Maltbeius. Schol. Ven. ad Il. ρ. 54. : Ζηνόδοτος δια του ο, εναβε βροχεν. Αναβεβρυχεν ύδωρ· ἀναπηγάζει, αναβλυστανει, ἀναδίδοται. We quite agree with Dr. Maltby, in thinking that avaßeßguxer is to be derived from avaßgútw. He would in all probability have spoken more decidedly on the subject, if he had been aware that the word ẞpúlw, though not admitted into the Thesaurus of H, Steph., is received into the Lexicon of Schneider, and may be found in a corrupt fragment of Archilochus ap. Athen. X. p. 447, (fr. xxvi. ed. Gaisf. V. ed. Liebel.) Casaubon reads Auce for ßguts, and interprets it, "ut cum bryti vel zythi salientem ex ore mittit Thrax aut Phryx aliquis,” ὥσπερ αὐλῷ βρύτον ἢ Θραξ ἀνὴς ἢ Φρὺξ ἔβλυζε: “ αὐτὸν accipe ut ap. Homerum, quando κρουτόν sig nificat, βλύζειν αὐλῷ βρύτον, poetica elegantia, pro βλύζειν αὐλὸν βρύ TOU." Scaliger assents to Casaubon's interpretation of the word aukov, but retains ßpule. "Verbum ßpute," says Schweigh., " quatenus de Thrace et Phryge homine dicitur, ea prorsus notione accipiendum, quæ a Casaubono exposita est: nec vero idcirco cum illo in Baute mutandum. Nam, idem valere Baúsw atque Bgów satis superque docent gloss Hesychianæ: Αναβλύει αναβρύει. *Αναβλύζουσα· ἀναβρύουσα. Βλύζει βρύει, αναβρύει. Βρύει αναBRUCE." Quo minus mirum videri debet, eadem notione etiam verbum ßpule, quanquam a nemine Grammaticorum adnotata hæc forma, usurpatum esse ab Archilocho." Salmasius in Solin. p. 760. d: “ Βρύειν et βρύζειν idem est, ut βλύειν et βλύζειν, πρίειν et πρίζειν.” Bęúw et Boulw," says Liebel ad Archilochum p. 71., “ idem verbum est, alia tantum forma, ut βλύω, βλύζω, βύω, βύζω, μύω, μύζω, φλύω, φλύζω, et alia." Schneider in Lex. : 6 "Ich würde —βέβρυχε νοι-βρύζω s. v. a.—βλύζω abgeleitet vorziehen.”

Dr. Maltby thus cites the words of Damm: "Ejusdem notionis ejusdemque originis verbum est ßpúa, scatere, protrudere, et βρύχειν, i. e. τραχέως καὶ μετὰ ποιοῦ τινος ἤχου ἐσθίειν.” But Dr. M. has inadvertently put Bpuxew for Bgúxav, as he may see by referring to Damm. Whether puxe and Bpúxe have the same meaning, is a very disputed point among critics. Maris: BgúΒρύκειν, Αττικῶς Βρύχειν, Ελληνικῶς. Sallierius vehemently contends that these words are not synonymous, and Abresch entertains the same opinion. But Hemsterhuis, and Pierson, and Jacobs ad Anthol. vii. 108. et 413. ix. 360. think differently. Pierson says, Bpúxei et Bouxeiv, a sono ficta, prima origine nihil differunt, et significant stridere, dentibus stridorem edere, frendere: dein, tam avide et gulose edere et vorare, ut dentes strideant. Usus autem voluit, ut Bpúxe tantum pro edere sumeretur. Attici vero puxem βρύχειν Φόντας dixerunt pro βρύχειν, ut ῥέγκειν pro ῥέγχειν. Atticos initaHippocrates, scriptor Ionicus, quæ Dialectus, uti notum, in e cum veteri Attica conveniebat." But Pierson is mis

66

tur

plerisq saying that Hippocrates imitates the Attic writers in using taken int

1. Αναβρυχω.

χώρῳ ἐν οἰοπόλῳ, ὅθ ̓ ἅλις ἀναβέβρυχεν ὕδωρ. 11. Ρ. 54.

Cum penultima præteriti et plusquam-perfecti, a βρύχω formatorum, semper sit longa, nequeo mihi persuadere vocem hancce 2 ν. ἀναβρύχω derivari posse. Cur non credanus extitisse olim formam ἀναβρύζω, e qua ἀναβεβρυχεν, aut potius ἀναβεβρύκεν, μιοHuxerit ? 6 • Ejusdem notionis, ait Dammius, ejusdemque originis verbum est βρύειν, scatere, protrudere, et βρύχειν, i. e. τραχέως καὶ μετὰ ποιοῦ τινος ἤχου ἐσθίειν: et βλύζειν, quod molliori sono idem est quod βρύειν. col. 2117. Addamus igitur βρύζειν. Jam video inter Morelli synonyma locum reperisse αναβρύζω, qua vero auctc ritate, prorsus ignoro. Vetus item est lectio, ἀναβέβροχεν, ab αναβρόχω : item, ἀναβεβρύκεν, ab αναβρύω. Vid. Steph. Thes. Ind.”

ὑοσκύαμον, μήκωνα, βολβούς, σίδια.

Callimachus Eleg. in Lavacr. Palladis 28. :

* ῥόδον ἢ σίβιας κόκκος ἔχει χροιαν.

"Eißda, malum punicum," says Mr. Blomfield, "Hesych. ißtar pola interdum dicebatur ofŋ: Photius, Zidí xóxxy porâs. ́Nicander Alex. 486.

Βρύκοι δ' ἄλλοτε καρπὸν ἅλις φοινώδεα σίδης

Κρησσίδος.”

Mr. Blomfield ought rather to have said: "on, malum punicum : interdum dicebatur oißda." For old is the more common form, but oißda was peculiar to certain dialects. « Σίβδης,” says the truly learned Spanheim, whose note deserves more attention than Mr. Blomfield has paid to it, " nempe Æolice, seu Dorum etiam more, pro oions, haud aliter ac μéußero dixit Apollon. iv. 470. et Oppianus ἐμέμβλετο Cyneg. iv. 282. pro ἐμέλετο. Sic ἔβα pro ἔα, ἐμβραμένη ap. Hesychium pro ειμαρμένη, et quod apud Pamphylios usitatum notant Grammatici, ut ἀέλιος, βαβέλιος, φάος, φάβος, etc. In the reference to Apollonius there is some mistake, as we cannot find the passage, to which Spanheim refers. It is worth while to notice the variations in the orthography of this word according to the nature of the different dialects. Elon, as we have seen in the Doric dialect, becomes rißia, and, as Callimachus so spells the word, perhaps this form was more particularly used by the Cyrenans. Hesych.: Σίλβαι· ροιαί: Σιλβία σιδία. Hesych.: Στις διον· κόκκος ῥοιᾶς. Hesych. : Ξίμβροι· οιαὶ, Αἰολεῖς. The true reading is Ξίμβαι. Hesych. : Ρίμβαι· οιαὶ μεγάλαι· ἄμεινον δὲ διὰ TOU, iußa. But, if iußa be, as Hesychius tells us, the Eolic form, Spanheim is mistaken in saying, "Zi6ong nempe Æolice."

3. "Faydav, avos, o, et Vaydas, unguentum Egyptium." Maltby. Dr. M. is, we think, quite correct in admitting both these forms. Schweighæuser in Athen. xv. p. 690. et p. 691. acknowledges the existence of Váydas as the nominative. Schneiderus in Lex.: "Váydas,, oder Vaydàs, ." We know not where Schneider found authority for making váydas feminine. But we have good reason for thinking with Salmasius in Solin. p. 497. d. that it is masculine, váydas. Hesychius presents us with another form, Faydñs, ó (Váydas, bayons, μúgov Tolov), and the Epitomator of Athenæus gives váyda: Pliny xxxvii. 10. has sagda, æ. Athenæus p. 691. quotes Theodorus as an authority for saying that the word sometimes signifies buuíauá т, a sense unnoticed by H. Steph. and Schneider, who are equally silent about the use of the word in Pliny, Solinus, and Isidorus Origg. xvi. 7., to denote a gem, quam Chaldæi adhærescentem navibus inveniunt prasini

66

coloris."

4. Λωτίζω ab Hesych. explicatur per ἀπανθεω, florem decerpo, unde in 1. c. expon, eligo, sed est planissime mendosus." Maltby.

Τούτων τὰ λῳστα καὶ τὰ θυμηδέστατα

πάρεστι λωτίσασθαι. Æschylus Suppl. 970.

But this is to confound ἀπανθέω, defloreo, with ἀπανθίζω, florem descerpo. Dr. M. appears to have been drawn into this mistake by Schutz, who, when commenting on the passage of schylus, says: Λωτίζειν et ἐκλωτίζειν ab Hesychio explicatur per ἀπανθεῖν, florem decerpere, unde vocabulum ad universam eligendi s. optima quævis eligendi notionem deflexit." True indeed it is that we have in Hesychius: 'Εξελώπισεν· ἀπήνθησεν. But Salmasius, Kuster, and G. D'Arnaud have corrected this blunder of the transcriber by reading the gloss thus, Εξελώτισεν ἀπήνθισεν, and the correction is abundantly confirmed by two other passages of Hesychius, where we read: Εκλωπίζεται (ἐκλωτίζεται) ἐξανθίζεται, ̓Αχαιὸς Οἰδίποδι : Λωτίζειν· ἀπανθίζεσθαι, ἀπολλύειν. Zonaras p. 1926: Λώπισμα· τὸ ἀπάνθημα. “ Eodem vitio ap. Hesych. ἐκλωπίζειν pro ἐκλωτίζειν. Eurip. Helen. 1609. τί μέλλετ ̓, ὦ γῆς ̔Ελλάδος λωτίσματα. Hesych. : Μωτίζειν, ἀπανθίζειν, et λωτίσματα· οἱ πρῶτοι καὶ ἐπίλεκτοι. Proprie decerpti et selecti flores. Hinc noster ἀπάνθημα, pro quo malim ἀπάνθισμα. [Non enim ἀπανθεῖν, sed ἀπανθίζειν hoc sensu dicitur.] Deinde selecti et præcipui λωτίσματα, ut Lat. Jos, et λωτίζεσθαι, seligere optimum, ut apud Æschylum.” Tittmann. Dr. Malthy pronounces the gloss of Hesychius to be " planissime mendosa :" Awτίζειν· ἀπανθίζεσθαι, ἀπολλύειν. If he supposes the corruption to be in λωτίζειν, it may be removed by reading λωτίζεσθαι : but, if he objects to ἀπολλύειν, we are prepared to maintain that the gloss needs no correction. Heinsius and Abresch would substitute ἀπολαύειν, and they quote the passage of Æschylus to defend their conjecture. For our own parts we cannot see that, if Hesychius had written ἀπολαύειν, he could have intended to refer to the verse of Eschylus; for the sense of the verse required him to say not ἀπολαύειν, frui, but ἀπανθίζειν, seligere optimum. Explaining as he does λωτίζειν by ἀπολλύειν, perdere, he appears rather to refer to the Euripidean use of the word, when compounded with the preposition ἀπό: Suppl. 459.

ὅταν τις, ὡς λειμῶνος ἠρινοῦ στάχυν,

τόλμας ἀφαιρῇ, κἀπολωτίζῃ νέους.

“Απολωτίζω, decerpo et demeto optima, coll. 717. ἀποκαυλίζων, a caule desecans et demetens, sicut Tarquinius capita papaverum a caulibus decussit." Dammius in Lex. p. 1358. In another sense Euripides says Iphig. Aul. 793.

τίς ἄρα μὲ εὐπλοκάμους κόμας,

ἔρυμα δακρυόεντ' ἀνύσας,

πατρίδος οὐλομένας, ἀπολωτιεῖ;

The word ἐκλωτίζειν is omitted by H. Stephens. When Æschylus says in the Suppl. 970.