cott, speaking of the editions of the Hebrew Bible published in the 15th century; "monendum est harum editionum primam,' etsi tantum psalmos complectatur, habere supra 600 diversitates integris verbis vel literis. Editionem vero ultimam, quæ est Bibliorum, continere plures quam 12,000." 2 "Primi editores prophetarum priorum affirmant-penes nos fuerunt exemplaria multa probata et bona-non libera tamen ab erroribus et mendis; nam profecto inventio libri absque mendo vel errore miraculum foret."

3rd. That many readings of the collated MSS. are decidedly preferable to Vanderhooght's text; and serve to correct that text in many places where it is obviously corrupt or defective. Some proofs of this will be found in my remarks on Mr. Bellamy's New Translation, inserted in the Class. Journ. xxxv. p. 151.

4th. That the Septuagint and other ancient versions are confirmed by the authority of MSS. in many passages, where the reading of those versions is preferable to that of Vanderhooght's text. For proof of this, I refer the reader either to Kennicott's Dissertatio Generalis, or to the readings of the ancient versions in Boothroyd's Biblia Hebraica-a valuable work, though I shall have occasion to prove in a subsequent letter that it abounds with typographical errors.

Falmouth, May, 1822.

KIMCHI.

1 Psalmi 1477.

2 Diss. Gen. p. 25.

CRITICAL REMARKS

ON DR. OSANN'S EDITION OF PHILEMON.

No. II.-[Continued from No. L. p. 343.]

DENIQUE addendum notas in Philemonis Lex. auctore Britanno Anonymo, editas in Mus. Crit. Cant. 1. et 2., ad quarum calcem sigla R. W. adposita est, quum frugi esse viderentur, om-` niaque Philemonem spectantia simul hac in Edit. contineri vellem, integras in notis nominato ubique auctore repetendas curavi, perpaucis exceptis, quæ locum scriptoris alicujus sisterent et sine dispendio sensus concisius afferri posset." P. xli. The signature R. W. denotes Robert Walpole, the learned traveller.

*

« Οἷον * ὑπηλιφής, * ἀνυπηλιφής: e Cod. editum οἷον νηλιφὴς, avnλions, quæ mutavi secundum Lexici SGM. inediti locum et Etym. Μ. 61. ̓Αλλὰ διὰ τοῦ ι γράφεται, οἷον * ὑπηλιφής, * άνυπη λιφὴς, σημαίνει δὲ τὴν ναῦν τὴν μὴ ἀλειφθεῖσαν πίσσῃ: quo minus autem hic de mendo cogitetur, facit alius Etym. locus p. 22. *Αζωστος ναῦς ἐστὶν ἡ * ἀνυπηλιφὴς, ubi perperam edebatur* ἀνυπή Aipos, quo vitio etiam Phrynich. in Bekk. Anecd. 21. * Ανυπή λιφος ναῦς· ἡ μὴ ὑπαληλιμμένη κ. τ. λ. laborabat, licet Bekkeri errorem Barkerus Epist. Cr. ad Boissonad. 217. propagarit. Igitur etiam Phav. [post Eust. ap. H. Steph. Thes. p. 1799. d. Ed. Lond.] fallitur, quum 1. c. scribit, olov åvnλions vaïs, ʼn μǹ άλpeïσα яioon, facile corrigendus." P. 17. See the New Gr. Thes. 1. c.

"De nominum in aλeos desinentium accentu egregie disputavit E. G. [H.] Barker. in Aristarcho Anti-Blomf. sive A Reply to the Notice of the New Gr. Thes., Londini edito 1820. P. I. p. 7. et xviii. Vide et ipsam Lond. H. Steph. Thes. Edit. p. 1493. a. v. Ailaλéos, ubi tamen ab Editoribus in eo erratum est, quod vocem paλéos et Philemonis et Arcadii de Acc. 38. auctoritate firmatam nihili esse contenderunt. Utramque vocis formam et Schneider. et Riemer. optime agnoscunt, modo non váλeos evulgassent." P. 41. "Sententiam de delenda v. vpaλéos latam quum ipse Barkerus in Add. ad Aristarchum suum p. 112. retractavit, non debebat vir eruditissimus erroris a me redargui. Rei conficiendæ nunc satis habeo Herodiani Tepì Movýpous Aews Fr. attulisse, paucis ante mensibus e Cod. Taurinensi erutum a Peyron Notit. Codd. Taur. 33., ubi de

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

ριου

66

σε Ρύμβος, Phav. Ampliora Εtym. 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· κώνοι, οἱ στρόβιλοι καὶ οἱ θύρσοι, ὡς Διογενιανός. Ρόμβος, δῖνος, κῶνος, ξυλήριον, (Bast. ξυλάedentem Cod. scriptura fefellit,) οὗ ἐξῆπται τὸ σπαρτίον, καὶ ἐν ταῖς τελεταῖς ἐδονεῖτο, ἵνα ῥοιζῇ τὸ δὲ. . . καὶ ῥύμβος ἐκαλεῖτο· οὕτως Διογενιανός. Ὅτι δὲ [insert, ὁ] ῥόμβος καὶ ῥύμβος λέγεται, ̓Απολλώνιος φησιν ὁ Ρόδιος, Ρύμβῳ καὶ τυμπάνῳ Ρείην Φρύγες ἱλάσκονται.” P. 112. Bast. I. c. has thus edited the Gloss: Κώνοι· οἱ στρόβιλοι καὶ οἱ θύρσοι, ὡς Διογενιανὸς, ῥόμβος, δίνος. Ει: 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 xvos, 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 χῶνος, and the second to ῥόμβος. In the Notes on Etym. Μ. 1108. Ed. Sturz. I have produced the Scholion, and 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. Ηes. has ξήριον, 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 ξυλήριον : 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 Philemon 1.c. and read the note of Osann, he will change his opinion.

σε

« Σμήνος καλεῖται καὶ ἑσμὸς, μετὰ δασέος πνεύματος, ὡς 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 åpeσuós. My words are these:-" Quum tamen Eust, suo in exemplari apoμòv repererit, amplius de hac lectione cogitandum videtur. Certe peoμòs pro simpl. ouòs 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 peoμòs, 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 ἐσμὸς γυναικῶν in Aristoph. 1. 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 ἑσμός ab ἕζομαι. Burges. ad Esch. Suppl. p. 99. On the question, σuòs an oμòs, 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 yáλantos oμoùs Eur. Bacch. 710. Philostr. V. S. 1, 19. p. 511.; éoμòs Mexioons, 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 ouñvos, a synonym of oμòs, 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 :-"Inów, 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.

*

"Xά. Magnopere conferenda sunt, quæ E. G. [H.] Barker. Annot. ad Etym. M. 1128. diligenter congessit. Pro edito úroσtéλλe, quod mihi quidem sensu carere omnino videbatur, auctore Barker. 1. c. 1130. ÚTOσTÉVEIV scripsi, quod simillimo contextu Eust. 1936. habet. De v. ÚTOσTÉVEIV nihil statim succurrit. Contra apposite derivativum úroσTevάlw, 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, UTоσтévayμa esse suscipiendum. Concidit igitur v. anoσrévaypa, ex h. I. a Schmidtio Tausend Griechische Wörter p. 14. enotata. Atque úπeστévale recte habere, plura ejusdem Auctoris loca abunde docent, e quibus cito 4. p. 116. TOOTεvál de Quavis leniori lamentatione præcipue usurpatur: ita Soph. Aj. 315." P. 194. Even if the Cod. alluded to had not contained the reading úroσTévaypa, 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 άTEσTévate, the other must have been ἀποστέναγμα, or, if the one was ὑποστέναξε, the other would unavoidably have been ὑποστέναγμα.

Aristarchum αἰδῶ,

"Discimus ex Schol. Ven. II. B. 262. circumflexe scripsisse, Dionysium vero Sidonium oxytone. Pamphilus omnes id genus accusativos circumflectebat, Dionysius Thra. Aristarchum culpat, qui aide et ~ circumflexe scripserit, alia vero oxytone, Ilub, Anto. 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 Tà Ovnoɛídia passim ap. bonos scriptores reperirent, repetendum eum a sing. dimin. Ovnσείδιον 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. Ovyopatos dubitandum minime esse providit Lobeckii diligentia in Parerg. ad Phrynich. 558. Beckii exemplis adde Philostr. V. A. 1, 1. 'Eobra, (quo jure et Schneider. Lex. v. Ovosídios, et Frenzelii Beiträge zu Schneiders Griechisch-Deutschem Wörterbuche Isenaci 1810. edito p. 11., ohuara citent, scire velim, quum vulgatam duo quoque Codd. Paris. tueantur,) Te ExOvno diwv, ibique Olear., et 8, 7, 4. Denique Porphyr. de Abst.