greater length, and use the pronoun for the sake of clearness rather than emphasis. Again, the pronominal suffixes may be attached to a noun which is followed at the same time, by the separate personal pronoun, on the same principle of making the specification more exact; as, i lit. his his soul, i. e. his own soul, Micah 7: 3. See Num. 14: 32. Neh. 5: 2. Less frequent and in imitation rather of the Aramaean is the repetition of the pronoun in the dative; my own enemies, Ps. 27: 2.

A substantive or adjective can be so easily distinguished by position, that this object is very seldom secured by repeating them, at the most only in discourse characterized by intense feeling. Indeclinable words, however, which were originally substantives, since their position in the sentence is less free, may

etc. verg, יַעַן וּבְיַעַן, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד,acquire significance in this way; as

much, entirely because, etc. Perhaps in a more strict analysis of such expressions as the above, the effect of the repetition should be considered as intensive rather than emphatic. It enlarges the idea, instead of merely fixing the mind upon it as one to be specially contemplated.

The verb, it has been already stated, may stand at the commencement of the sentence, even in its ordinary arrangement. Hence when the idea of this part of speech is to be made prominent, some other method must be employed. The one most commonly adopted is that of a repetition of the verb, not however in the same form, but in the Infin. absol. The emphasis to be expressed in this way may be various, according to the particular aspect under which the act of the verb is presented. It may be that of contrast, as when one mode of procedure is opposed to another; and hence this construction is common after adversative terms and particles. Thus the Hebrew said, thou shalt not give it to me, but maps nip I will buy it, 2 Sam. 24: 24. It may occur also without the adversative particle, as Ezek. 16:4. Again, we find it often where some limitation is intended to be suggested, hence after, P only, as he was only gone out (nothing but merely this), Gen. 27: 30. 44: 28. Judg. 7: 19; and even after and, when the sense demands such a restriction, as Amos 3: 5. Further, in connection with questions when the act forms the principal point of the inquiry; as, one shalt thou (even) rule? Gen. 37: 8; and, in general, when an act is viewed as entirely certain; as, I know that thou shalt reign, 1 Sam. 24: 21. Amos 5: 5; also of things past, Joel 1: 7. Jer. 20: 15, or even of opinions which one entertains with confidence; as, I thought I he

1847.]

The negative Particles.

181

will go forth, 2 Kings 5: 11. This construction occurs at the beginning of a narrative, in order to affirm the thing narrated with emphasis and certainty; as, we have seen, Gen. 26: 28, and often in the utterance of earnest commands and threatenings, for which expression the Infin. absol. alone is frequently employed. The participle as well as the finite verb, whether it have an active or intransitive sense, may acquire emphasis in the manner which has been described. The proper place for the Infinitive when thus used is at the commencement of the clause; and this right it asserts so tenaciously that even the negative adverb must recede and come in as an attendant of the finite verb, as non

we will not slay thee, Judg. 15: 13. The exceptions to this remark are very few.

From such rhetorical repetitions of a word we are to distinguish the cases in which the repetition serves for the expression of a new idea, because the language has no other more concise or intelligible phraseology for such a purpose. An instance of this would be upon the way, upon the way, i. e. ever on the way, Deut. 2: 27, пn year year, i. e. yearly, etc.

The correct use of the negative particles is specially important in the formation of the Hebrew sentence. The general distinction between and by is well known. Besides these, we have also

and still other negatives, which are not to, אֶפֶס זוּלָתִי, בִּלְתִּי, אֵין

be loosely interchanged for one another. Of these " denies properly some simple word or idea of a proposition, and thus distinguishes itself from which denies the entire sentence. As it expresses no definite time, it may represent the verb of existence in any form. besides, except, resembles No in its general character as qualificatory of an entire clause ( attaches itself rather to a single word), but admits also of being connected with nouns and prepositions in a manner in which does not; and hence may occupy positions in the sentence from which that is excluded. b, a contracted form of this particle, is confined to poetry and used in the same general way. DEN, expresses a general limitation and places itself naturally at the head of the clause which it qualifies. To suppose an entirely arbitrary, indiscriminate interchange of these and similar terms in Hebrew, would be contrary to the universal analogies of language; but the feeling which is to guide one practically in marking such distinctions, can be formed only by the long continued study of the Hebrew writers; and by such study, as the masters in this kind of learning assure us, it may certainly be formed.

ARTICLE VIII.

ALSCHEFSKI'S LIVY.

Titi Livii Rerum Romanarum ab urbe condita libri ad codicum manu scriptorum fidem emendati ab C. F. S. Alschefski. Vol. I. primae decadis partem priorem continens, 1841. Vol. II. prim. dec. part. alt. continens,1 1843.

By Prof. John L. Lincoln of Brown University."

THE publication of the first two volumes of this new critical edition of Livy, has awakened the greatest interest in Germany, and is understood to mark a new era in the history of the text of Livy's works. It is now somewhat more than a hundred years since the first appearance of the well-known edition of Arnold Drakenborch. That great work, bearing upon every page evidences of the learning and industry and mature scholarship of its author, en bodying all the results of the labors of preceding editors, and embracing a vast apparatus of critical and exegetical material, has till within a comparatively short period continued to maintain its ascendency as the standard edition of Livy. Most of the editors who followed Drakenborch, either unacquainted with the imperfections of a work containing so much that is good, or shrinking from the formidable task of working over and producing anew and in a better form such a cumbrous mass of material, have for the most part followed his critical authority, and been content to gather, according to their wants, from the immense stores of annotation which he accumulated. Yet the extreme confusion in which Drakenborch has thrown together the valuable results of his researches, can hardly have failed to perplex even those most familiar with learned commentary; and certainly from many a practical teacher, condemned to grope his way through those piles of annotation in search of a clue to some critical or philological difficulty, has often escaped the very reasonable wish, that some kindly spirit of order had once been present in the midst of the chaotic mass, and fashioned it into some known and recognized proportions of form and symmetry. The text of Drakenborch, though superior to that of earlier editors, and in many important

We learn from recent foreign Journals, that Vol. III. has also appeared. It probably contains the first five books of the third decade.

1847.]

Editions of Drakenborch and Kreyssig.

183

particulars to that of Gronovius, which he assumed as the basis of his own edition, has yet entirely failed to meet the demands of the better principles of criticism which prevail at the present time. Indeed, that celebrated editor of Livy, though he constantly consulted the best editions, and had at his command a numerous and to some extent valuable collection of manuscripts, yet seems not to have had any clear and certain opinion of the real value of separate Mss., nor to have established for himself any uniform principles of criticism; and hence he frequently followed in silence some older edition, and in many passages adopted or rejected readings, in accordance with the suffrages of inferior manuscripts, simply because they formed a majority in his collection. Many German scholars since the beginning of the present cen. tury, and among the first Walch' and Büttner,2 have drawn attention to the defects of the edition of Drakenborch; and in their satisfactory emendations of numerous passages prepared the way for others, who have undertaken the task of thoroughly revising the text of the entire work of Livy. Of the more recent editors who have preceded Alschefski in attempting to discharge this responsible office, only two here require particular mention, Kreyssig and Immanuel Bekker. Kreyssig, by a careful examination of the Bamberg Ms., introduced many important corrections into the fourth decade, and especially the thirty-third book, and by a new collation of the Vienna Ms. emended many passages in the first half of the fifth decade.

The result of his labors appear in the neat stereotype edition of Tauchnitz, in six volumes duodecimo, 1829; and the new readings adopted are conveniently given along with the readings of Drakenborch, at the end of each volume. In the remaining decades, the first and the third, Bekker first commenced the work of revision on a correct method, by adopting for his guidance in the former the excellent Florentine Ms. and for the latter the no less celebrated Putean Ms. The text of these two portions of Livy, appeared accordingly in a greatly improved form in his edition. Yet, notwithstanding the acknowledged merit of Bekker's edition, it labored under serious imperfections, and left much still to be done in the work of revising the text of Livy. In the judg ment of two of his reviewers, well qualified to judge, Oselli3 and Weissenborn, his labors were only partially successful; the com

G. C. Walch, Emendationes Livianae.

* Fr. Büttner, Observationes Livianae, 1819. * See Jahn's Jahrbücher, 1831, Bd. I.

See ib. Bd. 31, 1841, p. 158.

mon readings were frequently retained without sufficient reason, in opposition to the testimony of the best Mss., and the method which he had proposed to pursue was not followed with the requisite consistency and thoroughness.

These two editions of Kreyssig and Bekker, at once by their merits and their faults, by the real good which they effected as well as by that which they failed to effect, opened the way for the labors of Alschefski, with whose work we are now more particularly concerned. To correct what they had done imperfectly, and to do what they had left undone, and by a new and careful study of the oldest and the best Mss. to restore so far as possible the text of Livy's works, and place it at length upon a secure and permanent basis, was the task proposed to himself by this editor. Dr. Alschefski, whose name seems destined to be for a long time associated in the learned world with the works of Livy, was born in Berlin, and educated in the Joachimsthal gymnasium and the university in that city; and soon after leaving the university, commenced his career as a classical teacher in the Gray Cloister gymnasium, one of the oldest institutions of learning in Berlin, and indeed in Germany. With this gymnasium he still continues to be connected. By his experience as a teacher, and especially by a long course of critical studies and investigations, he had well prepared himself for the business of editing the writings of Livy; and had proved himself well qualified for his task in two minor works, which exhibited most satisfactory results of his preparatory labors. The first of these was a Gymnasium Program, published in 1839—entitled, Ueber die kritische Behandlung der Geschichtsbücher des Titus Livius-in which the author displayed a familiar acquaintance with the literature of Livy, gave a clear historical view of the fate which the text of his works underwent during the middle ages, and pointed out the true method to be observed in consulting and using the various Mss. together with an estimate of their respective value. This was followed by a critical edition of the thirtieth book of Livy, which at once gained him an enviable distinction in Germany, and awakened the most eager expectations for the appearance of his edition of the entire work. The first two volumes of this work, mentioned at the head of this notice, embrace as their title indicates, the books of the first decade. In the preface to the first volume, the author states the principles of criticism by which he has been guided, and classifies according to their age and worth, the manuscripts which he has consulted in preparing his edition. First of all, the Floren