« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
195 ular mode of representation, however, they did not restrict them. selves. The other most common method was that of connecting with the verb a noun of the same signification in the dative, as equivalent in Greek to the Hebrew infinitive. This mode of expressing intensity has its frequent parallels in Greek and could not properly be represented as a Hebraism. The infinitive with Lamedh prefixed which has so extensive an application in Hebrew, could not fail to have an influence on the rise of the Greek infinitive in writers who had accustomed themselves to such different habits of expression. This effect proceeded so far that there was in fact scarcely any relation of one verb to another, which they did not sometimes express in the infiuitive. It was appended to the verb with such latitude as to be epexegetical of it, whatever might be the logical relation which it sustained to it. The genitive of the article was usually prefixed as the sign of this connection. The article thus dised denoted not only design, purpose, as in the classic Greek writers, but consequence, result; so that the infinitive with the article as employed in the Septua. gint and the New Testament, occupies alınost the entire province of the Hebrew infinitive. This extension of the same form of speech to represent such different relations of thought, will not appear on reflection to be so very surprising. The transition from the idea of intending a thing to that of doing it, from the object of an action to its performance, is one that is easily made, and in another form has been exemplified in the Greek language itself. In all the earlier writers iva was employed in a strict telie sense, but in the course of time it receded more and more from this rigid use and became at length echatic in its import.
On the whole, few traces of the manner in which the Hebrews employed the preposition, appear in the style of the Alexandrian translators. Into one violation of Greek purity, however, they have been led through the force of their Hebrew associations in regard to the mode of expressing the comparative degree. This was done by means of the positive degree of the adjective and the preposition .. To this idiom they have virtually adhered in nsing 1, unio, napà, in cases of comparison where the Greek langnage requires uāldov or the comparative degree. We meet with the same peculiarity in the New Testament. A few instances occur, in which by a Hebraism și stands elliptically in the language, of oaths as equivalent to a strong negative declaration, precisely like a Winer has pointed out three or four examples of
1 Thus επιθυμία επεθύμησα.
the same usage in the New Testament. It was inevitable that the multiform uses of in binding together thoughts related to each other by every variety of logical connection, should not have led to applications of the Greek particle most nearly corresponding to it, which were unknown to regular Greek writers. Hence xal is found often where the obvious requisition of the context shows that the clauses which it unites, are not in any proper sense of the word, consecutive in their character, and where a writer, imbued fully with the spirit of the language, would have put some term of greater logical precision, instead of so vague a connective.
The work of Prof. Thiersch, of which we have given this general sketch, places before us the most important facts in relation to the linguistic character of the Greek Pentateuch. There is some reason to hope that he or M. Lipsius who has long occupied himself with this study, may soon communicate to the public the results of a similar investigation, extended to the remainder of this version.
PICKERING'S GREEK LEXICON.
By Samuel H. Taylor, M. A., Principal of Phillips Academy, Andover.
The progress in the study of the Greek language in our country within the last twenty years, may be estimated with some degree of correctness, by the improvement in Greek lexicography during that period. Twenty years ago, almost the only Greek lexicon used in our schools, was that of Schrevelius, the definitions of which were in Latin, and the limited number of words which it contained, made it suitable for only a small circle of authors. In 1826, the same year that Donnegan's Greek lexicon appeared in England, the translation of Schrevelius by Messrs. Pickering and Oliver, was published in this country, with the addition of upwards of 2000 articles. The publication of this lexicon at once relieved the student of the awkward and weari. some process of studying one dead language through the medium
"So we venture to understand the wish to this effect, which Winer has expressed in a note to the last edition of his New Testament Graminar.
1847.] Mr. Pickering's Attention to Philology.
197 of another; and we well recollect with what pleasure we first looked upon its pages, containing definitions in our good mother tongue. In 1829, the second edition of the same work appeared, with the addition of more than 10,000 entire articles, and other improvements by Mr. Pickering. About this time, Donnegan's Greek lexicon was published in this country. Although this work was sufficiently extensive for general use, yet the great want of order in the arrangement of the definitions, the almost entire absence of any logical connection between the primary and secondary or metaphorical meanings, rendered it a very unsafe guide to be put into the hands of students. But notwithstanding the acknowledged defects of Donnegan, it was used more generally than any other lexicon, from the time it was first published in this country until the present year, the small lexicon of Grove, republished from the English edition, being the only other one readily accessible.
But in speaking of the progress of Greek lexicography in our country, mention should be made of the two New Testament lexicons of Dr. Robinson. The first of these, published in 1826, was mainly a translation of the Clavis Philologica of Wahl; the second published in 1936, was a wholly independent work, upon which he had spent several years of unwearied effort, and which reflects high honor on the literature of our country.
The third edition of Mr. Pickering's Greek lexicon, the recent appearance of which has suggested these remarks, may be considered in many respects as an entirely new work. Mr. Pickering's attention was directed to the subject of Greek lexicography as early as the year 1814. Since that time until his death in May last, he was constantly increasing his knowledge of the Greek language, both by his own investigations and by the careful study of the best authors on Greek Philology. In addition to his ac. curate knowledge of the Greek, Mr. Pickering had a more or less extensive acquaintance with at least twenty other languages, four of which, besides his native tongue, he was able to speak. These he did not study as distinct and independent languages, having no analogies or resemblances to each other; he looked upon them rather as branches springing from a common stock, with affinities more or less obvious. This study of comparative Philology is of invaluable service to the lexicographer. The true meaning of a word may be correctly traced only through another language, or the changes which take place, in its formation, may be best understood by the changes in similar words of different languages. And the scholar who has accustomed himself to trace the minute resemblances between different languages, is thereby better prepared to see and exhibit the different significations of the same word. Such were the qualifications which Mr. Pickering bronight to the preparation of his Greek Lexicon; and the work has not disappointed the expectations which had been formed respecting it. The work is sufficiently extensive for all ordinary purposes, containing 1456 closely printed octavo pages, and upwards of twenty-two thousand articles more than the first edition. We have compared it in several places with the special lexicons for Homer, Herodotus, Sophocles, Plato and Xenophon, and have found it more complete than we had anticipated. It is particularly valuable for the reading of the Attic orators, the author having studied these with special care.
One of the most serious defects in all the Greek lexicons hitherto used in our schools, has been a want of proper arrangement of the definitions. If the student were called upon to give the primary meaning of a word, he had no means of ascertaining this with certainty, for in many instances the secondary meaning was placed first, and the primary one among the last. Consequently the student had no means of tracing correctly the relation between the primative and derivative senses of a word, an exercise to which he should be accustomed from the first. This evil is, to a great extent, remedied in the new lexicon of Mr. Pickering. He has generally arranged his definitions in the logical order, giving the primary meaning first, then the metaphorical or more remote ones, each new signification being distinguished from the preceding by a semicolon. The improvement of the new edition over the first, both in the fulness and happy arrangement of its definitions, may be seen by comparing a few of the more difficult articles of each edition with each other. In the first edition, héyo is defined: “to say, tell, speak; to mention, recite or recount; to number, reckon; to command; to collect, gather; to choose; to call; to name; to read; to cause to lie down;"-in the third edition : "originally, to lay (German, legen), and in pass. to lie (German, liegen), whence all its significations may be derived; (1) to lay asleep, to lull to sleep, to put to bed; pass, or mid., to lie down, which signification only occurs in the earliest poets, nor is the pres. ever so used; (2) to lay in order, arrange, and hence, to gather, pick up; mid. to choose, pick out; pass. pres. to be chosen; in this signification the Attics use the perf. eiLoga, pass. elasyuai, aor. pass. théyno, but only in compounds; (3) 1847.]
Arrangement of the Definitions.
to lay among, and so, to count or reckon up; (4) to recount, relate, tell; hence, to speak, say, utter; to describe, state; to men. tion; to recite; to read; to call, to name; to import (signify). So in the first edition orekao is defined : “to send; to prepare, procure, equip; to restrain, repress;"-in the second : " The primary idea seems to be, to set or arrange in a certain order, to arrange, II. IV. 294 ; to get in readiness, to prepare, equip; to get ready to send out, Od. II. 287; to prepare an expedition; to send; to send for, to bring; to put in order; hence, to dress, array, clothe; to unfurl or take in a sail; mid. to prepare one's self for a journey or expedition." These words are sufficient to show how great an advance the author has made since the publication of the first edition. We have noticed some few instances, however, in which the primary signification is placed after the secondary, e. g. τίθημι and άφθονία; the first meaning given to the former is, “ to cause or make,” which we suppose to be the secondary sense; the latter word is defined "abundance,” “plenty;" "also exemption from envy," the last definition being the primary one. But such instances are comparatively rare. It would have been better if each new definition had been indicated by a numeral, as in the case of héyo above, which the author has not usually done, except in the prepositions and some of the particles. Had this rule been observed throughout the work, the eye of the student would more readily have detected each new signification. The author has given some attention to what may be called the biography or history of words. He often mentions the period in which a word was used ; whether it belonged to the earlier or later period of the language ; also the kind of composition in which it was employed, as prose or poetry, or the particular writers to whom it was confined. Thus, “ xntmas is only found as an Homeric epithet of Lacedaemon;" "xexrnua, a perf. more used by the Attics, čxinuou by the Ionics ;” “üyxupa (anchor) occurs first in Pindar; in Homer súvai is used for anchors ;" "oqea is not used by any prose writer except Plato, and by him from Homer;" " őzón, used in the plural only by the Attic writers; Homer has it in the singular;" “ nahairatos used by Thucydides and the poets." While we are glad that this subject is not wholly overlooked, the work would have been much more valuable, if this department of lexicography had received still more attention. The student ought to have the means of knowing whether a word belongs exclusively to a particular author or a particular age, that, in his Greek exercises, he may not be lia