μαλακός, περδακός, φαρμακός, ἀνακός. (Ed. Basil. p. 1504.) Aristarchus also made παρειά an oxy tone from παρειαὶ, as πλευρὰ from πλευραὶ, and πυρὰ from πυραί. (Eustath. ad Hom. Π. Γ. p. 285.)

So nouns of more than two syllables ending in ΣΤΗΣ which are derived from verbs: Τὰ εἰς ΣΤΗΣ ῥηματικὰ, ὅτε ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ δύο συλλαβάς, ὀξύ νεται, εἰλαπιναστής, λιθαστής, θεριστής. (Apollonius De Adverb. Bekker. Anecdot. Græc. p. 545.) Tà εἰς Α λήγοντα ἐπιῤῥήματα ἡ ὀξύνεται, ὡς δηθά, καναχηδά, πυκνά· ἢ βαρύνεται, ὡς τάχα, λίγα, ἄντα, πρῶτα. (Ibid. p. 562.) Apollonius, after taking up a page to prove that ovdaμá ought to be an oxytone, concludes, Τοῖς δὴ τοιούτοις συμπαράκειται ἐπιῤῥήματα ὀξυνόμενα εἰς Α λήγοντα, πυκνός πυκνώς πυκνά, καλός καλῶς καλά· ὑγιὴς ἄρα ἡ τάσις κατὰ τὴν ὀξεῖαν ἐν τῷ οὐδαμά. (Ibid. p. 566.) Again he tells us that derivative adverbs ending in I are oxytones, and the instances he gives are ἀθεωρητί, ἀκονιτί, ἀμογητί, ἀκλαυτί, πανθοινί. (Ibid. p. 571.) The whole book of Apollonius 'On Adverbs,' treats so much of their accents, and lays down so many and sometimes so subtle rules for them, as to prove clearly the variety of the Greek accents. Eustathius on the word Ερυθράς (Hom. Il. B.), says that Apion and Herodorus make it an oxytone like καλάς. (p. 202.)

In addition to these express authorities I would ask, How could the very word ὀξύτονον ever have found its way into the Greek language, if the thing which it describes had no place there? or

word un has the ordinary single mark in two other instances in this manuscript, as it has here in No. 21.

V. 17. ἠλιού : Νο. 18 has ἠλιού. V. 19. πρὸς oè: No. 18 has oé. Both these differences, as we have seen in the word aßia, are to be referred to the punctuation. The twenty verses in the manuscript of Theophilus contain, after deducting the abbreviated words, two hundred and eightyone accentual marks. From these must be deducted thirty-three, being the number of corresponding marks which are illegible in No. 21; of the remaining two hundred and forty-eight marks, eleven are different in one or both of the other two manuscripts, leaving two hundred and thirty-seven marks, being rather more than eleven-twelfths, in which the three manuscripts

agree.

Of the eleven discrepancies, one is occasioned by the omission of an enclitic: in four the writers agree that the accent ought to be the acute, but they disagree as to their manner of marking it; in four others they agree that the syllable ought to be raised, but they disagree as to the particular inflexion of voice in so raising it: one is occasioned by a double acute, which, for whatever purpose introduced, shows at any rate that the syllable is to be raised; and the only word in which we could possibly be left in doubt, as to the syllable which ought to be raised, would be δικαιωμασι ; and here we are enabled to speak

with confidence, that the mark in the manuscript of Joasaph is wrongly placed, and to appeal for the truth of our criticism to the context and to the other two manuscripts. So that the discrepancies in the three manuscripts, which are only just sufficient to prove that they could not have been copied from any one other manuscript of an earlier date, warrant us in concluding that the writers of them were all guided by the same system. They vary in correctness, that of Joasaph bearing more mistakes than either of the others; but still the mistakes are not sufficient to throw any doubt upon the system. I feel confident that a more laborious collation of manuscripts would only strengthen the evidence of this agreement; and I am led to think so by the agreement which I observe in the accentual marks of books printed in widely different places. On comparing the manuscript of Theophilus with an edition of the Greek Testament, printed at Oxford with Baskerville's types in quarto, in 1763, I find the following differences :

leaving two hundred and seventy-three marks in which the book agrees with the manuscript. A comparison with the beautiful edition of Griesbach, printed at Leipsic in 1803, gives the same result, the marks in the Leipsic edition agreeing exactly with the Oxford.

I have chosen the two editions, not from finding in them a closer agreement than in others, but because they were printed in widely distant places, and each with so great attention to the beauty of the type, as makes it probable that the accentual marks are generally correct. And I have no question that the more editions we consult, the more shall we be impressed with their general agreement in this particular. And this agreement will naturally lead to the conclusion that the manuscripts from which these various editions have been prepared, notwithstanding their occasional inaccuracies, must have exhibited the same general agreement in their accentual marks which we have observed in the three manuscripts to which our more particular attention has been called. If it be said that the editors of these various books have placed the marks according to certain rules, this only shows that the agreement of manuscripts has been so complete, as to enable grammarians to form from them a consistent code, by which any word in the language may be marked. Neither does it weaken the argument, that the greater part of the editors who have adopted these marks have

themselves used and taught a system of pronunciation not consistent with them; but, on the contrary, we may infer, that it must have been a general consent of manuscripts which constrained them to perpetuate a system which they were neither willing to follow nor able to confute.

They who are convinced that the marks ought to be followed in pronunciation, will consider Greek literature as much indebted to the editors who have taken, from whatever motives, so much pains to preserve them. Porson often adverts to the importance of the marks in distinguishing two words which are written with the same letters. Some may have retained them from a persuasion that they have been really guides for the true pronunciation, and might be so again. On the other hand, some considerable scholars have edited books without marks. Dr. Foster's attention was first called to the subject by observing a congratulatory ode from Oxford so printed. Simon tells us that the writings of Henninius and Major had the effect of inducing many editors in Germany, and particularly in Lower Saxony, to omit the marks. (Introductio Grammatico-Critica in Linguam Græcam, ii 22.) Dawes's Miscellanea Critica has been published both here and in Germany without marks. The new edition of Morell's Thesaurus, by the Bishop of Durham, has only the mark of the circumflex. And in truth, if we consider it certain that Greek ought