tive has nothing in common with the aorist but its reference to the past, the two being related precisely like the imperfect and aorist indicative.

Mr. Jelf is somewhat weak on the tenses of the infinitive, as we have seen; but we were utterly unprepared for such an exhibition of carelessness (to use a mild term) as we find in § 672, Obs 1:—

“*Eḍn avtòs moieiv, he said that he (himself) would do it; côŋ aitòv Toiv, he said that he (another person) would do it."

We ask, in astonishment, whether such Greek as this would be allowed to pass at an Oxford examination, or even at an English public school.

In the following passage (§ 429, 4, Obs. 2) all that is true is unintelligible, and all that is intelligible is false : —

"A is frequently joined with a Participle standing in a gerundial or adverbial force with a verb already modified with av; as, Xen. Cyr. I. 3, 11 σràs åv, if I stood - étteita Xéyoiμ” äv. So [?] with two participles expressing conditional action, Thuc. V. 105 cidóres kaì vμâs åv — ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡμῖν γενομένους (if you were) δρῶντας ἄν (that you would do) autó. And sometimes av is joined to a Participle which stands for a conditional sentence into which it may be resolved: as Soph. C. R. 446 συθείς τ ̓ ἂν οὐκ ἂν ἀλγύναις πλέον: Hdt. VII. 139 ὁρῶντες ἂν ἐχρήσαντο ἄν.”

We can here see into the geological structure of one of Mr. Jelf's wonderful rules. The first sentence, with the example from Xenophon, is a bungling translation from Kühner (§ 455, 3, Anm. 2), with the omission of the most important part of the original, in which it is stated that the av does not belong to the participle, but to the following verb, with which it is repeated. Unfortunately, Kühner does not translate the example; Mr. Jelf is therefore thrown upon his own resources, and makes a blunder which few intelligent schoolboys would fail to detect. Instead of explaining the passage (which would seem ludicrous); we will merely quote it in full: Eràs åv ὥσπερ οὗτος ἐπὶ τῇ εἰσόδῳ, ἔπειτα ὁπότε βούλοιτο παριέναι

ἄριστον, λέγοιμ' ἂν ὅτι οὔπω δυνατὸν τῷ ἀρίστῳ ἐντυχεῖν. If oras av (or even σrás alone) meant if I stood, as Mr. Jelf thinks, the example would have nothing whatever to do with

the rule, except so far as it opposed it. The succeeding remark of Mr. Jelf seems intended to illustrate still further the lucid idea evolved in the preceding. The example from Thucydides, where γενομένους (not γενομένους ἄν) has the force of a protasis, has nothing whatever to do with the preceding one, unless we adopt Mr. Jelf's strange rendering of σràs av, in which case both examples are alike irrelevant. The concluding sentence, with its first example, is again taken from Kühner, with the omission of his second warning against Mr. Jelf's blunder of taking the first av with the participle, a blunder into which we had supposed no one in this generation could fall. The last example from Herodotus, we confess, took us by surprise. If Herodotus ever coolly and calmly wrote such a sentence as ὁρῶντες ἂν ἐχρήσαντο ἄν, meaning if they had seen it they would have used it, the foundations of Greek syntax are indeed shaken, and Mr. Jelf's Greek at once becomes classic. A mere glance at the passage in Herodotus, however, relieved our anxiety; Mr. Jelf has merely omitted. six words in the quotation, which reads, ὁρῶντες ἂν καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους "Ελληνας μηδίζοντας ὁμολογίῃ ἂν ἐχρήσαντο πρὸς Eéptea. Here, as in the three other examples, we have the ordinary repetition of av, which is too common to need special illustration, especially as Mr. Jelf, on the next page but one, quotes no less than twenty examples of it, fifteen of which he found in Kühner.

It is hard to leave one of Mr. Jelf's pages after we have begun to examine it, and we must add a single specimen from the remark that follows our last quotation:

"The Inf. and Part. of the Pres. or Aorist with a have a semifuture sense, inasmuch as a conditional action is at the present time uncertain ; . . . . . 13, οἶδά σε πάντ ̓ ἂν φοβηθέντα, that would [fear."

.....

you

Here we detect traces of a remarkable mental process. In his first edition Mr. Jelf had said that these forms had a future sense, which is very true, but only half of the truth. It seems to us that he must have had an indistinct recollection of some passage in which the example just quoted meant, I know that you would have feared, which made him unwilling to repeat so decided a word as future in his new edition, and VOL. XCV. - NO. 197.

29

that he conceived the brilliant idea of combining all possible significations in his new phrase, semi-future! By whatever process he came to the idea, he certainly chose a most unfortunate phrase; for there is no half-way meaning possible in poßnlévтa av, which is either past, and means would have feared (being equivalent to poßýlŋs åv), or future, and means would hereafter fear (being equivalent to poßnleins av). The context will always decide between the two. On the same principle, οἶδά σε πάντ ̓ ἂν φοβούμενον, if we add the condition ei yévoito Toûto, must mean, I know that you would (hereafter) fear; while if we add ei éyéveto tOÛTO, it must mean, I know that you would have feared (or would now be fearing). Talking about words having a semi-future sense may be a very pretty amusement in ordinary books; but when it is used to conceal ignorance in grammars, we protest solemnly in behalf of the youth who are to study them.

αν

We have been the more particular in exposing the errors of the last two passages quoted, because we see traces of Mr. Jelf's doctrines on these points in no less a work than the new edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon (Oxford, 1861). There, in the article av, we are sorry to find the statement that av with the participle can represent a conditional sentence, fortified by the same example from Sophocles (Ed. R. 446) which Mr. Jelf employs. We have already noticed the fact that Mr. Jelf is constantly referred to as an authority by Liddell and Scott, and we fear that this addition may be due to his influence. We may add that Liddell and Scott still speak of the aorist participle with av as having a "sort of future sense," a careless expression, which we should hardly expect to find after so many careful revisions of the work in Oxford itself.

We add a final specimen from Mr. Jelf's truly marvellous attempts to obscure the meaning of the particle av. Why he should wish to conceal the truth on this subject, we are at a loss to see. We will simply quote his words, which are in the very largest type, in § 424:

"2. "A therefore has a twofold force: the condition is supposed by the speaker to take place, and therefore the action is rendered more

likely (positive use of av) — probably; or the condition is supposed by the speaker not to take place, and the action is rendered less likely negative use of av)—perhaps."

"a. With the historic tenses of Ind. representing something as an absolute fact, it does not render the action thereof more likely, for the performance of a condition cannot make a fact more probable; but the addition of av expresses that it is represented to have taken place only on a certain condition; as, μápraves, you were wrong: äv but only supposing such or such a thing took place but I know it did not take place, therefore you are not wrong in this case; hence its derived sense, μáptaves äv, you would have been wrong, i. e. on such or such conditions."

We will ask the reader merely to compare the first few lines of these two statements with one another; as to the rest, we can simply exclaim, in the words of Mr. Jelf, "only supposing such a thing took place"!

We must now leave the candid reader to decide whether the charges which we made against Mr. Jelf's work have been fairly proved by the evidence which has been brought forward.

ART. III. Nach Jerusalem. Von LUDWIG AUGUST FRANKL. Leipzig. 1858. 2 tom. 12mo. pp. 441, 516.

IN August of the year 1855, it pleased a pious Jewish lady of Vienna, Eliza Herz, to set apart, as the appropriate monument for her father, the noble Simon von Lämel, the sum of fifty thousand florins, the interest of which, at four and one half per cent, should be applied to the support and education of the Jewish children in Jerusalem. In a permanent institution on Mount Zion, which should bear the name of the friend of the Austrian synagogue, she hoped to awaken a new life for the neglected and destitute of her race. The plan of the institution was carefully drawn out, in a spirit of the broadest charity, provision being made in this Jewish school for the children of Christian and Mohammedan parents. The course

of instruction was to include secular not less than sacred knowledge, and the Arabic, German, and Italian tongues along with the Hebrew. The person selected to bear to the Holy City the message of this charity, and to set the plan in operation, was the well-known Jewish editor and poet, Louis Augustus Frankl, whose sagacious judgment, winning manners, and popularity with his brethren eminently fitted him for the honorable charge. Fortified with abundant testimonials from authorities in the state and from the leaders in the synagogue, in March, 1856, Dr. Frankl set out from Vienna upon his journey. Greece, Asia Minor, and Northern Syria were rapidly traversed, and scanned with the eye of a close observer; and on the 28th of May, the missionary of Israel found hearty welcome in the house of the Director of the Hospital on Mount Zion.

The reception of the bearer of such a message was not, it is sad to say, in all respects cordial. A portion of the Israelites arrayed themselves in fierce opposition to the proffered gift, denouncing it as a peril rather than a help to their faith. Dr. Frankl found himself unable to convince many of the Rabbins that any secular education could be a benefit, or that any charity was good except simple alms-giving. The majority of his brethren, nevertheless, sustained him. Meetings were held, committees were appointed, the Grand Rabbi sanctioned the scheme, and in less than forty days the missionary was enabled to depart on his farther journey through the Sacred Land, with the satisfaction of seeing his task accomplished, and knowing that the intention of his noble friend would be carried out. On the 22d of July, he left the port of Jaffa, on his voyage of return.

One result of this expedition is a work in two volumes, recording in graceful and finished style the traveller's observations and impressions. These are especially interesting, from the religious position of the writer. Though many Jews go to Palestine, very few publish their experiences of travel. The utmost that the wealthy pilgrims intrust to print is usually a letter or two in those Israelite journals which Christians rarely see. Since the journey of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela in the twelfth century, scarcely any good narrative of adventure in