employed the natural and regular formation; or, instead of a simple primitive word which had fallen more or less into disuse in common life, they introduced a derived one which was now more usual.* This the Grammarians (this class of whom are called Atticists) sought to hinder, often indeed with pedantry and exaggeration; and proposed in their books, over against those expressions which they censured or accounted less elegant, others selected from the older Attic writers. And thus arose the usage, that the term Attic was understood to include only that which was sanctioned by the authority of those early classic writers, and, in a stricter sense, that which was peculiar to them; while, on the other hand, the ordinary language of cultivated society, derived as it was from the Attic, was now called xový, common, or Envian, Greek, i. e. common Greek; and even the writers of this later period were now called oi nouvoi or oi "Enves, in opposition to the genuine Attics. Here however we are never to imagine a peculiar dialect; for this xový diáλextos, in all its principal characteristics, was and continued to be the Attic; and consequently every ordinary Greek grammar has the Attic language for its chief object.

NOTE 8. It is easy to conceive, that under these circumstances the appellation zoivos, xoivóv, became itself a term of censure; and that although it strictly signifies that which was common to all the Greeks, the genuine Attics themselves included, yet in the mouth of the Grammarians it designated that which was not pure Attic. On the other hand, however, that which was called Attic, was not all for that reason exclusively of the pure Attic form, not even among the genuine Attics themselves. Many an Attic idiom was not entirely usual even in Athens, but alternated with other forms in general use, e. g. φιλοίη with φιλοῖ, ξύν with σύν. Many Ionic forms were also not unusual among the Attics, (e. g. uncontracted forms instead of contracted ones,) of which therefore the writers, who every where consulted their ear, could avail themselves. Nevertheless, this approach to the Ionic furnishes the chief criterion of the earlier Attic in the strictest sense; in which e. g. Thucydides wrote; while Demosthenes belongs to the later Attic, which forms the transition to the zooi.

NOTE 9. To draw an exact and appropriate line of division, we must make the later period, or the zooi, begin with the earliest of those authors who wrote Attic without being themselves Athenians. Here belong Aristotle, Theophrastus, Polybius, Diodorus, Plutarch,

* Ε. g. νήχεσθαι for νεῖν to strim, ἀροτριῶν for ἀροῦν to plough

and the other later writers; among whom nevertheless were many who strove with great diligence to make the earlier Attic language their own; as was the case particularly with Lucian, Aelian, and Arrian.

NOTE 10. Among the dialects of the provinces, which mingled themselves to a considerable degree with the later Greek, the Macedonian is particularly conspicuous. The Macedonians were a nation related to the Greeks, and reckoned themselves to the Doric tribe. As conquerors, they therefore introduced the Greek culture into the barbarous countries which they ruled. Here also the Greek language was now spoken and written; but not without peculiarities, which the Grammarians designate as Macedonic forms; and as the principal seat of this later Greek culture was in Egypt and in Alexandria its capital, the same forms are included also under the name of the Alexandrine dialect.-Moreover the other inhabitants of such conquered countries, who were not Greeks by birth, began now also to speak Greek ('Elλŋvišɛıv); and hence an Asiatic, Syrian, etc. who thus spoke Greek, was called 'Enviors. From this circumstance has arisen the modern usage, according to which the language of such writers, mixed as it is with many forms that are not Greek and with many oriental idioms, is called the Hellenistic language. It is easy to conceive, that the chief seat of this language is to be found in the Greek works of Jews and Christians of that age, viz. in the version of the Old Testament by the Seventy, and in the New Testament; whence it passed more or less into the works of the Fathers.-New barbarisms of every kind were introduced in the middle ages, when Constantinople, the ancient Byzantium, became the capital of the Greek empire and the centre of the contemporary literature; and hence arose the language of the Byzantine writers, and finally the present modern Greek.

10. In this general prevalence of the Attic dialect, however, poetry formed an important exception. Here the Attics were models only in one department viz. the dramatic. Since now dramatic poetry in its very nature, even in tragedy, can only be the elevated language of real life, it was natural that on the Attic stage only the Attic dialect should be admitted; and this was afterwards retained by all the other Greek theatres.* The dramatic poets moreover, in those parts of the drama which consisted of dialogue, and especially in those composed of trimeters or senarii, allowed themselves, with the exception of a freer use of apostrophe and contraction, only a very few of the so called poetic licenses and exchanges of forms.

See note 3 above.

NOTE 11. The comic poets did this least of all, as one would easily suppose. On the other hand, the tragic senarius readily adopted many Homeric forms.-It is however to be remarked, that in the department of the drama, only the works of genuine and early Attic writers have come down to us; viz. the tragedians Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides; and the comic writer Aristophanes.

11. For the remaining species of poetry, especially those which were composed in hexameters, as the epic, didactic, and elegiac, Homer and the other old Ionic poets who were read in the schools, continued to be the models; and along with them, the old Ionic or Homeric language continued also in vogue, with most of its peculiarities and obsolete forms. This became therefore, (just as the Attic for prose,) the prevailing dialect or universal language for these species of poetry; and remained current even in the Alexandrine and later ages, when it was no longer understood by the common people, but a learned education was necessary to the full understanding and enjoyment of such poetry. All that belongs under this head may be best included under the name of epic language; since it took its rise wholly from epic poetry.

NOTE 12. The most celebrated poets of this class are, in the Alexandrine period, Apollonius, Callimachus, Aratus; and later, Nicander, Oppian, Quintus, etc.

12. In the mean time, the Doric dialect was not entirely excluded from poetry, even in the later periods. It maintained itself in some of the minor species, especially in rural and sportive poems; partly because there were even here certain earlier models; and partly also because, in many of these poems, it was essential to imitate the tone and language of the countryman and of the lower classes, whose dialect was almost every where the Doric, in consequence of the very general spread of the Doric tribe. Comp. 2 above.

NOTE 13. Hence the works of the idyllic writers, Theocritus, Bion, and Moschus, are Doric; but their later Doric differs much from that of Pindar. The ancient epigrams were partly Ionic, partly Doric; but the Doric was here far more simple and dignified, and confined itself to a small number of characteristic Doric forms, which were familiar to the educated poets of every tribe.

13. It remains to observe, that the language employed in the lyric parts of the drama, as the choruses and passages of deep emotion, is also generally called Doric. This Doric however consists of little more than the prevalence of the long a, espe

cially for 7, which belonged generally to the old language, and was retained in solemn poetry on account of its dignity, while in common life it remained current only among the Dorians.* In other respects this lyric dialect approached also, in many particulars, to the epic language above described.

ART. IV. GENUINENESS OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XL.-LXVI.

From Hengstenberg's "Christologie des Alten Testaments." Translated by the Editor.

GENERAL INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.+

The second part of the Book of Isaiah is one of the most splendid, and for us most important portions of the Scriptures of the Old Testament. No part of these Scriptures contains so little that is local and temporary; none sets before us so distinctly the connexion between the preparatory institutions and the grand ultimate dispensation; none dwells with such delight on the descriptions of the time, when, after the great separation between the impious and the godly portions of the ancient covenant people, the latter shall be united with Gentile nations into one consecrated and happy people of the Lord; none presents the sublime founder of the new covenant-a covenant not limited like the old to a single people-both in his state of humiliation and of exaltation, so clearly to our view.‡

We have seen in the General Introduction to the whole book that Isaiah probably lived for a time under Manasseh. If we

* See 2 above. Doricisms in the strict sense, however, are not to be found in these theatrical choruses; viz. infinitives in εv and v, accusatives plur. in os and ov, and the like.

+ For a notice of Prof. Hengstenberg, see No I. p. 21. This article is inserted in the present number, to the exclusion of two others (one of them original) already prepared, in order to accommodate particularly the studies of the Junior Class in the Theological Seminary.

Jerome says, with particular reference to the second part, Praef. ad Jesaiam: " Non tam Propheta dicendus est, quam Evangelista. Ita enim universa Christi ecclesiaeque mysteria ad liquidum persecutus est, ut non putes eum de futuro vaticinari, sed de praeteritis historiam texere."

assume that Isaiah composed this second part during these last years of his life, then the character of this portion of his prophecies becomes more easy of comprehension, and all its peculiarities susceptible of easy explanation.

1. In this way we may account for the different modes of representation, which are obvious in the first and second parts. Between the second part and the latest prophecy of the first part, there lies an interval of 14-20 years. But in the progress of years, there is always a change, not only in a person's views and feelings, but also in his mode of writing. And although the second part is in no way inferior to the first in the beauty of the representations; yet the whole exhibition is more flowing, and the tone softer and more gentle. Instead of the compactness and conciseness of the former part, where the writer seems to struggle with language, and, merely pointing as it were to his figures, passes rapidly from one to another, we have in the latter part an agreeable diffuseness; all the pictures are completed, and painted with the loveliest colours even to their minutest details. There exists an essential unity amidst the greatest diversity of allusions and objects; and in this respect the difference between the first and second parts, is analogous to that which exists between the book of Deuteronomy and the other books of the Pentateuch; or between the epistles of John, which he probably wrote in his old age, and his gospel.

2. On this supposition we may also explain the point of view, or station in time, which the prophet has taken. In his old age, we may presume that Isaiah left all active exertions in the theocracy to his younger associates in the prophetical office. He himself transferred his contemplations from the joyless present into the future; he now lived only in and for the future; certain that the period would one day arrive, when the legacy which he should leave to future times would bear the fruits, which he, in his own personal exertions for the present, had so often failed to realize. He takes his station therefore in the period so clearly foretold by him in former prophecies, when Jerusalem has now been already conquered by the Chaldeans, when the land is now desolate, and the people from the distant regions of Babylonia sigh for their native home. He thinks, feels, and acts, only in this period; it has become to him like the present, a point from which he contemplates the nearer, more distant, and remotest future; but still in such a way, that his view not unfrequently wanders back and fixes No. IV.

89