Henr. Stephani Dialogus de bene instituendis Graecae linguae studiis

HENRICI STEPHANI

period, are reduced to one part of speech, namely the Noun; and likewise all verbs to one, the Verb. And likewise these, ὁ ἀπόφας διδάξας τεχνθλῶας the one who graciously taught/deigned to be born, consist of four. PH. About what is the student questioned afterward? COR. Of what case κύριε Lord is. And this question is added: from where does κύριος Lord originate? PH. What is answered? COR. That it originates from κύεος swelling/authority. But this, it is said, originates from κυέω, κυῶ. Which he says signifies βεβαιῶ I confirm and τάττω I order, so that κύριος is τὸ βέβαιον καὶ σεργόμενον the firm and requested/ordained one. And the reason for this exposition is added. For he is called κύριος who commands his own, not unwillingly. His own (I say), that is, those whom he has under his power or rule. For thus I interpret ὑπηκόους subjects (when he writes ὃς ἀρχιἑκόντων τῷ ὑπηκόων he who rules over the subject ones), rather than with the vulgar "subditos" subordinates or "subiectos" subjects. PH. Heavens, how many κύριοι lords are nothing less than κύριοι, if it is necessary to circumscribe this title with such narrow limits. But what about you? Do you subscribe to that exposition? COR. How would I wish to subscribe, when I am persuaded that it is false, and indeed I would even dare to contend it? If, however, it is conceded to him that which precedes, and much more so if we agree about that which he adds, we will not disagree about that exposition at all. PH. What is that? COR. He writes that κύριος declares two things: first, "That which is firm and settled"; second, "The rule to which subjects acquiesce." Allow me here to use the term "subjects," or rather, to misuse it. PH. I desire to hear from you the very words of the Greek exposition. COR. Τὸ κῦρος (he says) δύο σημαίνει, τὸ βέβαιον, καὶ τὴν σεργομένην ἀρχιὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ὑπηκόων. The authority signifies two things: the firm, and the rule requested/ordained by the subjects. PH. But I wonder at two things here as new and unheard of, and indeed contrary to the usage of the Greek language: one, that he explains a noun from the group of those called substantives as if it were an adjective (otherwise he ought to have said not τὸ βέβαιον the firm [thing] but τὴν βεβαιότητα firmness); the other, that in the second exposition he indeed recognizes in it that nature of a substantive, but he constricts a meaning that reaches so broadly into such narrow boundaries.