« ZurückWeiter »
been suggested; kará is employed because the mark is the point at which the action is to terminate; and the genitive case is used, because the designed, and not the actual, termination is asserted.
We proceed now to examine the uses of the preposition ává in connection with its primary signification as applied to things in space. The original meaning of ȧvá is up. All upward motion has a natural and fixed point of departure; namely, the surface of the earth. From this as its starting-point it extends into space without any definite limit, or point of termination. All upward motion, then, has a definite beginning, and no definite termination; it follows, therefore, first, that actions in space which start from a fixed and known point, and pass into indefinite regions, may naturally be expressed by the aid of this preposition; as avanλéw = to sail from port to sea, from a fixed and known point of departure into an indefinite region; ȧvaẞaivo = to go from the coast into the interior of a country, applied especially to an army landing, and making its progress into an unknown region; avoiyw = to open, as a door. Secondly, actions contemplated as commencing will naturally be described by the aid of ȧvá; as ȧvakaíw = to kindle, to rouse; ȧvodúpopai to break out into wailing; ȧvaxopeów = to begin a choral dance. Thirdly, as the natural motion of things is downward, an action which opposes a thing in its natural motion may be denoted by this preposition; as ȧvaKpovo to check, as a horse by drawing the reins, or as a ship by reversing the motion of the oars. By extending this idea, we come naturally to the notion of repeated action; for if the opposing force be sufficiently increased, it will stop the motion of the thing it opposes, and reverse it, causing it to retrace its former course; hence, in the fourth place, ává gives the idea of repeated action; as avaperpéw to measure again; ávaμáxoμaito renew the fight ; ȧvaxwpéw = to go back.
In the case of both these prepositions we have taken no notice of instances in which they have their primary signification, these being too obvious to require remark.
In some words, the force of ȧvá and κará in composition seems at first view to be nearly the same; but here a close examination will show that each has its peculiar force. Thus, avaipé and κadapéw may both mean to destroy; but the former means to destroy by displacing, the latter by deNo. 135.
molishing. Consequently, whenever the existence of a thing depends solely on its position and relations, its annihilation may be expressed by avaipéw; for in that case, to remove is to annihilate ; thus, δημοκράτειαν ἀναιρεῖν, not καθαιρεῖν. 50, 100, κατὰ τὴν πόλιν, and ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν, may both mean through the city; but the former expression would have reference to the completion of the action, while the latter would refer to its progress from the starting-point; the former would naturally be used if the persons were acquainted with the city, the latter, if they were strangers; the former with the aorist tense, the latter with the imperfect. These are only indications, in a single instance, of those nice distinctions in language which meet the observant scholar at every step of his progress. They suggest to us, if we may so call it, the intense vitality of language, that it is organized and living to its minutest fibres; and dictionaries and grammars, after the most elaborate classification, can give us only the lifeless parts, instead of the breathing whole.
Without pursuing the subject before us at length, we will add a few examples, showing the importance, in the treatment of the prepositions, of a rigorous deduction from the primitive signification. The prepositions Tepi and Tép both govern the genitive, and both mean for; as, Tepì dógns, for glory; imèp elevbepías, for freedom; but each word retains here the traces of its original meaning. As Tepi signifies about, it describes our action for a thing to which we have no special or exclusive right, just as our position in space about a thing does not prevent others from holding a similar position. But inép is exclusive; it describes action for that to which we have a special right, for what is rightfully our own, as standing over a thing is a natural indication that it is ours. Thus, Demosthenes says the war, at its beginning, was περὶ τοῦ τιμωρήσασθαι Φίλιππον ; but at the close, it was ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ παθεῖν αὐτοὺς κακῶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλίππου, because the latter was in its nature a thing for themselves to do exclusively of all other persons; the former, others might do as well as they.
When these prepositions have other significations than for, they still show on analysis distinct traces of their original meaning. Thus, in speaking of the judges of Socrates, Xenophon says, "In whatever things it was not manifest how he thought, οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν, ὑπὲρ τούτων περὶ αὐτοῦ παραγνῶναι, it is no wonder that on these points they misjudged about
him." As that on, or over, which (inép) a man stands is essential to his position, the preposition nép is here used to mark the permanent relation between Socrates and certain points of duty and belief, which relation made up his character; while the transient relation of his judges to him is denoted by repi. The prepositions arró and rapá, both with the genitive case, signify from; but as napá, originally signifying beside of, denotes a more intimate relation than ȧró, it is used when a thing is naturally resident in the person from whom it proceeds, as an inheritance from a father, commands from a sovereign; while aró, meaning off from, denotes a merely superficial relation, and is used when one thing comes accidentally, as it were, from another.
The prepositions τó and πрós may both, with the genitive case, point to the remote agent, the person who causes the action; but nó merely denotes that the action takes place under the person's power; após brings the remote and immediate agent face to face, and pictures the latter as receiving the command from the mouth of the other. Hence, the whole sad picture presented in the πρὸς ἄλλης ἱστὸν ὑφαίνοις of Homer ; where the captive Andromache must stand before the face of her mistress, take her commands, and go and do her bidding.
The preceding are but a few instances, which a full discussion of the subject would multiply, showing the importance of a strict logical method in treating of this part of the language. When we say, that this method is essential in order to make sure that the ordinary definitions of words shall be given correctly in the lexicon, it may seem that we assume too much; the position, however, is strictly true. No amount of toil and care will save the lexicographer from palpable mistakes, unless he has the light of guiding principles. If he starts with an indefinite notion of a preposition, and does not, by logical forecast, keep the field of inquiry narrow before him, his lexicon will show confusion through the whole circle of words into which the preposition enters. Nowhere more than here should the inquirer remember, that prudens quæstio dimidium est scientiæ.
We have an illustration of this in hand. The verb avakλaí is defined in the larger lexicon before us, "to weep aloud, to burst into tears; also, with the accusative, to weep for, bewail, both in Herod. 3. 14." Now the natural question suggested by the analysis of the preposition is, Is the
verb ever transitive? We do not mean by this question to imply that it is not, but the preposition ává justifies us in raising the question, and at least asking for the proof. On examining the passage referred to in Herodotus, the word is found four times, and in no one of them is it used with an accusative, expressed or understood. Now, this error could not have occurred, had the field of inquiry been properly narrowed in the lexicographer's mind, by a thorough understanding of the force of the preposition ává. Such a knowledge would have thrown the presumption on the negative side of the question, and would at least have saved him from quoting this passage as proof of the affirmative.
But the evil of a defective method, beginning with the lexicographer, goes on annoying and hindering the learner through his whole course; and the result is, that his knowledge at last is only formal knowledge, and not real. Greek word in his mind is only a translation of an English word; not a description of some action or thing which he can see about him. As the reading of history is comparatively useless, until, penetrating through all disguises, we find ourselves in the Romans, Greeks, or Persians of the story; so the study of a language does but little good, if the student fails to find under its strange costume his own thoughts, feelings, and experience. Then the costume is no longer strange; he has made it his own. It is in this way of learning a new language, that he becomes twice a man.
ART. V. The Miscellaneous Works and Remains of the REV. ROBERT HALL, with a Memoir of his Life, by OLINTHUS GREGORY, LL. D; and a Critical Estimate of his Character and Writings, by JOHN FOSTER, Author of Essays on Decision of Character, &c. London: Henry G. Bohn. 1846. 16mo. pp. 572.
THERE is no phenomenon, in which the usual law of cause and effect seems more utterly set aside, than in the large number of English dissenting divines, who have occupied the same intellectual level with their contemporaries of the national church. There has been, since the birth of
Puritanism, no generation, which could not exhibit at least as many eminent thinkers, scholars, preachers, and authors, out of the Establishment, as within its pale; and in numerous instances, the single great men of the age in their respective departments have been dissenters. We could afford the loss of no work appertaining to the evidences of Christianity so ill, as that of Lardner's Credibility. In the department of Christian ethics and casuistry, Barrow stands unrivalled among the clergy of the English Church, but seems jejune and puerile, when brought into comparison with Baxter. In devotional poetry, Watts and Doddridge have established a law of taste and a standard of excellence coextensive with the language in which they wrote. John Foster's Essays produced a deeper impression on the British public, and were read with more avidity, than any other book of their day. Robert Hall, in the zenith of his reputation, was generally regarded as the first preacher in Great Britain; and of the loyal effusions in every part of the kingdom on the death of the Princess Charlotte, his sermon on that event was the only one that enjoyed more than an ephemeral fame. Gilbert Wakefield, educated, indeed, for the established church, but forsaking the vantage-ground which it gave him at the early age of twenty-three, performed more valuable services for classical literature than we owe to any other scholar of his nation; while Priestley, the dissenter and heretic, in addition to high theological and professional eminence, attained the first rank among the experimental philosophers of his day. Yet the intellectual disabilities and privations attached to non-conformity would seem of themselves sufficient to preclude all competition on the part of dissenters with the adherents of the Church, and to confine them hopelessly within a subaltern rank of attainments and achievements. Shut out of the universities, excluded from the use of all the principal libraries in the kingdom, set aside from the opportunity of preferment and patronage, always obliged to win with slender aid and contracted sympathy a higher place than is readily accorded them, and, when educated in the Church, and renouncing conformity for conscience' sake, obliged to cast away props and helps to which they have grown accustomed, they are not unaptly typified by the Israelites, who elaborated their full tale of bricks without the accustomed Supply of straw.