THE NEW PHRYNICHUS
RUTHERFORD
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS
BEING A REVISED TEXT OF
THE ECLOGA
OF THE
GRAMMARIAN ' PHRYNICHUS
WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND COMMENTARY
BY
W. GUN ION RUTHERFORD, M.A.
OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD
ASSISTANT CLASSICAL MASTER AT SAINT PAUL's
i\\t.ii% oil irphs TCk SiTj^aprr/yueVo a<f>opufi.(v
dwh. irpbs TCk SoKifXwraTa tuv apx°-^'^*'-
Con I) on
M A C M I L L A N AND CO.
1881
\^Ail rig/its reserved]
F H
TO
BENJAMIN JOWETT,
MASTER OF BALLIOL COLLEGE,
REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEYDEN,
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED
BY
A FORMER PUPIL.
•I 3
DATE.
"HKjuac56v 6 dvHp ev to?c xpovoic MdpKou paciAeooc
'Pcojuaioov Kat toG naiboc aurou KojujLiobou.
Photius. Bibliotheca.
WORKS.
4>puvixoc, Bieuvoc oocpiSTHC efpayev 'Attikigthv, nepi
'ArTiKoiiv 'OvojuoToov pipAi'a p, riOejuevoov ouvaroorHv, Zocpi-
(5TIKHC TTapasKeuHc pipAi'a ju^', oi be ob'.
SuiDAS.
^ • • • r •
* • * • • • • '
PREFACE.
In the progress of a long and exacting study of the
Attic verb it was my fortune to discover that before the
inquiry could be placed upon a scientific basis it would be
necessary to reconsider some of the received opinions re-
garding the language of the Athenian people, and to sub-
ject to unflinching criticism the recognised claims of certain
writers to a place in Attic literature. For a time my at-
tention was withdrawn from the more special aspect of the
question to which it had for several years been devoted,
and directed to the prosecution of the wider inquiry, which
was to provide a starting point scientifically important, and
suggest a more comprehensive and intelligent method.
The results obtained were in my judgment of such value
that it seemed desirable to find a means of making them
public, which would at the same time assist my cherished
ulterior project of an authoritative work on the Attic
verb.
Augustus Lobeck's edition of the licloga of Phrynichus
had long been familiar to me, and the suggestion of the
High Master of Saint Paul's School that a new edition
of the second century Atticist would be of service in
calling attention to the peculiar characteristics of Attic
Greek received the consideration which his judgment
commands.
There is no Grammarian to whose work so high a value
viii PREFACE.
attaches as to that of Phrynichus, the Bithynian, and a
perusal of the articles in the Ecloga, crude, fragmentary,
and corrupt as they are, will yet prove that the writer
regarded Attic Greek from a truer standpoint than more
recent Grammarians, and one which students of Greek,
subjected since Hermann's time to the thraldom of minute
psychological annotation, have often strangely ignored.
It is not my purpose to reprehend the careful and pains-
taking study of Greek texts. Accuracy, rigid and uncom-
promising, is demanded of every student of Greek, but it
must be combined with an appreciation of the relative
value of facts. The precision of a scholar is one thing,
and that of a scholiast another. Details are only valuable
as a basis for generalisation, and the study of isolated
phenomena without any reference to general principles is
as puerile and futile in the student of language as in the
questioner of Nature. Grammatical inquiry, however, has
one difficulty to encounter which is unknown in the labora-
tory of the Chemist or the Physicist. To a law of Nature
therp is in the last resort no exception, but a grammatical
rule cannot fail to be sometimes contravened, as long as
the human mind is subject to mistake.
There are errors in grammar in all writers, but little is
gained by trying to discover the state of mind which
produced them. Certainly, in a language so signally ac-
curate and regular as Attic Greek such errors . may be
remarked upon when encountered, but otherwise left to
shift for themselves. Eliminate the innumerable and gross
corruptions which transmission by the hand of copyists
through a score of centuries necessarily entails, and the
texts of Attic writers would present as few errors in syntax
and in the forms of words as the best French classics.
PREFACE. ix
As to Syntax, Professor Goodwin's judgment will be
considered final by most scholars. In the preface to his
well-known work on the Greek Moods and Tenses he states
the case against Hermann with the vigorous common sense
which marks his scholarship. ' One great cause of the
obscurity which has prevailed on this subject is the ten-
dency of so many scholars to treat Greek syntax meta-
physically rather than by the light of common sense.
Since Hermann's application of Kant's Categories of Mo-
dality to the Greek Moods^ this metaphysical tendency
has been conspicuous in German grammatical treatises^
and has affected many of the grammars used in England
and America more than is generally supposed. The re-
sult of this is seen not merely in the discovery of hidden
meanings which no Greek writer ever dreamed of, but more
especially in the invention of nice distinctions between
similar or even precisely equivalent expressions. A new
era was introduced by Madvig, who has earned the lasting
gratitude of scholars by his efforts to restore Greek syntax
to the dominion of common sense.'
It is this same common sense which gives the work of
Phrynichus its importance, and although the plan of the
Ecloga is unsatisfactory in the extreme, and proves that
its author had not attained to the highest view of the
scholar's functions, yet its general tone testifies to scholarly
instincts. The dedication to Cornelianus contains the
creed of a genuine scholar. 'Il/xeij ov irpos ra hn]]xapTr]\xiva
a(fjopS)ixev, aWa TTpbs to. hoKtp.(aTaTa rQiv apx^aioiv, and similar
maxims occur repeatedly in the work itself. With Phry-
nichus it was not a mere theory but a practical rule, and
no better illustration could be given of scholarly nerve and
wholesome masculine common sense than the article in
X PREFACE.
which he contemptuously disregards the few unimportant
exceptions to the general rule that /^e'AAetj^ in the sense
of ' intend ' or ' be about ' is followed only by the future or
present infinitive. To his mind the aorist infinitive after
jueAXety was simply a mistake, and to pay any attention to
the examples of it in Attic writers would have appeared
as serious an error of judgment as to attempt to distinguish
between \x.iXk(i> irotelv and /^leAAw TTOLrjo-eiv.
Questions of Syntax, however, are rarely discussed by
Phrynichus, his attention being occupied for the most part
with the use of words and their genuine forms. As to
these points his testimony is peculiarly valuable, since on
the one hand he had access to a very large number of
works which have been subsequently lost, and on the
other he lived at an age when if due care was used it
was still possible even from the manuscripts to discover
the inflexions employed by the original writer. The evi-
dence supplied by his dicta I have used to the best of
my ability, adding to it all that could be derived from
other sources, and endeavouring by its help to make some
impression upon the enormous mass of corrupt forms
which disfigure all the texts of Attic writers.
Much, indeed, has already been done in this way, and
there are unmistakeable indications of a growing tendency
to return to the old traditions of scholarship as represented
in the work of Bentley, Porson, Elmsley, and Dawes, by
adding to the all-important study of syntax a scientific
study of words and the orthography of words ^ In his
preface to ' Greek Verbs Irregular and Defective ' Dr.
^ A striking instance of the development of this tendency is the remarkable
article by Mr. A. W. Verrall which appeared in No. XVII of the Journal of
Philology, entitled ' On a Chorus of the Choephorae, with Remarks upon the .
verb TOTra(w and its cognates.'
PREFACE. xi
William Veitch long ago suggested the track which such
an inquiry should take, and in the book itself supplied
a storehouse of materials without which the inquiry itself
would be impracticable.
To another scholar, however, my chief acknowledgment
is due. Everyone who has taken an interest in the recent
history of Greek criticism is familiar with the ' Variae
Lectiones,' ' Novae Lectiones,' and the other articles of
C. G. Cobet in the Mnemosyne Journal. There are few
pages of the present work in which his influence may
not be traced, and even in those cases in which my con-
clusions differ most widely from those of the veteran critic
the line of reasoning which produced the divergence was
not seldom suggested by writings of his own. A familiar
apophthegm of Menander furnishes Greek criticism with
an apt watchword, and from Cobet's lips I for one have
learned the import of these words—
(\iv6epu)S bov\ev€, Soi-Ao? ovk ccrcL.
W. G. R.
I King's Bench Walk, Temple,
May, 1 88 1.
CORRIGENDA.
Page 25, note l, read npocjidvTa.
„ 40, „ I, read art. 38.
„ 47, line 20, read art. 73.
„ 129, „ 2, read (iwots.
„ 186, ,, 28, read (XTroKpivfTai.
» 194. » 14, '"^0"^ dtf^aT^y.
>•• 304' » 16, ;voc? texts of Herodotus.
„ 2H, „ 22, read IxOva.
„ 224, „ 18, read vSapis.
>> 225, „ 22, read nXeiov.
„ 234, note, read Kfiixfvov.
„ 250, line 1 3, rra^ manuscript.
„ 272, extr., read'ATTiKoi. Sid tov o^lwy, \ay6i.
„ 276, line 14, read dp' i^v.
„ 287, „ 10, read 6ira.foirwKT}s.
}> 288, „ 21, read (Krpwaaaav,
» 313; ;> 9. '■^a<^ immorality but.
» 324* J) 141 '■^«<^ inapiartpos.
)> 325. lines 8, 9, r^arf OTvinr i'ivov, arvirntvov.
» 325* line II, '■««£? aTinrntvoi or aTvirivos.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
THE GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT.
The interest of the AatraXijs — the first play of Aristo-
phanes — hes in the disappointment felt by an Athenian
of a rural deme in the education which his son has received
in the city. He asks him to dig, and the boy shows him
hands accustomed to no rougher labour than fingering the
flute and the lyre. The farmer prays for a sturdy drinking
song by Alcaeus or Anacreon, but his cultured son, —
Aeto? uxTTTcp €y\e\vs, xpva-ovs e^coy klklvvovs, —
knows none but modern airs. When the old man would
test his knowledge of Homer — and Homer was to the
Greek much that the Bible in a higher sense was to the
Jew — his questions as to the meaning of Homeric phrases
are answered by counter-questions on the sense which
certain words bear in Attic law.
This play was written just in the middle of the great
literary period of Athens. About one hundred years
earlier Tragedy earned a place in literary history, and
before the close of the next century Athens had left her
genius on the field of Chaeronea. Aeschylus was born
a few years after the rude stage of Thespis first courted
the Dionysiac crowd, and Demosthenes survived the
national independence by only fifteen years. Yet, in this
short space, the Athenian tongue was able to mould the
L B
2 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Greek language into the most perfect vehicle of thought
known to literature.
The fragment of the AatTaA?;s already referred to de-
monstrates the fact that much of Homer was as unintelli-
gible to an Athenian of the best days, as Chaucer is to an
ordinary Englishman of the present century. In fact the
Attic even of the Mapa^covo/xaxat was as far removed from
the Greek of Homer as the English of Milton from that of
Chaucer \ and if the lapse of time is alone considered it
must have been more so. But if Homer was often hard
for them to understand, the debased forms and mixed
vocabulary of the common dialect would have struck the
contemporaries of Aristophanes and Plato as little better
than the jargon of the Scythian policemen who kept order
in the market-place.
In the AatraA?js the master of Attic Comedy brought
the old and the new in Athens face to face. The boy's
grandfather might well have heard Thespis in his first rude
attempts at tragedy, and his grandson have been forced to
doubt whether it was life that imitated Menander, or
Menander who imitated life. Now the forces which in
this Comedy Aristophanes represents as acting upon the
young men of his day had been at work for years, not
only in modifying the national character, but also in
moulding the speech of the Athenians. There is little in
the Attic of Aristophanes or the Orators which would
indicate that it is only a development of Ionic, and a
genuine descendant of the Greek which Homer wrote. So
great has been the influence of the democratic institutions
' The lines in question are preserved in a fragmentary state by the Physician
Galen in his Lexicon to Hippocrates: —
Father. Tipo? ravra aii Ke^ov 'Ojxrjpov i/xol -yktuTTas,
Ti KaKovai Kupvfi^a ;
Father, rl naXova' afxivqva Kaprjva ;
Son. 6 jxiv ovu aos, (/xos 5' ovtos a.5e\<pus (fypaaaTU,
Ti KaKovaiv iSviovs ;
So/i. ri naXovaiv inviuv {a-noivav Mke. conj.) :
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 3
and free city life — the 8tKaar?;pta and ayopa — on the one
hand, the arrogance of empire and foreign commerce — the
7p/€iJLovLa and Iletpaei^s — on the other. But that this was
certainly the case is proved not only by many phenomena
of form and expression, but also by a literary fact which
has never received the serious attention which it merits.
It is strange that Tragedy which, rightly considered,
sheds more light than aught else on the history of the
Attic dialect, should have been the occasion of concealing
its purity. Among other caGses which have prevented
Attic from being thoroughly understood, none can equal
the mistake of regarding the Tragic diction as only an
elevated modification of ordinary Attic. This conviction
is of the same kind as that arising from the concomitant
study of several Hellenic dialects, namely, that Greek as a
whole is markedly irregular. As a matter of fact nothing
is further from the truth.
It is a well-known characteristic of Greek literature that
different kinds of composition had a tendency to adhere
generally to the dialect in which they started. Epic verse
did not deviate from that use of words which Homer had
discovered to be most suitable to the genius of hexameter
metre. Even in Comedy, when there was occasion to use
hexameters, old words and forms, unused in the Attic of
the day, were liberally introduced. Choric poetry had its
rise among the Dorians, and Doric was the vehicle of ex-
pression used in all choric verse ever afterwards, and in
Comedy no less than in Tragedy the choral odes were
couched in Doric.
By considering Tragedy with reference to this fact it is
possible at once to account for the striking discrepancy which
exists, both in vocabulary and accidence, between tragedies
and comedies of precisely the Same date. 77/6' dasis of the
language of T7-agedy is the Attic of the time %vhen Tragedy
sprang into life.
B 2
4 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Accordingly, in the Tragic Dialect is discovered what
might otherwise have been lost, the missing link between
Ionic proper and that modification of it which is called
Attic. It must however be remembered, at the same time,
that the Tragic poetry of Athens, like that of all other
nations, contained words, expressions, and metaphors which
it would be ridiculous to employ in other species of com-
position or in the course of ordinary conversation. In Greek,
indeed, this was especially the case. Tragedy was intimately
associated with religion, an3 had in fact developed itself
from a rude religious ceremonial. Moreover, the characters
were gods and demigods, and the poet took as much care
to elevate his diction above that of common life as the
actor to increase the proportions of his figure and the
sonorousness of his voice.
A careful comparison of the diction of Herodotus and
the Attic tragedians confirms in a marvellous degree this
theory as to the peculiar characteristics of the latter.
Even if the choric odes and other lyrical passages are
left unregarded — and throughout this inquiry they have
been altogether set aside — there remains in the senarii
alone a very large number of words which are found else-
where only in Ionic.
In the first place, a writer of Tragedy used at pleasure
many forms of words unknown in Comedy or Prose but
normal in Ionic. Thus, while in Attic IkCivos was the only
form known^ the tragedians, like Herodotus, use k^Ivos or exei-
vo'i indifferently. The shorter form never occurs in Comedy
except^ in Arist. Pax 46, as an intended lonicism —
'IcoytKo's rts <\>i](ri TrapaKaOijjxivos,
Soxeco jxev, is Kkeoiva ravT alvicra^Tai
0)? Keu'os ayatSeojs rijy a-naT[Xr)v icrduL.
1 In Vesp. 751. it occurs in a chorus, and it is cited from the comic poet
Phrynichus. But the line, if not hopelessly corrupt, is meant for Ionic, —
Hiii'T] fiffivrjcrOaj fii ^vXov VTroTfrayos.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 5
The Ionic ^wo? ( = Koti'os), Hdt. 4. 12; 7. 53, etc., is found
in Aesch. Sept. ']6, Supp. 367.
aet8co ( = a86o), Hdt. I. 24; 2. 60, etc., occurs in Aesch.
Agam. 16, Similarly aoihy] ( = (08?^) in Hdt. 1. 79, and Soph.
Ant. 883. aot8o9 ( = w8oj) in Hdt. i. 24 ; Soph. O. R. 36 ;
Eur. Heracl. 403, et al.
aet'po) = aipco, Hdt. 2. 125 ; 4. 150 ; Soph. Ant. 418.
dicrorco = ao-o-o), Hdt. 4. 134; 9. 62; Aesch. Pers. 470;
Eur. Hec. 31.
yovvaTQ'5^ yovvaTa, etc., = yoVaTO?, yovaTa, Hdt. 2. 80; 4.
152 ; 9- 76, etc. ; Soph. O. C. 1607 ; Eur. Hec. 752, etc.
Co77 = C<w77, Hdt. 1.32, 85, 157, etc. ; Soph. Fr. 509.
Ca- for 8ta- in compounds, as Co-'n^ovros, Hdt. i. 32 ; Eur.
Andr. 1283. Cp. Co-xpdos, Aesch. Supp. 194 ; Co--nXr]6r}s,
Pers. 316; (aO^os, Eur. freq. ; ^axpvaros, Eur.
These instances are but typical of a large class which
even a careless student of Tragedy will be able to extend
at pleasure. It is sufficient here to indicate the relation
which such variations from ordinary usage bear to the
question under discussion. Another important class con-
sists of words used in Tragedy and Ionic in the simple
form, but which in Attic are invariably compounded.
In Attic there 'is not a single instance of the simple
verb avTiovixaL, ' I oppose.' The compound havnovixat has
taken its place. But to the numerous instances afforded
by Ionic, Hdt. i. 76, 207; 4. i, 3, 126; 7. 9, 139, 168;
8. 100; 9. 26; Aeschylus, in Supp. 389, presents a parallel, —
. . n's av Toicrh^ avTioiOrjvai 64Xoi ;
For the Ionic oxAw (Hdt. 5. 41) Attic writers used the
compound ero)(Aw, but the simple verb is found both in
Aeschylus and Sophocles (P. V. 1001 ; O. R. 446).
Still more marked is the case of alvw, which in Hdt. 3.
7^ > 5- 113; Soph. Aj. 526, Phil. 451, 889, and in Euri-
pides and Aeschylus repeatedly, is used for the Attic
6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Other instances are ayvv^ii for Kar6.yvv[ii \ avrd for uTrai^raj'-,
'iCp\i.ai for KaQkCp\iai ^, XKvov\i.ai for a<\>[.Kvov[i.ai ■*, and the hst
might easily be increased. Some care, however, must be
taken to select only well-marked instances for purposes of
speculation. Thus the simple form of apda-aco, which is
common enough in Tragedy^, is found in Prose only in
Hdt. 6. 44, but the hne of Aristophanes (Eccl. 977), —
A. Koi TTjv dvpav y i'lparres. B. cnroOuvoiix apa,
puts it beyond a doubt that the word might, on occasion,
have been used in prose, as it was certainly employed in
every-day life.
On the other hand, Ionic writers and Tragedians fre-
quently use a compound word in cases in which an Attic
prose author would prefer the simple form. Before a
language is matured, and that feeling of language de-
veloped, which sees in a common word the most suitable
expression for a common action or fact, there is a tend-
ency to make work-a-day words more expressive by com-
pounding with a preposition. This stage of language still
existed in Attica towards the close of the sixth century, and
became one of the mannerisms of Tragic composition, being
in this way carried on in literature to a time when such a
tendency had disappeared from Attic employed under ordi-
nary conditions. Ionic never got beyond this stage.
» Hdt. I. 185; Eur. Hel. 410.
* Hdt. I. 114; 2. 119; Aesch. Supp. 323; Soph. Aj. 533, Trach. 902; Eur.
Ion 802.
' Hdt. 4. 85; 8. 22; Aesch. Eum. 3; Soph. O. R. 32, O. C. 100; Eur.
Heracl. 344, Ion 1202, El. 109, 1259, etc.
* Hdt. I. 216; very frequent m all three Tragedians. In Thuc. i. 99, the
simple is used in the peculiar sense of be suitable, which is also found in Hdt. 2.
36; 6. 57,84.
* Aesch. P. V. 58, Pers. 460; Soph. O. R. 1276, Ant. 52, Aj. 725, Phil. 374;
Eur. Hec. 1044, I- T. 327. The compounds are comparatively common in Prose
and Comedy, the following passages being cited by Veitch: — e^apa^tc, Ar.
Thesm. 704; e^-qpa^a, Eq. 641 ; icaTTjpa^f, Dem. 675. 19; fnrjpa^f, Plato, Prot.
3I4 D; d-napd^rjTf, Thuc. 7. 63; Kar-qpaxO-q, Thuc. 7. 6.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 7
The preposition Ik, e£ is of all the most frequently em-
ployed in thus extending verbs. In Sophocles especially
it would almost seem as if any verb might be compounded
with it. He is the only Greek writer who uses eKOeacrdaL,
(KkriyeLv, (KirpoTLixav, kKo-rjixaiveiV, iKcrTeXkecrOai (of dress), eK-
XPW (of the responses of Apollo), e^avdyecrOai, e^artjua^ety,
e^e(/)teo-0at ( = 7rpoo-rdrreti'), none of which differ at all from
the simple verbs, except in being in a slight degree more
picturesque. Similarly there is as little difference between
(KdveiVy kKKay\aveiv, €Kixav9dv€tv, eKTreiOetv, eKirvvOdvea-dai,
€K(r(ti^eiv, (KT i\xdv, kK(l>ofieicTdai, k^atreiv, e^aKovetv, f^avayKaC^LV,
k^avix'^a-Qai, i^aTraXkdcra-ea-Oat,, e^arrocjiOetpetv, i^cXevdepoa-ro-
fjieZv, k^e-n'^TTaaOai, (^iKereveiv, and the forms not compounded
with this preposition. The verbs e^airoXXvvaL, l^epLiroXdv,
and e^rjixcpovv for diroWyvaL, kixiroXav, and 7]fxepovv, are a
few out of many instances common to the Tragedians with
Herodotus ^ Of compounds with other prepositions, dva-
KaUw ^ and dvaKXaUiv ^ for Kaciy and kXcl^iv might be men-
tioned if the case of d-noXayyaveiv for the simple Kayxdveiv
did not present itself as a deterrent. The compound occurs
repeatedly in Herodotus, and once in Euripides*, but in
Attic Prose only in Lys. loi. 3, and not in Comedy at all.
But that it was really not uncommon in both these kinds
of composition is attested by Harpocration in his Lexicon
to the Ten Orators — 'A-n-oXaxeiv : avrX airXov tov Xayjelv 'Ayrt-
(^S>v €V Tfaj Kara ^iXivov, Auo-ta? Kara YIoa-eLhtTnrov, ^ApL(rTocf)dvris
TayrjvKTTats. In fact this feeling towards picturesque com-
pounds is one which, though especially characteristic of
the immaturity of a language, can never be said to have
' (^air6\\vixt, lidt. I. 92, 2. 171 ; Aesch. Agam. 528; Soph. El. 588; Eur.
Tro. 1215, Heracl. 950. i^eftiroKai, licit, i. i ; Soph. Ant. 1036, Phil. 303.
i(r)fi(pa), Ifflt. I. 126; Eur. H. F. 20, 852.
■' avaKaico, Hdt. 4. 145; 5. 19; 8. 19; Eur. Cycl. 3S3 ; Xcnophon has it,
Anab. 3. i. 3, dvtKavirau tu nvp.
^ avaKXnio), Ilflt. 3. 14, 06; Soph. Phil. 939; Antiphon uses it, 119. 23, rcJt
itapovrrai drux/as avaKXavnaaOai npdi Vfias.
* licit. 4. 114, 115, 14.:;; 5. 57; 7. 23; Eur. II. F. 33J.
8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
wholly disappeared from it. All that it is necessary to
demonstrate in the present case is that it had become
exceedingly rare in Attic at a time when it was still in
full force in Tragedy and the Ionic dialect.
But to pass to another feature which these present in
common. Words rare in prose occur with frequency both
in Herodotus and the Tragic poets, which is equivalent to
saying that words in common use in the Attic of the time
when Tragedy became a distinct style retained a literary
status as long as the Tragic drama continued, although,
for all other purposes, they were practically obsolete in
Attic speech and writing. Such a word is the adverb
Kapra. It occurs with extraordinary frequency^ in Ionic
and in Tragedy, but hardly at all in Attic Comedy or
Prose. In Plat. Tim. p. 25 D, -n^Xov Kapra IBpaxeos, it has
been perhaps rightly restored from the Parisian manuscript
for the vulgate Kara^pax^os, but it would be difficult to
discover another Prose instance. Of the two times which
it occurs in Aristophanes, one at least proves its un-Attic
character. In Ach. 544 —
Ka6rj(r6' av iv So/xotcriy ; tj ttoXXov ye 6et*
Kol Kapra iiivrav ev^eoos KadeiXKere —
the preceding words ^ ttoXXov ye Set- certainly come from
the Telephus of Euripides, as do several more clauses and
lines immediately before and after, and if Kal Kapra p.hrav
is not directly from the same source, the word Kapra is
beyond question intended to harmonize with the parody.
For the other instance —
ravra pXv krip^ls €\(tiv
Kapra' ttw? Kkava-ei yap tjv aira^ ye rcacfyOaXpcD 'kkotttj? ; —
Av. 342.
there must be some similar reason, as in the only other
* Hdt. I. 71, 88; 3. 80, 104; 7. 16, etc.; Hippocrates, p. 393. 51, 394.
53, etc. In Aeschylus over thirty times, in Sophocles about twenty times, and
in Euripides fourteen or fifteen times.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 9
passage of Comedy in which the word occurs — Ameipsias
in Athen. 11. 783 E. —
A. avAei \i.oi fxiXos,
(TV aoe TTpos ri]vo eKTno[JLai, eyw reoo?.
B. avkei (TV, kol crv ti]v afxvaTiv Aa/x/Sare,
" ov XPV "^oW' ^X^'^ dvqTov avOpcoTTOv
dAA' epav koI KaTecrOUiV crv 8e Kcipra 0et8et ' —
it forms part of a drinking song, like lago's,
'Then take thine auld cloak about thee.'
Another word almost equally significant is (l>pr\v. In
Herodotus it is found in 3. 134; 7. 13; 9. 10^; and in
Tragedy repeatedly — about two hundred times in all. Of
the numerous Aristophanic instances all occur either in
the lyrical passages, in parody, or in paratragedy, except
Nub. 153—
£ Zeu /3a(nAey, r?/? keiiTOTiiTos tG)v (fipevcav —
and Thesm. 291, Ran. 534, Lys. 432 ; where it forms part
of the phrase vovs koL ^peye?, which is a survival of the
old Ionic Attic, and common even in Prose, as in Dem.
de Cor, 332. 20, iiakiara }xkv koXtovtols /SeArtoo tlvo. vovv Kal
(^pivas kvOtlTi, lb. 780. II, vov koX <f)pev(ap aya6S>v koX irpovoias
TToXXrj^. A similar survival is its use with words like <tvix-
(f)opd to denote aberration of intellect, as in Andoc, 20. 29.
It is found twice in Plato, but in a connection which
strengthens this account of the history of the word. In
both cases, Theaet. 154 D, Conviv. 199 A'-, it refers to
the famous line in the Hippolytus of Euripides —
T] yXCxTCT djX(aixo)(^, rj 8e cjiprjv av<a\j.OTOS —
so often parodied by Aristophanes.
The survival of f/^pj/t" in the phrase vov^ kol (j)p€V€s has
• Cp. <ppn^pi]T, licit. 3. 25, 30; 5. 42 ; 9. 55 ; Eur. Ileracl. 150, El. 1053.
' The passages are, Theaet. ardp, un toiKtv, Hlv dnoKpivrj on tOTiv, Eiipnrl-
i(i6v T( (jvn0Tjir(Tai' f) p.iv yAp yKwTTa dvfKtyicTns fifuv (rrrai, fj hi 4"?^^ ovic
ivtXiyKTOi . . . ti fiiv Sfivol Kal fTO'l>ol iyuj rt ical av ?ip-(v, rravrn ra twv (|>p(Vuv
i(i]TiHOT(s : Conviv. 1^ yXwrra ovv virirrxtro, j) 5J (pp^v ov.
lO THE NEW PHRYXICHUS.
many parallels, and Comedy is often very useful in pre-
servinsf these remnants of ever\--dav lansmaCTC in cases in
which there was naturally little occasion for their appear-
ance in Prose. Thus the old word aQh-os sur\-ives in Prose ^
only in the phase -avri o-^eVet, but Comedy has preser\^ed
a similar use of the verb aOevu} —
ov yap ~po(n']Kei T7jr efxavrov fioi -oXlv
ev€py€T(h', w se— t^e ica^' oo-or av o-^eroo :
At. Pint. 912.
The same is true of OcCroa. which, like the simple apda-a-o)
alreadv mentioned ip. 6\ occurs out of Tra^edv onlv in
Comic verse —
ovTos cnj ■:70L dels ; ov fjLevds ; as el devels
Tor ai-bpa tovtov, avrbs apdricrei, ~cLxa.
Arist. Ach. 564.
oAyV oXcrff o hpa(T0V ; r^ a-KeXei 6eve r/ji- TreVpai-.
Av. 54.
But of all these sun-i\-als perhaps the most interesting is
that of the aorist e/ia<rrtfa. Ever}- one will remember its
use in Homer —
fMaoTi^ev 8' ekaav Kava\i] 8' 7/r rjfJLLOi'OLXv'
but it will surprise many to hear tliat it had become a
term of the kitchen. Athenaeus (7. 322 d.) quotes from
the Leuce of Alexis the lines —
A. €~C(TTa(Tai Tov aavpov ois 8ei (rKO-'cicrat :
B. oAA' av 8tod(rKr;?. A. e^eXhv ra _3payx^Ca,
■nXvvas, "TTepiKOxIras Tas aKavOas ras kvkAw,
TTapaa-x^iiTov xP^^^^^y biairrv^as ff oXov
rw <riA.^ife) y.a.cmBov ev re, koX KaX5>s
Tvpto re cra^ov aXai r t}8'" opiyavia —
> Dem. 30. 12 ; Thuc. 5. 23; Plat Legg. 646 A, 8=4 B : Xen. Cyrop. 6. i.
42 : 3. 5. 25. Hell. 6. 5. 2, Rep. Lac. 4. 5. In Plato, Phaedr. 267 C, to tov
XaXmjScriov ffBtvos in humorous p>assage = o JiaXinfSorios.
^ Tj54 is certainly corrupt here. We must read aXffly sit' optyawv, or some
such word.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. ii
in which a master is giving directions to his new cook how
he Hkes a fish of a certain kind dressed. After being boned
it is to be well whipped or dusted with silphium and stufifed
with cheese, salt, and marjoram.
Another passage indicates that it was probably the word
used by boys when spinning tops. In the Baptae of
Eupolis ^ occur the words —
oj pvju./3oicri [jLacrTi^as e/^te"
but the context is required to make them quite clear.
It is in this way that the use of pveadai in Thucydides
ought probably to be explained. The word is otherwise
unknown in Attic, and when Thucydides represents Agis
(5' ^3) ^•S promising ^py(^ ayaQCd pvaerrOai ras atrtas a-rpa-
Tevadp-evos, he is probably only giving a metaphorical turn
to a word in common use among the tradesmen in the
agora to denote their goods bringing down the weights on
the opposite scale of the balance^.
'Akttj is another word which almost by itself might de-
monstrate the truth of the theory at present under dis-
cussion. Though found repeatedly in Homer ^ in the
sense of 'rocky foreland,' and in Herodotus* with the
meaning 'littoral tract,' it is in Attic confined to Tragedy^,
except in one case, namely, when it refers to the coast-
district of Attica. Harpocration tells us that Hyperides so
used it : 'A/crr;, cTTt^aAarriSio's rts p.olpa rT/^'ArriKJ^s" 'TirepeCbri'i
kv T(ri Tifpl Tov rapt'xous, and in Dinarchus, 1 10. 2, it is found
' Quolcl Vv. Com. 2. 452. The ^v/x^os was in this 'a metal top,' used in
celebrating the orgies of Kotytto by her ' licentiates ' the Baptae.
'^ fiiio/iai, licit. 3. 119, 1.^2 ; 4. 164, 187, etc.; Aesch. Eum. 232, 300, Supp.
509 et al. ; .Soph. O. C. 285, Aj. 1276, O. K. 72, 312, 313; Eur. Ale. 11,
et freq.
' II. 2. 395 ; 20. 50 ; Od. 5. 405 ; 10. 89, etc.
* Hdt. 4. 38; 7. 1S3. Xenophon, un-Attic as usual, employs it in An. 6. 2.
iOtiiipow rfjv 'laaoviav uKTr^v.
Aebch. Pcrs. 303, 42 1, 449, Eum. 10, Ag. 493, and freq. in cli. ; So[)h.
Phil. I, 172, 1017; Aeg. fr. 19. 3; Captiv. fr. 42, and in chor. ; Eurip. Hec.
778, Hipp. 1199, and very frequently.
12 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
in a suggestive series : kv oh (sc. rot? xP'//^ao-0 *««' ^ o.ktt]
Kot 01 At/^ei-es etVt Kot ra yewpta a ot irpoyovoi v}xtv KaracrKevd-
rrai'Tes KarikiTTov^.
No evidence could be more distinct. It was plainly a
word in daily use in Attica before the Ionic then spoken
had gone far in the peculiar path which was to end in the
Attic dialect, and its application to the coast-district began
at that time. In the sixth century it was dropping out of
use, but received a new lease of life from becoming part of
the literary dialect of Tragedy.
Exactly the same history belongs to another old Attic
word. Its attachment to a natural feature of the country
preser\^ed it un-modified, just as the peculiar Greek ten-
dency of literary styles to become permanent brought it
down in Tragedy to a period when it had disappeared in all
other literature but the Ionic. The name C^crrrip, the Ionic
and old Attic equivalent of C^^vq, had at an early date been
bestowed upon a tongue of land between the Piraeus and
Sunium^ which resembled the C^^a-Trip in shape, and is
mentioned under that name both by Herodotus and Xeno-
phon ^. Thus even the stones cry out against regarding
the peculiarly Tragic forms of words as due to no more
than a craving for elevation of style.
Of a piece with the use of compound verbs for simple,
already discussed, is the preference for picturesque words
with a dash of metaphor in them over their more tame
* Strabo, 9. 391 b, thus describes the district, Akt^ 5' karlv d/MptOdXaTTOs,
arfvf] TO irpwTov, (Tt eh ttju /xeaoyaiav TrXarvvfTai, fXTjvoeiSrj 5' oiSev tJttov h-ni-
aTpofpTjv \anPdvu npbs 'Clpuitov t^s BoicoTias, to KvpTov ixovffa npos Bakdrrig.
^ Strabo, 398.
' Hdt. 8. 107, f-rrel 5e dyxov r/aav Zojarfipoi nKfuvres ol ISdpPapot Kre. : Xen.
Hell. 5. I. 9, tnel Se ^aav at (ffjes) rov Evvdpiov irpos rrj yrj -nepl Zojcrrripa ttjs
'Attih^s kt€. a surname of Apollo, viz. Zwaj-qpios, was probably derived from
a temple on this spot. Cp. Ilop6pi6s, a tovvn in Euboea, mentioned by Dem.
248. 15; 119. 21; 125. 26; 133. 21 : nopOnos is old Attic for vopos. 'Apuos
vdyos : -ndyo^ for hill is never once found in Attic prose or comedy, but occurs
in Aesch. P. V. 20, 270, Supp. 189, etc.; Soph. O. C. 1601 ; Ant. 411, etc.;
Eur. El. 1 271, etc.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. i^
equivalents. Take, for instance, ai'x/ix?/. Even in its ordi-
nary sense ^ the word was probably un-Attic, having been
replaced by hopv, but in the signification of zuar it had
certainly disappeared altogether. Yet that with that mean-
ing it had once been in common use is proved by the com-
pound aix/idAcoTos-, which must have had an emphatically
metaphorical origin. From the development of Attic such
a metaphorical use had become impossible in that dialect ;
but it had been, as it were, crystallised in Tragedy, and
remained in use in Ionic. Thus Herodotus could say not
only (5. 94), liiyeiov etAe ITeto-tcrrparo? alxp-ll, but even (7.
152), k'ntih] (T(})L TTpbs Tovs AaKebaiixoviovs KttKcSs 17 alxiJ^r} karrq-
Kce, and in Tragedy occur the expressions atx//?/y ei? fxiav
Kadiararov for ds iiovo}xa^iav (Eur. Phoen. 1273); i^o-i^ol
opTes Tipos alxp-vv (Soph. Phil. 1306) ; and alxp-v Orjpwv
(Eur. H. F. 15S), a 'battle with wild beasts.'
Ev(f)p6vr} is another of these words. No Attic writer
would have used it for vv^; but not only does it occur
in Herodotus more frequently than the soberer term, but
even a scientific writer like Hippocrates employs it ".
Again, if we compare the usage of iraXos ^ and Kkrjpos, it
will be seen that the more picturesque of the two words
has in all Attic, but that of Tragedy, been ousted by the
colourless term, though in Ionic prose the former remained
the commoner. And that ttccAo? really retained much of
its primitive colour is proved by the line of Euripides
* Hdt. I. 8, 39, 52; 3. 78, 128; 5. 49; 7. 61, 64, 69, 77, etc. and in the
Tragedians very frequently. Xenophon has it, Cyr. 4. 6. 4; 8. i. 8. /^eraix^'oi/
did not survive in Attic, but occurs, Ildt. 6. 77, 112, cp. 8. 140; Aesch. Sept.
197; Eur. Phoen. 1240, 1279, 1361, Heracl. 803.
^ Hdt. 7- 5*5, 5(«'/3j; di o arparbs avrov kv 'iirTa fifiipriai kol ev (iTTa evtl>puvricn :
(j. 37, TpiTji fwppovTj, SO 7. 12, 188 ; 8. 12, 14 ; 9. 39 ; Hippocrates, 588. 42, bvo
■fjnipas Kol 5vo (v(l>p6yai : id. 1275. 32, ■f/ij.fprjv ital (v<pp6vqv: Aesch. P. V. 655,
I'crs. 180. 221, Again. 265, 279, 337, 522; Soph. 1£1. 19, 259, I'r. 521, 11 ;
Kur. Hec. 828, I. A. 109, 1571, Kh. 92, 518, 617, Tro. 660, etc.
' Ildt. 3. 80; 4. 94, 153; Aesch. Sept, 55, 376, Agam. 333, Pers. 779,
Hum. 32, 742, 753; Soph. Ant. 275; Eur. I. A. 1151, Tro. 2(53, Ion 416,
lleraci. 546.
14 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
(Iph. Aul. 1 151), where Clytemnestra addresses Agamem-
non in the words —
^pi(})os re Tovfjibv o-w Tipocrovpiaas TrdXoi
jj-acTTuiv /3iata)s T(av iixuiv cnToa-Ttda-as.
But it would be tedious to discuss each separate instance
of this one characteristic of immaturity in language. There
are still too many points to consider which throw light
on the way in which the old Ionic of Attica developed
into a language of such marvellous precision and strength
as the Attic dialect certainly is. But it is hard to refrain
from enumerating, however cursorily, a few more old loni-
cisms like evcppovr] and alxp-ri- Such are ayopaaOai ^ in the
sense of kiy^iv or eiTretv, aixa^evp.ivos in the sense of ' pro-
vided with carriage roads ^' d/x(^t8e'£ios', ambigtions^, a-noTi-
fxoi'^ for 6.TLP.0S, ap9iJ.LOs ^ for (f)i\os, app.6(ea6ai^ for yap-dv,
&povpa "^ for y?], aTpvTos ^ for laxvpos or p.iyas, eyxp^p-TTT^tv ^
for €(j)dTTT€<T6aL, kK'nayXa.crOai ^*^ for Oavp-dCeiv, iXaa-Tpo) ^^ for
* Hdt. 6. II ; Soph. Tr. 601, 'iais ah rafs 'i^ajOiv -qyopw £eVais.
^ Hdt. 2. 108, AiyvTTTov InvaaifJiov koI dixa^ev/xivrjv, followed by Aijvttto?
fovaa TTfSias iraaa dvimrof Kai dvai.ia^€VTos yiyove : Soph. Ant. 251, arvcpXos
5e yrj Kai x^pffos dppu^ ov5' (Tnjixa^evfj.fvr] rpoxoToiv, where observe the lonicism
for i<pr]fia^evfj.evr].
" d/x</«5e'^(0J, lit. of a man who can use his left hand as dexterously as his
right; opp. dfj-cpapiarepos. Hdt. 5. 92, xPV^'''VP^o^ dfifiSi^iov, an mnhigiwus
response: Aesch. Frag. 259, d^iptSe^iajs e'x«f, it is indifferent. In Eur. Hipp.
jSo — dnfrjK-q^, dixfpiU^Lov aitrjpov: Soph. O. C. I II 2 uses the sing, in the
signification both.
* Hdt. 2. 167; Soph. O. R. 215.
5 Hdt. 6. 83, 7. 101, 9. 9, 37. So dpdfjius = <pi\ia in Aesch. P. V. 191.
« Hdt. 3. 137; 5- 32, 47; 6. 65; Soph. Ant. 570; cp. dp/^ofcu = ' give in
marriage,' Hdt. 9. 108 ; Eur Phoen. 411.
' Hdt. 2. 14; Aesch. Pers. 595; Soph. Tr. 32, Aj. 12S6; Eur. Or. 553,
H. F. 369.
* Hdt. 9. 52, drp. TTovos: Aesch. Eum. 403, drp. n68a : Soph. Aj. 788,
drp. icaKov.
^ Hdt. 2. 60,93; 3. 85; 4. 113 ; 9. 98 ; Hippocr. de Artie, p. 800, B, de
Oss. nat. 280. 12, de Morb. mul. 2. p. 654, 23; Soph. El. 898. The simple
XptfJ-TTToj, xp'^IJ^'i'Toixai, occurs Aesch. Eum. 185, P. V. 713 ; Soph. El. 721.
'" Hdt. 7. 181 ; 8. 92 ; 9. 48 ; Aesch. Cho. 217 ; Eur. Or. S90, Tro. 929, Hec.
1 1 57. Confined to the participle.
11
Hdt. 2. 158 ; 7. 24; Eur. I. T. 934. 971. Cp. ^warpiw for ;3
Otil.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 15
eAawo), (iJLTTpiiTeiv ^ for (pavepbs elvai, (f)oi'iV(o ~, or Kura-
(^ovevoi ^, for dTTOKTetVco, epeiTTta ^ for keiylrava, €cf)eaTLO'i ^
for tKCTTj?, ^e7)A.aros ^, J"t7// from heave}i=-6€ios, a-Tparr]-
XaToi ^ for aTpaT€voixat, OeoirpoTtos ^ for Oeutpos, 6coku) ^ for
Kadrjixai, ldayivi]s ^'^ for avT6)(6(jciv, KacriyvTqTos ^^ for aSeA.-
(/joj, KepTop-os^' for vjSpLaTtKos, Kkrjbcov^^ for (f)i']pi], juopos ^^
for ^dj;aros, p-vcrapos^^ for piapos, opaipos^^ for cruyyei'?]?,
* Hdt. 7. 67, 83; Aesch. Ag. 6, 1428 ; Soph. El. 1187; Eur. Heracl. 407.
-Hdt. I. 211; 8.53 Soph. O. R. 716, 141 1, Ant. 1 1 74, El. 34; Eur. Andr.
412, Or. 1 193, etc. In Plat. Legg. 871 D, 873 E, in legal language.
3 Hdt. I. 106, 165; 2. 45 ; 3. 157; Eur. Or. 536, 625.
* Hdt. 2. 154; 4. 124 ; Aesch. Agam. 660, Pers. 425 ; Soph. Aj. 308 ; Eur.
Bac. 7, etc. (peinoj, throw doun, is found in Hdt. i. 164; 9. 70; Hippocrates,
Epid. 6. 1174 G; Soph. Aj. 309, O. C. 1373; Xen. Cyr. 7. 4. i.
= Hdt. I. 35 ; Aesch. Supp. 365, 503, Eum. 577, 669 ; Soph. Trach. 262.
* Hdt. 7. 18 ; Aesch. Agam. 1297 ; Soph. O. R. 255, Ant. 278 ; Eur. Or. 2,
Andr. 851, Ion 1306, 1392.
' Hdt. I. 124, 154; 4. 118; 5.31 ; 7. 5, 10; Aesch. Pers. 717, Eum. 690;
Eur. Or. 717, Supp. 234, I. A. H95, Heracl. 465, et al.
* Hdt. I. 48, 67, 78, and frequently; Aesch. P. V'. 659.
» Hdt. 2. 173. Tragic Oukm, Aesch. P. V. 313, 389 ; Soph. O. R. 20, O. C.
340, Aj. 325, 1173, Tr. 23; Eur. Heracl. 239.
"' Hdt. 2. 17 ; 6. 53 ; Hippocrates, de Morb. mul. i. 70, de Infaec. 16 ; Aesch.
Pers. 306.
" Hdt. I. 171 ; Aesch. P. V. 347, Sept. 632, Agam. 327; Soph, and Eurip.
very frequently. It occurs in Comic senarii in Arist. Thesm. 900, but in napa-
Tpayw^ia with iruffii to keep it in countenance.
'^ Hdt. 5. 83 ; Eur. Ale. 1125, Fr. 495. The tragedians also use HtpToixai,
Aesch. P. V^. 986; Soph. Phil. 1235; Eur. Bac. 1294, Htl. 619; and xtprd-
fjLTjaii is found in Soph. Phil. 1236.
'^ Hdt. 5. 72 ; 9. 91, loi ; Aesch. Agam. 863, 874, Cho. 853, etc. ; Soph.
O. C. 258, Phil. 255; Eur. Ale. 315, etc. The only instance in Attic is Aa-
docides, 1 7. 9, k\-o8u)v ti/ anaari ttj ituKu icaria^^ev .... nu/s ovv i] <|>t|jx,t) tj rort
ovcra KTf. ; which probably indicates thai the word was still in use among
the people.
" Hdt. I. 117; 3. 65, etc., and very frequently in all three tragedians. Similarly
jiopaijios occurs, Hdt. 3. 154; Aesch. P. V. 933, Sept. 263, 281, etc.; Soph.
Ant. 236; Eur. Rh. 636, Al. 939, etc.
" Hdt. 2. 37 ; Eur. Or. 1O24, et al. It occurs in Ar. Lys. 340, but in
a chorus.
"' Hdt. I. 151; 8. 144; and very freq. in all three tragedians. On the
authority of an anonymous Grammarian, Cramer, Anced. 3. 195, the lines —
ovhiis ofiaifjLov avp.ita9iarfpoi tpiKoi,
K&v tJ tov ytvovs fxaicpiv,
are assigned to the comic poet Plato ; but on his own confession the Grammarian
preserved neither At'fis nor fiirpw, only tov vow toO /3i/3A(ou d-noTfraniivicf.
1 6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
oixijXi^^ for rjKLKi(aTi]s, a-Tparapyrjs'^ for (TTpaTr]y6s, (j)aTL((t)^ for
kiyoo. The significance of x^'-P^^'^i ^^^ its derivations is
too great to allow of no more than a Nota bene. No
words could be more picturesque, yet they are used in
sober, every-day language in Ionic. Herod. 2. 167, tovs
be aTTaXKayjxivovs tS>v \eipu)va^iiu)V, yevvaiovs vofxi^ovras elvai,
and Hippocrates, 384. 46, 391. 45. In Attic xf'P<wi^«^ta is
simply rix^T] and xetpwz;a£, x^i-poT^x^-qs, but in Tragedy the
old highly-coloured expressions have been preserved with-
out modification *. There can be no explanation of facts
so anomalous, but the one which can not be reiterated too
often, namely, that, if allowance is made for the peculiarities
of metrical composition. Tragedy can supply the student
of Attic with many of the most essential characteristics
of that dialect during the sixth century^.
Picturesqueness of metaphor is another quality which is
not so much inherent in Attic Tragedy as Tragedy, but
derived from the tendency of language at the time when
the Tragic diction was formed. It is difficult to reach
certainty in a speculation of this sort if only the more
general aspects of the question are considered; accordingly,
Moreover av^irraOiaTepos is probably a late word. Similarly ofxai/xaiv, Hdt. 5.
49 ; Trag. frequently.
* Hdt. I. 99; Eur. Hipp. 1098, Ale. 953, Tro. 1183, Bac. 201.
* Hdt. 3. 157; 8. 45 ; Aesch. Fr. 176.
» Hdt. 5. 58; Eur. I. A. 135, 936.
* Xdpcova^ia, Hdt. 2. 167; Aesch. P. V. 45, Cho. 761. xupujva^, Hdt. i.
93 ; 2. 141 ; Eur. Fr. 793.
° Additional instances of these highly- coloured words are these : — d\\69poos,
Hdt. I. 78; 3. II ; Aesch. Ag. 1200; Soph. Phil. 540. 8vo-ir€T€a>s = xa^*""*?.
Hdt. 3. 107; Hippocr. 456. 22 ; Aesch. P. V. 752 ; adj.Soph. Aj. 1046. 666&) =
put on the right road, Hdt. 4. 139 ; Aesch. P. V. 498, 813. a(\as = bright light,
Hdt. 3. 28 ; Tragedy very freq. It occurs in Plato, Crat. 409 B, but simply in
the linguistic statement ae\as Kai (pws ravrov. vTreprikKo), rise above = Att.
e^excu, Hdt 3. 104 ; Eur. Or. 6, Hec. loio, Phoen. 1007. Words which are
Attic in other significations have a specially picturesque meaning in Ionic and
Tragedy. As Kafit/a} = xa\eirS;s (ptpoj, Hdt. I. 118 ; Eur. H. F. 293, Med. 11 38.
KaTepya^onai — dnoHTeivai, Hdt. I. 24; Soph. Trach. 1094; Eur. Hipp. 888,
I. T. 1173 (Xen. Cyr. 4. 6. 4). e^«p7aCo/iai=id., Hdt. 3. 52 ; 4. 134; 5. 19;
Eur. Hel. 1098. vo/ji6s = dwelling place, Hdt. 5. 92 et al. ; Eur. Rhes. 477.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 17
the following instances have been selected to show that
in the metaphorical use of particular words Ionic and the
Tragic dialect stand by themselves. Take the two com-
pounds of ^ecojboil, eK^eoj, boil over, and (ttlC^o}, boil up, seethe.
In 4. 205, Herodotus employs the horribly suggestive sen-
tence, ov jxev ovbe 1] (i>ip€Tijj.ri eS ti]v ^o'rji' KareirXe^e. a)S yap
hi] Td)(^LcrTa €K TTjs At/3mjs Tio-ajx^vr] tovs BapKaiovs aTrevocTTrja-e
ey Ti]v AtyvTTTOv, a~edave KaKcos' ^Qcra yap evXiojv e^e'^eo-e, o>s
apa avdp(OTTOLcn al XLtjv iaxvpal rtjucoptat Trpo? Oewv iTTL(f)6ovoi
yivovrai. The whole is oriental enough to come from the
Old Testament, and in this question of metaphorical usage
geographical considerations are not to be wholly dis-
regarded. In Aesch. Sept. 709 the word is not too
strong —
i^^^eaev yap OlbiTTov Karevyp-ara.
Again in Herod. 7. 13, aKovcravTi p.01 rrjs ^ Apra^dvov yv<ap.ris
TTapavTLKa p.ev fj veoTijs eTreC^ae, the metaphor may be paral-
leled from Euripides —
betvov Ti Trfjixa YlpLapiibaLS eTreC^crev.
Hec. 583.
beivri ri9 opyrj baiixovoiv eTre'^ecf ^•
I. T. 987.
Another excellent instance is afforded by the use of
the verb e/crpt'/3oj, which occurs repeatedly in Herodotus
and the Tragedians, but in a metaphorical sense is never
used elsewhere. In Herodotus, 6. 37, Croesus threatens
the people of Lampsacus in words that hardly required the
brutal jest on II truouo-o-a, the ancient name of their city,
to make them effective : et be p-ri, (Tc{)ea9 ttltvos Tpoirov direCkee
fKTpLyj/eiv. TiKavojix^vojv be tS)v Aap.\}/aKi]i'u>v kv Tolcn kuyoKTi
TO OikeL TO eTTos elvai to cr0t dTTeikrjae 6 Kpoiaos ttituos rponov
(KTpL'^fLV, juoyts Kore p.a9b)V rdv rty irpecrlSvTepMV etTie to iov,
OTL T!LTvs fj-ovvT] TidvTuiV bevbplctiv f KKOTTflcra ftkacTTov ovbiva
' Arist. Thesm. 468 is paratragedic, while Ach. 3?i, OvuaKcuip (^(^((kv, is
evidently a l^urlesque on some Tragedian's Ov/xos ini^taty, and proves llial the
metaphor in Herodotus was felt to be loo strong for common use.
C
l8 THE XEW PHRYXICHUS.
fxeriei, aWa. TravaiXedpos ^ e^a-o'AAurat. And in a later
chapter (86) of the same book, is narrated the fulfilment
of a doom prophesied by the Pythia, TKavKov vvv ovt€ tl
d~6yoi'6v eoTL oihiv, ovt iari-q ovbefxia vojXL^ojjL^vr] eii'ai TkavKOV,
eKTirpiTTTaC re TrpoppiCos e/c ^-dpTrjs -.
Now the Tragedians are the only Attic writers in whom
a similar usage is discovered —
Zet^s cr' 6 yez'njrcop kp.os
TtpoppiCoV iKTpi\lr€l€V OVTOLCTaS TTOpL.
Eur. Hipp. 683.
KaTivy(op.ai he tov SeSpaxoV, etre tis
els utv KiXi]dev etre TrXeidra)!; /xeVa,
KaKov KOKois VLv dfjiopov (nrplxj/aL ^iov.
Soph. O. R. 246.
Further on (O. R. 42 S) Teiresias ends his outburst of
indignation at the charges of Oedipus in words that were
too surely fulfilled —
77pos ravra koX KpeovTa Kal Tovp.ov aTop.a
■zpoTTqXcLKi^e. aov yap ovk ecrnv ^poTU)v
KCLKIOV OOTLS €KTpl3l](TeTai TTOTe.
An aspect of the inquiry- which has occasionally presented
itself in considering other points, itself merits some atten-
tion. Words which, on the testimony of Tragedy, must
have been used in old Attic, and which were never super-
seded in Ionic proper, were in the matured dialect of Attica
replaced by other terms. These new words were either
from the same root as the primitive ones, or of an origin
altogether disrinct. Of substantives of the former class
-TTCLTpa is a marked example. Herodotus never uses Trarpis,
but TTOLTpT] occurs in 6. 126, h-davra ^EXXi'jvoiV ocroi acpia-L re
avToicn ^crav Koi Trdrpi] e^oyKOip-ivoL, €(f)olT€Ov p.i'rjo-rripi'S, of
the suitors for the hand of Aganiste, which Hippoclides
^ Cp. Soph. El. ICX>9, vavuXiOpovs .... rjfias t' bXiaOai.
- Cp. 4. I 20. TTIV -BoirjV iK TTjS yfj^ fKTpl^etv.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 19
was to win and humorously lose. In Tragedy it is found
repeatedly, but in Attic prose not once, and the instances
in Comedy are conclusive evidence that the word was
considered merely a literary survival on the one hand,
or an lonicism on the other. Thus, Ar. Thesm. 136,
Ran. ii63,*and 1427, are all parodies of Tragedy, while in
Ach. 147 there is a ludicrous point in the boy who has
just been initiated at the great Ionic ^ festival of the
'A-naTovpLa, and gorged with the sausages that symbolised
Athenian citizenship, addressing his father in Ionic heroics,
and calling upon him (^orjOelv rfj iraTpq ^.
Other instances are alyviTLos^ for yv\jf, yvu>ixa* for yvcopLcrixa,
yovos^ for yov^, hpap.y]}xa^' for bp6p.os, elp.a'^ for €(Tdi]9, C^vyXi] *
for (vyov, C(^aTrip^ for C^^vrj, iTTTTOT-qs^'^ for Itttt^vs, kAw\/^ ^^ for
^ Elal Si TtavTCi ■'I(u^'«J, oaoi an 'kOrjviwv yeyuvaai koI ' Airarovpia dyovci upr-qv.
dyovai 5i -navTcs tt\t]v 'Etpfaiwv Kai KuKoipaiyiwv ovTOt yap fxovvot 'luvojv ovk
dyovai 'ArraTovpta KTf., Hdt. I. 147.
^ The old term also bupplied the poets of later comedy with material for a
wretched pun, as Alexis quoted by Athenaeus, 3. 100. c. —
virip irarpas iJ.iv irds a-n oOvqaKHV 6f\ft,
vnip Si p.T)Tpas KaWiixiSojv u KapaPos
((pOrjs iffojs TTpoafiT av uKKais dnoOavHV.
There is a similar pun on the words firjTpunoXis, varpu-noXis, ixrjrpa, MrjTpds, and
(HfirjTpos, in a fragment of Antiphanes, also preserved by Athenaeus in the same
passage, 100. d.
'■' Hdt. 3. 76; Aesch. Ag. 49 ; Soph. Aj. 169. It is probably this fact that
is referred to in Suidas, atYvmov' ovtojs oi iraKaioi, d\K' ov yvna, and Bekk. An.
354. 28, for Arist. Av. 118 1 is conclusive proof that yv^ was the Attic term.
* Hdt. 7. 52, Tcyj' (xofJ-fv 71'ar/ta fxeytarov, and Soph. Trach. 593, ov8' t'xois dv
yvajfia fifi vdpoifxivT].
* In the sense of proles, suboles, Hdt. i. 108, 109; 3. 66; 5.92, etc.; Trag.
frequently.
* Hdt. 8. 98 ; Aesch. Pers. 247 ; Eur. Tro. 688, et al.
' Hdt. I. 10 ; 2. 155, et freq. ; Hippocrates, de Morb. mul. 2. 640, 16 ; Aesch.
Agam. 1383, Cho. 81 ; Soph, Aj. 1145, O. R. 1268, Fr. 451 ; Eur. Hec. 342,1. A.
73, Hel. 1574.
« Hdt. I. 31 ; Aesch. P. V. 463 ; Eur. Med. 479, Hel. 1536.
» Hdt. I. 215; 4. 9, 10; 9. 74; Soph. Aj. 1030; Eur. Heracl. 217 (see
supra p. 12.)
'« .Substantive, Hdt. 9. 49, 69; Soph. O. C. 59; (Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 18; 8.
8. 20.)
" Hdt. I. 41 ; 2. i.:;o; 6. 16; Eur. Ale. 766, Cycl. 223, IIcl. 553, Rhes.
709 ; (Xen Cyr. 2. 4 23 ; An. 4. 6. 17).
C 2
20 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Kkk-KT)]^, vavTiXos ^ for vavTi]^^, opiaixa '^ for 6poi, opLOV, ocppvi] "
for 6(f)pv^, oxos ■* for o)(ji]p-o., 'napyfis ^ for riapetd, iiopdp.o'i ^ for
TTopo'i, peWpov ^ for pevp.a, (pdns ^ for 0?/iu.r7, (povaL '' for (j}6vos,
(popros ^^ for (f)opTiov, xo'^os ^^ for x^^^-
The instances of adjectives of an older formation which
have given place to those of a newer from the same stem
are not so numerous, but there are still some marked
examples, such as apLoop.os^^ for dixefXTTTos, ^L(o(np.os^^ for /3ico-
Tos, and conversely ev^vp^^X-qros •** for evcrvp-lioXos, veoxp-ds ^^
for vio9, -n^Tpivos^^ for iT^Tpu>br]s, and x^P'^^i^'^ for ^r\p6s. A
^ Hdt. 2. 43 ; Aesch. P. V. 468, Agam. 899, 1234, Cho. 202 ; Soph. Aj. i\\^,
Trach. 537 ; Eur. Hec. 1273, et al. In Arist. Ran. 1207, it is from Euripides.
vavTiWofiai, which occurs in Hdt. i. 163 ; 2. 5, 178 ; 3. 6 ; and in Soph. Ant.
717 ; Eur. fr. 791, is only found once in Attic Prose, Plat. Rep. 551 C.
2 Hdt. 2. 17; 4. 45; Eur. Hec. 16, Hipp. 1459, Andr. 969, I. A. 952,
Rhes. 437.
•'' Hdt. 4. 181, 182, 185 ; Eur. Heracl. 394.
* Hdt. 8. 124; Aesch. P. V. 710, Agam. 1070, Eum. 405; Soph. O. R.
808, El 708, 727 ; Eur. frequently.
5 Hdt. 2. Ill ; Aesch. Sept. 534; Eur. Hec. 274, et al.
« Hdt. 8. 76; Aesch. Pers. 722, 799, Agam. 307; Eur. Hel. 127, 532,
Cycl. 108 (see p. 12, note 3).
^ Hdt. I. 7.'i, 186, 191, and freq. ; Aesch. P. V. 790, Pers. 497 ; Soph. Ant.
712; Eur. El. 794. In Aesch. Pers. 497 even the uncontracted Ionic form
peeOpov is retained. Antiphanes (quoted by Athenaeus 1.22, f.) uses puOpov,
but in a parody of Soph. Ant. quoted.
« Hdt. 1. 60, 122; 7. 1897; 8. 94; 9. 84. Very frequently in all three
tragedians.
9 Hdt. 9. 76 ; Soph. Ant. 696, 1003, 1314 ; Eur. Hel. 154.
" Hdt. I. I ; Soph. Tr. 537. In Eur. I. T. 1306, Supp. 20 = 'burden.' In the
sense of wretched stuff, chaff, the word is good Attic, Ar. Pax 748, Plut. 796.
Cp. (popriKos.
'1 Hdt. I. 118; 6. 119; 8.27; Aesch. P. V. 29,199,370, 376; Soph. Aj. 41,
744, Trach. 269, Phil. 32S.
'=* Hdt. 2. 177; Aesch. Pers. 135.
" Hdt. I. 45 ; 3. 109 ; Soph. Ant. 566 ; Eur. Heracl. 606.
" Hdt. 7. 67, fi^fv/x. Tipas, easy to divine ; Aesch. P. V. 775, ■^S' ovKtr iv^vii-
PXrjros 77 xPV'^ I^V^''-°-
i'^ Hdt. 9. 99, 104 ; Hippocr. 651, 36 ; 598, 12 ; Aesch. Pers. 693 ; Soph. Phil.
751 ; Eur. I. T. 1162, et al. Like many others of this class of words, it occurs
in the Chorus in Aristophanes and other Comic writers, as Thesm. 701, Ran.
1372 ; Cratinus Fr. Com. 2. 101.
" Hdt. 2. 8 ; Eur. I. T. ^90, et al.
" Hdt. 2.99; 4. 123 ; Aesch. Agam. 558, Eum. 240, Supp. 178 ; Soph. Ant.
251, O. R. 1502 ; Eur. El. 325, etc.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. %\
class by itself consists of forms used adjectively, which in
Attic were only substantival, as 'E/\A.ds ^ for 'EAA7/ytK?7,
'I\ia? ^ for 'lAta/cry, iTntor^'s^ for iimiKos, and riepo-ts' ^ for
ITepo-tKT/. In the case of ttlo-vvos ^ an adjective is used where
an Attic writer would prefer a participle, iriaTevoiv. Of
verbs which became modified in Attic some have been
already considered, but to these may be added avridCo ^
to aTTavTO), TrXd^o/xat ^ to TrXavG>\xai, and Trrw(rcra) ^ to TTTricra-ca.
Adverbs are more numerous, such as ayxov ^ ayxiara ^'',
av€Ka6ev ^^, apx^ijOev '-, neravdis ^^, nayyv ^'^, Trip '^, (ra(j)-qvu>i ^^.
Why these words and others like them were modified as
the Attic dialect developed its more distinctive features
it would be useless to discuss. The fact of their modifi-
cation exists, and may be theorised upon by those who
have the mind. But the field is a dangerous one to tread,
and justifies the caution of the old proverb, virb -jravrl kidc^
(TKopTiLov (f)vXd<T(r€o. But if it is difficult to give a reason
for mere alterations in the forms of words, in what way are
' Hdt. 4. 78 ; 6. 98 ; Aesch. Supp. 243, Pers. 186, 809 ; Soph. Phil. 223 ; Eur.
I. T. 17, et al.
^ Hdt. 7. 43 ; Eur. repeatedly.
^ Hdt. 4. 136; Soph. O. C. 899; Eur. Supp. 660.
* Hdt. 6. 29 ; Aesch. Pers. repeatedly.
' Hdt. I. 66, 73, 92 ; 2. 141 ; 7. 10, 85; 9. 143 ; Eur. Or. 905, Supp. 121.
It is found, however, once in Attic prose, Thuc. 5. 14, tois efa» niawoi.
* Hdt. I. 166 ; 4. 8 ; 9. 6 ; Aesch., Soph., Eur.
' Hdt. 2. ii6 ; Eur. Or. 56, Rhes. 283, H.F. 1188.
' Hdt. 9. 48 : Eur. Bacch. 223.
» In Att. iyyvs, Hdt. i. 190; 3. 78, 85, ill ; 6. 77 ; Soph. Frag. 69 (D).
'* Hdt. I. 134; 4.81; 5.79; Aesch. Supp. 1036. In Hdt. 2. 143, it is used
of time, 6 ayxtcTa diroOavwv, a sense which is also found in Antiphon, 1 15. 25,
a signification also attaching to the Attic iyyvTara. For Antiphon see p. 30,
and note 2.
" Attic dvuetv : Hdt. 4. 57 ; Aesch. Cho. 427, Eum. 369.
" Attic «f upxfji. See infra, Phrynich. Art. 73.
" Attic avGis: Hdt. i. 62 ; Aesch. Eum. 478.
'* Attic iravv: Hdt. 4. 135, etc.; Aesch. Theb. 641. It is found in Ar. Ran.
1 531, but in hexameters.
'* Attic KaiiTfp: Hdt. 3. 131 ; Aesch. Agam. 1084, 1203, Sept. 1038, Cho.
570; Soph. Phil. 1068; Eur. Ale. 2.
'* y\ttic <ra</)co5 : Hdt. i. 140; 3. 122 ; 6. 82. Herodotus has not the adj.
aa<(>r)VT]i, hut it is found in Aesch. Pers. 634 (chor.), and So])h. Trach. 892 (chor.).
22 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
we to explain the replacement of one term by another
etymologlcally far removed from it ? Yet such substitution
can be demonstrated beyond debate, and with a precision
which in such subjects is rarely attainable. Take for ex-
ample the compound d/x0t7roAo?, which is found constantly
in Homer in the sense of handmaiden. There is no trace
of it in Attic prose or Comedy, though it survived in Ionic,
and is again and again encountered in Tragedy ^ ; OepdiraLva
had driven it from the field. Now Ocpa-naiva was quite
a recent formation from the old masculine word OepaTrcov,
which, though met with as early as aiJt.(t)L7ro\os, had never-
theless not only managed to keep its ground, but driven
out a fellow of its own, namely, oirdoyv ^. Like ajjicfyCTToXos,
however, dirdoov enjoyed all its old vitality in Ionic, and its
ostracism from Attic was compensated by the dignified
retirement of Tragedy.
The large mantle which for centuries formed the outer
covering of Greeks, and admitted of so many graceful
adjustments, was in the Homeric age designated as 4)apos,
but in Attic invariably lixdnov. Herodotus and the Trage-
dians, however, employ (f)apos ^, and ignore tjuanov * alto-
gether. True, (papos is read in a passage of the Comic
poet Philetaerus quoted by Athenaeus (i. 21, c), dp-cjil
(TTepvoLS (fyci'pos ov Ka6i](T€i,s, Takav, fxrjb^ dypoUois avco yovaros
dfj.4>€^€L, but Cobet is right in regarding the initial words as
mutilated and corrupt, though perhaps Naber's conjecture
' Hdt. 2. 131; 5. 92; 9. 76; Eur. Supp. 1115, I. T. 1114, Ale. 59, Or.
141 7. It occurs twice in Aristophanes, Ran. 1337 (chorus), and in a fragment
(Fr. Com. 2. 947) in a pseudo-oracle.
^ Hdt. 5. Ill ; 9. 50 ; Aesch. Supp. 492, 954, Cho. 769 ; Soph. O. C. 1103,
Ant. 1 108; Eur.Tro. 880, El. 1135.
3 Hdt. 2. 122 ; 9. 109 ; Aesch. Cho. 11, loii ; Soph. Trach. 916, Fr. 332,
272, 343 ; Eur. Supp. 286.
* Ifidriov occurs in Herodotus thrice, i. 9; 2. 47 ; and 4. 23, but in the two
first cases in J:he plural as equivalent to clothes (Att. e(T0T]s), and in the last in
the singular for rag or cloth. Nauck justly rejects the only case of the word's
occurrence in Tragedy, viz. in a so-called fragment of the Colchides of Sophocles,
Fr. Trag. Soph. 317.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 23
of cr(f)vpoU does not offer the best means of emending the
passage ^
To take another instance, ayyos, a vessel, was in Ionic
a word of very general import, and almost as familiar to
the surgery as to the pantry^. Now in all senses but the
medical ^ its place was in Attic usurped by vbpta, although
ayyos remained in Tragedy"*. In Aristophanes vbpia has
not only its original sense of waterpot or pitcher (Eccl. 678,
738, Vesp. 926), but also those of a winepot (Fr. 183}, pot
of money (Av. 602), and cinerary urn (Av. 601). Menander
and Antiphanes each wrote a play called 'TSpta, probably in
the sense of Money-bags, and the term was the recognised
designation of the balloting urn ^ in the Law Courts. Of
these meanings, of the very word itself there is not a trace
in any dialect but Attic. It is a growth peculiarly Attic,
and dating from a time posterior to that in which the
Tragic dialect became fixed. There could not be a more
striking instance of the vigour, thoroughness, and rapidity,
with which the people of Attica recast their old language,
and replaced worn and stiff terms by crisp and flexible
innovations.
' Cobet arranges the words as cretics —
ov fca9r](rets, raKav,
firfb' dypoiKCiJi dvoj rod yovaroi d/j.<l)i(i.
Naber, with doubts about the metre, accepts Cobet's second line, and thus
supplements the first —
dficpl Trepl TOis rrcpvpoii ov KaOrjiTfii, raKav.
* In Od. 16. 13, for wine ; Od. 2. 289, for general goods ; Od. 9. 222, of house-
hold vessels; II. i6. 643, for milk; Hdt. i. 113=^ cinerary urn; 5. \z, a
water jar ; in Hippocrates freq. of the vessels of the body.
' 07701 itself does not happen to occur with this signification in Attic prose
or comedy, but that it was so used may be inferred from icfvayyia, fast, being
employed by the comic poet Plato. For most purposes (p\(\p would be
preferred.
* El. 1 1 18, 1 205, a cinerary urn ; Eur. I. T. 953, a wine flagon ; Ion 32, 1337,
1398, 1412, a cradle {d.vT'tnr}() ; El. 55, a water jar.
" Isocr. Trapcz. 365 C : r'n ovic olhtv vfiuiv -nlpvaiv dvoi^avra rdy hhpias
Hal Toi/J /fpirds (((\6vTa Toiis vvd tjjs 0ov\fjs flT0\T]9fVTai ; . . . . ravras vwavoiytiv
iroKurjrTfi/ ni /rorrjfjarriJiii'at i^lv ^rrav vnu ruiv npvTavfaiy, KaT(rjtl>pnytrrfHvai 5
hno Twv X''PTY'*'^< i'PvKaTTovro 5' into tujv Tafjuwv kt(. Cp. Xcn. Hell. 1. 7, 6.
24 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
A word even more instructive is opyia. That it was once
in use in Attica is proved beyond question by its deriva-
tives opy^tiiv and dpytaC<". The latter term is good classical
Attic occurring repeatedly in Plato \ and the former form,
becoming attached to an official ^ position, was retained in
that connection till long after it was superseded for ordi-
nary purposes by X^peus. According to Suidas, 6py^Sw(.<i
were those o\ o-uAXoyous kyovr^s ti^pi rtyas ijpoias i) d^ovs ^,
and in that sense occurs four times in the speech of Isaeus
concerning the inheritance of Menekles (2. 14, 16, 17, 45).
Another of his speeches was addressed irpos 'Opye&vas, and
Harpocration quotes the word from Lysias. It is another
instance of crystallisation not dissimilar to uKTri and ((Da-rrip,
and, like both these terms, survived in its original sense in
the literary trustee of the Attic of the sixth and preceding
century — the Tragic dialect. In a fragment of the Mysi *
of Aeschylus it is used as Upevs^—
T!OTa\xov KaiKOV X^V^ Ttp^TOs dpy€(av,
cvxats 8e crw^ot? 8eo-7roras Tiaioiviais.
But opyia itself was uncompromisingly disfranchised, and
but for Ionic ^, Tragedy, and the Chorus of Comedy would
have disappeared altogether ; so assiduously do Attic
writers substitute /xvo-ry/pta or reAerat for the older word.
* Plat. Legg. 10. 910, Tov ifpd opyia^ovra: Id. Phaedr. 250 C, TeXfTfjv djp-
fia^ofxiv; cp. 252 D, Legg. 4. 717 B twice; Isocr. Anop. 145 C, ual irpirrov
fxiv TO. irepl rovs Oeovs ovk avmixaKus ov5' aTciKTUi ovt kOfpatrtvov out' upyia^ov.
^ Another survival from a similar cause is the spelling ^vjx^dWeadai for
avu^aWiaOai, in the phrase yvwfj.rjv ^Vfj.l3d\\ea9ai r^s PovKijs ds tov STJfiov, of
communicating a probouleuma of the Senate to the Ecclesia. Up to about
416 B.C. fvj/ is invariably used in Inscriptions, but within ten years from that
date its place is usurped, in all cases except the phrase in question, which occurs
very frequently, but hardly ever with <r.
^ So Pollux, 8. 107, 6pY€uJv€S' 01 Kard Stjuov^ iv ranTais T/fj.ipais Ovovres
Ovffias Tivds.
* Phot. Lexic. p. 344, 19; Suidas, s. v. dpytwves ; Harpocr. s. v. dpyewvas
(P- 344- 7) is wrong in considering this use an instance of poetical substitution
of the particular for the general.
« Hdt. 2. 51 ; 5. 61 ; Soph. Trach. 765 ; Eur. Bac. freq., H. F. 613.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 2j
The only instance of opyia in the senarii of Comedy is
curiously significant. The lines ^ are either paratragedic,
or quoted directly from Tragedy, as the lengthening of the
V in Kv-pov and the occurrence ofixebeovaa distinctly prove.
Other substantives similarly eclipsed in Attic are very
numerous, such as akKi] - by [3oi]deia, aphis ^ by aKis, betpij
or beprj * by Tpdxri)^os, Sw/xa ^ by oIkos or otKta, kotottttis ''
by KardcTKOTTos, Kvbos '^ by bo^a or evbo^ta, kcrai.^ by
evxai, oKjSos^ by ^vbacpiovta, oxOos'^^ by the neuter of
aKpo^ or vxIrriXoi, iroivr] ^^ by bUr], a-nobos ^^ by kovis,
' Ar. Lys. 831 —
'Avbp dvSp' opal vpoalovra irapamTTKrifixivov,
Tois T^s ' A(ppo5'iTr]s opyiois fikrjfififvov.
w TTOTvia Kiinpov xai KvOrjpojv itai Ilac^ov
HeSeova . id' dp6fjv Tjvnfp tpx^i- TrjV 656v.
' Hdt. 3. no; 4. 125; Aesch. Sept. 76, et freq. ; Soph. O. C. 459, 1524 ;
Eur. freq. It occurs occasionally also in the early prose of Thucydides, as 2.
34. Its other signification of strength had disappeared still sooner, being re-
placed by ^u^V' but in the derivatives olKkihos and avaXKis lingered on. For
d\Kifios see p. 50. dvaXKis is equally un-Attic: Hdt. 2. 103^ Aesch. Again.
1224, P. V. 870; .Soph. El. 301 ; (Xen. Cyr. 7. 5. 62 ; 8. i 45.) The dis-
cussion of Xenophon's style is reserved.
' Hdt. 4. 81 ; Aesch. P. V. 880.
* Hdt. 1.51; Aesch. Agam. 329, 875, Eum. 592; Eur. Hec. 154; (Xen.
Cyr. 1.3. 2; 5. 1. 7.)
' Hdt. 3. 62. In Tragedy with extraordinary frequency. The many passages
in which it is found in Comedy are all burlesques of the tragic dialect, as Ach.
479, 1072, Thesm. 871.
* Hdt. 3. 17, 21 ; Aesch. Sept. 41, 369 ; Eur. I-lhes. 632.
^ Hdt 7. 8 ; Aesch. Pers. 455.
' Hdt. I. 105, 116; 6. 69; in all three tragedians repeatedly. \iaaoiMi
occurs in Hdt. i. 24, and frequently in Tragedy. It is also found in Plato, Rep.
366 A, in a poetical passage, and in Arist. Pax 382 for comic effect.
' Hdt. I. 86, and frequently in Tragedy. Cp. avuK^ios, Hdt. 1. 32, thrice;
Eur. Antig. Fr. 175 ; and dvoX^oi is very common in Tragedy. (Xen. Cyr. i. 5.
9; 4. 2. 44.)
•" Hdt. 4. 203 ; 8. 52 ; 9. 25, 56, 59 ; Aesch. Pers. 467, Cho. 4 ; Eur. Supp.
655; (Xen. Hipparch. 6. 5 ; 8. 3 ; Kc. Eq. 3. 7.) In Aristophanes it is met
with in Thesm. H05, and Kan. 1172, but the latter is from Aesch. Cho. 4, as
the former is from Euripides.
" Hdt. 2. 134 ; 7. 134 ; Aesch. P. V. 112, 223, 620, et al. ; Soph. El. 5^4;
Eur. Tro. 360, et al. ; (Xen. Cyr. 6. i. 11; Antiphon, 120, 25, see p. 30.)
Com[)arc dnoiva, compensation for injury done, Hdt. 9. 120; .'Vcsch. Pers. 808,
Agam. 1420; Eur. Ale. 7, Bacch. 516.
'■' Hdt. 2. 100, 140; 4. 35, 172; Aesch. Agam. 820, Cho. 687; Soph. (J. R.
21, Ant. 1007, El. 758, \ii2, 1 198.
26 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Tepixa ^ by TeXiVTr], and (f)op(3ri ^ by Tpo(f)rj or (tltos. With
reference to ttolvti and its fellow airoLva, it is worthy of
remark that their survival as legal technical terms supplies
another argument as to the constitution of old Attic of
a similar kind to those suggested by aKrri and dpyeuiv. Its
legal status made anoiva as durable as if it had been rooted
to the soil like aKn;, or like ^coott/p founded on a rock.
In explaining a law of Solon ^, Demosthenes (630, 28) has
the words to 8e, ju,7]8' a-noivav, [xr] xprjixara TrpdrTecrdai.' to, yap
cLTTOLva xpyjixara oavoiia^ov 01 iiaXaioi, and aTTOiva is with this
legal sense used in two passages of Plato *.
Of superseded adjectives, alvo^ ^ ka^pos ^ v-n^poyos"^,
aTp^Krjs^, TTpovovs^, and aeATrros ^^, will serve as specimens.
Their Attic equivalents were heivos, acpobpos, Traxys, aKpi^ris,
TTpofjLrjdris, and aTrpocrboKriTos. The negatives, avtTnros '^ and
a(p6oyyos^^, were used in Ionic and Tragedy in the sense
of TreCos and a-tywv respectively.
Of adverbs which were rejected in mature Attic none
* Hdt. 2. 8; 4-52; 3-97; and frequently in all three tragedians ; (Xen. Cyr.
8. 3. 25 ; Rep. Lac. 10. i.)
^ Hdt. I. 202, 211 ; 4. 122; 7. 50, 107, 119; Soph. Ant. 775, Aj. 1065,
Phil. 43.
^ The law he quotes in 629. 22, tovs 5' avSpocpovovs (^(tvai dnoKTewfiv kv
rr] Tjixitairri Koi atra-ynv XvfxaivfcrOai 5e firj, fx-qh' aTioivav. Cp. Suid. s. Gramm.
Bekk. p. 428, 9, "Airoiva, Kvrpa a hibaiai rts i/nip (povov )) auiixaros' Ovtoj
^oXajv ev vofioii.
* Legg. 9. 862 C, TO dnolvots k^iKaaOiv : Rep. 3. 393 E, dt^afievovs diroiva.
* Hdt. 4. 31, 61. 76; Soph. Aj. 706; Aesch. Pers. 930.
^ Hdt. 4. 50; 8. 12; Soph. Aj. 1147; Eur. I. T. 1393, Cycl. 403, H. F.
253, Or. 697.
^ Hdt. 5. 92 ; Soph. Trach. 1096.
^ Hdt. 3. 98, etc.; Eur. Hipp. 261, 11 15.
^ Hdt. 3. 36; Soph. Aj. 119.
'" Hdt. I. Ill: Aesch. Supp. 342, and freq. ; Soph. O. C. 1x20, Trach. 203;
Eur. freq.
*^ Hdt. I. 215, iinroTai dal koi avnnrot : Soph. O. C. S99, Xtwu dviinrov 'nrirS-
TTjv re. Cp. Hdt. 2. 108, Pu-^v-htos kovaa TreSids irdaa dvimros Koi avanci^fVTOs
^^ Hdt. 1. 116; Aesch. Pers. 206; Soph. Aj. 314; Eur. Or. 956, Tro. 690, etc.
It occurs in Plato, but only in the technical sense of consonant as opposed to
vowel.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 27
were subjected to so great a reverse of fortune as Kapra,
the history of which has already occupied our attention.
It was not, however, an isolated case. "EvepOe is one
member of a family of words never once met with either
in Attic Prose or Comedy, their place having been taken
by others. As an adverb h-epOe gave place to Kdrca, and
as a preposition to vtto, while ol evepot and ol iveprepoL or
veprepoL were replaced by ol Karco or ol veKpoi. In Hero-
dotus evepde governs the genitive in the sense of kcltco in
phrases like ttSlv to evepde tSiv ocppixov \ and in Sophocles it
is actually transferred to moral subjection when Philoctetes
addresses Neoptolemus in the words —
OS rSiv €iJ.civ
kydpSiv jx €V€p6ei' ovT avecrTrjcras ixlpa.
But in true Attic there is not a trace of hcpOe, vlpOc, kvip-
Tepos, viprepos, or ^vepoi. Accordingly, when Naber would
alter veouTepcov to ivepr^poov in the lines of Aristophon —
kaQiovcri 8e
Xa\ava re Ka\ ttlvovo-lv iirl tovtoi,s vhcop'
(pOiXpas h\ Kol TpijBcova ti]v t oXovuiav
ovbels av vTToix(LV€U T(ov vecoTepcov —
his ingenuity may be admired, but it has introduced into
Comic Verse a word utterly uncongenial to its style. The
lines are preserved by Diogenes Laertius (8. 38), and, from a
longer fragment which precedes, it is clear that they form
part of an account of the world below given by one who
was fortunate enough to be only a sojourner there. He
describes the squalor of the Pythagorean shades as pecu-
liarly grateful to Pluto, and speaks of them and their
fellows as 01 KUTO) or ol v^KpoL — both genuine Attic ex-
pressions. But to take (veprepoi, from its fit home in
' Hclt. 4. 65; 2. 13 bis. So Aesch. P. V. 500, Pcrs. 228, Cho. 125, Eum.
1023; Sr.ph. rhil. 6f)6; Kur. Phocn. 505, Tro. 459, II. V. 263. It is also
very frcf|iient in .ill three trageflians = ol hcltoj.
28 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Tragedy and from associates like /3eAo? in the Aeschylean
trimeter (Cho. 286) —
TO yap (TKOTeivov rStv evepripcov /3eAo? —
and place it among the moderns in Comedy is one of those
errors almost inseparable from critical inquiry, but which
the present work is to some extent intended to minimise.
Of Attic writers Thucydides alone uses eKas, and that
only coupled with the negative, as ovx €Kas, in two passages ^
The word occurs in Ionic and Tragedy as the equivalent of
the Attic TToppcii^. This is one out of several examples
which tend to prove that Attic prose as written by Thucy-
dides was not yet matured.
It was from a different cause that Xenophon's use of
words uncongenial to Attic arose, and in the adverbial use
of the neuter adjective ixiya^ he supplies another instance
of the injury which his sojourn abroad did to the purity of
his style.
The use of ?]/xo? ^ for 7}v[Ka, and of uxTre ^ for axnrep, are, ws,
merits a passing notice, as does also the employment of
iriXas ^ with a genitive in the sense of the Attic iyyvs. The
word is common enough in Prose and Comedy in the mean-
ing of -nXricnov, but on no occasion does it govern the geni-
tive case or stand alone without the definite article to give
it an adjectival force.
But as Ttikas had in the development of Attic been to
a great extent superseded by -nXria-iovy so its congener
' Thuc. I. 69, 80.
' iicas: Hdt. 8. 144, ovx '^'^^^ XP'^^°" wapeffTai: Aesch. Agam. 292, 1650;
Soph. Phil. 41, O. C. 1668 ; Eur. Heracl. 673, H. F. 198, El. 246; kKaaripa,
Hdt. 2. 169 ; 3. 89, etc.; Eur. H. F. 1047.
^ Xen. Cyr. 3. 2. 4, nt^a avufiaxov : 5. I. 28, fxe-^' evSaifiovas : Hdt. I. 32,
^670 vKovmos: Aesch. P. V. 647, fity' evSainwv : Eur. Hec. 49.^, Or. 1338.
The case is different with verbs, as /xfya <pipei, which is good Attic, Plat. Rep.
449 D.
* Hdt. 4. 28 ; Hippocr. 85 E, 599. 40 ; Soph. Trach. 155, 531, O. R. 11 34.
' Hdt g. 19, 83; I. 8, 6, 94, etc. ; Aesch. P. V. 452, Sept. 62, etc.; Soph.
Ant. 10.^3, etc. ; Eur. freq.
* Hdt. 8. 39, 138 ; Aesch. Pers. 684, and very frequent in all three tragedians.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 29
TTeAd^oj ^ had altogether given way to TrATjo-ta^co. For, though
quoted from Plato, Symp. 413 B, it there occurs in a pro-
verb again referred to in Rep. 371, yap iiakaios Aoyo? eS
l;(ei, b>s o\xo(.ov oixotco det TreAd^ift.
The two verbs iJLr]VLU) ^ and x^^^^h'-^'- ^ sank their differ-
ences in the Attic OvixovnaL — as haiwjXL ^ and 6ou'S> ^ were
combined in ecrrtoj. The same law of parsimony is ob-
served persistently at work in rejecting useless synonyms
throughout the whole period during which the Athenians
were new-modelling their language. The verb (retco drove
out hov(a ^ and TrdAAco ", while of the pairs OpuxTKco ^ and
7Ti]bu>, 7TaTtop.aL^ and yevofxat, 6a\j.^G>^^^ and Oavixa^oi, avhavut '^
and apia-KO), avbia ^^ and kiyco, (mtyoi ^'^ and ^p\op.at, avoiya ^*
and KcAevo), epSco ^''' and Trotw, Oea-TTL^co ^^ and p-avrevop-ai, the
* Hdt. 2. 19 ; 4. 181 ; 9. 74 ; Aesch. P. V. 7 1 2, 807, Supp. 300 ; Soph. O. C.
1107; Eur Hec. 1289, Phoen. 279, Med. 91, etc.; (Xenophon, Cyr.i. 4. 7,
20, etc.).
■' Hdt. 5. 84; 7. 229; 9. 7; Aesch. Eum. loi ; Soph. O. C. 965, 1274, Ant.
1177, Trach. 274, El. 570. Cp. ufirinTos, Hdt. 9.94; Aesch. Agam. 64 ;
Supp. 975.
^ Hdt. 7. 31 ; Soph. Ant. 1235, PhiL 374; Eur. Ale. 5, Tro. 7;!0.
* Hdt. I. 162; Aesch. Eum. 305; Eur. Or. 15; cp. I. A. 707. Mid.
Hdt. I. 211; 2. 100; 3. 18; Soph. Trach. 771, 10S8, etc.; Eur. Tro. 770,
Cycl. 326.
" Hdt. I. 139 ; Eur. Ion 982, Ale. 549, Cycl. 248, 373, 550, El. 836.
* Hdt. 4 2 ; 7. I ; Aesch Fr., Sovovaa itai Tptirovaa Tvp0' dvai Karoi.
' Hdt. I. 141 ; 3. 128; 7. 140; 8. 120; Aesch. Cho. 524; Soph. El. 710,
Ant 396 ; Eur. freq.
" vntpOpwaKO), Hdt. 2. 66; 3. 134; Aesch. Ag. 397, 827; Eur. Hec. 823.
'■* Hdt. I. 73; 2. 37, 47, 66, 1S7; Aesch. Agam. I40S; Soph. Ant. 203. la
Arist. Pax 1092, it occurs in a comic adaptation from Homer.
'" Hdt. I. 113 7; Soph. Ant. 1246; Eur. I. A. 1561.
" Hdt. I. 151 ; 2. r5 ; 8. 29, etc.; .Soph. Ant. F9, 504; Eur. freq.
'^ Hdt. 2. 57, etc. ; Aesch., Soph., Eur.
" Hdt. I. 9; 3. 76; 9. II. Very frequent in all three tragedians. So
&iTO(JT(ixoi — dnfpxoftai, in Hdt. 9. =6 ; Aesch. Sui)p. 769 ; Soph. El. 799,
Trach. 693.
" Hdt. 3. 81 ; 7. 104, etc. ; Aesch. P. V. 947 ; .Soph. Trach. 1247 ; Eur. Or.
1 19, et al.
'"■ Hdt. I. 119, 131. 137; 2. 121 ; 7. 83, etc.; Aesch. Agam. 933, 1649, and
freq. ; Soph. Trach. 935, and freq.
"■' Hdt. I. 47, 48; 4.61, 67, 155; 8. 135; Aesch. Agam. 1210, 1213 ; Soph.
O. C. 388, 1428, 1516, Ant. 1054, 1091, Phil. 610, El. 142.^; Eur. Andr. n6i,
30 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
latter alone survived in each. The same law is exemplified
in the disappearance from Attic of the weak aorist of
^aivco. That tense, with its causal signification, is familiar
to every student of Ionic ^ and the Tragic poets, but it is
not encountered in any Attic writer of higher authority
than Xenophon. A synonym to /3t/3dCco was regarded as
unnecessary. But marked as this law of parsimony is in
Attic, it is occasionally violated, sometimes accidentally,
sometimes from malice prepense, by acknowledged masters of
Attic diction. Antiphon's style is not so far removed from
suspicion that ao-Traipo) ^ can be regarded as a case in point.
Like Thucydides, he wrote at a period when Attic had
not reached its full strength, and now and again lapsed
into old faults ; but in the vigorous rhetoric of his junior,
Andocides, it is strange to meet with a term like iiravpiadai. ^.
Yet the word occurs in the beginning of his speech
on his Recall (20. 2), KaC \j.ot /xeyto-roy 6avixa TrapeaTrjKe ri
TTore ovTOt ol avhpes betvSts ovtcd irepLKdovTai e't, tl ifxas ^P^ aya-
60V ip.ov l-navpia-Oai, and ought to be carefully marked.
It is a distinct instance of an old word quite uncalled for,
and stands on a very different footing from the Ionic and
old-Attic apLo-Tevs ^, which is appropriately used in speaking
of the siege of Troy in a funeral oration ascribed, though
perhaps erroneously, to Demosthenes (1392. 4), to(tovtu> yap
ajjieCvovs riav kirl Tpoiav arrpaT^vcraixivoov vo}j.i^oiVT av eiKoVoos,
oaov ol p.\v e£ airacnqs 'EAAaSos ojres aptorets h^K irrj rijs
'Acrias kv yjMpiov TToXiopKovvTcs fjio'Ai? elkov kt€. In ordinary
Phoen. 159^, etc. deama/xa, for the Attic fiavnTov, is found Hdt. i. 29 ; Aesch.
Frag. 81 ; Soph. O. R. 971 ; Eur. freq.
^ In a causal sense are used ifj-Pijaai in Hdt. i. 46; Eur. Cycl. 467, Heracl.
845 : dvaBfjaai, in Hdt. i. 80 : diro^ijaai, in 5. 63, etc. : fKPrjaat, in Eur. Hel.
161 : (laPrjaat, Ale. 1055, Bacch 466.
* Antipho, 119, 39, dojpl T7]s pvktus vtKpoTs dairaipovcri avvTvx^v '- Hdt. i. ill ;
9. 120; Aesch. Pers. 976; Eur. I. A. 1157, El. 843.
^ Hdt. 7. 180; Hippocr. de Morb. 4. 498, 29, 32 ; 502. 5 ; 503. 25 ; 504. 22,
25, 47 ; Aesch. P. V. 28 ; Eur. I. T. 529, Hel. 469.
* Hdt. 6. 81 ; Aesch. Pers. 306; Soph. Aj. 1304; Eur. I. A. 28, Phoen. 1226,
1245, Rhes. 479, Ion 416.
GROWTH OF THE ATTIC DIALECT. 31
circumstances the use of such a word would form a strong
argument against the genuineness of the work, but as it is,
apia-Tivs is here natural and effective.
It has been a difficult task to conduct this inquiry with
the sobriety which such questions demand. There is no
limit to the extraordinary results which might have been
obtained by allowing the imagination to run riot over the
whole field of Greek life in the period under consideration.
But the results would, for all practical purposes, have been
valueless. The habit of generalising without a basis of
facts, and of theorising on vague impressions, affords agree-
able occupation to one who has acquired it, but brings
little instruction to others. The study of Greek has
suffered severely from a want of that definiteness which
was at one time the peculiar honour of English scholarship,
and it is the aim of this work to help, in its modest way,
towards a rigidly scientific study of the phenomena of the
Greek language.
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY.
The position taken up in the preceding pages regarding
the diction of Tragedy receives singularly striking con-
firmation from an enlightened study of the eleven complete
plays of Aristophanes and the Fragments of that master
and the other writers of Comedy who preceded or followed
him. The language of Comedy is the language of every-
day life, but in the case of the Attic stage this fact has
a significance of its own. No citizen of Athens is ever
represented as abusing his mother tongue in the way that
Dogberry or Dame Quickly abuses the King's English.
Even the slaves of Athenian households have excellent
Attic put into their mouths. But a stranger, if introduced
on the stage, is always represented as talking the language
or dialect of the people to which he belongs, or, like Parson
Evans, as modifying Attic by retaining the vocal pecu-
liarities of his countrymen. Such treatment always adds
colour to the Comedian's work, and beyond question Aris-
tophanes would not have spared his contemporaries if, as
usually spoken, their language had contained vulgarisms
either in vocabulary or pronunciation. The same concen-
tration which brought about so extraordinarily rapid a
development of the Attic dialect, as has been already in-
dicated, was also the occasion of its being used with pro-
priety. It was not the speech of a numerous, widely-
extended, variously educated people with a vast variety
of opposing interests, but it was one out of many dialects of
THE LESSOXS OF COMEDY. '3,'^
a common language, and was confined to a race of one origin
located in an area so limited that every one of its inhabit-
ants was constantly coming into more or less immediate
contact with every other. It was, moreover, the language
at once of a democracy and an imperial people placed in
that position which, in peoples no less than in individuals,
developes signally dignified and commanding qualities.
The lesson of enterprise once taught, as to the Athenians
it was taught by Marathon, the resolve to venture all —
cocrr' ?) yeyovivat \a[j.TTpbi 7) TedvrjuivaL —
becomes paramount and brings out the grander, if not the
higher, side of human nature. The Athenian government
was a democracy, but it was not one in the ordinary sense
of the term. There was not a member of it but would
have rejected, as an insult to his understanding, any pro-
posal to give slaves or aliens a voice in the state, or to
place him as an Athenian on the same level as an Islander,
a Boeotian, or an Oriental. The state was to him more
of a reality than it has ever been to any citizen since. The
collective will of his fellows supplied in the Athenian, as
in every other Greek of that age, the directing and restrain-
ing power which the individual conscience supplies in us.
To a Greek the State was Conscience ; and Socrates did
not alter this fact, although the higher rule of personal
responsibility made part of his teaching.
These facts explain the phenomenon that an Athenian
comic poet had no occasion to deviate from literary Attic
in giving a faithful representation of his countrymen ; and
accordingly the testimony of a writer like Aristophanes, with
regard to the dialect of Attica at his own time, is much
more straightforward than in other circumstances would
have been possible. In fact without Comedy it would be
impracticable to decide with accuracy many questions af-
fecting the purity of Attic Prose was corrupted and
interpolated with impunity by consecutive generations of
D
34 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ignorant critics and negligent copyists, but by the rules
of verse the scholar is enabled, in most cases, at once to
detect late alterations, and the information acquired by a
study of verse-corruptions is invaluable in tracking the
corruptions which disfigure the text of prose writers.
A different position in regard to Attic Comedy has been
taken up by some scholars, but by none whose judgment
is worthy of attention. Here, as in other cases which will
come under our notice, Veitch ^ has been misled by attend-
ing to the letter divorced from the spirit. No one will
insist that every word, expression, or construction which
occurs in the pages of Comedy necessarily belongs to
Attic Greek, but it will be easy to demonstrate that there
is no variation from Attic usage which, if rightly con-
sidered, has not some lesson to teach us with reference
to the development and completed facts of the Athenian
language.
Thus one set of facts securely establishes the literary
phenomenon so well known as affecting Greek as a whole,
and on which the theory of Tragic diction propounded in
the last chapter is based. The chorus is couched in that
literary modification of Doric in which all choric poetry
was always written. Hexameter verse was, from its tra-
ditions and necessities, similarly, though not equally, pri-
vileged, and, though not composed in Epic, yet admitted
of words and forms of words unknown in genuine Attic.
Even in Anapaestic verse a few Epic irregularties were
allowed. No evidence could be more conclusive that the
existence, side by side even in the same play^ of three or
four distinct literary dialects was to an Athenian perfectly
natural, and that the change from one set of grammatical
forms to another was for him as easy to make as the
change from one metrical system to another. Certainly
it must have appeared to an Athenian no more extra-
' Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective, 3rd ed., p. 536.
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 35
ordinary to hear a chorus in Doric than to have a Dorian
introduced as talking his mother tongue, to Hsten to a
Tragic poet or a character from Tragedy conversing on
the comic stage in phraseology otherwise obsolete in Attica,
than to understand the lonicisms of the Islanders who did
business with him in the Piraeus. The ability to keep
all these styles distinct indicates a sense of language
highly developed; and is a fact that ought never to be
lost sight of in the critical study of Greek literature. It
makes the isolated appearance of an un-Attic form or
expression, in a writer otherwise careful, a very suspicious
circumstance, and raises the study of Attic almost to the
dignity of an exact science.
The consideration of un-Attic words and phrases in
Aristophanes will be serviceable in two ways. It will
bring into bold relief the fact, which cannot too often
be affirmed, that the diction of Tragedy was essentially
a survival, and not merely a highly poetical mode of ex-
pression ; and, on the other hand, it will explain to some
extent the rapidity with which a diction formulated in one
century was left behind by the living speech in another.
Aristophanes seldom let slip an opportunity of ridiculing
Euripides, and Cratinus invented the verb Evpnnbapi(rTO(f)a-
viCdv to express uncompromising lampoon. The method
employed was parody ; and either in parody or caricature
the Tragic dialect is repeatedly presented to the student
of Comedy side by side with the ordinary Attic mode
of expression. True, Euripides introduced many modern-
isms into his verse, such as the more frequent use of
(iovKojxai for e^e'Aw and del for xPV '• but, at the same time,
he tried to disguise these innovations by antique manner-
isms like the employment of freOev and l\iiOev for the
possessive pronouns, and -noTi for ■npo'i. This fact should
be kept in mind in reading the pages that follow ; but
it does not to any great degree affect the point under
D 2
36 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
discussion — the contrast between the Attic and Tragic
dialects as illustrated by parody.
It will be convenient to treat the question of parody
in Attic Comedy as a whole, and to consider, not only
those passages in which Tragedy is caricatured, but also
the few others in which the Epic and Lyric styles are
introduced into the regular metres for purposes of comic
effect. Parody, as found in the chorus, does not much
concern us, and may be dismissed with a short notice.
Parody in the Choric passages occurs occasionally in
Aristophanes and other Comic poets. In Ran. 1309 ff.
Aeschylus strings together many lines from the choric
songs of different plays of Euripides — KepKibos aoihov
fjLekiras coming from the Meleager, the three following lines
from the Electra, and olvdvdas ydvos a/xTre'Aov and -Trept/SaAA',
2) tUvov, (iAeyas from the Hypsipyle, while line 1339 —
aXXa ixot, ajuc^iTToAot, \v)(vov a^lrare,
is derived from the Temenidae of the same Tragic poet.
A fragment of another lost play of Euripides is inserted
bodily in Acharnians 659-662. The passage as preserved
by Clement of Alexandria' —
TT/ao? Tavd^ o, TL XPV i^'^'- TTaAajudcr^o),
KOI TTCLV (TT ijxol TiKTaivicrdoi'
TO yap eS //er' ip.ov
Ka\ TO hiKatov ^viip.a^ov eorat,
Kov fX7]7To9^ aku> KaKa Trpaa-croov,
was by Aristophanes only slightly altered to suit his
purpose. Similarly^ the first few lines of the strophe in
Pax 775, and the antistrophe in 796, are from the Oresteia
of Stesichorus, as two lines of the Knights (i 263-1 265)
are parodied from Pindar. Beginning with the exact
words of Stesichorus and Pindar, Aristophanes in each
case ends with a freer parody. The lines of Pindar —
'■ Cicero quotes 11. 1-3 in Ep. ad Att. 8. 8. 2, and 1. 3 in ib. 6. 1.8.
THE LESSOXS OF COMEDY. 37
r'l KohXiov apyo\x.ivo\.(Ti.v i) KaTaTravoixevoLcnv
7] fiaOv^oivov re Aarw koX Ooav lirTKav
iXareipav detcrat ;
are quoted direct to KaraTravoixevoLcnv, but the rest are
only represented by i) Ooav iVTrcoy kXarripas detSetr, and
the passage from the Oresteia is similarly modified, as is
seen from comparing the parody with the original words
as given by the Scholiast —
rotdSe yjii] Xapircoy bafxaifxaTa KaWLKoiiutv
vpLvelv ^pvyLOv [xiKos e^evpovra afSpcos
^pos €TTepX0IX€l'0V.
Examples of less distinct parody, when little more was
intended than to suggest a well-known passage of Tragedy,
are found in Eq. 973 —
ijbirrTov (t)aos 7]pLepas,
and inJ\v. 1470 —
irokka 07/ Kal Kaiva Kal dav-
[xda-T kireTiTOjxecrda, koX
heiva TTpdyixaT elhop-^v'
€(TTL yap hivhpOV TTeC^VKOS KTe.
In the former Aristophanes had in mind the beginning
of the first chorus of the Antigone of Sophocles, and in
the latter the begiHning of the second, while in its fourth
line he went on to suggest the famous chorus in the
Oedipus Coloneus.
But, as the discussion of parody in the chorus does not
materially affect the present inquiry, it is necessary to
refrain from further details, and to devote the space so
saved to the more important question of the kinds of
parody encountered in the regular metrical systems of
Comedy.
With those parodies in which the sentiment merely
and not the words is parodied, we have nothing to do.
Strattis, in a passage preserved by Pollux (9. 124) —
38 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
€10' ^'Aios \ikv TTeCOeTai roTs iraibiOLS
orav XeyooaLV, ""E^ex'j S) (^tA.' rjkie' —
ridiculed the lines of the Phoenissae, in which Euripides
introduced Jocasta as expostulating with Eteocles (1. 546) —
et^' TJ'Ato? ixev vv^ T€ hovkcvet jSporols,
(TV 8' ovK avi^€L boyixoLTOiv ^\civ laov ;
but he did not retain their Tragic colour, as would have
been the case if TteiOeraL had not been substituted for
bovXevei, To bring the children's catch \ corresponding
to that of the English nursery rhyme —
' Rain, rain, go away,
Come again another day,'
into association with what were probably two well-known
lines of Euripides, was sufficient for his purpose.
The diction of Tragedy, however, is parodied in two
ways. Either lines are quoted without alteration from
the Tragic poets, in humorous contrast with the circum-
stances with which they are associated, or the dialect of
Tragedy is put into the mouth of a writer of Tragedy,
or a god, or hero. Occasionally also expressions are
used for no other reason but to caricature the grandiose
style of the older rival of Comedy on the Attic stage.
Consequently, the most practicable plan of approaching
the fact of distinctions of dialect presented by parody in
Comic dialogue, is to trace the use of questionable words,
forms, or expressions ; and in all cases it will be seen that
modes of expression inadmissible in Prose were equally
inadmissible in Comedy, except when they were employed
from malice prepense and to give colour to the work.
Attic writers used airiOavov, a-noOavoi, aTTo6dvoL[xt,, airo-
^ The catch occurs again in the N^aoi of Aristophanes —
Xe^eij dpa
wawfp ra Ttaioi , Ef ex » ^ 'P'-^ rjKit.
The passage is quoted by Suidas, who adds, KuXdpwv ti irapoifiiwSts iiiro tuv
natbiuv KtyofKvov orav iinvf<p^ ipvxovs ovtos.
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 39
Oavelv, aTToOavcov, never eOavov, 6avu>, etc., Karidavov, KarOavMv,
etc. Yet in Aristophanes Kardavdv occurs in Ran, 1477,
edavov in Thesm. 865, Oavcav in Ach. 893. But if in these
three passages it is proved that the Comic poet was parody-
ing Euripides, not only are the rules of Attic vindicated,
but some hght is thrown upon the history of the Attic dialect.
The senarii in Ran. 1477 —
rts olbev el to ^rjv ixev ecrn KarOavelv,
TO TTvelv 8e hetTTvelv, to be Kadcubeiv Ki^hiov ;
had their prototype in the Polyidus of Euripides —
ri's oXhev el to 0]v fj-ev ecrrt KaTdavetv,
TO KaTOavelv be Cv^ Kdroo voixi^eTai ^ ;
lines which are quoted by Plato in the Gorgias (492, E),
and from Ran. 1082, are proved to have been spoken by
a woman. They were probably the words of Pasiphae
discussing the fate of Glaucus, her son by Minos, who,
unknown to his parents, had been drowned in a vessel
of honey, but was restored to life by Polyidus. As to
Thesm. 865 —
\lfv\a\ be TToXkal 8t' ^[x" eirl ^Kafj-avbpiais
poalaLV iOavov —
the words are those of Helen in the play of Euripides
named after her (11. 52, 53), and repeated, with the ne-
cessary alterations, by the messenger who reports (11. 609,
610) to Menelaus her miraculous disappearance —
Toaovbe ke^acr , oi TaXaiTTCopot <t^pvye9,
T6.\ave9 t' 'Axaioi, 8t' l/x' eirl ^Kaixavbpiots
CLKToiaiv "Upas fxr]^avaA.'i eOvrja-KeTe.
The third passage forms the last words of the enthusiastic
' Cp. Eur. Fr. 830 (Phrixus) —
T(5 5' ol5fv fl (rjv TovO' t KinKrjTai Oavtiv,
rd ^^v 5J OvTiTKUV iffri ; rrKr^v ofxSis Pporuiv
voaovcriv oi 0\(TrovT(i, ol 5' d\aj\/jrfs
ovSiv vonovniv ovSt KtKTTjVTai Hand.
40 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
address of Dicaeopolis in the Acharnians to an eel from
lake Copais —
ju,Tj8e yap 6avu>v irore
(rod x.o)pls (irjv ivTeTevT\L(t}ix4vr]s ^,
and is a brutal parody on the words of Admetus in the
Alcestis (1. 367)—
ixrjbe yap davcav ttot€
aov ^copls etrji', ttj^ jxovqs TTLCTTrjs ifxoC.
This adaptation of Aristophanes was in turn referred to
by Philetaerus in a couple of lines quoted by Athenaeus
(7. 280 D) from his Comedy OlvoTncav —
ov yap 6avb>v 8rj7rou^' av '^yy^eXvv (f)ayoLS ^,
ovb^ kv veKpolcTL TTeTT€TaL yaixr)kLos.
Similar results are obtained by a consideration of the
Ionic ^ and Tragic verb a-Tvyd. The word is quite unknown
to Attic prose, but nevertheless occurs three times in
Aristophanes, — Ach, '2,'i^ lb. 472, and Thesm. 1144. The
last quotation is from the chorus, and may be disregarded,
but the other two lines are iambic trimeters. The latter —
jcat y6.p et/x' ayav
ox^iipos, ov boK&v p.e Kotpdvovs crrvyelv,
is from the Oeneus of Euripides ; and besides a-rvyelv
contains the Tragic word Koipavos. Of the former line —
a-Tvyo}v iikv acrrv, rbv 8' ep-ov hrjp.ov iroOiov,
the Scholiast remarks, 6 cttlxos e/c rpayc^bias, and he is
undoubtedly right.
The thoroughly un-Attic word dkvca ^ is found in the
senarii in Vesp. 112 —
^ The true reading, see Phryn. Art. 36. fin.
* There is no necessity to read, with Naber, ovk d-rroOaycbv yap av ■nor t^x*^""
(payois, as his chief objection, namely the occurrence of Qavwv, is made invalid by
the circumstances stated above. The MSS. have ov yap Baviiv ye SrjnovO' ey-
Xf^vv (payois, which Porson emended. The simple e9avov, etc. became common
enough in post-Macedonian Comedy, but not before.
3 arvyw, Hdt. 7. 236 ; Aesch. P. V. 37, 46, Sept. 410, 1046, etc. ; Soph. Phil.
87, etc. ; Eur. freq. d-rroarvyw, Hdt. 2. 47 ; 6. 129 ; Eur. Ion 488 (chor.).
* The word is also Ionic. Hippocr. llfpl TlapOtv. p. 563, iiiro 5i ttjs Kanirjs
THE LESSOXS OF COMEDY. 4 1
roiavT oAvei, vovOerov^JLevos 8' det
It comes from the Sthenoboea of Euripides, quoted by the
Scholiast and by Plutarch —
TOLavT aXv€L' vovOeTovixevos 8' "Epoos
jxaWov TTte^et ^.
In trochaic tetrameters, in Ach. 690, Meineke reads —
eir akv€L kol haKpvei koX Aeyet irpos tovs (pikov^.
but the mere word of the Scholiast " must not be allowed
to outweigh both manuscript authority and the distinct
testimony of all other Attic literature against the verb
dAvft). Aristophanes, beyond question, wrote what the manu-
scripts give, etra Xv^ei.
Another signally instructive word is the aorist epiokov.
No Attic prose writer of authority '^ uses it ; and yet it
occurs in Aristophanes nine times, and in other Comic
poets twice. Of the Aristophanic instances three are met
with in lyrical passages (Av. 404, Thesm. 11 46, 1155) and
require no discussion. Its use in Lys. 743 —
6j ttotvl ElkeCOvi', eTr^cr^es rod tokov,
ew9 av (Is ocTLOv poXoi yw ^<x>piov,
is to be explained in the same way as opyiois, p-ebeovaa, and
KiiTTpov in 832-34 of the same play (see p. 25). It is a
burlesque imitation of Tragic diction.
The play upon words would be sufficient reason for its
repeated appearance in Eq. 15-26, even if the whole pas-
sage was not a comic extension of the lines in the Hip-
polytus (345-351) in which Phaedra discusses with the
Nurse her unnatural passion.
Tov a'tfiaroi aXvan' Kal ahrmoviaiv 6 Ovfiiis kukuv ((piKKtrat : Aesch. Sept. 391 ;
Eur. Cycl. 434, Or. 277, Hipp. 1182.
' Cp. Aesch. Sept. 391 —
TOiavr' dXvwv rafs vvtpKovai^ rrayats.
' 'EAv 5ia rov f, 6Ko\v^(t. iav 5f X<^pi^ toO ^, d\v(i.
' Xcn. An. 7. i. 32.
42 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Plutarch, in Mor. p, 220 E, 225 E, puts the word into
the mouth of Lacedaemonians ; and that he did so justly
is proved by Ar, Lys. 984, where the Lacedaemonian
herald is represented as saying —
Kapv^ eycav, S Kvpaavu, vol rw ctl^
eixoXov aiTo ^rrdpras irepl rav bLaWayav'
and by lb, 13(53 and 1297 in a choric song recited by
Lacedaemonians. The remaining passages — a fragment
of Cratinus, one of Strattis, and another of Aristophanes
(Fr. Com. 2. 85, 778, 1201), — would certainly be explicable
in a similar way if their context was known. The exist-
ence of the compounds avroixoXos and avTop-oXw, and the
frequency with which the simple word is met with in
Tragedy, makes it evident that the word was in common
use in Attica at a period not very far removed from the
date of the great Attic writers in Prose and Comedy.
The word aXyvvco is a stranger to Attic prose \ but it is
nevertheless encountered in the couplet of Eupolis —
ov yap, fxa Tr]V MapaOcovi ttjv kp.i^v p.dxr]v,
Xaipctiv TLs avTtiiv tovixov aXyvvel K^ap '^,
which Longinus, in his work De Sublimitate (16. 3), records
as the origin of the famous adjuration of Demosthenes,
fjia Tovs Mapa6u)Vt TrpoKLvbvve'va-avTas '^. Be this as it may, the
verses are a parody on the lines of the Medea (394-397) ^^
which she invokes Hecate —
ov ydp, fj.a TrjV beairoivav rjv eyw creftco
lx6Xi(rTa TrdvToiv Kal ^vvepybv etAo'/xrjy,
'EKarrjy, ixv\ols valovcrav eortas ^p-rjs,
\aip(i>v Tis auTwi' Toujjioi' dXyui'ei Keap.
' Xenophon (Apol. 8) not only employs this word, but actually of physical
pain, voaois d\yw6iJ.fvos, a sense otherwise unknown.
" From the At} fiot, and probably the words of Miltiades —
' Nae per Marathone quod commisi proelium
Gaudebit nemo cor meum qui afflixerit.' Grotius.
^ De Corona, 297. 11.
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 43
But of all un-Attic words KacTKOi deserves most notice.
Here, if anywhere, is a well-marked instance of EvptTrtSa-
pL(rT0(f)avL(TiJ.6s. Of Comic poets Aristophanes, as far as we
know, alone used the verb, and it is quite alien to Attic
prose ; but that the term was a favourite with Euripides
was reason sufficient why it should not be rare in Aristo-
phanes. In Ach. 410 the question, rt kikaKas ; is appro-
priately put into the mouth of Euripides, who, throughout
the scene with Dicaeopolis, consistently talks in the Tragic
dialect, as ra irola Tpvyy] ; 41 H ; XaKihas TreTrAcoi", 4^3 ; ra
bva-TTtvfj TTeirXuiixaTa, 426 ; Tr]\i(f)ov pciKcoixaTa, 43-^ > ^ '^^^
btoTTTa Koi KaTOTTTa TxavTayji, 435 ; ttvkvj} yap XeiTTa. p.r])(ava
(fypevL, 445 ; airekOe XdlvoiV aTadfxwv, 449 5 ^^' ^'' ^ rdkas, ere
rou8' €\€L TTk^Kovs XP^'^s ; 454» etc.
As belonging to the language of deities and heroes
it falls with propriety from the lips of Dionysus in Ran.
97—
yovifxov be ttoitjT);!' av ov^ evpois tTi
Ctjt^v &v, ooTts prjpia yevvaiov kaKot,
and of Hermes in Pax 381 —
akk , S fj.ik\ VTTo Tov Alos aixakbvv6i](T0[xai,
el fxr} TeTopTjcroi ravra Ka\ kaKi]<Top.ai,
The mortal Trygacus shrinks from hearing the God ele-
vating his voice and deprecating him in the words, p-i) wv
XaKTjfTTjs, kicrcToixai a, Sjpixibiov, turns to the Chorus, demand-
ing that they also should take measures to prevent so
tragic a catastrophe —
ciTre /xot, rt 7rd(T)(^eT, ojvbpe'i ; eo-rar' (KiT€7Tki]yiJ.evoL.
u) TTOvqpoi, /XT/ (TtcoTrar'" el be //?/ kaKi]aeTat,.
Like ap.akbvvOy](TOjj.ai and the ridiculous TeTopr\(Toy, the aorist
tkaKov and the future kaKri(Top.ai belong to the language
of Olympus, and accordingly the Scholiast's remark on
riut. 39—
44 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
is almost unnecessary— TpaytKcorepov cnrerfirivaTo Trpoa-btaavpojv,
ft)? (j)acnv, EvpiTTibTjv. In Ach. 1046, kaaKoiv is uttered by
the Chorus, and in Eq. 10 18 is part of a pseudo-oracle,
couched in hexameter verse, and containing words and
forms like (ppdCev, 'ia\^v, abvTOLo, aidev, just as in another
such oracle a few lines on (1036-1040) re^ei is found where
T€^eTai. would be required in Attic. The same peculiarities
of diction, arising from the same cause, are encountered in
a passage ascribed by Athenaeus (6. 241 C) to Cratinus
the younger —
Kopvbov Tov xaXKOTVuov 7ie(f)vka^o'
ov fxi] aol z'o/neis avrov ixy]b€v KaTa\€L\}feLv,
fjir]b oxj/ov KOivfj ij.€Ta tovtov TTcairoTe bai(rr],
TOV Kopvbov' TTpokiycti croc e)(et yap X'^'^P^ Kparaiav
-yjaXKrjv, aKdfxaTov, ttoKv KpetTTM tov irvpos avTov.
Other examples of the Olympian and Tragic speech,
almost as striking as Aao-Kco, will be readily noted in reading
Aristophanes, as, for instance, in the dialogue between
Iris and Pisthetaerus in Av. 1200 ff. Pisthetaerus talks
excellent Attic, but Iris Olympic —
/XTjAoo-^ayetf re (^ovOvtols iir' icrxdpaLs
KVKrav T ayvids.
1232.
beicracr ottojs p-rj crov yivos iravcoXeOpov
Abbs pLaK€X.Xri itav dvaaTpi^^i biKiq,
Xiyvvs 8e aa>pia Kal b6[j.u>v TTepLTTTv^as
KaTai6aX(a(Tet aov XtKvp.viats l3oXals.
1239.
Similarly the women in the Thesmophoriazusae talk Attic,
but Mnesilochus and Euripides employ the Tragic dialect,
as in 871 —
' Cp. Eur. I. T. 976 —
kvrtvOtv avd^v rpliToSos (k xpvcov Xa/cwv
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 45
OCTTLS ^ivOVS bi^aLTO TTOfTLiO CTuAo)
KCLixvovTas iv xeifj-wpL Koi vavayiais ;
Mi'Tjo". rTpcorecos ra8' eort [xekadpa, Kxe.,
and this is sustained throughout the whole passage.
In his XeipoDv Pherecrates (as quoted by Plutarch, de
Mus. p. 1 146) introduces Mousike as complaining to
Dikaiosune of her fallen estate. Her first words are a
burlesque of Tragic diction —
Ae'^oj p.ev ovk UKOvcra, aoi re yap kKv^lv
epLOL re Ae'^at dvpos i]boin]v fX^^'
Occasionally some exceptionally forced metaphor of
Tragedy, or some other mode of expression unusually
grandiloquent, is singled out by the poet for ridicule.
There is no special propriety in the Sycophant of the
Plutus (1. 854 {{) departing from ordinary language, but
Aristophanes seized the opportunity of casting merited
ridicule on such expressions as oetAata cruy/ce'Kpa/xat hva in
the Antigone (1. 1311), and TiKinqa-crav ot/crw rw5e o-vyK^Kpa-
fxivrjv in the Ajax (1. 895) of Sophocles —
oX\xoi. KaKobalfxojv, wj airokcoXa 8etAato?,
Kal Tpli KaKohatixdiv Kal Terpu.Kt'i Kal TrevrdKi?
Kul 6a)8eKciKts Kal ixvpidias' loij, iov,
ovToj 7To\vc})6pu) (TvyKiKpap-ai haipovi.
Reasons equally just and good might be given for every
Tragic form or expression occurring in Comedy, but it
would be tedious and useless to enumerate all. Again and
again the question recurs in the critical study of Attic
Greek, and it is no rare experience to find the most dis-
tinguished critics advocating an alteration of all the manu-
scripts, simply because they have never tried to estimate,
as is done in this inciuiry, the extraordinary case with
which an Athenian of tlic best age moved among the
various co-existent literary dialects of his time.
46 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
There is a curious example of the way in which mere
caricature affects the language of Comedy in the case of
the aged 'amante' in the Plutus. In order to delineate
her affectation and intenseness, Aristophanes puts excep-
tional words into her mouth. The adjective iKvofxios in
Classical Greek is found only in one passage, namely,
Pindar —
k(TTa be dap.(iei bvacjiopd)
repTTZ'o) re //tx^etJ" etSe yap iKvofxtov
k7]ixa re Kal hvvaixiv
viov'
Nem. I. 56.
and the adverb occurs nowhere but in two lines of this
play. In 1. 981 the lady complains —
KoX yap iKVOfjiiios p! ija-^vvero,
and Chremylus repeats the word in chaff in 1. 993, and in
a form even more intense —
Aeyei? ipoii'T avOpcorrov (KvopLMTaTa.
It is of a piece with her love for diminutives \ and very
telling.
The parodies in hexameter verse are of little importance
compared with those which the senarii afford. They are
numerous enough, and not uninteresting, but a careful
study of them would be of no value in the present inquiry
as to the facts which affect the purity of the Attic dialect
in Comedy. The presence of a word in Comic hexameter
verse can never enfranchise it as Attic, and consequently
little can be gained by pointing out those passages in
which the eccentricities of the hexameter metre are ex-
aggerated.
The case of pseudo-oracles has already been discussed,
1 The marked caricature in which the old woman is depicted forms an ex-
cellent argument for avoiding a solecism by reading in 1020 -nov for /xov. o(eiv
T€ rfji xP"°s ifaoKtv ^dv wov, siveetly, really. M and n are frequently confounded
in MSS., as in Eur. I. A. 761, ■navT6avvoi in several MSS. for fxavToavyoi.
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 47
and with these may go the utterance of the seer Hierocles
in Pax 1075 —
ov yap 770) TovT eoTt (plKov ixaKapeaa-t deolcriv,
(fevXoinbos A7/£at irpLv ksv Kvkos dlv vjievatol'
regarding which Trugaeus inquires —
Kal TTcSs, cb Kardpare, kvnos ttot' tiv otv vp.evaioX ;
but the rest of the scene, from I. 1064 to 11 15, is pure
Epic parody.
From the 'i'oppocpopoL of Hermippus, Athenaeus (i. p.
27, d) quotes over twenty hnes of Epic verse beginning —
etTTrere vvv p.0L, Movaat ^Okvixirta bcopLar ex^ovcrat,
and containing many expressions taken direct from Homer.
As might be expected, the Xeipajv of Pherecrates supphes
several specimens of Epic parody, as the hnes —
[xrjbe (TV y dvhpa (fjiKop KaAeVa? iirl boira OdXetav
axdov op5>v irapiovTa' kukos yap uinjp robe pe^et,
uWa juciA' €VKi]\o<i ripirov (ppiva repire t ^k^Ivov'
which, according to Athenaeus (8. 364 B), had their
prototype in the Eoeae of Hesiod, and, if we trust Phryni-
chus (see art. 71), Aristophanes used the words Kal koo-klvov
r]Tir\(Ta(TQai in his AatraAr^?, in a parody on that didactic
poet.
It is rare that parodies of Homer or Hesiod occur in
the senarii of Comedy, but there is no doubt that the hne —
Ocijcret hi (TOL yvvalKas eiTTa Ae(r/3i8as,
quoted by the Schohast on Arist. Ran. 1343 as from the
Xdpoiv of Pherecrates, was intended to suggest the offer of
Agamemnon in the npca-fteta -nphs ^ky^i.Xkia —
u 1 '*> '
Owcrct eTira yvvaiKa^ u\xvixova tpy eiovtas
Accr/3t6as,
II. 9. 27c,
In such cases an Epic word might readily be used, as in
48 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
the Clouds (I. 30) Aristophanes boldly inserted a choric
fragment of Euripides in the line —
axap Ti xP^'os e^a /xe \}.iTa tov Ylaa-tav,
and in Ach. 883 made a Boeotian burlesque Aeschylus
in his own patois. In the "OttXcov KpLcris Thetis was ad-
dressed as —
hicmoLva TrevTrJKOVTa N?]pr/8a)y KopQv,
which, in the mouth of a country poulterer, as he draws
a splendid eel from his basket, becomes —
Trpeo-ySeipa irevrriKOVTa KcoTrdbcav Kopav,
^KJBadi retSe Ki]-!nx,apiTTai rw ^eVw.
The form -npiaao, which occurs a few lines before, must not
be regarded, as Veitch insists, as good Attic, simply be-
cause it is found in the senarii of Comedy. Whether it
was or was not recognized will be discussed at another
time ; but as for Veitch, he might, with equal justice, claim
as Attic every word used by the Scythian policeman in
the Thesmophoriazusae, and with better right enfranchise
both otKeco and nMki^cnx) for oikcu and a7ro8wcro/xat, because
Cratinus puts the one word into Solon's ^ mouth, and
Aristophanes the other into an Ionian's '^.
The verb KLKX-qa-Koi was probably once used in Attica,
because it is found in Tragedy and in other Greek dialects,
but it had disappeared from the mature language. Strattis,
however, used it in senarii in his Ma/ceSoVe? ?) Ylavaavia^,
but the lines themselves show that it is a Macedonian
who employs the term —
' The lines are quoted from the Xetpojves by Diogen. Laert. i. 62 —
olHecj 51 vrjaov, d/s ^tv dvOpdinajv \6yos,
fairapfievos Kara iraaav AiavTos vuXiv.
Plutarch, Sol. 14, makes Solon use Sonfoi, and in id. 32 narrates the fact referred
to in the words of Cratinus, ^ S« 5^ Siaairopa KaraKavOivTo's avTov t^s re^ppas
TTfpl r^v "SaXafiivlajv vfiaov, 'iari yttv Sta t^i/ aTonlav diriOavos TravTairaat Kal
uvOojSr]^, dvayeypaTTTai 5' vno dWwv dvbpuiv d^toXuyaiv Kal ' ApiaroriKovs tov
<j>i\oau(pov.
■■' ap. Athen. 12, 525 A. In Av. 1039 'f'^^'J^a"' i^ emi^loyed for antithetic
effect.
THE LESSOXS OF COMEDY. 49
A. 7'/ <T(pvpaLva 5 ecrrt ris ;
The Doric o-Lhdpeos, for a-Lbt^povs, is always retained in
speaking of the iron coinage of the Dorian colony, Byzan-
tium. In Arist. Nub. 249, to the quandary of Socrates —
TToiovi Oeovs d/xet av ; uptaTov yap 6€0l
fjfXLV v6\Xl(T[l OVK eCTTL
Strepsiades replies —
T(5 yap ofxvvT ; 7)
(nhapioicTiv uxrirep kv Bu^arrto) ;
and the Scholiast on that passage quotes from the Comic
writer, Plato —
yoK^TiUiS av olKT](Taip.€v iv BvCavTLOis,
oTTOv (TtSapeots vop.L^ov<Tiv ^.
It was shown how the immature speech of Attica had
been crystallised in names of places, in religious formulae,
and in official names, no less than in the diction of
Tragedy. But no method of crystallisation could be
more effective than a proverbial saying, and accordingly
most of the proverbs which occur in Aristophanes con-
tain words which had dropped out of use in the developed
dialect of Attica.
"Ephio is of frequent occurrence in Ionic and Tragedy ^
but there is no trace of it in Attic except in a proverb
found in Ar. Vesp. 1431 —
IpOoi rt? rjv (Kaa-TOi &v (ibeiri Te)(^vr]v,
' Quoted by Athenaeus (7. 323, b). In Ar. Nub. 565 it occurs in a chorus.
and in a line of Cratinus quoted by Hesychius under kvPtjXh —
XaKKida KiKKTjdieovat $foL, aySpa 5^ kv^tjXiv
which is a parody of Homer II. 14. 291 —
XaA/(i5a KiKX-qaKovui Otoi, dvSpfs Si nv/xivSiv.
' Pollux (9. 78) describes the i7i5ap«os as v6fit(Jtia ti KtmSv, and quotes an
obscure and corrupt couplet from the Myrmidons of Strattis —
iv Tots PaXavfiots npoufKtvBos rnxtpa
Ana^aTrarra yfj arpaTtal aiSapiaiv.
' Hdt. I. 119, 131, 137 ; 2. 121 ; 7. 33, etc.; Aesch. Agam. 937,, 1649, .ind
freq. ; .Soph. Trach. 97,5, and freq.
E
50 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
and somewhat resembling another —
r'l bf]Ta x^lp^s ovk ^lv kpyacraiaro )
which Aristophanes adapted in Av. 1147 —
tL brJTa TToSes &v ovk av epyaa-aCaTO ;
and Lys. 43 —
TL 8' av yvvalK^s (ppovLjxov kpyacraiaTo ;
The old Attic akKip.o^ survived in the proverb —
TrdXat TTOT riaav 6.Xki\xol MtXrycriot,
which occurs twice in the Plutus (11. 1003, 1075), and is
referred to in Vesp. 1033.
The aged lover in the Plutus (1036) swears that her
misplaced affection is killing her, and describes her ema-
ciation in the line —
8ia haKTvXiov p.^v oi^v eju.ey' av huXKVaais'
but the words hia haKTvKiov av buKKvaais were beyond
question proverbial, which accounts for the monosyllabic
ending of biiXKva-ais. As from a proverb, too, the form
ioivriaaTo for (TTpLaro ought not to condemn Athenaeus
of inaccuracy when he quotes (6. 266 F), Xio? beariTOTT^v
wv-qa-aro, as a proverbial expression used by Eupolis in his
play of ' the Friends.' Eupolis may well have written
uj vrjcraro.
The Ionic and old Attic ^ word epTroj is four times en-
countered in Aristophanes, but in three out of the four
in the one phrase 6 TroAe/xos epTrerco —
ov beofxeOa airovboiv' 6 Trokep.o's IpTrerco.
Eq. 673.
A. OVK av TTOtr^craijui', aAA' 6 TTokep-os e/)7rer<u.
B. jua At", 0118' iyco y av, aAA' 6 irokepios epTrerw.
Lys. 129, 130.
From the first passage it is reasonable to infer that the
' Hippocr. 6. 4S0. ^90; Aesch. Eum. 39. etc. ; Soph. O. C. 1551, and very
freq. ; Eur. freq.
THE LESSONS OF COMEDY. 51
phrase was a common cry in Athens during the Pelopon-
nesian war, and the Hnes from the Lysistrata confirm this
view. The fourth instance occurs in an isolated trimeter
of the AatraAi/s quoted by Harpocration^ —
and without context affords no clue. But the word was,
like apaTTO), p.a<jTi((a, and others already discussed, most
probably a colloquial survival of the older language.
The occurrence of a word, or form of a word, in the
anapaestic verse of Comedy is no proof of its Attic
character. If there are fewer Epic irregularities in the
anapaests than in the hexameters, yet, in a question of
this kind, one distinct anomaly is sufficient to destroy
their authority. As a matter of fact the irregularities are
very marked. Thus, in Vesp. 662 in anapaestic tetrameters
catalectic, the third person plural of the Aorist Passive
Indicative ends in -ey instead of --qaav^' —
The Dative singular of proper names in -Kkrjs (from -KXe'r/s)
invariably undergoes in Attic a double contraction, but
in Av. 567, 'HpaxAeet occurs in place of 'HpaK\d —
rjv 8' 'H/joKAe'et dvr](rL Kdp(a vaarovs Oveiv [likaovvTa'i,
and the same line supplies the Epic Ovrjai for Ovi]. More
instances may be gleaned by the most cursory reader.
The purpose of this inquiry has been fulfilled if it has
been made clear that Comedy must not be regarded as
invariably presenting only Attic forms, Attic words, and
' Ki7«A(S. al Tuiv tiKaCTrjpiuv Ovpat KiynXiSts (KaXovvTO. ' Apiaroipdvrjs Aaira-
Kfvaiv 'O 6' KTf.
^ The form is found in Tragedy. Eur. Hipp, i i47 —
i'lrnvi 5* iKpv(p6(v xal rd SvaTtjvov ripar :
I'hoen. 1 246 —
iarav bi Xafinpuj xpoJiiii t oxjic -qWa^arriv ,
both of which Nauck wrongly tries to alter,— a striking inconsistency when he
replaces TrKi^povaiv in lice. 574 by a late absurdity like iirK-qpovaav. ]n choric
passages are found, i^av, Aesch. Pers. 18; Eur. Andr. 287, etc.; xaritiav,
.Soph. Trach. 504; AitiTtpav, Aj. 167.
V. 2
52 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Attic constructions. The choric passages on the one hand,
and the hexameter and anapaestic metres on the other,
had each literary sympathies uncongenial to Attic, while
even in the Iambic and Trochaic parts, un-Attic phrases,
words, and forms, were, under certain conditions, necessarily
employed. But these conditions are capable of being
accurately classified ; and such classification not only pre-
vents the student of Attic from misconception, but actually
introduces him to many new aspects of the language,
giving him glimpses into its history and nature, and pro-
viding him with rules by which he may bring to nothing-
ness many of the most unquestioned emendations of great
critical scholars.
OPTNIXOT
EKAOrH
PHMATQN KAI ONOMATl^N
ATTIKQN.
n^PYNIXOI KOPNHAIANQI EY nPATTEIN.
Thv je qAAhv gou naibelav Gaujud^co, hv bia9ep6vToc>c
unep ctnavrac oooic erto 6veTU)(ov nenaibeusai, Kai bA
Kai rouTO eaujudoac ex<JO, to nepi thv twv koAoov kqi
boKijucov ovojudio^v Kpi5iv. ToGt dpa KeAeuoavTOC sou
Toc dboKLjuouc TO)v cpwvoov dGpoioOHvoi, ndoac juev ov\
oldc re er^vojuHv xavuv nepiAapelv, rdc be eninoAa^ouoac,
judAirjTa KQi THV dpxaiav bidAeEiv TapaTTOucac kqi hoAAhv
aioxuvHv ejupaAAouoac. Ou AavGdvei be oe, coonep oub'
dAAo Ti TOiv KQTa naibeiav, coc Tivec dnonenTCOKOTec thc
dpxaiac cpcovfic, kqi eni thv djuaGiav KOTacpeurovTec nopi-
^ouoi jjdpTUpdc Tivac toC npoeipnoGai uno Ttov dpxaioiv
Toobe TOC (poivdc Hjuelc be ou npoc rd biHjuapTHjueva d9o-
pwjLiev, dAAd npoc Td boKijuwTOTa roov dpxaicov. koi rdp
auToTc €1 TIC ai'peoiv npoGeiH, noTepooc dv eGeAoiev biaAe-
reoGai dpxaiojc koi dKpipwc h V60xiud)c kqi djueAoac, beHaivT*
dv dvTi navToc h;uv GL^yHcpoi revojuevoi thc djueivovoc
reveoGat /joipac ol rdp tic outo^c dGAioc, d)c to aisxpdv
TOO kgAoG npOTiGevai. "Eppoioo.
^PTNIXOT EKAOrH.
TjuHjua npooTov.
"Ogtic apxaitoc koi boKijuooc eBeAei biaAereoOcxi rdb'
uuTco cpuAaKiea V
'Ekovthv ol xpH Aereiv, dAA' eBeAovTHv.
This rule is absolute, not only for Attic, but also for
Classical Greek as a whole. e/coiTTjs is not met with till
after Christ, but ideXovrri^ is used by Thucydides, i. 6o;
2. 96; 3. 20; Lysias, 181. 36; 182. 9; Isocrates, 221 ;
Demosthenes, 247. 24, and by Xenophon and Herodotus.
It means one who volunteers for a military enterprise or
perilous civil duty.
The form iOfXuvTyjp occurs in the Odyssey, 2. 291 —
eyo) 6' ava brjixov kraipovs
alyj/ edekoi'Trjpas crvWe^ofiaL'
and was beyond question that employed in early Attic. At
all events the termination -rjjp confronts the student of
' For the bearing of these words on the Ecloga as a whole, see Appendix A.
58 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Attic in such words as would naturally retain their primi-
tive shape, namely, those used in the common business and
amusements of life, such as Kparyp, a zvine-bowl, TTobavntrrip,
a foot-bath, pvTrip, a strap, Tpi-nr-qp, a pestle, TpoircoTrip, an
oar-thong, a(TTpa(f)i(TTi]p, a snr'veyors level or sight, \xvKr-{]p,
nose, nosel, and others. The same story is told by words
like jSacravLa-TrjpLov, biKaaT7]piov, (Baa-avta-Tpia, vavrpia, by the
side of ^acravta-Tris, StKatrTTj?, vavrrjs, etc. Certain officers at
Athens retained the name of app-oa-rripes till the end of the
fifth century B, C. or later, as they are mentioned by Plato,
the Comic poet, in his play of the ' Ambassadors ^.' In the
same way Kkr^ri^p survived as a law term, and never passed
into KA.rjrj7? ^.
Tragedy — that storehouse of early Attic — has preserved
very many of the old forms in -Trjp, such as oiktjtt^p, oIkktttip,
fxrivvrrip : TrpaKTrjptos in Aeschylus carries us back to TrpaKTrjp,
just as (l)vXaKTr}piov implies (pvXaKTrjp. Both irpaKTrip and
(pvXaKTi^p occur in the Homeric poems. But side by side
with the forms in -Tr]p, Tragedy supplies a large number
in -TCOp, appOCTTCOp, aKea-TCdp, KpdvTCOp, (Tr\p.AvTUip, TTpCLKTMp, aud
others. That this was no so-called poetical licence is
clearly established. Certain revenue officers at Athens
were called icpaKTopes (Antiphon, 147. 14) ; 'AKeo-rcop was
not only a surname of Apollo, but was a well-known
proper name both in Athens and in cities of other Greek
peoples (Diod. Sic. 11. ^i; 19. 5). Homer used prjT-^p,
but pTjroop took its place in Attic. In fact euphony, or
' See" Meineke, Frag. Com. 2. 658, oOev koI ap^oaTrjpas waKtv iKoXovv
A6T]vaToi Toiis ds t6 ev Cv^ biarcnTovras ws aacpm TlXarcuv 6 Kou/xi/coi SrjXoi iv
UpioHiai rw dpdfiari. -naXiv should there be replaced by vaXai. As instructors
of manners they were probably the same as the Koafirjrai or au(ppoviarai.
Meineke errs in suggesting AaKtSaipiovioi for 'AOrjvaioi. The corresponding
magistrates at Sparta had a different name, viz. 'App.6(rwoi, Hesych. s. voc.
* Schol. Ar. Vesp. 189, uXrjrrjpfs 01 /caXovvres is to SiKaar-qptov Travras'
or)naU'ti 5« 17 Kt^is ical tov fidprvpa. In the latter sense KXrjToip is found
occasionally in Demosthenes in the oblique cases, but never without the variant
leXrjTTjp, which must be read.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 59
mere accident, seemSj in many cases, to have determined
the form ultimately assumed. If /5Tjr?jp passed into pTjrwp,
how is it that throughout Greek literature o-cottjp remained
without a rival ? There is no question that -r^^i is later
than -r7]p, but the existence of -tor as a common Latin
termination, dator, stator, amator, venator, etc., seems to
prove the existence of -Tcop in Greek of a very early date.
The Attic pTjrcop, however, by the side of the Homeric
pr\Tr]p, does not stand alone. In the Odyssey the drawer of
a bow is pvTTjp yStov, in Aristophanes prcop to^ov. In the
Odyssey a defender is pvrrip, in Aeschylus pvTcop.
The old termination survived in other dialects even in
words which in Attic had lost it irreclaimably. Hippocrates
speaks of the wisdom-teeth as a-McfipovLa-Trjpci, and they
were also called Kpavrrip^s and (ppaa-Trjpes. Passing from
the dialects, these forms appeared in the Common dialect,
and Plutarch employs (ra)(/)portcrrr/p in the sense of the
Attic (T(o(f)poi'LcrTris (Cato Maj. 27). Xenophon, whose
style was distinctly an anticipation of the Common dialect,
was significantly fond of the forms in -r-qp, e. g. depairevTrip
for OepairevTiqs, in Cyr, 7. 5- ^5 > ^vp-avrrip for Aujuarrr/s in
Hiero 3.. 3 ; and apixoaT-qp for apjxoa-Tr^s in Hell. 4. 8. 39.
Although apixoa-njpfi was certainly the Lacedaemonian name
for the officers there referred to, correct Attic writers in-
variably spoke of them as app-oaraC.
Thomas Magister (p. 285) repeats* the rule of Phrynichus,
^7j drrrj^ ckoi/ttj?, aW eOikovT'qs, w? Trdyres 01 boKtixwraToi,
but adds the erroneous statement, e-n-t be tov iTnppi]p.aTos
a.p.(f)6T(pa Aeye Kal ideXovrl Koi eKOvri. There was no such
adverb as exoi/Ti in Classical Greek, and even in Arist.
Rhet. 3. 15; (1416. 16,) ov yap fKOVTi etrat avr^ dyborjKOVTa
^TT], the word is the dative of the adjective. Thucy-
didcs, however, uses lOiXovri in 8. 2, lOekovrX Iriov ctti tov^
'Mr]valov<i, and fOfKovTrjhov in a later chapter (9) of the
same book.
6o THE MCW FHRVNICHUS.
The form ^O^kovrriv in Xenophon (Mem. 2. t. 3) is
simply one of the lonicisms so frequent in his style
(Hdt. I. 5; 6. 25).
On the other hand, eKowtoy and aKovaios, with their
adverbs, were recognized Attic words, while e^eAor^o-tos and
(OeXovo-ioos have no better authority than that of Xenophon.
II.
"OniBev av€\j tou juHbenort ei'nHC, onioGev be.
In such a question manuscript authority is valueless.
Thus the un-Attic ^-noOev often replaces the genuine ^.ttcoO^v
in the manuscripts of Attic books, as in most at Thucy-
dides, 2. 81, and in some at 3. iii ; 4. 67, 92, 115, 120, 125,
126; 6. 58, 77; 8. 69. The testimony of verse makes the
long penult absolutely secure —
K&crT ov ixaKpav airoodev, dAA' ivTavOd ttov.
Ar. Av. 1184.
okiyov aiTiodcv rrjs K€(pa\r]s tov ypahiov.
Plut. 674.
Similarly o-niaOev is placed beyond question by lines like —
A. TTOV Tiov ^(TTLV ; B. i^oTTLcrOev, A. k^o-nicrd^ Wt.
Ar. Ran. 286.
In a choric passage of Aeschylus ottlO^v is encountered,
but there is no other instance even in Tragedy —
Tpo-)(r]X.ATOi(ri,v oinOev k'nop.i^voi.
Pers. 1002.
The metre demands ottiOcv, and yet the manuscripts ex-
hibit oTTicrOev without a variant. That in Attic texts o-ma-dev
remains uncorrupted is due to the fact that, even in the
Common dialect, it vigorously held its own against the
forms with the short penult. The affinity of theta for
sigma — always present in Greek from the earliest period — ■■
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 6 1
rather increased than lessened as the language aged, and
is a fact which must be carefully observed by the student
of Greek forms.
III.
'iKGoia- KQi TOUTO dboKijuov, iKexeia be.
The former word is the older, being found in Tragedy
and in a religious formula in Aeschines (70. '^'^). In the 'Ap-
paratus Sophistae' Phrynichus supplements this statement
(44. 5) : iKcreia' hia rov t, ov hia tov <t' iKeaiovs fxevroL
Xtrhs Kol Koyovs Ik€(tlovs, and unintentionally sets the in-
quirer on the right road. To the grammarian Ueo-ta was
a late form ; and he did not accept the lesson which the
adjective tKeVto? might have taught him, namely, that,
like many other ?in- Attic words employed in the Common
dialect, it was in existence, not only in other dialects, but
had also a place in undeveloped Attic itself. As a matter
of fact Ueo-ta and iKcVtoj bear the same relation to tKer//v,
tKerewcu as bruxoaios to Sr/z^orrj?, di]iJ.OTev(x), and TTpocrTd(riO<i to
■npo<TT6.Tr]s, TTpoa-TaTevd). Accordingly, there might have been
a hrjixQTilv and a Ik^t^iv by the side of brnxuTevetu and [<€-
T€V€Lv as well as a irpocrTaTiiv by the side of Trpoa-TaTeveLv.
[k€ti]p is not found even in Homer, although Hesychius
has preserved a form tKeropewco from i/veVoop. Moreover,
iKerr/(Tto9 by the side of iKfT-qpios seems to indicate that the
change from iKerrip to UeV^ys' took place early.
Most verbs in -fvcu are of a comparatively late origin.
The ending is simply that of the naturally-formed aXuviu,
l3a(Ti\(V(u, iTnTfVd}, and the like, applied to other stems.
The verbs evo), bevo), vtvm, K^kfVM, OepaTrevoj stand on a dif-
ferent footing and must be eliminated from the inquir)-.
Apart from them there are over two hundred verbs in -ei^'oj,
and of these little more than twenty belong to the group
6a THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
regularly formed from substantives in -ev?. These, how-
ever, are mostly old words found in the Homeric poems,
while a very large proportion of the others is not found till
long after that date. Most are from substantives in -o?,
-ov, like bea-fxevcti, hovXevoo, Kivbvv€vu>, /xeraAAevco from 5e(r/xo?,
bovXos, Kivbvvos, and jxhaXkov, a few from adjectives in -os,
like TrepL(T(T€vci) from TTepia-cros, and 7rrco)(eva) from 77ra))(09,
while the other two declensions are fairly represented.
The group which contains iKerevo) is not large — akr}T€V(o,
yoriTevci), brjfxoreijofxat, bwaaTevo), €iJ.j3aTevcii, CTroTrreva), iStcorefoo,
Xr]crT€V(D, \xacmvu>, ixprjcrTevo), 6ttXlt€V0i), ttoXi.T€Vu>, irpocrTaTevoi,
TTpo(f)r]Tevco, TtvKTevoo, (ro(f)t(rTevco, Tpam^LTivu), vTroirrevo). The
verb ^evLTevoixai, serve as a mercenary, is a remarkable in-
stance of formation by false analogy. Forms like ^eyirrj?
from ^ivo^ are quite unknown to Greek, and the verb could
never have been used except o-nkiT^voi and rpaTreC'^revo) had
prepared the way for it.
IV.
'YnobeirMC oube toGto opGooc Aerexai" napdbeiriua Aere.
Xenophon (Eq. 2. 2) anticipates the Common dialect
in using v-nobuyp-a for irapab^iyp-a. In Attic vT:obdKvvp.i was
never used except in its natural sense of show by impli-
cation ; but in Herodotus and Xenophon it signifies to
mark out, set a pattern. Herod. 1. 89, KarireLve axoivo'
Tcveas vTTobe^as btwpvxas : Xen. Mem, 4. 3. 13, avTol oi 6eol
OVTCOS VTTobeiKvvova-iv.
This comparison of the half-hearted vTr6bei,yfxa, with the
masculine and straightforward irapab^iyixa, well brings out
the distinction between the Attic dialect on the one hand,
and the Ionic and the Common dialect on the other.
There is more tone about vTrobeiyp-a, but ■napab^iyp.a has
common sense to recommend it.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 63
V.
'QvdjuHv, covaoo, covaro ndvia dboKijua orav bid toO a.
rd rdp dpxala bid tou h, oovhjuhv, covhgo, wvhto.
The Indicative forms in alpha came at a late date from
the genuine 6val\iy\v and ovaaOac, and were sometimes im-
ported into Attic texts, as in Eur. H. F. 1368 —
where the manuscripts exhibit o)vaa-d€. The true form was
preserved by the metre in Ale. '^'^^ —
0eo69 y^vicrdai ' crov yap ovk divi]fxe6a.
Veitch has treated the verb with his usual care. It is
observable that Xenophon has in one passage coined
<l}in]6r]v, although wvqixriv was ready to his hand.
The aorist o)vrifxrjv, from 6vLvr]iJ.i,, may be instructively com-
pared with €'!Tki]ixr]v, from -niixiTXriixi, which, compounded with
€v, was in common use at Athens —
cntohpa^ yap ks ti]v ymvlav, Tvpov -noXvv
Ar. Vesp. 910.
ivdvs yap 0)9 iviirkriTO iroXkCiv KayaQC>v.
Id. 1304.
In its imperative, e/x-n-Arjo-o (Vesp. 603), and its participle,
(p.TTkrip.(voi (Vesp. 424, 984, Eccl. 51, Eq. 935), it corre-
sponded with dvLvi]p.i. ; but its infinitive was undoubtedly
fp.TTKfjadaL, and its optative, ^y.Tikrnxr]v (Ach. 236), followed
the analogy of the perfect optatives j3([iX^p.r^v and p.€-
Cobet is unquestionably right in restoring (vtirkiivro for
ivcntTTkiqvTo in Lysias, 180. 5 (28. 6), ovtms, £> &i>bp€^ 'Adrj-
valoi, (ireLOr] Td)(^LtTTa ^vi-nkr\vTo kuI tG)v vpfripoiv air^kavaav
KT(.
64 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
VI.
Mexpic KQi axpic guv tco o, dboKijua- jueXP^ ^^ ^^^
d'xpi Aere-
The question has been settled by Wecklein in Curae
Epigraphicae, p. 51, where he quotes from Attic inscrip-
tions, IJ-^XP'- ^icLKoa-idiv (bis), /u,expt avhpQtv, ju.expt tov rera-
y}xtvov, and axpt rjy? avvayoiyri^. Stone records exhibit no
instances of the forms with sigma even before a vowel,
and the same lesson is taught by metre. The words are
unknown to Tragedy, except that M^'xpt? occurs in a des-
perately corrupt line of Sophocles —
TOV TTolha Tovh^ irpos hofjLOVS (fj-ovs ay(t>v
TeAa/ji(3j't bcC^ei ixrjrpi t\ 'Epi/3oia Aeyo),
toy (r(f)LV yevrjTat yrjpofioa-Kos dcraeC'
/xexpty ov fxvxovs kcxcocti tov Kara) Oeov.
Ajax 571.
Most manuscripts have p-^xpi-s ov, the Cod. Ven. /xe'xP'j
others /jie'xP'^ ^^' which has the questionable support of
Suidas, sub vocibus y»]po/3oo-/<co and fxvxos. Though the
broken anapaest /^e'xP^^ ^^ may pass as an extension of the
licence allowed even in Tragedy to prepositions followed
immediately by their case, yet the variety of readings
justify eor' hv p-vxovs, the conjecture of Hermann, p.^xP'-^
ov, pexpts, p-^XP'- having crept into the text from the
margin. In Aesch. P. V. 376, p.ixP'-^ is a manuscript gloss
on the primitive io-T ai>, but has not replaced the latter
in the text.
In Comedy there is not one instance of axpi'S or p^xP'-^
demanded by the metre, but even if lines like Eq. 964 —
x/zcoAoy yeveadai Sei ae p-^XP'- '''"^ p.vppivov,
are not regarded as absolutely conclusive, there is still a
line of Antiphanes (Ath. 10. 441) in which /xe'xpts could
certainly not stand —
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 6^
/xe'xpt yap rptwr 8ety ^acrt Ti\mv tovs deovs.
In the New Comedy, by which time fAe'xpt av with the
mood of a verb was not only a tolerated but a recognised
construction^ the hiatus is in manuscripts sometimes
avoided by reading /^e'xpt?, but that form was certainly
never used even by the latest writers of Comic verse —
Kot TovTo TTCtiKelv jJ-^xpi- civ uxrirep kv ipdvco
vtt' olvoTicaXov.
Diphilus (Athen. 11. 499 D.).
The grammarians are singularly at one on this point.
Moeris, p. 34, a^pt, avev tov cr 'ArrtKO)?, axpis 'EAATjytKws :
Herodian, Philet'. 45 1> «XP' '^"' M^'XP' "^^^ "^^^ ^' "^^ ^^ ^^
tQ (T^lctiVLKov : Thomas Mag. I35> o.\pi koX jJ-ixP'- Qovuvbihp
ael Aeyet, 011 p.6vov (TTayop.4vov aviJ.(f)covov, akka koI (fxavqevTos,
and although he adds, ol be akkoi, iirayoiievov ixovov (pu^vri-
iVTO^, KoX fXfTa TOV (T Kol )(a>pt? TOV cr yp6.(f)0V(nv olov axpis
ov Koi &xpi. ov, there is no doubt that to all Attic texts
the shorter forms should be restored, without any regard
to manuscripts, as even in Thucydides the copyists fol-
lowed no rule, but wrote either indifferently.
VII.
'Ani'vai, npooivai, eSivai, Karivai, ndvra dboKijua dveu
Tou e AeroMGva. xpH rdp ovv toj e dnievai, eSievai Aereiv.
VIII.
EiGieTO)' KOI nepl toutou outcoc eox^. AoAAiavoc dKOu-
oac OTi xpH GUV T('u € eloievui Aereiv eira uneAape koi to
eloiTO) eioieTco beiv AereoOai.
That Lollianus was himself a Greek and taught at
F
66 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Athens shortly before Phrynichus wrote, vividly illustrates
the condition into which the Attic dialect had fallen in
the first half of the second century A.D. Those who desire
more information about Lollianus may consult Philostratus,
de Vitis Sophistarum, i. 23. 526, but he gets more than
his due in Suidas : AoAAiai^o?. 'Ec^ecrioj, o-o^tor?/?, fjiadrjTrjs
'la-aiov tov ^ Aaavpiov ycyorcos errl 'Abpiavov tov KatVapo?'
IX.
'Ejunxuei juou Mnbajuwc Aepe, dAAoi KararrTuei juou, kqi
KaxenTuoa auroO.
Scaliger proposed to substitute p-ot for ixov after e/xTrruei,
in spite of the fact that e/x7rryei fj-ov seems quite possible
in late Greek.
In the Septuagint and the New Testament, kix-nrvoi is
frequently encountered in the sense of the Attic KaTa-nrvo).
Mk. 10. 34, Koi iixTTaC^ovaiv avT^ Kol pLa(rTiy(a(Tov<TLV avTov koL
€\x-nTV(TovcrLv avT(2, kol aironTivovo-Lv avTov : id. 14. 65, koi
T]p^avT6 TLve? kp-Trrvuv avT<2 : id. 15. 19, koI iveiTTVov avT(^.
Lobeck quotes from Galen, 13. 940 D, kp.-nTV€i toIs (T(hp.acn
TOV lov.
In Attic ipTTTvo) could only be used of spitting in a
vessel, etc., like kvovpQ), whereas Kara-nrvoi, KarayeXca, Kadv-
^piCoi, corresponded to KarovpSi.
It is the same difference which confronts us in lyx^o^ and
Karaxe'co. ^yx'^'^^v is legitimately used with the dative in
the meaning pour in —
p.iQv 8' Ik KprjTTJpos a(f)'V(T(ra)v
olvo)(^6os (poph](rL Kal ky^iirf beTrdea-crtV
Od. 9. 10.
(pipe Tr]v olvi]pvcnv
tv otvov ^yx^^ Xa^oiv is tovs xo'as"
Ar. Ach. 1067.
THE NEW PHRVNICHUS. S']
and Karax^oj with the genitive in the sense of pour
over, —
(T(po)lv ixdka TToWcLKts vypov eAaioy
yairauiv Karix^ve.
II. 23. 282.
dA.A.' iTiTiepiov [J-ov Kari^^^^ "^^^ XPVH-^'^^^^'
At. Nub. 74.
dAA' iyo) ei8oy ovap, koI juov8o/<et ?} 6eo? avr?)
rou 8?//xou Karax^'i^v apvTaCvr] irXovOvyUiav.
Eq. 1090.
Plato, Legg. 800 D, kviore Ttdcrav ^Ka(T<pr]iJ.iav rSiv Upoiv
Karax^ova-t. In Rep. 398 A, the preposition is expressed,
Tov \j.vpov Kara r?/s K€(f)aXrjs Karax'^o.vTf.s. In late Greek,
however, eyx^'^ was used for Karax^oi, just as e/Airn^oj for
KaraTiTvoi. Synes. Ep. 140, p. 276 C, rt ovv -noTvia, koI tols
i-L<TToKats TMV haKpvoiv eyxets ; in such words kv has never
the force of o?i, at, over, in Attic Greek, but, when it does
not mean in, is simply intensive. Thus kvopu> is justly
used in Ar. Ach. 11 29 —
ivopta yipovra SetXias (j)€V^ovfj.evoi',
and in Plato, Gorg. 447 B, ey xPW^"^^^ KaracrKevf] KaKiav
dXkr]v TLva ivopas ?) -nevCav ; Dem. 401. 17, ijpeTo rCva h avria
p.iKpoy\rvx'io-v ivecapaKcas e?rj. But no genuine Attic writer
could have used it as Xenophon does in Cyr. i. 4. 27,
h(u>pa^ jutoi, ' you looked at me,' though such a use would
have been tolerated in Ionic and late Greek. On the other
hand, Iv intensive was frequently added to the simple
verb by the best Attic writers, as evi]\\(To in Ar. Vesp.
ojo-irep Kaxpvojv ovihiov (VMxrjixivov
ivqWer, ((TKCf>Ta, ^TTcnopbei, /careyeAa.
(vTpaye in Eq. 51 —
(vOnv, i')6(l)i](Tov, IvTpay, ^x^ TpiwftoKov,
and in some words the simple form had completely dis-
F 2
6 8 THE NE W PHR YNICHUS.
appeared before the compound, as in iixTTLTTprjixi, eroxAw,
€vavTLovixat, etc. In some cases the analogy of the Latin
in is so hkely to suggest itself, that it is not surprising
to find iyyeXoi generally regarded as the equivalent of
ii'rideo, and e/x7ratX<« of illudo, etc. As a matter of fact,
it will be difficult to discover a single instance, in Attic
Prose or Comedy, of kjxiTaiCio in the sense of Trpoa-nai^ai or
KaraTTal^u), of kyy^KGi in that of irpocryeXo) or KarayiXo), and
of ejjLTTv^o) in that of KaraTrveo).
In Aristophanes the h in kvv^piCoi, Thesm. 719, is simply
intensive —
aAA' ov fj.a rw dew tA)(^ ov yaipoiv to"ooy
ivvjSpLi'i Xoyovs Ae^ei? r' avocriovs'
and kvvfipiCoi might be followed by KarS. to convey the
meaning of KaOv^piCojxai, just as Kara is used after eyyeAw
by Sophocles —
6 8' ey h6p.0Ls Tvpavvos, S rdkas eyw,
KOivfj Kad^ 7]p.6)V eyyeXoiv ajipyverai.
O. C. 1339.
In Tragedy as in Ionic there is no question that iv in
compounds had occasionally a force similar to that of
KarSt. or Trpo?, but such a use must be distinctly denied in
genuine Attic writers. Accordingly, if Porson's conjecture
of eyyeAwo-i for dyyeAovcrt be admitted in the lines of Eu-
bulus, quoted by the Scholiast on Eurip. Med. 476, the
word is intended as a hit at Tragic diction —
EivptTTibov b' e(r(i}(ras w? tcracn croi
Kol rots" €\xoi(nv eyyeAwcrt Tn']fj.a(TLv
TO (rlyixa (TvkX.4^avTes d)s avTol a6(f)oi.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 69
X.
EuKOijei' KOI toOto dnoTptnou.
This is the only place in which the word evKOirelv is
found, although fj-ovoKOLTovixev occurs in Aristophanes (Lys.
592), (TK\rjpoKOLTdv in Hippocrates (338. 23), a-TLJBahoKOLTdv
in Polybius (2. 17. 10), and Strabo (3. 155). aWpioKoaeXv
in Theocritus (8. 78). Phrynichus himself has preserved
(^OpfXOKOLTiiv (App. Soph. 70. 5) : ^OpiXOKOiTdV TO CTTt ^OpilOV
KaO^vbetv. ^opixos 8e ecrrt TtXiyp-a tl in (f)keu>. TaTTerai eirl
Xvirpcas Kot KaKbis KOtjxuipJvctiv, o{/8' e^'^^'^^^ Kvd(paX\ov. Here
some particular usage of evKOLrelv is doubtless reprehended.
Lobeck supposes that Phrynichus is deprecating the use
of its imperative in the sense of £;ood nigJit. Had such
a usage been classical, it would certainly have been referred
to by Lucian in his discussion of the different forms of
address ('TTrep tov iv rf] -npoaayopeva-eL Trraia-juaTos), along
with yalp^, vyiaive, ippaxro.
XL
EuxapiGTeiv oubeic toov boKijucov elnev, oiAAd X^P^^
elbevai.
The word evx^ipicrros is of some interest. In pure Attic
writers it occurs neither in the sense of gracious nor
grateful, but Xcnophon employs it in both these mean-
ings, Cyr. 2. 2. T, del /Jiey ovv k-i\xi\(iTo 6 KCpos Sttcos iv\a-
pKTTOTar 01 re ci/xa Ao'yoi i\i^\r\Q-l](rovTai : Cyr. 8. 3. 49, Kat
yap ftekTKTTOV TiAvroiv rcav (oiMV ijy^iro 6.v9pu)iTov €Lvat /cat
(vxapifTTOTaTov. Even ^vxapia-Telv, to bc grateful^ ^vyapi(TTia,
gratitude, would not have been out of place in his style.
The meaning gratias agcre is first attached to the verb
in Polybius, e.g. t6. 25. i, o tCw 'AOrjvaicav 87)^0? e^e'7re/x7re
70 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
7Tp€(rj3€VTas Trpos "kxrakov top fiaaiXia tovs a}xa \xkv evxapt-
(TT'qo-ovTas eirl rots yeyovoaL ktc, and became frequent after
his time.
XII.
"Apri hSco jUHbenore ei'nHC eni toG jueAAovTOc dAA' eni toO
evesTHKCTOC Kai toC napai)(Hjuevou, dpri hkoo, dpri c(9ik6juhv.
Two instances of dpn with the future used to be quoted
from Attic writers, one from Plato, Charm. 172 D, a-Ke^w-
IxeOa d apTL koI T]}xas ov^aei, the other from Antiphanes
(Athen. 8. 338 E}—
S Zed, TiS TTOTf,
CO KaAAt/xeScoi', ere Kareber apri t&v (})l\oov ;
but apa Tt has been restored to Plato with manuscript
authority, and Meineke is unquestionably right in reading
KaribeTapa roiv (f)i\o)v in the Comic poet. The word does
not occur in Homer, and appears first in literature in
Theognis 997 —
riixos b' Tje'Aios /xey iv aWipt p.(awya^ Xtitiovs
apTL irapayyikkoL, ixia-a-arov rjixap ^^oiv.
Attic writers frequently add vvv or vvvi, as Ar. Lys. 1008,
apTL vvvl }xavdavoi. apri corresponds exactly to the English
adverb jtist, and, like it, may be used both of past and
present time, hayyos, on the other hand, is always at-
tached to past tenses —
'4vay)(os y6.p irore
in: ak<pLTaiJ.oi.(3ov TrapeKOTTrjv bixotvCK(o.
Ar. Nub. 639.
It never occurs in Tragedy, vcuxttI being used instead..
The latter word is, however, itself an excellent prose form.
The synonym irpoa-cfidTMs, so frequent in the Common dia-
lect, is unknown to Attic, although it doubtless existed in
other dialects in pre-Macedonian times. Pindar, Pyth. 4.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 71
extr. has the neuter of the adjective in an adverbial sense,
TTpocrcpaTov Q7](3q ^evcoO^LS.
Sophocles is the first author in whose writings aprms is
encountered as an equivalent of apTi. In writers posterior
to him both forms are found. The circumstance that in
Sophocles apTLODs occurs thirty-three times, apn only thir-
teen times, while in Euripides apTL is met with as often as
apTiois, and in other writers more often, adds some colour to
the opinion that apTLcos was first coined by Sophocles. Cer-
tainly Aeschylus never employs the term, and that Xeno-
phon eschews it goes to prove that it was a peculiarly Attic
formation. In another passage (App. Soph. 11. 19) Phry-
nichus tells us that the Atticists distinguished between apn
and apTL(t}9, but no distinction is traceable in Attic writers.
The word aprt is never equivalent to vvv in Classical
Greek. Accordingly, the Anti-atticist in Bekk. An. 79
must be in error : 'ATrtiprf avrl tov apn airb vvv. YlXdrcav
So^to-rai?. The meaning of airapTi is in Attic very dif-
ferent. The preposition has the same strengthening force
that is seen in airepyaCeo-Oai, d.-navhpovv. The primitive
meaning exactly, is not found in Attic, but occurs in Ionic.
Its Attic signification, jtist the reverse^ quite the contrary,
is of course due to irony, and a-naprl belongs to that con-
siderable class of expressions by which Athenian vivacity
lent colour to dialogue and repartee. For example, when
the Nurse in the Medea would call the Paedagogus a fool
for estimating their mistress' passion too lightly, she uses
a phrase which was probably familiar even to vulgar ears,
and from attrition had lost the tov vov which originally
belonged to it —
{VjAco ri ' Iv opx^fj irijixa KOvbtTToj //errot.
Eur. Med. 60.
So firmly attached had its secondary meaning become to
airopTi, that it retained it even in the middle of a sentence,
and to qualify a verb —
72 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ovK, u) KaKobaiixov, aXka tovs Xprjo-Tovs jxovovs
eycayc, /cat tovs be^iovs koL crcocppovas
airapTt irXovTrja-at Trotrjo-oj.
Ar. Plut. 388.
There is a lucid note on this word in Bekk. An. i. 418,
which bears the marks of being by an early and able hand :
'ATrapri* Trap' 'HpoSoVo) crr]iJ.aCv€i to a.TrrjpTLcriJ.ivoiS kol aKpt^w?.
diro TouTOu eiCTi CTrdSiot x^^ioi aTrapTi els toi' 'ApajSiKOf k^Xttoi' ^ Trapa
be Tols Kco/xtKOis, to e/c tov ivavriov. ^€p€KpdTr]s KpaTairdWoLs —
A. TL bal ; rt cravTov diroTiveLv rwS' d^iots ^ ; (ppdcrov fxoL.
B. cnrapTl brj ttov irpoaXa^elv Trapa Tovb^ ^ycoye p.d\Xov.
KopLavvol —
cnrapTl p.\v ovv ipiol p,ey cIkos ear ipav,
(Tot ovK^o copa.
nxdrcoy KXeocpcavTL —
dAA' avTos aTraprl rdAXorpt' oi)(7;(ret (pepoov.
Ta)(^a be 6 TTjAeKAetS?;? ojuotcos rw 'HpoSoVw Ki\pr\Tai'
(TV 8e (})p6viixos avTos coy
CLTrapTl Tavrrjs tj]s T€^vrjS,
fJLi]TTOT ovv TO jxev 7rAr/pe? Kat a'nrjpTKTp.ivov orav crr]p.aCvr) o^vto-
velrai, to 8' ivavrCov /^apvveTai. It is quite possible that
Teleclides, an early comic poet, used the word in its
primitive sense ; but in the passage quoted by the Gram-
marian the context is required to prove that it does not
bear its ordinary Attic signification.
XIII.
Tejua)(oc Kpeooc h nAaKoCvroc h dprou ouk opBooc epeT
TIC, dAAd TojLioc Kpecoc H nAaKoCvTOc" to be Tejua)(oc juovov
eni ix9uoc.
This usage, inculcated again by Phrynichus in App.
^ Hdt. 2. 158; cp. id. 5. 53, dvaiaifiovvrai fjfiipai dirapTi tvtvqicovra:
Hippocr. 390. 46, ws (-nl to jrovA.v d-rrapTl iv roiai Kaipoiai fura^aWovai is Tck
^ocp-qfiaTa in tt}s Kfveayyeiris.
' MSS. ris aiirdv anoKTtivti t6 5' d£iois ; emendavit Lobeck.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 73
Soph. 6^, and by Thomas and Suidas^ is never departed
from till post-Attic times —
apTov Kal Kpeas Kal T^jxaxos.
Ar. Eq. 283.
apTovs, T€p.a)(ri, ixd(as.
Eccl. 606.
TTokv \prjp.a TeiJ.a)(^u>v nal Kpe&v b)TTTy]ix^v(ov.
Plut. 894.
Kcarpav T^p-a^rj peyaXav ayaOav Kpia t opviO^ta KL^r\Xav.
Nub. 339.
How large a place fish occupied in the dietary of the
Athenians may be indirectly illustrated by the well-known
saying of Aeschylus given by Athenaeus (8. 347 E), ras
avTov Tpayutbias T^p-ayji elvai lAeye roiv 'Op.ripov p.eydku)v
In Attic writers rop-os occurs with the following geni-
tives : dWavTos, sausage, Pherecrates, Eubulus, Aristo-
phanes, Mnesimachus ; (pvarKrj^, large sausage, Pherecrates,
Mnesimachus ; yoph^'i, small sausage, Cratinus, Axionicus,
Mnesimachus ; yophapiov, id., Alexis ; rvpov, cheese, Eu-
bulus, Ephippus ; p.i]Tpas, swine's paunch, Teleclides ; ?}yv-
(TTpov, tripe, Mnesimachus; irXaKovvTos, cake, Ar. Eq. 1190.
The distinction between the words is brought into relief
in Ar. Eq. 1177 fif. —
rTa^Aaycoy.
tovtX Tip.a\6s (roiibuxev t] <i>oPecn(rTp6.Trj.
' Ak\avTOi:u)\r]s.
7) 8' 'Oftpip-OTiaTpa y k(f)06v ck ^co/xoi; Kpeas,
Koi \6X.iK0S, rjvvarTpov re, /cat yaarpos Top-ov.
Probably Attic stood alone in thus differentiating these
two kindred words. At all events, in the Common dialect
the distinction was not observed. The value of a language
as a vehicle of expression is enhanced by adroit mani-
pulation of superfluous forms. English has been greatly
enriched in this way, as is indicated by the presence in
literary English, in distinct senses, of elder, older, eldest,
74 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
oldest, later, latter, last, latest, brothers, brethren, and
many other words originally identical in signification. In
fact, there are few better tests of a language than the way
in which it utilises its waste.
XIV.
"Ajuuvav juH ei'nHC, otAA' eic pHjiia juerapdAAoov, djuuvacear
ndvra rdp to tou pHjuaroc euboKijua, djuuvoOjuai, djUuvaaGai,
HjuuvdjuHV, djuuvoCjuev.
Like ttAwo), and a few other verbs in -wco, aixvvoi has no
noun from which it may be considered to be derived.
Verbs in -vvoi are few in number, and nine tenths of them
are, like ^aOvvoD from ^aOvs, KaKvvoa from KaKos, ala-^^yvco from
atcrxos, formed from an existing noun by the help of the
suffix -vvo). The a in aij-vvco is beyond question euphonic,
as is seen from the Homeric fxvvrj (Od. 21. iii), in the
sense of a putting off, akX* aye, jm?) //w?jo-i TrapeAKere Kve.,
and the verb ixvvoixat, employed by Alcaeus in a similar
sense, ovhi n y.vvaiJ.evos 6.kXo v6^}xa. The root is of ex-
traordinary fertility in Latin, moenia, munio, immunis, etc.
There are two ways of accounting for the substantive
a^ivva, which, according to Lobeck, is first found in writers
of the first century A. D., such as Philo and Plutarch. Either
it entered the Common dialect from the dialects — a sup-
position which is supported by the ex'stence of [xvvr] — or
it was formed at a late date on the analogy of evOvva.
Of the forty or so verbs in -vvco which are found in Attic,
€v6vvco is differentiated from the others by having an ad-
jective eiiOvvos allied to it, and in this respect another verb,
namely, aio^woj, meets it half way by having a substantive
al(r)(yvy] among its kin. As has been shown, aixvv(a stands
on a different footing from either of these words ; but yet
it is quite possible that a\xvva was due to a false derivation.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
IS
evOvvu)
evOvvos evdvva
evOvvrrip
al(r)(yv(o
aicrxyvrj
alcrxvvTrjf)
afxvvoi
aixvva
ajxvvTrip.
The former explanation is, however, the more probable,
and receives valuable support from the form x.'^iy.cniwa,
Pollux 7* 6ij ^o )(jci[iepivov l[j.6.TL0v xi^'uxacTTpov av kiyots, Kal
XXalvav be TTa\{iav rjv x^^H'*^H'"^°'^' M^^ At(r)(vXos, "O/xrjpos 8e
a\e^avep.ov KiKXrjKev.
XV.
'AnoTOiGOOjuai ooi eK9uAov ndvu. ypH Aereiv aond^ojuai
06. ouTOi roip KOI 01 dpxaiol eupioKOVTai Aerovrec eneibdv
dnaAAaTTOiVTai dAAHAwv.
The sense of aTTOTda-creLv in pre-Alexandrine Greek is
fo assign. Plato, Theaet. 153 E, p.r\hi nv avrCd x.'^pov airo-
'^^ijl^ '• Dern. 238. 8, (v rot? (PpovpCois aT70T€Tayix4voi, having
posts assigned them., stationed. The use of the preposition
is identical with that in d7ro/3Ae7rco, and a(f)op(a, airoTaa-aruv
meaning, to post in one place, disregarding all others, as
a-no'iiklireiv and a(f)opav mean, to look in one direction, dis-
regarding all others.
The usage referred to by Phrynichus is very frequent
in late writers, as Nov. Test. Luc. 9. 61, Trpwroy 8c cTrirpf-
"^ov fxoL aTTord^aaOaL rots eJs tov oIkov \xov : Acts 18. 18,
6 oe Ylav\o<i toIs dhiKcfyois diroTa^dixevos e^e'TrAei et? ti}v
Still more strangely, (rvvrdn-a-ojiai seems to have been
employed in a similar signification, Pallad. Anth. Pal. 9.
171, Aoyot, (TvvT<!i(T(Top.ai v\uv. In the Pseudosophist, Lucian
tells us how his friend Socrates took off a stranger who
used the word in this absurd sense (56'5), Xiyovro^ hi tivos,
^VViTOL^aTO fMOL' KOL Koy^OV h(, If/)??, HerOf/jWy (ItT( (TWiTOL^aTO.
76
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
XVI.
ZHjLidvai, esHjucivav, Kai eepjudvai, eOepjuavav, kqi KaSapat,
eKotGapav" koi rauja napd thv dpxaiav xpHGiv bid toG a.
Aerojuev &£ bid toO h, oHjuHvai, GepjuHvai, Kaenpai.
XVII.
' EcpAerjucive, 9Aerjudvai" koi raCra bid roO h.
These remarks of Phrynichus start a question of some
importance and of great difficulty. As regards verbs in
-atpo) there can be no doubt about the Attic rule ; the
aorist is invariably formed in eta, as atpco, r\pa, ly^Qaipin,
ij-)(^9ripa, Kadaipoi, (KctO-qpa, craipoi, ea-qpa, TeKp.aipop.ai, €T€k-
pLrjpdp.y]v. But with verbs in -alvco the case is different.
As far as the statement of Phrynichus goes it is absolute,
for verbs in which the -atVo) is preceded by mu take eta
without exception in the aorist tense —
kKp.aivut
k^ip.riva
TT7]p.aLVU)
kTrr]p.r]va
6ep[xaLV(D
kdipp.rjva
TTOtp.aiVU)
kiToip.riva
KVp.aLV(0
iKvp.r]va
cnip.aivM
€(rrip.riva
X.v[xaivopiai
iXvp.rivdp.rjv
(^Aey/xaii'co
i(f)kiyp.r]va.
With those verbs in -aCvo) which his note does not em-
brace there is more difficulty. Two classes, however, are
uniform, namely, verbs in -paCvoi and verbs in -Laivco. In
the aorist of verbs in -paivoi the alpha of the present is
invariably retained —
hva^epaCvdi
khvcr)(ipava
^rjpaivdi
k^r\pava
kpvOpaivu)
Tjpvdpava
TTepaivd)
eirepava
€V(PpaiV(o
r}V(})pava
TTLKpatVCO
eiTLKpava
eyOpaivoi
rjx^dpava
paivu>
^ppava
K-qpaivo}
€Kr]pava
vypULVco
vypava
p.apaivu)
ep-dpava
vhpaivoi
vbpava
podpaivu)
€p.(apava
Xpaivco
ey^pava.
When Veitch, sub p.apaLV(o, says, 'In the aorist of this
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 77
verb even the Attics retain a,' he adds one more to the
long Hst of erroneous remarks which disfigure a work of
incalculable utility and enormous labour. It is true that
gtererprjraro occurs in Aristophanes, but it is there employed
to produce a burlesque effect —
h.Kor\ h\ xodvqv^ aira bi^TeTprjvaTO.
Thesm. i8.
It is only one instance out of many in which EvptTriSapioro-
(pavta-iJLOs has misled grammarians who regard rather the
letter than the spirit of Attic law. 'In the beginning,'
Euripides is represented as saying, ' Ether drilled ears,
a channel for hearing,' and he aptly uses the Homeric
iTeTprjvaTo, going even in language as near the beginning
as he can. The Attic form was hp-qa-a, hpr](Tap.r]v.
The verb Tpv(f)epaivopiat is a passive deponent, and oaf^pai-
vo\iai has for aorist u)a(})p6p.r]v.
The rule as to verbs in -laivca is equally stringent —
aypiaivoi riypiava
fxtaLvco ep-Lava
vyiaivoi vyLava
)(\i.aCv(o €)(kLava.
Homer uses Ihi-qva, as he uses kp.ir\va, vbpijva, etc., but if
an Attic writer, even a Tragic poet, had had occasion to
use the aorist of biaivco, he would have replaced ebirjva by
(hiava, just as Euripides replaced kp.irjva by ep-tava, and
vhpr]vaiJ.i]v by vbpavdp,r]v.
Of the five verbs in -kaivco one only is found in the aorist,
namely, KoiKaivoi, and that has indisputably (KotXava. Ac-
cordingly, the aorists of the others may be safely formed on
its analogy —
OvcTKokaivo) ibvaKokava
pekalvoj ep.ikava.
' The accepted emendation of Dobree for the MSS. dKOT)v Si x""'''/'-
78 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The fifth verb, aXaivo), goes no further than the present
stem.
The same method will, on the analogy of KaTeykvKavaTo ^
and wpyava, supply an aorist eAev/caya to XevKaivco, €K(ikx,(^va
to KaX)(ct(.Vft), r](TeKyava to aa-eXyalvco, and ((BdcrKava to l3acrKaivoo.
The few that remain admit of no classification. Aeschy-
lus has aitav-qvafxivas (Eum. 972), Euripides avrivaadai (Med.
237), but "Lc-yvava occurs in the same play of Aeschylus
(267), and in Aristophanes (Ran. 941). Isocrates employs
yake'nr]vavTes {62. a.), but Aristophanes TreiravaL (Vesp. 646),
and Axionicus Xiiravas (Athen. 8. 342 B).
Ought 'rTa7TTi]vas in Sophocles (Ant. 1231), and ereKTT]-
vavTo in Euripides (I. T. 951), to set the law to kiraCvoi,
aKokacTTaLvoi, and aixadaCvio, or should the last be seriated
with eKepbava, a common form in Attic ? Were the aorists
of Kpahaivu) and ykihaivop-ai, eKpdbrjva, i)(kLbrivd[xr]v or €Kpd-
bava, k-)(kihavdp.r]v, and did Xeaivu) and bvcrpLiveaivoii form their
aorist with alpha or eta ? These questions will always
remain unanswerable. This, however, is certain, that in
Attic Greek the four verbs a-aivu), ^aivo), v^aivio, (f^aivu), pre-
ferred eta —
^aCvo) e^Tj
va
>/
craivu) €<jr]va
vcpaivu) v(\>riva,
(paCvco ^(f)7]va
and in the same series the Euripidean word TTvpa-acvoo may
be placed, whereas iTvppaCvco, if used in Attic, certainly
formed an aorist k-nvppava.
XVIII.
Aicopia ecxoiTcoc dboKijuov. avj aurou hk npoeeojuicfv epe?c.
The eo-xtirco? is certainly not out of place. It is difificult
' In the Urwxoi of Chionides, quoted by Athen. 14. 638 D —
TavT ov fid. Aia rfrjanrnos, oiiSt KkiOfXivrjs,
Iv kvvi av xop^o-'^^ KaTiyXvKavaTO.
HaTey\vK-f]vaTO is merely a conjecture of Person's.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 79
to discover how Siwpta came to take the place of irpodecrixLa,
and to discuss the question would demand an acquaintance
with the slums of language which few would care to
possess.
XIX.
'Avelvai eAaico h oSei h dAAco rivi Aerouoiv 01 larpoi,
ndvu d]ua0a)c- hei rdp bieivai Aereiv.
From the literal signification of let run through, btUvuL
readily came to mean steep, saturate —
CTretr ecpAa
Iv TTJ dvia crvixTTapaixiyvvcov oirbv
Koi crylvoV etr o^et btijxevos '2(^r]TT(.w,
KaT€TTka<r€v avrov to, jSkicpapa kt€.
At. Pint. 720.
Alexis, Uovrjpd (Ath. 4. 170 C) —
TO Tpip.p! iTTfnoktji evpvdpicos hieipivov
o^€t, (TLpaico xpcop-aTLcras kt€.
Sotades, 'EyxAetoVeyat (Ath. 7. 293 D) —
Opioicri ravrrjv [api-iav) ciAt? eAaStw Steis.
The word is frequently so used by Hippocrates^ but
later scientific writers, like Galen, employ avUvai, which,
if ever equivalent to buevai, must have developed such a
meaning from that of dissolve, break up.
XX.
TTepieooeuoev dAAoKOTOOC-. €XpHV rdp enepioGeuoe Aereiv,
The word 7repio-(revw is one of the few verbs which arc
not included in the Attic rule, that, whether a verb is com-
pounded with a preposition, or only appears to be so
8o THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
compounded, it takes the augment after the prepositional
or pseudo-prepositional syllable or syllables. So accus-
tomed had the ear become to encounter the augment after
the prepositions that it was still placed after upo, Ik, virip,
TTepC, i-TTL, etc., in verbs directly formed from substantives
and adjectives compounded with them, and even in verbs
beginning with syllables identical in sound with preposi-
tions, but really in no way related to them. Thus, there
is no ^jjrevco, crTaTU), cnrovhSi, yi.a^Q>, ctltm, (})a(TiCoiJLai, but
nevertheless the genius of the Greek language demanded
TTpoe(f)r]TiV(ra or 7Tpovcl)i]T€V(Ta, €TT€(TTdTOVv, TTapea-TaTrjcra, irpov-
(TTaTovv, TTapeaTTovbriKa, vTrepepidx^ovv, avvea-iTovv, 7rpov<pa(n^6p.r]v,
although the verbs came from 7rpo(/)^rrjs, €'m(TTaTr]s, -jrapa-
a-TCLTrjs, TTapd<r7TOvbo9, virepixaxos, crvcrcnTO^, and Trp6(pacri9.
There is no a)7rtdC<w, but the verb formed from vttwttlov, a
black eye, nevertheless retains its first syllable short in
the tenses which require the augment —
. KoX Tavra haip^oviois viroiTnacrpi.ivai.
Ar. Pax 541.
iiTLbopTTiCopai is formed from iinbopTnov, dessert, but its
aorist is iirebopTna-dpriv, not rjTnhopTTKrdp-qi'. It is not sur-
prising therefore that verbs like k-naKpt^io, k-nap-^oT^piCM,
which come directly from the phrases evr' aKpov and k-n
dp-^oTepa, should form aorists cirriKpicra and iTrr]iJi.(PoTepi(ra.
The word iinTrjbevai is an excellent instance of a verb
which augments as if it were a compound with a prepo-
sition, and yet it is formed from the mysterious iinTi^bh,
which may or may not be connected with the preposition
€771. It is, however, consistent, and puts to shame several
verbs in which the prepositional origin of their first syl-
lables is beyond dispute.
There are many facts which indicate that, notwith-
standing the above rule, the place of the augment was
in some verbs determined by the vividness with which
the meaning of the prepositional element was recognized.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 8 1
The history of the augmentation of lvavTiov\i.a\. puts this
fact in a very striking light. In a hne of Aristophanes —
oXka ixijv ovb' aWo aoi ttco irpayix ivr]VTiu>iJi.^da,
Av. 385.
all the manuscripts read rivavTL<aiJ.€9a in unabashed disregard
for the rules of metre. Bentley restored the true reading,
and Porson went with him. But in Attic texts there is
no other instance of this method of augmenting havTLova-dai.
Hesychius, however, proves that err/i'nwjixe^a ^ should be
restored to Thucydides, as it has been restored to Aris-
tophanes : Thuc. 2. 40, Kol TO. is ap€Tr]v -qvavrLcaixeOa toIs
TToX^ols. It is very probable that in many more passages
forms of h'avTLovixaL with post-prepositional augment were
originally read, but it is now quite impossible to detect the
blunder. The comparison of these two passages with others
from Demosthenes and the Orators, in which the verb cer-
tainly augments on the first syllable, clearly proves that the
two elements of havnovixai, still separable in the time of
Thucydides and Aristophanes, ultimately coalesced to form
a thoroughly agglutinative word. There is a similar period
of uncertainty in many English compound words. At one
time written with a hyphen, and pronounced with the
emphasis equally distributed over each element, they
ultimately become agglutinative compounds and receive
the accent as far back as possible. It is in this way that
KaOijixrjv and (Kadrnx-qv, xprjv and ixPV^y o.(f)Ui, and ?}(/)iei, Kad-
t(ov and eKaOiCov are to be explained. Aeschylus seems
even to have used ricf)€vixivos as the perfect participle of
AevKo'y, tl 6 ou^t ; Ka\ KakSis rjcjxvixevos
Alhen. 9. 375 E.
in fact, just as hSiVTios came to be regarded not as a com-
' The (^loss in Hesychius has got mixed with another, T|VTCao-«v, dirT)VTT)cr«v.
UfTtviTt. &ovitvSiSr]s Si rb r^vrtijfitOa iirl r^ ivavTiijutOa, but it is plain that
fvTjvuuiiitOa should be restored for ^vrid/ntOa.
82 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
pound of Iv with airtos, but as itself a simple word, so kLQ-t]-
juai, Ka6l((Lv, etc., ended in being considered not compounds
of simple verbs with prepositions, but as themselves simple
words. This at once explains the consistency with which
inTToku) and iyyvQ take the temporal rather than the syl-
labic augment. It is true that manuscripts often exhibit
forms like eveyva, iveyv-qaa, but only in the simple verb,
and they are easily explained by other corruptions, such
as iyyvcov and eyyv-qaa. The temporal augment was in
copying carelessly dropped, and in later transcripts was
ignorantly replaced as a syllabic one.
In such questions manuscript authority merits little con-
sideration. Thus, inscriptions prove that avakia-Kdi did^ like
«7rtr7j8e7;a), augment after the first syllable, not on it ; and
yet, even in the same author, the same manuscript will
sometimes exhibit the genuine di'?jAa)cra, ai'^konKa, avrjkcad-qv
by the side of the corrupt avdkooa-a, avdXcoKa. dvaXcaOriv.
'E/x7roA.(S, formed from kp.TToXr], as kyyvSi from ^yyv-q, ought,
like kyyvQt, always to receive the temporal augment. In
ey/cco/iAta^co, on the other hand, the syllabic augment is uni-
formly employed, iveKcojjLtaCop, iveKooixiaara, but never riyKco-
jxiaCov, riyKoofxiao-a, although the verb is not a compound
of Ku>[XLd(oo, but derived from kyKiUjxiov. In regard to Ik-
KXr)(nd(oi, manuscripts offer such conflicting evidence that
it is impossible to decide finally upon the true method of
augmenting the verb. To my own mind forms like i^eKXrj-
a-iaa-a, l^€KX.-t]CTia(ov, recommend themselves^ but perhaps
iKK\ri(TidC(o, like havriovixai, augmented in different ways
at different periods. This only is certain, that in a lan-
guage so precise as Attic the same writer did not, as
manuscripts would indicate, use two kinds of augment in
the same work and the same page of that work.
These two opposing tendencies — the feeling that the
augment should follow syllables like €v, -npo, virep, etc.,
and the desire to treat verbs like Kddq[xo.L, not as com-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
83
poundS; but as simples— naturally led to many irregu-
larities, the most marked of which was that of double
augmentation. Forms like o.v^iyJ)[i.r\v and o.\i.ra<Ty6\iy]v came
to be regarded as simple words ; and the natural result
was the addition of the temporal augment to the initial
syllable, aviixo^iA^v and ave<Txo\i.y]v becoming r/retxoV'?^ and
T\vt(Ty^6\i.f]v, ajXTTCLXoiJLrjv and ajxirecrxoM^ ending in rnxireLXOM^
and r\iJ.iTi(r)(6iir\v. These verbs in their turn led to the same
treatment of others, as in Attic Greek analogy played a
singularly important part.
The verbs in which Attic writers employed a double
augment are eleven in number —
avTihiKdv,
djit(^to-/37jreti',
aix(f)Lyvoelv,
biatrav,
btaKovelv,
■napoivelv,
avoiyiwvai,
avex^o'do.i.
afXTTexea-dai,
entreat,
dispute,
dissent,
doubt,
arbitrate,
serve,
trouble,
act as if drunk,
open,
endure,
have on,
rjVTe^okovv.
rjVT^biKOVV.
i]\j.(l)i(T^r\Tovv.
ri^(f)€yv6ovv.
ibtriTOiV.
cbLrjKOVOVV.
riv(ax^.ovv.
eirapoivovv,
ai'€(oyov.
riv€tx^ixr]v.
■filx-n^iXoiiriv.
Pierson on Moeris (p. 17, cp. p. xv) long ago observed that in
Photius and SuYdas there was a distinct class of glosses —
'per totum opus veluti totidem gemmulae dispersae' — easily
distinguishable from the rest, not only by their inherent
excellence, but also by outward marks, such as the precise
and scholarly way in which confirmatory quotations are
made. Cobet has demonstrated what Pierson suggested,
namely, that these are both in Photius and Sufdas (and
sometimes in other lexica) derived from the 'ArriKct 'Ovoiiara
of Aclius Dionysius, a rhetorician who flourished in the
early part of the second century A. D.
G 2
84 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
In the present question his glosses are of incalculable
value as the verbs do not happen to occur in stone monu-
ments, and metre, for various reasons, is of little service,
while the remarks of other grammarians are as foolish and
unintelligible as the manuscripts of Attic texts are con-
tradictory and corrupt.
In Photius, sub T^yetxero, is a gloss evidently from the
pen of Dionysius : ''Wvdyj.To koI lyz^co^^et koL ij/crj/coet kuI
r]VT€^6kec Koivov tuh- 'ArriKw?- ibico[j.a. Even here the copy-
ists exhibit rjvrtfiokei, as they do in Aristophanes, Eq. 667 —
6 8 r]VTe(36ket y avrovs okiyov fxelvai. \p6vov,
and in a fragment of the same writer preserved in Ath.
1 2, p. S^^5 A—
iTTrjKoXo-uOovv Kr]VTi(i6\ovv TrpocrKeLfxivoi.
The Etymologicum Magnum, however, p. 112. 52, puts
it beyond question that Aristophanes used the forms with
two augments. After quoting avrefiok-qcrev from Pindar
(Olym. 13. 43), and from Homer (II. 16. 847) —
TOLOVTOL 8' et 776/0 juot ieLKocTLv avTelSokrjaav,
it adds the words, to be rrap 'ApLa-Tocpdvet h' 'A/x(/)tapaa) bia
Tov €, rivT€l36kr](r€, bvo KAtVets inrea-rri.
The evidence of a scholar like Dionysius, who wrote at
a time far anterior to all our manuscripts, is quite con-
vincing, especially as there is the confirmatory evidence
of the Etymologicum Magnum (nth century a. D.), also
older than most of our texts, and the authority, such as
it is, of the best manuscripts, for the double augment of
the verbs avTibiKca and ayi(l)i(Tfi-)^TG> in Demosthenes, and
ap-cfityvooo in Plato ^.
^ y'lvrthiKH, best MS., S in Dem. 1006. 2 ; 1013. 23. ^ficpea. S alone or with
others in Dem. 818. 9; 820. 26:899.11; 1000. 3, etc. Observe the place of the
second augment, ■^/icp-e-s-PriTet. dfxclxaPrjTd, in Inscript. from Priene, of date
between 01. 133 and 01. 160, confutes any who may choose to deny such
a position for an augment, ■rjufiyi'oei in best MSS. of Plato, Soph. 236, and
^fuptyvirjcTf in id 228, Polit. 291; the others, d^cpi-, dixcprj-, fjficpr]-.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 85
Another of the glosses of Dionysius, in Suidas under
'Avecpyeto-ai;, and in Bekker's Anecdota, p. 399. 24, estab-
lishes the Attic usage as regards avoiyvv\i.i : ^Avecayev, ovx}
rjvoiye, Kal apec^y^TO, koL QpaavXiovTi y rj 8 —
rj 6' ave(oye t^v dvpav'
QiTTaXfj —
Kal TO KepdixLOV
av€U))(^as' o^et,s, iepocrvX.', otvov iroKv'
EwTToA-ts YJokGcnv —
ov ovK aveio^a ttcottot' avOpcaTTOLs ly(a'
^epeKpdrrjs KpaTraraXXots — •
ovbets yap ibi\(T, ovb' dviioyi jxot dvpav.
There is no difficulty about -napoivu) ^, kvo\X5>, and dp-it^yo'
Hai ^. Double augmentation is in their case allowed by
all ; but some Grammarians throw doubts upon it in the
remaining verbs, 8tatrw, htaKovSt, and avixoixai. There are
numerous instances of the imperfect and aorist of dvexop-ai,
in both Tragic and Comic verse, but they are found under
circumstances which • give little or no indication of Attic
usage. Thus either single or double augmentation is
possible in the lines Arist. Nub. 1363, 1373, Thesm.
593, Eq. 412, Ach. 709; Aesch. Cho. 747, Agam. 905,
1274; Soph. Trach. 276, Phil. 411, etc. ; while Arist. Lys.
507 ; Soph. Ant. 467, are too corrupt to be used on
either side. It is true that dvi(Tx6p-r]v must be read in
Arist. Pax 347 —
TToAAa yap dvia-)(6p.i}v Trpdyp-ara kt€.
but its position in a paeonic hexameter at once takes it out
of the inquiry.
The question is, however, set at rest by Euripides. He
' Moeris, p. 332, ■ntnapqji'rjicfv 'Attikoi, napo'ivticfv (sic) "EXA?;^ f j.
■* Gramm. Coislin. Bckk. Anecd. 3. 1285, dfinixofJ^ai, I'lu-ntix^M^' ''°' fipi-nt-
ax^tirjv.
86 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
uses, it is true, the old form av^(rx6\iy]v when his verse
demands it —
(TV b' ovK avicrxov Toiyap ovk€t cvKkeeXs,
Hipp. 687.
just as he uses, like other Tragic poets, old words like ep-
Xa)/xai, €pxov, ^px€(r0ai, re'^co, o-retxo), etc., by the side of Xoi,
Wl, uvat, re^o/xat, 'ipxofxai, but the occurrence in his verse
of the unquestionably new formation r}ve(Ty6}xrjv proves
that the manuscripts are right in generally exhibiting
riv€LXOMV and rivea^oMv —
"OXviiTTOv riviayovTo 6^ rjjxapTrjKOTes.
H. F. 1319.
The case for Statrw depends upon a fragment of the
' Hyperbolus ' of the Comic poet Plato, preserved in He-
rodian (Ilept Ae^eco? fj.ov7]povs, p. 20. i) —
6 8' ov yap rjTTLKiC^v, 00 Moipat (pCkat,
aXX. oTToVe jxev XP^^V 'bLj]T(a[xrjv Kiynv,
k(j)a<TK€ hrj TO) p.irjv, oTTore 8' etTreti' hiov
oXiyov, 6 At ov e'Aeyei'.
The point lies in the attempt to reproduce the deliberate
and cautious pronunciation of one unfamiliar with the
dialect, who, nevertheless, misses those refined sounds
which his ear is not yet sufficiently trained to catch — the
y between two vowels in oXiyos, and the light vowels be-
fore and after the 8 in eStryrwyutr;/;. To the prominent sounds
he gives more than their due emphasis.
The Attic forms of the augmented tenses of hiaKovZ are
dependent merely upon the argument from sedation, which
in Attic Greek is of no small authority. In Eur. Cycl.
406, for KoX birjKovovv, KahvriKovovv should be read —
expi-P-TTTop-qv KvkXcottl KabirjKOvovv.
With these eleven verbs the compound of opOcj with i-jrC
and avd may best be classed. That eirrjvoopdovv, i7rr]Vb)pduiKa,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 87
i7Tr]v(i}p9ovfJLriv, e~rivcopdoocrdiJ.riv, kTnqvdpOoiixai, and iirrivcopduidriv
were the only forms known to Attic, is never called in
question. It is^ however, the only compound of 6p9a> which
has this peculiarity.
XXI.
ZniAoc' Koi toOto q)uAdTTOu, Aere be khAic.
The forbidden word should probably be written o-7riA.os,
as in its compound aa-TnXos the iota is short.
In the sense of K?}At9 the word is unquestionably late ;
but Hesychius quotes it in the sense of rock, from the
Omphale of the Tragic poet Ion — a-nikov Ylapvacra-iav — a
usage also found in Aristotle, de Mund. 3. 392. ^'30, and
Arrian(?), Peripl. Maris Rubri. p. 12, while o-TrtAwSrjj in Poly-
bius shows that a-niXos was to him also equivalent to o-TrtAa?.
The words of Hesychius, s. v., are, a-irikos' k^jKls, pviros Xfj-ariov,
-nirpa -noipuihris, yr] Kepap-iKri, and they suggest one plausible
origin for the late meaning kj/Acs. Originally meaning
rock, it came to signify successively porous rock, rotten-
stone, clay, and clay-stain, till Paul could employ it meta-
phorically, as in Ephes. 5- 27^ t^V ^HKk-qa-iav /xr/ exovarav
(T-nlkov 1] pvTiha, and Dionysius of Halicarnassus apply it
to men with the meaning dregs of hnmafiity. Ant. 4. 24.
698, els TOVTOvs fxivTOL Tovs bvaeKKaddpTOvs aTTikovs €K Trjs TToAecoy
h-noftki-novTis ol Tiokkol hva")(epaivov(n koX T:pofiifiky]VTaL to iOos.
Without doubt there is an enormous gulf between these
meanings and that of the Homeric a-nikas, as seen in
Od. 3. 298—
a\ \j.\v dp iv6^ rjkOov, (nrovbrj 8' ijkv^av okeOpov
dvhpes, uTCLp z'7/ds ye ttotI cnrLkdh^cTcriv ea^av
KVp.aT'
but even o-7riXds is used by Thcophrastus, C. P. 2. 4. 4,
88 THE .\EIV PHRYXTCHUS.
in the sense of clay, and the Latin pnmex passed through
some of the same stages of meaning, J. H. Heinrich
Schmidt, in his Synonymik der Greich. Sprache 51, though
evidently considering the two meanings, ' stone ' and ' stain,'
as belonging to two distinct words, yet bridges the gulf
between them by quoting the following passages : —
Strabo, 16. 4. 18, opos yap irapareLveL rpaxy kol v\j/r]k6v' eW
viTtopeiat (nrtXahcdbets P-^XP'' '''^^ daXdrTris : Polyb. 10. 10, y, to,
he XoiTTa irepUyjerai Xocfyois bvcrl /xey opeivols Kal Tpayj^criv,
aXKois he rptcrt irokv p.ev x.^ap.a\ooTepois, o-7nA.co8ecrt be koL
bv(r(3dT0LS : Arist. H. An. 5' ^5 f^T^-} (pverai [xev ovv to. oorpta
KaOdirep e'ipr]TaL, (pveraL b' avT&v ra p.ev ev Tevdyecn, to. 8' ev
rots alyiaXois, to, 8' ev rot? (r7rtA.(o8ecrt tottois, 'ivia 8' ev Tol'i
crKX.r)pols KOL Tpayecri.. The variants for cr-7rtAco8eo-t in the
last passage, viz. 'jrrjAw8ecn and 7rueA.&)8ecrt, are evidently
glosses, but correct glosses, that have crept into the text.
Against this view, that cnriAos and o-TrtAds, originally
meaning hard stone, degenerated in meaning as the
language aged, may be set another, namely, that o-7riAos =
KTjAts came into the Common dialect from some unregarded
corner of Greece, in which it survived as another form of
TTivos. Curtius supports the latter view by the Bohemian
word ' spina,' which forms a connecting link between ttlvos
and (tttlXos.
The former view is unquestionably the true one. There
is no trace of o-ttiAo? = 771^09, K?/Ats till a late period ; we can
track (nrCkos, rock, through an easy gradation of meanings
historically consecutive, from the beginning to the close of
Greek literature, and surely the degradation of apTL, d-rro-
rda-a-opLaL, and ep.-nTvoi, to limit ourselves to words already
discussed, is sufficiently marked to make that of a-niXo^
neither surprising nor impossible.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 89
XXII.
'AveiAelv pipAiov bid tou erepou A, kcikiotov* ctAAd bid
Toav buo, dveiAAeiv.
It is possible that in this passage Phrynichus wrote
avikk^Lv, as in the next remark but one akrjkiiTTai should
replace dATjAetirrat. In the App. Soph. 20. i, the true
form of the latter word has been preserved, and in 19. 14,
avikXeiv is read : 'Az/iAAeiy ^i^Xiov' ol [j.€v akkoL TrepLcnroiat
Trjv k^itv, Kol bt kvbs k yp(i(f)ovcriv' ovrco Koi to i^ikkeLV. It
is no rare error for copyists to go further still, and to
substitute for the true word the very form against which
a gramniarian is warning his readers. Cobet, Var. Lect.
361, is very confident : 'EtkXeLV et elkai et composita saepe
apud Hesychium leguntur, cui redde eiaiWeiv ela-dyew,
(icrekavvciv pro eicrr^kelv, et e^iXXeii'* kK(iak{iv pro i^eikelv, et
KOTi.'XXcii' pro Kareikdv, et o-uv'iXXofiei'a' (riioTpe(/)o/xei'a pro
(Tvveikoixeva, et o-ukiXas" (rvveikrjcras pro ovviikas. Vera forma
conspicitur nunc in pulchro Euripidis senario de Sphinge,
ovpav VTiikaa viio keovToirovv (Sdcriv,
ubi in libris est virrikXaaa et v7n]ka(r. Verum vidit Valck-
enarius in Diatr. p. 193. Aristophani in Ranis vs. 1066,
pro paKLOLs 7:€pL€(.kk6p.€vos redde T:€pukdp.€vos ex Photii
annotatione : TreptetXd/u.eyos' TrepietATja-d/xeros, quod ex illo
loco sumptum est, ut centena ex Aristophane vocabula in
Photii Lexico sine Poetae nomine explicantur ex antiquis
SchoHis, quae nescio unde Photius nactus est multo meliora
nostris. In Euripidis Helena^ vs. 452,
a \iT] TTpocreCkd X^'P" M^' ^dei. fSia,
Icgendum arbitror //?; -npoa-Ckke. xiipa.''
The forms in -e'oj arc of course past praying for, and
must be banished without recall, not only from Attic writers,
9^ 'J' HE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
but also from the texts of Homer and Herodotus. They are
as desperately late as aX.i]6eLv for aXelv, KaXuvbo) or KaAtco
for KaXCvboti, vi<l)S> for i't^co, in]9(t,v for vfjv, \ovofxat. for Xovixai,
X<^vvv\xL for xooi, and many others which now disfigure the
pages of Classical writers. The evidence for the spelling
etAAoj is, however, much greater than that for tAAco. It is
true that in Ar. Nub. 762 the Ravenna has tAAe, not etAAe,
which the other manuscripts exhibit ; but in Plato, Tim.
40 B, they are by no means the best codices which present
ikXoixivr]v. The utter futility of regarding manuscript
authority in a question of this kind will be acknowledged
by any one who studies the variants in this passage of
Plato, or in Tim. 76 B, 86 E. The readings in 40 B are
these, dkkoiiivriv, dXkoixiviqv, iXXofxivrjv, lk\oixivr]v, dkoixevrjv,
dXov\xh'r]v, dXovixlvr]v.
The word does not seem to occur in Attic Inscriptions,
but the authentic history of the aorist of tIvoh is strongly
in favour of the diphthongal spelling. The aorist of rivoi,
aTTOTivo), etc., is in stone records always represented with
a diphthong, retcrat, aTroretcrat, iKTdcrai, etc., down to the
second century B. C, at which date forms like cnroTicTaa-eai
begin to appear. Admirable confirmatory evidence is
afforded by the proper names Teto-a/^ero?, Tdcravhpo^,
Teia-Cas, Tcio-Lixaxos, Teto-tAaos-, which in stone records
appear consistently with the diphthong, whereas codices
prefer the simple vowel. The same is true of TdOpas and
Tet^pao-tos [see Herwerden, Test. Lapid. pp. '^6, 66']. As
to the spiritiis asper, the compounds v-niXXoi and KartAAco
are hardly necessary to prove its non-existence. It was a
pastime of inferior Grammarians like George Choeroboscus
— the hvjxov of his name is worthy of remark — to exercise
their ignorant ingenuity in making two words out of one,
■» and differentiating its meaning by the breathing. Inscrip-
tions demonstrate that the Athenians often blundered in
their h's, but they did not make the error scientific.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 91
XXIIL
TTioOjuai ouv Tcjj u Aer^ov, ouk opOwc epelre* niojuai rap
6C5TI TO dp)(a?ov, KQi ni6jU€voc dveu tou u. Aioov be 6 cpiAo-
C5090C ouv Tco u Aeroiv djuapidvei.
The same statement is made by other Grammarians, and
Athenaeus (10. 446 E) adds instances from the Poets:
Y\lo\i.ai h\ &.V€V Tov V k^KTiov, (KTeLvovras 8e to l. Ovtm yap
IXf l«^l- TO 'OfX-qpLKOV
TTto/xei'' e/c (SoTavris'
Kol ^ Apl(TTO(\>avr]'i '^llTTTiVaL —
KOVTIOT €K TaVTOV jXiO^ i]p.S>v TtUraL TtOTTJpioV'
Koi, kv aXXois —
TTLKporarov oTvov rrnxcpov Trtet ra^a^'
h'CoTc be Koi (Tva-riWovcn to t, cos YIX.6.t(ov iv Tats afpi" lepwv —
o{r8' oa-Tts avTrjs iKiruTaL to. \pr\p.aTa'
Ka\ kv 2vp(/)aKi —
KoX TlUcrd' vbocip TTOkv.
Probably Tnovp.aL should be removed even from Xeno-
phon (Symp. 4. 7), but in writers like Aristotle it should
doubtless be retained. In another place of the Symposium
the future 7rat^ou/xat occurs (9. 2), but in the mouth of
a Syracusan, The Attic form was doubtless Traio-o/iai,
as all forms with ^, like -nai^as and -niiTaiyixai, were un-
questionably un-Attic, and should be removed, with manu-
script authority, from such passages as Plato, Euthyd.
278 C. In genuine Doric writers the case is different, as
in Theocr. 14. 22, " Kvkov et8es;" cTrat^e rts.
In Ar. Pax 1081, K\avcrovp.eOa occurs in hexameters,
' Even into the text of Athenaeus copyists have imported the late irifi,
adding the gloss ws an6 rov ntovfiai before iyioTt. This is a signal instance of
the transcribers' habit, already mentioned, of altering the text of Grammarians
so as to present the very forms on which an interdict is being put.
92 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
and alongside of forms like ixaKdp^crcn, k€v, vfxcvatol (opt.),
(pvXoTnbos, and others. It was, of course, as unknown to
Attic as TTLovfxai. The future of the unsavory x^'C<^ must
be left unsettled. There is no line of verse in which
yjicTOjxai may not be read as easily as xeaovixai (Ar. Pax
1235, Vesp. 941, Lys. 440, 441, Fr. 207), but the latter
has the manuscript influence on its side. That, however,
is absolutely valueless in such questions. In Alexis (Ath.
12, 516 D)—
^av irapaOca crot, irpocrKaT^bet tovs ^aKTvXovs,
almost all the codices read 7rpoo-Kare8et, although no fact
is better established than that 'ihojxai, riot khoviiai, was the
Attic future of ladioo. Moreover, the only exceptions to
one of the most comprehensive facts of the Attic dialect —
the fact that all verbs denoting bodily or functional activity
are either deponents throughout or deponents in the
future tense — are due to the copyists importing the late
Active forms into our texts by adding a sigma to the
second person singular. What dependence can be put on
leaders like these ? The Attic future of vioy, swim, was
unquestionably t-evo-o/Aat, but in Xen. An. 4. 3. 12, €KhvvTes ws
v€va-6iJ.€voL, the original veva-ojxevoi supported by Hesychius —
appears in the manuscripts as vevaovixevoi, Trevcrofjievoi, (nrev-
a-ofxevoL. From the last two words the true form may be
elicited.
As long as the metre protects Tiveva-oixat it is safe —
Eur. Andr. 555.
Taxv be Trpbs Trarpbs tIkv iKirveva-eraL.
H. F. 886.
When that support fails, Trvevcrovjxai at once appears —
TO Xr]Kv6iov yap tovto TTvevcreTat, iroXij,
Ar. Ran. 1221.
THE NEW PHRYXICHUS. 93
where all the manuscripts have Tri-evo-etrat. In Theocritus,
as a Doric writer, TrAevo-oC/xat is in place, 14. ^^ —
TrXeuo-ov/xat Kr\yuiV btairovTco^, ovre kAklo-tos'
but it must be carefully corrected in the texts of Attic
writers. It is absurd to read -nXeva-oixat and TrAevo-oC/xat in
different passages of Thucydides, and of Demosthenes, and
other Orators. It is but another instance of the ignorant
uncertainty of transcribers which was above (p. 60) so clearly
demonstrated in the case of ano^eev. No editor would
now vary with the manuscripts in reading airoOev or airuiOev
indifferently, and why should a verb receive different
treatment from an adverb.^ The Attic future of -Xioo
was -nXevaoiJ.ai, as the Attic form of the adverb was airoidev.
"A-TToOev and TrXeuo-oujuat are equally late.
In Theocr. 3. 50 —
6? Tocrarrjv' eKVpriaev, oa-^ ov TrevcrelcrOe /3e/3aAoi,
the Doric future -eva-ovixai is as much in place as the
Doric present -ev^o/^at in 13. ^6 (12. 37) —
\pV(TOV OTToCrj
irevdovTai, jj-ij (jjavXos €T7]tv[j.ov, apyvpaiJ.OLJ3oi'
but in an Attic writer TreucroCjuac is intolerable. Accordingly,
it must be removed from the only passage of Attic in
w^hich it occurs. All manuscripts of Aeschylus exhibit
the genuine form Trevo-et in P. V. 963, Ag. 266, Eum. 415,
419, 4;54 ; viV(Toy.ai in Ag. 599 ; Trevo-erat in Eum. 503 ; and
TTeva(a9€ in P. V. 642 : but, by some unaccountable fatality,
-nivaeia-Oai has manuscript authority in P. V. 988 —
ei irpoa-hoKas ep-ov tl irevcreadai irapa,
although, fortunately for the text of those nerveless editors
who justly trust the pen of a nodding transcriber in pre-
ference to their own reason, some codices have retained
TTivireaOaL.
The future of (jjevyo) has escaped corruption almost by
a miracle. In Thucydides and Xcnophon (j)€v$op.aL is
94 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
always read ; in Demosthenes, who uses it with frequency,
the manuscripts consistently exhibit the genuine form, ex-
cept in one passage (990. 4), in which ^ev^eio-^at appears
by the side of cpev^ca-eat. In Plato the corrupt (f)eviov[jLai
seldom presents itself, perhaps only in three places, Legg.
^35 C, ^eufeirai : id. 763 B, a'no(l)ev^d(reai : Rep. 432 D,
€K(f)€v^d<Tdai, : and these must be at once corrected to har-
monize with (pevioixai, Apol. 29 B ; (psviei, Crit. S3 C ;
(txy^erai, Rep. 592 A ; (lyev^oix^ea, Theaet. 181 A ; cj)eviovTai,
id. 168 A; aTTo^ev^erat, Apol. 39 A; eK0ev'^crat, Soph.
235 B; (Kcpeviea-eai, Symp. 189 B, etc. As to the Poets,
Aeschylus and Sophocles are free from corruption, but the
texts of both Euripides and Aristophanes have been tam-
pered ^Ith. These writers certainly employ the Doric
future of this verb when the verse demands it —
h'op(a yepovTa SetAta? <p€v^ov[xevov.
Ar. Ach. 1 1 29.
€pi]ixov aiToXtTTovTe TTOL (pev^ovixeda.
Plut. 447.
d jj-y] TL y avT(^ bovres a7:o(p€V^ovij.€9a.
Av. 932.
Kttl ^VfJLTrepavai cfipovrCb^ fj (^ev^ovp^^da.
Eur. Med. 341.
TOvp.ov yap ov p.0L ^povrls, d (pev^ovpieOa.
Id. 346.
rjp.€is 8e croL p.ivovp.^v, ov (f)(V^ovp.^6a.
Bac. 659.
01)8' av TO beu'bv irpoa-TTokov <pev^ovp.€6a.
Hel. 500.
TretVat/x' av ak\a riva (f)vyi]v ({)ev^ovix^da ;
Id. 1041.
This licence may be regarded as the converse of that
which even Comic poets did not scruple to use in the case
of datives plural in -ai(n(r)- -oi(ri,{v), third persons plural op-
tative middle in -oCaro, and the insertion of 0- before -Oa
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 95
of the first person plural middle and passive. The latter
was a licence derived from an old stage of the language,
the former, which embraces futures like cpev^ovfjLai., was
an anticipation of later usage. But just as -aL(n{v), -oicn{v),
-olaro, -jxea-Qa never appear except when the metre abso-
1\ tely demands them, so (Pev^ovixai was undoubtedly never
employed ct^ra necessitatem. And in Ar. Ach. 203 —
eyo) h\ (p€V^oiJ.aL ye tovs W^oipveas,
as in Eur. Bacch. 798, Med. 604, and Hipp. 1093, no
attention should be paid to the codices.
This is not the only instance in which a general rule can
be elicited from a particular statement of Phrynichus.
Just as in Arts. 16, 17 above his particular rule was shown
to be general, namely, Verbs in -fxaifoj and -aipw form their
aorists ivitJi eta, tiot alpha, so here his dictum as to the future
of TTuco has been proved to be generally true. The Doric
future in -oC/xat was practically unused by Attic writers.
XXIV.
'HAemrai, KaroipuKTai ou xpn, dAAd binAacjia^e thv cpo^vAv
coonep oi 'ASHvmoi, dAHAeiniai, KaropoopuKTai.
XXV.
"QjuoKe T€A€coc aH6ec- xpH rdp ojucojuoKe Aereiv.
These two paragraplis put in a very clear light the
character of the work of Phrynichus. As just stated, it is
fragmentary to a degree, and his rules are rarely general.
To learn facts in this way is not only difficult but puerile,
and the aim of this book will have been attained if it
demonstrates that there are certain general facts relating
96
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
to the Attic dialect which explain many phenomena in its
literature, and introduce law and symmetry into the
language itself.
The perfects with the so-called Attic reduplication are
these —
aKOVco
aKr]Koa
a\€i(f)(i)
dAryAt^a
akrikiixp.ai
ak&
dATjAe/xat
9 '^
apct)
apripop.ai
eycLpu)
(yriyepjxai
I8ft)
khrihoKa
(hr]h€(Tp.aL
(kavvoi
f)\.i]kaKa
€ki]kajxai
eAeyx^co
iki]keyp.ai
epxoixai
ekrjXvOa
oAAw^t
oAwAeKa
okooka
OjXVVlXl
6piU)iJ.0Ka
6p.(j)p.op.ai
opvcrcroo
6p(apvya
opdopvypLai
(f)ep(u
ivi]i'oxa
evt^veyixai.
The peculiarity of the reduplication consists in the fact
that, after augmenting in the ordinary way, they place
their initial vowel with the following consonant before
the augment. Thus, u>pvxp., (apvyp-ai, would be the re-
gular perfects of dpvaa-od, but in Attic the syllable 6p- was
thrown before each. In the perfect passive of aKovoi this
was not done, but the simple augment sufficed, riKova-jxai.
There can be no question that akriktKa and aprjpoKa, though
not found in our texts, were yet in ordinary use ; but it is not
so certain what was the active perfect of eAeyxw. It is well
known that jjveyKas and riveyKan were common Attic forms,
but the fact that in the two large classes of verbs — those
in -vvoj and -aLvco — together numbering over one hundred
verbs, only one perfect active regularly formed occurs,
brings into suspicion all perfect active forms not found in
Classical texts in which the combination -y/ca is found.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 97
Moreover, the one exception referred to, namely, uTro-
7T€(l)ayKa, occurs only in one writer, Dinarchus, who wrote
towards the close of the Attic period, after which perfects
of the objectionable kind like i](rxvyKa, KCKepbayKa became
common enough. For this reason a just suspicion must
rest upon eA?/AeyKa.
A similar difficulty confronts us in eyetpco. There may
have been an kyrjyepKa in use, as even the passive perfect
has been preserved only in one passage (Thuc. 7. 51,), but
it is always difficult to reconstruct a verb not perfectly
regular. Of all regular vowel verbs, and of verbs in -i^oi
and -a(oi, the perfect may be confidently used, whether or
not it happens to occur in Classical Greek. However ses-
quipedalian, such forms were never eschewed, yeyvfxvaaLap-
X^Ko, K€Ka\KUpi]Ka, and similar words being employed as
often as their need was felt. By the sober use of the
theory of probabilities the existence of many forms not
found in our texts will ultimately be established ; but this
is not the place to start so tedious and intricate an in-
quiry.
The question of the insertion of sigma before the ter-
minations of the perfect indicative passive is one of great
difficulty; occasionally verse establishes the true form,
as in the case of oixwixi —
tovtI to -npayp-a TravTaxoOev ^vro/xco/xorat.
Ar. Lys. 1007.
6fX(afxoTai yap opKos €K 6((av \xiya^.
Aesch. Ag. 1284.
But the untrustworthiness of manuscripts is demonstrated
by the circumstance that, as soon as the support of metre
is withdrawn, the sigma appears —
fv vvv TOO UTTe, Zevs ojxdijxodTai 7raTr]p.
Eur. Rhes. 816.
Ill Dcm. 505. 29 it is only the best manuscript (Paris S.)
which has retained the primitive hand er fi ydypaiTTai kuI
U
98 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
o\x^\i.oTai. The true form of the perfect passive of aA.ci> has
barely escaped corruption in a passage of the Yvva\,KO[i.avla
of Amphis, quoted by Athenaeus, 14. 642 A —
A. T/Srj HOT r/Kovcras jSiov
bX-qX^iiivov ; B. vai. A. tovt (kcIv eo-rtv cra(f)&9'
ajxi]T€'i, olvos 7]bvs, wa, (TrjcraiJiai,
fxvpov, aT€(f)avos, avXrjrpis. B. £> AtocrKopo),
ovofxaTa twv bcabeKa OeQv SteATjAv^as.
The passage itself well explains the meaning of /3tos
aATjAe/xe'i'o?, and the explanation of Suidas is hardly re-
quired, dArjAecTjueVo? /3ios iirl twv Iv a(})dovia t&v eTTirrjSeicoy
ovTctiv. Schweighaeuser and Dindorf edit — •
rjbr) TTOT yKOva-as jiiov ak-qkeafiivov
. . . . ai TOVT ^Kelv ((TTiv cra(/)&)S'
but the manuscripts, for a marvel, do not offer the late
aXrjXea-iJLivov, and the former arrangement unquestionably
restores the hand of the Comic poet. In Thuc. 4. 26,
eladyeiv ctItov aXrjXeiJLevov, the corrupt aXriX^a-jxivov appears
in some manuscripts. In most cases, however, verse helps
the inquirer but little, as the penultimate is often long
even without the sigma, and if not, the word occurs in a
part of the line in which either form may stand.
Sometimes a corruption has preserved the original read-
ing, as in a fragment of Aristophanes found in Stob. Flor.
121. 18 —
ovb' av TToO^ ovTCtis i(rTe(f)av(aiJ.€i'OL veKpol
1TpOVK€LIX€d' 0118' av KaTaK€XpLpL€VOL [XVpOLS,
where the codices exhibit KaTaK€Kpip.€voi. To all Attic
writers the perfect without sigma should be restored to
Xptco, as to KOVLCt), /XTjyto), etc. — K^xptp-ai, KeKoviixai, [xtjxrivuxaL,
as \pl\j.a, ixr)vi}xa, etc, not xpto-M<^> p.r]VL(T}j.a.
On the other hand, expiV^^jy, not kxp'f-d-qv, was the ancient
form of the aorist. It seems as if this sigma would tax
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 99
the most powerful of human memories ; one rule, however,
of great usefulness can be formulated. If tJie aorist passive
has not the sigina, the perfect also is without it. Thus the
absence of the sigma in K^K6\ov\iai may be proved by
Thuc. 7. 66, where the genuine KoXovOcacn is preserved,
not only by the better manuscripts, but also by the cor-
ruption cLKovkwOL. So the unquestioned eacoOi-jv establishes
the perfect cria-ccuxai — a form which is confirmed by Photius,
s. V. (rifrcoTaL : SeVcorat kol (reo-co/xet'os ol iraXaiol av€V tov cr,
Kal hLe^oijxivoi (^rjcrl QovKvbibris, ol 8e i>€u>T€poi cricruxTiJiaL. Now
in Thuc. i. 6, the passage referred to, all manuscripts ex-
hibit the late buC^crfiivot, as 7repteC<^o-/xeVat in Ar. Av. 11 48,
although stone records support the statement of Photius,
hieC<^}xivaL, buCoirai, and viriCcoTai being quoted from in-
scriptions of the best Attic times, whereas no form with
o- is ever found. Accordingly, with manuscript authority,
o-e'a-ajrai has to be restored to Eur. I. T. 607, and to Plato,
Crit. 109 D; 110 A. In fact, creo-coo-rai is as late as 6/xw-
ixocrrai and a\ri\€(T[J.4vov.
This fact, that the sigma, if unknown in the aorist, is not
found in the perfect, demonstrates what might otherwise
be liable to question, that the sigma in the indicative and
participle of the perfect came from the infinitive, where
it was always inserted before theta — d/xw/xoo-^at, kkrikaa-Qai,
upr']pocr6ai, KeKXavaOai, KeKekevaOai, KeKokovcrdai., etc. In fact,
kikvcrdai is as unquestioned as kekvfxai, and d}X(ii}xo(rOai as
d/xw/jio//at, and as neither in ojxvvju nor Avco had the sigma
passed from op^apoaOai and klkvcrOai to ^p.6dr\v and ikvdr]v,
still less had it passed to opMjxojxai and klkviiai. Take the
two verbs yiyvuxTKOi and nr^wa-Kco. The aorist of ytyi^wo-Koj
as certainly had the sigma, lyvfaaO^v, as that of rirpwo-Kco
was without it, hfmdrjv. Accordingly, in its perfect rirpco-
(TK(i> could not have the sigma, while yiyvuxTKOD might either
have it or want it. As a matter of fact fyvojcrpai is as
securely established as Tirpoipai. This rule extends the
II I
TOO
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
utility of verse, as, if verse shows that the aorist of a verb
was without sigma, the true form of the perfect follows as
a matter of course. Thus \\i]Ka\xai is proved by rjXddriv,
Aesch. Eum. 283 —
<I'ot/3ou KaOapixols rjXaOrj ^oipoKTOvois,
and apripofjiai. by rip6dr]P, Soph. O. R. 1485 —
T:aTi]p ecf)Av6r}v evOev avrb^ rjpoOTjv,
and aTiripvp-aL by a hne of the Arj/xTjrptos ?) ^iXiraipo's of
Alexis (Ath. 2. ^6 E)—
TOVT(ov aTTCLVTOiV, anapvOti'Ta ti]v avu).
There is no exception to the law, and the inquirer will
readily extend the subjoined list —
iXovOrjv
Ae'Aou/xat
avrjXddrjv
dvi]ku)p.ai
eKpiOrji'
K^Kpiixai
kitoOrjv
TreTTO/xat
€h66r]v
h^boiJLai
ha6r]v
T€Ta[xat
ecrrddrjv
ca-Tafjiat
ij3d6rjv
ftifiap.ai
■tjfxaprrjOriv
rjp.dpTrip.aL
r]v^ridr\v
iTp.-qdr]v
€Kpd9r]v
€(rTp(o0i]v
ehvvr]6rjv
k^ovXrjOrjv
kjiXridrjv
eKavOrjv
r]v^r]p,ai
T€Tpripi.ai
KeKpap-at
eaTpoipiai
bebvvripaL
/3€l3ovXr]p.at
jSelBXrjpLaL
KeKavp.ai.
A diligent searcher would perhaps find manuscripts in
which each of these perfects and aorists is read with
sigma, and bless Hermes for his luck. Such grammarians
would have worse fortune if they searched for sparks of
reason in themselves. In Dem. 214 29, iv roli irapalSelBa-
p.ivois opKOLs, all the manuscripts have 'napa^^^aap.ivois, as
all but one had dpwpLoa-Tai in 505. 29 ; but can a reasonable
man doubt for a moment that the form with a was im-
ported into the text at an age when efidcrd-qv strove for
supremacy with ifidvd-qv ?
To the above class, consisting of verbs which have never
sigma in the aorist, and consequently are always without
THE XEW PHRVNICHUS. lOI
it in the perfect passive, belong all verbs in -ei^co, except
\evco and K^k^voi, all contracting verbs in -oco, except the
only disyllabic one, xo'*^? all contracting verbs in -eo) which
have eta in the aorist passive, and all contracting verbs in
-ao), with alpha long, except xpG>}xai and hpG>. Wecklein
would deprive even kcAc^'co of the sigma (Cur, Epigr. 62),
but there is no question that eK^Xevcrdrjv and kkfvcrOiqv were
the genuine aorists of Aevco and KeAevco. Like yei^co, hevu),
€V(ti, and rei;co, these verbs stand on a different footing
from other verbs in -€vm. Photius quotes KarayevcrOeis,
SuYdas, evdeis, and kheudi]v is found in Hippocrates and
Theophrastus, but there is no instance of the aorist of yevco.
^Eyj)r]<j6r]v is of course undisputed, but khpacr6i]v may well
be a corruption for ebpddriv. The tense occurs only in two
passages of Thucydides (3. 38 ; 6. ^^} ; and in a third
passage (3. 54) even the unquestioned Se'Spajuat appears in
the manuscripts as bebpaarp-ai, just as in 3. 61, riTiaaixivoiv is
exhibited for the genuine ?)rta/xeVa>i'. On the other hand,
as bpaa-Teos occurs without variant in Plato, Phil. 20 A,
Crit. 108 E, Legg. 626 A, etc. ; Soph. O. R. 1443, El. 1019,
etc., the aorist with sigma may well be correct.
If the alpha in the present is short the sigma invariably
appears in the aorist passive —
■yeA&i €ytkdaOr]v
kAw iKXdcrOi]v
a-nS) k(nid(Td-i]v
X.aAai kyjakda-d-qv,
as also in the perfect indicative and participle. Of verbs
in -€0), aihovp-ai and aKovpLat, take the sigma in the aorist, but
it is never found in T^vedrjv, ■ppiO-qv, and ibidrjv.
In the case of those verbs which have -(rOi]v in the aorist
it is often difficult to establish the true form of the perfect
passive. Of some there has never been any doubt. All
regular verbs in-d^w and -ICoi have sigma both in aorist and
perfect. Others equally well-established arc these —
lOZ
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
KCKwAtcr/xat
e\//eucrjaat
e(r/3e(rju,ai
7re7rptcr/xat
TeVtcr/xa6
Kare8eSe(7/jiat
(recreto-/xat
On the other hand, the sigma, though found in the
aorist, is absent from the perfect in the verbs —
KuAi'vSco
€KvXia9rjv
y\iivh(ii
e\j/eva6riv
(T^ivvv\}.i
ecrl^eadrjv
XpwCw
k\p(i>(r6r]v
Xoco
l^OicrQ-qv
ai8o{S/xai
ffhicrOriv
TTpioi
€Trp[(T6r]v
rivoi
(TLadrjv
KaTea-Qioi
KaTehidOriv
ere 10)
ka-^ia-Q-qv
Kvca
kKvr]cr9r)v
Xpcap-at
iXPW^V^
Kixpr]p.ai
pdvvvixt
eppcacrdr-jv
ippcopLat
KXrjoi
€KKr}(T9l]V
/ceKAj/jixat
Kpovoi
eKpovaOriv
KiKpovp.aL
fjLLp.vrjcrKop.ai
epprjcrdrfv
p.ep.v)ipaL
KfAevw
€Kek€V(T6r]v
KeK€k€Vp.aL,
Others are disputed. To the passage aheady quoted on
(r€(TU)p.aL Photius adds, Itt' (vlmv airXSts TrapaAeiVoucrt to (Tlyp.a,
K€KX€ip.ivov, iTeiTprip.hov. Now the aorists were certainly
€KXfi(rdr]v and ^TrprjcrOriv, and /ceKX?y/xat is doubted by none,
yet the Ravenna codex, which alone has preserved KeKAet-
ixiva in Ar. Plut. 206, falls as low as the rest in Vesp. 198,
and exhibits Ke/cAetcr/ixat. In Vesp. ;^6 it is the only manu-
script which presents epLTTeTTpr]p.ivriv without the sigma.
When the danger of adding the obnoxious letter was so
great, the testimony of the Ravenna, combined with that
of Photius, ought to be regarded as conclusive. Perhaps
the aorist of -navo) was k-navOyfv, the perfect was certainly
■ni'navp.ai, and if the sigma appeared in the aorist of kAoco, it
was beyond question absent from the perfect.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 103
XXVI.
'AneAeuQOjuoi navrdnaai ©uAaTTOu- oure rap 01 boKijuoi
pHTopec, ouT€ H dp)(aia Kcojuwbia, oure rTAdroov KexpHxai th
9C0VH" dvTi be auToO tco dneijui xpoo kqi toIc ojuc/feibeoiv
(boauTCoc.
XXVII.
' Ene EeAe uaojue voc dAAoc outoc 'HpaKAfic. tout
ouv esupev eK Tpiobou 4>ap(opIvoc, xpn rdp eneSioov einelv
KQi rdp eneSetjLii AereTUi, dAA' ouk ene£eAeuc30juai.
Nothing can better illustrate the precision of Attic Greek
than the consideration of the Greek equivalent of the
English verb to go. Whether simple or compounded with a
preposition, ei/xt had consistently a future signification. Its
present indicative was ip\o\xai^ but epxoixat did no more
than fill the blank left by the preoccupation of et/xt. There
was no epx^ojixai, kp'yotp.riv, (px^v, f:px'ecr6ai., kpxo\iivos, and
no imperfect r]pxoiir]v. et/xt could well supply those forms
without drawing upon another root, and all the moods of
the present, except the indicative, were derived from the
stem t, namely, too, tot//t, Xdi, Uvai, la>v. The imperfect
was 17a, not r]px6p.r)v. eTjut, however, formed no aorist or
perfect ; and for these tenses recourse was again had to
the root ep-, which, modified to eXvd-, supplied the aorist
and perfect tenses throughout. The following scheme re-
presents these facts in one view : —
Present.
INDICATIVE. CON'JUNXTIVE.
S. I. epxo/xai tw
2. I^px^l l?/S
3. fpX^TO.'- h}
104
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
INDICATIVE.
CONJUNCTIVE
D.2.
€pXe(T0OV
ir\TOV
3-
^pyj^crdov
trjTov
P. I.
epxop.€6a
tcopiev
1.
epXea-Oe
irjTf
3-
'ip-yovrai.
Xoi(n{v).
Past.
S. I.
r'a
Xoifxi or loi)]v
2.
r\i.i(jQa
Xois
3-
M^)
If
lot
D.2.
^TOV
toLTOV
3-
fJTriv
ioirriv
P. I.
^p.€V
Xoifx^v
2.
^re
totre
3-
Tjcrai'.
XoLiV.
IMPERATIVE.
INFINITIVE.
S. 2.
Wt
leWt.
3-
tro)
D.2.
irov
PARTICIPLE.
3-
tra>i'
l(av,
lovaa, lov
P. 2.
Xr^
iovTos, lova-iis, iovros.
3-
iovTuiv.
Future.
INDICATIVE.
OPTATIVE.
INFINITIVE. PARTICIPLE.
s.
I . ei/xt
k\eV(To(.p.r]V
ik€V<T€(T6aL, ikeva-oixevos
2. et
(XevaoLo
3. cto-i(i;)
ekevcroiTo
D.
2. iroy
3. Irov
€X(.V(T0L(t60V
eXevcroicrOriv
P.
1 . i/xey
2. ire
3.. tao-i.
eAeuo-oijae^a
ik^vcroLcrde
ik^V<rOLVTO.
rZ/iS: .ViSrF PHRYNICHUS. 1
AORIST.
[NDICATIVE-
CON'JUNCTIVE.
s.
I.
?]A.^oi;
ekOco
ekdoiiMi,
2.
7]A^es
^k9i]s
€k90iS
3-
^iKQt{y)
^kOr,
^kdoL
D
.2.
7]X9€TOV
ik6l)T0V
'ikOoLTOV
3-
ri\6iTr]V
ekdrjTOV
ek6oLTr]v
P.
I.
ijkdoii^v
(k6(0[Ji.€V
tkdoilXiV
2.
l]K6€Ti
kker]T€
ekdoiTe
3-
rikOov.
IMPERATIVE.
ikduxTiv.
^k6oL€V.
INFINITIVE.
S.
2.
3-
ikdiiv.
D
.2.
eXdiTOv
3-
ikOiTCOV
PARTICIPLE.
P.
2.
lA^ere
€k6(av,
^kOovara, kkOov
3-
i\06vT(x)v.
ekOovTos,
Perfect.
kk6ov<jr]'i, IkOovTOS.
S.
1.
kkrfkvOa
ekrjkvdca
ikrjkv9oLr]v
2.
ikrjkvdas
ekrjkvdrfs
ekrjkvOoirjs
3-
€ki]\.vdi{v)
ckrjkvdrj
(krjkvOoirj
D
. 2.
kkrikvQaTov
kkr]kvdr]TOv
kkrfkvOoLTov
3-
ikrjkvOaTov
kkr]kv6r]Tov
ikrjkvdotTrjv
P.
I.
€kr]kv6a[J.€v
kkr]kvdiii\x^v
ikrjkvdoiiJiev
2.
(krjkvdaT€
ekrjkvdrjTe
€krikvdotT€
3-
(kr]kvda(TL(v).
(kr]kv6(t)crL(v). ikrjkvOouv.
PLUPERFECT.
INFINITIVE.
S.
I.
2.
(IkrjkvOri^
i
ik-qkvOivai.
3-
dkrikv6ei(v)
PARTICIPLE.
D.
2.
elkrjkvOeTov
(krjkv9(as,
(kijkvOvla, ikrjkvOos
3-
dk-qkv6^Tr]v
ikrikvOoTos,
etc.
P.
I.
2.
3-
dkr]kvOe\x^v
dkr]kvOiT(.
eikrjkvOfcrav.
105
1C& THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
If to these are added the synonyms a^iK6\i.y]v for the
aorist, and a(\riy\i.ai and t/kw for the perfect, a^iy\ir\v and
r\Kov for the pluperfect, with tJ^w for future perfect ( = eArj-
Xv6(i)s eVo/zat), the Attic usage with regard to this verb-
notion will be thoroughly understood.
It has been said that in Attic ipxpixai appears in no
mood but the indicative, and is never used in the imper-
fect tense. As a matter of fact, even if Xenophon be
excluded as hopelessly un-Attic, there are still five ex-
ceptions to this rule, namely, eTx-qpxovTo and irpoaripxovTo
in Thucydides, a-rrepxoiJ-^vot in Lysias, iire^^pxop'-^vot in An-
tiphon, and 7repLi]px€To in Aristophanes.
Now, even if these instances were genuine beyond
question, they might be disregarded, as opposed to the
infinite number of passages in which the law is observed ;
but all five cases are signally exceptional. Cobet, fol-
lowing in the track of Elmsley, considers them due to
the notorious habit which copyists had of replacing
genuine forms by words better known at the time when
the manuscript was made. For example, in a passage of
Aristophanes —
KoL TTpcSr' epr](TO\xai ae tovtl' Tralbd p! ovt eruTrre? ;
Nub. 1409.
the two best manuscripts replace eVuTrre? by irvTrTrjaas, a
form not only unknown to Classical Greek, but quite in-
compatible with the metre. In another passage of the
same play —
2rp. oiroos b eKeivoi roi Koyoa /ua^Tjcrerat,
TOV KpCLTTOV OCTTLS kcTTl KoX TOV 7]TT0Va,
iav be p.7], TOV yovv abiKov irdcrr] Texvrj.
iScoK. avTos pLadrjaeTat Trap' avToiv toiv Xoyoiv,
2rp. tovto vvv p-ip-vqa, Sttoos
TTpos TT&vTa TO. hiKai avTiXiy^iv bvv7](reTai,
Nub. 883.
THE NEW FHRYNICHUS. 107
the manuscripts read aT;i(jo\i.ai and assign eyw 8' aTik(To\iai
to Strepsiades. Bentley restored the text by a convincing
conjecture, which has long been generally received.
The habit was certainly in existence, but critics ought
to be chary of using it to explain aberrations from usage.
It will be shown that eAevo-eo-^at, which Elmsley regarded
as the product of this habit, was really used by Lysias, and
not imported into his text by a late hand, and the same
is true of some of the exceptions now under discussion.
The participle iire^epxoiJ-cvoi, is merely one of the many
words and forms which demonstrate that at the time at
which Antiphon wrote Attic was not yet mature (Ant.
115' 9), rjjxels 8' ol iTre^ep^oixevoi tov (f)6i'ov ov tov oltlov a(l)iv-
Tes TOV avaiTiov biutKOixev : and kiiripyjovTo and Trpoo-rjpxovro
might be granted to an Attic writer who used KapTa and
(KCLs. It is true that, in quoting Thuc. 4. 121, IbCa be erai-
VLOvv T€ Koi TTpoai^pyjovTo uxTTTcp adXr}Tr}, Pollux used irpocrfj-
ea-av for irpoa-ripxovTo, but he evidently quoted from memory,
as he gives the passage as from Xenophon : Pollux, 3. 152,
E€vo(})U)V yap (tprjKeV eraiviovv re Ka\ irpoa-ijea-av uxrirep adXrjTf],
If critics will remove irpoaripxovTo from Thucydides, they
are bound to prove that in his style there is no other trace
of early Attic.
^Y.-n-qpxpvTo, however, at the beginning of the preceding
chapter of Thucydides, stands, like aTrepx^t'croi in Lysias,
on quite a different footing. When a word is not only
questionable as regards form, but also unintelligible, there
is a strong case against it. The words in Lysias are these
(l47' 34)* TToA-Aot \xkv yap p.tKpov biaKeyopievoi Kal KOcrp.iM'i
air(p)(6}j.evoi fxeyakdv KaK&v atrioi yeyovacnv, erepoi be T<av
ToiovTCtiV ufxeXovvTes ttoXXci KuyaOa vfxas elar\v elpyaa-jxevoi.
The manuscripts present no variant to a-rre pxojj-evoi,, but no
one has been able to extract from the word a meaning in
unison with the context. The conjecture ap.Trex^}^^^^'- '
' ITie change from «x"M**'os to fpx6fi(vos occurs in some MSS. of Thuc.
io8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
suggested by Dobree, and adopted by Cobet, affords an
excellent sense ; but for the question at issue it is sufficient
to indicate that the passage is corrupt. Now the imperfect
(TT-qpxovTo in Thucydides is as unintelligible as the parti-
ciple aTTepx6[ji.evoi, in Lysias : Thuc. 4. 120, Trepl be ras 7]}xipas
ravras oXs kn-qpyovTO, 'SiKLcavr] kv rfj Y\aXXr]vri TTokis aniaTT] aTi
'AOrjvatMv TTpbs Bpaaibav. The verb requires both a subject
and a prepositional object. Suppose these omissions sup-
plied, as they are by the Scholiast, in the words eh a\\i]\ovs
UdrepoL, and a new difficulty presents itself— the meaning
of the word. In late Greek the term might perhaps pass
muster in the sense of going backwards and forwards to
cne another, but no such sense is possible in Attic. As
a matter of fact, ah k-niqpyovTo originally formed part of
the Scholium on irept 8e ras 7///epas Tovras, and made its
w ay from the margin into the text, the words of Thucydides
being these, Trept 8e ras 7]p.epas ravras ^KL(avr} kt€.
The reason for -nepiripxero in Aristophanes is not far
to seek —
6 8' avi]p 7rept^px.er', wKDro'/ct' divovp.evos.
Thesm. 504.
It was used by the Comic poet in malice prepense, in a
passage containing many other reminders of Tragic diction.
It is like viewing a storm in a mill-pond to read the pages
in which critics have proposed and seconded their emenda-
tions of this unhappy line. Elmsley suggested irepirjppev,
Hamaker, rrepUrpexe, and Cobet cut the knot by reading
TTcpL-peiv. If there was any necessity to make the change,
the reading of the great Dutch scholar might take its
place in the line as confidently as airdixL for aT^ia-op-ai in the
passage cited above from the ' Clouds.'
6. 3, rov (xo/^fvov (Tovs. In this case there happens to be MSS. authority, but,
if this had failed, timid editors would have left the text unemended. There is
little doubt that aiiinx^H-^voi passed to dnepxontvoi through dirfxofxevot.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 1 09
The usage of Xenophon is as contradictory in this
respect as in others. In some passages he follows the
rules observed by pure Attic writers, in others he employs
forms which they studiously avoided : Anab. 4. 7. 12,
TTapepxcTat Trdi'ras" 6 be KaXXifj-axo? w? ecopa avTov Trapiovra
KT€. Cp. 4. 3. 13; 3. 2. S5^ etc., but An. 2. 4. 25,
TrapepxoiMevovs rovi "EAArjra? edecapei : Cyr. 8. 5- ^2, et?
X€tpas epxo/xe^oi'. Sometimes the manuscripts present two
forms, as in Anab. 4. 6. 22, aTTTypx^z'To and (S^ovto have
both good manuscript authority, and e^epx^rat is a variant
to i^epxoLTO in Cyr. 4. i. I, fxdva^ 8e 6 KCpo? fxerpiov XP^^^^
avTov (Tvv rw (TTpaTev}xaTL, koX br]Xa>(ras on eTonxoi elcrL fxax^crOaL
et TLS i^epxoiTo, w? ovbels avTe^rjeiv, a7n]yayev kt€. Similarly, in
Cyr. 2. 4. 18, TToWQv ^ovXoixivoiv 'iirecrOai, the better manu-
scripts read aTrepx^fTOcu. The more Xenophon is studied
the more difficult will it appear to find any standpoint
for the criticism of his text. His verbosity, and his ex-
traordinary disregard of the most familiar rules of Attic
writing, make sober criticism almost impossible. Cobet
may alter word after word, and cut down sentence after
sentence, but the faults of Xenophon's style are due, not
to the glosses of Scholiasts or the blunders of transcribers,
but to the want of astringents in his early mental training,
and the unsettled and migratory habits which he indulged
in his manhood.
The only forms from the stem tpx" which are used,
in Attic of any purity, are lpxo//at, epx^i, epxerat, €px((tOov,
6/jX<Vf^"» ^PX^'^^^i ^^^ epxoi^rai, and this is true not only
of the simple verb, but also of its compounds. There is,
however, one exception, namely, the compound of epx^fT^dat,
with vTTo, which early acquired a secondary meaning never
attached to vTrei\n, and when used in that special sense
was inflected tliroughout the imperfect and the moods of
the present. When vjtipxoixai signified /o fawn 11 pott, to
cringe, all the forms which, in the meaning go ttttdcr, were
no THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
not recognized in Attic, were at once ennobled ; and in the
metaphorical meaning, v-nipyMixai, virepxcLfxriv, virepxov, virip-
X^cydat, v7T€pxoiJ-€vos, v7:r]px6iJL7]v, and vireXeva-opiaL, replaced
the VTTio:), vTTLoiiu, vttlOl, virUvat, vttiwv, virfja, and VTrnfjn
demanded by the simple signification : Plato, Crito 5^ E,
VTtepxoixevos bi] /3two-et Travras avdpa>TTOvs /cat bovXevcov : Demosth.
623. 22, (rviJ.f3el3r]K€ yap ex tovtov avrols p-kv avrnraXovs elvai
TovTovs, vpas 8e vTrepxecrdai^ Kal depaireveLV : Andoc. 31. 44
(4. 21), et/coVoos be pot hoKov<nv 01 Kpirai virepxea-Oat 'AXKil3idbrjv,
6po)VT€S Tavpeav rocravTa p.'kv xPWO-tc. avaXcixravTa TrpoTtrjXaKL-
Cop.€vov, Tov be ToiavTa TTapavopovvra p-eyta-Tov bvvapevov. The
same metaphor is found in Xen. Rep. Ath. 2, 14, v-nepxo-
pevos, and in the present indicative and aorist in Arist.
Eq. 269; Dem. 1369. 20; and Xen. Rep. Lac. 8. 2^.
It will, moreover, be observed that, even in the simple verb,
the paradigm represents eXeva-opai as correct Attic in the
moods. In the indicative it was rendered unnecessary in
Attic by the unconditional surrender of etpc to a future
sense, but in the two moods — the optative and infinitive —
and in the participle, forms from kkevcropai might naturally
be used, as loipi, Uvai, and twy were always employed in a
present signification. The future optative^ as is well
known, is the rarest of moods, and eXeva-oip^-qv certainly
does not happen to be found in Attic writers, but Lysias
employs the infinitive eXeva-eo-dai, 165. 12 (22. 13), aXXa
yap, CO avbpes biKaa-rai, otopai avTovs eirt pev tovtov tov Xoyov
ovK eXevaeadat. Now, as in this case, if eXevcrecrOai was
questionable Attic, the Orator might easily have said,
olopai av avTovs . . . eXOelv, the passage is a valuable proof
that eXeva-OLprjv, iXevaea-dai, and eXevaopevos were good Attic,
while the indicative eXeva-opat, was, by the stringent law of
' In Thuc. 3. 12, Tt'y ow avTT] fj <pi\ia eyiyuiro ^ fK(v0ep(a mar^ ev ^ napoi
yvw^ii^v d\\T]\ovi iiri5ex<^iJif0a ; Haase has conjectured, with some plausibility,
vnrjpxofifOa.
^ Compare Soph. O. R. 3S6, Phil. 1007; Eur. Andr. 435, I. A. 67.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. ill
parsimony which rules in Attic Greek, studiously ignored.
The participle future of ^aivu> is used in certain compounds,
as aT7ol3i](r6ixeva in Thuc. 8. 75, and its indicative and
infinitive are also occasionally encountered in the compound
form ; but neither jSaivo), nor any compound of (Baivco, could
have supplied the place of cXeva-ea-dai in Lysias. The
phrase is iirl Xoyov livai, eXdelv, eXeva-ea-Oai, ikr\\vOivai : and
in such a phrase, if the future optative or participle was
required^ ikeva-oiixrjv or iXeva-ofj^evos was certainly employed.
Nothing proves the genuineness of the expression in Lysias
so well as the conjectures which, from Elmsley^s time, have
been hazarded by critics. Rauch reads ov Karaipeviea-Oai,
Scheibe, ovKin (jiev^^a-dat, and Cobet, ov Tpexf/ecrdaL, and
there may be others equally futile. Elmsley was led to
suggest corruption in Lysias by the dictum of Phrynichus,
who himself errs in giving a future sense not only to
the indicative, but also to the other moods of etidt.
Professor Goodwin, in a book of rare merit, ' The Syntax
of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb,' has com-
mitted the same grave error when he says, p. 6 : ' The
present et/xt, / am going, through all its moods is used like
a future.' And he further errs in the remark that follows :
' Its compounds are sometimes used in the same sense.'
The future signification of ei/it is known only in the
present, and in Attic Greek the same is always true of all
its compounds.
xxvin.
'AakoVkov ao^ia bi* evoc i ou xpH Afreiv, ctAA' ev toTv buo?v,
ClAKaUKOV, TpO)(aUK(jV.
On this question, how far the soft vowel of the diph-
thongs ai, fu, ei, was in Attic Greek elided before another
vowel, a ponderous literature has accumulated. To any
1 1 2 THE NE W PHR YNICHUS.
one who cares to reflect that it is practically impossible
to acquire any certain knowledge of ancient Greek pro-
nunciation, and that such knowledge, if acquired, would
never commend itself as an important part of pure schol-
arship, the discussion of this point would prove of little
interest. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the
design of the present work, which aims rather at pourtraying
the extraordinary refinement and precision of the Athenian
mind, during its brief imperial life, than at discussing the
lisp of Alcibiades, or even the pebbles to which Demo-
sthenes owed his fluency.
However, as often as there is any trustworthy evidence
on points like these, it is worthy of consideration, and many
questions of Attic orthography may be settled beyond
dispute. Even in this case certainty in regard to some
points is attainable, and no one would now venture to dispute
that, in the old Attic of Tragedy, forms like koio), KAatco,
aieros, ate^ ekaCa were retained when /cdco, KA.da), det, iXda,
had replaced them in ordinary speech. Perhaps of Tragedy
also, the dictum of Phrynichus may have held true, but
it certainly is not true of Attic generally. The history
of the name of their patron goddess demonstrates the
inconsistency of the Athenians in such cases. The original
'A^rjyata is found in many inscriptions anterior to Euclides,
afterwards it was reduced to 'AOrjvda, and ultimately to
'Adrjva. In Tragedy, however, 'AO-qvaia is found only in
three lines of Aeschylus (Eum. 288, 299, 614) ; elsewhere he
employs, as Sophocles and Euripides always do, the distinct
form ^ AOdva.
A very careful discussion of the whole question will be
found in Konrad Zacher's monograph, 'de NominibusGraecis
in -atos, -ata, -ator,' which forms the third volume of ' Disser-
tationes Philologicae Halenses.' The result he arrives at is
this (p. 11), 'Vides in certis quibusdam vocibus diphthongum
quae ante vocalem est a poctis corripi interdum^ sed saepe
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 113
etiam servare longam naturam ; vides aliorum in hac re
alium esse usum, ut Sophocles multo saepius hac cor-
reptione utitur, quam Aeschylus vel Euripides; vides
in nonnullis horum ipsorum vocabulorum interdum etiam
prorsus omitti iota, sed neque in omnibus neque in illis
ipsis semper et certis quibusdam legibus ; vides denique
titulorum scriptores valde titubasse et ante EucHdem iota
saepius servasse, quam omisisse. Quid his omnibus
efficitur? Nihil ahud quam quod supra jam dixi ; illo
tempore vocahs iota sonum in diphthongis ante vocalem
sequentem admodum attenuatum esse et in multis vocibus
tenerae cujusdam consonae nostro j simiHs naturam indu-
isse, ita tamen ut in ipso sermone Attico magna esset in-
constantia, quum iota modo vocali plenae simihus sonaret,
modo ad consonae sonum appropinquaret, modo fortius,
modo exihus pronuntiaretur.'
XXIX.
Nhpov ubwp juHbajuwc, dAAd npootparov, ciKpaicpvec.
Phrynichus is in error. 'Nrjpos, as applied to water, was
not AttiC; but it was as good as Trpoa-cfyaTO'i or aKpat<})vr]S,
both of which are strongly metaphorical. The Attic phrase
was KuOapov vhoip : Plato, Phaedr. 229 B, KaOapa nal bia-
(jjavii TO. vOaTia (fyau'erai kol e7rtr?j8eia Kopat^ Trai^ett" Trap"
avTo.
Kudapcav vbdrctiv ttuj/x' apV(Taip.i]v.
l'",ur. Hipp. ?09.
The word r//^o's-, however, is of extraordinary interest.
Phrynichus doubtless considered it the same word as
v(ap6^, but there can be no question about its true origin.
Its history can be traced for about 3000 years. It is
presupposed by the names Nry/^ei^y and N??p)/ts', and in
I
114 T^HE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
modern Greek survives as ^'e/^os. The Etymologicum Mag-
num, s. V. NapoV, quotes from the Troilus of Sophocles —
Trpos vapa koX Kprjvaia )(utpovjj.ev ttotu,
and Photius from Aeschylus —
vapas T€ AtpKT]?,
and the former writer adds that, even in Hellenistic Greek,
the word had become vepoi : r; avvrjQeia, rpi-^acra to a ds e,
Ae'yei vepov.
It is one of that class of words which, though often
hardly represented in literature, live persistently in the
mouth of the people ; and in many a rural deme of Attica
the word was undoubtedly used when it was lost to literary
Attic, except in the representative of the dialect in its
ancient form, the language of Tragedy.
XXX.
TTo? dnei; outoo cuvrdtjoeTai bid loO r noC be clnei; bid
ToO u, djudpTHjua. ei be ev tco u, noG biaxpipeic;
As frequently happens, a general rule underlies the
special instance of the grammarian. In late Greek the
distinction between ttoi ttov, o! ov, ottov o7Toi,'eKet and e/ceicre,
practically disappeared, and transcribers brought the care-
less and ignorant usage of their own day, into the texts
of Classical writers. The older and more reliable a manu-
script is, the less frequently does the corruption occur in
its pages. The fault must in every case be ascribed to
the copyists. An Attic writer would as readily have used
OLKOL for ot/caSe, as ttov for ttoT, or tKei for eKelcre, and ot/<a8e
for OLKOL would have seemed little less absurd than ttoT
for TTOV, or eKeto-e for eKet.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 115
Ordinary intelligence must, however, be exercised in
applying this rule, as many verbs of rest may, without
violence, receive a modified signification of motion. Thus
in Eur. H. F. 74 —
S> fMrJTcpy avba, ttoX irarrjp aTrecrn yfis ;
the use of irol is natural and correct, but in Arist. Av. 9,
Dawes was certainly right in altering ovbc irrj, or ovbe ttoT,
to 0V8' OTTOV —
aAA ovo OTTOV yr]9 ecr/xev 010 €■/(»•/ en.
In PlutUs 1055 —
A. /3ovAet 5ta \p6vov irpb^ e/xe TTaiaat ;
B. TTot rdXav ;
A. avTov, kalSovaa Kapva'
where Meineke edits -nov, the Scholiast has a plausible
reason for ttoi : To irol aKcaiiTiKov' 877X01 yap aKoXacrias
TOTTov Cr]Tov(Tav. Sophocles wrote in O. C. 335 —
A. 01 8' avd6iJ.aip.0L ttoI veaviaL trovelv ;
B. eicr' ovTTep eto-f 8etz'a 8' ef Keivois to. vvv'
and Euripides in Or. 1474 —
TTOV bfJT ap.vveLV ol Kara (rrh/a'i ^pvyes ;
There is no question that the Greek of both passages is
excellent.
As usual, Xenophon must be regarded as outside the
limits of Attic law. There is practically no standard of
criticism possible for him, and it is quite possible that
the manuscripts do not misrepresent him when they ex-
hibit TTOV with a verb of motion and ttoi with a verb of rest.
He even employs oiKabe in what is nearly the sense of
otKOi : Cyr. I. 3, 4, (KLTTviov 6e 6 'Aa-Tvdyr}s avv ruJ Kvpta
(3ov\6p.(vo^ Tuv TTaiba o)? rjoirrra benrvelv, Iva t^jttov to. otKciSe
TToOoLT], TTporn']yayiv avT<L Kal TTapo\}/iba^. When critics crasc
I 2
n6 THE NFAV PHRYNICHUS.
the rd before otKo^e they show their ignorance of the
character of Xenophon's style, and forget that the oc-
currence of expressions like o?/ca8e ix^-iv^ in the Common
dialect, is a strong argument for a similar usage in a writer
who, from the circumstances of his life, was placed in a
literary position resembling in many points that of men
who wrote after the fall of Attic independence.
The case of ^KeWev with the article is very different.
When Euripides (I. T. 1410) says —
Kayo) jxev evdvs -npos ere h^vp a'necrTaX'qv
(Tol TCLS (KeWev crrwxavGiV, ava^, rv^'^s'
the propriety of ^KeWev is at once recognized ; and the case
is not different with Thuc. 8. J07, koI h tijv Evj3oLav d7re7re/x-
\}/av 'iTnTOKpArrj Kal 'ETTtKAea Kop.iovvTas ras eKeWev vavs. Even
in Thuc. i. 62 the meaning of eKet^ei^ is very different from
that of exei : koL tQ>v ^vpipidx^cop oAtyovs iirl "OXvvdov airo-
Trep.TT0V(TLV, oTTco? eipyuxTi Tovs ^KeWev eTn[3ori6e'iv, — t/ie people
from there. The well-known rovKeWev in Soph. O. C. 505
is not equivalent to eKei, but is due to the same tendency
in language which made al? ilia parte, e regionc, etc., com-
mon expressions in Latin —
A. a A a' etju' eyw reAoi3(ra" rov tottov 8' tva
XP'fj crrai p. ((pevpelp, tovtg fiovXopui p-aOeiv.
B. TovKeWev akaov^, a» ^^vrj, Tovb\ /ere.
In the earliest Greek irpoa-dev and ep-TTpoa-Oev, o-irta-dev
and e^oTTLo-Oiv, are constantly encountered by a usage
of which TovKeWev aXcrovs is merely an extension, and in
Attic times expressions like et? to e^o-ma-Oev, ets TovTrtcrdev,
were familiarly employed by the best writers.
XXXI.
'Ektot6 Kara junbeva rponov ei'nHC, dAA' eH eKeivou.
THE XEW PHRYNICHUS. WJ
XXXII.
'AnonaAai kqi iKnaAai dju9oIv buoxepaivoa, 6k naAaioG rap
XpH Aereiv.
These words of Phrynichus start an inquiry of great
difficulty. It is true that €ktot€ does not occur in Attic,
but Homer used etVoVe, agahist the time zvhen —
^Cuver k-n€.ty6\xivoL tov kixov ya^iov, ets o Ke (papos
€KTek4(T(i) — fJLi] fj-ot, ixeTafx(avta vr]\xaT okrjrai —
AaepTT] TJfpcoi Ta(f)ri'LOi', els ot( k^v \xiv
p.olp oAot) KaOiXr\(Ti TavrjXey^os OavdroLO.
Od. 2. 99.
And Aeschines has eh OTroVe, 67. 38, bevrepov 8e h €v olbev
ovbeTTOTe kaop-eva To\p.q Kiyeiv api6p.G)V eis ottoV €crTat. In
Plato, ets t6t€ is frequently met with : Legg. 845 C, eav eis
Tore TO. TOLavra irepl avrov rows tots Kpirds rts dvapip.vri<TKr] :
888 B, TTepipetvov ovv ets roVe KpLTi]s irepl tS>v p.iyitJT(av yiy-
v€(r6ai. In a chorus of Sophocles is irore is found —
ris 6,pa viaTos es TroVe Ar/fet TroAuTrAayKTcoy ere'coi; dpid\x6s ;
Aj. 1 185.
and even e^oVe occurs in a choric passage of Aristo-
phanes —
yevos dvocnov, orrep e^oV eyeveT l-n ipol
TtoKepLLOV eTpd(f)r].
Av. 334.
After the Attic period €ktot€ came into use. Although
Lucian, in his Pseudosophist \ ridicules the word, he yet
employs it himself in his Asinus, 45. (613), kok totc e^ e/xoC
TTpCOTOV IjXOeV (is dl'OpMTTOVi U \6yOS OVTOS, 'R$ ovov TTa-
paKv^euis. Moreover it is read by some manuscripts in
' He makes his friend Socrates ironically compliment a man for using
iKTOrrt: Ty 8« \iyovri tKrort, KoA<5i', t^rj, ro t'lniiv fHwipviTi, 6 -yip TlKiirajy iv
t(5t« Xtytt. Pseudosophist, 7. (571).
Il8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Aristotle, H. A. 12. 5i9« 29, ovh\ (ava^verai) ro Kevrpov Srav
anofiakri r] jxiXirra, dAX' e/< t6t(. airoOvrja-Kei,. On the Other
hand, neither airo rore nor d<^' ore is encountered till a very-
late date.
Throughout Greek literature es is used with adverbs of
time. In Homer, Od. 7. 318, it is true that the original
reading was avpiov h not e? rrnxos —
TrofiTTrjv 8' is rob' eyw TeKjxaipoixaL, o<pp ev elbfjs,
avpiov e?' Trjfxos 8e crv juev SeSju.Tj/jie'i'os VTryw,
for TTJpios could not be used of any but past time ; but eis
6t€ has already been quoted, and with that may be com-
pared the use of is tC in II, 5. 465 —
is TL ert KTCLveo-Oai edcrere Xabv 'A)(aiois ;
No one needs to be reminded of the phase KTrjjxa is cai,
and is oxlre occurs in Thucydides (8. 23), and ets ov/^e in
Dem. 1303. 14.
In a different sense, namely, that which appears in
phrases like ds iviavrov —
TpLS yap TiKT^i. ixrjXa Tekea(p6pov els ivLavrov,
Od. 4. 86.
rjv Ttep yap KrJTai ye Te\€(r(f)6pov eis iviavrov,
11.19.32.
the preposition is also attached to adverbs of time. Some
of these are icrd-na^ (Thuc. 5. 85 ; Plato, Soph. 247 E),
(la-avdis or ds avOis (Plato, Legg. 862 D et freq.), eo-e-n-eira
(Thuc. I. 130, etc.). The meaning of tHe preposition in
iaavTiKa is clearly indicated by Ar. Pax ^66 —
A. artokajXas, i^okoiXas,
es Tiv riixipav ;
A. is aiiTLKa jxaka.
All Greek authors from Homer downwards use ia-varepov.
In both these significations els was in late Greek attached
THE NE W PHR YNICHUS. i j 9
to many more adverbs than was allowable in Attic, and
expressions like ^la-ayav, ets aAt?, eia-dpTi, elaixATriv, etcraxpt,
were used with freedom.
It is here necessary to make an important distinction.
The meaning of ds and e^, in the combinations discussed
above, is decidedly prepositional ; but it must not be for-
gotten that prepositions are often associated with adverbs
in quite another way. In airapTi the force of the airo is
not prepositional, but adverbial ; and the same is true of vtto-
Kdrco, v7TOK6.TOL>dev, eTTavcti, (Trdvcadev, and many others. In late
writers, on the other hand, an dirdpTL is found, in which the
diTo has its meaning prepositional (see p. 71); but in an
Attic writer such a meaning was certainly impossible.
The Homeric and late e^eVi has not the meaning which
its form might suggest, and really has no place in this
discussion, but in -npoa-iTi the -npos is distinctly adverbial.
In Attic, two years ago is expressed by TTpoirepvcnv as natu-
rally as a year ago by -nipvcn, but the irpo in the former
word is not a preposition, but an adverb. In kK-n^pvai, how-
ever, the form which Lucian indicates as little worse than
€KTOT€, the (K would not be adverbial, but prepositional.
In a Comic climax in the Knights, Aristophanes em-
ploys TTpoTtakat, 1. 1 153 —
A. Tpi-naXai Kddr\p.ai. ftov\6\x(v6'S (t evcpyerdv.
B. eyo) 8e bcKdiraXai, ye, /cat boiheKaTraXai,
Kol x'^'OTToAat, /cat TrpoTTaXanraXaiTTakaL.
Like the adjective Trpo-ndkaio^, it is used in sober writing
in late Greek. In no case should it be compared with
aTToVaAat, as the irpo is adverbial, the d-no prepositional.
A good instance of a compound in which both parts
arc distinctly adverbial is the word crvveyyvs, which occurs
in • Thucydides and other Attic writers : Thuc 4. 24,
^viyyvs Ket/u.eVov tov T€ 'Vrjylov dKponripiov Tfjs 'IraA^ay riji re
Mfo-rrrji'Tjv ttjs StKcAtas. It would be rash to found any
I20 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
argument upon h-eyyv^, which, at best, has only a pre-
carious existence in Ouintus Smyrnaeus, an epic writer of
the fourth Christian century ; but Aristotle unquestionably
employed -napeyyvs. The word is typical of a notable
characteristic of un-Attic Greek. Instead of accepting
common words as the natural exponents of common
thoughts, it attempted to say more than was necessary,
and in this way defeated its own aim. '2,vv€yyvs supplied
a distinct want ; Trapeyyvs is a weaker kyyvs in the guise of
strength, and finds fitting company in -rrapeKd, -napavroOev,
■napavTodi, eTTtTrpoVco, amKeW^v, aircvTevdev, and other late
words. The expression ' un-Attic Greek ' has been pur-
posely used, because, even in Homer and other Classical
writers outside the Attic bounds, a similar tendency of
language is distinctly traceable. The words iJL€T6TTi.(r9ev
and aTTov6(T(pLv, of frequent occurrence in the Homeric
poems, are peculiarly in point, as they belong to the class
now under discussion. ' A-novocrcfyLv is no more than vocrcfiiv,
and ix^TOTTio-de no more than oina-Oe, and both words involve
a violation of the law of parsimony, an instinctive principle
which permeates the language of the Athenians, and not only
differentiates it from all other Greek dialects, but elevates
it above almost all other tongues. UpoTidpoiOe is another
word of the same class, which may also be considered to
include all such expressions as ex bioOev, and e£ ovpavodev.
In Homer forms like v-niKhuK, biairpo, a-noirpo, are often
used with propriety, but the line ought surely to be drawn
at aiT€K, which is met with in the Homeric Hymns —
avTiK ap FilkeidvLav aireK jxeydpoto Ovpa^e
kKTTpoKaX^a-a-afx^vr], kir^a TTTepoevra Trpoa-rjvba.
Apol. no.
A well-known feature of Euripides' style, already referred
to (p- 35), is the habit of using antique words in order to
balance the great number of modern expressions which he
introduced into his verse The tragic dialect, which had
THE NEW FHRYNICHUS. T2I
for its basis the Attic of the period before the Persian wars,
was, of course, more or less modified by every great Tragic
poet ; but Euripides was the first to give a firm footing to
many words of modern acceptance which were either not
used at all, or only tolerated by his predecessors. At the
same time, a careless observer might regard his style as more
than usually antiquated from the free use of such words
as o-e^ez', v7Tep(f)ev, ifxeOev, ttotl, etc. It would often seem
as if he almost consciously used P2pic words to give an old-
world air to his verse. Accordingly, it is not surprising
to encounter in Euripides expressions like fxeroTrto-^e and
anoTTpo, and similar reminiscences of Homer may be ob-
served on every page.
Any freak of diction may be expected in a writer like
Apollonius Rhodius, who, at an age when Greek had
already lost all its great qualities, attempted to write in
an old style which he little understood. He naturally
makes even more blunders than are found in modern
attempts to imitate Classical Greek styles, and, by mis-
understanding the facts of tmesis in Homer, has been
led to use many forms intrinsically absurd. In Iliad
lo. 273—
I3av p Uvai, kiir^Trjv he Kar avroOi. Travras apio-rovs,
the Kara belongs to Knrhrjv, but in Apollonius KaravToOi
unblushingly takes the place of the simple avroOi —
ev yap eyw pnv
AaaKvKov (v peydpOLcrt KaravToOt, Trarpos epiolo
010 €t(nO(i)v.
Ap. Rh. 3. 778.
Another kind of mistake has produced ctti b-qv or eiribT^v —
ovb^ €7rt br}v ixeTiTTetra Kepa(T(Tap.evoL Ad koL^ds.
Id. I. 516.
tK-nofxai. ovk €77t b/jv ere ftapvv x^'^oy Atr/rao
(K(f)VyiiLV.
1,1. 4. 738.
122 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
It is an unintelligent imitation of the Homeric l-nX hripov,
which, like ctti ttoXvv xpoVoy, is used with propriety.
Late forms as debased as a-neKe'i, aireKelae, k-novvv, a-noxj/^,
and their fellows, do not merit, and would not repay,
consideration.
XXXIII.
TTHviKa Jim ei'nHC dvTi toG nore* eaxi rap copac bHAcori-
Kov, olov elnovTOc tivoc, nHviKa dnobHjUHO eic ; edv
ei'nHC, jLitid buo h rpelc Hjuepac, ouk opBooc kpeic edv
b' ei'nHC eooGev h nepi juec Hjuppiav, dpGwc epelc.
The other grammarians copy Phrynichus, and some of
them extend his dictum to the correlatives b-mqvUa, rjvUa,
TTjviKavTa, and TTjVLKabe. They are all more or less in error.
It is true that ir-qviKa and TrjvtKdb^ are generally used in
what was doubtless their genuine meaning, and that the
other words are frequently so employed. Thus their pri-
mitive reference to the time of day attaches to TrrjvUa and
oTnjrt/ca in Arist. Av. 1498 —
A. tttjvCk earlv apa rrjs rjfji^pas ;
B. SirriviKa ; crp,iKp6v ri \xeTa }Xi(Tr]ix^piav.
And an interesting passage of Aeschines tells the same
story (2. 15), o yo-P voixoOiTTjs btapprjbrjv airoh^iKVVcn irpSiTov
/xer T)t' wpak TTpoar]Ket hvai tov iraiba tov ekevOepov eis to biba-
(TKak^'iov, iTTeira fxeTO, TToa-cov iraLboiv elaUvaL koI 6in]i'iKa aTtUvai,
Kol Tovs btbaa-Kakovs to. btbaa-Kakela kol tovs TratSorpt/Sas ras
TTaXaicTTpas avoiyeiv p,\v a-nayopevei, /xt/ irpoTcpov irplv oli' 6 ^Xios
dciffXTlj K^keUiv be TTpoa-rdTTa irpo iqXiou ScSukotos. In the only
passage of Homer in which rjvLKa, is met with, it has this
same limited sense —
vvv jjiev br] fxaka irdyxv, Mekdvdie, vvKTa (f)vkd^€LS,
evvfj evL jxakaKfj Karakeypiivos, cos ae eoLKCv'
ovbe ae y TyptyeVeta "nap oxedvoLo podoiv
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 123
A7/o-et k-ni.p\o\i.kvr\ xp^^^odpovos, tjvIk aytvels
alyas iJ.vri(TTrip€<T(n, boixov Kara baiTa iriveaOai
Od. 22. 198.
and naturally it never loses it throughout Greek lite-
rature. Similarly, r^jyt/caura is employed of a point of time
in the natural day by Lysias (93. 43}, tovt(o rjkiov bebvKOTos
lovTL €^ aypov airrivTricra. ei8a)s 8' eyw otl TT]viKavTa a(j)Lyp.evos
ovbiva KaTaXrjxI/oiTo oIkoi t5>v iiTLTr]be[oiv : and TrjVLKabe so
occurs very frequently (Plato, Phaed. 76 B, Protag. 310
B, Crit. 43 A).
With the exception of TrjvLKdbc, however, which does not
extend its meaning till late writers like Polybius, all these
words are found more or less frequently in a more general
sense. Even TrrjviKa certainly so occurs in Demosthenes
(329. 23), ey rCaiv ovv koX TnqvUa av Kap-TTpos ; 'qviK hv eiTrety
Ti Kara tovtodv beji, and in Ar, Av. 15 14 —
A. cLTTokoiXev 6 Zevs' B. ir-qvCK cltt aTrtoAero ;
no one but a grammatical martinet would insist upon any
other rendering. From its generalised meaning of ivhen,
which occurs with frequency, oin^vlKa acquired that of since.
An example of the former signification is provided by
Thucydides (4. 125), Kvpoodev ovbev oTrrjVLKa xp-q 6pp.a(rdai,
and of the latter by Demosthenes (527. 23), aWa p.r]v 6iTr]vUa
Kai veTTOLT]K(^s, a KaTrjyopci, Kal vj3peL TreTTOtrjKO)? (j)aCv€Tai, tovs
vopLOVs T]br] bel (rKoirdv.
It is no rare experience to find 17^1^0 corresponding to
t6t€, Plato, Symp. 198 C, roVe . . . r]viKa vp.lv iip.o\6yovv,
and still more frequently rjvW 6.v replacing orav or eireLbAv —
TivLK av mvdoiixiv ifTOL }s\ip.vov 7/ ^apiTy]bova.
Ar. Nub. 622.
Not only docs TrjvLKavra become as general as roVe —
K<Ira yiyvop.aL Tiaxvs
TT^viKavra tov Oipovs,
Id. Tax 1 170.
124 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
but even passes from chronology to Ethics in such pas-
sages as Ar. Pax 1142 —
€t7re ]u,ot, rt r-qvLKavTa hpG>ix^v, w Kcofxap^ibr] ;
XXXIV.
'Opepi
voc
ou,
oAA' opOpioc
XOipic
ToO V.
XXXV.
'0\|/iv6c, OjUOlOOC
TOO
1
ouv
OpeplVOC KQl
dv6U TOO V,
TOUTO
6\J/10C.
ajudpTHjua.
Of the second of these words three forms occur, namely,
c\lnixos, oy^Lvos, and oyj/ios. First met with in a line of the
Iliad (2. 325), o\ln[j.os does not again appear till late Greek,
except in the Oeconomicus, a disputed work of Xenophon
(17. 4), 6 Trpcdtjuos 77 6 jxicros r) 6 d\ln\xu>TaTos cnropos. If the
book is really Xenophon's, the words 7rpwt/>ios and 6\j/ifx(tiTaTos
not only afford an admirable illustration of the incon-
sistency of his diction, as o^lnaiTaToi occurs in Hell. 5. 4. 3,
and TTpc^aLTara in Cyr. 8. 8. 9, but may well be regarded
as another proof of the position, that with an Attic basis
his diction is really a composite one, being modified, both in
vocabulary and syntax, by the other dialects of European
and Asiatic Hellas.
Although the Latin bimus, trimus, etc., are doubtless
derived from hiems, and can no more be compared with
o^lnp.o'i, than hornus (ho-ver-nus) with oiptvos, yet there is
no reason to deny the antiquity of the suffix in oy^^ios,
irpanixos, and wpt/xo?. With the exception of o^jnixos, the
words are late as far as literature can inform us, but they
may still have had a long and uninterrupted history in
some little-regarded corner of Greece.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 1 25
With o^ivo'i, besides dpdpLvos, may be compared x^'-H-^-
pLvos, rjfxepLvos, TTpootvos, and the Latin vernus, diuturnus,
periendinus, while with ov//-tos and opdpios are comparable
&pios, TTp<aos, T]ij.eptos, and x^'/^^'p'o?. Attention has already
been called to the way in which Attic Greek utilised
superfluous forms, and some of these words illustrate this
habit in an interesting manner. When an Attic writer
desires to express some natural fact which takes place /;/
winter he employs x.^i\x^piv6^, but with reference to inci-
dents which merely resemble those of winter x(iip.ipio^ is
the term employed. Thucydides (7. 16) speaks of x^ip.^-
pivai i]\lov TpoTraC, and in Plato (Legg. 683 C ; 915 D); the
winter solstice is called to. x^'-I^^P'-^^- Any article of ap-
parel or of domestic furniture intended for winter use has
X^ip-epLvos appropriately applied to it. On the other hand,
X^t-piepios is employed with propriety in Thuc. 3. 22, r-qpi]-
(TavT€S vvKTa xf 'M^'p'or vbari koI avep-ca, kol ap! aaeXTjvov : and
figuratively in Arist. Ach. 1141 —
i>L(f)€i, ^a/Batd^' xet/xepta to. ■npayp.aTa.
There can be little question that the same distinction was
made between Ofpivos and Oepeios, and that it is merely by
accident that depetos does not occur in Attic Greek. Simi-
larly, r]p.epiv69 strictly means 0/ day, as cp&s rip,€piv6v, while
TjpLfpLOL avOpctiTToi, not rjp.€pLvoi, is the correct expression.
For the poetical r)p.^pLo^, prose writers substituted rjp.epijcno'i,
as Isocr. 343 C, 7jp.epri(Tios Ao'yos, a speccJi that takes a day to
deliver. KvKTepwoi and vvKTcprjaLos are differentiated in
the same way.
In cases in which nothing could be gained by retaining
more than a single form, Attic abandoned all but one —
sometimes one suffix getting the mastery, sometimes an-
other — as ripivos, p.((Tr]p.(3ptv6'i, oTTOjpiru'i, piTOTTcopivus, but
o\}/LOi, opOpLos, and Trpwoy.
126 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
XXXVI.
MeOOVUKTlOV nOlHTlKOV, OU noAlTlKOV,
Even the adjective //eo-ow/cnos is poetical, as Eur. Hec.
914, ch.—
[li.crovvKTio'i oiXoixav,
riixo9 (K beC-JTVMv vttvos ktc.
Of the substantive, Lobeck remarks that it is first met with
in Hippocrates, and afterwards used by Aristotle, Diodorus,
Strabo, and others. There was in Attic no word express-
ing for the night what fxea-qnlSpia expressed for the day,
the phrases ^ea-ovcri]^ vvktos, fxearjs vvktos, and jxecrov vvktZv,
or VVKTOS, being always employed instead. Even ixea-rjixIBpia
became in late Greek ^lea-r] rjjxepa, a form discovered also
in the Oeconomicus (16. 14), e? ns avr-qv kv iiicn^ rw Olpei
KoX ev ixicrr} rfj rjixepq klvolt] tw (eijyet, and doubtless owing
its place in the Common dialect to Ionian influence. Ac-
cording to Lobeck, the first instance of the analytical form
comes from Hippocrates.
In Thuc. 3. 80, fxexpi' }xi(Tov rjn^pas, the fiia-ov used to be
regarded as a peculiar feminine form, and not, as it really
is, a substantive governing r]ix4pas in the genitive.
XXXVII.
H ojucpaS, H pa)Aoc, eHAuKoac beov, ouk dpoeviKooc.
XXXVIII.
'H hhAoc ZupaKouGioi Aerovrec djuapidvouoiv.
Such remarks require no comment, except that they are
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 127
correct. In the latter, the purism of Phrynichus comes out
in cLfxapravova-Lv, a word which Lobeck has considered worthy
of half a page of small print.
It is, however, tempting to seize this opportunity of
discussing the derivation of Trpo-n-qXaKiCoi, a verb generally
derived from tdjAo?. This is of course altogether impos-
sible, and Curtius has accordingly to coin a form, TrrjXa^,
corresponding to /3a)Aa£, a side-form of jSoikos, encountered
in Pindar and Theocritus. But of TrrjKa^ there is no trace
in Greek authors, and none even in lexicographers, and of
ttclXko^ in Hesychius the less said the better. Moreover,
why should the Greeks have gone out of their way to say
TTpoTT-qKaKiCo), when TrpoTrrjAtX'^ was certainly as legitimate
a formation ? As a matter of fact, the verb has no connection
whatever with tt/jAo'?, as there is no irrjXa^, and Kdra not irpo
would have been the preposition used to bring out the
signification which SuTdas assigns to the word, -napa to
TTTjAof €Tn\pU(r6aL to. TrpocrcaiTa t&v aTLfxCav Koi v[3piv Kara-
In a passage of Xenophanes of Colophon, preserved in
Athenaeus (2. 54 F), the adjective TrrjXUo^ occurs in a con-
nection in which it must have been familiarly used —
Trap "nvpl xpr] rotaCra Xiyetv xf^M^Syos ev u>pr},
fv K\Lvr] fxakaKf] KaTaKeifxevov IjUTrAeoy ovra
TTivovra ykvKvv olvov, viroTpwyovT ipej3ivdovs,
TLi TToOev as avbpcav ; TroVa tol €ti] €(ttl, (^epia-re ;
7Tr]KLK09 rfO-S' 0^' 6 MtjSos a(f)iK€TO ;
Almost any phrase could be thrown into a verbal shape
by the suffixing of -l(oj. From h KopaKas came the verb
(TKopaKtCo), which by Demosthenes' time had fought its way
into literature (l5,5« 15)) 01 8' urav to. ixiyicrra KaTopOcaa-uya-L,
t6t€ 'fxdXia-Ta aKopaKi^ovTai koX TTpoirrjX.aKi^ovTai irapa to Trpocr-
fJKOv. Similarly, eV ajxtfjoTepa supplied eiTap.(l)OTepi^o>, and
^■n oLKpov, (iraKpCCoi. Many words of the same kind must
128 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
necessarily have perished, as it is only a tithe of any argot
which ever finds its way into literature proper. Even
TTTjAt/ct'Cto, or TTrjXaKiCM, was doubtless often used in colloquial
Greek of asking a man's age ; but its compound 7rpo7TrjA.aKtX"J,
ask a man's age before yon knoxv him, begin with asking a
mans age, if not primarily so used, must soon have ac-
quired the secondary sense which it always bears in lite-
rary Greek. The obnoxious antepenult is at once ex-
plained, and the preposition has an appropriate and usual
signification, while the change of vowel presents no dif-
ficulty. The Homeric prototype of verbs of this formation,
namely, l(To^api((a, itself exhibits a similar change, that of
e to a, as in TrAaruytXco from -nXarayr], a itself has been re-
placed by V.
Accuracy of scholarship is checked at the outset when
a boy turns up his dictionary and finds one of the mean-
ings given for que is or, and is told that -npo-n^kaKt^M comes
from TTrjXos, (vy<x>6piC.oi from (vyov, iTkaTay[((i> from TrAarrj,
and evT^vrkavoi from nvrXov. In the latter word even the
texts are in error. In the Aristophanic parody —
fjLrjbe yap Oavoiv Ttore
crov xu>pls eh^i evTeTevrkioifxevrji,
Ach. 894.
the manuscripts present nothing but evTeTevrkavMixevi-js, a
formation altogether impossible. The Greek word for beet
was t€vtXov or revrkiov, and from the latter form Aristo-
phanes legitimately used kvT^vTKiovv for to cook in beet.
Not even in its most debased period did Greek replace
t^vtKov or t€vtX(.ov by r^vrXavov.
XXXIX.
TToianoc bid toC t mh ei'nHC, ctboKijuov r^p. bid tou beAra
he Aerwv eni revouc BHoeic, TTobanoc eon; 0Hpatoc h
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 129
'AGHvaioc. "Egti rap olov eK ti'voc banebou. notanoc
be eoTiv el ei'noi, noxanoc tov xponov 4>puvi)(0C;
enieiKHC' xpH ouv outooc epooxav, FFoIoc tic aoi boKel
elva I ;
It will be observed that Phrynichus begins with denying
.the spelling with tau altogether, but afterwards proceeds
to say that, when so spelt, it has a different signification.
Lobeck is wrong in considering the second half of the
remark as a spurious addition. The sense is plain, ' FToSa-
TTo's must not be written with a tau. Its only form in
Attic is TToSaTTo's, with the meaning of what country ? As
for the other meaning now-a-days attached to Trora-no's,
that is no better than the spelling, and was expressed in
Attic Greek by ttoio?.'
The use of his own name by Phrynichus may be paral-
leled from other Grammarians, and the adjective he associ-
ates with it is in keeping with the dry humour of the man.
There is no question that TroraTro? is simply a dege-
nerated form of TToSaTTo's. Classical texts have on the
whole escaped corruption, but a few instances of the vicious
spelling are found ; the first traces, according to Lobeck,
being met with in some codices of Herodotus, 5. 13 and
7. 218. In Alexis —
A. 1)01) ye TO ■nG>ixa' irohaiTo^ 6 Bpo/xtos, Tpv(/)j; ;
B. Qd(rios. A. ufxoiov koI btKatov tovs ^ivovs
TTiveiv ^(viKov, Tovs 8' (yyevHS eTrtx^pioi',
(Athen. lo. 431 B.)
the manuscripts give only TroTairos or -noTafj-os. It is pos-
sible that the r is due to Athenaeus, but Alexis wrote -no-
SaTTo's. Another passage of Alexis —
Ti Aeyeis <tv ; TrormTToj ovTO(rl
&vdpo}TTn<; ; ovk i7rC(TTa(T(u (rjv. -^vxpo. toi
^LTTavTa irapadu) ;
(^Alhen. 9. 3H6 A.)
130 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
was corrected by Dobree. The manuscripts exhibit rt Ae-
yet?, bea-TTOTa, ttcSs ovtoo-l . . ; The lines represent the natural
surprise of a chef at the orders he receives, and the con-
jecture certainly restores the text.
In late Greek iroTaTTos acquired the sense of ttoTo?, as N.T.
Matth. 8. 27, TTOTa-nos kariv ovtos oti koX 01 ayejuot koX f] 6a-
Xaaa-a viTaKovov(Tiv avT<2 ; but that use is certainly unknown
to the Attic iroha-nos. A natural inference from a passage
of Athenaeus is that the more general signification came
from Ionic : Athen. 4. 159 D, Xpva-tTnros b\ h rfj ila-aycayf}
Trj ets TTjv TT€pl oyaOGiv koX KaK&v irpayixaTeiav, veavicrKov (prjcrC
TLva e/c TT/s ^liovLas <T(})6bpa ttXovctlov eTTtSrj/xT^crai rats 'AOrjvais.
TTop(f)vpiba rip.<pi€(rixh'ov, exoixrav xpvcra Kpaa-ireba. Ttvvdavo-
p.ivov be Tivos avTov, irobaiTOS IcrTiv, aTtoKpivacrOat, on irkovaios.
jxriTTOTe Tov avTov jjLvrjixoveveL koL "AAefis ev &r}j3aiots, Aeycoy (38c*
'icTTiv b\ TTobaTTos TO jivos ovTos ; B. ttKovo-los'
TovTovs be TrdvTes <^aa\v evyevecrraTovs
elvai' TTeyrjras 8' evTraTpibas ovbels opa.
A similar line to this of Alexis is found in Ar. Pax
186—
B. TTobaiTos TO yero9 8' el ; 4'P'^C^ Z-^^'*
A. jxtaputTaTO^'
where the joke lies in this, that poor Trugaeus is so
alarmed at the terrible greeting of Hermes that, to every
question put to him, he can only mutter utapcaTaTos, the
key-word of the salutation.
The speech against Aristogiton is generally considered
spurious ; but, if it is a genuine work of Demosthenes, TToba-nos
in 782. 8 is certainly not equivalent to ttoioj, but is used
in its ordinary sense^ rt ovv ovtos ea-Ti ; kvcov, in] Aia, (^aai
TLves, TOV brip.ov. TTobairos ; olos ovs p.ev alTLUTai Avkovs elvai
p/i] buKieiv' a be ({)ri(rL (()v\aTTeLV -npoftaTa, avTos KaTea-dieiv.
' Of what breed, pray ? Molossian, Laconian, or what ? a
dog with such a temper that .'
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 131
XL.
4>av6c eni thc AajLindboc ciAAd juh etti toO Keparivou
Aere. TOUTO be Au)(voOxov Aere.
In the App. Soph. p. 50. 22, Phrynichus is much more
explicit : Xvyj^ovy^a, XajxiTTrip, (f)avbs Sta^epet. kvxvovxos
jxiv ecTTL (TK^vos Ti €v kvkA&) ex^ov Kepara, ^vhov he Kv^vov
f}fji.fX€vov, 8ta T&v KepcLTOiv TO (pQs ireixTiovTa. Aa//7rr7)p 8e
XaX.Kovv rj aibrjpovv r) ^vKlvov ka\xT:ahLov ojjlolov, €xpv Opvak-
At8a. (pavbs be (paKeXos tlvoov crvvbebep-evos koI r]ii\xivor b koX
bia Tov TT. Athenaeus (15. 699 D) quotes many passages
illustrative of these words. The kyxvov^os was a lantern
used in the open air —
KoL SiaoTiA^oi'^' opcDjuei',
wo-Trep iv KaLV<^ kvxvovx<j^,
TidvTa r^s if(oixLbos.
Aristophanes.
i^ovcTiv ol TTOixTTrjs Xvxvovxovs br]\ab-q.
Plato.
6.vvcr6v TTOT €^€\6(ai', cTKoro? yap yiyveTai,
Kal TOV Kvxvovxov eKclxp', evOels tov \.vxvov.
Pherecrates.
6 TTpojTos evpoov ixeTu Xvxvovxov TTepLiraTelv
TTJ9 WKTOi r^v TLS Kr\bip.(>iv tG>v baKTvkojv.
Alexis.
The (I)av6i, on the other hand, was a link or torch consist-
ing of strips of resinous wood tied together —
o c/>ai'ov ecrrt p.irrTos vbaTos ovtoctl'
Set T oi^x^t mUtv, aAA' airocreUiv avToOev.
Menandcr.
In Attic it meant a species of Aa/^Trds-, but in late Greek
was used for Kvxvovxo9, lantern. With similar inaccuracy
Aap.TrA'i in the Common dialect became equivalent to
K 2
132 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
\v)(^vos, an oil lamp^ being so used in the New Testament
in the parable of the Ten Virgins.
The 'kvyj)ov)(^o'5 must not be confused with the \v){yC\.ov,
which was used indoors to support or suspend one or more
\vyjioi —
rwy 8' aKovTioov
(TVi'bovvTis 6p6a Tpia Xv)(V€i(o y^p(aixi6a.
Antiphanes.
a\lravTes Xvyvov
Diphilus.
XLI. ■
'Ev xpo) Koupiac (pa0i, kqi juh \|/iA6KOupoc.
The substantive Kovpias does not occur in what remains
to us of Classical Greek, but may well have existed. It
is employed by Lucian, Hermotimus i8. (756), ka>po)v avrovs
KO(r/xtco9 liabi^ovra'S, avails j3kr]p.4vovs eva-raXws, (f)povTL^ovTas
aeC, appevMTTovs, iv XP4^ Kovptas tovs TrAeiorous, and has the
authoritative support of Aelius Dionysius (Eustath. 1450.
32), rj kv xP<p Kovpd, 7] \j/Lkr] Kara Atkiov ALOvvatov, Koi irpbs
Tov y^pdra koI iv XP*? ^^ Kovpia;. According to Pollux,
2. 33, Pherecrates used the phrase kv xp^ KovpiG>vTas, and
in Xen. Hell. i. 7. 8 occurs the expression kv xp^ neKap-
\xivovs. Thucydides has kv xp^ metaphorically (2. 84), kv
Xp(^ aet TTapairkkovTes : a usage which may further be ex-
emplified by the proverb ^vpel yap kv xp<^ (Soph. Aj. 786).
XLII.
TTeivHv, bi\|/Hv Aere, dAAd juh btd tou a.
Besides these two verbs eight others in -doo, contracted
in eta preferentially to alpha, namely —
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 133
Cw,
Cvv,
live.
KvSi,
KvfjV,
scrape.
\}/U>,
ffiv,
rub.
o-^w,
(Tixrjv,
wipe.
via,
vrjv,
spin.
XP^>^
XPVV,
utter an oracle.
XP^,
XPVV,
am eager for.
XP<3/xat,
Xpwdat,
use.
Many of them have escaped the altering hand of the
copyists almost entirely, but it is not surprising if some
of them have occasionally been altered, when forms like
TTcivq, TTcivav, bL\}/qs, exparo, became possible in late Greek.
S/iw and yJ/S> will occupy our attention at a future time,
but the others may best be considered here. In Plato
(Gorg. 494 C) KVT]adat has escaped, but in Ar. Av. 1586,
iiTLKvf]s must be restored in spite of the manuscripts.
Although xpGijxai is really only the middle voice of xp(a,
give the use of, yet in Attic the place of the active is
usurped by klxpvp-i-j and the middle alone concerns the
present inquiry. It is, however, reasonable to suppose
that its active voice is retained in XP^' ^^tt^^ ^^^ oracle,
the connection between the two meanings being best seen
in the common notion of furnish tvith anything of which
one stands in need. If this is the case, the above list
ought to be reduced from ten to nine.
The verb xp^, am eager for, ivish, is very rare, occurring
only in the second and third persons singular of the pre-
sent indicative. Grammarians explain XPV^ by XPVC^'-'^ or
^e'Aets and XP\\ by XPl'lC^*- ^^ ^e'^et. In all Greek literature
it is found only in six passages. In Sophocles, Ant. 887 —
a(f)€T€ p.6vr]v epy]p.ov, etre XPV Oavelv,
(It (v ToiavTr] ^(arra TVjJ.ft(VtLV (TTeyp,
the manuscripts read xPV ^"d ru/x/3evet, but the gloss of
the Scholiast, xP?/Cf' '^"'t Oe'Aei, proves that xPV ^^^ ^^"^^
134 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
by him. The same form is met with in Euripides, quoted
by Cicero, Epist. ad Att. 8. 8. 2, and by Suidas under
7raAa|xa(r0at —
Ttpos Tavd' 6 Tt XPfh '''*' TraXafxacrdu)
aal Trav ctt' ejuot T€KTaLvead(o'
while in Cratinus, as cited by Suidas, the second person
occurs —
i>vv yap bri (tol irapa jxev 6€(t\xoi
T&v ijn^Tepodv, irapa 8' aXX' 6 tl xPV^'
where Sui'daS says, xpfy? ^"0 XPvC^i-^ '^<*'' ^o 8er/ (but the copy-
ists give xPV^ iri both text and explanation). It is prob-
ably to the same passage that the gloss of Hesychius,
XPV^' ^e'Aet?, XPVC^''^> should be referred.
In Ar. Ach. 778, where a Megarian is speaking, the
second person appears as xPV^^^ °^ xprja-Oa — a form like
((firjcrOa, ria-Qa, fjbr](rda, etc. —
(pdovei. 6rj TV Tax^oiS ^otpioi/.
ov j^prjcr^a ; aiyrjs, (o KaKtcrT aTToXovp.^va.
Now, as in Ant. 887, the true reading has been preserved
only in a gloss of the Scholiast, and in Cratinus only by
a similar gloss of Suidas and Hesychius, there is no doubt
that it was right to restore XPV ^^ Euripides ; and Din-
dorfs XPV^ must be substituted for xp^; in Soph. Aj. 1373 —
crot 8e hpav e^ecrd' a XPV^'
and Wunder's in El. 606 —
Kripvcrae p.' els aTTavras, etre XPV^ KaK-qv,
etre a-roiiapyov, €lt avatbeCas nrXeav.
As it will be shown that (t/xw and \}/S> had in late Greek
the un-Attic forms (Tp.r}x<j^ and \//-7/x<", which have actually
crept into Attic texts, so KvSt and vS> were in the Common
dialect replaced by kz/tj^cd and vrjOm. The longer Kvr]6oi does
not once appear in the texts of Classical writers till the
time of Aristotle; but vS> has been much less fortunate.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 135
The word is rare in Classical Greek, occurring only in the
ten following places —
€vQa 8' ^TT€LTa
TTeCcreTat aacra ol Atcra KaTo. KAw^e? re (BapelaL
yLyvofxev(o vrjcravTO \[v(o, ore jxlv reKe iJ.y]Trip.
Horn. Od. 7. 198.
yLyvofi^vco iirevqcre Xivco, ore [xiv t^k€ iJ.riTr]p.
Id. II. 20. 128.
TJ] yap rot vel (lege vfj) vr\p.aT aepa-tiroT-qTos apa)(^'»7S■
Hesiod. Op. 777.
T^ X^i-P'- V(a(raL fJia\9aKUiTaTr]v KpoKTjv.
Eupolis.
ei fxr] Tov aTi]fjLOva vijaai.
Arist. Lys. 519.
Plat. Polit. 289 C,Tovs TTepl to vyOetv kol ^o.Cveiv, correspond-
ing to a preceding 282 A, Kal p.i]v ^avriKri ye koX vqa-TLKi]
Kal Tiavra to. irepl ti]v TToirjaiv ttjs eadiJTO^ : id. 282 K, to.
VTjOevTa.
MaAty jxev evvrj ki-nrov e^oto-' ew arpaKTM kivov.
AIcaeus(?;, Bgk. p. 1333.
TreTTkovs re pyjcrai, \Lvoyevels r' eTrevbvras.
Soph. Nausicaa.
KpoKrjv brj vrjo-ets
Koi crrrnxova,
Menander.
Now of these ten places most help us little, for vriaui
and ivr](Ta may come from either of three presents, ye'o),
vr]6oi, or viicii : vrjO^vra may come from re'co or vdo) : vwcrai
and evvT] from vaco only, while vel in Hesiod and vi]0€iv
in Plato stand alone. The authority of Hcsychius and
Photius is in favour of V7]v from vam, and, what is more,
they also prove the tendency of vijv to be converted into
vflv. He-sychius —
NriixepTris' &vaixapTi]9
Neiy" vrjOdi'
NTjre/jiia' yakijvr] h-vifioiv.
136 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Even the alphabetical order has not prevented the vr\v,
which the lexicographer actually wrote, from being changed
to reij'. The same liberty has been taken with Photius —
Neif vi'iOeiv KpoK-qv
l^rjveixia' ave\i(»v cnrova-ia.
Pollux supports vriv, giving vwai as the Attic of vriOovai^.
Other Grammarians supply vGn'Ta"^, vcajxevos^, evr]^. That
Plato wrote vtjtlki'] from vrjv in Polit. 282 A is proved by
a Platonic gloss in Photius : NrjrtKr/i;* av^v tov cr ttjv Trepi
TO vrideiv Tiyvr]v : and consequently vi'jOeLv in id. 289 C at
last stands by itself as a solitary instance in Attic Greek
of what all Grammarians combine to call an un-Attic
form. Doubtless it came from the same hand as yrjoriKTj,
while Plato himself wrote tovs Trepl to vrjv re Kal ^aivetv, as
Hesiod long before had written vfj vrniaTa, not, as late
copyists wrote for him, vel v^jxaTa.
The only Classical form of the verb was v& (-ao)), and de^
rived from it vrjixa, vrjTiKos, vrjcroy, ^vrja-a, kvr]drjv, ivvvqros.
Late transcribers substituted vi^deiv for v^v in Plato, vrj-
(TTLK-q for v-qriK-q, as in Eupolis only the best books have
retained the participle rSxrai, while the inferior read vriOe.
It is not till late that forms like ivi^a-Orjv and vevrjo-ixai. are
met with. Hesychius, as was seen, has the gloss vcovTa'
v)]6ovTa, Photius, vutfxevos' 6 vrjOonevos, and both give vrjv'
vrjdeLv, though the copyists accredit them with velv, as they
accredit Herodian, and, through Herodian, accredit Hesiod
with the unclassical vet. N?5/xa, runs the gloss in the Ety-
' Pollux, 7. 32, I0' ov vr}6ovaiv fj vwaiv ot 'Attikoi yap to vrjOuv vuv (leg.
VTjv) Xfyovffi : cp. lO. 125, Kal ovov f<p' ov vwaiv.
^ Hesychius, fiSiVTa- vrjOovra, pfovra.
^ Photius, vwptvor 6 vTj96p,evos.
* Etym. Mag. 344. i.'Ei'j't/- tan (tov) vai, arjpaivn to vrj9a, 6 napaTaKTiKos,
Kal (ttI TTpaiTTjs av^vyias Kal tnl StvTfpa^ . . . toxi vSj 6 irapaTaKTiKhs evojv, evijs, evi)
Kal nXeovafffio) tov v, (vytj- ovtw 'HpoiSioros. For whole question see Cobet,
Mnem. N. S. i. 38.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. I ^J
mologicum Magnum, 603. 34, vijixa' ovk ^cttiv utto tov rj]6(o,
vrjaixa yap av ^v, aAX' airb tov vm, to vr]6oi. od^v /cat
vel v{]iiaTa
'Wcriohos, KoX b irapaTaKTiKos —
\xaXi(TTa iikv h-q-
lege vfj z-'j;/jtara and MaAts p'^v h'ln].
XLIII.
'H xcipoS epeic to thc djuneAou OTHpirjua, ou kotci
TO dppeviKov.
In the App. Soph. 72.3, Phrynichus does not altogether
disallow the masculine gender, but requires it for the mean-
ing palisade : Y^.a.pa^ drjXvKcas em tov r^s cunrikov (TTr]piyp.aTo<i'
TO [xivTOL ^apaKiop-a appevLKdi'i, b \apa^\ and Moeris makes
the same distinction (p. 410) : ^apa^ 77 juey -npbs toIs ap-iri-
Xois dr]\vKws' b Se iv rot? crTpaTOTiihoLS appeviKOj^, b )(^6.pa^.
The Grammarians are in fact all so well-agreed on this
point that it may be considered established. The rule is
violated by none but late writers.
The proverb, rj x'^P'^i "V ap-irekov, is worthy of some re-
mark. The ellipse is supplied by Aristophanes —
etra vvv e^rjTrarrjo-ef ?/ xapa^ ti]v u/x7reAor.
Vesp. 1 291.
The notion seems to have been, not that of a support
failing, but of a subordinate getting the better of a supe-
rior ; and thc Scholiast in loco is probably right, airb tu)v
Ka\ap.iiiv T(ov 7rpo(Tb(hejj.4vo}v rat? apLireXoLS, 0I kvioTc. ptCofio-
XTyo-ayre? VTrepav^nvTai ainriXutv.
XLIV.
ZKi/jnouc Aere, uAAd /ih KpdBpaToc.
Thc word KpaftftaTos is not found till late ; but Pollux,
138 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
10. 35, states that it was used by Crito and Rhintho, writers
of the senile New Comedy : hXka koI a-KtfxiTovs tG>v hhov
aiievS>v, OS koI aa-KdvTrjs ia-rlv eiprifxevos, koI (TKunrohiov' kv 8e
•n/ KpiTcavos Mea-a-qvia koL t<2 'Pivdctivos TrjAe^o) koL Kpdj3j3aTov
€lpr](rdaL \iyov(Tiv. Accordingly, Salmasius (de Ling. Hell,
p. 65), and Sturtz (de Dial. Maced. p. 176) are probably
right in claiming it for a Macedonian word, as there is no
other dialect on which to father it. It is of frequent occur-
rence in the New Testament and in the notes of Scholiasts.
XLV.
'EpeuresOai 6 noiHiHc-
6 b' epeuj-ejo oivopapeicov,
oAA' 6 noAiTiKoc epurrotveiv Aereroo.
A glance at Veitch will show the truth of this statement
with regard to Attic Greek ; but a point of great interest
has escaped the notice of Phrynichus. For epevyop-at Attic
writers used epvyydvu), but the future was beyond question
still derived from the rejected present — a fact curiously
confirmed by a rule which is quite absolute in Attic Greek,
and which will be discussed in detail in a future article.
That rule may be thus stated — All verbs expressing the
exercise of the senses, or denoting any functional state
or process, have the inflexions of the middle voice either
throughout or in the future tense. It will be seen that
by its means innumerable corruptions may be banished
from the text of Attic writers, and many verbs which
accident has left defective may be safely reconstructed.
Moreover, no inquiry is more rich in side-results, and the
histoiy of this law is the history of the Attic dialect. The
importance of the generalisation cannot be overrated.
It restores to the Athenian language the precision and
symmetry which were peculiarly its own, and brings out
its grand and simple outlines. It supplies rules for textual
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 139
criticism, it sheds a new light upon the import of many-
words, and is of incalculable service in tracing the develop-
ment of Attic speech.
XLVI.
'0 cpdpurS dppeviK'joc jiiev 6 'Eni)(apjuoc Aeret, 6 be
'Attikoc h cpdpurS.
This is one of those statements, unfortunately too common
in Phrynichus, which have little but lexicographical interest.
The passage of Epicharmus referred to is probably that
in Athen. 10. 411 E —
TipSiTov jxev, at k '4(t6ovt tSots viv, airoddvoLS.
l3piix€L [xev 6 (pdpv^ i.vho6\ apafiei 8' d yvdOos.
The masculine is also demanded by the metre in Euripides —
Tiapecmv' 6 (pdpvy^ evTpcirrjs eorco p.6vov'
Cycl. 215.
on the other hand^ the feminine is equally beyond question
in a later line of the same play —
evpetas (pdpvyyos, w KvkKu)-^,
dvaa-Toixov to ^fi-^o?
Id. 356.
The authority of Aristophanes is for the feminine gender —
iv' avTov iTTtTpLxj/oifxev, CO pLLapa (^dpvy^.
Ran. 571.
OTTOcrov 57 (fidpvy^ av i)}xG>v.
Id. 259.
Moreover, the manuscripts exhibit ^ (jntpvyS, in Thucydides
(2. 49), Tr]v (f)dpvya in Pherecrates (Athen. 11. 481 A), and
in Cratinus (Su'idas, sub v. ixapCX-q).
Later authors appear inconsistent. For the feminine,
Lobcck quotes Aristides, Pausanias, Aclian, and for the
ma.scuiinc, Plutarch, and Lucian. Hippocrates, Ari.stotlc,
and Galen use the two genders indifferently, both in its
ordinary sense of ^/le tJiroat and in its technical signification
140
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
the common opening of the gullet and windpipe. The
authority of Phrynichus, buttressed as it is by metre in
Aristophanes, must be regarded as settling the question
for Attic Greek, and in Telechdes (Ath. 6. 268 C), rr[v
(f)apvya must be restored for rbv cfidpvya, and in a hne of
Aristophanes, preserved both by Photius and Suidas —
Tr]v (l)dpvya fxrjXoiv bvo bpaxi^^as e^ei \x6vas,
Tov, the reading of Suidas, must be rejected. The case
of Euripides is interesting ; it is another instance of the
strange combination of forms from two distinct strata of
language in constant use side by side — a combination
which is the Tragic dialect.
XLVII.
'Avaibi^ecGai Aere, juh avaibeueaGai.
This is the suggestion of W. Dindorf for the reading
of the manuscripts and editions, which is without meaning,
avOabi^ecrdaL Aeye, jjlt] avaibevea-daL. There is a wide difference
between the meanings of avaibris and avOdbrjs, and Phrynichus
knew Greek too well to think that there was not. Moreover,
avdahiCop.ai is excellent Attic^, being found in Plato, Apol.
34 D, ovK avdabi(6p.evos, and avOdbiaixa is used by Aeschylus
(P. V. 964).
On the other hand, dvaibevopiat is read in Aristophanes —
ws 8e irpos ttolv dvaib^veraL kt€.
Eq. 396, ch.
and in a subsequent line of the same play (1206), Elmsley
replaced v-Kepavaib^(T6r}aop.ai by vrrepavatbevdi^aopiai. But a
Grammarian in Bekk. Anec. p. 80. 30, supplies the note,
'AvaibiC^a-daL, ' Api(TTO(j)dvris '^iTTirevcnv, and if dvaibiCeTat is
not to be restored in 1. 396, certainly the later line must
be read thus —
oifiot KaKobaLjxojv vTTepavai,bi(T6r](rop.aL.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 141
The form in -iCp\xai is more according to analogy and
may be compared with i.v-(]QiCp\x.ai from evr]6ii]s, evixeviCoixat
from evfj.€i'ris, and avOahi^oixai from avdah-qs, whereas aKr]6eva)
from aXri6i]9 is not a deponent, and iTTLba\}/tXevo[jLat from
^TTLbaxj/iXi'i'i is one of the un-Attic w^ords employed by
Xenophon. If the two classes, as a whole, are compared,
the words Srj/xorevojuat, veavievoixai, e/38ojuei^o/xat, vfaOp^voixai,
TTOin]pevoiJLai, cf)LXav6pu)7T€VO[jiaL, /Sco/xoAoxevofxat, veavLa-KevoixaL,
aka^ovevoixai, elpMvevofjiai, iTTiKrjpvKevoixai, ixavT(.vop.ai, irpay-
pi.aTevop.aL, TepaTevojxat, Tepdpevopat, KOJSakLKevopat, and arpay-
yevopat. are far outnumbered by deponents in -C(opaL —
ayKaXi^opai., avhpayadi^op.aL, avki^opai, hLayKvXC^opai, Kopi^opai,
atKL^opai, aypoLKLCop.0.1, CLKpaTi^opai, avOpoiTri^opai, h'OerTaXi-
Copac, \oyi(opaL, ^vXL^opai, oloovL^op.at., aKpo(3oXi^opaL, airXoL-
CopaL, (TTLbopTTL^opaL, evayyeki^opat, ia-^vpCCopai., XayapiCopai,
pakaKL^opaL, pakOaKL^opat, \j/ekk[^opai, ayiavi^opai, aKKi^opai,
baipLOviCopai, TTopTTaKiCopai, TrpocpaaL^opai, yapi^opai, \api€VTi-
CopaL, and waTi^opat.
XLVIII.
YIeoic 01 veubaTTiKoi q)aQiv, oidjuevot ojlioiov eivai
TO) ©Hoeooc Koi T(0 TThA6coc.
XLIX.
Yiea- ev eniCToAH nore 'AAeSdvbpou toG oocpiorou eupov
TOuvoMCx TOUTO ferpo^jjinevov, Kai ccpobpa ejLiejuvdjuHv" ou rdp,
enet uieoc Kai vlei eoriv, euOuc Kai rov uiea eupoi tic dV
dAAd THv aiTiariKhW ulov Aerouoiv 01 dpxaloi, toOto be
Kai <t>iA6Eevoc, ev Tok e nepi THc'lAiuboc GurrpdjL(M"G^ ba\}/i-
AeGTOTa dnecpHvev, dboKiMOv /lev eTvai tov uiea, bcKtjuov be
Tov uiov.
142 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The following table exhibits the forms of v\6^ used by
Attic writers —
SINGULAR.
DUAL.
PLURAL.
V109
Ut^
utcTs
Vie
vteotr.
uieis
v\6v
uteij
vXov
or
vteos
utecoy
or
Diet.
uiecrt(i')
Late forms have in several passages crept into Attic texts.
In Thuc. 1. 13 the Schohast, many editions, and one
manuscript exhibit utew?. The same vicious form has
manuscript authority in three places of Plato (Rep. 378 A,
id. D, Legg. 687 D), in Xenophon, Hell. 4. i. 40, and in
Demosthenes, 1062, 1075, 1077 ; and was actually restored
by Reiske in id. 1057.
The genitive vwv is found in Thuc. 5. 16, and the dative
vtw once in Antiphanes and several times in Menander ;
but the third declension forms are far more frequent than
the second in these two cases of the singular, and are the
only forms employed in the dual and plural numbers.
The nominative dual appears as vXU in Plato, Apol. 30 A,
IdTov yap avTio bvo vUe : but there can be no question that
the original reading was vItj, and that vUe is as corrupt as
the bv(o, which some manuscripts present for bvo. In Rep.
410 E, besides the genuine ro) (pvar] tovtco, both ro) (f>v<Te€
TovToi and rw cfivaeL tovtm are encountered ; and in Isocrates,
44 B, there are the similar three varieties of reading — the
correct rot -nokr] tovtco and the two corruptions rw TroAee
TovTU) and Ta9 TioAets TavTas. A line of Aristophanes has
preserved the original form —
Kol Trpo's' ye tovtois i]k^tov irpia-^r] hvo,
and stone records tell the same story.
Certainly Plato did not use all three forms of the dual
of (j)V(TLs, or Isocrates write -rroX^e, -nokri, and Tro'Aets : and
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 143
why should the nominative and accusative dual be
exempt from a law to which every other Attic word is
subject ? There is no reason why scholarship should
quarrel with common sense.
The late accusative singular utea, reprehended by Phry-
nichus with its plural consort ute'a?, has not found its way
into any Attic text. The dative vl^vai has been equally
considerate, but in Sophocles, Antig. 571, the Laurentian
exhibits the corrupt uido-tr.
In this word it is probable that throughout the Attic
period the iota was never written. At all events Herwerden
(Lapid. de Dial. Att. Test. pp. 11, 12) distinctly states
that in no Attic Inscription of a good age does any form
but v6<i appear, except in verse, and even in that case vo'?,
vetj, etc., are sometimes found. Accordingly, the forms
without iota should be restored to all prose texts, and to
Comedy, either in every case, or at least when the first
syllable need not be long. The reason for the prevalence
of uto'j, uteoy, etc., in the manuscripts of Attic writers is not
far to seek. Those forms gradually took the place of vo'?,
vio<i^ etc., in stone records after the time of Alexander.
L.
TeAeuTaioTarov Atr^iv djudprHjua tcov nepi naibeiav bo-
KouvTtov TeuTCi^eiv. enel rop otpxaioTarov eupov Aerojuevov
napd Tolc dpxaioic, coHOHoav kui roOro belv Aereiv. ciAAd
ou TeAeuTOKJV Aepe.
LI.
"E'jxaTov xpti Aereiv, ou)(i coxaToSxaTov, ei kui ;idpTup((
napexei tic.
144 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Lll.
KopucpaioTOTOV €veKaAu\j/djuHv eupcov napa ^apoipivto*
Aere ouv Kopucpalov.
Phaborinus would find himself in good company now-a-
days, and Phrynichus might justly ask the question, Is life
worth living?' The iiriTacns v-nepOecrecos is not a fault of
style, but a virtue in the eyes of many nineteenth century
writers. According to Sui'das \ Phaborinus was ttjv tov o'dofxa-
Tos €^tv avhpoyvvos, but the same reason will not account
for Plutarch's use of the vicious superlative (Mor. p. 1115 E),
or for TcXevTaioTaTos in Arrian, still less for €cr)(^aTu>TaTos in
Xenophon, Hell. 2. 3. 49, ra iiavTUiv ia-^aTcaTara TraOelv.
Lucian (Pseudosoph. 5) ridicules the superlative of Kopv-
(paios : "AXkov be elirovros, T&v (f)L\(ov 6 KopvcfiaLoraTos, yapUv
ye, e(^?7j to tt]s Kopv<pT]s TToielv rt iTrdvoo : and with reference
to ecrxaTcaTaros, Aristotle remarks (Metaphys. 9. 4. 1055.
20''), ovTe yap tov ia-x^aTov icrxcTcoTepov elrj av rt. In this
case, Xenophon is seen anticipating a usage which is rare
even in the latest and most debased Greek, and of which
there is certainly no trace in any Attic writer.
LIII.
BepiacTOi h KopH AeKieov, oiAA' ol))( cog rivec roiv
pHTopoov eq)9apTai.
The same statement is made by Moeris, in three different
passages, p. 103, f^eliLaa-jxevr] 'AttikcSs, i(})9apix€vr] 'EAA?^-
vlkS>s : p. 106, jiiaa-aa-QaL 'ArrtKws, (pOetpat 'EAAr/ytKws : and
* ^aPuptvos, 'ApXearov, rrji kv VaWiq noXfws, dffjp rroXv/xaOTji Kara iraaav
iraiSeiav, ■yiyouw^ 5e t^c tov awfj.aTOS f^iv dvSpoyvyos, {ov cpaaiv kpixatppobnov ,)
(f,i\oao(pias fitaros, ptjTopiK^ 5e fidWov fTnOtfievos. yeyovais enl Tpaiavov rod
Kaiffapos, Kal irapaTtivas ^e'xpt ra/v ' ASpiavov )(p6vajv tov ISacriKfws. ' AvTf<pi\o-
TintiTO yovv Kal ^r]\ov elx^ npos TIKovTapxov tov Xaipaivfa eis to tHuv avvTaTTO-
fifvcov fiifiKiwv airdpov kt(.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 145
p. 390, (f)6opea KOL i(f)6ap[X€vr}v ovbds tS>v iraXaiwv, aWa tov
fiiaa-apiei'ov Kal ^€^iacrjxivr]V (f)9opevi be kol k^dapp.ivr]
'FikkriviKcas.
Certainly (SidCoixaL is so used in two places of Aristo-
phanes —
€av 8' ijx CLKOvaav ^id^Tjrat /3ta'
Lys. 225.
Odppet, /XT/ (jio^ov
ov yap ^idaeTai'
Plut; 1091.
on the latter of which the Scholiast remarks, with appre-
ciation, 6 TToiovaiv ol avbpes, tovto Itti ttjs ypaos (f)rjcn.
On the other hand, if Dionysius of Halicarnassus is to
be trusted, Euripides employed (pOapeta-a, (Rhet 9. 11),
ntpupyop-ivr] yap Trao-as atria? tov aGxrai to. iraibia Aeyet
(?/ MeXaytTTTrrj), " ei 8e itapOivos (^Qapdcra e^idrjKe ra Traibia
Kal (f)o[3ovixevr] top Tiarepa, crv (povov bpacreLS ', " and in the
Orators btacpddpeiv occurs not seldom, Lysias, 92. 10 ; 93.
16 ; 95. 17 ; 136. 3. Of course it refers primarily to moral
corruption, whereas ^id(op.at denotes only the physical fact.
The distinction is well brought out by a passage of Lysias,
in which both verbs occur (94. 41), ovtu>'5, S dvbpes, tovs
pial^ofieVous (Xclttovos C^/i^as d^ious r/y?/craro eiyat ?/ tovs frci-
Soj-xas' TOiv jJ-ev yap 6dvaT0i< Kareyvoi, rots be biirXrjv eTronqae
TT}V ft\dj3r]v, 7iyovp.evo? tovs p.ev biaT:paTTop.evovi (3ia vtto tmv
ftiua-QevTUiv luaela-Oai, tovs be -neicravTas ovTOi'i avTwv Tas
\}/vxo-s 8ia4>0£tpeii', axTT olKeiOTtpas avrols Tioielv rds dXKoTpia'i
yvvaiKa's 7) rots dvbpdat KTe.
In late Greek (pOelpai acquired the physical reference of
the classical fttdCoixaL, and it is this use of the word which
Phrynichus reprehends.
146 THE NFAV PHRYNICHUS.
LIY.
'H uonAH£ Aererai, ou)( 6 ucsnAng.
The same statement is made by Phrynichus again (App.
Soph. 69), and by Moeris (p. 376), The WttAij^ was distinct
from the jBaXjBlbes, and meant the cord or tape, breast-high,
which the runner carried away with him as he passed the
l3aXj3lhes at the finish. The Hne of starting and finishing,
in both foot-race and chariot-race, was the same, the starting
point being ^aA^StSes, the finishing point /3aA/3i8es + va-nXi)^.
A comparison of Harpocration and Moeris suggests this
explanation — BaA/Sio-ti'* 'Airt^My mpl ojjiovoCai- avrl rod
rats apxais* iLpr\rai he airb tcov hpoiiibiV 1] yap virb ttjv va-
TrXrjyya yLvop.h'r] ypap.p.11 hia to knX ravTrfs fi€,8r]Kevat tovs
bpop-eas /3aA/3t? KaXelrai,: Moeris, p. 103, BaX[3lbe9, at eirl
tG>v a(l>i<J€Oiv jSaaeis kyK.exapayp.ivai, ais eirejBaLVOv ol bpop-els,
tva e^ IcTov ta-raLvro. bio kuI ol K/]pvKes eirl twv TpexovTcav,
" BaA/3t5t ^ Ttobas evOere, iroba Tiapa 7To8a," Kat vvv eri, Xeyovcriv,
'ATrtKW9. va-TiXt]^ be koivov. The primitive term was pre-
served in the herald's formula, even in the Common dialect,
but otherwise was replaced by va-irXtj^. The latter word
happens to occur only once in Attic Greek, Plato, Phaedr.
254 E, 6 rjvioxps &(T7!ep airb WTrArjyos avaTrecrdv.
Two explanations of the plural /3aA/3t8e? suggest them-
selves — the one, that originally the term was applied to
two poles to which two cords were attached, one at the
ground, the other breast-high {vo-ttXt]^). This explanation
is given in Lex. Rhet. Bekk. An. 220. 31. The other is
more in accord with the facts, namely, that /3aA/3ts primi-
tively signified a projecting edge, and in the plural was
applied to a piece of wood placed in front of the runners'
' The place is corrupt, paX^ib' diroSos Giji being the only reading. Perhaps
the above conjecture restores the text.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 147
feet, and provided with a groove to catch the toes. Schol.
Ar. Eq. Ii5^> ''"o ^v tj] ap-xjj tov 8jOo/xou Keiixevov eyKopcrtcos
^vkov oTTcp . . . a<paipovix€voi a(f)U(rav Tpeyjiiv. This is in har-
mony with the usage of /3aA/3t8(o8?]9 in Hippocrates, 842 F.
TO 8e Trpos ayKGiva avTov (^tov ^payj.ovo's) Ttkarv koI KovhvXcabes
Kol j3a\(3Lb(obes koL (TT€pebv eyKoikov oirtaOev, and with the
glosses of Hesychius and Galen on I3a\j3is in the same
writer, Galen explaining the word by KotAorrjs 7Tapaixi]Kr}s,
and Hesychius by to ^x^^ eKaTepcoO^v eTrayaordcrets. Beyond
question the true origin of the plural jBaXjSlbes is the second
of the two suggested above.
LV.
'IAuc oTvou ouk opeoac Aererai, norajuoO juev rap lAuc,
oTvou be TpuS H unooxdejuH.
There is no occasion to doubt the correctness of this
remark, because un-Attic writers like Aristotle, Theo-
phrastus, and Hippocrates use Ikvs in a wider sense. In
the Iliad and in Herodotus it is found only in the signifi-
cation claimed for it in Attic by Phrynichus —
ovT( TO. Tivxea Kaka, tci ttov p-dka v^loOl kip,vy]'i
Keiaed' vtt' ikioi K^Kakvp.\xlva' Kah hi p.iv avTOV
(Ikvcro) xj/apidOoKnv ktc.
II. 21. 318.
Herod. 2. 7, hdevrev p-ev kol ij-^xpi 'HAiov irokios h Tr}V p-e-
aoyaidv eori evpia AtyuTrro?, kovaa -nacra v-nTit] re koX hvhpos koX
ikv<i. Even Tpv^, which no Attic writer would use of anything
but the lees of wine, has its meaning generalized by late
writers, and is applied not only to water, but to oil, fat,
and similar liquids. Dioscorides, 5. 120, actually makes
it a term of metallurgy, tov KaT€pyaCop.h'ov x^^'^oC olov
vTTO(TT6.0iJ.if] Kul Tpv$. Misusc could not go further.
The generic word v-nnrrTdOp-r] occurs in IMato, I'liaed.
L 2
148 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
109 C, ov 8?; {tov aWipos) vTTO(rT6.9iJiy}v ravra etz'at, and was
doubtless in constant use in cases in which special words
like Ikvs and rpv^ were out of place.
LVI.
Kopiov H KOpibiov H KOpicKH AefOUGi, TO hk Kopdoiov ou.
The word Kopaaiov occurs in some verses attributed to
Plato by Diog. Laert. 3. 33, but the whole is in Doric —
'A Kv-npis Movaai(Ti' Kopdaia, rav 'Acfypobtrav
TL[Ji,aT 7) TOV "EpCOT Vp.jXLV €(f)07T\l(rOfXaL'
and therefore, even if genuine, does not affect the dictum of
Phrynichus. Photius also repudiates the term, UaibLa-Kaptov,
KOpacnov 8e ov Xeyerat, aX\a Koi Ke/cw/xwSrjKe 't>iXLinrLbr]9 ws
^evLKov, and Pollux, 2. 17, characterizes it as evreXis. ' Sed
si Arrianus in summa argumenti gravitate, si scriptores
sacri et ecclesiastici cum nulla evTektafxav significatione hue
delapsi sunt, apparet eos contra cultioris sermonis leges
peccasse .... Quod autem Phrynichus Kopdaiov contra
analogiam factum esse dicit, non eo spectat^ quo Pauwius
statuit, quod a Kopa (pro Kopr]) derivatum sit, sed quod
nullum Graecorum diminutivorum in -aaiov terminatur . . .
KdiTTra, KaTT-naa-Lov extremae Graecitatis est, Upvixvdaiov
autem et Kopv^aaiov quae Schol, Venet. II. 20. 404, cum
KopAa-Lov componit, nullam cum eo praeter terminationis
similitudinem habent, ideoque ille Kopacriov potius Mace-
donicum esse tradit.' Lobeck.
LVII.
'H pdS epelc 6 rdp pooS &uo exei djuapTHpaTa,
Eustathius has preserved the authoritative judgment of
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
[49
Aelius Dionysius on this point (p. 1485. 59, cp. 1633. 42),
6 po)^ Kttt <jo\oiKi(j\xo<i KoX /3ap/3apto-/^6j Kara AiAtoy ^lovva-iov.
The word is met with in two passages of Attic Greek —
in a fragment of Sophocles —
y\v \ikv yap olos fxakkos, rjv 8e KonxTilkov
(T-novbr] re /cat pa^ ev TeOrjcravpLa-nevrj,
Nk. 365.
and in Plato, Legg. 8. 845 A, iav 8e 6?) bovkos p.i] Treta-as
Tov becnroTrjv T(ov yjapicav aTTTriraL tov t(oi> tolovtu>v Kara paya
^OTpv(i)v Kol (TVKOV (TVKrjs i(TapLdiJLOvs Trkrjyas ToijTois p-acmyovaQa).
There is nothing to show whether the soloecism in
gender, and barbarism in form, of the late pw^ was simply-
due to ignorance and carelessness, or came from some of
the less known dialects. For purposes of lexicography
Lobeck's note is invaluable, but it is needless here to re-
produce details which are not worth remembering.
LVIII.
Td)(iov oi"EAAHvec ou Aerouoi, Gottov be.
• LIX.
Bpdbiov" Koi TOUTo' Hoi'oboc juev Aerei,
Ppdbiov be TTaveAAHvesGi cpaeivei,
nAdroiv be kqi OouKubibHc Kai oi boKijuoi ppaburepov.
To the former of -these articles most editions append
the words p-aWov \xkv ovv "EX\r]ve^ to Td^Lov, Oolttov 8e
' AttlkoC, which, as Scaliger pointed out, est clausula non
Phrynicid, scd Phrynichum corrigcntis studiosi; a conjec-
ture strikingly confirmed by their absence from the best
Laurcntian manuscript, which also indicates their origin by
cnnitting ow before kiyovai. The meaning of "EAAtjvcs was
misunderstood.
T50 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The caution of Phrynichus, Moeris (p. 436), and other
grammarians seems unnecessary now, but it must be
remembered that Plutarch, Diodorus, and others use the
vicious forms.
The line of Hesiod quoted may be found in Op. 528.
For the superlative Homer has /3ap8to-ro? (II. 23. 310, 530),
but in the fragment of Aristophanes, referred to by Liddell
and Scott as authority for /3pa8toTos, the word is only a
useless conjecture of Brunck's —
IvravQa 8' krvpavv^vtv 'T\j/nrvkr]s Trarrjp
&oa9, ISpahvraTos cav iv avdputTTOis bpap.(Xv.
No Attic writer could have used such a form.
The earliest instance of rdxi-ov is quoted from Menander
(Gellius, Noct. Att. 2. 23), but the lines in which it is
found will not scan, and baffle translation —
TTaibtaKapiov OepaTT^vriKov 5e koyov
t6.\ioi, a-nayicrdu) hi tls rj ap avTcicraydyoi.
To Attic writers dda-a-cav {ddrrMv) was the only comparative,
and raxtcrros the only superlative. Dindorf fathers ra-
XVTara upon Antiphanes, but it is easy to settle a case of
affiliation when the'"defendant is dead. The passage of
Athenaeus, in which the lines of the Comic poet are quoted
(4. 161 D), is one of a kind which has introduced into the
company of their betters many forms like TaxvTara. The
lines are first adapted to suit the context, and scholars
are not to be blamed if they exercise their ingenuity to
restore them to their original form : Tovrov 8' vpei:?, &
<f)i\6(ro(t)oi, ovbev da-Kdre, dXXa Kal to -ndvTutv xa^fTrwrepoy
XaAeire Trepi &v ovk oXbare, Koi w? Kocrp'm^ €(t6[ovt€s Troteire
TTjv evdca-Lv Kara tov rjbtoTov ' kvTi(l>dvr]' ovtos yap h Apa-
"Treraycoyo) kiycL,
KO(TpCo>s TTOicav Trjv '4vdi(nv,
fiLKpdv p.€V €K TOV TTpoV^e, IX€(TTi]V 8' h'hoO^V
TTjv xdpa> KaOdirep al yvvaiKcs,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 15 1
KaT€(payeT€ Trajx—oXXa Kal ra^VTara, efoy Kara tov ovtov tovtov
TTOirjTi^v €v Bo/x/3vKta) X^yovra bpaxiJ'^]S ^vricracrQai' " ras irpocr-
<l)6povs rfp.lv Tpocjxx^, (TKopoba, Tvpov, Kp6pp.va, TrdinTaptv, iravTa
TavT (cttIv 8pax/^?/s." The passage is at best not very
intelligible, but from koct/xio)? to yvvaiKes the words run
tolerably well as iambics. The plural KaT€(f)dyeT€, how-
ever, corresponding to do-Ketre, AaAetre, Trotetre, shows that
Athenaeus left Antiphanes at that point. In that case
Ta-)(^vTaTa has its equals in otbare and utvijcracrOaL.
In Xenophon, on the other hand, a form used by Pindar
(O. I. 125), and kept in countenance by the Herodotean
TaxvTcpos (3. 6^; 7. 194), would not necessarily be out of
place, and, accordingly, Ta^vTara may be right in Hell. 5.
I. 27, tols jipahvTara Trkcovaas Tois aptara irXeova-aLS raxv-
rara KaTeiXijcpei. Cobet and L. Dindorf, however, read
raxv with some manuscript authority.
LX.
KcoAu(piov MH Aere, kooAhvo be.
This is the only place in which KonXixpiov is encountered,
but in Latin writers coliphiiim is met with, as Plant. Pers,
I. 3. 12 ; Juv. 2. 53 ; Mart. 7. 67. In all these passages it
is used of food for athletes, a signification which in Greek
appears to have belonged to ko}Xtjv€s. From its use by
Plautus it is natural to infer that it came into the Latin
vocabulary as a translation from some of his New Comedy
models — a supposition that is quite consistent with the
hypothesis that -v(f)tov as a diminutive suffix entered the
Common dialect from Macedonia, However, ^vXi](f)Lov is
exhibited in Alexis, ap. Ath. 13. 568 D, and in Hippocr. 682.
44, but it is simply impossible to decide whether ^vXr\(\)iov,
$vXdpiov, or $vXv(j)Lov, was the genuine classical form.
Thomas has ^vXUjuov, ov ^vXdpiov, and other grammarians
are either similarly corrupt or similarly wrong. It is dis-
1^2 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
creet to leave unsettled a question on which authority is
so divided.
LXI.
KoKobaijuoveTv outooc oi voOooc dTTiKi^ovTec. 'AGHvaloi
rap bid Tou a, KOKobaijuovdv Aerousiv, kqi eaujudcjfeiev dv
TIC ncac eubaijuoveiv juev Aerousiv, oukcti be KaKobaijuoveiv,
dAAd KaKobaijuovdv koi ncoc eubaijLiovouQi juev Aerousiv,
ouKeri be KaKobaijuovoGoiVj dAAd KaKobaijuovoosi.
As far as form goes, there is no reason why an Attic
writer should not have employed KUKobaLixoveli'. The ad-
jective KaKobaLfj-uiv, in the sense of tmfortimate, forms a verb
KaKobai[j.oveiv as naturally as in the sense of possessed dy an
evil genms it forms KaKobaiixovav. KaKobaLixoveXv is fo be
unfortunate^ as ivha[.\i.ovtiv is to be fortufiate, and there is
no €vbaL[j.ovav, simply because the Greeks never thought
of men as being possessed by a good genius.
In Xenophon, Hier. 2. 4, KaKobaijxovelp is quite correctly
used, evOairep /cat to evbaifjiovelv Kal to KaKobaifj-ov^lv rois av-
$p(i>TToi,s cLTTOKeiTai, but in Mem. 2. i. 5 there is no question
that KaKobaiixovCivTos is the true form : koI Tr]XiKovToov fxev
iTTLKeiiJLevcov roJ fxoL\€vovTL KaKwv re koX al(T\pS>v, ovtcov 8e
TToAAwy tS>v airoXva-ovTOiv Trjs tCov atppobLO-icdv (TTLdvpLLas kv
abeia, ofxctis ei? to, eTTiKivbvva (fiepecrOai, ap ovk rjbrj tovto -nav-
Tcnracn KaKobaijxovCJvTos iaTtv ;
In Demosthenes (93. 24), KaKobaifxovoia-L should replace
KaKobaLiiovovai as the context demands : yr; Ata, KaKobaifxav-
S>(TL yap avOpoiTTOL koI vireplBdWovcnv avoia.
The adjective KaKobaiix^v, in the sense of lost to reason,
is met with in Antiphon, 134. 25, KatVot to ehos a-vp-ixa-
\6v p.01 kcTTLV' ov yap brjirov ovto) KaKobaijxcav eyco, wore to p.\v
oLTTOKTiivai Tov cLvbpa TTpovvor](Tap.7]v p.6vos KTe., and in Aris-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
^S?>
.tophanes (Eq. 112) is jocularly used substantively = KaKos
baLfJ.u)V —
arap rod hai[J.ovos
8e8otx' 077(0? ju?; rev^o/xai KaKobaifxovos.
The class of verbs to which KaKobaifj-ovav belongs is a
very interesting one, and comprises the following words —
ayoiVLU), am in distress.
/3e/x/3tKt(S, spin like a top.
^ovkifMLO), am ravenous.
yetTviut, am neighbour to.
yereiw, grow a beard.
hai\j.ov&, am possessed.
iv9ov(Tiu>, am inspired.
kpvOpiS), blush.
€T€p(yKe(f)aka), am half-mad.
evpcoTLU), am stale.
fjj3vk\L0i, am youngish.
ikiyyiS), am dizzy.
KipovTiS), toss the horns.
K\aii(nw, desire to weep.
Kvr](TLS), itch.
KOjutcS, wear the hair long.
KOTTtdi, am tired.
KopvfiavTiG), am frenzied.
KopvCco, have a catarrh.
K/jairaXw, have the head-
ache.
KvAototoi, have swellings
beneath the eyes.
AcTrpo), am leprous.
Ar/ptario), am resolute.
Xi0&), sufifcr from stone.
AtTToj, am fat.
p.afj(o, am bald.
[xadrjTica, wish to become
a disciple.
[xaKKoa>, am stupid.
fxaa-TiyLca, deserve a whip-
ping.
p-aTO), am idle.
/xeAayxoAft), am melan-
choly.
p.eptixvw, am anxious.
vapK(o, am numb.
i^avrtcS, am sea-sick.
dpyw, am lusty.
ovprjTLO), micturio.
6(f)0ak[j.Loi, have running
eyes.
TToSaypw, have the gout.
(ti/SuAAkS, play the old
woman.
(TKOTohivi-o), am dizzy.
mrapyoi, swell.
arprji'Loi, wax wanton.
(j)app.aK^, suffer from
poison.
(})ov(a, am athirst for
blood.
(l)V(ri(a, pant.
XaXaCcj, have pimples.
w/jaKiw, faint.
154
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Perhaps words like hv^Si, tklvQ, rjfto), kvcrau), ■ttlvm, pvnQi,
ki(t(tS), acf)pLyco, may be rightly added to the list, or they
may go with the following, which are less definite in
meanmg-
Cw, live.
KUyStoTO), tumble.
Atxiu.w, play with
tongue.
koy(f)co, take rest.
fxapyo), rage.
fxetStw, smile.
fxevoivco, am bent on,
ixvbu), drip.
Trepo), cross.
TTrjbS), leap,
(TKipTU), skip.
the
(f)\rjva(})S), babble.
(f)otT(a, roar.
/3ocS, shout,
avTM, meet.
apicTTw, dine.
acryaXw, grieve.
l3av{3o), sleep.
fSpovTO), thunder.
KoXvpijSS), dive,
o-tyw, am silent.
(TtcoTTw, am silent.
No member of the former class has a middle or passive
voice as the verbs denote bodily or mental states, but those
members of the latter class which come under the law
stated above on p. 138 have the middle inflexions in the
future, ^or](ro\i.ai, <^otr7j(ro/xat, 'nr\hy](TO\iai, (TKipT!](yo]xai, just as
aKpoStixai, aAw/xat, /3A?7xwju,ai, I3pv\wixat, ixauS)}xaL, KVvC,S>ixai, and
others are deponents throughout.
Naturally, verbs of the type Sat/xorw occur principally in
the present tense. It is seldom that a future or aorist is
encountered, and their perfect is almost non-existent. The
aorist of lAiyytw is found in Plato, Prot, 339 E, ia-KordOriv
KoL Ikiyytaa-a elirovTos avrov ravra, and the future in Gorg.
527 A, ^aa-fxrian koX lAiyyidcreis. So 6(^6aXixia(Tas iripvcnv,
Aristoph. Fr. ap. Poll. 4. 180 ; yvvai^l KOTnacraia-Lv, id. ap.
Ath. 3. 104 F ; KOiJ.T](T€iv, Plat. Phaed. 89 C ; ixeixaKKoaKora,
Ar. Eq. 62 ; rjv ovprjTtacrrjs, Vesp. 808 ; oi)paKLd(Tas, Pax 702 ;
fjcptfjivqcras, Dem, 57^- 24.
It is a difficult question to decide which is the true form
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 155
of many of these verbs— whether the -a.ii> should or should
not be preceded by an iota. On this point Photius says,
kiQmnar Tpt<7vXkdj3cos, ov XiOtuivTar UXdroov la No'//a)i'. koX
fipay^dv keyovo-iv, ov ^payx^iO-V koX 'irepa Totavra. But in the
passage of Plato referred to (11. 916 A) the manuscripts read
only kiOoiv or XiOiwv, not KlOwv : dvbpcLTTobov ?) Xt6(av r) arpay-
yovpMv. There can be no question that ki6u)v should be
read, and that the iota was inserted from false analogy with
(TTpayyovpiwv. Lobeck, however, is wrong in suggesting
Kaprj^apav for Kaprj^apidv in Pollux, 2. 41, koX Kapr][3apLK6v,
TO TTudos, Tr)\eK.keLh]S' TO b€ VTTO ixeO-qs Kapy]^apidv 'Aptoro-
<j)dvr]s. Akin to Kapi]Papia, the verb has the iota as natur-
ally as aTpayyovpiSi from aTpayyovpCa, and (r/coroStytw from
(TKOTohivia, and all verbs of this class which have such a
substantive connected with them — aycoyiw, ^ov\ip.iG>, lAtyyiw,
etc.
As to several of the others, it is now impossible to decide.
Certainly \i6G> is no isolated case, and the later Greeks
often added the iota to verbs which in Attic were spelt
without it. Thus Aeschylus employed Kpt^<S, Agam. 1641,
KpiOcovTa TTwA-oi', but in later writers KpiOiStvTa would have
been preferred. They even increased the class by new-
formations which from signification had no right to a
place in it. Such a word is dpoTpiav from apoTpov — a poor
substitute for the genuine and unassuming dpovv. Of other
verbs they merely modified the sufifix, making in this way
lxr]vUiv into ixr}vidv, and p-oKkUiv into p.akKi.dv. The latter
word has been pecnliarly unfortunate. By Cobet's help
(Mncm. 3. 306) jutaAKtoj has been restored to its just position,
but till recently the word had practically disappeared. In
Demosthenes, 120. 7, its place has in all manuscripts been
taken by //oAaKi^o/ze^a : Tama Toivvv irda-x^ovTes 8.TravT€S
fjiiXXofxev Kal iJ.aKKiop.(v Kal irpos tovs ttXtjctlov /SAeTro/jter,
CLTTiaTovvm dAATjAots. The primitive reading has been pre-
served in Harpocration's invaluable i\e^€is rwy Se/ca prjTopoov.
156 THE XEW PlIRYMCHUS.
rhr\-nichus, in App. Soph. 51. 31, assigns the true meaning
to the word —
/uaAKteir' to inrb k/h'ovs' ropKor,
bnt the word itself has become corrupted to /laAoKtf/r.
LXII.
KopHMO ){p^\ Aereiv, oii)(i odpo\', Kai KOpeiv Koi napoKopelv,
ctAAci jiiH csapoCv.
LXIII.
Zdpcoso\' eneibdv oikouohc ti\'6c Aero\TOC, KeAeuoov napa-
KopHoov Aerei\', on oObe odpov Aerouciv, oiAAd KopHjLia kqi
KdAAu\'Tpo\'.
The word crapor is unquestionably an old one, as in the
middle of the fifth century, Ion, the Tragic poet, and
Sophron, the writer of mimes, emploj'ed it. At all events,
Hesychius saj'S so, and certainly o-at/jco is in constant use
in Tragedy (Soph. Ant. 409; Eur. Hec. :^67,. Andr. 166,
Cycl. 29. Ion 1 15, 1:0, 795). The words oi' Hesychius
are, 2a/,Hi2'* KaWvi'Tpoi- YyvCamoi. ^apov 'hor 'Apyetots —
MS iraXaLor oLKia'i aapov'
l3apVTOin]T€or, Cos irapa ^wt/ipoj'f ('t'Aet 6e At'yeir on a\pi](rTOL
ei(Ti bta TO yijpai. It is one of those common words which
do not die easih'. Phrynichus, however, is quite right in
denying it to Attic proper. Of the two verbs craCpoy and
Kopo), the Athenians, obeying the inexorable law of par-
simony, selected the latter, and let j-at/jco drop out of use ;
Kopu) occurs in the Odyssey —
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 157
aypCiff , oX jLtei; 8&5/xa KopT](Tari TTonrvva-aa-ai,
20. 149.
and is the only word known to Attic Prose and Comedy,
Dem. 313. 12, of Aeschines, to yAkav TpLJBcov, koL to. (3d9pa
(TTioyyi^diV, Ka\ to iraLbaycoyelov KopSiv :
KaTadov TO Kop-qfxa, p-r) 'KKopet ti]v EkXaba'
Aristoph. Pax 59.
tovtI \a(3o}v TO Koprip-a, ttjv av\i]v KOpeu
Eupolis (Pollux, 10. 29).
Probably the substantive Kop-qp-a was of purely Attic
growth, and ought to be compared with such words as vbpia
(p. 23), which illustrate the extraordinary formative activity
of the Athenian mind during the period which began with
Marathon and Salamis. It need hardly be added that
aapovv is as debased a form as apoTpiav, a\i]d(.iv, a-in])(^€iv,
xf/rix^Lv, et hoc genus omne.
LXIV.
'AcpfiAiS Aerouaiv dMCtpTdvovTec 01 pHTopec* rouvavriov
rdp H he\ xp'^^vTor tov jjikv rop npeopurepov pHreov dcpH-
AiKO, 01 b' km ToG jUHbenoj thc ev vojutp hAikiqc xP^j^vtoi.
It is easy to see how these opposed meanings originated.
The force of the preposition in the classical sense is the
same as in such words as cmapTi, a-n aKpifiovp-ai,, airavhpov-
(xai, a-napKut, etc. ; whereas in a(^r]ki^, young, in ones nonage,
the k-no bears the meaning that it has in aTTavOpoiiroi, aira-
pio-KOi, cmoTvyyavoi, and other words.
There is no reason to believe that Pollux (2. 17) is right
in enfranchising as Attic the latter of these significations :
Kttt '\*pvvixos pfv 6 Kco//.iKos Tcts v4as a0r/Ai>cas \(yei, V**" ^^
Kal ywaiKcs d4)iiXiK€9. 4>ep€K/)ar7js be Tr]V yepaLTarrju a<l>i]kiKi(TT6.-
T-qr, ws Kai Kpariro? df/^r/AiKa yepovra. Any late Greek writer
158 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
was capable of misunderstanding a Classical predecessor,
and the context is required to fix the meaning of the
words by which Pollux confirms his assertion.
LXV.
' Enirponid^eiV en Kai toCto biecpSapiai, kqitoi Aerovioov
cpavepooc toov dpxaioov unorponid^eiv.
According to Lobeck, there is no trace of this corruption
in our texts. Phrynichus himself explains the meaning of
{nroTpoTnaC^Lv in App. Soph. 69. 19 by the words orav Tre-
TTavix^vrji r^s vocrov TiaXiv kiiivoai) ris. The word is so used by
Hippocrates, but does not occur in any extant Attic writer.
LXVI.
TTpoKonxeiv Aerouor to be ovojua npOKorr ' nap' auToTc
OUK eoTi.
This is a mere question of fact. UpoKOTt-q certainly does
not occur in Classical Greek. Those who care may search
for a reason why TtpoKOTtr}, kyKo-n-q, kKKoiri], avyKonri, were
tabooed when airoKOTT-)], TrapaKOTrrj, and iiepiKo-nri, were in
use among Attic writers.
'tj
LXVII.
BipAiarpdcpoc* OUTGO Aerouaiv ev nevTe ouAAapaic koI bid
ToO a, ou)(i TeTpaouAAdpwc bid too o.
In App. Soph. 29. 29 is found the dictum /3i/3Ato7rwAT;?
KoX (3i(3XoTT(aX.r}s kuI ^ijBXoypacfiO's. It is impossible to re-
concile contradictory statements — and there is no means
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 159
of arriving at the truth. There is a discussion of the
question in the Parerga to Lobeck's edition, pp. 6^^ ff.
LXVIII.
BaoKOviov AerouQiv 01 dpxcx^oi, ou npopasKciviov juerd
THC npo.
A good notion of the meaning of the term may be got
from the App. Soph. 30. 5 • ^o-crKaviov' o o\ a.jj.aOe'is irpo-
ftaa-KdvLOv' (ctti, be tl av6pu)7TO€Lbes KaracrKevacrixa, f3paxy
TTapr]\kayix4vov T'i]v avOpoiiieiav (f)V(riv, irpo tQ>v cpya<TT)]pi(X)v
ol "x^eipaivaKTes Kpe[xavvvovcn tov p.i] jiacrKaivedOai avrav ttjv
epyaaiav.
In a similiar description, Pollux, 7. 108, quotes these
hnes of Aristophanes—
TTkijv et rts TTptaLTo 8eo/xeyo?
^a(TK6.vL0v €-\ Kap-wov avbpbs \a)\.K€(i)s.
The TTpo violates Attic usage in the same way as a-vv in the
words cnjinroXCTrjs and (rvix-naTpKarris.
LXIX.
Noibiov Kai poi6iov dpxci^a kqi boKijua, ouxi voubiov koi
poubiov, bid ToG u.
LXX.
' Potbiov biaipoCviec Aerouoiv 01 djuaOeic- Hjueic be
poibiov.
The former of these articles hardly requires annotation, but
the latter may even now be insisted upon with advantage.
i6o THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Any one who knows anything of Attic Greek must feel
convinced that the open forms are radically opposed to the
genius of that dialect. In late Greek the uncontracted forms
were in vogue and have crept into all manuscripts. Other
grammarians besides Phrynichus saw occasion to insist
upon the old genuine forms. Moeris, p. 275 : Oio-ros, Sto-uA-
Aa/3a)s 'Attikcos, (3e\os 'EkXrjVLKcos. In his note on that
passage Pierson showed that Attic verse often requires
and always allows of the contracted forms, and that 01?,
00ot?, ol^vpos, Eii/SoiSa, 8t7rAot8a, bLTrXoL^co, aOpoi^co, Kara-
TTpoL^erai, ypqbiov, and the like, should be restored with-
out any regard to codices or editions. Porson followed
in his steps in his Preface to the Hecuba, and there
can no longer be any doubt on the point. Transcribers
wrote otarros for oIcttos, ols for ot?, eXeeivos for eXetio?,
just as they substituted (f)V(ree for 0wij and irokee for
tto'Atj. Yet editors will still write eXeetvos, (f)v<r€€, and
similar forms in prose, and trust with credulity guides
who, as often as there is any evidence external to them-
selves, are found to be consistently untrustworthy.
LXXI.
'OojuH xp^^ Aereiv bia toO o* bid roip toO h, ohfx' ,
'Icovcov napavojuei fovv Eevorpoov eic thv ndxpiov bid-
A6KTOV objUH Aerwv.
It has already been observed, that Xenophon's diction
is an anticipation of the Common dialect. With Attic
for its basis, it allows of words from all the dialects, and
is wanting in that quality which has justly been termed
purity. Moreover, not only the diction, but the style as a
whole lacks the masculine simplicity and manly self-re-
straint which marks all genuine Attic work, and has many
THE NEW PURYXICHUS. l6i
of the characteristics of the feminine Ionic. Certainly no
pure Attic writer ever recalls by faults of style the Greek
of Macedonian times so frequently as Xenophon. He is
wanting in dignity, loquacious, superficial, and indifferent
to all that differentiates a good style from a bad. He
uses different words of identical meaning in the same
paragraph, and never exercises his judgment in the se-
^iection of terms. On the other hand, he does not disdain
the trivial methods of ornamentation which every good style
is without.
It did not escape the notice of the later Greeks that
Xenophon's diction was very different from that of pure
Attic writers, and there are still extant several remarks
upon this point. The physician Galen, in his Commen-
tary on Hippocrates, compares Xenophon with the great
Ionic medical writer in his use of Qv6\xaTa ■yXoDcra-rnj.aTLKa koI
TpoTTLKo. — 'foreign words and figurative expressions' — and
the Grammarians use language of a similar kind. In
Photius (Biblioth. p. j^;^. 25) are preserved the following
words of Helladius, a grammarian of the fifth century A. D.,
ovbev Oavixaarbv avijp ev crrpaTdaLS o^oAa^wy kol ^evoov avvov-
(Ttat? ei Tiva TrapaKoimi. Trjs Trarpiov (pdvqs' 8to vopLodeTrjv avrbv
ovK av Tis uTTiKKTiiov TTupaXaftoL. The explanation suggested
by Helladius is unquestionably correct, and recommends
itself to any one who studies the evidence that is still avail-
able. A bu.sy man, living almost wholly abroad, devoted to
country pursuits and the life of the camp, attached to the
Lacedaemonian system of government, and detesting the
Athenian, Xenophon must have lost much of the refined
Atticism with which he was convcr.sant in his youth. It
is not only in the form of words that he differs from Attic
writers, but he also uses many terms— the ovopara yXoi(T-
rrrinaTLKd of Galen — altogether unknown to Attic prose,
and often assigns to Attic words a meaning not actually
attached to them in the leading dialect. The fact that
.M
l62 THE Xl'.W l']lR)XrCiIUS.
expatriation modifies the use of one's native tongue was
no less true in Greece than it is now, and may be iUus-
trated by the Hues of Solon —
iTokXovs 8' 'AOijvas TrarptS' is 6e6KTt,Tov
avi]yayov TrpaO^vras, akkov eKSt/co)?,
6.kkov biKaC(09, -ykM(T(Tav ovkIt 'Attlk7]v
Uvras, b)S cw TTokkaxfj Trkaviofxevovs,
ap. Arislid. 2. 536.
and still more aptly by a passage of Demosthenes (p. 1304),
bial3el3ki]Kaari fxov top irarepa w? e^eviC^^' Ka\ otl [xev akovs
VTTo tG>v TTokeixLcov vTTo TOP AeKekecKov TTokejxop, Kol TTpadels eis"
AevKaba KAeai'Spw, T:epLTV)(^u)p tm viroKpiTi] irpbs tovs olKeCovs
eadidi] bevpo ttoXAootw ^povoi, irapak^koi-naaiv, uxnrep be
beop ?//^a? 8t' (Ketpas ras aTv^ias aiTokecrOaL, to ^epi^eip avTov
KaTriyop7]Ko.(TtP' eyw 8' e£ avT&p tovtmp jxakia-T ap ot/xat vjup
klxavTov KOrjpalop opTa e77t8ei'£at' /cat TTpG)Tov pxp o)? laAco koI
i(roti6rj, fiapTvpas vjxlp Trapi^ojxaL, eTret^' otl acfjiKopLepos ttj^
ovcTLas TTapa t&v Oeioop to p-ipos pieTeka/iev, eW otl ovt ip roTj
brjp-OTaLS, OVT ep toXs (ppaTopaLP, ovt akkoOt ovba}xov top $epi-
CopTa ovbels ttcottot' Tjrtaa-aro u)s itrj ^epos. — The man had
been sold from one part of Greece to another, had always
lived among Greek-speaking men, and yet, when he re-
turned to his native Attica, he no longer talked Attic. — It
is a point, which cannot be insisted upon too often, that
the phenomena of language presented by Greece up to the
time of Alexander were exceptional to a degree. Several
dialects, differing essentially in vocabulary and pronuncia-
tion, existed contemporaneously within a very limited area.
Moreover, as has been shown, there were, in addition to
these, what may be called literary dialects, produced by a
fact almost peculiar to Greek literature — that a style of
composition had a tendency to keep to the same dialect
in which it started. In this way it was possible, even
in the case of one people like the Athenians, to have two
* feVj? 5ia\e/crw ixprjro. Vid. Harpocration sub vocabulo.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 163
stages in the history of their language represented in con-
temporary literature, namely, the matured Attic of the
day, known to us from Comedy and the Orators, and the
partially developed Ionic Attic of more than a century
earlier, which is the basis of the language of Tragedy.
Now, while it has been already proved that, to an Athe-
nian of the best age, it was as easy and natural to pass in
literature from one dialect to another as from one metrical
system to another, yet, at the same time, nothing but
constant communion with his contemporaries could have
produced that marvellous precision of language which is
observable in Aristophanes, Plato, and the Orators. Such
precision was only possible in a language spoken by a great
people, elevated by events to a still higher intellectual
level, inhabiting a limited area with few opposing interests,
and thrown into constant communication with one another.
No Athenian of the best days used for ordinary purposes
epxrjTai for tj], ipyoixevos for icof, T7a)A?/(ra) for d7To8c5cro/xai,
re'foj for Te^ojxai, Kapra for (rcj)6bpa, yet the words were
known to him, and he recognized that they were in place
in Tragedy, and might, for literary purposes, be employed
in Comedy. But if the same man moved for a year or two
among Greek peoples which used ^p^-qrai, 'ipyoiro, 7ra)A.?;(ra),
ri^cji, eKeva-opLai, and the like, there is no question that
he would follow their example. Accordingly, it is
contrary to all reason to treat- Xenophon as a genuine
Attic writer, and to apply to him the same standard that
may justly be applied to Aristophanes, Plato, and the
Orators. As it is, there is every reason to believe that
liis text has already severely suffered in this way, and
that early critics have made corrections of the same
kind as modern editors have recently been introducing.
'J'he word obixri is a case in point. It is not encountered
once in the present texts of Xenophon. The Attic oa-nrj
has everywhere been substituted for it. Yet, besides that
M 2
164 THE MiW FHRYMCHUS.
of Phrynichus, there is the testimony of other grammarians
to the same effect ; and their authority is far superior to
that of manuscripts, more recent by many centuries. Pol-
lux has a remark of great value : 'H 8e 6h\}.i] koX evobixui
8oKet fJiiv Tols TToAAois etvai Kaka 6i'6iJ.aTa, eort be TTOLrjTiKa., Iv
8e Totb- KaTakoydbrjv 'Imvlko. Kal AtcoAtKct. Ilapa be 'Ayrt-
(f)S)VTL jxovdi 6b[xas Kcu evobjxiav^ evpot rts av (2. y6J. In the
texts of Xenophon dbjx^ must be restored, in accordance
with the authority of Grammarians ; and 08//7/ and evobixCa
are moreover guaranteed by Pollux to have survived, even
in Attic, till the time of Antiphon, or the middle of the
fifth century B. C, so that not only did Aeschylus use dbixd
in a lyrical passage, P. V. 115 —
rts d\(a, Tis obixd TrpocreTrra // CKpeyyi]^;
but the manuscripts are probably to be trusted in exhibiting
6b[xrj even in Euripidean senarii ^ —
0) delov dbjxrj's TTvevjJM kt€.
Hipp. 1 39 1.
Further evidence that the text of Xenophon, as we now
have it, differs in many essential points from the text of
the early Christian centuries, is not wanting. Photius^
has preserved the fact that Xenophon used t^wj for eco? :
'Eo;?, ovxl rjoi'i, to 'Attlkov eo-rt. s.evo(f)(>)i> be ?}&)? keyet ttolt]-
TLKcas, KaraKoputi iv Kvpov HatSeta i]v irpos ?/(3, ^v re 77/209
eo-TTepav. Yet etos now appears everywhere in the manu-
scripts. A gloss in SuTdas is, Mda-arMv, jxaKporepos : Bevo<pu)V
hv fXT] TToXv ij.d(r(ru)v obos 77. To the examples of un-Attic
' The editions have oa/ias kuI evoat^iav, which means nothing. Antiphon, the
earliest of Attic prose writers, retains very many words and forms ofwords aban-
doned at a later period by the Altic dialect, and 08^77 and evoS/xia do not stand
alone in his diction as indications of that earlier Attic, a still earlier stage of
which became the basis of the Tragic diction.
^ The coexistence of off/ziy in Eur. El. 498, Cycl. 153, and in Soph. Phil. 891,
Ant. 412, 1083; Fr. Philuct. 630; Synd. Fr. 141. 4, is only another instance of
the combination of new and old in the Tragic diction, and of which tlie new
voffoiTjv, by the side of the old voaoTfju. is a striking instance.
' In Lex. MSS. apud Valcken. ad Eiir. Hipp. 78,
THE i\E\V PHRYNICHUS. 165
words and forms in Xenophon already referred to (see
p. 59), may be added the following: yrcooT?/p = Att. ey-
yvy]T(]'i, Cyr. 6. 2. 39 ; SorTjp, d7ro8eKr?jp, 8, i. 9 ; (TTLTaKTijp,
2. 3. 4 ; OTTTT/p, (ppaarrip, 4. 5. 1 7 ; Oepa-nevrrip, 7. 5. 65 ;
fivrjo-TT^p, 8. 4. 1 5 ; \viJ.ai'Ti]p, Hier. 3. 3 ; and in alphabetical
order : —
'Ay\ata= K0(r[x6s, Eq. 5- ^> beborai 8e Trapa ^ewy koI b.ykdtas
ev€Ka iTTTTO) X"^^*? '^"' TrpoKop-Lov re Kat ovpa.
'Aypevoo, hunt = 0j?pei;a), /cui'Tjyera), Hipp, 4. 18, Cyn. 12. 6,
Anab. 5. 3. 8,
'Ayxe/xaxci 077Aa=:ra pLrj jSaXXofxeva oTrXa, Cyr. I. 2. 13 :
Homer; Hesiod.
'Ayxi.TepiJ.(t)v = y€iT(tiv, Hier. 10. 7, ras 8e ayy^irepiiova^ iroke is :
Soph. Fr. Lemn. 352 ; Eur. Rhes. 426.
Aba'qs=^a(niveTos, Cyr, l. 6. 43, ovbevos avroiv rjixeKrjKas
ovb' abai]s yeyevqaaL : Hdt. 2. 49 ; 5- 9° 5 9- 4^ j cp. 8, 65.
'AAy^;I;op.at = a^•twpat, kv~ovjj.ai, Apol. 8, aXyvvoji^vos voaoLS
rj ytipq. In Tragedy frequently, in Comedy only in
parody or paratragedy.
^A\eKu> = aixvvoi, if aAefop,at is read for a\e^i](TO[j.ai in An. 7.
7. 3, so rjke^dixrjv, aXe^aadat, An. 1. 3. 6 ; 3. 4. 33, etc.
'AAe'^co = d/xwco, act. Cyr. 4. 3. 2 ; middle, Cyr. i. 5. 13.
^AKe^r]Trip = jior]06s, Occ. 4. 3, rati- TraTpLcriv ake^r]Trjp€S :
Horn. II. 20. 396.
'AXi(ui = adpo[C(ti, Cyr. i. 4. 14 ; An. 7. 3. 48 ; 6. 3. 3 ; Herod.
!• 79) 5- 15 5 7- 12; Eur. Heracl. 403. It occurs in
PlatOj Crat. 409 A, but only in a philological argument,
aA.ios ovv etr] jxev av Kara to ukiCeLv eh ravTo tov9 av-
dp(aiT0vs, eTTeihav dyarctA?/.
''AKki]xos = pace's, ixdxtjj-os, Cyr. I. 2. 10; 5. 2. 25, Anab. 4.
3. 4 ; 7. 7, 15, Hell. 7. 2. 16 ; 7. 3. I, Oec. 4. 15, etc. In
Plato, Rep. 614 B, it is used for the sake of a pun, and
in Arist. Plut. 1002, in a proverb.
^ A}iavpS)-=(Tvyy^io), d^art^oj, Cyn, '). 4, rj aekrin] afxavpoi to.
1 66 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Ixvr]'. Ages. II. 12, ajJMvpovv ra tmv iroXqiMv: Hdt. 9- lO;
Eur. Fr. 430.
AvaXKi'i, Cyr. 7- 5- 62; 8. i. 45, a.va\Kihas koX aa-vvTciKTOvs '.
Soph. El. 301 ; Hdt. 2. 102.
' Az;t/;i&) = (WAko), Anab. 4. 2. 8, Eq. 7. i.
AT:aiJ.U^O}xai-=a'noKplvoiiai, Xen. An. 2. 5- 15? Ticro-acjiepvrj^
be u)b( a'!Tr]fX€L(})6y] : otherwise only Epic.
'A-jrept/KO) = KtoAvo), Mem. 2. 9. 2, Kwas 8e Tpi(l)eis tva croi
Tovs XvKOVi aiTo tS>v irpo^aTcav aTTepvKuxjL . . . airepiJKeLV :
Oec. 5- 6, at oe Kvves to. re 6r]pia aTTepVKOVcraL airb Xvpi-qs
KapiTMv Kal TTpofiaTOiP. See epvKco.
*Apai6'i~-\j.av6^, Lac. 11. 6, apatal ^aAayyes : Horn. II. 16.
161 ; Hippocr. 243- 3^^ V^ ^^ ilP^ % i^ol apatws Keifxeva
= raris intervallis.
^kpriycii, Cyr. I, 5. 13, rot? 0tAots api]yeiv : Oec. 5. 7, dpr/yttz;
r^ X'«^P? = Horn. II. I. 77, etc. ; Herod. 7. 236; Hippocr.
395- 6, XovTpbv 8e o-u;(Z'oto-t rwy vovcrr]ixaT(i)V apriyoi av
Xpeo//eVot(7t : Aesch. Eum. 571, P. V. 267, etc.; Soph.
■^j- 329, etc. ; Eur. Tr. 772, etc.
'A(rTV(f)iXLKTos = a(T(f)aXi]s, Lac. 15. 7, aa-TvcfieXtKTOv ti]v ^aai-
XeCav Trape'xetr.
^ATrjixeXT]TO^ = ri[xeXr]ixevos, Cyr. 5. 4. 1 8, ovbeva eKcbi^ ar?]-
p-eX-qrov irapiXentev: 8. I. 14, ovSets aTr]p.€Xr]Tos ytyverai.
In an active sense, Cyr. 8. i. 15, tu)v olKtioiv aTrip,eX/]TMs
ix^iv : Aesch. Agam. 891.
Ax6eiv6s = Xv7:r]p6s, Mem. 4. 8. i, ro axdeivorarov tov /Blov :
Hell. 4. 8. 27, ovK axOeivcas kcapa: Eur. Hipp. 94, Hec.
1240.
"Axos^Xvirr], Cyr. 5. 5. 6, axos aiirov iXa^ev : id. 6. i. 37, ol
av6p(07ToC p.€ Karabvova-Lv ax^i ■ Herod. 2. 131 ; Trag. freq.
Btor?; — /3tos, Cyr. 7. 2. 275 MCiKaptajrarTjy PioTr\v . . . p.aKapiav
^LOTr}v: Herod. 7. 47; Trag.
rap.€Tri9 = av^p, Cyr. 4. 6. 3, roy r^? /3ao-tAecos dvyarpos ya-
p.eTr]v: Aesch. P. V. 897 (ch.) ; Eur. Supp. 1028 (ch,).
Tread. 312 (ch.).
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 167
Faupou/xat^dyaAAojutat, iiraipoixai,, Hier. 2. Ij, yavpovvTai kill
rw epyo) : Cyr. 2. 4. 30, eTTtyaupw^et? ttJ ivToXfj tov Kvpov :
Eur. Or. 1532, Bacch. 1144.
rou)ixai:=aiTobaKpvoo, Cyr. 4. 6. 9, 7/ 6vyaTi]p ttoAAo you)p.ivri :
on which Pollux (3. 100) remarks, B^vocp&v 8e yoMixevq
TTov Xiyei. irot-qTiKcaTepov : Aesch. Pers. 1072; Eur. Tro. 289 ;
Soph. O. R. 1249, etc. In Ar. Thesm. 1036 in ch.
reivdixevoL ol = ol yovds, Mem. I. 4. 7, Apol. 20 ; Herod, i.
120, 122; 4. 10 ; 6. 52.
Aariix(ov = eT:L(TTTi]iJ.(oi', Cyr. I. 2. 12, hari[xovi(TTaToi koX avhpi-
KcoTaroi: Od. <S. 159.
Aa.iTebov = eba(j)Os, de Re Eq. I. 3, ai ii\//7]Aat oTrAat iroppoi airo
TOV hairihov eyjavcri ti]v -)(jeXih6va KaKovp.ivi]v '. id. cocr-ep yap
KV\xjiaXov ^Irocfxl Trpos rw SaTre'Sw r; koiAt] ottA?/ : Anab. 4.
5. 6, btaTTt]KO\xivr]'S r?/s x'^^'^^^ (36dpoi lyiyvovro jxeyaXot eare
k-aX TO ba-nihov: Cyr. 8. 8, 16, Oec. 8. 17; Homer; Eur.
Hipp. 230 (ch.), Ale. 594 (ch.). In Ar. Plut. 515 in para-
tragedy.
Aa\l/LkT^s = a(l}6ovos, Anab. 4. 2. 22, KaXals otKtats Koi i~t-
r>;6eiot9 ba\}nk€(rL, 4. 4. 2 : «77tT?;8eta 8' t]!/ bayj/LXij : Mem. 2.
7. 6, Cyr, I. 6. 17; Herod. 3. 130. The word occurs
in middle Comedy, Sophilus (in Ath. 3. 100 a), by
the side of xop^ao-^Tjo-o/xat, and (TTprjviG). Antiphanes in
Ath. I. 23).
AeiTryi^w = eo-rto), Mem. i. 3. 7, Oec. 2. 5, Cyr. 4. 5. 5 ; Horn.
Od. 4. 535, etc. ; Herod. 7. 118.
Aea-77oVwos = 8erT77ortK09, Oec. 9. 16; 14. 2; Aesch. Pers.
587 ; Eur. Hcc. 10 J, I. T. 439 ; and in Ar. Thesm. 42 in
paratragedy.
AovTro) = Kpovoj, which occurs in An. i. 8. 18, although in
itself quite in keeping with Xenophon's style, evidently
belongs to a gloss ; but bov-na is met with in An. 2. 2. 19,
d6pv(3oi Koi bovTTos rjv olov ci/coy (\)6fiov kfx-n^crovTO'i : Homer ;
Aesch. Cho. 375; Soph. Aj. 633; Eur. Ion 516. In
Thuc. 3. 22. .> KaTiftaKi yap rts K(pap.iha f) "mrrovaa
1 68 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
xj/ocpov iTTotrjcrer, an excellent MS. has bovTTov, which may
be right — an indication of the immaturity of Attic in the
historian's time.
ApvTTToixai = (nTapd(r(TO[jiat, Cyr, 3. I. 13, yvvalKes aval3oi](racrai
ibpVTTTOVTo : id, 3. 3. 67, KaTapp-qyvvjx^vai re TreirXovs koL
bpvTTToixevat : Horn. Od. 2. 153; Eur. El. 150, Hec. 6^^.
Avcr€^.'iTLS = aveXiTicrTos, aveXiTia-TCxis ^X^^> Vect. 3. 7, Hell, 5.
4. 31 ; Aesch. Cho. 412 (ch.j.
A(ioprip.a = bu>pov, Hier. 8, 4; Aesch, P, V, 626, Pers. 523;
Soph, Aj. 662 ; Eur. Hel. 883, etc
''EKTTayXos = 6avpLacrT6s, Hier. II. 3, oirkois be roTs CKTrayAora-
Tois avTos KaTaK€Kocrixr]p€vos : Homer freq. ; Aesch. Ag.
862, Cho. 548 ; Soph. El. 204 ; Herod. 9. 48 has the
verb iKirayXioixevoi,, and Eur, Or, 890, Tro, 929, Hec. 1157.
'E/x7roATj = wi'ta, (f)opT[a, Hell, 5- i- 23, oXKabas y€[iovcras ras
\x€V Tivas (TLTov, TCLs be Koi e/xTToA?/? : =(jt)vi], Cyr. 6. 2. 39,
et be Tis \prip.aTU)V Trpocrbeia-OaL vo[x[(ei. els ep-iroXriv . . .
XaixjSdveiv: Soph. Fr. Scyr, Nk, 508; Eur. I. T. 11 11.
'E^a\aTTdCu>= eKTTOpOM, Ar. 7. 1, 29, 'EXXrjvtba be els rjv Trpwrjjy
TtoXiv i]X6op.ev, TavT)]v e^aXa-nd^op-ev: II, I, 129,
'E7rap7/yco = eTTtKoupw, Cyr. 6, 4. 18, ot aTro tG>v irvpyoov ripXv
eTTap-niovcTL : II. I. 408, et freq.; Aesch. Cho. 725; Soph.
El. 1197; Eur, El, 1350; Aristoph. Vesp, 402, in
anapaests,
^ETTibaxlnXevop-aL (vid. ba\j/LXi]s supra), Cyr, 2, 2, 15, yjfuv ye-
Xu>Tos eTiiba^iXevcrei : Herod. 5. 20.
Epei-rtU), Cyr. 7. 4. l, 6 be Kvpos pr]x^avds eTTOielro ws epe[\}r(iiv
TO. reixv '• Homer freq, ; Herod, 9. 70 ; Soph. Ant. 596,
O. C. 1373, Aj, 309,
'EpvK(o, Anab. 3. l. 25, epvKeiv d-n efxavrov rd KaKa (see dire-
pvKOi) : Hom. freq. ; Herod. 9. 49 ; Aesch. Sept. 1075 ;
Soph. Tr. 120, Phil, 1153 ; Eur, H, F, 317,
Ev6r}p.o(rvvri^ Cyr, 8. 5. 7, KaXov r^yelro 6 Kvpos ev oIkCo. etvai
e-niTrjbevp.a rrjv evdrip-oavvriv KTe.: Hesiod, Op. 47 1: evOrj-
pdv, Aesch. Cho. 84.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 169
YaVvolCm^ Cyn. 9. 3, ov av \i.iKki\ kKaa-Trj tov kavTij^ evvdcreLV
(vejSpov): id. 12. 2, evvdCeo-Oai (tkA7j/)(3s SuiJarot eaovrai.
Kal (j)vXaKes etrot aya^ot : Soph. Trach. 1242, O. R. 982;
Eur. Med. 18, Rhes. 611, 762.
'Ex6patv(ti = iJii(TS>, Ag. II. 5, Twy TTapprjo-LaCoixevcav ovUva
"iX^patvev : Soph. Ant. 93 (v. 1. ex^aipco).
'Htcoi;, Hell. I. I. 5, KOT-a n> rjCova: Horn. freq. ; Herod. 8,
96; Aesch. Ag. 1 159 (ch.); Eur. Or. 995 (ch.), Tro.
827 (ch.).
'HXi/3aro?, Anab. 1. 4. 4, virepdev be riaav Trirpai '))X[(3aT0L:
Horn. II. 15. 619, i]vT€ irerpri ?7At/3aro? : id. 16. ^^, Od. 9.
243; 10. 88; 13. 196; Hesiod, Theog. 786, Scut. 422 ;
Theognis, 176; Pindar, 01. 6. no; Aesch. Suppl. 351 ;
Eur. Hipp. 732 ; Ar. Av. 1732 (ch.). In late prose writers,
as Polybius, 4. 41. 9; Plutarch, Mor. 163 C, 935 E;
Strabo, 17. 818,
GdXTToc) = d€piJ.aLvu), Cyr. 5. I. II, /xrjSe pLyS>v tov xet/^wros /xijSe
edX-neaOai rov 6epovs : Horn. Od. 21. 179; Hesiod,
Theog. 864 ; Aesch. P. V. 590, 650, 878 ; Soph. Tr.
697, 1082, Phil. 38, El. 888, Ant. 417; Eur. Hel. 183.
In Ar. Eq. 210, at ko. p.\ 6a\(f)6fj Aoyot?, in pseudo-oracle.
0,;yai = ofwa>, Cyr. I. 2. 10, Ti]v irvxj^v driyea-Oai: I. 6. 41,
eu [ikv TO. (T(i>p.aTa rjo-K-qjxeva, ev be ai ^vxal TeOr]y\xevai : 2. 1 .
11, ras \l/vxa.s 6/jyeiv: 2. I. 13, O'qyeiv to (fypovrjixa: 2. I. 20,
di]yeiv TOLS \j/vxo.s ek to. -noXejiiKa : Mem. 3. 3. 7, Or]yeiv
ras yj/vxa^ twv 'nnreoiv : Horn. II. 2. 382, etc. ; Aesch. Ag.
1262, P. V. 311, Sept. 715; Soph. Aj. 584, etc.; Eur.
Or. 51. 1036, 1625, El. 1 142, etc. In Ar. Lys. 1255, in
the x'^'po9 AaKutvo)!'.
0Lyy6.vo} = aTTTnixat, Cyr. I. 3. 5) ^^<^^ tovto)!' twos ^tyj;s: 5- '•
16, TTVpos OiyovTa: 6. 4. 9, Oiyiov avTrj'i r?/j KecjmXijs :
Hippocr. 8. 88 ; 6. 90 ; 3. 272, etc. ; Aesch, P. V. 849,
Sept. 44, 258, Ag. 432, 663, etc. ; Soph. O. R. 760, 1413,
1469, O. C. 330, 470, etc.; P^ur. Ilec. 605, Or. 218, 382,
1602, Hipp. 310, etc. It is not found in Comedy, except
170 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
once in anapaests in Pherecrates, Ath. 6. 263 B, and in
Lacedaemonian form, (Ti.yrjv=6Lyeii>, in An Lys, 1004. In
Antiphanes, Ath. 15. 667 A, 6[yj] is merely a conjecture
of Jacobs' for Tvxjh
lTT'!:6Ti-is = l7nrevs, Cyr. l. 4. 18, avvTols TTapaTv^ovaiv iTnroTais :
8. 8. 20 ; de Re Eq. 8. 10, hvo linTOTa arvvTiOeixevco : Horn,
II. 2. 336, et freq. ; Herod. 9, 69, ol tS>v Q-q^amv t-n-norai :
Aesch. Sept. 80 (ch.) ; Soph. O. C. 899 ; Eur. Phoen.
1095, etc. ■
Kaiv(ti=^a-noKT€iv(a, Cyr. 4. 2. 24, ovtoi 8e kulvovtcov [so
KaraKaivco^^aiTOKTeLVM very frequently in Xenophon alone
of Classical authors] : Aesch. Ag. 1562, Sept. 347, 630,
Cho. 930; Soph. O. C. 994, El. 820, Ant. 1319; Eur,
H.F. 865, I. T. 27, 1252, etc.
KAr/^a) = KaA.a), Cyr. I. 2. l, riepo-etSat a-no riepcreco? Kky\CpvTai\
Hippocr. 3. 191 ; Aesch. Ag. 631 ; Soph. O. R. 48, 1171,
1451, etc.; Eur. Phoen. 10, H.F. 340, Bac. 1180, etc.
In Ar. Thesm. 116 in chorus ; so in Av. 1745 : but in id.
905, 921 in the mouth of the Troirjrrj?.
KAco7rei^a) = KAe'7Trft), An. 6, l. i, enXwix^vov eS juaAa tovs o-tto-
(TKe.havvv}xivovs : Lac. 2. 7. Sui'das has the gloss, eKAw-
Trevov, CKXeTTTov' Bevo(})S>v iv r?/ ^ Avaj3d<T€i..
Koiva)v = KOLvcovos, Cyr. 7. 5. ;^^, KOiv&vas tcov KaTaireTTpay-
fxivoov: 8. I, 16, ;^6, 40. Pollux says, 8. 134, ol kolvcovcs,
B€vo(j)covTos thLov: but Pindar uses the word in Pyth. 3. 28,
and KOLvedv is an excellent emendation of Scaliger's for
Tov ve(ov in Eur. H. F. 340 —
do Zeu, fxarriv ap 6p.6yap.6v a €KTr](Tdp.riv,
p-arrjv 8e Tratbos tov vecav €Kkr\^op.ev.
Cp. $VV€U)V, ^vvrjcov.
Kvbp6s, Apol. 29, 6 p.ev dv7]p o8e Kvbp6s : de Re Eq. 10. 16,
Kvbp<^ Tw axrip-ari, of a horse : Horn. Od. 11. 580 ; Aesch.
Fr. 162 (Nk.).
Adcf)vpa = K€ia, Hell. 5- i- 24, koI diroh6p.evos to, \a.(f)vpa: cp.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 171
ka(t)vpoTT(aXovvTe^ in An. 6, 6. 38 : Xa4)vpo-(oXris, Anab. 7. 7.
S6; Hell. 4. I. 26; Aesch. Sept. 278, Ag. 578; Soph.
Tr. 646, Aj. 93 ; Eur. Rhes. 179, H. F. 416.
Aaxos = /jie/309, An. 5. 3. 9, rail- OvoiiivMV Xaxps koX t&v 6rj-
pevoixh'cov : Aesch. Eum. 5, 310. 2^^, 344, etc.; Soph.
Ant. 1303.
AerjAarw = Aetay iroLovixat, etc, Cyr. 1.4. 17, XeriXarelv €k tj/s
MtjSikt/s: 1.4. 20; Hell. 4. 4. 15, et freq. : Cp. XerjXaaia,
Hier. 1. ^6; Hdt. 3. 152; Soph. Aj, 343; Eur. Rhes.
293, Hec. 1 143. In Dem. 280. 8 it is in a letter of
Philip.
Ae)(pios = 7rAdytoj, Cyn. 4. 3, Ixy^vovroiv rt^eicrat tol's Ke(f)aXas
€TTi ynv Aexptas, Soph. O. C. 195; Eur. Med. 1168:
Hec. 1025.
i\((iipy6s=-K.aKovpyo's, iravovpyos, Mem. I. 3. 9, depp-ovpyoraTov
Kol XeoipyoTarov : Aesch. P. V. 5-
A7jis = A.eia, Rep. Lac. 13. i r, Xi-jtba ayoiv : Horn. Od. 3.
106, etc.: Aesch. Sept. 331 (ch.).
Avp.ai'Ti]p = Xvp€<av, Hier. 3. 3, Xvpavryjpas rrji t&v yvvaLKU>v
(fiiXias Trpos Tovs avhpas : Soph. Tr. 793, Xvp.avTi]i.
^la<TTevoo = Ci]TU}, Anab. 5. 6. 25; 7. 3. 11, Ages. 1. 23; 9.
3, etc. ; Aesch. Ag. 1099 ; Soph. O. T. 1052 ; Eur.
Phoen. 416. The companion form ixarevoi is also unknown
to Attic prose and Comedy.
Ml]Kl(TT09 = lJ.aKp6TaTOS, Ages. 10. 4, acfjCKOIXeVOS €TtI to \X1]KI(TT0V
avOpooTTivov aldvos : id. i f. 15, Cyr. 4. 5. 28 ; Hom. II. 7.
155, etc.; Aesch. Frag. 275 (Nk.) ; Soph. O. T. 1301,
Phil. 849.
M77/VVC.J = rrvrciyco, (ivvaTiXXoi, etc., An. 6. 5. 22, Outtov yap
aOpuov (boKd ttv ovTU) Tttpav yev^crOai to (TTpdTev[xa ?/ et
KaTa TTiv yiijwpav e^eixripvovTO : Hom. Od. 12. 170; Hes.
Op. 538 ; Soph. ap. Ath. 3. 99 D, vavrai, 6' qxripvcravTo njo'i
l(r)(^uba.
Mo')(0os = 7roi;os, Conv. 2. 4, airo TOiv eX(vOepLo)v \x6)(0oiv : 8. 40,
fTw/xa iKavov jioxOovi viTo(f)ipfU' : lies. Sc. 3*-''^ > Aesch.
1 7 2 THE A'£ IV PHR YNICHUS.
P. V. 99, 244, 314, ?y^?>. etc. ; Soph. O. C. 105, 329, Tr.
1 1 70, etc.; Eur. Hipp. 52, Phoen. 695, Med. 1261, etc.
Mox^w, however, though rare, is good Attic.
Myo-arrojuat = /386A.vrro/xai, Cyr. I. 3. 5) jJ-va-aTToixevov ravra to.
/Spcoixara : Hippocr. 477. 25, iwaaTTeTat to (riaXov: Eur.
Med. 1 149.
Neoyi'os = i'eoyei'^s, Cyil. 5- ^4; '"« y^lav Vioyva : 10. 23, Vioyvol
vejSpoi : Oec. J. 21, veoyvS>v tckvmv : id. 24, veoyva IBpi(f)r] :
Her. 2. 2 ; Acsch. Agam. 1163 ; Eur. Ion 31.
Ne'o/xat is read by one manuscript in Cyr. 4. i, ii, ovj [xd-
Xtora Kaipbs rjv ri XalSeXv ?) KaraKaveiv, ovtol e0' ittttcoz;
viovTai ovs i]}X(^ls TpeirecrOat fxev avv roij ^eoT? tKai'ot, 8tw-
KoiTe? 8e alpelv ovx LKavoL Most manuscripts read ecrovrai.
There is Httle question that the viovTai is right, and
that icrovrai is an ancient emendation, no more worthy
of being received into the text than the oxovvroi of
Cobet (Mnem. N. S. 3. 3H9). Xenophon used veovraL
as he used ripwTrja-a for rjpojjLriv (Cyr. 4. 5. 21), ipxdfxevos
for l(ov (see p. 109), and such Hke words and forms.
The present inquiry will have served its purpose if
it puts an end to unwarranted emendations in the text
of Xenophon.
'No(r(f)L((jo = v(f)aLp&, Cyr. 4, 2. 42, xpi^p.ara ovk ayvoG) on. hv-
varov i^pXv vocrcjiio-acrOai. oirocra av ftovko^ixeda : Eur. Supp.
T53; Aesch. Cho. 620; Soph. Phil. 1427, etc.
^'OXI3o^= evbaiixovia, Xen. Cyr. i. 5. 9, where it forms one of
the series oA/3o?, evbaiiiovia, rt/xai: 4. 2. 44 (no Attic
writer could have distinguished between oKl3os and
evbaifxovia) ; Hdt. I. 86, very freq. in all three Tragedians.
•'0x^0?, Hipparch. 6. 5 ; 8. 3 ; de Re Eq. 3. 7 ; Hdt. 4. 203 ;
8- 52; 9- 25; 56. 99; Aesch. Supp. 467, Cho. 4; Eur.
Supp. 655. In Ar. Thesm. 1105, and Ran. 11 72, in
parody.
"Oxj/Lfxos, see p. 124.
Y]a\a[jt.valos = akd(TTcop, Cyr. 8. 7. 18, o'lovs jj-ev ^ojiovs toIs
THE NEW PIIRYNICHUS. I 73
\i.iai^6voi^ ilx[3d\kov(nv, ol'oi^v 8e naKajxvaiov^ roiy avoaioi'i
iirtTTiiJLTrovcrLv : Eur. I. T. 1218 —
A. TL XPV /^f bpav ;
B. iriTiKov ofj-jxcLTcov -npodiaOai.
A. fx-i] T!akap.voA,ov X6.j3u> ;
According to the Etym. Mag., Zeus had this surname in
Chalcis, 647. 43, 6 yap rov^ avroyeipX (povevaavTWi rt/xojpou-
fxeyos Zevs TraKap-vaioi. Aeyerat koI iv XaAxiSt Ylakap.vaio9.
In the other sense of avTox^tp, it does not occur in
Xenophon, but, according to Harpocration, sub voc, in
Hyperides ev rw Kara Aijpdbov, and it is put in Hermes'
mouth by Phrynichus, Com. (Plutarch. Ale. 20). The
word is well known in Tragedy, Aesch. Eum. 44(S ;
Soph. EI. 587.
Il^irapaL=: KeKT-qpai, An. I. 9. lO, axrve CKTOiVTO /cot o iireTraTO
av TLs i]KiaTa Kvpov eKpv~Tev : 3. 3. 1 8, TiitiavTaL cr^erSoVas :
6. I. 12; Aesch. Agam. 835, -n^Trap.ivo^. Aesch. has
also the future ■naaoixai in Eum. 177, and the aorist
iTT6.(T(a = eKTi]aa} in Frag. 211 (Nk.). In Soph. O. C. 528 —
7} jxaTpoOev, o)s aKovoi,
hv(J(ovvixa X^Kvp' e7rA.r/crco ;
Nauck is probably right in reading eTrdaco.
nepte77w = ^epa7r€uco, \pG)paL, Mem. 2. 9. 5? pdXa TrfptetTrer
avTuv : Conv. 8. 38, tovtov tol^ peyi<TTai<i Ttp.ali ■nepUimv :
Cyr. 4. 4. I 2, TOVTOV Wb- (vepytTrjv Kal (j)[kov ovx, ^^ bovkov
TTepLe\j/op.(v : Plell. 3. I. 16, 01 "EAArjyes ov ttuvv tl KaAccs"
TrepieiTTovro : Plerod. I. y^, and very frequently.
Tlop(TVV(D=^^VTpeTTiCoi, TTapaaKevd^o), Cyr. 4. 2. 47, iropavvovTi'i
ra (TTLTrjbela ; J. 5. I J, to too TTOTapov ovroj? eiropavveTO, etc. :
Hdt. 9. 7, et al. ; Aesch. Cho. 911, 1041 ; Ag. 12^51,
1374, etc.; Soph. O. C. 341, El. 670, etc.; ICur. Med.
1020, etc.
npwi/xos, see supra, p. 124.
'V(Wpov = p(vpa, Cyn. /■,. I;-,, 34; 9. 11 ; licit. 1. 75, 186,
I 7 4 THE NF. 1 1 ' 7>//A' ] WlCnUS.
191, et al. ; Aesch. P. V. 790, Pers. 497 ; Soph. Ant. 712 ;
Eur. El. 794.
^a(pr]viC(^, Cyr. 8. 7. 9, ti]v PaaiKeiav (ra(f)r]i>[(TavTa KaTaXtireLv :
Hell. 7. 5. 21; Mem. 4. 3. 4, Oec. 20. 13, etc.; Aesch.
P. V. 22H. '2a({)r]vris = (Ta(j)ris is found in Hdt. I. 140, etc. ;
Aesch. Pers. 634, 738, etc. ; Soph. Trach. 892.
2awrepo9, Cyr. 6. 3. 4, aTtavra koX cradorepa rjv : Horn. II. I.
32, aAA' tOi \xi] fx epedbC^, aacarepos cos kc v^rjaL. This
comparative is formed from 0-0.09, which, when contracted,
gave the Attic crcSj.
^TjKa^co, Hell. 3. 2. 4, TeKos be coaiTep kv avkm o-qKaaOivm
KaTr]K0VTia-9r\o-av: Hom. II. 8. 131.
Tapayos^rapaxfi, Anab. I. 8. 2, Cyr. 7. i. 32, Oec. 8. 10,
de Re Eq. 9. 4 ; Hippocr. 300. 41^ v-rnqperovvTos rw OopvjSco
Kol rapa)(w roi) KVixaros.
^T'n6beLyiJ.a = TTapdb€Lyixa, see p. 62.
'T'no6rjiJLoa-vvr] = '7Tapa[i'eo-LS, Mem. I. 3. 7, 'Ep/^ioS vTToOrnjLoa-vvi] :
Hom. II. 15- 4^2, v'no6rjjioa-vvr](TLV ^A6i]i>rjs.
^6[p.evoL ol, Cyr. 8. 7. 18 ; Hom. Od. 24. 436, etc. ; Aesch.
Pers. 6z6, etc. ; Soph. Tr. ij6i ; Eur. Tro. 1083.
^p€va> = vov9eTU), Mem. 2. 6. l, goKet 8e juot Kot ets ro boKLpid-
C^w, (fiikovs OTToCovs d^LOP KTCLo-daL, (fipevovv, Toidbe Kiyo^v :
Aesch. Agam. 1183, etc; Soph. Ant. 754, etc.; Eur.
Ion 526, etc.
^vpbr]v==dvap.C^, Cyr. 7. 1. 37, (l)vpbr]v kp-dyovro koX tt€(o\ /cat
iTTTTei? : Aesch. Pers. 812.
LXXII.
BeAovH Kot pcAovondiAHC apxala, h be pacpic ti ecriv ouk
dv TIC rvoiH.
Of these two words /5a^t? was undoubtedly the older,
fteXovrj standing in the same relation to /^a^ts as Kopi-jpLa to
THE NEW I'HRYXICHUS. 175
adpov, and vbpCa to ayyos. Helladius (p. 17) has the following
interesting note on this point : to p-anrpav Kakdv iv ah ra^
fxa^as \iaTTOV(TLV, 'Attlkov Kal ovx> ^'^ eviot boKOvcnv, tStcortKoV.
dAAa Kttt 17 ^v(rTpa rrjs orAeyyiSos koI tov ox^tov rj vhpoppoi] koX
6 akeTwv TOV fJLvXov kol ttjs {SeXovi-js^ ?/ pa(pls iraKaioTepov.
According to a grammarian in Bekk. Anecd. 113, Epi-
charmus employed pa(f)is, — pa(j)iba' tijv (BeXovriv 'E7rtx<^p/xo?,
and Pollux, 10. 1^6, quotes the word from Archippus —
pa^iha Ka\ Xivov Xajioiv
To8e pi]yp.a (Tvppa\f/op.
In Attic, however, jBeXovt] replaced the earlier word. Pollux,
10. 136, KOL l3eX6vri9 8e Tovvoixa iv KviroXibos Ta£iap)(ois —
eyo) 8e ye ort^oj ae fieXovaia-iv TpicTLV,
KOL t^eXovibe?, w? "Epp.tTnros kv Moipat?. Aeschines uses
fieXovrj in 77. 28, and Aristophanes [3eXovo7ru>Xris in Plut.
175. For jSeXoTruiXibas in Pollux, 7. 200, jBeXovoirooXibas
should be read.
LXXIII.
'AKeoTHC Aerouaiv ol naAaioi, ouk HnHiHc. "Eoti /tev ht\H"
oaoGoi ana£ nap ' Api(3Toq)dvei ev AairaAeuGi, nai^ovTt tuc
' Hoiobou unoBt-'iKoc — kui kogkivov HnnoaoGai — cu be Aere
aKeoaaeai to i/idxiov.
Phrynichus was before some of our present-day scholars
in recognizing that its use, even in the senarii of Comedy,
did not necessarily enfranchise a word as Attic, and he
explains correctly the occurrence of rjTTijn-aa-OaL in Aristo-
phanes. The word continued in use outside Attica till it
became a synonym of uKda-Oai in the Common dialect, aiul
accordingly there is no reason why Xenuphon should not
t;6 the new phryxichus.
have employed it. In Cyr. 1.6. i6 the better manuscripts
read i]iir\rai where others exhibit aK^arai : clicnTep t//artajy
payevTCov etcrt rives 'f]'ni]Tai, ovroi Kal ol larpol orav nves voa-q-
o-cocrt, t6t€ IGtvrai tovtovs, and in spite of the fact that in the
^vvayayyi^ ke^eodv y^prjcrijxoiv (Bekk, An. 364. 15), uKecTTai is
recommended, — 'AKeorat' ol to. t)u.drta aKovp-evoL' Eevo(f>oiv'
uxTTtep ip.aTi(jov payevroiv eicrL TLves aKea-rai, it is hkely that the
latter word is simply an alteration of som'e critic who
considered Xenophon an Attic writer. All grammarians,
Moeris (p. 48), Photius, Aelius Dionysius (in Eustath. 1647,
57), and others reject both the verb and the substantives
■^~i]TTi]s and rjTTijTpLa, and it was probably from trust in their
authority that some mistaken copyist svibstituted aKecnai
for i]Tt-qTaL in the Cyropaedia,
LXXIV,
'Arayoc judAAov Aere, jlih dra6obT6poc, koi diVTi toC dfaGoo-
TUToc, araQoc juctAioTa.
There is no instance of the regular comparative and
superlative of ayados till the Common dialect, and the
dictum of Aelius Dionysius may be accepted as final :
ayaOcarepos Kal ayadcararos irap ovhevl twv 'KkXrji'uiv Keirai
(ap. Eustath. 1384. 50). Unknown to any dialect of
Classical Greek, they were the product of a degenerate
age.
LXXV.
'ApxHGev noiHTUi Aerouoi, to3v be KaraAordbHv boKijiioav
oubeiCj oAA' ec dp)(Hc.
The same statement is found in the App. Soph. 7,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 177
^ Xp\ri6iv Trapa jx^v TOL'i aWais StaAcKrotf ivpia-K^Tai' 'Arrt-
Kois 8e ov (f)i\ov' 8to ovre YlKdrcora ovre QovKvbLbi]v tcmv
evpe'iv keyovTa tovto : and in the ^vvaycoy-)] Aefeojy yj)riaiixu>v
(450. 4) there is a very fertile remark on this word : 'Apx^/-
O^v ovK iaTL TTapa toIs 'ArrtKOts, TrArjy Trap' AitrxvAw* Trap'
tipoQOTca oe eort Kat rots lojcrt.
The lexicography of the word in Classical times is as
follows: Hdt. I. 131 ; 3. 25,80; 5. 18; 7. 104; 8. 22;
Hippocrates, 1195 init. ; Pindar, 01. 9. 81, Isthm, 4. 11 ;
Aeschylus ; Sophocles, in Frag. Androm. ap. Hesychium,
voc. Kovpiov (Nk. 122).
In fact, the history of apx^jOev is like that of a very large
proportion of the words in a Greek Lexicon. Used in
early times, and appearing both before and after the Attic
period, it was rejected by Attic writers as unnecessary;
but its existence in early Attic is demonstrated by its
appearance in the verse of the Tragedians and in Ionic
writers contemporary with the fastidious masters of Athe-
nian Prose and Comedy.
Lobeck's note shows that apxn^^v and its fellows — aypoO^v,
ovpavoOev, jxaKpodev, yijOev, Tivpyodcv, etc. — were of frequent
occurrence in the Common dialect. In Attic this class of
words is singularly small, and, if proper names like WOrjvri-
6iv, ' AyKv\yjd(v, KovbvkrjOev, KpiioO^v, YlevrekijOev, and adverbs
like -noppoidev, e/cet^er, xajxaO^v, are excepted, few are left
to claim Attic citizenship except irarpodev, otKodev, euiOev,
OupaOiv. Though p-)]rp60€v does not happen to occur in pure
Attic, it was doubtless in use in genealogical formulae, and
should take a place by the side of iraTpoO^v.
N
1 7 <S THE NE I V PHR ] 'NICH US.
LXXVI.
FaaTpi^eiv eni tou ejunmAaoGai Aerouaiv 'AeHvmoi, ouk eni
ToG THv raorepa junreiv.
It is true that Pollux refers to Comedy the meaning
here assigned by Phrynichus to yaa-TpL^eLv (2. 168), yaa-Tpi-
[xapyCa koc yacrrpiixapyo^, yaaTpojBopos, /cat yacrrpLap-os, koI yacr-
TpL(rai Kol yaarpibiov ol KOipiKoi . . . KUt vireyaa-Tpi^eTO, to ^X.^p-
rdC^To, r) Kcojuo)8ta, but in the Attic which has come down to
us the verb is used only in the sense which the Grammarian
reprehends —
2> TToAts Kol 8^/x', ti0' ol'coy Orjpicov ya<TTpi^op.ai.
Ar. Eq. 273.
TiaX avTov arbpetoTara Kal
ydcrrpL^e Kal toIs ivrepoLS KTe,
Id. 454.
(TTpojBei, Tiapafiaive kvk\(^ Kal yda-Tptaov creavTov.
Vesp. 1529.
Perhaps in this place, as certainly in some others, the
text of Phrynichus has been tampered with, and the words
discussed transposed ; but the alteration, if made at all,
must have been made at an early date, as Thomas Mag.
182 reproduces the dictum of Phrynichus as it is printed
above.
In either case the remark is of no value. Faa-TpiCeiv is
one of a large class of Greek verbs which have their mean-
ing defined by the context. Thus the verb KapKivovv
naturally means, to make into a ci'ab or make crab-like, just
as hov\G> means, to make into a slave, enslave, and, with a
slight modification, it is so used by Antiphanes (Athen. 15.
667 A) in describing the game of cottabos —
avk7]TLK(as 8ei KapKivovv tovs haKTvkovs,
olvov re jXiKpov ky\iai Kal p.rj Trokvv.
In the passive it is frequently applied to the roots of
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 179
trees, to become tangled, and might be employed of any
object which possessed any of the marks of a crab. One
of these, however, is so obtrusive that it puts the rest out
of count, and KapKivovv has consequently few modifications
of meaning. The corresponding form from ravpos should
be more prolific, and, as a matter of fact, its signification
covers a wide ground. Hesychius has preserved the active
voice, and the primary meaning, in the gloss Tavpuxrov' rav-
pov TtoiricTov, and the passive voice is similarly used by
Euripides in the lines —
Ka\ Tavpos ^]puv irpoa-Qev rjye'iaOaL boKeis,
Kol o-<j) nepaTa Kparl Trpoa-necpvu^vaL.
oAA' 17 7T0T Tjo-Qa 6i]p ; Teravpoio-ai yap ovv.
Bacch. 920.
By Aeschylus the meaning is generalized in Cho. 275j ad
taiiri ferociam revocari —
aTTOXpr}p.dTOL(TL ^i]p.iaL'i Tavpovp.€VOv'
but in another passage of Euripides (Med. 92) it is spe-
cialised by the accusative opipLa, and becomes equivalent to
our own glare —
7/8rj yap elbov oppa viv Tavpovp.hr]v.
For oppa Tavpovpevrjv here, a writer in prose or comedy
would have employed ravprjhov ^kiirovaav or bputaav.
The adjective aTavp^Tos suggests still another significa-
tion of ravpovv.
The same is true of verbs in -(oi. It depends altogether
upon the context whether ^epi'Cw m^dins, pass the summer or
mow; yj.ipaiui, pass the winter ox raise a storm ; and no more
fault can be found with eapi^io, in Plato, Ax. 371 C, Aet-
/maiyey avOeaLv (apL(6pevot, than in Xcn. An. 3. 5. 15, 'EKlBdrava,
(vda iapiCftv Atyerai ^acnkivs. In the only place in which
the verb has been preserved, ^i<l)iC^iv happens to mean,
dance a sxvord-dance. Crates (?) in Etym. Mag. 270. 5 —
$i(})i.C^ Kal TtubiCf Kal biappiKVoV
N 2
1 Ho THE NE H ' PHR YNICHUS.
but in Aristoph. Eq, 781, hia^i(\>lCp\io.i occurs in the sense of
fight ivWi the sivord —
(j\ yap, OS Mr/Sotcrt bie^LcpLcru) wept rr)? x^P^^ MapadQvi.
Aristophanes (Eq. 358) uses XapvyyiCco in the meaning of
throttle, but in Demosthenes (323. i) it has that of bawl.
Many more illustrations of such pliability of signification
will meet the student in every Greek author, and it is mere
pedantry to restrict yafrrpiCj^ to a single meaning. The
lines of Aristophanes, already quoted, establish one signi-
fication, and the existence of the substantive yaorptcr/xos,
in the Comic poet Sophilus, implies a similar sense for the
verb : 2aj(/)tAos Iv ^ikapyj^ —
ya(rTpi,crp.6s (crTai 8a\//'tAr/? kt€.
Athen. 3. 100 A.
From another point of view, yaaTpiCoi, with the sense of
eat gluttonously, may be regarded as derived from yaarpis,
a gourmand (Ar. Av. 1604, Thesni. 816), but the other ex-
planation is preferable. In Eur. Med. 188 the word Tavpov^aL
has been so specialised that it is compounded with airo,
just as 6/3(3 or /SAeTrco might be; and hipyp-ara airoravpovTat
denotes the fixed glare of passionate excitement. Occa-
sionally a preposition serves the same purpose as an accu-
sative in fixing the meaning of a verb, and cnroa-KvOiCon,
scalp, avaxaiT i(oi, rear up, v-noa-KeXiCoi, trip np, and olttott]-
yaviCoi, eat hot, convey a very different meaning from that
which would attach to the simple verbs if they happened
to exist.
LXXVII.
FapraAi^eiv bid tou p Aefc, dAAd jlih bid twv buo r,
farroAi^eiv.
'YayyaKiCjiiv vero quam longe a vetustatis consuetudine
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. l8l
absitj vel ex eo patet quod Hemsterhusius, unicus Thomae
commentator; omnia expiscatus, nullum nisi ex Hesychio
et Glossis Graecolatinis exemplum proferre potuit ; adde
his SutryayydAio-ro? IVttos, Geopon. L. xvi. 2. II ID.' Lobeck.
LXXVIII.
ThIVOV A6KT€0V bid TOU H, KOI JLUH bid TOG 6, reiVOV.
' Feiros nusquam locorum vidi, sed y-qivos ubique apud
antiquissimos pariter ut recentissimos reperitur.' Lobeck.
Of Attic writers the word occurs principally in Plato, Polit,
272 D, 288 B, Legg. 6. 778 D, lo. 895 C, Phaedr. 246 C,
Tim. 64 C, 65 D, etc. The shortening of the vowel is due
to the same tendency that converted TtSy\i.a into 770/xa, ava-
drjfxa into avadefj-a, TravoLKria-ia into "navoiK^cria., y\u>(T(TOKO\i('i,ov
into ykoxTCTOKoixov, etc.
LXXIX.
fAcoGOOKO/Liov Tov JU6V Tunov KQi THv Geoiv un' dpxaioov
exei, bietpSap/ievoic be Aererai und Toav noAAodv expfiv
rdp rAooTTOKOjuelov Aereiv, ooonep d/aeAei Kai 01 dpxaloi.
The passage is hopelessly corrupt^ but in the App. Soph.
32. 28 the genuine words of Phrynichus have survived :
Tk(iiTTOKoy.iZov' fTTi fiovov TOV T(av avXrjTLK&v yXcoTToiv ayyeiov.
vrrrepov 8e Kal eh krlpav xpijcnv KarecTKeva^eTO, [ii^Xmv ?;
Ifxarmv T] apyvpov rj orovovv ^AAoV KaXovcn 8' avrb ol ajia-
Oels yXui(Ta6KO\j.ov.
1 8 2 THE NE W PHR YNICH US.
LXXX.
FpuAAi'^eiv biTTHv e)(€i thv djuapTiav, ev re th npocpopd
Koi TO) GH;.iaivoju6vcp, ev ju€v th npocpopa bid twv buo AA,
ev be TO) oHjuaivojuevtp, oxi napd to?c dpyaioic to rpuAi^eiv
eoTi TiGejuevov eni thc toov ucov cpoovflc, oi be vuv TdtTOu-
Giv eni TOOV cpopTiKoac Kai dQ)(HjLi6vcoc opxoujuevcov. epeic
ouv rpuAi^eiv Kai rpuAiojudc uoov, ou rpu\AiojLidc.
Lobeck's conjecture of obvpoix^vcov (or op^ovixevoov is proved
to be wrong by the App. Soph. ^^ : ypvXXos be bta t&v
bvolv AX op)(r][xaTos etSo's eortr, i] p.€v ovv opyjiais VTio tG>v
Alyv7TTi(i)v ypuAAtcr/xos KaAetrat, ypvkkos be 6 6p\ovp.evoS' The
two words are evidently distinct, and it is idle to try to
bring them together.
LXXXI.
ForruXH- Kai evTaOea djudpTHjua. oi rap naAaioi eni toG
OTporruAou TiGeaaiv, oi be vuv eni thc uno toov ' EaAhvoov
rorruAiboc KaAoujuevnc. Aere oi3v eni tou Aa)(dvou rorruAic,
oAAd juH rorruAH.
The word yoyyvkos is probably from a reduplicated form of
the same root as supplied yavkos, a milk-pail (Od. 9. 223},
and yavkos, a merchant-vessel (Hdt. 3. 136 ; 8. 97 ; Ar. Av.
598 ; Epicharm. ap. Athen. 7. 320 C). It was replaced in
mature Attic by a-rpoyyvkos, a word akin to arpdy^, arpay-
yev(o, a-TpayyaXr], stringo, strictus, etc., and only by accident
having a certain resemblance to yoyyvkos. The latter word
is naturally met with in Ionic, and in Galen's Lexicon to
Hippocrates yoyyvkis is explained by arpoyyvkr], a usage
which may be paralleled from Herodotus, who employs
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 183
iTTTTas for iTTTTtK?/, 'la? for 'Ia)ytK?7, etc. As an Ionic word,
it was also not out of place in Tragedy, and Strabo (4.
p. 183) quotes from Aeschylus yoyyv\ii>v ir^Tpcov, and
Athenaeus (2, 51 D\ yoyyvXov ixopov, from Sophocles.
Moreover, yoyyvXos XCdos aderos appears in an early Attic
inscription (Boeckh, i. 262 a. 22).
The verb yoyyvKXio, however, was retained as good Attic,
although yoyyvkos disappeared, and the older word was
also represented in other ways. Its early feminine was
crystallized, as Phrynichus shows, in yoyyvkis, a turnip; and,
although yoyyikt] was unknown to Attic in this sense, it
was still a good Attic word. As the French influence
upon Scotch cookery is still indicated by a term dear to
northern children, and 'petit gateau' survives in '■petticoat
shortbread,' so yoyyvkr\ (Ar. Pax 38), has a meaning for
the student of Attic, and proves to him, as plainly as the
Apaturian sausages, that the Athenians inherited a sweet
tooth from their Ionian ancestors. The old word was fur-
ther stereotyped as a proper name. Athenaeus (4. 172 F)
is wrong when he classes it with names like NecoKo'pos
and 'Apruo-iXeco?, and explains its frequency in the island
of Delos by the fact that yoyyvkai \xaCp.i were used in the
sacred ceremonies of the Delian festival. The first of the
Yoyyvkoi was an Ionian Falstaff — the prototype of ' the
whoreson round man' of Shakespeare. In Thuc. i. 128 and
Xen. Hell. 3. i. 6 an Eretrian is so called. Had the proper
name been Athenian, and originated in Attic times, it
would have been SrpoyyvAoj, not Yoyyvkos, but the desig-
nation carries us back to old Ionian days.
LXXXII.
ndvTOTe jLiH Aere, dAA* eKdcrore Kai bianavxoc.
' ndiTOTc ct airavTOTi a nullo classicorum auctorum usur-
i84 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
patum esse, convenit mlhi cum Sturzio, de Dial, Mac.
p. 87, cujus copiis mantissam adjicere nolo. Zonaras, Lex.
p. 1526, TO TTarTore nap' ovh^vX rStv boKifxoov evpicrKCTaL.' Lo-
beck. Add Moeris, 319, TravTore ovbds rwy 'ArriKWf.
LXXXIII.
Feveaia' ouk 6p9ooc TiGerai eni thc reve6Aiou Hjuepac.
feveaia rap 'AGhvhoiv eopTH. Aereiv ouv hei lac reveBAiouc
Hjuepac H reveeAia.
Of course, yevio-ta, in the sense of a birth-day feast, is not
a misuse for y^viOXia, but simply indicates that in other
dialects the word had retained its natural meaning, where-
as in Attic it had become fixed to the feast in memory
of the birth-day of a deceased friend, while its place was
taken in the ordinary sense by the newer formation, yevi-
6Xia. 'Eoprjj would be out of place if the reference was
to a mournful occasion. From Herod. 4. 26 it is plain
that all the Greeks celebrated yevicna, but in Athens the
fact that it was the birth-day, and not the death-day, of
the dead which they were celebrating, was early lost sight
of, probably from the circumstance that it was made a
national festival, celebrated in the month Boedromion.
The significance of the festival in great part disappeared
when men reserved their rejoicing for a day fixed by law ;
and perhaps Ammonius represents the opinion even of
Athenians when he states that it was intended to recall
the day of a friend's death (de Diff. Voc p. 36), revedXia
TaaacTaL eTrt t&v ^(ovtcov koI iv fj (Kaa-Tos y]}J-^pa. iyfVPijdrj,
yevecna be eTrt t&v redvrjKOTMv iv fj eKacrTos rjixepa rereXeijTrjKe.
To the same effect is one of the Ae'feis prjropiKai in Bek-
ker's Anecdota (231. 17), Tcv^Xdta' to, em rfj rnxepq rrjs y^vi-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 185
(rews hO>pa kol t-i]v cvoy^iav. Tevicno.' eopr-i] trapa * AdTjvaCoLs
■Tt€v6i]ix€pos, ol be TO. NeKvaia.
It may be observed, in passing, that even yevidXtos itself
is an old word, and in Attic used only in this connection.
Like yevedXov and yeviOki], it is otherwise confined in Attic
literature to Tragedy.
LXXXIV.
'AprA HjuepOj juH Aefe, otAA' dproc Hjuepa koi dproc ruvH,
Koi rd Aomd ojuoicoc.
This remark holds true of all Attic Greek ; and though
inferior manuscripts occasionally present the defaulting
forms, the better codices retain the genuine termination.
In Cyr. 3. 2. 19, however, Xenophon may have written
apyr] yrj. The word is really a compound, depyo'j, and fol-
lows the rule of compound adjectives. Those who care
to have the late usage established will find copious ex-
amples in Lobeck.
LXXXV.
TTvIroc* djuapTavovrec 01 ppa)(uvovTec to i' eKxeivouoi rdp
TOuvojLia Kai id dn auroC, oiov nvirnpd KoAupH.
The example comes from Thucydides (2. 52), and, accord-
ing to Lobeck, is an addition by a later hand. It does not
illustrate the point at issue.
Mocris (312) has the same caution — -nvlyos, p-aKpois, 'Ar-
TLKws' ftpax^cis, 'E\\r]vt.Kws : and -nviyoi is always long in
Attic verse, as —
Ku\ pi\v TTclAat y lnviyop-riv to. cnrX6.yyva KaTnOvpovv,
At. Nub. 1036.
i86 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
' Idem In centenis aliis accedit, (SpWos, \xvpov, tv(I)os, ctkv-
Xov, (TKVTos, KVTos, ut libradi inscitia recti nunc acutum pro
circumflexo ponerent, nunc acuta circumflecterent.' Lo-
beck.
LXXXVI.
*AnoKpi9Hvai, buTov djuapTHjua. ebei rap Aereiv dnoKpi-
vaceai, KQi elbfcvai oti to bia)(oopio9Hvai cHjLiaivei, dionepouv
KQi TO evdvTiov auToO, to GurKpienvai, Kai elc ev kqI tqutov
eAGelv. Eiboac ouv touto eni juev toG dnoboOvai thv epw-
THOiv TO dnoKpivaoGai Aere, eni be tou bia)((jopiG9Hvai, to
dnoKpiBHvai,
The distinction is just, and is supported by the usage
of all Attic writers. The aorist passive is correctly used
by Thucydides (4. 72) and Plato (Legg. 961 B). The
latter writer also uses the aorist middle in the sense of
separate for 07ieself, in one passage, Legg. 966 D, but
the signification of answer is attached to it far more fre-
quently : Thuc. I. 28, 1. 90, I. 144, I. 145 ; 3. 61 ; 4. 139 ;
5.42, etc.; Plato, Prot. 311 C, D, 329 B, 331 A, 338 D,
356 C; Gorg. 447 D, 463 D, 465 E ; Legg. 901 C, et al. ;
Arist. Vesp. 964, 1433, Nub. 345, 1244, P^ut. 902, Thesm.
740, et al.
The perfect has legitimately the four meanings, to have
separated for oneself, to have beeji separated, to have ajiswered,
to have been anstvered ; but no other tense of the passive
seems to have been used in the sense of be answered. This
may be set down to accident, and a-neKpivtrai roSro, this
answer is made ; aireKpLOr] tovto, this answer was made,
would certainly not have struck an Attic ear as out of
place ; but such passive usage of deponents was avoided
by good writers in the present and imperfect tenses, and
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 187
was not common in the aorist, although in the perfect it
was of frequent occurrence.
'ATTCKpiOriv, in the sense of / answered, is encountered in
three passages of the post-Attic Comic poet Machon —
TovT aTTOKpLOrjvai (f)acn rw By]pL(Tabr].
Athen. 8. 349 D.
T] 8e TOVT aTTeKpCOrj.
Id. 13. 577 D.
7/ 8e -/(Xdcraa aTreKpiOi).
Id. 13. 582-
In Xenophon^s Anab. 2. 1. 22 there are two readings, a-ne-
KpivaTo KXiap\os and aireKptOr] 6 KXiapxos, the latter being
supported by the best codices. To my own mind" there
is no doubt that Xenophon employed the un- Attic form,
and that d-n-e/cpiVaro is merely an early emendation. Strong
evidence in favour of this view is supplied by another
passage of the same book. 'AiroKpivopiaL replaced in Attic
the earlier ap.€i^op.ai. In fact, Euripides was the first of
the Tragic poets to depart from the tradition of the literary
guild to which he belonged, and introduce into his verse
the usurping verb (aireKpCvo}, I. A. 1354 ; anoKpivaio, Bacch.
1272 ; a-TTOKpLvai, I. A. 1 133). On the other hand, ajxeijiofxai,
rare in any sense outside poetry, is certainly unknown to
Attic in the signification of ansiver. Like very many
other words, which, by their existence in Ionic and in
Tragedy, are proved to have been used in Attica at an
early date, o.p.d^o\iai and aTia\i.dfio\ia\.^ fell completely into
disuse. Xenophon, however, not only employs the words,
but actually prefers airrjixdcjiOr] to aTTijixeL^j/aTo, An. 2. 5. 15,
' Both dfifiPo/xai and iTrafid^ofxai are familiar to readers of Homer. In Ionic
the simple verb is well known : Ildt. t. 9, 35, 37, 40, 42, 1 15, 120 ; 2. 173, etc.;
and in Tragedy is the regular word, Aesch. Eum. 442, 586, Supp. 195, 249;
Soph. O. C. 991, Aj. 7O6, Phil. 378, 844 ; Eur. Supp. 478, Ilipp. 85, Ilec. 1 iy6,
Khes. O39, Or. 608, Tro. 903, etc. Xenophon docs not eschew it, Mem. 3. 1 1. 1 2,
Cyn. 9. 14. In any sense the word is singularly rare in Attic — dfuWoy, Plat.
Parm. 138 D ; iixu^ovra, Soph. 224 B ; dnn^ijixtvos, Apol. 37 D. Demosthenes,
458. 29, has it in a proverb, toii ufjioiois dfiti0ufifvoi.
i88 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
KAeap^o? \i\v ovv ToaavTa eiTre. Ticrcracpipvqs 8' wSe aTTi^ixeifjidrj.
Pindar had preceded him in this irregularity —
Tov be dapa7](Tati ayavoiai Aoyoi?
cS8' aiJ.e((f)9ri'
Pyth. 4. 102.
but there is no other instance till late Greek. This fact
crowns the testimony of the manuscripts in favour of aire-
KpiOt], and convicts Xenophon once more of a violation of
Attic rule. That the true Attic form is met with in other
places of his writings, as a-neKptvaTo in the paragraph suc-
ceeding that in which a-neKpiOr] occurs, is an argument of
no weight to one who is acquainted with Xenophon's work.
Moreover, not even Xenophon uses aTTOKpiO-qa-ojxai. In the
'^vvayoayi] Ae^ecoy \pT](T(.}x(av occurs the note : airoKpivelTai Xe-
yovcn fxaWov rj aTT0Kpi9r](reTai. ^ivavhpo^ Kavr](f)6p(o —
6 8 (nroKpLveiTai, kIxv eyw A.eyot/xt aoC
ois fxribev aTTOKpLvovfxii'c^ 8' ovroo Kakelv.
Aristophanes, however, is of more authority than Me-
nander —
iyo) yap avTLK aTTOKpivovixai aoL cracpSis.
Nub. 1245.
The passive future is first met with in this active sense in
very late Greek. The number of Greek verbs in which the
aorist in -drjv occurs, in an active or middle sense, is very
.Mnall indeed, if those verbs only are considered which
justly belong to it. Many verbs are translated into
English as actives which in Greek are genuine passives.
Such are the following —
kvavTLovixai,
oppose.
rivavTtcaOrjv.
ecTTLuiixat,
feast.
ela-TLaOriv.
iV(X)\ovp.ai,
feast,
evcoX'^driv.
opjJi&ixaL,
rush,
o)pn')]6r]v.
Trepaiovixai,
cross,
€TrepaL(adrjr.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. i8y
'n\avSi\xai,
wander,
k-nXavijOriv ,
TTOpelJOIJLaL,
go.
iirop^vO-qv.
77or(Oju.ai,
fly.
ilT0T7]dr}V ^.
(\)ofiov}j.ai,
fear.
i(f)ol3i]9riv.
This apparent change of meaning may be illustrated
by the history of the verb Stairw. All dictionaries give
a false history to this word. Its primitive meaning is
to regulate, and Siatrw/^at, in the sense of pass life, is
passive and not middle, and has for aorist the passive
form lhir\T-{]Q-\-]v. In fact, the aorist middle is only found
in the compound KaraStatrw in a regular middle sense, as
Lys. 172. 38, btaLTav KaTabtaLTr](rd[xevos ovbevo'i, Jiaving got an
arbitration delivered against no one.
With these verbs may be classed the three v/hich from
the beginning of Greek literature are practically established
as passive deponents —
/3ovAo/iat, wish, l^ov\y]Qr\v.
8eojLtat, beseech, eSe^/^rjy.
bvraixaL, am able, ibwrjO-qv.
But the fact of ibvvrjo-diJLrjv being found in Homer, together
with the difficulty of eliciting their signification from an
original passive meaning, makes it probable that they are
only early instances of the general tendency illustrated in
this article.
That all this class have invariably^ a future in -ria-oixat.
is not surprising. The form that is generally called future
• The present and aorist are in Attic only poetical, their place in Attic being
filled by rrfTOfjiai and firTo/xTji', but mnuTrjfxai is the regular perfect.
' Forms like ZwrjOijrrofini, <[>ol3T]0rjaofj.ai, (iovKrjOrjcrofxai must be carefully
avoided. They are debased and late, and almost as reprehensible as the aorists
i^wTiT/iiiTjv, k<f)<)^r)r!Ufxrjv, (l3ov\7]Tdn7]v. In Plat. Rep. 470 A and other passages
<l>o^r)(70fjiai must be preferred, and even Xcnophon(IIcll.6. 5. 20) did not write ffcup-
fii)aaTo, but the well su[jportcd i^wpurjTo. In Ar. Ran. 138, ntpaiuO-qffo/jiai, shall be
set across, is intentionally used to give a different meaning from ittpaiwaonai —
A. ilra vm TrfpatojOrjaofjiat ;
B. (V TTkniap'itf) TvvvovTCfii tr' dvfip ytpaiv
fnvrtji 8id|ci Su' v0o\w ptiaOuv Kafiijv.
It is the exception which inovcs the rule.
19°
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
middle, and is constantly noted by lexicographers as a
peculiarity when in a passive sense, is far the most common
future for the passive voice, as will be demonstrated by me
in my larger work.
Now it is the group of verbs just discussed that intro-
duced confusion of voice into the Greek aorist. On the false
analogy of Ttopevojicat, TrAafw/xai, and the others, a passive
aorist was assigned to verbs which had no right to the form
in -Qii]v, just as aii^Kpi6r]v at a later stage was recognized as
equivalent to a-ireKpivdix-riv, and, conversely, ibvvqa-dixrjv re-
placed ebwridrjv. The subjoined groups will exhibit the
working of this false principle in Attic times.
I. Verbs which employ the perfect in -jixat only in an
active sense, and use both the aorists in -dixrjv and -6-qv in
the same sense —
dpvovjjiai, deny,
liiTa)(eLpi^o[xai, manage,
fjiilxvi]arKOfji.aL, remember,
apvy](TO\xai, 't]pv^](Ta\xriv.
ijpvrjiiaL, Tjpvrjdrjv.
p.^Tay^ei.piovp.ai, \xeTe\^ipi<jd7]v.
fJ.V')](TOp.aL,
\xvr](Tdi](TOixai.
wppLL(Tp.aL,
opp-iovixai,
Tii-navp-aL,
Trava-oixat,
Ttav6y](T0jj.ai.
<pp6.Co[j.ai (poet.), consider, Tre^pacr/xai,
(()pa(TO[xat,
TTpovoovixaL, provide for,
opixiCoixai, lie at anchor.
Tiavop.at, cease.
vniayvovixai, promise,
TTpovevorjixai,
TTpovoriaop.ai,
v'ni(Tyjt]p.ai,,
v'no(r)(ri(Top.ai.,
1 1. Verbs which use the perfect in -p.aL, both in an active and
passive sense, and employ the two aorists in an active sense —
(pi.vrj(raiJ.r]v.
ifxvr\(T6r]v.
iipjxi(Tdp.r]v.
u)p\xi(T6r\v.
iiravcrdixriv.
iTTavdrjv.
ecjipacrdixrjv.
i(f)pd(r6r]v.
TTpovvo-qa-dpLT^v.
Tipovvoridrjv.
VTrecr^oix-qv.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
191
aT:okoyov\xai^ make a de- aTio\iK6yy]\i.ai^ aTreXoyrja-dix-qv.
fence, d7roAoy?/croju.at, aTTeXoyi]dr]v.
TTpayixarevoixai, labour at, TmrpayixaTevixaL, eTTpayixaTevcrdiXT^v.
TTpayixarevcroiJiaL, (Trpayp-arevdriv.
III. Verbs which use the perfect in -p.ai, both in a middle
and a passive sense, and which have both aorists in an
active sense, and that in -6i]v also in a passive sense —
d/xtAAoi/xat, strive,
koixlCoh, carry,
mid. return,
Kotbopovp.aL, rail at,
TtdpQ, prove,
mid. try,
TToXtTevo), govern,
mid., live as a citizen,
TTovca, labour,
mid. 8ta-,
■)]p.i\\r]fj.ai,
K€K6lJ.t(Tp.a(,,
AeAot8o'pr]/xai,
TT€TTeipap.at,
TTeTroAtref/xai,
TT^TTOVrifXaL,
r]p.LXXri(Tap.r\v.
r}p.LKkr]Oi]v.
iKop.i(rd[xriv.
€KOpiL(Tdr)V.
ikoLbopri(rdp.i]v.
eXoLhopr\dr]V.
eTretpacrd/XTji'.
iTT€Lpd6l]V.
eTToKLT€V(rdp.i]i'.
kiroXiT^vOiiv.
hi€TTOvr](Tdp.rjv.
(hi)eT:ovr\6riv.
r]'!TOpl]dl)V.
khaTtavi]Oriv.
btd'o/jOrjv.
IV. Verbs which have the perfect in -p.ai, both as middle
and passive, and the aorist in -drjv also in both senses, the
aorist in -dp-rju not being used —
cLTTopovixaL, doubt, pass, be in ) , ,
, , , ,. , } ij-JToprjuaL,
doubt, be disputed, J
8a7raj/a)^at, expend, bebairdvqixat,
btavoovp-ai., purpose, bi.aviv6r\p.ai,
V. Verbs which use the perfect in -/^ai, both as active
and passive, but have the aorist in -O-qv always in an
active sense —
hiaX^yojxai, discuss, bteikeyixai, buki\Oi]i'.
lvOvp.ovp.ai, consider, ivTiOvp.rjp.ai, lviOvp.i]Or\v.
Now in the history of many of these verbs there are
facts which distinctly prove that the use of the aorist in
192 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
-6r]v, in a middle or active sense, was comparatively late,
and originated in false analogy with verbs like 8waju,at and
/3ovAojuai. Thus the aorist of /xt/^^njcr/co/xat is in Homer
€Hvr}(Ta}XT\v, and the Tragic poets, as usual, retained the
old faith, and rarely admitted the modern iixvrja-Orjv, which,
from Thucydides' time, is the regular Attic form of the
aorist.
Of apvovixat Veitch says, ' In Epic poetry and Ionic prose
the aorist middle alone is used ; in classical Attic, with the
exception of one instance in Euripides, two in Aeschines,
and one in Hyperides, the aorist passive.'
The tendency was early at work, as is well shown by
7retpw/xat. Even in the Iliad and Odyssey both eTretpry^rjy
and i7T€iprj(rd[jLr}v are met with, but the form in -Orjv gradually
became predominant. Veitch thus traces its history in
Attic : ' The aorist middle is confined to Thucydides and
Plato. In Thucydides it is the prevailing form, occurring
six times, and aorist passive thrice. Plato again has adrist
middle once only, the aorist passive eleven times. The
compounds, except airo- Thuc. 6. 90 ; 4. 135, etc., and
perhaps Kara- Lys. 30. 34, are, in classic authors, not used
in the active, and have, we think, always the aorist of the
passive form, aTroiTeiprjdfj, Her. 2. 73 ; bi^Treipad-qv, Antipho,
5. ^^ ; e^eTTetpad-, Eur. Supp. 1089.'
It is only verbs of frequent occurrence that can be re-
garded in such an inquiry, as they only supply a sufficient
number of instances to form trustworthy evidence. Thus
the aorist of hairavGip.ai occurs too seldom to tell us much.
There can be no question that kha'navr]crap.Ti]v preceded eoa-
'7Tari]driv, but;, as far as our records go, there is no trace of
it in Classical Greek. In studying the forms of a dead
language, it is necessary to exercise reason and tact in the
manipulation of materials. The two last classes proclaim
the victory of the form in -Orjv, but. not so plainly as the
four verbs hpikXCipxa, htavoovpai, hiairovovpai, and Koihopov-
THE XEW PHRYNICHUS. 193
jixai. These are peculiarly significant. Thus Xoihopovixat
belongs to that class of verbs which have a signification to
which, for some reason or other, middle inflexions were
regarded as especially applicable. Such verbs are /^.e/x-
(fyofxaL, [j.(ii}xG)y.aL, alTicofxat, iirtyXoiTTcaiJ.ai, -yapL^vTiCoixai, hrjiiov-
fiat, Xv\xaivo\xai, Aa)/3(3/xat, while the v^acillation of the future
between active and middle in (tkuhttoh, Tu>daC(ji, vlipi((a, etc.,
points to the same phenomenon. Perhaps the explanation
of this is the same as of the middle form in aju,tA.A(3/xat, and
the two compounds of 8td. Whenever hia introduces into
the verbal notion the idea of pitting one thing against
another, it requires for its verb the endings of the middle
voice, even although in the simple the deponent form would
be absurd. This is true, not only when the imported idea
is the unmistakeable one of rivalry or contention, as olkovtI-
Cet-v, to throw the Javelin, biaKovTiCecrOaL, to contend in throwing
the javelin, but also when it assumes an almost intangible
form, as in hiavodaQai^ which, though ultimately acquiring
the meaning of purpose, primarily represented the process
of meditation or the balancing of one thought against
another. In this way is explained a considerable group
of deponents which imply the comparison of oneself with
others, either by actually pitting oneself against them or by
mentally making oneself a standard by which to measure
them. Thus rivalry of hand, word, or wit, is expressed by
the verbs [).a\o\i.ai, o.y(iiviCp\io.i, a\i.ik\G>\xai, wcrTi^ofxai, bLKatoXo-
yoC/xat, ioiokoyovixaL, KotyoAoyoCjuat, jBid^oixai.
Accordingly, when even in verbs of this class the aorist
in -O-qv became possible in an active sense, its victory over
the genuine middle form might be regarded as complete.
o
194 THE NEW PHRYNTCHUS.
LXXXVII.
revHGHvai napd 'EniyapM^ kqi egti Acbpiov dAA'
o'ATTiKl^aiV reveceai AereTOo,
There are no instances of kyivt]Qr\v till Macedonian times,
when Philemon and Machon certainly used it —
kKv hovko% r\ TL9, aapKa ttjv avTi^v ^x^'-'
(f)V(r€L yap ovbeh bovkos ky^vqBr] Trore
7} 8' av Tvyr\ to (TO)p.a KareSouAwcraro.
Philemon.
QaXXov' TTapeyei'riOri yap ds rrjv 'Attlktiv.
Machon, Ath. 13. 582 E.
That Lysias employed it no one will believe on the evi-
dence of the Sophist Apsines (Rhet. Graec. 9. p. 591,
Waltz.) who cites the sentence 'A/cp(irr]? Xv-m^^ yevr\6d.aa
avT7]v aTrinTetve. In early recensions of Plato it appeared
in two passages, in Legg. 840 D, where yevvr]devT€s is now
read, and in Phil. 62 D, where i^eycvrjOr] rjixiv has been re-
placed by e^eyeved' rjixlv. The future yevr\6r]aoixai is equally
debased; and in Plato, Parmen. 141 E, is simply absurd. It
occurs twice in company with yevvaeraL and io-rai. To ^a-rai
Ka\ TO y^vqa-eTai Kal rb y(vr]Oi](TeTai and ovt €<7Tlv, ovt cTretra
yeyTjo-erat, ovTe yeinjOija-erai, ovt eorai. ' Inter yevrjcrerat et yevrj-
di'jcreTat,' Pleindorf remarks, 'quid intersit non video,' and every
man of sense will be of his opinion. Perhaps the v should be
doubled. Others may prefer Schleiermacher's yeyei;?/(reTat.
All that is certain is that Plato did not write yey/j^v^o-erat,
any more than he wrote efeyer?;^?] in the Philebus, or than
Lysias penned yevr]6el(ra. Lobeck's note will supply nu-
merous examples of the defaulting form in late authors,
and it is from this" source that the Attic texts became
corrupted. Even metre was not always an effectual safe-
guard. Thus the extraordinary form dx^eo-^jjcro/xai, which
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 195
violates one of the most consistent of Attic rules, is found
in several passages of prose (Andoc. 26. 7 ; Plato, Gorg.
506 C ; Aeschin. H8. 23}, but the fact that in Plato, Rep.
10. 603 E, there are the variants axOecro^au and axOeo-Q/ja-o-
fxai, and in Aesch, in 1. c. crvvaxdrjcroixevos remains in one
codex to indicate the original reading, would of itself be
sufficient to condemn the longer form even if the evidence
of verse was not added. But when dx^ecr^?/(ret is actually-
exhibited by a good manuscript in Ar. Nub. 1441 —
Kol ixrjv icrojs y' ovk aydicrei iradiov a vvv TriirovOa^,
the case against the longer form is conclusively established.
LXXXVIII.
TTeAaproc" oi d|Ua0ek eKjeivouai to a, heov ouoreAAeiv
neAaproc rap oubev ciAA' h 'EperpiaKooc TTeAaoroc.
These words still require an interpreter. The following,
however, may be the true explanation : ' Eorum verborum
sensus ab Miillero in libro de Etruscis 2. 357, declaratus
hie est — ciconiae nomen TreAapyo? a brevi esse, FleAapyo's
vero a longo pronuntiatum nihil aliud esse quam Eretria-
cam Pelasgorum nominis formam. Quo simul docemur
Pclasgos pronuntiandum esse, non Pelasgos.' W. Dindorf
in Steph. Thes. sub voc.
The two methods of writing the proper name afforded
Aristophanes an opportunity for a pun on ireAapyos, a
stork —
rt? hai Ka6i^€L tt/s" 7ro'Aeoj9 tu Y\(\apytK(')v ;
Av. 83 2.
To illustrate the line the Scholiast quotes Calliniacluis,
TvixTi^v&v T(.ixi(Tij.a WiKapyLKov. In Thuc. 2. 17 one manu-
script has WfXapyiKov.
O 2
196 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
LXXXIX.
'Aondparoc" koi touto buolv d/iapTHjuasiv exerai, oti
re ev T(p n koI ouk ev tco cp Aererai, kqi oti I'biov ti cpurov
eoTiv drpiov 6 docpdparoc kqi ouk ev toTc Hjuepoic Kara-
AerojLievov 6 rouv Kparlvoc ev dAAoic drpioic auid Kaia-
Aefoov cpHGlV
AuTOjudTH be 9epei TiGujuaAov Kai G9dK0v npoc auov,
da9dparov, kutigov xe- vdnaioi b' dvGepiKOc evHpd
Kai (pAojuov d90ovov coore napelvai nasi toTc drpo?oi^
dnavxa rdp rd KaiaAerojueva drpta. 01 be vCv TiBeaai id
ev^ eni navidc djuaGoic. toov rdp Aaxdvoov ai dvGai cpjueva
KaAoCvrai Kai Uopjuevi^eiv to eKpAaoTOveiv koi eSavBeTv.
Aere ouv opiUeva, dAAd juh donapdrouc, dboKijuov rdp Aiav.
The same caution is delivered with greater clearness in
App. Soph. 24. 8: ' Acrcpdpayos ' 8ta tov <p ^oTo.vrj'i ethoi
a(r(})dpayos, irpos ras Ka6dp(T€is iiTLTriheiov. ol he ttoWoI to.
opjxeva Tcov Xay^dvutv hid tov it dcnrapdyovs KaXovat, bvcrl Trept-
TTiTTTovTes dfjLapTy][xa(Ttv, otl T€ bia tov it Xeyovai, b4ov bia tov 9,
Ktti OTL to tStcos Kakovp.a>ov e-ni twos Ttoas (ttl irdvTcov tQv
(^opp.evL(6vTUiv Xaxdvuiv TidevTai. Cp. id. 38, 17: 'E^opfxevi-
C(ti<' TO i^avdelv, oirep oi iroXXol eKfidXXetv X^yovcnv. opfxeva
yap KaXdrai virb twv 'ArrtKWi' to. t5)v Xaxdvoiv €^avOrjp.aTa. ol
8e TToXXol Kai dp.adels (leg. dp.adois) TavTa d(nrapdyovs KaXovcrw.
Other instances of Attic aspiration are dvr]xovs for 6vr]-
Koos, (rxivbaXfj.6s for a-KivbaXpios, Aio-(/)os for Xia-rros, (pibdKvr] for
TnOdKvrj. The subject is discussed by Wecklein in Cur.
Epigraph, pp. 42, 43. Athenaeus in 2. 62 cites from
Theopompus —
' The metre is given as restored by Hermann and Meineke.
^ Lobeck omits to a after neiaai. He should have remembered its use as
TO tV or TO vpwTov. It is here evidently intended to represent the initial aaira-
payo^ as opposed to the following dafdpayos.
THE NEW PHRYXICHUS. 197
KaTt€LT IhbiV aa(f)apayov €V ddjivdi tlvC,
and from Ameipsias —
ov (T)(U'o?, ovf aacf>dpayos, ov bd(f}vr]s K\dboL,
but asserts that Antiphanes and Aristophon employed the
form in tt. He even seems to say that Diphilus used
d(T(papayos for 6p\j.(.vov : At</)tA.o? 8e (prjcnv ws 6 Trjs KpdiJ.j3i]s
a.cr(pdpayos, k^yop-ivos ibicos 6pp.^vos, (V(TTopt,a-)(^aT(aTep6s trrrt Kal
(V€KKpLT(aT€poi, o\//^ea)S he /SAaTrrt/co?.
xc.
'AqPoAh juh Aere, aAAdt dopoAoc,
The same remark is made by Moeris, p, 11. In App.
Soph. p. 17 Phrynichus supplements his present statement :
"Acr/SoAo? 6r}\vKois keyovaiv, 'liTTTcava^ 8e dpo-ei^iKws" tlv€9 Se koI
TTjv aafiokriv.
XCI.
AreaAoc Aere dpoeviKcoc, ciAAd juh aiGdAH BhAukooc.
Heinrich Schmidt in his ' Synonymik,' 2. p. 373, has
shown that aWakos differs from dafSokos in connoting the
action of fire as productive of a black colour. He quotes
aWoi in Ar, Thesm. 246 —
• (fiv, iov Trjs dcrfiokov'
atdoi yeyivrjixai vdvra rd Trept ti}v Tpdp.LV,
and justly ridicules the ordinary explanation of the expres-
sion aWo\l/ Ka-nvos in Od. lo. 152, as smoke mixed with
flame — a meaning which might apply to the smoke from
Vulcan's forge, but not to that gently curling from Circe's
home, \l06s, alOoy\r, and alOtav, when meaning black, always
imply that the colour has been produced by fire. Accord-
ingly, aWo^ oii'os is not the same as /xe'Aas oTi-os, or even
198 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ipvOpos olvos, and does not refer to colour at all, but to the
effect on the blood of the drinker, ' fiery wine.' The AWo-
■nes received the name from early travellers who imagined
that their swart colour was produced by exposure to the
sun.
XCII.
OepjuoTHC Aere, dAAd juh Gepjuaaia,
The one word is formed from Oepixos, the other from 9ep-
p-aiioo. Phrynichus is right, and no Attic writer could have
employed depixacrCa. The general rule of which it is a
violation is simple enough. Whenever there exists an
adjective in -os which may be regarded as the primitive
of a verb in -aCvco, the abstract substantive is in Attic
formed in -ttj? from the adjective, not in -aaia from the
verb, as Oepfxos, depixau'co, depixorrj^, XevKOS, K^VKaivu), Aeu/corrjs,
ipvOpos, epvOpau'U), epvOpoTrjs, vypos, vypaivoi, vypoTi)^, ir]p6s,
^TjpaivcM, ^rjpoTt^s. No such substantives as vypaaia, ^rjpaa-ia,
or depixaaia, are ever encountered in a genuine Attic writer.
They are the spawn of late writers and their badge, and
Xenophon was, as usual, anticipating them when he em-
ployed Oep^ao-La in An. 5. 8, 15. Even when there is no
adjective, the substantive is not so formed from the verb.
The true form is (})Xey[jiov>] not cpXeyixaaia, oacpprjo-Ls not
6ac})pa(rLa. Thomas, p. 441, adds to the statement of
Phrynichus when he says, OepiioT-qs Kal Oepixr] 'Attlkol, dep-
Ixaa-Ca "Ekkr]v€s. There are not many forms like 6^pp.r].
Besides it kclkt} was in common use, and \evKr], kevKat was
the name applied to a form of leprosy. It is natural to
compare the English term ' the blues ' and to remark that
the old name for jaundice, namely, f/ie yellows, lingers
in the provincial districts of England.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 1 99
XCIII.
'AjTorHV Kai lOUTO napavevojLiHTai kqi tovco kqi Geoei.
XpH rap dxTarcic Aereiv, toanep dAAdc.
A grammarian in the "^vvayixiyy] Ae^ecoy yj)r](Ti\i.oiv is more
precise : 'ArraySs* 6pvi% ovno KaAetrat vtto tcHv 'Attlk&v.
Api(rTO(f)dvr]s ^(f)r]^L —
Tov ~r]\6v oj(T7i€p a.TTaya.'i Tvpfia(T€is jiahi^uiv.
KoX al TrAdytot aTTayav Ka\ arTayas TrkrjOvvTtKQs.
'AAAa? is not a real parallel as its genitive is aWavros.
It was intended by Phrynichus simply to illustrate the
accentuation which in ciTvayas is peculiar. Athen. 9. 387 F:
iripidTiSxTi 8e 01 ^ AttlkoX Trapa tov opOov Xoyov Tovvop.a. Ta
yap els as Ki]yovTa €KTeTap.h'Ov vTtep hvo crvWaftds, ore exet to
a TiapaXfjyov, jBapijTovd kaTiv olov a.Kd}xa<s, ^aKahas, dddixas.
\eKTeov he Kal aTTayal Kal ovx} ciTTayrjve^i.
XCIV.
KoAujupdbec eAalai ou Aerovrai, dAAd dAjudbec eAdai
Xcopic ToO I.
This is an apt illustration of the singular purity of Attic
Greek. It contents inself with saying no more than is
necessary, whereas Ko\vp.i3dbes is a weak attempt at a
picturesque designation. In describing the different kinds
of olives, Athenaeus, i. 56, quotes two lines of Aristo-
phanes —
uv TavTov iaTLV akp.dbe'i Kal ore'/x^vAa,
and —
dKacTTa'i yap dvai KpelrTov iaTiv uKp.dbo'i.
For the orthography of cAda sec supra p. J 1 2.
200 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,
xcv.
rpHropw, rpHfope? ou be?, aAAa erpHfopa Aereiv koi
erpHfopev.
Person first removed the defaulting present from Attic
texts, restoring iyp-qyopeaav for eyprjyoprjaav in Xen. An. 4.
6. 23. It is a most debased form and crept into classical
manuscripts at a late date.
The perfect tense had originally in Greek a very different
meaning from that of the English perfect. Thus the words
///^ door Jias been opened, direct the attention to a process
rather than to a fact;, but in Greek the converse is true,
and r\ 6vpa aveuiKTcu originally meant f/te door is open^ with-
out any reference to the process of opening. There is in
fact no means of expressing hvit^Krai in English, as is open
implies too little, and is opened implies too much. Is, open
is too absolute and does not convey the notion of agency,
and is opened is not absolute enough, still referring too
much to the process of which it marks the completion.
The same is true of the pluperfect and the future perfect,
avii^KTo hitting the mean between was open and was opened,
and di'ew^erai between shall be open and shall be opened.
But when an attempt is made to express the primitive
force of the Greek perfect in the active the English language
fails still more signally, and the word has to be turned
passively. In other words aW^xa ti]v Qvpav is not / have
opened the door, but represents an agent at the completion
of his action, without any reference to the steps which led
to that condition of things.
This is the meaning which the perfect generally has in the
Homeric poems, e. g. —
^/xe6s V oirka eKaara ■novy](Tap.evoi Kara vrja
r]fj.€$a, Trjv 8' avep.os re Kv{3€pvriT7]s t Wvv€v.
THE XEW PHRYNICHUS. 20I
TT\<i 8e TravriixepLr]^ Te'raO' loria TTOVTo-nopovarjs'
bva-eTO t ?/eA.t09, (tklooovto re Tracrat ayutat'
Od. II. lo.
and in an earlier stage of the language the numerous
perfects with a so-called present meaning had their origin.
eyp-qyopa, I am aiuake, hihoiKa, I fear, eloiOa, I am used, avoiya,
I bid, hihopKa, I see, T€d7]Xa, I flourish, o-e'o-TjTra, / moulder,
K€xnvo., I gap^> <Ti(Tr\pa, I grin, etc. The perfect form of
many of these words, such as Kexv^a, b4hopKa, o-ea-rjpa, it
would be quite impossible to explain on any other hypo-
thesis as to the original force of the perfect.
Although the Greek perfect never lost this meaning, it
gradually assumed much of the same force as we associate
with the tense and approached our idiom in most respects.
Thus even in Homer it had begun to be used for the aorist
with the adverbs (xpoytKa k-inppr\p.aTa), ijbi], 77oAAa/cis, ttco,
TrwTTore, a usage which was quite incompatible with its
primitive signification, but which is not rare in Attic.
XCVI.
AuGevTHC juHbenoT€ XP"-'^" ^"' '^^^ becnoTHC, ojc oi nepi xd
biKacjTHpia pHTOpec, aAA' eni xoO auroxeipoc 90vea)c.
There are two ways of accounting for the only exception
to this rule, that in Eur. Supp. 442 —
Koi ixijv u-ov ye 8?//xos avdivTrjs x^'^^''^^^
virovcnv acTTois T/Serat veavian.
Either avOtvT-qs is, as Markland conjectured, an error of
the copyists for evOvvTi'js', or Tragedy has here, as often,
preserved an old meaning. The late signification of master
must have had some origin, and It is more natural to
regard it as entering the Common dialect from some of
the older ones than as being a perversion of the meaning
recommended by Phrynichus. and frequent in early Attic.
202 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Latterly avdevrrj^ disappeared from Attic, even in its
recognized sense, its place being usurped by avrox^ip-
Appearing in Herodotus, in Tragedy, and in Thucydides
and Antiphon, it finally succumbed to the law of parsimony,
like many other words which are not found in any but the
earliest masters of Attic prose.
XCVII.
'ArHOxev, el' tic ei'noi, on ev tco ouvOexto Auoi'ac Ke^pHrai
KararHoxoiGi, jlih ndvu neiOou* Hxe ]uev rap Aerouoi kqi
AHjuoaGevHC ny^aai Aerei, dAA' ouk drHoxaoi.
The passage of Lysias here referred to has not been
preserved. The form occurs in Aristotle, Polybius, Plutarch,
and other late writers, while some authors used both the
disyllabic and quadrisyllable words.
Notwithstanding the general opinion as to the purity
of Lysias' diction, there are to be found in his writings
many slight divergences from Attic usage, which are to
be attributed to the fact that by far the greater part of
his life was spent in Magna Graecia. He dwelt, it is true,
among Athenians, but Athenians who, as colonists, were
dissociated entirely from the peculiar civilization of Athens,
and from the intellectual and refining influences of its
fascinating city life, while, at the same time, they were
necessarily thrown more into contact with men of other
Greek races.
XCVIIL
Me(3ibio:)eHvai" rerpinrai kqi ev roic biKacTHpioic kqi ev
Tolc GujupoAaioic, dAAd av jueoerriJH9Hvai Aere.
'Mea-ibios praeter binos Aristotelis locos (Eth. Nic. 7. 1132.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 203
*23, Pol. 6. 1306. ^28) reperitur in Michael, in V. Nicom. p.
66 b. ex ipso Aristotele depromptum ; [xicrov hiKaarriv vocat
Thucydides, 4. 83, /xeo-tStco^j/rat autem, sive a nullo scrip-
torum eorum, quos fortuna nobis reliquos fecit, admissum
est, sive adhuc in angulo quodam inaccesso latet, nobis
certe invisum inauditumque erat.' Lobeck.
XCIX.
KaAAirpacpelv, biaAeAujuevooc Aerouoiv CKelvoi eic koiAAoc
rpdcpeiv
As far as formation goes the word is quite legitimate,
as is shown by KaXkwnGt and /caAAtepw. It is only a question
of usage, and certainly Ka\\iypacf)(a does not occur before
Aristotle. 'KaXktypacfxlv primum mihi occurrit sensu figurato
in S7ibditicia Aristotelis Epistola ad Alexandrum Rhetoricae
praefixa.' Lobeck.
'AkjuhW dvTi ToC en- -evocpoovra Aerousiv dnaS outo)
KexpHGOar ou be (puAdrTOu, Aere be en.
The signification here reprehended used to be required
in Isocrates, i C, before (tv \x\v aK\x^v <\n\Q<TO(\)ds was re-
placed by o-ot \i\v ciKfj-if (j)L\o(TO(j)e'iv. It is an excellent
instance of the copyists' habit of importing the usages of
their own day into the texts of Classical authors, Xcno-
phon, however, is past praying for; Moeris (p. 79), as well as
Phrynichus, states that in this point he departed from
Attic usage, and in An. 4. 3. 26 uKp/i; is employed as
Polybius, Strabo, Plutarch, Theocritus, and their contem-
poraries employed the term. There is nothing to choose
between Xenophon's kcu n f^x^"^ oK/xj/r oUftuLve, and Poly-
204 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
bins, I. 25- 2, crvi'tSoyres tov^ jxev aKjxijv iixjSaivovTas, tovs be
avayoyLivovs, or id. 6. 51, Trapa i^Xv tois Kapxr]boviOLS T7]v
hvvaixiv 6 bijixos ijbri iieTeiXr]^ei,, irapa hie 'Fooixaiots aKixrjv (^x^v
i] (TvyKXrjTos.
' Suidas Sophoclcm et Hyperidem testes citat ; de
Sophocle manifesto errat ; Hyperidem testem adhibet in
hac causa etiam Antiatticista Bekk. p. 77, sed locum non
apposuit, neque fidem fecit judicii sui.' Lobeck.
CI.
E1T6V Kai eneirev eoxciTooc pdppapa- elra ouv ou koi
eneira Aere.
Aelius Dionysius, whose opinion is always worthy of
consideration, is quoted by Eustath. 11 58. 38, h tols
Aiovva-Cov (peperaL otl ^Attlko. jxkv to etra koL eVetra, to 8e
eiTev Kal eTjetTev, laxa. 8to, (f)r]crL, koI Trap HpoSoro) KelvTat.
In most manuscripts of Herodotus, however, eira and eTretra,
or €Tret re, are now read, e.g. 1. 146; 2. 52; 9. 84, 98. In
Arist. Ach. 745, the un-Attic form is put in a Megarian's
mouth —
KJjireLTev is tov (tAkkov cD8' ka-fiaiveTe.
Machon, the late Comic poet, whose name has already
occurred in a similar connection, used cTretrej' (Athen. 13.
582 A), and eVetTez; eiTrfiy was justly restored foreTretr' evel-nev
by Porson in another line of the same writer —
eTretrey eiireiv (pacri tijv TvaOaiviov.
Ath. 13. 581 F.
CII.
'AvareAAei juev epelc 6 hAioc, enueAAei be 6 kuoov, h 6
'Qpioov, H d'AAo Ti Ta)v juh wsauTCoc rto hAico kqi th oeAi-ivH
noAeuovTcov.
THE NEW PHRYXICHUS. 20--)
This distinction between avaTikkco and tTrire'AAco, avaroXi]
and e-niTokr], is always carefully observed in Attic prose.
Plat. Polit. 269 A, Legg. 887 E, Crat. 409 A ; Ar. Nub.
754; Thuc 2. 78. In poetry it is not always regarded,
and even the simple verb may be used of either pheno-
menon. 'E-n-iToX?; and eTrtre'AAco, however, are not used of
the sun till very late. The meaning of the l-ni is the same
as is found in e-nepxojxai in phrases like e-nr]Xv6ov wpat in —
aXX 0T€ rirpaTov rjkOev €Tos koL eiri^Xhdov &pat.
Od. 2. 107.
dAA' 6t€ br) p.rjV€s re kcu ypLipai e^erekevvTO
a\jr TT€pLT€Wop.ivov eVeos' Kol kirrikvOov S>pai.
II. 29^.
cm.
EuKoipelv ou AeKTeoVj dAA' eu gxoAhc exeiv.
The words evKatpos and evKatpta are excellent Attic words,
but not in the sense of crxoAaios and (txoA?). Photius : ^xoA?).
ov^t o TOTTOS iv w cr)(o\d^ovaL Koi btaTpi(3ov(TL Trept TratSeiazr
ovhe avTT] r; ev Ao'yots (evpiOvcrLa) Koi hiaTpi^r], aXka r]v ol
TToAAot anvpM^ KaXovaLV evKatpiav to be evKaipeiv ^apjiapov,
aAA' a/'Tt \xkv tovtov (r\o\i]v ayeiv Xeyovcriv. r] be evKaipia
(Bdpftapov ovK ecTTLV 6vop.a, TCiTTeTai b\ ovk (th (T')(oki]'i, dAA'
f TTi Kaipov TWOS ei({)vias koI dpeTtjS'
CIV.
'ESenmoAflc Aerouoi Tivec, oldjuevoi ojuoiov elvai T(p eEai-
(pvHC, olov eSeninoAHc toG navroc. dTono^c ol rdp dpxcxloi
dve\j THC eS npoeeotwc einov eninoAflc.
In App. Soph. 38. 3 Phrynichus traces this corruption
to false analogy : oi be e^cm.TToKi'i'i At'yorrtv l-nkavi]Oi](Tav utto
206 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Tov i^ai(})in]'i kuI efe7nV/j8es. It is another instance of the
misuse discussed above, pp. 117 ff. Late writers elevated the
adverb into a substantive, forming a nominative ^-ni-nokr],
and decHning it throughout. They combined their new
creation with other prepositions besides e£. Athenaeus used
81' eTnTToXi]s, and Strabo actually iir' eTrnroXrjS' The fact
that an elevated quarter of the city of Syracuse was named
'E-TTiTroAat (Thuc 6. 96) does not prove the early existence
of the substantive eTrt-n-oAi/. It does not mean surfaces,
but, derived in the same way as (TTnrokrjs, adopted the
termination -ai on the analogy of 'Adrjvai, @r]j3aC, etc., just
as the -i]s in the adverb stands on the same footing as the
similar ending of e^aLcfyprji.
cv.
"Evbov eiaepxojLiai, pdppapov. evbov rap fori, Kai evbov
eiMi, boKi/iov. bel ouv ei'ow napepxojuai Aereiv. ei'aco be
biajpipco ouK epeic, oAA' evbov biaipipco.
The collocation evbov d(repxo}xai stands on a different
basis from darca hiaTpij^u), being a distinct violation when
used absolutely of the law of parsimony, and, consequently,
un-Attic. As a synonym for the simple da-epxoiiai, Phry-
nichus rightly suggests dam Trape'pxojuat. But, although
h'hov as used for dcro^ is as barbarous as da-oi etVepxojuat
would be, the converse is not true, and Attic writers
frequently employ etcro) with verbs of rest, as any dictionary
will show.
CVI.
KAHpovoMe'iv Tovbe" ouy outooc h dpxaia xRhgic, dtAAa
KAHpovojuelv ToCbe.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 207
A sentence of Demosthenes illustrates the onl}- usage
possible in Attic, 329. 15, K€K\ripov6^i]Kai fxev rdv ^iXcovos
Tov KTjbea-Tov \pr]\xaT(iiv Trkeiovoiv rj TrevTeTaXavTOiv, the genitive
of the person being dependent upon the genitive of the
thing which is governed by the verb. In late Greek the
ordinary construction was the accusative in either case —
KXr)povo\x^lv Ti TWOS and KXrjpovoixeli' tlvcl.
CVII.
OpiboKO ' HpoboTOC id^o:)V einev, HjneTc be OpibaKivHv
U3C 'Attikoi.
This is another instance of the Common dialect pre-
ferentially departing from the premier dialect. The
lexicography of the word is given in detail by Lobeck.
CVII I.
'EniKAivrpov pHxeov, ouk dvdKAivxpov.
Pollux makes the same statement (10. 34}: Mt/nj 8^
KXivrjs Koi ivr'ikara Ka\ (TTLKkivrpov' tu pL€V k-nLKkivrpov virb
^ ApL(TTo(fjdvovi elprip.ivov. So^okAt)? 8e eiTre kvi]kaTa ^v\a :
id. 6. 9, TO Ka\oviJ.(vov avaKkivrpov (TTLKkivrpov ^ApL(rTO(f)dvi]s
61776, TO be (VTjkaTov KkivTrfpLov. In 9. 72 he quotes, for a
different purpose, two lines from the Anagyrus of Aris-
tophanes —
TOVt' aVTO TTpCLTTO) bv' oftokoi KOL (TVp.^-iokoV
VTTO TW 'iTlKklvTpiO' fXCaV Tfi ttVT dl'€Lk(TO ]
The question must rest upon their authority.
2o8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CIX.
'EniboSov, TO npooboKoiijuevov kqI eAni^ojuevov epelc,
ou)(, wc oi djua6e?c, tov enioHjuov.
Like verbs of hoping and expecting, e7ri8o£os may be
followed by the present and aorist as well as by the
regular tense — the future infinitive. Isocr, 397 C, e-TrtSo^o?
y(i")](re(rdai. irovripos : Antipho, 115. 22, tov fxeydka iJ.\v KaKO.
TTpoTreTTOvdora, ert be ix€L(ova eTiiho^ov ovra 'naayj.iv : Isocr.
117 E, 677180^09 Ml' Tvxetv r?/? TL[xi]s. The preposition seems
to have the same force as in the word e-TrtVe^ or k-niroKo^.
There is no instance in Attic of the meaning here found
fault with by Phrynichus, but that is its prevailing sense
in late writers. The signification e7rto-r?/xo? was not, how-
ever, a coinage of the Common dialect, but existed outside
the precincts of Attic even in Classical times, as is proved
by Pindar —
et yap ap.a KTedvois ttoXXoHs eiribo^ov dp-qraL
KvhoS, KT(.
Nem. 9. 46.
ex.
MdMMHv THv ToO rrOTpoc hi jUHTpoc jUHTepa ou Aerouci'
01 dpxmoi dAAd thGhv, MdjUjUHv be Koi juajujuiov thv juHiepa
oMaeec ouv to thv juaMjUHv eni thc thGhc Aereiv.
' Phrynichi praescriptum plerique recentiorum neglectum
reliqucre, aviam ixap-ixi^v dicentes, Josephus, Plutarchus,
Appianus, Herodianus, Artemidorus, Basilius, neque ad-
versari videtur Pollux, 3. 17, 7/ oe irarpbs i) pii)rpo^ fxi'^rrip
Ti]Or] Kcd p.up.p.11 KUL iidpfxa. Sed cum Phrynicho faciunt
THE A'EIV PHRYNICHUS. 209
acriores vitiorum inolescentium animadversores, Aelius
Dionysius, Helladius, Moeris, Photius^ Suidas.' Lobeck.
CXI.
El noiHTHC elnev djueivojepov, xctipeToo" oube rap KaAAioi-
repov, oube Kpeioaorepov pHreov. oufKpiTiKOu rap cjurKpi-
TiKov ou rivexai. Aere ouv ajiieivov kqi kcxAAiov kqi KpeTooov.
Stobaeus (Flor. 7. 12. 9) quotes from Mimnermus —
ov yap rts KeCvov brjtcov er' ajxetvorepos c^ojj
ecTKev iTT0ix_((r6ai ^uAottiSos Kpareprj^
€pyov.
The forms x^v'^'epo?, x^P^'-o'''^po9, are not double com-
paratives. That KaWicoT^pov once appeared in Thuc. 4. 118
indicates that this remark of Phrynichus was not uncalled
for. ' Recentiores cum similibus ixeiCorepos, eAaxta-roVaro?,
usi sunt.' Lobeck.
CXII.
MovocpeaAjuov ou pHreov, ejepocpGaAjuov be. KpoTlvoc be
)uov699aAjuov elne tov KuKAoono.
Lobeck supposes the words Kparlvos 6e piovocpdaXp-ov eiTre
TOV KvK\(oTTa to be a late addition, but they appear in the
2uAA. 'ArrtK. of Moschopulus, and may well be genuine, as
p.ovocfyOakp.o'i or ixovop-ixaTos is the natural word for a Cyclops.
A writer in the Ae'^ets 'P-qropiKai (Bekk. 280. 22) has the
remark: Mov6(()0a\iJ.o9' (Ovos tl avOpdiroiv (va 6(^0akp.ov
i)(6vT0)V Tovs yap tov (Tepov (KKOir^vTas offiOakpiOV (TepocfiOak-
p.ov9 Kakovcnv, and Strabo, r. 43, quotes povojxjxaTo^ from
Aeschylus, Ma-yykov KVvoKfcjxxkovs koI aT(pvo(l)6dkiJ.ovs Kal
llOVO[Xp.aTOVS liTTOpOVVTOS.
Ammonius makes the same distinction: 'ETep6(f)0akp.oi Kal
p.ovo(\)Oakixo<i bia(f)epov(ri.v. 'Erfpo'c/)(?aA^oy fxkv yap 6 Kara TTepCir-
P
210 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
TuxTW TTrjpMOel'i Tov erepov tS>v d(pOakp.Giv, ixovoc^daXixos 5e 6 t'l'a
fjiovov ofpOaXfjibv l^coi' u>i 6 Ki;kAco\//-.
It is an interesting question how the later notion of the
Cyclopes originated. In Homer the Cyclops is krepocpOaXiJios,
not [xov6<p6aX[xos, as Aristarchus plainly saw. On Odyss. 9.
383 he has the remark, 6 KvkXoo^ Kara tov "Oixi^pov ovk tjv
lxovo<p6aXixos (f)V(T€i, oXXa Kara riva (rvvTVx^Cav tov enpov tG>v
o(f)OaX[xa>v d7re/3e/3A?;Ket. bvo yap 6(ppvas eix^' ^V^'- V^P —
TTavra be oi /3Ae^ap' a[Mcf)l koI 6(f)pvas evcrev ayTfjiri.
By the time of Heslod the later notion prevailed, as is seen
from two lines of the Theogon. 144 —
Kw/cAcoTTes 8' ovopi rjcrav ^iroivvp-ov ovveK apa (t^Imv
KVKXoT€pr]s 6(f)6aXp.bs eets iveKCLTo ixcTcairu),
and became as firmly established as the similar erroneous
notion that the Sirens were three in number, whereas Homer
plainly says there were but two. Some mistake of an early
potter probably originated both errors, and fictile ware tells
the same story as Hesiod, Cratinus, and Theocritus, 11.31 —
u)V€Kd p.01. Xacrta jxev 6(ppv9 iirl iravrl /xerwTTw.
CXIII.
'EoivHodMHv* etc Aoroc nepi toC djimpTHjuaTOc, evGa dv
MH buvHetHc TO npiaaeai h enpidjUHv 0e?vai, eKei rd and toO
diVOUMaii Tdrre, evGa b' dv id and toO npiaoeai, 9uAdTT0u
edrepov.
The MSS. and editions have the unmeaning (wvrjiiai. After Barepov they add
ohv kwvrjuai oMav hvravda kyx^pei to iirpiAixrjv ovtco xRV^V iTpiafir,v oUiav.
ndKiv iTvxov iojvruxivos oiKiav rj dypov kvTadea ov5iv eyx^pei ■r<u'' d^rru twv irpia-
adac nivii rd eaivrjfiepos Soki/xov. iiaXiv Set \4yw Trpia/xevos, to yap wvtjffdtxtvoi
aSoKtfiov ovTOJS ovu K'IttI tov (wvrjaafnjv irapuv yoip enpiafxrjv ilirtiv, fxf) f'inrjs
eajfTjadfxrjv 6 yap tovto A.€7ajj' krjpd. Lobeck justly says, 'alto hie Phrynichus
demersus est Into ;' but he fails in trying to extricate him. It is strange that
the words following olov in Phrynichus should so frequently be unintelligible
or contradictory to the rule he lays down. They seem frequently to be late
additions.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 21 1
Herodian (453 ed. Piers.) likewise remarks on the way
in which the two stems wi/e- and -npi- were combined in Attic
to make up the verb corresponding to the English ' buy.'
His words are these, TrpiaaOat epet?, ovk oi>vi](ra(r6at,' ottov be
firi bvvarbv kXIvul to -npiaaOai pri}xa, rore rw oavelcrdai XPWV>
olov kTtpiaixiqv, (irpioo, kirpiaTO' koX iipioi to irpoa-TaTLKOv. EvTroXts
TTpLOi fxoL ae\6.\L0v (f)rj(rC. eirl be tov irapaKetixevov ku>vr]p.ai, ov
yap eve\(apet 6 ■napaKeip.evos ti]v tov TrpiaadaL \pri(nv. These
dicta are confirmed by other authorities and by the universal
usage of Attic writers. The following passages will put in
the clearest light the dovetailing of the two verbs into one
another. In the ' Acharnians ' Dicaeopolis asks the price
of the Boeotian's pigs —
Tioaov 7[pi(jdp.ai trot to. yjoipihia ; Ae'ye"
and when the answer is satisfactory makes up his mind to
buy them —
oivr]aojxai aoC Tiepip-ev avTov.
The enormous sums expended upon fish by Athenian
epicures is a common-place in the Middle and New Comedy,
and a passage of this kind is quoted by Athenaeus (6.
227 A) from the ' Greek Woman ' of Alexis —
avToC (ol t\9ves) t eirav Xri({)dS)cnv viro tS)v aXUcav
re^yewres e7rtrpi/3ouo-t tovs oivovp.evovs.
TTJs ovcrias yap elcriv f]p.lv (aviOL,
6 TTpiap.(v6s re iTTUiyos evOvs a-noTpiy^ei :
Plato, Rep. ')6^ B, oTav h\ ot iu)vrip.4vot pL-qbev iJttov eXevOepoi
axTi rwy ■npiap.i.vuiv'- Lysias, 108. 2,^^ 'AvtikXtj^ Trap' avTov TTpia-
fxevos e^ep-iaOoxrev' eyw be Ttap ^ AvTLKkeovs elpijvrjs ova)]^
((iiVovp.r]v : Dem, 307. I5> ^ <ji>vovp.evos vevtKrjKe tov \a^6vTa
eav 'npir]TaL.
But the locus classicus is the speech of Lysias against
the corn merchants (Kara tS)v o-iroTrojAwi;) : 'Eyw tS>v apyov-
Tujv KekevovToiV (rvveT:piAp.r]v.
V 2
2 1 2 THE NE IV PHR YNICHUS.
*Ay \kkv Toivvv aTTobei^ji, oo avbpes hiKacTTai, wj ecrrt vofxos 09
/ceAevet rovs cnroTrcoXas crvvcovelcrOai, tov oitov, av ol 6.p)(ovT€'i
KekevaxTLV, aiTO\p^7](f)Lcracr9(. el be jxri, hiKaiov vfxa^ KaTayj/rjcfyLaaaOai.
rjfxels yap vplv "napecryjoixeOa tov vojxov os aTtayopevei pr\hiva tQ>v
h' rrj TToAei irkeico ctItov irevTriKOVTa (poppLwv a-vvcovelcrdai..
"AwTos 8' ekeyev w? . . . . cTvp.fiovkevcreiev avTols Travaaa-dai
(fyikoviKovcTLV, TjyovpLei'os (rvpicfiepetv vpuv rots irapa TovTcav b)vov-
fxivoLS iiS a^LcoTaTov TOVTovs TTpiaa-QaL. heiv yap avTovs d/3oAa)
\x6vov TTookelv TLixLuiTepov. b)s TOLvvv ov (TvixTTpLapievovs KaraOeaOat
€Kekev€v avTOVs akka [xrj akkt]kois avTioveicrQ ai crvvejiovkevev,
avTov v\uv "AvvTov pidpTvpa 7rape^op.aL, kol <ws ovtos p-ev kirX ttjs
TTpoTepas ^ovkrjs tovtovs eiTre tovs koyovs, ovtol 8' eirl T'qvbe
crvvu)VOvy,evot (paivovTai '.
It may be useful to add a detailed list of the tenses and
moods as used by Attic writers. The references are chiefly
to Aristophanes : —
o)vovpaL, Arist. Av. 530, Eccl. 1002. Sjibjunctive, Lys. 560,
Vesp. 493. Optative, Eq. 649. Participle, Nub. 1224,
Thesm. 504, Eq. 897, Ach. 549.
ioivovprjv, Fr. Com. (Eupolis), 2. 505, and Orators.
bivrj(Top.ai, Arist. Plut. 140, 518, Ach. 815, Eq. 362, Pax
1239, 1252, 1261, Vesp. 304, Lys. 600, Eccl. 1034;
Orators.
€7Tptdp.r]v, Arist. Nub. 23, 864, Eq. 44, 676, Thesm. 503, Pax
1200, 1 241. 2nd sing. eTrptco, Vesp. 1439. Stibjimctive,
Ach. 812, Ran. 1229, Nub. 614. Optative, Pax 21, 1223,
Vesp. 1405, Ach. 737. Imperative, irpiM, Ach. 34, ^^ ;
Fr. Com. 2. 743, 883; d-noTtpioi, Ran. 1227^. Infinitive,
Ach. 691, 749, Vesp. 253, 294, Av. 715. Participle, Ach.
901, Eq. 600, 872, Nub. 749, Plut. 883.
* Cp. Xen. Vect. 4. 18, 7Tpia(r0a( . . . i]vr\Qri . . . uyovvrat . . . wvqOfvra.
* Good MSS. read irpioj for Trpiri in Nub. 614. The form irpiaao in Ach. 870
is probably Attic. Veitch, however, errs when he puts it on the same footing
as Trpiw in id. 34 by the remark 'both in trimeter,' for he has not observed that
irpiaao is put into the mouth of a Boeotian.
THE NEW PHRYMCHUS. 213
((avrjixai, Fr. Com. (Eupolis), 2.492, (Aristoph.) 2. 1076;
Orators ; Partic, Arist. PI. 7.
Passive.
uivov\xai, Plato, Phaed. 69 B.
icovovjirip, Xen. Eq. 8. 2.
^u>vi]6riv, Dem. 1124, 1126 ; Xen. Mem. 2. 7. 12, etc. ; Plato,
Legg. 850 A, Soph. 224 A.
((ivqixai, Pax 1 182 ; Plat. Rep. 563 ; Orators.
Pollux (3. 124) quotes aircovrid^a-eTaL from the Comic
Poet Theopompus. The verbal covrjreo^ occurs in Plato,
Legg. 849 C, and uivqros in a true verbal sense in Thuc. 3.
40, iXiTLba ovTe Xoyco Tria-Trjv ovre y^pr^ixacnv (j}vr]Tr]v. In Plato,
Phaed. 1. c, the present is found in the participle wvovixevd
re Koi TTLTTpaa-Koixeva. This is the only instance in Classical
Greek, although periphrases are used. Such is irpacnv
evpCaKci) in a passage quoted by Pollux (7. 13) from the
' Seasons ' of Aristophanes —
KpaTKTTOv r}[Xiv ets to 0?](retoy bpap-dv,
e/cet 8' ecos av irpacriv (vpuifxev jixeVciy,
till we find a purchaser^. In the sense of to be for sale,
&V10S elvai. was used.
(Til TOLS irukaicrLV ov to Tapi\os &viov.
Arist. Eq. 1247.
Plato, Legg. 848 A, Tpirov jxipos iaviov e£ av6.yKris tcTTUt Tovro
fiovov, Tuiv ok hvo ixepcav /xrjSey CTrayayKes ecrro) TTOiXelv.
TTw? 6 (Ttro? wvLos ;
Arist. Ach. 758.
' What is the price of wheat ?'
TTois ovv 6 Tvpbs (V Botcoroij wvios ;
Id. Eq. 480.
To make a purchase was in Greek Hnvi^v noiCKxQai, or, in
' The note of Pollux is ridiculous enough and shows how little Classic Greek
was understocl even by a scholar in the second century a. d., 8 8J 0/ vw tpaffi
Tovs oiKtrns Trpnniv nirtiv Hartv (vptiv if rnh ' fipi'Jro(p6.vov% flpais. He must
have translated toij av = - while.'
214 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS..
poetry, uivi]v rWeo-Oat, as Dem. 894. 27, (avrjv -noiovixai ttjs
wvrjv idov KoX TTpacTLV b)s ^olvL^ avrjp.
Soph. Frag.
The primitive sense of the verb ayopaC^Lv was to attend the
ayopd either for business or pleasure, but it gradually acquired
the meaning of duy. The former signification is encountered
often in Aristophanes — Ach. 625, 720, Vesp. ^^y, Lys. 556,
6^^, Eq. 1373, 1374 ; but the latter only once —
Koi rals dSeA^ais ayopacrai \LT(aviov
kniXevcTiv av, Trj p.riTpi 5' lp.aTLbi.ov.
Plut. 984.
The term, however, both in the active and the middle
voice, became ultimately quite synonymous with oivela-dat.
and TtpiacrdaL, as Dem. ^6^, 7, rj 8' i^bv avrji /SeArto) npiacrdai
TavT-qs TT]s rt/x^s tovtov rjyopacrev' The verb was doubtless
complete in all three voices, but in what remains of Attic
literature does not extend beyond the aorist and perfect.
CXIV.
TTapaoiTOuc ouk eAerov 01 apxaloi en oveibouc, a)C vOv,
oiAAa KoAaKac" Kai bpcijua eon KoAoKec toioutoov dv-
epooncov.
Athenaeus discusses at great length the word irapda-tTos
(in 6. 235 seq.). For the existence of the -napdcnros in
Homeric times, he quotes —
co-/ce S' kv\ Tpcoecrcri Tlobrjs, vlbs 'Hericoyo?,
d^veios T dyaOos re" fxaXta-ra 8e pnv tUv "Ektcop
briixov, eTrei ol kraipos ^-qv (J)l\os dXaTtivaaT-qs'
II. 17- 575-
and shows that in the time of Epicharmus the character had
acquired all its features. It was Araros, however, who first
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 2J5
employed the word jiapaaLTos in this dishonourable sense,
and Antiphanes, Alexis, and Diphilus had all plays of this
name. Accordingly, Phrynichus must not be considered
as denying the signification Ko'Aaf throughout Attic, but
only as reminding his readers that the term Trapdo-iros had
originally an honourable meaning. The words of Athenaeus
are on this point very distinct : To be tov Trapaa-iTov 6vop.a
-naXai ixkv rfv aep.vov koX Upov. Ylo\ip.oiv yovv ypdyj/as -nepl
TTapaa-kTOJV (prjalv ovTMS' "To tov -napaalTOV ovofxa vvv fxev abo^ov
((TTL, TTapa be rots apx^alois evpicrKop.ev tov TTapaaiTov lepov tl
XPW^ '^"^ ''<? (TVv6oLV(o TTap6p.oiov. 'Ej; l^vvocrapyei p.ev ovv ev rw
'HpoKAeifa) a-Tr\Xr\ tls eaTiv ev if y\rr]^i(Tixa p.ev 'AA.Kt/3ta8ov, ypap.-
fxaTevs be lTe<pavos QovKvbibov, KeyeTai b" ev avT(^ irepl Trjs
irpoa-qyopias ovtms' ' Ta be e-Trt/xrjyta OveToo 6 lepeiis p-eTo. t&v
TTapaa-'iTOiV' ol be Trapdo-iTOt lo-rcoy Ik t&v voOoiv koX tS)v tovtmv
TTaiboiV Kara to. iraTpia. *0? 8' av p-rj Oekri Trapaa-irelv, ei(rayeTOi Kai
■nepl TovTcov els to biKaaTripLov'" There is much more to the
same effect.
cxv.
EupaoGai ouk epeic nponapoSurovooc bia tou a, dAAd
napoSuTOvcoc bici tou e, eupeaSai.
CXVI.
'AcpeiAaro oaoi biu tou Aa Aerouoiv doxHjuovouoi, hkov
bid TOU Ae Aereiv, d9eiAeT0. Kai dqjeiAojUHV bel Aereiv bid
TOU 0, dAAd JUH bid TOU a.
The second of these articles has been brought from
another place in the Ecloga. Evpdp.riv for evp6pr]v, and
d<li(i\dp.riv for d(\)eLK6pr]v, represent a common corruption
of late Greek. Veitch hesitates, as usual; but on consulting
2l6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
him it will be seen that in both cases the form in alpha
has disappeared from all texts, not only of Attic, but
of Classical Greek writers. The same is true of the active
forms evp-qaa and dka, jjpija-a, and whatever Aristophanes
wrote in Thesm. 761, he certainly did not write i^r]pi]craTo.
That word crept into the text at a date when u)\}/diJiriv might
be used for etbov, and aveirea-dp^rjv for aviirea-ov- The second
line of the couplet destroys the force of the first —
TakavTCLTrj MuKKa, r6? e^eKopi-jcri ere ;
Tis T-i]v ayaTniT7]v TTolbd crov ^^ijpi^aaTO ;
Instead of i^jip'^aaTo, which cannot have a double meaning,
some word that has is required to correspond with e^eKo-
pr/cre. Lobeck proposed i^erp-qaaTo, Meineke has adopted
btexpw^To. Neither emendation is of value, and the
genuine word still awaits discovery, if the line is not re-
garded as merely an interpolated extension of e^€K6pr](T^.
Many forms, equally corrupt, were imported into Attic
books by copyists, who were ignorant of Greek syntax of
the Classical age. Thus, in Thuc. 8. 10, the historian used
the regular construction in object clauses, and made a
future indicative follow o-nois, after a verb of preparing,
TTapi(TK€vaCovTo oTTcos fir) \y](Tov(Tiv avTovs, but textual critics
had to banish Xi^crcoa-iv from the received text. They had
the best manuscripts on their side, but even against all
such authority the change ought to have been made.
Veitch (p. 411} has a record of other instances. The
case of the Homeric eTreArjora is very different —
akka TO ixkv koX aveKTov e^et kukov, OTTTToVe k€V tls
■tjixara fxev Kkairi ttvkiv&s cLKaxwevos rjTop,
WKTas 8' VTTVos iyrjcriV 6 yap t ^TTekrjcrev airavTcov
ia-OkQv Tjbe kukSiv, e77et ap j3k€(f)ap' dp.(PLKakv-^7].
Od. 20. 83.
Then the word is causative, the cttC making possible the
active in this sense, just as it helped fri(f)[CopiaL to an active
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 217
voice. As XavOdi'co in the active can only mean escape
notice, so ■^■(]<h'\.C,<^ had no signification besides that of use
pebbles, calculate. For the causative of ■^r]^iCo\j.ai, to vote,
the compound of liri was employed, just as k-niXavQavin
supplied a causative to )^av9di'0[xaL.
The authority of Hesiod used to be advanced for the
aorist first of AetTrco —
0? K€V TT/y (TTLOpKOv dT:o\€L\j/as eTTOixocra")]
dOavoLTuiv'
Theogon. 793.
just as €(pev^a in Aesch. Agam. 1308 —
Ti TOVT e^eu£as ; et tl //?; (ppevcov arvyos,
was regarded as a proof that cj)ev-/(a had a weak aorist as
well as a strong. In the one case the word comes from
d7roA.et/3(o, in the other from (pevCo).
It is true that there are several verbs which in Classical
times used both aorists — the weak and the strong — in the
same sense, but in Attic proper, such verbs were singularly
rare. XeCo) is an undisputed instance, and with it may go
(f)ddv(o, the two aorists of which run parallel, except in the
participle, which Attic confined to the weak. The case of
KT€LV(i} and Trei^oj is different, eKvavov, €Kavov, and e-niOov,
being not found out of poetry. Even l-mdoix-qv gradually
retreated before (Treia-drjv, as Attic matured. Xenophon
must be left to settle the right of Kar^Kavov to a place in
Attic prose. Certainly, no other writer in that fastidious
dialect would have employed the word. The form ?/^a
stands on precarious footing, but must be admitted in early
Attic. Homer certainly used the weak aorist middle —
drap KaAAiVptxtis 'lttttovs
XvaaO' VTref 6)(^eu>v, Trapu oe (T(J)L<ti ftdWer ioco^jijv'
(K TToAios 6' a^aaOf. ftoas kol l(j)ia fxijAa
Kaf>TtaKiy.o)<i, olvov 8e iJ.€\i(f)pova olvi^ifrOf.
11. 8. 505,
2l8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
(K TToXtos 8' a^avTo /3oas koX 'icl^ta ixrjka
Kap-ndKi^oiSy olvov 8e /^xeAt^poi^a olvi^ovTO,
Id. 545-
for to read a^ea-de in the former of these passages is criticism
of the most futile and puerile kind. Moreover, Herodotus
employed irpoe.aa^avTo (l. 190), icrd^avTo (5. 34)5 and irpoa--
e^avTo (8. 20). Accordingly, when the active a£at is en-
countered in Antiphon, and Trpoa-jj^av in Thucydides, in
a sense perfectly natural, and with the support of all
manuscripts, they must at once be accepted as genuine,
and regarded as fresh indications of a fact more than once
referred to already — namely, that in these two writers the
Attic dialect had not reached its full development. Antipho,
134. 41, pr} ovv e^ekrjTaL tovto vpG>v pTjbsis, on tov prjvvrrjv
aTriKTetvav, koI biereCvavTo avrbv prj ela-ekOelv €S vpas, pr]b^
kpoX eyyeveaOat Trapovn a^ai tov avhpa koX j3aaavC(rai, avTov :
Thuc. 2. 97, (})6pos re Ik iraa-qi rrjs jSapftdpov /cat rwy 'EAAtj-
vibcDV TToAewi'j o(rov Ttpocrri^av k-nl ^evOov /ere. Such forms,
however^ were quite alien to mature Attic, and d-f/^as has
been justly restored to Aristophanes (Ran. 468), in place
of d-jtij^as, TCL^avTcs, to Lycurgus (166. 16) in place of Kard-
$avres, and perhaps KaOevras even to Xenophon (Hell. 2. 2.
20) in place of Kard^avres. In all three passages the sense
requires an alteration which there is excellent manuscript
authority to support.
The history of the weak aorist of dTrobtbpda-Koi is singularly
instructive. Veitch has traced it with his usual care :
' The first aorist does not nozu occur in Classic Greek ;
dTTohpda-acra Andoc. 1. 125 (Vulg.), dTTobpacra (Bekk.), diro-
hpdaas Lys. 6. 28 (old edit.), was altered by Reiske to
diTobpds, which has been adopted by Bekker and every
subsequent editor, dirobpda-r] Xen. Cyr. 1.4. 1^ (Vulg.), now
dTTobpq (best MSS., Schneid., Popp., Dind.), eiebpaa Eur.
I. T. 194 (MSS., Vulg., Musgr., Seidler), now e£ ^bpas in
every edition,' etc. In fact, d-nebpaa-a must be classed with
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 219
€9v)]^a, eOpco^a, eXafxyf/a, ^brj^a, €(f)ev^a, eTrecra, elKa, f)pr](Ta,
fiiJ.dpT7](ra, €j3\(a^a or epLokr^aa, o)\[adrj(Ta, e/BaXa, oiu-ipponxrjv,
et hoc genus omne. Further, there is little question that
Aristophanes did not use kvir^^a, or Lysias b)(})\r](Ta. In
Ar. Lys. ^j^ the manuscripts have ivrt^n or ivrev^r], the
latter being also supported by Suidas, s. v. reravos. The
true word is lost, as neither ivre^r} nor hrev^r] provides a
suitable meaning. For w^ATjo-ez^ in Lys. 136. i, (rvKo<pavTias
avTov KaTeyv(i}T€ /cat o)(f)\r]cr€V vplv p-vptas bpax^pids, either (i)(f>eL-
krjcrev or wcfykev must be substituted.
Some verbs, which originally possessed two aorists of
identical meaning, dropped one of them in Attic, just as
aycti has been shown to have done. Such a word is /3Aao--
Tavoj, which in Ionic writers had an aorist ij3kd(rTi](ra,
Hippocr. 7. 528, 546, and dvalBkaa-Trja-r} must be preferred
to ava^Ka(TTr\cT€L in Hdt. 3. 63, as even Herodotus could
hardly have given other than the middle inflexions to the
future of such a verb. The Homeric eOpe^a survived in
Attic poetry by the side of ibpapLov, but could not have
been used in prose. Both eXaKov and ekaK-qaa appear in
Comedy ; but the verb is never used by Aristophanes
except in para-tragedy, or when he wishes to have a
hit at Euripides, who was ridiculously fond of the term.
Of the two forms epp^va-a and ippvr]v, late writers selected
the poetical active, as in the case of KarihapQov they pre-
ferred the passive form.
The aorist et-n-a must not be reduced to the same level
as eiAa, rikda, ecfiaya, etc., nor yet must elirov and etTra be
regarded as rivals. The two accurately supplement one
another in Attic Greek, according to the following para-
digm —
(iTTOlf
iLTTaTr]V
(.maToiv
etTTas
(Ittoix^v
(llTi
(lire
(iTTare
(LTTaTOi
(L1TaT€
diraTov
elirnv
(.XiraTov
illTOVTUiV.
220 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The subjunctive may be referred to either ; the optative
draws its forms wholly from the second aorist, which also
supplies the infinitive and the participle. The case of
■tjveyKov versus ijveyKa is somewhat more intricate ; but, under
the influence of a transitory desire for system, Veitch has
demonstrated that, in the indicative and imperative, the
forms in alpha were used in Attic, except when the require-
ments of metre or a wish to avoid hiatus suggested TJveyKov
and eveyKov. The infinitive was always iveyKdv and the
participle eveyKcov, and the omicron forms were at least pre-
ferentially used in the optative, while the subjunctive may
be assigned indifferently to either tense.
The rule for the aorists of riO-qjxi and 'irnii is too well-
known to need remark ; but it may not be unnecessary
to remind my readers, that, although the weak aorist of
bibconi was occasionally used in the plural, such forms were
generally eschewed by Attic writers. Herwerden thus
sums up the evidence of Inscriptions: 'Aor. i hujus verbi
et compositorum in plurali numero perraro reperitur. In
T. N. xiii. m. 45, legitur TTapebwKaixev. Paullo minus rara
est 3 pers. pi., sed ne haec quidem reperitur, quod sciani,
ante saeculum quartum,' (Lapid. Test. p. 48). The aorist
i(})pr]Ka probably followed the analogy of u^juit and Ti9y]jxi in
the indicative, as it certainly did in the other moods, and
the gloss in Hesychius : 'A-Tre'^prjo-az;, a(f)j]Kav Kpartvos &pqT-
rais, should stand 'Aireippecrav, kts.
As is now acknowledged, the form ^TT€L(Ti(f)pr]K€ in Eur.
El. 1032 —
aAA. ?/A(J' e)(a)i» p,oi fxaLvab' evdeov noprjv
AeKrpots r' eTreLcreifypriKe Kol vvix(})a bvo
€v TolcTLv avTois b(afjLa(Ti,v Karelx op.ov,
is no perfect, but an aorist, which in H. F. 1266 has by
some fatality been corrupted to e7reta-e0p?y<7c —
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 221
er' Iv yaXaKTi t ovtl yopyodiTOVs o^ets
€iT€t(re(ppriKe cnrapyavoim rots epLols'
and is recorded by Hesychius in the glosses —
El(Te(j)pi]K€v' elcrriyayev.
Its subjunctive appears in Ale. 1056, eTreo-c^pw, Phoen. 264,
iK(ppu)(n, and its participle in a fragment of Eur. Phaethon —
p.r]TLV "H(f)ai(TTOs x^'A-oy
bopiOLS €7T€icr(f)pels p^ekaOpa avp.(f)Xe^j] irvpi.
Aristophanes, Vesp. 162, used its imperative ^K^pes, and its
infinitive is preserved in the gloss of Hesychius : Etcr^pT/i^af
CXVII.
'Pdcpavov eni thc pa9avi&oc juh Ghc. oHjuaivei r^p
THV KpdjuPHv.
'Idem affirmant Hesych., Suid., Ammon , Schol. ad
Aristoph., Poll., et alii. Addit Hesych. pa^avihas vocari
pa(pavovi parvos Dorice. Ammon. vero et Thorn, ad-
jungunt lonice pi(pavov nominari ti]v pac^yaviha. Aristot.
Hist. V. 17. 219 etiam pdcfyavov ait ab aliis Kpdp/Sriv nomi-
nari.' Nunez.
CXVIII.
Euvojc e)(€i /ioi fi\-\ Acre, oAA' euvoiKfoc.
The same caution is also found in App Soph. 38, ewot-
KcDs boKLfjLov, Tu Of evvojs (f)€vy€Lv xt'V' 3-nd it is in accordance
with the usage of Attic Greek. Similarly, &vo)9 was not in
use, but avoi'iTO)^, and for thc Xenophontcan op-ovuMi, Attic
writers employed op.oioriTi.Km-. Thc adverbs of bvcrvovs\
22 2 THE KEW PHRYNICHUS.
KaKovov^, and ayx^'ov^, do not happen to be found ; but as
(vvoiKos was confined to the adverb evvoiKoi?, cvvotKoiTepov,
(vvotKaTara, there can be no question, that, if used at all,
bvavoiKbis, kukovolkSis, and ayxi-voLK&s, were similarly pre-
ferred to the regularly-formed bvcrvco'i and ayx^vo^^- There
is in fact not a single instance in Attic Greek of an adverb
directly formed from adjectives of this class, -npovovs, kov-
(fiovovs, eiippov^, evTTvovs, bvcnrXovs, etc. It is hardly necessary
to point out that words like airXois do not belong to the
same category, but even adpocos appears to be under a ban.
CXIX.
Eueu* noAAoi otVTi ToO euGuc, biacpepei be. to juev rap
Tonou eoTi'v, euBu 'AGhvoov, to be xpovou, Koi AereTai guv
TW 0.
I
This point is proved by the evidence of Aristophanes
alone. The form eidv is demanded by the metre in Nub.
162, Pax 77, 301, Av. 142 1, Eccl. 835, and gives the more
regular verse in Pax 68 and 819, while in no line is evOvs
found referring to place. On the other hand, evOvs xpovi-Kov
is invariably encountered, being demanded by the metre
in Plut. 153, 238, 700, 707, 1121, Nub. 785, 855, 878, 987,
1134, 1215, 1365, i37i> i373> Ach. 638, Eq. 570, 625,
Vesp. 103, SS3, 568, Pax 84, 217, jS^, 894, Lys. 201, 239,
248, 519, 5^5, 641, 664, Thesm. 405, 482, 507, Ran. 126,
137^ 566, 694, 744, 859, 1029, 1 135. Other Attic poets
tell the same tale, except that Euripides uses €v6m for ^vOv
in one passage —
TT]v evOvs "Apyovs Kcnti'bavpia'i bhov.
Hipp. 1 197.
Photius remarks upon the anomaly : Ev6v AvKiiov to eU
AvK€iov 66ev 'EpaTO(r6ei>ri9 koL 8ta tovto viroTTrevei tov^ Me-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 223
Tr]V €vdvi "Apyovs KairibavpLas oboi'.
The author of this MeraAAetj is not known for certain,
and without the rest of the Hne no reasoning can be based
on €vOvs AvKeCov, but the words of Euripides doubtless
stand as they came from his pen. The distinction between
€v9v and ev6v^ originated in the desire for precision, which
is the predominant characteristic of Attic, and was not
observed either by Homer or in other dialects at a period
contemporary with the Attic. '1^4- is of common occur-
rence, as applied to place, in the Iliad and Odyssey, while
Pindar employed ev6vs in both senses. Accordingly, in
Tragedy €v6vs (to tottov) is not out of place, and in Euri-
pides it may well be a conscious imitation of older usage.
In Comedy and Prose, however, the rule was carefully
observed, and any deviations from it in the texts of Prose
authors should be unflinchingly removed.
Like the English immediately, ^vdv^ is sometimes used of
place, as in Thuc. 6. 96, y^oipiov airoKp^pn'ov re kol virep r?"/?
TToAecos evdvs Kei\xhov. In such sentences €vOv would naturally
be amiss.
cxx.
Zoporepov 6 hoihthc, ou be Aepe eu^o:>pov Kfpaoov Kai
eu^ojpoTepov, ojc ' ApiarocpcivHc Kai Kpailvoc Ka'i EiinoAic.
The poet referred to is Homer, in II. 9. 203 —
Cuiporepov he Kepau beiras 8' evrvvov eKdorw,
a line which Ephippus, the Comic poet, had in mind when
he wrote —
(l>td\r]v (Karipq
4hoiKe KapAa-as C^porepov 'O/xj^piKwy'
Antiphanes employed C^^puTepos in the passage preserved
by Athenacus, 10. 423 D —
2 24 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
TovTOV eya> Kpcvoo jxeTavLTTTpLba Trjs Tytetas
TTtv^Lv C^poripio )(p(oiJL€vov Olvoxo(^'
but without the context it would be rash to regard it as
a contravention of the rule laid down by Phrynichus.
Herodotus has the simple word (6. 84), and it was probably
in use in Tragedy. Its reappearance in the Common
dialect is but another instance of what has so often been
encountered already — the inability of Attic to hold its own
against the other dialects.
The word ^vCocipos is found in Ar. Eccl. 227 ; Eur. Ale.
757. Like cLKparos, it formed its comparative and super-
lative in -eorrepo?, -iaraTos, Ephipp. ap. Athen. 9. 374 D ;
Antiphanes, id. 10. 423 E. Eustathius, however, quotes
from Diphilus the regular comparative evC^^porepov, and he
is confirmed by Athen, 10. 423 E —
^v^oiporepov ye vt] At", o) ttoT, hos' to yap
vbapes aTtav tovt kcTTl rfj "^v^fj KaKOV.
CXXI.
Xeipoiv dboKijuooc, x^P'^^ '^^^
The same is true of the genitive and dative dual, x^tpoty
being never used in these cases.
CXXII.
Euepiov jLiH Aere, aAA* eiiepov ijudriov, rpiouAAdfiooc
Kai dveu tou i.
Er Tiva TToktv (f)pa(T€Las ripXv evepov
axTTTip cnavpav iyKaraKkivijvaL pLakdaKr]v.
At. Av. 121.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 2 25
The Scholiast quotes yXOxycrav eve'pcor (3ot(ov from Cratinus,
and from Plato (Comicus), the substantive et^epta.
On the other hand, there is no occasion to alter ev^ipov
in Sophocles —
ft) yap Tov ii'bvTripa Treirkov dprico?
i\piov, apyrjT olos evdpov ttoko),
Trach. 675.
as is done by Elmsley and Lobeck, for they ought as
readily to replace ivbvrrjpa and apyijra by other words. As
an old form, ev^ipos is natural in Tragedy. It is employed
in Ionic, and supported by the gloss of Photius, Ev^Lpov
(vepiov.
CXXIII.
NeoMHvi'a juh Aere, toov 'Iwvoov rap, aAAd voujuHvia,
' Neo}xr]via non contractis primoribus syllabis perrarum
est etiam in vulgari Graecitate.' Lobeck.
CXXIV.
'He ev dropa, goAoikov. Aepe ouv Ho0a. opGoxepov be
XpooTO dv 6 Aefcov, edv hc ev dfopa.
cxxv.
''E9HC' loTi )jev napd toIc dpxaioic, dAA' oAirov. to be
nAeiTOv e9Ha0a.
The second of these articles has been brought from
a later place. In the case of ecfirjaOa, Phrynichus is too
lenient ; «</jjjy was never used by good writers any more
Q
2 26 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
than 17s, j/etj, y/Sjjj. It is true that the manuscripts oc-
casionally exhibit the shorter forms, but as the longer are
often demanded and always allowed by metre, they should
invariably be restored in verse and prose. The argument
from seriation is very strong —
((prjcr-Oa olcr-da i]hi]-(rOa rj(T-6a jJ€L(r-da
(f)a-di Xa-Oi 'i(T-6t l-Oi.
but the testimony of verse is much more valuable. It is
as follows —
A. aTap yeyivriTaL ; B. vol jxa At' ovk j]hr\(TQ6. //e ;
Ar. Eccl. 551.
The Ravenna has rjbrja-da, others fjbeio-da.
aAA OVK av er ey^oLS ocra yap r\orj(Td e^eyjeas airavTa.
Thesm. 554.
The MSS. jjb€Ls.
ravras p-ivToi crv Oeas ova-as ovk 7]h]cr6^ ovb^ kv6p.i^€^ ;
Nub. 329.
Ravenna yhr]^, others ?/'8ets.
The second person does not occur in Aeschylus. In
Euripides it is found only twice —
i!<as ; TTOpdfxbv ovk fjbria-Oa Trarpwa? xOopos ;
Cycl. 108.
MSS. fjbaa-ea.
rjbrja-da yap brJT av6(nov yr}p.as yapov.
El. 926.
In the two cases in which it occurs in Sophocles the verse
admits of the true form —
ap' k^rjbricrd' ocrov rjv K€pbo^.
Trach. 988.
MSS. ^ipy],.
rjbrja-da KripvyOivTa'^ p.i] irpAa-aitv rdtbe ;
Ant. 445.
MSS. fjbrjs TO..
The evidence for ^](T0a is overpowering. There is no line
* Cobetus emendavit. For the plural participle cp. Ant. 576—
5f5oyfj.fv\ oiy (oiicf, TTjvSe KarOavfTv.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 227
in Attic verse in which ?]? is required, though it occurs
sometimes in the manuscripts. Thus in Eur. I. A. 339 —
ws ramivo'i r\(jQa TTda-t]s Se^tas ■npoa-Oiyyav^LV,
all the manuscripts have ?]? aTracnf]'^. The following details
are of value. In Sophocles alone riaOa occurs fourteen
times, and in eight of the fourteen passages the disyllabic
form is required by the metre. In Aristophanes, out of
nineteen lines in which the word occurs, nine require the
longer form. In Aeschylus it is found twice, once doubtful
and once required. About f]€L(x6a there is some question,
the word not occurring in verse. Aeschines (77. 11) is
credited with 7rept?/ets, and Plato, Tim. 26 C, Euthyph. 4 B,
with hir]€i(r6a. Flepu/ets is certainly wrong, but is hiyeia-da
right.? The legitimate form would be bi^ada. While otada
is claimed for mature Attic, it is probable that otSas should
be acknowledged as ojd Attic, as it appears in Eur. Ale.
7 Ho—
TO. 6vr]Ta TTpdyixar olbas rjv e^^et (^vcnv ;
and as forms like otSare, o'ihajxtv, were good Ionic, and should
be retained when found in Attic as early as that of Antiphon.
It is quite natural that at a period of transition he should
write oXoajx^v in one passage and la-jxev in another. The same
licence must be extended to Xenophon as a Greek cosmo-
politan. What in Antiphon was due to the time at which
he wrote was in Xenophon caused by the migratory life
he led.
In the case of olha a third form has certain claims to
notice. In his note upon the dictum of Moeris : OlaOa,
\u)p\'s Tov (T, 'A.ttik5>s- otoas, 'EAA?ji'tKciis', Pierson quotes
the following passage of Eustathius (Od. 1773. 27): To
h\ oXaOa yap oXos Ovjxbs eAey^ei Zi]v6C)Otov kuI roi/s' kut
avTov KaK(os ypu(l)OVTas tu uhrOwi irapd tm TTon]Tr'j. Iv TtAei
\ikv yap (ttI)(ov ?*/ /cat (Tn({)opq. (licavyevTOi €t/; hv yevtaOai crvy-
\o}prid(l(rav ToiavTrjv ypacjnjv, (vravOa be ovk hv ytvoiTo 8ta
«.) 2
2 28 THE NEW PHRVNICHUS.
TO KaKOjxiTpi]Tov. AlAtof [JLU'TOL Aiojvacos ypdcjiei on Ka\ to
olaOa Kal to otcrOas a[xcf)u> 'EXkrjviKa KaOa Koi rja-Qa koI ijcrOas.
Any record of an opinion of Dionysius always merits careful
consideration, but here the ambiguity of the term 'EkX-qvLKo.
robs his words of most of their value. Hesychius^ it is
true, enfranchises ola-das: OlrrOas' olbas, e/carepcos 'AttlkQs, and
Photius does the same : Oto-Oa' avrl tov o2bas' \eyeTat Kal
Xoopls TOV a-' [X€Ta 8e tov a irore r/ 8ta jxeTpov r] 8ta to p.r}
(TvyKpovcrai avii^aiva : but Nauck is rash in the extreme to
alter olhas to olaOas in Ale. J^o. The authority of his
favourite Grammarian, George Choeroboscus, is advanced
in its favour, evprjTai be kol ix^tcl tov a- olcrOas w? TTapa Kparuo)
iv MaXOaKol^s : but dependence upon the broken reed of one
of the least talented and least critical of the old grammarians
is a weak spot in Nauck's work, and has often seriously
misguided him. There is, in fine, not one assured instance
of the form ota-das in Attic of any period. The passages
quoted by Veitch in its favour are as evidence quite
worthless.
The evidence for rjcrdas is still less, as it does not occur at
all in Greek.
On the other hand, the easy remedy which it would
apply to —
TTWj ovv ai> ivddb' i)(rd^ iv Tpota 6' afxa,
Em. Hel. 5^7.
almost justifies Nauck's introduction of the form in that
line, and, if it were once established there, his alteration of
Eur. Her. 6^ and I. T. 814 [olaOas for olcrd' h) might be
adopted at once. But the question of Comedy and Prose
is not affected by such lines of Tragedy, and the forms in
-das must be denied in both till more convincing evidence
is adduced of their existence in any species of pure Attic
writing.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 229
CXXVI.
'HKHKoecav, ererpacpeoav, enenoiMKeoav, evevoHKeaav
epelc d/XA' ou guv tco i, HKHKoeicjOv.
No error has spread so widely through the texts of Greek
authors as the late endings of the pluperfect indicative
active. The genuine inflexions of the singular are proved
not only by the evidence of verse, but also by the best
manuscripts of prose writers, to have been for the singular
-rj, -Tjs, and -et, or before a vowel -eir. The forms known to
late Greek were those which now rule in our texts, and it is
to the pestilent habit which late transcribers had of altering
texts to suit their own age that this wholesale corruption of
the manuscripts is to be ascribed. In regard to the third
person plural, however, the corruption is not so great. For
example, in Plato the lighter ending predominates in the
manuscripts, there being perhaps no example of the heavier
suffix undisputed.
Attention was first drawn to the question of the pluperfect
endings by a scholar who occupies a high place in that
remarkable company of Greek critics who in the last
century made the name of England respected for acute
and sensible scholarship. Dawes was always willing to
accept the lessons which the study of Attic Comedy
taught, and had the rare good fortune to have many
of his emendations on Aristophanes confirmed when the
Ravenna manuscript was subsequently given to the world.
The common reading in Aristophanes, Nub. 1347, was
till his time —
ojs oSros il jxj] TCO TT^TTOiOev ovK hv ?]v
ovTcoy aKoAaoToy.
Dawes showed that the pluperfect, equivalent in sense to
an imperfect, was required by the context, and altered the
230 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
unmeaning ■nknoiOi.v to '-rreiTOLOeiv, i. e. eTreiroCOetv. ' At enim
dicet non nemo,' he goes on, 'quid sibi vult prima singularis,
cum ovTos tertiam postulet ? Age igitur, attento paulisper
fac sis animo.
" Dum veteres avias tibi de pulmone revellam."
Itaque tandem dicas temporis praeteriti perfecti termina-
tionem Atticam -eiv non jam primae singularis, uti omnes
didicimus^ sed tertiae ; primae vero alteram istam -r] esse
propriam. Id quod ex poetarum Atticorum scriptis ad
examen revocatis fidenter assevero. Solutae autem orationis
scriptores nihil moror. Nam in his quidem grammaticorum
recenttorum insomnia constanter conspicienda sese exhibent.
Immo in poetis etiam non raro, sed nusquam nisi ubi veram
scripturam versus recipiat.'
Dawes' emendation ^TreiroiOeLv was afterwards confirmed
by the Ravenna. Dawes further proved that the copyists
sometimes actually changed the genuine -rj of the first
person into the late -etv, not only in violation of the laws of
metre, but with a total disregard of common sense. In "
Aristoph. Av. 511 —
tovtI tolvvv ovk jjbrj 'yw" koL bfjrd [x kXaixfBave davixa,
jySetr '-/(o was read in most manuscripts and by all editors,
till Kuster restored fjbr] from the Vatican — a reading sub-
sequently confirmed by the Ravenna. There could hardly
be more convincing proof of the futility of trusting manu-
scripts on this question. A further argument he based upon
the fact that -77 is the natural contraction from the Ionic -ea,
and -et(r) from the Ionic -ee(i'), and he demonstrated that the
genuine third-person ending -ecv was occasionally preserved
because the copyists mistook it for the first person. This
is the case in Vesp. 6;^^ —
OVK, akX' epryxas we^' ovtos pabtoys Tpvyi](T€iv'
KoAws yap fjbciv ws eyw Tavrj] KpaTidTos et/xi.
The second line might just be translated as 'me tamen noram
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 231
quid hie valerem,' instead of the true, ' Probe eniin norat me
hac arte plurimum valere.' To the same mistake is due the
preservation of the ancient form in Pax 11 82 —
7(5 h\ (titC ovk (OiviiT' ov ycLp fjbeiv k^Lwv,
and a shght alteration of ws for os enabled the transcribers
to retain -^h^w in Vesp. 558 —
OS €fx ov6' av C^vT rjbew, et fJLrj bta rrfv irporepav aTTocpev^Lv-
In fact, passages in which it was just possible to make sense
by translating the third person by the first escaped violation.
All others were altered, but altered as a rule in a way so
puerile as not to disguise the primitive reading. Two
instances of this — Nub. 1347, and Av. 511 — have already
been described as corrected by Dawes, and another, Av.
1298, was similarly emended by him —
oprv^ ^KaXdro, Kal yap fJK€Lv opTvyu
No manuscript has the genuine ijk^lv. They read ^k^v,
r]K€v, rjKev. Even the Ravenna has et/cei^, as if etKco could
represent eotKa, and (Tkcv or ifxey stand for the Ionic ewKeti/.
All the best editors have now adopted the emendation of
Dawes. Photius supports ijkclv by the testimony of some
unnamed critic. Once between ijia and rjCa-jxev occurs, ri'tKeiV
ofxoLos Tjv : and again after i]K€iv comes, "Hk^iv, to ecSKetv
iiil Tp'iTov TTpocrutTTov. ovTOis ' ApL(TTO(f)din]s. The two glosses
taken together prove the truth of the emendation of
Dawes. The v ((peXKva-TiKov after the diphthong -ei was a
constant stumblingblock to the scribes. In Aristophanes,
Plut. 696, a few manuscripts read correctly —
A. 6 6e 6ebs vp.lv ov Ttpocnj^Lv ; B. ovhiiroi'
but even the Ravenna changes -npoa-rieiv into Trpoo-Tjet y', the
ye possessing no meaning whatever.
How little faith can be put in manuscript authority in
cases of this kind is proved by nothing so much as the
232 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
mistakes made by scribes in reproducing the glosses of
ancient critics. In regard to this very question under dis-
cussion, a Greek grammarian (Bekk. Anecd. p. 422. 4) has
the excellent note : 'A-n-eppcoyey ovk uTre pprjKTai' koI aTreppwyet
Koi (Tvv T(5 V aTTeppcayeiv to rpCrov TTp6(To)TTov (quoting the end
of an iambic) —
KCLT aireppuiyeiv 6 ttovs'
but the transcribers have made him say, a-neppiayrj koX (tvv
r<5 V aireppcoyriv.
As in Aristophanes the late form of the first person led
to an elisional absurdity like fjb€i.v 'yw, so the inability of
the copyists to understand the classical fjbcLv .of the third
person occasioned an eloquent hiatus in Euripides, Ion
1 1 87—
Kovoets Tab J]o€l ev ^^poiv ^xovTi oe,
where Porson restored ?j8eiy. These two instances would in
themselves be sufficient to warrant us in affirming that the
first person'of the pluperfect active ended in Attic in -jj, and
the third before a vowel affixed v ; but even in prose good
manuscripts occasionally preserve the true forms, and there
is no lack of other evidence fully as convincing.
Thus in Homer the first person singular of the pluperfect
ended in -ea, and the third in -ee(i') or -et(i') : —
ei'0' TjToi p.\v eyw Stepo) 7ro5t (^€Vyip.ev rjp.4as
TU'wyea, toI be p-iya vr\Tnoi ovk kiiidovTO.
Od. 9. 43.
Tov 8' a\\f Tii/oSyea avTi]v ohbv rjyriaacrOai.
Id. 10. 263.
Y\(ipaiov 8e iiiv i^vcSyea Trport oXkov ayovTa.
Id. 17- 55-
avTap (TaCpovs
rpcis 6.yov olai p,(iAicrra TreiroiGea Tracrav ctt' Wvv.
Id. 4. 433.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 233
dA.A' kv TTpUlTOLCTiV 0L(0
iy.}x^vai, 6<pp' iJlSi] re Tre-iroi'Gea x^pcri T ejxycriv.
Id. 8. 180. '
o)? 6' avTu>s Kot Keu'o Ibwp iTeQ-qir^a 6v}j.(2.
Id. 6. 166!
And for the third person, those passages only being quoted
in which a vowel follows the pluperfect : —
TXri'troX^iJ.os 8' apa jxi^pov apicrrepov ey)(et p.aKp(2
PejBXriKeii', al)(^p.i] be hUcrcrvTO fxaiixuiaxra.
II. 5. 660.
Kol be ro8' r,v(I)yeiv eiire'tv erros at k edeXrjTe.
Id. 7. 394.
bel^aL 8' i]v<t)yeiv w 7Tev9ep<^ 6<pp airokoiTO.
Id. 6. 170.
arrjOoi PepXrJKetv' vTrep avrvyos, ay^odi beiprji.
Id. 14. 412.
iaTr\K€Lv cos Tts re Xeo)v irepl oTcri reKeo'O'ti'.
W. 17- 133-
cCTT^Ken'" avrou yap virripnre (f)aibLp.a yvla.
Id. 23. 691.
tZv vvv (t r\v<Lyi\.v airoTTepLTTefxev ottl Ta)(toTa.
Od. 5. 112.
€v6^ 6 SeSeiTTi'iiKcii', 6 8' eTravero ^eto? dot8o?.
Id. 17. 359.
PePXTjKen', aA.Xos 8e dvprjv TTVKivoiS apapvlav.
Id. 22. 275.
ovbe Tts dAAos
ffSecf ovre 6eS>v ovTe 6vi]T(jiiV avOpcaiTcov.
II. 18. 404.
Tr]X4p.a\os 8' 6.pa \xlv TrdXat ?/8eei' iVSoi' eovra,
Od. 27,. 29.
Now the first-person ending -ea became in Attic -r] by the
ordinary rule of contraction, just as -?;ey, which in Homer is
the nominative plural ending of substantives in -eus, became
in Attic -7]s —
(TKTiiTTovyni ftamKries' k-neaaevovTo he Xaoi.
II. 2. 86.
234 ^'^^" A'£IV FHRYA'ICHUS.
o\ 8' a\i.<\) 'ArpsLcova 8torpe(^ee? /Sao-tATje?.
I • 445-
Tre^ot 6^ iTTTTT/es re" TTokhs 8' opvixaybbs 6p(ap€U
Od. 24. 70.
Yet even here the -t/s,- is often corrupted to -ei?, as the -?j
of the pluperfect to -eiv. But the manuscripts of Thucydides,
Plato, Aristophanes, and the Orators, though often ex-
hibiting forms in -et?, yet preserve the old -f/s sufficiently
often to prove that it was the only form known to Attic of
the best age. In fact -ets is as depraved for the nominative ^
as it is for the accusative, and in the case of the accusative
the verdict of verse in favour of -ids is final.
Eustathius is very clear on the question of the Attic form
of the first person pluperfect active. His words are (1946.
22) : napahibcoa-L yap 'HpaKketbr]s ore 'ArrtKOt Tovs tolovtovs
VTTepavvTeXiKOVs iv t<2 rJTa juoVo) irepaTovaiv, 7]br] Xeyovres kol
1 ' Non funditus interiit Attica forma in Codd. nostris. Bodleianus yov^s et
PaaiX^s servavit in Sympos. p. i 78 B et id. 196 C. In libris de Rep. Parisinus A.
fol. 19 V. x<i^«^s. 58 V. /SacrtX^y, 83 r. yov^s, iio r. 5pofj.rjs, dederat, quae omnia
corrector depravavit. Intactum mansit fol. 61 v. wcrirtp ■ypa<pfjs, sed prima
manus fol. 41 v. 01 ppaipeis scripsit et 62 v. olov ol ypatpth ne unquam librariis
certa fides haberi possit.' Cobet, in Mnem. N. S. V. 19.
The rarer the noun the more likely is the old ending to be retained. Thus
in Arist. Plut. 807, all the best MSS. have dfupopTJs, and of his two Plays the
one is more commonly entitled 'Inireis, the other 'Axapvfjs.
As to the accusative, lirnms occurs six times in Aristophanes, Nub. 120, 554,
Eq. 610, Ach. 7, Lys. 676, Ran. 653. So 'Axapvtas, Ach. 177, 200, 203, 222.
But in late Middle and New Comedy, as also in Euripides, sometimes -€ay, and
even in the singular -a, but never -eis. Antiphanes, Stob. Flor. 79. 7 —
TTpos TOVS kavTov "yovias ovk 'iariv kukus.
Alexis, Athen. 11. 473 D —
tcdvOapov, KaraarpicpovTa, nXrjalov 5i Kdfifvov
arpQj^aria «a« -yvMov avTov.
On the other hand, forms like ixdvas are certainly un-Attic, and must be
replaced by Ix^v^, etc. Theocritus even uses ixdva and 6(ppva for Ix^vv and
i,<l>pvv, but Theocritus uses ldTjaai — 6\poixai, and fiaOtv/xai = fia$T]aoiJ.at !
Wecklein (^Curae Epigraphicae, pp. 19-21) states the evidence of Inscriptions.
The nom. pi. of nouns in -tvs ended invariably in -^s up to 01. 100 (376 b. c).
From that date till 01. 113 (about 325 b. c.) -ijs was still the commoner form,
but -fis had begun to be used. After 325 b. c. -«js prevailed.
According to Herwerden (Lapidum de Dialecto Attica Testimonia, p. 49),
the earliest examples of-€ts for the accusative -tas occur in Inscriptions of a
date just before the close of the fourth century b.c, 307-300.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 235
ev€VOi]Kr] Koi eTTeiiOirjKrj' kol ovtch (prjal YlavaiTios ^x^i-v ras
ypacpas irapa nXarcort, Kal QovKvbibrjs he Ke)(P'?Tat rw roLovrca
'ArrtKoj €0(1. The best manuscripts of Plato use both forms,
but the better the manuscript is acknowledged to be, the
more frequently do the forms in -ry occur in its pages.
Moreover, in a genuine form like aircaXoJXij, -eiv is often
written over the -17, as in Apol.31 D, ^6 A, etc. In Plato,
Rep. ^2i7 -^i ''"' TOVT eya> TJbrj re koI tovtois TrpovXeyov, the
fjbr] has escaped from being mistaken for the adverb.
The following passages of Photius are probably the
authoritative dicta of Aelius Dionysius: 'EcopaKTj^ to TTpdrov
TTpocroiTTov, wj i~e~6rdr] ^ kol iTTeTTOii]Krj ^ Kal ybi] ^ to fjbeLv.
YlXdTcdv rots TOLovTois xpTJTai (rxri[xaTL(TiJLol9. Again : Kal to
rjbrj o-VtI tov ijbeiv Kal to e-eTTOvOr] clvtI tov eiTeiTovdeu'.
Aristophanes uses the first person of the pluperfect five
times, and in every case except one the form in -rj has
manuscript authority: —
ore bi} K()(^i'ivri irpoaboKoiv tov Ala-yyXov.
Arist. Ach. 10.
MSS. KiXP^vr].
r\Kr]K6r] yap ois ^ \6i]va'ioi ttotc.
Vesp. 801.
Some MSS. rjKrjKoeiv. Ravenna riKrjKorj.
tovtI Toivvv ovK fjbri 'yw kt€.
Av. 511.
Some MSS. fjbeLv 'y(a. Rav. and Vat. fjbrj 'yw.
eyo) be y v\xa^ irpocrboKiocr eyprfyoprj.
Eccl. 3 J.
MSS. eyp-qyopeiv and eyp-qyopovv. Porsonus cmcndavit.
beivov jxevToL eire'novdi],
Eccl. 650.
MSS. (TTeiTovOew- Rav. and Su'idas eireTTovOrj.
Here it will be observed that, except in the case of Av. 51 1,
the metre affords no assistance. The point is proved by the
weight of the documentary evidence.
' Even here the transcribers actually write -ti for -»/ all llie four times.
236 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The metrical evidence of Tragedy is even less than that
of Comedy, there being in no tragic Poet a single instance
of the first person preceding a vowel. But the verdict of
the manuscripts is plain enough in the case of the frequently
occurring past of ot8a.
Of the two forms ?/8rj and ?/8ety the former is found in —
ov yap tC a fjbrj fx&pa (f)U)i'ri(Tovr , kitiei.
Soph. O. R. 433.
Laurentian A has ?'/8et with v written above.
rjhr} 8' oQovveK avhpa kol TrarpoKTOvov.
Id. O. C. 944.
All MSS. -phrj, although three lines infra all read ivv^bcLv
for ^vvfibr].
ijbr] KaAco? Kal a' ^ktos avXeioiv TTvXutv.
Id. Ant. 18.
Laurentian A has ybetv, but that the Scholiast read fjbr] is
plain from his gloss, avrl rod jjbea.
ot 'yw Takatva' tovt kKUV 77817 aatpes.
Id. El. 1 115.
The MSS. have 7/817, the true form being preserved by being
mistaken for the adverb.
■^877 (T a'!Toppi\}ro'uaav aTrrj-yyeXXofxriv.
Id. 1018.
Laurentian B indicates the original reading by ^8171;. Other
MSS. have -^becv.
77877 Ta8'* ovbev jxavTecos eSet (ppacrat.
Eur. Rhes. 952.
One MSS. 7/877, others 77861^.
TO 8' epyov 7/877 T7]v voaov re SucrKXca.
Id. Hipp. 434.
MSS. 77877, r/877, and rjbeLv.
On the other hand, 7/8eti' without variant is met with in
the following passages : —
rjbeiv' tL 8' ovK ip.tXkov ; ijJLCpavr] yap 'qv.
Soph. Ant. 448.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. ^^J
ojs ovK ap' rjheiv tcov IjxGjv ovbev kukoov.
Id. El. 1 185.
eyd) Qwrjoetv yvovLov ovo 0? ovk ea.
Id. O. C. 748.
TTaKat fxkv ijbeLV cr' ovra tolovtov (pvaet.
Eur. Cycl. 649.
TTapel)(^ov rjbeLV S' a/xe XPW vi-k^i^ ttoctlv.
Id. Tro. 655.
There is no question that rjbr] must be everywhere restored.
In regard to the second person, the evidence is by no
means so complete as that which establishes the true ending
of the first and third persons. As a matter of fact, however,
no evidence is required ; for if the original endings were
respectively -ea, -eas, -ff(i')' ^^^ i^ is proved that -ea became
-ry, and -e€(i')j -('■{i'), then -eas must have been represented
in Attic by -r/s\ The frequently recurring past of o2ha,
which naturally occurs more often than a true pluperfect,
is of some service in deciding the genuine ending of the
second person, although it has retained the old suffix
-da, rjbr](rOa. The mere fact of its being fjbr]a-6a, and not
rjbeLcr-6a, is good evidence for -i-js in ordinary pluperfects.
To return to the dictum of Phrynichus on the third
person plural. On that point the authority of Aristophanes
is decisive, and whenever the form with a long penultimate
syllable is encountered in Prose it should be replaced by
the lighter ending ; —
Tov UkovTov rjo-TTa^oi'TO Kal Tr\v vv)(ff oKi]v
. iyprj-yopecrav eojj buKap-^ev yp^pa.
Arist. Plut. 74,^
ol 6' aveKpoT-qaav Koi irpui e//' eKexJ/ffO"az;.
Id. liq. 648.
(KfKpayeadv re rous" irpyTdv^LS d(()Uvai.
lb. 674.
In Thucydides, 4. 27, ibeboLKea-av is supported by the manu-
scripts, as it is Xenophon, Anab. 3. 5. iS. In Auab. 4. 6.
22 (yprjyopecrav was restored by Person, and is now the
238 THE NEW PHRYXICHUS.
accepted reading for iyprjyopiia-av. The latter, from the late
present yprjyopS), is a debased aorist form and no pluperfect.
(See supra p. 200.)
The other persons had also a short penultimate, and if
Avw is taken as a typical verb, the Attic inflexions of the
pluperfect are these —
€\eX.VK.ri ik€XvK€[X€V
ek€X.VKr]s (XekvKerov ikeX-VKere
eX.eX.VKei,[v) eAeAuKerrjy iK^XvKecrav.
The plural of ?;8rj is in Attic f](Tp,ev, ■pa-re, ijaav, but in Euri-
pides, Bacch. 1345, an older form has survived —
o\lr ejxadeu i]p.as, ore ey^prjv, ovk 7/oeTe
as in Sophocles, O. R. 1232 —
AetTret p.ev ovb^ a irpoa-Qev jjbefxev ^ to p.r} oh kt€.
The line of the Lysistrata (1098) —
2) YloXvyapeihav heiva Ka '■jreTToV^ejue?,
though the words are Laconian, furnishes important con-
firmatory evidence.
In fact, it is impossible, on philological grounds, to account
for the long penultimate in Attic. By rejecting it, forms
like fftjixiv, ija-re, f]p.ev, tjre, are satisfactorily accounted for ;
and in two out of the three cases in which the plural of the
pluperfect occurs in verse, a short penultimate syllable is
demanded by the metre.
CXXVII.
punoc epeic, ou to punoc.
The masculine gender is proved by Aristophanes —
Tobs pVTTOvs avacnrda-at,
Lys. 1 200.
and read in all other passages of Attic writers. ''O pviros
* MSS. ■pSfififv. Elmsley emend.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 239
Atticum esse Aristophanis et Alexidis, Athen. 4. 161 D,
testimoniis constat, eoque genere etiam vulgo usi viden-
tur.' Lobeck.
Of much more importance than the gender of the sub-
stantiv^e is the meaning of the verb connected with it. If
pwTrrco is really akin to pv-o^, then its signification is ano-
malous in the extreme. In the lines at the beginning of the
Acharnians —
dAA' ovh(.'n(si-oT ef otov ye pv-TOjiat,
ovToiS khi^^Oriv VTTO Koi'Las ras 6(f)pvs,
(US vvv,
the sense of become dirty is as agreeable to the con-
text as zuash myself, and recalls a well-known passage of
Sterne's unholy wit ; but the meaning wash is demanded
in Aristotle, Meteor. 2. 3. 359=^22, pvirreLv to, ifxaxLa, and
Theophrastus, H. PL 9. 9. 3, rpv^ fj pvixTop-eOa. If it is said
that, as from un-Attic writers, these passages are not of
authority, and if the meaning of the word is, from the
evidently corrupt state of the text, little helped by the
lines of Antiphanes —
epx^rai,
p.f.Ttpyji.Gi' avTi], TTpoa-ipx^T, ov p-^ripx^Tai,
■tjKet, TTopecrrt, pvirTerat, Trpoa-^pyiTai,
(T/jiTjrai, KTCi'i^er', cK^efirjKe, rpt/3erat,
XovTaL, (TKOTTiiTai, (TTikkiTai, p.vpi^€Tai,
Koap-fXT , a.\€L(f)€T\ av 8' Ix?/ ''"' o-Trayx^Taf
nevertheless Plato has the adjective pvtttlkos^, in the sense
of cleansing, in Tim. d^ D, ra h\ Tovroiv re pvitTLKo. kol irav
TO TTfpt Ti}v yXwTTav aTTOTrXvvovTa kt€., just as Plutarch, in
Symp. 697 A, Kul KaraKO-vQivTos 1) T€(ppa puTrrtKtorarrjy irao-
f'xci KovLv, and Aristotle, dc Sensibus, 5. 443 "i> -nkwriKov i]
pv-TLKov eyxyixov ^rip6Ty]Tos.
If the substantive and the verb arc related, then there is
no reason why the derivation of Incus from luceo should be
treated with ridicule and contempt.
i40 THE SEW PHRYNICHUS.
CXXVIII.
'AAelv epelc, oCk ciA'eeiv, kqi nAei, ouk HAHGev,
dAoCoa, ou)(i be oAHGoOoa.
"AtSeti' re -nlvovff oxrTrepei Kayjivs yvvalK aXovaav.
At. Nub. 1358.
etra TTpos tovtolctlv ijXovv opOpiaL ra cnTia.
Pherecr. (Athen. vi. 263 B).
For the perfect and aorist passive of this verb see p. 98 ;
and for late forms similar to aXri6u> see pp. 134, 155, 157.
CXXIX.
MeGuooc dvHp ouk epeic, dAAot jh69ugtik6c* r^valKa be
epelc jue0uc)Ov Koi jueQuoHv.
Grammarians are in accord upon this point. Pollux, 6. 25,
remarks that Menander first used jxidvaos of a man : Medv-
(TTLKOS, r] yvvi] be ixidvcnq, koX jxeOva-TpLa Trapa Qeoirdixirc^ rw
Kco/^tKw. 6 yap p.l6v(ros iirl avhpSiv ^levavhpio bebocrdo). It will
be observed that there is some difference of meaning
between p-tOvaTiKos and p-iOvaos, the former denoting a
habit, the latter not necessarily so. ' The man is a drunkard,
and his wife tipples,' 6 pep avr]p p-edvcmKos ka^Tiv, rj 8e yvvr]
p.e9v(rri. The usage probably originated from some ethical
cause.
cxxx.
"H)UHv, ei KOI eupioKexai napd toIc dpxaioic, ouk
epelc, uAA' 'v erto.
That Phrynichus should allow the possibility of T]p.-r]v in
Classical Greek is even more surprising than his uncertainty
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 241
about 7JS and riaOa. In two passages of Sophocles i]}ii)v was
once read —
eyo) yap rjixrjv €KTT€TTKr}yiJL€vri (/)0/3a).
Trach. 24.
o T e\opo9 i]p.iv es Toaovo e^opavTios.
Aj. 679.
In the former i]p.r]v has been restored from a correction in the
Laurentian, and from the SchoHum, i]p.r]i>, baa-ecas, tva avvah]
T<2 — 'AAA' ocTTLS ■^jv OaKwv CLTap^i]^ Tfjs Bias, — et 8e \J/iXS)s, avrl rod
v-iipyov. The corruption arose at a date when such construc-
tions as N. T. Ep. ad Gal. i. 22 became common, tjp-qv he
ayvoovp.ei'O'S rcj Trpoacaito} rati eKKkrjcrlaLS tj/j lovbacas. In the
Ajax all the manuscripts exhibit ijpirjv as well as Sui'das sub
voc. rjiJ.y]v, but 7//XU' was restored by Bentley from Sui'das sub
voc. ar]}xa, and is now the acknowledged reading. In Eur.
Hel. 930 —
kXvovT€S, elcnbovTei, wj rex^ais 6i.G>v
u>\ovT eyw be irpoboTi'i ovk ap^ i]v c^iAcoj'"
Tjp.r]v was substituted for ap' ipj from the Etym. Magn. on
the authority of George Choeroboscus, the Grammarian,
whose vagaries it has already been necessary to reprehend.
"Ap' yv has excellent manuscript authority, and must be
retained. Considering the way in which jjp.7]v originated in
these three places, no one will hesitate unreservedly to alter
it in the two passages in which it is found in Prose. In
Lysias, 1 1 1. 16, eVot/xos ijixriv should become eVot/xo? eh]v, and
even Xenophon, Cyr. 6. 1.9, cannot have employed such a
form. It is one of those words to which false analogy gave
birth in late times, and though rjaOa itself made room for ?/s-,
it bore yni]v in time to receive its dying breath.
That Nauck should conjecture yp-yv in Eur. Tro. 474 is
another instance of his ignorance of the science of Greek
forms, and his unrca.sonable dependence on Choeroboscus,
who, if possible, is more ignorant than himself. The manu-
scripts present the passage as follows —
Z^i THE XKir rHRYNICIIUS.
Tjixiv TVpavi'OL Kda rvpavv iyiiixafjiriv,
KiivTavd^ afHCTTevorT ey€Lvdjxrji> reKva.
Now the i'lixev rvpawot is simply a corruption of?] ixtv rvpavvos,
caused by the misunderstanding of t], the genuine Attic form
of the first person singular imperfect of the substantive
verb. The Grammarian Porphyrins, in a schoHum to Od.
8. 186, which appears also in one codex in II. 5. ^^^, dis-
tinctly states that in his time rjv had completely superseded
r] : To rjV eTTi-iroAa^ei vvv, tcov 8e 'Attlkwv ol p.ev apyjiioi p.ovo-
ypapp.aTOV avrb TTpO€(f)€povTo' and again : To jxorocrvKka^ov tG>v
'Attikwi- ((ttl irapa Kpartvio h' TIvTivtj —
yvvri 8' iKclvov irpoTepov rj, vvv 8' ovKiTi'
Kol TTapa 2o0OKAei ev r?/ Nto/S?) —
?; yap (jn\ri yw rwi-'Se rov^ TrpocjiepTipov
Koi h' OtSiTToSt Tvpdvvoi —
?) SofAos ovK a)Z');ro's, aAA otKot rpa^eij*
Kal Tiapa YlXaTutvi rw cf}iXo(rd(f)(p' el p.iv yap eyw eVt h' C)vvap.€i
ri Tov pqbiuis (iropeveaOaL els to daTv) The last passage is from
Rep. 328 C. Even in the text of the scholium itself the
copyists have substituted rjv for ?] in the passages adduced
to prove the latter form.
In Soph. O. C. 973 and 1366 ?] is found in L., but in
1366 V has been added by a late hand. The -qv in Trach.
564—
(f)epcov eiT ^[JLOLS, 7]vlk i]v /xe(ra) Tro'/aw,
may, as Cobet suggests, be no more than a misreading of
7j ^v p-eaio TTo'/sw. ' In Aesch. Cho. 523 —
oib , d) TeKvov, Tiaprj yap' e/c r' oieipaTcov,
the true reading was restored by Porson from its lurking-
place — the manu.script reading Trdpeu Neither in Sophocles
nor in Aeschylus is there any line where rjv is required by
the metre, but in Euripides and Aristophanes the case is
THE NEW PHRVXICHUS. 243
different. On this point Elmsley's opinion was that r\v in
Euripides was a corruption, and in Aristophanes, as occurring
only in his last play, was to be explained as a growth, or
rather decay, of Attic. Soph. O. R. p. 12, ' r\ pro r\v, eram,
quater reposui. 'Hi^ aliquoties ante vocalem legitur apud
Euripidem, ut in Hipp. 10 12, Ale. 6^^^ I. A. 944, Ion 2cSo.
Ouamquam haec omnia corrupta esse suspicor. Sic etiani
ter Aristophanes, sed in Pluto, novissima omnium fabula,
-9; ^9% 822. Nihil tale apud Sophoclem reperitur.' As a
matter of fact, Euripides in this, as in many other cases,
allowed himself a licence of which neither Aeschylus nor
Sophocles would have availed themselves, and introduced
into the dignified company of yeydis, bafxap, re'^co, iXeuaoixai,
etc. a modern form, which even Aristophanes for long eyed
askance. That any Attic poet or prose writer ever used rjv
before a consonant is subject to grave doubt, and probably
in prose the biliteral form was unknown even before a
vowel. With regard to Aristophanes, the facts are these.
In no case is ^ required by the metre, but in many it is read
by the best manuscripts, and in others the scholia prove
that it was known in the texts to which they were appended.
The Ravenna reads rj in Plut. 77, Vesp. i09i,Eq. 1339, Lys.
645, but in Av. 1363 it has 1)1', although the Scholiast anno-
tates ^ avrl Tov Tjv 'ATrtKc3s^ On the other hand, 17^ is
demanded by the metre in PI. 29, 695, H22.
In Plato, Cratylus 396 D, the Bodleian has avvrj, but v
written at the side. This is simply an indication of what
has happened in every case. The Attic form became un-
intelligible to late Greeks, and was either changed at once
or explained in the margin, as in this passage of Plato. In
Phaed. 61 B, kuI avrbs ov< 1] jxvOoKoyiKos, even Stallbaum has
been forced to admit the genuine form.
It is worth quoting the scholium on Ar. Plut. ']'] —
Aeyfir a KpvTtTeiv »] Trap€rrKeva(T[x4vn'i;,
if only to show the strange mixture of truth and error
K 2
244 'I^^IJ- -y/-'!' PIlKVXfCHUS.
which was the learning of most of the scholars through
whose hands the present texts of Classical authors came and
suffered ; with all its absurdity, it contains an attempt to
appreciate the philological argument for ?/, which is of some
value : To ?] av^v tov v avTi rov r\\ir\v' o\ yap 'AttikoX to rjv
Kcil v-rjpyov eyw ?/ (paariv' ovtoos utto tov eljxl to vT^ap-yjjo yiveTai
6 TTapaTUTLKOs elv hia hit^Ooyyov ws koX citto tov etbripa fjbeiv Kal
biaXvcreL McoytKTj ti]s et bi.(f)66yyov ds e Kal a ypd(peTaL ea, ws' Kal
TO 7/8ea Kal to TiOelm TiOiaaiv,!] xpr\cn^ 8e Trap' '0|/.r/pw w? to —
oi) yap aixevr}vos ea'
eira KipvMVT^s to e Kal a eh ?/, ?} (fyacruf ; wj Kal ivravda koi Iv
ToU- e£j/s €Vpr]creis.
CXXXI.
"QibHKev, toKobojUHKev bia toG oo dpiGra epe?c, ctAA'
OU bid TOU 01, oibHKev, oiKobojuHKev.
A general rule must be elicited from these examples.
Manuscript authority is naturally of little value on such a
question, and is not to be regarded. On the other hand,
stone records are of signal importance, and serve to establish
on a sound footing the augmentation in imperfect, aorist,
and perfect of Attic verbs which begin in a diphthong. It
is true that they undermine any faith in manuscripts with
v^'hich the inquirer may have started ; but to the serious
scholar little is lost thereby, and with pleasure he draws his
pen through the elaborated records of what are really
manuscript corruptions.
One general principle of great importance is clearh-
demonstrated by stone records, namely, that verbs be-
ginning with diphthongs were in the best age of Attic
subject to the same laws of augmentation as verbs be-
ginning with a simple vowel. Thus, i]vpL(TKov, r]vpov, -qvp-qKa,
THE XEW PHRYNICHUS. 245
y]V)(6\x.ii]v , ijvyjxai. f]Ka(ov, ijKacra, must be restored to the
Tragic poets, to the writers of the Old and Early Middle
Comedy, to Thucydides, Plato, Antiphon, Andocides,
Lysias, Isocrates, and Isaeus ; but for Dinarchus, Ae-
schines, and Demosthenes, there is no rule possible. It
is true that, up to the archonship of Euclides, the letter E
represented the two sounds of ?; and e, and accordingly till
that date the augmentation is not visible ; but the inscrip-
tions written in the enlarged alphabet prove that, till the
middle of the fourth century B. C, ev- by augmentation
became r]v-, and d- became ?)-, and by parallelism o.v- and
ot- would become y]v- and w- respectively.
This rule, however, is subject to one limitation, which
must not be disregarded. It is true in regard to ev- and ol-
only when these syllables immediately precede a consonant;
when they are followed by a vowel, that vowel and not the
initial diphthong receives the augment. Thus, r]vbaifjL6vovv,
r]vboKLfxovv, rjvbo^ovv, r]vddp(rovv, y]v6vjxovv, r]vka^ov}x-i]v, r\vvo-
fxovfxr]v, rjvpLa-Kov, -qvcri^ovv, r]V(f)paLvov, rjvxoixrjv, etc., but
€vriyye\i(6fxriv, evrjpyeTovi', evu)hb)6-)]v, evcopKOVv. When the
vowel succeeding the ei»- is already long by nature, the
verb has no augment, evdixdrovv, evrjdt^ofxriv, evruxepovv,
evcDXV^W' Similarly with ot-, ioh](ra, (okclovv, (Skovv, (^kl(ov,
(aKO0op.OVV, WKOVpOVV, WKTeipOV, (O/XCO^Oy, UlVapt^OV, (JdCTTpOVV,
h)y6p.r]v, but oloiTToXovv, while oiu>vi^oixriv, oidKL^ov, olcovo-
(TKo-ovv, remain unaugmented. Accordingly, Dindorf is
wrong in reading r/vco^rjjoieVo? in Aristophanes (Lys. 1224,
Vesp. 1305), and Porson in changing oidKO(rTp6(f)ovv (Aesch.
Pers. y6y) to MaKoaTp6<l)ovv.
CXXXII.
'/Xxi'-iTMTO \pfe Kai /UH HviCTaro.
The form iji'ia-Tam is due to the principle which in
246 77/ A" A'A"//' rjiRWYfcinrs.
pp. cSi ff. has been proved to have been active even in
Attic of the best days.
CXXXIII.
Bpoojuoc ndvu e^HTHiai, ei \^h Aepeiv eni thc buooi-
biac. jiiexpi t>uv eupioKeiai eni buooabiac dxapiv oojuhv Aepe
o)cnep 01 Kcojuojbonoioi"
In our existing texts PpG>\xos certainly does not occur till
late. When necessary, 6(rixri was defined by an adjective,
generally KaXi] or kok?/. •
CXXXIV.
'HpoKAea, TTepiKAea, OejuioroKAea eneKjeivoov thv e^xd-
THV Aere, dAAd juh 'HpaKAnv Kai HepiKAHV Kai Oejuia-
tokAhv.
'Nominum in -kA^? genitivus in -Kkiov et accusativus in
-kXtiv maxime recens est, nee fortasse ante 01. 123 referen-
dus.' Wecklein, Cur. Epigr. p. 23.
cxxxv.
'Avefprev h Gupa goAoikiojuoc. xP^'' rop Aereiv dvewKxai.
CXXXVI.
AiecpGopoc aljua- tojv djuaGoiv rivec laxpoov Aerouciv ourco,
ooAoiKi^ovTec, beov Aereiv biecpGapjuevov aljua. to pop bie-
q)Gop6, bie9Geip6v.
In the manuscripts the second of these articles follows
that on UpoOvTov (138 infr.).
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 247
Veitch makes a signal mistake in quoting az'ewyet as
a pluperfect active from Pherecrates. That writer used
Arecoye, the only form of the imperfect known to Attic
(see p. 85 supra). For the perfect and pluperfect a.vi(ayji.
and T/t'e^x^ were alone used.
In the intransitive sense, here reprehended by Phry-
nichus, Veitch quotes the word from Hippocr. 7. 558 (Lit.) ;
Aristaen. 2. 22 ; Plut. Mor. 693; Luc. Gall. 30, D. Mort. 4. 1 ;
Herodn. 4. 2. 7 ; Polyaen. 2. 28, adding the sentence, 'which
earlier Attic (sic) writers seem to have avoided, and used
drewy/iai instead : Dinarchus, the Orator, is said in Cramer's
Anecd. i. 52 to have been the only exception.' The writers
first named are not generally regarded as Attic, and even
Dinarchus could hardly have employed avii^^ya intransitively,
although his Attic was far from pure.
Besides ayewyoVes 6^Qa\\i.ol in Gall. 30, and tov (jKa<\>ihlov
a av€(oy6Ta in D. Mort. 4. i, Lucian also used dyewyi;
Ta
ta
-noKaicTTpa in Navig. 4, although in De Soloecismo, 8, he ridi-
cules this departure from the rules of Attic.
In De Soloec. 3 it is doubtful whether or not Lucian is of
malice prepense using bU(j)6opa as a neuter ; but in Plutarch,
Josephus, Heliodorus, and other late writers, it has always
that sense. If cfypevas rjXeos did not occur in other passages
of Homer, as —
Me'iTop arapTrjpe, (ppevas 17A.ee, ttoTov eetTres,
Od. 2. 243.
it would be tempting to separate the two words in —
fxaivoixeve, (})pevas 7/Ae', hLe(j)Oopas' 7] vv tol avrojs
ovar aKovejxev ((tti, voos 6' aTroAcoXe koI atScuy,
11. 15. 128. •
but there can be no question that the perfect is there
neuter, as also in Hippocr. de Morb. Mul. 2. 23, alp.a 8te</;-
dopo^, and id. 2. 5) yvvaLKt hi€(j)Oopvir]-
In Attic, however, bUrfyOopa had the same signification as
\
248 THE NEW PHRYXICHUS.
hd(.\>QapKa — the latter occurring in Plato, Apol. y^ C, Legg.
61^ B ; Lysias, 93. 15 ; Aeschin. 22. 38 ; Demosth. 1109 21 ;
Eur. Med. 226 ; the former in Soph. El. 306 ; Eur. Hipp.
1014, I. T. 719, Med. 349 ; Cratin. 2. 226 ; Pherecr. 2. 327 ;
Aristoph. 2. 1149, 1173, etc.
CXXXVII.
Oi Hpooc ou Aerousiv, aAA' 01 Hpooec TpiauAAdB6:)C eni hk
THC aiTiaTiKHC, biGuAAdpooc Touc Hpo3C. anaH piaseeic
'ApioTOcpdvHc uno tou Merpou 01 Hpwc ^m^. xto b' HvafKao-
jLievw ou xpHGreov.
The passage of Aristophanes is probably that referred to
by Choeroboscus (Bekk. An. 3. 1197). who quotes from
Herodian a remark similar to this of Phrynichus : Y^vpr\Tai
Kara Kpacnv irapa ' Api.(rTO(f)dv€i iu "Opvicriv, olov —
ol yap ijpcos eyyvi datv,
avrl Tov ol ijpoies. No such words occur in the Birds, and
"WpaxTiv has been proposed for "OpvLcnv.
On the other hand, there is no question that Aristophanes
never used rjpoov for rjpcoa, and the Scholiast on II. 13. 428
must be in error : "Hpoov Twes 'ArrtKws —
AAA.' eh ijpcov tl TTaprnxaproi',
'Api(TTO(^avTf]s. The Attic form was f/pco. The dative singular
was in Attic ?/pw, not ripon, Plato, Com. (Ath. 10. 442 A)—
^po) Ke'ATjn hipp.a koI OvX/jixara.
In the Agamemnon, 1. 516, Aeschylus employed ijpays as
accusative plural —
ijpctis re Tov)> 7Tep.\(/ai)Tai, evfxevds ttolXiv.
THE XEW PHRYXICHUS. 249
CXXXVIII.
'lepoSuTOV ouK epeic, dAA' dpxaicoc GeoGurov.
In the App. Soph. p. 42, Phrynichus has the words,
QioQvTa (a 01 ttoAAoi X^poQvra koKoxxji) KparTi/os to. toIs Oeol'i
Ovojjieva Upela. The defaulting term is encountered in —
aTTOKeKXrjKafJiei' bioyevels 6eovs
jxrjKeTL Ti]v ejxijv hianepav ttoKlv,
p.rjhi TLV lep66vTov ava bdirebov av '4tl
Trjbe fipoT&v OeolcTL ire/XTretr Kairvov.
Ar. Av. 1263.
The lines are burlesque, but even so UpoOvrov must go with
Kairvov, and not with hamhov, the smoke of victims sacrificed.
All Phrynichus reprehends is the use of UpoOvros for
OeoOvToS' A late writer said lepd or Upda UpoOvra, whereas
the Classical expression was Upa or Upeta deoOvra, sacrifices
offered to god.
CXXXIX.
'AvaTOi)(€?v )LiH Aere dAAd biaroixeiv.
'Convenit Poll. I. 114. In App. p. 34, Phrynichus idem
sed paulo copiosius dixit : hiaroiyjCw t6 els tov erepov Toi)(ov
TT/s z/ews hia^aiv^iv iv tm ttAw oirep oi tStwrat avrtTOL^e'Lv
\iyovmi'. Sed ciyrtrotxeti^ veriorem esse scripturam exempla
docent quorum pracsidio dyrtrotxfti' caret. Ouamquam
autcm ncutrum horum verborum, de quibus nostro loco
disquiritur crcbro usu tritum est, tamen, quid vcteres pro-
baverint, non obscurum esse potest. Antiatt. Bckk. p. Hy,
bi,aToi\(lv dvTt TOV a.vaToi)(€iv KvfiovXos KaraKoWoiixiVio. Aristid.
Leuctr. iv. 462 I. I. : Kal \xi]. to tQv TrXeovTMV, ix€Ta(TTpi\jfaL ■npo'i
Toy (KaTTO), ^laroixouvray dci'.' Lobeck.
350 THE XEW PHRYNICHUS.
CXL.
"HvuoTpov Aere, juh evusxpov.
'Eyoj hi y rjvvarTpov [Boos koL KoiXiav veiav.
At. Eq 356.
Koi •^^oKlkos rivvcTTpov re kol yacTTpos Top-ov.
Id. 1 1 79.
CXLL
'EaAuxviov' KGi TOUTO Toov eiGKO)juaod VTCov xaic 'Abhvqic.
QpuaAAiba ouv pHxeov.
A second article to the same effect — ekXvxi'i-ov 'HpoboTos
K€)(pr]TaL, 'AdrjvoLOL 8e OpvaXXiba Xiyovaiv — appeared near the
end of the codex used by Nunez, and is also read in the
margin near the end of the first Laurentian munuscript in
still another form — kXXvyvLov irapa 'Hpo8or&), ol be 'A^iyyaiot
6pvaX\iba. The word entered the Common dialect from
the Ionic, as it is found in Hdt. 2. 62 ; Hippocr. de Nat.
Mul. p. 569. 55, de Morb. Mul. 2. 670. 43.
CXLII.
OuLieAHV TOUTO 01 JU6V dp)(aioi dvTi ToG euGiav eTiGeoav
01 be vuv eni tou Tonou ev toj Oedrpw 69 ou auAHTai kol
KiGaptoboi KQi otAAoi Tivec droovi^ovTai. ou juevTOi, ev0a juev
Kcojuqjboi Koi Tparojboi droovi^ovTai, Aoreiov epelc. evea be
01 auAHTQi Kal 01 Xopoi> opXHSTpav Kai juh OujueAHv.
' Qvfxikr] pro orchestra apud veteres non memini me legere
praeter quod Pratinas, Athen. 14. 617 C, Aiovva-Laba ttoXv-
TTCLTaya 6vp.i\av in hunc sensum dixisse videtur. Saepius
apud rcccntiores pro scaena et re scaenica atque musica
THE NEW PHRYXICHUS. 251
occurrit, ut Plut. Mor. p. 405 D, -r^v h\ rrjs YlvOCas (ficovijv
KOL bidKeKTov torrTrep ex dvfxekrjs ovk avr]hvvTOv ovhe. Xlttjv aAA'
(I- /J-eVpw Kal oyKo) . . . (pdeyyofxevi]v : Lucian. de Salt. 76 (309),
6771 Tov —a)(^ios he Kal TnfxeXovs dp)(7jcrrou Trrjbav [leyaXa Tretpo)-
jjAvov, AeSfxeOa, e^aaav, Tre^eladai tt/s dvixi\r]s.' Lobeck. He
also cites from Procopius, tcov tis h- OvixiKij TreTTopvevixivcov =
miina ; from Plutarch, pit/^ot? yvvai.^1 Kal KLOapca-ral^ Kal
6v[X€\lkoIs avOpoo-oLs : from Eunapius, 6 KaKobaiixoiv tmv dvpe-
X5)v ■)(6po's-=-histrioncs ; from Josephus, rol'i Iv Tr\ p.ova-LKf]
bLayop-h-oLS, roi? Kal dvpeXiKols Ka\ovp.h'ois : so that there
was good reason for the caution of Phrynichus.
The word was. in fact, not Attic at all, being confined to
Tragedy : Aesch. Supp. 669 ; Eur. Supp. 64, Rhes. 235.
Its employment in the sense of f/ie sacred cake is at best
only doubtful, being dependent upon Hesychius : Qvp.i\ac
o\ ,3ojpol Kal TO, a\c})LTa to. eiTLdvopeva : and App. Soph. 42.
25 : Qvp.ikr]' 'i>epeKpaTr]s to. 6vXr}p.aTa, a~€p ecrrty aX(}^i.Ta otrw
Kal i\ai(i) p.ep.ayp€va, ovto) KaXel OvpAXi].
CXLIII.
Oueiav Aere, juh I'r^iv.
Pollux, 10. T03, Ti]v b\ Oveiav Kal dveibiov (Xttols av Kara
^ ApL(TTO(f)avriv ev YIXovtco kiyovra' Kal lybiv 8e avTi]v K€Kki]Kaai,
So'Aoji' T€ €v TOLS iap.[3ois Kiyoiv —
(TTTevbovm ^ 0' 01 p.\v tyotr, ot 6e crtA^iof,
ot 6 o^o<}
Kal (TL (Ta(l)i(TT(pov ' Ai'Ti(f)avris Kopo~kdO(o —
yvvai, TTpos avXuv yXOes, op)(r/rrei TtdKiv
Ti]v lyhiv'
' Adopting Casaubon's conjecture for the unintelligible vtvaiZ'.
252 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
errri fxev ovv lyhis 6pyJ](T€(jc>s a-)(ri\xa' 6 h : iraiCoov irpos Tovvojxa
Tijv dvelav ayvo^li •
tovt'ctlv ■)] ty8ts
Phr)Miichus is here reprehending tovs vjepaTTiKi^ovTas.
The old word tybis meant a mortar, and in that sense
appears in Ionic, Hipp. 6'^^. 34, Tpi/Se Iv lybeL ' : and in
old Attic, as in the passage of Solon cited. In Attic proper,
however, it was replaced by dveia, but retained, as the name
of a certain dance, in which a pestle-like motion was con-
veyed to the loins : Etym. Mag. p. 464. 49, ea-n 6e koL
(Ihos dp-)(j'](T(.(i>s lyhitTixa, ev 1) tkvyi^ov T-r]v 6(Tcf)vv (jx(f)€p(Jos rw
boibvKL.
Unlike many other such terms, lybts did not find its way
into the Common dialect in the sense of dveia, as is demon-
strated by a passage of Sextus Empiricus, adv. Gram. p.
265, TO avTo apT0(f)6pL0v Kol Tiavapiop Aeyerat, Ka\ TiaXiv to
avTo aTapiVLOv Kal apLLbiov, Koi tybis koI dvta. a\ka (rT0)(^aC6pi€V0t
Tov KaXS>s e^QVTos /cat cra^ws koX tov p.i] eTnyeXao-dijvaL vtto twv
biaKOVovvToov rjpuv iraibapioiv kuI IbiooTwv, iravapiov ipovp-ev kol
el j3dpj3apdv iaTip, ak)C ovk a.pTO(popiba, koI aTapivCov, a\X.' ovk
cifiiba, Koi dviav ixaXXov rj lybiv.
CXLIV.
'Igtoov/ Acre, dAAot juh loreoiv. ajuapxHoei rap to) Aerovri
6juoio:)C KaAajit603v, inneoov, dvbpeobv, beov KoAajuoov, innojv,
Koi rd oMOia.
The longer forms came into the Common dialect from
the Ionic. Of this class Lobeck mentions avbpwv, ywaLKcov,
Tiapdevuiv, ^ev(jiv, [xvXcav, Koirpcov, LTnrwv, oh-cov, ttlOcov. The
exceptions to the rule of contraction are interesting.
' Corrige pro MS iySri.
THE XEW PHRYXICHUS. 253
Nothing fixes the form of a word so effectually as attach-
ment to the soil, and in this way the old Ionic forms
Keyxpecov and ^oXewy remained unchanged through all
Attic, the former a locative from Keyxpos, a grain, being
at an early date attached to the place where the grains of
metal from the mines at Laurium were purified, the latter
signifying the public dust-heap of the city. Both are ex-
plained by Harpocration : Keyxpewi'- Arj/xoo-^eV?]? Iv rfj -npos
WavTaivtTOV TTapaypa(j)f] , " KairetT eTretcre rous oUiTai rovs ej^ovs
KaOeC^crdaL eh rov /ceyxpewra," avrl tov eh to Kadapi<JTr]pLov, oirov
Tijv iK Tcav iieTakXoiV Keyxpov hU\j/vxov ws v-oa-rjixaivei 0eo-
(f)pacrTO'i ev tw -nepl p-eToKXcav : BoAewt'es' 6 tottos ottou t] Koirpo'i
ftaWerai fiokeoDV KaAetrat. NtKarSpo?, h y' 'ArrtK?/? btaXeKTov:
" BoAe<Syas eirl twv aypS>v eh ovs ra KOirpia eKcpepec." ovtm Aet-
vapxos Ka\ ftt\?//jia)r /cat aXKou The former word is better
explained in the Aefet? 'PriTopLKai, p. 271. 23: KeyxP^''^''"
TOTTOS 'A6rivi](riv ovtco Kakovixevos, ottov eKadaipero 1) apyvplTi'i
Keyxpos KoX ajJ-pLOs rj airo tu>v apyvpeioov ai'a(f)epoiJ.evii. The
same explanation serves for irepia-repeMv, which occurs four
times in a well-known passage of the Theaetetus, 197 C, D,
198 B, 200 B. The dove-cote was a familiar appendage of
the Greek household, and at Athens retained the old form of
its name when words less domesticated underwent change.
CXLV.
AutquAhc /jh Aere, aAAa \|/tA6c auAHT^'lc tnei Kai
eiepoc kukAioc auAHTHC.
This use of \//tAo'i,- is common in Plato, Legg. 2. 669 D,
biamroxTLV ot TTotr/rat pvOjxov p.h-> Kul axvi-'-aTa jj-eKovi x^^P^'''
koyovs \//iAoyy eh- /xeVpa TiOevTe'i, p.eko'i 8' av KoX fwdpov uvev
l'iy]lj.uTon', ^jnkfj KiOapiaei re aal avkyaeL 7r/)0(TX/5w^ei'ot. Cp.
Symp. 21.-, C, r(;lit 26H B.
254 'J^^F- .YJCJJ- PHRYNICHUS.
CXLVI.
KaTanpotSeiai ouk opOooc biaipouoi, beov KaxanpoiSerai.
Ov rot KaraTTpoL^ei, fj.a rbv 'AttoAAo), tovto bpoiv.
Ar. Vesp. 1366.
ov roL, ixa toj 6e(o, KarairpoL^eL Mvprias.
Id. 1396.
The word is used also in Ar. Nub. 1240, Eq. 435, Thesm.
566 ; Herod. 3. 36, KpotVo) /y.h' cruz'rySeo-^at, l^rj, TTfpieovTt,
(Keti'ovs fxei'TOL ravi TrepnTOirja-avTas ov KaTcnrpoi^ecrOaL : id.
156, ov yap 8?/ e/xe ye (S8e Xocil3r](Tap.evos KaTaTrpot^eTat. This
isolated future, always so used with a preceding negative,
and in Attic Greek never found outside of Comedy, is an
excellent type of the class of words mentioned on p. 10.
To those there given may be added aXcf)dveiv in the sense
of tvpicTK^iv, fetch a price (cp. Horn, -uapQivoi a\({)ecrLJ3oiaL),
Bekk. Anecd. 382. 8 : 'AA<^a2;et" evpia-Kei. ^ Apt,(TTo<f)dvris 0e-
aixo(f)opLaCov(raLS —
ot/xot KaKohaip.o}V rrjs t66^ i]p.ipas ore
elTT€v ju.' o KTjpv^, ovTO'i dX(pdvei.
KviroXis Ta^LctpxoLS —
ov OoLTTov avTr]v hevpo poL twv to^otQv
aycov aTTOKTjpv^ei rts o, rt av dX(f)dvi].
CXLVII.
Ai VH6C epeTc, ou)( ai vauc. ooAoikov rap. Hjuctprov juevxot
4^apcapTvoc, TToAejufj^v, Kai ZuAAac, ai vauc einovxec* xdc
vhiac OUK epeTc, aAAd xdc vauc, AoAAiavoc b' 6 00910XHC
QKOuaac napd xivoc, ori ov ypn a\ vauc Aerciv, aAAd ai
vHcc, o;HeH belv Aeretv Kai xhv aixiaxiKHV ojuoicoc xdc vhoc.
OUK exti hk 0UX03C- dAA" eni juev xhc euOeiac biouAAdpooc,
eni he xhc aixiaxiKHC juovOGuAAdpooc.
THE NEW PHRVXICHUS. i^r^
CXLVIII.
KvHjuiba, nivQKiba, Kapiba" Ppa^eooc toutoov thv na-
pareAeuTOv. thv juevroi pacpaviba €kt6ivou3i kqi GusxeA-
Aouaiv.
The passage is either corrupt or contains an erroneous
statement.
CXLIX.
Kaov djuneAouc cpaei, dAAd juA KAabeueiv.
The editions have K\ahav instead of kXilv, both here and
in Thorn. Mag. ^^S ; but it is very probable that Hem-
sterhuys was right in supposing Kkabav to be an early cor-
ruption of the text of Phrynichus, ignorantly reproduced
by Thomas. Moeris escaped unaltered, p. 229 : KAao-at
Wttlkol, KXaheva-at "E\\r}ves. Hesychius : Kkav t4jxv€IV aixiri-
AOVS OTTfp fjixds Kkab(V€iV.
6K irvKtvys 8' vXi]s irTopOov Kkdae x^ipl Tra-x^euj.
Horn. Od. 6. 128.
Theophr. C. PI. 3. 14. i, rutv 8' aixirikon' twv rekicov yh]
'jTpQtTov p.ev Koi p-iyicTTov lariv 1) Kkdcris'- id. 3. 14. 2, Kard rrjif
Kkd<TLv Kal dix-ekovpyiav. Hesychius has the two glosses —
KKaaTi]pL0V hpi-navov to rJ/s dp-mkov.
KAaoTTjs'" dp-ekovpyos.
CL.
rToAiTHc Aere, dAAd juh oujunoAiTHC,
To words like TroAtVr;?, which imply fellowship, no Attic
writer added (tvv. He left that emphatic weakness to poets
2-fi THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
and his negligent successors. In late Greek it is the rule to
prefix the preposition in such cases, o-v/x-n-arptwrr]?, a-vixcpv-
Aer?/j, (n)r8)]/jto'r?;?, (JvvaK6\ov9o9, avrlTatpo^, (TvyKacrLyvqTos,
avi'OjxaiijLcoi'. But to words like arparriyos, xoprjyos, '!T\av)]Tr]9,
etc. it was natural and necessary to prefix the a-vv in order
to convey the sense of partnership. Euripides, I. T. 800,
h^s (TvyKacnyvi]Tr}, and if Antiatt. 113. 20 is right in attri-
buting (TVjjLiraTpLuiTrjs to the Comic poet Archippus, the
word must have occurred outside the iambics, or in para-
tragedy: ^Vp.TTaTpL(0Trjs"ApXI.7nT0S. TO p.eVTOL 1TaTpL(0Tr]i,''Ak€^Li.
CLI.
TuAhv, 61 KOI eupoic nou, ou Kve9aAov Aere.
Pollux, 7. 191, ' T7re/5et8)/s be h' rw vnep MvkciXov ((pi] efxi-
CT9ajo-aTO TuXu4>di'Tas. So^okAt/s 8' e(/)rj XifoppacfiT) ruXeia. Kv-
ttoXls he KoAa£t KeKpu(})aXoi re Kal tuXtj. ' AvTLCpdvrjs be iv
^uiovL, (np^iiara, KXtVas, TuXas : id. lO. 39, to. fxev ovv Tvkela
Kal TO. Kve(f)a\a ov jxoi'ov irapa rol'i Kw/xwSot? ea-rw, aWa koL ev
ArnuoTTpd-TOts ireTrparat, Kvi(f)akov Kaivov Kal KvecpaXov naXaiov.
Kal Tvke'ia be Trap' EvirokLbi ecrTiv laCovTt ev Tois KoAa^i, Kal
Tiapa rw 'S,o<pOKke'L ev t<2 'loxAei XeyovTt dXXa Kal Xi>'oppa<j)T]
TuXeia. u)V Kal Tovi rexviras eoiKev 'TTiepeibr]s ev rco vitep
MD/cdAon 6vop.a^eLV elrioiv, eixccrdcocraTo TyXvc^avTas . . . ev be
TO) AvTifpavovs 'l^acovL Kal Kara ti^v koivi]V \pr\(Tiv eariv evpelv
xds TuXas, axpajfAara, KXims, oocmep Kal napa ^aircpol.
From the words EviroXtbi ld(ovTL, and Kal ev A)]juio7rparot?,
the history of the word is plain. An old Ionic domestic
term, it fought hard for life, and was probably in daily use
in the households of Athens, as it was retained in public
auctions, and in the Tragic dialect. Hence it naturally
cropped up from time to time even in Prose and Comedy.
The other meaning, knoi, Jntmp, remained good Attic. It
is interesting to compare the Latin torus, which has the
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 257
same two meanings, appearing in that of Tv\y] — Tv\€\.ov,
chiefly, if not only, in poetry, and in the other being
common in prose. This marked similarity of signification,
the identity of quantity in the v and 0, and the existence of
a side form n;Ao?, which at first had doubtless no difference
of meaning, all point to the fact that rv\y\ and torus sprang
from the same root.
CLII.
To pdniGjua ouk ev XRHoei' XP^ °^^ """V KaeapaJ. to
rap THv rvdOov nAareia th X^^P' hAhSqIj eni KoppHC naid-
Sai 'AGHvaloi 9aGiv.
Phrynichus here finds fault with two late usages, the
employment of paTTicrixa, and of TrATJ^at as the aorist of
Tvirro). No Attic writer ever used irkij^ai, or any other
form but TTard^ai, as the aorist equivalent of rvTrretv, in the
phrase (ttI Kopp-q^ tvttt€iv : Dem. 562. 9, Tavpiav firdTa^c
Xop'riyovvTa ctti Kopp-q^. No Attic rule is so carefully observed
as this. By an unfortunate accident the Attic equivalents
of the English term strike were for centuries sadly mis-
represented. The verb rvVroj was selected by unscientific
grammarians of the Byzantine school to convey their own
crude notions of the Greek verb system. A more unsuitable
choice of a typical verb it was impossible to make. It is in
all dialects markedly irregular, in no dialect more irregular
than in Attic. A very large portion of the forms, which
till recently every Greek grammar presented, are not met
with in any Greek dialect of the Classical period. A search
throughout Greek literature as a whole for forms like rtVi;</>a
and TiTvira would end in disappointment, and the words
Tv\l/o), eTV(l)Ot]v, TV(t)Oi'i(ToixaL are quite without Classical
authority. When such tenses were required they were
supplied in a different way. Yet tvitto) has become an
S
2S'l^ , T//E NEir rJ/K\\\ICJIUS.
institution, and even in an English dictionary place might
reasonably be given to the Shandean hybrid ruTrrcoing.
It is almost reprehensible to destroy such a time-honoured
structure, and root up so many fond associations, and it will
readily be believed that the following pages were penned in
a turbulence of spirit almost equal to Luther's when he nailed
his articles on the church door at Wittenberg. Attention
must be drawn at starting to a just distinction between two
significations of the present rv-nrco, namely, / wound and
/ beat. In both senses — in that of ferio, or TrXriyrjv bibcoixi,
no less than in that of verbero., -nXi^yas 8t8co//t — the present
TVTTTo), with its passive Tvirroixai, was in general use ; but
Tv-nrco was more common in the sense of TrArjya? kjx(iaXX(a,
and TVTTToixai, though occurring in the nobler sense, was still
principally employed as a synonym of T:\r\yas XaixjBdvu}, or
vapiilo. The verb -n-atco was similarly used, and in reference
to present time ri^Trroo, Tratco, TrXrjyas e///3dAAco, Tvirroixai,
TratojLiat, -nXriyas XaixjiavM may be regarded as absolutely
interchangeable in Classical authors. But the correspond-
ence did not continue throughout the tenses. In the
future there was complete divergence — fxiya )(^a(Tixa iarripLKTo.
Tv-TO), feno, had its future Trard^co, whereas tvtttm, verbero,
made a future Tvirrrjaoj by extending its own stem from
TVTTT to TVTTT€ '. The aoHsts were equally divergent. For
fern, viilnus inject. Classical writers employed l-naTa^a, and
in elevated styles occasionally t-naida. On the other hand,
eiraTa^a was almost unknown in the humbler sense of
verberavi. The aorist was supplied by a periphrasis like
TiX-qyas hifiaXov, evireiva, or herpLxj/a, but Xenophon is not
to be imitated in his use of eiraia-a in this signification.
The perfect of both was drawn from a third stem still,
and if TrAryyas Seoco/ceWt was the ordinary equivalent of
' Compare xo'P'*'. XO'/"7'^w : ^aio;, wai^aoj : icXa'tw, icKairjffu : PaWw, ^a\-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 259
cecidisse or verberibiis contudisse, yet Tre-TrAjjye'fat had cer-
tainly the baser as well as the nobler meaning —
OS av ■n€irki']yrj tov -naripa veoTTOs wv'
Arist. Av. 1350.
Xen. Anab. 6. i. 5, 6 ^repos tov erepov Tratet ws ttcktiv eSoxet
TTeirXriyevaL tov avhpa.
In the passive voice the presents ruirTopiai and iraLoixai.
were used in all authors in either signification^ but the
periphrases irk-qyas dKr](^ivai and irXriyas Xa(idv were the
equivalents of vapitlasse in its perfect and aorist force.
There was no single word to express it. Aristophanes,
however, in Nub. 1379,
dAA.' avOis av TVT7T/](T0ixaL^,
makes TvirTrjo-oixat as authoritative as T:\-qyh9 kr}^o}iai.
The perfect of TvitToixai, fcrioi\ was T:iT:\y]yp.ai, but the
periphrastic iTX-)]y7]v d\7](f)a and Trkj^yijv e'xo) were sometimes
employed. For futures the aorist eirkijyrjv, itself Classical,
supplied TTkrjyrja-oiJ.aL, and the perfect formed -n^-nXri^op.ai.
These results may be thus presented synoptically : —
Verbero.
TVTiTOi, ■naiui, -nXriyai kp.ftaX\u>, h-TeCvM, IvTpljioi, blhMp.i.
TVTrTrjda}.
TiXriyas iv(j3aXov (€7rat(ra).
TrA^jyas' bebojKa, •nlirXtiya.
Ferio.
TV-THi, iraio}, vXqy'iiV 6t0a>//l.
77aT(i£oj, Ttaicru).
tTrdrafa, iiraKTa.
7re77Ar;ya.
' The reading rvTrrjaofiat, found in some texts, is merely a coiijecluie of
lUittmann's, as baseless as it is uncilled for.
26o THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Vapulo.
rvVro/xat, -naio^ai, TrXrjyas \afXJ3av(o.
ri;7rr7]o-ojaai, 7rAr;yas \i]ylroiiai.
TT\r]yas skajSov.
7rA.Tjya? eXX-i^fpa.
Ferior.
T-VTrro/xai, 7rArjy7';r A.a/^/3ara).
e7rA7/yrjj;.
77ATjy75(roju,at.
Tre-TrArjy/xat, Trkrjyi^v dkri^a, -nk^y^v ex^.
7re7rA^£o/xat.
The habit of Aristophanes in regard to these words is
representative of all Attic writers.
In the sense of verbero, caedo occur rvTrrets, Nub. 1325,
1332; TT^Tirei, Nub. 542, 1326; TT^-n-r?/, Nub. 494, Eccl. 643;
TV-nTQi, Eccl. 638 ; rwTrrois, Ran. 585 ; rvrae. Ran. 622, Nub.
1433, Av. 1364; rvTire^w, Nub. 442, 1333, 1413' ^447 ;
ryTTTOiz^ etc., Ran. 624, Av. 1327, Lys. 357, Eccl. 664;
irvTiTov, Nub. 1332 ; eTvirres, Nub. 1409 ; eTv-nTere, Pax 643.
Special attention may be called to Eccl. 642 —
TOTe 8' avTols ovk e/x6A ovbev
Twv akkoTpLodv oarris tvtttoC vvv 8' r\v -nk-qyivTos CLKOva-r}.
ixii avTov eKeu-ov tvttttj 8e8tcb? rots hpOxriv tovto {xax^'iTaf
and to Vesp. 1322 —
TVTTTcav airavras, i]v rt? airw <JVVTV)(ri.
obi be KavTos (rif)akk6p.evos TTpocripxeTai,
akX! (.KTiobuiv ttTret/xt -nplv irk-qyas kajieiv.
The future TvirTrjo-M occurs Nub. 1444 and Plut. 20.
Of passive forms are found the following — Tv-nTop-ai, Eq.
2.j7, 266, 730, Nub. 1379; TVTTTet, Ran. 6^6; tvtttov, Ran.
1024; Tv-To^evos etc., Nub. 962, Av. 103], Thesm. 917,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 261
Ran. 1097, 639, 1407, Nub. 962, Pax 744; Itvut6\i^]v,
Plut. 1015.
The future and aorist of TvnTai, ferio, are found, Trardfco in
Ran. 645, 647; eTrdra^a, in Eq. 1130, Ran. 645, 647;
eTrdra^e, Ran. 38; Trard^at, Ran. 741, Vesp. 1254, 1422;
TTard^a?, in Av. 757 —
et yap evOab^ icrrlv alcr^^jyov rov irarepa tv-T€lv voixco,
TOVT e/cet KaXbv Trap" riplv icmv 7]V rts t(2 Trarpl
TTpoa-bpafxciiv (t~rj Trard^as, atpe TrXrJKTpov ei p.ax^ei.
In this passage, as in Ran. 150, 547, Lys. 362, 635, it is
used of striking one in the face, and in Ach. 93 of striking
in the eye so as to gouge it out.
In Ran, 54 it has a metaphorical meaning —
Ti]v Kaphiav (Trdra^e, ttSis oUl (r(f)6bpa ;
The present TraCco is found in Ach. 686, Av. 497 ; iiaUiv
in Pax 899 ; and naiova-a in Eccl. 542 : all rather in the
nobler sense, as the aorist eiraio-a in Nub. 549, but -naiovcri,
in Ran. 1094, in the meaner. It is extremely frequent in
the second person singular imperative irau, as in a line from
the 'Samians' of Crates quoted by Athcnaeus (3. 117 B) —
■naC (Kelvov, dy\ eKelvov' iv Keo) rts i]p.ipa ; ^
In this way it occurs about a dozen times in Aristophanes
alone, Nub. 1508, Eq. 247, 251, Ach. 282, Vesp. 398, 456,
458, Pax 1119, Av. 365. In several of these places it is
repeated more than once and generally in a storm of Comic
heroics.
The use of TtiTrXriypai in Ran. 12 14, Ach. 121 8, Eq. 271,
' 'El' Kf<^ T4S Tjfj.fpa; is thus explained by Ilesychius, inl tuiv ovk tiiyi'uj-
mwv. ov5(U -yap ulSfv iv Kiqi rii -ff -fj/j-ipa, on oi/x karaaiv al fifxipai, uA\' u/s
inaaroi OiXovaiv dyovrnv. It was a sort of slany phrase, like ' What time of
day is it?' 'What o'clock is it?' 'Does your mother know you are out?*
but seems to have been often used to fini-ih off a riddle or guess, in a sense like
'There's a nut for you to crack;' 'Guess me what's that.' It is probably so
used here, for the four lines preceding that rjuoted are almost unintelligible.
262 THE NEW FHRYNICHUS.
Av. 1299, Thesm. 179; €TT\/]yi]v, Ran. 1048; Trk-qyds, Vesp.
399, Pax 613, Av. 1492, Thesm. 694, will be seen to cor-
respond with the paradigm on p. 260 ; but Eccl. 642, quoted
on the same page, proves distinctly that k-nX-qyrjv was some-
times employed in the baser sense of vapulavi^ or TrArjyas
(Xa^ov. The latter phrase is itself used in Ran. 673, 747,
Vesp. 1325 ; -nX-qyas ^X^'^ '^^ Nub. 1425 ; and -n-Arjyas Xrjyf/oixai
in Pax 493, and Eccl. 324.
The habit of one Attic writer in regard to these words
has been thus carefully analysed that he might serve as a
mirror of all, but the following quotations will show still
more clearly how these tenses, simple, composite, and derived
from different roots dovetail into one another as consistently
as (})ep(o, ot(T(o, 7/reyKa, and h7]voxO; or as the Latin fero,
tuli, latum, ferre.
Lysias, 94. 9 and 17, Trard^as Kara^aXXu) . . . irXrjyeh Kare-
Trecrev : id. 102. 12, koI iroTepov irpoTepos kirXriyTqv tj CTrara^a
eKeivrj jxaXXov av fjbeiv : id. 136. 23, 6 piev Qpa(rvj3ovXos tvtttci, tov
i>pvvLxov Kol Kara/3dAAet Trara^as, 6 be 'ATroAAoScopo? ovx rj^^aTO.
Antiphon, 127, tvtttclv ras irX-qyas . . . 6 p,€V Trard^as Koi jxr}
aTTOKTeivas rrjs -nXriyrj^ fSovXevT-qs iyivero, 6 be 6ava(riixoos tvtttoov
TOV Oavdrov . . . ea-ri, be rj fxev aTvyJia tov Tiard^avTos, rj Se
(Tvp.(f)opd TOV -nadovTos.
Thuc. 8. 92, 6 ^pvvi\os irXriyeh dniOavev 7rapaxprj[xa kol
6 TTttTd^as bLe(f)vyev.
Demosthenes, 572 ^^- ctkvtos eyj^v knofxTTeve, koX tovtio
p.eOv(ov (iraTa^e Tiva l^Ppov VTrdpxovO' avra' eboKet yap vjSpet
Kal OVK OXVU) TVTTT€LV KTe, l id. 525, 526, TOlf 0e(T[xo6eTr]v OS
evayyos eirXriyri . . . 6 tov 6e(Tp.odi.Ti]v Trara'^as : id. 1 264 fin.
rw -naTa^avTi TvnTeiv TiapeKeXevaraTO.
Plato, Hipp. Maj. 292 B, ?) ovk evbiKos vplv r] ttoXis ka-Tiv,
dXX' ea dbUuiS rvnTeiv dXX-qXovs tovs TToXtrai ; 212. ovb' ottco-
(TTiovv ea. in. ovKovv bdxrei bUrfv dbcKcas ye ere tv7tt(i)v . . .
212. OVKOVV d-TTCt) (TOL Kttl fj avTos olop.ai biKa'ms av rv-nTeaOai,
TavTa d7TOKpiv6p.evos ] t] koX av /xe dKpiTov TviTTrjaeLs. . . . etVe
THE NEW PHRYXICHUS. 263
\ioi, (Pi](Tei, u) ScoKpares', otet av abiKcas irkriyas Aa/Seiy ; id.
Legg. 8 79 D, Tov TVTTTeiv be elpyeadco Iva iroppoi yiyvr]Tai tov
Tov eTTi\(opLOv av Tokp.rjaai ttot€ Trara^at . . . rvTTTetv . . . iraTci^ri.
Xen. Cyr. I. 3. ly, iwl ixtq iroTe hCK-i] irXriyas eXa^ov w? ovk.
opdcos StKOcra? . . . ev ToiJTca av p.e ^iratcrev 6 hiKaa-Kakos : id.
Rep. Lac. 6. 2, -tiv hi n? irals Trore TrXrjyas \a(3(s)v vii akkov
KaTeiirri irpos tov rrarepa, alaxpov ecrrt p.i] ovk. akkas irkriyas ep-
jSakkeiv rw vui.
Dem. 1 261, TTokkaKii ~epl kraipa's Kal elkrjcpevai, Kot 8e8co-
Kivau Tikriyds.
No Attic writer employs the forms Tv\lfci}, erv^a, TeTvcfya,
TtTvira, rirvp-p-aL, iTV(f)6r]v, irvrr-qv, TV<p9i]<TopLaL, Tv-r\(Top.aL, TeTV-
\\ro\xai, or krvTiTriara. rerviTTriKa, TeTVTTTJ]paL, (TviTTijdriv. Un-
known to Attic, in fact almost unknown to Greek, are the
forms TTardcrcra), t: eTidr ay jxai, k~aTd\driv, TraTaydi](Top.ai, and
TreiraiKa, ■ni-naicrp.ai, eTTai<r9r]v, Ttai(TOr](ropat. In no Attic
author is there a single trace of -nkria-a-cji or 7rA?/rra>, irkyf^u),
t~krj^a, 7re7rA7j)(a, TikriTTopiai, l~kTri^dp.r]v.
The Ionic dialect supplies the words eTv\j/a, T^TvppiaL,
irvTTr^v, (Tv\{/dp.riv, and -krjcrcroi), 7Tki]^(o, eirkri^a, iTrkrj^dp.7]v.
These were naturally used in Tragedy as belonging to the
early stage of Attic, and in Aeschylus occurs an additional
form not otherwise found —
Ka/jiol TTpo(T€(rTr] Kaphias Kkvhi^viov
Xokrji, kitaia-Oriv 6' ws biavraiia /3e'Aet.
Cho. 184.
A. Traicr^els eTraicray.
I. (TV ^Oaves KaTaKTav(i>v.
Sept. 961.
As Cobct justly observes, the latter line would in Attic
Prose or Comedy assume the form ■nki]y(.\<i i-ndra^ar a-h
h( y aTTiOavfs diroKTelvas.
I'Lven in Ionic the simple TraTda-a-co was irregular. It had
the meaning of Trdkknixai, f^alpito, but (^cndTn^a, iKircnaTay-
264 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
jxat, and ^^^-naTayOriv were used in the sense of i^iirX-q^a,
€KTii-n\r\yixaL, and i^^TLvd^6i]v.
In Nub. 1 125 and Lys, 459 the future forms ■nairia-ofji.ev
and iraijja-eTe are met with. The analogy of KAaa/o-o) and
l3a\Xi](rco makes it probable that Tratr/o-co was a word re-
cognized in Attic Greek.
The middle of tvtttco was not an Attic form. Xenophon
has the middle of naico in Cyr. 7. 3. 6, k-naia-aTo tov fxripov,
' Smote his own thigh.' There was no middle to Trarci^co,
(TTCLTa^a, and 7rA?;fo/xat and iTrXrj^diJLrjv were confined to Ionic.
In Ionic too TVTrTOjxai was employed in the sense of bewail,
for which the Attic term was Ko-nToixai, Plato, Rep. 605 D,
619 C, Phaed. 60 A ; Ar. Lys. 396 —
17 8' VTTOTTeiTOOKvV }] yvv7] cTTt TOV riyovs
The interest of so striking an example of the delicacy and
precision of the Athenian mind in its best days has too
long diverted the attention from the principal point dis-
cussed by Phrynichus. The justice of his dictum as to
pa-nia-ixa cannot be questioned. It is true that Antiphanes
(Ath. 14. 623 F) used the word —
Tivdis, fx^ToKXa^aaa X^VKavyrj <pv(nv
crapKos TTvpcoTo'is apdpaKMV pa-nicrpi.acnv
^dvOaicriv avpats aMp-a irav ayakXerat.'
but the lines are para-tragoedic and suggest that the word
might have been used in Tragedy — a fancy which receives
valuable support from the fact that the verb paTn'Cw was
used by Xenophanes (ap. Diog. Laert. 8. 36) and Hipponax
(Tzetz. Hist. 5. 746) and occurs in Herodotus. In 7. ^^,
and 223 it has the sense of lash ; in the former, of the
lashing of the Hellespont by the order of Xerxes, in the
latter of the Persian custom of encouraging troops by the
lash. It is encountered in two other passages of Classical
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 265
Greek. According to Athenaeus (13. 571 A) Timocles
wrote the lines —
ayuiviaa-ai /cat paTTta-dijvat re /cat
Trkrjyas )^a[3e'LV airaXalcn y^ep(riv, i]hv ye'
but the context, if consulted, will show that the meaning
oi pa-ni^eiv there is very far different from that of em Koppi]^
TVTTTeLv. The place of Demosthenes (787. 23) in which it
does bear its late meaning belongs to a speech which on
good grounds is considered spurious. In another passage
(537 extr.) the true term is employed and its meaning
clearly marked by the context, i-rrl Kopprjs TvirTeiv being
distinguished from Kovbvkois rvTrreiv : Ovhe to TvirTeadaL Toli
fXevOepois iarl 8eii'oV, Kaiirep ov h€.iv6v, akXa to 60' vjBpet.
TtoXXa yap av iroirja-a^v 6 totttmi' S>v 6 TTaOibv evLa ov8' av airay-
yeiAat bvvatd' ere'po), rw (7;(?//xart, rw l3k4[j.p.aTL, Trj (pojin], otuv
b)s vj3pCC(^v, orav wy e)(^Opbs VTtcipyjMv, oTav Kovbvkois, oTav e77t
Kopprjs.
CLIII.
TTapovic TO 6\\rov, ou)(i be to drre^ov touto he TpupAiov
H AeKclpiov KaAoOoiv.
Phrynichus also insists upon this point in App. Soph.
60. 3, and Moeris, p. 297, is no less strict ; but Athenaeus
(9. 367 D) quotes from Antiphanes a line in which the
word has the signification common in late Greek and
seen in N. T. Matth. 23. 25, to t^coOev tov TroT-qpiov Kal tt/s
7tapo\l/Lhos, and in Juvenal, 3. 142 —
' Quam multa magnaque paropside coenat.'
But this line —
KoAeiras' re "napaTiOijaiv ev TTapoxj/idi,
is the only one of all the passages quoted by him in which
266 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
TTapoyf/Ls has necessarily the meaning of a vessel. In some
of the others, as in Sotades —
irapoxj/ls eu'ai (f)aLvoixaL T<a Kpa)/3i;A<i)'
TOVTOV [lacraTai TrapaKarea-dUi 8' e/xe,
the word is certainly employed in its true sense, while in
others its reference is doubtful. The English word disk
has the same ambiguity of meaning.
CLIV.
KpoGcai THv Gupdv, i'gooc juev nou napapepidarai h
XpHOiC djueivov be to Konreiv thv eupav.
Phrynichus is much too fine here. Not only was Kpoveiv
Ti]v dvpav in constant use, but both Oevo) and apuTTco — words
in other respects little used, survived in this connection as
is proved by Aristophanes (see pp. 6, lo).
The phrase Ko-rtTeiv ti]v Ovpav occurs in Ar. PI. 1097,
Eccl. 976, Ran. 460, Nub. 133, Ach. 403, cp. Nub. 1144,
Av. ^6 ; Andoc. 6. 2.9 ; Lys. Fr. 45. 4 ; Dem. 1 156. 1 8 ; Xen.
Hell. 5. 4. 7, Anab. 7. i. 15.
Whereas Kpoveiv ti]v dvpav is employed in Ar. Eccl. 316,
990 ; Plato, Prot. 310 A, 314 D, Symp. 212 C; Xen.
Symp. I. II.
This forms an excellent illustration of the lines on which
Phrynichus worked. Like all true scholars, he disregarded
exceptions, and considered the knowledge of anomalies not
science but pedantry. Till the rules are known — and every
usage which is true in three cases out of four should be
elevated into a rule — no attempt need be made to elucidate
departures from them.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. z6'!
CLV.
'EvHAaia kAivhc h oKijunoboc ou xpH Aefeiv tov
'AiTiKi^ovTa ciAAd KpaoTHpia.
Euripides thrice uses the word kvi]\aTov, in Phoen. 1179
and Supp. 729, of the rungs of a ladder —
KkiixaKos a\i€ift(X)V ^^(tt evrikdrcav (Badpa'
and —
OS ey re ro'i'i heivolcrip icTLV akKLfJiOS
fxia-el d' vj3pL(rTi]v Xaov, o? TTpaacraiv KaXcos
(is OLKpa j3rjvaL KAt/xa/ccoi; ivTi]\aTa
^r\T5>v aTTutkecr oXjSov w -y^prjo-dai iraprjv'
and in Hipp. 1235, of Hnch-pins {to. Ip.^akk6p.tva -pbs rw
a^ovL wore jut) enteral tov rpoyov, Schol.) —
Tpo\SiV €TT/]b(ov a^6v(ov T kvi]kaTa,
According to Pollux (10. 34), Sophocles had the word
in the sense which Phrynichus reprehends : 'Lo^okXtjs 8' ey
^\\ViVTa.ls ^arvpOLS etpr] — 'Eyj/Aara ^vXa Tpiyofxipa btaTopevcraL
8etrai, but the words are too corrupt to convey any mean-
ing. On the other hand, Kpa<xTi]pia is not met with else-
where, although Hcsychius has the gloss : Kpar-qpCaL' tu>v
evqAaTojv al K€(j)aXaX kuI (Tvp.j3o\al kol aKpa. The question
must be left unsettled.
CLVI.
KAipavoc ouK €p€?c, oiAAd Kpipavoc bid tou p.
Athcnacus, 3. no C, has the instructive remark, Olba 8^
5tl^ AttikoI jxiv oi« TOU p fTToi^etou \^yov<Tt KOI Kp'iftavov KoX Kpi-
ftaviTj^v ']]p(')f)OTos 0' (V CxvT^pa rutv la-ropioiv €(/»? " K\iftav(D hta-
268 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
(pavel,^' Kol 6 "Ecacfypcov 8e e^r; "ti? crTaiTLTas rj KXLJSavCras, r/ju,taprta
TreVo-et ;" which indicates from what sources the KXLl3avos of
the Common dialect came, and makes it probable that the
form with A is correctly read in the lines of Aeschylus
quoted by Ath. 9. 375 E —
eyo) be \oipov koX \xa\ €v9r}Xovp.evov
TOi'b' Iv poOovvTi KXt/Bai'fa) Orja-U). tl yap
oxj/ov yivoiT av avhpX Tovhe fSeXrepov ;
In parody, choric songs, and some other metres, KkijSavos
was probably employed even in Comedy; a consideration
which may give a value to such remarks as that of the
Antiatticista, p. 103. 3 : KkilSaviTrjs apros' 'Ap,€r^[as 'Attokot-
TajiiCova-iv. To this article some sciolist has appended the
words, 8ta to ti]v TrpooTi-jv Tpo(f)i]v tS)v avdpcoTTcov Kpi6i]v eXvai.
They cannot be by Phrynichus.
CLVII.
Kuvibiov here. Oeonojunoc be 6 Koojutuboc dnaS nou
Kuvdpiov einev.
CLVIII.
AiOdpiov ndvu 9uAdTT0u Aereiv, AiBibiov be.
The manuscripts assign to the second of these articles a
place near the end of the book.
' Hie ut renunciemus Phrynicho cogit nos Plato. Nam
Kvvdpiov usurpat bis in Euthydemo 298, cui Xenophontem,
Theophrastum, Lucianum, aliosque permultos addunt.
Neque perstitit in sententia Phrynichus; nam in App.
Soph. p. 49, KvvdpLov Kal Kvvihiov hoKip-a : illud ex Alcaeo
Comico afifert Antiatt. p. 104. De multis aliis hujus
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 269
generis diminutivis inter ipsos Atticistas controversia fuisse
videtur. Phrynicbus, App. Soph. p. 49, YJ^ivapia, ov ^6vov
Kkivihia, ' ApLaT0(pavr]9 (Poll. 10. 32}. Idem, p. 43, 'Ittttl-
biov, ov jioi'ov iTnTaptov,
'Alterum XiOapiov, Thomae improbatum, nullum auctorem
habct Theophrasto antiquiorem (H. PI. 3. 7. 5) quern sc-
quuntur Philostratus, Alexander Trallianus, Dioscorides,
Geoponica, Xidihiov Plato, Lucianus, Themistius. Lexicis
deest \i6iov Paus. 2. 25. 8.' Lobeck.
CLIX.
'Ebebieaav koi toGto thc AoAAiavoO juoughc cu be Aere
TeTpaouAAdpooc aveu tou e, ebebisav.
Such forms as bebCaixev, bebCare, ibebUaav are as corrupt
as biboanev for biboixev, or biboare for blbore. The record of
Comedy in regard to the legitimate forms of this present
perfect is as follows : —
biboiKU, Ach. 370, Eq. 28, 112, 395, Nub. 493, 508, 1133,
Vcsp. 427, 630, Pax 173, Lys. 620, (Ran. 1260), Eccl.
338, 585, 870, 1063, Plut. 199, Fr. ap. Photium Twr rpiMv.
biboiKas, Vesp. 628, 629, Thesm. 202, 1186.
biboLKe(v),'Vesp. 1358, Fr. Babyl. ttjv avrov (tklciv btboLKiv :
Alexis, ap. Athen. 6. 240 C.
bibia, 6c8tas, bibu never occur, except bebuv in a Frag-
ment of Amphis (Ath. 10. 448 A) —
Ota TO AeTTTois" Kol ttvkv&s
irdvT e^era^'eti' bibuv €77t to. Trpdyixara
opfxav TTpox^iipois.
Thc plural forms arc unfortunately rare : beboUare oc-
curs in Eccl. 181, but bebCatriv in luj. 224, 11 13,
Thc only form of thc past encountered in Comedy is
ibehoiKrj^ in Plut. 684.
Of imperative forms ot'oiOi occurs in Eq. 230, Vesp. 373.
270 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The participle is 8e8ot/<aji,^ in Pax 606 ; Alexis (Athen. 6.
226 A) ; Antiphanes (Athen. 4. 156 C) ; Anaxandrides
(Athen. 15. 688 B).
But Se8tws in Eccl. 643, Plut. 448 ; i;7ro8e8i(t)?, Av. 65.
AeStoVa occurs in a corrupt line of Xenarchus (Ath. 13.
569 A)—
while 5e8tma is quoted from Eubulus by Antiatt. p. 90. i.
AfbotKhai may be found in Plut. 354, Nub. 1461, Vesp.
109, whereas SeSteVai is not met with in Comedy till
Menander's time, ap. Stob. Flor. y^. 43, ap id. 32. 2.
This record demonstrates the inaccuracy of Dindorfs
statement in Steph. Thes. 2. 936 : ' In Prosa Atticorum
vix credam reperiri oebia, beboUafxev, behoUao-Lv, 8eSot/ceVat,
sed dici beboLKa (Thuc. i. 81, 6. 38), blbtixev, bebCaaiv, bs-
bUvai, alia autem promiscue usurpari ut ebeboUeaav (Thuc.
4. 27), et ebebia-av.' The facts seem to be that the sin-
gular of both present and past tenses was preferentially
formed from the longer stem, but the plural from the
shorter; in the participle both forms were in use, while
in the infinitive both bebUvai and bebocK^vai ; in the impera-
tive certainly only bibtdi, 8e8tVa), etc. were legitimate.
The subjunctive 8eStco is well-established by bebirj in
Xenoph. Rep. Ath. i. 1 1, 8e8tcoo-t Isocr. freq., but the optative
depends upon one passage of Plato. In Phaedr. 251 A the
books have kuI d ju?/ bebidrj Tr]v rrjs (r(p6bpa jxavias bo^av Ovol
av m ayaXjiaTL koX ^ew rots 7rat8tKots, and even that instance
is destroyed by Cobet : ' Prudenter Buttmannus judicat
de Platonis loco in Phaedro, p. 251 A, ubi ridiculam for-'
mam et prorsus barbaram SeStet?/ Bekkerus recepit. Sen-
tentia loci postulat d jxi] ecjio^dro (non (f)ol3oLTo), itaque
scribendum est : d ^7/ ebebUi ti]v t?is a-cfiobpa fxavCas bo^av
dvoL av KT€.' Certainly, the substitution of the irregular for
the regular conditional sentence does in this case emend
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 271
the passage. The narrative both before and after refers
to present time, and the meaning required for the sentence
in dispute is, Jic is afraid of being thought mad or he ivould
sacrifice.
CLX.
Oueeic bid ToO 9" ei kqI Xpuoinnoc Kai 01 djLtcp auTov
ouToo AerouGi, Gu be dnorpenou Aereiv. oi rdp dpxaioi bid
Tou b AerouGiv.
The corruption had its beginning long before the time of
Chrysippus. Wecklein (Cur. Epigraph, p. 30) shows that
in the archonship of Nausinicus B.C. 37^-7, ^iry^eri occurs
twice in one inscription, and that after that date the spel-
ling with the aspirate gradually made its way : ' Ex titulo
a Rang. II. 381 edito, 01. 100. 3 exarato, in quo bis
scribitur jx-qOevi, discimus jam 01. 100. 3 scripturam ovO^is,
fxrjdets in usu fuisse. Tab- Nav. I. a (01. 101. 4) ovOu',
(lb. III. et XI. rursus ovbiv legitur), etc'
As Herwerden thinks, (Test. Lapid. p. 61) such a usage
can hardly have been found in writers anterior to Aris-
totle.
Wecklein cites the disjoined form /ir;8e eh from an in-
scription earlier than Euclides : 'Rang. I. 271 (ante Eu-
clid.) ixrjhe h-t; C. I. 73 b (C. 01. H4) oibe h'U. M. H. E.
Meier. Com. ep. 2 (post 01. 114) t^-q^e eh.
'Ovbe eh, /ji»joe eh {ovbeeh, /X7)8eeis) frequentat Aris-
tophanes (cf. Ran. 927, Lys. 1044, Plut. 37, 138, 11 if,,
1182). A Tragicorum usu ovhe eh (nullo vocabulo inter-
posito ut ot^o' liv eh, Soph. Trach. 1072) abhorret. Soph.
Fragm. y^^, Oi>r]Ttjiv 0' ovbeh, non Ov-qrcav 8' ovhe eh ha-
betur.'
Herwerden appends several points of great interest :
'Unum tamcn addere juvat idque valde memorabilc ; si-
quidem unicuni, ni fallor, e.vcmphim est hndic foniiac
2 72 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ajj-ov separatim positae in sermone Attica. Videlicet in
tit. II. 1 1 exarato inter 01. 96. 3 et 98. 3 legitur /xrj8e
ojuou pro iJ.r}baiJiov. Praeterea notatu dignum videtur in
antiquioribus certe titulis paene constanter (si non prorsus
constantcr, quam in rem diligentius inquirere nunc non
vacat) scribi, ovbe irpos €va, ixijbe irpos 'iva, ovbe v<p' h'os pro
Trpos ovbeva {[jL-qbeva.), v-n ovbei'bs ([xribevos] similia.'
CLXI.
AdrvHc bid ToC H, dAAd juh Adrvoc.
Pollux recognizes both forms^ 6. 188^ 6 jjiaivofjievos k-n*
acPpobio-ia kdyvijs av koX Xdyvos prjOeiT], whereas Photius sup-
ports Phrynichus : Adyv-qs ov Xdyvos vtto to)v ^Attlk&v Xiy^rai,
TOiavTa p.ivTOi 770AA' dvayKaiojs ex^'
Ttaa^av OTav kdyvrjv tov 6<pdakpibv ^oprjs*
rj be dvoXoyia, ot/xai, Ka\ Xdyvrjra, ws Kpdrrjra koI M.dyvr]Ta.
Lobeck compares aSoAeVxr??, which gradually gave way
to aSoAerrxos : ' Sed a8oAe(r)(o? jam in Aristotelis scriptis
hie ibi emicat, et paucis saeculis post ita divulgatum est
ut V. c. Plutarchus in commentatione irepl dbok^irxias sexies
aboXeaxTjs, dboXeaxos autem plus quam vicies usurpaverit,
neque Pollux 6. 119 unum prae altero probasse videtur . . .
Etiam (f)iXoyvvr]9 a nonnullis magis probatum est quam
(jaXoyvvos, conjicere licet ex Antiatticista Bekk. p. 115,
<pLX6yvvos, ov [lovov (^iXoyvvqs, cp. Piers, ad Moer. p. 391,
quorum secundum probat Pollux 2.46, vicissim yvvaiKocfytXyis
improbans 6. 168. Idem 2. 47 seq. dyvvr]s, ixLo-oyvvrjr 'Apto--
TOipdvrjs dyvvov tov dyvvr]v' ^pvvixps he dyvvaiKos.^ Lobeck.
CLXII.
Aarojc, 6 'Attikoc, bid toO 0. 6 "loov Aaroc.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 273
The Attic form came from the Homeric Aaycoos —
apira^oov i] apv aixaki^v 1) TTT&Ka Xayodov.
II. 22. 310.
The Ionic Kayos may well have been used by Sophocles ;
Ath. 9« 400 D : AiyovcTL 8e Kot 'AttlkoI \ayos w? 6 ^0(f)0KkTJs —
y^pavoi, KopS)vai, yXavKes, IktIvol, Xayoi'
but only in Tragedy could that form appear in Attic.
CLXIII.
Aipavov Aere to bevbpov, to be eujuioojiievov AipavooTov ei
KQl bldt THV nOlHTlKHV AlpQVOV KQl TOUTO Z09OKAHC Aefei.
djueivov be Mevavbpoc ev th Sajuia (pHoi'
9epe THV AipavooTov, gu b' eniOec to nOp, TpucpH,
' Ammonium (p. 88) quam Phrynichum hie sequi maluit
Thomas p. 577 qui, ut kifiavos pariter de arbore quam de
lacrima dicatur, concedit, kijiavoiTov nisi de thure dici vetat;
cui Theophrastum opponunt Ki^avcarov etiam de arbore
dicentem. Sed neque is magnam in hac re auctoritatem
habet, neque multum valet ad sententiam Phrynichi oppug-
nandam, si Eurip. Bacch. 144, Anaxandrid. comicus Athcn.
4. 131 D, atque recentiores Diod. Sic. 3. 41, Herodian 4. 8,
Galen. Thcriac. ad Pamph. p. 964, B. T. 13, aliique, thus,
quod Aristophanes et Plato ktftavodTov dicere solent, arboris
nomine vocavcrunt. De singulis locis nemo praestet, quum
saepe codices inter sc dissentiant, Herodo. 4. 75, Joseph.
Antiq. 3. 6. i;^6, sed liberiorem fuisse hujus vocis usum vel
ex eo colligi licet, quod similiter x^^^^^l ^^ supellectilc
testudinca {rpUXiva xikdivr]^ Philo de Vit. Contcmpl.) et
aapoca pro sardonyche Philostr. Imag. et \xiki(Taa pro mellc
usurpatur Soph. O. C. 481, ut notiora practeream.' Lobeck.
274 i'HE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CLXIV.
TAv AijLiov AoopieTc, ou be dpGeviK(2)C tov Aifiov cpdGi.
' Femininum genus recte dorlensi dialecto adscribi patet
ex eo quod Aristophanes Megarensem hoc genere utentem
facit quodque Spartae in Apolhnis templo At/xo's erat ICa
ypa<\,r]S aTiO\ie\xi\i.y]\).ivos l^oiv yvvaLKOs [xopcpriv, Athen. lO.
452 B.' Lobeck.
CLXV.
'EAouomhv, eAouou, eAouexo, Aouojuai, Aouerai, eAouoMeQa,
eAouovTO, AoueoBaf ndvia oGxco AeroMeva dboKi^a. El be
boKijua pouAei avia noiHsai to e kqi ro o drpaipei kqi Aere
Aouoeat Kai AoujLtai, Aoujai, eAoujuHV, eAouTO, -eAou/ieea,
eAoOvTO' ouToo fdp 01 dp)(moi AerouGiv.
There is only one verb in -o'co which has its first person
singular present indicative active disyllabic. Xoco, heap tip,
contracts according to the same rule as its polysyllabic
fellows, x.<2, xoi<i, yol, yovrov, x.ov\hev, xovre., yov(n{y). Im-
perfect, l^ovv, ^x^vs, e'xou, ix^vrov, ix^vT7]v, exovi^ev, ex^vre,
exovv. Subjunctive, X"', X^^*^^' ^^c. Optative, x^h^, X^^V^,
etc. Imperative, xoS- Participle, x''^^- Infinitive, xow-
Passive, x^^'l^-^'-> ^X^^l^^^) X^^^^^'-' ctc^
But in some of its forms Xovoo, bathe, ivash, behaves as if
its first person was Kom. It is in fact a mixed form,
following both the contracted and the uncontracted con-
jugation. Those persons in which the ending is preceded
by a short connecting vowel, e or 0, are supplied as if from
' Thuc, 2. 102, TTpoaxoi-. Hdt. I. i6i, xf"" : Plat. Legg. 95S E, xou", where
the late form x'«'»"'i"'a' actually occurs in some MSS. Thuc. 2. 75, ex"*"' b'^-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 275
Aoco, and contract the o of the stem with the connecting
vowel. The other persons are formed from Xovfn, which by
some grammarians has been regarded as itself contracted
from Aoeco, an extended form of A.0C0.
The modification Xoo^ is encountered in Homer in the
imperfect —
Is p ' o.(ja\xivQov taaaa \6 ', ck TptVoSos /xeyaAoto,
Od. 10. 361.
and in the middle in —
ovb" is (3a\av€L0v ?]A.^e Aoucrojuei'os* (rv 8e
SxTTi^p TeOrecoTos KaraXod jjlov tov (Btov.
Arist. Nub. 838.
In the latter case, however^ all the manuscripts read /cara-
Xovei,- and possibly Bekker ought to have left that form
alone, as it is quite possible to consider the diphthong short,
like the ol in ttolQ and tolovtos. Now, although ttow oc-
casionally occurs in inscriptions, TrotdJ is the regular form,
and has been retained in verse even when a short penult is
demanded by the metre. The fact is, both ttokS and Xovoj
were in Attic pronounced in such a way (see p. 11 3) that there
was no difficulty in giving them either an iambic or spondaic
value. Other diphthongs were similarly affected according
to their position in a word. Thus, ^eta^to (from delos), but
iTTtOeaCei. ^ in a line of Pherecrates quoted by Su'idas :
'Aparat . . . ev)(^eTaL t) KaraparaL. 4'epe(cpdrr/s —
V(TT€pov aparai KuTnOed^ei rw ~aTpL
Similarly, Odci, fumigate, from Qdov, brimstone, but -n-ept-
^cao-circocrar in Mcnander —
Kttl TTfpLOeojadTOiaav dirb Kpovvcov TpiSiV.
' In Aesch. Cho, 856 —
Ztv, Z(v, Ti X(f<u, it60(v ap^aifxai
rdb' infvxofiivr] KuniOfd^ova' ;
and Eur. Med. 1409 —
Opjjvijj KaniOfa^a/
fiapTVpuy-tvoi Saiixouai.
In both cases the MSS. have iirtOod^ai.
T 2
^76 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
It is the same tendency which gives 'ApeoTrayir/j? and
'ApeoTraytriKos' from "Apetos Trdyos, and reXeco? and rek^ovv
from re'Aetoj.
But whether Karakovei or KaraXoei is written in Aristo-
phanes, the general rule remains unaltered, that Xovui
supplies those forms in which the ending is not preceded
by a short connecting vowel, and Aow those in which it is.
The testimony of Phrynlchus is very distinct (cp. Eustath.
Od. 1560. 28 : Xovixevo^' ovtm yap oVAttikol, ov ixrjv Xovop-evos ;
Photius, XovadaL Xiyovaiv, ovyl Xovea-Oai), and it is more
than borne out by the test of metre —
eiT avTov aiT^AOv KaKaoaip ov piaXa.
Arist. Vesp. 119.
iir^LT ikovp,€V. B, vrj At", evbatpuyv ap' ijv.
Plut. 6=7.
orav biapidpicav apyvpihiov TV)(ri
avdpoiiTOS ovTos 1) KaOrJTat Xovp.evo^.
Av. 1622.
Tijs yvvaLKos \ovpJvr]s.
Pax 1 139.
avrjp yepoyv \}rvxpa, OaXdrTrj Xovp.€i'os.
Plut. 658.
ocrrts (7f 6epp.(o (pyjcrt XovcrOai irpoiTov ovk iacrdv.
Nub. 1044.
aXXd TTCLVTas XPV TrapaXovaOat /cat tovs (nroyyovs iav.
Id. 'Anagyrus.'
Aristophon, ' The Pythagorist ' (Athen. 6. 338 C) —
vb(tip 8e TTLV€LV, fSarpax^os' diroXavGraL 6vp.(av
Xayjavoiv re, Kap-irr]' irpos to p-i] XovcrOaL, pintos.
Antiphanes, ' Malthace' (Clem. Alex.) —
(rp.TJTai, KT€ViCeT, eK^€J3riKe, Tpi^^Tai,
Xovrai, aKOTrdrai, crTiXXeTai, p-vpiCeTat.
Pherecrates, 'The Oven or Wake' (Pollux, 10. 181) —
ijbri p.ev (iav Xov\xiim -npo^wvvvTaL.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 277
Menander, ' Anger '^ (Athen. 4. 166 A) —
Ephippus (Athen. 2. 48 B) —
0)? eyo) (TKipro) TraAat
OTTOU poSoTTroa crrpw/xar' eort Kal ixvpoLS
XovixaL xfraKaaTols.
By the rule given above, all the forms of the subjunctive
and optative, active and middle, are derived from Xovco.
The other moods of the present and imperfect tense are
inflected as follows, the forms from Kom being printed in
spaced type : —
Present Indicative.
ACTIVE.
S. I
2
3
D.2
3
P. 1
2
3
S. I.
2.
3-
D.2.
3-
P. I.
3-
\0VU)
koveis
\ovei
KOVTOV
kovTov
k0VIX€V
kovT e
kovova L
Imperfect.
(kovv
ekovs
^kov
e kovTov
(kovrrjv
( kovjMev
( kovT e
ikovv
MIDDLE.
Aoujuai
kovei
kovrai
kov(rdov
kovaOov
koijixed a
kova-d (
kovvraL.
(kovixrj V
kkovov
ikoVTO
(kovcrOov
ik ovaOrj v
ikovixeOa
^kovaOe
ekovvTo.
' 'Op7*7, his first play, b. c. 322.
278
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Imperative.
ACTIVE.
S. 2. Xou
3
D.2
3
P. 2
XOVTOV
XoVTOiV
AoCre
XovvTcov
Infinitive.
Xoveiv
MIDDLE.
Xovov
X ovcrdoi
XovcrO ov
Xov(t6o)V
Xovcrde
XovcrOwv.
Xovcrdai.
Participle.
Xovoov, Xovovcra, Xovv Xov^i^vos, y], ov.
CLXVI.
AuoooneloGar FlAouTdpxw juev eon nepi buGwniac pi-
PAiov, TOUTO onep oiejai bHAoGv to evTpeneoBai koi ixh
dvTexeiv bi' aiboo. dAAd oHjiiaivei h busoonia napd toIc
dpxaioic THV ucpopaoiv Kai to unonreueiv.
'Idem pronunciant Moeris p. 125, Sufdas s. v. Zonaras
Lex. p. 585, et Thomas p. 255, neque errant. Ava-umda-Oai
et ionicum vca-mla-dai, quantum ex etymo intelligi potest,
prcprie de oris confusione dicitur, quae ex variis pertur-
bationibus, metu, suspicione, pudore existit. Sed veteres
illi tantum de praesensione instantis periculi vel molestiae
usurparunt.' Lobeck. Plato, Polit. 285 B, /xt) bwarbv
elvuL bvcr(07roviJ,evov TravecrdaL : Legg. il. 933 A, Suctcottou-
fjiivovs TTpbs aXX-qXov9 '• Phaedr. 243 C, koi ttcos €hv(TOiTtovixr]v . . .
fxri TL . . . aix€C\l/(o : Demosth. 127. 25, koc tovs els rovd' vird-
yovras vfias opQv ovk 6ppo)h& aXXa hvaai'novp.ai : Xen. Mem. 2.
I. 4, TavTa yap [to. C<Sa) Stjttou to. jney yacrrpl SeAea^o/xe^a, Kal
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 279
\ia.\a evia bvcroiTTOVjjLeva, oiioys rfj eTTiOvfJ-La tov (ftayelv ayoixeva
Trpo? TO SeAe'ap dAio-Kerat, to. oe ttotw h'ebpev^Tai.
CLXVII.
ZaAniKTHC' TO boKi.uov bid tou k, ouyl he bid tou 0, Kai to
oaAniaai bid tou g napaiTOu, bid tou S be Aere.
The testimony of inscriptions is given by Herwerden
(Test. Lap. p. 64) as follows: ' SaA-n-tKrij?, o-aATrto-r???. 2.
444, 44. 445, 18. 446, 40 (qui tituli ad sec. 2. a. C. pertinere
putantur) exhibent a-aXTTiKTai. Bis a-aX-niKTris legitur 3.
1284 (37/8, p. C), bis 3. 1288, praeterea 3. 1284 et 1285.
Tertiac quae in codd. nostris reperiri solet (TakTnyKTrjs in
titulis Atticis nee vola est nee vestigium.'
This evidence has little bearing upon the Attic period, as
the word is not found in Attic inscriptions before the second
century, so that Liddell and Scott are in grave error when
they say, ' The Inscriptions are in favour of o-aATriyKTTj?.'
No manuscript can be of any value in such a question,
and for the present the authority of Phrynichus must be
regarded as the guide best to follow. The analogy of
(TvpiKT-qs and (l)op}xLKTr]s is in favour of his dictum. Ac-
cordingly, \i a-SXiny^a is retained in Homer, II. 21. 388, yet
((rak-ni^a should be restored to Archippus, ap. Athen. 6.
322 A —
rraATTJjs 6' en-dATrt^ eVr' o^SoAovy ixicrOov (ptpcov,
and to Xenophon, An. i. 2. 17, while the more numerous
instances of o-aX-myKTris should receive a still shorter shrift.
CLXVIII.
'A(pi€poioai" KOI toCto 4>apcop?voc" ou be KoeiepoJoai.
zSo THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
The verb a^tepw is good Greek, but not as an equivalent
of Ka^iepw. In Aesch. Eum. 451 —
TtaXai irpbs aXXoLS ravT acpL€p(aiJ.e9a
oXkOKTI Kol fioTOiai KoX pVTOlS TTOpOtS,
it is found in the sense of ac^oaiovv, the force of the prepo-
sition being the same as in aTroXov^iv, airoixdcrcreLv, 0.1:0-
fxopypvvuL, etc. There is no instance in Classical Greek
of a(f)L€povv in its late sense as equivalent to naOi^povv. For
the treatise ' de Morbo sacro,' which sometimes goes under
the name of Hippocrates, is probably a late work. In it
(Hipp. p. 301. '^6) a(f>L€povv is equivalent to Kadupovv: iixolbc
hoKiovcTLv 01 TTp&TOL TovTo TO vocTTjixa a(pt,€p(aaavTes TOLovTOi etvai
avOpayiTOL olot koI vvv elcn ixayoi re Ka\ KaOapraX koX ayvprai.
CLXIX.
KoAAdpouc Touc €v TH Aupo H \ikv qAAh blOAeKTOC AefEi"
ou cppovTic 'InnoKAeibH cpaai. cu be wc 'AOHvafoc Aepe
KoAAonac.
Even in late Greek KoAAa/3os for koXKo-^ is very rarely
met with. In Attic KoXXa^oi were a kind of loaves : Athen.
3. 96 D ; Ar. Ran. 507, Pax 1196.
CLXX.
NijujucK 6 noAuc Aerei, Hjueic dnovmrpov Aerojuev, tbc
'ApiGTOCpdvHC KQl 01 djUcp' OUTOV.
X2(T7Tep cLTTovLTTTpov ^Kx^eovTes kcTTiipas.
Ar. Ach. 616.
• 'Aij-oVt/x/xa pro sordibus elutis Clem. Alex Paed. 2. 3.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 281
Hoeschel. Simplex vl\i.\i.a ne in recentiori quidem Graeci-
tate frequentatum v. ad Thorn, p. 100. Veteribus autem
plane ignotum fuisse videtur.' Lobeck.
CLXXI.
Nh too 0eoc)- opKOc ruvaiKoc^ ou juh dvHp ojuelrai ei \m
ruvaiKi^oiTO.
Photius, \w. rw ^eco, yvvaiKeios opKos' 8utK<S? 8e oixiwovcri, r-qj;
Koprjv /cat ti]v Aijix-qvpav. avhpacn 8e ov TrpeTret tovtov opLvvvat.
In Ar. Eccl. 155 a woman dressed as a man betrays
herself by this expression —
A. 6/jiot [xev ov hoKO. p.a rw d^ca.
B. }xa TO) Oeo) ; rdXaiva irov tov vovv exeis ;
A. tL 8' icTTiv ; ov yap 8tj ttuIv y fJTrja-d ae.
B. jxa At", d\A' dvrfp oiv Tb) deo) Karwixoaas,
KaCroL TO, y aXh! eliTova-a Se^twrara.
Among the Spartans, however, vol rw o-tco referred to the
Dioscuri, and might be used by men as well as women :
Ar. Lys. 81 ; Xcn. Anab. 6. 6. 34, etc. In the mouth of a
Boeotian, in Ach. 905, vol tw o-tco probably refers to Am-
phion and Zethus.
CLXXII.
Meco&dKTuAa- evauriaoa touto oKOuaac rouvojua. AeroMev
OUV, TU jUtOtX TCOV baKTuAoov.
'Vcllcm narrassct nobis nauseator Phrynichus fabrica-
torcm vocabuli, cujus tanta est raritas ut lexicographis
plane non innotucrit. Rcpcrimus tamcn apud Dioscor-
idcm 4. 188, paydbfs tv fX€crobaKTv\oi,s-' Lobeck.
282 THE NEW PHRVNICHUS.
CLXXIII.
Adciaupoc oi \xkv vOv xp^J^vrai eni toov novHpwv Kal dSiwv
OTOUpou- 01 be apxafoi eni tou Karanurovoc.
' Aaaravpo^ pro homine improbo generaliori sensu usur-
passe videntur Theopompus (Athen. 4. 167 B) et Alciphro,
Ep. I. 37 extr.' Lobeck.
CLXXIV.
MdAh ouK epetc, uno judAHC juevTOi.
The accusative v-no \xaky]v, which some read in this place,
is not found till very late writers like Anna Comnena (9.
p. 254), and was not written by Phrynichus. No Classical
writer uses iiaXr], except in the phrase vtto fxdXrj^, but that
occurs with frequency.
KOLTTeLTa bopv bi]6^ VTTO iJidXrjs iJKCts 'ix^v ;
Ar. Lys. 985.
Plato, Gorg. 469 D, XajSoov vtto fidX-qs lyx'^^p^^^ov. Legg. 7.
789 C, XajSovres vtto jxdXrjs eKuaTos, tovs fjikv IXdrrovas {opviOas)
eis Teh's x^^P"^) iX€iCov3 8' VTTO Ty]V dyndX-qv hros — a sentence
which indicates how fixed the phrase had become : Xen.
Hell. 2. 3. 23, ^L(p[bia VTTO ixdXris exovres :
ojcrr' e^eAcbz; €k tov Xvx^ovxov tov Xvxvov
fxiKpov KaraKava-as eXaO^ kavTov, vtto pLaXrjs
Tj] yacTTpl pmXXov tov beovTos 7rpo(rayayo>v'
Alexis, ap. Athen. 15. 698 F.
Diphilus, ap. Athen. 11. 499 D.
Demosthenes has the phrase metaphorically, 848. 12,
dAXa iMTjv ovb' els ovbe bvo TavT tcracnv, ovb' vtto p.dXr]s rj irpo-
KXrjrris y^yovev dXX (v ttj dyopq fiicrri, iToXXoiv TTapovTUiV.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 283
CLXXV.
MeriOTcivec" 'Avtio)(OC 6 G0910THC pipAiov ti unerpa9ev
'Aropoiv enirpo(96juevov, ev9a Touvojua €9HKev i'gooc Me-
vdvbpo) dKoAou6Hoac, ou roip &h tivi twv dpxatoov Hjueic
be ou jii€riGTdvec enojuevoi to?c dpxaioic dvbpdoiv, dAAd
jLiera buvajuevouc Aerojuev.
The passage, or passages, of Menander have not come
down to us. Sturtz, in Dial. Maced. p. 182, has shown that
this and other words date from Macedonian times.
The collocation \}.iya hvva\i.ai is met with in the following
places, Hom. Od. i. 276 —
a\//- tro) es fiiyapov Trarpbs \xiya bwajxivoio'
Herod. 2. 143, avrjp jxiya bwdip-evo^, (cp. 7- 5> ^vvdfxeuos ev
AaKebaiiJLOVi [xeyicrra ^eCvcov) : Aesch. Eum. 950 —
jjL^ya yap hvvarai
TTOTvi 'Epti'vs irapa t aOavarois'
Eur. Hel. 1358 (ch.)—
[xeya tol ovvaraL vefipoiv
Ar. Ran. 141 —
0)9 p.€ya hvvacrdov -navToyov T(i) bv' ojSokut'
Thuc. 2. 29) hvv6.\xevov Trap* ai/rw [xeya kt€. : id. 6. T05, alaSa-
v6\j.evos avTovs p-eya irapa ftacriXd bvvaa-Qai : Plato, Rep. 2.
366 A, at reAerai fxiya hvvavTai. Xcnophon has it very
frequently. So \xaWov, Trkiov, jxf'i^ov, /jteyiora, jjidXccrTa bv-
vaa-dat. This usc of //eya must be carefully distinguished
from its use with adjectives, which is unknown to Attic
Prose or Comedy, though found in Tonic, Tragedy, and
Xcnophon (sec p. 28).
284 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CLXXVI.
Aortoc" wc oi noAAoi Aerouoiv eni tou beivoG einelv kqi
i)\|/hAoC ou TiBeaoiv 01 dpxaloi, dAA' eni tou id ev eKaoTto
€0vei enixoopia eSHroujLievou ejuneipooc.
' Rccte Thomas et Moeris ab Atticis Xoyiovs dici tovs
TToXvLo-Topas contendunt^ a vulgo scribentium tovs X^htlkovs.'
Lobeck.
CLXXVII.
'EHibid^ovrai* koi touto 4>apoap?voc Aerei kokooc.
ibiouo9ai rdp to toioutov Af'rouaiv oi dpxami.
According to Antiatt. p. 96, Diphilus used the defaulting
•word/E^LbLacraaOai' At(/)tAo?'Eirirpo7r7j : but there is no other
instance till writers like Diodorus, Strabo, etc. 'Ibiovadat,
on the other hand, is common enough, and i^cbiovixat also
is met with, as in Xen. Hell. 2. 4. 8 ; Isocr. 241 D.
Certainly the form in -oco was the natural one for a
Classical Greek to use. Verbs in -0.(0) from adjectives in -os
are rare at the best, and though drt/xa^o), StTrAao-taCco, and
one or two more bear a transitive meaning, the majority of
such words are neuter — di/xKi^co, ladCoo, ?/At^td^co, rja-vxdC^,
lj.€Tpid(co, v€d((io, podidCoi, (TKvOpM-ndCu), eX^vOeptd^oi, and others.
CLXXVIII.
MuKac jUH Aere, dAAd ju'JKHTac.
Ettckti yovv Tola-Lv kv^vois ovroil p-VKrires,
0tXei 8 oTav tovt' rj 770teti' veTov p-dXia-Ta.
Ar. Vesp. 262.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 285
In 2. 60 Athenaeus quotes from Antiphanes and Ephippus.
The former poet supplies the lines —
fxvKriTas w/xovs av (payelv e/xot 8ok(3,
and —
OTTTa ixvKrjTas Trpivivovs Tovcrhl hvo'
while the latter has the words —
IV uxnrep oi fj-VK-qres anoTtvi^anxi (re.
Even in late writers the correct form often appears, and
with the passage of Aristophanes may be compared the
line of Agathias —
jaTjTTOTe, Ai^xve, ixvKrjTa (f>epoLS, p-rib' op-fipov iyeipots ; '
and with Ephippus another of Strato —
rt? KaKvKas avveKpivi ^aTia ; rts arvKa p.VKrj(Tiv ;
The form \j.vKri was, however, not merely late (Theophrast.
Fr. de Sig. 3. 5 ; Aristias, Nicander, ap. Ath. 9. 372 F, etc.),
but entered the Common dialect from the Doric, as
Athenaeus quotes from Epicharmus the words —
oloval pvKO.LS ap^ iTna-KXrjKOTes irvi.^e'LcrOe.
CLXXIX.
Aut6tpo90c jUH Aere, aAA' oikogitoc, o3C 'AGHvaToi*
juHbe oiKorevH, dAA' oiKorpipa.
The words that follow in the manuscripts and editions —
IxTjiTOTe 8e Kol T<a olKoy€vi]s ws doKi/iw XP^^"^^^^ — cannot be by
Phrynichus, even if the clause preceding them is assigned
to him. As it is, they are an idle iteration of the
erroneous part of his article. The words olKOTpiy^r and
olKoyivi]^ arc both excellent Attic terms.
Athenaeus discusses oIkoo-itos in 6. 247, quoting from
Anaxandrides, 'The Hunters' —
vloi yap oLKornTo^ r/Ou yiyrerat.
286 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Antiphanes, ' The Scythian ' —
Tayy yap yiyviTai
KaKKXr](rLa(rTi]s otKoVtros-.
Menander, 'The Ring' —
oIk6(TLTOV WIXCfiLOV
ovbev heoixevov TTpotKOS €^evpi]KaiJL€v.
Id. ' The Harper ' —
ovK oIkoctltovs Toiis aKpoara^ kaix/Sdvets.
These passages show the meaning of the word to have
been self-supporting ^ ivith an income of one's own.
Suidas : OtKoo-tro?' 6 kavrov Tp4(f)U)v.
CLXXX.
To 6AoG9upaTOv eKpaAAe Kai htoi ccpupHAarov Aere.
The editions add ?) oXoarfivpov, which cannot have come
from the hand of Phrynichus, although Photius has the
gloss, 'Okoarcpvpov' TO oXoa^vparov : and Hesychius, 'OAo-
(r(f)vpoi' 6ko(T(j)vpaTOL. Lobeck is wrong in considering the a
in 6ko(T(})vpaTos as in any way a departure from ordinary
usage. If there had been an Attic verb (r<^vpav, its verbal
would have been cr(f)^paTos, not (j(pvpr]TOi. 'Ecfivp-qXaros stands
on quite a different footing.
CLXXXI.
'OncoponcoAHc* tou6' oi dropmoi Aerouoiv, oi be ne-
naibeujuevoi oncopciovHc wc kqi AH/AOoeevHc.
The passage referred to is De Cor. 314. 13, o-vKa Kal
j3oTpvs KUL ekaias cruAAeycot', uxnrep OTrcopwz'i/s in tG>v aXko-
Tpiuiv x^^pi-ov. As 6-(apa and even o-ndpai were good Attic
for the 'fruits of autumn,' it seems ultra-purism to find fault
THE NEW PHRYXICHUS. 287
with o-(3ipo-n(a\r]i . Plato, Legg. 8, 844 D, 6? av aypoUov
OTTCopas yev(rr]TaL, /BoTpvoov etre Kal ctvkmv : Isaeus, 88. 37, Kari-
AiTTey €i:i.-nka, TTpojSaTa, Kpi.6as, oXvov, OTTcopas, e^ S>v iv€'n(akr](rav
TiTpaKia^tXias ivvaKoa-Cas.
' Thomas 6~u)pa>v (av/^Tojp oi ayopaioi, av be o—copcavrjs, qui
cum cetera e Phrynicho hauserit, mirum mihi est, unde
illud 6-uipoTi(i>kr]s omiseritj vocabulumque nunquam lectum,
neque plebeii coloris, ojw/rwp o-oipStv sublegerit. Photius
o-Mpatvas 0}vr]Tas 6~(tipas interpretatur .... Pollux vi. 128
d-oopcovris et 67Tu>poT(o\r]s eodem loco habet, neque deaTpu>v}]s
et d€aTpo~Q)ki]s, ikacji'T]^ et ekaoTTcakrjs differunt : quod valet
de omnibus, qui coemunt aut conducunt per aversionem,
quae singulis divendant.' Lobeck.
CLXXXII.
Noaaoc, vooaiov' dii<poIv Aeinei to e. bid touto dboKijua'
Aere ouv veoTTOc, veottiov Tva dpxaloc cpaivH. vosodpiov ck-
pAHreov TeAecoc.
' Nihil eorum quae hie a Phrynicho reprehenduntur in
Attici sermonis monimentis cernitur.' Even in Menander,
quoted by Photius and SuTdas s. v., there is no necessity
to read tov vottov for tov v^ottov as to v€ottlov better serves
the purpose —
Kal TtTTapoiv wwr \xiTa tovto, ifukTarrj,
TO ViOTTlOV.
CLXXXllI.
Xpuoea, drpupea, xaAKea, Kudvea^ lauTa 'Igku biaipou-
Mtva. xph'i ouv Aefeiv XP'^''*^' oprupd, Kuuvd tov dTTi-
KI^OVTa.
288 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Xpuaouc Acre, to rap XP^'^^o^ 'Iokov, ojcauTOoc kqi
dprupoOc GAAd jUH dprupeoc" xoAkoOc, Kuavouc kqi rd
Ojiioia.
' Ex scriptoribus qui aetatem tulerunt prope nullus
reperitur tarn antiquus tamque incorruptus quin vel sua
vel librariorum culpa eo declinarit.' Lobeck. The open
forms are quite alien to Attic proper. For o-t8apeos in
Comedy see p. 49.
CLXXXIV.
'EKTpoaaai kqi eKjpwjua- rauTa 9eure, Aere be eSajupAoo-
oai Kai djupAoojua kqi djupAiGKei,
' EEexpoocev h fuvH juh Aere* e£Hju!3AooGe be.
"EKxpoojua* juHbe touto Aefe. eSdju^Aoojua be kqi dju-
pAooBpibiov-
Of these three sentences the two second have been
brought from a later place in the manuscripts, where they
are in juxtaposition.
Lobeck's note on these words is peculiarly apt, but
vitiated by his inability to draw the just inference from
his facts. They are these : —
'EKTirpcocTKCo, Herod. 3. 32, Kal [i-iv iKTpaxrdaav airodaveiv'
Hippocr. de Steril. 686. 27, riv yvvrj kKTirpwcxKri aiKovaa: id.
de Aer. 287. 28, Trpo? rw 7/pt (KTiTpwuK^aOaL. Tpa)o-)u.os =
€KTp(a(T}x6^, Hipp, 206 D et freq. ; TiTpcoa-jjios, id. 601. 30;
Aristotle, H. A. 7. 4, p. 585. 22, koL eKTirpciaKOVcrai rtfey
avviXa^ov &p.a : id. 9. 3, p. 610. ^^, eKTitpuxTKci, iav TV)(r\
Kvovcra: id. De Gener. An. 4. 5, p. 773. 18, KvriixaTa kK-ni-nm
TTapaTTXT^cna rois Kakov[xevois (KTpcaixaa-Lv : Dioscorides, 3. 147,
(ftacrl be otl kuv eyKvoi VTTep(3ri ti]v Tioav eKTLTp(o(TK(L : Plut.
Mor. 974 D, Karap-adtiv rals kjKVOi.'s ti]v jSordvrjv irapelxov
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 289
iKTp(OTiKi]v hvva\xiv exova-av. Add Diodorus, Apollonius
Dyscolus, ' et recentiores medicos.'
'E^aixf3\C(TK(o, Ar. Nub. 137 —
A. aiTepLiX€p[[j.v(os TTjv dvpav AeXd/criKas
Kal cf)povTib^ e^?/ju./3Aa)Ka9 e^i]vpr]p.€vr}v.
B. aAA.' etTre p.01 to Trpayixa Tov^r]p.^K(ap.ivov.
Plato, Theaet. 150 E, 7roA.A.ot aTrrjkOov TrpoiaLrepov tov 8e-
ovTos, aTT€\96vT€s 8e to. re Xoltto, k$,r}p.^Xu>(rav koX to. vtt ep.ov
fxauvOivTa /ca/cco? Tpi(f)OVT€S airookecrav. id. 149 D, TiKTetv re
Kol ap.jiki(jKeiv. The existence of aix^KcaOpihiov in the
Orators is proved by Harpocration's gloss : 'Aju/3Aco^pt8toy' to
ajx^XodQiv I3p€(j)09, and api-^Xdia-is Pollux quotes from Lysias,
and ap.lik(ap.a from Antiphon. (Pollux, 2. 7.)
Moreover in Tragedy either word might be used —
rjixels yap et 0-7)1' TratSa (f)app.aKevop.ev
Kol vrioiiv €^ap.j3\ovp.€v.
Eur. Andr. 356.
Hesychius preserves kKTiTpuxxKoi in Sophocles: 'Aju/3A.i;o-/<ef
k^ap-likol' Kvpiois 8e iirl aixirikov koX ^KTiTpwa-KCL, 2o(/)0(cA?/s-
'AvbpoiJ,€h].
The words are a type of many others. Ttrpwo-Kco or
€KTiTpu>(TKM — thc oldcr word in this connection — was ousted
in Attic by (^ap.(3ki<TK(o, but reappeared in the Common
dialect with its early meaning — a meaning which it had
never lost in the dialect of tragedy, the representative of
Early Attic.
CLXXXV.
AuGi ]UH kife, uAAd buoTv. bueTv h' Ion juev boKijuov, rco
be aAAoK6TO)C utio) y^pHoOui. tivuc eniTapuTTerai- eni rap
jUOVHC fCVlKHC Tl'yfcTUl, OU)(i be boTlKHC.
All of this article, except the first five words, is quite
erroneous, and probably the error is to be explained as in
U
290 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Art. i/Q. In Attic Greek the only forms of the second
cardinal number are hvo and hvolv — the former being em-
ployed for the nominative, vocative, and accusative, and
in earlier writers like Thucydides even for all the cases,
while the latter is confined to the genitive and dative. The
dual number is of very frequent occurrence in Attic Greek,
and as a general rule hvo or hvolv is added, as rw ovo Qedi,
ro) hio vedvtbe, tolv hvoiv deolv, toiv hvoiv veavCboLv. The
form bvo, however, may be attached to substantives in the
plural, whereas if bvolv is used the substantive must always
have the inflexion of the dual number, except it be an
abstract noun. This rule was first formulated by Elmsley,
and the exception first perceived by Wecklein : ' Com-
probatur igitur quod statuit Elmsleius ad Eur. Med. 798
Not., bvolv apud Atticos duali semper jungi, bvo vero inter-
dum plurali, dummodo veteres Atticos intellegamus. Cor-
rigit Elmsleius Aesch. Eum. 600, hvolv yap et^e Trpoa-fSoKas
Ixiaa-ixcLTOiv, ubi libri jxaiaixaTcov, Ag. 1384^ Kav bvolv olfiMy-
fxcLToiv, ubi libri olixcoyiJ.acrL. Pers, 720 dualem M. cum aliis
libris exhibet (bvolv o-TpareviJidTOLv) cfr. Ch. 304, bvolv yvvai-
Kolv, 944 bvolv p-iacFTopoiv, 1047 bvolv bpaKovTOLv. Elms-
leium secutus est G. Hermannus, Dindorfius, libros Weilius.
Vide ne apud Tragicos alia ratio sit in nominibus ab-
stractis. Sophoclem quidem video in hominihjis etiam bvo
semper cum duali jungere (cfr. Phil. 539, dvbp^ bvo, O. R.
^S'^Si O- C. 532, Ant. 533, bvo 8' dra — hoc enim eandem
vim habet— Ant. SS, dbekcfioi bvo, 989, bi7 e^ hos ^keirovTe)—
ut uno loco Trach. 539, bv ovaai, vel in bv ova-a, vel in bv
ovT€ corrigi debeat, contra dicere Phil. 117, bvo boiprnxara.
Itaque valde dubito an Aeschylus in abstracto fjuda-jxaTa,
ol\x(ay\xaTa duali usus non sit, et ut velis Eum. 600, bvolv
IxiacTiidroiv scribere Ag. 1383 dativmn dual. nom. abstract!
nullo modo probaverim. Cho. 931, autem rSivb^ mutari
debet in roirSe.' (Wecklein, Curae Epigraph, pp. 16, 17.)
THE NE W PHR YNICHUS. 291
CLXXXVI.
"Qtoic juh Aere, toe xivec roav rpa/ijuariKoav dAA' cboi,
Phrynichus is here reprehending those grammarians who
suggested that, because Zija, the nominative, and wrojy, the
genitive plural, might be regarded as belonging either to
the second or third declension, therefore the dative could
be wrois as well as wo-^. They were led astray by the
anomalous accentuation of the genitive plural i^Tiitv, and the
genitive-dative dual wrotr, these cases being accented as if
from Z^rov.
CLXXXVII.
MeipoKec kqi jneipaS" h ]xkv Kcojucobia nai^ei id roiaOia'
TO rdp ju£^pc(t Kai jueipuKec eni OHAeicLv TdiTOUGiv, to be
peipaKioKoc Kai ju.eipdKiov kqi jueipaKuAAiov eni dvbpwv.
The TTai^ei refers to places like that in Cratinus —
TToSaTTas V[xas eti-at ({)d(rK(ov, S» ixeipaK^s, ovk av aixaprdv,
where cikos avrovs drjKvKfj Trpoa-qyopia (tk(^tit^iv Toy's nacryr]-
TLUivTas. Otherwise the distinction is carefully observed by
Attic writers.
Miipa^, of a girl, in Ar. Eccl. 611, 696, 113H, Plut. 1071,
1079, Thesm. 410 ; Xenarchus, Ath. 13. 569 A; Cratinus,
Ath. 2. 49 A.
MetpctKtoy, of a boy, in Ar. Kq. 556, 1375, Nub. 917, 92S,
990, 1000, 107 1, Vcsp. 687, Av. 1440, Ran. 1071, Eccl.
702, PI. 88. 975, 1038, 1096 ; Theopompus, Ath. 14. 649 B ;
Philyllius, Ath. 1 1. 485 B ; Epicrates, Ath. 2. 59 C etc.; Plato,
Prot, 315 D, Parm. 126 C, ConVc 215 D, Apol. 18 C, 34 C ;
Charm. J54 B, Theaet. J42 C, 144 C, 168 E, 173 B, Gorg. 485
A, C, D, 499 B, Rep. 468 B, 497 E, 498 B, Each, i 79 D, 200
D, Legg. 658 D, etc.; Acschincs, 6. 14, 25. 3, 50. 26 ; Isaeus,
.S5- 7; Eysias, 96. 24, 97. i8 ; Xcnophon, Mem. 1. 2. 42, etc.
U 2
2i.)2 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
MeipaKvWLop, of a boy, Ar. Ran. 89 ; Anaxandrides, Athen.
6. 237 C ; Epicrates, id. 262 D ; Demosthenes, 539, 23.
On the other hand^ either juetpaKto-Kos or ixeipaKia-Ki] may
be used — the former occurring in Alexis, Ath. 12. 544 E,
id. 10. 421 D ; Plato, Phaedr. 237 B, Rep. 7. 539 B, Theag.
122 C ; the latter in Ar. Ran. 409, PI. 964.
The words are not known to Tragedy. The Attic rule
is thus just the converse of the Latin, which gave paella for
the feminine, but for the masculine the unqualified p(er.
In late Greek the above distinction is not observed.
CLXXXVIII.
'Avaeeoeai KaKooc 01 ibioaTor cu he dvapdAAojuai cpaBi.
01 rop eni TOUTOu TdxTOvTec to dva6eo6ai djuaprdvouai.
Aerouoi rdp dvaTiOejuai eicaOeic to npdrjuct, drvoouvTec, (he
TO dvaTi9evai buo oHjuaivei, ev juev to jueTarifvcaoKeiv €9
olc ei'pHKe, Kai dppHTO noielv, eTepov h' dvaTiGevai to
cpopTiov.
The word tStwrrj? has its usual sense of au untrained
man, one who does not know. Phrynichus finds fault with
the use of avavLdeixai, in the sense of avajSaXXoixaL, put off,
which it bears in late writers, as in Themist. de Anima, 3,
TovTo yap aveOep-eOa eTTia-Kixj/acrdat, we put off discussing this
point, and in his own example, avariQ^p^ai daavdcs to TTpayp-a,
I pict off the business for another time (lit. to again). He
recognizes as Attic only two significations, the one, to re-
tract what one has said and do zvhat one has not suggested,
the other, to put on one's sJioulders. The former meaning
is found in Plato, Gorg. 461 D, /cat tyixiy^ kOikoi t&v (hjxoXo-
yq\xiv(av avaQiaOai 6 tl av crv jBovXr] : id. 462 A, Prot. 354 E,
Phaed. 87 A; Xen. Mem. i. 2. 44, etc., the latter in
Lys. no. 7, avaOeixevoi' 8' 6 jSorjXdTrjs oiX^TO airayMv to. ^vXa.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 293
This second sense is. with the necessary modification, also
found in the active. That of retract is a metaphor from
draughts, as is shown by a note in Harpocration's lexicon :
^AvaOeadac' ^AvTL(f)U)V iv rw ITept cuiovoias, ' avaOia-Qai 8e uxnrep
TTCTTov Tov ^tov OVK i(TTLV' avTi Tov avcoOev IBiStvat fxeravori-
aavras eirl rw Trporepc^ j3iu>' ilprjTai 8e Ik pLeracfiopas rav tt€t-
Tevopievoiv' UXdroov ev 'l777rapx<f> V <J'tA.0Kep8et. The passage
of Plato is 229 E, aWa p.i}v Kal uxnrep Trerrevcov eOiXco aot
kv Tot? Xo'yois avadicrdai 6, tl (BovXei, twv elp-qjx^vcov.
CLXXXIX.
ZraGepoc dvOpoonoc' outooc ou )(pa)VTai 01 dpyciToi, aWa
OTaGepd juev lueoHjuppia Aerouoi kqi GiaGepd toiAhvh, otq-
eepdc be dvepconoc oubajucoc, dAA' ejuppiGHC' ou KoAoac ouv
4>apooplvoc QTaGepoc dvGpoonoc einev.
The phrase aradepa ixecrr]p.(ipCa is referred to by Plato,
Phaedr. 242 A^ p.r\ir(x} ye, 2» ^w/cpare?, irpXv av to Kavp.a irapik-
6r]' Tj ov^ opas ojs a-^^hov ijbri p.€(TripL[3pta tcrrarat rj brj KaXov-
IxivT] araOepd- and Photius, in addition to this passage,
quotes the adjective from Aeschylus and Aristophanes,
rives Koi eTrt tov (XTaaifxov o)S Aio^vAos iv "i'v^aydiyo'is, tnaQepou
XEUfiaros, Koi ^ Apt.(rTO(pdvT]s kv WpodycxiVi, CTraGepa, Se KaXu^ ceapas
^Pt)s. The word, as a whole, is much more frequent in late
than in Classical Greek.
cxc
'Avanfoelv ou koAwc eni toC dvaKAiGfivai TdrreTai, edv b'
eni ToO thv yuxHv dbH;jovHGai, KaAcoc* oTov dveneoev dv-
GpwnOC dvTl TOO THV \|/U)(HV HOu/IHO€V,
Besides its primitive signification o^ fall hack, ava-niiTTeiv,
294
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
was employed as a technical term for throwing oneself
back in rowing, as is well shown by Polybius, i. 21. 2, a\i.a
irdvTas araTriiTTeiv e^' avrovs ayovras ras x^^P^^ ''"'' Trdkiv
TTpoveveiv efoj^owra? ravras. In this sense the word is met
with in (Xen.) Oec. 8. 8, iv rd^ei ixkv Kad-qvTai, iv ra^et 8^
TTpovevovau', ev rd^ei 8' dva-ni-nrovcnv, and in Cratinus (Ath.
I. 23 B), poOiaC^ KavdiTLTTTe.
In the metaphorical sense Thucydides (1. 70) has vtK(6-
pL€i'Oi k-n eXdxi-a-Tov dvaiTLTTTovai,' and Demosthenes (411. 3),
biboLKa jxi] dvaTTeTTTOiKOTes r]Te. In the last writer it is also
applied to things (^6]. 12), ai^eTrcTrrw/cei rd ttjs €$6bov.
There is no instance in Attic Greek of the meaning recline^
as in the passage of Alexis, quoted by Athenaeus in i. 23
E, the verb has a special reference.
CXCI.
'AvaKelxai' Kai touto oiAAo juev nap' auroTc onjuaivei,
dvT ciAAou be uno Tciov noAAwv jieerai. 'AvoKeirai juev
rap dvbpidc Kai dvaeHjuara KaAoJc fpe?c, dvoKeiTai
b' eni THC kAivhc oukcti, dAAd KeTrai.
As is well-known, Ketjuai is always used in Attic Greek as
the perfect passive of TidrjixL, the perfect riOenxai being
always middle in meaning. Accordingly, avaK^ip-ai as
naturally refers to dvaOijixara and dvbpidvrcs, as it supplies
a perfect passive to dvaTtOrjixi in phrases like dvaTtOevai to.
TTpdyixaTa, s. Tr]v ahiav Tivi. Herodian represents some
comic poet as ridiculing that use of the verb which Phry-
nichus here reprehends, Pierson's ed. p. 441 : KaraKeto-^ai*
€7ri t5)v kcrTL(j>\iiv(i>v, dvaK^Xa-QaL 8' kiii cIkovcov koI dvbpidvTUiv'
elirovTOS yovv tlvos 'AcdKCico^ 6 Kco/xt/cos Trat^coi' dvSpidijn-as
larias ((f^T}.
' 'AvdnitrTf, the reading of the editions, cannot be right.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 295
CXCII.
'AvTipaAeTv KQi T0O9' 6T6p6v Ti GHjuaivei Kol erepoac uno
Toov noAAoiv Aereiai* oHjuaivei rap toioCtov ti, onoTov to
dvTiTiGevar AereTai be vCv dvTi tou dvTavarvoiivai.
The manuscripts have avandevaL, which sprang from avn-
divai, produced by the accidental omission of one of the
two adjacent syllables. Phrynichus, in App. Soph. p. 27. 10,
again remarks upon this late use of avri^aXk^iv : ^Avrava-
yvuivai' \pi](riiiov, ovk avTif3a\elv, ovb' apTe^crda-at, and a writer
in the Ae^ets \pi](Ti,\xoi, p. 410. 31, refers to Cratinus for this
use of avTavayi.yv(ii(rKeiv, to read iti order to compare. The
practice is well exemplified by Lobeck : ' Lexicon Trept
TTvevfxdTuiv a Valckenario editum : dvTiypdcpoLs 8ta0opoty
{alternis lectionibits) dvTi^Kr\&kv /cat opdoiO^v, p. 207, IVa
avTLftdKrjs iJ.€Teypd\}/(a nal KaropOcaarjs irpos to dvTCypaif)ov . . .
Neque id solum in comparatione librorum in exemplaria
transcriptorum dicitur, sed etiam si quis quaelibet alia
TTapdW-qXa e^era^et, ut V. c. eva irpos 'iva avTi^aXelv Damasc.
SuYd. s. 'ETT^/crr/ro?, quod qui intcgre et sincere loquuntur,
avTLTTapafidXkiiv dicere solent. Isocr. 1 1 1 B, Plato. Apol.
41 B.'
CXCIII.
ZKopni^eTQi' 'EKOTaloc \xky toOto Aepei "Iwv ojv, 6
'Attikoc be GKebdwuTOi cpaoi.
The word is of frequent occurrence in the Common
dialect, but the passage referred to by Phrynichus is the
only instance known in Classical Greek.
29^ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CXCIV.
KoTaGXCiGai- larpoi \xkv touto Aerouoiv exovrec dnoAoriav,
tbc ovTOc napa to?c dpxaioic toO eaxoov koi eax^^ov koi eKev-
Touv, dAAd KQTavuSai Hjueic Aerojuev.
The evidence of literature does not support Phrynichus
in his preference for Karavv^aL over Karacrxd^craL. Xenophon
employs (rxdC(o in Hell. 5- 4- 5^j larpbs o"x«C'f' '"'V '^o.po. raJ
(r(pvpM (pXi^a avTov, and the word is also found with the
same meaning in Hippocrates and Aristotle. Hipp. 552.
40, (T)(ao-ai avTov tovs ayK&vas koI acfyaipeecv rod atjxaTos :
Aph. 6. 5. 21, o-)(d^eti' Tas ev Tois axriy oTncrdev ^Ae/3as :
Arist. H. A. 21, 603. '^15, l3or]dei to Xovrpov koX edv tls o-xdcrr]
v-nb Tr]v yX&TTav. On the other hand, no Classical writer
employs KaTavva-a-co is any sense, whether lay or medical.
There is practically nothing in his dictum. ^x"-C(^ ^^^
vva-acti were both good Classical words, and the one might
well be used of opening a vein by cutting, the other by
pricking ; but in KaTavva-a-co, no less than in KaTaaxa-C^, there
is an attempt at that false emphasis which vitiates all late
Greek.
cxcv.
'Pe€i, ^eei, nAeei. 'loKd xauTa biaipoujueva, Aere
ouv pe?, ^ei, nAel.
CXCVI.
'Ebeexo, enAeero. 'IcoviKd jauTa* h be 'Attikh GuvH9eia
ouvaipe?, ebelro, enAelro, eppelro.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 297
CXCVII.
TTpoc5belo0ai Aere, dAAd juh npoobeeoGai biaipwv, coc
<l>apcopIvoc Aeroov ajLiaprdvei.
These articles were brought together by Lobeck. The
third is not found in the Laurentian manuscripts, or in the
editions of CalHerges and Vascosan. The middle ippdro
actually does occur in Eur. Hel. 1602 —
<f}6voy he vavs ippeiro' TrapaKeKevajj-a h i)v kt€.
being either a natural outcome of the same feeling which
prompted pewo/xat, or an artificial imitation of the same.
If the first person singular present indicative active is
in its uncontracted form disyllabic, this fact influences the
contraction of verbs in -ecu \ but leaves those in -aco un-
affected. Thus, while Spaco .was contracted to 6pw, just as
TLixdu) to TLjjioi), and as bpdoip.1, was in Attic replaced by
bp(Sr]v, just as rt/xaot//t was replaced by TipMr]v, yet x^'^ was
retained by the side of the contracted ttokS, and x«ot/it was
not modified like TtoLOL-qv. On the other hand, X"^^ con-
tracted to x^iSj just as TToteet? to Trotet?, and x^'f' to x^h lil<e
•noiiei to TTotet.
The rule for the contraction of verbs like x^'^^ is, how-
ever, extremely simple.
They contract only when the vowel e is followed by
another simple e, or by the diphthongal endings -et? and
-ct of the active. In all other cases their inflexion is
identical with that of \vu>. Their subjunctive and optative
arc consequently regular, x^^' X^V^> X^V' c^^-' X^'^'M'? X^'"'?»
X^oi, etc., and in the optative they do not, as polysyllabic
verbs like Troitco, assume the Attic singular forms in -irj/-,
-tr/9, -trj : —
' I'or verbs in -601, sec p. 274.
298
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Present Indicative.
ACTIVE.
MIDD
LE AND PASSIVE.
S. I.
X^(^
X^o/xat
2.
Xet?
Xe'et
3-
Xf"^
Xeirat
D.2.
Xetroy
Xeio-^oy
3-
Xetroi'
XeTcr^oy
P. I.
Xeo/xev
Xeo'/ze^a
2,
Xeire
Xeio-^e
3-
Xeovcrt
Imperfect.
Xeoirat.
S. I.
exeoz'
exeo'/XTjy
2.
exets
exeou
3-
Ixet
eX^^ro
D.2.
Ix^i'^'o^
eX^to'^oi'
3-
exeiTTjy
•
eX^t'o'^'Ji'
P. I.
exe'oju.ezJ
1
kyj.6\x^6a
2.
expire
lyjiidQ^
3-
exeov
Imperative.
kykovTO.
S. 2,
X^ov
3-
Xetro)
X^tcrdoi
D.2.
Xetroy
X^'iO'dov
3.
Xetrcoi;
X^io-Ouiv
P. 2.
Xetre
Xeto-^e
3-
XeoWcoi
Infinitive.
X^tcrOcov
Xety
Participle.
Xetcr^at.
coy, xe<
3Vo-a, xeoi'
Xeo'/xeyos, tj, oi/,
XeOiTOS, X^OVCTTJS
THE NEW FHRYNICHUS. 299
The evidence of verse is conclusive —
cocrr' tTTetS?; '^J/pe'^'?, pet [lov to haKpvov ttoXv.
Arist. Lys. 1034.
Karayjei. a-v rfjs xop8?/J to \jA\i' ras o-j/Trtas crTaOeve.
Id. Ach. 1040.
€v yfi Ttivio-Qai ixaXKov rj irXovTovvra -nkelv.
Antiphanes (Fr. Com. 3. 53).
yepu)V ibv Koi (rairpos
Kiphovs eKan kclv iirl piirbs TrAeot.
Arisl. Pax 699.
eXiTOLix^ av aXXovs cl /xt) iJ.r]KVV€LV 8eot.
Id. Lys. 1 132.
aWa TrXeCru) ^oipls avrbs e? KopaKas, el (BovkiTai.
Id. Eq. 1314.
TTOTajxol fx^v a6apr\s koX p.4\avo9 C^pLOV ttXcw
hia T(av (TT^vcoTToiv Tov6oXyovvT(.s ^ppeov.
Pherecrates, ' The Miners ' (Ath. 6. 268 E.).
In fact to this rule, that verbs which have their first per-
son singular present indicative disyllabic, and ending in
-eco, only contract in those cases in which the c of their
stem is followed by another e, or in the active by -et or -et?,
there is no exception in Attic verse, except in conjectural
emendations. Thus Dindorf alone is responsible for such
forms as hr\ for hkr\ in Arist. Ran. 265, etc. In Arist. Plut.
216 the Ravenna, it is true, and other manuscripts, read
Kh.v Sfi, but it is the conjunction and not the verb that
is amiss, just as the Ravenna also exhibits Kh.v ^ovXu for
Kct ftovXa in the next line —
A. eyci> Y^Ry ^^ tovt IctOl kclv bd \x airoOaviiv
avrbs biairpd^M ravra.
B. Khv ftovkii y (ya> ^
Like Dindorf, Wcstphal and Vcitch go very far wrong
in making exceptions for themselves. True, ^x^((v) is not
' Cobet reads n&v XPV ''"^ ''^'' l^°^^V' eincn<lalions adujitcd by Meinekc.
300 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
uncommon in Greek, but it is not an imperfect form, as
they imagine, but an aorist, and, as such, not subject to
the rules of contraction. This is conclusively proved,
first, by the meaning of the passages in which it occurs,
and, secondly, by the fact that the forms epp€e{v) and
l7rAee(y) are never found, because the aorists of peco and
7rA.e6) are eppevcra and eTrAeucra.
That e'xet is imperfect, exee(y) aorist, is seen from the
following examples —
ovbeTTOT eyot) IloXepiov oXnab^ v-nohi^op.ai,
ovh€ Trap efxoi rrore top 'App.6btov aaerai
avyKaraKXivels otl TrapoiviKos avi]p €(f)V,
oaTLS €ttI TxavT ayaff iyjdvras €TnKU>[jid(Tas
dpyarraro iravra KaKa, Kaverpeire Ka^e^et
Kap.a-x^€To Koi Trpoo-eVt TroAAa irpoKaXovixevov
* 7tIv€, KaraKeicro, kajBe r-^vbe (piXoTrja-iav,^
Tcis x^pct'^ct? ■'/Te TToXv ixaXXov iv rw TTvpi,
e^exet 0' i)ij.u)v ^ia tov olvov €k tS>v apLTrikoiv.
Arist. Ach. 979-987.
fTTet 8e OcLTTOv rjixev rjpLo-TrjKore^
6 TTOLs TrepieTAe ras TpaTri^as, vCp-pLara
ilT^X^L TLS, CLTTeVtCop-eOa, TOVS (rT€(l)6.V0VS TToXlV
Tovs Ipivovs ka(36vT€s €crT€(f)avovpie6a.
Dromo, 'The Music Girl ' (Athen. 9. 409 E).
Here Ka^ex^t, e^ex^i, eTTe'xet are, by their place in a series
of imperfects, as conclusively proved to be themselves im-
perfects as the context of the following shows Karix^ev and
(vex^ev to be aorists —
aAA' ovK k-nid^To rois e/xot? ovhlv koyoLS,
akk LTTTTepiav piov Karix^^v tu)v xPW^"^^^'
Arist. Nub. 74.
Pherecrates, ' Corianno ' (Athen. 10. 430 E), in a conver-
sation between Corianno, Glyce, and Syriscus—
Co, aiioT €(TT, CO rkvKr],
Gl. vbaprj VexeeV (tol ; Co. TTavrdirao-i, /xey ovv vb(op.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 30 1
Gl. rt et/ayao-oj ; TrcSb", 00 KarapaT^^, 8' lviyj.as ;
Syr. Sy' iJSaroj, S) \i.a\x\i.^. Gl. Tt 8' oti'ou ; Syr. T^TTapas.
Co. e/3p' es KopaKas' jiaTpd-^OLcnv oivoxoelv ere Sei.
Such passages of prose writers as copyists have cor-
rupted from ignorance of this natural and simple distinc-
tion ought at once to be corrected. Thus, in Plato, Rep.
379, (Tvvex^ev is right because the aorist is wanted, but in
Antiphon, 113. ig, ivexee should be substituted for eye'xet,
though a few lines above the imperfect ivex^t must be
retained.
There are two verbs, however, of this class which follow
the analogy of polysyllables and contract throughout — the
frequently occurring belv, to bind, and the rare £ety, to polish.
There is no undisputed instance of the imperfect or any
mood of the present of ^c'co in Attic writers a.s the ' Theages/
in which (124 B) the participle rSiv ^eovrcov is found is
certainly not a genuine Platonic dialogue. But in In-
scriptions the participle occurs twice, and both times con-
tracted — ava^Giv and Kara^ovvTi ^.
The following lines prove the case with regard to hG> —
k-qpoLS avaboiv Toi/s ViKcavras tov ttKovtov ea Trap kavTi^.
Arist. riut. 5S9.
Wl Cii] (TV TreptOou Kal rax^^MS avr\p ycvov.
Id. Eccl. 121.
TSiV 8' aKOVTlOJV
avvhovvTi'i upOa Tpia Av^yetw xpw/xe^a.
Antiphanes, 'The Knights' (Athen. 15. 700 C).
In—
aye vvv VTTokvov ra'i KarapuTOVS ep.ftaha'i
Taa-bl 8' avvrras vttoOuv tl tols KaKutvLKas,
Aribt. Vesp. 11 58.
the word v-nohov is merely a conjecture of Ilirschig's for
vTtofjvOi., as viroKvov in the preceding line for airohvov or
virobvov. The reading virokvov is probably right, as i'7ro8i;ou
' Sec Wecklein, Curac Epigraphicac, p. 32; Ilenverdcn, I^n] idum 'I"es-
timonia, p. 43.
302
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
is certainly wrong-, and anohvov merely an attempt to cor-
rect it, but there is more doubt about v-nobvQi. It is true
that vTTobda-daL is the ordinary word for ' putting on shoes '
in every age of Greek, as in the well-known virb 'noa-cnv Ih]-
o-uTo Kuka TT^biXa, and in another passage of Aristophanes^
v-noheicrOe 8^ wj rdxi^o'Ta ras AaKcoviKas.
Eccl. 269.
but the commonly received v-nohrjo-aa-dai in Vesp. 11 59 —
eyo) yap av rXairjv virobrjaacrOaC Trore"
and vTrobrjcrdiJievos in id. 11 68 —
avvcrov iroO^ vnohrjo-cux^vos kt€.
are in themselves merely conjectures of Scaliger's for the
manuscript viiohva-aa-dai and virohvcraixivos.
In a passage of 'The Dolon ' of Eubulus (Athen. 3. 100
A) there is the same difficulty —
lyci) KexopTaafjML fxiv, arbpis, ov KaKO)S,
aXX. et/xi 7TX7]prjs, coore /cat p-okis Tiavv
V7rebvcrd[xr}v airavTa bpoHv ras ejx^dbas'
but in a line from ' The Sirens ' of Theopompus (quoted by
the Scholiast on Arist. Lys. 45) —
vTTobov Xa(3ot)v ras 7rept/3apt8as,
the ordinary expression is unquestioned.
It may well be that v-nobvoixai and virebvv were used as
slang to express the same thing as v-nobovixai, and, as slang,
were not out of place in Comedy, just as the middle of
crx^Coi, ' cut/ is used in the sense of our English slang term
' cut,' ' have done with ' —
TOVTMV -/(vov p.01 (Txacrdix^vos Tr]v Ittttlkt^v,
Ar. Nub. 107.
' cut the turf and take to books :' Plato, Com. (Schol. Ach.
351)—
Kal ras ocfypvs crxda-aarde. koX Tas op^^aKas,
' have done with your temper and your gibes.'
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 303
This question, however, does not affect the rule of con-
traction for 8w. The texts of prose writers generally
exhibit the true forms, but not in every case. Thus
Plato is credited with hiov in Phaed. 99, but lovv must be
restored. In late Greek the uncontracted forms prevailed,
and it was probably from want of familiarity wnth the
shorter and earlier vnohSiv for their own vTrobicov ^ that led
the scribes to replace it by vtto irohoiv in one passage of
Plato, Prot. 321 A, eTietbrj 8e avrols akri\Xo(f)dopiu)i' biaipvyas
iirripKea-e, TTpbs ras e/c Aio? u)pas evixapeiav kp.r]-yavaTo apL(pi€V-
vvs avTOL TiVKvals re Opi^X koX crrepeot? t>ipp.a(nv, iKavols p.ev
apLvvat \€ip.G)va, hwaTols he koI KavpLnra Kal eh evvas lovcnv
O7rco9 vTiapyjoi to. avra ravra arputp-vi] oiKeia re Kal avTocpvi]^
(KacrTU)' Koi vTToboov TO. p.ev ottXols to, be 6pi^l Kal beppacri. crre-
peoLs Kal avaLpLOfs, where v7TobS>v corresponds to ap.(f)tevvvs
above. The true reading was extracted by Badham from
the VTTO -nobCiv of the manuscripts.
CXCVIII.
'ApTOKonoc, dbcKijuov. \^u be dprononoc t-'i dpionoioc
Aereiv.
Lobeck considers that in this article the words aproKo-no^
and aproTToio'i have changed places, and that Phrynichus
finds fault only with the latter. At all events dproKOTros-
rests on excellent authority, being quoted from Attic In-
scriptions (C I. vol. 1. p. 54H, n. 1018), and occurring in
Plato, Gorg. 518 B ; Xcn. Hell. 7. i. 38; Hdt. i. 51, 9.
82 ; whereas apro-otoy has at best no better warrant than
Xenophon (Cyr. 5. 5. 39), and even that weakened by the
fact that in the passages of Plato and Xenophon already
• 8w seems to have been for the most pait replaced by 5«Tfitii<o in late Greek.
Pollux 8. 71, d(?v . . . AfiVapx'is 5J xal ^ovTav rr^v hfcrntvovrav : Mceris, p. 130,
hov<Tiv 'Attikois, Iffffitvoviriv 'F.AX?;i'i«d/v : Ilcsych. bovai, Stafifvovm.
304 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
cited inferior manuscripts present dproTrotoj-. In another
place (App. Soph. 22. 23) Phrynichus has the note : 'Apro-
'noTitlv ovrtos 'ArrtKol 8ta rov tt, and to the same effect are
the words in the 2vvayu}yr] Ae^ecor \pr](Tiii(iiv' ' AproTTOTTov
Kol 'AttlkoI kol ''Ia)i;es rbv apTonoLoV 'icTTi. h\ to apTOTTOTre'tv
iv MovoTpoTTia "^pvvCxov.
The form apToiroiros comes from ireTT-ra) (cp. TToir-avov,
a cake), and there can be no question that apTOKoiros is
also from that root (Lat. coquo), and not from ko'tttco
at all.
CXCIX.
'EvGhkh' ro juev napevBHKH onooc uno'HpoboTOu ei'pHTai
CsTepov 6\|/6jue0a, to be 6v0hkh, ojc 01 noAAoi Aerouoiv,
OTonov. dcpopjuHV rap Aerouoiv 01 dpxaloi.
In the sense of 'something put in besides,' Herodotus
employs 7Tapev6riKr] several times (i. 186, 6. 19, 7. 5, 171),
but the words of Phrynichus in regard to it have been
lost. A hint like this occasionally conveyed indicates
how careless and perfunctory have been the transcribers
of his work.
Harpocration thus explains a^opp.!] : W(popp.i]' orav tls
apyvpiov 6(S €v6r\Kriv, a(f)oppi] KaXa-Tai Ibloos Trapa Tols Attl-
Kols : and the following passages will put in a clear light
the sense of the word under discussion : Lycurg. 151. 20,
oIk&v iv Meyapois, ols Trap' vp.S>v i^eKop-Caaro \pr]pa(nv a(pop-
p.fj \p(i>p.^vos, €K Trj^ rjiretpov irapa KAeoTrdrpa? eis Aeu/cdSa ecn-
Ti]yei Kol eKeWev et's KoptvOov : Demosth. 947. 22, d rjv IhCa
ris a(f)opp.i] TovT(a TTpbs rrj TpairiCri : 958. 3, Trtorrts a(f)opp.i]
-nacrSiv kcnl p-eyia-Tri Trpos xpr}p.aTt.(rp.6v : Lysias, Fr. ap. Athen.
13. 611 E, ovTos yap d(f)e(,\u>v apyvpiov eTTt rptcrt hpa^poXs
Dcricrii'opa) rw TpaireCiTr] kol 'ApicrToyeiTOVL TTpo(reX6(i)v irpos e/xe
eoeiTo fxr] Trepibelv avTov hia tovs tokovs €k t&v ovTOiV eKTT^crovTa.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 305
" KaTaa-KevdCoixai 8e," e(f)i], "riyvTqv ixvpe'\\nKi]V, acpopfxiji 8e Seo/xat,
/cat ot<T(o be aoL ivvf 6[3o\ovs rrjs [xvas tokovs.^'
cc.
'E£unvio0Hvai ou xpH Aereiv, dAA' dq)unvia0Hvai.
' 'E^TTVLo-ai uno ore damnant Herodianus Philet. p. 448,
Moeris, p. 61, Thomas, 134.' Lobeck. It certainly is not
employed by any pre-Macedonian writer, whereas a(j)VTTVLCco
is met with in the following passages : —
Aristides (Orat. 49. vol. 2. p. 521, Dind.) cites it from
Cratinus, KaC rt? avrGtv kv apxf] tov bpafxaros \x€yakavyovp.evo<i
&)S TTpo(f)i']Trjs irpoayopevei Toiabe'
a^VTTViCea-Oai \pr] iravTa OeaTrjv,
OLTTo fxev fi\e(f)dp(x)V av6r]p.epivS>v ttoltjtcov krjpov d(f)4vTa.
ojcTTrep iv eneLVi] rfj rjiiipa p.4\\(ov aTravras (ro(f)Ovs re koI a-nov-
haiovs TroLrjcreiV bibd^as be tovs Xetpcoi'as" kt€. In the ^vvaycoyi]
Aefecov xprjo-tjucjy, p. 473. 8, the word is quoted from Phere-
Crates : ^Acpv-vca-OrivaL' to e^ vttvov iyepdijvai. ^^epe/cparTjs'
tv a<f)V'nvi<T6i]T ovv aKpoaad^ , ijbr] yap Kal \e^o[X€V,
and it is found in the Rhesus (of Euripides) 1. 25 —
oTpvvov ey\os deipeiv, d(f)VTTin(TOv.
CCI.
BaAavTOKAenTHc mh Aere, dAAci paAavnoKAenrHC.
Thomas has the same sensible dictum, p. 140, ^aXavno-
KAe77T/js, ov ftaXavTOKkiiTTris, kol ftaXavTioTop-os, ov (3a\avTo-
ToVov. The editions, which on this passage all exhibit
lia\avoK\iTiTi]'i 1X1] Xe'ye dXka ftaKaveLOKkeTTTi]^, were justly
ridiculed by Scaliger : ' BaAayrtoKAcTrr?;? Icgcndum esse in
Ed. Paris, anno praeterito notabamus, ct /SuAairoKAtTrri/s.
Nam quam ridiculum csset ftakavnoKke-nTri'i? id cnim non
csset qui in balneis furatur scd qui balncas furarctur.'
X
3o6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ecu.
BaoiAiGoa- ou&eic to3v apxaioov elnev, aAAci paoiAeia h
paoiAic.
CCIII.
BacjiAiooav 'AAkqIov 9031 tov Koojuwbonoiov kqI 'Apio-
totcAhv ev TO?c 'OjuHpou dnopHjuasiv eipHKevai* ou &e
pacjiAiKoc eniGToAeuc dno9av9eic dvdAorov th oauToO napa-
CK6UH revviKoajaTOv hjuIv eKojuioac jimprupa tov ourrpdvavxa
TOV KQTd Neaipac" 6c bid tg to dAAa CnconTeuBH juh elvai
AHjuoaOevouc kqi bid Td TOiauTa Toav dboKijuoov ovojudTcov.
Tolc nAeiooiv ouv nei06]uevoi ^aoiAeiav h paoiAiba Aeroojuev.
ouToo rdp biOKpiveiv boSaijuev dv to te kqAov kqi to aiQXpdv.
The latter of these articles is in the manuscripts the
second of the second part of the Ecloga. From this it is
natural to infer that the Imperial Secretary, to whom the
book is dedicated, was not so strict an Atticist as its author.
It would almost seem as if Cornelianus had found fault
with the stringency of the earlier dictum. Phrynichus
humorously turns upon his friend : ' In your authoritative
position, and from your great learning, you ought to know
better than you do. Though I omitted to mention them,
I knew of better examples than yours, which does you
little credit. Even Aristotle, whom I care not to follow,
is better than the author of the speech you cite, and
my instance from Alcaeus is more authoritative still.
Moreover, you know how little I allow one exception or
two to affect my rules.' The article next but two is prob-
ably a similar addendum.
THE^NEW PHRYXICHUS. 307
CCIV.
ZiKxaivojuai, tco ovti vauxiac dSiov touvojuo. qAA' epelc
pbeAuTTOjuat (be 'AGHvaloc.
'Verbi (TiKyalvo\t.ai nulla antiquior memoria quam in
Callimachi epigrammate ; huic accedunt Arrianus et M.
Antoninus V.-9- 87. Neque plus auctoritatis habet primi-
tivum o-tKxofj Plut. 2. 87 B, Athen. 962 A ; aiKxao-ia, Mos-
chio de Aff. Mul. 28 ; a-tKxoT-qs, Eust 972. ^^.' Lobeck.
ccv.
FeAdaijuov juh Acre, dAAd reAoIov.
CCVI.
FeAdGijuov ZjpdTTiv juev cpaoi tov Kcojutf^OTTOidv eipHKevai
Touvojua, dAA' HjueTc ou toIc dnaS eipHjuevoic npOGe)(Ojuev tov
voOv, dAAd roic noAAaKic KexpHjuevoic" KexpHxai be to reAoTov.
The principle of Phrynichus' work is here lucidly stated,
and there can be no question about the genuineness of the
second article, although it is not found in the Laurentian
manuscripts. No hand but his could have presented so
clear a statement of his position as an Atticist.
CCVII.
'AAeKTopic eupicKeTOi ev Tpapcubia nou koi Koojuujbi'a,
Aere be dAeKTpud)V kui km QnAeoc kui eni dppevoc d)C
01 nuAaioi.
No Comic poet could have used dAfxTcop or aAfKTopU
except outside the iambics, as Cratinus, ap. Ath, 9. 374 D —
uifTTTfp 6 n«p<riKoy a>pav iraaav nava^^v ok6(\>(tiVO'i oKtKTuyp,
X z
3o8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Plato (Eust. ad Odyss. p. 1479. 47) —
ere h\ kokktjC(ov opOpi aK^KTcop TrpoKak^lrai,
or of malice prepense, as Aristophanes in the Clouds, and
parodying the Tragic poet Phrynichus in Vesp. 1490 —
TTTTjcro-ei ^pvvi\o'i w? rts aXeKTcop.
The words of Phrynichus have been preserved by Plu-
tarch (Amat. 762 F) —
e7Trry£' aAeVrcop bovXov ws KkCvas TTT^pov,
and as an old term a\eKTO)p was naturally common in
Tragedy, Aesch, Ag. 1671, Eum. 861. Athenaeus cites
ap.(p6(l>Mv oXiKTiup from Simonides, and from Epicharmus —
wea \avos KakeKToptbcov TT€T€r]vo)v.
Both old words, aXiKTop and dAcKTopis, were in Attic super-
seded by akeKTpv(av, one form for both genders, but re-
appeared in the Common dialect. The orator Demades,
as ovofjiaToOrjpas, used aX^KToyp in a pompous metaphor,
speaking of a trumpeter (Ath. 3. 99 D) as kolvos ' Mrivaiaiv
aXeKTcap.
CCVIII.
rAcoooibac auAoov h unobHjuaTcov jui' Aere, dAA' tbc 01
boKijuoi rAwTTac auAa)v, fAoiiTTac unobHjudTOiv.
There is the same caution in App. Soph. p. 32, yAwrrat
av\S)v /cat yAwrrat vTTohrnxaTo^v a yAojrriSa? Kiyovaiv 01 ap.a-
Athenaeus (15. 677 A) cites a passage of Plato, in which
there is a play upon the different senses of ykcoTTa —
Ka'iTOi (popelre yXS>TTav iv VTTobi]p.a(nv
a-Te<f)avovad* viroyXcaTTicriv orav TTLvrjTe ttov,
Kav KaXXieprJT€, yXQvTav aya6i]v TTep.TT€Te'
and Aeschinus makes a point by the same means (86. 27),
uTav b e^ 6i'op.dTa>v (rvyK€ip.€vos avOpm-nos, koI tovtcov iriKpoiv
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 309
kolI TTepiepyctiv, eTrctra eirl ti]v airXoTrjTa koX ra epya Karacpevyt]
Tis av avd(T)(^OLTO ; ov t^]v y\S>TTav, axnrep tG>v avXG>v, kav rts
a(f)e\r], to Xoltiov ovbiv kcmv.
CCIX.
rpuTH* Kai toCto toSv napanenoiHjuevoov, to rap toioCtov
anav rpujiieav oujuPepHKe KaAeloGai.
The words are explained in App. Soph. '^'^. 32, TpvpLeCa,
rjv oi TToWol ypijTrjv. At^iAos avev tov l, ypvfxiav' ^cttl be -nap
^ AdrjvaLOLS irripa tls ypvfxea KakovpLevrj, ev fi -navToia aKevr] kari.
^aiTcpo) 8e ypvTi]v KoAet tijv p.vpcov koL yvvaiKeioov TivG>v 6i]Kriv.
The Attic form is also found in a passage of Sotades,
quoted by Athenaeus (7. 293 A) —
Kaplba^ eka^ov "npfarov, aTT€Tayi]Vi(ra
Tavras airdo-as' yaXebs etkriiTTai pAyas,
u)TTTri(ra to, p.4cra, ttji; be A.oi7rrjy ypvp.eav
e\lr(ti TT0L7](Tas Tpip.p.a (rvKap-iVLVOv.
Its existence in Sappho indicates the source from which
ypvTTj entered the Common dialect. In Geopon. 20. i it is
used as ypvp.ea is in Sotades, t]]v keiTTrjv ypvTiqv QaXaa-criav.
ccx.
Aiojpuroc, biobpuri, bicopura, ou. oi fdp apxaToi laura
biu Tou x AerouGi, bioopu)(oc, bioopu)(i, biobpu)(a.
' Ai(opv^, bidpvxo^ per x semper apud Herodotum (uno
loco exccpto) et Platonem scribi monuit Valckcnarius in
Notis Posth. ad Thom. p. 157, itemque scribitur ap. Thucyd.
I. 109, II. 109, Xenoph. An. i. 7. 11, Thcophr. IT. Pi. 4. H,
Plut. Vit. Ages. 39, Caes. 49, Arrian. Alex. 3. 6, 7. i<S,
Dion. Cass. 42, 41, Ilcliod. 9. 5, etc. Altera forma htciipvye'i
(Hippocr. dc Acr. ct Loc. 5. 83) in Atticorum scriptis non
deprchenditur ; scd rcccntiorcs. Polybium, Diodnrum, vStra-
3IO THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
bonem, Pausaniam, partim ea sola, partim utraque com-
muniter uti Hemsterhusius ad Thorn, et Tzchuckius ad
Pomp. Mel. vol. 2. 3. 293 docuerunt. Sic etiam Karcapvi
ab Aeschylo et Sophocle per x flectitur.' Lobeck.
CCXI.
AiKpavov toCto oi dpxami biKpouv koAoCgiv.
In Attic hUpovv ^vXov means a forked stick, a fork, as in
Timocles, ap. Athen. 6. 243 B —
Tov Trapa}xa(yr]Tr]v Xay.^6ivei bUpovv ^vXov
and Aristophanes substituted KeKpayixacriv in Pax 637, -napa
TTpocrboKLav, for fvAots —
Trjvbe fxkv bLKpols idOovv Tr]v 6ebv KeKpayp-acnv.
Plato has hUpovs^with tzvo brmiches, of the throat, Tim.
78 B.
In Lucian the later form occurs in Timon. 12. 120, kox
\i.ovovov\i bLKpdvoLs i^ecoOei /xe tijs otKtas KaOairep ol to irvp ck
TUiV \(Lp5>V aiTOppLTTTOVl'TeS.
CCXII.
AiooKOupoi, opOorepov AiooKopoi. reAaoei ouv touc
ouv Ttp u AerovTOC.
Lobeck's note on this article is in his best style : ' Nimi-
rum natura ita comparatum est ut dualis numeri longe
major sit usus, apud veteres praesertim, quam plurativi
nominis. AioaKopco Eur. Or. 465, Arist. Pax 285, Eccl.
1069, Amphis ap. Athen. 14. 642 A . . . Atque haec ipsa
causa fuit cur atticismus in hac formula in qua fixus et
fundatus erat, diutissime retineretur ; certe Themistius inter
delicias Atticionum numerat to b-qirovdev koI to Ka-neiTa koX
THE NE W PHR YNICHUS. 3 1 1
ro) Atoo-Kopo), Or. 21. 253 D. Genetivus est in illo Men-
andri versu a Grammaticis decantato, 6 Odrepos fxev toIv bvoiv
Atoa-Kopoiv. Twy Aioa-Kopoov, Plato, Legg. jg6 B, sed Atocr-
Kovpoi), Plat. Euthyd. 293 A, Acoa-Kovpcov, Thucyd. 3. 75,
unico codice germanam scripturam servante ... In recen-
tiorum scriptis exempla hujus generis ita spissantur ut
Attica forma ne turn quidem satis tuta reponatur, ubi ex
uno aut altero chirographo emerserit. Ac perrarum est
ut in ea libri editi et scripti conspirent. Verum ista scrip-
turae discrepantia ab ipsis vocabuli stirpibus progenerata
est : Kopr] in pedestri sermone tritissimum hac una forma
gaudet ; Kopos et Kovpos tantum in certa formula usur-
patur ; Kovpoj koI Kopij, Plato, Legg. 6. 785 A, cui statim
succedit rectius K6p(a' Kopov kol Kop-q?, 7. 793 D, Kopovs koX
Kopas, p. 796 B ... In Tragicorum diverbiis Attica forma
tantam habet constantiam ut Valckenarius non dubitaverit
in Eur. Frag. Meleagri, 6, pro Kovpot reponere Kopoi. Man-
sit veteris dialecti nota in voce. Koupewrts, Kovpdov, Kovpo-
Tp6(f)os.^ Lobeck. Like that of Comedy, the evidence of
Tragedy is in favour of the short penult —
bicrcrol 6e (T€
AiocTKopot KaKovpLev.
Eur. Hel. 1643.
KaKovai p.r}Tp6s crvyyovoL AioaKOpoi.
Id. El. 1239.
In I. A. 769, AtocTKovpcoy 'EKevav corresponds to piirTnv
^avOovs ■nXoKo.p.ovs : but in a choric passage the older form
is quite in keeping.
CCXIII.
'Ycrepi^eiv tco KOipqj ou Aererai, otAA' uorepi^eiv tou KoipoO.
4>apoL)pivoc be ou)( ufiwc Kara boriKhW ouvTOTTei.
Dcm. 260. 13, v(TT(pi^ov(rav ttjv ttoKw tcov Kaip(x)v : id. ^I,
12, v(TT€pL((i.v T(ov ipyoiv : 'J'^O. 19, rois Tov TToKfpiov Katpoii
312 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
aKoXov9(iv Kol jU.r;8ez'os vaTepi^ew : Isocr. 30 D, va-TepC^ovcn
tG)V TTpayixdroiv : 204 A, va-Tepi^co Trjs aKp-ris tijs ep-avTov.
The meaning is dififerent with the dative, as with va-repelv
in Plato, Rep. 539 E, 'iva /xrj8' kp.'neLpia var^pSicn t&v aWoiv.
CCXIV.
TTapapoAiov* dboKijuov touto. tco yikv oSv 6v6]UC(ti ou
KexpHVTOi 01 naAaioi, to) be pHjuari. cpaoi rap ouroo, napa-
pdAAojLiai TH ejnauToC KecpaAfi. eypfiv ouv Kotni toutoov hkreiv,
napapdAAojuai dprupicu.
napa(3dk\opiaL was occasionally used for Trapart^e/xai in the
sense oi make a deposit: Hdt. 7- 1O5 rjp.ecov dp.(f)OTep(i)p -napa-
^aXXop^iv^v TO. T€Kva: Thuc. 5- ^^S? AaKeSai/xovtot? TrAeio-Toy
8t) irapa^e^X-qixh'oi. The substantive, however, is unknown
in the Classical age, Trapad-^Kti or 'napaKaTadi]Kri being used
instead, the former by Ionic, the latter by Attic writers.
ccxv.
ZraTOC* 6 roiv auAHToov xncov ou AefeTai, dic 4>apoc»pTvoc,
dAA' 6p9oaTdbioc xitcov.
Pollux, 7. 48, explains the x'-'^^^ opdoa-Tabtos as 6 ov (oyv-
vvp.€vos, i. e. falling straight down without being drawn in
at the waist.
CCXVI.
TTaibiGKH- TOUTO eni thc GepanaivHC 01 vOv TiGeaoiv, oi
b' dpxaloi eni thc vedviboc.
Moeris is more precise, p. 319, YlaLbCcrKT^v, koL ti]v iXev
Blpav Kal Trjv bovXrjv, 'ArriKcSs' T7]v bovXrjv p-ovov, '^EXX-qvLKcios.
Neither Grammarian asserts more than this, that in an
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
?>^Z
Attic writer the term refers to age, not to condition, and
that no such usage as N. T. Ep. ad Galat. 4. 31, ovk ia-fxev
TTaihicrKrjs T€Kva, ak\a r?/s iXevdepas, is possible in Attic
Greek. Accordingly, the dictum is not refuted by such
passages as Lysias, 92. 41, 136. 8 ; Isaeus, 58. 13, in which
the English word ^/r/ naturally translates the Greek term.
The women there referred to were in a humble or debased
position, but labour is not incompatible with tender years
and immorality, but too frequently accompanies them.
CCXVII.
TTaiEai" Aoopieic bia toO S, 6 be 'Attikoc nalsai. koi
naiaare koi au/inaiOTHC bia toO a epelc.
Moeris, Thomas Magister, Timaeus, Hesychius, Suidas,
and Eustathius, all insist upon the forms in sigma. The
words of the latter are very precise (ad Odyss. p. 1594), to
be TraCcraTe avrl tov Trat^are 0.7:6 rod irai^oi, Trato-co, o9ev koX ff
<TviJ.7Tai(TTpLa Kol 6 crv[xi:aL(rT(x>p 'ArrtKcS?. The line of the
Odyssey to which this note is attached is 8. 251 —
TratVare, ojs" x' ^ Metros kviaur] olcn (J)l\oi.(tl,
and there can be no doubt that in id. 23. 134, (f)i.Ko7TaL(rij.(Dv
should be substituted for ^lAoTraty/xcof —
avTOLp delos aoibos ex'*^^ cfjopfjuyya Xiyeiav
fjijuv TjyeioOoi ^iKoTraiyp.ovos dp)(r]6p.o'io.
Certainly in Attic such a form was impossible, and yet it
is occasionally exhibited by manuscripts. Till Bekker
restored the form in o- from the best codices in Plato,
Cratyl. 406 C, r/nAoTra^cr/xoi'es yap Kal ol Oeoi, the un-Attic
form disfigured the text, and in Plat. Rep. 452 F, eln rty
(f)ikoTTaLrrp.ajv dre (nrovbaa-TLKu^, the genuine reading has still
less numerical support, but is attested by Paris A. In Ar.
3^4 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
^^"- ZZS is read <\)iko-naiy\xova and in 411 o-vixTraiarTpias, hut
neither in the senarii, and as yet too httle is known of the
literary use of the dialects in Greece to warrant the change
of (piXoTTaCyiJLcov into (pLXoTratcrixcov.
That Xenophon should write a-vjx-aaUToap in Cyr. i, 3. 14,
Kttt TTolha^ be aoi (TvixfraLKTopas -napi^oo, is as natural as that
he should use the form in -rcDp for the Attic form in -rTjy,
(see supra p. 59), and the reading a-vixiriarTopas should have
no weight. The future iraL^ovpLai, in his Conv. 9. 2, stands
on a different footing still, and has already been considered
(see p. 91). A glance at Veitch will show that the Attic
rule is now generally recognized in Attic texts; but in
Lysias, as cited by Pollux, in 7. 200, \//-?70o7raiKroCo-t must
give way to \}/r](f)OT:aL(TTov(n' Ei be AvaCov 6 Kar AvroKXeovs
\oyos €V M yeypaTTTaL <)/•»] <j)OTTaiCTTOoo-i to SiKaiof ktc, plaV fast
and loose with right.
CCXVIII.
rTaAaiGTpiKoc* "AAeSiv cpaaiv eipHKevai, 6 be dpxaloc
naAaiGTiKov Aerei.
The words were in Attic distinct — TraAato-rtKo's, ' expert in
wrestling,' ' a wrestler ; ' TraAaiorptKos, ' connected with the
-naXaidTpa — but it is not surprising that the latter should
have filled the part of both in an age when nice distinctions,
either in meaning or pronunciation, were disregarded. It
must also be remembered that TraAato-rptKo's was a natural
formation from TtaXaLo-Trip, which was probably used in late
Greek (see p. 59). In some cases it is quite impossible to
decide upon the correct mode of spelling an adjective in
-Kos belonging to this class. Thus the manuscripts support
Xr](rTi,K(aT€pov Trapea-Kevaa-fxevovs in Thuc. 6. 1 04, but ex
krja-TpLKjjs Mecra-qvLoov TpLUKovTopov in id. 4. 9. Both were
probably good forms at this stage of Attic, the one from
Ajyo-TT]?, the other from Ar/o-rT/p.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 315
CCXIX.
'Enaoi^H ibiooTHC Aefwv ajuapxdvei, Aere ouv 6p9ooc enojbtH.
enei to biaipoujuevov noiHTiKov.
' Phrynichus App. Soph. p. 3S, roJ l-naoihy] Kai aothtf ov
Xpri(TT€ov, KCLv "Of/,7jpos etTTei'. lonica forma in omni genere
et parte sermonis poetici locum habet, neque iambum
scenicum, si paullo altius exsurgit, dedecet. Ion ap. Athen.
TToXatdeTCDv vixvcov aoiboL, et Phrynichus eodem loco xf/aX-
fjLol(nv avTia-naa-T detSoire? fxiXrj. Sed ultra non egreditur.'
Lobeck. See supra, p. 5.
ccxx.
AiboCoiv" ev TO) rrepi Eu)(hc <t>apooplvoc outoo Aerei, beov
biboaoi, TO rap biboCciv dAAo ti oHjuaivei.
The words to belv which follow a-rjixaiveL in the manu-
scripts did not come from the hand of Phrynichus, but are
the senseless addition of some transcriber who was not ac-
quainted with the dative plural of the participle, and yet
recalled some rule about the anomalous contraction of the
verb 8(5, / dvid.
It is only by accident that bthova-t, the Ionic form of the
third person plural biboaa-t, presents the appearance of that
of a regularly contracted verb, and bibovarc is no more con-
nected with 8t8c3 than btboirjv, bibolTov, or StSw/xej;. This is
proved by the existence of Tidda-i, the Ionic form of TiOiaa-i.
There are in fact only four forms of biboifxi which come
from the imaginary 8t5(S, just as there are only four forms of
TiOr])xi which come from the imaginary ti.OS>. For biboijxL
there are the three singular persons of the imperfect and
the second person singular of the imperative, while for
3i6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
T[dr]iiL they are the second and third persons singular of the
imperfect and the second person singular of both present
indicative and imperative. Besides ibibovv, ibibovs, ehibov,
and bibov, the regular bibw is inactive, and similarly rtdw
exists only in rtOels, erCdets, irCOet, and TbOei. This is the
Attic rule. There is no TLOelv, Tideirov, kridovv, ertOovfjiev,
Tidoiriv, Tidcov, no bibols, ebibovTov, bi.bo'UT(o, bibcov, ebcocra,
bebibcoKa, or €bib(!i)dr]v. The middle imperative t'lOov is for
Ttdea-o, and that the optative forms ndoifx-qv, tiOoIto, etc.,
if Attic at all, are not from rt^eto-^ai is proved by the ex-
istence of similar forms in the aorist OoCfxrjv, dolro, Oolo, etc.
AtSw? and bt,b<2, bc^s and 8c3 similarly demonstrate that it is
only by accident that the subjunctive nOca, riOffs, Tidfj may
be ascribed to TiOdv. Many scholars refuse to acknowledge
even the Atticicity of nde'ts as second person singular of
the present indicative, and consequently disfranchise Wis
as well, since irjixt corresponds throughout with TiOr]jxi, except
that d^xai has a passive no less than a middle signification,
whereas Ti6ei\xai has none but a middle sense.
All scholars recognize the fact that hideis, ert^et, I'et?,
let were used preferentially to €Ti6-i]s, kriOi], irjs, I'rj, and that
TiOei and i'ei were the only forms by which the meaning of
the second person imperative present could be conveyed ;
but the authority of Porson (ad Eur. Or. 141) has induced
many scholars to prefer X-qs and ri^rj? to lets and nOels.
Brunck, on Arist. Lys. 895 and Soph. Phil. 992, took the
opposite view to that of Poi'son, and in this case the verdict
of the great English critic must be reversed. The authority
of the manuscripts is wholly on the side of Brunck. Thus
in Ar. Lys. 895 the Ravenna exhibits bianOds, and on
Eq. 717 evTiOiXs. Further proof is supplied by the mistakes
of copyists. They often substitute the participle for the
indicative, as in Euripides —
eTTOU vvv' tx^vos 8' iK(f)v\aa(r ottov TiOels,
Ion 741.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 317
i-ne.iTa rc5 ^ew irpoaTLOels ti]v alrCav,
Id. 1525.
where good manuscripts read rt^ets and TipoanOds, exactly
as in Ar. Lys. 895, hiaTiOda is a variant from hiaTiOds. In
Soph. O. R. 628—
all the best manuscripts read ^vvUis, or, in other words,
substitute the imperfect for the present in accordance with
the extraordinary remark of Eustathius, 1500. 52, that I'ets,
IxeOieis were used of present time, Kara ivaXXayi]v \p6vov.
In Soph. El. 596 for the true tet? the manuscripts present
l-qs or Uis, as in id. 1347 they divide between ^vvUts and
^vvtr]s. The plain inference to be drawn from the above
facts is that the contracted second person singular, being
unknown to late Greeks, was altered when possible into the
participle, otherwise was converted into the imperfect or
late trjs.
CCXXI.
npoaAoic' TOUTO hoKsi. ;.ioi ruvaiKoov eivai rouvojua. dvioa-
MCJi be oTi dvHp Aorou dSioc KexpHxai auKo 4>apoopivoc.
toCto ;jev oiJV dnobionojurrcojueea, dvr auxou be Afr<J^M€v
nponero^c.
The article is absent from the best Laurentian Manu-
script, and from the editions of Callierges and Vascosan.
Neither adverb nor adjective is found in Attic writers.
They were, however, probably both old words, as Homer
employed the adjective in II. 21. 262 —
TO oe (sc. v?>o)p) T SjKa KaT€ift6pL€vov KeXapv^ei
Xwpoj en TTpoaAei, (fyOdvei he re koI tov ayovra.
A fact of this kind throws considerable light upon the
constitution of the Common dialect.
3iH THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCXXII.
rTH)(a)v, nH)(ooc' beivcoc eKdiepov dvajTiKov, beov
nH)(eoov KOI TTHxeoc.
Verse does not afford any help on this point, as Trrjx^oi^v,
TTTjxeos might, if necessary, be pronounced as dissyllables
by synizesis —
crKV(f)os re Kicrcrov TvapiOeT ets evpos TpiG>v
irriyjEcav, [SdOos be Tea-adpoiu i<paLViTO,
Eur Cycl. 390.
but there can be no question about the correctness of
Phrynichus' rule.
CCXXIII.
Zujunrcojua noAAaKic eupov Keljuevov napd 4>ap(jC)piV(x) ev
TO) nepi'Ibeoiv A6r^>. noQev be Aapoov eGHKev ouk olba. xpA
oIjv ouvTU)(iav Aereiv h Auoavrac outoOj suveneaev qutCo robe
reveoGai.
AHjuosOevHC juevTOi ev j6o Kara Aiovuaobwpou dna£
ei'pHKe Touvojua.
The last sentence probably belongs to a second edition
of the Ecloga, but compare art. 203 supra. Perhaps the
exception was, in this case correctly, discovered by Cor-
nelianus himself. The place of Demosthenes is 1295.
20, et yap b)s dArj^w? aKOVa-Lov to avp-fidv kyivero /cat r)
vavs kppAyt], TO [xiTo. tovt , iireihr} €TT€(rK€'va(rav ti]v vavv ovk
av ets tTepa brjirov ep-TTopta ip.La6ovv avTrjV dAA' o)s vp.a.s CLTri-
oreA.Aoi' iTravopdovp-evot to aKovcnov avpLTTTcopia. The term is
also found in Thucydides, 4. 36, koI ol AaKeSat/xoVtot /3aA-
\6p.€V0L re dix(jiOTep(o6ev ijbr) /cat ytyvopLevoi iv rw avT<2 crvp,-
7rr(o/M,art, wy piKpov peydKui elKaaai, t<2 ev QeppLOUvkais kt€.
Plato uses TTepLTTTOipa in Prot. 345 B, vtto voaov rj vivo aWov
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 319
nvo'i TTeptTTTcafjiaTOi, and /jierdTrrcoo-ts in Legg. JO. 895 B,
[xribiixias ye iv avrols ovarjs iixirpoa-dev /jieraTrTwcrecos : these
words are eschewed by Attic writers. In late Greek they are
used without restraint, and TrapaTrrco/xa, airoTTTcoixa, iTapaTiTUicns,
TreptTrrojcrts', aTroTrrcocrtS', €KTTT(OfJLa, ^KTTTOicns, e/ixTrroxTts, eTTtTTToxris,
KaTaTTTcofxa, KaraTTTcticns, vitotttuxtls, av6.TTT0}(rLs are encountered
in different authors.
CCXXIV.
"EKBejua pdppapov* ax. he Aere np6rpc(jU]uci.
The verb (KTidivai, in the sense of rrpoypafPeiv, publish, is
also late, but the low estate of the substantive may be
inferred from its make. Moeris is only giving one example
out of many when he says, p. 28, 'AvdOi^pa 'Arrt/ccS?, avdOeixa
'Ekkr]vtKu>s. Similarly irwixa became iroixa, €vpi]ixa evpeiJ-a,
apuiixa dpop-a, evbvjjia €vbvp.a, KAt/ixa K\tp.a, while the formation
of a word like bop-a ( = bwpov) became possible. It is to the
same tendency that the insertion of the sigma in XP^M" ^s
to be ascribed. The Attic form was xpi'M" 5 ^^ l^-te Greek
it became xpiV/xa.
ccxxv.
KaTOpeoijuara" djuaprdvouoi KdvTau9a 01 pniTopec, ouk
eiboxec oti to nkv pfijua boKijuov, to KaTopGoooai, to b' dno
TOUTOu ovojucK dboKijuov, TO KaTopGcojua- Aereiv ouv xp^^ ^v-
bpara0H;jaTa.
It is the philosophical sense of the late KaTopOoop-a which
Phrynichus is here especially reprehending, as the sub-
stituted term avbpaydOrnxa shows ; Cicero, de Fin. 3. 7, ' Quae
autcm nos aut recta aut rccte facta dicamus, si placet, illi
autem appellant KaTopO(oij.aTa omnes numeros virtutis con-
tinent, id 4, ' illud enim rectum quod KaropOwp-a dicebas
320 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
contingit sapienti soli;' id. de Off. i. 3, ' Perfectum autem
officium rectum^ opinor, vocemus, quod Graeci KaTopOojixa ;
hoc autem commune, quod ii KaOfJKov vocant.' As a matter
of fact avhpayaQrjjxa is as late as KaropOMixa. At all events
neither avhpayaddv nor its substantive appears in Attic
books. Thucydides has avhpayaOi^opiai in rather a con-
temptuous sense in 2. 6"^ ; 3. 40, but avbpayaOia had a good
sense and was used by good writers.
In the other meaning of a success, KaTopOayixa is equally
un-Attic. Demosthenes employs the neuter participle of
the intransitive active, 23. 28, vvv p-ev eTna-KOTel tovtols to
KaropOovv' al yap evirpa^iai betval avyKpvxJfai to. TOLavra oveihrj,
but TO 6pdovix€vov was more often used^ as opOovpievos was
equivalent to successfiil, Thuc. 4. 18, koi l\a\i(TT av o\
TOlOVTOi TTTttLOVTeS 8ta TO pLI] 7(5 OpQoVpuivdi aVTOV TTtCTTeVOVTeS
k-naipecrOai : Antiphon, 130. 7> opw yap rot's T:avv ipur^Lpovs
[xaWov 6p6ovpi€vovs :
T(ov 5' 6p6ovpuiv(i)v
crco^ei TO. •noKka adpiad^ 7/ ireLQapyJia,
Soph. Ant. 675.
On the other hand, KaTopdcoa-Ls has the authority of Aeschines
in 5i' 5' o-irayyeikas Toivvv irpcaTos Tr]v Trjs TroAecos viK-qv vp.lv
KoX Ti]v tS)v TTaibdv vp.€T€p(iov KaTopOuxTLv, SLud of Dcmadcs in
179. 28, TTpocrekduiv Se roi? kowoIs ovk (Is buKas Kal tijv o-tto
TTJs \oyopa(f)ias Ipyacriav Wr]Ka tov ttovov, aAA' ets ttjv airo tov
^r]p.aTOs TTapp-qariav, rj tols piev kiyovcnv €Tna-(pa\r] irapi^tTai tov
pLov, Tols 8' evka/Bovpievots pLeyia-Trjv biboaa-LV a<poppi.r}V Trpoy
KaTopOuxTiv. Both €TTav6pd(ocns and eTravopOcopia were excellent
Attic, the former occurring in Plato, Prot. 340 A, D, Theaet.
183 A ; Dem. 774. 20, and the latter in Dem. 707. 7, while
biopdoicns, with the meaning rt^/U arrangement, has the
sanction of Plato, Legg. i. 642 A.
THE NEW PHRYNJCHUS. 7,21
CCXXVI.
"YnaiGpov jlih Aere, to hk unaiGptov TeTpasuAAdpooc.
To this rule there is no exception in Attic Greek except
the use of viraiOpos in the phrase h vTtaidpcp, stih dio, is to
be so regarded, Antiphon. 130. 29 ; Xen. Mem. 2. 1,6. In
that phrase vTraCdpLos is unknown.
CCXXVII.
To jUeV KOlTObv dboKIJLlOV, TO be npOKOlTtOV OU boKlJLIOV.
HjuTv be kqAov xpi-^GBai toj 'Attikco ovojuaTr npoboojuoiTiov
rctp AerouGiv enei kqi bcojudTiov tov KoiTOJva.
According to Pollux 1. 79, Aristophanes used the de-
faulting term, koltu>v' el yap koL Mevavbpos avrb jiapjiapLKov
oterai, dAA.' ^ AptcrTocfjdvris to, Totavra TtLo-TOTepos avTov kv
AloKoa-iKOiVL
KOLToyv aTTaaais ets, TTveXos be p." apKecrei,
but little can be proved by a single line in a case of this
kind, especially in a play like the Aeolosicon, which must
have teemed with para-tragedy. On the other hand, 8coju,(i-
Tiov has the sanction of Aristophanes in Lys. 160, Eccl. 8 ;
Lysias in 93. 18 ; 94. 7 ; Plato in Rep. 390 C.
CCXXVIII.
Z;jHnia Koi ojuhSoi kqi to TOiauTa dvaTTiKd' to rdp ottikov
o)M}\u KOI GMHoai, TO /Jcv uveu toO r. TO be bid toG 0.
The tendency of transcribers to introduce the late <r/u?/x'«>
is strikingly illustrated by a line of Antiphancs cited by
322 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Clemens Alex. (Paed. 3. 2), in which (T\t.-)]x^Tai actually
stands in open violation of the metre —
(j\i.y]Tai, KTeviC^T, iK(ii[3riK€, Tpiji^Tai.
Accordingly, the genuine hia(rinf]deis should be substituted
for the debased hiaa-ixrixOds in Ar. Nub. 1237 —
aXalv hiaa-iii]6t\'i ovaiT av ovToari.
Even a transcriber was forced to leave aixodixivrjv alone in
another place of the Comic poet —
a\k' apTLCos KarekLTTOv avTi]v crixoiixevriv
kv rfj TTueAo)'
and crp.i](Tas seems to have escaped in Alexis ap. Ath. 7.
324 B—
a-p-rjcras re AeTrroi? dAcrt, beLiTVoiJVToov a\xa,
but (Tixriixa was less fortunate in Antiphanes ap. Ath. 9. 409 C — ■
kv oo-(j) 8' aKpou)ixa[ aov, KiXevcrov p.oi Tiva
(f)€petv aTTOVL^lrao-daL. B. horo) rts hevp' vb(Dp
Kol ap.rjixa.
Some manuscripts however, even here preserved ajxruxa,
which is also vouched for by Eustath. 1401. 6. In two
passages Pollux mentions yri (Tp.r]Tp(.s, 7. 40, t7]v (lege yr]v)
8e ap.r]Tpiha Kri(j)i(T6b(jopos h Tpocfxovicio dpy]K€v : 10. '^S^ to, 8e
TTepl Ti]v OepaireLav tG>v kadriTOiv (ruevr], ttXvvoI koI -nkvvTrjpia
KoX yrj a-jiriTpls Kara NtKo'xapiz;. The reading aixiKpiha in the
one case and api,r]TCs in the other indicate the original hand.
S/xr/x^ was, however, not merely an invention of the
Common dialect, like apoTpiQ> and others, but came from
an ancient source —
eK K€(f)aX7]s 8' t(Tp.r]Xiv akos xvoov arpvyhoio,
Horn. Od. 6. 226.
du)pr]KMV re viocrp.r]KTOiv aaiiiojv re (paeLvwv,
II. J 3. 342.
and in Tragedy, or in a writer like Xenophon, would doubt-
less have been as little amiss as in Homer or Hippocrates.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 323
Accordingly, it is not surprising to encounter its neighbour
KaTaxf/i^x^Lv in Euripides, Hipp. 1 10 —
TpdireCcL 7rA?;p7;s' Kal KaTa\{r7])(^ei.v xpecov
and ^l/rix^^ in Xenophon (Eq. 6, i ; 4. 4), while e\ln]ynaL
should be retained in Sophocles, Trach. 698 —
pet TTCiv ahikov kuI KaTi\\rriKTai ydovC.
By the side of i/n/ in id. 678 it is simply another illustration
of the conventional character of the Tragic dialect in
which forms that had long dropped out of use in Attic
were retained side by side with those before which they
had given way.
CCXXIX.
ZdKKOc- Aoopie'ic bid toov buo kk, 01 be'AjTiKoi bi' evoc.
KKa(av fJ.eyapLi'is' ovk a<pri(T€is tov craKOv ;
Ar. Ach, 822.
airaaa Koi jximi. craKov irpos roiv yvddoLv e^ovaa.
Eccl. 502.
But in Ach. 745 o-ciKjco? is used as a Megarian is speaking —
KrjireLTev es tov (tolkkov &h' €crfiaCv€T€.
Accordingly, in Dem. 1170. 27, craK-)(y(\)AvTr]s should be re-
placed by (raxv(f>dvTi]s, as there can have been no reason
why aaxv(t>6.vTris should not have been said. Our method
of pronouncing Greek is apt to mislead us on such points.
ccxxx.
Henoiv toOto koG' outo ouk opSwc Ti6ejuevov opoo. oh-
juaivei rdp to ovojiia ndv to ev nendvcei 6v. Ti9eaoi h' auTo
oiKtitoc eni tojv oikuo)v. xP*^ ^^^^ uutoo Aer^iv, ojc 6 KpaTi-
voc, oiKuov onep/auTiuv h ei 'OeAeic nenovu oikuuv, kuo' uuto
be TO nencov eni toO uutoO /hh Ti9ei.
V 2
324 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
There is the same caution in Soph. App. p. d'^, I.Ckvos
cmepixarla's, ov ol ttoXAoI iriiTova ovk opduts Kiyovcn. to yap
TTeiroov Kara irdvTcov (fyeperai t5>v eh Tti^lnv (pOacravToov. It is
only late writers who employ iie-nodv as a substantive. Lo-
beck quotes from Galen, ?) Tr^Ttovos ry (tlkvov, and from Nicetas
ChoniateS; r&v ctikvuiv koX tS>v TreTtovojv.
CCXXXI.
'EnapiGTepov ou xpH Aereiv, dAAd okqiov.
The prepositional phrases, e-rrl be^id (cp. Trpbs Sc^td, x^'po^
€is TO. be^td), and ctt' dpia-Tepd (cp. rrpos to. dpia-repa eis dpidTepa),
gave rise respectively to the adjectives kinhi^ios and kna-
piarepos, with a meaning practically the same as the simple
Sexto's and dpia-repos. However, while i-mbi^Los acquired
even the metaphorical meaning of Sexto's, eTiapLo-Tipos did
not win its way in Attic even to the physical sense of
dpicTTepos, and aKaios, which had practically been driven
from the field of physical relations by dpia-repos, kept a
firm hold of the signification azvkzvard, imcoiith. It is this
sense of eTTapLa-repos which Phrynichus is here reprehending,
a sense which gradually made way as the language de-
generatedj being first found in the Comic poets of the
early Macedonian period.
e7rap6crrep' efxades, S) Trovrjpe, yp&}xp.aTa.
Theognetiis.
A. Trpos TO Trpay/x' exoo
KaKcas. B, eTraptorepo)? yap avTo Xap^jSaveis.
Menander.
CCXXXII.
TTAokiov eni unoGtoea^c nenAerjuevHC oi eiKoToi riGeaaiv.
eaujud^co ouv ndic 6 npoojoc boSac toov 'EaAhvoov elvai
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 325
<t>ap(ji)pIvoc expHTo ev ourrpotMMCTi enifpacpojuevco nepi thc
AHJudboUC OCOcppOGUVHC.
The words virodea-Ls TreTrkeyixivrj here signify an in-
volved or intricate argument. It is doubtful whether
Phaborinus used tiXoklov as a substantive or adjective ;
but it is of no moment, as neither use is possible in Greek.
CCXXXIII.
ZrunneVvov T6TpaQuA\dpoL)c ou xpH Aereiv, dAAd d'veu
ToO e jpiouAAdpooc, OTimnivdv.
There is no means of deciding which is the true spelling
of this word — a-Tv-mrivos or (ttvttlvos — and the same doubt
attaches to a-TVTnre'Lov and (rruTTTretoTrwATjs. All that verse
can tell us is that the v is long, but whether by nature or
position is uncertain. The tetrasyllable form of the ad-
jective entered the Common dialect from the Ionic.
TeAoc TOu npwTOu TjUHjuaroc.
326 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ToO auToO TjUHjua beuxepov.
CCXXXIV.
'AvTippHoiv jUH Aere, dvTiAori'av be.
Veitch and Cobet are alike actuated by an elevated
devotion to genuine learning, but while the Dutch scholar
relies upon an intellect of striking natural vigour, trained
by long and wide experience in textual criticism, the Scots
student trusts too implicitly in the authority of codices and
editions. Cobet's bold and unflinching manner rather
courts such attack, and too frequently supplies Veitch with
an occasion for criticism. Such an occasion was given him
by the too absolute statements of Cobet (in Var. Lect. p.
'>^6) in regard to the forms of ayopei^co used in Attic. Cobet's
rule was unquestionably right, but he erred in denying all
exceptions. These Veitch proved, and the Dutch scholar
subsequently revised this question in some critical remarks
on the Second Oration of Isaeus, Trept tov Mei'eKA.eous KX-qpov,
which appeared in the New Series of Mnemosyne (vol. 2,
p. 137 ff). The following is a modified transcript of the
results there stated.
The rule followed by Attic writers was indisputably this : —
Whether as a simple verb, or when compounded with a pre-
position, ayopevo) had for its future epu>, its aorist sIttov, its
perfect eXprjKa ; and in the passive voice it employed the aorist
ippi]6r]v, the perfect e'lprjpat,, and the futures p-qOrjaoixaL and
eiprjo-oixai. Every schoolboy knows that e'tprjKa was the perfect
of X^yco, and that the aorist was as often cIttov as e'Ae^a, the
future as often epw as Ac'^co. According to our rule, there-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 327
fore, Ae'yto must have had a rival in ayopevu). As a matter
of fact this was so, as Arist. Plut. 102 —
ovK riyopevov otl Trape^eiv ■npayjJ.aTa
ffieXkeTriv pot ;
and in the ancient formula, rt? ayopeveLv {BovXerai ; but such
a use was rare. The true sphere of ayopevo) was in com-
pounds, to supply the place of Aeyco, which was never
compounded with any preposition except avTL, npo, and
em. 'ETrayopevetz/ never took the place of k-iXiyeiv, or
fTTtpprjcns of eTTtAoyos ; but TrpoayopevcLV and avrayop^vetv were
sometimes used for irpoXeyeLv and avTiKiy^iv. As a religious
term Trpoayopeveiv was constant in the formula excluding
the profane from participation in religious ceremonies.
Similarly Ttpoayope'veiv rivl etpyeaOai Upu>v Kal ayopas was
'to give notice to one accused of murder that he was
deprived of religious and civil privileges.' Such notice of
exclusion was termed TTp6ppr](ns ^ as is seen from Antiphon,
de Caede Herod is, § 88, and dc Choreut. § 6.
But, except with Ir/i, avrl, and Trpo, Aeyco was never com-
pounded ; its place was taken by dyopei^co in the present and
imperfect, while -Ae^co and -e'Ae^a completely disappeared
before -epw and -fi-ov, and -i\iyQy]v and Ae'Aey/xai before
-ipp'{]Qi]v and -eipruxai. In this way airepM, aireiTTOv, and aTret-
py]Ka, etc., are to be referred to a-nayopevia, just as olcrca,
rjveyKa, and ivijvoxa are ascribed to c^epo). A Greek naturally
used 0L(T0) as the future of ^epco, as Socrates in Xenophon
(Sympos. 8. 6) says to Antisthenes — tijv 8' akXrjv yaXe-norriTa
iyui (Tov Kal (fjepoj koI ol(T(i) (jjlXlkcos, and the case was not
different with ayop(vo). Any one wishing to use the future
or aorist of aTrayopevo), Trpoa-ayopevu), Trpoayopevco, inrayopevoi,
Karayopevo}, avayopevo), avvayopfvoy, hiayopevoi, made use of
' Pollux says it was termed irpoa-yoptvaii, — Eipytadai Si Upon' Kal dyopa.'s ol iv
HaTTjy opiif <p6vou axpt Hpiatom, Kal rovro irpoayipfvais fKaXuro — and he may be
rijjht. for Inscri|>tions prove that &vny6p(vai% was as good as dvAppT/tris, although
dvapprjaii is preferred by writers.
328 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ttTrepo), 7rpofrep5, etc, of aire'LTrov, Trpoa-eliTov, etc. ; and so
cLTTeipriKa, aTreLprjTai, aTTippi'jdr], aTroppr}6i](reTai, are to be re-
ferred to airayopevoi, and TrpocreiprjKa, TrpocreLprjixai, irpocrepprid-qv
to TTpoa-ayopevcii ; and in a phrase like TTpoa-ctiroDv ovk avn-
'npo(reppi]6riv the forms are to be referred to irpocrayopevM and
ai'TLTTpocrayopcvM respectively. Thrown into present time,
vTT€pG> Tov opKov bccomcs virayopevu) tov opKov, and <TVve[pr]Ka
is the perfect of (rvvayopevu>, KareiTroy the aorist of Kara-
yopevo), hidpr]Ka and hidprjTai perfects of hiayop^vca, and the
same method of tense formation was maintained in all the
compounds without exception. Only very rarely did good
writers draw upon the stem ayopev for tenses other than the
present and imperfect, using irpoa-ayopeva-as for Trpoa-etTrwy,
and a-nr]y6p€VTai for aTreiprjTai, Later writers did so with
frequency, and employed even nouns and adverbs derived
from ayop€v. In Classical Greek the noun corresponding to
7:po(rayop€vo) was TTpocrprjcns, and similarly irpopp-qa-ts, diTop-
pi-jcns, and avdpprja-ts answered to the verbs Trpoayopevoi,
a-TTayopevod, and avayopevoi, while the adjective diroppriTos
corresponded to dTtayopevo).
The verb dvayopeveLv was commonly used of proclama-
tions by herald, and was sometimes replaced by the peri-
phrasis TToielcrOai n/y dvdppr](nv, as its passive might be
turned by phrases like ^ dvdpprjais yLyverai. In the speech
of Aeschines against Ctesiphon, in which the orator en-
larges on the mode of presenting the golden crown to
Demosthenes, the Attic usage is very clearly demonstrated.
In § 122 is read, 6 Krjpv^ dvrjyopevev, a.nd shortly after, 6 Kijpv^
dvelTTev : in § 155) 'npoe^.Ooiv 6 Krjpv^ tl ttot dvepel : in § 45,
dvapprjOrjvai : and in § 1 89, Sei yap tov KripvKa d^lrevheiv orav
Trjv dvdpprjcnv kv rw Oedrpco TTOiiJTat Trpbs rovs "KkXrjvas : and
again in § 153, vojXLa-aO' 6pdv irpdiovTa tov K-qpvKa koX ttjv ck
TOV \j/ri(p[(rp,aTOS dvapprjatv p-ikkovcrav yiyv^crdai, A similar
testimony is more succinctly conveyed by Plato in Rep.
580 B, p.i(T6(ii(T(Lp.eda ovv KripvKa . . . ?) avTo<i dvciTTO) ort /ere. . . .
THE NEW PHRVNICHUS. 329
dv€ippr\(T6ui (Toi, e(f)r]. 7/ ovv Trpocravayopevcns . . . ; irpoa-ava-
y6p€V€, ecj)i]. So Plato, Legg. 730 D, 6 fxiyas avr]p kv Tro'Aet
dvQyopeve(T6(o : id. 946 B, Tiaa-iv dvenreiv on MayvrJTcov ?/ TroAt?
"KTe. The phrases avetTrey 6 KT]pv^, and TrpoV^e rwy iircovvp-cov
dveLirelv, are in fact of constant occurrence, and hardly call
for the explanation of Hesychius — dvilTrev €Ki]pv^€v, bta
KTjpvKos eiirei'.
As KrjpvTTeiv was compounded with the prepositions irpo,
tTTt, and TTpos, so irpoavayopeveLV, iiravayopivew, and irpocrava-
yopevetv were good Attic words. The expression apyvpiov
or \pr]}iaTa ^TTLK-qpvTTeLv tlvl is well known in the sense of
' setting a price on a man's head.' It is thus used in Dem.
de Fals. Legat. 347- 25> Sia ravra yj)i]ij.aO^ kavT^^ tovs Qrj^aCovs
kTtLK^Kfipvxivai^ and slightly varied in Lysias 104. 44 (vi. n8),
Tovs 6e (fxvyovras ^rjTelTe (Tv\kap.jiav€iv, eTTiKrjpvTTovTes rdXavTov
dpyvpCov bdxreiv ro) dyayovTt (MSS. aTrdyovrt, corr. Cobet) 17
d-noKrdvavTL. The same meaning attaches to tTrarayopeuco
in Aristophanes, Av. 107 1 —
TT/Se [xivTOL 6i]p.ipa }xdki(TT cirapayopeveTaL
r]V dTTOKTcCvij Tis vpiCiv Aiayopav tov Mr/Atoy
kaiiftdviiv T&kavTov :
Av. 107 1.
and to kirav^i-Kiiv in Thucydides 6. 60, tu>v he bia(pvy6vT(ap
ddvarov Karayvovres eiravelTTov dpyvptov t&J diioKTeivavTi. It is
probably to this passage that Pollux refers in 2. 128,
€TTav€LTTo)v dpyvpiov olov e77tKjjpv£as, and Hesychius in the
similar note, kiiavelTTov, cireK-qpv^av.
The meaning of bLayopevoi was often expressed by a
periphrasis with the adverb biapprjbrjv. It was possible to
say cither btayopcvei 6 voixos, or 6 vop.o's biappi]br\v Ae'yet. The
adverb is formed like Tfxrjb-qv {rixi^OeCs), dvebrjv [dvedeCs), kAt;-
hT]v (KXr^OiLs), (Tvbr]v {(TvOei'i), ((yvpbrjv [(fivpOds), ctc, and may be
at once pressed into service. In Plato, Legg. 6. 757, bia-
ynp(V()p.(voi is quite unintelligible — bovXoi yap ^v koI bemroTai
ovK av 77076 yivDivTo (l>iA(n nv?)( fv iTat? Tt/xais biayopfVOfXfvni
^^O THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
(pavXoi Kol (TTrovbaioi. The meaning required is certainly not
that of 8tap/)7/S?]z' XeyojievoL. The genuine reading has been
preserved in Photius in a learned note on (jbaCAos, from the
pen of Boethius — rtirroiro 8' av koI cttI tov \xoy6ripov' or av
bta(rTeWrjTai Trpo? to cnrovhalov, cos YlXaroi^v' hovkoi yap kol
SecTTTorat ovhi ttot &v yivoivro cjiiXoi, ovb^ ivtcrais rt/xats Stayez^o-
fxevoi (f)av\oL kol arTTovhoioi. The question is thus settled
not only by the authority of a true scholar, but also by the
inherent excellence of the reading hiayevo}j.hoi. There is no
mistaking the meaning in Plato, Polit. 275 A, o-ujonrao-rj? r???
TToAeo)? apy^ovra avTov a7re<^?jya/xei', ovnva 8e rpoirov ov 8t€^7ro/xez^,
that is, ov bLappj]brjv (explicitly) dirop.iv. In the same sense
it is used in id. Phaedrus 253 D, apeTi] h\ tls tov ayaOov ?)
KttKov KaKia ov hid-noiiev. Hesychius is therefore not accurate
when he explains hLent^lv by bL-qy-rjcraa-Oa-L, hiakeyOrjvai, and
goes still further wrong in another place — Atayopewet'
OiCTiriC^i, btayyekkei., and again in Atetp?7rat* 8t?7yyeA.rat. The
true meaning of the word was in fact lost in late Greek,
as is proved beyond question by the corrupt variants
which have taken its place in the manuscripts of Classical
authors.
Herodotus employed the word in its true sense in 7. 38.
Pythias has addressed Xerxes in the obscure terms — S
b^cTTTOTa, )(^pr]'ias av Tev ^ovXoijxr]v Tv^a^v to aoX [xev kka^pov
Tvyxavii {iTTovpyrjcrai, (jjiol 8e jx^ya yevop^evop, and the king will
have him speak to the point {hiappr]br]v Aeyetf) — e(/)rj re virovp-
yrjcreLv Kal biayopevetv eKe'Aeue otov beoiTo. The manuscripts
have brj ayopeveiv.
But it is the perfect forms which have suffered most.
They are constantly confused with the similar forms from
biaipoi — buLpr]K€v 6 v6p.os, bie.ipy]Tai, tol bieipr\jxiva, being fre-
quently altered to biijprjKev, biypr]TaL, and bir\pr\\xiva. It is
never difficult to restore the text, as a moment's considera-
tion is sufficient to decide which word best adapts itself to
the context. A passage of Plato (Legg. 932) provides an
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 331
unequalled illustration of the Attic usage in regard to
Stayopeveiy — Ta \xkv Oavda-tixa avrojv buiprjTai, t5>v h\ aXKoiv
ovb(V TTO) bt.€ppi]6ri' bLTTot yap bi] (f)apiJ.aK€iai Kara to twv avOpdiroiv
ovrraL yivos (Trta-yovcn r?;?' biapprjcnv, rjv jxkv yap ravvv biappi]briv
d-Troixev kt€. Yet even here the noxious btr\pr]Tai has manu-
script authority in its favour. Ast has noticed this con-
fusion on Legg. 809 K, ravra ovtm (rot Travra iKavoos irapa
Tov vo[xod€TOV bieLpr]Tat, . . . . ws ovirco bietpyiKe aoi. Here
also most manuscripts read birjpifTai. Among other instances
he quotes Legg. 813 A, koX ravra y]\uv iv rot? irpoa-O^v bteCprjrai
navra .... aXijOfj Kal ravra bLeiprjKa^, but he makes a grave
mistake in adding to his list Legg. 647 B, acpoliov r}}xS>v
apa be'i yeveadat kol (pofiepov eKacrroi'' Siv 8' (Kctrepov €veKa,
bir\pr]ix€6a. The Middle biyp-qpLai is unquestionably required.
He would have done better in restoring bteipriKev for 8?/
(Xpi-jK€v in Legg. 809 A, vvv ]x\v yap br] etprjKev ovbev ttoj (Ta(pes
ovbk LKavov aWa ra jxev ra b' ov.
The Orators have fared as badly as the Philosopher.
The text of Demosthenes supplies the following variants —
465. 20, 6pa6^ ws (ra(f)())9 ixrjbcva elvat rpLr]pap-)(^Cas areXrj btetpr]Kev
{birjpriKiv) 6 vopLOi : 644. 4, Kal aAA' drra bieiprjKev (birjpriKev)
^ XPV TTOLi](rat .... 6 vojxos : 976. 28, (ra(/)(3? 6 vopios bteiprj-
K€V (btrjprjKev) Siv elvai biKa^ TrpocrrjKei /xeraAAtKa? : 666. 13,
bi€Lpr]rat [biripi-\rai) tl iTpaKrkov rj p.-)]. In all these passages
Dindorf, following Dobree, has edited bnjprjKev and birjprjrai,
but a careful examination of the passages will show that
the perfects are all to be referred to biayopevetv, i. e. Ciappi]-
brjv Kiyeiv. It is easy to understand what is meant by the
sentence 6 v6p.o<i btayopevet. ixi-jbiva dvai rpirjpapyj.a'i dreXij, but
substitute biatpel for biayopevet and the words become un-
intelligible. The verb biaipfiv is found in combination with
6 vojxo'i — 6 I'ojxos btaipel, bulXev 6 vojxos, — but only when the
law distinguishes between two disiinct things. Dem. Tir^.
10, rts yap aXctXT^rai ^tl rrore \\f^vho\j.aprvpiMV el jxaprvpi'irreL re
h. ftnvKfrai Kal Kdynv on' ftnvKfraL htixTn ; aAA' ovy^ ourco ravra 6
332 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
v6\i.o's bulkev. ' The law,' he says, ' makes no such dis-
tinction, but requires that everything stated as evidence
should be taken into account.'
There is only one passage of Demosthenes in which the
perfect passive occurs without a variant, namely, 212. 13,
(a)0VTo ajxa re vavTrrjyi^aea-Oai, evravOa koI TT)\.r]p(ti(re(r6aL ev rats
KOLvais ojxoXoylais bteLprjixivov jxrjbev tolovtov ettrSexfo'^at. Yet
even here the accusative hi€ipy]ixivov is demanded by the
rules of Greek syntax.
In Isaeus, 86. 10 (11. 22), the primitive reading must
have been Steiprjrat, although it is not represented in the
manuscripts — dAA.' on 8teiprjrat KaO^ eKaa-rov Trepl avr&v, eK tov
v6p.ov yvSivai pqbtov. Immediately after follows, 6 vopLos . . .
biappijbrjv KeXeiJcov rod jxepovs eKacTTov kayyaveiv.
In a preceding paragraph, 84. 37 (11. 12), dAA' a-ni-
h(jL>K€ . . . ri]v KX.ripovop.iav Kara Tavra Kaddirep koI ef «PX^^ V^
vTTctprjpiivov, the perfect vireipripi^vov is to be referred to
vTTayopevo), as throughout Isaeus the correspondence be-
tween ayop€V(o, epw, dirov, e'tpr]Ka, etc., is consistently main-
tained.
^ A-nayopevoi corresponds with aTTopprja-Ls in Isaeus, 2. 28,
aTTrjyopeve vols b)vovpi€voLs ju.?j covda-dat . . . tovt(^ he Xayx^dvei
hUy]v TTjs aTTopp-qa-eois. The series is completed by De-
mosthenes, 902. 20, aiT-qyopevev 6 Tlapixivo^v . . . jxr] yiyvuxTKetv
avev T(ov (TVvhLaiTT]TG>v . , . orav bi] avev crvvbLatTrjTcav irapa
Tr]v aTTopprja-Lv (pf] bebLr]Tr]K€vai : and about the same thing in
899. 10, ov fxovov aixtpLO-lBriTrjOels aXXa /cat airopp-qQev avTut
ovbev riTTov rrjv aTTocpao-LV eTroiT^craro . . . : 903. 20, d-TretTre be
avT^ p.r] biaaav. A common meaning of cmayopevca was to
disinherit a son, and because this was generally done by a
crier, there occur phrases like vtto K-qpvKos a-nayopeveiv,
a-nemeiv, and aTropprjOrjvai, in the sense of airoKijpvTTeLv, eKKrj-
pvTTetv, etc, all which terms are used as interchangeable in
the Eleventh Book of the Laws, as 928 D, rbv vlbv vtto
KTjpvKos atieiTteiv : and 929 A, v-no tov yevovs aTropp-qOrjvaL
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 333
'navTo'i. Hence aTropprja-ts was used for aTTOKj/pv^ts disiji-
heriting, a fact expressly mentioned by a Grammarian in
Bekker, Anecd. i. 216, to, diropprjcns' koI to diTOKripvcro-eu',
In fact, diTopprja-Ls is used in all the senses of dTrayopevca,
whether fordid, disinherit^ or become weary. It has already
been quoted in the sense oi forbidding^ corresponding to
aTrayopei/o) as a synonym of airavSw and the Homeric
aireixvO^oixTiv, and with the meaning of giving in, the word
is found in Plato, Rep. '^^'J A, tov Qpaa-vp-ayov ti]v diropp-qaiv
ovK aTTehe^aro. Such is the common usage in the Orators
with regard to dirayopeva} ; but in Dem. 102 1. 20, dirriyopevcrev
is used where the rule calls for di^^mv, namely, airi^yopevaev
avT<^ fxr} biaiTav, and a few other aberrations from ordinary
usage are encountered here and there in Classical Greek.
After the time of Alexander these exceptions became the
rule, and the verb formed its tenses regularly, -ayopevaco,
-rjyopevaa, --qyopiVKa, -y]yop€v6T\v, -r\y6p^vjxai, while substantives
like irpoaayopevcns, ciTrayopevo-t?, took the place of Trpoa-prja-Ls
and d-nopp-qai's.
In Attic writers use was occasionally made of -rjyopevcra,
-ayopevaoi, etc., by the side of -tiiiov and -epw, etc., to
emphasize distinction of meaning. Thus, dTrayopexxa, when
it signified d-noKdixvo), had always ciTrepaJ.aTretTroi;, and d-ndpriKa,
and the compound with -npo always TTpoairepoi, ■npoana.Tiov,
TTpoaTTfLprjKa ; but when it had the meaning o( forbid, its
aorist might be dirr^yopevaa, and its perfect passive din]-
yopev/xat. Similarly Trpoo-ayopewco in the sense of ao-TrdCo/ixat
had TTpoa-epoi, Tipoardirov, and -npoa-eppi^O^v, but in the sense of
call sometimes employed Trpoa-r^yopevcra and T:poariyoptvOi]v :
Xen. Mem. 3. 2, l, tov eveKev "Ojxr^pov oUl tov 'Ayaixtfivova
TTpoaayopev(Tat T:oijj.iva kao)v ; By itself the authority of
Xcnophon would go for nothing, but Plato uses -npoara-
yoptvTia (Phacd. 104 A), and Demosthenes — if the speech
is not ascribed to Dinarchus — -npoa-qyop^vOi^v, lOoH. 5, orav
Tis ovop.a.Ti p.ev d6(K<j>os TrpnrraynpevOij Tiicav. Tlpnayopfvo)
334 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
formed TrpoepS), Trpotircov, TrpoeiprjKa, but as to. Tipoeipiqixiva
meant ante dicta, for cdicta ra -upo^yoptvp-kva was used.
It is in a similar way that Cobet explains d'n'qyopcva-ev in
Dem. 1021. 20, It was possible in the sense oi forbade,
but could not be used with the meaning gave in. Ac-
cordingly, for the aorist aTrayopeva-rjs, the present aTrayopevrjs
should be substituted in Plato, Theaet. 200 D, when
Socrates having said ov ydp ttov ctTrepov/xey ye irco, Theaetetus
replies r/Kiora, edvirep ft?j crv ye dirayop^vcrrjs. The change is
easily made, and perhaps restores the text, but few scholars
will listen to Cobet's proposal to alter TTpoa-ayopeva-opL^v to
Trpocrepovpiev in Theaet. 147 Dj rjpAv ovv tla-iikOi tl tolovtov . . .
TTeLpaOrjvaL crvWa^eiv eis kv orca Trda-as ravras TTpoaayop^va-opiev
Tas bvvdp,^L9. If TTpoaayopevT^a was, as he admits, used in
the Phaedo, and Trpoaayop^vOy by Demosthenes, without
any essential difference of meaning from Trpoaayopevaop-ev in
the present passage, then it is not only perilous but in-
consistent to demand TTpo(T€povp.ev. The rule once established,
such rare exceptions should be regarded as anomalies, and
relegated to the obscurity which they merit. No purpose
is served by burdening the memory with unquestioned
anomalies in language, and no intellect is safe from de-
generation which occupies itself in finding a metaphysical
explanation for every irregularity of syntax. Irregularities
in construction, and still more so anomalies in form, are
generally due to the desperately corrupt condition of the
manuscripts. To rise by the help of broad generalisations
and careful inductions to a knowlege of the Greek language
as used by the Greeks themselves should be the aim of
every true scholar, as it is certainly the only course which
a man of sense can follow.
ccxxxv.
EuarreAi^ojuai oe- kqi nepi tguthc thc ouvrdSeoac bia-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 335
OKfenTOjuevoc eni ou)(v6v bn xpovov eire alxiaTiKH ouviaKTeov
auTO nxwoei eCie boxiKH, euptOKOo Kara boriKHv Hpjuoojuevov
'ApiGT09dvouc juev ouxoo Aerovxoc ev xo?c ' Inneuoiv,
EuarreAioaoOai npoaxoc bjulv pouAoMCti.
4>puvi)(ou be xou KOojLicuboO ev xolc Zaxupoic ouxcoc.
The rest of the article is corrupt — "On -npiv IkQdv avrbv
eis fiov\i]v e8et /cat ravr a-nayydkavTa ttclXlv irpos rbv 6ebv
i]K€tv, eyo) b' airibpav eKelvov bevptavov Sei. Kat ovtu) kiyov(riv
evayyiXiCo pitti rj evayyekS)' ov 6 Ylkdrctiv to bevTepov TTpoa-
(DTTov Kiyei evayyekeis. William Dindorf imagines that two
distinct articles have been confused, and that the mutilated
lines from otl to bet are a quotation intended to establish
the true forms of the aorist of aTrobibpda-Kco — a supposition
which is supported by App. Soph. 11. i, 'A-nibpajxev rerpa-
(Tvkkdl3(o^, Kol dTT€bpaT€ Koi direbpav, (ipaxeias rri^ tov dulbpav
ecrxo-TTjS avkkajS-qr dkkd kol to kviKov irp&TOv irpocrcoiTOV dire-
bpav, eKTeTajxevov tov cttI rikovs a, kol diribpas koI direbpa,
ov\ 0)5 ot p-qTopes dTTebpd(rap.€V to 8e diribpav Ttves T(av pi]T6poiV
bia TOV oj etTTOi', diribpoiv, dkk^ ap.etvov 8ta tov a' op-oCcos nal
i^ibpav.
The passage of Plato referred to as containing the form
evayyekds must be either Rep. 432 D or Theaet. 144 B. In
both of these places eS dyye'AAets is the received reading,
and in neither do manuscripts exhibit the compound verb.
There is the same difficulty with kuk dyyikkoi versus KaKay-
yeko). Photius has preserved the dictum — Eveyyek^lv v(j)
iv kiyovui Kal KaKayyekdv, and if evayyekeh is assigned
to Plato, then KaKayy(koiv and KUKuyyekdv may respect-
ively replace KaK dyyikkow, and kuk oyyeAeu- in a line of
JCuripides —
rt f/;//v ; rt bpdcra'i ; w KaKayyek&v Trcirep —
H. F. 1 1 36.
and in a tragic senarius, ap. Dem. 315. 24 —
KUKayyekelv plv utOi \ii] O.kovT e//e.
336 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
In Lobeck's edition will be found the various unsuccess-
ful attempts to restore the passage from the Comic poet,
and a Greek dictionary will supply proof of the classical
construction of the verb ivayyi.\iCp\i.ai.
CCXXXVI.
'EKa96O0H, KaBeaOeic, KaeeaeHoojuoii Kat id nAHBuvTiKd
Ka6eo6HGOVTai, eKcpuAa. Aere ouv KaOe^ojuai, KaSeboOjuai,
KaSeboCvTai, KaOeboujuevoc.
Probably lKo.Q(^Cp\i.r]v should be here substituted for KaQi-
Cp\iai as eKaOeaOriv suggests. Moreover, the form KadeCoixai
is by some scholars denied to Attic Greek, and when ex-
hibited by manuscripts is replaced by KaOlCoixai.. As is
well known, eKaOeCoixrjv has generally the force of an aorist,
and would naturally correspond to the late kKadia-Q-qv.
The three verbs, Ka9i(oj, KaOiCoiJ^ah and KadijixaL, supple-
ment one another. KadiCoD has both a transitive and an
intransitive meaning. It is possible to say either Ka6i(oi
2,u)KpdTriv KpiT-qv, I make Socrates sit as a judge, or 6 ^coKpaTris
Kptrrjs KaOiC^i, Socrates sits as a judge. Notwithstanding
this intransitive use of the active voice, the passive — it is
passive and not middle — is also in use with the signifi-
cation of sit. The aorist, however, is not found, its place
being filled by Kudlcra or iKaOXcra and KaOeCojxrjv. KdOrnxai,
may be considered as the perfect passive of the transitive
KaOiCoi, but a perfect which must necessarily have much
of a present force. Lucian, in his Pseudosophist, well brings
out the difference between kSlOlC^ and KaOrja-o —
A. TO KaO€(T9i]TL i'Jkovov arov keyovTos w? ecmv ^K(f)v\ov,
B. Koi 6p6(as ye y"jKOV(ras, akXa to k6.6l(tov tov Ka6r\(T0
hLa(f)epeLv (firjixl,
A. Kat Tfa) TiOT av elr] btd(})€pov ;
B. Tw 70 piiv TTpos TOV k(TTS>Ta keyeaOai, to kciOktov, to
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
331
h\ Trpos Tov Kade(6ix€vov'
T](T , d) ^€ilv, i]iJ.€ls he Kol cLkkoOt bi]oiJL€v edprjv
clvtI tov /jieVe Kade^oiJi-evos.
Attic writers observe the distinction.
Kadrnxai. may be used intransitively of everything of
which KaOi^oi is used transitively, as Thuc. 6. 66, ol 'Adrj-
valoi Kadlaav to crTpdTevixa is yoipiov e7rtr?/8eioy id. 2. 20,
■nepl TOis 'kyapvas Kadr}}X€vos d i-ne^iacriv' ap-a yap avT^ o
Xpipos iirtTribeLos e^atvero iva-TpaTOTrebevcrat ktc. Similarly,
KuOCC^iv avbpidvTa, but 6 avbptas KaOr^Tat, and tovs St/caoray
or TO biKaa-TTipiov KaOi^^iv, but ol biKaa-ToL KaOrjVTaL. ' To
bring one in weeping,' as an actor would present a cha-
racter, is in Greek Ka6i(eiv Tiva KkdovTa, and the character
so presented may be said Kkdoiv KaOijcrdaL.
The Attic forms of these three alternating and mutually
supplementary verbs are confined to the following : —
Transitive.
KaOCCu), set, make to sit.
KUOI^OV, iKaOi^OP.
KaOica.
KaOlrra, eKaOicra.
Intransitive.
KadiCo), sit, take my seat.
KaOi^ov, (KaOL^ov.
KaOlaa, e/ca^icra.
K6.6T]paL, am seated.
Ka6rip.riv, iKa6r}\n)v.
Middle.
KaQi^opai, set for myself.
KaOi^ojxriv, €Kadi,(6p.rjv.
KadLovp-at.
KaOla-dprjv, eKa6Ladp,r]v.
Passive.
KadtCopai, [^KaOeCop-atj.
iKadiCdpriv
KaOi^i^rropai, KaOebovpaL.
eKa0e^6pi]v.
KaO^lpai.
KaOi}p.riv, eKaOi]pr]V.
Though not met with till late, the perfect K^KdOtKa was
certainly in use in Attic, at all events in its transitive sig-
nification. KaOiQ), however, was not used intransitively
Mocris 212, xafJeOei 'Attiko^, KaOtWis "EAA};i'es. l\aOiCi'](Topai
Z
^^H THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
and KadebovixaL were sufficient. The corrupt ■npoa-KaOea-Orja^i
has manuscript authority in Aeschin 77. 34, but has justly
succumbed to TTpoaKaOt^/iaeL.
' Participio aoristi Josephum, Apollodorum, Lucianum
et horum similes alios usos esse demonstravit Graevius.
Indicativo, (KaOia-Orj, Longus, 3. 5> TrepLeKaOia-Orj Eunapius,
eTTLKaOecrOeLt] Geoponica, KaOeaOf] Pausanias, KaOea-dijvaL Li-
banius, k-niKaOiaQrjvai Eusebius.' Lobeck.
CCXXXVII.
'AveKoOcv 9uAaKTeov eni xpovou Aereiv, olov dveKaeev
juoi eoTi (piAoc. eni rdp Tonou TOiTTOUGiv auTO oi'AOHvaloi,
AerovTec dveKaeev Kajeneoe. Aereiv ouv xRh^ dvcoSev
C5 1 cpiAoc eijui. ei be tic <paiH eni xpovou nap' 'HpoboTw
eipHceai TOiivojua, dAH9H juev cpHGei* et'pHTai rdp. ou juhv
TO) ucp' 'HpoboTou elpHoOai to boKijuov thc xRHOcooc nape-
XCTOi. ou rdp'IcoviKoov Koi AcopiKoiJv eEeTaoic feOTiv ovojudTOOv
dAA' 'Attikocjv.
The word aveKudev is not Attic in either signification.
It is one of those old words which lived on in Tragedy
from Ionic times, and with the meaning 'from above' it
occurs in Aesch. Eum. 369 —
jxaka yap ovv akop.iva aveKadev f3apvTT€(rr]
Karacfiipco irobbs aKp-av.
In Herodotus it is frequent, and from Ionic it passed
into the Common dialect. Herod. 4. ^"j, of place, Trorajuo'?,
o? peet TaveKadev ck kip.vr]s fxeydXrjs opp.^6}xei>o^ '. but more
frequently of time, i. 170, avhphs to avUaOev kovros ^oIvlkos :
6. 125, ecraz; to. av^KaOev kapLTrpoi.
Plut. Num. 13, r] aveKaOev (f)opd : Lucian, Jud. Voc. 7
(91), Botwrtos TO yivos dveKaOev : Polyb. 16. 12, 2, evxovTat, to
aviKaOev 'Apyeioiv diroiKa yeyovhai : et frequentissime.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 339
CCXXXVIII.
Ke<pa\aicobecTaTOv touto touvojucx eupov ev oipxH tcov
TToAejucovoc toO 'IcovikoG oocpioTOu'loTOpicov Kara npooijuiov,
KQi eaujud^co ZeKOuvbou toO ourrevojuevou auTco rpctjUMOiTiKoC,
noac cbv id dAAa beSioc eni AeSiv kqi enavopBoiiv rd our-
rpdjujuara toC oocpiOToO, touto napelbev dboKijuov 6v.
The Polemo here referred to flourished in the first half
of the second century A.D. That he should have kept a
grammarian to correct his work shows no less clearly than
the work of Phrynichus himself the state to which liter-
ature had fallen in the second century.
The defaulting form is cited by Lobeck from Lucian,
Diogenes Laertius, Eusebius, and others, and the com-
parative from writers equally debased. Such k-niracn^ virep-
di(Ti(os has already been considered (p. 144).
CCXXXIX.
"Eoe' onH' Ti ndoxouGiv 01 our co AerovTec, beov Igtiv oie
Aereiv, ouK dv tic eiKdaeiev, dAA' h touto juovov oti hjU6Ah-
juevoi eiQiv 01 toutoj toj ovoijuxji xpoojuevoi.
Examples of this transference of eo-0' our] from its legi-
timate meaning, ' in some way,' to the absurd sense of
'sometimes,' arc cited by Lobeck from Herodian, Galen,
Aristaenetus, Nicctas Choniates, etc.
CCXL.
BukhAoc u/japTdvouGiv 01 rdTTOVTec touto kutu tou
PAaKoc. OH)Liaivei fdp 6 (JukhAoc tov dnoTCTinHjuevov tu
Z 2
340 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
aibola, 6v BiGuvoi re kqi 'Aoiavoi FdAAov KaAouci. Aere ouv
PAdS KQl PAQKlKOVj d)C ol Opxaloi.
- The correction, (BXaniKov for ^Xclkiov, restores the hand
of Phrynichus. Both jika^ and ^kdKiKo^ are of the best
authority in Attic.
CCXLI.
'Ekoov elvai- koi nepi toGto ibiooTHc juev ouk dv nraioeie"
Twv be 096bpa npoanoioujuevoov dpxaia cpcovH KeKpi^evH
XpHGOai, Tobe djuapTHjua toioOtov eanv, oi juev naAaioi outoj
GuvrdiTOuoi TO Ikoov tlvai, toGTe ndvTOOc dnaropeuoiv h
dpvHoiv eni96p6iv hi npoaiieevai, oTov, eKoov elvai ou ixh
no I H 000. ouTOO KQl 01 vuv eu cppovoOvTec. oGOi be eni Kaia-
cpdoeooc rieeaoi to ckoov elvai, otov, Ikoov elvai enpaSa,
eKoov elvai e nepou Aeuod juh v, ixkyiQia djuapTdvouoiv.
The rule is absolute in Attic. Plato, Phaed. 6i C, ov5'
b-noiaTiovv (tol €Kwv elvai TreiareTai. : Phaedr. 252 A, oOev 8t)
fKovo-a dvai ovk a-nokdiTiTai : Gorg. 499 C, Kalrot ovk (^fj.r]v
ye /car' ap^as vtto aov kKOVTOs eTvai i^aTraT-qdrjcrea-Oai ct)5 ovtos
(f)iXov : Apol. 37 A, TreTTeLa-jxai cyo) kK(i)V eirai \nqhiva abiKclv
avdpcaiTcov : Thuc. 2. 89, tov be ay&va ovk iv rw koAttw cKwy
elvai TTotrjo-o/xat : 4. 98, vvv be, ev w ixepei elaiv, eKovres elvai
6)9 CK cr<peTepov ovk ainevai ; 7- ^l» Oacrcrov re yap 6 NtKia? -^ye,
voixiCcov ov TO vTTop.eveiv ev rw rotoOTO) eKovras eTvai Kal p-d^e-
aOai (Ta)Tripiav. Thomas, p. 290, adds that the phrase could
stand in interrogative sentences which are virtually ne-
gative, as Ti Tis av eK<j)v elvai ■noi7](jeiev, and there can be no
question that he is right, as such a usage is in accordance
with the facts of language. To extend the phrase to con-
ditional sentences, as L. Dindorf would do (in Thes. Steph.
3- ^55) on the strength of Plato, Legg. 646 C, 6avixd(oip.ev
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 341
av €1 TTOT€ TLS kKoiv elvai fTTi 70 TOLOvTov acf)tKV€iTai, IS quitc
erroneous, as in this case eTvai is not found in the best
manuscripts, being merely a late interpolation, and, more-
over, the sentence is not a conditional one, but illustrates
the well-known use of d after davixdCco. The same scholar
errs still more grossly in denying that the negative in-
fluences eKovras eimt in the third passage of Thucydides
cited above. No one, however, questions its use in affir-
mative sentences in Herodotus, as y. 164, 6 8e Kdb[xos ovtos
. . . €K(av T€ elvai koL betvov cttlovtos ovhevbs dWa diro btKaio-
(rvvr]9 es iiicrov Kwotcri KaraO^ls rrjv dp-)(r]v, and it was this
looser use which was followed in the Common dialect.
CCXLII.
"OpBpoc vLv diKOuco Toov noAAoiv TiQevTWv eni tou npo
hAiou dviGXOVTOc xpovou. 01 be apxami opGpov kqi opOpeu-
€()Gai TO npo dpxojuevHC Hjuepac, ev co en Auxvw buvaxai
TIC xpHG0o(i. o Toivuv djuapTOivovTec 01 noAAoi Aerouciv
6p9pov, ToGe' ol dpxaToi eoo Aerouaiv.
The usage of Attic writers is distinctly in favour of this
view. In his App. Soph. p. 54, Phrynichus places opdpos
after /^eVai vvkt^s, and explains it as r} &pa r?/s vvktos kuO'
rjv dXcKTpvoves ahovcnv. The expression opOpos (3a6vs is well-
known.
CCXLIII.
Mareipeiov to juev Mdreipoc boKi^ov, to be juareipeTov
ouK€Ti, dvTi be TOUTOu onTOviov AerouGi.
The words r^s fxev Seurepas crvXXaftris d^VTOvovp.lvri'i Tij'i
bk Tpirrj^ avaTeWonivrjs appended by some editors to this
article arc merely a gloss, but a correct gloss as is proved
by verse —
342 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
eK(f)OLTU)V T ks TOVTrrdviOV XrjcreL ae Kvvqbov.
At. Eq. 1033.
tovtI 8' opaT oTTTdvtov r]\uv ws Kokov.
Pax 891.
A. OTTTCLVLOV €(TTLV ; B. €(TTL. A. KOL KaTTVriV ^X^'"
Alexis (Athen. 9. 386 A).
Pollux, however, quotes fxayeipela from Antiphanes 9.
48, Kol jxayeipela twv TroAeco? jxepStv ov^ ffT^^P i"^ konra twv
VTTO Toii Te)(vats kpyacTTrjpioiv, aA.A.' 6 tottos odev fxicrOovvTai,
Tovs p-ayeCpovs o)s ^ AvTL(})dvr}s kv ^TpaTnoTrj virobrjkovv eoLKCV —
'Ek twv //ayetpeicoy (3abiC(ov kp^aXGtv
ets Tov^lrov.
The passage does not traverse the dictum of Phrynichus.
The lexicography of the two words is given by Lobeck
with his usual elaboration.
CCXLIV.
Turxoivoo- Kai TOUTCo npooeKTeov oi rap ctjue^e^c oCtco
AerouGi, 91A0C 001 Turxcivoo, exOpoc juoi Turxaveic. bei
be T(p pHjuaxi TO oov npoGTieevai, (piAoc jUOi rurxaveic
cov, exQpoc juoi Turxaveic cov.
Even in the best age the participle of the substantive
verb was sometimes carelessly omitted after Tvyx^v(^- If
the Prose instances are set aside as of no importance in such
an inquiry, there is a line of Aristophanes to confute such
scholars as would correct the texts of prose writers by the
dictum of Phrynichus —
Ka\ tQv 6eaT(av et rt? evvovs Tvy\dvei.
Eccl. 1 141.
There are, however, seven lines in which the correct con-
struction is unquestioned —
Tov 8' vlbv ocTTTep U)V povos p.01 Tvyxdviu
PI. 35-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 343
61 Tvyyjivoi y 6 haKTv\io<s ojv rrjA^as.
PI. 1037.
jjLi] Kai TL9 (i)v di-'T/p 6 TTpoa-LUiv ruyx^dyei.
Eccl. 29.
fxa Tov Ai", ov yap ivhov ovcra Tvyxavei.
Id. 336.
krvyyo-vev yap ov rpt/Scoy cov Ittttiktjs-
Vesp. 1429.
OTL Tvy^dveL \vx^V07T0los biV TTpb TOV jxev ovv
Pax 690.
ei he Tvy)(^dv€L tls u>v ^pv£ [xribev riTTOv ^-nivOapov.
Av. 762.
These at once elevate the construction with the participle
into a rule, and shew that the omission of the substantive
verb is quite exceptional. Such exceptions are sometimes
unfairly multiplied by such lines as —
el he Tvy\avei. rt? v\j.S)v hpa-ner-qs eaTiyixevos
Ar. Av. 760.
on the one hand, and
(TU)Ti]p yivoiT av Z.evs eii aaiilhos Tv\(av
Aesch. Sept. 520.
on the other. In the former of these lines eaTiyp-evos is
participial, not adjectival, and in the latter the participle is
naturally supplied from yevoao. Aeschylus does not else-
where employ this construction, but in Sophocles it occurs
five times —
itvhov yap avi]p apri rvyxdvei, K&pa
Aj. 9.
fxeyicTTOs avTols rvyxdvet hopv$evoov.
El. 46.
Ovpalov olyvelv vvv 5' dypola-i Tvyyavei.
Id. 3'3-
yaipoi'i av el (tol x^-P"^"- T'uyxdrot T&he.
Id. 1457.
fjLfvOLix' av' ijOe\ov 5' av eKTOs wv Tvxelv.
Aj. 88.
344 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
It will be observed that in four of these five lines is
found the construction which the evidence of Aristophanes
proves to be exceptional in pure Attic, but on such a point
the testimony of a Tragic poet is as little to be regarded
as that of an un- Attic, or late writer, or even of Homer.
kv& 67761 es \i\ikva kKvtov i]kQo\ii.v ov irept TreVpTj
■))\[l3aTos TeTV)(^i]K€ bLajxTTepes a[jL(j)0T€p(t)6ev.
Od. 10. 87.
CCXLV.
ZurKpiaic- riAoLTapxoc enerpave aurrpajUMoi ti toov
auToG —
ZLrKpioic'ApiaT09dvouc koi Mevdvbpou.
Kai eaujud^O) nooc (piAoc309iac en aKpov d9ir]uevoc Kai
oacpojc eibwc 6 ti nore eoxiv h GurKpioic, Kai 6 ti bidKpioic
expHcaTO dboKijutp 900VH. ojuoiooc be koi to GurKpiveiv Ka'i
ouveKpivev HjudpTHTai. xRh o^v avreSeTO^eiv Kai napapdA-
Aeiv Aereiv.
' Haec quoque labes temporibus Alexandri Magni nata
est. Primus, quod constet, Aristoteles Rhet. i. 9, 1368 ^ 21,
(TvyKpiveiv tl irpos tl pro avTnrapa^ahk^iv usurpavit : Polit.
4. II, 1295 ^ 27) Tipos aperrjv crvyKpivova-i ttjv virep rovs Ibtcaras :
H. A. 9. 38, 622 ^30, &)? TTpbs raXKa avyKpLvea-Oat. Hinc
verbi usum accepit Theophrastus, C. PI. 4. 2, cujus aequalem,
Philemonem, ovyKpLo-Ls usurpasse contra Phrynichi mentem
notat Berglerus. Nihil jam in scriptis Graecorum frequen-
tius quam hoc vocabulum. ... In librorum elogiis id fuit
unum celebratissimum ; sic oHm legebatur Chrysippi, 2vy-
Kptcrts Twv TpoTTiKoiv a^Loop-cLTCdv Dlog. La. y. 1 94 ; Caecillam
Siculi SvyKpicrt? Arifxoa-Oivovs koI Alay^ivov, Suid. ; Meleagri
Gadareni X^kWov koX (ftaKrjs, Athen. 4. 157 ; Plutarchus ipse
comparationem Graecorum ct Romanorum imperatorum
(TvyKpiaiv vocat, Vit. Flamin. c. 21,' Lobeck.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 345
CCXLVI.
Kar eKe?vo KaipoO- koi eroi \xkv cpuAdxTeciGai napaivo)
ouTOO xpHoeai. ei b', oti OouKubi&HC ei'pHKe, GappoiH tic
XpHoGai, xpHseco juev ouv be xto apGpco. napd juev rap dAAco
Tciiv boKijLioov oux eupov. HroOjuai be kqi QouKubibHv ev th h
jaerd toO dpOpou eipHKevai kot eKeTvo toC Kaipou.
The phrase is not met with in Thucydides, but in the
seventh book, not the eighth, are encountered the corre-
sponding words, Kara rovro Katpov (ch. 2}. Lobeck quotes
ThuC. 7. 69, aXXa T€ \4ycov oaa kv rcu roioi^ro) ?/8rj tov Kaipov
6vT€s avdpco-oi eXiTOuv av : Demosth. 20. 13, Katpov [xev 8^ Trpbs
TovTo TrdpecTTL ^iXiTTTTco TO. TTpdypLaTa : Aristoph. Pax iiji, ttj-
VLKavra tov Oipovs '. Eq. 944, ovh^is ttco \p6vov'. Plato, Rep.
9. 588 A, k-neihi] evTavda Xoyov yeyovajxev : Theaet. 177 C>
ovKovv €VTav6d TTov 7//xei^ TOV koyov. Similarly in Rep. I.
328 E occurs cTretS?) ivTavOa rjhr] 6? tt/s rjXtKLas, but in 329 B,
oo-ot kvTavOa 7/A.^oy 17X1x10?. Of course no such rule as
Phrynichus would fain lay down was known to Attic
authors, the article being employed or omitted according
to the whim of the writer or as the meaning required.
CCXLVII.
'EneoTHoe koi eniCTaQcooc dSiov to npdrMct, ovti toC
HnopHfjt Kai dnopiac dHiov to npdriLia. outo) xp<J^Mevcov toov
Ztojikojv 9iAoG6(pojv noAAoKic aKHKoa, el be Kai dpxotiwc
H boKijiCoc, d£iov eniGKe\]/e(joc.
Two passages of Classical Greek will show how this
meaning was acquired by cTr^o-Tan-is and k^icTTdvai. The
one is the well-known speech of the Guard in the Antigone
of Sophocles —
346 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
ava^, kpGt fi€V ovx^ Sttcos t^x^ovs vtto
bva-iTVOVi LKdvo}, Kovcpov e^dpas 7ro8a.
TToAAds yap i^a-yov (ppovrlboiv iirtaTacrei?,
ohols kvkKQv kp.avTov els avaa-rpocprjv'
■v//-U)(7j yap rjiiba TtoXKa. p.oi p.v6ovp.ivri,
ToXas, Ti \(tip(is ol ixoX.(i)v haxreis 8t/crjy ;
tXi]ix(i>v, jLieyets" av ; Kxe.
The third Hne precisely expresses the state of mind de-
scribed at greater length in what follows — resolves sud-
denly adopted and as suddenly cast aside, the current of
the man's thoughts receiving a check (e-n-to-rao-ts), as a horse
is quickly pulled up by its rider.
In the second passage Isocrates says that the benefits
which Evagoras had conferred upon the state were sever-
ally so important that refusing to appraise them the mind
adjudged the palm in succession to each, according as it
was forced to consider it in particular : 203 A, et tls epoao
jue Ti voixi^u) fxiyLCTTov elvai tG>v Evayopa Treirpayp-evuiv . . . els
TToX\i]v arropLav av KaTaaTairjV ael yap p.01. hoKel fxeyLarov etvat.
Kal Oavp-aa-TOTarov KaO^ on av avTa>v eTnarricTUi ttjv hiavoiav.
Good writers also use the second aorist as the intransi-
tive equivalent of the active with hiavoiav, as Dem. 245. 10,
a^' r]S r]p,epas e-nl ravra e-nea-Tiqv : Isocr. 213 d, eina-Tas errl
TO. Qrjcreotis epya : Epicrates ap. Athen. 2. 59—
irpcaTiarTa pev ovv -ndvTes avavbels
TOT eTrecrTTjcrav kol KV\}/avTes
yjpovov ovK oXiyov hi.e(l>p6vTi^ov —
but the use of l(f)C<rTr}p.L, eTrioTTjo-co, e-nea-T-qcra, without vovv,
yv(apr]v, or btavoLav, is unknown to Attic, and even with
these accusatives it is rare. In Epicrates as cited the me-
taphor is still crisp, eTrea-Trjcrav meaning 'were pulled up
sharp,' rather than 'were at a loss' (1)1:6 prjo-av). As it is, the
Attic of the lines is not high, as a pure Attic writer would
have employed bte(})povTlCovTo rather than bie(f>p6vTi,Cov.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 347
CCXLVIII.
EuGTdeeia, euoTaGHC, noGev koi Tauxa etc thv tcov
'EaAhvcov 900VHV eioeppuH, dboKijucoTara ovra, 9povTiboc
dEiov. dAAci ou ejuPpiGeia Aere Kai ejuppiSHC.
The defaulting terms are both of great antiquity, al-
though unknown to Attic. Homer and Hippocrates use
the adjective, the former applying it to buildings in the
sense of ' firmly built,' the latter to diseases and to the
weather, with the meaning 'equable.' II. 18. 374, lord-
[kivai Trept Tolyjiv evcTTadios iieyapoio : Hippocr. Aph. 1247,
Epid. I. 938, €V(rTa6ies vovaot: Epid. 3. 1091, Oepos ovk
€V(TTa6(^. In the form evcTradir] the substantive is met with
in Hippocr. 24. 45, Trpbs tovs ox^ovs tovs kmyivoixivovi ^vcr-
raOi-qs (ixeixvrjcrdat) rrjs ev kavrQ.
Epicurus re-introduced the words, and his example was
followed by subsequent writers, Plutarch, Josephus, Ap-
pian, Arrian, Philo, and others. Cleomedes, Cycl. Theor.
2, p. 112, ed. Bak., expressly mentions €V(rTadi]s among the
corrupt terms employed by Epicurus, eirel irpos rots aAAot?
Kal TO. Kara ttjv kpix-qveiav avT<a (sc. 'EinKOvpcc)) biecpdopora ecrri,
aapKos eva-TaOi] KaTaaTrjjxaTa (equable temperament of body)
kiyovTi KT€. Phrynichus ought to have suggested orao-t/xos
rather than kp.ftpidri^ as the authorised equivalent, the latter
word being properly applied only to men of solid and
dignified behaviour.
CCXLIX.
TTdAr ouTOi Aepouoiv 01 vGv pHTOpec Kai nomrai, beov
^erd ToG v ndAiv, d)C 01 dpxaloi Aeroucsiv.
This article is not found in the Laurcntian manuscript, or
in the edition of Calliergcs, and is not given by Phavorinus.
348 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
It is of no intrinsic importance, and if it really came from
the hand of Phrynichus subsequent grammarians had the
sense not to repeat it.
CCL.
'YnooTOoic eproov kqi toCto toov HjueAnjuevoov, eni noAu
be napd toIc eproAdpotc toov eproov. ^htoCvtgc be tI dv
G.v\ auToiv apxafov 0eiHjuev ovojua, oi pabiwc d'xpi vOv eupi-
CKOjuev, 61 b' eilpeGeiH, dvarerpdverai.
The reading aTroVrao-ts is due to Nunez, whose manu-
script had the first letter omitted for subsequent illumina-
tion. 'TTToorao-is is undoubtedly right, and must have
meant the 'plan' of the work submitted to contractors.
CCLI.
FewMjuaTa- noAAaxoO dKOuoo thv AeSiv riGejuevHv eni twv
Kopnwv, erw be ouk oiba dp^aiav kqi boKijuov ouoav. XP^
ouv dvTi ToO revvHjuaja Kapnouc Aereiv EHpouc Kai urpouc.
This late use of yevvrnxaTa supplies an excellent illustra-
tion of the tendency of debased Greek to adopt poetical
modes of expression, and neglect simple terms, and such
as commend themselves to common sense. Of the authors
who used yewrnxaTa as a synonym of Kapiroi, Lobeck
enumerates Diodorus, Polybius, Zosimus, Gregory Nazian-
zene, Apollonius Dyscolus, while the word is also found in
the Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Geoponica.
CCLII.
"Iva dScooiv 01) xpn Aereiv, dAA' i'va afdrwoiv.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 349
CCLIII.
' Edv dSHC oubeic dv 9aiH, dAA' edv drdrHC.
The second article has been brought from a later place
in the manuscripts.
The question has already been discussed in an earlier
article, see p. 217.
CCLIV.
ZuvHVTero Kai dnHVTexo noiHxiKd. XP^ ^^^ dnnvTHoe
Aereiv Kai GuvHVTHoe.
The middle avTOjxaL is common in the Homeric poems
in the sense of ' meet,' and in Attic Tragedy governed the
accusative of a person with the meaning ' approach as a
suppliant/ but to pure Attic the deponent form is un-
known. It is confined only to the present and imperfect
tenses, but in awavrria-oiVTai (II. 17. 134) Homer transferred
to the aorist of the cognate ai'Tdoi the middle inflexions,
which, if used at all, an Attic writer would have attached
only to the future.
^"AvTojxai, to meet^ entreat. Poet. Emped. 14 (Stein);
Soph. O. C. 250 ; Eur. Ale. 1098 ; Ar. Thcsm. 977
(Chor.) ; Ap. Rh. 2. 1123; -eo-^at, II. 15. 698; -o'/xeyoy, 11.
237 ; Find. P. 2. 71 ; imp. rjvT^o, Callim. Epigr. 31 ; ijVTiTo,
II. 22. 203.' ^ (TvvavTo^xai, pres., Od. i5- 53^ '■> Hes. Th. 877 ;
Find. 01. 2. 96 ; and imp. crvvqvTeTo, II. 21. 34; Archil. 89 ;
Eur. Ion 831 ; Theocr. 8. r, but dual unaugm. (TvvavTt(rdr]v,
II. 7. 22.' Vcitch.
CCLV.
Zivani ou AeKreov, vdnu he.
In Attic Greek there arc no substantives ending in iota
^SO THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
as a^TTv ends in upsilon, but foreign words were naturally
represented in the Greek characters which corresponded to
the original sounds^ as kIki in Plato, Tim. 60 A, and vamv
frequently in Aristophanes. In the same way -jr^Trept, Ko'/xjoit,
and KivvdlSapL must have been in common use. They were,
however, not declined in Attic, although Eubulus seems
once to have used TmrepLbos as the genitive of TreTrepi —
KOKKov Xa[3ov(ra KvCbiov r) tov TreTTepibos
TpL\}j-aa bp.ov (Tp.vpvr\ StdTrarre rriv ohov.
Athen. 2. 66 D.
Un-Attic and late writers generally attached the inflexions
of vowel stems. Accordingly va-nv was replaced not only
by (TLvaTn, crivri-ni, or aiva'nv^ but by forms like (nv6,Tre(a's,
aCvrjirvv, (nvaTrei, and (rtvanvos.
CCLVI.
'Ovu)((^eiv KOI e£ovu)(^€iv tolto cHjuaivei eKouepa Koi
Ti6eTai Ini tou aKpipoAoreTseai. to b' dnovu)(i^eiv to TOtc
auSnoeic Toiiv 6vu)(cjov d9aipelv OHjuaivei. 'Eneibh b' 6
noAuc oupcpeTOc Aeroucjiv ovuxioov jueKai oivuxiodjuHv, bid
TOUTO c3Hjuaiv6jueea Td ovojuoTa koi cpajuev, oti ei juev eni toO
TOLC 6vu)(ac dcpaipelv ti6h5i tic, xpHoaiTO dv tco dnovu)(i^eiv,
ei be eni toO dKpipoAoreloGai koi eScTd^eiv dKpipooc, tw
6vu)(i^eiv xpHooiT dv.
There is a sad irony in reading authoritative dicta upon
Attic usage expressed in language so slovenly and incor-
rect. What would an Athenian have thought of 3rt follow-
ing (pajxev, or of ar}[xaLv6iJ.eda as used here? The credit of
Phrynichus may be saved by a supposition of some credi-
bility, namely, that few of the articles are now worded as
they came from his pen. Thus, the Paris manuscript here
presents the concise sentence : 'Ovvxt'C^f^v /cat e^oyvx^C^ '^
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 351
TavTov, TLOeraL 8e ^ttI tov aKpifioXoyeiadai' to Se cnrowxiC^iv,
TO TO? av^ricr^Ls Tutv ovvxo^v acpaipelv. The distinction is also
clearly drawn in App. Soph. 13. 13, and 55. 9, and is
natural and convenient, although there is practically no
authority for it beyond the statements of grammarians.
Photius and Sui'das assert that Aristophanes employed
owx^C^raL in the sense of aKpi^okoydTai, and Hippocrates
used a-novvx^-C^frOai. as a term of the toilet, 618. 38, tcls x^tpas
Xpy] anovvxicraa-OaL.
CCLVII.
'0 vooTOG apoeviKooc Aerojuevoc djuapTdverai. oubeTepcoc
be TO voStov koi id voora boKi'juooc dv Aeroiro.
The truth of this statement is established not only by
the unimpeachable evidence of Attic Comedy but also by
other kinds of verse —
KvvoKO'nr}(Toi trov to v5>tov.
Ar. Eq. 289.
es TO? TrXevpas Tj^XXfj aTpaTia Kabev^pOTop-rja^ to vmtov.
Pax 747.
€^u) rei'xov? kol Xoottoovti-js TvaUi poTrdAo) p.e to vGnov.
Av. 497.
OTirj to VOJTOV T1]V p&XlV T oiKT€tpop.€V.
Eur. Cycl. 643.
TO, ecnrepa vStT iXavveL.
El. 731.
&aT€pO€ihea vuiTa bLcf'.pe'vova.
Ar. Thesm. 1067 (parody of Eur. Andromeda).
It is, however, still possible to regard tov vwtov in Xen.
Eq. 3. 3 as the genuine reading, as the word was certainly
often masculine in the Common dialect, and a writer like
Xenophon may well have used that gender.
^^2 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCLVIII.
Bpexeiv eni tou ueiv ev tivi Koojuwbi'a dpxcxia npoariQejuevH
TnAeKAeibH to) Koojutobco eoTiv oCtcoc eipHjuevov. onep el Kai
rvHQiov Hv TO bpajua, TO dnaE eipnoeai 69uAaEaju€9' dv.
onore be kqi vdoov eoTi, navjeAcoc dnoboKijuaoTeov TOiivojua.
' Quamdiu Graecia in fastigio eloquentiae stetit, verbum
Ppex^iv a communi usu sejunctum poetisque aptum fuit,
(unde est Pindaricum /Spe'xe xpvaiai's vL(f)dbea(n pro we
XpvcTov,) postea autem eviluit proletarii sermonis com-
merciis. Sic primum Polyb. i6. 12. 3, ovre v[(f)eTai, ovre
jSpex^rau: Arrian. Epictet. i. 6. 26, ov KaTa/Bpix^aOc, orav
IBpixV' et pluribus versionis Alexandrinae et Novi Testa-
menti locis. In eadem culpa sunt substantiva ^poxn plnvia
et a^poyia pro avop-fipia' Lobeck.
CCLIX.
Adjuupoc- 01 vCv juev tov enixapiv to) ovomciti GHjuaivouoiv,
01 b' dpxa^oi TOV iTajuov Kai dvaibfl.
The adjective is very rare in pre-Macedonian Greek,
occurring only in Xenophon and the Comic poet Epicrates.
Xen. Symp. 8. 24, et 8e kapvpcorepov Aeya>, /xr) Oavp-dC^re' 6
yap olvos crvv^TTaip^i : Epicr. ap. Athen. 6. 262 D —
yaarpiv KaXovcri koL Xdpvpov oj av cf^ayrj
r}p.S>V Tt TOVTOiV.
In both places the Latin improbtis would supply a cor-
rect rendering. In the Common dialect it occurs frequently,
but can hardly be said to exist in literature as an exact
synonym of iTrixapts, although it approaches that signifi-
cation in Plutarch, Mar. Vit. 38, ovos 7rpocr^Ae\//-as rep Mapm
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 353
\a\xvp6v Ti KoX yeyijdos : and in Eunapius, 58. 3, tov irathiov
CCLX.
'Enibeojuoc Kai enibeojuoi dpoeviKooc ]uh Aeffe, ouberepcoc
he TO enibeojuov kqi tci enibeojua, <j^c dpxmoi.
The word only occurs once in Attic Greek, namely, in
Ar. Vesp. 1439, and then the gender is indeterminate —
et vol TCLv Kopav
Tr]v {xapTvpiav TavT-qv eacras kv Td)(^ec
eTTtSecTjLioi' (TTpiu), vovv av eTxes TrAeioi'a.
There can be little question, however, that Phrynichus is
wrong in claiming the neuter gender for the singular.
Certainly (rvvb€<T[xos and not (rvvbeaixov was the true form
of the compound with avv, and there is no reason why the
compound with €ttC should differ in gender from the simple
word and the other compounds. The distinction between
the plural forms 8eo-juot and b€crp.d is worthy of mention.
The masculine and neuter inflexions are not interchange-
able, and though b€(rp.oi is occasionally used for beap-d, no
Attic writer ever employed Seo-jua for b^a-pot. As Cobet
well puts it (in Mnem. 7. 74), ' bea-p-d sunt vviciila quibus
quis constringitur, sed b^apos est in carcerem coitjectio et
captivitas in vincnlis. Sic Athenis beo-pov KarayLyvcoa-Keiv
dicuntur judiccs, quorum sententiis aliquis in custodiam
publicam conjicitur, et bfo-pos significat fere to b(b4<rdai, ut
Odvaros est to reOvdvai. Itaque ut de pluribus ddvaroL dici
solet, sic beapoL a Xenophonte est posituni de pluribus qui
in carcerem a tyranno olim conjecti fuisscnt .... Utraque
forma ct cactcri Graeci omnes et Attici utuntur, sed non
promiscuc. ut inter sc permutari possint, veluti in Platonis
Rep. 2. 37H D, "Ffpay 5^ becrpov^ virb vUos koL 'llcltaCaTov
A a
354 'i^HE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
pi-^as v-nb TTUTpo'i, id est, to bebearOai "Hpav inrb vUos kol {itto
TTaTpbs " ii(l)aLaTov kpplcpOai, ita dictum est ut Secr/xci pro
Seo-juovj suppositum risum moveret.' Accordingly, it is
very natural that h(^(j\xa should be met with far more fre-
quently than beap-oi or bea-povs.
Putting aside the genitive and dative cases as identical,
in Euripides the masculine occurs in Bacch. 518, 634, the
neuter in Andr. 578, 724, I. T. 1204, 1205, 1329, 1333,
1411, Rh. 567, Bacch. 447, 647, H. F. 1009, 1055, 1123,
1342. Similarly, Aeschylus has the masculine once, P. V.
525, the neuter thrice, P. V. 52, 513, 991, while Aristo-
phanes employs only the neuter, Pax 1073, Thesm. 1013 ;
cp. Pollux, 4. 181, diTOis b' av kol beap-a . . . h TrjpVTabrf.
As remarked above, iTTLbea-p-os is not found in the plural,
and KaTab€(Tp.os is equally unfortunate ; but aijvb€crp.a is en-
countered in Eur. Med. 11 93, Hipp. 199, Bacch. 696.
Evidence such as this permits the scholar to claim mas-
culine inflexions for the singular number of becrp-o^ and its
compounds, and, with the reservation stated above, neuter
endings for the plural.
Forms like bicrp.a, becrp.aT09, bicrp-ara, einbea-paTa, eTnbecr-
pLibos are allowedly un-Attic
CCLXI.
To oKaTOC" Kai touto en euGeiac Ti6ejuevov djuaGec revi-
KHC fdp eoTi nrtoaeooc, tou oKaroc, h be euBeTa to oKOip.
djuapTavovTec be 01 noAAoi thv jnev 6p6Hv to okotoc noiouoi,
THv be reviKHV ouv tco Uj tou okotouc.
No writer of the Classical age can have used a-Kdrovs, and
Athenaeus, 8. 362 C, or his transcribers, must be in error in
fathering so manifestly late a form upon Sophron —
^aXXi^ovTcs Tov 6a.Xap.ov (tkAtovs h'€7T\r}(rav.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. ^e^^
His mimes would have excited more laughter than he
reckoned upon if they had contained debased inflexions of
this kind.
CCLXII.
4>Aouc- KOI TOUTO HjLidpTHTar 01 rap *A6HvaToi (pAeooc Ae-
rouGi. KQi TC dno TOUTOu nAcKOjufeva qjAeiva KaAeTxai.
The Attic forms were <^Aeco?, cpXicov, (f)Xiu>, (f)Xe(o. The
genitive ^Ae'co is read by most manuscripts in Ar. Ran.
243, and should replace (pKioos in Pherecrates, ap. Athen.
6. 228 E—
eTTt Tiiyavoi^ KaOicravB' vcf)dTTTei.v tov 0Aeco.
The Scholiast on Ran. 243 quotes the accusative from the
Amphiaraus —
TTodev av Aa/3ot/xi (3vcrixa rw TrpcoKro) cpXicav ;
The monosyllabic (f)kovs entered the Common dialect from
the Ionic, as is seen from Hdt. 3. 98. Pollux (10. 178), in
discussing the adjective, records that (f)XoLvos was not only
used by Herodotus (3. 98), but also survived in the Tragic
dialect : 'E.vpniihov iv AvTokvK(o SaruptKO) eiTroVros —
cr)(oti'tVas yap ittttokti (pkolvas i]via^ TrAeKei"
17 8e vkr] oOiv k-nXiK^To (^Aous plv Kara tov^ "lo^vas, c^Ae'cos h\
Kara tovs 'Attikovs.
CCLXIII.
TTenoiBHoic ouk eTpHrai, dAA' htoi nioreueiv h
nenoieevai.
Such formations as TTCJToiOr^a-is, avTLTT€'n6v6i](rLi, and eypri-
popa-Ls have a certain resemblance to the Homeric ottcottt/,
but have really no kinship with it or with the Attic dycoyr/,
eocuo?/, or avoKwxri- Substantives in -<ni, from the perfect
stem, were not used by Attic writers.
A a 2
35^ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCLXIV.
TTaAaaTH to juexpov koi GhAukooc Aerexai Kai diveu tou v
djuaeeic b' oi Aerovrec guv tco i Kai ouv toj o, naAaiGTHC,
ojuoovujuooc TO) deAHTH' 6 juevTOi d0AHTHC naAaioThk dpoevi-
Kwc KaAeTrai.
Inscriptions establish the forms preferred by Phrynichus.
' riaAaoTrj, rptTraAaoros : has formas unice Atticas esse pro
iraAato-TTj, rpt-TraAato-ros cett confirmant tituli I 321,
II 167.' (Herwerden, Test. Lap. p. 61.) Accordingly, the
spelling with iota is wrong in the words of Cratinus and
Philemon, quoted by Photius: rTaAaorrj- drjXvK&s, KparTi-os
No/txots' —
jxelCov TO 8eo9 ^ TraAatcrr^s.
4>tA77p,a)2' 'E^eSptrat? —
a-KiiiTTohiov €V Koi Ktahiov Koi \j/ld6L0V
Lacos TTakaLO-Trjs.
' Alterius formae, quam Phrynichus praefert, vestigia ita
obliterata sunt, ut Perizonius ad Aelian. V. H. 13. 3, nemi-
nem reperiret ei obsecundantem. Sed translucet adhuc in
Homerico TraAaoTTjo-acraj ut nonnullis scribere placuit Od. i.
252, et in scriptura Medicei Herodot. i. 50, e^aTrdAao-ra,
TptTTaAacrra, koL TiaXaaTiaia, quae et hie in ceteris codd. et
2. 149 in omnibus iota destituuntur.' Lobeck.
CCLXV.
"Erriov eni tou errurepov juh Aepe, dAA' erru'^cpov eni be
TOU ev TH r(-, o^ov erreiov kthjuq, eT tic xpcoTO, dpioTO dv
XpHQOiTO, dic Kai AHjuoaGevHc erreiov tokov Aerei.
' Rhunkenius Trios non inepte corrigit. Fortasse pro to est ov etiani
scribendum.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 357
The Attic comparative and superlative of kyyvs are ey-
yvT^pos and \yyvTaTo<i, even if an early writer like Antiphon
once employs eyytora, 129. 14, tov h\ [iiapov rois 'iyyta-ra
TiixoopeLcrOaL vTroXetTrere. Liddell and Scott err here, as they
do frequently in such cases, by quoting eyyicrra from
Demosthenes when the word is really from a spurious
decree. Ionic writers used lyyioy and eyytora just as they
used even ayxordrM and ayxia-ra. Hippocrates has eyytov in
De Vict. Rat, 2. ^^6. 32, eyytoy tov TTvpbs koI ti]s epyacrCris
etVi, and ^yyia-ra in id. ;^^^. 32, to. eyyio-Ta eKarepoiv, while
Herodotus uses dyxordroj in 2. 24, and ayyjLo-Ta in i. 134;
4. 81 ; 5. 79. The Ionic words linger in Tragic poetry and
early Attic prose, ayyoraTio being met with in Eur. Fr. 623
(chor.), and ayxi-(TTa in Aesch. Supp. T036, as also in
Antiphon. 115- 25, to. 8' ay^ia-Ta Upcov KXoTrfjs bvolv raXavTOLv
yeypappJi'os, 'and most recently having been indicted of
sacrilege.'
The question as to the orthography of the compounds
of yfj is again referred to in App. Soph. 47. 14, Kordyetoy
ovxi Kardyatov bta rrjs at bicpdoyyov. The verdict of Phry-
nichus is right. In Doric and Ionic, the forms in -aios
were regular, but in Attic the diphthong ei replaced ai.
Thus, eyy€Los in the original spelling in Plato, Rep. 491 D,
546 A, Tim. 90 A; Dem. 872. 12, 914. 10; Lys. Fr. 59;
(TTLyeios in Plato, Rep. 546 A (Axioch. 368 B) ; and KardyeLos
in id. Rep. 514 A, 532 B, Protag. 320 E. On the other hand,
Xcnophon may have written /cardyato? in An. 4. 5. 19, as
Herodotus used that form in 2. 150^ and manuscript
authority is in favour of (yyato^ in Xcn. Symp. 4. 31.
The spelling with at is no more out of place in Xeno-
phon's style than in that of late authors like Aristotle,
Plutarch, and Polybius, or in Ionic prose writers and
Attic tragedians of his own century. It would be rash
also to alter eyyatou to iyyetov in Dcm. 893. 15, dAAou 5e
avy.fin\aiov ovk ovtus f/jiol irffn tovtuv, ovTe i'avTi.KOV ovt€
358 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
lyyaiov, as old pronunciation survives for generations in
legal phrases.
There is, however, no excuse for fxea-oyaia in Thuc. 6. 88.
4, when /leo-o'yeta has the support of the best codices in
I. IOC, 120; 2. I02 ; 3. 95; 7- 80; and /xeo-oyeia should be
retained in Plato, Phaed. iii A, and inaoydoav in Legg.
909 A. In Xenophon, An. 6. 2. 19 ; 3. 10 ; 4. 5 ; Hell. 4.
7. I ; 7. I. 8, the spelling must remain undetermined.
The form XeTrroyecos is unquestioned in Thuc. i. 2, but it
stands alone in Attic Greek, as the substantive dywyecoi/, so
familiar to juvenile Grecians, is really a word of no author-
ity. In the only passage in which it is found, An. 5. 4. 29,
the true reading has been restored, from the corruption
avoKatMV, by Dindorf, who reads Kapva 8e eirl rav avaKeioov
^v TToWd. Akin to ava^, avdaa-oi, and dvaaois, the word
oLvaKelov is naturally used in the sense of ' store-cupboard ; '
avaKu>s €xeiv tl having the meaning of 'keep securely;'
Moeris, Attic. 43, avaKGts w? YlkaToiv 6 ku>[j.lk6s —
Kol ras Qvpas draKuii e'x^ooy
dvTL Tov dcrcf)a\(as rj (f)vXaKTLKu>s. The question is discussed
in detail by L. Dindorf in Steph. Thesaurus, I. ii. col. 1067,
1068, and the same facts are presented; with slight varia-
tions, by Zacher, ' De Nomin. Graecis in -atos,' pp. 119-121.
CCLXVI.
EuQTpav jUH Aere, dAAd oxAerrLba.
This question must rest upon the authority of Phrynichus,
as, in the sense of ' scraper,' neither word is encountered in
Attic writers.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 359
CCLXVIL
MajujLioSpenTOv ,im Aere, xHeeAaboOv be.
' yiajjLiJLodpe-Tos tantum in Scliol. Arist. Ran. 1021, Acharn.
49 et Poll. 3. 20, legere me memini. Quo accidit Atticos
cum ixajxixr] de avia dicere subterfugerent, non potuisse facile
fjLaiJLixoOpeTTTov denominare eum, qui ab avia educatur. TrjOaX-
Xabovs quod ex comici versu citat Eustathius, p. 971- 40 —
'Okv^Is X~aXelv ; ovto) (r(f)6bp' et Ti]daX.Xabovs ;
varie scribitur in glossis grammaticorum, quas Staph, collegit.
Ego illam scripturam tenendam puto, quae et plurimis testi-
moniis et ipsius Phrynichi loco App. Soph. p. 65. 30, nititur.'
Lobeck.
The article is probably not by Phrynichus at all, being
absent from several authorities.
CCLXVIII.
ZiA9HV KOI toOto biecpGapjuevov, T19HV rap 01 naAaioi
AerouGiv.
This article is not found in several other authorities, and
in the first Laurentian manuscript only in the margin.
'Triplex reperitur hujus nominis scriptura; una usita-
tissima o-iA^tj Aristot. H. A. 9. 17. 601. ^3, Aelian, H. A. i.
37, Lucian, Gall. c. 31 (749) ; Dioscor. i. 38. 77, turn Galenus,
Aetius, Paullus ; n'A^rj Lucian, adv. Indoct. C. 17 (114);
tertia tCc^t] Ar. Ach. 920, 925, Pollux 7. 20, quae et Phry-
nicho rcstituenda videtur ^.' Lobeck.
CCLXIX.
Yua- ol ;i€v dnAooc djuapTdvovTec bid xoO u, 01 be binAH
dMaprdvovTec bid toG 01, olov \|/oia. ecri be kqi to 6vo)ua
noAu Ki'pbHAov. v€9p6v otv Aer€.
' The Laurentian has confirmed this conjecture.
360 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Photius supports Phrynichus, ■^6a<s t) \}/oCas rj otttj xpv
Kakelv Trap ovbevl amKwv evpov, ol be TraXatol yvfxvacrTaX
ak(aTT€Ka irpocrayopevovcnv. Hippocrates uses the word in
de Artie. 810 C, and de Nat. Hum. 229. 31 (cp. 279. 41 ;
304. 14), and in H. A. 3. 3, 512.^21, Aristotle quotes it from
Polybius. In Euphron, a poet of the New Comedy, it is
found in company with Ao/3os —
Ao/3oj TLs ecrrt koI ^Tjai KaXovp.ivaL.
Athen. 9. 399 B.
On the other hand, vecppos has excellent authority, the
singular being used by Aristophanes in Lys. 962, the dual
in Ran. 475, 1280, and the plural by Plato in Tim. 91 A.
CCLXX.
'YXioTHp- rpuroinov touto KaA.ouaiv 01 boKijuooc hia\e-
rojuevoi.
Xpe/bivAo?.
o/j.cos 8 eTreiS^ koI tov olvov rj^Covs
TTlVeiV, (TVV€K.7T0T€^ (CTTL (TOL KOL T7]V TpVya.
Neavias.
aAA. ecrrt Kopubfj rpv^ TTokaia koX aaTTpd.
Xpe/JiuAos.
ovKOVV TpvyoiTTos TavTa irdvT tacrerat.
Aristophanes, Plut. 1084.
The word occurs again in Pax 5^^. 'TXta-T-qp, on the con-
trary, has but a poor record: Dioscor. 2. 123; Oribasius,
p. 54. ed. Matth. ; Geopon. 7. ^y, 20. 46; Tzetz. Hist.
13. 420.
CCLXXI.
TTdnupoc- jondoeiev dv tic Airunriov elvai rouvojua- noAu
rdp KQT Ai'runTOv nAd^exai. Hjuelc be pi^Aov epoOjuev.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 361
The word found fault with is quoted only from late
writers, Plutarch, Strabo, Dioscorides, Achilles Tatius,
Nemesius, and the Geoponica.
CCLXXII.
'A9p6viTpov TeAeooc cEithAov Kai dboKijuov. xp " ouv
AiTpov Aeretv H AiTpou acppov.
Lobeck proves that such compounds as a(f)p6vi,Tpov, a\6-
(rav0os. xdX.Kav6os, KWOKavixara, 6ripiohr]y}xaTa, iJiriTp6.be\(})os for
a(f)p6s vLTpov, aXbs avOos, etc., are very late. He quotes the
expression from Hippocrates, 621. 46, and Dioscorides, 5.
131, and the word from Galen, vol. 2. p. 320 (t. p. 168 L),
Julius Africanus, Cesfi, 3. 290, and the Geoponica, 2. 28.
CCLXXIII.
Nirpov TOUTO AioA€uc ;iev ctv ei'noi, ojtjnep ouv Kai h
Zancpw bid tou v, 'AGHvaloc be bid toG A, AiTpov.
Perhaps the spelling with nu may be permitted to
Alexis —
ra/cTTcojLtar' ets to (fyavepbv iKveviTpoifxeva'
Athen. 11. 502 F.
but the testimony of Mocris (p. 246), Photius, and Phry-
nichus is too authoritative to allow of any form but Xirpov
in Attic writers of an earlier date.
CCLXXIV.
'EEdbeA90c dnobiono/uinHxeov, dve\|/i6c be pHreov.
The late word supplants arc\//iov in the Scptuai;int and
in Christian writers. Lobeck 's note gives minute details.
'3<S^ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCLXXV.
'YndAAariuct ojucQ^c rivec dvTi toO evexupov Aerouoi.
This use of viraXXayixa is only known to us from Gram-
marians, as Bekk. Anecd. 423. 12: dc^Oaa-Lv ol rfj yvvaLKl
yaixovixivrj TrpoT/ca bib6vT€S alrelv irapa rod avbpos Scnrep ive-
Xypov Ti r?)s TrpoiKos avrd^iov o vvv vnaXXayiia Aeyerat.
CCLXXVI.
TTavboxeTov 01 bid toO \ Aerovxec djuupTdvouor bid rdp
ToC K xp"-* Aereiv navboKeiov Kai navboKeoc Kai navbo-
Keurpia.
There can be no question that Attic writers invariably-
spelt this and similar words with kappa, -navhoKos, UpohoKos,
^ei'oboKos, bopvhoKr], bcopoboKO), etc., but, even if the Oecono-
micus was written by Xenophon, it is still possible that
^evobox^a in 9. 10 came from the author's hand. AcopoboKos
and its derivatives retained the kappa even in late writers.
CCLXXVII.
Thv cp6e?pa Aeroucji Tivec Kai thv Kopiv gu be dpaeviKOoc
Tov Kopiv Aere Kai tov cpGe^pa, 0:^0 oi dpxaloi.
' Feminina positione quemquam usum esse ad hunc
usque diem tam inauditum fuit ut ne in lexicis quidem ejus
generis mentio facta sit.' Lobeck, who discovered several
instances of the missing gender in late authors.
CCLXXVIII.
MokAov juh here bid tou k, dAAd bid tou x-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 363
'Vocabulum hoc adeo omni auctoritate destitutum est,
ut in summa copia et varietate Graecorum monimentorum,
praeter illud Anacreonteum (Fr. 88) a grammaticis in lucem
evocatum, ne unum quidem exemplum proferre possim, r\
[ikv vkov T\k TTakaiov.' Lobeck. The article has little textual
authority.
CCLXXIX.
Kara KOiAiac noielv 01 ruju^'OOTiKoi Aerouaiv onoBev
be Aapovxec cpaoiv, dbHAov. 01 rap naAaioi undreiv thv
roGTepa AerouGiv.
'TirdyeLv is used in medical writers both transitively with
yaaripa or Koikiav and intransitively in a similar sense, as
viray^iv ti]v KoiXiiqv in Aretaeus, Cur. M. Ac. i. 10, and
KoiXia virdyova-a in Galen, Comm. 4. ad Hippocr. De Rat.
Vict, in Morb. Ac. p. 396. 27. The expression reprehended
does not occur at all in written Greek.
CCLXXX.
*E9i6pK0uc- TOUTO bid toO n Aere.
' Unicum simile novi Hesychii : 'E^iopK?/o-ai;res, \j/ev<TaixevoLy
fortasse ex Doricis monimentis ductum.' Lobeck.
CCLXXXI.
YieBoc, ;jtep6c, ueAoc, djuaprdvouGiv 01 bia toO e Aerovrec.
dboKijJov rdp. Kot Kopivva —
Tov udAivov nmba GHceic.
This article is not found in any of the manuscripts, in the
editions of Callicrges or Vascosan, or in Phavorinus ; but
]64 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
the first Laurentian manuscript and the first editor include
i'eXos in the next article. Much of this part of the book is
undeniably spurious.
CCLXXXII.
'0 nueAoc bid toO e, Kai jUueAoc pHxeov.
'^te^o?, quod etiam Moeris p. 418 Atticis abjudicate
apud Antigonum Carum et fortasse apud plures recentlorum
occurrit ; namque ad hanc partem non satis attentus fui ;
neque fXLepos nunc dicere possum ttov KelraL. "TaXos, non
veXos, dicendum esse, uno ore tradunt Phrynichus App.
Soph. p. 68, Aelius Dionysius, Photius, alii. Neque Theo-
phrasti auctoritas tanta videri debet ut grammaticorum
sententiae, Aristophanis et Platonis testimonio communitae,
idcirco abrogemus. . . . Ad postrema quod attinet, irvaXos
Hemsterhusius ex Hesychio, ju-e/ixuaAcoju-ez^os Hoeschelius ex
Ps. 65, idem to fxveXov e Greg. Naz. Apol. p. 26, profert.'
Lobeck.
CCLXXXIII.
Oi xoAiKec djuaeec- 01 rdp boKijiioi GhAukooc ai xoAiKec
qjaoiv.
Moeris, 404, x^^^"^^^ ^''' '^P^tol 'ArrtKOi, xo'^^^ci^ oi fxicroi,
drjXvK&s, xoA.tKas k(f)6ds, tovs xo^^^^t?, apcr^viKm "EXX.r]V€S :
Phrynichus, App. Soph. 72. 5, xoA.t/ce? ol iroXXol apa-eviK&s,
ol 8' apxaloL dr]XvK(os. The quotation in Moeris comes from
Aristophanes, Pax 717 —
oaas he Kare'Set x^^'-'^^^ €cf)das /cat Kpea.
Ammonius, p. 142, wrongly tries to distinguish between
XoXdbes and x^^^'^f^- X^^"^^^ '^°' X''^"^^^ biacfy^p^i,' xoXdbes
lj.h' yap TO. evTepa —
II. 4. 526.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 365
)(cAtKes 8e at rSiV jBodv KoiXiat., ApLaTO(f)dvi]s Ba/SvAcoyiots —
rj ISoLbapLOJl' TLS aT:€KT€LV€ C^VyO<i ^(oAtKCOi' k~L6vjxG)V.
On the other hand, the statement of Moeris is supported
by the lexicography of the words. XoAaSey, Horn. II. 4.
526, 21, 181, Hymn. Merc. 123, and with two lambdas,
Pherecrates, ap. Bachmann, Anecd. i. 418; yokiK^^ a\, Ar.
Ran. 576^ Babyl. cited, Pax 717 ; Fr. ap. Poll. 6. 56 ; Phere-
crates, ap. Athen. 6. 268 E ; Eubulus, ap. Athen. 7. 330 C ;
Anaxandrides, ap. Athen. 4. 131.
CCLXXXIV.
XovbpoKcbveiov ajua6ec to ouveexov touto kqi qAAokotov.
This article is not in the manuscripts or the edition of
Callierges. If it is really genuine, then xovhpoKcav^tov,
the reading of Nuflez, ought to be retained, whatever its
meaning may be. Suppose it to signify the cone-shaped
vessel through which the groats are shot into the mill, then
such a compound of xovhpos and kQ)vo^ would merit the
remark of Phrynichus. XoySpoKOTretoi;, on the contrary,
the conjecture of Pauw, is a perfectly legitimate form
mentioned by Pollux 3. 78, and supported by apyvpoKo-dov,
quoted by the same writer (7. 103) from Phrynichus (Com.),
by Harpocration from Antiphon, and from Andocides by
the Schol. ap. Arist. Vesp. 1007.
CCLXXXV.
'EKTevcoc jUhi, cxAA' ovt auioC bavj/iAoiC Aere-
Adjective, adverb, and substantive, cKrevTjs, eKrei^ws-, and
(KTivfia all occur with frequency in late writers, but are
unknown in Attic Greek. Even in Aeschylus —
366 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Kai jj-ov TO, \xkv TTpayOivTa Trpbs tovs eKrei^eis
(piXovs TTiKpws ijKovcrav avTave\}/Lovs,
Suppl. 983.
the word has been justly called in question, and by Her-
mann altered to eyyevds. It is true that Phrynichus may
be said to find fault only with the signification ' profuse,'
but the evidence is also against its being Attic in that of
'earnest' Of the Comic poets Machon first used the term. —
Ar^^?/ ^' vtt' avTTJs iKT€v<as ayaTTcajxevos.
Athen. 13. 579 E.
CCLXXXVI.
TTpoiTcoc 'ApicjTOTeAHc Kai Xpttjinnoc Aerei. eari be
bie9eapjuevov ndvu touvojucc Aepe ouv npooTOv.
Phrynichus is right in absolutely denying these forms to
Attic. Moeris, p. 298^ and Thom., p. 764, allow them when
they denote quality, not number. As a matter of fact," they
do not exist at all before Aristotle's time. In Ar. Lys.
316 there is a variant Trpwrcos, but evidently a correction to
restore the metre, which halts in the best manuscripts, the
Ravenna presenting -npSiTov, others irpoiTos. Enger has
replaced the original TrpdiTia-r —
Tr]v kaixTTab' fip.ij.^vrjv ottcos TrpcoTiaT ejuot TTpocroicrm.
CCLXXXVII.
TTapaOHKHv ' Inni'av Kai"loova rivd currpacpea cpastv eipH-
Kevai, HMe^c be toCto napaKajaGHKHV epoujuev, cbc TTAaTCOv
Kai OouKubibHc Kai AHjuoaOevHC.
The "loiv Tts (rvyypac})ivs is evidently Herodotus, who has
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 367
the word in 6. 73, ■napaQr\K-\]v avrov'i ■napar'iQi.vrai is tovs
k\di(TTOvs, and 9. 45, TiapaOijK-qv v^iiv eTrea rdSe TiOe^ai. The
authority for TTapaKaTad/jK.-)] and TrapaKaTariOqiai,, however, is
so overwhelming — Plato, Thucydides, Lysias, Aeschines,
Isocrates, and others — that the note of Photius, Yiapa6r]Kriv'
HkcLTcav Ivpi-p-ayjiq, even if credited, may be disregarded.
Certainly, the use of TTapaTiOep-ai for T:apaKaTaTl6ep.ai in Xen.
Rep. Ath. 2. 16, Ti]v ovaiav rais vricrois TrapaTidevTat, is to
be considered an anticipation of the Common dialect. It
is in place in Herodotus, as 6. 86, tov irapaOep^evov to. -x^prnxara
ol TTOibes, and in Polybius, as 33. 12. 3, ^drrKOVTes ovbevl
TTpoi'jcrecrOaL to. y^pi]p.aTa . . . 'nk-t]v avT<2 tw Trapadep-hy, but
not in an Attic writer.
CCLXXXVIII.
'AnapdpaTOv napairou Aereiv, qAA' dnapaiTHTOv.
In this case, as in so many others, the diction of late
prose meets that of Attic poetry — Aeschylus has 7rapa/3aTos
in the sense of Trapatrrjros in a lyric passage of the
Supplices —
Atos ov TTap(3aT6s kcmv ixcydka (pp^v airepavTos,
but the word is as alien to prose as (ppriv or air^pavros, its
companions in the poet.
CCLXXXIX.
Au)(viav dvTi TOUTOu Au)(viov Aere, o^c h KOjucubla.
Tovbl Xiyoi, (TV 5' ov a-vvuls' KOTTajios
TO Kvyjviov Icrri irpocrexc tov vovv (oa p,iv
Antiphanes, ap. Ath. 15. 666 h\
It is a shortened form of kvxydov, already considered on
p. 132 supra. ''Fl kv^via praetcr scriptores sacros, Philonem
J
68 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
p. 425 B, et Josephum, etiam Lucianus, Asin. C. 40 (608),
Galenus de Comp. Med. p. locc. I. a, op.^. D, Artemidorus
I. 74. 103, Hero Spiritualia, p. 212.' Lobeck.
ccxc
'Aroorov TouTO Touvojuci ToiTTOuoiv 01 noAaioi Ini ToG
Tivd obov Hroujuevou. outoo kqi OouKubibHc KexpHTQi. vCv
be 01 nepi rd biKaoTHpia pHTOpec c(r<j^rouc kqAoOoi touc
6)(eT0uc Toav ubdroov.
The late meaning is cited from Herodian, 7. 12, iKKo-yj/ai
Trdvras Toi/s eia-fjeovTas et? to aTparoTrehov ayoiyovs vbaros '
Geopon. 2, 7, ^vXlvols he ayojyols Kadapbv to vbcop ei9 to.
<Pp€aTa avvdyeip : Galen, de Us. Part. 16. i. 673 A ; Procopius,
and others.
CCXCI.
Kpupeiai cpeCfe bid toC p Aereiv koi KpLpeoSai, dAAd
bid nr KpLnrerai Kai KptnTeoSai cpdOi.
CCXCII.
KapHvai Kai cKdpnv 9001, Kai elvai toutou npdc to Kei-
pasGai bia90pdv. To jdev rdp eni npopdrwv riGeaoi, Kei-
paoBai be eni dvGpconoov.
The distinction is just. Verbs which have a reference to
the care or embellishment of the person have naturally
what is called the direct middle, that is, a voice purely-
reflexive. In other cases the reflexive meaning is conveyed
by the active voice and a reflexive pronoun.
When Veitch says, ' Neither of the aorists passive seem
THE NEW PHRYNTCHUS. 369
to be of Attic usage,' he can only mean that by accident
neither occurs in our texts. If occasion had demanded,
(Kaprjv, Kaprjvai. would certainly have been used as a matter
of course.
Lobeck quotes violations of the Attic rule, Plutarch,
V. Lys. 1, Twv 'Apyetcoy kiil irivBei Kap^vrcov : Julian Antic.
Anth. Pal. 11. 369 —
rw (re ^pi} hpeTravoicn kol ov xl/aXCbea-cn Kaprjvai.
CCXCIII.
KoxAidpiov rouTO AiGTpov 'ApiaT09dvHc 6 Koojucubonoioc
Aerei, KQi Gi! be outoo Aere
Though this article is absent from the extant manuscripts
and the edition of Callierges, and is not in Phavorinus, yet
it is possibly by Phrynichus, as in App. Soph. p. ^1, the
same caution appears again, Aia-rpiov' to vtto tCov ttoXKcov
Ka\ovp.evov Kox^idpiov. The late word is used by Galen, de
Medic. Simpl. 11. i, 8, 23, de Pond, et Mens. vol. 13, p. 976
seqq., by Dioscoridcs, and in the Geoponica, 7. i'^, p. 491.
CCXCIV.
AeEapevH cpaoi TTAaTWva eni Thic KOAujuph'Gpac eipHKevai.
erio be ou <^H\xv dAAd beEajuevH t(o tovw einev ojc noi-
oujuievH. xpH ouv Koi Hjuuc KoAujupnepa Aereiv.
The Grammarian is here in error. Not only did Hero-
dotus employ the despised synonym of Ko\.vp.i3y]0pa in 3. 9,
and 6. 119, but Plato also in Grit. 117 A, rats 6e hi] Kp-qvaii,
T7] Tov \l/vxpov Koi Trj Tov Ofpixov vup.aTos, TTKrjdos ix€v a(})Oovov
i)(nv(Tais, yi'dovrj be Kal apfrfi tow vbaTcov irpus knaTepov ti]v
XPV<TLV Oavjxan-Tov Trfj/juKoroy, ()(^pG>VTo TTepicrTrjcravTes otKo8o//7/creis
Kcu (AvbpoiV (f)VTev(TfL^ TTp(TTOV(Ta<i voaai, be^ap-it'tti re av ra9 p^v
l!b
370 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
vTTaiOpiovs, Tas be )(^eLix€pivas rots depjiols XovTpols vTroarriyovs
irepiTLOevTes, X'^P'^ M^^ l3a(nXt.Kds, xtopts be iSicoriKcis, en bk
yvvai^lv aWas koI erepas iTTTTots koI toIs 6.X.X.01.S viro^vyloii, to
7rp6cr(f)opov Trjs Koajxijcreois eKacrroLS aiTovep.ovTes.
ccxcv.
XGi^ov dnoGOpHTeov oti noiHTiKov, dvri be toG )(9i^6v epoG-
juev )(9eoiv6v, npoc to noAiTiKOv dnoTOpv/euovjec tov Aorov,
tbc Kai 'ApioTOcpdvHC.
There is no means of ascertaining which form Phrynichus
preferred, as the apparatus criticus will show. The adjective
occurs twice in Aristophanes (Ran. 987 and Vesp. 283), but
in metres too irregular to control the form, some editors
preferring the tribrach, others the dactyl, although in both
places the manuscripts exhibit only x^^^-tz^oV. Neither
form is found elsewhere in Attic Greek, although the
repudiated x^'Co's is very common in Homer, and is found
in Herodotus. The reason why the adjective appears so
seldom in Attic is that the premier dialect preferred
instead to use the adverb with the article. Here a
difficult question suggests itself: Which was the recog-
nised form, the monosyllabic x6es, or the disyllabic exdes"^
Grammarians contradict each other, and the inquirer is
thrown back upon his trusty guides, Attic Comedy and
common sense. The verdict of metre is conclusive. The
monosyllable is encountered in the following lines —
X^es ovv KAewr 6 Krjbejxiov riplv efpelr ev &pa,
Vesp. 242.
Kap.e y 7} Tropvrj x^es elcreXdovra r?y? fxearju^pLas,
Id. 500.
TUVT apa Tavra KXea>vv[j.ov avrai tov pl^aa-nLv x6es Ibova-ai,
Nub. 353.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 371
Lys. 725.
X^e's re KOt irpcoriv KOTretcrt tw KaKLcrTc^ KoiJ-jxari,
Ran. 725.
ov/c rjbrjadd /xe
(Ppdaai'TO. aoL X^^''> J
Eccl. 552.
o) BAe\/Ai8?;/ji' dy.eivov i] x^^^ irpaTToixev,
Plut. 344.
TToiov xpovov TaXdvTad\ 6s Trap' 6/xo6 X^^^ '^^•
Id. 1046.
Much more numerous are the examples of ex^es —
execs' 8e y ijpXv helirvov ovk t]v kairipas,
Nub. 175.
i\d\^ h\ /xera raCr €K(f)dapils ovk ot8' ottoi,
Pax 72.
<j)povboi. yap ex^es etcrtj; i^oiKLo-p-ivoL,
Id. 197.
OVK ecrnt' 7)/:/u'' ex^es ^la-f^Kicrp^^Oa,
Id. 260.
A. dAA' OVK (Kv^cs (TV y ix^is ; B. dkXa rripLcpov,
Lys. 745.
(TTpayyovpiS) yap' ex^^s i(payov Kaphapa,
Thesm. 616.
fX^ej S' ^xovT eiSoV 0-' eyo) rpi^iavtov,
Plut. 882.
cx^fs /xcra Taur' ^invov rfp.ipav TpiTi]v,
Antiphanes, Zonar. Lex. 2. 1745.
^X^^s viriTTLves, €ira i^ui^l KpantaXas,
Alexis, Athen. 2. 34 D.
CX^€S MeAaj/WTTO) TroAvreAoCs PdyvnTiov,
Anaxandrides, Athen. 12. 553 D.
rd-nihocnp^ rjpiv icrrlu ij'i ex^f? ttuiv,
Crobylus, Athen. 8. 365 A.
bv' (x^^^ dijxovs eh TO irvp inToa-ftia-as,
Euphron, Athen. 9. 379 E.
^X^cs KiKivhvvf.VKa'i' ovhiXs eTxf o-oi,
Id. Athen. 9. 377 D.
372 THE A'EJV PHRYNICHUS.
The word is found only once in Tragedy —
ov yap TL pvv ye Kox^e? ciAA.' aet ~OTe
Cf] TavTa. Soph. Ant. 456.
'Ex^e?, therefore, was the regular Attic form, the old Ionic
X^e? being naturally retained in phrases like x^^'^ 7"^ i^^'-
'npio7]v, and occasionally, as in Nub. 2)53^ ^^^ Vesp. 242, to
help the metre. After a word ending in a vowel ex^es
yielded to its older rival even in prose, as (kcIvos also seems
sometimes to have done. Editors may please themselves
as to using the apostrophe or not, irpiorjv re koI \des, or
TTpdrjv re kol x^^^> ^^^^ ^o 3- seeing eye the principal fact is
placed beyond dispute by the evidence given.
CCXCVI.
BaGjLioc iai<6v bia tou 9, bia tou dxTiKov, paa^ioc.
So Moeris 97, ^aa-jxos 'Arrt/cw?, /3a^ju.o9 'EAA7;i;6kws'.
CCXCVII.
TTupia- toCto toittougiv 01 noAAoi eni thc ev to) paAa-
vei« nueAou, Kai e^ei jiiev to erujuov ano tou nupoOoOai, 01
jUHV TO aKpipec Kai boKijuov. nueAouc rap ot dp)(moi koAoC-
Giv, oAA' ou nupiac.
The rejected word does not appear at all in Attic Greek.
It is, however, classical, though not in the sense of livekos.
Herodotus has it of a vapour-bath, 4. 75, ot 'I.Kvdai Trjs Kav-
vajStos TO (TTripjia t-rreav \di3oiai, VTioo'uvovcn vtto tovs ttlXov?,
KOL eTretra €TTL(3d\Xov(n to cnrepixa eTrt rot)? bta(})avias XlOovs
rw TTDpr TO be ^ujuiarat eTTL^aXXoixevov kol ar/xi8a TtapiyjeTai
TocravTrjv uxTTe 'EAArjyiK?/ ovbefxta av jxiv irvpir] airoKpaTijcTeie'
at be ^Kvdai aydp-evot ttj TTvpirj u>pvovTai.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 373
It is used for TrveAoi^ by Moschion as quoted by Athen-
aeus in 5- 207 F^ y\v 8e koX jSakave'tov rpUXivov, TivpCas xoAkSs
€Xoi' Tpels, Koi XovTrjpa, Trivre /xerpjjraj hiy6p.evov : and by
Nicarchus in Anth. Pal. 11. 243, ol jBaXavels yap ds t6t€
TacraovTaL ti]v -nvpiav KaOiXdv. Both Moschion and Nicar-
chus probably wrote in the same century as Phrynichus.
CCXCVIII.
"InraoGai napaiTHreov, el kql dnaS nou eiH Keijuevov h
bic. neT6o6ai be Aere.
The Attic verb corresponding to the English ' fly ' de-
rives its tenses from one or other of the three stems, tTrra,
TTer, and 'aoTa. The reduplicated l-nra, which belongs to
the same group as tora, rt^e, and te, supplied the future
and its moods —
tTTTTj/xi io-T»;/xt TLdr}p.L trj/LAt
7TTi]aop.aL^ cTTi]au} di](Tco ijau),
From ireT came the present ireToixat, the imperfect eTrero-
fxrjv, and the syncopated aorist k-jiTop-riv, while Trora furnished
the perfect ir^'noTrip.aL. No Attic writer uses tiTTrjiu or t-nra-
IXUL, eTTTrji; or kTiTap.r]v, 77ordj/xat, kTTOT(ap.riv, or ^ttoti]Oi]v, but
the future ir^Tria-op.ai is found by the side of TTTija-opiaL. In
Homer and the Tragic poets are encountered forms from
eTTTr]v and CTrrd/iTji'j as TTTai-qv, TTTrjvai, tttus, TTTua-Oat, TTTap-evoi,
and from -noTwp.ai forms like iroTUTai and iTTOTi]0i]v, but in
Attic prose and Comedy they were unknown. In the
Common dialect any form from any of the three stems
passed muster, and even new tenses were manufactured
which could be referred neither to tTrra, ttct, or Trora. Such
were tT!iTa(TOj]v and iri-nTa\mi, which in Attic belong not
* I'or Ihc middle, bcc infra, p. 399.
374 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
to Trero/jiai, but to tt€t6.vvvixi. "By others 7rorw/xai was
lengthened to TroiT&ixai, and used as a regular verb.
It is therefore not surprising if Attic texts have suffered
at the hands of transcribers. The principal risk naturally-
fell to the aorist e-nToix-qv, so apt to be confounded with the
un-Attic iTTvafjirjv. Thus in Ar. Av. 788 —
eKTrro/xeyo? av ovtos rjpia-Trjcr^v eXOcav o'lKabe
KqT av einrXrja-dels e^' rjjjias av6ts av KareTTTeTo —
the Ravenna preserves the true forms, but other manu-
scripts have inconsistently eKHTOfxevos and KareTTTaro, or still
worse, eKTTerdixcvos and KareTTTeTo. The Ravenna is equally
invaluable in Av. 48, where it confirms the conjectures of
Dawes and Brunck —
€t TTOV TOLavTTjv eT8e irokiv fj 'iriTTTeTo —
against the vulgate —
ct TTOV ToiavTrjv oibe irokiv f) TriTTTarai.
In Av. 90 airiTTTeTO, 278 dcri-nreTo, 789, 792 Kari-nTero,
19^) 795 aviiTTeTo, 1 1 73 elai-nTero, the Ravenna retains
the original spelling when most other manuscripts replace
omicron by alpha. But in 1206 ava-nra^^vo^, and 1613
Trpoo-Trra/xeyo?, even the Ravenna slips, although it supports
the true form of the participle in 1384 ava-nrofxevos, and
in 1624 KaraTTToixevoi.
As in the case of ripoiJLrjv, the subjunctive and optative,
epMfxai and kpoijx-qv, might as far as form goes belong to the
present tense ; so the subjunctive Trrw/xat may be a mood
of either k-nTap.r]v or iTTT6p.r]v, but in Attic it certainly be-
longs to the latter.
The longer form of the future is met with in two lines of
Aristophanes —
0770)? 7rer7yo-et p.' evOv tov Aio? Xafiutv,
Pax 77.
ovK aTTOTTerricrd. Qclttov ds 'F,Xvjxvlov,
Id. 1 126.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. y] e^
but the shorter has good authority —
ot/xot KaKobaL[JL(i)v, (rrpovOos avi]p yCyveraL'
iKTTTrjo-eTat, irov, ttov 'ort juot to hiKTVov ;
Vesp. 208.
The perfect Tt^-noTi-niai rests upon prose instances, and upon
Aristophanes —
TOVT ap aKovcraa avT&v to (^^ey/x' rj "^vx^] p-ov TreTroTrjTat'
Nub. 319.
aveTTTepuxrdat Kal TreTTOTrjaOai. tcls (ppevas.
Av. 1445.
This verb admirably illustrates the refined eclecticism of
the Attic dialect, and the record of its corruption tells only
too plainly how the intellectual refinement from which it
sprang decayed and passed away.
CCXCIX.
Nhgthc pdppapov, to b' dpxaiov vhotic bid roO i.
The form may well have been used by the Parody-writer
Matron, Athen. 4. 134 F —
vr}(rTr}s, aXXoTpioiv e5 etows h^nrvocrvvi.oiv —
but there is only the questionable authority of Gram-
marians to support its occurrence in Simonides. Bekk.
Anecd- 1402.
It is cited from late writers, as Apollon. Hist, Mir. c. 51,
5re vrjaTTjs vTTTJp-)(^€v-
ccc.
KoTc xeipwv beivwc c veAAHviGTOv, Kai tc eni xeip^v
be" jueoTH fdp h Koo)najbia roC Kara xeipoc.
The edition of Nuricz, and the margin of the first
37^ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Laurentian manuscript, are the only warrants for this article,
but it is correct as a statement of usage. Athenaeus 9.
408 E, 1] TtXtiiov 8e xpi]cns Kara x.fv6s vbojp etoj^e Xiy^LV,
ois Ei/TToAis €.v XpvaS) FeVet, kol 'AixeL\j/ias ^(pevbovri, 'AXkolos
T€ kv 'lepw Fajufa). IlkdcrTov §' eort tovto. ^tXvkktos 8e iv
Avyrj Kara xftpwy cXprjKev ovtoos —
Kol br] bibetTTVijKacnv al yvvalKes dAA.' a(f)aipelv
u)pa Vrti' 7]hr] ras Tpairi^as, etra irapaKoprjcrai,,
€7TeLTa Kara yj^tpCiv iKaa-Tij kol jxvpov tl bovvac.
Mivavbpos 'TbpCa—
ol 8e Kara yeip^v ka^ovres, Tiepip-ivova-i (pikTaTOL.
CCCI.
^^drojuai pdppapov. Aere ouv ebojuai kol Karebojuai.
toOto roip 'Attikov.
CCCII.
Bpclioojuai, KaKooc 6 4>apoop?voc. 01 rdp 'Attikoi ctvf
^atToO ebojuai xpo^vjai Kai Kaiebojuai.
The former of these articles has little better footing than
300, and in the edition of Nunez the latter, which comes
from a later position in the manuscripts, is augmented by
the sentence, aKpiTov ovv koI aTrojSkrjrov tG>v aTTiKdu (^uiviav to
{Bpuxroixat prjpLa.
The marvellous rule by which middle inflexions were
necessarily attached to the future of a verb like io-dtoo was
mentioned on article 45, and I shall here carefully and
fully redeem the promise there made.
An important instance of a very common manuscript
error is to be found in the lines of Aristophanes in which
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 377
Trugaeus asks the son of Cleonymus to sing him a stave
that will not suggest war and arms —
aaov TTplv elaiivaL tl' ctv yap ev otS' otl
ov TTpdyixaT aaci.' a(a(ppovos yap ei Trarpos.
All the manuscripts read qaets for ao-et, but Dawes was
right beyond question in replacing the active by the
middle future. Not only in Attic, but throughout Greek
literature till a late period, the middle aaop-ai was the only
future of the verb aSco. But in debased Greek the active
ao-co was the more usual form\ and it is no wonder that a
copyist should insert its second person singular in Aristo-
phanes when it had the same metrical value as the classical
qa^i, and was suggested by the fact of the following
word beginning with a sigma. It is true that qa-ovcnv is
actually read in Plato, Legg. 666 D, iioCav 8e qaovu-iv ol
avbpes (jxiivriv ; but the expression is unintelligible till we
restore ijaova-Lv, the word which Plato wrote, and which
he was fond of using in this connexion : Legg. 890 D,
TTCLcrav (fxovrjv Uvra : Legg. 934 D, -oAAi/y (f)(x)vi}v Uvres :
Theaet. 194 A, ^eip^ra c})(avi]v \xiav lelcrav'. Legg. 812 D,
akXa ix^Xrj tS>v yjophdv teicrwi; : Phil. ^1 D, tcls ev n KaOapov
UCcrai jxeXos : Phaedr. 259 D, d!t lacn KoKXicrTTqv ^u)vr\v.
The same lesson is taught by the consideration of the
future forms of Siwkco.
The active is supported by the manuscripts in —
XpucroO Stw^ets ap.LKvOi]v kul KvpLov.
Arist. Eq. 969.
ov irdkLV
Trjbl otw^et!)- ; Tijv\x-na\iv Tpi^eLS cru ye.
Thcsm. 1224.
uvK. aTToOiw^ets cravrbv dirb tjjs oiKtas".
Nub. 1296.
• 'Babr. F. 12. 18; laic prose, Ilimcr. Or. 1. 6; Mcnand. Rhct. 617; Nicol.
Rhet. II, 14 ; Acneac Epist. 18, irpocr- Ael. II. A. 6 .1, Dor. a'aw, Thcocr. 1. 145.'
' 'Aiiiw, Callim. Apol. 30; Dian. 186, Del. i ; Autii. (Miias.) 7. 192 ; Q. Sin.
3. 646; Opp. Cyn. I. 80, 3. 83.' Vcitch.
3/8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 13, gioJ^ets l\ : id. An. i. 4. 8, 5ta5fco :
Dem. 989. II, 8tw£ere.
The middle is read in An Eq. 368 —
bta)^o[xai ere SetXtas*
Thuc. y. 85, bLoo^ojxevovs,
Plat. Prot. 810 C, bioiioiixTjv,
Theaet. 168 A, Stwfoyrat,
Clit. 407 A, hKa^ojxai,
Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 14, Stw^et,
4. I. 19, hiut^ojxeOa,
4. 3. 18, Siwfo/xat.
These facts distinctly prove that in Attic Greek Sicokcd had
invariably a future middle. In our texts it is occasionally
active, but the texts were altered by the copyists of an age
in which Dionysius of Halicarnassus could use 8tw£o/xat in
a passive sense. Excepting gtw^oo in Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 13,
and 8iw^ere in Demosthenes, the active is confined to the
second person singular, which, except in one letter and that
a finial one, is identical with the middle. Add to this,
that in three cases out of the five the following word began
with the same letter sigma. It is well known that this is
no unfrequent source of error^ as in Eur. Or. 383 —
iKerrjs acjivXkovs crToixaTos k^aitroiv Xtras —
the manuscripts have the absurd reading a^i^AAov. In
Thesm. 1224 the active is due simply to erroneous divi-
sion of the words, 8iw£ef 's rovjx'naXiv being, as Cobet
shows, what Aristophanes really wrote. The Siwfere of
Demosthenes must be altered to 8iw£eo-^e, and perhaps
Cobet is right in restoring Stw^o/xat in Xen. Cyr. 6. 3. 13 ;
but Xenophon is too uncertain a writer to take any account
of, and whether he wrote gtco^co or Stw^ojuat does not affect
Attic usage in the least degree.
The history of these two futures, ao-ojuai and hidi^ojxai,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 379
teaches the vahiable lesson that manuscripts are of no
authority in estabhshing the true form of a future when it
has survived only in the second person singular.
In other cases in which two forms were nearly alike, the
copyists have blundered by using the one for the other.
In Arist. Plut. 932, the Informer addresses his witness,
calling upon him to bear testimony to the conduct of
Carion —
opa<s a TTOtet ; raCr' lyo) jxapTvpoixai —
but the manuscripts read irotels. Budaeus was the first to
make the necessary correction, and Brunck and others have
confirmed it.
When the middle 0vA.a£et is unquestionably demanded
in Arist. Pax 176 —
Ket /X7/ (pvkd^ei, -yopTdcroi top KCXvOapov —
the copyists have nothing to offer but the" meaningless
active ^v\6.^€ls.
In Arist. Av. 1568, on approaching Nephelococcugia,
Poseidon turns to his fellow-ambassador Triballus, and
tries to get him to arrange his dress more gracefully —
ovTO'i TL bpcli ; e7r' apicrrip ovT(as dp.TT^x^i' ',
ov ji^Tafiaka. 6olp.dTiov 0)8' kiri 8e£ta.
the middle is required, and yet the manuscripts read ixtra-
fiakiis.
The verb rjki&Cojxai is not rare, but it is never found in the
active voice except in Arist. Lys. 380, rikia(ei^, where no
manuscript has the true reading i]kiAC^i.
Another type of manuscript blunder is presented by
optatives like iii6dp.r]v and fxf.Oeii]v becoming interchanged
as in Ran. 830 —
OVK tiv fJ-eOeiixriv tov dpovov, jxi] vovOtm,
and Soph. El. 1306 —
v'Kr\ptToii]V roj -napovTi baLjxui'i.
380 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Now in both these cases the manuscripts present the
wrong voice ; in the line of Aristophanes fxed^L-qv, in So-
phocles v7T7]peTOLixj]v. Dawcs corrcctcd the former and
Elmsley the latter'.'
The same verb /xe^iTjjuii affords an excellent example of
the other kind of manuscript error already shown in Stco^ere
for bi(i>^€(r9e. In the lines —
KOKKVy ixeOecrOe' kol ttoXv ye KaTooTepco,
Arist. Ran. 1384.
Ixidea-Qe, /xe^ecr^e" koX to rovbs y aS peiret.
Id. 1393.
the manuscripts read fxeOdre in all three cases. The active
voice may thus be used intransitively, but the second
person plural imperative active has its penultimate syllable
short, ixiOere. The way in which the blunder arose is shown
by 1. 1380 —
Koi jj.r] jx^drjcrOov, irplv av eya> a(j)<2v kokkvctoo.
The Ravenna has the true reading ix^dijadov, but other
manuscripts have only jxeOdcrOov, a form half-way to /^e-
delrov, as Stwfere sprang from Stcofecr^e.
Take another type still from the same play. In 1. 1235 —
opas, Trpo(r7]\l/ev avOts av ti]v Xi]kv6ov.
dAA' uiyaO^ ^Tt kol vvv airobov Trdari rexv^,
X7]\j/€L yap 6j3oXov itavv KaKr]V re Kayadr]v—
many good manuscripts have airohos, 'give back/ instead
of the genuine middle aiiohov, ' sell,' required by the sense.
The facts just enumerated have a peculiarly apt appli-
cation to the class of Greek verbs now under discussion, which
have a future tense, middle in form, but in no other respect
differing from the other tenses which use the inflexions
of the active voice. The verbs of this group employ the
middle form consistently throughout the moods of the
future, but the active in all other tenses. So thoroughly
* Another instance is TrapaaTaifii]!/ for TrapaaTairjv in Soph. O. C. 491.
THE NE W PHR YNICHUS. 3 S r
had they become active in all but the inflexional ending,
that expressions such as ovk a7ro8twfet cravTor (Arist. Nub.
1296) did not appear strange to an Attic ear.
This external peculiarity corresponds to a very marked
peculiarity of meaning. The verbs which reject the active
endings of the future in favour of the middle endings, at
the same time that they retain the active inflexions in
their other tenses, are all words expressing the exercise of
the senses or denoting some functional state or process.
In fact, within the limits of this class are embraced most
verbs which express the action of what Shakespeare calls
in one place ' the mortal instruments,' and in another ' the
corporal agents.'
The reason for this anomaly in form it is useless to dis-
cuss, as it is impossible to discover. If the meaning was
originally felt to be most fitly expressed by the middle
voice, as undoubtedly it was, what was there in the future
tense to make it acquire this signification when the others
rejected it.^ It is possible to collect isolated instances of
verbs of this class using other tenses besides the future in the
middle voice. Thus, in a beautiful passage of the AaraCbes,
Aeschylus^ puts TiKToixat into the mouth of Aphrodite —
epa \j.ev ayros ovpavbs rpSxrai yOova,
(po)s be yaiav Xaixftavei yaixov Tvx^elv
oixftpos 6' utt' evvdevTos ovpavov irearfav
(Kvare yalav' tj he TLKTerat ftporois
p.i]\(tiv re fto(TKas kuI ftCov Ar]p.i]Tpioi''
bevbpwTts u>pa 8' fK voTi^ovTQs ya\xQv
TeAeio? e<TTL' t5>v eyw irapatTios.
And a good many examples o^ ka\xftavo\xai might be found
to keep \y]\lroixai in countenance. It is even possible that
the passage quoted by Athenaeus (10. 42*^ F) from the
'Gods' of Hcrmippus has come down to us as he wrote
' Quoted by Athenaeus, 13. 600 R.
382 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
it, although irivoixat and Stx/^co/xat are found nowhere else in
the sense of their actives, TrtVco and 8t\|/w —
kTiiiO orav TTivcoixeO' rj hL^(j>ixe6a,
especially when Suidas (s. v.) affirms that Cratinus used
^ahi(ov in the sense of /3d8tCe^ It is difficult to understand
that ^abiCofj-ai should be distasteful to an Athenian ear
when /3a8toC/xat was not only not displeasing but even
demanded. But it is also difficult to see why TpavXtCo,
I lisp, should be active when ■\\fiXkiCp\i.ai, I stammer^ is
middle. As a matter of fact, neither TpavXify\xai nor \//-eAA.iCco
would have offended an Athenian of the best age, and
that the middle of the one verb and the active of the
other have the best authority is merely due to accident ^.
But, notwithstanding, the future in each case was in Attic
middle. Here the active \//-eAAtw and rpavkiGi would un-
doubtedly never have been used by a writer of Attic,
but \f/eXXi,ov[j.at. and TpavkLovfxai were the only forms pos-
sible. It is to elucidating this marvellous caprice of Attic
Greek that the present inquiry is directed, and the critical
remarks with which it was opened will be often referred
to in restoring to Attic books the genuine future middle
forms which copyists in their ignorance of so eccentric
a rule have repeatedly marred.
An interesting point of this inquiry is that a very large
proportion of the verbs which by signification belong to
this class, are deponents to begin with, and accordingly do
not attract so much attention as their strikingly irregular
fellows, which are deponents only in the future tense.
These deponents, however, merit a place by the side of
■ ^aSi^e- Hal PaSi^ov dvTi tov ^d8i(e. Kparivos. Other instances are dXaXd-
(o;xfV7], Soph. Fr. 489 (ch.) ; yrjpvonai, Aesch. P. V. 78, etc. ; enw\o\v^aTo,
Aesch. Agam. 1236; KXaiojxai, iK\avadixr}v, freq. ; Sicu/ferai, Aesch. Cho. 289;
Horn.
^ TpavXi^oj occurs Arist. Vesp. 44, Nub. 862, 1381 ; TpavKi^onai in Archippus
ap. Plutarch, Ale. cajj. i ; ipeWi^o:, Aristotle, etc. ; fiXXi^onai, Plat. Gorg. 485 C.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
^^}>
the others, if for no other reason than that the juxta-
position may put some future inquirer on the track of the
true elucidation of the marvellous phenomenon which is
here to be established, not explained.
All verbs, then, which refer primarily to a physical pro-
cess, and do not merely state the fact that such and such
an action is going on, are either deponent throughout or
deponents in the future tense. In other words, if the
primary reference of a verb is to any physical action,
functional or organic, that verb has the inflexions of the
middle voice, either in all its tenses or in one, the future.
It will be advantageous to subdivide the great class of
verbs to which this rule applies, and a large subordinate
group at once suggests itself, composed of verbs which
denote the exertion of the vocal organs in man or other
animals.
Poetical and un-Attic words are printed in spaced type.
Deponents.
/3Arj)(d)/xat, bleat.
(i pvx<JiiJ.at, roar,
yowjutai^ wail.
KvvCcoixai, whimper.
fivKotixai,, bellow.
0) pTj ofxai, howl.
\}/€X\LC'^lxai, stammer.
ixivvpofxai, hum.
KLVvpofxaL, wail.
(t)6€yyop,aL, speak.
Deponents in the Future Tense.
aooi,
Sing,
acro/xat.
^oG>,
shout.
jSo/jcroixaL.
ynpvca,
speak out,
yr] pv(ro[xaL.
KOiKVO),
wail.
KooKvaoixai.
Xurr KO),
scream.
XaKrja-oixai.
K€ kab&,
sound.
KeXabijaofxaL
&.\aK6.(o),
raise the war-cry.
i.Xa\6.^op.ai.
ypvCo),
grunt.
ypv^op-uL.
olfxca^oj,
groan, '
olfXta^oiiaL.
SH THE NEW PHRYXICHUS.
oKokvCiii,
scream,
oXoXv^oiiai.
oroTvC^ii),
lament,
OTOTV^OlXai
KiKkayya,
scream,
KeKXay^ojiai.
K^Kpaya,
cry out.
K€Kpd^O[JiaL.
That the tendency of language represented by these
forms was active at a very early date is known to every
reader of Homer, and is also proved by the existence of the
deponents. Moreover, the fact that though yo(a, and not
yoQijj.ai, was the present form used by Homer, yet the future
employed by him was yoricrofxai, shows how soon the future
tense was especially associated with the middle inflexions.
Still, in Ionic there are many indications of a laxity in usage
with regard to the middle future. Accordingly, if the
relationship between Tragedy and Ionic be remembered,
it is not surprising that Aeschylus should use KcoKvcreLV even
in senarii (Agam. 13 13), but the testimony of Aristophanes
distinctly proves that in this direction also there was a
strong tendency towards uniformity at work in Attic. It
is the law of parsimony under another aspect.
ovK cLTTLTe ; KMKva-ecrde. ra^ rpiy^as jxaKpa.
Ar. Lys. 1222,
If Athenaeus (8. 396 C) had not happened to preserve
two lines from the * Palaestra ' of Alcaeus —
6h\ yap avTos eaTiV et n ypvS,ojj.ai
S>v (Toi A.eyw nXiov tl yaXadrjvov ixvos — •
the verb ypvC(^ would have been dependent upon the law of
uniformity for the true form of its future, for in Arist.
Eq. 294 —
bLa(popi](T(a cr el tl ypv^et —
the manuscripts read ypv^tis.
On the other hand, olixca^oiiai is more than usually secure,
as it occurs in Aristophanes alone some ten times —
ws crep.vos 6 Karaparos' ovk otjuco^erai ;
Ran. 178.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 385
TO. beiv' ecpaaK eKeivos. B. w? oifj-co^eTai.
Ran. 279.
dA\' ov)(^ oXov re. B. vi] At" oiij.(o^€(r6' apa.
Nub. 217.
So oi/x&i^ei, Plut. Ill, Av. 1207; olix(o^€Tai, Thesm. 248, Ran.
706 ; otiJ.(a^€<T9€, Pax 466 ; oiixa}^6[j.evos, Vesp. 1033, Pax 756.
In Plut. Ill some manuscripts have oijmw^ets, but as in
Av. 1207 the true form has been preserved probably by
being mistaken for the third person. In Plutus 876 —
CLTTelv a TTCTTavovpyriKas. B. oljxd^&pa av,
the Ravenna has olp-ia^' apa, but most other manuscripts
ot/xco^"' apa.
A fragment of Eupolis, quoted by Zonaras (Lex. p. 605),
shows how apt copyists were to replace the middle by the
active ' —
TL<i ov^eyeLpa'i p icrriv ; olpco^a p.aKpa.
OTLT] p avi(rT-)](T (jjpOVTTVOV.
The true reading is of course avCa-riis.
The verbs KpdCo) and KkdCa have as futures K^Kpd^upai
and K€Kkdy^op.ai, as coming from KeKpaya and K^Kkayya,
which in Attic bear a present signification. Perhaps this
fact has something to do with the old way of regarding
such perfects as perfects middle.
ov8€7roT€' KfKpd^opaL yap,
Ran. 264.
TpnrKdcriov KCKpd^opai aov,
Eq. 285.
KaraKfKpd^opai, ere Kpd((oV'
Eq. 287.
'iva //?/ K€K\dyy(ti bia Kevrjs aAAcos eyco'
idv 8e pi'i, TO koiTTov ov KeAay£o/^ai.
Arist. Vesp. 929-30.
(I prj TeToprjiTdj Ta.vTa kol KaKrja-opaL'
6u TTOvrfpoi, pr] (TLMirdT' d 8e pi], KaKi^creTai.
Pax 381, 384.
' In Eur. Ale. 635, tocS" drroi/^wfct vtKpuv, not a few codices read Anoifidj^fis
VfKphV.
c c
386
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Besides the verbs already mentioned there are many
others, the futures of which do not happen to occur in
those portions of the works of Attic writers which have
been preserved. But the case is so strong in favour of a
future middle in verbs of this class, that it may be con-
fidently assigned them even in cases in which dialectic or
late Greek supplies a future in the active. For by the
side of the Attic futures deponent of /3ow, yeAw, aSco, and
the rest, /Sor/o-oj, yeAao-oi, acrm, etc., are met with in late
authors. The group of verbs denoting the exercise of the
vocal organs will therefore be enlarged by the following —
CrvpLTTU),
whisper,
avpi^op.ai.
a-CCco,
hiss,
(Ti^op.ai.
aaXT^iCoi,
trumpet.
crak'ni^oixaL.
IxivvpiCo),
whine, ■
lxivvpi^o[iaL.
TTiTTTrt^CO,
cheep,
TrtTTTTt^O/xat.
K^Kptya,
squeak.
K€Kp[^OlXaL.
TtTpiya,
chirp,
T€Tpi^Op.ai.
a I a Coi,
wail.
ald^opuai.
TTVITTTdCco,
cry bravo,
TTVTnrd^oixat.
crrerd^co.
groan.
(TTevd^oixai.
^avCoo,
yelp,
^av^op.ai.
[ava)l3op^opvC(t>,
grumble,
{^dva)^opfiopv^op.aL,
1.1. f-
yell,
Iv^opLat.
KOKKV^CO,
cry like a cuckoo,
KOKKvS,op.ai.
Al^^O),
sob, hiccup,
kvy^op-ai.
P-vClJi,
moan.
p.v^op.ai.
pvCoi,
snarly
pvy^Ojxat.
Tov9opvCi»,
babble.
Tovdopv^ojxaL.
kAw^co,
hoot,
KAw^o/xai.
Kp<aC(a,
croak.
Kpwfo/xat.
;3o/x/3w,
hum,
^op.jir](roixai..
poi f c3.
hiss.
po i^-q(Toy.ai.
KOxaCco,
laugh aloud.
Kaxd(Toixat,
Kpavyd((D,
screech,
Kpavyd<Top.ai.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 387
KfAapv^oj,
babble,
Kekapvaoixat
TrOTTTTTy^CO,
whistle,
TTOTTTTVa-OlxaL.
/ctxAt'Cw,
giggle,
Ki)(A.to{5/ixat.
TpavXiCoj,
lisp.
TpavkiovnaL.
XP^fX^TlCoJ,
neigh,
XP^p-^TiovfJLai.
ylndvpi^u),
whisper,
\{ndvpLovp.ai.
This rule has considerable critical interest, as in several
cases various readings occur or emendations have been
made which violate its precepts. Thus, in Aeschines 90. 30
(3. 360), the position of av before oteade, the usual one in
Attic, has, as in many other cases, induced the scribes to
alter an aorist infinitive into a future, and omit the particle,
&€fXL<TTOK\ea 8e kol tovs kv 'Slapa6S>vi TeXevTrjoravTas Kal Tov<i
€V rTAaratais Kal avTovs Toiis rdcpovi tovs to)v irpoyovcov ovk
av oUcrde orerdfat et 6 jxeTo. tQv ^apfiapoov op-oKoySiv rots "EA-
kr](nv avTLTTpaTTtiv aTe(f)avu)9i](T(TaL ; The Other reading, ovk
oteo-^e (TTevd^eLv, is certainly to be rejected. The only
form possible to a writer of Attic was a-Tevd^oiJLat.. But in
Tragedy^ the active inflexion would not have been impos-
sible even in the Senarii, as eK/3d£w occurs in Aesch. Agam.
49«-
ciAA' 7/ TO \aip€Li> p.a\\ov eK/3dfet k^yutv,
and, accordingly, critics may please themselves in altering
crrei'dCere of the manuscripts in Eur. H. F. 243, and atdCere
in line 1054 of the same play, to (rreid^ere and aid^fre
respectively.
Accident has made o-Dptrrco an important word. Its
future, though not occurring in Attic, is in Lucian avpi^op.aL.
Now, though himself an Atticist, Lucian wrote at a time
when most of the verbs of this class no longer followed the
Attic usage. There is, therefore, no doubt that (rvp[^op.at
' Thus although Veitch is wrong in making the aorist subjunctive laxv'^t" a
future in Eur. Phoen. 1295, 1523, and dtau future in Ion 1446, yet laxri<Tw is
almost certainly future in Eur. Tro. 516 (ch.), and cttiOwv^o; occurs in Eur. I. T.
1127 (ch.).
C C 2
388 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
was the acknowledged Attic form. Similiar evidence is
afforded by Hesychius in the gloss, KiXapvaeraf juera (^wy^s
■qXW^'- It is the only occasion on which the future of Kekapv((a
is found, and the lexicographer had some passage in view
when he explained the term.
Care must be taken accurately to draw the line between
this class of verbs and the other, which is represented by
words like Aeyo) and AaAw, in which the physical act does
not form the principal part of the signification. Otherwise
there would be some danger of giving ^Xy]va<^S>, chatter, a
future (f)kr]va(f)r}(ToiJiaL, or irarayca, clas/i, a future 7raray7]o-o/Aat.
This whole class, krip&, (pkvapca, vOkSt, AaAw, (jTop.(l>aCu), Krvrrci,
etc., have really no reference to any physical process, and
accordingly follow the ordinary laws of inflexion. And,
although okocpvpopiai, 6hvpop.ai, aToopcvkkoixai may owe their
deponent form to having originally had a physical
reference, their meaning has been so much modified that
they can no longer be classed with verbs like /^v/cw/xat and
Kivvpop.ai,
In o-ia)7T<S and o-tyw are encountered the negations of the
whole class, and both verbs follow their more numerous
opposites in employing middle inflexions to express future
meaning —
(rtCOTTO) (TL(]dTTy}(TOp.ai
cnyoi (TiyrjCTOixai.
The next class is a much smaller one, as the modifica-
cations possible in the action of the organs of sight are
very few in number.
Deponents.
hipKoixai,
look.
dio^ixai.,
gaze at.
(TKiTTTOp-aL,
spy.
avydCop-ai,
see distinctly.
the new phrynichus. . 389
Deponents in the Future Tense.
[6/3(S], see, o\j/ojj.ai.
/SAeTTO), see, (3Xi\jfoiJ.aL.
But if, they are few in number, verbs of this class are in
more cases than the others pecuharly significant. How
naturally the middle inflexions were applied to such verbs
is demonstrated by the use in all poetry from Homer
downwards of the middle 6pS>ixat and elbofx-qv, while the
survival of o\l/ofj.ai, and its use as the future of 6pa, shows
that this tendency was especially active in reference to
future time. This latter fact is also signally manifested
in the case of o-kottw. Although o-kottS) has almost driven
(TKi-nTofxai from the field in the present and imperfect
tenses, yet not one instance of a-Koiiria-oi could be discovered
in good Greek, aKi^o^xai being invariably employed.
Of other verbs ^ Xevaa-oi from its formation is denied a
future tense, and, as a matter of fact, no part of the future
of adpco 2 has survived. If it had it would doubtless have
been middle, as aKapbaixvTTo), dlink, which of the rest is
the nearest approach to a negative which the language
supplies, would have formed aKaphapxi^oiiai.
The third of the types of manuscript errors detailed in
the beginning of this discussion is well exemplified in
Demosth. 799, 17 : *Ev 8' d-nbiv hi ■nava-acrOai ^ovkoiiaC e^trf
avrUa oi] p.aka e/c tov btKaa-T-qpCov, 0€u>pi](Tovcn, be ifxas oi
TTepLca-TrjKOTes kuI ^evot kuI TroAirai kol Kar avhpa eh ^Kacrrov
TOV TTapLovra (Skexj/ovTOA kol (f)V(noyvoiixovri(TOvaL tovs aTTo\j/r]-
(})L(raixevovs' tl ovv epeire u> avhpes ^AOrjvaioL el TTpoefxevoL tov^
vop-ovs e^LTe ; ttoCols TTpoa-cairoLS rj tCo-lv 6cf)0aX[jt.ols irpos eKacr-
Tov TovToxp avTiftke-^eaOe ; Here Bckkcr and Dindorf
actually shut their eyes and read avTi(3X4\j/eT€, although
' oTTTfvaj, oninTfvo}, navTaiuoj, aKoiria(ai, liaidly merit ntteiilioii. The future
of none of them occurs in Greek excejjt Siowrtvaaii/, in II. 10. 451.
' dOpTjiru, in Niib. 7,^1, is aorist subjunctive.
390 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
^\i^\rovrai precedes, and there is absolutely no possibility of
the preposition avTi- regulating the voice of the verb. The
middle has as good manuscript authority as the active, and
the scribe would have altered ^Xi^ovTai also if the change
could have been as easily made. The passage also affords,
in 0e(opj/(7ouo-t, an example of a verb of sight, which, like
A.eyw and AaAw, had no special reference to the physical
fact. It is a derived verb, and originally meant to act as
a spectato}' (^eajpo'j).
Verbs of hearing, like verbs of seeing, are few in number,
and for the same reason, namely, the want of capacity for
modification in the organ the exertion of which they ex-
press. In fact there are only two verbs which affect the
enquiry, aKpow/xat and a/covw, for TTvvdavojxaL does not strictly
belong to this class, and kXvw and atco form no future while
(araKovcTTw is, like Oeoopw, a derived verb; formed from oyra-
Koucrr^s, a listener.
In Hyperides, Fun. Orat. col. 13. 3, the active (xkov-
crovTcov is unquestionably an error for aKovovroiv : d 8'
w</)eAetas 'iveK^v 7) Toiavrr] jueXeV?/ ytyveTai, rts av \6yos bxjyeki]-
frete fxaWov ras rcav aKovaovTcov yj/vx^as rod r7/r apeTi-jV eyKco/xia-
(ovTos. The innumerable well-authenticated instances of
the future middle, to say nothing of the cogent rule under
discussion, give authority sufficient to alter this one pas-
sage even without the sensible though metaphysical remark
of Cobet : ' Nulla unquam fuit oratio neque erit, quae pro-
desse possit animis eorum qui eam sint audittiri, id est
quae prosit etiam priusqiiam audita sit.'
The verbs denoting the action of the senses of smell and
touch will not occupy the attention long. Of the former
there are only two, and both deponents —
o(T^paivo\i.ai 6cr(f)pi](roiJiaL
6(T\x(a}J.ai 6 (TfJiijaroixaL,
as the general verb al(T6avo\xai, which can replace most verbs
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 391
of this great class, is itself deponent. The verbs of touch pre-
sent a singular difficulty. The place of aTTTOfxaL is assured.
It is the word, which in obedience to the law of parsimony
in the development of the Attic dialect, was selected to
express the process which had been before expressed by
the three verbs^ aTrrojuat, 6tyydvoi^, and \f/av(o^. Accord-
ingly, there are no Attic instances of the future of either
\}favoo or Oiyydvo), and in Tragedy either form might prob-
ably have been used. The middle Oi^oixat occurs in Eur.
Hipp. 1086 —
K\aioov Tt9 avTcai' ap ejxov ye ^i^erat,
and doubtless Elmsley was right in substituting irpoa-di^ci
for TTpoaOt^eis in Eur. Heracl. 647 —
ei be Toivbe Trpocr^i^et x^P'
bvoiv yepovTotv ov KaAcSs dycoytei,
but little more reliance can be placed upon the usage of
Tragedians than upon the readings of manuscripts. Cer-
tainly, there is one undoubted ^ instance of the active future
of \l/av(D —
\(i>pei.' tIs vp-wv 'a\\fiTai ; KXaioiv dpa
\l/av(r€L' decov yap ovve\ Ittttikov t o)(kov ktc.
Eur. Andr. 759.
' Hippocrates, 5. 184; 6. 90, 300; 8. 88, 350, etc.; Aesch. Sept. 44, 258,
Agam. 663 ; Soph. O. C. 329, Phil. 761, 1398, etc. ; Eur. Bacch. 1317, Hec. 605,
etc. In Antiphanes, Athen. 15. 667 A, 6iyr] is a useless conjecture for tvxxi, and
in Pherecrates, Athen. 6. 263 B, Oiyyavovcuiv ra^ ixvXa^, evidently in a domestic
phrase which has preserved the word. (Xen. Cyr. i. 3. 5 ; 5. i. 16, see p. 169).
' Ildt. 2, 90, 93; 3. 30; Hippocr. 2. 411; 6. 640; 7. 556; 8. 356, etc.;
Aesch. Pers. 202, Cho. 182, Supp. 925 ; Soph. O. R. 1467, O. C. 1639, Trach.
565, etc., Eur. very frequently. Anliphon, in 123. 2, and Xenophon, in Mem. i.
4, 12, are co-partners in sinning against Attic usage.
' Dictionaries occasionally quote as futures what are really aorists subjunc-
tive .Soph. O. C. 1131, like Eur. Phoen. 1693 —
npoaayayt vvv fxe fxrjrpu^ o/t xpavaoj aiOfv.
In Soph. O. C. 863—
Sj ffiOtyfj.' dvatSh, tJ av ycLp ipavtti ifxov,
the Laurcntian has the present, others the future. So in Aesch. Cho. iSi,
ipavtt might well be read for \f/amn, and in Eur. Med. 1320 xpavcus changed
to \fiav0(t, but either form may be read in Tragedy.
392
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
But the whole verb is really as un-Attic as the Ionic and
Tragic e7ra(/)£ \ which, like i//-ai;co itself and Qiyyavoi, gave
place to aTTTO[xaL, the only word which concerns the pre-
sent inquiry.
The next group, consisting of verbs which express the
action of the throat, mouth, or lips, is a significantly large
one —
Deponents.
lick.
(TKophivwyiaL,
yacrixGiixai,
Xa(f)VTToiJ,ai,
\piin:TOixaL,
€ p^TTToixat,
Tiariofxai,
chew.
yawn.
yawn.
gorge.
clear the throat.
feed upon (Epic).
eat (Epic).
It is worth remarking that, as in the first group, a very
large proportion of these deponents are verbs contracted
from ao.
Deponents in the Future Tense.
haKvu),
TTLVU),
XcLTTTCO,
pocpia,
Tpcayo),
e8co, icrOLco,
bite, brj^opiai.
drink, ■nwp.ai.
lap with the tongue, Xaxj/opiai.
po(f)i]cropML.
Tpca^ojjiac.
Xavovfxai,.
gulp down,
gnaw,
yawn,
eat.
It is true that in Arist. Ach. 278—
ia>6iv elprjvqs po(j)y](T€L Tpv^kiov,
' Plato, Crat. 404 D, uses the word for a philological purpose. Hippocr.
621. 25, has the middle aorist kiracp-qnri, and Hesychius quotes both active and
middle. Aesch. P. V. 849 has the active, which shows the irregularity of
Greek till a strong formative and regulative force arose, like that which made
the Attic dialect.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 393
and in Eq. 360 —
TbiV TTpayiXaT(OV OTU] [JLOVOS TOV ^OOjUOf iKpO(f)l](T€L
the manuscripts read po({)i](TeLs and (Kpo(f)i]creLs, but in Vesp.
814—
avTov fj.4v(ov yap Tr]v (^aKrjV pocfiria-oixat
the true form has been perforce preserved, and the middle
must be restored, not only in Ach. 278 and Eq. 360, but
also in Pax 716 —
ocrov po(f)i](reL {co/xoz-* rjixepcav TpiS>Vy
where the same blunder has been made ^.
The middle future of kdiTTOD is put beyond doubt by a
line of Aristophanes —
TOV ^(opLov avTrjS 7rpocnT€cr(tiv €KKd\j/eTaL,
Pax 885.
but in Nub. 811, there occurs d7roAd\//-et9 before a vowel —
(TV 6' dvbpbi iKTTeTrkrjyixevov koI (^avepGis kirripixivov
yvov<: d7roXd\l/eis o tl irXelcrTov bvvacrai.
The chorus are congratulating Socrates on the conquest
he has made of Strepsiades. ' But you, while the man is
overwhelmed and elated beyond question, knowing your
time, will . . . him as much as you can.' The meaning re-
quired is, 'will make as much out of him as you can;'
and that is easily obtained by reading dTro\e\}/€Ls, ' you will
skin,' a reading found in the Scholiast-, and in all early
editions, and approved by Bentley. Bentley himself pro-
posed d-noX6-^€Ls, ' quod ipsum est quod Schol. hie suggerit
aTToAeTrtcret?, aut melius aTroTiAet? evelles. 'OAo'Trrety enim
' In a(l<lition to the instances already given on p. 379, may be added the
following. In Nub. 824 a good M.S. has actually StSrifr; (i.e. -<«) for 5(5afe(5.
In id. 1035, ■''"•' o.v'f)p vTrfpPa\u Kai wpxiidn^, some M.SS. have vw(p0a\tti.
' The words of the .Scholiast are, dTToX«ij;«is" dTroXfmVfiy. tdc 8^, uus rofs
TToXXofs, diroK/u//(i^, inirtu. airo juiv kwujv fj ix(Ta<l>ofM ff vrra XanrovTa Trivtt.
Haraijrpi<lm 8J t\% to airoKfpinvtU ^ a(f>apna(Ttii, dwofftrdatts.
394
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
est TtWeiv, vellere. Hesych. 'OAoTrreti;' Xi.-niC^^iv, tIk\(.iv,
K0ka7TT€LV.^
These suggestions were made without any reference to
the form of aTrokd\}/€Ls. It was its meaning only that made
the word difficult. If that difficulty is surmounted — the
difficulty of making ' you will lap up ' mean ' you will fleece '
— and if aTroXd-^eLs is retained, it does not follow that the
active future was Attic, as it is put in the mouth of the
chorus.
To these verbs must be added many more of which no
future has survived in Attic books.
PpVKM,
KVvS),
TTTVO),
KCLTTTO},
Kara]/3po)(^t^a),
■)(vavco,
vcoyaXi^u),
€pvyydv(o,
■nrdpvvixai,
TrvriCco,
grind the teeth, iSpv^oixm.
kiss,
lick;
cough,
spit,
gulp down,
gulp down,
nibble,
munch,
disgorge,
sneeze,
spit violently,
KvvrjO'op.aL.
Aet^o/xat.
-TrrvfTojuat.
Kdy\rop.ai,
KaToi\(ipoy(dtovpiai.
\vav(roixat.
v(aya\iovpML.
epev^opiai,.
TTTapovpiaL.
TrvTiovfiai
The only instance of a future to Kvvico is in Eur. Cycl. 172 —
eir eyo) ov KWiiaop-ai
Totoi'he TTw/xa,
and there most editors prefer the variant wvri<Top.ai. Upoa--
Kwrjo-co occurs, it is true, but the preposition has so altered
the meaning that a future middle is not only not demanded
but would have been plainly out of place. The Ionic of
Hippocrates supplies both irTvarop-ai and d-no^ri^oixaL, and if
the middle inflexions occur in a writer who in such cases
often preferred the active, they were certainly the only
ones recognized in Attic Greek. As a matter of fact,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
395
(pcu^ojxaL is really the future of epevyoixai and TTrapovixat pre-
supposes a present Tiraipia ; but kpevyojxai is Ionic and
poetical, and uTaipoi does not occur till late, -nTapwixai being
used even in Hippocrates, who employs Trrapw for future.
For ipevyoixaL Attic writers used epvyyavco ^, but the future
was beyond question still derived from the rejected present,
a fact curiously confirmed by the following series —
ajiapTavoj
epvyyai'O)
dLyydvco
KLyxdv(o
kay)(^6.V(a
Xafxfidvo)
IxavOdvoj
Tvy\di'(jo
(j>6dvu)
ap.apTi](Top.ai
lpevfo/xa6
Xri^op.ai
Xrjxj/op.ai
p.a6i](rojxai
Tev^ojxa.i
(j)6/](Toixai.
ijjjiapTov
Tjpvyov
iOiyov
'4Xa\ov
e\a(3ov
ijxaOov
(TVX^OV
In fact all verbs which form their present by inserting the
syllable av before the person-endings, employ middle in-
flexions to express future meaning, except av^dvoi, XavOdvoo,
and 6(f)\i(TKdvo), of which all three are separated by meaning
and one by formation from the rest of the group. A future
middle would have been quite incongruous with the signifi-
cation of av^dvoi and \av6dvoi, while d(f)Xi-(rK-dv-(o has an
additional element of formation in its present. Accordingly,
there is good reason for supplying a future middle to ftXarr-
rdvdi and dXtaOdvoi, though in these verbs that tense has
accidentally not survived.
ftXaardvca ftXacrTrjaoixai efiXaa-TOv
SXirrOdvM oXtaOrjaoiiai, wXlctOov.
Compare the deponents —
al(rOdi'c>ixai alaOrjcTopLai r](TOd\xr)V.
TTVi'Odvnp.at. Trfvaofxat (■nvO(')ij.i]iJ
' Sec p. 138.
39^ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Moreover to assign due weight to the series it should be
remembered that a strong aorist active is an extraordinarily
rare tense in the Greek language, although from the fre-
quency with which any of the verbs possessing it occur,
it is comparatively familiar to every student.
The English word gargle has two equivalents in Greek.
Plato uses the term avaKoyxoXiaCod, and Hippocrates ava-
yapyapiCco. The latter word is onomatopoetic, and occurs
also in the middle, so that if recognized in Attic its future
would certainly have the inflexions of the middle. The
other word comes from Koyxv^tov, ' a little seal,' and primarily
means 'to open a seal,' as in Arist. Vesp. 589, It is,
therefore strongly metaphorical in its secondary sense, and
being a derived word probably retained the active forms
throughout.
To this group may conveniently be added the deponent
jSpip-coiMt, snort zvith passion. Its synonym pAixQlCin occurs
twice in Aeschylus, the active in a fragment (D. 337), and
the middle compounded with ava in P. V. 743, so that the
future [i.v\6iov\iai can in no case be wrong. With these
may also be classed pkyKUi, snore.
Another very large group is composed of verbs which
denote bodily activity generally, the action of the muscles,
whether voluntary or involuntary. To take those which
express voluntary activity first, there are the following : —
Deponents.
dAw/xat,
wander.
aXAo/iat,
leap.
avappLx^p-ai,
scramble.
lXva-nG>\xai,
wriggle.
opyovp-ai,
dance.
otxo/xat.
am gone
fipevOvoixai,
swagger.
€pxoiJ.ai,
go-
opiyvGi\iaL,
strain.
dpiyop.aL,
stretch.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
397
Deponents in the Future Tense.
/3a8tCa),
walk,
/3a8tou/xat.
Xcopw,
proceed,
Xcopjjcro/xai.
-/3atr(o,
go.
-/STjo-o/xat.
/3 Aajcr/coj,
come,
\i.o\ov\iai.
atiavTia,
meet,
dTTavT-)](rofxaL.
dica,
run,
dtv(Toixai.
(rpe'x'^).
run,
bpa}xov}iai.
(f)(vyo},
flee.
(pev^op-ai.
aTiobibpd<TK(i},
run away,
aTTobpacroixat.
(TTTOvbdCu),
make haste.
a-novbdcTop.ai.
81WKCO,
pursue,
bi(a^op.ai.
TT-qbo),
leap,
7rrjbi}(Top.aL.
6 p (OCT KM,
leap,
dopovjxai.
vioo,
swim.
vevaoixai.
vrixco,
swim.
vri^op-ai.
KVTTTCO,
stoop.
KV\l/oixaL.
Koo/ia^oo
go revelling,
K(i)ixd<Top.ai.
7ratC<w,
play,
'naicrop.ai.
(|>0ai;co,
get before.
(pdrjcroixat.
;he negations of these —
TTLTTTU),
fall.
TTeaovfxai.
Ka\xv(a,
am weary,
Ka\xovp.ai.
The future of xanpS) was occasionally active, although chiefly
in early writers and in the compound €yx(X)pG), which by
composition had acquired a sense far removed from the
simple. In fact there is only one instance (Thuc. i. 92) of
the future active in the simple verb. It is impossible to de-
cide with confidence as to the future of 7raT(S,for although diro-
iraTrjauixevot is certainly found in Aristophanes(Plut. 1 1 84) —
Tiki^v dTTOTiaT-qa-ofxcvoi. ye TrAei/^ i] jxvptOL,
the peculiar meaning of that compound has to be taken
into account. Xcnophon is never of any authority in
39^ THE NFAV PHRYNTCHUS.
settling points of Attic usage, and consequently TreptTrar?/-
(TovT^^ in Conv. 9, 7 must be disregarded, and the testimony
of Comedy is vitiated by the circumstance that only the
second person singular is encountered in its verse —
l3ovX7]i> 7rar?/(reij Kal aTpaTi]yovs KAao-Tao-ets,
Ar. Eq. 166.
Antiphanes, in Athen. 9, 409 D —
Kol t6t€ 7rcpi7Tar?/crets KaTTOVLy{/€t Kara rpoirov.
In Fr. Com. 2, 868, IvaTioTraTrjcreis is a reckless conjecture,
though soberly quoted by Veitch, and o-vy^7repi7rar?/(rets
quoted from Menander by Diogenes Laert. 6. 93 —
(rvixir€pLTTaT-^(T€LS yap TpLJSoov €xov(t e/xot
too-Trep KpaTrjTi rw KyytKW ttoO' ?/ yvvri,
is not only subject to the same objection as the others but
has no authority in a writer so late as Menander. Doubt-
less dTTOTrarTjo-o/xai was invariably used, and though Trar^o-co,
TTfpiTrarTjo-co were, like x'^PW^'^y recognized forms, yet Trarr/-
o-o/xat and TTepLiraTrjaoixai were most commonly used.
The future of kwttto) does not occur except in late Greek,
but compounded with avd is met with in Aristophanes,—
rjixLV ye irapa OdXaTrav Iv dvaKV\j/€TaL,
Av. 146,
and in Plato (Euthyd. 302 A), where Bekker and Stallbaum
read dvaKv^l/oL there is a variant, dvaKv\lfoiTo, which must be
preferred. 'Ap' av rjyolo ravra a-a elvai a ctol e^drj Kal diro-
boaOaL Kal hovvai Kal Ovaai ot(o jBovkoto deoiv ; a b' av p.r]
ovT(tis exV ov o-d ; Kdyw, jjby] yap otl e£ avr&v KaXov n dva-
KV\}/oLTO TO tG)v kp(X)Tr]p.dT(xiv Kal dfxa fiovkop.evo's on rdxtoT
UKOvaai. Uavv pey ovv, €<j)7]v, ovtoos e'xei. The late form
Kv\l/(a would suggest to copyists an alteration which the t6
following made only too easy.
An active future of <f)edvu) is found in Ionic and read in
two places of Xenophon. The position of 4)ei](T0fxai in
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 399
Attic Greek is too well assured to be shaken by a writer
so capriciously irregular, but even in those two cases the
active (pdda-co is not beyond question. In Cyr. 7, i. 19,
vvv yap ei (f)dd(ToiJ.€v tovs ttoX^jxiovs KaraKavovres ovbels rjix&v
cLTTodavelTaL, a manuscript D, which has many good qualities,
reads rjv (p6d(ra)[xev, and in the other instance (Cyr, 5. 4.
38) it would not be reckless to alter (pOda^is to ^drja-^i :
^ovkofxaL yap rot, ^<pi], Kal tijv p.i]Tipa ayeiv p-eT ip-avTov.
Nat p,a AC, €cf)i], (pOdaeLs p.ivToi. There is, however, little
room for doubt that the active form should be retained, as
one of the lonicisms or un-Attic words which are to be found
in every page, almost in every line of that prolific writer.
It is worthy of remark, that irTrjcrop.aL is not actually the
future of the deponent -nirop.ai, but itself a deponent tense
of an active verb not in use. Its legitimate present is
t7rrij//t, as is shown by the series —
iTTTripn 7TTricrop.ai.
tarTrip.1. aTr]aop.aL oTTyo-o)
trjpLi ijcrop.aL rjcrco.
The limits of this group include the two verbs pico and
TrAeco, which strictly hardly belong to it ; and with these
may be classified the poetical deponent vavTikkop.ai.
-nkicti, sail, TrAevo-o/iat.
pioi, flow, pev(Top.at.
They belong to the same well-marked scries as vioj, swim,
and Qiia, run, and are all derived from digammated stems —
Qi(ji,
run,
^eucro/xai,
d^F.
ViM,
swim.
vevcrop.ai,
veF.
irXio},
sail,
TrAevcro/jtat,
TrAef.
"nvioi.
blow,
TTvevarop-ai,
TTveF.
c /
pi.(Ji,
flow,
fxva-opLai,
,UF.
Xt(o,
pour,
X^F-
Probably Trvio) should be classed v/ith Oto), reoj, irXiu), and
400
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
piod, and not with words like rt/crco, as it primarily refers to
the motion of a natural force — the wind, as pica of water,
and not to the breathing of man. It is a curious fact that
Xeco, the only member of this group which is transitive and
does not involve motion in its subject, employs its present,
Xeco, both in a present and a future sense, and that even in
the middle voice x.'^vaop.ai is not used, but x^'o/^ctt.
There are several other verbs which properly belong to
this class, but the future of which has not been preserved.
In Attic Greek they were unquestionably deponents in the
future tense —
KoAu/x/3(3,
dine,
KoXvixl3ri(rop.ai
KV^lOTWj
tumble,
KV^lCrTT](TO[XaL.
KaKTl^Od,
kickj
kaKTiovp.ai.
vevco,
nod.
Vivcrojxai.
oKAa^ci),
crouch.
oKXdaoixaL.
TiTrjaad),
cower,
TrTTi^ojxai.
(TKLpTU),
bound,
(rKtpTi]cro[j.aL.
<potT(a,
go to and fro,
(l)OLTvcroixaL.
It is true that (/)otracrco occurs in Sappho and Callimachus,
and 0oiT?]o-co in late Greek, but the authority of Thomas
Magister, combined with the incontestible law of Attic
which has now been distinctly established, puts </)otr77o-o/xa/,
beyond dispute. The words of Thomas Magister (p. io6),
aiTo(f)oi.T7]crop.aL Kakkiov i] ai:o(l>oiTr\(Too, are, like the testimony
of Hesychius as to the future of KekapvCco, a valuable
confirmation of the legitimacy of the present method of
reconstructing verbs accidentally incomplete by a judicious
use of the principle of seriation.
Sretx^ is one of those words which were in use in Attica
at a time when the language still retained in a great degree
the features of Ionic Greek, and consequently is found in
Tragedy as in Ionic, but by the law of parsimony it was
rejected in mature Attic. Even its future does not happen
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 401
to occur, and may be disregarded. The same is true of
'ipinii (see p. 50), and accordingly the active ending of
€(f)ep\{/(o in a chorus of Aeschylus (Eum. 5°°) is of no
moment in regard to the question of Attic usage.
Less definite in signification, but still belonging to the
same natural class, are those verbs which it was decided
to treat separately, namely those expressing involuntary
action of the muscles or functional movement.
Deponents.
KVLcrKOfxai, conceive.
y\i)(0}xai, yearn.
XiTTTOfxai, yearn.
Deponents in the Future Tense.
e/x(S, vomit, kiiovixai.
ovpG>, make water, ovp-qaop-ai.
TLKTO), bear, re^o/xat.
XeXw, ease oneself, x^'^^^f^"-'--
AatKci^a), relieve oneself, AaiKcto-o/xat.
6i-l\dCo}, suckle, 6r]Kdiroixat.
TTveco, breathe, -rrvevcroixai.
As mentioned above it is questionable whether ttv^w
properly belongs to this class. However, the middle endings
of its future are undisputed, and the only exception is one
which proves the rule. Demosthenes is credited with avp.-
TTvevarovTOiv in 284. 17, tijv 'Ekaretav K.aT€\a(3ev ws ovb' hv et
rt yivoiTO en (Tvp-nvevcrovTOiv hv fjjxwv koI tS>v Qr](3ai(av, but the
future participle with dv is as absurd in Attic syntax as
would be the future indicative, infinitive, or optative with av,
and the aorist (Tvp-TtvevaduTcov must be restored as satisfying
the demands both of syntax and accidence.
Another syntactical rule constantly violated by tran-
scribers is exemplified in the case of Or]\dCo). Attic usage
does not allow the subjunctive mood to be used after otto;?
Dd
402 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
or Sttojs /x?7 in object clauses, but it repeatedly happens that
the future indicative, which in these cases is the normal
sequel to ottcos, is altered into the aorist subjunctive even
when the aorist is not from the same voice as the future.
A singularly apt example occurs in Lucian, Cron. 1 1 (394),
TTapaa-Kevd^oixevoL ottcos dva-caaL koX evcaxTja-cavTaL. Now verbs
like evcoxoS/xat are invariably passive, with the so-called
future middle —
eoTTL&iJLat. k(TTia<ToiJ.ai eia-Tiddrjv
doivS)}JiaL doLvrjo-ofxat k6oivr\9i]v
evMXOvixai evai)(i]aoixai €vu>)(i]drji>,
and evuj)(ri(TovTat and dva-ovcn''- should be restored as Cobet
insists on grounds both of syntax and accidence.
Similarly in Plato (Rep. 460 D), avT&v tovtcdv cTrt/ieATj-
(jovrai OTTcos ixerpiov xpovov drjXda-ovTat, the reading O-qXda-oiVTat
must be rejected, and the deponent future OrjXda-ojjLai assured
to the active present drjXdCoi. No attention is to be paid
to the active he^eiJ-St, quoted by Veitch from Fr. Com. 2.
868, a passage it has already been necessary to characterise
as desperately corrupt and plainly mangled by Providence
to give critics the opportunity of working their wicked will
on what was left.
A Fragment of Cephisodorus preserved by Athenaeus
(15. 689 F)-
oj kaKKOTTpoiKTe, pdKxapiv toIs crots irocrlv
eyo) TTpLooixaL ; \aLKd(ro[x dpa' j3dK\apLV ;
establishes the future of AatKa^w, and at the same time
affords to the moralist a saddening proof of the use to
which it was put. In Arist. Eq. 167 —
hrja-as, (pvX.d^€LS, €v TrpvTaveCco AaiKacret
' In a similar construction the same verb has been equally unfortunate in
Arist. Nub. 258—
wawep fj.e rov ' MafxavO' onais fx-q Bvat-n,
where every manuscript, the Rav. and Ven. among the rest, reads Qv<sr]T(, in
open violation of the metre.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 403
the Ven. manuscript has not seized the opportunity of
reading AatKa<rets-, and in Stratto (Athen, 9. 383 A) —
' "nriyos TiaperrTL ;' Trrjybs ; ovx} kaiKaaei ;
the true form was safely concealed in Ae/caj et till Coray
made sense by restoring XaiKaa-ei.
In regard to tlktod, critics have been too bold in sub-
stituting Ti^oiiai for re'^o) in every passage of Aristophanes
in which the active forms are found. In the Tragic dialect
both are legitimate, refw occurring by the side of re^o/xat,
in much the same way as oTei'x'^, and jSaivoi survived in
Tragedy when tpyoiiai or et/xt had usurped their place
in Prose. Consequently Aristophanes employs re'^co in a
passage (Thesm. 466 fif.) which he distinctly intended to
suggest reminiscences of Tragedy, as in th&form Trepi-qpxfTo
for TreptT/eii;, the metaphor iTTiCelv rrjv yoXr]v (see p. 17), and
the parody —
Kar EvpLTribi) dvpiOvp.eda
ovb^v TraOovaai ixel^ov rj bebpaKap.ev,
which is only slightly altered from the Telephus of Euri-
pides —
etra 8^ dv\xovp.eda
■naOovre^ ovhkv [lakkov ?/ hehpaKons.
Cobet has a humorously serious defence of Hirschig's con-
jecture, TLKTetv^, but in this case, as in that of TrepnjpxfTo
(1. 504), he has been reduced to conjecture, because his
point of view was misplaced (see p. 108 supra).
In Lys. 744, however, when Tc'^o/xat is demanded rt-
^opLUL is found,
A. TL Tavra krjpfl^ ; B. avrUa fxaKa Te^opLai.,
' Sibylla ila loquebatur in oraculis et Dii immortales et heroes ; mulierculae
Atticae ri^o^iai solebanl dicere. Rectissime igitur Ilirschigius tikthv emenda-
vit, quod el Graccum est et rei, quae agitur, unice convenit. Nori pnriiurmn
sese sed parere clamat, ut virum sine mora extrudat foras.' Cobet.
D d 2
404 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
whereas in a pseudo-oracle in Eq. 1037, the active is again
intentionally used,
ecrri ywf], Te^ct 8e XiovO^ lepais (v 'Adi]vaLS.
The middle KXavaojiai is the only form of the future o( Kkaico
found in Attic Comedy and Tragedy, with the exception
of KXav(Tov\j.ai (see p. 91 extr.) in Aristophanic hexameters
(Pax 1 081). Demosthenes uses KAatTJcrco or KXai]<T(o, an
instance of that tendency towards bringing all verbs to
uniformity which 8oK?jcrco in Aristophanes proves to have
begun at an early date, and which, in some cases like
K€K€pbr]Ka and ija-ekyrjixai, was calculated to enrich the
language. But there is no doubt that KXavaoyiai ought to
be considered the better Attic.
The middle haKpvojxaL occurs in Aesch. Sept. 814 —
TOiavra yjOLip^Lv Kal haKpv€crOaL irapa,
where the present is certainly demanded, though there is
a variant baKpvcrea-Oat. In either case it makes sufficient
evidence for a deponent future. But in Eur. El. 658 —
vat' Kal haKpiKTei y a^icajx ejmwz' tokcov
the active is equally well supported, and neither Comedy
nor Prose supplies examples to settle the difficulty. Either
form may be safely employed, but in Attic of the best age
baKpvaofxat was probably preferred. The same result is
obtained with regard to irodco. There is no authority
better than Xenophon's for the active iroOija-co, but TToOiaop-ai
occurs in authors of irreproachable purity. It must be
placed as a future deponent by the side of the entire de-
ponent yXt^opiaL.
Neither kuw nor wSirco (with its tenses formed from wbtvu))
have a future extant in Attic, but in Hippocrates both
Kvrjcru) and Kvr]<7op.aL occur. The Attics no doubt used ki>?]-
<TO[xai and wStrrjcro/xai, but as the futures of derived verbs,
bvaTOKrjO-U) and €VTOKri<T(o.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
405
A form of no ordinary import has been preserved by
Hesychius in (Spvaa-oixai. It affords the necessary authority
to supply deponent futures to a group of verbs which be-
long to the series under discussion, but of which by a
singular fatality no future form has been preserved. The
verb l3pvdC(o signifies to teem, and is a good representative
of its class, KLTTut, acjipL-yo), 6pyG>, (T(f)vb(a, a-cpvCco, lbp6i, aad-
juatVo), aa-naipoi, olbco, o-7rA.eK(S, As having primarily no
physical reference, kin.Ovp.Qi on the contrary has its future
active, kitiOvpriacji.
All verbs connected with drinking, and answering to our
words soak, etc., are passive, like /3pexojaai and e^oivovp.aL,
except pi6v(TKop.ai, which is deponent, and a member of
this series.
The verb aii^Klcnuo, as the negative of riKrco, must go
with these, and have confidently restored to it the deponent
future which it undoubtedly possessed in Attic Greek.
Deponent.
IxeOva-Koixai, am drunk.
Deponents in the Future Tense.
Kkdo),
weep,
Kkav(Topi.ai.
baKpvui,
weep,
haKpv(Top.ai.
KV(a,
conceive,
Kvr\(rop.at.
(DOLVOJ,
travail,
o>hi.vr\(Top.ai.
Tio6S>,
yearn,
TTodiaoixac.
ftpvdCo),
teem,
ftpvAa-oixau
KITTOJ,
yearn,
KiTTTia-opai.
(T(\)pLy5i,
am lusty,
cr0piy7j(ro/jiat.
(T(j)vb (O,
am lusty,
(r(j)vbri(rop,ai.
dpyui,
am rampant,
upyrjcroixat.
olb(ii>,
swell,
ot6?/cro/jiai.
dcnraLpoj,
pant,
daTTapovfJi.aL.
drrOp-aivoi,
pant,
d.(rdp.avovixai,
4o6
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
(r(f)V^co,
throb,
(T(pV^OlJ.aL.
(rTtKeK(a,
coeo,
mrXeKwcroixai
ibf)M,
sweat,
tSpcdfro/xat.
cnxfiKicTKOi,
miscarry,
aix(iX(i>(rojj.aL.
Of far more general signification than any of the groups
already classified is the last in the large series which in
the preceding pages has been subjected to analysis. The
verbs now to be enumerated express some one or other
of the more general facts relating to the physical side of
the human organism.
ISiuxToixai.
yi]pa(rojxai.
-Oavovixai.
<f)6i(roixac.
TTeLao[xat.
TXrja-o[j.aL.
€11X1, am,
(/Stoi), live,
yripda-Kco, become old,
-6vi](TK(i), die,
^Oiv(x>, waste away,
Ttaa-xdi, suffer,
rAaco, endure,
The future of yqpda-KO) has in good Attic active inflex-
ions as well as middle, and it is likely that by the side of
r}fir}(TU) we should also place ?7/3^oro/xat. Moreover, it is
natural to connect yrjpda-oixai and rjlBija-ofxai, with the older
formations, i^^aa-Kca and yrjpda-KCd, while ?//3?j(rco and yrjpdaui
are considered the futures of the modern 7//3w and yrjpcS.
yvp^ yrjpdcTbi
yrjpdcTKOi yepda-ofxai
r]jid(TKOi 7]j3ri(TopLai.
To these must be added {Skaardva), already referred to as
one of the series which in the present tense extend their
stem with the syllable av. Its future does not exjst even
in Ionic, for in Herodotus (3. 62) dva^kda-rrj is now read
in place of dmftXaa-Tria-ei. Of course its fellow, av^T^a-oixai,
is really passive.
It is probably from a community of meaning with kap.-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 407
jSdvoo, Xayx^dvoi, Ktyx^avo), Tvyxavco, verbs of the same series, that
apirdCco, KXeiTTO), and TtXeoveKTci use either active or middle
person-endings to express future meaning. The middle
predominates in the case of apTrdCoo, the active in that of
KkiTTTO). In fact the evidence for the Atticicity of ap-ndo-M
is by no means convincing. It is found in Euripides and
Xenophon, both poor authorities ; the former from writing
in what was really an artificial dialect, the latter from the
general character of his style.
(TV T(av dT€KV(ov brjT dvapirdcreis bofxovs ;
Eur. Ion 1303.
(rvvapTTd(rov(ri Koi KaTao-Kdxl/ovan yrjv.
I. A. 535.
Xen. Hipp. 4. 17, ap-ndaovras. In the first of these three
places dvap-d(T€is is practically of no more authority than
dvapTrdcreL, and Xenophon has apT7a(r6p.€vot in another passage
(Cyr. 7. 2. 9). The verdict of Aristophanes is very decided,
for although in Nub. 490 —
dye vvv ottojs orav tl itpofidXXoy croi (TOcf)bv
irepl tG>v jxeTedpcdv evdecos v(f)ap7Td(rei,
even the Ravenna reads v^ap-nda-eis, other lines plainly
prove that the middle must be substituted.
e^apTrda-ofxaC crov rois ovv^t ravTcpa.
Eq. 708.
d\A' apTidaojxat a(j)0)v avrd' Keirat 8' €V p.i(T(^.
Pax 1 1 18.
> » ^
apTTaaujxevos ra y^pi]p.aT avTov.
Av. 1460.
(betaas oSros ; ov ^vvapirdaei ixtcrrjv ;
Lys. 437.
TMv ((TffxpdvTOiv ap-nd(Top.aL Ta cnrLa.
Eccl. 866.
dvirrTaO' (i>5 apiraaoixevos t5>v l(T)(db(t)V .
Pint. 801.
4c8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
It is true that in Arist, Eccl. 667 Kki^di is only a cor-
rection of Brunck for Kkexj/at — ■
A. ovS' av KAeTTTvjj ovbels eWat ;
B. TTWS yap K/\e\//'et jx^tov avT<^ ;
but Kk^xlrai is so intolerable, both as regards form and con-
struction, that the correction is certainly necessary. IlAeo-
yeKTcS must be added with confidence to this class. It
certainly is active in Plato, Rep. 349 C, -TrAeoyeKrijo-ei : Thuc.
4. 62, TTk^oveKTrjoreLv : but in Plato, Lach. 193 E, olov d ns
Kaprepel avaXicTKutv apyvpiov ^povip.oi's et^ws on avakcacras
irkiov iKTi](reTat, tovtov avbpelov Kakoirjs av ; the future exact
is quite out of place, and TrAeoyeKrjjcrerat must be preferred.
It is also very doubtful if Plato refined so much as to use
K^KT-qixaL, KeKTi](TO[j.aL only after vowels^ 'iKTr]}xai and kKTi](Toyi.aL
always after consonants.
It is natural to consider Kavaojxai as springing from the
same feeling of language as ap-naa-ojxai, Kki\lfop.ai, and ixk^ov-
€KTr}(TO}xai. Really, all four futures have much of a true
middle force, and in Aristophanes (Plut. 1053) —
kav yap avrrjv els p-ovos (mivd-i]p kdj3rj
axTTTep irakaLCLV eipea-Lcaprjv Kavcrerac
the force of the middle voice may well be transferred to
English. Wakefield denied the possibility of Kava-op-ai, here
(Silv. Crit. 3. p. 74), and found fault with Aa/3r/ as 'nee
(1. neque) elegans nee (1. neque) usitatum,' but his method
of emending the lines is weak in the extreme —
kav yap avT7]v el? p.6vos cnnv6^]p I3dkr]
&<j'nep irakaid y elpeaLcovri Kava-erai..
The Greeks did not use ye merely to avoid the loss of a
final vowel by elision^ and Kav(rop,at, like kajSy, is not only
defensible but elegant.
A few more Greek verbs have the peculiarity of employ-
ing the inflexions of the middle voice in their future tense,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 409
but to bind them together there is no general principle
like that which runs through the preceding series.
YiyvdiCTKiio may be placed by the side of the early for-
mations, ajxapTavo} and fiavOdvu) —
ajxapTai'io aixapTi'](TOiiai
\xav6avoi \j.a6r\cro\xai
yiyv<i>(TKM yvoxrofjiai,
and (fipovTiovixai may, on the analogy of these, be readily
left unaltered in Euripides (I. T. 343) —
TO, 8' h'Oab^ y]iJ.e'LS ola (PpovTiovp.^Oa.
It may be that in the three verbs, 8et8a> (?), dav}xa((ii, and
aiioXavoi, as certainly was the case in rAdco, the physical side
of the state expressed by them was primarily uppermost,
but, however that may be, hd(rop.ai, 6avp.a(Top.ai, and oltto-
Xavaojxai. have no active rivals in Attic Greek. In late
writers hdaa), davp-aarco, and airoXavaco took their place, and
have accordingly repeatedly crept into the texts of the
Classical age. Thus in Plato, Charmides 172 B, one manu-
script (Par. E.) reads airokava-oixev for aTTo\av(r6p.€6a, the
reading supported by all the others, and in our only manu-
script of Hyperides aTTokav(rop.€v is read (Orat. Fun. col.
II. 142), but must be corrected to airokavaopLeda as in id.
col. 13. 3, oLKovaovTOiv has already been replaced by aKovov-
TOiv. Errors like Oavp.aa-ei's or davpacnjs for Oavp-aa-a in Eur.
Ale. 157—
h iv bopiOLS ibpaae Oavp-da-a KXvoiv
by this time hardly need remark, and other instances of
the active have all been corrected by the best editors and
with the sanction of manuscripts.
It is difficult to give a reason for the deponent future of
opvvpi, swear, but (TnopKi'ia-oixai by the side of €TTLopKi](Tui
may well be explained as due to analogy with it.
Although there is no example of dKd<Top.aL, the form
41 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
aTTeiKaa-oixai and avTeiK-dcroixaL demonstrate its existence, as
the prepositions which are prefixed to these compounds
can in no way have influenced their form. The three verbs
indicate the indisputable adaptabihty of a middle meaning
to the future tense.
Before this inquiry is brought to a conclusion, a small
compact group of verbs possessing the peculiarity under
discussion deserves serious attention. Probably all of them
had also an active future, but in no case would it be wrong
to assign a middle future to an active verb denoting praise
or blame.
Aa)/3w/xat and kvixaLvofxai, ixeiJ.(f)oixaL and airt&)ju.at, are en-
tirely deponents, while AotSop&i or AotSopC/xat are used in-
differently, although, as might be expected, the active is
in the future tense of extraordinary rarity. All verbs
corresponding to our scoff, flout, jeer, belong to this class,
and while there is no unquestioned instance of the active
of aK(aTTTO} or TcoOdCco, yet both verbs occur so rarely in the
future tense that the analogy of vjSpLO) by the side of vjSpi.-
oC/xat, as well as of AotSopw by the side of Xoibopovixat, must
be regarded as indicating that neither form of the future
would be displeasing to Attic ears.
UaiCoy has been considered in another class ; eTriyAcorrw-
/xat, abuse, jest, yjxpi^vriCpiKai and hr]\i.ov\xai, jest, are de-
ponents throughout, and eTTTjpeaC'^, banter, (TKi}iaki((o, insult,
and yX^vdC/ji, scoff, do not happen to occur in the future
tense. If it is easy to suggest irpoTT-qXaKulTab rdxa for Trpo-
TtriXaKul rdya in Plat, Gorg. 527 A, yet Thucydides in
TTpoTT-qXaKLuiv (6. 54) supplies an indisputable instance of the
active, KoAa^w, like AotSopo), oscillates between the middle
and the active voice, and in Thucydides biKai& has at one
time an active, at another a middle future.
'ETrairecrco and (Traivia-ojxai, €yK(x>p.id(oi) and iyKcoixtdcrofiai,
are about equally well supported, and strongly confirm
the view taken of the others.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
. I I
These three classes, consisting of verbs altogether de-
ponent, verbs either active or deponent, and verbs which,
though otherwise active are occasionally middle in the
future tense, may be thus presented : —
\i.i[i.(\>o\x.ai,
blame.
yapL€VTl^op.ai, jest.
lxo)fj.o)iJ.ai,
blame.
hr\p.ov}iai, jest.
aiTiu>ixat,
blame.
Xvp.aLvo\xai, outrage.
€TnyX(aTT(ofjt.a
11, abuse.
Aa)/3a)ju.ai, outrage.
Xoibopu), Xoibopovixai., insult.
KoXa^u), KoXaC
^o/xai punish.
(TKU>TTT(x>,
jeer,
(TKU>\l/(a or (TKcaxj/oixaL.
Toydd^d),
flout.
TU)6d(TU) or Tfjiddaoixai.
v/3/?tCai,
insult,
vjBpLO) or vjBpLovpaL.
eTTTjpeaCw,
banter,
i~r]pedcr(j) or kTir]ped(Top.ai.
XXevaCoi,
scoff,
XA-eudfTO) or yX€vdaop.ai.
TTpoTirjXaKL^a),
abuse,
-TTpoTTriXaKid or TTpoTTrjXaKLovixat.
(TKLp.aX[^OJ),
insult,
(TKifj.aXL(a or (rKLp.aXLOvp.ai.
bcKaLw,
punish,
bLKaLOKTca or hLKai(a(Top.aL.
kiraivSi,
praise,
iTTaLvicro) or k-naLvi(Top.aL.
eyKdiiMLdCoi,
panegyrise,
eyK.oifxid<Ju> or iyKU)p.Lacrop.aL,
The relationship between future tense and middle mean-
ing, which is so clearly proved by the numerous ex-
amples considered above, must originally have arisen from
some refined sense of language. It was helped by analogy
at the later period which is called classical ; but even at
that early date had begun to decay, as is indicated by such
forms as co-ttj^co and reOvq^oj by the side of orj/o-o/xat and
davovpai. These verbs belong to a group in which the
idiosyncrasy of meaning is not very clearly marked, and
though the analogy of Ke/cpci^o/^at, and K€KXdy^op.aL gave the
forms birth, the analogy of Oavovp.aL and (TTr]crop.aL proved
incapable of assigning to them the middle form. They ac-
quired it in late Greek, and in that way middle forms have
crept into the texts even of CIa.ssical authors, but only in
41 a THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
the case of the easily altered second person singular. The
authority for the active is conclusive.
A. (ris Tedvj]^(i>v taOi vvvi'
B. hrj^oixap viJLas eyw.
Arist. Ach. 325.
ov fxrjv aTLfjiOi y Ik O^Qiv Te9vt]^oixev.
Aesch. Agam. 1279.
cS8e ^' e(TTi]^(i> Trap' avrov' avTo yap fxoL yiyverai.
Arist. Lys. 634.
Accordingly the following passages must be all altered,
as has already been done by good editors —
etcret (tv, ^^epvijicov yap ecrrj/^et TreAa?.
Eur. I. A. 675.
A. otfX 0)? T€.dvi]^ei.
B. fxrjbaixws, 00 Adfiax^.
Arist, Ach. 590.
IxaTTjv ip-ol KeKXavaeTat, crv 8' iyxavcoD nOvri^ii.
Nub. 1436.
OVK tCTTLP 07T(OS OVX} Tidpr]^€l, Kav KT€.
Vesp. 654.
In two of these places the Ravenna manuscript, our best
authority, not only blunders in the termination, but even
in the body of the word, giving T€dvi](T€L for Te^i^r/^ets. No
faith can be put in such authorities, no reliance at a pinch.
CCCIII.
'HjuiKecpoiAaiov ]uh Kepe, dAAd HjuiKpavov.
Either Phrynichus has fallen into error, or he did not
write TJixUpavov. The Attic word is rnxiKpaipa \ as is seen
from Aristophanes —
ovKovv KarayikacTTOs 8?jt' ecret
Ti]v TjixUpaipav Trjv kripav yj/ikrjv 'i^oov ;
Thesm. 227.
' Schol. in Horn. II. 2. 3 —
ot 'AttikoI t<j TTJs Kf(pa\fji Tjfxiav -fifxiKpaipav Kiyovai.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 413
and from other passages quoted by Athenaeus as in 9.
368 E—
Kcoki], TO irXevpov, i]y.iKpaip apicrrepd —
Ameipsias.
and 9, 384 D —
elafjkdev r]p.iKpaLpa raKepa bek(f)aKOs.
Crobylus.
CCCIV.
'Evdpejoc- noAu napd to?c ZtooikoTc KUKAeTrai touvoju«,
ouK 6v dpxalov.
Plutarch (Mor. ii6^F) or his copyists have substituted
this late formation for hhUcav in two lines which Plutarch
assigns to Aeschylus, but Stobaeus (Flor. 108. 43) with
greater probability to Euripides —
avbpQv Tao iarlv ivbtKcov re Kal (ro(f)(Jov
KCLV Toim h^ivois 111] Ti6v\x(a(r9aL Oeol'i.
The word is common in late writers.
cccv.
FaGTpoKVHMiav ;)h Aere, ctAAd kvhjlihv.
' Nequc ya(TTpoKvr]p.ia, ncque avTeKvr]p.iov oratorium est.
Haec sunt scholae vocabula, quae sermo vulgaris forte ar-
repta volvit, scd nemo cultior in rcrum civilium exposi-
tione ad popularem sensum accommodata immiscet. Ve-
rum putidae in vcrborum dclectu subtilitatis exemplum
pracbuit Nicetas Ann. 4. 5. 78 D, yaaTpoKvr\p.iha<s (leg.
ya(TTpoKvr]p.ias) koI ^elpos, Kal orra rnv auyp.aTO'i oaTwhrj hia-
dpvfteU ^v. Artis medicae scriptoribus ista non solum pcr-
missa, ctiam necessaria sunt.' Lobcck.
414 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCVI.
Oepiucc ouTooc 6 Mevavbpoc bid toO a, ctAA' oure OouKubibnc,
ou9' H dpxala Koojucubia, oure TTAdTOov, GepjUH be.
This article^ like the last, may well be spurious, as neither
has much textual authority. The statement is also made by
Zonaras (Lex. 1030), by the Etymologicum Magnum (206.
57) and by SuTdas, sub voc. ^ov^(av. The word occurred in
the Fecopyos —
l3ovj3b)v l'ni]p6rj rw yipovn OepjjLa re
kiriXo-jiev avrov.
As a matter of fact, too much has been made of this form.
The grammarians have followed their usual practice of using
one another's writings in a way which in literature proper
' would be called plagiarism, and have given an undue em-
phasis to what was originally an erroneous dictum, ©e/j/xr;,
as has been said already, is a very peculiar formation, and
stands upon quite a different footing from ToXjxa {t6\}xi{),
evdvva, and -npvjxva [-npvixvr]). There is no reason in the
world why dipp,a, a substantive legitimately formed from
^epojuat, should not be regarded as distinct from dippL-r] con-
nected with depp-os. The verb depop.at is a primitive passive
(not middle), of which no active exists in Classical Greek,
and which was itself an excellent though rare Attic word —
es TO ^dkaveiov Tp^\e'
eTreiT exet KopvcpoLos eoTJjKws dipov.
Ar. Plut. 953.
Plato, Phileb. 46 C, o-norav rt? ravavTia ap.a TrdOrj 7rua-;(?/,
piySiV TTore O^prjTaL /cat Oepp^awoixevos ivlore ^v^rirai. In
Menander, therefore, 6ipp.a is to be considered as a neuter
with genitive Oepparos, and the remarks of the grammarians
are to be attributed to the fact that the line of Menander
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 415
happened to recall the strikingly memorable account of
the symptoms which first marked the victims of the Great
Plague, Thuc. 2. 49, dAA' i^ai(pvris vyieis ovras Trpwroy fxef
TTjs Kecpakijs depfxai l(Txypal kol twv 6(f>9a\ixS>v epv9i]fJ.aTa koL
0Aoycoo-ts lAd/x/Sare are. It is doubtless for the same absurd
reason that Timaeus (139) altered depij-a in Plato's Theaet.
178 C to Okpixai. Plato, like Menander, wrote 6ipp.a, and
Aristophanes also used the neuter substantive. Pollux
4. 116 dipjxa Ka\ Tivp 'Apt(rro0di-'T]s ((pi] —
6 8' e)(ajz' Oepp-a kol
TTvp T/xe.
CCCVII.
Te0eAHK€vai- 'AAetavbpeooTiKov Touvojua. bio d9eTeov
'AA6£avbpeuGiv Kai Airunjioic auro, H^x\v be pHteov HOeAH-
Kevai.
The Attic verb was etJe'Aco, with perfect ?}(?eA?7Ka, whereas
in the Common dialect it was 9e\(a with perfect re^e'Arj/ca.^
The word has suffered grievously from the want of pliability
in Tragic trimeter verse, and from the careless habits of
transcribers. Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, and Pindar knew
no form but the trisyllabic. The tragic senarius, however,
admitted of its present only under limited conditions, and
the form diko) was necessarily used, especially as ^ov\o\xai -
' '"tt9i\r]Ka, Aeschin. 2. 139; Xen. Cyr. 5. 2. 9; Dem. 47. 5; pip. ifieK-qKU,
Xen. Hell. 6. 5. 21.' 'nOiXriKa, Mosch. vaO. yvv. P. 14. 19; Sext. Emp. 682
(Bekk.) ; Orig. Ref. IIaeres.'4. 15 (Miller); pip. (rtOtX-nKtaav, Dio Cass. 44.
26.' Veitch.
' "BovAo/iai ist bei Homer und in den llymnen zwar bei weitem seltner als
iOiKw, aberdoch den eben giiltig. Dann abcr versvvindet es fast aus der Dichler-
sprache: Hesiod (Op. 647), Simonides Ceus (fr. 92. 3. epigr.), Pindar (fr. 83),
die Batrachom. (72) haben ganz vereinzelt stehende Ikispiele. Aeschylus
hat es ebenfalls sehr selten (Pers. 215; Prom. S67. 929) und, wie auch
Sophokles, nicht in Chorliedern. Sonst aber haben die jiingeren Dramatiker es
4\6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,
was for some reason or other eschewed by the early
tragedians. "H^eAoz; and ^]Qk\y](ja, however, were much
more convenient for an Iambic Hne than edeXov and ed^Xr](ra,
forms probably unknown to Classical Greek, although the
tragic subjunctive and other moods, deXi](TOi, ^eArjcrai/xt,
6ekr](Tov etc., naturally suggest them.
Aristophanes always uses eOeXoi, except in the phrases rjv
Oeos 6eXr], d 6(bs dekot, in which the attrition of constant use
is manifest. Thus edekca is demanded by the metre in Eq.
791, Pax 852, Av. 581, Plut. 513, 524, etc., while ^e'Aco
occurs in one or other of the phrases mentioned above, in
Plut. 347, 1 1 88, Pax 939, 1 1 87, Ran. 533, Eq. 713. In
Thesm. 908 deko) is from Eur. Hel. 562, and in 1. 412 of
the same play ^e'Aet is used for tragic effect, the next line
being taken from the Phoenix of Euripides.
In prose the trisyllabic form must be restored, except
after a vowel, and in the phrases just mentioned, and in
similar expressions like 6eov d^kovTO'i.
CCCVIII.
YuAAoc pdp|3apov, h be \|/uAAa boKijuov on Kai dpxamv.
' Feminina positio inde ab Aristophane et Xenophontis
Symp. 6. 8 (ttoo-ou? xj/vkkrjs 7ro8a? ejuoS cnrexets) omnibus
viguit aetatibus . . . Masculinum genus, quod Moeris p.
oft, namentlich Euripides. Verbindet man hieimit das die altesten Attischen
Piosaiker, besonders Thucydides, liovXo^ai en grosser Fiille, dagegen nur spar-
sam idiXo} (6f\cu ganz selten) haben, so kommen wir wohl anf die rechte Spur.
Es muss in povXo/xai eben so sehr etwas gelegen haben, was es von der hoh£n
Poesie fern hielt, wie en tOtXai, was es ihr besonders lieb machte. War der un-
terschied zunachst der zwischen Poesie und Prosa, so war es naturlich schwer
einen begrijfiicheyi unterschied zu finden, der, wenigstens fiir die Zeit zwischen
Homer und den jUngeren Tragikem vielleicht gar nicht vorhander war.
Letztere, wenn sie des Wort zu gleichem richten mit iOiXw aufnahmen, hiengen
wohl darin von den neueren Philosophen ab. u. s. w." Tycho Mommsen, Svi'
und Merd bei Euripides, p. 2.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 417
418 in numerum communium aggregat, in versione Alexan-
drina 1 Reg. 24. 14. Anon. Antiqq. Constantinopol. 2. p.
26 A, 37 A, et ap. Aristot, H. A. 4. 10, 537. ^6, Dioscorid,
4. 70, et Galenum de Administr. Anat. 6. i. 130, multo
saepius legitima forma utentem.' Lobeck.
CCCIX.
Euo)(Hjua)v TOUTO jLiev 01 djuaSeic eni toC nAouaiou koi ev
ci£ia)juaTi ovtoc tcxttougiv 01 b' dpxmoi eni tou kqAoG kqI
oujLijuerpou.
The rejected signification seems confined to Christian
writers. Thus, in Mark 15. 43, evaxwoyv jSovXevr/js corre-
sponds to ttXovo-los in Matth, 27. 57. The word bears the
same meaning in Luke, Acts 13. ,^0, yvvalKa^ ras ^vfryjj^iova'i.
cccx.
'EniroKOc h r^vH dboKijucoc einev 'AvTi9dvHc 6 Kcojucoboc,
beov eniTGi eineiv.
The word reprehended is met with in Hippocrates,
1201 H, T] Kovpvs eTTtroKos" fovcra tov eixTrpoaOev xpoi'ov : Aristot.
H. A. 6. 18. ^y'^. "2, /cat OVT(ti yiVUXTKOVCTLV OTL (TTiTOKa €i(rll' 01
TToi/ieVfs etc., the word recommended, in Hdt. i. 108, ryvdvya-
Tc'pa (TTLTeKa iovcrav :• id. 1 1 1, ^ yvvr] iTTiTC^ (ovaa iracrav ■tiixepi]v :
Hipp. 603.4, etc. There is no means of deciding between the
words. The force of i-ni has been explained above, p. 208.
CCCXI.
'ErKctfleTOC oGtooc 'YnepelbHC dneppi/jjuevoic, beov boKi;io')-
lepov xpHoaoQai Tto eeidc h elonoiHioc h undpAHToc.
E e
41 8 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Antiatt. Bekk. 96. 30, also refers the word to Hyperides,
but says nothing of the meaning : 'Ey/cd^eros" 'T7r6pet8r]s
Kara AvTOK\eovs. If correctly cited this is the only instance
in Attic Greek, as neither the letters of Demosthenes nor
the Axiochus are genuine, Plat. Ax. 368 E, ol 8e ircpl
&ripa[xevriv kol KaXXi^evov rfj va-Tepaia irpoehpovs eyKaOerovs
(suborned) ixpevres : Epist. Demosth. 1483. i, vir' avOpcairoiv
iyKaderoov 8ta/3Ai;^€fres. In late Greek it is not uncommon,
as Polyb. 13. 5. i, Joseph. B. J. 2. 2. 5, Luke 20. 20.
'Adoptatos OeTovs vocari, ttoitjtovs et eio-Tron/rou?, ignorat
nemo ; illud praetermittunt, rbv dejjievov vocari derriv apud
Photium : &eTT]s, 6 ela-TroLrja-dpievos Oerovs TLvas. hoc ultimum
vereor ne germanam lectionem specie non dissimilem ex-
pulerit vlas ; tali abundantia Oerbv vlbv TTOLrja-ai dicitur, SuTd.
s. VLwcrai, derbv vlbv TToulcrOai Hdt. 6. 57.' Lobeck.
CCCXII.
'Evbujuevia- djuaOooc, beov biTToac Aereiv/, <x>c EiinoAic KoAaEi,
OKeuH TO Kara thv oiKiav kqi eninAa.
This article has little authority, being absent from
Laurentian A and the editions of Vascosan and Callierges,
and from Phavorinus.
The derivation and orthography of hbvjxevCa are both
uncertain, some preferring to spell it with an omicron,
others with an upsilon, while it is connected severally with
hhov, b6[xos, and hhufxa. Even Pollux rejects the term,
10. 12, Trjv be ToiavTrjv KaTacrKivrjv evbajj-evCav 01 ttoAAoi KaXovcrtv'
eyo) be ovk eTraiv& rovvopia . . . k&Wlov be Trjv evbop-eviav Tiay-
KT-qa-lav t] irap^Tnqaiav ovoixdaat, ws ev 'EKKArjcrta^ov(rats 'Aptcr-
Tocf)dvr]s' TpayiKa>Tepov yap rj itayKX-qpia. to, be crKevr] Kai
aKevdpia (pikov roT? kw/xwSoi? KaXelv Kve. The passage of
EupoHs is cited in an earlier paragraph (10. 10) but in a
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 419
corrupt state, avra h'i to. aK^vrj KaAotr' av eirnrka, ijyovv i]
KOV(Pi] KTijaLS, TO. eTriTToXrjs ovra tG>v KTrnxdroov. o yovv EvTToAis
ev Tols KoXa^Lv TrpoeiTrwy —
ciKove br} (TKCvr] to. Kara ti]v olKtav
euTjyaye TrapaTrXr/o-ioi',
T€<rcrvyeypaTTTaL roTs to, eTnirXa.
CCCXIII.
'EjunupiojLtoc- ouTooc "YnepeibHc HjueAHjuevooc, beov
ejunpHOjuoc Aereiv.
Pollux, 9. 156, 'Ey \xivToi Tfa) 'TirepeLbov virep AvKo^pows
evpov yeypap-piivov ' 1] vecDpLMV irpoboaLuv 1) ap^daiv €ix-nvpL(Tp.ov
Tf KarAkTq^iv aK/ja?,' Ka\ ovtu) yiypanTai Iv TiXdocn ^ijikioi'i.
Both words occur only in late writers.
CCCXIV.
H|iiKaKOv, oux 0UT03C ciAA" Hjuiju6x6Hpov cpdei.
This article if by Phrynichus is certainly unworthy of
him. The adjectives are equally good —
r]fj.iKaK09 —
Te'cos fxcv ovv dAA' yixtKaKws kjioaKopir]v.
Ar. Thesm. 449.
Cp. Pollux, 6. 162, yixUaKOV bi EvKXdbrj'i At'yet ical 2o(f)OK\rjs,
' Api(TTo(l>6Lvq^ 6e Ka\ i)\xiK<!iKOi<i : Antiatticista, 9H. 13, vp-UaKov.
"AAe^ts Atx.MaAcijrw.
r]\j.LpLU')(Oi]pos —
Plato, Rep. I. 352 C, oipprjorav bk (ttI tu 6.biKa abiKia
T]pip.6y0m)in ovTiS.
E e 2
420 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
cccxv.
"EjueAAov noiHoai, IjueAAov Gelvai, djuapTHjuctTa toov ec5xd-
TOOV eiTlC OUTOO GUVTOtTTei, TeTHpHTQl fOlp H TO) eV6GToi)Tl
ouvTOTTOjuevov H Tcp jLieAAovTi, otov IjueAAov noielv, ejueAAov
noiHseiv, jd be ouvreAiKd oubeva jponov dpjuoaei tw
ejueAAov.
CCCXVI.
"EjueAAov rpd\|/c<i" eaxdrooc pdppapoc h guvtoHic qCth-
dopiGTW rdp XPo^V "^^ ejue^Aov ol guvtottougiv oi 'AOh-
vmoi, oAa' HTOi eveGTcaxi, oTov ejueAAov rpdcpeiv, h jueAAovri,
oTov ejueAAov rpoM^fciv.
In the manuscripts and the edition of Nuilez the second
of these articles comes much later, while the two are neces-
sarily in juxtaposition in Callierges.
It may be too subtle to regard the scholarly addition of
delvat, the poetical equivalent of Troirjcrai, not only as an in-
dication that the former of the two edicts certainly originated
with Phrynichus, but also as intended to make the rule apply
to poetry as well as prose. As it is, the edicts themselves
are disputed, while some scholars would make them absolute
by the ridiculous device of asserting that the remarks refer
only to the imperfect of jueAAw. The following analysis
of the usage of Attic poetry will demonstrate the justice
of the general rule laid down by Phrynichus. It need
hardly be added that only those passages are recorded
in which /xe'AAco has the signification of ' intend ' or ' am
going to.'
To begin with Comedy, the present infinitive follows
/[/.eAAoj in the following passages : —
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 421
\i.kW(£)V VTTep AaKebaifxovioov avbp&v Xiyetv.
At. Ach. 482.
OLTTacn /LieAXets ets Xe'yety ravavTia.
Id. 493.
il TTTojx^os MV iiTdT kv ^ A6i]vaioLS Xkyeiv
/^e'AAo) irepl r?/? irokecos.
Id. 498.
ovTos TL bpaacLS ; T(2 TTTiAo) jMeAActs e/;ieri' ;
Id. 588.
avea-TLv, r}hovSiV 6^ ocriav jueAAets aTroaTepelaOat.
Nub. 1072.
ra fxeWovT ev kkyea-Qai,.
Vesp. loii (Chor.).
fxSs Kai ya\ds /xe'AAetj kiynv kv avbpdcriv ;
Id. 1 185.
S, a, TL /^eAAets Spar ; B. ayeiv ravT-qv ka(3u)V.
Id. 1379.
OT ovb' l/jteAAe? eyyvs eiyat rwy ^ewz;.
Pax 196.
aAA' ct^f Kat yap k^dvai yv(ap.r]v epi.r]V
/le'AAet.
Id. 232.
Aou(rd/i.ei'a Trpo)' /ze'AAco yap ecrriay ya/xouy.
Av. 132.
Kayw TiLTTTM /xcAAco re fSoav, 6 8' cmk^kKre dolp.aTi.6v fxov.
Id. 498.
k(TTLav hk p.kkkopL€v ^kvovs.
Lys. 1058 (Chor.).
A. ov 8er /u,' aKovav ; B. ov)( a y hv p.kkkr\s opav.
Thesm. 7.
A. p.kkk€L yap 6 KakkteTtrjs 'Ayd^coy
TrpdpLos fjpikTfpos, B. juiwz; fiivela-Oat ;
A. Spuoxous Tidkvai bpafxaTos apx^ds.
Id. 50.
fxkkkcL OiKd^av ovT€ ftovkrj^ kcrO^ ebpa,
Id. 79.
Kay 0€(rp.o(f)6poi.v pikkkova-L irepC p-ov Tr}p.(pov
kKKkr)(na((LV 67r' nkkOpu).
Id. 83.
422 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
A. arap tL jue'AAeis hpav fx ; B. airo^vpdv rabc.
Ar. Thesm. 215.
'iv arra (3ovX.evoL(rde koI /xe'AAotre bpav.
Id. 587.
jar) bfjO^ iKiTevu) TTXrjv y orav p.iXk(jii '^e/xeii'.
Ran. II.
/xe'AAets avay(.iv direp y iKcWev bel cr '6.y^iv.
Id. 77.
tL ttot apa bpav ^likkovcrtv aAA' aTrAw Tpo-ma.
Eccl. 231.
/xe'AAot jSabiCdv rj dvpaC ^KaaTOTe.
Id. 271.
^a At' aAA' aTro^epetv avra /xeAAco r?) Tro'Aet.
Id. 758.
ft) ^lAat ywatKes eXirep fiiXkopicv to XPW^ Spaz/.
Id. 1164.
el TovTo bpav /xeAAoyres ei7tAa^o(//e^a.
PI. 466.
fxe'AAft) (TTpaTTjyov xeiporovelv ^Ayvppiov^.
Id. ap. Plut. de rep. gerend. 801 B.
aAA' ei /y,eAAets ev Kavbpetco^
(f)io(etv uxTTTep pLVcrraKa cravTov.
Straltis, in Etym. Mag. 803. 47.
rioVep' orav p-iXkoi kiyetv (rot Tr)V \vTpav, yyrpav k^yco ;
Antiphanes, ap. Athen. 10. 449 B.
<TV(T(TiTiov pLekkcLS vo(rrikev€iv ; ocrov
aKpOK(akt €\}reLV — ^ ~ P^yXV> '^obas.
Anaxilas, ap. Athen. 3. 95 A.
fxikkovTa bemvi^iiv yap avbpa Serrakov.
Alexis, ap. Athen. 4. 137 C.
* The following lines are too uncertain to be used in settling this question: —
Ar. ap. Hesychius s. dfopfj-rj —
fi(K\(i Se rrifiTruv tovs (Is a(popiir}v :
Pherecrales, ap. Athen. 9. 396 C —
oil yaKaOr^vov ap' vv Oveiv fitWtis :
Plato, ap. Athen. 15. 667 B—
^7) 0K\r)pav e'x*
Tr)v x^^P^ pLfWaiv Korra^i^eiv.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 423
To complete the list may be added the Boeotian's patois in
Ar. Ach. 947 —
jaeAAo) ye rot depibbev.
The future infinitive is in Comedy much more rare, oc-
curring only in the following places: —
yv(i>\xy]V epelv fxeWovra Trept
MtATjcrtcoi' Kol Kepbavelv
ToXavTov.
Ar. Eq. 931.
\xiKKmv d(f)\-q(reiv p-r} TrapovToov paprvpcov.
Nub. 777.
al(r)(j)6v TTOielv, 6 tl ttjs albovs p-ikket rayakix avairkifjaeiv.
Id. 995.
<f)€vyeLS ; ep-ekkov cr apa Kivq(r€LV eyd.
Id. 1 301.
piikkcis avaireiactv (ws btKatov koI Kakov.
Id. 1340.
ov ^vkkr]-yf/e(T0' OTTocroLO-i bUai, Trjres p.(.kXovcnv ^a-eadau
Vesp. 400.
aAA' S» TTepl rrjs irdar^s p-ikkcav fiaaikeias avrLkoyrja-eiv.
Id. 546.
p.ikkov(Tav ijbrj kecr^telv tovs ^vp-iroras.
Id. 1346.
Kara x^Lpos vbcop (pepcru) raxiJ tis. B. benrvricreLV p.ekkop.ev
Av. 464.
e?7rep /xeAAo/xff
avayndaav tovs 6.vbpas elprjvriv aynv.
Lys. 120.
p.(kkovai p! at yvvoxKiS airoktiv T7]p.€pov.
Thesm. 181.
In one passage the governed verb may be regarded either
as present or future —
avev hpv(f)dKTov rrjv hiK^v p^kkds Kakdv.
Vcsp. 830.
424 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Against these forty-eight examples of the present or
future — thirty-five of the present, twelve of the future, and
one doubtful — there are only three, or more correctly
only two, instances of the aorist, to set ; for the Laconic in
Lys. 117 —
eyo) 8e Kal Ka ttotto Tavyerov av(o
e'Acroi/^' opos ai /xeAAot/xi y' dpdvav Ibrjv,
may be set against the Boeotian in Ach. 947, These two
instances are, Av. 366 —
eiTTe jj-OL TL /jteAAer' d) TrdvTcov KOLKLcrTa O-qpimv
aTToAecrat iraOovT^s ovbev dvbpe kol bcaa-TrdcraL ;
and Ach. 1159 (Chor.) —
Kara jxik-
\ovTos kal3e'Lv avTov kvwv
ap-nda-aaa tpevyoL.
They are unquestioned violations of the rule, and do not
admit of reasonable emendation. It would be easy to
change diroXeaai and Stao-Trao-at into cmokia-itv and hiaa-ndcruvy
but the cure would be almost worse than the disease, as the
Attic future of dTro'AAvjut is d-TroAw, not d-noXia-ca. In Comedy,
therefore, of the Attic period, the exceptions to the rule of
Phrynichus are four per cent, of the instances.
As to tragedy, full statistics of the usage of Euripides
are not yet in my hands, but the following notes on
Aeschylus and Sophocles may be of service. Aeschylus
prefers the future after /xe'AAco, that tense occurring four
times, P. V. 638, 835, Cho. 859, 867, and the present only
once, Suppl. 1058, while r^Xdv in Agam. 974 may be
either present or future —
fie'Aot hi TOL (Tol Tu>vTT€p hv ixikXrjs rekdv.
This writer also supplies an undoubted example of the
aorist in P. V. 625 —
/XTjrOt p.^ KpV\l/J]S TOVO'' 0776/3 pikkcD TTttddv.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 425
In Sophocles, on the other hand, the future and the present
are evenly balanced, the former occurring nine times.
El- 359, 379' 038, Aj. 925, 1027, 1287, Ant. 458, Phil. 483,
1084, and the latter nine, El. 305, i486, Aj. 443, O. R. 678,
^?>^3-: O- C. 1773, Tr. 79, 756, Phil. 409. There is one
possible instance of the aorist. The manuscripts present
KTuvelv in
KTav^lv ^[i^kKov TTarepa top ifj-ov' 6 8e davcav,
O. R. 967.
but it is quite possible that Sophocles wrote Krevelv. If
KTavilv is right, it will be observed that the percentage of
aorists is much the same as in Comedy. So small a per-
centage of exceptions may easily be due to negligent and
ungrammatical writing.
CCCXVII.
KpauracMoc" napaKetjuevou toO KeKparjiioc e'lnelv epe?
TIC djuci6a)C KpauraGjuoc.
There is little evidence, but as far as it goes it is in
favour of K€Kpayixus, that form occurring in Eur. I. A. 1357,
and KiKpayfxa in Ar. Pax 637, whereas there is no instance
of Kpavyaa-pioi in a pre-Macedonian writer, although Anti-
atticista, 10 1, has the note, Kpavyacrixos avrl rod Kpavyr\' Alcfic-
Aos 'ATToftaTT]. The fact that KpavyaCoj was hardly an Attic
word cannot decide this point, as many substantives re-
mained in use after the verbs which gave them birth had
been replaced by more useful synonyms. That Kpauya^w
was really an old formation, although principally used in
late Greek, is proved by the old lines quoted by Plato, Rep.
10. 607 B, f] KaKipv(a TTpos bfcnroTav kvojv KpavydCov(ra kt(.
426 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCXVIII.
KopubaAoc- EupouAou rou Kwjucobonoiou bpdjua enirpct-
96x01 ouTOoc- ou be Tolc nepi 'ApiGT09dvHv neiGojuevoc
Kopubov Aere to ^coov.
This, like the preceding article and the following, has
little authority but that of Nunez.
The words of Thomas are worth quoting, if only to show
that Kopvhakos must at one time have been used on Attic
soil ; (p. 549) Ko/)d8os koL Kopvba\os koI KopvbaXXs to a-TpovOiov
TO e^oy evrt t^? Ketpakrjs av^cTTriKOTa TiTepa uxnrep Xocpov. '4(ttl
8e TO [xkv Kopvbos ^Attikov' TlXovTdp\os (v rw irepl aSoAeo^ias,
(P' 5'~'7 -^) •<<^P"SoS WTTTai ■7T6T6fA€>'OS. TO be K0pvba\6s KOIVOV
el Kol E{5/3ovA.os \prJTai' ^<tti he koI KopvbaXbs brjfxos ^A6rjvr](n,
TO be KOpvbaXh TTOL-qTtKOV WS OeOKpiTOS, (7. 23) 'ElTlTOfJlPiSlOl
KopuSaXiSes.
The Attic form occurs in Ar. Av. 302, 472, 476, 1295 ;
Plato, Euthyd. 291 B; Anaxandrides, ap. Ath. 4. 131
(1. 64), and in late writers, as Theocr. 7. 741. Of Kopv-
bakos Lobeck says, 'rejectitiae formae nullus antiquior
auctor proferri potest Aristotele, qui in Histor. Anim. saepis-
sime Kopvbos, semel KopvbaXos (9. 25) usurpavit. Sed si
aliquot ab hoc gradus descendimus, larga exemplorum
sylva insurgit, Aelian, H. An. 4. 5. 6. 46, Galen, vol. 4,
p. 158, vol. 13, p. 943 ; Dioscor. 2. 59, Aesop. Fab. 46.'
CCCXIX.
Kajujuuei- togquth KOKobaijuovia nepi rivac Igti thc pap-
papiac coGT , enfibw "AAeHic KexpHxai tw Ko/tjuueiv hjucAh-
jucvooc ecxaTCOc, aipeTcGai koi qutouc oCtoo Aereiv, beov wc
01 dpiGTOi Twv apxaioav KOTOjuueiv.
The passage of Alexis has not been preserved, but there
is no reason why he should not have employed such a syn-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 427
copated form in the lyric, anapaestic, or hexameter metres,
or in representing dialectical pronunciation. Thus, Aris-
tophanes puts aiJL(3aT€ into the mouth of a Boeotian in Ach.
732, and aixTTTCLixevos of a Laconian in Lys. 106. Similarly,
aixiraXXeTe occurs naturally in the parody of the choruses
of Aeschylus in Ran. 1358 (cp. ainraKKovri, Lys. 1310}. In
Tragedy these forms were in place even in the senarii, as
ovK ks afx^okas, Eur. Heracl. 270 ; ap.^aTr]s, Bacch. 1 107.
In this respect as in others Xenophon approximates to
the usage of the Common dialect, employing dju/Sar?]? in De
ReEq. 3. 12; 5.7; Mem. 3. 3. 2, and perhaps at Hell. 5. 3. i,
avdix/3aTos in Cyr. 4. 5. 46, and djoi/3oAa? yi] in id. 7. 5. 12.
The form Kaixixvoi seems most frequent in the sacred
writers, as Esai. 29, /ca/M/xvcrei tovs 6(f)da\ixovs ; Luke, Acts
28. 27, eKafxixvcrav tovs oc^iOdkiiovs.
cccxx.
KfccpaAoTOjueiv dnoppinxe roiivojua kqI Oeocppaarov
K6)(pHjuevov auTO)- Aere be Kaparojuelv.
This appears a mere matter of opinion. Euripides (?)
uses Kaparoixiiv in Rhes. 586 —
YidpLv jxoXoi'Te )(pr) KapaTOjxelv ^t^et,
and Theophrastus, K<c(f)akoToiJ.elv ; Antiatticista, 104. 31;
Kec^aAoro/xety &(6(ppa(TTos TTepl Evoat/xovias. There is not
much basis for choice, as either word is a legitimate for-
mation.
CCCXXI.
AdKOivav nev ruva?Ka ep6?c, AoKaivav be T^W x<i>pc(v oi)ba-
^jujC, dAAd AaKOwiKHV, ei Koi Eupinibhc napaAofooc, —
ojc h AuKuiva Tcov 0pura)V juelcov noAic ',
' Androm. 194. So id. 151, 209, Tro. 11 10, Ilcl. 1473, etc.
4ZS THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Such adjectival use of substantives has been discussed
already on p. 21. It is common in Tragedy and in Ionic
prose, but is practically unknown in genuine Attic. The
exceptions enumerated by Lobeck are not to the point, as
both KaKaiva kvcov'^, or a-KvXa^^, and Ad/caim^ a sort of cup,
are mere remnants of old usage, or to be regarded in the
same way as an English expression like Swedes for Swedish
turnips. Accordingly when Xenophon, in Hellen. 7. i.
29, writes et? rr\v AaKaivav, he is not writing Attic, but
approximating to the Aa/catm x^PV of Herodotus or the
Tragedians.
'^fa^
CCCXXII.
Mev ouv toOto Trpd^oo- tic dvaaxoiTO outco ouvtoittovtoc
Tivoc kv dpXH Aorou TO jU6v OUV J 01 fotp boKijuoi unoTdo-
C50UC51V, erw Mev ouv AerovTec, id KaAd juev ouv kqi Td
juev ouv npdrMOTa.
' Satis exemplorum nobis praebent scriptores sacri, a
fitvovv et [X€vovvy€ saepe periodos exorsi, ne quis admoni-
tionem illam inutilem fuisse credat.' Lobeck.
CCCXXIII.
Miopia dboKijuov, to he juiapoc dpxaiov.
Phrynichus is in error, the substantive being used by
Demosthenes, 845. 23, Trepl ixkv ovv rijs alaxpoKephias rijs
TovTov Kot fxiapias vcrrepov p.01 hoKei hie^^Xdilv, by Isaeus, 51,
32, ets TovTo v^peoos kol p.t.apias a(f)LKeTo, and in the early
1 Soph. Aj. 8 ; Xen. Cyr. lo. 1,4. 2 Plat. Farm. 128 C.
^ Athenaeus 11. 484 F, Adicatvar kvKikojv ttSos ovtws Xeyo/j-evov ^ and tov
Ktpdfiov, uis T(i 'Attiko. ffKivrj, ^ dnu tov (Xxohf^Tos (mxtopiaffavros fKfi, uairfp ai
Qrjp'mKuai Ktyovrai. 'ApiaTO<pdvr]s, AaiTa\(vffi'
Xv^apiTiSds t' ivcoxias Kal Xiov en AaKaivdv.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 429
sense of ' bloodguiltiness,' by Antiphon 1 18. 2 ; 119. 3 ; 124.
2. It is also found in Xen. Hell. 7. 3. 6.
Thomas blindly follows Phrynichus, p. 615, /xtapo'v, ov
[Liap'ia 8e aWa ^beXvpia, and so Antiatt. p. 108.
CCCXXIV.
fajLiajH juH Aere, dAAd rajnoiH bid thc 01, (x>c vooih, 9iAoih*
rd rdp THC npooTHC ou^ufiac Kai rpiTHC tow nepianoojuevwv
pHjudTCOv euKTiKd bid THC 01 bi9e6rrou AereTOij oTov xeAoiH-
Ta be THC beuTepac bid tou co, oTov viko-h, re^^JH.
cccxxv.
AlbcjOH Kai blbcOHC- TOUTOU TO CUKTIKOV OubeiC TWV 'AtTI-
I I
Kwv elne bid tou 00, dAAd bid thc 01 bi9e6rrou. xcKjuHpio'i
be"OjUHpoc edv jue^ unoTOKTiKoac xPHtqi bid tou w Aer^v —
€1 be K6V au TOl
bcoH Kuboc dp6G9ar
Igti be, edv be coi bco 6 Zeuc, ei be cuktikojc, outooc —
Go'i be eeoi togo bolev, ogq (ppeci ohoi juevoivac •
eGaujuaca ouv 'AAeEdvbpou tou Zupou G091GT0G bcon Kai
bibcuH AerovTOc eni tou euktikou.
The second of these articles is in the manuscripts separated
from the first by the articles numbered in this edition 326
and 327. Their juxtaposition will enable me to discuss
with more conciseness the true forms of the optative mood
in Attic Greek. It will be my aim to establish by the
authority of Attic Comedy the true forms of thc optative
mood in those cases in which a longer and a shorter form
occur side by side in our prose texts of Attic writers. It
43°
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
may be obseived, that the possibiUty in prose of a form
like TiXoi by the side of reAotr;, or yeAw by the side of
yeXi^T], does not seem to have presented itself to Phryni-
chus, and it will be demonstrated that such corruptions
have still more no place in Classical writing.
If it can be proved by the impartial laws of metre that
in Comedy only one set of forms was in each case used, a
strong argument is obtained for considering as spurious the
unsupported prose inflexions. The argument becomes still
stronger when by the ignorance or negligence of scribes
the defaulting forms have in some manuscripts been foisted
into verse, to the detriment of the metre, or, by causing
the expulsion of some other word, to the detriment of the
sense.
Moreover, it is easy to prove that Aristophanes never
scrupled to use two forms when he might do so without
violating Attic usage. Up to the Archonship of Euclides
(B.C. 402) the longer forms of the dative plural of the first
and second declensions, appear constantly in inscriptions,
and were certainly used in the intercourse of daily life. In
the Comic poets they occur side by side with the shorter,
and were for the sake of convenience never rejected, al-
though in prose they are found only in some of the more
elevated passages of Plato.
6 Zcvs fj.€ TavT^ ihpaaev avOpiairoLS <f)9ov&v.
Ar. Plut. 87.
et TL y ecTTt XafXTTpov koI Kakov
rj )(^dpL€v avOpdiTOLcri., bid ere yiyverai..
Id. 145.
Similarly, the Comic poet, no less than the Epic poet
or the tragedian, employs indifferently both the lighter
and heavier forms of the first person plural, middle or
passive.
o\ yap fi\€7T0VT€9 Tol^ TvcfiXols i)yovp.e6a.
Plut. 15.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 431
dXAa rov y ^AyvppLov
TTOvrjpbv i]yovp.€(j6a' vvv he \poi}X€V(ov.
Eccl. 185.
A. aAX' 0)9 Tay^t-cTT ei^x^/^^^'-
B. ev\(i>\xecrOa 877.
Pax 973.
He uses as he requires the two forms of the third person
plural optative, middle, or passive, namely the longer in
-oiaTo'^, and the shorter in -oivto.
al Tpiyjihis et yevoiad' eKarov ToipaXov.
Eq. 662.
iv ai ^e'creis yiyvoiVTO rfj vovp-^viq.
Nub. 1 191.
TTporepov hiaWaToivO^ (Kovres, et 8e ixi].
Id. 1194.
oTTco? TaxLCTTa ra TrpvTaveV v(f)iXoiaTO.
Id. 1 199.
The Attic dialect recognised Iot^jkcos and kaTi]Kh'aL as
legitimate forms by the side of the syncopated (aru)^-
and ka-Tavai, and accordingly the usage is reflected in
Comedy —
eTretr' CKet Kopv(palo'i etrrrj/cw? dipov.
l'lut.953^
' Besides the instances quoted in the text we find, Pax 209, alaeavoiaro : Ar.
1147, ipfaaaiaro : Lys. 42, id. Fr. Com. 2. 1 106 (Aristoph.), ixpfKo'iaro. Homer
probably never uses -olvto, as the hiatus in II. 1. 344 —
oniraii ol napd. vrjval a6oi fiaxeoiVTO 'Axatoi
makes fiaxtoiar' almost a certain emendation. Other instances arc, II. 2. 340,
ftvoiaro : 418, Xa^oiaro : 282, inifpaaaiaTO : 492, nvqaaiaO' : II. 1 1. 467, ^iwaro :
Od. I. 157, it(v9oiaTo: 9. 554, djroA.o('aTO. In Aeschylus we have, Pers. 360,
451, (Kaoj^oiaTO : 369, (pfvioiaO' : Supp. 695 (ch.), edar' : 754, (xOatpoiaro :
Cho. 484, lertCoiae' : Sept. 552, dKoiaro. In Sophocles, Aj, 842, vKoiaro: O.K.
I 274, difoiaO' yvaiaoiaro : O. C. 44, b((aiaTo: 602, TrfurpaiaO' : 921, vvOoiaro: 945,
Sffotar' : El. 211 (ch.), anovaiaTo. In Euripides, Hel. 159, dt'TiSojpiiaaiaro :
II. 1'". 547, fKTiffaiaTo: I. T. 134I, olxoiaro.
'' Pax 375, Kan. 613, rt6vr)Kivai : Ran. 1012, rtOv&vai: Ran. O7, TtOvr]K6ro% :
Av. 1075, Ttei/rj/foTtw: Ran. 171, 1476, T<Oi'?;«oTa : 1 175, TfOi/r/zcijiTi : but\\.^'}(),
Ttevfws: Nub. 782, 838; Ran. 1028, 11 40, rtOvtwro^. So in Antiphon, 112. 3,
TtOvTjK'jTt, followed in id. 5 by rtSufwrot, may perhaps be rifjht.
432 THE -NEW PHRYNICHUS.
aWa (3vp(TLin]i' e^coi'
beiTivovvTOS eoTws aT^ocro^ei tovs prjTopa^.
Eq. 60.
Both the uncontracted and the contracted forms of com-
parative adjectives in -mv were good Attic, as inscriptions
prove, and both are found in Aristophanes —
t'o) (TTparriyol TrXeCoves rj ^ekTioves.
Ach. 1078.
A. KaX tS)v deariav oTTorepot
TTkeCoVS (TKOTTei,.
B. Koi hi] (TKoiroi.
Nub. 1097.
Eq. 1223.
(TTOfJicoa-ov olav is ra /xei^w irpayjxaTa.
Nub. II 10.
The same is true of many other forms, such as h and
ets^, oLOfxaL and olp-ai, d6jxy]v and (aix-qv"^, kavrov and avrov^,
bepcti and hdpoo'^, and if this principle is estabhshed that
1 is is the older form, and is the only one found in inscriptions till close
upon the Archonship of Euclides, after which time ds supersedes h almost
entirely. Aristophanes avoided Is before a vowel, a fact curiously supported
by his invariably using i'iaw. never 'law. The tragedians employed hs when the
metre required it, and so Arist. Thesm. 1122 —
TtiOiTv is ixiifiv KOI jafiTiXiov \ex°^-
Pax, 140 —
T£ 5' fjV is iiypov TtovTiov itiart 0d6os ;
are lines from Euripides. For elision, whether before a vowel or a consonant,
Is was used in Comedy. Ar. Ran. iS6^ —
rj 's ovov ttKokus
fj 'a KepPepiovs :
Thesm. 1224 —
TrjSl Sidled ; 's TovfJ.TTa\iv rpixtis av y(.
Thucydides always used Is.
2 ofo/iai, Nub. 1342 ; Eq.414; Vesp.515. oT/iot, Nub. 1112, 1113, and more
than twenty times elsewhere, cuufirjv, Nub. 1473; Vesp. 791, 1138 ; Eccl. 168 ;
wfirjv, Pint. 834.
^ eavTov, Nub. 407, 585, 9S0 ; Eq. 513; Pax 546: avrov. Pax 735, 1184:
(avTov, Ve^p. 692, io.:6, 1534, etc.: avrov, Vesp. 76; Av. 1444: iavrovs, Vesp.
1517; Lys. 577: tavTO), Pi. 589; Eq. 544, 1223, etc.: avrSi, Vesp. 130, 804;
PI. 1165.
* Sipcxj occurs Ran. 619, but dfipco Nub. 442 (anapaest); Vesp. 1286 (ott*-
Seipofxrjv) ; A v. 365 (troch.)
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 433
Aristophanes and the other Comic poets, representing as
they did the cultured voice of Athens, readily availed
themselves of double forms when such existed, it is not
too much to consider the occurrence of only one form in
Comic verse as distinct evidence that no other form was
in use.
The inflexions which will be placed beyond question by
a careful application of this rule are the second and third
persons singular of the weak aorist indicative active, and
the singular and plural forms of the active optative present
of contracted verbs, as well as the corresponding inflexions
of the Attic contracted future.
In the texts of prose writers two forms of the second
and third persons singular weak aorist optative active are
encountered side by side, often in the same paragraph and
sometimes in the same line — for the second person a
shorter form in -at? and a longer in -eta?, for the third a
shorter in -at and a longer in -ete(y). Thus in Dem. 13.
26, TO jjLev ovv eiTLTLixav tcrcas (\)i](Tat tis av pahiov koX navros
ilvai KT€. : and just below, 15. 9, Kat 07jo-ete tls av /xt; (t/cottwi;
OLKpifiGi^ K.T(. In Lys. 122. 25 (12. 26) Bekker (in addend.),
Cobet, and Scheibe all read elr, w o-xerAtwrare -navToov, avri-
Aeyes ixkv tva (Kaa-^ias, (7vve\dix(3av€s 8e 'iva a-noKTeivats. That
(pj'irraL was in Attic impossible, and a-noKrdvai^ an impro-
bable form, will be proved by the following evidence.
As to third person, the evidence of Aristophanes alone is
quite conclusive —
€1 TiaXiv avaj6ki\\/euv ef ap\r]<s ; 8e'.
Pint. 866.
avaftaKKoixivr] Oet^ete tov ((iopfxunuv.
Liccl. 91 .
//TTe/j ?)ia\\d^€i,(v fiiJ.a<i tiv (xovi].
Lys. 1 104.
*/ TTVp ULTiOTpO-nOV 1] Otll^iKP yaki].
Keel. 792.
V f
434 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
bpdcrae Tov6\ B. ottov ; to tov Tlavbs KaXov.
Lys. 911.
TOV ^acrtAecos 6({)daX^6v. B. (KKoxl/eii ye.
Ach. g2.
ouato ixivTav, et rts eKTrAwete ere.
Plut. 1062.
avTi; yap €[XTTpi](Tei€V av to V€(apioi>.
Ach. 918.
Tt? T?}s reKOi;oT7s Oclttov (TnTTefjixj/etev av ;
Eccl. 235.
6 Zry? are y cTnTpiyj/eiev. B. €TTLTpC\frov(rL yap.
Id. 776.
TivOoiT av eTTtrpii/^ete. B. iwv 8' ov tovto bpa.
Plut. 120.
K^v ^vvairobpavai bcvp^ iTiL^uprjcreU fxot.
Ran. 81.
a^as av ia-TTefxyf/euv is to v€(6piov.
Ach. 921.
on ov8' hv ets ^vcretei' avOpcoTfoiv €Ti.
Plut. 137.
ooTts KaAecreee KapboTrov ttjv KapboTrrjv.
Nub. 1251.
Kovbets ye /:x ay Treto-eter avOpcaTTo^v to p-r] ovk.
Ran. 68.
■jTwycoytt 7rept8^(retev kcTTaOivp-ivais.
Eccl. 127.
ircS? ovy rts Si; crwcrete TotavTrjv iroXtv ;
Ran. 1458.
v^ roij ^eoiif eya>ye /x^ ^^acreie /ize.
Plut. 6S5.
Tt? Sf (})pa(T€i( TTOV 'cTTt XpejuvAos pot (ra(f)<a9 ;
Id. 1171.
T^s ai" ^pdcrete 770U Vrti' ?; Auo-tcrrpdrrj ;
Lys. 1086.
Tt oT^ra TOVT av (xxpeArja-euv a ; ri. rt ;
Nub. 753.
The Lacedaemonian Lampito's words in Lys. 171, ira
Ko. Tt? dp7ret(retei' av p?) 7rAa88t7]z' ; may be mentioned along
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 435
with these instances from the senarii, but Pkit. 136, where
Dindorf reads —
Traverse av, ei j3ov\olto ravO^ ; B. ort?) ri 87/ ;
must be reserved for further discussion. Besides these
twenty-two instances in iambic trimeters we have in other
regular metres, iambic, trochaic, and anapaestic, the fol-
lowing : — Pax 568, aTTaXXd^euv : Plut. 510, (Bkexj/eie : Thesm.
842, bavCcreKv : Plut. 5^0) bi-O-ve^ei^v: Plut. 59^) e^oAecretei' :
Ach. 639, KaXe(r€i€ : Nub. 969, Kd[x\\reiev : Ran. 923, Arjp?/-
creie : Plut. 506, Ttopicreiev : Eccl. 647, 0iX?ja-etcz; : and in
choric measures — Ach. 1151, Thesm. 1051, l^oAeVetey :
Pax 1035, iiraLvea-eiev: Ach. 1171, iirq^eLev: Thesm. 328,
iaxweuv: Ach. 1166, Trara^ete. Against these numerous
examples of the longer ending there are no instances of
the shorter to bring.
The evidence drawn from other Comic writers is equally
convincing. The references are to the pages of Meineke's
volumes of the ' Fragmenta Comicorum.'
dirb Tov -TTOTov iravaeu, tov kCav ttotov.
2. 122.
et jxr] KopT] htvaeu to crraTs fjdeos-
561.
770)9 av K0[j.L(rei4 p.oi tl9 ',
7S6.
aAA' 'l]yi\o\os ovto^ /xe \xr]vv(T^uv dv.
S74.
re's av cl)pd(T€U ttov art to Alovv(tlov ;
lOOI.
In 2. 947, a fragment of Aristophanes, occurs i-jnOvpi']-
(T(L( in what seems to be a pseudo-oracle (cp. p- 44), and
from other metres arc derived, 2. 673, -naiaeu : 981, Tropi-
aeifv. 10,51, (Jwap-nacrmv. There is in fact not a single
instance of the sliorter ending which till now holds the
place of honour in all grammars. All examples of it
Y f 2
436 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
occurring in prose ought once and for all to be altered
to the longer. The evidence is simply overwhelming, and
proves to certainty that optative forms ending in -at were
quite unknown to the Athenians. They do not occur once
in Sophocles or Euripides, and in Aeschylus they occur
only four times, and in all cases in the chorus — •
[j.7]TT0Te koLfxbs avhpG>v
T&vhe ttoKlv Kevcacrat'
jxrib^ k-nt^Mpiois
TTTdjjxacnv aiixaTicrai irebov yas.
Supp. 662 (bis).
6 fxeyas Zevs airaXi^at
ydfjiov AiyvTTToyevrj /xot.
Id. 1052.
IJ.r}be TTtovcra kovls [likav aXiia iroXtTav.
8t' opyav TTOLvas avTL(p6vovs aras
apiraXiaai irokecDS ^.
Eum. 982.
' In Supp. 624, Zfiis 5' (TiiKpavai Tf\oi, the form is simply a useless con-
jecture of Dindorf's for kinKpavd, and in Ag. 1 70 (ch.) A«£a« is only conjectural.
The longer form is found in Aesch. P. V. 202, ap^eia/ : 396, Hd/iipfiei' : 503,
(p-qaeiiv : 1049 (ch.), (niYX'"'''*'^''' ^°5^ {ch.), plipeie : Sept. 739 (ch.), \ov(Ttifv :
Supp. 281, Opiipeit: 487, ex^ripeiiv. Agam. 38, Xt^eifv: 366 (ch.), aKr)\pn(v :
e)S^2, Xtieuv: 88.^, Karappiipttey. i ^28, {rpf'f'iief: i^'j6,(pap^€tev : Cho. 344 (ch.),
KOfjiiaeKv: 854, KXifuiv. In Sophocles we find O. R. 502 (ch.), irapafjieiipeuv :
1302, pLapTvprjadiv: O. C. 391, Trpd^fuj' : 1657, (ppdcfie: Ant. 666, ar^qafic
Aj. 1149, KaTaa0fa(ie : 1176, diroairdaeie: El. 572, e/c9v(Tfie: 1103, (ppaatKv:
Tr. 35.^,0eAfeiei': ^88,\i^iuv: 433, Trepo-ejei/: 458, dX7i;j'f(ei': 657 (ch.),^!;^*!*:
729, Kf^eifv: 906, Jpavaeiev: 908, 0\iif/eiev: 933, (tpdiptitv: 935, 'ip^tuv: 955
(ch.), d-noiKiaeuv: Phil. 281, dp/cianfv : 463, pLfTaarrjaiuv : 695 (ch.) diroKXav
auiv : 6^8 {ch.), Kaj(wda(uv: "jii, avvatu : 1062, vdpieiev. In Euripides, Or.
508, dTTOKTeiveiev ; 7S3, olnTiaat : Phoen. 152, oXiatitv : ^I'J, bpdaeiev : 948,
(Kaijaiiev: loj^ (ch.), d^aviautv ; Med. 95, S/jdffeie : 760 (ch.), TreAdcrete : 13S9
(ch.), oKeaeie: Hipp. 684, kKTpe^Htv: 985, ^lainv^tuv: 1253, TrKrjaete: 1387
(ch.), KoipLiaeie: I. A. 802, (pdaeic 1597, irXTj^fiey : I. T. 577, (ppdaeiev : 590,
■nepiXpui: 627, TTtptareiXnev : 740, dj-yfiXetev: Rhes. 217, Trepi\p(tev: 235 (ch.),
Kapupeif : Tro. 478, KopLirdaftev : 'Jig, viK-qaue: 928, Kpiviuv : 1014, Ipdantv :
1161, opOwadiv: 11^9, ypdifeifv: Cycl. 146, irXifaeu: 535, tpavaeie : Bacch.
1072, dvaxai-Tiaeie : 1 259, KaXeaetfu: Heracl. 179, Kpivtitv: 537, Xi^ne: 538,
Spddfifv : Hel. 40, Kovcpiafie : 175 (ch.), ■nip.^m: 436, hia-yyiXeie: 522 (ch.),
ipavofitv: 6gg, dpKifffuv : \o.\^, af^7]a(L(v : Ion. 372, S/jdcrejei/ : c^2g, arjpirjVdfv :
•jSj, awavTrjafiev: 1127, Sevaeie : 11. F. 1S6, iiraLveaeiey. "jig, dvaaTTjattt : 929,
fiaipdiv : 1 21 7, Kpv<^fiiv. Eighty-nine instances in all from the three Tragedians.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 437
Accordingly, Dobree's arrangement of the initial words
of a fragment of the Tarentini of Alexis (quoted by
Athenaeus in 11. 463) is certainly wrong —
ovh\ ets av €vk6y(os
fifxiv (})dovi](TaL vovv ^x^^' '^^ ^^^ ireXas
ovoiv aoiKOV[xev ovo^v ap ovk oiao on kt€.
All we can affirm is that ovbeCs and evkoycos, without
av, were in the first line, and that the second went on —
rffxiv (pdovqaei vovv €X(t)v kt€.
Critics have had the same advantage of a broken line
in a fragment of the Second Thesmophoriazusae of Aris-
tophanes, and have used it with equal skill. One thing is
certain, that Aristophanes did not write —
ovb av Aeycoi' Ae'^at^ tls.
Antiphanes is credited with eyxeai in a passage quoted by
Athenaeus (14. 641) —
A. Olvov &d(rLov ttCvols av ; B. ei tls ey^eat.
A. 77/509 ajj-vybaXas be 7tS>s ^X^'-^ j ^' (IpV^i-K^s.
fj.a\aKas <r({)6bpa, 8t b.s fxiXirt irpocnraiC^iv ji'ia.
A. jxeXiTTfjKTa 8' et aoi irpoacfiepoi ; B. TpcoyoifXL kol
(obv be KaraTiivoLp! av. A. aXKov bei tlvos ;
but irivoLS, TTpoacpepOL, rptayoiixi, and KaraTTivoLixL, all suggest
the true reading eyxeot.
The passage of the Plutus which was reserved above for
further discussion reads in the manuscripts as follows —
ovKovv 06' ((ttIv atrios, koI pabiois
TTavcreuv, el (3ovXoito, ravT &v ;
. on TL Or/ ;
' Naber's correction for oi/bif dS. oiiSiv'.
' The ATjfa* of Fritsche is out of the question. The form of expression
occurs again in the Ion of Eubulus (Athcn. 4. 169) in the same connexion — the
end of a long enumeration —
Tpi/^Aia 5J nal Pardvia icai icnicKr'iPia Kal
\oird5ta itai itariivia ttvhivcL Tap(pfa
Koiih' fiv \iyojv \{(ai^i.
438 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
and it must be retained in that shape in whatever way
on ri h-x] ; is translated. Dindorf, in his conjecture, -nava-^C
6.V, el KTe., which Meineke has adopted, has fallen into an
error which other emendators besides him have committed.
Although nearly 150 instances of the optative forms in
-etev have already been registered, it will be observed
that in no single instance is the final syllable elided. The
temptation to a writer of verse to elide the final epsilon
before av must have been very strong indeed, and that
it was never done proves convincingly that Attic usage
was absolutely opposed to such elision. Accordingly the
metrical fault of the line — •
tcrcos av iKTTvevcreuv' orav 8' avfj itvoas — •
Eur. Or. 700.
must not be corrected by docking the cK-nvevamv^, but
either by reading riv 8' avrf with Nauck, or on 5' avr] with
Kirchhoff.
Thus, by the incontrovertible testimony of Attic verse,
the true ending of the third person singular of the weak
aorist optative active is proved to be -ete before a con-
sonant and -etey before a vov/el. The two cases of diver-
gence from this law, as occurring in lyrical passages of the
earliest of the three Tragedians, and as opposed by more
than one hundred and fifty examples, may be regarded as
corrupt, or, at all events, are to be treated as antiquated
and anomalous.
* As most of the instances of the optative ending -at are due to the ingenuity
of critics, so a long list of exceptions to the rule against eliding the final
syllable of -fifv may be drawn up from the emendations of scholars. In
Aesch. Choeph. 854, KXiipei' dV is read by Heath and Monk. In Agam. 1376,
Schutz, without warrant, altered ■nrj^jLovris apKiiaraT av | (pap^tiev to iTTjixovrjs
apKiiaraTov (pap^u dv. In Eur. Hipp. 469, for Ka\ws aKpi^wanav Valcke-
naer wrote navuv aKpiliwati dv, and our rule also invalidates Schneidewin's
•fvv^ TtHovaa KOfirrdaei oV dv iron in Tro. 478, and Porson's Trpd^ei' dv fit
Otwv HaKws in Andr. 1283. Meineke's attempt, in his ' Curae Criticae,' p. 55,
to arrange a fragment of the Comic poet Archippus, quoted by Plutarch,
Alcib. I, is vitiated by the same fault, So^ei' for S6^(i(v, and that he should
adopt Cobet's (ppdaei' oirov in Ar. Plut. 11 71 and leave (ppdaui irov in Lys.
1016, is as careless as it is incorrect.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 439
In regard to the second person singular no such absolute
rule can be formulated, but the Attic usage is nevertheless
distinctly indicated. Aristophanes supplies the following
evidence —
ci TToAty ava^}^e\lr€Las uxnrep Koi irpo rod.
Plut. 95.
0770)5 av avTT]v a(})avLaeias ei~e fJLoi.
Nub. 760.
IV avTov kKT;i}j.y\reias. B. dA.\' ovk €(rTa(rev.
Vesp. 175.
TT&s av jcaXeVeia? evTvxoiv A\xvvia ;
Nub. 689.
TTw? av crv jj-ol Xe^eias afxe )(j)r] Xeyeiv ;
Eq. 15.
fj.6vos yap av Xe^eta? a^LOiS e/xoO.
Thesm. 187.
Traj? 8^t' av avTovs ^uyxaXeVeia? ; B. pabicos.
Av. 201.
avbpa TTTep(acr€ias (tv ; B. Trdyres rot? Aoyois.
Id. 1438.
(t TLva TioXiv 0pacreia? 57/jiTy evepov.
Id. 121.
Toi/s (Toi/s ^pacreta?, et hioiixi]v, olcrc crv.
Ran. no.
Besides these from the scnarii, there are found in other
metres three additional instances. In iambic tetrameter
catalectic —
ojot' et (TV fipiixriaaLO /col ^k^-^etas oaTpaKivba —
Eq. 855.
in anapaestic dimeters —
aKk' Wi xP^ipuiv Ka\ Trpafctay
Eq. 498.
and in a chorus, Thesm. 368, Kvpdxrdas.
Again.st these thirteen unquestioned instances of the longer
ending there are four equally well-established of the shorter,
440 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
two in the senarii, and two in anapaestic tetrameter
catalectic —
hia baKTvXiov fxev ovv efxe y av SteA^wats'.
Plut. 1036.
ap (i)(f)(\ri(rais av Ti tov cravTov (fiiXov ;
Id. 1 134.
el jxev yaip€LS apvos <t>ooi>li, TtaLbbs (jiMvy]!' kXeriaan,
Vesp. 572.
ovK av biKacrais. (tv yap ovv vvv /xot vikclv tto\X<2 beboKrjcraL.
Id. 726.
Now it has been proved (p. 51) that un- Attic forms are of
frequent occurrence in anapaestic verse, and accordingly
eXerjirais and biK6.(Tais must not be regarded as satisfactory
evidence for the shorter ending. Besides (XerjcraLs may well
be a stately antiquated form used for effect if we consider
the preceding line —
axnrep 6eov avTil3oXel fxe rpefxcov tt]s €v6vvr]s a-noXvaai.
Of the two instances from the senarii, bieXKva-ais forms part
of a proverbial phrase, and o)(f)eXi](TaLs is put into the mouth
of Hermes.
Four other passages demand discussion. In Pax 405,
where the manuscripts give —
Wl br] KaT€i'n' i(rco9 yap av 7ret(rat? ejue,
Hirschig, followed by Meineke, now reads avaTteCaeis, but
even if the text is right it would not support Attic usage,
as a few lines before, Hermes, who speaks the line in
question, utters the para-tragoedic words —
aAA', cb /leA'j vtto tov Ato? aixaXbvvdrja-oixai,
et fxr] T€Topr](ru) ravra Kal XaKrfcrojxaL.
Long ago, the omission of av in one manuscript of Nub. 776 —
OTTO)? a7ro(rTp€\j/aL9 av avTibiKdiv bU-qv,
led Brunck to conjecture —
077(09 av aTToa-Tpexj/da^ ^vTibiK&v biK-qv,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 441
but Meineke's conjecture of aixocTrpiy^ai av is so manifest an
improvement to the sense as to be almost convincing. For
the manuscript reading of Vesp. 819 —
Oripi^ov et TTOis iKKOfXia-aii to tov Avkov
the same scholar substitutes —
Oriputov ovTTio '^eKo'jut(ra9 to tov Avkov,
and Brunck proposed to omit to as tautological —
Orjpcaov et 77ft)S €KKoy.i(TeLas tov Avkov.
The only remaining instance need not detain us long.
TovTo a-avTjj Kpw^ats, in Lys. ^c6, is a proverbial expression,
and loses by Meineke's change of the optative Kpw^ais to
the indicative Vpco^a?. According to Suidas the proverb was
derived from inauspicious birds, a-n opvecDv tS>v bva-oKovCa-Tcov,
as the similar one in Plut. 369 —
(TV fxev otS' o Kpcofets" w? epLov rt KeKXocfiOTOs,
Cr]T(l9 p.€Tdkap€LV,
refers to tovs p-aT-qv 6pv\ovvTas oi? al KopQivai.
There are no instances of the second person in the frag-
ments of the other Comic poets of a good age, but the
evidence derived from Tragic verse in support of the longer
forrn is curiously even stronger that that from Comedy,
In the three tragedians there are over twenty lines which
require the dissyllabic inflexion \ but only two lines of
Euripides in which the monosyllabic ending is necessary.
If the testimony thus presented by verse is candidly
accepted, it will be seen that although the ending -ais was
not so carefully avoided as that of the third person -at, yet
' Aesch. Supp. 925, tf/av(T(ias : Eiim. 64=;, Xuo-fias ; Soph. Ant. 244, (iKAaftas :
Aj. 1 1 22, KOfxirafffiai : 1 1 37, n\i\fi(ias : El. 348, tK^ti^ttai: 8or, irpi^tia?: Tr.
700, 0K(ip(ia^: Phil. 1222, <pp&fr(ias. Eur. Med. 761 (cli.), ■nfx'i^fta'i : 1135,
Tfpipnai: Hipp. 345, Xi^fias: 472, 7rpn[ftas : Andr. 462, vp&^tias: I. A. 4f)4,
yrjfjifta!: I. T. 505, ippAatia^: 513, t^>p(ia(ias: JO24, icpviptias: IIcU. 1039, 7r«/-
(Tf tat: El. 620, nTjviirrnas. The shorter form does not occur in Aeschylus or
Sophocles, for A«fai9 in Ag. 97, is merely a conjecture for Kf^arr'. In ICuripides
occur, Med. 325, ntiaan: I. T. 1184, auiuats.
442 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
it savoured of antiquity, and ought, when it occurs in Attic,
to be regarded as an anomaly allowable only in verse, and
in the case of Comedy probably always either an intentional
aberration from ordinary usage, or due to the introduction
of a crystallized expression, proverbial or otherwise.
In regard to the third person plural, the true form cannot
be decided by the dictates of verse, for -anv has the same
metrical value as -^lav. But if the form in -^ii.{v) was for
the singular the only one in use, there can be no doubt
that -etay was the genuine plural ending. The manuscript
authority is consistently in its favour, and when that fails
it must be restored in our texts.
The next point to be considered is of almost equal im-
portance. Contracted verbs are by far the most numerous
class in Greek, and, in number at all events, equal those
of all other classes taken together. It is accordingly
of some moment to establish the true endings of so
frequently occurring a mood as the present optative active.
The following facts will be demonstrated. All verbs in
-eoj or -o'co contracting to -cS have their present optative
singular ending in -o'vqv, -oiijs, -oirj, and all verbs in -ao)
contracting to -w have the corresponding forms in -(^rjv,
-(j)Tj9, -fa)?]. In the dual and plural^ on the contrary, Attic
requires the shorter forms, namely, -oItov, -oCtt^v, -olix^v,
-oire, -ouv for verbs in -oco and -eon, and -(^tov, -ioTr]v, -^[xev,
-wre, -(Sey for verbs in -Aca. Thus the optative of rrjpQ (-ew)
had from Athenian lips the forms : —
TTipoiriv
Tiipoip.€V
TT]poir\s TrjpolTov
Tr]pOLT€
TTqpoii] TrjpoiTriv
Tr]pOL€V,
while hr]\G> (-ow) was inflected as follows-
—
hy]koiriv
brjXolp.^v
brjkoLTjs hrfXoiTov
brjXoLTe
brjXoiri brjXoLTrjv
br)\oUi',
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 443
and opw (-aco) in a similar way —
bpcfriv bpioixev
hpiorjs bp(^Tov bpiore
hpcSri SpwVfiv bp(2ev.
The instances of Singular forms are in Aristophanes
peculiarly numerous, and quite sufficient to put their true
inflexions beyond question —
'iva p.j] (TTpaTevoLT akka jiivoii] p.ivoiV.
Ach. 1052.
Xva jXT] fioiior] Ki]pi(a ^e^va-jxevov.
Thesm. 506.
(vbaiixovoirjs^, TrjAe'^w 8' ay(a (ppovoi.
Ach. 446.
(vbatixovoLris, axr-ep rj iJ.i]Ti-ip Trore.
Id. 457.
6i](r(x) TTpvraveV rj jjLrjKiTt ('^W ^7^-
Nub. 1255.
€t ^vvboKoiij Toiaiv akkots opvioLs.
Av. 197.
oiCTTTep KaTOTTTpov, KUTa Tripo[y]v (X.^V.
Nub. 752.
Besides these, derived from iambic trimeters, there are
three in iambic tetrameter catalectic verse, one in trochaic
tetrameter, six in anapaestic systems, and four from other
metres —
ov Tavrhv S» rav (cttlv, ovO av 2ajKpdret boKoii].
Nub. 1432.
ijbrj jj-ecroiri, j')inj.a.T av ftoeia b(obeK etTrei'.
Ran. 924.
aicrOavoixevoi auv ixavTa rpavki^ovTOS o tl vooCrjs.
Nub. 1 38 1.
€7:1 Tl yap /x' iKilOev rjyc? ; B. tv OLKokovOoLtji ip.oi.
Av. 340.
' So all the MS.S., but Meinekc adopts tv aoi yivoiro from Athenacus 5. 18^),
who quotes the line as from Eur. 'Telcphus.' The Scholiast in loco has
444 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
Kol fiaaavi^iiv ttw? ov)(i Trakat \opov alroiri Kaff kavTov.
Eq. 513-
CTTt T(av a.<r]TTTp(j)v eKaOrjT opvLS /xere'xwi^ o tl boopohoKOir].
Av. 510.
6 8' cip' eioTTjKet roy AvcriKpiTr] Tr}pS>v tl bctipohoKoCrj.
Id. 513-
ovre Texvr}v av t5>v avOptaTioiv ovt av cro(j)Lav iX€XeT(^r].
Plut. 511.
ris av ovv etrj ; ^Tjrei^' Vfx^ls, ws irav av eymye 7roiOLr]v.
Vesp. 348.
TTept T7]v Ke(paXriv ; /xrj rui' C^rjv.
Lys. 531.
Vesp. 278, avTifiokotr] : id. 276, jiov^iavmri : Thesm. 681,
8pw?] : Nub. 1387, x'iCv'^K^Tqv.
Now, opposed to these twenty-one unquestioned examples
of the dissyllabic ending, stands a solitary instance of the
monosyllabic —
\ovTOi jxev av €V ttoioT?
et aoL TTVKVOTrjs h>e(TT
kv rw TpoTTW, ois Ae'yets,
Eq. 1131.
which Meineke formerly altered to eS iroioi-qs d tivkvottis,
but he now prefers x^^^'"'^ h"-^^ «p' ^^ Troiels' ri aoi TivKVOTrjs.
No conjecture is required, for a single instance of a form
that was certainly possible in Tragedy occurring in Comedy
out of the regular metres does not enfranchise that form
as genuine Attic, or diminish the validity of our argument
against it. Wecklein's emendation, however, deserves re-
mark. He considers xo^^rco as a corruption for Ka\ tovto,
and av subsequently added to restore the syllable so lost,
the original line being —
Kal TOVTO fJLiv ev TroieTs'.
' It is strange that Veitch should have missed this solitary good instance in
his favour as completely as he has missed the point of the general question.
The following note to KXaiai, in his 'Greek Verbs Irregxilar and Defective,'
proves how little can be said for the shorter forms. ' " Recte Cobetus," says
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 445
There are some corruptions of the text of Aristophanes
which throw so much hght upon the question how our
prose texts so frequently present such optatives with mono-
syllabic singular endings, that they cannot well be passed
over without remark. In Av. 204, Pisthetaerus, discussing
with Epops the best means of summoning the birds to a
conference, asks him the question —
770)? hr]r av avTovi ^vyKakecreias ;
to which Epops replies —
paStco?.
bevpl yap i(r(3as avrUa juidA' es T'i]v \6y^p.riv,
l77etr' avayiLpas T'i]v ip.-t]i> ai]b6va,
Kakovp-ev avTovs' oi 8e v<^v rod (pOiyparos
idvirep iTranova-aia-i, dtvaovTai bpopco.
Even in a good manuscript like the Vatican KaXolp.' av ^
Franke, '-Tragicis voaoifxi ct SoKoifxi et similia concessit, non concessit Couiicis
et Scriploiibus Atticis." Aristophanes uses, to be sure, ySooi'^, Thesm. ^oC^ ;
dva^iwrjv, Ran. 178; Spc^r], Thesm. 681 ; and Pivo'it], Ach. 1052; vooirjs, Nub.
1381 ; ahoir], Eq. 513; 6.Ko\ov6oir]^, Av. 340; but ic\aoifj.i, 341; uviKdoifXi,
Ach. 403; Tikfoi, Pax 699; Sioi, Lys. 11 32; aTro-SoiTjv, Nub. 118, 755, etc ;
but irri-Scifii, Ach. I156, etc., etc. Prose, Sokoit], Thuc. 6. 34; 8. 54, but Sottoi,
2. 79, 100; 3. 16; eyx^'P'^V °-^y ^^- Tim. 48; Koa/xoi, Lach. 196; vooT,
Kuthyd. 287 ; KaTrjfopoir], Mcnex. 244 (Bekk., Stallb.), but KaT-qyopoT, Gorg.
251 ; ^T)roir]v, Epist. 318 ; ^r]Tois, Prot. 327, etc., etc' The note proves nothing
at all, and no one would once think of advocating a form like KXcpTjv, whicli
Veitch lakes the trouble to deny. For Hkaai never contracts or could con-
tract to kKw, and is consequently removed from our rule. His other examples
are equally erroneous. dniKOoi/xi does not come from a contracted verb, nor does
wKtoj contract to nKw, or diai (lack) to 5a). dnoSolrjv and dvalSK^Tjv (leg. dvaliioirjv)
belong at worst to a different category from contracted verbs, and we hope that
the juxtaposition of VLitohoirjv and tmboifii does not prove that Veitch derives
(iTiSotpii in Ach. 1 1 56 from imSidaJut, a hope which his careful hyphening makes
dangerously small.
' Of course such a form as KaKoTn' av copyists were constantly meeting in
Tragedy, though even there it is the rarer of the two, as the following statistics
]>rove. Tlie longir forms are found — FirU person: Soph. O. C. 764,
dA.7oiJ7i' : Ant. 008, Oapaoi-qv. El. 1306, vwqptToirjv : Eur. Ilec. \\()(), Kivoiriv :
Or. 778, Sp<j.'r)y : 1147, CvV^ '■ Med. 5O5, tiiSaifiovoiijU : Ilijii). 1117 (ch.), ovvtv-
Tvx'i'iq" ; Ale. 354, dmivTKoirjV, .Supp. 464, C'?''?'' • Heracl. 9y0, avvoiuoiijv :
Hel. 770, dXyoirjv: loio, dliKoirjv. — 13 instances. Second person : Acscli. Agam.
1049, d-ntiOo'i-qs: Cho. 10O3 (ch.), fxnvxoiiji: Soph. O. K. 1478, tiiTvxoir]^ :
O. C. 3O2, KmniKoUj'i : .\\\\. 70. Tipyrjs: Aj. 52O, abo'n]s: El. IO90 (ch.), i'fTj^'.
446 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
is found, though the correct pkiral form remains in the
Ravenna and others. The source of the error was the
inabiHty of a copyist to reconcile the plural KaXov\iiv with
the preceding eo-/3as and avaydpas. Such ignorance, both
of syntax and accidence, produced many similar errors.
Thus, in Vesp. 1404, the last word of the amusing lines —
Ato-coTTOi' aTTo beiTTvov (3abiCov6' kcnrepas
Opaaela koI jxeOiJcrr] tls vkaKTei kvcov.
KCLTreiT eKetyos elrrev, cb kvov, kvov,
el VT] At' olvtI r?/? KaK7]s yXbiTTiqs irodev
TTVpovs TTpCaLO (Tcxx^povelv av p.OL boKHS,
is altered in some manuscripts to boKols, in others to boKrjs,
both errors arising from ignorance of a well-known rule of
Attic syntax. According to that rule, boKS>, vopLiCoo, olp-at,
r]yovp.ai, irpoa-boKco, and similar verbs, may be followed by an
infinitive and av. Thus, Demosthenes begins his second
Olynthiac with the words, 'Ettj iroXXiav p-ev civ tls ibdv S»
avbpes ^Adr]vaLOL boKel fxoL Tr]v irapa tQ)v deS)V yiyvop.ivi]v rfj
TToAet, ovx^ rfKKTTa 8' ev toIs Trapovcn Trpayp-acri. There too
boKoi is not left unrepresented in the manuscripts. In
Plato, Lys. 206 A, we have an instance of the corrupt form
Eur. Phoen. 1086, evSaifiovoiijs : Med. 688, (vTVxoir]s : Hipp. 105, evSaifiovoitji :
Ale. 7 1 3, ^^Tjy : 102,1, (vSatfiovoirj'i : ^^53) f^Tvxoirjs: I. T. 75O) dSiKoirjs: Hel.
619, (popo'iTji : El. 231, fvSaifiovoirjs. — 16 instanees. Third person : Aesch. Supp.
1064 (eh.), aTroaT(polr) : Agam. 349, Kparoir] : Soph. O. R. 829, opOoirf. O. C.
1435, fvoSoir] : El. 258, Spi^rj : Traeh. go2, avTair] : Phil. 444,19577: Eur. Andr.
2^'j, ^woiKoit] : I. A. 63, d-naiOoit). — 9 instances. The shorter endings oceur —
First person : Aesch. P. V. 97S, voaoifi av : Soph. O. C. 507, x"^/'"'!"' o-v '• Ant.
552, uKptXoi/jL kyw: Aj. 537, dxpfXoifii ce : Phil. 895, dpuin' iyd) : 1044, SoKoifi'
dv : Eur. Or. 1517; tvopKoTfi eyu;: Hipp. 336, aiywfi dv: Hel. 157, w(pt\o'iixi a.
— 9 instances. Second person : Soph. El. 1491, x'^po'^ '• Phil- 674, X'^po's : Eur.
Andr. 679, ucpfXoTs. — 3 instances. Third person : Soph. O. C. 1 769 (ch.) d-napnoT:
Eur. Or. 514, Kvpoi : Supp. 608, alpot: 897, Svarvxoi: El. 1077, ^^'''''X'""'
bvaTvxoi in Aesch. Agam. 1 32S is only a conjecture of Blomfield's. — 5 instances.
In all, there are in Tragedy 37 instances of the longer forms against 17 of the
shorter; in Comedy 21 of the longer against one of Ihe shorter, that one
being not in the regular metres, viievaioi, which Curtius, 'Das Verbum,' 2. no,
quotes as an optative form from Ar. Pax 1076, is certainly a subjunctive, and
in the succeeding line a humorous epicism.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 447
replacing the true even in the best manuscripts. The true
reading undoubtedly is ttoio? ris ovv av crot hoK^l OrjpevTi]^
ilvai ; After changes of this kind were once made, and
forms like hoKol recognized as legitimate, the ulcer went on
spreading, and copyists considered one form as good as
another, until even undoubted forms in -ir]v, like the op-
tative of verbs in -//t, were sometimes corrupted. In this
way l-nibihoiix av and eTrtStSoi av are variants for the true
(TTibtboirjv av in Plat. Legg. 913 B. The fact that all the
best manuscripts support einhLbol av in this passage indicates
how untrustworthy all manuscript authority is, whenever
two similar sounds come together, or when one letter or
one set of letters is followed by another not readily to be
distinguished from it. Accordingly, it will be observed that
in very many of the prose instances of the shorter form in
the third person singular, the word succeeding the optative
begins with H, N, 11, or K, as Plato, Phaedr. 276 B, ttoloI
e^' oh : id. 275 C, ayvotol nkiov : Rep. 394, e7rtxi)(etpot
TTok\oiv : Conv. 196 C, av (rM(})povoL Kai : Thuc. 4. 105, Trpocr-
X^poi KaL
It is still more interesting to trace the genuine ending in
the more considerable corruptions of the texts. Cases like
the substitution of vTnrjpeToijxijv for vTTrjperotr^v in Soph. El.
1306, need not detain us long, but there is a very interesting
and typical case in Plato's Phacdo, 87 B. There d tls
airi(TToir) avT^ has been altered in every manuscript to et
rts a-niiTTdv avT<2, though the optative is so necessary that
aTTKTTOLT} is ouc of thc fcw cmcndations which Stallbaum
makes. Thc same transcriber's error disfigures a passage
of Lysias, where there is a sentence without a finite verb.
Lys. 916. 6 (33, c^), rt9 yap ovk h.v (vopoiv iv rw Trpus aWi'jXovs
TToKip.(o pLfyaKovi avTovs y(yevT]p.ivovs ; Rcisk conjectured
ivTp^iroLTo 6p(7)v, but Cobct is beyond question right in
reading Ivopwri, i.e. I2III for X2N.
In Antiphon, 112. 31. (1. 10) tva fxt] avayKaCofxevoi h
448 THE NEW PHRVNICHUS.
€ya> eTrepcorw \xi] \iyouv, the manuscripts give iirepooTca /xtj
which Reisk altered to e-n-epajrw/xt. Of course the true
reading is eTrepwrwrjf, i. e. I2IHN for I2IMH. Plato, Gorg.
510 D, supplies us with another type, d apa rts kworiamv
€V TavTT] TT] TToAet Tciv v(cov, Tlva av TpoTTOv eyo) jxiya hvvai\J.y]v
KoX ju,rj8eis /xe ahiKoiy], avrr], ws eoLKev, avT(^ obbs €crTLV kt€.
Most manuscripts have dStKoi ?/ avrr], one abiKol avri], and
only one the genuine abiKoirj, avrrj. This separation of the
final letter from the rest of the word is likewise exemplified
in Xen. Cyrop. 5. 3. 52, Kvpos b' diroiv otl kixl rf/ d8(5 v-no-
fx^vou]. Along with k-nop-evoi and e-mixevoi the manuscripts
also present us with eirip-ivoi hj. The Attic future optative
ending -ot?j is concealed in the ol brj of a copyist who,
ignorant of the genuine ending, severed its last letter from
the optative and made a new word out of the tag.
The results arrived at up to this point of the discussion
are these. While the shorter endings were in the singular
not altogether avoided by the antiquated dialect of Tragedy,
the longer were the only forms used in Comedy and prose,
and even in Tragedy were decidedly preferred. The manu-
scripts of prose writers are on this question quite untrust-
worthy, and must be consistently corrected.
The future optative is a rare tense in Greek, being used
only in two constructions, namely, either as representing
in indirect discourse a future indicative of direct discourse,
or with oTTcos or ottcos fx-q after verbs of striving, etc., and
with p.y] or oTTcos p-i] after verbs of fearing. Moreover in
both these cases the future indicative is much more common.
Accordingly, it is not surprising that there is in use only a
single instance of the optative of a contracted future —
CTreir' (jxol to, 8etV eTT/jTreiArjo-' ctttj
el jur) (f)avoL7]v irav to ^vvtv\ov ttuOos.
Soph. Aj. 312.
But the parallelism between contracted presents and con-
tracted futures is so complete in every respect that there
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 449
can be no doubt as to the Attic inflexions of the latter.
The passage of Xenophon (Cyrop. 5. 3. 53) quoted above
is by itself valuable confirmatory evidence. Consequently
the futures of o-reAAw and /3t/3aCa), namely, o-reAdJ and ^t^ScS,
must have had for singular optative forms the following : —
<XTiKoir\v l3ij3(oy]v
oTekoirjs fii^i^iq'S
oT^koCr] ^tySwrj,
and in the same way all similar verbs must have made the
mood in question.
Further, the perfect active used these same endings for
the singular of its optative mood in those comparatively
rare cases in which the analytic form of the perfect parti-
ciple and dr]v was not preferred. Whenever the unresolved
mood appears in verse it has the endings -oi-qv, -oCrji, -oCrj.
The only instance in Tragedy is Soph. O. R. 840 —
eyw 8t6a^a) a' rjv yap €vpedfj Xiycav
cro\ TUVT, iyiny av iKTTe(f)€vyoCr}v irdOos.
In Aristoph. Ach. 940, ■nitioi.Ooiiqv is found. Athenaeus
(?• 305 B) quotes from Cratinus the line —
TpiyXr] 8' ei jxcv ebr^boKoCr] ^ t4v6ov tlvos avhpos.
In Xenophon, Cyrop. 2. 4. 17, '!Tpoe\i]kv9oLr]s is found. The
scholiast to Hom. II. 14. 241 quotes TrevrayoiTji; from Eupolis,
which Ahrens (Dial. Dor. 330) ingeniously supposes to
have been spoken by a Lacedaemonian in the EtAcores of
that comic poet.
From Plat. Farm. 140 A, el rt -ni-novde x'-^P'-'^ "^^^ ^^ etrat to
iv, -nkdui av dvai ireiTdvdoL ri ev, we see how Tie-novOoiri was
lost. Even in the line from Cratinus the 17 had got separated
from the ibeorjKot till Porson attached it. In Lys. 166. 39
(23. 4), a)(/>A?/Kot Ttapa KTe., the old confusion of II with II
' The shortening of the penultimate syllable is worth remarking, but con-
sidering the frequency with which 01 is short in jroioi, toioCtos, etc., this presents
no difficulty.
45© THE NEW PHKYNICHUS.
comes in, as in Plat. Legg. 679 B, Ka^eo-rTy/cot KaTaa-Tariov,
that of K with H.
But if the forms in --qv, -r;s, -?; are the true Attic optative
endings for contracted presents and futures, they are cer-
tainly un- Attic in all tenses of uncontracted verbs except
the perfect. Not a single instance occurs either in Attic
prose or verse ^, and forms like Tpe(^otv, ayi&pToiv, and XdjSoLv,
which are occasionally quoted as confirming their existence,
are themselves liable to grave question. For Tpe(})OLv our
only authority is the Grammarian George Choeroboscus ^,
who was also the first to recognize the existence of the
extraordinary perfect rirvc^a. Quoting, as from Euripides,
the line —
acf)poiv av etrjv el rpiipoiv to. tGjv TreXas,
he adds the absurd remark, Kara crvyKOTirjv tov tj airb rod
Tpe<f)oCT]v. Tp€(f)oir]v does not exist, and, if it did, it could
not become rpe^oty either Kara a-vyKo-nriv or /cara aXKo tl. As
Euripides wrote it, the line must have run —
a(f)p(t)v av e'irjv iKrptcfxxtv to. Tm> TreAas.
The testimony of SuTdas, i. p. 144, is almost as worth-
less as that of Choeroboscus. His words are, ^kixaproLv
eXpijKe TO apidpTOLixt Kparh'os ApaTreVtcrt —
Ylobairas vp-as eii'at (f)acrKO)v, <b jueipa/ces, ovk av ap.dpTotv ;
Kol oAcos crvvrjdes avTol^ CAttlkois ?) to tolovto. No one can
be asked to believe in the existence of such forms on
evidence so weak. If they never occur in the books which
* In Plat. Epist. 339 D, Zia^aXoiTjv is the true optative of a contracted
future and not aorist, though even in this case the corrupt SiaPaXoifn is found.
^ One learns to distrust a man whose name is chiefly associated with
introducing rare and late forms into Classical texts. Thus it is Choeroboscus
who, in Eur. Hec. 374, reads —
(pvWois e^aWov, ol 8' fTrXrjpovaav irvpav,
when all MSS. give 6i nKrjpovaiv. The change of tense presents no difficulty,
as it is extraordinarily frequent in Eur (cp. Hec. 21 ff. and ii.<3-35), and
forms like k-nXrjpovaav never occur till post-Macedonian times, when we
actually encounter tixoaav, 'iaxooav, i]\0oaav, etc.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 451
we possess they are not worth unearthing from the crude
and fanciful compilations of grammarians. Still a modern
scholar now and again lays himself open to the Athenian
taunt, olvov irapovTos, o^os ripacrdrj Tnelv. Dindorf has in-
troduced TefjLvotv into Aesch. Supp. 807, and \dj3otv into a
passage of the Erechtheus of Euripides, quoted by the orator
Lycurgus in his speech Kara AecoKparovs, 160. 28 (102), and
Nauck, in Eurip. Orest. 504, substituted €\6oiv xv^^ov for
lA^ot/x' Tjkiov.
So much for the optative inflexions of the singular. In
the plural it will be necessary to take a wider range and
to discuss the optative forms, not only of contracted pre-
sents and futures, but also of the aorists passive and of
verbs in -/xt. But principally from the fact that in the
Greek drama more than two persons seldom take part in
the dialogue at the same time, the evidence to be derived
from verse is limited to comparatively few forms.
Dawes, a scholar of great nerve and refinement, observed,
long since, in his Miscellanea Critica (ed. Kidd, p. 453),
the bearing of the testimony of verse on this question. In
Arist. Ran. 1450 —
et TOiv TiokiTOiV olac vvv Trto-revo/xey
TovTOLS CLTTia-TricraLixev, 0X9 8' ov xp(jijxi.da
TOVToicTL -)(j)ri(Taip.€ar6\ tcrcus (Tcode'iiJ.ev aV
some manuscripts read a-codel-qixev &v with lo-cos, others <j(xiddi]-
fji(v av without lo-ajs, and others again (ra)dS>p.€v. The copy-
ists were evidently at a loss to understand the Attic o-w^et^er,
and, in replacing it by the late form familiar to themselves,
injured cither the metre or the syntax. When such things
happen in verse, the laws of which might keep transcribers
to the point, it is not difficult to understand how the texts
of prose writers became disfigured by forms which could be
foisted into metre only by a scribe of some ingenuity.
In remarking upon aojOdixev &v Dawes says, ' Ut evitctur
deinceps soloecismus, legcndum statuo ta-on- irojOdpiv av
G g 2
452 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
(a reading since found in two manuscripts). Librarius,
opinor, qui ista grammaticorum insomnia Tv^Qdr]Tov, TV(pd(iri-
Tr]v, TV(})9eir][X€v, TV(^6eir\T€, TVc^Oeirjcrav, imberbis didicerat,
vera, quam ignorabat, scriptura offensus in ejus locum al-
teram istud suffecit ; nescius interim primo terminationes
optativas, eirjTov, eirinqv, etc. airjTov, etc. oir\Tov, etc. scrip-
toribus vere Graecis ignotas fuisse ; ac deinde voculam av
cum forma subjunctiva, nisi cum certis itidem comitibus
nusquam construi.'
The testimony of Comedy is meagre in the extreme,
consisting only of the following forms : —
For contracted verbs —
(TTVOivTO 8' avbpes KaTTLOvjxolev (nrXeKOvv.
At. Lys. 152.
TL av ovv TTotoifiei'^ ;
B. olKicraTe ixCav iroXiv.
Av. 172.
tva Tapyvpiov (t&v iTap€\oi\x^v Ka\ p.r] TroAejaoire 8t avTO.
Lys. 488.
et vavp.a-)(ol€v kut e^ovres o^Cbas.
Ran. 1440.
TToiav Tiv ovv rjhLaT' av oIkolttjv^ ttoXiv ',
Av. 127.
et n (pikoiev ras kiVKoraras, ol 8' IxOv^^ otKa8' loires.
Fr. Com. 2. 361 (Teleclides).
For aorists passive —
TovToiai )(^pr](raifJL^(Td^ , lauis (T0i6a.p,ev av.
Ran. 1450.
ap av u) Trpos t&v Oe&v vjxels aTraXXayQeiTi p-ov ;
Vesp. 484.
TToaov bibois 8f/r' ;
B. et biaTTpio-Q^uv bi\a.
Pax 1262.
' Cobet reads rt ovv noicu^xtv ; but t« occurs before a short syllable again in
Plut. 1 1 61, Kal ri er (p(Ts; and Nub. 21, ri offiKw;
" The MSS. have oIkoTt av, which Cobet has emended. The copyists not
unfrequently altered dual forms to plural. However, either reading serves our
purpose.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 453
And for verbs in -jui —
To-uTUiV xapiv avTairoboiTrji'.
Thesm. 1230.
Koi ra-es av elev ;
B. TTputra fikv ^avvvploiv,-
Ft. Com. 2. 1008 (Aristoph.).
Tragedy supplies us with a few more —
raA.X' €VTv\o'tiJ.ev Trpbs Oeojv ^OXvjXTnK&v.
Aesch. Supp. 1014.
ov yap av KaK&s
ovb' (158' exovres C'^P-d', ei TepiroLp-eOa.
Soph. O. C. 799.
ri hrjra rovb'' cTreyyeXwev hv Kara ;
Id. Aj. 969.
TL brJT av ?;/7,eT9 bpSp-ev, el (ri y Iv Xoyois ;
Id. Phil. 1393.
fl p! €K(f)OJ3oUv pLavid(TLV Xv(T(rrip.a(nv.
Eur. Or. 270.
evos yap el ka[3o[p.ed^ evTvyolp-ev av.
lb. 1172.
6av6iTov^ T edrjKav ois airavTXoiev x^o^o?-
lb. 1 64 1.
6.X)C a>s, TO p.^v p-eyioTov, olKoip.ev KaXS>s.
Id. Med. 559.
evbaip.ovolTov aXX! eKel' to. b h'Oabe.
lb. 1073.
Trappr](TLq OaXXovres olKOiev ttoXlv.
Id. Hipp. 422.
aX\' evTvxo(Tr]v, rivi 8' ev r]p.epa yap.el ;
Id. I. A. 716.
Kal ToW ep! evTvxplTe Ka\ viKr]^i6pov.
lb. 1557.
TO XoLTiOV evTV)(ol\J.ev aXXi]Xuiv p-era.
Id. I. T. 841.
^V b6pOL9 IJ.LIJ.veiV &.TTaVTa9.
B. pi] crvvavT<2ev (pSvoi.
Ih. 1209.
fl 0' (VTV)(ol(v Tpdes, ovbev ^v obe.
Id. Tro. 1007.
454 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
OTTOL vocTolev ^vjifxa^oL Karaa-KOTTiav.
Id. Hel. 1607.
€vhaiy.ovoljXiv, ws to. upoa-de bva-Tvxrj.
Id. Ion 1457.
fibaifjiOvo'LT av cru^iia)(ov KeKTrjjx^voi.
Id. Bacch. 1343.
evbaLixovolT€, koI yivoiO' v^nv o(tu>v.
Id. Heracl. 582.
Tjfxlv 8' av eiev, el Kparolixcv, ev/xe^et? ;
Id. El. 632.
Aorists passive —
fxaKpol irakatoi t av [JLerp-qOeuv xpovoi.
Soph. O. R. 561.
COS 8^ (TKOTOv \a^6vT€9 iK<T(o6elp.iv av ;
Eur. I. T. 1025.
otpLOL, bL€(^6dppL€a-6a' irois a-uiOelixev av ;
lb. 1028.
a(^aveis hv owes ovk av vixv^Oeip-ev &.v.
Id. Tro. 1244.
kv <L bapyacrOelT av, aAA' e/xot ttlOov.
Id. Heracl. 174.
Trda^oiv t CKapLVOV bis be \vT:r]Q^lp.ev dv.
Id. Hel. 771.
fiC e(TT\v ekTus 27 p-ovr^ a-oiOelp.ev av-
lb. 815.
oAA' ovbe pi-qv I'aSs ecmv fi (roiOe'ip.ev av.
lb. 1047.
Verbs in -/utt —
oTTTT/pe? elev dyyekoov ire'nvcrp.evoi.
Aesch. Supp. 185.
TO'VTb^ fxev ovT(os evTv^elv bolev Oeoi.
Id. Sept. 421,
ov Tav kkovTes avOis dvOaXolev av.
Id. Agam. 340.
dpiara boiev' Kel itap 'EAATjycoy rives.
Id. Eum. 31.
01 Tiavres ev ^vveZev ela-ael 6eoi.
Soph. O. R. 275.
v/Acis y dpiar eibelr av ovTiixuipioi.
lb. 1046.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 455
Qfiiv [I a<po)vov Trjcrbe rrjs apas (tl.
Id. O. C. 865.
iradovTes av ^vyyvoljxev ruxapTrjKOTes.
Id. Ant. 926.
TTov biJT av elev ol ^evoL ; bibaa-Ke fxe.
Id. El. 1450.
boZdv TTOT avTols avTiiroiv iixov iradelv.
Id. Phil. 316.
Iv al MuKT/i'at yvoi^v rj ^TrdpTr] 6' on.
lb. 325.
crol TTavres etev ol vevavcrToXrjKores.
lb. 550.
rjfxels av elp.€v Oarepta Ke\pr]p.ivoi.
Eur. Hipp. 349.
u) 7rpeV/3u, Oeoi (tol bolev ev Kal Tolat aoii.
Id. Andr. 750.
0)9 ovT€ yaCas opt av (K^alpLev kaOpa.
Id. H. F. 82.
TjyXv 8' av 6ier et KparolpLev €vp.(vels.
Id. El. 632.
ov yap av ^vixlSalfxev aWcos ?/ 'tti toIs elprjixivois.
Id. Phoen. 590.
And in lyrical passages boUv, Aesch. Supp. 418, and biboUvy
id. yo^, avTibibolev, Eum. 983.
Now, against these fifty or sixty forms there are only
two of the longer endings to bring, namely —
ovK. 016' 'OSixrtreu* ttolv bi crot Spwrj/xey av.
Eur. Cycl. 132,
OVK otS'- a.\-qOfj 8' ci Xe'yeis cf)alr]ij.€v 6.V.
Id. Ion 943.
but if the transcribers' errors in the case of a-uiOe'iixev
in Ar. Ran. 1450 arc considered, Dawes was certainly right
in reading avvbpi^nev av in the former of these lines, and
Dindorf in altering 0ai^7j/xey to <Tvjul)alp.(v in the latter. In
both cases the compound verb is demanded by the context.
The form aotKocrj/xfr, read by .some in Eur. Ilel. loio, is
merely a variant for aotKo^rji- viv, and cannot for one moment
45^ THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
stand against evidence so overwhelming, especially when
the following airoScoo-o) is considered —
h. 8' h.\}.<^\ Tvix(3u) T(2b' oveiblCets itarpi,
fjjuv 08' avTos fxvOos' abiKOLrjv viv h.v
ci jur) aTToScocra)' /cat yap av Keivo9 /3Ae7rft)y,
airibcoKCv av croi rrjvb^ f'x^'^' Tavrrj be ai.
One word as to the absurdity btb<^r]. In Eur. Andr. 225
some manuscripts read kvb(^r]v for kvboi-qv ; in Xen. Cyr. 3.
1. ^^, b(^r]s for 80177?; in Plato, Gorg. 481 A, bifrj for 8(3.
In Lysias, 105. 5, all manuscripts read 8^7], though a few
lines further down ixeraboCr] has been preserved. All these
are of course wrong, and have been replaced by the forms
in -oi by all editors who know their business. The same
error sometimes affects the optative of the aorists eyvoav,
k&kuiv, and e/3iW. Thus, in Aesch. Supp. 215, o-uyyz/wTj
occurs instead of avyyvoir], and in Dem. 736 there is good
authority for a\ior]v, while the optative (Bloltjv, ^loCrjs, /3io(rj
is always misspelt in the same utterly ridiculous way, ava-
^L(^r]v for avajSiOLriv, appearing in Ar. Ran. 177, /3t(i)rj for
jSloltj, in Plato, Phaed. 87 D, Gorg, 512 E, Tim. 89 C,
CCCXXVI.
'EproboTHc ou Kelrai, to he eprohoreiv napd tivi TOiv
vetOTepoiv Koojucpboov, oic Kai aurolc ou neioreov.
This is an instructive article. The word ipyoborelv oc-
curs in un-Attic Inscriptions, as Inscr. Aphrodis. ap.
Boeckh, vol. 2. n. 2826. 5. Antiatticista, p. 94. 5, cites it
from Apollodorus, to whom Phrynichus also probably re-
fers here, and the substantive epyoboTrjs is encountered in
Xenophon (Cyr. 8. 2. 5). The inference is plain. Xeno-
phon picked ipyoborrjs up abroad, and epyobordv in Apollo-
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 457
dorus is an early indication of the fusion of Greek dialects
to which the Macedonian conquests gave rise.
CCCXXVII.
'Evxexvcoc- ndvu aixiwvTai to ovojua Kai 90(31 xexviKooc
belv Aereiv. dAAd koi Augiqv, eipHKora 6VTe)(vooc, napai-
TOUVTOl.
The adjective is of good authority in this sense, Plato,
Legg. 10. 903 C, and there is no reason for finding fault
with the adverb.
CCCXXVIII.
"Ararov Kai touto ei juev thv/ JueTOx^W elxev 6 drdrac ksi
Aortf* civ Tivi Hv. AeKTeov ouv drarc, Kai rdp h juctoxh
drardiv, d)c dveAe, dveAoiv.
See supra p. 215 fif.
CCCXXIX.
'AvaioGHjeuojuai, to juev ovojua dvaicGHTOc boKijuwTepov, to
be pHjua ouKeTi. Aere ouv, ouk aioGdvojuai.
The equivalent proposed by Phrynichus would not mean
the same thing as avaLo-Oj^Tcvofxai, although d-vaCrrOr^Tos eljxi
would. There is nothing outlandish in the rejected word,
it only docs not occur. Demosthenes, however, employed
iLvai(T6r)T(lv in 302. 3, l-mTceia-^xriv d' im'kp i^avrov, tv^ov jx^i/
458 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
cccxxx.
AueeKaOTOTHC, qAAoKOTOV. to JU6V OUV aCOeKOGTOC KOlA-
AiQTOv ovojua, TO be napd touto nenomjuevov abGeKaoTOTHc
KlpbHAOV.
The first instance, even of the adjective, is after the Attic
period ; Arist. Eth. Nic. 4. 7. 4, where avOiKaa-ros is said to
be the mean between akaC^v and eipcoy. There is no ex-
ample of the substantive. The formation even of the
adjective is pecuHar. A similar compound might have
been formed if the Sophoclean ttclvt iTna-Trnj-r] had ever
coalesced —
(f)vvaL Tov avhpa ttAvt eTnaTrjixrjs "nXidiV.
Ant. 721.
TOVTMV ^x^ y^P '^^VT (TTicrT-qixrjv kydi.
Trach. 338.
CCCXXXI.
Tov nmba tov aKoAouGouvTa juei"' qutou. Auqiqc ev tco
KQT AuTOKpaTOUC oCtCO TH GUVTCxSei XpHTQl- eXpHV be OUTWC
einelv, tov aKoAouOoCvTa auTto. Ti dv ouv cpaiH tic ajuap-
Telv TOV AuOiav y vo9eueiv koivoG g)(hjuc(toc xpnoiv; dAA'
enei EeviKH h ouvGeoiCj ndvTH napaiTHTea, pHTCOv h\^ diKO-
Aoueelv auTO).
The apparatus criticus will show on how slight authority
this article is assigned to Phrynichus. At all events it is
erroneous. However remarkable and inexplicable the con-
struction with }i(Ta must appear to any one who has once
learned to appreciate the unequalled precision of Attic
modes of expression, certainly its existence cannot be
challenged. Plato, Lach. 187 E, /xera tov irarpos ciKokov-
65)v : Menex. 249 D, aKokovOei iier kjxov : Isocr. 299 C, toIs
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 459
\ikv cT(ji\i.a(Ti jxeT (Keivctiv aKoXovOelv rjvayKaCovTo, rats he ev-
voMLS jue^' TjjjL&v rja-av : 168 C, oh oiroTav tis 818&) -nXeico jxCa--
60V, fx^T €K€ivov €(f)' rjiicLs aKo\ov6i](rovcnv : 91. E, aTravras
Tovs TTpoTcpov fxeO' avTUiv kiiX Tovs akXovs aKokovdovvTas : Lys.
193. 18, TO. tOvrj TO. fxer avTov aKo)^ov6i]cravTa : Xenophon
has (Tvv, An. 7. 5. 3, rots a-TparriyoLS boopov oi (tvv ejuoi 77-
KoXov6r](Tav. The speech of Lysias referred to in the
article has not come down to us, but the same words are
cited by Antiatticista, p. 82. 21.
In the '^.vvay. Ae^. XP"^^' 3°^- 3 there is an excellent note
on this point : ' kKokovduv p-cr' avrov' ovtco crvvTaa-crova-iv ol
'ArriKot avTL tov aKoXovdeiv avT(^. koI yap Avcrias ovto) kc-
Xpr\Tai KoX nXarcoy aXXa koX ' ApiaTocpAvrjs €v IlAovra) iirov,
(prjalf p.eT €p.ov, TtaihapioV koI Mivavbpos —
vUri pe6^ y]p.5>v evpevr]9 eTTOtr' ctet'
KOLV TTi UapaKaTa9i]Kr} —
crvvaKoXovOeL peO^ 7]p<av,
CCCXXXII.
BiooTiKov anhAc h AeEic. Acre o'v xRhgimov ev tco pico
'BtcoriKo's primum offcnditur apud Aristot. H. A. 10. i6,
hoc est in ea parte libri, quae plurima continet affcctata et
inusitate posita, non ilia vulgari significatione, sed pro ^lopr]-
Xavoi s. (vftLOTOi ; turn saepissime apud Philonem, Dio-
dorum, Polybium, ct Plutarchum. Vulgatissimum est
Xpeiat fticoTiKaC, Philo dc V. M. 3. 677 A ; Diod. 2. 29,
Artemid. i. 31, quas clcgantius Strabo, 4. 14. ^S' "^^^ '"^^
^Lov xpftas dixit.' Lobcck.
CCCXXXIII.
Bouvoc- oOvfcia H q)0)VH thc 'Attikhc Koi rap auTOC 6
460 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
XpHOcxjiievoc TO) ovojLiOTi, ouvelc Sevooc KexpHjuevoc, ghmoi-
vexai ciic doacpooc biaAerojuevoc. einovroc rc'p tivoc —
pouvov eni tquth KaraAapoav d'voo rivd.
6 npoobiaAerojuevoc, ou ouveic to Eevov toO ovojuotoc,
(pHOl —
TIC €69' 6 pouvoc ; Fva 009030 Gou juavGdvco.
ev be TH ZupaKOuoia noiHoei KaOcojuiAHTQi. diAA' ou npoo-
i6Tai 6 'A0HvaIoc jvv dAAobanhW bidAeStv. onou rdp
cventjuiKTOC ko'i dxpavTOC pouAeTOi jueveiv thc dAAHc'EAAd-
boc, AioAecov Aeroo Kai Acopieojv koi 'Icovcov, TOUTOiv juev koi
ourrevoov ovTOOv, gxoAh r av dboKijuov juiSopdpf>apov npoG-
eiTO cpojvHV 6 b' OLV KexpHjuevoc to) pouvoc ovojuaTi tt^iAH-
jLicov 6GTIV, etc Toov THC veoc K03;iu)biac.
It is strange that this article, one of the most carefully-
written of the whole book, is not found at all in the
manuscripts, in the edition of Callierges, or in Phavorinus.
A fact like this proves the impossibility of settling the text
of Phrynichus with even approximate accuracy.
Eustathius, on II. 11. 710, has preserved a valuable tes-
timony : AtAto? Atoi'vo-to? Aeyet on ^iXr}}X(iiV iiricrKcaTrTet, to
6vo}xa 0)5 ^apfiapov. The additional words, eVepot 8e, on
fiovvov ev No^o) ws crvvrjde^ TiOrjcnv, aWore be ws ^evLKov CTrt-
a-KdoTTTet, may possibly rest upon a misunderstanding of the
passage referred to by Phrynichus, although in that case
there should be another akXore before o)s (rvvrjOes. Herodotus,
in 4. 199, states that a portion of the territory of Cyrene
went by the name of ^ovvoC, and they say that the term is
still used in that district. The name of the favoured re-
gion, which produced the a-[k(})Lov and ottos KvprjvdiKos,
would naturally become known at an early date in the
wealthy commercial city of Syracuse, and j3ovv6s may have
been naturalised there sooner than in other places, espe-
cially as the people of Cyrene were, like the Syracusans,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 461
of Dorian race. Its presence in the Common dialect may,
however, be most easily accounted for by the proximity of
Alexandria to Cyrene.
The word must have been at least intelligible to the
Athenians or Aeschylus would not have ventured to em-
ploy ^ovvis as an adjective .in Supp. 117, 129. 176. He
had himself become familiarised with the noun in his
Sicilian sojourn.
CCCXXXIV.
MovBuAeuco- oiTco iivec to /.joAlvovto Tapdrreiv Aeroucsi.
KQi 6311 buGxepec. dnoppmre ouv Kai toOto.
There is a ixov6v\€vco or ovOvXevoo in Greek, but it is not
used in this sense. The edition of Nuuez is the only
authority for this article, and perhaps it has not preserved
the original hand. Probably a-dTTnv should replace rapdr-
Athenaeus, 2. 49 F, quotes from Alexis —
71 cnrkfiv oTTTov ixeiJ.ov6okev[j.€vov,
but ovOvKevoj is much more common.
vdpKrjv iJ.ev ovp, coi- (jyacnv, 0>v6vXfV]xivr\v
OTTTCLV okrjv.
Alexis, ap. Ath. 7. 314 D.
dKKa ras /xei; TcvOCba^
rh impvyi avrwv (rvvTepLoov oreartou
fjLLKpbv TTapap-i^as, TrepLTrdcras r]Ovcrp.a(nv
AeTTToio-i yXojpols, <i)v6v\ev(ra.
Id. ap. id. 326 D.
da-rdov ((fjOii rtvOU (j)i>dv\(vp.ev7].
Sotades, ap. Ath. 7. 293 B.
/jiercl Tavra yaa-Tpiov tls <j)vOvkivp.ivov.
Alhcnio, ap. Ath. 14. 661 B.
4^2 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
TraparLdrjix uXo(r)(^€pfi
apv es ixiaov (tvixtttvktov, u)v6vXtvp.^vov.
Diphilus, ap. Ath. 383 F.
77a)(vs oivdvXiVixivos o-riaTL HtKeAiKO).
Id. ap. Plut. Vit. Nic. I.
Perhaps, even in the first passage, Dobree was right in
restoring oovOvk^vixivov —
kopaKas i]hr\ ttuhtot iGrK€va(rp.€vov
ijvvcTTpov 77 cnrXrjv' otttov wvOvkevp-evov.
If connected at all with 6v9os, the Homeric synonym of
KOTTpos, it is certainly not formed directly from it (see p.
128). The meaning is evidently ' /^ j-^«^.' Is Phrynichus
(if it was he who wrote the article) finding fault with some
signification different from this, or is to p,okvvovTa rapaTT^iv
corrupt, and the initial mu alone reprehended ?
cccxxxv.
BoApiTOv oAiroi Tivec Aerouoi Toiiv 'Attikcov, dAAot toutou
boKijuobrepov to poAirov dveu toO beurepou p.
The tribrach is the only form known in Attic poetry —
kv Tiacn j3o\ltois' (Tra vvvl tov 8eet ;
Ar. Ach. 1026.
Kaycoy^ ore br] 'yvcov vols ySoAtrois r]TTr][xevos.
Eq. 658.
vr] TOV YIocreLbo), koI ^oXltivov OaTepov.
Ran. 295.
In none of these lines could the dactylic spelling stand
any more than in the line of Cratinus —
ovK aXXa /3oAtra x.Aa)pa K(^(nr(aTi]P iraTelv'
into which the Schol. on Ar, Lys. 575 introduces ^oK^ltu.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 463
CCCXXXVI.
forruojuoc KQi rorru^fiv- raura dboKijua juev ouk esnv,
'laKd be. 4>ooKuAi5HV rdp olba KexpHjuevov auTO) tov MiAh-
oiov, dvbpa naAaiov a96bpa —
KQi Tobe ^ooKUAibeo^- XP"-' Toi TOV eralpov eraipco
(ppovTi^eiv oGs' dv nepiforru^^Jiioi noAlxai.
dAAd toOto juev "Icogiv d96io9oo, Hjue'ic be Tovepusjuov kqi
TOvGpu^eiv Aeroojutv, h vh Aia ouv t(o 0, roveopuGjuov Kai
TOVGOpU^€lV.
The rejected words are found chiefly in the Septuagint
and the New Testament: John 7. 12 ; Luke, Acts 6. i;
1 Peter 4. 10; Matt. 22. 11, etc. Antiatticista, however,
quotes the substantive from the New Comedy, p. S7,
Voyyv(T\i.o<i avrX rov TovQopv(J\i.ov ^Ava^avbpib-qs Nrjpd.
CCCXXXVII.
AuvH- edv juev toGto unoTOKTiKov h, e d v buvwjucd, edv
buvH, opGojc Aererar edv be opiGTiKooc Ti0h tic, buvH
TouTO npdtai, oux uridJc dv TiBeiH- xpH rdp Aereiv buvu-
oa I toCto npd £ai.
It is impossible that bvvaa-ai. should ever contract to bvvj],
although bvvq would be a natural and legitimate form.
The latter, however, is not mentioned by Phrynichus, who
here contents himself with giving the more frequent bvvaa-ai.
There is, however, no question that bvvaa-ai and bvva were
both in use in Attic Greek, just as (-niaTacrai and ciriaTa,
(Tri(TTa(To and k-nirno), avicrTarro and avia-TO), iiTria-Tacro and
r\Tii(TTO) were employed indifferently. It is a singular fact
that if alpha was the former of the two vowels between
464 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
which a sigma came, the rule by which such an intervocal
sigma was dropped and contraction took place at once
ceased to be absolute. Thus, ^tlSda-a) and j8t/3w, fiiia-o^iaL
and ^Lu>ixaL, KoXda-oixai and KoAw/xai were equally pure Attic,
although forms like airoXea-u) for clttoXw, oixoa-oixai for d/moS/Aat
were quite unknown. This fact explains the existence of two
sets of forms for the second person singular of the present
and imperfect indicative, and the present imperative of de-
ponent verbs, and middle or passive voices in -a//ai. This
class of verbs is small, being made up in the Attic dialect of
bvvaixat, e/x7Tt7rAaju.at, eju,7rt7rpa]uai, Kpe/;ia/xat, the aoristic CTrpta-
ixrjv, l-nicTTaixai, and the simple lora/xai with its compounds,
for neither [xapvaixai nor a-KiZvaixai was in use among Athen-
ians. The testimony of verse with regard to these words
is as follows : —
Avvaaai, Ar. Ach. 291 (chor.), Nub. 811 (chor.), Plut.
574; Soph. Aj. 1 164 (chor.).
Uva, Soph. Phil. 849 (chor.).
7j8wco, Philippides, ap. Ath. 15. 700 E.
'ETTtorao-at, Ar. Eq. 689 (chor.) ; Aesch. P. V. 374, 982,
Supp. 917; Soph. El. 629, Trach. 484, Ant. 402; Eur.
Med. 400, 406, 537, Ale. 62, H. F. 346 ; Alexis, ap.
Ath. 7. 322 D, id. ap. Ath. 9. 386 A.
eTTiora, Aesch. Eum. 86, 581.
iTticTTaa-o, Aesch. P. V. 840, 967 ; Soph. O. R. 848, Ant.
305, Aj. 979, 1080, 1370, 1379, O. C. 1584; Eur. Andr.
431, Ion 650,
67710-70), Soph. Phil. 419, 567, 1240, 1325, O. R. 658, Trach.
182, 616, 1035.
riirCa-Taa-o, El. 394, Aj. II34.
rjirCa-Tui, Eur. H. F. 344.
to-rco, Ar. Eccl. 737 ; Soph. Phil. 893, Aj. 775 ; Cratinus,
Fr. Com. 2. 151.
avC(TTa<ro, Ar. Vesp. 286 (chor.), 998, Thesm. 236, 643,
Lys. 929 ; Eur. Hec. 499..
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 465
avia-Tco, Aesch. Eum. 133, 141,
iirpLOi, Ar. Vesp. 1431 ; Fr. Com. 2. 1030 (12).
Trpt'co, Ar. Ach. 34. ^j ; Hegemon, ap. Ath. 3. 108 C.
These instances are all undisputed, but there is some
question about the form of bvvaixat to be read in one pas-
sage of Aeschylus, two of Sophocles, and two of Euripides.
In Aesch. Cho. 374 the Medicean manuscript exhibits the
unintelligible line —
fX€L^ova (f)oovel' 6 bvvaaaL y6.p,
which Hermann corrected to —
jx^i^ova (j)(t)vel9' bvvaaraL ydp'
others prefer ubvvq ydp.
As to Soph. O. R. 696, bvvat, the reading of the Lauren-
tian, is nothing more nor less than bvvq, and the line should
be printed —
Tavvv 5' €V7ro/x7ro9, et bvvq, y^vov.
The other three lines prove that the caution of Phrynichus,
presupposing as it does that in his time bvvrj was regarded as
an indicative second person singular, was not uncalled for —
ovTU) Kar rjiiap ov hvva [xoXhv ttotc ;
Soph. Phil. 798.
8pa? 8' ovbev ///xas cv, Ka/cw? oaov hvvq ;
Eur. Hec. 253.
(TV ov Aeyets yf, 8pas 8e p^ ets octov hvvq.
Audr. 239.
The manuscripts have only hvvr\ to offer.
The case of errpidixrjv is difficulty as there is no instance of
(TTpiacro or TTpiaa-o in Attic verse, as the imperative in Ar.
Ach. 870 comes from the lips of a Boeotian —
oAA' ft TL ftovket TTpiacTo tQv iy(a ({)ipo),
but Kpip.o.p.ai, (\mlTrpa\iaL, and (.fiiriirkap.ai are all in like
straits, and the futures of many verbs are equally uncertain.
The above facts, however, warrant us in asserting that
H h
466 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,
the uncontracted forms of these three inflexions were far
more numerous than the contracted. In verse indeed they
are in the ratio of three to two, and if manuscripts are to
be trusted they are still more numerous in prose.
The case is parallel to that of syncopated perfects active
like SeSetTTi'TjKeVat, and 'bi.hf.ntvavai, TtOvecas and Te.dvr]K(i>s, and
of adjectives comparative like -nXdove's and -nkdovs, [xii^ova
and /xet'Cw. Neither the contracted nor the full form would
have been resented by an Athenian audience, but usage
made prominent sometimes the one, sometimes the other,
in a way often difficult to determine. For us it is sufficient
to ascertain the general rule^ and to disregard the niceties
of detail as facts which no ingenuity can with certainty
extort from a dead language, so delicately organized as
Attic was, and so mutilated as it has been by time and
unholy hands.
In Homer three sets of forms occur, full like lorao-at,
intermediate like iWao, and contracted like hpiixoo.
CCCXXXVIII.
"OpKooce Kai opKooTHc b' kfod- outcjO Kparlvoc cpnai.
juciAAov be bid toG oo Aere h bid toC i, copKioev.
As a statement of usage this is meritorious, but 6p/<t^co
was naturally good Attic, even if more rare than opKcS. The
study of Greek would become absurd if prosecuted in such
a slavish manner. The point at which every true scholar
must aim is to be able to identify himself with the Athe-
nians of the best age, and acquire, as far as may be, the
same fine sense of language which they possessed.
Demosthenes employs both words in one passage, 430.
31 ff. OV TO \xkv \}/1](})L(TIXa TOVS Upy^OVTaS bpKOVV TOVS iv TOLS
Ttok^aiv, OVTOL be, ovs ^(.kLTTiros avTols 7rpo(re7re/>t\//'e, tovtovs
CopKLcrav ; It is of course open to anyone to say that ^pKLaav
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 467
is a corruption of oopKo^a-av, the aorist being selected for
remark by Phrynichus as the most easily altered tense ;
but there is no doubt about Dem. 235 fin. ovk av ^pKiCoii^v
avTov, even if opKiaai itakiv avrov in 678. 5 is, like oopKia-av,
corrupt.
CCCXXXIX.
EilKepjuajelv clH&ec ndvu. HbiGxa b' dv ei'noic eunopeiv
Kepjudroov.
On the other hand, Photius cites it from Eubulus : Ev-
K€pp.aT(lv' EvjBovXoi ttov K(:\pr]Tai rw ovojxaTi.
CCCXL.
'EviauGialov kqi ToOe' ojuoiov eaii tco AiovuGimov, KipbH-
Aov. Aere ouv nevTeouAAdpooc eviauoiov, ojc AiovuGiov.
In late writers the extended form occurs with some
frequency, but to Attic it is of course unknown.
CCCXLI.
'ESaAAdEai, to Tep\|/ai koi naparareiv eic €u9poGuvHv,
cpuAOTTOjuevov xpH ouTOO Aereiv 01 rdp xp'^^viai 01 boKi/ioi,
4>iAinnibHc be Kai Mevavbpoc uhiCo xpcoviai.
There is a good note on this use of k^aXArtoi in Antiatt.
Bekk. 96. 1 : 'E^aAAtifaf ws 'AAe^ai-Speis- avrl tov r^pypai.
Uivavopo,— &vepc^-nov k^a\k<lioix,v'-
'E^aWuyiJMTa' 'Ava^avbpib-qs Qrjael —
irapOivuL TTaiCuva-t, tt/jos k\a(j>p^ e^aXKaypara.
' Cp. Suldas — 'E^aWd^af dvrl tov ripipai. Mti'af5/;oj —
duOpainuv i^aKKd^ofxt)'
icaici'jv Ti (70( Suaovra.
II h 2
468 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
HeracHtus, the late writer ITepl dTrio-rcoy, seems also to have
used the verb in this sense, p. 70, ovn. bcopots e^aXXayrjvaiy
and Parthenius the substantive, 24. i, tovtov i^aXXdyixacrt
TToAXots vTTayoixevos-
CCCXLII.
'Evex^piMOt^*^ oubeic twv boKijuoov elnev (ei be twv HjueAH-
juevcov, OL cppovTic ' InnoKAeibH), eve)(upa be.
As in Article 169, Phrynichus uses the proverb ov (Ppov-
rh 'iTTTTOKXeiSrj to sum up his scholarly disregard of
any accidental exception to a general rule, but Thomas
ludicrously misconstrues his meaning (p. 309}, to be kvexvpi-
ixaiov Ae'yeir, w? 'iTTTroKAeiSrj?, aboKLfxov. It is but one proof
out of many that, as an independent authority, Thomas is of
little value,
CCCXLIII.
'EKAei\j/c(c dboKijuov, dAAd to eKAinciav.
This question has already been discussed on p. 217.
CCCXLIV.
XpHOTOc rd hBh nAHeuvTiKWc (puAaTTOu. 01 rdp boKljUOl
eviKwc cpaol. xpHCjToc to hGoc.
By the side of this general rule may be set the other, that
when the adjective is in the plural, that is, when such and such
a quality is predicated of more than one person, the plural
of '^6os is regularly used, as Isocr. 147 fin. tovs yap ttoXXovs
Tols ijdea-LV a-nojiaivei.v 6p.oiovs avdyKT], kv ots av tKacrTot Trat-
bevOSxTiv : Plato, Rep. 7- 535 B, yewaiovs re kol jSXoa-vpovs ra
7)97]. These rules apply, of course, only to 7)609 in the sense
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 469
of character^ natural disposition, Latin indoles. Of i]Qr\ in
the sense of niajiners, Latin mores, the use is unfettered.
In the case of rpoiros no such distinction is made, Attic
writers employing not only )(^pr}(TT6s rbv rpoTrov and xpy]aTo\
T0V9 TpOTTOVS, but alsO -)(^priaT6s TOVS TpOTtOVS aud XP'7^^0t TOV
TpOTiOV.
CCCXLV.
Oupeoc- ToOo' "OjuHpoc eni AiGou ti9hgiv dvTi Gupac thv
Xpei'av napexovTOC, 01 be noAAoi dvri thc daniboc TiGeasiv,
oubevoc Tcov boKijLicov Kai dp)(aioov xpHoojuevou. xpH oov
dc3niba Aereiv.
Od. 9. 240, of the door-stone of the Cyclops' cave —
avrap eireLT iTredrjKe Ovpebv \xiyav vyjfoa atipas,
o[3pip.ov.
So 313, 340. Dionysius, Arch. Rom. 4. 16, translates tr/jz/^z/j'
by aa-TTLs, sc?(tu7n by dvp^os, and Polybius uses the latter word
of the national shield of the Romans in 6. 23. 2 ; 10. 13. 2,
but also of the Gauls in 2. 30. 3 ; cp. Athcn. 6. 'zy^ F, ol
'Pco/xaiot TTapa ^avvLT<av epiadov dvpeov )(j:)rj(nv, Trapa be 'I/3?7pa)z;
yaia-ojv. There is no instance of the meaning of shield
before Polybius, as in Callixenus, ap. Ath. 5. 196 F, the
signification of the word is uncertain.
CCCXLVL
Aiovuoelov dnaibeuTOV outcx) Aereiv, beov ppuxuveiv thv
Gi ouAAapHV oi rdp eKiei'vovTec napd thv twv 'ATTiKoiv
bidAeKTOv AerouGi. XP^ ''"^^ 'ApioTocpdvei dKoAoueoCvTac
Aer€iv, ev rdp to) FHpa cpnoi —
A. tic civ cppdoeie, nou 'gti to Aiovugiov ;
B. onou id iJopMoAt'Kela npooKpejudvvuTui.
The edition of Nuiicz is the only authority for this article,
470 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
and I have not scrupled to correct the unmeaning lS.iovv(jiov
to Atoi/tio-fioy, Suidas gives the general canon : ^ kQr\vaiov '*
oTi 'ATroAAcoytoy ^pa)(eoos, to Upbv rod ' AiroWcdVOS. ovtco koI
irapa QovKvbibr] avayvaxrreoV Kal Ylo(reib(ovLOV to tov IIo(rei-
hatvos, w? ^AOrjvaiov, to Trjs ^AOrjvas, koL Aiovvcnov, koL Arj/ix?/-
TpLov, KOL TtavTa TO. TOLavTa ofj-oivvixcos rots avbpcovviJLiKols' TO 8e
Tloa-etbavelov brjXov otl Aoopucov eaTiv.
CCCXLVII.
Ou)( olov opri^ojuai, KipbHAov ko\6iTa>c. judAiora ajuaprd-
vexai ev th HMehanH, ou)( oiov koi jum oTov Aerovroov, onep
ov juovov TO) dboKi'jUtp dnopAHTOv dAAd kqi tco hx^p dnbec,
Aereiv be xpH. ou bhinou, uh bhinou.
Nunez, quoted apparently with approbation by Lobeck,
errs in considering the phrase ev ttj ruxebaiTfj to refer to the
native country of Phrynichus, Bithynia, or, in larger sense,
Asia. As in Herodian, i. it, it signifies the Roman Empire.
There seems to be no example of this use of ovx olov in
Greek literature. Even the Antiatticist, who evidently
wrote with a copy of Phrynichus before him (if this article is
by Phrynichus), does not venture directly to contradict him
here, but suggests another equivalent for the rejected ex-
pression : Ow)( olov 6pi(op.ai (lege 6pyi^op,aL),ov\ olov bXia-Koa (sic)
Kal TO. 6[j.oia, (TV be ttoXv aire-^o) tov opi^eo-Qai (lege opyi^ecrOai) .
CCCXLVIII.
OiKiac becnoTHc AeKjeov, ou)( odc "AAeEic, oiKobeonoTHc.
Pollux, who is by no means a purist, agrees with Phry-
nichus, lO. 21, dAAa ix^]v to kolvotqtov tovtX koX jxaXkov re-
' i. e. ovK 'ASrjvaiov.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 47 1
dpvXXrjixivov TOP OLKobecriroTi]!', Kal np olKobecnroivov ovk airo-
b^x^ofxai iJL€v Tovi'oixa. w? 8e ex^'^ dbevai fxriiruo) aot on koX
ravTa cijX(l)CO evpov kv Q^avovs tyjs YlvOayopov yvvaiKos (ttlo-toXtj
TTpbs T niapirav ypacpeia-r}. 6 8e otxoSeo-jro'rTjs e'ori koL 'AXe£t8o?
€V TapavTLvoLS.
CCCXLIX.
'OvbHnoToCv jLiH Aere, aAAd boKi'juooc ovtivoCv.
Lobeck, however, cites from Demosthenes a form of
words comparable with that reprehended here, 1010. 15,
TTJ be TovTcov fxrjTpl YlXayyovL e-irATjcrta^ey ovriva o?;7ror' ovv
TpoTTOv. ov yap e/xoy tovto Aeyety eort, and in Aeschines, 23.
29, 6abr]i:oTovv itself is exhibited by one manuscript, Xeyirco
be irapeKOtiiv 6 (ro(f)os BaraAos virep avrov, Xv elbSifxev ri ttot'
ipe.1' " avbpes biKacrTaC, ep-icrOuxTaTo ju.e kraipeiv avT(^ apyvpiov
oa-TiabrjTTOTOvv " (^ovbev yap bLa(f)€p€i. ovto)S elpTjcrOaL). For
such exceptions Phrynichus would have had his favourite
answer — ov (ftpovrls 'iTnroKkeibrf, as he would have treated
with even more contempt those from late writers.
CCCL.
rTp6G9aTOV KQi nGpi TouTou noAAHv btarpipHv enomad-
;jHv enioKonoujLievoc ei ^dvov Aererai npdo9aTOC veKpdc kqI
;jH npda9aT0v npdr/Jo. tupioKero he 5!ocpoKAHC ev th 'Av-
bpojueba TiGeic oCtoo —
fihbev q)op6la06 npOGq)dTOuc enicxoAdc.
In the line of Sophocles I have preferred (jwjBdo-Oe, the
readinj^ of Callicrgcs, to the infinitive (fiojida-OaL of Nuficz.
The mcaninjj, of which it took Phrynichus so lone^ to
discover a solitary instance, is after all not uncommon even
in prose, as Dem. 55'* '.3> ''^' a^'./c7///ora twAa ra TnvTMV (Ijy
472 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
viJ-as Kol \l/vxpa acjUKi^draL, t5>v 8' aXKoiV ')]imov ^/caoros . . .
'rTp6(r(t)aTos Kptverai : Lysias, 151. 5, trt rijs opyijs ovcrrjs irpoa-
(fydrov. Perhaps in both these passages, and certainly in the
former, the metaphor is still crisp. Alexis applies the word
to fish —
ov beLvov ea-TL, TTpO(r(f)dTovs jxev av Tvyj)
TTOiXSiV TLS lyOvS KT(, ;
Ap. Ath. 6. 225 F.
CCCLI.
TTTa)/ia eni veKpou riSeaGiv 01 vGv, 01 he dpxaloi ouv
OUTCOC, dAAd nTOOjuaxa veKpoav h oi'koov.
In Attic literature TTToi[xa, with the signification of ' carcase,'
seems to be confined to poetry, and in that of ' ruins,' does
not happen to occur at all. The rule of Phrynichus is
absolute —
Ek€vr]s TTTutp.' ibci)v €V a'lixaTL.
Eur. Or. 1196.
'EreoKXeovs 7rTcSju,a.
Phoeniss. 1697.
TTTUIlXaTa V€KpC0V Tpi(T(T(aV.
Heracl. 1490.
In Aesch. Supp. 662 —
ixr]h kinyoipiois w <^
TTT(a[xa(nv alp-aTiaaL iribov yas,
the lost word may be a genitive dependent upon -nrwixaaiv,
and if it is a nominative, like epts or o-rdo-ts, and the subject
of alfxaTia-ai, there is still no necessity to render 'nrwixa,
'carcase,' but it may be translated 'downfall,' the plural
being used as of many. In any case, a single exception in
a lyrical passage is of little moment.
According to Harpocration, the expression TtTcoixara
eXacav occurred in Lysias, but the lexicographer leaves
the meaning doubtful : rXrw/xara kXaiGtv' Avcrias iv t<S Kara
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 473
NtK^8ou' \iyoi av 7/rot tov KapTtbv tov dTroTreTrrcoKoVa tQv (f)VToiv
rj avTci TO, bivhpa Kara nva tv)(J]v TtenrMKora.
In late Greek -nTwyia is frequently met with in the sense
of ' dead body,' as Plut. Alexandr. ch, '^^, oi re rpoxol tQv
apfxCLTOiV biekavvovTo, (rvvetxovTo, TtTcafxacnv TTeipvpixevoi, roaovTots,
ot re 1777701 KaTaKa\).jiav6p.€V0i Ka\ aTTOKpviTToiJLevot rw 77Ar/0et
T(ov veKpwv. In that of ' ruins ' it is less frequent, but still
found — Polyb, 16. 31. 8; Aristid. i. 546, etc.
CCCLII.
TTepicjTaoic dvxi roC oujucpopd riGeaoiv 01 otooikoi <piAo-
00901, 01 b' dpxaloi nepiGTOGiv Aerouoi thv bid Tiva idpa-
Xov napouGiav nAnGouc, Koi h Tpar<x)bia Kai h Koo]ui(pbia.
judOoic b' dv ThAeKAeibou Aerovroc cobe —
TIC nbe KpaufH Kai boju^v nepiGxaoic;
This line of TelecHdes is the only passage of Attic Greek
preserved in which TreptVrao-ts has the meaning commended
by Phrynichus, in fact the only passage in which the word
occurs, although it is extraordinarily common in late Greek,
The meaning, however, is natural and forcible, and is sup-
ported by certain uses of the corresponding verbal adjective,
Isocr. 135 E, uvtI pxv TOV TLp-acrOaL KaTail)povr]dr](T6p.ivos, avri
Se TOV TT€pL(TTaTOS VTTO TTCLVTCtiV 6t' ap€T-qV ilvUt 77fpi/3A€77rOS
VTTO tS>v aiiToiv iirl KaKia y€vr]a6p.(i'os : id. 2H(S, rais 6av-
liaTOTiodais rats ovokv y.\v (li)(f)eXov(Tat<i, vtto hk rwv avotjTcov
TTepicrrdirois yiyvop-ivois.
CCCLII I.
TTape^jpoAH beivwc MoKeboviKov Kairoi evfiv toj orparo-
nebqj xpHoOai, nA€iGT(p Kai boKijuw ovti.
474 T^HE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCLlV.
5!anpdv oi noAAol dvTi toO aioxpdv. Oecov 9H01V 6 rpctjU"
juariKoc eupHKevai napd 4>6peKpc(Tei, AHpoov, anavra rdp a
cpepei juapTUpia eni tou naAaioO kqi oeoHnoroc eupHxai
KGijueva.
'Vitii a Phrynicho reprehensi exemplum apertissimum
est in Compar. Philist. et Menand. p. '>,6'3, —
(Tairpas yvvaiKas 6 Tpoiros evfi6p(f)ovs Trotei
TToXv ye hia(f)ip€i (reixvorr]^ evp.op(jiias.'
Lobeck.
CCCLV.
Zoajuaia eni tcov oivioov dvbpanobcov, oiov cobjuOTa nco-
Aelrai ou xpwvrat 01 dpxaloi.
Pollux will show how this statement has to be taken, 3.
78, crcrijuara 8' aTrXws ovk av etTTOt?, aXka bovXa crcafxaTa- Thus
limited the rule holds true of Attic, Dem. 480. 10, rpto-xiAta
8' alyjiakoiTa (jcajxaTa bevp' ijyaye : Aeschin. 14. 18, ovtos §' et
/U.77 (pricn 7T€TTpaK4vai, ra (roj/xara tcov oiKerwy k\x^avy] Trapaa-^iaOu).
It should be compared with that in article 351.
The late use may be exemplified by Polyb. 3. 17. to,
Kvpios y€v6p.€vos \pr]jxaTMV TtoXk&v Ka\ rrcojuaroiz; koX KaTaaK^vrjs.
CCCLVI.
Td npoooona napHv dju96T6pa- 01 djutpi rdc biKoc pHTopec
ouTCO AerouGi napanaiovrec. dAAd gl KoGapoc Kai dpxaToc
o)v puToop Kai juovoc jLieid r eKeivouc, touc djuq)i tov Ahjuo-
096VHV \er(J^, enavdroov eic to dp)(aIov o\Hija Kai boKijiiov
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 475
THV pHTOpiKHV, ou jLiovov auToc buGxepQivaw oubenconore
expHooo TO) ovcjuaxi, dAAa kqi touc dAAouc eKOiAuoac xpH-
Goceai, eSeAAHvi^oov koi dxTiKi^oov to paoiAiKov biKaoTHpiov
Kai bi&daKaAoc Kaeiordjuevoc ou juovov auroov tcov Aorwv,
oTov XRH Aereiv, oxHjuaTOc koi pAejujuaxoc Kai 90C)vhc kqi
OTdoeooc. ToirapoOv oe toov juericjTOiv dSioboavTec oi ' Pa;-
juaicov paGiAelc, dveeeoav rd 'EaAhvoov dnavxa npdrjuara
bioiKelv, napi&puodjuevoi cptAaKa eauTok, Aorco juev eniaroAea
dnocpHvavxec, epru) be ouveprdv eAojiievoi thc paoiAeiac, dAAd
TQUTa \xkv KQL auGic.
Td be npoocona, coc npoKeuai, ouk epoCjuev, dAAd KaOd-
Tiep oi naAaioi, olov, kqAov exei npoGConov,
This article, though unquestionably genuine, has little
extrinsic authority.
' Hanc vitiosam loquendi consuetudinem quodammodo
praeparaverunt poeticae circumlocutiones. 'Apera? TTpoa-coiTov,
Eur. I. A. 1090, 7/(Tvxta? 7Tp6(To)TTov, Ar. Av. 1322, dchinc
pro homine ipso, quatenus aliquam personam sustinet
Aristot. Rhet. 2. 517, et Epicur. Stob. Eel. i. 218, ct
innumeris Polybii, Dionysii, aliorumque locis. eKelva to.
TTpoaoDTTa, illi, Longin. 14. ^d. drjXvKov Trpoa-coTTov, Artem.
2. ^6, et saepissime apud jurisconsultos Graecos.' Lobcck.
CCCLVII.
ZrpHvidv. TOUTO) k){py\ouvro oi thc vcac ko:)M'[J^'c<c notHTai,
qj oub' dv /javeic tic )(pmaijo, napdv Aereiv Tpucpuv.
The verb is first met with in thc middle Comedy —
uTTtKavrra ttoAAwi' kol KaAaJy ede(Tp.aTcov
TTMV re TTpoTToVets rpds Tcrcos ?*/ Ttrrapas
€(TTpr]v[o)V TTojy, KaTaft€l3po)KO)9 (rlria
i(T0i9 (\(<l)avTO)V TeTTup(av.
Anliphancs, ap. Alh. 3. 127 D.
4/6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
vr] Tov Acovvcrov, avbpes, I'lhr] a-rprivtca-
Sophilus, ap. Ath. 3. 100 A.
In neither of these passages is it a synonym of rpv^w, but
expresses the fighting-cock feehng of a man who has just
risen from a hearty meal. ^Tpr]vi& is from the same root as
the Latin ' strenuus ; ' and if the statement of Pollux may be
trusted (2. 112), that Callias used the compound a-Tpr]v6(f)(ovos,
' loud-voiced,' the root was- known in Classical Greek at
an early date.
CCCLVIII.
Zuarpoc ou pHTeov C5uv drpiov 01 dpxaloi AerouGi.
Athenaeus (9. 401) gives the history of avaypos. Sophocles
used it in the legitimate sense of 'boar-hunter' —
(TV b\ 0) (Tvaype, YlrjKLooTiKOV rpichos'
but Antiphanes is the first writer cited as attaching to it
the signification 'wild boar' —
kaj3u)v kixava^oi crvaypov et? r?jy olniav
Trjs vvKTos avrrjs, koX Xeovra, koL Xvkov.
In Sicily it went by the name of ao-yjhiapos, and that was
one of the Sicilian words which appeared in the works of
Aeschylus after his Sicilian sojourn : AXaxvXos yovv h
^opKicTL, TTapeiKCL^ctiv TOV YlepcTea rw aypiw tovtco avi, (prjcrLV —
yf's ts^ ^ if •> f's ef
€ov es avrpov acrxeocopos cos.
Similar compounds, as absurd as avaypos for avs aypios, are
instanced by Lobeck, atyaypos, ^oaypos, LTnraypos, ovaypos,
and others a little more natural, aypioyoipo's, aypLopvtdes, and
aypLOxrjv<ipi.a.
CCCLIX.
ZurrvwjuovHoai ou xpH Aereiv dAAd currvoovai.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 477
'Q^oyv(xi\}.ov€iv is the only verb from an adjective in
-yv(aiJ.o}v which has any authority: Thuc. 2. 97 ; Dem. 281.
21. Xenophon, as the first writer in the Common dialect, em-
ployed avToyvctiixovelv, Hell. 7. 3. 6, and bixoyvcafjiove'Lv, Mem.
2. 6. 21, and might have employed ixeyaXoyvcaixove'tv, opOoyvoo-
fxovelv, or any other such form. It is another proof of the
spuriousness of the speech Kara ' Apia-ToyeiTovos that (f)vcno-
yvu>p.ova.v occurs in its pages, Dem. 799. 2I, koX Kar avbpa
ets (.Ka(TTov Tov TiapiovTa fik^xj/ovrai, koL (})V(noyv(i)ixovrj(rov(n
Tovs aTTO'y}/i]cf)i.(raiJL^vovs.
CCCLX.
ZiTOjueTpe'iQeai juh Aere. Atcov b' epe?c cjItov jueTpelseai.
In Attic Greek (nTop-erpdv could bear only one meaning,
viz. ' to hold the office of aiTop.iTpy]s' Such a use as is seen
in Polyb. 6. 39. 13 was quite impossible, aLTopLiTpovvTai 6'
ol ix€v Tre^ot, irvpwv 'ArrtKou ixebip-vov bijo p.ipr] /nciAto-rd ttcos.
CCCLXI.
ZthBuviov opvieiou Aerouoi rivec 01 x uriwc. ei rap XP"
unoKopioTiKwc Aereiv, Aepe OTHOibiov ei b' ouk ecTiv uno-
KOplGTlKOV, noBev ei06K0C)JLJia06 KOI TOUTO TO KQKOV TH TOJV
' EAAHVOOV cpoiVH;
Phrynichus, if the article is his, is no doubt right, but
(TTr]6ibiov docs not happen to occur in Greek literature,
whereas a-T-qOvviov docs —
■nviynv re Traxe'cov apvlcov (rrrjOvvia.
Kubulus', .ip. Ath. 2. 65 C.
Diminutives in -vvuw arc a late formation. It is notorious
that, as Greek aged, many words were altogether replaced
by diminutives formed from them in more or less legitimate
ways.
' Also attributed to Ephippus in Ath, 9. 370 C.
478 - THE NEW PHRYNICHUS,
CCCLXII.
' Ynepbpijuuc enei unepoocpoc Kai unepbpijuuc aSioOoi
Tivec Aereiv. AerovToov b' ei kqi oi dpxoimi Kai oi boKijiioi
Aefouoiv, el be juh, etiovToov )(atpeiv to unepbpijuuc.
There is no reason why one should not use vTrepSpt/xus.
If Greek were to be studied on the principle which under-
lies this article, it would be impossible to learn it, and the
attempt to acquire any knowledge of the language would
bring little profit to the student. The edition of Nuiiez
is almost the only authority for the remark.
CCCLXIII.
4>urabeOoai kqi cpurabeuGHvaf eniOKe\}/e<Ji>c hoAAhc belrai,
61 erKpireov touvomq toIc boKijuoic. ei toivuv eupoic, pe-
paidboeic TO djU9topHTOujuevov.
The verb is used not only by Xenophon, but also by
more trustworthy writers : Xen. Hell. 2. 3. 42, 2. 4. 14,
5. 4. 19 ; Isocr. 179 B, Xicoy 8e rovs \k\v Trpcorovs t(ov TtokiTCiv
icpvydbevcrav : Dem. 1018. 10, €ls "Apetov -irdyov /xe TtpocreKa-
Xia-aTO, w? (j)vyabiv<Tcov €k ttjs Tro'Aecos: Aristophon, ap. Ath.
bevp' avTov ecjjvydbevaav ws rjixas Karco.
It does no credit to the styles in which it occurs, being a
gross violation of the law of parsimony, but its existence in
Attic is beyond question. This article is exhibited only
by Nunez.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 479
CCCLXIV.
4>poviMeteoeai juh A^fe, cppovelv be Tot ovra.
Callierges confuses this article with 367, neither 365 nor
366 appearing in his alphabetical arrangement ; *port/xe^e-
crQai [J.1] Ae'ye, akKa )(pi](niJi.ov yeveaOai.
The verb only occurs here.
CCCLXV.
Xhjuh- n69ev dveu()(0H th twv ' EaAhvoov cpwvH, dbHAov.
oi rdp dpxaioi Korx^^AHv Aefouoi toCto.
The word is probably good enough. ' In quaestionibus
naturalibus usus ejus multiplex est neque inconcessus:
Aelian, H. An. 14. 22, ij. 12: Artemid. 2. 14: Xenocr.
de Aquat. 18. 31 : lonem, Philyllium, Apollodorum,
Hicesium testatur Athenaeus, 3. 86 C. F., 90. A. E., 93 A.'
Lobeck.
CCCLXVI.
'Eni)(eijud^€ic oauxov Mevavbpoc eTpHKev en) xoO
AuneTv, Kai 'AAeSavbpeTc ojuoicoc. neicreov be toIc boKi-
juoiCj Tolc /lIh eiboGi Touvojua.
In English we can say, ' do not distress yourself,' as well
as 'a ship in distress;' but perhaps the metaphor is the
converse of the Greek one, and ' distress ' used of ships to
be compared with Caesar's employment of co}itumclia in
describing the serviceable sea-going qualities of the Ar-
morican navy, B. G. 3. 13, 'naves totac factac ex robore
ad quamvis vim ct contumeliam (rough usage) perfcrcn-
dam.' Be this as it may, of all the changes which the
Greek language underwent after the Macedonian conc|ucsts,
480 THE NE W PHR YNICHUS.
few are more observable than the growing freedom in the use
of metaphors. Metaphors, which to an Attic ear were out of
place except in Tragedy, and even in Tragedy were often
strangely condensed, assumed, in writers like Menander, an
easy and natural expression, befitting the Comic sock.
Anaxandrides will supply an example of the natural
freshness which Comedy could bring to a faded Tragic
metaphor. Euripides had said in El. 1076 —
fiovrjv be TTaa&v oi8' eyw cr' 'EAArjr^Scoi^,
et jxkv TO. Tp(o(x)V evTV\ol, Ke^apixivrjv,
el 8' rjaaov etr], (Tvvv€<pov(rav oix[xaTa.
In Anaxandrides, Ath. 1. 34 D, the metaphor has a modern
freedom of movement —
eav Kovcrrjcrde vvv
pdffyavov re TTokXrjv h'TpdyrjTe, TiavcreTe
TO (3dpos, hiaa-KebaTe to irpoabv vvv ve(f)OS
eTTt Tov 7Tpoa(oi:ov.
By comparing Latin of the silver age with that of the Re-
publican or Augustan times it will be seen that a similar
change in the genius of the language has taken place, and
that the enlargement of view which was produced by the
consolidation of the Roman world-empire changed the
Roman language from an ancient into a modern tongue.
The expression einx^tixdCeL^ a-avrov is merely an everyday
equivalent of many phrases of tragedy in which x^'MaC*^
takes part; and which any lexicon will supply.
CCCLXVII.
XpHoijueuoai juh Kefe, dAAd xpHoijUov revecGai.
The veto is just. The addition o{ y^pr](rLixev(a to verbs in
-evco (see art. 3) is even more uncalled for than ^vyahevo),
and is not sanctioned by any good writer.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 481
CCCLXVIII.
'Eoxdrcoc exei eni toG juo)(eHpooc exei kqi Gcpa\epwc tot-
T0U31V 01 oupcpoKec, H be toC ea)(dT00c xpfioic, oioOa, eni toG
oKpou napd toIc dpxaioic vojLii^exai, eoxdxwc novHpoc,
eoxoTcoc <piA6oo90c. biarpanjeov ouv koi toGto.
The phrase eo^aro)? ^x^'^ is rightly cancelled. It does
not appear till late. Good writers avoid the adverb, even
in the sense permitted by Phrynichus ; no instance of
which is known except in Xenophon, An. 2. 6. i, eo-xdro)?
^iXoTToAe/xos. As we found him employing even the super-
lative IcryjiTdixaTa (see p. 144), his authority will not count
against the absence of the adverb from Plato, and the
Orators, and all Comedy except Menander. Photius,
'Ecr^drojs' CLKpois, Mevavbpos ' (^o/Sor/xai 8' eo-xdrco?.'
CCCLXIX.
XpeooAuTHcai Aerei 6 noAuc, 6 be 'Attikoc rd XP^^
biaAuGOcOai.
XpeoKvTelv and all similar compounds of xP^'o^s ^^^ ^^te :
Xpfobordv, xp(0K07T€Li', xpf <«^>f tA^f T"?;?, xpffjoreii;, etc.
As late formations they naturally were spelt with omi-
cron, not omega, except when the second part of the com-
pound began with a vowel. The coalescing of + into
ui may be compared with that of e -fo into co in TrevTdpvfjjos,
7r(VT(i)pvyo<i, etc. Ilerodn. Epim. p. 207, rd irapa tov xP^'o?
avyK€Lp.(va 6td rod o jXiKpov ypd(f)ovTai, p.i<rov eyovra to o fxiKpov
olov xpfOKOTTw, xpeoAuTw, xp(oboT<o, xP^oKOTTta, xpeoKvcrCa, XPfo-
boaia, Kol rd upoia.
It is, however, possible that Phrynichus wrote xpftoAurtij;,
as a naif hit at would-be Atticists.
I i
482 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCLXX.
Xpeooc- 'Attikoc cIv 9a(voio kqi enijutAnc ei bid tou 00
jLiefoAou xpeooc Aereic. ou juev ouv th ceauToO noAujuaGia
Tov 'ApioTOcpdvHv bid ToO o ebeiKvuec to \^koc iv tchc
erepaic NecpeAaic einovxa —
drdp Ti xpeoc epa jiie juerd tov TTaoiav;
eoiKe be napcobHKooc etpHKevar bionep ou xpHGTeov auTco.
The address to Cornelianus in this article is to be com-
pared with that in article 203, as both show that the two
scholars were in the habit of discussing together doubtful
points of Atticism. The line of the Clouds has been
already considered on p. 48.
On the authority of Phrynichus and Moeris (p, 403)
Xpeos ought probably to be regarded as due to a copyist's
error when encountered in Attic texts, as in Plato, Polit.
267 A, Legg. 13. 958 B, Isocr. 402 C, and Dem. 791. 2.
In Demosthenes the best manuscripts generally exhibit
the form in omega, as 900. 14 ; 988. 24 ; 1019. 23 ; 1040. 19 ;
although in the last instance even Paris S has fallen to the
level of the worst codices and presents xP^'o?- The genitive
and dative must shift for themselves, as there is really no
evidence as to the Attic form of either. In Dem. 11 89. 25
the best manuscripts read xP^ms as genitive, but the speech
is spurious, and in Lys. 148. 31, xpf'o^'? seems to be best
supported. As for the dative it does not occur once.
Similarly in the plural, only two forms are known, but,
unlike those of the singular, they are undisputed, XP^^
being used for the nominative, accusative, and vocative,
and xpi^S»v for the genitive —
(TV ovv Kaoevoe ra oe XP^*^ raw laU on.
Ar. Nub. 39.
h vvv 6(f}€i\o} bia (re, tovtcov t5>v xP^^^'-
Id. 117.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 483
CCCLXXI.
4>iA6Aoroc 6 (piAoav Aorouc kqi onoubd^oov nepi naibeiav
01 be vCv eni toO Ijiineipou ri9eaoiv ouk opOoac. rd juevioi
ecpiAoAorHGa Kai 9iAoAoroi^ kqi ndvia rd pHjuara rd jnero-
XiKa dboKijua.
Whether intentionally or by mistake Callierges printed
(})Lk6(ro<pos for (^lAo'Aoyoj, and placed Ta \x^vtoi ktc. under the
letter T. The Paris manuscript omits the whole article.
CCCLXXII.
Tivi biacpepet robe kqi robe; ou xpH outoo Aereiv Kaid
boTiKHv nrwaiv, dAAd ti biacpepei, Ka6d Kai AHjuoaBevHc
(fHoi Ti' boGAov H eAeuGepov elvai biaq^epei;
This rule holds without exception in Attic, but apart
from this one phrase the dative was quite legitimate. Plato,
Euth. 4 E, ovbi T(o ^v btacjyepot, KvOvcfipaiv tS>v TTokkcov avOpd-
TTOiV : Rep. 5- 4^9 C, oAw Kai iravrl bia(j)€pei. to (peiheaOai..
From Aristotle onwards the dative encroached upon the
accusative in tl biacfjepeL; as Arist. Part. An. 4. <S fin., tlvl
bia(f)4p€i. ra apfxva tS>v Ot]K(lo)v ;
CCCLXXIII.
TeT€U)(e Ti/iHc, rexeuxe toO cKonoO juh Aere, dAA' dvr'
auToG toj hoKinu) xpoj TeiuxHKe.
The instance of the trisyllabic form cited by Vcitch from
Dem. 21. i.jO (5*^3. II) is only a variant foolishly preferred
I i 2
484. THE NEW rilRYXICHUS.
by Bekker to the genuine rereuxrjKcos\ It occurs, however,
unquestioned in Menander, Monostich. 44 —
in Macho ap. Ath. 13. 581 {^s)—
avTov \x\v a^Lovvra //?; TeTev\evat,
and in late writers generally.
CCCLXXIV.
ZxpopiAov 01 juev noAAoi to eboobijuov Aerouoi Kai auTO
TO bevbpov. ol b' dpxa^oi thv piaiov toO avejLiou eiAHoiv Kai
GUGTpOCpHV GTpopiAOV KaAoGoi KQl GTpopiAHGai TO GUGTpe\|/ai.
ouTCOc ouv Kai hju^v pHTeov, to be eboobijuov niTucov Kapnoc,
Koi TO bevbpov niTUc. Kai rap niruoc to 6kk6kokigm6VOv 6ti
Kai vCv KOKKCova Aerouoiv 01 noAAoi dpeooc, Kai rap loAwv
ev toIc noiHjuoGiv outoo xpHTOi.
KoKKoovac dAAoc, oTepoc be GHGajua.
There are many variations in the different manuscripts
and editions, Laurentian A avcrTpolBrjcrat to arvaTp^xj/aL, and
B and Nunez ava-rpolSLXTJa-aL to (XTpi^at. Moreover for koX
yap TTLTVOS TO €KK€KOKt(rix4vOV €Ti KT€. all haVC KOl yap icTTL
7TLTVS TO €KK€KOKl(rp,ivOV' €Tl KT€.
The same caution reappears in App. Soph. 6^. 27, 2Tp6-
j3iXos' Ti]v Tov avejxov ava-Tpocpriv, ov^ &>? ot vvv tov Kapirov
TO)V -niTvoiv. riAarcoy Kai ii€Ta(t)opi.K(a9 KixPW^'- ^'"''t ^^'7? ^t^-
apwOiK?/?, -nokvy exovarrjs tov Tapayov: cp. Galen, vol. II. 158
D, KoKKttAos VTT avTov (Hippocrates) AeAey/xeVos ovy ovtcos,
aWa K&vos (xakKov vtto tSjv TTakaiwv 'EXkrjVCDV wz-'o/xdCero,
Kadairep vtto tS>v vecoT^poiv laTpdv (T\ihov cnravTOJV aTpoftikos :
id. 13. 527 C, ovs vvv aTTavTes "EWrjves ovoixdCova-i aTpo^ikovs,
TO Trdkai he Trapa toIs 'ArrtKot? enakovvTo kmvol. With the
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 485
replacement of kS>vo's by the picturesque o-rpo/3tAos may be
compared that of aXfxdbes by KoAu/x/3a8e? discussed in art.
94. The words from koI yap to the end may well be a
spurious addition made by some one who happened to
have heard kokkcov so used by the vulgar. The remark is
awkwardly introduced, and contradicts to 8e €bu)btf/.ov iriTvayv
KapiTos. There is no reason for assigning to kokkcov in
Solon's iambics the meaning of o-rpo/3tAos, 'the edible
kernel of a pine-cone.'
CCCLXXV.
ZurKoxapaiveiv elc rdc OKevj/eic, cjurKarapatveiv etc bi-
basKaAiac juh emHc, otAAd ourKoGievai kqi GurKa6HKev €ic to
nai'^eiv h elc uAAo xi.
The use of the Latin descendere, almost in the sense of
'condescend,' is well-known. In Attic that meaning was
represented by a-vyKaOUvat. either transitively with ifxav-ov,
(avTov, etc, or intransitively and in late Greek by avyKara-
^aiveiv. The original notion as suggested by a-vyKaTa^aiv^iv
(Is bibaa-KaXCas was of course * to descend with one's adver-
sary on to the ground selected for a trial of strength.'
The following passages will illustrate the usage : Plato,
Theaet. 168 B, iav ovv iixol ttci^tj, ov Sucr/jtei^ws ovbe /ixa)(7jri-
Kwy, oAA' lAew ttJ biavoia o-vyKadiels o)? aXrjOws o-K€\//'ei tC ttotc
\4yoixev : Rep. 8. ^6^ A, xat oAco? ol fxkv vioi '!Tp€(rj3vTepois
d7reiKa^02.'rat Kal oia/xtAAwrrat Koi kv Ao'yots koX ev epyots, ol bk
yepovTfi avyKaOUvT€^ rois vioL9 evTpaTTeXias re Kal ■)(^apiiVTi(T-
fiov ep-Tti-nXavTai, p-iuovfjievot. rovi vtovs. In his dictionary to
Polybius, Schwcighacuser cites '^vyKaraftaivfLv ds ttolv, 3. 10.
I ; 7. 4. 3 : ds rhv virfp rSiv oKiav Klvbvvov, 3. 89. 8 ; 5. 66. 7 :
ds SKofTx^fpri Kpimv, 3. 90. 5; 3. 108. 7: ds ra roir TToXfixCoiV itpo-
T(pT]fjiaTa, 4. I 1 . 9 : ds rovs Kara p-ipos virtp rijs SiaAvo-fcos \6yovi,
486 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
5. 67. 3 : eis "navra to. (jaKavOpoiTTa, 5- 66. 2 : eis (f)6povs koI
(Tvi'6i]Kas, 4. 45- 4-
CCCLXXVL
ZKvtcpoc Kajd biacpOopav 01 noAAoi AerouGi tov rAioxpov
Kai jLiiKponpenn nepi ra dvaAcojuara, 01 b' dpxmoi OKvma
KaAoOoiv and toC GHpibiou tou ev toic HuAoic toO Kaid
Ppa)(u aurd KareoeiovTOc.
Moeris 387 implies that not only the form but the mean-
of (rKVL(f)6s was un-Attic, c^eiScoAot 'Attikcos, crKVi(j)ol kolvov.
As a matter of fact the word occurs in Attic only in the
proverb aKvi-\\r kv x^P^ 5 which Zenobius, 5. 35, thus ex-
plains^ €771 tQv ra^eo)? ix€TaTTr}bu)VTu>v r] irapoifxia etprjTat' crKV^f
yap kcTTi Orjpihiov ^vXo(f)dyov, airb tottov els tottov ixeTaTTrjbu>v'
fj,([jLVrjTat TavTr]s "ErpaTTis.
CCCLXXVII.
Zrajuvi'a 01 juev djuaBelc eni rdiv djuibcov tottougiv, oi
b' dpxaToi eni twv oivHpoav drreicov.
' Praeter Hesychium : 'Ajjlls, (TTa\j.viov, Gloss, matiila a-Tap.-
viov exponentes, et Lex. Rhet. Bekk. p. 217 : 'Ap.vihas
{apLLbas s. Attice ap-ibas) ra crTap-via Ar]pLO(rdevr]s (c. Conon.
1257), nullum novimus hujus vitii consortem.' Lobeck.
CCCLXXVIII.
ZuoxoAaordc ecxdrooc dvaxTiKov. xp^' ^^ GujucpoiTHrdc
Aereiv.
Xenophon might perhaps have used avcrxoXaa-Tris, as he
actually anticipates the late application of o-xoAciCw in
Symp. 4. 43, ^(OKpAret. (rxoXdCoiv birjjxipevov.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS, 487
CCCLXXIX.
ZxpoojuaTeuc dboKijuov oTpcojuarobeajLioc apxalov kqi boKijuov.
Aere ouv KOI dpoeviKoac kqi ouberepooc.
The name o-TpcoixaTevs came to be applied to the crrpco-
fj-aTobeo-fxas, the bag into which crTpdiiixaTa and a-TpMixar^vs
were packed. In Attic o-TpcoixaTevs means a ' coverlet ' or
' counterpane,' in late Greek 'a bag for a-Tputixara or blankets.'
This strange perversion of meaning is also noted by Pollux,
7. I9> in enumerating ayyela, els a Karedevro ras ecrdrJTas.
oTpuficiToSeCTfia, ravd' ol veutrepoi crTpco/xaret? ekeyov, ev ols w?
fxev TO 6vo\xa br]Xol to. (TTp(ajxaTa aTreridevTO.
CCCLXXX.
EuxpHOje'iv dn6ppi\|/ov Aere be Kixpdvai.
There seems to be no instance of this euphemism in
Greek literature, 'to be of service to,' instead of 'to lend
to.' Even in its ordinary meaning the verb is unknown to
Classical Greek.
CCCLXXXI.
'Potorepov juh Aere diAAd paov curKpiriKov rdp curKpi-
TiKoC ouK eoTiv, olov ei" TIC Aeroi Kpeiooorepov.
As the correct u)tu)v (see art. 186) gave rise to the
absurdity oiroi?, so from the neuter comparative paov sprang
the nonsensical paos, paajs, and paurepov.
CCCLXXXII.
' Pu^iH- KOI TOUTo 01 jiev ' AohvoIoi enl thc op;iHC eriOeoav,
488 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
01 be vuv aMaeetc eni toC orevconoO. boKe? be juoi Kat toGto
MOKeboviKov elvai. dAAd OTevoonov KoAelv xpH, pujuHv be
ThW OpjUHV.
Instances of the Attic use are these: Thuc. 2. 76,
y\ h\ boKos pvixri kix-ni-nrovaa : Dem. 546 fin., rfj pvfxri rfjs opyTJs
Kol rrjs vjip(.(os tov MetStov : Ar. Eccl. 4, rpo^^ yap ikadeh
KepaixLKTJs pvjxrjs airo : Thuc. 7. 70, rfj p.€v irpaiTri pvp-p e-ni-
irXiovTes (Kparovv tGiv Terayp-ivcov veGtv. The late meaning is
well-known from the New Test., e.g. Luke, Acts 9. 11,
avaa-Tas TTopev6i]TL eirl ttjv pvpr]v T7]v Kakovp,ivr]v Evddav. The
former meaning strengthens the explanation of pvaeaOai
given on p. 11, while that of 'street' or 'lane' must have
existed long before the Common dialect in many a corner
of Greece, where pv^adai also may have retained much of
its early sense of draiv. Cp. Lat. diicere nmrum, ducere
sulcuni.
CCCLXXXIII.
ApconaKi'^eiv dboKtjuov, dipxalov be to napariAAeoeai
H niTToCoOai.
Perhaps the Atticist goes too far here. A new art, even
if it be of the toilet, often necessitates a new name, and it
is conceivable that there was a measurable difference be-
tween bpoyiraKiarixos and ttLttuxtis, as there certainly was
between bpooTraKLo-pos and irapaTiXpLos, the latter being ap-
plicable to any depilation, the other only to that in which
some sort of paste was used, Galen, however, seems to
have considered bpoiTraKia-ixos and ttlttcoo-ls interchangeable
terms, but he was a Jenner, not a Rimmel: vol. 12. 103,
bcra be nva irori dai ttittcoto. (pdpp.aKa r) bpcairaKicrTa vorj(reis
aKOVcras TTLTTav kol bpcairaKa Kat aoi kiyeiv t^ecrra) KaOomrep
h.v ^ovXtjOfis ; ov yap aTTiKi^^iv btbda-Keiv TTpoKetrai p,0L tovs
veovs.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 489
As a matter of fact -nirrovaQai is as unknown to Attic as
bpoDiraKLCeiv, but the compound KaraTTLTTovv is employed,
both in its direct sense o^ cover zvith pitch, and metaphori-
cally as the opposite of Karaxpva-ovv.
CCCLXXXIV.
ZxejucpuAa- 01 jdkv noAAoi rd roav poTpuoov eKnieajuara
djuaOoSc- 01 b' 'Attikoi GTeju9uAa eAawv.
Athenaeus makes the same statement, 2. ^^6, ^AdrjvoLot
5e Ta.'i TeTpLixfX€vas ekdas crT€ixc})v\a €Kakovv, [ipvTea 8e to. vcj)'
rjyXv aripLcpyka, ra kKiri.kcrp.aTa T?js aracpvXrjS.
CCCLXXXV.
TTevToeTHpiKoc drwv kqi nevraeTHpic juh Aere, dAA' dcpaipwv
TO a nevT€THpic kqi nevreTHpiKoc drcov.
The evidence, both of metre and Inscriptions, supports
Phrynichus in this article, which, like many more, estab-
lishes a particular point upon which a general rule may be
fairly based. As false analogy with eTrraSd/cruAoy and bcKa-
ouKruAos corrupted the corresponding compound of oktco
from oktcooAktvXos to oKra8a/crvAoj, so false analogy with
the late eTTTair-qs and 8eKaeV/js produced the extraordinary
forms TrevTairri^, irevTaiTripCs, etc. It is true that in the
only line of Comedy in which Trcyrer?/? occurs the metre
allows of it being spelt as a quadrisyllable —
avrai p.iv etm TreireVeis' yeCo-ai Xaftcov.
Ar. Ach. 188.
but the following lines, which establish the shorter forms
of similar compounds o( btKa and TrtVre, establish a fortiori
490 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
that spelling of the compounds of TreWe which Phrynichus
commands —
ocTTTep [le bi€K6py]aev ovcrav k-nriTiv.
Ar. Thesm. 480.
(TV 8' aAXa TacrhX ras SeKeVets yevaai \a[3(ov.
Ach. 191.
TO yv5>jxa yovv ^ifiXrjK^v w? over kimTr]?.
Comic. Anon. ap. Eustathium, 1404. 6r.
To the same effect is the testimony of stone records :
' Uivre in compositione servatur, non mutatur in irivra :
vide V. c. I. 332, ubi est TTevTeirov^, TreyreTraXao-ra.' 'Ofcrco-
baKTvXos, similia constanter, non oKrabaKTvXos, v. c. T. N.
XIV. e. 104, 185, C. I. A. I. 321. 28. 322.' Herwerden.
In prose texts the longer forms of compounds of Trivre,
eiTTa, and beKa, and the shorter of o/crw must unflinchingly
be removed in favour of those which the genius of the
Attic language or, in other words, common sense, the
evidence of verse, and the record of stone monuments,
prove to have been the only forms known to the Athen-
ians. The general principle thus established, namely that
in compounds of cardinal numerals the original form of
the numeral is as far as possible retained, is further illus-
trated in the two articles which follow next, which call for
no remark.
CCCLXXXVI.
TTevTcxjuHvov, nevjdnHxu- juexdOec to a eic to e, nevTejUHVOV-
Aer<J^v Kai nevT6nH)(u.
CCCLXXXVII.
'ESdnHxu Koi eEaeTHc* kqi evTeuGev d9aipH0£tc to a,
e£nHxu Kai lEeTHC koi ennAeupov. toCto rdp Kai laTpoi
enavopeoOvTai, eKnAeOpov AerovTec Kai ouk eEdnAeOpov.
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 491
In Laurentian A, the Paris manuscript, and in Callierges,
these two articles appear condensed into one. It seems
impossible to formulate a reasonable canon as to when ef
or €K should be used in the compounds of 'i^.
CCCLXXXVIII.
TTepieondcjGHv Aerouoi xivec eni xou ev doxoAi'a reveoGai,
TtOevrec ndvu KipbHAcoc to rdp nepicndv Kai nepiandoSai
eni Tou napaipelv Koi napaipeloGai tottouoiv 01 dpxaloi.
beov ouv doxoAoc hv Aereiv.
This markedly late use of TrepLa-Traa-OaL occurs in a well-
known passage of St. Luke, 10. 40, rj be Mdpda -nepiea-naTo
TTepl 7ToWr}v biaKovCav.
CCCLXXXIX.
TTopvoKonoc outoo Mevavbpoc, 01 h' dpxoloi nopvorpiv
Aerouoiv.
cccxc.
AinOaproc- outo> Mevavbpoc, ol h' dpxa^oi 'AGhvoIoi eni-
AHojuova KoAoCciv, oTc Kai neioreov.
CCCXCI.
Meoonopelv Kai toOto Mevavbpoc, oubev enipdAAcov rvoiMnc
TO?c ovopaGiv, uAAd ndvia (pvpoyv.
Though resting on the authority only of Nunez' edition
there can be little question about the genuineness of this
492 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
article : ' Inter reliqua composita evOviropdv, ^pahviropdv,
fj.aKpoTTopdv, wKviTopdv, etc. sunt quaedam satis antiqua, sed
totum genus ab oratoribus atticis non admodum probatum
videtur,' Lobeck.
CCCXCII.
ropoc- Kai TOUTO Mevavbpoc ihW KaAAioTHV tcov Koojuto-
bioov Toav eauTOu, tov MicoruvHv, KareKHAibcoaev eincov, ti
rap hn fOpoc eoTiv ou ouvihjui.
Lobeck thinks that the words of Menander were quoted,
but Nunez, who alone has preserved this remark, has failed
to preserve the passage. Though the substantive first appears
in Menander, the Homeric adjective yvpos, 'round,' indicates
as the source from which yvpos entered the Common dialect
one or other of the Greek dialects less prominent in litera-
ture. Even the adjective, though freely used in late Greek,
has for classical authority only one passage of Homer —
yvpos iv Stp-OLcnv, p.tXav6\poos, ovKoKaprjvoS'
Od. 19. 246.
The Latin ' gyrus ' bears testimony to the prevalence of
the substantive in post-Macedonian times.
CCCXCIIL
ZucjOHjuov oux opoo jud TOV 'HpaKAea ti ndo)(ouaiv 01
TOV Mevavbpov jiierctv drovTec koi ai'povTec unep to ' EaAh-
viKov dnav. bid ti be eaujudcac exco ; oti to ciKpa toov
'EaAhvcov opco juaviKooc nepi tov KoojLicobonoiov toCtov onou-
bd^ovTQ — npfOTioTOv juev ev naibeia jueriorov d£ioojua dndv-
Twv e)(0VTd 06 Kai bid toOto eK npOKpiTwv dnocpavBevTa
uno Toav paoiAeoiv eniOToAea auTOov, eneiTO beuTepa tijuh
THE XEW PHRYNICHUS. 493
Aeinojucvov noAu thc ghc napaoKeuHc, eSera^ojuevov b' ev toIc
"Eaahoi, BaA^ov Tov dno TpdAAeoov, 6c eic toGto npoBujuiac
Kui eaujLiaTOc hkei Mevdvbpou, coGre kqi AHjiiooeevouc
djueivoo erx6ipelv dno9aiveiv lov Aerovra jLieaonopelv koi
rOpoc KQi AHOaproc Kai ouoohjuov kqi nopvoKonoc koi ov^-
VlOQJUpC KQl 6V<J^V10V KQL buGplfOC KQI d'AAO Kl^bHAa dvopiO-
jLiHTO djuaOH. TG aurd be Goi kqi BdA^cu nenovGora Koi
fartavov TOV Zjiiupvalov phiropa, dvbpa ^hAoothv Kai epaoTHv
THC GHC ev naibeia (puAoKOAiac. 6,\'^ ouv oncoc Aughc juou
THv ev TH TOidbe bu3)(epeia Ttov uiTaw dnopiav. ou fdp
nepi6\|/eG6ai g6 Hfouiaai epHjucoc 69A6vTa oou to naibiKu
Mevavbpov.
This, the longest continuous piece of writing from the
pen of Phrynichus, proves that in his time the writing of
Greek was a lost art. Granted that Menander used words
and constructions unknown to Attic, yet his Greek was his
own, easy, graceful, and elegant, not like that of his critic,
a cumbrous and clumsy imitation of good models. In
short, the one is Greek and the other is not.
The late origin of avaa-qixov, 6\froivi.ov, and dv/^coi'tao-juo's is
unquestioned, but Pollux, 4. 186, states that bva-piyos was
used by Aristophanes. Perhaps in the original article
which discussed fivVptyos, Phrynichus was able to show that
Menander used the word incorrectly. As it is, there are
no data to go upon. In I kit. ',. 10, and Aristot. H. An. H.
25, 605*. 20 it bears the meaning, 'unable to bear cold.'
CCCXCIV.
OiKoboKH ou Aefcrai, OVt' an km ic o'lKobdiUH/Lta.
The rejected word is for Attic, and indeed for all Classical
494 THE NFAV PHRYXICHUS.
Greek, an impossible formation. The subjoined table will
recall the normal family relationships of words like olKobofxos.
O1K080/XOS
I 1
olKohojXLKos olKobofxeiv
.r r'^— r^,
olKob6ixri(Tis oiKoho^ia olKoh6\J.ri\ji.a.
cccxcv.
Kax ovap- TToAejuoov 6 'Ioovikoc G0910THC Ahjuog66VOuc
ToG pHTopoc eiKova xqAkhv ev 'AokAhhiou tou ev TTeprdjutii
TH Muoia dvaOeiCj enerpcxvev enirpajiiMci TOiovbe- Ahjuog-
6evH TTaiaviea TToAejuoov kqt' ovap, dboKijucoTaTo) tco
KOT ovap xpHodjuevoc. toonep rdp koO' unap ou Aerexai,
qAA' unap, ouTOic oube kot ovap, dAA' htoi ovap ibojv hi e£
oveipou 6\)/eojc. outooc dpa juertSTov eoxiv dvojudro^v rvoacic*
onou re bH Koi id oKpa tcov ' EaAhvoov nxaiovra opdrai.
A similar mistake has already been considered on
Art. 104.
CCCXCVI.
Mexpid^eiv toOto 01 juev dpxaloi eni tou to au/ipaivovTO
jueTpiooc 9epeiv riOeaai, Mevavbpoc b' eni tou doQevelv napa
THV TOaV boKlJUWV XpHGlV.
The Paris manuscript here differs from the others and from
the editions, not only substituting to. a-vixtpipovra y^vvaiuis for
TO. (rvix[3aLvovTa juerptcos, but in a way unusual with it, append-
ing a whole clause, a-v 8e eirl rod Icrov ^Ivai koX /xt) VTrep/SdAAeiy
/xTjre Ti) aka^ovdq [xrjTe rfj TaTreivcacrd. Late medical writers
sometimes assign to //erptd^w the sense of ' am fairly well/
as Aelian H. An. 9- ^5' ^ iJ-^Tpiacrai boK&v Trdktv e^aTrrerat els
6bvvr]v, but the signification ' am unwell ' is very rare indeed,
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 495
e. g. as var. lect. in LXX. Nehem. 2. 2. Lexicons supply no
instances of a corresponding use of the adjective /leVpios-.
CCCXCYII.
KaSobc- fdioc TIC 'Apeeouaioc rpa.uMCtTiKoc e9aaKe boKi-
jLiov elvai Touvojuci" KexpHG0ai rap auro) 4>uAapxov co tou
judpiupoc 030 oTKoGev enarojuevou oc oube GouKubibou hkougs
AerovTOC KaGo bel etc ZiKeAi'av nXelv dAA' ou KaOwc-
Kai TO Kaed boKijuov.
The reading wj olKoQtv i-rrayoixevov is due to Scaliger, who
saw that in the meaningless 019 eotxe tov eTrayo/xe'i'ou lay
concealed a reference to the proverb olKodev 6 fxaprvi, used
of those who bear witness against themselves (eTrt rwy KaO'
kavTbiv jxdpTvpa^ (pepovTojv, Diogenian, 7. 29). 'The authority
of Gains,' says Phrynichus, 'was of little value, and his
voucher is no better.' Kadm (see art. 32) is now banished
from the few passages of Attic into which it had crept
with the help of late copyists, such as Aeschin. 16. 23, koI
TUiV <rvv9r\KQ>v avayvdiOi to. avTiypa(^a KaG' hs r?/y irpacnv cTrot?/-
a-aro tov aywt-os, where two manuscripts have KaOu)i, one
Kadu>s- : Xen. Cyrop. i. 4. 22, koL iaxvpav ttjv (f)vyiiv toU
TToK^fxioLi KaTixf^v i-noUi, where KaT(.x(^v is represented in
some codices as Ka6u>s dx^v. Editors, however, have wanted
nerve to banish the absurdity from Herod. 9. H2, KeXefo-ut
TOVI T€ apTOKOTTOVi KoX TOVS 6\l/01iOlOVi KOTCt TaVTO. KaOios Map-
bovi(o biiTTvov TTaparrKfvaCiiv. It is true that in citing the
passage Athcnacus (4. 13H C) reproduces the error, but
ere his time KaO(jjs had come into constant use, ami the
text used by him may well have been already corrupt.
Stein suggests a>s kuC, others KuOd or simply xaC.
4y6 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCXCVIII.
KoKKapov bid ToO h KOKKopHV Aerf TO rap bid toG o
djuaBec kqi fdp 'ApiarocpdvHC ev AaibdAco xpHiai bid
ToG H.
Athenaeus, 4. 169 C, quotes from the AatraA% the words
KuyeLv €KeWev KaKKd(3r]v, and Brunck would for that reason
substitute AairaXevcn for AatSaAw here. In the same chapter
he cites, without remark, one place of Antiphanes with
KaKKajSy-jv and another with KaKKafiov, the metre in neither
instance affording any help. In the absence of proof the
gender must rest on the authoritative dictum of Phrynichus.
Antiphanes certainly did not use both forms.
CCCXCIX.
KuvHrdc- toGto TOuvojLia ouTOo nooc juexaxeipi^ovTai, 01
juev jpariKoi noiHrai TpiQuAAdpooc Aefouai kqi boipi^ouci to
H eic a jLieraTieevTec, Kuvaroc, oi b' 'AeHvaloi reTpaouAAdpoic
re np09epouoi kqi to h cpuAdTTOuoiv, olov KuvHreTHc.
From a comparison of Kvvayos and Kvvrjyh-qs on the one
hand, and of x^payo^ and x^PVyos on the other, it will be
seen how the Athenians at first accepted, without modifi-
cation, Doric forms relating to the arts of which the Dorians
were the acknowledged masters, but subsequently brought
these forms into harmony with the laws of their own
language. Kvvayo'i is the acknowledged form in Tragedy
(Aesch. Ag. 695; Soph. El. 56^; Eur. Phoen. 1106, 1169,
I. T. 284, Hipp. 1397, Supp. 888 Kvvayia, Hipp. 109 ;
Soph. Aj 37 LA), but in ordinary Attic of the same
period Kwriyerr]^ was employed — a word which by the
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 497
mixing of old and new in the Tragic dialect occurs
frequently also in Euripides. But in Prose or Comedy
Kvvay6<s was impossible ; it had been altogether replaced
by Kwriydrris, as xopayos by xop-qyo's.
This article well illustrates the fact that Phrynichus
distinctly recognized that the diction of Tragedy, like that
of all poetry, was emphatically a survival.
cccc.
Kaxacpardc- ndeev, Mevavbpe, ouooupac tov togoutcov
ovomotcjov Gup9eT6v aloxuveic thv ndrpiov 9COVHV; tic rap
bH Twv npo oou T(p KaTa9ardc Kexpnrai; 6 juev rdp'ApioTO-
(pdvHC OUTCO cpHGlV
eoTi rdp Karoocpardc tic dAAoc h KAeoav/ujuoc ;
feXpHv ouv KpaTivw ncieojuevov (pardc emelv. Tccoc b' dv
emoic oTi 'HKoAou9Hoa MupTiAcp AepovTi — -
'Qc 6 /uev KAenTHc, b' dpnaE,
6 b' dvdnHpoc nopvopooKoc
KaTa9ardc'
dAA' ouK expHv Tdc dna£ eipHjuevac AeSeic dpnd^eiv
For this article, which is undoubtedly by Phrynichus,
Nuiiez is alone responsible. The anti-Atticist (p. 105. 20}
refers the defaulting term to the Ylo^koinx^voi of Mcnandcr,
and Pollux, in reprehending its use by Myrtilus, implies its
occurrence in Aeschylus (Poll. 6. 40), -naix-nov-qpos 6 -napa tw
MvpTiAw KaTa(\)ayas d Kal Aia7(vXo!,- (xpi'ia-aro. As for the
Aristophanic Karw^ayas- (Av. 2H8) it has nothing to do
with the question, the Scholiast rightly annotating ^aJ/x(JJ-
bdcrOai tov KAewrv/xov on Kdru) vevcjv iTpuiye. The vice of
Kuracfjayai is well explained by Lobeck : ' Quacrcnti igitur,
cur Phrynichus f/>ayay rcccperit, KaTa<f>ayai excluserit, sic
K k
498 THE NFAV PHRYNICHUS.
respond ebim us, haec verbalia, in quorum numero est (f)aya9,
propterea quod habitum quendam communem significant,
natura sua cum praepositionibus componi non posse, itaque
edacein quidem et voracem dici, sed neque comedaceni
neque devoracem. Verumtamen quia voracitatis notio in
composito KaTacf)aye'iv proprie insignita est, poetae illi, Kara-
(payas idcghitator) significantius fore rati quam simplex
(f)aya9, illam universalem rationem aut inscientes aut etiam
praesenti animo et meditate reliquerunt.'
CCCCI.
KoAoKuvSa' KjuopTHTQi H es)(dTH ouAAapH bid Tou ea
AerojuevH, beoy bid tou th, (x>c 'ASHvaloi.
CCCCIL
KaraipepHC' km tcov npoc dcppobioia dKoAdartov Aerousiv
oi noAAoi, oubaju6C)C ouxoa toov boKiju<jov xpoojuevcov.
Even in its natural signification of declivis the adjective
is hardly Attic, though it is Classical, being found in
Herodotus and Xenophon : Hdt. 3. ^'>f, eSr av h\ yevrjrai
KaTa(f)€py]'i 6 rjXiO'i : Xen. de Ven. 10. 9, cav jj-ev 17 to \(oplov
KaTa(f)€pes, . • . eav be a-nebov. In the secondary sense of
proclivis it is certainly late.
CCCCIII.
KaTaAofHv 01 GupcpoKec AefOUGi thv npdc xiv/a aiboo,
OUK 6p0ooc.
The rejected meaning is very rare, being cited only from
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 499
Polybius, 23. 12. 10, KOxaKoy^v iroidcrdai rrjv apixoCovcrav,
Kaddirep /cat 'Pco/xatot TTOtovvTai. rStv Tiapayiyvoy.ivoiV Ttpb^ avTovs
TTp^a-fB^VTcai'.
CCCCIV.
KoAAupioTHc ouK opBooc notAiv oubev Hjudc juoAuvoov ti
biGnau€Tai 6 Mevavbpoc tov aprupajuoipov KoAAupioThW Ae-
roov TO juev rap vdjuiojaa koAAu^oc boKijuov, to be koAAu-
piOTHc napaaeoHjuaajuevov.
Pollux (7. 170) cites KoAAu/3i(rT^j from Lysias : apyvpa-
[xoL^os, apyvpaixoL^iKT], apyvpoyi'(ap.oov, boKipi.a(TTrjs, KoA.A.u/3t(rr7j?,
&)? Aucrias ey to) Trepl roG x/^^''"0^ r/)t77o8os. koI 6 vvv KoKkv^os
akXayn. No Attic writer, however, can have used koKXv-
(3L(rTi]s as equivalent to apyvpaixoL^os, for koAAi»/3o?, though
Attic in the sense of * small coin,' was in that of ' exchange,'
as Pollux implies, unknown to Greek of a good age.
ccccv.
Td Tbia npuTTOj Ka^ tu I'bia npdTTti 01 noAAoi Aeroucsiv
eiKH, bfeOV TO ejUClUTOU npOTTOO Koi TO oauToC npcxTTCic
Aereiv wc 01 naAaioi h Tci I'bia e/LiauToO npcTTOj kqi to I'bia
oauTOu npciTTeic.
' Hoc sensu to. tbia ttp&ttuv vcteres nunquam, recentiores
raro dixisse invenio. Plurimum abcst Xhia irpda-aoiv y arparov
TaxOfU v-no; Eur. Iph. A. 1363, i.e. lUa, privatim, quo-
modo ctiam rci olKda rtpAaa-itv Thuc. i. 141, opponitur
rw TO. KOLvA. Vcrum auctor Ep. I. ad Thcss. 4. 11, ct Ilcsy-
chius s. v. IhioTrpayflv excmi)Uun vitiosi usus prodidcrunt.'
Lobcck.
K k i
500 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCCVI.
'AKpaTeteaeai- dboKijuco ovti oi' re noAAoi xpwvxai toutco tco
6v6juc(Ti, Kai Mevavbpoc. Acre ouv ouk erKpareueoeai.
Judging from the books which remain to us, aKpaTevoixat
and eyKparevoixai are equally late, both appearing for the
first time in Aristotle.
CCCCVII.
AixjuaA<J^TioeHvai- roOe' outooc dboKijuov cbc juH&e Mevav-
bpov auTcp xpHOCtoeai. biaAtoov ouv Aere aiXjud'^f^^TOv re-
vecjOai.
Thomas rightly characterises the whole verb as aboKiixov :
(p. 23) atxiJ'-o.)^o^Ti((a koL Trdt-res ol airb tovtov \p6voi aboKiixoi.
CCCCVIII.
'AvriKpu* TOUTO ToniKov KOI enieiKooc noiHTiKov dveu toC
c3 Aerojuevov. oBev 01 eni tou dvxiKpuc TiOevjec djuapjavou-
oiv. €1 juevTOi TIC npoGeiH thv npoGeGiv tco dvTiKpu kqi
eTnoi KajavTiKpi opGwc epel.
"AvtXkpvs, like eievs (see p. 222), may, even in Attic be
regarded as an eTripp-qp-a tottlkov in certain constructions, as
Thuc. 2. 4, ol6p.€voi TTvXas ras Ovpas tov otKTjfiaros dvai koX
6.1'TLKpvs (right through) biobov is to e^co. Ar. Lys. 1070 —
dAAa yj^pdv avTLKpvs (straight)
axnrep otKab^ ets kavrcav,
but no Attic writer ever employed avrXKpvs for KaravTiKpv
THE NEW PHRYNICHUS. 50 1
in the sense of ' right opposite,' or avTiKpv for avrXKpvs in the
sense of 'straight,' 'right through.' In Homer, however,
avTiKpv bears the meaning of the Attic avTLKpvs (II. 4. 481 ;
16. 285 ; Od. 10. 162, etc.) ; and Xenophon, in this case also,
sins against his native tongue, Cyr. 7. i. 30, 6 be 'A/3pa8d-
Tas avTLKpv hi avTOiv eh ti]v t&v AlyvrrTLOiv (pdkayya efx^dXkei.
As from ev9v and evOvs, so from dvTiKpv and avTtKpvs, is to be
learned the striking lesson that no refinement in form or
meaning was too subtle for the Athenian mind as long as
the masculine instincts of the language were not violated.
CCCCIX.
'Avunoberoc kpelc ev tco h- to rap ev to) e d)LiapTHjua. kqi
rdp unobHoaoGai Aererai kqi ol)( unobesaaGai.
'Idem decernitur ac non varie sed prope conjunctis
sententiis a Phrynicho App. p. 17. Gramm. Bekk. p. 412,
Moeride, p. 29 : Thoma, p. 76, et Suida, non addita ea
ratione, quae hoc loco, dubium an ab ipso Phrynicho,
subponitur. 'AwTro'Srjros apud Atticos persaepe legitur, dvv-
TToberoi numquam, quin genuina forma aut in Codd. appareat,
aut ex alio quodam recessu emergat.' Lobeck.
ccccx.
EupH/Lia xpH Aereiv bid toG h, oux eupejua.
Lobcck's notes will supply materials for the history of
this corruption, as also the converse one of evpi)(Tis and
8^0-19 for evpcorts and otViy, etc. The fact of both is now a
commonplace of grammarians, and no one would question
the late origin of forms like evp(p.a on the one hand, or
(vpr}(TL<i on the other (sec Art. 224}.
502 THE NEW PHRYNICHUS.
CCCCXI.
'ArrHpTio/ievov, dnHpTiKa, kqi to and toutoov anavra ooAoiKa.
dnoTereAeoTai be Kai drrOTeTeAeojuevov xpH Aereiv.
The rejected verb is Ionic and late : Hippocr.Epidem. 2.
p. 1 80 B, aTxapTiC(iv<Ty]<s r^s 6KTa\}.y]vov : de Morb. 4. 1 1 . p. 608 A,
air-qpTia-ixivqs ttjs Trepiobov: Polyb. ^l. 20. lO, raAAa Trpos tov
tt\ovv anapTidv, In Aesch. Sept. 374 —
(TTTOvhr] he Koi Tovh'' ovk arrapTLCei iroha
most editors doubt a-napriCei, As far as form goes there is
no reason why Aeschylus should not have employed it,
but it certainly does not bear its ordinary meaning.
TeAoc THc fJjpuvi'xou iKAorHC 'Attikwv pHjudrcov
KC(i dvojudrcov.
APPENDIX A.
Since the revival of learning there has been no lack of editions of
Phr>'nichus. The first issued from the press of Zacharias Callierges,
a Cretan who had settled in Rome. It bears date July i, 1517. 'H tov
^pvv'i)(Qv avTrj eKKoyfj iv Pa)fJ-Jl napa Za)(apla to) KaXXiepy^ crvv Geo) dyio)
fTvnu>6r) )(i\i0CTTa irevTaKoaioaTa if tilrjvbs 'lovXiou TrpoiTj], AeovTOS Se Ka
TOV fxeyicTTOv dp^Lfpeo)! 'V(j}pT]v ocriois Ke Kal evTv^^ocis ^viox^ovvTos. It haS
the title ^pwi^ov eKKoyfj 'AttikS>v prjfjLdTcav koI ofopdrav, and the articles
are arranged alphabetically {rjris irap r]p.u>v ivraiida, Kara aroix^'iov e'^e-
redrj). It is generally met with bound up with an edition of Thomas
Magister published four months previously (March 4, 15 17). A few
years later Callierges published the great dictionary of Phavorinus ^
which contained the Ecloga of Phrynichus, — Magnum et perutile
dictionarium, quod quidem Varinus Phavorinus, Nucerinus Episcopus,
ex multis variisque auctoribus in ordinem alphabeti collegit. Romae
per Zachariam Calliergi, 1523, fol. There followed an edition by
Franciscus Asulanus, forming part of a Lexicon containing Thomas
Magister, Moschopulus, and Ammonius, and published by Aldus at
Venice in 1524. Next came the edition of Vascosan, the great Paris
printer, — 0w/^u tov p-aylaTpov uvopdruu dTTtKo)u (uXoyai, <J?pvvlxov eWoyij
aTTiKuv prjpuTav Ka'i ovop,dTcov, MavovrjXos tou p.oa)(07rov\ov aTTiicS>v ovo/xa-.
T0V (Kkoyq drro Trjs T()(Vo\oyi(is t?]s tov ^tKoaTpdrov elKovuv kui ^ifiXiuiV
TOiV TrOir]TU)V —
ndvTa KciTii d\(f)dj3riroi'.
Td^is naXaia Kal dvofiaaiai tS>v up\6vTu>v (k tov AlKiavov.
'Opl3iKiov Tcbf n(p\ TO (TTpdrfvpa Td|eci)i/.
The date of this edition was Nov. 1532, — Lutetiae apud Michaelem
Vascosanum mense Novembri, MUXXXii.
None of those editions differed much from one another, but towards
the close of the century there was published in Spain an edition
' Phavorinus or Favorinus (Varinus or Guaiino), born at Favora, near
Camerino, in 1460, was a disciple of Lascaris and Politian, and himself the
preceptor of Leo X. He wa^ also director of the I-ibrary of the Medici at
Florence, and became bishop of Xocera.
504 APPENDIX A.
which seems to have been based upon a manuscript differing very
widely from those used by Callierges, Phavorinus, and Vascosan. The
editor was Pedro Juan Nunez, a prolific writer, and the author of an
interesting little Greek Grammar^, which differs marvellously little
from those now used in schools. He employed only one manuscript,
and professes to have followed it faithfully. In that manuscript the
Ecloga was divided into three books, the beginning of the second
book being headed tov avrov fTnrofxrj, and of the third ap)^r] rod rpirov,
but of these the third book contains only a few articles, and these
mostly repeated from the other two. The edition bears date Barcin-
one, A.D. iii. Kal. Ian. Anni Salutis MDLXXXVI., and is dedicated
to Andreas Schottus of Antwerp.
Subsequent editions were little more than reprints of this, with more
notes added ; one edition by Hoeschel appearing in the seventeenth
century, a second by Pauw in the eighteenth, and Lobeck's well-
known work in the nineteenth. The title-page of Hoeschel's edition
is as follows: 'Phrynichi Epitomae Dictionum Atticarum Libri iii,
sive Ecloga, a Petro lo. Nunnesio Valentino integritati restituta,
Latine conversa, ejusdemque et Davidis HoescheHi Aug. Notis, in
quis et aliorum auctorum loca partim emendantur, partim illustrantur,
aucta. Augustae Vindelicorum typis Michaelis Mangeri, cum S. Caes.
Majest. privilegio MDCi.' After the text, with a Latin rendering,
follow the Notes of Nunez, then the Notes of Hoeschel, then certain
Notes of Scaliger with a fresh title-page: 'Ad Phrynichum et ejus
interpretem viri illustris Notae, a Davide Hoeschelio Augustano
editae.' Appended is a letter of Scaliger ^
Pauw's edition is entitled ' Phrynichi Eclogae nominum et ver-
borum Atticorum, cum versione Latina Petri loannis Nunnesii et
ejusdem ac Davidis Hoeschelii Notis ut et Notis losephi Scaligeri in
Phrynichum et Nunnesii notas ; Curante loanne Cornelio de Pauw,
qui notas quoque suas addidit. Trajecti ad Rhenum apud loannem
Evelt. MDCCXXXIX,' while the title-page of Lobeck's edition runs on
the same lines, * Phrynichi Eclogae Nominum et Verborum Atticorum
^ Institutiones Grammaticae Linguae Graecae, auctore Petro Johanne Nun-
nesio Valentino. Barcinone, cum licentia ex typographia viduae Huberti
Gotardi, anno 1590.
o Of iva
Davidi Hoeschelio.
Notas tuas in Phrynichum (jam incipiebam legere, quum haec scriberem) valde
laudo: diligentiam admiror. Quid dicampraeterea? Multum disco. Doctissimus
et accuratissimus est Hispanus ille, qui illustravit. Sed ad quaedam libenter re-
sponderem, quod alius temporis et operae est. Nimis certo fidit Phrynicho,
quern anno praeterito infer legendum deprehendi in multis falli. Id quoque a
Thoma Magistro animadversum et laetatus sum, et admiratus. Sed de his.
alias.
APPENDIX A. 505
cum Notis P. I. Nunnesii, D. Hoeschelii, I. Scaligeri et Cornelii de
Pauw partim integris partim contractis edidit, explicuit Chr. August.
Lobeck. Accedunt Fragmentum Herodiani et notae praefationes
Nunnesii et Pauwii et Parerga de Vocabulorum terminatione et compo-
sitione, de aoristis verborum authj'potactorum, etc. Lipsiae MDCCCXX.'
The manuscript used by Nufiez contained many articles unquestion-
ably by Phrynichus which are wanting in the other editions and in
the manuscripts now known, but the absurd name given by it to the
Second Part of the Ecloga, and the existence of a Third Part of so
poor a quality, as well as the paltry character of not a few of the
articles which are found only in it, make it very probable that much
of its apparent completeness is really interpolation.
Before considering this question it will be well to give an account
of the manuscripts known to me.
Two of these are in the Mediceo-Laurentian Library at Florence,
and a beautiful transcript of the more important of them, with a full
collation of the other, was with great kindness procured for me by the
present sub-praefect of the Bibliotheca Laurentiana. The press-mark
of the one is Pluteus vi. 22, and in the following pages it will be
designated Laurentian A, or simply A, while the press-mark of the
other is Pluteus Ivii. 24, and it will be referred to as Laurentian B, or
simply as B ^
Laurentian A bears date 1491. The scribe's name is giv'cn, and he
wrote it at Venice. MfTfypi'Kprjarav Ka\ to. napuvTa Ttjs <i?pvvixov exXoy^s
8ia x^tpos ffiov 'iwdvvov Trpea^urepov 'Paxrov KprjTos to yevos, xiXioara re-
Tpaico(Tio<rTa fVtvrjKOCTTa npoirco 'lovviov TrpaTr/, Ovevfriais.
Laurentian B, though in many respects much inferior to A, still
contains in the second part of the Ecloga many articles which are
absent from all other authorities except the edition of Nufiez.
The third manuscript, referred to as P, is at Paris, and a collation
of it is printed in Bachmann's 'Anecdota Graeca ' (Leipsic, 1828).
It is headed, 'Ek toiu tov ^pwixov, and occupies twelve folios of a
codex thus described by Bachmann : ' Codex est bombycinus, forma
quadrata, totus ab eadem manu non ineleganter scriptus, haud raro
tamen praescrtim in locis ex aliis scriptoribus efferendis lacunosus.
Erat olim in Bibliotheca Petri Daniclis Iluctii, Kpiscopi, videtur esse
saec. XV. It is without very many of the articles usually attributed to
Phrynichus, but is of value as implying an original differing in many
respects from the other manuscripts and editions. It is only in P that
the true reading of Article 201 has been preserved, and it is no
mean praise to bestow upon any manuscript that it confirms a con-
jecture of a scholar like Scaliger.
' There is .ilso a third manuscript in the Laurentian Library, with press-
mark Pluteus Ivii. 34, which contains selections from the Kcloga. A transcript
of it is printed as Appendix B.
5o6 APPENDIX A.
On the other hand, A shows a general correspondence with the
eariier editions of Callierges, Phavorinus, and Vascosan, but many of
its readings prove conclusively that it was not used by any of them,
not even by Phavorinus, who was at one time the praefect of the
Library in which it now lies.
The text of B has many affinities to that given to the world by
Nunez, and both manuscripts may have sprung from the same
original. It has even a sort of Third Part, only of greater length than
that of Nunez. After the article on alxiJ-aXcoTcadiivat are found the
following sentences : eyp)]yopa xpr]> koI iyprjyopev. aXX' ovK. rjyprjyopei Kal
yprjyopo) : diaira fj x^P'^ diKaarrjpiov Kplais K-a\ SiairrjT^s' Koi biairio inl
TOvrov^ SUr] Se rj iv rw 8iKaarr)piM, koX diKacrrrjs' KaTa)(pr](XTiKS)S 8e Koi
X^P^^ ^iKaarripiov Tavra Xeyerai : Tropnrj tj irpomp^is' Xeyerai Kal rj nep'^is
napa QovKv8i8r]' ^vXoiv vavTrr]yt](TLp.<x>v nopuiiv: Karanpoi^fTai. dSiaiperais
ypd(peTat : dvTiKpv TontKov Koi ttoitjtikoW ypd(f)eTai be pera rrjs Trpodea-eas
KaravTiKpi) : wvnobvTOS nera rov i (sic) epels Kal vnobrjaaadai : evprjpa oix
evpepa : dnr^pTiapevov' dnrjpTiKa' Kal ra dno rovrcov anavra aoXoiKa' otto-
TeTeXearrai Se Kal anoTereXeapevov XPh Xeyeiv : K((j)aXaico8eaTaTov ov ypd-
<j)eTai. Moreover, in a later and less skilled hand are appended, —
dparoixe^v p.fj Xeye, dXXa Siaroixf^v. evvo'Tpov pi) Xeye dXXa ^pvarpov' on
Kal dpxaiou. KaraTrpoi^eTai ovk opBws Biaipovcri, 8eov KaTairpol^erai dbimpe-
Tws' ^evLTevcrai dboKipou.
As a matter of fact the text of Phrynichus has been terribly tam-
pered with, and although I believe most of the articles in the First
Part came from the hand of the Grammarian much in the shape in
which they appear in the present edition, it would be rash in the ex-
treme to make the same assertion with regard to the Second Part.
Nuiiez may be said hardly to have described the manuscript on which
he based his edition, but without that manuscript, corrupt as it cer-
tainly was, several of the most important articles would have been
lost to us. Until more manuscripts are unearthed an authoritative
text of Phrynichus is out of the question.
The reasons for regarding the manuscript of Nunez as interpolated
are as follows. It abounds in what are unquestionable marks of the
interpolator's hand, feeble and meaningless additions like doKipov yap
and dboKipov yap. To many of the articles are appended sentences
couched in unworthy Greek, and plainly at variance with the state-
ment which precedes them. The so-called * Third Part ' is an attempt,
and an unsuccessful attempt, to increase the work by another chapter,
and suggests only too readily a similar origin for many of the articles
in the Second Part, if not in the First.
Moreover, if the Ecloga as at present known to us contains much
that Phrynichus never wrote, it probably also is without a good deal
that came from his pen. Thus Stephen of Byzantium, who wrote an
' Ethnica,' probably about 500 A.D., mentions a dictum of Phrynichus
APPENDIX A.
o^/
which is now read neither in the Ecloga nor in the ' Sophisticus Ap-
paratus:' x] 8e debs 'Adqvaia Xeyfrai fiovoyevws. Xeyfrai Se Kai errt
yvvaiKos &)f (iXXoi fiev ttoXXoi. ^fXiy/xcoi/ Se ovrays iv Ylrepvy'ica —
vvv\ 5' orav y^djSrf tis els ti)v oiKiav
ray 'iTTTroviKas rdade Koi NavaidT paras
Ka\ NavaiviKas, ras 'Adrjvaias Xeyo).
A('5u/ioy Se <f>r}<Tiu on 'Adrjvaias Xeyova-tv avri rov 'Attkus, 6 8i ^pvvlxot
apdrriKoy (fjrjcriv ehat rrjv (jxovfju Ka\ Bavixd^ei nus 6 ^epeKpdrtjs aTTiKararos
i>v xp^Tfii. (Ed. Meineke, p. 33.)
Finally, it has become with me almost a conviction that the Ecloga
was originally written in two parts published at different times, and
that the Second Part was written by Phrynichus as supplementary
to the First — his earlier work. In this way may be explained such
articles as that numbered 203 in this edition. The Grammarian
seized the opportunity afforded him by his Supplement to modify or
confin-n statements made by him in the Ecloga itself. A striking
argument in favour of this view is supplied by the following fact.
Between the Epistle to Cornelianus and the first article the manu-
script used by Nunez contained the words o(ttis dpxaicos Kai boKifxcos
€6e\(i BiaXeyeadai, rdS' avra ^vXaxrea, and at the end of the First
Book ravra (j)v\aTT6p.ev6s tis ^fXriav (cot doKifxojTaros f'irj av. The latter
sentence also appears in the same place in A. There is no similar
colophon at the end of the Second Book, or in the case of Nunez at
the end of the Third, nothing but the conventional rekos tt\s ^pvvixpv
tKKoyris.
The following are the more important variations of reading in the
different manuscripts and editions. They will demonstrate how pre-
carious a thing a text of Phrynichus must be. The manuscripts are
designated by single letters, the editions by two : — Laurentian MS. r.
= A. Laurentian MS. 2. = B. Paris MS. = P. Callierges = Ca. Phavo-
rinus = Ph. Vascosan = Va. Nufiez = Nu.
Epistle, om. B. P. davp.di<x>\ 6avfid^u>v MSS. Edd. olds t(] olos
A. Ca. Va. an-oTrcn-rw/cdrfr] d-noiT\avt)6ivTts Ca. Va. Kararfyev-
yovres] KarnTrefjjfvyoTfs Nu. ra SoKi/xuraTa] ra 8oKifia>Tfpa A. Ca.
3. om. P. lKtT€i(i] iKtaela B. 4. X/y<] be A, Ca. Va. 5.
orav] om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 6. m<xP' S« ««' "XP' ^«>«J o""*- Ca. Va.
Xty*] om. A. 7. om. P. 'Anivai, npoa-iuai, e^ivai, Karivai] 'Ewt-
vai, Kariuai, TrpocnVnc, t'^ivai Ca. Va. dnieuai, e^itvai Xt-y«ti'] d-rruvai,
f'^ifi/cit, Karif'vai XiydV Ca. Va. add. Kn\ ra \nin(\ nixnluys Nu, H. B.
P. om. 9. liTjBapiSis] ixr]f)iipLi)v Nu. Ka\ Karenrvaa uvrnv] om. i\
add. \fyt B, Nu. 10. om. P. 12. c'ttJ mv ntWnvms] om. rov
Nu. ToO €'i>tiTrT]Knrns Ka\ roi"] mv (VtiTTutros mt B, Nn. tjko) upri]
iJK(o xnl ilpri B, Nu. 13. t'ni Ixf^vns] add. \,'y<T,n B, Nu. 11.
rn rnv /Jr)^firot] irdmii yap rn p^pnra A, vulg. ivHriKipn] finKipn B.
5o8 APPENDIX A.
add. aixvpofxai. to 8f ovofia dBoKi/iov B, Nu. Corripuit P. Sfivvav ovK
finois dWa 8ia firjfiaTos, dfjLvvniJLai, duvuaadai, dixwovfiai, 15. om. P.
Xpr) Xeyeii"] )(pf] yap Xeyfiv B, Nu. ere] (Toi A, B, vulg. dnaWdr-
Tcovrai] dnaWdxdavTai Ph. 16. om. P. 17. om. P. icjiXeyfxnvf^
AcpXey pauai A. Ka\ ravra 5ia roC »;] 8ia tov tj koI ravra Xtyerai B, Nu.
Knt raCra 8ia tov rj "KeyeTni Ca. 18. npodetrfiiav] A, B, Ca. Va. Ph.
irpndfapia Vulg. 19. Set yap] Se'oi' oj/ B. 20. aXAoKorws] A, B,
Ca. Ph. aXXoKorepas vulg. ^XPV^l XPV^ -B- 22. 8ia roC erepov X
Kc'iKicTTov] Sia ToC €Tepov fcTTi KUKKXTo B, Idcm litcrula X addita Nu.
Si' eVof X KaKiarov Va. ai/ei'XXeti/] Nu. dpsLWe'ip A, Va. dcetXeli' B.
23. epetre] e'peif B, vulg. 24. om. Ca. ^'XetTrrai] el'XetTTTai A.
ftXrjnTai Ph. xaTcopuKrai] Kai KaToypvKTai vulg. Tr]v (^a)Vrjv\ ttjv
npaiTrjv conj. Lobeck. dXr^XeLnrai] dXTjXnTTai B. 26. o/LtoetSeVii']
6/xoifi8ea-iv Va. 6fj.oioei8e(Tiv Nu. Articulum corripuit P. dTreXevao[xai
OVK einois dXX' aTreifxi. 27. eVe^f Xevo-o/iej/os 6 "^a^tDpij/oy (pr/cri, crv
Se eTre^iwf Kai eTre^ei/ii] P. fVe^eXeuo-ofiei/o? dSoKtfiOi'' tri' 8e ene^icov'
Koi yap ene^eipi XeyeTai dXX' ova fTre^eXevaofiai B. ovros] ovtos rjv Nu.
Va, ;(pi7 y(ip'\ xph p^^vYa.. 28. St' ivos i] om. A, Ca. dXKatiKoi/,
Tpo-)(aiiK6v\ A, B. dXjcatt/coi', (uy TpoxauKov Ca. aXKattKOj/, TpoxauKov
Kal dpxai^i-Kov Nu. 29. jUT^Sa/xco?] /xi) f'inT]s al. 30. ei Se ev tS v]
ei Se en tov v B. ev Se tw v A, Ca. 32. dnoTraXai Kai\ om. /fat B,
al. dvcTx^pa^vco] A, B, Ca. Bvaxepaive al. 33. e'w^ei'] om. Ca.
Va. 34. x"P''^ ■'■"^ "] o"^- ■^'^* 35. Kal tovto] om. Kal B, Nu.
TOV V, o'\|^toj] ToG V Xeyeiv o\|^ior &)s opdpios Nu. toi" j/ 6\|/'toy Xeyeti/ ojs
opdpios. 38. XeyovTe? a/^^aprdfouo'ti'] Xeyovcrii' apapTavovTes B, Nu.
39. TTOTanbs Se icxTiv el e\T:oi9 iTOTaTTos\ to TTOTanos 8e, ecTTi iroraTTOs
Nu. TO noTanos Se eiTTiv (I i'Lnois, iroTanos B. ^pui'ip^oj; eTTieiKiys]
^pvvLXOs] (f>p6vipos, €7n€LKr]i al. 40. Xu;(j'o{);)^oi' Xeye] om. Xe'yc B,
Nu. 43. e'pets to] e'pei? drjXvKcos to B, Nu. oli koto, to dppeviKOp]
om. B. 44. ;cpd/3i3aTO!r] addit B piaphv yap. 46. 0dpvy^] <^d-
pv^ B. 47. ai'atStXeo-^at] avdaSiCecrdai MSS. Edd. 48. om. P.
49. om. P. Tou (To<pi(TTov om. B. Tovvopa om. B. vlioi\ vleas
A, B, Ph. iv Toli e] e'v Toli irevTi Ca. Ph. tovto Se Ka\ ^iXo^evos
ad fin.] om. B. 50. om. P. TeuTd^etz/] o-TrovSd^eij/ B, sed in margine
TfUTa^eii'. deiv Xe'yetz/] Xeydv om. A. 51. 7rape'_;^ei] napexpi B. ei
Kal pdpTvpa napexoi ti? om. P. 52. om. P. 54, iia-7rX77y^] vaTrXt]^
B. XeyeTai ou;(] Xe'ye dXX' ov;^ A, Ca. 56. Xeyoucri] om. A, Ca.
Kopdaiov ov] Kopdaiop napdXoyov B, Nu. 58. om. P, bis scribit B
diversis autem locis, alio recte ut editur, alio cum spurio additamento
paXXov pev ovv "EXXrjves to Td)(top, Bolttov Se Attikoi. 59. SoKiy^iot]
SoKipdiTepoL A, Ca. 60. om. P. 61. davpaa-eiev av\ Phrynicho
reddidi. Qavpucrai S' au Nu. BavpacreTai S av B. davpdcrai civ A, Ca.
Ph. 64. X-e'yovo'ti' dpapTavoPTes] Xeyovres apapTavovcriv B, Nu.
Xeyovcriv A. t^j ev v6p<jci\ T^r evvopov Nu. Lo. 65. om P. tS)v
apxnlaiv (f>avepa)s'\ <f)avepS>s twv dp)(aia)v A, Ca, Ph. 66. Trap nvToif
APPENDIX A. 509
OVAC ecTTt] OVK ((TTl TTOp' OVTols B, Nu. 68. OHl. P. TT [J O ^ a(T K (1 U I O V
fifra TTJs npo] npoa-^aa-Kaviov fifra rfjs npos MSS. Edd. Hoeschelius
correxit. addit ddoKifiov yap B, Nu. 69. om. P. voidiov kuI /3oi-
biov] ^oibiov Ka\ ^otbiov Nu. vovbiov koi /SouStor] ^ovSiov koI ^oidiov
Nu. 70. om. P. 8iaipovvT€s Xeyovaiv] Om. B. 71. yovv] ovv
B. (Is Ti)v irdrpiov 8id\ficT0P, 68prj \eya>i'] om. Ca. 73. aKtcrTrjs
Xf y. ot TraX. ouk j/tt.] om. Va. eari peu ^nTjO-acrdai] Tjnrjcraa6ai eori
P-iv A, Va. Ph. vTro^Ty/caj] (T\)vdl]Kas Va. 76. Verba certo spuria
addunt B, Va. Nu. viz. haec, prjTvore he koI u>s o\ ttoXXoI \eyov<Tiv
XpcoPTai ol apx^aioi Koi errt rov Tqv yaarepa tv7TT(ip. 77. Sta tov p Xe'ye]
8ia TOV y Xeye A. 8ia tov y Ph. 78. P. om. (cai pfj^ dWa prj B.
Nu. 79. P. om. TO ypvXi^€Lvj to ypvXXl^eiv A. Kal daxi fJ-ovcos^
om. Ca. ypvXi^eiv kuI ypuXtcr/x6y] ypvWi^eiv Koi ypvWia-pos A.
84. I'lpepa, pi]] Tjpepa, dpyi) yvurj, pfj B, Nu. rjpepa Ka\ dpyos yvvf)
ad fin.] om. P. 85. dpapTdpovTfs] dpapTapovaip B, Edd. otoi/]
om. B, 86. Kai els ep] els Ip B, Va. Nu. 87. om. A, P, Ca ; in
B articulo praeeunti adjungitur napd 'Eni-x^PP'-^ i^^f- nisi yepea-dco pro
•yej/e'cr^ai. Ne in Nunnesii quidem exemplo yeprjdrjpai apparet, sed ab
Oudendorpio ad Thom. p. 189 conjectaneum addebatur. 88. om.
A, P. ov8ep aXX'] OVK aXXo B. 89. ciypiov] om. A. 6 na-(f>dp-
ayos] 6 dcTTrdpayos A. dcrndpayos B. avov\ avTo A, Nu. avTa B.
pdrraiCTi 8'] iv dnacrip A^ B, Nu. epT]j3a] livrjSa B. (pXupop] (jiXoop
A, Nu. (pXoiop B. dypolcri] dypiois A, B, Nu. KaTuXeyo pepu]
KaraXeXeyptpa B. to ep] om. A, B, Nu. to a. Ca. Va. t'ivdaL]
(iKavdai B, Nu. Articulus hunc in modum apud P legitur, oppepa al
Tcop Xaxdpo)P updai, Kai e^oppepl^eiv to f k j3Xa(rTdpei.p Kai e^uudelv. Xeye
ovp oppepa Ka\ pi] dcrnapdyovs. 91. Xeye] Xe'yerru Kai Nu. Xeyerai B.
93. om. P. 96. pTi8enoTe XP^'^u] fJ^rjuore eiirrjs A, Ca. Va. 97.
OVK dyr)6xaai] ov KUTaytjoxaa-i A, Ca. 98. om. P. eKtlvoi els]
(Ke'ipoi, (TV 8e els A, Ca. Va. (fivXaTTov] (pvXaTTOv XPW^"''- ^^ ^\X.
101. om. p. 104. TOV napTos] f'^ai(f}vi]s B, Nu. elnop] om. A,
Ca. Va. 106. In A solum est KXrjpovopelp Tov8e. Sic quoquc Ca.
et Va. qui tamen ov roSe adjungunt. 107. eiirep] om. A, Ca. Va.
109. TO 7r/;o(rSo»c] top npo(T8oK. B, Nu. top ejria-rjpov] to eni(Tr]pov Ca.
110. Tv^v"] sic B. ti6j]p a. titBijp Ca. Nu. Va. TijOns] sic A, B.
111. ov8e yap] oi/be A, Ca. Kai KaXXiop Ka\ Kpeliraop] om. A, Ca.
112. pop6(f)6aXpop] poPoppuTOP Nu. 113. nplavdni] npiapai A, B,
Ca. 114. om. P. wr pvp] wj ol pvp Cu. 116. om. I'. (iXXa
fi!]] Kai pq A. 120. om. P. 121. om. P. 122. om. P. tluev]
;(ci)//if Ca. Nu. Ph. 130. el Kal] ovx Pli. "vk f'pds] om. Ph.
132. dpia-T<iTi)\ (PivTUTo Nu. cujus excmplari literae initiulcs semper
defuisse vidcntur. 133. ef^r^THt] t'^iTqXop A. Ca. Va. X('y«t»']
Xiyfadiu A. CTTi 8vau)8los] oni. I>, .\u. e'n\ Ttjs 8v(T(t)8iiis Ca. Va.
Xeye] d xi»l Xtytip B, Nu. 131. addit B post OfpitrroKXtjn verba
haec, (Tvpulpeais yap (Twaipt'crtwp ovk HaTip. 136. 8ie<f)0npiis] (^tdopos
,5io APPENDIX A.
A, Ca. Xiyovaiv^ om. B, Nu. 138. om. P. apx«*"f] apptntov
Nu. 139. om. P. 140. om. P. ^i]'\ aWh. fifj A, Ca. Va. Ph.
142. eTt'<9eor«j'] eridovv Nu. f(p' ov] B. d0' od A, Ca. eV w Nu.
Kat /;ti7 ^u/xeX?;i/] firj Xe-ye 8e dvfxeXrjv B, Nu. 143. lySii/] lyS?;!/ Nu.
144. om. P. afiapTTjo-ei] afxaprrjcrfis MSS. Edd. Ka\ ra Ojuota] om.
A, Ca. Ph. 145. om. P. avTav\r]s] aWavXrjs A. 7rvdav\r]s B.
146. om. P. KaraTrpoi^erai] KaraiTpoi^eTai A, B, Ca. 147. rjpap-
Tov] ijpapre Nu. rjpapTai A, B. AoWiaj^os] XoXXia-fioi A, Ca. Va.
Ph. Hoc verbum et cetera om. B. Ex P desunt cuncta praeter ai
viifS epeif, ovx al vaiis. aoXoiKov yap. ras I'ijaj ovk ipfis, aXXa tcls vavs.
148. om. P. pa<l)aviha\ pa^iha Nu. 149. KXav'\ KXahav MSS. Edd.
150. ciXXa] om. B, Nu. 152. nadapa B. KpuTTovi Nu. xP'^ ^vv
Tw Kadapm. to yap rrjv] XP^ °^^ "^^ V^P '"'?'' A. XP"> o^" ''<? ti)" Ca.
Va. 153. dyyelov] dyyelov &s rives B, Nu. 155. om. P. Xeyeiv
om. A. 157. Kvvidiov Xeye] adjungit ov Kvvapiov B cetera omit-
tens. 158. Xe-yfii/] om, B, Nu. Xeyf post he adjecto. 159. in
angustum contraxit B. e'bedicrav ovk ehediea-av. 160. ovdels] ovdels
dnorpfTTOV B. ei Kal Xp XeyeiJ' om. B. ol yap .... oiSeiy]
ovSfis yap 01 dpxaioi B. In P desunt cuncta praeter ouSets BoKipov,
ovx'i- 8e ovdeis. 161. Xayvos] Xdyvos (pddi B, Nu. 162. dia tov o
6 la>i', Xayos] bia 8( rov o Xayoos o'loov B. 8ia 8e tov o Xayos 6"lcov
Nu. Addunt Nu. et B ro Xayaos ovk eaTiv. 163. et Kal 8ia ttjv
.... Tpuc/)?/] om. B, P. Tpil(^»;] Tpv(f)fi Nu. Tpv(j)dv Ca. Va. Tpv-
ffiflv A. 166. Si' atSco] pr] ai8Si A, Va. 169. rj pep] el pev Va. Ca.
170. COS 'ApL(TT0Cf)dvr]s KTe.] om. B. 171. ov prj] ov pi)v MSS. Edd.
opelrai] tovt opeiTai B. 172. peaohaKTvXa prj8apS)s e'lirois dXXa to.
pea-a tS)V SaKTvXoav P. 174. pdXrjs] A, P. pdXtjv B, Nu. 175. In
angustum contraxerunt B et P, viz. peyio-Tavas ov xpn ^eyeiv dXXa peya
8vvapevovs m. peyiaTaves dhoKipov' av 8e peya8vpapevovsXeye P. 176.
om. P. 177. TO ToiovTov om. B. 178. post pvKTjTas addunt ra
pavirdpia A, Ca. 179. Pessime A, Ca. evrpocfjos prj Xeye prjirore cas
'Adrjpaloi, pr]8e olKoyevrj, dXX' oLKOTpijBa prjirore Kre, 180. om. P.
182. dpxalos (paiprj] dpxalos ArriKos (^aiuoio A. vo<T(Tdpiov\ veocr-
aaKtov Ca. Va. ooraaKiov A. Brevissime B, veorrbs koI veomov 'Ar-
riKo\ ypd(f)ov(n. 183. XP^^°^^ Xeye om. Nu. 184. Kal eKrpcopa]
om. A. ravra (jievye] rovro (fievyov A. rovro (f)evKr6p Ca. d86Kipa
B. Kal (ipfiXapa om. A, Ca. dp^Xi(TKei\ dpfiXco(TKei A, Ca. 185.
bve'iv 8' ecrri. pev .... eTTiTapdrrerai] om. B. enl yap p. y. r.]
riderai 8e enl povqs yepiKijs B. 186. cl>s ripes rSiv ypappariKcap] om.
B. 187. TO yap peipa^ 'C'^-] o'O'' 7 yvpq orav ovp e'liraxriv 6 pelpa^
enl yvpaiKos Xeyovai ro 8e peipuKtov enl dpaeviKmv A. Brevissime Ca,
peipuKcs Kal peipa^ e'nl yvvaiKos Xeyovai, ro 8e peipaKiov enl dpaepiKap.
188. om. P. KaKMs] KaXS>s A, B, Nu. oi tSicorat] 6 tStcor^s B.
i8i<i)TTjs Nu. (TV 8e dpa^dXXopai (f>a6i] dvalBdXXopai (f>r]a-ip A, B, Nu.
189. oil KaXwr ad extr.] om. B. Breviter P, a-radepos inl rov dv6pa>-
APPENDIX A. 511
TTOu ovdanHs Xfyerai «\X efj.^pi$ris. 190. rurrfrai] TarTovaiv A, Ca.
d8r;^oi»^o-at] d^i^/ji^aat Nu. 191. Om. P. 193. "lav &v] 'Icoi'tiM'
MSS. 194. om. p. tovto Xeyovcrip e)(ovTes^ ;^pa)/iei'Ot £;^ou(rtj' B,
Nu. 198. apronoTTOs] apronoXrjs A. 199. om. P. 201. 0a\-
avTOkXenrris] P. ^aXavTioKXfnTrjs^ P. 202. ^acriXicraa ovSejs
ftTTfj/ dXXa 3a(riXiy 'EXX^i't/coi' ^ j3acriXeia ttoitjtikov P. 20.3. Brevissime
Bj ^aaiXicrcrav fir) Xe'ye dXXa ^aaiXeiav rj ^acrtXiSa. a7ro(pav6f\s] iiri-
^ai/fir Nu. an o pr] fxa<T iv\ aTTop.vT]piovfV}ia(n Csi. 204. ws 'A^jyi/atoy]
om. P. 205. om. P. 206. om. A, B, Ca. «XX' jj/ifly ov Kre.]
r]pa.S de ycXoTTOiov (^a^ifv ov Tols anci^ prfde'icn iTpo(T€)(OVTes aXXa ro'is ttoX-
XaKis KeKpififvoii P. 209. om. P. 212. op66repov\ opdmrfpoi A.
ytXdo-et] yeXdaeis MSS. Edd. 213. om, P. 214. om. P. Kt-
Xprjvrai] xP^f'Tdi- Nu. prjpari] vpdypaTi A, Ca. 215. om. A, P. Ca.
Ph. 21G. 0f paTralvTjs] depajraiviSos A. Adjungit B ois ciicoXovdtjTeov
post v(dvi8os. 219. a/xaprdi/et] oi^ afiaprdvei MSS. Edd. 221.
cm. A, Ca. Va. 223. om. P. ttoXXukis elpov Keifievov .... oi8a]
om. B. Aijpoa-devTjs p.iVToi KTf.] om. B. 225. om. P. 227.
ov boKipov^ fvdoKipov A, B, Ca. Va. 228. to p^ev .... tov cr.]
cm. A, Ca. Va. 230. om. P. as 6 Kpar'tvos om. B. -nav fj el
"deXds .... Tidei] om. B. rldei] Ti6ijs Nu. 232. om. B, P. f'x-
prjTO fv <Tvyypdppn(Ti (cre.] fxpijaaro eV eiriypappaci ntpl rrjs 8r)pii8ovs
(T(i)<ppo<Tvi>r]s C&. fTTtyparpopfViojfTricfifpopfvco A. 233. SruTTTTf i'l/oj/]
(TTVTTTeivov A, B, Ca. Ph. (TTvTTivov] aTLTTTivov A, B, Ca. Ph. Huic
articulo adjungit A rdhe cfjvXarTOfifvos ris ^fXrioiv Koi SoKipatTe pos (irj liv,
eadem Nu. nisi quod pro doKip-direpos legat 8oKtp<aTaTos. Sequitur
in Nu. TOV mirov fniToprj, in A roii avrov r/xiipa hivrfpov ov dp^r]. 235.
Brevissime B et P, evayy(Xl^op.ai ae pit] Xtye dXXii duTiKij B. (vay-
y(Xi(ofjiai alriaTiKfj (TVVTaacrovtnv, ol nXeiovs 8e Botiktj. ypd(f)eTai 8( Kat
fiiayyfXw, ov to btvTtpov iiinyyeXe'ii P. 23G. to. iTXridvvTi.Kn] ova dnh
Tovrav P. 237. aliter P, nvcadev at (piXos (Ipii, d\X' ovk uvfKadev fpf'is'
TO yap dvfKaOfv KuTfirtcrfi' f'ni Tonov Xnpiiuvuvaiv 'Adrji/a'toi, (i d( vni>
'WpoboTov (pr'icrd r(f koi tni xpdvov Xafil^uvfadai, uXr/Sri p.iv (f)fj(r(i. ov prjv
t6 vno HpodoTov ana^ fipfjtrdui to boKipov ttjs Kpifffois avT<o napfxfTat.
ov yiip 'icaviKfov .... 'Attlkujv] om. B, Nu. 2.38. om. P. K<t\
OavpdCoa .... ddoKipov tiv] om. B. 239. om. A, B, Ca. 210.
^XaKiKiiu] fiXuKiov MS.S. Edd. 241. toirrf TrdpTQ>s .... Tidtaai t6
tKiiv €ivni] om. B, adnotantur vero in margine alia manu. Arti-
culus hie in P sic legitur, to fKrhv eipai ol nnXauA «V» imayopei'irtcoi
Ti6i(i(Tiv, (K(uv tivai n^i noirjirrji t/ noi'jfru), Ktn {ki')pt€s opTts pq nitiija-ijTf fj
noitjrroptp' ofTin hi fTr\ K(iTn(J)d<T<cos TiOtiicrtp otoj; tKotp fip<n ('noltjad, <\p(ipTU-
povaiv. piyimii i\papTdpov(Tip\ ovroi fit puXifrrii (^pajyriiptwtTiP Nu.
ovToi &i fjLtyin-Tu dpapTUPovatv B. 242. aliter B et H, viz. upOpop koi
opOptvffrOiU ol ■mtXimA top npli rjXiov Knifn'ip t'p 6*5 Xvxpup th )f()7r</i* oi 8i
piip TO yXvKavyit o ku'i (O) (fxiiTi. 243. onTdpioi'\ nnTiiPttnp A, Ca. Ph.
uTiTdpiov avaTfXXf'ipfvop V>. Breviter P, lu'tytipnt doKtpop, fiaynpuop 81
512 APPENDIX A.
oiJ, (iXX oT^Taviov bia roi t. 244. ol yap dfieXfis .... 7rpo(TTidepai\
om. P. 245. Kal 6 n diciKpia-is] om. B. Nu. Aliter brevissime P,
avyKpiveiv rovde rwSe ov ;(p?j Xeyeii/ dXXa napa^aXXfiv Ka\ avTe^erd^eiv,
246. Kal eyo) p,ev (^vXaTTfirdai KTf.] Trapa fiev aXXcp twv doKifKov ovx fvpov'
rjyovfjLat, 8e Kal QovKvSiSrju iv rrj -q fiera tov apdpov elprjKivai Kar cKiivo tov
Kaipov, Kal iyo) pev (pvXuTTeadai napaiva ovto) ^prjadaL' tl 8' on Qovkv8l8t]s
e'iprjKe Bappolr] ris xpw^^'-> XPW^^ H-^" '^^^ ^^ ''^ apdpco B, Nu. Breviter
P, Kar eKflvo tov Kaipov QovKv8i8r]s iv rrj tj e'iprjKe pera tov apOpov dXX' ov
X<^pls apOpov, ovTcos ovv Kal avTos epe'is. 247. om. P. 248. TTodev
Kal TavTa .... (})povTL8os a^iov' dXXa\ om. B. idem P nisi quod
dXXa retineat, verbo aSd/ct/xa post fva-Ta6i)i positO. ip.^pi6eia\ iniei-
Kfia A, Ca, Ph. ip^piBeia, emeLKeia B. 249. om. B, P. Ca. Ph.
Brevissime et in margine A, ttuXlv pera tov p. 250. om. P. eVi
TToXii 8e . . . . dvayeypdyj/eTat] om. B. 251. breviter B P, yepvrj-
p.aTa eiTL Kapircov prj Xeye aXXa Kapnovs ^rjpovs rj vypovs B. yepprjpara eVl
KapjTcov Tives ddoKipais Ti6eaai' av 8e Kapnovs ^rjpovs Kal vypovs Xeye P.
254. om. p. xpr] ovv dnrjvTrjcre Xeyeiv Kal (TwrjUTrjcre^ (rvvrjVTTjcre
8e Kal dTTr]VTT](Te Xeye B. 255. adjungunt verba oti drTiKov Kal 86Kifiov
B, Nu. 256. av^fjaeis] inrepai^fjaeis B, Nu. (rr]paivop.e6a] arfpai-
vopev Nu. Brevissime P, 6vvxi-i(i-v Kal i^ovvxi-C^i^v TavTov. TideTui 8e
enl TOV aKpifioXoye'itrBai, to 8e anovvxiC^i'V to tos av^rjcreis toov oj/vp^wv
d(paipeiv. 257. Kal to. vcoTa SoKifias av XeyotTo] om. A, Ca. Kal
TO, va)Ta 86Kipov B. Breviter P, 6 vmtos dSoKt/xcos dpcreviKcbs, ov8eTepa>s 8e
TO vaTov Kal to vu>Ta. 258. Brevissime A, B, Ca. P. /Spe'x" enl
{dvTl Ca.) TOV veL ev Tivi KcopcpSia A, Ca. /3p€;^ei errl tov veL ov tq)v 8oKi-
puiv irdw B. ^pex^tv enl tov veiv Tives TiQeaaiv ev K<x>p(c8la, eaTi 8i
d86KLpov P. 259. om. P. 260. /luj Xeye] add. dXXd KaTd8e<Tpos
Nu. AHter P, e7ri8eap.os dpaeviKas p.fj Xeye dXXd KaTaSeapos, Kal e'rrt-
deapov ov8eTep<iis Kal eVi'Secr/xa oi dpxaioi, 261. Tide p.evov] TaTTO-
fxeuov P. 262. (j)Xe(os] (f)Xeos Nu. TrXeK6p.eva] A, P. Xeyopeva Nu.
yiv6p.eva Ca. Breviter B, cpXovs ov XeyeTai dXXu (pXea)S, Kal to. dno
TovTov (pXe'iva. 264. ap,a6e'is 8i oi XeyovTes arvv Kre.] Xeyov(Ti <tvv
TW I Kal (T 6)i TraXaiaTrjs Kal ddXrjTrjs B. dp,a6(s to Xeyeiv TraXaiaTrjs,
iraXuicrTr)s yap 6 ddXrjTrjS P. 265. enl 8e tov KTe.] eyyeiuv 8e enl tov
ev TTJ yfj api(TTOV, Kal Arjpoadevrjs eyyeiov tokov <f)rj(Tiv P. 267. om. A,
Ca. Ph. 268. om. A, P, Ca. Ph. Aliter P, ^/rua Kal ^6a, ol dnXS)s
dpapTdvovTes, ol 8e 8inX(os, y}/otd, av 8e ve(pp6p Xeye. 270. om. A.
vXiarrjp d86Kipov, av 8e TpvyoinovXeye P. 271. omit A, Ca. ndnvpos]
ndneipos Nu. ndnvpov ovk epels dXXd ^ijSXov, Alyvmiovydp to ndnvpov P.
272. om. P. 273. Brevius B et P, Nirpov aloXiKcos, ddrjvalos 8e 8id
TOV X. B. virpov aloXiKov, ol 8e 'A0r]va7oi Xnpov P. 274. dve-^ioi 6
e^d8eX(f)os, e^d8eX<pos 8e ov P. 275. om. P. 276. nav8oxe'iov ovk
epels dXXd 8id tov k, nav8oKe'iov Kal nav8oKevTpia Kal nav8oKevs P. 277.
TOV Kopiv Xeye KTe.] dp(f)6Tepov P. 278. om. A. poxXos ypd0e B.
279. ondeev 8e . . . . a'Sr?Xo^] om. A, B, Ca. Va. Ph. 281. om. A,
APPENDIX A. 513
B, P, Ca, &C. 282. rriieXo?, fxveXos, viKos' afiapTdvovaiv ol ^/) dia rov
f \(yovT€S, dWa Stu rov a. nveXos Stti rov f Koi fxixXos ptjreov A, om. B,
P. 283. om. A. ai xoXikc drjXvicSis ypd(f>e B. 284. om. A, B, P,
Ca. 285. dXX' dvr ktc.] dWa 8a\lnXS)s B. 287, om. p. Brevius
A, B. TTapaKaTadrjKtjv kiu p.r) irapadljKTiv \(y( A. napadfjKrju prj, irnpaKara-
$rjKT]i> 8i B. 290. Brevius P, dyayov ol naXaiol eVt roii fjyovpevov 686v
Tiva, ol de vvv tnl tccv o^fTOiv. 291. om. P. KpvirTfTat. Kai Kpimreadai
(fiddly fiff 8ia Tov ^. B. 292. Tidtaai] ridedai Koi eVl aTifiov Kovpas B.
dvdpuincov] o Set cfivXdrTeiu adj. B. Non male P, Kaprjvai Kai eKaprj eVt
uTipov Kovpds, fTTi Si ivTipov KovpaSy Keipacrdai. 293. om. A, P, Ca.
294. om. P. 295. om. P. dnoao^rjTiop] dno^XrjTeov Nu. x^^<'""'o»']
xBei^dv A, Ca. Va. Brevissime B, x^'^C^" tod/tikoj/' cru S« ;^^6tfoi/ ypdcpe.
296. om. B. 297. om. P. 298. om. P. 299. om. P. 300. om.
A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 301. om. Ca. Va. Ph. 302. om. B. 303.
om. P. 304. om. P. 305. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 30G. om.
A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 307. Brevissime B, P. rfdeXrjKevai ixfj ftnois,
T]deXr]Kivai 8e B. redeXTjKfvai AXe^avSpewTiKov, to 8e 'Attikov rjdiXtjKivai P.
308. om. p. fj 8e ^vXXa Kre.] SoKipov 8i fj \|/-i'XXa B. 309. om. P.
310. Brevius B, P, o^k enlroKos aXX eniTe^ yvvi] P. eiriroKos yvvi]
d86Kip.ov, (Trirei 8f (jiddi B. 311. om, P. 312. om. A, Ca. Va.
Ph. fv8vfjL€Via prj Xeye, CTKivx] 8( Kara t!]v oiKiav Ka\ i'ninXa B. 313.
cm. P. fpTTvpicrp-os pf] Xcye oXX' (pirprjapos B. 314. i]pip6x0i]pop]
r}ixiKr]p.tvov A, Ca. Va. Ph. 315. e/ieXXoi* 6e'ivai\ om. P. «t Tis
our<a o-vfTciTTti] om. P. 316. om. P. 317. om. A, Ca. Va.
Ph. 318. om. A, Ca. Ph. 319. Brevissime KarapCfiv ov
Kappveip A, Ca. Va. Kappvtiv faxdras dSoKipov, Karapvav yap li.
320. Ka\ &(6(f)pa(TTOU Kfxp'jpff- aiiTcp] om. B. 321. €1 Ka\ Kre.]
om. B. 322. om. A, P, Ca. 323. to 8( p.iap6s apxniou] piapos
8i B. 326. om. P. 327. dXXa Ka\ Avalav xre.] om. A, B, Ca. Va.
328. om. B, P. 329. om. P. 330. to 6e ivapa toCto kt(.] om. B.
331. om. A, P, Ca. Va. tI tiv olv ^ail] ktc.] om. B. 332. om. A, P,
Ca. Va. Ph. 333, 334. Nunncsii codex unicus hos articulos con-
servavit. 3:35. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 336. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. Bre-
vissime B, yoyyvapoi Ka\ •yoyyi'ffH', tovtu laKu, aii 8e TOpSpvapuv Kat
Tovdpv^o) X(y( fj vl) 8ia kt(. 338. ovro) . . , 8iu tov i.] om. B. 339.
om. p. 311. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. *tXi7r7ri6i;s Sf Ka\ KTt.] om. B.
342. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. Brevissime B, eVext^/^M"'" M ^^V* fvtx^P"^ S<*
343. om. A, Ca. Va. Pli. '.VW. ol yap 86k. kt(.] ;^/))j(rTij fie t6 ^dos
KOi oil tu rjdr] B. 345. addit P audacia inepla, kuI rqv pfydXr^v ntTpau
^vvtaios Ovptnv KnXd. Ovptov ovk (pfti, uXX' (JcrTri'Sd. 316. hunc arti-
culum Nunncsii codex unicus scrvavit. 347. om. A, B, Ca. Va. Ph.
oi'X olnv Kni pi) oioj/ KtfidqXou, olof, ovx oioi> dpyi(npni' ov di'jnov Toivvv iptls
Kn\ pq 8r]ni>v. 348. ui "AXt^ts] om. B. 349. 6v8qrroroiip] A,
ov8qnoT<nv P. ouTivnvf] olrivniv B. ovTivoaolv V. 35'J. om. P. Bre-
vissime P), nporrfliiiTDf vtKpi'it KIU TTpaypa, .'}.'»2. dvrl rov (rvp(f)«pii^
1,1
514 APPENDIX A.
J) avfji(f>opa A, Ca. Va. 353. om. P. 354. om. A, Ca. Brevissime B,
aaTTpav ol ttoXXoi dirt tov alaxpav, crv 8e eVt tov aearjTroTos. 355. om.
A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 356. om. A, P, Ca. aWa av Kadapos ad fin.]
av Se KoXov e^ei np6(T(OTTov epeh. 357. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. Brevis-
sime B, (TTpTjviav' dvrl tovtov Xf'yf rpv^av. 360. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph.
361. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. a-TrjBi^iov inoKopiaTiKms fJif] Ae'ye aXXa trr^^osB.
(TTr]6vviov opvidiov Xeyovai, cri) de crTTjdidLOV el vTroKopi(XTiKQ)S ISovXr] Xeyeiv,
fl B' ov, (TTT}dos p. 362. om. A, P, Ca. Va. Ph. vnepaocjios p-qreov ov
p.f]v 8i vnep8pipvs B. eavTcov] emendavit Scaligerus, eKovrav in Nu.
codice apparente. 363. Nunnesius solus servavit. 364. (ppove'iv
Se TO. ovra] aWa ra ovra (ppove'iv B. 365. om. A, Ca. Va. Ph. 366.
om. A, B, P, Ca. 368. e^f ' '<a'' a-cfyaXepcbs rdTTOvcriv om. B. t] 8e
TOV e(Txd-T(os Kre.] (TV 8e enl rov I'lKpov rlOeC eaxaTccs novrjpos, €Vxn''«i>s
(^tXoo-oc^or. 369. TToXvs, 6 8f ottikos] ttoXvs Xe6>s, aXX' ol oXiyot Kcil
'AttikoI Nu. ol noXXol, crv 8e B. 370. Brevissime B, xP^'^s nr-
TiKcbs 8ia TOV Qj peydXov Xeye. ere pais] devrepais Ca., om. Nu. 371.
om. P. ol be vvv . . . 6p6cos om. B. 372. Ka6a kui ArjpocrBevr]! ad extr.
cm. A, Ca. Va. Xeye ovv tI 8id(j)epei] om. Ph. 373. xp^] XP1~
(TT€ov A, Ca. Va. Brevissime B, rerevxe Tiprjs /xij Xeye, dXXd TeTvxrjK^'
374. (TTpo^iXri(Tai TO av(TTpe'^ai] (TvaTpo^r](Tai to av(TTpe\l/ai A. (rva-
Tpo^iXrjcraL to (TTpe\j/ai B, Nu. avcTTpo^rjtrai to (TVCrTpey\rai Ca. ourwf
. . . prjTeov] om. B. KapTTos] Kupnov MSS. edd. TTiVuff] niTvv MSS.
edd. eTL vvv /ere.] om. B. Kai yap SoXcoi/ Kre.] om. A. 375. aKt-
■y^eii] o\l/eis Ca. (TvyKaTaBa'iveiv els 8i8aaKaXias] om. P. 376.
Kara 8ia(p6opdv] om. B. 379. om. P. Xeye ovv /ere.] Xeyerat ovv Ka\
cVJ Tcov Tpioiv ovopdTuiv A, Ca. Va. 380. om. P. 381. om. P.
382. 8oKe'i 8e poi KT-e.] om. B. Breviter P, pvpT]v' ov t^v (TTevayivov
ajxadcis Kara MaKeBovas dXXa ttjv opprjv 'AttikSis. 386, 387. m unum
redegerunt A, Ca. 386. om. P. 387. tovto yap Ka\ laTpo\ Kre.]
om. A. Breviter P, e^nijxv Ka\ e^eVjjj" oOVw yap ol larpol Xe'yovaiv e^nXe-
Bpov Ka\ e^dnXeBpov. 388. yeve(T6ai] om. Nu. 391. om. omnes
codd. et edd. praeter Nunnesium. 392. Brevissime B, yvpos ol
ypdcpeTai. om. al. praeter Nu. 393. avaarjpov ov xp^ B. om. al. praeter
Nu. 395. Brevius B et P. kut ovap ov ypd(jieTaL, cos ov8e to Kud'
virap, dXX' rJToi ovap I8mv rj e^ uveipov o'^ecos B. ov xP^ '««t-' o^^P Xeyeiv,
Sya-nep ov8e Kad' vnap' dXX' t/toi ovap IBcav jj e'^ oveipov o-\}/e(os ovt(o Ka\
vrrap P. 396. napd . . . xpiyo-ti/] dboKipcas B. 397. aliter B, t6
Kadois ov ypd(f)eTai' dXXd to kuOo' kcli QovkvSlBtjs' Kado Set els 2t»c. ttX. (cat
TO Kadd BoKipov. 398. om. A. prj KaKKa^ov dXXci KaKKd^rjv 8id tov t) B.
399. Breviter omnes praeter Nu. Kvvrjybs ovt(os ol TpayiKol noirjToi 8(opi-
Koos TpitrvXAdjSojf' ol 8' ' AttikoI Kvvrjyerrjs Xeyovcri B. KvvrjyeTtjs ol 'Attikoi,
dXX' ov Kvv7]y6s, TpayiKov yap tovto P. KvvrjyeTrjs Xeye Terpaa-vXXd^cos
A, Ca. Va. Ph. 400. Nunnesius servavit. 401. om. A, B, Ca. Va.
402. TToXXoi] TraXaioi A, Ca. Va. Ph. Breviter B, npos d(ppo8i(Tia uko-
Xa(TTos, ol KaTa(fiep^s. 403. om. A, B, P, Ca. Va. Ph. 404. oIk
APPENDIX A. 515
op^cos eVi Tou dpyDpa/xot^ov Nu. StaTraverat] .at/aTraiierai Nu. 7ra-
pa(T€a-T]fxaa-fj.€vop] inepte Nu. aSd/ci/iioj'. Brevius B, koXXu/Siotij? ov
ypdcperai' koWv^os Se vopiarpa boKifiov. 405. ^ to tSia tfjinvrov Kxf.]
om. A, Ca. \'a. 406. om. Ca. Va. Aliter A, dXeyeiu as oi iroKaioi'
fyKpa-.evea-dai icai prj aKpiiTeveadai, Brevissime B, ovk eyKpaTfvtrai ,ypd-
0erai. 407. prjdi] ovbe Ca. koX pfj Nu. Huic articulo adjungit A,
TeXof TTJi ^pwi)(ov iKkoyrjs dTTiKa>p pr]paTa>v Kol ovopdroav, Sed Nunnesii
codex rekoi tov Sevrepov, dpxrj tov y., vide p. 504 supra. Articulos, quos
in tertio libro edidit Nu., illos adjeci qui non in alio loco jam nobis
obviam ierunt. 411. In Nu. codice accessit tipfivov yap' (ktos fl p.rj
TTodfV ToiiTO els ^a^wpivov rjXdev, odfu ovde\s oi8fP. dp)((iioi piv yap ovtus
oil Xeyovaw, (Keivos be. ttXw eiTj els' fjpels ovv ios 01 apxaloi, uWa pfj if
4>a/3&)p(i/of.
J 1 i
APPENDIX B.
Cod. Med. Laurent. Plut. Ivii. Cod. 34.
'Atto Tci}v Toil (^poivixov (sic).
'ETTtVoKoy T] yvvT]' ov doKifxais enrev avTifpavqs 6 KcofiiKos' 8fov eniTe^ rj
yvvr). — ifiTTvpiafibs ovras vrnpelb-qs rjpfXrjfifpas' teov ifXTTpr]crp.os 'Keyeiv. —
TjiJLiKaKov ovx^ ovTcoi' dK}C TjfjLip6)(^dqpup (padi. — KfCpaXoTOfxelv airoppmre rov-
vofia Kol OeocppacTTOp Kexp^t'^fvov avTa' Xeye be KapaTOfxe'iv. — XaKaivav fxev
yvvaiKa epe'is' XdnaiPav 8e rr^v x.<^pav ovSa/x&ir' dWa XaKooviKtjv' el Kai evpi-
TTiorjs napaXoycDS (prjaLV. — pinpia ov Soki/iov' to de piapos, dpxaiov. — ipyo-
ooTTjs ov Ke'iTai' to 8e epyobore'tp irapd Tivi tu)V ueoiTepcov Kcofico85)v' ois ov
TTicTTeov (sic). — ivTe\va)s Tzdw aiTiavTai Tovvop.a' kol (paal Te^viKcos Sft
Xeyeiv' dWa Kai Xvaiav elprjKora euTex^ccs irapaiTovvTai. — yaficoTj fif] Xeye'
uXXa yapoirj dia Tijs oi' a>i voolr] (piXoir]' to (sic) yap Trjs TrpaTTjs crv^vyias
Koi TpiTrjs Tcov TvepianapevoiV prjpdTcov evKTiKo. 8ia rrjs oi Biipdoyyov XeyeTai'
olov TeXpir]. ra 8e ttJs Sevrepai 8ta Trjs <o' oiov viKarjv' yeXa>t]P' yeXairjs'
yeXarj. SiSco?;?' fiiSoHjy StSwij tovto to evKTiKov, ovhe\s tS)V drTiKcip 8ia Trjs
a elnep' dXXa 8ia Trjs 01 8i(})66yyov' TeKp.r)pio'i 8e op.rjpos' eap p,ev yap vwo-
TUKTiKais xpiJTai, 8ia tov o3 Xeyei' el 8e Kev avT(3 8a)ij kv8os dpecrOai' eori yap
VTTOzaKTLKov' ei 8 evKTiKcos ovTMs' (To\ 8e 6eo\ Toaa tolep, ocra (}>pecr\ afjaip'
edavpaaap yovp dXe^dv8pov tov avpov (To(f)iaToii 8aT] Kai 8i8corj XeyoPTOS. —
dvai(T6r]Tevop.aC to fiep dpalcrdrjTOS opopa, 8oKipd)TaTOP' to 8e prjfia, ovKeTi'
Xeye ovv ovk alaQdvopai. — avdeKaaTOTrjs, dXXoKOTop' to pep yap avdeKaa-TOs
KaXXicTTOV opopa' to 8e napa tovto Trenoirjpepov r] avdeKaaTOTrjs ki^8t]Xov. —
TOP nal8a top dKoXovdovvTa p.eT avTov Xvaias eV tS Kara avTOKpoTrjp ovro)
TT] (rvPTa^ei ;(p^rai' exprjv 8e ovTtos emelp' top aKoXovOovPTa avTOi' ti yovp
ap Tis (f}air]. dpapTe'ip top Xvalav, rj voOeveip KaiprjP crxripnTos XPW'-"' oXX'
fVfi ^epr] ndvTrj r) crvpdeais TrapaiTqrai. prjTeop 8' oKoXovde'ip avT(S. — jSiccTi-
Kop arj8r]S rj Xe£if* Xeye 8e ^^pi^trt/xov ep t(o /3i'co. — yoyytapos Kai yoyyl^eip,
TavTa boKifia fxev ovk eaTiv' laKa Se' ijpe'is 8e TovGpvapop Ka\ Tovdpv^m
Xeyopev' rj avu tw o TOpBopv^U) Ka\ TopOnpvapop. — hvPfj' eav pePTOi to vtto-
TaKTiKov fi idp 8vP(j)pai edp 8vpr], opdais XeyeTai. eap 8e opKTTiKoiS TiBfj tis
8vpr) TOVTO npd^ai, ovx vyiajf a'f, Tideirj xph J^P Xeyeip ov 8vpa(Tai tovto
APPENDIX B. 517
Trpd^ai. — copKiae' Koi opKaTrjs iyit' ovra Kpar'tvos (prjcri' fiaXKov Se 8ia tov
Q) Xeye' ^ 8ta tov l wpKiaev. — e'Seero' enT^eero' laKct Tavra' r] Se uttkc?)
crvvriSfia avvaipel' tirXeiTO e'Seiro. — e^aWa^ai to Tpi-^ai koi napayayeiu' els
5' €i(f>po(rvi>riv, )(pf] (fivXaTTeadai oCrco Xeyeii'. — dvpeos tovto ofxrjpos eVl
\i6ov Tidijariv' dvTi dvpas Trjv •)(^piiav napexpin'os' ini t^? acrirlbos be oi
TToXAot Tideaa-iv ovtivos tu>v np\al<x)V kol SoKipcov ^PW^l'-^''^''' XPl "^^
d(nri8a Xeyeiv. — ovStjttotovp p.f) Xeye' tiXXa doKificos ovtivovv. — TTToypa eVt
veKpov TiBeaaiv 01 vvv' 01 Se dp)(al.oi, ov\ ovrcos' aXXa nToSp-a veKpoov rj
o'kcijv. — TTepiaTaats dvTi tov (Tvp.(f)Opd' 01 (rrcotKoi ^paiVTcu 0tXocro0oi* oi Se
dpxaloi TreplcTTacnv Xeyovai Trjv 8id Tiva Tdpaxpv irapovaiav nXrjdovs' fiddois
6' "w, TT]XeKXei8ov XeyovTOS u)8e tis (sic) rj8e (sic) Kpavyrf Ka\ dco/^OLif Tvep'i-
crraais. — irapep-^oXr] 8eivS>s (JLatcedouiKov' KaiToi evijv r<a <TTpaToni8(o xprjcrdat
nXeicTTOi re Koi 8oKifia> ovTi. — (TiTOfieTpe'iadai prj Xeye' SiaXvau 8e epe'is (t'itou
fierpe'icrdai. — (ppovipeveaBai p.i) Xeye' (fipovelu 8e rot opto. — ;(p»j(rt/ifCi(rat pf/
Xeye' dXXa xPW'-f^'^^ yevecrdai. — eaxaTcos ex'^iv en\ tov p,ox6r]pa9 eX"" ^ai
cr(})aXepti>s TaTTOvcriv 01 arvp(f)aKes' rj 8e tov ecrxdTcos xpriais, oiada oti eni
tov aKpov napa tois dp^aiois vofit^eTai' eo-;^ara)? novrjpais (sic) cpiXoaocfios'
biaypmrTeov ovv Ka\ tovto, — ;(peoXi;rr)(rai Xe'yet 6 noXvs Xeais' aXX ol oXiyoi
Koi dTTiKol, Til XP^'^ 8iaXv(Taa6ai.. — (piXoXdyos 6 (f)iXa)P Xuyovs' Ka\ ctttouSu-
^cov TTfpl nai8eiav' 01 8e vvv, enl tov epnvpov Tideacri Toiivofia, ovk 6p6S>s'
TO pevToi ecbiXoXoyrjaa koi (f)iXoXoya) koi navTa pijpaTa nai ra p.eTOxixd,
eiboKipa. — riVt 8ia(pepei ro'Se kch roSe, ov XP^ ovTa Xeyeiv kcitu 8otiki)u
TTTOcnTiV dXXa tI 8ia(jiepei,' Kadii kol 8r]fjLO(T6epr]s (f)r]a-i' rt 60CX01/ f) eXevdepov
fivai 8ia(pepei' Xeye yovv tl 8ia(})epei. — TeTevxe Tip.rjS' reTevxe tov (TKoitou
firj Xeyr]s' noiTjTiKov ydp' dXX' dvT avTov t«5 8oKip.(o xp^ TeTvx^<ev. — aTpo-
^iXov 01 fjLev noXXoi, to e8cj8ipov Xeyovcri koi avTo to 8ev8pov. oi 8e dpxn'i-oi,
TTjV (Biainv tov dvefxov elXrjcriv Kui (TV(TTpo({)rjv, a-Tp6j3iXop (f)a(ri' Kai avcTTpo-
^iXtjcui to (TV(rTpt\lnu' ovTOiS ovv Kai rjfuu prjTeuv' to 8e e8u)8ipov, niTvav
Kapnuv Kai to 8ev8pov, ttItvv. — avyKaTa^aiveiv els tus a-Ke\j/eis' (TvyKara-
fialveiv els 8i8iicrKaXiav p.f) elnrjs' dXXa avyKaBievui' Kai (TvyKa6rjKev els to
nat^etp' fj uXXo Ti. — (Tva-xoXaaTus fffp^drtof dpuTTiKOP' av 8e avp.(f)oiTr]Tiis
Xeye. — paoTepov pi]' paov 8t' crvyKpiTiKw yup avyKpiTiKov ovk uttiu. oiop el
Tis Xe-yei KpeiaauTepov. — pvpLi)P Kai tovto oi pev dQrjvaloi, eni Tt]S oppijs cri-
6eanv' oi 8e vvv dp.a6b)S e'ni tov aTevanov' 8oKel 8f pot Kai tovto paKf-
hoviKov elvai. dXXu (TTevu)nov KoXelv xph' P^M ^* ^'7" <'>ppr)v- — TrevTdprjvoV
nevTdnrjxV peTudes to u els e" nevTeprjvov' Xfyaif ku\ nevTemixv. — nepie-
(Tndddrjv Xeyovai Tives eni tov ev daxoXia yeveadui' TidtvTes ndvv Kiji8rjXois'
TO yap nepifTTTiiv Kai ire pifTiraaOai, eni tov napaipe'iv Kai nnpaipe'iirdai Tar-
Tovaiv ol dpxaloi' 8eov ovv fio";(oXoy ^v Xtye 11/. — nopvoKOTTOs. ovto) p(vi:v8pos'
oi dpxa'ioi ddijvmni, TTopi/drpix//' XtyoutriJ'. — olKo8opT], ov XeyeTai' dvT avrov
8(, olKohnpi^pn XiytTcu.— kut ovap nv XeytTUi' d8oKipo}TaT<>v ydp' uxrntp
yap Ka6' vwap nv Xey<T<u' dXX' itrup, nvTois ovhe kut ovap' nXX tJTni ovap
l8u)V, T] e^ dveipov oA/^tojr. — Kvvriyos' tovto Tovvopa, ovto) rrwf fiiTax*ipi-
(rivrai oi pev TpiiyiKoi TTotrjTfii, TpiavXXdfiois, Kai 8u>pi^ov(n to ij fls ii /xcth-
TiOivTfs' Kvvayi'is' in b' dOqi'a'toi, reTpaavXXdjiuts, Kvvr}y(Ti]S XeyoPTes.-—'
5i8 APPENDIX B.
KoXoKvudn, rjudpTtjrai fj ecrxdrr] (rvWa^fj 8ia rrjs 6a Xfyofievrj' beov 8ia rrjs
Trj' KoikoKvPTr], as udrjvaioi. — KaraKpfprjS eVi raiv irpos a(f)po8iaia oko-
XacTTMV XfyovcTiv ol TToXXot* ovdapas ovtco tS)V boKipciov )(p(x)fieva)V. — ra
i8ta TTpaTTO)' Koi ra 'iBia nparre (sic) Tieyovaiv ot ttoXXoI flxfj' 8eov ra
epiavTOv TTpaTTbi' Koi TCI cruvTov Trpdrre Xeyeiv' as ol Trakaioi. — \8iov
epavTov, iBiov (ravToii' i8iov iavTOv. — eyKpareveadai pfj Xeye' dXXo \eye
ovK eyKparfverni' ovrco koX dprjvalos' os Koi to iyKpaTfv((r0ai eV;^aTa)ff
^ap^apov KaXet. — al^^poKaTicrdrivai avvdeToas ov XeyeTai.' 8iaXe\vpev(t)s 8e
Xeye, alxpdXwTou yevfordai. — dvv7r68T]Tos ('ptls 8ia tov fj' to yap iv tc5 i
ipdpTrjpa' Kal yap vno8T]iTa(T0ai Xeycrat" ou;^ V7ro8e(Ta(T6ai. — evprjpa xprj
\€yfiv 8ia TOV r], ov^ evpepa, — dnripTrjpevov UTTrjpTrjKa' Kn\ to. ano tovtcov
anavra aoXoiKa' dnoTeT(Xf(r6ai 8e Ka\ dnoTeTtXeapfvov xph Xiytiv, apeivov
yap.
liNDEX I.
The words printed in black tjrpe occur in the Ecloga itself; the others are
found in the Introductions and Commentary.
d-yayov, an un-Attic imperative, 457.
d-yaOos, comparative and superlative
of, 176.
07709, 23.
d7fii', aorists of, 217, 218.
dyTjoxa, un-Attic, 202.
d7\a£a, 165.
or^vvvai. for Karafvvvai, 6.
a-^opa^dv, 214.
ayopaaOai, 14.
dyopfviiv and compounds, 326 ff.
dypeveiv, 165.
d7xi(TTa, 21.
dy)(^tr(pnQiv, 165.
d7xoD, 21.
aYco-yos, 368.
dyajvt((adai, 193.
d5a77s, 165.
^Sfii/, future of, 377.
dtidfiv, Tragic for aSfii', 5.
dt'ipdv, Tragic for atpdv, 5.
dfATTTor, 26.
'AOdca, Tragic for 'A.6r]va, 112.
'A9r}va, forms of the name, 112.
' Mrjvaa, 1 12.
'AO-qvaia, forms of the name, 112.
dOpoi^dv, orthography of, 160.
aiyvirii'ji, i(j.
aid, old Attic and Tragic for dd, 112.
aieroi, old Attic and Tragic for dtro?,
112.
aiOaXos, gender of, 197.
aiOoif/, meaning of, 197, 198.
alOplOKOlTflV, 6cj.
■aivdv, verbs in, have no perfect active,
9'') ; aorists of, 76 ff.
alvfiv, for inaivui'i 5.
aluof, 26.
•o'tpdv, verl;s in, aorists of, 76 ff.
dirjrjttv. Tragic for qtridv, 5.
aiVxi'''7, 74-
niTtriaOrii, 19',.
oixpLaXa)Ti{«(T9ai, 500.
afXA«iA<UToy, 13.
alxi^n, use of in Ionic and Tragedy, 13.
dK€i<rOai., 175, 176.
dK€crTT|s, 175, 176.
aKis, old word, 25.
dK|Aifiv=«T(, un-Attic, 203.
dKoXacrralvdv, aorist of, 78.
aKoXouBeiv, construction of, 458.
dKovdv, perfect of, 96.
dKpoi<|)VT|s, of water, 113.
dKpaT€vi€a0ai, meaning of, 500.
aKparos, comparative of, 224.
dKTT], old Ionic word, 1 1 .
dXaivdv, 78.
dKywdi', old and poetical word, 42.
dXyvveaOai, in Xenophon, 165.
dXeiv, 240; perfects of, 96, 98.
d\dtpdv, perfects of, 95, 96.
dXiKdv, in Xenophon, 165.
dXtKTpviujv, 307.
dXsKTOplS, 307.
dXtKTUp, 307.
d\(^r]Tr)p, in Xenophon, 165.
dxi^dv, in Xenophon, 165.
dXT)6€iv, un-Attic, 90, 240.
d\ri\(ica, oK-qKifxai, 96, 98.
dXi^dv, in Xenophon, 165.
'AXKaiKos, or 'Wkqikus ? ill.
dkK-q, history of, 25, note 2.
d\Ki/xoi, in Xenophon, 165 ; un-Attic,
. ^°-
(iKKi'iOpnoi. 16, note.
dXfxdScs cXdai, 199.
dKvtiv, 40.
dXijiavdv — (vpifTKdv, 254 .
dfxa^fvfitvoi, 14.
dfxavpiivi', in Xenophon, 165.
up.pXlcrKeiv, 288.
ufxpXu>0piSiov, 288.
ufxtllittv, liistory of, 187, note.
dud^KjOai, 187.
dp.civ6T(pov, 209.
(i^f HitTti<i, 20.
AfitWdaOni, 191-193-
Afiov, 271, 272.
d^ir«(X<J/"7*'. 83-86,
zo
INDEX I.
d/i7r«rx<!^'?'', 83-86.
d^Trt'xecr^ai, augmenting of, 83-86.
dp.vva, iin-Attic, 74.
a^xvyioOai, 74.
dfKpiyvoHv, augment of, 83, 84.
d/^</)i5c£ios, 14.
dfi(pino\os, old Ionic word, 22.
d,ix<pia^r]T(iv, augment of, 83, 84.
a/JiQjfio^, 20.
-dv, verbs in, 153 ff.
dvayapyapl^du, 396.
dvaynpfiKtv, 328.
dva9ia6at, 292.
dvai8«VP€<T6ai, 140.
dvai5i5eo"0ai, 140.
dvaicr9T)T«v6a-9ai, 457-
dvaKaeiv, 7.
dvaKeiov, 358.
dvaK€icr0ai, 294.
dvafcXdeiy, 7.
dvdKXivTpov, 207.
dvaK0jx^^^"C^'^^ 396-
dvaXioKdv, augment of, 82.
dvaXKis, 25, note 2 ; 166.
dvairiTTTeiv, 293.
dvaTtXXetv, 204.
dvaTiOevai, 292.
dvaTOi,x«iv, 249.
dvaxniTii^fiv, 180.
avbdveiv, 29.
dySpaYaOfina, 319.
dveiXXeiv, 89, 90.
dv€i\€iv, late form, 89.
dv(i-s(op-'t]v, 83 ff.
dv€Ka06v, 21, 338.
dviaxo^^rjv, 83-86.
dfexfc^ai, augment of, 83-86.
dv£i{;i6s, 361.
dvkwya, active in meaning, 246.
dvicvai, signification of, 79.
dvifxdv, 166.
dvLTrnos, 26.
dviffraao, dviffTco, 463.
dvoTjTOJS, 221.
dvotyvvvai, augment of, 83.
uvrav, 6.
dvTeo-Oai, 349.
dvTia^dv, 21.
dvTvpdXXeiv, 295.
dvTi^o\(Tv, augment of, 83, 84.
dvTL^iKeTv, augment of, 83, 84.
dvTLKpv, dvTiKpv^, distinguished, 500.
dwriXo^ia, 326 ff.
dvTiovaOai, 5.
dvTipp-qo-is, 326 ff.
dvvTToSeTOS, 501.
dvayivai, 29.
dviiyfcxiv, 358.
dv(i)Oev, 338.
djai. 348, 217, 2 1 8.
d-nani'i^idOai, 1 66.
dnavaiveoOai, aorist of, 78.
dtravrdv, 21.
dTrdpreaOat, 349.
dirapdpaTOS, 367.
dirapTi, "jl.
dnapTi^eiv, £02.
' AnaTovpta, 19.
d-niK, 1 20.
dltiKllOiV, 120.
direpvutiv, 166.
d-no, in composition, 75-
d-rroSeKT-qp, in Xenophon, 165.
diroSiSpdaKeiv, 218, 335.
dTTo^pdvat, 335.
aTTO^areri', 38.
diTOLva, 26.
dnoKOTrr], 158.
diroKpiGt^vai, i86.
diTOKpivfaOai, 186.
dn'oAa7X"''f'> 7-
aTToAaveii', future of, 409.
diroicpiO-qaonaL, 188.
dTroAoYeftr^at, 191.
diroviTTTpov, 2 So.
diTovocTiptv, 120.
dTToTraXaj, II7.
dTTOTTe(pajKa, 97.
dvopuadai, I91.
diroaKvOL^Hi', 180.
diroTaaaiaOai, 75.
aTroTifios, 14.
dvcoOfy, not dnoOev, 60.
dpaios, in Xenophon, 166.
dpaaaeiv, 6.
dpYos, inflexion of, 185.
d'pSis, 25.
"Apeios ndyos, 12 note.
dpiOKUv, 29.
dpTjyfiv, 166.
dpGpLios, 14.
dpicTTeus, 30.
dpfxa^iiv, 14.
apixoar-qp, 58, 59.
dpvtiaOaL, 190, 192.
d/)ovf, perfects of, 96, 100.
dpovpa, old Ionic and poetical word,
14;
dpn-dfeiv, future of, 407.
dpTi, limits of its use, 70.
dpTiwi, coined by Sophocles, 7i«
dpTOKOTTOS, 303.
dpTOiroios, 303.
dpTOTTOTTOS, 303.
dpveii', perfect passive of, 100.
dpxa'iKos, or dpxaiiKos ? ill.
dpXTlOev, 2T, 176.
-as, substantives in, used in Ionic as
adjectives, 21.
daPoXos, 197.
INDEX I.
521
axriK'^aiviiv, aorist of, 78.
■acr'ia, substantives in, 198.
-affiov, diminutives in, 148.
dcnraipdv, 30.
dcTTrapaYOs, 196.
aOTpaipiaTTip, 58.
aoTvcpeXiKTOi, 166.
dcr4)dpaYOS, 196.
aTTjfitKTjTos, in Xenophon, 166.
drpiKTis, 26.
aTpvTOS, 14.
QTTaYds, 199.
av-, verbs beginning in, augment of,
245.
avSav. 29.
aviQaSifecrOai, 1 40.
av)9fKa<TTOs, auGeKaaTO-rqs, 45S.
au9tVTT|S, 201.
avrTav\T]S, 253.
avTOfioKfiv, 42.
aiiTO/xoXos, 42.
aviT6Tpo4>os, 285.
d4>fi.XdnT)v, 215,
djpriXt^, 157.
dfpOoyyos. 26.
dtpUvai, augment of, 81.
d<|)i€povv, 279.
°;^°9V-^, 304-
d(|ip6viTpov, 361.
d({)virvi$€iv, 305.
d\0(ivu%, 166.
dx9iaoixai, 195.
dxos, 166.
dxpi, 64.
•aw, verbs in, denoting bodily, &c.
states, 152 ff.
•otti, verbs in, perfects passive of, loi.
B.
^a^'i^dv, future of, 382.
PaGjios, 372-
PdKT)Xos, 339.
PaXavTiOKX(-n-nr)S, 305.
paXavTOKXtiTTTjs, 305.
PaXpiSes, meaning of the term, 146,
147.
Pdp5i<TTOS, 150.
PacTiXcia, 300.
PaCTiXis, 30^).
PaaiXiaao, 306.
^aijKaivdv, aorist of, 78.
pacTKdviov, 159.
Patrp.6s, 372.
pfXovTj, I 74.
^tXovonwKrji, 174, 175.
P^rrnt, in Xcno))hon, 30; rc|)laced in
Attic liy Iii0daai, id.
Pidfto-Gai, 144.
Pi.pXia-ypd(t>o«, 158.
Pi.pXoYpd4>os, 158.
pipXos, 360.
litoTq, 166.
Ptwcriixoi, 20.
j3(cuTi«oy, 459.
/StojTos, 20.
pXaKiKOS, 340.
PXi^ 3.^9-
BKaardviiv, future of, 395, 406.
Po-qOiia, 25.
^oiSiov, orthography of, 159.
PoXPlTOV, 462.
PoXetiv, 253.
PoXlTOV, 462.
PovXscrGai, 1S9.
povvos, history of, 459.
ppdSiov, 1 49.
fipeXfiv, 352.
^pvdaeaOai, 405.
PpJjjjios, 246.
PpcJcrccrGai, 376.
PujXos, 127.
yafiiTrji, in Xenophon, 166.
yayyaXi^iiv, 180.
YapYaXiJeiv, 180.
Ya(TTpij€iv, I 78.
YQcrxpoKvijixia, 413.
yavpovaOai, in Xenophon, 167.
ytivd/itvot, 01, in Xenophon, 167.
YiXdcrijios, 307.
■ytXoLOS, 307.
■y€ve6Xia, 184.
Yevto-ia, 184.
Y«vt]6fivai, 194.
Y€VT)9T)cro|j.ai, 194.
7€WTjjji,aTa, late use of, 348.
ytviaOai, 29.
7^, compounds of, 356.
YTi'ivos, 181.
-yKa, a collocation of letters avoided in
Attic, 96.
yXcoo-o-is, 308.
YX<i)crcr6Kop.ov, 181.
■yXiJJTTa, 30S.
YXuTTOKOJltlOV, 181.
yvwpM, 1 9.
yvdipi<Tfj.a, 19.
yvoj(JTT]p, in Xenophon, 165.
Yoyyij5«iv, 4r)3.
yoyyv\r\, 182.
yoyyv\i%, 182.
yoyy\i<T\jL6s, 463.
fo"^. 19-
yivos, 19.
yovvarof, &c., Tragic for yuyarot,
Sec, 5.
YpT)Yop«iv, 200.
YpvXiJ«iv, 182.
522
INDEX I.
YpvXXiftiv, 182.
~ipv!^uv, future of, 384.
Ypvji,€a, 309.
YpviTT), 309.
■^oaaQai, 167.
7vpos, 492.
iH, 19.
Sa-qfiuv, 167.
Saii'iJi'at, 29.
SaKpveiu, future of, 404.
SaTravdaOat, aorist of, 191,
Sd-mSou, in Xenophon, 167.
SatptKT)s, in Xenophon, 167.
dedia, inflexions of, 269 ff.
SfSoiKa, inflexions of, 269 ff.
5t'r?, uncontracted, 299.
SfH' ijnnd), anomalous contraction of,
301.
SeiTTwXeiv, in Xenophon, 167.
Sfipdv, Sfpfiv, both good Attic, 432.
Sdprj, 25.
Serff^of, aorist of, 189.
8€^aji«VT], 369.
Sffffjioi and Sefffxa, distinguished, 353.
Seanoawos, in Xenophon, 167.
5(veiv, 61.
STjuorevfiv, 61.
SrjiiovaOai, reason for middle inflexions
of, 193.
5(a in compounds influences the in-
flexions of the verb, 193.
diairdv, augment of, 83, 86 ; meaning
of, 189.
Siatpeiv, 330 ff.
SiaKpiais, 344.
SiaKeytaOai, reason for middle in-
flexions of, 191.
SiaKoveTv, augment of, 83, 86.
SiavoeiaOai, reason for middle inflex-
ions of, 191-193.
SiappTj57]v, 329.
8iaT0ix«iv, 249.
8ia4)ep€i,v, construction of, 483.
diacpdtlpiiv, 145.
SiSoacriv, 315.
Zihovai, inflexions of, 220, 315, 316.
8i8ovcriv, 315.
SietpTjKa, 330 ff.
StfTfTpTJVaTO, 77-
8ie4>9opa, 246.
SirjpTjKa and dielprj/ca, confused, 330 ff.
Sufuai, signification of, 79.
tiKaioXvytiaOai, reason for middle in-
flexions of, 193.
8i»cpavov, 310.
SiKpovv, 310.
iiopBojcns, 320.
AlOCTKOpOl., 310.
SnrXoi^ftv, orthography of, 160.
5iy\iy, 132.
5iif/fj(j6at, 382.
Sia/Kdv, future of, 377.
8i(i)pid, 78.
Sitopul, inflexions of, 309.
SoKttu, 29.
SoTT}p, in Xenophon, 165.
Sovneiu, in Xenophon, 167.
Spd/xi]na, 19.
5pdv, aorist and perfect passive of, loi.
Spojxos, 19.
dpvvTtaOai, in Xenophon, 168.
dpCtJTTaKl^HV, 488.
8veiv, 289.
8ijvacrai, 8wa, 8t)VT|, 463.
dvvaaOai, with neuter adjectives, 1 89 ;
2nd pers. sing. pres. ind. of, 463.
Siio, inflexions of, 289, 290.
8uotv, not used with the plural, 289,
290.
l\ia(\ins, in Xenophon, 168.
8u(ri, 289.
8v0'a)iT6ia0ai, 278.
8vcrwiria, 278.
Sw/^a, 25.
So)[idTiov, 321.
SuipT]fxa, 168.
SaipoSoKeiv, 362.
-(ds, ace. pi. of substantives in (vs,
234-
f0ov\r]ffd(ir]v, 189, note.
(yyaios, 357.
«YY«ios, 356.
iyye\dv, 66.
kyyvdv, augment of, 82.
iyyvs, comparative of, 356.
(jiipeiv, perfects of, 96, 97.
€7Ka9€TOs, 417.
fjKOTTrj, 158.
eyKojfitd^dv, augment of, 82,
eyprjyopivai, 200.
kyxeiv, meaning of, 66.
(yXpil^T^Tetv, 14.
t8€8i€0'av, 269.
t8«8icrav, 269.
toecrOai, 376.
eSrjSoKa. tdrjSicrixat, 96.
e8o/j.ai, not eSovnat, 92.
eSpdcrOrjv, or fSpdOrjv? loi.
f5wr]adfj.i]v, 189 note.
t8ajita, 2 zo.
-€€iv, verbs in, contraction of, 296 ff.
(((crOai for KaOi^taOai, 6.
t^ojjxai, not fC^wap-ai, 99.
iOavov, 39.
tOtXjiv or OtXeiv ? 415-
IXDEX I.
7 t t
(0f\ovTr]56y, 59.
iOfXovrfjv, 60.
ieeXovrrip, 57.
€6eXovTr|S, 57.
e9(\ovTi, 59.
(de\ovaios, 60.
(O-qKa, 220.
(1-, verbs beginning in, augmentation
_ of, 245.
(iKa^iiv, future of, 409, 410.
(iWdv, orthography of, 89, 90.
ftui, always future in meaning, 103,
III ; infinitive of, 65.
iTfia, 19.
(lira, tinov, 2 1 9.
tlirov, 326 if.
ftprjKa, 326 ff.
€iy, with adverbs, 117 ff. ; replaces Is,
432.
-(IS, late form of ace. pi. of sub-
stantives in (vs, 234.
eiaayav, 1 19.
(Iffana^. 1 1 8.
fladpTi, 119.
flaavdis, 118.
('KXaxpi, 119.
flafiCLTrjv, 119.
«4(JoT«, 117.
fiTfy, 204.
e/f. with adverbs, 117 ff.; Ionic and
poetical compounds of, 7.
iKa0Ti/iT]v, 81.
(Kadt^ov, 81.
(Kavov, 217.
t«ay, old Attic, 28.
t/fff and (Kfiat, confused, 114.
(KfiBev, 1 16.
fKfivos, only form known to Attic, 4.
tK^eiy, metaphorical use of, 1 7.
iK0(a<r0at, 7.
fn0tna, 319.
«/fdi/ftj', 7.
*KK\T]aiA^ftv, augment of, 82.
tKKoir/}, 158.
<«\a-yx'*''*"'i 7-
(K\T]y(iv, 7.
fHfiavOdyfiv, 7.
(KVofXlOt, 46.
*KOVTT|S, 57.
iKovri, 59.
«/(Ol(T(OS, 60.
tKTTayKoi, in Xeno; hon, 168.
fKTTayKov/jifVijt, 1 4.
«KTroXtu, 117.
iKnuOtiv, 7.
fKnfpvTt, 1 19.
tKirpoTtfiau, 7.
iKTrjfiaivdv, 7.
ii<TTt\K(f70ai, 7.
jxo'ai^dl', 7.
€«Tai'OJ', 217.
l/CTer^s, 365.
(KTifxav, 7.
€KTOTe, 116.
(KTpi^uv, metaphorical use of, 17, iS.
€KTpCi)p.a, 2S8.
€KTpJjcrat, 288.
fK<po0fia0ai, 7.
€Kwv euvai, rules for the use of in
Attic Greek, 340 ff.
€\Xv)(viov, 250.
«A.a('a, old Attic and Tragic for f\aa,
112.
iXoKov, Euripidean word, 43.
fXaarpuv, 14.
kXavvuv, perfects of. 96, 100.
(KiyX^iv, perfects of, 96.
(\€t\(/a, never aorist of AeiVeif , 2 1 7.
fKevffo/xai, Attic except in Indicative,
103, no.
'EWds, as adjective, 21.
ifxaaTi^a, survival of in Attic, 16.
(fioKov, un-Attic, 4I.
ffiTrai^dv, meaning of, 68.
(fxiTXfja0ai, survival of in Attic. 63.
ifiTToXdv, augment of, 82.
(pmoKt), 16s.
flxTtpeneiv, 1 5 .
t(iiTpT)crjj.6s, 419.
«|X7rTueiv, meaning of, 66.
«jnrvpicr(jL6s, un-Attic, 419.
fy, force of in composition, 66 ; in-
tensive, 67; «v xp^' Attic phrase,
13^-
(vayxos. 70.
(vaKKtaOai, 67.
fvavTiova0at, 188; augmentation of,
IvapcTOS, 4 1 2.
(uSov, 206.
(vSvfxfvia, un-Attic, 418.
<i'<77t/y, I 20.
iveirKriptji', survival of in Attic, 63.
(Vfp0(, old Attic word, 27.
(vtpoi, old Attic word, 27.
fVfpTfpoi, Ionic and old Attic, 27.
(veTf(a, 2 19.
<v(xvpip.aia, cvc'xvipa, 468.
«vT|\aTa, 2 '^7.
€v9Tiict|, 304.
iv0vfi(ifrOai, I9I.
«viau<Tiaios, t'viovtrtos, 4''7-
ivopdv, meaning of, 67.
ivovptiv, nicai ing of, 66.
ivox^fif, augment of, 83-85.
IvTivrKavovv, corrupt for ivrturKtovy,
128.
«vT«xvo>«, 4-; 7.
ivrpdrfdv, meaning of, 67.
Ivtifiini^nv, meaning of, 6S,
524
INDEX I.
tvvo-Tpov, orthography of, 250.
1^, compounds of. 490.
«^a56\4)os, un-Attic, 361.
i(^aniiv, -J.
f^aKovfiv, 7,
e^aXXdcrcrttv, meaning of, 467.
f^a\ana(eiv, in Xenophon, 168.
(|a|jip\icrK€iv, 288.
t^apLpXccjia, 288.
e^avdjeaOat, "J.
(^avayKa^iLV, 7.
e^ai'exfff^ai. 7-
i^aTTaKKaaaiaOai, 7.
i^avoKXvvai, 7.
k^aTT0<p6iipitv, 7.
(\((.\\iiv, orthography of, 89, 90.
i^(\evdipoaToniiv, 7.
k^arma^iiv, 7.
€|€TriTrcXT)s, 205.
i^fTriffraaOai, 7.
(^(pya^iaOai = dnoKTiivetv, 16 note.
f^iTt, 119.
f^f<pUa6ai, 7.
(^rj/xepovv, 7.
fiVprjcraTO, impossible form in Attic,
216.
€^i8i(i2[€o-9ai, 284.
tlovvxijeiv, 350.
I^UTTvi^eiv, 30-1.
-eos, adjectives in, 287, 288.
eiraKpi^eiv, formation of, 127.
knafiipoTfpi^dv, 127.
evavopOovv, augment of, 86, 87.
liraoiST). 315.
iwaprjjeLV, 168.
Iirapio-Tspos, 324.
kiravpiaOai, survival of in Attic, 30.
(ira(pdv, old word, 392.
iiTiiadrjv, 217.
tTTeiTtv, late form, 204.
tTrsXtjo-a, influence of the hiri, 216.
Im, in composition, producing a
causative meaning, 216.
€m Koppijs, 257.
k-rrifXcuTTdaOai. 193.
kin5aif>iKiv(a6at, 168.
kwiSf^ios, 324.
tiriSecrjxos, gender of, 353.
kTnSrjv, 121.
€7riSo^os, 208.
«7ri^6('V, metaphorical use of, 17.
eTTi^ed^'fii/, orthography of, 275.
kTn66p.r]v, 217.
(wtOov, 217.
k-niKTjpvaanv dpyvpiov s. xpTjpiaTd rtvi,
329-
liriKXuvTpov, 207.
frnXkyeiv, 327.
kniKoyos, 327.
k-mopKUv, future of, 409.
tiriiToX-qs, 205.
kninpuaco, 1 20.
«iTi(TT;p.os. 208.
k-niaraaai, kmara, kniaTaffo, fniaTO},
emcTTaaLs, 345.
iTTlTaKTrjp, 165.
tTTiTe'XXciv, 204, 205.
«UIT€|, 417.
«7rT7;5€v€ir', augment of, 80.
€TriTOKcs, un-Attic, 417.
kniToXr], meaning of, 205.
iTTiTpoiridileuv, 158.
iTn\prj(pi^iiV, 216, 217.
«TrpidnT)v, 210, 214.
kirpiaao, kirpioj, 463.
(VcpS-fi, 315.^
spYoSoretv, tpYoSc-njs, 456.
epSeiv, old Attic word, 29 ; survival
of in certain Attic proverbs, 49.
kptiv, 326 if.
kpe'iTTfiv, in Xenophon, 168.
kpfiTTia, old Attic word, 15.
«p€iJY€CJ-6ai, 138.
epireiy, survival of in Attic, 50.
epprjOriy, 326.
€pvY-ydv€iv, 138.
kpvfcfiv, 168.
ipxofjtai, Attic only in Indie, 103.
Is, date of change to eh, 432.
-€CTav, 3 pers. pi. plupf. ai.t, 229 ff.
kaana^, 118.
kaaiJOts, 118.
kaavTiKa, 118.
kaiiTdra, 118.
e(j6T]s, 19.
kaOUiv, perfects of, 96.
«o-9' OTTT), 339.
kari]^iiv, 411.
kcrridv, 29.
earidaOat, 188.
eo'X'iTOJS, 481.
ecrxciTUTaTOS, 1 4 4.
cTep6<}>9aX|j.os, 209.
ei-, verbs beginning in, augmentation
of, 245.
€via7Y€X€iv, Atticicity of, 335.
euaYYeXi2;€cr6ai, construction o*", 334.
Evl3oT8a, orthography of, 160.
evfiv, 61.
-iviiv, perfects passive of verbs in,
loi ; origin of verbs in, 61 ; de-
ponents in, 141.
eueipos, 224.
evcpios, 224.
6-uspos, 224.
Ev^upos, 223; comparative of, 224.
fvOrji^oavi'T], 168.
tv$v and (iOvs, distinguished, 222.
(v$vva, 74.
IXDEX I.
525
€vpKaip«iv, late use of, 205.
€UK€pjJ.aT£lV, 467.
evitcoLT€iv, late use of, 69.
ivva^iiv, 169.
iVVOlKW'i, 2 21.
ivvovi, adverb of, 221.
tvvdjs, 221.
tv^vn^KrjTos, 20.
€ypacr0ai, un-Attic, 215.
eupE|ia, ctip-qixa. 501.
-(vs, nom. and ace. pi. of substantives
in, 234 note.
euo-TaGeio, 347.
eua-rae-ris, 347.
(vaiifi^oKos, 20.
fixxxv^oi^) signification of, 417-
iv<pp6vr], old Attic word, 13.
i\jyi<i-p^'J"rf^y, meaning of, 69.
ivXa.p\.<TTos, meaning of, 69.
€uxpT]crT€iv, late use of, 4S7.
-ft;(u, origin of verb-termination, 6i.
(vtuxdaOai, 1 88.
((pearios, 15.
((ptv^a, un-Attic as aor. of (ptvyeiv,
217.
t4)T|S, 225.
€(j)T)(r6a, 225 ff.
i<p9a<ya, 21 7.
«4)lOpK0S, 363.
i^icTTavai, meaning of, 345.
i<po^rj(sa.fi.T]v, 1 89 note.
((pprjKa, existence of in Attic, 220, 221.
«X«6v, aorist, 300.
<X^<'s. orthography of, 370 ff.
(X'^pitvfiv, in Xenophon, 169.
ixfl^ or xpfjv ? 81.
«a>vi]aA(n]v, fO, 210.
fois, form of in Xenophon, 164.
{a, Tragic for Sia-, 5.
itiv, metaphorical use of, 1/.
ffV7\j;, 19.
^■/t;, Ionic and Tragic for ^wif, 5.
^uyof, 19.
^o/K);, 19.
^con'iJi'tu, perf. pass, of, 99.
jcjpos, 223.
(wUTTlp, 12, 19.
H.
i5, true Atti: form of first pcrs. sing,
impf ind. of dfil, 2^2 ff.
iii(i{v), 236.
jlStnty, 238.
rjSrjaOa, not jj'S?;?, the true Attic 2
pers. sing, of tjSj;, 226 ff.
-T]6Tj(jofiai, futures in, 1S9 note.
TJOos, rules for the use of, 468.
■qi'dii', in Xenophon, 169.
^Ka, 220.
fiKfiv, 3 sing, past oitoiKa, 231.
■qKi^aros, in Xenophon, 169.
Wepijff'oy, 125.
17/ifpivos, 125.
■hnipios, 125.
T]|i,Tiv, 240, 241.
-rjfj.Tji', optatives in, 63.
■fjiiiKaKos, 419.
i)p.iK6(|)dXaLov, 412.
rjIxiKpaipa, 412.
■qp-iKpavov, 412.
■ri(iijA6x9tipos, 419.
^/;ios, old Attic and poetical word, 28.
■qHTidxoi^rjv, S3-86.
^fj-TTfcrxoi^riv, 83-S6.
^u or y, the latter the best Attic form,
242, 243.
TJveyKa and TJveyKov, supplement one
another in Attic, 220.
^veix^firjv, 83-86.
I'lVfaxo/J.T]!', 83-86.
Tjv'iKa, uses of in Attic, 122 ff.
fjvuo-Tpov, orthography of, 250.
T|^a, early .A.ttic aor. of dfu, 349.
T|TTTicra(r9ai, old word, 47, 175-
TiTTqTTis, old word, 1 75, 1 76.
■qmaraao, -qiricrTa}, 463.
■T]p, sub.^taiitival termination, .^7,58;
used by Xenophon for -tjj, 59.
T^prjaafXTfv, impossible form in Attic,
216.
fiptfoi, 125.
fjpus, Attic inflexions of, 248.
•?js, un-Attic for ^nOa, 225.
■Tji, substantival termination, 57 ff.
I|cr9a, 225 ff.
^aOai, a very doubtful form, 228.
-rj(TopLcu, futures inj corrupted, 194, 195.
Tjififvufvos, 81.
y(l>ifi, 81.
I'/us, in Xenophon, 164.
e.
-Oa, in sccoml person sing., 226 ff.
0&\nttv, in Xenophon, 1O9.
Oa/xPuv, 29.
Oavftu, old Attic and poetical, 39.
OavfiA(tiv, 29.
OtriKnTOf, 15.
Oiin^fti', 275.
Otivftv, survival of in Attic, 10.
eiKtiv, un-Attic, 415, 416.
-Oty, adverbs in, 177.
526
INDEX I.
OeoOvTOs, 249.
OeOTTpuTTOS, 15.
Oepairatva, history of the word, 22.
6(paneveiv, 61.
Oepairevrrjp, in Xenophon, 165.
Bfpanaji', history of the word. 22.
Oep\i.acria, un-Attic, 19S.
Gfpi-ia, 3rd declension, not 1st, 414.
Bfpflrj, 198, 414.
0€pfi6TT]S. 198.
6eani^(tv, 29.
OrjyHv, in Xenophon, 169.
OrjKai^eu', future of, 401.
-Ofivai, aorists in, 186 ff.
-BTjffoixat, futures in, 189 note.
Biyyaveiu, in Xenophon, 169 ; un-
Attic, 391.
Ooii'av. 29.
OpiSaKiVTf], 207.
6pL5a|, 207.
BpwaKeiv, 29.
©veia, 251.
0VT]xovs, 196.
6u(a«\t), meaning of the term, 250.
BvfxovaOat, 29.
SajKety, 15.
I.
-laiveiv, aorist of verbs in. 77.
lySis, history of the word, 251.
ISioKoyfiaOai, 193.
1810s, late use of, 499.
iSioCcrOai, 2S4.
Ifis, true Attic form of, 2 pers. sing.
pres. ind. of i'??/xt, 316, 317.
UpoOuTOs, 249.
lei'at, Attic forms of, 65.
Uvai, 2nd pers. sing. pres. ind., 316;
aorist of, 220.
-i^fiv, verbs in, their meaning often
dependent upon conte.xt, 178.
■i(ecr6ai, deponents in, 141.
I't]?, un-Attic, 316, 317.
iOa-yiv-qs, 15.
idvs, 223.
iKeaia, history of the word, 61.
lK6T€ia, 61.
LictTtve.LV, 61.
iKVHaOai = d(piKveia9at, 6.
'lAids, used as an adjective, 21.
i'Weiv, orthography of, 89. 90.
i\vs, meaning of the term, 147.
Ip-OLTLOV, meaning of, 22.
imrevi, 1 9.
innuTTjs = Imrevs, in Tragedy and Xeno-
phon, 19, 170; as adjective, 21.
iTTTaa9ai, 373.
IcTTlOV, 252.
«o'x''<*'''*"'> aorist of, 78.
K.
KadapS^, of water, 113.
KaOcSovjjiai, 336.
KaQi^ta-Qai, 336.
Ka6€cr0f|vai, 336.
Ka0€a0T|cro|iai, 336.
Ka6r]fji7]v, 81.
KdeijaOai, 336; augmentation of, ^i.
Kae-rjao, distinguished from KAOi^e,
.^36. ^
Ka0i6povv, 279.
Ka6i^etv, augmention of, 81; uses of
in Attic, 336.
KaOv^pi^fiv, meaning of, 66.
Ka0ws, a late word, 495.
Kaieiv, old Attic and Trag. for Kaeiv,
112; future of, 408.
Kaiviiv, un-Attic, 170.
KaKa-yytXelv, 335.
KaKKcipT]. KOLKKaPoS, 496.
KaKoSai^ovdv and KaKoSaifJiovetv. dis-
tinguished, 152.
KaKodai/^wv, meaning of, 152.
KaXiv^iLV, orthography of, 90.
KaWiYpacjjeiv, 203.
KaXXwoTepov, 209.
KaXx^-'-'^fi-v, aorist of, 78.
Ka[i[jiv€iv, 426.
«'a/ii'€ii' = xaAe'rcys (piptLV, 16 note.
Kavtiv, un-Attic, 2 1 7.
KaparopLtTv, 427.
Kapijvai and KfipaaOai, distinguished,
368.
Kapra, history of the word, 8.
naaijvr]Tos, 15.
Kara, force of in composition with
verbs, 66 ; Kar' €K€ivo Kaipo-G, 345 ;
Kara, KoiXCas irouiv, 363 ; Kara
Xeipos, 375.
KaraytXav. 66.
KaTaK€VT€iv, 296.
KaTaXo-yf), meaning of, 498.
KaTairpoL^tTai, orthography of, 160;
meaning of the term, 254.
KaxaiTTtieiv, 66.
KardcTKOiros, 25.
KaravToOL, I 21.
KaTa<})a7ds, un-Attic, 497.
KaTa(povtv(LV, 15.
KaxaaxaSeiv, 296.
Kaxacfyep-ris, meaning of, 498.
KaraxiLV, 66.
Karidavov, im-Attic, 39
KaTt'iWtLV, orthography of, 89, 90.
KaTipyd^ia9aL =aTTOKri'ivtLV, 16 note.
KarOaviTv, un-Attic, 39.
KaTutTT-qs, 25.
KaropOovy, 319.
INDEX L
527
KaT6p9u>p.a, 319, ,^,20.
KaTupOciidts, 320.
Karovpui', 65.
Keyxffujv, 253.
Kfivos, Ionic, 4.
K(ipeiv, aorists of, 368.
K€KpaY^6s, 423.
KeXtveiv, perf. pass, of, loi.
KiKXripai, 102.
KfKoXovnai, not KiK6\ovanat, 99.
KipTOfJLOS. !■;.
Ke<j>a\ani)5«<TTaT0S, 339.
K€4)aXoTO[j.€iv, 427.
kikKtickhv, un-Attic, 48.
KXaStveiv, 255.
AcXdeii/, better than icXcufiv, 112; fu-
ture of, 404.
kXcIv, 255.
K\av(Tovfj.ai, un-Attic, 91, 92.
KKiTTTdv, future of, 407, 408.
KKinTrjs, 20.
K\T)5tijv, 15.
KKT^av, aorist and perf. pass, of, 102.
K\i]povo|i€iv, construction of, 206.
KKrj^dv, in Xenophon, 170.
-k\^s, ace. sing, of substantives in,
246.
K^ynp, 58.
K\i0avos, orthography of, 267.
Kko.'-ntvtii', poetical word in Xenophon,
170.
KXwxp, old Attic and poetical, 19.
Kvt4)aAov, 256.
KVT)|1T1, 413.
Kvfjv, contraction of, 133, 134.
Koiviiv, in Xenophon, 1 70.
KOITUV, 321.
KoXaKcs, 214.
KoXXaPoi, 2S0.
KoXXoTTtS, 280.
KoXXvPicrTfjs, KoXXvPos, late use of,
479-
KoXoKVvOa, KoXoKUVTTJ, 498.
KoKoimv, perf. pass. of. 99.
KoXv^Pd8«s, un-Atlic, 199.
KoXvp.pT)6pa. 3'^'9.
Kopi^tiv, 191.
KOVt^, 25.
KOTTTtiv Ovpav, 2Cp6.
Kopdcriov, un-Attic, 148,
Kopeiv, ,\ltic for aaiptiv, 156, 157.
K6pT)p.a, Attic for aapni'. 156.
K6piov, 1 48.
Hi'ipii, gender of, 362.
KOpiCTKTJ, 148.
KOpi'.-i, 311.
KopvSaXos, 426.
KopvSos, 4 ;^>.
Kopv<}>ai6TaTos. 143.
Kovplas, 132
Hovpos, un-Attic, 311.
KoxXidpiov, 369.
KpdpfBaTos, un-Attic, 137, 138.
KpaSaiveiv, aorist of, 78.
KpacTTTipia, 267.
Kparrip, 58.
KpavYacrp,6s, 423.
KpeicraoTepov, 209.
Kpiliat'os, orthography of, 267.
Kpoticrai Oijpav, 266.
KpuPecJ^Oai, un-Attic, 368.
KTavitv, 217.
KvSos, 25.
KvSpos, in Xenophon, 1 70.
KvK\omei, not all one-eyed, 210.
Kvvayos, 496.
Kvvdpiov, 268.
K'uvT|Y«-nf)s, 496.
KUviSiov, 26S.
KVTTTdv, future of, 398.
KO)Xv4>lOV. 151.
A.
AaPpos, 26.
XdyvTis, 272.
XaYvos, orthography of, 272.
Xa-yos, Xay^S, 272.
KaiKOL^eii', future of, 402.
-A.aiVeii', aorist of verbs in, 77.
AdKaiva, limitations of usage of, 427.
XaKfiu, un-Attic aorist, 43.
\a\(iu, future of, 3S8.
\a finds, 131.
Xaixm-qp, 131.
Xd[ivpos, meaning of, 352.
KaoKuv, un-Attic verb, 43 ; aorists of,
219.
Xdcrxavpos, meaning of, 282.
Kdipvpa, in Xenophon, 1 70.
\A.XOi, in Xenophon, 171.
Kiyuv, future of, 388.
\fr]\ar(iv, in Xenophon, 171.
XcKapiov, 265.
\ntr6ff(ui, 357.
A«Xpioi, in Xenophon, 171.
\fwpy67, in Xenophon, 171.
X-rjOopYos, late use of, 491.
At;( J, 171.
Xipovos, XiPqvut6s, distinguished,
XiOdpiov, 268.
\i9iBiov, 268.
X^ids, gender of, 274.
Xiiraiutiv, aorist of, 78.
KiatjtaOai, 25 note 8.
Xlrpov, orthogr.ijihy of. 3^)9.
Kiatpos, orthography of, 19^).
Ktrai, 25.
XCrpou d4)p6«, 3')i.
528
INDEX I.
X6yi-os, meaning of, 284.
XoiboptiaBai, 191 ff.
AoWiavcjj, 65.
XoOstv, Attic inflexions of, 274 ff.
\ovfa9ai, Sec, late forms of Xova9ai,
&c., 90.
Xv^aiviaOai, 193.
KvfidVTTjp, in Xenophon, 165, 171.
Avx^e'ci/, meaning of, 132.
Xuxvtd, meaning of, 367.
Xvxvovxos, meaning of, 367.
XcujidaOai, reason for middle inflexions
of, 193, 410.
M.
fAayevpeiov, 341.
-jxalviiv, verbs in, aorists of, 76.
jidXn], in Attic confined to the phrase
VTfo ftaKrjs, 282.
fxiKKUiv, orthography of, 155, 156.
(jid^[jiT], 208.
jAajx(ji,iov, 208.
|j,a|ji,|j,60p£TrTos, 359.
(xaaTiviiv, in Xenophon, 171.
fiaari^ai, survival of in Attic, 10.
fj.ixf(rdai, reason for middle inflexions
of, 193.
IJtfja, used adverbially, 28 ; /xeya Sv-
vaaOai. 2 S3.
p.6Yi-o"i"dv€s, un-Attic term, 283,
ji€9vcros, 240.
[j.«9ua-TiK6s, 240.
|ji6-piKi.ov, [xeipaKicTKos, jieipaKuXXiov,
fji6Lpa|, differentiated, 291.
fieXXeiv, construction of, 420 ff.
HefX(p€a6at, reason for middle inflexions
of, ^193.
^i.iv ovv, 428.
\ji.ecr€yyvT\Qr\vai, 202.
fifaT]jx(ipia, ij.(ar]p.ppiv6s, 1 25, 126.
ptiarjs vvKTos, I 26.
|A€crL5LO)9fjvai, 202.
/xeaoyaia, orthography of, 358.
(jiecroSdKTViXa, 2S1.
/Xicrov vvKTwv, 126.
(itTovijKTiov, un-Attic, 126.
fiecroTTopsTv, late use of, 491.
fxiffovarj? vvxTos, 126.
fieravOis, 21.
pLiTaxf^pl^ioOai, 190.
fliTOTTiadiV, 120.
fxiTpi'i^uv, meaning of, 494.
p.€xpi, orthography of, 64 ; /^e'xpi av
with mood of verb, 65.
fx-q^t eh, 271.
Hr]6fis, 271.
fxrjKitjTOS, I 71.
fA.rji'ieiu, old Attic v/ord, 29 ; ortho-
graphy of, 155.
fjiTjpvuv, in Xenophon, 171.
fir]Tp66ev, 177.
puapia, fiiapus, 428.
p^ip-vrjaKtaOai, aorist of, iqo.
P-vrjar-qp, in Xenophon, 165.
pLoKuv, history of, 41.
jiovSuXeueiv, 461.
pLOVOKOlTetf, 69.
piovop-paros, meaning of, 209.
|j,ovd(j)9aX(Aos, 209.
fiupos, 15.
poxOos, in Xenophon, 171.
fAoxXos, orthography of, 362.
p-ueXos, orthography of, 364.
|xiJKTis, 284.
pVICTTJp, 58.
PW7]. 74.
pvaapus, 15.
pvaaTTiaOai, in Xenophon, 172.
fxajpaaOai, reason for middle inflexions
of, 193.
N.
v kfeXKvarmov, in pluperfect act., 231,
^232.
vd-irv, only Attic form, 349.
vapos, history of word, 114.
va€s, Attic inflexions of, 254.
vavTTjs, 20.
vavTiWeaOat, 20, note I ; vavriKos, ib.
veiaOai, in Xenophon, 172.
veoyvoi, in Xenophon, 172.
v€0|ji.Tr]vta, 225-
Vfos, 20.
veoTTos, veoTTiov, orthography of,
287.
Vfoxpos, 20.
vepOe, 27.
viviiv, 61.
yevffopai, not vivaovp-ai, 92.
v€4>pos, 359.
viojaTi, 70.
VT| Ttb 9eio, limitations to use of, 281.
vi)duv, late form of vfjv, 90-
VTjv, Attic inflexions of, 133 ff.
vripds, of water, 113.
VT|crTT]s, un-Attic, 375.
vrjTLKus, not VTjariKus, 135.
v'lppa, 280.
vCrpov, 361.
fi<pfiv, orthography of, 90.
vopos, 'dwelling-place,' 16 note.
vocrcos, vo<rcriov, 287.
vo'Kpi^tiv, in Xenophon, 172.
vovjjftjvia, 225.
vovs teal (ppivis, 9.
vvKTfp-qaios, vvKT(piv6s, distinguished,
125.
vaTov, vJJTOS, 35 r.
INDEX I.
529
^iiv (to polish), always contracts in
Attic, 301.
((virevfaOai, anomalous formation of,
62.
^(voSoKOs, 362.
f77/)os, 20.
fv\apiov, ^vK-q<piov, ^vKv^iov, 151.
(vn^dWeaOai yvwfirjv, retention of ^vv
for (Tvy in this phrase, 24 note 2.
ft'i/, date of change to aw, 24 note 2.
^vviyyv^, 119.
^vv6s = Koi.v6s, 5.
fvo-Tpa, 358.
O.
'OSfiTi, orthography of, 160, 164.
uSovv, 16 note.
ol and ov, confused, 114.
oU, augment of verbs beginning in,
-oiaro, as optative ending, 431.
o75as, doubtful form, 227.
oi(vp6s, orthography of, 160.
oiKaSf for oiiKot, 1 15 ff.
oIkkxttjp, 58.
01K0Y€VT1S, 285.
OlKoBeO-ITOTT)?, 47°-
oiKoSofiT], un Attic, 493.
oiKocriTOS, 285.
OlKOTpil)/, 285.
ol/jiai, otopai, both good Attic, 432.
olfidjCtiy, future of, 384, 385.
oTs, orthography of, 160.
olaSas, a doubtful form, 227, 228.
olaris, orthography of, ifio.
oKTCj, compounds of, 490.
oA/3oj, 25; in Xenophon, 172.
fiKXvvai, perfects of, 96.
6Xoo-4>vpaTOs, 286.
opatfios, 15.
dfiijKii, 15.
ofiyvvai, jierfccts of, 95 ff.
o/xovovs, adverb of, 221.
6p.4>a£, I 26.
ovap, late usage of, 494.
6v9v\€ij€iv, 461.
6vuxi{«i-v, 350.
uTtdcup, 22.
unrjviHa, I 22, I 23.
oirKT^tv, orthography of, C>o.
oTToi, ijtrov, confused, 114.
oTTTcivtov, meaning of, 341.
onrrip, in Xenophon, 165.
unwptv6t, I 25.
oiTupoiTiIiXTjs, 286.
OITUpOJVTJS, 2Hfl.
M
upyaivfiv, aorist of, 78.
opyewv, 24.
opyta, history of the word, 24.
opSocTTcLSios, 312.
opSou^e^/os = successful, 320.
6p9piv6s, opGpios, 124.
opGpos, meaning of, 341.
opiapa, 20.
6pKi^€iv and opKovv, 466.
upp.a.(j6at, i88-
opjAsva, meaning of, 196.
oppi^fffdai, 190.
opvaafiy, perfects of, 95, 96.
oaSTjiroTovv, un-Atlic, 471.
oa/xri, orthography of, 160, 164.
ouSeis, ovGeis, 271.
-ovi>, perfects passive of verbs in, lor.
ovs, inflexions of, 291.
ovx otov, 470.
6(i>piiri, ocppiis, 20.
oxrifM, oxos, 20.
oxOos, 25; in Xenophon, 172.
ox^iiv = (vox^eif, 5.
OlpipLOS, 0\piv6s, OtplOS, 124,
n.
nd-yx'^t 2 I .
TraiBicTKT), meaning of, 312.
Traifiv, Attic forms of, 258 ff.
ira't^eiv, future of, 91, 313; aorist of,
TraXaiaTTis, 356.
TraXaiariKos, iraXaiorTpiKos, 314.
naXapvaios, in Xenophon, 172.
iraXacTTTi, orthography of, 356.
iraXi, irdXiv, 347.
naWfiv, 29.
iidKos, meaning of, 13.
TravSoKtiov, iravSox^iov. 362.
vavTt adiVit, 10.
■TTdvTOT€, 183.
■navw\tBpos, a Tragic word, 1 8 note.
■namaivtiv, aorist of, 78.
-irdiTtipos, 3^)0.
Trapapd.XXecr9ai, -rrapaPoXiov, 312.
uapd5€iYp.a. 6j.
■iTapa6T|KT), TTapaKQTaOTiKT), 366.
TTapaicoirfj, 158.
irapaKOpdv, I 56.
irapdaiTos, history of the term, 214.
vapariOiaOai, meaning of, 312.
TTopavrdOiv, I 20.
napffyvt, I 20.
■naptKu, I 20.
TTapfuSoXV), late use of, 473.
•rraptvoT|KT), 304.
napTjii, 20.
vnpoivitv, augment of, 83, 85.
TTopoiJ/is. intaniiig of, 265.
in
530
IXDEX I.
•iTaT(i|ai, only tense of Traraco'etf used
in Attic, 257.
itajiiv, future of, 397, 398.
TTCLTpa, trarpis, 18, 19.
•JT€lvfiv, 132.
rrfipdv, aorists of, 191, 192.
rreXa^uv, 29.
nfXas, 28.
IleXapYos, 195.
T7«vT6, compounds of, 489.
TTtiraiviiv, aorist of, 78-
■tTfirdaOai, in Xenophon, 173.
ireTToO-rjcris, 355.
7reTroTTio-9ai, 373 ff-
TTtTTprjfiat, not ■ninprja ixai, 102.
TTtiTCOV, 323.
Trip, limitations to use of, 21.
TTipaiovaOai, 188.
v-fpidWeiv, 89, 90.
mptfTrtiv, in Xenophon, 173.
iTtpiecrcrtucrev, corrupt form, 79.
■nipiKOTTTi, 158.
irepio-irdcj-Oai, meaning of, 491.
TTspio-crttisiv, augment of, 79.
irtpicrTacris, meaning of, 473.
Ttipiaripiwv, survival of in Attic, 253.
Hipais, adjectival, 21.
TTiTeo-Oai, Attic forms of, 373 ff.
■nirpivos, iriTpwSrjs, 20.
■nivaojxai, not nevcrovfiai, 93.
TTTjSdv, 29.
rrrjXiKos, meaning of, 127.
•irT)\6s, gender of, 126.
■mjvLKa, meaning of, 122.
TTtiiaOac, late form of nUaOai, 91.
TiOuv, 2 I 7.
TTti/fCT^at = 'n'(Veii' (?), 382.
TnovfLai, late form of mo/xai, 91.
viavvos, un-Attic, 2 i .
■nKa^taOai, nXavdaOai, 21.
TTkiovtKTHv, future of, 408.
Tr\(vffOfj.ai, not nXivaovpLai, 93.
TTXTjfds SiSovat, nXrjy^v SiMvac, 258 ff.
•irXT)o-cr€iv, limitations to its use in
Attic, 258 ff.
irXoKiov, 324.
nviiv, future of, 401.
vvevaofiai, not nvevaovfj-at, 92.
iTviYOS, 185.
■noSavtnTTjp, 58.
TToSaTTos, meaning of, 128-130.
TToOeiv, future of, 404.
•trot, irov, confused, 114.
TToivT], 25, 26.
nov tiv, parts of, 191.
rroptveaOai, parts of, 189.
TTopOnos, 13 note ; 7iop6jx6s, wopos,
20.
ITOpVOKOITOS, 491.
TTopawfiv, in Xenophon, 173.
•n-oxa-rros, orthography and meaning,
I 28-130.
TrordaOai, Attic usage of, 189.
irpajp-aTfieaOai, parts of, 191.
irpaKTopfs, 58.
irpiaadai, Attic usage of, 210-214.
np'iaao, Trplw, 48, 212 note.
TrpoaXios, 317.
•n-poPacTKaviov, 159.
irpoSufxaTiov, 321.
irpoeiprjfiiva. rd, 334.
vpor]yop€vp.iva, rd, 334.
TrpoOeap.ia, 78-
TrpoKoiTiov, 321.
irpoKOTrT), irpoKOTTTeLV, 158.
Trpovoe7a0ai, parts of, 190.
np6vovs, 26.
npoTTaXat, 119.
vpondpoiOev, 120.
nponepvaiv, 1 19.
TrpoirrjKaKi^fiv, derivation of, 127;
future of, 410.
rrpoaiiXKfiv, orthography of, 89, 90.
npoairi, 1 19.
"irpoo-tjjaTos, of water, 113; of things
generally, 471.
Trpoafparajs, 70.
irpoo-wTra, late use of, 474.
TTpwipLOS, npojtvos, Trpaios, 1 24, 125.
irpioToos, un-Attic, 366.
TTTeaOai, 373 ff.
-rrTqaafw, 21.
■nrvtiv, future of, 394.
■nTw(Aa, TTTuicris, compounds of, 319.
•TrTu(ia, limitations to use of in Attic,
472.
TTTwaaeiv, 21.
irvtXos. 364, 372.
irvpia, 372.
TTwKrjaoj, an un-Attic form, 48 note 2,
-pait'fiv, aorists of verbs in, 76 ff.
/5af, gender and orthography of, 148,
149.
f)a6T€pos, 487.
pam(eiv, 264.
pdnia/xa, 257, 264.
pa4)avis, pa4)avos, 221.
pa^-is, 174.
puOpov, 20; in Xenophon, 173.
ptvfJia, 20.
^TjOrjaofiai, 326.
poidiov, orthography of, 159.
pvfffOai, metaphorical use of, 11.
pijp.T|. late use of, 487.
^iJTTOs, 238.
/JviTTtii', meaning of, 239.
INDEX I.
531
j3i/Tjyp, 58.
/kyf, gender and orthography of, 148.
a, rules for in perfect passive, 97-101.
crciKKos, (T-'kos. ,^23.
aaXTTi^fiv, craXiruKTris, 279.
troirpos, meaning of. 474.
ddpov, crapovv, un- Attic, 156.
aa<pr\v'i.^iiv, in Xenophon, 174.
aa<pr\v!h%, 2 1.
aaxvpavTTjs, 323.
aawTtpos, in Xenophon, 174.
afieiv, 29.
ffiKas, 16 note.
ffecrai/xat, not aeaojfffiai, 99.
(TT^wa^ejj' in Xenophon, 174.
aOiViiv, adivos, survival of in Attic,
10.
criSopeos, 49.
triKvov. 323.
criKxaiv€a9ai, 307.
o-i\<j)T|. orthography of, 359.
aivaiTi, an un-Attic form. 349.
criT0(i€Tp€i(T6ai, late use of, 477.
aKaios, 324.
oKiiiTTOvs, 137.
OKXripoKOLTUV, 69.
o-Kvi4)6s, aKvi(|;, form and meaning of,
486.
OKOvuv, future of, 389.
OKopaKi^ftv. 127.
crK0p7ri5«O'9ai, 295.
OKwiTTfiv, future of. 193.
o-Kup, inflexions of 3=4.
afifj-yfia, crp.f;(xa. <tht|v, 321 ; aixrjv,
(Tfj.r]TpU, 322.
apiTjxfiv, un .Vttic, 321.
atriXois, o"7TiXos, i^j.
crirohi'.s, un-Attic, 25.
o-To6€pos, merming of, 293.
a-ra\Lv'{.a, meaning of, 486.
o-raTos, 312.
OTftxdv, old Attic and poetical word,
29, 400.
aTcji4)vXa, meaning of, 4S9.
0-ni6l6lOV, CTTTlOuVlOV, 477-
rjri^ah'iKoniiv, 69.
(XTKtyy'iS, 358.
fjTpmapxTJt, 16.
arptTrf^aJtiv, I 5.
aTpT|vidv .^7^.
o-TpoPtXos. meaning of, 484.
CTpoYYiXos. 182, 183.
aTpii;jiaT«vs, meaning of, 487.
oTvytiv, im-Attic, 40.
o-ruir7r«ivos. iTvntlnv, &C., 32,^.
a-vKiypos, .>;''>.
M
o-uYYvw|*ov*^Vi 476-
avyKara^aivftv, late meaning of, 485.
avyKOTTT], 158.
(TVYKpivtiv, (rtiYKpi.criT, late use of, 344.
<ru(x iTaicrTT|s, orthography of, 313.
av(XTroXiTTis, 255.
cvjiTTTtijia, 318.
avv, date of change in spelling of, 24,
note 2 ; in composition with sub-
stantives, 256.
<ruvuvTeo6ai. 349.
avveyyvs, 1 19.
avvti\K(tv, 89, 90.
avvTaacTfaOai, meamag of in late Greek,
75-
avp'iTTdv, future of, 387 ff.
crtio'cnfjp.ov, 492.
uv(TxoKa.cr-nYs, un-Attic, 486.
CtpvprjKaTos, 286.
o'X'i'SaA^os, orthography of, 196.
aw^tiv, perfect passive of, 99.
ccoixaTa, of slaves, 474.
rapaxoi, 174.
Tavpovv, pliability of meaning of, 179.
rdxiov, 149.
raxvTaTos, 1 50.
TeGeXrjKtvai, 415.
rtOv-q^fiv, 41 I.
Ttiaai, not riaai, the true Attic form,
90.
TtXevTaioTaTOS, 1 43.
Ttjiaxos and tojaos, distinguished, 7^-
Ttppa, 26.
TT)9€XXa8oCs, 359.
TTjOt), 20«.
rrjvticdSf, rrjyiKavTa, strict meaning of,
122 fl".
TiOui. TiOrji, orthography of second
pers sing, prc.s. ind. act. of ridivai,
l^(h .^17-
TiOivai, irflexions of, 315 fT. ; aoiist of,
220.
TiKrtiv, future of, 403.
tC<|)T), orlhogra])hy of, 359.
rip-os and T«p.aX°5t distinguished, 72.
TpavK'i^nv, future of, 382.
T/)dx7^"t. 25.
TptnTTjp, 58.
rpovaiTTjp, 58.
rpoxniiti'is, orthography of, in.
TpOpXlOV, 265.
rpvYoiiTos, 3''>o
Tpv{, 147.
' rpvilnpaiviaOai, aori>.t »)!, 77.
rvyxdvuv, construction of, 34 j ; |>cr-
feci of, 483.
Ill 2
53^
INDEX I.
tviXt), 256.
Tvn-Tfij', limitations to its use in Attic,
257 ff-
ToiBa^iiV, future of, 193, 410.
1/aA.oj, 363.
v^pi^ftv, future of, 193, 410.
vSpia, history of the word, 23.
uios, inflexions of, 141, 142.
vXio-T-fjp, 360.
-vvuv, verbs in, formation of, 74 ; have
no perfect active, 96.
v/os, not vlos, 143.
fnT<iY«iv TT|v yauripa, 363.
tnratGpios, ij-n-aiGpos, 321.
vnrAXA.aYp.a, meaning of, 362.
vneiWeiv, 89, 90.
viirlpSpiiivs, 478.
vnepoxos, 26.
virepTfWeiv, 16 note.
vTTepxe<rOai, in metaphorical sense
inflected throughout, 109.
v-nLaxftioOai, aorist of, 190.
tnro [X(iXi]S, 282.
VTr6SetyiJ.a, 62.
vTToOrjuoavvrj, 1 74-
t)Tro(rTA9|XT), meaning of, I47-
tiTToo-xao-is, meaning of, 348.
vTTOTpoTnaC,iLV, 158.
-vs, substantives in, gen. sing, and pi.
of, 318.
ijo-irX-ril, gender and meaning, 146.
vio-TtpC^eiv, late construction of, 311.
<j>d7«o-0ai, 376.
4)av6s, meaning of, 131.
<papos, history of the word, 22.
<})(ipvY^, gender of, 139.
(paTi^dv, un- Attic, 16.
<pcnis, im-Attic, 20.
(pev^o/xai, (piv^ovjxai, 93, 94.
^VW. 20.
(^^arf jv, aorists of, 217; future of, 396.
<t>0eip, gender of, 362.
<i>9«Cpec7-6ai, v. PiiJeerOai, 1 44, 145.
(pOinevoi, ol, used by Xenophon, 1 74.
<pi5aKvrj, 196.
^iXoXoyos, 483.
tpiXoTTaia/j.av, orthography of, 313.
4>X€ivos, (jjXecos, <j)XoCs, 355.
(po^uaOai, passive, not middle, 189.
ipoirau, fut. of, 400.
(povai, <p6vos, 20.
<pov(vftv, poetical, 15.
<l>np^-fj, 26.
<popfioKoir(Tv, 69.
(popTiov, (popros, 20.
(pp6.^ia6ai, 190.
(ppaoTrip, 165.
(ppivovv, in Xenophon, 1 74.
(ppivwv ffvpKpopa, 9.
(pprjv, un-Attic word, 9.
<})povijjLeiJ6cr6ai, 479.
<})VYa8eijeiv, 478.
(pvKaTTfLV, corruption for (pvXaTTtadat,
379-
<pvpSr]v, 174.
XaXcnalviLV, aorist of, 78.
Xipag, gender, 137.
XapwriCecrOai, reason for middle in-
flexions of, 193.
X^C^tv, future of, 92.
Xfifid/xwa, 75.
Xei/uepcoj, x^'/'fP'oSi 125.
X^iv, aorist act. of, 300.
X<(p, inflexions of, 224.
XeipoTspos, 209.
Xdpijva^, 16.
XeptLOTSpos, 209.
xipaos, 20.
XidopLai or x^<^ovfMai ?, 92.
XTlK-'n. 479-
X0(s, orthography of, 370 ff.
xOeo-Lvos, x^eC"'oy, X^^jos, 37°-
XoXdSes, 364.
X0A77, x*^^"^' 20.
XoXiKes, gender of, 364.
Xo\ova6at, 29.
XOvSpoKOTTfiov, 365.
Xov8poKa)V€iov, 365.
Xoi;i', Attic inflexions of, 274.
Xpe<u\vTfiv, 481.
Xpeoas, Attic inflexions of, 482.
Xprjv, kxpw, 81.
Xpv"' anomalous contraction of, 133,
134.
XP^<T6'ai, 133.
XpT]cri}i6tjeiv, 480.
Xp'i-^i-v, aor. pass, of, 98 ; perfect pass.
of, 98.
XpiJcrsos, 287.
XOJpfiv, fut. of, 397.
^.
if/avdv, un-Attic, 391.
xpeXkL^eaBai, 382.
W. 133. 134. 323-
\p7}(pOTTaiCIT(lV, 314.
"/"TX*'". 323-
ij/iaOos, 363.
vj/iXoKovpos, 132.
vi;iX6s, 253.
<J;oia, il;va, 359.
4;tlXXo, \|;vX\os. 416.
n.
INDEX I.
533
-ajv, substantives in, 252.
tivafitjv, un-Attic, 63.
u)v«io-9au, usage of in Attic, 210-214.
o)vi]\xr\v, 63.
wv^v -noiiloOai, 21 t,. TiOfaOai, 214.
iivqacLfi-qv , un-Attic, 50.
wvios, 213.
-wp, substantival termination, 5S.
uarf = wffirep, art, 28.
&T01S, 291.
w<p\r](Ta, un-Attic, 219.
M 111 3
INDEX II.
Aeschines, 2. 15, p. 122; 14. 18, p.
474; 16. 23, p. 495; 23. 29, p.
471; 51- 5. p- 320; 67. 38, p. 117;
77. II, p. 227; 82. 23, p. 195; 86.
27, p. 308; 90. 30, p. 387.
Aeschylus, Agam. 516, p. 248; 905,
p. 85; 1274, p. 85; 1308, p. 217;
1313. P- 384; 1384, P- 290.
Choeph. 184, p. 263 ; 275, p.
179; 374' P- 465; 523. P- 242;
747, p. 85 ; 856, p. 275, note.
Eiimcii. 267, p. 78 ; 288, p.
112; 299, p. 112; 500, p. 401;
600, p. 290; 614, p. 112 ; 972, p.
78; 982, p. 436.
Pei-s. 767, p. 245 ; 1002, p. 60.
Prom. Vinct. 115, p. 164 ; 625, p.
422 ; 988, p. 93.
Sept. 374, p. 501 ; 520, p. 343 ;
709, p. 17 ; 961, p. 263.
Siipp. 662, p. 436, 472 ; 807, p.
451 ; 983. P- 366 ; 1052, p. 436.
Andocides, 20. 20, p. 30 ; 20. 29, p.
9; 26. 7, p. 195 ; 31.44, p. no.
Antiphon, 112. 31, p. 447; 113. 29,
p. 301 ; 115. 9, p. 107; 115. 25, p.
357; 127, p. 262 ; 130. 29, p.
321 ; 134- 41. P- 218; 147. 14, p.
58.
Apollon. Rhod., i. 516, p. 121; 2.
778, p. 121 ; 4. 73S, p. 121.
Aristophanes, Ach., 10, p. 235; 17,
P- 239; 33, p. 40; 147, p, 19;
203' P- 95 ; 278, p. 392 ; 321, p
17, note ; 410, p. 43 ; 472, p. 40
544, p. 8 ; 564, p. 10; 616, p
280; 659-662, p. 36; 690, p. 41
709, p. 85 ; 745, p. 323 ; 758, p
213; 778' P- 134; 822, p. 323
870, p. 465 ; 883, p. 48 ; 893, p
39; 894, p. 128; 905, p. 281 :
979, p. 300 ; 1046, p. 44 ; 1067, p
66; 1120, p. 67; 1141, p. 125 ;
1159, p. 422.
Aves, 9, p. 115; 54, p. 10; 121,
p. 224; 204, p. 445; 334, p. 117;
342, p. 8; 366, p. 422; 385, p.
81 ; 404, p. 41; 511, p. 230, 235;
760, p. 343; 788, p. 374; 832, p.
195: 1 148, p. 99; 1350, p. 259;
1470, p. 37; 1498, p. 122; 1568,
p. 379; 1586, p. 133.
Eccles., 32, p. 235; 121, p. 301 ;
155, P- 281 ; 227, p. 224 ; 606, p.
73 ; 650, p. 235 ; 667, p. 408 ; 977,
p. 6.
Eqint., 15-26, p. 41 ; 51, p. 67 ;
112, p. 153; 273, p. 178; 283, p.
73 ; 294, p. 384 ; 358, p. 180 ; 360,
P- 393; 396, P- 140; 412, p. 85 ;
435- P 254; 454. P- 178; 480, p.
213; 717, P- 316; 781, P- 180;
973' P- 37; 1018, p. 44; 1033, p.
342; 1090, p. 67; 1131, p. 444;
II53' P- "9; "77. P- 73; 1206,
p. 140; 1247, p. 213; 1263, p. 36.
Lys., 225, p. 145; 316, p. 366 ;
300, p. 379 ; 506, p. 441 ; 507, p.
85; 519, p. 135; 653, p. 219;
592, p. 69; 743, p. 41 ; 831, p
25, note i; 895, p. 316; 984, p.
42 ; T008, p. 70; 1224, p. 245.
Niib., 30, p. 48 ; 74, p. 67,
300; 107, p. 302; 137, p. 289 ;
153' P- 9 ; 339. P- 73 ; 639, p.
70; 762, p. 90; 776, p. 440; 811,
P- 393; 838, p. 275; 883, p. 106;
1237, p. 322; 1240, p. 254; 1347,
p. 229; 1363, p. 85 ; 1373, p. 85 ;
1409, p. 106; 1441, p. 195.
Pax, 46, p. 4; 176, p. 379;
186, p. 130; 347, p. 85; 366, p.
118; 381, p. 43; 405, p. 440;
541, p. 80; 637, p. 310; 717, p.
364; 775, p. 36; 796' P- 36; 891,
p. 342 ; 1075, p. 47 ; 1081, p. 91 ;
1142, p. 124 ; 1182, p. 231.
Pint. 77, p. 243; 102, p. 327;
106, p. 437; 206, p. 102; 216, p.
299 ; 369- p- 441 ; 388, p. 72 ;
589, p. 301 ; 696, p. 231 ; 720, p.
79; 854, p. 45; 894, p. 73; 912,
p. 10; 932, p. 379; 981, p. 46;
984, p. 214; 992, p. 46; 1055, p.
408; 1084, p. 360.
Ran., 97, p. 43; 138, p. 189,
note; 177, p. 456; 243, p. 355 ;
259. p. 139; 265, p. 299; 335, p.
314; 468, p. 218; 571, p. 139;
830. p. 379; 94I' P- 78 : 1082, p.
INDEX II.
his
39; 1163. p. 19; nil. p. 92:
1235' P- 380; 1309, P- 36; 1339.
p. 36; 1380, p. 380; I3S4, p. 380;
1393. p- 3S0; 1427, p. 19; 1450,
p- 451 ; 1477. P- 39-
Thesm. iS, p. 77; 136. p. 19;
J46, p. 197; 468, p. 17, note; 504,
p. 108; 566, p. 254; 593, p. 85;
719, p. 68; 761, p. 216; S65, p.
39; 1144, p. 40; 1 146, p. 41 ;
1 155, p. 41 ; 1224, p. 378.
Vesp., 36, p. 102 ; 112, p. 40;
162, p. 220; 262, p. 2S4; 55S, p.
231 ; 635, p. 230 ; 646, p. 78 ;
801, p. 235 ; 819, p. 441 ; 1158, p.
301; 1168, p. 302; 1291, p. 137;
1305, pp. 67, 245; 1366, p. 254;
1396, P- 254; 1404, p. 446; 1439.
P- 353; 1490. P- 308; 1529. P-
178.
Athenaeus, i. 21. C, p. 22 ; 27. D, p.
47; 2. 49. F, p. 46; 54. F, p. 127
59' P- 346 ; 60, p. 285 ; 62, p
1 96 : 3. 99. D, p. 308 ; 3. 100. A, p
302 ; no. C, p. 267; 117.B, p. 261
4. 134. F, p. 375; 139. D, p. 130
161. D, p. 150; 170. B, p. 79
172. F, p. 183; 6. 227. A, p. 211
228. E, p. 355: 335, p. 214; 241
C, p. 44 ; 247, p. 285 ; 266. F, p
co; 6. 268, C. p. 140; 322. A, p
279; 7. 280. D, p. 40; 293. A, p
309; 293. D, p. 79; 305. B, p
449; 322. D, p. 10; 324. B, p
322; 8. 338. E, p. 70; 347. E, p
73 ; 362. C, p. 354 ; 364- B, p. 47
9. 367. D, p. 265 ; 374. D, p. 307
375. E. p. 81, 268 ; 383. A, p. 403
:<86. A, p. 129. 342; 387. F, p
199; 400. D, p. 273; 401. p. 476
409. C, p. 322 ; 9. 409. E, p. 300
10. 411. E. p. 139; 423. D, p. 223
426. F, p. 381 ; 430. p. 300; 431
B, p. 129; 446. E, p. 91 ; II. 463
P- 437; 490- D. P- 6-;: 502. F, p
361 ; 12. -s\(y. D, p. 92; 525. A, p
84; 13- 5'58. n, p. 151 : 57'- A, P
265 ; 579. E, p. 366 ; 14. 623. F, p
264; 641. p. 437; 642. A, p. 9S
15. 667. A. p. 170, 178; 677. A, p.
308; 699. I), p. 131.
Demosthenes, 13. 26, p, 433; 93. 24,
p. 152: "3P-.^S9; «20.7.p. 155;
155. 15, p. 127; 214. 29, p. 100;
235 fin. i>. 4^17; 245. 10. p. 346;
284. 17. p. 401 ; 297. II, i>. 42 ;
302. 3, p. 457; 3 '4- '3. p. 286;
315. 24. p. 335; 32.r I, P- 180;
329. 23. p 123 ; 332. 20. p. 9 ; 4or.
17. p. 67 ; 411. 3. p. 294; 430. 21.
p. 466; 480. 10, p. 474; 505. 29,
P- 97; 537 extr. p. 265; 567. 12,
p. 294; 572. p. 262; 623. 22, p.
1 10 ; 630. 28, p. 26 ; 780. II, p. 9 ;
782. 8, p. 130; 787. 23, p. 265 ;
799. 21, p. 477; 845. 23, p. 428;
848. 12, p. 282 ; 893. 15, p. 357;
990. 4, p. 94; loio. 15, p. 471 ;
1021. 20, p. 333, 334 ; 1057, p. 142 ;
1062, p. 142; 1075, p. 142; 1077.
p. 142 ; 1170. 27, p. 323; 1295. 20,
p. 318; 1295. 20, p. 318; 1303.14,
p. 118; 1304, p. 162 ; 1392. 4, p.
30-
Dinarchus, no. 2, p. 11.
Euripides, Ale. 757, p. 224.
Andr. 225, p. 456.
Bcuch. 798, p. 95 ; 920, p. 179.
Cyd. 132, p. 455; 172, p. 394:
2i5' P- 139; 35''. P- 139; 406, p.
86.
El. 1032, p. 220.
Hel. 452, p. 89; 587, p. 228;
583, p. 17; 914, p. 126; 930 p.
241 ; loTO, p. 455 ; 1602, p. 297.
Heracl. 647, p. 391.
Here. Fur. 74, p. 115; 158, p.
13; 243, p 387; 340, p. 170; 1054,
p. 387; 1136.P. 335; 1266, p. 220;
1319, p. 86; 1368, p. 63.
Hipp, no, p. 323; 683, p. 18;
687, p. 86; 1093, p. 95; 1197, p.
222 ; 1391, p. 164.
Ion. 943, p. 455; 1187, p. 232;
1525, P- 317-
/• -4- 339. P- 227; 607, p. 99;
769, p. 311.
/. T. 951, p. 78; 987. p. 17;
1410, p. 116.
Med. 60, p. 71 ; 92, p. 179; 1S8,
p. 180; 237, p. 78; 604, p. 95;
1409, p. 275, note.
Ov. 141, p. 316; 504. p. 451 ;
700, p. 438; 1474. p. 115.
Phocn. 546, p. 3S; 1273, p. 13.
Khes. 25, p. 305 ; 816, p. 97.
Supp. 442. ]>. 201.
7'road. 474, p. 241.
Herodotus, 2. 7, p, 147; 158, p. 72 ;
167, p. 16; 3. 36, p. 254; 62, p.
219; 4. 105, p. 17; 5. 53. p. 72;
94. P- '3; 6. 37- P- '7; 86, p. 18;
126. p. 18; 7. 13, p. 17; 152, p.
13; 9- 82, p. 495.
llcsiod. Op. (t Di. 528, p. 150; 777,
P- ».^5-
Ihfoi;. 144, p. 2io; 793, p. 217.
Momcr. Iliad. <). 303, p. 123; 270. p.
47: '3- 342. p. 3»2 ; 15. 128. p.
247; 16. 847. p. 84; 17. 575. p.
)36
INDEX II.
-'H ; 17. 575- P- 214; 20. 128, p.
135; 21. 262, p. 317; 318, p. 147;
23. 282, p. 67.
Odyssey. 2. 99, p. 117; 291, p.
57; 3. 298, p. 87; 6. 128, p. 255;
726, p. 322 ; 7. 198, p. 135; 318, p.
118; 8. 251, p. 313; 9. 10, p. 66;
240, p. 469; 10. 152, p. 197; 361,
p. 275; 20. 83, p. 216 ; 21. Ill, p.
74; 22. 198, p. 123; 23. 134, p.
313-
Hyperides, Ov. Fun. Col. 13. 3, p.
390; Col. II. 142, p. 409.
Isaeus, 51. 32, p. 428 ; 84. 37, p. 332 ;
86. 10, p. 332.
Isocrates, i. C, p. 203 ; 44. B, p. 142 ;
62. A, p. 78; 203. A, p. 346; 213.
D, p. 346-
Lycurgus, 166. 16, p. 218.
Lysias, 93 43, P- 123; 94-41. p. 145 ;
94, p. 262 ; 102. 12, p. 262 ; III.
16, p. 241 ; 136. I, p. 219; 147.
34, p. 107; 165. 12, p. no; 180.
5, p. 63-
Pindar, 01. 13. 43. P- 84.
Pyth. 4 extr. p. 70.
NefJi. 9. 46, p. /08.
Plato, Apol. 20. A, p. 142.
Axioc. 368. E, p. 418.
Charm. 172. D. p. 70.
Cratyl. 406. C. p. 313-
Critias. 109. D. p. 99; 117. A,
p. 369-
Crito. 53. E, p. 1 10.
Eiithyd 278. C, p. 91 ; 302. A,
p. 398.
Eidhyphro. 4. B, p. 227.
Gorg. 477. B, p. 67 ; 481, p. 456 ;
492. E, p. 39; 494. C,p. 133; 506.
C, p. 195; 5J0- D, p 448; 512. E,
p. 4,^6 ; 527. A. p. 410.
Hipp. Maj. 292. B, p. 262.
Laches. 192 E, p. 408.
Legg. 646. C, p. 340 ; 666. D, p.
377; 687. D, p. 142; 757, p. 329;
800.D, p. 67; 840. D, p. 194; 845.
A, p. 149; 913- B, p. 447; 916. A,
Parmen. 140. A, p. 449 ; 141. E,
p. 194.
Phaedo, 69. B, p. 213; 99. B, p.
303 ; 104. A, p. 333.
Phaedr. 242. A, p. 293; 251. A.
p. 270; 254. E, p. 146.
Phileb. 62. D, p. 194.
Polit. 282. A, E, p. 135 ; 289. C,
?■ 135-
Protag. 321. A, p. 303.
Rep. 111. p. 29; 378. A, p. 142;
378. D, p. 353 ; 379. p. 301 ; 398.
A, p. 67 ; 410. E, p. 142 ; 410. E,
p. 142 ; 432. D, p. 235 ; 452. F, p.
313; 460. D, p. 402; 470. A, p.
189, note; 539 E. p. 312; 603. E,
P' 195-
Symp. 413. B, p. 29.
Theaet. ii,A,. B, p. 335 ; 147. D,
p. 334; 153. E, p. 75; 154. D, p. 9;
178. C, p. 415 ; 197. C, D, p. 253 ;
198. B, p. 253; 200. B, p. 253; 200.
D, p, 334-
Tim. 26. C, p. 227.
Pollux 1. 79, p. 321; 2. 17, p. 14S,
157; 2. 33. P- 132; 2. 41, p. 155;
2. 76, p, 164; 168, p. 178; 3. 17,
p. 208; 78, p. 474; 7. 13, p. 213 ;
40, p. 322; 48, p. 312; 108, p. 159;
191, p. 256; 200, p. 314; 9. 124,
p. 37; 10. 12, p. 418; 21, p. 471;
34, p. 207, 267; 35, p. 322: 39,
p. 256; 103, p. 251; 136, p.
175
Sophocles, Aj. 312, p. 448; 571, p.
64 ; 679, p. 241 ; 786, p. 132 ; 1185,
p- "7; 1373, p- 134-
Ant. 447, p. 226; 571, p. 143;
887, p. 133; 1 231, p. 78.
El. 596, p. 317; 606, p. 134;
1.306, p. 379.
Oed. Col. 335, p. 115 ; 505, p.
116; 528, p. 173; 1339, p. 68.
Oed. Rex 246, p. 18; 428, p. iS ;
696, p. 465 ; 840, p. 449 ; 967, p.
423-
Phil. 666, p. 27; 992, p. 316;
1306, p. 13.
Trach. 24, p. 241 ; 276, p. 85 ;
564, p. 242; 675, p. 225; 698, p.
323.
Theocritus 3. 50, p. 93 ; 8. 78, p. 69 ;
II. 31, p. 210; 13. 36, p. 93; 14.
S.';. P- 93-
Thucydides, i. 2, p. 358; 6, p. 99;
13, p. 142 ; 62, p. 116; 70, p. 294;
1. 17, p. 195; 20, p. 337; 40, p.
81 ; 84, p. 132 ; 97, p. 218 ; 3. 8,
p. 126; 12, p. no, note; 22, p.
167; 54. P- loi ; 61, p. loi; 4. 9.
p. 314; 24, p. 119; 26, p. 98 ; 36,
p. 318; 120, p. 108; 4. i2T,p. 107;
5. 63, p. 1 1 ; 6.3, p. 107, note ; 66,
p. 337; 88, p. 358; 96, p. 223;
104, p. 314; 7. 66, p. 99; 81, p.
340; 8. 23, p. 118; 92. p. 262;
107, p. 116.
Xenophon, Anab. i. 2. 17, p. 279;
2. I. 22, p. 187 ; 2. 4. 25, p. 109 ;
2. 5. 15, p. 188; 2. 6. I, p. 481 ; 4.
3. 12, p. 92 ; 4. 3. 13, p. 109; 4. 3.
26, p. 203 ; 4. 5. 19, p. 3.57; 4' 6-
INDEX 11.
537
■22, pp. 109, 200, 238; 4. 7. 12, p.
109; 5. 4. 29, p. 358; 5. 8. 15, p.
198; 6. 2. 19, p. 358; 6. 3. 10, p.
358-
Cyrop. I. 3. 4, p. 115 ; I. 3- '4.
p. 314; I. 3. 17, p. 263; I. 4. 22,
p. 495; I. 6. 16, p. 176; 2. 2. I, p,
69 ; 2. 4. 18, p. 109 ; 3. I. 35, p.
456; 3- 2- 19' P- 185; 4- I- I' P-
109; 4. I. II, p. 172 ; 4. 5. 56, p.
427 ; 5- 3- 52. p- 448 ; 5- 4- 38. P-
399; 5- 5- 39. P- 303; 6. I. 9, p.
241; 6. 3- 13. P- 378; 7- I- 30, p.
500; 7. 5. 65, p. 59; 8. 2. 5, p.
456; 8. 5. 12, p. 109.
Eq. 2. 2, p 62 ; 3. 3, p. 351 ; 4.
4, p. 323; 6. I, p. 323.
Hell. I. 7. 8, p. 132 ; 2. 2. 20, p.
218; 2. 3. 49, p. 144; 4. I. 40, p.
142; 4. 8. 39, p. 59; 5. I. 27, p.
151 ; 5- 3- I. P-427; 5- 4- 58, p.
296; 6. 5. 20, p. 189, note; 7. i.
29, p. 428.
Hiero. 2. 4, p. 152 ; 3. 3, p. 59.
Mem. 2. I. 3, p. 60 ; 2. i. 5, p.
152; 3- 3- 2, p. 427; 4.3. 13, p. 62.
Oec. 16. 14, p. 126; 1 7. 4, p. 124.
Rep. Ath. 2. 16, p. 367.
Symp. 4. 7, p. 91 ; 4. 31, p. 357;
4. 43, p. 486; 9. 2, p. 91.
INDEX III,
Accusative plural of substantives in
-(vs, 234.
Adverbs in -6ev, 114, 177.
of place confused, 114, 115.
compounded with prepositions, 117.
Anapaestic verse, licence in, 51.
Antiphon, his diction, 30, 107, 164,
227.
Aorist, optative forms of, 429 ff.
rarely a first and second aorist co-
existent, 215 ff.
aorists of verbs in -aiyoj and aipw,
76 ff.
in -Bt]v, with active signification,
iS6ff.
Apollonius Rhodius, diction of, 121.
Aspiration, Attic, 196.
Athenian civilization homogeneous,
32, 33-
Attic dialect, in relation to Athenian
civilization, 33.
early history of illustrated by Tra-
gef^y. 3..4-
short duration of, 1.
purity of 199.
old words replaced by new crea-
tions, 22.
by new formations from the same
stem, 19.
Augmentation, inconsistencies of At-
tic, 79 ff.
double, 83 ff.
of verbs beginning in a diphthong,
244.
Caricature, as affecting the diction of
comedy, 46.
Comedy, utility of in deciding questions
of Atticism, p. 33 ff.
Comparatives, double, 209.
Compound words, late methods of
forming them, 3''i.
in Ionic and Tragedy, 6.
Contraction of verbs in -af^ai, 463 ff.
in -ea), 297 ff.
of adjectives in -*os, 287.
Cyclops in Homer, prevalent mistake
regarding, 209, 210.
Dawes, his work characterized, 229.
Dialects, literary dialects in Greece,
162 ff.
Diminutives in -aatov, 148.
Dual number, rules regarding, 2S9ff.
true forms of nom. and ace. 3rd
declension, 142.
Euripides, diction of, 35, 121.
Futures in -O-fjaofxai, 189 note.
middle, Doric, 91 ff.
futures deponent, 376 ff.
Legal technical terms, 26.
Lysias, diction of, 202.
Metaphor, picturesqueness of in Tonic
and Tragedy, 16.
growth of freedom in the use of,
479 ff.
Middle voice and Active, often con-
fused in MSS , 377 ff.
direct middle, 368.
in the future tense, 376 ff.
Nominative plural of substantives in
-fvs, 233, 234.
Optative forms discussed, 429 ff.
Parasite, history of the name, 214 ff.
Parody, in the senarii of Comedy,
37 ff-
in hexameter, 46.
in Epic, 47.
in choric metres, 36.
Parsimony, law of, 120.
Perfect tense, original meaning of in
Greek, 200.
optative forms in the active, 449.
Pluperfect, inflexions of, 229 ff.
Prepositions used adverbially, 119.
governing adverbs, ii7-
Proverbial sayings preserve old forms,
49 ff.
Pseudo-oracles in Comedy, 46 ff.
Reduplication, Attic, 95 ff.
INDEX III.
539
Sigma in perfect passive, 97 ff.
Sirens, error regarding; the, 210.
Sophocles, fondness for Ik in compo-
sition, 7.
Substantives used as adjectives, 21.
Superlatives, 144.
Thucydides, diction of. 28, 107. 218.
Tragic dialect explained and discussed,
3, 4, 8, 58, 140, 223.
Verbs in -ao^, contracting in -»;, 13: ff.
denoting mental states, 152 ff.
in -i\)oyio.i, 141.
in -i^ofiai, 141.
with signification definable by con-
text, i78ff.
deponent, 192.
denoting rivalry necessarily middle,
192 ff.
Xenophon's diction, 28, 30, 59, 62, 67,
69, 109, 115, 124, 160 ff., 187,
203.
io^-^iiz^ -^
w
^
<
m
33
t_3
g
33
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388
Return this material to the library from which It was borrowed.
ml
iW
\\\i^
^m\^
\
in
JO
^ ^.
%JI3AI
u
^<!/OJIT
^OFCAI
)
^
w.
^^ ^oxm
CD
A
%iiQA
4s
O
1*^
A>:lOSAf
«x
,^ ^
\v.',>,
.j.OFfA!'
I ir\iv«»<-«itv ni fjiiitivnia Los -
L 005 275 529 5
nF-r4i'
r.it
<
"MJU
IT <
-n t-J
1-3
jm
MIC
II ^0/?:
#>
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
I III) llllll
AA 000 446 508 4
.vin<;Avr.nrr.
r,r
■ \< I I ' I \ / r n r .