at means jegye (EZENTR
!
550.3
Вас
+F54
GREEK AND ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
BY E. ROBINSON, D.D,
Professor of Biblical Literature in the Theological Seminary, New York.
Edited, with careful revision, corrections, occasional additions, and a Preface,
BY THE REV. S. T BLOOMFIELD, D.D.,F.s.a.
1 vol. 8vo. 28s. in cloth.
C
"We hesitate not to affirm that Dr. Robinson's Lexicon, as edited by Dr. Bloomfield,
is the best that has hitherto been published in this country."-BAPTIST MAG. Nov. 1, 1837.
"It is a great advantage to the present edition to have passed through the hands of
such a scholar as Dr. Bloomfield, who has carefully revised the whole work, made many
corrections of Greek words, removed those harsh abbreviations so customary in Germany,
interwoven between brackets much new and interesting matter, and changed in a few
particulars the arrangement of significations, in order to make the author's classification
more perict. To theological students, ministers, and well-educated private Christians,
this lexicon will doubtless prove an invaluable treasure."-EVANGELICAL MAG. Oct.
COLLEGE AND SCHOOL GREEK TESTAMENT:
WITH ENGLISH NOTES,
BY THE REV. S. T. BLOOMFIELD, D.D. F.S.A.
I thick vol. 12mo. 12s. cloth lettered.
"An invaluable work. It is impossible to say how far the public are indebted to Dr.
Bloomfield for these labours of his industrious pen; they will carry down his name with
the bighest honour to posterity."-EVANGELICAL MAG. Nov. 1.
"This edition of the Greek Testament supplies a desideratum in scholastic literature.
The notes (which are strictly grammatical, scholastic, and elementary) furnish to the
juvenile student every requisite aid for the correct interpretation of the New Testament
The volume is as cheap as it is beautifully and accurately printed."-CHRISTIAN REMEM.
By the same Editor,
THE GREEK TESTAMENT:
With English Notes, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical, partly selected and
arranged from the best Commentators, ancient and modern, but chiefly original.
2d Edit. much enlarged and considerably improved, in 2 thick vols. 8vo. 21.
THE COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
Compiled from the best Sources, chiefly German.
BY THE REV. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A.
Translator and Editor of " Scheller's Latin Lexicon," for the Oxford University Press.
Svo. 21s. in cloth.
AN ABRIDGEMENT OF THE ABOVE.
Square 12mo. 7s. bound and lettered.
"The only Latin Lexicon for youth in the English language which has been constructed
on philosophical principles. It has already been adopted in many of the first-rate gram-
mar schools and will in all probability, supersede the incomplete and unscholar-like
compilations which have hitherto been used in classical education."-METHODIST MAG.
shadkane venga ma
"An admirable Dictionary, and promises more help to the Latin student than any
thing hitherto afforded him in this country."—EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE.
"It certainly may be classed among the greatest aids that have yet been offered to the
education of youth."--CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUARTERLY REVIEW, October.
"Both of these Dictionaries appear to be well devised and well executed, and alto-
gether adınîrably adapted to the purpose for which they are designed."
BRITISH MAGAZINE, October.
!

15. Le quat
}
!!
I

pagal mengganggamanan, va fimmerson automake
pangan anakəran da ja panna pe entiers beforethodne SPONGEZA
ܕܡܢ ܘܕܩܘܡ
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND C
VOYAGES, TRAVELS, &c.—Continued.
B 431533
SKETCHES in the PYRENEES,
With some REMARKS ON LANGUEDOC, PROVENCE, and the CORNICE.
By the Author of "Slight Reminiscences of the Rhine," and "The Gossip's Week."
2 vols. post 8vo. price 24s. in cloth.
“The most brilliant book of its class we can remember to have read."—EXAMINER.
VISIT to the GREAT OASIS of the LYBIAN DESERT:
With an Account, Ancient and Modern, of the Oasis of Amun, and the other Oases now
under the Dominion of the Pasha of Egypt.
By G. A. HOSKINS, Esq.
8vo. with a Map and 20 Plates, price 21s. in cloth.
"His views are enlarged, his philosophy is sound, and his unwearied ardour in pursuit of
his object is happily combined with the power of exhibiting it in a nervous style and with
graphic effect. His volume will interest the general reader by the light which it throws on
the habits, condition, and character of a people whom few have visited, while the antiquarian
and the philosopher will thankfully acknowledge its valuable contributions to the cause of true
history and science."-ECLECTIC REVIEW.
By the same Author,
TRAVELS in ETHIOPIA. With a Map and 90 Illustrations. 4to. 31, 13s. 6d.
ENCYCLOPÆDIA of GEOGRAPHY:
Comprising a complete Description of the Earth; exhibiting its Relation to the Heavenly
Bodies, its Physical Structure, the Natural History of each Country, and the Industry,
Commerce, Political Institutions, and Civil and Social State of all Nations.
BY HUGH MURRAY, F.R.S.E.
Assisted in
|
With 82 Maps, drawn by Sidney Hall; and upwards of 1000 other Engravings on Wood,
from Drawings by Swainson, T. Landseer, Sowerby, Strutt, &c., representing the most
remarkable objects of Nature and Art in every Region of the Globe. Complete in one
thick volume of upwards of 1500 pages, 8vo. £3, hf-bd. vellum.
"It is without a rival.”—ASIATIC JOURNAL.
"The most perfect book on its subject.”—Atlas.
ASTRONOMY, &c. by Professor Wallace,
GEOLOGY, &c. by Professor Jameson,
BOTANY, &c. by Sir W. J. Hooker,
ZOOLOGY, &c. by W. Swainson, Esq.
NEW GENERAL ATLAS of FIFTY-THREE MAPS,
ON COLOMBIER PAPER.
With the Divisions and Boundaries carefully COLOURED.
Constructed entirely from New Drawings, and engraved by SIDNEY HALL.
Corrected to the present time.
Folded in half, and bound in canvas..
Ditto, half-bound in Russia
£8 18 6
9 9 0
In the full extended size of the Maps, half-bound in Russia.... 10 0 0
Alphabetical Index of all the Names contained in the above Atlas,
With References to the Number of the Maps, and to the Latitude and Longitude in which
the Places are to be found. Royal Svo. 21s. cloth.
ORIGINAL PICTURE of LONDON,
With a Description of its Environs.
Re-edited, and mostly re-written, by J. BRITTON, F.S.A. &c.
18mo. with upwards of 100 Views of Public Buildings, Plan of the Streets,
and 2 Maps, 9s. neatly bound; with the Maps only, 6s.
EDINBURGH GAZETTEER ;
Containing a Description of the various Countries, States, Cities, Towns, Mountains,
Seas, Rivers, Harbours, &c. of the World.
2d Edit. 8vo. with an Abstract of the last Population Return, and Maps, 18s.
As an Accompaniment to the above Work,
New General Atlas, constructed by A. ARROWSMITH.
Comprehended in Fifty-four Maps, including Two New Maps, with Recent Discoveries.
Royal quarto, half-bound, 11. 16s. plain; coloured, 21. 12s. 6d.
4
NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS
HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY.
A VIEW of the REIGN of JAMES II.
From his Accession to the Enterprise of the Prince of Orange.
By the late Right Hon. SIR JAMES MACKINTOSH.
In 4to. with a Portrait, 31s. 6d.
"We have no hesitation in pronouncing this fragment decidedly the best history now extant
of the reign of James the Second. It contains much new and curious information, of which
excellent use has been made. The accuracy of the narrative is deserving of high admiration."
EDINBURGH REVIEW.
Also, the above, completed to the SETTLEMENT of the CROWN, by the EDITOR.
To which is prefixed,
A Notice of the Life, Writings, and Speeches of Sir James Mackintos
4to. 31. 3s.
LIFE and TIMES of WILLIAM III.
King of England, and Stadtholder of Holland.
By the Rt. Hon. LORD DUNCANNON, M. P. F. A. S. &c.
2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, &c. price 24s.
•
LIFE of FREDERIC the SECOND, KING of PRUSSIA.
By LORD DOVver.
2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, Second Edition, 28s.
"A most delightful and comprehensive work.-Judicious in selection, intelligent in arrange-
ment, and graceful in style."-LITERARY GAZETTE.
MEMOIRS
of SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE.
By the Right Hon. THOMAS PEREGRINE Courtenay.
2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, 28s.
LIFE of SIR HUMPHRY DAVY, Bart.
By his Brother, Dr. JOHN DAVY.
2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, 28s.
LIFE of EDWARD the BLACK PRINCE.
By G. P. R. JAMES, Esq. Author of "Attila," "The Gipsy," &c. &c.
2 vols. 8vo. 31s. 6d.
HISTORY of ENGLAND,
From the earliest Period to the Death of Elizabeth.
By SHARON TURNER, Esq. F. A. S. R. A. S. L. 12 vols. 8vo. 81. 3s. bds.
the following separate portions :-
REIGN OF HENRY VIII.; compris-
The same work may also be had in
THE ANGLO-SAXONS; comprising the
History of England from the earliest
Period to the Norman Conquest. 3 vols.
8vo. 5th Edit. 21. 5s. bds.
ing the Political History of the Com-
mencement of the English Reformation;
being the First Part of the Modern
History of England. 2 vols. 8vo. 3d Edit.
26s. bds.
THE MIDDLE AGES; comprising the
Reigns from William the Conqueror to
the Accession of Henry VIII. and also
the HISTORY of the LITERATURE, POE-
TRY, RELIGION, the PROGRESS to the
REFORMATION, and of the LANGUAGE
of ENGLAND during that Period. 5 vols.
8vo. 3d Edition, 31. bds.
REIGNS OF EDWARD VI., MARY, and
ELIZABETH; being the second part of the
Modern History of England. 2 vols. 8vo.
2d Edit. 32s. bds.
GIBBON'S HISTORY of the ROMAN EMPIRE:
For the Use of Families and Young Persons.
Reprinted from the Original Text, with the careful Omission of all Passages of an
irreligious or immoral tendency.
BY THOMAS BOWDLER, Esq. F.R.S. &c.
5 vols. 8vo. 31. 3s. bds.
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND .CO.
HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY-Continued.
MEMOIRS of JOHN DUKE of MARLBOROUGH;
With his Original Correspondence.
By the Rev. Archdeacon CoxE. 6 vols. 8vo. with an Atlas, 51. 5s.
By the same Author,
|
History of the House of Austria.
5 vols. 8vo. 31. 13s. 6d. bds.
Memoirs of the Kings of Spain from
1700 to 1788. 5 vols. 8vo.
31. bds.
HISTORY of THUCYDIDES;
Newly translated into English, and illustrated with very copious Annotations, &c.
By the Rev. S. T. BLOOMFIELD, D.D. &c. Editor of the Greek Testament.
3 vols. 8vo. with Maps, 21. 5s. bds.
"A version as literal and as perspicuous as erudition and industry combined can render it."
ECLECTIC REVIEW.
MEMOIRS of the COURT and CHARACTER of CHARLES I.
By LUCY AIKIN.
2 vols. 8vo. with Portrait, 2d Edition, 28s. bds.
“Miss Aikin's present work, and her previous Memoirs of the Courts of Elizabeth and of
James I., are very acceptable additions to our literature."-EDINBURGH REVIEW.
By the same Authoress,
Memoirs of the Court of Queen Elizabeth.
Memoirs of the Court of King James I.
6th Edit. 2 vols. 25s.
2 vols. 3d Edition, 24s.
QUESTIONS on the HISTORY of EUROPE:
A SEQUEL to MANGNALL'S HISTORICAL QUESTIONS;
Comprising Questions on the History of the Nations of Continental Europe not
comprehended in that work.
BY JULIA CORNER. 12mo. 5s. bound and lettered.
“This volume has evidently been drawn up with great care, and will afford most valuable
assistance in the business of education. It embodies the leading facts in the histories of
France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Poland, and Italy. Both in schools and private families
it will be found to be a work of great utility, and will doubtless obtain an extensive circula-
tion.”—METHODIST MAGAZINE.
THE YOUNG SCHOLAR'S LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY,
Being an Abridgment of the
Rev. J. E. RIDDLE'S COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY.
Square 12mo. price 7s. bound and lettered.
"Extremely well done for the use of learners, to whom the larger work will be of more
service when they are farther advanced."-LIT. Gaz.
"In most cases he gives the etymology of the words, whether they are derived from the
Greek or a Latin root; so that the student who chooses may not only acquire an exact idea of
the translation of every word, but gain a key to its universal interpretation, by imprinting its
derivation on his mind.”—SPECTATor.
“The best abridged Dictionary of the kind we have met with.”—EXETER GAZETTE.
By the same Author,
THE COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY,
Compiled from best sources, chiefly German, and adapted to use of Colleges and Schools.
Svo. price 21s. cloth boards.
"An admirable Dictionary, and promises more help to the Latin student than any thing
hitherto offered him in this country."-EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE.
"We do not think we could use terms too high to express our entire approbation and admi-
ration of it. It is a vast improvement in its cluss, and does infinite credit to the talents and
learning of Mr. Riddle."-LIT. GAZETTE.
5
€
6
NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS
POETRY, ETC.
THOMAS MOORE'S WORKS.
LALLA ROOKн. An Oriental Romance.
New Edit. with 4 Engravings, from Paint-
ings by R. WESTALL, R.A. Fcap. 8vo.
10s.6d. bds. Demy 8vo. without plts. 14s.
THE EPICUREAN. A Tale. Fcp. 8vo.
5th Edit. 9s. bds.
THE LOVES of the ANGELS. 5th Edit.
8vo. 9s. WESTALL'S Illustrations, 5s.
JAMES MONTGOMERY'S POETICAL WORKS.
A complete collected Edition, comprising "The Wanderer of Switzerland," "The West
"World before the Flood," "Greenland,"
"Pelican Island,"
>>
Indie Songs of Zion," "Poet's Portfolio," and all his smaller Poems.
3 vols. small 8vo. 18s.
FAMILY SHAKSPEARE;
In which nothing is added to the Original Text;
But those Words and Expressions are omitted, which cannot with propriety be read
aloud in a Family.
By T. BOWDLER, Esq. F.R.S.
New Edition. In One large Volume 8vo. with 36 Illustrations after Smirke, Howard, &c.
30s. cloth; with gilt edges, 31s. 6d.
The same work, in large type, without Illustrations, in 8 vols. 8vo. 41. 14s. 6d. bds.
REMAINS of HENRY KIRKE WHITE,
Selected, with prefatory Remarks, by ROBERT SOUTHEY, Esq.
The only complete Editions. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s.; and 1 vol. 24mo. with engraved Title
and Vignette, 5s.
N.B. The property of the Family having been invaded, it is necessary to state that these
are the ONLY EDITIONS which contain the Life by Mr. Southey, and the whole of the con-
tents of the Third Volume.
SELECT WORKS of the BRITISH POETS,
From JONSON to BEATTIE. With Biographical and Critical Prefaces.
By DR. AIKIN.
1 vol. 8vo. 18s. in cloth; or neatly done up, gilt edges, 20s.
SELECT WORKS of the BRITISH POETS,
From CHAUCER to WITHERS. With Biographical Sketches.
By ROBERT SOUTHEY, LL.D.
1 vol. 8vo. uniform with "Aikin's Poets," 30s. in cloth; or with gilt edges, 11. 11s. 6d.
THE MORAL of FLOWERS.
With 24 beautifully coloured Plates, royal 8vo. 3d Edition, 30s. hf.-bd.
"Full of exquisite poetry.”—BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE.
By the same Author,
The Spirit of the Woods.
1 vol. royal 8vo. with 26 beautifully-coloured Engravings, price 368. half-bound.
"The two elegant volumes with which Mrs. William Hey has favoured the public are wel-
fitted to lend grace and ornument to that which is solid and useful."-MED GAZ.
JOANNA BAILLIE'S POEMS, &c.
New Dramas, 3 vols. 8vo. 36s.
A Series of Plays,
In which it is attempted to delineate the stronger Passions of the Mind.
3 vols. 8vo. 11. 11s. 6d.
Miscellaneous Plays, 8vo. 9s.-Metrical Legends, 8vo. 14s.
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND CO.
NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, ARTS, MANUFACTURES, ETC.
DR. ARNOTT'S
ELEMENTS of PHYSICS, or NATURAL PHILOSOPHY;
Written for universal use, in plain or non-technical language.
Svo. 5th Edition, enlarged.
Vol. I. (price 21s.) has Treatises on Mechanics, Hydrostatics (with an account of the
FLOATING BED, lately contrived by Dr. Arnott for the relief of the bed-ridden), Pneuma-
tics, Acoustics, Animal Mechanics, &c.; Vol. II. Part 1 (price 10s. 6d.) on Heat, Optics,
&c. ; and Vol. II. Part 2(to complete the work) on Electricity, Magnetism, and Astronomy.
“A useful and excellent work."-SIR JOHN HERSCHEL.
By the same Author,
On Warming and Ventilating :
With Directions for making and using the Thermometer Stove, or Self-regulating Fire,
and other New Apparatus. 8vo. 5s. cl th.
TREATISE on the STEAM ENGINE;
Historical, Practical, and Descriptive.
BY JOHN FAREY, Engineer.
4to. illustrated by numerous Woodcuts, and 25 Copperplates, engraved by Wilson Lowry,
from Drawings by Messrs. Farey.
51. 5s. bds.-VOL. II. IS IN THE PRESS.
PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATIONS;
In which the Causes of daily-occurring Phenomena are familiarly explained.
By F. C. BAKEWELL. 1 vol. 12mo. 5s. 6d.
CONVERSATIONS on NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
BY JANE MARCET.
7th Edition, 10s. 6d. bds. With 22 Engravings by Lowry.
By the same Author,
Conversations on Chemistry,
In which the Elements of that Science are familiarly explained and illustrated by
Experiments; with a Conversation on the Steam Engine.
2 vols. 12mo. 12th Edition, with Plates by Lowry, 14s. bds.
CONCHOLOGY.
MANUAL of the LAND and FRESH-WATER SHELLS
.OF THE BRITISH ISLANDS.
By W. TURTON, M.D.
Foolscap 8vo., 150 coloured Figures, 10s. 6d.
INTRODUCTION to LAMARCK'S CONCHOLOGY.
By E. A. CROUCH, F.L.S.
4to. 22 Plates, 31s. 6d. plain; 31. 3s. coloured.
AN EPITOME of LAMARCK'S TESTACEA.
By C. DUBOIS, F.L.S. and F.H.S. 8vo. 14s.
LINNÆAN SYSTEM of CONCHOLOGY.
By J. MAWE. Svo. Thirty-seven Plates, 21s. plain; 21. 12s. 6d. coloured.
7
NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS
WORKS ON BOTANY, GARDENING, ETC.
By SIR JAMES EDWARD SMITH, M.D. F.R.S.
Late President of the Linnæun Society, &c.
THE ENGLISH FLORA.
New Edition, in 4 vols. 8vo., containing the FLOWERING PLANTS and the FERNS, 21. 8s.
Vol. V. Part 1. 125.- CRYPTOGAMIA: comprising the Mosses, Hepaticæ, Lichens,
Characeæ, and Algæ.
By Sir W. J. HOOKER, LL.D. F.R.A. and L.S., &c. &c.
Vol. V. Part 2-The FUNGI-completing the work, by Sir W. J. HOOKER,
and the Rev. M. J. BERKELEY, F.L.S., &c. 8vo. 12s.
Compendium of the English Flora.
Second Edition, with Additions and Corrections. By Sir W. J. HOOKER, LL.D., &c.
12mo. 7s. 6d.
The same in Latin.
5th Edition, 12mo. 7s. 6d.
INTRODUCTION to the
STUDY of PHYSIOLOGICAL and SYSTEMATICAL BOTANY,
New Edition, with Illustrations of the Natural Orders (combining the object
of Sir J. Smith's "Grammar" with that of his "Introduction.")
By Sir W. J. HOOKER, LL.D. &c. 8vo. 36 Plates, 16s. cloth.
By SIR WILLIAM JACKSON HOOKER, K.B. LL.D.
Regius Professor of Botany in the University of Glasgow, &c.
THE BRITISH FLORA;
Comprising the FLOWERING PLANTS, and the FERNS.
8vo. 3d Edition, 12s.
Vol. II. Part 1 of the above (CRYPTOGAMIA) 8vo. 12s.
Vol. II. Part 2 (FUNGI) completing the work, by Sir W. J. HOOKER, and the
Rev. M. J. BERKELEY. 8vo. 12s.
MUSCOLOGIA BRITANNICA.
Containing the Mosses of Great Britain and Ireland, systematically arranged and
described; with Plates.
By Sir W. J. HOOKER, LL.D. F.L.S. &c. and T. TAYLOR, M.D. F.L.S. &c.
8vo. 2d Edit. enlarged, 31s. 6d. plain; 31. 3s. coloured.
ICONES PLANTARUM ;
Or, FIGURES, with brief Descriptive Characters and Remarks, of NEW or RARE
PLANTS, selected from the Author's Herbarium.
2 vols. 8vo. with 200 Plates, price 21. 16s. cloth lettered.
ELEMENTS of PRACTICAL AGRICULTURE;
Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants; the Husbandry of Domestic Animals;
and the Economy of the Farm.
By DAVID LOW, Esq. F.R.S.E. Professor of Agriculture in the University of Edinburgh.
1 vol. 8vo. 2d edit. with Alterations and Additions, 18s. cloth lettered.
"Ought to be in every farmer's hands."—NEW FARMER'S JOURNAL, Dec. 4, 1837.
ELEMENTS of AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY.
By Sir HUMPHRY DAVY, Bart. LL.D. F.R.S. &c.
5th Edition, with Notes by his Brother, Dr. John Davy, 8vo. 15s.
1
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND CO.
BOTANY, GARDENING, &c.—Continued.
By J. C. LOUDON, F.L.S. &c. &c.
ENCYCLOPÆDIA of PLANTS.
Comprising the Description, Specific Character, Culture, History, Application in
the Arts, and every other desirable particular respecting all the Plants
Indigenous to, Cultivated in, or Introduced into Britain.
With nearly Ten Thousand Engravings on Wood. Second Edit. corrected, 1 large vol. 8vo.
31. 13s. 6d. bds.
"The most useful and popular botanical work that has ever appeared in the English
language."-JAMESON'S PHIL. JOURNAL.
HORTUS BRITANNICUS :
A Catalogue of all the Plants Indigenous to, Cultivated in, or Introduced into Britain.
Part I.-The Linnæan Arrangement, in which nearly Thirty Thousand Species are
enumerated, &c. : preceded by an Introduction to the Linnæan System.
Part II.-The Jussieuean Arrangement of nearly Four Thousand Genera; with an
Introduction to the Natural System, and a Description of each Order.
8vo. 23s. 6d. in cloth.
AN ENCYCLOPÆDIA of GARDENING;
Comprising the Theory and Practice of Horticulture, Floriculture, Arboriculture,
and Landscape Gardening:
Including all the latest Improvements; a General History of Gardening in all Countries;
and a Statistical View of its Present State,
With Suggestions for its Future Progress in the British Isles.
New Edition, greatly enlarged and improved, with nearly 1000 Engravings on Wood,
1 vol. 8vo. 21. 10s.
ENCYCLOPÆDIA of AGRICULTURE ;
Comprising the Theory and Practice of the Valuation, Transfer, Laying out,
Improvement, and Management of Landed Property;
And the Cultivation and Economy of the Animal and Vegetable Productions of
Agriculture, including the latest Improvements;
A General History of Agriculture in all Countries;
And a Statistical View of its Present State,
With Suggestions for its Future Progress in the British Isles.
With nearly Thirteen Hundred Engravings on Wood. 1 large vol. Svo.
3d Edition, with a SUPPLEMENT, containing all the recent Improvements, 21. 10s. bds.;
*** The Supplement may be had separately, price 5s.
ARBORETUM ET FRUTICETUM BRITANNICUM ;
Or the Hardy Trees of Great Britain, Native and Foreign, Pictorially and Botanically
delineated, and Scientifically and Popularly described.
Nos. 1 to 45, price 2s. 6d. each. To be completed in 6 thick 8vo. vols.
9

THE CULTIVATION OF THE VINE ON OPEN WALLS.
By CLEMENT HOARE.
8vo. new edition, with Additions. Price 7s. 6d. in cloth.
"Mr. Hoare has thrown more light on the subject of vine culture than any British gardener
who has written on the subject."-LOUDON'S GARDENER'S MAGAZINE.
"One of the best productions upon any horticultural subject which has been published for
some years.”—ATHENÆUM.
10
NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS
BOTANY, GARDENING, &c.
&c.
By JOHN LINDLEY, Ph. D. F.R.S. L.S.
Professor of Botany in the London University College and in the Royal Institulion.
INTRODUCTION to BOTANY.
Second Edition, with Corrections and considerable Additions.
1 large vol. 8vo. with numerous Plates and Woodcuts, 18s. cloth.
"We have no hesitation in pronouncing the Introduction to Botany, by Dr. Lindley, to be
the most valuable and perfect in any language we are acquainted with."-MED. Gaz.
"The most valuable work of the kind in our language.”—BRIT. AND FOR. MED. Rev.
A NATURAL SYSTEM of BOTANY :
Or, a Systematic View of the Organization, Natural Affinities, and Geographical
Distribution of the whole Vegetable Kingdom, together with the Uses of
the most important Species in Medicine, the Arts, &c.
2d Edition, with numerous Additions and Corrections, and a complete List of Genera,
with their Synonyms. 1 vol. 8vo. 18s. cloth.
SYNOPSIS of the BRITISH FLORA,
Arranged according to the Natural Orders.
2d Edit. with numerous Additions, Corrections, and Improvements. 12mo. 10s. 6d. bds.
A KEY to
STRUCTURAL, PHYSIOLOGICAL, & SYSTEMATIC BOTANY.
For the use of Classes. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
FIRST PRINCIPLES of HORTICULTURE. 2s. sd.
GUIDE to the ORCHARD and KITCHEN GARDEN
By G. LINDLEY, C.M.H.S. Edited by J. LINDLEY, Ph. D. F.R.S. &c.
1 large volume, 8vo. 16s. bds.
THE NEW BOTANIST'S GUIDE to the
LOCALITIES of the RARER PLANTS of GREAT BRITAIN.
By HEWETT COTTRELL WATSON, F.L.S.
2 vols. 12mo. 16s. 6d.
Vol. I. contains England and Wales, 10s. 6d.
Vol. II. contains Scotland and the adjacent Isles, with a copious SUPPLEMENT to
England and Wales, 6s.
By the same Author,
Remarks on the Geographical Distribution of British Plants. 12mo. 6s. 6d.
FIRST STEPS to BOTAN Y.
By J. L. DRUMMOND, M.D.
12mo. 100 Woodcuts. 3d Edition, 9s.
CONVERSATIONS on BOTANY.
With 22 Engravings. 12mo. 8th Edition, enlarged, 7s. 6d. plain; 12s. coloured.
CONVERSATIONS on VEGETABLE PHYSIOLOGY;
Comprehending the Elements of Botany, with their Application to Agriculture.
BY JANE MARCET. 2 vols. 12mo. with Plates, 2d Edition, 12s.
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND CO.
RELIGION, THEOLOGY,
THEOLOGY, ETC.
COLLEGE AND SCHOOL GREEK TESTAMENT,
WITH ENGLISH NOTES.
1 vol. 12mo. price 12s. cloth lettered.
By the Rev. S. T. BLOOMFIELD, D.D. F.S.A. of Sidney College, Cambridge;
Vicar of Bisbrooke, Rutland.
It is also
"Dr. Bloomfield's New Testament for the use of schools is an invaluable work.
entitled to the distinction of being regarded as an original production, the notes and critical
apparatus being in general constructed with great labour for the present edition. It is impos-
sible to say how far the public are indebted to Dr. Bloomfield for these labours of his industrious
pen: they will carry down his name with honour to posterity."-EVANGELICAL MAGAZINE.
By the same Editor,
THE GREEK TESTAMENT,
With English Notes, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical, partly selected and arranged
from the best Commentators, Ancient and Modern, but chiefly Original.
Second Edition, considerably improved, in 2 thick vols. 8vo. price £2.
GREEK and ENGLISH LEXICON of the NEW TESTAMENT,
By E. ROBINSON, D.D. Prof. Biblical Lit. Theol. Seminary, New York.
Edited, with careful revision, corrections, &c. &c.
By the Rev. S. T. BOOMFIELD, D.D. F.S.A.
1 vol. 8vo. price 28s. in cloth lettered.
"We hesitate not to affirm, that Dr. Robinson's Greek and English Lexicon to the New
Testament, as edited by Dr. Bloomfield, is the best that has hitherto been published in this
country."-BAPTIST MAG.
THE SUNDAY LIBRARY;
A Selection of Sermons from Eminent Divines of the Church of England, chiefly
within the last Half Century.
With Notes, &c. by the Rev. T. F. DIBDIN, D.D.
Complete in 6 vols. small 8vo. with 6 Portraits of Distinguished Prelates, 30s. cloth.
"A little library for a churchman, and a treasure for the pious among the laity."
LITERARY GAZ.
THE SACRED HISTORY of the WORLD
Philosophically considered, in a Series of Letters to a Son.
By SHARON TURNER, Esq. F.S.A. and R.A.S.L. 5th Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
The Third and concluding Volume is just published, price 14s.
11
PRINCIPLES of CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY;
Containing the Doctrines, Duties, Admonitions, & Consolations of the Christian Religion.
By JOHN BURNS, M.D.
Regius Professor of Surgery in the University of Glasgow, &c.
12mo. 4th Edition, 7s. bds.
THE THEOLOGICAL WORKS of SAMUEL HORSLEY,
LL.D. F.R.S. F.A.S. late Lord Bishop of St. Asaph.
In 8 vols. 8vo. 41. 1s. bds.
The Sermons, 188.; Biblical Criticism, 21. 2s.; Charges, 9s.; Psalms, 12s.;
may be had separately.
NATURAL EVIDENCE of a FUTURE LIFE,
Derived from the Properties and Actions of Animate and Inanimate Matter.
By FREDERICK C. BAKEWELL.
In 1 vol. 8vo. 12s.
DISCOURSES on the SOCINIAN CONTROVERSY.
By RALPH WARDLAW, D.D. Glasgow. 8vo. 5th Edition, 158. cloth lettered.
By the same Author,
SERMONS. 8vo. 12s.
ORIENTAL CUSTOMS:
Applied to the Illustration of the Sacred Scriptures.
By SAMUEL BURDER, A.M. &c. New Edition, 12mo. 8s. 6d. bds.
12
83
NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS
NOVELS, ROMANCES, WORKS OF FICTION,
ETC.
THE ROBBER: A TALE.
By G. P. R. JAMES, Esq. Author of "The Gipsy," &c. &c.-Nearly ready.
By the same Author,
ATTILA: A Romance.
3 vols. post 8vo.
"As a picture of the human passions, as a great historical romance, 'Attila' may rank with
any that has ever been written.
In the whole range of fiction, there is nothing at all
approximating to the delineation of the Hunnish chief."-MET. CONS. JOUR.
The Gipsy. 3 vols.
Mary of Burgundy. 3 vols.
1
Life and Adventures of John Mars-
ton Hall. 3 vols.
One in a Thousand; or, the Days of Henri Quatre. 3 vols.
MRS. BRAY'S NEW NOVEL.
TRELAWNY of TRELAWNE; or, the Prophecy :
A Legend of Cornwall. 3 vols. post 8vo. 1. 11s. 6d.
By the Authoress of "Warleigh," "Borders of the Tamar and Tavy,”
"De Foix," """The Talba," &c. &c.
A very pleasing and lively record of one of the most interesting periods of English history.
The story is very pleasantly told, the dramatic propriety well maintained, and the morality
and political thinking excellent."-TIMES NEWSPAPER.
By the same Authoress,
WARLEIGH; or the Fatal Oak.
3 vols. post 8vo. £1. 11s. 6d.
"Every person who admires a work of genius and taste will read this book."-Gent.'s Mag.
THE
“He is quite as pleasant as ever."—LITERARY GAZETTE.
"Rich, beyond almost any other of the time, in the best knowledge, and the most beautiful
literature."—QUARTERLY REVIEW.
***The Three previous Volumes may be had, price 31s. 6d.
DOCTOR, &c. Vol. IV. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d.
LETTERS from an ABSENT GODFATHER;
Or, a Compendium of RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION for Young Persons.
By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, M.A.
Curate of Harrow; Author of "First Sundays at Church," &c. &c.
CC An admirable manual of Christian duties."-ST. JAMES'S CHRONICLE.
HINTS to MOTHERS, for the Management of Health.
BY THOS. BULL, M.D. Physician-Accoucheur to the Finsbury Midwifery Institution, &c.
Fcp. 8vo. 5s. cloth lettered.
"There is no mother that will not be heartily thankful that this book ever fell into her hands;
and no husband who should not present it to his wife. We cannot urge its value too strongly
on all whom it concerns.”—ECLECTIC REVIEW.
PLAIN DIRECTIONS for making WILLS
In conformity with the NEW ACT, which came into operation on the 1st January.
By J. C. HUDSON, of the Legacy Duty Office, London.
Fcp. 8vo. price Half-a-Crown, neatly done up in cloth, gilt edges.
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND CO.
GEOLOGY AND MINERALOGY.
BAKEWELL'S INTRODUCTION to GEOLOGY.
New Edition, in the press.
}
GEOLOGY of the SOUTH-EAST of ENGLAND;
Containing a Comprehensive Sketch of the Geology of Sussex, and of the adjacent parts
of Hampshire, Surrey, and Kent;
With Figures and Descriptions of the Fossils of the South Downs, and of the
Extraordinary Fossil Reptiles of Tilgate Forest.
By GIDEON MANTELL, LL.D. F.R.S., Fellow of the Geological Society, &c. &c.
8vo. with 75 Plates, coloured Map, and Woodcuts, 21s.
A TREATISE on PRIMARY GEOLOGY:
Being an Examination, both Practical and Theoretical, of the Older Formations.
BY HENRY S. BOASE, M.D.
Secretary of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall, &c.
Second Edition, 8vo. with Woodcuts, 12s.
NEW SYSTEM of GEOLOGY;
In which the great Revolutions of the Earth and Animated Nature are
reconciled to Modern Science and to Sacred History.
By A. URE, M.D. F.R.S.
8vo. with 7 Plates, and 51 Woodcuts, 219.
CONVERSATIONS on MINERALOGY.
With Plates engraved by Mr. and Miss Lowry.
Third Edition, enlarged, 2 vols. 12mo. price 14s. in cloth.
SPORTING.
INSTRUCTIONS to YOUNG SPORTSMEN.
By Lieut.-Col. P. HAWKER.
7th Edition, enlarged, (30 Plates and Cuts), 18s. cloth.
"Col. Hawker is one of the best shots in England, and his ' Instructions to Sportsmen' the
very best book we have on the subject."-BLACKWOOD'S MAGAZINE.
13
TROUT and SALMON FISHING in WALES.
By GEORGE AGAR HANSArd.
Fcp. 8vo. 6s. 6d. cloth.
"G. A. Hansard's useful manual."-BLACKWOOD.
"A delightful companion to the lovers of the rod and line."-GENT.'s MAG.
(C
If the reader should ever go into Wales, whether he be an angler or not, he should take
this book; if he be an angler, he ought to go for the sake of having such a companion."
ATLAS.
THE GUN;
Or, a Treatise on the Nature, Principle, and Manufacture of the various descriptions of
Small Fire Arms,
By WILLIAM GREENER. 1 vol. 8vo. Plates, 15s.
"I have no hesitation in saying that I consider it by far the best work ever written on the
subject, and I should recommend the perusal of it to every gun-maker in the United Kingdom."
LETTER FROM COLONEL HAWKER.
14
NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS

POLITICAL ECONOMY, COMMERCE, ETC.
A DICTIONARY,
PRACTICAL, THEORETICAL, AND HISTORICAL,
OF
COMMERCE AND COMMERCIAL NAVIGATION.
Illustrated with Maps and Plans.
A New Edition, corrected and improved, in 1 closely and beautifully-printed volume,
containing upwards of 1350 pages, 50s. bds.
With a new and enlarged SUPPLEMENT to December, 1836.
By J. R. M'CULLOCH, Esq.
In correcting this edition, the author has been assisted by valuable information com-
municated by many private and some official gentlemen in different parts of the world.
In this respect he is under especial obligations to the government of Prussia. With a
liberality of which there are certainly few (if any) examples, it has not merely taken pains
to supply him with ample and authentic details as to the Commerce, Finances, &c., of
that flourishing kingdom, but has authorized him to make any use he pleased of the in-
formation so communicated, without stipulation or condition of any kind, or so much as
insinuating, directly or indirectly, what might be agreeable to it.
The present SUPPLEMENT has been greatly enlarged, and, it is hoped, materially im-
proved. Besides embodying the principal articles in the Supplement issued in October
1835, it has, among others, new articles on the following subjects; viz. AUSTRIAN
TARIFF; JOINT-STOCK BANKS and BANKING, embracing a complete list of and full
details as to these establishments; NEW CUSTOMS ACT for BENGAL; NEW COINAGE of
AMERICA and INDIA; NAVIGATION of the DANUBE; TRADE with PRUSSIA, PRUSSIAN
COMMERCIAL LEAGUE, TARIFF, &c.; RAILROADS; NEW REGULATIONS as to News-
PAPERS; ALTERATIONS in the BRITISH TARIFF, &c.; with notices of CIVITA VECCHIA,
GALACZ, GUAYAQUIL, PORT LAMAR, MONTEVIDEO, ROSTOCK, &c.
*** The SUPPLEMENT may be had separately, price 7s. 6d.
TABLES of INTEREST;
Calculated at FIVE PER CENT. for any sum, advancing by single pounds, from 1 to 365,
without the trouble of adding several sums together; thence, by Hundreds and by
Thousands, to Ten Thousand Pounds, from ONE DAY to THIRTEEN YEARS. Also,
Tables for calculating Interest at Four per Cent.; Commission from One-Eighth to Five
per Cent.; a Time Table, &c. &c.
By JOSEPH KING, Liverpool.
Twelfth Edition, a thick vol. 8vo. 21s.
§ Separately, Part I. for One Hundred Days, and One Month up to Twelve, 7s. 6d.
PRINCIPLES of POLITICAL ECONOMY,
Deduced from the Natural Laws of Social Welfare, and applied to the present
State of Britain.
By G. POULETT SCROPE, M.P. F.R.S. &c. Small 8vo. 7s. in cloth.
"Full of excellent matter and sagacious reasoning."- LITERARY GAZETTE.
STEEL'S SHIP-MASTER'S ASSISTANT,
and OWNER'S MANUAL;
Containing General and Legal Information necessary for Owners and Masters of Ships,
Ship-Brokers, Pilots, and other persons connected with the Merchant Service. New
Edition, newly arranged, and corrected to 1836 (containing the New Customs Laws, &c.)
by J. STIKEMAN, Custom-House Agent. With Tables of Weights, Measures, Mónies,
&c. by Dr. KELLY. 1 large and closely-printed vol. 21s. bds.; 22s. 6d. bd.
CONVERSATIONS on POLITICAL ECONOMY.
BY JANE MARCET. 12mo. 6th Edition, 9s. bds.
By the same Authoress,
John Hopkins' Notions on Political Economy. 12mo. 4s. 6d.
THE HISTORY and PRINCIPLES of BANKING.
By J. W. GILBART. 3d Edit. enlarged, 8vo. 9s.
This book may be considered as a grammar of banking. The general reader may
here acquire a competent knowledge of most of the facts and principles connected with
the subject.
LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN AND CO.
ENTOMOLOGY, ORNITHOLOGY, AND GENERAL ZOOLOGY.
INTRODUCTION to ENTOMOLOGY;
OR, ELEMENTS OF THE NATURAL HISTORY OF INSECTS.
By WILLIAM KIRBY, M.A. F.R.S. and L.S., and WILLIAM SPENCE, Esq. F.L.S.
In 4 thick vols. 8vo. with Plates, and Portraits of the Authors, price 41.
A Scientific Index may be had, price 2s.
AN OUTLINE of the SMALLER BRITISH BIRDS.
By R. A. SLANEY, Esq. Foolscap 8vo. Cuts, 4s. 6d.
/
LETTERS to a YOUNG NATURALIST,
ON THE STUDY OF NATURE AND NATURAL THEOLOGY.
By J. L. DRUMMOND, M.D. 12mo. Cuts, 7s. 6d.
BOOK of NATURE:
A Popular Illustration of the General Laws and Phenomena of Creation.
By J. MASON GOOD, M.D. F.R.S. 3 vols. 3d Edit. 24s.
TAXIDERMY;
Or, the Art of Collecting and Preparing Objects of Natural History.
12mo. Plates, Fourth Edition, 7s. 6d.
ARCHITECTURE, THE FINE ARTS, ETC.
DICTIONARY of the
ARCHITECTURE and ARCHEOLOGY of the MIDDLE AGES;
Including the Words used by Old and Modern Authors.
BY JOHN BRITTON, F.S.A. &c.
Part I. with 12 Engravings by J. LE KEUX; Part II. with 10 Engravings; and
Part III. with 13 Engravings.
The Volume will contain at least 40 Engravings, and be completed in 4 Parts, royal 8vo.
12s. each; medium ito. 21s.; imperial 4to. 31s. 6d.
Part IV. will be published early in the year.
T. F. HUNT'S ARCHITECTURAL WORKS.
Hints on Picturesque Domestic Ar-
chitecture; in a Series of Designs for
Gate Lodges, Gamekeepers' Cottages,
&c. &c. 4to. New Edition, with Addi-
tions, and a new set of Plates, 21s. bds. ;
India Proofs, 31s. 6d.
Designs for Lodges, Gardeners'
Houses, and other Buildings, in the
Modern or Italian Style; in a Series of
12 Plates, with Letterpress. Royal 4to.
21s. bds.; India Proofs 31s. 6d.
Designs for Parsonage Houses, Alms-
Houses, &c. &c. ; in a Series of 21 Plates,
with Letterpress. Royal 4to. 21s.; In-
dia Proofs, 31s. 6d.
•
15
Exemplars of Tudor Architecture,
adapted to Modern Habitations; with
illustrative Details, selected from An-
cient Edifices; and Observations on the
Furniture of the Tudor Period. Royal
4to. with 37 Plates, 21. 2s.; India Proofs,
31. 3s.
LECTURES on the
HISTORY and PRINCIPLES of PAINTING.
BY THOMAS PHILLIPS, Esq. R.A. F.R.S. and F.S.A. late Professor of Painting
in the Royal Academy. 8vo. 13s. in cloth.
"There is not a passage in them with which a liberally-educated gentleman should not be
acquainted.”—LITERARY Gazette.
ELEMENTS OF MUSICAL COMPOSITION
Comprehending the Rules of Thorough Bass, and the Theory of Tuning.
BY WILLIAM CROTCH, Mus. Doc. Professor of Music in the University of Oxford.
2d Edition, small 4to. with Plates, 12s. in cloth.
By the same Author,
Substance of several Courses of Lectures on Music. 7s. 6d.
16 NEW WORKS LATELY PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN ANd co.
MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.
ON FEMALE IMPROVEMENT. By Mrs. JOHN SANDFORd.
2 vols. 12mo. price 12s. in cloth.
By the same Authoress,
Woman, in her Social and Domestic Character. 5th Edition, 12mo. 6s.
Lives of Lady Jane Grey and Mrs. Col. Hutchinson. Fcp. 8vo. 6s. 6d.
MAUNDER'S TREASURY of KNOWLEDGE.
9th Edit. 18mo. Ss. 6d. cloth; 10s. 6d. embossed and gilt.
HINTS on ETIQUETTE; and the USAGES of SOCIETY, &c.
By Αγωγός.
Sixteenth Edition, fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. gilt edges.
SHORT WHIST; its Rise, Progress, and Laws:
Together with Maxims for Beginners, and Observations to make any one a Whist Player.
By MAJOR A*****.
Fifth Edition, fcap. 8vo. with Frontispiece, 3s. in fancy cloth, gilt edges.
INSTRUCTIONS to EXECUTORS and ADMINISTRATORS,
Shewing the Duties and Responsibilities incident to the due Performance of
their Trusts; with Forms properly filled up for every Bequest.
By J. H. BRADY, late of the Legacy Duty Office, Somerset House. 8vo. 5th Edit. 88.
DOMESTIC DUTIES ;
Or, Instructions to Young Married Ladies on the Management of their Households, &c. &c.
By Mrs. WILLIAM PARKES. 12mo. 4th Edition, 10s. 6d. cloth lettered.
"The volume before us is a perfect VADE MECUM for the young married lady, who may
resort to it on all questions of household economy and etiquette."-NEW MONTHLY Mag.
ON THE VALUATION of PROPERTY for the POOR'S RATE.
By J. S. BAYLDON. 8vo. New Edition, enlarged, 7s. 6d.
By the same Author,
Art of Valuing Rents and Tillages, &c. New Edition, 7s. bds.
LACON; or MANY THINGS in FEW WORDS.
By the Rev. C. C. COLTON. New Edition, 8vo. 12s.
EDUCATION REFORM >
Or, the NECESSITY of a NATIONAL SYSTEM of EDUCATION.
Vol. I. 8vo. 15s. in cloth.
BY THOMAS WYSE, Esq. M.P.
"A more luminous, searching, and comprehensive treatise we never read."-MON. REV.
SELECTIONS from the EDINBURGH REVIEW ;
With a preliminary Dissertation and Notes.
Edited by MAURICE Cross, Esq. 4 large vols. 31. 3s. bds.
GENERAL INDEX to the EDINBURGH REVIEW,
From Vol. 1. to XX. 15s. bds.-From Vol. XXI. to L. 12s.
WILSON AND SON, PRINTERS, 57, SKINNER-STREET, LONDon.
දව
1
k
'
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
F
19-66
LEXILOGUS
OR
A CRITICAL EXAMINATION
OF
THE MEANING AND ETYMOLOGY OF NUMEROUS GREEK
WORDS AND PASSAGES,
y
INTENDED PRINCIPALLY FOR
Kark
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.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
4L6
MDCCCXXXVI.
PRINTED BY RICHARD TAYLOR,
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.
1
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
À TRANSLATOR is generally expected to preface his
Work by some account of his Author, and some expla-
nation of his subject. In the present instance informa-
tion on either of these points is less than usually requi-
site. 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-
a 2
iv
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
dent an invaluable guide and companion in exploring the
deeply hidden treasures of ancient Greek literature. He
will be delighted and astonished at the profound research,
the extensive erudition, and solid judgement 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 in-
vestigation, 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 ven-
tured 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 distin-
guish 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
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
V
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 "Ausführliche Sprachlehre." When,
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.
Little Cheverel, December, 1835.
J. R. F.
-
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
WHENEVER I have been engaged in examining Homer
somewhat more critically than usual, an observation has
always forced itself upon me, that with regard to the ex-
planation of his language more remained to be done, and
might be done, than is generally supposed. In particu-
lar I found that many very superior philologists, swayed
partly by the authority of tradition, partly by the un-
doubted meaning which some words have in the later
writers, and partly by an etymology apparently made
out to their satisfaction, have imagined that in many
words they saw their way perfectly clear, or at least in
the main, and have therefore never instituted a more ac-
curate 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 neces-
sity, as we have nothing cotemporary with him. At the
same time however this plan is rendered easier in Homer
viii
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
than in 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'. It is true
that the book has great and striking defects, of which
the principal 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 advantageous results,—that he, in the praise-
worthy attempt to put this idea into execution, should
fall into the opposite error, and ground his arrangement
on an etymology not merely speculative from beginning
to end, but (which no one will dispute) completely arbi-
trary. This defect is however for the most part compen-
M
This ought to be its title, if it were named from that which con-
stitutes its peculiar merit: it is now entitled "Novum Lexicon Græcum
etymologicum et reale, cui pro basi substratæ sunt concordantiæ Ho-
mericæ et Pindaricæ. 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 doubt-
ed, must still be separated (if a separation can be easily made) for prac-
tical 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
sated, on the one 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 alpha-
betical Index. Far more perplexing is the want of ar-
rangement 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 passages, principally according to the
forms (i. e. the cases, tenses, &c.) which occur, and ac-
cording to the numerical order of the books; a plan
useful in one respect, but by which the far more im-
portant and principal object, the chain of meanings, is
lost, and the most tiresome repetitions are introduced.
Yet it is but fair that we should reflect, that as an ar-
rangement combining all advantages would have been
far more difficult and laborious, it would probably have
been impossible for the diligent schoolman to have com-
piled this useful work without those looser and lighter
details'. These very defects however again give occa-
sion, as is commonly 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 according to his own ideas and views, and
elicit more accurate results. And it is in this labour
that I principally wish to set an example to young
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 correct
review of all the forms of a word which occur in a writer is indispensa-
ble to the critic.
X
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
philologists in this little book+: still however in such
a manner, that while I recommend with full convic-
tion, 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 er-
roneous views and opinions more or less common, or in
which I have hoped to be able to bring forward some-
thing which has generally been overlooked.
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 these 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 Homericus,
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 work 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 a usage of succeeding poets
to have arisen from their having misunderstood the
meaning 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 gramma-
tical subtleties by degrees disturbed the purity of those
sources, the true sense was frequently driven out by false
interpretations springing from an unhistorical mode of
treatment, 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 com-
mon interpretations which are for the most part known
to all, in order that by calling attention to their insuffi-
ciency and faultiness I may show the necessity of a more
fundamental investigation. But to this same gramma-
tical tradition 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, 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,
-
xii
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
as they understood it by a process of study, which con-
sequently rendered it to them a dead language. Hence I
have made another use of those poets, and one of much
greater importance toward the object of this book, by
showing in a variety of instances that their use of lan-
guage 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, in an esthetic sense, done any one of them
an injustice by attributing to ignorance deviations from
Homer which proceeded from poetical powers of inven-
tion, others will soon be found ready to assist in honour-
ing 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 disco-
vered 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 circumstances, 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 confirmation of or as a supplement to this branch
of the science but in that case I generally place it, as
something not strictly belonging to the object of my
book, either in the notes or separated in some other
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
xiii
manner, that the reader may be fully convinced of the
independence and internal certainty of the rest of the
investigation; or if he sees neither charm nor utility in
an etymological examination, he may pass it over un-
noticed. I have felt myself the more impelled to oppose
thus pointedly that mode which sets out with specula-
tion, as I have seen during the course of my investiga-
tions many instances of a superficial etymology (conse-
quently 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 collateral ideas quite foreign to Homer, and
thence interpolating 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
gr
WOME
xiv
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
whose objects 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
investigations 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 con-
tributing something toward the criticism of the readings,
and in some articles (in 13. 23. 24. 46. 53. 58.*, for in-
stance,) 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 ἀνήνοθα and ἐνήνοθα
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
frequently omit grounds which lead too far into genera-
lities, because we wait to ascertain whether the same
combinations, 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 everything 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 essen-
tial points; although I feel confident that no one will
accuse me of 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 ne-
cessary 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.
Berlin, 1818.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
As a Second Edition of this First Volume was called
for before I could add a Second, I thought it due to the
possessors of the First Edition to make no additions,
even where they might be required, but to defer every-
thing of that kind to a Supplement to be added 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.
Page
1
ERRATA.
41,
3, line 20, for X, 51. read X, 5.
23, for 735. read 375.
4, for Appian read Oppian
278, note, for 62. read 59.
208,
326, note, for Æoliani read Æliani
416, line 29, for Cyclean read Cyclic
432, last line, for ὀλοιτρόχοις read ὁλοιτρόχοις
548, line 3, note, for adarcere read adercere
BUTTMANN'S LEXILOGUS.
᾿Αάατος, ἄατος, ἆτος.
1. 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 diæ-
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 Il. §, 271.): and the consequence is, that
either of the above forms, with one, two, or three alphas, may
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 might be explained in opposite senses. There are, how-
ever, in every language certain fixed principles in daily use,
from which it were well never to deviate without 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 cáą, òpáạv,
ὁράασθαι, but the resolution can never take place in ἐάσω,
ὅραμα, ὁρατός'. Let us apply this principle to the radical
1 The form κepáara may be adduced as contrary to this rule, since
we cannot adopt képаas reрáаτos as the original form, but must allow
that κεμάατα is lengthened from κέρατα. I might leave this without
B
2
1. ᾿Αάατος, &c.
verbs of these forms, and we shall see that àáoaola is not a
mere lengthened form of aoaolai, because before the termina-
tion oa, oaodat, there is no contraction but mere formation.
᾿Αάω is therefore the ground-form of ἀάσασθαι; and this is
confirmed by the digamma in the Pindaric avára. The verbal
adjective in Tóc from this verb is consequently aaτóc.
3. There are some verbal forms with the meaning of to sa-
tiate, which lead us to a theme äw, âσai, äµevaι; pass. âтaι;
adv. adny formed from the root with the adverbial termination.
Snv. The Hesiodic third person aarai is an unusual and even
doubtful resolution of åra, as may be seen more fully in a
note on avτiav. In no wise can this word be sufficient to
warrant our adopting an older forn ἀάω (ἄημι, ἄαμαι) with
this meaning also. The verbal adjective in Tóc is therefore
áróc, and cannot be resolved into two alphas any more than
can ὁρατός.
TOG.
4. According to this aáaroc means invulnerable, inviolable ;
ม
aaroc insatiable. From "aroc came by contraction âτoc. In
ἄατος
the same way, indeed, from aáaroc might have been formed
άaroc, 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 åáaroc was fixed to be inviolable, &c.,
기
​that of "aroc, aroc, insatiable.
5. Of the two last forms aroc alone occurs frequently in
Homer, both in Hesiod. But if we compare the two verses
of Hesiod,
Sc. 59.
Αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα ὃν ῎Αρην ἦτον πολέμοιο
Theog. 714. Κόττος τε, Βριάρεώς τε, Γύης τ᾽ ἄατος πολέμοιο,
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 kɛ-
ράατα, τεράατα, which they considered as an imitation of the Homeric
páara. In this they were mistaken: for in such words as кpâas, Xâas,
the roots are κρα, λα; and κρᾶας, λᾶας is the perfect, κρᾶς, λᾶς the
contracted form. On the contrary, in képaros as well as in opéaros the
penultima, if long, is to be considered merely as it is in opvos, kyn-
μidos, &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 Tuns, left uncertain by Bentley on Hor.
Od. 2, 17, 14., I am unwilling to speak decisively. I am of opinion,
1. ᾿Αάατος, &c.
3
+
suspicion falls on the form άaroc, which never occurs else-
where; and this suspicion is strengthened by the second radical
a being short, while in the inflexions of the verb (âσai, άoayu)
it is constantly long. Still these considerations can be con-
vincing only to those who are satisfied that the two poems were
written by the same person.
6. Having now fixed the meaning of aáaroc, we find a diffi-
culty in adapting it to the three passages of Homer where it
occurs. In Il. §, 271. it is the epithet of the Styx, where
Somnus says to Juno,
*Αγρει νῦν μοι ὄμοσσον ἀάατον Στυγὸς ὕδωρ.
But in the Odyssey it is the epithet of a contest; first in o, 91.,
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,
Κλαίετον ἐξελθόντε, καταυτόθι τόξα λιπόντε
Μνηστήρεσσιν ἄεθλον ἀάατον· οὐ γὰρ δΐω
Ρηϊδίως τόδε τόξον ἐΰξοον ἐντανύεσθαι.
The second passage is in x, 51., where Ulysses, after he has
succeeded in the contest, says,
Οὗτος μὲν δὴ ἄεθλος ἀάατος ἐκτετέλεσται.
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 called
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 yvîov, and I think Túŋs the original
and more correct form, as being more agreeable to analogy, Túyns a
corruption which arose very naturally from the Lydian name Gyges.
9 Vid. also ǎaros in Note 3. on ådñoai.
B 2
4
1. ᾿Αάατος, &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 woλußλaßéc, in the second; where it is the epi-
thet of the same contest, by ἀβλαβές.
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 must be first established. Such a meaning is undoubtedly,
inviolable; and this is exactly the epithet most suitable to the
Styx, the swearing by which was the most inviolable of all
oaths. This is so clear, that from this single passage we must
fix this as the sense 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 où yàp pnidiwe then we must look for
the ground of the meaning of aáaroc, 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 aάaroc 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 aáarov in these two
passages seems to me to be much the same as oùк ovoσтóv in
Il., 164., an honourable, distinguished contest, one not to be
despised or treated slightingly*.
UK
8. The only other passage where aάaroc occurs in the old
writers, is in Apoll. Rhod. 2, 77., where it has its natural
meaning of invincible, as opposed to xepeiwv 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. Toλʊßλaßýjs 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. ᾿Αᾶσαι, &c.
5
10
in some of the dialects, but in a form not easily recognised.
Hesychius has the gloss ἀάβακτοι, ἀβλαβεῖς, which the com-
mentators have sadly maltreated, nay, some have at once altered
to aáarot, though it is a genuine Laconian gloss. The Barose
from the digamma between the two alphas of aáw (vid. 2.),
and KTOс is the well-known Doric termination of adjectives
formed from verbs in άζω or άω; therefore, ἀάβακτοι, ἀάατοι,
áßλaßeîc, uninjured, unhurt (used probably of men).
9. Thus far in the pure Greek writers. Whatever occurs in
the later Epic poets at variance with that which has been said
above, belongs probably to them alone. Apoll. Rhod. 1, 459.
has also ἄατος (-ου) ὕβρις; but I cannot believe that he
formed aaroc, as the Scholiast tells us, with a intensive, using
the second a, which must come from the double a of the verb aâoai,
as short. I rather conjecture that he accented it daróc, which
gives the same sense without the unnecessary idea of intensive-
ness, and that he has merely taken the liberty of using the
verbal adjective in Tóc in an active sense. Quintus 1,217. has
θάρσος ἄατον; which is evidently the θάρσος ἄητον of Il. φ,395.
Either then Quintus wrote ἄητον or read in Homer ἄατον.
Whichever he did is to us of no importance. The Homeric
form antog deserves, however, a separate article.
2. ᾿Αᾶσαι, ἄτη, ἀτέων, ἀεσίφρων.
1. In my Grammar I have touched on the form of the verb
daw, 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 dáaroc.
αατος.
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, besides the universal idea of harm and suffering
harm, an occasional idea 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. 'Aâoai, &c.
the old derivative aáaroc, 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,
Il. §, 271., or of the contest with the bow of Ulysses, Od. O,
91. X, 5. The passages, in which this occasional idea can most
plainly be dispensed with, are in Hes. Op. 229.
Οὐδέποτ' ἰθυδίκαισι μετ᾿ ἀνδράσι λιμὸς ὀπηδεῖ
Οὐδ᾽ ἄτη,
and in 350.
κακὰ κέρδεα ἶσ᾽ ἄτῃσιν.
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 Il. 0, 237., where the verb and the substantive are
joined ;
Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἦ ῥά τιν᾽ ἤδη ὑπερμενέων βασιλήων
Τῇδ' ἄτῃ ἄασας, καί μιν μέγα κῦδος ἀπηύρας;
Agamemnon says this without any reference to his early mis-
conduct in having quarrelled with Achilles; it is merely an ex-
clamation on seeing the Greeks flying without any fault of
him. It is the same in I1.6, 111., where he says to the Greeks,
Ζεύς με μέγα Κρονίδης ἄτῃ ἐνέδησε βαρείῃ,
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
aâoai Opévac, to injure the understanding, mislead, render foolish,
stupify,) was transferred to the mind or understanding, so that,
whenever the context led that way, dâoaι alone gave the same
idea as when joined with Opévac, 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.
o, 293., where expressions of this kind occur repeatedly in the
same passage;
Οἰνός σε τρώει μελιήδης, ὥστε καὶ ἄλλους
Βλάπτει, ὃς ἄν μιν χανδὸν ἕλῃ, μηδ' αἴσιμα πίνῃ.
2. ᾿Αᾶσαι, &c.
7
Οἶνος καὶ Κένταυρον ἀγάκλυτον Εὐρυτίωνα
῎Αασεν ἐν μεγάρῳ μεγαθύμου Πειριθύοιο
Ἐς Λαπίθας ἐλθύνθ᾽· ὁ δ᾽ ἐπεὶ φρένας ἄασεν οίνῳ,
Μαινόμενος κάκ᾽ ἔρεξε δόμον κατὰ Πειριθόσιο.
The Centaur was then dragged out of the house, and there
mutilated. The poet goes on to say,
ὁ δὲ φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἀασθεὶς
*Ηϊεν ἣν ἄτην ὀχέων ἀεσίφρονι θυμῷ.
4. That the word desippwv (striking as the repetition may
appear in the two last verses,) gives the same idea as aâoau
Opévac, is certain from other passages; e. g. from Il. v, 183.
4, 603. Od. o, 470. And yet, notwithstanding this, some,
as Schneider, derive it from anvaι to blow; others, as Apoll.
Lex. from déoat 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 darippwv. 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 one (are) but the ad-
jective deoippwv has one short one. This difficulty, however,
might be more easily removed. It is certain that daoiopwv is
the regularly grammatical form; but the second a was changed
to e, from the ear being accustomed to such forms as aλpeoí-
βοιος, ταμεσίχροος, φαεσίμβροτος.
5. Let us now go back to the verb, and to the passage of
Od. 4, 293. quoted at length in section 3.; and by comparing
it with Od. λ, 61.
*Ασέ με δαίμονος αἶτα κακὴ καὶ ἀθέσφατος οἶνος,
and with κ, 68.
K,
"Αασάν μ᾿ ἕταροί τε κακοὶ πρὸς τοῖσί τε ὕπνος,
we may observe that it is not quite clear and decided whether
the active, aâoai Tiva, admits of the transition from the general
meaning to hurt, to the more limited one to mislead, render
ἀᾶσαι τινα,
8
2. 'Aâoai, &c.
foolish, stupify, &c. The passive dao0ñvai occurs frequently
in the former and general sense. The middle, on the contrary,
ááoɑolai, takes wholly and exclusively the latter, that which
relates to the mind or understanding. And, indeed, since
daoάuny literally signifies, I 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 άao¤îvaι is also frequently used like the mid-
dle. This is quite clear in Il. 7, 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,
Οὐ δυνάμην λελαθέσθ᾽ ἄτης, ᾗ πρῶτον ἀάσθην.
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,
᾿Αλλ᾽ ἐπεὶ ἀασάμην, καί μευ φρένας ἐξέλετο Ζεὺς.
Again he uses daoáμny alone in precisely the same sense in
Il. 1, 116.119., for which in another place (II. λ, 340.), where
mention is made of foolish thoughtless conduct, the idea is more
fully expressed by ἀάσατο δὲ μέγα θυμῷ. The passive ἀασθῆναι,
however, in the remaining passages where it occurs (Il. 7, 113.
π, 685. Od. 8, 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 judgement on each separate passage, prevent the re-
flecting reader from exercising his own judgement.
6. It remains only to remark that in Il. 7, 91. άτn, » TÁVTAG
ἄτη, πάντας
àâτaι, at verse 129. where the same phrase is repeated, and
at verse 95. καὶ γὰρ δή νύ ποτε Ζῆν᾽ ἄσατο, τόνπερ ἄριστον, &c.,
the middle occurs in a purely active sense.
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
casily forms, which were not originally in Homer, might have crept into
2. 'Aâoai, &c.
9
7. The passages, in which the substantive arn occurs in
the original and general sense, have been mentioned at the
beginning of this article. With reference to the mind or un-
derstanding it occurs much more frequently; sometimes with
the full construction as in Il. π, 805. årn Opévac eîλe, spoken
of Patroclus standing as stupified; in 7, 88. where Agamem-
non says, the Gods in the beginning of that quarrel μoi Opeciv
éµßadov ärŋv' and in κ, 391. where Dolon complains
Πολλῇσι μ᾽ ἄτῃσι παρὲκ νόον ἤγαγεν Εκτωρ
τη
and sometimes άrn stands alone with the possessive pronoun,
as in Il. a, 412. "that Agamemnon
in, 115.
Γνῷ ..
Ἣν ἄτην, ὅτ᾽ ἄριστον ᾿Αχαιῶν οὐδὲν ἔτισεν·
น
T
Ω γέρον, οὔτι ψεῦδος ἐμὰς ἄτας κατέλεξας.
᾿Αασάμην, &c.
and in Hes. Op. 93. This reference to the understanding remains
then also the sense, where such errors or follies are attributed
to the misguidance of the Gods, as in the passage quoted at
the beginning of this paragraph from Il. 7, 88. and again at
v. 270. still with the same reference to the understanding, but
in a more general sense;
Ζεῦ πάτερ, ἦ μεγάλας ἄτας ἄνδρεσσι διδοῖσθα·
n
and where Helen says in Od. 8, 261.
ἄτην δὲ μετέστενον, ἣν ᾿Αφροδίτη
Δῶχ᾽ ὅτε μ᾽ ἤγαγε κεῖσε, &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. Zevs άoaro is indeed condemned by the context (vid. Heyne);
ἄσατο
but who can depend on ἄσατο, τὸν in a passage where ἄασε, τὸν might
have stood, and would have been more natural and more Homeric? And
as to άara, if we consider that the pres. act. da would admit of its
last syllable being lengthened, as ôpâ ẻą do, it shows the possibility,
that an old form dáą might have existed in the mouths of the rhapso-
dists, but have been thrust out by the more convenient därai.
10
2. 'Aâoai, &c.
we ought not to translate ärn 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, "O 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 arn at
Il. w, 480. where it expresses the situation of one who has fled
from his country for having killed a man; or at , 501. where
an 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.
τη
2
T
9. Among the derivations of arn with a short is áréw; of
which I wish to correct the common acceptation, that it is
the same as ἀτάω. The Ionic change of the termination aw
with é 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 Männern.-Und ich beseufzte das Unheil, das
Afrodite gab, da sie dorthin mich vom Vaterlande geführet, &c.—ED.]
2 ’Ατάω, ἀτέω, ἀτύζω, ἀτέμβω, ἀτάσθαλος. The shortening of a vowel,
even when that vowel arose from contraction, as in ärŋ, was very na-
tural in the ancient state of the Greek language, whenever a word in
its derivatives was lengthened, and the accent withdrawn from the long
syllable. The adoption of a root arw with a short, from which those
lengthened forms would be produced, and again of araw, from which
would be formed, by dropping the 7, daw and aw, presents improba-
bilities which strike us at first sight.
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
11
acceptation in our lexicons, unless meaning and usage corro-
borated it, which is not the case here. 'Aréw is a verb oc-
᾿Ατέω
curring only in the Ionic writers, Homer (Il. v, 332.) and
Herodotus (7,223.), and always in an intransitive sense; which
sense is deduced from the particular meaning of årn (folly,
thoughtlessness); and of which árúlw is a term of stronger
meaning. In the two passages of Homer and Herodotus men-
tioned above only the participle (átéovтa, átéovтec) occurs,
which consequently means thoughtless, foolishly rash, desperate.
The verb áráw, 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 áráw, it must have
a transitive meaning, deduced from the general sense of arn
(harm, injury); ar@uai therefore will be, I suffer harm or
injury, experience misfortune, as in Soph. Antig. 17. Eurip.
Suppl. 182. The two verbs active are therefore; áréw, I am
thoughtless, foolish, &c.; áráw, I bring into harm or misfor-
tunes.
῎Αατος ; vid. ἀάατος.
᾿Αβροτάζειν, ἀβρότη ; vid. ἀμβρόσιος.
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
The word ayyeλin occurs frequently in the Epic poets in this
its undisputed form and meaning: sometimes, however, we
find ayyeλing and άyyeλíŋv in a construction unusual for άy-
yeλin, of which the prevailing explanation handed down to us
was by means of a substantive, ὁ ἀγγελίας, Ion. ἀγγελίης, the
• 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 ατῶμαι with the Homeric αάσασθαι. In all
the passages of the Tragedians where it is found, there is never the
least thing to induce a supposition that the idea of thoughtlessness is
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.
12
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
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 all those
passages back to ayyedin. In some instances he has not suc-
ceeded satisfactorily; and Hermann in his treatise De Ellipsi
et Pl. p. 158. has endeavoured with the same view to explain
those passages more grammatically. Still, however, all doubt
and difficulty appear to me very far from having been removed,
and therefore a more accurate examination may not be super-
fluous.
2. In entering on this discussion I think it will be best to
begin by giving some examples of ayyeλin 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,
literally translated, "bringing him tidings and the fate of his
companions," instead of "tidings of his companions and of
their fate." In Od. n, 263. Ulysses relates of Calypso,
Καὶ τότε δή με κέλευσεν ἐποτρύνουσα νέεσθαι,
Ζηνὸς ὑπ' ἀγγελίης, ἢ καὶ νόος ἐτράπετ᾽ αὐτῆς.
i. e. “under the influence of a message from Jupiter to her."
In Od. 334.
По
Εὐρύλοχος δ' αἶψ' ἦλθε. . .
᾿Αγγελίην ἑτάρων ἐρέων καὶ ἀδευκέα πότμον.
Τὼ δὲ συναντήτην, κήρυξ καὶ δῖος ὑφορβὸς,
Τῆς αὐτῆς ἕνεκ᾽ ἀγγελίης, ἐρέοντε γυναικί.
"C
where the union of the two constructions is observable; on ac-
count of the same message, that is, to announce it to the lady."
Thus also ὀτρύνειν οι ἐποτρύνειν ἀγγελίην τινί, Od. π, 355.
w, 353. means, “to send a hasty message to any one
again more fully in o, 41.
""
; and
τὸν δ᾽ ὀτρῦναι πόλιν εἴσω
᾿Αγγελίην ἐρέοντα περίφρονι Πηνελοπείῃ,
"send him (Eumæus) to carry a hasty message
3. On the other hand, the passages in which ayyeding and
ayyedíny have been explained (as mentioned above) by a mas-
•
""
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
13
0
culine substantive ὁ ἀγγελίης, are the following. And first of
the nominative. In Il. γ, 206. Antenor thus speaks to Helen,
Ηδη γὰρ καὶ δεῦρο ποτ᾽ ἤλυθε δῖος Οδυσσεὺς,
Σεῦ ἕνεκ᾽ ἀγγελίης, σὺν ἀρηϊφίλῳ Μενελάῳ.
the construction here would be, ᾿Οδυσσεὺς ἤλυθεν ἀγγελίης
(for ἄγγελος), σεῦ ἕνεκα. In v, 252. Idomeneus says to Me-
riones, who was entering the camp, "Art thou wounded,
Ἠέ τευ ἀγγελίης μετ᾽ ἔμ᾽ ἤλυθες ;”
ἀγγελίης τινός, “as the announcer of something.” In II.
o, 640. speaking of Copreus,
ὃς Εὐρυσθῆος ἄνακτος
᾿Αγγελίης οἴχνεσκε βίῃ Ηρακληείῃ,
"who was accustomed to go as the messenger of Eurystheus
to Hercules." The accusative is found in the two following
passages. In Il. 8, 384.
῎Ενθ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ἀγγελίην ἐπὶ Τυδῆ στεῖλαν ᾿Αχαιοί.
σε
the construction would be, ᾿Αχαιοὶ ἐπέστειλαν Τυδέα ἀγγελίην,
they sent Tydeus as their embassador." In A, 140. Aga-
memnon says of Antimachus,
+/
Ος ποτ' ἐνὶ Τρώων ἀγορῇ Μενέλαον ἄνωγεν
᾿Αγγελίην ἐλθόντα σὺν ἀντιθέῳ Ὀδυσῆϊ
Αὖθι κατακτεῖναι.
the construction would be, ὃς ἄνωγε κατακτεῖναι Μενέλαον
ἀγγελίην ἐλθόντα, “ to kill Menelaus, who was come as em-
6
bassador.”
4. If we do not adopt this mode of explanation, we must
suppose two forms of speech expressing the same leading idea;
ἔρχομαι, οἰχνῶ ἀγγελίης (genitive), and ἔρχομαι ἀγγελίην, ἐπι-
στέλλω σε ἀγγελίην. 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, ἕνεκα is supplied, which we see expressed in the
example quoted above from Od. π, 334.; and in the case of
the accusative, we must supply eic, which we also find added
in Schol. ad Il. λ, 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. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
to say, such a preposition is not, properly speaking, omitted ;
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 epxeola ayyeλin 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'. 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 κονίοντες πεδίοιο, θέρεσθαι πυρός, ὡρμήθη ᾿Ακάμαν-
TOC (II. §, 488.); others have maintained their place in prose,
as ζηλῶ σε τοῦ πλούτου, λαβέσθαι ποδός, οὕτως ἀνοίας ἔχει :
and with these we may very fairly class epxouai ayyeding, since
the idea of the preposition, which is not expressed, arises na-
turally from the context. Besides, 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
ἀγγελίης taken for ἄγγελος, or the oblique cases ἀγγελίης and
ayyeλínv standing like adverbs, are each attached to the verb.
In the first passage, then, the construction must be vev
ayyedinc, “he came with a message" or "in an embassy,” σeû
eveka "on thy account"; and in the fourth passage, ÉTÉσтeι-
ἐπέστει
λav Tudn ayyeλinv, "they sent him on an embassy." And only
in the second it seems more agreeable to this mode of explana-
tion to join ayyeλing Tev "with some kind of message," not to
ἀγγελίης
ενεκα
τευ
* [.... From them I go
This uncouth errand.-MILTON's Paradise Lost.
The corresponding illustration used by Buttmann is, Botschaft laufen for
auf Botschaft laufen.-ED.]
This is also the meaning of Hermann's explanation, that here we
have one of those mixtures of two phrases so common in Greek; that
is to say, ἔρχεσθαι with φέρειν ἀγγελίαν, because this latter is done by
going as well as the former. In other words, epxeo0a, which else-
where takes after itself only a remote object with the aid of a preposi-
tion, takes here the case of the nearer object, as in the phrase pépeiv
ἀγγελίας.
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
15
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 in
separate passages, nothing 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
masculine substantive o ayyedinc should have been introduced
merely by means of these passages; and that too, not by the
casual conjecture of a grammarian, like Zenodotus, to whom
some are ascribed, but as far as we can ascertain, a mode of ex-
planation handed down from remote antiquity. For wherever
we search with the expectation of finding the older mode, in
the Scholia, in Apollonius, in Hesychius, &c., this is the esta-
blished one; while Eustathius is quite silent on this, and only
at y, 206. speaks expressly of the other, which we will in future
for the sake of brevity call the feminine mode of explanation.
This latter, on the contrary, is announced only as an opinion
of Zenodotus; for it is expressly said, that at Il. o, 640. where
the doubt is whether ayyeding was considered to be a genitive or
a nominative, he read ayyediny, which in that place can only be
the accusative of ayyeλin; and at Il. y, 206. where Zeû eveк'
»
ayyeding has given rise to the same doubt, that he read Enc,
evidently in agreement with the genitive dyyedinc, but as evi-
dently a mere artificial reading. For in this last passage the
masculine mode of explanation is indisputably the most natural,
ἤλυθεν ἀγγελίης, σεῦ ἕνεκα: not, indeed, that the other is in-
correct, if we keep to the reading σεῦ; ἤλυθεν ἀγγελίης (with
a message) σεῦ ἕνεκα*, whereas ἤλυθεν σεῦ ἕνεκ᾿ ἀγγελίης is
harsh and obscure: hence the construction, nλvlev éveka áy-
εκα
yeλing oeû, appeared preferable; (vid. Eustathius ;) but then
the language required, instead of the personal ocû, the posses-
sive one, which accordingly Zenodotus placed in the text. For
it was supposed that ἀγγελίη σεῦ οι σὴ ἀγγελίη might here
mean "the message concerning thee," in the same way as in
Od. x, 245. quoted near the beginning of this article ayye-
čvek
,
""
* [Thus also Passow in his excellent Greek and German Lexicon ex-
plains the construction by χάριν αγγελίας σοῦ ἕνεκα.—ED.]
16
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
Ainy érápov means "tidings of or concerning thy companions.
λίην ἑτάρων
But the two examples are not similar; for in this latter the
tidings are of the absent companions of Ulysses, and of their
fate, but in the former Ulysses comes to Troy, where Helen
with a commission concerning her, which, forsooth, is also
to be ayyeλin 'Edλévnc, or, if addressed to her, ayyedin on*.
Apollonius, who gives the preference to the masculine mode of
explanation, speaks thus in dispraise of the opinion of Zeno-
dotus : “ Ζηνόδοτος δὲ τοῦτο ἀγνοήσας γράφει, &c.” And the
Schol. A. runs thus: “ἡ διπλῆ, ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος γράφει, σῆς
ἕνεκ᾽ ἀγγελίης. Οὐ λέγει δὲ (scil. ὁ ποιητὴς) συνήθως ἡμῖν,
τῆς σῆς ἀγγελίας χάριν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀγγελίης ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄγγελος.
"
dè
6. It is clear, then, that in the time of the Alexandrian
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 result, that Homer,
without any reason, uses indiscriminately ¿λeîv άyyeλinv and
ἐλθεῖν ἀγγελίης: which remark becomes of more importance,
when we consider that, on the other hand, by the adoption of
the masculine ó ȧyyeλine the difference of the case is in every
instance grounded in the construction, but this is throughout
similar in form. And in the same way other doubts may also
present themselves; as, for instance, in y, 206. Aube σeû ëvek'
ἤλυθε
ayyeding, where, as has been remarked before, the only natural
explanation is that which adopts the masculine ὁ ἀγγελίης;
whereas, if we take the feminine n ayyedín, the passage re-
quires the accusative rather than the genitive, „λv0e…………œeû
ἕνεκ᾿ ἀγγελίην: a remark which must be exactly reversed in δ,
384., and hence the before-mentioned indiscriminate use of the
two cases becomes much worse than if it were not at all grounded
in the construction. Again, in o, 640. the singular ayyedine,
e
ور
* [Yet we find ȧyyeλín éµý, “information concerning me," Il. 7, 336.
-ED.]
3. ᾿Αγγελίη, ἀγγελίης.
17
if by it we understand a message, and not a messenger, is un-
natural, because the sense of the context requires a repetition
of messages, so that one might in that case be induced to pro-
pose as a correction, ὃς Εὐρυσθῆος ἄνακτος ᾿Αγγελίας· οἴχνε-
OKE
• •
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:
Παῦρα δὲ θαύμαντος θυγάτηρ πόδας ὠκέα Ιρις
᾿Αγγελίης πωλεῖται ἐπ᾽ εὐρέα νῶτα θαλάσσης.
Here the genitive άyyedinc is as admissible in construction with
Twλeiraι as it is in the passages quoted from Homer, while, on
the contrary, the masculine explanation is not possible. But
then here is a various reading, 'Ayyeλín. One should certainly
be rather unwilling to suppose that ayyeλin 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 ayyedin
in this sense bears the same relation to the masculine ȧyyeλíng
as ταμίη does to ταμίης; that, further, since ἄγγελος did not
suit the verse, the phrase Ἶρις ᾿Αγγελίη πωλεῖται seemed to
offer itself naturally as a parallel of that other masculine άyye-
Xinc, 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 feel no hesitation in declaring
for that which I consider 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 ἐλθεῖν ἀγγελίης and ἀγγελίην
(gen. and accus. fem.) were both in use, and that the doubt as
с
18
4. ᾿Αγέρωχος.
0
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 o ayyedinc 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 -ŋc, and
an accusative -ny, according to the construction; and even
ayyeλín might have been admitted into the Theogonia. The
reading of Zenodotus, ayyeλíny 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-
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 judgement*.
ness.
4. 'Ayépwxos.
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, pntopiǹ ʼn Xéğıc: that is to say, the word,
which occurs frequently in Homer and Pindar, is never found,
as far as I know, in the times of pure Attic Greek, but in the
prose of Polybius it is very common. Doubtless, then, the
word remained always 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 ayépwxoc is wild,
* [Passow rejects entirely the masculine substantive as quite unne-
cessary. ED.]
4. ᾿Αγέρωχος.
19
untamed, unmanageable; a sense which, as applied to animals
only, is good as well as bad', 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 άyépwxoc only in a good sense is certainly
correct; but from the varied nature of their explanations, as
ἔντιμος, σεμνός, ἀνδρεῖος, 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 άyépwxoc a frequent epithet of
the Trojans, and once of the Mysians (к, 430.), but always as
soldiers and warriors; again, in the catalogue of the ships, of
the Rhodians; besides these it is given only to Periclymenus.
We can only gather from these passages that it is an epithet
suited to soldiers and warriors as such; but the exact sense
which lies at the root of the word cannot be ascertained from
these passages.
The mythological account of Periclymenus.
(the only hero to whom Homer gives this epithet, and to whom
Hesiod has also 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 Her-
cules for a long time. One hint we may perhaps gain, that
the word is principally used as an epithet of Asiatics, still
without implying any want of courage, for the Mysians are
called in other places ἀγχέμαχοι and καρτερόθυμοι.
3. Pindar has it as an epithet of illustrious actions, άyepú-
xwv éрyµáτwv, Nem. 6, 56.; of victory in general, Ol. 10, 96.;
and of riches, πλούτου στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον, Pyth. 1, 96.;
which last passage may perhaps bring to our recollection that
the only Greek nation which has this epithet in Homer is the
· There is a gloss in Lex. Seg. 6. p. 336. ᾿Αγέρωχος ταῦρος˙ σεμνὸς,
ὑπερόπτης, θρασύς. However correct the expression ταῦρος ἀγέρωχος
may be (vid. Himer. Ecl. 12, 6.), still the explanation does not accord
with it. Undoubtedly it ought to be ᾿Αγέρωχος· γαῦρος, σεμνὸς, &c.,
for these meanings occur in different glossaries, and Hesychius has,
amongst others, γαύρος,
c 2
20
5. "Aypa, ȧypeîv.
wealthy Rhodians. Add to this that its later sense, in which
it was rather a term of reproach, was ὑπερηφανία and αὐθαδία,
and I think I see the one idea which pervades all this in
haughtiness, which, among the Asiatic nations and the wealthy,
showed itself in external display: when, therefore, the more
ancient Greeks expressed this sense by ayépwxoc, they attached
to it no idea of reproach; so that the explanation oeuvóc appears
to me to have a particular reference to external dignity and
show'. Besides this, it is worthy of remark that while Pindar
uses the word only in a good sense, Archilochus and Alcæus
used it even as early as their times in a reproachful one. Vid.
Eustath. in note 2.
4. On the derivation of ayépwxoc 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 yepάoxoc 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 privative for
the a intensive, as indeed in some words does take place, but
here has too little analogy to be supported.
5. ῎Αγρα, ἀγρεῖν.
1. Of the verb ȧypeîv Homer has only the imperative äypeɩ,
which he uses quite as a mere interjection, age! "come!"; but
he has many evident derivatives from it, as waλwáypetog, Zw-
ypeîv, &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, ῎Αγρει δ᾽ οἶνον ἐρυθρὸν ἀπὸ τρυ-
yóc, Brunck's Anal. 1, 41.
2 Eustath. ad Il. β, 654. δηλοῖ δέ φασιν ἡ λέξις οὕτως τοὺς σεμνοὺς,
ŵs 'Aλкµàν Bovλeraι. This last expression is new and unknown to me,
although it must point to the meaning of the word in Alkman, since
immediately after βούλεται follows ᾿Αλκαῖος δέ φασι καὶ ᾿Αρχίλοχος ἀγέ-
ρωχον τὸν ἄκοσμον καὶ ἀλάζονα οἶδεν.
5. "Aypa, aypeîv.
21
2. The almost exact agreement of meaning between this
verb and aypa, ȧypeveiv (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 ❝ypoc or from ȧyeipw, 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 aypeîv, and
whatever is formed from it, must be deduced from that particu-
lar meaning of "ypa, hunting or game, as being the only sense
favourable to it. In that case we must trace it thus: aypeîv
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 waλwáypetoc, Il. a, 526.,
where Jupiter says, Οὐ γὰρ ἐμὸν παλινάγρετον, “ none of my
resolutions can be taken back again, they are irrevocable"; and
the other sense is in Tuρáypa, 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 waλıváyperov, 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
άypeîv. Stephanus quotes but one instance of this sense, 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 éw and eú otherwise is, to have used,
even once, for the sake of the metre, ἀγρεῖν for ἀγρεύειν. The
proper meaning of the verb dypeiv (of which, as has been said
before, only the imperative in its particular interjectional usage
remained in the common language of the older times,) was un-
doubtedly to take hold on, to take; and it was nothing more
S
22
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
than another form of aipeiv, as is evident from the intimate.
connexion of the vowel i with the consonants j and g. Thus,
from PΑΓΩ, whence ῥήγνυμι, came another form ῥαίω, with a
similar meaning.
4. The imperative of this aypeîv became (like age in Latin,
or tenez in French,) a common interjectional particle; the rest
of the verb disappeared before the other form aipéw, leaving
behind some derivatives, at the head of which stands aypa,
literally meaning a catch, whence, 1st, game, 2nd, hunting;
and hence ἀγρεύειν, to which one poet or another added ἀγρεῖν
as a sister form. Without further investigation we may now
trace from the true radical word and radical meaning ȧypeîv,
to take or lay hold on, the other derivatives πυράγρα, ζωάγριον,
ζωγρεῖν, παλινάγρετος, αὐτάγρετος ; and this last in particular
strikingly confirms my opinion; for the avrάypeToç of Homer,
Od. π, 148. Εἰ γάρ πως εἴη αὐτάγρετα πάντα βροτοῖσιν, is,
as every one knows, the au@aipeToc of common language.
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, ἄμεναι, ἑῶμεν, ἄδην, ἄδος, ἀδημονεῖν.
1. In Homer, but nowhere else, are found the forms adnocilev
and ἀδηκότες, from a verb ἀδεῖν, ἀδῆσαι, to feel disgust or dis-
like. With this is joined another Homeric word, a complete
äπağ eipnµévov, from II. X, 88. ädoc, 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 ἀδδήσειεν, ἀδδηκότες, similar to what we see
in eddetoey and addeéc. (Vid. note 1. on Ocovdic.) Again, the
substantive adoc is connected with the Epic verb aoat, to sa-
tiate. For this to be grammatical we must adopt a theme AAN,
from which on the one side should come the verbal substantive
adoc, on the other the formation doai; but then still the quan-
tity is opposed to this. 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 clear from diffi-
culties.
2. The participle adŋkóτec is always found in the construc-
tion kaµáτy ádŋkóтec, and the idea attached to it is, disgusted,
6. 'Adñoai, &c.
23
wearied, satiated, which connects it with asat. But twice, in
Il. к, 98., Od. µ, 281., we find joined kaµáτw adŋkótec ỷdè
καμάτῳ
καὶ ὕπνῳ. The Scholiast in a straightforward manner explains
ὕπνῳ at once by ἀγρυπνίᾳ. 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. Could, there-
fore, satiated, wearied with sleep, mean with the want of it?
Impossible to be so¹! On the other hand, we may say, to be
oppressed with sleep (a word generally implying a painful feel-
ing); and Horace's well-known imitation of Homer, ludo fati-
gatumque 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 satiatum. In short, ådŋkóтec 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.
ζ, 2. ὕπνῳ καὶ καμάτῳ ἀρημένος. If, however, any one still
kai
inclines to the usual interpretation of adnкóTEG, and supposes
π to have been added by the poet without thought, let him
examine adnoeie in Od. a, 134. a little more accurately than
seems to have been generally done. The stranger guest ar-
rives; Telemachus prepares him a seat apart from the suitors,
μὴ ξείνος ἀνιηθεὶς ὀρυμαγδῷ
Δείπνῳ ἀδήσειεν ὑπερφιάλοισι μετελθών.
-
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 adnoeier, must at once feel that it
can only express mere disgust or dislike.
ἀδηκότες,
3. Thus much as regards the meaning. That adnкóтec,
from whatever verb it come, cannot have the a short, and con-
sequently that the grammatical assistance of the 88, making
addnкóтeç, is superfluous and ungrammatical, follows of itself
1 Another Scholiast compares with it the expression μεστὸς ὕπνου:
the comparison is very fair and just; but no one can mean that the
expressions full of sleep and satiated with sleep can be used for each
other.
24
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &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 avwya, which no longer occurs as
a perfect: it is, therefore, impossible that so evident a perfect
as the particle 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
ʼn (which otherwise is only visible when it lengthens a word),
in the aor. 'aoa (whatever be its meaning), and in the part. pf.
apnuévoc. The true formation of the verb before us is, there-
fore, ἀδέω, ἄδησα, ἄδηκα, all with a long.
ασα
4. As far as relates to the quantity, then, there is no reason
for rejecting the connexion of the verbs adñoaι and doai. The
substantive adoc, which in this respect differs from both, shall
be considered hereafter. At present let us examine the mean-
ing of doat, which in the active voice has both a transitive and
an intransitive sense. The spears fly, λιλαιόμενα χροὸς ἆσαι,
66
to feed on human flesh." Phoenix, reminding Achilles of his
childhood, says to him, Il. 1, 489. "Thou wouldst not partake
of any meal unless I took thee on my knee and
Ὄψου τ᾽ ἄσαιμι προταμὼν καὶ οἶνον ἐπισχών.”
Again, in II. 7, 307. the sorrowing Achilles begs the chiefs
Μή με πρὶν σίτοιο κελεύετε μηδὲ ποτῆτος
῎Ασασθαι φίλον ἦτορ ...
-
Strong contraries these to that adñoaι deiπvų, all of them ex-
pressing an agreeable pleasurable feeling of satiety. And if
this verb is once used with an ironical 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, Il. σ, 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,
ἐπεί κ' ἐριαύχενας ἵππους
Παντοίου δρόμου ἄσῃ ὑπὸ πτόλιν ἠλασκάζων.
where an ironical allusion is made to the pleasure which the
spirited horses would feel in galloping about. Similar to this,
but without any ironical insinuation, is Il. w, 717. aσeole
ἄσεσθε
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
25
κλαυθμοῖο,
Kλavoμoto, "then you may take your fill of weeping," and,
157. yóolo μèv čoti kai doaι, "it is possible for one even to
γόοιο μὲν ἔστι
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 AA, which, however, must necessarily
have the a long. But some other forms lead us away from that
theme, e. g. Il. o, 70.
Ó,
ἐγχείη . .
ἱεμένη χροὸς ἄμεναι ἀνδρομέοιο.
That this form belongs through its meaning to the intransitive
doa, is clear; as also that it is the infin. pres. for aeɩv, åéµevai.
Those who adopt a present A▲ wish to read or pronounce it
ἄμμεναι, contrary to all analogy; much rather would ἔδμεναι
bring ἄδμεναι. Το ἄμεναι may be added the pres. pass. ἆται,
according to Hesychius, or aarai with the sense of the future
from Scut. Herc. 101. (vid. note on avriav.): and the pres. aw
is therefore to be considered as in use in the language of the
Epic poets. From the same theme is evidently derived the
adj. âτoc, insatiable, compounded of a and åróc.
αται
6. Here we must also mention the unusual form éuev in
Il. T, 402. in the address of Achilles to his horses: "Take care
to carry your master safe in a very different way (from what
did Patroclus)*
you
,
*Αψ Δαναῶν ἐς ὅμιλον, ἐπεί χ᾽ ἑῶμεν πολέμοιο.”
The various readings worth mentioning are ἕωμεν, ὦμεν (He-
sych. in 'Enei-, p. 1321.), and k' èŵμev. Of ἐῶμεν from
cáw none of the commentators, as far as I know, ever had a
thought; and indeed the construction would be against it. If
we read ewuev, it must be the aor. 2. subjunct. of inµɩ: but
this also is unknown in this construction. For my part, I think
it may be a question whether inju, which, it is true, in Homer
is invariably both itself and in its compounds transitive only,
CC
* [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. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
may not have had also the neuter meaning, to go from, to leave
behind, which in later Greek ávínu had. For instance, we see
that epweîv (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 ἐξερωεῖν, “ to
move away from, move backwards from……..": in the same way
might inui moléμoto in Homer have the same meaning as the
more complete construction ávínu afterwards had. But I leave
this as a mere possibility, and proceed to that for which I intro-
duced the mention of é@uev.-By a rare coincidence all the
scholiasts and glossators, without one exception, explain the
word by πληρωθῶμεν, κορεσθῶμεν. Heyne is satisfied with
that explanation, and supposes an ellipsis taken from ěž ěpov
eivat, 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 'Etei-, p. 1323.); but what is there not to
be found in the grammarians? It is impossible that those who
explain éŵμev simply by кopeσ0wμev should have wished to be
understood in this way; they had this translation of the old
word by tradition, and some of them endeavoured to explain
the translation in that inverted manner.
7. The Etym. M. under the word "Adŋv gives quite dif-
ferent explanations of ewμev, from which we will cite only two,
according to the one of which we must adopt a verb ew, I sa-
tiate, according to the other aw, w, ac, d, with the same mean-
ing, whence aoew, &c. But, putting aside the mistakes and
misconceptions of the later grammarians, we see that there
was an old admitted tradition, that ἐῶμεν meant κορεσθῶμεν,
and that it belonged to that aw, to which belong aμevat and
ἆσαι χροός; from ἄω comes the subjunctive ἄωμεν with a long,
and thence according to a well-known analogy may come
ewμev. As for accent and aspirate, with which the gramma-
rians amused themselves, we need not trouble ourselves. If
we follow this derivation, the reading must be ètei k' ëwµev;
and in either case it is clear that an old tradition as early as
the most ancient commentators admitted the theme to be not
기
​6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
27
adw but aw. On the other hand, if my former supposition be
preferred, we must read èπei x ewuev: 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
After having well considered it, I prefer the latter
explanation, as a very ancient traditionary one.
66
context.
8. The adverb ädny, fully, enough, to satiety, belongs also
to this inquiry. This word is generally short; as in II. v, 315.
oi µiv ädŋv éλówot, and in Hes. ap. Ath. 10, p. 428. c. botic adŋv
πίνει. But as it occurs long at Il. e, 203., it is there written
ἄδδην. This word also is by some derived from ΑΔΩ, which
theme on account of the before-mentioned adoc is taken to be
short, contrary to the quantity of âoaɩ. Also a substantive is
supposed, aon, of which this adverb is the accusative.—But
δην is undoubtedly a common adverbial ending, as in βάδην.
And as we have seen ἄ-μεναι and ἀ-τός, so is ἄ-δην clear,
and confirmatory of all which has been said above. "Addny is
therefore an unnecessary reading; for adny with a long from
aw, doa, is much more agreeable to analogy than with a short;
and adŋy with a short arose from the syllable being shortened,
as βάδην and the dual βάτην were shortened from βήδην, βή-
την . Still it is singular that the derivative of this adverb
ἀδηφάγος should be so commonly found written ἀδδηφάγος in
the MSS. and in the later writers even in prose. If it were
sometimes found long in verse, the same observations would
apply to it as to adny, but I find it universally short; in Soph.
Philoct. 313. Theocr. 22, 115. Callim. Dian. 160.; and
therefore now the good editions, at least of the old writers,
have judiciously restored adn payoc³. This adverb, then, pro-
S
2 It comes to the same thing, whether this account be admitted, or
whether we suppose that aw in its flexions has a short as well as a long:
in which latter case the form άaros, which has been mentioned before
in its place, might easily be justified. Vid. åáaros sect. 5.
3 Probably the being accustomed to see in II. e, 203. (which passage
plainly contains the etymology of ἀδηφάγος) εἰωθύτες ἔδμεναι ἄδδην,
written with dd, was the cause why we so often find addŋpayos. In
Ælian V. H. 1, 27. and 9, 13. this last is the reading of the text, as
well as in Athen. 10. p. 416. b., where, however, as we may conclude
from Schweighäuser's note, the reading in the MS. is the correct one.
28
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
"C
perly signifies, enough, fully, as when Il. €, 203. Pandarus
says of his horses εἰωθότες ἔδμεναι ἄδην, “ accustomed to eat
their fill"; but the idea soon passes to over-fullness, or too much,
(so with us, to satiate is used in both senses,) as in the frag-
ment of Hesiod quoted above, ὅστις ἄδην πίνει, οἶνος δέ οἱ ἔπλετο
μάργος, and the same therefore in ἀδηφάγος.
οι
9. Not so clear is another expression in which this word
occurs three times in Homer; as in Il. v, 315. οἵ μιν ἄδην
ἐλόωσι καὶ ἐσσύμενον πολέμοιο. in τ, 423. οὐ λήξω πρὶν
Τρῶας ἄδην ἐλάσαι πολέμοιο. in Od. e, 290. ἀλλ᾽ ἔτι μέν
μίν φημι ἄδην ἐλάαν κακότητος. These passages seem to favour
the opinion of those who look on adŋv as an accusative: for
the explanation given is, ἐλαύνειν εἰς ἄδην τοῦ πολέμου. This
explanation, however, is certainly not sufficient to induce us to
abandon the view which we have before taken of adŋy, and
which is so agreeable to analogy. "Adŋv éλaúvei appears to
me to mean, probe exercitare, and the genitive to determine the
thought to the particular object in the Homeric manner, as
λούεσθαι ποταμοῖο, πρῆσαι πυρός.
10. Since, then, in all the forms belonging to doa there is
nothing to indicate a root AA-, and, although in certain
passages the meanings of doar and adñoaι approximate very
nearly to each other, still adñoat, 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 adñoat the word.
ἀδολέσχης, which cannot well be derived from ἄδην, 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 ἀδῆσαι is contracted from ἀηδῆσαι*.
The strongest testimony in proof of this is Phrynichus in App.
Soph. p. 22. who, speaking of the word adoλeoxeîv, expressly
says that the Ionians pronounced andía as a trisyllable. And
in Hesychius we find the glosses ἀδής, ἀδές, and ἀδίᾳ in a sense
confirmatory of this derivation. The verb in its first form
[Passow in his Lexicon says, "Buttmann considers àdéw as con-
"tracted from aŋdéw, and thus accounts for the length of the alpha:
but this contraction with the alpha privative is contrary to all ana-
logy."-ED.]
4 Vid. a long note in Hesych. p. 94.
<<
""
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
29
andéw is incapable of admitting the augment (vid. Buttmann's
ausf. Sprach. sect. 84. obs. 4.'), and therefore the a remained
unchanged in the contraction (adŋkóтec).
11. We must now come to some decision on the substantive
ἄδος. The only passage where the word occurs is Il. X, 88.
speaking of a woodman,
Ἦμος δὲ δρυτόμος περ ἀνὴρ ὡπλίσσατο δεῖπνον
Οὔρεος ἐν βήσσῃσιν, ἐπεί τ᾽ ἐκορέσσατο χεῖρας
Ovpeos
Τάμνων δένδρεα μακρὰ, ἄδος τέ μιν ἵκετο θυμόν.
It must be confessed that adoc here, considered by itself, may
arise out of the simple idea of enough or sufficiency, as well as
ἐκορέσσατο. But as ἐκορέσσατο precedes, and the word θυμός
is joined with the word adoc, 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
quantity of adoc, which is equally opposed to both adĥoaι and
asai, need not embarrass us; for as the word never occurs else-
where, there is nothing to hinder us from reading with Heyne,
Τάμνων δένδρεα μάκρ', ἀδός τέ, &c.
And the origin of the forms ἀδής, ἀδέω, even supposing it to
have been no older than that which is to us the earliest period
of the Greek language, was yet quite old enough for a sub-
stantive neut. in oc to be formed from them.
12. The derivation of another word, generally admitted to
be from adîσai, I must, however, reject; namely, that of the
verb adnuoveîv, which has a short, as in Nicand. ap. Ath. 7,
p. 282. f. and Strato. epigr. 68. The syllable may, indeed,
have become short, as in aroμai, áráolaλoc; but to admit this
supposition, the derivation of the verb ἀδημονεῖν from ἀδῆσαι
must be as natural and easy as the derivation of those words
is from arη. But so far from that being the case, this is one
of those derivations, to diminish the number of which will be
,
In verbs beginning with ev the augment nu is more used by the
Attics than by any others: where, indeed, the ev is an integral part of
the verb, as in εὔχεσθαι, the Attics preferred ηὐχόμην, ηὐξάμην : while
the common usage was εὐχόμην, εὐξάμην: but in the case of εὑρίσκω,
we seldom find even in the Attic writers nupιokov nùpéðŋv, generally
εὕρισκον, εὗρον, εὑρέθην, and the perfect is always εὕρήκα.
30
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
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
ádnuoveîv in the lexicons, and prevent the right understanding
of passages; while the old glosses give the true explanations,
such as ἀγωνιᾷν, ἀπορεῖν, ἀμηχανεῖν, θαυμάζειν, ideas which are
quite inapplicable to adñoa, although it is generally by disa-
greeable 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, and in all the
later writers. In Plato Theæt. 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; ἀδημονῶν τε καὶ ἀπορῶν
καὶ βαρβαρίζων γέλωτα παρέχει.” In Xen. Hell. 4, 4, 3.
ὥστ᾽ ἐνίους... ἀδημονῆσαι τὰς ψυχὰς ἰδόντας τὴν ἀσέβειαν.
In Dem. de f. L. p. 402., speaking of a woman threatened with
violence, ἀδημονούσης δὲ τῆς ἀνθρώπου. 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 adnμwv, which, as Stephanus remarks, was adopted
by Eustathius only that he might through it derive adnμoveîv
and ἀδημονία from ἀδῆσαι.
dè
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 ἀδημονία may suggest to us that ἀδήμων,
if such a word ever existed, was not a verbal adjective, which
might be formed from ἀδῆσαι like νοήμων from νοῆσαι; nor like
ἀπράγμων, which, whether it be traced through πρᾶγμα or not,
must be a verbal adjective from πρᾶξαι, as ἀνοήμων is from
vonoaι. Now these verbal adjectives usually form their abstract
in -οσύνη, as μνημοσύνη, άπραγμοσύνη. On the contrary
εὐδαίμων, δεισιδαίμων, which are not verbal adjectives, form
εὐδαιμονία, δεισιδαιμονία; and with these corresponds ἀδημονία.
That the Greeks always had these analogical rules in their
mind whenever they spoke and wrote, is not to be expected;
6. ᾿Αδῆσαι, &c.
31
A
but I mention this only as a suggestion and not a proof.
Meanwhile let us examine the examples which are contrary to
this. First, nyeuúv is certainly a verbal word, and yet it forms
ἡγεμονία; but in answer to this, ἡγεμών is not an adjective like
vonμwv expressing some property, (whence there is a difference
in the accent,) nor is nyeuovía, the abstract noun, expressive
of such property; but nyeuúv is a substantive, and nyeuovia
an office or occupation. Again, from arnuwv Schneider has
ἀπημονία and ἀπημοσύνη ; the latter only is agreeable to ana-
logy; for πῆμα comes from πήθω, πάσχω; but πῆμα, ἀπήμων
were poetical words, from which Callimachus formed for him-
self a new poetical word; àπnuovin therefore, which he chose
to form according to the more common analogy of words in
-ía, belongs to him and not to the Greek language.
much more striking expression is adanuovín in Od. w, 244.
But there, independently of any observations of mine, the text
ought long ago to have admitted adanpooúvn from the Cod.
Harlej. and Apollonii Lex. in v.--On the other hand, what I
have to say on adnuovia would be contradicted by the form
adnμooúvn 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'. Supposing, then, that
there always was an unattic form ἀδημοσύνη besides ἀδημονία, I
suspect, from this latter being the regular and usual form, that
adnμoveîv 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
language of common life only. The other is, that Hesychius,
LOT
5 It is singular that the Antiatticist p. 80. should assert that ảồŋ-
μooúvn is found in Xenophon's Memorabilia. Ruhnken conjectured adan-
μoourn, so that Xenophon must have used 3, 9, 6. this poetical word
for åveπiornμooúvn. He did not however himself put much value on
this conjecture, which in fact cannot be received; for the Antiatti-
cist'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 ådanμooúrn can have nothing to do with that kind
of rejection, nor, consequently, anything with the restoration.
32
*. ᾿Αδινός.
besides ἀδημονῶ, has also this gloss; ᾿Αδημεῖν· θαυμάζειν, ἀπο-
ρεῖν, ἀδημονεῖν. We know that with the word δῆμος is joined
the idea of home. It appears to me therefore that ἄδημος,
ἀδημεῖν, ἀδημονεῖν arose from some phrase in familiar language
like our jocular expression not to be at home, meaning that one
is ignorant of the thing in question, and I am not at home in
this, it is all strange and perplexing to me*. The explanatory
word, θαυμάζειν 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. ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς, ὥσπερ μύρμηκες ἢ μέλιτται μυρ-
μηκίας μιᾶς ἢ κυψέλης, ἀδημονοῦμεν καὶ ξενοπαθοῦμεν, οὐκ
εἰδότες οἰκεῖα πάντα ποιεῖσθαι καὶ νομίζειν ὥσπερ ἐστίν.
7. ᾿Αδινός.
1. In order to comprehend rightly the difficulties offered by
the word ἀδινός, 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, ἀδινὸν κῆρ, Il. π, 481. Od. τ, 516. The
former 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, Il. β, 87, ἠΰτε ἔθνεα εἶσι μελισ-
σάων ἀδινάων· or of fies, ib. 469. ἠΰτε μυιάων ἀδινάων ἔθνεα
πολλά, 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. δ, 320, οἵ τέ μοι αἰεὶ Μῆλ᾽
ἀδινὰ σφάζουσι καὶ εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς:
οι
4th,) of sighing and groaning, Il. τ, 314. μνησάμενος δ᾽
ἀδινῶς ἀνενείκατο· σ, 124. ἀδινὸν στοναχῆσαι˙ ψ, 225. and Od.
ω, 317. ἀδινὰ στοναχίζων· Ι1. ω, 123. and Od. n, 274. ἀδινὰ
στενάχοντα :
5th,) of crying and lamenting, II. ω, 510. κλαῖ᾽ ἀδινά·
* [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.]
7. ᾿Αδινός.
33
Od.
Od. δ, 721. ἀδινὸν γοόωσα· Ιl. σ, 316. χ, 430. ψ,17. ω, 747.
ἀδινοῦ ἐξῆργε γόοιο. Under this head we must also class
216. Κλαῖον δὲ λιγέως, ἀδινώτερον ἤτ᾽ οἰωνοὶ, Φῆναι
ἢ αἰγυπιοὶ γαμψώνυχες, οἷσί τε τέκνα ᾿Αγρόται ἐξείλοντο· for
although in this passage the comparison lies between ἀδινὸν
and the cry of birds, yet κλαῖον is to be understood before ἀδι-
νώτερον, and also the cry with which the comparison is made
is a cry of lamentation:
ܙ
6th,) of the lowing of young hine, Od. κ, 413., which ἀδινὸν
μυκώμεναι ἀμφιθέουσιν Μητέρας˙ consequently, as the context
shows, not a lowing of sorrow, but of joy :
7th,) of the Sirens, Od. ψ, 326. Ηδ᾿ ὡς Σειρήνων ἀδινάων
φθόγγον ἄκουσεν.
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, which is that in the epithet of the heart, dense
or compact; which physical idea the word retains, according to
the Homeric usage, in the other passage Od. τ,516. as a fixed
epithet of the heart, although there its physical state has nothing
to do with the context: πυκιναὶ δέ μοι ἀμφ᾽ ἀδινὸν κῆρ ᾿Οξεῖαι
μελεδῶναι ὀδυρομένην ἐρέθουσιν. In this sense the etymological
agreement of this word with adpóc seems to me as clear as the
light, and both forms are connected together, like kudρóc and
κυδνός', ψυδρός and ψυδνός. The difference of the spiritus
(which in the Ionic dialect is in itself immaterial,) is quite
done away by the Scholium on Il. β, 87. δασυντέον τὸ ἁδι-
νάων. ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ ᾅδην καὶ ἁδηνος (sic) ἡ κίνησις, 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
ἆλτο, for instance, in spite of its derivation from ἅλλομαι, re-
tains the lenis°.
-
1 Hesiod has always κυδνή, ε, 257. 0, 328. 442. which Grævius,
contrary to the authority of almost all the MSS., would change into
the Homeric κυδρή.
2 ῾Αδήν, ἁδένος, 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. ᾿Αδινός.
3. From this idea proceeded those of numerous, strong, vio-
lent, 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 adwóc (merely for
the sake of that one passage) by ǹdúc, ǹdúþwvoc, even though
the derivation from duc considered separately were not contrary
to analogy. In the same way all the other explanations of the
grammarians come to nothing (vid. Hesych. in v. et Intpp. Eu-
stath. ad II. ẞ, 87. p. 195. ed. Basil.): for their oikтpóv was
intended, without any etymological foundation for it, merely
for the passage where ddwóc is an epithet of sighs and lamen-
tations; their AеTTóv 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 ἠρέμα for an explanation of ἀδινῶς
aveveĺkato (vid. Eustath. as above); their áradóv for the epi-
thet of the Sirens³.
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 adwóc there is the same as á póoc, con-
3 The explanatory word λeukóv is, as the commentators on Hesy-
chius justly remark, merely a corruption of λettóv.
7. ᾿Αδινός.
35
fertus. In the passage of the sheep adivá has indeed been
taken adverbially to mean "the suitors slaughtered them in-
cessantly;" but this after aiei is completely inadmissible, and
It
particularly as it is separated from aici by other words.
must therefore be an adjective; and this perhaps might have
induced some to look in adivá for a regular epithet of sheep, as
there is, in the latter member of the sentence, of oxen, kal
εἰλίποδας ἕλικας βοῦς. But it is not at all necessary that the
former substantive should have such an epithet because the
latter has. The word advóc is here a particular epithet de-
scriptive of this particular case; the cattle which the suitors
slaughtered were always (aiei) driven thither in herds or num-
bers (ἀδινά).
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 ἀριθμῷ οι ὄγκῳ. 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 Il. T, 314.
(Achilles) Μνησάμενος δ᾽ ἀδινῶς ἀνενείκατο, φώνησέν τε....
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, kdaî àdwá, Il. w, 510.,
spoken of Priam at the feet of Achilles weeping for Hector, is
much more natural as, "he wept violently, bitterly, a flood of
tears," than a long and repeated weeping. And when in Od.
π, 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, Κλαῖον δὲ λιγέως, ἀδινώτερον ἤτ᾽ οἰωνοί,
it is evident at first sight that it would be impossible to trans-
late it, "they wept loudly, more continuously-longer-more
repeatedly—than birds, whose, &c." On the contrary, it is plain
that the idea given by advúτepov must correspond with that of
Miyewa. It can therefore be no other than that of violently,
in which is comprehended also the meaning of Ayu. We see,
then, that in all these passages we must confine ourselves to the
ητ
D 2
36
. ᾿Αδινός.
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
adɩvóc 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, but 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 ἀδινὸν μυκώμεναι, ἀδινὸς γόος, κλαῖ᾽ ἀδινά,
a loud lowing, lamentation, or weeping. And this is the only
way of explaining how persons can be called adwác, 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 ouvexéc, explain it, in a manner inconceivable to all
but themselves, by συνεχῶς ἀειδούσας; as indeed in one of the
passages of ἀδινὸν κῆρ they have not hesitated to give συνεχῶς
λυπούμενον.
</
7. 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, Τῆς ἀδινὴν ὄπ᾽ ἄκουσα
δι᾽ αἰθέρος ἀτρυγέτοιο Ωστε βιαζομένης, it is exactly the Ho-
meric meaning: for to understand it perfectly we want only
to hear the violent, loud cry of Proserpine; its being a cry of
lamentation or complaint is implied in the thing itself. In
Sophocl. Trach. 847. adivà dáкpva are not to be compared
exactly with the Homeric kλaíew adivá, because the latter evi-
dently 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 dákоc ádiòv kakayopiar, the
violent, deep-piercing bite of calumny, and the κakóν of the
Scholiasts is, as an explanatory word, decidedly bad.
как
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
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, 1104. in a quiet
tranquil conversation of Medea with Jason he says, Kai uv
Καί μιν
ἀκηχεμένη ἀδινῷ προσπτύξατο μύθῳ, using αδινός entirely on
account of the speech being of a plaintive nature. Again, at
4, 1422. (speaking of Orpheus begging water for the Greeks,)
Ὣς φάτο λισσόμενος ἀδινῇ ὀπί, where the Scholiast is of opi-
nion 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 adwóc stands here in strong contrast
with the passages where it expresses something strong, violent,
fixed, as 4, 1528. in ärn; 2, 240. in κndoc; and 3, 616. and
elsewhere, in TVOC. Lastly, at 3, 1206. where mention is
ὕπνος.
made of a garment, which Hypsipyle gave to Jason adivñc µvn-
μήϊον εὐνῆς, it stands most probably for ἡδύς. With such un-
certainty has this word been used by so learned a poet, who
knew his Homer by heart!
῎Αδος ; vid. ἀδῆσαι.
᾿Αεσίφρων ; vid. ἀᾶσαι.
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
1. Voss in his critique on Heyne's Homer, p. 327. has brought
forward certain things on anp and néptoc, 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
άńp, népoc, and that arising from evident causes, which, how-
ever, in the later Ionic dialect ceased to have any influence ;
hence Hippocrates (de Aër. Aq. Loc. p. 453, 43. 454, 23. ed.
38
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
Basil.) has in the nom. nnp.-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. Vann. 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; népa Toνìùv
exevev*.
3. But when Voss says that "amp in Homer and Hesiod
never means air in our sense of it, but haze or mist, and that,
""
C
66
>!
η
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 obscuri-
ty," this
"this appears to me to be a mode of representing it, by which
the interpretation gains nothing, but only our idea of the thing
itself is changed. This is most evident in the translation which
Voss gives of Il. §, 288. in support of his opinion. Homer
gives in plain and simple words a brief description of the lofty
fr on which Somnus was perched, ἣ τότ᾽ ἐν Ἴδῃ Μακροτάτη
πεφυνῖα δι᾽ ἠέρος αἰθέρ᾿ ἵκανεν, “ which highest of Ida's firs
rose through the thick haze to ether.” If the ancients held
particular opinions of the nature of our air, and of its relation
to the clouds and to ether, if they did not consider air so abs-
tractedly as we do, those are different physical and philosophi-
cal considerations, but not a different usage of language between
ánp and air. It may be asked then, What Greek word can be
found to answer exactly to an English one? I answer, We
can then only admit a different usage of language, if in the
word which the ancients used for our air there existed some-
thing etymological and striking to the ear, which immediately
&
<<
* [It would appear that originally ßaðús and wouλús were adjectives
of two endings.-ED.]
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
39
ειν
brought to the mind dampness and thick haze. But anp comes
as plainly from the idea of de to blow, as ai0np does from
allew to burn, 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 re-
gions of the air as of a fiery nature. And how can there be
imagined a more exact agreement with our usage than where
Hesiod, 0, 697. describing the earth set on fire by the lightning
of Jupiter, says φλὸξ δ᾽ ἠέρα δῖαν ἵκανεν, 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 eye-sight. According to this, anp in Homer
has not a twofold sense, as we know some words have, where
ideas really different are represented by the same expression,
without thereby appearing to the mind as really the same: but
amp 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 express epithets, as woλλn,
μéλawa, sometimes show themselves in their operations and
effects. Homer, therefore, and Hippocrates too, may have used
anp or mp, 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 pas-
sages from the oldest Epic poets and arrange them in a certain
order, we may gradually go from our idea of air through the
others, fog and darkness, without in any way remarking a radi-
cal separation. Trace it, for instance, through Hes. 0, 697.
Hom. Il. §, 288. e, 770. (nepoeɩdéc like the distant hazy air.)
Hes. e, 546. 7. Hom. Od. v, 189. 352. Il. e, 864. Od. 1,
144. Il. p, 368-71. e, 776. v, 444. 446. Hes. 0, 9., until
we have the full idea of darkness in the epithet nepopoîric
Εριννύς '.
The old grammarians illustrate dip in the sense of fog, darkness,
by dopaoía, which seems to be one of their usual etymologies come to
light again.
40
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
5. From aʼnp comes as a regular adjective in common use
ἀέριος, consequently Ionicè ἠέριος; which form occurs in Homer
four times. Il. a, 497. and 557. of Thetis
Ἠερίη δ' ἀνέβη μέγαν οὐρανὸν. Οὔλυμπόν τε
and
Ἠερίη γὰρ σοίγε παρέζετο, καὶ λάβε γούνων.
7, 7. of the Cranes warring against the Pygmies
Ἠερίαι δ᾽ ἄρα ταίγε κακὴν ἔριδα προφέρονται.
Od. 1, 52. of the Cicones, who, after having been driven off,
get reinforcements and return;
Ἦλθον ἔπειθ᾽, ὅσα φύλλα καὶ ἄνθεα γίγνεται ὥρῃ,
Ἠέριοι.
Of these passages the third appears to preserve completely the
usual meaning as derived from aʼnp; and also in the first nepín
might be explained by di népoc, as some old grammarians do
both passages in Eustathius. But except those, all the opi-
nions of the grammarians, which have come down to us, ex-
plain népɩoc in all four passages by opĺpwóc, deriving it from
npi 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 anp,
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; the great point is, whether the construc-
tion agrees or not. If we find but once in Homer's language
népɩoc wow in the sense of I do it early in the morning, there
seems no reason why the same construction should not be trans-
lated here in the same sense. But the case before us is still
stronger, for this construction not only admits of this translation,
* ["The meaning of in the air, through the air, &c. is quite unknown
"to this form:" Passow's Lexicon.-ED.]
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
41
but it does not admit of any other. Whoever has observed with
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 ἐννύχιος, ἡμερινός, τριταῖος
Tоι, &c., except indeed some certain words particularized by
usage, as ἄσμενος, ἐθελοντής, and some ideas of order, as πρω-
τος, ὕστερος.
TOG, VOTEρOC. But ideas of place in such a construction, as
ἐνάλιος πολεμίζει, χερσαῖος φύεται, 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. αἰθερία δ᾽ ἀνέπτα (Αἰδώς), Arat. 134. (of justice) ἔπτατ᾽
èπоvρavín³, 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 néptoc To in the sense of I do
it in the air, is as contrary to this usage as the other translation,
I 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.
2
""
6. The passage of Virgil's Georg. 1, 735. (imbrem) Aëria
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 annual passage of the Cranes, but a single casual ap-
pearance of them, and because aërius is so common in Virgil
(aëriæ palumbes, aëria 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,) Ho-
mer's similar expression and different meaning.
7. But there is a general unwillingness to separate népioc
from anp. Voss, who understands all the four passages of
2 This reading of the MSS. is supported by the context against the
common reading ὑπουρανίη.
42
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
népɩoc in Homer of the early morning, speaks of the morning
haze, and translates népioc "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 vapour
as given before to ἀήρ ; ἠέριος expresses etymologically to the
ear, fog, aʼnp, and this both poets and their hearers imme-
diately 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 anp; supposing
the lively fancy of Nature's observers to connect fog always
with the idea of morning; 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." 'Hépioc, 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.
기
​8. But must, then, népioc be derived from anp, népoc? The
grammarians derive it from pi, early, to which it bears the
same relation as ἠέλιος to ἥλιος, ἠέ to ἤ. Well-known analo-
gous sounds very frequently fix in unlearned times the forma-
tion of words; from pioc was formed népioc, because it sounded
so fluently, in the same way as from eîui (iμev, &c.), the infin.
of which must necessarily have sounded like "vai, was formed
iévaɩ, which was apparently favoured by the analogy of iévai
(from ἵημι, ἵεμεν). But if we suppose that the adverb ἦρι it-
self is contracted from nép, 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 ȧýp to
Buttmann's derivation from p; which last he would also trace back
to άýp.-ED.]
8. ᾿Αήρ, ἠέριος.
43
of words, ἠώς, ἀώς, αὐώς, aurora, ἦρι, αὔριον, εὖρος, ought
not to be separated from each other. Again, all these may be
connected (particularly if we compare the word aupa,) with aw
and anp by thinking of the fresh morning air: but we cannot
proceed far on such ground as this without feeling how uncer-
tain our etymological steps must be. This consideration alone
prevents me from ranking čap with the above words with that
confidence with which others do it, probable as this connexion
certainly is both in itself, and by the analogy of the German,
in which früh means 'early', Frühling 'the spring".
9. Besides népioc in the sense of matutinus as derived from
pi, the language of Homer could very well dispense with an
népɩoc derived from anp; 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. 'Héprog Levyvvμi Bóac
καὶ δείελον ὥρην Παύομαι ἀμήτοιο, the meaning is evidently
3 Exactly as in German morgen as an adverb means tomorrow, as
a substantive, morning. In English, too, the original meaning of mor-
row seems to have been morning, as in the old phrase of "good morrow.'
And the Scotch still use the morn for the morrow. The Boeotians used
åas for tomorrow, Hesych.
+ From ws and Cópos, the two cardinal points of the compass in the
Homeric age, are evidently derived the names cupos and (épupos.
G
5 Lexicographers place without hesitation p as a nominative with
the twofold meaning of morning and spring. On this subject one
remark is worthy of notice, that eap, ëapos (spring), is not usually
found contracted in the Epic poets; for only in Hesiod e, 460. and 490.
we find čap and capɩ shortened by synæresis, and Stesichorus is, per-
haps, the first poet in which pos (twice in Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 797.
and 800. Suchf. p. 37. 38.) occurs as a common flexion. On the con-
trary the adverb ŵpɩ, in the morning, is found only in this form, and in
the lengthened one of the adjective népios. 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 pɩ with yús very much
more probable. The old rude form HOP, AYOP, morning, dropped the
vowel in its derivations, pɩ, avpiov, which latter adverbial neuter of
αὔριος and this were synonymous with the Homeric ἠέριος. 'That Ἠώς
was personified by the poets under the name pɩyéveia, proves only that
this derivation of the word np, as is very easily to be conceived, had
long been forgotten.
44
9. ῎Αητος, αἴητος.
early in the morning; but then in other places it as evidently
means misty, hazy; thus, 1, 580. Thessaly lying in the distant
horizon, and 4, 267. 270. Egypt are called nepin; which last
country, with some other countries and islands, is said to have
originally had the name of ἀερία or ἠερίη (vid. Hesych. v. ἀερία,
Etym. M. v. nepin); 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 nepheic, 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, ἠέριον· μέγα, λεπτόν, μέλαν ;
with which we may compare, ἀερόεν˙ μέλαν, βαθύ, μέγα. The
Scholiast, indeed, explains the passage of Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1239.
where mention is made of the sandy coast of the Syrtes, 'Hepin
δ᾽ ἄμαθος παρακέκλιται, by the following gloss, πᾶν τὸ πολὺ
καὶ δαψιλὲς ἠερόεν λέγεται ; but other proofs of this meaning
I have not found *. However, the explanatory word uéya ap-
pears to be meant of such flat lands stretching far into the
distant haze; as nepin in the passage quoted above is explained
by the context, v. 1245-7. ἄχος δ᾽ ἕλεν εἰσορόωντας
Πέρα καὶ μεγάλης νῶτα χθονὸς, ἠέρι δ᾽ ἶσα Τηλοῦ ὑπερτεί-
vovta dinvekéc' where the 'before loa, and the comma before
népi, should be erased.
9. ῎Αητος, αἴητος.
1. Each of these two forms is in the old Epic poetry a amağ
eipnuévov; the former in Il. 4, 395. as an epithet of daring or
boldness, addressed by Mars to Minerva,
Τίπτ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ὦ κυνάμυια θεοὺς ἔριδι ξυνέλαυνεις
ω
Θάρσος ἄητον ἔχουσα, μέγας δέ σε θυμὸς ἀνῆκεν ;
Even
* [In Schneider's Lexicon under åépios I find the following:
"in prose Diod. Sic. allows himself to use such expressions as, dépɩov
“ μέγεθος, μῆκος, ἀέρια πέδια τὸ μέγεθος, θῖνες ἄμμου ἀέριοι, to express
"size or magnitude, the word originally signifying only a great height.
It would seem, therefore, that ȧépios was frequently used in this way,
but not népios.-ED.]
CC
"
9. ῎Αητος, αἴητος.
45
the latter in Il. o, 410. spoken of Vulcan,
῏Η, καὶ ἀπ᾽ ἀκμοθέτοιο πέλωρ αἴητον ἀνέστη.
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 o, 410. 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
αἴητον, πυρῶδες, which in this sense and construction is evi-
dently forced from anu'. As little satisfactory is, for åntov,
the explanation insatiable, which, although in some respects
suited to lápooc, 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 @apooc aarov of Quintus (mentioned
ἄατον
above at the end of the article on aáaroc,) leads us to conjec-
ture for Il. 4, 395. a twofold reading of the old grammarians,
some of whom, indeed, explained anrov as Ionic for aarov, but
others at once read aarov; 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 καταπνεόμενον, πνευστικόν for
that purpose; in which it is ludicrous to observe how Vulcan
and his bellows must work together; vid. Damm. But when
Apollonius in his lexicon, setting out with this derivation,
makes the extraordinary addition, τὸ γὰρ φυσώμενον (that
which is inflated) µéya yívetaι, it is most 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.
1 Schneider's explanation of aiŋrov, sooty, as he gives no derivation
for it, I can only suppose to be borrowed from this Tup@des, as more
adapted to a person like Vulcan. Schneider himself does not seem to
place much reliance on it.
? I do not mention all the other different attempts made with this
46
9. ῎Αητος, αἴητος.
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 Eschylus used it in this sense, 'AnTouc,
μεγάλας, Αἰσχύλος Αθάμαντι. We see that Æschylus 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 ainτoc can have had
so exactly the mere prosaic idea of great, but 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. We must allow that the idea of
greatness exists in both the passages of Homer, as undoubtedly
it does; but in one of them this idea is already expressed by
the word réλwp; 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 aivóc. The termi-
nation νός is, as we see plainly in στυγνός, σεμνός from σέβο-
piai, &c., an old passive verbal form. As, then, dewóc from
Seioai means something large and terrible, so aivóc certainly
comes from some verb in a similar manner and has a similar
sense.
Another such passive termination is Tóc. By all this
the connexion of aivóc and ainτóc becomes evident, and our
principal object is attained, viz. that of ascertaining in both
those passages a πέλωρ δεινόν and a θάρσος δεινόν.
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 äāros,
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.]
10 ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
47
however, at last to come nearer to the radical verb, I will com-
with αἴητος another word ἀγητός, which approaches very
pare
nearly to it in form and meaning, differing only in containing
the laudatory idea of the verb ayaμai. This additional idea
ἄγαμαι.
is, however, formed only by usage; astonishment is evidently
the idea which lies at the root of all these words; as it does
also in the form alouat, which has gone over to the idea of
reverence, and so has formed again, in a manner similar to the
others, an adjective ȧyvóc. We can now very well adopt the
supposition that the i in αἴητος, as in ῥαίω (vid. ἄγρα, sect. 3.),
arose from the y, and was quite lost in aŋroc.
ητος We may also
adopt a form ΑΩ, ΑΙΩ, ΑΖΩ, ΑΓΩ, with which the analogy
in the verbal terminations -áw and alw sufficiently agrees.
5. According to this account, the accenting of the word
ainToc 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 o, 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 anToc and ainToc
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 for the learned only a part of its history.
᾿Αθέσφατος ; vid. θέσκελος.
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
1. The meaning of the word didnλoc in Homer is placed
beyond a doubt by a review of the passages in which it occurs.
Three times it is an epithet of fire, Il. ß, 455. 1, 436. X, 155.,
twice of Mars, and once of Pallas as reproached by Mars, II. e,
880. 897. Od. 0, 309., twice of the crowd of suitors wooing
Penelope, Od. π, 29. 4, 303., and once of Melanthius, as he
was conveying arms to the suitors, X, 165.; to which may be
added the adverbial form Il. p, 220. of Achilles incessantly
48
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
slaughtering the Trojans, σὺ δὲ κτείνεις ἀϊδήλως. In many of
these passages the idea plainly is consuming, destroying, destruc-
tive; and since this alone suits all the passages, and suits them
extremely well, it must stand as the only 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 daz-
zling, which only suits the passages where it is an epithet of
fire; against which there is this one weighty objection, that
in all three passages the fire is mentioned as in destructive
operation'.
2. To the Homeric usage belongs also the old various read-
ing in Il. e, 757. The text has, Zeû пáтep, où veμeoily "Aper
πάτερ, νεμεσίζῃ
Táde KaρTeρà épya; Instead of this reading, which, through
the undeserved authority of Aristarchus, has become the pre-
vailing one, there was another, ráde epy' aidnλa, to which Heyne
gives the preference, and which, in the sense established above,
is here particularly suitable, as agreeing with the exegetical
verse following, Οσσάτιόν τε καὶ οἷον ἀπώλεσε λαὸν ᾿Αχαιῶν.
On the contrary, кaρτepà ëρya, 872. in a similarly sounding
verse, Ζεῦ πάτερ, οὐ νεμεσίζῃ ὁρῶν τάδε καρτερὰ ἔργα, 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.
є
3. But when the old lexicographers explain didnλoc by
adnλoc 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
μηδ᾽ ἱεροῖσιν ἐπ᾽ αἰθομένοισι κυρήσας
Μωμεύειν ἀΐδηλα· θεός νύ τι καὶ τὰ νεμεσσᾷ.
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., rúxa is called åï-
daλos, 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.
10. ᾿Αίδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
49
on account of αΐδηλα. In order to discover in them the Ho-
meric meaning of didnλoc they took it adverbially, and some-
times joined it with νεμεσσᾷ, sometimes with μωμεύειν. 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 dğiwc apaviopov,
One can suppose it
"ridicule not to your own destruction."
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
rú, which here answers to the Latin quippe. At any rate μw-
μever didnλa, "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 μωμεύειν ;
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 (kupnoαc), 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*.
4. Again, when in a fragment of the 'Holac in the Schol.
Pind. Pyth. 3, 14. it is said of the crow that he
ἔφρασεν ἔργ᾽ ἀΐδηλα
Φοίβῳ ἀκερσεκύμῃ, ὅτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ Ἰσχὺς ἔγημε Κόρωνος,
we cannot avoid thinking of and comparing with it the epy'
aldnλa which is the various reading of Il. e, 757. 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, ¿ïînλa is correctly translated arcana, but
derived from atens, infernus.-ED.]
E
50
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
2.10
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'
aïdŋλa 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 : ἔφρασεν ἔργ᾽ ἀΐδηλα. In-
disputably, therefore, the meaning of atonda is here also secret
things, things concealed in darkness. For ἔγημε 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, 26. 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.
τὸν ἀπότροπον ἀΐδηλον ᾅδαν. 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 invisible)
by etymology, the deriving the word from 'Aidnc, as some have
done, might seem very suitable; that is to say, as vopnλóc,
¿πνŋλóç, mean full of water, full of sleep, so didnλoc 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, ἰδεῖν, ἰδηλός, ἀΐδηλος. It is true the
verbal adjectives of this kind (μιμηλός, σιγηλός, ἀπατηλός, &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 idnλóc
might as well have been visible, didnλoc invisible. More
striking is the transition to the causative meaning, making
* [It is used in the same way in Od. a, 36. of Ægisthus and Cly-
temnestra.-ED.]
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
51
invisible, 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
sure the word has) from the negative of ideiv, which, we are
equally sure, is in didnλoc; and this way is, as far as I can see,
the one most generally adopted².
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 aïdnλoc, 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, the epithet of the Suitors of Melanthius, and
the epy didnda in both passages may come under the latter
and more general one, which was already in use in Homer;
and so, if μwμevew aïdnλa be supposed to mean to indulge in
impious ridicule, it might be thought that the other difficulties
which I there mentioned may then be more quickly got rid of.
This plan certainly does not satisfy me; but I have mentioned
it in order to make the following investigation independent of
* [Passow, in his last improved edition of Schneider's Lexicon, has
adopted Buttmann's derivation and explanation. “'Aïdnλos, ov, (a priv.
and ideir) 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 äïoros seems to have taken exactly the
same line. In Homer it has the sense belonging to it as an adjective
in ros, 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 diorovoα (see
Od. 79. åïorwoeiav) exterminating; and so it expresses in a respect-
ful manner the same idea, which άïdnλos does in a reproachful one, when
applied to Pallas in Homer,
บ,
CC
E 2
52
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
it. For, by following that plan, didnλoc with its second sylla-
ble 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 judge-
ment 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
acideλoc 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,
Ο,ττι κε χερσὶ λάβεσκεν, ἀείδελα πάντα τίθεσκεν.
This form is evidently analogous to εἴκελος, ἴκελος from eἴκω,
and at the same time is connected with ἀΐδηλος; for ἀείδελος,
åïdŋλoc, are nothing more than another example of words in
which two neighbouring syllables change their quantity, as
ἀπειρέσιος, ἀπερείσιος. But this ἀείδελος 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. 'Aïdnλoc :
᾿Αείδελον, φοβερόν, πονηρόν. ἀΐδηλον, ἄδηλον, ἀφανῆ. See
also Etym. M. 21, 35. The lengthened form a eidéλioc had
also the same twofold meaning. Etym. Μ. ᾿Αειδέλιον, κακὸν,
κρυφαῖον, ἄδηλον. ᾿Αειδέλιος, κατάρατος. Hesych. Αειδέλιος,
κατάρατος, δεινός.
Sewóc. This last form, again, answers exactly to
the deukéλtog of the Epic poets, which has become more in use
than άeikeλoc; and Ruhnken's correction to 'Atonλoc in Hesy-
chius was therefore too hasty'.
ει
8. I shall here introduce a form, of which there are plain
traces in the grammarians. Hesych. Aiznλóc, ädnλog. Etym.
> The word άcídeλos has a new meaning in Nicand. Ther. 1, 20.
where it is said of the constellation Orion that ȧeídeλov éσrýpiкtaɩ in
the heavens. Here the sense evidently is shining; and 'Aeídeµa, λaµ-
πρά in Hesychius has been very properly amended to 'Αείδελα.
But
this meaning is not to be explained, as the grammarians do, either by
a intensive or by άeì dîλos; but these later Epic poets gave to the form
ἀείδελος the same meaning which they acknowledged ἀΐδηλος to have
as an epithet of fire; rŵpo, dazzling.
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
53
Μ. Αἴζηλον, ἄφαντον. Heindorf, when quite young, proposed
to apply this to II. β, 318., and to read
Τὸν μὲν ἀΐζηλον θῆκεν θεὸς ὅσπερ ἔφηνει,
instead of ἀρίζηλον, 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 ᾽Αΐδηλον,
ἀφανές, is added: ὅπερ καὶ ἀείζηλον λέγει· Τὸν μὲν ἀεί-
ζηλον θῆκεν θεὸς ὅσπερ ἔφηνεν. And the Etym. M. in another
place, i. e. under αΐδηλος, p. 41, 44. quotes the sane passage
thus: ὁμοίως καὶ Τὸν μὲν ἀΐδηλον θῆκε θεός. On this point
we must consult the following scholia in the Venetian Manu-
script which follow close on each other:
K
Τὸν μὲν ἀρίζηλον θῆκεν θεὸς ὅσπερ ἔφηνε] ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος
γράφει ἀρίδηλον, καὶ τὸν ἐχόμενον προσέθηκεν. τὸ γὰρ ἀρίδη-
λον ἄγαν ἐμφανὲς, ὅπερ ἀπίθανον. ὃ γὰρ ἐὰν (a later and worse
expression for ὃ γὰρ ἂν) πλάσῃ τοῦτο ἀναιρεῖ. λέγει μέντοιγε
ὅτι ὁ φήνας αὐτὸν θεὸς καὶ ἄδηλον ἐποίησεν.
Λάαν γάρ μιν ἔθηκε Κρόνου παῖς ἀγκυλομήτεω] ἀθετεῖται·
προείρηται δὲ αἰτία.
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 cause 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” (πιθανώτερον γὰρ,
αὐτὸν καθάπαξ ἀφανῆ πεποιηκέναι τὸν καὶ φήναντα θεόν).
+ The reading αΐζηλον (with the diæresis) 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
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
C
Hence, then, it is clear that the author of this criticism read
in the preceding verse some word which meant apavñ. Let
us read now the first scholium without regard to the άpinλov
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 ápídnλov, and
ἀρίδηλον,
"retains the following verse; for apidnλov 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 ápídnλov.
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 adnλov; and yet the
universal reading of the text is apinλov. Hence one is tempted,
in order to bring the lemma to agree with the scholium, to
read, instead of άpíčnλov, 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 without
great surprise, in Etym. M. v. apinλoc, that certain gramma-
rians thought άρίζηλος to have also the meaning of ἄδηλος by
supposing the p to be inserted. Aristarchus, however, whose
school we principally recognise in these scholia, was not satis-
fied 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 alonλov (with long) or some form of similar mean-
ing, the latter reading ápídnλov. 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
indoc. Nay, that this, if not the common reading, was at
し
​""
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
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 tegmina saxo.
α
9. Now first, as to the word a pilnλoc, as far as belongs to
this investigation, it is apparently connected with ĥλoc; accord-
ing to which derivation it would give here and there an apparent
sense to the passage. But as Homer uses it also as an epi-
thet of lightning, of the sound of the trumpet and such like,
it is clear that it accords with Snλoc, and that some cause or
other in this its compound state (instead of ápídnλoc with 1 short,
which never occurs in Homer,) made the second syllable in the
old Ionic language long; from which then (whether in the
pronunciation, or by the old poets committing it to writing, or,
lastly, by the filing down of the grammarians,) came άpilnλoc,
by the change of the & into , or, which is the same thing, by
the insertion of a σ before the S'. It is, however, possible
that Zenodotus always wrote apidnλoc pronounced with a long
; whence in the scholium quoted above, where the word is
mentioned as his reading, it appears written according to his
orthographyⓇ.
10. Of didnλoc we have already seen that the quantity of
both its second and third syllable is changeable; aïdnλoc,
άeideλoc. In the passage in question (Il. ß, 318.), where it
is an old various reading with άpilnλoc, it must have both its
second and third syllable long; which, however, need not make
us doubt or hesitate, when we see in Homer ᾿Οδυσῆος, ᾿Οδυσ-
σέος, and ᾿Οδυσσῆος. From this name occurring so often in
these three and only these three forms, they have become the
only established and acknowledged manner of writing it; but
6 See below at note 10.
7 See my opinion stated somewhat more definitely under note 12.
8 In the post-Homeric poets píènλos is also found with short.
Simonides has it so in Epig. 59. (65.) Brunck's Anal. 1, 139. µéya
Пýλiov å 7' åpídaλos "Ooσa; so has also Apoll. Rhod. and the still later
poets. But à píčnλos also occurs in the sense of ¿ñλos; 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
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
αι
otherwise there is nothing to prevent its being written also
Οδυσῆος, Οδυσεῖος, Οδυσσεῖος. For the word ἀΐδηλος, which
does not occur again in this quantity ~--~ in Homer, a three-
fold reading may be adopted for those texts which had it in this
passage; viz. didnλoc, by which the quantity is left to the reader
(see the passage as quoted above at Sect. 8. from the Etym.
M.); άï¿nλoc (see also Hesych. and Etym. M. quoted at the
same place); and deídnλoc, which recommended itself by its
analogy with deídeλoc. From a confusion of the two last forms
arose in Apollon. Lexic. the inadmissible form άeílnλovº.
είδηλος,
11. The common reading άpinλoc is thus explained:
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 άpídnλoc,
which Zenodotus or others before him thought they must write
in reference to the λaav e◊ŋke, was evidently only a help to
reconcile the contradiction which they found between the invi-
sibility and the stone". To this we must also add the perfectly
((
(C
Ju-
9 Tollius on Apollon. Lex. seeing the inadmissibility of this form,
thinks he can furnish his author (from Eustath. ad Od. 0, 309.) with
the form άeidnλos, which I have given above only from analogy. But
he mistakes, and so does Heyne. The form there is deídeλos.
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 than fecit. This, indeed, is not probable; still less can
one approve of giving up the reading of all the old editions and a part
of the manuscripts to favour a various reading which was obliged to
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
57
useless expression ὅσπερ ἔφηνεν ; of which, if we read ἀΐδηλος,
we see at once the object and the sense by means of the anti-
thesis, which is made evident by the Scholium above quoted.
The words λaav yáp μiv élŋkev have, then, the sense which the
words plainly bear: "he turned it into a stone." That is to
say, this is one of the more definite forms by which the ima-
gination sometimes 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 proportioned 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 transformation into one of them.
come almost mechanically to firmavit. But this same defective criticism
has been actually put in practice in Tibull. 2, 5, 23. Romulus æternæ
nondum formaverat urbis Mania consorti non habitanda Remo. Wytten-
bach, Bibl. Crit. 1, 3, p. 84. has doubts, and with justice, of the ex-
pression formare mania. 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
cæso mœnia firma Remo. For the sense in Tibullus should be,
"Rome
was not yet built," a sense which it would be most strange to express
by a circumstance which was completely an accessory to its building,
although it might be very well added afterwards as out of the abund-
ance of the poet's mind. The words mania firma caso Remo do also
express very well the thing which was brought to pass by means of the
death of Remus; but firmat mænia 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 pas-
sage very much to the purpose, with the same variety of reading, from
Claudian's Rapt. Proserp. 1, 236. Devenere locum, Cereris quo tecta
nitebant Cyclopum 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 understood as meaning merely strengthened, but it is evidently
a full poetical expression for firmiter exstructa; in the same way is fir-
maverat mænia for mænia firma exstruxerat; and therefore again in
Cicero firmavit tegmina is the same as indidit tegmina firma—duro saxo :
for the transformation into stone is, as we see, expressed as taking
place by the being covered over with stone, which is literally expressed
by Abdidit.
58
10. ᾿Αΐδηλος, ἀρίζηλος.
し
​ον
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
deciding in which of the three ways we ought now to write it.
The analogy which produced the reading anλov I consider
doubtful; for if the in api-dnλov is to be lengthened, one
analogy is introduced, if in a-idnλov, another is necessary.
To write aiondov is contrary to common usage, which does not
allow of a long in forms coming from eidw. And lastly, as
to deidnλoc, 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 de déλtoc, which has all the mean-
ings in common with the others", 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 apinλoc 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
€
ιο
Αἴητος ; vid. ἄητος.
S
11 See above at note 3.
12 I will here add my etymological conjectures on these forms. I
think the form idŋλós lies at the root of both compounds; for I consider
the common word dîλos to be only an abbreviation of idŋλós, as in ếkŋ-
λos, knλeîv will be found a similar opinion. The compound with ảpɩ-
was therefore properly ȧpi-ídnλos, from which the second disappeared,
and the digamma remaining before the d, made the preceding syl-
lable long; whence it is very possible that this digamma before_d
changed itself into σ, and άpínλos is therefore a genuine old form. In
the compounding of adnAos there are less analogical grounds for the
lengthening of the second syllable by means of o or, particularly as
the forms eidw, eldos already offer instances of the lengthening of
into eɩ.
59
11. Αἶνος, ἐπαινή.
1. The word aîvoc is in its principal meaning nearly synony-
mous with uûloc, a speech, narration; but it has also the par-
ticular idea of praise, which is established as one of its senses
in the language of Epic poetry by the two passages of Od.
φ, 110. τί με χρὴ μητέρος αἴνου ; and Il. ψ, 795. In Hero-
dotus, 8, 112. praise is called aïvn. These are evidently verbal
substantives, which according to all analogy suppose a verb
aïvw, and in it the meaning of praise; with which, indeed, the
gloss in Hesychius agrees: Αἴνων, βαρυτόνως, ἐπαινῶν τι.
The verb aivéw, which is the one in common use, has taken, as
is frequently the case, the derivative form after the substantive.
This verb means only to praise; but in the stem or radical verb
alve there was undoubtedly also the meaning of to say, and
that too as the radical sense, from which proceeded the mean-
ing of praise; much the same as in Latin laudare originally
meant to name aloud, name or mention². That ἀναίνομαι is no
compound of this aivo, see art. 21. sect. 10³.
In the printed copies of Hesychius it is airùr, by a misunderstand-
ing of the word βαρυτόνως.
:
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 find 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, which are
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 pro-
perly 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 answer, 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 aiver in the simple sense of speaking,
we find the Latin aio; and the Greek aloa is in respect to its deriva-
tion exactly like the Latin fatum.
Of the two ways of compounding there rejected I would remark,
60
11. Αἶνος, ἐπαινή.
2. The epithet of Ulysses Toλúawoc is generally understood
of praise; and thence the more ancient commentators saw in
II. A, 430. where Socus says,
Ω Ὀδυσεῦ πολύαινε, δόλων ἆτ᾽ ἠδὲ πόνοιο,
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 moλúavoc means much praised or celebrated,
the expressions in that passage do not suit well together. Some
of the ancients, however, explained the word by Toλúµv0oc
also; which, if understood to mean loquacious, might be an
epithet suited to Nestor, but by no means to Ulysses. But
the word alvoc in its sense of a speech has a particular and
limited meaning. Mo0oc is in general any speech, conversation,
narration; aîvoc 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. E, 508. It is there used
of the short and pithy narrative of Ulysses, the cunning object.
of which Eumæus 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 mo-
ment doubted, that woλúavoc, 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 èrawn, which occurs twice in the Iliad, four
however, that the one with the negative dr 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 dicere is formed
not judicere but judicare, as also from ne and aio not negere but negare,
so also in Greek nothing could be regularly compounded of airo by the
addition of the negative particle but draivéw. In this case, therefore,
recourse must be had to examples of irregular composition, which cer-
tainly do occur; vid. àríeur in Theogn. 621. and Macrob. de Verbo ;
ȧreiµáp✪ai, 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.
11. Αἶνος, ἐπαινή,
61
times in the Odyssey, and twice in the Theogonia. Except in
these passages it is never met with. First, then, the lexicons
should be corrected, in which the word èπawóc, ʼn, óv stands
with two regular and distinct meanings, which, however, are
taken only from the different explanations given by the gram-
marians of the same passages, without any mention of its being
confined entirely to Proserpine*.
4. Of these two explanations (for a third given by Eusta-
thius is not worth mentioning) the one is, that it stands for
Èπaweτn, in which case it is generally taken for an euphemis-
mus; the other is, that it is the same as airn. That the old
grammarians, who were so much in the dark about the for-
mation 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 ἐπιδέξιος from ἐπὶ δεξιά, οι ἐπαίτιος,
which properly does not come from αἴτιος but from αἰτίαν ἐπι-
φέρειν. Το say that the ἐπί in ἐπαινός 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 naivetý, I know of no
other admissible way of explaining it, but by supposing that
emaivoc (for so it must be accented in every case) comes from
αἶνος in the same way as the above-mentioned ἐπαίτιος or ἐπί-
Xpvooc and such like; that is to say, in the sense of twi
αἶνος ἔπεσιν οι ἐπιφέρεται. Certainly not an analogy conclu-
sive enough to oblige us to admit so tame and unmeaning an
adjective 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.
or
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
11. Αἶνος, ἐπαινή.
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. Il. ι, 457.
",
', 569.
θεοὶ δ᾽ ἐτέλειον ἐπαρὰς
Ζεύς τε καταχθόνιος καὶ ἐπαινὴ Περσεφόνεια.
Κικλήσκουσ' ᾿Αΐδην καὶ ἐπαινὴν Περσεφόνειαν.
Od. κ, 534. λ, 47.
ἐπεύξασθαι δὲ θεοῖσιν
Ιφθίμῳ τ' ᾿Αΐδῃ καὶ ἐπαινῇ Περσεφονείᾳ.
κ, 491. 563. of such who go
Εἰς ᾽Αΐδαο δόμους καὶ ἐπαινῆς Περσεφονείας.
Hes. 0, 768.
Ἔνθα θεοῦ χθονίου πρόσθεν δόμοι ἠχήεντες
Ιφθίμου τ' ᾿Αΐδεω, καὶ ἐπαινῆς Περσεφονείας.
and a little further, 774. in the same words,
πυλέων ἔκτοσθεν ἰόντα
Ιφθίμου τ' ᾿Αΐδεω καὶ ἐπαινῆς Περσεφονείας.
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. λ. 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 ἀγανὴ Περσεφόνεια. From this, how-
ever, 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 passages quoted above, Il. ι, 457. the old Scholia
in Heyne have preserved the reading
καὶ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ Περσεφόνεια.
My conjecture, therefore, is that this ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ is an old gloss
of e' alone, and that the old formula was this
Ιφθιμος τ' ᾿Αΐδης καὶ ἐπ᾽ αἰνὴ Περσεφόνεια.
Compare among other similar passages Il. v, 800. πρὸ μὲν
12. Αἰόλος, ἐόλητο.
63
ἄλλοι ἀρηρότες, αὐτὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοι. On this simple idea others
have certainly fallen, but they covered and obscured it, because
this er 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 Kuλn-
σкew and èπеúčaolai, 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. κ, 534. a Vienna
manuscript actually has, καὶ ἐπ᾿ αἰνῇ Περσεφονείᾳ.
6. It appears to me also worthy of remark, first, that in
one of the passages where άyavý stands, Od. X, 634. there
existed a various reading èrain (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,
Καὶ νυχίαν Ἑκάτην, καὶ ἐπαινὴν Περσεφόνειαν.
For so have the critics restored it from aimeívny, (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.
12. Αἰόλος, ἐόλητο.
1. Alóλoc is one of those words on which everything essential
with regard to its sense in Homer has long since been said and
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. Aióλoc vibrates in
meaning between diversity in time—moveable,—and diversity
in space-different, of different colours.
may very well be
It
C
64
12. Αιόλος, ἐύλητο.
imagined that these two relative senses might have been found
together as early as Homer. This, however, must not be de-
cided from separate passages, where it is possible that one per-
son might prefer (for instance in aióλoc opic) the idea of flexi-
ble, 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 Il. T, 404. Tódаç alóλoc iππоc, the nimble-footed horse; and
next to this the verb alólλw in Od. v, 27. which stands for
the turning of a piece of meat backwards and forwards before
the fire, ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα αἰόλλει. With this we may join κορυ-
@aioλoc, which has never been taken by any judicious inter-
preter in any other sense than the above; and we have then
ample proofs to establish this meaning. The wasps might
very well bear the epithet of varicoloured; but since in Il. u,
167. the expression is opnкec μéoov aiódot, none but some of
the grammarians could have given it this meaning when joined
with uéoov (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, 300.
Τὰς (the cows) μέν τ' αἰόλος οἶστρος ἐφορμηθεὶς ἐδόνησεν·
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 Nûv
a dead body, Il. χ, 509. Νῦν δέ σε... Αἰόλαι εὐλαὶ
édovrat, 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. Αιόλος, ἐόλητο.
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 Il. e, 295. ápáßnoe dè Tεúxe'
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ Αἰόλα παμφανόωντα. Again, we find separately at λ,
374., θώρηκα....Αἴνυτ᾽ ἀπὸ στήθεσφι παναίολον at δ,186.
Εἰρύσατο ζωστὴρ.παναίολος˙ at n, 222. Ος οἱ ἐποίησεν
"Oc oi
oάKoç αióλov ÉTTаßóelov. Here, then, indecision in the expla-
σάκος αἰόλον ἑπταβόειον.
nation of alóloc 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 Teúxea wоikida xadкê 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, Il. π, 134., is called Toikiλoç dσTE-
μόεις, and at κ, 149. the σάκος is ποικίλον. 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 service
of a shield, which in its very nature must be aióλoc or easily
moved in any direction. The same results are found also in
the compounds of αἰόλος. Thus αἰολόπωλος refers to the quick
F
66
12. Αἰόλος, ἐόλητο.
and active guiding of the horses, aioλo0wpn 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 com-
pared with kopułaíoλoc, which admits of no other meaning, and
would certainly have been aloλóкopuc, if the metre had allowed
it. The belt, which must go tight round the waist, is com-
posed of parts and very flexible; and in the same way also
what is called by Homer uíron, is likewise made of metal
and worn under the wornp, where, therefore, the idea of vari-
coloured is not once introduced. II. δ, 185. ἀλλὰ πάροιθεν
Εἰρύσατο ζωστήρ τε παναίολος ἠδ᾽ ὑπένερθεν Ζῶμα τε καὶ
μίτρη, τὴν χαλκῆες κάμον ἄνδρες. Now in this part of the
body above all others suppleness and flexibility are essential,
and on that is founded also the epithet aioλouir pnc, Il. e, 707.-
Because, therefore, as has been said before, the idea of vari-
coloured and of changing quickly from shade to shade does of
itself accompany the idea of moveableness, this last alone is to
be admitted as the radical idea in all these passages of Homer.
4. In a multiplicity of other things also ποικίλος and αἰόλος
may be used with the same leading sense; as when Ulysses is
called by Homer Tokidoμnτng and Sisyphus by Hesiod in Fr.
ap. Schol. Pind. Pyth. 4, 252. aioλounτnc; 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 Toukiλoc is an epithet of things to which the idea of
moveableness does not belong, or which it does not suit as a
poetical epithet, as, for instance, couches, garments, Od. a, 132.
Il. e, 735., a curiously-tied fastening, Od. 0,448.; so we have
seen above αἰόλος joined to things which are not ποικίλα. Thus,
then, judicious criticism requires, that in passages where both
ideas suit the sense, that alone should be selected which the
word has elsewhere.
C
5. This also tends to prove the uniformity of the meaning
of this word in Homer, that in very old poems immediately
succeeding his age the word is used for varicoloured so deci-
sively 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 alólov oтρакоv. The passage of Hesiod's Shield of
Hercules 399. I will not quote as a proof that the grapes being
"
די
12. Αιόλος, ἐόλητο.
67
of different colours as they ripen in the summer is expressed
by ὅτ᾿ ὄμφακες αἰόλλονται ; for here we need not understand
by this expression their being of different colours, but the
rapid changing 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 seen in Homer. Besides, as a convincing
proof that the meaning of moveable is the only original one, it
prevails so decisively through every period of the Greek lan-
guage, that the other is to be regarded only as a poetical ex-
tension of it. In prose, indeed, the word very seldom occurs:
Schneider, however, in his Lexicon quotes from Aristotle alóλaç
ἡμέρας, “ changeable days”; and the word αἰέλουρος, αἴλουρος
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'.
(6
6. The aióλa vúg of Sophocles Trach. 94. 132. is brought
into comparison with the Oon vúč 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, Ὃν αἰόλα νὺξ ἐναριζομένα τίκτει, κατευνάζει τε, and in
the other, μένει γὰρ οὔτ᾽ αἰόλα νὺξ βροτοῖσιν...., 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 aióλa as a learned imitation of the Oon of Ho-
mer. However, considering that the same poet certainly uses
aióλog for varicoloured, when he makes Philoctetes say, Philoct.
1157., "the birds glut themselves éµâc σapкòc aióλac," 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 aioλóxpwa; I cannot but decide in favour of the other in-
terpretation for Sophocles, "the starry night." And certainly it
is more suitable that in both passages the night should borrow
an epithet from anything else, 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 αἰλεῖν, θωπεύειν (Hesych.) and οὐρά 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. Αἰόλος, ἐόλητο.
I
7. I join with this word the verb éóλnro in Apoll. Rhod.,
which modern commentators generally derive from aióλoc.
had compared it in my Grammar with μεμόρηται, δεδόκημαι,
βεβόληντο, and derived it from eἴλω in the sense of, was
squeezed, pressed. Böckh has upon this the following remark
on Pind. Pyth. 4, 414. mihi simplicior et magis perspicua a
voce ἐολέω (αἰολέω) derivatio videtur, quanquam ἐολεῖν et εἰλεῖν
affinia esse non nego. Hence with reference to this form of
Apollonius Rhod. he changes in Pindar alóλλet, which was con-
trary to the metre, into cóλet, and adds, constat enim veteres
sic et pronunciasse et partim scripsisse. All this requires a more
accurate discussion.
8. To the genuineness of the verb aioleîv no objection can
be made. In the lexicons may be seen αἰολᾶσθαι and ἀπαιο-
λεῖν with its derivatives. Hippocrates uses αἰολᾶσθαι τῇ γνώμῃ
of the changeable mind of a sick person, and Euripides Ion.
549. has Taûтá μe amatoλeî, "this makes me uncertain what to
με ἀπαιολεῖ,
say, puzzles me." It was therefore very natural, in the two pas-
sages to which Böckh's note refers, to think of this verb. But
that it is also a more simple derivation to derive éóλnto from
aioλéw 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 alólos: 1st, quick, agile, turning or moving it-
self easily or quickly; módas alólos, nimble-footed, Il. 7, 404. Used
elsewhere in Homer of serpents, worms or maggots, and gadflies. Mé-
oor aióλoi, applied to wasps, as being particularly flexible in the middle
of their body, Il.μ,167. Homer has also αἰόλα τεύχεα and αἰόλον σάκος,
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; vúž aióλos, the starry night, Sophocl. Multiform,
varied. Metaph. changeable, uncertain, crafty, cunning, deceitful,
eudos, Pind. Ñ. 8, 43. as compared with Tokiλois feúdeσi, Olymp. 1,
46. Aióλo pépai, changeable, uncertain days on account of the
weather, Aristot. Probl. 26, 14.-En.]
12. Αίολος, ἐόλητο.
69
nounced at like e cannot be asserted so unequivocally as Böckh
does. For no one will maintain that the same mouth pro-
nounced waîç like pēs, and also made by diæresis máïc; or that
the ancients, whom we are here reviewing, could have pro-
nounced Maia 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 a did
take place in those early times. (Vid. Buttmann's Ausführ.
Sprach., sect. 5. obs. 6.*) The analogy of aiúpa éúpa, and
yaîa yea, is not sufficient to prove it; for in these two cases we
have not the pronunciation of a for e, but the change of au into
e, exactly as a is changed into e in λαός λεώς, μνᾶα μνέα. Αc-
cording to this analogy, from αἰολεῖν could come only ἐωλεῖν ;
and therefore the w must be again shortened to form èóλet.
* The Latins write the Greek at and or by a and a; e.g. Paidpos
Phædrus, 'Axaιós Achæus, Koíλn Cœle, Пoias Paas. Only some few names
in aιa, ora retain the i in the Latin, probably because it passed into
aj; as Maia, Tpoía, Maja, Troja, ('Axaía was in pure Greek a word of
four syllables, 'Axata, whence it naturally became in Latin Achaïa,
Achaja: Alas also became Ajax). In the same way the Greeks wrote
for Cæsar Kaioap, for Clelia Kλolía. 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 æ, œ 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, oª. This becomes more certain by the writing of
Comadus, as it is still less conceivable that the long w should have been
W
pronounced by the Latins like œ. Further, as such contractions and
resolutions as πáïs and raîs, ois and oîs, and even in the Latin poets
Albaï and Albæ, always remained familiar to the ear; all this added to
the names Maja, Troja, shows that the sounds at, οι were at all
events the older pronunciation, but by no means an obsolete one, which,
therefore, we are justified in adhering to in Greek. In later times the
pronunciation of a for ai became the current one in Greece; while for
o, they took not a, 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 pæna passed over into
punio, mania into munio. Rigidius, in Gell. 19, 14., expressly says
that in æ, an e was sounded after the a.
70
12. Αἰόλος, ἐόλητο.
T
This also is possible; provided there were but one thing to be
granted to favour this derivation. But then again êóλŋto
must stand for nóλnto, which third supposition is still more
arbitrary than the others. That is to say, if there existed such
a verb as coλéw for aioλéw, the imperfects without the aug-
ment would indisputably be ἐόλει, ἐολεῖτο ; but ἐόλητο is ac-
cording to its termination a plusquam-perfectum, and contrary
to all Epic analogy, without the augment arising from the re-
duplication 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 sim-
ple; for I have only to say, as dédeyμai has a similar form of
the same meaning dedóknμai (compare 11. 8, 107. with o, 730.),
exactly so has eeλuai (Il. v, 524. and elsewhere)-éóλnuai.
(Vid. Buttmann's Ausführ. Sprach., sect. 112, 9.*)
9. But to explain this more in detail. The verb ew, with
the meanings of to push, press, drive, beat, is in its more sim-
ple forms eλoai, eeλpai, &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 eeλuai, I
compare the verb cóλnto, and understand it to mean in Apol-
lonius Rhod. 3, 471.
Ἡ μὲν ἄρ᾽ ὣς ἐόλητο νόον μελεδήμασι κούρη,
she was pressed down, oppressed; with which the explanations
of the scholiasts and old lexicographers, ἐτετάρακτο, ἐν
ἀγωνίᾳ ἦν, ἐπτόητο, ὠδύνητο, agree remarkably well. Only
in the Etym. M. there is a remark, that it is also written with
* Many barytone dissyllables, which have an e in the radical sylla-
ble, form sister-forms by changing the vowel into o, and taking the
termination εω: φέρω and φορέω, τρέμω and τρομέω, φέβομαι commonly
φοβέομαι; so also πορθέω, δομέω, βρομέω, ποτέομαι. Or the radical
syllable has w, and the termination is άω: στρωφάω for στρέφω, τρωχάω
for τρέχω ; so also δωμάω, βρωμάω, νωμάω, τρωπάω, πωτάομαι. Accord-
ing to the first form some have sister-forms in the perfect only: dedo-
κημένος for δεδεγμένος from δέκομαι or δέχομαι; and therefore also
ἐκτόνηκα, μεμόρηται, ἐόλητο, from κτείνω, μείρομαι, εἴλω ; also βεβόλη-
μαι from Báλw.-Buttm. A. S. 112, 9.
12. Αἰόλος, ἐόλητο.
71
aɩ; and the idea of connecting it with aioλeîo0aι was strength-
ened by observing 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, therefore, (but no plusquam-perfectum,) with the
sense of aioλeiro, might stand here perfectly well; at the same
time it is anything but necessary for the expression, "her
mind was pressed, or weighed down (eeλтo, èóλnTo) with cares,
brings before our eyes those feelings of the damsel as a ne-
cessary 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 éóλet; for the certainty of this amendment of Böckh
is rendered by the metre unquestionable, and the reading of the
manuscripts, alóλλe, has no more weight against it than the vari-
ous reading alóλnto has in the verse of Apollonius Rhod. before
us. This code is therefore the regular imperfect of the digam-
maed verb ὀλεῖν—ἐόλουν, ἐόλει. The sense too is equally cor-
rect; Πῦρ δέ νιν οὐκ ἐόλει παμφαρμάκου ξείνας ἐφετμαῖς, “the
flame (from the fire-breathing steeds) did not oppress, disturb,
drive away
Jason:” for that the sense of αἰόλλειν, αἰολεῖν,
"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 con-
nected 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: ᾿Ολεῖ, ἐνοχλεῖ, ἐξολοθρεύει.
Undoubtedly this gloss has generally been overlooked, from
an idea that it belonged to ὀλλύναι, ὀλεῖν; 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 oleî from oλλvu can only be the future.
And the explanation ἐξολοθρεύει, being solely a word of the
later Greek, must have been placed there by one of the late
grammarians. 'Evoxλeî is therefore without doubt the only
old explanation; and in two other glosses of Hesychius it ac-
tually does stand alone, ᾿Ολαεῖ, ἐνοχλεῖ, καὶ ᾿Ολαθεῖ ὁμοίως.
Ενοχλεῖ
72
13. 'Akéwv, ákýv.
The accent of these two last forms is without doubt incorrect;
for a form oλaéw is scarcely conceivable. On the contrary,
Ολέω, ᾿Ολάω, and ᾿Ολάθω are perfectly analogous forms, the
two first like ποτέομαι and ποτάομαι from πέτομαι, the last
like opμáow and others. Το prove that the idea of ἐνοχλεῖν,
to be troublesome or burdensome, is very near akin to that of to
press down, oppress, will require no discussion. I think, there-
fore, I may now confidently propose the three forms odeî, éódet,
and ἐόλητο as all coming from the verb ῎Ελω, εἴλω with the
idea of, to press, press down, oppress².
11. As to the verbs aióλλew and eiλeîv having been origi-
nally the same, I see nothing to indicate it. The latter verb we
may find plain enough as a root in "Eλw, eλoa, to beat, strike,
push, &c., if we look to art. 87. sect. 4. But αἰόλλω comes
according to all analogy from diódoc, which is undoubtedly an
adjectival form with its root in the first syllable: and the old
comparison of this word with äeλλa appears to me by no means
to be rejected; for aeλλa comes already recommended to our
notice by its connexion with Aloλoc, the god of the winds.
All these, then, come from aw: the diphthong at is the very
common change of a before a vowel, and aióλor therefore
means blowing, flapping, moving, &c.³
αω
13. ᾿Ακέων, ἀκήν.
1. As Homer uses not only akéwv, but also certain of its
cases, such as áкéovoa, Il. a, 565. 569. áкéovтe, Od. E, 195.,
no doubt has been entertained of its being the participle of a
2 Whether the gloss of Hesychius εὔλητο, ἐπέφυρτο, ἐτετάρακτο, is to
be explained as an error of transcription for éóλnro, or a various read-
ing of it, or whether this latter form, after the disappearance of the
digamma, was contracted in the dialects to evλnro, I leave to others to
determine.
3 Compare with this in the Etym. Μ. ἀείλλειν, θωπεύειν καὶ αἰκάλ-
λειν: in Hesych. ἀελλεῖ, φιλεῖ, κολακεύει: αἰλεῖν, θωπεύειν, with the
notes. For it is clear that these meanings come from the idea of oaiveir,
and therefore from the motion of the dog's tail betokening fondness.
13. ᾿Ακέων, ἀκήν.
73
verb akéw; which, with the substantive ákn, and its supposed
accusative aкny, has been compared with кa, and all consi-
dered 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 ka belongs to another root with a very
different radical idea. As for ȧkéwv, if it be properly a parti-
ciple, it is difficult to explain how it ever could have come to
pass that this singular and masculine form should have been,
contrary to all analogy, used and joined both with the feminine
and the plural; as in Il. 0, 459.
*
Ητοι ᾿Αθηναίη ἀκέων ἦν οὔτε τι εἶπεν.
and in Od. 4, 89.
᾿Αλλ᾿ ἀκέων δαίνυσθε καθήμενοι.
I follow, therefore, the explanation of those who have derived
ákýν from xaíveiv with the a privative. The Ionic change of
ἀκήν χαίνειν
X and k is familiar enough by such words as κέκαδον, δέκομαι,
&c., and in this family of words in particular is confirmed by
the verb κεάζω, I cleave, i. e. χαίνειν ποιῶ. ᾿Ακήν, therefore,
is an adverbial form from xáew, xaivew, confirmed by the ana-
logy of aπρiáτηv. For instead of adverbs were used, particu-
larly in the older Greek, many cases of adjectives, as, for in-
stance, the accus. sing. and plur. of the neuter, and the dative
and accus. sing. of the feminine, as δεινόν, ἔκπαγλα, κοινῇ,
μakρáv. In the same way we may account for many adverbial
forms derived from lost adjectives, as πλησίον, διχῆ (for διχῇ)
and δίχα, πέραν. Let us now suppose an adjective ἄκαος, non
hiscens, silent, then the a ka of Pindar (vid. article ka, &c.)
will be either the neuter plur. of it for akaa, or the dat. fem.
for akáą. From the accus. fem. akáav would have come in the
Ionic dialect ἀκέην and ἀκήν, and from the neut. sing. ἄκαον
would be formed ακέων, according to the analogy ofἵλαον ἵλεων.
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 dix and dixa); nor is it 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-
74
13. ᾿Ακέων, ἀκήν,
mological sense of the forms before us was indisputably no
longer felt even in a very early period of the Greek language.
And this was the cause of άkéwv, 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 an ungrammatical 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 ἀκέων to be a participle, arose ἀκέουσα,
άkéоvтe even as early as Homer's time, so the later writers
went further, and Apollonius Rhod. 1, 765. has even the verb
ἀκέοις. From a similar source must have come that solitary
instance of the subst. ἀκή, in the Hesychian gloss ἀκὴν ἦγες,
ἡσυχίαν ἦγες. The adj. ἀκαλός comes from ἀκήν. The trans-
ition 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. §, 195.,
is so natural that it requires no discussion.
KE
2. From this explanation of akéwv as an adverb it may per-
haps be allowed that ȧkéwv daivvole is a very natural expres-
sion; but άkéwv 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. carus; 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 addrcsed to a German scholar, of åkā, ȧkýr,
or åkéwr, according to Buttmann's derivation of them.—ED.]
A
14. ᾿Ακοστήσας.
75
be objected to, and it may be said that in that case it should
be an adjective (consequently, according to my supposition,
ἄκεως for ἄκαος,) and not an adverb. But the expressions πλη-
σίον ἦν, where the adjective πλησίος might be used, and σίγα
ἔστω, will satisfy this doubt, and remove all objection to the
unnatural masc. sing. in wv in those constructions.
14. ᾿Ακοστήσας.
1. The verb ἀκοστήσας is a ἅπαξ εἰρημένον, being found
only in a simile which occurs twice in Homer, 11. 7, 506.
o, 263.
Ὡς δ᾽ ὅτε τις στατὸς ἵππος ακοστήσας ἐπὶ φάτνη
Δεσμὸν ἀποῤῥήξας θείῃ πεδίοιο κροαίνων,
&c. The accounts given by the grammarians of this word,
which has been so completely bruised to pieces by the later
commentators, and which offers no comparison of passages,
must be examined with great caution, since there are no ex-
ternal evidences to guide us in distinguishing between what is
of an historical nature and what is mere etymological specula-
tion. Amidst a mixed mass of this kind (vid. Eustath.,
Schneider, &c.) there is one and only one derivation, from
ἀκοστή, barley, which at once strikes so forcibly both the eyes
and the understanding, that one feels induced to examine whe-
ther there is any foundation for it, and whether it will bear
investigation. I will therefore collect from the Scholia and
glosses whatever essentially bears on this derivation. Hesych.
Ακοστή· κριθὴ παρὰ Κυπρίοις. ᾿Ακοστήσας· κριθιάσας, ἀδηφα-
γήσας. Eustath. ᾿Ακοστῆσαι δὲ τὸ πολυκριθῆσαι κατὰ τοὺς
παλαιοὺς, ἤγουν τὸ κριθιᾶσαι. ἀκοσταὶ γὰρ αἱ κριθαί. ὅπερ
φασὶν ἐξ Ομήρου μὲν οὐ δείκνυται', παρὰ δέ γε Νικάνδρῳ
(Alexiph. 106.) καὶ ἄλλοις κεῖται. οἱ δὲ παλαιοί φασι, καὶ
T
a
οι
In Apollonius, where the same gloss stands in an abbreviated shape,
it ought to be written thus: ὅπερ ἐξ ῾Ομήρου [δεικνύναι οὐ] δυνήσονται,
The words in brackets are not in Apollonius. The grammarian rejects
this explanation.
76
14. ᾿Ακοστήσας.
Schol.
πάσας τὰς τροφὰς παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς ἀκοστὰς λέγεσθαι.
Ven. B. οἱ δὲ τὰς κριθάς φασι παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς ἀκοστὰς εἶναι.
2. From these accounts we can have no doubt of the
occurrence of the word aкoorn, barley; and a very probable
derivation of it from aκn, on account of the beards which di-
stinguish this species of grain, furnishes a confirmation not to
be rejected. That Homer never used the word akoσrn itself
is no objection to this derivation, any more than that it was
borrowed from the Cyprians or Thessalians. Heyne has ju-
diciously observed, that old words which disappeared from
common use were still visible much later in certain dialects.
Such idioms were noted while Greek was still a living language,
in part for the very purpose of explaining Homer and other
ancient writers; and thus such words as this were introduced
into the glossaries. 'AKOOT, therefore, was a genuine old
name for barley; and though in Homer's time and in his par-
ticular 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 language of common life'.
(C
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. åño-
oreîv ductum ab áкooтý spica, arista, et ipsæ fruges, hordeum, voce antiqua
ab ȧký, acies, ducta; unde fuit àкów acuo, άкoσrý spica acuminata: ag-
noscit hoc etymon etiam Valcken.," &c. 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
ákoσrý, namely, spica, arista, is false. 'AKOσTý, acuta, certainly meant
only this one species of grain, and was therefore synonymous with кpɩ0ý,
on which see note on art. 87. sect. 9. That Hesychius has also a gloss,
Kooraí, кpiaí, 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
άkоoraί appears to me suspicious, although, as is frequently the case,
14. ᾿Ακοστήσας.
77
3. Such a common familiar expression, therefore, was άko-
ornoac, according to the opinion of those who explained it by
ป
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 aкoστýσus:
᾿Ακοστήσας, ἄκος τῆς στάσεως λαβὼν, τουτέστιν ἴαμα. καὶ κριθιάσας. κυ-
ρίως αἱ πᾶσαι τροφαὶ ἀκοσταὶ καλοῦνται παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς. ὡς καὶ Νίκαν-
δρος. παρὰ τὸ ἴστασθαι τὰ σώματα τρεφόμενα ἐν ἄλλῳ καιρῷ παραλαβών.
Here is a number of mutilated sentences which prove nothing. Of these
that which ends with παρὰ Θεσσαλοῖς cannot well have κυρίως, which,
therefore, Eustathius left out. But in the smaller Scholia, παρὰ Θεσ-
σaλoîs, 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. ’Akos--ἴαμα. κυρίως δὲ πᾶσαι αἱ τροφαὶ ἀκοσταὶ καλοῦνται, παρὰ
τὸ ἵστασθαι τὰ σώματα τρεφόμενα ἐν ἄλλῳ καιρῷ. For this the Schol.
Ven. B. which I have quoted above, merely says that barley was called
by the Thessalians akoσraí; and this is the only passage, among so
many, which is kaì Nikavòpos suits, for this writer speaks only of roasted
barley, ὀπταλέῃσιν ἀκοσταῖς. Those words, then, παρὰ θ., ὡς καὶ Ν.,
must be taken away, and caλoûrraɩ will then be immediately followed
by Taрà Tù toraolai, &c., as it is in the lesser Scholium. I
suppose,
therefore, that in the old commentary the explanation of aкos Tηs στá-
σεωs probably stood first; next followed that of κριθιάσαs and of ἀκοστή,
barley; to which was added, not from historical information but from
etymological sagacity, "kupiws, i. e. properly speaking arooral was the
κυρίως, ἀκοσταί
name for food in general"; and then comes the ground of this in the
words Tapà Tò íoraσdaι, &c., which however are still obscure, probably
because the unlearned collector omitted something essential. But it is
highly probable that άkoσrý again was derived from akos, of which idea
those words (without rapaλaßúr, which is not in the lesser Schol. nor
in the Etym. Gud. v. ȧkoorýoas, and was probably tacked on from mis-
understanding the meaning of ev äλλ kaip) appear to be a periphrasis;
thus "food is called åкooraí from aros, because bodies by means of food
(7рepóµeva) 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 ;) οἱ γὰρ ἰατροὶ τοὺς καιροὺς τῶν σωμάτων ἱκανῶς λέγουσιν. 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 åкoστý from άkos, and particularly when I compare with
it the following gloss in Etym. Gud.: "Akos, θεράπευμα· κυρίως δὲ τῷ
σιδήρῳ θεραπεύειν εἰς ἀκὴν ἀπεξυσμένῳ (as ἀκεστής is both a mender
and a physician) ἔνθεν καὶ τὸν ἰατρὸν Φρύγες ἀκοστὴν λέγουσιν. In
the index it is incorrectly altered to ȧreory, as if the Phrygian tongue
must follow the analogy of the Greek. In the gloss is also mentioned
the Greek word ἀκέστρια, and in conclusion is added, οὕτως εὗρον ἐν
ὑπομνήματι τῆς Ἰλιάδος. It is possible that this may be taken from a
remark on aros II., 250. but more probably from some detailed ob-
78
14. ᾿Ακοστήσας.
Kρiliúσac; for I do not consider this explanation to be an hi-
storical tradition, but an idea of the grammarians; an idea,
however, by no means to be rejected. The word кpiliav was
mostly used to express the ill effects occasioned by horses being
overfed. Κριθᾷν was also a correct form like χολᾷν. And this
form is used by Eschylus in Agam. 1633. (1652.) exactly in
the sense which suits the passage in Homer, κριθῶντα πῶλον,
"the high-fed steed." Pollux, who, lib. 7. cap. 5., quotes
this passage with one from Sophocles, introduces it with these
words : Τὸ ὑπερεμπεπλῆσθαι καὶ ὑπερκεκορέσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς μάζης
ὑπερμαζᾷν ἔλεγον οἱ παλαιοὶ, οἱ δὲ νέοι κριθιᾷν*. Without
racking our brains about those writers older than Eschylus,
who used the word vπepμalav, 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 lan-
guage a verb akoσrav with this sense was in use, and that this
COOT
し
​ak
άкоoтηoαç came from it, has certainly great probability. Only
the aorist being used raises some doubt; for according to that
analogy one should have expected ἀκοστάων ἐπὶ φάτνη. The
præterite 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, there-
fore, the explanation is not so satisfactory as might be wished'.
4. A very erroneous assertion is made by Schneider in his
lexicon, that the reading of aкoornoac is extremely uncertain.
servation on the verse which contains ἀκοστήσας, in which ἀκοσταί was
derived from åкos in the manner mentioned above, and the Phrygian
word dкoorns, a physician, was compared with it.
4 This form, as quoted by Pollux from Æschylus, offends against the
metre, кpiðiŵrтa πλо»; but in the fragment of Sophocles stands кρɩ-
θώσης, which is also unmetrical and corrupt, ἕως ὅτου κριθώσης οἶνου:
perhaps it should be ἕως ὅτου κριθῶσαν οἴνου, consequently a bold appli-
cation of the word to the insolence arising from wine and high living.
5 The verb Toλvкpionσas in Eustathius would express very nearly the
last-quoted idea: such a verb, however, nowhere occurs, and it was
therefore certainly formed in order to explain something. What this
was I find from the gloss quoted above in note 2, Kooral, kpıðal; 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 κοσταί, ακοστέω, i. e, πολυκριθέω.
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, &c.
79
στάσιν
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 oiovel axooThoac of
the grammarian Aristonichus (vid. Etym. M. and Hesych.) was
intended only to embody in a sensible and visible shape the
supposition of the x in aкoornoac originally coming from X,
and that the word meant as much as ἐν ἄχει γενόμενος διὰ
Tǹv OTάow; a derivation, bad as it is, far better than the
others which Eustathius brings forward. Another and a much
worse attempt, 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 standing 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 ȧkoornoac 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 that so much the more, as from the repetition of oi waλaioí
in the quotations of Eustathius it appears very evident that this
explanation has in its favour the oldest tradition.
οι
᾿Αλέξειν ; vid. χραισμεῖν.
᾿Αλῆναι; vid. εἰλεῖν.
᾿Αλίαστος ; vid. λιάζω.
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, ἄμβροτος, ἀβρότη, ἀβροτάζειν,
ἤμβροτον.
1. In general there is too great an inclination to derive the
epithet außpóoloc from ambrosia, and to connect it almost every-
80
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, &ΰ.
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 außpóotoc is never a mere poetical word
by which earthly odours and such like are compared with am-
brosia, like vektáρeoc in Il. y, 385. That such is not the case
with außpóotoc 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
Il. w, 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 have the epithet of äußротоc (Il. π, 670. Od. 0,
365.) quite as well as that of außpóotoc, it will be evident that
these two words are in fact synonymous, and that the idea of
ambrosia does not lie in the word, but only in particular cases
in the thing.
-
2. That is to say, äußporoc means immortal; Oeòc äußpo-
TOC, ἵπποι ἄμβροτοι, αἷμα ἄμβροτον, and such like. Every-
thing also which belongs to the gods, and is around them, par-
takes of the immortal nature; everything is imperishable, and
has in itself a power which makes it imperishable and insus-
ceptible of hurt: εἵματα ἄμβροτα, ἔλαιον ἄμβροτον, &c., par-
ticularly in Od. e, 346. the кpndeuvov äußporov, which secured
Ulysses from danger as long as he had it around him. Now it
would be but natural for such objects to be joined with an adjec-
tive immediately derived from ἄμβροτος; such as ἀμβρόσιος, of
an immortal nature, rendering immortal, or in a general sense,
divine, proceeding from a divinity. Thus of the song of the Muses
in Hesiod 0, 69. άµßрoσiŋ µоλπy, and in one of Homer's Hymns
to Diana (27, 18. Wolf.), αἱ δ᾽ ἀμβροσίην ἔπ᾽ ἱεῖσαι....;
and so generally in the older poets, as ὕδατος ἀμβροσίοιο, is
used of the sea in the Titanomachia in Athen. 7. p. 277. d.
Again in Pindar, ἀμβρόσια ἔπεα, ἀμβρόσιαι φιλότατες ᾿Αφρο-
Sirac, Pyth. 4, 532. Nem. 8, 2. Nay, in the hymn to Mer-
230. Maia herself is called vúμon außpooin, consequently
cury
exactly synonymous with außporoc, immortal.
3. First, then, in the außpóotoc Téλoc of Venus the idea
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, &c.
81
of an ambrosial odour has no more to do with it than it has
with the außporioic wediλoic of Mercury. And although in the
ἀμβροσίοις πλοκάμοις of Juno decking and beautifying herself
to captivate Jupiter (I). §, 177.) there could not but have been
the divine odour of ointment, an idea which naturally offers it-
self to the imagination, yet here, as well as in the außpooíoic
Xaitaic of Jupiter ratifying his promise by his nod (Il. 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 (Il. 4, 187.) eλatov àµßpóσtov, in the same
way as at Od. 0, 365. it is called äußporov; and in the same
way as the fodder of the immortal steeds of Mars (Il. e, 369.) is
called eidap außpóotov, 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 (Il. π, 670.), or as a cosmetic wash (II. §,
170.), are also called as substantives außpooín.
4. It cannot be said of this last-mentioned word that edwon
is understood, because aµßpooin is used, as we have just seen,
in such various senses, where edwdź could not be admitted; àµ-
Bpooia, therefore, must without doubt have been originally a
substantive from ἄμβροτος, like ἀθανασία from ἀθάνατος, mean-
ing immortality. Thus, for instance, as the deities wash them-
selves with beauty (Od. o, 192.), so they eat and drink immor-
tality. An idea this which was still familiar to the later
Greeks, as we may see by the use of a0avaoía in Lucian's Dial.
Deor. 4. extr. νῦν δὲ ἄπαγε αὐτὸν (Ganymede), ὦ Ἑρμῆ, καὶ
πιόντα τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄγε οινοχοήσοντα ἡμῖν.
5. All these passages, however, do not at all help us to un-
derstand how außpóotoc, which is the epithet of the sleep of
Agamemnon II. ß, 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
γλυκύς, νήδυμος, νήγρετος, &c., and the whole picture as
represented in this passage, περὶ δ᾽ ἀμβρόσιος κέχυθ᾽ ὕπνος,
show plainly that here the word must contain some idea ex-
pressive 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 heal-
G
82
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, &c.
ing nature of sleep, the poet selects an epithet used to point
out that strengthening eternizing power which exists in those
heavenly objects. It is therefore an epithet somewhat im-
proper, as is vуperoc, yet not without truth; since sleep is
not a work of man, nor does it contain in itself that which is
perishable, but it is the great gift of the gods (Il. n, 482. vπνoν
ὕπνου
Sŵpov ëλovтo), is altogether like a supersensible supernatural
influence, and thence is in itself a celestial existence.
6. But is the night also called außpooin vúč (Il. ß, 57.)
because this epithet is given to sleep, as is generally supposed
to be the case? I think not.
I think not. But the thing is somewhat
perplexed by the epithets äußporoc and aßpórn 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
Eschylus èpnuía äßporoc. But this form appears to be akin
to ἀβροτάζειν (I1. κ, 65. μήπως ἀβροτάξομεν ἀλλήλοιϊν,
we miss each other,"), while on the other side it is evidently
connected with ἤμβροτον, the Epic sister-form of ἥμαρτον,
ἁμαρτεῖν.
"lest
α
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 ἤμβροτον from ἥμαρτον;
and from this aorist außporeîv came (lengthened quite accord-
ing to analogy) aßpoτáleiv, 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
similar are ἀμβρόσιος and ἄμβροτος, at least in both being
derived from a and βροτός, and again ἀβρότη stands for ἄμ-
βροτος on account of the metre, as Νὺξ ἀβρότη begins the
ος
η
hexameter. Least of all can the difference of the termination.
oc and ʼn be any grounds for supposing a difference between au-
βροτος and ἀβρότη, since it is well known that the language
of Epic poetry can form compounds with a and others in the
fem. in n. In these two verses, Od. A, 330.
а
Πρὶν γάρ κεν καὶ νὺξ φθῖτ᾽ ἄμβροτος· ἀλλὰ καὶ ὥρη,
and II., 78.
Νὺξ ἀβρότη ἢν καὶ τῇ ἀπόσχωνται πολέμοιο,
the former might have ἀμβρότη as well as ἄμβροτος, and the
I
mi
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, &c.
83
ทุ
latter might, if necessary, have äßporoc. 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 n 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, dupißporoc, which is subject to the same
laws as ἄβροτος, occurs four times, ἀσπίδος ἀμφιβρότης, οι
-a, -ŋy, in all which cases the common form was equally ad-
missible. It is therefore quite certain that whatever vù au-
βροτος is, νὺξ αβρότη is the same. The next question then
is, whether νὺξ ἄμβροτος is the same as νὺξ ἀμβροσίη. But
can any one doubt of that who has read in Homer ἐλαίῳ ἀμ-
βρότῳ and ἀμβροσίῳ ἐλαίῳ, ἄμβροτα εἵματα and ἀμβροσίου
διὰ πέπλου?
8. And thus then the last question, as to the meaning of
this word in its threefold form, is answered by itself; for no
one will think of interpreting ἀμβρόσιος and ἄμβροτος here
differently from what they mean in all the other passages;
nor can ἀβρότη mean without men because ἀμβροσίη 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 leîoc,
iepóc, &c., in Homer'. Our explanation has also as great a
claim to antiquity as the others. Apollon. Lex. in v. .....oi
δὲ τὴν ἀθάνατον, ἐξ οὗ ἡ θεία νοεῖται. Schol. min. Noč
ἀβρότη· ἀμβροσία, θεία. Schol. Ven. ἡ διπλῆ, ὅτι ἤτοι κατὰ
παράλειψιν τοῦ μ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀμβρότη, οἷον ἀθάνατος, ἢ ἀβρότη,
κάθ᾽ ἣν βροτοὶ μὴ φοιτῶσιν. The use of this word in Æschy-
lus need not lead us astray; not that he understood aßpórn
to mean in Homer without men (though it is just possible he
A
ทุ
According to the lexicons dßpórn 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 Il. ξ, 78. ὅτε γὰρ ἀβρότη μόνον
ῥηθείη, λείπει τὸ νύξ.
2 Our explanation lies hidden also in the corrupted gloss of Hesy-
chius, 'Aßporn. aßpornocía: for this, according to Schow, is the exact
reading of the MS. which Musurus unskilfully changed into the present
reading, ᾿Αβροτῆ, ἀβροτησία. The true reading is indisputably’Αβρότη,
ἀμβρότη, θεία.
6 2
84
15. ᾿Αμβρόσιος, &c.
a
might), but because äßporoc is in this sense a perfectly ana-
logical word, which Eschylus himself might have formed with-
out 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 Æschylus, for after all aßpórn is but a various
reading in Prometh. 2."
3
ance.
9. As to the formation of außporoc, 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 aµpaoin. But
φθισίμβροτος, τερψίμβροτος, &c., present the same appear-
To say that μ was inserted euphonia gratiâ, might be
a satisfactory reason in many similar compounds which are
unique (whereas this form is the most common one), but even
there only until a better explanation could be given. And in
this case we have offered us an undeniable derivation in µópoc,
fate, death. Hence came μopróc, which as a sister-form of
ẞporóg was in some of the dialects; for certainly Callimachus
did not introduce it into his poems on merely etymological spe-
culation; Fragm. 271. édeípaμev äσтeа μоρтoi*. And the
Lat. mors, morior, mortuus, mortalis, confirms this.
The me-
tathesis, so natural in the older period of the Greek language,
changed this μορτός into βροτός, like μολεῖν, βλώσκω· μέλι,
βλίττω· μαλακός, βλάξ. See βλίττειν. But the radical μ
remained before the ẞ, whenever it was immediately preceded
by a vowel (ἄμβροτος, &c.), as in μολεῖν, μέμβλωκα, βλώσκω,
and in ἥμαρτον, ἤμβροτον; but at the same time it might be
omitted when the verse required it; thence äßpoтоc, àµpi-
βρότη, and ἀβροτάζειν from ἀμβροτεῖν.
Cry
That is to say, Eustathius on II. E, 78. quotes merely äßporos épη-
uía from Eschylus; others, and amongst them a Scholium in Villoison,
mention more fully ἄβροτον εἰς ἐρημίαν. Heyne on Il. κ, 65.
S
says that
it stands at the beginning of the Prometheus; but there we read now
üßatov eis épnµíar, which is indisputably quite as good. On this va-
rious reading, to which the gloss in Hesychius ἄβροτον, ἀπάνθρωπον,
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: "Mopròs, ô,, (from μópos) the same
as its derivative Sporòs, mortal, Callim. Fr. 271. Thence μopróẞaros,
ỏ, ǹ; vaûs μορтoßárn, the bark of Charon, which carries mortals after
death over the Styx, Hesych.: Lat. mortuus.”—ED.]
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
85
ἁμαρτεῖν.
10. Here then must fall to the ground every attempt to bring
the verb aẞporálew into immediate etymological connexion
with aßporoc, a mistake easily caused by the similarity of the
principal syllable; for some derived the verb from ά and ẞpo-
Tóc, supposing it properly to mean aberrare ab homine; and
they connected with it "ußporov also, but did not venture to
add aμapreiv. Others began with aßpórn, night, and sup-
posed both verbal forms (still omitting auapreiv) to mean, "I
wander about in the night, and lose my way, miss my object."
But every one must feel that all these and suchlike attempts
are anything but natural modes to trace the origin of a verb
which was in common and familiar use. I think, then, we
cannot do better than admit the separation of åßporále and
äßporoc, recommended as it is by all analogy, and include the
former among the forms of åµaprávw, whose etymological con-
nexions, as long as we are ignorant of them, we can easily do
without*.
᾿Αμέγαρτος ; vid. μεγαίρω.
῎Αμεναι ; vid. ἀδῆσαι.
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
1. Whoever sees the expression auoλy, without knowing
anything of the context of those passages in which it occurs,
would at once decide that it must come from auéλyev; and
4 According to my conjecture ἁμαρτάνω belongs to the root μέρος,
part, peiper, 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 dµépdeɩv,
to give no share to, i. e. to deprive or rob. A similar verb was ȧuap-
reîv (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 difference of the aspirate this is not
the first proof, particularly of such cases where the etymology had
escaped the observation of persons in general. The similarity of apa
with aµaprárw satisfied them.
86
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
this decision would influence him in his explanation of those
passages, as he would look upon the idea of to milk as the
acknowledged meaning. It is well known that this has ac-
tually been the case in explaining auoly. We, however,
regular as this decision may appear, will endeavour to treat of
the collective passages of Homer, where it occurs, without the
assistance of auéλyew. In Il. A, 173. the Trojans are de-
ἀμέλγειν.
scribed as "flying over the field, like oxen":
“Αστε λέων ἐφόβησε μολὼν ἐν νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ.
In o, 324. is the same metaphor:
In
X,
ὥστ᾽ ἠὲ βοῶν ἀγέλην ἢ πῶϋ μέγ' οἰῶν
Θῆρε δύο κλονέωσι μελαίνης νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ
᾿Ελθόντ᾽ ἐξαπίνης, σημάντορος οὐ παρεόντος.
28. Achilles shines like the dog-star, whose bright rays
Φαίνονται πολλοῖσι μετ᾿ ἀστράσι νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ,
and at 317. the same hero is compared to the evening star:
Οἷος δ' ἀστὴρ εἶσι μετ' ἀστράσι νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ
"Εσπερος, ὃς κάλλιστος ἐν οὐρανῷ ἵσταται ἀστήρ.
In Od. 8, 841. Penelope awakes after the disappearance of the
vision with delighted feelings :
Ως οἱ ἐναργὲς ὄνειρον ἐπέσσυτο νυκτὸς ἀμολγῷ.
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 åµodyê 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
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
87
""
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,
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, ὅς ῥά τ᾽ ὀπώρης εἶσιν, to which is afterwards
pá
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
sun-rise, 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 twi-
light 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.) ȧpindoi dé
οἱ αὐγαὶ Φαίνονται πολλοῖσι μετ᾿ ἀστράσι; 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 πολλοῖσι μετ᾿ ἀστράσιν, and also of
the other passage μετ᾿ ἀστράσιν, where the number of the stars
is not defined, and consequently unlimited? And how came
the poet to spoil his picture by expressly mentioning, of all
88
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
things in the world, the twilight? NUKтòc ȧpoly 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 öc pá
τ᾽ ὀπώρης εἶσι, it was not intended to mark the time which the
poet had in his mind, but to define the particular star exactly
like the 'Aorép' owρive evaλiyкtoc in e, 5., in which, as in
᾿Αστέρ᾽ ὀπωρίνῳ èvadíykɩog
the passage before us, the star is represented in its highest
brilliancy, consequently in the night; ὅστε μάλιστα Λαμπρὸν
παμφαίνῃσι λελουμένος ὠκεανοῖο. 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
propriety 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 unconnected:
Λαμπρότατος μὲν ὕδ᾽ ἐστὶ, κακὸν δέ τε σῆμα τέτυκται.
5. There can be no doubt then that, supposing the deriva-
tion of aµolyw 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-
sides "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. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
89
silly and childish. The idea of marking time in general and
in great natural phænomena by the hour of milking is not to
be borne for a moment. Βουλυτός 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 auoλyóc, like Bouλuróc,
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. NUKTòc аµody 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 (o, 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 : ᾿Αμολγὸν νύκτα Εὐριπίδης ᾿Αλκμήνῃ ζοφερὰν
καὶ σκοτεινήν. Here, then, ἀμολγός 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 Eschylus in
the fragment quoted by Athenæus 11, p. 469. extr. where the
departing sun is mentioned as προφυγὼν ἱερᾶς νυκτὸς ἀμολγόν'.
The whole fragment is indeed by no means as yet cleared of cor-
ruptions; but the word πрopʊywv leaves no doubt of the correctness of
90
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
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. Nuктòc àµolyóv can here mean nothing but the dark-
ness of the night. And to this we may add another authority,
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. vπeplé te
καὶ δι᾽ ἀμολγοῦ Νυκτὸς ἐν ἡσυχίῃσιν ... Ρίζας νέρθε δέδορκας,
where aμolyóc stands alone in the sense of the deepest darkness,
for νυκτός certainly belongs to ἐν ἡσυχίῃσιν*.
εν
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 chameleons, and to explain aµolyóc now (by means
of µédyw, 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 that which has grown up on
historic ground. Eustathius on Il. o. says that, according to
the glossographers, the Achæans call ἀμολγὸν τὴν ἀκμήν.
These Achæans, we know, are no imaginary people; and a gloss
of Hesychius, although an unauthenticated one, which stands
in the same place, ᾿Αμολγάζει, μεσημβρίζει, gives very consi-
derable weight to that explanation; for mid-day is the ȧkµn of
the day, and some older poet perhaps had said uap áμoλyálei.
So much the more certain is now, therefore, the explanation of
the μala apolyain of Hesiod e, 588. as given by Proclus on
the passage, and in the Etym. M. v. Mála³, that it means the
same as ἀκμαία· τὸ γὰρ ἀμολγὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀκμαίου τίθεται.
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 Toμevikýv
α
2
α
the passage as far as it has been found necessary to quote it above,
whatever may be the opinion of the words which precede (ovd eis), and
which certainly, as they stand, are very puzzling.
et
* [I find vuкròs duoλy 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. 115. a. and Bernhardy Eratosthenica, p. 209.
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
91
refers. This would not satisfy me. But these grammarians
again make a sad business of their akuaía, considering it to be
only synonymous with κparlorη. Doubtless the older inter-
preters 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 form auoλyaîoc 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 ἀμολγαῖον μαστὸν
ἀνασχόμενος. 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 akun is a full, distended udder.
9. According to this, vUKTòc duoλyóc 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 aμolyóc made it by degrees be supposed to mean only
darkness and so Eschylus uses VUKTòc duolyóv in the frag-
ment quoted above merely for the darkness of the night; for the
meaning of akun suits that passage as little as does the twi-
light; and in Orpheus, as we have seen, άuolyóc stands alone
for darkness.
νυκ
-
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.
cc
* [I find in the Supplement to Schneider's Lexicon the following:
'iμеpíny σкоTÓеoσav åµoλyaíŋr, Orac. Sibyll. 14,214." and there trans-
lated "dark." In Passow's edition of Schneider, " µâša åµodyain” from
Hesiod is rendered "milk-bread," pain au lait ; according to others,
i. q. dμopßaía, peasant's bread," like our household or brown bread;
"or again, i. q. ȧruaía, light well-baked bread."-ED.]
CC
92
16. ᾿Αμολγῷ.
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
ἀμολγός, should there occur in connexion with that of ἀκμή?
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 farfetched 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 in-
vestigation, as I have given it above, and it struck him, without
knowing anything of the epigram, but guided merely by the
idea of aµéλyew, 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 phænomena 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 ev άuoλy"; nothing would
then be more natural than to transfer the figure to all things
that were similarly év ákun. And what could be more similar
ἐν ἀκμή.
than a cake at the moment when it was swelling and rising in
a state of fermentation? Then it was ev dµody.
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
εν
εν
17. ᾿Αμφικύπελλον.
93
with us a number of such expressions are in common use; only
that in our polished language many of those whose literal
meaning at once strikes the ear, are limited by considerations
as to whether they are elegant or common expressions, a distinc-
tion unknown to the old language of Epic poetry.
17. ᾿Αμφικύπελλον.
1. The word aupuúπeλλov is always found in Homer joined
with δέπας, and is therefore an adjective, ἀμφικύπελλος, ὁ, ἡ.
One explanation of it is, that KÚTеλλov comes from кUTTW, and
means a πoτýριov čow kekvėúc, i. e. a cup with the edge curv-
ing inwards; and aμpikúreλλov will then mean that it curves
inwards all round (Eust. ad II. a, 584.). Others derived it
from κυφός, curved, and understood ἀμφικύπελλον 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.). Ari-
starchus endeavoured to explain the curvature by two handles
(Etym. M.), whilst others supposed кúπeλλov to have no han-
dles at all (Hesych. v. кúñeλλov). We see that all this is mere
conjecture, and conjecture without coming to any decision.
2. To begin with Kúreλλov. 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, kúußn, whence a
dialect kúßßa (in Hesychius Tornpiov), Lat. cupa, Germ. Kufe,
κύββα ποτήριον),
Kübel, French cuve and coupe, Engl. cup. Kúreλov is there-
fore a diminutive, meaning, without any additional idea, a cup,
and synonymous with δέπας. ᾿Αμφικύπελλος then is, according
to the analogy of ἀμφίστομος, ἄμφωτος, &c., something which
has a Kúжеλλo 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 aµpioтoμoɩ, with one
opening above, and another below, and divided by a floor:
περὶ μίαν γὰρ βάσιν δύο θυρίδες εἰσὶν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀμφικυπέλ-
94
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
n
λων, ἡ μὲν ἐντὸς ἡ δ᾽ ἐκτός. This passage contains not merely
Aristotle's explanation of Homer's expression, for which pur-
pose only it has been usual to quote it; but it shows that the
idea of an object being aµpikúπeλoc 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 Séna-
σιν ἀμφικυπέλλοις.
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 Il. 1, 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,
ἀμφικύπελλον, which same vessel is again called merely κύ-
Teλλov. As nothing stands firmer than a hollow with a round
rim, 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, and
hence arose double cups, which might be used for drinking at
either end. This form of expression might, perhaps, have
given occasion to some particular and pleasing manner of orna-
menting, 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.
ލ
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
1. That ảµpi and aµpic are properly the same, like μéxpɩ
and μéxpic, appears principally in that which is the ground of
every preposition, in the adverbial meaning; for example, Il. O,
507. ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀμβρόσιος ἑανὸς τρέμε, around the body:
Od. θ, 476. θαλερὴ δ᾽ ἦν ἀμφὶς ἀλοιφή, around the flesh:
11. 0, 481. βαθὺς δέ τε Τάρταρος ἀμφίς: Od. ξ, 292. ἀμφὶ
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
95
›
δὲ λειμών. It appears, however, at least in Homer, to be an
established rule that άupic never stands as a preposition in its
common meaning and usual position. After its case it certainly
does sometimes stand, as, II. §, 274. and Hes. 0, 851. Kpóvov
ἀμφὶς ἐόντες: Od. ζ, 266. Ενθα δέ τέ σφ᾽ ἀγορὴ καλὸν Πο-
σιδήϊον ἀμφίς: ι, 400. Κύκλωπας...οἵ ῥά μιν ἀμφὶς Ωικεον.
See also Hymn. Cer. 289. Hence the language furnished no
reason for altering, with some manuscripts, the old reading of
Od. ω, 45. and 65. πολλὰ δέ σ᾽ ἀμφὶς Δάκρυα θερμὰ χέον
Δαναοί —πολλὰ δέ σ᾽ ἀμφίς Μῆλα κατεκτάνομεν, and for
taking away the c from the end of the verse.
after the dative at Il. e, 723. κάμπυλα κύκλα...σιδηρέῳ ἄξονι
ἀμφίς.
,
It stands also
2. The ideas arising out of the radical meaning of the word
are in the form άupic so different, that in order to select and
arrange them correctly, we ought to have them all in our view
at the same time. Hence, I will first bring forward some pas-
sages in which the original meaning around is evident and ne-
cessary. For instance, Il. w, 488. Kеivov Teρivaiéтai aµpic
éóvTec Teipovoι. In o, 519. in the description of the shield,
ἐόντες Τείρουσι.
the two deities that accompany the train of old men, &c. are
Καλὼ καὶ μεγάλω... Αμφὶς ἀριζήλω, “radiant all around.” At
ξ, 123. πολλοὶ δὲ φυτῶν ἔσαν ὄρχατοι ἀμφίς, “ in the country
around." In the funeral games, 4, 330., Nestor points out to
his son the goal chosen by Achilles for the charioteers, namely,
an old stump of a tree and two stones
Ἐν ξυνοχῇσιν ὁδοῦ· λεῖος δ᾽ ἱππόδρομος ἀμφίς.
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 aµpic
they took in the opposite sense of xwpic, or still more forced :
Heyne, however, understood it quite correctly of the wide plain
around, which was so suited to a chariot-race, and within which,
in the distance, stood also the mark chosen by Achilles, v. 359.
Others see in this passage the course winding round the mo-
nument; but then it must have been an old course regularly
drawn out for the purpose; whereas this monument was se-
lected by Achilles for the goal or mark quite arbitrarily and
>
96
18. 'Aupic.
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 aµpic ideîv, "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, Πάντα μάλ᾽ ἀμφὶς ἰδὼν, μὴ γείτοσι χάρ-
μata yńμŋc; and with the genitive of the thing considered or
examined, Il. β, 384. Εὖ δέ τις ἅρματος ἀμφὶς ἰδὼν πολεμοῖο
μedéolw. 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 ἄμφω, ambo, and the compounds ἀμφίστομος, ἀμφιδέξιος,
ambidexter, ambiguus, &c. Besides the compounds, I know
of no certain instance in Homer of the form aµpí in this more
limited meaning; for when a number of men are described as
encamped on both sides of the stream, ἀμφὶ ῥοὰς ποταμοῖο,
II. A, 732., this differs little from the common meaning of
around. Once, however, in Hesiod I find the form aupi used
of two objects lying one on each side of another object, and that,
too, as an adverb, namely, at a, 172. "Hon yap σpw еKELTO
γάρ σφιν ἔκει
ἔκειτο
μέγας λῖς, ἀμφὶ δὲ κάπροι Δοιοί. But the form ἀμφίς occurs
in this sense in the following passages of Homer. In II. A,
633. speaking of a large goblet, οὔατα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ Τέσσαρ᾽ ἔσαν,
δοιαὶ δὲ πελειάδες ἀμφὶς ἕκαστον· and at 748. Πεντήκοντα δ᾽
ἕλον δίφρους δύο δ᾽ ἀμφὶς ἕκαστον Φῶτες ὀδὰξ ἕλον οὖδας.
Further as an adverb, at Il. 9, 162., of the combat between
Achilles and Asteropæus,
ὁ δ᾽ ἀνέσχετο δῖος ᾿Αχιλλεύς
Πηλιάδα μελίην· ὁ δ᾽ ἁμαρτῆ δούρασιν ἀμφὶς
Ηρως ᾿Αστεροπαῖος· ἐπεὶ περιδέξιος ἦεν·
Καί ῥ' ἑτέρῳ μὲν δουρὶ σάκος βάλει, &c.
ܝ
In
Here άupic plainly means utrinque, "on both sides," i. e. with
both hands, and the dative doúpaow is, according to the inter-
vening passage, divided into ἑτέρῳ μὲν---τῷ δ᾽ ἑτέρῳ.
this passage, however, the word repidéčioc is very remarkable.
The explanation of it by repi-, very, is insufferable; and all
that we have hitherto said of the meaning of utrinque, belongs
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
97
entirely to dupi and those words akin to it. Nowhere in the
whole range of the Greek language are #epi and its derivatives
to be found in this sense. Evidently, therefore, the poet, as
an hexameter verse does not admit of aµpidéžioc, had recourse
to περιδέξιος, because in all other combinations περί is essen-
tially synonymous with ἀμφί.
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
together; Il. v, 706.
Τὼ μέν τε ζυγὸν οἶον ἐΰξοον ἀμφὶς ἐέργει.
Literally, the yoke keeps one steer on each side, and consequently
separates them. And this idea becomes now the leading one,
as in Od. a, 54. speaking of Atlas,
ἔχει δέ τε κίονας αὐτὸς
Μακρὰς, αἳ γαϊάν τε καὶ οὐρανὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχουσιν,
"keep from each other", i. e. separate. Hence the expression
áµpic exew in Homer varies according to the different turns
which its meaning takes. For while in the example just given
it means to keep 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.
Οἱ δὲ πανημέριοι σεῖον ζυγὸν ἀμφὶς ἔχοντες.
A third meaning of this expression, with audic 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:
Δεσμοὶ μὲν τρὶς τόσσοι ἀπείρονες ἀμφὶς ἔχοιεν,
"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 aµpic,
like δίχα elsewhere (δίχα πρῖσαι, σχίσαι, &c.) means in two,
as II. X, 559. of an ass,
......ᾧ δὴ πολλὰ περὶ ῥόπαλ᾽ ἀμφὶς ἐάγη,
“have been broken in two". For in this passage it cannot mean
11
98
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
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 insen-
sible to beating.
6. From the idea of separation arises again a new use of
άupic, 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. Il. 0, 444.
Αἱ δ᾽ οἶαι Διὸς ἀμφὶς ᾿Αθηναίη τε καὶ Ἥρη
Ησθην, οὐδέ τί μιν προσεφώνεον, &c.,
that is, "each of the two sat apart from Jove'."
352.
And Od. E,
μάλα δ' ὦκα θύρηθ᾽ ἔα ἀμφὶς ἐκείνων,
"soon I was gone, far away from them." Again, in Il. 4,
393., speaking of the horses whose yoke was broken, 'Aµpic
ódoû Spaµéτny, “sideways from the road." And in Od. π, 267.,
where Ulysses says of Jupiter and Minerva,
Οὐ μέν τοι κείνω γε πολὺν χρόνον ἀμφὶς ἔσεσθον
Φυλόπιδος κρατερῆς,
"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. T, 221.,
Ω γύναι, ἀργαλέον, τόσσον χρόνον ἀμφὶς ἔοντα
Εἰπέμεν.
and so also in Od. w, 218. This phrase aµpic čovτa has also
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 aµpic, whether it be used of one
or more persons, so ἀμφὶς ἐόντας may be said of more than
one in this same sense; and yet, as we see from Il. w, 488.,
This is the interpretation of one scholiast, while another observes
from this passage that Juno and Minerva sat in Olympus ἑκατέρωθεν,
one on each side of Jupiter. But this sentence is evidently connected
with the following one by oudé; and the manner of their sitting, and
their silence, are both the effects of their being offended with Jupiter.
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
99
mentioned above in sect. 2., it may have a directly opposite.
meaning. This is also evident in Il. 1, 460., where Phoenix
says of the friends who surround him, and endeavour to dis-
suade him from flying,
Η μὲν πολλὰ ἔται καὶ ἀνεψιοὶ ἀμφὶς ἐόντες
Αὐτοῦ λισσόμενοι κατερήτυον ἐν μεγάροισιν.
7. When ȧupic is used to point out in actions or in opera-
tions of the mind the relation which two or more persons recipro-
cally bear to each other, it expresses what each person for him-
self does or thinks, without its according with the other, nay
sometimes when it is in direct opposition to it; e. g. Il. v, 345.
Τὼ δ' ἀμφὶς φρονέοντε δύω Κρόνου υἷε κραταιώ·
because Jupiter assisted the Greeks, Neptune the Trojans. And
of many in number, at Il. β, 13. οὐ γὰρ ἔτ᾽ ἀμφὶς....΄Αθά-
vatoι Opálovтal. Therefore when in Od. x, 57. the suitors
offer Ulysses, "everything of thine which has been consumed,
Τιμὴν ἀμφὶς ἄγοντες ἐεικοσάβοιον ἕκαστος
. ἀποδώσομεν,
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. τ, 46.
Η δέ μ᾽ ὀδυρομένη εἰρήσεται ἀμφὶς ἕκαστα,
"will ask me everything one after the other." Further, when
at Il. x, 117. Hector is considering whether it would not be
better to return to the Greeks everything which Paris had taken
from them,
ἅμα δ᾽ ἀμφὶς ᾿Αχαιοῖς
῎Αλλ᾿ ἀπόδασσασθαι, ὅσσα πτόλις ἥδε κέκευθεν,
it does not mean (C to the Achæans around"; nor, as it is ex-
plained in one scholium, "besides"; nor "the one half"; but,
to the Achæans, "man by man. And lastly at Il. o, 709.,
where the battle close to the ships is described;
>>
Τοῦπερ δὴ περὶ νηὸς ᾿Αχαιοί τε Τρώές τε
Δῄουν ἀλλήλους αὐτοσχεδόν· οὐδ᾽ ἄρα τοίγε
Τόξων αϊκὰς ἀμφὶς μένον, οὐδέ τ᾽ ἀκόντων,
᾿Αλλ᾽ οἶγ᾽ ἔγγυθεν ἱστάμενοι ἕνα θυμὸν ἔχοντες
Οξέσι δὴ πελέκεσσι καὶ ἀξίνῃσι μάχοντο, &c.
H 2
100
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
aupic here does not mean "from a distance", a
as some have sup-
posed, in opposition to aurooyedór; the antithesis lies in the
verse following, and duopic is correctly explained in the scho-
lium by χωρὶς ἀλλήλων, and in Eustathius by ἰδίᾳ.
8. From this multiplicity of meanings, arising from and
blending with each other, aupic may very often raise a doubt.
as to its meaning in particular passages; for instance, in Il. o,
502., where, in the description of the litigation represented on
the shield, both disputants are mentioned, and then follows,
Λαοὶ δ᾽ ἀμφοτέροισιν ἐπήπυον ἀμφὶς ἀρωγοί.
Here άupic may be explained by around; but then apwyoi
would look very bald after it. I understand ἀμφὶς ἀρωγοί to
mean, "some helping the one, others the other." Schol. min.
Χωρὶς ἑκατέρῳ οἱ ἴδιοι βοηθοί.—Again, at Il. μ, 434., speak-
ing of the woman weighing the wool for spinning,
οι
Ητε σταθμὸν ἔχουσα καὶ εἴριον ἀμφὶς ἀνέλκει
Ἰσάζουσα.
That άupic belongs to avéλket is plain, as the scholiast re-
marks, from the rhythm, which does not allow of a pause after
aupic; it must therefore be "she makes on both sides, (i. e.
both) hang equal."
9. In Il. y, 115. 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,
Καί ῥ' ἵππους μὲν ἔρυξαν ἐπὶ στίχας, ἐκ δ' ἔβαν αὐτοὶ,
Τεύχεά τ' ἐξεδύοντο, τὰ μὲν κατέθεντ᾽ ἐπὶ γαίῃ
Πλησίον ἀλλήλων, ὀλίγη δ᾽ ἦν ἀμφὶς ἄρουρα.
The scholiast and Eustathius, and all the later commenta-
tors now lying before me, understand dupic here to mean
between. It is true that this meaning may be drawn from the
2 Instead of dµporépoiσiv éπýπvov there is a reading mentioned in
Schol. Ven., ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἐπίπνυον, which Heyne did not know how to
explain satisfactorily. It certainly ought to be érоíπννov, “the people
were in a ferment on both sides, some in favour of the one, others of
the other".
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
101
ἵπ
form of the expression, as it might have been also from that of
the yoke mentioned before, Τὼ μέν τε ζυγὸν ... ἀμφὶς ἐέργει,
for the yoke which presses the oxen outwards toward each side
is between both. But from this idea there is one more step to
be taken before we can reach the other; 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 Il. ŋ, 342., where it is said
of the ditch protecting the rampart of the Grecians, "H x π-
πους καὶ λαὸν ἐρύκακοι ἀμφὶς ἐοῦσα, 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 Il.
before us, we must first observe, that those who
understand the λnolov åλλnλwv of the two armies, and the
apovpa of the μeraixμov, evidently mistake it altogether. It
is supposed that these two points may be proved to be so by
the context; but I think I shall be able to show from the con-
text that this view of them is a false one. At v. 77. Hector
,لا
makes the Trojan ranks recede a little (Τρώων ἀνέεργε φά-
λayyac), 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 ènì orixac, 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: Oi μèv
(the heroes on both sides) ἔπειθ᾽ ἴζοντο κατὰ στίχας, ᾗχι
ἑκάστῳ Ιπποι... καὶ ... τεύχε᾽ ἔκειτο. That the space be-
tween the two armies and the heroes, who were looking on,
must have been sufficiently large for the advancing and re-
treating 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 émidivnoαc. How then could
ἐπιδινήσας,
102
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
the poet describe the μεταίχμιον to be ὀλίγη ἄρουρα ? 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, Τεύχεα δ᾽ ἐξεδύοντο, τὰ μὲν
κατέθεντ᾽ ἐπὶ γαίῃ Πλησίον ἀλλήλων, in their plain and natu-
ral 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 still more correct would it be to say that there was ỏλiyn
apovpa "a little space", dupic " around each pile of arms."
10. In the poets after Homer the form aµpic 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 (Fülleborn, 105.) may deserve
particular notice;
Ἐν τῷ σοι παύω πιστὸν λόγον ἠδὲ νόημα
᾿Αμφὶς ἀληθείης.
At least I know of no other passage where this form preserves
so completely the meaning, construction and position of aµpi,
de. I will also mention the use of this word in the oracle given
to Croesus in Herodot. 1, 85.
Μὴ βούλευ πολύευκτον την ἀνὰ δώματ᾽ ἀκούειν
Παιδὸς φθεγγομένου. τόδε σοι πολὺ λώϊον ἀμφὶς
῎Εμμεναι. αὐδήσει γὰρ ἐν ἤματι πρῶτον ἀνόλβῳ.
The construction is best thus, τόδε σοι λώϊον (ἐστὶν) ἀμφὶς
eivaɩ, "it is better for thee to be without it", i. e. aµpic scil.
avrou, literally "far away from it", like dupic puλómidog
above, at sect. 6.
11. 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 Böckh,
but we will submit them to another examination. Pindar says
that the Argonauts celebrated games at Lemnos ἐσθῆτος ἀμ-
18. ᾿Αμφίς.
103
"
el
pic; which, according to the scholiast, has two meanings,
πότερον τῆς ἐσθῆτος χωρὶς ἠγωνίσαντο, τουτέστι γυμνοὶ, ἢ τὸ
ἀμφίς ἀντὶ τῆς περί δεκτέον· χρῶνται γὰρ τῇ λέξει καὶ ἐπὶ
τούτου· τὸ ἔπαθλον ἐσθής. The second explanation is
ý
เม
there preferred, and with this Böckh agrees. The latter
grounds his interpretation on Olymp. 4, 31. &c. (where it ap-
pears that this contest consisted in running in armour,) and on
an express mention of this meaning, as quoted by the scholiast
from Simonides; καὶ γὰρ καὶ παρὰ Σιμωνίδῃ ἐστὶν ἡ ἱστορία,
ὅτι περὶ ἐσθῆτος ἠγωνίσαντο. This however does not satisfy
me; for in that passage of Ol. 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 Ol. 4, 31.) there were undoubtedly gym-
nastic contests in general, 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 Argonauts in Lemnos and on these games, in a few words,
Ἔν τ᾽ ὠκεανοῦ πελάγεσσι μίγεν πόντῳ τ᾽ ἐρύθρῳ,
Λαμνίαν τ' ἔθνει γυναικῶν ἀνδροφόνων·
ἔνθα καὶ γυίων αέθλοις ἐπεδείξαντο κρίσιν ἐσθᾶτος ἀμφίς.
the mention of this unmeaning circumstance appears to me
strange and misplaced; or, what is still more, if, as I suppose,
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 γυίων and ἐπεδείξαντο, that I wonder how any
one, who considers the context, can understand it otherwise;
and if therefore Pindar had, when he wrote it, the other
meaning in his mind, he would have drawn upon himself just
and deserved reproach.
12. And now to go back to the different use of dupi and
aupic, we have seen in sect. 3. (with the exception of the
passage from Hesiod) the meanings of utrinque, seorsim, &c.
confined entirely to the form duopic; for the three passages
104
19. ᾿Ανενείκατο.
from Homer where ἀμφίς stands before ἕκαστον, ἕκαστα (see
sect. 3. and 7.) cannot justify us in changing it there, on ac-
count of the digamma, to ἀμφί ; since the word ἕκαστος, 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 aupic before the
digamma would cause a difficulty. As for the original meaning
around, and that which is immediately connected with it, the
form auoi 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 aupic and audi seems to
depend entirely on the convenience of the verse. In the two
passages, then, quoted above, at sect. 2. instead of aupic idúv
we should adopt, with Heyne on Il. B, 384., as the genuine
reading, ἀμφιιδών.
.
19. ᾿Ανενείκατο.
1. In the passage of II. T, 314., where Achilles laments the
death of Patroclus, is this line,
Μνησάμενος δ' ἀδικῶς ἀνενείκατο, φώνησέν τε.
EK
"
n
And then follow the words of the lamentation. As the verb
άveveiкaolaι 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. Káτwler Tv & wv nv
Κάτωθεν τὴν
ἀθρόαν ἐκ βάθους ἀνήνεγκεν.—᾿Αθρόως καὶ ἐλεεινῶς καὶ οἰκτρῶς
ἀνέκραξεν· ἢ οἱονεὶ ἀνεστέναξε καὶ πολὺ ἤγαγε πνεῦμα. 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 Mrnoáμevoc, and just at the be-
ginning of a long speech, a loud cry is the most ill-suited thing
in the world'. Now the commentator adduced but this one
How Heyne could from the adırûs and the dopćar of the scholiast
arrive at the explanation which he has given, continuo has voces in ore
habuit, I cannot at all conceive.
19. ᾿Ανενείκατο.
105
meaning of the word ddwóc for this passage; but we have seen
under the article advóc, 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, consequently of a violent
sighing and lamentation. And this common sense of adwa
OTоvaxilew therefore makes 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 avevei-
kaтo, is not described in this case as striking the ear by a loud
sound, but depicted by a deep-drawn breath. We will there-
fore confine ourselves to that one part of the scholiast's expla-
nation, as Apollonius has only that in his lexicon; aveotévačev,
οἷον ἀνήνεγκε τὸν στεναγμόν; and Hesychius, ᾿Ανενέγκατο (for
so it is written there), ἐστέναξεν ἐκ βάθους.
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 recognise at first sight the
exact similarity of expression in these two Ionians. (1, 86.)
Τῷ δὲ Κροίσῳ ἑστεῶτι ἐπὶ τῆς πυρῆς ἐσελθεῖν, καίπερ ἐν κακῷ
ἐόντι τοσούτῳ, τὸ τοῦ Σόλωνος..... ὡς δὲ ἄρα μιν προστῆναι
dè
τοῦτο ἀνενεικάμενόν τε καὶ ἀναστενάξαντα ἐκ πολλῆς
ἡσυχίης ἐς τρὶς ὀνομάσαι Σόλων. 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 ἀνενεικάμενον (situated as it
is) with ὀνομάσαι Σόλων, by carrying it over ἀναστενάξαντα.
One should much rather say that it is an old usage in Greek
to join ἀνενείκασθαι and ἀναστενάξαι, 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 Ælian understood
it, of whom the following fragment is preserved in Suidas;
Ὁ δὲ ἀνηνέγκατο ἄρα στενάξας καὶ τρὶς ἐκάλεσε τὸν Σόλωνα,
although the grammarian has explained the verb 'Avηvéукaтo
there by ἐκ βάθους ἐβόησεν. But it is quite evident that Alian
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
19. ᾿Ανενείκατο,
,
rodotus, but again only once, and in a passage which is cal-
culated to unsettle our opinion of the former passage.
It is
spoken of Astyages, who is beginning to recognise his grand-
son in Cyrus, (1, 116.) Εκπλαγεὶς δὲ τούτοισι ἐπὶ χρόνον
ἄφθογγος ἦν· μόγις δὲ δή κοτε ἀνενειχθεὶς εἶπε· and then fol-
lows 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 μóyic proves much rather
that ȧveveixoeic 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, ast
intransitive, and sometimes also of the passive; άvývеуkev *,
avnvéxon, "he came to himself again, recovered himself, came
to life again." Vid. Steph. Thes. in Ind. v. åvevéyкw. Hesych.
ἀνενεχθείς, ἀναβιώσας. The middle voice is also, as far as
theory goes, capable of bearing the same meaning, and a cer-
tain similarity, which exists between the two passages of He-
rodotus, might very well induce us to understand åveveikáµevoc
in the same sense as ȧveveixoeic; particularly as in the former
passage it is expressly added ἐκ πολλῆς ἡσυχίης. But then
again, the simplicity of the language of Herodotus will not allow
us to suppose that he used the middle and passive of the same
verb in precisely the same sense; and he could not possibly
have spoken of Croesus "coming to himself," unless he had
previously mentioned his being in a speechless state, as he has
in the second passage. But the words ἐκ πολλῆς ἡσυχίης are
placed after avevetkáμevov, instead of before, and express no-
thing more than a silent meditation, being placed in that part
of the passage where they stand, because the meaning connects
them closest with éc Tpic óvopásai: as thus, "But when that
ἐς τρὶς ὀνομάσαι:
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 тwν траvµáτwv årýveyke, Plut. M. Anton. 43.-ED.]
2 Or ȧfuxins, λeiñoчvxins, 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 advoc
aveveikaтo of Homer, a loud cry, where he understood an accu-
sative, which in his own poem he has everywhere expressed;
and he has thus abandoned the part of an imitator, without gain-
ing anything by appearing in his own person as an original:
3, 463. Ἦκα δὲ μυρομένη λιγέως ἀνενείκατο μῦθον· Τίπτε με
δειλαίην... 635. ἀδινὴν δ᾽ ἀνενείκατο φωνήν· Δειλὴ ἐγὼν...
4, 1748. (Euphemus) θεοπροπίας Εκάτοιο θυμῷ πεμπάζων
ἀνενείκατο φώνησέν τε, and then follows a very cheering pre-
diction. Nor does Theocritus succeed better, 23, 18. ouтw d'
ἀνενείκατο φωνήν· "Αγριε παῖ καὶ στυγνὲ...
OUT W
20. "Avew, άvew.
1. This word is in some respects exactly similar to άkéwv,
with which it also agrees in meaning. The form ave 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 ävewc. But in one passage the
same expression is used of a woman, and there it is written
without the iota subscript, avew, Od. 4, 93. 'H d' avew dyv
ἧστο. One scholiast also has been careful enough to remark.
on Il. β, 323. ὧδε μὲν διὰ τοῦ ι' ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἡ δ᾽ ἄνεω δὴν
ἧστο, χωρὶς τοῦ ι. That is to say, as has been observed
elsewhere, in this passage avew is an adverb according to the
form of οὕτω, ἄφνω. 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 ἧσθαι requires the same form at Od. β, 240., οἷον
' In Villoison is oi d' avew dŋ ǹoav, but this is evidently a corrupt read-
ing, as the thing itself and a comparison of the different passages prove.
108
19. "Avew, avew.
åπаνтec Hol' avew, in which all leave the subscript un-
απαντ
し
​touched: whereas it is grammatically certain that Homer must
have either spoken aveo without the in both passages, or if
he had said avew here, he could not have said in the other
passage anything but avewe; of which reading however there
is no trace.
w
2. This consideration and the comparison of ákv éyévovтo
ought, however, to lead further; that is to say, to the conclusion
that in the other passages there is nothing to hinder our con-
sidering ἄνεω as an adverb in the phrases ἄνεω ἐγένοντο, ἄνεω
hoav. An observation to this purpose, quoted only by Damm,
had been made long ago by Eustathius on Od. 4, but made, it
seems, in vain; Τὸ δὲ ἄνεω σημειῶδές ἐστιν ἐπίῤῥημα ὄν· καὶ
δίδωσιν ὑπόνοιαν, καὶ τὸ, Οἱ δ᾽ ἄνεω ἦσαν, τοιοῦτον εἶναι, καθὰ
καὶ τὸ, ᾿Αθηνᾶ δ᾽ ἀκέων ἦν, δοκεῖ ἐπίῤῥημα εἶναι διὰ τὸ, ἀκέων
Saivvole. Apollonius speaks more in detail, though not more
δαίνυσθε.
clearly, to the same purpose, De Adv. p. 554. 577., from which
it appears that the school of Aristarchus always supposed the
word to be really an adverb. The critics, who again differed
from this, thought themselves, it seems, fettered by the actual
existence of an adjective avewe, with which, it is true, the junc-
otin of eivai and yevéolai would be more natural.
εινα
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, ἄνεσις for ἄνεως, has at last
found the place which it deserved in the text of Schweighäuser.
With this all trace of the word avewc 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 avew without the subscript, according to the
rule of that one passage where the 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. "Avew 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
し
​.19. "Ανεω, ἄνεῳ,
109
one all the other passages would have been considered correct.
But as they stand in Homer, the eye mostly met with only that
great majority of passages, where avey 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 that which was a deviation from it in Od. 4.2
ω.
into use.
4. As an adverb, then, it follows the analogy of adverbs in
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 ὀπίσω, πρόσω, ἄφνω, and
even to avw, káτw, &c.; so that one should be inclined to say
that usage has fixed the termination w on those adverbs, which
as adjectives have become obsolete, or, perhaps, never come
In the case of ouτw alone, which with ourwc comes
from oûtoc, we must suppose a form in oc as the most natural,
or at least the most common of all those forms. "Avew, then,
as an adverb would accord with every etymological view in
which it might have been regarded as an adjective; it may,
for instance, be akin to évveóc, it may be compounded of av
privative and a radical word signifying a voice or sound; a
derivation 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
retains the accentuation with which it has been handed down
to us, avew, from its being considered as the plural of the ad-
jective avewa. The most natural mode of accenting it would
be ἀνέω, like ὀπίσω; or if we suppose its adjective to have been
accented like έννεός, ἀνεῶ would not be surprising, any more
than σοφῶς, κρατερώς, Under such circumstances it must be
best to retain, with all due allowances, the old mode of ac-
centuation, as handed down to us; and the more so, as those
• Apollonius Rhodius has the word three times, always in connexion
with avavdo, 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 oi
δὲ σῖγα καὶ ἀθόρυβοι παρῆλθον.
110
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
same old grammarians, who acknowledged it to be an adverb,
did so accent it, as is clear from a passage of Apollonius De
Adv. p. 577.3
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, ἐνήνοθεν, ἐνίπτω, ἐνέπω, ἄνωγα, ἄωρτο,
and other verbal forms.
1. The two forms so similar to each other ȧvývolev and évý-
vole occur only in the language of the Epic poets, both in but
a few instances, and the latter only when compounded with éri
ἐπί
and karά. We will first mention the passages in which both
are found. 'Avývo0e occurs in II. A, 266., where it is said of
Agamemnon when wounded that he still went about fighting,
Οφρα οἱ αἷμ᾽ ἔτι θερμὸν ἀνήνοθεν ἐξ ὠτειλῆς.
oi
and in Od. p, 270., where Ulysses, standing before his own
palace, says he can tell that a feast is going on within,
ἐπεὶ κνίσση μὲν ἀνήνοθεν, ἐν δέ τε φόρμιγξ
Ἠπύει.
•
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. ᾿Ενήνοθε compounded with ἐπί we find in Il. β, 219.,
where Thersites is described,
Φοξὸς ἔην κεφαλὴν, ψεδνὴ δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε λάχνη.
In Il. x, 134. speaking of Nestor,
᾿Αμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρα χλαῖναν περονήσατο φοινικόεσσαν
Διπλῆν, ἐκταδίην, οὔλη δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε λάχνη.
³ They derived the adverb ärew from the adjective ävews, and thence
thought that they might accent it thus; a supposition in itself not in-
correct, since, for instance, the genitive termination wv in rŵv ëµπλewv
and such like must also be regulated according to the nominative in ws.
In truth the supposition of the existence of this adjective was always
grounded on that imaginary ävew. But that supposition offends against
no rule of the Greek language: nay more, if we suppose such a word
as ävãos, without sound, the change to rews was almost necessary.
1/
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
111
In Od. 0, 365., where the Graces anoint Venus with oil,
...οἷα θεοὺς ἐπενήνοθεν αἰὲν ἐόντας.
which verse is repeated in the Hymn to Venus v. 62. Com-
pounded with KaTá it occurs in Hesiod. a, 269., where it is said
of 'Axλúc personified,
κατ
Εἱστήκει˙ πολλὴ δὲ κόνις κατενήνοθεν ὤμους.
We see that in both these compounds, éri and Kará, the mean-
ing is the same; and that kaτevývolev 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,
...τῆλε δὲ φέγγος ἀπὸ χροὸς ἀθανάτοιο
Λάμπε θεάς, ξανθαὶ δὲ κόμαι κατενήνοθεν ὤμους,
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 (λáµme,
&c.), and the comparison of the passage in Hesiod, show that
it merely means the hair covers the shoulders, lies upon them.
3. And now having clearly seen that èπevývolev and Kate-
vývole 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, wouλùc yàp ädnν èπe-
vývolev alwv, and again at 1, 664. he ventures to make a new
compound, where Hypsipyle, after she had declared her opi-
nion to the assembled women, adds, Ημετέρη μέν νυν τοίη πα-
pevývode μntic. It is, indeed, difficult to say with certainty
in what sense Apollonius properly used these forms.
find in Homer little to elucidate the sense of them 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 ne-
We can
-
112
21. ᾿Ανήνυθεν, &c.
cessary to adopt this idea. The perfectly simple explanation of
the Homeric éπevnvole, which for instance we find in Apollon.
Lex., èñîv, étéкEITO, and which is therefore certainly very old,
may have been the cause of Apollonius Rhodius using this
évývoðev as a mere variety of expression for the verb substan-
tive, as thus, πολὺς ἔπεστι χρόνος, and πάρεστι, παράκειται
μῆτις ἡμετέρη.
4. As to the relative time of these forms, àvývolev in the
second passage and évývolev 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 passages 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 δείδια, γέγωνα, ἄνωγα are without the least doubt
imperfect or aorist, e. g. deídie II. σ, 34., yéywvew, 703., ävwye
Od. o, 97. That is to say, as these perfects have so completely
the meaning of the present, they began to form also an imperfect
or aorist in ov immediately from thence, instead of the plusquam-
perfectum which properly should supply their places. And
hence then the third person, without its proper augment, was
the same as the perfect form: but from avwya there occur also
the forms ἄνωγον, ἀνώγετε, &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 also etymologically; and as some of the old gram-
marians explained avývola to be 2nd perfect* from ȧvłéw, with
the Attic reduplication and o inserted, as in aynoxa (in which
case the idea of to rise or spring up would be taken from the
flowering or budding of plants); so others explained évívoða 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 for supporting 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 always called, most improperly, the perfectum me-
dium.-ED.]
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
113
vation which we find among the later grammarians. These
could not resist the appearance of the words, according to which
both forms are one and the same verb, but compounded with
two prepositions; and accordingly they supposed a perfect
ἤνοθα, whose theme should be ἐνώθω. The simple ὔθω was
supposed to exist, and not without probability, 1st. in the
lengthened form w0w, wéw, 2nd. in the deponent ouai, I
concern myself about any one, attend to him, have a regard for
or fear of him, which has been compared with the Lat. moveor:
again, the compound évółw was recognised in the first part of
the epithets ἐνοσίχθων, ἐννοσίγαιος, εἰνοσίφυλλος, and in the
poetical substantive evoσic, 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 association
of probabilities, it is sufficient to point out that which is decep-
tive in each of them.
ενοσι
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 leiv, to push or thrust; evooia, 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 ¿leiv and evoots lies only in the idea of
violence or impetuosity; take away that idea, and you destroy
the point of the comparison. Now άvývode in Homer gives ex-
actly the idea of the most gentle motion; in Il. λ, 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 until 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, káπvoc, which might be supposed to rise
in rapid whirls, but it is the kvooa, or the vapoury smell of the
fat, which exhales gently and issues forth in every direction.
And évývola is, as we have seen above, entirely free from even
the idea of motion; that is to say, not that one cannot imagine
to oneself (for what might not a poet's ever-active and creative
1
114
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &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 appearances;
here, on the contrary, the derivation is the very thing we are
in search of, and that principally from the meaning. We are
not therefore justified in passing any hasty decision, but must
merely say that both compounds of èvývolev 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
in part be supposed to exist, but which does anything but force
itself on our notice. But then all similarity of meaning is gone
between this word and ἔνοσις in ἐνοσίχθων and εἰνοσίφυλλος,
which are Homeric words full of meaning.
7. Further, as to the verb o0opa; if it be separated from the
context in which the old word stands in the only two passages
which have it, 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 οὐκ ἀλεγίζει οὐδ᾽ ὄθεται
the other. Hesychius has besides 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 kiveîv by other grammarians arises only from their
wishing and endeavouring to connect ὄθομαι with ἔνοσις: (see
Eustath. on Il. a, 181.') But if 30 is not proved to have this
meaning, ¿vółw falls entirely to the ground, in which theme
the has been supposed merely on account of that connexion.
1 Others have endeavoured to connect ὄθομαι rather with ὄσσεσθαι,
ÖTTEG0αι; 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
ὅθμα for ὄμμα in Nicander and Hesychius.
21. ᾿Ανήνοθει, &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 evooic has certainly no more
meaning than the v in ἀνύω, ἄνυσις, which however no one has
explained as compounded with ἀνά. But if in ἄνω, ἀνύω, ἄνυ-
σις, ἀνυσίεργος I find the meaning of to complete in the syllable
av, of which I know nothing further, but which may possibly
belong to the same family of words as ává; there is nothing
to hinder me from tracing back ἔνοσις, ἐνοσίχθων to ἔνω, ἐνόω,
and giving to the syllable ev the meaning of to shake, which,
if you will, may belong to the same family of words as the
preposition év³.
3
8. Nor is the analogy of conjugating these two forms, as
2 Perhaps évúw with the idea of tumult may belong to this?
3/
ω
³ 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 ar-
rival of Bacchus as the avenging god, was this passage, difficult of explana-
tion, and with no various reading: πέδον χθονὸς ἔνυσι πότνια, ἆ, ἆ, τάχα
τὰ Πενθέως μέλαθρα διατινάξεται πεσήμασιν. Μusgrave made a slight
emendation to Πέδων, and joined πότνια Ενοσι πέδων χθονός, as an ex-
clamation addressed to the shaking of the earth already felt. Brunck
without more ado rejects this, and writes, Πέδον, ὦ Χθὼν, ἔνοθι, πότνια,
explains erodɩ to be an imperative, gives the verse a name, and seems
to think he had 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 rules 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 iλa, it does
not follow that there must be such a one as evoli. Nowhere does there
occur a form evou, 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, announcing an earthquake, thirsting for
vengeance 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 rà réda is inadmissable: I am therefore contented with one
slight emendation, and read thus, Πέδου χθονὸς ῎Ενοσι πότνια. ὦ, ἆ.
For that an exclamation like these two sounds must necessarily pre-
cede such an announcement, I am by no means convinced by Hermann's
note.
I 2
116
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
soon as they are brought to a theme ENOOQ, by any means
clear and satisfactory. In the adoption of a perfect vola,
formed from the present évółw, there is something different from
what we find everywhere besides. Scarcely ever was a perfect
yet formed without some other mark of difference besides the
temporal augment and the termination in a ; for in xa, from
ayw, the perfect is announced by the change of the letter, in
olda by the change of vowel, and in λéλnoa 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 avývoda, évývola, from the analogies.
in ἐλήλυθα, ἐρήριπα, ἐνήνοχα, ἐδήδοκα, ἀγήοχα, ἐγρήγορα 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 supposed to be derived
from the same simple verb; if therefore ȧvýroba be compounded
of ává and vola, it is absolutely necessary that évývoða should
also be compounded of ev and vola. Then (for who would
explain évývoła to be a reduplication, and άvývoła 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 ἐπελήλυθα and ἀνήλυθα, ἐπενήνοχα and ἀνήνοχα, as
little could he say ἐπ-ενήνοθα and ἀν-ήνοθα. Now let it be re-
membered that "vola itself is said to be a compound. We will
not stop here to consider that which the analogy of öλwda,
ὄρωρα, ὄδωδα almost demands, that is to say, that from ὄθω
must come ὔτωθα, and consequently from ἐνόθω ἐνότωθα, like
ἀπόλωλα; whereas ἤνοθα, like ἤνορα, ἤπολα or the like, is un-
heard of. We will also put up with the decompound ávývolev,
although ἤνωθεν, ἄνωθεν would be quite sufficient; and ἐνήνο-
Dev or éπývodev, if such stood there, might be defended in the
sense of it moved itself therein or thereupon; but why use èπ-
ev-v-o0e 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
w
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
117
improbable, but in Homer absolutely impossible; for in his
But if we
writings almost every preposition is still separable.
say that evývola is formed by Attic reduplication, άvývoða must
necessarily be so too; and thus we arrive, according to the
simplest analogy, at two grammatical and perfectly different
themes, ΑΝΕΘΩ and ΕΝΕΘΩ.
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, at, ev, et, dɩ, kaт 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 the same as 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 avów; or in those which are plainly de-
rived at once from another word, as ἀνιάω from ἀνία, διαιτάω
from Siaita: 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 the rules
of deciding, not compounded with prepositions :
᾿Απειλέω. If we consider that ἀπειλαί and ἀπειλεῖν are not
mere threats, but generally express vauntings, as in Il. v, 83.,
and that even of past exploits, as in 0, 150., it is clear that the
idea of to speak aloud is here, as in evɣeobaι, avɣeîv, the ground
or radical idea. Hence I connect it with ἀπελλαί, ἀπελλάζειν,
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 uw, in the two first letters, which probably belong to
the same family of words as ἔπος, ὄψ.
'Aɑtáw, átáτn, might very possibly lead us astray, from
the long a being shortened in the Attic draμai, were it not for
118
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
the evident affinity between ἀπάτη and ἀπαφεῖν. But this last
is a reduplication from arreola, apn, and expresses the Lat.
palpare. Certainly, therefore, anáτη also comes by an Ionicism
from apav.
᾿Αναίνομαι. For the derivation of this word αἶνος and αἰνέω
are generally thought of, and in the preposition ává something
about raising up is sought for; but to raise up supposes some-
thing already existing, whereas avaiveolar means to deny or
refuse. It must therefore be compounded with the a privative;
but this is opposed by the primitive form of the verb ending
only in -, -oμai (see Grammar, sect. 106, obs. 3.). But
since now the a privative if complete would be av-, nay
perhaps ȧvá- (compare avάedvoc), and, like every particle used
in composition, must have had originally its own meaning as a
separate word; further, since -aívo is a common verbal ending,
I look in the root av- for the idea of no, and avaive is there-
fore, I say no, I deny, whence avaivoμat will have the same
meaning with reference to something of my own, i. e. I refuse¹.
According to this the first n in vnváμny is the regular augment,
and the second the inflexion of the aorist.
Atakovéw I have traced back to diúkw: see art. 40. sect. 3.
ام
But
Aкw also might be mistaken for a compound by casting
a lasty and partial glance at ὠκύς. However a comparison of
the forms iwkw and Siw will prevent the mistake.
ωκω
→
Επείγω. We can find no probable traces of a simple of this
verb. But if we suppose it to be itself a simple, and compare
θέλω, ἐθέλω, we have πιέζω, πίεξις, ἐπείγω, an appearance of
affinity not to be rejected; as also in German drücken 'to press',
and drängen 'to squeeze', are akin.
4 Compare also the negative idea in ävev, without. If now ἀνηλέης
νηλέης, ἀνήριθμος νήριθμος, &c., be compared with νήποινος, νηπενθής,
&c., and these again with the Latin ne; it is clear that the privative
åv- (and consequently also the Latin in-, the German ohn-, un-,
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 avairopa be a compound or not, referred to in
art. 11. note 3.
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
119
Εναίρω and
T
Καθαίρω are no more compounds of αἴρω than μεγαίρω is,
which will be examined in its place. But so strong was the
of it, that the change of into (a change incon-
appearance
ceivable in such a case) was admitted without hesitation, and
the meaning forced in order to prove кalaiρw to be a compound".
But why should not kalapóc have its root in the first syllable,
and kalaiρo be deduced from it, according to the same analogy
as ποικίλλω from ποικίλος, μαλάσσω from μαλακός, &c.°?
'Evaipu might indeed, as far as its form was concerned, suit
that derivation; but then the preposition év would be perfectly
inexplicable, nay, it would be exactly contrary to the idea
of alpw. Notwithstanding that, I cannot bring myself to the
opinion of those who derive évaipw from evapa, however ana-
logous it may be in form. For évaipei not only never means.
so much as okvλevew, but (which is much more strange)
this first meaning must have so completely disappeared, that
one might even say χρόα καλὸν ἐναίρεσθαι of a woman who
spoils or destroys her beautiful skin by mourning and lamen-
tation. 'Evalpe must therefore of itself mean to destroy, kill,
and evapa must come from it".
11. I must here remind my readers of the twofold manner of
5 Although alper, 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 kará, govern the
accusative of the thing from which the impurity is to be taken. Here
the should have been welcomed, as enabling us to reject this deriva-
tion with certainty. The verb aipw is contracted from άcípo, which,
according to the pure analogy of the ancient Greek, is formed from ȧmp;
as in German Luft means 'air', and thence lüften (pronounced liften,
whence English 'to lift') is 'to raise up'. And in Scottish lift means ‘air'
or 'sky'; see Johnson's Dict.-'Acípw and aïpw have therefore never had
the aspirate; and although such changes, as we see in the Attic adŋs, are
possible, yet we must have stronger proof of the meaning than lies in that
explanation of кabaiρw, before we can be induced to acknowledge it.
As soon as we acknowledge the root of raðapós to be in the first
syllable, we have kedrós akin to it, (like vedrós and alapos,) and Lat.
castus; and if we suppose some such idea as blank to be the ground-
idea, we have also raivós.
•
7 Since repoɩ means the infernal regions, it is a conjecture not to be
rejected that évaípeiv properly means to send to the infernal regions,
kill, destroy. According to closer analogy indeed it should be éreípw;
120
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
compounding verbs. The one which we will call the inseparable
mode, is that where the whole when compounded takes a par-
ticular derivative form, so that the second part cannot stand by
itself as a separate word; and its first part is most generally a
different part of speech from the second, and more frequently
than any other a preposition, as in συνεργέω, ἐγχειρέω. The
other, or the separable mode, consists in the mere joining toge-
ther of two unchanged words, according to strict rule of merely
a verb and a preposition preceding it; which junction admits of
none but the necessary euphonic changes, as ἀπ-, ἀφ-, συμ-,
&c., as ἀποβάλλω, συμπάσχω. 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
(ἐνεχείρουν like συνέπασχον). But the higher we mount up
into antiquity, the more separable, or the more capable of tme-
sis, is this second species. Thus in the Ionic dialect of Hero-
dotus we find the separation made by certain particles, as d'
απ'
ὧν ἔδοντο for ἀπέδοντο ὦν. But in Homer these separable
compounds are almost always to be found as distinct words s;
while, in one respect, each part shows its separate force and
meaning, as, to mention a particular instance, the preposition
most generally stands with the verb as an adverb, but frequently
preserving its proper force as a preposition belongs to some
neighbouring noun, as eκdeov nóvwv; 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 compounding, on the contrary, is as inseparable in
Homer as it is in the later writers, e. g. ἀντιφερίζω, προμαχίζω,
ἐπαιγίζω, ἐγγυάω, ἐγγυαλίζω. There is the same difference in
compounding verbs in the German language; only that in this,
but the change of vowel in the aorist rapor, érapeîr, might have pro-
duced a retrograde effect on the present, as in dépos (édápŋr) daíipw, and
exactly as in German the proper infinitive was schweren, 'to swear',
indic. præter. ich schwor, I swore', whence arose the infinitive now in
common use schwören.
!
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
121
،
from want of a variety of endings, both forms differ in the infi-
nitive 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', the latter 'to surround'; thus, for instance, Ich stelle die
Worte um, 'I place the words around, or about'; but Ich um-
stélle die Stadt mit Truppen, 'I surround the town with troops'.
Again, in forming the past participle, the former takes the aug-
ment ge in the middle of the word, the latter admits of no
augment; e. g. 'I have (umgestellt) placed the words about',
'I have (umstellt) 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. ἀπολούω, ἀπέλουσα, Πάτροκλον λούσειαν ἀπὸ βρό-
Tov; only that in German the separation, except in the infini-
tive, 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 therefore the aug-
ment before it, and all such cases as ἐκάθευδον, ἠφίουν, ἠνει-
Xóμny, belong entirely to the later Greek. To mention 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 ἠπίστατο, as Homer has only ἐπίστατο; 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 a 7,
without however therefore being connected with Tigris.
The etymo-
logical unravelling of it would lead me much too far for my present
object, sincc on account of the deceitfulness of analogies the Teutonic
forms verstehen, understand, must necessarily be introduced.
122
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
must therefore be quite sufficient to convince every one that
the common reading of Od. π, 408. ᾿Ελθόντες δ᾽ ἐκάθιζον,
which would be the only instance of all the acknowledged
compounds of this kind in Homer, has crept into his writings
from the usage of later times, and was quite unknown to him.
The verb lov meant they sat themselves, and kał- 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, ᾿Ελθόντες δὲ καθῖζον; and
also in the numerous other passages where it is now written in
Homer κάθιζον, κάθιζε, κάθιζεν, this mode of accenting arises
entirely from the mistaken idea that the augment at the begin-
ning has been omitted by the Ionic dialect: consequently, in
strictness, it ought to be written everywhere кalîlov; but since
the omission of the temporal augment, without any necessity
from the metre, is justified by eλπeто, äρɣe, and similar cases,
we may, not to deviate from an old tradition (see Schol. Il. y,
426.) without necessity, retain also κálov; and consequently
in the passage above quoted we must read Ελθόντες δὲ κάθι-
Lov³.
9
13. No less certain is also the opposite case in the inseparable
mode of compounding. The forms προεφήτευσα, ἐνεκωμίαζον,
&c. belong to the language of after times; and certain as it is
that Homer would not have said avτepépile, because there is
no simple φερίζω, so certainly also is ἀντεβόλησε contrary to
Homeric analogy. For although there is a perfect ßeßóλnuai
for Béßλnuai (compare Gramm. Anom. v. Báλλw, and Wolf
Præf. ad II. p. 43.), yet there was no such verb as Boλéw, Bo-
λῆσαι; and ἀντιβολῆσαι is a fixed and inseparable compound.
Since then ἀντεβόλησεν and ἀντιβόλησεν is an old various
-
? I have recommended the retaining of the accentuation of ráðišov
as it has been handed down to us. See, however, the note in my
Ausführl. Sprachl., sect. 84. obs. 8., where I have mentioned the un-
certainty of this usage in the present, that is, the Wolfian text of Ho-
mer, in which we find indeed iπóciкe, but always î¿ev, èpiše. And
since in the case of kadeûde, Il. a, 611., this accentuation is preferred
also by the grammarians, it seems perhaps better to preserve uniformity,
and accordingly to write always vπоeîke and rabiše.
-
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
123
reading in Homer 10, it is for us to decide between them, and
our decision must depend on the above analogy.
VETW
14. 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, un-
less 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 ἐνίπτω or ἐνίσσω. But this verb has
entangled itself, particularly in the accounts of the gramma-
rians, so frequently with the verb évéπw, that we must first en-
ἐπι
deavour to distinguish accurately the use and the forms of both.
15. The verb évéπw offers itself to our notice as a sister-form
of eireiv, only that in Homer at least it occurs oftener with the
more precise meaning of to relate, declare, name (åvdpa ěvvete,
μvnoτ úρw v lávaтov évéπovoα, &c.). The present of the indica-
tive is not indeed found in Homer, but it is in Pindar (évéπel,
Nem. 3, 131.) and in others; and the meaning of the present
is evident enough in Homer in the participle as it stands in Il.
λ, 643. Od. w, 414. In undoubtedly the same meaning and
construction occur also the forms evioπeg, évoπev, subjunct.
ἐνίσπω, optat. ἐνίσποιμι, imper. ἔνισπε, infin. ἐνισπεῖν, fut. ἐνι-
σπήσω. For these forms a present ἐνίσπω has also been fixed
upon, associated with a theme évoréw. 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 évioπw, that these forms together make out an
aorist, vorov, evoTor, the regular infinitive of which is con-
sequently evoπeiv", and from which, as from so many other
€
σπι
اد
10 See Heyne on Il. X, SOS. (809.) It is to be remarked that in this
passage in the Venetian text stands arreßóλnoe, but in the Lemma of
the Scholium ἀντιβόλησε.
11 In Hesiod 0, 369. occurs the infinitive érioner. I think that it
must be accented évioñeîr 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. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
aorists, has been formed a future emoznow. But Homer has
also another future, èview, which occurs in exactly the same
construction in Il. n, 447. Od. B, 137. A, 148. This also
may be formed according to the strictest analogy from that
same aorist, as in διδάσκω -άξω, ἀλύσκω -ύξω, the σ is re-
jected.
16. From this verb ἐνέπω, aor. ἤνισπον, ἐνισπεῖν, Homer
has separated by construction and meaning the verb éviπTw,
of which there is a sister-form évioow, and a twofold aorist
ἠνίπαπεν and ἐνένιπτεν. These forms always have the meaning
of to reprove or reproach, although not necessarily with the idea
of strong invective, as sometimes also a very mild reproof is
intended, and it is said of Ulysses soliloquizing, Od. v, 17.,
κραδίην δ᾽ ἠνίπαπε μύθῳ· Τέτλαθι δὴ κραδίη· καὶ κύντερον ἄλλο
TOT' ËTλNG. It must be confessed, indeed, that from this pas-
sage alone one could not attach to virane more than the
meaning of "he addressed." But when it is seen that this
soliloquy is introduced with Στῆθος δὲ πλήξας, 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 érinτw, with its sister-
forms does not once occur with the simple meaning of to say
without the idea of reproof; and the verb évérew on the other
hand has always the meaning of to say, relate, but never ac-
companied with the other idea; it follows therefore, first, that
usage has decidedly separated these two verbs. That evinTw
is frequently accompanied by ὀνείδεσι, χαλεπῷ μύθῳ, 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 11. ω, 765. ᾿Αλλ᾽ εἴ τίς με καὶ ἄλλος ἐνὶ μεγάροι-
σιν ἐνίπτοι.
πτω
ει
17. There is no doubt, then, that criticism has been per-
fectly justified in rejecting the tenses of évionw which appear
as various readings, with the meaning of to reproach, in II. y,
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
125
438. X, 497. w, 238. 768. So much the more remarkable
is the doubt still existing in our Homer between évéviπTev and
évévioTev. The latter was formerly the reading in Il. o, 546.
ἐνένισπεν.
and 552., but now in both places évéviπTev has been restored
from the manuscripts. Only once is évévoπev still found, and
in this verse, Il. 4, 473.
Tòv d' aioxpôs érévioñer ’Oïλños taxùs Aias,
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. o, 321.
Τὸν δ' αἰσχρῶς ἐνένιπτε Μελανθὼ καλλιπάρῃος.
If, however, there should still remain a doubt, it must be re-
moved by this remark, that the forms ἐνέπειν, ἔνισπεν, ἐνίψω,
always govern the accusative of the thing only, and never mean
to address or speak to; while on the contrary évíπтw, 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, ἐνίπτειν τινὰ ὀνεί-
δεσιν.
18. But now comes also a question respecting the ground-
work of the form évéviπTev. The reduplication at the begin-
ἐνένιπτεν.
ning, and the construction, show the word to be an undoubted
aorist, exactly similar to the other form vinaже. But then the
strengthens the present and imperfect only, entering into no
other tense (such lengthened forms as TUTTnow only excepted),
ττήσω
and least of all into the aorist. Hence the reading ἐνένιπεν,
which stood in many passages of both poems in all the edi-
tions proceeding from the Florentine, 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 ma-
nuscript has it in all four passages of the Iliad, o, 546. 552.
π, 626., and also, 473., where Heyne, as has been already
said, is silent; and the Harleian manuscript has it in all the
12 See Ernesti and Heyne on Il. o, 546.
126
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
passages of the Odyssey 13. But Heyne quotes this reading
for the three first passages of the Iliad, and Alter for the Odys-
sey, from many other manuscripts also: the former, indeed, cites
it always as a gross fault of prosody. But that the in this
verb is radically long, is proved by the verbal substantive evīπý
and the other aorist ἠνίπαπε. Hence the form ἐνένιπον is the
regular aor. 2. (by carrying it back to the simple form, or to
the pure characteristic of the verb) with the reduplication, as
in nyayor, äλadkov, &c. (see Gramm. sect. 77. obs. 11.), in
the same way as virane is the same aorist, according to the
analogy of epúкake (see Gramm. sect. 78. obs. 12.). Nor is
the long vowel at all contrary to the nature of the aorist 2.;
and the Homeric aorist πέπληγον is an exact parallel of ἐνένιπον
by the reduplication, by the long vowel, and by τλýσow or
TλŃττш, which, besides being long by nature, is in the present
a strengthened form; évéviπTev, on the contrary, is exactly the
same barbarism as Térλnooe would be. It is now, therefore,
clear that both false readings, ἐνένιπτον and ἐνένισπον, 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 none of the glossographers, as far as I
know, has either of these forms, but all have the genuine one,
and that only¹.
19. The various reading evin (see Heyne on Il. 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 ἐνίπτω in Pindar Pyth. 4, 358. ἁδείας ἐνί-
πτων ἐλπίδας, is exactly in the sense of ἐνέπω ; so that it might
be considered settled that ἐνίπω means I reprove, ἐνέπω οι
ἐνίπτω I say.
But this evine occurs only in very solitary
instances, and not once in those principal manuscripts which
ولا
13 See Porson on Od. σ, 77. 320. 325. 7, 65. 90. p, 84. 4, 96. Only
at π, 417. the reading éréciπev is evidently a mistake of the pen for
ἐνένιπεν οἱ ἐνένειπεν.
14 See Suidas v. évévitev, and Schow on Hesych. p. 1230., where
we see that Musurus instead of 'Evérnπey, which stands in the Cod.,
first made the present gloss Ἐνένιπτεν. The same ἐνένιπεν, which lies
concealed also in Hesychius under the corrupted gloss évreter, has been
pointed out by Ruhnk. Ep. Cr. 1. p. 40., and as he there quotes the verse
of Il. o, 546. with érériner, it appears that he preferred this reading.
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
127
have always in the aorists évévrov. It is evidently, there-
ἐνένιπον.
fore, a mere solitary fault. But the various reading ἔνισπε,
évioro, &c. in the sense of to reprove, arose entirely from the
two acknowledged forms ἐνίπτω and ἐνίσσω. Between these
two, then, the reading of Homer does really fluctuate, and to
decide between them is very difficult, not so much as to where
we are to read the one and where the other form, as whether
and how it is conceivable that in the same poem two forms ex-
actly the same in quantity, and almost exactly the same in
sound, have been used for each other; for that one of the
forms may have a stronger meaning than the other, an accu-
rate comparison of passages (Il. y, 438. o, 198. x, 497. w,
238. 768., Od. w, 161. 163.) and of various readings does not
allow of our supposing, and every attempt to do so must be
prevented by this fact, that in the historic times appear only the
forms with the π, ἠνίπαπεν and ἐνένιπεν, which no one would
think of dividing between evinTw and èvioow *. There remain
then only two things; 1st, 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 continually en-
gaged in examining the reading of separate passages: 2dly,
the possibility that in early times a less genuine form had
crept in instead of the genuine one. If we retain this last sup-
position, everything speaks in favour of the form évioow, be-
cause this certainly could not have been introduced; but the
form ἐνίπτω might very easily have been so, by means of ἐνιπή,
ἐνένιπτεν, ἠνίπαπεν; and because ἐνίσσω is so well supported
by the analogy of néoow; for all the tenses formed from this
verb also (new, пéñenтai, &c.) have the π, and the present
TÉπτ, which approaches nearer to those tenses, occurs first
in the writers posterior to Homer 1
TÊT
15
20. We are now fully qualified to give a decided opinion,
W
* [Passow has admitted into his lexicon, as two sister-forms, víπTw
and ἐνίσσω, with the same general meaning of to reproach; and ἐνίσπω,
as a sister-form and almost a synonym of évéπw.—Ev.]
15 Nor does the present of ooµaι, ¿¿ðñrai, with the π ever occur;
but only the present with oo in the sister-form oooopa, which see in
its place. Compare also pá, fem. párra.
φάσσα.
128
21. ᾿Ανήνυθεν, &c.
ய
ενιπτω
that the verbs évéπw and eviπTw 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 évére means to address or speak to; this
however it never does, but governs, as we have seen, always
the accusative of the thing only; éviπTew, 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
Il. 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
ἐνίπτειν for ἐνέπειν is distinguished also by the same construc-
tion, governing, as we have seen, the accusative of the thing.
And since eviπTW, I say, bears exactly the same relation to
ἐνέπω as τίκτω does to τέκω, we can acknowledge it in Pindar
in each sense as genuine, without mixing it up etymologically
with the Homeric eviπTw, I reproach. For the improbability
of the one being akin to the other is completed by the form of
the word; as the here is radically long, and hence also the
verbal substantive of the one is evin, of the other evon. Con-
vinced by all this, Ruhnken in his Ep. Crit. 1. p. 40. has
spoken decisively of the two verbs being separate, but he has
given his decision much too concisely; and in pronouncing that
opinion he has fixed upon, but still with the same conciseness,
another derivation, namely from πтw, I press, the ɩ of which
is also radically long in ἶπος, ἰπόω.
ι
21. But here comes my great doubt, whether a verb com-
pounded in the separable mode, as ἐνίπτω from ἴπτω would be,
can be so old as to take the augment, and still more the redu-
plication joined to the preposition. We have already dismissed
on internal evidence a number of apparent compounds, which
might have been adduced as instances of it; and I think that
the two forms with which this article began have been so
thoroughly shaken from their foundations, that they cannot be
brought in proof; so that, as far as I know, there remains
only évývoya, which might serve for that purpose, and this I
shall endeavour soon to clear up. But that it may not be sup-
posed that my opinion is thus fixed by my having taken a par-
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
129
ω
tial view of only this side of the subject, I wish it to be con-
sidered how weak the meaning of reproof is in evinrw 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 nrw has even in Homer.
For whoever on reading Il. ß, 193., where it is said of Aga-
memnon τάχα δ᾽ ἴεται υἷας ᾿Αχαιῶν, should think only of re-
proaches and vexation, must have forgotten the passage of a,
454. of Apollo, μέγα δ᾽ ἴψαο λαὸν ᾿Αχαιῶν. And is the preposi-
tion er, if it does not increase 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 év. Or how is it pos-
sible generally to suppose that the ideas premere, lædere, could
pass by composition into a meaning, which should then merely
make some approach to the idea of to reprove? Still all this will
only serve to show to 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 two letters so changeable as e and v should not
hinder us from considering the word as a primitive. I say pri-
mitive in a practically grammatical sense; as, for instance,
édéyxw is a primitive, because that affinity which it once had
to some other word or words is no longer traceable; and ex-
actly so it is with evinrw. 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 ἐρύκω (from which comes ἐρύκακε, exactly analogous to
ἠνίπαπε) and ἐμύω belong to a more simple form ῥύω, ῥύομαι ;
as ἐθέλω belongs to θέλω; as ἐρείπω is evidently akin to
ῥίπτω, ριπή; so in ἐνίπτω, ἐνιπή the root, which contains the
meaning, lies only in the syllable viπ; and veikéw, which cor-
vīr
responds 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 événw16, its being a compound would be
-
TW
TW
16 The old grammarians, although they supposed évéπw to be a com-
pound, yet did not on that account adopt any modification of the sense.
Vid. Apollon. de Synt. 4, p. 227. Bekk.
K
130
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &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 is increased by the very common reduplication of
the v, making evveπe.
ἔννεπε. If now this be the preposition év, it is
singular that though we know the lengthened forms of it, eiv, èví,
eivi, which are sufficient for all cases, though we know eivá-
Aɩog, eivódiog, yet evene stands alone. If, further, the idea of to
announce, declare, expressed by év, 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 ἐνεῖπεν, ἐνειπεῖν? I well know myself, and have often tried
to enforce it on others, 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 ΕΠΩ, ἔπος was so passed over
that it was allowable to say évéπOVTEC (~ ~ — ~), &c.; while
παρειπών, ἀποεῖπε, and even μῆνιν ἀποειπών attest the con-
tinued perception of that aspirated sound". 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 ἀπειπόντος, ἀπειπέμεν 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 dπeɩπeîv,
still I think it is clear that the poet who at Il. 7, 35. began the verse
with Mñviv άлõeɩπúv, would not have said at v. 75., when referring to
the same circumstance, Mrr άπeɩπóvтоs; and particularly as instead
of μεγαθύμου Πηλείωνος there were plenty of synonyms to finish the
verse, which would have fitted Mñviv dπоeiπóvTos, as, for instance, dµú-
μονος Αἰακίδαο, ἀγανοῦ Πηλείωνος, ᾿Αχιλλῆος θείοιο. For who cannot
easily imagine that thousands of these forms must have been constantly
varying in the mouths of the rhapsodists? And as xeiρeσσ', πρvλéeσo',
érécoo' and such like were allowable, and that, too, in the principal
cæsura of the verse, (as at Il. ß,342. y, 367.,) the passage of Od. a, 91.
might have originally had Πᾶσιν μνηστήρεσσ᾽ ἀποειπέμεν, which in later
recitation slid off into Πάσιν μνηστήρεσσιν ἀπειπέμει.
dyavoû
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
131
ω
marks as soon as a strong probability can be drawn from some
other source,) by what force will it be possible to explain ev
as a preposition in ἐνοπή, the verbal substantive of ἐνέπω? In
such sentences as τότε δ᾽ ἀμφὶ μάχη ἐνοπή τε δεδήει the word
evon is certainly not a substantive of weaker sense drawn
from the idea of an address, a declaration, a narration. For
the verb évéπw never expresses, as we have before seen, the
calling out to, or addressing, a person, which might be introduced
for want of a better, but which never could be made to suit
avλwv ovpiyywv t'évoπý: and as little Hes. 0, 708., where it
αὔλων
is said of a storm and thunder, φέρον δ᾽ ἰαχήν τ᾽ ἐνοπήν τε.
In short, it is certain and acknowledged that evon is nothing
more than a sound, voice, cry, and therefore goes back to the
simple meaning of the root EП, to which of and uw belong,
and from which is derived the common meaning of einetv and
ἐνέπειν.
23. And now, to offer my own opinion, I believe évéπw to
he nothing more than a lengthened form of ΕΠΩ οι ΕΙΠΩ.
To see that this is a very credible supposition, we have only to
compare the three substantives of, oµpí, and èvo¬ý, 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 λάμψομαι for λήψομαι, from λέλογχα, πέπονθα, and many
similar cases. The verbal substantive ouon points out to us
therefore a theme, which is evidently the same as ЕП, ЕIQ,
and which, according to the uncertainty of the old sounds be-
tween the aspirate and tenuis, may, and indeed must be, EMПQ.
Let us look around, and we have no difficulty in finding a pa-
rallel case. If we consider the word oуkoc, a burden, to be a
verbal substantive, it answers to póproc, and leads us to a
theme ETKO, 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 veукov,
èveyкeîv 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 reykov is merely a reduplication like
aλaλkov and nyayov; and I refer my reader to art. 31. sect. 2.
for an account of the e inserted or omitted between two conso-
>!
से
K 2
132
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
X
nauts”. ’Αλαλκον then, with its substantives ἀλκτήρ, ἀλκή,
belongs to the root of the verb aλéğw, which of itself, but still
more by its aorist ἀλέξασθαι, supposes a theme ΑΛΕΚΩ:
ἄλγος is an old verbal substantive from ἀλέγω; and ὀργή, ac-
cording to its true meaning, a verbal substantive from opéyw,
whence both ὀργυιά and ὀρόγνια. In the same way ὀμφή is a
verbal substantive, derived immediately indeed from EMII,
but also from évéπw, from which comes in another manner the
substantive of a similar meaning èvorn; and so then oуkoç also
comes immediately from ErKQ, whence veуkov, but also from
ΕΝΕΚΩ, whence ἠνέχθην and ἐνήνοχα. In order to unite
the x of this last form with the к in eveуkeiv, I refer to the
grammar (of which the main object is not to decide on dis-
puted points of etymology, but to understand similarity of for-
mation,) for the similar case of a perf. 1. with the change of
the vowel. At the same time whoever sees in évývoxa the
verb exw, is no less correct in his supposition; only, as I hope
is now clear, not by the help of the preposition (for exw of
itself is already pépw), but by means of the nasal by which
ἔχω leads to ΕΓΧΩ and ΕΓΚΩ; as we see ὀμφή connected
with εἶπον and ἐνέπω. The Ionic ἤνεικα arose from ἤνεγκον,
and by misusage passed over into the aor. pass. nveix Onv.
This, again, throws light upon elπov, eineîv, the diphthong of
which need not be looked for in the augment, as ouon and
véπw show us the nasal sound from which the diphthong of
einov came; a change which has long ago been recoguised in
εἶπον
grammar before the o in σπείσω, πείσομαι, τυπείς. After this
exposition there is only the aorist ἔνιστον, ἐνισπεῖν, which can
still create a doubt; for as its second part gives us eow, low,
a radical form or stem already strengthened, it appears difficult
not to consider the ev in this case as a preposition. I have
W
اد
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 Kóraßos from the word of similar meaning kóμños, and this
latter is unanimously traced back to the same root as KóπTW. Certainly,
then, κόπω, κόμπος, κόναβος, is a striking parallel case to ἔπω, ἔμπω,
ἐνέπω.
21. ᾿Ανήνωθεν, &c.
133
ETW
been too much 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
and
appearance of being compounded in the separable manner,
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 évéw is no compound I have proved, I
hope, not by drawing conclusions from one side of the ques-
tion only, but by numerous analogies agreeing with each other:
and it is possible that there might have existed besides a real
compound évío, being much the same as it is actually ex-
plained 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 evoπov 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 ἐνέπω and ἐνίσπω is noways supported by
analogy; the form toкw, from elkw, is a very similar case; and
the circumstance that, contrary to usual analogy, the aor. 2.
ἔνισπον, ἐνισπεῖν, is by this position different from the present
ἐνέπω, has a parallel case in ἕπομαι, aor. ἑσπόμην.
ενιση
24. Let us now turn back to the forms ἀνήνοθεν, ἐνήνοθε,
confirmed in our opinion of their not being compounds, and that
the o, as in von and èvývoxa, is a change of vowel from e;
and at the same time authorized in adopting not only ANEON
and ΕΝΕΘΩ, but also AΝΘΩ and ΕΝΘΩ as the theme of
both. And now the old derivation of the first form from
ávéw 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. Notwithstanding the opinion which I gave in my
134
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
grammar that the common verb avoñoat too in Od.λ, 320. did
not mean to bloom, but was used in the general sense of to spring
forth, that opinion, upon more mature consideration, I have
changed. But ἀνήνοθε, coming from the radical theme ΑΝΕΘΩ
or ANOQ, has the radical meaning of to issue forth: from this
ANON comes then very naturally av0oc, properly a verbal sub-
stantive, and then with the definite meaning of a flower, a blos-
som, from which comes again in a derivative form and meaning
the verb avléw. The root of all these I look for in the particle
ảvá, from which they are formed, not compounded. For if the
idea of avri could be enlarged into a simple verb avτoμai, in
the same way from ἀνά οι ἄν might be formed ἀνέθω οἱ ἄνθω,
since θω is an old verbal ending still preserved in ἔσθω, φλε-
yé0w, and other verbs.
or
25. Surely no one will now wish to tear the verb évývola
from this analogy, although I know of no other forms of words
which would be derived from EΝΘΩ or ΕΝΕΘΩ retaining the
น. The derivation of the verb ΑΝΘΩ, ἀνήνοθε from ἀνά, as
proposed above, may indeed induce us to derive this other verb
in the same way from ev; and then evrea might, with the trifling
change of one sound, belong to it. But then again we have in
éπevývode a part of that troublesome accumulation which is so
perplexing in the common explanation of the word. If ẻvý-
vole by its derivation from ev meant lay upon, of what use
was the addition of éπí? Nor indeed is ev the genuine word
to express this sense in old Greek; for in evdûvai év does not
express the covering lying on the body, but the pressing of the
body into the covering. And evTea may quite as well belong
to the root of ἕννυμι. I am therefore the more fully con-
vinced of the truth of the derivation which I before proposed,
as that evidently brings it into analogy with ἐνέπω and ἐνήνοχα.
If we separate the idea of éri from eπevývode, there remains the
idea of sitting or being fixed somewhere. That this is the phy-
sical ground-meaning of the verb ew appears most highly pro-
bable, by the substantive 0oc, 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 '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
εντεα
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
135
belongs, as every one must see, our ENOQ, ENEOQ, as in the
other case ἐνέπω and ὀμφή are related to ἔπος and εἰπεῖν, and
as ΕΓΚΩ, ὄγκος, ἐνέχθην, ἐνήνοχα, are to ἔχω.
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 is mentioned in art. 52.
sect. 2.) an eɩ or an ʼn between two consonants, which in reality
belongs as little to the root as the e does in the cases above
mentioned. Thus we have (in art. 52. sect. 2.) èpeidw, opeiλw,
ἀγείρω, ἐγείρω, and (in art. 106. sect. 4.) ἀρήγω akin to ἀρκέω.
The change of vowel in this case then is usually into a long
vowel, and in fact into ; for as the change from pnyvvμ is
ἔῤῥωγα, ρώξ, ῥωγαλέος, so we see the same change from ἀρήγω
in the subst. apwyń. We know, however, from grammar that
the Attic reduplication prefers in the third syllable the short
vowel; therefore from ἐγείρω comes ἐγρήγορα. Now the old Epic
perfect vwya is undoubtedly to be judged according to this
analogy. The nearest theme of it would, therefore, be ANHÃQ.
To this form there is nothing to be objected. I suppose, there-
fore, the n as in ἀρήγω, and as the e in ἐνέπω and in ἠνέχθην,
to be not essential to the word; and so I come exactly, accord-
ing to the before-mentioned analogy, to a theme Aгг. Now
since avwya has never any other meaning than that of the Lat.
jubere,--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 con-
jecture which I formerly hazarded, that it belongs to the same
family of words as ἄγγελος, ἀγγέλλω. At the same time I
feel deeply how uncertain this conjecture is, and am therefore
contented if by the above-mentioned analogies I can succeed
in preventing it from being considered as a compound or as the
perfect of a present ávúyw; see above sect. 8. Perfectly ana-
logical, however, is the supposition that from a defective per-
fect, with the meaning of a present, fresh tenses are formed,
as from a present; and, to mention one instance, an imperfect
vwyov; compare sect. 4. of this article.
27. One half of what the grammarians have said on the
Epic form awpro has always been pure conjecture.
αω
Some
>/
a
ח
136
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
derived it from aipw by epenthesis, others from aiwpew by
syncope; truth, as is frequently the case, lies between the two.
In the verb deipw the et is radical, since it is indisputably de-
rived from amp; see above, note 5. The common meaning
of deipei, tollere, 'to raise up', is the causative meaning of 'to
hang or be suspended', which aiwpéw expresses more definitely.
The substantive aiúpa, suspension, is considered as the verbal
substantive of aiwpéw; but it is much more natural to suppose
it the root of αἰωρέω and the verbal substantive of ἀείρω, with
the common change of a into aɩ and eɩ into w.
The simple
perfect of deipw must therefore be wpa; 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 nwpua, from which the 3rd pers. of
the pluperf. without augment is awpro. Since, however,
quantity is of no consequence in the change of the vowel, as
we see in κτείνω ἔκτονα, ἀγείρω subst. ἀγορά; we can from the
subst. ἀορτήρ infer a perf. ἤορα, ἤορμαι; and then from ἤορτο
may come awρro by means of the same change of position in
the augment which we see in ἑώρταζον, ἐώργειν for ἡόρταζον,
nópyew. And this explanation appears to me at least to be more
analogical than any other, as in Homer the substantive doprýp
corresponds exactly in meaning with awpro. Nor should the
various reading aopтo on any account induce us to doubt the
truth of the common reading with the w; 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.
T
ειω
τα
28. The perfect eiwa appears to be explicable only by the
analogy of eoika, čoλna (see Heyn. Exc. 3. ad II. 19. 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 FEON comes FEFQOA, as from FEIKO FEFOIKA;
added to which the et in ewa, which besides is a common
form, cannot by this mode of derivation be supported on any
good grounds. For instance, deídoika may give very good
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
137
-
grounds for FEIFOIKA (elotka), if such were the word, be-
cause in both verbs (deiw, eikw) the e is in the root, but not
for FEIFΩΘΑ (εἴωθα), as the only known root of it is ἐθ or ἠθ.
On the contrary, I am perfectly satisfied with the common ex-
planation, which from e0w arrives quite regularly by means of
the augment at the perfect eîla, and supposes w 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
ἄνωγα, ἄωρτο, αἰώρα, ἐδωδή, ἐνήνοχα, &c., this altogether
created an obscurely-felt analogy, according to which eîla was
lengthened to etwa, or in other words was traced back to a
supposed theme EEOQ. According to this supposition, then,
ewla is a common Ionicism. In another way this analogy in-
cludes e0wka, used by the Dorians for eiw0a, but the expla-
nation of this I must join with that of ἐδήδοκα.
€
29. The verb edw, 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 ano-
maly. Of this description, among others, is the aor. pass., which
instead of ᾔσθην is ἠδέσθην; from ἐδέω 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, as for
instance μάχομαι μαχέσομαι and τεύχομαι τεύξομαι, so the
e was admitted into the form ndéσ0ŋv 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. It is the same in eondeopat, and consequently also in
éondeкa; but the perf. act. is not so; the obscure analogy men-
ἐδήδεκα
tioned above threw the change of vowel, which elsewhere ap-
pears only in the radical syllable, in this case on the vowel
belonging to the termination, making edńdoka; and this change
went on in the Epic language to the passive also, dndoraι.
We see an exactly analogous case in the perf. Téπтшка.
τω
Ac-
cording to the analogy of many verbs, particularly of déuw
δέδμηκα, the perf. of ΠΕΤΩ (πίπτω) would be πέπτηκα ; but
the endeavour to make the forms of the different verbs coming
138
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
TW
η
TT
from the root ПIETO plainly distinguishable from each other,
was the cause, in this perfect belonging to πí, of the change
of vowel w instead of ʼn being admitted into the inflexion, and
also into the derivatives πTwoс, πтŵμа; for which, therefore,
it is quite unnecessary to suppose a present ΠΤΟΩ. In the
same way we have no need whatever of a theme E^ON; nay,
unless we do it from a love of uniformity, we need not have
recourse to that e(ἐδήδεκα) in order to arrive at ἐδήδοκα. 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 o, which is
more familiar in this form, might be admitted in the same way,
perfectly independent of the e in ǹdéolŋv: but this will be seen
more fully in the next section, where édndoka is again mentioned
in conjunction with dynoxa. We have an instance of the same
in the before-mentioned Owкa". In this verb there is no trace
>/
19
ωκα
remaining in any other tense of an auxiliary vowel e, n, o, or w.
It would therefore be astonishing that we should try to get to
it through ἐθόω or through ἐθήσω, εἴθηκα, εἴθωκα, ἔθωκα, when
we can suppose quite regularly that the root 20 was separated
from the termination ka by the vowel familiar to the perfect.
If this case had occurred in the aor. 1. it would have been eiƉeσa ;
if it had been the Attic reduplication, it would have been ełn-
Ooka; but being neither of these, the more weighty-sounding
θοκα
vowel was preferred; e0wka. A very similar case is that of
the Biblical word a péwvrat, which must not be thrown aside
as a later barbarism, since not only is a péwka mentioned as
Doric by Suidas, but this very a péwкa is explained by Herodian
in Etym. M., and still more circumstantially in Lex. Seguer.
p. 470, 14. 15.
It existed, therefore, indisputably in some
α
19 Hesych. Owкατɩ (very properly corrected to ělíkartı), eiúðaoır.
Hence Koen has judiciously amended, in Gregor. Cor. in Dor. 160.,
ἠθῶ followed by καί to ἔθωκα. But perhaps he ought to have left the
η; for ἤθωκα may very well be the Doric perfect for εἴθωκα. The
other Hesychian gloss is also very remarkable, Ευέθωκει, εἴωθεν. The
eû here would be redundant and useless, and we may therefore turn our
thoughts to the digamma, although, on the grounds mentioned above,
ciwła does not seem calculated for that purpose; for since ĥoos and
Ovos plainly have the digamma in Homer, there is no doubt that
originally, although not in Homer, it belonged to the family of e0w.
For the digamma of e0w see the end of art. 96.
α
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
139
pretty common dialects*, and from them was transferred into the
so-called Alexandrian. Herodian derived it very well from the
Ionic enka with the change of vowel. Since, however, this
enka itself came from now, &c. only through the Ionic pleonasm
(for in inu there is no old digamma as there is in eoika), so also
here the opinion, that the short perfect form eika was lengthened
by the insertion of the w so common in the perfect, is not to be
found fault with. And the continuation of this change of vowel
in the passive (á þéwvтaι) may be classed with the Homeric
forms ἐδήδοται and ἄωρτο.
30. The last verb belonging to this question is the perfect
aynoxa, 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 xa, which the Attics also use. With the
Attic reduplication it would be aynxa. For the o therefore
we see no good ground whatever, as there exists no trace of a
lengthened form of ayw as there is of alpw and adw. Here,
then, is again a lengthening by which the perfect is made
similar to the cases of ἐδήδοκα, ἐνήνοχα, ἀνήνοθα ; and hence
we need only follow the grammatical method, by which single
tenses are ranged under the presents of separate verbs, and
say that the verb yw, in order to form this perfect, was
lengthened to AEг, of which the o 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 ayyoxa. This form is not a mere grammatical supposi-
tion, but really existed in the language, and is still found in
inscriptions. The grammarian in the Etym. appears to me in
>
* In my Ausführl. Sprachl., in a note to sect. 108, 4., I have attributed
the corresponding form ȧréwvraι to Herodotus. The text has (2, 165.)
ἀνέονται ἐς τὸ μάχιμον. Stephanus conjectured ἀνέωνται, and his con-
jecture is confirmed by this being actually the reading in the valuable
Florentine Codex.
+ See Chish. Ant. As. p. 50. (Decr. Sigeensium, v. 15.) тnμ ẞaoi-
Xelav eis peitw—dia0eoir aynyoxe: Dor. Testam. ap. Gruter. p. ccvi.
col. I. v. 26. II. v. 9. ccxvii. col. I. v. 12. ayayoxa, ovrayayoxa,
ovrayayoɣeia Pluperf. for -7, commonly -eu.
140
21. ᾿Ανήνοθεν, &c.
↑
κα;
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 aynya.
The same remark will hold good of eondoka. From dw came
regularly кa; the reduplication edŋka would not have been a
true one; the second & therefore, which otherwise must have
been lost before the termination, was separated from the к
by the o; and as κa is a pure termination, this was following
a true analogy. But in the aynya, which it was wished to avoid,
Xa was not a pure termination, since the characteristic of the
χα
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 ἀγήγοκα,
as formed from ayéow, 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 άyeloxɑ; most per-
sons will be, perhaps, inclined to consider it with him as a cor-
ruption of aynoxa; I prefer, as more natural, to trace it thus,
ἀγήγοχα, (γ into ι) ἀγείοχα, ἀγήοχα.
X:
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 oro 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, ει, η, in the verbs ὀρέγω, ὀφείλω, ἀρήγω, may
be explained at least quite as well, with relation to opyń,
¿pλeîv, ápkéw, by saying that they are inserted in the former,
as that they are omitted in the latter forms. We have re-
marked that it is by no means necessary that whatever a tense,
considered according to the grammatical system as derivative,
has peculiar to itself, must have existed also in some corre-
sponding present; and hence if, induced by aλкý and äλаλкоv,
we suppose a theme ΑΛΚΩ, and from ἔχω and ὄγκος fix on a
22. ᾿Αντιᾷν.
141
verbal form ΕΓΚΩ, still it does not follow that for ἀλέξασθαι
and evexoñvai there must have existed also a present AAEKO,
ENEKO, 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, eɩ, and ʼn into o and w in the perfect and the sub-
stantive, as in ἐνοπή, ὀρόγυια from ἐνέπω, ὀρέγω ; in ἐγρήγορα,
ἀγορά from ἐγείρω, ἀγείρω ; in ἤορτο or ἄωρτο from ἀείρω ;
in ἀρωγή from ἀρήγω. But from the first acknowledged prin-
ciple it follows, that if there be no e, et or n 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 ἀνήνοθα, according to the analogy of ΕΓΚΩ ἐνεχθῆναι
...évývoxa, to come from the theme ANO, which we recog-
nised in avoc and άvleîv, but we have also supposed the themes
ΕΝΘΩ and ΑΓΓΩ for ἐνήνοθα and ἄνωγα. In these, therefore,
the o or w 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 awρTо appeared to be
formed from alpw, so also an o was inserted in ella to form
elwła, and an o, with or without the consonant of the redupli-
cation, to form ἀγήγοχα, ἀγήσχα, and ἐδήδοκα. I am very far,
however, from considering this whole account as sure and in-
disputable truth obtained from historical facts; I shall be sa-
tisfied, 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
phænomena of the language being judiciously combined, many
a point now detached and isolated may be made more probable
and brought nearer to certainty.
A
22. ᾿Αντιᾷν.
1. The verb avriar in the Epic poets is thus inflected:
ἀντιόω (for ἀντιάω), ἀντιάαν, fut. ἀντιάσω, aor. ἀντιάσαι; in
which last forms the a in the inflexion is short, contrary to the
142
22. ᾿Αντιᾷν.
analogy of such derivatives in -áw. But since in general from
adjectives in -toc no verbs in -iáw are usually formed, we see at
once that the forms avriásai, &c., come from the present av-
Tiάlw (Pind.), which cannot enter into the composition of an
hexameter; whence the Epic poets introduced from necessity
the cognate form in -táw. The deponent form too ἀντιάασθε,
the only one which occurs, arose out of the necessity of the
metre. That is to say, the resolution of a into aa does not
take place in the language of Homer before the ; in other
words, the terminations are, araι are not capable of being
lengthened to άατε, άαται', and the metre would not admit of
ἀντιᾶτε ; hence recourse was had to the passive form ἀντιᾶσθε,
in which the lengthening of the a is customary. And, lastly, it
must be observed that the form ávτiav (avriów, &c.) is some-
times a decided present, as in Il. a, 31. 4, 643., sometimes the
so-called Attic future for avriάow, &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 ἐμῷ μένει ἀντιόωσιν,... μηδ᾽
ἀντιάσειας ἐκείνῳ, ΙΙ. ζ, 127. φ, 151. 431. Od. σ, 146. In
others of its relations the case is not expressed,
as Il. K, 551.
o, 297. Od. μ, 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 Il. n, 231. ‘Hµeîc
μη
1 With yeyάare (Batrach. 143.), which is no word of Homer, it is
quite otherwise: for this is a regular perfect (yeyúǎre), only with the
anomalous quantity caused by the influence of the frequently occurring
word yeyάão. On the contrary, the form äarai (~~) Scut. Herc. 101.
for åraι from aw, to satiate, may be adduced as a real resolution of the
a before the 7; for the supposition that the double a is original here, as
it is in ȧáw, 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 unu
καὶ κρατερός περ ἐὼν ἄαται πολέμοιο there is no metrical necessity for
the resolution, and Hesychius has, perhaps, taken from hence the gloss
ὦται, πληροῦται.
22. ᾿Αντιᾷν.
143
δ᾽ εἰμὲν τοῖοι οἳ ἂν σέθεν ἀντιάσαιμεν; sometimes in an amica-
ble sense, as Od. w, 56. of Thetis, who comes to assist in the
funeral rites of her son,
*Ερχεται οὗ παιδὸς τεθνηότος ἀντιόωσα,
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 part in it,
undertake 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-
τιάσαι πόνου, πολέμου, ἔργων, ἀέθλων, Ι1. μ, 356. 368. v, 215.
ψ, 643. Od.
X, 28.
Among these the instance of ἀέθλων is
that of a much-desired, agreeable participation, an idea still
stronger as applied to a banquet, Il. ω, 62. Πάντες δ᾽ ἀντιάασθε
θεοὶ γάμου. In the same sense it is used of the gods who
receive, enjoy a sacrifice, Od. a, 25. ἀντιόων ἑκατόμβης.
γ, 436. ἦλθε δ' ᾿Αθήνη ἱρῶν ἀντιόωσα. Il. a, 67. ἀντιάσας
αἰγῶν κνίσσης. And so in a general sense to receive, partake
of, Od. 2, 193.
Φ, 402.
Οὔτ᾽ οὖν ἐσθῆτος δευήσεαι, οὔτε τευ ἄλλου,
Ων ἐπέοιχ᾽ ἱκέτην ταλαπείριον ἀντιάσαντα.
Αἲ γὰρ δὴ τοσοῦτον ὀνήσιος ἀντιάσειεν
Ως . δυνήσεται.
where τοσοῦτον, as a mere adverb, answers to ὡς, and conse-
quently ὀνήσιος, according to the above constant analogy, be-
longs to ἀντιάσεις.
4. This verb governs an accusative only in the well-known
passage of Il. a, 31.
πρίν μιν καὶ γῆρας ἔπεισιν
Ἱστὸν ἐποιχομένην καὶ ἐμὸν λέχος ἀντιόωσαν.
•
2 There is a German provincialism exactly similar to these latter
meanings of ἀντιᾷν; viz. entgegen nehmen, 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 deserves."
-ED.]
144
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &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 exact-
ly the contrary. There is no doubt, therefore, that the explanation
preferred by the old grammarians, evτρeπilovσav, 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. w, 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 becomes more obvious
by the use of the accusative case; for léxeoc aviav would
undoubtedly mean to partake of or share my bed. Here,
therefore, avriav is the same as Topσúvei in Il. y, 411. and
Od. Y, 403., where the expression éxoc πopoúvew is, like
λéxeoc avriav, an old euphemismus for sexual intercourse;
which idea has been thence adopted by succeeding writers.
Compare Eurip. Suppl. 56. φίλα ποιησαμένα λέκτρα πόσει σῷ.
Hel. 59. λέκτρ᾽ ὑποστρώσω τινι. Theocr. 6, 33. where Po-
lyphemus wishes that Galatea may στορέσειν καλὰ δέμνια τᾶςδ᾽
èì vάow. Apoll. Rh. 3, 40. of Venus, who evτúveoke déxoc
ἐπὶ νάσω.
Ἡφαίστοιο.
5. A deviation from the above use of avτiav occurs in the
later poets with the genitive in the sense of to entreat, impor-
tune, Apoll. Rh. 1, 703. 3, 694. See Scholia.
῎Ανωγα; vid. ἀνήνοθεν.
᾿Απάρχομαι ; vid. ἄρχομαι.
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, ἀπούρας, ἐπαυρεῖν.
1. Of the verb anavρáw in this form there occur in Homer,
and indeed in all the ancient writers, only three forms which we
can speak to with certainty: arnúpwv 1. pers. sing. and 3. plur.
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
145
άлnúρаç, àπηúρа. These, according to form, are imperfect, but
To
they are always used in the general narrative as aorists.
these the common editions of Homer would add from Od. 8, 646.
ἀπηύρατο. But Wolf has adopted the various reading ἀπηύρα,
which is found in Eustathius (in his Commentary, not in the ad-
joining text,) and in the Cod. Harl., where it is written annupa;
for it certainly is not clear whence άηúρaτo, a form deviating
entirely from the others, could have crept into this single pas-
sage (Η σε βίῃ ἀέκοντος ἀπηύρα νῆα μέλαιναν), 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
άπηúρато 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 -aµai from a verb in -µl.
But it is more natural to consider it at once as an aorist from
the simplest verbal form AYPQ.
1
2. It has been acknowledged as long ago as the times of the
old commentators that the participles ἀπούρας, άπουράμενος
correspond exactly with the above forms both in meaning and
usage. The latter of these two occurs only in the shield of
Hercules (173.), 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, such a syncope as that
which one part of the old grammarians adopted, viz. supposing
it to be for ἀπουρίσας from ἀφορίζω, was quite unnatural even in
such a language, to say nothing of the force done to the meaning;
ן.
1 The inf. àπоûpaɩ in the lexicons, &c. belongs merely to the gram-
marians, who formed it from ȧroupas for their own grammatical use:
see Steph. Thes. 2, 1476. a.
I.
146
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
σουσιν
for we need only nention the Homeric ἄλλοι γάρ οἱ ἀπουρίσ-
σovow ápoúpac, Il. x, 489., to make it at once evident that here
the sense of the words may give the idea of bounds or limits,
but in all the other passages where droúpac stands, there is no
sign of such an idea. Much more general and complete is the
correspondence of ἀπούρας with ἀπηύρα, as in II. λ, 334. κλυτὰ
τεύχε' ἀπηύρα, and 432. καὶ τεύχε' ἀπούρας, &c.
,
3. We may now inquire whence the old grammarians knew
that the radical form of this verb was AYPQ, AYPAQ; for
since, besides the forms with ou, there occur only those aug-
mented forms with nu, which in the oldest copies must have
been written ev, 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 (De Nat. Pueri, Edit. VDL. vol. 1. p. 157.), it is said
ειν
2 It is however remarkable, and must not be passed over in silence,
that Pindar, who never has άπŋúpa, &c., and only once ȧroupas, uses it in
exactly the same combination of words as Homer does ȧrovpíšeɩv;
namely in Pyth. 4, 265. ἄγρους ...τοὺς ἀπούρας ἁμετέρων τοκέων νέμεαι.
Hence it may be supposed with great probability that Pindar derived
the Homeric ἀπούρας from ὅρος, ἀφορίζω. And so it would remain
merely as a remarkable proof of a very ancient misinterpretation of
Homer; for άπоúρas for àñaúpas was in Pindar's time as great a de-
viation from analogy, as if it had stood for arouρicas; 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 drovρíosova iv 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 nu; wherever
there is no augment, with ov. Let us now suppose that from this most
ancient aorist (arоûpai, or as aor. 2. άπovрeîv, to take away,) was
formed, as is so frequently the case, a future; this would be dτоνρýów..
Indeed many manuscripts, at the head of which we may place the ex-
cellent Harleian MS., do read dπovрhoovoir; and the Venetian scho-
liast has the same reading in the lemma of his scholium, in which he
explains the verse simply by ἀφαιρήσονται. It appears to me most
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
147
of a graft, καὶ πρῶτον ἀπαυρίσκεται ἀπὸ τῆς ἰκμάδος τῆς ἐν
τῷ δενδρέῳ ἐνεούσης. However we may wish to consider this as
a newly-formed present from aravρáw (like åµßlioko from
dußλów, and such like), still the meaning is too remote for us
to allow it to be the same verb. The meaning of the middle
verb in this passage is to derive profit or advantage from, draw
nourishment to itself from, enjoy. But from this very thing it
is clear that it must be eraupiokeтaι, which is the common
expression of Hippocrates in this sense; e. g. De Morbis IV.
(vol. 2. p. 121.) ἐπαυρίσκεται ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τηκομένου, and
p. 134. οὐκ ἀν ἐπαυρίσκετο ἡμῖν (τὸ σῶμα) τῆς ἰκμάδος ἐπαρ-
kéov: and a little after the very passage of which we are speak-
ing, it is said of the graft now grown larger, éraupioкETαι áπÒ
τῆς γῆς ἕλκων τὴν ἰκμάδα. It is most improbable that Hippo-
crates should have used sometimes άπαυρ-. sometimes έπαυρ-.
in the same sense. The other passage (De Morb. IV. vol. 2.
p. 156.) runs thus: χωρέει τὸ ποτὸν ἐς τὴν κοιλίην, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς
κοιλίης ἐς τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα ἀπαυρίσκεται. Here we should have
a new meaning, it is expended, disperses itself into; a mean-
ing to which there is nothing in any other part of Hippocrates to
K
highly 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
diminishing 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 ópíw nor its compounds ever occur in any
other part of Homer. 2nd, αφορίζειν τινί τι, "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
lands." If now we read in Homer drovρhoovour, there is no necessity
for our supposing that Pindar misunderstood Homer, or ever thought
of "pos; but the Homeric usage of words was present to his mind as
it was to that of all the poets, and so he used aroupas as the participle
of the verb in the same sense and combination as Homer had used the
future.
L2
148
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
lead us.
᾿Απαυρίσκεται here would be a pure passive, which
necessarily supposes in actual use an active άπavρíoкw, I con-
sume, expend, which should approach pretty near to that amavpάw,
I 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 Foesius, as early as his time (Econom. Hip-
pocr. in v.) corrected it thus: ἀπὸ τῆς κοιλίης τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα
èπavρioкeтaι, and this verb is actually given in a Vienna manu-
script. The insertion of the preposition èc arose from the
termination of the word preceding it'.
α
4. The grammarians then, it seems, ascribed the diphthong
av to the verb anavρav merely from comparing it with the verb
ἐπαυρίσκεθαι, of which ἀπαυρίσκεθαι 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 only the middle voice of this
verb occurs, and I have shown in my grammar (Verb. Anom. v.
AYP-.) that we must place as the present enavρioкoμai, which
occurs in Homer, Hippocrates, and elsewhere, the more sim-
ple form being merely an aorist; whence the infinitive must be
written éπavρéolai, which accentuation is found also in Eurip.
Iph. Taur. 529*. 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, evpóµny and evρáµnv³,
The gloss of Erotian which belongs to this passage, ȧñavρíσкetaι,
ἀπολλύεται, Fasius corrects to ἀπόλλυται or ἀπολύεται; but the cor-
ruption lies deeper than this. It originated in the XX. The word as
it originally stood was AПОAAYEI: when some one had corrupted this
to АПОлAYEI, it was very natural that a second should turn it into a
passive. Heringa on Erotian contents himself with altering it to άño-
Xaveraι, which he takes without hesitation in an active sense.
+ In Apoll. Rh. also (1, 677.) in all the old editions it is written
éπavρéσðαι, and the scholium expressly remarks that as paroxyt. it is
an aorist for ἀπολαῦσαι, and as proparox. a present for ἀπολαύειν. On
the contrary, at v. 1275. it is invariably written, even in the Editio
princeps éπαúρeσbai; and the same in Andocides De Reditu, near the
beginning, in the Aldine and in the Cod. Wratisl.
5 See the instances quoted in Matthiæ's Gr. Gramm. p. 188. Obs. 7.
(or p. 240. of Blomfield's Edit.).
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
149
Επαύ-
ὠσφρόμην and ὠσφράμην (ὄσφραντο, Herod. 1, 80.).
paola is therefore an unobjectionable form, occurring not
merely in the later writers, but for instance in Hippocrates in
the Oath, c. 3. ἐπαύρασθαι καὶ βίου καὶ τέχνης (where there is
no mention of any various reading in -co0at), and also in the
Ionic letter to Hystanes ascribed to him, Περσέων δὲ ὄλβου οὔ
μοι θέμις ἐπαύρασθαι.
ου
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
-aola, it cannot contradict the remark respecting the accent on
-éσlaɩ, since the indicative èraúpouat, 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 Rh. (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 éπaúpeσlat.
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, Il. v, 733.,
where it is said of a sensible man, τοῦ δέ τε πολλοὶ ἐπαυρί-
σκοντ᾽ ἄνθρωποι. Hence the custom of considering as ironical
those cases where the verb is used in a bad sense, as in that
of deriving disadvantage, &c.; for instance, Il. a, 410. iva
πάντες ἐπαύρωνται βασιλῆος; and again, ζ, 353. o, 17. Od.
o, 107. But this view of it is erroneous. This twofold rela-
tion arises from the one original general meaning, to draw from,
have from, derive from. This is proved by those cases where
irony is not applicable to the sense of the passage, as in that
most palpable instance of the well-known saying of Democri-
tus, (Stob. Eth. 2, p. 205.) ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἡμῖν τἀγαθὰ γίγνεται ἀπὸ
τῶν αὐτῶν τούτων καὶ τὰ κακὰ ἐπαυρισκοίμεθα : and so also in
the passage of Herodotus (7, 180.) so remote from all idea of
irony, τάχα δ᾽ ἄν τι καὶ τοῦ οὐνόματος ἐπαύροιτο. The aspe-
rity in the passages quoted from Homer lies, therefore, not in
the word, but in the thought itself.
ων
ΠΟ
See Suid. v. éлaúρaσ@aι: Valck. ad Herod. 7, 180.
150
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
8. The active voice of this verb belongs entirely to the Epic
poets, and to those who have copied it from them. Homer
has only the aorist of the subjunct. and infin., èπaúpw, -na, -n,
ἐπαυρεῖν οι ἐπαυρέμεν. The present I find in the form in
-ioko only in Theogn. 115. (Brunck. Ed., or 111. Gaisf. Ed.)
Οἱ δ᾽ ἀγαθοὶ τὸ μέγιστον ἐπαυρίσκουσι παθόντες. Hesiod has
it in -éw, (op. 417.) speaking of Sirius in the winter, Batòv………
῎Ερχεται ἠμάτιος, πλεῖον δέ τε νυκτὸς ἐπαυρεῖ'.
.
9. This active has in many passages evidently the meaning
of to enjoy; for instance, in Il. o, 302., Hector says to the
Trojans, "Give your property to the people for them to spend
it, Τῶν τινα βέλτερόν ἐστιν ἐπαυρέμεν ἤπερ ᾿Αχαιούς”: so also
in Od. P, 81. 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, I. λ, 573. Πάρος χρόα λευκὸν ἐπαυρεῖν
'Ev yain toTavTo: 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, λiλaióueva xpoòc doai; but at Il. v, 649.
where the combatant is the subject of the sentence, μ TIC
χρόα χαλκῷ ἐπαύρῃ, this figure cannot be admitted.
σταν
10. We see, therefore, that in every instance one general
idea lies at the foundation of the word; and as its evident af-
finity to aπavρav 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. Any
collateral idea must be 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 4,340. where
a charioteer in the lists is warned in guiding his car round the
stone which marks the course, λίθου ἀλέασθαι ἐπαυρεῖν, “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 annûpa, which however
would not be quite suitable here in connexion with epxera. I consi-
der therefore eπavpéw as a genuine separate form.
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
151
avoid touching the stone, striking upon it." In the passage of
Hesiod respecting Sirius, the figurative idea of an inanimate
object being endued with feeling is more appropriate than even
that of the spears, 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".
11. 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, amó 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 (Il. a, 410. v, 733. o, 17.) the
genitive is used; and in the fourth (2, 353.) the case is not
expressed. This relation appears also more natural to the
middle voice. Hence in a fifth passage (Od. o, 106.) µń wοú
τι κακὸν καὶ μεῖζον ἐπαύρῃ, I should prefer the old various
reading ἐπαύρῃς.
12. In Homer then the two compounds ἀπαυρᾷν aud έπαυ-
ρεῖν, ἐπαύρεσθαι, 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
Πολλάκι καὶ ξύμπασα πόλις κακοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐπαυρεῖ
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 προσαυρεῖν, προσαυρίζειν, 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. èπаúρу is explained by
anrai. 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. Philoct.
657.1398.
152
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
backed by very old quotations and authorities (see Græv. ad
loc.) is anúρa, which aoristic imperfect is so desirable in this
passage, that one is very unwilling to attribute it to an error
of transcription*. And if in Eurip. Androm. 1029. we read
(speaking of Clytemnestra) Αὐτά τ᾽, ἐναλλάξασα φόνον θα-
νάτῳ, πρὸς τέκνων ἀπηύρα, where there is no appearance of
any various reading; it is clear that as early as that time the
verb àñavρậy in the Epic poets was considered, at least as a
various reading, to have the meaning of èravрéolai. Nor is
there anything to hinder us from supposing that ảπavρậv had
from the earliest times this meaning, something like auferre.
In Eschyl. Prom. 28. the word is somewhat more doubtful;
Τοιαῦτ᾽ ἀπηύρω τοῦ φιλανθρώπου τρόπου.
Hitherto no one but Stephens has brought forwards eπnúρw as
a various reading to this passage. There is this objection to it,
that it would be from enaúpaolai, a form which can hardly be
attributed to an Attic writer. On the other hand, ἀπηύρω
would be that tense of the middle voice (árnupáμnv) which we
have seen at the beginning of this article is so very doubtful in
Homer. However, the middle appears to me so defensible in
this passage of Eschylus, and so suited to it, having so regu-
larly and correctly the meaning of þépeolai, auferre, 'to derive
from', that Eschylus may very well be supposed to have formed
it, though he did not find it in any older poet. The form
èπavρеîv is used absolutely by Pindar (Pyth. 3, 65.) in the
sense of to receive (harm) from; kai yeɩтóvwv woddoi èπaû-
μον.
13. The sense of these two compounds, thus playing so into
each other, confirms the opinion that they both belong to one
simple form; and there are quite sufficient grounds for fixing
* [Gaisford in his edition of the 'Poetæ Minores Græci' has áπnúpa
in the text.-ED.]
" It is not correct to say that enaûρov is used in this passage by Pin-
dar absolutely. The use of the word is not made more absolute by its
having no accusative case of the harm, than it is in ἵνα πάντες ἐπαύ-
ρωνται βασιλῆος. The omission of the genitive of the person from whom
the harm is received is quite usual, and to be supplied by roúrov, or in
this case by auris, with reference to the offending damsel.
23. ᾿Απαυρᾷν, &c.
153
on the diphthong av for the verb anavрav. Notwithstanding
ἀπαυρᾷν.
ἀπαυρᾷν.
this, however, I cannot but think that the simple form of these
verbs is to be sought for in the verb evpeîv, 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, evpeîv bears the same relation to that
αὐρᾷν and αὐρεῖν, as εὔχομαι does to αὐχέω ; and we thus come
nearer to the change of the vowel ov in aπоúpac: compare
σπεúdш στоνdý, and generally the change of e to o. Besides,
evpeîv corresponds very much with eπavpeîv in the termina-
tions of its tenses; εὑρίσκω, εὗρον, εὑρεῖν, εὑμέσθαι, εὕρασθαι:
ἐπαυρίσκομαι, ἐπηῦρον, ἐπαυρεῖν, ἐπαύρεσθαι, ἐπαύρασθαι. 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, ἐπαυρομένα μάλα πολλὰν Κτῆσιν ἀπ᾿
οἰκείου σώματος ἀγλαΐας. Here ἐπαυρέσθαι with the accusative
is used exactly in the simple sense of εὑρέσθαι οι εὕρασθαι.
The Latin haurire has been already compared by others with
éπavρeî, and, as it appears, not without foundation. But then
the Greek apúew should not be omitted ¹º. And if I were to
pursue this idea that èraupeîr and evpeîv are connected with
haurire, and consequently with apúeɩv, I should next adopt the
supposition that apów was also APFQ; wherefore in avpo or
AFP we have the same change in the position of the F or v
as in θεουδής and προυσελεῖν. Nor have I any hesitation in
10
T
10 It is singular that so plain a contracted imperfect as árηúρшr,
årŋúpa, should be in Homer so completely an aorist; and one might be
tempted to substitute instead of those forms ἀπηῦρον, ἀπηὗρε (εν), as an
old form changed in after times; particularly as Hesychius has άπηûρov,
úpeiλarro, (the addition to this gloss is most satisfactorily accounted
for in the Note to Alberti's edition,) and Zonaras has άrnúpwr: the
latter, however, explains it as the aorist 2. of ȧñavρŵ, áñаvρýjow; from
which it appears necessarily to follow, that he read and was speaking
of ἀπηῦρον. But ȧrηúpwr cannot be displaced from Il. a, 430. by
åñηûpor; we must therefore go one step further, and write årηúpovr':
while the 3rd person árŋúpa in Æschyl. 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. ᾿Απίη γαῖα.
putting down as a parallel case ἀνύω, ANFΩ, ἄνω, ἄνομαι,
since nothing is more common than that what in one case pro-
duces a diphthong, in another merely lengthens the vowel.
24. ᾿Απίη γαῖα.
πιος
1. It is well known that a part of the grammarians explained
'Aπiŋ yaîa (Il. a, 270. and y. 49.) as the old name of the Pe-
loponnesus; whereas the two passages in the Odyssey (n, 25.
and π, 18.), where nothing is said of the Peloponnesus, plainly
show that aoc is an old adjective from ano, like arríoc from
artí, 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 'Aniα
in Eschylus, Sophocles and others, for the Peloponnesus. An
old saying as early as Eschylus, 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
different 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. Hom. p.
42.
This Apis, we see at once, is the old fabulous personification
of the name of the people and country, which mythology has
derived from him; and hence of 'Aπía, and of the 'Amidovec or
'Amdavnеc, the old name for the Arcadians; see Eustath. ad
Dionys. Perieg. 415'. The explanation of Heyne on Il. a, 270.,
The fa-
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.
bulous 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 Dryopes Dryops, 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 Boeotia, the Ausones and Osci in Italy, are but varieties
of the same name. And now, from having observed these last forms,
24. ᾿Απίη γαῖα.
155
who maintains, contrary to the express testimonies of the geo-
graphers and grammarians, nay of Eschylus 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 fabulous and geographical
names occurring in it, easily sees that the poetical names, par-
ticularly all the oldest, are purely and really most ancient names,
which poetry has preserved to us³.
2. There is another circumstance well worthy of our notice,
that the appellative arrin in Homer has the a short (eg aming
yainc), but in the geographical name it is always long: ync
ὅσοιπερ ᾿Απίας, Soph. O. C. 1303. Αὐτῆς δὲ χώρας ᾿Απίας
dè
Tédov Tóde, Æschyl. Suppl. 275. Kar' "Aπıda, (said of the
country) Theocr. 25, 183.; and this is also the quantity not
only of 'Amidavñec, but also of the primitive name ˆАπic, ac-
cording to which is regulated that of the Egyptian Apis also;
and it is inconceivable how the greatest 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. Πράξας ἀμέμπτως ῏Απις ᾿Αργείᾳ χθονί,
Eschyl. Supp. 284. Et comes in pompa corniger Apis erat,
Ovid, Amor. 2, 13. 14. It is however remarkable that So-
we shall at once recognise the Pelopes and the Pelasgi as the same.
The termination asgi contains therefore again the old name of the family
or tribe (Opes, Apes, Asgi, Aones, like Opici, Osci, Ausones); and as
the name of that people we know was also Pelargi, the old name of the
Peloponnesus, Argos, which is again found in Thessaly and Acarnania,
is thus brought into the series. With these is connected very naturally
the old name of the inhabitants of Phrygia, Lydia, &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 'Iάores or Ionians Javan, we find
also these Ascanii, and whatever is connected with them, in Ashkenas;
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 mistakes
arising from some poetical epithets, as 'Hepín, used of Egypt, and such
like: see 'Aup, sect. 9.
156
25. ᾿Αποέρσαι.
phocles, in the same piece in which he uses 'Aría of the Pelo-
ponnesus, further on at v. 1685. has the same word, also with
the long a, in the sense of a distant country, yn άía.
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 Rhianus mentioned by
Steph. Byz.,
τοῦ δὲ κλυτὸς ἐκγένετ᾽ ῏Απις,
*Ος ῥ' ᾿Απίην ἐφάτιζε καὶ ἀνέρας ᾿Απιδανῆας.
Here then the proper name is short. But this is far less striking
than the other. The later Epic poet regulated himself ac-
cording to the Homeric prosody, even when he used the word
in a different sense. And it is possible that Rhianus took arín
in Homer for the name of the Peloponnesus.
25. ᾿Αποέρσαι.
1. Three times in the Iliad there occur forms of an aorist aπo-
époaɩ; viz. in II. 2, 348. where Helen wishes that she had been
thrown into the sea immediately after her birth; eva µe kûµ'
με κύμ'
άπóeрoe, "there the wave would have washed me away"; again
ἀπόερσε,
at p, 283., where Achilles is afraid of being overwhelmed by
the flood of the Scamander, like a young swine-herd, “Ov pá
τ᾽ ἔναυλος ἀποέρσῃ, “whom the torrent washes away as he is
fording it in a storm"; and lastly at 4, 329. where Juno has
the same fear for Achilles, Μή μιν ἀποέρσειε μέγας ποταμὸς
Baludivna, "lest the flood should wash him away". The sense
is therefore perfectly clear; but we want to know where we are
to place this verb, as its simple epoat 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 AПOFFEPΣHI.
2. The most generally received opinion is that these forms
belong to eppw, the old formation of which was epoaι, instead
of the one afterwards in use éppñoat. The digamma is indeed
25. ᾿Αποέρσαι.
157
recognisable also in this verb in ἐνθάδε ἔῤῥων, αὐτὰρ ὁ ἔῤῥων,
Il. 0, 239. σ, 421., and as it appears to come from péw, 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 àπó, to wash off 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
We
may fairly make us hesitate in adopting this derivation.
may therefore be allowed to choose for ourselves, and try an-
other.
W
3. The formation epoat leads us still more naturally to a
theme ΕΡΔΩ, and this reminds us of ἄρδω, according to the
Ionic analogy of ἔρσην, ἄρσην. The verb ἄρδω has the general
meaning of io 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 ἀρδμός, Ι.σ, 521. ᾿Εν ποταμῷ ὅθι τ᾿ ἀρδμὸς
ἔην πάντεσσι βοτοῖσιν. This verb also had the digamma,
which, though elsewhere obliterated, is only the more evi-
dent in the compound veoapdnc, Il. O, 345. Compare also the
word ἔρση, whose digamma is seen in the Homeric forma ἐέρση,
and whose affinity to apdw, I water, shows the same change
of vowel, a into e. I suppose, therefore, that epdw meant,
1st, I water, whence epon, dew; 2nd, I wash, whence apduóc,
a washing and watering place; its compound ároépdw, I wash
away.
4. In fact this supposition is but an easy modification of the
first; for as the affinity of the words eppw, apdw, epon, and of
their meanings to péw is pretty certain, so the difference be-
tween the two views of the question is merely this, that the
causative idea belonging to péw, eppw, I run, flow, is accord-
ing to the one laid in eppw, according to the other in a parti-
cular form ἔρδω, which has the same relation to ἔῤῥω as ἀμέρδω
has to aµelpw. And thus we have this result as certain, that
the verb poat, for which, as for many other aorists, we cannot
158
26. ᾿Αποξύνω, ἀποξύω.
fix on a present with any degree of certainty, meant to wash;
that it comes from the radical word peîv, and belongs to the
same family with all the words and forms quoted above.
26. ᾿Αποξύνω, ἀποξύω.
1. To my great astonishment, no question, as far as I know,
has been raised on the form ἀποξῦναι from ἀποξύνω, 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:
Καὶ παρέθηχ᾽ ἑτάροισιν, ἀποξῦναι δ' ἐκέλευσα.
Οἱ δ' ὁμαλὸν ποίησαν· ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐθόωσα παραστάς
῎Ακρον, ἄφαρ δὲ λαβὼν ἐπυράκτεον ἐν πυρὶ κηλέῳ.
The word aπočúvw, according to the simplest analogy, comes.
only from ὀξύς, ὀξύνω, 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
(ἄκρον). 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 oi d
ὁμαλὸν ποίησαν:
opadov Tоinoav: and tradition has handed it down to us; for
the common Latin translation renders the word by levigare,
and Damm places the verb aročúvw very carelessly under
ξύω, ἀποξύω.
2. Now aročów 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 uoTóc, which means the shaft or
handle of a spear prepared in that way; and in this sense
Homer uses also the verb itself, Il. 1, 446., where to the ex-
pression "if a God would make me young again" is added
γῆρας ἀποξύσας, with evident reference to the rough and
wrinkled skin, which must be, as it were, scraped off for that
26. ᾿Αποξύνω, ἀποξύω.
159
My
0
purpose. Nothing would, therefore, be more natural than to
read also in the passage in question ἀποξῦσαι δ᾽ ἐκέλευσα: and
that this was really the old recognised 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 aroğûvat, deviating
from the common meaning of anоčúvw, and corresponding ex-
actly with that of anoğów, 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, ὁ δε ἀποξύσας τὸν μοχλὸν καὶ πυρώσας γε
προσέτι· ἐτύφλωσέ με καθεύδοντα. The critics, indeed, would
rather suppose the reading in Lucian to be false, and alter it
to aπočúvac; 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, "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 anоçûvai and lowσar
makes it absolutely necessary for the reading to be altered.
And thus then I recognise in the expression of Lucian an
evident trace that the reading of Homer should also be aro-
ξῦσαι.
TO-
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.)~-
Ὃν φασγάνῳ τῷδ᾽ ἐξαποξύνας ἄκρον
Εἰς πῦρ καθήσω.
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 éğaπočúvac aкpov to
express the éłówoa akpov of Homer; which, indeed, the scholiast
160
26. ᾿Αποξύνω, ἀποξύω.
of Homer does explain by anúğuva. And from the
very circum-
stance of this word being added in Homer as the gloss of elówoa
we can better understand and explain how it crept into the pre-
ceding verse, where previously stood aroğûoai, 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 Phæacians, Z, 269.
Ενθα δὲ νηῶν ὄπλα μελαινάων ἀλέγουσιν,
Πείσματα καὶ σπεῖρα, καὶ ἀποξύνουσιν ἐρετμά.
*
η
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, rò dè ȧročúvovou dúva-
ται ταυτὸν τῷ λεπτύνουσιν ἢ καὶ ἀποξύουσι. And the com-
mon scholiast has expressly pλoiòv TEρičéоvoir. It is impos-
sible that any one should, contrary to this external and internal
evidence, still adhere to the idea of očúvw; and some, therefore,
observing the reading of both passages to correspond so exactly',
have ventured with Damm to suppose a verb àño-žívw as an-
other form of aπočów; in which analogy does not entirely fail
them, as δύω and δύνω, θύω and θύνω, ἱδρύω and ἱδρύνθην may
be adduced in support of it. Notwithstanding this, however, the
supposition is incredible. If there had occurred in Homer a verb
àπočúvш, 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 drožeírovou in the Cod. Harl. is not worth our no-
tice, as û, î, cɩ, are commonly mistaken for each other.
27. ᾿Απριάτην.
161
such a word as ano-čúvw, he would also have said in that third
passage уnрac άπočúvac, since there is no metrical reason for
the difference, and surely no one will say that there is a di-
stinction between the Iliad and the Odyssey in this čúw and
ξύνω.
5. The result is undoubted. The verb áročów must stand
in all three passages, and therefore at Od. Y, 269. we must
read aročuovo èperuá. The length of the v, which is per-
ἀποξύουσιν ἐρετμά.
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.
᾿Απούρας ; vid. ἀπαυρᾷν.
27. ᾿Απριάτην.
απ
απου
We have before spoken of the adverb άkýr, and in confir-
mation of its being an adverb we compared it with aπpiáτny.
Now this latter would never have been known to be an adverb
if we had found it only in Il. a, 99., where amplárny, áváπowov
appear to agree with the preceding word koúpny. But in Od.
ξ, 317. Ulysses speaking of himself says, ῎Ενθα με.... ἐκομίσ-
σατο Φείδων Ηρως ἀπριάτην. Rhianus, according to a Har-
leian gloss, wrote ampiádny; but this was evidently a gram-
matical correction according to the analogy of adverbs in Sny.
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 akýv, the accus. fem. as pa-
κράν, ἀντιβίην, συναΐκτην (Scut. Herc. 189). Το these be-
long also άký and άmpiárηy. The adverbs thus coming from
verbal adjectives in Tóc, consequently those ending in ™ŋy, as
well as also the neuter forms in Tóv and rά, took a softer pro-
M
162
28. ῎Αρκιος.
nunciation (like ὄγδοος, ἕβδομος, from ὀκτώ, ἑπτά); and thus
Snv, Sov, da became proper adverbial forms, which were also
partly modified in the accent, e. g. κρύβδην, ἀναφανδόν, ἀνα-
pavda, and having thus the force of proper adverbial termina-
tions they attached themselves to other forms, as Aoyádny, &c.
᾿Απριάδην, συναΐγδην would certainly then be forms agreeable
to the analogy which was afterwards more general; but on that
very account the άπριáтηy in the Odyssey, which at first sight
seems so objectionable, cannot be an accidental mistake; and
therefore at Il. a, 99. ἀπριάτην, ἀνάποινον must likewise be
taken adverbially, with which also the meaning of áváπowov
agrees much better'.
ποινον
᾿Αρίζηλος ; vid. ἀΐδηλος.
᾿Αρκεῖν ; vid. χραισμεῖν.
28. ῎Αρκιος.
1. It will be seen by the article on xpaιoµeîv, άpkeîv, that
we suppose the meaning of apkιoc, enough, sufficient, to be cer-
tain, although the verb apkeîv is not found in Homer in that
sense. The affinity of the ideas to help, to be useful to, to
suffice, and so old a usage of the verb as that of Herodotus,
áρkéoμaι ToÚTοic, and last of all the exactly corresponding ex-
pression moòc арkiоc, Od. σ, 358. Il. 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 gives no help whatever.
μισθὸς ἄρκιος,
1 In Herodotus 1, 5. éleλovrýv also is used adverbially, as in that
passage it is joined with the fem. αὐτήν, and the adjective ἐθελοντής
can be only masculine, and never occurs in -rý. On that very account,
however, the adverbial form éleλovrýv cannot, like those mentioned
above, be explained as from an old adjective; but the familiar use of
the adverbial forms in ŋy was the cause of e0eλovrýv also being used so.
28. ῎Αρκιος.
163
2. To these belongs, first, the passage at II. 6, 393. where
Agamemnon threatens whomsoever he shall find away from the
battle and skulking among the ships;
οὔ οἱ ἔπειτα
῎Αρκιον ἐσσεῖται φυγέειν κύνας ἠδ᾽ οἰωνούς.
The scholia want to give aρкiov, here at least, the meaning of
ἀρκεῖν, to help, taking the subject of ἄρκιόν ἐστι as general,
and translating it in some such way as this, "there shall be
nothing there to assist him in escaping death." But besides
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, Il. o,
502. where Ajax, enraged at the Greeks, who are giving way
to the Trojans storming their camp, reproaches them with these
words,
el
Αἰδὼς, ᾿Αργεῖοι. νῦν ἄρκιον ἢ ἀπολέσθαι
Ἠὲ σαωθῆναι καὶ ἀπώσασθαι κακὰ νηῶν.
The scholiast does mention, indeed, here also the explanation
by péλquor; but one feels at once how tame an expression it
is, and particularly after "O shame!", to say "now it is good
or useful either to die or to save ourselves by a brave resist-
ance." Hence the scholiast produces another explanation
Tоov, 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 is it in our power either to die or conquer.
And this explanation is particularly strengthened by one cir-
cumstance, that the idea of eroоv 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,
<"
Ὡς ἂν χρηΐζων καὶ ἐς ὕστερον ἄρκιον εὕρῃς,
where Too will refer equally well to the ready lender as to
the thing ready to be lent. It seems to me also that from the
idea of άpkeîv, to help, defend, and thence apkιoc, 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 rea-
sonable to suppose that this might have been used in the lan-
"1
M 2
164
28. ῎Αρκιος.
guage of common life without the idea of utility, consequently
of bad 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.
μolòc aρкioc, 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.
Μισθὸς δ' ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ εἰρημένος ἄρκιος εἴη.
Plutarch in Theseus 3. speaking of the wisdom for which the
old Pittheus was celebrated, and which showed itself in didac-
tic apothegms 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 piλy? and wherefore the word eipn-
μévoc? 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,
Μισθὸς δ' ἀνδρὶ φίλῳ εἰρημένος ἄρκιος εἴη.
Καί τε κασιγνήτῳ γελάσας ἐπὶ μάρτυρα θέσθαι.
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 γελάσας.
And this sense we find uniformly given, as far as the general
idea goes, in the scholia of Proclus on v. 354., and Grævius
also has it; but neither of them interprets the passage literally
word for word. Yet Grævius, in his explanation fac ut primum
cum illo paciscaris de mercede, quam sibi deberi putat, seems
by the latter words to translate apкiov, and to imitate almost.
28. ῎Αρκιος.
165
T
exactly the explanation of the other scholiast Moschopulus, μ-
σθὺς ἔστω συμπεφωνημένος ἱκανὸς τῇ γνώμῃ αὐτοῦ. Here,
then, we have again the common explanation of aрkiоc; and
we see that Grævius placed the point of the maxim in the word
eipnuevoc only, which he joined immediately with ein ; by which
means aρkiоc becomes a mere epithet of μolóc, 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 μισθὸς ἄρκιος εἰρημένος εἴη (i. e. the
wages which are thought sufficient to be paid by one friend to
another should always be specifically agreed on), to say molòc
εἰρημένος ἄρκιος εἴη is an arrangement of the words by which
the effect of the maxim is completely destroyed, since every
one who hears it knows at once that apкioc ein must be the pre-
dicate of the sentence, and, consequently, if it means nothing
more than ikavóc, we have only the poor tame meaning which
we mentioned before. "Apkioc, then, in this passage can have
no other meaning than that which we have supposed it to have
in the other passages, viz. that which can be relied on, sure,
certain.
4. And as the expression μolòc apкioc has this meaning in
Hesiod, we can hardly suppose that it can have a different one
in Homer, Il. к, 303.
K,
Τίς κέν μοι τόδε ἔργον ὑποσχόμενος τελέσειεν
Δώρῳ ἐπὶ μεγάλῳ; μισθὸς δέ οἱ ἄρκιος ἔσται.
Δώσω γὰρ δίφρον τε, &c.
Now if, as we see in this passage, a large gift is 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 uoloc apkiоG, for it may
166
28. ῎Αρκιος.
refer quite as well or better to Δώρῳ μεγάλῳ, to which ἄρκιος
is immediately attached as a necessary stipulation. The same
meaning may also be very well given to Od. o, 358., where the
context offers nothing in favour 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",
as they shall be large enough to satisfy thee", which last
idea is indeed properly connected with and included in the
idea of wages.
(C
5. And, lastly, when Hesiod in e, 499. reproves the needy
sluggard,
*Ημενον ἐν λέσχῃ, τῷ μὴ βίος ἄρκιος εἴη,
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 aρkioc in the other passages, it must be the same here;
and certainly the admonition is quite as good if addressed to
one whose means of providing the necessaries of life are so un-
certain, 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....va Toi Bioc apкioc ein, "that
you may make sure of providing yourself with sustenance".
6. Since, then, in all the old Epic passages, in which apkιoc
seems at first sight to mean enough, sufficient, the idea of ero-
poc, that which can be 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. nvtw' èyà rîoai Xápiv
аρкióc Єim Тiow pоopovéwc. In Callim. Cer., 35., where a
ἄρκιός εἰμι Τίσω προφρονέως.
body of gigantic men are described as ὅλαν πόλιν ἄρκιοι ἆραι.
In Theocr. 8, 13. "what shall we place as the prize", κὲν
ἡμῖν ἄρκιον εἴη; 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 apklog that the idea of sufficient belonged to this
29. ῎Αρχομαι, &c.
167
family of words as early as Homer's time, yet it will make one
thing more certain, that the idea of the Latin arcere (see art. 106.
sect. 4.) cannot be the foundation and primary meaning of the
word ἀρκεῖν.
29. ῎Αρχομαι, ἐπάρχομαι, κατάρχομαι, ἀπάρχομαι.
0
1. The expression ἐπάρξασθαι δεπάεσσιν (as in Il. a,47 1.
Νώμησαν δ᾽ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπαρξάμενοι δεπάεσσιν) 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 : ᾿Επαρξάμενοι ἤτοι τοῦ πίνειν ἀρχὴν
ποιήσαντες καὶ ἀπαρξάμενοι καὶ σπείσαντες τοῖς θεοῖς.
Τὸ ἐπαρξάμενοι, ἐπιχέαντες. ὁ δὲ νοῦς οὕτως. τῷ οἰνοχόῃ ἐπι-
χέαντες διέδωκαν πᾶσιν· ἢ ἀπαρξάμενοι σπονδὴν τοῖς
θεοῖς, πᾶσιν ἐνώμησαν. Hesych. ᾿Επαρξάμενοι· σπείσαντες,
ἐπιστάντες. Instead of the last word it has been proposed to
read ἐπιχέαντες, which would be a very admissible correction,
if it were not for Od. σ, 425., Νώμησεν δ᾽ ἄρα πᾶσιν ἐπισταδόν.
οἱ δὲ θεοῖσιν Σπείσαντες... πίον..., from which it is very proba-
ble that in the other passages some interpreters looked for the
meaning of this ἐπισταδόν in the word ἐπαρξάμενοι, and not
entirely without reason, as we shall see hereafter. Eustathius
on Od. φ, 263. explains indeed ἐπάρξασθαι by ἐπὶ τοῖς φθά-
σασι πάλιν ἄρξασθαι (p. 759, 9. Basil.), but he does this
merely to explain the origin of the expression; for a little be-
fore (p. 758, 44.) he says, κελεύει τὸν οἰνοχόον ἐπάρξασθαι
ἐπὶ σπονδῇ. In this confusion the word σπείσαντες is not
indeed used accurately, since not those who poured out, but
those who were drinking the wine, performed the libation. But
the expressions ἀπαρξάμενοι σπονδὴν ἐνώμησαν, and ἐπάρ-
ξασθαι ἐπὶ σπονδῇ, 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 word
for word incipientes poculis,' and completes the sense by adding
168
29. ῎Αρχομαι, &c.
vinum dare circum. If this explanation be put into plain lan-
guage, it means that νώμησαν ἐπαρξάμενοι stands for ἐπήρξαντο
or ἤρξαντο νωμᾷν, which will hardly be acknowledged by any
one to be Homeric. Voss in his Critique on Heyne's Homer,
p. 324., keeps to the words of Eustathius, ènì Toîc pláσaoi
ἐπὶ
πάλιν ἄρξασθαι, and thinks from them that he may take it for
granted 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 Il. 1, 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 ἐπικρῆσαι,
Od. n, 164.; and again, 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 èrápɣeolaι cannot have this
meaning, or at least that it is a very forced one; in the same
way as in πкрnoat, 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 èñap§.
to mean going from left to right, because in handing the wine
they always followed this direction, as is certainly most evident
from Od. φ, 141. Ορνυσθ᾽ ἑξείης ἐπιδέξια πάντες ἑταῖροι ᾿Αρξ-
άμενοι τοῦ χώρου ὅθεν τέ περ οίνοχοεύει. But this explana-
tion is false. 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 would also say,
'they handed the wine round beginning".
>/
(C
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. "Apxoμai, &c.
῎Αρχομαι,
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 Il. a, 471. it is not indeed
expressly mentioned that those who were drinking did (σév-
dew) 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., which is only an account
of the early commencement of the usual repast of the suitors;
but at σ, 418. and , 263. we have a description of the cup
which passes round as a religious observance after supper
before they retire to rest, where, therefore, this expression is
not omitted.
4. Now as to the expression itself, ἄρχεσθαι, κατάρχεσθαι
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,
Νέστωρ Χέρνιβά τ᾽ οὐλοχύτας τε κατήρχετο, where it stands
for to initiate, or perform the first part of the ceremony'. 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 in order to consecrate it. So where separate pieces of
flesh are cut away for a burnt sacrifice, Od. §, 427., ó d' wµo-
θετεῖτο συβώτης Πάντοθεν ἀρχόμενος μελέων; where the
literal translation to begin would be perfect nonsense; for he
began with only one limb, but he took away from all some flesh
for sacrifice. Keeping, then, always in our mind the idea of
consecrating the victim, we may look upon apxeola in con-
nexion with each passage as the simple idea of to take away,
take part of, take from, with the collateral idea supplied by
the preposition. 'Anápɣeo@at is therefore exactly the same as
äpɣeobaι, but in Homer it occurs only of the consecrating the
hair of the victim: as Il. τ, 254. κάπρου ἀπὸ τρίχας ἀρξά-
Απάρχεσθαι
ע
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
mister: σκυτάλην λαβὼν οὐ πράως μου κατήρξατο. [It appears that
oỷ
both in this passage of the Odyssey and in that of Lucian the word is
equivalent to our expression "he began with."-ED.]
170
29. "Αρχομαι, &c.
μενος, and elsewhere: on the other hand in προσάρχεσθαι and
éπáρxeolaι there is in addition the collateral meaning of the pre-
position. The former compound occurs in Plato Theat. sect. 33.
(p. 168. c.), where Heindorf suspected the correctness of the
reading : Ταῦτα, ὦ Θεόδωρε, τῷ ἑταίρῳ σου εἰς βοηθείαν προσ-
ηρξάμην κατ᾽ ἐμὴν δύναμιν σμικρὰ ἀπὸ σμικρῶν. The me-
taphorical expression taken from a dedication or consecration
is here evident; and póc, which properly speaking might be
dispensed with, serves only to mark more clearly the relation
of the verb to the person. And, consequently, in éráρğaolaι
also the simple apçaolaι expresses the taking away or taking
a part of anything to consecrate or dedicate it, and èπí marks
the relation of it to the individuals to whom it is given or
amongst whom it is divided. It did, therefore, certainly in
some measure represent the idea of ἐπισταδόν, ἐπιστάντες (see
above, sect. 1.),-the cup-bearers went to each individual,
gave a part to each individual,-only that the idea of émáρğ-
ao0at is fuller and richer; although the sense arising from
that idea, as contained in the whole sentence, might also be
dispensed withº.
5. It is remarkable that the word ézápğaobaι 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,
νέκταρ τε καὶ ἀμβροσίην ἐρατεινὴν ᾿Αθανάτησιν χερσὶν ἐπήρ-
EaTo. Here then we have a very early proof of the imperfect
way in which the post-Homeric poets, in their imitations of their
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 énáρ§aolai,
wherever it occurred in the Epic poets, gave the idea of to im-
part or offer to individuals; by which therefore the explanation
2 Köppen on Il. a, 471. has (with the exception of the force of ẻπí)
understood and explained the word in all essential points as I have
done here.
30. Αὕτως, αὔτως.
171
here given of the Homeric expression receives the fullest con-
firmation, which in this respect it is possible to have.
᾿Ατέων and ἄτη ; vid. ἀᾶσαι.
῏Ατος ; vid. ἀάατος.
30. Αὕτως, αὔτως.
1. The wavering of the old copies between the readings
αὕτως and αΰτως 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 was done, in all essential points, with suffi-
cient minuteness by Damm, and also by Heyne on II. y, 220.
But as the opinions and decisions of the grammarians on such
points are too easily rejected, particularly by the latter com-
mentator', 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.
-
οι
2. The opinion of the grammarians is given at full length
in a scholium on Il. a, 133. "Αυτως, μάτην. καὶ ἔστιν ἐπίῤ-
ῥημα μεσότητος, καὶ ψιλοῦται πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου
τοῦ σημαίνοντος τὸ οὕτως· καὶ ψιλοῦται διότι τὸ στερητικὸν α
ψιλοῦται. And then follows the derivation from ἐτός, true,
real, of which the converse would be ἄετος, and adverbially
ἀέτως, whence αὔτως, as from νἆες, γρᾶες,—ναῦς, γραύς. The
Etyn. M. gives nearly the same account. Hesychius has
Αὕτως· ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ ματαίου καὶ κατακένου· Αὕτως γὰρ ἐπέεσ᾽
ἐριδαίνομεν (Ι. β, 342.) ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ὁμοίως, ὡσαύτως ... φαγέμεν
1
“Grammaticum inventum", says he, speaking of this very word at
Il. 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, αὕτως. Wassenbergh has con-
sequently in both cases αΰτως.
172
30. Αὕτως, αὔτως.
καὶ πιέμεν αὕτως (Od. π, 143.).
αύτως
So stands the gloss in the
printed copies; but we learn from Schow that in the MS. it.
stands Aur@g... Autòc yap..... Faulty as this is, it is evi-
Αὐτὼς...
dent enough from it that the original gloss made a distinction
between auroc and a❞rwc; and, consequently, the almost si-
milar 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
besides this there existed another opinion. Eustathius found in
the sources from which he drew his information nothing further
than that aurwc was an Æolic form: he says on Il. ß, 120.
αὔτω
τῶν δ᾽ αὐτῶν (τῶν Αἰολέων), ὡς ψιλωτικῶν, καὶ τὸ αὔτως· οὐ
γὰρ ἀναντιῤῥήτως δασύνεται, ὡς φανεῖται καὶ ἑτέρωθι. Com-
pare on B, 342. y, 220. Hence we see that in the oldest
copies of Homer there was a wavering and uncertainty between
αὕτως and αὔτως, 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 forming, according to the difference of accent,
difference of meaning, and which they accounted for in the
manner above mentioned. Between these two we have to
make our decision. The uncertainty of the aspirate is the
same as we shall see in enoc; for at the time of which we are
speaking aurwa was no longer in common use, and its form
brought to mind αὐτός as well as οὗτος, αὕτη. Το deter us,
however, from adopting the explanation of Aristarchus there is
not only its internal improbability, (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 forwards.
a
3. I set out, then, by supposing with Damm and Heyne
that avτwe, without troubling myself about its origin, is a
sister-form of ourwc; for thus far we are justified in asserting,
partly because the form with the aspirate is an undisputed one,
as the unaspirated form is adopted only for certain cases; and
partly because the demonstrative radical meaning is, at least
30. Αὕτως, αΰτως.
173
in some of the passages, undoubted.
ር
It is, however, nowhere
to be taken as purely and exactly synonymous with ourwe,
thus; for in the Epic language this is hardly conceivable, as
ovτwc itself is of frequent occurrence in it, and there is no
metrical reason for the one being substituted for the other.
Probably, therefore, usage had adopted that sister-form in
those early times, when some particular stress was to be laid
on thus.
For instance, when it forms a strong antithesis, as
kai avτwa, even thus, even as things now are, i. e. even without
such a cause, without those circumstances, Il. a, 520. e, 255.
1, 595.
ω,
4. Again auTwo forms this antithesis, sometimes when it
places that which is original, unchanged in opposition to com-
mon changes, as Il. 4, 268. of a caldron, Xevкov E0' avTwC,
still in that its original state completely unblackened with fire;
and w, 413. of the body of Hector, dλλ' eri keivog kεîтaι....
ἔτι
Αὕτως ἐν κλισίῃσι, in that state in which he was before, still
free from corruption; and sometimes also when that which is
common and of everyday occurrence is placed in opposition to
that which is uncommon, great, or supernatural; e. g. Od. Ĕ,
151. ᾿Αλλ᾿ ἐγὼ οὔθ᾽ αὕτως μυθήσομαι, ἀλλὰ σὺν ὅρκῳ. And
again Il. k, 50. where it is said of Hector that he had per-
formed great deeds, Αὕτως, οὔτε θεᾶς υἱὸς φίλος οὔτε θεοῖο.
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 Il. σ, 338.
where Achilles says to the dead body of Patroclus, Tóppa
δέ μοι παρὰ νηυσὶ κορωνίσι κείσεαι αὑτῶς. Compare also Od.
v, 281.336. And thus it is attached to all sorts of words and
phrases which contain a reproach, a contempt, a looking down
upon, as on something bad, mean, weak, &c. Thus Agamem-
non reproaches Menelaus for his compassion as ill-timed, Il. Z,
55. τίη δὲ σὺ κήδεαι αὕτως ᾿Ανδρῶν; and hence at φ, 106. I
would defend τίη ὀλοφύρεαι αὕτως against the great majority
of authorities who recommend the reading oUTWG. Again at
Od. p, 309. where Ulysses asks whether the speed of the dog
corresponds with his appearance, Ἢ αὕτως, οἷοίτε τραπεζες
Kúvec avspŵv Flyvovτaι, or "is he of so worthless a quality,
like?" &c. Similar to this is the ἀκλεὲς αὕτως, the νήπιος
اد
174
30. Αὕτως, αὔτως.
αὕτως spoken of children, &c. In the same way αὕτως is
very naturally associated with all words which contain the
idea of useless, vain, &c.; e. g. with the idea of wandering
about (Il. v, 104. ψ, 74.). And further in such expressions as
ἔργον αὕτως ἀκράαντον, αὕτως ἐτώσια, μὰψ αὕτως, ἀνεμώλιον
αὕτως, αὕτως ἄχθος ἀρούρης (Π. β, 138. p, 633. v, 348.
(Il.
Ø, 474. Od. v, 379.).
πως
Ἢ
εν
5. Hence it is perfectly conceivable that a word so stamped
by usage as auτwe 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 Il. π, 117. of the spear of Ajax,
cut in two by Hector's sword, τὸ μὲν Τελαμώνιος Αἴας Πῆλ᾽
αὕτως ἐν χειρὶ κόλον δόρυ. At a, 133. Agamemnon says,
ἐθέλεις, ὄφρ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχῃς γέρας, αὐτὰρ ἔμ᾽ αὕτως Ἧσθαι δευό-
μενον. At o, 128. Minerva reproaching Mars says to him,
νύ τοι αὕτως Οὔατ᾽ ἀκονέμεν ἐστίν. At β, 342. Αὕτως γὰρ
ἐπέεσσ' ἐριδαίνομεν, &c. As to giving an opinion on the re-
maining passages as they stand in Damm, or comparing this
usage of αὕτως with similar usages in other languages, for in-
stance, of the German so, and the English so or thus, we wil-
lingly 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 αὕτως must, we
think, be made sufficiently evident by the collection which we
have given.
Ja
6. Besides the force of the antithesis mentioned above, there
is contained in the idea of αὕτως, 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 avτwc has this meaning also is
most evident from two passages, not Homeric, but still very
ancient. Hesiod in his Theogonia 702. describes the spec-
tacle and noise of the battle of the gods with the Titans to
have been Αὕτως ὡς ὅτε γαῖα καὶ οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ὑπερθεν Πίλ-
And Anacreon has even joined a dative with it (as he
would have done with ὁμοίως, ὡσαύτως, κατὰ ταὐτά), as we
see from a fragment in Athenæus, 12, p. 534., καὶ σκιαδίσκην
ἐλεφαντίνην φορεῖ γυναιξὶν αὕτως. As this meaning is gene-
rally rare, it may not be surprising that I can quote but one
instance of it from Homer; nor ought this circumstance to raise
νατο.
30. Αὕτως, αὔτως.
175
a suspicion against the correctness of the explanation. It is
from Il. 8, 17. where Jupiter bids the deities consider,
ὅπως ἔσται τάδε ἔργα.
Η ῥ' αυτις πόλεμόν τε κακὸν καὶ φύλοπιν αἰνὴν
*Ορσομεν, ἢ φιλότητα μετ' ἀμφοτέροισι βάλωμεν.
Εἰ δ' αὕτως τόδε πᾶσι φίλον καὶ ἡδὺ γένοιτο,
9/
Ητοι μὲν οἰκέοιτο πόλις Πριάμοιο ἄνακτος, &c.
•
Here αὕτως is considered to be simply οὕτως; 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 ourwg Tóde, an accumulation not easily to be accounted for,
as natural language would admit but one of them. Either, then,
Tóde refers to the latter of the two proposals of Jupiter, and wâow
αὕτως means πᾶσιν ὁμοίως; 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 therefore he
goes on at once to say, "If, now, this be pleasing and agree-
able to all of you in the same way (as it is to me), then may",
&c. s
From this same meaning the grammarians, as we have
>
³ If, indeed, the writing aurws with the lenis stood on any better
grounds than its being an Æolicism, 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 avrós has some-
times in old Epic Greek the meaning of ô avrós, as, for instance, in avrà
kéλevƐa, and such expressions. Now in this sense it is capable of an
adverbial acceptation. For as from kaλós, good, comes kaλŵs, in a good
way or manner, so it appears that from the Epic airós, the same, may
come an adverb, avrŵs, in the same way. And if this form did exist,
certainly the Æolians accented it aurws. 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 aurŵs; which, how-
ever, by a very easy transition passed over into the similar form avrws
or aürws, and at last gave occasion to all the remarks and interpreta-
tions of the grammarians. If it were possible to reduce this conjecture
to the most convincing certainty, still, however, as avrŵs is a form un-
176
30. Αὕτως, αὔτως.
ľ
seen above in the gloss of Hesychius, explained Od. π, 143.,
where it is said of old Laertes, lamenting the departure of
Telemachus, Οὔπω μίν φασιν φαγέμεν καὶ πιέμεν͵ αὕτως, “in
the same way", &c. (i. e. as he did before). But this last appears
to me too forced, and avτwe 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,-'in that same way in which men
usually do'.
7. There is another quite peculiar case of auTWG in the ex-
pression ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως, or, as it is supposed to be more accu-
rately written, ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως. This case is common to Homer,
with all other writers, and is a separation of oauroc, by which
the idea of in the same way is most fully and commonly ex-
pressed. According to this way of writing it, that form would
therefore be a junction of the demonstratives & and avτwc, a
thing scarcely conceivable, any more than that o outoc or oc
OUTOG 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 o auτóc, the na-
tural adverb of it must be wc aurŵc. 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 ωσαύτως, ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως, must have arisen from get-
ting by mistake into the form αὕτως.
ως
heard of in all our authorities, 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 true 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 woaúrws, although only an adverb of
comparison, like πapaxρñµa and such like, still appears to be a proper
compound, it underwent in the usage of common life the process properly
belonging to compounds of having the natural accent thrown backwards
from the end of the word; and this is the more probable as the simple
avrŵs did not exist in the current language of the day. As to the aspirate,
it was scarcely possible to be heard after the d in dodaúrws, and it must
177
31. "Apevos.
1. In the word apevoc 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 apveιóc 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 ἄφενος καὶ πλοῦτον ἀφύσσειν, which Achilles
asserts that Agamemnon will never succeed in doing before
Troy; in the apveids BioToto (Il. 2, 14.), and apveida unλoioi,
(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; Ως τ᾽ ἄφενος δάσσαντο
καὶ ὡς τιμὰς διέλοντο *.
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 ἄλγος and ἀλέγω', in ἀλκή and
ἀλέξω, in ὀργή, ὀργυιά, and ὀρέγω, and therefore also in
ἄφενος, ἀφνείος, it is not at all necessary that the more com-
plete form should be the original one, and the other an ab-
breviation of it, but just the reverse of this may be quite as
likely. I recognise therefore, in this case, merely the root apv
with and without e. And indeed there did once exist rò apvoc;
ἄφνος;
for the Etym. M. in v. quotes from Pindar, oi d' apver TеTоi-
θασιν. But Hesychius has the following gloss, ἀφνύει, ἀφνύ-
naturally, therefore, have been suggested by the opinion of some gram-
marian. Further than this, however, we ought not to go in such con-
jectural points, where all historical criteria of ancient truth fail us; and
even the accenting of us in @s d'aurws 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.
Sal
* [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 åpúw, ¿qúoow. See
Il. a, 171.—ED.]
1 See art. 21. sect. 23.
N
178
32. ᾿Αχέειν.
νει
vet, oλẞile. This verb and the substantive presuppose a more
simple adjective, which we will form in vc, áþrúc, eîa, ú, in
the same way as βαρύνω, τὸ βάρος come from βάρυς, κράτος,
κρατύνω from κρατύς, and such like. And of this a vóc the
adjective in common use, apvetóc, is a lengthened form. But
àþrúc, again, I consider to be nothing more than an old abbre-
viation of ap0ovoc, originating in the every-day language of
Greece. The meaning of this latter word was originally con-
fined, as is plain from its ethical relation, to the possession of
property. It became afterwards more general, and meant every-
thing numerous, whilst its abbreviation apvúc with its deriva-
tives retained only the limited sense.
3. But what are we to say of Hesiod e, 24., where the word
stands as a masculine, εἰς ἄφενον σπεύδοντα? Το that passage
there is a various reading, apevoc. And at v. 635., where the
text has οὐκ ἄφενος φεύγων, there is again a various reading
ἄφενον. Callimachus, indeed, who in his Hymn. Jov. 96. has
undoubtedly the masculine form, Oud' áperîc á þévoio, must have
copied from a pattern equally undoubted. But no other poet
could have allowed himself such a liberty, when only two verses
before he had written δίδου δ᾽ ἀρετήν τ᾽ ἄφενός τε. 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, first introduced into the language in a later period,
and so to have crept into some of the copies of Hesiod*.
•
32. ᾿Αχέειν.
1. In Homer's Hymn to Pan, v. 18. it is said of the nightin-
gale, in all the manuscripts,
θρῆνον ἐπιπροχέουσα χέει μελίγηρυν ἀοιδήν.
2 The ȧperúveι which stands in the printed text is a false emenda-
tion 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. ᾿Αχέειν.
179
As this reading cannot be right, Ilgen reads,
Θρῆνον ἐπιπροχέουσ᾽ ἀχέει μελίγηρυν ἀοιδήν.
But this also is objected to, and Ruhnken's correction laxe
is preferred, and admitted into the text in Hermann's and
Wolf's editions. And thus the wound is hidden in a manner
which it never ought to be, and never would have been, if that
laudable custom were 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 agreement would soon be formed among true
critics. Ilgen's proposed reading is no alteration of the text;
and it has therefore that degree of certainty which arises from
ancient authority. It is true that the objections to it are not
entirely unfounded. ᾿Αχέειν ἀοιδήν, simply for ἀείδειν ἀχέου-
σαν ἀοιδήν, would perhaps not be objected to, but θρῆνον
ἐπιπροχέουσα ἀχέει ἀοιδήν is an expression more than sur-
prising 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 philological reader, and then what-
ever may still be concealed in such a traditionary reading will
be brought to light much quicker and much oftener than it
now is.
2. In the Hymn to Ceres, 479. this advantage is still left
The mysteries are there called
us.
Σεμνὰ, τά τ' οὔπως ἔστι παρεξίμεν, οὔτε πυθέσθαι,
Οὔτ᾽ ἀχέειν· μέγα γάρ τι θεῶν ἄγος ἰσχάνει αὐδήν.
There is in the text here a correction of Valckenaer, ayoc for
the axoc 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 ouтe Xaveîv
for the unintelligible οὔτ᾽ ἀχέειν.
OUTE
OUT
3. The excellent critics who have given their time and at-
tention to the Hymns would certainly have been struck with
the word axéew thus occurring twice in these poems, had
they not been misled by taking it for granted that this verb
meant to groan, lament. For myself, I am saved from this
N 2
180
32. ᾿Αχέειν.
mistake by the gloss of Hesychius, Μεγαχήσεται' μέγα βού-
σει. To this one of the commentators subjoins, without any
other remark, “Quasi péy' axʼnσerai", and again Toup adds,
with the same simple brevity, "Dorice scilicet". I cannot, in-
deed, refute the opinion which supposes this to be taken from
a lyric metre; but how improbable is it that, among the innu-
merable Doricisms of that kind which axnoera would be, just
this one should have found a place in Hesychius! On the
other hand, the words bear the Epic stamp of uéy' oxonoɑc,
μέγ᾽ ἴαχεν, μέγ᾽ ἔξοχος, of which the two latter are also in
Hesychius; and naturally so, because such compound expres-
sions were written also as one word, and were looked upon as
real compounds. It did not strike any one that a for ŋ is in-
deed a Doricism, but that a for n, although of rarer occurrence,
is an Ionicism'. See the Ausführl. Sprach. Thus Hesiod,
instead of ἠμύειν, used at the end of the verse ἀμύοντα χαμᾶζε,
as given in Etym. M. v. nuúw. And in a similar way the Epic
poets of the same period for ἠχέειν used ἀχέειν, 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, axéew 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 axéwv, axéovoa is to be found, which
however is repeatedly used. Still less should the two verbs be
confounded, as coming from the same parent stem. 'Axéwv
Αχέων
belongs to axoμai, axoc; but axéew, to sound, belongs to
ἠχέω, ἠχή, &c.
4. Now that we have the verb axéew three times quite clearly
presented to us, it will be in future more easily distinguishable
In some words and forms the Ionians also have a for η, but always
short, e. g. in πáρη for πýрa (Heraclid. ap. Eust. Il. a, 24. p. 22, 14.
Od. μ, 89. p. 478, 12. Basil.), in ἀμφισβατέω, ἀμφισβασίη for -ητέω,
-noía; and hence, on account of the metre, in some tenses, as peμаkvîa
from μέμηκα. 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, μεσαμβρία for μεσημβρία, λέλασται, λελασμένος
(from λý0w), λážis for λñžis (Dor. λâžis).—Greg. Cor. in Ion. 45. 52.
Eust. 1. c. In this way is explained the adj. operos, which came from
the perf. or aor. syncop. of doμai, and passed into the common lan-
guage of the day.-Buttmann's Ausführl. Sprach. sect. 27. obs. 17.
-
32. ᾿Αχέειν.
181
through any disguise, and it occurs again in the Hymns. In
the Hymn 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, mention the subject among the immortals :
Νῦν δὲ δὴ οὐκέτι μοι στοναχήσεται ἐξονομῆναι
Τοῦτο μετ' αθανάτοισιν.
As it has been long the opinion that the first syllables of
στοναχήσεται conceal the word στόμα, 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. Mar-
tinius, oróua Xeloera; in support of which is cited, from Od.
σ, 17. Οὐδὸς δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρους ὅδε χείσεται, “this threshold has
Ovdòc
room for both of us." But fully convinced as I am that the
verbs χανδάνειν and χάσκειν, χανεῖν are etymologically the
same, yet I must (and in this case the obligation is the
stronger), grammatically speaking, separate what usage has
already divided. The verbs χάσκω, ἔχανον, κέχηνα, χανοῦ-
μαι, and χανδάνω, ἔχαδον, κέχανδα, χείσομαι, 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 yelooμai follows
as surely from the νδ in χανδάνω, κέχανδα, as πείσομαι does
from πέπονθα, πένθος. If then, after the first correction has
amended the word to στομαχήσεται, the syllables χήσεται be
not given to xáoкw and to another form of the future beside
Xavoûμaι, this verb, well as it suits the meaning of the sen-
tence, cannot be of any use. But who will adopt a form other-
wise unknown, when another offers itself for our acceptance?
The future middle of the verb axéew is presented to us in the be-
fore-mentioned gloss of Hesychius. The words oùkéTI μοi σтóµ
έτι στόμ᾽
ἀχήσεται ἐξονομῆναι τοῦτο give therefore a meaning exactly
similar to the other, "my mouth will no more utter a sound in
mention of this."
-
5. I suppose that this axéew was the older form, from which
came xoc and year; and with reference to this it is worthy
182
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν.
ทุ
of remark, that among the explanations of the epithet 'Axaía,
which Ceres bore in Attica, there stands in the Etym. M. this
also, ἢ ὅτι μετὰ κυμβάλων ἠχοῦσα τὴν Κόρην ἐζήτει. At the
same time, it appears to me very probable that this axéw is
indeed, properly speaking, of the same family as xáw, xάokw,
as we see the same twofold meaning in our English word 'to
crack', in the German klaffen, and in the Latin crepare.
We
can therefore very fairly trace a connexion between the idea of
non hiscere, which is so particularly natural in the last-quoted
passage, and the general tenor of our representation; but in
the passage quoted from the Hymn to Ceres, Our' axéew suits
the context much better than Οὔτε χανεῖν, because ἀχέειν
there governs the same accusative as πυθέσθαι.
α
ا,
῎Αωρτο ; vid. ἀνήνοθεν, &c.
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν.
τος
1. The lexicons acknowledge two forms of this word, Tò
ἄωτον and ὁ ἄωτος, of which they prefer the neuter, considering
the masculine only as 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 awToc and awro,
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, have
noted the masculine form as the special and particular one.
This opinion we must reverse, giving the precedence to awroc,
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
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν,
183
lexicons will mislead us. Does not every one suppose that
awтоc means a flower, or blossom, and that it is only a more
poetical word for ἄνθος? And yet it is not so.
Let us
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'. 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 anything; 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-
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. 1, 73., Brunck.
Anal. 1, 141., Simonid. 70. or 76.) where, speaking of being
crowned with garlands, it is said pódwr dúroic, which has been
translated rosarum floribus in an edition of Callimachus, to
whom this epigram has been by mistake attributed. (See Blom-
field's Callim. Epig. 49.) It does not appear that any one has
been struck with this expression, being probably satisfied with
the translation rosarum floribus; but not so would have been
the poet, who intended, by the addition of awro, to exalt his
roses above all other roses, in the same way as Pindar marks
the superiority of certain heroes by the expression ἡρώων ἄωτοι,
ner.
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 awroç means the blossom in a meta-
phorical sense. If these persons mean to say that the proper
sense of awrog 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-
αω
. Τὸ φιλητὸν καὶ πολύχρηστον τῷ Πυδάρῳ ἄωτον, Eustath. ad Il. 1',
599.
184
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν.
(
ficiently refute, not only by the before-mentioned pódwv awτoic,
but, that no one may accuse us of arguing in a circle, by its
being joined with orepávov; as when Pindar, Ol. 9, 30. says,
ὅθεν (from Delphi and Olympia) στεφάνων ἄωτοι κλυτὰν Λο-
κρῶν ἐπαείροντι ματέρ᾽ ἀγλαόδενδρον. Though we can say,
in order to express the most excellent of its kind, the flower
of songs', 'the blossom of life', and so on, yet we cannot 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 sound and sense would be offended by the com-
mon meaning of the word being suggested to the mind by 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 awToc thought of a blossom, or of any meaning
beyond the proper one of the word as it existed at that time
in the language.
But if this be the case, neither is it a meta-
phor taken from the idea of a blossom or flower; for an ex-
pression becomes a metaphor only when the person who makes
use of it knows its proper meaning; and either from his own
imagination, or from following an idea introduced by some
other, he uses the word in its metaphorical sense.
mon explanation of the word awToc 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 not recognising
a figure which he really intended*. There is nothing, there-
fore, left for us but to suppose that the word did mean in the
The com-
Ma
* [Buttmann makes no mention of a passage of schylus in which
awτоv Occurs, Supp. 680.
Ηβας δ᾽ ἄνθος ἄδρεπτον
21
Έστω· μηδ᾽ ᾿Αφροδίτας
Εὐνάτωρ βροτολοιγὸς ῎Α-
-ρης κέρσειεν ἄωτον.
From wror following here so closely on äv0os, one can hardly avoid
thinking that the poet understood them as synonymous words, and in-
tended to keep up the same figure.--ED.]
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν.
185
oldest period of the language blossom or flower 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 can be 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 awTOG.
The first passage
where the word occurs in that poet is at Il. 1, 661. where the
damsels prepare a couch for Phoenix by spreading
Κώεά τε ῥῆγός τε λίνοιό τε λεπτὸν ἄωτον.
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 oiòc awroc, this expres-
sion is somewhat different; still it is such that when at Od. a,
443. where Telemachus sleeps κεκαλυμμένος οἰὸς ἀώτῳ, it is
understood to mean the softest wool, this also would agree very
well with the common usage of the word. But at Il. 1, 599.
and 716. the sling is called evoTpopoc oióc awTоc.
τροφος οἷός ἄωτος. 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:
. αὐτὰρ χερσὶν αώτου θεσπεσίοιο
Νωλεμέως στρεφθεὶς ἐχόμην τετληότι θυμῷ.
In explaining Ocoπéσio (see art. 66. sect. 5.) in this pas-
sage by divine, splendid, preeminently beautiful, it ought to be
remarked 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 awroc, as hitherto ex-
plained. Besides, it is clear that in all those passages the
thing meant was simply wool; and though some might still per-
severe in endeavouring to support the before-mentioned inter-
pretation, by saying that the wool intended by this expression
186
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν.
2
was 'the best and most excellent in the sheep',—or that, sup-
posing the existence of that reputed ancient meaning blossom or
flower, it was called by way of eminence 'the blossom of the
sheep', but that this poetical expression was become to a cer-
tain extent so completely Epic, that the poet used it with re-
ference to those common subjects without any poetical view,-
still even that interpretation is not applicable to this last pas-
sage; for if it were admitted, awToc 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
Wählte den stattlichsten Bock, der weit vorragte vor allen;
Diesen fasst' ich am Rücken, und unter den wolligen Bauch hin
Lag ich gekrümmt, und darauf in der wunderherrlichen Blüte
Hielt ich fest die Hände gedreht, ausdaurendes Herzens*.
τος
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 awToG. 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 Flockengekräusel, ‘in the
superb mat of wool'. "AwToç must necessarily have meant in
that more remote period, even in the common language, a lock
of wool, or collectively a fleece.
5. As soon as we have admitted this, it is hardly possible to
suppose that the first passage (Il. 1, 661.), Xívoto awτоc, 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, Τόσσον ἔην πάντη χρύσεον ἐφύπερθεν
awror. Callimachus, Theocritus, and others use it like Pindar.
33. "Αωτος, αωτεῖν.
187
poets used it, for the finest of linen. But by a more accurate
examination of it the truth now becomes self-evident. Λίνον
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-plant, for the flax pro-
duced from it, and for the thread and linen made of it, yet this
does not prevent λivoto awroc from being explained according
to the analogy of οἰὸς ἄωτος. 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 λívoro awτoc (floccus lini) means nothing more
than simply linen.
αυτοι
6. The meaning thus drawn from a comparison of passages
is confirmed by the etymology of the word which corresponds
with it most naturally. "AwToc is the Lat. floccus. As this is
derived from flo, so that comes from anu; and both mean the
light 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 awrog was used
to mean also the downy pile or nap of cloth, that delicate
λáxvn which constitutes the fineness and beauty of cloth, and
which proves its newness, as on the other hand defloccata
vestes in Latin are the same with detrita, 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 ἄωτος 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
33. ῎Αωτος, ἀωτεῖν.
Pindar used the word in many combinations which a literal
comparison with the original proper meaning does not allow.
πνον
πνου
8. Necessary as it appears to be to connect the verb awτεîv
immediately with awroc, 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 "vov with it.
This favoured the explanation of the grammarians, áπavoilew.
But it is to be hoped that it will not give any fresh encou-
ragement to the explaining of the word ἄωτος by ἄνθος, 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, Il. k, 159. Tí návɣov vπvov аwтeîc; and Od.
κ, 548. Μηκέτι νῦν εὕδοντες ἀωτεῖτε γλυκὺν ὕπνον. On the
contrary, some might perhaps be satisfied with my interpreta-
tion, if I were to suppose that the verb awreîv expresses more
briefly the same meaning as the passage of Od. a, 443., where
Telemachus sleeps wrapped up, oiòc awry. But neither is it
consistent with analogy to form a verb thus for such a mean-
ing as this, nor would it, when joined with the accusative
Üπvov, give us a just and correct sense. On the other hand it
was long ago proposed to leave the word awroc out of the
question, and to derive the word immediately from aw in the
sense of to sleep, as we find that sense in άeoav and iaúw. But
it is very much to be feared that such a repetition of the same
idea in εὕδοντες ἀωτεῖτε ὕπνον 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 evdew 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 awrev, which is a form lengthened
from the verb άew to increase its force, I doubt not that it
originally expressed by a poetical onomatopœa the idea only
of to snore; and then to sleep a snoring deep sleep; in which
ข
αω
C
"
αειν
-
34. Βλίττειν.
189
π
sense the accusative πvov was added to it, according to the
ὕπνο
usual Greek idiom, merely to have a substantive for avvý-
Xioc or yλukúc, the epithets used for defining what kind of sleep
it was.
Βέβρυχα; vid. βρόξαι.
34. Βλίττειν *.
1. In giving my opinion of the derivation of äußроTоc from
μópoc, ẞpoτóc, mors, mortalis, I had occasion to notice that
particular formation of language, according to which, espe-
cially in Greek, ẞp and ẞλ frequently come from u followed
by a vowel before p or λ. 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 still with this limita-
tion, I will here make some additions to what has been said in
the article on außporos, and endeavour to give a more satis-
factory detail of what may have been mentioned there too
briefly.
K
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 properly be applied. This certainty is
evident without further proofs from that one instance (resting
on firm historical grounds) of ẞlúokw, which bears the same
relation to μολεῖν as θρώσκω to θορεῖν, and which possesses,
besides, a middle point of support (not, indeed, that such a one
is wanted,) in μέμβλωκα. The case of μόρος, ἄμβροτος, βρο-
Tóc, 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
* [Originally written as a supplement to article 15. sect. 9.-ED.]
190
34. Βλίττειν,
..
and weight. Every linguist knows well that the ramification
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 Beßpaué-
vwv explained by eiuapuévwv, the connexion of which two forms
is supported by the glosses ῎Εμβρεται and ᾿Εμβραμένη for eΐ-
μαρται, εἱμαρμένη. 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
another form actually occurring in some writer, the analogy
of which was not evident; these, on the other hand, lead to no-
thing of the sort, nay, they rather deviate from the usual gram-
matical analogy. We may therefore take it for certain, that
instead of eμaptai, or, as required by the prevailing analogy,
μέμαρται, certain dialects had also βέβραται and ἔμβραται; this
last for ἔμμαρται, to which we are led by the analogy of ἔμ-
μopa; and here then we have again the same metathesis and
its consequences. At the same time, these forms support the
case of μópoc and ẞporóc particularly and immediately, since
those, as well as these, take their origin from the same idea of
fate, and the same root μeipw. I will only mention the case of
μάρπτω and βράψαι (Hesych. Βράψαι, συλλαβεῖν), which
strikingly agrees in analogy with the others. For further
particulars I refer to Schneider's Lexicon * and the notes in
Hesychius.
4. With the gloss Bλeî Hesychius has the explanations
βλίσσει, ἀμέλγει, βαδίζει. Of the first two we will proceed to
* [The following is an extract from Schneider's Lexicon :
ω,
Μάρπω and μάρπτω, poet. the same as συλλαμβάνω, &c., &c. The
root is μánw, whence in Hesiod. Scut. 231. and 251. μatéeiv and μe-
με-
μάποιεν. Thence βράψαι˙ συλλαβεῖν, ἀναλῶσαι, κρύψαι, θηρεῦσαι,
Hesych.Ἔβραπτεν· ἔκρυψεν, ἔσφυξεν. Again, ἔβραψεν· ἔκρυψεν,
ἔπιεν, κατέφαγεν; from βράπτειν· ἐσθίειν, κρύπτειν, ἀφανίζειν. τῷ στό-
ματι ἕλκειν, ἢ στενάζειν, Hesych.—The last explanation appears to refer
to βράζειν. As from μολίσκω has been made βλώσκω, and from ἥμαρτον
ἤμβροτον, so from μάρπτω has been formed βάρπτω, by metathesis βρά-
πτω. Perhaps to these belong βρακεῖν, βρακείς, συνιέναι, συνιείς, He-
sych. (like øvλλaµßáveir, comprehendere, 'to comprehend',) from ßpáknu,
which again is derived from ßeßрaка.—Ev.]
αμ
ܕ
34. Βλίττειν.
191
speak by and by. Against the last have been made sundry
uncritical attacks. We must however adhere firmly to every
word against which suspicion has been raised without any
traceable grounds. A very slight acquaintance with Hesy-
chius 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 mean-
ings, he puts them down without hesitation, one after the other.
Let us then look at Bλeî, Badilei, as a particular Hesychian
gloss. What reason can we have for rejecting the comparison
of this word with μodev? One thing we do find,—and it
enables us to prove the connexion more accurately and cer-
tainly, which is, that in the contraction of μoλeîv to Bλeî
there remains no trace of the o; by which, therefore, the case
is somewhat different from that of ẞλwokw and the grand ana-
logy belonging to it. But let us recollect that by the change
of vowel the verbal form µodeîv probably belongs to a root
with e €; and then we are met immediately by uéλdew, 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 uéλw,
μέλω,
μéλei μoi 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*. If then Hesychius gives us from some of the dialects
βλεῖν in the sense of βαδίζειν, who would wish to separate it
from such a word as this μέλω, μέλλω, to which it bears the
same relation as κλέω, κλείω does to the known root κέλω? But
this uede corresponds quite as well in its common meaning
also with the analogy previously laid down here; in as much
as, beside the Homeric µéµßλerai, there were in the dialects
also forms with a simple ẞ: for instance, in Hesych. Béßλeo0ai,
μέλλειν, φροντίζειν. Βέβλειν, μέλλειν: in both which glosses
I have no hesitation in approving of the correction uéλew.
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 cœur.-ED.]
192
34. Βλίττει.
y
ΤΟ
ΤΟ
I have elsewhere declared myself favourable to that opinion
which connects βλίττειν, to take the honey from the live, with
μέλι. Βλίσαι, τὸ τὰ κηρία θλῖψαι τῶν μελισσῶν, ἀπὸ τοῦ
μέλι, μελίζω. Εtym. Μ. Βλίττειν, τὸ ἀφαιρεῖν τὸ μέλι ἀπὸ
τῶν κηρίων. (and) Βλίσαι, καπνίσαι μελίσσας καὶ ἐξελάσαι τῶν
σμηνῶν, ὑπὲρ τοῦ τὸ μέλι τρυγῆσαι. Hesych. Hence it is plain,
that in whatever way the ancients took their honey from the
hive, it was called βλίττειν, which might be a very good ground
for the opinion so decidedly given, that βλίττειν comes from μέλι.
Notwithstanding this, however, I by no means despise or reject.
the other opinion, which may be found in Schneider's* and in
Riemer's Greek and German Lexicons, that BλITTE comes
from a more simple root, with the idea of to handle, to press or
squeeze out. Βλεῖ· βλίσσει, ἀμέλγει, Ηesych. Βλίττειν ἐστὶ
τὸ ἀφαιρεῖν τὸ μέλι ἀπὸ τῶν κηρίων. καὶ πειράζειν, καὶ τὸ ψη-
λαφᾷν, καὶ τὸ ἐκπιέζειν, τὰ κηρία τῶν μελισσῶν θλίβειν. Schol.
Aristoph. Equ. 794. Το which we may add the verb βλιμά-
ζειν, 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 βλίτ-
τειν (see Etym. M. and Suid. in v.) I am not yet willing to
admit as certain. If then we see the word βλίττειν, with the
meaning of to milk, thus brought to one common fundamental
idea, it is worthy of remark, that here again also we are met
by the root ΜΕΛ in μέλγειν, ‘to milk', mulgere, and that in ad-
dition 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, that we abstain as
much as possible from pronouncing precisely or 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 βλίττω,
Some derive it from μέλι, μελίττω, as βλάξ from μαλακός, and βλώσκω
from μόλω. Again Βλίω, i. q. βλίζω, and βλίσσω, another form of
βλάω, βλέω, and βλύω. As βλύζω, βλύσσω is the same with φλύζω,
φλύσσω, so does βλίω, βλίζω, βλίσσω differ from φλίω, φλίβω, θλίβω
only by the aspirate and dialect; its original meaning therefore is to
squeeze, press, suck, milk.-ED.]
34. Βλίττει.
193
be allowed to derive the more general ideas of to stroke, stroke
down, 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 ẞAiTTEw from µéλi. 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 MEAIQ, with the idea of 'to stroke down', 'handle',
palpare, mulcere, with which are connected the German and
English adjective mild, and μείλιχος, with the verb μειλίσσειν,
Æschyl. μediooew. The physical idea of the word passed
over on the one side into the form µédyw, melken, ‘to milk',
whence the German adjective melk, Engl. 'milch', and the
German substantive Milch, Engl. '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 μéli. These two words are
μέλι.
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
ΒΛ; whence βλεῖν, βλίττειν, and βλιμᾷν; and so it remains
undecided whether the word ẞairTw comes from the root im-
mediately, or through μéλ. The connexion of ẞλírov with
uéλɩ, arising perhaps from the idea of sweetness, is supported
by a trifling analogy¹.
6. As little reason have we to be afraid of supporting the
derivation of βλάξ from μαλακός; particularly as we must first
presuppose the verbal stem from which ẞλáğ taken by itself
would come; for the form Βλάζειν, μωραίνειν in Hesychius
comes, according to all analogy, at once from Bλáğ. As a
confirmation of which we may adduce the quantity (Tòv ßdâka),
1 BXirov, the potherb called arach or orach, the Atriplex of Linnæus,
is called in German Melde. Compare also Hesych. Melíria, Tà ẞiTTα,
which has been already amended by others to Bλira; for it is evident
that the explanation there given must have been a word in common and
familiar use.
0
194
35. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
which in the case of Bioat is done away. In the Ionic form
the word would have taken an n, as θράσσω, τέτρηχα (see
art. 100. sect. 3.); and thus we may also add the word Bλn-
Xpóc, weak, connected with it much in the same way as Bλw-
θρός is with βλώσκω. But the present case leads us still further
by means of the Homeric aßλnxpóc, in which the a has been
long since acknowledged to be not intensive, but without any
signification, exactly as the stem from which uaλakóc springs
has such an a in auaλóc, weak, tender, (apva, Il. x, 310. yé-
povтa, Eurip. Heracl. 75.) a word certainly in meaning natu-
rally connected with aßλnxpóc, and not less in orthography
also; for ἄμαλος, ἀβληχρός may be very well compared with
ἁμαρτεῖν, ἀβροτάζειν.
ἀβληχρός,
35. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
1. Of these two verbs éléλw 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, consequently a desire of something the exe-
cution of which is in one's own power, or at least appears to be
so; on the other hand Bouλoua 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 marked particu-
larly. Hence it expresses a readiness and willingness to sub-
mit to that which does not exactly depend on oneself, as at
Il. ω, 226. εἰ δέ μοι αἶσα Τεθνάμεναι παρὰ νηυσὶν ᾿Αχαιών χαλ-
κοχιτώνων, Βούλομαι (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. o, 21. Κείνου βούλεται οἶκον ὀφέλλειν, ὅς κεν ὀπυίοι.
And of a mere wish or desire, Il. o, 51. kai ei µáλa Bovλerai
μάλα βούλεται
ἄλλῃ.
ει
ει
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 éléλew (Il. n, 364.
πάντ᾽ ἐθέλω δόμεναι. ι, 120. ἂψ ἐθέλω ἀρέσαι, &c.), βούλομαι
is used in this sense of the Gods only; e. g. Il. a, 67. Ai kév
35. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
195
πως...Βούλεται ἀντιάσας ἡμῖν ἀπὸ λοιγὸν ἀμῦναι; and more
frequently thus, ῞Εκτορι ἐβούλετο κῦδος ὀρέξαι, Τρώεσσι δὲ
BoúλeTo viкny, &c. (Il. n, 21. μ, 174. w, 39. Od. 8, 275.
See also II. A, 319., where the older editions had ééλet. 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 particularly 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 Bouλouar, it is used, without any other word joined
with it, to express that beside the wish there is a preference
of one thing to another. In short βούλομαι, but never ἐθέλω,
stands singly in Homer for 'to prefer', malle, and that when
speaking of an active as well as of a passive wish. The passages
where it is followed by " are frequent and well known, as Il.
n
a, 117., 594. Od. λ, 488. π, 106. But to these belong
also those passages where this sense is evident only from the
antithesis in the preceding sentence, as in Il. a, 112. èπеì πoλù
βούλομαι αὐτὴν Οἴκοι ἔχειν, and in the expression Καί κε τὸ
βουλοίμην, καί κεν πολὺ κέρδιον ἦεν.
ἐθέλειν and βούλεσθαι are plainly intended to stand in opposi-
tion to each other, as in Od. p, 226. οὐκ ἐθελήσει ῎Εργον
ἐποίχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ πτώσσων κατὰ δῆμον Βούλεται αἰτίζων βόσ-
Kew ηy yασтéρ' avaλтov, and so also 1, 95. This meaning of
Bouλeolar is easily overlooked, if one does not observe the an-
tithesis, as at Od. o, 88. Boúλoµai ndŋ veîolat, where it is not
a rude “I wish” (éléλw), but a friendly "I would rather now
return home,” in answer to the option left to him by Menelaus.
Compare likewise Od. π, 387. p, 187'.
In this case sometimes
4. On the contrary, it is peculiar to éléλew to be used with-
out any other word joined with it for dívaolaι, particularly
in the negation οὐκ ἐθέλει, as at Il. φ, 366. Οὐκ ἔθελε προ-
1 Βούλεσθαι 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; ἐξὸν ῥαθυμεῖν, βούλεται ποιεῖν.
In Alexander's Letter in Gellius 20, 5. it is followed by † : éyì dè ßov-
λοίμην ἂν ταῖς περὶ τὰ ἄριστα ἐμπειρίαις ἢ ταῖς δυνάμεσι διαφέρειν.
o 2
196
35. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
péeiv, àλλ' ïoxero, and in other passages. See Damm. Boú-
Aeolaι, in which, properly speaking, is contained the mere wish
or the being willing, in itself and by itself, cannot be so used;
but éléλew can very well, in as much as it never expresses the
wish of a person who is not convinced of the possibility of his
wish being gratified.
ον α
5. As for the rest, éléλew is, as we have said, the more
general expression, and hence it occurs also in cases where we
have seen Bouλeoðaι used; very frequently, for instance, of the
Gods, or to express a mere wish, as at Il. n, 182. 'Eğélope
Εξέθορε
κλῆρος κυνέης ὃν ἄρ᾽ ἤθελον αὐτοί. Βούλεσθαι, on the con-
trary, is limited to the cases above mentioned; to it belongs
exclusively the construction with ", and that with the bare
accusative, as Τρώεσσι δὲ βούλετο νίκην, in which manner ἐθέ-
Aw does not occur; for in the example quoted above from
Il. ŋ, the preceding verb éklopeîv is understood again after
ἤθελον.
6. In modern times the verb Bouλeo@at in its abridged form
βόλεται, βόλεσθε, was first admitted into Wolf's Homer. Το
scholars the question is now-a-days pretty clear (see Schneider's
Lexicon, and Heyne on Il. 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 “ Βόλομαι for βούλομαι, Ι1. λ, 319.
Od. a, 234. νῦν δ᾽ ἑτέρως ἐβόλοντο θεοί, where the usual reading is
ἐβάλοντο. Od. π, 387. βολεσθε. Τheocr. 28, 15. ἐβολλόμην. The
root is ẞów, the Lat. volo."—Ev.]
35. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
197
.
e;
nations even now, had only one sign, the o, to express the
sounds o, u*, ü. For the ü, however, there arose in very
early times a separate sign, by the use of a form of the
sister-consonant V or digamma-Y or v. The o therefore still
remained, 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
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 et,
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 all 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 w, 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 ü, a sign was formed by the union of o and v placed side by
e
* [The German sound of u is like our o in do, or the oo in boot, and
the ù or й is exactly the French u.
u
The reader should bear in mind
that wherever in the following remarks (for instance in p. 199, note 4.)
mention is made of the sound of this letter, the German pronunciation
of it, not the English, is intended.-ED.]
† [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. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
e
side, or the one above the other thus, ov or 8; exactly as in
some of the modern languages, the German for instance, they
write a or å 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 ou 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 å and ɛ.
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. But one thing we discover from
the metre, namely, that whereas ou is no true diphthong, but
only a long vowel, a case occurred in the older poetry of the
quantity of a certain word not being fixed; and, therefore, as
we find καλός and καλός, ξηρός and ξερός, so we find also
Bouλeolar with the first syllable short. In the oldest manu-
scripts of Homer ov, w, and o were all written with the o, and
the metre alone showed the difference of the quantity. When,
however, other copies were made according to a later mode of
writing, that verb was written, in all the common cases where
it occurred, Bouλeobat. More accurate copies might have re-
tained the reading Bóλeolar in the passages where the metre
required the first syllable to be short, but in all the others it
was written Bouλeolaι even then, and the other reading has
never come down to us in any of our copies.
In the passage
of Od. π, 387. the writing with ou, which is so visibly contrary
to the metre, has remained even to our times:
Εἰ δ᾽ ὑμῖν ὅδε μῦθος ἀφανδάνει, ἀλλὰ βούλεσθε
Αὐτόν τε ζώειν καὶ ἔχειν πατρώϊα πάντα·
Μή οἱ χρήματ᾽ ἔπειτα ἅλις θυμηδέ ἔδωμεν.
I give the passage at length, to show that Bouλeolaι 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. Βούλομαι, ἐθέλω.
199
metre, which was evidently corrupted, was the means of intro-
ducing an emendation. II. λ, 319.
ἐπεὶ νεφεληγερέτα Ζεὺς
Τρωσὶν δὴ ἐθέλει δοῦναι κράτος ἠέπερ ἡμῖν.
Here éléλew, contrary to the universal analogy of Homer, ap-
pears within the sense of malle. The best manuscripts have
the true reading Bouλera, and the Venetian scholiast on the
passage expressly explains it so; ἡ διπλῆ, ὅτι βόλεται ἀντὶ
τοῦ βούλεται. Here then we have another trace of the true
reading in those older and more accurate copies. And, lastly,
in Od. a, 234. the common reading is
Νῦν δ' ἑτέρως ἐβάλοντο θεοὶ κακὰ μητιόωντες,
but in the manuscripts and in the scholia the various readings
are ἐβόλοντο and ἐβούλοντο; and Hesychius has, evidently
with reference to this passage, the following gloss: 'Eẞóλovтo'
ἐβούλοντο, ἐβουλεύσαντο. Wolf, however, has retained here
the common reading, which, explain it as you will (see Steph.
Thes.), still remains without any satisfactory parallel example;
whilst éẞoúλovto, as spoken here of the gods, stands quite in
its proper sense, according to what has been said above, and
even the construction with the adverb may be illustrated by
II. ο, 51. καὶ εἰ μάλα βούλεται ἄλλῃ.
9. From all that has been said, I think 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*. And for this purpose I think it would be better if
we were to reserve the character 8 (which is every day less and
3
2 The observation of Macrobius in his work De Verbo Græco et La-
tino (p. 308. ed. Bip.) refers to this passage. He says that the letter o,
adjecta u, producitur, eademque retracta corripitur, Bouλerai Bóλerai,
τετράπους τέτραπος.”
CC
3 The explanation of it by μeréßaλor (see Schol.) is contrary to the
mid. voice, which can admit of only some such explanation as ẞáλλeobaι és
voûr, érì opeσí, &c.; an ellipsis which does not, however, occur elsewhere.
* This rule is naturally calculated only for us moderns. As to the
ancients, we cannot possibly know whether they always had for the o a
middle sound between our o and u, or whether they pronounced it in
some words more like o, in others more like u; or, lastly, whether the
sound of ŭ was really lost in the common language of Greece, and re-
mained only in the Eolic dialect and in such antiquated forms.
200
36. Βρόξαι, &c
less used as a substitute for ov) entirely for this case and such
other similar cases as we find in the more rare dialects and in
writing foreign names³.
36. Βρόξαι, βροχῆναι, βέβρυχα.
1. There are many verbal forms which, both in the letters
and partly also in the sense, come very near to the verb ßpé-
χειν, the vowel of which is so changeable,-βραχῆναι, βροχή,
Vπоẞρúxoc; 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 'Péreλo
occur: always however excepting those cases where constant usage has
already changed the Latin u into the Greek o or v, as in Púµvλos, Пó-
πλιος, &c. For the rest, it is easy to be seen that the Æolic 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
Alcæus, we must write not opary but sparų; and most probably the
instances of the Æolic v for o, which the grammarians have preserved,
like vμoros, övvμa, 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 vûv, oûs,
πeρ also,) like the Latin u, and, therefore, had both u and v (Æol. Y
and F) in common with the Latins. To corroborate what has been said
above of the short ov of the Æolians, we may add the express assertion
of the grammarians; for instance, Priscian. 1, 6. “Illi enim (the Æolians)
θουγάτηρ pro θυγάτηρ, ου corripientes, vel magis v sono u soliti sunt
pronunciare, ideoque ascribunt o, non ut diphthongum faciant, sed ut
sonum v Æolicum ostendant." And in Schol. ad Dionysii Thracis Gram-
maticam, p. 779. where it is expressly said of the o placed before the v
by the Bootians (τὸ ο τὸ προτιθέμενον παρὰ Βοιωτοῖς του υ), that it does
not alter the quantity, as they pronounce Kovves short, as the other
Greeks do κύνες.
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
201
the Homeric aorist ßpayev is distinguished from ẞpéxew not
only by the sense, as being a word formed from the sound of
the thing signified, like our crack, crash, &c., but also by form;
for this latter verb has no aor. 2. act., but only an aor. 2. pass.
βραχῆναι. Besides, as the a in βραχεῖν is not a changeable
vowel, but rather an essential part of the word, it is certain
that besides the stem or root BPEX-, whence ẞpaxirai, there
is a separate root BPAX-.
τα
2. 'Avaẞpoxév 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, Τοσσάχ᾽ ὕδωρ ἀπολέσκετ᾽ ἀναβροχέν: and the change
of vowel from e to o in the aor. 2. is not without example :
compare ἔμμορε. But a comparison of ἀναβροχέν with κατα-
βρόξειεν and ἀναβρόξειε will show us where the real connexion
lies. The passages where the two latter occur are these; Od. 8,
222. of the wondrous drug of Helen, Oc Tò Kатaßρóžeιev...,
'whoever swallows it down'; and u, 240., of Charybdis,
᾿Αλλ᾿ ὅτ᾽ ἀναβρόξειε θαλάσσης ἁλμυρὸν ὕδωρ, where it is sy-
nonymous with καταβρόξειεν, and opposed to ἐξεμέσειεν,
v. 237.; the meaning therefore is, "But when she has swal-
lowed up again the salt sea-water". Consequently the sense
of ὕδωρ ἀναβροχέν 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 BPOXQ. With this is connected the
substantive βρόχθος, and no less the word βροχός, a noose or
slip-knot; as in German Schlinge is 'a noose', and the verb
schlingen, which properly means 'to form into a noose', means
also 'to swallow': nor is there a total want of similarity between
the act of swallowing and that of drawing together a noose'.
ω
3. And, lastly, as to the stem or root BPYX-, I refer my
readers (as far as relates to ẞpúxo and ẞpúkw, to gnash the
teeth, bite, and eat,) to my note on Soph. Philoct. 745. The
poetic perf. ẞéßpuxa may, according to its form, belong to
1 Struve has quoted karaßpižaι from Apollonius Rhodius and Dio-
nysius Perieg. in the sense of swallowing up large objects.
202
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
βρύχω ; but it is strongly attracted toward βρυχάομαι, to roar
(as a lion, see Ammon. v. Owveîv, Aristoph. Ran. 823. to bel-
low, as a bull, Sophocl. Aj. 322.), by the striking analogy of
μυκάομαι and μηκάομαι, each of which has in the old language
of poetry just such a perfect with the same meaning, µéµvкa,
μέμηκα. Both verbs, βρύχω and βρυχάομαι, 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
BPYX-, although grammarians and lexicographers endeavour
to connect them together partially. Homer has the present
tense of neither verb, only the perfect Béßpuxa, and that, like
µéµvía and µéμnka, in the sense of the present, according to
the analogy given at length in the Ausführ. Sprachl. sect. 113.
obs. 13.* [See also Matthiæ's Greek Grammar, p. 505. obs. 3.
Blomf.] Homer uses this word three times, of the roaring of
waters, Il. p, 264. Od. e, 412. μ, 242. Now it is evident that
this meaning (to connect which with that of ẞpúxw 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, péλe means it goes to the heart, the Epic péµnde,
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 reiboμai, I be-
lieve, πέποιθα, I am confident, rely on; and so ἁνδάνω and ἕαδα, θάλλω
and τέθηλα, κήδομαι and κέκηδα, &c. Although in most of them the
difference cannot be made clear, at least to us and in our languages, as
in λέληθα, μέμηνα, πέφηνα, ἔολπα, δέδορκα, ὄδωδα, γέγηθα, κέχρημαι,
ἀλάλημαι (from ἀλάομαι), κεκοπώς; yet we can trace in many instances
that the perfect has, in addition to the meaning of the present, an ex-
pression of certainty and completeness. The application, however, of
all this to particular cases must be always left to private judgement, 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 κέκραγα, I cry out, λέλακα, κέκλαγγα, τέτριγα, βέ-
βρυχα (βρυχάομαι), μέμυκα (μυκάομαι), μέμηκα (μηκάομαι), so that the
real present of these seldom occurs.— -ED.]
.
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
203
has proved to a certainty by the collection of cognate verbs
which he has compared together under the article púw in his
Lexicon. Again, Homer uses ẞeßpvxúc, II. v, 393. π, 486. of
2 Only that Schneider in his Lexicon has not been careful enough to
separate expressly this word from ßpúxw, frendeo. Under the word
wpúw he places ẞpúxo among the forms which mean to roar or bellow,
because he refers Béßpuya back to that theme; and under the word
βρύχω he derives a verb βρύχομαι (probably instead of βέβρυχα), which
should mean the same as βρυχάομαι, from βρύχω, 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.
Вpúкw, Ew, to bite, bite in pieces, devour, swallow up, poet.; μе‹ρákιov
τὰ πάτρῳα βρύκει, Diphilus ap. Athen. p. 292. C. Ὅλα μέλη βρύκων ἂν
katarioɩ, Diod. Sic. lib. 16. Æl. h. a. 4, 34. 5, 3. In Nicand. Alex.
226. βρῦκον στόμα is the same as μεμυκὸς, the mouth shut close. It is
one and the same as βρώσκω, βροχθίζω, βιβρώσκω, and comes from βόρω,
Latin voro, 'to eat, bite, devour'; whence Bopáw, Bopéw, Bopów, thence
βοράσκω, contr. βρώσκω, βορόκω, βρόκω, fut. βρόξω, whence βρόχθος ;
again, ẞopúкw, contr. fpúkw, Jos. 16., the difference between which and
Bpúxo consists merely in the x, and the latter means particularly the
gnashing of the teeth in eating or otherwise.
ω
ω
Bouxw, -w, the same as ẞpúkw; but particularly, to strike the teeth
together, gnash the teeth with rage, impatience, &c. Thence ẞpúxoµai,
same as ẞpvxáoμaι. In Soph. Philoct. 745. the present reading is ẞpú-
κομαι instead of βρύχομαι. See also 'ωρύομαι.
But in the Supplement to Schneider's Lexicon ẞpúxw stands thus:
Βρύχω, -ξω, appears to be the same with or very near akin to βρύκω,
βρύχομαι, βρυχάομαι. In Homer it is used of the roar of dashing
waves, Il. p, 264. Od. µ, 242.
242. But at II. v, 393. and π, 486, keito
τανυσθεὶς Βεβρυχὼς is explained by dentibus frendens, ‘gnashing the
teeth'. Hesychius has from some similar passage explained ßeßpvxóres
by Ovμoporoûvres. Compare Apollon. Rhod. 2, 831. In Sophocl. Trach.
1072. ὥστε παρθένος βέβρυχα κλαίων, the schol. explain it by ἀναβόω,
to cry aloud. Kλatorrá μe rai ẞpvxwpevor, Alciphr. 1, 35. appears to
be an imitation of the preceding. In Philoct. 745. the old reading was
βρύχομαι, which Brunck has altered to βρύκομαι. Ωλετο βρυχθεὶς ἁλὶ,
Philippi Epig. 77. swallowed up in the sea, belongs to ẞpúkw. Archiæ
Epig. 12. Onkrov odóvra ßpúxwr, dentibus frendens. In Hippocr. p. 604,
21. oi odóvres ẞpúxovor, the teeth chatter in a shivering fit.
'Spów, wpvoμaι, expresses the cry, howling, or roaring of hungry dogs,
wolves, or lions. Opvor kūµa, Antipat. Sid. Epig. 8. 'Opúerai oidµa
Oaλáoons, Dionys. Per. 83. The Latin rugire fully expresses the mean-
ing of the Greek word, and comes, like rugere, ructare, from ¿púw,
ἐρύγω, ἐρεύγομαι, which last in its aorist is used also in the sense of to
اد
204
36. Βρύξαι, &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, Bpvxãolaι expresses to utter
any violent cry or scream, as Bpvxnoeic in Soph. Ed. T. 1265.,
èẞpvxâτo in Trach. 904., and ẞéßpuxe, 1072. By this in-
terpretation a uniformity of usage is preserved, not merely in
Homer but in general. Béßpvxa belongs, as far as the sense
goes, exclusively to Bpuxaola: in the sense of gnashing the
teeth only the pres. and imperf. ßpúxw, ëßpvxov 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 Il. p, 54.
Οἷον δὲ τρέφει ἔρνος ἀνὴρ ἐριθηλὲς ἐλαίης
Χώρῳ ἐν οἰοπόλῳ, ὅθ᾽ ἅλις ἀναβέβρυχεν ὕδωρ.
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, Il. v, 403. Theocr. 13, 58. For these are used also opúw, ¿púw,
ὠρύομαι; again, ὀρύγω, ὀρυγάνω. Hesychius has ὀρυγάνει, ἐρεύγεται;
again, δρύεται, ὑλακτεῖ, and ὄρυγμος for ὀρύγμενοs, i. e. ὀρυγώμενος, βρυ-
χώμενος. As from ἐρυγάω comes ἐρυγμάω, ἐρυγμαίνω, so from ὀρύγω
comes ὀρυγμάω; thence ὀρύμαδος and ὀρύμαγδος, a loud noise. The
words ὠρυγὴ, ὠρυγμὸς, and ὠρυθμός are evidently derived from the form
ὠρύγω ; and from this or from ὀρύγω is formed by contraction βρύχω,
βρυχάω.
In Passow's improved edition of Schneider ßpuɣáoμaι stands thus:
Βρυχάομαι (from βρύχω), or less frequently βρυχανάομαι, to roar, bel-
low, howl, Lat. rugire; as an expression of pain both in men and animals,
but properly of the lion, Lobeck's Sophocl. Aj. 320. And, generally,
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 herc others read βραυχανάσμαι οι βραυκανάομαι.--Εν.]
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
205
in finding any one explanation decisively convincing, I shall
give all the different views and opinions of those who have
treated of it, noting particularly those which are least tenable,
in order that they may be avoided in future.
5. And first, then, are we to suppose a third root BPYX-,
that is, a third of those similarly-sounding onomatopœas, with
the meaning of to spout forth like water? 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 ẞpūɣei, he gnashes his teeth, and ẞéßpuxe, he
roars, we should have to add Béßpuxe, it 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 o, as in kékoñα, TéтOKа; 2nd, the syllable after
the Attic reduplication, as in eλnλvða, áλýλıpa; and 3rd, the
Epic shortening of the ʼn into a found only in the participles
σεσαρυῖα, τεθαλυῖα, &c.,--these exceptions are so defined that
they make the rule appear only the more fixed, and ẞéßpuxa
is therefore a startling anomaly. The grammarians were not,
however, struck by this. Apollon. Lex. 'Avaßéßpuxe. tŵv
πεποιημένων διὰ μίμησιν, οἷον ἀναβέβηκε μετά τινος ἤχου. If
this explanation be received, we must suppose that the form
itself, not standing in need of any present tense in w, was formed
at once as it now stands, in imitation of the sound signified, a
perfect with a short syllable; Béßpuxev, it spouts forth.
6. Schneider in his Lexicon* mentions, secondly, the reading
* [In Schneider's Lexicon ávaßpúxo stands thus:
᾿Αναβρύχω, a word which occurs only in ἀναβέβρυχεν ὕδωρ, the water
issues forth, Il. p, 54., where others read -ẞéßpuкe from -ẞpúw, the same
as ȧvaßλów, to burst or issue forth, Ælian. v. h. 3, 43. Thus ρ and X
are changed in yλwoσapyos, -aλyos, and many others. Others have
read -βέβροχε, and explained it by ἀναπέπωκε, but without any suitable
meaning. The interpretation of Apollonius, ἀναβέβηκεν μετά τινος
"Xou, gives reason to suppose that he, with others, must have read -ßé-
Bpaxe, as Apollon. Rhod. evidently did, from his imitation of the pas-
sage, ἀνέβραχε διψάδος ὕδωρ, 1, 1147. I prefer the reading ἀναβέβρυχε,
and derive it from -βρύζω, the same as ἀναβλύζω. (The root is un-
doubtedly connected with βλύζω, βλύω, βρύω.)--Ep.]
206
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
(whether of one or of many manuscripts I know not;-Heyne
had it from a Moscow one,) βέβρυκεν, but he prefers βέβρυχε,
from βρύζω, which should be the same as βλύζω. Let us now
adopt this ẞéßpuкa, and it follows that this quantity, particu-
larly in Homer, who uses only a few perfects ending in -ka,
and all with a long vowel, like δέδυκα, βέβληκα, (see the
Ausführliche 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 ßpúw and
a verb Bauw, both in the sense of to shoot forth luxuriantly,
and properly used only of plants, as we do actually find ẞpúe
used only two verses below avaßéßpuxev in Homer; in other
writers it is found in the sense of to spout forth, like water or
any other fluid. Let us now suppose, with Schneider, a present
Bpulo: but then there is no ground for forming a perfect in -xa;
for βλύζω at least makes βλύσω, &c. And, lastly, neither βρύω
nor Bλuw has ever the thing shooting or spouting forth as its
subject, but the expression is always ßpúeiv ävleσi, üdati, &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.
w:
W
>/
7. Schneider gives, thirdly, avaßéßpaxev as an old reading,
but he forms this conjecture only from the expression μerá
TIVOC you in Apollon. Lex., and from a passage of Apollon.
Rhod. 1, 1147., which he considers an imitation of the pas-
sage in Homer; τότ᾽ ἀνέβραχε διψάδος αὕτως Ἐκ κορυφῆς
ἄλληκτον (that is to say ὕδωρ). 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 -ka with a
vowel preceding, as δέδυκα, βέβληκα, βέβρωκα, τεθάρσηκα, and these in
very limited number; of the impuris, however, we find the perf. 2. only.
Hence Homer has from κόπτω, κεκοπώς, while the Attics use κέκοφα. We
must not, however, overlook the 3. pl. perf. pass. in -paraι, -Xaraι, 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 dédoika and dédia stand side by side in this latter. So the
Dorians (Plut. Ages. 607. e.) used åкovka for the common άkýкoa.—
ED.]
-
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
207
having been a perf. Béßpăxe, the thing itself teaches us that
the grammarian meant by xóc Tic 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, un-
influenced by the other passage, the word Boaxev as express-
ing a rushing or bursting noise, which is exactly contrary to our
passage in Homer.
τα
τα
τα
8. There is, fourthly, an actual reading of Zenodotus ávaßé-
ẞpoxev, consequently an ancient one, which deserves our at-
tention. At first sight we might suppose this to be a fellow-
compound of the before-mentioned κaтaßpóğaι belonging to
the root BPOX-, and as кaтaßpóğat 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 karaẞpócai we saw
that ἀναβρόξαι and ἀναβροχέν meant just the contrary of to
throw up, and had essentially the same sense as кaтaßρóčaι,
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
Bpóğa, 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 ẞpéxew. It is true, indeed, that there is no other
instance of a perfect Béßpoxa; but then we must remember
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 reading.
Now as we can say with perfect correctness τὸ ὕδωρ βρέχει
Tǹv yîv, so an absolute or neuter use of the verb will appear
not unnatural, by which the poet might have said vdwp avaßé-
Bpoxer (the perf. in the sense of the present), 'water issues
forth and irrigates the land'.
ει
ΤΟ
9. Fifthly, a hint, though perhaps a slight one, in favour
of the common reading, avaßéßpuxev, may be drawn from the
Homeric expression vróßpvxa, under water, at Od. e, 319.
Τὸν δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὑπόβρυχα θῆκε πολὺν χρόνον, “it kept Ulysses a
208
36. Βρόξαι, &c.
α
long time under water". Some of the grammarians considered
the expression as an adverb: whence Aratus 426. said of a ves-
sel sinking, ὑπόβρυχα ναυτίλλονται. Others separated it, ὑπὸ
βρύχα: and thence Appian did not hesitate to use βρύχα as an
accusative case for the sea ἐς νεάτην φέρεται βρύχα, Halieut.
2, 588*. But the plain analogy of such expressions as TOV
μὲν ἀρίζηλον θῆκεν θεὸς and γυῖα δ᾽ ἔθηκεν ἐλαφρά shows that
Vπóßρuxa 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 ὑπόβρυχος ; but ὑποβρύχιος was
more in use, as in Homer's Hymns, in Herodotus, and elsewhere.
Now this word most indisputably comes from βρέχω : for βρέ-
Xeolaι is used of objects which are completely under water; for
example, in Xenoph. Anab. 4, 5, 2. diéßaivov ßреxúμеvоι πрòс
Tòv oμpadóv, “they passed through, being under water up to
τὸν ὀμφαλόν,
their middle". According to the more common analogy it would
therefore be vπóẞpoxoc, for which we have here, by a rather un-
usual change of vowel, ; with which may be compared ovoμa,
ἀνώνυμος, and, as a case exactly similar, ἀγείρω, ἀγορά, ἄγυρις,
ayupτns. 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 ßpéxw was
formed not only βέβροχα but βέβρυχα, the short vowel of
which, on this supposition, has nothing to startle or surprise
us. In these 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 those which are
more general, as εἰλήλουθα, ἑάφθη, ἐμνήμυκε, ἀπούρας, &c.
The various reading of Zenodotus, ávaßéßpoxer, comes then by
this supposition into a fresh and peculiar point of view. Be-
-
C
* [In Schneider's Lexicon we find these words explained in the fol-
lowing manner: "Yπóßрνxa, Od. e, 319. for vπоßpúxɩor, or it may be
“Ὑπόβρυχα,
read separately inò ßpúxa." Again, "Yoßpuxos, ô, i, under water;
βρύχα.
Deooaλíŋv yevéoðaι vñóßpvɣa, Herod. 7, 130. like Od. e, 319. used ad-
verbially. 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, "Bpú, ßpvxós, i, the deep, the depths of the sea," and he cites
as an example the passage of Oppian above mentioned.-ED.]
37. Δαΐφρων.
209
side the anomalous form Béßpuxa, which is come down to us
in 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 avaßéßpoxev of Zenodotus, so we now under-
stand avaẞéßpuxer also; and the variety of the reading is
therefore only a variety of the form.
10. We have found nothing, then, during our investigation
so fixed on historical grounds and so perfectly satisfactory as
to induce us to give it an unhesitating preference; and there
only remains to us, therefore, to make our choice between
three suppositions resting on general analogy: viz. the fourth,
dvaßéßpoxer, formed according to strict analogy, and supposed
to belong to the verb avaßpéxw, though the connexion is not
very plainly to be traced, nor is the authority of the reading
very strong; the fifth, ἀναβέβρυχεν, also from ἀναβρέχω, but
formed anomalously; the authority of the reading very great,
and with the analogy of vπóßρuxa; the first, the same reading,
avaßéßρuxev, without a derivation from any verb, but sup-
posed to be a word formed at once in the perfect from the
sound of the thing signified, it bursts or issues forth.
ὑπόβρυχ
37. Δαΐφρων.
1. The word Saippwv admits of a twofold derivation, one
from daic, the fight, according to which it would mean warlike;
the other from dañvai, 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, 356., where it is an epithet of the wife of Laer-
tes. We might possibly, therefore, be tempted to decide, with-
out further inquiry, that it must have this meaning everywhere
else. For, indeed, though it is indisputable that a simple word,
deriveable 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
P
210
37. Δαΐφρων.
meanings when used in the same situation, that is, as the epi-
thet of a person who is praised for some one quality which he
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
meaning of the poet.
2. But notwithstanding this it is impossible to deprive dai-
Opwv 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 Il. к, 402.
says to Dolon that he is aiming at a high prize, that is to say,
to get possession ἵππων Αἰακίδαο δαΐφρονος, or if at e, 181. a
Trojan, recognising Diomedes, says, Τυδείδῃ μιν ἔγωγε δαΐφρονι
πάντα ἐΐσκω· these passages are perfectly decisive that δαΐφρων
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, Σώκοιο δαΐφρονος ὄβριμον ἔγχος ῎Εξω τε χροὸς
ἕλκε. To these we may add also such combinations as the
often recurring δαΐφρονος, ἱπποδάμοιο.
3. The twofold sense of the epithet daïppwv 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 daïppwv 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 Ilia In
II. w, 325. in which book the word occurs but once, it is the
epithet of Priam's herald, Idæus; and in the Odyssey it is
37. Δαΐφρων.
211
given to the wife of Laertes, to the artificer Polybus, 0,
373., and to the unwarlike king Alcinous, 2, 256. 0, 8.13.
Again, when at Od. a, 48. Minerva says 'Aλλá µoi àµp' 'Odv-
᾿Αλλά μοι ἀμφ'
σῆϊ δαΐφρονι δαίεται ἦτορ Δυσμόρῳ, or when Penelope says
δ, 687. βίοτον κατακείρετε πολλὸν, Κτῆσιν Τηλεμάχοιο δαΐ-
Opovoc, it is evident at first sight that this simple fixed epithet
φρονος,
can mean nothing but that prudence which was the characteristic
of Ulysses, and so prominent a quality in the young Telema-
chus. And the same remark which we have made of δαΐφρο-
voc, inπodáμoro in the Iliad, will hold good with regard to the
frequently repeated δαΐφρονα, ποικιλομήτην in the Odyssey.
4. In all the first twenty-three books of the Iliad the epi-
thet 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 (1, 651. A, 197. o, 239.); but
Priam is also called elsewhere evμueding, 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 there 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. p, 16.); and
to these we might add without hesitation the otherwise quite
unknown suitor Polybus (, 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 fighting
to the last 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 might 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 Saippwv appears to have the
* [According to Passow's Lexicon the Hom. Hymn. Dem. follows the
usage of the Odyssey.-ED.]
P 2
212
38. Δέαται, δοάσσατο.
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
Saippwv 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 Eschyl. Theb. 920.
it is difficult to say: the poet has evidently asserted his lyric
rights in the use of it. The γόος is there called δαΐφρων, οὐ
piλoyalne: now if we look no further than these words, the
explanation which supposes the word compounded of Salew
Opévac appears very suitable and satisfactory enough, by which
it would mean heart-rending. But this will not consist with daik-
τήρ preceding it :
δαϊκτὴρ γόος
Αὐτόστονος, αὐτοπήμων,
Δαΐφρων, οὐ φιλογαθής,
Δακρυχέων ἐκ φρενός, &c.
Hence I think that Eschylus compounds the word as it is in
the Iliad. And as in the expression où piloya0nc there is a
kind of personification, so it appears to me that it may be said
in the same way of γόος, (which οὐ φιλεῖ τὴν γηθοσύνην, as
being contrary to it,) that it φιλεῖ οι φρονεῖ τὴν δαΐδα, as sup-
plying it with nourishment.
ου
38. Δέαται, δοάσσατο.
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,
Ὧδε δέ οἱ φρονέοντι δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι.
For example at Il. v, 458. Od. e, 474. Now though the de-
rivation of doáσoaobat might have been totally unknown, (and
such has been the case from the time that attempts were first
made to explain Homer,) though no one might ever have
tried or expected to find it out, still every one has been
quite certain of the meaning of the word, and of the sense of
では​また
​38. Δέαται, δοάσσατο.
213
$
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 doássaro meant it seemed, edočev. Who-
ever then, considering this as a well-known fact, began to exa-
mine the word, could have been only in danger of mistaking
the etymology; the meaning of the poet would have remained
uninjured. In tracing its derivation the verb doketv would
naturally present itself; for a κ too much or too little can
be no obstruction to the affinity of two words: and thus the
scholiast on Il. v, 458. produces a perfectly harmless de-
rivation.
2. Not so however those who start from apparent etymology.
Aon is a doubt; èv dom eîvai, to be in doubt, is a Homeric ex-
pression (Il. 1, 230.), and évdoiáleiv, to doubt, formed from it, is
found in Thucydides. Now as all the passages in question.
spoke of a state of doubt, there was ample room for a super-
ficial opinion; a simple verb doiálw 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, doάooaro must
mean he doubted within himself. But in all the passages in
question the doubt lies in the former part of the sentence, and
is generally detailed most circumstantially, as for instance in
II. v, 458.
Δηΐφοβος δὲ διάνδιχα μερμήριξεν,
Η τινά που Τρώων ἑταρίσσαιτο μεγαθύμων,
*Αψ ἀναχωρήσας· ἢ πειρήσαιτο καὶ οἶος.
Ὧδε δέ οἱ φρονέοντι δοάσσατο κέρδιον εἶναι
Βῆναι ἐπ᾽ Αἰνείαν·
Now in this passage how is it possible to carry on the idea of
the doubt to the latter part of the sentence? 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 quæ nobis meliora videntur, talia fere sunt in
quibus tuto pedem nondum liceat figere," &c. (Valck. loc. cit.)
214
38. Δέαται, δοάσσατο.
A most cautious and qualified expression this, by which the
verse, ten times repeated in both poems, gains nothing.
απ
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 dotáLeoke ẞovλác of a person still unde-
cided, and doiálovтo devoσeiv (4, 576.), they thought they
saw (distant and indistinct objects); but also OTTÓTе SOÛTоV
...doάooal, 3, 955., when she perceived, that is, thought
she heard a sound, and lastly, 3, 770., the very plain ex-
pression ἑζομένη δοάσσατο, she sat in doubt and indecision.
But our critical knowledge teaches us not to consider every-
thing which we read in Greek authors as the usage of the Greek
language. Δοιάζω * was certainly never in use, and ἐνδοιάζω
is no legitimate compound, but a verb formed from the expres-
sion ev do. Apollonius however thought, and not without
reason, that as a poet he might form such a word as doiálw.
But then came in the feeling of the grammarian. Looking on
the impersonal Homeric SoáσoaTo as the very same verb, he
thought himself justified in abbreviating his personal verb docá-
Lew in the same manner. Still, however, one sees how much
even this grammarian-poet felt himself restricted by an ear ac-
customed to Homer. He only uses in that way the aorist
δοάσσαι; he would never have ventured upon δοάζειν. In
Virgil's imitation, too, Æn. 11, 550., "omnia secum Versanti
subito, vix hæc sententia sedit," the vix appears to me to be an
endeavour to introduce, as well as his poetical feeling would
allow, the expression don, which some interpreters had sup-
posed to exist in doάoσato; an attempt exactly similar to that
of Voss in his translation, "This determination appeared at last
to him doubting to be the best." In these expressions the
doubt is carried on to the very brink of the resolution; which
cannot be the meaning of δοάσσατο, if it be formed from δοιή.
* [Both Schneider in his Lexicon, and Passow in his improved edition
of it, admit doiálw. 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 dotáčeσke, Ap. Rh. 3, 819.,
of the middle, doiášovтo, 4, 576.—Ev.]
-
38. Δέαται, δοάσσατο.
215
4. The only passage where this aorist occurs, except in the
above oft-repeated verse of Homer, should have sufficed to
prove that don has no connexion with doáoσaro. Nestor ad-
vises his son in the chariot-race to keep the left horse so near
to the stone which marked out the course,
Ὡς ἄν σοι πλήμνη γε δοάσσεται ἄκρον ἱκέσθαι,
"that the nave of your wheel may appear to touch the edge
of it.” Δοάσσεται (for -ηται) the scholiast explains by φαντα-
σθῇ, νομισθῇ;
on, voμion; and correctly so. There is here an appearance;
whence doğy 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 Soáσoato 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 disco-
very of the meaning.
5. With this aorist was joined, in all the editions before
Wolf, an imperfect form, as found in Od. “, 242., where Nau-
sicaa says to her attendants, of Ulysses beautified by the di-
vine aid of Minerva,
Πρόσθεν μὲν γὰρ δή μοι ἀεικέλιος δόατ᾽ εἶναι,
Νῦν δὲ θεοῖσιν ἔοικε.
.-
•
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 expressed 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 doaro refers to the time when he appeared to be,
and really was, άeikéλiog. 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 dóaro; but the best manuscripts and the oldest
216
35. Δέαται, διάσσατο.
editions, the Aldine for instance, have Séaro*; 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, Δέαται· φαίνεται, δοκεῖ. Δεάμην· ἐδοκίμαζον,
ἐδόξαζον. And lastly the Etym. M. has, under déara, this
very passage of Homer with the reading of déaтo. No old
lexicographer has the form dóaro. That it was introduced
δόατο.
as a various reading through the existence of doάoσato, and
that, as soon as it was so introduced, déaraι was put in the
background as a corrupt reading, were necessary conse-
quences of each other. But there was another consequence as
necessary, that modern criticism should again bring forward.
the only authenticated reading, whatever the grounds for its
authenticity might be. The derivation of this déarai, in the
Etym. M. and in the scholium, from Saw dédauai', serves only
to confirm the opinion that déaro was the reading recog-
nised by the grammarians, and that they never once connected.
this word with δοάσσατο. We however, even before we pro-
ceed to their etymology, do connect them together, because
the change of vowel between e and o is very common, and strict
regularity in these changes is not to be expected in the old lan-
guage.
6. I think now we must start from déaro: and thus the
* [Passow in his improved edition of Schneider's Greek and German
Lexicon has, "Aéaro' the only remains of an old verb déapai, to appear
or seem it occurs only in Od. 4, 242. åciréλios déar' eivai, he seemed
or appeared, &c. for édókel. Before Wolf, the common reading was
dóar' eivai. Buttmann in his Lexilogus derives it," &c. Schneider
formed both δοάσσατο and δώατο from δοάζω, for δοιάζω, to doubt. Pas-
sow in his first edition of Schneider formed doáoσaro in the same way;
but in his fourth and last edition he has struck out doάw entirely, and
says that there can be no doubt of the true derivation being from do-
keìv, for which he refers to Buttmann's Lexilogus. He also follows
Wolf in rejecting dóaro without hesitation.-ED.]
,
The evident corruption in the Milan scholium, kai yiverai àñò toû
δέω δεύω, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ δεύσω δέδαμαι, is, by a comparison of it with the
Etym.M., doubtless to be corrected thus, κ. γ. ἀπὸ τοῦ δαίω δάω, καὶ ε.α.
δάσω δέδαμαι. The Etym. explains this δαίω by καίω. As it is incon-
ceivable how any one could get from this idea to that of doɛeî, 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 δαίω, δάω, δέδαα.
ऑर्केटको
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
217
derivation from daw I find very reasonable; which I trace thus.
No doubt the verb δέδαα, δαῆναι begins like εἰδέναι, from the
idea of to see, discern, know. This granted, it is very proba-
ble that there was an old verb Saarai, videtur, from which ac-
cording to analogy (for example, uváa µvéa, péa for PAA,
θεάομαι from θάω) cane δέαται, 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 laάoow, which will be found examined in its proper
place, and to which therefore I refer.
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
"
"
ทุ
η
ทุ
1. The lexicons give us a very correct view of the exact
meaning of deiλn, 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 Il. φ, 111. ῎Εσσεται ἢ ἠὼς ἢ δείλη ἢ μέσον ἦμαρ,
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 deiλn is placed between
μεσημβρία and ἑσπέρα. 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 dein is mentioned unconnectedly, and the series of events
which followed shows that it must have meant the early part of
the afternoon. Thus in Anab. 1,8,8. (Sturz. 5.). Kai nồn Te v
μέσον ἡμέρας καὶ οὔπω καταφανεῖς ἦσαν οἱ πολέμιοι· ἡνίκα δὲ
,
218
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
δείλη ἐγένετο, ἐφάνη κονιορτὸς, κ.τ.λ., 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 10. (Sturz. 4, 5.),
where Seuthes speaks of some villages not too far off for them
to take their dinner (äpioTov) with ease, and immediately af-
terwards their arrival there is described as happening The deiλne,
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,
The deiλng, they took dinner. And the same usage of the word
is found also in Herodotus 9, 101., where he says that the
battle of Platæa took place πρωΐ ἔτι τῆς ἡμέρης, that of My-
cale περὶ δείλην.
.
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 defining the exact
sense of the word; as in Xenophon 3, 4, 34. (Sturz. 21.)
4, 2, 1. For since deiλn, 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 Xenophon ever have expected, that when he wrote, in the
Anab. 3, 3, 11.(Sturz. 8.), ὥστε τῆς ἡμέρας ὅλης διῆλθον οὐ
πλέον πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι σταδίων, ἄλλα δείλης ἀφίκοντο εἰς τὰς
kwμac, he should be understood to have meant by deiλn the
evening. He may have 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 whole day it had
advanced only two miles and a half, and had arrived in the af-
ternoon at a certain point; and as the context shows that the
time meant was one drawing toward the evening, the word
Sein 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
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
219
follows that it must be used, if not in opposition to, at least to
mark distinctly a time different from, the evening'.
บ
3. In the later times of the language, however, the usage
did certainly exist of employing deiλn 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 Eetes thus defines the ploughing of the dreadful
field and the combat with the earth-born men as a day's work,
Πέριος ζεύγνυμι βόας, καὶ δείελον ὥρην Παύομαι ἀμητοῖο: with
which we may compare the account of the actual performance
of the exploit by Jason, which at v. 1407. concludes with these
words, Ημαρ ἔδυ καὶ τῷ τετελεσμένος ἦεν ἄεθλος. 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 deînvov is expressed by
τὸ δειλινὸν περιδινησόμεθα, and that in the mouth of a person
affecting the old Attic dialect. But certainly the use of Sei-
Avóc in this passage does not belong to the old Attic language,
but was a common expression of the language of Lucian's own
time, as is evident from the example of the same word in Jupit.
Trag. 15. ὡς περιπατήσαιμι τὸ δειλινὸν ἐν Κεραμεικῷ. It
is certain however that this sense of the word Seiλn was as
early as Aristotle; for what is said of Zephyrus at Probl. 26,
35., πρὸς τὴν δείλην πνεῖ, πρωΐ δ᾽ οὔ, can be understood in no
ር
other sense than that it is a wind which rises toward sunset.
Compare Lucian. Dem. Enc. 31. θρασέως ἐξαναστάντας, εἶτα
πτήξαντας οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν, δίκην τῶν δειλινῶν πνευμάτων. 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 (Λέγε μοί ποτε νυκτὸς Ὄψιν), thus begins:
›
1 Hence we may judge how unsuitable the interpretations are which
Sturz has placed at the head of those passages that appear to mean the
advanced part of the afternoon, viz. tempus vespertinum, and still worse
crepusculum.
220
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
Δειλινὸν ὡς κατέδαρθον ἐν εἰναλίοισι πόνοισιν,
(Οὐκ ἦν μὰν πολύσιτος· ἐπεὶ δειπνεῦντες ἐν ὥρᾳ,
Εἰ μέμνῃ, τᾶς γαστρὸς ἐφειδόμεθ') εἶδον ἐμαυτὸν, &c.
Compare Apollon. 1, 1160. where the Argonauts early in the
morning have to contend with the winds, which ὑπὸ δείελον
ἠερέθοντο, that is, evidently, the evening before. Hesychius
says, v. δείελος: οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ἡ ἑσπέρα, δειλινὴ καὶ δείλη,
ὠνόμασται.
4. Among the old Attics however, and among the Ionians,
δείλη was always, as we have before said, the whole of the
afternoon; and consequently, if it were required to mark di-
stinctly the earlier or later part of it, it was necessary to add
πρωΐα or ὀψία. We find proofs of this both in the grammarians
and in different writers. Phot. v. πρωΐα : Δείλην πρωΐαν, τὸ
πρῶτον τῆς δείλης μέρος. Maris. Δείλης πρωΐας, τὸ μετὰ
ἕκτην ὥραν· δείλης ὀψίας, πρὸς ἑσπέραν. Thus we find δείλη
ὀψία used in Herodot. 7, 167. Thuc. 3, 74. Demosth. c.
Eubulid. p. 1301. penult., in which last passage later writers
2 Maris adds: κατ' ἰδίαν δὲ δείλης οὐ λέγουσιν ᾿Αττικοί· λέγεται δὲ
μόνον δείλης καθ᾿ ἑαυτὸ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν. This assertion that the
Attics did not use the word δείλην by itself, but that only the 'Ελληνες
or κοινοὶ did, is, as we have seen, properly speaking contrary to the
truth, and, indeed, it has no meaning; for the afternoon in general
must have been so called. What, however, Moris really intended to
say has been said more clearly by Thomas Mag., where, to his expla-
nation, quoted in the following section, he adds this, τὸ δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ δείλης
ὀψίας δείλης μόνον λέγειν, ἁπλῶς Ελληνικόν. But this assertion of
Thom. Mag. is again questionable, in as much as Xenophon uses δείλης
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 Moris are speaking of
the usage of the later times, in which deíλŋs by itself was used only of
the hours toward sunset. On the other hand, an assertion of Phryni-
chus, App. Soph. v. ἀκρατίσασθαι, p. 23., is in another respect less ac-
curate. Δείλην γὰρ, says he, καλοῦσιν οἱ ᾿Αττικοὶ τὸ περὶ τὴν ἐνάτην καὶ
δεκάτην ὥραν; by which, therefore, the earlier hours seem to have been
excluded. But, without doubt, Phrynichus is here speaking in opposition
to the later usage of the word, i. e. the using deiλn 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 Moris, with
mathematical accuracy, the time after twelve o'clock, or, as in that of
Phrynichus, the time about three or four o'clock.
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
221
would have said merely Tepi deiλny; for the voting is there re-
lated to have begun deiλnc ofiac, so that it became dusk before
they had finished. Aeiλn πρwia, also, in the sense given by the
grammarians is found in Herodot. 8, 6., where it is said that
barbarians, ἐπεί τε δὴ ἐς τὰς ᾿Αφέτας περὶ δείλην πρωΐην
γενομένην ἀπίκατο, 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 deiλn πρwia is a part of the afternoon. But
in the later times of the language there arose great confusion
in the meaning. The expression δείλη ὀψία (as well as δείλη
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. Ælian,
N. A. 1, 14. Alciphr. 3, 5. And in course of time we find
placed in opposition to this expression, under the name of deiλn
Tрwia, not the early part of the afternoon, but the morning.
In the lexicon of Timæus, however, in the explanation, ▲eiλnc
πρωΐας, τῇ πρὸ ἀρίστου ὥρᾳ. δείλης ὀψίας, τῇ πρὸ δείπνου,
there must be some error³. One may be easily conjectured
and amended from Hesychius, where we read the following
gloss, agreeing with the genuine usage of the word: Aeiλn
πρωΐα, ἡ μετ᾿ ἄριστον ὥρα. But both these explanations are
found together in Suidas: Δείλη ὀψία, ἡ περὶ δύσιν ἡλίου.
δείλη πρωΐα, ἡ πρὸ ἀρίστου ὥρα· ἢ μετὰ τὸ ἄριστον. And all
doubt, if any remained, would be removed by the still plainer
yet more startling gloss of Thom. Μag. Δείλης έῴας, καὶ δεί-
λης μεσημβρίας, καὶ δείλης ὀψίας, ᾿Αττικοί. Here the word
'ATTIKOί, 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
C
او
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 re-
marking that the one in which deiλýr πpwiŋy occurs is in truth, as we
have shown above; contrary to the explanation given by the gramma-
rian, and consequently was misunderstood by him.
222
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
writers of the later times; Synes. (ap. Steph. in v.) dúoavtec
λύσαντες
ἐκ Βενδιδείου πρὸ δείλης ἑῴας, μόλις ὑπὲρ μεσόυσαν ἡμέραν
παρηλλάξαμεν. Ach. Tat. 3, 2. περὶ γὰρ μεσημβρίαν δεί-
λην ὁ μὲν ἥλιος τελέως ἁρπάζεται (was completely obscured).
And to these may now be joined the expression Tepi deiλnv
Éσπéρav, 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 dein, and the name which marks the particular part
meant, as midday and evening, not added adjectively, as in ofía,
&c., but put in apposition; at which usage, and at Thom. Mag.
calling it, without further remark, Attic, I cannot but express
my surprise, as indeed I do also at this delλn éσrépa being at-
tributed, in another gloss by Suidas, to the Attics; Aeiλnc
πρωΐας καὶ δείλης ἑσπέρας. οὕτω λέγουσιν ᾿Αττικοί, Mean-
while, 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 deiλn, in the sense of the early
part of the afternoon, had disappeared, but the expression
deiλn ofía 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 be-
fore 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 belong, and whose language,-not indeed in the opi-
nion of Phrynichus and Moris, but certainly in the estimation
of Thomas Mag. and other quite late grammarians,—might have
very well passed for pure Attic.
T
ου
6. If now we go back again to the Epic use of the word,
we find in Homer, besides the before-mentioned Seiλn, the ex-
pression deleλov uap, which in Od. p, 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. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
223
suitors, is it said μένον δ᾽ ἐπὶ ἕσπερον ἐλθεῖν. Again, when
Hesiod (e, 808.) says of the eivac μéoon, i. e. the nineteenth day
of the moon, that it is emideleλa wïov uap, this is explained
by Moschopulus μετὰ τὴν μεσημβρίαν*; and beyond a doubt
correctly, for the comparative here evidently divides the day
into its two halves. But when at Il. p, 232. we read eloókev
ἔλθῃ Δείελος ὀψὲ δύων, σκιάσῃ δ᾽ ἐρίβωλον ἄρουραν, this is not
the Attic deiλn ofía, with which it has been compared, but by
the force of duwv the actual sunset or evening. The ofé 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."
66
7. From the epithet evdeleλoc 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 recognising his native island, inquires,
Η πού τις νήσων εὐδείελος, ἠέ τις ἀκτὴ
Κεῖτ᾽ ἁλὶ κεκλιμένη ἐριβώλακος ἠπείροιο ;
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 deíedoc 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 δῆλος, and its resolution into δέελος,
and imagine that it is an epithet particularly suited to islands,
as having a natural boundary; and lastly, others (see Eustath.
+ Tzetzes explains it even by rn μeonμßpig. Not that this deserves
any further consideration, than as showing how established the tradi-
tion was that the deieλos of the Epics meant some part of broad day,
for otherwise these late grammarians would never have thought of it.
224
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
ad 1, 21. p. 333, 5. compared with schol. ad B, 167. 1, 21.)
ß,
derive it from ev and edn, with 8 inserted; consequently, for
eveɩλoc, a word used by Theophrastus (see Schneider ad Hist.
Plant. 6, 8, 2.) in the sense of apricus, sunny".
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
used 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, Ol. 1, 178., as an epithet of the
Cronium Hill, and Py. 4, 136. of the plain of Iolchos, at which
passages the scholia give nothing new: in the Hymn to Apollo
it is said at v. 438.
Ἷξον δ' ἐς Κρίσην εὐδείελον ἀμπελόεσσαν.
Both plains, that of Crisa 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 Evdeieλoc
(compare what has been said in art. 8. sect. 9.), and which
had before it a plain running, in an almost similar manner, to-
ward the lake Copaïs. To such a situation, to most islands,
and to a hill, no idea can be more suitable than that of apricus,
'sunny'; at the same time it is an idea derived from that one of
all the explanations of the grammarians which has the least
etymological foundation; whence however it may be perhaps
concluded, that it was a meaning not of their own forming, but
handed down to, and so adopted by, them; as it is now, I be-
lieve, the meaning generally adopted. Nor would it be easy
to imagine any other single meaning which would suit all the
passages so well.
9. But whence is evdeíeloc to get this meaning? We have
nothing to do but to adopt the above-mentioned derivation
which the ancients have given of the word when taken in this
sense, and to treat it as we would any other of their etymolo-
gies which proceed from a mistaken principle. In this com-
This is also the derivation of those who explain the word by eйkpa-
TOS; see Etym. M. in voce. Schneider, by mistake, in his Lexicon
makes them derive it from evdía
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
225
pound the 8 is not inserted, but the composition ev-deleλoc
shows at once that deleλoc meant the heat of the sun. And if
we refer back to the fact, now we hope sufficiently well ascer-
tained, that deleλoc and Seiλn 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 δειέλη, δείλη bears the same reference to είλη, as διώκω
does to ιώκω, as δαήμων, δαίμων (Archilochus) to αἵμων, as δâ
(or yâ, yaîa) to aîa, and to these I subjoin, from long-settled
conviction, as dʼn to , the identity of which particles is further
confirmed in the forms ἐπειή, τίη, ὁτιή for ἐπειδή, τί δή, ὅτι δή'.
6
'
10. To the different points of investigation in this article
belongs also the verse of Od. n, 288. on account of a various
reading in it; 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 danμwr to be the original
idea of daiμwr, deity, spirit, however certain others may deem it.
7 What has hitherto kept in the background the really very obvious
remark, that dɛíλn is the old form for eïλn, is, perhaps, a dislike to the
derivation (so generally considered certain) of the word eiλn, or (what
is supposed, without any regular foundation for the supposition, to be
the radical sound,) eλn, from λos. Affinities of this kind have but
little certainty, and must give way to any other which may come re-
commended by stronger historical traces. The word en was indeed
used of the light of the sun; but its original and radical meaning was,
as its compounds and derivatives εἰληθερής, εἴλησις, εὔειλος, &c. show,
the sun's warmth. Hence it strikes me as a very natural derivation, to
deduce the word deieλos from daiw, 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 which have as strong
a similarity as this, and which would lead us off in very different direc-
tions, must not too easily lead us astray; for such words as deieλos,
εἵλη, ἀλέα, calor, καίω, δαίω, αὔω (to dry up), furnish etymologists
with probabilities only, not with certain conclusions, either positive by
their similarities, or negative by their difference. The forms deiλn,
deieλos, taken by themselves, appeared to offer an etymological con-
nexion with the verb deir, to be in want of; but this, too, we shall un-
hesitatingly dismiss, when we consider 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 of or deficient in.
Q
226
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
slept in the wood, and on his awaking had met with Nausicaa.
He relates it thus:
Ενθα μὲν ἐν φύλλοισι φίλον τετιημένος ἦτορ
Εὗδον παννύχιος καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἠῶ καὶ μέσον ἦμαρ,
Δύσετο τ᾽ ἠέλιος καί με γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἀνῆκεν.
Αμφιπόλους δ᾽ ἐπὶ θινὶ τεῆς ἐνόησα θυγατρός, &c.
As these words run, and according to the analogy of Aúcero
τ᾽ ἠέλιος, σκιόωντό τε πᾶσαι ἀγυιαί, they can only mean that
he waked at sunset. Now we find it circumstantially detailed
in the preceding book (Od. Z.), that the princess and her dam-
sels had already eaten and played, and were now on the point
of returning home with their garments washed (v. 110.) when
Ulysses came forward. It was therefore, as we should say,
evening, that is, the sun was fast approaching its setting. But
we know at the same time how many things passed after this
between Ulysses and Nausicaa, viz. his bathing, eating, &c.,
before they set out for the town; after which (as the poet re-
lates 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.
Δύσετο τ᾽ ἠέλιος καὶ τοὶ κλυτὸν ἄλσος ἵκοντο.
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 dúσETO
in the sense of an imperfect, πρὸς δυσμὰς ἀπέκλινεν, εἰς δύσιν
EKλiveTO: which however is quite contrary to the usage of the
Greek language, as édúσero and èẞnoero are always aorists;
see Buttmann's Ausführ. Sprachl. sect. 96. obs. 10., and
compare amongst an infinity of other passages where dúoero oc-
δύσετο
curs, I., 729. Od. p, 336. This, however, does not prevent
the aorist, in so common a formula as dúoero néλioc for the
evening, expressing a certain extension of time, and compre-
* [The passage referred to is too long to give entire; we extract the
following abridgement:
<<
Obs. 10. We have also the case where the aor. 2. takes the σ of the
1., of which the most complete instance is the common aorist ëπe-
σov, πeσeîr, &c. To this class belong all those forms which are com-
aor.
-
K
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
227
hending a short 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 (ŋ, 188.) really set in,
we reckon back to the moment of Ulysses awaking (4, 110.),
and consider how many things had happened in that space of
time, it is totally impossible that the poet-who, when speak-
ing in his own person of the arrival of Ulysses before the town
in the early part of the evening while it was still light, had said
Δύσετό τ᾽ ἠέλιος—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.
11. 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 ʼn, 288.
,
Δείλετό τ᾽ ἠέλιος, καί με γλυκὺς ὕπνος ἀνῆκεν.
T
It is singular that this reading should have disappeared from
monly considered as anomalous derivatives from the fut. 1., and which
we will collect here.
ἶξον, Epic aorist from ἵκω.
ἐβήσετο, imperat. βήσεο,
ἐδύσατο, imperat. δύσεο,
Epic aorists from βαίνω and δύνω
(or dúoμai) and synonymous with
the act. aor. ἔβην, ἔδυν.
λέξεο, ὄρσεο, ἀείσεο, ἄξετε, οἶσε, Epic aor. imperatives.
oioéμev, oioéμeval, Epic aor. infin.: see Il. Y, 120. Od. y, 429.
These imperatives are not examples of an imper. fut. but aorists; nor
is îžov 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 óµny and áµny, 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
In a word, the old language formed the aorist partly with, partly
without, the σ; and with regard to the termination, partly in ov, partly
in a, &c.; ἔτυπα, ἔτυπσα, ἔτυπον, ἔτυπσον. Usage established itself
(except in verbs with λ, u, v, p,) in favour of the terminations oa and or,
but still retained some remains of the formations in a and cor. And if
we meet with any tenses with the σ, which are neither futures nor
aorists, grammatical analysis may be permitted to derive them from
either the one or the other." (Buttm. Ausf. Sprach. 1. c.)—ED.]
σ.
Q 2
228
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &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, can refer only to this read-
ing; 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 con-
jecture, 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, this seems to me to look much more like every
other ancient critic than like him. I think myself therefore
justified in considering deiλero 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 mis-
taken 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, Εσσεται ἢ ἠὼς ἢ δείλη ἢ μέσον ἦμαρ:
and to this I have only to add that the verb deiλero, which
there are strong reasons for considering a mere derivative of
δείελος, δείλη, and which yet comes forward in the form of a
primitive, may be defended by θέρμετε, θέρμετο, by ὅπλεσθαι
from oλov, and by the contents of note 5. art. 106.
›
"1
ท
ทุ
n
* ["Atqui posterior ista vox (delλero) Homero prorsus inusitata.”
Clark.-ED.]
39. Δείλη, δείελος, &c.
229
12. Lastly, there comes from deieλoc an acknowledged ärač
eipnuévov, the verb deteλiñoat occurring at Od. p, 599. Eu-
mæus takes his leave of Telemachus to return into the country,
and concludes with a wish, to which the latter answers
*Εσσεται οὕτως, ἄττα. σὺ δ' ἔρχεο δειελιήσας.
Ἠῶθεν δ' ἰέναι καὶ ἄγειν ἱερήϊα καλά.
One part of the commentators understand the word of an in-
termediate meal between the morning and evening one; others
merely of passing the afternoon in any place; and these latter
appear to have been the prevailing party. These understand,
for instance, that Telemachus commands the old man, by the
words epɣeo deieλinoac, not to go until later in the day, ex-
plaining it thus: "Go, but not until you have spent the after-
noon 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, Eumæus eats and drinks and then departs during the
afternoon; v. 606. ἤδη γὰρ καὶ ἐπήλυθε δείελον ἦμαρ: on
which verse see above, sect. 6. Nothing can speak more de-
cisively 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, apioтov,
δεῖπνον, δόρπον, on account of the inaccurate manner in which
they were used; for aptorov is always the early meal or break-
fast, 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 Eusta-
thius and the scholiast, and which in a note on the latter I
have thus restored:
Δειελίην αἰτοῦσιν, ἄγουσι δὲ χεῖρας ἀπ᾽ ἔργου,
of workmen, who impudently require an intermediate meal
which was not customary. And in the instance in Homer it
230
40. Διάκτορος.
was very natural that Telemachus should invite Eumæus, who
was going home before the usual and proper time of the even-
ing meal, to take an afternoon's luncheon. The verse of Cal-
limachus, as confirmatory of this explanation, proves also thus
much, that the words deteλin and deteλiñoat are evidently con-
nected 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.
Δεῦτε ; vid. εὖτε.
40. Διάκτορος.
1. This epithet of Mercury is explained by the grammarians
in different ways, as may be seen in Eustath. ad Il. ß, 103.
and Od. a, 84., Etym. M. in v., Hesych. in v., Zonaras in v.
We will, however, notice here the only derivation which is
founded on correct principles, viz. that from diάyw: from which
is formed the verbal adjective diákTwp, and from its genitive
again a new nominative diákтopoc. 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. Μ. παρὰ τὸ κέαρ τῶν τετελευτηκότων κομίζειν, we are enabled to
correct this latter. Instead of τὸ κέαρ it should be τὸ τὰ κτέρεα, 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. π, 471. (p. 615.
Bas.) mentions that some explained the epµaîa or heaps of stones thus,
that Mercury first, οἷα κήρυξ καὶ διάκτορος καθήρας τὰς ὁδοὺς, had thrown
the stones aside out of the way, and that people now did so, ràs ôdovs
τῷ ῾Ερμῇ ὡς διακτόρῳ ἐκκαθαίροντες. It is evidently intended here to
connect the name diákropos with the verb kataipei, 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 diatopos
with the redundant, so others explained it with the redundant by
διάκωρος from κορεῖν, to sucer, whence also some have derived ζάκορος.
K
See below, note 4.
40. Διάκτορος.
231
with the manner of its formation. For as oc is a nominative
termination as well as c alone, or any other final letter of the
root, any word may be formed with the one as well as the other
termination, and inflected accordingly; as, for example, μáp-
τυρ οι μάρτυς and μάρτυρος, φύλαξ and φύλακος. As the
analogies of the formation of words were still less fixed, a
verbal adjective in Twp might end just as well in Topoc also.
The former was the regular analogy, but diákтopоc kept its
ground in the old metrical passages which have come down
to us.
α
2. But the verb itself was understood by the grammarians
as referring to two different things, some of them supposing
Mercury to be so called ἀπὸ τοῦ διάγειν τὰς ἀγγελίας, others
ἀπὸ τοῦ διάγειν τὰς ψυχάς. It is inconceivable why Hent-
sterhuys on Lucian. Contempl. 1. gave the preference to the
former, as diayev in such a sense is neither usual nor suitable,
nor sufficiently characteristic of Mercury; but in the general
sense of transportare, 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 Žuvdiákтopoc of Mercury.
And since the office of Mercury as a fʊуопоμлóс was one so
nearly connected with mankind, an epithet taken from thence
was a very natural one; and we may, therefore rest well sa-
tisfied with this explanation.
3. Notwithstanding this, 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 διάκτορος as of the same family with διάκονος, 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 diá and κóvic,
is not indeed favourable to the affinity of these two names:
but this derivation is certainly false, however strongly it may
seem to be supported by a comparison with the verb éykoveîv,
232
40. Διάκτορος.
to hasten. For if διάκονος and διακονεῖν were derived from διά,
it would be impossible that the a could be so decidedly long,
that the Ionians should say διήκονος, διηκονέειν. What then
is διάκονος? Like διάκτορος, from διάκτωρ, it is a variety from
diákov, 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 κοινών, used by good writers for κοινωνός. But such
substantives and names in wv very frequently come from parti-
ciples, as, for example, εικών from εἴκω, ἀηδών from ἀείδω,
αἴθων from αἴθω, &c. Διάκονος was originally therefore, in
my opinion, a participle of the same verb of which diákтwp is
the verbal substantive; consequently diákTwp does not come.
from διάγω, but from διάκω οι διήκω. But this latter, with
the same change of vowel as we have in Okoс and Oâкoc, in
τρώγω and τρήγω (ἔτραγον), in ῥήγω, ῥήγνυμι and ἔῤῥωγα,
ῥωγαλέος, &c., is the same as διώκω 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 Eschyl. 1, 13. p. 80.
That is to say, there is originally in diw and diwkw, 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
? 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
made the first syllable long, as in ἀθάνατος, and in διά itself (Διὰ μὲν
àσñídos, &c.); but prose would not have had anything to do with such
a change. The form dýkovos in Ionic prose ought to have been of it-
self sufficient to have at once done away with that derivation.
* [From Schneider's Greek and German Lexicon under diwkw I ex-
tract the following: "Without any case, as a neuter, it means to run
swiftly, σñovdaíws Oéw, according to Eustathius; for example, Spóμg
diwkeir, as opposed to êñeσ0αi ßádny, Xen. Anab. 6, 5, 25. (Sturz. 15.)
᾿Αναπηδήσαντες ἐδίωκον, 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. 4, 344. 424.; in Xen. of a horseman, to gallop off; and of a
footman, to run; but in all these instances we must understand iππоvs,
üppa, módas, as we find the expressions thus completed in other
writers."-ED.]
T
,
w
40. Διάκτορος.
233
3
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. Aiákovog, therefore, derived from this dike,
Διάκονος, διώκειν,
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 diákтоpoc, and so was an epithet well suited
to the messenger or herald of the gods.
9 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, as
the Homeric iwrn, iwyµós seem to me to put beyond a doubt. The
form diw took the additional idea of fear, which then became the pre-
vailing one in the forms δίομαι, δέδοικα, δεδίττομαι, properly to run from,
causatively to frighten away.
The same honourable meaning which diúkovos 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. daga, 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 diaкoveîv from diákoros. The etymologist,
who has not hitherto observed these affinities, must see in them a
strong argument in favour of what I have said on diákovos in a former
note: since, if this word were really compounded of diá, the striking
similarity between the Greek διάκονος, διακονεῖν, and the German Degen,
dienen, must be merely a delusion of chance. So far however is clear,
that both the German and Greek word come from the same root, which
is in Greek diwkw, in German now only jagen; which however, most pro-
bably, like the Greek iúkw, 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 Čáropos also is the
same as diákovos and diákтopos: nor is it any objection to this supposi-
tion to say, that the a in Zákopos 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 rewкópos,
a word of similar meaning, comes from Kopeiv, to brush, it will require a
great degree of force to twist Zakopos to anything like this idea, and
there is no trace of the existence of such a verb as diakopeîr. If on the
other hand, with reference to all that has been said above, we consider
234
40. Διάκτορος.
use.
4. There are still two observations with reference to the ac-
counts which the lexicons give us of this diákтopoc, which I do
not think it superfluous to mention; the first is, that in the
pure old poetry the name is never given but to Mercury, and,
further than that, is not used appellatively; the second is, that
the form diákTwp, although according to analogy it must be
considered as the groundwork of the other, was not in actual
Whatever 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 Aiákтoρσi, Ĥye-
μόσι, βασιλεῦσιν, 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 fol-
lowing epigram of Bianor from the Cephalanian Anthologia,
10, 101. (Jacob's Anth. vol. 2. p. 310.) on a cow ploughing
and followed by her calf.
Ἠνίδε καὶ χέρσου τὸ γεωτόμον ὅπλον ἐρέσσει,
Καὶ τὸν ὑπουθατίαν 5 μόσχον ἄγει δάμαλις,
Βούταν μὲν τρομέουσα διάκτορα, τὸν δὲ μένουσα
Νήπιον, ἀμφοτέρων εὔστοχα φειδομένα.
Ἴσχε᾽, ἀροτροδίαυλε πεδώρυχε, μηδὲ διώξῃς
Τὰν διπλοῖς ἔργοις διπλὰ βαρυνομέναν.
That so polished a poet as Bianor should have thus thrown
away on an animal an epithet exclusively applied to a god, is
the analogy of Zeus, Atós, Jovis; Diabolenus, Jabolenus, Zabolenus
(Salm. ad Jul. Capit. in Anton. Pio c. 12.); Jadera, Diadora, Zara
(Mannert, part 7. page 329.); díaıra, 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 Diæta) ;—if
we consider these and other similar analogies, it is difficult to look upon
ζάκορος in any other light than as another form of diákovos; 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 diákтopos
also from the imaginary verb diakopeîv, we have seen above in note 1.
5 The editors ought never to have changed this perfectly analogical
form (compare μονίας, φρονηματίας, κερατίας), which the manuscript
gives, into ὑπουθάτιον.
10. Διάκτορος.
235
perfectly inconceivable.
But the solution of the difficulty is
not far off. From the verb, which is here the usual one, and
does actually occur in the fifth verse, Bianor made a perfectly
analogical substantive and wrote diúkтopa. The lexicons
have already diктnc. It is very different when Callimachus in
the Fragment (164.) quoted in the Etym. M. uses diákтopoc
of the owl;
T
᾿Αλλὰ θεῆς, ἥτις με διάκτορον ἔλλαχε Παλλάς.
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:
Πυθαγόρην, πολέμων τε διάκτορον ἐσθλὸν ἀοιδόν.
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 diάTopoc, that
is, τρανός, σαφής. It belongs therefore here, with ἐσθλόν, to
ἀοιδόν, and πολέμων is merely the genitive depending on the
last wordº.
6 The word diaкTopía 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 diaropía, shrillness of sound.
Schneider adopts this emendation, but cites as an example of diaкropía
a very late poet, Julianus Ægyptius (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 diarropin. [Passow
in his last improved edition of Schneider cites both Julian and Mus. 6.
as an example of διακτορία.] Διακτόρως, εἰρηνικῶς, in Hesychius has
been very judiciously amended by Hemsterhuys to διακτόρῳ, εἰρηνικῷ.
It will then refer to Il. 3, 103.
236
Δοάσσατο ; vid. δέαται.
41. Εανός, ἑδανός.
1. The forms cavóc, kavoû, kave, čavóv, eiavoû occur fre-
quently 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 sub-
stantive 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 ew,
ἕννυμι. ῾Εανός was something to be thrown round the person or
put on, consequently a good epithet for a robe or garment, and
omitting éλoc it 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 cavŵô λırí, Il. o, 352.
and 4, 254., that the former word is a substantive and the
latter an adjective by metaplasmus for Air, could only be the
result of an imperfect and half-considering criticism, which had
either neglected to compare the passages of I1. 0, 442., where
Aîra stands alone, and Od. a, 130., where it even has epithets
41. Εανός, έδανός.
237
1.
joined with it, or which explained this λîra in some other way'
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 only
short; thus it is in the Hymn. Cer. 176., in Antimachus, from
whom Hesychius quotes éavnpópoc, and in three passages of
Apollon. Rhod. 4, 169. 1155. 1189. Of the adjective I can-
not find any decisive passages; see one of Sappho in this ar-
ticle, sect. 5.2
a
3. We will now collect together the passages of Homer
where cavóc means simply a robe or garment; for instance,
φ, 507. it is said of the robe of Diana, ᾿Αμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀμβρόσιος
ἑανὸς τρέμε. Αtξ, 178. of Juno, ᾿Αμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἀμβρόσιον ἑανὸν
ἕσαθ᾽, ὅν οἱ ᾿Αθήνη Εξυσ᾿ ἀσκήσασα. At y, 385. Venus goes
to Helen, Χειρὶ δὲ νεκταρέου ἑανοῦ ἐτίναξε λαβοῦσα. And at
419. Helen, Βῆ δὲ κατασχομένη ἑανῷ ἀργῆτι φαεινῷ. Lastly,
at π, 9. the child holding by its mother's garment is Elavoû
άπтоμévη. These passages give with certainty a substantive,
ὁ ἑανός, which is synonymous with πέπλος, only that πέπλος
has a more general meaning, including that of a carpet, &c.,
whilst cavóc by its derivation from evvvu was naturally re-
stricted to the proper meaning of a garment. The unanimous
T
ލ
¹ No one will any longer mistake earós to be a various reading of
édavós, the epithet of oil (see Heyne on Il. §, 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 iarov
(see note 3. of this article), has also 'Iavóкpoka, λeπά, 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
mentioned; and even the meaning given is no proof; for Hesychius at
the same time derives lavoкpideμvos from tous, a violet. At least it is
evident that Schneider's conjecture in his Lexicon (v. čavós,) that iavo-
κρήδεμνος, as well as ἰανόκροκος, can be explained by λεπτός, may with
equal reason be exactly reversed; and lavóкpoкos, as well as lavoкpý-
deμros, be derived from ior, a violet; from which the latter is indeed
derived by both Hesychius and Suidas.
238
41. Ἑανός, ἑδανός.
explanation of the 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 (πéπλovç) so large as to wrap
round the whole body. See Pollux 7. c. 13.
4. Now the adjective cavóc is really the epithet of a gar-
ment; as at e, 734. 0, 385. of the garment or robe of Minerva;
besides 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 (σ, 613.),
Τεῦξε δέ οἱ κνημίδας, ἑανοῦ κασσιτέροιο. If we examine these
oi éavoû
passages more accurately, the derivation of the adjective from
evvvμ will appear far less probable than it might at first have
ἕννυμι
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 Téλoç, like the
English word garment, is a word of general meaning, a Greek
might originally have said méλoc Éavóc, a garment worn round
the body, i. e. a robe. But is this conceivable in a poetical
language like that of Homer?
is said of Minerva, Πέπλον μὲν κατέχευεν ἑανὸν πατρὸς ἐπ᾿
ovdet, this cavóc means nothing more than 'worn round her,
worn as a part of her dress'? That a proper and suitable
epithet is here requisite, was felt by almost all the commen-
tators. Hence the explanations λεπτός, μαλακός, εὐδιάχυτος,
λευκός, λαμπρός, εὐώδης, ποικίλος, &c. (Hesych. in four con-
tiguous articles, Schol. Il. o, 352. 612. and others,) by which
one sees that they are partly conjectural, partly adapted to the
different passages.
Is it conceivable that when it
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 o, 352. speaks decidedly against
this.
For after it has been there said that the companions of
Patroclus had covered his corpse eave λri, it is immediately
added καθύπερθε δὲ φάρεϊ λευκῷ. One sees, therefore, that
in speaking of the linen, although it might have been white too,
41. 'Eavós, édavóc.
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; 1st, fine, thin; 2nd, flexible, soft; and
between these two I should decide in favour of the second, be-
cause fineness 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. čavóc), where a beautiful woman
*
,
* [In Schneider's Lexicon we find cavòs thus treated:
'Eavòs, ô, or cavòr, tò, Il. y, 385. and 419. a garment, or rather a
veil, ἑανῷ ἀργῆτι φαεινῷ. At Il. σ, 352. ἑανῷ λιτὶ κάλυψαν, it is doubt-
ful whether it be a substantive or adjective, but at €, 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
εἱανὸς and ἰανὸς. Hesychius has εἱανοῦ, εὐδιαχύτου, which refers to
Homer's ἑανοῦ κασσιτέροιο; again, ἐωμοῦ, ἱματίου γυναικείου ; and,
further, iavov, iµáriov. Another very different meaning and derivation
is given by both Hesych. and Suid. in the following; iaróкpoкos, ỏ, ǹ,
(kpókn) λettòs, of fine thread, finely woven.
In the same way may be
explained iavosρndeμvos, which both Hesych. and Suid. derive from ior.
Gregorius on Hermogenes, p. 914. quotes from Sappho iµariov čaroû
μαλακωτέρα. Antimachus has said ἠὼς ἑανηφόρος, and therefore used
éavòs as a substantive, like Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1155. čaroùs evwdeas, and
1189. πολυκμήτους. In Hom. Hymn. Ven. 63. ἀμβροσίῳ ἑανῷ (ἐλαίῳ)
some read ἑδανῷ.
Passow in his improved edition of Schneider arranges and alters it
thus:
M
'Eavós, í, óv, 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 evrv is probably the true one :
Téπλos avós a clear or light veil, worthy of being worn, Il. €, 734. 0, 385.
'Eavy Xeri, with fine and white linen, beautifully made for wearing, Il.
σ, 352. ψ, 254, Ἑανός κασσίτερος, tin beat out into thin plates for
greaves, therefore made fit for wearing, II. o, 613. Thence came the
240
41. 'Eavóc, édaváç.
is said to be ἱματίου ἑανοῦ μαλακωτέρα. 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,
K
| iµaríov | − ~ šā|roû µaλakw|répa.
6. These results are sufficient for the great object of explain-
ing Homeric words, viz. that we may understand their meaning:
and if any one is determined to retain the common derivation
of both words from ew, evvvμ, there is no decisive objection to
it, as the idea of flexibly soft may be 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 eăvóc, a garment, at once
from ew, exactly according to the same analogy (the accent
excepted, which no one will consider as of any authority in a
word purely Epic,) as orépavoc, a wreath, from oτéow: by
which we do away with the supposed ellipsis of ñéñλoc, as
there is nothing of the kind in στέφανος. And since ἑανός as
an adjective is so regularly and decidedly 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 adjectives, is no longer
to be found³.
substantive-meaning of the neuter τὸ ἑανόν (supply εἷμᾶ or ἱμάτιον), a
beautiful robe, worthy of being worn by goddesses or superior women,
II. y, 385. 419. E, 178. p, 507. Also eiavór is used in
π, 9. The
quantity of alpha is both long and short. Clarke on Il. 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 τpāvós, dāvós are acknowledged verbal
adjectives from ΤΡΑΩ (τιτράω), ΔΑΩ (δαίω), so ἑᾶνός would lead us to
a root EAQ; and I cannot help thinking that in the meaning of the
common verb éáw, 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
ἕννυμι—ἑανός, it was almost a necessary consequence that ἐανός, 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. ῾Εανός, έδανός.
241
7. With the examination of éavóc we join that of Edavóc, on
account of its similarity, and because éavóc is in fact a various
reading for édavóc in the only passage where the latter occurs,
Il., 172. where Juno anoints herself
λίπ᾽ ἐλαίῳ,
᾿Αμβροσίῳ, ἐδανῷ, τό ῥά οἱ τεθυωμένον ἦεν.
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 in other authors (see Heyne) give cave, and in
Hymn. Ven. 63., where this verse is interpolated, all the edi-
tions, except the most modern, have cave. I have no hesita-
tion, however, in receiving édav as the true and established
reading, not because 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 a various reading,
crept in by means so easily to be conceived, to a reading of
the Homeric text approved of by all the grammarians. This
édave the grammarians explain by deî; and in doing so they
make an observation, surprising indeed at first sight (see Schol.
and Etym. Gud.), that adjectives in -avóc, formed from verbs,
shorten the radical vowel of the verb, as from ikw comes iκavóc,
fron πείθω πιθανός, and, therefore, from ἥδω ἑδανός. One
thing these grammarians did not observe, although they quote
an instance of it in τρώγω τραγανός, that this shortening of
the vowel takes place by reverting to the vowel of the root;
but this vowel in the case before us is a, as the Doricism dúc
from now, and the verb avdávw, ådeîr, prove; by which, there-
fore, the evidence of this derivation falls to the ground. One
might, perhaps, feel inclined to consider -davóc as a mere ter-
mination, as in πευκεδανός, ριγεδανός: but to a person who
examines etymology in a serious historical manner, without
indulging himself in fancifully playing with ideas and mean-
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 σréparos, was written earos, but the adjec-
tive, according to the analogy of deirós, rparós, was avós. And, with
regard to the accent, the former is confirmed by the dialectic form "Iavor,
¡µárior, in Hesychius.
R
242
42. Εάφθη.
ings, the root e offers nothing either from inu or evvvμi or
uai, which can satisfy him as an expressive epithet for a pre-
cious ointment. To have brought such an investigation as the
above even to this point of uncertainty, I consider a service;
and I will therefore only suggest the possibility of édavóc being
perhaps a stronger and higher meaning of eóc or éóc, good (see
art. 43. sect. 4.), which, besides the other words mentioned
above, may be compared with οὐτιδανός, μηκεδανός*; so that
the reader may choose between this suggestion and the expla-
nation of the grammarians. For, as to this last, I have only
spoken against the evidence by which it was attempted to be
supported. But who can pretend so to limit the euphonic
changes in a language, as to declare it improbable that from ada-
vóc, as the word must have properly been written, came edavoc?
42. Ἑάφθη.
1. The verb cáp0n occurs in the two following passages;
viz. in Il. v, 543. where Æneas attacking Aphareus
Λαιμὸν τύψ', ἐπὶ οἱ τετραμμένον, ὀξέϊ δουρί,
and it is immediately said of the latter,
Ἐκλίνθη δ᾽ ἑτέρωσε κάρη, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀσπὶς ἑάφθη
Καὶ κόρυς, ἀμφὶ δέ οἱ θάνατος χύτο θυμοραϊστής.
and at έ, 419. of Hector struck near the neck by Ajax with a
huge stone,
Ὣς ἔπεσ᾽ Εκτορος ὦκα χαμαὶ μένος ἐν κονίῃσιν·
Χειρὸς δ' ἔκβαλεν ἔγχος, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ δ᾽ ἀσπὶς ἑάφθη
Καὶ κόρυς, ἀμφὶ δέ οἱ βράχε τεύχεα ποικίλα χαλκῷ.
None of the commentators, as far back as we can now trace
them, retained any regular traditionary knowledge of éáþ0n,
and therefore they endeavoured to get at it by examining the
4 If unkedavós 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 μακεδνός from μήκος.
42. Εάφθη.
243
επι
context and seeking for some analogy of formation. Aristarchus
decided in favour of the verb eneσ0ai: to which derivation be-
longs also the explanatory ἐπικατήχθη, ἐπικατηνέχθη (see Schol.
Min. on the first passage and Schol. Ven. on the second); although
in Apollon. Lex. the explanatory word kaτnvéxon is separated
from ἐπηκολούθησε by ἔνιοι δὲ. Tyrannio objected to the change
of the vowel a, and preferred the passive of åπTш, making it
éπì...éápon, for epnpon, inflicta est. In Hesychius we find
ἐκάμφθη, ἐβλάβη, which we must connect with the Schol. Min.
on the second passage, ἐπικατεκάμφθη δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ ἀσπίς: this,
however, is hardly conceivable, unless we suppose that some
earlier commentator had introduced as a grammatical or other
amendment éáxon, i. e. cáyn: 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, can-
not hold good in the first, where the only blow is made by a
spear piercing the neck.
2. If now we examine the context, it will appear that the
sense and construction of èí in both passages must be decided
by the second, where the description is fuller and more com-
plete. The expression in this latter is Χειρὸς δ᾽ ἔκβαλεν ἔγ-
χος, ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ δ᾽ ἀσπὶς ἑάφθη, and here αὐτῷ appears to refer
to him, the falling combatant. How is it then in the other
passage, where it is said, Εκλίνθη δ᾽ ἑτέρωσε κάρη, ἐπὶ δ᾽
aonic éápon? In whatever sense the verb is here taken, one
cannot imagine what the shield and helmet can do merely on
the head of the dying warrior. We must therefore suppose
that, as it necessarily follows that after his head was bent on
one side he fell, the word éri 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. wéσe πρnvǹa èπì
ς ἐπὶ
veкp): 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 in-
stances, just as if it were a necessary consequence, to fall upon
R 2
244
42. Εάφθη.
0
the man! We must therefore understand ení in the sense of
after that, thereupon; much the same as at π, 661. πodéeç yàp
πολέες
ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ κάππεσον; or at v, 395. ὁ δ᾽ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ (immediately
after him) Δημολέοντα... νύξεν: or atψ, 290. τῷ δ᾽ ἔπι Τυδεί-
δης ὦρτο, or ὄγχνη ἐπ᾽ ὄγχνῃ, &c. This will correspond with
what is said in the scholium to ξ, 419. ἅμα γὰρ ὅλῳ συγκατη-
νέχθη τῷ σώματι. 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 conse-
quently suppose that the helmet fell separate from the shield:
that is to say, in both passages, 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 ení in the first passage also to be understood.
ત
3. But in giving this explanation of the
passage, what pre-
cise meaning are we to attach to the verb capon? The most
suitable one, as the idea of the falling body is already expressed,
would certainly be étaкoλovſeîv: but then an idea so purely
neuter as this* cannot be properly expressed by a passive form,
as éάp0n for COTETо: and as to the change of the vowel, even
though eτpán may be conceivable in the later Ionic dialect,
in which we find τράπω, yet ἑάφθη from ἕπεσθαι must in Homer
always appear strange and unaccountable. If we have recourse
to anтew, to fasten, äπтeolαι, to be fastened, to fix or hold firm
on anything, the passive form is very proper; but then we can-
not bring out the idea without the assistance of èïí, and we
must therefore again render en avт éáp0n, struck or fell
ἐπ᾿
upon him', inflicla 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 besides the form
of the augment éápon, for there is not a single instance of the
syllabic augment before a vowel, without some appearance of
the digamma; and both ἕπω, ἕπομαι, and ἅπτω, ἅπτομαι, be-
* [Buttmann in the original introduces here the German verb folgen
(to follow) as the meaning in question of ξάφθη and ἐπακολουθεῖν; but
as the English verb 'to follow' is not purely neuter like folgen, I have
omitted it in the translation, and I know of no expression to supply its
place.-ED.]
42. Εάφθη.
245
મ
long exactly to those verbs which have nowhere any trace of
the digamma. If then the critical philologist cannot discover
a third verb from which he may derive this cáp0n, there remains
only the possibility, that one of the two verbs, ëπw or ärтw,
ἕπω
might have had the digamma in the earliest times of the lan-
guage, and that eapon in Homer is a relic of it and in this
case the probability would be greatly in favour of ἕπεσθαι,
which still has an s in the Latin sequi, in the same way as se,
socer, the German Sitte (Gr. 40oc), compared with the words
admitting the digamma, ἕ, ἕκυρος, ἦθος.
5. As therefore, 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 eapon from
ETеolaι: 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 αὐτόν, αὐτοῦ, αὐτῷ, 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. Γιγνώσκω δ᾽ ὅτι πολλοὶ ἐν
aur (in it, in the house) daîra rilevтai. At 1, 205. Maron
τίθενται.
gives Ulysses wine, Ἡδὺν, ἀκηράσιον, θεῖον ποτόν· οὐδέ τις
αὐτὸν Ἠείδη δμώων. Let us apply this to the present cast,
and we see that in the verse, Χειρὸς δ᾽ ἔκβαλεν ἔγχος, ἐπ᾿
αὐτῷ δ᾽ ἀσπὶς ἑάφθη, the most natural relation of the pronoun
is to the spear.
Now exẞaλer means nothing more than that
he dropped the spear; if then by éπì…….éápoŋ it is intended
only to say that upon the falling of the spear, shield and helmet
fell likewise, it is not easy to discover why this should be made
to refer so particularly to the falling of the man. But what-
ever is said here of the spear, must in the other passage (where
érí stands alone, instead of en' auT) hold good of the head.
Now when I see that at Il. 4, 232. kdiv0n kekµnwg is said of
one who lays himself down to sleep, and at Od. 7, 470. ay 8'
ἑτέρωσ᾽ ἐκλίθη is used of a kettle which is overturned, and
again I find at Il. κ, 472. ἔντεα ...παρ᾿ αὐτοῖσιν χθονὶ κέκλιτο,
-I think that in ᾿Εκλίνθη δ᾽ ἑτέρωσε κάρη, ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀσπὶς ἑάφθη
Καὶ κόρυς, we may very fairly conclude that ἑάφθη is used in
the sense of to follow. For in order to complete the sense of
246
43. 'Eños, eñoc.
ἐφέπεσθαι 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 Il. δ, 63. ταῦθ᾽ ὑποείξομεν ἀλλήλοισιν Σοὶ μὲν ἐγὼ
σὺ δ᾽ ἐμοί· ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἕψονται θεοὶ ἄλλοι : and again, of all the gods
acting in concert, Od. μ, 349. ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἕσπωνται θεοὶ ἄλλοι *.
Επι
Ἑδανός ; vid. ἑανός.
43. 'Eños, éños.
1. The form èñoc occurs as an unequivocal genitive of the
adjective eve in the three following passages; viz. Od. o, 450.
Παῖδα γὰρ ἀνδρὸς ἐῆος ἐνὶ μεγάροις ἀτιτάλλω,
(the son of a man of rank and substance): Od. ξ, 505., where
Ulysses says of himself in his guise as a beggar, that if he were
now in youth and strength Eumæus and his companions would
have given him a garment,
᾿Αμφότερον φιλότητι καὶ αἰδοῖ φωτὸς ἐῆος.
And Il. τ, 342., where Jupiter says to Minerva, speaking of
Achilles,
Τέκνον ἐμὸν, δὴ πάμπαν ἀποίχεαι ἀνδρὸς ἐῆος.
Ἦ νύ τοι οὐκέτι πάγχυ μετὰ φρεσὶ μέμβλετ᾽ ᾿Αχιλλεύς ;
Let us look next at the four following passages; viz. Il. w, 422.
where Mercury says to Priam,
Ως τοι κήδονται μάκαρες θεοὶ υἷος ΕΗΟΣ.
* [Schneider's Lexicon, under ἑάφθη, says: “It is generally explained
by ἐπηκολούθησε, and derived from ἐφέπομαι: but this is contrary to
analogy; it had much better be formed from ἐφάπτω for ἐφήφθη in the
sense of ἐπηκολούθησε: for ἑάφθη was used for ἥφθη, as ἑάλη for ἥλη,
ἑάγη for ἥγη, ἑάλω for ἥλω. It is written also ἐάφθη, as is ἐάγη.”
Passow, in his last edition of Schneider, writes ἐάφθη, and translates
ἐπὶ δ᾽ ἀσπὶς ἐάφθη, “the shield fell over him,” so that it reached the
ground, adding that it is “probably from ἅπτω, ἐφάπτω, aor. pass. for
ἥφθη, ἐφήφθη. Others,” says he, “write ἑάφθη, and derive it (very
improbably) from ἕπομαι; that is to say, ἐπὶ-ἑάφθη is for ἐφέσπετο,
'the shield followed after'."-ED.]
43. ᾿Εῆος, ἑῆος.
247
At verse 550., where Achilles says to Priam,
Οὐ γάρ τι πρήξεις ἀκαχήμενος υἷος ΕΗΟΣ.
At Il. o, 138., where Minerva says to Mars, respecting Asca-
laphus,
Τῷ σ' αὖ νῦν κέλομαι μεθέμεν χόλον υἷος ΕΗΟΣ.
And at Il. a, 393., where Achilles says to Thetis, speaking of
himself,
.
περίσχεο παιδὸς ΕΗΟΣ.
If any one, after a comparison of the four latter passages
with the three former, should still doubt whether the EHOΣ
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,
Η τοι καὶ πατέρ' ἐσθλὸν ἐν ᾿Αργείοισιν ἐτίμα :
and with all four these two; Il. π, 573.
ἀτὰρ τότε γ' ἐσθλὸν ἀνεψιὸν ἐξεναρίξας
Ἐς Πηλῆ ἱκετευσεν·
and e, 469.
᾿Αλλ᾽ ἄγετ᾽ ἐκ φλοίσβοιο σαώσομεν ἐσθλὸν ἑταῖρον:
and we think he will then be satisfied that in those four
passages, as in the three former, it must be written enoc: and
that this adjective, like the more common one of piλoc else-
where, supplies so well the place of the possessive pronoun
(σoîo),—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 ἐῢς πάῖς ᾽Αγχίσαο, υἱὸν ἐῢν Πριάμοιο.
And whoever is offended with the epithet evc 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,—such a one can know nothing of the fixed epithets
and language of the heroic age.
ευν
2. The old grammarians (see particularly Apollon. Lex. in v.)
add προσηνοῦς to the explanation ἀγαθοῦ, and that with espe-
cial reference to the last passage, περίσχεο παιδὸς ἐῆος: partly
perhaps from the wish to soften down the idea of self-praise,
248
43. 'Eñoc, éñog.
but partly also as a parallel of piλoc, which likewise stands.
elsewhere instead of the possessive pronoun, and of which
προσηνής is a correlative, (φίλος implying loved by me, προσ-
nvýc, 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 #poonvne may be very well applied to some
προσηνής
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 euc. Now as this particular passage is exactly one which
might be most likely to make us hesitate in giving it the sense
of dΰς, it shows us plainly that those who introduced προσηνής
to define the meaning of it, derived enoc in this and all the
other passages from evc.
3. If now we search after the authorities for the other
explanation, according to which noc in the four last-men-
tioned passages is supposed to stand for σou, we find them in
the uncritical crowd of the common scholia, of Eustathius, and
of the Etym. M.; but in all the older authorities we look in vain.
for that other explanation: and, what must carry with it great
weight, we not only find no trace of it in the Venetian scholia,
not even once as the rejected interpretation of another person,
but in one of these very passages (o, 138.), as in one of the other
three (7, 342.), it is expressly explained by ayaloû, though
in all of them, both in the text and scholia, is written Enoc,
as also at w, 528. čáwv for čáwv. Besides this, at three of the
four passages, viz. a, 393. o, 138. w, 550., and even at one of
the three others, (where the meaning of ayabou is certain,) viz.
T, 342., the reading of Zenodotus, éoîo, is mentioned, accom-
panied, in two of the passages, by an objection that it brings a
change of person, and that he could have used it only from ig-
norance of the form enoc, of the good'. Hence, therefore, it
is plain that at the time when this grammatical question was
1 On 0,
138. Η διπλῆ ὅτι Ζηνόδοτος γράφει υἷος ἑοῖο· τοῦτο δὲ ἐν τῷ
περί τινος λόγῳ (in the third person) τίθεται, νῦν δὲ πρὸς πρόσωπόν ἐστι
(this might mean, in the second person; but undoubtedly the reading
should be παρὰ πρ. as in the following scholium) καὶ δεῖ γράφειν ἑῆος.
ἠγνόηκε δὲ τὴν λέξιν. ἐστὶ γὰρ ἑῆος ἀγαθοῦ, καὶ δοτῆρες ἑάων. On r,
342. ἀνδρὸς ἑῆος] ἡ διπλῆ ὅτι Ζ. γράφει ἑοῖο· τοῦτο δὲ παρὰ τὸ πρόσω-
πόν ἐστιν—ἑῆος δὲ, τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.
43. ᾿Εῆος, ἑῆος.
249
raised no one had any notion or knowledge of an enoc, which
stood for coû, and so for σou. In the lexicon of Apollonius,
too, there is only ἐῆος, explained by ἀγαθοῦ, προσηνοῦς; while
there is no mention whatever of eĥoc with the other explana-
tion: and lastly, (which is very decisive,) the learned gramma-
rian 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, has made no mention of this
supposed Homeric ἑῆος.
SA
4. It will be impossible for us to conceive how the judge-
ment of those who first introduced into our Homer the dif-
ference between èñoc and éñoc, could have become so perverted,
unless we try to figure to ourselves the march of Homeric cri-
ticism. The form enoc, 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 become 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 EHOΣ as well
as EAON, as we see, not only in the above-mentioned quota-
tions from the Venetian Homer, but also in the plain and ex-
press examples of the grammarians; for instance, in the Lexi-
con de Spiritibus, in Valckenaer ad Ammon. p. 214. 215:
while euc, in the same work, p. 220, is as expressly directed
to be written with the lenis. From such fixed examples as these
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 right to an
opinion as the critics of that time. Now there are many verses
in Homer ending with vioc eñoc, waidòc êñoc, and others of a
very similar character with παιδὸς ἑοῖο, πατρὸς ἑοῖο, that is to
éoîo,
say in the third person, where the possessive pronoun suits the
verse very well. It would have been indeed surprising if these
endings had not been confounded together, and interchanged
with each other; and as a 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,
éoto, when found in connexion with the second person, was not
250
43. ᾿Εῆος, ἑῆος.
so striking as it otherwise would have been. We must not sup-
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 noc in every instance where it supplied
the place of the possessive pronoun. Such was the state of
things at the 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
énoc, sometimes eñoc (for the latter naturally still remained),
began now to refine on this difference; and while they decided
correctly on evc, eñoc, they thought they were carrying on the
idea of Zenodotus, as to the form enoc, by explaining it to be
the genitive of 'EYΣ or 'EEYΣ, a sister-form of cóc. The last
step was taken by those grammarians who wished to introduce.
uniformity into all the expressions of Homer. These limited enoc
exclusively to the instances of the second person, and in all
those of the third, without an exception, wrote éoło: so that
it now appeared as if Homer had in those passages been driven
by the metre from ooîo, 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 appro-
priated 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 common³. As to the question
2 That he could have reckoned the case of Il. 7, 342. as one of these,
and understood avèpòs éoîo to refer to Achilles as the favourite of Mi-
nerva, is indeed surprising, but nothing more.
• True uniformity would have been, if èños 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 coio.
43. ᾿Εῆος, ἑῆος.
251
whether the change of oóc for öc or cóc should be attributed to
Homer on such slight grounds, we have no occasion to discuss
it here*. Nor need we enter any further into the doubts which
may be entertained respecting the form evc or εeúc, gen. ¿ĥoc,
for éóc, gen. éoto, which stands also in Homer, and in Homer
only. Without examining either of these points, I think there
can remain no doubt of the correctness of the reading noc in
4 The question depends entirely, besides what has been said, on the
criticism of three verses in Homer; Il. τ, 174. σὺ δὲ φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἰανθῇς.
γρ. φρεσὶ σῇσιν. Od. a, 402. Κτήματα δ᾽ αὐτὸς ἔχοις καὶ δώμασιν οἷσιν
ἀνάσσοις. γρ. δώμασι σοῖσιν. Οd. v. 320. φρεσὶν ᾗσιν ἔχων δεδαϊγμένον
TOP, for eμnow. Generally speaking, the reflective form would be ad-
missible in all these three passages, because in all of them there is an
actual retrograde relation to 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 parti-
cular 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 onow, because there is nothing there to distin-
guish it from other passages where the acknowledged reading is opeoì
onoi (as at II. §, 221.264. π, 36., &c.); and with the same judicious un-
willingness to correct unnecessarily, he has left untouched in the second
passage the far better authorized reading olou, because this passage,
from the idea of own being admissible in it, is visibly different from Od. o,
542. where nothing but dépaσi ooîov is or can be read. The third pas-
sage is distinguished from both the others by this, that the form εµñoiv
cannot by any means be brought into the verse, and the idea of own, which
would be a reason for retaining you, has as little business in this pas-
sage as it has in those of pperì onoi, referred to above. Hence it is re-
markable that this very passage (Od. 1, 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 dúμaoir oîoir stands one isolated in-
stance in all Homer, I do not believe it to be a genuine one, as the va-
rious reading duμaoi ooîov 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 judgement on the
φρεσὶν ᾗσιν, γρ. φρεσὶ σῇσιν 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 coûs, which is
the
gen. of the pronoun substantive for of or elo, and which those gram-
marians least of all expected to find in Homer.
252
43. ᾿Εῆος, ἑῆος.
all the seven passages enumerated at the beginning of this ar-
ticle.
6. But as we may fairly suppose that Homer used this enoc
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 loc of certain passages, we ought to direct our atten-
tion anew to the three following passages, where enoc stands
as a various reading of the regular coîo of the third person:
for instance, Il. §, 9—11. of Nestor,
Ὣς εἰπὼν σάκος εἷλε τετυγμένον υἷος ἑοῖο
γρ. ἐῆος
Κείμενον ἐν κλισίῃ, Θρασυμηδέος ἱπποδάμοιο,
Χαλκῷ παμφαῖνον· ὁ δ᾽ ἔχ᾽ ἀσπίδα πατρὸς ἑοῖο.
(Here is no various reading.)
at Il. o, 71. of Thetis,
Ὀξὺ δὲ κωκύσασα κάρη λάβε παιδὸς ἑοῖο.
γρ. ἐῆος.
and again at v. 138.
Ὣς ἄρα φωνήσασα πάλιν τράπεθ' υἷος ἑοῖο.
γρ. ἐῆος.
I must confess that the first impression made on my mind by
a merely superficial view of these three passages has not been
removed by a more fundamental examination of them, and
that, according to that impression, the reading eñoc appears to
me a very probable one, while among the other passages where
éoto occurs, as Il., 11.266. T, 399., 360. 402., with those
which have éμoło, as Od.a, 413. λ, 457. v, 339., there are very
few in which I should search about for the various reading èñoc.
7. The other Epic poets whose works have come down to
us, whether earlier or later, have neither eñoc nor eñoc, except
Apollonius Rhodius, in whom we find (1, 225.) éñoc as a various
reading of éoto, 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 Il. a, 393. Wolf also, in his latest edi-
tion of the Iliad, reads éños in those four passages.
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
253
Οὐδὲ μὲν οὐδ᾽ αὐτοῖο πάϊς μενέαινεν ῎Ακαστος
Ιφθίμου Πελίαο δόμοις ἔνι πατρὸς ἑοῖο
Μιμιάζειν.
γρ. ἑῆος
πατ
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 Il. a, 393.) that warpòc
¿ñoc must there be understood to mean of his good, loving fa-
ther; and Apollonius Rhodius followed therefore the old expla-
nation πpooŋvoûc (see above, sect. 2.), which suits this case per-
fectly well, as Pelias would not suffer Acastus to leave him *.
Ἐθέλω ; vid. βούλομαι.
44. Εἰλεῖν, ἔλσαι, ἀλῆναι, εἰλίπους, &c.
1. The words and forms which proceed from the verb eideîr,
or are connected with it, furnish a great many difficulties to
* [In Schneider's Lexicon we find,-
“Eños, irregular genit. for σοῦ, in Homer, as παιδὸς ἑῆος: but éños is
genit. of éus, q. v.
Co
''Eus, ô, Ion. ús, like kaλòs, beautiful, good, excellent, brave; thence the
genit. eños, Il. a, 393. From this is derived the eu used in prose; and
some derive the neut. dŵrop éáwv, the giver of good things, from the genit.
enwr, others from eaì, others from eà, rà. According to this, eòs would
be the same as the Ionic form évs; and ẻà, rà, the same as rà ảyaðá.”
In Passow's edition of Schneider is the following:
Co
"Eños, gen. masc. to evs: occurring five times in the Il., twice in the
Od.
In four of these passages was formerly written &ños, explained to
be an irregular genit. of ooû: 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.
“'Eûs, ò, good, excellent, brave, noble. An Epic word frequent in Homer,
who, besides the nom. and once the accus. éûr, Il. 0, 303., uses only
two irreg. genit.: viz. 1st) the genit. sing. eños, twice in the Il. and five
times in the Od., with ȧvdpós, pwτós, παidós, and vios; and 2ndly) the
gen. plur. neut. éάwv, as from a nomin. rà 'EA, good things, good for-
tune, İl. w,528. Oevì dwrûpes éáwv, Od. 0, 325: compare also v. 335. and
Hom. Hymn. 17,12.29,8. Except this genit. the word is always masc.
in Homer, but of the Ion. form ýús he has also the neut. . On the
other hand ev, or as it is more frequently written ev, and used by the
Attics also, is always an adverb.”—ED.]
254
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
the critical philologist, partly by the variety of ways in which
they are written and formed, as we find εἴλω and εἰλέω, εἵλω
and εἱλέω, εἴλλω and εἵλλω, ἴλλω, ἔλσαι, ἀλῆναι and ἁλῆναι,
all good authorized forms; and partly by the variety of mean-
ing, as we find to thrust, push, strike; to shut, fasten; to turn,
roll up, wind up, wrap up, senses sometimes evident of them-
selves, sometimes offered by the commentators. It shall be
my endeavour 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 me-
thod as this, the easiest of any in its execution, which may al-
ways be brought to succeed, even when the ideas do not really
correspond with each other,-I would wish, as far as my ex-
ertions 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 meanings attached to them are those of to
roll or wrap up; and indeed so much so, that they are often
ranked, without any visible reason for it, as the radical mean-
ing. All this we will endeavour to unravel by tracing, as we
have hitherto done, the actual usage, without suffering our-
selves to be swayed by any previously formed opinion, such as
the apparent or real connexion of these forms with eλiooew.
2. I set out with the forms eλoai and eeλpai, which give us
the most simple root EA, according to which we may suppose
a theme EAQ or EAAQ as the radical one. The form of the
augment eeλuat, and the hiatus before eλoat, in Il. a, 409. lead
us at once to the digamma; consequently we have FEAAQ:
and hence also, as in some other verbs of this kind, the re-
dundant e in the infinitive ééλoat, Il. p, 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, λ, 413. ῎Ελσαν δ᾽ ἐν μέσσοισι μετὰ σφίσι πῆμα τι-
févτeg, or a whole army in the space round the ships, or in the
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
255
ωρα απο
ܐ
town, a, 409. Τοὺς δὲ κατὰ πρύμνας τε καὶ ἀμφ᾽ ἅλα ἔλσαι
᾿Αχαιούς. σ, 294. θαλάσσῃ τ᾽ ἔλσαι ᾿Αχαιούς. φ, 225. πρὶν
ἔλσαι (Τρῶας) κατὰ ἄστυ. φ, 295. Πρὶν κατὰ ᾿Ιλιόφι κλυτὰ
τείχεα λαὸν ἐέλσαι Τρωϊκὸν ὅς κε φύγῃσι. And with this
agrees the perf. pass. ω, 662. Οἶσθα γὰρ ὡς κατὰ ἄστυ ἐέλμεθα.
μ, 38. ᾿Αργεῖοι δὲ... Νηῦσιν ἐπὶ γλαφυρῇσιν ἐελμένοι. σ, 287.
ἐελμένοι ἔνδοθι πύργων: and this again used of an individual
at v, 524.; viz. of Mars, who, Ἧστο Διὸς βουλῇσιν ἐελμένος,
as he, with the other gods, was obliged to remain in Olympus.
3. Very different from the last meaning is the use of this
form in the Odyssey, where however it occurs but once, that
is to say, in the same verse occurring twice, e, 132. η, 250.
νῆα θοὴν ἀργῆτι κεραυνῷ
Ζεὺς ἔλσας ἐκέασσε μέσῳ ἐνὶ οἴνοπι πόντῳ.
Therefore ἔλσας means striking. Here, however, the old vari-
ous reading ἐλάσας (see the scholia) deserves our serious cou-
sideration. For the fact is, that eλásai throughout Homer is
the proper and usual word for to strike, as in the Iliad TÒV
σκήπτρῳ ἐλάσασκεν,-ὁ δ᾽ αὐχένα μέσσον ἔλασσεν,— &c., and
here in the Odyssey of the blow of Neptune, so analogous to
the stroke of Jove's thunderbolt, δ, 507. τρίαιναν ἑλὼν χερσὶ
στιβαρῇσιν Ηλασε Γυραίην πέτρην: and v, 164. where he
turns the ship of the Phæacians to stone, Χειρὶ καταπρηνεῖ
ἐλάσας. It is difficult therefore to conceive how this ἔλσας,
in a sense unknown to it elsewhere, has found its way into that
one verse instead of the usual word; and why, without any me-
trical cause, at one time ἐλάσας is used, at another ἔλσας. This
difficulty, however, is not removed by our admitting the read-
ing élásac 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 further on this family of words.
4. We have supposed a theme ΕΛΛΩ according to the most
simple analogy, as it actually does exist in κέλλω, κέλσαι. But
Homer himself furnishes us also with a tolerably simple present
in the part. pass. εἰλόμενος, according to the analogy of ὀφεί-
λω, and of κείρω ἔκερσα; with which we must also join the for-
256
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
mation in éw, which is evident in some of the other tenses. The
agreement in meaning of these two forms, εἴλω and εἰλέω,
with each other, and with eλoat, eeλuat, is shown by one pas-
sage, I1.0,215. The Greeks are there forced back to their forti-
fications; and it is related in the imperfect tense that all the
space between the walls and fosse Πλῆθεν ὁμοῦ ἵππων τε καὶ
ἀνδρῶν ἀσπιστάων Εἰλομένων· εἴλει δὲ θοῷ ἀτάλαντος ῎Αρηϊ
"EkTwp. Here the imperfect eλet stands in evident relation to
the participle cidóμevo, which in the sense of the present or
imperfect is precisely the same as eeλuévot 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. Thus eiλóuevo is used in a general way, not in the
passive but in a reflective sense, of men collected together in a
crowd; Il. e, 782., the two goddesses came to the Greeks, öll
πλεῖστοι καὶ ἄριστοι Εστασαν ἀμφὶ βίην Διομήδεος ἱπποδάμοιο
Εἰλόμενοι, λείουσιν ἐοικότες ὠμοφάγοισιν. And at e, 203.
Pandarus says, he was unwilling to take his horses with him.
to Troy lest they might be straitened for fodder, avopov eiλo-
μévov, that is, where so many persons had collected and crowded
together'. The form eiλéw occurs further in the exact sense
of the above-mentioned eλoat, at Il. o, 447. 'Ayatovc Towec
᾿Αχαιοὺς Τρώες
ἐπὶ πρύμνησιν ἐείλεον (EFEIΛEON). And at Od.
μα 210.
ὅτε Κύκλωψ Εἴλει ἐνὶ σπῆϊ γλαφυρῷ, (kept us shut up,) &c.
έπι
5. All these forms belong therefore necessarily to each other,
and to them we may besides add, as I have shown in my Gram-
mar, the form čáλnv, áλñvai: for on the uncertainty of the
aspirate we must hereafter come to some general decision. This
form is the aor. pass. of ΕΛΛΩ or εἴλω, exactly as ἐστάλην
from στέλλω, ἐκάρην from κείρω. The agreement in meaning
1 Shut in together (as it is generally translated here, as spoken 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 ćeλµévoɩ.
2 The supposition of a verb äλn, and the deriving of all the forms
belonging to this investigation (which have the a) either from aλéw, to
avoid, or from åλées, conferti, 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 ovve-
orpúøn, ovykλeco¤értes, &c., in the scholiasts and in Apollon. Lex., but
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
257
,
ET
between this and the above forms is clear from the following
passages; Il. x, 12. (of the Trojans whom Achilles had forced
back into the town), Οἳ δή τοι εἰς ἄστυ ἄλεν. σ, 76. πάντες
ἐπὶ πρύμνησιν ἀλήμεναι υἷας ᾿Αχαιῶν. φ, 607. πόλις δ᾽ ἔμ-
πλητο ἀλέντων (exactly the same as above πλῆθεν εἰλομένων).
ε, 823. ᾿Αργείους ἐκέλευσα ἀλήμεναι ἐνθάδε πάντας, ‘to collect
themselves here together'. To which belongs also , 420.
Xeiμépiov ädev v dop, 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 ew, but
was changed by a very easy transition to the lengthened form
eiλéw, still retaining however its more simple form in the pre-
sent passive εἴλομαι; much as in common Greek στέρομαι is
in use as the passive of σrepéw. The remaining flexions were
(ἔλσω) ἔλσαι, ἔελμαι, ἐάλην, ἀλῆναι. In all these connected
forms however the digamma is announced by the usual signs.
εν
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 Ol. 10, 51. év Пioa
ἔλσαις ὅλον τε στρατὸν λείαν τε πᾶσαν, spoken of Hercules
collecting together his army. Hence comes the well-known
use in Homer of the passive aλnval of a person drawing
up his body together; as we find it used in the most literal
manner at Il. v, 408. of Idomeneus crouching or concealing
himself behind his large shield; Τῇ ὑπο πᾶς ἐάλη, τὸ δ᾽ ὑπέρ-
πτατο χάλκεον ἔγχος. And in this limited sense of to con-
ceal the active eλoaι occurs, not indeed in Homer, but in that
the proof of it may be found more at length in Eustathius, who, on
II. v, 408., after having explained ἑάλη by συνειλήθη, συνεστράφη,
adds γίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ εἷλον, οὗ παθητικὸς ἀόριστος ἅλην, &c., where the
word ellor cannot be intended to come from aipeîv. And even sup-
posing that Eustathius might have misunderstood the older gramma-
rian, still we see what the meaning of this latter was by another ob-
servation in Eustathius, where not only is éeλµéroɩ compared with carà
ἄστυ ἀλήμεναι, but there is also added, φίλαι δὲ ποιηταῖς λέξεις τὸ ἔλ-
σαι καὶ ἀλήμεναι καὶ ἐελμένοι καὶ ἐάλη καὶ ἀλείς.
S
258
M
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
very ancient elegiac poet Callinus, v. 11. καὶ ὑπ' ἀσπίδος ἄλ-
κιμον ἦτορ Ελσας. The drawing up the body in a crouching
posture, by a person fearing immediate death, we see in Il. π,
403., where Thestor expecting Patroclus to kill him évi Sippo
ĥoTo aλeic: and v, 278., where Eneas, when his shield is
pierced through, holds it before him at a distance, and draws
himself up together, Αἰνείας δ᾽ ἐάλη καὶ ἄπο ἔθεν ἀσπίδ᾽ ἀνέσχεν.
Such a contracting of the body together is a particular charac-
teristic of beasts of prey, who draw themselves up in a crouching
posture before they spring on their victim; as at Il. v, 168. of
the lion, ἐάλη τε χανὼν περί τ᾽ ἀφρὸς ὀδόντας Γίγνεται: 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 at-
titude of attack or defence; as at 4, 571. 'Axıλña àdeìc µévev:
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,
308. Od. w, 537. Οἴμησεν δὲ ἀλεὶς ὥστ᾽ αἰετὸς ὑψιπετήεις.
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
eileiv. 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 ovoтpé eolai; 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 eiλeiv, 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 Il., 8., where a part of the combatants is driven
or forced into the river, ἡμίσεες δὲ ᾽Ες ποταμὸν εἰλεῦντο, where
they swim about, are slain by Achilles, &c.; but they do not
stand, as in those other passages, hemmed in between the per-
son who is forcing them and the object which stops them. But
from such passages as Od. A, 573., where the poet describes
>>
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
259
a
Orion Θῆρας ὁμοῦ εἰλεῦντα κατ᾿ ἀσφοδελὸν λειμῶνα, we see
how the idea of shutting up arises from that of driving on before.
The reflective idea (to crowd or collect together), as expressed
by eiλóμevoi, of those who collected round Diomede, may be
cited as an additional instance, and is expressed, like so many
other verbs, by the aorist passive, čáλnv: and thus all the
meanings of aλvai are brought into a regular series.
8. But this same primitive meaning of eiλeiv, to force or drive
before one, is also the meaning of the verb éλav, ẻλaúvew; with
this difference however, that in eilev there is the idea of a
limit or boundary, but eλav expresses an unlimited driving; the
additional force of this latter meaning being given to the root
EA- by the ending áw. 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 oλn, barley trodden out, as a verbal substantive of
this radical verb EAQ, and aλéw to tread, bruise, or grind, as
a more forcible derivative of this same root. And now then
that various reading in the Odyssey, ἔλσας--ἐλάσας, 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, èλáoac 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 èλáoac
in that passage.
9. To the Homeric use of the verb eiλw we may add the
substantive eîlap. 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 as-
3 Ibycus, with the licence of a lyric poet, used λσaro ßoûs for ýλá-
σaTо, Etym. M. p. 428, 29. But the verse of Simonides in the same
Et. M. p. 634, 6., Καὶ τῆς ὄπισθεν ὀρσοθύρης ἠλσάμην, is corrupted, as
the quantity of ὀρσοθύρη shows. Perhaps it should be ὀρσοθύρης ἠλευά-
µní, scil. avróv, 'I escaped from him through the back-door'; as in Ho-
race, "postico falle clientem."
s 2
260
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
sailant. The most natural construction of the word is that in
Od. c, 257., where the well-made sides of the ship are called
an eiλap kúμatoc, as driving off, repelling the waves; and the
wall in the Iliad is called εἷλαρ νηῶν τε καὶ αὐτῶν, as surround-
ing and defending from hostile attack the ships and the army.
10. If, then, it is quite clear that in the usage of the Epic
poets 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; "Ooric dè áreiλX y
(var. read. ἀπίλλῃ) τῇ θύρᾳ, ἔνδον τοῦ κλέπτου ὄντος. The
construction 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 ouλn. The
verb from which this last substantive comes is very correctly
explained by Harpocration in v.-whether he reads ééλew
οι ἐξέλλειν οι ἐξείλλειν 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 eceipyew, exßáλλew; although even
this last word is not to be understood always of turning a per-
son out of what he is already in possession of, but of not ad-
mitting 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. Pantæn.
p. 476., of a person who prevented another from working his
mine; ἐάν τις ἐξείλλῃ (var. read. ἐξείλῃ) τινὰ τῆς ἐργασίας.
This meaning, the preventing a person from doing a thing,
shutting or keeping him out of it, is therefore the correlative of
the other aweiλew, to prevent or hinder a person from going out,
the keeping 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, Il. ß, 294. of a ship prevented from sailing;
K
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
261
ὅνπερ ἄελλαι Χειμέριαι εἰλέωσιν ὀρινομένη τε θάλασσα. Again
we see plainly the difference between this ἐξείλειν and ἐξελαύ-
νειν, notwithstanding that the same idea is common to them
both: ἐξελαύνειν is to drive a person out of that place wherein
he actually is ; ἐξείλειν is at most to prevent his going in, to
drive or thrust him away so that he shall not enter.
T
C
11. In Herodotus we find the most frequent recurrence of
the compound κατειλεῖν, and always used of a number of per-
sons κατειληθέντες οι κατειλημένοι ἐς τὸ τεῖχος, ἐς τὴν ἀκρό-
πολιν, ἐς τὸν Παρνησσόν, ἐν ὀλίγῳ χώρῳ, &c. In the same
way at 3, 45. τὰ τέκνα καὶ τὰς γυναῖκας ἐς τοὺς νεωσοίκους
συνειλήσας: consequently 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, 81. ἀνειληθέντες
γὰρ ἔς τι χώριον ᾧ κύκλῳ τεῖχος περιῆν. Again in Xen. Hell.
7, 2, 8. οἱ δὲ ὠθούμενοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν...εἰς ἔλαττον συνειλοῦντο.
Hippocrates has it in a similar sense of inanimate objects,
Coac. vol. i. p. 588., κατειλούμενος εἴσω ἐρευγμός, kept back
or suppressed. With this agrees exactly a passage in Plato's
Timæus p. 76. b. of the vapour which ascends from the body,
but being by the external air πάλιν ἐντὸς ὑπὸ τὸ δέρμα εἱλλό-
μενον (var. read. εἰλλ-, εἰλ-, είλ-, είλου-, and in Proclus ίλλ-)
κατεῤῥιζοῦτο.
οι
ען
12. After this it will be impossible for us to give up 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 úró. Euripides, in a fragment of his
Edipus, (see in Valck. p. 194.) says of the Sphinx, Οὐρὰν δ᾽
ὑπείλλουσ᾽ (var. read. ὑπίλλ.) ὑπὸ λεοντόπουν βάσιν ᾿Εκαθέ-
ζετο. 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 find the following article:
“Ὑπίλλω, same as ὑπειλώ. see εἰλώ, ἵλλω. Οὐρὼν ὑπειλεῖν, remulcere
caudam, 'to drop the tail between the legs and wag it', as a fawning
dog does. In Eurip. ap. El. h. a, 12, 7. used of the Sphinx, ovpàr
ὑπείλλασα, where Gesner reads ὑπειλοῦσα, and the Vienna MS. has
262
44. Eileîv, &c.
Virgil's Eneid 11, 813. of the wolf, "caudamque remulcens
subjecit pavitantem utero." The comparison is a very apt one;
but as the manner in which the tail moves is self-evident, there
can be nothing in vπeíλλew 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, εἰ μὴ γλῶσσαν ἐγκλείσοι φόβος, she applies to him the
same idea in other words, σοὶ δ᾽ ὑπίλλουσι στόμα. 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, γῆν εἱλλομένην (with the usual various
readings) περὶ τὸν διὰ παντὸς πόλον τεταμένον, 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 earli-
est use thus far, cannot give it in this passage a sense dif-
ferent from all the others; and as we have seen its meaning
particularly marked sometimes by úró, sometimes by oúv, &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 pres-
ὑπίλλασα; it must be ὑπίλασα. Zróµа iπ., subjicere, obnoxium habere
os, 'to keep the tongue in subjection to any one', Soph. Ant. 509.
Timæus Ruhnk. p. 71. In Philo 3, p. 260. a MS, has vñeiλovons for
VπEIKоvσns, yielding."-ED.]
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
263
sure 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 de-
scribed. Let us turn now to the passage of Herodotus 4, 67.
where it is said of the soothsayers who divine by means of a
bundle of rods, ἐπεὰν φακέλους ῥάβδων μεγάλους ἐνείκωνται,
θέντες χαμαὶ διεξελίσσουσι αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἐπὶ μίαν ἑκάστην ῥάβδον
τιθέντες θεσπίζουσι· ἅμα τε λέγοντες ταῦτα συνειλέουσι τὰς
ῥάβδους ὀπίσω. Here διεξελίσσειν and συνειλεῖν 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 roll-
ing; for the Scythian diviner takes up one rod after another,
and unites all together again in one bundle; so that ovveλeiv
συνειλεῖν
is, consequently, nothing more than constringere, which mean-
ing is also the ground of the middle eiλλoµévnv in Plato. But
the undoing of this bundle may, on account of the use of die-
eλioσew, be very well rendered 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 ancient rolls or books, and in the
binding up a wound, the most common correlatives even down
to later times are κατειλῆσαι (ἐγκατειλῆσαι, ἐγκατίλλειν, Hip-
pocr.), to put together, bind up, and åveλittew, to unroll, un-
bind; never κατελίττειν, for that κατειλῆσαι; but sometimes
áveiλñoaι, in the sense of to undo, as being merely the doing
away that which is done by Kareiλñoat, 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, ἐν ταρσοῖς καλάμου πηλὸν ἐνείλλον-
TEG: here the verb is used compounded with er, because the
action described is that of pressing in firmly and tying up, in
undoing which the most natural word would be ἐξελίττειν.
14. If then, by a course of verbal criticism, carried on re-
264
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
gularly and correctly from Homer down to Plato, including
even the last-quoted passage of this writer, we have seen that
eiλew has always essentially the same sense of pressing and
shutting, and that there has been no reason in any one instance
why we should understand the same verb in the sense of to
turn round,—it must appear strikingly extraordinary (perhaps
not much less so than if we had found it in Plato himself) that
Aristotle, Plato's nearest follower in Grecian literature, should
have understood the verb in that same passage of Plato in the
sense of to turn; and that he did so seems beyond a doubt,
as he has quoted the passage in his treatise De Cœlo, 2, 13.
as a decided instance of this meaning. As to what
As to what may be
said on this point with regard to the thing itself, how de-
cidedly certain Plato's meaning is in this respect, and in
what way we may explain Aristotle's mistaking his meaning,
-on these points I refer to the old philosophers, who have ex-
pressed their astonishment at them, to Plutarch, Galen, Proclus,
Simplicius, whose opinions are quoted by Ruhnken in Tim.
Lex., and to Böckh in his Program de Platonico systemate
cœlestium globorum, &c., Heidelb. 1810. 4to. I will also
mention the grammatical remark added by Simplicius*; Tò dè
ἰλλομένην εἰ διὰ τοῦ ι γράφεται, τὴν προσδεδεμένην σημαίνει.
καὶ οὕτω καὶ ᾿Απολλώνιος ὁ ποιητὴς (1, 129.), Δεσμοῖς ἰλλό-
μενον, τουτέστιν ἐνδεδεμένον, μεγάλων νώτων ἐξέωσεν. καὶ
Όμηρος (Il.v, 572.), ἰλλάσιν, τουτέστι δεσμοῖς, οὐ βίᾳ δεσ-
μοῦντες ἄγουσιν. εἰ δὲ διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γράφεται, καὶ
οὕτω τὴν κωλυομένην σημαίνει, ὡς Αἰσχύλος ἐν Βασσάραις.
Hence we see that a difference did exist, whether early or late,
whether well or ill grounded, between the writing or pronun-
ciation of eiλ and AA, 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 iλádec, bands, chains. Now we ob-
serve from Simplicius that, even if there were any ground for
εν
d
4 In the commentary on this book of Aristotle, fol. 129. b., with the
readings corrected according to Böckh. Only I have left untouched
the poetical passages which are quoted incorrectly, as they cannot mis-
lead us.
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
265
the difference, 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 Eschylus, where
εἰλλόμενος had the sense of κωλυόμενος, or, as Hesychius says
of the same passage, eipyóuevoc³. We should not be able to
furnish him with a more suitable passage from the collection
which we have made above; but we may, perhaps, be able to
produce the same result by placing together and comparing
the whole usage of the word. And thus, then, Aristotle's ex-
planation of Plato's eiλλoμévny becomes only the more sur-
prising. 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 ety-
mological 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 occa-
sions, but always with discrimination, old and rare words, se-
lected this for the passage in question; and Aristotle, mistaking
Plato's opinion of the thing spoken of, and led into error by the
Tepi immediately 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.
5 How little this difference also was adopted we see, among other
things, from the explanation which some grammarians gave of the word
ἔλλοψ, that it is the same as ἵλλοψ, διὰ τὸ εἴργεσθαι φωνῆς; because
ἔλλεσθαι is εἴργεσθαι: Ath. 7, p. 308. c.
266
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
^
15. There is one meaning of this verb which is known to us
only through a quotation from a lost lexicon of Pausanias, and
one from another grammarian, both mentioned by Eustathius
on Il. v, 572. Παυσανίας εἰπὼν, εἰλάειν, στρεβλοῦν, πιέζειν.
μάλιστα δὲ ἐπὶ ὑγρῶν οἰκεία ἡ λέξις οἷον σταφυλῶν κατ᾿ αὐτὸν
}
ἢ ἐλαιῶν. καὶ εἰλεῖν τὸ συνάγειν φησὶ εἰς ταυτὸ σταφυλάς.
ἕτερος δὲ τεχνικός φησιν, εἰλεῖν ἐκπιέζειν ἐλαίας ἢ στέμφυλα.
Whatever inaccuracy or obscurity may have crept into these
quotations, one thing is evident from them, that eiλeîv, and
perhaps eiλáci 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 orpeßloûv can here
again enter into the explanation of eideiv; and when this
verb is taken in conjunction with the Latin torcular, and
another Greek verb of similar meaning, rparetv, in Homer
(Od. n, 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
Tраπeiv 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 τρéπw, but only on account
of the τρown or change of the must into wine. I have not the
least doubt that the Greek language preserved in this verb
that family of words which pervades the modern European
languages, in the German treten, to tread, trappen, to stamp.
Still less reason is there for doubting that this use of eiλeiv
comes from that which we have above acknowledged to be its
original meaning, to push, thrust, stamp, with which is con-
nected the idea of to grind in ỏλn and ảλeîv. And undoubtedly
the olive also had its Greek name èλáa from its undergoing
this operation.
ΤΟ
16. I think I can add very considerable weight to this view
of the subject by the Epic epithet of oxen, eiλirodec. If the
word be derived, as it properly is, from eiλeîv, and we give it
the meaning of Xiooew, the result will be a most unnatural
one; for the expression will be far more the characteristic of the
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
267
tread of horses than of oxen. Voss saw by his talent of ob-
servation 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 eiλirodec more than other
animals, that their joints are more particularly loosely set (xa-
λapá). This property made them, therefore, peculiarly calcu-
λαρά).
lated for treading 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 eiλinodec*, stamping
with their feet, in its correct light.
HO
17. Aristophanes (Nub. 762.) makes Socrates say, in ex-
pressions particularly select, to Strepsiades who was reflecting
on a previous question,
Μὴ νῦν περὶ σαυτὸν εἷλλε (var. ἴλλε) τὴν γνώμην ἀεὶ,
᾿Αλλ᾿ ἀποχάλα τὴν φροντίδ' ἐς τὸν ἀέρα.
εἵλλειν τι περί
The antithesis is evidently with ἀποχαλᾷν; and εἷλλε &c. is
therefore 'do not entangle thyself, do not wrap thyself up in thy
thoughts'; eλew Ti Tepi Ti means therefore here, as in the
passage of Plato, to bind something firm around an object, and
the 'around' lies in Tepi. Xenophon (de Ven. 6, 15.) uses the
expression ἐξίλλουσαι τὰ ἴχνη of hounds picking out a difficult
scent, as where different scents cross each other. Schneider
on this passage quotes others from Herodian where ¿ğeλitTew
has this same meaning. Both are taken metaphorically from
the unfolding of something wrapped or covered up; as éčíλλew
is the doing away of that which is signified by "λλew, much
the same as we say to wrap and unwrap, cover and uncover.
18. Very difficult, after all this discussion, is the pas-
sage in Sophocl. Antig. 341., where it is said that man ev
τὰν ὑπερτάταν γᾶν ἄφθιτον ἀκαμάταν ἀποτρύεται, εἰλομένων†
ע
* [Both Schneider in his Lexicon, and Passow in his last edition of
the same, understand eiλíñodes 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.]
† [Passow in his Lexicon mentions that the Ald. and one very good
MS. have aλouévwv, which would appear to be the true reading.-
ED.]
268
44. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
(var. ἰλλομένων) ἀρότρων ἔτος εἰς ἔτος, ἱππείῳ γένει πολεύων.
I cannot perceive, from all the meanings hitherto collected to-
gether, 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 that this explanation should on that account be rejected
without further consideration. The scholiasts have been in-
duced by the regular recurrence which they find expressed
in Toc eic Toc, 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 ter-
rible serpent to be effected in this way; Φεύγε δ᾽ ἀεὶ σκολιήν τε
καὶ οὐ μίαν ἀτραπὸν ἴλλων. 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 com-
pare the words iλóc and ïλλwy, 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, Tŵv év
ποσὶ εἰλευμένων τοῖσι ἀνθρώποισι: where ἐν ποσί means no-
thing more than near at hand; as at 3, 79. ekteivov távta
ἔκτεινον πάντα
τινὰ τῶν μάγων τὸν ἐν ποσὶ γινόμενον, 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, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ εὐδίᾳ αὐτοῦ ἀνειλοῦνται :
and, lastly, in Max. Tyr. 28, 58. of persons who are always en-
gaged in law-suits, oi πρòc Tàc díkaç eiλovμevoi. In this expres-
sion eiλeîolaι 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
T
44. Eileîr, &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. κατ' αὐτὸν (on the cup) ἕλιξ εἱλεῖται,
•
the ivy winds* around.’ In the above-mentioned sense of
to bustle about, be busily engaged, the verb eiλeîolar, with its
strengthened form εἰλινδεῖσθαι, is synonymous with κυλινδεῖ-
o0a; 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 aspirate 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 peculiarly to the Attics, and
the other mode of pronunciation to the Ionians and the later
κοινοῖς. Thus then, the forms ἐάλην and ἀλῆναι, which are
elsewhere commonly but contradictorily written čáλŋv and
åλrat, are now with reason written in Homer according to the
Ionic dialect uniform, 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. Εἰλεῖν, &c.
πρоσeλe, 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 eiλn or iλn,
with its derivatives iλadóv and outλoc, all in the sense of dense
bodies and crowds of people, and derived immediately from
eiλeîr, as we have seen above at sect. 4. of this article. And
the Hesiodic use of ἰλαδόν in e, 285. Τὴν μέντοι κακότητα καὶ
ἰλαδὸν ἔστιν ἑλέσθαι, which hardly admits of a metaphor drawn
from crowds of men, comes immediately from the idea of a
dense compressed mass of anything. The same idea of com-
pressing or tying up together lies, as in iλλác, of which we have
spoken above, so also in éλλedavóc (or -óv), the band with which
the sheaf of corn was tied, or the sheaf itself, Il. σ, 553. Of
eiλúw we shall presently speak in a separate article, from
εἰλύω
which verb is derived not improbably the word iλúc, mud, as
being a thing which passes over and covers. Of the idea
volvo, which lies in eiλów, we shall speak in that its proper
place; and while we hold the possibility of its having grown
out of the frequentative sense of eiλeîv, we do not deny that
another root EA-, having really the meaning of turning or
winding, and to which the words élioow and ¤λığ seem to
guide us, might possibly have crept into the wide store-house.
of the Greek language. But in either case we have this one
certain result, that the verb eiλw, eidéw, in this form and in the
words evidently derived from this form, had not in any instance
the sense of winding and turning.
22. I cannot conclude this article without here referring
to the word oulos, curled or matted like wool, which will be
found (see art. 88.) derived correctly indeed from eiλeîv, (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 où-
Xaµóc, as a globus virorum. This last, however, is corrected
by what has been said just above, since it comes from eiλeiv
in the same way and with the same sense as “λŋ does, and
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, kλŵμağ and gleba, expresses a
44. Eideiv, &c.
271
compressed mass, a lump or ball. Nor is the above explana-
tion of ovλoc 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 puffed 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 ovλov τpixwμa
of an ovλokaρývov. From this, the only meaning found in
the older Greek, it will be easily seen that all else which we
find brought forward in the lexicons of this sense of the word,
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.),
ἴων τε κορωνίδας οὔλας, it expresses perfectly well the thick
and cushion-like surface of a chaplet wreathed with small
flowers. But all this comes very naturally from the com-
pressing and packing together expressed by the verb eider.
From <aτeideiv, in the sense of wrapping or covering up, comes
the epithet kaTovλác, for the dark night, used by the post-
Homeric poets. See Schneider.*
Εἰλίπους
Eixínovs; vid. eiλeiv, &c. Sect. 16.
εἰλεῖν,
* [From Schneider's Lexicon I extract the following :
CC
Karovλás, áðos, }, epithet of the night, lik eỏλon výž, the dark night,
Others read
Apoll. Rhod. 4, 1695. and Sophocl. Nauplius in Photius.
κατειλάς. Hesychius has κατειλάδα, ἡμέραν χειμερινὴν, and εἰλὰς, σκο-
τεινὴ; also εἰλύ, μέλαν; and, again, ἔλυστα, ἄμπελος μέλαινα; ἑλίβο-
τρυς, ἄμπελός τις μέλαινα.”
>>
In Passow's last edition of Schneider we have:
“Katovλás, ý, vôž, the dark night, Soph. and Ap. Rh. Others write
κατειλάς from είλω, while κατουλάς comes from οὖλος, ὅλος. 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. Εἰλύω, ἐλυσθῆναι.
1. The forms which belong to the themes eilów and elów
stand in evident relation, in meaning as well as orthography,
to that great variety which we have seen under etw. Indeed
eiλów, which form in Homer has in its inflexions the v long, as
eidvow, eiλūµaι, has invariably in the same poet no other mean-
ing than that of to wrap, envelope, or cover over, as vedéλn,
νυκτί, ψαμάθῳ, σάκεσιν, &c., whence εἴλυμα in Od. ζ, 179. is
any covering for the body; which meaning appears, therefore,
to come originally from eiλñoa, in the sense of to envelope,
wrap up. See art. 44. sect. 13. 17.
2. The verb éλów is to be considered, therefore, in this oldest
Greek not as a mere contraction of eiλów, but as essentially
different from it. It is true that the passage of Od. 1, 433.,
where Ulysses is concealed under the belly of the large ram,
λασίην ὑπὸ γαστέρ᾽ ἐλυσθεὶς Κείμην, and that exactly corre-
sponding one of Archilochus (Fr. 69. Liebel.) epwс vπò kaρdinv
évoleic, 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 Il. w, 510. where
it is said of Priam Κλαῖ᾽ ἀδινὰ προπάροιθε ποδῶν ᾿Αχιλῆος
éλvoleic, 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
áλeic (see art. 44. sect. 6.), the root EAQ having taken a
more forcible form in uw for that very purpose.
-
3. A striking deviation from these passages is found in Il.
, 393. where the yoke of the horses which draw the chariot
of Eumelus breaks in two, the horses run aside out of the road,
ῥυμὸς δ᾽ ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἐλύσθη. 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. Εἰλύω, ἐλυσθῆναι.
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 eλvμa
will decide it. This is that part of the plough which is nearest
the ploughshare. Now exactly as this is situated in order for
it to perform its duty, that is, inclining downwards and so
pushed into the earth, in the same way would the pole drop in
case of the yoke breaking. As, then, this is certainly the true
sense, I think it equally certain that this meaning of ¿λvo¤ñvai,
as well as the others, comes originally from EAQ, ëλoai, through
its more forcible variety λów; for we have admitted to push,
thrust, drive, or beat, to be an 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, though all this does really come from EA, eλw, 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. In addition to which there is
a difference in the quantity; for the σ in éλvoleic indicates the
shortness of the v in its inflexions, although the substantive
* [From Schneider's Lexicon :
“Ἐλύω, ἑλύω, from ἔλω, εἴλω, εἰλέω, also ἴλλω, to wrap up in, cover ;
whence ἔλυτρον, a covering, case; ῥυμὸς ἐπὶ γαῖαν ἐλύσθη, i. q. παρε-
λύθη, ἔπεσεν, συνειλήθη, stuck into the earth, Ι1. ψ, 393. προπάροιθε
ποδῶν ἐλυσθεὶςs, lying before his feet, Il. ω, 510. κατὰ πηλοῖο ἐλυσθεὶς,
Oppiani Hal. 2, 89. concealed; ἐνὶ κτερέεσσιν ἐλυσθεὶς νειόθι γαίης,
Apollon. 1, 254. See εἰλύω. Εἰλύω, εἴλυμι, -ύσω, also εἱλύω, εἵλυμι,
from êλw, eïλw, to roll, turn, or wind round anything, to wrap up in, en-
velope, cover, hide; Il. μ, 286. π, 640. φ, 318. νεφέων εἰλυμμένον ἄλ-
λων, Arati 413. ὀλίγη δέ μιν εἰλύσι ἀχλὺς, 432. πέριξ εἰλυμένα καπνῷ,
Apollon. Rhod. 3, 1291. Midd. to roll oneself along, drag oneself along
slowly or with difficulty, crawl along like children and worms; wrap or
cover oneself up, hide, eiλvoleìs, Theocr. 25, 246.”
W
This last is evidently either a mistranslation or a misquotation of
Schneider; eiλvo@eís in Theocritus being used in a very different sense.
See below at the end of sect. 4. of this article.-ED.]
-
-
† [This will hold good in the Homeric language, but the later writers
confounded both forms and meanings. Passow's Lexicon.-ED.]
T
274
45. Εἰλύω, ἐλυσθῆναι.
υπ
λūμa deviates again from that rule. But the succeeding poets
entirely lost sight of these distinctions. Thus Apollonius Rhod.
3,281. says of Love, αὐτῷ δ᾽ ὕπο βαιὸς ἐλυσθεὶς Αἰσονίδῃ, and
immediately after, at 296. Τοῖος ὑπὸ κραδίῃ εἰλυμένος αἴθετο
λάθρη Οὖλος Ερως, speaking in both passages of Love hiding
himself, and in the second in evident imitation of the words of
Archilochus he has therefore used eiλvµévoc and èλvoleic
without any distinction. Again at 3, 1291. épi eiλvμéva
πέριξ εἰλυμένα
kávy, and soon afterwards of Jason surrounded with the flames
of the fire-breathing bulls, διὰ φλογὸς εἶθαρ ἐλυσθείς: he has
therefore used the two forms indifferently for the same meaning.
To these we may add the passage 1, 1034. of a person slain
by Jason, ὁ δ᾽ ἐνὶ ψαμάθοισιν ἐλυσθείς Μοῖραν ἀνέπλησεν, 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 eiλva@eic in the sense
of the Homeric éλvoleic, 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 Athenæus, 7, p. 293. d. has evo a
with the v short, in the sense of to wrap up in, envelope.
0
,
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; Εἰλυόμην δύστηνος ἐξέλκων πόδα Πρὸς τοῦτ᾽ ἄν·
and εἰλυόμενος, παῖς ἄτερ ὡς φίλας τιθήνας.
6. Whilst then the theme elów is accurately connected by
meaning with the root ΕΛΩ, εἴλω,—the theme εἰλύω, as used
by Homer and Sophocles, seems to have a particular identity
of meaning with volvo; and as eiλúw had undoubtedly the di-
gamma (see Od. §, 479. e, 403.), the Latin verb corresponds
with it pretty clearly. The Epic frequentative verb eiλvpálw,
eiλupáw, of the flame rolling or whirling up, proceeds probably
from the same idea. At the same time, there is not in eiλów
properly and strictly any meaning of to turn. Nevertheless
I fear the partial commingling of many ideas into one too
much, not to admit the possibility of a really twofold root,
FEA-, to push or thrust, and FEA-, to turn or wind; so that to
the former should belong ἔλσαι, εἴλω, ἐλάω, ἐλύω, to the latter
46. ᾿Εΐσκειν, ἴσκειν.
275
eiλów, éλioow. And thus, while I think that I have laid down
with certainty the principal directions which usage has taken¹,
I am at the same time willing to suppose that in this, as well
as in the article on ew, some things may admit of a very
different decision from that which I have given.
46. Εΐσκειν, ἴσκειν.
yàp
1. The Epic verb elokw has, for its fixed and certain meanings,
to think similar, liken, compare, and to make similar, assimilate.
Not less fixed is the digamma before the e, and therefore the
correct way of viewing it is FEFΙΣΚΩ from FEIKO, like
dedioкoμaι (I greet, Od. o, 150.) from deiкvvμai (Il. i, 196.).
But to this there arises one objection at Il. 4, 332. where
Juno calls on Vulcan to attack Xanthus, and says to him, avra
σέθεν γὰρ Ξάνθον δινήεντα μάχῃ ἠΐσκομεν εἶναι. This form is
a regular imperfect, ἐΐσκω, ἤϊσκον, or FEFIΣΚΩ, EFEFI-
ΣΚΟΝ, as at Od. δ, 247. ἄλλῳ δ᾽ αὐτὸν φωτὶ κατακρύπτων
nioker: but in that passage of the Iliad the context is against.
such an opinion; for there is no reason whatever for our sup-
posing a previous consultation of the Gods to which Juno refers
in this imperfect; and a present nioкw (FHFIΣKQ) is contrary
to all analogy. The true way is to compare it with deidioкouar
(Od. γ, 41.), and further with δείδοικα and δειδίσσομαι. For
in this same way elotka, that is, FEIFOIKA (Il. o, 418.), was
۱۲۰۰
If we consider the Latin volvo, we recognise 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 яóρяŋ, bulbus, the German
verbs malmen, dulden, &c. [the English words turtle, poppy, velvet]. To
these we may add eiλów, in as much as from the root FEA- is made
FEAFO, of which two digammas in the Ionic the first became the as-
pirate, 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 eiλw, êλáw, &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 eiλów, lost itself more and more in other
forms, and so at last fell again into the simple root. But it may be
otherwise, and the etymologist should never lose sight of all the dif-
ferent possibilities.
T 2
276
46. Εΐσκειν, ἴσκειν.
formed out of eoika (FEFOIKA) from exw; and consequently
FEIFΙΣΚΩ out of FEFIΣΚΩ, that is, εἰίσκω out of ἐΐσκω ;
and this present ellokoμev is therefore to be recognised in that
niokoμev handed down to us in the above passage of the Iliad.
None of this, however, is the Ionic elongation of e into eɩ;
but dei and FEI are reduplications of the radical syllables of
AEIKO, AEIQ, and FEIKO. See the Ausführ. Sprachl.
under δείκνυμι and δεῖσαι *.
II.
τα εισκω
2. With this verb coincides in sense the shortened form
ἴσκω. Ιl. λ, 798. π. 41. Αΐ κέ σε τῷ (Αἴ κ' ἐμὲ σοὶ) ἴσκοντες
Ai
(Aï ooì)
ἀπόσχωνται πολέμοιο : as at e, 181. Τυδείδῃ μιν ἔγωγε δαΐ-
Oрovi Távτa čloкw. Again, Od. 8, 279. of Helen standing near
the wooden horse, Πάντων ᾿Αργείων φωνὴν ἴσκουσ᾽ ἀλόχοισιν :
therefore porn lokew Twi is, to make one's voice like that of
another person, much the same as σὲ γὰρ αὐτὴν παντὶ ἐΐσκεις,
said by Ulysses to Minerva, Od. v, 313.
ισκειι
3. The more striking is it that "Ioke 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. Ισκεν ᾿Αγηνορίδης, and
again at 3, 439. "Ioкev áπnλeyéwc. In the older Epic, how-
ever, we know of it in only these two Homeric passages; Od.
T, 203. of Ulysses, after his fabricated account to Penelope :
Ισκε ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγων ἐτύμοισιν ὅμοια.
and X, 31. of the suitors after the delivery of their speech re-
proaching Ulysses for having shot Antinous :
Ἴσκεν ἕκαστος ἀνὴρ, ἐπειὴ φάσαν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα
"Ανδρα κατακτεῖναι.
* [I extract from the above-named work of Buttmann the following:
<<
“ Δείδεγμαι, δειδέχαται, δείδεκτο, &c. have the syllable of reduplica-
tion deɩ, because it is the radical or stem-syllable, as in deîoal. These
forms belong not to déxoμai, but to deíkvvμai, in the sense of to greet,
welcome, drink to, and to them we may add a word of similar meaning,
deidioroμai; whence Apoll. Rh. 1. 558. said, deidioкero Tarpì, in the
common sense of edeíkvve. The ground-idea is undoubtedly the pre-
senting the hand, cup, &c., with which the idea of to show corresponds
very well.
"
Δείδοικα, δείδια, ἐδείδιμεν were used by the Epics because, like δεί-
deкTo the diphthong was in the radical syllable. From deldia arose a
present deído, of which only this person occurs."—ED.]
46. Εΐσκειν, ἴσκειν.
277
That these two passages of Homer read quite simply and na-
turally, if "Ioke be rendered by he spoke, is not to be denied;
but when considered in and by itself, 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 okei, 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.
KO
-
4. Hence there was a supposition in very early times that
Loke was here misunderstood, and consequently that the imi-
ἴσκειν
tation of Apollonius Rhod. and others was false. And first in
Apollonii Lex. (in v. and under eloxovтec) the word toker, which
can be taken from only these two passages of Homer, is ex-
plained by elkačev, wμoiov; and the same in Hesychius. Eusta-
thius remarks on the first passage as follows: Tò dè "Iokev oi
μὲν γλωσσογράφοι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔλεγεν ἐκδέχονται, οἱ δὲ ἀκρι-
βέστεροι ἀντὶ τοῦ ἤϊσκεν, ὅ ἐστιν, εἴκαζεν ἀπεικονίζων πρὸς
aλnciar. The scholium on this passage is nearly the same;
and on the second passage, x. 31., the scholium, as given by
Barnes, has these words, ἄλλοι μὲν τὸ ἔλεγεν σημαίνειν βού-
Aortal, where it is therefore plain that there was originally an-
other part, now lost, expressing that some explained it also in
that passage by elkalev. Eustathius explains it, indeed, in
this second passage by eleyev, but remarks at the same time.
that this passage (xwpiov) was supposed by the ancients to be
spurious, because it seems ridiculous that all the suitors should
say this at one time, as in the chorus of a tragedy, and because
Homer in such cases says, ὧδε δέ τις εἴπεσκεν: contiary to
which criticism, however, he afterwards defends the disputed
passage, which necessarily comprehends the verses 31, 32, 33.
But the scholium in the Vienna Codex on this verse runs thus ;
Οὐδέποτε Ὅμηρος ἐπὶ τοῦ ἔλεγε τὸ ἴσκε, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὡμοίου.
ἠπάτηται οὖν ὁ διασκευαστὴς ἐκ τοῦ Ἴσκε ψεύδεα πολλά.
Schol. Apollon. 1, 934. τὸ δὲ ἴσκεν ἐνταῦθα μὲν ἀντὶ τοῦ
ἔλεγεν, παρὰ δὲ ῾Ομήρῳ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὡμοίου'. Schol. II. π.
ΤΟ
›
ο
T
41.
el
¹ Another scholium, on 3, 396. Tò dè loker 'Oµnpiŵs, might be brought
to accord with this of 1, 834. by supposing that the scholiast on the
278
46. ᾿Εΐσκειν, ἴσκειν.
ἴσκοντες. ὁμοιοῦντες. οἱ δὲ νεώτεροι ἐπὶ τοῦ λέγοντες τάττουσι
τὴν λέξιν.
5. The result of all that has been said appears to amount to
this, that a spurious form, lokev, 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 Alexandrian poets Apollonius, Theocri-
tus (22, 167.), 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. T. does indeed offer very good
grounds for the explanation which the scholiast proposes, Toλλà
πολλὰ
ψεύδη λέγων εἴκαζεν ὥστε ὅμοια εἶναι ἀληθέσιν: 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 suc-
ceeding Ισκεν ἕκαστος ἀνὴρ, viz. ἐπειὴ φάσαν οὐκ ἐθέλοντα
"Avoρа KaTakтеivat, do imply a conjecture, an opinion. Still it
is impossible to understand the words in question to mean
'thus each man conjectured', &c., or, 'thus spake each man
dissembling', &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 exas-
perated for having succeeded in stringing the bow), from sup-
posing that he had killed Antinous 'accidentally'. And so
convinced were those grammarians of the impossibility of loкew
meaning to say, that they imagined it to be the work of a dia-
σKevaσTηc, and supposed the misunderstanding of 7, 203. to
be the origin of the usage in the later poets.
ע
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 would be, thus
(
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. 62. (65.) has it in its genuine sense of to con-
jecture.
47. "Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
279
spake he’; but εἴκαζεν or ἔπλαττεν alone for ταῦτ᾽ or ὣς
TλаTTE certainly could not stand in such a context. Hence
I conjecture that Homer originally used here another imperfect
with that same most natural meaning; nor can I think of any
other so likely as loπev, 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 toxe, Il. o, 657.); and is con-
nected with the aorist imperative eσTere, Il. 6, 484., if we
suppose that this, according to the analogy of oxw, čoxov,
imperative σχές, σχέτε, stands for σπέτε, as ἑσπέσθαι for
Téoba. It is very conceivable that when the language of Epic
poetry survived only in the mouths of the rhapsodists, two forms
so similar as tone and lokе became confounded in their trans-
mission downwards, and that one disappeared entirely.
>/
στ
LOTTE
σπε
C
47. Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
1. That ekŋλoc and cйêŋλoç 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 ea-
sily obtained,—that in Homer its meaning is nearly equivalent
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 ἕκηλος or εὔκηλος, not only while he is
resting, sleeping, eating, or playing, but also while he is using
any kind of active exertion. Thus the Trojans (Il. p, 340.)
are unwilling that the Greeks should carry off to the ships the
body of Patroclus eknλot; and at 2, 70. these latter are ex-
horted to leave the dead bodies of their enemies untouched,
that they may plunder them ekŋλo after the battle; and still
further at p, 371. it is expressly said, Evîndoi todéµičov vt'
aiſépɩ, in opposition to those who were fighting in darkness,
dust, and the perilous press of battle around the body of Patro-
clus. The idea given by the word is therefore never an absence
280
47. Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
of motion or of labour, but expresses only that nothing unplea-
sant 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 exŋλoç in his own jurisdiction, as Nep-
tune says (o, 194.) of Jupiter. On the other hand, it is a faulty
application of the radical idea of the word, when Theocritus,
25, 100., uses it simply for idle, unemployed, and that too as
opposed to an occupation which is described as cheerful and
exhilarating :
.
Ενθα μὲν οὔτις ἕκηλος, ἀπειρεσίων περ ἐόντων,
Εἱστήκει παρὰ βουσὶν ἀνὴρ κεχρημένος ἔργου, &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.:
Τῆμος δ' εὐκρινέες αὖραι καὶ πόντος ἀπήμων,
Εὔκηλος· τότε νῆα θοὴν ἀνέμοισι πιθήσας
῾Ελκέμεν ἐς πόντον, φόρτον δ' εὖ πάντα τίθεσθαι.
Here eйknλoc 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, eknλoc. 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
ἀπήμων, and connect εύκηλος with ἑλκέμεν, 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
eknλog 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. Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
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 Σοὶ δ᾽ αὐτάγρετόν ἐστι δαήμεναι
O,TTI μevoivac, i. e. "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,
Εὔκηλος τότε νῆα θοὴν ἀνέμοισι πιθήσας
Ελκέμεν ἐς πόντον, φόρτον δ' εὖ πάντα τίθεσθαι,
and this passage in the Hymn to Mercury,
Εὔκηλος μὲν ἔπειτα φέρειν ἐς δαῖτα θάλειαν,
Καὶ χορὸν ἱμερόεντα, καὶ ἐς φιλοκυδέα κῶμον,
Εὐφροσύνην νυκτός τε καὶ ἤματος '
4. In Apollonius *, on the contrary, is seen at once a mis-
taken imitation of Homer; for he sometimes uses it, and that
repeatedly, of the stillness of inanimate objects: 4,1249. ev-
κήλῳ δὲ κατείχετο πάντα γαλήνῃ, and (if any one should rather
look upon this as an intentional metaphor,) 2, 935. evkýλnow
πτερύγεσσιν, and 3, 969. of trees, Αἵ τε παρᾶσσον ἕκηλοι ἐν
οὔρεσιν ἐῤῥίζωνται Νηνεμίῃ. Sometimes he uses it of persons,
¹ It appears unnecessary to read μív in the first of these verses, as
the lyre is mentioned by name in the preceding one. I understand
Єuppoσúvηy to be put in apposition with it.
* An older instance than Apollonius of the un-Homeric use of the
word to express the stillness and absence of motion of inanimate things
occurs in the Hymn. Cer. 451.
Ἐς δ᾽ ἄρα Ῥάριον ἷξε, φερέσβιον οὖθαρ ἀρούρης
Τὸ πρίν· ἀτὰρ τότε γ᾽ οὔτι φερέσβιον, ἀλλὰ ἕκηλον
Ἑστήκει πανάφυλλον.
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. Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
it is true, but not to point out calmness of mind, but mere
simple silence, and that too when joined with mental emotion;
as, 3, 219. Εὔκηλοι δ᾽ ὑπὲρ οὐδὸν ἔπειτ᾽ ἔβαν: and 2, 861.
where the Argonauts, in great distress and perplexity (aunxa-
νίησιν) at the loss of two of their companions, ἁλὸς προπάροιθε
πεσόντες ῎Εντυπας εὐκήλως εἰλυμένοι, do not think either of
eating or drinking.
5. The Hesiodic phrase Taidov evênλńτeipa, e. 462.,
might possibly be adduced as a proof that the idea of silence
lies in evкnλoc. But whoever thinks thus does not consider
that in that passage the children are supposed to be crying for
bread, and when that is given them they become cʊêŋλoɩ, i. e.
quiet and contented. Still greater injustice is done to Pindar:
for in Ol. 9, 87., where it is said of Jupiter, Ouyaтр'...'Оло-
εντος ἀναρπάσαις ἕκαλος μίχθη Μαιναλίοισιν ἐν δειραῖς, the
scholiast actually explains it by Xálpa, and the more modern
commentators follow his interpretation. But secrecy, 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 evкnλoc may be the older form
of the two, and derived from eû and kŋλeîv; without however
reflecting that it would then have a much too positive sense,
whereas it never occurs exactly in this positive sense; and even
in a form of more intense signification, eỷkýλŋtoc, i. e. highly
delighted, it must have taken a negative sense, equivalent 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 cu into é, a transition
without the slightest analogy whatever. Hence Schneider in
.
2 Damm however is an exception: he in general explains the word
in Homer and Pindar essentially correctly.
3 One thing which speaks strongly against this termination is the
very circumstance of the old grammarians never having stumbled upon
it, although it stands so manifest. The older commentators, at Il. a,
554. have merely the change from erŋλos to cйkŋλos, 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 Il. a, 554. p. 112, 49. Basil.
47. ῞Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
283
તા
his Lexicon supposes an old adjective knλóc, tranquil, from which
would come, on the one hand evкnλoc and knλoc, and on the
other knλeîv, which verb would therefore have had originally
the idea of tranquillizing, and now for the first time that of de-
light and pleasure. But this supposition will bring only the
form eйknλog into any analogy. For the prefixing of an e with
the aspirate, or still more with the digamma (see Il. e, 759.
4, 70. 1, 376. X, 75. o, 194. p, 340.), in order to form eкnλoç
from knλóc, is equally without example. This last observation
rather proves to me that the radical syllable is in the beginning
of the word, ek-, particularly as -nλoc is a well-known adjectival
termination. It is true that this termination has in ἀπατηλός,
inλóc, &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. 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".
7. As to the transition from ἕκηλος to εὔκηλος, we feel at
once that the digamma of the former is at work here; and even
4 We have for instance the word öpuos, which in both its meanings
is properly a verbal in μός. See ἕρμα.
5 As far as form goes it is hardly possible not to consider the three
words ἑκών, ἕκητι, ἕκηλος (all having the digamma) as verbals of one
and the same root. Whether the result of the above investigation (that
eknλos is properly used only of persons, and generally of mental feelings,)
would lead to the same point, I leave, without pronouncing 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 «ŋλéw
from ἕκηλος*, as μαυροῦν (Hes. c. 323.) comes from ἀμαυρός, κωχεύειν
from ỏkwy, &c. And this derivation is confirmed by the Hesiodic ev-
κηλήτειρα, which word in fact contains a verb εύκηλέω formed without
contraction from the other form evrŋλos, and that in the exact sense
which Schneider considers the ground-meaning of knλéw, the calming
of the passions.
ὀκωχή,
* [In Schneider's third and last edition of his Lexicon he has altered
that one point to an agreement with Buttmann.—ED.]
284
47. "Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
the mere transposition from FEΚΗΛΟΣ to EFΚΗΛΟΣ 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 Böckh (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 ἐείκοσιν, ἔεδνα, ἐέλπεται, and
others. Now as all these words in their shorter form belong to
those acknowledged to have the digamma (ἀνὰ εἴκοσι μέτρα, μυ-
ρία ἔδνα, ἔτι ἔλπεται, &c.), we must write the longer forms thus,
EFEIKOZIN, EFEANA, EFEAПETAI: without which
supposition it would be inconceivable how these words, al-
ready beginning with an e, could take another e contrary to all
harmony of sound. By a similar process, for ekηλoc we must
now write FEKHAOΣ; but as the e here is not as in the others,
long by the diphthong or by position, EƑEKHAOΣ became at
once EFKHAOΣ, in the same way as by means of the aug-
ment ἐπέλετο, ἐπετόμην became ἔπλετο, ἐπτόμην. Herein it
is evident that the rise and preservation of the form eukŋλoç
was promoted by the apparently significative power of the syl-
lable eu, exactly as from EFAAE came evade into Epic usage.
8. I will further confirm this view of the subject by a case
exactly similar. The Argonaut Eurytus, Evpuroc, is called by
the older writers "EpvToc; see Burm. Catal. Argon. It is easy
to say that the latter is a poetical licence for the former; but
what kind of versification must that be which would allow a
name so admissible into any metre as Eupuroc is, to be short-
ened, according as circumstances might require, into "Epuroc?
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
"EpvToc? Beyond all dispute therefore "Epuroc, 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 Eupuroc is a later
corruption of it, caused by the name having been borne by many
47. Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
285
others; unless indeed, we should say that the same appear-
ance would go still further, and point to eupúc as its root.
9. Among the inseparable particles that strengthen the sense
of a word are two, api- 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 the same object. This alone is sufficient
to prove with certainty that the root of each is different. And
as it is certain that άρι- belongs to the same root as ἀρείων,
apioroc, and consequently comes from the idea of good, so ἐρι-
belongs to the same family as evpúc, and arises from the idea.
of bodily size. Hence api- 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 apiɣvwTOG,
ἀριφραδής, easy to be known, ἀρίδακρυς, given to crying, ἀρι-
opaλna, very deceitful, &c., but it never properly implies size
or extent, which is particularly the meaning of epi-, e. g. in
ἐριαύχενες, ἐρίπλευρος, ἐρικύμων, ἐριστάφυλος: and hence it
makes an easy transition to the idea of a spreading sound, an
extending fame, as in ἐριβρεμέτης, ἐρίγδουπος (which may be
compared with εὐρύοπα), ἐρισμάραγος, ἐριμύκης, ἐρικυδής; οι
to that of luxuriant growth, as έριθηλής (compare εὐρυφυής).
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 ἐρισθενής, ἐρίτιμος; but this is also the case in εὐρυσθενής,
which in Homer indeed, where it is the epithet of Neptune,
may point out the wide extent of his dominion, but in Pindar
is the epithet of many inferior heroes and rulers, and in Ol. 4,17.
it is even joined with the aperai; so that the Homeric epithet
of Jupiter, épiolevýc, may very fairly be considered as the older
form of εὐρυσθενής.
10. This identity of epi- and eupu- is seen still more decidedly
marked in the name of another Argonaut, 'Epißurne, who was
also called, for instance by Herodorus (according to Schol.
Apollon. 1, 71.), Evpvßárnc; a circumstance which Burmann
in his Catal. Argon. has very properly compared with Eurytus.
He has also conjectured that this 'Epißúrne is the same as the
Eupuẞúraç mentioned by Pausan. 5, 17. as present with Jason,
Peleus, and other Argonauts at the funeral games of Pelias.
286
47. Εκηλος, εὔκηλος.
It can hardly be doubted that it is so. The hero, then, was
called Εριβώτης or Εὐρυβώτης, and the name has thus for the
first time a true meaning. The second form might have been
written quite as analogically Eupußórne, for the sake of the
hexameter; which would have changed itself almost neces-
sarily by an earlier or later corruption into the more glibly-
running name Ευρυβάτης.
11. In order now to derive cupúc in the above-mentioned
way from that more simple form to which epi- belongs, this
latter must have had the digamma; of which, however, often
as èpi- 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 élev has it no longer, of whose digamma eλwp
is a witness; nor has avnp, whose digamma we ascertain from
other sources; nor opav and aipeiv, from which could not have
been formed aóparoc and arоaipeîv 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-
Bola is the name of a mythic woman in Il. e, 389.
is the same name as that borne by others, 'Epißola, 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 not exactly willing to allow the name 'Hepi-
Bola to have a jocular meaning, will not reject our observation,
according to which that name becomes analogous to the mascu-
line name Εριβώτης. Now the form Περίβοια is evidently
nothing more than the dactylic pronunciation of 'Eepißola; by
which this name comes into the same class as the above-men-
That this
6 I would not attempt to identify in the same way the questionable
name 'Epúaλos (Il. π, 411.) with Evpúaλos, 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 that was not
strictly analogical. I can therefore only agree with Heyne, who has
adopted the reading 'Epúλaos, which is formed quite as analogically as
ἐρυσίπτολις.
48. ᾿Ελελίζειν.
287
tioned ceikoow, eedva, &c. For when a name was newly formed,
the rule of formation was that it should have a real and poetical
meaning; but when a name was changed, either in common pro-
nunciation or for poetry, then the ear and habit inclined toward
words and sounds that were known; and in this manner the form
Περίβοια arose and prevailed.
48. Ελελίζειν.
1. The verb éλioow 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 eleλw;
for this is the only form that occurs in the present, and not
éleλioow, which has been erroneously introduced as the theme
of éλéλičev, &c., but which ought to be erased from the lexi-
That present is found in the Hymn to Minerva (28, 9.
Wolf.) and sometimes in Pindar. The form ἐλέλικτο, which
may have been regarded as the pluperfect of éλioow, is also by
its meaning connected with this verb, and is therefore aoristus
syncopatus*.
cons.
2. The most natural meaning of this reduplicated verb is a
tortuous motion, e. g. of the serpent and of lightning; thus at
Il. β, 316. (of the serpent) Τὴν δ᾽ ἐλελιξάμενος πτέρυγος λά-
Bev: and at λ, 39. of a serpent represented on a shield, èπ'
avtų édédikto Spákov: again of lightning, in Pind. N. 9,45.
Κρονίων ἀστεροπὰν ἐλελίξαις. It is also used for expressing
other quick vibratory or brandishing motions, as at Il. v, 558.
ἔγχος σειόμενον ἐλέλικτο: again in a Lyric passage in Plut.
Quæst. Conviv. 9, 15. of the foot of a dancer, éλeλióμevoc Todí:
ποδί:
and in Pind. Ol. 9, 20. Py. 1, 7. of playing on the lyre, édeλileiv
pópμyya. And hence, in a general sense, to cause to tremble,
shake, as to shake Olympus, Il. a, 530. 0,199. Hymn. Minerv.
1.c.; again at II. x, 448. Tña d' èλeλixon yvîa, her limbs trem-
τῆς δ᾽ ἐλελίχθη
bled; and at Od. μ, 416. of the ship struck by lightning, ʼn d'
ἐλελίχθη πᾶσα.
* See Buttmann's Gramm. sect. 99, 12, 2. e.
288
49. Ενδέξια, ἐπιδέξια.
3. The idea of turning round is also expressed by this verb,
as by the simple ἑλίσσω; 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, περὶ δὲ
σχεδίην ἐλέλιξεν : 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 Il. p, 278. μάλα γάρ σφεας ὦκ᾽ ἐλέλιξεν Αἴας, and
again ἐλελίχθησαν, ἐλελιχθέντες, Il. 7, 106. 109. λ, 588. ;
while to express the same turning round without the same force
of expression the simple form ἑλίσσεσθαι is used, Il. μ, 74.
ἑλιχθέντων ὑπ᾽ Αχαιών, i. e. “if they should turn from flight'.
υπ
4. Very different from the above is the verb ἐλελίζειν, to
utter a loud cry (ἐλελεῦ), which occurs in ordinary prose, and
has the same inflexions.
Ἔλσαι ; vid. εἰλεῖν.
Ελυσθῆναι ; vid. εἰλύω.
49. Ἐνδέξια, ἐπιδέξια.
1. Whether either of the two expressions ἐνδέξια and ἐπι-
δέξια have in Homer the sense of dexterous, skilful, can be de-
cided only by a survey of the passages in which they occur.
They are these: Il. β, 353. (of Jupiter)
᾿Αστράπτων ἐπιδέξι᾽ ἐναίσιμα σήματα φαίνων.
1, 236.
Ζεὺς δέ σφιν Κρονίδης ἐνδέξια σήματα φαίνων
᾿Αστράπτει.
Od. φ, 141. (The invitation to the suitors to try in turn the
bow of Ulysses)
*Ορνυσθ' ἑξείης ἐπιδέξια πάντες ἑταῖροι,
᾿Αρξάμενοι τοῦ χώρου, ὅθεν τέ περ οἰνοχοεύει.
49. Ενδέξια, ἐπιδέξια.
289
Il. a, 597. (of Vulcan),
Αὐτὰρ ὁ τοῖς ἄλλοισι θεοῖς ἐνδέξια πᾶσιν
Ωινοχόει.
n, 184. (of the lot by which Ajax was selected to oppose Hector
in single combat)
κήρυξ δὲ φέρων ἀν' ὅμιλον ἁπάντη
Δεῖξ' ἐνδέξια πᾶσιν ἀριστήεσσιν ᾿Αχαιῶν.
Od. p, 365. (of Ulysses begging of the suitors)
Βῆ δ᾽ ἴμεν αἰτήσων ἐνδέξια φῶτα ἕκαστον,
Πάντοσε χεῖρ᾽ ὀρέγων, ὡς εἰ πτωχὸς πάλαι εἴη.
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 émidéţia, and the three others without any
metrical necessity have the other expression; this might seem
to favour the opinion that évdétia in these three last meant
dexterous. This meaning appears, for instance, to suit particu-
larly well the passage of Il. a., and in Od. p. the context wc ei
πτωχὸς πάλαι εἴη favours the idea of dexterity, which may
then be very well adopted for Il. n. also.
Since however in all
four passages the sense certainly does imply a following in ro-
tation, it is evident at once that ἐνδέξια, as well as ἐπιδέξια,
belongs to this idea, particularly as évdéžia does not occur again
in all Homer where it can mean (eû kai étiotaµévwc) dexterous.
And this opinion is further confirmed by observing that in all
these four passages the expression ἐπιδέξια οι ἐνδέξια immedi-
ately precedes πάντες, πᾶσιν, φῶτα ἕκαστον, and consequently
the idea expressed by these latter attaches also to the former,
'to all in a direction from left to right'.
2. There is no doubt therefore that the passage of Od. o.
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,
"Ος σφι θυοσκόος ἔσκε, παρὰ κρητῆρα δὲ καλὸν
Ἷζε μυχοίτατος αἰεί.
€
U
290
49. Ενδέξια, ἐπιδέξια.
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 a direction from left to right.
Whatever else was done in rotation on other occasions, was
done, from superstitious motives, in the same direction. It is
self-evident therefore that when any assembly was formed into
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.
επι
εν
3. As to the form of the words évdéžia and èπidéţia, they
are neuter adjectives used adverbially, originating from a pre-
position with its case, and having nearly the same meaning; as
ὑπασπίδια προποδίζειν for ὑπ᾿ ἀσπίδι. They stand therefore for
ἐν δεξιᾷ and ἐπὶ δεξιά, which are both essentially the same, e. g.
Xenoph. Αnab. 6, 4, 1. ἐπὶ δεξιὰ εἰς τὸν Πόντον εἰσπλέοντι:
and 5, 2, 17. oi év değia oikot. Consequently the two com-
pound forms also are identical; and although the metre might
not force the poet to use one in preference to the other, yet har-
mony 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, èvdéia was the more current term in the lan-
guage of the reciter, it will be at once felt that he preferred éπ-
Séia 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 év değiâ and évdéğia, that the former announces
the appearance of its contrary 'on the left hand', the latter
does not; the application of which I leave to new editions (see
Hesych. v. évdéžia et ibi Intpp.). The same distinction may
however certainly be made between ἐπὶ δεξιὰ and ἐπιδέξια ; as
in Herod. 7,39. τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ δέξια τῆς ὁδοῦ, τὸ δὲ ἐπ᾿ ἀρίστερα:
and thus we can account for the difference of expression in Il.
n, 238. from the examples given above:
>
Οἶδ᾽ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ, οἶδ᾽ ἐπ᾿ ἀριστερὰ νωμῆσαι βῶν.
Compare also Lobeck on Phryn. p. 259.
5. For the rest, it is very natural that as both religion and
custom enjoined the direction from left to right, this, added to
50. Επιστέφω.
291
the greater readiness naturally felt to go in 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 Il. a, 597. and Od. p, 365. "He moved
from left to right, like an experienced cup-bearer, like a prac-
tised beggar," &c. But neither of these three forms has in
Homer the actual meaning of dexterity which değióc and éπidéžioc
acquired in the language of later times. As early however as
the Hymn to Mercury, 454. évdécioc is so used; where Apollo,
admiring the musical skill of Mercury, says that nothing has
ever so much pleased him of all
Οἷα νέων θαλιῇς ἐνδέξια ἔργα πέλονται'.
Ἐνήνοθεν, ἐνίπτω, ἐνέπω ; vid. ἀνήνοθεν.
Ἐόλητο ; vid. αἰόλος.
Επαινή ; vid. αἶνος.
Επάρχομαι; vid. ἄρχομαι.
Ἐπιδέξια; vid. ἐνδέξια.
Ἐπίηρα, ἐπιήρανος ; vid. ἦρα.
50. Επιστέφω.
1. The Homeric expression κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο
can hardly now-a-days be reckoned among the ambiguous and
problematical expressions of Homer's text, nor can there be any
1 The form évdéšios never came into common use. Nor is it ever in
the physical meaning of its root otherwise than poetical, e. g. in Callim.
Epig. 17. Ὧι δὲ σὺ μὴ πνεύσῃς ἐνδέξιος : the same may be said of it
when used adverbially.
U 2
292
50. Επιστέφω.
longer a doubt of its meaning nothing more than they filled the
cups quite full of wine. Heyne (on Il. 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 opi-
nion, 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 problema-
tical whatever he could. The addition of the genitive Toroîo,
and the comparison of the expression (0, 232.) Пívovтeg kpn-
τῆρας ἐπιστεφέας οἴνοιο, 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
Symposium preserved in Athenæus (15. p. 674. extr.)... Tò dè
στέφειν πλήρωσίν τινα σημαίνει. ῞Ομηρος· κοῦροι δὲ κρητῆρας
ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο....
2. But some of the grammarians, who adopt this same
meaning, explain the word ἐπιστέφομαι by μέχρι στεφάνης
Tλnpów, with whom I cannot agree, not thinking that the
root oréow can be used to express that compound idea; and
without hesitation I declare my preference of the other expla-
nation found in the scholia, ὑπὲρ τὸ χεῖλος ἐπλήρωσαν, ὥστε
δοκεῖν ἐστέφθαι τῷ ὑγρῷ· which agrees precisely with Athe-
næus 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-fullness, we can very well sup-
pose that the expression érioré eolai, arising undoubtedly from
this appearance, may have passed over into a common hyper-
bolical expression for complete fullness. But still we must not
forget the context in Athenæus; kai Taûтa ëπρaσσov (i.e. they
filled the vessel in the manner before described above the brim)
πρὸς οἰωνοῦ τιθέμενοι.
και
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. Επιστέφω.
293
sion, the following---Επιστεφέας οἴνῳ· ἐπιστεφανωμένους (sic :
see Schow.)-need not be considered as an exception to that
universal agreement, in as much as Athenæus also explains
ἐπιστέφεσθαι elsewhere by the addition of ὥστε διὰ τοῦ ποτοῦ
ἐπιστεφανοῦσθαι. But in our lexicons ἐπιστέφω and ἐπιστε-
Pnc 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 TioTepne occurs
ἐπιστεφής
only, as far as I know, in the twenty-first fragment of Archi-
lochus, where Thasus is said to be ὕλης ἀγρίας ἐπιστεφής.
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, ἥδε δ᾽ ὥστ᾽ ὄνου ῥάχις ῞Εστηκεν
ὕλης ἀγρίας ἐπιστεφής. It means no more than covered over,
and therefore explains very clearly the Homeric οἴνοιο ἐπιστε·
φέας, as this again does the ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο.
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, 527.) is not an imitation of koûpoi µèv kρntñpac
ÉTеoréfavтo? Or if this be left undecided, have we not in the
following an almost literal translation of Il. a, 469.?
Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ πόσιος καὶ ἐδητύος ἐξ ἔρον ἕντο,
Κοῦροι μὲν κρητῆρας ἐπεστέψαντο ποτοῖο,
Eneid 1, 723.
Postquam prima quies epulis, mensæque remotæ,
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 érioréfuolai, 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, "Tum Pater Anchises magnum cratera corona Induit,
implevitque mero," and which must of course have a similar
294
50. Επιστέφω.
meaning with the former'. 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 crateras co-
ronare vino, were defensible here and elsewhere, nay were
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,
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. éπeotéРavto, speaking of vina co-
ronant, has lately declared himself also of this opinion.
51. Επιτηδές.
295
corresponding Latin one with a different meaning. But this
would appear to me to have been a poor joke, 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 downwards 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. Ἐπιτηδές.
1. The word TITηdéç occurs in Homer only twice, at Il. a,
142. and Od. o, 28., and in both passages this accentuation is
the common one, or at least that adopted by the best of the
grammarians; while the same word, when it occurs as an adverb
in the later writers, has the acute accent on the antepenultima.
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 at the same time it exhibits a striking
proof of the unsoundness of these our teachers (for such they
nevertheless are,) in their grammatical judgement. For in-
stance, in the first passage, which describes the equipping of
a vessel,
296
51. ᾿Επιτηδές.
Ἐς δ᾽ ἐρέτας ἐπιτηδὲς ἀγείρομεν, ἐς δ᾽ ἑκατόμβην
θείομεν. . . . . .
they explain it to be a contraction of the accusative plural èπɩ-
Tndéac; and in the other passage,
Μνηστήρων σ᾽ ἐπιτηδὲς ἀριστῆες λοχόωσιν,
T
it is to be the nominative étirndéec, the contraction taking place
in both cases on account of the metre. In illustration of this
they cite δυσκλέα at Il. β, 115. for δυσκλεέα, ἀκλεές at Il. n,
100. for aкλeéec, and Tаλureтéc, which, like the word in
question, is supposed to stand for -éec at Od. e, 27. and for
-éac at Il. π, 395. It requires only to make this statement,
to see at once that grammatical criticism will not bear it out.
In Suokλea for Suokλeéa the elision is correct, and confirmed
by other analogous cases, as poßéo for poßéco. But every
one knows that this can only take place where three vowels
meet. ᾿Ακλεές for ἀκλεέες may therefore be justified; but
παλιμπετές and ἐπιτηδές (whether as an elision for -έες, -έας,
or, as some of the grammarians propose, a mere metrical ab-
breviation for -eic 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 Choroboscus to the гpau-
μatikoi kavóvec of Theodosius (see Bibl. Coisl. Cod. 176.)
from fol. 209. (Bekker. Anecd. p. 1253.) stands the following
fragment of Callimachus,
οἵ τε βιοπλανὲς ἀγρὸν ἀπ᾿ ἀγρυ
Φοιτῶσιν!.
But Callimachus, who is always on the look out for anything
unusual, cannot be quoted in proof of what is really Epic lan-
¹ Bekker's manuscript has onrwσ with po written over it. The
fragment appears to me to be from the Hecale, from which Hesychius
has quoted the word Γηφάγοι with the explanation πένητες, ἄποροι,
which, if joined to the above words in some such way as this, Fnpáyoɩ
ávépes oï TE, &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.); τῖον δέ ἑ πάντες ὁδῖται ῏Ηρα φιλοξενίης
ἔχε γὰρ τέγος ἀκλήϊστον.
51. Επιτηδές.
297
guage; and the most which can be gathered from this fragment
is, the probability that already in his time the Homeric forms
ἐπιτηδές, παλιμπετές 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 Eolic dialect, to which belong the verbal
forms in ec and ev for etc and ev, did actually change the
plurals from eîg to éc. This probability is much increased
by another fragment which the same Choroboscus (Bekker.
p. 1187.) has preserved also from Callimachus, and in which
is found the nomin. sing. in ec for eic (gen. evтoç).
ὁ δ᾽ ἀείδων
Μαλέες ἦλθε χορός
for Μαλόεις, i. e. the Chorus of ᾿Απόλλων Μαλόεις in Lesbos ;
see Steph. Byz. in Maλócic. This Æolicism was probably sup-
posed by the older grammarians to exist in radiµtetéc, &c.,
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 termina-
tions cec and eac.
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 autho-
rity 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 ec, attached adverbially to the verb, and supplying the same
sense as its adjective would give if joined to a noun. This is
so evident that we cannot except even åkλeéc, although that
would be, as a masc. plur. (according to what was said above)
quite agreeable to analogy; for who would not prefer taking it
in an adverbial sense in the following passage?
᾿Αλλ᾽ ὑμεῖς μὲν πάντες ὕδωρ καὶ γαῖα γένοισθε
Ημενοι αὖθι ἕκαστοι ἀκήριοι ἀκλεὲς αὕτως.
The masculine in nc of TaλuTеTéc does not, it is true, occur
298
51. Επιτηδές.
anywhere; but the analogy of προπετής, περιπετής will give it,
and the adverbial neuter of this suits so naturally both these
passages,
and
Μνηστῆρες δ᾽ ἐν νηΐ παλιμπετὲς ἀπονέωνται
Πάτροκλος δ' ἐπεὶ οὖν πρώτας ἐπέκερσε φάλαγγας,
᾿Αψ ἐπὶ νῆας ἔεργε παλιμπετές,
that no grammarian, how ancient soever he may be, has au-
thority enough to force upon us a form of the nom. and acc.
plur. so completely at variance with all the rules of Homeric
grammar.
T
4. In the same way, no one, looking at éniτndéc in the pas-
sages quoted above, can despise, as a point of no importance,
its coalescing so easily 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
think it necessary to admit the present accentuation as the tra-
dition of an old accent existing in the olden times of the de-
clamation of Homeric poetry, we shall then have emirηdéc with
its old proper accent as the neuter of the adjective éπiτnồng,
éc; and we may compare the proparoxyton éπírndeg of later
times, as the grammarians do, with aλn0cc. But one thing
ought to be mentioned, which I have not seen observed by any
one, that the adjective emiτnonc does not occur in any of the
remains of antiquity; for the superlative èπiTndéσTаTOG, which
Schneider mentions under éTITndeloc as a various reading of
Herodotus, scarcely deserves our notice, the reading of the text
ÉπITηdewταTоc 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 éπiτndéç or ériτŋdec from
itself, i. e. by a comparison of the two passages.
TIT
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 ἐπίτηδες, and its compound ἐξεπίτηδες, which became very
common in the later authors, was intentionally, premeditatedly,
from forethought and consideration: see Steph. Thesau. in v.
>
51. Επιτηδές.
299
@
Plat. Crito, p. 43. b. Xenoph. Cyrop. 1, 6. 2. Eurip. Iph. A.
476. It may also frequently be translated for that very purpose,
as in Aristoph. Pac. 142. ᾿Επίτηδες εἶχον πηδάλιον, ᾧ χρήσο-
μαι.
μai. 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 occasion." More than this is not necessary for our under-
standing Homer's meaning.
TIT
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 ení is so easily seen and understood,
the latter part of the word defies all our endeavours to trace
a root. Now as the ení 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 étirndnc, of which
that might be the neuter; but like παραχρῆμα, ἐφεξῆς, ἐξαί-
φνης, καθάπερ, I look in ἐπίτηδες for a preposition with its
case: and I find that such sentences as the following, 'as is
necessary for that thing', 'for that very purpose', would be
expressed most simply by eri with a case of the demonstrative
pronoun, öde, nde, róde; from which union of words, not dis-
cernible in the common language of the day, arose I appre-
hend the adverb ériτndec, whence was afterwards formed an
adjective emirndetoc, which, like the verb ériтndevw, does not
occur so early as Homer2.
Ἐριήρανος, ἐρίηρος, ἐρίηρες ; vid. ἦρα.
As the old language could stray from roîode to roioder, it is pos-
sible that it might do the same from ráde to rádeo, still keeping the
first syllable unchanged. And from ènì rádcov might perhaps come
éπírηdes by an elongation very natural in compound words, by cutting
off the termination, and by a mode of accenting common to cases in
which the composition is apparent.
300
52. Ερμα.
1. On the Homeric meanings of epua Schneider has col-
lected in his Lexicon whatever is essential. The word has two
leading senses, and in each of these are other words connected
with it.
1.) ëpua, a prop or support, particularly of vessels drawn up
dry on the land; metaphorically, of young warriors, epµa ñó-
Xnoc, the prop of the city. Connected with this is épµíc, îvoc,
the post or foot of a bed.
2.) ëpµa, an earring: connected with it is öpuoc, a neck-
lace.
2. The stem or root of this form has always been acknow-
ledged to be, for the second meaning, in the verb eipew, serere,
nectere, to string', e. g. pearls &c. on a string, wire, or such
like; and for the first meaning, in épeidew, to fix against, sup-
port; for a proof of which latter explanation and derivation we
may cite Pindar (as the Schol. on Il. #, 549. has done), who
certainly had the Homeric expression in his eye when he called
Theron in Ol. 2, 12. ἔρεισμ ᾿Ακράγαντος. That the spiritus
is no objection to either of these derivations is shown by the
analogy not only of ὄρω, ὄρνυμι--ὅρμος (the road whence ves-
sels sail), ὁρμᾷν; ἄρω, ἀραρεῖν----ἅρμα, ἁρμόζω, ἁρμονία; but
by the well-known verbal substantive of expew-eipuóc, from
which opμoc (a necklace, radically different from the other
öpuoc) originally differed only by the change of the vowel:
compare κορμός from κείρω, στολμός from στέλλω, and ὅλμος,
of which mention is made in art. 87. note 6. The derivation
of epua, an earring, from eipw, is then clear and certain. But
for the root of epua, a prop, we must neither with the ancients
take exactly épeioua, nor with the moderns must we soar into
the clouds in search of EPQ. What I have said under äþevoc
of e, holds good of it also when lengthened into e: its exist-
ence in the middle of many words may be quite as well explain-
ed to be a lengthening of the radical form, as its absence may
be considered an abridgement of it in ὀφείλειν ὀφλεῖν, ἐγείρειν
ἐγρέσθαι, ἀγείρειν ἀγρόμενος. We may also compare ἀμείβω
52. Ερμα.
301
·
with the radical audi, Lat. amb-, and aλeipw with the German
salben, 'to anoint'. In the same way for épeído a shorter form
ἔρδω, οι ἕρδω, through the verbal substantive ἕρμα, is all but
demonstrated; in which, however, it is by no means necessary
to identify it with the well-known verb epdew, to do¹.
3. But this derivation from épeider may also come very
aptly to satisfy us of the meaning of epµa in Il. 8, 117. where
a sharp arrow is called μελαινέων ἕρμ᾽ ὀδυνάων, without our
troubling ourselves to examine all the ancient and modern ob-
jections which criticism has brought against it: see Apollon.
Lex. v. "Epuara and Heyne ad loc. Against the explanation
in Eustathius, ἐν ᾧ αἱ ὀδύναι οἷον ἐνοικοῦσι καὶ ἐνερείδονται,
ai
ὥστε ὅπου αὐτὸ εἰσέλθῃ ἐκεὶ καὶ θανασίμους ὀδύνας συνεισέρ-
Xeolar, there is only one thing to be said, that the comparison
is too physical. But with the comparison of eрμа пóλŋoc I
ἕρμα πόληος
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 a 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 arrow².
¹ A trace of connexion with this epdw, épeídw, may be found also in
the German word Hort, which is exactly synonymous with epµa in the
expression éρµa móλnos. 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 bringer, 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
éрμа поpeías σapoléтw. But when, in an epigram of Simonides 85. (91.)
where the general reading, even in the Anthologia of Cephalas, is
(speaking of Periander) ὅς ποθ' ὑψιπύργου Σήμαινε λαοῖς ἕρμ᾽ ἔχων
Κορίνθου,—Jacobs compares it with the Homeric ἕρμα πόληος, this, in
the expression épμa exeiv, is not so clear and convincing as to justify
us in giving up at once the reading of the MS. répµ' ëxwr, for an emen-
dation proceeding from an unknown hand. The expression répµ' ëxeu
Tivòs 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
52. Ερμα.
4. Among the post-Homeric meanings of this word is that
where epua or ǹ épµác means a sunken rock or bank in the sea.
How bad the old derivation of this sense was from ἐρύω, ἔρυ-
µa, i. e. кwλvμa, requires no specification. As vessels sail or
rather strike upon such places, which idea exists also in èpeídw,
nay is the ground-idea of it³, we might be satisfied with this
derivation. But no one can pronounce with certainty on such,
because the relative meanings of epeidew 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, épei-
δονται, be called ἕρμα. Thus the ballast of a ship is ἕρμα,
although here again the idea of holding firm and as it were
supporting plays in with it; and when epua 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, ëpμakec, ep-
μalov, heaps of large stones placed in the public ways, which
are, it is true, supposed to come from 'Epunc. 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
'Epunc himself, besides the epuaîc, is drawn into this etymolo-
gical investigation; a remark, in confirmation of which I will
only add one 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, Ἑρμᾶν ἀφετήριον ἕρμα θῆκεν: although
if any one should say that Philoxenus intended only a play on
the words, I have nothing to say to the contrary.
ર
5. To this discussion belongs a passage of Euripides, Helen.
Orest. 1343. ἡμῖν τέρμ᾽ ἔχων σωτηρίας, yet as it is also used of the
gods, Eurip. Supp. 617. åπávтwv répμ' exovтes, 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 épeídw, epdw, 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 stützen (to prop).
53. Ερύεσθαι, &c.
303
860., where it is said of the gods that when a brave man falls
in battle they
Κούφῃ καταμπίσχουσιν ἐν τύμβῳ χθονὶ,
Κακοὺς δ' ἐφ᾽ ἕρμα στερεὸν ἐκβάλλουσι γῆς.
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 (ev rúußw) as he deserves. The
true antithesis in the passage was however felt by some, and
epua ync 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; Κακοῖς δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἕρμα στερεὸν ἐμβάλλουσι γῆς.
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 text of Stephens, as taken by him from the
manuscripts;
Κακοὺς δ᾽ ὑφ᾽ ἕρμα στερεὸν ἐκβάλλουσι γῆς.
'Exẞáλλew 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 epua),
as far as regards them uninterred, i. e. (as is clear from the first
verse and the epithet σrepeòv) without making the earth lie
lightly on him.
53. Ἐρύεσθαι, ἔρυσθαι, ῥύεσθαι, ῥῦσθαι.
1. Among the different modifications of the meaning of 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 c
to the first and uc to the second meaning; and hence they write
the forms of the first meaning, when the metre requires the
304
53. ᾿Ερύεσθαι, &c.
syllable to be long, with voo, but those of the second always
with vo.
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 ἐρύειν, to draw, and at the same
time to point out how they do so.
•
G
2. The idea of the middle voice of ἐρύειν is I draw to me,
after me, I draw for myself, &c. Thus of the flesh to be drawn
from the spits, II. α, 466. ἐρύσαντό τε πάντα ; of a person
whom another draws toward himself, Od. τ, 481. Τῇ δ᾽ ἑτέρῃ
(χειρὶ) ὅθεν ἆσσον ἐρύσσατο, φώνησέν τε. To this belongs
also the drawing of the bowstring, Od. φ, 125. τρὶς μέν μιν
(the bow) πελέμιξεν, ἐρύσσεσθαι μενεαίνων: the drawing of the
sword from the side, II. δ, 530. ἐρύσσατο δὲ ξίφος ὀξύ: a per-
son drawing his own spear out of the wound which he had in-
flicted, or from any other thing which it had penetrated, Od.
κ, 165. δόρυ χάλκεον ἐξ ὠτειλῆς Εἰρυσάμην : and Il. φ, 200.
Ἦ ῥα, καὶ ἐκ κρημνοῖο ἐρύσσατο χάλκεον ἔγχος: the drawing
their own vessels into the sea in order to sail home, Il. ξ, 79.
ἐρυσαίμεθα νῆας, 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. Il. p, 104. εἴ πως ἐρυσαίμεθα νεκρὸν (the body
of Patroclus) Πηλείδῃ ᾿Αχιλῆϊ: σ, 152, ᾿Εκ βελέων ἐρύσαντο
νέκυν (the same body), &c.; or that of an enemy, Il. ξ, 422.
Οἱ δὲ μέγα ἰάχοντες ἐπέδραμον υἷες ᾿Αχαιῶν ᾿Ελπόμενοι ἐρύ-
εσθαι (Hector who was knocked down): ato,174. Οἱ δὲ ἐρύσ-
σασθαι ποτὶ Ιλιον ἠνεμόεσσαν Τρῶες ἐπιθύουσι (the body of
Patroclus). In these two latter cases the active ἐρύειν, ἕλκειν
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 Il. e, 344. it
is said of Aneas insensible from the blow of the stone, Καὶ τὸν
μὲν μετὰ χερσὶν ἐρύσσατο Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων Κυανέῃ νεφέλη:
at λ, 363. to Hector escaped from the spear of Diomede, νῦν
αὖτέ σ᾽ ἐρύσσατο Φ. Α.: at v, 93. αὐτὰρ ἐμὲ Ζεὺς Εἰρύσαθ'
(saved me from Achilles), ὅς μοι ἐπῶρσε μένος λαιψηρά τε
ע
53. Ερύεσθαι, &c.
305
χρυσῷ
γοῦνα: at i, 248. (to Achilles), ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἄνα, εἰ μέμονάς γε...
υἷας ᾿Αχαιών Τειρομένους ἐρύεσθαι' ὑπὸ Τρώων ὀρυμαγδοῦ.
And thus it is used as synonymous with caŵoa at Il. k, 44.
Od. x, 372., and in a more general sense of a reception, deli-
verance, &c., as at Od. , 279. ó dè (the king) épúsoαтo kai
µ'èλéŋoev, took me under his protection, received me a sup-
pliant. Hence in the sense of to ransom, Il. x, 351. Xpvcw
ἐρύσασθαι ἀνώγοι. Still in all these passages we can trace the
existence of the original idea of to draw or snatch (out of dan-
ger). But the word is further used of a deliverance continued
beyond the mere act by keeping in a state of safety, and there-
fore passes on to the idea of to protect, defend; as at ¿, 403.
οἷος γὰρ ἐρύετο Ιλιον ῞Εκτωρ: ato, 274. (of the stag or wild-
goat), Τὸν μέν τ᾿ ἠλίβατος πέτρη καὶ δάσκιος ὕλη Εἰρύσατο,
preserved, saved it from the dogs; at 8, 186. ápolev Eiρvoaтo
Zwornp, in front my girdle protected me; and at o, 276. äotv
δὲ πύργοι, Ὑψηλαί τε πύλαι... εἰρύσσονται.
στυ
4. Now as the idea of saving is not originally in the word,
but any one (without reference to that idea), nay even an
1
¹ Among the examples given in this and the preceding section are two
with the form épúeσtaι, of which I have shown in the Ausführl. Sprachl.
in the list of verbs, and at sect. 95. obs. 17., that it is an old Epic future
for épúocodai. In these two passages the present is not admissible, as
is shown also by the aorist épúoaobai, which is found in all the other ex-
amples of this meaning. (the sudden snatching, drawing, or saving from
a crowd of enemies,) and which would therefore have stood in these
two passages also, but that after the verbs eλπoµaι and µéµora the fu-
ture is much more common.
The two examples with the aorist eipúσaro must be more accurately
distinguished from the continuous sense of the imperfect épúero in the
first example, and that of the future eipvocorra in the fourth. It is
true that both of these two, as well as the others, imply a lasting pro-
tection; but still the example of the wild-goat, Tòv µév 7' ißaros
πέτρη καὶ δάσκιος ὕλη Εἰρύσατο, 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 Il.
d, 186. where Menelaus says, "The arrow has not wounded me mortally,
but my girdle saved me," it certainly implies the lasting protection which
such a girdle affords; but the aorist is used to express the moment when
it warded off that one particular hurt.
X
306
53. Ἐρύεσθαι, &c.
αν
enemy may be snatched away to prevent his doing harm, (e. g.
at Il. e, 456. where Apollo is wishing Mars to remove Diomede,
Οὐκ ἂν δὴ τόνδ᾽ ἄνδρα μάχης ἐρύσαιο μετελθών,) 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 Il. e, 538. 'H (the shield) Souk eyxoc eρUтo: conse-
quently it means to check, impede, Il. ß, 859. 'AXX' ovк oiw-
νοῖσιν ἐρύσσατο κῆρα μέλαιναν, and θ, 143. ἀνὴρ δέ κεν οὔτι
Διὸς νόον εἰρύσσαιτο : in which sense, therefore, ἐρύκω is formed
from it.
ލ
η
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 Оd. π, 463. Telemachus says of the suitors
lying in wait for him, ἢ ἔτι μ᾽ αὖτ᾽ εἰρύαται οἴκαδ᾿ ἰόντα ; at
Od. π, 459. μηδὲ φρεσὶν εἰρύσσαιτο, nor keep the secret within
his own breast; at ψ, 229. ἣ νωϊν εἴρυτο θύρας πυκινοῦ θαλά-
μoto, the female slave who then watched, i. e. was then in the
constant habit of watching; at Il. a, 239. oite léμiotac Пρòc
Aiòc eipuarai, who observe justice, watch over its administra-
tion; at Il. ω, 584. Μὴ ὁ μὲν κραδίῃ χόλον οὐκ ἐρύσαιτο,
watch over, restrain his rage: whence arises the idea, to ob-
serve, keep, obey ; as at Il. φ, 230. οὐ σύγε βουλὰς Εἰρύσαο
Κρονίωνος, ὅ τοι μάλα πόλλ᾽ ἐπέτελλεν Τρωσὶ παρεστάμεναι :
and at a, 216. Χρὴ μὲν σφωΐτερόν γε, θεὰ, ἔπος εἰρύσσασθαι.
"
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 esta-
blished any difference between the forms, in as much as the
originally short v in ἐρύω, ἔρύσω, remains also short in the
meanings to save, watch, &c. (see above, cipioaτo from Il. 8,
186. ο, 274. v, 93., εἰρῦσαο from φ, 230., ἐρύσασθαι from x,
351., épvσaito from w, 584.); and that, consequently, accord-
ing to the analogous similarity of form once observed, as soon
as this syllable becomes long to suit the metre, it is now cor-
rectly written voo in all the meanings. On the quantity of the
u with a vowel following it no dependence can be placed, as it
K
53. Ερύεσθαι, &c.
307
is well known that the poet can in this case either shorten the
long syllable or lengthen the short one".
7. The form without a copulative vowel, eputo, eíputo, &c.*,
has, wherever it is observable, the v long, which is singular on
account of the future ἐρύσω, &c. But this formation again
does not belong to the meaning to save only. At Od. x, 90.
we find εἴρῦτο δὲ φάσγανον ὀξύ, which however is the only
passage I know of where it means to draw; 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. 0, 304. ἡ δ᾽ ἔρυτ᾽ εἰν ᾿Αρίμοισιν, ought
not therefore to be looked on as an interpolation, as Heyne
considers it in his Exc. IV. on Il. a. p. 178.
υ
5
8. Still more decided is the transition to the meaning to save
in the form púeslai, aor. syncop. pûolaι, which never occurs
but in this second leading sense, and in the active is quite out
of use; although here also the derivatives ῥυτήρ, ῥύτωρ, and
puróv (see Lex.) are proofs of the ground-meaning to draw;
and the shortness of the v before the σ is evident in this form
also from the passage of Il. o, 29. Τὸν μὲν ἐγὼν ἔνθεν ῥυσάμην·
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, púooато, éppúσoатo. Indeed
consistency requires it to be always so; for that the Attics after-
wards use puoaolai long is an usage which originated with them,
› Heyne in his Exc. IV. on Il. a. thinks it necessary to fix a radical
difference between ἐρύεσθαι, ἐρύσασθαι to draw, and ῥύεσθαι, ῥύσασθαι,
épūσaoðaι to save; and hence in all the passages in which the short
syllable is against him he endeavours to find out an old mistake, since
ῥῦται, ῥῦτο, εἰρῦτο may have originally stood for ῥύεται, ῥύετο, εἰρύσατο,
-a vain attempt.
4 Whether and where these forms are imperfect, or aor. syncop., or
pluperfect, I shall examine more at length in the Ausführl. Sprachl.
under 'Epúw in the list of verbs. [As the above work is as yet untrans-
lated, a translation of the account here referred to is added at the end
of this article.-ED.]
5 Cd. Tyr. 1352. ἔῤῥυτο κἀνέσωσεν.
x 2
308
53. ᾿Ερύεσθαι, &c.
as pusauny alone with the rest of the analogy sufficiently proves.
The arbitrary way of writing some of these forms as adopted
in Homer is particularly striking in éppúoaro, which occurs
three times, viz. Il. o, 290. v, 194. Od. a, 6., in precisely the
same sense as the forms of èpúouat, e. g. at Od. x. 372. ¿púo-
σατο καὶ ἐσάωσεν, and at Il. o, 290. ἐῤῥύσατο καὶ ἐσάωσεν.
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 ἐρύσσατο, ἐῤῥύσσατο.
But for the first syllable of éppúoaτo we are also indebted to
the capriciousness of the grammarians. From EPYZATO, of
the two the older way of writing, it was as easy to form eipúo-
σατο as ἐῤῥύσατο. The preference was given to the former in
the sense of to draw, eipvooaтo púoyarov ôžú, Il. 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 simi-
larity of form it must have been so, and the forms of púcolai,
pûolai, ought only to be used where the verse required this
abridged form. But this belongs to the numerous incongruities
which have been made sacred in Homer by ancient criticism.
[Extract from the Ausfürhliche Sprachlehre.
'Epów or eipów, to draw, used only by the Ionians and poets,
has in its inflexions.
บ
The middle makes a transition to the
sense of to save, and in this sense only we find a shortened
form púoua. This latter is used also in Attic prose, and in
Attic poetry has the v long in its inflexions, eppuoáμnv. But
in the Epics it is also short, Il. o, 29. pvoáµnv: hence in these,
if the metre requires a long syllable, this form too should be
written with σσ; but the editions generally have ἐῤῥύσατο, ῥύ-
σaто, even where the v is long.
υ
In the passive of this verb it is sometimes difficult, particu-
larly where there is a difference of meaning, to distinguish the
tenses. The perfect passive has on account of the reduplica-
tion, even when formed from epów, the syllable ei as augment.
According to the sense the forms εἴρυνται οι ειρύαται, pluperf.
• On this also I shall treat more at large in the Ausführl. Sprachl.
[See the end of this article.-ED.]
53. ᾿Ερύεσθαι, &c.
309
eipuvтo, eipúaro, Il. , 75. 6, 69. o, 654. belong with certainty
εἴρυντο, ξ,
to this last description. In Od. x, 90. it may be doubted whe-
ther epuro is pluperf. or aor. syncop.
At all events, as the
radical syllable of the aor. syncop. 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 σ but with
the long v.
μl,
In the sense of to save, watch, &c. we have frequently
ἔρυσθαι, ἔρυτο, εἴρυτο, &c. with ϋ, but these cannot be perf.
or pluperf. either according to sense, or, where the long syl-
lable is wanting as the augment, according to form. They
can only be aorists (aor. syncop.) 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
εἴρῦτο, ἔρυτο, 2. per. ἔρυσο, are plainly imperf. at Il. ω, 499.
8, 138. v, 555. x, 507., in all which passages the meaning is
was protecting, &c. corresponding exactly with the imperfect
épúero in II. 2, 403. In the same way εἴρυντο, ῥύατο, II.
454. o, 515. Od. p, 201. are used of the protection of bolts,
walls, guards, &c.; and a similar meaning of a continued ac-
tion is always in the infinitives εἴρυσθαι, ἔρυσθαι, ῥῦσθαι, Od.
y, 268. 1, 194. Il. o, 141. It is therefore clear that all these
forms belong to the syncope of the pres. and imperf. (for which
see sect. 110, 6. of this work) εἰρύετο εἴρυτο, ἐρύεσθαι ἔρυσθαι.
Nay the indicative itself, epurat he watches, is used not only by
Apoll. Rhod. 2, 1208., but Homer has the 3. plur. eipúarat in
Il. a, 239. Od. π, 463. in the sense of to watch, observe, which
therefore, agreeably to the passages above quoted, is not to be
explained 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 Il. e, 23.
538. epuτo, Soph. Œd. T. 1352. (lyric) eppuτo: these however
are sufficiently explained by the greater freedom of the older
language with regard to the historical time.
I have shown at sect. 95. obs. 17. of this work, that in the
Epic language the future of epów is the same as the present.
The same is to be said of the middle épúes0aι, Il. §, 422.
i, 248. v, 195., as Homer, after the verbs to hope, to intend,
310
54. Ερωεῖν, ἐρωή.
when 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.) €,
816. infin. eipúμevaι with u; consequently exactly analogous
to the formation in μι, as δεικνύμεναι for δεικνύναι. 2.) 0,
304. épuro also with u, and in a passive sense, was watched,
guarded.]
54. 'Epweiv, épwń.
1. The meanings of the words épweîv and epwn lead to two
most opposite things, violent motion and rest. At Il. o, 358.
Soupòc epwn is the motion of the hurled spear; on the other
hand, at π, 302. πολέμου δ᾽ οὐ γίγνετ᾽ ἐρωή must be translated
ου
,
"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 ß, 179. 'AXX' ï0ɩ vûv katà daòv
'Axaιwv, undé &' épwet, i. e. "nor be sluggish." Hence the
Αχαιῶν, τ
grammarians have given, without any qualification whatever,
under ἐρωή—ὁρμή and κατάπαυσις, and under ἐρωῆσαι---ἡσυ-
Xáσai, Xwρñoaι (see Etym. and Hesych.). A comparison how-
ever of the different passages where the word occurs will make
all this consistent.
-
2. That the word belongs to the family of péw is undoubted;
the verb pwoμai, expressive of an undulating wavy motion (as
of a crowd, of the hair, &c.), comes nearest to it, and bears to
it the same relation as púouat does to epów. Its simple ground-
meaning is in the passage quoted above, Il. a, 303. Aîþá roɩ
αἷμα κελαινὸν ἐρωήσει περὶ δουρί: its derivative sense is in ἐρωή
in the passages where it expresses the flight of arrows or the
throw of a spear (as at Il. 8, 542. λ, 357. o, 358.), the rushing
forward of a man (Il. ξ, 488. ὁ δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν ἐρωὴν Πηνε-
λewo avaкToc), the swing of the winnower and of the wood-
cutter (II. », 590. y, 62.). These meanings remain unchanged
in such phrases as eepwñoal of the horses springing on one
side, in Il. ψ, 468. Αἱ δ᾽ ἐξηρώησαν ἐπεὶ μένος ἔλλαβε θυμόν:
or when they run back at 0, 122. væеρúnσav dé oi iππо: with
which last the passage of ψ, 433. αἱ δ᾽ ἠρώησαν ὀπίσσω, ex-
actly agrees. But now as the idea of from, off from, lies also in
0
πποι
αι
54. ᾿Ερωεῖν, ἐρωή.
311
the genitive, the expression ἐρωεῖν πολέμοιο, χάρμης, (Il.v, 776.
έ, , 101. p, 422. T, 170.) without any adjunct, will mean li-
terally to withdraw from, hasten away from the war; which is
in fact as much as to leave off, desist, cease; which idea, with-
out the exactly literal sense to hasten away being implied in it,
the word has in the passages above quoted; and also in épún-
σav каμάтоι, 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. μη 75.
of the cloud always hanging round the rock, Tò μèv оUTOT
οὔποτ᾽
ἐρωεῖ. And thus this idea became so firmly united to ἐρωεῖν,
that it stands absolutely for to withdraw, desist, as in the pas-
sage of II. ẞ, 179. above quoted, which is the only one of its
kind, and where the antithesis makes the sense clear. But in
the expressicn πολέμου δ᾽ οὐ γίγνετ᾽ ἐρωή, the genitive is to
be taken more literally; it is, for instance, as if it were oric
οὔτις
ἠρώει πολέμου: exactly as in prose we have ἀπαλλαγὴ βίου,
συμφορᾶς, &c. from ἀπαλλάττεσθαι βίου, συμφορᾶς.
ου
TO
3. This verb, like so many others, passed over into the
transitive sense, and meant literally to cause to retire, drive
back; as at II. v, 57. it is said of Hector, To Ke Kai éσovμévov
περ ἐρωήσαιτ᾽ ἀπὸ νηῶν: and so also in the substantive ἐμῶν
μevéwv åttepweúc, Il. 0, 361. he who makes to retire, drives back;
in both which cases, however, the idea of from or backwards
lies in the preposition, and epweîv 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, Οἕνεκεν ἠρώησε τριακοντάζυγον ᾿Αργώ: 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, ἠρώησε τριακονταζύγου Αργούς. The
other is quoted from Callimachus by the Etym. M. and Suid.
in v.
θηρὸς ἐρωήσας ὀλοὺν κέρας.
See Bentl. Fragm. 249.
μειώσας, κατεάξας, which
Suidas explains the verb here by
would be a singular deviation of
312
54. ᾿Ερωεῖν, ἐρωή.
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 ἐρωή the following: ἢ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐράσεως· χύσις γάρ
τις καὶ ἀπόκλυσίς ἐστιν· ὡς Καλλίμαχος, ἐρωήσας θηρὸς ὀλοὸν
κέρας· τὸ εἰς τὴν ἔραν καταγαγών. That is to say, the gram-
marian derives épav, to pour out, from epa, the earth, and sup-
poses èpwer to have pretty nearly the same meaning; unless
perchance we have here two derivations confounded together
by some mistake or other, one from epay 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', from which therefore this fragment
is taken, and from the context of the same comes also the
375th of Ernesti,
ὁ μὲν εἷλκεν, ὁ δ᾽ εἴπετο νωθρὸς ὁδίτης,
0
ܕ
χειο
which Ernesti supposed to refer to the carrying away of the
Minotaur from Crete. This verse, when completed by "Qc
“Qc
einov, described the leading off the bull when tamed, by an
imitation of a verse from Homer, agreeably yet not too closely
parodied, Ὣς εἰπὼν ὁ μὲν ἦρχ᾽, ὁ δ᾽ ἅμ᾽ ἕσπετο ισόθεος φώς.
That my explanation is the true one is clear from Plutarch
Thes. c. 14. ἐξῆλθεν ἐπὶ τὸν Μαραθώνιον ταῦρον....καὶ
ρωσάμενος ἐπεδείξατο ζῶντα διὰ τοῦ ἄστεος ἐλάσας·
εἶτα τῷ ᾿Απόλλωνι τῷ Δελφινίῳ κατέθυσεν. These two frag-
ments evidently mark two different points of time in this trans-
action. 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 passage, which he had complete before him, but he thought
he might derive epweîv 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
See the epigram of Crinagoras in Bentl. Fragm. Callim. 40., or
in Brunck's Anal. 2, 144.
55. ESTE, &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.
Εὐδείελος ; vid. δείλη.
Εὔκηλος ; vid. ἕκηλος.
55. Εὖτε, ἠΰτε, δεῦτε,
ευτε
1. If we throw aside some of the passages belonging to
this investigation, the use of the particles eure and nüte 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 si-
milar. If we proceed however with proper deliberation, eûTe
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'. I ought rather,
1 Schneider's supposition, that eûre came from the genitive e re for
οὗ τε,
i. e. ou, is not satisfactory, because there is not the least ground
for using the genitive of the pronoun for this idea of time. And then
Te requires a similar explanation: for which purpose it would be better
to take the accusative ő, Te for кað ö,тe 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 Tóre is not capable of any radical explanation whatever,
unless we suppose this demonstrative to be formed at once catachresti-
cally 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 ő, ró, &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 definitively
expressive of time, rnríka, that there may have been an old word IE,
314
55. Eûte, &c.
>./.
ηυτε
ล
I think, to bring forward a conjecture of my own respecting
Te which Schneider has slightly mentioned in his Lexicon,
that it comes from ᾗ εὖτε or ᾗ ὅτε (as from ὄνομα ἀνώνυμος)
with the aspirate changeable, as in the correlative of Tuoc,
uoc for uoc. For that for &c in such derivations occurs in
Homer's language, see art. 104. sect. 6. The elliptical og öre
always brings before the mind the verb which is understood,
as at Il. δ, 463. ἤριπε δ᾽, ὡς ὅτε πύργος, “he fell, as when a
tower falls;” and Od. λ, 368. Μῦθον δ᾽, ὡς ὅτ᾽ ἀοιδὸς, ἐπι-
OTAµÉVWG KATÉλeğaç, “thou hast told thy tale skilfully, as when
σταμένως
a poet tells anything:" and nure, 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
ὅτε or εὔτε lying concealed under it.
,
ήΰτε
2. That nure stands for eure 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 eure for more twice as a various reading in
Homer.
In Il. y, 10. the reading of the text is,
Εὖτ᾽ ὄρεος κορυφῇσι νότος κατέχευεν ὀμίχλην
Ὣς ἄρα τῶν ὑπὸ ποσσὶ κονίσαλος ὤρνυτ᾽ ἀελλῇς.
We take no notice of those (see Schol.) who propose to read
EÛTE for Te here also; but there is quoted in the scholia, as an
ευτε
FIE, answering to the Latin vice, consequently rika for hac vice,
αὐτίκα for τὴν αὐτὴν ἵκα like αὐθήμερον for τὴν αὐτὴν ἡμέραν. 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 rŋvíka, in order to increase its force, was made into
τηyıkavτa through the similarity of its termination with the adjectival
forms ταῦτα, τοσαῦτα, a derivation which could not be made from that
accusative. But this supposition is fully justified by the far more start-
ling appearances in τημοῦτος and ἐνθεῦτεν, which can have come into
the language in no other way than by a mechanical imitation of those
analogies. See Gram. sect. 72. b. 5. and sect. 103, 6.—Tμos, also,
and uos may be explained as compounded of the article and μap,
consequently for τῆμαρ, ἦμαρ corresponding with αὐτῆμαρ, which is
evidently a correlative, though retaining only its literal meaning of
the day.
55. Eûre, &c.
315
old various reading, 'Hür' opevc. This however must be rejected,
because Homer always writes opeoc at full length. By writes we
mean also pronounces; for we never find opeoc in Homer's metre
written as a dissyllable, any more than τείχεος, στήθεος, or
any other similar genitive of this form which I can call to mind.
The other passage is in Il. T, 386. where, speaking of the arms
of Achilles, the old reading is,
Τῷ δ' ηὖτε πτερὰ γίγνετ᾽, ἄειρε δὲ ποιμένα λαῶν.
with the various reading cure. Wolf, according to a decision
of Aristarchus and from the Cod. Ven. has adopted avre, so
that it may be said with emphasis, "they were to him as fea-
thers, and raised him up." I will not venture an opinion on
the figure; but I am not willing to purchase it with a com-
pletely idle and useless αὖτε. For there is nothing whatever
in the verses preceding to which are might express opposition,
or even mere difference, and dé is only copulative: "Achilles
tried on his armour to ascertain Et oi èpappóσoele……….., Tậ
S' NоTе TTеρà YίYveTo....." I consider therefore the form of
ηὖτε πτερὰ γίγνετο...
>./
Te 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 nûre and eute, deciding
for myself in favour of Ηὖτ' ὄρεος, ηὖτε πτερά.
3. A singular usage is that where mure stands after the
comparative instead of " in Il. 8, 277., of the goatherd;
דען
Τῷ δέ τ' ἄνευθεν ἐόντι μελάντερον ἠΰτε πίσσα
Daivero (namely the cloud).
The singularity of this usage is observed in the scholia on this
passage and on Apoll. Rhod. 1, 269.
Ὣς ἔχετο κλαίουσ᾽ ἀδινώτερον ἠΰτε κούρη.
but they explain it falsely in both passages, that the compa-
rative is put for the positive. It is worthy of remark that this
verse of Apollonius appears much more like an imitation of
Od. π,
216.
#
"}
>
Κλαῖον δὲ λιγέως, ἀδινώτερον ἤτ' οἰωνοί.
For this Te, or " Te, is quite as unexampled in the sense of
quam, and the Te here has no such grounds to rest on as it has
where is a disjunctive copulative in Il. 7, 148. Tараoxé-
παρασχέ-
316
55. Eûte, &c.
μεν
τ᾽ ἐχέμεν,
2
μev....., " ' éxéμev, "to offer...……., or (i. e. or also) to re-
tain." Hence in that passage attention must be paid to the
various reading of one or more Vienna manuscripts nur oi
oiwvoi; a corruption from which we may suppose the true
various reading to have been ἀδινώτερον ηὖτ᾽ οἰωνοί, and which,
after all that has been said above, I do not hesitate to prefer
to any other. The circumstance of nure appearing to stand in
such a phrase may be compared with the common German ex-
pression grösser wie du*, and such like; although there is also
an old formula ore, analogous to ore in the other phrase,
which offers itself for our adoption.
NUTE
-
*
n
4. By an evident corruption the word nure stands in some
fragments of Anacreon quoted in Hephæstion, which, as far as
I know, have never yet been corrected. They are these, con-
sequently the beginnings of odes: Μεγάλῳ δ᾽ ηὖτε μ' ῎Ερως
ĚKOYEV WOTE Xadкcúc, Heph. p. 40. Pa. (Fisch. fr. 25.): Пapà
δ᾽ ηὖτε Πυθόμανδρον, Heph. ib. (Fisch. fr. 53.): ᾿Αρθεὶς δ᾽
ŋνT' àñò Дevкádoc, Heph. p. 70. (Fisch. fr. 58.).
We know
that Hephæstion was fond of quoting the beginnings of songs
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: Καὶ τῷ βραχυκαταλήκτῳ
δὲ ᾽Ανακρέων ὅλα ᾄσματα συνέθηκε Μεγάλῳ.... Who then
can doubt that the two verses which he here quotes are the
beginning of such a song? 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 Sé in these verses
cannot of right belong to them. I will not therefore give myself
any further trouble to show the impossibility of bringing nute
(or, if you please, eure,) in the first and second fragment into a
regular connexion with the context; but I will at once write
a
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'; grösser wie du, 'larger than thou.'
In Latin also quam sometimes means as, sometimes than.-ED.]
55. EûTE, &c.
317
δεῦτε
e 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, deûre 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 Il. n, 350. Antenor says to the
chiefs assembled in council, Δεῦτ᾽ ἄγετ᾽ ᾿Αργείην Ελένην....
Δώομεν ᾿Ατρείδησιν ἄγειν : literally, “ Come, let us give Helen
to the Atridæ, &c."; and at Od. 0, 133. Laodamas says to the
Phæacians assembled at the games, Δεῦτε φίλοι, τὸν ξεῖνον
épíμela, "Come, friends, let us ask the stranger, &c.": in
ἐρώμεθα,
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 anapæsts in
the odd places, if we change the incongruous participle vidéµe-
vat into the infinitive, instead of altering it with Coray into the
masculine, an emendation by which some manuscripts endea-
vour to conceal the wound :
ναι
Διὰ δεῦτε Καριοεργέος
Οχάνοιο χεῖρα τιθήμεναι.
"Up! put your hand in 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 enlarged, in the Anacreontic fragment in Heph. p. 22.
(Fisch. fr. 123.)
Μνᾶται δεῦτε φαλακρὸς *Αλεξις.
This fragment belongs to the specimens with which we set out;
for Turnebus was the first who wrote deûтe here, without
making any remark on it; the manuscripts (see Gaisford) have
dŋûte. Pauw understands this deûre not incorrectly: for while
he translates it huc agite! he appears to consider it as a comic
invitation to hasten to the laughable drama. Still I would
* [We use 'Come!' and the French make use of 'Allons!' in the
same way.-ED.]
318
55. Eûre, &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. Athenæus 14.
p. 599. has an Anacreontic ode beginning thus:
Σφαίρῃ δεῦτέ με πορφυρέη
Βάλλων χρυσοκόμης Ερως
Συμπαίζειν προκαλεῖται.
The similarity of the beginning of this ode to that other, of
which we have the first words with the false reading 'nure,
will now assist us in correcting it thus:
and
Μεγάλῳ δεῦτέ μ' ῎Ερως ἔκοψεν ὥστε χαλκεὺς
Πελέκει, χειμερίῃ δ' ἔλουσεν ἐν χαράδρῃ.
We see that the word here merely supplies the place of an in-
vitation 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:
Παρὰ δεῦτε Πυθόμανδρον
Κατέδυν Ἔρωτα φεύγων.
ا,
᾿Αρθεὶς δεῦτ᾽ ἀπὸ Λευκάδος
Πέτρης ἐς πολιὸν κῦμα κολυμβῶ μεθύων ἔρωτι.
The first of these is obscure, from being suddenly broken off;
and in the second the word nûre 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 Athen. 10. p. 427. (Fisch. Od. 57.), in which, as we
may conclude from the corruptions, the word deûre 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 Athenæus 13. p. 600. f.
Ερως με δ' αὖτε Κύπριδος ἕκατι
Γλυκὺς κατείβων καρδίαν ἰαίνει.
As we know nothing of the continuation of this fragment, there
56. Εχεπευκής, &c.
319
could not be the least objection to the word aure; but the po-
sition of dè furnishes a trace which we would not wish to lose
even by reversing the words to ῎Ερως δέ μ᾽ αὖτε. In other
respects the passage is quite free from faults; for ekari 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 Athenæus 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
Seûre, a word quite natural it seems to this lost branch of
poetry, was introduced to enliven the sentence:
"Ερως με δεῦτε Κύπριδος ἕκατι
Γλυκὺς κατείβων καρδίαν ἰαίνει.
which we should translate, "See how Love at the command of
Venus, sweet Love, besprinkling me softens my heart."
56. Εχεπευκής, πευκεδανός, πευκάλιμος.
1. That the Homeric adjectives έχεπευκής and πευκεδανός
are connected with the word wеúкη, 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 Teúкη, 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 Teukŋ, bitterness? In
this investigation we must not overlook #kpóc, which is used
in Homer in the same sense as those words, (as, for instance,
TIKρòç biσTóc,) and clearly comes from the same root; as also
in the words reúкη, πiσσα, pix, the sounds ev and change from
one to the other.
2. In the first case it is difficult to conceive that the idea of
bitterness should be taken by abstraction from that tree in
320
56. Εχεπευκής, &c.
particular and its resinous gum, since that quality is far less
striking in this tree than in so many other objects in which it
is more natural and 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 exeπevкéc, fir-containing. Besides in that case
this derivation must have come down from the olden time: for
TIKρóc, 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
πεúÊη [pronounced by the Germans poike], picea, πíτvc, pinus,
Fichte, Föhre, fir?-whilst there is nowhere else any appear-
ance 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 mukρóc
ικρός
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 πικρὴ ὀδμή, a root laid on a wound is πικρή, 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 ΠΥΚΩ, ΠΕΥΚΩ, whence πικρός (like φιτρόν
from púw, purców) sharp, pointed, and weúkŋ the point, which
was itself lost in this meaning, but left behind it those deriva-
tives with a meaning like TIKρóc. With these were joined, as
πικρός.
in the other languages, the names of that species of tree de-
* [The French would call it 'une odeur piquante.'—ED.]
-
57. Εχθοδοπῆσαι.
321
rived from teúкn, and corresponding with it in form; from
which again came riooa, pix; very naturally, the production
named after the tree.
5. The word Teukáλiμog, which never occurs but as an epi-
thet of the understanding (Þpeơi πevкaλíµŋoi), might be brought
into the same family in the sense of sharp, penetrating; but I
am unwilling to give the word pv an epithet, the physical
sense of which has so little connexion with that of Opýv; and
I remain therefore in favour of the usual opinion, which explains
it as synonymous with TUKIvóc. For this also is an epithet of
πυκινός.
Opévec (Il. §, 294.), and this latter word again is connected
with the verb TUкál∞, when it is said (Il. 0, 124. and else-
where), that the mind is filled with anything. But the ev is
merely a lengthening of the u, which in itself is short, and which
in this long word is lengthened from the same cause as the a
is in ἀθάνατος: an exactly parallel case to this is in λευγαλέος,
which bears precisely the same relation to λυγρός as πευκάλι-
μος does to πυκνός,
57. Ἐχθοδοπῆσαι.
1. The verb exodonnσat in Il. a, 518. is, as far as my
knowledge extends, a araç eipnuévov in the whole range of
Greek literature. But the radical word ex@odomóc occurs some-
times in the poets, and once in prose in Plato.
For we may
be pretty confident that the passages brought forward by
Ruhnken ad Tim. in v. do all occur in the older writers.
Plato's use of the word is particularly deserving of our obser-
vation, and, in an examination whether he adopted pure Epic
words, might be classed with kpŃyvog.
2. The first 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 are first those the con-
text of which is decisive in favour of the former sense, Soph.
Aj. 950. (932. 924.) τοῖα....ἀνεστέναζες ὠμόφρων ἐχθο-
δόπ᾽ ᾿Ατρείδαις. Aristoph. Acharn. 227, οἷσι παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ
πόλεμος ἐχθυδοπὸς αὔξεται· and the passage of Apoll. Rhod.
Y
322
57. Εχθοδοπῆσαι.
quoted below. Two others,-Soph. Philoct. 1132. (1137.),
where it is said 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: keλeveɩg
γὰρ δή με τῆς αὐτῆς ὁδοῦ ἔχεσθαι' ἐχθοδοποῦ γεγονυίας πολ-
λοῖς, ἴσως δ᾽ οὐκ ἐλάττοσιν ἑτέροις προσφιλοῦς. It seems to
me that in this passage hated would not be so suitable a mean-
ing as hostile for the main point in the passage is, the bring-
ing forward principles quite unusual, which will offend or be
objectionable to many persons*.
3. This same meaning is also the most natural in the Ho-
meric ἐχθοδοπῆσαι, which is evident by the word ἐφήσεις :
Η δὴ λοίγια ἔργ᾽, ὅτε μ' ἐχθοδοπῆσαι ἐφήσεις
Ηρῃ, ὅταν μ᾿ ἐμέθῃσιν ὀνειδείοις ἐπέεσσιν.
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 d
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 ἀλλοδαπός, ἡμεδαπός from δάπεδον οι ἔδαφος, 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 éxodonоû seems opposed
to πрoopiλous, 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.-En.]
58. ᾿Ηγάθεος.
323
to analogy. I think they arose from an old anastrophe aλλou
ἄπο, ἡμῶν οι ἡμετέρου ἄπο. And so also is ἐχθοδοπός: but
of the two derivations proposed by the grammarians (see
Eustath.) that from o is to be rejected; for it is too restricted,
and the more general one cannot be formed from it. But the
derivation from ὄπτω is confirmed by the analogy of χαροπός.
'Ex0odomóc 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:
ἐχθοδοποῖσιν
Ομμασι χαλκείοιο Τάλω ἐμέγηρεν ὀπωπάς.
Ἑῶμεν ; vid. ἀδῆσαι.
58. Ηγάθεος.
The first syllable in nyá@eoc is without doubt a mere length-
ening of the word, as in ἠμαθόεις, ἠνεμόεις, ἠγερέθονται, ἠερέ-
θονται, ἠνορέη, ἠλάσκουσιν. Both the derivations therefore,
that from ayauai (according to which it would perhaps be a
lengthened form of ἀγαθός), and that from ἄγαν θεῖος, 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 άyákλuTоc and many proper names, and the synonymous
word Lá0eog is an exactly parallel case. To this we may add
that nyáleoc in Homer and Hesiod, in Pindar åyáleoc, 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 Todaπós to be much the same as the German
wovon [the English wherefrom]: but in érdários the d is not inserted,
the word coming from ἔνδον and ἀπό, as ἐνδόθεν from ἔνδον with the
particle ev annexed.
* [Passow, after having mentioned in his Lexicon the different deri-
vations of this word, adds that "probably it is no compound, but a
lengthened form of ἐχθρός, like ἀλλοδαπός, ἡμεδαπός, &c., which opi-
nion is favoured by the accent."-En.]
1 2
324
59. Ηϊόεις.
divine, sacred, belongs as a fixed epithet. Apollonius (3,981.
4, 1131.) 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 eîoc, and the other derivation be-
longs therefore to the later grammarians.
Ἠέριος ; vid. ἀήρ.
59. Ηϊόεις.
""
1. At Il. e, 36. we read en' nioévтi Ekaµávoρw, and the
great majority of the commentators in explaining its meaning
look to the word ἠϊών, ἠϊόνος, which appears both in sound and
sense to be akin to it. Heyne, indeed, is contented with the
explanation of ripis septus, while he rejects, and with reason,
one explanation which speaks of beautiful banks, as not pos-
sible 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 the first must be the proper meaning of wv, as the last is
of oxon. Whereas in most, if not all, of the passages where
Homer uses the expression niv, 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 niwv, 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 explana-
tion of this kind.
2. There is another old explanation—a very bad one it is
true-from lov, a violet, whence nioeic is to mean violet-covered,
flowery, and the flowery stream will be, a stream with flowery
banks but from the very circumstance of this etymology be-
ing 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. Ηϊόεις,
325
with more certainty than they could, although the Venetian
scholia and the lexicon of Apollonius are silent on this word.
According to this my conjecture, the older grammarians were
of opinion that nióeic 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.),
ἠϊόεν πεδίον καταβοσκομένοισιν.
We may be sure that he did not use the word in this way on
account of the above unintelligible etymology, but because
nióeic was handed down to him as meaning grassy.
Let us
suppose this to have been the meaning 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; and if such an elevated situation had
been in Homer's mind, the high banks of the Simois offered
him just such a one in a site equally delightful; and where we
afterwards see the gods and Mars actually seated, II. v, 151.
3. We now find ourselves therefore standing on the same
ground with the old commentators; we have a meaning for
the word nióeic, 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 óeic we must suppose a substantive HION or -O2
or -A; whether such a one ever actually existed we know
not. But should not the well-known Epic word eiauern be
derived from this very word, which we suppose must have ex-
isted in the old Epic language? Elauern 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 elaμevn ëλeoc), where
poplars grow and innumerable herds feed; while later poets,
as Apollonius 3, 1202. and Demosthenes the Bithynian, in
326
59. Ηϊόεις.
Steph. Byz. v. 'Hpaía*, 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, 316., as well as in Homer, the herds of
cattle feed in the eiaueraic. Of this word the most generally
received etymology (see Schneidert) is that of quat, because
in the common language và kalnμeva was used to express low
situations. Considered however independently of this meaning,
the derivation is of a somewhat deceptive kind; for etara is
compared with eiauern, 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. 8, 483.) recommended the
pronouncing it eiauern, 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 clauern with that 'HION from which comes the adjective
ἠϊόεις. If now there be any truth in the derivation of eiaµevý
from uai, there is nothing to hinder us from deriving nióЄic
from the same. At all events we must allow that both Greek
words give us the idea of a meadow; that we can render nióeig
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'.
[He says
ons.—ED.]
† [The passage referred to in Schneider's Lexicon is this:
“Εἰαμενή, ή, or more correctly είαμενή, from εἷαμενὸς, from εΐαται, Ion.
for vrai, sitting, lying, like kalýμeros Tóños, a low situation, Suid.
Hesych. and Æoliani v. h. 3, 1., whence Hesychius explains elaμevòv
by νήνεμον, κοῖλον, βοτανώδη.” &c.-Ep.]
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 ciaperý may
have meant literally a watery tract of land, and such words as eißw for
λeißw, eîap moisture, aiorĝr 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 Ave now does the car of a German [or meadow that of an English-
man], and therefore yïócis, meadowy, was no bad epithet for a stream.
of a shallow harbour, εἰαμενὴ δὲ καὶ οὐ βάθος ἐστὶ θαλάσ-
ܕ
ܕܕ
327
60. ῏Ηκα, ἥκιστος.
1. If the adverb ka agreed exactly in meaning with ȧkéwv
and any, 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 ἤκεστος, ἤπειρος, ἠπεδανός,
nλéктwρ exhibit clear proofs that in the old Ionic language the
a
-
,
K
privative was changed into ŋ. And in fact, if we had no
other passages with which to compare the Pindaric åka (Pind.
Pyth. 4, 277. ἀκᾶ δ᾽ ἀνταγόρευσεν καὶ Πελίας, “ Pelias an-
Ηκα πρὸς ἀλ-
swered him calmly,") than such as Il. y, 155. Hка трòс ȧλ-
λήλους ἔπεα πτερόεντ᾽ ἀγόρευον, “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 аkéwv and ȧkýv. Let us compare now the
ἀκήν.
following passages. At II., 336. Nestor is teaching his
son that, in guiding his horses round the goal, he should in-
cline è apiorepá, 'a little to the left'; and in the same
way at Od. v, 301. Ulysses avoids the ox-foot thrown at him
ἦκα παρακλίνας κεφαλήν. 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 de-
gree, a little.
And so it is the epithet of a slight blow, push,
wind, the brightness of a shining body, Od. o, 91.93. Il.w, 508.
v, 440., o, 596., and of a slow pace, ĥкa kιóvrac, Od.
P, 254.
In all these passages there is not only no idea whatever of still-
ness or silence, but in all the passages except the first the
meanings cannot be deduced from the idea of stillness and
calmness without considerable difficulty and force; as for in-
stance at Od. 6, 93. the blow given was so far from being a
soft or gentle one, that it smashed the bones of Irus and 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 spot. Consequently the idea given by ka is not a positive
one implying a negative quality as in aky, but only a relative
idea implying diminution, and this is no other than weak. This
idea will bring all those passages to an uniformity of meaning,
328
60. Ηκα, ἥκιστος.
and it is only through the context that it acquires the sense of
low, slow; into which it passed over completely, but very na-
turally, in such phrases as ἦκα ἀγορεύειν, κίειν.
2. According to this I suppose кa to be the genuine posi-
tive of ἧσσον, ἥκιστα ; 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 by 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'. 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
ἦκα has still evident traces of it in Homer,—ἀπώσατο ἦκα, αὐ-
Tоû ĥкa,—nor is there one passage to the contrary; and though
noowv has in Homer no traces of it, yet its compound åʼnτTηToc
carries it continually. The positive of ἥσσων, ἥκιστος may
have been ἡκύς, as that of θάσσων, τάχιστος is ταχύς, and thus
ἧκα or ἦκα bears the same relation to the one as τάχα does to
the other.
3. And for that reason I cannot follow the old grammarians
in writing ἥκιστος at Il. ψ, 531. For they thought that be-
cause ĥka in the more definite sense of slow was once separated
from the more general meaning of ἧσσον, ἥκιστα, that therefore
e
KIOTOG, which occurs in that passage only, was the adjectival
superlative of that adverb with the same meaning:
Βάρδιστοι μὲν γάρ οἱ ἔσαν καλλίτριχες ἵπποι,
Ἤκιστος δ᾽ ἦν αὐτὸς ἐλαυνέμεν ἅρμ᾽ ἐν ἀγώνι.
And certainly if that were true, we might, amidst the general
uncertainty prevailing in the oldest accentuation and aspira-
tion, 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 chario-
teers." As the cause of the unfortunate issue of that race is
shared between the horses and the driver, it would be a false
The Etym. M. in Koros has the form ka in an obscure gloss; from
which it may be inferred, either that the pronunciation was unsettled
between ka and ka, or that my explanation of the word was not un-
known to the old grammarians. Comp. Schol. B. on Il. ↓, 531.
61. Ἠλίβατος.
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 ἥσσων ἱππηλάτης, and that he had βραδυτέρους ἵππους;
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 gramma-
tical subtleties. The arra eipnuévov which we have here is
therefore the adjectival superlative of noowv*, not occurring
in any other passage of the older writers, though it could not
have entirely disappeared from the language; for Ælian would
have hardly said in his prose (N. A. 4, 31. 9, I.) йkιotog On-
στος
ρᾷν, ἥκιστος κρυμὸν φέρειν, if he had had no other precedent
than this of Homer.
ἅπαξ
61. Ἠλίβατος.
1. Ηλίβατος in Homer is always the epithet of πέτρη. 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
contradictions which accompany it.
2. The passage of Il. o, 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,
Τὸν μέν τ' ἠλίβατος πέτρη καὶ δάσκιος ὕλη
Εἰρύσατ᾽, οὐδ᾽ ἄρα τέ σφι κιχήμεναι αἴσιμον ἦεν.
As it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the somewhat inac-
* [Passow's article on this word is the following: ""HKLOTOS, n, or,
superl. adj. from the adv. ka, found only at II. 4, 531. "Kιotos éλav-
véμer, the slowest in driving. Others read кotos, the common superl.
of "oowv, the worst of drivers: but as koros is otherwise unknown to
the Homeric language, the other reading should be retained as a relic
of the oldest verbal formation."-ED.]
330
61. Ηλίβατος.
curate structure of the sentence, the rock refers to the goat, as
the wood does to the stag, and as it is quite necessary that the
separate epithet joined with each of those objects should ex-
press that in which the certainty of safety lies; so it is equally
certain that λíẞaroc refers to the steep height, as that dάokioc
does to the thickness of the covert. To this passage we must
add 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. κ, 88. of the rock which runs round the
harbour; where it is to be observed, that the singular Térpn
λißaroc 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
Æolus is called λισσὴ πέτρη. Again, at Il. o, 619. πέτρη
'Hλißaroc μeɣáλn, is the huge rock on the sea-coast which
braves the winds and waves; and at Hes. a, 422. λißaroc,
without any other epithet, is the rock struck by Jupiter's
thunder. The passages also where the word is a fixed epi-
thet, (as at Od. v, 196. of the rocks of Ithaca, at II. T, 35. of
the rocks which Patroclus says must have been the parents of
the stubborn Achilles, at Hes. 0, 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 themselves 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, Teтрŵv Kaт' ýλßáτwv, is joined
τρῶν κατ' ἠλιβάτων,
with a leap into the deep sea. In Pindar Ol. 6, 110. the hill
Cronius, which elsewhere is called the sunny, is distinguished
by this epithet; ἵκοντο δ᾽ ὑψηλοῖο πέτραν ἀλίβατον Κρονίου.
In Aristophanes Av. 1732. the Olympic throne of Jove is called
ἠλίβατοι θρόνοι; a combination attributable to the ingenuity
of the poet. And, lastly, in the Hymn to Venus v. 268. the
connexion of this verse with the foregoing is not perhaps quite
so clear, but the context in the following one makes it perfectly
certain that iẞaro 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 in poetry
61. Ηλίβατος.
331
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 Apollonius,
with whom this word is very common as the epithet of "poc,
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, ἄκρη πάντοθεν ἠλίβατος, 2,
361.
4. But what appears to confirm this to be the genuine
meaning 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, ὕπερθεν δὲ ἦσαν πέτραι ἠλίβατοι, it is
absurd to suppose that he selected intentionally a poetical ex-
pression for such a sentence. In the same way Polybius also
uses the word, 4, 41. ἐκχαραδροῦντα καὶ διακόπτοντα τόπους
ἠλιβάτους.
λßárova. And when we consider that this expression, with-
out having exactly remained 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 mean-
ing 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 nλißaroc, 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 "Mißaroc.
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. Pro-
portion must be preserved even in exaggerations of the imagi-
nation: the giant is a huge monster, but still there is a pro-
portion kept up between him and the strangers, which can be
comprehended, and is, if we may use the expression, tangible.
He scizes two of Ulysses's companions like puppies; he de-
332
61. Ηλίβατος.
vours them, but still he is contented with two at a meal; and
the draughts of wine which he takes from Ulysses's leathern
bottle, though many and 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 nega-
tive 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 lan-
guage 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 monstrous, 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.
Καὶ γὰρ θαῦμ' ἐτέτυκτο πελώριον, οὐδὲ ἐῴκει
᾿Ανδρί γε σιτοφάγῳ, ἀλλὰ ῥίῳ ὑλήεντι
Ὑψηλῶν ὀρέων, ὅτε φαίνεται οἶον ἀπ᾿ ἄλλων.
Now, certainly, one who in size resembles a woody cliff or pro-
montory, may very well be supposed to break off one of the pre-
cipitous 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 πέτρον but πέτρην, 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 descrip-
tion with these words (486.),
Ἐκλύσθη δὲ θάλασσα κατερχομένης ὑπὸ πέτρης,
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
61. Ηλίβατος.
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
Πέτρας ἠλιβάτους στιβαρῇς ἐν χερσὶν ἔχοντες.
6. I think all this stands on grounds so sure in themselves,
that I may very well now expect that no one will be led into
error 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 Téτpov
ἠλίβατον στρογγύλον, λεῖον ἱκανῶς, ἐγγὺς σφαιροειδούς, of a
black and hard stone; and at the end he says the largest of
these stones might be twelve 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 íßaros by the mere general terms "high,
deep, like altus," and adds that in the passage of Strabo "the word has
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
61. Ηλίβατος.
common language of the day to every huge mass of stone (for
the word used here is πέτρος, not πέτρα); 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 accord-
ing to their own judgement; in which case the stone at the
mouth of the Cyclops' cave may very probably have served as
a precedent.
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. Rhea conceals the young Jupiter in Crete
῎Αντρῳ ἐν ἠλιβάτῳ ζαθέης ὑπὸ κεύθεσι γαίης
Αἰγαίῳ ἐν ὄρει.
In Euripides Hippol. 732. the Chorus wishes itself nλißáτoic
VπÒ кеνеŵσш, in order that there-(I wish this locality were
fixed on good grounds)—they might be turned into birds, &c.
And, lastly, it is mentioned in the Etym. M. that Stesichorus
called Tartarus λißaroc in the sense of deep. We might un-
derstand the passage of Hesiod, as the scholiast does (ev koiλw
kai v¥nλŵ), of a cave lying in a lofty and trackless mountain;
but then the expression vπò кeúleσi yaing would lead us amaz-
ingly astray. I think, therefore, that we must be satisfied in
all three passages with the explanation of the Etym. M. and
of the Schol. Eurip. (Balvτároic), and seek for the solution of
any difficulty in the analogy between high and deep, an analogy
recognised by other languages. But as
But as nλíßaroc is evidently
a compound word arising from certain definite collateral ideas,
but 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 λuoc; 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 Il. o, 273. there is mentioned as an old various reading
Tòv μév 0' λíßaroc (see the scholium on v. 619., where
however 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.
μέν θ᾽ ἡλίβατος
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 Tar-
tarus. And if we adopt it, we must at the same time sup-
pose that the meaning of the word as applied to heights was
the true and proper signification, but that its application to
depth arose entirely from the imagination of the poet (Hesiod),
who did not notice 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 ap-
plication but a synonyn of ἄβατος οι δύσβατος. And such a
one can hardly be coined out of the syllable λ by any other
means than by adopting the other ancient etymology, which
supposes it an abridgement of diróßaroc, according to the
analogy of ἠλιτόμηνος, ἠλιτόεργος, in which words lies the
idea of missing or failing in; so that nλißaroc would express
the facility of making a false step in ascending a precipitous
height or descending a steep declivity*.
Ἤμβροτον ; vid. ἀμβρόσιος.
62. ῏Ηρα, ἐπίηρα, ἐπιήρανος, ἐρίηρος, ἐρίηρες.
1. The passages where the forms pa and erinpa are found
in our Homer are the following: II., 132.
οι
οἳ τὸ πάρος περ
Θυμῷ ἦρα φέροντες ἀφεστᾶσ᾽, οὐδὲ μάχονται.
* [Passow in his Lexicon gives the same two derivations as Buttmann
does, and agrees with him in preferring the latter. He adds from the
Leips. Litt. Ztg. (Leipsic Literary Gazette) 1826. p. 2206. a third, AAQ,
àλáoμai, 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,
Αὖτις ἐπ᾿ ᾿Ατρείδῃ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι ἦρα φέροντες.
At π, 375. one of the suitors says of the people of Ithaca,
Λαοὶ δ᾽ οὐκέτι πάμπαν ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἦρα φέρουσιν.
At o, 56. Ulysses stipulates in his pugilistic combat with Irus,
Μήτις ἐπ᾽ Ιρῳ ἦρα φέρων ἐμὲ χειρὶ παχείῃ
Πλήξη.
ܕܕ
At Il. a, 572. it is said of Vulcan, interposing between the
wrangling deities and recommending concord,
Μητρὶ φίλῃ ἐπίηρα φέρων λευκωλένῳ Ἥρῃ:
and at 578. he advises his mother
Πατρὶ φίλῳ ἐπίηρα φέρειν Διί.
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 χαρίζεσθαι, 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 ἦρα φέρειν, it follows that the accusative ἦρα
must have pretty nearly the same meaning as the accusative
χάριν.
2. The same simple form occurs also in the well-known
oracle which Hercules receives
1
Ἦρα γὰρ ἀνθρώποισι φέρων κλέος ἄφθιτον ἕξεις:
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 'Hpakλnc. And the
npa koμilew, 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 'Hpakλñs keríšerai.
62. ῏Ηρα, &c.
337
.
accusative pa by v xápiv² to the use of pa in the adverbial
sense of xápw, on account of, belongs likewise to the later
poets only³.
χάριν,
3. With regard to derivation, that from epoc, épậv, in which
lies the idea of desiring, is far less suitable than the generally
received one from apw, ȧpéoкw, to fit or suit oneself to any one,
please him, be pleasing or agreeable, with which agrees exactly
the word Ovμnpnc*, and the participle apμevoc, as used in Scut.
Herc. 116. μάλα γάρ νύ οἱ ἄρμενα εἶπεν, i. e. agreeable.
4
4. With this corresponds exactly the word èpinpoc as the
epithet of a friend; for when Idomeneus (Il. 8, 266.) promises
Agamemnon to be to him ἐρίηρος ἑταῖρος, 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 eὖ ἀραρώς, ἡρμοσμένος, εὐάρμοστος. The plural
ἐρίηρες (we have frequently ἐρίηρες ἑταῖροι) is nothing more
than a metaplasmus for épinpoi; 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 ana-
logical.
ευ
5. Whether, now, pa be the neuter plural of an adjective,
or the accusative singular of a substantive*, is a point which
might remain undecided. But the verb pépei appears to
me to favour the substantive, particularly by the analogy of
χάριν φέρειν. The supposition of a nominative ἤρ, whether
feminine or masculine, which Herodian makes in Eustathius,
is therefore grammatically quite correct, without its being
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 it requires con-
sideration before we attribute the word to Sophocles in this way; in
addition to which it must have a more far-fetched meaning, and stands
in a passage where the ear at once tells us it can only be pa. See
Hermann on Soph. Aj. 177.
* Hence the Schol. Soph. Ed. T. 1094. explains éπinpa pépeir by rà
θυμήρη προσέχειν.
* [Both Schneider and Passow are of opinion that inpa is the
neut. plur. of an adjective éπínpos.—ED.]
Z
338
62. Hpa, &c.
T
necessary that this nominative should have actually existed;
and the existence of the adjective épinpoc is so far from
favouring the supposition of a similar simple adjective poc,
that we might rather draw from it a contrary conclusion;
for in none of the other words compounded with epi- do we
find, on separating the syllables, an adjective; but from other
parts of speech, by prefixing epi- and adding an 'adjectival
form, are composed at once adjectives, as ἐρικύδης, ἐρίβρομος,
ἐρίτιμος, corresponding exactly with ἐρίηρος as formed imme-
diately from "pw, or if you will from p; and as there is no
such simple as Tiuoc &c., it is most improbable that there
should have been such a one as poc.
>/
6. From the junction then of this same root with a pre-
position might arise an adjective, without presupposing the
existence of the simple ἦρος. Thus we should have ἐπίηρος,
like ἐπίκλοπος, ἐπίορκος &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 inpa þépeiv or
ἐπὶ ἦρα φέρειν. Το 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 pa, reasonable
criticism requires that when we find einpa (if we so write it)
in an expression exactly similar, we should consider it to be a
word of the same kind as pa. Either, therefore, both are
substantives, but who can think a compound substantive
eninp to be probable?-or both are adjectives, which we have
just seen in the case of poc to be improbable. But the most
convincing proof against the reading of eπínpa may be drawn
from the second and two following passages, on which three I
might therefore fairly expect some clear explanation from those
who read in the two last einpa. Some of these commentators
have quoted the above three passages without due considera-
tion as examples in favour of the simple pa. They did not
consider that when the same poet says in one place
ἐπ᾿ ᾿Ατρείδῃ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι ἦρα φέροντες,
and in another
Μητρὶ φίλῃ ΕΠΙ ΗΡΑ φέρων,
this, according to all reasonable judgement, is one and the
62. ῏Ηρα, &c.
339
same expression; so that it is impossible to join éπí with pé-
pav in the former case, and with pa (by writing èπínpa) in
the latter'. Hence we can hardly think otherwise than that
all who favoured the reading of erinpa, must have supposed in
the former case a tmesis, not of ἐπιφέροντες, but of ἐπίηρα.
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.
*
Επι
?
7. A part of the old grammarians then acknowledged (and
correctly) no other reading than pa 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: "Hpa To
ὄντως· ἢ χάριν, βοήθειαν, ἐπικουρίαν, Πατρὶ φίλῳ ἐπὶ ἦρα
Pépwv Aú· ĥ'ěpn. That is to say, we have here placed toge-
ther pa, certainly, ĥpa, favour, and ǹ pa, he spoke; because
all these forms were written the same in the old copies. Ari-
starchus, on the other hand, who was anything in the world
but a philosopher, declared himself in favour of eπinpa; and,
as is but too common, the authority of a name prevailed against
reason and solid argument. Remarkable is the voice of defeat
as sounded by the Schol. on Il. a, 572. kai éteкpátnoev i
᾿Αριστάρχου καίτοι λόγον μὴ ἔχουσα.
ทุ
8. Besides a fear of altering the text of Aristarchus on in-
sufficient grounds, modern scholars have again been deterred
from rejecting the inadmissible érinpa 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 Il. a, 572.
The particular objection of the last was to the phrase itself,
that xapi émpépe was an expression which could not be
used. To this objection I answer, that eπipéρew is used else-
where in a hostile sense; for instance, with xeîpa, "Apna.
اد
5 This is the meaning of Brunck's brief decision on Rhian. 1, 21.
6 Heyne was too hasty in his objection that the verb éɩpépei is not
Homeric. It does occur in the tmesis (the only way in which it can
z 2
340
62. Hpa, &c.
Schneider, indeed, in his Lexicon draws a comparison✶ be-
tween this expression and a similar one, with a friendly
meaning, in Thucyd. 8, 83. ult. opyàc éπipépei Tivi. But
this, besides not being Homeric, is of a different kind, and
means to direct all one's inclinations and exertions toward
some person or his party.' But a shorter and more satisfac-
tory answer to that objection may be made by recollecting that
the expression, which in Il. a, 572. 578. is disputed, does, ac-
cording to the observations made above in section 6., actually
stand undisputed in the three passages in the Odyssey, and con-
sequently can be used. If, however, there be anything startling
in this expression, I hope to be able to remove it.
9. Hpa pépeiv was, in the sense of to be agreeable, to gra-
tify, so current an expression, and the substantive was so com-
pletely forgotten as a separate word, that papépeiv seemed
to the ear to be a single word, like δακρυχέουσα, αὐέρυσαν, εὖ-
Táoɣew, 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 apnyew,
ἀμύνειν, by joining them to a preposition and thus forming ἐπα-
phyeiv, èñaµúvei, so they said (if we may be allowed for a mo-
ment to write it so) èπinpa¶épew, and then admitted the tmesis
Αγαμέμνονι ἠραφέρειν, as in ἐπὶ Τρώεσσιν ἀρῆξαι: just as
the later prose writers ventured to say avrevTáoxewv. To com-
pare it with the Homeric κατὰ δάκρυ χέουσα, which Wolf is
correct in writing separately, would I think be unfair, as this
latter is no compound in the sense of καταδακρύουσα (shedding
tears), but a real transposition of the words for dákρv κаTα-
· χέουσα, which in ἐπὶ ἦρα φέρειν is the very point in doubt.
Єπ
be admitted into an hexameter) at Il. 0, 516. Τρωσὶν ἐφ᾽ ἱπποδάμοισι
pépeiv πolúdaкpvv "Apηu. Larcher in the Hist. de l'A. d. 1. to. 47.
p. 179., in a note on the Etym. M. v. parov, 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 ἠραφέρειν, ἐπιγραφέρειν, for the
sake of a theory, which, like many others, may be overturned by a single
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 eminpava in
Od. T, 343. For in the first place èripava is not erinpa; and
in the second, this would be comparing sentences of a totally
dissimilar formation. The expression in that passage of the
Odyssey, Οὐδέ τί μοι ποδάνιπτρα ποδῶν ἐπιήρανα θυμῷ Γίγνε-
Taɩ, cannot make it even probable that we must write éπínpa
Pépew Tivi, if there be other grounds for doubting this reading.
As for that other still more forced alteration of Aristarchus, by
which èrinpa is thrust into this passage also by reading è inp
ἀνὰ θυμῷ Γίγνεται, it has been most justly and properly re-
jected. Nor ought the critic to be acquitted of want of judge-
ment in this instance, in opposition to the plain and unequivocal
account in the Lexicon of ApolloniusⓇ.
or not.
11. 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 einpoc were a form then in use
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 &c èπínpa pé-
ροντα τοῖς ἐμοῖς τυράννοις, 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
poets in the reading of eπinpa. My opinion however is not
8 Επίηρα, τὴν μετ' ἐπικουρίας χάριν· Μητρὶ φίλῃ ἐπίηρα φέρων. ἐν δὲ
τῷ, Οὐδέ τί μοι ποδάνιπτρα ποδῶν ἐπίηρ᾽ ἀνὰ θυμῷ, τὰ ἐπικουρητικὰ τῆς
ψυχῆς. οὕτως ᾿Αρίσταρχος. For to read here ἐπιήρανα would be con-
trary to the plain meaning of Apollonius, as the words тà érikоvρηTIKα
can only refer to the first word of the gloss, 'Einpa. Compare Eustath.
ad loc.
342
62. Hpa, &c.
πι
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 "Opp'
ἐπίηρα φέρωμαι ἐοικότα μαργοσύνησιν. For as surely as this
reading is false in Homer, so surely is Brunck wrong in read-
ing in this passage ἐπὶ ἦρα φέρωμαι. 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 pépwuat is indispensable; and Apollonius,
who thought he read in Homer ἐπίηρα φέρειν τινί, formed
from it for his own use ἐπίηρα φέρεσθαι. The epigrammatic
poet Phædimus, who belongs to about the same time, acted in
the same way; he joins éπínpa déx¤aɩ (Epigr. 1.), in order to
use it as the correlative of ἐπίηρα φέρειν.-In Rhianus the
reading is uncertain, because he has exactly the Homeric
phrase, 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 érinpa as a substantive does not follow, as
Schellenberg (p. 113.) thinks, from the following gloss of
Hesychius: Επίηρα· τὴν μετ᾿ ἐπικουρίας χάριν μεγάλην· ἢ
ἐκ τῆς περιουσίας, ὡς ᾿Αντίμαχος. So far from it, I cannot
find any other meaning in ek Tepiovoiac (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 mi pa.
But there occur other forms of the adjective erinpoc. The
èπinpov in the second Triopeian Inscription, v. 19. (see Jacobs
ad Anal. Brunck. 2. p. 302.) is however the most unmeaning.
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 erinpa. But we
find also two glosses of this word in Hesychius, where they now
appear thus:
9
"
Επίηρος· ἐπίκουρος, ἐπιθυμητής.
᾿Επίηρος· βοηθός, χάριν ἀποδιδούς.
9 In the MS. it is, according to Schow, éπinрos, which however ap-
pears to have been very properly altered by Musurus to erinpa. In the
manuscripts the a is frequently written with such long projecting points
that it is very easily mistaken for os (oc).
62. Hpa, &c.
343
But instead of the first ᾿Επίηρος the MS. has ᾿Επιήραν, and
instead of the second it has 'Erin poc, as Musurus has erased
a letter (see Schow) between n and p. This strengthens Pier-
son's conjecture proposed in the Verisim. p. 105. that instead
of the first ἐπίηρος we should read ᾿Επιήρανος; 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.
πι
12. On the other hand we have two instances of 'Erinpoc
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, ἐπίηρον ἀμειβόμενοι γέρας ἀνδρί.
And Empedocles, in a fragment quoted by Aristotle De Anima
1, 5. (Sturz. vers. 208.), gives this word as an epithet of the
earth: Ἡ δὲ χθὼν ἐπίηρος ἐν εὐστέρνοις χοάνοισιν. But
in both these instances einpoc 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 èπi should be, as it is in pa eπipéρeiv, to cause the forma-
tion of an adjective by compounding it of eì and pa; and
this might have been ἐπίηρος as well as ἐπιήρανος. 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
any way perceive the force of èπi (toward whom is it suitable
or pleasing?), and as Philoponus in his commentary on Ari-
stotle explains this word by evapμoσтoc, which we have seen
above among the explanations of épinpoc, 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 Lesches it expresses the same as would be
expressed by ἐπιήρανος and by ἐπίηρος*, which is now not
unjustly suspected.
-
10 Pierson leaves it as it stands, considering all from nikovрos to
ἀποδιδούς as explanations of Επιήρανος.—For the rest, ἐπιθυμητής should
be ἐπιθυμητός.
* [Passow reads èrinpa as one word in the two passages of Homer
and in the Ed. T. of Sophocles. He adds, "Buttmann in his Lexilogus
344
63. Θάασσειν, θοάζειν.
13. The form inpavoc 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, ἤρανος is the same as κοίρανος;
and thus erinpavoc fluctuates between the meanings of agreeable,
helper, ruler. For very copious information on pavoc, ǹpavéw
and éinpavoc we may refer to Pierson, to whose quotations.
belongs also another verse of Empedocles (Sturz. vers. 421.),
where Pythagoras is called Παντοίων τε μάλιστα σοφῶν ἐπιή-
pavoc epywv. See also Schneider's* Lexicon, and the begin-
ning of the inscription of Herodes Atticus, Πότνι ᾿Αθηνάων
ἐπιήρανε Τριτογένεια.
Ἠΰτε ; vid. εὖτε.
اد
63. Θάασσειν, θοάζειν.
1. The verb 0άooew, to sit, is known to us from the Attic
poetry, particularly from Euripides. A substantive, & lâkoç,
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 πράσσw, πρâуoc. With
this agrees exactly the double alpha in the Epic form of this
verb, in θαασσέμεν, Od. γ, 336., θάασσεν, Ιl. ι, 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 éπì
pa; but his grounds for doing so are not convincing.”—ED.]
(6)
* [From Schneider's and Passow's Lexicons I compile the following:
'Eπinρavos, ov, adj. agreeable, grateful, éπıńpava Ovµý, Od. 7, 343.
Ἐπιήρανος,
-After Homer the meaning fluctuates between agreeable, suitable; and
(by its connexion with pavos, koipavos,) helping, protecting, ruling, master
of; in this latter case it governs a genitive: oopŵr ëρywv éπ. Empe-
docles. νόος παιδεύσιος καὶ ἀρετᾶς ἐπ. γενόμενος, master or possessor of,
Stobæus Phys. p. 856. ȧøтìs áкóvTWY Eπ. protecting against, Anal. 2.
p. 405. no. 1. vevpwv én. strengthening, Athen. 1, p. 5. vnvoìv émiý-
paros öpμos, agreeable or suitable to, Dionys. Perieg. 617. Compare
άρμενα εἶπεν, Ηes. Scut. 116., and ἄρμενα παρεῖχον, 84.”—Εν.]
63. Θάασσειν, θοάζειν.
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 ópáɑoðaι from
ὁρᾶσθαι, which is itself contracted from ὁράεσθαι. Thus θᾶσ-
σον, μᾶλλον, θῆρες, βῶλος, πῶλος, and a number of others are
never lengthened by the Epic poets; but they are right in
saying λaac, κpáaroc, which, as I have shown in note 1. of
art. 1. are original forms without contraction, or in other words.
are already in resolution. We must therefore, on account of
the Epic Jadoow, acknowledge in laoow a contraction; and
as in this case we have no reason for resolving the a into two
different vowels (as aλoc into delλoc) we must look on the
Homeric laάcow as the resolved, or, more strictly speaking, the
radical, not the lengthened form.
1
2. With this again accords very well the form oάw, which
in two passages in the Tragedians is explained like the Homeric
Oaάoow. Eschylus in the Suppl. 610. says of Jupiter,
Ὑπ᾿ ἀρχὰς δ' οὔτινος θοάζων
τὸ μεῖον κρεισσόνων κρατύνει·
οὔτινος ἄνωθεν ἡμένου σέβει κάτω.
C
The old and only explanation from the time of the Scholiast is,
sitting under no one's dominion.' And in Sophocles Ed. T. 2.
Edipus asks the supplicating Thebans,
Τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε
Ἱκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι.
The scholium is: θοάζετε κατὰ διάλυσιν ἀντὶ τοῦ θάσσετε, ἢ
Oоwс πρокálnσle. 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 example among others of a word of twofold meaning in
the poets. Oodlew, says he, means either a motion, as in Eu-
ripides, ἢ τὸ καθέζεσθαι καὶ θαάσσειν ὡς Σοφοκλῆς: and then
he quotes the passage above. It is impossible that Plutarch.
could have mentioned this meaning with such confidence if he
"
ทุ
346
63. θάασσειν, θοάζειν.
had not known 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 plain-
ly to be derived from Ooóc, must have been striking; and this
alone was undoubtedly the cause which induced even Greek in-
terpreters 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 went 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,
-
Τίνας ποθ᾽ ἕδρας τάσδε μοι θυάζετε ;
this of Theseus to Hercules, who is described sitting on the
ground, muffled up and in deep distress, in Eur. Herc. Fur. 1214.
σὲ τὸν θάσσοντα δυστήνους ἕδρας
Αὐδῶ.
4. With regard to the passage of Æschylus, Erfurdt declares
that he does not understand it: of one thing only he seems
convinced, that the common explanation "nullius sub imperio
sedens" is beyond measure silly. Hermann says only that
63. Θάασσειν, θοάζειν.
347
OoάZwv there does not mean sitting. He reserves therefore to
himself the alternative of explaining it from the idea of Ooóc;
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 кparure, with which idea foάZet
in the sense of the Epic Oaáooev accords extremely well; and to
this again the expression avw0ev nμévov 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 principal
thought is divided into two ideas; first, that he is inferior to none
in power, nor subject to any more powerful than himself (pa-
τύνειν and κρείσσονες, as words of the same family, standing in
evident relation each to the other); secondly, that he has no
one higher than himself to look up to with awe or fear. This is
surely no tautology, where no idea is repeated a second time.
Or if any one should think that κάτω after ὑπ᾿ ἀρχὰς θοάζων
is superfluous, he will be assisted by Pauw, who proposes to
erase this káτw, as being more than the metre of the corre-
sponding 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 any 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 there they
stand, I leave unnoticed: they are so trifling in comparison with
the truth of the whole, that we feel at once that they may be
easily removed by sensible interpretation or simple criticism.
5. This foάlw, in my opinion, does not come from Ooóc, as
Valckenaer supposes, who, according to his well-known unsound
etymology, does not hesitate to derive láσow, laάoow, nay all
words which mean to sit or set down, from hastening to a seat.
I go no further back than to the root OE- in rionu, which, as
every scholar will see, is different from the root OE- in few,
whence foóc seems to come. Why this root is changed in Oa-
Ma
348
63. Θάασσειν, θοάζειν.
áoow into OA- 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 is lost before the other a by being changed
into o; just as we have seen in a former article that Soáσσαтo
belongs to a verb whose present is déarai, and which we have
with great probability derived from Saw. The termination alw
bears the same relation to the other form as in σφάζω, σφάττω;
and this foul would probably when inflected take the '. This
word then was taken by the old tragedians 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 foάlw, which signifies to rush and
storm, belongs without doubt to those words formed by the
poet analogically for his own use. Nay I have no hesitation
in conjecturing 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 foóc, 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, Eschylus
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 emoάlew in the two following passages:
Æschyl. Choeph. 853., where the chorus of young women,
looking forward to the murder-scene between Orestes and Ægi-
sthus, exclaim in their anxiety:
Zeû, Zeû, rí Xéyw; ñóðev äpžwμaι
Τάδ᾽ ἐπευχομένη κἀπιθοάζουσ';
Ὑπὸ δ᾽ εὐνοίας
Πώς ἴσον εἰποῦσ᾽ ἀνύσωμαι;
1 Perhaps this may explain the meaning of Oóakos (Hesych.), one of
the names of Apollo, as sufferers seated themselves in his temples in par-
ticular, supplicating relief or advice from his sanative and oracular power.
63. Θάασσειν, θυάζειν.
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:
᾿Αλλ᾿ ὁπόσον γοῦν πάρα καὶ δύναμαι,
Τάδε καὶ θρηνῶ κἀπιθοάζω
Μαρτυρόμενος δαίμονας, ὥς μοι
Τέκν' ἀποκτείνασ', &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 of them thus much only, that they, like the others, have
the verb in its genuine signification, that is to say, in the sense
of foóc. I can only repeat here what I have said in the former
case. There is no doubt whatever that ingenuity may bring
the obscure verb into the sense of loάw from Ooóc; 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 satisfied: but Schneider in his Lexicon makes some ob-
servations on this word which deserve all our attention. He
compares it with the known verb ἐπιθειάζειν οι ἐπιθεάζειν, to
complain to the gods, but still in such a way that he deduces
Éπ0оážeι here also from the idea of sitting and supplicating.
If he is right, the uniformity of usage in Eschylus is preserved;
and that Euripides used the word foalw once in its old signi-
fication, will surprise and mislead no one. At all events the
meaning, as similar to that of éπ0eάlew, is evident (among
other examples of this verb) in the following: Pherecrates ap.
Eustath.
ET
ειν
W
Ὕστερον ἀρᾶται κἀπιθεάζει τῷ πατρί.
and Plato Phædr. p. 241. b. where the boy follows the person
who is leaving him
ἀγανακτῶν καὶ ἐπιθεάζων.
Now to me it seems impossible to consider as two distinct verbs
ω
2 There is a various reading enciálov in some very good MSS., as
in the Clark. &c., and we find in Thucydides occasionally éπileiάšeiv,
éπileιaσµós, without, as it appears, any various reading. Notwithstand-
ing this I am inclined to consider éл0€áže as the older form, on ac-
count of the more simple etymology τοὺς θεοὺς καλεῖν ἐπί τινι, It is true
ειν
350
64. Θεοπρόπος, θεοπρόπιον, &c.
the forms ἐπιθεάζειν and ἐπιθοάζειν, which we see a fixed usage
has joined by a kai to verbs signifying some powerful expres-
sion of feeling, as ἐπεύχεσθαι, θρηνεῖν, ἀρᾶσθαί τινι, ἀγανακτεῖν,
and which give the idea of violent lamentation or complaint:
but either we must read in the two tragic passages éπileάLei,
or this word must have received in an old dialect the change of
e into o. There is a third supposition possible, namely, that
ἐπιθοάζειν may be in its derivation distinct from ἐπιθεάζειν, but
that from similarity of sound usage has confounded them; in
which case I should always prefer Schneider's derivation of
θοάζειν to the possible one from θοός.
7. With faoow is connected, as we have before said, Oaкoc;
θᾶκος;
consequently we might expect to find in the Epic language
θάακος : and it is a striking circumstance that we do find θῶκος
and its lengthened form 0ówкoc exclusively Epic. This proves
however that Okoç is a contraction, either from ao or oa. But
θόακος only is agreeable to Greek analogy (compare θύλακος,
φύλαξ and φύλακος, φάρμακον, μαλακός): and this leads us
to the verbal form Ooálw: nor ought we to be more astonished
at finding θαάσσω in Homer with (θόακος) θῶκος, θόωκος, than
we are at seeing δοάσσατο by the side of δέατο .
64. Θεοπρόπος, θεοπρόπιον, &c.
1. The derivation of the word eожρóжос from пρоéτш does
not in itself deserve to be at once rejected, as such elision-like
contractions are conceivable in old compounds, and are not
that we might also say τὰ θεῖα, instead of τοὺς θεοὺς; but as θειάζειν,
ékleιášeiv, &c. were in existence in a somewhat different etymological
way, it was very natural even without that for éπileάže to pass over
into the same form.
ειν
3 We have adopted as the root of the forms treated of in this article
●E-, or ✪A-, not with the causative meaning to place, (which in 7í0ŋµɩ
is undoubtedly only the derivative one, as to cause to stand is in tornµɩ:)
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 béoσaolai, to supplicate, arising from the posture of
suppliants which we have seen in Ooάeur. See Schneid. Lex. To this
64. Θεοπρόπος, θεοπρόπιον, &c.
351
perhaps without example. The simple analogy however, which
leads to πрéжш, deserves a prior examination; but in making this
we must not allow ourselves to be led astray 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 preeminent,
which in Homer is the constant sense of πρέπω, μεταπρέπω, ἐκ-
πрежуc, &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. Eschylus uses the word of everything
which forces itself forward, 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 Agam. 1322.
Ὅμοιος ἀτμὸς, ὥσπερ ἐκ τάφου, πρέπει, 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 ẞon πрéже, "a shout comes forth."
πρέπει,
With this may be
joined a new sense from a comparison of these two passages;
Æsch. Agam. 30. ᾿Ιλίου πόλις Εάλωκεν, ὡς ὁ φρυκτὸς ἀγγέλ-
λων πρέπει ; and Eurip. Alc. 515. Τί χρῆμα κουρᾷ τῇδε πεν-
θίμῳ πρέπεις. I cannot think that in the second passage the
usual explanation of τί χρῆμα for τί, i. e. διὰ τί with πρέπεις
(insignis es) used absolutely, will be preferred before the ex-
planation of πρέπεις by σημαίνεις, which suits so well the pas-
0
I would add the word Onres, which I do not derive from the idea of lo-
care operam, 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 Oares, which
form Hesychius quotes expressly as Cretan; in the same way as the
form aάoow gives us the root OA-. I suppose then that Oáaкos, 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
θαάσσω, like φαρμάσσω, μαλάσσω. Thus the double a in θαάσσω is
fully explained: for to append -doow as a mere termination, like -άw,
is not according to analogy: though a word formed in -doow can be
changed to -άζω, as σφάττω is into σφάζω.
352
65. Θεουδής.
•
sage of Eschylus. To this let us add the glosses of Hesychius,
Πρέπον, τέρας, Κύπριοι. Πρεπτὰ, φαντάσματα, εἰκόνες, and
it will be difficult to separate the conρónоc, who interprets the
signs given by the gods, from this family of words. Il. μ, 228.
Ὧδέ χ᾽ ὑποκρίναιτο θεοπρόπος, ὃς σάφα θυμῷ
Εἰδείη τεράων, καί οἱ πειθοίατο λαοί.
μη
That is to say, probably the old expression was Оeòç πρéπει “a
god sends a sign;" the sign sent was called Оеоπρóιov, and the
interpreter of it θεοπρόπος'.
τω
2. If we wish to go further, and give to the radical word πρé-
Tw 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 ΠΕΡΩ, πείρω, περάω, &c., to press
through; and to have taken to itself the definite meaning of to
press forward, burst forth, consequently also to cause to press
forward, send forth, and, after its own peculiar form, to be a
reduplication, as in the same family of words Topπʼn is².
65. Θεουδής.
1. I consider the Homeric word leovdne 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
θεοείδης, a word of exactly the same meaning as θεοείκελος.
But as the sense of Ocoudne, in the passages where it occurs, is at
once felt to be different from the meaning of those other words
(Оéøkeλoc, &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, Πρόπιον, μάντευμα·
καὶ θεοπρόπιον, τὸ ἐκ θεῶν μάντευμα, in order that I may suppose πρό-
Tov to have existed simply, although it does accord remarkably well
with the glosses of Hesychius. Besides the question gains nothing
by it.
2 That is to say, of the original reduplication, which doubles the
whole radical syllable, the second syllable is frequently shortened, and
so arose for example such words as malmen, dulden, treten, [German
infinitives] volvo, palpo, βλάβω (a form of βάλλω), κρέκω (a reduplication
of the same root whence come poairw, кpovw), and others.
65. Θεουδής.
353
mean pious, holy, upright. Many a person must surely have
felt that with 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 must we look for
the godlike or godly in moral qualities, in what we call holy,
but seek it rather in the great, the beautiful, or the wonderful.
Thus θεοειδής, like θεοείκελος, is throughout Homer an epithet
of none but heroes as such, whatever they may be in other re-
spects, 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 @eoeidne 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 ådeîv (probably the oldest deri-
vation in the lexicon of Apollonius, and which is refuted in the
Etym. M.), sometimes for the edn of the gods, sometimes for
the verb αὐδᾷν. Now as the derivation from θεοειδής seens so
easy and striking from the similarity of form, and is so agree-
able 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 feoeidne, than with any of the other sup-
posed derivations above mentioned.
3. To this we may add from the form of the word another
reason, which was unknown to those grammarians. Eidoc 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
Ococidnc; and the case is thus completely made out, that leov-
Snc, which it has been clearly seen originated in a much more
ancient time, cannot come from eîdoc'.
In apparent contradiction to what I have asserted, that the con-
2 A
354
65. Θεουδής.
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
Ocovonc occurs are the following. In opposition to a savage
θεουδής
people, regardless of right and wrong, are repeatedly placed
those who are φιλόξεινοι, καί σφιν νόος ἐστὶ θεουδής (Od. ζ,
121. &c.); and at Od. 7, 364. the nurse speaks of Ulysses as
θεουδέα θυμὸν ἔχοντα, and explains this immediately by the
words
Οὐ γάρ πώ τις τόσσα βροτῶν Διὶ τερπικεραύνῳ
Πίονα μηρί᾽ ἔκη᾽ οὐδ᾽ ἐξαίτους ἑκατόμβας.
εν
And in the same way in the passage of Od. 7, 109., where after
βασιλῆος ἀμύμονος is added, ὅστε θεουδής ᾿Ανδράσιν ἐν πολλοῖοι
καὶ ἰφθίμοισι ἀνάσσων Εὐδικίας ἀνέχῃσι, εὐδικία contains the
reason of the king being called coúdnc. The old grammarians
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 Ocovone) by
θεοσεβής, εὐσεβής, δίκαιος, εὐγνώμων, and Plutarch (ad Princip.
Inerud. c. 3.) by leoû λóyov exwv.
5. The general idea contained in these epithets can hardly
arise from anything else, than from that whence the thing it-
self proceeds in all the most ancient religions, namely, from fear
of the gods. Thus Eumæus tells Ulysses (Od. §, 389.) that he
would treat him hospitably Aía čéviov deloac, and again (x,39.)
the suitors are reproached for the unjust conduct of which they
traction of cocidns in Homer is impossible on account of the digamma,
we read in Od. v, 194.
Τούνεκ' ἄρ᾽ ἀλλοειδέα φαινέσκετο πάντα ἄνακτι.
But in the Cod. Harl. stands pairero with a better meaning than pai-
VéσKETO, 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 coeds could be con-
tracted, Ocovdís would be incorrect, as the e here is not a lengthened
€,
but a lengthened. The contraction therefore could be only cordis.
65. Θεουδής.
355
were guilty Οὐδὲ θεοὺς δείσαντες, &c. Now as he who casts
away all fear and shame is called ἀδεής (κύον ἀδδεές), so he who
thinks and acts uprightly is one who fears God, Oeodenc, which
form, it is true, does not occur, because it was changed at once
into feovdýc; a change furthered by the particular nature of the
d in deîoat, which in the older language lengthened the pre-
ceding syllable.
6. Apollonius Rhodius follows strictly the Homeric meaning
of the word: as at 2, 1180. οἵ τε θεουδέες ἠδὲ δίκαιοι. At 3,
586. Eetes says of Phrixus ὃς περὶ πάντων Ξείνων μειλιχίῃ τε
θεουδείῃ τ᾽ ἐκέκαστο. And the epithet has the same meaning
when it is applied at 2, 849. to the prophet Idmon, 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 Kukλaµíc Te Oeoudna, 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 cocidng, rejected on account
of its offending against the metre, and substituted for it 'ioe-
Snc. 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, leovdéa πéτρоv, I recognise only the
T
M
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 d 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 AYIE, AƑIE. See Gram.
sect. 16. obs. 2. note. The form codes therefore could not properly
come into an hexameter. It would have been possible indeed to have
shortened the vowel before this d, as is once done in ådeɩýs, Il. n, 117.;
but this would not have helped the metre. All difficulties were remedied
by the elision of the e, making codis, and afterwards there remained
nothing of the digamma but the quantity of the preceding syllable: it
was then pronounced Geodis with o long, that is with ou, as adeés was
spoken with the long a. Thus came Ocoudýs and àdeés (a long) into
Homer;
the latter of which was not written åddeés until a somewhat
late period, as probably in the older copies the pronunciation of àdeés,
and de-loer and v-model-joaoa was left to the reader's knowledge of
verse.
2A2
356
65. Θεουδής.
later sense of godly, divine'. In the same way as Quintus
Smyrnæus in his imitation, where we meet with no critical nicety
of expression, uses it exactly like Oeîoc, Oeσtéσlog, and such
like: as when for instance (1, 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 Alex-
andrine poet Eratosthenes in his epigram de cubo duplicando,
Analect. 1, p. 478. gives this epithet to the mathematician Eu-
doxus, 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 Oeoeidne, as this
last admits of being so contracted agreeably to analogy*.
3 Compare Hesychius Oeovdéa, Deiwon; although the author coined
this gloss primarily for Od. 7, 364. But the word given as the explana-
tion is striking; for Dewdns is used elsewhere only of sulphur (0cîor).
Perhaps the grammarian wished to compare the supposed Homeric con-
traction with the otherwise common form in -údŋs, which is also de-
duced from -ocidís. So far indeed the comparison would be an unhappy
one, as it must in that case be Ocwdns.
-
4 In prose Ocoeɩdýs remained in constant use (as for instance in Plat.
Phæd. p. 95. c. and Lucian, Imag. 11.), 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 aλoeidíjs,
ỏр0оeπýs, &c. But are we to believe the information of Suidas, at which
Eustathius (on Il. y, 37. p. 286. Basil.) expresses his astonishment?
Θεαιδέστατος, says the former, θεοῦ ἰδέαν ἔχων. εἶπε δὲ ᾽Αντιφῶν ἐν
τῷ περὶ ῾Ομονοίας οὕτως· ῎Ανθρωπος, ὅς φησι μὲν πάντων θηρίων θεαιδέ-
στατος γενέσθαι. That the original author of this gloss should have
misunderstood a word formed from aideîoðaι Ocoús, is not to be sup-
posed; nor does the sense of the passage quoted admit of such a sup-
position, as ὅς φησι,-γενέσθαι is evidently a proud assertion of mai,
and can mean nothing else than, as Suidas here understands it, the
likeness of man to God. So much therefore is clear, that Antiphon
deviated from the form 0cocidís. 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 Occidéoтaros; which form came to the
later grammarian again corrupted to θεαιδέστατος.
357
66. Θέσκελος, θέσπις, θεσπέσιος, θέσφατος,
ἀθέσφατος.
1. The words θέσκελος, θέσπις, and θέσφατος explain each
other in their form. They are compounds of Oeóc, with only
the radical syllable @e appearing. For the σ in @éoParoc is not
the c of the nominative, which properly speaking can never re-
main in the compound; but here, as well as in Ocóodorog, the
c is only a euphonic sound strengthening the word, as in oɑ-
κέσπαλος, &c. But in θέσκελος and θέσπις (the forner of
which is explained by the more full synonym Ocoeĺkeλoc, a form
also in use,) the σ belongs to the second part of the composi-
tion; since it is known that from elkw came toкw and from
εἰπεῖν also ἔσπετε. The former then stands for θε-ίσκελος, the
latter for θέ-εσπις.
2. Θεοείκελοςand θέσκελος mean properly godlike; and thence,
like that which is godly or divine, i. e. supernatural, wonder-
ful. Afterwards, by a very natural usage, the full and plain
form Oɛoeikeλoc, which in Homer is only an epithet of superior
heroes, was used to express the literal meaning of godlike, and
θέσκελος retained only that of wonderful; θέσκελα ἔργα, won-
derful exploits, labours, things; čikтo dè léσkeλov avτw, he was
wonderfully like him. (Il. 4, 107.)
εικτο
3. In the sane manner θέσφατος and θέσπις or θεσπέσιος
are originally synonymous. All three mean spoken by God, or
speaking or spoken by divine inspiration. The first meaning is
without the slightest change in θέσφατος. Θέσφατον, θέσφατα,
are sometimes oracles, sometimes ancient decrees of God, fata;
for example in Od. 1, 507. Il. 0, 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 féoparoc remains true to
the literal meaning, in as much as nothing but what proceeds
really from a god is called by this word; thus at Od. n,143. Oéopa-
Toc amp is the thick mist poured around Ulysses by Minerva.
θέσφα-
4. The proper sense of léσmic is that of something inspired
by a god: it is the epithet of song and of the singer, Oéoric
358
66. Θέσκελος, &c.
ἀοιδή, θέσπις ἀοιδός; and thence θεσπιῳδεῖν, θεσπίζειν. In an-
other sense it is used of the great phænomena of nature. Oé-
OTIC аeλλa occurs in the Hym. Ven. 208., and Oeonidaéc (from
σπις ἄελλα
daiw) 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 phænomena of nature, the most like an
immediate effect or production of a deity.
,
5. In θεσπέσιος, which is derived from θέσπις, the sense of
εἰπεῖν is quite lost, except that ἀοιδὴ θεσπεσίη (like θέσπις else-
where) occurs in Il. ß, 600., to which it appears also to belong
as an epithet of the Sirens in Od.μ, 158. In general it is nothing
more than θεῖος; as Il. a, 591. βηλὸς θεσπέσιος, the abode of
the gods; Od. v, 363. ävтpov Oеoréσtov, the grotto of the
ἄντρον θεσπέσιον,
nymphs; whence coreoin is put adverbially for leia poipa or
Bela Boudy in Il. B, 367. In its most general sense it is the
θείᾳ βουλῇ β,
epithet of any great appearance, of anything superior and ex-
cellent, whether proceeding from nature or man, as the nx
θεσπεσίη of a noisy people; ὀδμὴ ἡδεῖα θεσπεσίη, the excessively
delightful smell of wine, Od. 1, 211.; xaλkòç deσπéoloc, the
χαλκὸς θεσπέσιος,
splendidly-dazzling brass, Il. ẞ, 457.; awτoc deotéσloc, the
divine, superb wool, Od. 1, 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 coπéσloc does not in
Homer give that idea: for instance in such passages as these,
where the intervention of the deity is expressly mentioned; Il.
ρ, 118. Θεσπέσιον γάρ σφιν φόβον ἔμβαλε Φοῖβος ᾿Απόλλων.
and β, 670. Καί σφιν θεσπέσιον πλοῦτον κατέχευε Κρονίων.
Consequently also at Il. 1, 2. the coreoin pûla of the Achæans
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 féσπioç,
which occurs in its original sense in the fragment of Hesiod
quoted by Clemens Strom. 1, p. 337. (123. 124.) [In Gais-
ford's Poet. Min. Gr. Frag. 54.]
66. Θέσκελος, &c.
359
3
Μουσάων, αἵ τ᾽ ἄνδρα πολυφραδέοντα τιθεῖσι
Θέσπιον, αὐδήεντα.
where the collectors of the fragments write, I know not on what
authority, léσkeλov. Again it stands simply for Oeîoc as a mere
address to a person-Оéσπiе коûpe—in the Oracle of Bacis in
Aristoph. Av. 977.
᾿Αθέσφατος
,
αν
7. Oéoparoc then, as stated above, although properly syno-
nymous with coπéσɩoc, 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. 'Aféoparoc always means immeasura-
ble, 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 fre-
quently explained by an ovdé; as we say for instance, when
wishing to praise an object highly, 'it is worth its weight in
gold,' or 'gold cannot pay for it.' The ground of this is no-
thing more than an excessive hyperbole, which is expressed
most clearly by the old grammarian in Hesychius: 'Aléopa-
τον πολὺ, ἀπαρακολούθητον', καὶ ὅσον οὐδ᾽ ἂν θεὸς φατίσειεν
δι᾽ ὑπερβολὴν πλήθους. Such hyperboles took their rise in
cases where they were in some measure justified by feeling;
they afterwards became common; and thence άféopaτoc came
to mean nothing more than the explanation given by one scho-
liast of ἀθέσφατος ὄμβρος; viz. ὃν οὐδεὶς οἷός ἐστιν ἑρμηνεῦσαι
Xóyoc. 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 ter-
rible rain; as at y, 4. the cranes χειμῶνα φύγον καὶ ἀθέσφατον
ὄμβρον; at κ, 6. Jupiter hurls his lightning, Τεύχων ἢ πολὺν
ὄμβρον ἀθέσφατον, ἠὲ χάλαζαν, Ἢ νίφετον : again from the
examples in the Odyssey, the vast and terrible sea roused by
ท
π
In the manuscript it is rapaxoλoúenтov, which in the text is changed
into δυσπαρακολούθητον. The ἄν following is an interpolation from
Apoll. Lex.
360
67. Đoóc.
tempest, η, 273. Ωρινεν δὲ θάλασσαν ἀθέσφατον: the long
frightful night, λ, 372. o, 391.: the pernicious excess of wine,
λ, 61. ῏Ασέ με δαίμονος αἶσα κακὴ καὶ ἀθέσφατος οἶνος: and in
Hesiod's Theogonia, 830. the many voices of the hundred-
headed Typhoeus. 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, erschrecklich*; and thus the Odyssey has
the word twice applied to agreeable objects in the mere sense of
immeasurable, innumerable; as at v, 244. speaking of Ithaca,
Εν μὲν γάρ οἱ σῖτος ἀθέσφατος, ἐν δέ τε οἶνος: and atv, 211.
of the cattle of Ulysses, Νῦν δ᾽ αἱ μὲν γίγνονται ἀθέσφατοι.
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 μérρа Tо-
Avpλoloßolo Padλáoone (compare 646, 647. with 659.), and
then adds (660.) Μοῦσαι γάρ μ' ἐδίδαξαν ἀθέσφατον ὕμνον
ἀείδειν.
Θοάζειν ; vid. Θαάσσειν.
67. Ooós.
1. To the adjective Ooóc, besides 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 lowc, which occurs fre-
quently, and never in any other sense, as well as by the expres-
sion foòv apua, Il. p, 458. Again, it would be a violence which
[Thus terrible and dreadful are colloquially used by us. See John-
son's Dict.-ED.]
67. Θεός.
361
no sensible reader could approve of, to explain the passage of
the lion wounded by the shepherd, μ, 306. Ἔβλητο...θοῆς
ἀπὸ χειρὸς ἄκοντι,
аπò Xειρòç аKOνTI, by a brave hand; nor is it conceivable how
any one could have ventured to interpret the banquet com-
manded by the king Alcinous, Od. 0, 38., avràρ Éπeιтα Oоnν
ἔπειτα
ἀλεγύνετε δαῖτα, by δαῖτα ἀγαθὴν (because forsooth θοός' means
ayalóc 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 foor
θοὸν
ἅρμα leaves no doubt as to the meaning of θοὴ ναῦς. Again in
speaking of the scourge or whip, µáoτıyı Ooî (Il. p, 430.), we
miglit possibly think of its being felt principally by means of
its point or end; and when at Od. x, 83. it is said, 'Ev dé oi
ἥπατι πῆξε θοὸν βέλος, we certainly seem to see the point
penetrating the liver; but as in the latter case the weapon is
an arrow, and in the former the scourge wounds by the rapidity
of its stroke,—nor is there any one passage where a weapon
less characterized by swiftness, the sword for instance, is called
Ooóc,—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 Il. e, 430. Taûra d' "Apnï
θοῷ καὶ ᾿Αθήνῃ πάντα μελήσει, where it is opposed to the un-
warlike Venus; and I should say the same of Il. ẞ, 758. Tŵv
μὲν Πρόθοος θοὸς ἡγεμόνευεν. 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 foóc implies not
only bodily swiftness, but promptness of resolution; which
· Hesych. Θοὴν ἀλεγύνετε ξαῖτα, τὴν ἀγαθήν.
1
362
67. Đoóc.
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 foóc; as at Il. e, 536.
where it is said that the Trojans honoured the companion of
Æneas,
ἐπεὶ θοὸς ἔσκε μετὰ πρώτοισι μάχεσθαι.
But when at v. 571. it is said,
Αἰνείας δ' οὐ μεῖνε θούς περ ἐὼν πολεμιστής,
and when at π, 494. Sarpedon exhorts Glaucus,
νῦν σε μάλα χρὴ
Αἰχμητήν τ᾽ ἔμεναι καὶ θαρσαλέον πολεμιστήν·
Νῦν τοι ἐελδέσθω πόλεμος κακὸς, εἰ θούς ἐσσι,
in the explanation of Ooóc in these two passages every attempt.
to preserve the common meaning must be useless, and foóc must
mean plainly and simply brave².
4. And now comes the question on the verse of Il. π, 422.,
which was sometimes accented thus:
Αἰδὼς ὦ Λύκιοι. πόσε φεύγετε; νῦν θεοί ἐστε.
0
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: 'Overdiler
δὲ ὁ λόγος τοὺς ἀνδρίζεσθαι μὲν βραδεῖς ὀξυκινητοὺς δὲ φεύ-
γειν. But as the succeeding word γάρ (᾿Αντήσω γὰρ ἐγὼ
Toud' ávépoc) did not seem to follow that sense very con-
nectedly, it was thought better to understand the sentence as
imperative, and foóc 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. Νῦν τοι ἐελδέσθω πόλεμος κακὸς, εἰ θεός ἐσσι. And con-
sequently the present reading is, vûv Oool tote. 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 rüstig, 'active'; but in the latter he translates it at once, "if thou
art (beherzt) courageous."
67. Đoóc.
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
show at once that such an imperative sentence could be ad-
dressed as an incitement to none but 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—“Rüstig gewandt nun!” "Now be on the
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 foóc never occurs elsewhere but in a good
sense. This is certainly true; because swiftness is really a de-
sirable 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 (rüstig) active!" every one must feel the point of the ex-
clamation to belong to that era when θοός, ποδώκης, &c. gave
of themselves alone the idea of great praise. On the other
hand it is absurd, as the prominent sense of foóc 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
and fight. I cannot therefore make up my mind to give up
that first explanation; and as the Greeks, and particularly
Homer, so often connect yap 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 foóc, sharp, pointed, a mean-
ing unquestionably found in the later poets, as lowν eμπλelov
ὀδόντων, Apoll. Rhod. 3, 1281. θοοῖς γόμφοις, 1, 79. πελέ-
keσow, 4, 1683., which also we cannot deny to have existed.
in that most ancient Epic language. For instance, the verb
364
67. Ooúc.
Dowσai at Od. 1, 327. where Ulysses sharpens to a point the
large branch of a tree, ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἐθόωσα παραστὰς ᾿Ακρόν, sup-
poses the root foóc to be then an old word; and again in the
well-known passage of Od. o, 299. speaking of the voyage of
Telemachus,
Ἔνθεν δ᾽ αὖ νήσοισιν ἐπιπροέηκε θοῇσιν,
&
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 towards
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, Ooàc d' eiρnke TàG
ὀξείας· τῶν Εχινάδων δ᾽ εἰσὶν αὗται: and in book x. p. 458.
speaking of the Echinades, he says, ὧν τό,τε Δουλίχιόν ἐστι,
καλοῦσι δὲ νῦν Δολίχαν, καὶ αἱ ᾿Οξεῖαι καλούμεναι, ἃς ὁ ποιη-
τὴς Θοὰς εἶπεν. Here it is evident that ᾿Οξεῖαι 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 Εχῖναι, Εχινάδες agrees
with 'Oğetat. That is to say, these islands lay at the mouth
of the Achelous, 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 očeîai, or, according to an older synonym of this word,
Ooul. Hence, then, we see plainly why this is the only pas-
sage in which Homer uses foóc, 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 oóc 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 lowoai, and the name of these islands. In other poets it
᾿Οξεῖαι.
67. Θεός.
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.
6. But the most difficult question yet remains,-in what
sense the night has the epithet Oon in Homer, and (as far as I
know) in him alone. The passages are the following. In Il. K,
394. 468. w, 366. 653. stands
θοὴν διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν
joined sometimes with iéval, at others with ideîv Tiva, said of
one who goes somewhere or discovers some other person in the
obscurity of the night. And in the same way the companious
of Ulysses complain, Od. µ, 284., that he will not suffer them
to land,
᾿Αλλ' αὕτως διὰ νύκτα θοὴν ἀλάλησθαι ἄνωγας.
Again, at Il. µ, 463. Hector storms the Grecian camp,
Νυκτὶ θοῇ ἀτάλαντος ὑπώπια· λάμπε δὲ χαλκῷ
Σμερδαλέῳ.
And, lastly, at έ, 261. Somnus for fear of Jupiter flies to Nox;
Jove abstains from punishing him, the reason of which is thus
given :
"Αζετο γὰρ μὴ Νυκτὶ θοῇ ἀποθύμια ἔρδοι.
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 Ooós 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. Ooós, swift, has been always from the oldest times
derived from 0éw, with which it agrees in meaning and orthography.
But foós, pointed, can hardly come from feir, to run, nor from the idea
of swift, as an earlier meaning. One should much rather be led by the
analogy of ous, in which there was a similar transition to the sense of
swift, to suppose that pointed is also the ground-meaning of Oods, and
that consequently the word is not derived from @eir but from some
other root. Undoubtedly the verb Oyeu is at least akin to it, which
makes me think it probable that ταχύς, θάσσων, also originally cane
from the same idea.
366
67. Đoóc.
according to their idea of the thing, namely, that the night
was called foń, 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. Hom. 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 fit to carry the
observation, that some words have always the same fixed epi-
thet, as, independently of any other value which the above ex-
planations may possess, not one of them could ever enter the
mind of a reasonable poet in such a combination as iévai or
ἰδεῖν θοὴν διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν. In such difficulties as these it
was very excusable if some fell into the idea of adopting for
this one junction of Oośc with vú a meaning different from its
other meanings by a difference of root, and besides already
quite obsolete. Thus some conjectured that its root might be
θεός, making it the same as θεῖος; others took θέω, τίθημι,
explaining it by detɩkóc, édpaîog, 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
Ooóc as used in prose. Mere attempts these, pretty clearly
εναι
4
* See Schol. and Eust. on Il. k, 394. and Etym. M. in v.
67. Đoóc.
367
proving that they despaired of ever finding 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 be 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 blackened 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
Glady
Ελκον νύκτα μέλαιναν ἐπὶ ζείδωρον ἄρουραν.
In short the night appears like a person 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 foóc 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 oğúc to unravel this complication of ideas. But here
there is no difficulty, for it unravels itself, if we keep stedfastly
in our recollection that Mars is called oğúc in the expressions
μίμνομεν ὀξὺν ῎Αρηα, ἐγείρομεν ὀξὺν ῎Αρηα, and τῶν νῦν αἷμα
κελαινὸν... ἐσκέδασ᾽ ὀξὺς῎Αρης: and in Pindar Ol. 2, 73. the
avenging fury is ὀξεῖ᾽ Εριννύς. That is to say, this idea of
swiftness, which was quickly combined with that of rage, of ac-
368
67. Đức.
tive hostility, betokening the rapid approach of danger (whence
also νόσος ὀξεῖα), was from the earliest times compared with a
quickly-deciding point or sharpness; and oğúc, therefore, has
the meaning of the German jäh*. This, then, is the very
meaning which we are justified in looking for in Ooóc 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, 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‡. For foóc, then, we have extracted 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, a furious rage, a furious whirl-
wind, an awfully sudden death, might all be expressed in German by
this epithet.-ED.]
[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 garçon, something as
we should say 'an excellent man', 'a noble fellow'; consequently the
original idea of courage is entirely lost sight of, although perhaps the
appellation would hardly be given to one who was notoriously deficient
in it.-ED.]
+
+
‡ [Buttmann has unconsciously given the strongest proof of the truth
of this opinion by not having himself thought of the German expression
67. Đoóc.
369
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 fooí, is that of terrible, dreadful.
And had there been no other passages than on the one side low
ἀτάλαντος ῎Αρηϊ, and on the other Νυκτὶ θοῇ ἀτάλαντος ὑπώ-
Tia, this is certainly the idea which would have been formed of
Joóc in both these cases from the very earliest times; as indeed
dein does actually stand as one of the explanations given by
the grammarians of Oon vúč (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
Il. K, 188. of the sentinels on watch, that sleep did not visit
their eyes, Νύκτα φυλασσομένοισι κακήν: and of the Cin-
merians, as having eternal night, it is said (Od. λ, 19.), 'Aλλ'
ἐπὶ νὺξ ὀλοὴ τέταται δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσιν. And is it not the
terribleness 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? ὁ δ᾽ ἐρεμνῇ νυκτὶ ἐοικὼς Γυμνὸν τόξον ἔχων, &c.; and
consequently the idea is similar in Il. u, 463. of Hector bursting
into the fortified camp of the Greeks; ὁ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔσθορε φαίδιμος
Εκτωρ Νυκτὶ θοῇ ἀτάλαντος ὑπώπια.
T
10. I translate therefore Oon vúč by (die jähe 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
66
mentioned in the last note, and which must have struck any one but a
German as 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 but
did not speak it.-ED.]
* ["Buttmann in his Lexilogus" (says Passow in his Greek and
German Lexicon, speaking of this passage,) "understands Ooǹ rúž to
mean not merely the rapidity with which the night comes on, but the
terrors and dangers by which it is accompanied."-ED.]
2 B
370
68. Καμόντες.
dangers which threaten the nightly wanderer are formed into a
quick, irritable, hostile goddess. Even the other deities are
afraid of her who is (Il. ξ, 259.) θεῶν δμήτειρα καὶ ἀνδρῶν;
and Jupiter himself in the midst of his rage refrains from doing
what might be νυκτὶ θοῇ ἀποθύμια. Nor is the epithet less
natural when the night is not personified; for as očeîç Kaιpoi
are dangerous times, so by this word on it may be intended to
mark the swiftness and imminency of dangers, which threaten
men who go διὰ νύκτα μέλαιναν.
A
11. Whatever other doubts may arise respecting the mean-
ing of Oon as joined with vúč (apparently a solitary combina-
tion), they may all, I think, be completely solved by consider-
ing the nature of epithets in the old language in general, and
in poetical language in particular. That foóc, long before
Homer's time, meant really and properly pointed, we have al-
ready seen with full certainty. But while a word, or some
certain usage of a word, is gradually disappearing from a lan-
guage, it remains longest in regularly established epithets,
sometimes where they have assumed the nature of a proper
name, as in Ooai vnoot, sometimes where they have become al-
most proverbial, or at least familiar and convenient to the Epic
metre; and thus this meaning of loóc, which was otherwise
become uncommon, remained in Homer in the expression on
vúč, exactly as κparúc, though completely obsolete, still re-
mained as the epithet of Mercury.
Ἴσκειν ; vid. ἐΐσκειν.
Καλινδεῖσθαι, &c. ; vid. κυλίνδειν.
68. Καμόντες.
1. Oi kaμóvTec meant in the old Epic times the dead; and
this usage remained (only changing to the perfect, oi Keкμn-
Kóтeç,) down to the later prose; for Cornutus, De Nat. Deor. 1.,
following the writers of the old classical times, whom I shall
68. Καμόντες.
371
quote by-and-by, says, κεκμηκέναι γὰρ λέγομεν τοὺς τετελευ-
TAKÓTac. 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 καμεῖν, κάμνει, κέκμηκε, 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 Damm, "defuncti laboribus et miseriis vitæ humanæ,"
"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-
μóvtec in the word functus, vita functus, I confess I do not
rightly comprehend; except that he too appears to understand
Kaμóvтec to mean those who have passed through their labours,
and are therefore now ready. 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 Oavóvteg, teÐvnkótea, the dead,
the deceased, was used kaµóvteg, kekµŋkóteg, i. e. the weary, or
the enfeebled. And thus far, but no further, we are led by the
usage of the word elsewhere. Completion or readiness is ex-
pressed by the aorist kaueîv only when it is followed by the
accusative of the work completed, as in Il. o, 614. Avràρ ÈTеi
Αὐτὰρ ἐπεὶ
πάνθ' ὅπλα κάμεν κλυτὸς ᾿Αμφιγυήεις: but when the verb is
intransitive, it expresses the consequences of labours and suf-
ferings, as καμέτην δέ μοι ἵπποι and such like. Hence καμεῖν
is also elsewhere an euphemism for defeat and destruction,
words which were not always willingly used even of an enemy;
e. g. Pind. Pyth. 1, 156. τὸν (the ode) ἐδέξαντ᾽ ἀμφ᾿ ἀρετᾷ,
πολεμίων ἀνδρῶν καμόντων: and Æschyl. Theb. 216. ὁ ναύτης
0
εὗρε μηχανὴν σωτηρίας Νεὼς καμούσης ποντίῳ πρὸς κύματι·
where the vessel is not merely in danger of being lost, for the
expression would then be kaurovone, 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 faveur,
it will be said, was used, and beyond all comparison more fre-
2 B 2
372
68. Καμόντες.
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 under the distinctions 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 cases where (the lan-
guage having attained a very polished state) the context re-
quired the definite article; lastly, it is limited to the state of the
dead after death. Now therefore I hope to form a more pre-
cise 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 an-
other state, but deprived of their earthly powers.
4. That this account of кaµóvTec is correct, within these re-
strictions, may be seen from a comparison of the following well-
known passages: Il. y, 278. of the infernal deities, où vπéveρle
καμόντας ᾿Ανθρώπους τίννυσθον: again, Il. ψ, 72., and Od. w,
14. ψυχαὶ εἴδωλα καμόντων: and still more to the purpose, from
its containing a greater accumulation of particulars, Od. λ, 475.
ἔνθα τε νεκροὶ ᾿Αφραδέες ναίουσι, βροτῶν εἴδωλα καμόντων.
From which last example, in the mouth of Achilles, himself
dead, and speaking from experience, it is manifest how little
this expression is an euphemism, taking the figure in its use
of softening down the meaning. Instead of the idea of anni-
hilation, the word gives the lowest degree of existence above.
annihilation; which certainly would be in most cases an euphe-
mism, or at least a measured expression, but is something not
to be borne from the shade of such a one as Achilles.
5. We first meet with the form kekuŋkóτeg in the Attic dia-
lect. Eschylus, who in the Suppl. 239. still uses the Epic
form Κἀκεῖ δικάζει....Ζεὺς ἄλλος ἐν καμοῦσιν ὑστάτας δίκας,
had just before at v. 164. called the same Pluto Zva Tw
κεκμηκότων.
kekμnkóτwv. Thucydides 3, 59. makes the Plateans say to
68. Καμόντες.
373
the Lacedæmonians, ἱκέται γιγνόμεθα ὑμῶν τῶν πατρώων
τάφων καὶ ἐπικαλούμεθα τοὺς κεκμηκότας'. Plato de Legg.
4, p. 718. a. recommends to honour ancestors according to
existing customs, τὸ μέτριον τοῖς κεκμηκόσι νέμοντα : and
Aristotle in his Ethics 1, 11. toward the end, makes mention
of an inquiry περὶ τοὺς κεκμηκότας, whether they can still
partake of the good or evil of this life, and how far the welfare
or misfortunes of their surviving friends affects them (ovµßád-
λεσθαί τι τοῖς κεκμηκόσιν) without having an essential influence
on their εὐδαιμονία : by which therefore we see that κεκμηκότες
was in the language of the philosopher joined, as a customary
expression, with the idea of εὐδαιμονία, with which καμόντες 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 ἱερὰ τῶν κεκμηκότων, 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), o d'alloc woû kekµŋ-
κότων ὄχλος: to which he receives for answer, Τάφῳ δέδονται
πρὸς Κιθαιρῶνος πτυχαῖς. Here the dead bodies are called
Kekμŋkóτeg 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* 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 be the manes, and
'It is true that this regular form is found in only one of the Paris
manuscripts; but Stephens has it as a various reading, and it is the
only one acknowledged by the scholiasts and Pollux in quoting the
passage. I consider this therefore as the genuine form, as there is no
ground whatever for the Epic form kekunŵras, which is the reading of
all the other manuscripts; but which therefore, as long as the source of
the corruption remains undiscovered, is very properly retained in the
text.
• See art. 63. sect. 5.
374
69. Κελαινός, &c.
at once understood the meaning of the poet, who gives this ap-
pellation to dead bodies, at the moment when the natural duty
of interment had been refused in the one case and performed
in the other.
Κατάρχομαι; vid. ἄρχομαι, &c.
69. Κελαινός, μέλας, &c.
An Excursus to Buttmann's large detailed Greek Grammar
(Ausführl. Sprachl.), vol. 1. sect. 16. obs. 2.*
1. The Epic word keλawóc exhibits in sound so evident a
connexion with the common word μέλας, μέλανος; μέλαινα, 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 be changed for each other. I have
therefore laid it down in my Greek Grammar¹ as a general
rule, that most cases of this kind may be explained by sup-
posing 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: μóyıs, more Attic than the common
μόλις ; κοεῖν, Ionic for νοεῖν; κελαινός, κελαινή, an old form for μέλας,
μέλαινα.”-ED.]
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 complete,
as an Excursus to my large detailed Grammar (Ausführl. Sprachl.) ;
but as it is more properly a subject for lexicography I prefer giving it
here.
69. Κελαινός, &c.
375
well-known examples in the European languages; e.g. warrant,
garant; vastare, gaster (gâter); 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
σύν and cum.
The form uv unites them for there are many
traces in the Æolic dialect showing that the Greek double let-
ters had their origin in a transposition of their fundamental
sounds see in the Ausführl. Sprachl. the note to sect. 22.
obs. 3.* It is probable, therefore, that KYN (cum) is the ra-
dical form, to which, as in so many other cases, was appended
a σ, ΣKYN, and from which again came ouv; a process con-
firmed by a comparison with σκύλα, συλᾷν, as the former half
of it is brought to a certainty by the forms ξυνός and κοινός,
which are so evidently akin to čúv and cum. Compare also
κείρειν, κουρά, ξύρειν, ξυρόν.
4. The forms Sic, and bis, although 8 and ẞ 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 bellum, 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 σκίφος, σκένος, σπάλις, σπέλλιον, are quoted as Æolic
for ξίφος, ξένος, ψάλις, ψέλλιον. This transposition may have been fre-
quently formed to soften the pronunciation; and the contents of the
preceding observation (obs. 2. where σrévos is said to be quoted by the
grammarians as Æolic for ξέros, and Πέλοπs for Πέλοψ, &c.) joined with
these may serve to show that the Eolians generally wrote in the be-
ginning of their words σκένος, σπέλλιον, in the middle and at the end
ἱέρακε, ἱέρακσι, Πέλοπς'
a This was also Scaliger's view of it (ad Euseb. p. 115. a.). It is
however certain that & and frequently arose from an original σк, σπ.
Thus, for instance, Eur and Evrós, as we find from comparing them with
cum and koɩrós; thus iá (a small stone) is the same with oría, which
can be explained only by an intermediate form with σ (see Riemer v.
oría); and the superlative coxaros (extremus) shows that the preposi-
tion & was originally sounded as EEK or EΣX, with a vowel at the end,
perhaps -ED.]
376
69. Κελαινός, &c.
the root. That is to say, dúo, duo, two, zwo*, are undeniably
the same word: from dúo, duo (dvo) came AYIZ, duis (dvis),
as in German from zwo came zwier (twice). But from dvis
came both dic and VIS, of which bis is a slight modification.
The same is seen still plainer in two other numerals: from Súw
(AF) comes evidently on the one side, by leaving out the F
Súdeka, and on the other, by dropping the 8, the Æolic Fikari
and the Latin viginti; while the last trace of both consonants
disappears in εἴκατι, εἴκοσι,
5. A still more striking analogy is offered by the German
language in the provincial forms Wasen, 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 epyov and pečat, which forms
in the Æolic dialect could only have been Fέργον and Fρέξαι:
see pé in the list of verbs in the Ausführl. Sprachl.+ Com-
pare also ringen and its provincialism wrangen, 'to wrestle'.
K
6. I come now to the examples quoted in my Greek Gram-
mar, and first to kоeiv, an Ionic-Doric form for voeîv: see
ékóŋσe, Callim. Fr. 53., and кow, Epicharm. ap. Athen. p. 236. b.
Now no one in his senses will think of separating νοῦς, νοεῖν
from γνῶναι, γιγνώσκειν, ἀγνοεῖν. And thus we have at once
* [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.
† [Extract from the Ausführl. Sprachl.
“‘Ρέζω, I do, ῥέξω, ἔῤῥεξα or ἔρεξα....; or ἔρδω, ἔρξω, ἔρξα....;
perf. copya, pluperf. éúpyeur. Of the passive there occurs only pexn-
ναι; as ἔρχθην and ἔεργμαι are formed only from the verb ἔργω, είργω.
Adj. ῥεκτός, ῥεκτέος.
"In order to form a correct judgement on the connexion of these forms,
we must first keep in view the regular change of the mediate letters y
and d, with which is connected the transition of y into , occurring in
other verbs, as kpáļw, kpayeîv. The next thing to be observed is that
the forms ἔρδω, ἔρξα, with the substantive ἔργον, have in the old lan-
guage the digamma; while the aspirate joined with the p frequently
69. Κελαινός, &c.
377
the form KNOEIN, which we may compare with γναφεύς κνα-
φεύς, γνάμπτω κνάμπτω, Κνωσός Γνωσός. The great Euro-
pean family of languages comes in also to our aid; the plainest
instance is the English verb to know; and the German kennen
answers to its synonym Kovvev in Eschylus Suppl. 171. See
also Hesych. in v.
7. In the same way the supposition of an intermediate form
ΚΜΕΛΑΝ between κελαινός and μέλαν becomes a certainty,
by the information in the Etym. M. of a form тà κμéλe0рα,
which one of the most learned of the grammarians, Pamphilus
(see Suidas concerning him), has mentioned in his great glos-
sary, and explained by ràc dokoúc. The word was therefore a
dialect of và µéλalpa, the beams and framework of the roof,
which from their blackness had received this name from the
earliest times*.
ις
8. Less evident is the supposition of an intermediate form
between μoyic and μódic, scarcely, and between ó µóyoc and
ó μóλoc, pains, labour; here the bond of union must be yλ.
In support of this the form o uwλoc offers itself, as containing
a trace of some such intermediate form in the length of its
syllable; or perhaps o uoxλóc 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
passed over in the dialects into the digamma; as for instance in the Eo-
lic ßpódov, i. e. wrodon, for pócor, a rose. We must therefore consider
ëptai as werxai, péšaι as wrexai, čopya as weworga, in order to discover
in them the same appearance as we find in δέρκω, δρακεῖν, δέδορκα.
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
word work, from which comes the perfect wrought, and the substantive
wright; in which words the w before the r is not pronounced; therefore
wright is pérns."-ED.]
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 has been
disseminated as widely as possible by a series of editions of Schneider's
and Riemer's Lexicons, and of my own Greek and German Grammar,
originated in an error of Stephens.
378
70. Κητώεσσα, μεγακήτης.
which in the same language branches into five different forms,
all passing from one to the other in this manner; viz. Lópoc,
δνόφος, γνόφος, κνέφας, νέφος. That ζόφος, darkness, is in-
timately connected with vé oc, a cloud, would perhaps be hardly
conjectured. But as a is much the same as a 8, we have
AOPO; between these stands, as the intermediate form, the
common expression δνόφος, whence through γνόφος we cone
straight and plainly to κνέφας, νέφος*.
70. Κητώεσσα, μεγακήτης.
1. The well-known epithet of Lacedæmon in Il. ß, 581. and
Od. 8, 1. кητweooa, it was at first thought possible to under-
stand literally, as from Kτoc, the whale or some huge sea-fish;
and among others Ælian in his Hist. An. 17, 6. gives this ex-
planation, adding that huge sea-monsters of this kind infested
particularly the Lacedæmonian coast and neighbourhood of Cy-
thera. 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 μeyaknτne 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 con-
sideration, 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
* [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. Κητώεσσα, μεγακήτης.
379
Lacedæmon in these passages meant, according to the older
usage of language, the country of Lacedæmon in general, and
not the mere metropolis; in that case it is not at all conceiva-
ble how, or in comparison with what other land, we can imagine
Lacedæmon to be a large country.
ου
ει
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 Il. 0, 222.
p. 594., he adds, ἀφ' οὗ κατά τινας, εἰ καὶ πάνυ σμικροπρεπώς,
ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως καὶ Λακεδαίμων κητώεσσα. On the other hand, a later
mode of explanation gives this silly trash the usual philosophi-
cal colouring, and completes the mischief by suggesting the
idea of mere bald generalization, informing us that such deriva-
tions of knToc meant in the old language any huge size'. Now
if we apply this information to the μεγακήτεα πόντον, Od. γ,
158., and to the dolphin, which is itself a knтOG and yet has
this epithet at Il. p, 22., we have the choice whether these
expressions are to be considered as poetical epithets, in which
case we have the absurdity immediate before us, or whether the
supposition is, that the comparison with the animal has disap-
peared; by which an expression, so evidently coined as µɛya-
Kτng is, was explained to be a prosaic adjective. Still in the
latter case кηтweσσα must be softened down, for a translator
would hardly venture to render it 'huge Lacedæmon'.
4. Strabo 8, p. 367. mentions another reading katerάeoσav,
καιετάεσσαν,
which Eustathius and the scholiast on Od. 8, 1. ascribe to Ze-
nodotus. Of this word all give a twofold explanation. One
of these, from καιέτα, (otherwise called καλαμίνθη, a kind of
mint growing in great quantities in Laconia,) cannot with any
reason enter into our consideration for one moment as the epi-
thet 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 expla-
¹ See Hemsterhusius (from whom indeed have proceeded most of the
errors in the field of philosophical etymology,) on Luc. Timon. 26.; and
Tollius, who on Apollon. Lex. in v. stops the mouth of the respectable
Eustathius with this authority.
380
70. Κητώεσσα, μεγακήτης.
or
Ο
nation is more suitable. Τὰ καίατα (from καῖαρ, -ατος) οι οἱ
καιάται, also καίετοι, 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 ὁ καιάτας or καιάδας,
is sufficiently known as the place into which criminals were
thrown. Still however this reading, to say the best of it, can
help us only in the case of κητώεσσα ; μεγακήτης must remain
with its derivation from κῆτος, a marine animal; and we must
therefore content ourselves with understanding it, when an
epithet of the ship, as figurative, but when an epithet of πόντος
as literally descriptive of the real habitation of those animals;
while we must look upon μεγακήτεος δελφῖνος with much the
same satisfaction and pleasure as we should upon μεγαβοίου
ταύρου. Besides, κητώεσσα was evidently the established tra-
ditionary 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 καιετάεσσα was
ever a real reading. Hesychius, under the explanations of xn-
κη
τώεσσα has both κοίλη and καλαμινθώδης ; and that this may
not be rejected as an uncritical medley, let us see the regular
grounds of these interpretations in the lexicon of Apollonius:
Λακεδαίμονα κητώεσσαν. τὸ μὲν ὑγιὲς μέγα κῦτος ἔχουσαν,
ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς νηός. τινὲς δὲ ὅτι εἰς ἣν κήτη ἐκβράσσεται.
τινὲς δὲ καλαμινθώδη· καιέτα γὰρ φυτὸν ἡ καλάμινθος ὑπ᾽
ἐνίων καλεῖται. And quite independent of the gloss κητώεσσα
Hesychius has also the following: Κήτα, καλαμίνθη. From
all this it is perfectly clear, that from the syllable кηт- were
deduced both κῦτος, a hollow, and the plant καιέτα; and with
these it embraced also the other meaning attributed to the
so-called reading καιετάεσσα, viz. that of a cleft in the earth;
and καιετάεσσα was therefore only another expression for kn-
τώεσσα, formed in imitation of it, but out of other elements.
2 By means of this κήτα comes the reading καιτάεις, as it stands twice
in Schol. Od. δ, 1., and indeed the Cod. Harl. and Ambr. agree with
it in this; a consideration of some weight against the amendment kaι-
ετάεις : see Porson.
70. Κητώεσσα, μεγακήτης.
381
και
This interpretation of katerάeoσa 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 μéya KûToc exovσa ap-
pears to belong principally to μeyaknτne, with which it stands
connected in the scholia and glosses; but in Apollonius, as we
it
have seen just above, and also in the scholium to Od. 8, 1.,
stands also with κητώεσσαν. With a similar view, that is to
say in order to find in the syllable кηT- the idea of a cleft or
chasm, others sought to discover an affinity to it in τà κalaτa.
I find, even without that etymology, sufficient grounds for this
interpretation in the common meaning of the word KnтOG. It
is certain, for instance, that hollow, chasm, is the proper mean-
ing 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 xáw, xáoкw, from the old form of which with the K
we have before derived not only ȧkéwv (as may be seen in the
article on that word), but also keάZw, to cleave, from which verb
proceed those very forms κεάδας, καιάδας, τὰ καίατα, &c.
χάω,
7. In this its oldest and proper sense the epithet μeyаKŃτNG
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 al-
ready quoted (Il. 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 Baluкnτnc: see Theogn. 175. with Bekker's
note. With regard to the epithet knτweσoα, one thing should
prevent our understanding it in the same sense as the old gram-
marians did, whom Schneider follows, as μéya kûtoc ëxovoa,
that is, descriptive of the deep valley in which Lacedæmon lies;
because it is impossible that Homer could then have joined to-
gether κοίλην Λακεδαίμονα κητώεσσαν. The difference of form,
in μεγακήτης and κητώεσσα, will be a better guide to us ; as ad-
jectives in etc, eooa, ev, signify, according to the most common
analogy, an abundance of that of which such adjectives are
-
382
70. Κητώεσσα, μεγακήτης.
made up: thus кnтweσσa, exactly in one of the senses of that
katerάeoσα, will mean 'having many chasms and hollows'.
8. What prevented this explanation being more generally
recognised was no doubt the opinion that Aakedaluwv 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 Lacedæmon in its older sense meant the country
so called, but that the town was named Zráρrn (a thing al-
most self-evident) is manifestly clear from the two verses of Il.
β, 581. Οἳ δ᾽ εἶχον κοίλην Λακεδαίμονα κητώεσσαν, Φάριν τε
Σπάρτην τε, &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. 4, 13. it is
related, that Ulysses received his celebrated bow as a present
from Iphitus, whom he met in Lacedæmon; rá oi žeîvoc Aake-
δαίμονι δῶκε τυχήσας: and in the next verse but one, speaking
of the same meeting, it is added, Τὼ δ᾽ ἐν Μεσσήνῃ ξυμβλήτην
aλλnλouv. Consequently in the time of the Trojan war Mes-
sene belonged to Lacedæmon, and was comprehended under
that name. Again, at that very same place in Messene where
Ulysses and Iphitus had formerly met, that is to say at Pheræ
(Onpai), Telemachus afterwards 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 afterwards, Od. δ, 1., οἳ δ' ἷξον κοίλην Λακεδαίμονα κη-
τώεσσαν. Now since in the first-mentioned passage (Od. p,
13.) Lacedæmon, taken as the country of that name, compre-
hended Pheræ in it, it follows that Lacedæmon means here
(in Od. 8, 1.) the town: otherwise Telemachus would travel
from Lacedæmon to Lacedæmon." Thus far Strabo. I think
the mere recital of these conclusions must have sufficed to re-
fute them. That Homer, as from a point in Ithaca, should
even once describe a place in Messene as being ev Aakedai-
μovi, is remarkable enough; for it is exactly in accordance
with the more modern science of statistics, by which the pro-
71. Κλειτός, &c.
383
vince is comprehended under the name of the governing coun-
try: but this does not do away the fact that the true and pro-
per Lacedæmon is the valley of the Eurotas, divided from Mes-
sene by Mount Taygetus. If now in another quite distinct
passage, where the poet has not so described it, where he has
named Messene not Lacedæmon, the arriving in Lacedæmon
properly so called is mentioned under this name (Aakedaiµwv),
this, much more than the other, is the natural and common
usage of language: on the other hand, when a little before
Lacedæmon had been mentioned as the country of that name,
the poet could not immediately call the town of Sparta by the
same name of Lacedæmon.
9. The result therefore of what has been said is this: Lace-
dæmon 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 coun-
try was inhabited in districts and patches, with one central.
point, where the governing power resided, they might indeed
use the name Lacedæmon in both ways, without its neces-
sarily having thereby a twofold meaning; they might use
Lacedæmon as the town of that name, but in a wider sense;
that is, as the bond which united together the different inha-
bited 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.
71. Κλειτός, κλητός, κλυτός, τηλεκλειτός, τηλεκλητός,
τηλεκλυτός.
1. The two adjectives kλeróc and kλuτóc, come from two
different verbs, κλέω, κλείω, I celebrate, and κλύω I hear ;
but in signification they agree, the former meaning one much
celebrated, the latter one much heard of, i. e. celebrated.
384
71. Κλειτός, &c.
And in Homer they are so completely synonymous, that with
this and their similarity of form they may be considered as al-
most the same word; for when the metre requires a long sylla-
ble, kλeɩτóc is used; in the contrary case, kλuTóc. This is
particularly evident in the compounds, ἀγακλειτὸν Θρασυμή-
δην, ἀγακλυτὸν ᾿Ιδομενῆα: δουρικλειτὸς Μενέλαος, Ιδομενεὺς
δουρικλυτός: ναυσικλειτοῖο Δύμαντος, Φαίηκες ναυσικλυτοί.
2. But not only what is really and strictly celebrated, but
also whatever appears to the poet as worthy of being so cele-
brated, consequently everything great, magnificent, excellent,
is called KλeTóc and KAUTóc; which become therefore mere
epithets expressive of praise. Thus we have frequently kλeɩτǹv
ÉKаTÓμßην: at Od. 0, 417. Kλvrà dupa, magnificent presents,
and elsewhere Kλvтà Teúɣeα, splendid armour; Minerva teaches.
ἔργα...κλυτὰ ἐργάζεσθαι, Od. v, 72., and such like. In the
same way we find also the compounds ἀγακλειτῆς ἑκατόμβης,
Od. y, 59., and ȧyakλurà dwμata of Alcinous, Od. n, 3.
3. Among the compounds are also τηλεκλειτός and τηλε-
kλutóc, far-famed, celebrated far and wide; e. g. Il. §, 321.
Φοίνικος... τηλεκλειτοῖο, and Od. a, 30. τηλεκλυτὸς... Ορέ-
στης.
μη
4. The epithet nderdeɩtoi is given in the Iliad to the allies
of the Trojans; but in that case there is always a various read-
ing τnλekλntol, the meaning of which is perfectly true as said
of these allies, viz. invited 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. %, 111. 1, 233. A, 564. u, 108. Wolf and
Heyne were the first to introduce uniformity into their editions,
by reading in all of them τηλεκλητοί ἐπίκουροι. 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 most ancient writing the two forms could
not be distinguished from each other; and even in the passages.
where tŋdekλeitóc can mean nothing but 'far-famed,' still the
same various reading is found; see Heyne on Il. §, 321. That
Sarpedon at Il. e, 478. says of himself, Kai yàp ẻywv ẻπíkov-
ρος ἐὼν μάλα τηλόθεν ἥκω, proves only what was known with-
out that information, viz. that the allies did certainly come from
71. Κλειτός, &c.
385
distant countries; but it does not prove that Homer was obliged
That
to borrow for them an epithet from that circumstance.
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 τndekλntoi only; for we find that Hesychius has
only τηλεκλειτοί, πόῤῥω ἔνδοξοι. 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
passages as we have done, could allow himself to write in all
the others κλειτός, ἀγακλειτός, &c., and τηλεκλειτός, but in
those five relating to the allies τηλεκλητός.
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 erikovpoi are as often called Kλetroí. Heyne felt
this, and therefore regretted that he had not read in every case
Kλnтoi, which certainly does appear as a various reading here
and there: see his Notes on 4, 227. A, 220. and 563. The
word kλŋtóc occurs also twice in Homer as the real and pre-
cise designation of persons, or as the predicate of the sentence,
viz. in Il. 1, 165. Od. p, 386.; but how little it is fitted for a
poetical epithet was felt by all those who, before Heyne, made
no objection to τηλεκλητοί, but never admitted κλητοί. Nay,
even if kλŋtoi had been universally adopted, uniformity would
not have been attained, for at Il. μ, 101., where the verse will
admit of neither κλειτῶν nor τηλεκλειτῶν, we find ἀγακλει-
τῶν ἐπικούρων. 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 store-house of language kλeiróc,
ἀγακλειτός, and τηλεκλειτός, 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
2 c
386
71. Κλειτός, &c.
sound, TηλEKλnToi; a word too which is neither found else-
where in the same poet, nor indeed in any of the other remains
of antiquity.
7. What appears to have particularly favoured the introduc-
tion of this various reading is its corresponding with another
epithet of the allies, ToλúкANTоc. This appellation is given to
them in Il. 8, 438. and is the predicate of the sentence; 'AXλà
γλῶσσ᾽ ἐμέμικτο, πολύκλητοι δ᾽ ἔσαν ἄνδρες: and hence it occurs
once as a mere fixed epithet for these allies, viz. at κ, 420. where
Dolon says of them, in opposition to the waking Trojans, Toλú-
κλητοι δ᾽ ἐπίκουροι Εὕδουσιν. I will not stop here to observe,
that the meaning of ToλúkλŋToc is really much more marked
and more distinct than that of Tηλekλnróc ('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 e is never found, (for though Porphyry, quoting the
second passage in his Quæstiones, 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 κλειτός with πολύ, any more than that of
KAUTÓC, (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 τηλekλntóc, only
of τndekdeitóc, viz. in Apollon. R. 3, 1097.
9. On the accentuation of these forms I wish for informa-
tion from others. Contrary to general analogy (e. g. of vπép-
δεινος, πάνδεινος, εὔχρηστος, πάγχρηστος, εὔπιστος, and in
Homer of πολύπικρος, περίσκεπτος, ἐΰκτιτος, ἐΰξεστος), all the
compounds of κλειτός and κλυτός, at least in the Homeric
poems, are, like their simples, oxytons; as тnλekλELTÓG, TηλE-
κλυτός, ἀγακλειτός, ἀγακλυτός, περικλυτός, ὀνομακλυτός, ναυ-
OIKAUTÓG, VAVOIKλerTóc: according to which, in Hymn. Apoll.
* [Namely in Ol. 6, 120., but it is also found in Frag. Incert. 86. as
quoted by Aristides.-En.]
71. Κλειτός, &c.
387
31. and 219. it must be accented ναυσικλειτή, -ῆς. But I do
not wish to enter into an examination of other poets. In Homer
πολύκλητος is the fixed accentuation in both passages; an
analogy which undoubtedly τηλέκλητος ought to follow: con-
sequently the accentuation thus handed down is another ground
for τηλεκλειτός being the old and genuine reading.
[Supplement to the above article on τηλεκλειτός, &c., in the
original at the end of the second volume.]
1. I have left it a problematical question why all the com-
pounds of κλειτός and κλυτός 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.
Schol. 1. On Od. a, 30. ᾿Οξυτονητέον τὸ τηλεκλυτός, ὡς
ἀγακλυτός. εἰ μὲν πτωτικὸν κατ᾿ ἀρχὴν συντεθείη, βαρύνεται·
εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὑπὲρ μίαν συλλαβὴν, ὀξύνεται. διὸ σημειού-
μεθα τὸ ναυσικλυτός ὀξυνόμενον, τὸ δὲ δουρικλυτός ἐν παραθέ-
σει ἐστίν.
ει
Schol. 2. On Il. κ, 109. Τυδείδην δουρι κλυτον'. Τὸ κλυ-
τός, εἰ πτωτικὸν κατάρχοι, ἐν συνθέσει ἐστὶ, τοξοκλυτος, όνο-
μακλυτος· εἰ δὲ ἄπτωτον, φυλάσσει τὸν αὐτὸν τόνον, περικλυ-
τος, αγακλυτος, διὸ σημειωτέον τὸ ναυσικλυτος ὀξυνόμενον. ὅτι
γὰρ συνθετόν ἐστι, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ μένειν τὸ α τῆς ναυσί δοτικῆς.
κατ᾿ ἰδίαν γὰρ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ ἢ διὰ τοῦ η λέγεται ἢ διὰ τοῦ
ε. ἐν δὲ συνθέσει διὰ τοῦ α, Ναυσικάα, Ναυσίθοος. τὸ μὲν οὖν
δουρι κλυτος ἐν παρασυνθέσει ἐστίν.
EK T
Schol. 3. On Il. x, 51. Ονομακλυτος. ᾿Αρίσταρχος ὑφ᾽ ἂν
χ,
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, as we may see by comparing the last scholia
on the Odyssey quoted here,) but he accents them according to the
principles of grammar.
? That is to say νευσί, which stands also in the Etym. Μ. (v. νηύς)
among the Homeric forms: probably an old various reading, which has
disappeared from the text in the process of its purification.
2c2
388
71. Κλειτός, &c.
ει
ὡς πασιμέλουσα. ἐν δὲ ᾽Οδυσσείᾳ ὄνομα κλυτὸς Αἴθων, κατὰ
παράθεσιν. εἰ δὲ, φασὶν (write φησὶν), οὐκ ἐστιν ἐξ οὐδετέρου
καὶ ἀρσενικοῦ συνθετὸν, τί ἐστι τὸ ᾿Αστυάναξ καὶ ποιηματο-
γράφος; κατὰ σύνθεσιν οὖν ἐστιν ὡς τὸ τοξοκλυτος παρὰ Πιν-
δάρω, καὶ περικλυτος.
ΤΟ
Schol. 4. On Od. 7, 22. Ναυσικλειτοῖο Δύμαντος . . . ἔνιοι
δὲ ναυσὶ κλειτοῖο, ἐν δυσὶ μέρεσι λόγου. ἀμείνων δὲ ἡ πρώτη,
ναυσικλειτοῖο, ἐν τοῖς κατὰ ναυτικὴν ἔργοις ἐνδόξου.
Schol. 5. On Od. n, 39. Ναυσίκλυτοι, ὡς ἀγάκλυτοι ἐν συν-
θέσει καὶ κατ᾽ ὀξεῖαν τάσιν. ἡ γὰρ ναυσὶ δοτικὴ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ,
ὅταν κατ᾿ ἰδίαν λέγηται, διὰ τοῦ η γράφεται, ὡς οἱ μὲν παρὰ
νηυσί, &c.
2. From schol. 1. and 2. we gather the following rule, that
when κλυτός is compounded with a πτωτικόν, (i. e. has a de-
clinable word for its prefix,) it is ἐν συνθέσει; that is, it is a
proper compound, and is accented on the antepenultima, as
τοξόκλυτος, ὀνομάκλυτος: but when it has an indeclinable
word, κλυτός retains its accent, and the compound is therefore
accented on the last syllable, as περικλυτός, ἀγακλυτός, and
consequently also τηλεκλυτός. Hence by antithesis it follows,
that compounds of this latter kind are ἐν παραθέσει, 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 τῆλε κλυτός, far famed, πέρι κλυτός and ἄγαν
κλυτός, much famed; which in truth therefore does not lie
in the indeclinability of the former part of the word, but in the
thought ; as there do not chance to be any compounds of κλυτός
with particles, which according to the thought would be inse-
parable, like διάλευκος, ὑπέρθυμος. According to the first part
of our scholia we must consider therefore as really ovv0erá and
βαρύτονα, all that are compounded with a noun : in which we
are told to remark (σημειωτέον) as an exception ναυσικλυτός,
which is a συνθετόν and yet is oxytone, i. e. has the acute ac-
cent on the last syllable. The reason why it is a συνθετόν is
given in schol. 1. compared with schol. 5., viz. because the
first half is not the pure dative, which in Homer is νηυσί, not
ναυσί. The word πτωτικόν is not therefore to be understood
generally of any forms of nouns, but we must interpret the
scholia more clearly and more precisely thus; κλυτός (and
71. Κλειτός, &c.
389
κλειτός also) is said to be ἐν συνθέσει, and is consequently
a barytone, i. e. has the accent on the antepenultima, when a
TTWTIKOV, but not a real case (TTWσic), precedes it; for in this
case the whole would be a παράθεσις. If then νηυσικλυτός, or
a
vηvoi kλvτóc, be found in Homer, this, according to the rule,
would be accented like δουρικλυτός, or δουρὶ κλυτός: for in
this last example the expression év πapaléσeɩ in schol. 1. ap-
pears to me the true reading, but év Tapaσvvléσe in schol. 2.
to be a corruption.
εν
και
3. If now δουρικλυτός be a παράθεσις, it is remarkable that
according to schol. 2. ὀνομακλυτος must be a true συνθετὸν,
where still the "voua may be very well explained to be the ac-
cusative but the remark is repeated in schol. 3., where ovo-
µákλutoc”Aλτnc in Il. x, 51. is placed in opposition to the
ővoμa kλvтóv (celebrated name) in Od. 7, 183. which is κaTÀ
Tарáleo. The grammarians therefore held a twofold opinion;
and Aristarchus rejected the junction of kλuTóc with the accu-
sative, either generally, or in óvoµákλvтoc 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 ovoua would be really a regular case, but to the thought,
is plain from schol. 4., in which the writing vavol kλeiroîo is
with good reason rejected on account of the meaning, and vav-
σikλeirolo is explained to mean 'celebrated for naval deeds'.
σικλετοῖο
Indeed that might be applied also to dovρikλvтóc; 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.
6
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 TepukλUTOG in schol. 3., which is there
joined with τοξοκλυτος, as a συνθετὸν, contrary to the plain
Probably there stood here at first a false reading év ovvßéoeɩ, and
in correcting this arose a new fault, the double compound in question.
We know that παρασύνθεσις and παρασύνθετον mean in the grammarians
nothing more than derivation from a compound, which can have nothing
whatever to do with the sense here.
390
72. Kodwóc, kodwậv.
TE
assertions of schol. 2.: but above all the beginning of schol. 5.
is in a hopeless state, if ναυσικλυτοί and ἀγακλυτοί 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: Ναυσικλυτοί, ὡς ἀγακλυτοί, κατ᾿
ὀξεῖαν τάσιν, σημειωτέον, ἅτε ἐν συνθέσει ὄν. ἡ γὰρ ναυσί, &c.
That is to say the meaning must be this: NavoukλUTOί, which is
év ovvléoeɩ, and yet has the acute accent on the last syllable,
is (like ἀγακλυτοί, which is ἐν παραθέσει,) to be considered as
an exception. Again, the comparison of ovoµáкλuTоc with wа-
oquéλovoa in schol. 3. is not according to rule; for there are
good grounds for supposing πασιμέλουσα, like δακρυχέων and
some others, even if written as one word, to be a mere Tapá-
Oeoic, with which the grammarians therefore might, according
to their principles, have compared τηλεκλυτός and δουρικλυτός,
but not ovoμakλUTоc, which there and in schol. 2. is treated as
a proper συνθετόν.
παρά-
5. Resuming our first question, we find then that the accen-
tuation of τηλεκλειτός, τηλεκλυτός, &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 doupiλutóc) ap-
peared to be such, retained the accent of the second word un-
changed. But this was the case with almost all the compounds
of κλειτός and κλυτός; and although ναυσικλυτός, ναυσικλειτός,
did not, according to the above theory, belong to that class,
yet the visible Tapáleσic had such an influence on this form
also, that it was not changed, but noted as an exception; while
ovоμакλvтоç, as is evident from schol. 3., remained in dispute.
In our Homer this accentuation is now made uniform through-
out, and in my opinion correctly so; as long as it is not wished
to take the greater liberty of accenting in general everything,
though quite as uniform, according to the existing analogy of
compounds.
72. Κολῳός, κολῳᾷν.
1. The meaning of the words kodwóc, kodwậv, is undoubted.
They imply a shrill chattering, joined, at least in the two pas-
72. Κολῳός, κολῳᾷν.
391
sages of Homer where they occur, with the idea of scolding and
wrangling. Thus at II. ß, 212. it is said of Thersites that he
alone èkoda, wrangled shrilly; and in the same sense at Il.
α, 575. Εν δὲ θεοῖσι κολῳὸν ἐλαύνετον, 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
ἐνελαύνετον θεοῖσι; as I understand ἐλαύνειν τι to mean to set
anything in motion, as at Il. n, 6. the sea with the oars, and
such like; the meaning therefore here would be, "you raise a
noisy wrangling among the gods'."
2. With regard to the etymology the grammarians agree una-
nimously that it is a metaphor taken from koλotóc, the jackdaw;
which was the common explanation of Il. ß, 212. in the time
of Gellius; see his Noct. Att. 1, 15. The name of this bird
does occur 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. 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. To say that koλwoc is really derived
from koλotóc, is contrary to all grammatical analogy: or shall
we suppose that both are properly the same word? But 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 Kolor of the cry of the jackdaw,) to suffer such an ex-
pression as kola, he jackdaws', for he screeches like a
jackdaw'.
3. And here the German language gives us a most complete
analogy. As Dohle, a jackdaw, comes from dahlen, to chatter,
So kolotoc comes from a similar root, which means a cry or
scream, and with which are connected, as we must at once feel,
· Some of the scholia in explaining it use ἐπιτείνετε, others ἐγείρετε.
2 This, for instance, holds good of the subscript also, as ékoλwia
is expressly mentioned in an old scholium (see Heyne on Il. 6, 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 tradi-
tion was κολωός, κολωᾷν. Compare κολουᾷν in note 3.
392
73. Κουρίδιος.
καλέω, κέλω, κέλομαι*. From this root comes the abstract word
Koλwóc, as well as the name of the bird, koλotóc; or if we con-
sider both as identical in form, then we have the abstract as
well as the concrete formed in oc; and from coλwóc, a scream,
was made a new verb koλwav; which by others was formed also
in éw, as we learn from the example in Antimachus quoted by
Eustathius, Schellenb. Fr. 27. Ως ῥα τότ᾽ ᾿Αργείων κολῴει
στρατός: for this must certainly be the reading for ἐκολῴει, the
w being shortened as in some well-known similar cases.
account is confirmed by the gloss of Hesychius, κολοιή, φωνή.
And when the same grammarian among the meanings of kóλoc
has also ópuẞoc, this is not to be rashly rejected as a mere
corruption of κολῳός; for the word κολοσυρτός, properly signi-
fying a noisy swarm or multitude, leads us to the same point,
and thus we draw near to the root with the greatest clearness³.
This
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 ekoλya, an intentional comparison with the
jackdaw, however correct such a comparison may appear to be
in that expression.
73. Κουρίδιος.
1. The derivation of κουρίδιος from κοῦρος, κούρη,—a deri-
vation which strikes us as soon as we look at the word,-has
been the cause of much error, particularly in the unphilosophi-
cal 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. Κουρίδιος πόσις, κου-
pidin adoxoc are translated, in all cases where there is nothing
to oppose it, as in Il. e, 413. X, 243. &c., by youthful. Where
that term is not admissible,-as in Od. o, 355. of the wife of
* [Doederling in his Lect. Hom. 1. p. 4. rejects the connexion with
καλέω, but allows that with κέλομαι.--Εν.]
The glosses of Hesychius Koλovav and Koλovμßa, synonymous with
Koλwav, appear to show that the word remained in the mouth of the
common people and ceased to be a poetical expression.
73. Κουρίδιος.
393
Laertes, or in A, 429. w, 199. where Clytemnestra kills Aga-
memnon, her koupídiov róow,—there it is supposed to allude to
a marriage contracted in youth or with a virgin, or to the first
husband, and such like. For this we need only consult Damm,
particularly how he helps himself so neatly through Il. 7, 298.,
where however all he says 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 can-
not find, without any regard to etymology, some one idea perva-
ding them all; which alone must be used even in cases where the
meaning drawn from the etymology of the word has introduced
itself into the context also; otherwise we are in danger of at-
tributing to the poet ideas which he never had.
2. If now we compare all the passages where KovρidioG OC-
κουρίδιος
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. T,
298. where Briseis, who had lived with Achilles from the time.
of his slaying her husband, as slave and concubine, says that
Patroclus had promised to make her the Kovpidin aλoxoc of
Achilles. But even without such a sensible antithesis as the
above, this meaning exhibits itself plainly in other passages. In
Od. v, 45. Ulysses says to all the Phæacians, that they should
remain at home and cheer their koupidíac yuvaîkac; and at Il. o,
40. Juno calls the marriage-bed of herself and Jupiter kovρídiov
Xéxoc. It is true that at Od. o, 22. the koupídioc piλoc, as the
first husband, is opposed to a second in whose favour the wife
is to forget the other; and at Od. 7, 580. 4, 78. the house of
Ulysses is called by Penelope her кovρidiov dwμa, in opposition
to that to which she should follow one of the suitors, which
would still be a regular marriage. But in these two 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. 4, 150. 151. At all events, the very expression here used,
κουρίδιον δῶμα, shows that κουρίδιος can never mean youthful;
otherwise koupídiov doua would be the house of my youth',
i. e. my paternal house. The idea of marriage is evident there-
fore in koupídioc, the true, legitimate, through which the words
<
>
394
73. Κουρίδιος.
àvýp, yvvý (Od. w, 196. v, 45.) first receive the idea of husband,
wife: while with wooic and adoxoc this epithet is joined for the
sole purpose of marking the above-mentioned antitheses. But
in the expression koupídioc piλoç this latter word evidently has
its common meaning 'dear', and koupídioc alone therefore stands
for husband.
3. This view of the meaning of koupídioc is fully confirmed
by Herodotus, who in 1, 135. 5, 18. expresses by this epithet
the opposition between the wife and the παλλακίς.
4. With regard to the etymology, the derivation from кoûρoc
must not yet be thrown aside; and perhaps there may be some
grounds for it in the expression koúpŋ in Od. σ, 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 koupídioc, nor can this derivation be considered
as proved. Much better will it be, as everything speaks in
favour of some other derivation, to leave to chance the possi-
bility of producing something which may give us the idea of
regular, legitimate, or perhaps of pure, chaste (compare коρеîv),
or even the precise idea of the marriage-ceremony.
The perfect accordance of all the passages mentioned ought there-
fore to prevent us from understanding koupídios, wherever it may occur
elsewhere, in the sense of youthful; e. g. in Eveni Epigr. 12. Kovpidious
Κουριδίους
ñồn Oaλáµw Xúoaoa Xirovas. Here it means bridal garments'.
C
2 Whoever considers that the German h so often answers to the
Greek л, as in koîλos, Germ. hohl, Engl. hollow,—in zaλáµŋ, Germ. Halm,
Engl. halm (or 'straw'),—in kúwv, Germ. Hund, Engl. dog, &c.,—such a
one will not think me foolish in calling attention to the same relation
between koupídios 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
κύριος, compared with the word κυμεῖν, to obtain, and with κοίρανος.
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 Kúpios yvraiós was used only
with reference to a wife, as deσñórns 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 hand thus answer exactly to each other.
ド
​395
74. Κρήγυος.
1. As kρnуvoc, a word of rare occurrence in general, appears
in Homer only once, viz. in Il. a, 106.
Μάντι κακῶν, οὐ πώποτέ μοι τὸ κρήγυον εἶπες,
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 against 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. Prænot. p. 425, 16. ἀλλ᾿ οὐδὲ γουνάτων πό-
voc κρnуvov; for here there can be no reason for supposing it to
νος κρήγυον;
be an intentional preference of 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. ouk énioravτaι, ovde
οὐκ ἐπίστανται,
κρήγυοι διδάσκαλοί εἰσι τούτων. In Doric prose we have also
an example of the Pythagorean Lysis (Gale p. 737.), Tor' ovdèv
Kρńyvov oxoλáľovTec. A still later usage, and certainly an in-
tentional 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 re-
markable is the passage in Theocritus 20, 19.
TOT
Ποιμένες εἵπατέ μοι τὸ κρήγυον, οὐ καλός ἐμμι ;
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 rea-
son 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. Κυλίνδειν, &c.
passing afterwards from imitation into the real usage of the
poets. All however did not hinder this same Theocritus from
following the usual meaning of kρnyvoc in Epigr. 20.
2. On the etymology of the word, whether it belongs to the
family of κρατύς, κρείσσων, or, by an Ionicism, fron χρῆσθαι,
Xpnoiμoc, I have nothing certain to offer.
χρήσιμος,
From the relations
in which it is found I think the latter the more probable. The
y would then belong to the termination: compare audiyvoc.
75. Κυλίνδειν, καλινδεῖσθαι, &c.
1. Kulivdw 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 (πέδονδε κυλίνδετο λᾶας ἀναιδής);
but it also took very early the form in -éw (see Lex. Xenoph.):
the sense of turning we may therefore adopt as its original
one. Kuλívdw is generally supposed to be a form strengthened
from kvλiw: but I am of opinion there are better reasons for
thinking that kuλívdw is the older form, whence the future
Kuλiow' comes quite as naturally, and the σ in the passive èku-
ἐκυ·
Xio0ny more so; and that -ivdw, analogous to the more common
ending -iw, Dor. -iddw, 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 κυλίνδω
(which occurs very often) and ékvλio0nv; but as early as Pin-
dar we find also Kuλiw, which form I think arose out of the
future in -low. The meaning passed on figuratively to other
kinds of motion, as of the waves, of the uncontrollable course
of anything, &c.; besides which it was already used in Homer's
time for the turning or rolling backwards and forwards on one
spot, κυλίνδεσθαι κατὰ κόπρον, and such like. Hence figura-
tively, but always with the additional 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 Προβαλίσιος from Προβάλινθος.
75. Κυλίνδειν, &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. ἀλινδεῖσθαι (whence
also áλıvdýĺpa, volutabrum), and in the active (to make the
horse roll, lead him out to roll,) áλîoaι, used however only in
its compound eşadioal. See Piers. ad Mor. p. 52. And
ἐξαλῖσαι.
hence also the passive verb åλɩdéîolaɩ, with a middle signifi-
cation, was used in a figurative sense; see Hippocr. ap. Steph.
in v. ἐναλινδέονται πολλῇσι συμφορῇσι. Το these we may add
a third very common form, but found only in the passive voice
with a middle signification, also used solely of this rolling of
animals, and in a figurative moral sense, viz. Kadıνdeîolai,
which passed more into the language of every-day life; and
lastly a fourth, εἰλινδεῖσθαι, ἐνειλινδεῖσθαι, which, perhaps
by chance, occurs only in a moral sense.
ܕ
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 histo-
rical truth in favour of either of them may be discoverable;
for otherwise nothing indeed is easier than to form such a series
as κυλ-, καλ-, ἀλ-, είλ-, or the converse εἰλ-, ἀλ-, καλ-, κυλ-.
Perhaps now such a trace may lie in the following circumstance,
that of all these forms not one, except kvλívdw, kuλiw, has ex-
actly the precise meaning of the turning or rolling motion. For
that single passage in Aristophanes Nub. 33. 'Aλλ' & µéλ'
ἐξήλικας ἔμεγ᾽ ἐκ τῶν ἐμῶν, “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 ¿§a-
Aíoac from the preceding verse, (used there of leading out a
horse to roll,) with the literal force of the e preserved. Further,
as kaλideîolaι, if we consider it to be merely a different pro-
nunciation of kuwdeîolai, 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 εἰλ-, ἀλ-, καλινδεῖσθαι, have
the analogy of eiλn, àdéa, calor, in support of their belonging
to each other,—I conjecture that the two roots or stems, eiλov-
uaɩ (which, as we have seen in the article on eiλeiv, began with
398
76. Λέγειν, &c.
the idea of pushing or thrusting, and had almost the same
meaning of turning or busying oneself about anything,) and кv-
Aivow (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 εἰλινδεῖσθαι is not found
earlier than in Josephus and Plutarch, proves nothing more.
than that, besides the Attic alioat, formed from EAS by the
change of vowel, aλivdeiodai had also taken the form with the
e in the dialects of common life.
76. Λέγειν, λέξαι, λέξασθαι.
1. Three various meanings of the forms λéyew and λéğaı
are on the whole certain; viz. 1. to say; 2. to choose and col-
lect; 3. (λéğaι in particular) in the Epic poets, to lay to rest.
In an examination of these meanings the first question is, whe-
ther 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 Il. B. the sacrifice and banquet are finished,
Nestor says to Agamemnon (v. 435.),
Μηκέτι νῦν δηθ᾽ αὖθι λεγώμεθα, μηδ' ἔτι δηρὸν
Αμβαλλώμεθα ἔργον......
senses.
This λeywμela we find explained in each of the above three
Aristarchus understood it to mean συναθροιζώμεθα,
paraphrasing it with this explanation, μηκέτι νῦν ἐπὶ πολὺν
2 Still less reason is there for suspecting the form eiλivdovμaι to be
an error of transcription, because it has the various reading åλvd. 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 éveiλirdéw, and another by Ste-
phens 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.
76. Λέγειν, &c.
399
χρόνον αὐτοῦ συνηθροισμένοι μένωμεν: 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 gramma-
rians knew or felt that the present λέγω, λέγομαι, 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 ἔλεξε, ἐλέξατο, ἔλεκτο. 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
Xéyew, 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, Mŋkétɩ vûv taûta λeyw-
μεθα: but that of Callistratus runs thus, Μηκέτι δὴ νῦν αὖθι
\………. 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, ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἄγε μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα, II. v,
292. v. 244. Od. v, 296., and Μέντορ, μηκέτι τ. λ., Od. γ,
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 Il. B. it is
quite the contrary, for here there is no previous conversation,
but the words are introduced by the well-known Toîc apa µú-
Owv pxe.... This then tells against the reading of Zenodotus
θων
in the scholia. But who will say which of the three above-
mentioned readings is the old traditionary one, or whether there
is not a fourth? Even the reading of Aristarchus is called only
ἡ ᾿Αριστάρχου, and quoted from (αἱ ᾿Αριστάρχου λέξεις) his
explanations 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
76. Λέγειν, &c.
and changed for some such reason as that mentioned. At
all events there can be no doubt that, as the phrase unkéTI
λeywμela in the two different expressions of Il. ß. and of
the four passages above quoted (whatever the reading may be)
has the same force and tendency, it must have the same
meaning. If now we apply this meaning to the reading of
Aristarchus, δηθ᾽ αὖθι λεγώμεθα, we must understand λέγεσθαι
as absolute, which Aristarchus evidently wished to avoid, for
otherwise he would certainly have understood and explained
this passage analogously to those others. On the other hand,
all is clear if we consider μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα as a cus-
tomary formula for breaking off a conversation; and that when
Nestor rose from table, at which there had naturally been some
conversation, though the poet does not mention it, he broke it
off with these words. In order now to reconcile the two read-
ings, we shall want to complete the reading of Zenodotus, as
mutilated by the scholiasts, thus, Μηκέτι νῦν δὴ ταῦτα λ....
But this is not an Homeric position of the particle Sn; the
construction requires Μηκέτι δὴ νῦν τ. λ. as in the reading of
Callistratus. This on vuv therefore I consider genuine; and
Aristarchus must have been the first to have reversed the two
words, in order to be able to make dŋ0ά out of them. The
correctness of the reading Taura λeyúuela will very soon re-
ceive an additional confirmation.
•
4. Some of the ancients maintained that the verb Aéyew
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 exa-
mining, 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 Homer, 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 λέγει, ἔλεγε, ἔλεξε, used like φησί, ἔφη,
eiπe, was unknown to that old language. On the other hand,
of such expressions as either belong to common usage or lead
70. Λέγειν, &c.
401
to it, there are in Homer the following. At Il. v, 275. Idomeneus
says to Meriones, who had just been referring to proofs of his
valour, Οἶδ᾽ ἀρετὴν οἷός ἐσσι· τί σε χρὴ ταῦτα λέγεσθαι; that
is, not merely eireiv to say, but properly to reckon up, enume-
rate, and so in a general sense to produce, name. Again, at
µ, ¤kaσTa
Od. μ, 165. in the active voice, тà ëкаσта léуwv éταpołoι
€ στα λέγων έταροῖσι
Tipаvokov. To which belongs also that so frequently-recurring
con:pound καταλέξαι, as at Od. ω, 302. καταλέξω ὅσα ὑπέσχε-
Tó σoi dupa, and so in a general sense of giving any informa-
tion, account, or relation. It is evident that all these expres-
sions 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 re-
late (see sect. 7. of this article). Thus at Od. 4, 308. öoa
κήδε᾽ ἔθηκεν ᾿Ανθρώποις, ὅσα τ᾿ αὐτὸς ὀϊζύσας ἐμόγησεν Πάντ᾽
ëλeye. At Od. λ, 374. (to Ulysses, desiring him to relate,)
σὺ δέ μοι λέγε θέσκελα ἔργα: to which belongs also τ, 203.
Ἴσκε ψεύδεα πολλὰ λέγων, as the thing spoken of is a feigned
narration. The only passage where the word at all agrees
with the later usage of it is that of Il. ß, 222. of Thersites;
τότ᾽ αὖτ᾽ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι δίῳ....λέγ᾽ ὀνείδεα : but as the word is
used in every other passage of Homer in the sense of enumer-
ating, it appears to be selected here to express the long string
of abuses which Thersites immediately afterwards repeats against
Agamemnon.
Mandy
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 may be omitted only where it can
be inferred from the preceding part of the context. Therefore
in the sentence μηκέτι ταῦτα λεγώμεθα, the accusative ταῦτα
is essential to it, as referring to the narratives and conversa-
tions which preceded, or which, in the case of the feast in
II. B., are to be presumed to have preceded. On the contrary
Aéyeolaι taken absolutely, in the sense of to speak, talk, would
* [Not only in German, but in most, if not all, of the modern Eu-
ropean languages, we find this very natural transition. Thus in German
zählen or herzählen, ' to reckon', erzählen, ‘to relate'; in French compter
and raconter; and in English to count and recount; the verb tell and the
substantive tale both used in either sense.-ED.]
2 D
402
76. Λέγειν, &c.
be a usage to be compared only with that of the active in the
later Greek, as dewòc Xéyew and the like.
6. Lastly the compound Staλéyeola also is found in the
Epic language, but in a form of the middle voice, diaλéğaolai,
in the often-repeated formula ᾿Αλλὰ τίη μοι ταῦτα φίλος διε-
λέξατο θυμός: only this must not be superficially considered
as a soliloquy; but diaλéyeola is very correctly explained in
Damm by disputare, to discuss', literally to reckon back-
wards and forwards'; whence arose in common language the
idea and the expression of a dialogue.
6
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 trans-
ferred 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.
appeared to the simple understanding as a picking up and col-
lecting of them; with which corresponds in the Greek avayı-
γνώσκειν, and still nore particularly the Ionic ἐπιλέξασθαι, to
read. On the other hand in the Greek the simple verb λéyeiv
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 synonymous with it.
It means
8. The expression aiuaoiàc Aéyei Od. o, 359. is, in the
physical sense of the word, a very remarkable one.
to raise a hedge or fence, which was done in the most simple
manner, by merely collecting together, piling up and arranging
stones in the manner of a dry wall. See the scholiast, and
Moris, who explains αἱμασιά by λιθολογία'.
* [The verb lesen in German, like legere in Latin, means both 'to
gather' and 'to read'.-ED.]
The explanation to collect or gather together thorns' must not
be used. If indeed aiµaorá originally meant a thorn-hedge, this mean-
ing was obsolete even in Homer's time.
76. Λέγειν, &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
πάσας δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἐπᾤχετο, λέκτο δ᾽ ἀριθμόν.
Ἐν δ᾽ ἥμεας πρώτους λέγε κήτεσιν, οὐδέ τι θυμῷ
Ωΐσθη δόλον εἶναι. ἔπειτα δὲ λέκτο καὶ αὐτός.
Here certainly one is very strongly tempted to explain the verb,
which recurs three times in three lines, to be the same, and be-
longing 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 number."
But this would be a strange mixture of ideas. Above at v. 413.
Idothea says nearly the same thing in these words;
Αὐτὰρ ἐπὴν πάσας πεμπάσσεται ἠδὲ ἴδηται
Λέξεται ἐν μέσσῃσι, νομεὺς ὡς πώεσι μήλων.
(
Here is no reference to the previous reckoning and mustering
the seals, nor any kai auróc, which would be a necessary ad-
dition if this λéčeraι were to be translated as we have done
XéκTo above; but λéğeraι here means merely he will lay him-
self down to rest,' and λéкTо therefore in the other passage.
has the same meaning. But the kai autóc does not refer to the
foregoing XéκTo or Aéye, but to what is said two verses above of
the seals; αἱ μὲν ἔπειτα Εξῆς εὐνάζοντο παρὰ ῥηγμῖνι θαλάσσης:
and no one can suppose that on account of their lying down in
regular order, λéкTо was afterwards used of their keeper lying
down in the midst of them, as that word is constantly used of
single objects.
αι
10. I shall content myself therefore with supposing in the
Greek λéğaι (as in the German verb legen, 'to lay,') a separate
root, although written exactly the same as that first λéyw. But
2 D 2
404
77. Λιάζω, &c.
I maintain, even in opposition to the old grammarians, that it
is not written the same; but that because eλeça is common to
both roots or stems, and the y appears in λéyuevoc (Od. x, 196.),
it seems to be so. And we need only compare déyμevoc, and
appeal to the regular verbal substantives, τὸ λέχος, ὁ λάχος,
and ǹ λexí, in order to be convinced, in my opinion, that the
root or stem of the verb to lay is in the Greek AEX².
0
77. Λιάζω, ἀλίαστος, λελιημένος.
1. In the majority of passages where the verb diáloµai oc-
curs 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 no more about the
Trojans, who are driven into the city, où dè deûpo Xiáolna,"
that is, according to the explanation of the grammarians, πapečé-
κλινας δρόμῳ, ἐξετράπης τῆς εὐθείας ὁδοῦ. Again at Od. e,
462. of Ulysses saving himself from the stream, o S'ÉK TOTα-
μοῖο λιασθείς. At Il. ψ, 231. Πηλείδης δ᾽ ἀπὸ πυρκαίης ἑτέ-
pwoe Xiaoleic, going away or aside from the pyre. And so
vóσpı Xiaoleic, Il. a, 349. X, 80. One of the plainest instances
of the same sense is at Il. w, 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, ἀμφὶ δ᾽ ἄρα σφι λιάζετο
2 The form λóxos indeed is generally derived from Xéyew, to select ;
but it is not probable that so old a verb as λoxñoaι 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 λóxos
expresses the very act of lying in wait, as at Od. 8, 395: compare 441.
On the other hand, as the meaning of Xóxos, 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 λóxos. The numerous words with the o proceeding
from the same form, and having a reference to child-birth, including
aλoxos, confirm this view of the subject. And we may also observe
that o Xoxos and rò λéxos bear the same relation to each other as those
verbal substantives mentioned at the beginning of the article "Opkos.
77. Λιάζω, &c.
405
Kuμa Daλάoone. And so in a more general sense to retire, with-
draw, as Od. 8, 838. of the vision vanishing away, σтalμoîo
παρὰ κληΐδα λιάσθη Ες πνοιὰς ἀνέμων. But the sense of turn-
ing aside is still plainer when joined with vala, where it has
the force of ὑπεκκλίνειν: as at Il. o, 520. Τῷ δὲ Μέγης ἐπό-
ρουσεν ἰδών· ὁ δ᾽ ὕπαιθα λιάσθη Πουλυδάμας· καὶ τοῦ μὲν ἀπήμ-
ВρоTev...: and p, 255. where Achilles flies from the pursuing
βροτεν.
stream by turning aside out of its way, ὕπαιθα δὲ τοῖο λιασθεὶς
Φεύγε.
οι
2. In the smaller number of passages lies the idea of to fall,
sink; as Il. o, 543. of a combatant wounded behind, o d'apa
πρnvǹc èλiáoÐŋ: and v, 418. of another struck in the same way,
προτί οἱ δ᾽ ἔλαβ᾽ ἔντερα χερσὶ λιασθείς: and again of the same
person at 420. Εντερα χερσὶν ἔχοντα, λιαζόμενον προτὶ γαίῃ.
With these agrees Il. 4, 879. of the dying bird, oùv dè trepà
TUкvà Xiaober, its wings dropped; in which interpretation the
reading of Aristarchus Xiaooev 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, ἐλίασεν, ἐτίναξεν (compare also λιάζει),
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 (αὐχέν' ἀπεκρέμασεν), 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 vкvά is therefore here and at λ, 454. to be understood
as the regular and constant epithet of the wing, like xλaívn
πυκνή, λόχμη πυκνή. At the same time it cannot be denied
that the reading of Aristarchus has much in its favour: Auxér
ἀπεκρέμασεν, σὺν δὲ πτερὰ πυκνὰ λίασσεν.
πυκι
κλίνειν,
3. If now we compare these two leading senses, we shall
see that they differ in the two collateral ideas, aside and down-
wards, which are sometimes indeed added, and if not, are sup-
plied by the context. The common idea therefore is kλivew,
to bend or turn, and this sense will render the majority of both
kinds of passages quite intelligible; as 'bending sidewards',
'thou hast bent or turned aside hither', 'the waves bent or
turned aside', and 'he bent himself down to the earth', 'the
bird bent its wings together'. And this is fully confirmed by
406
77. Λιάζω, &c.
the adjective aλiaoroc, literally unbending, unyielding, not to
be turned; and thus it became the epithet of a violent, uncon-
trollable, incessant tumult, battle, lamentation, &c., as at Il.
µ, 471. ß, 797. w, 760.; and as an adverb at w, 549.”Av-
σχεο, μηδ᾽ ἀλίαστον ὀδύρεο.
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 λíav and the like'. 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. Εκάβη σπουδῇ πρὸς σ᾽ ἐλιά-
σθην Τὰς δεσποσύνας σκηνὰς προλιποῦσ᾽..., 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.
ע
αω
5. On the other hand the idea of haste does lie decidedly
and exclusively in the Homeric participle λeλinuévoc. From its
form this participle would certainly seem to belong exactly to
our verb, as the forms in alw and aw so frequently coincide;
and there is another case, βιάζομαι, ἐβιήσατο, βεβίηκε, 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 Il. 8,
465. Ελκε δ᾽ ὑπὲκ βελέων λελιημένος, ὄφρα τάχιστα Τεύχεα
ovλnoeie, 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 λalw, and again this latter never occurs with
the other meaning, we are necessarily led to suppose a radical
I I have no doubt of λιάζω being etymologically akin to κλίνω, ες
κνέφας is to νέφος, χλιαρός to λιαρός, &c.
78. Μεγαίρω, ἀμέγαρτος.
407
difference between them. Let us now take a survey of the four
passages of λeλinµévoc, viz. the one just quoted, that at e, 690.
᾿Αλλὰ παρήιξεν λελιημένος, ὄφρα τάχιστα Ωσαιτ᾽ Αργείους and
μ, 106. π, 552. Βὰν δ᾿ ἰθὺς Δαναῶν λελιημένοι, 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 diλaloμai belongs, but this verb it-
self in its more simple form Aiλaw; that is to say, they took
λελιημένος for λελιλημένος. For we know that before a lan-
guage is written such sacrifices are very commonly made to
soften the pronunciation, which in a later æra would be bar-
barisms or unformed language: an instance of which we have
in the omission of a from the same cause in eкwayλog for
ἔκπλαγλος, and in πύελος for πλύελος from πλύνω,
›
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. dedinµévoι nπeipoio, and
uses also a tense of the verb itself (for elsewhere only the par-
ticiple occurs) exactly in the sense of to desire, wish, with an
infinitive, e. g. 3, 1158. ovd avdñoai àveipoµévy dedinto.
78. Μεγαίρω, ἀμέγαρτος.
1. The derivation of the verb μeyaipw, 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 αἴρω. Μεγαίρω is formed immediately from μέγας, in
the precise sense of μέγα ποιοῦμαι οι δεινὸν ποιοῦμαι, I look on
it as something great, it appears to me great, too great, too much'.
There are sufficient etymological grounds for deriving the p in μe-
γαίρω from the s in μέγαs, and we may cite γέρας, γεραίρω in confirma-
tion of it. But this latter verb comes yet more immediately from ye-
ραρός, as καθαίρω does from καθαρός. Consequently in the former case
we are led to μέγαρον ; which makes it probable that μέγαροs, as well
as μeɣáλos, was a form of péyas, of which the neuter only remained el-
liptical, the large room of the house, the great hall'.
C
408
78. Μεγαίρω, ἀμέγαρτος.
And thus we have at once joined with it the idea of annoyance,
and of envy, which then becomes the prevailing meaning. This
is the clearest way of tracing its sense in the two passages of
11., 865. and Od. y, 55. In the former of these it is said,
Teucer missed the dove--μέγηρε γάρ οἱ τόγ' ᾿Απόλλων-
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 Nep-
tune, μηδὲ μεγήρῃς Ἡμῖν εὐχομένοισι τελευτῆσαι τάδε ἔργα,
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 Il. n, 408. where the Trojans are not re-
fused leave to bury their dead; κατακειέμεν οὔτι μεγαίρω.
ουτι
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 Il. 8, 54. Juno offers to permit Ju-
piter to destroy her dearest cities, and adds, Táwv ovтi ¿yw
πρόσθ᾽ ἵσταμαι, οὐδὲ μεγαίρω. For that the genitive τάων 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. Il. v,
563. where Neptune, in order to save Antilochus, weakens the
force of the spear hurled at him by Adamas: ἀμενήνωσεν δέ οἱ
αἰχμὴν Κυανοχαῖτα Ποσειδάων βιότοιο μεγήρας. 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 μeyńpac 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
78. Μεγαίρω, ἀμέγαρτος.
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.
"
"H nè
3. The idea of refusing or objecting to lies also in Od. 0,
206., where Ulysses challenges all the Phæacians to contend
with him, Ἢ πυξ, ἠὲ πάλῃ, ἢ καὶ ποσὶν, οὔτι μεγαίρω, where
the verb implies a refusal accompanied with a disdainful feeling
toward the persons challenged; as it is explained just after-
wards at v. 212. οὔπερ τίν᾽ ἀναίνομαι οὐδ᾽ ἀθερίζω. But this
last verb refers immediately to the person, while on the other
hand où μeyaipw, 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 Il. 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,
ἐπεὶ συνέχευε θεὸς, Δαναοῖσι μεγήρας, 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 dewòv Toιêîσlaι at Od. ß, 235.; where
Mentor says to the Ithacans, μνηστῆρας... οὔτι μεγαίρω Ερ-
dei epya Biaιa, "for they," says he, "risk their lives by it;
but ἄλλῳ δήμῳ νεμεσίζομαι.”
ப
ω
4. Apollonius 4, 1670. has invented a perfectly new use
of this verb, joining it with a simple accusative: exodo-
ποῖσιν Ὄμμασι χαλκείοιο Τάλω ἐμέγηρεν ὀπωπάς.
Here μe-
yaipeir 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, ueyaipw has quite changed
its original relation; and thus we have a new proof how
blindly or arbitrarily those poets acted in forming their usage
of words from the old Epic.
5. For the adjective άuéyaproc we deduce therefore, from
the common meaning of ueyaipw, the sense of not an object for
Hence its acknowledged meaning in many of
envy, unenvied.
,
410
78. Μεγαίρω, ἀμέγαρτος.
the passages of the old poets is, unfortunate, wretched, mourn-
ful. But as plovéw and μeyaipw are similar in meaning, it has
been the custom to consider (in Homer for instance) aµéyaρToc
as synonymous with ap0ovoc, 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 Il.
β, 420. πόνον δ᾽ ἀμέγαρτον ὄφελλον. At Hesiod. θ, 666. (of
the deities warring with the Titans) μάχην δ᾽ ἀμέγαρτον ἔγειραν
Πάντες, θήλειαί τε καὶ ἄρσενες. At Od. λ, 400. Ulysses asks
the shade of Agamemnon, "Did Neptune destroy thee, "Opoac
ἀργαλέων ἀνέμων ἀμέγαρτον ἀϋτμήν;”. Now it would be sin-
gular that this particular word should always occur in this re-
lation 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 ap0ovoc to property, riches, &c.
Besides, the thought given in the passage of Hesiod by this in-
terpretation would not be a correct one: "All the deities, fe-
male as well as male, waged an immeasurable war." Here
áµéyaρтoc can be nothing but a fixed epithet, in a sense ex-
actly similar to dai λvypî in a similar kind of phrase just be-
fore (v. 650.). And in no other sense does it occur in the tra-
gedians, 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. άµéyaртa kaкwv, as an instance of the mean-
ing of great, endless, speaks loudly in favour of the other mean-
ing; particularly as it is far less natural for Polyxena, on re-
ceiving 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 ἄφθονα, but by ἀφθόνητα, διὰ τὸ εἶναι λίαν κακά·
τοῖς γὰρ τοιούτοις οὐδεὶς φθονεῖ. In short, in every passage,
as, for instance, in all the Epic ones, we can substitute Avypóc
for auéyaproc with most perfect suitableness to the sense.
* [Schneider quotes from Æschyl. Prom. 402. åµéyapra, 'wretched
sufferings, such as no one could envy'. From the Suppl. 657. Toiµra
ȧμéyaρтos, 'a wretched band, more to be pitied than envied'.-ED.]
79. Μεταλλᾷν.
411
6. This is also the only correct meaning of duéyaproc when
it is an epithet of men, as when Eumæus is twice addressed in
the Odyssey (p, 219. p, 362.) reproachfully, auéyapte ov-
Bora. With this we need only compare Il. v, 119., where a
coward is called λvypóc; and particularly Od. 1, 454., where
Polyphemus complains in language similarly reproachful, that
an ἀνὴρ κακὸς σὺν λυγροῖς ἑτάροισι has blinded him. In this
case therefore aµéyapтoc 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 ἀμέγαρτος. For since μεγαίρω,
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 another's having, so there is no reason for under-
standing aµéyapToc in that case otherwise than as said of an
object which one should grudge or envy to no one'; a very ex-
pressive term as used of a man who is thereby vilified as a
wretched, worthless fellow. Eschylus may indeed appear to
have gone a step further than others, in making the suppliants
call themselves (Suppl. 657.) Tоiμva áμéуартoç: 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 situation', i. e. in a wretched one.
Μεγακήτης ; vid. κητώεσσα.
Μέλας ; vid. κελαινός.
79. Μεταλλᾷν.
1. We certainly do here and there meet with allusions to the
correct etymological view of the words μεταλλᾷν and μέταλλον
(see Damm toward the end of the article Meraλλáw); but yet
there is no account drawn out with sufficient precision and
correctness, to prevent our apprehending that some interpreters
412
79. Μεταλλᾷν.
may still explain the Homeric verb as an expression drawn from
mining. Mer' alla means after another, i. e. in the sense of
μerá, 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, μeraλdav, which must have originally had an
absolute sense, to inquire after other things, be 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 Il. a, 550. Jupiter says to Juno, Mýtɩ où
ταῦτα ἕκαστα διείρεο μηδὲ μετάλλα. 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 μeráλλace in Pind. Ol. 6, 106. is so to be understood,
'he addressed him': but on this passage I do not feel confi-
dence enough to speak more decisively'.
2. With regard to the substantive μéraλdov, I consider it
to be a kind of abstraction from the sense of the verb, answering
Böckh, 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,
μεταλλάσαντί ἰν, 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 euir and riv it cannot be enclitic.
80. Νηγάτεος.
413
exactly to the French word fouille, 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 quarries also.
Much later is the usage where it stands for the minerals them-
selves dug out of these mines, and the latest of all that which
confines it to what we call ores and metals.
80. Νηγάτεος.
1. Heyne rejects, and with great justice, all the explana-
tions given by the grammarians of the word nyáтeoc, except
one; which explanations may be found in their writings by any
one who is fond of seeing miserable examples of want of judge-
ment'. 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 νεήγατος (fron γείνω, γέγαα, like
TaTóc from Teivw), become new, newly made, which meaning is
also the best suited to the sense of the only two passages in
Homer where it occurs, viz. Il. ß, 43. , 185. of the king's
tunic and the veil of the goddess, which are said to be kaλòv,
νηγάτεον˙ καλῷ, νηγατέῳ. The composition of νεήγατος is
quite analogous to νεηγενής Od. δ, 336.
στ
2. Now the form before us may be deduced from venyaToc
by contracting the two first syllables, and lengthening the ter-
mination. But this mode of lengthening (in place of which
that in toc would be more agreeable to analogy, as voTaтoc,
VoTáTIO, &c.) is to my mind harsher than (which may perhaps
appear astonishing) the opinion adopted by the old grammarians,
that νηγάτεος came from veήγατος by changing the place of
the e.
It is true that the grammarian, who comes to such a
decision as this without philosophical and physiological grounds,
I
¹ Suidas has collected a number of explanations without any founda-
tion; and Schneider has done them too great honour in paying any at-
tention to them.
414
81. Νήδυμος.
but merely 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. Nenyaroc was indis-
Νεήγατος
putably a word in common use. When the singers wished to
introduce into their verse kaλòv venyaτov, they changed the
place of the e, not arbitrarily, but from an obscure feeling of
analogy, which was thus satisfied that coc was a common ter-
mination, and èʼn a beginning more familiar to the ear than the
other. The number of the syllables and the value of the quan-
tities 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
necessarily present itself. But we have in the same poet at
1,775. νηγατέῃσι....καλύβῃσιν; which indeed the scholiast
explains by veoкATασKevάσTоIC; but the whole passage is still
obscure. Compare the scholium, and Schneider* on Taorác
παστάς
and πάσσω, in conjunction with Hesych. v. πάσσε.
81. Νήδυμος.
1. The word vnduμoc 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 duc, which
itself is an epithet of sleep in Od. a, 364. But with this is con-
nected a question as old as most of the criticisms on Homer,
whether the true form of the word be vnduμoc, or that which
* [The two references here made to Schneider's Lexicon refer to
Apollonius 1, 729. δαίδαλα πολλ᾽ ἐπέπαστο (where Brunck reads ἐκέ-
Kaσтo), explained by Tokiλλew: and to 1, 789. where kaλ waoràs is
explained to be the same as πpódoμos, a kind of vestibule, through which
Jason was conducted from the court into the inner apartment.-ED.]
81. Νήδυμος.
415
comes nearer to the original derivation duμoc. In five pas-
sages (namely, at Il. ß, 2. k, 91. , 242. Od. 8,793. μ,311.)
it is preceded by a word capable of receiving the separable »,
e. g. Δία δ᾽ οὐκ ἔχε νήδυμος ὕπνος, where it may also be divided
as exev novμoc. 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 Il. k, 187.
Ὣς τῶν νήδυμος ὕπνος, and ψ, 63. where νήδυμος begins the
verse, the grammarians quote these passages as a proof that
this is the true reading in the other five'. Hence therefore it is
evident that in the Homer handed down to those grammarians,
vndvμoc was really the received reading; nor, as far as I know,
is novμoc now found in the manuscripts as a various reading in
any one of those passages. In Homer therefore, considered as
handed down to us, vndvuoc 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 ἡδύς was formed νήδυμος? The formation,
like that of many others, is certainly possible; but the Greek
language furnishes no analogy. Aristarchus, as an accurate
,
1 Schol. Il. κ, 187. ἡ διπλῆ, ὅτι σαφῶς τὸ νήδυμος σὺν τῷ ν, καὶ ἐπὶ
τῶν ἀμφιβόλων οὖν οὕτως γράφεται. ψ, 63. ἡ διπλῆ, ὅτι σαφῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ
ν ἄρχεται τὸ ὄνομα.
2 It is true that the pronoun viv comes undoubtedly from iv, 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. Ruhnken, in
his Ep. Crit. 1. p. 92., has brought vnλírns for ýλítηs or åλítŋs into the
same class with výðvμos: but this is not borne out by sound criticism ;
for the explanation of some of the grammarians νηλίτης, ἁμαρτωλός de-
pends entirely on a misunderstanding of Od. π, 317.ª, and all that
Ruhnken has brought forward on this word and on vŋλitóñolos re-
quires to be made much clearer by the light of criticism than he has
made it. Nor is vητpеkýs for årperýs a case at all similar; as the only
change here is that of the inseparable particles vŋ- and ά-, which are
of similar meaning; from which, and the verb rpéw, both forms come
quite naturally; ἀτρεκής from τρέω, like ἐνδυκέως from δύω.
་
[Nŋλírŋs in Od. π, 317. seems to have been completely misunder-
stood by Aristarchus and the other grammarians. It is formed from
the negative particle »ŋ- and åλeirŋs, consequently the sense is, not in
fault, innocent. The sentence is repeated in Od. r, 498. X, 418.-ED.]
A
416
81. Νήδυμος.
grammarian, felt this; but in the narrowness of his views he
thought it a great help to give výdvuoc a different meaning, de-
riving it from vn- and δύω, and explaining it by ἀνέκδυτος,
from which one does not easily free oneself, consequently syno-
nymous with νήγρετος, which is found joined with νήδυμος 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 Il. k, 187. 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 long 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 ouuoc 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 (Il. B, 2.) cite it
from Antimachus in this fragment, ἐπεί ρά οἱ ἥδυμος ἐλθών,
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. προκαλεύμενος ἥδυμον ὕπνον, and 449. Εὐφρο-
σύνην καὶ ἔρωτα καὶ ἥδυμον ὕπνον ἑλέσθαι; and an authority
perhaps 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 'Iλeúc for 'Oïλeúc,
and ἥδυμος for νήδυμος. 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 Cyclean period. These
authorities, as well as the usage of Alcman, from whom the
Etym. M. quotes duμéoтaroc, and that of Simonides in the
probably anapæstic verse, cited by the scholiast at Il. ß, 2.
Οὗτος δέ τοι ἥδυμον ὕπνον ἔχων, are very much against the
probability of novuoc 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 tra-
ditional songs of the rhapsodists was heard sometimes duμoc,
sometines νήδυμος. Nay more, as ἥδυμος is drawn from such
81. Νήδυμος.
417
old sources, vndvuoc 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 "duμoc alone
is the genuine word.
εσ
4. "Hovμoc, for instance, belonged to the words which had
the digamma, as did noúc, in which the digamma is so undoubted
that not a single passage can be quoted to the contrary; and
in its derivative doc there is nothing opposed to the digamma
except cooeтai, which precedes it twice (11. a, 576. Od. o, 403.),
and which therefore without further ado is to be changed with
Heyne into ora. There is nothing then to prevent our sup-
posing, that wherever výduuoc now stands, originally stood dv-
μος; at Od. μ, 366. for instance ἐξέσσυτο ἥδυμος ὕπνος is as
good as at Il. φ, 508. ἀνείρετο ἡδὺ γελάσσας: and φέρειν καὶ
ἥδυμον ὕπνον (Ιl. π, 454.) is as good as φίλον καὶ ἡδὺ γένοιτο,
(n, 387.). This hiatus, when the digamma had disappeared
from the language, was at first tolerated by the ear of the rhap-
sodists in these passages, as in so many others; but where the
separable v could be introduced, as in Δία δ᾽ οὐκ ἔχει ἥδυμος
voc, the later reciters did not object to soften the hiatus in
this natural manner; they spoke it exerýdvμoc.
ע
ม่
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 ἔχε νήδυμος ον ἔχεν ἥδυμος. Hence both crept
into popular recitation, as the rhapsodist was no scholar,
and still less a critic: consequently the corrective, offered by
those passages where the was wanting, never came to his aid
in any way; and two of these passages even assisted the de-
lusion, namely, Il. k, 187. “Ng Twv dvμoc vπvoc, and §, 354.
Ὣς τῶν ἥδυμος ὕπνος,
᾿Αχαιῶν ἥδυμος ὕπνος. From the uncertainty which thus
arose in the pronunciation of the word, the incorrect vndvμoc
naturally crept into those passages also in which no other »
was near (as II. §, 253. π, 454. ¥4, 63. . Od. fly 366. "', 79.);
2 E
418
82. Noi, &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 výdvuoc, 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 novμoc
in those passages where nouuoc with the digamma (and con-
sequently vndvμoc) 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 ἥδυμος and not νήδυμος
(οὐ κνέφας ἥδυμος ὕπνος, 4, 407.), is a proof that in the older
editions of Homer duμoc 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 judgement
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 fa-
vour of ἥδυμος, and make νήδυμος appear to be an ancient error
become common.
82. Νωϊ, νώ, σφῶϊ, σφώ, νωΐτερος, σφωΐτερος, σφωέ,
σφέ, σφίν, σφάς.
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 Il. a, 574.',
that opó is the stem or root, of which opï is merely a length-
ened form; that opú is the common dual termination in ω,
and
consequently has the acute accent, as this termination does not
admit the circumflex. Hence a suspicion might have arisen
that the writing νώ, σφώ (instead of vῷ, σφῷ, from νῶϊ, σφώϊ,)
originated entirely in this theory. But that way of writing it
1 Σφώ· πρωτόθετον αὐτήν φησιν Ηρωδιανὸς, οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς σφῶΐ· διὸ
ὀξύνεται· τὸ γὰρ ω τῶν δυϊκῶν ἀπέστραπται τὴν περισπωμένην.
82. Nôi, &ử.
419
2
is too firmly fixed in usage, for us not to recognise in that ob-
servation the grammarian who explains an appearance which
presented itself to him according to his own ideas. Now cer-
tainly of this kind is the explanation which would suppose,
without 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 recognise in vï the old
form, which was contracted into ve, but which lost the heavy
tone in the course of daily pronunciation; while in writing,
the, which was only etymological, very properly fell away,
leaving vú.
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
,
し
​2 Compare Etym. M. v. rú, an article as empty as it is long, but
where these forms are directed to be written without the subscript,
with this observation, ἀλλ᾽ ἡ παράδοσις οὐκ οἶδε τὸ ι ἐγκείμενον. It
will be readily allowed that whatever we here bring forward respecting
rú, opú, holds good likewise of the particle pú, which is contracted
in the same way from πрwi, and its termination cut off: see Timæi 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
e and are merely abbreviations of the more full plural form es, eɩs,
Latin es, is; in the same way as in the genitive terminations ao, wo, olo,
the o is an abbreviation of that which was originally the general termi-
nation of genitives, os. The termination e became limited, except in the
plurals ἄμμε, ἔμμε, σφέ, entirely to the dual (ἄνδρε, παῖδε). The form
appears pure only in the old Epic duals vi, oqui; impure in the
plural terminations au and o, corresponding with the Latin e and 7.
And lastly, it is quite obliterated (as is e too,) in the dual terminations
a and w, which, as we learn from the analogy of vŵi, rú, are again in
every instance abbreviations from aï, wï, or ae, we. But these are frag-
ments of a more comprehensive theory, which I am perhaps injuring
by giving them thus isolated.
2 E 2
420
82. Nwi, &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 voi and opï occur throughout Homer, and as far
as I know without a single exception, as evident duals. For
although Damm, p. 864., maintains that it 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 Il. v, 326. ex-
plain vwv merely by ἡμῖν, i. e. ἐμοί, instead of making it refer
to Idomeneus and Meriones? Or shall it be said at II. o, 217.
that voiv points to all the gods, instead of Jupiter and Neptune
only? On the other hand, later writers (Quintus for instance)
use voïv without hesitation as a plural for ýµîv*.
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
viv has nothing dual in its termination (compare reïr, iµîr, &c.); but
an old usage appropriated to the dual the root itself of this pronoun, vw,
which in Latin, the cognate language of Greek, is plural. "On the con-
trary, a real exception is Onpnrnpe, 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 voir from an older Epic poet, is pos-
sible, but it is only just possible: that Oppian's Onpnrnpe 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.
I will here add some observations on . There were introduced into
A
-
82. Naï, &c.
421
5. According to this there can be no doubt of vwireрoc and
νωΐτερος
opwirepoc relating only to two persons. That this is the case
σφωΐτερος
with vwirepoc in one of the only two passages where it occurs
(Il. 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. µ, 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 Zephvour, which
occurs twice (Od. µ, 52. 167.), and this vwïtépny,—forms never
found in the plural,—should be used here together, by an enal-
lage already mentioned as of great rarity, merely to deceive us?
6. The same holds good of opwirepor also, which occurs.
only once in the well-known speech of Achilles to Minerva, II.
α, 216. Χρὴ μὲν σφωΐτερών γε, θεὰ, ἔπος εἰρύσσασθαι. The
idea of opoitepov standing here by a surprising enallage for
Teóv, ought never to have been entertained for a moment'. It
would be more excusable to be swayed by the sense, and to
take it for vuérepov, "You deities must be obeyed."
ὑμέτερον,
But all
that has been said above concurs to put beyond a doubt the
explanation, which is now indeed the current one, of “you two,
the language of the earliest Greek people (to attempt the unravelling
of the manner in which this took place would here lead us too far,) two
quite different plural forms for the first and second personal pronoun,
νῶϊ and ἡμεῖς, σφωϊ and ὑμεῖς; which, as they were so completely dif-
ferent in sound, usage separated into the 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, roi, nos; a plain proof that the
dual in this form is entirely accidental; and equally accidental, with re-
gard to the dual, is the sound of the w, which appears to be characteristic
in rú, σow, TOÚrw, &c. It is remarkable too that the present Italian noi
is the old Greek word unchanged. This will appear somewhat astonish-
ing to any one who now sees for the first time that the road for tracing
any Italian word up to antiquity must lead through the Latin. But do
not the old Greek forms iú (Bœot.), Tú, roi, ir, e, still exist in the mo-
dern languages, Ital. io, Fr. tu, toi, Germ. ihn, Low Germ. he? Amidst
the most monstrous changes individual forms are often preserved in an
astonishing state of purity.
See Etym. M. in v.
422
82. Noi, &c.
your's 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 opwiтepoc, as well
as to other pronouns, particularly by Apollonius, who uses it
exactly like opérepoc in the multifarious senses which that
word has in his writings.
7. The genitive and dative viv, opov, have a fixed », with-
out which they would be the same as the nominative and ac-
cusative. Nor have νωϊ, σφωϊ ever been properly used as a
dative, though the ignorance of later times may have occa-
sionally mistaken them, as in Lucian's Solecista c. 6. a person
is laughed at for saying voi TouTO doket: and this may have
been increased by passages misunderstood, as Il. S. 286. Σpŵï
Σφωϊ
μὲν, οὐ γὰρ ἔοικ᾽ ὀτρυνέμεν, οὔτι κελεύω. But Heyne does
où
"In Antimachus opwirepos was kept within the reasonable limits
of relating only to the dual of the third person; consequently he formed
it from opwé, 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
it does not once occur as the third person in his whole poem; but we
only find opérepos and opwirepos (forms corresponding in their root,)
clumsily used for each other,—an exchange probably adopted before him
by the later rhapsodists, to whom that old Epic language was no longer
a mother-tongue. Now opérepos has, 1.) the relation of the third person
(not reflective) in all numbers; and thus opwirepos stands for his in
Apollon. 1, 643. "The Argonauts gave Æthalides the staff of Mercury,
opwiréρvio TOKños:" 2.) that of the reflective third person in all numbers;
thus again opwirepos is used for 'his own' (suus) 3, 600. “The sun had
warned him to avoid δόλον γενέθλης σφωϊτέρης, of his own posterity:”
and 3.) that of the pure reflective without a person, consequently relating
equally to either; and so we find opwirepos for thine, 3, 395. “If thou
desirest to subdue any people σφωϊτέροισιν ὑπὸ σκήπτροισι,” which we
must not suppose to be a false imitation of the Homeric passage men-
tioned above; for opwirepov, taken in the sense of thine, would be in
that passage without any reflexion; but it stands here in Apollon. for
opérepos, which holds good as a general reflective for all numbers and
persons, e. g. for thine in Theocr. 22, 67. operépns µù peídeo réxvns.
82. Nôi, &c.
423
Eustathius an injustice when he makes him say that Homer in
this passage used opwi for opwv to suit the metre; on the
contrary Eustathius agrees with all good commentators, saying
that Homer in the passage in question used on account of the
metre a new construction', namely Keλevew Twà without an
infinitive, whereas in this case the dative is more commonⓇ.
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. 4, 52.
᾿Αλλ᾽ ἕπευ, ὄφρα σφῶν ἐϋφροσύνης ἐπιβῆτον ᾿Αμφοτέρω φί-
λον ἦτορ.
But here aµporépw is the nominative, and owïv
the dativus commodi to Top 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 Il. 7, 99. There
Achilles says to Patroclus,
Μήτε τις οὖν Τρώων θάνατον φύγοι, ὅσσοι ἔασιν,
Μήτε τις ᾿Αργείων, νῶν δ' ἐκδῦμεν ὄλεθρον.
Such is the text in the general editions before Wolf, who fol-
lows the old grammarians in the Venetian scholia. That is to
1 Ὀφεῖλον γραφῆναι σφῶϊν ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑμῖν, ἵνα ᾖ, σφωϊν οὔτι κελεύω....,
ὅμως διὰ μέτρου εὐχρηστίαν ἄλλως καινῶς ἀπεδόθη καθ᾿ ἑτεροίαν σύν-
ταξιν.
*
8 Damm, under keλeúw, will furnish examples of both kinds. But in
the passage above mentioned he wishes to join σφῶϊ κελεύω ὀτρυνέμεν
scil. λαούς : which the following verse (Αὐτὼ γὰρ μάλα λαὸν ἀνώγετον
îpɩ µáxeσ0a) might seem very much to favour, and by which opŵï
would be in its usual construction. But orpvvéμer standing 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 voi appears as a dative, is in Eurip. Iph.
Aul. 1207. Εἰ δ᾽ εὖ λέλεκται νῶϊ, μὴ δή γε κτάνῃς Τὴν σήν τε κἀμὴν
Taida. But this 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, vi for riv, and this dual form
for îµîv, i. e. ¿uoí. The passage therefore still wants the assistance of
the critic. Musgrave's proposal of reading yvw seems to me an
amendment not to be rejected; but then the rest must run thus, Ei d'
εὖ λέλεκται, γνῶθι, μηδέ γε κτάνης, &c.
424
82. Nwi, &c.
say, these, in order to have the dative in this passage, consider
the verb as an infinitive, and therefore accent it thus, ekduμev.
Consequently they acknowledge the v in this infinitive to be
short, and suppose that the metre alone makes the syllable
long.
This ac-
την
υ
9. I must here detain my readers for a moment.
centuation of the grammarians, if the word be really the infini-
tive, is false. The infinitives in -μevai and -uer, which do not
allow of being separated from each other, most certainly shorten
the long vowel preceding the common termination vaι, as in
δοῦναι--δόμεναι, δόμεν· θεῖναι———θέμεναι, θέμεν : to which δύναι
—δύμεναι, δύμεν, appears to be an exactly parallel case. But
the v of the aorist eduv is not to be compared with the change-
able vowel in ἔδων, δοῦναι, δότε, δόμεναι, but with the regularly
long vowel in ἔγνων, γνῶναι, ἔγνωτε, γνώμεναι ἔβην, βῆναι,
ἔβημεν, βήμεναι, in which the short vowel in βάτην is an ex-
ception. Hence the long v in eduTe (Od. w, 106.), in édúτnv
(II. Z, 19.), and in dû0, Sûre: and hence, as without an ex-
ception we always write dóμeval, so on the other hand dúμevat is
always found without an exception with the long v, as in II. Y,
241., 185. 411. , 64. T, 313. But if the v in dúμevaι be
long by nature, it will remain long also in the shortened form;
and Suμer 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 νωϊν δ᾽ ἐκδῦμεν is
therefore, as far as concerns the individual forms, perfectly
correct. But those grammarians had in their mind the analogy
of ζευγνύμεναι, ζευγνύμεν, in which the case is totally different.
In those presents in -vu the v is, excepting in the singular in-
dicative, naturally short, as in ζεύγνυμεν, ζεύγνυτε, ζευγνύναι,
&c.; at Il. 7, 145. it is therefore (as a metrical exception only)
long in the infinitive Levyvýμer, 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.)
" See my Grammar, sect. 95. obs. 7. and sect. 99, 12, 2. c.
82. Nối, &c.
425
Levyvíμuev, nor for the accentuation adopted by Wolf, Zevyvû-
μεν 0
་
10. But however correct the forms viv and èκdûμev may
be, the infinitive would make a very incorrect construction.
Suppose yévoiro to be understood with viv.-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 ex-
pressing a wish is used, the subject becomes the accusative.
And, to settle this point by one question, Why did not
Homer say ἐκδύναι ὄλεθρον, as he has elsewhere said δύναι
ὅμιλον? Nothing therefore remains but that ἐκδῦμεν should
be the optative", which besides is supported by the construc-
tion of the sentence, and we shall then have a case where voiv
must be the nominative. But Heyne very justly inclines to the
reading of νωϊ δ᾽ ἐκδῦμεν ὄλεθρον, which is not only found in
some Codd., but adopted by Eustathius, in whose commentary
we see voi plainly written. An ignorance of the more ancient
forms had very early introduced the v to suit the apparent ne-
cessity of the metre, and thus furnished a subject for the inge-
nuity of the more learned grammarians.
νω
νωι
11. The dual of the third person, opé, opwiv, is distin-
ע
10 My suspicion of Wolf's reading, which I mentioned in the first
edition of this book, I so far retract, in as much as the old gramma-
rians might certainly have established ζευγνύμεν quite as well as τιθή-
μεναι. Still Hermann's Čevyrúµµer appears to me more analogical, as
I have explained in my large Grammar (Ausführl. Sprachl.). There is
however one objection to both, that deviations from the customary read-
ing must not be lightly made in such instances as these, where the conse-
quences, if followed up, would lead in a number of other cases to arbi-
trary decisions or the introduction of unusual forms. The scholar knows
already how he must look upon Φίλε κασίγνητε, and αιόλος ὄφις, and
ὀλοῇσι φρεσὶ θύει: we will leave him also ζευγνύμεν ἄνωγεν.
To write this word, as Hermann proposes, erdviμer, is one of those
desperate remedies to which we are led (as was remarked in the pre-
ceding note) by an ignorance of consequences. And here I cannot avoid
praising the caution of an old grammarian, Apollonius of Alexandria,
who, according to Choroboscus ad Theodosii Canones, fol. 316. r. (Bekk.
1292.), wrote the optative of ourvue-ourinr, not, as according to ana-
logy he might have written it, oµrviny, because the optative passive
must be written ourúpnr. Compare Eustath. ad II. 7. c. p. 1060, 31.32.
Basil.
C
426
82. No, &c.
し
​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,
the investigation of which belongs to grammar 12. The differ-
ence between the second and third person by means of the ter-
minations e and was besides in the ancient writers not so much
to be depended on; and as some poets of considerable antiquity
used in the first person ve instead of voi (Apollonius de Pro-
nom. p. 373. quotes it from Antimachus and Corinna), so opŵe
for the second person is also agreeable to analogy; and indeed
a part of the grammarians did actually write it so at Il. n, 280.
instead of owïs. Whether the exact observance of this dif-
ference in the text as it is 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 our means of
deciding ¹*
13
14
•
12 What may be found in Fischer ad Well. vol. 2. p. 202. of a nomi-
native opŵe, accusative opwé, 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.
14 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 o as well as 7, as we see by the derivatives
onμepov, oñïes, the Latin sic, the German and English so.
This s was
again polished off in the most common forms, as in ó, is, ibi, and many
others. We see therefore a possibility of the forms où, rú, se, opé, ë,
ir, &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 e (which
is commonly a termination of the dual) in aµµe, vμue as the plural, and
in éµé, σé, ë as the accusative of the singular, to which there is nothing
analogous in the whole language; and the preceding s, which in the
Latin appears to be characteristic of the third person, is in Greek pe-
82. Noi, &c.
427
12. A similar contraction of this opwé into opú was adopted
by some of the grammarians, and not indeed without an autho-
rity, viz. that of Antimachus: T Kai σpw yeivaтo μnτnρ (Apol-
lon. de Pronom. p. 373.). But in Homer there is no authority
for adopting it, as the case of Il. p, 531. may be considered an
elision, and in fact it is written Εἰ μή σφω᾽ Αἴαντε".
13. There are better grounds for saying that the dual opwé,
σφωΐν is shortened to σφέ, σφίν (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. pé
stands for σφᾶς, as well as ἄμμε, ὔμμε do for ἡμᾶς, ὑμᾶς; and
σφί, σφίν is as natural an abbreviation from σφίσι, σφίσιν. In
15
culiar 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 ë (ov, oî) had 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 σpé is a bolder pronunciation. From this stem or root,
op, 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 opé (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, ou, we have plainly the same elements as in that sve for
the sound op. The caprice of usage has also actually established it in
the dual opŵï, opwiv; and to prevent its being confounded with the
dual of the third person, care was taken to mark it by the accent thus,
σφωέ, σφωΐν, wherever the context or the smallness and uncertainty of
the difference did not sufficiently point it out.-In favour of the sve
which I have adopted we have besides the evidence of the u in sui and
suus, which, being spoken as svi and svus, lead us to the Greek posses-
sive após. Usage has distinguished the possessive of the second person
oós from this last, because there was an absolute necessity for such a
distinction; otherwise this oós might have been opós quite as well as
that dual opŵi: and in the forms tui and tuus, the t of which answers
to the Greek σ in ou, the same u is again visible as in sui, suus; and
the u therefore in the one is quite as much connected with the ø in opwi
as the u in the other is.-And, lastly, the old Æolic dative ruí in Tvíde
for rŷde shows that the elements of all this lie in the pure demonstrative
power of the pronoun, and thus confirms that with which I set out.
15 On the other hand, opú in the second person is written thus, as at
I1. λ, 782. Σφὼ δὲ μάλ' ἠθέλεται,
428
82. Noi, &c.
the older Epics, however, opé appears to have been more ap-
propriated to the dual. See II. A, 111. 115. (in the latter
passage the dual arises from comparing it with the former),
Od. 9, 271. p, 192. 206., Scut. Herc. 62., against which I
can find but one passage, Il. 7, 265.16 In the later Epics the
plural prevails but in the other poets (the tragedians for in-
stance) it stands, as is well known, for all numbers"; a cir-
cumstance which supposes the progress of a real usage in lan-
guage, 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 opé is quite
as likely to be another form of e, se, as it is according to the
above analogy of σφᾶς 1.
14. The dative opiv 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 opi,
as σφίν fell into the analogy of ἐμίν, τίν, ἴν; only that these
always retain their accent; opiv on the contrary is enclitic as
a singular as well as a plural. Of this usage I am aware of
only four certain instances", of which two are Epic passages
in the Homeric Hymns (Hymn. 18. 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. Æschyl. Pers. 756. Soph. Ed. Col. 1490.°
20
16 "Οτις σφ' ἀλίτηται ὀμόσσας, namely τοὺς θεούς. The great pre-
ponderance of opé as a dual might perhaps induce us to fill up the eli-
sion in this passage with opí, and cite in confirmation of it Od. 8, 807.
οὐ μὲν γὰρ τι θεοῖς ἀλιτήμενός ἐστιν. But this construction of the par-
ticiple as a noun can prove nothing against the decisive use of the verb
at Od. δ, 378. ᾿Αθανάτους ἀλιτέσθαι, and €, 108. ᾿Αθηναίην ἀλίτοντο.
17 See Brunck. ad Æschyl. 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, opé never occurs; for
the passage of Herodotus 3, 53. ἢ αὐτός σφε ἀπελθὼν ἔχειν, where it
relates to two preceding things, viz. Tuparvída and oikor, and conse-
quently stands for a neuter plural, is so plainly in accordance with the
constant usage of Herodotus to read opéa, that it is inconceivable how
Valckenaer could speak of this amendment as one so uncertain.
19 Except those in Orpheus, whose singularities must always be ex-
cepted: see Herm. ad Orph. p. 792.
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. No, &c.
429
15. Against the usage of always writing opéwv, oþéac, 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 opéac 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 Il. e, 567. μέγα δέ σφας ἀποσφήλειε πόνοιο, where
the usual reading opéac stands in striking opposition to the
ἧμας, which all write thus in Od. π, 372. Τηλεμάχῳ· μηδ᾽ ἦμας
ὑπεκφύγοι· οὐ γὰρ δΐω. And this very σφάς, thus abbreviated,
I find in the large fragment of Parmenides in Sextus (adv.
Math. 7, 111.) v. 12. Καί σφας ὑπέρθυρον ἀμφὶς ἔχει.
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 voi, opwi, are never handed down
to us as enclitic; on the contrary, the oblique cases of the
third person beginning with op are commonly, as far as con-
cerns Homer, treated enclitically; thus, dn opwe, dʼn opwïr,
δή σφεας, δή σφεων, δή σφισιν. We must not therefore
make an enclitic of the acute accented opú, but it is correctly
written Ζεὺς σφὼ εἰς Ιδην κέλετ᾽ ἐλθέμεν ὅττι τάχιστα, as
also the Schol. Ven. expressly directs 22. For if we wish to
>!
21 Why the circumflexed forms opor, opas always retain their accents
in common language, while opéwr, opéas, which are spoken the same,
are enclitics, it is difficult to say. I suppose that it was wished not to
deprive these contracted forms of their external mark of contraction, the
circumflex; not, however, that they were on that account pronounced
less enclitically.
22 Καὶ τὸ Ζεύς καὶ τὸ σφώ ἐγκλιτέον τουτέστι βαρυτονητέον, ἐπεὶ δεν-
τέρου προσώπου ἐστὶ καὶ μεταλαμβάνεται εἰς τὸ ὑμᾶς. The word ἐγκλί-
ver 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 Zeus be subjected to anything of the
kind: but if Zeus be accented thus, opú cannot be treated as an en-
clitic in the usual meaning of this term, for then the other word would
430
83. ᾿Ολοοίτροχος.
24
make an enclitic of σφώ, νώ must necessarily be treated the
same, which no one thinks of doing 23. We must adhere then
to what is handed down to us, however unsatisfactory may
be the reasons adduced why vú and opú are not to be treated
as enclitics as well as oé, aoù, ooi, and the like.
83. ᾿Ολοοίτροχος.
1. In Il. 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 oλooiтpoxoc in the following passage:
᾿Αντικρὺ μεμαὼς, ὀλοοίτροχος ὡς ἀπὸ πέτρης,
Οντε κατὰ στεφάνης ποταμὸς χειμάῤῥοος ὤσῃ.
The word remained in use, although varying in its orthography,
through the whole of the Ionic and Attic æras. For Herodotus
8, 52. relates that the Athenians in the Acropolis, πρоσιóvτшv
have the acute: the fact is, that with regard to the preceding word it is
indeed opórovos, i. e. retains its tone or accent, but with regard to the
following word it is again a barytone.
ὀρθότονος,
23 The case would occur in Od. π, 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 barytones). This is the case with νωϊ, νωιν, σφωί, σφῶν. It is
conceivable that the ear, once accustomed to these forms always retain-
ing their accent, preserved the same rule in their abbreviations as they
were gradually introduced, νῶν (νῷ) νώ, σφῶν (σφῷ) σφώ. 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 en-
clitic nature, opwé, opwir; so inconsistent are the grammarians: see
Apollon. de Pronom. p. 373. sqq. and Etym. M. v. opwe.
83. ᾿Ολοοίτροχος.
431
τῶν βαρβάρων πρὸς τὰς πύλας, ὁλοιτρόχους ἀπίεσαν: and
Xenophon in his Anab. 4, 2, 3. in similar circumstances,
where the Greeks were approaching a height, says that τn-
καῦτα ἐκυλίνδουν οἱ βάρβαροι ὁλοιτρόχους ἁμαξιαίους, καὶ μεί-
ζους καὶ ἐλάττους λίθους. I have written the word in these
passages according to the preponderating tradition; and in-
deed in both the prose instances the writing it as a word of four
syllables with lot is pretty certain¹; 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 au-
thority, 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 substantive²; and
that it did not mean any large piece of stone such as is found
in the fields, but a mass of rock, which is rolled down from
a height either of itself or by the hands of an enemy. And,
independent of any hostile idea, its derivation from oλoóc is
the most natural which can be imagined. Our ideas of the
power
of such a piece of rock, of how its weight and impetus
goes on increasing as it rolls further 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 ex-
pressed by a more suitable term than a destructive roller. So
that the explanation of those grammarians, who derive the word
from oλoc by such forced interpretations as may be seen in their
writings, can only be made conceivable by supposing that the
reading of oλoirpoxoc with the aspirate had earlier or later
really become general in the current language of Greece.
Herodotus it is not improbable that the Ionic dialect excluded
the pure aspirate, and Schweighäuser therefore adopted, perhaps
correctly, the reading oλourpóxouc from one single Florentine
manuscript. But to the Attic tongue the aspirate was quite as
In
It is true that in Xenophon the common manuscripts have ¿λorpó-
Xois; but the reading or, 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
λίθους stands before ὁλοιτρόχους, is of no weight against such concurrent
testimony.
432
83. ᾿Ολοοίτροχος.
natural, which therefore in this abbreviated form slid into a
visibly different signification.
εν
3. The word occurs again in Herodotus 5, 92. in an oracle
which made known the birth of Cypselus, the destroyer of the
sovereignty of the Bacchiada; in which it is said, Aáßda kvet,
Λάβδα κυεῖ,
τέξει δ᾽ ὀλοοίτροχον, ἐν δὲ πεσεῖται ᾿Ανδράσι μουνάρχοισι, &c.
Thus has Schweighäuser correctly written it, according to the
quotation of the same oracle in Eusebius, instead of the unne-
cessary hiatus of dè oλoirpoxov 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 rρoxóc, a wheel, partly from the word
Aoc itself, and which Eustathius besides explains to proceed
from the stones rubbing off their roughness by mutual collision,)
is not contained in the word, is certain from the Homeric pas-
sage 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 very consider-
able flatness; as then its rolling down would be the conse-
quence of its weight and the steepness of the descent. How-
ever a surface approaching to the cylindrical very much dimi-
nished that mischievous usage; and so it is very conceivable,
particularly as the expression kuλívdew was in this instance
the proper one, that Democritus, who had a poetical style and
many peculiar expressions, called the Kuλopikov σxnμa (as we
are informed by the Schol. Hom. and Etym. M.) oλoolτpоxor.
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:
Ἐν δὲ μύες στερεοῖσι βραχίοσι ἄκρον ὑπ᾽ ὦμον
Εστασαν ηὖτε πέτροι ὀλοοίτροχοι, οὔστε κυλίνδων
Χειμάῤῥους ποταμὸς μεγάλαις περιέξεσε δίναις.
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 oλorpú-
84. ῞Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
433
χοις ἁμαξιαίοις the μείζους καὶ ἐλάττους λίθους, which were also
hurled down. It is therefore clear that shortly before the Alex-
andrian æra the word had received for the first time, through
a defective understanding of the older usage, this meaning of
a large round rolling pebble³.
84. Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
✔
ΤΟ
0
1. Against the well-known usual derivation of the word
oρкoc no objection can be made. Coming from the same stem
or root as τὸ ἕρκος, (like ὁ βόλος and τὸ βέλος, ὁ μόρος and
Tò μépoc,) it is traced up to the original meaning of an oath,
by virtue of which it holds, as it were, him who promises any-
thing, within 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 ap-
pear peculiar in Grecian usage as 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 abs-
tract idea is supposed to be personified or embodied in certain
phrases; and thus all the passages of the ancients are explained
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 judgement
of the ancient usage of the word. That is to say, as ὅρκος
3 Theocritus may have adopted this meaning and still kept to the
Epic form ὀλοοίτροχοι οι ὁλοοίτροχοι, between which and ὀλοότροχοι the
manuscripts fluctuate. That the reading of nure (necessary in that case)
has Homeric authority, we have seen in the article on that word.
Valckenaër however prefers reading ýüre...ôλotτpoxor.
2 F
434
34. Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
literally means the fence or check, it is not properly the act of
swearing with the mouth, like Schwur, serment, juramentum,
'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 Il. o, 38.
Ἴστω νῦν τόδε Γαῖα καὶ Οὐρανὸς εὐρὺς ὕπερθεν,
Καὶ τὸ κατειβόμενον Στυγὸς ὕδωρ, ὅστε μέγιστος
"Ορκος δεινότατός τε πέλει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν,
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 opкoc,
the thing which restrains, which bears witness, and in case of
perjury punishes. And this will be the more easily believed,
as no other mode of interpretation renders the expression in
Hesiod 0, 784. natural. In that passage Jupiter dispatches Iris
θεων μέγαν ὅρκον ἐνεῖκαι
Τηλόθεν ἐν χρυσέῃ προχόῳ πολύωνυμον ὕδωρ
Ψυχρὸν, ὅ τ᾽ ἐκ πέτρης καταλείβεται ἠλιβάτοιο.
ö
And now another Homeric expression improves in simplicity of
thought; when, for instance, it is said of the river Titaresius,
(Il. ß, 755.) as a reason for the wonderful appearance which
it presents,
Ορκου γὰρ δεινοῦ Στυγὸς ὕδατός ἐστιν ἀποῤῥώξ.
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,
Τὴν δὲ Ζεὺς τίμησε περισσὰ δὲ δῶρα ἔδωκεν·
Αὐτὴν μὲν γὰρ ἔθηκε θεῶν μέγαν ἔμμεναι ὅρκον.
In the same sense also "Opкoc 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 opкoc 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. "Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
435
hospitality existing between them', as described in this verse:
Ορκον δ' ἐνοσφίσθης μέγαν, ἅλας τε καὶ τράπεζαν
where ὅρκος, 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. ἡ τετρακτὺς ὁ μέγιστος
ὅρκος αὐτῶν: and de Calumn. 17. μέγιστος ὅρκος ἦν ἅπασιν
Ἡφαιστίων: and again in the formula of swearing in Vitar.
Auct. 4. Οὐ μὰ τὸν μέγιστον ὅρκον, τὰ τέτταρα: while in other
languages it would be a logical confusion to say, per juramen-
tum, ‘by my greatest oath', or any similar expression.
4. In this sense then it was also more natural that ῞Ορκος
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 θ, 231.
῞Ορκον θ', ὃς δὴ πλεῖστον ἐπιχθονίους ἀνθρώπους
Πημαίνει, ὅτε κέν τις ἑκὼν ἐπίορκον ὀμόσσῃ.
and in e, 217. where a warning is given against injustice, with
the addition,
Αὐτίκα γὰρ τρέχει ὅρκος ἅμα σκολιῇσι δίκῃσιν·
where the expression shows a personification of ῞Ορκος and the
Σκολιαὶ Δίκαι (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, 800. where the common reading runs thus :
Ἐν πέμπτῃ γάρ φασιν Εριννύας ἀμφιπολεύειν
Ορκον τιννυμένας, τὸν "Ερις τέκε πημ᾽ ἐπιόρκοις.
This passage might create some difficulty, as τίννυσθαι certainly
means to avenge; but then it is always in the sense of to punish,
and oρкoc cannot possibly mean perjury. But Grævius has
produced on sufficient authority the reading Όρκον γεινόμενον,
1 Orig. c. Cels. lib. 2. p. 76. καὶ ὀνειδίζων γε ὁ Πάριος Ιαμβοποιὸς
τὸν Λυ κάμβην τὰς μετὰ ἅλας καὶ τράπεζαν συνθήκας ἀθετήσαντά φησι
πρὸς αὐτόν.—I have inserted the words Λυκάμβην τὰς instead of the
faulty Λυκάμβαντα.
2 F 2
436
84. ῞Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
C73
which is confirmed by the preceding word ἀμφιπολεύειν. 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 "Opkoc Pindar also swears by him, Nem.
11, 30. Ναὶ μὰ γὰρ ῞Ορκον.
0
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 opкoc. For even in such cases as Il. 4, 42.
—ἐπὶ δ᾽ ὅρκον ὄμοσσεν· Οὐ μὰ Ζῆν᾿ ὅστις τε——I see no rea-
son why we should not suppose that in the poet's mind Jupiter
was put in apposition to opkov, exactly in the same sense as
öρkоc is actually found in apposition to Zeuc in Pindar Pyth.
4, 297. καρτερὸς ὅρκος ἄμμι μάρτυς ἔστω Ζεὺς ὁ γενέθλιος
ἀμφοτέροις. Further, the expressions μέγας ὅρκος, καρτερὸς
oρkoç, suit much better the idea of the witness or pledge of the
oath, than they do the oath itself; e. g. Il. a, 239. ó dé ToL
μéуаç ëσσетаι öрkоc that is to say, the sceptre which had been
just described and in the same way, a few verses before, kai
ἐπὶ μέγαν ὅρκον ἐμοῦμαι· Ναὶ μὲ τόδε σκῆπτρον, Stc. 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.
του
αι
Ητοι μὲν γὰρ νῶϊ πολέας ὠμόσσαμεν ὅρκους,
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 "Oρños remained in very
late authors. In Pausan. 2, 2. mention is made of a sacred place in the
temple of Palæmon: “Os δ᾽ ἂν ἐνταῦθα.ἐπίορκα ὀμύσῃ οὐδεμία ἐστὶ
μηχανὴ διαφυγεῖν τοῦ ὅρκου. The explanation of the genitive with
éveka is contrary to all usage; but diapvyeîr tuos is in use among the
later writers; as in Petri Epist. 2, 1, 4. áπopvyórtes tñs plopûs: and
in this way the sense in Pausanias is clear.
84. Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
437
same time by many different objects; as in that, the beginning
of which we have quoted above from Il. 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 , 278. where
it is said, θεοὺς δ᾽ ὀνόμηνεν ἅπαντας Τοὺς ὑποταρταρίους οἳ
Τιτῆνες καλέονται. For we see from these instances, that in
a formal oath made on any solemn occasion the person swear-
ing 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 opkoɩ 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, oi
οἱ
τοσοῦτοι δὲ ὅρκο: οὓς ὤμοσας...οἴχονται. 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 opкoc, 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, ἐπεί ῥ᾽ ὀμοσέν τε τελεύτησέν τε τὸν
ὅρκον, the meaning of τελευτῆσαι τὸν ὅρκον can be no other
than the full and complete recital of everything by which I
swear, consequently of the oath. And thus between the two
relations of the word öpкoc, 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 leav μéуav öркоv (Hes. 0,400.) so on the
other hand at Od. B, 377. it is said of an old woman, yonüc
δὲ θεῶν μέγαν ὅρκον ἀπώμνυ, the plain meaning of which
is, "she swore an oath by the gods." Compare Xen. Cyrop. 2,
3, 12. σὺν θεῶν ὅρκῳ λέγω, ἦ μὴν, &c.
n
7. The strong expression of Herodotus, opkova étteλaúveir,
(apt as the phrase may seem to be for expressing beings who
438
84. ῞Ορκος, ὅρκιον.
are sent to punish the perjured,) I cannot admit to have that
meaning. It is true that the passage 1, 146. might contribute
to lead us into such an error if pointed in the following man-
ner; διὰ τοῦτον δὲ τὸν φόνον (i. e. on account of the murder
of their fathers and former husbands) αἱ γυναῖκες αὗται, νόμον
θέμεναι, σφίσι αὐτῇσι ὅρκους ἐπήλασαν..., μήκοτε ὁμοσιτῆσαι
τοῖς ἀνδράσι. Misled by this punctuation, Schweighäuser in
his Lex. Herod. directs us in the other passage (6, 62.) after the
words ἐπὶ τούτοισι (upon this) δὲ ὅρκους ἐπήλασαν, to supply
ἀλλήλοισι. We ought rather to collect from this latter passage,
that in the former the eπi in éπnλaoav refers to the thing, and
νόμον θέμεναι must be joined to σφίσι αὐτῇσι. Ορκον ἐπελά-
σaɩ means therefore in both passages to lay a solemn oath on
a thing, bind oneself to it by an oath'. With reference to the
person swearing Herodotus uses προσάγειν ὅρκον in the follow-
ing passage, 6, 74. (ofCleomenes)συνιστὰς τοὺς ᾿Αρκάδας ἐπὶ τῇ
Σπάρτη, ἄλλους τε ὅρκους προσάγων σφι, ἦ μὲν ἕψεσθαί σφεας
αὐτῷ τῇ ἂν ἐξηγῆται, καὶ δὴ καὶ ἐς Νώνακριν πόλιν πρόθυ-
μος ἦν τῶν ᾿Αρκάδων τοὺς προεστεῶτας ἀγινέων ἐξορκοῦν τὸ
Στυγὸς ὕδωρ. The construction of the passage is, “He bound
(
Επι
ทุ
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 opkoç still predominates in this pas-
sage; and thus ὅρκον προσάγειν τινί must be understood to mean,
'to prescribe to a person the object by which he is to swear'.
With the Attics originated the expressions ὅρκους ποιεῖσθαι,
δοῦναι (to take an oath), λαβεῖν (to receive an oath from an-
other, make a person swear to a thing), &c.
e
8. There is a derivative form of ὅρκος, viz. ὅρκιον. This,
like many words of the kind, might be considered as a neuter
adjective of ὅρκιος: but it appears to me safer to suppose that
it has the force of the so-called ὑποκοριστικόν, by which the
Greek language frequently endeavours to individualize an idea*,
* [Passow, on the contrary, says in his Lexicon that “ ὅρκιον is by no
means to be considered as a diminutive of ὅρκοs, but rather as a neuter
of prios, by supplying in most cases iepóv or iepá.”—ED.]
85. ῾Ορμήματα.
439
as βίβλος βιβλίον, χρυσός χρυσίον, μηρός μηρίον, φόρτος
φορτίον.
popriov. According to one rule indeed these words so formed
ought, when they are dactyls, to be paroxytones; but кómov,
Toluviov and others are exceptions to that rule, and to them will
belong oρktov 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 (Il. y, 292.
Η, καὶ ἀπὸ στομάχους ἀρνῶν τάμε νηλέϊ χαλκῷ), this is suff-
cient to explain the meaning of oρkia тaμeîv, without the ne-
cessity of supposing that oρkia was used in this single phrase
in another sense, viz. as an adjective, öpкia scil. iepeîa: parti-
cularly as the analogy of the Roman custom and of the Latin
language in the formula ferire fœdus agrees with it so decidedly.
At all events it is clear that as early as Homer's time the ex-
pression was understood in no other sense, as he was able to
join (Il. γ, 73. 94.) φιλότητα καὶ ὅρκια πιστὰ ταμεῖν. More
remarkable is the use of the word opкia, when at Il. y, 245.
speaking of what took place before the celebration of the sacri-
fice, it is said, Κήρυκες δ' ἀνὰ ἄστυ θεῶν φέρον ὅρκια πιστὰ,
Αρνε δύω καὶ οἶνον: and again at v. 269. κήρυκες ἀγανοὶ Ορ-
κια πιστὰ θεῶν σύναγον. In these passages I see clearly that
the proper meaning of opкoc, as we have given it above, is
transferred to the form oρkiov; 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 opкiov
TIOTÓν of future peace, and at Ol. 11, 6. the Hymns are the
πιστὸν ὅρκιον of future fame.
er
πισ
اد
ام
85. Ορμήματα.
1. It will be difficult to find a word in the Homeric text, in
the interpretation of which, whether we follow the commenta-
tors or (if I may judge of others by myself) our own inquiries,
410
85. Ορμήματα.
we are so puzzled and perplexed as in the word opμnμata.
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'. 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 Il. ß, 356. and 590. where
the great object of the campaign is stated to be
Τίσασθαι Ελένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε.
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 opμaivew means to reflect upon,
think anxiously about, the old explanation of opunuara 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. 8, 261. &c., those
who ascribe the Iliad and Odyssey to different writers (called
in the scholia oi xwpilovTec) 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 weaken-
ing this proof than by joining the genitive ῾Ελένης with περί,
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-
guage2!
3. But there was an easier way of removing the objection
1 Stephens and Schneider speak indeed of another meaning of the
word opunpa 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. ῾Ορμήματα.
441
In II.
of those critics who would separate the two poems.
y, 173. &c. Helen gives it to be understood plainly enough
that her quitting her husband was voluntary. But the fasci-
nation 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 influence of Venus daz-
zling 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 ex-
pected, 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, τὸ καὶ κλαίουσα τέτηκα, Il. γ, 176. and ἄτην δὲ με-
dè
Téotevov, Od. 8, 261. considered in this way give the most
satisfactory explanation of the expression ῾Ελένης ὁρμήματά τε
στοναχάς τε.
4. This consideration would certainly be perfectly satisfac-
tory to every reader, if there were only one of these pas-
sages, viz. Il. ß, 590., where it is said of Menelaus, µáλiora dè
ἵετο θυμῷ Τίσασθαι ῾Ελένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε.
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 am-
bigua versus sententia. Aut enim ipsius Helenæ sunt opμýμara et
OTоraxai, aut aliorum propter illam," &c.
442
85. Ορμήματα.
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
Πρίν τινα πὰρ Τρώων ἀλόχῳ κατακοιμηθῆναι,
Τίσασθαι δ᾽ Ἑλένης ὁρμήματά τε στοναχάς τε.
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 explanation which
we have given of opunuara is the correct one. The verb op-
μaivew never in any instance occurs in the sense of afflictive
care, but always with the idea of reflection, of deliberating what
to do; generally indeed, as might be expected from the stem
or root opuar, accompanied by a quickness or warmth of feel-
ing, 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 ex-
pression ὅρμημα, if it comes from ὁρμαίνειν, 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 ὁρμήματα, still the στοναχαὶ Ἑλένης would always
be liable to the objection of unsuitableness as a motive for influ-
encing the Greeks. Should we succeed in finding that opun-
para 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 opunuara than
the voluntary voyage of Helen to Troy. But if the word be so
85. Ορμήματα.
443
understood, then rioaobai would necessarily express the punish-
ing of Helen, which is not to be thought of for an instant. And
even if we are willing to allow that opunuara does not actu-
ally and plainly express the voluntary part of the act, still it
would be an extraordinary expression to say, "revenge the
voyage and the sighs of Helen." If opunuara refers to the
former of these, it must express that event as the act of the
seducer, for Tíoaolai to be an appropriate word to join with it.
And so it is understood by one interpreter in the small scholia,
who to the first interpretation of care adds μᾶλλον δὲ ἁρπαγήν.
Damm makes this still plainer by understanding it of the ra-
visher 'rushing on his prey'. And certainly, as opµav and op-
μnonvai Tivoc do sometimes occur in Homer of a hostile attack,
opμnμá τwoc might mean ‘an attack on some one'. But neither
can this interpretation 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 Il. 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 σTora xác. 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 scholia speak of it,
leaves not a doubt remaining that no other meaning of the
word than the one there given was handed down to those
scholiasts. On the certain assurance that opunuara like oтo-
vayai 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. ”Οσσομαι, ὔσσα.
planations of opµậv 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. 'Opµýμaτa
may, according to etymology, mean any violent emotions of the
mind, and usage might have joined it generally with orovayai,
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 all 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. Οσσομαι, ὄσσα.
οπτω
1. The most natural analogy explains the verb oooopa to
be a sister-form of oπτw (opáw); not merely on account of
oooe, the eyes, but because or appears elsewhere as a sister-
form of πτ, for example in πέσσω πέπτω. And we have so
plain an instance of its meaning of to see in Od. n, 31. Mndé
τιν ἀνθρώπων προτιήσσεο μηδ᾽ ἐρέεινε, that any other examples,
particularly of the usage of the later writers, would seem quite
superfluous. Hence then comes very naturally the idea of
foreseeing, which becomes the leading sense; for example, in
Od. o, 154. of Amphinomus, who foresees his impending fate,
dù yàp Kaкòv ÖσσETO Ovu; and in Od. e. 389. of Ulysses, who
faces death, πολλὰ δέ οἱ κραδίη προτιόσσετ᾽ ὄλεθρον. Hence
oi
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;
>
οσι
86. "Οσσομαι, ὄσσα.
445
for example, at II. §, 17. of the sea, which by its agitation
foretells a storm, Οσσόμενον λιγέων ἀνέμων λαιψηρὰ κέλευθα.
The prognosticating, however, by means of looks and mien ap-
pears to be the particular sense of this verb; as in Od. ß, 152.
of the eagles soaring over the assembly of the people, and
foreshowing destruction, Ες δ᾽ ἰδέτην πάντων κεφαλὰς, ὄσσοντο
S'oλepov and in Il. w, 172. Iris says to Priam, Oử µèv yáp
τοι ἐγὼ κακὸν ὀσσομένη τόδ᾽ ἱκάνω, ᾿Αλλ᾿ ἀγαθὰ φρονέουσα.
With this is mixed up imperceptibly an intentional predetermi-
nation; and Hesiod in his Theogonia 551. says of Jupiter, kakà
δ᾽ ὄσσετο θυμῷ θνητοῖς ἀνθρώποισι, τὰ καὶ τελέεσθαι ἔμελλεν.
2. In the passage of Il. a, 105. Kúλɣаvта πρúтtoтα Kák
Κάλχαντα πρώτιστα κάκ
ὀσσόμενος προσέειπεν, the first and most simple meaning may
certainly be used, he looked at him malevolently; but doubtless
ooocolat 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,
ὄφρ᾽ Οδυσῆα Οσσομένη καὶ γαῖαν ὑπὸ στυγερὴν ἀφικοίμην,
which correctly understood will mean, "having Ulysses always
in her mind's eye:" and the same at a, 115. where a hope is
added, and it is said of Telemachus, ᾿Οσσόμενος πατέρ᾽ ἐσθλὸν
èvì ei
ἐνὶ φρεσὶν, εἰ πόθεν ἐλθὼν ......θείη. As these passages show
clearly the transition from the bodily sight to that of the mind',
they serve to trace the word from its first meaning to that of
foreseeing, 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 gramma-
rians, that the word oooa, a voice, is the root of ooooptat, falls
to the ground of itself. For independently of the consideration,
that as ooocolat is used of seeing literally with the eyes of the
ὄσσεσθαι
body, we must therefore suppose two quite different radical
verbs, ooooμai I see, and ooooμat I speak, and still be unable to
arrange those meanings correctly,-independently, I say, of this,
1 The verb #ρоTιóσooμaι in the speech of the dying Hector to Achilles,
Η σ᾽ εὖ γιγνώσκων προτιώσσομαι, οὐδ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἔμελλον Πείσειν, Ι1. χ, 356.
evidently contains a union of both ideas, "I see thee exactly as thou
art.".
446
86. ῎Οσσομαι, ὄσσα.
T
the passages in which the compound poriósσeoðat is used in
the sense of to foresee do not at all admit of the other expla-
nation; for then porí must stand for pó, which is impossible.
It is also to be observed, that though all the grammarians ex-
plain ooooμal in this latter way, yet I do not know of a single
passage in the later poets where ooocola has that meaning;
on the contrary, there are many in Apollonius where it has the
usual sense of to see.
.
οσσα
5. The source of this mistaken explanation was the expec-
tation of finding in the substantive oooa in Homer the meaning
of a foreboding, prophetic voice; and many are still of this opi-
nion, but they are quite wrong. A prophetic voice is called
in Homer oun (Il. v, 129. Od. y, 215.), or phµn (Od. ß,35.
v, 100.), or kλendúv (Od. o, 117.); on the contrary, osoa in
the same poet is never anything but the voice of rumour, re-
port, as seen most plainly in Od. w, 413. "Oooa d'ap' ayyedoc
ὦκα κατὰ πτόλιν ᾤχετο πάντη Μνηστήρων θάνατον ἐνέπουσα ;
whence there can be no doubt of its meaning being the same at
II. ẞ, 93. of the Grecians preparing for their departure, µerà
δέ σφισιν Οσσα δεδήει Οτρύνουσ᾿ ἰέναι, Διὸς ἄγγελος. Hence
it is remarkable 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 ẞ, 216.) adhere
firmly to the explanation of those who suppose oooa in these
ὄσσα
passages to mean a Onun 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:
>!
"Ερχεο πευσόμενος πατρὸς δὴν οἰχομένοιο
Ην τίς τοι εἴπῃσι βροτῶν, ἢ ὄσσαν ἀκούσῃς
Ἐκ Διὸς, ἥτε μάλιστα φέρει κλέος ἀνθρώποισιν.
It is true that the expression èk Aɩòc 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 (Il. ß, 93.) the rumour
or report of men is also called Aiòc ayyeλoc. 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. "Οσσομαι, ὄσσα.
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 èk Atòc, or is personified
as a divine being and the messenger of Jove. In no other way
can the latter part of the sentence, ἥτε μάλιστα φέρει κλέος
ávůρúπоiσiv, 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.
οσσα
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 Ol. 6, 106. the voice.
of Apollo answering his son is called Tarpía oooa, and in Apol-
lonius 1, 1087. 1095. the voice of a foreboding bird is called
oooa, 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 oooa here merely as synonymous with o
(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 περικαλλέα ὄσσαν ἱεῖσαι, ἄμ-
βροτον ὄσσαν ἱεῖσαι. As oooa 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
writers. Hence was formed also the verb ὀττεύεσθαι, which
οσσα
448
87. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
the grammarians confounded with the Homeric verb ősseœÐαı.
See Ruhnken, Moris, and Pierson.
87. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
π
1. The generally received account of ovλoxúra in Homer
is this, that it means whole barleycorns, which were strewed
over the sacrifice and the altar, and that it is so called aрà
τὸ οὔλας, τουτέστιν ὅλας, χέειν τὰς κριθάς. Now, as what the
Romans used for a similar purpose was called mola, 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 preserving 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 1. p. 368. 369.,
Voss on Virgil's Eclog. 8, 82., Schneider's Lexicon under Ovλaí
and Ovλóxura. This account of the old Grecian usage is sup-
ported also by plain passages of the grammarians; above all
by Suidas : Οὐλοθυτεῖν, κριθὰς ἐπιχέειν τοῖς θύμασιν· οὐλὰς
γὰρ ἔλεγον τὰς κριθὰς κατὰ ἀντίθεσιν τῶν ψαιστῶν, ἅπερ ἦν
ἄλφιτα ὑπὸ τῆς μύλης κατεψηνισμένα”. τὰς γὰρ οὐλὰς πρόσθεν
κατε
1 Schneider's Lexicon in the article on this word has ovλoxuteîv.
2 This word is evidently a corruption, as the meaning of nvito is
quite different. Nor can the gloss in Suidas ψηνίξαι, ξύσαι, σοβῆσαι,
be made to apply to this in any way. Under airá Suidas has the
corruption somewhat differently; ἅπερ ἦν ἄλφιτα ὑπὸ μύλης κατεψη-
τισμένα. This is altered to κατεψηγμένα. Toup, on ψαιστά, in-
forms us in his positive manner that it must be karenμéva, resting
on the authority of Suid. ψᾷν, ὁμαλίζειν, λεπτύνειν. 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 kaTÉY-
ηKται xooví, having a little before used 4. 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 fauorú is before explained
ảπò τîs τоû µúλov πeρivýσews, of the circular friction of the mill-stone.
It is however inconceivable how that κατεψηνισμένα or -ψητισμένα could
arise out of nypéra. Whence I think that the word was originally
4
87. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
449
νο
οι
ἔκοπτον οὐδέπω τῆς κατεργασίας αὐτῶν εὑρημένης. καὶ τὰς μὲν
κριθὰς μέχρι νῦν ὅλας χέουσιν οἱ ἐπιθύοντες ταῖς σπον-
δαῖς, ἐπεὶ σύμβολον τῆς παλαιᾶς τροφῆς· τὰ δὲ πόπανα τῆς ἄρτι
ὥρας, τουτέστι τῆς αὖθις. Schol. II. α, 449. Οὐλοχύτας. τινὲς
τὰ κανᾶ δι᾽ ὧν ἐπέχεον τὰς οὐλάς˙ αἳ πρὸς ἀντιδιαστολὴν εἴρην-
ται τῶν ψαιστῶν. ἀπαρχὴ δὲ τῆς προτέρας ζωῆς ἀπεδίδοντο
τοῖς θεοῖς αἱ κριθαί. πρὸ τῶν πυρῶν γὰρ εὕρηνται, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ
προκριθῆναι τῶν βαλάνων οὕτως ὠνομάσθησαν.—Οὐλοχύτας,
οὐλάς. εἰσὶ δὲ κριθαὶ μετὰ ἁλῶν μεμιγμέναι, ἃς ἐπέχεον τοῖς
ἱερουργουμένοις ζώοις πρὸ τοῦ θύεσθαι, ἤτοι πολυπληθείας χά-
ριν, ἢ μνήμην ποιούμενοι τῆς ἀρχαίας βρώσεως. ὡς γάρ φησι
Θεόφραστος ἐν τῷ περὶ εὑρημάτων, πρὶν ἢ μάθωσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι
ἀλεῖν τὸν δημητριακὸν καρπὸν, οὕτω σώας αὐτὰς ἤσθιον. ὅθεν
οὐλὰς αὐτάς φησιν ὁ ποιητής. Eustath. ad Il. a, 449. p. 100,
11. Basil. —αἱ οὐλαὶ προεβάλλοντο, αἵτινες τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅλαι ἤτοι
σῶαι ἠσθίοντο πρὶν ἢ γενέσθαι τὰ τοῦ ἀλετοῦ. διὸ καὶ οὐλαὶ
λέγονται κατὰ πρόσληψιν τοῦ υ, ὀλαὶ ἄλλως ὀφείλουσαι λέ-
γεσθαι. Schol. Apollon. 1, 409. Οὐλοχύτας δὲ οἱ μὲν τὰ κανᾶ,
ἐπεὶ δι᾽ αὐτῶν φέρεται τὰ πρὸς θυσίαν. οἱ δὲ τὰς κριθὰς, ἐπειδὴ
οὐλὰς (perhaps οὔλας) ἐνέβαλλον τοῖς βωμοῖς. Αpollon. Lex.
οι
5
0
αι
κατεψαισμένα, used with the view of explaining ψαιστά, as the verb
ψαίω was not a very common one elsewhere; at least I know it only
from the passage of Porphyry (which I shall have to quote hereafter),
where it is again used with ψαιστός, but so that it may be doubted what
it exactly means. As I cannot here satisfy myself about this word, I
must refer to Fas. Oec. Hippocr. v. ψαιστὴν μάζαν. From the pas-
sages there quoted, compared with that of Porphyry and this in Suidas,
it appears to me that aieu 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.
3 This is the reading in Wassenbergh. In Villoison, on the contrary,
it is τας ούλας· και κριθαι δε προς ἀντιδιαστολην των ψ.: the words from
ἀπαρχὴ to κριθαί are wanting.
* In the old collection of the scholia and in Wassenbergh this stands
as a separate scholium, but Villoison gives it connected with the former
one, thus ; ὠνομασθησαν. κριθας δε μεθ᾽ ἁλων μεμ. ἐπεχεοι· τοις ἱερουργη-
μενοις ζ. &c.
5 Thus the Schol. min. and Leid. ap. Wassenbergh. Villoison, on the
other hand, and the Etym. Μ. (in which stands this same scholium,)
hare ὅλας.
→
2 G
450
87. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
ν. Οὐλοχύτας:- ὅταν δὲ λέγει, καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἀνέλοντο, σαφὲς
.
ὡς αὐτὰς τὰς κριθὰς σημαίνει, οἷον τὰς ὅλας χεομένας ἐπὶ τῶν
σπουδῶν.
οὐλοχύται
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 ovλoxúrat had been the only word ex-
tant, its etymology, combined with those testimonies above de-
tailed, 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 ovλaí itself. This word
however is always an oxytone,-an accentuation contrary to all
analogy. The adjective is written öλŋ, Ion. ovλŋ : if now by the
omission of кpiłŋ, кpılaí, 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 feel a doubt of the transmission of this
accent to the grammarians, still less would they have introduced
it themselves, they who rather, as we see, use every means to
make us feel the correctness of ouλaç кpiłάc. And still more
forced would seem to be the attempt to distinguish this word
by its so-called radical accentuation of ouλai from another
oùλaí signifying scars. And even if we overlook all this, what
is to be said to the form oλaí, as good Attic writers called the
sacrificial barley? See Aristoph. Equ. 1167. 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 ὅλος οὔλος, and also in ὅρος οὖρος, ὁδός οὐδός:
but where in the Attic dialect is the analogy for this oλai
coming from ὅλαι?
3. In addition to this comes a doubt of another kind. The
name οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται is evidently the ancient name, that
which was handed down from the olden time, together with the
thing itself. How came it then that the sacrificial barley was
so studiously called by a name signifying whole, 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. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
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 lan-
guage?
4. To these doubts may be added a positive trace. What
the Greeks called ovλaí, oλai, 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 ỏλaí, as we find between
μία——ἴα: Mars, mas, maris-῎Αρης, ἄῤῥην: μάλη, μασχάλη
ala, axilla: μονθυλεύω--ὀνθυλεύω: μόσχος (in the sense of a
branch) synonymous with ooxoc. Further, as the Latin mola is
an old verbal substantive of molere, so is also ỏλn a regular
verbal form, and the synonymous verb offers itself to us at once
in adéw, which by the change of vowel is only another form of
Aw, a verb still extant in Homer (Od. e, 132. Zevc eλoac éké-
aoσe) 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 μονή then comes from μένω; τροπή from τρέπω, τράπω;
τομή from τέμνω, τάμνω ; βολή from βάλλω; so is ὀλή (as it
speaks for itself) a verbal substantive from eλw, aλéw. But
the Latin and German verbs molere, mahlen, 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 ἄλευρον, evidently derived from ἀλέω, has another
forma μάλευρον'.
6
-
5. Let us now shut our ears for a moment against the
account which we have met with of the whole barley in the
6 From the same verb doubtless comes (and this is a further confir-
mation of the above,) the word öλpos, a mortar, in which the aspirate
is introduced, exactly as in όρμος from εἴρω and from ὄρω, ἅρμα and
àpµóźw from apw. See Art. 52. sect. 2.
μl
7 Chrestom. p. 8. Ed. Meurs. Ap. Phot. p. 867. Hœsch. "OTɩ Tò äλevpov
κατὰ πλεονασμὸν τοῦ μ ἐστὶν εὑρεῖν μάλευρον· καὶ τὸ μία δέ ἐκ τοῦ ἴα
γεγονὸς κατὰ πλεονασμὸν ἔχει τὸ μ. It would be agreeable to the
correctest principles to say, 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 case therefore we should naturally look
around in search of the radical idea to beat. This is unfortunately lost,
but malleus and mulcare are plainly derivatives of it.
2 G 2
452
87. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
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 oλai 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 oλoc,
ovλoc; 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
invented the treading or bruising of corn, ate it whole." For
the application to the ovλai “of the poet" evidently does not
belong to Theophrastus, who was not obliged to resort to
Homer for oλai or oùλaí, 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. Taú-
ταις (ταῖς κριθαῖς) ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς μὲν οὐλοχυτεῖτο κατὰ τὰς πρώτας
θυσίας τὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένος. ὕστερον δὲ ἐρειξαμένων τε αὐ-
τὰς καὶ τὴν τροφὴν ψαισαμένων....τοῦ ἀληλεσμένου βίου παρὰ
τὸν πρόσθεν μακαρισθέντος, ἀπήρξαντό τε τῆς ψαισθείσης τρο-
φῆς πρῶτον εἰς πῦρ τοῖς θεοῖς. ὅθεν ἔτι καὶ νῦν πρὸς τῷ τέλει
τῶν θυηλῶν τοῖς ψαισθεῖσι θυλήμασι χρώμεθα. 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 considered the author of all which is
there advanced; hence, then, none of the separate subjects in
which he is not immediately named (he is not, for instance, in
section 6.) can be with any certainty attributed to him. What-
ever 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. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
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 ver-
bose description which Servius gives on Virg. Ecl. 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,-Dio-
nysius 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 sacrifice Δήμητρος καρποὺς ἐπιῤῥάναντες, with
whom he then compares the Homeric heroes as οὐλαῖς χρωμέ-
νους. 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 quoted
(as he has in fact contrasted the far or the Léa of the Ro-
mans with the barley of the Greeks,) and would have given the
reasons for that difference of usage if it had been something
so notorious. But as he draws a distinction between Léa and
κριθή, while on the contrary he uses Δήμητρος καρποί and
oùλaí as expressions intended to give only the common general
idea of the thing, it is evident that had he known ovλai to have
that meaning, he could and must have avoided giving it that
name here, if he did not wish to touch on that difference as
one of no essential importance.
9. I hope now to be able to satisfy my readers by the fol-
lowing account. 'Oλý, ỏλai, mola, 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 general name for grain which it
had borne previously to that first simple process; in the same
way as both the Germans and English call by the same name
of corn (Germ. korn) 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 spe-
cies of grain which was first in general use, viz. to barley, as
in German the name Korn [answering to the English word corn,
and signifying grain in general,] is given more particularly to
454
87. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
9
rye [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 "lupa. With regard however to the barley
itself, the old name oλn was driven out of common use by an-
other word κpion, 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 er óλai 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 between 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 enter-
tained without the express testimony of the ancients.
10. That it is far more probable for the oλai 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. 1167.
where Cleon offers Δῆμος a μαζίσκην Ἐκ τῶν ὀλῶν τῶν ἐκ
Пúλov μeμayμévny. But where coarse grit was in use, there
Πύλου μεμαγμένην.
it is evident that this coarsely-trodden barley, necessarily mixed
ע
9 When I compare the word spî with spúos and ỏкpioeís, 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. Οὐλαί, οὐλοχύται.
455
with a great deal of whole grain, must have been opposed to
meal, as if it had been whole barley, whole corn. Thus,
therefore, we must interpret the ἔτι καὶ νῦν in the passage in
Suidas; and thus certainly might have arisen in a very early
period (in Theophrastus perhaps) the etymology of the word
οὐλοχύται from ὅλος, οὖλος; 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.
..
11. 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. ᾿Ολαί, κριθαί, ἀπαρχαί. Οὐλάς, κριθάς. Οὐλοχύ-
τας, κριθὰς πεφρυγμένας. And from the corrupted gloss
Επιπελάνιαι, ὀλαὶ, καὶ πόπανα, we see at least that the subject
of it is a piece of dough, or a baked cake, which nevertheless
is explained by ὀλαί. By comparing this last with the gloss
Εμπέλανα, πόπανα, I would propose to read it Ἐπιπέλανα, αἱ
ὀλαί, καὶ πόπανα. Probably ἐμπέλανα and ἐπιπέλανα were the
names for cakes which were laid upon the animal for sacri-
fice, and therefore another form of the mola. Suid. ᾿Ολαὶ καὶ
οὐλαὶ, αἱ μεθ᾽ ἁλῶν μεμιγμέναι κριθαὶ καὶ τοῖς θύμασιν ἐπιβαλ-
λόμεναι. Moschop. ad Hom. Il. α, 449. Οὐλοχύτας ἔλεγον
τὰ κανᾶ δι᾽ ὧν αἱ οὐλαὶ ἐχέοντο· οὐλαὶ δέ εἰσιν αἱ κριθαὶ, ἐν-
ταῦθα δὲ αἱ μετὰ ἁλῶν μεμιγμέναι κριθαὶ λέγονται ἀπὸ μέ-
ρους, ας
ἃς ἐπι.... (lege ἐπέχεον) τῷ βωμῷ πρὸ τοῦ ἱερουργῆσαι
τὰ ἱερεῖα. Schol. Hom. Od. γ, 441. οὐλάς, ἐλαιοβρόχους
κριθάς.
ων αι
456
88. Οὖλος, οὔλιος, οὖλε.
1. The epithet ovλoc 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 ouλoc is the common Ionicism
for oλoc; but this is the very sense with which we can make
the least progress in explaining the Homeric passages, al-
though Gesner (ad Orph. Arg. 955.) and Damm endeavour,
in a manner forced beyond example, to reduce almost every-
thing to that sense. Far greater progress may be made by
deriving the word from oλeiv, by virtue of which ouλoc is the
same with oλoóc; but this again leaves out a number of pas-
sages, in which, if we form our judgement from what the con-
text 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,
T
1.) of the xλaîva and the ráπnc, Il.π, 224. w,646. Od.
8, 50. 299. n, 338. k, 451. p, 89. T, 225., to which
must be added the οὔλη λάχνη of the χλαῖνα, Il. κ, 134.
2.) of the hair of the head, Od. 4, 231. 4, 158., to which
belongs also οὐλοκάρηνος in Od. τ, 246.
3.) of Mars, Il. e, 461. 717.
4.) of Achilles, Il. 4, 536.
5.) of the dream, Il. ß, 6. 8.
6.) of the cry of the starlings or daws, and of the fugitives,
Il. p, 756. 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
83. Οὖλος, &c.
457
sight they range themselves thus: first, the passages 1. and
2.; secondly, from 3. to 6. inclusive; thirdly, 7. and 8.; which
three divisions we must now consider separately.
3. The Ionicism of ouλoc for öλoc 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 οὐλομελής, οὐλομελία, οὐλοθυσία, but also
especially from the other form oλoc 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 öpoc, a boundary, but always oupoct. In Homer, on the
contrary, we find without any appearance of force ovλog for
oλoc in two of the verses above referred to; viz. in Od. w, 118.
(of a distant journey),
Μηνὶ δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ οὔλῳ πάντα περήσαμεν εὑρέα πόντον,
and Od. p, 343.
῎Αρτον τ᾽ οὖλον ἑλὼν περικαλλέος ἐκ κανέοιο
Καὶ κρέας, ὡς οἱ χεῖρες ἐχάνδανον ἀμφιβαλόντι.
To which may be added from the Homeridic poetry Hymn.
Merc. 113.
Πολλὰ δὲ κάγκανα καλα. .
Οὖλα λαβὼν ἐπέθηκεν
(of the whole pieces of wood laid on the fire after it was made),
and again at v. 137.
Οὐλόποδ᾽, οὐλοκάρηνα πυρὸς κατεδάμνατ᾽ ἀϋτμῇ,
and from the later imitation of Aratus 717. Why I do not
quote oùλoxúτac also, is evident from the account given of it
in the last article.
4. Equally certain also is the meaning of ovλoc as derived
* [Under this term were included all the early Greek poets 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 see Heyne's Excur-
sus 1. ad Æneid. 2.-ED.]
[It is evident therefore that this, like many other things, escaped
the observation of the later Epics, Apollonius and Callimachus, who use
the form oλos.-ED.]
458
88. Οὖλος, &c.
from oleiv. For, in the first place, the formation is perfectly
analogous, as the verb itself in its participle ovλóuevoc lengthens
the first syllable; and both forms oλoóc and ovλoc 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 oλeiv more literally than the other does.
In the more general sense of bad, horrid, ovλoc 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 (Il. 4, 536.), Aeídia
γὰρ, μὴ οὖλος ἀνὴρ ἐς τεῖχος ἄληται. 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 Il. p, 755. et seq., where it is said, that as starlings
or daws, when they see the hawk, fly away, ouλov KEKλýуOVтEG,
so did the Greeks flying before Æneas and Hector. And lastly,
with regard to the dream (I1. ẞ, 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, besides
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 ouλoc by oτpeßλóc, only that they misun-
derstood the difference which belongs to the passage. For this
dream speaks quite plainly and straightforwardly, not in rid-
dles; but what it says is not true. Dreams were of two sorts,
deceptive and true, as we know from Od. 7, 560. et seq. And
as in that passage (v. 568.) Penelope gives her dream, which
she thinks a deceitful one, the passionate epithet of alvoc
(᾿Αλλ᾿ ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἐντεῦθεν—-from the true gate-δΐομαι αἶνον
őveipov 'EX0éµev), so here the really deceptive dream, which
Jupiter sends to Agamemnon, is called in the cooler narrative
ovλoc, pernicious; and with this significant epithet Jupiter,
according to Homeric usage, addresses it very appropriately.
G
88. Oûlog, &c.
459
5. It is worthy of mention as an error of the later Epic, that
Apollonius, resting on the authority of οὖλος and οὐλόμενος,
frequently uses οὐλοός for ὀλοός; for if this form had really
existed in the older language, it must surely have appeared
under some similar necessity of the metre in the writings of
the oldest Epic poets also.
6. The third leading meaning of the word ouλoc results from
the passages mentioned above under Nos. 1. and 2., and is ra-
dically different from the others'. As an epithet of the xλaîva
and of the λáyun on the xλaîva it gives the idea of hairy, woolly.
This however appears not to suit equally well the two pas-
sages under No. 2., viz. Od. 2, 231. and 4, 158. Kaddè KápηTog
Οὔλας ἧκε κόμας. But even here the epithet οὔλας must pre-
vent our thinking of long softly-flowing hair, which would suit
well an Apollo or a Paris, but not a Ulysses. The term xa-
Onкe depicts merely a head of hair falling down thick and full,
and ovλac 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. т, 246.) oẻ-
λokáρηvoc, curly-headed. With this agrees also the usage of suc-
ceeding prose writers, as Herodot. 7, 70., where ovλóτaтov Tρí-
Xwμa denotes the woolly, curly hair of the negroes, who thence
are called in other writers oùλórpixec. In Pollux 2. chap. 3.
ovλoc 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
Booтpúxori yaúpe orparny in Fragm. 9. of Archilochus.
Hippocrates too had the word in precisely the same sense as
Homer, using ovλy épíw of wool, as we learn from Erotian,
who explains it by μaλak; and in so doing he is quite correct
as to the sense; only it is clear from what has been quoted that
the radical idea is not softness, but the winding, curly ringlets
οὐλότριχες.
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 (here it would be
with one of the other two ouλos), the intermediate ideas or mediums of
transition joined by the same or by cognate tones have disappeared from
the language.
460
88. Οὖλος, &c.
α
of the hair producing softness: hence the derivation of the
word in this sense from eiλeiv, by the change of the vowel, is
not improbable; in the same way as ouλauòc avopov, globus
virorum, comes from that same verb, and the verbal substan-
tive ἐξουλή is acknowledged to come from ἐξειλεῖν. On the
other hand, it must now be clear how incorrect the old gram-
marians were in deriving rà oûλa, the gums, from this sense of
the word ouλoc. They were satisfied, without looking philoso-
phically to the radical idea, with the sense of paλakóc (evidently
joined with the idea of ouλoc 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 rà oûλa
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 ovλoç 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 with
a retrograde effect to the Epic usage. The Lyric poet Stesi-
chorus comes however very near to it when he uses the word as
the epithet of a wreath of violets (p. 28, 5. Suchf.), iwv te ko-
ρωνίδας οὔλας: as such a wreath consists of twisted or curled
flowrets pressed close together, which make it soft, as the
fleece was in the former instance.
7. Next to ovλoc comes the form ovλuoc, which occurs only
once in Homer, viz. Il. λ, 62., where Hector, now fighting in
the rear of the army, now in the van, is the subject of the fol-
lowing comparison:
2 For a somewhat corrected account of the radical idea of ovλos and
ovλaµós, see Art. 44. sect. 21.
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. (oûλor åcídeur); while in the Latin dictionaries
crispus may be compared with ouλos, and will be found to undergo the
same transitions. On the gloss of Erotian, Οὖλον ὀρόβιον τὸ πυῤῥόν·
τινὲς δὲ τὴν ἰσομεγέθη ὀρόβῳ ἀκροχορδόνην, I hardly know what to say;
the former part appears to me to arise from the comparison of a red
wart with a scar or with the gums; but the other seems to be an ex-
planation of ovλos for őλov, like a wart which in shape and size resem-
bles a whole pea.
88. Οὖλος, &c.
461
Οἷος δ' ἐκ νεφέων ἀναφαίνεται οὔλιος ἀστὴρ
Παμφαίνων, τότε δ' αὖτις ἔδυ νέφεα σκιύεντα·
Ὣς Εκτωρ, &c.
As neither the context nor etymology speaks decisively here on
the word ouλtoc, 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 ovλoc 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 Atreidæ ovλiy oùv Tále. The passage of
Homer therefore has been correctly explained from the earliest
times by that sense of ovλioc, according to which it is the same.
as οὖλος from ὀλεῖν, and the οὔλιος ἀστήρ has been supposed
to denote Sirius by a reference equally correct to Il. X, 26. &c.
where Priam sees Achilles,
Παμφαίνονθ' ὥστ᾽ ἀστέρ᾽ ἐπεσσύμενον πεδίοιο,
Ος ῥά τ᾽ ὀπώρης εἶσι·
Λαμπρότατος μὲν ὅγ᾽ ἐστὶ, κακὸν δέ τε σῆμα τέτυκται,
Καί τε φέρει πολλὸν πυρετὸν δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσιν·
Ὣς τοῦ χαλκὸς ἔλαμπε περὶ στήθεσσι θέοντος.
These verses give full and sufficient grounds for that sense of
οὔλιος. Nor is the designation of the star by οὔλιος 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 οὖλος ἐθείραις Εσπερος, any one might
be misled to understand ouλtoc 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 rejected:
for neither can ovλioc be used simply for ovλoc, 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. The various reading avλioc (see Heyne), old as
4 See above, note 3.
462
88. Οὖλος, &c.
it is, for Apollonius (4, 1629.) had it in his mind,—carries
but little weight, as there are no grounds elsewhere for auλioc
in the adjectival sense of evening, vesper, bringing the herds home
to the stall.
8. It is certainly remarkable that this very ouλtoc, fem. où-
Xia, should as a name of Apollo and Diana (see Steph. The-
saur. 2, 1283. c. d.) have a sense just opposite to the above,
viz. healing. I hardly know what there is so totally inadmis-
sible in the idea of understanding this form here also in its
common meaning, which is favoured by the very name of
'Aπóλλwv, 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, ovλía, ¿λeðpía. Nor
is there anything strange in that plain contrast of meanings;
as ovλoc in this sense is a sacred mystical word, coming down
to us from other times, perhaps also from other stems or roots.
But there are in the language quite as good grounds for the
derivation as it is commonly formed (see Steph. 1. c.); namely,
that in ovλoc, öλoc, lies the idea of whole, sound, healed*, with
which is joined the verb ovλew, of which the imperative has
been preserved in Homer as a term of salutation, Od. w, 401.
Οὖλέ τε καὶ μέγα χαῖρε,
and of which the verbal substantive ovλn, 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 heilt,
salvus', means in the Northern dialects (in which it is written
heel,) 'entirely', and that the term of salutation salve, answering
to ovλe, is joined in the same way with the corresponding La-
tin word salvus".
* [A striking analogy exists in our word whole in its meaning of en-
tire, sound, healed.—ED.]
† [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 ouλe. 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 ẞeλríwr, 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. pow-
-
-
463
Οὐλοχύται ; vid. οὐλαί.
89. "Oxa.
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 superla-
tive, and indeed that (to be still more precise), in the only ex-
pression in which it has been preserved to us, it stands before
ἄριστος. The common explanation of it by ἔξοχα says nothing:
for by taking away the e you deprive the word of its signifi-
cant part. It appears indeed difficult to derive it from anything
but exev, 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 apioτoc, and perhaps of superlatives in
general*.
erful), and to wohl (Angl. well). On the other hand, that oλos, ovλos
is also etymologically identified 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
heilsam]. But as the Greek öλos 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 ovλe 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 verb 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 Ovλios will be supported by the German Heiland, a
healer or saviour.
* [Döderlein, by a very happy comparison, says that oxa bears the
same relation to oxypós as the Old German word fast (Angl. very much)
does to fest (Angl. fixed, firm). We may add the French word fort,
in its two senses of very and strong.-ED.]
464
90. Οχθῆσαι.
τ
1. The principal meaning given in the lexicons to oxłéw,
viz. to sigh or groan deeply, appears to me to be founded on
that etymology of the old grammarians which derives it from
öxloc, a hillock (ảváctnµa tŷc yûc), meaning thereby the heav-
ing of the breast, and metaphorically of the mind (µetewpioaɩ
Tǹv Yuxýv). But the idea of sighing and groaning little suits
Jupiter or Neptune in such passages as Il. a, 517. 0, 208.
Nor can it be supposed to mean properly anger, or a threaten-
ing posture, as it is frequently directed toward beloved per-
sons, as in that very passage of Il. a, 517. and at π, 48. It cer-
tainly does express also the feelings of an inferior at the arbi-
trary conduct of his superior in power, as at Il. a, 570. at the
threats of Jupiter to Juno Ωχθησαν δ᾽ ἀνὰ δῶμα Διὸς θεοὶ οὐ-
paviwvec, 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 expres-
sion,) at events, actions, and words which strike the mind un-
pleasantly. Hence it is used in the soliloquy of one vexed,
(II. λ, 403. σ, 5.) Οχθήσας δ᾽ ἀρὰ εἶπε πρὸς ὃν μεγαλήτορα
θυμόν.
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 Il. o, 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 ox@noar but for the vexation which accom-
panied it. Nor can the passage of Od. 8, 30., where the pre-
dominant 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 abridgement of this article of
Buttmann's.-ED.]
90. Οχθῆσαι.
465
ทุ
αν
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 ὀχθῆσαι with ἄχθεσθαι; although it differs in
this, that it is used primarily of the literal sense of a burden,
as at Od. o, 457. Koiλn vηûc xeтo, was laden, which is similar
to Il. v, 247. οὐδ᾽ ἂν νηῦς ἑκατόζυγος ἄχθος ἄροιτο : thence
metaphorically of bodily pain, and by a similar metaphor of the
mind also (II. v, 352.), ἤχθετο γάρ ῥα Τρωσὶν δαμναμένους.
Nor would any one have overlooked the connexion, 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 alphabeti-
cal arrangement (compare opuoc from epw in art. 52. sect. 2.).
But the same relation which ὀχέω has to ἔχω, ὀχθέω has to
ἄχθω ; for the change of the vowel a to o is verified by βάλλω,
βολή, βολέω, and in cases exactly parallel in the initial letters
by ὄρχαμος from ἄρχω, and ὄγμος from ἄγω'.
>!
to
¹ The change of vowel is always fluctuating between a, e, o; hence
το βάλλω, βολή, belongs also βέλος. Compare the changes of ἀλέω in
art. 87. And for a further confirmation of this opinion, we have as
a companion for äxloµai, öxléw, another form with e, drawn from one
of the few sources of the old provincial dialects which are come down
to us. The verb vñéɣОŋrαi, subvehat, 'should import (into a country),'
and the derivative formed from it vжexéoμa, '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 accents,
which are an addition of his own: ει δε τι και ο ιεραπυτνος υπεχθηται
ες πριανσιον-ατελεα εστω και εσαγομενωι κα εξαγομενωι αυτα: and
again a little further, ων δε κα αποδωται κατα θαλασσαν εωσας εξαγωγας
των υπεχθεσιμων αποδοτω τα τελεα. The connexion of these forms with
❝x¤co¤ai, to be freighted, seems to me beyond any doubt: nor should I
have any hesitation in deriving also the family of ἔχθος, ἐχθρός, ἔχθεσθαι
from the idea of burdensome, insupportable, and classing it etymologically
with the above, as I have done before, if this opinion were not out-
weighed in my mind by another, according to which these words appear
to come from ěk, éž, (compare Hesych. exoɩ, ěžw,) as hostis seems to be
derived from the idea of strange, estranged.
2 H
466
91. Πέρα, πέραν, πέρην.
1. Πέρα and πέραν have been hitherto explained in the lexi-
cons to be the same word, or to differ only in sound euphonia
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 can be compared with it; and now
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, darüber hinaus, '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 wépa for ultra, wépav 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.]
91. Πέρα, &c.
467
however defines the usage of #épa in a most remarkable way,
by stating that it is not used in (what is its proper meaning)
describing locality'. The fact is that Budæus, whom Ste-
phens follows, confines πέρα to the sense of ὑπὲρ τὸ μέτρον,
which certainly every one will remember is its principal sense;
as Téρa Tоû dikalov, i. e. beyond the boundaries of justice; or
absolutely, in Χen. Anab. 6, 1, 28. οὐκέτι πέρα ἐπολιόρκησαν.
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 occur-
red, other expressions like ὑπέρ οι ποῤῥωτέρω were preferred.
But to say that répa was never used in that sense is incorrect:
for instance, we find in Plat. Phæd. p. 112. e. [chap. 60.
p. 299. Forster] of the rivers flowing from this world to the
world below, δυνατὸν δέ ἐστι ἑκατέρωσε μέχρι τοῦ μέσου καθιέ-
vaɩ (to flow downwards), répa dov. Again at Eurip. Herc.
πέρα
234. ᾿Ατλαντικῶν πέρα Φεύγειν ὅρων: and Ælian. ap. Suid.
v. ἐξῆκον: Ἑώρων φάσμα τὸ μέγεθος ἐξῆκον πέρα καὶ ἀνωτέρω
τοῦ ἱστοῦ.
ου.
3. It is certain that we cannot easily produce from the other
word πépav, Ion. πéρηy, a usage transferred to anything moral,
because the person thinks himself near to the separating ob-
ject. The most general construction of this form, as of the
other, is, that the separating object is joined with it in the
genitive, as πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ, πέραν θαλάσσης; and this
is the only one mentioned in the lexicons. Now as Homer also
uses the word thus in Il. ω, 752. πέρνασκε πέρην ἁλὸς ἀτρυ-
yéтolo, "was accustomed to sell them on the other side of the
γέτοιο,
sea," so in this verse of Il. ß, 535.
Λοκρῶν, οἳ ναίουσι πέρην ἱερῆς Εὐβοίης,
no other interpretation was thought possible than 'on the other
side of Euboea': 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 répav: Пépar de loco tantummodo di-
citur: at præcedens répa nunquam."
99
C
2 H 2
468
91. Πέρα, &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 of'; an ex-
pression which, as spoken from Asia, could have no meaning
but with reference to the Ægean sea, certainly not to an island
out of sight.
A
4. But there can be no doubt on the subject; πéρηv here
means opposite. That is to say, méρav áλóc was certainly the
natural combination; whence réрav was also used absolutely
in the sense of on the other side; for instance in Xenoph.
Anab. 2, 4, 20. Toddŵv övtwv téρav, many being on the other
side (of the river); and 7, 2, 2. πέραν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν πάλιν
διαβῆναι (from Thrace); so also τὰ πέραν, 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 πépav 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 clearly by tracing the narrative. The
poet leads us from the Boeotians, through the Phocians, to the
Locrians, and from them to the island of Euboea. In this series,
therefore, that designation of the Locrians could mean nothing
else than that they lived opposite Eubœa: and as long as the
idea of a place separated by water, or by something comparable
with it, was joined with répar, there was no ambiguity. If the
91. Πέρα, &c.
469
genitive denoted such a separating object, πépav 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 avτitéρav,
ἀντιπέρας, καταντιπέραν, ἀντικρύ, &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 but this is proved, first by the unequivocal usage of this
word in Eschylus when speaking of the same geographical
point at Agam. 198., where it is said of the Grecian army Xaλ-
κίδος πέραν ἔχων (halting) παλιῤῥόθοις ἐν Αὐλίδος τόποις. 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 éρnv Evßoing
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: Πέμπουσι δὲ καὶ Λοκροὶ οἵ τε καλούμενοι Οζόλαι
καὶ οἱ πέραν Εὐβοίας ἕνα ἑκάτεροι: from which passage we
may fairly conclude that the phrase οἱ πέραν Εὐβοίας 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. Пlépav 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
Tépa 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 épav
does sometimes take. At the beginning therefore of lib. 2, 22.
470
91. Πέρα, &c.
;
where a ditch is mentioned, and some columns stand répav
TOû Tápou, this will be understood to mean that these columns
stood further off on the same road; and in a similar way soon
after (p. 162. Kuhn.), Τοῦ δὲ ἱεροῦ τῆς Εἰλειθυίας πέραν ἐστὶν
Εκάτης ναός: and at c. 23. (p. 163.).... ἱερὸν ᾿Αμφιαράου,
καὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ πέραν ᾿Εριφύλης μνῆμα. Some other passages
iepoû
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 répav 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 παρὰ τὴν ἔξοδον ἥ
ÉOTI TOû Yuuvaoiov népav. That is to say, the Altis had se-
veral entrances (étodo: 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 wépar there-
fore in this passage can have no reasonable meaning but the
every
probable one, that ‘opposite the gymnasium' was one of the en-
trances into the Altis. Again in lib. 8, 10. (p.618.) is described
the temple of Neptune on the road from Mantinea to Tegea.
Afterwards (at p. 619.) it is said: Пépav dè TOû iepoû Toû
Ποσειδῶνος τρόπαιόν ἐστι λίθου πεποιημένον.... If we are to
suppose that répav 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. 11.) begins immediately with,
Μετὰ δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος χωρίον ὑποδέξεταί σε δρυών
#λĥpec.... It cannot surely be argued without doing violence
πλήρες..
to the sense, that the trophy may indeed have been situated be-
tween the temple and the wood of oaks, yet is not reckoned
in describing the chain of localities, but is as it were thrown
in next to the temple. The reader, instructed by the other
passages, will discover the true sense of this. The traveller
ΤΟ
91. Πέρα, &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. ᾿Αντικυρεῦσι δὲ εἰσὶ
dè
μὲν ἀνδριάντες ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ χαλκοῖ· ἔστι δέ σφισιν ἐπὶ τῷ
λιμένι Ποσειδῶνος οὐ μέγα ἱερὸν.... (then follows a short de-
scription of it) ...Τοῦ γυμνασίου δὲ, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ λουτρά σφισι
πεποίηται, τούτου πέραν ἄλλο γυμνάσιόν ἐστιν ἀρχαῖον· ἀν-
δριὰς δὲ ἕστηκεν ἐν αὐτῷ, &c. We see that the objects in the
town are not mentioned 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 gymnasium follows another'; but the fact is
simply this. The gymnasium, i. e. the proper, regular, com-
mon gymnasium, is named in one word, and it is added that the
baths were in it. Opposite this, i. e. on the other side of the
same place or square of the street, stood the old gymnasium, in
which an ancient statue is mentioned as worthy of observation.
Again at lib. 2, 27. the grove of Æsculapius at Epidaurus is
mentioned, and the statue of the god described. The particu-
lar temple, vaóc, in which it stood, is not named, as being a
thing understood of itself; but it is immediately added, Toû
ναοῦ δέ ἐστι πέραν, ἔνθα οἱ ἱκέται τοῦ θεοῦ καθεύδουσιν. We
οι
must indeed have recourse to most artificial means to force
out of these words the sense of on the other side: whereas no-
thing is more natural than that opposite 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 wépav otherwise
in the passages before mentioned (2, 22. and 23.); on the con-
trary, the sense of opposite will appear in every instance to be
the most natural both in the expression and in the thing itself.
7. We will now show by some examples from other writers.
that this form Téρav does however deviate from the relative
meaning first laid down, viz. that of trans, and makes a trans-
ition to its near neighbour ultra. When in the Theogonia,
v. 814., the residence of the Titans is placed Téρηv xácoc Co-
pepoîo, this may still be compared, as far as a general repre-
472
91. Πέρα, &c.
sentation of it can be made, with the πέρην ἁλός, πέρην ὠκεα-
voto. But in Pindar Isth. 6, 34. we read, that the fame of
νοῖο.
great exploits penetrates καὶ πέραν Νείλοιο παγᾶν καὶ δι᾽ Ὑπερ-
Bopéove. Here the sources of the Nile are evidently supposed
to be a boundary of the known world, and wépɑv means beyond
in the full sense of ultra; still however differing in one point.
from the examples given above (sect. 2.) of répa as a term of
locality, viz. that here there is no motion over the boundary.
What the exact meaning of πέραν Ινδῶν is, as quoted by Ste-
phens from a later work, entitled De Mundo, I know not: but
in the expression of Euripides Hipp. 1053. (to drive any one)
Πέραν γε πόντου καὶ τόπων ᾿Ατλαντικῶν, πέραν is to be con-
sidered as in construction with TóvToυ only, to which (not to
Tépav) the other is joined. On the other hand, the passage in
a chorus of the Alcestes 588. is decisive, where the hind dances.
to the lyre of Apollo, ὑψικόμων πέραν βαίνουσ᾽ ἐλατῶν, ‘going
beyond the firs', i. e. leaving the wood; and another (Suppl.
676.) where the charioteers drive their chariots éрav úλλn-
Awv, beyond each other, i. e. each passing his enemy; on which
see Hermann's explanation. Thus we are very near the mean-
ing 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 directions, keep-
ing only within the bounds of what is intelligible.
ου
π
8. I must here examine one other poetical passage in which
the word Téρny 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:
Ἐκ δὲ τόθεν μακάρεσσι δυώδεκα δωμήσαντες
Βωμὸν ἁλὸς ῥηγμῖνι πέρην, καὶ ἐφ᾽ ἱερὰ θέντες,
Νῆα θοὴν εἴσβαινον ἐρεσσέμεν. . .
K
The scholiast keeps to the most common meaning of répŋv in the
following periphrasis; Μετὰ ταῦτα πλεύσαντες εἰς τὸ πέραν τῆς
ἁλὸς, ἤγουν εἰς τὴν ᾿Ασίαν, βωμὸν ἐν τῷ αἰγιαλῷ ᾠκοδόμησαν.
,
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 : Ἐν δὲ τῷ πέραν, φησὶν, αἰγιαλῷ τῆς ᾿Ασίας, διαπλεύσαντες ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν,
βωμὸν..... ἐδομήσαντο.
91. Πέρα, &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 πépny, their going on board
preparatory to setting sail. He tries to interpret or amend the
word πépηy, 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 avrimépny is joined
with a dative, we might understand onyuivi népny to mean 'op-
posite (i. e. in sight of) the breakers'. But what the scholiast
further tells us must prevent our doing so. Φανερὸν οὖν ἐστιν
ἐν Εὐρώπῃ. καὶ γὰρ ἔτι καὶ νῦν Ἱερόν ἐστιν οὕτω καλούμενον
yàp kai
ἐν τῷ πέραν τῆς Εὐρώπης τῆς ᾿Ασιάδος. (In this late Grecian
writer we observe another instance of that usage of πépav; for
the construction is τῆς ᾿Ασιάδος ἐν τῷ πέραν τῆς Εὐρώπης.)
The words φανερὸν οὖν ἐστιν ἐν Εὐρώπη (which are wanting
in the Paris collection of the scholia) I can only understand to
mean, that the situation of the altar is visible from the Euro-
pean side; where the interpreter in his expression grounds.
the use of the present on the yap following. In the Paris
collection the remainder runs thus: Ὁ δὲ τόπος ἐν ᾧ τὸν
βωμὸν ᾠκοδόμουν ἔτι καὶ νῦν Ἱερὸν καλεῖται. I have distin-
guished the word 'Iepóv as a proper name; for this is the place
at the entrance of the Pontus which Polybius quotes as тò κa-
τὸ
λovμevov Tepór (see lib. 4. c. 39. 50. 52.), and which is some-
times called by this name in Demosthenes (ἐφ᾿ Ἱερῷ, ἐφ᾽ Ἱερόν,
Leptin. §. 29. Lacrit. p. 926, 5. Polycl. p. 1211.), and in the
Periplus of Scylax, p. 28. Hudson. In Strabo it is called Tò
Ἱερὸν τὸ Χαλκηδόνιον (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
91. Πέρα, &c.
^
ου
TO
T
to the Paris manuscript) the following: Tuoo0évnc dé Pnoi,
Tòv µèv Õpíčov (in the common edition, perhaps more correctly,
τοὺς μὲν Φρίξου παῖδας) βωμὸν τῶν δώδεκα θεῶν ἱδρύσασθαι,
τοὺς δὲ ᾿Αργοναύτας τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος. Ηρόδωρος δὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ
αὐτοῦ βωμοῦ τεθυκέναι τοὺς ᾿Αργοναύτας φησὶν ἐφ᾽ οὗ καὶ
῎Αργος ὁ Φρίξου ἐπανιὼν ἐτεθύκει. To this I subjoin what
Marcian of Heraclea (p. 69. Hudson) quotes from the voyage
of Menippus: Κατὰ τὸν Θρᾴκιον Βόσπορον καὶ τὸ στόμα τοῦ
Εὐξείνου Πόντου, ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς τῆς ᾿Ασίας μέρεσιν ἅπερ ἐστὶ
τοῦ Βιθύνων ἔθνους, κεῖται χωρίον Ἱερὸν καλούμενον ἐν ᾧ νεώς
ἐστι Διὸς Οὐρίου προσαγορευόμενος. τοῦτο δὲ χωρίον ἀφετήριόν
ἐστι τῶν εἰς Πόντον πλεόντων, I have placed all these pas-
sages here together, that there may be no doubt of their all
meaning the same place; which moreover is known by the
more complete appellation of the Temple of Jupiter Urius,
further particulars of which may be seen in Chishull's Antiq.
Asiat. p. 61., Tzschuck. ad Pomp. Mel. 1, 19, 5.³ We see,
further, that this spot was fabled to have been dedicated pro-
perly and originally to the twelve deities; and as this very circum-
stance is related in the passage of Apollonius, it is not possible
3 As I quote Chishull, I must also correct what in him needs correc-
tion. 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 Imperatorem, quem Græci Optov nominant." One
is naturally surprised at this Latin appellation; and Chishull thrice pro-
poses to read there Impuberis, Impuberem, explaining the youthful Ju-
piter, who was worshiped in many places, to be properly this Juppiter
Serenus or Ovpios. This supposition has something to recommend it,
and I once thought to be able to make it more probable by substituting
the name of Juppiter Imberbis, from comparing the passages in Schol.
Acr. and Cruq. on Hor. Sat. 5, 26. and Pausan. 5, 24. bis. But every-
thing 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 mean 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 kingdom of the other gods, and consequently in the kingdom of
Neptune.
92. Παρ.
475
to suppose that this learned poet spoke of any other than that
same temple, which was the most celebrated in the neighbour-
hood, that he followed any other than those universally known
fables, or that he thoughtlessly altered them. It follows there-
fore from what has been said that répηy in this passage is used
in its common meaning; which in this particular instance, where
the poet has expressly transported the reader into those cele-
brated 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 scho-
liast supplies by Tλevoavτec), for the word wépny of itself im-
plied that. Besides, in so narrow a strait-the Bosporus there
being only from four to five stadia broad—the temporary resi-
dence or occupation of those heroes on both shores may be con-
sidered as on 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 apeτnpiov of
the Pontus.
Πευκάλιμος, πευκεδανός ; vid. έχεπευκής.
92. Πίαρ.
1. All analogy makes the word map to be a neuter substantive,
from the same root of which Tiwv is the adjective; consequently
Tiwv, fat, map, 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 βοῶν ἐκ πῖαρ ἑλέσθαι', the explanation, old
as it certainly is, of the lion always choosing out (Il. p, 62.) the
best and fattest cow, will longer find supporters. Heyne makes
a very apt comparison of the expression ἐκ θυμὸν ἑλέσθαι. 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
476
92. Παρ.
cow, whose superiority lies in her fat, of which the beast of prey
is particularly ravenous.
2. But in the third Homeric passage, Od. 1, 135., this same
word is now pretty generally taken for the adjective, and
written accordingly,
ἐπεὶ μάλα πῖαρ ὕπ᾽ οὖδας,
T
S
where before was written un': according to which accentuation,
if it could be depended on, wîap 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 λιπαρὸν, εὔγειον, which cannot be taken as the ex-
planation of an abstract substantive, but can only be joined
with oudac; consequently the preposition must stand for the
verb TEOTI, for fat is the soil beneath'.
ὕπεστι,
A
T
3. I will not assert it to be improbable that wîap should be
at the same time substantive and adjective; for if the last pas-
sage be correctly explained, wap is always an adjective, and vò
map, i. e. Tò λmapòv, that which is fat, stands in the first pas-
τὸ
sage also for rò Ximoc, the fat. But then I cannot but feel
surprised at nowhere finding a word to confirm the analogy
of the neuter adjective map. The only one which can be
brought forward I will at once mention, and it must be im-
possible not to confess that this is completely begging the
question. It is, that map must be at once masculine and
neuter; in the same way as μákap, if it occurs anywhere as
a neuter, can only be written μákap. Perhaps also the p of
the feminine form riepa has been supposed to furnish grounds.
for the existence of an adjective ap; but this cannot be
satisfactory; for μάκαρ has μάκαιρα, and πίειρα could there-
fore come only from inp; unless -eipa should be introduced
even without any such grounds as a feminine sister-form, as in
Tρéoßeipa. That is to say, as -np and -eipa 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 éreì páda
πῖον ὑπ᾽ οἶδας. The form ὁ, ἡ πίων, τὸ πῖον is complete in
π
π
92. Παρ.
477
Homer, for he has πίονι δήμῳ, πίονες αἶγες, and as a neuter
πίονα μηρία and πίονος ἀδύτοιο. Where the form πίειρα 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 îov sometimes rap, or, if you will, by metaplasmus map,
gen. iovoc, plur. iova, 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 µála, which indeed one is accustomed
to see joined only with attributives, consequently sometimes
with adjectives and adverbs, sometimes with verbs. On the
other hand wîap, the fat, fertility, is a separate and indepen-
dent word, with which of course an adverb like µáλa cannot be
joined. But it must also be considered that µáda 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 glänzet sehr, ‘he shines very (much)', er bittet sehr,
'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 Il. Y, 25. μάλα
γάρ τε κατεσθίει (the stag), and so also at κ, 108. σοὶ μάλ
you' èyú, "I will certainly, or very willingly, follow thee
ἐγώ,
wherever thou leadest." And again the expressions at p, 67.
μάλα γὰρ χλωρὸν δέος αἱρεῖ (where certainly no one would
think of joining μάλα χλωρόν), and at 399. οὐδ᾽ εἰ μάλα μιν
χόλος ἵκει, and at ψ, 308. οὔτι μάλα χρεώ, are sufficiently
similar to πᾶάρ ἐστιν ὑπ᾽ οὖδας to prevent this latter (sup-
posing it to have been a current phrase, and introduced, as it
is, by the strengthening µáλa,) from appearing to us so strange,
that we should prefer the groundless supposition of rap being
G
* [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 valdè comes nearer to the German.-ED.]
478
92. Παρ.
an adjective when the metre does not require it, and we have
already the analogous πῖον.
*/
UTO
4. Let us now examine the vπó in both kinds of expression.
The absolute vπó or πо 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 ἐπεὶ μάλα πῖον ὑπ᾽ οὖδας. But in the passage in
question mention had just before been made of a corn-field
(Aniov), and one indeed not actually existing; for on the sup-
position that the Cyclops would cultivate their land, it is said,
· μάλα κεν βαθὺ λήϊον αἰεὶ
•
Εἰς ὥρας ἀμῷεν· ἐπεὶ μάλα πῖαρ ὑπ᾽ οὖδας.
υπο
In this passage therefore, if we accent vπ', and join πîap ov-
Sac, it is difficult to say to what the word under relates. This
want of a relation for To seems to me still more sensibly felt
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 ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι πῖαρ ὑπ᾽
ovdac. Here, in order to find some grounds for taking o
ὕπο
for veσTI (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, Πουλύποδες δ᾽ ἐν ἐμοὶ θαλάμας.....ποιήσονται. The true
account is, that the island itself is here supposed to be talking
intelligibly with the goddess Latona; and vπó 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 èreì οv µáda тoi
ὕπο πῖαρ. But instead of ὕπο the sentence is completed by
ὑπ᾿ οὖδας. The word οὖδας too appears to me better suited
to our view of the meaning than to any other.
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
d'
ου
Nowhere else
ا
92. Παρ.
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 πῖαρ ὑπ᾽ οἶδας
appears 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,
*Ανθρωποί τοι πάντες ἀγινήσουσ᾽ ἑκατόμβας
Ἐνθάδ' ἀγειρόμενοι, κνίσση δέ τοι ἄσπετος αἰεὶ,
Δηρὸν ἄναξ εἰ βόσκοις, θεοί κέ σ᾽ ἔχωσιν
Χειρὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίης· ἐπεὶ οὔ τοι πῖαρ ὑπ᾽ οὖδας.”
The third verse, we see, is quite destroyed. Hermann restores it thus:
Δηρὸν ἄναξ βύσκοι σε, θεοὶ δέ κέ σ' αἰὲν ἔχωσιν.
Yet because the sense ends so well with aσTeros aici, but the con-
nexion between that and Aŋpóv is so very slight that we may without
improbability suspect it to be one of those patchings so frequent 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 sup-
pose 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 Matthiæ 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 nations. But now, as far as regards the restoration of the verse,
which, whether interpolated or not, must have had a meaning, there
can be scarcely any doubt as to the former half of it, as Hermann's
restoration is confirmed by the cæsura alone, and BóokeLY can mean
only an action of the god. For, as Ilgen aptly observes, Bóoкe can
only be used with reference to an animal, or (but still not without a
degradation 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 dé; and the ré belonging to exwo is cer-
tainly found in the verse. Whether exwow is to be changed into exolev,
I leave to those, who may also decide whether Wolf in an exactly si-
milar case (I. w, 655.) is right in having changed the yévnraι of all
<<
480
92. Παρ.
T
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 map. For
the gloss of Apollonius, πῖαρ, τὸ λιπαρὸν καὶ πιότατον, 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
Tap. 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 prede-
cessors could have passed it over without remarking that wîap,
which in the Iliad and all succeeding poets is a substantive, is
here 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 like-
wise no trifling confirmation. For when it is said of Vesta at
v. 30 of that Hymn,
Καί τε μέσῳ οἴκῳ κατ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἕζετο, πῖαρ ἑλοῦσα,
here too the transition from the adjective to the substantive is
not possible; but map 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.
the manuscripts into yérotto. Thus much therefore of the above verse
stands almost established:
Δηρὸν ἄναξ βόσκοι σε, θεοὶ δέ κε
ἔχωσιν,
and the question is, what are we to substitute for the o', 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 inhabi-
tants, and sacrifices for the gods, the sense of the accusative, which is
wanting before exwoi, seems to me clear; and I propose to fill it up
thus until something better can be found,
Δηρὸν ἄναξ βόσκοι σε, θεοὶ δέ κε μηρί᾽ ἔχωσιν
Χειρὸς ἀπ᾽ ἀλλοτρίης·
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. Ποιπνύειν.
1. This word is very often used of a person serving and wait-
ing on another, as at Il. o, 421. w, 475., and yet it does not
contain this idea, but the general one of active exertion, as is
clear from Il. §, 155. where Juno sees Neptune busily occupied
on the field of battle, Τὸν μὲν ποιπνύοντα μάχην ἀνὰ κυδιάνειραν.
And hence in Od. v, 149. it is joined to the idea of service,
and the female servants are ordered δῶμα κορήσατε ποιπνύσασαι.
The word represents therefore the idea which we express by
to move and bustle about: and it is this busy bustling which
so amuses the gods in the limping Vulcan' at Il. a, 600.
TO
2. The grammarians have two derivations for this word.
They acknowledged that it is a reduplication, (for those who
looked in the first syllable for the idea of Toteîv do not come
under our consideration,) and were only in doubt whether it
was from πονέω or from πνέω. The meaning seems to favour
the former, as a breathless motion is too strong, at least for
Il. w, 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 de-
rivation from wovéw to give any correct grounds for the oɩ 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
υ
¹ Heyne furnishes us here with a strong instance of the way n 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 doẞeoros yéλws 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 does allow to have some effect (“ accedente novitate rei, quod
Vulcanus pincernæ 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 was always called ἀμφιγυήεις, κυλ-
NoTodiwr, was, like all the superior gods, an intimate acquaintance of
every Grecian, and no one could imagine him moving without seeing
him limp.
21
482
93. Ποιπνύειν.
δείκνυμι, δεικνύω. If on the other hand we set out with πνέω,
οι
TOIT
<
TVUTо, we have the stem or root plainly before us, and the ot
in the reduplication is confirmed by ποιφύσσω from φυσάω, and
doidvę from dúw; for or is near akin to v, and reduplications are
fond of such affinities. But with regard to the meaning it is
clear that woνów is a primitive 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 ques-
tion of importance, whether TоITVUеw, as used of the very mo-
derate exertion of the heroes attendant on Achilles, is not a trace
of the later poet, whom the ancients thought they recognised in
w, 24. of the Iliad? For as soon as any poet used toivei
ποιπνύειν
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:
ม
. ἀμφὶ δὲ νύμφαι
῾Εσπερίδες ποίπνυον ἐφίμερον ἀείδουσαι.
3. The use of the aorist of this verb requires a little more
examination. At Il. a, 600. some old copies had Qc idov
Ηφαιστον....ποιπνύσαντα. On the contrary at Od. v, 149.
with κορήσατε ποιπνύσασαι we have the various reading ποιπνύ-
ουσαι. 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. Phæd. 10. As little attention
therefore is to be paid to the various reading wiνúοvσαι here
as to the other ποιπνύσαντα at Il. a., for there ὡς ἴδον ποιπνύοντα
is quite as necessary as ἔγνω τὸν μὲν ποιπνύοντα at Il. ξ, 155.
Let us now turn to a third passage, Il. 0, 219.
TOLT
Εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ φρεσὶ θῆκ᾽ ᾿Αγαμέμνονι πότνια "Ηρη
Αὐτῷ ποιπνύσαντι θοῶς ὀτρῦναι ᾿Αχαιούς,
ΤΟ
where there is no various reading, and we must endeavour to
understand the participle TovúσavTI in the same way as at
Od. v.
The common punctuation, which incloses aur TOL-
TvúσavTι between two commas, supposes this participle to be
ποι
94. Πρήθειν.
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.
Ἔνθ᾽ οὔτ᾽ Ἰδομενεὺς τλῆ μίμνειν, οὔτ᾽ ᾿Αγαμέμνων,
Οὔτε δύ' Αἴαντες μενέτην, θεράποντες ῎Αρηος.
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 αὐτῷ ποιπνύσαντι
with oτpuvat, in order that Juno may put it into Agamemnon's
mind,
Selber umher sich tummelnd die Danaer schnell zu ermunternt.
Now then both verbs stand correctly in the aorist, as at Od. v.,
to express the quick completion of the thing, for in the impe-
rative it would be αὐτὸς ποιπνύσας ὄτρυνον, &c.
94. Πρήθειν.
1. The verb phew means in the first place to burn in a
transitive sense, which meaning is expressed in common Greek
by the present πίμπρημι. II. ι, 589. ἐνέπρηθον μέγα ἄστυ.
The other tenses or forms are found indifferently both in the
Epic and in the common language; for instance the aorist
ëπρnoa, évéπρnoa, to burn the ships, the gate, II. 0, 217. x, 374.
B, 415.; to which is commonly added πupi or tuρóc, with fire.
(%
* ["Had not venerated Juno put it into the mind of Agamemnon,
was also himself hurrying about, to inspirit the Greeks."-ED.]
† [“Himself hurrying about to inspirit the Grecians."-ED.]
who
212
484
94. Πρήθειν.
The shortening of the long vowel of this tense to empeσe in
Hesiod 0, 856. is remarkable, of which I have taken notice in
my Grammar.
or
2. Besides 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 Il. π, 350. τὸ δὲ (αἷμα) ἀνὰ στόμα καὶ κατὰ ῥῖνας Πρῆσε
Xavov, "be made the blood stream (i. e. the blood streamed)
from his mouth and nose." So at Il. ι, 433. δάκρυ᾿ ἀναπρήσας,
shedding tears. Used of the wind we find ἔπρησεν οι ἐνέπρησε
with the accusative of the object against which the wind blows
with force, Il. a, 481. and Od. ß, 427. 'Ev 8' aveμос πρñσεv
(οι ῎Επρησεν δ᾽ ἄνεμος) μέσον ἰστίον'. And to this sense we may
add evπρηoтoc (Il. o, 471.) as an epithet of the wind streaming
from a pair of bellows. For all similar forms, as evţeoroc,
εὔπηκτος, εὔδμητος, are used in a passive sense, and εὔπρηστος
too may be very well taken passively of the stream of wind
driven out of the full bellows, as in aîua and dakpvа. But if
we derive it here, as some do, from phew, to burn, because
these currents of air increase the burning of fire, evapησтос
would be active; which is contrary to the Homeric analogy just
laid down.
اد
اد
V
3. This second leading sense of πρý¤¤ш does not occur in
any but the Epic language: there exist however derivatives.
of it. For the most common meaning of πρnστnp, a whirl-
wind or water-spout, comes from it; and to the same mean-
ing belongs also πρῆστις οι πρίστις, 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
-
1 There is an imitation of this in Phalacus Epigr. 5. Bin vórov πρí-
σαντος ἐσχάτην ἅλα.
2 Except that a grammarian in Hesych. v. pña (πрñσα), and in
Etym. M. v. рh0w, explains from the usage of his own times (60er Kai
ἡμεῖς is his expression) πεπρημένους οι πεπρησμένους by τοὺς πεφυση-
μévovs, inflated or blown up.
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 яρу0еiv,
to burn. See Aristot. de Mundo 4. p. 468. g. Meteorolog. 3, 1. Xen.
Hell. 1, 3, 1.
94. Πρήθειν.
485
species was called in later times φυσητήρ. For the form πρίστις
is likewise, as I shall presently show, an old pronunciation,
which appears to come from the verb πpiew, of which one
meaning, agreeing with that of phew, is incorrectly rejected
by Schneider* in his Lexicon. Apollonius† for instance (4,
1671.) says of a person violently enraged, Aevyaλéov & éπí oi
πρῖεν χόλον. Πρίειν is indeed, according to another meaning,
with the addition of ὀδόντας or σιαγόνας, 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 xólov to it with this meaning. Doubtless therefore
Apollonius in this expression imitated with grammatical pre-
meditation an older and Epic usage of this verb, deviating en-
tirely from its common meanings; and Brunck was correct in
comparing with it the Hesychian gloss πρίεται, φυσοῦται, 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. #pη0w) to have derived this word (although in the
sense of to burn) from #piw, if he had not had before him some
other meaning of ρiew besides to saw and to gnash*.
>>
T
T
4. It was but natural that endeavours should be made from
a very early period to connect etymologically the two leading
senses of πλήθειν, πρῆσαι; 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
πρlw, gives as an example the passage of Apoll. Rh. 4, 1671., and allows
that Buttmann has made it very probable that πрíw and πрýОw are cog-
nate words.-ED.]
↑ [See at the end of this article a Supplement (published in the ori-
ginal at the end of the second volume), in which this passage is more
fully examined.--ED.]
* Compare however the different view which Meineke takes of this,
ad Menandr. Inc. 326.
486
94. Πρήθειν.
means, 1. to burn anything; 2. (as certainly) used of the thicker
fluids, to spirtle, pour out; used of the air, to blow³.
π
5. I revert now to the name ρñoτic. 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 De Nat. Aquatilium, book 4. 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 δάκρυ᾽ ἀναπρήσας. Conrad Gesner in the passage
referred to in No. 5. sets cut 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 the 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 as flagrare reminds us both in sense and sound of flare,
and thence conflagrare is used in the sense of to burn. But the idea of
to blaze up belongs to the Greek words φλέγω, φλόξ; on the contrary
πрíðει, 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 Tρío and Tρý0w are and remain two
words. The view becomes somewhat clearer as we look into the wider
field of the affinities of language. Пpíj0w and πpiw 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
sprützen [to spirtle' as a liquid does], and sprühen [' 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 πμήθειν, πιμπράναι, is as certainly identical with the German bren-
nen, to burn'. And it is a coincidence curious enough, that the trans-
position of the two letters in the old German bernen, 'to burn', occurs
also in the Greek πέρθειν, the original identity of which with πρήθειν
has been already acknowledged by others, and is still always seen in
the aorist ἔπραθον. As then with πρήθω, so also with πρίω, 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 #pi, by
which was expressed partly the spirtling and streaming of liquids, partly
the harsh grating noise made by the collision of rough bodies, whence
to saw, to gnash.
94. Πρήθειν.
487
6
in which case therefore the more correct way of writing it
must be πpioric. 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 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 ¿ 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 Æn. 10, 211. says of the
Triton "in pristin desinit alvus.” Pliny too (9, 1—15. and 32,
11.) always classes the pristes with the balana, without men-
tioning the saw, which as a natural historian he could not pos-
sibly have omitted; on the contrary he brings forward at 32,
11., soon after the others, the gladii and the serra as parti-
cular 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 of the word.
η
6. Among the Greeks both πpnotic and pioric 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, ἐνίοτε δὲ φάλαιναι ἢ πρίστεις.
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 κῆτος,—κῆτος Ἦλθεν, ἀπέβρυ-
ξεν δ᾽ ἄχρις ἐπ᾽ ὀμφαλίου : and then πρίστις—ἥμισυ δὲ πρίστις
dè
ажекλάσато. Certainly this was not a whale, and as certainly
not a sword-fish, but a large kind of shark and the passage
serves only to show that pioric, like the Latin pristis and pis-
trix, was (exactly like knτоc) 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
a
:
اد
6 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. Πρήθειν.
στις
this we may add Epicharm. ap. Athen. 7, p. 286. b. Ælian. N. A.
9, 49. Oppian. Hal. 1, 270. But all these passages and their
various readings (compare Schweighäuser on both passages in
Athenæus) do not enable us to decide between πρῆστις or πρί-
σTIC; 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 σκήπων and σκίπων), I am the
more inclined to consider both forms genuine, as the above
account has also shown us a verb piew 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 spout-
ing-fish; and it is very conceivable that the name was first
formed from this very striking peculiarity of the cetaceous tribe,
and that it 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. Aeλpic dè
καὶ φάλαινα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα κήτη, ὅσα μὴ ἔχει βράγχια ἀλλὰ φυ-
σητῆρα, ζωοτοκοῦσιν, ἔτι δὲ πρίστης καὶ βοῦς. This is the
dè
only passage from the ancients where the form piorne 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 ρioτic. One
thing however is clear, that the pioτnc 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', 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 πρῆστις οι πρίστις, which occurs
or
nowhere in his writings, he appears to have quite thrown aside.
π
π
7 The sword-fish like many creatures lays an egg, of which the shell
or covering frequently breaks the moment it is laid.
94. Πρήθειν.
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 be particularly probable, as one
kind of armed vessel, which occurs first in Polybius, was called
#ρloτia, pristis³. Of this Nonius says, "Pristis navigii genus
a forma pristium marinarum, quæ longi corporis sunt sed an-
gusti." This is not a description corresponding with the ge-
neral idea of the whale tribe, which we have hitherto found
under the name pristis. But one thing we learn from this pas-
sage, that the ships so called were long and narrow in compa-
rison 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. It is conceivable there-
fore that the form in c might no longer be available to the
scientific writer in any sense whatever: consequently Aristotle
established piorne (probably from some precedent in the com-
mon language of his day) as the name of the sword-fish only*.
This name, taken literally, means for instance the sawyer, or
even the saw itself. Hesychius has πρίστης, ῥίνων, πρίων ;
hence also πριστηροειδής, in the form of a saw, from πρίστης οι
πριστήρ. For that πρίστις meant also a common saw, rests on
an error of transcription in Pollux 7, c. 26. πρίων, πρίστις, ἡ
καλουμένη ῥίνη, which ought beyond a doubt to be πρίστης.
[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 Æn.
5, 116. under this class; it had its name from the figure at its head,
which was a kind of whale.
One might be inclined to derive this name, given to a certain kind
of goblet in Athenæus, 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, does 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 thus we have another proof of this name #pioτɩs
having been used for a whale.
* [Passow in his Lexicon doubts whether Aristotle may not have
meant by πρiσrns the pivn, a species of the dog-fish, the skin of which
was used for polishing wood and marble.-ED.]
T
490
94. Πρήθειν.
T
more particularly refers, I have pronounced too confidently that
the supposed verbal stem or root of the form pioric, with the
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, 1671. πpiew xólov 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.
Ovμòv odаž пρíοvrec, and by one of Apollonius himself 3, 1170.
Sakov xólov. But I now see more clearly than ever, that what
opposes our giving that sense to the expression #piew xódov is
nothing in the grammatical construction of the words, but in
the context of the passage. For dakov xóλov is a perfectly
δακὼν χόλον
natural expression for one who cannot give vent to his rage
(Ιδας ἧστ᾽ ἀπάνευθε δακὼν χόλον); and Oppian uses the other
expression of lions who fly before horsemen pursuing them with
torches; when therefore it is said of these beasts 'they gnash
with their teeth their fury', this is only another phrase for
dákveiv, 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 described as enchanting from a distance the
brazen giant Talos: at first she looks on him with hostile eyes;
and then immediately follows, that she λευγαλέον ἐπί οἱ πρῖεν
χόλον, and lanced at him hideous magic images, ἐπιζαφελὸν
KOTÉOVOα. I must admit the possibility that a poet like Apol-
lonius 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 emi
oi (èπiπpîév oi), and thus justifies our adopting, or at least con-
jecturing, that ρiew meant also to spirtle,—a conjecture drawn
from the form ρioric as used of the spouting-fish, and from
the circumstance that an old grammarian derived πpýleɩ (no
matter whether in the sense of to burn or to blow) from πpieɩv.
π7
2. The proof which I had drawn from the gloss of Hesychius,
Пpierai, Quooûtaι, I give up, agrecably to the opinion of Mei-
95. Πρήσσειν.
491
necke on Menand. Inc. 328. An expression Stampicolai, used
of inward rage, derived no doubt from διαπρίειν τοὺς ὀδόντας
(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, evdolev dè
Tρiera, quoted in the Etym. M. (v. Пpieraι) as a proof that
the Attics used piw, not pilw, may have had the same sense,
is very probable in itself, as well as from the analogy of that
later Stampicolai, and from the more complete phrase in Lucian
(Dial. Meretr. 12.), where the verb is also in the middle voice,
7
π
π
τί με ἀποβλέπεις καὶ πρίῃ τοὺς ὀδόντας. 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 Meinecke to read Ovμoûтat for
φυσοῦται, according to the other gloss Διεπρίοντο, ἐθυμοῦντο,
or to suppose that the grammarian intended by Quoovolat, 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 πρίειν had the meaning of φυσᾶν.
95. Πρήσσειν.
1. In the Epic phrases πρήσσειν, διαπρήσσειν, κέλευθον or
odoîo, the verb is derived by the old grammarians most deci-
dedly from περάω, or rather from the fut. περάσω, πρήσω ; see
Etym. M. in v. Schol. II. π, 282. Eust. ad Od. o, 219.: but this
derivation is as decidedly rejected by the moderns; see Schnei-
der's Lexicon on phσow*. The general sense of the common
7
* [We find in Schneider's Lexicon the following article on this word:
Пpoow, Ion. for πρáσow, I do, act. 2.) same as repáw, and formed
according to the grammarians from its fut. repάow. In this sense they
understand II. w, 264. Od. y, 476., as also the compound diamphoow in
II. ß, 785. 1, 326. But there is no occasion for supposing this form to
be different from páσow, either on account of the meaning or con-
struction; for in πρήσσειν ὁδοῖο we may understand διὰ, as in κονίοντες
Tediolo, and other like phrases."
Passow in his Lexicon decidedly rejects this second sense of πρýσσш,
and considers it as Ion. for pácow. - ED.]
"
"
492
95. Πρήσσειν.
π
verb páσow coincides so easily with all the most different
thoughts and constructions in which we find phoow, appears
so intelligible when joined for instance with the idea of a way
[or, in the English idiom, a journey], and is so strongly sup-
ported by similar expressions in other languages*, that the
attempt to derive phoσe in those Greek phrases from any-
thing but ρáoσev, must appear almost a perversion. But, for
this very reason, it is not possible to conceive 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 a perversion. 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 Ho-
meric passages, which, accurately considered, do not all coin-
cide well with that other common explanation, but all suit this
one very well.
ㅠ
​2. For instance, besides such expressions as Il. E, 282. piµpa
πρήσσοντε κέλευθον, Od. o, 219. ἵνα πρήσσωμεν ὁδοῖο : and
Od. β, 213. οἵ κέ μοι ἔνθα καὶ ἔνθα διαπρήσσωσι κέλευθον, we
find also these: Il. β, 785. μάλα δ᾽ ὦκα διέπρησσον πεδίοιο,
and Od. ι, 491. ᾿Αλλ᾽ ὅτε δὴ δὶς τόσσον ἅλα πρήσσοντες ἀπῆ-
μev. We must not however overlook the circumstance, that in
those first examples the idea of the common TрáTT suits
very well, merely because the only meaning which it can have
lies already in the idea of the way or road; but in the words
Tedíov and äλa this is wanting. Notwithstanding this the com-
pound diéπρησσov 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 Ηματα δ᾽ αἱματόεντα διέ-
πρησσον πολεμίζων, Ιl. 1,362. But πρήσσειν ἅλα with the idea
of to do or make-as if Homer had said, 'atque jam bis tantum,
a
"
* [Thus the Germans say 'einen weg machen', literally, to make a
way', as we say 'to make a journey'; 'er hatte schon ein Stück Weges
gemacht', which may be translated literally in French, 'il avait déjà fait
une partie du chemin'.-ED.]
95. Πρήσσειν.
493
mare facientes, aberamus'—is an untenable expression; so that
one feels a great inclination to adopt the reading of Rhianus,
åda πλñooovtec, if it were not clear that this is merely an amend-
ment arising from Rhianus' already thinking that in those other
phrases, agreeably to the now current opinion, he saw only the
common πράττω. If, on the other hand, we take πρήσσω for
a form of περάω, περαίνω, we have a natural and uniform mean-
ing in all those expressions.
ω
3. But how is this to be done? Are we to take ρhoow
περαίνω, and πρήσσω facio, as two stenus 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 πρήσσειν κέλευθον by περᾷν, will soon
discover the true relation of the word. Πρήσσω οι πράσσω 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, πρhσσew means in Homer, in all other expressions as well
as those here mentioned, nothing more than Tepaivew, i. e. to
bring to an end, complete; thus at Il. A, 552. oутi #phoσeɩ is
the same as in prose ovdèv repaivet, he completes or accomplishes
nothing; and at o, 357. Jupiter says to Juno, “Eπρnçaç kai
ἔπειτα....᾿Ανστήσασ᾽ ᾿Αχιλῆα, ‘thou hast completed it then,
thou hast succeeded in accomplishing it',-expressions in which
originates, as we clearly see, the common word рáτTεw, to do,
as spoken without reference to any result. And equally na-
tural according to this derivation is the intransitive sense of
the word with the adverb, as we should say 'I pass or get
(happily, unhappily, &c.) through life, through certain circum-
stances'. And lastly, the quantity of the vowel in púσow,
πhoow, arises, as in OpāTTW, TÉTρnxa (see art. 100.), from
its being removed from before the p in the root repa'.
ουτι
α
π
-
I
I have remarked above in article 63. that áoow appended to the
stem or root as a mere termination, like άw elsewhere, is contrary to
analogy; άλáoow, for instance, does not come immediately from äλλos,
494
96. Προσελεῖν.
Πρίειν ; vid. πρήθειν.
96. Προσελεῖν.
T
1. One of the most enigmatical words in the Greek lan-
guage is the compound pooeder, 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. Tŵν TOXITŴY O'
οὓς μὲν ἴσμεν εὐγενεῖς καὶ σώφρονας (here follow two whole
verses) Προσελοῦμεν. Eschyl. Prom. 435. Opŵv èµavτòv
ὧδε προσελούμενον.
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 Пporéλnvoɩ, is pre-
served a more complete scholium on the passage of Eschylus,
in which is said, προυσελλεῖν λέγουσι τὸ ὑβρίζειν. Here the
λλ at all events is faulty; but the ov Porson recommended as
correct; and accordingly Blomfield in Eschylus, 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 рovσeλouμev. But this ap-
προυσελοῦμεν.
but from the stem ἀλλαχ- in ἀλλαχοῦ, &c.; and in the case of ταράσσω
we have no authority for supposing rap- to be the stem. This analogy
would certainly be opposed by párow as formed from repáw, but
only in case we were obliged to suppose an older form repácow. For
this however there is no necessity; the form pãoow appears to be ori-
ginally grounded on the contraction of a dissyllabic stem into a mono-
syllabic one, πρᾶ, πρή, to which also analogy points in the forms πτήσσω
and πτώσσω.
96. Προσελεῖν.
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', 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 quite clear.
3. In Hesychius, besides Пpooédei, πpoπndakile, (which
shows the common way of writing this verb,) is also a gloss
Προυγελεῖν, προπηλακίζειν, ὑβρίζειν. It would be easy to get
rid of this gloss by supposing it a fault of transcription for
Tрovoeder. It is true that in Stobaeus 41. (43.) where the
προυσελεῖν.
passage of Aristophanes is quoted, the common editions have
πроoελoûμеv; but in the first edition of Trincavellus and in one
manuscript is рovyeλouuer. 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.
προυγελοῦμεν.
4. The digamma, for instance, in some words and dialects
was changed into y, as in yevro, and without doubt in all
the words which in Hesychius have the y instead of the aspi-
rate: see Salmas. ad Inser. 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 γοῖνος, γοῖδα and γοίδημι, γέαρ, γεστία, γέλου-
τρον (ἔλυτρον), &c. must have appeared at first sight to re-
quire consideration; but when deliberately considered, a mis-
take so great and 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 guêpe, gâter, from
vespa, vasture, and a hundred others,-we shall not wonder at
1 The common derivation from eλos is very bad, on account of its ap-
parent agreement with a word of similar meaning, πρоñηλaкí¿w, which
is derived from πηλός.
496
96. Προσελεῖν.
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 ndúc, FHAYΣ, "do-
μαι, we find Γάδεσθαι, ἥδεσθαι: Γαδέω, χαρά; which answers
so clearly to the Latin gaudere, gaudium².
ʊ
5. This y then gives very considerable weight to povyedeîv
(thus come down to us in two ways) as a various reading of
ПРОΣƑЕЛЕIN, to which I will now add what is quite deci-
sive on the subject. There was a Dorico-Æolic dialect of
πρεσβύς, viz. πρεῖγυς, known through the forms πρείγιστος,
πρειγήϊον, πρειγεύτης in the Cretan inscriptions. That the β
corresponded with the digamma in the dialects, needs no discus-
sion. Consequently oß (sw), which we have here seen changed
into Y, with the preceding e lengthened into et, corresponds
exactly with ΠΡΟΣFΕΛΕΙΝ, which by the lengthening of the
o into ou becomes aрovyeλev. This, as likewise the no less
authentic #povredetv, 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 Æschylus and Aristophanes. It
was probably the preponderance of authority which decided in
favour of πρovσεdeîv, and rejected the other as too much like
a Doricism.
προηγελεῖν.
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 T'érтep, кoiλía: 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 connexion with a Greek one. But if it
be a Greek dialect, it is a dialect of yaorýp, in which the is lost, as
in κεστός from ΚΕΝΤΩ κεντέω, 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'.
C
96. Προσελεῖν.
497
tion.
،
The comparison of this verb with pornλakilew led me
to divide ΠΡΟΣΓΕΛΕΙΝ into ΠΡΟ and ΣFΕΛΕΙΝ, and con-
sequently to suppose as a root some old word beginning with sw,
in the same way as deîoai and dic began in the old language with
dw. And as I was considering what idea in the sense of ußpi-
Lew, drawn from some physical action, could suit an expression
so strong as both the passages of Æschylus and Aristophanes
evidently require, I hit upon proculcare, and at once all the rest
proceeded smoothly. For pornλakile, it seems to me, is
προπηλακίζειν,
very well explained by 'to trample in the dirt'. Therefore
ПРО-ΣƑЕЛЕIN will be to trample with the feet'. And now
to find a probability of ΣFEAEIN meaning to trample, we
must remember that in art. 82. note 14. the connexion between
the pronouns e, opé, opóc, se, suus, led us to adopt an old form
sve, out of which arose opé. In the same way we arrive here
at once at the words σφέλας, i. e. βάθρον, and σφάλλειν, which
is acknowledged to come from the idea of to trip or kick up*
a person's heels. If now we carry on σφέλας, ΣΕΕΛΑΣ,
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, Sült [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') the words solum and solea with the
v omitted, or rather changed into the cognate vowel o. And if
we consider further that the sound sv is the same as the simple
digamma in the following cases,-(sve) opé, FE, ë; suavis,
FAAYΣ, ådúc; suesco, FEON, 0w; Schweher, socer; FE-
ΚΥΡΟΣ, ἑκυρός,—we bring ΣFΕΛΕΙΝ back to the stem or
root EAQ, which we have proved (in art. 44.) to have in a
variety of instances the meaning of to stamp, tread†.
Ῥύεσθαι, ῥῦσθαι ; vid. ἐρύεσθαι.
* [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.]
† [Passow in his Lexicon is not satisfied with this derivation from
σφέλας, σφάλλω, and proposes σίλλος.—ED.]
+-
π
2 K
498
97. Στοναχίζειν, -ῆσαι, στεναχίζειν, -ῆσαι.
1. We find in Homer, as lengthened forms of the verb oτévw,
στενάχω and στοναχίζω, but in the aorist only στοναχήσαι ; the
two last have always in Horner, and in Hesiod also, the various
reading of στεναχίζω, στεναχῆσαι. 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 I. β,95. τοῦ δὲ στεναχίζετο, οὗ πολλά-
κις ἡ ἄρχουσα καὶ διὰ τοῦ ο μικροῦ προφέρεται, διπλῆ ἡ παρα-
γωγὴ ἐκ τοῦ στένω, &c. The Venetian scholia say nothing
about it; but the Venetian text has always the reading with
the e, with one single exception of orоvaxñoaι at o, 124.
ου
€
στοναχῆσαι
ETEO
a
2. Modern criticism must naturally try to bring even this
trifling difference to some fixed rule. Wolf writes the form in
Lew always with the e, but that in noa with the o. As the
internal reasons seem to leave this a point of indifference,
perhaps some external reason led him to that decision.
The
form in Lew occurs, for instance, in Homer seventeen times,
that in not only twice; viz. Il. o, 124. oтovaxñoαι; and w, 79.
στοναχῆσαι;
Èπeστovάxnσe: 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 σrovaxñoαι
and oτevaxileir. 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 Il. o, 124.
ω, 79. that it must be written στεναχίζειν and στεναχῆσαι
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. Στοναχίζειν, &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
it is possible for us to take up the same point of view 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 proceeding. From orévw comes a lengthened form with a
stronger sense στενάχω (στενάχουσι, στενάχων, στενάχοντο),
of which the termination, less used elsewhere, seems to imitate
(compare axéwv) a natural sound. Hence first comes, with
the vowel changed, the substantive oτovaxn', 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 substantive, 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 φέρω, φορά, φορέω ;
φένω, φόνος, φονεύω, and the like. Now as στοναχή 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 σTO vaxilo
therefore stands firmly established by internal analogy.
τονα
4. On the aorist in -noa opinions may be divided. The
form στενάχω has not the inflexion of -άξω, -άξαι; and for
this reason, that the natural sound above mentioned may not
be obscured. Hence the aorist in -ῆσαι, like μέλλω μελλήσω,
καθεύδω καθευδήσω, &c. may be considered as a mere flexion
or tense of oreváxw, in which case the change of vowel would
not take place. And so it would appear most agreeable to
analogy to fix στενάχω with the flexion στεναχήσω, &c. and
with a sister-form oτovaxilw. But even if these were the ori-
στοναχίζω.
ginal Homeric forms, one can easily conceive that they could
€,
83.
1 On orоvaxý it may be observed, that if the scholia on Od.
να
are to be trusted, Aristophanes wrote the dat. plur. σrovaxñow in that
passage with the e.
2 K 2
500
97. Στοναχίζειν, &c.
not have been always kept distinct from each other. The
aorist in noa has quite as much the appearance of a deriva-
tive lengthened form (στovaɣéw) as the form in -í¿w has, and
hence it took quite regularly the change of vowel. From the
various readings therefore, which are equally in favour of both
forms, we may without arbitrariness adopt, not oтevaxĥoaι, OTO-
ναχίζω, but only στοναχῆσαι στοναχίζω.
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 vπò
δὲ
στοναχίζετο γαῖα, περὶ δὲ στοναχίζετο δῶμα, ἐπεστονάχησε
Sè Xiurn: in which sense a verb of such constant occurrence
as σTeváx is found only once, viz. at Il. m, 391. xapádpaι...
μεγάλα στενάχουσι ῥέουσαι.
ω
ωι
6. We will now go back to the authority of tradition. And
here we must not overlook the circumstance that the form oTE-
váyw has never the various reading of the o, but those in -noau
νάχω
and -w 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
στονάχω in the substantive στόνος, and that verb was actually
in existence; Hesych. σTováxwv, σoTeválwv. From this alone
the converse is quite clear, namely, that στοναχῆσαι, στοναχίζειν
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 further-that perhaps to sigh
was the proper meaning of στεναχίζειν, -ῆσαι, and to resound that of
στοναχίζειν, -ῆσαι----must be at once rejected by our reflecting that the
language of the ancient poets was not refined enough for such niceties.
501
Σφάς, σφέ, σφίν, σφῶϊ, σφώ, σφωΐτερος; vid. νωϊ, νώ.
98. Τέκμωρ, τεκμαίρεσθαι.
1. Damm, following Eustathius, remarks that Tékμwρ in
Homer has never any other meaning than finis, exitus, scopus,
'an end or termination, the object proposed or marked out', and
TEKμaiρeolaι, finio, pro fine constituo, confirmo et ex dubitatione
eximo, 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, conjectare, ‘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
Téкμwρ certainly does mean an end, object, or point proposed;
for example, II. v, 20. it is said of Neptune ikeтo Tékμwp, Aiyác:
at π, 472. Tоîo evρeто тÉкμwρ, "he found out (planned) an end
of this confusion;” and at n, 30. εὑρεῖν τέκμωρ Ιλίου.
ܕܐ
2. But the connexion between this meaning and that of the
well-known passage of Il. a, 526. Touro yàp (i. e. Jupiter's
nod) ἐξ ἐμέθεν γε μετ᾿ ἀθανάτοισι μέγιστον Τέκμωρ, 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 bound-
aries were fixed from the earliest times; and thus Tékμwρ came
to have the general sense of a boundary, end, and particularly
the end which fate has fixed to some duration, as τέκμωρ Ιλίου.
3. Now the action by which a ruler or person with power
and authority fixes such a Tékμop is the original sense of TEK-
μaípeolaι and hence it means in Il.2,349. n, 70. Od. n,317.
Hes. e, 227. 237. 396. (Sietekjińpavτo) to fix, appoint, destine.
Very nearly bordering on this is the use of the word in Od. к,
563. where Circe, knowing the deerees of fate (consequently
502
98. Τέκμωρ, τεκμαίρεσθαι.
•
every τékµwp), announces to Ulysses that he is destined to visit
Hades, &c. — ἄλλην δ᾽ ἡμιν ὁδὸν τεκμήρατο Κίρκη. With
this again agrees the usage in Od. λ, 111. where the same
Circe, supposing the case that Ulysses should kill the cattle
of the Sun, says to him, τότε τοι τεκμαίρομ᾽ ὄλεθρον. For the
expressions of a supreme power decreeing, and of another an-
nouncing 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 rékμwp, or тékμap, 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 exalted
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 (κυνόσσημα) is called a τέκμαρ
of sailors.
5. I will transcribe here at length a fragment of Hesiod in
which the word тékμap occurs, because it has hitherto stood
in the collection of Fragments divided into two parts*. It is
from the Melampodia.
Ἡδὺ [γάρ] ἐστ᾽ ἐν δαιτὶ καὶ εἰλαπίνῃ τεθαλυίῃ
Τέρπεσθαι μύθοισιν, ἐπὴν δαιτὸς κορέσωνται·
Ηδὺ δὲ καὶ τὸ πυθέσθαι, ὅσα θνητοῖσιν ἔδειμαν
᾿Αθάνατοι, δειλῶν τε καὶ ἐσθλῶν τέκμαρ ἐναργές.
The two former verses are from Athenæus 2. p. 40. f., where
however the epitomist has only added that they are from He-
siod's Melampodia. The yúp belongs to the editors. The two
latter verses are preserved by Clemens of Alexandria, Strom.
6. p. 751. (266.), and introduced with the words 'Hoiodoc éπì
ἐπὶ
τοῦ Μελάμποδος ποιεῖ. 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 55.-ED.]
99. Τεταγών, 503
Tņτῆς
.
doubt of their belonging to each other; although it is possible
that the sense of the two former verses may have been more
detailed in some additional intervening verses now lost; for
Clemens introduces the two latter, as taken from Musæus, with
the addition Kai và è§îc. In the third verse we must take care
not to understand the Tò as the article to véσ0αι: it stands
as a demonstrative for Tóde, and is afterwards again taken up
by τέκμαρ, while ὅσα refers to the following δειλῶν τε καὶ
ov. Still, however, the reader is somewhat obstructed in
the two latter verses. In the first place I do not know of any
other instance of deiλwv as a neuter, which its connexion with
ὅσα ἔδειμαν requires it to be ; and to alter it to δεινῶν appears
to me not allowable in the Epic language'. At all events the
sense requires bad things: but Tékμap èvapyéc 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 réλoc in the same kind of expression,
where it is said of Jupiter and Neptune,
Ἐν τοῖς γὰρ τέλος ἐστὶν ὁμῶς ἀγαθῶν τε κακῶν τε.
If therefore I do not mistake, familiar discourse, conversation,
ulo, is put in a general opposition to the instruction and ad-
vice with which the sages or soothsayers, like Melampus, were
accustomed to lecture their hearers on their weal and woe.
99. Τεταγών, τῆς
α
1. The verb TeTayóv occurs twice in Homer. At Il. a, 591.
Vulcan is telling how Jupiter had once served him,
Ῥίψε ποδὸς τεταγὼν ἀπὸ βηλοῦ θεσπεσίοιοι.
1 It is true that devá, in a case exactly parallel to this, is opposed to
éoλois 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 λvypá. But who knows whether it ought
not to be deλá there also instead of deurá, as in the passage above? For
a confirmation of this conjecture see the note on that passage.
See an imitation of this passage in the fragment of the small Iliad
504
99. Τεταγών, τῆς
And at o, 23. Jupiter is describing how he had served the gods,
ὃν δὲ λάβοιμι
Ῥίπτασκον τεταγὼν ἀπὸ βηλοῦ.
μενος.
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 modóc, that
τεταγών is only a more forcible expression for λαβών, λαβό-
μevoc. In the explanations which we find in the grammarians
(Hesych. Etym. Μ. &c.), ἐκτείνας, τινάξας, ρίψας, we see that
they are conjectures drawn partly from the context, partly from
the derivation, which first offered itself to the commentators, of
TEίVW, TÉTаKα. In the same way the old interpreters hit upon
λaßúv, λaßóµevoc (see Schol. Lips. Eustath.), and at last ar-
rived at the connexion of Teτaywv and τn, 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 τείνω, τέτακα on the one hand, and
TI, TеTаyú 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 ety-
mology³.
2
Ка
τα
in Tzetzes ad Lycophr. 1263., where Neoptolemus is described as serv-
ing Astyanax in a similar manner, Παῖδα δ᾽ ἑλὼν ἐκ κόλπου ἐϋπλοκάμοιο
τιθήνης Ῥίψε ποδὸς τεταγὼν ἀπὸ πύργου.
2 An old authority for one of these explanations lies concealed in an
error of transcription. In Apollonius 2, 119. the scholiast adopted the
common but indefensible reading Αἶψα μέλαν τεταγὼν πέλεκυν μέγαν.
Brunck took from some manuscript µáλa for péλav. But who would
not adopt the conjecture of Sanctamandus, Αἶψα μάλ᾽ ἀντεταγὼν πέλεκυν
μέγαν? The artificial poet, who understood τεταγών in nuch the same
sense as τινάξεις, ventured on a compound after the analogy of ἀμπε-
Taλwν: 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.
› Schneider's classing rerayór 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 άπrш, äπtoµai,
and the German anfassen (to lay hands on) used for anrühren (to touch):
see also note 8. of art. 23. Who now will totally reject the connexion
of Terayóv with the English take, Danish tage? by which the correctness
of the above explanation of that word is placed beyond a doubt.
99. Τεταγών, της
505
2. From the latter root then there was a verbal stem TAT-,
for which TeTayeîv is the old reduplicated form of the aorist*,
and another verbal stem TA-, the only remains of which is the
imperative rn, forined like v according to Doric analogy'.
We might, it is true, remove this latter entirely, explain it as
identical with the demonstrative ry, 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. The plainest instances of the
verbal meaning of T are those where it is joined with such
T
¹ Lucian, near the beginning of the Dialogue Charon, makes Mercury
quote ironically from Il. a, 591. μὴ ῥίψῃ κἀμὲ τεταγὼς τοῦ ποδὸς ἀπὸ τοῦ
θεσπεσίου βηλοῦ. That this reading is false is clear from the scholiast
on Lucian, who explains only rerayúr. 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. Teraywv ab
ἔταγον.”
5 Compare τέτμηκα-ἐτμάγην.
• 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
Tîτe 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 presup-
poses in this case a kind of necessity for an imperative; and conse-
quently 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. Dů! 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 dã!
(there!): whereas the adverb is long by nature, and this length is almost
always preserved, even when not the slightest stress is intended to be
laid on it. But by this quantity da is very like such imperatives as gib
(give)! nimm (take)! and lastly we may subjoin the analogy of the
French tiens! and the Greek rij!
>>
506
100. Τέτρηχα.
υπο
particles as vûv, dé, &c. For example in Il. 4, 618. Tŷ vôv,
καί σοι τοῦτο, γέρον, κειμήλιον ἔστω. In Od. e, 346. Τῆ δὲ,
τόδε κρήδεμνον ὑπὸ στέρνοιο τάνυσσαι. But the accusative is
found as seldom joined with T as it is with the corresponding
French expression tiens! tenez! In all cases it stands either
quite absolute, 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 analogy Wolf has been correct in rejecting the only in-
stance of T with an accusative, Od. к, 287.
Τῆ τόδε φάρμακον ἐσθλὸν, ἔχων δ' ἐς δώματα Κίρκης
*Ερχεν,
in which he has followed the Cod. Harl., where there is no dé
after exw; a change certainly recommended by its very much
improving the construction of ἔχων.
Τετραφάληρος ; vid. φάλος, &c.
100. Τέτρηχα.
0
1. I have briefly laid down in my Grammar, that the per-
fect τέτρηχα does not come either from a verb τρήχω or from
τραχύς, 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: Il. β, 95.
Τετρήχει δ᾽ ἀγορὴ, ὑπὸ δὲ στοναχίζετο γαῖα
Λαῶν ἱζόντων, ὅμαδος δ᾽ ἦν.
and n, 346.
Τρώων αὖτ᾽ ἀγορὴ γένετ᾽ Ἰλίου ἐν πόλει ἄκρῃ
Δεινὴ, τετρηχυῖα, παρὰ Πριάμοιο θύρῃσιν.
Heyne, on the first passage, thinks it perfectly clear that this
word comes from a verb τρήχω, from which was afterwards
formned τρηχύνω, and that in its proper sense it is used of a
100. Τέτρηχα.
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 τpnxúc. But
neither in the old Epic, nor in the Lyric or Tragic poets, is there
any other passage where the verb occurs.
To this I have
2. In both the passages of Homer, however, the context shows
at once that the true idea-devǹ, Teтρηxvia-is not mere un-
evenness, or obstinacy, but disturbed motion.
to add a verse from Stobæus, of what period I know not',
᾿Αμφὶ δέ τοι νέαι αἰὲν ἀνίαι τετρήχασιν,
It is
which is also favourable to the idea of restless motion.
true, that both the word rpnxúc and its meaning are akin to
that of a moving crowd; but rphyw does not come naturally
from Tρnxúc, -on the contrary the adjective comes very natu-
rally from the verb. We have therefore to examine the verbal
form Térρnya, and that from its very source.
τρηχύς,
3. Now the unanimity of the old grammarians which we
meet with in this examination is very remarkable. Some of
them indeed have Teтρáɣuvтo as an explanation of the sense;
but as soon as they come to explain the form, they invariably
derive it from Tapáσow; see Schol. Ven. Eustath. Etym. M.
Suid. This unanimity is, I say, very remarkable, because the
adoption of a theme Tρnxw, 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
adopt, 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 be-
longed 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 OpáτTw for Tα-
ράττω. This θράττω, which contains the aspirate before the
P, much as φροίμιον for προοίμιον, is a contraction of that kind
W
I know it only from the quotation of Sopingius in Hesych. in v.
508
100. Τέτρηχα.
by which two vowels separated by a liquid are united into one
long vowel after the liquid, as στορέννυμι, στρώννυμι˙ μαλακός,
Blag. For that the a in OpáTT is lengthened, is shown by
the accent of the neuter participle Tò OpaTTov. If from that
verb we form a perfect, it must be Térpaɣa, and consequently
Ionic τέτρηχα ; exactly as πρήσσω, πέπρηχα and πέπρηγα.
It is true that the meaning of ταράσσω and θράσσω is transi-
tive, turbare, while the perfect in question means turbatus sum ;
but this is so exactly in accordance with the analogy of the
language, particularly of the older writers, that this point needs
no further examination. And even the question whether Té-
Tpnya is to be considered a perf. 1. or 2.* appears to be su-
τρηχα
perfluous. Whoever is desirous, from the stronger analogy,
of having the perf. 2. for the intransitive meaning, might,
by a comparison with πέπρηγα, desire to write τέτρηγα also.
But I would not have that person satisfied of the truth of the
reading by referring to the Etym. M.; for the reading Te-
τρήγει, which is there supported by τετάραγα, &c. proves to
be an old various reading for the former of the two Homeric
passages, but one which I have met with nowhere else. I have
only to remind my readers, that as payoc points to the letter
y for πράττω, so ταραχή points to x as the most common ra-
dical letter for TapáτTw; and thus the perf. 1. and 2. coin-
cide.
ω
4. It is not necessary for us in the old Ionic language to
suppose the other forms or tenses answering to the Attic Opάoow
Opağa, as this kind of contraction was principally wanted only
in the perfect for τεταραχα, in the same way as in κέκληκα
and similar cases. Hence the aorist appears in Homer in the
unchanged form from Tapáσow; for instance in Od. e, 291.
304. ἐτάραξε δὲ πόντον. The relation which these meanings
bear to each other, in the one case of the god agitating the
2 Plato Phæd. p. 86. e. It is true that the authorities which I have
at this moment before me give both readings Opâtтov and Opátтor; but
the former can be only from tradition. This and general analogy would
therefore direct us to write in Æschyl. Prom. 633. Opažaι, 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.]
100. Τέτρηχα.
509
sea, in the other of the agitated and tumultuous assembly,-
must be at once felt; even though Téτρnya, 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
Leonidas, an old poet belonging to the period preceding the
Alexandrine æra; Epigr. 96.
Τετρηχυῖα θάλασσα, τί μ' οὐκ οἰζυρὰ παθόντα
Τηλόσ᾽ ἀπὸ ψιλῆς ἔπτυσας ἠϊόνος ;
In the same way kiveîv also is used both of the sea and of an
assembly; as at Il. β, 395. ὅτε κινήσει νότος ἐλθὼν (κῦμα),
and at v. 144. Κινήθη δ᾽ ἀγορὴ ὡς κύματα μακρὰ θαλάσσης.
From which passages, if read in connexion with each other, it
is clear, that the difference between TeTρηxeɩ and èkwý◊n con-
sists only in this, that the passive aorist is used to express
the moment of transition from calm to tumult, but TεTρηxeι,
as is usual with these perfects, marks the continuance of the
agitation.
TĒT
EL
5. As the Homeric Téτpnya coincides therefore so exactly
with Tapaoow in form as well as in meaning, the adoption of
another theme for it is the more untenable. But the adjective
τραχύς, τρηχύς, prores 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 instance
TεтρηXÓTα ẞwλov, Apollon. 3, 1393.) can prove nothing in fa-
vour of the real usage of the more ancient authors; and still less
can we conclude, from finding a present in Nicander Ther. 521.
TρуXOVTI Táуw, that it existed also in the older times. This
latter example proves only that some of the older grammarians
too traced back this perfect to the same erroneous theme; as we
might have already guessed from the gloss TеTρáɣUVтo. If we
were inclined to suppose any other grammatical usage from
3 With this poet we may join another of the same kind, Demosthenes
Bithynus, who uses rpúxova in the same sense in a fragment in the
Etym. M. v. 'Hpaía.
510
101. Τηλύγετος.
finding a form in Nicander, we must surely be deterred by the
present ἔπουσι, which his grammatical art formed from εἶπον
and ἐνέπω, and which he accordingly used at Ther. 508. and
elsewhere.
Τῆ; vid. τεταγών.
Τηλεκλειτός, τηλεκλητός, τηλεκλυτός ; vid.
κλειτός, &c.
101. Τηλύγετος.
1. The epithet τηλύγετος is given to sons and daughters in
order to represent them as objects of the particular affection of
their parents; but we cannot see clearly what the exact sense
of the word is. At Il. ι, 143. Agamemnon sends to Achilles,
as his future son-in-law, the following proinise :
τίσω δέ μιν ἶσον Ὀρέστῃ,
Ος μοι τηλύγετος τρέφεται θαλίῃ ἐνὶ πολλῇ.
At Od. δ, 11. Menelaus marries his son,
Ος οἱ τηλύγετος γένετο κρατερὸς Μεγαπένθης
Ἐκ δούλης.
And at Il. γ, 175. Helen reproaches herself with having left
her home,
Παῖδά τε τηλυγέτην καὶ ὁμηλικίην ἐρατεινήν,
by which is meant Hermione. In the same way is described,
though only in idea, paternal love for a dear child, at Il. ι,
482.
Καί με φίλησ᾽ ὡσεί τε πατὴρ ὃν παῖδα φιλήσῃ
Μοῦνον, τηλύγετον, πολλοῖσιν ἐπὶ κτεάτεσσιν.
and at Od. π, 19. where a father receives with joy his son return-
ing to him after a long absence, ὃν παῖδα... Μοῦνον, τηλύγετον.
101. Τηλύγετος.
511
Lastly at Il. e, 153. two brothers, slain by Diomedes, have this
epithet,
Φαίνοπος υἷε,
῎Αμφω τηλυγέτω· ὁ δὲ τείρετο γήραϊ λυγρῷ,
Υἱὸν δ᾽ οὐ τέκετ᾽ ἄλλον ἐπὶ κτεάτεσσι λιπέσθαι.
2. These are all the passages from which we can gather the
domestic relation of those to whom this epithet is given. And
thus we see how mechanically and injudiciously those proceeded
who derived the word from Tλe and yeivouat; 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'. Hence the common explanation of
the word is, that it is a child born when the father is Tηλoû TŴc
ἡλικίας;
λukiac; which certainly suits very well the sons of Phænops, but
not the others, and least of all Helen, by whom it is therefore
supposed to be said kataɣpnoTikŵG. But the great objection
καταχρηστικῶς.
to all this is, that neither Tλe nor τnλou 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. Il. €, 153. Od. 8, 11. Hesych. &c.): but then this will
not suit the two sons of Phænops, ἄμφω τηλυγέτω ; and the
twice-recurring combination, μoûvoc, tyλúyetoc, 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. ß, 365. of Telemachus, Mouroc év
The usage of later poets, who have rŋλúyeros 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) rλvyétwv
Ὑπερβορέων, and Hesych. τηλυγέτων ἀποικιῶν.
1
512
101. Τηλύγετος.
ἀγαπητός. Only that τηλύγετος is a more forcible expression
for this idea, as is evident from the bad sense in which the word
is used at Il. v, 470.,
᾿Αλλ᾽ οὐκ ᾿Ιδομενῆα φόβος λάβε, τηλύγετον ὡς.
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 abso-
lutely, but in a good sense, by Euripides in the Iph. Taur. 828.,
where he makes Iphigenia say to Orestes, ἔχω σ' ᾿Ορέστα τη-
λύγετον χθονὸς ἄπο πατρίδος, undoubtedly with reference to the
passage quoted above from Il. 1, 143.*
4. With this half-positive half-negative result, which we ob-
tain within the bounds of certainty, we may, as far as our ob-
ject 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 nλú-
γετος, ὁ τελευταῖος τῷ πατρὶ γενόμενος. This explanation
certainly suits all the above passages; for although by the
expression Teλeurato, the thought is generally carried back to
some others preceding, yet its principal relation is to the fu-
ture, 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 μοῦνος, τηλύγετος. But it
is evident that the author of this explanation acknowledged
also an etymological connexion between the words τnλuyeroc
and TeλevTaîog; and there is certainly an analogy in the case
* [Both Schneider and Passow differ from Buttmann's interpretation
of rηλúyeros 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.-En.]
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &c.
513
*
which deserves attention. From the more simple form, which
is supposed to be the substantive Teλeutý, arose very naturally
the compound TeλeúуeToc; and hence again the form more con-
venient for the hexameter, Tηλúyeroc, by transposing the quan-
tities on account of the rhythm, a practice resorted to on other
occasions, as in ἀπερείσια for ἀπειρέσια; for eu shortened gives
v, and e lengthened becomes or e; and, whether Tλe be
really or only apparently akin to this stem or family, it is
very conceivable that from the familiar sound of that word the
ʼn prevailed over the ei. And thus it appears also very pro-
bable, that Orion, in this derivation from the idea of teλev-
Taîoc, has retained an old tradition, of which the unintelligible
derivation from Têλe is only a kind of corruption.
Τρυφάλεια ; vid. φάλος, sect. 12.
Ὑπερηνορέων ;
Ὑπέροπλος ;
}
vid. ὑπερφίαλος.
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, ὑπερηνορέων, ὑπέροπλος.
1. That the epithet veppiadoc 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 reproach at a, 134. where Telemachus is afraid that
the guest will be uncomfortable and annoyed at the repast,
…….. ¿πTEρpiáλοiσi μeтeλowv: and again atß, 310. where he says,
᾿Αντίνο', οὔπως ἔστιν ὑπερφιάλοισι μεθ᾽ ὑμῖν
Δαίνυσθαί τ᾽ ἀκέοντα καὶ εὐφραίνεσθαι ἕκηλον.
* ["As we find in Apoll. Dysc. (de Pronom. p. 329. B.) indications of
an adverb τîλu, a sister-form of rλe, there is no occasion for setting
out with this transposition of the quantities." Passow's Lexicon.-ED.]
2 L
514
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &c.
But at 0,315. Ulysses uses it in the character of a beggar with
a very different meaning. And it must necessarily be free from
everything of a reproachful tendency, when at 4, 289. Antinous
himself says to the supposed beggar,
વી
Οὐκ ἀγαπᾷς, ὃ ἔκηλος ὑπερφιάλοισι μεθ᾽ ἡμῖν
Δαίνυσαι;
which is consequently a mere repetition of the passage quoted
above from ẞ, 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 pro-
per 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 who 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 Cy-
clops (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 1, 106. ὑπερφίαλοι ἀθέμιστοι 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. 8, 774. Antinous warns the suitors against
uttering any μύθους ὑπερφιάλους; 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 Te-
lemachus' 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 8, 503. where Proteus blames the presump-
tuous boast of Ajax (Εἰ μὴ ὑπερφίαλον ἔπος ἔκβαλε, καὶ μέγ'
ááoon), that he would escape the waves even if the gods willed
it otherwise.
3. In another passage of the Odyssey (, 274.) the adjec-
tive is an epithet of reproach. Nausicaa there says that she
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &c.
515
shuns the conversation and jokes of a certain class of men, and
adds as the reason,
μάλα δ' εἰσὶν ὑπερφίαλοι κατὰ δῆμον.
The difference of meaning here from the first reppiador is at
once perceptible, and we might be inclined to render it merely
by regardless of right and reason, did not the really unbecom-
ing ridicule, to which the young princess suspects she may be
exposed 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
vπeρpiado, 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 vπeρpiaλoi kai äTIOTOL:
ἄπιστ
Juno says at o, 94. that Jupiter is vеρþíαλoç каì áπηvýc; and
Menelaus denies at 4, 611. that these same qualities can be
attributed to him. Still however these passages, if duly con-
sidered, 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 amoтo, this
at once raises the meaning of the accompanying ὑπερφίαλοι.
The same kind of climax is formed by arnync when said of
Jupiter, and shows therefore that vπeppíadoc can only belong
to the category of selfish rulers, regardless of all but their own
absolute will; although Juno utters it in a tone of ill-humour,
and increases its severity by the addition of aπnvne, which
however is used in a rather milder sense than usual: compare
a, 340.
•
G
5. But it is a point deserving of particular attention, that the
adverb úñeρpiádwc, is entirely free from any meaning strictly
reproachful. It is true that at Od. a, 227. the guest says of
the suitors, ὑβρίζοντες ὑπερφιάλως δοκέουσιν: but here the
reproach is already fully expressed in the participle, and the
2 L 2
516
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &c.
adverb only heightens the sense, as at σ, 71. where the suitors
admire the majestic limbs of the supposed beggar;
Μνηστῆρες δ' ἄρα πάντες ὑπερφιάλως ἀγάσαντο :
nay it is used where the thing done is perfectly correct and
right, as at p, 481. where the same suitors are justly angry at
the outrageous act of Antinous;
...... οἱ δ᾽ ἄρα πάντες ὑπερφιάλως νεμέσησαν.
And here too the Iliad does not disagree with the Odyssey.
For when Hector at o, 300. says of the wealthy inhabitants of
Troy,
...... ὃς κτεάτεσσιν ὑπερφιάλως ἀνιάζει,
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,
μή πού τις ὑπερφιάλως νεμεσίζῃ,
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 lan-
guage of all nations shows how little moderation is observed in
the choice of adverbs, and that ideas like enormous, excessive,
nimium, 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 piáλn, 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, TÙY Tара-
τὸν
βαίνοντα τοὺς διὰ φιαλῶν γενομένους ὅρκους (see Etym. Μ.
and compare Schol. Od. a, 134.), is inadmissible; not only
because, if it were said of Jupiter in that sense, it would be a
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &c.
517
του
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 piáλn 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. тòv úñeрßáλ-
λοντα τῇ ἀμετρίᾳ, ὡς τῆς φιάλης ἀμέτρου οὔσης, this is only
an indistinct abridgement of a longer account, quoted by Por-
phyry in Schol. II. ß, 169. and v, 295. as from Aristotle, in
which it is expressly said that piáλn is no measure, and which
unravels the idea of iπeppiaλoc as 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 edi-
tion of Schneider's Lexicon'), which I am as yet unwilling de-
cidedly to reject, though at the same time I have no confidence
in its correctness. For it appears to me that neither one who
' is himself like an overflowing cup', nor one who 'overfills his
cup', can be called according to the natural formation of words
ὑπερφίαλος.
7. On the other hand no synonym offers itself so naturally,
particularly to the adverb vπeрpiáλwc and its usage above
detailed, as vπepovac: see Eustath. ad Od. o, 71. I have al-
a
¹ Schneider in the earlier editions of his Lexicon rejected as forced
all derivation from pɩáλŋ; but in the last 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 ὑπερφυής.
a [In his third and last edition Schneider says: "Perhaps the ground
of Teрpíaλos 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
qiáλŋ might be maintained. Pindar appears to have taken it for væеρ-
φυής, when he calls Etna the ὑπερφίαλον δεσμόν of Typhaus, Fragm.
p. 17. Heyne."-ED.]
518
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &c.
บ
し
​ready mentioned the transition from v to in Schneider's Lexi-
con* under piapóc, which, even if left uncertain by the ex-
amples there given, is still confirmed in the case of þúw by
piru, piTpóc. But strictly speaking even this is unnecessary;
for the interchange of very similar forms is almost a law of lan-
guage; and thus reppuadoc, if such a word existed, must have
passed almost necessarily into vπeppiadoc, just as if it came
from φιάλη. But ὑπερφύαλος appears to me to find its ana-
logy in ὁμαλός (from ὁμός, ὁμοῦ), and to be a very good ex-
pression for signifying one who goes beyond the bounds of na-
ture, 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 Böckh) the
δεσμὸν ὑπερφίαλον of Typhous, where it can only mean enor-
mous, 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 vπeρ-
Quéc to be the true ground-idea; and this particularly speaks
for itself in the passage of Homer which I have hitherto de-
ferred quoting, Od. 8, 663., where the suitors speaking of Te-
lemachus' unobserved departure, and at π, 346. of his return,
as of something which must have been brought about by super-
natural assistance, express their astonishment in these words:
. ἦ μέγα ἔργον ὑπερφιάλως ἐτελέσθη (τετέλεσται)
Tnλeµáxw ódòs îde.
•
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 φιαρός from φῶς, as μνιαρός from μνοῦς,
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 øŵs
and another from φύω, like θίασος from θύω.--Ep.]
2 In Schol. Od. B. 320. the reading is vπeppuáλoto,-a circumstance
of little importance, but as it perhaps supposes the other derivation to
be an acknowledged one.
102. Ὑπερφίαλος, &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 vreppiaλoc 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,
ἔσχεθε δ' ὁρμῆς Παῖδα Ποσειδάωνος ὑπερφίαλόν περ ἐόντα:
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
ὑπερηνορέων and ὑπέροπλος. As ἠνορέη in Homer answers
exactly to the common word avspía, 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 meaning³. Now as the
word vwép does not necessarily imply anything reproachful,
ὑπερηνορέων as well as ὑπερφίαλος may be considered an epi-
thet not expressive in a moral sense either of good or ill. Like
vπeρpiaλoc 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. “Yßpí ádvokálwv
ἀνδρῶν ὑπερηνορεόντων, or at ψ, 31. Οφρ᾿ ἀνδρῶν τίσαιτο
ẞinν vπеρпvoреóvτwv, and more particularly when at ß, 266.
and 8, 766. the word kak@c is added to the participle for this
express purpose. This uncertainty is also particularly striking
at Il. 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 Il. 8, 176. (in the mouth too of Agamemnon),
to the Cyclops at Od. 2, 5. by the poet, and to the tyrant Pe-
lias, who is called veρývwp, in Hesiod 0, 995. Besides, the
› That is to say, we might set out from ȧvýp in its old general mean-
ing of man, and understand the epithet to mean one who sets himself
above every human relation; but the idea of manliness and spirit is evi-
dently the predominating one in all the compounds of -rwp.
520
102. Υπερφίαλος, &c.
idea of high-spiritedness is an almost literal translation of the
word compounded of vπép and "vopen; and the Grecian hero
might very well call every bold attack of a Trojan warrior (çon-
sequently of Deiphobus in the passage in question) by the term
high-spirited or daring. And lastly the verbal form repηvo-
péwv, 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 vπephvwp to mean one who is over-
daring, that participle could hardly be used as a regular fixed
epithet in this sense, as meaning therefore 'one continually
exercising an over-daring spirit'.
9. Ὑπέροπλος 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 Il. o, 185. and p, 170. vé-
poπλov eiπeîv, to speak arrogantly or presumptuously; with
which may be reckoned the vерожλíαι, arrogancies, of Aga-
memnon in the commencement of his quarrel with Achilles
(Il. a, 205.), and the verb as used of the king's farm at Ithaca
(Od. p, 268.) in these words,
...... οὐκ ἄν τίς μιν ἀνὴρ ὑπεροπλίσσαιτο,
:
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 ἠνορέη ὑπέροπλος and βίη ὑπέροπλος, of
the Titans, the hundred-handed giants, and the giant Mence-
tius, consequently of all ὑπερηνορέοντων; and ὑπέροπλον is
therefore everything which goes too far in word or action; so
that one is surprised to see Pindar, who at Pyth. 6, 47. (üßav
Vπéроπλоv) uses the word exactly in this sense, giving the
same epithet at Pyth. 9, 24. to the Lapithæ, who have nowhere
deserved one taken from the sense of over-daring. There appears.
therefore to have been a precedent in the older language for
* [The German word übermüthig (compounded of über 'over', and
müthig '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. Φάλος, &c.
521
using vπéρoτλoc, in addition to the above meaning, of every-
thing which surpasses in strength the ordinary standard,-an
idea which is also implied in ὑπέροπλος ἄτα, with which in
Ol. 1, 90. Pindar expresses also the excessive suffering of Tan-
talus in the world below*.
103. Φάλος, φάλαρα, τετραφάληρος.
1. Among the parts of the helmet we frequently find in
Homer o páλoc', of which we have no satisfactory explanation.
For although the most common opinion, according to which it
is the conus, 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 őñλa 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
youthful strength is deduced from ὁπλότερος, in order to explain ὑπέ-
ροπλοs to be the same as ὑπερήιωρ. How improbable is it that this
should be the ground-idea of oλórepos, when we read in Homer such
expressions as ὁπλότερος γενεῇ, and (Od. φ, 370.) καὶ ὁπλότερός περ
ἐὼν...., βίηφι δὲ φέρτερός εἰμι, and Χαρίτων μίαν ὁπλοτεράων, and (Od.
ο, 363.) τὴν ὁπλοτάτην τέκε παῖδα, &c. As yet I can offer nothing
better than the conjecture which I formerly proposed, that onλórepos
(see Schneid. Lex. in v.) comes from eropa, with which may perhaps
be compared oжideν also. On the contrary it appears to me more cer-
tain, that λor, a tool or instrument, comes from ến, the proper word
for work or labour of every kind. In either way πéроλоs may be
brought to an affinity with enw and eñoμai; for which there appears
possibility enough, though there is not the evidence requisite to esta-
blish it. And whoever should wish to add onλý to the same family,
must not omit the German Huf (a hoof),—an easy stipulation for those
who etymologize in the usual way.
T
T
ω
T
1 Possibly rò páλor, for the passages where it occurs do not decide
which; and in the Etym. M. there is an article entitled paλá plur. of
which the contents are similar to paλós; norare 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 his opinion that iπéрoñλos is formed
from ὅπλον as ὑπέρβιος is from βία.--Εν.]
522
103. Φάλος, &c.
occurs, still there is nowhere sufficient evidence to prove that
it is so; for Heyne's account of it at Il. y, 371. and e, 743. is
puzzling, and contains much that is erroneous; while the ex-
planations of the old grammarians, whom Schneider still fol-
lows, can neither be reconciled with Heyne, nor are they them-
selves satisfactory. Without pretending to give an accurate
account of the word, or one which shall be certain in all its
details, I content myself with making what progress I can in
the way of explanation, leaving it to be completed by some one
more intimately acquainted than I am with ancient art.
2. The passages are the following. At Il. y, 362. Menelaus
draws his sword against Paris, and
Πλῆξεν ἀνασχόμενος κόρυθος φάλον.......
which therefore shows that the paλoc was at the top and front
of the helmet. The sword breaks against it; and the same
thing happens again at 7, 338. in another combat.-At Il. 8,
459. and %, 9. is the following description:
Τόν ῥ' ἔβαλε πρῶτος κόρυθος φάλον ἱπποδασείης,
Ἐν δὲ μετώπῳ πῆξε· πέρησε δ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ὀστέον εἴσω
Αἰχμὴ χαλκείη, τὸν δὲ σκότος ὄσσε κάλυψεν.
Here then the pádoc 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. v, 614. Pisan-
der engages Menelaus with the axe, and
κόρυθος φάλον ἤλασεν ἱπποδασείης
῎Ακρον ὑπὸ λόφον αὐτὸν,
but does not wound him.-At II. v, 132. and π, 216. a closely
pressed throng of combatants is described in these words:
᾿Ασπὶς ἄρ᾽ ἀσπίδ᾽ ἔρειδε, κόρυς κόρυν, ἀνέρα δ᾽ ἀνήρ.
Ψαῦον δ᾽ ἱππόκομοι κόρυθες λαμπροῖσι φάλοισι
Νευόντων· ὣς πυκνοὶ ἐφέστασαν ἀλλήλοισιν.
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 revóvTwv
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-
wards he touched with his páλoc the helmet of the one before
103. Φάλος, &c.
523
him. To these passages we may add the compound aµpí-
paloc at e, 743. where Minerva's helmet, and λ, 41. where
Agamemnon's, are thus described:
Κρατὶ δ᾽ ἔπ᾽ ἀμφίφαλον κυνέην θέτο τετραφάληρον.
We must defer the consideration of the last word for the pre-
sent; but aµpipaλoc combined with the above passages pro-
duces the following result.
3. The paλoc 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 aµpi-
paloc, the paloc stretched from the crest backwards as well
as forwards. For we find no trace whatever of anything going
round in the other passages, which when speaking of one hel-
met invariably mention the pádoc in the singular number. The
páλo of the different helmets projected somewhat forwards,
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 aµpipaλo) touched each other whenever the
wearers bent forwards.-The last passage for our consideration
is K, 258. where the pádoc is mentioned as wanting, and
Thrasymedes gives Diomedes, who is going out as a nocturnal
spy, a κυνέην
Ταυρείην, ἄφαλόν τε καὶ ἄλλοφον, ἥτε καταῖτυξ
Κέκληται.
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, 614. the exact con-
nexion of the páλoc with the plume of the helmet; and we
may observe likewise, that in the majority of the other passages,
when the paloc is mentioned, the helmet is particularized as
being plumed. This therefore completes the certainty of that
view of the subject which regarded the páλoc as actually the
same with, or occupying the same place as, what was after-
524
103. Φάλος, &c.
wards called κῶνος, It was a curved elevation oǹ the top of
the helmet, in which was inserted the plume, and which at the
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 páλapa, which occurs
in Homer only once, at π, 106. where it is said of Ajax when
very much pressed by the enemy,
δεινὴν δὲ περὶ κροτάφοισι φαεινὴ
Πήληξ βαλλομένη καναχὴν ἔχει βάλλετο δ' αἰεὶ
Καπφάλαρ' εὐποίητα.
In this passage there is a various reading Καὶ φάλαρ', ac-
cording to which βάλλετο δ᾽ αἰεί must be considered as in a
parenthesis, and the rest of the sentence be connected thus:
Πήληξ βαλλομένη καὶ φάλαρα καναχὴν ἔχει But this reading
kai êxe.
of Aristarchus is very justly rejected, as the repetition ßáλλero
d'aiei is not justified by the mere aiei, which in fact is already
implied in the present βαλλομένη. The meaning of φάλαρα
however is not clear from this passage, which unfortunately, as
we said above, is the only one; for besides this instance pá-
Xapa is well known in all writers as the proper term for horse-
trappings. The word therefore in Homer is brought into con-
nexion with another form, þáλnpoc, which is supposed indeed
to be the same word, but which has not been preserved in that
older language in so simple a state: it is found only in the
epithet of the helmet Terpaþáλnpoc at e, 743. λ, 41. where
its meaning is not clear; and also in the verbal form paλn-
piówvra, which occurs at II. v, 799. as the epithet 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
us to form a judgement on them and on the point in question.
The passage which appears to contain the most information is
103. Φάλος, &c.
525
ΤΟ
να
T
NAOTE
οι.
in Schol. A. ad κ, 258. φάλος ὀμφαλός ἐστι μικρὸς ἀσπίδι
μικρᾷ παραπλήσιος. κεῖται δὲ κατὰ τὸ μέτωπον, ὑπερέχων τῶν
ὀφθαλμῶν, ἀποσκιάζων τὴν αὐγὴν τοῦ ἡλίου, οἷαι τῶν Κορυ-
βάντων αἱ κόρυθες καὶ τῶν Παλλαδίων: and then from δ, 459.
and v, 132. it is shown that the paλoc is on the forehead; a
proof to us that these grammarians, like ourselves, first tried
to find out what the pádoc was from the passages themselves.
Besides in spite of the value which this scholium may have as
giving us information respecting the helmets of those old priests,
still it is only a ridiculous union of two accounts which cannot
be united. For instance, one old superficial explanation of
the paλoc was that it is a boss for ornament: Schol. A. ad
γ, 362. λαμπροί τινες ἧλοι ἕνεκα προκοσμήματος. ad κ, 258.
τὰ ἐπὶ τῶν περικεφαλαιῶν λαμπρὰ ἀσπιδίσκια. Schol. ad
e, 182. φάλοι δέ εἰσι οἱ κατὰ τὸ μέτωπον τῆς περικεφαλαίας
λon аστеρiokot. We see how irreconcileable this expla-
nation (which is everywhere the prevailing one among the
grammarians, and according to which there would have been
several páλo on the forehead,) is with those passages which
speak so plainly of the kópuloc páλoc 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
8, 459. v, 132., represented the páλoc 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 pádoc is plainly described as an
ỏµþadòc µuêpóc, 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-
concileable with the other two as they are with each other; it
occurs in Schol. Victor. ad κ, 258. (ἄφαλόν τε καὶ ἄλλοφον):
ἄλοφον, πρὸς τὸ λανθάνειν, ἄφαλον δὲ ἀναγκαίως, ἐκ γὰρ τῶν
φάλων ειώθασιν ἐκδεῖσθαι οἱ λόφοι. On this I would observe,
that the excellent Victorian scholiast is the only one which
gives here the above explanation, while the others content
themselves with saying that the gleaming of the paλo, pre-
judicial to a nocturnal expedition, was the reason of the hel-
met being apaλoc. The account of the plume being stuck in
ἄφαλος.
ע
526
103. Φάλος, &c.
O
the φάλοι (ὧν καὶ ὁ λόφος ἔχεται) is found also in the other
scholia, but at v, 132. it is joined with the information that
the φάλος was on the forehead: that is to say, in Schol. A.,
from which we extracted the explanation of the páλoc (as
given above) by a shade for the forehead and by bosses, it is
said on this last passage that the φάλοι are συρίγγια ἐπὶ
τῶν μετώπων εἰς ἃ καθίενται οἱ λόφοι, because the expres-
sion ψαύειν λαμπροῖσι φάλοισι was explained, quite contrary
to the meaning of λαμπροῖσι, by touching with the plume.
επι
οι
6. The confusion in the scholia is still further increased by
the φάλαρα in Schol. A. ad π, 106. being likewise explained
as τὰ κατὰ τὸ μέσον τῆς περικεφαλαίας μικρὰ ἀσπιδίσκια, ἅτινα
κόσμου χάριν ἐντίθενται. _ On the other hand at e, 743. (ἀμε
φίφαλον... τετραφάληρον), and again in Schol. A., a distinc-
tion is carefully preserved between φάλοι and φάλαρα, the
former being explained in the usual way as ἀσπιδίσκοι on the
forehead, but the latter thus; φάλαρα δὲ, οἱ ἐν ταῖς παραγνα-
θίσι κρίκοι, δι᾿ ὧν αἱ παραγναθίδες καταλαμβάνονται τῆς περι-
κεφαλαίας: with which corresponds pretty nearly Schol. B. ad
π, 106. φάλαρα δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὰς παρειὰς ἐπιπίπτοντα μέρη, διὰ
τὸ φανὰ εἶναι καὶ λαμπρά. ὡς δὲ ὁ Θρᾷξ (Dionysius) ἑκατέ-
ρωθεν αὐτῆς (τῆς πήληκος) κόσμος. And lastly, the word τε-
τραφάληρον is again brought into connexion with the φάλοι
οι φάλαρα, and, contrary to all sense, explained by Eustathius
on the passage in e as joined by the poet himself to ἀμφίφαλον
as a word of closer and more definite meaning.
ων
τα
7. As far as páλoc 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 λόφος being stuck into the φάλος
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 paλoc is nowhere explained at once
by κῶνος. 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
‘Φάλος, conus galeæ', which they have copied from each other
103. Φάλος, &c.
527
S
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.
8. For the same reason the explanation of the paλapa being
that part of the helmet which protects the cheeks, deserves
(when placed at the side of the uncritical confusion of the pá-
λapa with the páλoc) our entire belief; 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 account
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 paλapa; 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 π, 106. is fully explained.
9. But when the grammarians again connect the forms pá-
ληρος and τετραφάληρος with this φάλαρα, it is to be hoped
that no one will consider as a confirmation of that connexion
the Lat. phalera, which has a short e, and has been transformed
in the mouth of the Latins from the Greek word; hence I ap-
prove of writing it falera'. Notwithstanding this, however,
2 In the so-called Glossary of Cyril is the unintelligible gloss Þáλos
habus'.
9 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 f, as in the case of phaselus,
sipho. But phalera is no longer a Greek word, any more than phaseolus:
and since the Latin tongue changed the word into a different shape, it
would also change the Greek into the Latin f; and thus, as both
ways of writing the words do really occur, that of faleræ and faseolus
ought to have the preference.
528
103. Φάλος, &c.
the metre and the Ionicism would be good grounds for the
change of φάλαρα to τετραφάληρος, if it were correct in other
points. But the meaning of the κυνέη τετραφάληρος of the
goddess can hardly be connected satisfactorily with those pá-
λapa. Let us take then to our aid what little the Epic lan-
guage still offers us. The κῦμα φαληριόων 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 paλnpiówv and Teтpa-
τετρα-
páλnpoc (and I feel confident of the truth of my supposition),
that paλnpoc was either the name for the plume of the helmet,
or an epithet of it. And thus I find it also very probable that
this appellation passed on to the fastening of such a plume in
the φάλος. In this way the epithets ἀμφίφαλος and τετρα-
páλnpoc suit each other admirably. The paλoc of a royal
helmet extended both forwards and backwards, and had four
holes or hollows for so many plumes. Whether Apollonius,
who at 3, 1228. calls an ornamented helmet Tетраþáλпроv,
and at 2,920. Teтpápadov, imagined or could imagine a four-
fold crest for four plumes, or whether in this instance as in
others a defective comprehension of the old Epic representa-
tions determined the imagery of his expressions, I will not at-
tempt 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 λ and p. According to that many words and pas-
sages belong to páλnpoc, which, together with the Homeric
Paλnpiówv, are usually explained by the idea of white, which
is considered the proper meaning of the word páλnpoc; but
this last point I do not so easily credit on the weak etymolo-
gical combinations of the grammarians (see Schneider's Lex.
v. paλapóc*). In Nicander Ther. 461. we find opn Xióveσσi
φαλαρός*).
* [The article referred to runs thus: "Paλapós, pá, pór, bright, clear,
shining, white: Ion. φάληρος, whence φαληριάω for φαλαρίαω, to be
white, to shine; thence also to foam. Hesychius has evpáλapa, λаµπρù,
and φαλαρὸν, λευκὸν ; again φαλαρὸς, φάλιος, φαλακρὸς, λευκομέτωπος,
λευκὸς καὶ φαλέον. According to this all the words quoted here have
the same origin as φανὸς from φάω, φάος, φῶς; therefore φάλιος means
103. Φάλος, &c.
529
páλnpa, where the white colour certainly shows itself, but it
does not therefore follow that the word páλnpa, any more than
κύματα φαληριόωντα (which Nicander certainly had in his
mind), must come from the idea of whiteness. In Theocritus
8, 27. occurs kúwv o páλapoc, which is understood to mean a
white dog but at 5, 104. a ram is called ó Páλapoc, 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 paλnpic, and at Acharn. 875.
in the mouth of the Boeotians paλapic, consequently pro-
nounced by the Latins (see Gesner, &c.) phalaris and phalēris.
This bird, which is called by the scholiast on the first-men-
tioned passage of Aristophanes ὄρνεον λιμναῖον εὐπρεπές, 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-fowl*.
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 paλoc only: still, however, in the white protuberance
contrasted with the black head, as well as in those foam-
shining, white, raupos, Callim. Fragm. 176. from páλos, shining: páλos, ô,
a shining body, like a button on the helmet. paλióñovs, devкóñovs, in
Hesych. who has also from φαλὺς the word φαλύνω, λαμπρύνω. Of a
similar kind is φάλαι, ὅρα, σκόπει, from φαλάω, whence comes παμφα-
λάω. From φάλιος, φαλίω, he has also φαλίσσεται, λευκαίνεται, ἀφρίζει.
That paλapos and paλnpòs mean white and shining is proved, among
other passages, by Nicand. Ther. 461., by the bird paλapìs, paλnpìs,
and the verb φαληριάω used by Homer of the foaming wave. κύων ὁ
paλapos, for paλnpos, the white dog, or dog with a white face, Theocr. like
páλios iπños, Procop. b. goth. 1. c. 18. As, for instance, from paλòs,
shining, comes the subst. ὁ φάλος, so from φαλαρὸς comes φάλαρον, τὸ,
the shining or white ornament, Eschyl. Pers. 661. Homer also uses
φάλαρα evidently for φάλοι, οἱ, ΙΙ. π, 106.; hence τρίφαλος, ἀμφίφαλος,
τετράφαλος, are synonymous with τριφάληρος, ἀμφ. &c.”
Passow in his Lexicon adopts Buttmann's distinction between paλos
and φάλαρα.--Ep.]
* [That is to say Bless-huhn, from the Blesse or star on its head.-
ED.]
2 M
530
103. Φάλος, &c.
crowned waves and snow-topped mountains, there is a simili-
tude to the crista on the helmet, which is generally white. And
lastly comes the plant paλapic 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 páλapov, used of the Per-
sian tiara by Eschylus, Pers. 661. The shade of Darius is
there implored to appear at his tomb; βασιλείου τιάρας φά-
λαρον πιφαύσκων βάσκε πάτερ ἄκακε Δαρειαν, οἶ. Here the
middle syllable of páλapov is, as the corresponding strophe
shows, short, and the word is therefore the singular of rà pá-
Aapa; 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. I would first remark, that the ex-
pression páλapov Tiápac, 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 paλog kópuloc in Homer, is evidently a
principal and striking part of the tiara. But that Eschylus
really used páλapov as something answering to the Homeric
páλoc, as perhaps the upright point of the Persian kings' tiara,
I cannot believe. The tiara had much that hung down; it had
for instance a payvalidac, and strings hanging at the ears*.
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 præcidit. 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 τιάρας περικείμενοι πιλωτὰς, καθεικυίας ἑκατέρωθεν, μέχρι
τοῦ καλύπτειν τὰ χείλη, τὰς παραγναθίδας, according to the reading as
now restored from the manuscripts and for the first time made intelli-
gible: see Coray. We observe from the article rás that all tiaras had
these coverings for the cheeks, which only on the occasion of this cere-
mony covered the mouth.
در
104. Φή.
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 þáλapov
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 Εὐφάλαρα, λαμπρά,
indicates a generalization of the word³.
T
12. In briefly touching on the word τpuþáλeia, the most
common explanation from 7p- and paλoc appears to me totally
inadmissible; not on account of the change from to v, but
because τpuþáλea 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 Il. μ, 22. ὅθι πολλὰ βοάγρια καὶ τρυφάλειαι
Κάππεσον ἐν κονίησι. Hence, according to all that has been
said above, the derivation from Tρúw recommends itself to me
as the most probable: a helmet with a hole bored in the paλoc
to receive the plume is naturally opposed to the above-described
καταῖτυξ.
104. Φή.
1. Twice in the Iliad the old critics quote a reading of
Zenodotus, in which the word pʼn or on is used in the sense
of wc. The first is B, 144. where the text now has
Κινήθη δ᾽ ἀγορὴ ὡς κύματα μακρὰ θαλάσσης,
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 paλakpós and
the more unusual gloss páλios (see Callim. Fr. 176.), to the stem or
root gáλos, shining, from paw, 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.
2 M 2
532
104. Φή.
eye was still sticking the strong spear with which the former
had struck him, the narrative goes on to say,
ὁ δὲ φῆ, κώδειαν ἀνασχὼν,
Πέφραδέ τε Τρώεσσι, καὶ εὐχόμενος ἔπος ηὔδα.
,
In order to construe and understand these words, interpreters,
both ancient and modern, have recourse to the very harshest
methods: en is to be kept at the beginning of the sentence,
and then, after bringing in Téopade, is to be repeated by nuda ;
while κώδειαν is to stand for ὡς κώδειαν, a form of expression
harsh in itself, and not occurring in any part of Homer; or, as
the moderns have explained the passage, kúdela 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 Πέφραδε, &c. Now how, it may be asked, was it pos-
sible in this instance coolly to throw aside the reading of Ze-
nodotus (if indeed it is to be called a reading, and not rather
an explanation of the text as it really stood,) ὁ δὲ, φὴ κώδειαν
ávaσxìv, Пépрade, &c.? Yet the old grammarians, with Ari-
starchus at their head, ventured to do so, with only this remark,
that Homer never used on thus. The moderns mostly agree
with them, particularly (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 pʼn 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. Φή.
533
lete, that, at a period when the Greek language was in its ze-
nith 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. On 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,
Δή ῥα νεόλλουτος, προκαλεύμενος ἥδυμον ὕπνον,
Ἐγρήσσων ἐτεόν γε.
It is true that the text might remain as it is here, for Mercury
was really a new-born child; but the dn 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 Pn, '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.,
Pǹ yépwv oîow, can hardly have stood anywhere but at the be-
ginning of a verse, as thus,
Φή ῥα γέρων οἶσιν......
3. According to this, there is no doubt that, as long as the
syllable on stands in the second Homeric passage, it must be
construed and explained as Zenodotus has done. For in answer
to the observation that Homer nowhere else uses on thus, I
think it would be sufficient to say, that such an unintelligible
piece of patchwork as the sentence is according to the common
reading does not occur again in all Homer. And do we not
make Homer use, in every instance but one, xpn, and in that
one deî? in every instance but one pxe, and in that one apxe?
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 pʼn existed in the old Epic language, is it
534
104. Φή.
to be wondered at (even if Homer himself did not use it) that
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 Il. , 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 unintel-
ligibly. 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 on 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 wc, 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.
Αἴθ᾽ οὕτως, Εὐμαῖε, φίλος Διὶ πατρὶ γένοιο, Ὡς ἐμοί. 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 wc in any part of Homer as in that single
passage ως κύματα μακρὰ θαλάσσης. Everywhere we have
either the simple ὥς after the noun, as θεὸς ὥς, λύκοι ὥς, δρυό-
Xouc wc; or when placed before the noun, we have wore, as
χους
ὥστε κρήνη μελάνυδρος, ὥστε λέοντε δύω, ὥστε γυναῖκας; οι
ἤϋτε, as ἤΰτε κούρη, ἤϋτε νεβρούς, &c. Nor let it be asked
why this is so. In languages we can do nothing with usage but
observe it. This construction of wc, 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 wc) read on; while in the other passage on 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 wa, though oc-
curring but once in that way, to stand in our text, as we do
the deî; but whoever would reject the other reading as a de-
104. Φή.
535
cided interpolation, must endeavour to restore to the other pas-
sage, where it now stands uncontradicted, the true Homeric
reading which had been ejected by the rhapsodists.
@
6. But whence comes this on, which at all events is pure
Greek? It is said to have sprung from with the digamma.
ทุ
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 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, ʼn has
throughout the Epic language no other meaning than that of lo-
cality, whither, where. Nor do I know any reason why so much
regard is still paid to the authority of the grammarians as to
write Oéuic éori (see Heyne on Il. ß, 73.), while in Od. 1, 268.
Δοίης δωτίνην, ἥτε ξείνων θέμις ἐστί (see note below) is left un-
changed; and the passage of Od. w, 286. ǹ yàp Oéμg (for so
θέμις
it is right), Tuc vπáρč, proves the correctness of the con-
struction with the nominative case of the relative, ἣ θέμις ἐστί
(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. Eeiviá 7' eû
τ'
παρέθηκεν, ἅτε ξείνοις θέμις ἐστίν',—but because, as we said
above, does not occur anywhere else in the sense of as. Not-
n
withstanding this I consider the derivation of the particle on
from the idea of the correlatives, πn, Tŷ (although I would
by no means pledge myself for it) as not to be rejected. The
transition namely from the idea of πñ, 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, πî (quomodo) may have very well meant
in the oldest period of the language sicut. But on bears the
same relation to this πῆ as φανός does to πανός, φάρσος to pars
?
1 I am undecided whether to understand are here, as at Il. X, 127.
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 re to dwrivn, as
we might very well say θέμις ἐστὶ δωτίνην δοῦναι, ξείνια παραθεῖναι,
but hardly δωτίνη θέμις ἐστὶ ξείνων.
536
105. Φολκός, φοξός.
(see počóc, sect. 5.), Pawóλnc to panula, flagrum to #λnyń,&c.²
This on thus modelled, in which therefore the old relation to
Tŷ 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 , T.
n
7. While we leave this point undecided, there is yet an-
other remaining, viz. to determine the accent of this particle.
Eustathius on Il. έ, 499. has on, 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: ὁ μὲν Ζηνόδοτος καὶ τὸν δε καὶ τὸν φη ἐγκλίνει,
ἵνα τὸ φὴ ταὐτὸν ὑπάρχῃ τῷ ὡς. The scholiast had for in-
stance the reading dépn, i. e. d'epn, before his eyes. Now
as we have seen in art. 82. note 21. that these grammarians
used the word eykλivew of the gravis also in the construction,
it is clear that Zenodotus wrote o dè pn, &c. With which
therefore the other scholium agrees, which says that Zenodotus
and those who followed him wrote the words φὴ κώδειαν ὑφ᾽ ἕν
εν.
105. Φολκός, φοξός.
1. The two words poλkóc and poğóc, from occurring in
Homer but once, and then so close to each other*, from coming
there under the same category of meaning, and being so similar
in form, have so much in common, that all this induced a pre-
disposition, by no means to be rejected, to treat them similarly
as to etymology also. And this has been done. As the earliest
commentators saw in these two epithets the roots or stems eλKw
and oúc, so the later have recognised in the 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.
* [I1. ß, 217. 219.-ED.]
105. Φολκός, φοξός.
537
2. The word počóc 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 Fœsii 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
Athenæus 11, p. 480. that Simonides called the Argive cups,
which tapered toward the top, počixeiλove': for what is other-
wise a defect in vessels, gives a pretty poetical epithet for a cup
made intentionally in this shape.
1
3. Now that this appellative comes from oğúc with the di-
gamma we are certainly led to conclude, from the idea of oğúc
as it appears in the explanations of the ancients, and also in
the thing itself: for by all the interpreters Thersites is called
oğuкépaλoc, and those vessels are described in the Etymol. as
ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς ὠξυμμένα. But against the digamma there is
one great objection, that no trace is anywhere to be found of
the word oğúc 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 language more distantly relatedⓇ.
4. Somewhat more favourable to a similar view of poλkóc
is the verb eλkw, which has the aspirate, and from which is
derived with great probability A, standing in Homer in the
hiatus (II. v, 707., compare Od. o, 375.). But what is the
meaning of the word? The ancients derived it (in order to
produce the idea of squinting) from τὰ φάη and ἕλκειν; an
improbable derivation, but as far as regards the form not to
та
1 The verse runs thus: Αὕτη δὲ φοξίχειλος Αργείη κύλιξ. See Etym.M.
2 Nay further, as the word certainly belongs to the same stem or
family of words as acutus, åký, &c., all these words and forms have no-
where the digamma or a V; nay the old reduplication in ảкwкý, ȧrax-
µévos, presupposes that from the oldest times the word began with a
vowel; since, of the words which probably once had the digamma, only
αἱρέω (compare ἀποαιρέω)--and that not until in the later Ionic dialect
-has the reduplication ἀραίρηκα.
538
105. Φολκός, φοξός.
be rejected; for pάoλkoc would be the regular compound,
from which might very easily come poλkóc. But as eλkew
ἕλκειν
can only have that meaning in this express combination of
words 'one who draws or drags his eyes,' how could poλkóc,
if without the significancy of it stood merely for oλkóg, 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
Oτpaßóc. At all events we must easily feel that the derivation
from Akw alone is by no means so convincing as to form (with
the change of the digamma into ,-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 papów for apów and pʼn for ; but
the latter has been shown in the preceding article to be una-
vailable for such a purpose; and as little trace is there of the
digamma in apów. Now as papów is evidently connected with
Pápay, and with the papooc (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 apów will be
mere chance³. Nor can we properly adduce, as an instance
of the change, the in the pronouns opé, opiv, &c., which,
as we have seen in art. 82. note 14., belong to the same root
with the pronoun ë, acknowledged to have the digamma: for
here the influence of the sharp Greek σ on the neighbouring
e!
• Perhaps άpów, aro with area, comes from the root epa, Germ. Erde
(Angl. earth), and was originally a more general idea in the sense of
yewpyeiv; 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 papów, to plough, as given above, is more fully de-
tailed in the Etym. Μ. v. ἀφάρωτος; where it is first said, φάρος γὰρ ἡ
ἄροσις, and then -φάρος παρὰ τὸ φάρσαι δ ἔστι σχίσαι· καὶ γὰρ δια-
φάρους φασὶ (ν. 1. διαφάρσους φαμὲν) χιτῶνας τοὺς εἰς δύο μέρη κεχωρισ-
μένους, καὶ φάρσος τὸ ἀπόσχισμα τῆς ἐσθῆτος. See also Schneider under
pάpw. A bad etymology is given by Heraclides in Alleg. Hom. 66.
(p. 461. Gale); ἔστι φέρσαι τὸ γεννῆσαι. καὶ τὴν γῆν ἀφάρωτον, ὁ Καλ-
λίμαχος εἶπε τὴν ἄγονον· ἀφάρωτος οἷον γυνή. Toup in his papers on
Hesychius had written all sorts of things about this Fragment of Calli-
machus, which were not intended for the press, though they were after-
wards printed in Opp. vol. 3. p. 499. Of the word yvvý no other
105. Φολκός, φοξός.
539
labial cannot be mistaken; which is the cause of op 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
poλkóc, for us to consider the thing as proved, and therefore
to 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 pwyew, to bake; conse-
quently the word will be very naturally a shortened form of
φωξός.
pwóc. That is to say, the potter probably called every-
thing počóv which, from being exposed to too strong a fire,
was warped, and consequently instead of being round be-
came somewhat 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.
7. And now comes the question, whether the explanation of
poλkóc by squinting is so certain. It must be remembered that
the word is a awağ eipnµévov 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
amendment is there mentioned than yŷ, and it is not once observed that
he afterwards (ad Suid. p. 483. Lips.) made a far better correction to
᾿Αφάρωτος
'ApáρwTos olov... yvíj, as the beginning of a versus senarius, since it is clear
from the Paris manuscript of the Etymologicum that the Fragment is
taken from the Iambic verses of Callimachus. In the collection of the
Fragments No. 421. it is given imperfectly. Besides, the absurdity of
the derivation given by Heraclides is clear from another Fragment of
Callimachus (183. Bentl. and Blomf.) "H åpapov papówσi, péλei dé piv
ὄμπνιον ἔργον· which would be nonsense if ἄφαρος were the same as
ayovos. It means not in a state of cultivation; nor is there any reason
why apάporos 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 he would have made the same remark which
I have; as he proposed (in the Etym. M. in v.) pwixeidos as an uncer-
tain conjecture for φοξίχειλος.
540
105. Φολκός, φοξός.
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 as he says, for instance, (lib. 3.
c. 3.) τὴν μέντοι οὐ λαβοῦσαν ἔδνα ὀνομάσαις ἂν ἀνάεδνον
῾Ομηρικῶς:
'Oμnpikwa: consequently he quotes it as a particular usage;
and in very well known words he may have occasionally left
out ῾Ομηρικῶς. Yet that φολκός was not a word of known and
acknowledged 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 počóc; and among them we might
introduce the laughable explanation in Hesychius, poλkóc,
στραβός· οἱ δὲ λιπόδερμον. A further doubt of the meaning
oi
of squinting arises from the way in which the appellatives follow
each other in the passage itself:
Φολκὸς ἔην, χωλὸς δ᾽ ἕτερον πόδα, τὼ δέ οἱ ὤμω
Κυρτὼ ἐπὶ στῆθος συνοχωκότε, αὐτὰρ ὕπερθεν
Φοξὸς ἔην κεφαλὴν, ψεδνὴ δ᾽ ἐπενήνοθε λάχνη.
It is most improbable in a poet, particularly one of nature, that
he 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, and that at the end of it he should
pass to the head, introducing it with an avràp vπерlεν.
e/
No
8. The ancients probably knew as little as we do what
poλkóc really meant, and therefore sought to arrive at it by
means of etymology. The same road is still open to us.
doubt there has existed a verb from which poλкóc 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. Þáλkne, or
Φάλκης,
φάλκις, was according to Pollux on board a ship τὸ τῇ στείρᾳ
προσηλούμενον. According to Hesychius φάλκη is, ὁ τῆς
κόμης αὐχμός· ἢ νυκτερίς. According to Suidas, ἐμφαλκωμέ-
ἢ
νοις (probably ἐμπεφαλκωμένοις, from a verb ἐμφαλκόω) means
πeρiñetλeyμévoig, in a passage quoted in his Lexicon, as used
of the twisted cordage by which the battering-ram was sus-
pended. This last word alone bears evident signs of a verbal
root ÞEAKO, identical with flecto, plecto and λékw, as fla-
А
π
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
541
grum is with #λnyú, &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 σreîpa is the fore-
keel which bends upwards to the prow, so τὸ τῇ στείρᾳ προσ-
nλovμevov 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 poλкóc. On
the other hand all those twisted and curved objects lead to no
meaning so natural for poλkóc 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. "Bandy-legged he was, and
lame in one foot" is, I think, a beginning for the description
of Thersites not unworthy of Homer.
106. Χραισμεῖν, ἀρκεῖν, ἀλέξειν.
1. The general acceptation of the verb xpaioμeîv is this, that
from the adjective χρήσιμος (χράσιμος) was formed by an easy
modification a verb xpatouéw, with the definite meaning of to
help, and of which therefore expatopov (Il. e, 53. n, 144. a, 28.
ἔχραισμε, χραῖσμε, conj. χραίσμῃ) 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
éw by rejecting its 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 éw, áw, &c., and sometimes not, as in tétµov,
Tеvov. The present of this verb never occurs. The infin.
Xpaioμeîv (Il. a, 242. 589. &c.) is therefore infin. aor. 2., out
of which arose in course of usage a fut. xpaioμnow (Il. v, 296.
اد
5 Valgus bears the same relation to the common radical form πλékw,
as vitricus does to pater, veru to πeipw, vallus to palus, virgo virginis to
παρθένος.
542
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
4,316.), and again a new aorist expaíoμnoa (Il.λ, 120. π, 837.
o, 62.).
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 Xpatoμeiv
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. Damm, in his article on this word, has first given in-
stances of the full construction, as for example in Il. n, 144.
ὅθ᾽ ἄρ᾽ οὐ κορύνη οἱ ὄλεθρον Χραῖσμε: 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.
>
οι
Μή σε φίλην περ ἐοῦσαν ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖσιν ἴδωμαι
θεινομένην· τότε δ᾽ οὔτε δυνήσομαι ἀχνύμενός περ
Χραισμεῖν· ἀργαλέος γὰρ Ὀλύμπιος ἀντιφέρεσθαι.
We cannot however admit the supposition that the original idea
suggested by xpaioμeir was only that of 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)', 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 Il. È, 66.
Νέστορ, ἐπειδὴ νηυσὶν ἐπὶ πρύμνῃσι μάχονται,
Τεῖχος δ' οὐκ ἔχραισμε τετυγμένον οὐδέ τι τάφρος :
-
and secondly, because the accusative after xpaioμeiv 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 ὄλεθρος, θάνατος.
1 The verb Xpáw, which sometimes has this meaning, still however
only with the dative of the object attacked (Od. e, 396. Oaλepòs dé oi
expac daíµwv), might have led to the mistake.
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
543
3. From this last remark I am decidedly of opinion that
love' in the well-known passage of Il. a, 566, 567.
Μή νύ τοι οὐ χραίσμωσιν ὅσοι θεοί εἰσ᾽ ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ
Ασσον ἰόνθ᾽, ὅτε κέν τοι ἀάπτους χεῖρας ἐφείω,
is not lóvra with ué understood (a supposition awkward enough
in itself), but ióvTe: and this reading is fully confirmed by com-
paring it with Il. o, 104.
Νήπιοι, οἳ Ζηνὶ μενεαίνομεν ἀφρονέοντες,
Ἢ ἔτι μιν μέμαμεν καταπαυσέμεν ἆσσον ἰόντες
Ἢ ἔπει ἠὲ βίῃ˙
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 adóvte, Il. e, 487. put this be-
yond a doubt, and show clearly that originally the dual and
plural forms were in general the same, as in vuμe and vµâc.
4. The verb Xpaioμeîv then has nearly the same meaning and
construction as ἀρκεῖν, ἀρκέσαι; 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 Il. v, 371.
Ιδομενεὺς δ᾽ αὐτοῖο τιτύσκετο δουρὶ φαεινῷ,
Καὶ βάλεν ὕψι βιβάντα τυχών· οὐδ᾽ ἤρκεσε θώρηξ
Χάλκεος, ὃν φορέεσκε μέσῃ δ' ἐν γαστέρι πῆξεν.
Nor has ἀρκεῖν, any more than χραισμεῖν, in any 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. 2, 16.
᾿Αλλά οἱ οὔτις τῶνγε τότ᾽ ἤρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον.
0
᾿Αρκεῖν has one advantage however over χραισμεῖν, at least in
the instances in Homer, namely, that with the dative and accu-
sative it may have also aró with a genitive; for example at Il. v,
440. χιτῶνα Χάλκεον, ὅς οἱ πρόσθεν ἀπὸ χροὸς ἤρκει ὄλεθρον.
This construction made it very natural to connect apkeîv with
the similarly-sounding Latin verb arcere, and with elpyw, ěpkog,
and to consider the idea of warding or keeping off as its original
meaning, with which it was always supposed necessary to set
544
106. Χραισμεῖν, &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 apkéw and arceo are
identical. And yet the common meaning of apкeîv, to be
enough, to suffice, cannot be deduced from the same idea as
arcere without force and harshness. This supposition (of
warding or driving off being the original meaning of apkeîv)
looks the more suspicious from our never finding ápkeîv tivá
(an enemy), apkеiv Béλog; nay still more so from the com-
pound eπаρкеiv being used precisely as the simple verb, e. g.
Il. β, 873. οὔτε τί οἱ τόγ᾽ ἐπήρκεσε λυγρὸν ὄλεθρον, and from
the preposition of which it is compounded standing in direct
opposition to the supposed meaning of arcere; and lastly this
suspicion is again strengthened by the old Epic epithet πod-
άркnc. In addition to this the adjective apкioç* (Il. k, 304.
μolòc аρкioc) 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 ȧphyw and apkéw are connected together, just as elpyw and
Eρкоç are, and that apkéw alone has the more definite meaning
of shelter and protection; then eаρкeiv comes at once into
unison with eπapnyew: and if we suffer ourselves to be led
back through ἀρήγειν to the simple idea of ῎Αρης, ἀρείων,
apioтoc, we have for both verbs the ground-idea of to be good,
strong, from which come next the idea of enough, and the
compound Tоdáркng: if lastly to this we add the dat. com-
modi, the ideas of to help and protect, ἀρήγειν and ἀρκεῖν τινί,
arise of themselves. The accusative in Homeric usage now
ม
2 To connect this meaning of åpreîv 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 άpreîv 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.]
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
545
is 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 apкeîv 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, nor one neces-
sary to the verb: but as soon as it had this relation, the still
nearer one could certainly be expressed no otherwise than by
adding afresh the limitation of ἀπό: ἀρκεῖν τινὶ τὸν ὄλεθρον
ἀπὸ τῆς χροός.
5. The analogy of this verb will now undoubtedly serve to
confirm all that is essential in the common derivation of χραι-
oμeiv. For as we recognised in apkéw 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 xpaioμeiv we must not reject the idea of good,
joined with the collateral one of use, utility, which meets us in
the words χράω, χρηστός, χρήσιμος, although Homer does not
give the verb the general idea of to be useful to, to help. And
as the general meaning of apkeî, to suffice, was preserved not
in Homer but in the common language of Greece, so the same
might be the case with xpaioμeiv 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
χραισμεῖν there by βοηθεῖν, adding τὸ γὰρ χραισμεῖν Κλι-
τόριοι λέγουσι τὸ ἐπαρκεῖν. The last word cannot possibly
be used here in its Homeric meaning of to ward 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 aрke in the common language of Greece
never had any other meaning than to help, help out; conse
quently xpaioµeîv continued to have this meaning in Arcadia :
and all analogy requires that we should 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 gloss:
῎Αλλως· τὸ χραισμεῖν ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπαινεῖν ἢ παραινεῖν λαμβάνουσι Κλιτό-
T
2 N
546
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
6. It is true that the word xphouoc looks too new, for an
aor. 2. (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.
afterwards lost, it is very possible that from Xpav (commodare,
'to offer', is the ground-idea) might have arisen in some other
way a sister-form xpaioueîv 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 ill³.
7. Another remark should be made on xpaioueîv, that in
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
ριοι· κοινῶς δὲ τὸ βοηθεῖν. It would be possible indeed that χραισμεῖν
(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 éτaρкεîv and èπaireîv? 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 èñaɩveîv, and was afterwards
increased by the addition of another explanatory term, of which we see
a thousand instances in the different medleys of commentators.
addition of κοινῶς δὲ τὸ βοηθεῖν should merely serve to bring the di-
gression of the scholium back to the regular point. For under kowòv
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 miswritten and corrupt scholium. It does not therefore
deserve the consideration which it has found in Schneider's Lexicon.
The
5 When I compare the verbal form λeλeixµóres (Hes. 0, 826.) derived
from λείχω, and the more usual one λιχμᾶσθαι, (both meaning to pro-
trude the tongue as serpents do,) with epµós from (épw, of which again
a verbal form so simple as θέρμετε, θέρμετο occurs in the Homeric lan-
guage, the following account appears to me most analogical. In the
older language, when many derivative forms (always, it is true, ac-
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
547
χραισμεῖν stands without a negation, εἰ δύναταί τι χραισμεῖν,
(Il., 193.) is ironical, and the negative is therefore in the
thought, though not expressed in the words.
8. All nineteen passages are moreover only in the Iliad. In
the whole 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. χραίσμετέ μοι : 2, 249. ἄμμι νόος ἀτύζεται,
ἱεμένοισι χραισμεῖν: again at 3, 643. where ἀέθλῳ χραισμεῖν
stands for to assist in the contest." The only passage which
in the Homeric manner has the negative is 2, 1227. o oi
Xpaιoμnoe. 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
،،
31
by an established usage. The derivations χραισμή, χραισμή-
Twp, 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 χραισμεῖν and ἀρκεῖν have in Homer no other sense than
that of warding off, yet that the idea of keeping off or driving
away, arcere, is not therefore the ground-idea of these words,
cording 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 -μos, shortened from -uw (whence the language of later
times allowed the formation of ἐπιλήσμων ἐπιλησμότατος, Aristoph.
Nub. 790.), which became in the more polished periods of the language
the established form in -ιμος, -σιμος. Thus as θερμός was from θέρω,
so from λείχω might come ΛΕΙΧΜΩΝ, ΛΙΧΜΟΣ, as an epithet of
snakes from their protruding the tongue; and again from xpaw might
be deduced XPAIZMON, XPAIZMOZ, able to help. If now from the
two former arise the verbs θέρμετο, λελειχμότες, then ἔχραισμοι, as
formed from the last, is quite analogical; although in later times the
language established the aorist 2. as the stem or root only, and marked
such derivatives by particular terminations, as eúw, ów, i4w, &c.
2 N 2
548
106. Χραισμεῖν, &c.
we may quote in particular the verbs ἀλέξειν and ἀλαλκεῖν.
For in these it is well known that strength (åλký) 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. Z, 109. Dàv
δέ τιν᾽ ἀθανάτων... Τρωσὶν ἀλεξήσοντα κατελθέμεν: and γ, 9.
μεμαῶτες ἀλεξέμεν ἀλλήλοισιν: 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. Il.
1, 347.
νήεσσιν ἀλεξέμεναι δήϊον πῦρ: at v, 475. ἀλέξασθαι μεμαὼς
κύνας ἠδὲ καὶ ἄνδρας: at p, 153. νῦν δ᾽ οὔ οἱ ἀλαλκέμεναι κύνας
ἔτλης. And herein we see that the usage of this verb goes
even further than that of χραισμεῖν and ἀρκεῖν, which, as we
observed above, take the evil in the accusative in the abstract.
sense only, as death, destruction, &c.
2. If then aλéčew by the addition of such an accusative ac-
quires this meaning, the same thing is natural in åpkeîv 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, ἐπαρκέσαι τινὶ ὄλεθρον, comes
now into strict analogy with Il. v, 315. Mýπor' Èπì Tρúcσow
ἀλεξήσειν κακὸν ἦμαρ. For this expression evidently arises from
éπadéğew Tiì, to assist any one, Il. 0, 365. X, 428., and in spite
of the preposition takes the sense of warding off,-a sense which
has also become established in the substantive eñaλğıç'.
1
In order to make the contradiction between this preposition and the
supposed sense of apkeiv the more sensible, I invented in note 3. of the
former part of this article a compound adarcere, 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 we are still wanting an explanation, and with which the above-
mentioned éаpkeiv Tivi T will as well bear a comparison as with the
other ἐπὶ Τρώεσσιν ἀλεξήσειν.
T
THE END.
OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
N.B. In the following Index the larger numerals refer to the Author quoted,
the smaller to the page of the Lexilogus.
ACHILL. TAT.
3, 2. 3, 5. 222.
ELIAN.
Hist. Anim.
4, 34.
5, 3.
17, 6.
ཉ
203.
378.
De Nat. Anim.
1, 14.
221.
4, 31.
329.
9, 1.
9, 49.
Var. Hist.
ÆSCHYLUS.
Agamem.
v. 30.
203.
$29.
Choeph.
488.
1, 27. 27.
3, 1. 326.
3, 43. 205.
9, 13. 27.
Frag.ap.Suid.105. v.ěžnкov.467.
INDEX I.
351.
198. 469.
331. 351.
1322. 351.
1633 (1652). 78.
v. 853. 348.
(ÆSCHYLUS.)
Pers.
529. 530.
428.
756.
954. 153.
v. 661.
Prom.
v. 2. 84.
9. 428.
28. 152.
402. 410.
435. 494.
633. 508.
Sept. c. Theb.
v. 216. 371.
290. 212.
Suppl.
372.
171. 377.
239. 372.
275.
154.
284. 155.
610. 315.
657. 410.
683. 184.
Fragm. ap. Athen. 11, p. 469. 89.
v. 164.
ALCIPHRON.
1, 35. 203.
3, 5. 221.
550 INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
APOLLONIUS RHODIUS.
I. v. 79. 363.
ALCMAN.
Fragm. 17. Welck. ap. Athen.
3, p. 110. 319.
Fragm. 28. Welck. ap. Athen.
14. p. 648. 319.
Fragm.ap.Athen.13,p.600.f.318.
Fragm. ap. E. M. 416.
ALEXIS.
ap. Athen. 11, p. 472. a. 294.
ANACREON.
Od. 57. Fisch. (ap. Athen. 10,
p. 427.) 318.
Fragm. 25. Fisch. ap. Hephæst.
p. 40.
316.
Fragm. 53. ibid. 316.
Fragm. 58. ibid. p. 58. 316.
Fragm. 72. Fisch. ap. Strabon.
14, p. 661. 317.
Fragm. 123. Fisch. ap. Hephæst.
p. 22.
317.
Fragm.ap. Athen.14, p.599. 318.
ANTIMACHUS.
Fragm. 27. Schellenb.
Fragm. 87. 339, 342.
Fragm. ap. Schol. Il. ß. 2. 416.
Fragm. ap. Apollon. de Pronom.
P. 373.
427.
ANTIPATER SID.
Epigr. 8, 2. ap. Brunck. Anal.
2,8. 203.
73, 3. ap. Brunck. Anal. 2,26.
460.
ANTIPHON.
ap. Eustath. ad II.
Basil. 356.
APOLLODORUS.
392.
3, 10, 3. 50.
y. 37. p. 286.
129. 264.
225. 252.
254. 273.
269. 315.
409. 449.
459. 5.
558.
580. 44.
643.
422.
664.
111.
677. 148.
703. 144.
729. 414.
765. 74.
775. 414.
789. 414.
834. 277.
1034. 274.
1087. 447.
1095. 447.
1147. 205.
1160. 220.
1164. 407.
1275. 148.
II. v. 54. et Schol.
77. 4.
119. 504.
177. 473.
218. et Schol. 545. 547.
276.
240. 37.276.
249.
547.
361.
381.
532.
472.
799.
166.
831. 203.
849.
355.
861. 282.
920. 528.
935. 281.
1180. 355.
1208. 309.
517.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
551
(APOLLONIUS RHODIUS.)
IV. v. 1123. 355.
1131. 324.
1155. 237.
1189. 237.
1239. 44.
1249. 281.
1398. 482.
1422. 37.
1528.
37.
1629. 462.
1670. 323. 409.
1671. 485. 490.
1683. 363.
1695. 271.
1748. 107.
(APOLLONIUS RHODIUS.)
II. v. 1227.
547.
III. v. 40. 144.
219. 282.
281. 274.
296. 274.
395. 422.
396. 277.
417. 43. 219.
439.
276.
463.
107.
471. 70.
586. 355.
600. 422.
616. 37.
635. 107.
643.
547.
694. 144.
770. 214.
819. 214.
969. 281.
981. 324.
1097. 386.
1104. 37.
1158. 407.
1170. 490.
1202. 325.
1206. 37.
1228. 528.
1281. 363.
1291. 273.
1393. 509.
1407. 219.
IV. v. 169. 237.
176. 182.
188. 414.
267. 44.
270. 44.
276. 111.
316. 326.
375. S42.
407. 418.
576. 214.
ARATUS.
41.
349. 44.
413. 273.
426. 208.
432. 273.
717. 457.
v. 134.
ARCHIAS.
Epigr. 12, 4. ap. Brunck. Anal.
2, 95. 203.
ARCHILOCHUS.
Epigr. 5, 3. ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 41. 20.
Fragm. 9. 459.
Fragm. 69. Liebel.
272.
Fragm. ap. Orig. c. Cels. 1. 2.
p. 76.
434.
ARISTOPHANES.
Acharn.
v. 227.
875.
Aves.
321.
529.
v. 565. et Schol. 529.
552
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(ARISTOPHANES. Aves.)
977. 359.
1732.
Equit.
v. 749. (Schol.)
969. (Schol.)
1167. 450. 454.
Nubes.
Pac.
v. 33.
397.
762. 267.
v. 142. 299.
Ranæ.
797. 800. (Schol.) 43.
948. 450.
960. 450.
v. 730.
494.
823. 202.
330.
Thesmophor.
v. 1049.
ARISTOTELES.
Ethic. 1, 11. 373.
De Cœlo.
2, 13.
De Mundo.
Meteorolog.
410.
Polit.
264.
4, p. 468. g.
Hist. Anim.
6, 12.
488.
9, 40. (9, 27, 4. Schneid.) 93.
10, 25. 268.
3, 1. 484.
· 517.
•
192.
391.
7,16. (7,14,7. Schneid.) 77.
Probl.
26, 14.
26, 35.
18.
219.
484.
Sympos.
292.
ap. Athen. 15, p. 674.
Aristot. ap. Porphyr. in Schol.
II. 6, 169. et v, 295.
ASCLEPIADEs.
Epigr. 38, 4. ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 219. 395.
ATHENÆUS..
I. p. 5.
344.
p. 13. D. 292.
X. p. 416. B. 27.
BIANOR.
Epigr. ined. ap. Jac. Anthol. 2.
p. 310. (13. p. 629.), aut ap.
Cephal. Anthol. 10, 201. 234.
CALLIMACHUS.
Hymn.
in Cer.
35.
480.
in Del.
302. 460.
in Dian.
in Joy.
166.
160. 27.
247.
Epigr.
179.
5, 5.
17.
52. 460.
96.
178.
49.
54.
Fragm.
460.
460.
291.
183.
55.
41. 337.
53. 376.
164. 235.
176. 529.
183. 539.
190. 229.
249. 311.
271. 84.
312.
275.
421. 539.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 553
DIODORUS SICULUS.
lib. 16. 203.
(CALLIMACHUS.)
Hecale 41. Bentley. 296.
ap. Bekk. Anecd. p. 1253. 296.
p. 1187. 297.
CALLINUS.
11. 258.
CHISHULL.
Ant. As. p. 61. 474.
p. 130.
465.
CORNUTUS.
De Nat. Deor. 1. 370.
CRINAG.
Epigr. ap. Brunck. Anal. 2, 144.
aut ap. Fragm. Callim. 40.
312.
ap. Stob. Eth. 2. p. 205. 149.
ap. .Stob. Serm. 6. p. 82. Gesn.
31.
DEMOCRITUS.
DEMOSTHENES.
p. 210, 15.
in Eubulid.
p. 1301. penult. 220.
in Lacrit.
p. 926, 5.
in Leptin.
sect. 29.
in Pantan.
P. 476.
in Polycl.
106.
473.
De Fals. Leg.
402. 30.
473.
260.
p. 1211. 473.
DEMOSTH. BITHYN.
ap.Stephan.Byz.v.'Hpaía.326.
ap. E. M. v. 'Hpaía. 509.
DIONYSIUS HAL.
7, 72. p. 478. 479. Sylb.
453.
DIONYSIUS PERIEG.
83. 203.
617. 344.
DIPHILUS.
ap. Athen. p. 292. 203.
EMPEDOCLES.
v. 208. Sturz. ap. Aristot. de
Anima 1, 5. 343.
v. 421. Sturz.
344.
EPICHARMUS.
376.
488.
ap. Athen. p. 236. b.
ap. Athen. 7. p. 286. b.
Epigr. adesp. 466. ap. Brunck.
Anal. 3. p. 250.
503.
ERATOSTHENes.
Epigr. 3, 9. ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 479. 356.
EURIPIDES.
Alcest.
v. 515.
351.
588. 472.
Androm.
v. 1029.
Bacch.
v. 585.
Cycl.
v. 455.
Hec.
v. 100.
152.
115.
159.
406.
191. 410.
1273. Q2.
554
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(EURIPIDES.)
Hel.
(HERODES ATT.)
Inscript. 1. ap. Brunck. Anal. 2,
300. 344.
v. 59. 144.
860.
Heracl.
v. 75.
Herc. Fur.
v. 234.
Ion.
Hippol.
v. 732.
1214.
Med.
1053.
v. 549.
Iph. Aul.
v. 476.
Iph. Taur.
v. 529.
v. 441.
1409.
Suppl.
v. 56.
303.
194.
299.
1207. 423.
Troad.
467.
148.
828. 512.
v. 96.
346.
334.
HERACLIDES.
472.
68.
144.
182. 11.
617.
302.
676.
472.
756. 373.
41.
373.
Frag.Ed.ap.Elian.h.a.12,7.261.
349.
EVENUS.
Epigr. 12, 3. ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 166. 394.
HERODES ATT.
Alleg. Hom. 45. 366.
66. (p. 461. Gale.) 538.
Inscript. 344.
HERODIAN.
2, 6, 9. 222.
3, 12, 16. 222.
HERODOTUS.
I. 5. 162.
80. 149.
102.
85.
86.
105.
116.
106.
135. 394.
146. 438.
II. 76. 268.
165. 139.
261.
53. 428.
79. 268.
IV. 67. 265.
V. 18. 394.
27. 108.
92. 432.
438.
438.
III. 45.
VI. 62.
74.
VII. 39.
290.
70.
459.
130. 208.
167. 220.
180. 149.
223. 11.
VIII. 6. 221.
52. 430.
112. 59.
IX. 101. 218.
HESIOD.
Op. et D.
v. 24.
178.
93. 9.
116. 177.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
555
(HESIOD. Scut. Herc.)
v. 192. 461.
231. 190.
251.
190.
269. 111.
301. 266.
399. 66.
422.
330.
441. 461.
499. 166.
575.
166.
1321. 25.
1323. 26.
(HESIOD. Op. et D.)
v. 200.
60.
217. 435.
227. 501.
229. 6.
237.
238.
257. 33.
281. 8.
285. 270.
323.
283.
349. 163.
350. 6.
368.
164.
379.
251.
396. 501.
417. 150.
460. 43.
462. 282.
490. 43.
546.547. 39.
588. 90.
635. 178.
646. 647.
652. 212.
659.660. 360.
667. 503.
668. 280.
699. 96.
754.
800. 435.
808. 223.
816. 310.
501.
151.
360.
48. 51.
Scut. Herc.
v. 59.
2.
62.
428.
84. 344.
101. 25. 142.
113. 428.
116. 337. 344.
119. 212.
173. 145.
189. 161.
Theogon.
v. 9.
39.
10. 447.
43. 447.
69. 80.
112. 177.
231. 435.
304.
307.
328. 33.
369. 123.
400.
434.
442. 33.
483.
334.
516. 520.
551. 445.
619. 520.
666. 410.
670. 520.
675. 333.
697. 39.
701. 447.
708. 131.
714. 2.
768. 62.
774. 62.
781.
17.
784.
434.
786. 330.
814. 471.
830. 360.
556 INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HESIOD. Theog.)
(HOMER. Iliad. a'.)
v. 832. 447.
v. 117. 195.
133. 171.
851. 95.
856. 484.
142. 295.
995. 519.
172. 96.
Fragm. ap. Poet. Min. Gaisford.
205.
520.
22, 1. 19.
216.
306. 421.
29, 1.
49.
239.
309. 436.
43, 2. 27.
242.
542.
46.
501.
270.
154.
54. 358.
303.
310.
55.
501.
349. 404.
61. 52.
393. 247.
409. 254.
410. 149. 151.
412. 9.
430. 153.
449. 449. 455.
454. 129.
466. 304.
469. 293.
470. 292.
471. 167.
481.
484.
497. 40.
517.
464.
518.
321.
520.
173.
526.
21. 501.
529.
81.
530.
287.
550.
412.
554.
282.
557. 40.
72.
565.
566.567. 543.
569. 72.
570. 464.
572. 336.
574. 418.
575. 391.
576.
417.
578. 336.
HIMERIUS.
Eclog. 12, 6. 19.
HIPPOCRATES.
p. 604, 21. 203.
261.
Coac. 1, p. 588.
Coac. Prænot. p. 425, 16. 395.
De Aer. Aq. Loc.
p. 453, 43. 454, 23. 37.
De Articulis.
7. 267.
De Juramento.
c. 3. 149.
De Morbis.
2, 121. 2, 134. 2, 156.
De Nat. Puer.
1, 157.
146.
ap. Steph. v. ἀλινδεῖσθαι.
397.
HOMER.
147.
Iliad. a'.
v. 28.
541.
31.
142.
67. 143. 194.
99. 161.
105. 445.
106. 395.
112. 195.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
557
(HOMER. Iliad. a'.)
v. 584.
93.
589. 542.
591. 358. 503.
597.
289.
600. 481.
611. 122.
Iliad. f'.
v. 2.
415.
6.
456.
8.
456.
13.
99.
19. 81.
43.
57. 82.
73. 535.
87. 32. 34.
93. 446.
95. 498. 506.
103. 230. 235.
111. 6.
115. 296.
120. 172.
144. 509. 581.
179. 310.
193. 129.
212. 391.
217. 536.
219. 110. 536.
222. 401.
294. 260.
316. 287.
318. 53.
323. 107.
342. 130.
353.
288.
356. 440.
367. 358.
384. 96. 104.
393. 163.
395. 509.
415. 483.
420. 410.
413.
(HOMER. Iliad. B'.)
v. 435. 398.
455. 47.
457. 358.
469. 32.
484. 279.
535. 467.
581. 378. $82.
590. 440.
600. 358.
654.
20.
670.
358.
755. 434.
758. 361.
785. 491.
797. 406.
859. 306.
873. 544.
Iliad. y'.
v. 4.
7.
9.
359.
40.
548.
10. 314.
25.
477.
37.
356.
49.
154.
62. 910.
73.
439.
94. 439.
106. 515.
115. 100.
120.
227.
155.
327.
173.
441.
175. 510.
176. 441.
206.
220.
171.
241. 424.
245.
439.
269. 439.
278. 372.
292. 439.
13. 16.
558
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Iliad. y'.)
(HOMER. Iliad. e'.)
v. 456. 306.
461. 456.
469. 247.
478. 384.
487. 543.
491. 384.
536. 362.
538. 306. 309.
567. 429.
571. 362.
615.
239.
690. 407.
707. 66.
717.
723. 95.
734. 238.
735. 66.
743. Heyne. 522.523.
et Schol. 526.
757.
48.
759. 283.
770. 39.
776. 39.
782. 256.
823. 257.
864. 39.
872. 48.
880. 47.
897.
47.
v. 362. 522. et Schol. 525.
367. 130.
371. Heyne. 522.
385. 80. 237.
411. 144.
419. 237.
438. 124.
Iliad. '.
v. 20.
175.
54.
408.
63. 246.
117. 301.
138. 309.
176. 519.
185. 66.
186. 65. 305.
266.
337.
277. 315.
286. 422.
384. 13. 16.
438.
386.
459. 522. et Schol. 525.
463. 314.
465. 406.
483. 326.
530. 304.
542. 310.
Iliad. e'.
V.
23.
309.
36. 324.
53. 541.
153. 511.
181. 210. 276.
182. Schol.
203. 27. 256.
255. 173.
295. 65.
344. 304.
369. 81.
289.
413. 392.
430. 361.
286.
525.
Iliad. ¿'.
456.
v. 9. 522.
177.
14.
16. 543.
19.
424.
55.
173.
70.
279. 283.
106. 288.
109. 288. 548.
111. 384.
127. 142.
185.
424.
227. 385.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 559
(HOMER. Iliad. 0'.)
v. 303. 253.
361. 311.
365. 548.
385. 238.
434. 81.
442. 236.
444. 98.
73.
459.
477. 357.
481. 94.
486. 367.
516. 310.
(HOMER. Iliad. '.)
v. 348. 156.
349.
501.
353.
149.
403. 305. 309.
411.
424.
506.
75.
Iliad. n'.
v. 6.
21.
391.
195.
30.
501.
70. 501.
100. 296.
117. 355.
144. 541.
182. 196.
184. 289.
222. 65.
231.
238.
280.
342.
346.
350.
364. 194.
387.
417.
408. 408.
447.
124.
Iliad. O'.
482. 82.
142.
290.
426.
101.
506.
317.
v. 122.
310.
124. 321.
143.
306.
150. 117.
199.
287.
208. 464.
215.
256.
217. 483.
219.
482.
222. 379.
232.
292.
237. 6.
239.
157.
Iliad. .
v. 2. 358.
115. 9.
116. 8.
119. 8.
120.
194.
143. 510.
164.
4.
165. 385.
174. 168.
194.
344.
196.
275.
230.
213.
233.
384.
236.
288.
248.
305. 309.
250.
77.
326.
491.
347.
548.
362.
492.
376.
283.
433.
484.
436. 47.
446.
457. 62.
460. 99.
482. 510.
489. 24.
501.
10.
569. 62.
158.
560
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Iliad. N.)
v. 220. 385.
243. 392.
266.
319.
334.
340. 8.
357. 310.
363.
304.
374.
65.
391.
150.
403.
464.
413. 254.
427. 210.
428.
548.
430. 60.
432. 146.
454. 405.
456. 210.
550. 475.
552. 493.
559. 97.
563. 384.
573.
150.
588. 288.
633. 96.
643. 123.
732.
96.
748. 96.
779. 535.
782. 427.
798. 276.
(HOMER. Iliad. i.)
v. 589. 483.
595. 173.
651. 211.
656. 94.
185.
661.
Iliad. K'.
v. 6.
359.
44.
50.
65. 82.
91.
98.
108.
477.
109. 387.
134. 110. 456.
149. 65.
159. 188.
187. 415.
188. 369.
258. 523. et Schol. 525.
304. 162. 165. 544.
391. 9.
394. 365.
402. 210.
420. 386.
430. 19.
468.
472.
551.
Iliad. N'.
v. 39.
305.
173.
415.
23.
365.
245.
142.
287.
41. 523. 524.
62. 460.
75. 283.
88.
111.
115.
120.
140. 13.
155. 47.
173.
86.
197. 211.
22. 29.
428.
428.
542.
110. 113.
195. 199.
146.
Iliad. μ'.
V. 22.
38.
52.
74.
101.
385.
106.
407.
108.
984.
167. 64. 68. 421.
174.
195.
185.
421.
531.
255.
421.
288.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 561
(HOMER. Iliad. v'.)
v. 621. 515.
649. 150.
706. 97.
707. 537.
716. 185.
733. 149. 151.
752. 142.
776. 311.
799. 524.
800. 62.
(HOMER. Iliad. µ'.)
v. 228.
352.
286. 273.
306. 361.
356.
143.
368. 143.
434.
100.
454.
309.
463.
365. 369.
471. 406.
Iliad. v'.
v. 20.
501.
57.
311.
119. 411.
132. 522. et Schol. 525.
137. 430.
215.
143.
252. 13.
258. 519.
275. 400.
292. 399.
293. 516.
295.
517.
315. 27.
326.
345. 99.
352.
465.
371. 543.
393.
203.
408. 257.
440. 544.
458.
212.
470.
475. 58.
524.
255.
543. 242.
555.
309.
558.
287.
563. 408.
572.
264.
590.
310.
599.
185.
614.
522.
420.
512.
Iliad. '.
v. 9. 252.
11.
252.
17.
445.
64.
424.
66.
542.
75.
309.
78.
82.
79. 301.
101. 311.
123.
95.
132.
335.
155.
481.
170.
81.
172.
237. 241.
177. 81.
178.
237.
185.
413.
217.
420.
221. 251.
242. 415.
253.
417.
258.
51.
259.
370.
261.
365.
264.
251.
266. 252.
271.
3.6.
274. 95.
278.
282.
288.
437.
492.
38.
20
562
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Iliad. E'.)
v. 294. 321.
321. 384.
354. 417.
419. 242.
422. 304. 309.
488.
14. 310.
499. 531. 536.
500. Schol.
(HOMER. Iliad. o'.)
v. 709.
Iliad. π'.
99.
Iliad. o'.
533.
v. 17.
149. 151.
23.
504.
29. 307.
38. 434.
39,
421.
40. 393.
51. 194. 199.
94. 515.
104. 543.
138. 247.
141. 309.
184. 464.
185.
520.
194.
280. 283.
198. 127.
239. 211.
263. 75.
273. 329. 334.
274. 305.
290. 303.
297. 142.
324. 86.
358. 310.
473. 409.
502. 163.
520. 405.
543. 405.
546. 125.
552. 125.
619. 330.
640. 13. 18.
654. 309.
657. 279.
V. 9.
35.
237.
330.
36. 251.
41. 276.
48.
464.
99.
423.
106. 524. et Schol. 526.
134. 65.
145.
424.
216. 522.
224. 456.
302. 310.
338. 522.
350.
484.
391. 500.
395. 296. 298.
403. 258.
411. 286.
422.
362.
454.
417.
472. 501.
481. 32.
486.
203.
494.
362.
552. 407.
573.
247.
626. 125.
640. 273.
661. 244.
670. 80.
685.
8.
729.
226.
805. 9.
837. 542.
Iliad. p'.
v. 9. 211.
23.
54.
62.
67.
211.
204.
475.
477.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 563
(HOMER. Iliad. p'.)
(HOMER. Iliad. o'.)
v. 104.
304.
256.
118. 358.
v. 447.
471. 484.
502. 100.
153. 548.
170. 520.
515. 309.
264. 202.
519. 95.
278. 288.
521.
157.
300. 243.
553. 270.
340. 279. 283.
596. 327.
368. 39.
613. 238.
371. 39. 279.
614.
371.
399.
477.
703.
112.
422. 311.
430. 361.
458. 360.
531. 427.
659. 475.
756. 456.
759.
456.
Iliad. o'.
v. 5.
34.
112.
62. 542.
69. 309.
71. 252.
76. 257.
124. 32. 498.
138. 252.
152. 304.
174. 304.
276. 305.
281. 24.
287.
255.
294.
255.
300. 516.
302. 150.
316. 33.
338. 173.
352. 236.
357. 493.
410. 45. 47.
418. 275.
421. 157. 481.
464.
Iliad. 7'.
v. 35.
75.
88. 9.
91. 8.
95. 8.
113.
129.
136.
137. 8.
148. 315.
170.
311.
174. 251.
254. 169.
270. 9.
298. 393.
307.
24.
313. 424.
314.
32. 35, 104.
336.
16.
342.
246.
386.
315.
399. 252.
402.
25.
404.
64. 68.
423. 28.
130.
130.
8.
∞o ∞o co
8.
8.
Iliad. v'.
v. 83.
93.
129. 446.
151.
117.
S04.
325.
202
564
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Iliad. v.)
v. 168. 258.
183. 7.
194. 308.
195. 309.
244. 399.
247.
465.
278.
258.
296. 542.
313. 436.
315.
548.
332. 11.
395. 244.
403. 204.
418. 405.
420. 405.
440. 327.
444. 39.
446. 39.
(HOMER. Iliad. p'.)
v. 366. 195.
395. 5. 44.
414.
515.
431.
142.
459. 515.
507. 94. 237. 240.
508.
417.
536. 456.
571. 258.
607. 257.
Iliad. '.
v. 8.
258.
22. 379. 381.
53. 464.
70. 25.
106.
111.
151.
162. 96.
193. 547.
200.
304.
220. 47.
224. 515.
225. 255.
230. 306.
232. 223.
255. 405.
283.
156.
295. 254.
316.
542.
318. 273.
329.
156.
332.
275.
345.
157.
173.
217.
142.
Iliad. X'.
v. 12.
257.404.
26. 461.
86.
28.
51.
387.
117. 99.
127.
535.
306. 308.
308. 258.
310. 194.
317. 36.
351.
305.
356. 445.
374. 483.
430.
33.
448.
287.
489. 146.
497. 125.
507. 309.
509. 64.
Iliad. '.
v. 17.
33.
42.
436.
63.
415. 417.
72.
372.
107. 357.
157. 25.
187. 81.
225. 32.
231.
232.
254.
404.
245.
236. 239.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
565
(HOMER. Iliad. w'.)
v. 480. 10.
488. 95.
499. 309.
508.
327.
510.
32. 272.
517.
32.
528.
248. 253.
549.
406.
550.
247.
584.
S06.
646.
456.
653.
365.
655. 479.
662. 255.
717.
24.
747. 33.
752.
467.
760. 406.
768. 124.
(HOMER. Iliad. '.)
v. 268. 173.
290. 244.
308. 477.
330. 95.
336.
327.
339.
215.
340.
150.
344. 232.
359. 95.
360. 252.
393. 98. 272.
402.
252.
420. 257.
424. 232.
433.
310.
468.
310.
473. 125.
531. 328.
594.
195.
603. 7.
611.
515.
618. 506.
643. 142.
795. 59.
865.
408.
879.
405.
Iliad. w'.
v. 39.
195.
62.
143.
79.
498.
96. 404.
123. 32.
172.
445.
226. 194.
238.
125.
264.
491.
325. 210.
341. 80.
366. 365.
413.
173.
422. 246.
475.
481.
Odyss. a'.
v. 6. S08.
25. 142.
30. 384.
36.
50.
48.
211.
54.
97.
84. 230.
91.
130.
92.
32.
97. 80.
115. 445.
130. 236.
132. 66.
134. 23. 513.
147.
168.
149. 168.
180.
211.
227.
515.
234.
196. 199.
282.
446.
346.
337.
364.
414.
566
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Odyss. a'.)
v. 402. 251.
413. 252.
443. 185. 188.
Odyss. B'.
v. 35.
(HOMER. Odyss. '.)
v. 50. 456.
222. 201.
247.
275.
261.
275. 195.
279. 276.
299.
456.
320.
32.
336. 413.
378.
428.
395. 404.
413. 403.
451. 403.
503.
507.
255.
646. 145.
663. 518.
687. 211.
33.
721.
766. 519.
774.
514.
793.
415.
807. 428.
838. 405.
841. 86.
446.
137. 124.
152. 445.
167.
224.
213.
492.
216. 446.
235. 409.
240. 107.
266. 519.
310. 513.
320. et Schol. 518.
365. 511.
377. 437.
427. 484.
Odyss. y'.
v. 41.
275.
55.
408.
59. 384.
158. 379.
164. 336.
215. 446.
240. 399.
268.
309.
336. 344.
338. 168.
379. 247.
403. 144.
429. 227.
436. 143.
441. 450. 455.
445. 169.
476. 491.
486.
97.
488. 382.
Odyss. &.
v. 1.
378. 382.
11.
510.
30. 464.
Odyss, é'.
9.440.
8.514.
v. 27. 296.
83. 499.
132. 255. 451.
257. 260.
290. 28.
291. 509.
304. 509.
314. 288.
319. 207.
346.
389. 444.
396. 542.
403. 274.
412. 202.
462.
404.
474. 212.
80.506.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 567
(HOMER. Odyss. O'.
365. 80. 111.
373. 211.
417.
384.
448.
66.
476.
94.
Odyss. i.
v. 21.
(HOMER.)
Odyss. L'.
v. 2.
5.
22.
110.
226.
121.
354.
179.
272.
193. 143.
231. 456.
242. 215.
256.
211.
266.
95.
160.
514.
23.
519.
321.
Odyss. n'.
v. 3.
388.
269.
274.
292. 94.
226.
384.
25.
31.
39.
125. 266.
143. 357.
164. 168.
250. 255.
263. 12.
273.
274. 32.
288. 225.
317. 501.
338.
456.
Odyss. O'.
v. 8.
154.
444.
388.
$60.
211.
13. 211.
38. 361.
133. 317.
206. 409.
271. 428.
309. 47.
325.
335.
340. 97.
253.
253.
224.
52. 40.
95. 195.
106. 514.
135.
476.
144.
39.
194.
309.
205.
245.
211. 358.
243.
331.
268.
535.
326.
158.
327. 364.
400.
95.
433. 272.
434.
454.
491.
507.
Odyss. K
v. 4.
185. 358.
411.
492.
357.
330.
88. 330.
165. 304.
245.
287.
413. 33.
451.
456.
491.
62.
534.
62.
548. 188.
563.
Odyss. X'.
v. 19.
47.
61.
111. 502.
12. 15.
506.
62. 501.
369.
62.
7.360.
568
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Odyss. v'.)
v. 292. 142.
296. 399.
313. 276.
320. 251.
336. 173.
352. 39.
363.
(HOMER. Odyss. X'.)
v. 148. 124.
212.
62.
225. 62.
320. 134.
330. 82.
368. 314.
372. 360.
374. 401.
400.
410.
429.
393.
457.
252.
475. 372.
488. 195.
573. 258,
586. 201.
606.
369.
634. 62.
Odyss. µ'.
v. 75.
88.
158.
358.
165. 401.
210. 256.
240. 201.
242.
202.
281.
23.
284. 365.
311. 415.
349.
246.
366. 417.
416. 287.
311.
142.
Odyss. v.
v. 45.
79.
80.
164.
189. 39.
195. 72.
196. 330.
234. 223.
244. 360.
281. 173.
393.
416.
416.
255.
Odyss. E.
v. 151.
173.
195. 72. 74.
279. 305,
317. 161
352.
98.
389.
354.
427.
169.
441.
534.
479. 274.
505. 246.
508. 60.
Odyss. o'.
358.
v. 21. 194.
22. 393.
28. 295.
41.
12.
88.
195.
112.
97.
150.
275.
219.
491.
299.
364.
315. 514.
355.
392.
356. 209.
363. 521.
391.
360.
450. 246.
457. 465.
470. 7.
518. 211.
523. 428.
542. 251.
Odyss. π'.
v. 18.
154.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
569
(HOMER. Odyss. π'.)
v. 19. 510.
29. 47.
106. 195.
143. 172. 176.
148.
22.
216.
33. 315.
267. 98.
306. 430.
317. 415.
334. 12.
346. 518.
355.
12.
372.
429.
375. 336.
387. 195. 198.
408. 122.
417. 126.
459. 306.
463. 306. 309.
471. 230.
Odyss. p'.
v. 81.
150.
89. 456.
187. 195.
201. 309.
219.
411.
226. 195.
254.
327.
268. 520.
269.
245.
270. 110.
309. 173.
336. 226.
343. 456.
365. 289.
386. 385.
442. 142.
481.
516.
581. 519.
599. 229.
606. 222.
(HOMER.)
Odyss. o'.
v. 17.
181.
56.
336.
516.
71.
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.
403. 417.
418. 169.
425. 167.
Odyss. r'.
v. 46.
99.
109. 354.
183. 389.
203. 276. 401.
221. 98.
225. 456.
246. 456.
265.
428.
343. 341.
364.
354.
470.
245.
481.
304.
498.
415.
516.
32.
568.
458.
580. 393.
Odyss. v'.
v. 17. 124.
27. 64.
49. 404.
72. 384.
79. 51.
570 INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(HOMER. Odyss. v'.)
v. 81. 445.
(HOMER. Odyss. '.)
v. 93.
107.
150. 393.
151. 393.
158. 456.
229. 306.
303.
47.
308.
401.
326. 33.
360. 47.
100. 446.
149. 481.
153. 94.
211.
360.
301.
227.
339. 252.
•
Odyss. '
v. 13.
382.
16. 211.
78.
393.
89. 73.
91. 3.6.
110. 59.
125. 304.
141. 168. 288.
192. 428.
206. 428.
263. 167.
270. 168.
289. 514.
293. 6.
362.
370.
402.
Odyss. x'.
v. 5. 3.
28.
31.
411.
521.
143.
Odyss. 4'.
v. 31.
52.
143.
276.
355.
39.
57. 99.
83. 361.
90.
307.
165.
47.
196. 404.
243. 211.
300. 64.
372. 305.
418.
415.
519.
433.
Odyss. w'.
v. 14.
45.
56.
65.
106.
424.
118.
456.
161. 127.
196. 394.
199. 393.
218. 98.
244.
31.
286. 535.
302.
401.
317. 32.
353.
12.
401.
462.
413. 446.
414. 123.
537. 258.
Hymn. in Apoll.
v. 31.
387.
60. 478.
122.
414.
125. 170.
219. 387.
438. 224.
372.
95.
143.
95.
Hymn. in Cer.
v. 67. 36.
176. 237.
280. 111.
289. 95.
302. 311.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
571
(HOMER. Hymn. in Cer.)
v. 451. 281.
Hymn. in Lunam.
v. 13. 502.
Hymn. ad Mat. D.
7.30. 428.
Hymn. in Merc.
v. 7.
90.
33.
113. 457.
137. 457.
230. 80.
241. 416. 533.
443. 447.
449. 416.
454. 291.
465.
408.
280.
477.
Hymn. in Pan.
v. 16.
417.
18.
178.
19. 428.
Hymn. in Ven.
v. 33.
480.
62.
111.
63.
239.
172.
417.
208. 358.
253. 181.
254.
8.
268.
Hymn.
66.
330.
17. v. 12.
253.
27. v. 18.
80.
28. v. 9. 287.
29. v. 8. 253.
Batrachom.
v. 47. 417.
143.
Vita Hom.
142.
c. 15. 395.
IBYCUS. ap. E.M. p. 428, 29. 259.
}
ISOCRATES.
ad Philipp. p. 252. Wolf.
JOSEPHUS.
B. J. 4, 9, 10. 398.
LEONIDAS TARANTINUS.
JULIANUS ÆGYPTUS.
Epigr. 11, 8. ap. Brunck. Anal.
2, 496. 235.
LESCHES.
95.ap.Brunck. An.1, 245. 487.
96, 1. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1,
p. 246. 509.
98, 10. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1,
246. 91.
LUCIAN.
ap. Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 1263.
343.
De Calumn.
17.
435.
24. 491.
Contempl.
1. 231.
init. 505.
Cronosol.
14. 221.
Dem. Enc.
31. 219.
Dial. Deorum.
4. 81.
Dial. Marin.
2. 159.
Dial. Meretr.
2. init.
12. 491.
Imag.
147.
437.
11. 356.
Jupit. Frag.
15. 219.
572 INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
NAUPLIUS.
(LUCIAN.)
Lexiph.
2. 219.
Necyom.
10. 63.
Pro Laps.
5. 435.
Pseudomant.
33.
Solæcist.
235.
6. 422.
Somn.
3. 169.
Vitar. Auct.
4. 435.
LYCOPHRON. v. 574.
LYSIAS.
(c. Theomn.)
P. 117. 260.
LYSIS PYTHAG.
p. 737. (Gale.) 395.
MARCELLUS.
Triop. Inscript. 19. ap. Brunck.
Anal. 2, 302.
342.
MARCIANUS HERACL.
278.
p. 69. Hudson. 474.
MAXIMUS TYRIUS.
28, 58. 268.
MELEAGER.
1, 3. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1, 1.
55.
MENANDER.
Meineke ad Menandr. Inc. 326.
485. 491.
ap. Phot.
NICANDER.
Alexiph.
106. 75.
221. 204.
226. 203.
Ther.
120.. 52.
461. 528.
508. 510.
521. 509.
763. 151.
783. 45.
(ap. Athen.)
7, 282. f. 29.
Nossis.
Epigr. 4. 153.
OPPIAN.
271.
De Piscatione.
1, 145. 208.
1, 270. 488.
2,89. 273.
2, 588. 208.
3,599. 208.
4,39.
208.
De Venatione.
1, 72. 420.
4, 138. 490.
ORAC. SIBYLL.
14, 214.
91.
240.
ORPHEUS.
Arg. 880.
Arg. ap. Plin. 25, c. 9. 355.
De Lapid. 355.
755. 836.
Hymn. Apoll.
33, 12. 90.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
573
PARMENIDEs.
Fragm. 102.
Fragm. ap. Sext. (adv. Math. 7,
111.) v. 12. 429.
PAUSANIAS.
2.2.
436.
2. 22. 469.
2. 23. (p. 163.) 470.
2. 26. 50.
2. 27. 471.
5. 15. (p. 415.)
5. 17.
286.
5. 24. 474.
8. 10. (pp. 618, 619.) 470.
10. 8. 469.
10. 36. 471.
PETRI Epist. (in N. T.)
II. 1, 4. 436.
PHÆDIMUS.
Epigr. 1. 10. ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 261.
342.
PHALECUS.
Epigr. 5, 4. ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 422.
484.
470.
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.
1, 90.
1, 178. 224.
2, 12. 300.
2, 73. 367.
4, 17.
285.
4, 31. 103.
4, 277. 327.
6, 106. 412. 447.
6, 110. 330.
6, 120.
386.
9, 20.
9, 30.
9, 87.
10, 51.
10, 96.
11, 6.
13, 33.
68.
521.
Pyth.
287.
184.
282.
257.
19.
439.
461.
1, 7. 287.
1, 96. 19.
1, 156.
371.
2, 98. 36.
3, 65. 152.
4, 136. 224.
4, 265. 146.
4, 297. 436.
4, 358.
126.
4, 414. 68.
4, 450. 102.
4, 532. 80.
6, 47. 520.
574 INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(PINDAR. Pyth.)
(PLATO.)
Com.
520.
9, 24.
9, 148. 212.
12, 14.
461.
Nem.
3, 118.
3, 131.
6, 56.
8, 2. 80.
8, 15.
8, 43.
9, 38.
9, 45.
11, 30.
Isthm.
PLATO.
472.
6, 34.
Fragm. incert.
86. 386.
93. Bockh. (p. 17. Heyn.)
518.
Alcib. 1, 9.
p. 111. e.
Alcib. 2.
p. 43. b.
19.
p. 143. a.
Crito.
183.
68.
439.
287.
351.
123.
p. 86. e.
436.
Phædr.
p. 241. b.
Theat.
p. 40. b.
76. b.
395.
De Legg.
4. p. 718.
7. p. 810. d.
Phædon.
503.
299.
508.
95. c. 356.
112. e.
373.
322.
467.
349.
sect. 33. p. 168. c. 170.
p. 175.
30.
Tim.
262.
261.
ap. Poll. 6, 25.
PLUTARCH.
Ad Princip. Inerud.
c. 3. 354.
Am. Fratr. c. extr.
De Aud. Poet.
p. 22. e.
De Exil.
43. 106.
Quæst. Conviv.
9, 15. 287.
POLLUX.
6. (8, 372. Reiske.) 32.
Marc. Anton.
1, 7.
2, 3.
2, 7.
217.
459.
540.
3, 3. 540.
4, 19.
7,5.
7, 13.
7, 26.
POLYBIUS.
345.
78.
POLYCHARM.
459.
238.
489.
PROCOPIUS.
4, 39. 50. 52. 473.
4, 41.
331.
POMPONIUS MELA.
ap. Athen. 8. p. 333, f. 487.
322.
19.
1, 19, 5. Tzschuck. 474.
De Bello Goth.
1. c. 18.
529.
QUINTUS SMYRNÆUS.
1, 64. 356.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED. 575
(QUINTUS SMYRNÆUS.)
1, 213. 420.
1, 217. 5.
1, 369. 420.
1, 725.
420.
3, 775.
356.
5, 299.
325.
13, 485. 208.
RHIANUS.
Epigr.
1, 21. ap. Brunck. Anal. 1,
479. 339.
ap. Steph. Byz. 156.
SAPPHO.
Fragm. 239.
SCHOW.
Chart. Papyracea.
p. 18, 22.
SCYLAX.
Peripl. p. 28. Hudson.
SIMMIAS.
232.
ap. Tzetz. Chiliad.
7, (8.) 144.
SIMONIDES.
Epigr.
511.
473.
59, 2. (65.) ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 138. 278.
59, 3. (65.) ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 138. 55.
70, 3. (76.) ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 141. 183.
85, 4. (91.) ap. Brunck. Anal.
1, 143. 301.
Fragm. ap. Athen. 11. p. 480.
537.
259.
ap. E. M. p. 634, 6.
ap. Schol. II. B′, 2. 416.
SOPHOCLES.
Ajax.
v. 177. 337.
322. (320. Lobeck) 202.
608. 50.
933. 461.
950. (932.)
321.
1019. (1049.) 490.
Antig.
v. 17. 11.
341. 267.
509. 262.
619. 151.
Edip. C.
v. 485—8. (472-5.) 294.
1303. 155.
1490. 428.
1685. 156.
Edip. T.
v. 2. 345.
1094. 337.
1265. 204.
1352. $07.
Philoct.
v. 291.
313. 27.
702. 274.
745. 201.
1132. (1137.) 322.
1157.
67.
Trachin.
v. 94.
274.
67.
132. 67.
698. 448.
847. 36.
904. 204.
1072. 203.
STESICHORUS.
p. 28, 5. Suchf. 88. 271.
STOBEUS.
Phys. p. 856.
314.
576
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
STRABO.
THEON. ALExandr.
Epigr. 1, 1. ap. Brunck. Anal.
2.405. 344.
8. p. 350, 351. 364.
8. p. 367. 379.
9. p. 426. 469.
10. p. 458.
364.
12. p. 562.
473.
530.
15. p. 734.
17. p. 818.
333.
STRATO.
Epigr. 68, 2. ap. Brunck. Anal.
2,375. 29.
THEOCRITUS.
1, 31. 269.
2, 2.
294.
5, 104.
6, 33.
8, 13.
8, 27.
529.
13, 58.
204.
13, 74.
311.
20, 19. 395.
21, 39.
219.
22, 49. 432.
22, 67.
422.
22, 97.
519.
22, 115.
22, 167.
278.
23, 18. 107.
25, 100. 280.
25, 183. 155.
25, 246.
273.
28, 15.
THEOGNIS.
144.
166.
529.
175.
176.
Epigr.
20. (21, 3. ed. Gaisford.)
396.
27.
196.
111. ed. Gaisf. (115. Brunck.)
150.
381.
330.
THEOPHRASTUS.
Hist. Pl. 6, 82. 224.
ap.Porphyr.deAbstin.2,6. 452.
THUCYDIDESs.
2, 76.
263.
3, 59.
372.
3, 74.
220.
7, 81.
261.
8, 83. 340.
TZETZES.
ad Hom.
p. 4. Herm.
ad Lycophr.
662.
1263.
XENOPHON.
Anab.
336.
504.
1, 4, 4.
1, 8, 8.
2, 4, 20.
2, 6, 4. (6.) 195.
3, 3, 11.
3, 4, 34.
4, 2, 1.
4, 2, 3.
4, 5, 2.
5, 2, 17.
6, 1, 28.
6, 4, 1. 290.
6, 5, 25. (15.) 232.
7, 2, 2.
468.
7, 3, 9. 218.
7, 2. 20. (11.) 232.
Cyrop.
1, 6, 2. 299.
2, 3, 12. 437.
331.
217.
416.
468.
218.
218.
218.
431.
208.
290.
467.
INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
577
G
(XENOPHON.)
Hellen.
1, 3, 1.
4, 4, 3.
7, 2, 28.
Mem.
3, 9, 6.
CICERO.
De Divin.
Verr.
AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS.
30, 8.
CLAUDIAN.
2, 30. 55.
GELLIUS.
484.
30.
1, 15.
2, 6.
20,5.
31.
4, 57. 474.
GYLLIUS.
261.
530.
Rapt. Proserp.
1, 236. 57.
59.
SCRIPTORES ROMANI.
391.
De Bosporo.
195.
GESNER, CONRAD.
De Nat. Aquatil. lib. 4. 486.
3, 5. 478.
(XENOPHON.)
De Venat.
6, 15. 267.
Coloph.
ap. Athen. p. 462. c.
HORATIUS.
Od.
2, 17, 14. 2.
3, 4, 11. 23.
OVID.
Sat.
5, 26. (Schol. Acr. et Fruq.)
474.
Amor.
2, 13, 14.
PLINIUS.
9, 1-15. 487.
25, 9.
355.
27, 12. 530.
32, 11. 487.
PROPERTIUS.
3, 8, 50.
155.
SCHNEIDER.
57.
Hist. Litt. Piscium.
2 P
486.
294.
578 INDEX OF AUTHORS EXPLAINED OR QUOTED.
(VIRGIL. Eneid.)
2, 527.
293.
3, 525.
293.
5, 116. 489.
7, 147. 293.
10, 211.
487.
11, 550.
214.
11, 813.
262.
SILVIUS.
3, 1, 76. 294.
STATIUS.
Theb.
8, 225. 294.
TIBULLUS.
2, 5, 23.
2, 5, 98.
VIRGIL.
Eneid.
57.
294.
1, 723. 293.
Eclog.
8, 82.
Georgic.
448. 553.
1, 375. 41.
2, 528.
293.
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.
Α.
ἁγνός, 47.
α
αι, 136.
o, 465.
a changed to e, 7, 69. |῎Αγρα, ἀγρεύω, 21.
᾿Αγρέω, 20.
ἀδαημονίη, ἀδαημοσύ-
νη, 31.
ådeés, 355.
ådeîr, 22.
ἀδηκώς, 22.
α
å for η Ion. 180.
᾿Αάατος, 1.
ἀάβακτος, 5.
Αᾶσαι, 5.
ἀασάμην, 8.
ἀάσασθαι, 2, 11.
ἀάσθην, 2.
ἀασίφρων, 7.
ἄαται, 2, 8, 142.
INDEX II.
Αατός, 2, 5.
ȧáw, 1, 5.
}
ἄδημος, 32.
'Αδην, 1, 27.
ἁδήν, ἁδένος, 33.
᾿Αδῆσαι, 22.
ἀδηφάγος, 27.
᾿Αδινός, 32.
ἀδολεσχεῖν, 28.
ΑΓΙΩ, 135.
ἀγείοχα, 140.
᾿Αγέρωχος, 18.
ἀγήγοχα, 139.
ἀγήοχα, 116, 139.
ἀγητός, 47.
᾿Αδημονεῖν, ἀδημονία, | αἰθήρ, 39.
29.
ἀβλαβής, 5.
ἀβληχρός, 194.
᾿Αβροτάζω, ἀβρότη,79. |῎Αδος, 29.
ἄβροτος, 82.
ἁδρός, 33.
ἀγάθεος, 323.
ἄδω, 25.
ἀγακλειτός, ἀγακλυ- | ἀειδέλιος, 52, 58.
ἀείδελος, 52.
ἀείζηλος, 53.
τός, 384.
ἄγαμαι, 47.
Αγγελίας, ᾿Αγγελίη, | ἄειν, 25.
᾿Αγγελίης, 11, &c.
ἀείρω, 119.
ἄελλα, 72.
ἀέμεναι, 25.
᾿Αεσίφρων, 7.
ἅζομαι, 47.
ἀηδέω, ἀηδία, 28.
᾿Αήρ, 37.
᾿Αητος, 5, 44.
ἀθανασία, 81.
᾿Αθέσφατος, 357.
αι changed to e, 69.
᾿Αΐδηλος, 17.
ἀϊζηλός, 52.
Αἴητος, 45.
αἰθερία ἀνέπτα, 41.
αίλουρος, 67.
αἱμασία, 402.
αἰνέω, Αἶνος, αίνω, 59.
αἰολλέω, 64.
αἰολοθώρηξ,αἰολύκορυς,
αἰολομήτης, αἰολομία
τρης, 66.
αἰολόπωλος, 665.
Αἰόλος, 63.
aïpw, 119.
aîoa, 59.
ἄϊστος, ἀϊστώσειαν, 51.
αἰώρα, αἰωρέω, 136.
ἀκᾶ, 73.
ἀκαλώς, 74.
᾿Ακέων, 13.
᾿Ακήν, 13, 161.
ἀκλέες for ἀκλεέες,
296.
ἀκμή, ἀκμαία, 90.
ἀκοστή, 76.
Λιοστήσας, 75.
2 1 2
580
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
ἀλέξειν, ἀνενεικάμειος,᾿Ανενεί- | ἀποβάλλω, 120.
κατο, 104.
ἀνενειχθείς, 106.
ανέονται, 139.
ἄνεσις, 108.
'Aréw, aréw, 107.
ἀνέωνται, 139.
ἀλκή, ἀλκτήρ, 132.
ἀλλοδαπός, 322.
ἀλλοειδής, 354.
ἀμαλός, 194.
ἁμαρτάνω, 85.
᾿Αμβρώσιος, 79.
*Αμβροτος, 79. 189.
᾿Αμέγαρτος, 407.
"Αμεναι, 22.
ΑΝΗΓΩ, 135.
ἀνηλέης, 118.
᾿Αγήνοθε, 110, 133.
ἀνήριθμος, 118.
ἄνθος, ἀνθέω, 134.
ΑΝΘΩ, 134, 141.
ἀλινδή- | ἀνίημι, 26.
ἀνοήμων, 30.
ἀντεταγών, 504.
᾿Αντιᾷν, ἀντιάω, 141.
ἀντιβίην, 161.
ἀντιβόλησε, 122.
ἀντιόω, 141.
ἀντιφερίζω, 122.
ἄντομαι, 134.
ἀνύω, ἄνυσις, 115.
ἄνωγα, 24, 112, 135.
᾿Αμολγῷ, ἀμολγαῖος, | αορτήρ, ἄορτο, 136.
85.
ἀλαλκεῖν,
548.
ἄλαλκον, 132.
ἄλγος, 132.
ἀλεγίζω, 114.
ἀλέγω, 132.
ἀλείς, 257.
ἀλέκω,ἀλέξω,132,141.
ἀλέω, 259.
ἀλήλιφα, 205.
ἀλήμεναι, 257.
ἀλῆναι, ἁλῆναι, 254.
ἀλίαστος, 406.
ἀλυδεῖσθαι,
θρα, 397.
ἀμφί, 94.
ἀμφίβροτος, 83.
ἀμφιδέξιος, 96.
᾿Αμφικύπελλον, 93.
ἀμφιπολεύειν, 436.
᾿Αμφίς, 94.
ἀμφίς ἔοντα, 98.
ἀμφίς ἔχειν, 97.
ἀμφίστομος, 93.
ἀμφίφαλος, 523.
drá, 134.
ἀναβέβραχε,
βροχέ, 206.
ἀναβέβρυχε, 205.
ἀναβρύξειε,
Xér, 201.
ἀναβέ-
ἀπερείσια, 513.
ἀναβρο- ' ἀπερείσιος, 52.
ἀναίνομαι, 118.
ἀναπρήσας, 486.
ἀπαιολέω, 68.
᾿Απάρχομαι, 167.
ἀπατάω, απάτη, 117.
ἀπατηλός, 50.
᾿Απαυρᾷν, 144.
ἀπαυρίσκεται, 147.
ἀπαφεῖν, 118.
ἀπηγής, 515.
ἀπείλειν, 260.
ἀπειλέω, ἀπειλαί, 117.
ἀπείλλῃ, 260.
ἀπείπων, 130.
ἀπελλαί, απελλάζειν,
117.
ΑΝΕΘΩ, 134.
ἀνειλεῖσθαι, 268.
ἀνειλῆσαι, 263.
ἀνειμάρθαι, 60.
ἀνελίττειν, 263.
ἀπημονία, ἀπημοσύνη, |
ἀπήμων, 31.
ἀπήυρα, ἀπήυρατο, α-
πήυρων, 144.
᾿Απιδανῆες,nom. prop.
154.
᾿Απίη, ἄπιος, 154.
Απις, 155.
ἀποείπω, 130.
ἀπυέρδω, 157.
᾿Αποέρσαι, &c. 156.
ἀπολούω, 121.
᾿Αποξύνω, ᾿Αποξύω,
158.
ἀποῦραι, ἀπουρ'μενος,
᾿Απούρας,απουρήσω,
ἀπουρίζω, 144. &c.
ἀπράγμων, 30.
᾿Απριάτην, 73, 161.
αρδμός, ἄρδω, 157.
ἀρείων, 285, 545.
ἀρήγω, 544.
ἀρημένος, 24.
ἄρης, ἄριστος, 545.
άρι-, with its com-
pounds, 285.
ἀρίδηλος, 54.
᾿Αρίζηλος, 47.
ἄριστον, 229.
ἄριστος, 285.
ἀρκέω, ἀρκέομαι, "Αρ-
κιοs, 162, 543, &c.
αρόω, 538.
αρύω, 153.
ἄρχε, 122.
Αρχομαι, 167.
αρωγή, 135.
ἆσαι, 24.
σατο, 9.
άon, 24.
ἆται, 25.
ἀτάω, 10.
ἅτε, 535.
1/
ἀτέοντα, ἀτέοντες, 11.
ατέω, 10.
῎Ατη, 5.
ἀτίειν, 60.
ἀτός, 2.
῏Ατος, 2, 25.
ἀτύζω, 11.
ἀτῶμαι, 11.
αὐθαδία, 20.
αὐθαίρετος, 22.
αὔλιος, 461.
ΑΥΡΑΩ, 146.
ΑΥΡΩ, 145, 153.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
581
αὐτάγρετος, 22, 281.
αὐτήμαρ, 314.
αὐτίκα, 314.
Αὕτως, αὔτως, 171.
αὐχεῖν, 117.
ἄφαρος, 539.
Αφενος, 177.
ἀφέωκα,
138.
7/
ἀφέωνται,
ἄφθονος, 178, 410.
ἀφνείος, ἄφνος, ἀφνύς,
177.
ἀφορίζειν, 147.
ἀφύω, ἀφύσσω, 177.
᾿Αχέειν, 178.
ἄχθος, αχθόμαι, 465.
ἄχος, 179.
ἄω, 2.
ἄω, to sleep, 188.
ἄωρτο, 135.
᾿Αωτεῖν, 188.
῎Αωτον, ἄωτος, 182.
B.
βαθυκήτης, 381.
βαθύς, 38.
βεβραμένων, 190.
βέβραται, 190.
βιοπλανές, 296.
βίος, 166.
Βροχῆναι, βρόχθος, | διάγω, 230.
βροχός, ΒΡΟΧΩ, διακονέω, 118.
βρύκω, βρυχάομαι, | διάκονος, 231.
βρύχω, 200, &c. διακτορία, 235.
βρύω, 206.
Διάκτορος,
230.
βρύξαι, 200.
βρυτός, 84, 189.
Γ.
γ changed to ι, 140.
γάδεσθαι, γαδέω, 496.
γεγάατε, 142.
γαῦρος, 19.
γέγωνα, 112.
γέντερ, 496.
γεράοχος, 20.
γνύφος, 378.
Γυής, Γυγής,
prop., 2.
nom.
Δ.
δ inserted, 322.
δαήμων, 225.
δαῆναι, 209.
Σαίρω, 120.
δαΐς, 209.
Δαΐφρων, 209.
δάκος ἀδινὸν καταγο-
piâr, 36.
βλάζειν, 193.
βλάξ, 84, 193.
βλεῖ, 190.
βληχρός, 193.
βλιμάζειν, 192.
βλίτον, 193.
βλίττω, 84, 189.
βλύζω, 206.
βλωθρός, 194.
βλώσκω, 84, 189, 194.
βόλομαι, 196.
βύσκω, 479.
Βούλομαι, 194.
βουλυτός, 89.
βράψαι, 190.
βραχεῖν, βραχῆναι,
βραχῆναι, | δείω, 137, 355.
201.
δέρω, 120.
δεῦτε, 316.
δῆλος, 58.
δακὼν χύλον, 490.
δανός, 240.
δάω, 217.
Δέαται, 212.
δέατο, 216.
δεδίσκομαι, 275.
δεδόκημαι, 70.
δείδια, 112.
δείδοικα, 136, 275.
δειελίη,
229.
δείλετο, 227.
Δείλη, δείελος, 217.
δειλινόν, 219.
δεινά, 503.
δεινόν, 73. .
δεῖπνον, 229.
διάκτωρ,
διάκω, 232.
διαλέξασθαι, 402.
διαπρήσσω, 492.
διαπρίειν, διαπρίεσθαι,
491.
διατεκμαίρομαι, 501.
διαφυγεῖν τινος, 436.
διήκω, 232.
δίς, 355, 375.
διχῇ, 73.
διώκω, 118, 232.
δνύφος, 378.
Δράσσατο, 212.
δόατο, 215.
δοιάζω, 213.
δοίδυξ, 482.
δοιή, 213,
δόρπον, 229.
δουρικλυτύς, 389.
δυσκλέα for δυσκλεέα,
296.
δύσετο ἠέλιος, 226.
E.
€ changed to o, 70,
216.499.
ἐάλην, 256.
῾Εανός, 236.
ἔαρ, 43.
῾Εάφθη, 242.
ἐγγυαλίζω, 120.
δειελιησας, ¦ ἔγημε, 50.
ἐγκατειλῆσαι,ἐγκατίλ-
λειν, 263.
ΕΓΚΩ, 131, 141,
ἐγρήγορα, 116.
ἐγχειρέω, 120.
ἑδανός, 241.
ἐδήδεκα, ἐδήδεσμαι,
137.
ἐδήδοκα, ἐδίδοται, 136.
ἐδήδοχα, 116.
ἔδω, 137.
582
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
ἔεδνα, 284.
῾ΕΕΘΩ, 137.
ἐείκοσι, 284.
ἔελμαι, 254.
ἐέλπεται, 284.
ἕηκα, 139.
Ἐῆος, ἑῆος, 246.
ἐθελοντήν, 162.
ἐθέλω, 194.
ἔθω, 134, 138.
ἔθωκα, 137.
ει changed to ω, 136.
εἰαμενή, 325.
εἱανόν, 240.
εἶδος, 353.
εἶθα, 137.
εἰίσκω,
εἴκελος, 52.
εΐκω, 137.
εἰλάειν, 266.
εἷλαρ, 259.
Εἰλεῖν, 253.
εἰλεῖσθαι, 268.
274.
εἰλυφάζω, -άω, 274.
ἐκάθευδον, 121.
ἐκάθιζον, 122.
ἐκδῦμεν, 424.
Εκηλος, 279.
ἕκητι, 283.
ἔκπαγλα, 73.
ἑκών, 283.
ἐλᾷν, 259.
ἐλάσαι, ἐλάσας, 255.
ἐλαύνω, 391,
ΕΛΑΩ, 256.
ἐλέγχω, 129.
Ἐλελίζω, 287.
ἐλήλυθα, 116, 205.
ἑλίσσω, 287.
ἐλλεδανός, 270.
εἰλύω, 272.
εἴλω, εἵλω, 254.
εἰνὰς μέσση, 223.
εἰνοσίφυλλος, 113.
εἴοικα, 137, 275.
εἶπον, εἰπεῖν, 132.
εἰρύμεναι, 310.
εἰρύσατο, 305.
εἰρύσσονται, 305.
εἴρυτο, 307.
εἰρύω, 308.
εἴρω, 300.
Εΐσκω, 133.
αἴωθα, 136.
ἔλλοψ, 265.
ΕΛΛΩ, 255.
ἔλπετο, 122.
Ελσαι, 253.
ἔλυμα, 273.
ἐλυσθῆναι, 272.
기
​εἴλεω, εἵλεω, 254.
εἴλη, 270.
εἵλη, 225.
εἰλιν δεῖσθαι, 269,397. | ἐμῇσιν, 251.
ἐμπέλανα, 455.
ΕΜΠΩ, 131.
εἰλίποδες, 266.
εἱλλομένη, 262.
εἴλλω, εἵλλω, 254.
εἰλόμενος, 255.
εἰλυμένος, εἰλυόμην, ] ἐναίρω, 119.
ἐμφαλκύω, 540.
ἐν ποσί, 268.
εἴλυσα, εἰλυσθείς, ] ἐναλινδέομαι, 397.
ἐλύω, 272.
ΕΛΩ, 259.
ἐμβραμένη, ἔμβραται,
190.
evapa, 119.
ἐνδάπιος, 323.
Ἐνδέξια, 288.
ἐνδέξιος, 291.
ἐνδοιάζειν, 213.
ἐνδύναι, 134.
ἐνεγκεῖν, 131.
ΕΝΕΘΩ, 133.
ἐνειλιν δεῖσθαι, 397.
ἐνείλλων, 263.
ΕΝΕΚΩ, 132.
ἐνεκωμίαζον, 122.
ἐνέπω, 123.
ἔνεροι, 119.
Ἐνήνοθε, 110, 133.
ἐνήνοχα, 116, 132.
ἐνθεῦτεν, 314.
ΕΝΘΩ, 133, 141.
ἐνίπτω, 123.
ἐνίπω, 126.
ἐνισπεῖν, ἔνισπον, 132.
ἐνίσπω, ἐνίσσω, 123.
ἐννοσίγαιος, 113.
ἕννυμι, 236.
ἐννύχιος ποιῶ, 41.
ἐνοπή, 131.
ἔνοσις, ἐνοσίχθων,113.
ἐνοχλέω, 72.
ἔντεα, 134.
ἐνύω, 115.
ἐξαλῖσαι, 397.
ἐξαποξύνω, 159.
ἐξείλειν, 260.
ἐξελαύνειν, 261.
ἐξελίττειν, 263.
ἐξεπίτηδες, 298.
ἐξερωῆσαι, 310.
ἐξήλικα, 397.
ἐξίλλω, 267.
ἐξορκοῦν, 438.
ἐξούλη, 260, 160.
ἔξοχα, 463.
ἑοῖο, 249.
ἐόλει, 71.
Ἐόλητο, 63.
ἐπαιγίζω, 120.
ἐπαινός, 61.
ἐπαίτιος, 61.
ἐπαλέξειν, 548.
ἔπαλξις, 548.
ἐπαρκεῖν, 544, 548.
ἐπαρκέσαι, 548.
ἐπαρκέσαι,
Ἐπάρχομαι, 167.
ἐπαύρασθαι, 149.
ἐπαυρέω, 150.
ἐπαυρίσκομαι, 147.
ἐπαυρίσκω, 150.
ἐπείγω, 118.
ἐπελάσαι ὅρκον, 438.
ἐπενήνοθε, 110.
ἐπί, 243.
Ἐπιδέξια, 168, 288.
ἐπιδέξιος, 61, 291.
Επίηρα, 335.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
583
ἐπιήρανος, 341, 344.
ἐπίηρος, 338.
ἐπιθεάζειν, 349.
ἐπιθοάζειν, 348.
ἐπικρῆσαι, 168.
ἐπιλέξασθαι, 402.
ἐπιλήσμων, ἐπιλησμό-
τατος, 547.
ἐπιπέλανα, 455.
ἐπισταδόν, 167, 170.
ἐπιστάτω, 121.
ἐπιστέλλω σε ἀγγε-
λίην, 13.
ἐπιστεφής, 292.
ἐπιστέφω, 291.
ἐπιτήδειος, 299.
ἐπιτηδές, 295.
ἐπιτηδεύω, 299.
πιφέρειν, 339.
ἕπομαι, 244.
ἐποτρύνειν
τινί, 12.
ἀγγελίην
ἔπτατ᾽ ἐπουρανίη, 41.
ἔπω, 521.
ἔργματα ἀγέρωχα, 19.
ΕΡΔΩ, 157.
ἐρείδω, 300.
ἐρείπω, 129.
ἔρεισμα, 300.
ἐρεμνὴ νύξ, 371.
ἐρήριπα, 116.
έρι- with its
pounds, 285.
com-
Ἐρίβοια, nom. prop.,
286.
Ἐριβώτης, nom. prop.,
pounds, 285.
ἐρίηρος, 337.
“Ερμα, 300.
ἔρμαιον, 230, 302.
ἕρμακες, 302.
ἑρμίς, 300.
ἐρύομαι, 129, 304.
῎Ερυσθαι, 303.
ἔρυτο, 306.
Ερυτος, nom. prop.,
284.
"/
|
ἔρχομαι ἀγγελίης gen.
or ἀγγελίην accus.,
13.
Ἐρωεῖν, Ἐρωή, 310.
ἑσπόμην, 133.
ἔσπω, 132.
| εὐδαίμων, 30.
εὐδείελος, 223.
εὕδειν, 188.
TOS, 282.
Εὔκηλος, 279.
'Hepin, 155.
Ἠέριος, 40.
ἠεροειδής, 39.
ἠεροφοῖτις, 39.
ἦθος, 134.
Ἠϊόεις, ἠϊών, 324.
εὐκηλήτειρα, εὐκήλη- | Ηκα,Ἤκιστος, ἥκιστος,
εὔπρηστος, 484.
εὑρίσκω, &c. 153.
Εὐρυβάτης, nom.prop.,
285.
εὐρύς, 285.
Εὔρυτος, nom. prop.,
284.
ἔϋς, 247.
ἐΰστροφος, 185.
Εὖτε, 313.
εὐφάλαρα, 528.
εὔχομαι, 117.
Εχεπευκής, 319.
Ἐχθοδοπῆσαι, ἐχθοδο-
πός, 321.
ἔχω, 132.
ἕω, 236.
ᾗ for ὡς, 314, 535.
εὖτε, 314.
Ηγάθεος, 323.
ἡγεμονία, ἡγεμών, 31.
ἠδέσθην for ἤσθην,137.
ἥδυμος, 415.
Περίβοια, nom. prop.,
286.
I
H.
η changed to d, 180.
327.
Ἠλίβατος, 329.
ἤλσατο for ἠλάσατο,
259.
ἥμαρτον, 82.
Ἤμβροτον, 82.
ἡμεδαπός, 322,
ἡμερινὸς ποιῶ, 41.
ἦμος, 314.
ἤνεγκον, 131.
ἤνεικα, ἠνείχθην, 132.
ἠνειχόμην, 121.
ἠνηνάμην, 118.
ἠνίπαπε, 124.
ἠνορέη, 519.
| ἤνωγον, 135.
ἤορα, ἤορμαι, ἠόργειν,
ἡόρταζον, 136.
ἠπίστατο, 121.
ἔωθα, 137.
| Ἑῶμεν, 25.
ἠπίω, 117.
Ηρα, 335.
ἐώργειν,ἑώρταζον,136. | ἤρανος, ἠρανέω, 344.
ἦρι, 42.
2.
ζάκορος, 233.
ζηλώ σε τοῦ πλούτου, | ὅτε, 315.
14.
ζόφος, 378.
ἐῤῥύσατο, 308.
ἔῤῥω, 157.
ἔρσαι, ἔρση, 157.
ζωάγριον, 22.
ζωγρεῖν, 22.
Ἐρύαλος, nom. prop., | ζωστήρ, 66.
286.
Ἐρύεσθαι, 303.
ἐρύκω, 129.
ἠρώησα, 310.
ῃσι, 251.
Ἠΰτε, 313,
ἠφίουν, 121.
ἦχα from ἄγω, 116.
ἤωρα, ἥωρμαι, 136.
Θ.
Θάασσειν, 344.
θᾶκος, 344.
584
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
θάσσειν, 344.
θεαιδέστατος, 356.
θεοείδης, 352.
θεοείκελος, 352, 357.
Θεοπρόπιον, θεοπρό-
πος, 350.
θεόσδοτος, 357.
θέρεσθαι πυρός, 14.
θερμός, θέρμετο, θέρω,
547.
Θέσκελος, 357.
Θεσπέσιος, 185.
θέσπιος, 358.
Θέσπις, 357.
Θέσφατος, 357.
Θεουδής, 352.
θίασος, 518.
θυάζω, 345.
θούς, 67, 360.
θούω, 159.
ι connected with y,
22, 47, 140.
ἰανοκρήδεμνος, ἰανό-
κροκος, 237.
ἰανός, 239.
ideiv, 50.
ἰδηλός, 50, 58.
ἶζον, 122.
ημι, 25,
ἴκελος, 52.
ἰλαδόν, ἴλη, 270.
543.
πτω, 128.
Ἴσκω, 276.
ἴσπε, 279.
ἴσπω, ]32.
ἰώκω, 118.
καθαίρω, καθαρός, 119. | κριθάω, 78.
καθεῦδε, 122.
θράσσω, θράττω, θράτ- | κεάζω, 73.
τον, 508.
I.
καθήμενα τὰ, 326.
καθίζον, 122.
καίατα τὰ, καιετάεσσα,
K.
interchanged with
X, 73.
379.
καινός, 119.
κακὴ νύξ, 369.
| Καλινδεῖσθαι, 396.
καμάτῳ ἀδηκώς, 23.
καμεῖν, Καμόντες,370.
καρτερὰ ἔργα, 48.
καταβρόξειε, 201.
καταλέξαι, 401.
Κατάρχομαι, 167.
κατειλεῖν, 261.
κατειλῆσαι, 263.
κατενήνοθε, 111.
κατέψηκται, 448.
κατουλάς, 271.
ἰλλάς, 264.
λλω, 254, 267.
ἰλύς, 270.
ἶξον, 227.
κοεῖν, 376.
ιόνθ' for ἰόντε, ἰόντες, | κοινῇ, 73.
κριθή, 454.
κριθιάω, 78.
κύββα, 93.
| κυδνός, κυδρός, 33.
Κυλίνδω, 75.
κύμβη, 93.
κύπελλον, 93.
κοίρανος, 344.
κολοσυρτός, 393.
Κολῳός, κολῳᾶν, 390.
κόμπος, 132.
κόναβος, 132.
κονίοντες πεδίοιο, 14.
κόπτω, κόπω, 132.
κορυθαίολος, 64.
Κουρίδιος, 393.
Κρίγκος, 395.
κύριος γυναικός, 394.
κώδεια, 532.
| κῶνος, 524.
κεδνός, 119.
κέκλαγγα, 202.
κεκμηκότες, 372.
κέκυπα, 205.
κέκραγα, 202.
Κελαινός, 374.
κηλέω, κηλός, 283.
κῆτος, Κητώεσσα, 378. | λίνον, 187.
κινεῖν, 509.
κλείδων, 446.
Κλειτός, κλέω, κλείω, '
Κλητός, Κλυτός,
κλύω, 383.
κμέλεθρα, τά, 377.
κνέφας, 378.
κνῖσσα, 113.
Λ.
λαβέσθαι ποδός, 14.
λάμψομαι, 131.
λάχνη, 187.
Λέγειν, 398.
λειχμότες, λείχω, λε-
λειχμότες, λειχμών,
λείχω, 546.
λέληθα, 116.
Λελιημένος, 404.
λέλογχα, 131.
λέξαι, λέξασθαι, 398.
λευγαλέος, 321.
λέχεος ἀντιᾷν, λέχος,
πορσύνειν, 144.
Λιάζω, 404.
λιχμάσθαι,
546.
λόχος, 404.
μ
λιχμός,
M.
followed by a vowel,
changed to 6, 84,
189.
μᾶζα ἀμολγαίη, 90.
μακράν, 73, 161.
μάλα, 477.
μαλακός, 84, 119, 193.
μαλάσσω, 119.
μάλευρον, 451.
Μαλόες, nom. pr. 297.
μάρπτω, 190.
Μεγαίρω, 407.
Μεγακήτης, 378.
μέγαρον, 407.
μειλίσσω μείλιχος,123.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
585
μέλαθρα τὰ, 377.
Μέλας, μέλαινα, 374.
μέλγω, 90.
μέλει, 191, 202.
μέλι, 84, 192.
ΜΕΛΙΩ, 193.
μέλω, 191.
μέμβλωκα, 84, 189.
μέμηκα, μέμηλε, μέ-
μυκα, 202.
μεστὸς ὕπνου, 23.
Μεταλλᾷν, 411.
μέταλλον, 412.
μηκάομαι, 202.
μηκεδανός, 242.
μιμηλός, 50.
μισθός, 165.
μίτρη, 66.
μνιαρός, 518.
μόγις, 377.
μολεῖν, 84, 189.
μόρος, μορτός, 84.
μοχλός, 377.
μῦθος, 60.
μυκάομαι, 202.
μῶλος, 377.
μωμεύω, 48.
Ν.
οὕτως ἀνοίας ἔχει, 14.
"Oxa, 463.
ὀχθέω, ὄχθος, 464.
ὄψ, 131.
ὀψία, 220.
II.
ὅλμος, 451.
| ὀλούς, 458.
παλιμπετές, 296.
παλινάγρετος, 21.
οἰχνῶ ἀγγελίης (gen.), | παλλομένων, 267.
13.
ὀλαί, 450.
παραγναθίδες, 530.
παρενήνοθε, 111.
παστάς, 414.
ὀλεῖ, 71.
ὀλή, 453.
ὀλοὴ νύξ, 369.
Ολοοίτροχος, 431.
ὁμαλός, 518.
ὅμιλος, 270.
ὀμφή, 131, 446.
ὀνομάκλυτος, 358.
οὐκ ὀνοστόν, 4.
ὀξυκέφαλος, 537.
ὀξύς, 365, 367, 370, |
πείθομαι, 202.
πείρω, 352.
πείσομαι, 132, 181.
πέπληγον, 126.
πέπλος, 237.
πέποιθα, 202.
πέπονθα, 131.
537.
πέπτωκα, 137.
Πέρα, 466.
περαίνω, 493.
Πέραν, 73, 466.
περάω, 352.
Πέρην, 466.
πέρθειν, 486.
ὁπλή, ὅπλον, ὁπλότε- |
ρος, 521.
ὀπώρη, 87.
ὀργή, ὀρέγω, ὀργυιά, | περιδέξιος, 96.
132.
ΠΕΡΩ, 352.
ξυνδιάκτορος, 231.
ξυστός, 158.
0.
o changed to v, 208.
ὄγκος, 131.
ὄθμα, 114.
ὄθωμαι, ὔθω, 113.
οἶδα, 116.
ναυσικλυτός, 388.
νεήγατος, 413.
νεοαρδής, 157.
νέφος, 378.
νεωκόρος, 233.
Νηγάτεος, 413.
Νήδυμος, 414.
νηλέης, 118.
νηλίτης, 415.
νηπενθής,νήποινος,νή- | ὀττεύεσθαι, 447.
ριθμός, 118.
νητρικής, 415.
νίν, 415.
Νῶϊ, νώ, Νωΐτερος,418.
νώμησαν, 168.
νώρυψ, 52.
Ε.
ὅρκος, ὅρκιον, 433.
ὁρμαίνειν, 440.
῾Ορμήματα, 439.
Ορμος, 283, 400.
Οσσα, 444.
πέσσω, 127.
πέτρα, πέτρος, 332.
Πευκάλιμος, Πευκεδα-
νός, πεύκη, 319.
ΠΕΥΚΩ, 320.
πῆ, 535.
Πῖαρ, 475.
ὀτρύνειν ἀγγελίηντινί, | πιέζω, πίεξις, 118.
12.
πικρός, 319.
πίσσα, 319.
πίτυς, 320.
πίων, 475.
πλησίον ἦν, 75.
πνέω, 481.
ποδαπός, 323.
ποδάρκης, 544.
ποικίλλω, 119.
ποικιλομήτης, 66.
ποικίλος, 65, 119.
Ποιπνύω, 481.
"Οσσομαι, 114, 127,
444.
οὖλα, τά, 460.
Οὐλαί, 448.
οὐλαμός, 270, 460.
Οὖλε, Οὔλιος, 456.
οὐλοκάρηνος, 456.
Οὖλος, 270, 456.
Οὐλοχύται, 448.
οὐλοχυτέομαι, 452.
οὔριος, 474.
οὕτως, 172.
586
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
ποιφύσσω, 482.
πολύαινος, 60.
πολύκλητος, 386.
πολύμυθος, 60.
πορσύνειν, 144.
πουλύς, 38.
πράσσω, 491.
πρειγεύτης, πρειγήϊον, |
πρείγιστος, πρεῖγυς,
496.
πρέπω, 351.
Πρίθειν, 483.
Πρήσσειν, 491.
πρηστήρ, πρῆστις, 484.
πριστηροειδής, 489.
πρίστης, 488.
πρίστις, 484.
πρίω, 485.
προεφήτευσα, 122.
προμαχίζω, 121.
προπηλακίζω, 497.
προσάγειν ὅρκον, 438.
προσάρχεσθαι, 170.
προσαυρεῖν, προσαυρί-
ζειν, 151.
Προσελεῖν, 494.
προσηνής, 247.
προτιόσσομαι, 445.
προυγελεῖν, 495.
προυσελεῖν, 494.
πρωΐα, 220.
πτῶσις, πτῶμα, 138.
πυκινός, 33, 321.
ΠΥΚΩ, 320.
πυράγρα, 21.
P.
ῥέζω, 376.
ῥέκτης, 377.
ῥέω, 157.
Ῥύεσθαι, ῥῦσθαι, 303.
· ῥώομαι, 310.
Σ.
σάκος, 65.
σεμνός, 20, 46.
σεσαρυΐα, 205.
σῇσιν, 251.
σιγα ἔστω, 75.
σιγηλός, 50.
σοῖσιν, 251.
σπείσω, 132.
στείρα, 541.
Στεναχίζειν,
498.
στενάχω, 499.
στεφάνωμ᾽ ἀγέρωχον,
19.
στοναχή, 499.
.
στοναχήσεται, 181.
Στοναχίζειν,
-ῆσαι, | τρανός, 240.
τραπεῖν, 266.
-ῆσαι,
498.
στυγνός, 46.
συμπάσχω, 120.
συναΐκτην, 161.
συνεργέω, 120.
συνειλεῖν, 261, 263.
σφάλλειν, 497.
Σφάς, Σφέ, 418.
opéas, 419.
σφέλας, 497.
σφέτερος, 422.
σφέων, 429.
Σφίν, Σφώ, Σφωέ, Σφῶϊ,
Σφωΐτερος, 418.
|
Τ.
ταράσσω, 507.
ταῦρος ἀγέρωχος, 19.
Τεκμαίρομαι, 501.
τέκμαρ, 502.
Τέκμωρ, 501.
τελευταῖος, 512.
τέλος, 503.
τερψίμβροτος, 84.
τεθαλυία, 205.
Τεταγών, 503.
τέτοκα, 205.
τῆμος, τημοῦτος, 314,
τηνίκα, 313.
τετραφάληρος, 524.
Τέτρηχα, 506.
τέτριγα, 202.
Tn, 503.
τῆλε, 511.
τηνικαῦτα, 314.
τίννυσθαι, 435.
τραχύς, τρηχύς, τρήχω,
506.
τριταῖος ποιῶ, 41.
τρυφάλειαι, 531.
τυπείς, 132.
Υ.
ὑδρηλός, 50.
ὑπείλλω, 261.
Ὑπερηνορέων, 513.
ὑπερήνωρ, 519.
ὑπερηφανία, 20.
ὑπεροπλίαι, 520.
Ὑπέροπλος, Ὑπερφία-
λος, 513.
ὑπερφιάλως, 515.
ὑπερφυής, ὑπερφυῶς,
517.
| ὑπερώησαι, 310.
ὑπίλλω, 261.
ὑπνηλός, 50.
ὕπνῳ καὶ καμάτῳ ἀρη-
μένος, 23.
ὑπό, ὕπο, 478.
ὑπόβρυχα, ὑποβρύχιος,
ὑπόβρυχος, 208.
Φ.
Φάλαρα, 524.
φαλαρίς, φάλαρον,530.
φαλαρός, 528.
φαληριόων, 524.
φαληρίς, 529.
φάληρος, 524.
φάλιος, 528.
φάλκη, φάλκης, φάλκις,
540.
Φάλος, 521.
Τηλεκλειτός, Τηλεκλη- | φανός, 528.
τός,Τηλεκλυτός,383. | φαρέω, 538.
τηλοῦ, 511.
τῆλυ, 513 note.
Τηλύγετος, 510.
φέρειν ἀγγελίαν, 14.
Φή or φῆ, 531.
φήμη, 446.
INDEX OF GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES.
587
φθισίμβροτος, 84.
φιάλη, 517.
φιαρώς, 518.
φοβέο for φοβεέο, 296.
Φολκός, 536.
φοξίχειλος,
Φυξός, 536.
φόρτος, 131.
φώγειν, 539.
537.
χερείων, 4.
Χραισμεῖν, 541.
χραισμή, χραισμήτωρ,
548.
χράω, 542.
χρήσιμος,
χράω, χρήσιμος, χρη-
στός. 545, 546.
Ψ.
X.
ψαθαρός, 119.
χανδάνω, χάσκω, χεί- | ψαιστός, 448.
ψαίω, 449.
σομαι, 181.
ψεδνός, 119.
ψυδνός, ψυδρός, 33.
Ω.
ὤθω, ὠθέω, 113.
ὦλξ, 537.
ὡρμήθη, 14.
ὠρύω, ὠρύομαι, 203.
ὡς, 534.
ὡσαύτως, ὡς δ᾽ αὕτως,
176.
ὡς ὅτε, 314.
386.
INDEX III.
A.
INDEX OF MATTERS.
N.B. The reference is to the pages of the Lexilogus.
a for ŋ, an Ionicism, 180.
a, when resolvable, 1.
not resolvable before r, 142.
a privative followed by a vowel,
contraction of, 28.
Abantes, 154 note.
Accent, whether fixed by the gram-
marians, 5, 47, 73, 175, 295,
386, 429.
thrown back toward the be-
ginning of the word, 283.
contrary to analogy, 50,
slight authority for it in
Epic words, 240.
uncertainty of, 73, 295.
of compound words, 388.
ἐγκλίνειν used of the grave,
429 notes, 536.
Accusative added to the verb when
the relation to the object is
immediate, 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 pre-
position, 61.
with root
and preposition, 338.
Adverb joined with verb substan-
tive, 74.
Adverbial forms, 73.
Æolic dialect corresponded with
the Latin, 200 note.
changes eîs to és, 297.
transposes initial letters,
375.
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
completed, 123 note.
in usage, but in form imper-
fect, 145.
middle and passive, 105.
INDEX OF MATTERS.
589
Aorist passive expresses action just
ended, 509.
2. to be considered a stem or
root for the inflexion of the
.verb, 541.
accentuation of, 148.
participle of, added to the
aorist, 482.
in or see Imperfect.
Aphorisms of Hesiod: see He-
siod.
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 con-
struction, 409.
made a new com-
pound, 504.
fond of ambi-
guity of usage, 43.
Arare, area, 538 note.
Arceo, 544, 548.
Argos, Ascanii, Asia, 155 note.
Aristotle appears to have misun-
derstood Plato, 265.
Aspirate, uncertainty of, in Homer,
26, 171, &c. 249, 431.
fluctuated even in the living
language, 334.
difference of, arises from
loss of digamma, 269.
appears in some derivatives
though wanting in their pri-
mitives, 300.
belonged to Attics, 269,
Attic dialect had the aspirate, 269,
431.
Augment of compound verbs, 121.
nu used most by the
Attics, 29 note.
ην
431.
Atmosphere, opinion of the ancients
concerning it, 38.
, syllabic, connected with
digamma, 244.
, temporal, when not
omitted, 24.
supplies the
place of the reduplication of
perfect, 24.
Aurora, 43.
Ausci, Ausones, 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
πρήθω, πέρθω, 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, 119 note.
Causative meaning, transition to,
50, 311.
50, 51.
of adjective,
see also In-
transitive.
Ceres, Hymn to, probably not so
590
INDEX OF MATTERS.
ancient as Homeric hymns, | Day, division of, 217, 228.
281 note.
Change of vowel: see Vowel.
Compound verbs, apparently but
not really so, 117, &c.
word, from two separate
roots and with two meanings,
209.
Compounding of verbs, twofold
manner of, 120, &c.
Compounds, how accented, 388,&c.
Cone of the helmet, 523, &c.
Connexion between and
7, 22,
47, 140.
Context determines
meaning, 142.
Coot, or Baldcoot, 529.
Corybantes, 525.
gives a word its bad mean-
ing, 519.
Cyclic poets, 416, 457.
Cyclops, 514.
collateral
D.
Count and Recount, connected in
most languages, 401 note.
Countries, names of, poetical and
ancient, 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 an-
cient, 94.
of wine, whether literally
crowned, 292.
G
d inserted, 322.
Da! dat! (German imperatives,)
505.
Daring, an epithet expressive of
praise or reproach, 520 note.
Dativus commodi, 423, 542. 545.
Delos, the island, personified, 478.
Derivation, deceitfulness of, appa-
rent, 218, 230, 346, 365, 507,
511.
of the same word two-
fold, 209, 300.
,what constitutes simpli-
city of, 68.
Dialects, that all are found in
Homer is an uncritical hypo-
thesis, 297.
differed as to aspirate, 269.
contain obsolete words,
76.
furnish forms illustrative of
common ones, 190.
many forms taken from,
found in Hesychius, 190.
Diana, the name of, 462.
Digamma, 104, 136, 138, 153, 156,
244, 269, 275, 283, 284, 353,
417, 427, 494, 535, 537.
unknown to the post-
Homeric poets, 418.
disappeared in some
words as early as Homer, 286.
trace of it in the Attic
language, 495.
not changed to p, 538.
sometimes changed to y,
495.
Diminutives, 438.
Dual, not an original necessity of
language, 419.
completely formed in Homer,
420.
forms, are chance modifica-
tions of plural forms, 419.
and plural terminations in
Greek and Latin, 419 note.
: see also Plural.
Duis, duo, 375.
INDEX OF MATTERS.
591
W
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, 110, &c.
poets, the old, had a fixed
usage of language, 41.
Eribotes, an Argonaut, 285.
Erytus, an Argonaut, 284.
Etymologicum M. contains numer-
ous forms made by gramma-
rians, 190.
Etymology: see Derivation.
Euphemism, 144, 371.
Eurybates: see Eribotes.
Eurytus: see Erytus.
Evening distinguished from after-
noon, 219, &c.
Fir-tree, whence named, 320.
Floccus, 187.
Frequentative verb, 274.
meaning of present
Godly, godlike, not placed by the
ancients in moral qualities,
353.
Grammarians give different deri-
vations of the same word
merely to suit different mean-
ings, 19.
tense, 269.
Future same as present, 309.
G.
Garant, gaster (gåter), 375.
Gaudere, gaudium, 496.
Gender, different in Epic and later
writers, 38.
Gleba, globus, glomus, 270.
give different mean-
ings to suit the different pas-
sages, 34.
H.
H in German and English fre-
quently answers to K, 394
F.
note.
Falera, faseolus, 527 and note.
Figurative expressions in time
cease to be so, 92.
Hail! 462 and note.
Haurire, 153.
Firmare confounded with formare, Heal, health, (Danish Heel, Germ.
56.
Heil, heil! heilen, Heiland,)
462 note, 463.
invented forms to ex-
plain others, 190.
tried to explain Ho-
mer by examination of pas-
sages, 525.
tried to explain Ho-
mer by etymological conjec-
tures, 540.
Grave accent: see Accent.
Guastare, 375.
Gyes, or Gyges, 3 note.
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.


592
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
3 9015 06716 5061
INDEX OF MATTERS.
Heurter, 302 note.
Historical or traditionary informa-
tion, great value of, 254.
Homer, supposed proof of his hav-
ing lived in Asia, 467.
ignorantly imitated by
Apollonius, 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.
Hymn to Venus, instance
of a later usage in it, 330.
perhaps
the oldest of the Homeridic
hymns, 480.
Homer's poems, perhaps a trace of
their having been written by
different authors, 127, 210.
See also Iliad.
traces of their hav-
ing been handed down by oral
tradition, 130.
Homer's text, difficulties of fixing
it almost insurmountable, 58.
reading of it fluc-
tuates, 127, 384, &c.
not to be altered but
on authentic grounds, 58, 179.
undoubtedly faulty,
and yet no historical trace of
it, 161.
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
expression, 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
immediately from perfect, 112,
135.
Imperfects according to form, but
used as aorists, 145, 153.
Inclinatio (éykλíveɩ), 429 notes,
536.
Infinitives in -perai and -µer, 424.
Inflexion with or without €, 137.
Inseparable manner of compound-
ing verbs, 120.
Intermediate form connects two
others by containing their
initial letters, 374.
Intransitive meaning more natural
than transitive, 232.
Ionic dialect, 457.
without aspirate, 269,
328, 431.
changes a to ŋ, 327.
Iota subscript, 107, 418.
Irony, erroneously supposed, 149.
Hoof, 521 note.
Hordeum, 454 note.
J.
Hort, (German,) synonymous with J, German pronunciation of, 233
ếpμa, 301 note.
note.
Huf (German): see Hoof.
Jabolenus, 234 note.
-