The omission of the copula in many instances where it would be expressed in other languages by the verb of existence, is a peculiarity which must be observed in the construction of the Hebrew sentence. The verb, in a strict point of view, is required only when the idea of becoming or of existing in some definite past or future, as distinguished from the present, is intended to be conveyed. The statement of Gesenius (Gr. 141) suggests too limited a view of its omission.

We have considered the elements of the Hebrew sentence in its ordinary state of repose. We will now examine it in the more unequal, disturbed condition into which it is thrown, when it represents the mind in its endeavors to express itself with emphasis and force. The degree in which the sentence deviates in this case from the ordinary arrangement, depends in part on the men. tal state of the individual himself, in part on the words which he employs.

If it be a slight emphasis which is intended, it is sufficient to change the ordinary position, merely so far as to place the subject or object first, in which case the verb then stands properly in the middle; as, 7 our hands shed not blood, our eyes saw it not, Deut. 21: 7.2 stones (even) the water wears away, Job 14: 19. Infrequent and more poetic are the po sitions-object, subject, verb, 2 Kings 5: 13; subject, object, verb, Is. 13: 18. Zech. 10: 2. A substantive thus placed at the begin. ning is often repeated by means of its pronoun, whereby it is rendered still more emphatic; as, a the blessing of Jehovah, it makes rich, Prov. 10: 22, 24. Is. 8: 14.

The principal noun, of which something is to be affirmed, stands often isolated at the beginning of the clause, inasmuch as the speaker views it as the most prominent word, and then afterwards repeats it in the place which it would regularly occupy in the sen tence, by using the personal pronoun; as, ie Jehovah -in heaven (not upon earth) is his throne, Ps. 11:4. Very seldom does such a substantive remain without such a resumption. To warrant this, the sequel of the sentence must give a complete sense by itself, and the connection be perfectly clear from the context. This happens only in the most excited discourse; as, that dayfar remote shall the day remove its limit,' Micah 7: 11; the idolsall pass away, Is. 2: 15, etc.

A special mode of giving prominence to the noun in a sentence

The point to be illustrated here remains in the passage whether this translation of it be adopted or some other one. There is a difference of opinion in regard to the meaning.

1847.]

Repetition of Words.

179

consists in first awakening attention to it by means of a personal pronoun, and then after such a preparation introducing the object itself to which the pronoun refers. In the Aramaean this is very common; but in Hebrew prose it appears very seldom, and is confined almost exclusively to the older writings; as, when she saw him the boy, Ex. 2: 6. comp. Josh. 1: 2. Is. 17: 6. The case is different when a pronoun stands entirely alone without any accompanying substantive, being omitted because the speaker supposes that it will suggest itself from the obvious nature of the connection. Examples of this, though comparatively uncommon, may be found in any part of a discourse, as at the beginning in Is. 13: 2, or in the progress of it, as Prov. 12: 6. 28: 2, etc.

The use of, in order to render a noun in the sentence emphatic, requires notice here. This particle has the peculiar pow er of pointing out an object as something not to be overlooked; and performs this office in a manner which we can scarcely represent in our language. We translate indeed in such cases by in reference to, as regards, Lat. quoad; but its force is to be given in the tone, rather than by words. Thus in the antique style of the decalogue, at the end of the sentence when nothing further is necessary to the completion of the sense, we have the expression appended as relates to those who hate me, Ex. 20: 5. Its object is to bring distinctly into view the class of persons against whom the threatening just uttered stands, as a summary and pointed repetition of the statement which has already been made. Comp. Deut. 34: 11 sq. may be placed in like manner at the beginning of a sentence with the same effect. Is. 32: 1. Ps. 16: 3. 17: 4. The later writers employ this construction with still more frequency, so as in fact to weaken the import of its original use. The emphatic application of this particle, therefore, should be distinguished from its office when it serves merely to denote the loose connection which we ordinarily express by our phrase in relation to, etc.

One of the strongest modes of giving emphasis to thought in Hebrew consists in the repetition of words. This is practised in various ways. It is very frequent, for example, in the case of the pronoun, which from its abbreviated form for the most part in the language, admits less easily of being distinguished by mere position. Thus the person of the verb is often made prominent by its repetition in the form of the pronoun; as, “ nebes and I only am escaped, Job 1: 15. This idiom however, has been weakened in the later writers, who expand their sentences often to a

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 acquire significance in this way; as, 9, 1871, etc. very 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 com. monly 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 my ip 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, 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, 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 x NIJ 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 No ng 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 22 upon the way, upon the way, i. e. ever on the way, Deut. 2: 27, ♫ ♫ 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 is well known. Besides these, we have also

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

in its genattaches

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 eral character as qualificatory of an entire clause ( 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. o, 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 distinc tions, 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

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