6

aorists in each voice; indeed, as Veitch has pointed out, it is one of the very few verbs that have the second aorist active and passive in actual use,' (though the former is very rare, while in Attic prose neither is ever found). Again, as compared with some other verba impura, with a consonant for their characteristic letter, it has this advantage; that the stem-vowel remains unchanged throughout, and is thus identical in, for instance, the aorist and present participle alike (TUT-Eis and τύπτων), whereas in λείπω, φαίνω, τήκω as compared with ἔ-λιπ-ον, ἐ-φάνην, ἐ-τάκην, the stein-vowels which appear in the aorist have suffered modification in the present; also the consonantal relations between the different tenses are simpler than in the case of some other verbs; thus, while ẞ in -ßλáß-ηv becomes π in ßλáπ-T-W, no such alteration is necessary in passing from the -тUπof the second aorist to the strengthened form тʊπт- of the present.

The verb is not without an interest of its own in the history of grammar; and though it may be rash to conjecture whether it owed its first selection to the grim humour of some plagosus Orbilius of old times, intent on bringing each tense's meaning home to his pupils' memories by the help of his ferule, it may be interesting to note that this particular paradigm is found in the early Greek Grammars which appeared in Italy at the revival of learning, as for instance in the Erotemata of Chrysoloras, a distinguished scholar, who (in the dedication of a copy in my possession, printed at Venice at the Aldine press in 1517) is described as Manuel Chrysoloras, qui primus Iuniorum reportauit in Italia literas græcas*. The paradigm may also be traced still further

* On Chrysoloras, see Mullinger's History of the University of Cambridge, pp. 391-396, where the Erotemata is called 'the

back to the Canons of Theodosius, an Alexandrine grammarian of the age of Constantine the Great, who expounds all the parts, regardless of usage, and at considerable length (viz. on pp. 10081044 of Θεοδοσίου γραμματικοῦ εἰσαγω‐ γικοὶ κανόνες περὶ κλίσεως ῥημάτων in Bekker's Anecdota Græca, vol. III.) The Grammar of Theodosius is in its turn founded on that of a more celebrated Greek scholar, Dionysius the Thracian, who taught at Rome in B.c. 80. The τέχνη γραμματικὴ of the latter is a short work, occupying only pp. 629643 in Bekker's Anecdota Graeca, vol. II.; it was a standard text-book for many centuries and is the original basis of all subsequent grammars. quote a few words from chap. xv, which bear on our present subject: διαθέσεις δέ εἰσι τρεῖς, ἐνέργεια, πάθος, μεσότης· ἐνέργεια μὲν οἷον τύπτω, πάθος δὲ οἷον τύπτομαι, μεσότης δὲ ἡ ποτὲ μὲν ἐνέργειαν, ποτὲ δὲ πάθος παριστῶσα, οἷον πέποιθα, διέφθορα, ἐποιησάμην, ἐγραψάμην*. Shortly after, he proceeds : ἀριθμοὶ δὲ τρεῖς, ἑνικός, δυϊκὸς καὶ πληθυντικός· ἑνικὸς μὲν οἷον τύπτω, δυϊκὸς δὲ οἷον τύπτετον, πληθυντικὸς δὲ οἷον τύπτομεν· πρόσωπα δὲ τρία, πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρίτον πρῶτον μὲν οἷον τύπτω, δεύτερον οἷον τύπτεις, τρίτον οἷον τύπτει.

But however well this verb may be adapted as a typical form for the beginner, and however interesting it may be as a tradition of the earlier grammarians, it can

Greek Grammar of the first century of the Renaissance.' 'It served Reuchlin for a model at Orleans, was used by Linacre at Oxford and Erasmus at Cambridge, and long continued to hold its ground against formidable rivals,' p. 395. The date of his arrival in Italy was 1396. The Aldine edition above referred to is of course a reprint.

* It is quoted ἐτυψάμην in Graefenhan, Geschichte der Classischen Philologie, I. p. 481, q. v.; but Dionysius appears in the rest of the chapter to confine himself to tenses in actual use and is therefore likely to have avoided ἐτυψάμην.

P. S. D. II.

14

not be too clearly understood that very few of the tenses are really used by the best Greek authors. The tenses given in the paradigm are all formed regularly on the principles of analogy alone, regardless of the opposite principles of anomaly which prevail in the usage of the Greek writers themselves. In Attic Prose none of the tenses given in the grammars are found except the present and imperfect, active and passive, TÚпт and ἔτυπτον, τύπτομαι and ἐτυπτόμην. The future active is not τύψω but τυπτήσω, and the aorists in use are borrowed from other verbs, and are really επάταξα and ἐπλήγην. erva is never found in Attic Prose, and the reference to Lysias, fragment 10, 2, given in Veitch's Greek Verbs, and repeated, apparently without verification, in Liddell and Scott's Lexicon, supplies us with no real exception. The passage, when examined, proves to be part of an exposition by the late rhetorician Theon (Progymnasmata 2 p. 165) of a possibly genuine speech of Lysias. The words are ἐγκύμονά τις ἔτυψε κατὰ γαστρὸς καὶ κρίνεται φόνου, where Lysias himself would undoubtedly have written éπátaέev, as is proved by a passage in Or. 13 § 71, o @paσúßovλos τύπτει τὸν Φρύνιχον καὶ καταβάλλει πατάξας. The following passages will further illustrate the prose usage of this defective verb, Lysias, Or. 4 § 15, TоTEрov émλýynv émáraga; id. Or. 1 §§ 25-27, where ráragas Kaтaẞáλλ is followed by the corresponding passive forms λŋyeis κατέπεσεν, Dem. Or. 4 § 40, ο πληγείς κἂν ἑτέρωσε πατάξης, Thuc. VIII. 92, ο Φρύνιχος πληγείς followed by ὁ πατάξας Stépuyev. Again in Plato's Laws, p. 879 D-E, we have τίπτοντα and τύπτειν followed by πατάξαι, and soon after, τύπτει τῇ μάστιγι followed by ὅσας ἂν αὐτὸς πατάξῃ: so in p. 880 Β, ἐάν τις τύπτῃ τὸν πρεσβύτερον... τῇ τοῦ πληγέντος λkía, and in p. 882 the last two forms occur twice over. Cf. Aristot. Eth. v. 4. 4, ὅταν ὁ μὲν πληγῇ ὁ δὲ πατάξῃ,

ὁμοῖα καὶ εἰ ἰσχυρὸς ἀσθενῆ πατάξαι ἢ πληγῆναι προκαλέ σαιτο, Εth. v. 5. 4, εἰ ἀρχὴν ἔχων ἐπάταξεν, οὐ δεῖ ἀντιπληγῆναι, καὶ εἰ ἄρχοντα ἐπάταξεν, οὐ πληγῆναι μόνον δεῖ ἀλλὰ καὶ κολασθῆναι. Rhet. I. 15, 29, πατάξαι ἢ πληγῆναι, de anima B, 8, p. 419 6 15, τὸ τύπτον καὶ τὸ τυπτόμενον... ἂν πληγῇ, p. 420 α 24, οὐ δὴ πᾶν ψοφεῖ τυπτόμενον καὶ τύπτον, οἷον ἐὰν πατάξῃ βελόνη βελόνην, p. 423 6 16, πληγεῖσα ἐπάταξεν, Soph. Elench. p. 168 α 6 ἄν τις τύπτη τοῦτον καὶ τοῦτον, ἄνθρωπον ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἀνθρώπους τυπτήσει, and Meteorologica, p. 368 α 18, τύπτωντύπτοντύπτεται, p. 371 6 10, ᾗ μέλλει πατάξειν, κινεῖται πρὶν πληγῆναι, while three lines below we find ὃ ἐὰν πατάξῃ.-Among other parts similarly borrowed we have πέπληγα, πέπληγμαι, πεπλήξομαι and πληγήσομαι.—So in Latin, ferio, percussi, etc.

But one of the best studies on this point of usage is the Speech of Demosthenes κατὰ Κόνωνος, where we find the following forms; in § 81 τύπτειν, in § 17 τύπτων, in § 4 ἔτυπτον, in SS 32 and 35 τυπτόμενον, with the verbal τυπτητέος in § 44. Again in § 31 we have πατάξαι (not τύψαι or πλήξαι), and in § 33 ἐπλήγην (not ἐπατάχθην, οι ἐτύπην, much less ἐτύφθην). Further in § 25 πατάξαντι stands side by side with τύπτειν ; and lastly we have the phrases πληγὰς ἐνέτειναν (§ 5) and εἰληφέναι καὶ δεδωκέναι πληγὰς (§ 14), which assist in making up for the defective tenses. It is reserved for the late writer who composed the Argument to use the unclassical form τετυπτῆσθαι.

For the usage of this verb in Attic Verse, see Veitch's excellent book on Greek Verbs, where it will be noticed that almost the only part used besides those found in Prose is τυπείς; the student should also read the interesting criticisms of Cobet in pp. 330-343 of his Variae lectiones,

EXCURSUS (B).

On the quantity of eμævos (Or. 54 § 12).

In Soph. Phil. 1378, the phrase μrvos Báσis is used with reference to the festering foot of Philoctetes, but the position of the words, at the end of an iambic line, leaves the quantity undetermined. This may however be ascertained (i) by the accent of the word from which it is derived, viz. Túov, which according to the express statement of the grammarian Arcadius should never be written TUOV; (ii) by the fact that Empedocles makes the first syllable of rúov short. We may further notice that the adjective and its derivatives occur (as might be expected) not unfrequently in Hippocrates and the medical writers; and that one of these, Galen (lib. xiii. p. 876), quotes in full an Elegiac poem in which Andromachus the elder, in describing the virtues of his potent antidote, or Onplakn di' exidvov, has the following couplet, which determines the quantity of the word:

καὶ μογερῶν στέρνων ἀπολύσεται ἔμπυον λύν

πινομένη πολλοὺς μέχρις ἐπ ̓ ἠελίους.

Hence we conclude that the lexicons of Liddell and Scott, and of Dr Pape (in their latest editions), are unwarranted in marking the penultimate as long;—an oversight which does not occur in the fourth edition of the former lexicon, and is doubtless due to a confusion between the quantities of тò „voν, the Latin pus, and ô πvós, the Lat. colostra (or beestings).

EXCURSUS (C).

On the meaning of avtoλýkvlos (Or. 54 § 14).

The exact meaning of this word is difficult to determine, and the Grammarians content themselves with giving us a wide choice of conflicting explanations. Harpocration, for instance, has the following article.