero it would he 
 with one of the other two ov\o S ), the intermediate ideas or mediums of 
 transition joined by the same or by cognate tones have disappeared 
 from the language. 
 
460 88. 0£\o9, &c. 
 
 of hair producing softness : hence the derivation of the word 
 in this sense from eiAeiz;, by the change of the vowel, is not 
 improbable ; in the same way as ovkapibs avbp&v, globus virorum, 
 comes from that same verb 2 , and the verbal substantive Zgovkri 
 is acknowledged to come from e^iktiv. On the other hand, 
 it must now be clear how incorrect the old grammarians were 
 in deriving tcl ovka, the gums, from this sense of the word 
 ovkos. They were satisfied, without looking philosophically 
 to the radical idea, with the sense of fxakaKos (evidently joined 
 with the idea of ovkos by mere chance) as the foundation of 
 a new radical idea tender, which appeared to them to suit the 
 gums. But is it not better to leave the derivation of tcl ovka 
 undecided, and place it as a word by itself, until other combi- 
 nations may chance to throw some light upon it? The other 
 varieties of meaning in which the adjective ovkos occurs in prose, 
 and in the later poetry, have evidently arisen from that original 
 sense of curly by unobserved deviations of usage and by arti- 
 ficial orators and poets, and must not therefore be applied 
 retrospectively to the Epic usage. The Lyric poet Stesichorus 
 comes however very near to it when he uses the word as the 
 epithet of a wreath of violets (p. 28, 5. Suchf.), Ixav re Kopavlbas 
 ovkas : as such a wreath consists of twisted or curled flowerets 
 pressed close together, which make it soft, as the fleece was in 
 the former instance 3 . 
 
 7. Next to ovkos comes the form ovkcos, which occurs only 
 once in Homer, viz. II. k, 62., where Hector, now fighting in 
 the rear of the army, now in the van, is the subject of the follow- 
 ing comparison : 
 
 2 For a somewhat corrected account of the radical idea of ovXos and 
 ovXa/xos, see Art. 44. sect. 2 1 . 
 
 3 Passages from the later poets may be seen in Steph. Thesaur. in 
 v., as also in Callim. Epig. 5, 5. Hymn. Jov. 52. H. Dian. 247. 
 H. Del. 302. and in Antip. Sid. 73. (ov\ov deidew) ; while in the Latin 
 dictionaries crispus may be compared with ovXos, and will be found to 
 undergo the same transitions. On the gloss of Erotian, OvXov opofiiov 
 
 to nvppov' rives de rt)v lao/JLeyedr) opofiat aKpoxop^ovqv, I hardly know 
 what to say ; the former part appears to me to arise from the compa- 
 rison of a red wart with a scar or with the gums ; but the other seems 
 to be an explanation of ouXo? for oKov, like a wart which in shape and 
 size resembles a whole pea. 
 
88. 03\o9, &c. 461 
 
 Oios 8 i< vecpecov avcKpaivtrcu ovXios darrjp 
 TIapcpaivcov , tot€ S' uvtis edv vefaa CTKLoevra' 
 *Qs "EKToop, &C. 
 
 As neither the context nor etymology speaks decisively here on 
 the word ovkios, and Homer himself offers no parallel passage, 
 the corresponding usage of the oldest of the other poets would 
 appear to deserve our first attention. In the Shield of Her- 
 cules ovkios is twice an epithet of Mars; Pindar uses it as the 
 epithet of battle and of an elegy; and Sophocles (Aj. 933.) 
 makes Ajax curse the Atreidse ovkiu crbv irdOei. The passage of 
 Homer therefore has been correctly explained from the earliest 
 times by that sense of ovkios, according to which it is the same 
 as ovkos from dkelv, and the ovkios avrrip has been supposed to 
 denote Sinus by a reference equally correct to II. x> 26. &c. 
 where Priam sees Achilles, 
 
 UapfpalvovB' coctt acrrkp eneo-avpevov nedioio, 
 
 *Os pa t d7ra>pT]s elcri' 
 
 AapLTTpoTciros peu oy errri, kcikov 8e re (rrjpa rervKrai, 
 Kcu re cpepei noWbv nvperov 8eiXoTo"i (Uporoiaiv 
 i2$ tov xoXkos eXapne nep\ crr-qOeao-i Oeovros. 
 
 These verses give full and sufficient grounds for that sense of 
 ovkios. Nor is the designation of the star by ovkios in this 
 particular passage idle or unmeaning, since it is the hostile 
 Hector, threatening destruction to the Greeks, who blazes forth 
 in so many parts of the battle. All else therefore which an- 
 cients and moderns have produced on this verse needs no 
 further notice. One thing only I will not omit to mention, 
 that by the passage of Callimachus H. Del. 302., where the 
 evening star is called ovkos tOdpais f/ E(77re/309, any one might be 
 misled to understand ovkios in the same sense ; nay, it is pos- 
 sible that Callimachus had the Homeric expression in his mind 
 when he wrote it. But this supposition must be at once re- 
 jected : for neither can ovkios be used simply for ovkos, curly, nor 
 is the transition from curly, woolly, to the gleaming, twinkling 
 rays of a star, Homeric, however respectable a rank it may ob- 
 tain among the modifications of meaning introduced by the 
 later poets 1 . — The various reading avkios (sec Heyne), old as 
 
 4 See above, note 3. 
 
462 88. 0$\os, &c. 
 
 it is, (for Apollonius (4, 1629.) had it in his mind,) carries 
 but little weight, as there are no grounds elsewhere for avktos 
 in the adjectival sense of evening, vesper, bringing the herds 
 home to the stall. 
 
 8. It is certainly remarkable that this very ovXlos, fem. ovkta, 
 should as a name of Apollo and Diana (see Steph. Thesaur. 2, 
 J 283. c. d.) have a sense just opposite to the above, viz. healing. 
 For myself I see nothing so totally inadmissible in the idea of 
 understanding this form here also in its common meaning, which 
 is favoured by the very name of * ArnoWmv , and seems to me 
 to suit extremely well in the mouths of simple men, those two 
 powerful deities so frequently bringing death with their swift 
 arrows : and to this may be supposed to refer the gloss of 
 Hesychius, ovkta, dkedpia. But there is nothing strange in that 
 plain contrast of meanings; as ovktos in this sense is a sacred 
 mystical word, coming down to us from other times, perhaps 
 also from other stems or roots. And there are in the language 
 quite as good grounds for the derivation as it is commonly 
 formed (see Steph. 1. c.) ; namely, that in ovkos, okos, lies the 
 idea of whole, sound, healed*, with which is joined the verb 
 ovkeiv, of which the imperative has been preserved in Homer as 
 a term of salutation, Od. (o, 401. 
 
 Ov\e re koX fieya X C "P € > 
 
 and of which the verbal substantive ovkr\, a cure, remains in the 
 language of common life in the sense of a scar. On this I will 
 only remark, that in the same way the German adjective heilf, 
 ' salvus,' means in the Northern dialects (in which it is written 
 heel) ' entirely,' and that the term of salutation salve, answering 
 to ovke, is joined in the same way with the corresponding Latin 
 word salvus^. 
 
 * [A striking analogy exists in our word whole in its meaning of 
 entire, sound, healed. — Ed.] 
 
 f [Hence our English words, hail, heal, health, &c. — Ed.] 
 5 Whoever listens merely to the nearest resemblance of sounds, will 
 join the Latin vale etymologically with o«5\e. But in valere, validus, the 
 idea of health does not come from that of totality or entireness, but 
 merely from that of strength and excellence ; and thus validus is akin 
 to 0eXnW, to the Old German bold, bald (Angl. bold), to walten (Angl. 
 to rule or dispose of at one's will and pleasure), to gewaltig (Angl. 
 
463 
 
 Ov\o\vrai ; vid. oi>\aL 
 
 89. "o x «. 
 
 I introduce this word merely in order to remark, what ap- 
 pears to have entirely escaped observation, that it occurs only 
 in Homer, that it always precedes and strengthens the super- 
 lative, and indeed that (to be still more precise), in the only 
 expression in which it has been preserved to us, it stands before 
 apKJTos. The common explanation of it by e£o\a says nothing : 
 for take away the e£ and you deprive the word of its significant 
 part. It appears indeed difficult to derive it from anything 
 but ex €LV > but how it is to be deduced from this general idea 
 is left entirely to conjecture, as the word does not occur in any 
 other relation which might offer the means of forming a com- 
 parison. All that can be said therefore is, that it is a word 
 used to increase the force of ^pioros, and perhaps of superlatives 
 in general*. 
 
 powerful), and to wohl (Angl. well). On the other hand, that oAos, 
 ovkos is also etymologically identical with the German heil, heel, may be 
 made credible, even to one not very experienced in etymology, by the 
 sound of the vowel in the English words whole and wholesome [German 
 heilsarri] . But as the Greek 6'Xoy became in Old Latin solus, sollus, as 
 we learn from Festus, so is also the Latin salus, salvus, akin to the 
 German Heil, heil, (Angl. health, healthy,) by which therefore ov\f and 
 salve are connected. The Old German term of salutation heil! (Angl. 
 hail/), which is generally taken to be a substantive, and so construed, 
 may also quite as well have been the imperative of the veil) heilen (to 
 heal), which, like old verbs in general, has the intransitive sense (to be 
 or become healthy or sound) as well as the transitive, both in German 
 and English, as we say in both languages with regard to an unsound 
 part, ' my finger is healing.' In this way too, — that is to say, by a 
 comparison with the German heil, heilen, — the common explanation of 
 Apollo's epithet of OvKios will be supported by the German Heiland, a 
 healer or saviour. 
 
 * [Doderlein, by a very happy comparison, says that fya bears the 
 same relation to 6\vp6s as the Old German word fast (Angl. very much) 
 does to /est (Angl. fixed, firm). We may add the Latin valde, la/idus, 
 and the French fort in its two senses of very and strong. — En.] 
 
464 
 
 go. 9 0\6r)crcu. 
 
 i . The principal meaning given in the lexicons to oyOtto, 
 viz. to sigh or groan deeply, appears to be founded on that ety- 
 mology of the old grammarians which derives it from oyOos, a 
 hillock (avd(TTr]fjia rrjs yr\s), meaning thereby the heaving of the 
 breast, and metaphorically of the mind (/xereoopfo-at rr\v \j/vxriv). 
 But the idea of sighing and groaning little suits Jupiter or 
 Neptune in such passages as II. a, 517. 6, 208. Nor can it 
 be supposed to mean properly anger, or a threatening posture, 
 being frequently directed toward beloved persons, as in that 
 very passage of II. a, 517. and at if, 48. It certainly does ex- 
 press also the feelings of an inferior at the arbitrary conduct of 
 his superior in power, as at II. a, 570. at the threats of Jupiter 
 to Juno "£lyQr)(rav 6' ava §<S/xa Aibs Oeol ovpaviaves, or at o, 184. 
 the feelings of Neptune at the threats of Jupiter. We see 
 therefore that it denotes in general every kind of violent emotion 
 ( Unmuth, ' displeasure, ill-humour,' as Voss renders it, appears 
 to me somewhat too weak an expression) at events, actions, and 
 words which strike the mind unpleasantly. Hence it is used 
 in the soliloquy of one vexed, (II. A, 403. o-, 5.) 'Ox^ijo-as 8' apa 
 eure 7rpbs bi> fjL€ya\rjTopa Qv\k6v. 
 
 2. Hence it would be difficult to conceive how, among so 
 many passages of this kind, it should ever express in any one 
 instance mere astonishment, as Schneider in his Lexicon * says 
 that it does. At II. </>, 53. Achilles is indeed astonished at the 
 unexpected re- appearance of an enemy whom he thought long 
 ago in slavery : his astonishment however would not have been 
 expressed by oxOrja-at but for the vexation which accompanied 
 it. Nor can the passage of Od. 8, 30., where the predominant 
 feeling is pure displeasure or indignation, be quoted as a proof 
 of this meaning but by mistake. 
 
 * [This may perhaps refer to the first or second edition of Schneider; 
 in the third and last edition there is nothing of the kind. The whole 
 account of the word there given is an abridgment of this article of 
 Buttmann. — Ed.] 
 
90. '0-)(6rj<Tai. 465 
 
 3. According to this I have no doubt of the perfect correct- 
 ness of the other derivation, which is likewise an old one, and 
 which connects dy6r\(rai with ayOtaOai ; although the latter differs 
 in this, that it is used primarily of the literal sense of a burden, 
 as at Od. o, 457. Koikr\ vrjvs fiyOeTo, was laden, which is similar to 
 II. v, 247. ov& av vrjvs €KaTo(vyos a\6os apoiro : thence metapho- 
 rically of bodily pain, and by a similar metaphor of the mind 
 also (II. v, 352.), fiyOero yap pa Tpcoalv bap,vapL€vov<i. Nor could 
 any one have overlooked the affinity, had not the change of 
 vowel in the first letter of the word given it a quite different 
 shape in our eyes, which are accustomed to alphabetical arrange- 
 ment (compare opp.os from etpv in art. 52. sect. 2.). But the same 
 relation which oxeeo has to e'xco, dyfiia has to ayOu ; for the 
 change of the vowel a to o is verified by fiaWco, /3oArj, /3oAc(o, and 
 in cases exactly parallel in the initial letters by 6p\ap.os from 
 apX®) an d oyftos from ayoa 1 . 
 
 1 The change of vowel is always fluctuating between a, e, ; hence 
 to /3aAAo), /3oXj7, belongs also /3e'Xo9. Compare the changes of d\e<o in 
 art. 87. And for a further confirmation of this opinion, we have as 
 a companion for axOopm, 6x6ea>, another form with e, drawn from one 
 of the few sources of the old provincial dialects which are come down 
 to us. The verb v-nix&l™* subvehat, ' should import (into a country),' 
 and the derivative formed from it Inex^^^pa, ' imports,' are found in 
 an inscription containing a treaty between the Hierapytnians and the 
 Priansians, inhabitants of Crete, given in Chishull Ant. As. p. 130., 
 which I will copy word for word from Chishull, omitting only the ac- 
 cents, which are an addition of his own : a 8e ri ku o lepanvrvios vnex~ 
 6t]T(u es npiuvaiov — areXen (array k<u eaayofxevon tea c^ayo/jLfvaii avra : and 
 again a little further, cov §e tea cnroSooTai Kara 6a\a<j(rav ((orras (fytycoyas 
 
 r(ov v7T(xO((Tifxu)v ano&oTO) to. reXta. The connexion of these forms with 
 aX0tcr0ai, to be freighted, seems to me beyond all doubt : nor should I 
 have any hesitation in deriving also the family of e\6os, ix^pos, exOco-Sai 
 from the idea of burdensome, insupportable, and classing it etymologi- 
 callv with the above, (as I have done before,) if this opinion were not 
 outweighed in my mind by another, according to which these words 
 appear to come from eV, e£, (compare llcsycli. f'xdoi, t'£co,) as /tos/is 
 seems to be derived from the idea of strange, estranged. 
 
 H J. 
 
466 
 
 91. Tle'pa, irepav, ireprjv. 
 
 i. Ylipa and Trepav have been hitherto explained in the lexi- 
 cons to be the same word, or to differ only in sound euphonies 
 gratia, whereas we find in the two words an almost constant 
 difference of usage ; in order to give an account of which we 
 must first call attention to the difference between the ideas of 
 trans and ultra. In both these I figure to my mind two sepa- 
 rate spaces, and suppose myself in one of them. But in trans 
 my first thought is of the object which separates, and of that 
 as occupying a space of a certain proportionate size, generally 
 a river or something which may be compared with it ; and so 
 by trans I speak of the other side of it. In ultra my first 
 thought is of one of the two spaces, and of myself in it, but of 
 the separating object only as the distant line of boundary, and 
 by ultra I speak of passing that line. Both are frequently 
 translated in German by jenseit, ' on the other side ;' but, to be 
 more accurate, trans would mean Jenseit, 'to or on the other side, 
 over,' and ultra, daruber hinaus, l beyond.' When I say trans 
 Euphraten I imagine myself near to that river, and speak posi- 
 tively of the other side; for instance, ' he is fled over the Eu- 
 phrates ;' in which the thought is, he is now on the other side. 
 When I say ultra Euphraten, I am at a distance from that 
 river, and speak of the other side only in opposition to this 
 side ; for instance, ' he is fled beyond the Euphrates ;' in which 
 the thought is, he is nowhere to be found from this place to that 
 river* '. 
 
 2. If now we compare accurately the passages of the ancients 
 we shall find that the Greek language had fixed in essential 
 points the usage of irtpa for ultra, i:ipav for trans. Stephens 
 
 * [The distinction between trans and ultra, as explained here by 
 Buttmann, cannot be exactly preserved either in German or in English, 
 as our corresponding expressions give no idea of the person speaking 
 being near to or distant from the separating object ; indeed it seems 
 hardly probable that the Latins observed this distinction in their general 
 usage. I have given trans a twofold rendering, to suit its twofold use 
 as a preposition of rest and of motion. — Ed.] 
 
9'1. Uepa, &c. 467 
 
 however defines the usage of irdpa in a most remarkable way, 
 by stating that it is not used in (what is its proper meaning) de- 
 scribing locality 1 . The fact is, that Budseus, whom Stephens 
 follows, confines iripa to the sense of virep to fAtrpov, which 
 certainly every one will remember to be its principal sense ; 
 as Ttipa tov hiKatov, i. e. beyond the boundaries of justice ; or 
 absolutely, in Xen. Anab. 6, I, 28. ovk^tl irepa kiroki6pK7]o-av. 
 It is possible that from the frequency of instances of a moral 
 kind, the ear was less accustomed to the word expressing ideas 
 of real locality; and thence, whenever such a case occurred, 
 other expressions like v-nip or noppoiTepco were preferred. But 
 to say that -nipa was never used in that sense is incorrect : for 
 instance, we find in Plat. Pheed. p. 112. e. [chap. 60. p. 299. 
 Forster] of the rivers flowing from this world to the world 
 below, hvvarov hi £oti eKaripaxre /uexpi T °v p-eo-ov KaOUvai (to flow 
 downward), irepa 8' ov. Again at Eurip. Here. 234. 'AtXclvtlk&v 
 Trepa <f>€vyeiv opcav : and iElian. ap. Suid. v. Z£rjKOv : 'Ecopcov (pao-pia 
 to /xeyefloy Z£rJKOv irepa kcll avoiTipoa tov Wtov. 
 
 3. It is certain that we cannot easily produce from the other 
 word irepav, Ion. irtp-qv, a usage transferred to anything moral, 
 because the person thinks himself near to the separating object. 
 The most general construction of this form, as of the other, is, 
 that the separating object is joined with it in the genitive, as 
 iiipav tov iroTapLov, ttipav Qa\aa<jr\<$\ and this is the only one 
 mentioned in the lexicons. Now as Homer also uses the word 
 thus in II. a), 752. Ttipvao-Kt irepi]v a\bs ajpvyiToio, " was accus- 
 tomed to sell them on the other side of the sea," so in this 
 verse of II. /3, 535. 
 
 Aoicpcov, 01 vuiovcri neprjv iepTJs 'Evj3oirjs, 
 
 no other interpretation was thought possible than * on the other 
 side of Eubcea: 1 and Wood, Heyne, and others thought to 
 draw from this a fine-spun argument, that Homer lived in Asia 
 or in one of the islands on the coast of Asia. But how could 
 this be ? Is it likely that Homer should speak here so plainly 
 
 1 See Steph. Thes. under -nkpnv : " Uipav de loco tantummodo dicU 
 tur : at praecedens nepa nunquam." 
 
 H h 2 
 
468 9 1 - TTe^oa, &c. 
 
 and as it were audibly, from Asia ? and that none of the an- 
 cients, who have handled this often-discussed subject, none of 
 the grammarians, should have remarked it, — no mention should 
 be made of it in the scholium to the verse ? I consider this to 
 be impossible, and regard it as a decisive proof that none of 
 the ancients understood it so. Besides, it is difficult to sup- 
 pose that the poet, who through his whole poem is always 
 in the midst of the scenes which he describes, — who, for in- 
 stance, in this geographical episode leads us round all Greece, 
 — should at once in this particular passage fix himself in his 
 own home. And lastly, it is not to be supposed that from 
 the distant coast of Asia, from which no eye could reach to 
 Greece, the poet's first thought should be fixed on the island 
 of Euboea, just as if it were in sight and obstructed his view, 
 and that he should then have marked the coasts before which 
 it lies with such an expression as ' on the other side ofC an ex- 
 pression which, as spoken from Asia, could have no meaning 
 but with reference to the iEgean sea, certainly not to an island 
 out of sight. 
 
 4. But there can be no doubt on the subject; jreprjv here 
 means opposite. That is to say, irepav akos was certainly the 
 natural combination; whence irepav was also used absolutely 
 in the sense of on the other side; for instance in Xenoph. 
 Anab. 2, 4, 20. ttoXK&v ovtm Tiipav, many being on the other 
 side (of the river); and 7, 2, 2. nkpav et? ttjv ' AcrCav naXiv 
 btafirjvaL (from Thrace) ; so also ra itkpav, what is or happens 
 on the other side, and the like. From this was now formed 
 a new construction, by joining (as before in the genitive case) 
 with irepav in its first meaning, but now used absolutely, the 
 point from which something was considered as lying on the 
 other side ; consequently the sense would be, on the opposite 
 side from, opposite to. That this is the true sense of the Ho- 
 meric passage is shown by tracing the narrative. The poet leads 
 us from the Boeotians, through the Phocians, to the Locrians, 
 and from them toward the island of Eubcea. In this series, 
 therefore, that designation of the Locrians could mean nothing 
 else than that they lived opposite Euboea : and as long as the 
 idea of a place separated by water, or by something comparable 
 with it, was joined with irepav, there was no ambiguity. If the 
 
91. Hepa, &c. 469 
 
 genitive denoted such a separating object, -nkpav meant on the 
 other side; if it marked a point or a country on such an object, 
 it then meant opposite; which latter was afterwards expressed 
 more plainly according to subsequent invention by avrntkpav, 
 avTiTitpas, KaravTiirepav, avriKpij, &c. ; when of course that other 
 more simple but not so expressive term became less used. 
 
 5. That the ancients also understood the passage in no 
 other way is proved, first by the unequivocal usage of this 
 word in ^Eschylus, when speaking of the same geographical 
 point (Agam. 198.) it is said of the Grecian army XaXdhos 
 TTcpav €\<t)v (halting) irakLppodoLs kv Avkibos tottols. Next 
 comes Strabo's quotation of this very verse (lib. 9. p. 426.), 
 where he infers from it that Homer knew the other Locrians ; 
 and consequently he looked upon the expression i:ipr)v Eii^oC-qs 
 as an antithesis added by the poet to mark the locality more 
 accurately ; for which purpose a point of view must be taken 
 not in Asia, but on the spot. And lastly Pausanias, when (at 
 lib. 10, 8.) he is reckoning up the deputies sent to the Amphic- 
 tyons, says, TlepLirovcri Se kcu AoKpol 0% re KaXovpLevot 'O^oAat 
 koX ol itipav Evfioias eW e/carepoi : from which passage we 
 may fairly conclude that the phrase ol -nipav Ei»/3otas became 
 from Homer's time a kind of fixed designation for these Lo- 
 crians. 
 
 6. If however we compare other passages of Pausanias for 
 this word, we shall obtain a further result, of importance for 
 the understanding of that writer ; in as much as our having an 
 accurate idea of the places which he describes must frequently 
 depend on this word. Ylepav then occurs frequently in Pau- 
 sanias in descriptions, where the situation is not represented as 
 being on or near a river : nay, the object which stands with 
 nipav in the genitive is very commonly a building. If now the 
 only meaning for this word in the mind of the historian were 
 on the other side, such a phrase as ' on the other side of the 
 temple' could be understood no otherwise than as relative to 
 the road of the traveller, or of the person passing through a 
 town; the meaning therefore would be, 'beyond the temple, 
 further off than the temple,' consequently much the same as 
 the idea of ultra, which, as we shall see below, the form -nipav 
 does sometimes take. At the beginning therefore of lib. 2, 22. 
 
470 9 i. Uepa, &c. 
 
 where a ditch is mentioned, and some columns stand irepav 
 tov rdcpov, this would be understood to mean that these columns 
 stood further off on the same road ; and in a similar way soon 
 after (p. 162. Kuhn.), Tov be Upov rrjs ElAetOvlas irepav karXv 
 
 'Ek&ttis vaos: and at c. 23. (p. 163.) Upbv 'A/ou£ia/)(£oi>, 
 
 kcu tov Upov 7repav 'Epicpvkrjs fxvrjfjLa. Some other passages 
 however made me doubt the truth of the above rendering ; and 
 at last I became convinced by others more decisive, that Pau- 
 sanias at least, perhaps in consequence of his affecting a simple 
 and Ionic style, uses the word irepav in the sense of opposite; 
 so that the thing analogous to the river is then the street or the 
 space before a building. The following passages may serve 
 to convince us of it. In lib. 5, 15. (p. 415.) a description is 
 given of the Altis at Olympia, within which was also the Pry- 
 taneum ; of which it is said that it is built irapa rrjv egobov rj 
 £<ttl tov yvfjivao-iov irepav. That is to say, the Altis had se- 
 veral entrances (e^obot they are called here, because Pausanias 
 gives his description from the inside), one of which is to be 
 specified, and this is naturally done by some object situated 
 without it. That object was the gymnasium ; and -nipav there- 
 fore in this passage can have no reasonable meaning but the 
 very probable one, that ' opposite the gymnasium' was one of 
 the entrances into the Altis. Again in lib. 8, 10. (p. 618.) is de- 
 scribed the temple of Neptune on the road from Mantinea to 
 Tegea. Afterwards (at p. 619.) it is said, Uepav be tov Upov tov 
 
 Hoo-etb&vos Tpoiiaiov ean kCdov TteTtov()\i,evov If we are to 
 
 suppose that uepav is here said of the point of view taken by 
 the traveller, meaning therefore " on the other side of the tem- 
 ple, further along the road, you come to a trophy," then the 
 description of the road beyond must be continued from the 
 trophy : whereas after the occasion of this monument has been 
 related, the new paragraph (c. 1 t .) begins immediately with 
 Mera 5e to Upbv tov Uoo-€Lbu>vos \o)pCov virobi^eTaC ere bpv&v 
 
 TTkrjpes It cannot surely be argued without doing violence 
 
 to the sense, that the trophy may indeed have been situated 
 between the temple and the wood of oaks, yet is not reckoned 
 in describing the chain of localities, but is as it were thrown 
 in with the temple. The reader, instructed by the other 
 passages, will discover the true sense of this. The traveller 
 
91. Tlepa, &c. 471 
 
 proceeds from Mantinea as far as the temple of Neptune ; this 
 building is described, then the trophy opposite, i. e. on the 
 other side of the road; and then the journey proceeds onwards 
 from the temple through the wood. Again in lib. 10, 36. the 
 interior of Anticyra is briefly described. ''AvrLKvpevcn be elorl fxev 
 dvbpidvres ev rfj ayopq xclXkoT" Ioti be acfricnv eirl ra> kL[xevi Uo- 
 
 aeib&vos ov fxeya Upbv (then follows a short description of 
 
 it) Tov yvpLvacriov be, ev w kcll tcl kovrpd a^ian ireTroirjTcu, tov- 
 
 tov irepav aAAo yvfxvdcnov eanv ap\alov % avbpias be eaTrjKev ev 
 airy, &c. We see that the objects in the town are not men- 
 tioned regularly one after the other as they stand in the road of 
 a spectator, but are taken here and there promiscuously. It is 
 impossible therefore that the sense can be ( beyond that gym- 
 nasium folloivs another;'' but the fact is simply this. The gym- 
 nasium, i. e. the proper, regular, common gymnasium, is named 
 in one word, and it is added that the baths were in it. Oppo- 
 site this, i. e. on the other side of the same place or square or 
 street, stood the old gymnasium, in which an ancient statue is 
 pointed out as worthy of observation. Again at lib. 2, 27. the 
 grove of iEsculapius at Epidaurus is mentioned, and the statue 
 of the god described. The particular temple, vaos, in which 
 it was placed, is not named, as being a thing understood ; but 
 it is immediately added, Tov vaov be ecm irepav, evda ol {kItou. 
 tov Oeov KaOevbovatv. We must indeed have recourse to most 
 artificial refining before we can force these words to mean on 
 the other side : whereas nothing is more natural than that oppo- 
 site the temple, that is to say front to front, should stand the 
 building in which those slept who wished to be healed. And 
 in the same way there is no reason whatever why we should 
 understand irepav otherwise in the passages before mentioned 
 (2, 22. and 23.); on the contrary, the sense of opposite will ap- 
 pear in every instance to be the most natural both in the expres- 
 sion and in the thing itself. 
 
 7. We will now show by some examples from other writers 
 that this form nepav docs however deviate from the relations 
 previously laid down, as those of trans, and makes a transition 
 to its near neighbour ultra. When in the Thcogonia, v. 814., 
 the residence of the Titans is placed Treprjv x^eos (ocpepolo, this 
 may still be compared, as far as a general representation of it 
 
472 9 1 - He/wi, &c. 
 
 can be made, with the irkp-qv akos, -nkpr\v ci/ceayoto. But in Pin- 
 dar Isth. 6, 34. we read, that the fame of great exploits pene- 
 trates koX irkpav NetAoto irayav kol dY 'Tirtpfiopkovs. Here the 
 sources of the Nile are evidently supposed to be a boundary of 
 the known world, and nkpav means beyond in the full sense of 
 ultra; still however differing in one point from the examples 
 given above (sect. 2.) of it € pa as a term of locality, viz. that here 
 there is no motion over the boundary. What the exact meaning 
 of nkpav ''Yvh&v is, as quoted by Stephens from a later work, en- 
 titled De Mundo, I know not : but in the expression of Eu- 
 ripides Hipp. 1053. (to drive any one) Ukpav ye ttovtov kol tottvv 
 'ArkavTiK&v, nkpav is to be considered as in construction with 
 ttovtov only, to which (not to iripav) the other is joined. On the 
 other hand, the passage in a chorus of the Alcestis 588. is deci- 
 sive, where the hind dances to the lyre of Apollo, vxj/LKopicov irkpav 
 fiaivova kkarav, ( going beyond the firs,' i. e. leaving the wood ; 
 and another (Suppl. 676.) where the charioteers drive their 
 chariots nkpav dAA^Acoy, beyond each other, i. e. each passing his 
 enemy ; on which see Hermann's explanation. Thus we are 
 very near the meaning generally given to the word in Pausanias, 
 but at the same time travelling on poetical ground ; and poets, 
 we know, are accustomed to turn words intentionally in new di- 
 rections, keeping only within the bounds of what is intelligible. 
 8. I must here examine one other poetical passage in which 
 the word irkpav occurs, because it has been the subject of dis- 
 pute. In Apollonius 2, 532. the departure of the Argonauts 
 from Thrace and the residence of Phineus is thus related: 
 
 'Ek fie rodev paKapecrcri dvcodena daprjcravres 
 Bcopov akos prjyplvi nepyv, kcu e<£' Upa dkvres, 
 N?)a Oorjv e'tafiaivov ipeacrefxev' 
 
 The scholiast keeps to the most common meaning of ukpriv in the 
 following periphrasis ; Mera ravra TtXtvaavres ets to nkpav rrjs 
 a\6s, ryyovv ds rr\v 'Aalav, ficapLov ev tw cuyiaA<3 (DKobopajaav 2 . 
 
 2 This is the reading in the Paris collection of the scholia. The 
 common scholium, which in the editions is falsely pointed, must be 
 read thus : 'Ev fie t<o nepav, (frrju-lv, uiyia\<p rrjs 'Ao"tas, dianXevaavres eV 
 avrbv, (3a>pbv (doprjcravTo, 
 
91. He pa, &c. 473 
 
 — Brunck says that nothing can be so obscure as not to 
 admit of being explained in this way. Without doubt he 
 stumbled at this circumstance, that the poet, who makes no 
 express mention of sailing toward the opposite shore, does not 
 describe, until after he had used ireprjv, their going on board 
 preparatory to setting sail. He tries to interpret or amend the 
 word Trep-qv, so that the transaction described should take place 
 on this shore. If we call to our aid the meaning of opposite, 
 and compare the passage 2, 177. where avTiirip-qv is joined 
 with a dative, we might understand priypXvL -nipr\v to mean 
 '•opposite (i. e. in sight of) the breakers.' But what the 
 scholiast further tells us must prevent our doing so. <$>avepbv 
 
 OVV ZoTLV kv Evp(£>TTrj. KCLL yap kTL KCLL VVV t \epOV k(TTlV OVTd) 
 
 KaXovpLtvov kv T(3 Ttepav ttjs EvpunTTjs TTjs 'Aatabos. (In this 
 late Grecian writer we observe another instance of that usage 
 of nkpau ; for the construction is rrjs 'Aaiabos kv rco nkpav rrjs 
 Evpcainjs.) The words (pavepbv ovv kariv ev EvpatTrr) (which are 
 wanting in the Paris collection of the scholia) I can only under- 
 stand to mean, that the situation of the altar is visible from the 
 European side ; on which the interpreter grounds his use of 
 the present by means of the yap following. In the Paris 
 collection the remainder runs thus : 'O 6e tottos kv w tov 
 (3to[xbv (pKobofjLOvv ert ml vvv 'lepbv KaXetrat. I have distin- 
 guished the word 'lepo'y as a proper name ; for this is the place 
 at the entrance of the Pontus which Polybius quotes as to Ka- 
 kovp.€vov 'lzpov (see lib. 4. c. 39. 50. 52.), and which is some- 
 times called by this name in Demosthenes (e^ 1 'Iepcp, Zcf) 'lepov, 
 Leptin. §. 29. Lacrit. p. 926, 5. Polycl. p. 1211.), and in the 
 Periplus of Scylax, p. 28. Hudson. In Strabo it is called to 
 'lepbv to Xa\Kr}bovLov (lib. 12. p. 562. &c). It was a strong 
 place or castle on that narrow entrance of the Bosporus, which 
 belonged originally to the Chalcedonians, afterwards to the By- 
 zantians, and of which, beside the passages of Polybius quoted 
 above, the most complete account is given by Gyllius de Bos- 
 poro 3, 5., who used principally the Anaplus Bospori (now 
 lost) of Dionysius of Byzantium. Dionysius says that Phryxus 
 built this temple on his voyage to Colchis ; Polybius tells us, 
 that Jason sacrificed here to the twelve deities on his return. 
 The scholia on the passage in Apollonius have also (according 
 
474 9 1 - Ilepa, &c. 
 
 to the Paris manuscript) the following : Tipioo-devrjs bi $770-1, 
 tov pkv <t>pi£ov (in the common edition, perhaps more correctly, 
 tovs pLev <£>pigov iraibas) ficafxbv t&v bvbeKa de&v IbpyaacrOcu, tovs be 
 ' ApyovavTas tov Tloo-eib&vos. 'Hpob&pos be em tov clvtov /3&)/xoi> 
 T€0VK€vat tovs ' ApyovavTas (prjalv e^ 1 ov na\ "Apyos 6 <&pi£ov 
 iiravLibv €Te0vK€L. To this I subjoin what Marcian of Heraclea 
 (p. 69. Hudson) quotes from the voyage of Menippus : Kara tov 
 Qpqiaov Bocnropov kcu to o-TOfxa tov Ev£e(vov TIovtov, ev toZs 
 begio'is ttjs 'Acrias fxepecnv airep earl tov Bidvvcav eOvovs, /cetrat 
 yupiov ( \epbv KaXov\xevov ev w vem ecTL Alos Ovpiov Ttpoaayopev- 
 ofxevos. tovto be yapiov a<peTripi6v ecrrt t&v eh TIovtov irkeovT&v. 
 I have placed all these passages here together, that there may 
 be no doubt of their all meaning the same place ; which more- 
 over is known by the fuller appellation of the Temple of Ju- 
 piter Urius, the particulars of which may be seen in Chishull's 
 Antiq. Asiat. p. 61., Tzschuck. ad Pomp. Mel. 1, 19, 5.° We 
 see, further, that this spot was fabled to have been dedicated 
 properly and originally to the twelve deities ; and as this very 
 circumstance is related in the passage of Apollonius, it is not 
 possible to suppose that this learned poet spoke of any other 
 
 3 As I quote Chishull, I must also correct what in him needs cor- 
 rection. Cicero Verr. 4, 57. calls, as every one knows, this same 
 Pontic Jupiter (and two similar images of the same god which he 
 likewise mentions) " Jovem Imperatorern, quern Graeci Ovpiov nomi- 
 nant." One is naturally surprised at this Latin appellation ; and 
 Chishull thrice proposes to read there Impuberis, Impuberem, explain- 
 ing the youthful Jupiter, who was worshipped in many places, to be 
 properly this Juppiter Serenus or Ovpios This supposition has some- 
 thing to recommend it, and I once thought to be able to make it more 
 probable by substituting the name of Juppiter Imberbis, comparing the 
 passages in Schol. Acr. and Cruq. on Hor. Sat. 5, 26. and Pausan. 5, 
 24. bis. But everything historical which Chishull quotes in support of 
 his conjecture is totally untenable ; and, to mention one particular, his 
 assertion that Dionysius of Byzantium did really so describe the statue 
 of Urius in that temple on the Bosporus, is totally false. The words, 
 as Gyllius (de Bosporo 3, 5.) quotes them from that writer, do not 
 refer at all to the statue of the god, but to another image of a youth 
 which was to be met with in that temple. Under the name of Juppiter 
 Imperator, as Urius, we have therefore the ruler of the elements, the 
 ruler even in the kingdoms of the other gods, and consequently in the 
 kingdom of Neptune. 
 
92. Heap. 475 
 
 than that same temple, which was the most celebrated in the 
 neighbourhood, that he followed any other than those universally 
 known fables, or that he thoughtlessly altered them. It follows 
 therefore from what has been said that irkpy\v in this passage is 
 used in its most common meaning ; which in this particular in- 
 stance, where the poet has expressly transported the reader into 
 those celebrated straits, could not be changed without leading 
 him into error. And for the same reason it was unnecessary to 
 mention in the verse itself that they sailed over to the opposite 
 side for the purpose of building the altar (an omission which the 
 scholiast supplies by ttAc waives), for the word ireprjv of itself 
 implied that. Besides, in so narrow a strait — the Bosporus 
 there being only from four to five stadia broad — the temporary 
 residence or occupation of those heroes on both shores may be 
 considered as one and the same ; and their departure, properly 
 so called, first took place from the spot, which, as we have just 
 seen, continued always in later times to be the afarripiov to 
 the Pontus*. 
 
 TlevKaXi/JLOs, 7ret>Ke<Woy ; vid. exeTrtVK-qs. 
 
 92. Yllap. 
 
 1 . All analogy makes the word map to be a neuter substantive, 
 from the same root of which mW is the adjective ; consequently 
 rduv, fat, 77 tap, the fat. And the word is so used twice in the 
 Iliad, viz. A, 550. and p, 659., and that too in the proper sense 
 of fat ; for I cannot think that when it is said ' the hunters do 
 not suffer the lion fio&v €k map eAeVflcu,' the explanation, old 
 as it certainly is, of the lion always choosing out (II. p, 62.) the 
 best and fattest cow, will still find supporters. Heyne makes 
 a very apt comparison of the expression €k Ovp.bv kkiaOai. Nay, 
 there appears to me in these two expressions to be an inten- 
 tional relation between the man, whose superiority lies in his 
 mind, of which the enemy endeavours to deprive him, and the 
 
 * [Some rather ingenious remarks on ntpav will be found in Peile' 
 Agamemnon of /Eschylus in the first appendix to his notes. — En.] 
 
476 9 2 * Hiap. 
 
 cow, whose superiority lies in her fat, for which the beast of prey- 
 is particularly ravenous. 
 
 2. But in the third Homeric passage, Od. t, 135.^ this same 
 word is now pretty generally taken for the adjective, and written 
 accordingly, 
 
 eVet p.6Xa map vrr ovdas, 
 
 where before was written vtt : according to which accentuation, 
 if it could be depended on, map would be a substantive here as 
 in the other passages. The oldest external grounds for the 
 present reading I find in the smaller scholia, where map is ex- 
 plained by Xiitapbv, zvyeiov, which cannot be taken as the expla- 
 nation of an abstract substantive, but can only be joined with 
 ovhas; consequently the preposition must stand for the verb 
 virean, ' for fat is the soil beneath.'' 
 
 3. I will not assert it to be improbable that map should be 
 at the same time substantive and adjective; for if the last pas- 
 sage be correctly explained, map is always an adjective, and to 
 map, i. e. to kmapbv, that which is fat, stands in the first pas- 
 sage also for to AtVoj, the fat. But then I cannot but feel 
 surprised at nowhere finding a word said that may confirm 
 the analogy of the neuter adjective map. The only one 
 which can be brought forward I will at once mention, and 
 no one will deny that it is completely begging the ques- 
 tion. It is, that map must be at once masculine and neuter, 
 in the same way as fxaKap, if it occur anywhere as a neu- 
 ter, can only be written pL&Kap. Perhaps also the p of the 
 feminine form irUipa has been supposed to furnish grounds 
 for the existence of an adjective map ; but this cannot be 
 satisfactory ; for fjLaitap has fx&Katpa, and nUipa could there- 
 fore come only from iru-qp; unless -eipa should be introduced 
 (even without any such grounds) as a feminine sister- form, as in 
 TrpiajSetpa. That is to say, as --qp and -apa were a common 
 masculine and feminine termination, the latter was adopted 
 whenever a necessity led to it, even without the masculine ter- 
 mination. But there is one objection against map as an ad- 
 jective, in my opinion decisive of itself, that there is no con- 
 ceivable reason whatever why the reciter did not say e7ret ixaXa 
 mov vii ov8aj. The form, 6, ff m'cuv, to mov, is complete in 
 
92. Uiap. 477 
 
 Homer, for he has ttlovl 8rjju<j>, ttlovcs cuyes, and as a neuter 
 TTtova fjirjpia and ttiovos dbvroio. Where the form irUipa occurs 
 there is a metrical reason for it ; but before we can adopt the 
 supposition that without such a reason the reciter used some- 
 times ttlov sometimes map, or, if you will, by metaplasmus map, 
 gen. ttlovos, plur. mova, we must have from some source or other 
 very decisive grounds for it. 
 
 Hence I conjecture that some such ground was supposed 
 to exist in its adjunct fxdka, which indeed one is accustomed 
 to see joined only with attributives, consequently sometimes 
 with adjectives and adverbs, sometimes with verbs. On the 
 other hand, map, the fat, fertility, is a separate and independ- 
 ent word, with which of course an adverb like \xdka cannot be 
 joined. But it must also be considered that /xaAa stands not 
 only like the German sehr [Lat. valde*, ' very'], in this its sense 
 of strengthening attributes or qualities, but that in Homer it is 
 used for adding force in a most general way, and strengthens 
 not only parts of, but a whole sentence. So indeed we say in 
 German er gl'dnzet sehr, ' he shines very (much),' er hittet sehr, 
 6 he begs very (much) ;' but we do not readily say er isset sehr, 
 ' he eats very (much),' but er isset sehr stark, ' he eats very 
 much,' still less can we say er isset es sehr auf, ' he eats it up 
 very (much).' Homer, on the contrary, says at II. y, 25. [xaka 
 ydp re KareaOUi (the stag), and so also at k, 108. o~ol /xaA' 
 e^o/x' eya>, " I will certainly, or very willingly, follow thee 
 wherever thou leadest." And again the expressions at p, 67. 
 \xd\a yap x\<opbv bios alpel (where certainly no one would 
 think of joining fxd\a ^Aco/joz;), and at 399. ovb'' et poka \iiv 
 yJ>\os Uti, and at \j/, 308. ovtl fxaka xpeu, are sufficiently 
 similar to irldp kariv vir ovbas to prevent this latter (sup- 
 posing it to have been a current phrase), introduced, as it is, 
 by the strengthening fidka, from appearing to us so strange, 
 that we should prefer the groundless supposition of map being 
 
 * [We cannot always translate the German adverb sehr by ' very :' 
 the general difference is this ; ' very' can be joined with adjectives, but 
 not with verbs ; sehr can be joined with either : when ' very' is joined 
 with a verb we are obliged to add some such word as ' much.' In this 
 respect the Latin valde comes nearer to the German. — Ed.] 
 
478 ga. Tliap. 
 
 an adjective when the metre does not require it, and we have 
 already the analogous ttIov. 
 
 4. Let us now examine the vtto in both kinds of expression. 
 The absolute vtto or vtto is certainly not unfrequent in Homer ; 
 but in every instance where it is found we see an evident rela- 
 tion of the word under to that which precedes it, either a man 
 standing upright, whose knees shake under him, a furious army 
 under which the earth trembles, or some such thing ; and so 
 it would be a very suitable expression in this respect, if, for 
 example, a luxuriously growing tree were mentioned with the 
 addition lirii \ia\a ttIov vtt ovbas. But in the passage in ques- 
 tion mention had just before been made of a corn-field (Xr/'iov), 
 and one indeed not actually existing ; for on the supposition 
 that the Cyclops would cultivate their land, it is said, 
 
 jxaXa K€v (3a8v \rfiov alel 
 
 Ety atpas dfxcpej/' cVci [xaXa nlap vtt ovbas. 
 
 In this passage therefore, if we accent #77', and join map ov- 
 bas, it is difficult to say to what the word under relates. This 
 want of a relation for vtto seems to me still more visible in a 
 very old imitation of the Homeric verse in Hymn. Apoll, 60. 
 The island Delos is there addressed, and after it has been de- 
 scribed as unfruitful, the speech ends with ^ret ov tol irlap vtt 
 ovbas. Here, in order to find some grounds for taking vtto 
 for vtt€o~tl (bad indeed they must be, as in the former passage 
 concerning the Cyclops), we must suppose Delos in a human 
 form walking on her own island and talking with Latona : 
 but surely this is no genuine ancient idea, nor does it agree 
 well with the poet's imagery, when he afterwards makes Delos 
 
 say, UovkvTTohes 5' kv ifj,ol Bahamas TToirjo-ovTai. The true 
 
 account is, that the island itself is here supposed to be talking 
 intelligibly with the goddess Latona ; and vtto taken by itself 
 can only therefore be what is in and under its soil ; in which 
 sense it must be taken if the words here were €7ret ov ixaka tol 
 vtto TTtap. But instead of vtto the sentence is completed by 
 vtt ovbas. The word ovbas too appears to me better suited 
 to our view of the meaning than to any other. Nowhere else 
 in Homer do we, find this word with the attributes of fertility, 
 but always as that on which we stand, and tread, and fall. It 
 
92. Tllap. 479 
 
 is therefore the hard dry surface of the earth considered as a 
 rind or skin, under which is situated the fat, which makes the 
 plants, &c. spring up. And thus the phrase irTap vt: ovbas ap- 
 pears exactly calculated for the language of common life, which 
 is fond of such half-figurative expressions; " This land has plenty 
 of fat (or no fat) under its surface 1 ." 
 
 5. And lastly, with respect to the authority for our explana- 
 tion of the verse in the Odyssey, I lay no little stress on the 
 negative testimony, that except in the smaller scholium, which 
 
 1 There is somewhat more to be said on the criticism of this passage 
 of the Hymn, which we may very aptly introduce here. Latona is re- 
 presenting to Delos its barrenness, and then continues, " But when thou 
 shalt possess Apollo's temple, 
 
 "Avdpa>7Toi tol ndvTes ayivrjaova eKaTOfifias 
 'EvOdd* dyeLpopevoi, Kviaar) be tol ao-rveTos aie\, 
 Arjpbv ava£ el /3ocncot?, 6eoi Ke (T e'xcocriv 
 Xeipos an dWoTpirjs' inel ov tol nlap vn ovbas." 
 
 The third verse, we see, is quite destroyed. Hermann restores it thus ; 
 
 Arjpov ava£ (36o~kol o~e, 6eo\ be Ke a - ' alev excoaiv. 
 
 Because however the sense ends so well with aaneTos alei, but the con- 
 nexion between that and Arjpov is so very slight that it may be suspected 
 without improbability to be one of those ill-jointed patchings so fre- 
 quent in these hymns, he considers the third and fourth verses to be an 
 interpolation substituted for the second, and patched up with it in after- 
 times. I will not attack this criticism in its leading point, but I will at all 
 events suppose the genuineness of the fourth verse ; as I do not see why 
 the third verse alone should not be considered as the supposed substitute 
 for the second. For the fourth, as Matthiae also remarks, follows the 
 second most connectedly, as thus ; " thine will always be the vapour of 
 the sacrifice from foreign hands/' i. e. from the numerous deputations of 
 foreign people. But now, as far as regards the correction of the verse, 
 which, whether interpolated or not, must have had a meaning, there 
 can be scarcely a doubt as to the former half of it, as Hermann's resto- 
 ration is confirmed by the caesura alone, and fioo-Keiv can mean only an 
 action of the god. For, as Ilgen aptly observes, Poctkclv can only be 
 used with reference to an animal, or (but still not without a degrada- 
 tion of the term) to a man. Here therefore, where the god nourishes 
 his subjects or slaves, the word, according to Hermann's amendment, is 
 unobjectionable. Equally necessary is the connecting of the following 
 words by be ; and the Ke belonging to ex<*>o-iv is certainly found in the 
 verse. Whether ex^o-iv is to be changed into ex ouv > 1 leave to those, 
 who may also decide whether Wolf in an exactly similar case (II. o>, 
 655.) is right in having changed the yevrjTaL of all the manuscripts into 
 
480 92. Tltap. 
 
 was perhaps the original source of the error, neither in Eusta- 
 thius nor in any grammarian who has collected the opinions of 
 those before him, is there any trace of the adjective irlap. For 
 the gloss of Apollonius, irlap, to Xtirapov /cat nioiarov, evidently 
 refers to the two passages in the Iliad, and the old explanation 
 of them quoted above ; the adjective is therefore here only an 
 explanatory expression instead of the acknowledged substantive 
 map. But the total silence of Eustathius on the passage in 
 the Odyssey appears to me an important proof; for if the word 
 had been considered to be an adjective, neither he nor his pre- 
 decessors could have passed it over without remarking that map, 
 which in the Iliad and all succeeding poets is a substantive, must 
 here be an adjective. And this same decisive usage of the post- 
 Homeric poets, at whose head stands the author of the Hymn to 
 Venus (perhaps the oldest of the Homeridic hymns), is likewise 
 no trifling confirmation. For when it is said of Vesta at v. 30. 
 of that Hymn, 
 
 Kcu re peato olkco tear ap efcro, iriap ekovcra, 
 
 here too the transition from the adjective to the substantive is 
 not possible; but ir'iap in this case means the fat, and stands for 
 the fattest, best ; whereas the adjective in the positive could not 
 stand in that way unless followed by a genitive. 
 
 yeuoiro. Thus much therefore of the above verse stands almost esta- 
 blished : 
 
 Arjpop aval- (HoaKOi ere, 0eo\ 8e <e e^axrtf, 
 
 and the question is, what are we to substitute for the a, the only letter 
 remaining in the hiatus ? I am not satisfied with the way in which Her- 
 mann fills it up, on account of the connexion with what follows. But 
 as the wants of a country are twofold, the nourishment of the inhabit- 
 ants, and sacrifices for the gods, the sense of the accusative, which is 
 wanting before e^ox™, seems to me clear ; and I propose to fill it up 
 thus until something better can be found, 
 
 Arjpov civa£ $6<tkoi ae, 6eol Sc K( prjpC %x a>a ' LV 
 Xeipos an ak\oTpi-qs' 
 
 i. e. ' thy God will nourish thee, and the gods themselves will receive 
 their sacrifices, which thou art too poor to give them, from foreign 
 hands.' And now we may as well leave the question undecided, whether 
 the repetition of the same leading thought at the end of the second and 
 of the third verse is to be attributed to the old poet himself, or to the 
 reciter who patched up his verses. 
 
481 
 
 93- HoL7rvveiv. 
 
 i . This word is very often used of a person serving and waiting 
 on another, as at II. or, 421. g>, 475 ., and yet it does not contain 
 this idea, but the general one of active exertion, as is clear from 
 II. £, 155. where Juno sees Neptune busily occupied on the field 
 of battle, Tov \xkv tiolttvvovtcl nayr]v ava Kvhiaveipav. And hence 
 in Od. v, 149. it is joined to the idea of service, and the female 
 servants are ordered 6<S/xa Kop^crare TtoLirvvo-aacu. The word 
 represents therefore the idea which we express by to move and 
 hustle about ; and it is this busy bustling which so amuses the 
 gods in the limping Vulcan L at II. a, 600. 
 
 2. The grammarians have two derivations for this word. 
 They acknowledged it to be a reduplication, (for those who 
 looked in the first syllable for the idea of ttolciv do not come 
 under our consideration,) and were only in doubt whether it 
 was from Trovioa or from irvi(a. The meaning seems to favour 
 the former, as a breathless motion is too strong, at least for 
 II. (o, 475. of the heroes attending on Achilles ; but the forma- 
 tion is in favour of the latter. The grammarians indeed, who 
 make letters skip about at their pleasure, easily find a way 
 out ; but no one who looks to analogy will be able in the 
 derivation from noveca to give any correct grounds for the ot or 
 the v. For, as the v is carried on to the aorist 1., there 
 is no possibility of thinking here of a termination like that of 
 
 1 Heyne furnishes us here with a strong instance of the way in which 
 a commentator, by constantly endeavouring to clear an explanation of 
 everything which can look far-fetched, may on the other hand efface the 
 meaning of the poet. He will not allow the t'io-fieo-Tos yeXcos to be any- 
 thing but a divine laughter, produced by the good humour into which 
 the gods are put by Vulcan's obliging exertions ; the charm of novelty 
 he certainly docs allow to have some effect (" accedente hovitate rci, quod 
 Vulccmus pincerna partes ageret"), but he rejects entirely any thought 
 about his limping, as Homer does not mention it. Heyne must have 
 here entirely forgotten that Vulcan, who w r as always called dfjirfuyvijcis, 
 KvWonoftloiv, was, like all the superior gods, an intimate acquaintance of 
 every Grecian, and no one could imagine him moving without seeing 
 him limp. 
 
 1 i 
 
482 93* nonrvveiv. 
 
 hcUvvpn, beiKVvv. If on the other hand we set out with 7rj>ea>, 
 iirvvTo, we have the stem or root plainly before us, and the ot 
 in the reduplication is confirmed by iroLcpvo-o-G) from (pva-dct), and 
 ho(bv£ from bvo> ; for ot is near akin to v, and reduplications are 
 fond of such affinities. But with regard to the meaning, it is 
 clear that TTOLirvvca is a very old word, which became obsolete 
 soon after Homer's time ; and therefore its original sense ' to be 
 out of breath' was already softened down in his time into the 
 mere idea of great exertion. Hence arises another question of 
 importance, whether irontvvziv, as used of the very moderate 
 exertion of the heroes attendant on Achilles, is not a trace of the 
 later poet, whom the ancients thought they recognized in «, 24. 
 of the Iliad ? For as soon as any poet used nontvyeiv merely in 
 imitation of the old reciter, still greater errors were possible ; as 
 that of Apollonius, who (4, 1398.) could write of the Hesperides 
 watching the golden apples in these words : 
 
 dp<fi\ Be vvfKpai 
 
 c EcT7rept8es ttolttvvov e<pipepov aeidovcrat. 
 
 3. The use of the aorist of this verb requires a little more 
 examination. At II. a, 600. some old copies had *12s Ibov 
 "H^cuorou .... nonrvvo-avTa. On the contrary, at Od. v, 149. with 
 KoprjacLTt Ttonrvvvavai we have the various reading irotuvvovaai. 
 If we consider this latter passage more closely, we shall find in 
 it the well-known peculiarity of the action which is joined with 
 an aorist added in the participle of the aorist, on which see 
 Heindorf on Plat. Phsed. 10. As little attention therefore is to 
 be paid to the various reading nonrvvovaai here as to the other 
 ironrvvaavTa at II. a, for there a>s tbov TTonrvvovra is quite as 
 necessary as eyv<a rbv fxkv Tronrvvovra at II. £, 155. Let us now 
 turn to a third passage, II. 6, 219. 
 
 Ei firj em (ppetrl 6rj< * Ay ap.ep.vovi irorvia "Uprj 
 Avra 7ronrvv<ravTi 6oa>s orpvvai 'A^aiovs, 
 
 where there is no various reading, and we must endeavour to 
 understand the participle Tronrvvo-avn in the same way as at 
 Od. v. The common punctuation, which incloses airy itol- 
 TTvvaavTt between two commas, supposes this participle to be 
 
94. Up^Oeiv. 483 
 
 a supplementary thought to the foregoing. Voss translates it 
 in German hexameters thus : 
 
 Legete * nicht Agamemnon ins Herz die erhabene Here, 
 Ihm der auch selbst umeilte, die Danaer schnell zu ermuntern. 
 
 But then the aorist is quite inconceivable. At no period of the 
 Greek language would any other than the imperfect have been 
 placed here in prose, and consequently the participle if used 
 would be the participle present. But let us only go back to 
 Homer's description. The last mention of Agamemnon was 
 the following, at verse 78. 
 
 ""Evff ovt 'idofievevs r\rj fxlfiveiv, ovt ' Ayap.ep.vav , 
 Ovtc dv 1 A'lavres fxevtTrjv, Oepdnovres "Aprjos. 
 
 We see clearly therefore that not only the other Greeks but 
 Agamemnon himself required to be inspirited. And this is 
 done by erasing those commas and joining clvt<£ nomvyoravTi 
 with drpvvcu, in order that Juno may put it into Agamemnon's 
 mind, 
 
 Selber umher sich tummelnd die Danaer schnell zu ermuntern f. 
 
 Now then both verbs stand correctly in the aorist, as at Od. v, 
 to express the quick completion of the thing, for in the impera- 
 tive it would be clvtos Ttontvyvas orpvvov, &c. 
 
 94. YIprjOeLV. 
 
 I. The verb TrpriOeiv means in the first place to bum in a 
 transitive sense, which meaning is expressed in common Greek 
 by the present nipn:pr\p,i. II. t, 589. Ivhprfiov \iiya. clcttv. 
 The other tenses or forms are found indifferently both in the 
 Epic and in the common language ; for instance, the aorist 
 €7rpr/cra, hiirprjaa, to burn the ships, the gate, II. 0, 217. x> 374- 
 /3, 415.; to which is commonly added irupC or irvpos, with fire. 
 
 * [" Had not venerated Juno put it into the mind of Agamemnon, 
 who was also himself hurrying about, to inspirit the Greeks." — Ed.] 
 f ["To inspirit the Grecians (by) hurrying about himself." — Ed.] 
 
 1 i 2 
 
484 94- Tlpjdew. 
 
 The shortening of the long vowel of this tense to e7rpeo-e in 
 Hesiod 6, 856. is remarkable, of which I have taken notice in 
 my Grammar *. 
 
 2. Beside the above meaning, this aorist has in Homer an- 
 other quite different one, expressing the violent streaming of a 
 liquid, and consequently also a current of wind. For instance, 
 at II. it, 350. to be (at/JLa) ava crropLa koX Kara plvas Hpfjo-e 
 Xavdv, " he made the blood stream (i. e. the blood streamed) 
 from his mouth and nose." So at II. t, 433. banpv avairprjo-as, 
 shedding tears. Used of the wind we find eTrprjcrev or eveTrprjae 
 with the accusative of the object against which the wind blows 
 with force, II. a, 481. and Od. /3, 427. 'Ev 5' avefxos nprjo-ev 
 (or "Ett prjorev 6' avepios) [xiorov larlov l . And to this sense we may 
 add evirprjo-ros (II. cr, 471.) as an epithet of the wind streaming 
 from a pair of bellows. For all similar forms, as ev^ecrros, 
 evirrjKTos-, eud/^ros, are used in a passive sense, and evirprjo-Tos 
 too may very well be taken passively of the stream of wind 
 driven out of the full bellows, as with alfxa and b&Kpva. But if 
 we derive it here, as some do, from itp-qQeiv, to burn, because 
 these currents of air increase the burning of fire, evirp-qaros 
 would be active ; which is contrary to the Homeric analogy just 
 laid down. 
 
 3. This second leading sense of irprjOeiv does not occur in 
 any but the Epic language 2 : there exist however derivatives 
 of it. For the most common meaning of Trprjorrip, a whirl- 
 wind or water-spout, comes from it 3 ; and to the same mean- 
 ing belongs also 77p?joTis or irpidris, by which is understood 
 a whale, on account of its power of breathing and ejecting 
 water from the aperture on its head ; whence one particular 
 
 * [See Buttmann's Irregular Greek Verbs, p. 210. — Ed.] 
 
 1 There is an imitation of this in Phaleecus Epigr. 5 . Bin votov irpr]- 
 aavros io'x < * Tr ] v o'Aa. 
 
 2 Except that a grammarian in Hesych. v. nprjgaL (rrprjo-ai), and in 
 Etym. M. v. np^dco, explains from the usage of his own times (86ev koi 
 r]\x€ls is his expression) Tren-prjpevovs or 7re7rp/?o-/xeVous' by rovs ne^vcrrjpivovs, 
 inflated or blown out. 
 
 3 The meaning of a flash of lightning is rare, and may have been in- 
 troduced by misunderstanding the word, and by deriving it from irpT]6(Lv, 
 to burn. See Aristot. de Mundo 4. p. 468. g. Meteorolog. 3, 1. Xen. 
 Hell. 1, 3, 1. 
 
94. TIptOeiv. 485 
 
 species was called in later times (pvo-rjrrip. For the form 7rptortj 
 is likewise, as I shall presently show, an old pronunciation, 
 which appears to come from the verb vpUiv, of which one 
 meaning, agreeing with that of -npr\d€iv, is incorrectly rejected 
 by Schneider* in his Lexicon. Apolloniusf for instance (4, 
 1 67 1.) says of a person violently enraged, AevyaXeov 8' e-nt ol 
 irpltv yokov. TlpUiv is indeed, according to another meaning, 
 with the addition of obovras or o-tayoW?, used of an angry per- 
 son gnashing his teeth (see Steph. Thes.) ; but we see at once 
 that nothing but the most intolerable force can join the accu- 
 sative xoXov to it in this sense. Doubtless therefore Apollonius 
 in this expression imitated with grammatical premeditation an 
 older and Epic usage of this verb, deviating entirely from its 
 common meanings ; and Brunck was correct in comparing with 
 it the Hesychian gloss irpUrai, tyvo-ovrai, in order to explain 
 the expression of Apollonius by " spirting bile against any one." 
 Nor was it possible for the author of the Etym. M. (v. irprjOai) 
 to have derived this w r ord (although in the sense of to burn) 
 from TTpid), if he had not had before him some other meaning of 
 irpicLv beside to saw and to gnash 4 . 
 
 4. It was but natural that endeavours should be made from 
 a very early period to connect etymologically the two leading 
 senses of -npriQziv, irpija-aL ; and intermediate ideas may be found 
 in all cases to connect the most dissimilar meanings. In the 
 case before us very different ways were tried for this purpose. 
 If however we would preserve a sound and correct interpretation 
 of Homer, we must reject them all; nor must we allow, let the 
 etymology be what it may, that the meanings can by any means 
 play into each other metaphorically ; but we must maintain the 
 two leading senses firmly and surely, as we are certain that it 
 
 * [Passow in his Lexicon (4th Edit.) acknowledges this meaning of 
 tt/ji'o), gives as an example the passage of Apoll. Rh. 4, 1 67 r ., and 
 allows that Buttrnann has made it very probable that npia and nprjda} 
 are cognate words. — Ed.] 
 
 t [See at the end of this article a Supplement (published iu the ori- 
 ginal at the end of the second volume), in which this passage is more 
 fully examined. — Ed.] 
 
 4 Compare however the different view which Mcinekc takes of this, 
 ad Menandr. Inc. 326. 
 
486 94- TLptOetv. 
 
 means, i. to burn anything ; 2. (as certainly) used of the thicker 
 fluids, to spirtle, pour out ; used of the air, to blow 5 . 
 
 5. I revert now to the name irpfjoris. That this word has 
 never any other meaning than a whale, and that the above is 
 the true way of writing it, Conrad Gesner has endeavoured to 
 show in lib. 4. De Nat. Aquatilium; and Schneider (on Op- 
 pian. Hal. 1, 370.) at first followed him; but in his Hist. Litt. 
 Piscium, p. 29. the latter declares it to be undecided, and in his 
 Lexicon he inclines again to the explanation of the sword-fish, 
 
 5 Some of the interpreters set out from the idea of to burn, and sup- 
 pose that by transferring it to blowing and streaming they express a 
 violence in these two motions ; how forced this is will be particularly 
 felt in the phrase banpv avairpr^a-as. Conrad Gesner in the passage 
 referred to in No. 5. sets out from the other meaning, and finds the 
 transition to the idea of to burn in the puffing or swelling up of a burn ; 
 an idea much too limited. The greater number take the blowing up and 
 kindling of fire as the ground-idea. It would perhaps be more satis- 
 factory if we were to take the blazing up of flame as an intermediate idea, 
 in the same way asflagrare reminds us both in sense and sound of flare, 
 and thence conflagrare means to burn. But the idea of to- blaze up 
 belongs to the Greek words <j)\eya>, <£Ao£ ; on the contrary, 7rpr)deiv, as 
 a simple verb, has no other meaning than that of consuming by fire. If 
 therefore there are any grounds for such a derivation, they lie at least 
 far beyond Homer ; the intermediate ideas have disappeared in the 
 course of usage, and thus 7rpr)6a> and 7rpr)0<o are and remain two words. 
 The view becomes somewhat clearer as we look into the wider field of 
 the affinities of language. UprjOco and rrpia in one of their senses are 
 still quite near to the natural word (formed by onomatopoeia) from 
 which they originally sprung, and identical with the German words 
 sprutzen [' to spirtle' as a liquid does], and spruhen [' to emit sparks' 
 as from red-hot metal]. This latter is used indeed only with relation 
 to fire as the former is to water,, but still the transition from emitting 
 sparks to the idea of burning anything is neither so quick nor so easy. 
 I leave this therefore undecided, and will only add one remark, that 
 on the other side nprjOciv, Tnpnpdvai, is as certainly identical with the 
 German brennen, ' to burn.' And it is a coincidence curious enough, 
 that the transposition of the two letters in the old German bernen, ' to 
 burn,' occurs also in the Greek nepdeiv, the original identity of which 
 with TTprjOeiv has been already acknowledged by others, and is con- 
 stantly felt in pronouncing the aorist enpaOov. As then with npr)6co, 
 so also with irpia>, we must suppose a twofold root for its two different 
 meanings ; only that in this latter both senses arise by onomatopoeia 
 from one natural sound irpi, by which was expressed partly the spirt- 
 ling and streaming of liquids, partly the harsh grating noise made by 
 the collision of rough bodies, whence to saw, to gnash. 
 
94. ILpMeiv. 487 
 
 in which case therefore the more correct way of writing it 
 would be 7rpiaTLs. In order to examine the thing as funda- 
 mentally as possible, I found it necessary to begin with the 
 Latins. With them the form or word prestis never occurs, but 
 only pristis, pistris, pistrix, pure undoubted forms 6 which mu- 
 tually confirm each other by the transition so natural in the 
 mouth of the common people to a Latin word apparently signi- 
 ficative, and which show in a most striking manner the genuine- 
 ness of the i in the stem or family from which they come. But 
 all these three are used without any variation for large sea-fish 
 and whales, in which class we cannot include the sword-fish, 
 as Cicero for instance always calls the constellation Cetus by 
 the term pistrix^ and Virgil in the iEn. 10, 211. says of the 
 Triton " in pristin desinit alvus." Pliny too (9, 1 — 15. and 
 32, 11.) always classes the pristes with the halcence, without 
 mentioning the saw, which as a natural historian he could not 
 possibly have omitted; on the contrary, he brings forward at 
 32, 11., soon after the others, the gladii and the serrce as par- 
 ticular kinds of fish, where the mere mention of the name there- 
 fore made it unnecessary to specify the saw. Hence we can 
 have no doubt of the Latin usage. 
 
 6. Among the Greeks both Trprjo-Tis and npivTis are gene- 
 rally found in connexion with whales; see particularly Poly- 
 charm, ap. Athen. 8, p. 333. f. where are mentioned as rare 
 fish, only occasionally seen, tvCore 8e fyakatvai r) Trptoreu. 
 And Leonidas of Tarentum, in Epigr. 95. speaking of a ship- 
 wrecked sailor, the lower half of whose body was devoured by 
 some sea-monster, calls it first /ojros, — kt\to<s ^HkOev, aTre(3pv$ev 
 5' a\pis en - ' djAfyakiov : and then TrplvTis — rjfjucrv 8e irplo-TLs ctare- 
 kX&o-clto. Certainly this was no whale, and as certainly not a 
 sword-fish, but a large kind of shark : and the passage serves 
 only to show that upCar is, like the Latin pristis and pistrix, 
 was (exactly like ktjtos) a general name in the language of 
 the common people for the large sorts of sea-fish ; which idea 
 could not arise from the particular form of the sword-fish, but 
 might very well originate in the size of the cetaceous fish. To 
 
 fi Which of these forms is the genuine one in the passage of Virgil 
 is a difficult question that I shall not enter on here. 
 
488 94- HpiOeiv. 
 
 this we may add Epicharm. ap. Athen. 7, p. 286. b. iElian. N. A. 
 9,49. Oppian. Hal. 1,270. But all these passages and their 
 various readings (compare Schweighaeuser on both passages in 
 Athenseus) do not enable us to decide between TtpT}<rTis or irpi- 
 (ttis; nor is there the slightest reason for supposing a separa- 
 tion of the two names, the one to signify a whale, the other a 
 sword-fish. Now as the form with the i is established by the 
 Latin, and the same uncertainty between the two vowels is 
 found in other roots (compare crKfjitM and GKiTtoiv), I am the 
 more inclined to consider both forms genuine, as the above 
 account has also shown us a verb TtpUiv with the meaning of 
 to spirtle or spout out anything. Both forms therefore express 
 what Conrad Gesner has allowed the one to mean, viz. a spouting- 
 fish ; and it is very conceivable that the name might have been 
 first formed from this very striking peculiarity of the cetaceous 
 tribe, and then remained as a regular fixed appellation of all the 
 larger sea-fish. 
 
 7. We must now examine a passage which bears the mark 
 of a scientific pen. It is in Aristotle's H. A. 6, 12. Aek<ph be 
 Kal <$a\aiva kcu to. aWa Krjrr], oaa pJf] e^ei (3pdy\ta aXXa <pv(Tr\. 
 Trjpa, £<})otokov(tlv, ert 8e irpba-Trjs Kal (3ovs. This is the only 
 passage from the ancients where the form iipio-Tiqs appears 
 as a fish; but it was not therefore necessary that Stephens 
 should consider it to be a corruption (see Thesaur.) ; and still 
 less ought Schneider, particularly in a name so problematical, 
 to have been induced by this to adopt, from no other authority 
 than an old Latin translation, the common form Ttpio-ris. One 
 thing however is clear, that the 737)10-7779 is here distinguished 
 from the cetaceous fish, and is not supposed to have like them 
 apertures on the head for breathing and spouting. But in 
 bringing forth its young alive it corresponds, as I have heard 
 from those who know 7 , with the sword-fish. Unless I much 
 mistake, Aristotle is here arranging them (as he is fully justi- 
 fied in doing) as a natural historian, and at the same time as 
 a grammarian. The name irprjo-Tts or irpio-Tis, which occurs 
 nowhere in his writings, he appears to have quite thrown aside 
 
 7 The sword-fish like many creatures lays an egg, of which the shell 
 or covering frequently breaks the moment it is laid. 
 
94. tlpiOetv. 489 
 
 as an indefinite and uncertain name of vulgar use, with which 
 was probably mixed up what was at that time known of the 
 sword-fish. This last seems to me particularly probable, as one 
 kind of armed vessel, which occurs first in Polybius, was called 
 tt plans, pristis 3 . Of this Nonius says, " Pristis navigii genus a 
 forma pristium marinarum, quaB longi corporis sunt sed augusti." 
 This is not a description corresponding with the general idea of 
 the whale tribe, which we have hitherto found under the name 
 pristis. But one thing we learn from this passage, that the ships 
 so called were long and narrow in comparison with other vessels 
 of war: the oars protruding on each side contributed to this 
 form, and we have thus the exact shape of the saw of the sword- 
 fish 9 . It is conceivable therefore that the form in ts might no 
 longer be available to the scientific writer in any sense what- 
 ever : consequently Aristotle established irpidr-qs (probably from 
 some precedent in the common language of his day) as the 
 name of the sword-fish only*. This name, taken literally, means 
 for instance the saivyer, or even the saw itself. Hesychius has 
 Trpia-Trjs, plv&v, ttprnv ; hence also TrpLorT-qpoeibrjs, in the form of a 
 saw, from itpto-T-qs or T7pi(TTr\p. For that irpCoTis meant also a 
 common saw, rests on an error of transcription in Pollux 7. 
 c. 16. TTpitov, 7tpl<ttls, 7) KakovpLtvrj pivT), which ought beyond a 
 doubt to be irpiar-qs. 
 
 [Supplement to the above Article, but with particular reference to 
 
 Sect. 3.] 
 
 1. In that part of the above article to which this supplement 
 
 8 We must not, as many do, bring the ship Pristis in Virgil's /En. 
 5, 116. under this class; it had its name from the figure at its head, 
 which whs a kind of whale. 
 
 9 One might be inclined to derive this name, given to a certain kind 
 of goblet in Athenaeus, from the name of the ship, as ships and cups 
 have so many names in common. But the form of the ship, as here 
 described, docs not seem to me to suit a goblet at all ; while the form 
 of a large fish, like the whale, wound or twisted into a cup, might suit 
 it very well indeed ; and we have thus, I think, another proof of this 
 name npio-Tis having been used for a whale. 
 
 * [Passow in his Lexicon doubts whether Aristotle may not have 
 meant by nplo-rrji the plvr), a species of the dog-fish, the skin of which 
 was used for polishing wood and marble. — En.] 
 
490 94- IlpWeiv.. 
 
 more particularly refers, I have pronounced too confidently that 
 the supposed verbal stem or root of the form irpCo-Tts, with the i 
 and the meaning of to spirtle, can be proved to have been in 
 actual use. Lobeck, in a note on Soph. Aj. 1019. which I had 
 overlooked, maintains the possibility of explaining the expres- 
 sion in Apollonius 4, 167 1. itpUiv yokov by the gnashing of the 
 teeth, making it therefore to mean ' to gnash bitter rage,' an 
 explanation which I pronounced to be insufferably harsh ; and 
 he supports it by an expression of Oppian Cyn. 4, 138. Ovp.bv 
 6ba£ irpiovres, and by one of Apollonius himself 3, 11 70. bawv 
 Xohov. But I now see more clearly than ever, that what opposes 
 our giving that sense to the expression npUw yoXov is nothing 
 in the grammatical construction of the words, but in the context 
 of the passage. For baKcov x.6kov is a perfectly natural expression 
 for one who cannot give vent to his rage ("Ibas fjo-r airavevde ba- 
 Ktov xo^ov) ; and Oppian uses the other expression of lions who 
 fly before horsemen pursuing them with torches ; when there- 
 fore it is said of these beasts ' they gnash with their teeth their 
 fury,' this is only another phrase for bawav, or champing rage, 
 but more expressive and more suitable to the fury of the lion. 
 On the other hand, in the passage in question Medea is de- 
 scribed as enchanting from a distance the brazen giant Talos : 
 at first she looks on him with hostile eyes ; and then immedi- 
 ately follows, that she Xevyaktov eTrt ol irplev x°^ ov > ar, d lanced 
 at him hideous magic images, €in{a(f)€\bv Koriova-a. I must 
 admit the possibility that a poet like Apollonius might in the 
 passage before us apply the term to gnash (used elsewhere only 
 of powerless or suppressed rage) to the active giving vent to it, 
 and might say ' she gnashed her fury at him.' But it must also 
 be granted me that the image of the enchantress spirting her 
 rage as it were invisibly against the giant, forces itself upon our 
 notice both of itself and by the kitt ol (iimrpUv ol), and thus 
 justifies our adopting, or at least conjecturing, that irpUtv meant 
 also to spirtle, — a conjecture drawn from the form irpiaTLs as 
 used of the spouting-fi.sh, and from the circumstance that an old 
 grammarian derived irpridav (no matter whether in the sense of 
 to burn or to blow) from mpUiv. 
 
 2. The proof which I had drawn from the gloss of Hesychius, 
 UpUrat, (frvaovTai, I give up, agreeably to the opinion of Mei- 
 
95* TLpfoo-eiv. 491 
 
 neke on Menand. Inc. 326. An expression biovnpUcrOai, used 
 of inward rage, derived no doubt from bia-npUiv rovs obovras 
 (Lucian. Calumn. 24.), was very common in the ecclesiastical 
 writers: see Gatak. Adv. Misc. posth. 47. p. 914. The simple 
 verb already existed in the same sense in the earlier language : 
 for that the above-mentioned fragment of Menander, hboOev be 
 -npierai, quoted in the Etym. M. (v. Upierai) as a proof that the 
 Attics used -npioa, not irpi(<a 9 may have had the same sense, is 
 very probable in itself, as well as from the analogy of that later 
 hia-npUaQai, and from the more complete phrase in Lucian (Dial. 
 Meretr. 12.), where the verb is also in the middle voice, ri p.e 
 aTTo(3\z7T€Ls Koi Ttpir\ tovs dbo'vras. Hence also I no longer doubt 
 that the Hesychian gloss, as well as that in the Etym. M., refers 
 to the passage of Menander; and we have now our choice, 
 either with Meineke to read Ovixovrai for (jyvo-ovrai, according to 
 the other gloss Ate7rpioz>ro, e6v\xovvro, or to suppose that the 
 grammarian intended by (pvarovo-Qat, in the sense of to swell or 
 be puffed up internally, to express only the swelling with rage ; 
 but this seems to me too slight an authority to prove that irpUiv 
 had the meaning of fyvcrav. 
 
 95. Ylprjacruv. 
 
 I. In the Epic phrases irprjo-cretv, Sia7rp?jo-(reii>, KekevOov or 65oto, 
 the verb is derived by the old grammarians most decidedly 
 from 7repaa), or rather from the fut. 7repaa-o), np-qaM ; see Etym. M. 
 in v. Schol. II. 7r, 282. Eust. ad Od. 0, 219.: but this derivation 
 is as decidedly rejected by the moderns ; see Schneider's Lexi- 
 con on irpricrara) *. The general sense of the familiar verb irpdo-aw 
 
 * [We find in Schneider's Lexicon the following article on this 
 word : — 
 
 " npf]a<T<o, Ion. for 7rpd<T(ra>, I do, act. 2.) same as ircpaw, and formed 
 according to the grammarians from its fut. nepdo-co. In this sense they 
 understand U. <o, 264. Od. y, 476., as also the compound hianp^aai in 
 II. 3, 785. 1, 326. But there is no occasion for supposing this form to 
 be different from npdava), either on account of the meaning or con- 
 struction ; for in nprjacreiu obolo we may understand 81a, as in kovIovtcs 
 nebloio, and other like phrases." 
 
 Passow in his Lexicon decidedly rejects this second sense of nprjaaa), 
 and considers it as Ion. for updo-cra). — Ed.] 
 
492 95* Hpfeareiv. 
 
 coincides so easily with all the most different thoughts and 
 constructions in which we find irprio-crto, — appears so intelligible 
 when joined for instance with the idea of a way [or, in the 
 English idiom, a journey], and is so strongly supported by 
 similar expressions in other languages*, that the attempt to 
 deriye irp^aa-etv in those Greek expressions from anything but 
 npao-creLv, must appear almost like reversing the natural order 
 of things. But, for this very reason, it is not possible to con- 
 ceive how the Greek grammarians should have neglected an 
 explanation lying so plainly in their way. We have indeed 
 frequent occasion to condemn the opinions of those ancient 
 scholars, for whom no derivation was too forced ; but the totally 
 overlooking that which is near, in order to go in search of that 
 which is distant, scarcely amounts to such a reversal of nature. 
 I think therefore that this explanation was handed down to the 
 later grammarians from ancient times, and I find it grounded in 
 the nature of the Homeric passages, which, accurately consi- 
 dered, do not all coincide with that other common explanation, 
 but all suit this one very well. 
 
 2. For instance, beside such expressions as II. £, 282. pifAcfra 
 77pr\<T(jovT€ K€k€v6ov, Od. 0, 2 1 9. tva 7rpr](T(Tto}X€v oboXo : and Od. j8, 
 213. ot ke ixol evda kol €vOcl biaTTprj<r<r(o(ri nikevdov, we find also 
 these : II. /3, 785. fiaka 8' o)Ka biin pijcrarov jrecHoio, and Od. t, 491. 
 'AAA.' ore by] bl$ Toorcrov aka Trprjcrawres a7ir\p,zv. We must not 
 however overlook the circumstance, that in those first examples 
 the idea of the common irpaTTa suits very well, merely be- 
 cause the only meaning which it can have lies already in the 
 idea of the way or road ; but in the words irtbCov and aka 
 this is wanting. Notwithstanding this the compound bd- 
 irprjnraov would also suit every case, because the idea of the 
 way may be laid in the preposition, in the same way as the 
 idea of passing or employing in ^Hjucira 8' ai/xaroeyra bUirprjcrcrov 
 TTok€iJLi((i>v, II. 1, 362. But TTpr/a-o-eLv aka with the idea of to do 
 or make — as if Homer had said, ' atque jam bis tantum, 
 
 * [Thus the Germans say, ' einen iveg machcn,' literally, ' to make a 
 way' as we say ' to make a journey ;' ' er hatte schon em Stuck Weges 
 gemacht,' which may be translated literally in French, ' il avait dcydfait 
 une partie du chemin* — Ed.] 
 
 
95- TIprjarcreiu. 493 
 
 mare facientes , aberamus' — is an untenable expression ; so that 
 one feels a great inclination to adopt the, reading of Rhianus, 
 aka irkrjo-o-ovTts, if it were not clear that this is merely an 
 amendment arising from Rhianus' already thinking that in 
 those other phrases, agreeably to the now current opinion, he 
 saw only the common 7rparra). If, on the other hand, we take 
 irprjo-aG) for a form of 7repaco, 7repaii>a>, we have a natural and 
 uniform meaning in all those expressions. 
 
 3. But how is this to be done? Are we to take irprjcro-b) 
 7T€paLV(o, and 7Tprj(T(T(a facto, as two stems or roots radically 
 different, and corresponding in sound by chance only ? That 
 would be indeed a strong assertion in a case of such striking 
 uniformity in root, in form, and in quantity. But there is no 
 occasion for this ; and whoever is regularly convinced of the 
 correctness of explaining irpricrcreiv KckevOov by nepav, will soon 
 discover the true relation of the word, liprjaacs) or Trpdoraa) in 
 the sense of locality is the proper and the oldest general usage 
 of this verb, but it now occurs in this sense in Epic poetry only ; 
 the common usage arose out of this, but is never found in its 
 later and general meaning in the Epic language. That is to 
 say, TTpijao-tiv means in Homer, in all other expressions as well 
 as those here mentioned, nothing more than itepatveiv, i. e. to 
 hring to an end, complete; thus at II. A, 552. ovtl irprjacreL is 
 the same as in prose ovbev irtpaivei, he completes or accomplishes 
 nothing; and at cr, 357. Jupiter says to Juno, "Eirprj^as kcu 
 
 €7T€ltcl ' AvaTrjaav ' 'Ax^a, f thou hast completed it then, 
 
 thou hast succeeded in accomplishing it,' — expressions in which 
 originates, as Ave clearly see, the common word Tspdrruv, to do, 
 as spoken without reference to any result. And equally natural 
 according to this derivation is the intransitive sense of the word 
 with the adverb, as we should say, ' I pass or get (happily, un- 
 happily, &c.) through life, through certain circumstances.' And 
 lastly, the quantity of the vowel in irpda-uo), 7rp7Jcro-co, arises, as in 
 OpuTTd), TtTprjxa (see art. 100.), from its being removed from 
 before the p in the root 7repa K 
 
 1 I have remarked above in article 63. that «o-<ra> appended to the 
 stem or root as a mere termination, like d(u> elsewhere, in contrary to 
 analogy ; aXXdaaco, for instance, docs nut come immediately from (iXXos, 
 
494 g6, UpoareXeiv. 
 
 Ylpletu; vid, 7rprj6uv. 
 
 96. YlpooreXeiv. 
 
 1. One of the most enigmatical words in the Greek lan- 
 guage is the compound TtpoatXeiv, to use, or treat ill, an ex- 
 amination of which is rendered very difficult by its rarity ; for 
 except in two passages of Attic poetry, it is nowhere found. 
 The enigmatical part strikes us first in the prosody, the pre- 
 position appearing long. Aristoph. Ran. 730. T&v irokiT&v & 
 0$$ ijl€v to-fjiev evyevt'ts kcu atixfrpovas (here follow two whole 
 verses) npocrekovixev. -ZEschyl. Prom. 435. 'Op&v ifxavrbv o>5e 
 TrpoaeXoviAZVov. 
 
 2. That the digamma comes into play here is easily per- 
 ceived, and Dawes was as ready as any one to admit it, by 
 writing a pure Attic word in his way with the w before the e, 
 but without giving any reason how he could think of doing so 
 in the really old writing and language, and, what is still more, 
 in the Attic dialect. Porson proceeded more correctly. In the 
 Etym. M., in a false etymology of the word TJpoaiXrjvoi, is pre- 
 served a more complete scholium on the passage of iEschylus, 
 in which is said, Trpova-eXkelv Xiyova-i to vppt£€iv. Here the 
 AA at all events is faulty ; but the ov Porson recommended as 
 correct ; and accordingly Blomfield in iEschylus, and Dindorf 
 in Aristophanes, have now written it so. Afterwards came a 
 confirmation of this opinion ; for in the Cod. Ravenn. of Ari- 
 stophanes Bekker found plainly irpovo-eXovfxcv. But this Ap- 
 
 but from the stem d\\ax- in dXkaxov, &c. : and in the case of rapda-a-a} 
 we have no authority for supposing rap- to be the stem. This analogy 
 would certainly be opposed by irpdvaco as formed from ire paw, but 
 only in case we were obliged to suppose an older form 7repdaaa>. For 
 this however there is no necessity ; the form rrpao-o-a) appears to be ori- 
 ginally grounded on the contraction of a dissyllabic stem into a mono- 
 syllabic one, irpa, npij, to which also analogy points in the forms nTrjao-a) 
 and 7rra>o-tro). 
 
g6. UpocreXeiv. 495 
 
 pearance itself is now explained, as is also that exactly similar 
 one which we have noticed in art. 65. sect. 5. and the note. 
 That is to say, the simple of this compound verb, as it is now 
 etymologically decided to be 1 , had originally the digamma, the 
 trace of which is preserved from some unknown causes in the 
 prosody of this word, even in the Attic language. Still this 
 does not make the case qu^te clear. 
 
 3. In Hesychius, beside TlpocriXeL, 7r/>07rr/XaKttet, (which 
 shows the common way of writing this verb,) is also a gloss 
 TIpovyekeXv, upo-nriXaKi^iv, vfipi(eiv. It would be easy to get 
 rid of this gloss by supposing it a fault of transcription for 
 irpovaeXe'iv. It is true that in Stobseus 41. (43.) where the 
 passage of Aristophanes is quoted, the common editions have 
 7Tpo(T€\ovpL€v ; but in the first edition of Trincavellus and in one 
 manuscript is irpovyeXovpiev. This appears to me to show a 
 twofold tradition, and grounded on that a twofold opinion of 
 the grammarians on the orthography of a word which in their 
 time was quite obsolete. 
 
 4. The digamma, for instance, in some words and dialects 
 was changed into y, as in yhro, and without doubt in all 
 the words which in Hesychius have the y instead of the aspi- 
 rate : see Salmas. ad Inscr. Herod. Att. p. 47. Many indeed 
 attribute this to an error of the lexicographer, in mistaking the 
 digamma and confusing it with the gamma : see Taylor, Lectt. 
 Lysiac. cap. 9. I grant that the appearance of a great number 
 of words, of which the pronunciation with a y is known only 
 from Hesychius, and many of which are of the most common 
 occurrence, as yolvos, yolba and yotbrjpu., yeap, yearCa, ytXov- 
 Tpov (eXvrpov), &c, must have appeared at first sight to re- 
 quire consideration ; but when deliberately considered, a mis- 
 take so great and so constantly recurring will appear scarcely 
 possible. On the other hand, if we reflect that in other lan- 
 guages also, for instance in the Latin and its descendants, the 
 w and v change through gu into g, as in gucpe, gdter, from 
 vespa, vastare, and a hundred others, — we shall not wonder at 
 
 1 The common derivation from cXoy is very bad, on account of its ap- 
 parent agreement with a word of similar meaning, irpoTrrikaKifa, which 
 is derived from nrjXos. 
 
496 ()6. Upoo-eXelv. 
 
 the same appearance in the ancient languages ; particularly 
 when in them it is so evident, as we see from instances pre- 
 served in Hesychius, where, arising out of rjbvs, F HATS, rjbopLCLL, 
 we find Tabeo-OaL, rjbeo-dat : Tabeo), yapa ; which answers so 
 clearly to the Latin gaudere, gaudium^. 
 
 5. This y then gives very considerable weight to irpovyeke'iv 
 (thus come down to us in two ways) as a various reading of 
 IlPOSfEAEIN, to which I will now add what is quite deci- 
 sive on the subject. There was a Dorico-_ZEolic dialect of 
 TTpzvfivs, viz. Ttpeiyvs, known through the forms Trpdyicrros, 
 Ttpuyriiov, TrpeiyevTrjs, in the Cretan inscriptions. That the /3 
 corresponded with the digamma in the dialects, needs no discus- 
 sion. Consequently a-(3 (sw), which we have here seen changed 
 into y, with the preceding e lengthened into ei, corresponds 
 exactly with IIPOSfEAEIN, which by the lengthening of the 
 o into ov becomes TtpovytXtiv. This, as likewise the no less 
 authentic Trpovo-eXt'iv, which arose in the way above mentioned, 
 were both therefore in existence in the popular language of the 
 older time ; and both were known, but probably only by gram- 
 matical tradition, to the later Greeks, to whom it was already 
 become a doubtful question which of the two forms should be 
 ascribed as an old Atticism to iEschylus and Aristophanes. It 
 was probably the preponderance of authority which decided in 
 favour of TrpovaeXe'iv, and rejected the other as too much like a 
 Doricism. 
 
 6. Thus much respecting this enigmatical verb may be con- 
 sidered with some justice as historically made out from a survey 
 of real information and tradition ; I will now subjoin what ap- 
 pears to me to offer itself in the way of etymological combina- 
 
 2 To these I subjoin the gloss Tevrep, KoiXia : that this is the Lat. 
 venter is as clear as the day. Now whether this be a y or a digamma, 
 it could not have had a place in this lexicon if it had not been a Greek 
 dialect ; for the Latin word itself would certainly not have been written 
 with the unknown digamma in connection with a Greek one. But if it 
 be a Greek dialect, it is a dialect of yaarfjp, in which the v is lost, as 
 in k€(tt6s from KENTO kcptcm, in trimestris and the like. Whoever 
 is not convinced by this, may perhaps advance toward conviction by 
 observing the German * Wanst' (venter), and (dropping the n) the En- 
 glish ' waist.' 
 
g6. UpocreXeiv. 497 
 
 tion. The comparison of this verb with upo-n^kaKi^iv led me 
 to divide IIPOSfEAEIN into nPO and SfEAEIN, and conse- 
 quently to suppose as a root some old word beginning with sw, 
 in the same way as oeurcu and his began in the old language with 
 dw. And as I was considering what idea in the sense of vfipi- 
 (eiv, drawn from some physical action, could suit an- expression 
 so strong as both the passages of iEschylus and Aristophanes 
 evidently require, I hit upon proculcare, and at once all the rest 
 proceeded smoothly. For irpon-qkaKtCeiVj it seems to me, is 
 very well explained by 4 to trample in the dirt."' Therefore 
 nPO-SfEAEIN will be < to trample with the feet.' And now to 
 find a probability of SfEAEIN meaning to trample, we must re- 
 member that in art. 82. note 14. the connexion between the 
 pronouns c, afye, acf)6s, se, suns, led us to adopt an old form sve, 
 out of which arose atyi. In the same way we arrive here at once 
 at the words a(f>e\as, i. e. fiaQpov, and (rfyakkziv, which is acknow- 
 ledged to come from the idea of to trip or hick up* a person's 
 heels. If now we carry on ac^eAa?, 2f EAAS, into the languages 
 akin to Greek, we meet with the German Schwelle (a threshold), 
 for which there is a dialectic word in a more definite sense, Suit 
 [pronounced silt, Fr. seuil, Eng. sill]; and in Latin we find 
 (still of the same family, as coming from the idea of ' to tread 
 upon 1 ) the words solum and solea with the v omitted, or rather 
 changed into the cognate vowel 0. And if we consider further 
 that the sound sv is the same as the simple digamma in the fol- 
 lowing cases, — (sve) o-$€, fE, e; suavis, fAAT2, abvs; suesco, 
 FEQQ,, €0(t> ; Schweher, socer ; fEKTPOS, tKvpos, — we bring 
 SfEAEIN back to the stem or root EAI2, which we have proved 
 (in art. 44.) to have in a variety of instances the meaning of to 
 stamp, tread f. 
 
 'PveaOcu, pvaOai ; vid. ipveaOai. 
 
 * [Like our English verb to supplant, as used by Milton in its ori- 
 ginal and literal sense, and metaphorically in its now common usage. 
 —Ed.] 
 
 t [Passovv in his Lexicon is not satisfied with this derivation from 
 a(f>t\us, o-0aXXo), and proposes <ri\\os. — Ed.] 
 
 K k 
 
498 
 
 97 . ^TOvayjL^eLv, -rjaai, arevayi^eiv^ -rjacu. 
 
 i. We find in Homer (as lengthened forms of the verb <tt4v&) 
 (TTevayoa and o~Tovaxt((*>, but in the aorist crTovaxwat only ; the 
 two last have always in Homer, and in Hesiod also, the various 
 reading of o-Tevayjifa, <TT€vayjr\<rai. In the common editions we 
 have sometimes the reading with the o, sometimes with the e, 
 as either may chance to occur ; and I know of nothing in the 
 old grammarians on this point, except the mere mention of the 
 fact in Eustathius on II, /3, 95. tov 8e vTevayji&To, ov ttoXXolkls rj 
 apxovcra /cat Sia tov puKpov irpocpepeTat, bnrkr) rj Trapayayr) e/c tov 
 o~t€vg), &c. The Venetian scholia say nothing about it ; but the 
 Venetian text has always the reading with the e, with one sin- 
 gle exception of o"rova\r\crai at o~, 124. 
 
 2. Modern criticism must naturally try to bring even this 
 trifling difference to some fixed rule. Wolf writes the form in 
 ({civ always with the e, but that in rjaaL with the 0. As the 
 internal reasons seem to leave this a point of indifference, 
 perhaps some external reason led him to that decision. The 
 form in i(eiv occurs, for instance, in Homer seventeen times, 
 that in fjo-cu only twice; viz. II. cr, 124. <TTovayj\o-ai ; and <o, 79. 
 €7T€crTovdxr]o-€ : and it is just one of these two passages which, 
 as we have said above, is the only one with the o in the edition 
 of Villoison. If both passages there had been written with the 
 o, we should have decided, with the highest degree of proba- 
 bility (considering |the weight and importance of the Venetian 
 manuscript), that some leading grammatical authority — that of 
 Aristarchus perhaps— had fixed the difference to be (ttovclxwoli 
 and (TTevayidEiv. But as all depends on the reading of one 
 single passage, this decision, if there are no internal grounds to 
 support it, is a very weak one. Heyne's opinion on II. o-, 1 24. 
 o), 79. that it must be written aTevayJ.(eiv and o-Ttvayjicrai 
 throughout, is, according to the same principle of deciding 
 from externals, quite unobjectionable. For from the reading 
 of the Venetian manuscript being, with one single exception, 
 uniform throughout, and the best manuscripts as it would seem 
 generally agreeing with it, supported by the preference for this 
 
97- ^Tova-^eiv, &c. 499 
 
 reading implied in the words of Eustathius quoted above, — it 
 would certainly appear that general authority is in favour of the 
 reading with the e : and to form an edition of Homer agreeing 
 in its leading points with that tradition which is best supported, 
 is indisputably an unobjectionable principle. 
 
 3. But the following is equally so, viz. in all cases where we 
 can take our stand on the same ground which those old critics 
 took before us (and there are very many such for the firm but 
 circumspect modern critic), to give the results of this proceed- 
 ing. From crrevo) comes a lengthened form with a stronger 
 sense <JT€vax<D (crrev&xpvo-i, arevaxw, crrevayovTo), of which the 
 termination, less used elsewhere, seems to imitate (compare 
 aytvv) a natural sound. Hence first comes, with the vowel 
 changed, the substantive aTovaxv 1 , occurring in Homer as 
 frequently as the foregoing. Any further lengthening of the 
 original verb might now certainly be made without the change 
 of the vowel ; but as soon as this change takes place in a sub- 
 stantive, it is customary for the lengthened verbal forms to pass 
 through the same change, or, which is the same thing, to be 
 formed from the substantive, as $e'pa>, (f)opd, cfyopico ; (£eV&>, <povos, 
 (frovtvG), and the like. Now as aTovaxn is an Homeric word, it 
 would be contrary to analogy that a lengthened form shaped so 
 exactly like a derivative as that in -#&> should not be modelled 
 according to this noun. The form arovaxU^ therefore stands 
 firmly established by internal analogy. 
 
 4. On the aorist in -rjcrat opinions may be divided. The 
 form <rT€vax(t> has not the inflexion of -a£a>, -6.£ai; and for 
 this reason, that the natural sound above mentioned might not 
 be obscured. Hence the aorist in -?/o-at, like jue'AAa) fxeW^cro), 
 KaOevba), Ka^€u8?j(7a>, &c. may be considered as a mere flexion 
 or tense of arevdx^, m which case the change of vowel would 
 not take place. And so it would appear most agreeable to 
 analogy to fix vrevayto with the flexion artvaxwo), &c. and 
 with a sister-form (TTovayj-fa- But even if these were the ori- 
 ginal Homeric forms, one can easily conceive that they could 
 
 1 On (TTovaxT) it may be observed, that if the scholia on Od. f, 83. 
 are to be trusted, Aristophanes wrote the dat. plur. aTovaxno-iu in that 
 passage with the e. 
 
 K k 2. 
 
500 97- 2rovaj(£^€£i/, &c» 
 
 not have been always kept distinct from each other. The aorist 
 in -rjaat has quite as much the appearance of a lengthened deri- 
 vative (o-Tovax^oa) as the form in -i(Ja has, and hence it took quite 
 regularly the change of vowel. From the various readings there- 
 fore, which are equally in favour of both forms, we may without 
 arbitrariness adopt, not arevaxwai, o-rovaxiCo, but only o~rova- 
 Xrj (TaL » crTovaxL(to- 
 
 5. There is besides a true poetical ground in favour of this 
 decision: that is to say, the change of vowel carried with it an 
 assurance that the result must be a vowel of a stronger and 
 harsher sound, which would be very useful in such cases as wo 
 S£ (TTovax^TO yala, irepl be arova\i^€To b&jj,a, eTrearTovaxW € 8e 
 ki^vrj : in which sense a verb of such constant occurrence as 
 (TTevaxM is found only once, viz. at II. 7r, 391. x a P^P aL • • • ^yd\a 
 o-Tev&xovcri peovaai 2 . 
 
 6. We will now go back to the authority of tradition. And 
 here we must not overlook the circumstance that the form ore- 
 vax<*> has never the various reading of the o, but those in -770-ai 
 and -#&> have it always. If therefore the o had come from a 
 more modern poet or a later pen, that form would not have 
 remained free from it ; particularly as there is some ground for 
 arrovaya* in the substantive otovos, and that verb was actually in 
 existence ; Hesych. cftovox^v, o-revafav. From this alone the 
 converse is quite clear, namely, that <rTovaxr}o-cu, o-rovax^eiv are 
 genuine forms, but that those with the e were introduced into 
 Homer's poems only through the obscurely-felt impulse of at- 
 taching them to the principal form, because it could be done 
 according to analogy. And when this reading was once ad- 
 mitted, it is still more easily to be conceived that grammarians 
 like Aristarchus, who were strangers to the principles of true 
 criticism, would receive this form as the only regular one. 
 
 2 A conclusion, which would lead us still farther — that perhaps to sigh 
 was the proper meaning of aTevaxlC* lv * -v aai > an d to resound that of 
 arovaxifav, -rj<rai — must be at once rejected by our reflecting that the 
 language of the ancient poets was not refined enough for such niceties. 
 
501 
 
 20a?, cr(pe, a(f)iv, a(pco'L, o-0co, (rtycdtrepos ; vicl. vcoii, vcd. 
 
 98. TeKficop, TeKfJLOLipecrOou. 
 
 1. Damm, following Eustathius, remarks that reK/xcop in 
 Homer has never any other meaning than finis, exitus, scopus, 
 1 an end or termination, the object proposed or marked out,' and 
 T€K[xaip€(rdai, finio, pro fine constituo, confirmo et ex dubitatione 
 exirno, ' to finish, destine, fix, appoint;' but that the former 
 never means, as later writers have it, signum, ' a sign,' nor the 
 latter signis ostendere, ex signis observare, conjecture, f to decide 
 or conclude by signs,' &c. Essentially Damm is right, although, 
 in order not to approach too near to the meanings which he 
 rejects, he interprets some passages obscurely. In most of them 
 reK/xcop certainly does mean an end, object, or point proposed ; 
 for example, II. v, 20. it is said of Neptune ucero Te/c/xa>p, Alyds : 
 at 77, 472. 7010 evp€To TtKfjLup, " he found out (planned) an end of 
 this confusion;" and at rj, 30. evpeiv reK/xcop 'Ikiov. 
 
 2. But the connexion between this meaning and that of the 
 well-known passage of II. a, 526. ToSro yap (i. e. Jupiter's 
 nod) e£ ifxidev ye /oier' aOavaroio-i \i.kyi<nov TeKjucop, can scarcely 
 be preserved without force by any other means than by sup- 
 posing the idea of a sign to be the ground-meaning. Only we 
 must not imagine to ourselves any casual trifling sign, but one 
 solemnly appointed for that particular purpose, as Voss ad- 
 mirably expresses it, "the most sacred pledge.... of my pro- 
 mises." It was by such sacred signs that limits and boundaries 
 were fixed from the earliest times; and thus re/c/xwp came to 
 have the general sense of a boundary, end, and particularly the 
 end which fate has fixed to some duration, re/c/xcop ''Wiov. 
 
 3. Now the action by which a ruler or person with power 
 and authority fixes such a re/c/xwp is the original sense of re/c- 
 IxaiptcrdaL : and hence it means in II. (, 349. 77, 70. Od. rj, 317. 
 Hes. e, 227. 237. 396. (5ter€^?/pa^ro) to fix, appoint, destine. 
 Very nearly bordering on this is the use of the word in Od. k, 
 563. where Circe, knowing the decrees of fate (consequently 
 
502 gH. Teic/map, reKjuaipea-Oai. 
 
 every reK/txcop), announces prophetically to Ulysses that he is 
 destined to visit Hades, &c. — akkrjv S 1 rjpav obbv reK^r\paro KtpKr}. 
 With this again agrees the usage in Od. X, 1 1 1 . where the same 
 Circe, supposing the case that Ulysses should kill the cattle of 
 the Sun, says to him, tots, tol re/c/xatpo/x' okeOpov. For the ex- 
 pressions of a supreme power decreeing, and of another announc- 
 ing from divine knowledge those decrees, are commonly the 
 same. And now we see how, from the connexion in which 
 this word stands in the last-quoted passage, the common mean- 
 ing of it arose ; which deviates from the older in this alone, that 
 it is not confined to such solemn occasions, and does not mark 
 an announcement accompanied with the same certainty and pre- 
 cision that it does in Homer. 
 
 4. Still the substantive Ttpua p, or reK/xap, never sinks, even 
 in post-Homeric times, to the every-day idea of a sign ; but 
 either remains a high and heavenly sign, as the full moon is to 
 mortals in the Homeric Hymn to Luna v. 13., or is raised 
 into the higher and more solemn style of language, as that of 
 tragedy; see Eurip. Hec. 1273. where the cape which pre- 
 serves the memory of Hecuba (Kvvoa-arjpLa) is called a reK/xap of 
 sailors. 
 
 5. I will transcribe here at length a fragment of Hesiod in 
 which the word re/c/xap occurs, because in the collection of 
 Fragments it has hitherto stood divided into two parts*. It is 
 from the Melampodia. 
 
 'Hdv [yap] ear eV Saert ko\ elkawivrj TeBakvir) 
 Tep-nco-Oai fxvdoio-iv, inr]v dairbs Kope&covTai' 
 'Hdv de Kai to Trv6e<r6ai, oaa 6vr)Toio~iv edeijxav 
 'AOdvaToi, 8ei\(bv re Kai eo~0\a>v reKfxap ivapyes. 
 
 The two former verses are from Athenseus 2. p. 40. f., where 
 however the epitomist has only added that they are from He- 
 siod's Melampodia. The yap belongs to the editors. The two 
 latter verses are preserved by Clemens of Alexandria, Strom. 6. 
 p. 751. (266.), and introduced with the words 'Ho-tobos e7rt 
 tov MeA.a/x7ro8o9 Troiet. This, and the affinity of the subject, 
 and the similarity of the opening in both fragments, leave no 
 
 * [In Gaisford's edition of the Minor Poets they stand as No. 46. 
 and 5 5. —Ed.] 
 
gg. Tera-yaw, rrj. 503 
 
 doubt of their belonging to each other ; although it is possible 
 that the sense of the two former verses may have been drawn 
 out more at length in some additional intervening verses ; for 
 Clemens introduces the two latter, as taken from Musaeus, with 
 the addition kol tcl kgrjs. In the third verse we must take care 
 not to understand the to as the article to TivOiaOai : it stands as 
 a demonstrative for robe, and is afterwards again taken up by 
 T€Kfjiap, while oaa refers to the following betkojv re kol iardk&v. 
 Still, however, the reader is somewhat hampered in the two 
 latter verses. In the first place I do not know of any other 
 instance of betk&v as a neuter, which its connexion with oaa 
 tbtifiav requires it to be ; and to alter it to bew&v appears to me 
 not allowable in the Epic language 1 . At all events the sense 
 requires bad things : but rtKixap kvapyis can be nothing else than 
 the certain limits, the fixed designation, in duration and extent, 
 of the good and evil sent by the gods to men ; just as Hesiod 
 (e, 667.) uses re'A.0? in the same kind of expression, where it is 
 said of Jupiter and Neptune, 
 
 "Ev rols yap reXos 1<tt\v Specs dyadav re kcikwv re. 
 
 If therefore I do not mistake, familiar discourse, conversation, 
 pJvOoi, is ther3 put in a general opposition to the instruction and 
 advice with which the sages or soothsayers, like Melampus, were 
 accustomed to lecture their hearers on their weal and woe. 
 
 , 99. Teraytov, rrj. 
 
 I. The verb rerayw^ occurs twice in Homer. At II. a, 591 
 Vulcan is telling how Jupiter had once served him, 
 
 'Ptye nobbs TfTayoov dno (3r)\ov decrneaioio^. 
 
 1 It is true, that heivd, in a case exactly parallel to this, is opposed to 
 €ad\d in the verses of an old poet quoted in Plato's Alcibiades secund. 
 p. 143. a. But undoubtedly the Attic writer had introduced into the 
 old verse his own expression ; for the same verse in the Anthologia 
 (Analect. Adesp. 466.) has Xvypd. But who knows whether it ought 
 not to be 8d\d there also instead of ftea>d, as in the passage above ? 
 For a continuation of this conjecture see the note on thai passage. 
 
 1 See an imitation of this passage in the fragment of the small Iliad 
 
504 99* Terayoov, Trj. 
 
 And at o, 23. Jupiter is describing how he had served the gods, 
 
 ov Se Xa/3oi/ii 
 
 'Pi7TT(i(TKov Ttrayav aitb firfkov. 
 
 The latter passage is only an angry and more general repeti- 
 tion of the former, referring to the same story. But the former 
 contains the phrase more complete and explains the latter, 
 making it quite clear by the addition of the genitive irobos, that 
 TeTayvv is only a more forcible expression for \a(3a>v, A.a/3o- 
 fjLcvos. In the explanations which we find in the grammarians 
 (Hesych. Etym. M. &c), exreiVas, Tivagas, pfyas, we see that 
 they are conjectures drawn partly from the context, partly from 
 the derivation, which first offered itself to the commentators, of 
 T€(v(o, rerafca 2 . In the same way the old interpreters hit upon 
 Xafi&v, Xafiopevos (see Schol. Lips. Eustath.), and at last ar- 
 rived at the connexion of reray^v and Trj, a supposition which 
 appeared to Eustathius very daring, but which is now generally 
 and correctly adopted. Schneider also was right in distinguish- 
 ing the two roots to which reii>a>, riraKa on the one hand, and rrj, 
 T€Tay<av on the other, belong ; for although there may be grounds 
 for the original identity of both, yet such an identity lies beyond 
 the bounds of all grammatical and exegetical etymology 3 . 
 
 in Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 1 263., where Neoptolemus is described as 
 serving Astyanax in a similar manner, ILaida §' i\oiv ck koXhov ivnXoKa- 
 fioio Tidrjvrjs 'Piyjfe nodos rerayoiv dno 7rvpyov. 
 
 2 An old authority for one of these explanations lies concealed under 
 an error of transcription. In Apollonius 2, 119. the scholiast adopted 
 the common but indefensible reading Afv/m pekav reraycbv neXeKvv fxeyav. 
 Brunck took from some manuscript fxd\a for nekav. But who would 
 not adopt the conjecture of Sanctamandus, Ai\j/a /xaA' avrerayaiv nekeKvv 
 \ikyav ? The artificial poet, who understood reraywv in much the same 
 sense as rivdgas, ventured on a compound after the analogy of d;i7re- 
 ivakoiv : which last word Ruhnken (see Ep. Crit. 2. p. 205.) would have 
 therefore introduced, but for which he would certainly have not received 
 the thanks of Apollonius. 
 
 8 Schneider's classing rerayav with the Latin tango is more certain 
 and more fruitful in results ; for how near the ideas of taking hold on 
 and touching are to each other, is shown by the Greek a7rr<o, anrofiai, 
 and the German anfassen (to lay hands on) used for anruhren (to touch) : 
 see also note 8, of art. 23. Who now will totally reject the connexion 
 of Terayoov with the English take, Danish tage ? by which the correctness 
 of the above explanation of that word is placed beyond a doubt. 
 
99* Teraycov, rrj. 505 
 
 2. From the latter root then there was a verbal stem TAT- 
 for which Terayelv is the old reduplicated form of the aorist 4 , 
 and another verbal stem TA-, the only remains of which is the 
 imperative rr\, formed like (fjv according to Doric analogy 5 . 
 We might, it is true, remove this latter entirely, explain it as 
 identical with the demonstrative 777, and confirm the explana- 
 tion by appealing to the analogy of the German da! (there!). 
 But this last comparison need not prevent our examining each 
 of these expressions in its own language, as the result may 
 be in both cases the same 6 . The plainest instances of the 
 verbal meaning of t?J are those where it is joined with such 
 
 4 Lucian, near the beginning of the Dialogue Charon, makes Mer- 
 cury quote ironically from II. a, 591. pr) pty?7 xdfie reraycos tov nodos anb 
 tov dea-neo-Lov (3t)\ov. That this reading is false is clear from the scho- 
 liast on Lucian, who explains only reraydyv. That excellent critic Hem- 
 sterhuis could have been induced only by his well-known grammatical 
 prejudices, to think of finding here for Homer himself a more correct 
 reading than the " operosum grammaticorum aoristum 2. Terayav ab 
 erayov." 
 
 5 Compare rer^Ka — erndyqv. 
 
 6 I have long suspected that the German da! (there !) used in offer- 
 ing or presenting a thing, is an old imperative, though the appearance 
 of the word is against it ; and in etymology from natural causes we have 
 always to contend against appearances. In some parts of Germany in 
 the language of common life this word is actually inflected, and when 
 more things than one are offered they say dat! a usage corresponding 
 with rrjre in common Greek ; see Sophron. in Schol. Aristoph. Ach. 204. 
 It is true, that we may consider both as a popular error arising from 
 the apparent sense of this expression ; but even this popular error pre- 
 supposes in this case a kind of necessity for an imperative ; and con- 
 sequently this necessity was as likely to have produced it before as to 
 have introduced it afterwards. If, on the contrary, an adverb had been 
 the part of speech really required here, one so plain and well known 
 as da would have scarcely been mistaken for such, and consequently 
 would not have been inflected by any one. Besides, there is some ad- 
 ditional trace of a verb in the accent or stress laid on the word, as far 
 as this is possible where the sound is so trifling. Da! when used in 
 offering anything is always spoken short, even when the greatest stress 
 is intended to be laid on it ; a thing can never be offered with da! 
 (there!): whereas the adverb is long by nature, and this length is al- 
 most always preserved, even when not the slightest stress is intended 
 to be laid on it. But by this quantity dii is very like such imperatives 
 as gib (give)! nimm (take)! and lastly we may subjoin the analogy of 
 the French tiens! and the Greek r?) ! 
 
506 ioo. Terpt))(a. 
 
 particles as vvv, hi, &c. For example, in U. \js, 618. Trj vvv, Kal 
 <roL tovto, yipov, k€LjjltJ\lou Ioto>. In Od. e, 346. Tij 8e, robe Kprj- 
 bejjivov vtto (TTtpvoio Tavva-aaL. But the accusative is found as 
 seldom joined with Trj as it is with the corresponding French 
 expression tiens! tenezl In all cases it stands either quite ab- 
 solute, that is, with the object understood, as in the former of 
 the instances above quoted; or the accusative belongs to a verb 
 immediately following, as in the latter. According to this ana- 
 logy, Wolf has been correct in rejecting the only instance of Trj 
 with an accusative, Od. k, 387. 
 
 TJ7 rode (fidpiuiKOV iadXbv, ex <ov & * s Sco/xara KipKrjs 
 "Epxev, 
 
 in which he has followed the Cod. Harl., where there is no Se 
 after <ix.(oy; a change certainly recommended by its very much 
 improving the construction of e'xwy. 
 
 Terpa(j)dXrjpo9 ; vid. <j6aAoy, &C. 
 
 IOO. Terprjxa. 
 
 1. I have briefly laid down in my Grammar, that the per- 
 fect TCTprjxa does not come either from a verb Tprjxo or from 
 rpaxvs, which I will here prove more fully. It occurs in Homer 
 only twice, and in both instances in speaking of the assembly of 
 the people : II. /3, 95. 
 
 Terpr]X ei & °-y°pr}> vno de (TTovaxlC €TO yaia 
 Aaatv l£6vTG>Vy opados 8' rjv* 
 
 and 77, 346. 
 
 Tpdxov avr dyoprj yever 'lAt'ov iv rroXei aKprj 
 Aeivr), TeTprjxvla, napa Upidpoio Bvpycriv. 
 
 Heyne, on the first passage, thinks it perfectly clear that this 
 word comes from a verb rprix®, &o™ which was afterwards 
 formed Tp^xvvo, and that in its proper sense it is used of a 
 
ioo. TeTpri^a. 507 
 
 smooth surface which turbatur, asperatur, and thence of any 
 turbatio. Now it is evident that the opposition between smooth 
 and rough is introduced here only because the sound of the verb 
 reminded the ear of the better-known adjective Tprixvs. But 
 neither in the old Epic, nor in the Lyric or Tragic poets, is there 
 any other passage where the verb occurs. 
 
 2. In both the passages of Homer, however, the context shows 
 at once that the true idea (btLvr), Terprjxv'ta) is not mere uneven- 
 ness, or stiffness of heads in a crowd, but disturbed motion. To 
 this I have to add a verse from Stobseus, of what period I know 
 not r , 
 
 'Afi(p\ de tol vtai alev aviai TCTprjxcKTiv, 
 
 which is also favourable to the idea of restless motion. It is 
 true, that both the word Tprixvs and its meaning are akin to that 
 of a moving crowd ; but rprjxco does not come naturally from 
 Tprixvs, — on the contrary the adjective comes very naturally from 
 the verb. We have therefore to examine the verbal form rirpr]- 
 ya, and that entirely a priori. 
 
 3. Now the unanimity of the old grammarians which we 
 meet with in this examination is very remarkable. Some of 
 them indeed have reTpaxwro as an explanation of the sense; 
 but as soon as they come to explain the form, they invariably 
 derive it from rapaaaa ; see Schol. Ven. Eustath. Etym. M. 
 Suid. This unanimity is, I say, very remarkable, because the 
 adoption of a theme rp^co, which offered itself so naturally, 
 and was so agreeable to the common grammatical mode of pro- 
 ceeding, and which, as we shall see below, some did actually 
 propose, was yet most determinately rejected, in order to make 
 way for one far less natural. I conjecture therefore that this 
 latter was supported by some old authority, derived from a pe- 
 riod when the feeling of the meanings was yet sufficiently alive 
 to determine, without the aid of grammatical art, what forms 
 belonged to each other. But in any case it is inconceivable how 
 any one could reject this explanation (see Heyne) as perfectly 
 untenable, without thinking of the Attic form 0pdrra> for ra- 
 P&ttg). This OpoLTTd), which contains the aspirate before the p, 
 much as (fypoipuov for TrpooCpaov, is a contraction of that kind 
 
 1 I know it only from the quotation of Sopingius in Hesych. 
 
508 100. Terptj^a. 
 
 by which two vowels separated by a liquid are united into one 
 long vowel after the liquid, as o-Topevvvfju, <np&vvv\Li' fxakaKoSy 
 j3\dg. For that the a in OparTM is lengthened, is shown by 
 the accent of the neuter participle to Oparrov 1 . If from that 
 verb we form a perfect, it must be riTpaya, and consequently 
 Ionic TeTprjxa ', exactly as 7rp^o-cr(o, iriirprixa and iriirp^ya. It 
 is true that the meaning of raphe v® and Bpao-crbD is transitive, 
 turbare, while the perfect in question means turbatus sum ; but 
 this is so exactly in accordance with the analogy of the lan- 
 guage, particularly of the older writers, that this point needs 
 no further examination. And even the question whether re- 
 Tpiqya is to be considered a perf. i. or 2.* appears to be super- 
 fluous. Whoever is desirous, from the stronger analogy, of 
 having the perf. 2. for the intransitive meaning, might, by a 
 comparison with iriirprj-ya, desire to write rkrpr\ya also. But 
 I would not have that person satisfied of the truth of the 
 reading by referring to the Etym. M. ; for the reading rerp?}- 
 yet, which is there supported by rerdpaya, &c. proves to be 
 an old various reading for the former of the two Homeric pas- 
 sages, but one which I have met with nowhere else. I have 
 only to remind my readers, that as irpayos points to the letter 
 y for irpcLTTO), so rapaxn points to x. as tne most common ra- 
 dical letter for raparrco ; and thus the perf. I . and 2. coin- 
 cide. 
 
 4. It is not necessary for us in the old Ionic language to 
 suppose the other forms or tenses answering to the Attic Op&ao-G) 
 tOpaga, as this kind of contraction was principally wanted only 
 in the perfect for Terapaya, in the same way as in KtKXrjKa 
 and similar cases. Hence the aorist appears in Homer in the 
 unchanged form from Tapacro-Q*; for instance in Od. e, 291. 
 304. kr&pa^e be ttovtov. The relation which these meanings 
 bear to each other, — in the one case of the god agitating the 
 
 2 Plato Phsed. p. 86. e. It is true, that the authorities which I have 
 at this moment before me give both readings Oparrov and Oparrov ; but 
 the former can be only from tradition. This and general analogy would 
 therefore direct us to write in iEschyl. Prom. 633. 6pa£ai, if the manu- 
 scripts do not already give it so. 
 
 * [What the Germans call perf. 2. is very improperly called by us 
 perfectum medium. — Ed.] 
 
 
loo. TeTjOi^a. 509 
 
 sea, in the other of the agitated and tumultuous assembly, — 
 must be at once felt ; even though TtTprjxa, which we have said 
 occurs but twice in Homer, cannot be shown to have been used 
 by him exactly in connexion with the sea. But an instance of 
 this usage, if it be not superfluous to quote it, we find in Leo- 
 nidas, an old poet belonging to the period preceding the Alexan- 
 drine aera; Epigr. 96. 
 
 TcTprjxvla Bakaao-a, tl p ovk olfypa iraOovta 
 TrfKoa arrb -fyikr) 9 enrvcras rjiovos ; 
 
 In the same way Kivelv also is used both of the sea and of an 
 assembly ; as at II. /3, 395. ore tavr\crei votos £\6(av (icv/oia), 
 and at v. 144. Ktv-qOr] 8' ayopr) ws Kvpiara p.aKpa OaKacrari^. From 
 which passages, if read in connexion with each other, it is 
 clear, that the difference between Terpriyjei and eKLvrjOrj con- 
 sists only in this, that the passive aorist is used to express 
 the moment of transition from calm to tumult, but rerprix^i-, 
 as is usual with these perfects, marks the continuance of the 
 agitation. 
 
 5. As the Homeric rirpiqya coincides therefore so exactly 
 with Tapaaao) in form as well as in meaning, the adoption of 
 another theme for it is the more untenable. But the adjective 
 Tpayys, Tp-qxys, proves nothing more than that the transition 
 from the idea of agitated (particularly as shown on a surface 
 rendered uneven by agitation) to that of uneven and rough is 
 ancient. The same transition might very well take place in the 
 verb too ; but examples from the Alexandrine writers (for in- 
 stance reTprjxora (3&\ov, Apollon. 3, 1393.) can prove nothing in 
 favour of the real usage of the more ancient authors ; and still 
 less can we conclude, from finding a present in Nicander Ther. 
 521. rprixoPTL TT&yu, that it existed also in the older times 3 . This 
 latter example proves only that some of the older grammarians 
 likewise traced back this perfect to the same erroneous theme ; 
 as we might have already guessed from the gloss TtTpaxyvro. If 
 we were inclined to suppose any other grammatical usage from 
 
 8 With this poet we may join another of the same kind, Demosthenes 
 Bithynus, who uses rpr^xovaa in the same sense in a fragment in the 
 Etym. M. V. 'Hpaia. 
 
510 ioi. T>/A vyerog. 
 
 finding a form in Nicander, we must surely be deterred by the 
 present €itov<tl, which his grammatical art formed from tl-nov 
 and hiita, and which he accordingly used at Ther. 508. and 
 elsewhere. 
 
 T?; ; vid. reraycDv. 
 TrjXefcAeiTO?, r^Ae/cA^ros*, tt]X€k\vt6s' ; vid 
 
 IOI. TrjAvyeros. 
 
 1. The epithet rrj^vyeros is given to sons and daughters in 
 order to represent them as objects of the particular affection of 
 their parents; but without our seeing clearly what the exact 
 sense of the word is. At II. t, 143. Agamemnon sends to 
 Achilles, as his future son-in-law, the following promise : 
 
 TL<ra> be piv taov 'Opeo-n/, 
 
 "O? poi TTjXvycros Tpecperai 6aXcr] ivl 7roXXfj. 
 
 At Od. 6, 11. Menelaus marries his son, 
 
 Os ol Trjkvyeros yevero Kparepos MeycnrevBrjs 
 'Ek dovXrjs. 
 
 And at II. y, 175. Helen reproaches herself with having left 
 her home, 
 
 Uaiftd re TrfKvyerrjv Kal 6prp\iKLr]v epareivrjv, 
 
 by which is meant Hermione. In the same way is described, 
 though only in idea, paternal love for a dear child, at II. t, 
 482. 
 
 Kcu pe cpiXrja axrei re 7rarrjp 6v naida <pi\r]crrj 
 Movvov, TrjXvyerov, 7roX\oi(riv enl KT€aT€(raiv' 
 
 and at Od. 7r, 19. where a father receives with joy his son re- 
 turning to him after a long absence, bv iraiba... Movvov, TrfXvyerov. 
 
101. TyXvyerog. 511 
 
 Lastly at II. e, 153. two brothers, slain by Diomedes, have this 
 epithet, 
 
 <baivoiTOS vie, 
 "A/z</x» TTjXvyerco' 6 8e reipero yfjpa'i Xvypco, 
 Ylbv §' ov reKer aWov eVt KTedrea-a-i XnrecrOai. 
 
 2. These are all the passages from which we can gather the 
 domestic relation of those to whom this epithet is given. And 
 thus w^e see how mechanically and injudiciously those proceeded 
 who derived the word from rrjXe and ydvo\xai ; which not only 
 does not suit any of the passages quoted, but possesses no one 
 qualification that might fairly have led to the catachrestical ap- 
 plication (as the grammarians term it) of this word to tenderly 
 beloved children in general ; as a son born in the absence of his 
 father can by no means excite that tender affection which is 
 necessary to such a usage 1 . Hence the common explanation of 
 the word is, that it is a child born when the father is ttjXov ttjs 
 fjXiKLas ; which certainly suits very well the sons of Pheenops, but 
 not the others, and least of all Helen, by whom it is therefore 
 supposed to be said KaraxprjcrTLKcas. But the great objection 
 to all this is, that neither rfjAe nor Trjkov are ever used with 
 reference to time ; and although with the genitive defining the 
 sense — ' far advanced in years' — this might be conceivable, still 
 it is impossible that such an expression as a far-born or distant- 
 born child can mean one born in his father's old age. 
 
 3. If we give up the derivation of the word, and by a compa- 
 rison of passages search for some more accurate sense founded 
 on parental affection, the idea of only one offers itself to us (see 
 Schol. II. e, 153. Od. 8, u. Hesych. &c): but then this will 
 not suit the two sons of Phsenops, aficpco rr)Kvyer^ ; and the 
 twice-recurring combination, fxovvos, Tr)\vyeTos, requires that 
 the latter word should have its own separate idea. Nothing 
 therefore remains for us but to suppose it to mean, what may 
 very well be the literal sense of the word, tenderly beloved, as 
 in the expression at Od. /3, 365. of Telemachus, Mowoj ewi> 
 
 1 The usage of later poets, who have T^Xuyeror simply in the sense 
 of distant, is too great a deviation from Homer to lead us astray. See 
 Simmias ap. Tzetz. 8, 144. (quoted in Schneider's Lexicon) TrfwytTozv 
 'Ynfpftopecdv, and HeSVCh. TrfXvyeTOiV dnoiKL<ou. 
 
512 IOI- TrjXvyeros. 
 
 ayaTrrjTos. Only that njAuyeros is a more forcible expression for 
 this idea, as is evident from the bad sense in which the word is 
 used at II. v, 470. 
 
 'AAA' ovk ^lBojAevrja (})6(3os Aa/3e, rrjXvyerov coy. 
 
 Here the meaning of a child spoiled by the love of its parents is 
 too evident for us not to be convinced at once, that the only idea 
 of the poet in all those passages was that of an object of the 
 most tender love and affection, applied in a good or bad sense 
 according to the context. The word is also used absolutely, but 
 in a good sense, by Euripides in the Tph. Taur. 828., where he 
 makes Iphigenia say to Orestes, exo> °"' 'Opeora rrjkvyerov x9° v °s 
 airo TtaTpibos, undoubtedly with reference to the passage quoted 
 above from II. t, 143 *. 
 
 4. With this half-positive half-negative result, which we 
 obtain within the bounds of certainty, we may, as far as our 
 object is to understand the sense of the poet^ rest satisfied ; and 
 for anything further, we will venture a little on conjecture. 
 In the Excerpta of Orion which Sturz has appended to the 
 Etymol. Gud. we read at p. 616. the explanation of Trjkv- 
 yeroy, 6 reAevratos r<3 irarpl yev6y<.evos. This explanation 
 certainly suits all the above passages ; for although by the 
 expression reAevratoj the thought is generally carried back to 
 some others preceding, yet its principal relation is to the 
 future, and it necessarily expresses the meaning of none since : 
 so that when the idea of the last-born acquired in the course of 
 usage the definite collateral idea of extreme affection, and even 
 of an injurious excess of it, the idea of the only child was 
 necessarily comprehended under it. And when this collateral 
 idea of tender affection was thus become firmly united to the 
 word, there appears to me to have been no objection in the lan- 
 guage of Homer to the joining of pwoj, T-qXvyeros. But it 
 is evident that the author of this explanation acknowledged 
 also an etymological connexion between the words T-qXvyeros 
 and reAeuratoy ; and there is certainly an analogy in the case 
 
 * [Both Schneider and Passow differ from Buttmann's interpretation 
 of rrjXvycTos in this passage of Euripides ; they understand it to mean 
 * distant,' and the latter in particular mentions it as the only instance 
 of this sense in an Attic writer. — Ed.] 
 
102. 'Y7T€p<pia\os, &c. 513 
 
 which deserves attention. From the more simple form, which 
 is supposed to be the substantive reXevrrj, arose very naturally 
 the compound TtXevyeros ; and hence again the form more con- 
 venient for the hexameter, rrjXvyeTos, by transposing the quan- 
 tities* on account of the rhythm, a practice resorted to on other 
 occasions, as in airepdaia for aueipicria ; for cv shortened gives v, 
 and € lengthened becomes r\ or et ; and, whether r?)\e be really 
 or only apparently akin to this stem or family, it is very con- 
 ceivable that from the familiar sound of that word the 77 pre- 
 vailed over the et. And thus it appears also very probable, that 
 Orion, in this derivation from the idea of reXevralos, has retained 
 an old tradition, of which the unintelligible derivation from r?]Ae 
 is only a kind of corruption. 
 
 Tpv (jxzXeia ; vid. (j)d\o?, sect. 12 
 
 7r€pr)vopecov , J y jj { )7r€ p ( j ) [ a \ 09m 
 'YTrepoirXos ; ) 
 
 102. 'Yirep(j)LaXo^ v7repr)i>op€(QV, vTreponAo?. 
 
 1. That v7T€pcf>La\os is used in the most decidedly bad sense, 
 and at the same time in speeches where a reproachful epithet is 
 not at all suitable, has been remarked in various ways; but the 
 contrast has never been made so distinct as may be done by a 
 survey of passages in the Odyssey alone. It is there a regular 
 fixed epithet of the suitors ; and most decidedly a term of re- 
 proach at a, J 34. where Telemachus is afraid that the guest will 
 be uncomfortable and annoyed at the repast, .... virepcpiaKoLcn 
 lx*Tz\Q(iiv : and again at ft, 310. where he says, 
 
 'AvriVo', ovttus ((jtlu vTrep<\)ia\oi<Ji p(0' vp.lv 
 Aaiuvadai T UKtovra ku\ evcjipaivecrOai €kt]\ov. 
 
 * ["As \vc find in Apoll. Dysc. (de Pronom. p. 329. B.) indications 
 of an adverb rf/Av, a si^ter-fonn of rf/Ac, there is no occasion for Betting 
 out with this transposition of the quantities." Passow's Lexicon. — Ed.] 
 
 l1 
 
514 102. 'YirepcplaXog, &c. 
 
 At o, 315. Ulysses uses it in the character of a beggar with a 
 somewhat different meaning. But it must necessarily be quite 
 free from everything of a reproachful tendency, when at <\>, 289. 
 Antinous himself says to the supposed beggar, 
 
 Ovk aycrnas, b enrjkos ine ptfiidKoiaL /led* r)\xiv 
 Aatvv(rai ; 
 
 which is consequently a mere repetition of the passage quoted 
 above from (3, where the word has so different a meaning. It 
 has been attempted here to explain these words as ironical, and 
 such they might certainly be in the mouth of the high-spirited 
 suitor if addressed to Telemachus, but by no means when 
 spoken to the beggar. It is clear therefore, that the proper 
 meaning of the word must have been such as should imply, 
 according to the person who used it and him to whom it was 
 spoken, more or less reproach, or none at all ; and this appears 
 to me to be the attribute of a man tvho thinks that he can set 
 himself above much or everything. And in the same way, though I 
 might not exactly follow the scholiast in explaining the Cyclops 
 (with the exception of Polyphemus) to be men observant of 
 right and justice, yet I should be inclined to agree with him in 
 opinion that they are called at t, ic6. imepcpiakoi aOeyLicnoi only 
 as monstrous children of nature, who needed no social or legal 
 relations among themselves, and consequently did not acknow- 
 ledge them toward others. 
 
 2. It is the same with the word when an epithet of a speech 
 or address. At Od. h, 774. Antinous warns the suitors against 
 uttering any {jlvOovs virepcpiakovs ; which can only refer to a 
 speech of one of them just before, in which he had spoken 
 of looking forward with delight to the Queen's marriage and 
 Telemachus's death, and which must have appeared to that 
 most high-spirited of the suitors over-hasty and imprudent, as 
 the Queen might by these means get some intelligence of it. 
 It is quite otherwise at 6, 503. where Proteus blames the pre- 
 sumptuous boast of Ajax (Ei jirj imepcpLakov tiros e^jSoAc, kclI fiey 
 a&o-Orj), that he would escape the waves even if the gods willed 
 it otherwise. 
 
 3. In another passage of the Odyssey (£ 274.) the adjective 
 is an epithet of reproach. Nausicaa there says that she shuns 
 
102. r Y7rep<^)/aXo?, &C. 515 
 
 the conversation and jokes of a certain class of men, and adds as 
 the reason, 
 
 fiaXa §' ciarlv {<7rep0i'a\oi Kara drj/xov. 
 
 The difference of meaning here from the first virepfyiakoi is at 
 once perceptible, and we might be inclined to render it merely 
 by regardless of right and reason, did not the really unbecoming 
 ridicule, to which the young princess suspects she may be ex- 
 posed from any one of those persons, show a somewhat closer 
 accordance with the usage of the word elsewhere, in as much as 
 the persons here meant are such as exalt themselves above all 
 decorum and respect toward their superiors. 
 
 4. On the other hand, it is not to be denied, that if we had 
 only the Iliad, we should fix on the decidedly reproachful sense 
 as the ground of the meaning. There the Trojans are called 
 virep(j)[akoL, but always by an enemy or by hostile deities, and 
 with great bitterness of expression, as at v, 621. (p, 224. 414. 
 459.; Priam's sons at y, 106. are v-ntpfyiakoi kclI clitkttol : Juno 
 says at o, 94. that Jupiter is virtp<pLakos kol aTrrjvrjs ; and Mene- 
 laus denies at \js, 611. that these same qualities can be attri- 
 buted to him. Still however these passages, if duly considered, 
 coincide with the usage of the word as observed in the Odyssey. 
 The Trojans, as barbarians, are considered by the Greeks to 
 be less observant of right and reason than themselves ; and 
 when the youthful sons of the king are called amoroi, this at 
 once raises the meaning of the accompanying inrepcjiLakoL. The 
 same kind of climax is formed by aTrrjvrjs when said of Jupiter, 
 and shows therefore that virep^takos can only belong to the 
 category of selfish rulers, regardless of all but their own ab- 
 solute will ; although Juno utters it in a tone of ill-humour, 
 and increases its severity by the addition of wnr)vr\<s, which 
 however is used in a rather milder sense than usual : compare 
 a, 340. 
 
 5. But it is a point deserving of particular attention, that the 
 adverb vntpcfyLakays is entirely free from any meaning strictly re- 
 proachful. It is true, that at Od. a, 227. the guest says of the 
 suitors, v(3pi(ovT€s ^Trepc/naAw? boKeovatv : but here the reproach 
 is already fully expressed in the participle, and the ad veil) only 
 
516 102. 'YwepcfytaXog, &c. 
 
 heightens the sense, as at <r, 71. where the suitors admire the 
 majestic limbs of the supposed beggar; 
 
 Mprj(TTrjpes §' apa iravres imepcpiaXcos dydaavro' 
 
 nay, it is used where the thing done is perfectly correct and 
 reasonable, as at p, 481. where the same suitors are justly angry 
 at the outrageous act of Antinous ; 
 
 01 & apa TvavTts {mepcpidXcos vep,earr)0-av. 
 
 And here too the Iliad is not at variance with the Odyssey. 
 For when Hector at a, 300. says of the wealthy inhabitants 
 of Troy, 
 
 os KTedrecro'iv vff€p(pid\a>s dvidfei, 
 
 the context there requires but a slight increase of force, as if 
 we should say ' whoever is too fond of his possessions ;' and 
 when Idomeneus at v. 293. breaks off the idle conversation in 
 the battle, , 
 
 pA] ttov tis V7rep(pid\a>s pepeai^rj, 
 
 he is certainly thinking of incurring a violent reproach, but yet 
 a just one. 
 
 6. It is certain, therefore, that the word in its first and proper 
 sense only raises or increases the general force of the sentence ; 
 but it may likewise contain the reproachful meaning of too 
 much and too great. For a comparison of the popular language 
 of all nations shows how little moderation is observed in the 
 choice of adverbs, and that ideas like enormous, excessive, ni- 
 mium, are used without any meaning of reproach : on the other 
 hand, these very terms of exaltation, when used as adjectives 
 with persons or with anything bearing a moral relation, pass 
 over at once into what is odious. That we should not give 
 up too easily the literal derivation of the word from cpidXrj, 
 is a point which certainly requires consideration. Thus much 
 however arises from what has been said, that the explanation 
 of it by one who breaks his oaths and engagements, tov irapa- 
 (3aivovra tovs bta cpia\&v yevopiivovs opuovs (see Etym. M. and 
 compare Schol. Od. a, 134.), is inadmissible ; not only be- 
 cause, if it were said of Jupiter in that sense, it would be a 
 
102. 'Y7rep(pla\os, &c. 517 
 
 perfectly outrageous expression even in Juno's mouth, but also 
 because it is not conceivable that a word used in so bad a sense, 
 and with so definite a meaning, can be softened and brought 
 to mean anything excessive and surpassing, and that too in a 
 good sense. It would be more suitable, even by comparison 
 of the German, to take the literal idea of beyond measure, ex- 
 cessive ; but we nowhere find that faakrj was used for a mea- 
 sure, nor have I met with this explanation in any of the old 
 writers; for although we see in the Etym. M. rbv vnepfiak- 
 kovTd rfi a^rpia, cos rrjs (j)L&kr]s apLtrpov ov<rrjs, this is only an 
 indistinct abridgment of a longer account, quoted by Porphyry 
 in Schol. II. j8, 169. and v, 295. as from Aristotle, in which it 
 is expressly said that ^lakt] is no measure, and which unravels 
 the idea of vitepfyiakos in the sense of beyond measure, immea- 
 surable, with that fine-drawn subtilty which we cannot but be 
 surprised to see quoted from so respectable a writer. There 
 remains then for this derivation nothing but the image of an 
 overflowing goblet (see Schol. Apoll. 2, 54. and the last edition 
 of Schneider's Lexicon 1 ), which I am as yet unwilling decidedly 
 to reject, though at the same time I have no confidence in 
 its correctness. For it appears to me that neither one who 
 4 is himself like an overflowing cup,' nor one who s overfills his 
 cup,' can be called according to the natural formation of words 
 
 VTT€p(f)Lak0S. 
 
 7. On the other hand, no synonym offers itself so naturally, 
 particularly to the adverb imtpcpLaktos and its usage above de- 
 tailed, as V7r€p(f)v(as: see Eustath. ad Od. a, 71. I have already 
 
 1 Schneider in the earlier editions of his Lexicon rejected as forced 
 any derivation from cjnaXr] -. but in the last a he has admitted, in accord- 
 ance with my opinion, all that can be said in support of this derivation, 
 and at the same time the evidence from Pindar in favour of deducing it 
 from v7Tfp0u7jy. 
 
 a [In his third and last edition Schneider says : " Perhaps the ground 
 of vTrcp<f)ia\os lies in the idea of something overflowing, overfilled, or 
 filled beyond all measure ; with which were afterwards joined the other 
 meanings of arrogance and violence. In that case the derivation from 
 (f)id\r) might be maintained. Pindar appears to have taken it for vnep- 
 ifivtjs, when he calls Etna the vnep(f)UiXov deo-fxou of Typhosus, Fragm. 
 p. 17. Heyne." — Ed.'] 
 
518 T02. 'YirepcpiaXos, &c. 
 
 mentioned the transition from v to t in Schneider's Lexicon* 
 under cfriapos, which, even if left uncertain by the examples 
 there given, is still confirmed in the case of (f)vai by $iri>, $irpo9. 
 But strictly speaking even this is unnecessary; for the inter- 
 change of very similar forms is almost a law of language ; and 
 thus vtj ep<fiva\os, if such a word existed, must have passed almost 
 necessarily into virep^CaXos, just as if it came from (f)tdkr} 2 . 
 But vTTep<pvakos appears to me to find its analogy in 6/xaAo's 
 (from ojuoj, dfjiov), and to be a very good expression for signify- 
 ing one who goes beyond the bounds of nature, and thence one 
 who oversteps the bounds of custom. What speaks particularly 
 in favour of this view is, that Pindar, to whom we cannot 
 attribute any usage not grounded in the old language, calls 
 Etna in the 93rd Fragment (in Bockh) the bto-pibv v-nepfyiaKov 
 of Typhceus, where it can only mean enormous, exceeding the 
 usual appearances of nature. It is evident that, while the word 
 in the course of usage as an adjective took more or less a moral 
 relation, still the usage of the adverb, being the only one which 
 remained current, presupposes virtp^vis to be the true ground- 
 idea ; and this particularly speaks for itself in the passage of 
 Homer which I have hitherto deferred quoting, Od. b, 663., 
 where the suitors speaking of Telemachus's unobserved de- 
 parture, and at ir, 346. of his return, as of something which 
 must have been brought about by supernatural assistance, ex- 
 press their astonishment in these words : 
 
 rj peya epyou v7rep(f)id\o)s ereXecr^?/ (rereAfOTcu) 
 
 Tr)\epdx<>> odos rjde. 
 
 For it is impossible that they could, even in their enmity to 
 him, impute this to overbearing insolence or arrogance; but 
 the adverb is here the same as in all the other passages, only 
 
 * [In Schneider's Lexicon the only thing bearing the least on this 
 point is, that Schneider derives cpLapos from $£>$, as pviapos from pvovs, 
 and adds at the end of a rather long article, and after a number of quo- 
 tations, that Buttmann supposes two ground-meanings, one from <pa>s 
 and another from $ua>, like Biaaos from 6va>. — Ed.] 
 
 2 In Schol. Od. /3, 320. the reading is v7rcp(pva\oiac, — a circumstance 
 of little importance, except perhaps that it presupposes the other deri- 
 vation to be an acknowledged one. 
 
102. 'Yirep(pia\os, &c. 519 
 
 that in this instance it is most conformable to its proper mean- 
 ing. Besides, Pindar's usage of the adjective agrees exactly 
 with that of Homer, in as much as he has vTrepcpCakos as an 
 epithet of the Centaur and of the Molionides, as well as of the 
 usurper Pelias ; in which it is difficult to decide whether in the 
 first case the poet looked to stature of body more than to some 
 quality of mind. On the other hand it is clear that bodily 
 power only is intended in Theocritus 22, 97., where it is said 
 of Polydeuces engaging with Amycus in a pugilistic combat, 
 ecr^e^e b' SpfjLrjs Tlalba Tloazibatovos vTT€p(pLak6i> irep kovra : whence 
 it is plain that even in the traditionary usage of later times the 
 word was not confined to moral relations only. 
 
 8. By way of comparison we will now take the epithets 
 inrtprjvopttov and v-epoirkos. As r/vopir] in Homer answers 
 exactly to the common word avbpla, and that epithet is given 
 only to men and youths, we are justified in taking the idea of 
 strength and spirit as the ground of its meaning 3 . Now as the 
 word inrtp does not necessarily imply anything reproachful, 
 vTreprjvopiajv as well as v-nepfyiakos may be considered an epithet 
 not expressive in a moral sense either of good or ill. Like 
 viT€p(f)(ako$ it would acquire therefore a meaning of reproach 
 only from the context and the tone in which it was spoken ; 
 as when used of the suitors at Od. p, 581. "Tfipiv akvorKafav 
 avbp&v v-n<.pr)vope6vT(nv, or at \j/, 31. "Ocpp avbpG>v rtVairo (3£r]v 
 virtprjvoptovTiov, and more particularly when at (3, 266. and b, 
 j66. the word kclk&s is added to the participle for this express 
 purpose. This uncertainty is also particularly striking at II. v, 
 258. where Meriones applies the word to Deiphobus, of whom 
 we know nothing whatever in the sense of reproach from any 
 other quarter. However he is a Trojan and a son of Priam ; 
 otherwise this epithet is given to the Trojans only in general, 
 as at II. b, 176. (in the mouth too of Agamemnon), to the 
 Cyclops at Od. f, 5. by the poet, and to the tyrant Pelias, who 
 is called v-neprjViap, in Hesiod 0, 995. t Besides, the idea of 
 
 3 That is to say, we might set out from durjp in its old general mean- 
 ing- of man, and understand the epithet to mean one who Beta himself 
 above every human relation ; but the idea of manliness and spirit is evi- 
 dently the predominating one in all the compounds of -i)vu>p. 
 
520 ro2. 'Y-n-epcjilaXos, &c. 
 
 high-spiritedness* is an almost literal translation of the word 
 compounded of virep and rjvopirj ; and the Grecian hero might 
 very well call every bold attack of a Trojan warrior (conse- 
 quently of Deiphobus in the passage in question) by the term 
 high-spirited or daring. And lastly, the verbal form vTreprjvo- 
 p4(i>v, which expresses the actual exercise of the quality meant, 
 appears to me as an epithet to suit only the reproachful sense 
 of daring; and supposing inrtprivwp to mean one who is over- 
 daring, that participle could hardly be used as a regular fixed 
 epithet in this sense, as meaning therefore 4 one continually 
 exercising an over-daring spirit.' 
 
 9. 'TnipoTrXos is used in Homer and Hesiod in a decidedly 
 bad sense. In the former it occurs but twice, and in both in- 
 stances refers to speaking, viz. at II. o, 185. and p, 170. viiip- 
 oirkov d-neiv, to speak arrogantly or presumptuously ; with which 
 may be reckoned the v-nepoTrXiai, arrogancies, of Agamemnon in 
 the commencement of his quarrel with Achilles (II. a, 205.), 
 and the verb as used of the king's farm at Ithaca (Od. p, 268.) 
 in these words, 
 
 ovk av tls piv dvfjp vncpoTrXicrcratTO, 
 
 which Aristarchus (see Apollon. in v.) foolishly explained by 
 to take by force of arms, whereas the meaning clearly is to 
 treat with arrogant contempt. But in the Theogonia 516. 619. 
 670. there occur only r/vopir] virtpoirXos and (3lt] virepoirXos, of 
 the Titans, the hundred-handed giants, and the giant Menoe- 
 tius, consequently of all virep^vopeovToyv ; and v-nepo-nXov is 
 therefore everything which goes too far in word or action ; so 
 that one is surprised to see Pindar, who at Pyth. 6,47. (fjfSav 
 viripoirXov) uses the word exactly in this sense, giving the same 
 epithet at Pyth. 9, 24. to the Lapithae, who have nowhere de- 
 served one taken from the sense of over-daring. There appears 
 therefore to have been a precedent in the older language for 
 
 * [The German word ubermuthig (compounded of Tiber ' over/ and 
 mutliig ' spirited') is a literal translation of the Greek epithet ; but, un- 
 like the Greek, it is used I believe always in a bad sense. Perhaps our 
 word daring, which may be understood either as an epithet of praise or 
 of reproach, according to the context, will come nearest to the Greek 
 epithet. — Ed.] 
 
103. QaXos, &c. 521 
 
 using v-epo-kos, in addition to the above meaning, of every- 
 thing which surpasses in strength the ordinary standard, — an 
 idea which is also implied in virfpoirXos ara, with which in 
 01. 1, 90. Pindar expresses the excessive suffering of Tantalus 
 in the world below 4 . 
 
 103. OaAoc, (j)aXapa, T€Tpa(paAr)pos. 
 
 I. Among the parts of the helmet we frequently find in 
 Homer 6 (f)d\os l , of which we have no satisfactory explanation. 
 For although the most common opinion, according to which it 
 is the cotius, the projecting knob or highest part of the helmet, 
 is not contradicted by anything in the passages where the word 
 
 4 On the derivation of such a word it is much easier to make nega- 
 tive than positive assertions. The old superficial one, from oirka arms, 
 shows the great danger of attempting to make words, which consist 
 of the same letters, coincide in sense also. This is the fault too of that 
 derivation mentioned by Schneider, according to which the idea of 
 vouthful strength is deduced from 6n\6repos, in order to explain imep- 
 o7r\os to be the same as vireprjvcop. How improbable is it that this 
 should be the ground-idea of onXorepos, when we read in Homer such 
 expressions as oTrXortpo? yevefj, and (Od. <fi, 37°-) KaL onXorepas nep 
 
 ecou , ftir)(pi Se (freprtpos elpc, and Xapircov piav onXorepdcov, and (Od. 
 
 o, 363.) tt)v oirXoTUT-qv t4k€ TTcuda, &c. As yet I can offer nothing 
 better than the conjecture which I formerly proposed a , that 67rXoTepos 
 (see Schneid. Lex. in v.) comes from enopai, with which may perhaps 
 be compared omOev also. On the contrary, it appears to me more cer- 
 tain, that onXov, a tool or instrument, comes from eWeo, the proper word 
 for work or labour of every kind. In either way vneponXos may be 
 brought to an affinity with eWco and enoixm ; for which there appears 
 possibility enough, though there is not the evidence requisite to esta- 
 blish it. And whoever should wish to add 6^X77 to the same family, 
 must not omit the German Huf (a hoof), — an easy stipulation for those 
 who etymologize in the usual way. 
 
 1 Possibly to (f)d\ou, for the passages where it occurs do not decide 
 which ; and in the Etym. M. there is an article entitled (j)a\d plur. of 
 which the contents are similar to (pnXoj ; nor are the grammarians 
 agreed respecting the accentuation. 
 
 a [Passow in his Lexicon rejects all the above derivations as far- 
 fetched or too refined, and gives as bis opinion that vntponXos is formed 
 from o7rXoj/ as inepfttos is from fiia. — Ed.] 
 
522 103. $>a\os, &c. 
 
 occurs, still there is nowhere sufficient evidence to prove that it 
 is so; for Heyne^ account of it at II. y, 371. and e, 743. is 
 puzzling, and contains much that is erroneous ; while the expla- 
 nations of the old grammarians, whom Schneider still follows, 
 can neither be reconciled with Heyne, nor are they themselves 
 satisfactory. Without pretending to give an accurate account of 
 the word, or one which shall be certain in all its details, I con- 
 tent myself with making what progress I can in the way of ex- 
 planation, leaving it to be completed by some one more inti- 
 mately acquainted than I am with ancient art. 
 
 2. The passages are the following. At II. y, 362. Menelaus 
 draws his sword against Paris, and 
 
 HXrjgev avacrxofievos <6pv6os (pakov 
 
 which therefore shows that the cpakos was at the top and front of 
 the helmet. The sword breaks against it ; and the same thing 
 happens again at 77, 338. in another combat. — At II. b, 459. and 
 (, 9. is the following description : 
 
 ToV p" e/3aXe 7rpa>TO$ KopvBos (pakov l7mobao-€ir)s, 
 Ei/ de p€TC07rco 7rrj£e' irepr\<T€ §' ap oareov eiVcu 
 AlXM X a ^ Ke fy> t°v 8e a kotos oacre Kakvyj/ev. 
 
 Here then the cpdkos is so completely in the fore part of the 
 helmet, that the lance, which is thrust straight forward and 
 strikes against it, goes into' the forehead. — At II. z>, 614. Pisander 
 engages Menelaus with the axe, and 
 
 KopvQos (pakov rfkavev wrTrooWefys' 
 
 "AKpov vno ko(pov avrov, 
 
 but does not wound him. — At II. v, 132. and 77, 2t6. a closely 
 pressed throng of combatants is described in these words : 
 
 ' Aanls ap y acnrift epeibe, Kopvs Kopvv, dvepa 6° dvrjp. 
 Vavov 8' ImroKopoi KopvOes kapnpolcri (pakoiai 
 NevovrcoV cos kvkvoI e^ecrracrai/ dkkrjkoiaiv. 
 
 As in the first of these verses is depicted the closeness of their 
 array as they stood side by side, so it is evident from vevovroav 
 that by the second verse is expressed how near they stood be- 
 hind each other, in as much as when one stooped his head for- 
 ward he touched with his cpdkos the helmet of the one before 
 him. To these passages we may add the compound a/ut</>t- 
 
103. QaXos, &c. 523 
 
 (pakos at e, 743. where Minerva's helmet, and A., 41. where 
 Agamemnon's, are thus described : 
 
 Kpari S 1 eV dp.<fii(f)a\ov Kvverjv Bero T€Tpa(paKrjpov. 
 
 We must defer the consideration of the last word for the present ; 
 but afjLcpLcpakos combined with the above passages produces the 
 following result. 
 
 3. The cpdkos was a hard substance rising from the top of the 
 helmet, against which swords were broken, and which even a 
 battle-axe did not penetrate ; but on the forehead we see that 
 it could not resist the force of the hurled spear. This elevated 
 substance reached from the crest to the forehead ; whence it 
 follows most naturally that when the helmet is called a/jLcpifpakos, 
 the <pdkos stretched from the crest backward as well as forward. 
 For we find no trace whatever of anything going round in the 
 other passages, which when speaking of one helmet invariably 
 mention the cpdkos in the singular number. The (pdkot of the 
 different helmets projected somewhat forward, so that by their 
 means the helmets of the throng of combatants described above 
 (particularly if we suppose the majority of them to have been 
 afxcpLcpakoi) touched each other whenever the wearers bent 
 forward. — The last passage for our consideration is k, 258. where 
 the cpdkos is mentioned as wanting, and Thrasymedes gives 
 Diomedes, who is going out as a nocturnal spy, a Kvvi-qv 
 
 Tavpeirjv, acpakov re koi aXocpov, rjre Karairv^ 
 KeickTjTai. 
 
 It is clear that we have here described a helmet, distinguished 
 by nothing externally, but calculated to make the spy as little 
 remarkable as possible. As for the rest, we may gather from 
 this and the above-mentioned passage of v, 6 1 4. the exact con- 
 nexion of the cpdkos with the plume of the helmet ; and we 
 may observe likewise, that in the majority of the other passages, 
 when the cp&kos is mentioned, the helmet is particularized as 
 being plumed. This therefore completes the certainty of that 
 view [of the subject which regarded the (pdkos as actually the 
 same with, or occupying the same place as, what was afterward 
 called k&vos. It was a curved elevation on the top of the 
 helmet, in which was inserted the plume, and which at the 
 
524 103. <&a\os, &c. 
 
 same time by its hardness and firmness furnished an additional 
 defence against the blow of an enemy. 
 
 4. Before we compare the explanations of the grammarians 
 with these results, we must mention two or three words which, 
 both on account of the similarity of their radical syllable, and 
 their connexion with the helmet, are always introduced in this 
 investigation. The first is the word cf)dX.a p a, which occurs in 
 Homer only once, at it, 106. where it is said of Ajax when very 
 much pressed by the enemy, 
 
 Seivrjv 8e nepX Kporacpoicri (paeivrj 
 
 IlrjXrj^ (3a.XXopevr) KavaxrjV e^e* (3aXXero d' ahl 
 K.a.7r(fia\a.p' evTroir^ra. 
 
 In this passage there is a various reading Kal 4>dkap, according 
 to which (BdWtTo 5' aid must be considered as in a parenthesis, 
 and the rest of the sentence be connected thus : nrjkrjg (3aXXopiivr] 
 Kal (fydkapa Kavayr\v ZyjE. But this reading of Aristarchus is 
 justly rejected, as the repetition /3aAA.ero 5° aid is not justified 
 by the mere atet, which in fact is already implied in the present 
 (SaWopiivri. The meaning of cfidXapa however is not clear from 
 this passage, which unfortunately, as we said above, is the only 
 one ; for beside this instance (pdXapa is well known in all 
 writers as the proper term for horse-trappings. The word 
 therefore in Homer is brought into connexion with another 
 form, cfydkripos, which is supposed indeed to be the same word, 
 but has not been preserved in that older language in so simple a 
 state : it is found only in the epithet of the helmet reTpa^dX^pos 
 at e, 743. A, 41. where its meaning is not clear; and also in the 
 verbal form (paXrjpiocovTa, which occurs at II. v 9 799. as an epi- 
 thet of the waves, and where the image of a helmet-plume may 
 certainly represent very easily the foam-crowned wave *, still 
 however without the explanation of the words before us being 
 thereby advanced. 
 
 5. Let us now turn to the old grammarians, from whose 
 explanations I will select what may be necessary to enable 
 
 "" [The very same metaphor occurs in stanza 26. of the last canto of 
 Scott's Marmion : 
 
 " And plumed crests of chieftains brave 
 Floating like foam upon the wave." — Ed.] 
 
103. ^a\og 3 &c. 525 
 
 us to form a judgment on them and on the point in question. 
 The passage which appears to contain the most information is 
 in Schol. A. ad k, 258. (pdkos dfKpakos eari \xiKpos dvnibi 
 fXtKpa 7TapaiT\i](TLOS. k€itcli be kclto, to /xercoTiozJ, vnepey&v t&v 
 d(pdakp.cov, aTfO(TKid((t)V rrju avyi]v tov fjkiov, olai tu>v Kopv- 
 ftdvTtov al KopvOes kclI t&v Tlakkabitov : and then from b, 459. 
 and v y 132. it is shown that the (pdkos is on the forehead; a 
 proof to us, that these grammarians, like ourselves, first tried 
 to find out what the (pdkos was from the passages themselves. 
 Now independently of the value which this scholium may have 
 as giving us information respecting the helmets of those old 
 priests, it is only a ridiculous union of two accounts which can- 
 not be united. For instance, one old superficial explanation 
 of the (pdkos was, that it is a boss for ornament : Schol. A. ad 
 y, 362. kaparpoi rives rjkoi evena irpoKoo-pLrip.aTOs. ad k, 258. 
 tcl eirl rcoz/ 7iepiKe(pakaL&v kdfjLTTpa a 0-77 1 b l a k t a. Schol. ad 
 €, 182. (pdkot be elat, ol Kara to jxertoiroi; ttjs TiepiKe(pakaias 
 i]koi r\ darepCo-KOL. We see how irreconcilable this expla- 
 nation (which is everywhere the prevailing one among the 
 grammarians, and according to which there would have been 
 several (pdkot on the forehead) is with those passages which 
 speak so plainly of the KopvOos (pdkos as of one single thing, 
 or as one of the principal parts of the helmet, which might 
 certainly be doubled, but of which there could not possibly be 
 a number all round the head. Another account, drawn from 
 b, 459. v, 132., represented the (pdkos as a kind of shade 
 sheltering the forehead from the rays of the sun ; and all this 
 is now so absurdly mixed up together in the larger scholium 
 quoted above, that first the (pdkos is plainly described as an 
 opujxikbs jMKpos, i. e. a small round ornament or boss, and 
 then it is added that it projects over the eyes for a shade. 
 But there appears quite accidentally a third account, as irre- 
 concilable with the other two as they are with each other ; it 
 occurs in Schol. Victor, ad k, 258. (d(pakov re kcil ukocfwv) : 
 dkocjiov, TTpbs to kavOdveiv, dtyakov be dvayKaim, e/c yap t&v 
 (pdkuv elcoOaatv eKOeZaOai ot k6(poi. On this I would observe, 
 that the excellent Victorian scholiast is the only one which 
 gives the above explanation ; the others content themselves 
 with saying that the helmet was d(jmkos, because the gleaming 
 of the (f)dkot must be prejudicial to a nocturnal expedition. 
 
526 103. &d\o$, &c. 
 
 Still the account of the plume being stuck in the <pdkoi (&v kcu 6 
 kocpos €X€tcll) is found also in the other scholia, but at v, 132. 
 where it is joined with the information that the <£aAos was on 
 the forehead : for instance, in Schol. A., (from which we ex- 
 tracted above the explanation of the <])dkos by a shade for the 
 forehead and by bosses,) it is said on this last passage that the 
 <pakot are crvpiyyia enl tQv pLtTcairtov els a kclOUvt at 01 \6tyoi, 
 because the expression \jmveiv kapnTpoto-i tyaXoiai was explained, 
 quite contrary to the meaning of kay-npoiai, by touching with the 
 plume. 
 
 6. The confusion in the scholia is still further increased by 
 the <pdkapa in Schol. A. ad tt, 106. being likewise explained as 
 ra Kara to jtxecror, Trjs 7T€piK€(f)akaias puKpa ao-TiihicrKia* cltlvcl Koap,ov 
 
 yapiv kvriQevrai. On the other hand, at e, 743. (a^icfxxkov 
 
 T€Tpa(pdkr]pov) ) and again in Schol. A., a distinction is carefully 
 preserved between (frdkoi and (pdkapa, the former being explained 
 in the usual way as ao-wihio-Koi on the forehead, but the latter 
 thus; fydkapa 6e, ol Iv rats TrapayvaOio-c KpiKOi^hi &v al napayva- 
 6t.bes KaTakafApdvovTat, ttjs irepiKtfyakaias : with which corresponds 
 pretty nearly Schol. B. ad it, 106. <pdko.pa 8e ra ko,tcl ras irapzias 
 tTUTTLTTTovra pLeprj, bia to (pava £ivai Koi kaparpd. d)? 6e 6 0pa£ 
 (Dionysius) eKciTepcodev avTrjs (ttjs 7njAr/K0?) KoapLos. And lastly, 
 the word T€Tpa<pdkr)poi> is again brought into connexion 
 with the <pdkoi or (jydkapa, and, contrary to all sense, explained 
 by Eustathius on the passage in e to have been joined by the 
 poet to dpL(f)i(pakov as a word of closer and more definite 
 meaning. 
 
 7. As far as <£aAo? is concerned in these explanations of 
 the grammarians, I think that the meaning of the bosses will 
 no longer mislead any one. That of the shade for the forehead 
 must also be rejected, from its taking only one side of the ques- 
 tion. But the account of the Ao'0os being stuck into the <pdkos 
 appears, amidst the contradictions of the scholia, to be derived 
 from a better source ; and it is perhaps attributable to that 
 mutilated medley that the cfrdkos is nowhere explained at once 
 by k&vos. Nor indeed has any one of the old lexicographers 
 this explanation, which made me curious to know whence it 
 came to be the current one. I have found however nothing 
 but that all the lexicons before Schneider have the article 
 ' <$>dkos, conus galecef which they have copied from each other 
 
103. &d\o9, &c. 527 
 
 as far back as the oldest Greek and Latin lexicon of the fifteenth 
 century, in which therefore it must have been derived by tra- 
 dition from the Greek grammarians' 2 . 
 
 8. For the same reason the explanation of the fyakapa being 
 that part of the helmet which protects the cheeks, deserves 
 (when compared with the uncritical confusion of the (pdkapa 
 with the (pakos) our entire belief; for at least it cannot be 
 taken from the passage in Homer. It is true, that the word is 
 explained in the glossaries of Hesychius, of Suidas, and else- 
 where as a horse ornament, bearing pretty much the same re- 
 lation to the jaws of the horse as it does in the other accpunt to 
 the cheeks of the man ; but this is rather a confirmation than 
 otherwise. For hence we see, that the ornamented straps which 
 hung down from the head of the horse were a principal part of 
 the (f)6.Xapa ; and in the same way the side coverings of the 
 helmet consisted of several straps covered with metal scales or 
 plates, and fastened under the chin. It was very natural there- 
 fore that this part should have the same name both for men and 
 horses ; but when applied to the latter, the name was extended 
 to the similar collective strapping over the whole body. It is 
 very conceivable too that in fighting hand to hand most of the 
 blows aimed sideways at the head would strike this part of the 
 helmet; and thus the passage of 7r, 106. is fully explained. 
 
 9. But when the grammarians again connect the forms <f>6,- 
 krjpos and T€Tpa(f)&\r)pos with this (pdkapa, it is to be hoped 
 that no one will consider as a confirmation of that connexion 
 the Lat. phalerce, which has a short e, and has been transformed 
 in the mouth of the Latins from the Greek word; whence I can 
 only approve of writing itfalerce*. Notwithstanding this, how- 
 
 2 In the so-called Glossary of Cyril is the unintelligible gloss ' $>d\os 
 habus.' 
 
 ; * Schneider, in his Latin Grammar, 1. p. 201., explains the writing 
 with the ph, not indeed as the more correct, but as the more sure way; 
 an opinion, which I cannot allow to hold good, except in cases where a 
 Greek word is in other respects unchanged, but still appears on inscrip- 
 tions and in manuscripts written with the/, as in the case of phaselus, 
 sipho. But phalerce is no longer a Greek word, any more than phaseolua : 
 and since the Latin tongue changed the word into a different shape, it 
 would also change the Greek </> into the Latin/,- and thus, as both 
 ways of writing the words do really occur, that of falera axid faseolus 
 ought to have the preference. 
 
528 T03. <£aAo?, &c. 
 
 ever, the metre and the Ionicism would be good grounds for the 
 change of (pdXapa to TerpacpdXrjpos, if it were correct in other 
 points. But the meaning of the kvv£t) TerpacpaX-qpos of the 
 goddess can hardly be connected satisfactorily with those (pd- 
 Xapa. Let us take then to our aid what little the Epic lan- 
 guage still offers us. The KVfxa (paXripiovv brings before our 
 eyes very naturally, as was said above, the comparison with the 
 helmet and its white plume. Without therefore suffering my- 
 self to be led astray by another word, which does not exactly 
 correspond in sense and sound, I will take it for granted, from 
 a comparison of the two Homeric words <paXr)pi6av and rerpa- 
 (pdXrjpos (and I feel confident of the truth of my supposition), 
 that (p&X-qpos was either one of the names for the plume of the 
 helmet, or an epithet of it. And thus I find it also very pro- 
 bable that this appellation passed on to the fastening of such a 
 plume in the cpdXos. In this way the epithets ap,<pL<paXos and 
 TerpacpdXrjpos suit each other admirably. The cpdXos of a 
 royal helmet extended both forward and backward, and had 
 four holes or hollows for so many plumes. "Whether Apollonius, 
 who at 3, 1228. calls an ornamented helmet reTpacpdXrjpov, and 
 at 2, 920. T€rpd(j)a\ov, imagined or could imagine a fourfold 
 crest for four plumes, or whether in this instance as in others a 
 defective comprehension of the old Epic representations deter- 
 mined the imagery of his expressions, I will not attempt to 
 decide. 
 
 10. If with these Homeric words we compare some which 
 are later, we must still attend to the quantity of the vowel be- 
 tween the X and p. According to that, many words and pas- 
 sages belong to (pdXrjpos, which, together with the Homeric 
 (paXrjpiovv, are usually explained by the idea of tvhite, this being 
 considered the proper meaning of the word cpdXrjpos ; but 
 the last point I do not so easily credit on the weak etymolo- 
 gical combinations of the grammarians (see Schneider's Lex. 
 v. (paXapos*). In Nicander Ther. 461. we find oprj yj,6v€crcn 
 
 * [The article referred to runs thus : " $a\ap6s, pa, pov, bright, clear, 
 shining, white: Ion. (f)a\r]pos, whence (pa\r]ptda> for <pa\aptda>, to be 
 white, to shine ; thence also to foam. Hesychius has tvcpdXupa, Aa//7r ; a, 
 and (paXapov, Xevxbv ; again cjiaXapbs, (f)dXto$, (fiaXiiKpos, XevKoperumos, 
 Xcvkos kol (paXeov. According to this, all the words quoted here have 
 the same origin as (fravos from <pdoo, <pdos, (pas ; therefore <pd\io$ means 
 
 
103. ®d\og, &c. 529 
 
 (})d\7]pa, where the white colour certainly shows itself, but it 
 does not therefore follow that the word (paX-qpa, any more than 
 KVfiara (f>aXrjpi6o)VTa (which Nicander certainly had in his 
 mind), must come from the idea of tvhiteness. In Theocritus 
 8, 27. occurs kvcov 6 (fraXdpos, which is understood to mean a 
 white dog: but at 5, 104. a ram is called 6 QdXapos, which 
 can hardly be so named from any peculiarity of this colour. 
 I suppose therefore that both those animals were black, with 
 a white star or spot on the head ; and hence Schneider, with 
 evident correctness, compares with them the bird which in 
 Aristoph. Av. 565. is called fyaX-qpis, and at Acharn. 875. 
 in the mouth of the Boeotians (fraXapts, consequently pro- 
 nounced by the Latins (see Gesner, &c.) phalaris and phaleris. 
 This bird, which is called by the scholiast on the first-men- 
 tioned passage of Aristophanes opveov XijjLvaiov eu-nptnes, is, 
 as Schneider remarks, the fulica atra, of which we know from 
 natural history that it has a white spot or star on its head, 
 whence in some parts of Germany it is called the star-foiol*. 
 It is true, that the mark of a star on the head is not like a 
 plume ; on the contrary, in this bird it is a flat unfeathered 
 protuberance, consequently to be compared in some respects 
 with the <fiaXos only : still, however, in the white protuberance 
 contrasted with the black head, as well as in those foam-crowned 
 
 shining, white, ravpos, Callim. Fragm. 176. from <fidXos, shining : 4>dXos,6, 
 a shining body, like a button on the helmet, tyaXioirovs, XevKonovs, in 
 Hesych. who has also from cfraXvs the word <paXvv<o, \a1x7rpv1xo. Of a 
 similar kind is (fidXai, opa, a-Kunei, from $>aXda>, whence comes 7rap(paXdco. 
 From (j)a\ios, (fiaXico, he has also (fxiXia-crcraL, XevKcuverai, d<fipt£ei. That 
 (puXopos and (paXrjpos mean white and shining, is proved, among other 
 passages, by Nicand. Ther. 461., by the bird QaXapls, <paXr)p\s, and the 
 verb <pu\r)pui(» used by Homer of the foaming wave. n\mv 6 cfrdXapos, for 
 (j}d\r]pos, the white dog, or dog with a white face, Theocr. like qbdXios Iitttos, 
 Procop. b. Goth. 1. c. 18. As, for instance, from (fxiXos, shining, comes 
 the subst. 6 <pdXus, so from <fiaXap6s comes (pdXapov, to, the shining or 
 white ornament, JEschyl. Pers. 661. Homer also uses <j)dXapa evidently 
 for (pdXoi, ol, II. tt, 106. ; hence rpifyaXos, d^.<f)i(jiaXos, TtTpd<fiaXos, are syn- 
 onymous with Tpt^aXrjpos, d/j-ffi-, &C." 
 
 Passow in his Lexicon adopts Buttmann's distinction between (JjdXos 
 and cf)dXapa. — Ld.] 
 
 * [That is to say Bless-hahn, from the Blesse or stai on its head. — 
 Ed.] 
 
 m m 
 
530 103. $aXo?, &c. 
 
 waves and snow-capped mountains, there is a similitude to 
 the crista on the helmet, which is generally white. And lastly 
 comes the plant fyaAapis in Dioscorides and Pliny ; in the latter 
 (27, 12.) with the various reading phaleris. There is indeed 
 here no metre to decide the quantity of the middle syllable ; 
 but as Pliny describes the plant thus, " thyrsum habet longum, 
 in summo flore inclinatum," it puts one in mind of the plume 
 of a helmet. 
 
 11. It is different with the word fyakapov, used of the Per- 
 sian tiara by iEschylus, Pers. 661. The shade of Darius is 
 there implored to appear at his tomb ; fia<rikeiov napas cj)d- 
 Xapov iu(f)av<TK(t)v j3ao~K€ narep afca/ce Aapeiav, 01. Here the 
 middle syllable of cfy&kapov is, as the corresponding strophe 
 shows, short, and the word i's therefore the singular of ra 4>a- 
 Xapa; but its meaning could only be determined with certainty 
 by one well acquainted with the whole shape of the tiara 
 of the old Persian kings. 1 would first remark, that the ex- 
 pression (pdkapov Tiapas, quite as much as the passage in 
 Homer, forbids our thinking with some interpreters of those 
 small bosses which also adorned the tiara in numbers ; whereas 
 this, exactly like the cfrakos KopvOos in Homer, is evidently a 
 principal and striking part of the tiara. But that iEschylus 
 really used (j>a\apov as something answering to the Homeric 
 <£aA.os, as perhaps the upright point of the Persian king's tiara, 
 I cannot believe. The tiara had much that hung down ; it had 
 for instance napayvaOihas, and strings hanging at the ears 4 . 
 It is evident that all this on the royal tiara would form a 
 
 4 The fila or strings on the tiara of the private man are shown in a 
 passage of Amm. Marcell. 30, 8. where it is related that Artaxerxes, 
 too merciful to inflict the severe corporal punishments enacted by law, 
 instead of cutting off the ears of certain criminals, " ex galeris fila pen- 
 dentia praecidit." The covering of the cheeks is seen on coins in the tiara 
 of the Parthian kings, and is expressly named in a passage of Strabo 15. 
 p. 734. where mention is made of a ceremony of the Magi, at which 
 they attended Tidpas ttc piKeificvoi niXcoras, Ka.6eiK.vLas eKarepcoOev, p^XP L T0 ^ 
 KaXiiTTTeiv ra x € ^V> T ^ s ^"■po.yvaBlbas , according to the reading as now 
 restored from the manuscripts and for the first time made intelligible : 
 see Coray. We observe from the article rds that all tiaras had these 
 coverings for the cheeks, which only on the occasion of this ceremony 
 covered the mouth. 
 
104- <H 531 
 
 splendid decoration, uniting in one ornament of precious stones 
 on the forehead, which would thence be represented as a whole ; 
 consequently the poet might very aptly use the word ipdkapov 
 in the singular as meaning one single thing, even to the enno- 
 bling of an expression generally applied to horse-trappings, and 
 perhaps not without an intentional allusion to that application : 
 although the particular gloss of Hesychius Evcf)dkapa, kapLirpd, 
 indicates a generalization of the word 5 . 
 
 12. In briefly touching on the word Tpv<pd Aeia, the most 
 common explanation from rpu- and (fidkos appears to me totally 
 inadmissible; not on account of the change from t to v, but 
 because rpvfyakzia is never the epithet of the helmet of any 
 distinguished personage : it is rather, as every one will recol- 
 lect, one of the usual names of a common helmet *. We have 
 only to refer to II. //,, 22. 69l irokka fiodypta kcu rpvfydkeiai. 
 KaTiiTeo-ov kv Kovijicri. Hence, according to all that has been 
 said above, the derivation from Tpva recommends itself to me 
 as the most probable : a helmet with a hole bored in the (fidkos 
 to receive the plume is naturally opposed to the above-described 
 koltolitv^. 
 
 104. <£>??. 
 
 1 . Twice in the Iliad the old critics quote a reading of Zeno- 
 dotus, in which the word <fir\ or <prj is used in the sense of o>s. 
 The first is (3, 144. where the text now has 
 
 KivtjOt] §' dyoprj cos KV/xara fiaKpd 6a\d(TCTr)$, 
 
 and where therefore there is no necessity for adopting the un* 
 usual word : the other is £, 499. where, after it has been re- 
 lated how Peneleus struck off the head of Ilioneus, in whose 
 
 5 The referring all the above words, together with (pakaKpos and the 
 more unusual gloss (pahios (see Callirn. Fr. 176.), to the stem or root 
 <pd\os, shining, from <pda>, is in the highest degree probable ; though I 
 am not fond of setting out with such general etymologies. As I have 
 nothing to add to the evidence already produced in its favour, I shall 
 content myself with this mention of it. 
 
 * [Buttmann seems to forget that it is the epithet of the noble helmet 
 of Achilles made hy Vulcan (II. or, 458. r, 380.), of Sarpedon (11. \^, 
 799.) and of Minerva in Hesiod. (Scut. Here. 199.)- — En.] 
 
 M m 2, 
 
104. 3^- 
 
 eye was still sticking the strong spear with which the former 
 had struck him, the narrative goes on to say, 
 
 ... 6 be (prj, Ku>8eiav avacr^v, 
 
 Tlicppahe re Tpooecrai, koi ev^Ofxevos enos r)v8a. 
 
 In order to construe and understand these words, interpreters, 
 both ancient and modern, have recourse to the very harshest 
 methods : ecprj is to be sent to the beginning of the sentence, 
 and then, after bringing in iricppabe, is to be repeated by rjvba ; 
 while Ktobetav is to stand for o>s Kcobetav, a form of expression 
 harsh in itself, and not occurring in any part of Homer ; or, as 
 the moderns have explained the passage, Kcobeta is to mean the 
 detruncated head itself, according to a usage evidently first in- 
 vented by the refinement of later poets, (led to it perhaps by 
 this very passage, — see Heyne,) and by which the whole of the 
 beautiful image, the truth and necessity of which were seen by 
 all the old interpreters, is destroyed. Aristarchus therefore, in 
 order to remove at least one harshness, struck out the whole 
 verse [lecppabe, &c. Now how, it may be asked, was it possible 
 in this instance coolly to throw aside the reading of Zenodotus 
 (if indeed it is to be called a reading, and not rather an expla- 
 nation of the text as it really stood), 6 §e, <pr) Ktobeiav avacr^v, 
 Tlzcppabe, &c. ? Yet the old grammarians, with Aristarchus at 
 their head, ventured to do so, with only this remark, that Homer 
 never used (p-q thus. The moderns mostly agree with them, 
 that is to say in part, (as Heyne does in the former of the two 
 passages,) in as much as they cannot sufficiently express their 
 horror at so barbarous a word. 
 
 2. That Zenodotus, in order to help himself out of a difficult 
 passage, invented a word totally unknown, I should hope will 
 no longer be believed : there remains therefore only the opinion 
 that he inconsiderately introduced into Homer the usage of 
 some later Epic, as Antimachus or Callimachus, to which the 
 old poet was a stranger. But the only scholium on the second 
 passage says of Antimachus in plain language, that he may 
 possibly have misunderstood the passage of Homer, and so 
 have brought forward and introduced this $?j into his own 
 poems, — an inconceivable suspicion this against a poet of 
 Plato's time ! Surely Homer's language was not then so obso- 
 
104- <H 533 
 
 lete, that, at a period when the Greek tongue was in its zenith 
 of life and vigour, a poet could, from misunderstanding one 
 single passage, have borrowed from him an unheard-of word, 
 and immediately have taken it into use. $77 therefore was in 
 the time of Antimachus a word of rare occurrence, it is true, 
 but an undoubted one, and acknowledged to come from the old 
 Epic : and Hermann has with the greatest probability restored 
 it (without any further critical traces to guide him than the 
 thing itself, and the intimations given above) in one of the 
 remains of that poetry, Hymn. Merc. 241 ., where it is said of 
 the infant Mercury, that at the approach of Apollo he retired 
 quickly to his swaddling-clothes, and wrapped himself up in 
 them, 
 
 Arj pa veoXKovros, ffpoicaXevpevos r^bvpov xrnvov, 
 'Eyprjcro-Qiv ireov ye. 
 
 It is true that the text might remain as it is here, for Mercury 
 was really a new-born child ; but the 877 stands in a part of the 
 construction and of the verse where it is contrary to all we 
 know and feel of Greek. As soon however as with Hermann 
 we write 4>7J, 'just as a new-born child,' all is correct and beau- 
 tiful. If Antimachus had in his mind some older passage, it 
 was either this or a similar one : for the astonishingly mutilated 
 words of that poet which the scholiast quotes on II. £, 500., <£r) 
 yipmv olviv, can hardly have stood anywhere but at the be- 
 ginning of a verse, as thus, 
 
 &t) pa yepa>u oicnv 
 
 3. According to this, there is no doubt that, as long as the 
 syllable cpr/ stands in the second Homeric passage, it must be 
 construed and explained as Zcnodotus has done. For in answer 
 to the observation that Homer nowhere else uses cprj thus, ] 
 think it would be sufficient to say, that such an unintelligible 
 piece of patchwork as the sentence is according to the common 
 reading docs not occur again in all Homer. And do we not 
 make Homer use, in every instance but one, yj>?/, ;lll( l m tnat 
 one 8et i in every instance but one ^p\€, and in that one &p\€ 1 
 In our days that objection can no longer, generally speaking, 
 have any force. For as it is proved from Antimachus alone that 
 the construction with </>?/ existed in the old Epic language, is it 
 to be wondered at (even if Homer himself did not use it) that 
 
534 i04. 3>»7. 
 
 it should be introduced once or twice into Homer's poem by 
 rhapsodists, who went on reciting through the whole cycle ? 
 
 4. This must be therefore in our text the established form 
 for the passage at 11. f, 499., because it stands there correct to 
 the very letter, because it is not only Greek but old Greek, and 
 because in explaining it away we make Homer talk unintelligibly. 
 But how is it in the first passage ? It is true that there is no 
 absolute need of it there : but that very circumstance shows that 
 we do Zenodotus an injustice if we accuse him of acting from 
 mere capricious fancy. Zenodotus could never have thought 
 of writing <j>rj there, if it had not been a reading of his time ; 
 and as such it must at all events be treated with proper respect. 
 
 5. But I would call attention to one other circumstance. 
 Throughout the whole of Homer the simple cos, when placed 
 before the noun in the sense of as, never stands otherwise than 
 at the beginning of an entire sentence with a verb or participle 
 expressed ; except in such cases, evidently elliptic, as Od. &441. 
 At0' ovrws, Ev/xaie, c/)i'Aos A« irarpl yivoio, '12$ ifxoC. In 
 strict comparisons, on the other hand, where before the nomi- 
 native or accusative it answers to the Latin instar with the ge- 
 nitive, we never find cos in any part of Homer as in that single 
 passage cos kvhcltcl fjLaKpa Oakao-arjs*. Everywhere we have 
 either the simple cos after the noun, as 0eos cos, Xvkoi cos, bpvo- 
 Xovs cos; or when placed before the noun, we have coo-re, as 
 cocrre Kpy\vr\ piek&vvbpos, cocre \£ovt€ bva>, coore yvvaiKas ; or tjvt€, 
 as rime Kovpr), rjvrc veftpovs, &c. Nor let it be asked why this 
 is so. In languages we can do nothing with usage but observe 
 it. This construction of cos, which appears so perfectly natural, 
 which must have offered itself so. frequently, does not recur in 
 all Homer as it does in one passage ; and in that very one we 
 find that Zenodotus (who certainly did not object to that usage 
 of cos) read c/>?} ; while in the other passage $7/ stands in the 
 same kind of construction. In the first passage therefore it is 
 not only a real reading, but one deserving of great attention. 
 We may from a respect for tradition suffer the cos, though oc- 
 curring but once in that way, to stand in our text, as we do the 
 6et; but whoever would reject the other reading as a decided 
 
 * [There is another passage of the same kind, Od. o, 478. ws flvdKiij 
 
 k^.— Ed.] 
 
io4- ®4- 535 
 
 interpolation, must endeavour to restore to the other passage, 
 where it now stands uncontradicted, the true Homeric reading 
 which had been ejected by the rhapsodists. 
 
 6. But whence comes this $?}, which at all events is pure 
 Greek \ It is said to have sprung from r\ with the digamma. 
 That however is saying nothing, as the question only recurs, 
 whence comes the digamma? For neither of the two articles, 
 to one of which the particle r\ belongs, has, throughout the lan- 
 guage and all the dialects, any trace of the digamma. And 
 Hermann on Hymn. Merc. 241. very justly remarks, that y 
 cannot stand in this kind of expression : that is to say, 77 has 
 throughout the Epic language no other meaning than that of 
 locality, whither, where. Nor do I know any reason why so 
 much regard is still paid to the authority of the grammarians 
 as to write fj tfe'jous eori (see Heyne on II. /3, 73.), while in Od. i, 
 268. Aoi'77? bcarivrjv, rjre £eiVo>i> Oifxis 1(tti (see note below) is left 
 unchanged; and the passage of Od. o>, 286. r) yap 6ep.is (for so 
 it is right), oorts vrrapgu, proves the correctness of the con- 
 struction with the nominative case of the relative, f) 0e/ous iarC 
 (as it is right). Not that the other kind of construction, where 
 the relative is attached to something preceding, would be in 
 itself inadmissible, — for we find it so in II. A, 779. 'Eeivia r ev 
 TTapiOrjKtv, are £eiVois depus iartv l , — but because, as we said 
 above, 77 does not occur anywhere else in the sense of as. Not- 
 withstanding this I consider the derivation of the particle <£?j 
 from the idea of the correlatives f\, irr}, rfj (although I would 
 by no means pledge myself for it) as not to be rejected. The 
 transition namely from the idea of tttj, qua via, to the other, quo 
 modo, is most natural, and therefore certainly of the highest 
 antiquity. Now as in all languages the interrogatives border 
 closest on the relatives, irrj (quomodo) may have very well meant 
 in the oldest period of the language sicut. But </>?} bears the 
 same relation to this tttj as (fravos does to navos, cfrapaos to pars 
 
 1 I am undecided whether to understand art here, as at II. x> *27- 
 in the sense of as, or as a neuter plural. But in the passage quoted 
 from Od. 1, 268. it would be much harsher to refer v r( to <Wu>i/, as wre 
 might very well Bay dtpis «rrl boiTivijv bovvat, £tma irapaBtlvai, but hardly 
 
 diorivr) Oipn tori i-iivu>v. 
 
536 105. &o\k6s, fyo^o?. 
 
 (see (pogos, sect. 5.), (pacvok-qs to pcznula, flagranti to irXrjyrj, &c. 2 
 This <prj thus modelled, in which therefore the old relation to 
 T?\ was no longer felt, may very well have remained in the Epic 
 language as a rarer form in the sense of as, while the same word 
 retained still more strongly the local meaning of fj, ttj. 
 
 7. While we leave this point undecided, there is yet another 
 remaining, viz. to determine the accent of this particle. Eusta- 
 thius on II. £, 499. has $77, according to the etymology just given ; 
 but how the grammarians write it in the Venetian scholiasts we 
 do not see in Villoison's edition. We there read the following : 
 6 ixkv ZrjvoboTos Kal rbv be Kal top (f>r) kyKkivei, Xva to <pr) tclvtov 
 vTrapxj} rw m. The scholiast had for instance the reading bicprj, 
 i. e. §' ecjyi], before his eyes. Now as we have seen in art. 82. 
 note 21. that these grammarians used the word eyKXiveiv of the 
 gravis also in the construction, it is clear that Zenodotus wrote 
 6 be 0r), &c. With which therefore the other scholium agrees, 
 which says that Zenodotus and those who followed him wrote 
 the words <pr) K^betav vcf) eV. 
 
 105. <&o\k6?, (f)o£6$. 
 
 1. The two words (pokKos and 4>o£6s, from occurring in Homer 
 but once, and then close to each other*, from coming there 
 under the same category of meaning, and being similar in form, 
 have so much in common, that all this induced a predisposition, 
 by no means to be rejected, to treat them similarly as to ety- 
 mology also. And this has been done. As the earliest com- 
 mentators saw in these two epithets the roots or stems cAkco 
 and 6£vs, so the later have recognized in the <fi of both words a 
 strengthened digamma. In order to decide on these points we 
 must first examine accurately their meanings. 
 
 '2 The question, which of two sounds thus changing is the older, is 
 on the whole an empty one. Generally speaking, in the ancient times 
 of language the sound of words was most fluctuating, and became fixed 
 as language by degrees was more and more formed ; but not regularly, 
 so that separate derivations may remain from the different ways in which 
 a word was pronounced. 
 
 * [11. /3, 217. 219.— Ed.] 
 
105. QoXkos, (po%6$. 537 
 
 2. The word cj)o£os is in this respect certain; for the works 
 of the old physicians show that it continued in constant use, not 
 merely as a poetical word, but as one of daily occurrence. See 
 Foesii (Econ. Hippocr. in v. From this it is certain that it 
 meant an unusual pointedness of the upper part of the head, 
 whether more toward the front or back is uncertain. And this 
 gives great probability to the account in the Etym. M., that 
 hence was taken the appellation of those earthen vessels which 
 were thrown into the kiln and became pointed instead of being 
 round ; an idea much strengthened by the quotation in Athe- 
 nseus 1 1 , p. 480. that Simonides called the Argive cups, which 
 tapered toward the top, <^>of t^etAous l : for what is otherwise a 
 defect in vessels, gives a pretty poetical epithet for a cup made 
 intentionally in this shape. 
 
 3. Now that this appellative comes from otjus with the digamma 
 we are certainly led to conclude, from the idea of d£vs as it ap- 
 pears in the explanations of the ancients, and also in the thing 
 itself: for by all the interpreters Thersites is called o^vKefyaXos, 
 and those vessels are described in the Etymol. as airb rov -nvpbs 
 oifv/x/xeW. But against the digamma there is one great objection, 
 that no trace is anywhere to be found of the word 6£v<s having 
 had it ; neither in Homer, where the word occurs so often, nor 
 in any cognate form whatever, nor in a dialect, nor in any lan- 
 guage more distantly related 2 . 
 
 4. Somewhat more favourable to a similar view of <\)oKk6s 
 is the verb e'A/cco, which has the aspirate, and from which is 
 derived with great probability 5>A£, standing in Homer in the 
 hiatus (II. r, 707., compare Od. a, 37,5.)- But what is the 
 meaning of the word ? The ancients derived it (in order to 
 produce the idea of squi?iting) from to. (j)drj and €\k€lv ; an 
 improbable derivation, but as far as regards form, not to be 
 
 1 The verse runs thus : Avttj Se </>o£i'xetAo? 'Apyeir] ki\i£. See Etym. M. 
 
 2 Nay further, as the word certainly belongs to the same stem or 
 family of words as acuLus, 0*17, &c., all these words and forms have 
 nowhere the digamma or a V ; nay, the old reduplication in okcoktj, 
 uKaxH-evos, presupposes that from the oldest times the word began with 
 a vowel; since, of the words which probably once had tin; digamma, 
 only cupew (compare dnoaipea)) — and that not until in the later Ionic 
 dialect — has the reduplication dpalprjKa, 
 
538 105. QoXkos, cpo£6s. 
 
 rejected ; for (paoXnos would be a regular compound, from which 
 might very easily come (J)oXk6s. But as eA/cety can only have that 
 meaning in this express combination of words l one who draws 
 or drags his eyes,' how could <poA.Ko's, if without the significancy 
 of (f) it stood merely for oAko'j, be taken in the sense of squinting? 
 For the simple idea of to draw, pull, drag along, would lead to 
 anything and everything rather than to a drawing aside of the 
 pupils of the eye, as to draw is a much more indefinite idea 
 than to turn, turn aside, whence vrpafios. At all events we 
 must easily feel that the derivation from ekK<a alone is by no 
 means convincing enough to form (with the change of the 
 digamma into <p, — a change equally unknown in Greek) one 
 step of evidence. 
 
 5. In support of this change some may perhaps venture to 
 quote the unusual forms cpapoca for dpo'co and (p-r] for fj ; but the 
 latter has been shown in the preceding article to be unavailable 
 for such a purpose ; and as little trace is there of the digamma 
 in apooa. Now as cpapoca is evidently connected with <papay£, 
 and with the 4>apo-o$ (a part) of Herodotus, it will rather 
 belong, with the Latin pars, to a very different stem or family 
 of words, and the similarity of sound with apoca will be mere 
 chance 3 . Nor can we properly adduce, as an instance of the 
 
 3 Perhaps apoa, aro with area, comes from the root epa> Germ. Erde 
 (Angl. earth), and was originally a more general idea in the sense of 
 yecopyelv ; much as in German Pflug (a plough) comes from the still 
 more general idea of pflegen (to take care of, pay attention to), colere. 
 The derivation of <pap6<o, to plough, as given above, is more fully de- 
 tailed in the Etym. M. v. dcfidpcoTos ; where it is first said, cpdpos yap r) 
 apoa-is, and then — (fcdpos napa to (f)dpcraL 6 eVn o-^iVaf Kai yap dia(f)dpovs 
 <pao-\ (v. 1 . 8ia<fidpo~ovs cf)a/j,ev) ^irwi/as tovs els 8vo pepr) Kexapio-fiepovs, ko\ 
 (j)dpo~os to ando-xto-fAa Trjs io~69jTos. See also Schneider under <pdpa>. A 
 bad etymology is given by Heraclides in Alleg. Horn. 66. (p. 461. Gale); 
 eori (jiepaai to yevvrjaai. Ka\ ttjv yrjv d<fidpa>TOV, 6 KaXXt'/ia^os eiVe ttjv ayovov' 
 dcfidpcoTos olov yvvr]. Toup in his papers on Hesychius had written all 
 sorts of things about this Fragment of Callimachus, which were not 
 intended for the press, though they were afterwards printed in Opp. 
 vol. 3. p. 499. Of the word yvvr) no other amendment is there men- 
 tioned than yr), and it is not once observed that he afterwards (ad Suid. 
 p. 483. Lips.) made a far better correction to 'A^apwros olov . . . yvr), as 
 the beginning of a versus senarius, since it is clear from the Paris ma- 
 nuscript of the Etymologicum that the Fragment- is taken from the 
 Iambic verses of Callimachus. In the collection of the Fragments 
 
IO5. &0\k6$, (p0^09. 539 
 
 change, the $ in the pronouns o-fyi, acpiv, &c, which, as we 
 have seen in art. 82. note 14., belong to the same root with the 
 pronoun i, acknowledged to have the digamma : for here the 
 influence of the sharp Greek o- on the neighbouring labial can- 
 not be mistaken ; which is the cause of a(j) being so common a 
 Greek combination, particularly at the beginning of words. At 
 the same time I cannot deny the possibility that the aspirate 
 at the beginning of a word may have been changed into a $ ; 
 but the probability in the case before us is not strong enough, 
 particularly with the uncertainty of this derivation of $oA.ko9, 
 for us to consider the thing proved, and therefore reject other 
 explanations. 
 
 6. Now let us not be swayed by any preconceived opinion or 
 explanation of the ancients, but let us merely take the hint 
 which the Etym. M. gives us of earthen vessels, and we have a 
 much more probable derivation from tfxoyeiv, .to bake; conse- 
 quently the word will be very naturally a shortened form of 
 cj)o)£6s. That is to say, the potter probably called everything 
 cf)o£6v which, from being exposed to too strong a fire, was 
 warped, and consequently instead of being round became some- 
 what pointed. This appellation passed thence very naturally to 
 objects which, without the same cause, had a similar deviation 
 from the usual shape, and in this instance to the head 4 . 
 
 7. And now comes the question, whether the explanation of 
 (J)o\k6s by squinting is so certain. It must be remembered that 
 the word is a aiTa£ elprj^ivov in the whole range of Greek lite- 
 rature. It is true that, as Pollux mentioned this word without 
 any remark (lib. 2. cap. 7.), we might conclude that it must 
 have continued to be used in prose ; but in that case its entire 
 disappearance from all the remains of the Greek language would 
 
 No. 421. it is given imperfectly. Besides, the absurdity of the deriva- 
 tion given by Heraclides is clear from another Fragment of Callimachua 
 
 (183. Bcntl. and Blomf.) *H a(f)upov (ffupouxri, //e'Afi 8e ({)iv S/xTrviou tpyoV 
 which would be nonsense if 8<f)apos were the same as tlyovos. It means 
 not in a state of cultivation ; nor is there any reason why ctyapuros in 
 the first passage should have been anything else. 
 
 4 That excellent critic Sylburg did not dwell long enough on the 
 point before us, otherwise lie would have made the Bame remark which 
 1 have; as he proposed (in the Etym. M. in V ) </ja)£<\nAos as an un- 
 certain conjecture for cpogixaXos. 
 
540 105. ^oX/co?, (po^os. 
 
 be scarcely credible. "We should recollect that Pollux collected 
 a store of expressions for the rhetoricians of his time, who fre- 
 quently raised their style by the use of old poetical language ; 
 he quotes for instance Homeric words, certainly not for the 
 mere object of explaining them, but says, (for example lib. 3. 
 c. 3.) tt)V [livroi ov \aj3ovaav ebva ovofxao-aLs av avaebvov 'Ofir]- 
 ptKws: consequently he quotes them for his own use; and in 
 very well known words he may have occasionally left out 'Op?- 
 piKwj. Yet that <£oAkos was not a word of known and acknow- 
 ledged meaning, and that even the tradition of it was uncertain, 
 is evident from the different explanations given of it, which is 
 not the case with (po^os; and among them we might introduce 
 the ridiculous explanation in Hesychius, QoXkos, o-rpaftos' ol be 
 XLTTobepjjLov. A further doubt of the meaning of squinting arises 
 from the way in which the appellatives follow each other in the 
 passage itself: 
 
 QoXkos erjv, ^coXos S' erepov 7r68a, rob Se ol oop,co 
 Kvproy eVt (Trrjdos ctvvo)(cok6t€ } avrap vnepdev 
 $o£6s tf]V K€<pakr)v, yj/edvrj §' inev^vode \axvq. 
 
 It is most improbable that any one, particularly a poet of nature, 
 should begin a long description with " he squinted, and was 
 lame in one foot," as if they were two things belonging to and 
 connected with each other, in order to pass at last to the head, 
 introducing it with an avrap virtpQev. 
 
 8. The ancients probably knew as little as we do what c^oAko? 
 really meant, and therefore sought to arrive at it by means of 
 etymology. The same road is still open to us. No doubt there 
 has existed a verb from which <£oAkos came : it is true that we 
 do not now find it, but there are many words of the same 
 family, which we will place together. <J>aA/<?7?, or (pakKis, was 
 according to Pollux on board a ship to rfj aretpa irpoarjkov- 
 ixevov. According to Hesychius (f>d\Krf is, rrjs KO{jLr]s avxfxos' 
 r) vvKT€pis. According to Suidas, e^aAKw/xeVoi? (probably 
 €jjiiT€(f)aXK(t)ixivoLS, from a verb e/x(£aAKoco) means itepnTz-nkeyixi- 
 vols, in a passage quoted in his Lexicon, as used of the 
 twisted cordage by which the battering-ram was suspended. 
 This last word alone bears evident signs of a verbal root 
 <X>EAKX2, identical with flecto, plecto and ttAckw, as fagmm 
 
106. Xpaioriueiv, &c. 541 
 
 is with ttAt/)/?/, &c. (see the preceding article, sect. 6.) The 
 tangled hair leads us to the same point ; and so does the 
 part of the ship above mentioned ; for as crretpa is the fore- 
 keel which bends upward to the prow, so to rfj areipa irpoo-- 
 rjXovpevov is indisputably the curved part which joins the keel 
 and the prow. No one, I trust, will mistake the bat to be a 
 proof of the word meaning a defect in the eyesight, at least a 
 defect so evident as is supposed to be meant by <£oAko?. On 
 the other hand, all those twisted and curved objects lead to no 
 meaning so natural for $o\kos as bandy-legged ; and we have at 
 once the Latin valgus, which expressed the same defect, and of 
 which we may very well suppose that it came softened from the 
 Greek form into the Latin 5 . " Bandy-legged he was, and lame 
 in one foot" is, I think, a beginning for the description of Ther- 
 sites not unworthy of Homer. 
 
 1 06. X/>atcr/xe^ ? apKeiv, aXe^eiv. 
 
 1. The general acceptation of the verb xP aL(T l JL ^ v is this? that 
 from the adjective XPWW * 5 (xpAo-inos) was formed by an easy 
 modification a verb xpaio/xeG), with the definite meaning of to 
 help, and of which therefore expato-piov (H- 6 > .53- V> J 44- a > 2 #. 
 expato-fAe, xpaicrixe, conj. yjpafoixrj) would be the aor. 2. The 
 first thing to be done in this account is to correct, as I have 
 done in other places, whatever offends against grammatical 
 analogy. No aorist comes at once from a derivative verb in 
 ea), by dropping such termination ; but the simple form of the 
 aor. 2. is to be considered as a stem or root for the inflection of 
 the verb ; from which, it is true, necessity has sometimes formed 
 a present in e'eo, aco, &c, and sometimes not, as in tItixov, 
 eTT€(f)voiK The present of this verb never occurs. The in fin. 
 Xpcuanzlv (II. a, 242. 589. &e.) is therefore infin. aor. 2.. out 
 of which arose in course of usage a fut. xf )0LL(T l J ' 1 'l (T(a ("• v > 2c / K 
 
 •"» Valgus bears the same relation to the common radical form tt\(K(o. 
 as vitricus does to pater, veru to wtlpm, vallus to pains, virgo virginii to 
 
 napOevos. 
 
542 106. XpauriuLeiv, &c. 
 
 $, 316.), and again a new aorist expatapirjcra (II. A, 120. 7r, 837. 
 o-, 6^.). 
 
 2. After having fixed the grammatical formation, the next 
 point of consequence is the meaning. To find this we must never 
 begin by searching for what etymology may offer, but examine 
 the passages where the word occurs, provided they are suffi- 
 ciently numerous, which will be the surest method even for 
 discovering the etymology. Now the examples of xpaiajx^lv 
 are frequent enough in Homer to enable us safely to assert, 
 from a comparison of them, that it never has (at least in his 
 writings) the more general meaning of to be useful, to help, 
 but without an exception the more definite sense of to ward 
 off. Damra, in his article on this word, has first given in- 
 stances of the full construction, as for example in II. 77, 144. 
 6'0' ap ov Kopvvt] ol okeOpov Xpaicr//e : and by examining the 
 other passages we find, that even where no accusative is ex- 
 pressed, the evil to be warded off may always be inferred from 
 the context, as in a, 589. 
 
 M77 <T€ (j)i\r)v 7T6/J iovorav iv 6(})6d\polaiv 'tdconai 
 Qeivofxevrjv' Tore S' ovri dvvrjo-ofiai axyvpevos nep 
 Xpaicrfielv dpyaXeos yap 'OXvjLt7Ttos avrKfrepeaOai. 
 
 We cannot however admit the supposition that the original idea 
 suggested by x.P ai<J l l ^' v was on ty tna ^ °f a hostile attack, and 
 that the idea of warding off was afterwards introduced by add- 
 ing the dative of the person or thing defended (dativus commo- 
 di) 1 ; and that for two reasons ; first, because the verb has 
 equally the idea of warding off or defending where there is no 
 mention of an attack made, as at II. f , 66. 
 
 Necrxop, ineidr] vrjvalu iirl irpvp,vr)<n fidxovrai, 
 Tel^os §' ovk expaio-fie rervyfievov ov8e ri rdcjipos' 
 
 and secondly, because the accusative after xpauriiciv is never 
 the concrete object to be warded off, whether person or thing, 
 (which could hardly fail of being sometimes the case if the 
 word originally sprung from the idea of a hostile attack,) but 
 only such general ideas as oAeflpos, davaros. 
 
 1 The verb xp"^ which sometimes has this meaning, still however 
 only with the dative of the object attacked (Od. e, 396. 6a\ep6s 8e ol 
 e\pa€ baifitov), might have led to the mistake. 
 
io6. Xpai<r/uL€iv, &c. 543 
 
 3. From this last remark I am decidedly of opinion that 
 lovO' in the well-known passage of II. a, 566, $6j. 
 
 Mr) vv toi ov xpaiOTzcocrii/ oaoi 6eoi ela iv 'OXvpnco 
 
 *A(r(TOU I6v6\ OT€ K€V TOl aCLTTTOVS X el P as €(p€LO), 
 
 is not iovra with fxi understood (a supposition awkward enough 
 in itself), but toVre : and this reading is fully confirmed by com- 
 paring it with II. 0, 104. 
 
 NjJttioi, 01 Zrjvl p-cvealvopev d(ppoveovT€S, 
 H m fiiv pepapev KaTa.7ravcrep,€v cktctov lovres 
 
 H €7T€l T]€ /St'77* 
 
 in both which passages the idea is the same, of the deities press- 
 ing toward Jupiter, to induce him, by persuasion as well as 
 force, to forbear his threatened chastisement. Such examples 
 of the dual for the plural as akovTe, II. e, 487. put this beyond a 
 doubt, and show clearly that originally the dual and plural forms 
 were in general the same, as in vjjLfie and vfMas. 
 
 4. The verb xpaio-ixtiv then has nearly the same meaning and 
 construction as apKelv, apKevai ; for this latter has also the 
 dative of the person defended, and is used only in the sense of 
 warding off, i. e. it is always in connexion with some evil to be 
 warded off, as at II. v, 371. 
 
 'idofifvevs 8* aiiTolo tltvctkcto dovpl <paeiva>, 
 
 Kai fiaXev v^n fiifiavTa tv)(6)V ovd' rjpuco-e dcop-qf- 
 
 XoXkcos, ov (f)op€eaK€' pcorr) 8' sv yacrTept. Trrjf-ev. 
 
 Nor has apKtu>, any more than xP aicr l JL ^ v i m anv one instance 
 an accusative of the person or weapon which is warded off ; but 
 when an accusative follows, it is always, with this verb as with 
 the other, some general idea, as at II. £, 16. 
 
 'AXXa 01 ovtls raii/ye tot fjpK.ecrt Xvypov oXeOpov. 
 
 'ApKtlv has one advantage however over xf )aL(r l JL€ Wi a ^ least in 
 the instances in Homer, namely, that with the dative and accu- 
 sative it may have also airo with a genitive ; for example at II. r, 
 440. \LT(ava XclKk€OV, oy ol TrpoaOev airb \pobs ?/p*cct o\cOpov. 
 This construction made it very natural to connect d/>*cti> with 
 the similarly-sounding Latin verb arcere, and with efy>ya>, tynos, 
 and to consider the idea of warding or keeping offns its original 
 meaning, with which it was always supposed necessary to set 
 
544 106. Xpaitr /j.elv 9 &c. 
 
 out in explaining it in any passage of Homer. Nor would 'it 
 be easy to eradicate from the mind of an etymologist of the* 
 present day the deep-rooted idea that aoKe'co and arceo are 
 identical. And yet the common meaning of apKeiv, to be 
 enough, to suffice, cannot be deduced from the sense of arcere 
 without force and harshness 2 . This supposition (of ward- 
 ing or driving off being the original meaning of apKtiv) looks 
 the more suspicious from our never finding apK&v tlvol (an 
 enemy), apKtiv (3e\os ; nay, still more so from the compound 
 kirapKeiv being used precisely as the simple verb, e. g. II. 
 /3, 873. ovt€ ri oi Toy €7TrjpK€(T€ Xvypbv okeOpov, and from 
 the preposition of which it is compounded standing in direct 
 opposition to the supposed meaning of arcere 3 ; and lastly this 
 suspicion is again strengthened by the old Epic epithet irob- 
 apKTjs. In addition to this the adjective apKtos* (II. k, 304. 
 pucrdbs apKtos) shows that the meaning of enough, to be enough, 
 although the verb does not occur in that sense in Homer, is an 
 ancient original meaning, and not a mere derivative one of later 
 times. In order then to be sure that we are not proceeding in 
 error, let us forget for a moment that we find in two words some 
 letters corresponding with a usage of language which after all 
 is only limited, and let us try another way. We will suppose 
 that apriyw and apK€(a are connected together, just as elpya) and 
 epKos are, and that ap/ceco alone has the more definite meaning 
 of shelter and protection; then ejrapKt'iv comes at once into 
 unison with iiraprjyciv : and if we suffer ourselves to be led 
 back through apr\y€iv to the simple idea of "Apy]s, apeiW, 
 apivTos, we have for both verbs the ground-idea of to be good, 
 strong, from which come next the idea of enough, and the 
 compound 'nohapKiqs : if lastly to this we add the dat. corn- 
 modi, the ideas of to help and protect, apr\yeiv and apKelv 
 Tivi, arise of themselves. The accusative in Homeric usage is 
 
 2 To connect this meaning of dpKelv with arcere it would be always 
 necessary to supply the idea of want, to drive away want, though that 
 idea is never found expressed with apxeiv either in Homer or elsewhere. 
 
 3 Just as if we were to say, to impel death from a person, ' adercere 
 alicui mortem.' See the supplement to this article, and particularly 
 the note at the end of it. 
 
 * [See art. 28.— Ed.] 
 
io6. Xpai<Tiu.eii>, &c. 545 
 
 now explained with sufficient clearness to be a collateral relation 
 added afterwards ; by means of which, particularly in Greek, 
 so many absolute ideas become transitive, and through which 
 therefore the verb apK&v acquired here the idea of to ward off, 
 which however did not pass down into the usage of later times ; 
 as that very limitation to general ideas (death, destruction, &c.) 
 shows also that this was not an original case of the verb, nor one 
 necessary to it: but as soon as it had this relation, the still 
 nearer one could certainly be expressed no otherwise than by 
 adding the fresh limitation of airo : apKelv tlvI tov o\e6pov airo 
 
 5. The analogy of this verb will now undoubtedly serve to 
 confirm all that is essential in the common derivation of xP aL ~ 
 o-fxelv. For as we recognized in apKica the ground-idea of good 
 with the collateral one of strength, (although the general idea 
 to suffice any one or help him is not found in the verb in Homer?) 
 so in the case of xpatayxeiV we must not reject the idea of good, 
 joined with the collateral one of use, utility, which meets us in 
 the words xpa-m, xpr)<jTos, xpr\(n\io<i, although Homer does not 
 give the verb the general idea of to be useful to, to help. And 
 as the general meaning of apKtlv, to suffice, was preserved not 
 in Homer but in the common language of Greece, so the same 
 might be the case with xP aL(T l JL€ ^ v if it remained in general use 
 in the language of common life. And this is actually the case; 
 only (which comes to the same thing) it is in a provincial dia- 
 lect. The scholiast on Apollon. 2, 218. explains the verb 
 Xpaio-fie'LV there by (Borjdelv, adding to yap xfi aL(r l JL€ ^ v KAi- 
 TopLOL kzyovvi to (TTCLpKelv. The last word cannot possibly 
 be used here in its Homeric meaning of to toard off, for then it 
 would be no explanation ; but in this as in all glosses the 
 more unknown word is explained by one of every-day occur- 
 rence. Now knapKtiv in the common language of Greece 
 never had any other meaning than to help, help out; conse- 
 quently yj)ai(T\x€iv continued to have this meaning in Arcadia: 
 and all analogy requires that we should now lay it down as the 
 ground of the Homeric meaning also '. 
 
 4 We might perhaps be led into an error by reading, at the same 
 passage where that scholium stands, the following additional gloM i 
 "AWoos' to xpaio-fxelu avr\ tov tnaivdv fj napaivfiu Xupfiavovai KAito- 
 
 N n 
 
54<6 1 06. Xpaio-fJLeiv, &c. 
 
 6. It is true that the word xpfowos looks too new, for an 
 aor. a. (which commonly contains only the simplest root of a 
 family of words) to be derived from it. But we must not take 
 to our aid just this new adjective, which in the later storehouse 
 of words is the one most similar to that verb. In the olden 
 time, when the language was composed of a number of forms 
 afterward lost, it is very possible that from yj°<P (commodare, 
 ' to offer,' is the ground-idea) might have arisen in some other 
 way a sister-form yjpaio-ixtiv with the meaning of to be of use to, 
 offer help, which in Homer's language attached itself to the idea 
 of help to ward off some ill 5 . 
 
 piot' Koivm be to fSorfOsiv. It would be possible indeed that xp aia 'f x€iv 
 (if its original idea were good, useful) might mean not only to be good, 
 but also, if we may use the expression, to make good, that is, to explain 
 or declare as good, to praise. But can we really suppose such a coin- 
 cidence of chances, as that the Clitorians used the word in both senses 
 at the same time, and that each sense was introduced here by a different 
 scholiast, one of whom must therefore have inserted his gloss for no 
 purpose whatever ? Should we not rather conclude that all this arose from 
 the slight external difference between arapiceiv and eiraweiv ? I cannot 
 myself entertain such a supposition for a moment. The first gloss is 
 the only one which has any intelligible object here ; the other arose 
 entirely from an error of transcription in inaivelv, and was afterward 
 increased by the addition of another explanatory term, of which we see 
 a thousand instances in the different medleys of commentators. The 
 addition of koiv&s 8e r6 PorjOelp should merely serve to bring the di- 
 gression of the scholium back to the regular point. For under koivov 
 those grammarians comprehended every expression, however old or ob - 
 solete, which did not evidently belong to a dialect; here therefore nothing 
 more is intended than an opposition between the Clitorian and the well- 
 known Epic usage. This view is fully confirmed by the Paris Codex 
 having only the mis written and corrupt scholium. It does not therefore 
 deserve the consideration which it has found in Schneider's Lexicon. 
 
 5 When I compare the verbal form \ckuxp-ons (Hes. 0, 826.) derived 
 from \€lxg>, and the more usual one Xix/tao-dcu, (both meaning to pro- 
 trude the tongue as serpents do,) with 6epp6s from 6ep<o, of which again 
 a verbal form so simple as Beppere, Beppero occurs in the Homeric lan- 
 guage, the following account appears to me the most analogical. In 
 the older language, in which many derivative forms (always, it is true, 
 according to analogy, but as it were without the guidance of grammar) 
 crossed each other, there was among the terminations of verbal adjec- 
 tives one in -po$, shortened from -/modi/ (whence the language of later 
 times allowed the formation of iivCK-qa-poraTos from im\ri<riuw, Aristoph. 
 Nub. 790.), which became in the more polished periods of the language 
 the established form in -ip,os, -a-ipos. Thus as foppos was from 6ep<o, 
 
lo6. Xpaio-fxeiv, &c. 547 
 
 7. Another remark should be made on xP aL(T P-*w> tnat i n 
 the nineteen passages of Homer where it occurs it is never 
 found in a positive sense, but remained in ancient usage in 
 negative sentences only, as that is of no use to thee, helps thee not, 
 and similar expressions. For the only passage where xpatcr/xeu> 
 stands without a negation, el bvvaraC tl xpcucrixew, (II. </>, 193.) is 
 ironical, and the negative is therefore in the thought, though 
 not expressed in the words*. 
 
 8. All the nineteen passages are moreover in the Iliad. In 
 the Odyssey, and in the works of Hesiod, as far as I know, the 
 word never occurs. 
 
 9. In the later Epic poets, of whom it cannot be supposed 
 that an intentional bold extension of the Homeric usage of 
 words was part of their system, we shall now easily see dis- 
 played, according to the above account, a faulty imitation of 
 Homer; in Apollonius, for instance, in the following positive 
 sentences, 2, 218. xP a ^ <T l Ji€T ^ f* 04 : 2 , 249. a/x/u voos dn^erai, 
 UfiivoLaL xpcLLo-fjLtlv : again at 3, 643. where de0A.a) xpaivixtiv 
 stands for " to assist in the contest" The only passage which 
 in the Homeric manner has the negative is 2, 1227. ov oi 
 XpcLLorfjirjo-eiv. This comparison shows how easily opportunities 
 must have offered themselves to Homer to use this verb in other 
 constructions than he has used it, if he had not been opposed by 
 an established usage. The derivatives xP aL<r M> Xpcuo-wTvp, 
 belong to the later poets only : see Steph. Thesaur. 
 
 [Supplement to the above Article, printed in the original at the 
 end of Vol. 2.] 
 
 1. In confirmation of the remark, that notwithstanding the 
 verbs xP aL(T f JL ^ v an( l apKetv have in Homer no other sense than 
 that of warding off, yet that the idea of keeping off ox driving 
 
 so from Xei'xG) might come AEIXMQN, A1XM02, as an epithet of snakes 
 from their protruding the tongue ; and again from xp" * might be 
 deduced XPAI2MGN, XPAI2M02, able to help. If now from the two 
 former could arise the verbs 6ip\itTo, \(\eixH- <,T(i > then txp (U(T P ov > as 
 formed from the last, is quite analogical ; although in after-times the 
 language confined the aorist. 2. exclusively to the meanings of the stem 
 or root, and marked such derivatives by particular terminations, as tvm, 
 6a>, t£o), &c. 
 
 * [There is another passage of the same kind, II. o, 32.— Ed.] 
 
 n n 2 
 
548 Io6. X|0af(7/ue?i/, &c. 
 
 away, arcere, is not therefore the ground-idea of these words, 
 we may quote in particular the verbs ak£$ziv and akakKtlv. 
 For in these it is well known that strength (akKrj) and to assist 
 (used absolutely without the accusative of the object to be op- 
 posed or warded off) is the ground-idea ; e. g. II. (, 109. <$>av 
 8e tlv a6avaT<av ....Tptocrlv akegrjcrovTa KaTeXdifxev : and y, 9. 
 fjL€fxa&T€s ak^i^xev akkrjkoKnv : and yet the same verb with 
 such an accusative has completely the meaning of to ward off; 
 nay, so completely, that even the concrete and physical object 
 to be warded off is added in this accusative ; e. g. II. t, 347. 
 vr\e(T(Tiv ake$€fX€vaL hr{Lov irvp : at v, 475 . aki^aaOat fxefxacbs Kvvas 
 rjbe kclI avbpas: at p, 153. vvv & ov oi akakKefxevai Kvvas gtXtjs. 
 And herein we see that the usage of this verb goes even further 
 than that of xpa^M 6 "' and apKelv, which, as we observed above, 
 take the evil in the accusative in the abstract sense only, as 
 death, destruction, &c. 
 
 1. If then aki^iv by the addition of such an accusative ac- 
 quires this meaning, the same thing is natural in apKtiv also, 
 without our being obliged to suppose the identity of this verb 
 and the Latin arcere ; on which point I think I have already 
 said all that is necessary. And the idiom which by this sup- 
 position appears startling, c^ap/ceo-cu tlvI okeOpov, comes now 
 into strict analogy with II. v, 315. Mr\TioT M Tp<&e(r<nv ake^cretv 
 kclkov r\\xap. For this expression evidently arises from Ziraktgtiv 
 tlvl, to assist any one, II. 0, 365. A, 428., and in spite of the pre- 
 position takes the sense of warding off, — a sense which has also 
 become established in the substantive iirak^is 1 . 
 
 1 In order to make the contradiction between this preposition and the 
 supposed sense of d/foelv the more sensible, I invented in note 3. of the 
 former part of this article a compound adercere, representing it as an 
 impossible composition. I thereby injured my argument, for adimere 
 might be adduced as an instance of a similar composition contradictory 
 to the meaning. However this verb is certainly a striking anomaly, of 
 which an explanation is still wanting, and with which the above- 
 mentioned iirapKeiv nvi n will as well bear a comparison as with the 
 other eVt Tpoteaaiv aKc^treiv. 
 
INDEX I. 
 
 OF PASSAGES EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 N.B. In the following Index the larger Numerals refer to the Passage 
 quoted, the smaller to the page of the Lexilogus. 
 
 Achill. Tat. 
 
 3, 2. $> 5- 222 - 
 
 «*Elian. 
 
 Hist. Anim. 4, 34. 203. 
 
 5> 3- 2 °3- 
 
 17 > 6 - 378. 
 
 De Nat. Anim. i 3 14. 221. 
 
 4>3 J - 329- 
 
 9, 1. 329. 
 
 4, 49. 488. 
 
 Var. Hist. 1, 27. 27. 
 
 3, 1. 326. 
 
 3. 43- 2 °5- 
 
 9, 13. 27. 
 Frag. ap. Suid. 105. v. i^Kov. 467. 
 
 AESCHYLUS. 
 
 Agamem. 
 
 Choeph. 
 Pers. 
 
 Prom. 
 
 3°- 35i- 
 198. 469. 
 
 33 l - 35i- 
 I3 22 - 35i- 
 1633(1652). 78. 
 
 853- 348. 
 
 5 2 9- 53o- 
 428. 
 
 '53- 
 
 84. 
 
 428. 
 
 152. 
 
 410. 
 
 494. 
 
 508. 
 
 661. 
 756. 
 
 954- 
 
 2. 
 
 9- 
 
 28. 
 
 402. 
 
 435- 
 633- 
 
 (iEsCHYLUS.) 
 
 Sept. c. Theb. 
 Suppl. 
 
 216. 
 290. 
 164. 
 171. 
 
 2 39- 
 2 75- 
 284. 
 
 363. 
 610. 
 
 6 57- 
 683. 
 
 37i. 
 212. 
 
 37 2 - 
 377- 
 372- 
 iS4- 
 i55- 
 33o. 
 
 345- 
 410. 
 
 [84. 
 
 Frag. ap. Athen. 11, p. 469. 89. 
 
 Alciphron. 
 
 '> 35- 2 °3- 
 3, 5. 221. 
 
 Alcman. 
 
 Fragm. 17. Welck. ap. Athen. 
 
 3, p. no. 319. 
 Fragm. 28. Welck. ap. Athen. 
 
 14, p. 648. 319. 
 
 Fra^.ap.Athen. i3,p.6oo.f. 318. 
 Fragm. ap. E. M. 416. 
 
 Alexis. 
 
 ap. Athen. 11, p. 472. a. 294. 
 
 Anacreon. 
 
 Od. 57. Fisch. (ap. Athen. io, 
 p. 427.) 318. 
 
550 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (Anacreon.) 
 
 
 (Apollonius Rhodius.) 
 
 Fragm. 25. 
 
 Fisch. ap. Hephaest. 
 
 I. 1034. 274. 
 
 p. 40. 3 
 
 16. 
 
 1087. 447. 
 
 Fragm. $3. 
 
 ibid, 316. 
 
 1095. 447* 
 
 Fragm. 58. 
 
 ibid. p. 58. 316. 
 
 1 147. 205. 
 
 Fragm. 72. 
 
 Fisch. ap. Strabon. 
 
 1 160. 220. 
 
 14, p. 661. 317- 
 
 1 1 64. 407. 
 
 Fragm. 123. 
 
 Fisch, ap. Hephsest. 
 
 1275. J 48- 
 
 p. 22. 317. 
 
 II. 54. et Schol. 517, 
 
 7<Va^. ap. Athen, 14, p. 599, 318. 
 
 77- 4. 
 
 
 
 119. 504. 
 
 Antimachus. 
 
 
 177- 473. 
 
 Fragm. 27. 
 
 Schellenb. 392. 
 
 218 et Schol. 545. 547 
 
 Fragm. 87. 
 
 339- 342. 
 
 240. 37. 276, 
 
 Fragm. ap. 
 
 3chol. 11. 0, 2. 416. 
 
 H9- 547- 
 
 Fragm. ap. Apollon, de Pronom. 
 
 361. 331. 
 
 P- 373- 
 
 427< 
 
 S3 2 - 472. 
 799. 166. 
 
 Antipater Sid. 
 
 831. 203. 
 
 Epigr. 8, 2 
 
 ap. Brunck, Anal. 
 
 849- 355- 
 
 2, 8. 
 
 203. 
 
 861. 282. 
 
 73>3- ap. 
 
 Brunck. Anal. 2, 26. 
 
 920. 528, 
 
 460. 
 
 
 935. 281. 
 1180. 355, 
 
 Antiphon. 
 
 
 1208. 309. 
 
 ap. Eustath. 
 
 ad 11. y, 37, p. 286, 
 
 1227. 547, 
 
 Basil. 356, 
 
 III. 40, 144, 
 
 
 
 219. 282. 
 
 Apollodorus. 
 
 
 281. 274. 
 
 3> 10, 3. 
 
 So. 
 
 296. 274. 
 395. 422. 
 
 Apollonius Rhodius, 
 
 396. 277. 
 
 I. 79- 
 
 363- 
 
 417. 43. 219. 
 
 129. 
 
 264, 
 
 439. 276. 
 
 225. 
 
 252, 
 
 463. 107. 
 
 254- 
 
 273. 
 
 471. 70. 
 
 269. 
 
 315- 
 
 586. 355. 
 
 409. 
 
 449. 
 
 600. 422. 
 
 459- 
 
 5- 
 
 616. 37. 
 
 558. 
 
 276. 
 
 635. 107. 
 
 580. 
 
 44. 
 
 643- 547- 
 
 643- 
 
 422. 
 
 694. 144. 
 
 664. 
 
 in. 
 
 770. 214. 
 
 677. 
 
 148. 
 
 819. 214. 
 
 7°3- 
 
 144. 
 
 969. 281. 
 
 729. 
 
 414- 
 
 981. 324. 
 
 765. 
 
 74. 
 
 1097. 386. 
 
 775- 
 
 414. 
 
 1 104. 37. 
 
 789. 
 
 414. 
 
 1 158. 407. 
 
 834- 
 
 277, 
 
 1 1 70. 490, 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 551 
 
 (Apollonius Rhodius.) 
 
 III. I202. 325. 
 
 1206. 37. 
 1228. 528. 
 1281. 363. 
 1291. 273. 
 
 T 393- 5°9- 
 1407. 219. 
 
 IV. 169. 237. 
 176. 182. 
 188. 414. 
 267. 44. 
 270. 44. 
 276. in. 
 316. 326. 
 375- 342. 
 407. 418. 
 576' 214. 
 1 123. 355. 
 1131. 324. 
 
 U55- 237. 
 1 189. 237. 
 1239. 44. 
 1249. 281. 
 1398. 482. 
 1422. 37- 
 1528. 37. 
 1629. 462. 
 
 1670. 323. 409. 
 
 1 67 1. 485. 490. 
 1683. 363. 
 
 1695. 27!. 
 I748. 107. 
 
 Aratus. 
 
 134 
 
 349 
 4i3 
 426 
 
 43 2 
 717 
 
 41. 
 44. 
 
 273- 
 208. 
 
 273. 
 457- 
 
 Archias. 
 
 Epigr. 12, 4. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 2, 95. 203. 
 
 Archilochus. 
 
 Epigr. 5, 3. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 1, 41. 20. 
 
 (Archilochus.) 
 Fragm. 9. 459- 
 Fragm. 69. Liebel. 272. 
 Fragm. ap. Orig. c. Cels. 1.2. 
 p. 76. 434- 
 
 Aristophanes. 
 
 Acharn. 227. 321. 
 
 875- 529- 
 Aves. 565. et Schol. 529. 
 
 977- 359- 
 
 1732. 330. 
 Equit. 749. (Schol.) 192. 
 
 969. (Schol.) 394. 
 
 1 167. 450. 454. 
 Nubes. 33. 397. 
 
 762. 267. 
 Pax. 142. 299. 
 
 797. 800. (Schol.) 43. 
 
 948. 450. 
 
 960. 450. 
 Rana. 730. 494. 
 
 823. 202. 
 Thesm. 1049. 410. 
 
 Aristoteles. 
 
 Ethic. 1, 11. 373. 
 De Ccelo. 2, 13. 264. 
 De Mundo. 4, p. 468. g. 484. 
 Hist. Anim. 6, 12. 488. 
 9,40. (9, 27,4. Schneid.) 93. 
 10, 25. 268. 
 Meteorolog. 3, 1. 484. 
 Polit. 7,16.(7,14,7. Schneid.) 77. 
 Probl. 26, 14. 18. 
 26, 35. 219. 
 £ym/?os.ap.Athen. 15^.674. 292. 
 Aristot. ap. Porphyr. in Schol. 
 II. ft 169. et v, 295. 517. 
 
 ASCLEPIADES. 
 
 Epigr. 38, 4. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 *, 219. 395. 
 
 ATHEN-fiUS. 
 
 I. p. 3. 344. 
 
 p. 13. D. 292. 
 X. p. 416. B. 27. 
 
552 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 BlANOR. 
 
 Epigr. ined. ap. Jac. Anthol. 2. 
 p. 310. (13. p. 629.), aut ap. 
 Cephal. Anthol. 1 o, 20 1 . 234. 
 
 Callimachus. 
 Hymn, in Cer 
 
 Hymn, in Del. 
 Hymn, in Dian. 
 
 Hymn, in Jov. 
 
 Epigr. 5, 
 
 Fragm, 
 
 35- 
 
 480. 
 
 302. 
 
 160. 
 
 247. 
 
 52. 
 96. 
 
 5- 
 
 i7- 
 
 49. 
 
 54. 
 
 41. 
 
 S3- 
 
 164. 
 
 176. 
 
 183. 
 
 190. 
 
 249. 
 
 271. 
 
 275- 
 421. 
 
 Hecale 4 1 . Bentley. 
 
 ap. Bekk. Anecd. p 
 
 p. 1187. 297. 
 
 Callinus. 
 
 11. 258. 
 
 Chishull. 
 
 Ant. As. p, 61. 474. 
 p. 130. 465- 
 
 CORNUTUS. 
 
 De Nat. Deor. 1 . 3.70. 
 
 Crinag. 
 
 Epigr. ap. Brunck. Anal. 2, 144. 
 autap.Fragm.Callim.40. 312. 
 
 Democritus. 
 
 ap. Stob. Eth. 2. p. 205. 149. 
 ap. Stob. Serm.6. p. 82. Gesn. 
 3i- 
 
 166. 
 179. 
 460. 
 
 27. 
 
 460. 
 
 460. 
 
 178. 
 
 460. 
 
 291. 
 
 183. 
 
 55- 
 
 337- 
 
 376. 
 
 235- 
 
 529- 
 
 539- 
 
 229. 
 
 3?J. 
 
 84. 
 312. 
 
 539- 
 296. 
 1253. 296. 
 
 Demosthenes. 
 
 p. 210, 15. 106. 
 in Eubulid. p. 1 301. penult. 220. 
 
 in Lacrit. p. 926, 5. 473. 
 
 in Leptin. sect. 29. 473. 
 
 in Pantcen. p. 476. 260, 
 
 in Polycl. p. 1211. 473. 
 
 De Fals. Leg. 402. 30. 
 
 Demosth. Bithyn. 
 
 ap.Stephan.Byz.v.'Hpcu'a. 326, 
 ap. E. M. v. 'Hpaia. 509. 
 
 DlODORUS SlCULUS. 
 
 lib. 16. 203. 
 
 Dionysius Hal. 
 
 ■j, 72. p. 478. 479,Sylb. 4 53- 
 
 Dionysius Perieg. 
 
 83. 203. 
 617. 344. 
 
 DlPHILUS. 
 
 ap. Athen. p. 292, 203. 
 
 Empedocles. 
 
 v. 208. Sturz. ap. Aristot. de 
 
 Anima 1, 5. 343. 
 v. 421. Sturz. 344. 
 
 Epicharmus. 
 
 ap. Athen. p. 236. b. 376. 
 ap. Athen. 7. p. 286. b. 488. 
 Epigr. adesp. 466. ap. Brunck- 
 Anal. 3. p. 250. 503. 
 
 Eratosthenes. 
 
 Epigr. 3, 9. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 1, 479. 356. 
 
 Euripides. 
 
 Alcest. 515. 351. 
 
 588. 472. 
 
 Androm.\ 029. 152. 
 
 Bacch. 585. 115. 
 
 Cycl. 455. 159. 
 
 Hec. 100. 406. 
 
 191. 410. 
 
 1273. 502. 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 553 
 
 (Euripides.) 
 
 
 (Herodotus.) 
 
 Hel. 59. 
 
 144. 
 
 III. 
 
 45. 261. 
 
 860. 
 
 3°3> 
 
 
 53. 428. 
 
 Her ad. 75. 
 
 194. 
 
 
 79. 268. 
 
 Here. Fur. 234. 
 
 467. 
 
 IV. 
 
 67. 263. 
 
 1214. 
 
 346. 
 
 V. 
 
 18. 394. 
 
 Hippol. 732. 
 
 334- 
 
 
 27. 108. 
 
 i°53- 
 
 472. 
 
 
 92. 432. 
 
 Ion. 549. 
 
 68. 
 
 VI 
 
 62. 438. 
 
 Iph. Aul. 476. 
 
 299. 
 
 
 74. 438- 
 
 1207. 
 
 423- 
 
 VII. 
 
 39. 290. 
 
 Iph. Taur. 529. 
 
 148. 
 
 
 70. 459. 
 
 828. 
 
 512. 
 
 
 130. 208. 
 
 Med. 441. 
 
 41. 
 
 
 167. 220. 
 
 1409. 
 
 349- 
 
 
 180. 149. 
 
 Suppl. 56. 
 
 144. 
 
 
 223. 11. 
 
 182. 
 
 11. 
 
 VIII 
 
 6. 221. 
 
 617. 
 
 302. 
 
 
 52. 430. 
 
 676. 
 
 472. 
 
 
 112. 59. 
 
 756. 
 
 373- 
 
 IX. 
 
 101. 218. 
 
 Troad. 96. 
 
 373- 
 
 
 
 Frag GEd.ap.J21ian.h.a.[2,7.26i. 
 
 Hesiod. 
 
 
 
 
 Op.etL 
 
 •.24. 178. 
 
 Evenus. 
 
 
 
 93- 9- 
 
 Epigr. 12, 3. ap. 
 
 Brunck. Anal. 
 
 
 116. 177. 
 
 1, 166. 394. 
 
 
 
 200. 60. 
 217- 435- 
 
 Heraclides. 
 
 
 
 227. 501. 
 
 Alleg. Horn. 45. 
 
 366. 
 
 
 229. 6. 
 
 66. (p. 461 
 
 . Gale.) 538. 
 
 
 237. 501. 
 
 238. 151. 
 
 Herodes Att. 
 
 
 
 257. 33- 
 
 Inscript. 344. 
 
 
 
 281. 8. 
 
 Inscript. 1. ap. Brunck. Anal. 2, 
 
 
 285. 270. 
 
 300. 344. 
 
 
 323- 283, 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 349. 163. 
 
 Herodian. 
 
 
 
 35°- 6. 
 
 2, 6, 9. 222. 
 
 
 368. 164. 
 
 3, 12, l6. 222. 
 
 
 379- 251. 
 
 
 
 
 396. 501. 
 
 Herodotus. 
 
 
 
 417. 150. 
 
 I. 5. 162 
 
 
 
 460. 43. 
 
 80. 149 
 
 
 
 462. 282. 
 
 85. 102 
 
 
 
 490. 43. 
 
 86. 105 
 
 
 
 546.547. 39. 
 
 116. 106 
 
 
 
 588. 90. 
 
 135- 394 
 
 
 
 635. 178. 
 
 146. 438 
 
 
 
 646. 647. 360 
 
 II. 76. 268 
 
 
 
 652. 212. 
 
 165. 139 
 
 . 
 
 
 659. 660. 360. 
 
554* 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (Hesiod.) 
 
 
 (Hesiod.) 
 
 Op. et D. 667. 
 
 S03. 
 
 Theogon. 701. 447. 
 
 668. 
 
 280. 
 
 708. 131. 
 
 699. 
 
 96. 
 
 7T4. 2. 
 
 754- 
 
 48. 51. 
 
 768, 62. 
 
 762. 
 
 447- 
 
 774. 62. 
 
 800. 
 
 435- 
 
 781. 17. 
 
 808. 
 
 223. 
 
 784. 434. 
 
 816. 
 
 310. 
 
 786. 330. 
 
 Scut. Here, 59. 
 
 2. 
 
 814. 471. 
 
 62. 
 
 428. 
 
 830. 360. 
 
 84. 
 
 344- 
 
 832. 447. 
 
 101. 
 
 25. 142. 
 
 851. 95- 
 
 113. 
 
 428. 
 
 856. 484. 
 
 116. 
 
 337- 344« 
 
 995- 519. 
 
 119. 
 
 212. 
 
 Fragm. ap. Poet. Min. Gaisford 
 
 173- 
 
 145- 
 
 22, 1. 19. 
 
 189. 
 
 161. 
 
 29, 1. 49. 
 
 192. 
 
 461. 
 
 43, 2. 27. 
 
 231. 
 
 190. 
 
 46. 501. 
 
 251. 
 
 190. 
 
 54- 358. 
 
 269. 
 
 in. 
 
 55- 501. 
 
 301. 
 
 266. 
 
 61. 52. 
 
 399- 
 
 66. 
 
 
 422. 
 
 330. 
 
 HlMERIUS. 
 
 441. 
 
 461. 
 
 Eclog. 12, 6. 19. 
 
 499- 
 
 166. 
 
 
 575- 
 
 166. 
 
 Hippocrates. 
 
 1321 
 
 2 5- 
 
 p. 604, ai. 203. 
 
 1323 
 
 26. 
 
 Coac. 1, p. 588. 261. 
 
 Theogon. 9. 
 
 39- 
 
 Coac. Prcenot. p. 425, 16. 395. 
 
 10. 
 
 447- 
 
 De Aer. Aq. Loc. p. 453, 43. 
 
 43. 
 
 447- 
 
 454. 23- 37- 
 
 69. 
 
 80. 
 
 De Articulis. 7. 267. 
 
 112. 
 
 m- 
 
 De Juramento. c. 3. 149. 
 
 231. 
 
 435- 
 
 De Morbis. 2, 121. 2, 134. 
 
 304. 
 
 307. 
 
 2, 156. 147- 
 
 328. 
 
 33- 
 
 De Nat. Puer. 1,157. 146. 
 
 369- 
 
 123. 
 
 ap. Steph. V. d\ivfel<r$ai. 397. 
 
 400. 
 
 434- 
 
 
 442. 
 
 33- 
 
 Homer. 
 
 483. 
 
 334- 
 
 77. a. 28. 541. 
 
 5i6. 
 
 520. 
 
 31. 142. 
 
 547- 
 
 327- 
 
 67. 143. 194. 
 
 55i. 
 
 445- 
 
 99. 161. 
 
 619. 
 
 520. 
 
 105- 445- 
 
 666. 
 
 410. 
 
 106. 395. 
 
 670. 
 
 520. 
 
 112. 195. 
 
 675- 
 
 333 • 
 
 117. 195- 
 
 697. 
 
 39. 1 
 
 133. «7i. 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 555 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 II. a. 142. 
 
 295. 
 
 
 /Z.j3\ 13. 
 
 99. 
 
 172. 
 
 96. 
 
 
 19. 
 
 81. 
 
 205. 
 
 520. 
 
 
 43- 
 
 413. 
 
 216. 
 
 306. 
 
 421. 
 
 57- 
 
 82. 
 
 239- 
 
 3©9- 
 
 436. 
 
 73- 
 
 535- 
 
 242. 
 
 542. 
 
 
 87. 
 
 32. 34. 
 
 270. 
 
 154. 
 
 
 93- 
 
 446. 
 
 3°3- 
 
 310. 
 
 
 95- 
 
 498. 506 
 
 349- 
 
 404. 
 
 
 103. 
 
 230. 235. 
 
 393- 
 
 247. 
 
 
 111. 
 
 6. 
 
 409. 
 
 254. 
 
 
 "5< 
 
 296. 
 
 410. 
 
 149. 
 
 151- 
 
 120. 
 
 172. 
 
 412. 
 
 9- 
 
 
 144- 
 
 509- 53i. 
 
 43°- 
 
 iS3* 
 
 
 179. 
 
 310. 
 
 449. 
 
 449. 
 
 455- 
 
 193- 
 
 129. 
 
 454- 
 
 129. 
 
 
 212. 
 
 39i- 
 
 466. 
 
 304. 
 
 
 217. 
 
 536. 
 
 469. 
 
 293- 
 
 
 219. 
 
 no. 536. 
 
 470. 
 
 292. 
 
 
 222. 
 
 401. 
 
 471. 
 
 167. 
 
 
 294. 
 
 260. 
 
 481. 
 
 484. 
 
 
 316. 
 
 287. 
 
 497- 
 
 40. 
 
 
 318. 
 
 53- 
 
 5i7. 
 
 464. 
 
 , 
 
 3 2 3- 
 
 107. 
 
 518. 
 
 321. 
 
 
 342. 
 
 130. 
 
 520. 
 
 173. 
 
 
 353- 
 
 288. 
 
 526. 
 
 21. 
 
 501. 
 
 35 6 - 
 
 440. 
 
 529» 
 
 81. 
 
 
 367- 
 
 358. 
 
 53°- 
 
 287. 
 
 
 384. 
 
 96. 104. 
 
 55°- 
 
 412. 
 
 
 393- 
 
 163. 
 
 554- 
 
 282. 
 
 
 395- 
 
 509- 
 
 557- 
 
 40. 
 
 
 4i5- 
 
 483. 
 
 565. 
 
 72. 
 
 
 420. 
 
 410. 
 
 566. 
 
 567- 543. 
 
 435- 
 
 398. 
 
 569- 
 
 72. 
 
 
 455- 
 
 47- 
 
 57o. 
 
 464. 
 
 
 457- 
 
 358. 
 
 57»- 
 
 336. 
 
 
 469. 
 
 32. 
 
 574- 
 
 418. 
 
 
 484. 
 
 279. 
 
 575- 
 
 39*- 
 
 
 535- 
 
 467. 
 
 576. 
 
 417. 
 
 
 581. 
 
 378. 382. 
 
 578. 
 
 3&> 
 
 
 59°- 
 
 440. 
 
 584- 
 
 93- 
 
 
 600. 
 
 358. 
 
 589. 
 
 542- 
 
 . 
 
 654. 
 
 20. 
 
 59«« 
 
 358. 
 
 503. 
 
 670. 
 
 358. 
 
 597- 
 
 289. 
 
 
 755- 
 
 434- 
 
 600. 
 
 481. 
 
 
 758. 
 
 361. 
 
 611. 
 
 122. 
 
 
 785. 
 
 491. 
 
 II. ff. 2. 
 
 4i5- 
 
 
 797- 
 
 406. 
 
 6. 
 
 456. 
 
 
 859- 
 
 306. 
 
 8. 
 
 456. 
 
 
 873. 
 
 544- 
 
 
556 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 lOMER.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 
 //. y\ 4. 
 
 359- 
 
 II. y. 542 
 
 310- 
 
 
 7- 
 
 40. 
 
 II. e. 23. 
 
 3°9- 
 
 
 9- 
 
 548. 
 
 36. 
 
 324. 
 
 
 10. 
 
 ?3H- 
 
 53- 
 
 54T. 
 
 
 25- 
 
 477- 
 
 153 
 
 511. 
 
 
 37- 
 
 356. 
 
 181 
 
 210. 276. 
 
 
 49- 
 
 i54. 
 
 182 
 
 Schol. 525. 
 
 
 62. 
 
 310. 
 
 203 
 
 27. 256. 
 
 
 73- 
 
 439- 
 
 255 
 
 i73. 
 
 
 94- 
 
 439- 
 
 295 
 
 6S- 
 
 
 106. 
 
 515. 
 
 344 
 
 304. 
 
 
 ^S- 
 
 100. 
 
 369 
 
 81. 
 
 
 120. 
 
 227. 
 
 389 
 
 286. 
 
 
 IBS- 
 
 327- 
 
 4i3 
 
 392. 
 
 
 17$ 
 
 441. 
 
 43o 
 
 361. 
 
 
 175- 
 
 510, 
 
 456 
 
 306. 
 
 
 176. 
 
 441. 
 
 461 
 
 456. 
 
 
 206. 
 
 13. 16, 
 
 469 
 
 247. 
 
 
 220. 
 
 171. 
 
 478 
 
 384. 
 
 
 241. 
 
 424. 
 
 487 
 
 543- 
 
 
 245 
 
 439- 
 
 49 1 
 
 .384. 
 
 
 269 
 
 439- 
 
 536 
 
 362. 
 
 
 278. 
 
 372. 
 
 338 
 
 306. 309. 
 
 
 292 
 
 439- 
 
 567 
 
 429. 
 
 
 362. 
 
 522. etSchol. 525. 
 
 57i 
 
 362. 
 
 
 367. 
 
 130. 
 
 615 
 
 239- 
 
 
 37i- 
 
 Heyne.522. 
 
 690 
 
 407. 
 
 
 385 
 
 80. 237. 
 
 707 
 
 66, 
 
 
 411 
 
 144. 
 
 7i7 
 
 456- 
 
 
 419 
 
 237- 
 
 723 
 
 95- 
 
 
 438 
 
 124. 
 
 734 
 
 238. 
 
 
 II. #. 20. 
 
 i75. 
 
 735 
 
 66. 
 
 
 54- 
 
 408. 
 
 743 
 
 Heyne. 522. 
 
 523. et 
 
 63. 
 
 246. 
 
 
 Schol. 526. 
 
 
 117 
 
 301. 
 
 757 
 
 48. 
 
 
 138 
 
 309. 
 
 759 
 
 283. 
 
 
 176 
 
 5i9- 
 
 770 
 
 39- 
 
 
 185 
 
 66. 
 
 776 
 
 39- 
 
 
 1 86 
 
 65- 3°5- 
 
 782 
 
 256. 
 
 
 266 
 
 337- 
 
 823 
 
 257. 
 
 
 277 
 
 3iS- 
 
 864 
 
 39- 
 
 
 286. 
 
 422. 
 
 872 
 
 48. 
 
 
 384. 
 
 13. 16. 
 
 880 
 
 47- 
 
 
 438. 
 
 386. 
 
 897 
 
 47- 
 
 
 459- 
 
 522. et Schol. 525. 
 
 //. r 9 . 
 
 522. 
 
 
 463. 
 
 3H- 
 
 14. 
 
 177. 
 
 
 465- 
 
 406. 
 
 16. 
 
 543- 
 
 
 483 
 
 326. 
 
 19. 
 
 424. 
 
 
 530- 
 
 304- 
 
 55. 
 
 173. 
 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 557 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 //. r 70. 
 
 279. 283. 
 
 II. T). 365. 
 
 548. 
 
 106. 
 
 288. 
 
 385. 
 
 238. 
 
 109. 
 
 288. 548. 
 
 434- 
 
 81. 
 
 in. 
 
 384. 
 
 442. 
 
 236. 
 
 127. 
 
 142. 
 
 444. 
 
 98. 
 
 185. 
 
 424. 
 
 459- 
 
 73. 
 
 227. 
 
 385. 
 
 477- 
 
 357- 
 
 348. 
 
 156. 
 
 481. 
 
 94. 
 
 349> 
 
 501. 
 
 486. 
 
 367- 
 
 353- 
 
 149. 
 
 516. 
 
 340- 
 
 403- 
 
 3°5« 3°9- 
 
 II. 1. 2. 
 
 358. 
 
 4T1. 
 
 424. 
 
 "5- 
 
 9- 
 
 506. 
 
 75- 
 
 116. 
 
 8. 
 
 //. r{. 6. 
 
 39i- 
 
 119. 
 
 8. 
 
 21. 
 
 195. 
 
 120. 
 
 194 
 
 3°- 
 
 501. 
 
 H3 • 
 
 510. 
 
 70. 
 
 501. 
 
 164. 
 
 4- 
 
 IOO. 
 
 296. 
 
 165. 
 
 385. 
 
 117. 
 
 355- 
 
 174. 
 
 168. 
 
 I44. 
 
 54i- 
 
 194. 
 
 344. 
 
 182. 
 
 196. 
 
 196. 
 
 275- 
 
 184. 
 
 289. 
 
 230. 
 
 213. 
 
 222. 
 
 65. 
 
 2 33- 
 
 384. 
 
 23I. 
 
 142. 
 
 236. 
 
 288. 
 
 238. 
 
 290. 
 
 248. 
 
 305- 309 
 
 280. 
 
 426. 
 
 250. 
 
 77- 
 
 34 2 - 
 
 1 01. 
 
 326. 
 
 491. 
 
 346. 
 
 506. 
 
 347- 
 
 548. 
 
 35°- 
 
 3i7- 
 
 362. 
 
 492. 
 
 364. 
 
 194. 
 
 37<5- 
 
 283. 
 
 387- 
 
 417. 
 
 433- 
 
 484. 
 
 408. 
 
 408. 
 
 436. 
 
 47- 
 
 447- 
 
 124. 
 
 446. 
 
 158. 
 
 482. 
 
 82. 
 
 457- 
 
 62. 
 
 II ff. 122. 
 
 310. 
 
 460. 
 
 99. 
 
 124. 
 
 321. 
 
 482. 
 
 510. 
 
 *43- 
 
 306. 
 
 489. 
 
 24. 
 
 150. 
 
 117. 
 
 5 QI - 
 
 10. 
 
 199. 
 
 287. 
 
 5 6 9- 
 
 62. 
 
 208. 
 
 464. 
 
 589- 
 
 483. 
 
 2 *5- 
 
 256. 
 
 595- 
 
 i73. 
 
 217. 
 
 483- 
 
 651. 
 
 21 1. 
 
 219. 
 
 482. 
 
 656. 
 
 94. 
 
 222. 
 
 379- 
 
 661. 
 
 185. 
 
 232. 
 
 292. 
 
 //. it. 6. 
 
 359- 
 
 237- 
 
 6. 
 
 44. 
 
 30.V 
 
 2 39- 
 
 '57- 
 
 5°- 
 
 173- 
 
 3°3- 
 
 253- 
 
 65- 
 
 82. 
 
 361. 
 
 3'i- 
 
 91. 
 
 415. 
 
558 
 
 INDEX OP PASSAGES 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 //. k\ 98. 
 
 23- 
 
 II. X\ 550 
 
 475- 
 
 108 
 
 477- 
 
 552 
 
 493* 
 
 109 
 
 387. 
 
 559 
 
 97. 
 
 134 
 
 no. 456. 
 
 563 
 
 384. 
 
 149 
 
 65. 
 
 573 
 
 150. 
 
 159 
 
 188. 
 
 588 
 
 288. 
 
 187 
 
 4i5- 
 
 633 
 
 96. 
 
 188 
 
 369. 
 
 643 
 
 123. 
 
 258 
 
 523.,etSchoL525. 
 
 732 
 
 96. 
 
 304 
 
 162. 165. 544. 
 
 748 
 
 96. 
 
 39 1 
 
 9- 
 
 779 
 
 535. 
 
 394 
 
 365. 
 
 782 
 
 427. 
 
 402 
 
 210. 
 
 798 
 
 276. 
 
 420 
 
 386. 
 
 77. /»'. 22. 
 
 53i. 
 
 43o 
 
 19. 
 
 38. 
 
 255- 
 
 468 
 
 365. 
 
 52. 
 
 421. 
 
 472 
 
 245- 
 
 74- 
 
 288. 
 
 55' 
 
 142. 
 
 101 
 
 385. 
 
 //. X\ 39. 
 
 287. 
 
 106 
 
 407. 
 
 4i. 
 
 523- 524. 
 
 108 
 
 384- 
 
 62. 
 
 460. 
 
 167 
 
 64. 68. 421. 
 
 75- 
 
 283. 
 
 174 
 
 195. 
 
 88. 
 
 22. 29. 
 
 185 
 
 421. 
 
 1 n 
 
 . 428. 
 
 228 
 
 352. 
 
 ii5 
 
 . 428. 
 
 286 
 
 273- 
 
 T20 
 
 . 542. 
 
 306 
 
 361. 
 
 I40 
 
 13- 
 
 356 
 
 143- 
 
 H7 
 
 270. 
 
 368. 
 
 H3- 
 
 155 
 
 47- 
 
 434- 
 
 100. 
 
 I73. 
 
 86. 
 
 454- 
 
 3°9- 
 
 197. 
 
 211. 
 
 4^3 < 
 
 365- 369. 
 
 220. 
 
 385. 
 
 47i- 
 
 406. 
 
 243 
 
 392* 
 
 II. v. 20. 
 
 501. 
 
 266. 
 
 no. 113. 
 
 57- 
 
 3"- 
 
 3I9- 
 
 195. 199. 
 
 119. 
 
 411. 
 
 334- 
 
 146. 
 
 132. 
 
 522. etSchol. 525 
 
 34°- 
 
 8. 
 
 *37- 
 
 430. 
 
 357- 
 
 310. 
 
 215. 
 
 H3- 
 
 363. 
 
 304. 
 
 252. 
 
 i3« 
 
 374- 
 
 65. 
 
 258. 
 
 5i9- 
 
 39*- 
 
 150. 
 
 275- 
 
 400. 
 
 403- 
 
 464. 
 
 292. 
 
 399- 
 
 4*3- 
 
 254- 
 
 293- 
 
 .5i6. 
 
 427. 
 
 210. 
 
 295- 
 
 5*7- 
 
 428. 
 
 548. 
 
 3i5- 
 
 27. 
 
 430- 
 
 60. 
 
 326. 
 
 420. 
 
 432. 
 
 146. 
 
 345- 
 
 99. 
 
 454. 
 
 4<>5- 
 
 352. 
 
 465. 
 
 456. 
 
 210. 
 
 37'- 
 
 543. 
 
EXPLAINED OE QUOTED. 
 
 559 
 
 (Homer.) 
 II 
 
 II. f . 
 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 393 
 
 . 203. 
 
 II. £. 264. 
 
 251. 
 
 408 
 
 • 257. 
 
 266. 
 
 252. 
 
 440 
 
 544- 
 
 271. 
 
 3. 6. 
 
 458 
 
 212. 
 
 274. 
 
 95- 
 
 470 
 
 512. 
 
 278. 
 
 437- 
 
 475 
 
 58. 
 
 282. 
 
 492. 
 
 5 2 4 
 
 255- 
 
 288. 
 
 38. 
 
 543 
 
 242. 
 
 294. 
 
 321. 
 
 555 
 
 . 309. 
 
 321. 
 
 384. 
 
 558 
 
 287. 
 
 354- 
 
 417. 
 
 5 6 3 
 
 408. 
 
 419. 
 
 242. 
 
 572 
 
 264. 
 
 422. 
 
 304. 309 
 
 59o 
 
 310. 
 
 488. 
 
 14. 310. 
 
 599 
 
 185. 
 
 499- 
 
 53i- 536 
 
 614 
 
 522. 
 
 500. 
 
 Schol. 533 
 
 621. 
 
 5i5- 
 
 77. 0. 17. 
 
 149. 151 
 
 649 
 
 150. 
 
 2 3- 
 
 5°4- 
 
 706. 
 
 97- 
 
 29. 
 
 307- 
 
 707 
 
 537- ' 
 
 38. 
 
 434- 
 
 716 
 
 185. 
 
 39- 
 
 421. 
 
 733- 
 
 149. 151. 
 
 40. 
 
 393- 
 
 752. 
 
 142. 
 
 5i. 
 
 194. 199, 
 
 776. 
 
 3". 
 
 94- 
 
 5i5- 
 
 799- 
 
 524- 
 
 104. 
 
 543- 
 
 800. 
 
 62. 
 
 138. 
 
 247. 
 
 9- 
 
 252. 
 
 141. 
 
 3°9- 
 
 11. 
 
 252. 
 
 184. 
 
 464. 
 
 17- 
 
 445- 
 
 185. 
 
 520. 
 
 64. 
 
 424. 
 
 194. 
 
 280. 283. 
 
 66. 
 
 542. 
 
 198. 
 
 127. 
 
 75- 
 
 309. 
 
 2 39- 
 
 211. 
 
 78. 
 
 82. 
 
 263. 
 
 75- 
 
 79- 
 
 304. 
 
 2 73- 
 
 329- 334- 
 
 101. 
 
 3"- 
 
 274. 
 
 3°5- 
 
 123. 
 
 95- 
 
 290. 
 
 308. 
 
 132. 
 
 335- 
 
 297. 
 
 142. 
 
 J 55- 
 
 481. 
 
 3 2 4- 
 
 86. 
 
 170. 
 
 81. 
 
 358. 
 
 310. 
 
 172. 
 
 237. 241. 
 
 473- 
 
 409. 
 
 177. 
 
 81. 
 
 502. 
 
 163. 
 
 178. 
 
 237- 
 
 520. 
 
 4°5- 
 
 185. 
 
 413. 
 
 543- 
 
 40S- 
 
 217. 
 
 420. 
 
 546. 
 
 125. 
 
 221. 
 
 251. 
 
 55 2 - 
 
 125. 
 
 242. 
 
 415- 
 
 619. 
 
 33o- 
 
 2 53- 
 
 417. 
 
 640. 
 
 13. 18. 
 
 258. 
 
 5*« 
 
 654- 
 
 309- 
 
 2 59- 
 
 37°- 
 
 657. 
 
 279. 
 
 261. 
 
 365. 
 
 709. 
 
 99. 
 
 I 
 
560 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 77. it'. 9. 
 
 237' 
 
 //. p'. 399. 
 
 477« 
 
 35- 
 
 330- 
 
 422. 
 
 3"- 
 
 36- 
 
 251. 
 
 43°- 
 
 361. 
 
 41. 
 
 276. 
 
 458^ 
 
 360. 
 
 48. 
 
 464, 
 
 53*< 
 
 427. 
 
 96. 
 
 423- 
 
 6j9- 
 
 475. 
 
 106. 
 
 524. et SchoL 526. 
 
 756. 
 
 456. 
 
 •34- 
 
 65. 
 
 759- 
 
 456. 
 
 145- 
 
 424. 
 
 //.</. 5. 
 
 464. 
 
 216 
 
 522. 
 
 34- 
 
 112. 
 
 224 
 
 456. 
 
 62. 
 
 542. 
 
 3° 2 
 
 310. 
 
 69. 
 
 3°9- 
 
 338 
 
 522. 
 
 7i. 
 
 252. 
 
 35°. 
 
 484, 
 
 7 6. 
 
 257- 
 
 39 1 
 
 500. 
 
 124. 
 
 32. 498 
 
 395 
 
 296. 298. 
 
 138. 
 
 252. 
 
 4°3 
 
 258. 
 
 152. 
 
 3©4- 
 
 411 
 
 286. 
 
 174. 
 
 304 '< 
 
 422. 
 
 362. 
 
 276. 
 
 3°5- 
 
 454. 
 
 417. 
 
 281, 
 
 24. 
 
 472. 
 
 501. 
 
 287. 
 
 255' 
 
 481. 
 
 32. 
 
 294. 
 
 25- 
 
 486 
 
 203, 
 
 300. 
 
 516. 
 
 494 
 
 362. 
 
 302. 
 
 150. 
 
 552 
 
 407. 
 
 316. 
 
 33- 
 
 573 
 
 247. 
 
 338. 
 
 173. 
 
 626 
 
 125. 
 
 35 2 - 
 
 236. 
 
 640, 
 
 273' 
 
 357- 
 
 493- 
 
 661 
 
 244. 
 
 410. 
 
 45- 47°' 
 
 670 
 
 80. 
 
 418. 
 
 275- 
 
 685 
 
 9- 
 
 421* 
 
 157. 48 
 
 729 
 
 226* 
 
 447- 
 
 256. 
 
 805 
 
 9- 
 
 471. 
 
 484. 
 
 837 
 
 542< 
 
 502. 
 
 IOO« 
 
 //. P '. 9. 
 
 211. 
 
 5 X 5< 
 
 309* 
 
 23- 
 
 211- 
 
 5 l 9- 
 
 95- 
 
 54- 
 
 204. 
 
 5 21 - 
 
 i57- 
 
 62. 
 
 475. 
 
 553- 
 
 270. 
 
 67. 
 
 477- 
 
 596. 
 
 327- 
 
 104 
 
 3°4- 
 
 613. 
 
 238. 
 
 118 
 
 358. 
 
 614. 
 
 37i. 
 
 153 
 
 S48. 
 
 7°3- 
 
 112. 
 
 170 
 
 520. 
 
 II r. 35. 
 
 130. 
 
 264 
 
 202. 
 
 75- 
 
 130. 
 
 278 
 
 288. 
 
 88. 
 
 9- 
 
 300 
 
 243- 
 
 91. 
 
 8. 
 
 34° 
 
 279. 283. 
 
 95- 
 
 8. 
 
 368 
 
 39- 
 
 »i3- 
 
 8. 
 
 37 1 
 
 39. 279. 
 
 129. 
 
 8. 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 561 
 
 OMER.) 
 
 
 //. T. I 3 6. 
 
 8. 
 
 *37- 
 
 8. 
 
 148. 
 
 3i5- 
 
 170. 
 
 3"- 
 
 174. 
 
 251. 
 
 2 54. 
 
 169. 
 
 270. 
 
 9- 
 
 298. 
 
 393- 
 
 3°7- 
 
 24. 
 
 3i3- 
 
 424. 
 
 3'4- 
 
 32. 35 
 
 336. 
 
 16. 
 
 342. 
 
 246. 
 
 386. 
 
 315- 
 
 399- 
 
 252. 
 
 402. 
 
 25- 
 
 404. 
 
 64. 68. 
 
 423. 
 
 28. 
 
 //. v. 83. 
 
 117. 
 
 93- 
 
 304. 
 
 129. 
 
 446. 
 
 J 5i- 
 
 325. 
 
 168. 
 
 258. 
 
 183. 
 
 7- 
 
 194. 
 
 308. 
 
 ^S- 
 
 3°9- 
 
 244. 
 
 399- 
 
 247. 
 
 465- 
 
 278. 
 
 258. 
 
 296. 
 
 542. 
 
 3*3- 
 
 436. 
 
 3'5- 
 
 548. 
 
 332. 
 
 1 1. 
 
 395- 
 
 244. 
 
 4°3- 
 
 204. 
 
 418. 
 
 405- 
 
 420. 
 
 4o.v 
 
 440. 
 
 327- 
 
 444. 
 
 39- 
 
 446. 
 
 39- 
 
 //.<£'. 8. 
 
 258. 
 
 22. 
 
 379- 38 
 
 53- 
 
 464. 
 
 7o. 
 
 25. 
 
 106. 
 
 173- 
 
 1 1 1. 
 
 217. 
 
 •5'- 
 
 142. 
 
 162. 
 
 96. 
 
 *93- 
 
 547- 
 
 104. 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 II. cj>'. 200. 
 
 304- 
 
 220. 
 
 47- 
 
 224. 
 
 5i5- 
 
 225. 
 
 255- 
 
 230. 
 
 306. 
 
 232. 
 
 223. 
 
 255- 
 
 4°5- 
 
 283. 
 
 156. 
 
 2 95- 
 
 254- 
 
 316. 
 
 542. 
 
 318. 
 
 273- 
 
 329- 
 
 156. 
 
 332. 
 
 275- 
 
 345- 
 
 157- 
 
 366. 
 
 195- 
 
 395- 
 
 5- 44- 
 
 414. 
 
 515- 
 
 43»- 
 
 142. 
 
 459- 
 
 515- 
 
 5°7- 
 
 94. 237. 240. 
 
 508. 
 
 417. 
 
 536. 
 
 456. 
 
 57i- 
 
 258. 
 
 607. 
 
 257- 
 
 //. X- 12. 
 
 257. 404. 
 
 26. 
 
 461. 
 
 28. 
 
 86. 
 
 5*- 
 
 387. 
 
 117. 
 
 99. 
 
 127. 
 
 535- 
 
 306. 
 
 308. 
 
 308. 
 
 258. 
 
 310. 
 
 194. 
 
 3i7- 
 
 86. 
 
 35i- 
 
 305. 
 
 356. 
 
 445- 
 
 374- 
 
 483- 
 
 43°- 
 
 33> 
 
 448. 
 
 287. 
 
 489. 
 
 146. 
 
 497- 
 
 125. 
 
 5°7- 
 
 3°9- 
 
 5°9- 
 
 64. 
 
 //.*'. 17. 
 
 33- 
 
 42. 
 
 436. 
 
 63. 
 
 4iS- 4»7- 
 
 72. 
 
 372. 
 
 107. 
 
 357« 
 
 157- 
 
 25. 
 
 o o 
 
562 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 11. #. 187. 
 
 81. 
 
 II. »'. 508. 
 
 327. 
 
 225. 
 
 32. 
 
 510. 
 
 32. 272 
 
 231. 
 
 404. 
 
 P7- 
 
 32. 
 
 232. 
 
 245- 
 
 528. 
 
 248. 25 
 
 254- 
 
 236. 239. 
 
 549. 
 
 406. 
 
 268. 
 
 173- 
 
 55°- 
 
 247. 
 
 290. 
 
 244. 
 
 584. 
 
 306. 
 
 308. 
 
 477- 
 
 646. 
 
 456. 
 
 33°- 
 
 95- 
 
 653- 
 
 365. 
 
 336. 
 
 327. 
 
 655- 
 
 479- 
 
 339- 
 
 215. 
 
 662. 
 
 255. 
 
 34°- 
 
 150. 
 
 717. 
 
 24. 
 
 344- 
 
 232. 
 
 747- 
 
 33- 
 
 359- 
 
 95- 
 
 75 2 - 
 
 467. 
 
 360. 
 
 252. 
 
 760. 
 
 406. 
 
 393- 
 
 98. 272. 
 
 768. 
 
 124. 
 
 402. 
 
 252. 
 
 Od. a. 6. 
 
 308. 
 
 420. 
 
 257- 
 
 25- 
 
 142. 
 
 424. 
 
 232. 
 
 3°- 
 
 384. 
 
 433- 
 
 310. 
 
 36. 
 
 5o. 
 
 468. 
 
 310. 
 
 48. 
 
 211. 
 
 473- 
 
 125. 
 
 54- 
 
 97- 
 
 53*- 
 
 328. 
 
 84. 
 
 230. 
 
 594- 
 
 195- 
 
 91. 
 
 130. 
 
 603. 
 
 7- 
 
 92. 
 
 32. 
 
 6if. 
 
 5H- 
 
 97- 
 
 80. 
 
 618. 
 
 506. 
 
 *i5- 
 
 445- 
 
 643- 
 
 142. 
 
 1-30. 
 
 236. 
 
 795- 
 
 59- 
 
 132. 
 
 66. 
 
 865. 
 
 408. 
 
 134- 
 
 23. 5i3 
 
 879. 
 
 4°5- 
 
 147. 
 
 168. 
 
 //. ©'. 39. 
 
 195- 
 
 149. 
 
 168. 
 
 62. 
 
 143- 
 
 180. 
 
 211. 
 
 79- 
 
 498. 
 
 227. 
 
 515- 
 
 96. 
 
 404. 
 
 234- 
 
 196. 19 
 
 123. 
 
 32. 
 
 282. 
 
 446. 
 
 172. 
 
 445- 
 
 346- 
 
 337- 
 
 226. 
 
 194. 
 
 364. 
 
 414. 
 
 238. 
 
 125. 
 
 402. 
 
 251. 
 
 264. 
 
 491. 
 
 4i3. 
 
 252. 
 
 3 2 5- 
 
 210. 
 
 443- 
 
 185. i8i 
 
 341- 
 
 80. 
 
 Orf./3\ 35. 
 
 446. 
 
 366. 
 
 365. 
 
 137. 
 
 124. 
 
 413. 
 
 i73- 
 
 152. 
 
 445- 
 
 422. 
 
 246. 
 
 167. 
 
 224. 
 
 475- 
 
 481. 
 
 213. 
 
 492. 
 
 480. 
 
 10. 
 
 216. 
 
 446. 
 
 488. 
 
 95- 
 
 235- 
 
 409. 
 
 499. 
 
 3°9- 
 
 240. 
 
 107. 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 563 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 Od./3'. 266 
 
 5i9- 
 
 Od. V. 793. 
 
 415- 
 
 310 
 
 5*3- 
 
 807. 
 
 428. 
 
 320 
 
 et Schol. 518. 
 
 838. 
 
 405- 
 
 365 
 
 511. 
 
 841, 
 
 86. 
 
 377 
 
 437- 
 
 Od. e. 27. 
 
 296. 
 
 427 
 Od. y. 41. 
 
 55- 
 59- 
 
 484. 
 
 275- 
 408. 
 
 384. 
 
 83- 
 132. 
 
 2 57- 
 
 499. 
 
 255- 45i 
 260. 
 
 158 
 
 379- 
 
 290 
 
 28. 
 
 164 
 
 336. 
 
 291 
 
 5°9- 
 
 2 <5 
 
 446. 
 
 3°4- 
 
 5°9- 
 
 240 
 
 399- 
 
 3 T 4- 
 
 288. 
 
 268 
 
 309- 
 
 3!9« 
 
 207. 
 
 336 
 
 344- 
 
 346. 
 
 80. 506. 
 
 338 
 
 168. 
 
 389- 
 
 444. 
 
 379 
 
 247. 
 
 39 6 < 
 
 542. 
 
 403 
 
 144. 
 
 4°3 
 
 274. 
 
 429 
 
 227. 
 
 412. 
 
 202. 
 
 43 6 
 
 143- 
 
 462. 
 
 404. 
 
 441 
 
 45o. 455- 
 
 Od. c. 2. 
 
 23. 
 
 445 
 
 169. 
 
 5- 
 
 5i9- 
 
 476 
 
 491. 
 
 22. 
 
 388. 
 
 486 
 
 • 97- 
 
 1 10 
 
 226. 
 
 488 
 
 382. 
 
 121 
 
 354- 
 
 Od. b'. 1 . 
 
 378. 382. 
 
 179 
 
 272. 
 
 n. 
 
 510. 
 
 193 
 
 143- 
 
 3°- 
 
 464. 
 
 231 
 
 456. 
 
 5°- 
 
 456. 
 
 242 
 
 215. 
 
 222 
 
 201. 
 
 256 
 
 211. 
 
 247 
 
 ■ 275. 
 
 266 
 
 95- 
 
 261 
 
 9. 440. 
 
 269 
 
 160. 
 
 275 
 
 i95- 
 
 274 
 
 5H- 
 
 279 
 
 . 276. 
 
 292 
 
 94. 
 
 299 
 
 456. 
 
 321. 
 
 226. 
 
 320 
 
 32. 
 
 Od. j. 3. 
 
 384. 
 
 336 
 
 4i3- 
 
 2 5- 
 
 154? 
 
 378 
 
 428. 
 
 31- 
 
 444. 
 
 395 
 
 404. 
 
 39- 
 
 388. 
 
 4i3 
 
 4°3- 
 
 125. 
 
 266. 
 
 45i 
 
 . 403. 
 
 143- 
 
 357- 
 
 5°3 
 
 8. 514. 
 
 164. 
 
 1 68. 
 
 5°7 
 
 255- 
 
 250. 
 
 255- 
 
 646 
 
 145- 
 
 263. 
 
 12. 
 
 663 
 
 518. 
 
 2 73- 
 
 360. 
 
 687 
 
 211. 
 
 274. 
 
 32. 
 
 721 
 
 33- 
 
 288. 
 
 225. 
 
 766 
 
 5i9- 
 
 3*7- 
 
 50 r. 
 
 774 
 
 5'4- 
 
 338. 
 002 
 
 45<S- 
 
564< 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 Od. &. 8. 
 
 211. 
 
 Od. V. 148. 
 
 124. 
 
 *3- 
 
 211. 
 
 212. 
 
 62, 
 
 38. 
 
 361. 
 
 225. 
 
 62. 
 
 133- 
 
 317. 
 
 320. 
 
 134* 
 
 206. 
 
 409. 
 
 33°- 
 
 82. 
 
 271. 
 
 428. 
 
 368. 
 
 3H. 
 
 309. 
 
 47- 
 
 37 2 - 
 
 360. 
 
 3 2 5- 
 
 253- 
 
 374. 
 
 401. 
 
 335- 
 
 253. 
 
 400. 
 
 410. 
 
 34°- 
 
 97. 
 
 429. 
 
 393- 
 
 365- 
 
 80. in. 
 
 457- 
 
 252. 
 
 373- 
 
 211. 
 
 475- 
 
 372. 
 
 417. 
 
 384. 
 
 488. 
 
 195. 
 
 448. 
 
 66. 
 
 573- 
 
 258. 
 
 476. 
 
 94. 
 
 586. 
 
 201. 
 
 Od. 1. 21. 
 
 224. 
 
 606. 
 
 369- 
 
 5 2 - 
 
 40. 
 
 634- 
 
 62. 
 
 95- 
 
 195- 
 
 Od.n'. 75. 
 
 3ii- 
 
 106. 
 
 5H. 
 
 88. 
 
 142. 
 
 *35- 
 
 476. 
 
 158. 
 
 358. 
 
 144. 
 
 39* 
 
 165. 
 
 401. 
 
 194. 
 
 309- 
 
 210. 
 
 256. 
 
 205. 
 
 245- 
 
 240. 
 
 201. 
 
 211. 
 
 358* 
 
 242. 
 
 202. 
 
 M3- 
 
 33i- 
 
 281. 
 
 23- 
 
 268. 
 
 535* 
 
 284. 
 
 365- 
 
 326. 
 
 158. 
 
 3*i- 
 
 415- 
 
 3 2 7- 
 
 364- 
 
 349- 
 
 246. 
 
 400. 
 
 95- 
 
 366. 
 
 417. 
 
 433- 
 
 272. 
 
 416. 
 
 287. 
 
 434- 
 
 185. 358- 
 
 Od. v. 45. 
 
 393- 
 
 454- 
 
 411. 
 
 79- 
 
 416. 
 
 491. 
 
 492. 
 
 80. 
 
 416. 
 
 5°7- 
 
 357. 
 
 164. 
 
 255- 
 
 Od. k'. 4. 
 
 33°- 
 
 189. 
 
 39- 
 
 88. 
 
 33°- 
 
 195- 
 
 72. 
 
 165. 
 
 3°4- 
 
 196. 
 
 33°- 
 
 245- 
 
 12. 15. 
 
 234- 
 
 223. 
 
 287. 
 
 506. 
 
 244. 
 
 360. 
 
 4i3- 
 
 33- 
 
 281. 
 
 i73- 
 
 45 1 - 
 
 456. 
 
 292. 
 
 142. 
 
 491. 
 
 62. 
 
 296. 
 
 399- 
 
 534- 
 
 62. 
 
 3 T 3- 
 
 276. 
 
 548. 
 
 188. 
 
 320. 
 
 251. 
 
 563- 
 
 62. 501. 
 
 336. 
 
 173- 
 
 Od. X'. 19. 
 
 369- 
 
 352. 
 
 39- 
 
 47- 
 
 62. 
 
 3 6 3- 
 
 358. 
 
 61. 
 
 7. 360. 
 
 Orf.f. 151. 
 
 i73- 
 
 in. 
 
 502. 
 
 i95- 
 
 72. 74 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 565 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 Od. £'. 27c 
 
 >• 3°5- 
 
 317 
 
 . 161. 
 
 35 2 
 
 . 98. 
 
 38s 
 
 • 354- 
 
 427 
 
 . 169. 
 
 441 
 
 • 534- 
 
 479 
 
 • 274. 
 
 505 
 
 246. 
 
 508 
 
 60. 
 
 Od. 0'. 21. 
 
 194. 
 
 22. 
 
 393- 
 
 28. 
 
 295- 
 
 41. 
 
 12. 
 
 88. 
 
 i95- 
 
 97- 
 
 112. 
 
 150 
 
 • 275. 
 
 219 
 
 • 49 1 - 
 
 299 
 
 • 364- 
 
 3i5 
 
 • 514- 
 
 355 
 
 • 392. 
 
 356 
 
 209. 
 
 363 
 
 • 521. 
 
 39i 
 
 . 360. 
 
 45o 
 
 246. 
 
 457 
 
 • 465- 
 
 470 
 
 • 7- 
 
 5i8 
 
 211. 
 
 5 2 3 
 
 . 428. 
 
 542 
 
 • 251. 
 
 Od. n. 18. 
 
 i54- 
 
 19. 
 
 510. 
 
 29. 
 
 47- 
 
 106 
 
 • 195- 
 
 T 43 
 
 172. 
 
 148 
 
 22. 
 
 216 
 
 33- 3 
 
 267 
 
 98. 
 
 306 
 
 43o- 
 
 317 
 
 4i5- 
 
 334 
 
 12. 
 
 346 
 
 518. 
 
 355< 
 
 12. 
 
 37 2 
 
 429. 
 
 375 
 
 3tf- 
 
 387. 
 
 '95- 
 
 408 
 
 1 22. 
 
 4i7 
 
 126. 
 
 459 
 
 306. 
 
 4 6 3- 
 
 306. 
 
 176. 
 
 198. 
 
 309- 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 Od. iv . 471. 
 
 230. 
 
 Od. p. Si. 
 
 150. 
 
 89. 
 
 456. 
 
 187. 
 
 i95- 
 
 201. 
 
 3°9- 
 
 219. 
 
 411. 
 
 226. 
 
 i95- 
 
 254. 
 
 327- 
 
 268. 
 
 520. 
 
 269. 
 
 245- 
 
 270. 
 
 110. 
 
 3°9- 
 
 i73- 
 
 336. 
 
 226. 
 
 343- 
 
 456. 
 
 3 6 5- 
 
 289. 
 
 386. 
 
 385. 
 
 442. 
 
 142. 
 
 481. 
 
 516. 
 
 58i. 
 
 5i9- 
 
 599- 
 
 229. 
 
 606. 
 
 222. 
 
 Od. cr'. 17. 
 
 181. 
 
 56. 
 
 336. 
 
 7'- 
 
 516. 
 
 91. 
 
 327- 
 
 93- 
 
 327- 
 
 106. 
 
 149. 
 
 117. 
 
 446. 
 
 146. 
 
 142. 
 
 154- 
 
 444. 
 
 192. 
 
 81. 
 
 278. 
 
 394- 
 
 321. 
 
 125. 
 
 358. 
 
 162. 166 
 
 359- 
 
 402. 
 
 375- 
 
 537- 
 
 4°3- 
 
 417. 
 
 418. 
 
 169, 
 
 425- 
 
 167. 
 
 Od. r. 46. 
 
 99- 
 
 109. 
 
 354- 
 
 183. 
 
 389. 
 
 203. 
 
 276. 401 
 
 221. 
 
 98. 
 
 225. 
 
 4.^>- 
 
 246. 
 
 45 r >- 
 
 265. 
 
 428. 
 
 343- 
 
 34'- 
 
 3 6 4- 
 
 354- 
 
566 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 '- 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 
 Od. t. 470. 
 
 245- 
 
 Od. y\r. 52. 
 
 433- 
 
 
 481. 
 
 304- 
 
 93- 
 
 107. 
 
 
 498. 
 
 415- 
 
 'S»- 
 
 393- 
 
 
 $16. 
 
 32. 
 
 151- 
 
 393- 
 
 
 568. 
 
 458. 
 
 158. 
 
 456. 
 
 
 580. 
 
 393- 
 
 229. 
 
 306. 
 
 
 Od. v. 17. 
 
 124. 
 
 3°3- 
 
 47- 
 
 
 27. 
 
 64. 
 
 308. 
 
 401. 
 
 
 49. 
 
 404. 
 
 326. 
 
 33- 
 
 
 72. 
 
 384- 
 
 360. 
 
 47- 
 
 
 79- 
 
 5i. 
 
 Od. a. 14. 
 
 372. 
 
 
 81. 
 
 445- 
 
 45- 
 
 95- 
 
 
 100. 
 
 446. 
 
 56. 
 
 143- 
 
 
 149. 
 
 481. 
 
 65. 
 
 95- 
 
 
 153- 
 
 94. 
 
 106. 
 
 424. 
 
 
 211. 
 
 360. 
 
 118. 
 
 456. 
 
 
 301. 
 
 227. 
 
 161. 
 
 127. 
 
 
 339- 
 
 252. 
 
 196. 
 
 394- 
 
 
 Od. <£'. 13. 
 
 382. 
 
 199. 
 
 393- 
 
 
 16. 
 
 211. 
 
 218. 
 
 98. 
 
 
 78. 
 
 393- 
 
 244. 
 
 3i- 
 
 
 89. 
 
 73- 
 
 286, 
 
 535- 
 
 
 91. 
 
 3. 6. 
 
 302. 
 
 401. 
 
 
 no. 
 
 59- 
 
 3i7- 
 
 32. 
 
 
 125. 
 
 304. 
 
 353- 
 
 12. 
 
 
 141. 
 
 168. 288. 
 
 401. 
 
 462. 
 
 
 192. 
 
 428. 
 
 413. 
 
 446. 
 
 
 206. 
 
 428. 
 
 414. 
 
 123. 
 
 
 263. 
 
 167. 
 
 537- 
 
 258. 
 
 
 270. 
 
 168. 
 
 Hymn, in Apoll. 3 1 . 
 
 387. 
 
 289. 
 
 5i4. 
 
 
 60. 
 
 478. 
 
 2 93- 
 
 6. 
 
 
 122. 
 
 414. 
 
 362. 
 
 411. 
 
 
 125. 
 
 170. 
 
 37°- 
 
 521. 
 
 
 219. 
 
 387. 
 
 402. 
 
 143. 
 
 
 43 8 - 
 
 224. 
 
 Od.x- 5- 
 
 3- 
 
 Hymn, in Cer 
 
 . 6 7 . 
 
 36. 
 
 28. 
 
 143- 
 
 
 176. 
 
 237- 
 
 3i- 
 
 276. 
 
 * 
 
 280. 
 
 in. 
 
 39- 
 
 355- 
 
 
 289. 
 
 95- 
 
 57- 
 
 99. 
 
 
 302. 
 
 3ii- 
 
 83- 
 
 361. 
 
 
 45i- 
 
 281. 
 
 90. 
 
 3°1- 
 
 Hymn. inLunam. 13. 
 
 502. 
 
 165. 
 
 47- 
 
 v Hymn.adMat.D. 30. 
 
 428. 
 
 I96. 
 
 404. 
 
 Hymn, in Merc. 7. 
 
 90. 
 
 243- 
 
 211. 
 
 
 33- 
 
 66. 
 
 300. 
 
 64. 
 
 
 113. 
 
 457- 
 
 372. 
 
 3o5- 
 
 
 *37- 
 
 457- 
 
 418. 
 
 4'5- 
 
 
 230. 
 
 80. 
 
 Od. f. 31. 
 
 5^9- 
 
 
 241. 
 
 416. 
 
 533- 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 567 
 
 (Homer.) 
 
 
 Hymn, in Merc. 443 . 
 
 447- 
 
 449. 
 
 416. 
 
 454- 
 
 291. 
 
 4 6 5- 
 
 408. 
 
 477- 
 
 280. 
 
 Hymn, in Pan. 16. 
 
 417. 
 
 18. 
 
 178. 
 
 19. 
 
 428 
 
 Hymn, in Ven. 33. 
 
 480 
 
 62. 
 
 in. 
 
 63- 
 
 239- 
 
 1 *T> 
 
 1 f 1. 
 
 417. 
 
 208. 
 
 358. 
 
 253. 
 
 181 
 
 254. 
 
 8. 
 
 268. 
 
 33°- 
 
 Hymn. 17. v. 12. 
 
 253 
 
 27. v. 18. 
 
 80. 
 
 28. v. 9. 
 
 287 
 
 29. v. 8. 
 
 253- 
 
 Batrachom. 47. 
 
 4i7 
 
 H3. 
 
 142. 
 
 Vita Horn. c. 15. 
 
 395- 
 
 Ibycus. ap. E.M. p.428,29. 259. 
 
 ISOCRATES. 
 
 ad Philipp. p. 252. Wolf. 147. 
 
 Josephus. 
 
 B. J. 4, 9, 10. 398. 
 
 JULIANUS iEGYPTUS. 
 
 Epigr. 11, 8. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 2, 496. 235. 
 Leonidas Tarentinus. 
 
 95. ap.Brunck.An. 1,245. 4 8 7- 
 96, 1. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1, 
 
 p. 246. 509. 
 98, 10. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1, 
 246. 91. 
 
 Lesches. 
 
 ap. Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 1263. 
 343- 
 
 LUCIAN. 
 
 De Column. 1 7. 435. 
 24. 49.. 
 
 (LUCIAN.) 
 
 
 
 Contempt. 
 
 1. 
 
 231. 
 
 
 in it. 
 
 5°5- 
 
 Cronosol. 
 
 14. 
 
 221. 
 
 Bern. Enc. 
 
 3i. 
 
 219. 
 
 Dial.Beorum 
 
 .4. 
 
 81. 
 
 Dial. Marin. 
 
 2. 
 
 i59- 
 
 Dial. Meretr 
 
 . 2.init 
 
 •437- 
 
 
 12. 
 
 491. 
 
 Imag. 
 
 11. 
 
 356. 
 
 Jupit. Trag. 
 
 i^- 
 
 219. 
 
 Lexiph. 
 
 2. 
 
 219. 
 
 Necyom. 
 
 10. 
 
 63. 
 
 Pro Laps. 
 
 5- 
 
 435- 
 
 Pseuclomant. 
 
 33- 
 
 235- 
 
 Solcecist. 
 
 6. 
 
 422. 
 
 Somn. 
 
 3- 
 
 169. 
 
 Vitar. Auct. 
 
 4- 
 
 435- 
 
 Lycophron. 
 
 574- 
 
 278. 
 
 Lysias. 
 
 
 
 (c. Theomn.) 
 
 p. 117 
 
 260. 
 
 Lysis Pythag. 
 
 p. 737. (Gale.) 395. 
 
 Marcellus. 
 
 Triop. Inscript. 19. ap. Brunck. 
 Anal. 2, 302. 342. 
 
 Marcianus Heracl. 
 
 p. 69. Hudson. 474. 
 
 Maximus Tyrius. 
 28, 58. 268. 
 
 Meleager. 
 
 1 . 3 . ap. Brunck. Anal. 1 , 
 
 55 
 
 Menander. 
 
 Meinekc ad Mfcnandr. Inc. 326. 
 485. 491. 
 
 Nauplius. 
 
 up. Phot. 271. 
 
 NlCANDER. 
 
 Alexiph. ic6. 7- 
 221. 204 
 
568 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 (NlCANDER ) 
 
 Alexiph. 226. 203. 
 
 Ther. 120. 52. 
 
 461. 528. 
 
 508. 510. 
 
 521. 509. 
 
 7 6 3- *$*- 
 
 783- 45. 
 (ap. Athen.) 
 
 7> 282. f. 29. 
 
 Nossis. 
 
 Mpigr. 4. 153. 
 
 Oppian. 
 
 De Piscatione. 1, 145. 208 
 
 1, 270. 488 
 
 2, 89. 273 
 
 2, 588. 208 
 
 3, 599. 208 
 
 4» 39- 2o8 
 De Venatione. 1, 72. 420 
 
 4, 138. 490 
 
 Orac. Sibyll. 
 
 14, 214. 91. 
 
 Orpheus. 
 
 Arg. 880. 240. 
 Jrg. ap. Plin. 25, c. 9. 355. 
 Be Lapid. 355. 
 755- 836. 
 Hymn. Apoll. 33, 12. 90. 
 
 Parmenides. 
 Fragm. 102. 
 
 Fragm. ap. Sext. (adv. Math. 7, 
 in.) v. 12. 429. 
 
 Pausanias. 
 
 2. 2. 436. 
 
 2. 22. 469. 
 
 2. 23. (p. 1*3.) 470. 
 
 2. 26. 50. 
 
 2. 27. 471. 
 
 5. 15. (p. 415.) 470. 
 
 5- 17. 286. 
 
 5. 24. 474. 
 
 8. 10. (pp. 618, 619.) 470. 
 10. 8. 469. 
 [o. 36. 471. 
 
 Petri Epist, (in N. T.) 
 II. 1, 4. 436. 
 
 Ph^edimus. 
 
 Epigr. 1,10. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 i, 261. 342. 
 
 Phal^cus. 
 
 Epigr. 5, 4. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 1, 422. 484. 
 
 Phanias. 
 
 Epigr. 3, 3. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 2, 52. 301. 
 
 7, 3. ap. Brunck. An. 2,54. 21. 
 
 Pherecrates. 
 
 ap. Eustath. 349. 
 
 Phil. 
 
 De Animal, p. 344. 208. 
 
 Philippus Thessal. 
 
 Epigr. 77, 5. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 2, 233. 203. 
 
 Philoxenus. 
 
 Epigr. ap. Brunck. Anal. 2, 58. 
 
 302. 
 
 Phrynichus. 
 
 App. Soph. p. 22. 28. 
 23. 220. 
 
 Pindar. 
 
 Olymp. 1, 46. 68. 
 
 1, 90. 521. 
 
 1, 178. 224. 
 
 2, 12. 300. 
 2, 73- 367- 
 4,17. 285. 
 
 4.31- io 3- 
 
 4, 277. 327. 
 
 6, 106. 412. 447. 
 
 6, 1 10. 330. 
 
 6, 120. 386. 
 
 g, 20. 287. 
 
 9, 3°- l8 4- 
 
 9, 87. 282. 
 
 10, 51. 257. 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 569 
 
 (Pindar.) 
 
 Olymp. 10, 96. 19. 
 
 ii,6. 439. 
 
 13, 33. 461. 
 
 Pyth. 1, 7. 287. 
 
 1, 96. 19. 
 
 1, 156. 371. 
 
 2, 98. 36. 
 
 4, 136. 224. 
 
 4, 265. 146. 
 
 4, 297. 436. 
 
 4, 358. 126. 
 
 4, 414. 68. 
 
 4, 450. 102. 
 
 4, 532. 80. 
 
 6, 47. 520. 
 
 9, 24. 520. 
 
 9, 148. 212. 
 
 12, 14. 461. 
 
 iYe?m. 3, 118. 351. 
 
 3, 131. 123. 
 
 6, 56. 19. 
 8, 2. 80. 
 
 8, 15. 183. 
 8,43- 68. 
 9> 38- 439- 
 
 9, 45. 287. 
 11,30. 436. 
 
 Isthm. 6, 34. 472. 
 Fragm. in cert. 86. 386. 
 
 93-Boeckh. (p. i7.Heyn.)si8. 
 
 Plato. 
 
 Alcib. 1, 9. p. 1 1 1 . c 395. 
 Alcib. 2. p. r43. «. 503. 
 CrtVo. p. 43. b. 299. 
 DeLeyg. 4. p. 718. 373. 
 
 7. p. 810. d. 322. 
 PJuedon. p. 86. <?. 508. 
 
 95- c - 356. 
 
 1 1 2. <?. 467. 
 Phcedr. p. 241. 6. 349. 
 Thecct. sect. 33. p. 168. r. 170 
 
 P '75- 3o. 
 77?w. p. 40. b. 262. 
 76. b. 261. 
 
 Com. ap. Poll. 6, 25. 322. 
 
 Plutarch. 
 
 Ad Prinrip. Inerud. c. 3. 
 
 (Plutarch.) 
 
 ^m. Fratr. c. extr. 19. 
 De ^4mc?. Poe£. p. 22. e. 345. 
 DeExil. 6. (8, 372. Reiske.) 32. 
 Marc. Anton. 43. 106. 
 Quast. Codviv. g, 15. 287. 
 
 Pollux. 
 
 1, 7. 217. 
 
 2, 3- 459- 
 2, 7. 540. 
 
 3> 3- 54o. 
 
 4> 19- 459- 
 
 7> 5- 78. 
 
 7> *3- 238. 
 
 7, 26. 489. 
 
 POLYBIUS. 
 
 4> 39- 5°- 52- 473- 
 4>4>- 33i- 
 
 POLYCHARM. 
 
 ap. Athen. 8. p. 333,/. 487. 
 
 Pomponius Mela. 
 
 1, 19, 5. Tzschuck. 474. 
 
 Procopius. 
 
 De Bello Goth. 1. c 18. 529. 
 
 Quintus Smyrn^eus. 
 
 1, 64. 356. 
 
 1, 213. 420. 
 
 1, 217. 5. 
 
 I, 369. 420. 
 
 I, 725. 420. 
 
 3» 775- 356. 
 5. 2 99- 325. 
 13, 485. 208. 
 
 Rhianus. 
 
 Epigr. 1,21. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1 , 
 
 479- 339- 
 
 ap. Stepfa. Byz- 156. 
 
 Sappho. 
 
 Fragm. 239. 
 
 Schow. 
 
 ( hart. Papyracea. p. 18, 22. 13 2. 
 
570 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES 
 
 SCYLAX. 
 
 (Sophocles.) 
 
 
 Peripl. p. 28. Hudson. 473. 
 
 Trachin. 904 
 
 204. 
 
 
 107 
 
 2. 203. 
 
 SlMMIAS. 
 
 
 
 ap. Tzetz. Chiliad, 7, (8.) 
 
 Stesichorus. 
 
 
 144. 511. 
 
 p. 28, $. Suchf. 88. 271. 
 
 SlMONIDES. 
 
 Stob,eus. 
 
 
 Epigr. 59, 2. (65.) ap. Brunck. 
 
 Phys. p. 856. 
 
 344- 
 
 Anal. 1, 138. 278. 
 
 
 
 59, 3. (65.) ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 Strabo. 
 
 
 i> i3 8 - 55- 
 
 8. pp- 35 
 
 0,351. 364. 
 
 70, 3. (76.) ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 8. p. 367. 
 
 379- 
 
 1, 141- 183- 
 
 9. p. 426 
 
 469. 
 
 85, 4. (9 1 .) ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 10. p. 458 
 
 364. 
 
 1,143. 301. 
 
 12. p. 562 
 
 473- 
 
 Fragm. ap. Athen. 11. p. 480. 
 
 15- P- 734 
 
 530. 
 
 537- 
 
 17. p. 818 
 
 333- 
 
 ap. E. M. p. 634, 6. 259. 
 
 
 
 ap. Schol. 11. |8, 2. 416. 
 
 Strato. 
 
 
 
 Epigr. 68, 2. 
 
 ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 
 Sophocles. 
 
 <a, 375- 29. 
 
 Ajax. 177. 337- 
 
 
 
 322.(320. Lobeck) 202. 
 
 Theocritus. 
 
 
 608. 50. 
 
 1, 3*- 
 
 269. 
 
 933- 461. 
 
 2, 2. 
 
 294. 
 
 95°- (93 2 -) 321. 
 
 5, 104. 
 
 529- 
 
 1 019. (1049.) 490. 
 
 6, 33- 
 
 144. 
 
 .Antig.17. 11. 
 
 8, 13. 
 
 166. 
 
 341. 267. 
 
 8, 27. 
 
 529- 
 
 509. 262. 
 
 13,53. 
 
 204. 
 
 619. 151. 
 
 13. 74- 
 
 311. 
 
 (Edip. C. 485-8. (472-5.) 294. 
 
 20, 19. 
 
 395- 
 
 *3°3- !55- 
 
 21, 39- 
 
 219. 
 
 1490. 428. 
 
 22, 49. 
 
 432. 
 
 1685. 156. 
 
 22,, 67. 
 
 422. 
 
 (Edip. T. 2. 345. 
 
 22, 97. 
 
 5i9- 
 
 1094. 337. 
 
 22, II5. 
 
 27. 
 
 1265. 204. 
 
 22, 167. 
 
 278. 
 
 135 2 - 307- 
 
 23, 18. 
 
 107. 
 
 Philoct. 291. 274. 
 
 25, IOO. 
 
 280. 
 
 3'3- 27. 
 
 2 5' l8 3- 
 
 i55. 
 
 702. 274. 
 
 25, 246. 
 
 273- 
 
 745. 201. 
 
 28, 15. 
 
 I9 6. 
 
 1132. (1137.) 322. 
 
 Epigr. 20. (2 
 
 1, 3. ed. Gaisford.) 
 
 1157. 67. 
 
 
 396. 
 
 Trachin. 94. 67. 
 
 
 
 132. 67. 
 
 Theognis. 
 
 
 698. 448. 
 
 1 1 1. ed. Gaisf. (1 15. Brunck.) 
 
 847- 36. 
 
 150. 
 
 
EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 571 
 
 (Theognis.) 
 
 *75- 38i. 
 176. 330. 
 
 Theon. Alexandr. 
 
 Epigr. 1. 1. ap. Brunck. Anal. 
 2. 405. 344. 
 
 Theophrastus. 
 
 Hist. PI. 6, 82. 224. 
 
 ap.Porphyr.deAbstin. 2,6. 452 . 
 
 Th 
 
 L'CYDIDES 
 
 
 
 2, 
 
 76. 
 
 263. 
 
 
 3> 
 
 59- 
 
 372 
 
 
 3. 
 
 74- 
 
 220 
 
 
 7> 
 
 81. 
 
 261 
 
 
 8, 
 
 S3- 
 
 340 
 
 TZETZES. 
 
 ad Horn. p. 4. Herm. 416. 
 ad Lycophr. 662. 336. 
 j 263. 504. 
 
 Xenophon. 
 
 
 ^4wg6. 1, 4, 4. 
 
 33 *• 
 
 i, 8, 8. 
 
 217. 
 
 2, 4, 20. 
 
 468. 
 
 2, 6, 4. 
 
 6.) 195 
 
 3> 3> 11. 
 
 218. 
 
 3, 4' 34- 
 
 218. 
 
 4, 2, 1. 
 
 218. 
 
 4> 2 > 3- 
 
 43i- 
 
 4, 5> 2. 
 
 208. 
 
 5> 2 > 17- 
 
 290. 
 
 6, 1, 28. 
 
 467. 
 
 6, 4, 1. 
 
 290. 
 
 6, 5> 25. 
 
 05-) 2 
 
 7. 2, 2. 
 
 468. 
 
 7> 3> 9- 
 
 218. 
 
 7, 2, 20. 
 
 (11.) a 
 
 Cyrop. 1, 6, 2. 
 
 299. 
 
 2, 3> 12. 
 
 437- 
 
 Hellen.i, 3, 1. 
 
 484. 
 
 4>4* 3- 
 
 30- 
 
 7, 2, 28. 
 
 261. 
 
 Mem. 3, 9, 6. 
 
 3i- 
 
 232- 
 
 232. 
 
 Zte Venat. 6, 15. 267. 
 
 Coloph. ap. Athen. p. 462. c. 294. 
 
 SCRIPTORES ROMAN! 
 
 Ammianus Marcellinus. 
 30, 8. 530. 
 
 Cicero. 
 
 De Divin. 2, 30. 55. 
 Verr. 4, 57. 474- 
 
 Claudian. 
 
 Rapt. Proserp. 1, 236. 57. 
 
 Gellius. 
 
 i, 15- 39«- 
 
 2, 6. 59. 
 20, 5. 195- 
 
 Gesner, Conrad. 
 
 De Nat. Aquatil. lib. 4. 486. 
 
 Gyllius. 
 
 DeBosporo. 3, 5. 473. 
 
 HORATIUS. 
 
 0«/. 2, 17, 14. 2. . 
 
 3, 4, II. 23. 
 
 Saf-5, 26. (Schol. Acr. et Fruq.) 
 474- 
 
 Ovid. 
 
 Amor. 2, 13, 14. 155. 
 
 Plinius. 
 
 9, 1 — 15. 487. 
 
 2 5i 9- 355- 
 
 27, 12. 530. 
 
 32, II. 4«7- 
 
572 
 
 INDEX OF PASSAGES EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 
 
 Propertius. 
 
 
 Virgil. 
 
 
 3> 8 > 5°- 57- 
 
 
 Mneid. 1, 723. 
 
 293- 
 
 
 
 2, 5 2 7- 
 
 293. 
 
 Schneider. 
 
 
 
 
 Hist. Litt. Piscium. 
 
 486. 
 
 3» 5 2 5- 
 5, 1 16. 
 
 293- 
 489. 
 
 SlLVIUS. 
 
 
 7~ x 47- 
 
 293- 
 
 3, i, 76. 294. 
 
 
 10, 211. 
 
 487. 
 
 Statius. 
 
 
 IT, S50. 
 
 214. 
 
 Theb. 8, 225. 294. 
 
 
 II, 813. 
 
 Eclog. 8, 82. 
 
 262. 
 
 448. 
 
 TlBULLUS. 
 
 
 Georgic. 1, 3 75- 
 
 41. 
 
 2, 5« 2 3- 57- 
 
 
 2, 528. 
 
 293- 
 
 2, 5, 98. 294. 
 
 
 
 
 553- 
 
INDEX II. 
 
 OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
 
 N. B. The references are to the Pages of the Lexilogus. Those words which 
 are the subject of an article are distinguished by an initial capital letter. Radical 
 verbs, composed of capital letters in the text, are written the same in the Index. 
 
 a changed to e, 7, 69. 
 
 a at, 136. 
 
 a o, 465. 
 
 a for 7] Ion. 180. 
 Adaros, I. 
 daftaKTOS, 5. 
 'Aao-at, 5. 
 daadpnv, 8. 
 ddcracrdai, 2, II. 
 ddo~0T)v, 2. 
 dao-i(ppoc>v, 7. 
 aarai, 2, 8, 1 42. 
 "Aaros, 2, 5. 
 ddco> Ij 5. 
 dfiXaftrjs, 5. 
 d@'\r)xpds, 194. 
 A/3pora£a>, dftpoTT), 79. 
 aftpoTOS, 82. 
 dydOeos, 323. 
 dyaKXeiTos, dyaicXvTos, 
 
 ^ 384. 
 
 ayapai^ 47. 
 
 'AyyeXtas-, 'AyyeXi?7, 'Ay- 
 
 ytXins, II, &C. 
 AITQ, 135. 
 aye 10^ a, 1 40. 
 'Aye'pto^os, 1 8. 
 d.yjyo X a, 1 39. 
 
 dyrjTos, 47. 
 
 ayi/o'y, 47. 
 
 "Ay pa, dypevco, 21. 
 
 'Aype'aj, 20. 
 
 d8arjpovir],dbar]pnavuTj,^l. 
 
 ^tef* 355- 
 
 afieif, 22. 
 d§77KG)y, 22. 
 
 'AS^/xo^eTi/, ddrjpovia, 29. 
 adnpos, 32. 
 "AV % I, 27. 
 08771/, aSeVos, 33. 
 'A&yo-atj 22. 
 d8r)(f)dyos, 2*]. 
 y A8ivos, 32. 
 aSoXecr^etz/, 28. 
 "ASoy, 29. 
 aSpdr, 33. 
 a§a), 25 • 
 
 deideXtos 1 , 5 2 > 58. 
 deiSeXos, 52. 
 dciCnXos, 53. 
 aeif, 25. 
 deipoo, 119. 
 aeXXa, 72. 
 depevai, 25. 
 'Aeo-typcov, 7' 
 dfapai, 47. 
 drjdeco, drjdca, 28. 
 ^p, 37- 
 Aj/tos, 5, 44. 
 ddavaaia, 8 1. 
 'A#eV(paToy, 357* 
 at changed to e, 69. 
 'AiS^Xoy, 47. 
 di^Xd?, 52. 
 A'itjtos, 45. 
 aWepla dvenra, 4 1 . 
 m%, 39. 
 aXXovpos, 6f. 
 aipao-'ia, 402. 
 tdvtto, Alvos, aura, 59. 
 aloXXe oi, 64. 
 
 aloXc>6a>prj£, alo\6icopvs, 
 aloXop.r)Tns, aloKofii- 
 
 Tprjs, 66. 
 
 aloXoncoXos, 665. 
 
 AioXos 1 , 63. 
 
 atpcuj 119. 
 
 aura, 59. 
 
 aicrTOs, aio-Twaciav, 51. 
 
 alcopa, aieopeai, 1 36. 
 
 oac5, 73. 
 
 aKaXos", 74- 
 
 'Akcoov, 13. 
 
 'AK?yi/, 13, 161. 
 
 d^Xe'ey for axXfee?, 296. 
 
 aVp^, dicpala, 90. 
 
 aKoarr], 76. 
 
 'AKoo-rrjO-as, 75- 
 
 dXaXKelj/, dXe^eti/, 548. 
 
 uXoXkov, 132. 
 
 aXyoy, 132. 
 
 dXeyi'£cD, 114. 
 
 dXeyco, 132. 
 
 aXetff, 257. 
 
 dXe/co), dXe£a>, 132, 141. 
 
 dXe'co, 259. 
 
 dXr]Xi(jia, 205. 
 
 dXi']p.€vai, 257. 
 
 aX^i/at, 0X771/01, 234. 
 
 dX/aa-roy, 406. 
 
 dXii/8eio#ai, dXivhrjQpa, 
 
 , 397-, 
 
 aXAcrJ, dXKr?/p, 1 32. 
 dXXoSa7rov, 322. 
 1 dXXoetftrjr, 3;,4. 
 dpaXo'f, 194. 
 apapTaucj, S$. 
 'Apftpoaios, 79- 
 "Afifiporos, 79, [89. 
 'Apeyapros, 407. 
 Afxepat, 22. 
 'ApoXyoi, dpoXyai 
 
574 
 
 INDEX OF GEEEK WOEDS AND PHEASES. 
 
 dpcpi, 94. 
 dpcplfiporos, 83. 
 dpcpibe^tos, 96. 
 ' ApcfiiKinreXXov, 93. 
 dfitpLTToXeveip, 436. 
 
 'AfKpLS, 94. 
 
 dp(p\s eovra, 98. 
 
 dju^is e^ty, 97. 
 
 dpcpio-ropos, 93. 
 
 dp(plcpaXos, 5 2 3* 
 
 dz>d, 134. 
 
 dva^ej3pa^e, dm/3e/3po;(e. 
 
 200~. 
 ai/a/3e/3pu^e, 205. 
 dva(3po£ei€, dvafipoxev. 
 
 201. 
 dva.ivop.ai, 1 1 8. 
 dvaTrprjaas, 486. 
 ANE9G, 134. 
 ai>etXe«r#ai, 268. 
 a^etX^a-ai, 263. 
 dveipdpOai, 60. 
 di/eXi'rretv, 263. 
 dveveiKapevos, ' AveveUaro, 
 
 104. 
 dveveLxOeis, 106. 
 dveovrat, 139. 
 aveais, 108. 
 'A^eco, di/ea), 107. 
 di/ecBi/rai, T39. 
 ANHrO, 135. 
 dvrjXerjs, 1 1 8. 
 'Avrjvode, 1 10, 133. 
 dvrjpidpos, Il8. 
 avBos, dvdecc, 1 34. 
 AN0G, 134, 141. 
 
 aVLTJpi, 26. 
 
 dvorjpcov, 30. 
 dvreraycbv, 504. 
 'Avriqv, dvTidoOj 141. 
 dvTiftlrjv, 161. 
 dvTifioXrjcre, 122. 
 di/ridco, 141. 
 dvTi(pepl£co, 122. 
 avropai, 134. 
 di/uo), avvcns, Ii5- 
 aWya, 24, 112, 1 35. 
 doprr/p, dopro, 1 36. 
 a7ratoXeco, 68. 
 'Andpxopai, 167. 
 d7rardco, d7raT?7, 11-7. 
 dTraTTyXoy, 50. 
 *Airavpqv, 1 44. 
 diravpiaKfrai, 1 47. 
 dirafalv, ll8. 
 a7r^i/?7S', 515. 
 d7ret\eif, 260. 
 
 d7retXea), dVeiXai, 1 1 7. 
 direlWr), 260. 
 aTretTrcov, 130. 
 a7reXXat, d7reXXd£e«/, 1 17. 
 dirzpeio-ia, 513. 
 direpeicrios, 52. 
 dn^povla, dnrjpoavvq, d- 
 
 •Kr)p.a>v, 31. 
 dnrjvpa, dirqvpaTO, divqv- 
 
 ptov, 144, 145. 
 'ATricW^es, nora. prop. 
 
 I ? 4 -„ 
 
 ^AlTir], CITTLOS, 154- 
 'ATTiS, 155. 
 
 dnoftaXXco, 120. 
 
 a7roei7ra>, 130. 
 
 dnoepdco, 157* 
 
 ^ Arroipcrai, &C. 1 56. 
 
 0770X0^6), 121. 
 
 'Atto^vvco, 'Airo^vGi, 158. 
 
 drrovpai, d7rovpdp.€VOS ) 
 'Anovpas, drrovprjo-co, 
 d7Tovp'i£<o, 144, &C. 
 
 aTrpdypcov, 30. 
 
 ^ATrpidrrjv, 73, 161. 
 
 dpdpos, apdoo, 157* 
 
 dpetW, 285, 545. 
 
 aW», 544- 
 dprjpevos, 24. 
 ap?;?, dpiaros, 545* 
 apt-, with its compounds, 
 
 aptdrjXos, 54- 
 
 'ApigrjXos, 47- 
 
 dpiarov, 229. 
 
 dpiaros, 285. 
 
 dpKeco, dpKeopai, " Apuios, 
 
 162, 543, &C. 
 apoco, 538. 
 apva>, 153. 
 ap^e, 122. 
 ' Apxopai, 167. 
 apcoyry, 1 35. 
 dcrat, 24. 
 daaro, 9. 
 0:077, 24. 
 drai, 25. 
 draco, IO. 
 are, 535^ / 
 dreovra, dreovres, 1 1 . 
 dreco, IO. 
 "Arr;, 5. 
 dr t'eti/, 60. 
 drdy, 2. 
 'Aroy, 2, 25. 
 art^co, II. 
 drcopat, II. 
 
 avdaoia, 20. 
 
 avdalperos, 22. 
 
 aifXtos, 461. 
 
 AYPAG, 146. 
 
 AYPQ, 145, 153. 
 
 avrdyperos, 22, 281. 
 
 avTqpap, 314. 
 
 avTim, 314. 
 
 Aurcoy, aurcoy, 17 1. 
 
 avx^iv, 117. 
 
 acpapos, 539. 
 
 "Acpevos, 177. 
 
 dcfiecoica, dcpecovrai, 1 38. 
 
 acpdovos, 178, 410. 
 
 acpveios, d(pvas, d(pvvs, 
 
 dcpoplfeiv, 147. 
 
 dcpvco, d<pvo-orco, 1 77. 
 
 'A^eW, 178. 
 
 a-)(Oos, dxd6p,ai, 465. 
 
 d^os, 179. 
 
 ao), 2. 
 
 ao),.to sZeep, 188. 
 
 acopro, 135. 
 
 'Acoreiy, 188. 
 
 "Acoroi/, acoros, 1 82. 
 
 B. 
 
 fiaOvKrjrrjs, 381. 
 
 /3ac9us, 38. 
 
 /3e/3papeVcoz/, 190. 
 
 /3e'/3parai, 190. 
 
 (BtoTrXaves, 296. 
 
 /Sios, 166. 
 
 p\d£eiv, 193. 
 
 /3Aa£, 84, 193. 
 
 /3Xei, 190. 
 
 fiXrjxpos, 193. 
 
 /3Xtpd£eii/, 192. 
 
 /3Xiroy, 193. 
 
 /3Xtrrco, 84, 189. 
 
 /3Xv£g>, 206. 
 
 (3\codp6s, 194. 
 
 (3\a>(rKco, 84, 189, 194. 
 
 fioXopai, 196. 
 
 /Soo-ko), 479. 
 
 BovXopai, 194. 
 
 /3ouX tiros, 89. 
 
 (3pd\}sai, 190. 
 
 fipaxelv, ftpaxrjvai, 201. 
 
 /3pd|at, 200. 
 
 (UpOTOs, 84, 189. 
 
 Bpo^^i/at, (3pox@os, ftpo- 
 Xos, BPOXQ, fipvKco, 
 fipvxdopai, (Spiix®, 200, 
 &c. 
 
 /3puco, 206. 
 
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
 
 575 
 
 r. 
 
 y changed to t, 140. 
 ydbecrOai, yabeco, 496. 
 yavpos, 19. 
 yey dare, 142. 
 yey cova, 112. 
 yevrep, 496. 
 yepdoxos, 20. 
 yvocfios, 378. 
 
 Tvr)s, Tvyrjs, nom. prop. 3 
 2. 
 
 A. 
 S inserted, 322. 
 bafjpoov, 225. 
 barjvai, 209. 
 baipco, I20. 
 Sat?, 209. 
 Aat(pp(ov, 209. 
 SaKO? dSti/di/ Kaicayopidv, 
 
 * 3?. 
 
 oaKuw ^dXoj/, 490. 
 
 Sai/d?, 240. 
 
 fiaco, 217. 
 
 Ae'arat, 212. 
 
 bearo, 216. 
 
 beblaKopai, 275* 
 
 beboKrjpai, 70. 
 
 oVt'&ta, 112. 
 
 beiboiKa, 136, 275. 
 
 beLeXirj, beieXirjaas, 229. 
 
 beiXero, 227. 
 
 AeiXrj, beieXos, 21 7. 
 
 SeiXti/di/, 219. 
 
 6Vti/«, 5°3> 
 
 fieti/di/, 73* 
 
 belnvov, 229. 
 
 Stt'o, 137, 355. 
 
 be poo, 120. 
 
 fifvre, 316. 
 
 o^Xcy, 58. 
 
 Stdya), 230. 
 
 blttKOVeU), 118. 
 
 bidnovos, 231. 
 diaKTopla, 235. 
 
 AlUKTOpOS, duiKTOip, 23O. 
 Sl(tKO), 232. 
 
 buiXe£ao-Bai, 402. 
 SunrpTjcro-a), 492. 
 bianpieiv, bianpieo-Oat, 
 
 491. 
 huiTeKp.aipop.ai, 501. 
 biatpvyelv twos, 436. 
 fiirjKO), 232. 
 
 &'*» 355, 375- 
 &Xfl» 73- 
 
 fitooKO), Il8, 232. 
 8v6cf)os, 378. 
 
 Aodcro"aro, 212. 
 Sdaro, 215. 
 Soid^co, 213. 
 
 8oi'8u£, 482. 
 §0177, 213. 
 bopnov, 229. 
 Sovpt/cXurds', 389. 
 SvcncXeafor bvcncXeea, 2( 
 bvcrero rjeXios, 226. 
 
 e changed to 0, 70, 216, 
 
 499. 
 edXr/v, 256. 
 'Eai/ds-, 236. 
 eap, 43. 
 e Ed(pdrj, 242. 
 iyyvaXifa, 120. 
 eyij/ie, 50. 
 iyKaTeihrjcrai, eyKariXXeiv, 
 
 263. 
 ErKQ, 131, 141. 
 eyprjyopa, Il6. 
 eyxeipea, 120. 
 ibavds, 24 1. 
 
 ebrjbeica, ebr)beo~pai, 1 37. 
 ebrjbona, ebrjborai, 1 36. 
 ebr)bo%a, 1 1 6. 
 eSa>, 137. 
 eebva, 284. 
 EE0O, 137. 
 ieiKoai, 284. 
 eeXpat, 254. 
 eeXnerai, 284. 
 *7««, 139. 
 'E^os-, e^oy, 246. 
 edeXovrrjv, 162. 
 edeXoa, 194. 
 ?0a>, 134, 138. 
 eda>Ka, 1 37. 
 ei changed to co, 136. 
 elapevt), 325. 
 elapov, 240. 
 etSoy, 353. 
 et'&z, 137. 
 eiicr/coo, 276. 
 fiKeXoy, 52. 
 eiW, 137. 
 cZXtSeiPj 266. 
 elXap, 2," ) 9. 
 
 EtXeti/, 253. 
 
 dXdo-Oai, 268. 
 fi'Xeto, ei'Xea), 2 "4. 
 6 1X7, 270. 
 fi'Xr/, 2 2,",. 
 
 fiXii/8eio-#tii, 269, 39"- 
 eiXlnobes, 266. 
 
 elXXopevr), 262. 
 etXXco, 6tXX(», 254. 
 etXdp.ei/oy, 255. 
 elXvpevos, eiXvoprjv, e'i- 
 
 Xvo-a, eiXvaOels, 274. 
 elXvcpdfa, -dec, 274. 
 etXuco, 272. 
 etXco, etXco, 254. 
 eiVd? pio-o-q, 223. 
 elvoalcpvXXos, 1 13. 
 etot/ca, 137, 275. 
 ehrov, emelv, 132. 
 elpvixevai, 310. 
 elpvcraro, 305. 
 elpvcrcrovTai, 305. 
 e'ipvro, 307. 
 elpvay, 308. 
 etpco, 300. 
 'Et'avcco, 133. 
 e'lcoBa, 136. 
 eitdOevbov, 121. 
 eizdOi^ov, 122. 
 exbvpev, 424. 
 "Ek^Xos - , 279. 
 eicqrt, 283. 
 tKTvayXa, 73. 
 e/ccoi/, 283. 
 eXav, 259. 
 
 eXdcrat, eXda-as-, 255. 
 iXavva), 391. 
 EAAQ, 256. 
 ek4yx<o, 129. 
 'EXeXtfr), 287. 
 eXifXvOa, 116. 
 eXtcrcro), 287. 
 eXXeSai/dy, 270. 
 eXXox//-, 265. 
 EAAQ, 255. 
 eX7rero, 122. 
 "EXtrat, 253. 
 eXvpa, 273. 
 eXvadrjvai, 272. 
 eXva>, 272. 
 EA12, 259. 
 
 epfipapevr], epfiparai, 190. 
 ipfjo-iv, 251. 
 epneXava, 455. 
 EMIIQ, 131. 
 (p(j)aXKoa), fj^O. 
 ei> noal, 2 68. 
 tvalpa, 1 19. 
 tvdKivfteofMUj 397 a 
 (fvapa, 119. 
 tvdairi/os, ,]-.)■ 
 'Evde^ta, 988. 
 evb(£iof, 291. 
 
576 
 
 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
 
 evdvvai, 134. 
 eveynelv, 131. 
 ENE0J2, 133. 
 eveikivbelcrOai, 397. 
 evetXXcov, 263. 
 ENEKS2, 132. 
 eveK<opia^ov, 122. 
 ive7ra>, 123. 
 eve pot, 119. 
 'EvqvoOe, IIO, 133. 
 ivfjvoxa, n6, 132. 
 evBevrev, 3 1 4. 
 EN9Q, 133, 141. 
 iviTTToa, 123. 
 
 iv 177(0, 126. 
 
 evunrelv, evicnrov, 1 32. 
 evi.cr7ra>, ivi(Xcr<o, 123. 
 evvofjiyaios, 113* 
 evvvpi, 236. 
 evvvyios ttoiS), 41. 
 evoTvr], 131. 
 
 evocris, evoaixOoiV, H3- 
 eVoxXeoo, 7 2, 
 eVea, 134- 
 eVvoo, 115. 
 egaXicrai, 397. 
 i^aTTO^vva), 159. 
 e^eikew, 260. 
 e^ekavveiv, 261. 
 e^e\iTTeiv, 263. 
 e^eTTirqbes, 298. 
 e£epa>r)<rai, 310. 
 egrjkim, 397. 
 e£t'XX<», 267. 
 e^opKOvv, 438. 
 egovXrj, 260, 460. 
 
 ?£oX a > 4 6 3- 
 eoio, 249. 
 eoXe6, 71 • 
 'EoX?yro, 63. 
 eVaiyi£a>, 120. 
 eTraivos, 61. 
 enairios, 6l, 
 eTrake^etv, 548. 
 erraX^is, 548. 
 e7ra.pK.elv, 544? 54^- 
 eVapKecrcu, 548. 
 'E7rap;(;ojucu, 1 67. 
 eTravpaadai, 149. 
 eTravpeco, 150. 
 e7ravpi(TKop,ai, 1 47. 
 eiravpicrKG), 1 50. 
 eVeiyco, II 8. 
 eneXaaai opKov, 438. 
 enevrjvode, I IO. 
 «ri, 243. 
 'E7ri8e£ia, 168, 288. 
 
 emBe^ios, 61, 29 T. 
 'Enlripa, 335. 
 emppavos, 341, 344. 
 enir)po$, 338. 
 inided^eiv, 349. 
 ernOod^eiv, 348. 
 iTTLKprjcai, 168. 
 eTTike^aadai, 402. 
 e7n\rjcrpoov, eTTLk^apora- 
 t tos, 547- 
 eTMrekava, 455* 
 e7n(TTa86v, 1 67, 170. 
 eTna-rdra), 121. 
 eTTKTTeXkco (re dyyek'irjv, 1 3 . 
 eTTUTTeCprjs, 292. 
 eVtoreVpa), 29 1. 
 €7TiTr}8eios, 299. 
 emTrjbes, 295. 
 eTTLT-qbeva), 299. 
 iixKpepeiv, 339. 
 €7rofiai } 244. 
 iirorpvveiv dyyeXirjv rivi, 
 
 12. 
 eirrar eTvovpav'ir), 41. 
 eVco, 5 2I « 
 
 epypara dyepcoxa, 1 9. 
 EPAQ, 157. 
 epei8(o, 300. 
 ipe'nrai, 129. 
 epeiapa, 300. 
 epepi/J7 w|, 369. 
 eprjpnra, 1 16. 
 ept- with its compounds, 
 
 , 2 , 8S * 
 
 'Epi'/3oia, nom. prop., 286. 
 
 , Epil3a)Tr}s, nom. prop., 
 
 285. 
 ipirjpos, 337. 
 "Eppa, 300. 
 eppaiov, 230, 302. 
 eppaices, 302. 
 eppis, 300. 
 eppvaaro, 308. 
 W^ 157. 
 epcrai, epo"T], 157* 
 'EpuaXos, nom. prop., 286. 
 y ~Epvea6ai, 303. 
 ipvKoa, 129. 
 epvopai, 129, 304. 
 "Epuo-#cu, 303. 
 epvTO, 306. 
 
 "Epuroy, nom. prop., 284. 
 epvopai dyyekirjs gen. or 
 
 ayyeXa/i/ accus., 13. 
 'Epcoeiv, 'Epo)J7, 310. 
 ejnroprjv, 133. 
 eanco, 132. 
 
 evdaipcov, 30. 
 evSeieXo?, 223. 
 evdeiv, 188. 
 evK.rjkr)Teipa, evurjXrjros, 
 
 282. 
 Euk^Xos, 279. 
 evrrprjo-TOS, 484. 
 evpiaKO), &C. 153. 
 EvpvfidTrjs, nom. prop., 
 
 285. 
 evpvs, 285. 
 
 Ewpvros', nom. prop., 284. 
 ei/s, 247. 
 ev(TTpo(pos, 185. 
 E^re, 313. 
 eixfidXapa, 528. 
 evftopai, II7* 
 'E^^ret^s, 319. 
 'E^^oSo7r))crat, exdoBonos, 
 
 321. 
 
 fx«> 132. 
 
 eco, 236. 
 
 e<o0a, 137. 
 
 e Ewpei/, 25. 
 
 e<apyeiv, ewpra^ov, 1 36. 
 
 Z. 
 
 (aKopos, 233. 
 
 (^Xco (re toO 7rXovrot;, 14. 
 
 (o(pos, 378. 
 
 fadypiov, 22. 
 
 £coypeu>, 22. 
 
 ^cocrrrjp, 66. 
 
 H. 
 77 changed to a, 180. 
 J for a)?, 314,535. 
 27 e£re, 314. 
 'Hya^eos-, 323. 
 fjyepovia, rjyepoov, 31. 
 rjdeoSrjv for rjaOr^v, 1 37. 
 rjbvpos, 415. 
 'Hepi/3ota, nom. prop., 
 
 286. 
 ^Hepir/, 155. 
 'Heptoy, 40. 
 r]epoei8f)s, 39. 
 T]epo(po7ris, 39. 
 ^os, 134. ^ 
 'Hioeis 1 , ^i'a>i/, 324. 
 T H/ca, ^HKto-ros-, fJKHTTOs, 
 
 3 2 7- 
 H\i(SaTOs, 329. 
 fjXo-aTo for ^Xacraro, 259. 
 rjpaprov, 82. 
 "Ylpfiporov, 82. 
 rjpebcmos, 322. 
 
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
 
 577 
 
 fjpepivos noiai, 41. 
 
 rjpos, 314. 
 
 rjveyKOV, 1 31. 
 
 rjveiKa, 7]vel-)(6r}V, 1 32. 
 
 T)vei-)(6\xr]v, 121. 
 
 rjvrjvdprjv, Il8. 
 
 ■qviiraTve, 1 24. 
 
 rjvoper), %ig. 
 
 rjvcoyov, 135. 
 
 jjfopo, rjoppai, rjopyeiv, rjdp- 
 
 ra£ov, 136. 
 rjirlaTciTOy 121. 
 
 T)7TVG>, II7. 
 
 *Hpo, 335. 
 rjpavos, rjpaveco, 344. 
 fptj 42. 
 rjpcorjaa, 310. 
 flo-t, 251. 
 
 ^>3*5- 
 
 'Hv re, 313. 
 
 rjfpiovv, 121. 
 
 ^X« from ayo, Il6. 
 
 rjcopa, rjcoppai, 1 36. 
 
 e. 
 
 Gaao-o-eti/, 344. 
 Bclkos, 344. 
 ^aco-eiy, 344. 
 OeaideaTciTOS, 356. 
 6eo€i8r)s, 352. 
 SeoeUeXos, 352, 357. 
 Oeo7rpo7rtoi/, Geo7rpo7roy, 
 
 . 350- 
 
 fledo-Soro?, 357. 
 6e pea-Oat nvpos, 1 4. 
 Oeppos, Oeppero, 6ep<o ) %4']. 
 QeaneXos, 357. 
 Qcaneaios, 1 85. 
 Oea-mos, 358. 
 Geo™?, 357. 
 Qeacparos, 357. 
 OeovdrjS, 352. 
 Ouiaos, 518. 
 0od£a>, 345. 
 God?, 67, 360. 
 606(0, i, ") 9. 
 Spdaaw, dpaTTU), Opdrrov, 
 
 508. 
 
 I. 
 1 connected with y, 22, 
 
 47,140. 
 lavoKpr)8(pvos, lavoKpoKos, 
 
 237. 
 lo^dy, 239. 
 iSeiv, 50. 
 to^Xdr, 50, 58. 
 i£bi/, 122. 
 
 i?7/zi, 25. 
 
 tfceXo?, 5 2 ' 
 
 iXaSdf, 1X77, 270. 
 
 iXXdsv, 264. 
 
 iXXoj, 254, 267. 
 
 iXi/s, 270. 
 
 tdi/#' for lovre, lovres, 343. 
 
 i7rra), 128. 
 
 "Iovccd, 276. 
 
 io-7re, 279. 
 
 icrTTo), 132. ' 
 
 id)Ko>, Il8. 
 
 K. 
 
 k interchanged with x, 
 
 73; 
 KaOaipa), Kadapos, 119. 
 Kadevde, 122. 
 KaOrjpevq to,, 326. 
 Kadi^ov, 122. 
 
 KaiaTaTa,K.aL€Ta.€cr 0-0,379. 
 koii/os-, 119. 
 ko/o) j/u£, 369. 
 KaXii/Seto-^at, 396. 
 Kapdrco ddrjKcos, 23. 
 Kapelv, Kapovres, 370. 
 Kaprcpd epya, 48. 
 KaTaftp6t-€ie, 20T. 
 KaraXef-ai, 40 1. 
 Kardp^opat, 1 67. 
 KaretXelu, 26 1. 
 KareCkria-aL, 263. 
 KaT€vt]vo8e, III. 
 KaTeyj/r/KTai, 448. 
 KarotAas', 271. 
 /ced£cw, 73. 
 KfSi/dy, 119. 
 KtKkayya, 202. 
 
 K€KpT)KOT€S, 37 2 « 
 KeKOTTtt, 2O5. 
 
 KeKpaya, 202. 
 KeXatj/dy, 374. 
 ACT/Xeo, /cr/Xds 1 , 283. 
 k^tos 1 , K^rooeo-o-o, 378. 
 Kivelv, 509. 
 AcXe^oW, 446. 
 KXetToy, /cXeco, /cXci'o), KXr;- 
 T09, KXurdy, *Xua>, 383- 
 KpeXedpa, to, 377. 
 Kue(pas, 378. 
 
 KVUTlTd, I I3. 
 
 Koelf, 376. 
 KOiJ/j/j 73. 
 
 Kolpapos, 344. 
 KoXoo-uprdv, 393. 
 KoXwds, KoXaav, 390. 
 Kdp7ros, 132. 
 
 P P 
 
 Kovaftos, 132. 
 Koviovres nedioio, 14. 
 
 /COTI-TO), KOTTO), I32. 
 
 KopvdaioXos, 64. 
 KouptSio?, 393. 
 Kpjjyvo?, 395. 
 
 K.pi6d(£>, 78. 
 Kpi<9?7, 454. 
 
 KpiSidti), 78. 
 ™/3/3a, 93. 
 
 Kf Si/OS 1 , KVOpdj, 33. 
 
 KvXtVSco, 75* 
 k^£j7, 93- 
 
 KU7TeXXoi/, 93. 
 
 Kvpios yvvaiKos, 394. 
 KcoSeta, 53 2 - 
 
 KCOfOff, 524. 
 
 A. 
 
 Xaftecrdai nodos, 14. 
 \dp\jsopai, 131. 
 Xa^yj;, 187. 
 Aeyeii/, 398. 
 Xei^pdres 1 , Xei^a>, XeXei^- 
 
 pores 1 , Xet^p.coi', Xei'^co, 
 ,546. 
 XeXrjda, 1 1 6. 
 AeXirjpevos, 404. 
 XeXoy^o, 131. 
 Xe^at, Xetjacrdai, 398. 
 XeuyaXeoy, 32 1. 
 Xe^eoy dyrtav, Xe^os 7rop- 
 
 arvvew, 144. 
 Atd^co, 404. 
 Xivov, 187. 
 Xt^pao-^at, Xt^pd?, 546. 
 
 ^"X ^ 4°4* 
 
 M. 
 p followed by a vowel, 
 changed to /3, 84, 189. 
 pa£a dpoXyait], 90. 
 paKpdv, 73, l6l. 
 p(L\a, 477. 
 
 paX(tK(k\ ^4, 1 19, I93. 
 p(/X(irro-co, I 19. 
 paXeupoj/, 4,", I . 
 MoXdff, noin. prop., 297. 
 pdpiTTco, 190. 
 Mfyai'/KO, 407. 
 MeyoA(/;Tr;s - , 37'^- 
 peyapov, 407. 
 
 pt'XdOpd Tii, 377. 
 Mf'Xo?, ptXmvti. 374 • 
 ptXyo), 90. 
 pe'Xfi, 191, 202. 
 pAi, S4, 192. 
 
578 
 
 INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
 
 MEAIQ, 193. 
 peXeo, 191. 
 [xefi^XcoKa, 84, 1 89. 
 fi€fxr]Ka, ixefxrjke, p,ep,VKa, 
 
 202. 
 fiearos vttvov, 23. 
 MeraXXqv, 411. 
 fieraXXov, 412. 
 jjLrjKaofjLCU, 202. 
 prjiteSavos, 242. 
 fxiprjXos, 50. 
 fxiaOos, 165. 
 p-irprj, 66. 
 fiviapos, 518. 
 
 ^°>s> 377- 
 
 fiokelv, 84, 189. 
 /jLopos, fxopros, 84. 
 /*°X Xo ' ? > 377- 
 
 /JivdoS, 60. 
 
 liVKaofxai, 202. 
 
 pLcciXos, 377- 
 
 fXG>p,eva> } 48. 
 
 N. 
 i/ano-tKXuro?, 388. 
 yejyyaros', 4 1 3. 
 veoapdrjs, 1 57. 
 ve<fios, 378. 
 veooKopos, 233. 
 N^ydreos, 413. 
 ISrjhvfios, 414. 
 vrjXerjs, Il8. 
 VT]\iTt]s, 415. 
 vr)7revdr]$, vtjttoivos, vrj- 
 
 piOjxos, 118. 
 vrjrp€Kr)S, 415. 
 iw, 415. 
 
 Nan, i/&), Noon-epos, 4 1 8. 
 vSfirjaav, 1 68. 
 va>po\jr, 52. 
 
 ^vvbiaKTopos, 231. 
 ^wtos, 158. 
 
 O. 
 
 o changed to i>, 208. 
 
 oyKOp, 131. 
 
 ofyia, 114. 
 
 060p.cu,, oQ(o, 113- 
 
 018a, Il6. 
 
 oXfios, 270, 451. 
 
 dXods, 458. 
 
 ol^vco dyycXirjs (gen.), 
 
 , 13 ; 
 
 dXcu, 450. 
 dXei, 71 • 
 «H 453- 
 
 0X07) i/u£, 369. 
 'OXootrpo^os', 431. 
 d/xaXos, S 1 ^' 
 o/juXos, 270. 
 
 W 7 ?; 13^ 446. 
 di/o/xaKXtiTOsv, 388. 
 
 OVK OVOCTTOV, 4. 
 
 ofjviceCpaXos, 537. 
 
 o|w ; 365. 3 6 7> c 37°> 537- 
 dVX??, ottXov, oirXorepos, 
 
 521. 
 oiraprj, 87. 
 
 dpy77, opeyco, opyvid, 132. 
 op/cos-, opuiov, 433. 
 oppaiveiv, 440. 
 'OpMpaTa, 439. 
 "Opfxos, 283, 400. 
 J Ocrcra, 444. 
 
 "Oo-o-ofiai, 114, 127, 444. 
 orpvvetv dyyeXlrjv rivi, 
 
 12. 
 
 oTTeveadai, 447- 
 ovXa, ra, 460. 
 OvXal, 448. 
 ovXap,6s, 270, 460. 
 OuXe, OvXtos, 456. 
 ov\oicapr]vos, 456. 
 OuXoy, 270, 456. 
 Ot>X o^yrai, 448. 
 ovXo)(VTeop,a.(,, 452. 
 ovpios, 474. 
 otrroos, 172. 
 ourcos avoids %X €t > *4* 
 
 "px^ 463. 
 
 o^dect), o^dos, 464. 
 of, I3"l. 
 of /a, 220. 
 
 n. 
 
 7raXip,7T€T€s, 296. 
 7raXtj'dyperos', 21. 
 TraXXopLevcdv, 267. 
 Trapayvadides, 53°- 
 napevrjvode, III. 
 Trao-ray, 414. 
 Treidopai, 202. 
 7rapa), 352. 
 Tr€iarop,ai, 132, 181. 
 Tren-Xrjyov, 1 26. 
 7re7rXos, 237. 
 TT^TTOlOa, 202. 
 TT€TV0v6a, I3I. 
 
 7re7TT(t)Ka, 137. 
 lie pa, 466. 
 7repaiva>, 493. 
 Hepav, 73? 466. 
 TJ-epaco, 352. 
 
 Ileprjv, 466. 
 TrepOeiv, 486. 
 7rept8e£ioy, 96. 
 
 IIEPQ, 352. 
 
 7J-eWco, 127. 
 irerpa, 7rerpos, 332. 
 IleuKdXip.os', Ilev/ceSai/dy, 
 
 TtevKTj, 319. 
 IIEYKS2, 320. 
 
 *"7> 535- 
 ffiap, 475. 
 7rie(tt>, ttU^ls, Il8. 
 
 TTLKpOS, 3I9. 
 
 TTLcraa, 319. 
 
 7TITVS, 320. 
 7TlC0f, 475- 
 
 TrX-qaiov rjv, 75. 
 7n/eeo, 481. 
 TroSaTrds 1 , 323. 
 nodapK^s, 544. 
 TToiKt'XXco, 119. 
 TroiKiXop,r]Tr)s, 66. 
 
 TTOLKtXoS, 65, II9. 
 
 nown>va>, 481. 
 
 7roi(pvacrco, 482. 
 iroXvaivos, 60. 
 ttoXvkXtjtos, 386. 
 
 TVoX\>p,v6os, 60. 
 
 Tropavveiv, 144. 
 7rotiXt>?, 38. 
 
 TVpdo~(T(£>, 49I. 
 
 Trpeiyevrrjs, irpeiyrfiov, 
 7rpeiyio~Tos, npelyvs, 496. 
 
 TrpeTTco, 351. 
 
 Tlpfjdeiv, 483. 
 
 Tlprjcraeiv, 49 1. 
 
 TTprjcrTrjp, TTprjcrTis, 484. 
 
 Trpiarrjpoeidrjs, 489. 
 
 7rpL0~Tr)s, 488. 
 
 TrpicrTis, 484. 
 
 7rpia), 485. 
 
 Trpoecpfjrevo-a, 122. 
 
 7rpopa^t^co, 121. 
 
 TrpoirrjXaK.i£(i>, 497. 
 
 irpoo-dyeiv opuov, 438. 
 
 TTpoo-dp-^ecrdaL) 170. 
 
 npoo-avpeiv, irpoo~avpi(eiv, 
 151. 
 
 Ilpoa-eXeli/, 494. 
 
 7rpoo~rjvr)s, 247. 
 
 7rpoTioo-crop,ai, 445- 
 
 TrpouyeXeTi', 495* 
 
 npovaeXelv, 494. 
 
 npcota, 220. 
 
 7rrcoo-t$', 7rrco//a, 138. 
 
 Tru/ai/dy, 33, 321. 
 
 nYKO, 320. 
 
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES. 
 
 579 
 
 nvpaypa, 21. 
 
 P. 
 pefr, 376. 
 
 p€KTT)S, 377. 
 
 pea, 157. ^ 
 'Pvecrdai, pvadai, 303. 
 puiopaL, 310. 
 
 2. 
 era/coy, 65. 
 crepvos, 20, 46. 
 trecrapvla, 205. 
 0770-11/, 251. 
 o-t-ya eara>, 75. 
 o-iy^Aos, 50. 
 otiio-ii>, 251. 
 (meicra), 132. 
 arreipa, 341. 
 ^reva^i^eiv, -rjcrcii, 498. 
 orffd^co, 499. 
 o■T€<pdva>p , dyepa>x ov > 1 9. 
 (TTovaxr), 499. 
 
 aTOVU)(Tj(T€Tai, 181. 
 
 2T0J/a^t^etj/, -Tjcrcu, 498. 
 OTuyi/oj, 46. 
 ov/aTrao^o), 120. 
 (TuvalKrrjv, 161. 
 avvepyeci), 120. 
 o-vfetXeij/, 261, 263. 
 o<pdAAeii/, 497. 
 2cpd<-, 2(pe, 418. 
 ocpeas, 419. 
 (T(pe\as, 497. 
 acperepos, 422. 
 crcpecov, 429. 
 
 2(piV, 2cpd>, 2(p<we, 2cp£>t, 
 2(pcoirepoy, 418. 
 T. 
 Tapd(Tcr<o, ,^07. 
 ravpos dyeptoxos, 1 9. 
 TeK/uupofuu, 301. 
 T€Kpap, 502. 
 iV/cpcop, 501. 
 Tf Aeurruos, 3 i 2 . 
 TtAoy, 303. 
 Tfpyl/ipiipoTov, 84. 
 •rec9aXina, 203. 
 
 Terayon/, 503. 
 reroKa, 205. 
 T€Tpa<pakripos, 524. 
 Terpr/xa, 506. 
 rerpiya, 202.' 
 
 T^, 503- 
 
 777X6, 511. 
 
 T^Ae/cAetrdy, T^AeKA^rds', 
 
 T^Ae/cAvrdy, 3^3. 
 ■n/AoO, oil- 
 r^Av, 313 note. 
 TTjAuyeroy, 5 IO « 
 rrjpos, TqpovTos, 314. 
 
 TiyWKO, 3I3. 
 
 rqvLKavTa, 314. 
 
 TivvvaQai, 435. 
 
 rpavos, 240. 
 
 Tpaneiv, 266. 
 
 Tpa^us-, rprjxvs, TpT)x<»> 
 
 506^ 
 
 Tpiraios 7roia>, 41. 
 rpixpdAeiai, 53 1. 
 
 TV7T€LS, 132. 
 
 Y. 
 
 vSp^Ady, 50. 
 {'—ei'AAco, 261. 
 'YTrep-quopeoiv, 513. 
 VTrep-qvcop, 519. 
 v7T€pT}<pavia, 20. 
 \mepcm\La.i, 520. 
 c Y7repo7rAos', 'YnepCpiaXos, 
 
 t 5i3- 
 
 V7T€p(pid\(OS, 515. 
 
 ! V77ep(pvrjs, v7rep(pv(0S, 517. 
 v7T€pd)T]crai, 310. 
 ltrAAco, 261. 
 irnvrjkos, 30. 
 
 v7rva) /cot Ko^dra) apvjfie- 
 vos, 23. 
 
 U7T0, V7TO, 478. 
 
 vnoftpvxa, v7ro/3pu^toy, {>■ 
 Trdftpvxos, 208. 
 
 I 4>aAapa. 324. 
 (paXupis. (pdAapor. 53O. 
 
 cpaAapds, 528. 
 
 cpaArjptdcoi/, 524. 
 
 <pa\rfpis, 529. 
 
 (pdXrjpos, 524. 
 
 (pdAioy, 528. 
 
 <pd\Kr], (pdXKTjs, (paXnis, 
 ! 540. 
 j ^dAos 1 , 521. 
 I (pavos, 528. 
 
 (papoo), 538. 
 
 (pepeiv dyyeXiav, 14. 
 1*7 or 0^, 531. 
 
 1 <#>W»7; 446. 
 
 j (pdicripfipoTos, 84. 
 ; (pidXrj, 317. 
 I (piapos, 5*8. 
 j (po/3eo for (pofieeo, 296. 
 ^oAko'?, 336. 
 
 j <Wx«W, 53/. 
 
 ! <£o£dy. 53^- 
 I (popros, 131. 
 ipaxyeiv, 539. 
 
 X. 
 Xai/§di/&), x^ "* 40 * x ei(ro " 
 
 pai, 181. 
 Xepeioov, 4. 
 Xpaia-pelv, 54I. 
 Xpato-pT^xpato-p^Tcop^-^H. 
 Xpao, 542. 
 
 Xpdco, xPWipos. xf )t l°" r ^ s > 
 545> 546. 
 
 \^adcipds, 119. 
 •vl/moTor, 448. 
 •^■ota), 449. 
 \//eoVds, 1 19. 
 ■v^vSi/dj, x/^vSpdy, 33. 
 
 Q. 
 
 ai#a), u)6ea>, I 13. 
 
 ft&,£37' 
 
 lipprjOr). 14. 
 
 ojpvco, oipvopai, 203. 
 
 Aft §34- 
 
 torrarrcos, <i)S S'airrcos, I 70. 
 coy c-Tf, 314. 
 
 I' p 
 
INDEX III. 
 
 INDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 N. B. The reference is to the pages of the Lexilogus. 
 
 a for rj, an Ionicism, 180. 
 a, when resolvable, i. 
 
 — not resolvable before r, 142. 
 a intensive rejected, 194, 359. 
 
 a privative followed by a vowel, con- 
 traction of, 28. 
 
 Abantes, 154 note. 
 
 Accent, whether fixed by the gram- 
 marians, 5, 47, 73, 175, 295, 386, 
 429. 
 
 thrown back toward the begin- 
 ning of the word, 283. 
 
 — — contrary to analogy, 50, 386. 
 
 — — , slight authority for it in Epic 
 words, 240. 
 
 , uncertainty of, 73, 295. 
 
 of compound words, 388. 
 
 iyKkiveiv used' of the grave, 429 
 
 notes, 536. 
 
 Accusative added to the verb when 
 the relation to the object is imme- 
 diate, 151. 
 
 changes intransitive verbs to 
 
 transitives, 545. 
 
 Adimo, singular use of preposition in 
 composition, 549. 
 
 Adjective for adverb, 41, 73, 107, &c, 
 161, 297. 
 
 ■ with causative meaning, 50, 51. 
 
 compounded with a preposition, 
 
 61. 
 
 compounded with root and pre- 
 position, 338. 
 
 Adverb joined with verb substantive, 
 
 74- 
 Adverbial forms, 73. 
 iEolic dialect corresponded with the 
 
 Latin, 200 note. 
 changes els to e's, 297 
 
 transposes initial letters, 3 
 
 /;>• 
 
 Afternoon : see Evening. 
 
 ■Aio, 59, 60 notes. 
 
 Ala, axilla, 451. 
 
 Alexandrine poets, their usage no 
 proof of ancient usage, 509. 
 
 Ambi- and ambo, 96. , 
 
 Ambrosia, 80, &c. 
 
 Aorist expresses an action to be com- 
 pleted, 123 note. 
 
 in usage, but in form imperfect, 
 
 145. . 
 middle and passive, 105. 
 
 passive expresses action just 
 
 ended, 509. , 
 
 2, to be considered a stem or 
 
 root for the inflection of the verb, 
 
 54i- 
 
 , accentuation of, 148. 
 
 , participle of, added to the aorist, 
 
 482. 
 
 in ov : see Imperfect. 
 
 Aphorisms of Hesiod : see Hesiod. 
 
 Apis, Apia, Apidones, &c. 154 note. 
 
 Apollo, one of his names, 462. 
 
 Apollonius Rhodius ignorantly imi- 
 tates Homer, 37, 281, 547. 
 
 follows Homer strictly, 355. 
 
 used an Homeric verb in a new 
 
 sense and construction, 409. 
 
 made a new compound, 504. 
 
 fond of ambiguity of usage, 43. 
 
 Arare, area, 538 note. 
 
 Arceo, 544, 548. 
 
 Argos, Ascanii, Asia, 155 note. 
 
 Aristotle appears to have misunder- 
 stood Plato, 265. 
 
 Aspirate, uncertainty of, in Homer, 
 26, 171, &c. 249, 431. 
 
 fluctuated even in the living 
 
 language, 334. 
 
IXDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 581 
 
 Aspirate, difference of, arises from loss 
 
 of digamma, 269. 
 appears in some derivatives 
 
 though wanting in their primitives, 
 
 300. 
 
 belonged to Attics, 269, 431. 
 
 Atmosphere, opinion of the ancients 
 
 concerning it, 38. 
 Attic dialect had the aspirate, 269, 
 
 43i- 
 
 Augment of compound verbs, 121. 
 
 tjv used most by the Attics, 29 
 
 note. 
 
 , syllabic, connected with di- 
 gamma, 244. 
 
 , temporal, when not omitted, 24. 
 
 , temporal, supplies the place of 
 
 the reduplication of perfect, 24. 
 
 Aurora, 43. 
 
 Ausci, Ansones, 154 note. 
 
 B. 
 
 Barley, ancient Greek name of, 455. 
 whether used whole in the Greek 
 
 sacrifices, 450. 
 Bernen, brennen, (to burn,) curious 
 
 coincidence between these and irpr)- 
 
 Oco, nepdai, 486 note. 
 Bis, 375. 
 Bold, bald, old German, (Angl. bold,) 
 
 462 note. 
 Bosporus, 473. 
 Boss of the helmet, 525. 
 Breakfast, time of, 229. 
 
 C. 
 
 Cakes used in sacrifice, 455. 
 Callimachus, usage of, not always 
 
 Epic, 296. 
 Caparisons, 527. 
 Castus, 1 19 note. 
 Causative meaning, transition to, 50, 
 
 3"- 
 
 of adjective, 50, 51. 
 
 : see also Intransitive. 
 
 Ceres, Hymn to, probably not so 
 ancient as Homeric hymns, 281 
 note. 
 
 Change of vowel : see Vowel. 
 
 Compound verbs, apparently, but not 
 really BO, 117, &c. 
 
 word, from two separate roots 
 
 and with two meanings, 209. 
 
 Compounding of verbs, twofold man- 
 ner of, 120, &c. 
 
 Compounds, how accented, 388, &c. 
 
 Cone of the helmet, 523, &c. 
 
 Connexion between 1 and y, 22, 47, 
 ; 140. 
 
 1 Context determines collateral mean- 
 ing, 142. 
 
 gives a word its bad meaning, 
 
 ! 5i9- 
 
 I Coot, or Baldcoot, 529. 
 1 Corybantes, 525. 
 Count and Recount, connected in 
 
 most languages, 401 note. 
 Countries, names of, poetical and an- 
 cient, 44, 155. 
 Crest of the helmet, 523. 
 Crowning of wine-cups : see Cups. 
 Cum, 375. 
 Cup at banquets usually passed from 
 
 left to right, 168, 289. 
 Cups, probable form of most ancient, 
 
 94- 
 
 of wine, whether literally crown- 
 ed, 292. 
 
 Cyclic poets, 416, 457. 
 
 Cyclops, 514. 
 
 D. 
 § inserted, 322. 
 
 Da! dat! (German imperatives,) 505. 
 Daring, an epithet expressive of praise 
 
 or reproach, 520 note. 
 Dativus commodi, 423, 542, 545. 
 Day, division of, 217, 228. 
 Delos, the island, personified, 478. 
 Derivation, deceitfulness of, apparent, 
 
 218, 230. 346.365,507,511. 
 of the same word twofold, 209, 
 
 300. 
 , what constitutes simplicity of, 
 
 68. 
 Dialects, that all are found in Homer 
 
 is an uncritical hypothesis, 297. 
 
 differed as to aspirate, 269. 
 
 contain obsolete words, 70. 
 
 furnish forms illustrative of 
 
 common ones, 190. 
 
 , many forms taken from, found 
 
 in Hesyehius, 190. 
 Diana, the name of, 402. 
 Digamma, 104, 136, [38, 153, 1.-/1. 
 
 244, 269, 27.1, 283, 284, 353, 417, 
 
 427, 494. 535, 537. 
 
 unknown to the post- Homeric 
 
 poets, 418. 
 
 disappeared in some words as 
 
 early as Homer. 2861 
 , trace of it in the Attic language, 
 
 49.V 
 
 not changed to ((>. 53 
 
582 
 
 INDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 Digamma, sometimes changed to y, 
 
 495- 
 Diminutives, 438. 
 Dual, not an original necessity of 
 
 language, 419. 
 completely formed in Homer, 
 
 420. 
 forms, are chance modifications 
 
 of plural forms, 419. 
 and plural terminations in Greek 
 
 and Latin, 419 note. 
 
 : see also Plural. 
 
 Duis, duo, 375. 
 
 E. 
 Echinades, name of, 364. 
 Elision of a vowel, when allowable, 
 
 296, 350. 
 Ellipse of verb, 314. 
 Enclitics, 429. 
 Epic language ends as a living one 
 
 with Plato, 265. 
 
 perfects, no, &c. 
 
 poets, the old, had a fixed usage 
 
 of language, 41. 
 Eribotes, an Argonaut, 285. 
 Erytus, an Argonaut, 284. 
 Etymologicum M. contains numerous 
 
 forms made by grammarians, 190. 
 Etymology : see Derivation. 
 Euphemism, 144, 371. 
 Eurybates : see Eribotes. 
 Eurytus : see Erytus. 
 Evening distinguished from afternoon, 
 
 219, &c. 
 
 F. 
 
 Falerce,faseolus, 527 and note. 
 Figurative expressions in time cease 
 
 to be so, 92. 
 Firmare confounded with formare, 56. 
 Fir-tree, whence named, 320. 
 Floccus, 187. 
 Frequentative verb, 274-. 
 
 meaning of present tense, 269. 
 
 Future same as present, 309. 
 
 G. 
 
 Gar ant, g aster (gdter), 375. 
 
 Gander e, gaudium, 496. 
 
 Gender, different in Epic and later 
 writers, 38. 
 
 Gleba, globus, glomus, 270. 
 
 Godly, godlike, not placed by the an- 
 cients in moral qualities, 353. 
 
 Grammarians give different deriva- 
 tions of the same word merely to 
 suit different meanings, 19. 
 
 Grammarians give different meanings 
 to suit the different passages, 34. 
 
 invented forms to explain others, 
 
 190. 
 
 tried to explain Homer by ex- 
 amination of passages, 525. 
 
 tried to explain Homer by ety- 
 mological conjectures, 540. 
 
 Grave accent: see Accent. 
 
 Guastare, 375. 
 
 Gyes, or Gyges, 3 note. 
 
 H. 
 
 H in German and English frequently 
 
 answers to k, 394 note. 
 Hail ! 462 and note. 
 Haurire, 153. 
 Heal, health, (Danish Heel, Germ. 
 
 Heil, lieill heilen, Heiland,) 462 
 
 note, 463. 
 Helen, 440. 
 Helmet, parts of, explained, 521, &c. 
 
 of the Corybantes, 525. 
 
 Herr, (German,) 394 note. 
 
 Hesiod frequently obscure through 
 
 brevity, 49. 
 Hesychius has few forms invented by 
 
 grammarians, but many taken from 
 
 dialects, 190. 
 Heurath, heuern, (German,) 364 note. 
 Heurter, 302 note. 
 Historical or traditionary information, 
 
 great value of, 254. 
 Homer, supposed proof of his having 
 
 lived in Asia, 467. 
 ignorantly imitated by Apollo- 
 
 nius, 37, 281, 547. 
 imperfectly imitated by later 
 
 poets, 170. 
 
 explains himself, 158, 338. 
 
 uses words in a different sense 
 
 from later poets, 217. 
 , uniformity of meaning in his 
 
 epithets, 63, &c. 
 Homer's Hymns, old Epic, use of 
 
 words still natural to them, 280. 
 Flymn to Venus, instance of a 
 
 later usage in it, 330. 
 Hymn to Venus, perhaps the 
 
 oldest of the Homeridic hymns, 
 
 480. 
 Homer's poems, perhaps atrace of their 
 
 having been written by different 
 
 authors, 127, 210. See also Iliad. 
 , traces of their having been 
 
 handed down by oral tradition, 
 
 130. 
 
INDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 583 
 
 Homer's text, difficulties of fixing it 
 
 almost insurmountable, 58. 
 , reading of it fluctuates, 127, 
 
 384, &c 
 not to be altered but on authentic 
 
 grounds, 58, 179. 
 undoubtedly faulty, and yet no 
 
 historical trace of it, 161. 
 Hoof, 521 note. 
 Hordeum, 454 note. 
 Hort, (German,) synonymous with 
 
 epiia, 301 note. 
 Huf, (German) ; see Hoof. 
 Hurt, 302 note. 
 
 Hymns: see Homer's Hymns. 
 Hyperbole, 331, 359. 
 
 I. 
 
 Ideas, two coalescing in the same 
 word, 367. 
 
 in the thing but not in the ex- 
 pression, 42. 
 
 Iliad, identity of meaning in Iliad and 
 Odyssey, 210. 
 
 , whether by a different author 
 
 from the Odyssey, 210, 440, 443. 
 
 , last book of it attributed to a 
 
 different author, 210, 482. 
 
 Imperfect or aorist in ov formed im- 
 mediately from perfect, 112, 135. 
 
 Imperfects according to form, but used 
 as aorists, 145, 153. 
 
 Inclinatio (cyicXtroir), 429 notes, 536. 
 
 Infinitives in -pevcu and -y^v, 424. 
 
 Inflexion with or without e, 137. 
 
 Inseparable manner of compounding 
 verbs, 120. 
 
 Intermediate form connects two others 
 by containing their initial letters, 
 
 Intransitive meaning more natural 
 
 than transitive, 232. 
 Ionic dialect, 457. 
 
 without aspirate, 269, 328, 431. 
 
 changes a to 7, 327. 
 
 Iota subscript, 107, 418. 
 
 Irony, erroneously supposed, 149. 
 
 J, German pronunciation of, 233 note. 
 
 J a hole mis, 234 note. 
 
 Jackern, (German,) 233 note. 
 Jadera, 234 note. 
 Jagen, (German,) 233 note. 
 Jovis and Zfvs, 234 note. 
 Jupiter, Imperator, Imberbis, I r ruu, 
 474. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kennen, (German,) synonymous with 
 
 Kovveiv, 377- 
 Klump, (German,) a lump or ball, 271 . 
 Know, 377. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lacedaemon and Sparta, 382. 
 Laconia not a maritime country, 378. 
 Lands : see Countries. 
 Lapithse, 520. 
 Laudare, 59 and note. 
 Leider! lieber ! (German,) 74. 
 Lengthening of syllables : see Reso- 
 lution. 
 Luncheon, afternoon, 229. 
 
 M. 
 
 fi at the beginning of words, 451. 
 
 Mahlen, (German,) molere, 451. 
 
 Malleus, 451 note. 
 
 Mars, mas, 451. 
 
 Meals of the ancients, number of, 
 229. 
 
 Meaning, the same word with two dis- 
 tinct meanings, 210, 300, 485. 
 
 , same word with a good and a 
 
 bad, 5T3, &c. 
 
 , bad, supplied by the context, 
 
 5 X 9- 
 different in Homer and in later 
 
 writers, 217, &c, 291, 511 note. 
 formed by two ideas coalescing, 
 
 367. 
 of original word lost in usage, 
 
 39 2 - 
 Meanings, different, reconciled, 303. 
 
 , opposite, reconciled, 310. 
 
 , synonymous, yet coming from 
 
 different roots, 384. 
 Melken (to milk) connected with /ieX- 
 
 yo>, 193. 
 Mercury, name and office of, 230, &c 
 Messene, 382. 
 Middle verb : see Verb. 
 Mild, English and German adjective 
 
 connected with pc/Xi^or, &C., 193. 
 Milk, Milch (German l, connected with 
 
 pcXyco, [93. 
 Milking-time, 86. 
 
 Mo/fl Slllsil, 44S, _|-.J. 
 
 Mors, morior, 8rc, connected with prf- 
 
 pos, 84. 
 Mulcare, 451 note. 
 Mulcere, mulgere, 192. 
 
 N. 
 Names of countries : Bee Countries. 
 
584 
 
 INDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 Nasals inserted before other conso- 
 nants, 131. 
 
 Ne, Latin negative, akin to a or av 
 privative, 118 note. 
 
 Negare, 60 note. 
 
 Meander makes new forms, 509. 
 
 Night, in what sense called swift, 365. 
 
 generally joined with unfriendly- 
 epithets, 369. 
 
 O. 
 
 O, used in all old MSS. of Homer to 
 
 express ov, go, o, 19S. 
 
 pronounced like v, 199. 
 
 Oath, ancient meaning of, 433. 
 
 Odyssey : see Iliad. 
 
 Onomatopoeia, words formed by, 202, 
 
 209, 486. 
 Opes, Opici, Opisci, 154 note. 
 Opposite meanings of the same word, 
 
 Optative in vpev or vLfxev, 424, 425 
 
 and note. 
 Osci, 154 note. 
 Ov not a diphthong in Greek, 198. 
 
 Particles, inseparable, 285. 
 
 Perfect, difference of meaning between 
 that and aorist, 509; 
 
 , similarity of meaning with pre- 
 sent confounded by usage, 202 note. 
 
 sometimes formed at once from 
 
 sound of thing signified, 209. 
 
 sometimes the root from which 
 
 other tenses are formed, 135. 
 
 with meaning of present, 112, 
 
 202. 
 
 in Homer seldom ends in -kcl, 
 
 which is always preceded by a long 
 vowel, 206. 
 
 Perfect 2. improperly called perfectum 
 medium, 112, 508. 
 
 « prevailing form in old Epic poe- 
 try, 206 note. 
 
 has another distinguishing mark 
 
 besides the temp. augm. and termi- 
 nation in a, 116. 
 
 , when it does not take a short 
 
 vowel, 205. 
 
 Perfectum medium .- see Perfect 2. 
 
 PhalercB, phaseolus, 527 note. 
 
 Phaleris, Phalaris, 529. 
 
 Plato probably misunderstood by Ari- 
 stotle, 265. 
 
 , whether he describes the re- 
 
 volving'motion of the earth, 262. 
 
 Plato used old Epic words, 265, 321, 
 
 395- 
 
 , the Epic as a living language 
 
 ends with him, 265. 
 
 Plume of the helmet, 526. 
 
 Plural-dual forms in Homer, 420. 
 
 Preposition becomes an adverb, 339. 
 
 with its case forms a word, 299. 
 
 , whether omitted, 13. 
 
 in Homer almost always separa- 
 ble, 117. 
 
 Present tense : see Perfect. 
 
 , frequentative meaning of, 269. 
 
 Primitive, what verbs may be called 
 so, 129. 
 
 Pristis, what fish so called by the 
 Latins, 487. 
 
 Pronouns, some French and German 
 forms still the same as the old 
 Greek, 421. 
 
 of the third person : see Re- 
 flexion. 
 
 Pronunciation of o like v, 199. 
 
 dropped the X to soften the word, 
 
 407. 
 
 of e for cu, 69. 
 
 of diphthongs, 69. 
 
 Properispomenon not enclitic, 430 note. 
 
 Prose, later, formed by the rheto- 
 ricians, 18. 
 
 Proserpine, Epic epithet of, 60. 
 
 Punctuation, fault of in Hesiod, 290. 
 
 ■ in Herodotus, 438. 
 
 Q. 
 
 Quantity varies, 155. 
 — — differs in derivatives, 3, 10 note. 
 differs in adjective and substan- 
 tive, 236. 
 
 R. 
 
 Read, the original idea of to read dif- 
 ferent in Greek and Latin, 402. 
 
 Reading of Homer fluctuates, 127. 
 
 Reduplication, 131, 481. 
 
 of first syllable, 287. 
 
 of radical syllable in the form- 
 ation of a word, 275 note, 276, 352 
 note. 
 
 not found in words which had 
 
 the di gamma, 537 note. 
 
 , Attic, 135, 139. 
 
 cannot be used or not used at 
 
 pleasure, ti6. 
 
 Reflexion common to the three per- 
 sons, 250, 251 and notes, 422 and 
 note. 
 
INDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 585 
 
 Resolution of a : see d. 
 
 , certain rules for, I &c. 9 note, 
 
 142, 345, 35°- 
 
 Rhapsodists, 130, 211, 278, 414, 410, 
 417. 
 
 Rhetoricians, style of, contrary to At- 
 tic, 18. 
 
 raised their style by use of old 
 
 Epic words, 540. 
 
 Roots disappeared in Greek, yet still 
 visible in Latin, 320. 
 
 , two meeting in the same form, 
 
 344- 
 
 S. 
 Sacrificial corn of Greeks and Latins 
 
 similar, 448, &c. 
 Salve, salvus, salus, 462 and note. 
 Sarcasm : see Irony. 
 Schauen and scheuen, (German,) 114 
 
 note. 
 Schwelle, (German,) 497. 
 Separable manner of compounding 
 
 verbs, 120. 
 Sign, Greeks had only one to express 
 
 several sounds, 196. 
 Signs, expressing sounds, produced 
 
 by chance, not invention, 196. 
 Sill, Yr.seuil, Germ. Suit, 497. 
 Solea, solum, 497. 
 Sounds, affinity of, 189, &c. 
 nearly allied are united under 
 
 one sign, 196. 
 , intermediate, between the vowels, 
 
 197. 
 Sophocles imitates a phrase of Homer, 
 
 34i. 
 
 Sparta : see Lacedsemon. 
 
 Spriitzen, spruhen, (German,) con- 
 nected with 7rpr]6eiv, 486 note. 
 
 Star-fowl : see Coot. 
 
 Stone, transformation into, 56. 
 
 Stossen, stutzen, stutzen, (German in- 
 finitives,) connected together, 302. 
 
 Suavis, suesco, 497. 
 
 Supplant, 497 note. 
 
 Syllabic augment : see Augment. 
 
 Synonymous meanings : see Meanings. 
 
 T. 
 Take (Danish tage), connected with 
 
 TCTayav, 505 note. 
 Tale : see Tell. 
 Tango, 504 note. 
 Tell, and Tale, used in most languages 
 
 in two senses, 401. 
 Temporal augment : see Augment. 
 
 Theocritus, his faulty use of an Ho- 
 meric word, 280. 
 
 , usage of, different from that of 
 
 Homer, 432. 
 
 uses an Homeric word in its 
 
 original meaning and in a different 
 one, 395. 
 
 Theseus conquers the bull of Mara- 
 thon, 312. 
 
 Tiara, 530. 
 
 Tmesis, 120, 339. 
 
 Traditionary : see Historical. 
 
 Trans, difference between it and ultra, 
 466. 
 
 Transitive : see Intransitive or Causa- 
 tive. 
 
 Transposition of quantity on account 
 of rhythm, 513. 
 
 of letters, 413. 
 
 Twofold derivation : see Derivation. 
 
 U. 
 
 Ultra : see Trans. 
 Usage, value of, 254. 
 
 destroys original meaning, 392. 
 
 attaches different meanings to 
 
 similar forms of verbs, 124, 200. 
 confounds the similar meanings 
 
 of perfect and present, 202. 
 
 V. 
 
 Vale, valere, validus, connected with 
 ov\e, 462 note. 
 
 Valgus, 541. 
 
 Vascones, 155 note. 
 
 Vastare, 375. 
 
 Venter connected with yeVrtp, 496 
 note. 
 
 Verb joined with adjective instead of 
 adverb, 41. 
 
 , middle, in an active sense, 8. 
 
 , passive, supposes an active in 
 
 use, 148. 
 
 Verbs, twofold manner of compound- 
 ing, 120. 
 
 apparently but not really com- 
 pounded, ii7,&c. 
 
 Verbal adjectives have an active sense, 
 
 Substantive^, 
 
 Verbals in -a>v, whether they form 
 
 their abstract in -ovla or -oavw), 31. 
 Viginti, 376. 
 Virgil, no reason to suppose that he 
 
 misunderstood Homer, 41. 
 does not always imitate: Homer 
 
 minutely, 293. 
 
 Qq 
 
586 
 
 INDEX OF MATTERS. 
 
 Virgo connected with irapdhos, 541 
 
 note. 
 Vitricus connected with pater, 541 
 
 note. 
 Volvere, reduplication in, 275 note. 
 Vowel, change of, 135, 136, &c. 145, 
 
 153, 208, 216, 232, 348, 450, 451, 
 
 4^5> 499> 5oo. 
 change of, fluctuates between a. 
 
 e, o, 465 note. 
 never lengthened by Epic poets 
 
 merely on account of metre, 344. 
 Vowels, difference of, 196, 197, &c. 
 Vulcan, Heyne rejects the idea of his 
 
 lameness, 481 note. 
 
 W. 
 
 W connected with g, 374, &c. 
 
 Waist (Germ. Wanst), 496 note. 
 Walten, gewaltig, (German,) connected 
 
 with validus, 462 note. 
 Warrant, connected with garant, 375, 
 Wasen, Wochen, for Rasen, Rocken, 
 
 376. 
 Whole, wholesome, 462. 
 Will and wish, difference between, 
 
 194, &c. 
 Work, 377 note. 
 Wrangen, provincialism for ringen i 
 
 376. 
 Wright, wrought, 377 note. 
 
 Zabolenus, 234 note, 
 
 Zenodotus accused unjustly, 250. 
 
 Zeta, connected with bimra, 234 note. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 W4® £ 
 
%S r 
 
 :. <%«* :. 
 
 
 °«/^ T V' v-^V 1 ' 'VwV V' ; - 
 
 •- Vi 
 
 
 
 » ^ 
 
 
 
 .<? * 
 
 
 
 -V 
 
 H, 
 
 .". ^. 
 
 
 
 h w 
 
 
 
 Deacidified using the Bookkeeper pro« 
 s Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
 ^ % . v Treatment Date: July 2006 
 
 '•• .4*°* 
 
 % ' *^ t « PreservationTechnologi 
 bV< 
 
 ♦^ A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATI 
 
 1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
 Cranberry Township PA 16066 
 (724)779-2111 
 
$&". ^ </ /4tef« ^ ** •j^Va'- ^ ^ •'fife* * 
 
 
 KT« VV t*» '-.1* J? "k 
 
 ^ ■ <** 
 
 * <L 
 
 
 o # *4q* *<^ 
 
 it + 
 
 '•* *> 
 
 
 °°,*^*V 'V^-'^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 o^ ♦ 
 
 % 
 
 <$ 
 
 
 
 o_ * 
 
 °^ ♦.. 
 
 V ft 
 
 *<°* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ % 
 
 
 • +* 
 
 

 ■ 
 
 
 
 I ■ 
 
 
 1 ■ ..i.Wi* 
 
 
 ■