« PreviousContinue »
for ever in the arred in as jus
wit rather than humor, there are examples of practical jokes and broad humor, which astonish grave Anglo-Saxons. The Greeks loved puns, playing upon words, and the scholar often involuntarily smiles over a jest, which has maintained its flavor for two thousand years, just as the vital principle has been strangely preserved in the wheat enwrapped in some Egyptian mummy in the ages near the flood. For every quip and crank, for every sudden turn in expression, for fancy, for courtesy, for argument, and in short, all the materiel of conversation, the Greek seems to be rivalled only by the French, while it possesses many a quality in which the latter quite fails.
A remark of Buttman is here appropriate. “The elegance and address of the Attic dialect is most visible in the syntax, where it is distinguished, not only above the other dialects, but also above all other languages, by an appropriate conciseness, by a most effective arrangement of the constituent parts, and by a certain moderation in asserting and judging, which passed over from the polite tone of social intercourse into the language itself.”
6. In subtlety the Greek language is hardly less remarkable. One can hardly make this remark without thinking of Aristotle. He has exemplified its power in minute subdivision of thought and expression. The Hellenist possessed in his tongue a material for distinguishing with almost microscopic accuracy every shade of thought. We might illustrate by the aorist tense. The perfect tense we are told,* “never narrates but represents that which has taken place, as past, in connection with the present time, 'I know it, for I have seen it.'" The narrative tense is the imperfect. When that which, at that time was already past is mentioned, we use the pluperfect. Now “the aorist leaves the present time entirely out of view, transports us into the past, and so narrates successively that which took place."
7. And this points to the richness in structure of the Greek language. Besides the peculiarity of the aorist, “it definitely distinguishes the middle form as a particular genus, separates the optative from the subjunctive as a distinct mood, makes the dual a distinct number, and distinguishes also the various moods and participles in all the different tenses."'* The mode of formation of the different parts of the verb has often been admired, especially as grammarians have approximated more and more
• V. Buttman.
closely to a philosophical method of retracing the original formation.
The middle voice is especially interesting in this connection. We glean some interesting ideas on this subject from Kühner. The idea of self runs through all the meanings of the middle voice. There are four relations in which the notion of self may stand to the verb. 1. As genitive, druoas “having pushed away;" åtwoájevos“ having pushed away from one's self, having repulsed;" å ronéuerouac “I send away from myself,” &c. 2. As dative, Bouhevoua. “I give advice to myself, I deliberate;" cío emai “I take to myself, I adopt.” Here we sometimes see in active and middle a kind of contrast, xpñoato lend ; xpnoasta, to borrow, the middle containing the idea of the action being done for one's own benefit. 3. As accusative, éret L Oévai “ to place another on ;' ¿Actidegga“ to place oneself on, to attack;" hovw “I wash another ;" hovoua. “I wash myself, bathe." 4. The “self” stands to the verb as pronominal adjective, as xeípergau Tho zepaaru " to shave one's own head,” &c., &c.
Deponent verbs seem to be verbs which are used only in the middle voice. This reflexive sense of the middle is often so weak as to be scarcely discernible. It frequently consists in the notion of doing an action, in which we are especially interested for our own good or harm, which we do not usually express, as rongádevos tás vñas “having made (i. e. for himself) a navy.” The middle form this writer thinks was originally the proper expression of intransitive and reflexive notions. Hence many active verbs have tenses in the middle form, especially the future, and these almost always express an action of the mind or the senses. Another nice distinction is, where a secondary sense is adopted from the reflexive. The active form signifies an action as objective, the middle as subjective, ex. gra. OxonEiv “to look at ;" oxorciola, “ to look mentally, to consider ;” zavoávw “I escape notice;” navoavóua. “I escape my own notice, I forget.”
This is a specimen of this interesting philological criticism. Kühner also supposes, that “many of the forms usually called passive, are in reality middle, and that the only real passive forms are the future and aorist.”
8. In concluding these characteristics, we refer to a point made by Buttman, which we give in his own language. “Another source of the charm of the Attic language lies, where very few look for it, in its individuality; and in the feeling of affection for this, and for nationality in general,
every to change mand now be
which the Attic writers possessed. However well adapted for the understanding, and for the internal and external sense of beauty a language may be, which every where exhibits a correct logic, follows a regular and fixed analogy, and employs pleasing sounds, still all these advantages are lifeless without the charm of individuality. This however, consists wholly in occasional sacrifices of these fundamental laws, especially of logic and general analogy, in favor of idioms and modes of speech, which have their source, partly in certain traits of national character, and partly also incontestibly in an apprehension of those ground rules, not exactly conformed to the usage of the schools. In this way anomalous forms had arisen in the Attic, as in every other language, and these the cultivated writers did not wish to change, out of respect to antiquity and the ear of the people, which had now become accustomed to such forms and turns of expression; and also, as above remarked, out of a cherished regard to individuality. When in other languages irregularities of style occur, we see at once that they result from inaccuracy or want of skill; while among the Attics, who are so distinguished for address and skill, we perceive that they did not wish to make the correction. Indeed they felt, that by removing anomalies, they should deprive their language of the stamp of a production of nature, which every language really is; and thus give it the appearance of a work of art, which a language can never become. It follows here of course, that intentional anomalies, by which a language is made to assume the appearance of a mere plaything, can never be taken into the account; however ready the older grammarians often were with this convenient mode of explanation."
There is perhaps, no object of merely intellectual pursuit that yields a richer harvest than the study of this noble language, and the literature enshrined in it. Whether we desire to cultivate and refine the taste, to strengthen the intellect, to furnish the mind with materials of thought, or to bring ourselves in contact with the great models of excellence in literature and art, our course is still the same : by the shores of Ilyssus and under the shadow of Hymettus. And we need to be reminded in America, that carelessness in laying a solid foundation in a thorough acquaintance with the minutiæ, as well as the general principles of the language in youth, will, in all probability, prevent our children from ever becoming thorough classical
scholars. There are signal exceptions; but in general, to use the fine figure of a modern poet, the sunken piers over which the bridge of elegant scholarship is thrown, are built, if built at all, in youth.
ART. IV.-LEGAL HOLINESS, AND NOT GRACIOUS, THAT WHICH GOD HAS DETERMINED TO ESTABLISH THROUGHOUT HIS UNIVERSE.*
A multitude of passages of Scripture, which might readily be quoted if there were any probability that the proposition would be denied, establish the truth, that the great desire of the Holy One of Israel is that his people should be holy, and that the holiness which he desires they should possess, is the same in kind with his own. The character of God is rendered glorious by means of this attribute; and it alone can render glorious the character of his subjects. They must be morally like him or they cannot please him; and it is impossible that they should bear his moral image without reflecting the beauty of holiness. There is nothing else so excellent to his infinite mind; and he is doing all that he consistently can to maintain it in his subjects where it exists, and to restore it where it is lost. It would seem that all must agree that he has set his heart upon promoting the greatest possible amount of holiness among the creatures of his empire. It matters not, for our present pur
• One object in establishing this Review is to afford a medium for free and able discussions (within limits which are clear to the minds of the Editors) of questions in Theology and Church Polity. “Truth," says Woollaston, “is the offspring of unbroken meditation, and of thoughts often revised and corrected.” Different minds, varying as they do in their constitutions, training and circumstances, revise and correct each other. All articles that are inserted without comment, may be considered as embodying views for which the Editors are willing to be responsible. Articles on different sides of open questions will be designated as such in a foot-note. The article above is of this kind. Without adopting its conclusions, for which the author, at his own desire, is considered alone responsible, we publish it as an essay of much ability and interest.
ed by the combt so much a perfect mo
pose, whether this be his ultimate end, or whether it be desired as a means to that end : in either case the truth remains the same. He has determined, as far as he can consistently, to promote holiness among his subjects. To accomplish this he has set in operation a wonderful array of means. Both the legal and gracious economies point directly to this result; and it can hardly fail to be interesting and profitable if we occupy the space allotted to the present article, in considering a few of the developments which have been made, and are now making, for the accomplishment of so blessed and glorious an end.
That we may proceed intelligibly with our discussion, let us inquire, What is holiness ? Lexicographers tell us that it is “purity or integrity of moral character; freedom from sin;" — “piety, religious goodness," &c. &c. But while these definitions may answer for popular use, they are not sufficiently accurate for the theologian. Strictly speaking, holiness is the combined excellence of all the attributes of perfect moral being. The holiness of God is not so much a distinct attribute, as a result formed by the combination of all his moral attributes. There is not, perhaps, a better illustration of holiness than that beautiful, pellucid substance which we call light. It is compounded of all the prismatic colours. If we would inquire, What is light? we take the prism and separate its component parts, and find it composed of red, orange, yellow, green, &c. If we wish to know what all these colours form, when united, we have only to remove the prism and the product is light. Thus it is with holiness, as applied to moral character. If we seek its several parts we have only to separate it, and we find it composed of justice, mercy, truth, and of every moral attribute in its perfection. If we would know the result of these attributes combined, we have only to cluster them together, and so blend them as to form a perfect moral character, and the product will be holiness. “ The holiness of God,” says Dr. John Dick, “is commonly represented as a perfection as distinct from the other perfections of his nature as wisdom, power, and immortality are from each other. But this I apprehend is a mistake, and has led to the use of words without any distinct idea annexed to them. Holiness is a complex term, which does not express a particular attribute; but the general character of God, as resulting from his moral attributes.” This is as we believe: and holiness is the same in kind, whether belonging to the Most High, or to his creatures. The same author goes on to say, that “the holiness of man is not a distinct quality from his virtuous disposi