« PredošláPokračovať »
M. Gosselin, who was a perfect master of the subject. Dr. Donnegan tells us the Daric was worth nearly two guineas,' being about twenty Attic silver drachmæ, which drachmæ, on turning to the article deixun, we find to be worth fourpence apiece. This seems to us very indifferent arithmetic.
We will take another coin. The Kulinvòs is omitted in Donnegan; but it is correctly stated by Dunbar to be equal in value to 28 Attic drachmæ, as Demosthenes tell us in his oration against Phormion. There are, however, gold coins extant attributed to Cyzicus, of various sizes; and probably the stater of which Demosthenes speaks, is not known.
We shall conclude with the examination of a few terms, somewhat connected with politics and law. The words
pos, and npigual, seem to be, in general, correctly explained in the lexicons, and among the significations of npiloua we find to give a vote by means of a pebble or counter.' Though this is quite true, it does not explain the thing fully; one of the most important meanings of this word in Demosthenes is, to vote by ballot, that is, secretly, as the orator distinctly expresses it in his oration against Neæra, where he is speaking of the precaution adopted in giving a foreigner the rights of citizenship*. We contend for the same signification, as applicable to the choice of magistrates, in the word λayxvw, which is often very absurdly explained as chosen by lot.' With respect to the choice of magistrates at Athens, when it was not done by xpotovía, or show of hands, it was effected by the ballot. In a note, apparently added by the translator, vol. ii. p. 278, of Boeckh's Public Economy of Athens, we read, Lastly, Aristides gave all the Athenians the right of filling the situation of archon by casting lots, without any distinction of property, &c.' Mr. Boeckh also all along talks of choosing archons by lot (see p. 276): we wish he would inform us how this strange business of casting lots for the archonship among all the citizens of Athens was managed.
The word SaiTnTs is simply translated an arbiter' by Dunbar. Donnegan adds, persons who acted as umpires to decide matters in litigation; they were named by the archon, or chosen by the parties themselves.' There were certainly two kinds of diætetæ, but it is our opinion that one set (the xλnpwToi) were public functionaries, chosen by ballot.
Both of our lexicographers have omitted to notice the tech
* Ἔπειτ ̓ ἐπειδὰν πεισθῇ ὁ δῆμος, καὶ δῷ τὴν δωρεὰν, οὐκ ἐᾷ κυρίαν γενέσθαι τὴν ποίησιν, ἐὰν μὴ τῇ ψήφῳ εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν ὑπερεξακισχίλιοι Αθηναῖοι ψηφίσωνται, κρύβδην ψηφιζόμενοι· τοὺς δὲ πρυτάνεις κελεύει τιθέναι τοὺς καδίσκους (ballot-boxes) όμος καὶ τὴν ψῆφον διδόναι προσιόντι τῷ δήμω
nical meaning of the word dwg, when it signifies a clepsydra, a measure of time by which the length of speeches in the courts of justice was regulated. The word voos also does not appear to be clearly defined as to its proper acceptation in the orators, as distinguished from pioua. Of the latter word the lexicographers correctly remark, that it is a statute passed by votes of the people, in its proper sense. But the word voos, as we see from Demosthenes, signifies the constitution of the state, certain fixed principles, (many of which, at least, were preserved in writing,) consistently with which even laws must be made. This distinction between the constitution of a state, and the laws enacted by a legislating body, will be clearer to those people who possess a written constitution. Dunbar and Donnegan, indeed, call it, in one sense, custom, usage, established law,' but this is by no means sufficiently clear and precise.
Kabáтoμa, in the sense of citing as witnesses,' with a gen. case, (Herod. viii. 65.), or adjuring in the name of the gods,' (Herod. vi. 68.) is omitted by Dunbar, but given by Donnegan. Closely allied to this is the signification of xarà, with a gen. (See Demosth. against Aphobus, eʊd.), in formula where the strongest asseveration is intended.
ogos, a boundary, &c.; a mark set on any thing pledged; a guide post.
dinirns, one of the family, &c.; a servant; also, a slave. Eschin. c. Ctes.
gos, a boundary, &c.; a mark with a piece of writing annexed, fixed to the walls of houses which were mortgaged, or a stone, or post, set up in a field under such circumstances, &c.
Donnegan's explanation is more exact and complete; and will be useful to a student who meets with the term in the second oration of Demosthenes against Onetor. We may add that the action of ἐξουλὴ—ἐξουλὴς δίκη—which is the subject of the orations against Onetor, is also more fully explained in Donnegan than in Dunbar.
oixírns, generally a slave or servant, but sometimes in the plur. a wife and children. Xen. Cyrop. 4, 2. 2.
We prefer the second explanation, because the political import of this word in the orators is undoubtedly and exclusively a slave; and it has just the same meaning in the passage of the Cyropædia, to which Donnegan refers, as showing the meaning of a wife and children. Some passages in Herodotus (book viii.), to which Schneider refers, are, probably, more favourable to this second signification of the word; but in the same book (chap. 4. and others), it would
appear to be limited to the signification of slaves,' from the word Texva (family) being used in connexion with it.
Professor Dunbar's Lexicon contains, at the end, an English and Greek Lexicon, intended to aid students in writing Greek. We have not examined it.
Proper names also are very often given by Professor Dunbar, which, in a lexicon on a large scale, we should be glad to see, solely for the sake of the forms of such words. The complete explanation of them clearly belongs to a different. kind of book. In a lexicon such as Dunbar's it is only a very small number of such names that can find admission; and there is, therefore, no great use in inserting them, especially as the explanation must unavoidably be imperfect. From Professor Dunbar we learn, among other things, that
Zourov signifies a lily in the Phoenician language. Hence Susa, the name of a city in Persia.' We should be glad to see proof of the first part of the assertion *, and that being established, we should ask for an explanation of its connexion with the second part.
Kas, Kows, and Kews, the name of an island, Cos.' This is the old blunder of Dr. Lempriere's dictionary, which seems to bid defiance to all attempts to correct it.
We have endeavoured to examine these two, lexicons in such a way as to point out to those who use them, wherein they are most defective: and we have done this with the hope that, as both these books contain much useful matter, a diligent student may avail himself of what is good without being misled by their errors. Should Dr. Donnegan's attain a third edition, we would suggest the omission of at least one-fourth of the present matter; for if this were done with judgment, there would be ample room even for additional useful and necessary information, while the book would still be reduced in bulk, and might be lowered in price. A great deal of space might be saved by simply omitting such information as 6 ἀποδείξω, fut. of ἀποδείκνυμι' — θάλε, poet. for Jake, 3 pers. sing. 2 aor. of Jaλλw-Eλéva, Dor. for 'Exévn, Helen'-Exén also has a separate article. Such matter as this is entirely useless, even for the lowest school-boy. As to Messrs. Barker and Dunbar's, we conceive that the same remark will apply particularly to those long dissertations and the heavy Latin extracts, which rest like an incubus on the lighter matter. The whole of the etymological department too requires cleansing out as much as the Augean stable, and
Probably the lexicographer may be alluding to the Hebrew word (Shoshan), which is translated lily. Kings i.7, 22. Sus (Zoura) is a Persian word, and so is Shus-ter, a modern town on the Abzal, but Sus or Shus does not mean lily.
we beseech the learned editors to apply themselves to the work with all the vigour of the son of Jove. When this is done, we are ready to pronounce their dictionary a useful and a much improyed work.
We hope it will not be inferred, because we have pointed out what we consider to be a few errors in these books, that we have no proper sympathy with those who labour in the vineyard of lexicography. We do sympathize most sincerely with the anxiety that must be felt by an author for the reception of a work on which he has expended so much time and labour. But the present age will be a better patron than the Prince of Lexicographers found, though he dedicated his book to crowned heads and learned bodies; and we hope no scholar of our own time will have occasion to make the complaint which Henry Stephens pours forth in the following homely but expressive lines*:
Thesauri momento alii ditantque beantque,
Et facit ut juvenem ruga senilis aret.
STEWART'S CORNELIUS NEPOS.
Cornelii Nepotis Vitæ excellentium Imperatorum ad fidem optimorum Codicum castigate; Notis, Chronologia, Calendario, Vocabulario, et Nominum propriorum Indice illustratæ, studio Alexandri Stewart.-Editio octava. Edinburgi: sumptibus Oliver et Boyd, 1830. Price three shillings. 12mo. pp. 364.
WE should have been surprised at the unbounded eulogies, which the present editor and other commentators have bestowed upon the writings of Corn. Nepos, had we not long observed the uninquiring simplicity, with which every virtue is allowed to the writers of Greece and Rome without distinction, and the merits of a Nepos, a Suetonius, or a Sallust, are confounded with those of really valuable authors, such as Herodotus and Thucydides. Nearly all the Roman historians unfortunately seem to have been only manufacturers of elevated sentiments. Even Livy and Tacitus, though beyond comparison superior to those mentioned above, are still open, particularly the former, to the charge of paying too much attention to the scenic effect of their story. Perhaps, the
* See life of Henry Stephens (Etienne), Biographie Universelle.
only portion of Roman literature of any great value in an historical point of view, is contained in the Correspondence of Cicero; which, while it discovers to us much of the real history of those times, enables us also to judge, in general, how little dependence is to be placed upon what commonly passes for historical truth. Had we possessed the letters of Atticus to Cicero, the treasure would have been complete ; even in the imperfect state of the correspondence, we are still able to form a much more correct notion of the character of Atticus, than we can do from the professed life of that Roman by his intimate friend. But if Nepos' life of Atticus disappoints the most moderate expectations, it is a finished portrait compared with the lives of the Eminent Commanders.' Our editor, indeed, considers that their very brevity is a recommendation to the young and volatile reader. From this we wholly dissent. We believe that the youthful mind can only be interested by minute details. To a boy, a full account of any single event, a battle for instance, would be infinitely more amusing than any outline of history rapidly passing from event to event. Biography, we grant, is the very thing to interest him, but that biography must not be after the fashion of Nepos. Without taking into account the language, which, we ask, would a boy prefer, the life of Pelopidas by our author in four duodecimo pages, or the life of Robinson Crusoe in four hundred? Nepos gallops over his ground so rapidly that we have never time to see any thing. Thus in the life of Hannibal, c. 4.
'Conflixerat apud Rhodanum cum P. Cornelio Scipione consule, eumque pepulerat. Cum hoc eodem de Clastidio apud Padum decernit, saucium inde ac fugatum dimittit. Tertio idem Scipio, cum collega Tiberio Longo, apud Trebiam adversus eum venit. Cum his manum conseruit, utrosque profligavit.'
From this specimen of his speed, we cannot be surprised at his having written a universal history in three books. Catullus seems a little sarcastic, when he says to his friend; Ausus es unus Italorum
Omne ævum tribus explicare chartis,
If his Chronica too were like the lives, Ausonius may perhaps be interpreted literally, instar sunt fabularum.' The last consideration with our author is historical accuracy. Thus, in the passage we have just quoted from him, there are two mis-statements. At the skirmish on the Rhone, for it was no more than a skirmish, neither Scipio nor Hannibal was present; and the battle of the Ticinus had little relation to