themselves, or only by modern Grammarians. In another passage, which occurs in the same Preface, he does not hesitate to speak of himself as the discoverer of the true principle of the Middle Verb:

"Si igitur veram differentiæ hujus rationem, in quibusdam verbis obscure tantum et confuse antea cognitam, in plerisque vero penitus ignoratam, exposui, et ex tenebris quasi in lucem protraxi, operæ pretium me fecisse existimabo. Hac autem de re penes candidum, neque livore corruptum Lectorem judicium esto. Eos vero, qui animo carpendi potius, quam discendi, mea lecturi sunt, rogatos velim, ut certa ab incertis et dubiis separent, neve, si forte paucis in locis novæ inventionis amori me plus æquo indulsisse senserint, in ceteris quoque idem mihi accidisse, vel sibi, vel aliis nimis temere persuadeant."

But whatever opinion the reader may form upon the originality of Kuster's discovery, one thing at least is beyond doubt; "eum certe pluribus, quam quisquam alius, argumentis in isto libello stabilivisse." See Bowyer's Preface cited above.

Perhaps the reader will agree with me in thinking that the truly learned scholar and divine, Dr. S. Clarke, cannot altogether be acquitted of the charge, which has been brought against him, of having profited by Kuster's book, in his erudite remarks on Homer, without making any mention of Kuster's name. The first edition of Kuster's book appeared in 1714, the second in 1717; but Dr. Clarke published the first part of his Homer in 1729. C. Wolle supposes that Dr. Clarke had benefited from Kuster's conversation during his residence in England; but it is sufficient for our purpose to know that the first edition of Kuster's book preceded that of Clarke's Homer by 15 years, and that even Kuster's second edlition appeared 12 years before the Homer. Wolle's words are these:

"Hic illustris Magnæ Britanniæ Theologus, cum variis sacris, quas sevit, litibus et controversiis, tum vero etiam interiori Græci sermonis cognitione, celebre sibi nomen peperit. Is, ut conjicio, Kusteri fontibus suos irrigavit hortulos, quippe qui diu in hac cultissima vixit [vixerit] insula; nec vero Kusteri liber ipsum fugere potuit." Wollii Præf. nov.

Even the candid Bowyer was obliged to confess his surprise that Dr. Clarke has omitted the name of Kuster, in speaking of the celebrated 20th line of the first book of the Iliad. Bowyer's words are these:

"Quendam etiam in Act. Erudit. Lips. Feb. 1712. citat Clarkius ad l. a', 20. qui ex discrimine inter uw et λúopa veram lectionem loco reddiderit; unde autem ortum id discriminis, quibus fundamentis nixum se primum ostendisse gloriatur Kusterus, et quantulascunque partes sustinet, mirum est Clarkium ei tribuisse

nullas, præsertim cum hæc observatio de primigenia vocis media usu inter notas ad Homerum utramque faciat paginam. Quare Aúrasla, ut ait Kust. de V. M. § 2. 11. (cujus libri editio prima prodiit a. 1714., altera 1717., Clarkius vero edidit primam partem Homeri 1729.)'in medio, captivum redimere, nondum ab ullo Grammaticorum video esse expositum.""

I am inclined to suspect, not that Dr. Clarke intended to commit any act of literary piracy, but that he was induced to suppress Kuster's name in consequence of some unpleasant circumstances, which had occurred between them during Kuster's residence in England.

It may be worth while here to observe that Lennep, in the passage cited above, somewhat underrates the value of Wolle's lucubrations, which even I. F. Fischer has not properly estimated, when he writes 1. c." In Dissertatione sua unice hoc egit Wollius, ut doceret, verba media esse, et qua significationem, et qua declinationem, a verbis activis et passivis diversa, h. e. reciproca, et retransitiva." Fischer, in the preface to Dresigius's book, published by him three years subsequently to the appearance of the 2d edition of Wolle's book, entirely suppresses the mention of Wolle's name and his book, and contents himself with saying :—“ Quum a Kustero universe de isto Verborum genere eleganter disputatum esset, constituit Dresigius, singulatim verba media N. T. explicare. Neque sane est negandum, eorum naturam et vim ita explicatam ab eo et demonstratam esse, ut nullus alius liber, quod sciam, reperiatur, ubi tam copiose et accurate de iis sit expositum.”

On a future occasion I shall make some remarks on the origin of the term Middle, as applied to the Greek Verb, and shall show the mistakes, into which H. Stephens, Kuster, Wolle, and Fischer have been betrayed. All those, who are sufficiently aware of the importance of pointing out the errors and misconceptions of scholars, whose works are so universally read, will easily pardon me for the pains which I shall take to put the student upon his guard against the adoption of those errors and misconceptions, and be inclined to accept from me the same apology, which De La Cerda, when writing about the herb Melissophyllon (Virg. Georg. iv. 63.), offers to his readers: Volui hoc attingere; nam hic error in gymnasiis volitat cum incommodo juventutis. E. H. BARKER.

Thetford, May, 1817.

P. S. IN a letter, addressed by Petr. Olaus Bröndstedt to Olaus Wormius, and inserted in the Epistola Parisienses, in quibus de Rebus variis, quæ ad Studium Antiquitatis pertinent, agitur, edited by G. G. Bredow, Lips. 1812. p. 139., among numerous and excellent corrections of the Scholia in Platonem, I find some

emendations of the passage respecting the Lotus tree, mentioned by me in another article. Bröndstedt rightly inserts Ty before Méuov, and rightly substitutes ἔλαττον for ἐλάττων. The latter conjecture, which I have myself made 1. c. is confirmed by the passage quoted by me from Theophrastus, whose words the Scholiast is citing. For the words, ̔Ο δὲ καρπὸς ὥσπερ κύαμος πεπαίνεται, ὥσπερ βότρυες, μεταβάλλων τὰς χρόας, Bröndstedt proposes to substitute, ὁ δὲ καρπὸς ὥσπερ κύαμος, πεπαίνεται δὲ ὥσπερ οἱ βότρυες, μεταβάλλων τὰς χρόας. xgóas. Now, as these are the very words of Theophrastus, of whom, however, Bröndstedt makes no mention, what are we to think that Bröndstedt corrected the Scholiast from Theophrastus, but purposely suppressed the mention of his name, lest it should detract from the merit of the conjecture? This I should be most unwilling to believe of so excellent a scholar. Lastly, for the words, Καὶ παρὰ τὴν Λωτοφαγίαν νῆσον, ἀνέχουσαν τῆς χώρας, he would read, Καὶ παρὰ τὴν Λωτοφαγίδα νῆσον ἀπέχουσαν κ. τ. λ. Surely for Λωτοφαγίδα he either wrote, or meant to write Λωτοφα γίτιδα, (as in Strabo p. 834., Συνεχής δ' ἐστὶν ἡ μικρὰ Σύρτις, ἣν καὶ Λωτοφαγίτιν Σύρτιν λέγουσι.) I have l. c. observed that this island is by Theophrastus called Awropayía, and that the accuracy of that reading, which Bodæus seems inclined to dispute, is placed beyond doubt by its being found in the Scholiast also. As to the other emendation άéxovoav, there can be no doubt of its correctness, as it is supported both by the obvious sense of the passage and by the received text of Theophrastus. Thus it appears that all the conjectures proposed by Bröndstedt with one exception correspond to the very words of Theophrastus, and if he be acquitted of the charge of plagiarism by some, this curious, coincidence must still seem so unaccountable to others, as to excite some suspicion of guilt.

E. H. B.

310

ADDITIONAL REMARKS

On the Extracts from Arcadius Grammaticus MS.

« I should be much more disposed to believe that the Κομμώτριας derived their name from Κομμω, i. e. the priestess employed to sweep the floor of Minerva's temple. Λέξεις ῥητορικαί in Bekkeri Anecd. Gr. T. i. p. 273. : Κομμώ· ἡ κοσμοῦσα τὸ ἕδος τῆς ̓Αθηνᾶς ἱέρεια.” Extracts from Arcadius in Class. Journ. xxix. p. 170.

This priestess is called Κοσμώ by Harpocratio v. Τραπεζοφόρος : Λυκοῦργος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τῆς ̔Ιερείας· ὅτι ἱερείας ὄνομά ἐστιν ἡ Τραπεζο φόρος· ὅτι αὐτή τε καὶ ἡ Κοσμος * συνδιέπουσι " πάντα τὰ τῆς ̓Αθηνᾶς ἱερὰ, αὐτός τε ὁ ῥήτωρ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ δεδήλωκε, καὶ “Ιστρος ἐν ἕκτῃ καὶ δεκάτῃ τῶν ̓Αττικῶν Συναγωγῶν.

* ΚΡΑΤΑΠΑΛΛΟΣ, εἶδος νομίσματος. In Class. Journ. xxix. p. 166. I have noticed this as a word not to be found either in the Thesaurus of H. Stephens, or in the Lexicon of Schneider. But it is to be found in both those works under a different form, and with a different accent, Κραπάταλος. See Hesych. (ubi pro vulgato κραπάταλλος, in Cod. Ven., teste Schowio, legitur κραπάταλλον,) J. Poll. vii. 152. ix. 83. Athen. iii. 75. et alibi.

* ΤΡΙΒΗΝ, ὁ τρίπους. This word I have also noticed l. c. p. 167. as one which is not acknowledged by either H. Stephens, or Schneider. It certainly is not to be found in its place in either lexicographer. But under Τιβήν Η. Stephens has the following words : Τιβὴν, Tripus, dictus τιβὴν quasi τριβὴν, quoniam ἐπάνω τριῶν βάσεων κεῖται, ut Εtym. tradit, [p. 758, 7. Τιβὴν τιβῆνος, λέγε ται ὁ τρίπους, τριβήν τις ὤν, ἀποβολῇ τοῦ ρ, παρὰ τὸ ἐπάνω τριῶν βάσεων κεῖσθαι.] Affertur autem ex Lycophrone. Zonaras p. 1730.: Τιβὴν, τιβῆνος, τοῦ τρίποδος. “ Τιβὴν, ἤνος, ὁ, bey Lycophr. 1104. Τιβῆναι [Τιβῆνα] καὶ κύπελλον [ἐγκάρῳ] ῥανεῖ, wo man es τρίποδα erklärt, und von τρὶς, βάω, βαίνω ableitet. Hesych. hat Τίβηνος" λέβης, τρίπους. S. "Ιβηνος.” Schneideri Lex. Tzetzes : Τιβῆνα δὲ τὸν τρίποδα. Eustath. ad Οdyss. Θ. p. 1605, 2. :—Ὁ δὲ τρίπους καὶ τιβὴν, παρά τε Λυκόφρονι καὶ ἄλλοις λέγεται, ὡς οἱονεὶ τριβὴν ἐστι τρεῖς βάσεις ἔχων. Müller ad Lycophr. is silent about the passage of Eustathius. It should seem that Arcadius in his copy of Lycophron's poen, found τριβήν, and so Lycophron wrote, as I think; for I know no dialect which he could have used, according to the

2

• Voces asterisco notatæ in H. Steph. Lex. non leguntur. Verbum hocce et in Schneideri Lexico desideratur.

2 Tzetzes ibi habet, Κόγχον δὲ, ὀστοῦν τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου * κογχοειδές. In Schneideri Lex. vox κογχοειδής affertur, sed ἀμαρτύρως.

principles of which he would have been justified in substituting τιβὴν for τριβήν. In the Gloss. of Hesychius quoted by Schneider, Τίβηνος λέβης, τρίπους, read with Heinsius and Bruno, Τιβήν, τις βῆνος.

I
Barkero Boissonade S.

"Recepto Ephemeridis Classicæ fasciculo xxix. et inspecto indice, statim quæsivi Excerpta Arcadiana, ut discerem a te, α

I 'PAXIA. The excellent author of the Cura posteriores in Class. Journ, xxviii, p. 358. says: to the numerous authorities on the word paxia collected by the learned Mr. Barker, the reader can add the note of Dr. Coray ad Heliodor. i. c. i. p. 3. The reader nay, if he pleases, also add a very important passage from Nonni Συναγ. Ιστορ. p. 145. ed. R. Montagu. : Κατὰ τὸ Σικελικὸν καὶ Τυῤῥηνικὸν πέλαγος ἐστί τις τόπος, ἐν ᾧ ἡ θάλασσα γίνεται άμπωτις καὶ ῥαχία· καὶ διίσταται τὸ ὕδω ὥστε τὸν πυθμένα της θαλάσσης κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, εἴγε δυνατὸν, ὁρᾶσθαι. Αμπωτις οἱ ἐστιν, οἷον ἀνάπωσίς τις καὶ * ἀναῤῥόφησις· τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ὑπονοστεῖ ἔν τισι κοιλώμασι τῶν περ τρῶν, καὶ πάλιν ἐκρήγνυται, ὁ καὶ καλεῖται ῥαχία. Ἦν δὲ οὗτος ὁ τόπος τοῖς πλέουσιν ἐπικίνδυνος καὶ θανάτου μεστός. * Ολοβρύχιον γὰρ τὸ πλοῖον ἐγίνετο ἐν τούτῳ τῷ τόπῳ, εἰ συνέβη, πλέοντος τοῦ πλοίου, γενέσθαι αμπώτιδα καὶ ῥαχίαν. Idem ibid. p. 163. : Αμπωτις, ὡς ἤδη ἡμῖν εἴρηται, ἐναντία ἐστὶ τῇ ῥαχίᾳ. Ταῦτα δὲ πάθη ἐστὶ θαλάσσης στενής περικλειομένης ἢ ὑπὸ νήσων, ἢ ὑπὸ γωνιῶν. Ἀμπωτις δέ ἐστιν οἱονεὶ ἀνάπωτις καὶ · ἀναρρόφη υποστελλομένου τοῦ ὕδατος εἰς μυχούς τινας τῆς ὑποκειμένης γῆς, καὶ μετ' ὀλίγον πάλιν ἐκφοιτῶντος. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ὑποσταλῆναι τὸ ὕδωρ ἔσω εἰς τὰ κοίλα τῆς γῆς, λέγεται ἄμπωτις τὸ δὲ πάλιν ἐκρεῦσαι τοῦτο, καλεῖται ῥαχία. Γίνεται δὲ τοῦτο πολλάκις τῆς ἡμέρας, μάλι στα, ἐὰν πνῇ ἄνεμος. Πάσχει δὲ τὸ πάθος τοῦτο ὁ Εὐριπος περὶ τὴν ̔Ελλάδα. Διὸ καὶ Ευρι πος ὠνόμασται οἱονεὶ ὁ εὔτρεπτος καὶ εὐχερῶς περιπίπτων. Εἰς τοῦτον λέγεται Αριστοτέλης ἑαυτὸν ρίψαι. Εἴρηται δὲ ἡμῖν τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῷ α' λόγῳ. The word αναρρόφησις is cited by Schneider in Lex. from Schol. Lycophr. 743., Χάρυβδις ἡ τῆς θαλάσσης ἀναῤῥόφησις : in Müller's edition it is by an error of the press printed ἀνοῤῥόφησις. But the word αναῤῥόφη is not mentioned by Schneider. I suspect that for ἀναῤῥόφη we should read, as in the first passage, ἀναῤῥόφησις. Most probably it is an error of the press.

These passages from Nonnus may serve to throw much light on an obscure passage in Lycophron, v. 379. :

Ὅσων δὲ φλοίσβων ῥαχίας ἀνεκβάτου

Δίναις παλιῤῥοίησιν ἕλκοντος σάλου.

“ Ordo paulo implicatior est hic, Ὅσων δὲ (sc. ἀκούσετε) φλοίσβων σάλου ἀνεκβάτου, ἕλκοντος ῥαχίας δίνεις παλιῤῥοίησιν. Ραχίας intelligam de eo, quando fuctus, diu alluendo, paulatim a continente aliquid telluris abrumpunt, adeoque veluti ad mare pertrahunt.” Reichard. 66 Ανεκβάτου δίναις παλιρ. Euripi immodice fluentis, auctore Pomp. Mel. ii. 7. Alterno cursu septies die ac septies nocte fluctibus in vicer versis, v. ibi Tzschucke. Jungi autem possunt δίναις παλις. cum ανεκβάτου, vel, ut Reichard. putat, cum ἕλκοντος σάλου. Ῥαχίας, si est accusat. plural. a ραχία, lite tora exstantia ac petrosa, cf. Etym. Μ. ράχις, quæ Euripus ἕλκειν dic. h. e assultando secum hinc illinc raptare, ut quasi videantur loco moveri atque auferri, vel, ut Reich. explicat, vere abrupta in mare pertrahi, vel, si est genitivus, littoris ἀνεκβάτου, quod egressum non dat, sc. navigantibus. Quum vero ῥαχία etiam significet estum, et videatur esse i. q. ρηγμίν, sensus existit: Quantum strepitum @stus egressum negantis, σάλου ἕλκ. δίν. παλιβ. v. 330. maris, quod refuit fuctibus invicem versis : ut Virg. Georg. iv. 420. canit : In sinus scindit sese unda reductos. Prætulerim tamen accusativum plural. ῥαχίας, ut ἕλκοντος habeat, quod secum ferat. Quo fit, ut verba sic sint ordinanda : ὅσων δὲ φλ. σάλου ἀνεκβ. ἕλκοντος ῥαχίας, fluctus, astum, δίναις παλιῤῥοίησιν. Cf. omnino ad h. 1. Quint. Smyrn. xιν. 515. sq." Müller. But, for my own part, I can never be persuaded that Lycophron, with all his affectation of obscurity, ever wrote two lines whose construction was so intricate, as these interpretations of the passage in question produce. Lege, meo periculo,