THE PROBLEMS OF GREEK 163 



widespread disposition of critics to eliminate the scattering early 

 examples of phenomena which abound in later periods. We are 

 told, for example, that the second aorist passive "^yyeAr/v is fre- 

 quent in later Greek, and was introduced by copyists into correct 

 writers"; and so it has been "emended" even from Euripides; and 

 yet it occurs in a good Attic inscription. It should be borne in mind 

 that many of the seeming peculiarities of late Greek had their origin 

 at an early period, and sporadic examples should be expected. 



One sample of defective method will now be mentioned ; the use 

 made of statistics, or rather the making of statistics that are of no 

 use. What is gained, for instance, by knowing the ratio of the aorists 

 to the imperfects in any given work unless we know in how many 

 of the examples either tense might have been used? In Xenophon's 

 Hellenica the ratio of the aorists to the imperfects is much greater 

 for the compounds of TrAew than for the simple verb. Does this show 

 that Xenophon had a predilection for the aorists of" the compounds as 

 compared with the simple verb?. Of course not. The circumstances 

 under which K7rA.etv, KarairXeLv, <5ia7rAiv, etc., are used more frequently 

 call for the aorist, and the same phenomenon appears in Thucydides. 

 Again, even if statistics have been intelligently made, they should 

 be used with great care. By one of the metrical tests it can be demon- 

 strated that the ninth and the tenth books of the JSneid are by 

 different authors. 



The problems of Greek relate to every part of the subject: the 

 letters, the history of their forms in inscriptions and manuscripts 

 in different places; the sounds represented by the letters; the 

 accents; words, their forms, meanings, and origins or etymologies; 

 the combination of words into sentences; the modes of speaking or 

 reciting from the i/ftAr) Ae'fis of conversation up to the singing of 

 lyric poetry; the restoration of texts; the authorship, chronology, 

 sources, and possible revision of works; the origin and mutual 

 relation of dialects; the subject-matter, and so on. These subjects 

 bring us into contact with comparative linguistic, meters and music, 

 textual and higher criticism, and most branches of the so-called 

 sciences. The Hellenist must also deal with the results of research in 

 the fields of archaeology, mythology, history, and general antiquities. 

 We can never know when a new fact may throw light on our subject. 

 The antepirrhema of the knights, however much admired by some 

 for its exquisite humor, was sheer nonsense, until we learned from an 

 archaeological source that the horses on which the knights entered 

 the theatre, those horses that preferred crabs to clover, were two- 

 legged horses. How far the Hellenist must deal with the subject- 

 matter is a perplexing question. If he must explain mythological 

 and historical allusions, why not also scientific facts or theories? 

 Wherever the line be drawn, Greek scholars must at least aid in the 



