On Schneidewin's Edition of the (Edipus Rex. 317 261, koivwv re 7rat8a>v Koiif av, el Keivw yevos fir) 'bv(TTVxW* v > % v av eiaretfivKOTa. Koiva iraLbav is taken usually for a mere periphrasis - koivoI natbes. So Schneidewin renders koivo. koiv&v "gegenseitig gesch- wister.'" I consider koivo to agree with yevrj, reflected from yevos, and by " common generations of common children," I understand " children begotten by us from a common mother (koivo), and so brethren to each other (kow)." 276, <ocr7rep p.' apalov eXafies, toS', ava, epa. My note here will be a digression from the criticism of Sopho- cles; but as it relates to a matter of great importance to classical instruction, I may perhaps be allowed to insert it. An edition of this play with English notes, small, cheap, and sure to get into the hands of learners, renders apalov ekafies, " you have bound me by your curse." So again, v. 318, SidXeaa " have purposely (!) for- gotten." A similar error is again and again repeated : and had the same editor rendered v. 280 bUaC ekegas, no doubt he would have given, " you have said what is just." Now, if there be one inaccuracy in teaching more mischievous than another, it is the allowing the Greek aorist ever to be rendered by the English perfect. It is one of the worst errors in the authorized version of the Greek Testament, and a sufficient reason (were there not many more) why the Greek Testament should never be read in schools below the highest classes. The distinction between these tenses (aorist and perfect) is a fundamental principle in lan- guage; and the possession of separate forms for them is a valuable heritage of the Greek tongue, which the Latins un- happily lost, and the want of which modern languages have been obliged to supply by auxiliary verbs. This distinction, then, ought never to be obscured in teaching. A boy should never be allowed to use the verb "have" in rendering the Greek aorist. What, not, it will be said, in places where our idiom uses the perfect, and the Greek idiom used the aorist ? Long experience of the great danger of the practice obliges me to answer, " no." How then are we to deal with the idiom diW ekegas addressed to one who has just left off speaking ? It would be unenglish to say in such a case, " you spoke justly." Granted. But it is not un- english to say, "you speak justly." and this version learners should be required to give in free idiomatic translation. It is 222
