have frequently attributed senses to words, which a reference to time would shew that they could not possibly have. Some examples are given above; and I subjoin here some others, in which the vestiges of the later idiom have not yet been noticed. Almost all the Atticists affirm that the word μάuun is not used of a grandmother, but of a mother; Phryn. p. 52, uάuun, τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς μητέρα οὐ λέγουσιν οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, ἀλλὰ τίτθην. μάμμην μὲν οὖν καὶ μάμμιον τὴν μητέρα. ἀμαθὲς οὖν tỷ μáμμny ini tηs titons déyev. Dionys. Ael. ap. Eustath. Moeris p. 258. Thom. Mag. p. 846. Helladius ap. Phot. Bibl. p. 1579. Schol. ad Aristoph. Acharn. 39. Photius p. 180. But Hesychius and Suidas, who explain it by τὴν μητέρα τῶν γονέων and τοῦ πατρὸς ἢ μητρὸς μητέρα, have express reference to the New Testament usage, and are not to be regarded as interpreters of the Attic diction. The same may be affirmed of Pollux, who says Onomast. III. 7, y de naroos n unroos μήτηρ τήθη καὶ τὴν μάμμην δὲ, καὶ μάμμαν, ἐπὶ ταύτης παραAŋatέov, which words I suppose are to be understood rather with reference to his own time, than to antiquity. Paul uses this word for grandmother, 2 Tim. 1: 5; a usage acknowledged only by the xowoł; Plutarch Tom. I. pp. 797, 804. T. II. p. 704. Philo p. 601. Josephus p. 351.-The verb ɛvyaoiGrev Pollux rightly observes, Onomast. V. 32, was only employed ἐπὶ τῷ διδόναι χάριν, οὐκ ἐπὶ τῷ εἰδέναι, i. e. in the sense to gratify, and not in the sense to give thanks (Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 18); and to this precept must we reduce the opinions of the other Grammarians, e. g. Phrynich. p. 8, vyaqıστεῖν οὐδεὶς τῶν δοκίμων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ χάριν εἰδέναι. Thom. Μag. p. 913. Many citations have been heaped together by Kypke, Alberti, and others; but the authors from whom they quote are of the later age, and are therefore not of an authority sufficient to do away the censure of the Grammarians. The word is used in the former sense by Demosthenes pro_Coron. p. 122; in the latter by the writers of the New Testament, Matt. 15: 36. Luke 27: 16. 2 Cor. 1: 11.-Of the verb PoέZew the same Grammarians affirm, that the Attics never used it in reference to rain, for which they said vev; Phrynich. p. 121. Phavorinus. Thom. Mag. p. 171, Poéze, ovdeis var aoχαίων εἶπεν ἐπὶ ὑετοῦ, ἀλλὰ νει. Phrynichus cites a certain Teleclides, a comic writer, as having used it in this sense; but seems to be in doubt about the real author of the fable, from which the example is quoted. I have not been able to find it

in this sense in any approved prose writer. The passage of Anacreon145 which Triller has adduced in order to weaken the authority of Thomas Magister, is entirely consistent with the precepts of the Grammarians ; for βρέχομαι and βραχεῖσα are there used passively, which passive use of the verb seems not to be reprehended by them. There remains the passage in Pindar,146 where the active form is once employed in reference to snow; but it is hardly necessary to remark, that the usus loquendi of poetry and of prose are often very different. I omit other examples; which could not well be explained without going largely into particulars.

N. B. For an Index to this article, see the end of the volume.

APPENDIX.

On the Lexicography of the New Testament.*

There are three things, a careful and accurate distinction of which is essential to the full illustration of every word.

1. The first regards the history of a word, and its age. The latter must be distinctly specified, on account of the different mode of treatment which will be required, according as the word is known to have been already in use among the earlier Greeks, or to be peculiar to the later language. Those of the

*The following are the introductory remarks to a Programm published by the author at Pentecost, 1818, reprinted in Rosenmueller's Commentationes Theologicae I. p. 171. The body of the Programm consists of three lexicographical articles on the words ἀγάπη, ἁγιασμός, πνεῦμα. See the Preliminary Remarks above, p. 640.

former kind do not need to be further taken into the account in an historical description of the later Hellenism; for they come down, of course, quite to the commencement of the noun diakentos, and on this account require no farther explanation than the mere statement of their ancient signification and use; the testimonies and sources of which have been collected with great diligence, and are extant in other works, accessible to all who pursue the study of the language. Those of the latter kind, on the contrary, both the words themselves and their later forms, require a wholly different mode of treatment; since neither the history of them, nor the appropriate meaning and usage, has hitherto been determined; but is still to be investigated and established by the authority of competent witnesses. Hence, not only the sources in which the first traces of such words occur, but also the senses and significations which seem to be the most ancient, ought to be fully and accurately described. The complete exhibition of the significations of a word, depends very frequently on a full exhibition of its history; inasmuch as in this way only is its real origin and primitive sense to be correctly recognized.

2. The second important point to be regarded in treating of a word, is a true and perfect exposition of its signification. This depends, in the first place, in my judgment, very much on a close and accurate distinction of the primary notion of a word from those significations, which have arisen either from a later usus loquendi, or from its being variously transferred and applied to express other objects. And in the next place, the same method should be followed in regard to the derived significations, which should be illustrated in a similar manner, and their consistency and correspondence with the ultimate root, under every variety of usage, be pointed out and established. In this way the error into which interpreters of every age have hitherto very frequently fallen, may be most certainly avoided, viz. the failure to distinguish between the signification and the sense of words. In a language where religion and religious things are the chief subjects of discourse, there is of course the greatest danger of committing errors of this sort; since every thing relating to God and to the divine nature, can be apprehended, either in thought or external expression, only when represented under some imagery; and the choice of this imagery and the method of transferring it to express that which is divine, affords perpetual occasion to give a

new sense to words; which, however, is something very different from a new signification. This latter arises and assumes its place in the language, when the thing which it designates is itself new, and is not merely employed by way of comparison, as an image, to signify some other thing. On the other hand, a new and different sense arises in words, when they are not employed to designate things in themselves new, but are only transferred and applied to a new comparison of that which they have hitherto designated, with something else. These two things ought certainly in no language to be more carefully distinguished, than in that which relates to religion; because here the objects to which all the signs of language refer, remain immutable, and only the forms and images under which they must be apprehended by the mind, can be subject to novelty and change. Hence, therefore, they present occasion for the rise of new senses, but not of new significations.

3. The third point which requires particular attention in the explanation of words in the later Hellenism, has regard to the anomalous use of words, either by themselves, so far as they suffer any change in sense, or as standing in connexion with other words. Whatever is found in either case, contrary to the usual rules of grammar and sense as they obtained in the more ancient language, may be much more conveniently treated of in a Lexicon than in the Grammar; since it can refer only to single examples, and not to the circle of the whole language. That a multitude of such anomalies have migrated into the diction of the sacred writers, can be matter of doubt to no one who is thoroughly acquainted with the history and nature of the Jewish Hellenism. There is besides another cause, which cannot but be followed by similar anomalies and departures from good usage. I mean the particular usage, both as to grammar and sense, of individual writers. This could not well have been otherwise; since they appear to have been regulated by no common law, but rather by accident and individual taste, in thus transferring the usus loquendi of their own tongue to the Greek language. For these reasons I propose, after giving under every word a review of its significations, to add in the third place a brief illustration of its use, both in general and by particular writers, so far as it may seem to deviate from the customary rules of the language.

ART. III. GENERAL VIEW OF THE Greek LanguagE AND ITS DIALECTS.*

From Buttmann's Greek Grammar. Translated by the Editor.

1. The Greek language (povn Elλnvexn) was anciently spread abroad not only over Greece, but also over a large portion of Asia Minor, Southern Italy, Sicily, and still other regions, where there were Greek colonies. Like all other languages, it had its various dialects (diάhexroi), all of which however may be referred back to two principal ones, viz. the Doric (n Awgian, Δωρίς) and the Ionic (ή 'Ιωνική, Ιάς), which belonged to the two great Grecian tribes of the like names.

2. The Doric tribe was the largest, and sent abroad the most colonies. Hence the Doric dialect prevailed in the whole interior of Greece, in Italy, and in Sicily. It was harsher, and made upon the ear, in consequence of the predominant long α, an impression which the Greeks call lateiaoμós, broad pronunciation. It was on the whole a less cultivated dialect. A branch of it was the Acolic (ǹ Aiolixń, Aiolis); which, particularly in the Aeolic colonies of Asia Minor and the neighboring islands (Lesbos etc.) arrived early at a considerable degree of refinement. This however did not probably extend beyond the limits of poetry.

3. The Ionic tribe in the earlier ages chiefly inhabited Attica, and sent out from thence colonies to the coasts of Asia Minor. These colonies took the lead both of the mother tribe and of all the other Greeks in general improvement; and hence the names Ionians and Ionic came to be applied chiefly and at last exclusively to them and their dialect; while the original Ionians in Attica were now called Attics and Athenians.The Ionic dialect is the softest of all, in consequence of its many vowels. The Attic (ǹ'Arriný, 'Arvis) which also was afterwards cultivated, soon surpassed in refinement all the other dialects; avoiding with Attic elegance and address both the harshness of the Doric and the softness of the Ionic. But although the Attic

* See the Preliminary Remarks prefixed to the preceding article, p. 640. The following article has been already translated and published by Professor Patton, as an Appendix to his edition of Thiersch's Greek Tables.