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 tention was withdrawn from the more special aspect of the 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 .