In either case I conceive that these translations suggest the idea, howbeit with an obscure sense, that "quæ sunt super terram" refers to "membra," and that the words which follow are in apposition. ·

In Pole's Synopsis the passage is explained as follows: “Membra vestra (i.e. vitiosos vestros affectus) quos membra vocat respectu ceteris hominis qui corpus vocatur. (Rom. vi. 6, and Sup. I. 11.) Ne intelligantur corporis humani membra addidit rà inì rūs yñs, ubi subintelligi debet ex præcedentibus τὰ φρονοῦντα.

Whence I infer,

Now v. 2 is τὰ ἄνω φρονεῖτε μὴ τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. that rà éπì rūs yūs is truly explained by the words which follow it, TOPVEίav. K. T. λ. Again, rà μéλn vμov occurs Rom. vi. 13, in reference to výrov owμa, and are there described as either capable of being ὅπλα αδικίας or ὅπλα δικαιοσύνης ; so that if we take νεκρώσατε το govern two accusatives, which, indeed, seems the regular construction in this place, the sense is without ambiguity, and the proper meaning of each part of the sentence is preserved. Thus, "Mortify therefore your members (with regard to) base affections," viz. fornication, &c. G. and C. C.

REMARKS ON THE ORIGIN OF TENSES.

IN speculating on etymology, a difficulty is frequently encountered when we endeavour to mount up to the origin of certain elements. Those who allege that amari is derived from ama and fui, or roμai from T and σopa, are exposed to the objection that the words fui and tooμa need themselves to be accounted for. At least, a vague feeling of dissatisfaction is on this ground often felt. At present it is proposed to adduce a few facts from a modern language, which seem to relieve the general difficulty, without entering into any special discussion about furi, the alleged earlier form of fui.

That which is called the past tense in Arabic by no means specifically expresses historical time. Katab (for instance) means rather "he has written," than "he wrote;" and, in some connections, would even have a present meaning. Yet the verb Kàn, which, judged of by the form, is in the very same tense, always has the historical notion, meaning, "he was," not "he has been," or "he is." In consequence, in order to give to another verb historical time, they prefix Kàn to the present; as, Yarùhh, he goes; Kàn yarùhh(fuit it), he went : and to form the pluperfect, Rahh, he has gone, Kàn ràhh (= fuit ivit), he had gone. This is exactly analogous in principle to saying, Ama fui, I loved; for Kàn and fui are alike destitute of any thing in form which should fix them to historical time.

But, again, there is a second verb, Sàr or Ssàr, which primitively meant “factus est," but practically passes off into the sense of "est." Thus, in the very same tense, viewed grammatically, the two verbs, Sàr and Kàn, express two different times, Present and Past; and may be without violence compared to Est and Fuit, if we are disposed to admit that the form of Fuit is that of the Present Tense.

In the Arabic of Bagdad, the verb Kàn largely enters the composition of other verbs as an auxiliary, so as to throw some light on the composition of Amav-ero, Amav-erim, Fu-ero, Fu-erim. For its tense, Yakun, which is called the Aorist or Present, and in other verbs denotes either present or future time, in this verb is specifically future, "erit;" hence it serves to fix a future idea definitely on other verbs. Thus: Yaruhh, he goes, or will go; Yakun yarùhh, he will (hereafter) go; Kàn yakun yarùhh, he was to have gone (literally, "Fuit erit it"); Yakun rahh, he will have gone (literally, "Erit ivit ").

The special futurity inherent in Yakun may perhaps be compared to cooμai and Ero, each of which is present in form, but future in sense. The crude form being is and er, it will hardly be alleged that either -oμa or -o had any force essentially determining the sense to future

It is true that in ἔδομαι, φάγομαι, πίομαι, the termination -ομαι may be thought to denote futurity; but the more legitimate conclusion seems to be, that there was a time when it was not yet settled what should mean. It tried to be future, and succeeded in a few verbs. It tried to be passive and middle, and sometimes was neither, but deponent."

ομαι

That forms were invented first, and their final sense affixed to them only afterwards, seems to be proved in various instances. Thus the reduplication, if we judge of it by Hebrew analogies, originally expressed something frequentative or energetic in the verb. If this cannot be proved in Greek, it is at least highly probable that κέκλυθι, τέτλαθι, κέκλομαι, μίμνω, originally had a more emphatic sense than κλύθι, πλῆθι, κέλομαι, μένω. Be this as it may, we know that in the aorists κέκαμον Kéκadov the reduplication had as legitimate a place once, as afterwards in the Paulo Post Futurum and in the Perfects; and it cannot be denied, that the final tendency has been that which we see in the Latin language, to associate the reduplication with the idea of Past Time, with which it evidently had once nothing to do. This may well reconcile us to the belief that -ομαι in ἔσομαι, ἔδομαι, and -ομαι in τύπτομαι, are the same termination, though, by accident, differently understood.

It may be of interest to know the different method used at Aleppo to express certain tenses. The future is there formed by the substantive Bed (which, whatever it once meant, now means Want or Will),

with the possessive pronouns of different persons-prefixed to the aorist.

Thus we get:

Then, by prefixing Kàn, he was, but varied in all the persons, they produce a Future Past.

Complications so cumbrous lose, by frequent repetition, the absurdity which on first hearing they seem to have; and, by force of analogy, remove all à priori difficulty out of the way of saying Ama fui ero, and afterwards corrupting the combination into Amarero. On the question, whether Fui does actually enter into Amavi, no opinion is here expressed.

The forms Ero and rúd suggest that low, as well as copat, once conveyed a future idea in Greek: and this leads to a new question, whether the distinction of eiuì and trouat, of Sum and Ero, was originally one of tense. Ero, from the crude form er (= ic), is evidently formed like Rego; eiμì and Sum are formed after verbs in -μι. The most natural inference is, that a double formation first arose dialectually, without any aim; and that in this one verb a distinction of time was accidentally annexed, just at oixouai is Past, and pxopa Present or Future.

There is much reason to believe that no simple tense originally carried an idea of time with it at all. Rego might have been future, as Ero; and Regam past, as Eram; only the wear and tear of the language settled the meaning.

In many languages it is observed that the verb To Be is made up of two or more roots. In such cases it may be predicted, that the different times which they indicate have nothing to do with the forms or inflexions. The phenomena which have been above adduced from the Arabic language, as parallel to the Greek and Latin, are, it is believed, by no means peculiar to these tongues; but it may be sufficient at present to have indicated a principle without attempting an ambitious induction, which must, after all, remain very incomplete.

F. W. N.

REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN THE FUNERAL ORATION OF PERICLES. Ir is always a suspicious circumstance, when a passage seems to be well got over only by translating some important word, in such a way as to render it a sort of anak λɛyóμɛvov, quoad the (supposed) local meaning. And yet so common is this mode of interpretation, that I believe a vast number of words have thus acquired one or more traditional significations, not Greek or Roman, but purely scholastic; the invention of commentators who, in moments of ingenuity and laziness, have entered them (with or without "h. 1.") into their notes; from whence, after passing some time in a chrysalis state, they soar off into the open air of literature, become the prey of collectors, and are pinned down in lexicons. A passage in the Funeral Oration seems to me to illustrate this.

TW

Pericles, having stated that the Athenian government went by the name of a democracy, proceeds to shew that, nevertheless, in the working of it, the evils imputed to that form of government were obviated by the full admission of all real claims on public preference ; so that, practically, a recognized inequality existed, amounting to a graduated aristocracy of merit; whilst, in all questions or differences between man and man, absolute equality was maintained by law. This he expresses as follows: μέτεστι δὲ κατὰ μὲν τοὺς νόμους πρὸς τὰ ίδια διάφορα πᾶσι τὸ ἴσον, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ἀξίωσιν, ὡς ἕκαστος ἔν τῷ εὐδοκι μεῖ, οὐκ ἀπὸ μέρους τὸ πλεῖον ἐς τὰ κοινὰ ἢ ἀπ ̓ ἀρετῆς προτιμᾶται (Lib. 11. 37. 2; Arnold's 2nd ed.). I would first remark, that the de after μérεor answers to ovopa μèv above in such a way as to render the forthcoming statement of the facts of the case merely corrective of the impression produced by the name "Democracy;" but that the kara μèv-Karà de which follow express more, viz. a strong contrast between their respective clauses. Secondly, that I prefer taking vóμove ρòc Tà idia diapopa together, as a noun and adjective. Thirdly, that μépovs does not bear any of the significations assigned to it by Bloomfield, Arnold, or Goeller (all of which seem to amount either to "caste" or "faction"), so well as one which will be best explained by premising a translation of the passage, in which the first de is omitted, as irrelevant to this part of the statement.

μέρους

"With regard to the laws for (the adjustment of) private differences, equality belongs to all (alike), but, with regard to intrinsicexcellence, each is esteemed, in a public-point-of-view, not on the ground of mere-individuality, but of (relative)-merit, according-as he

1 For this use of ἐς see “ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα” (Lib. 1. 2), and other passages, which seem to supersede Liddell and Scott's

interpretation of this clause in v. πρоτιμάω.

has-a-name in this-or-that (department)." Or, retaining the dè: "Whilst, however, by the laws for adjusting questions between man and man, all are placed absolutely on a level, yet, as to claim on public estimation, any one who has an established reputation in any particular line, takes-rank according to his relative value, instead of merging as an unit of the same denomination with the rest."2 This last (arithmetical) expression conveys my idea of the force of ȧñò μépove; and seems to be strictly in accordance with the ordinary meanings of μépoç. Liddell and Scott's Lexicon gives οἱ ἐπὶ μέρους, individuals; κατὰ μέρος, in turn ; κατὰ τὸ ἐμὸν μέρος, Lat. pro virili; τοὐμὸν μέρος, τὸ σὸν μépos, simply, "I or me, Thou or thee;" with other meanings, strongly marking individuality. Scapula gives, amongst others, rà éπì μépovs, particularia: ràs karà μépos évɛpyɛíaç, “singulas operationes;" and I find nothing to support the other proposed renderings. Where μépos means "a considerable part" ("ein beträchtlicher Theil," Goeller's index), it seems to be by the same kind of μείωσις by which “ εἶναι τις,” or "esse aliquis," means, "to be somebody" (of note). Goeller points out, that public estimation did, even at Athens, go by caste (àñò μépovc) in one sense; but the other sense, in which he applies it to the contrasted case of Sparta, differs in degree only, not in kind. (Vol. 1. pp. 311, 312.) I am aware that, strictly speaking, άrò μéрove Tроτɩparaι, in the sense I have proposed, involves a species of contradiction; but, independent of the ad libitum force of apo in this verb, the reader will not fail to have frequently observed a similar result, from bringing into juxtaposition distant members of a sentence, especially when separated by negatives or disjunctives, such cases being, in fact, varieties of "zeugma." Compare, in N. T. Heb. vII. 27, XIII. 9; 1 Cor. vi. 1. J. PRICE.

2 E.g. In the administration of justice, any two citizens, A and B, always stand to each other in the ratio 1 : 1;

66

but in state questions (iç rà кoivà), A might be to B as 5: 1, or in any other ratio of inequality.