« ZurückWeiter »
by quoting his Preface, than by any lengthened observations of our own :
'When I first applied myself especially to the study of Hebrew-a study which I have pursued with increasing interest for some seventeen years, I was struck by the uninviting and irrational method adopted in all grammars of the language which fell in my way; and I am quite sure that many classical scholars have been deterred by the difficulties of which Dr. Arnold complains (Life, vol. ii. p. 138). As these difficulties take their rise in the puerile system of the Jewish teachers, which forms the basis of nearly all Hebrew grammars, it appeared to me necessary that some one, acquainted with classical philology, should undertake a comparative grammar of the Hebrew language; that is, one in which the classical scholar might be able to compare the unexplored language with those which are so familiar to him; and, as the field seemed likely to remain unoccupied, I commenced this little work, and announced it as preparing for the press in the spring of 1845. More pressing engagements prevented me from completing it then, and the publication in 1848 of a tracta explaining and exemplifying the reform of Hebrew grammar which I wished to advocate, rendered me less impatient to ventilate my method. In the mean time, I was testing its utility by constant practice as a teacher of Hebrew in Bury school, where about forty of the elder boys are always engaged in the study. And I am now able to publish this grammar rather as a successful result than as a precarious experiment.
“As the first difficulty of learning the Hebrew language consists undoubtedly in its system of orthography, so different from that of European idioms, it is my plan to make a study of the language, to a certain extent, ancillary to the acquisition of a familiarity with the characters. Having then furnished the student with the rules of writing, and with a strictly philological, but at the same time very simple method of transcription, I would teach him the grammar in English characters, requiring him, in every case, to reproduce the words in Hebrew letters and vowel-points. Mr. Greenfield may claim the credit of having been the first to see the necessity of this. But his “ Book of Genesis in English Hebrew” is not sufficiently explicit and comprehensive in its grammatical introduction, whereas it goes much farther than is necessary in transcribing the whole book of Genesis in English characters. My experience teaches me that all attentive learners will read and write the Hebrew characters with perfect fluency and ease, even before they have gone through a short grammar like the present, and it is highly desirable that the Bible itself should be studied in the Hebrew letters only.
Maskil le-Sopher (i.e. The Scribe's Instruction); the Principles and Processes of Classical Philology applied to the Analysis of the Hebrew Language. London: J. W. Parker, West Strand. 1848.'
e 'The Book of Genesis, in English Hebrew, by W. Greenfield, M.R.A.S., second edition, 1831. I have followed Mr. Greenfield's grammatical introduction in several details of minor importance in the second part of this grammar; but his method of transcription differs materially from mine. For example, he represents & and y by a and 0, which can only produce confusion in the mind of a beginner.'
• The tract which I have already mentioned, and to which I would beg to refer the philological student, sufficiently explains the method by which I would bring a more scientific philology to bear on the reform of Hebrew grammar. The great point, as it appears to me, is to perceive and appreciate the syntactical character which is impressed upon the language, and the latent analogies which connect it with the classical idioms. The whole nomenclature of the accidence may be retained, and there are many details, such as paradigms and lists of words, which must be copied from existing grammars ; but in those particulars which require philological research, especially in the arrangement of the syntax, almost everything remained to be done.
Like the corresponding Greek and Latin grammars, this little treatise is intended to be at once concise and complete. A grammar is not concise, but imperfect, if it omits any of the general principles which the language in question exemplifies; it is not complete, but redun ant, if it wearies and perplexes the student with superfluous details belonging to the lexicon or the commentary. By avoiding these errors of excess and defect, and by combining things old and new, I venture to hope that this introduction to the Hebrew language will not only contribute to increase the number of those who can read the Old Testament in the original, but that it may, perhaps, attract to this important study some of those who are most likely to pursue it with advantage to themselves and to the cause of religion-I mean classical scholars, who have cultivated their critical faculties and learned to appreciate the reasonings of general grammar.'
To this we need only add that we should think Dr. Donaldson's grammar more fitted for a class under the eye of a tutor than for self-taught students, and that we congratulate him on having forty Hebrew pupils under him at Bury school. Such a fact speaks for itself, and needs no praise of ours.
We have only space to speak well of the “Handbook of Hebrew Antiquities' of Prebendary Browne. It is a small volume, but contains, in a condensed form, an immense amount of information, compiled from the latest and best authorities in the department it treats of. It is astonishing what a variety of minor references and details are overlooked in reading the Scriptures, which, when brought together as in this manual, tend to give a perfect idea of Hebrew every-day life. It would be an admirable exercise for students to consult all the references, and write out in full the words of Scripture by which the statements of the Handbook are confirmed and supported.
I it in 111 kafe,'1,941 Thorla si i siti in med 411 ahwilfa" 32870, Is colourly Lines
ARMENIAN TRANSLATION OF EUSEBIUS. 7'11 d); nihil, .':14 13:17 Phi] . ON THE HISTORICAL ADVANTAGE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE ARMENIAN
TRANSLATION OF THE CHRONICLE OF EUSEBIUS.'
(Coutinued from vol. iv, p. 297,)proof A CATALOGUE of the Thessalian Strategi is necessarily unimportant in an historical point of view, and incomparably less interesting than a simi'ar list of the Achæan or Ætolian Strategi would have been ; still, even the slightest notices of this kind are not to be despised. As the editors have not appended to it the dates of the years, I insert them here in a chronological form, in order to remedy this important deficiency and spare labour to others.
, before the harvest, but, as it appears, when the corn was ready for reaping 34 therefore, to be exact, we must refer it to Olymp. 145, i 25 though in general, since a proper parallel between Roman and Olympic years is impossible, I follow Polybius, and regard the Roman year, 'in whose summer the Olympic year begins, as synchronous with the latter. At the date of this battle, according to the chapter before us, Philip had reigned over Thessaly 23 years and 9 months ; if therefore the battle took place towards the end of June, he must have ascended the throne in 531, in the Julian September or October, which is, however, about a year too early, so that it seems as if 22 years ought to have been written. Or was the chronographer led astray by the circumstance that the battle took place in the ninth month of the Macedonian year? This uncertainty renders the date useless for
In the following year no Strategus was chosen. The first was Olymp. 146, 1 = 557. Pausanias, the son of Echecrates of Pheræ.
This is without doubt the Pausanias princeps civitatis Pherarum, who is mentioned four years
later by Livy (xxxvi. 9). 2 = 558. Amyntas, the son of Crates, Pierius according
to the Milan, Pierensis according to the Venetian edition, The catalogue, adds, that in this year T. Flaminius returned to Rome, agreeing with Livy xxxiv. 52. The ethnical appellation is doubtful, for the Pierians were Philip's subjects. Stephanus has a Thessalian city Πηρεία, and its έθνικών, Πηρεύς.
. For Flaminius marched to Scotussa to reap all the corn-fields for forage, and thus to deprive Philip of the means of subsistence --POLYB. xviii. 3.
VOL. V.-NO. X.
Olymp. 146, 3 = 559. Æacides, the son of Callias of Metropolis.
4 = 560. Epidromus, the son of Andromachus of Larissa,
for eight months; and afterwards Eunomus, son of Polycletus of Larissa, during the remaining four
months. 147, 1 = 561. Eunomus rursus. Does this mean for the second
time, or another? Who could doubt that the former is the true meaning, if it were not stated three years later, Eunomus son of Polyeletus of Larissa for the second time? The explanation seems to be that he was not reckoned as an Eponymus in 560. This is the Prætor of Thessaly who was commanded by Titus Flaminius to bring all his troops into the field against the Magnetians (Livy, xxxv. 39). It appears therefore that he enjoyed the confidence of the Romans, and this renders it all the more probable that it was their influence which had raised him to the prætorship in the previous year, and removed his predecessor as sus
picious. 2 = 562. Æacides, the son of Callias of Metropolis, for
the second time. 3=563. Pravilus (in a recapitulation at the end called
Praviles) of Scotussa. 4 = 564. Eunomus, the son of Polycletus of Larissa, for
the second time. 148, 1 = 565. Androsthenes, the son of Idalius (Italæ, Venet
. ed.) of Gyrton (following Mai's correct emendation
of Gorton). 2 = 566. Thrasymachus, son of Alexander of Atrax
(Mai's emended reading of Artax, confirmed by
the Venet. Atraganus). 3= 567. Laontomenes (no doubt Leontomenes), son of
Damothoes of Pheræ. 4 = 568. Pausanias, son of Damothoes of Pheræ (the
name of his birthplace is wanting in the Milanese
edition) 149, 1 = 569. Theodorus, son of Alexander of Argos. Mai
conjectures the Amphilochian Argos; but that town belonged to Ætolia, at least from the war of Demetrius. We might with more reason suppose that it was the Orestian Argos, for the Orestians would hardly have dared to set up as an independent state after they were separated from the Macedonian empire; and the only peoples with which they could connect themselves were the Thessalians or Epirots. Stephanus names an Argos also in Thessaly itself, and that political union might easily give rise to the misunderstanding of
supposing that this was not the same
to Olymp. 148, 2. Olymp. 149, 2 = 570. Nicocrates, the son of Phaxinus, Cortunensis
(ed. Venet. Cotunensis). Mai emends it Scotusæus, but we have no right to depart so far from what is written: one is rather reminded of Gyrton, which we have already seen corrupted, or perhaps of Cytina. Some, perhaps, more familiar with the geography of Thessaly, may remember other places
with similar names. 3= 571. Hippolochus, son of Alexippus of Larissa. He
seems to be the same who was taken captive at Scotussa in the year 561, with the garrison of
Larissa, of which he was the commander. 4 = 572. Cleomachides, son of Æneas of Larissa. 150, 1 = 573. Phyrinus (?), son of Aristomenes of Gomphi.
Here it is added in the recapitulation 2=574. Philippus ; unless indeed there is an error here,
and it ought to have been said that Philip of Macedon died in the following year, or, as the Catalogue itself says, under Phyrinus. For as we have no idea at what time of year the Thessalian magistrates assumed office, it is impossible to say how far his period of office may have extended into the
year Olymp. 150, 2. From the fact that the list breaks off here, it by no means, however, follows that there were no Strategi after this date; it only shows how completely at random Eusebius framed his compilation ; for in the war of Perseus we find a Hippias, prætor of the Thessaliansa (Livy, xl. 54); and as the nation had evinced their attachment to the Romans in this war, we may conclude with certainty that no alterations were made in their constitution at its close. Nay, when Cæsar penetrated into Thessaly across the Pindus, before the battle of Pharsalus, Androsthenes sustained this dignity; and Thessalian Strategi occur on coins so late as Augustus, Στρατηγού 'Αντιγόνου, and elsewhere a name that cannot be made out (see Eckhel, ii. p. 134).”
The Milanese translators call these magistrates principes and copiarum duces ; the Armenian terms must correspond to the Greek άρχοντες and στρατηγοί. But the Romans always use the word prætor for the Greek otpatnyos, especially Livy and Cæsar when speaking of the Thessalians.
Pellerin and Eckhel only err in regarding these Strategi as the magistrates of single cities. But the single names, which are sometimes found beside the Jupiter's head on the not uncommon Thessalian silver coins, are certainly names of Strategi of the whole district. Such coins should be everywhere collected by the numismaticians; sometimes we may detect on them names known in history, and then they serve to mark the condition of art at the epoch of their coinage.