accentu hujus generis adjectivorum fuse disputatum est." P. xxxvii.

“ Ρύμβος, Phav. Ampliora Etym. Μ. 640. ubi v. quæ E. G. [H.] Barker. ea, qua solet, eruditione congessit: quibus addas Schol. e Cod. vetustissimo sæculi fere X., olim Mutinensi, jam Regio Paris. 451., Clementis Alex. nonnulla continente partim editum a Bast. ad Greg. C. 141. [241.] quod integrum hic describo, repertum fol. 8. verso ad Coh. ad Gr. p. 15.: Κῶνος καὶ ῥόμβος· κῶνοι, οἱ στρόβιλοι καὶ οἱ θύρσοι, ὡς Διογενιανός. Ρόμβος, δῖνος, κῶνος, ξυλήριον, (Bast. ξυλάριον edentem Cod. scriptura fefellit,) οὗ ἐξῆπται τὸ σπαρτίον, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ἐδονεῖτο, ἵνα ῥοιζῇ τὸ δὲ. . . καὶ ῥύμβος ἐκαλεῖτο· οὕτως Διογενιανός. "Οτι δὲ [insert, ὁ] ῥόμβος καὶ ῥύμβος λέγεται, *Απολλώνιος φησιν ὁ Ρόδιος, Ρύμβῳ καὶ τυμπάνω Ρείην Φρύγες ἱλάσκονται.” P. 112. Bast. 1. c. has thus edited the Gloss : Κῶνοι· οἱ στρόβιλοι καὶ οἱ θύρσοι, ὡς Διογενιανὸς, ῥόμβος, δῖνος. Εt: Κῶνος· ξυλάριον, οὗ ἐξῆπται τὸ σπαρτίον, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ἐδονεῖτο, ἵνα ῥοιζῇ. Τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ῥύμβος ἐκαλεῖτο. Οὕτω Διογενιανός. 1. Bast has rightly read, in the Ms., which he calls Cod. Moden., or rightly supplied from conjecture, αὐτὸ after τὸ δέ. 2. But he has evidently mistaken the Gloss, reading it as if it were two separate Glosses on the word κῶνος, whereas the head of the article, which head he has omitted, Κῶνος καὶ ῥόμβος, and the concluding words, Τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ καὶ ῥόμβος ἐκαλεῖτο, might have satisfied him that the first relates to κῶνος, and the second to ῥόμβος. In the Notes on Etym. Μ. 1108. Ed. Sturz. I have produced the Scholion, aud subjoined the following remarks: Sic Schol. hortulos suos irrigavit ex eodem fumine, quod libavit Hesych. Ρόμβος ψόφος, στρόφος, ἦχος, δῖνος, κῶνος, ξυλήριον, οὗ ἐξῆπται σχοινίον, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς δινεῖται.” The Gloss of Hes. quite confirms the punctuation and arrangement of Osann.3. Hes. has ξυλήριον, which Bast had tacitly corrected into ξυλάριον, guided perhaps by the unnecessary doubt, which H. Steph. Thes. 2, 1142. c. had expressed, about the genuineness of the form ξυλήςιον : see Osann. p. 82. who has neglected to notice Lobeck. ad Phrynich. Ed. 78. :- “ Ξυλήριον autem, cui Albert. patrocinatur ad Ηes. v. 'Ρόμβος, atque tota illa terminatio deminutivorum in ηριον, de qua docte et copiose egit Spohn. meus Comm. de Extr. Odyss. Parte 133., multas habet suspiciones. Etym. autem hoc modo scripsisse videtur : Ξυλάφιον -δοκιμώτερον δὲ τὸ ξυλύφιον καὶ ξυλάριον.” But, when Lobeck has seen Philenion l. c. and read the note of Osann, he will change his opinion.

σε

“ Σμήνος καλεῖται καὶ ἑσμὸς, μετὰ δασέος πνεύματος, ώς δηλοῖ παρὰ ̓Αριστοτέλει ὁ ἀφεσμός. Η. Α. 9, 27. (40.) ubi Schneidero pro

ἀφεσμος e Cod. Med. αὐτῶν ἐσμὸς edenti jure obloquutus nuper est E. G. [H.] Barker. in Wolfii Anal. Liter. Fasc. 3, 67. [Classical Journal, T. 18. p. 344.] cui vulg. scripturam defendenti jam Philemonis auctoritas accedit." P. 121. In the passage referred to I have not decidedly rejected the reading adopted by Schneider, nor have I decidedly adopted the vulgar reading adeouós. My words are these :-" Quum tamen Eust. suo in exemplari apeμòv repererit, amplius de hac lectione cogitandum videtur. Certe ἀφεσμός pro simpl. ἑσμός tam mira est loquutio, ut vix eam sine corruptelæ suspicione transmittere possimus." I am, however, now happy to say that, whatever doubt I did feel, has been entirely satisfied by M. Hermann's just defence of apsoμòs, which is subjoined to Mr. B.'s article, p. 73-4. Osann is also mistaken in supposing that Mr. B. has not quoted the passage of Philemon, which he will find p. 66. 215. ἐν ἁγνῷ δ ̓ ἐσμὸς ὡς πελειάδων. V. δέσμος, Inc. δ' ἐσμός. Extat ἐσμός γυναικῶν in Aristoph. Λ. 353. et ἐσμὸς—μυρμήκων in Babrii Fab. 4. De Fur. 363. Fuit, opinor, vox e re aviaria derivata, et proprie dicta de perdicibus inter congregandum sedentibus, Anglice Covey. Malim igitur ἑσμὸς ab ἕζομαι. Burges. ad Esch. Suppl. p. 99. On the question, ἐσμὸς an iouòs, the reader can see what I have said in p. 66-7. where too p. 64. other examples of the word being applied to denote a number may be found. I cannot assent to the ingenious remark of my friend Burges, that the word is "e re aviaria derivata, et proprie dicta de perdicibus inter congregandum sedentibus, Anglice Covey," because on that supposition it could never have been applied to denote a quantity of liquid, such as yáλaxtos ooùs Eur. Bacch. 710. Philostr. V. S. 1, 19. p. 511.; oμòs μexioons, Mel, Epinicus ap. Athen. 432. I therefore still think that the primary meaning of the word is a vessel adapted for receiving bees, a Hive, a Skep:-1. because from this as the primary meaning you may easily trace every sense attributed to the word; 2. because I have shown that σuvos, a synonym of ouòs, is used in precisely the same manner to denote a hive of bees, then a vessel of honey, and metaphorically a multitude of persons, animals, things etc. Dr. Blomf. Gloss. ad Pr. 373. has made a similar mistake:-"Irów, Premo, Affligo,videtur manasse ab, Animalculum, quod cornua peredit." I agree with the learned Dr. in considering the notion of pressure to be the primary idea of inów, but I must reject his derivation from , until he has proved how well that idea accords with the habits of the animalcule: see Mr. Barker's Diss. on the verb 'Inów, in Classical Journal, T. 9. p. 114.

"Xάλ. Magnopere conferenda sunt, quæ E. G. [H.] Barker. Annot. ad Etym. M. 1128. diligenter congessit. Pro edito úñoσtéλλ, quod mihi quidem sensu carere omnino videbatur, auctore Barker. 1. c. 1180. ÚTOσTIVE scripsi, quod simillimo contextu Eust. 1936. habet. De v. únoσTéve nihil statim succurrit. Contra apposite derivativum úroσrevάtw, Eumath. 5. p. 212. Η δ' ὑπεστέναξε λεπτὸν ἀφροδίσιον, καὶ τὸ λεπτὸν ἐρωτικὸν ἀποστέναγμα ὅλην ἡδονὴν ἐς αὐτήν μοι μέσην ἐστάλαξε τὴν ψυχήν. Apertum est e Cod. Par. Reg. 2895., quem inter Parisienses optimum judico, ÚTOσтévayμa esse suscipiendum. Concidit igitur v. ánoσrévaypa, ex h. I. a Schmidtio Tausend Griechische Wörter p. 14. enotata. Atque únσTévale recte habere, plura ejusdem Auctoris loca abunde docent, e quibus cito 4. p. 116. 'TTOσTEVάw de Quavis leniori lamentatione præcipue usurpatur: ita Soph. Aj. 315." P. 194. Even if the Cod. alluded to had not contained the reading ToσTévaypa, the context and common sense would have proved the necessity of introducing it. For the verbal noun was meant to re-echo the meaning of the verb itself, and therefore if the one was άreσrévate, the other must have been ἀποστέναγμα, or, if the one was ὑποστέναξε, the other would unavoidably have been ύποστέναγμα.

"Discimus ex Schol. Ven. Il. B. 262. Aristarchum aide, circumflexe scripsisse, Dionysium vero Sidonium oxytone. Pamphilus omnes id genus accusativos circumflectebat, Dionysius Thra. Aristarchum culpat, qui aide et y circumflexe scripserit, alia vero oxytone, Пve, Antw. Vide etiam ad II. I. 240.' R. W. in Mus. Crit. Cant. 1, 126." P. 7. See Aman. Crit, et Philol., in Classical Journal 31, 112-3.

σε θνῆσις, θνήσεως, θνησείδιον, quæ omnia vide ne sint Grammaticorum inventa, qui quum pluralem rà voɛídia passim ap. bonos scriptores reperirent, repetendum eum a sing. dimin. Ov σείδιον putaverunt. Gerit sane quidem vox τὰ θνησείδια substantivi sæpe vicem sing. autem nuspiam offenderis. Pluralis exempla habes collecta a Beck. ad Aristoph. O. 537., ubi Scholiastæ κενέβρια τὰ θνησείδια restituas velim pro θνησιμαία, auctore Schol. Cod. Victor. in Thierschii Act. Phil. Mon. 1, 3. p. 393. collato Piersono ad Herodian. 466.: quanquam de ipsa v. Ovyouaios dubitandum minime esse providit Lobeckii diligentia in Parerg. ad Phrynich. 558. Beckii exemplis adde Philostr. V. A. 1, 1. 'Eoba, (quo jure et Schneider. Lex. v. Ovnσeídios, et Frenzelii Beiträge zu Schneiders Griechisch-Deutschem Wörterbuche Isenaci 1810. edito p. 11., onμara citent, scire veJim, quum vulgatam duo quoque Codd. Paris. tueantur,) Te ExOvodiwy, ibique Olear., et 8, 7, 4. Denique Porphyr. de Abst.

4, 16. p. 353. Παραγγέλλεται γὰρ καὶ ̓Ελευσῖνι ἀπέχεσθαι κατοι κιδίων ὀρνίθων, καὶ ἰχθύων, καὶ κυάμων, ῥοιᾶς τε καὶ μήλων, καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται οὐ στελέχους ἅψασθαι, ὡς τὸ θνησειδίων: quo loco quum de cibis tantummodo sermo sit, quibus mystæ Cereris vesci interdicerentur, sponte apparet Boissonadi conjecturam, Μεμίανται τὸ σπελέθου ἅψασθαι ὡς τὸ θνησειδίων, ad Herodiani Epimer. 120. prolatam, plane concidere, etsi pro o corrigendum esse Tò recte sensisse videtur: Tтeσba autem proprie de cibis dici docet locus Clem. Alex. huc maxime faciens, Pædag. 2. p. 149. Sylb., ubi de Moyse: "Ων δὲ ἐφῆκεν ἅπτεσθαι, πάλιν κεκώλυκε τούτων τὰ θνηξιμαῖα, τά τε εἰδωλόθυτα, τά τε ἀποπεπνιγμένα. Adde Athen. 308." P. 68. This note will call forth many observations. 1. In the passage from Porphyry Osann has inadvertently omitted xai before xaroxidiwv. 2. In the passage from Clem. Álex. he has adopted the vulgar reading viata, a word formed against analogy, which deforms even Potter's Edn., and which must be corrected into θνησιμαία. 3. The reading ἐσθήματα in the passage from Philostr. has been incautiously adopted from Schneider's Lex. by the Editors of the New Gr. Thes. p. 521. b.; and it also appears in the work of H. Stephens 1, 1564. in V. Ovños, who quotes it from Budæus. 4. The Editors do not think, that to vindicate the observation of Philemon, there is any occasion to produce an instance of voldov used in the singular; for its existence may be inferred from the plural à vnGeldia, which Osann supposes to be alone in use. However, the singular does occur in Alian H. A. 6, 2. ̓Αλλὰ μὴ δοκεῖν ἐσθίειν κενέβριόν τε καὶ θνησείδιον. Suid.: Θνησιμαῖον· τὸ νενεκρωμένον, καὶ Θνησείδιον· τὸ νεκρόν : cf. Zonar. et Tittmanni Cyrill.: Θνησείδιον· τὸ θνησιμαῖον. Θνησιμαῖον· τὸ νενεκρωμένον. 5. In the passage of Porphyry the clause, καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται κ. τ. λ., is not necessarily to be understood de cibis. For, if he had so intended, there would have been no occasion to introduce the words πions μεμίανται at all, as the genitive τουἅψασθαι without them, would have been quite sufficient. But those words clearly prove a change of topic, and therefore Boissonade's conjecture does not plainly fall to the ground. His words are these:— "Multum se torserunt VV. D D. circa h. 1. et nuper ad novam et luculentam Sancto-Crucii Mysteriorum Edit. 1, 282. 461. Proponam et conjecturam meam, Καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται τὸ σπε λέθου ἅψασθαι, ὡς τὸ θνησειδίων, et cadaverum contrectatio æque est impura ac stercoris. De v. σméλedos cf. Elmsl. ad Acharn. 6. The alteration of où into rò belongs not to Boissonade, but to Valent. ap. De Rhoer. 7. Osann has overlooked the Add, to Boissonade's work, p. 295.: "De loco Porphyrii

vide omnino Thes. H. Stephani Lond. Ed. p. 519." where the following lection, partly suggested by Valent., Gale, Reisk, and Abresch, and partly original, is adopted, Καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται τῷ λεχοῦς ἅψασθαι, ὡς τῷ θνησειδίων. The observations of the Editors are too copious to be transcribed on the present occasion; but I believe that the careful reader of them will be perfectly satisfied with the propriety of the proposed, and those very slight, alterations. 8. Osann begins his note with the words :— Θνησις, θνήσεως, θνησείδιον, quæ omnia vide ne sint Grammaticorum inventa, qui quum plur. τὰ θνησείδια passim ap. bonos scriptt. reperirent, repetendum eum a sing. demin. θνησείδιον putaverunt." But, as the reasoning of Philemon holds in regard to the other words, which he mentions: (Τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς ις θηλυκῶν διὰ τοῦ εως κλινομένων διὰ τοῦ εἴδιον γινόμενα, διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γράφεται, οἷον θνῆσις, θνήσεως, θνησείδιον· * ἀλυσείδιον· ταξείδιον· * δαμαλείδιον κτησείδιον· καὶ ἕτερα :) it must hold in regard to this, whether there be any example of θνησις, or not. Θνῆσις, Mors, φθορά, Suid. i. e. Corruptio. Sed nullum hujus usus exemplum affert. Existimo autem tanquam a fut. θνήσω esse formatum, sicut τεθνήσειν ex Dione protuli. Eandem certe, quam θνῆσις, formationem, (quaecunque sit,) sequitur Nomen Θνησιμαῖος, item Θνησείδιον.” H. Steph. Thes. 1. c.

On the following words of Philemon p. 70.:-Λαγίδης. πατρωνυμικὸν, ἐκ τοῦ λαγοῦ, ὡς ὁ τοῦ πελαργοῦ γόνος, * πελαργίδης" τοῦ λύκου, * λυκίδης· * αλεκτορίδης· *χηνίδης * περδικίδης: Osann says : Vulgo Λαγωοῦ, quod fieri posse nullo modo persuadeor, quum Aaylons formari hinc minime possit: neque moror ea, quæ ap. Suid. leguntur, Λαγίδης· ὁ τοῦ λαγωοῦ.” But Tittmann ad Zonar. had previously so corrected the Gloss of Suidas. Osann refers to Valck. and Huschk. as the only or chief authorities respecting the termination of nouns in devs, and if he looks into the New Gr. Thes. p. 1286. b-90. c., he will find the entire observations of those critics with much original matter: see also Mr. Barker's Epist. Cr. ad Gaisford., in Classical Journal 25, 175-6. It is to be noted that Λαγίδης is from Λάγος, and λαγιδεύς from λαγός. Osann tacitly cites from Etym. Μ. 554. Τὰ γὰρ εἰς ος ὀνόματα, εἰ μὲν καθαρὰ, διὰ τοῦ αδης ποιοῦσι τὸ πατρωνυμικόν· εἰ δὲ μὴ καθαρὰ, διὰ τοῦ ιδης, Κρόνος, [Κρονίδης, accidentally omitted by Osann,] Λαγός, Λαγίδης, and so Schafer has edited the passage; but we must read Λάγος, as in Etym. Μ. 165. * Βήλος, * Βηλίδης Λάγος, Λαγίδης. See the New Gr. Thes. p. 1990. b. E. H. BARKER.

Thetford, July, 1822.