Skip to main content

Full text of "American Journal of Philology"


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 







■ A-^ 











Journal of Philology 



Profttt^r of Grtth in the yoAns Hopkint Umvtrtity 



New York and London : Macmillan & Co. 

Lbipsic: F. a. Brockhaus 


32 S. Paca St.» Baltimore, Md. 



No. 33. 

L — The Origin of the Recessive Accent in Greek. By Maukicb 

Bloomfibld, I 

11. — Die Herkunft des schwachen Prftteritums der germanischen 

Sprachen. Von Hermann Collitz, 42 

III.— The **Sorte8 Sanctorum" in the St. Germain Codex (^j). By 

J. Ken DEL Harris, • 5^ 

IV. — The Pennsylvania German Dialect. I. By M. D. Learned, 64 

Notes : 

Chaucer and Mazimianus. By George Lyman Kittredgb, . . 84 
Corrections and Omissions of L. and S. in connection with ApoU. 
Rhod. By R. C. Seaton, 85 

Reviews and Book Notices : 87 


Langen's Plautinische Studien. — Mayer's Die Giganten und Titanen 
in der antiken Sage und Kunst. — Schmid's Der Atticismus in 
seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius von Halikarnass bis auf 
den zweiten Philostratus. — Skeat*s The Gospel according to St 
Matthew, in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old Mercian Ver- 
sions. — Sweet's Second Anglo-Saxon Reader. — Wickes' ^DX^ 

Reports : 104 

Philologus. — Neue Jahrbacher far Philologie und Paedagogik. — 

Brief Mention, 134 

Recent Publications, 127 

Books Received, 135 


No. 34. 
I.— On the Stylistic EfiEcct of the Greek Participle. By B. L. GiL- 


II. — The Sequence of Tenses in Latin. Supplementary Paper. By 

William Gardner Hale 158 

III.— The Pennsylvania German Dialect. II. By M. U. Learned, . 178 
IV. — Charleston Provincialisms. By Sylvester Primer, . • . . 198 

V. — Gerunds and Gerundives in Pliny's Letters. By S. B. Platner, 214 

Notes : 

The Origin of the English much. By James W. Bright, . . 219 

Additional Note and Corrections to the Article entitled * The Origin 
of the Recessive Accent in Greek.* By Maurice Bloomfield, . 220 

Reviews and Book Notices : 221 

Skeat's Principles of English Etymology. — Murray's New English 
Dictionary and Toller's Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. — Usener's Epi- 
curea. — Socin's Schriftsprache und Dialekte im Deutschen nach 
Zeugnissen alter und neu^r Zeit. , 

Reports: 232 

Rheinisches Museum. — Romania. — Neue Jahrbllcher fOr Philologie 
und Paedagogik. 

Brief Mention, 254 

Recent Publications, 258 

Books Received, 263 

No. 35. 

I. — Enoch of Ascoli's MS of the Elegia in Maecenatem. By Rob- 
inson Ellis, 265 

II. — Recent Platonism in England. By Paul Shorbv, . . . 274 
III. — Notes on the Language of the Eastern Algonkin Tribes. By J. 

DvNELEY Prince, ' . . 310 

IV. — On Certain Corruptions in the Persae of Aeschylus* By A. £. 

Housman, 317 

v.— The Pennsylvania German Dialect. III. By M. D. Learned, . 326 

Notes : 

Critical and Exegetical Notes. By E. G. Sihler.— Thucydides VII 
43, 16. By Charles Forster Smith, 340^ 

Reviews and Book Notices: 344 

Zielinski's Gliederung der altattischen Komoedie. — Roberts's Intro- 
duction to Greek Epigraphy. — Ellis's Fables of Avianus.— Ruben- 
sohn's Crinagorae Mytileuaei Epigrammata. 


Reports : 364 

Pbilologus. — Neue Jabrbucher for Philologie nnd Paedagogik. 

Brief Mention, 378 

Recent Publications, 380 

Books Received, 392 

No. 36. 

I. — The Interpretation of the Timaeus. I. By Paul Shorey, . 395 

IL — The Dimensions of the Babylonian Ark. By Paul Haupt, . 419 

IIL — The Pennsylvania German Dialect. IV. By M. D. Learned, . 425 

IV. — Miscellanea Graeca. Scripsit Fridericus Hanssen, . . . 457 

V. — Gerunds and Gerundives in the Annals of Tacitus. By S. B. 

Platner, 464 

Notes : 

John Hey wood and Chaucer. By George Lyman Kittrbdgb, . 473 
Elegia in Maecenatem, v. 61, 2. By Robinson Ellis, . . . 474 

Reviews and Book Notices : 475 

MUllenhoff's Deutsche Altertumskunde. — Jebb*s Antigone. — HofiF- 
mann's De Mixtis Graecae Linguae Dialectis. — Transactions of the 
American Philological Association for 1887. — Conway's Vemer's 
Law in Italy. 

Reports: 496 

Anglia. — Archiv fQr lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik. — 
Hermes. — Journal Asiatique. 

Brief Mention, 515 

Recent Publications, 518 

Books Received, 529 

Index to Vol. IX, 




Vol. IX, I. Whole No. 33. 

■ - _ I I ■! I IL I ■ ■ ■ ■ - — - ■ 



Jacob Wackernagel, in KZ. XXIII 457 fg., made the important 
discovery that the so-called ' recessive ' accent in the finite forms 
of the Greek verb represents a substitute for an older Indo- 
European fact in sentence-accentuation, to wit, that the finite verb 
in principal clauses was treated as an enclitic. This endisis was 
extended in Greek to the finite verb in both principal and subordi- 
nate clauses, but was, on the other hand, restricted by a law 
according to which an enclitic word may not contain more than 
two syllables and three moras. Therefore only two syllables at 
the end are aUowed to be barytone : fptpofttp for enclitic ^ *<t>€pofie¥ ; 
three moras at the utmost, and that only in a polysyllabic form, 
ending in a trochaic cadence : XcXocVttfiei^ for jh *\€\otiri»fjitp ; <f>€p»fi€v 
for -«. *<f)€p»fity. Elsewhere only two moras were left barytone: 
if>€p6fi€Ba for ^ ^ififpofAfOa ; <l>fpofjL€P for ^ *<f>€poii€v ; ^p» for x. ^^epoD ; 
Ma (i. e. *fSida) for ^ *olda. In words containing altogether but 
two moras, one was left barytone : X/irer, augmentless aorist for 
^ *Xiircff ; /S^ (i. e. */9€f ), augmentless aorist for -t */3i7. Monosyllabic 
forms of one mora are accented, so that no mora is left toneless : 
ffav, aray, <f>0&»i augmentless aorists for x */3av, etc. 

We may refrain at present from any attempt at justifying the 
derivation of these 'recessively' accented verbal types from the 
assumed enclisis : we shall return to that question in the end. It 
is enough to state that these accentual types are one and all deriv- 
able from the enclitic theory, and that they represent every con- 
ceivable manifestation of the 'recessive' mode of accentuation, 
providing only it is remembered that words of more than three 


syllables are treated in the same way as words of three syllables : 

boBri<r6ii€3a, bvvaiuOa like iJii^Oa, etC. 

In an article entitled ' Historical and critical remarks introduc- 
tory to a comparative study of Greek accentuation/ American 
Journal of Philology, IV 21 {g,, I proposed an extension of this 
law, so that it would serve as a theory by which all non-etymo- 
logical accentuation in Greek words could be accounted for. My 
statements were as follows : 

P. 56 (p. 36 of the reprint). 'The explanation of the Greek 
recessive accent must start from the finite form of the verb, where 
alone it is evidently at home.* 

P. 30 (10). * It is a fact perfectly clear that the recessive accent in 
Greek, whatever its explanation, started with the finite forms of 
the verb, and thence succeeded in attacking nominal formations 

P. 50 (30). ' It (the recessive accent) excludes with particular care 
non-finite forms of the verb in the same tense system and in 
evident connection with finite forms, exhibiting thus on Greek 
ground a most outspoken character as a grammatical quality of 
finite verbs.' 

P. 62 (42). ' No doubt the noun has to a large extent followed 
the verb in its enclisis.' 

This theory involves, of course, the belief that the extension of 
the recessive accent from the verb to the noun took place according 
to processes of analogy, not different in principle from those which 
elsewhere break in upon the regular line of phonetic facts. I 
shall show below, in a somewhat detailed fashion, the manner in 
which this must be imagined to have taken place. 

The only writer, since the publication of my treatise, who has 
subjected the question of the recessive accentuation in Greek to 
an independent investigation is B. I. Wheeler, in his book, Der 
Griechische Nominalaccent, Strassburg, 1885. Wheeler's work has 
been for me, as for others, one of great interest. He has brought 
to his work good training and esprit. His method of investi- 
gation is comprehensive ; he does not draw an arbitrary line which 
cuts off the domain of his inquiry from adjoining territory open to 
search and likely, nay certain, to yield information. His study is 
nothing if not comparative. His methods are rigorously exact, 
perhaps a little overdrawn in that direction, as I shall endeavor to 
show in the sequel. He seizes upon, with rather too eager emphasis, 
the working principle which I formulated in my article, p. 31 (n) 


fg., namely, that accent must be investigated with the same funda- 
mental presumptions, or principles, as other phonetic matter. 
Phonetic change in accordance with phonetic law and analogy, I 
urged, loc. cit., are the prominent factors, aside from the influence 
of foreign words, which are at the bottom of the frequently por- 
tentous changes on the face of the accentuation of a given language. 
Wheeler operates with these factors almost entirely, but he narrows 
the operation of both so as to admit under these heads only such 
phenomena of change as appear familiarly in extra-accentual 
phonetics. He fails to do justice to the fact that the centrifugal 
force of phonetic change and the centripetal force of analogy 
operate both at a totally different rate in the change of accentuation, 
and in the change of other phonetic material, simply because the 
scope of any accentual type is greater than that of any type 
involving a given mode of vocalization or consonantal treatment. 
The application of the principles of phonetic law and analogy to 
the accentuation of the Lettish dialect is d, la r^^fo^j^r justifiable, but 
it must be done in the spirit of the preceding sentence. The 
Lithuanian is related so closely to Lettish that the two are pre- 
ponderatingly convertible, if a certain number of phonetic changes 
are rigorously observed. The Lithuanian exhibits a free accentua- 
tion which can be compared and identified with the Vedic accent 
in spite of many deviations. The Lettish, which is related as 
closely to the Lithuanian as the language of Herodotus is to that 
of Thucydides, has abrogated all etymological accentuation and 
has the summit tone everywhere on the first syllable. The change 
from the free Baltic accentuation as represented by the Lithuanian 
to this mechanical accentuation of the Lettish is due, or may be 
due, to a preponderance of the analogy of such words as accented 
the first syllable etymologically, and in this sense the change is 
analogical. But it would be useless to demand further that every 
word which obtained this accentuation secondarily must exhibit 
some formal or functional cause for adopting it. Only in this sense 
can a levelling accentuation be the result of analogy. Such are the 
accentuation of the radical syllable in German, the accentuation of 
the final syllable in the French of the last century, the accentua- 
tion of the first syllable in Bohemian and Sorbian, the accentuation 
of the penult in Polish and Welsh, the complete 'recessive* 
accentuation of the Aeolic, the practically complete barytonesis of 
Latin and its restriction of the accent within three syllables, etc. 
Analogy with its ordinary scope — word influencing word, form ' 


influencing form — ^may carry on its humble working by the side 
of and in the teeth of a great leveling tendency. cKvpdr * father-in- 
law ' may exhibit oxy tone accentuation secondarily after the analogy 
of cicwp4 in spite of the ' recessive ' tendency (Wheeler, p. 59). 
Originally it was *€Kvpos ; cf. Sk. gvdgura-; Gothic swaihra (orig. Ger- 
man ^swihly^ro") ; Lith. sz/szuras. Such cases barely cause a 
ripple on the quiet, strong current which carries the accentuation 
into the opposite direction. 

The foundation upon which Wheeler's book is built is a new theory ' 
in explanation of the * recessive' accentuation. He denies that the 
phenomena thus designated were originally a property of the finite 
verb, and claims that they are due to a phonetic fact which permeated 
the whole material of the language. He follows a suggestion of 
Osthoff *s, which had been previously indicated by Curtius, and 
assumes that in words containing a sufficient number of moras a 
secondary accent was developed, which fell upon the third mora 
irom the end in all words except these of more than two syllables 
ending in a trochee ; in the latter the secondary accent fell upon 
the fourth mora from the end.' This secondary accent is assumed 
to have developed upon all spondaic and iambic words and 
upon all words of three or more syllables. For reasons which it 
puzzles the reader to find out, he excludes from the effect of this 
secondary accent trochaic dissyllables (ot/ior * way ' z= Sk. ^a- / 
/cidoff ' appearance '= Sk. v^das ; alBot * fire ' = Sk. /dhas), though 
they possess just as many moras as iambic dissyllables (rpiirovr 
* tripod ' = Sk. iripad), and the ' secondary ' accent is palpably 
represented by the circumflex. About this more below. 

From the benefits of this * secondary ' accentuation he therefore 
excludes short monosyllables, long monosyllables, words of two 
short monosyllables, and trochaic dissyllables. He assumes, 
moreover, that this secondary accentuation gained the upper hand 
under certain circumstances, while under others the old etymolo- 
gical accent survived. Accordingly he divides the whole material 
of the language into four categories, barring of course the special 
effects of other minor phonetic laws and analogies,* as follows : 

J Cf. Curtius in Fleckeiscn's Jahrbflcher for 1855, p. 342 ; Osthoff, cited by 
Wheeler, p. 10, note 2 ; and Wheeler, p. 9 fg. 

' Wheeler in reality posits five divisions, but his fourth division is one alto- 
gether independent of the general theory. In it he has collected considerable 
material which aims towards the establishment of a phonetic law previously 
hinted at by Bopp and Curtius, according to which words originally oxytone, 


I. Monosyllabic forms and dissyllabic ones with short final 
syllable retain the inherited accent intact. 

II. If the original accent lay nearer to the beginning of the 
word than the secondary accent, then the secondary accent pre- 

III. If the original accent coincides with the secondary accent, 
then it remains undisturbed. 

IV (Wheeler's No. V). If the original accent lay nearer to the 
end of the word than the secondary accent, there arose a vacilla- 
tion which was settled later on in favor of one or the other. Some- 
times the cause of the choice is apparent, sometimes not. 

Wheeler's book was reviewed by Wackernagel in the Deutsche 
Literaturzeitung for 1886, column 221 {%, (No. 7) ; by Delbriick 
in the Literarisches Centralblatt for 1886, column 290 (No. 9) ; by 
Fr. Stolz in the Neue Philologische Rundschau for 1886, column 
137 fg. (No. 9) ; by Walter Prellwitz in the Gottinger Gelehrte 
Anzeigen for 1886, p. 755 fg. (No. 19 of September 15) ; by Kautz- 
mann in the Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift for 1886, 
column 597 i%, (No. 19) ; by Peile in the Classical Review for 
1887, Vol. I, No. 4, p. 103 fg. ; finally by a writer in The Nation 
(New York) for 1886, April 8 (No. 1084, p. 304). Moreover, 
Brugmann has carried this theory bodily into his treatment of 
Greek accent in his Grundriss der Vergleichenden Grammatik, 
Vol. I, p. 543 fg. 

There are in the list just mentioned as fair scholarly names as 
can be mustered from the ranks of the workers in Indo-European 
philology, and yet I venture to say that Wheeler's book has hitherto 
not been subjected to the kind of criticism which it deserves. 
The glamour of his attractive method and the many excellent 
observations in detail have blinded his readers to the fundamental 
errors upon which his book is built. 

In the following I shall endeavor to show that his theory is 
untenable on account of the following misconceptions : 

I. He regards the recessive accent as one which manifests itself 
only on the penult or antepenult, only on the third or fourth mora 
firom the end, and fails to recognize the fact that dissyllabic words 
of two moras (X»rfff above), and monosyllabic words can also be 

having a dactylic final cadence, become paroxytones in Greek. To a criticism 
of this thesis we may hope to return at some future time. This is the fourth 
of Wheeler's five theses, and as we shall not be concerned with it we will omit 
it in the coant. 


accented, either etymologically or recessively, precisely as dis- 
syllabic or polysyllabic words of three or more moras. 

2. He fails to recognize the fact that barytone dissyllabic tro- 
chaic words are, with a regularity which knows practically no 
exception, accented recessively, not etymologically.* 

3. Throughout the treatise the difference between circumflex and 
acute accent is practically ignored, while in reality a circumflex 
upon the same syllable as an acute indicates in the vast majority of 
cases not only a diflerence in the quality of the tone, but also a 
difference of position. The circumflex accent marks an accentua- 
tion further away from the end of the word than the acute. 

4. He has obliterated the difference which is manifestly exhibited 
in the scope of the recessive accent in the domain of the finite 
verb on the one hand, and of the remaining word-forms on the 

5. Wheeler was led to his identification of the recessive accent 
with a secondary accent by a fact hinted at by Wackernagel and 
expanded in my article, p. 43 (23). My statement is : *■ Enclisis and 
recessive accent are ruled by the same law of three morae.' . . . 

*" If we take the cases . . . <ivBpioir6s rtr, naides TiP€s, \6yoi nv€Si we 

have in every case an enclisis which is rectified or rather cut short 
by the law of three morae as exhibited in the general recessive 
accent.* The identification of the recessive accent of the verb 
with the secondary accent of a group consisting of an orihotone 
word plus an enclitic word is the keynote of Wackernagers and my 
own theory. In the group ayBpamdv riva the secondary accent clearly 
goes hand in hand with the existence of a second word ; the enclitic 
secondary accent of f^^^i^Ba in the group f vyiv <f>€poiii€6a for *fvy<5fA 

* The irpwrov y>ri)dof which vitiates Wheeler's theory manifests itself very 
clearly in his statement on p. 2 : " Den * recessiven * accent mQssen wir also so 
aufnehmen wie wir ihn vorBnden : als einen accent, der auf der antepaenultima 
oder paenultima ruht, je nachdem ob die endsilbe kurz oder lang ist." This 
statement shows, as does the entire treatise, that the * recessive ' character of 
the following accentual types has in reality escaped his notice : (i) olda (^ w) ; 
(2) Xinec (C/ ^) ; (3) y37 ( -) ; (4) P'^v^ 3d plur. aor. (w). So also, p. 6 : " Nun 
ist aber der recessive accent kein speciBscher accent, sondem vielmehr ein ac- 
centprinzip, und fasst in sich paroxytona, proparoxytona, und properispomena.*' 
This is true, but it embraces, furthermore, perispomena, and short monosyl- 
labic oxytona. The two statements are, moreover, inconsistent: the pro- 
perispomena which are introduced as * recessive ' on p. 6 are excluded by the 
statement on p. 2, as also impliedly on p. 10: ** Ich gehe so weit und nehme 

diesen nebenton fQr jedes spondSische, iambische oder polysyllabische wort 


^pokfuBa (=1. ^.yugdm bheroimedha) is also due to the second 
word. Wheeler, in claiming that a single word in sentence-nexus, 
e. g. *ycpofi€yoff=Sk. jdnamdnaSy developed the same secondary 
accent, demonstrably associated only with presence of a second 
word, advances a hypothesis which is unlikely on the face of it, 
and whose imtenableness will be demonstrated in the course of 
this essay. 

We turn now to a review of the several theses propounded by 
Wheeler and reported above. 

On pages 13-38 he attempts to prove his first thesis, namely, 
that monosyllabic words and dissyllabic words with short final 
syllables retain the original etymological accentuation intact. As 
far as long monosyllables are concerned this statement is correct 
in the equation Zevff=Sk. dyads zziY. E. dvtus^ but it is incorrect 
in the equations yavff = Sk. ndds-^zY. E. nous ; fit)(=Sk. mu^-^z, 
I. E. mus : /3ot;ff=Sk. gdils'=.\. E. 3^^.* The difference 
between the accentuation of ravr and Zcvr, as far as quality and 
position are concerned, is clearly the same as that in 0$v II. 13. 
297, ^» Eur. Ale. 864, when compared with ^ar II. 6. 65 ; h (from 
tiy/u) Soph. Ph. 816: ctff II. I. 434; aTr\v II. II. 744, ot«o Eur. 
Ale 864: oTOff IL 16. 231; Bvt Soph. O. C. 480: ^€« II. 23. 254; 
de» Od. 20. 296: dow Od. 15. 369; ^^v II. 18. 326, ^5ff II. 5. 473, 
0$ II. 2. 37, ^ Pind. I 2. II, ^ Aesch. Ch. 91 : ^r II. 9. 35 ; dO 
ifiim) II. 17. 210 : diff Xen. Cyr. 5. 5. 9; ^v II. 6. 253, 14. 232: ^ir 
Od. 18. 410, Pind. 01. II. 20; ywiv II. 4. 357, Hes. Th. 551. 3, 

yy£ II. I. 411 : yvQVi Soph. El. 73I ; f^6r\ II. II. 45I, <^d«A PI. Polit. 

266: ^aff Her. 3. 71, 9. 46, (viro-)<^daff H. 7* 144 ; T^X^ !!• 5* 3^5- 

rXaff Soph. O. C. 1076 ; *df)to in cnr6dp<» Ar. Pax, 234 : {a!ro')dpas Od. 

17. 516; ^y* *I was,' II. 2. 96, Soph. Tr. 414, etc. (see Veitch, 
Greek Verbs Irregular and Defective, 1879, p. 225), ffg * he was,* 
Doric e. g. I A. 342. 3, Lesbian, Theocr. 30. 16, Tegeatic, 
(Gelbke in Curtius* Studien II 40; G. Meyer, Griech. Gramm." 
p. 432), ijv, *he was,' II. 5.-9, Soph. Tr. 9, Thuc. 2. 3, etc. 
(Veitch, ibid.) : &v Horn. Hymns 19. 32, Soph. Ag. 767, etc., 
€ls Doric, Lesbic (KZ. XXVII 393). • We may add the circum- 

>! shall endeavor to show below (p. 18) that the equations j9cJv:=Vedic 
gim, and ^«f zz Vedic gas, as also Z^v zi Vedic dyam^ are probably correct for 
accent as well as the sounds. 

»i 'I was,* Aesch. Ag. 1637, Soph. O. C. 973, etc. (Veitch, p. 225), is Attic 
contraction of the old perfect-form ^ = Sk. asa = I. £. esm. The subjunctive 
Attic <& is also a contract form from Epic iu. 


fleeted monosyllables : ?, * he said/ II. 6. 390, 22. 77, Od. 3. 337, 
22. 292, Theocr. 22. 75, Plato Rep. 327 ; ijp, * I said/ PI. Rep. 
328, Luc. Philop. 23. Here also perhaps belongs /ev7 ' he scraped/ 
II. II. 639 : see Veitch, 379; G. Meyer', p. 47. The accent of the 
augmentless imperfect xph^% Pind. Fr. 100, Soph. El. 529, 579, etc. 
(Veitch, p. 707), can be considered significant only in so far as it 
may perhaps reflect the accent of l^v (xpri plus ^v) ; cf. G. Meyer *, 
p. 430, note 2. Further instances of long monosyllabic oxytone 
participles are : m-Sy in Kara-icras II. 22. 323, Aesch. Sept. 965, Eur. 

I. T. 715; (caro')aff€is HippOCr. 5. 176 ; *(mro')fpas in carovpas, II. 

i»356, etc. ; (airo-^Kkas, Anacr. 17 (Bergk); (*Vi-)wTaff, Anth. 11. 

407, (airo-)wrap 12. 105; (em-}n\&g II. 6. 29I ; (ayxi')P\w G. Meyer*, 
P- 459. 

No one can fail to admit that the difference between the oxytone 
accentuation of these long monosyllabic participles and the peri- 
spomenon of the finite forms is fundamental : that in fact the accent 
of the participles is etymological, and that of the finite forms is 
recessive. As ffrjv * is to fius, so are XiVcr II. 10. 406 : Xitrai^ II. 9. 
194 ; oZSf : €ld»s ; ttcVoi^c : irtwopOw, etc. Now the circumflex of 
vavs, /iOf , fiovs, p&s, as well as the circumflex of Aeolic Zcvr, irrS^, 
etc., differs from the acute of Zcw in the same way : it is recessive. 

The same difference is to be found in a considerable number of 
nominatives, consisting of a long monosyllable, for which no 
etymology, or only a partial one has been found.' The following 
are oxytone, and have presumably preserved the old accentuation 
of this type. In a number of cases there is a conflict of authorities, 
which is indicated under the word discussed : 

fjLriv * month,* Doric /x^f, Ionic fuU* : I. E. stems mens-, mis-, Vedic 
mas (? mdfhg-catd, Grassm.) ; Lat. mins-is, Goth, minay Lith. minu, 
Old Irish m{, Old Bulg. mesecL 

xBcav * earth ' : Vedic stem k^am-, Zend zem-, Lat. hum-us, Lith. 
2/mif Old Bulg. zemlja. 

xfiv ' goose ': Doric xiy '» Sk. hahsd^ Lat. anser, OHG, ganSy Lith. 
zasis, Old Bulg. gasL 

Xtjp 'hedgehog* (Hesych.): Lat. her; cf. Cu. Etym.', p. 200. 

*/37V is not Vedic gim, etc., but pih for -t *^7V=: Vedic -t gdm, etc. 

' It affords me sincere pleasure to acknowledge that I have been aided very 
materially and most intelligently in making the following collection of mono- 
syllabic nouns by a member of my seminary for Greek grammar, Mr. Henry 
Clarke, A. M., formerly Fellow and now Fellow by Courtesy of the Johns 
Hopkins University. 

^fieig is wrongly perispomenon in Stob. Eel. i, 27, p. 556 ; see Chandler § 566. 


xntkiiv 'spleen': Ved. plifytn-^ Zd. spereza-, Lat. lien, Old Bulg. 
$Tip 'wild beast/ Lakon. tnipy Aeol. ^^p: \jaX.fertis, 
Pis, plur. i¥€Sy r^t * strength *: Lat. vts. 

$m, B<ii>6s, stem 6»f' 'jackal * from root BfP, Sk. ^^^jz' ' to run.' 
0Xaf fi\aK6s, ' slack/ 'siUy'; cf. dfiffKaK^w and the Sk. roots ^m/ii 

* to wither,' m/ech * to babble.' Cf. Am. Journ. Phil., Vol. VI, p. 48. 

<tmp, <l>»p6g, 'thief: <^p«>; cf. 'LsX./ur,/urts. 

<r<l>ri(, <r<f)rjK6s, Doric <r^g, ot^/erfr: Lat vesfia, OHG. wefsa, Lith. 
z^a/^^ (?). 

o-icyf^, <rKpT<l>6s and a-oTirdr ; also icvi^ and o-KT^ ' a kind of ant,' 
cf. Old Bulg. sknipa * culex '; cf. Lob. Par. 1 14, Cu. Etym.' 694. 

pf^, pTinSff, ' mat ': Lat. scirpus, OHG. sciluf\ cf. Cu.* 352. 

Xfi'p, Dor. xhpy ground form, in Timocreon fr. 9 B., x^ps * hand ': 
Sk. hdrdmu 

Xfp 'smooth' (cf. XttxJO» stem yXxr: Lat. glithis, Lith. glUi^s 

* smooth '; see Cu. Etym.' p. 367. 

n-ovff, Dor. V69, Hesychius: ir&s'v6s. vn6 AtopUwv: Sk. pid, Old 
Norse /deir. The accent of irow is in no wise significant for the 
accentuation of long monosyllables in general, as this form of the 
nominative is certainly secondary ; see KZ. XXV 14. The writing 
novs occurs and is supported in some measure by the grammarians : 
see Lobeck Paralip. 93, Chandler 566 (p. 163). For Doric n&g 
see below, p. 15. 

irpoi^, npoiK69 ' gift,' lonic irpojg acc. to Etym. Mag. 495, 32. The 
word is reported as perispomenon by Herodian, but apparently 
this is incorrect : see Gottling, p. 242, Chandler 566 (p. 163). 

dpwlt * &vBpwtos (Hesychius). Probably a compound = v(d)p-<0^ ; 
cf. the Vedic stem nr- * man.' Cf. also vi^ (= *ifiy-<J)^) daO€vfig rg 
S^ti (Hesych.); Lob. Par., p. 118. 

oZf, aly6£ ' goat.' There is some authority for the circumflex in 
Attic; see Lob. Par. 99; Chandler 566. 

&\( = aiika( ' furrow.' &k( is reported in Orion and Arcadius ; 
see Lob. Par. iii, Gottl. 242, Chandler 566 (p. 163). 

irraf ' crouching with fear '; cf. YrroKro-a) ; VT&$ is reported by a 
grammarian, Gottl. 243. 

T^, acc. lea, also t^, nom. plur. htg ' a grub which destroys vines '; 
Lob. Par. pp. 103. 104; loi. 115; Curtius Etym.* 461. 

pis (late piv), gen. ^Wr, 'nose,' and Sis (late &ip), gen. Brmis 
' heap,' are universally reported as oxytone,* but there is good 

* Cf. also i&eic, />ei»6f and del^^ Beiv6^, Lob. Par. p. 91. 


authority for both Xff and Xlr * lion* (Cu.' 366), kU and wr * wood- 
worm ' (cf. Sk. kHa ?). The authorities are cited and discussed 
Gottl. 241, Lob. Par. 92, Chandler 566 (p. 162), Misteli, Zur 
griechischen betonung, p. 116. 

icXcis : Lat cldvis, * key.' Here also there is authority for the 
circumflex : Lob. Par. 92, Chandler 566 (p. 162). The Doric 
(Theocr. 15. 33) *cXaf, K\aK6s no doubt belongs here, though the 
mode of its derivation from kK^Is is obscure. 

dfiJy, Doric = ^frfy, acc. 6tvv. The circumflex is reported : 
Chandler ibid. Likewise Doric Xcvr = \aas. 

Furthermore the following are unanimously reported as oxy tone : 
^Xijff 'thrown': root-forms /ScXc-, /SXi;-; irX«f, 'swimmer': wXcw, irkim\ 
kK&^ 'thief: icXcVrr<» ; ^ijf 'cough,' cC ^^o-o-a>; <r<c«^ 'owl,* cf. <rK«r- 
ro/Mii ; Bfis ' serf,' cf. riOrnu ; rpn^ ' caterpillar,' cf. rp<»ya> ; dai^, dj^^ (Lob. 
Par. p. 82), bavT6s * feast ': baitu * to divide '; ^p^v, Dor. ^pai/, * breast, 
mind'; Bdp 'louse'; pfjv (late) 'lamb,' cf. Curtius, Etym.' p. 345; 
Xp^i * skin '; p5f , payrfy , and later p«f , /xayiJff ' berry ';* injf ' seagull,' 
cf. Cu.' p. 567 ; dj}f * wood-worm '; ^pi^, ^pTiror ' wood-worm '; ^pi^, 
^pvy<Jff * ruffling, ripple '; xX^v * sprout '; jcrcir, /erevrfff ' comb '; 6^ 
'flatterer'; bfiw, d/juaSg 'slave': da/ia-«; ytf, yvwSs 'vulture'; ypv^, 
yplTrSs * grifiin '; arpft ' sore,' cf. <r^« ; 0171, (rc<Jff (as though from 
(Tcvff) later gen. oiTrof, 'moth'; atp^v 'wedge'; ^v 'gall-insect'; 
^ff , ^Tx<5ff * crumb '; yjtip, ^ap<Js, Ion. ^ijp, ^ijp^Jr * starling,' cf. Cu.* 
355 I P^i^ * brushwood '; irpwf * dew-drop '; *rt{, ir^yc^r, late form 
of irvyj} * buttocks '; yXijv, late form for yXrjtni * pupil '; K^p, KtfpSs, 
* fate *: K€ipto ; <l>&s, <f>ciyr6s * man '; iryff , irvTyiSy ' suffocation ': iryfyo) ; 
p«f 'cleft': prp^iii', pijf, piyyrfs, in imitation of Latin r<?;ir, regis; 
trap, (Tctp, Chandler 565 ; ^S^r, Et. Mag. 344, 55, gen. awror * eye,' 
(TKoi^'^vipa (Hesych.), Lob. Par. p. 115. The grammarians posit 
a nom. Kpas for gen. icpurdr, acc. Kpara ' head '. 

For dou{ and dp^f see Lob. Par. p. 102 ; b&s (Cu.' p. 237 writes 
d«0 =^o(r« ib. 87 ; fjp, fip6s ib. 76 ; kvw^ * Tv(f>\6f (Hesych.) ib. 118 ; 
Kpd$ ib. 94; Xdyft ib. Ill; X<k»^, \cim6s=:\dmTj (xXafjLvs Hesych.) ib. 
118; np€vs ib. 93; TOW (jiiyas, froKvs Hesych.) ib. 91. Here we 
may mention xpn (G. Meyer,' p. 430) if the word is indeed of sub- 
stantival origin. 

The following proper names consisting of a long monosyllable 
are oxy tone : 

Zevff, Boeot. Acvr; Zrjg (owes its 17 to the accus. Zrjv: Herodian 2. 
91 1. 9, from Pherecydes), Dor. Zar (ibid.) ; ZjJk, Dor. Zav, Boeot. A^v, 

' Cf. also Spa^, Lob. Phryn. p. 76 ? 


hysterogenous nominatives abstracted from gen. Zy\v6i, ZavL All 
nominatives except Aeolic Z€vs agree in their oxytonesis. Cf. G. 
Meyer, Gr. Gramm.' 324. The following also are oxytone : 'Pwy, 

Xa»i^, "Hpy l£Xp, N©^, rX^s, KXj}ff, Kpijff, Tpw, TXrjSy */)iJff, Vv^s, New, ^Xcvff, 
S^p, "Qfy Tflp (TipX 2tipy Kip, MffV, Up&v, uip, Uip, "Pap CPapot and 
"Pap6s),''Qvt ^eis (^^awoff), Upu^ (or Hpaf ). HcsychlUS haS Bptd • XifuJff ; 

2k<» iraidiaKTf (see Lob. Par. 120). For^Aip see Lobeck Par. p. 74; 
B^X and BdX, ib. 70; B^p, ib. 75, note 8*, T\»s (also rXow and rXw, 
lb. gs); Aj/fw, ib. 92; npaf, ib. 94; Mijr, ib. 82; Mw, ib. 88; 'Paif, 
ib. 99; *P^, ib. 113; 'Pvyjr, ib. 117; 2ovp, ib. 77; *d€tp, ib. 74; *Tf 
(Boeot. or Doric for S<^iyf), ib. 104. 

The following particles consisting of a long monosyllable are 
oxytone : /iij, Boeot. fw/, Elian fw, =Vedic ma, Zd. and Achem. wa :^ 
I. E. w?; 9, Boeot <i = Vedic vd (enclitic) = I. E. ve;^ rw *so/ 
perhaps = to an I. E. ablative tid plus a later s; 6s 'so/ a corre- 
sponding form of an I. E. stem io- (also ^ ; cf. Chandler, §934) ; 
drj * now, already '; dai ' then ' (W dai * what then ? ') J >^ ("^ ^oy Aia), 
rat * verily ' : Lat. nae; koI * and,* Cu*. 138 ; pjjv, Doric pay * certainly, 
truly '; irXiJv (Doric n-Xay), Cu.* 281 ; bnv, Hyper-Doric bav * long, for 
a long while'; Xm (Jiii ala-xpovpylast Hesych.) ; 01 *0 that, would 
that '; ot, interjection of pain ; «S, interjection of pleasure and pain ; 
Boeotian row, rov * thou,' are oxytone ; iroi is the Argive form for 
wpoTL, npSs ; p4, poetic for ptfdioy (cf. Lob. Par. 1 19), is probably con- 
tracted, from a dissyllabic form : see Osthoff, Perfect, p. 447, note ; 
for pp4 see ibid. ; <^i? ' as, like,' Cu*. 394, occurs both as 0ij and <l>ij. 

The scope of the circumflex in long monosyllabic nouns is as 
follows : 

vavs, Epic and Ion. mfis, Dor. yavs : Sk. ndilSj Lat. ndv-is^ Old 
Pers. ndvi. Old Irish nati, 

fiovf, Dor. fi&f, accusatives fioOy and ^v : Vedic £^dUs, ace. sg. 
^'im, ace. plur. gis, Zend gdo, OHG. cAtw, Lettish giciviSy Old 
Bulg. govedo, (Lat bos). 

Ypavg, Ionic yprjvf, ' old woman * : ycpov * old man,' cf Sk.jdrani" 
' old man.' 

vavs, novsj ' boy, girl,' on old inscriptions on vases, cf trals ; see 
Benfey Wurzellexicon II 73, Cu'. 287, Gust. Meyer Gr. Gramm.* 
p. 312, note. The circumflex may be assumed upon the basis of 
the proportion : ypavs : ypats {ypaflbs) := wavs : vols (jrafibs) , see 
Meister, Zur Griechischen Dialektologie, p. 2. 

' A very different view is advanced by Froehde in Bezz. Beitr. VII 327 fg. 
and supported by Osthoff, Zur Geschichte des Perfects, p. 128-9. 


yXav^ * owl '; cf. Vedic gldtis * tumor * (?). For the oxytonesis 
of the word in Doric see below/ 

o5ff, Cretan and Laconic o^r, Ionic &9 (inscription from Delos), 
Doric S>g * ear * : Lat. aus-culio, aur-is, OHG. ordt Lith. aus-iSy 
Old Bulg. tich-o (Gen. us-es-e). Old Irish d. The declension is 
heteroclitic : the stem of the oblique cases is o(fa-r = *oi;ir-i'r = 
I. E. aus-r^'y contained in Goth, stem austn-, nom. auso^ gen. ausins. 
See De Saussure, M6moire; p. 224.* 

fivff, ace. fivv, 'mouse* : Sk. mu^, Lat. mils, OHG. tnus, Old 
Bulg. rnyhi. Cf. also afivg ' 6 givg and {rfiU * fiv9, afiivBa, both in 

<njf and ^ff 'swine': Zend hu, Lat. sa-s, OHG. su, NHG. ^a«; 
cf. also Sk. su-kardSy Old Bulg. sw-inijay Goth, sv-ein. Accusatives 
<n/v and tv* 

dpvf ' tree, oak ' : Sk. dru-Sy Zd. dru, Goth. trtUy AS. ireowy 
Engl. /r^^. 

/3a0ff, a word of unknown meaning, Joann. Alex, tovik. napayy. 
PP« 7i 35 J see Lobeck Paralip. p. 91 ; Chandler 566 (p. 162). Cf. 
also Pav ' eldos avBovs (Hesych.) 

Hesychius has k&s' tlpicrff 'enclosure'; cf. KoSXosy Lat. cav-uSy etc. 
Cu.*, p. 157. 

yrj ( Ionic- Attic) ya ( Doric),* 'earth.' The contraction from 
Ionic y4a or from *yaa Cyfjo' in Attic y€«-) is unproved. The 
etymology seems unknown. See Cu. Etym.*, p. 177 ; G. Meyer*, 
p. 200, note 2. 

px?jp =: ^{keap ' bait * is Aeolic ; the circumflex therefore proves 
nothing.* For was ' all,* Krjp ' heart,' <f>&£ * light,' €& * one,' piva = 
mtna, see below. 

aK&py (TKards * dung ' : Vedic gdkfty gaknds. There is some evi- 
dence in favor of oxytonesis ; see Lobeck Par. 77, Chandler 564 ; 
Liddeli and Scott, sub voce. The Dorians are reported to have 
accented <ric<»p ; see below. 

oTOiff, oratTxJy, ' dough from wheaten flour.' There is authority 
for uraii also : Lob. Par. 88. For icpavg and icaCf (?) see Lob. Par., 
p. 100; iraf ibid. 78; arpoZs (Hesych) ibid. 93. Hesychius has 
also <rxup * €Xiyos* 

* For traces of oxytone y^xih^ outside of the Doric dialect see Lobeck Paralip. 
109; Chandler §566 ; R. Meister, loc. cit., p. 3 ; Liddeli and Scott, sub voce. 

' G. Meyer's explanation of o^c as a contract form from *o{'ffof , *dwf , *5of 
does not seem to me a likely one, see Gramm.', p. 326. 

* For Doric da see Ahrens, Dial. Dor. p. 80 ; Cu.' p. 492 ; for Cypriote ^a 
G. Meyer*, p. 200, note 2. ^ Etym. Mag. and Hesychius report P^p. 


Neuter nouns consisting of a long monosyllable are regularly 
perispomenon.^ In addition to o^r, oK&p^ arai^ there are : vvp ' fire ': 
Umbr./£r, OHG. fuiryfiur. Herodian 2, 919, cites a form irwp 
from Simonides of Amorgus, which leaves room for the suspicion 
that irvp is contracted. But the genitive itv^ (with gradation 
of stem and shift of accent), as well as Umbrian pir (cf. sitn 
and sif^ probably equal to Gr. Iv and H)^ points to the inde- 
pendent origin of v in the word ; <^v, probably the Pontic name 
of the plant valerian ; ^, ' rha barbara'; d&» Epic for d»/ui ' house'; 
jcpt, Epic form for icp*^ 'barley'; ^p 'garment' (cf. <^a^i) is re- 
ported by Arcad. 124 as perispomenon : Liddell and Scott write 
^ap ; BSk is reported as an apocop. form for O^fMi^^ Anth. P. 6, 
^5 ; /3p< according to Strabo was used by Hesiod for ppuip6vf see 
Liddell and Scott sub ^pT ii. For <rap (and <rav) see Lob. Par. 77 ; 
for ojTov ibid. 120. The names of the letters are of neuter gender 
and perispomena : /Wf yZ, (v, nti (ni)* p&, rav, <f)€l (^i)> x^^ (xO> i^h ^* 

Monosyllabic accusatives singular, long in quantity, are peri- 
spomenon : Zrjv, Doric Aay = Vedic dyam ; Dor. p&v := Vedic gam 
(/SoOi^ is analogical after nom. /Sovr) ; ypavv, vavp, dpvv, avv, dv, fivy^ 
\t¥, foy, xXcty, Btvp (Doric, ace. of ^w = ^c($0« 

The corresponding plurals are also circumflected : Dor. pAe 
(Theocr. 8, 47) = Vedic gis, Zend gdo. The primary character 
of Attic Povs is doubtful (G. Meyer', 362). Further mvs, ypavs, ovs^ 

The following proper names are perispomenon : e&y, Tpfjf^ SGp, 
Apvf , Tav$, e€v6, Ow (evy, Lob. Par. 86), Km, t\&s (also rXoGr and 
r\w), x&s, TX»f, KpAr, Aw, Aas, fiy&y (? Chandler, p. 162, note l), 
6p^(, Ionic eprji^t Homer and the tragedians epj^ (contracted?), 
Tpai(. For^HX see Lob. Par. pp. 70, 116; Hay (?) ib. 71. The 
remaining ones are of the first declension : rpap. Bar, Xvat, nag, eas, 
Aar, Ap^ff ; «xa (Herod. 4, 178: our editions read «Xa). For Upag 
(UpayT6f) the acute is abo reported: Chandler 566 (p. 163). 

The following particles consisting of a long monosyllable are 
perispomena : yvv * now ': Sk. nu (and nu), Zend nu, Old Bulg. 
njmi ; Ionic, Aeolic, Boeotian and Doric &y, Attic ody ' then '; aZ 
' again ': Lat. aui, auiem ; fj ' truly ' (cf. ijf above) ; £, vocative 
participle (c£ w above) ; 2, interjection of astonishment and pity ; 
at, interjection of wonder, blame, etc : Lat. at, a loan-word (cf. al 
above) ; ^cv ' ah, alas '; ^0 ' fie,' cf. Lat fue, fu ; da (<^€0 da, ird«rot 

' Cf. Chandler, §563 ; Phil. Anzciger for 1883, Vol. XIII, p. 580. 
*Cf. Meisterhans, Grammatlk der Attischen Inschriften, pp. i, 24. 


«a); ^pvF (WirciO *to cry ^pvv'\ rav,^ Cu/ 686; y/>v (oWc ypv). A 
number of particles, representing frozen case-forms of pronominal 
stems, are perispomena : n^, ic^, wa, but also ir^, ^^ enclitics with 
supplementary accent ; t^, ?, etc. (old instrumentals : G. Meyer', 
P- 365) ; iroi, 01 (locatives) ; wo€, o5, genitives ; irSs,* kw, &; (also ^p : 
ablatives), etc. The circumflex of these particles is no doubt in 
many cases old, antedating the period of the recessive accent, 
as in wot, 01 (cf Hanssen in KZ. XXVII, p. 614), or a genuine 
rhetorical circumflex, as in interrogative particles and interjections. 
They are given here for the sake of completeness. Similarly ira, 
^a, /xa are hypocoristic vocatives, and have vocative accent. 

The report that the Aeolians circumflected every long monosyl- 
lable : ZciJp, /wf , wTcaf , dp«^, x^^i etc., is universally accepted, and 
accords with the remaining facts of the Aeolian system of accentu- 
ation ; see Ahrens, Dial. Aeol., p. 11 ; Anton Fiihrer, Ueber den 
lesbischen Dialekt, p. viii. There is, however, a report of 
Choeroboscus, somewhat doubtful as to its meaning and scope, 
to the efiect that the Aeolians treated monosyllables as oxytones, 
and there are also special reports to the eflect that individual long 
monosyllables in Aeolic received the acute. Cf. above sub voce. 
[Lr\v and 0X9p, and Chandler §567. I see no good reason to doubt 
the universally accepted perispasis of long monosyllables in this 

The Dorians are reported to have accented yXavf and <rK«p in 
distinction from Attic yXavg and <r*©p ; see Gottling, p. 243 ; Ahrens, 
p. 27 ; Johannes Schmidt, KZ. XXV 14 ; R. Meister, Zur Griech- 
ischen Dialektologie, p. 3; Hanssen, Philologischer Anzeiger, 
XIII, p. 580. The temptation to see in this an instance of 
vacillation between etymological and recessive accentuation must 
be resisted. R. Meister (ibid.) believes that Doric ykai^ and tricwp 
have * den alterthiimlichen accent (i. e. no doubt what we here call 
etymological accent) gegeniiber der im aeolischen dialekt regel- 
massig, im ionisch-attischen hier und da eingetretenen perispom- 
enierung bewahrt.' 

We must consider, however, that the Doric dialect exhibits 
many cases of suspended perispasis, as in 9rr(»jccp, 9rr<uicuf, n-mdcf, 

<f>wr«fi *AXKfiav for AXKfiap (fr. *AX«e/ida>v), ndv for naVf in the aorist 

infinitives ordo-at, \vo-ai, dcipai and dfivvaif and that in general there 
is to be observed something like a * processive ' reaction against 
the * recessive ' tendency, the latter being probably Pan-Hellenic, 

. » Also written rdv, Cf. also fdv • ai, 'Arrwcwf (Hesych.), G. Meyer', p. 382. 
* Cf. TTw • nov. bdev, Tz66ev, /^uptelCt Hesych. 


but certainly Attic-Ionic and especially Aeolic. This is exhibited 

in cases like dpOpionoij yvtmUai, yvvaiK€£, 6pvL$(s^ ioTCLQaVf /Xdfiov, in the 

accentuation aiiparrw (Gottl. 246), and tppar^p for Attic <^paTi;p, etc. 
These are certainly secondary whether they mark a secondary 
phonetic change or analogical transformation {dpOp&jroi after dydpa- 
irwy, avBpAwoiSf etc. ; <l>paTrjp after narrjp),^ I prefer therefore to 
regard yXaOf and aK&p as the oldest forms on Greek ground^ and to 
consider the coincidence of the Doric accentuation yXav|, irK&p with 
the etymological accent as accidental. 

Hence I cannot subscribe to Wheeler's first comparison in sup- 
port of his thesis that monosyllabic words have retained their 
etymological accent unchanged. He writes Doric vas (!)*= Sk. 
Pad-zz. I. 'E.pbts. As far as I know the only source upon which 
this TTflor is based is the gloss of Hesychius : vas * n-dr. vnh A<apu&v, 
In writing vw Wheeler is probably guided — he does not say so — 
by the consideration advanced by Joh. Schmidt in KZ. XXV 14. 
The latter judges from the reported oxytonesis in Doric of yXav^ and 
ax&p that Hesychius has misreported this accent, as he firequendy 
does. Whether this be so or not, even the hypothetical Doric 
*ir«f is not to be compared directiy (as Schmidt and Wheeler do) 

' R. Meister in his very thonghtful tract, Zur Griechischen Dialektologie (I. 
Bemerkungen zur dorischen Accentuation) endeavors everywhere to explain 
these cases of * procession * as due to one of two causes : either some analogy 
within the paradigm of the word in question, or to a suspension of the irephnaaiQ 
KarrivayKaofihnj of the other dialects. I do not believe that he is on the right track, 
as he does not point out any reason why the manifold special phenomena of 
accent in Doric agree in promoting the accent towards the end of the word. 
If looked at in detail, special causes may be found readily enough for every 
instance of Doric procession : avOp&izot might well be accented after avdp6nuv ; 
TrrCtxec after irr6^ ; k?Aliov after kMpojiiev ; ndv might have preserved the old 
participial accent, as in Pan-Hellenic ahfnr&v^ np&iriiv^ irdfiiruv ; (^pdrijp might 
be oxytone after the analogy of Tranyp (Attic <^fmrtjp) ; an^p and yP^fc^ might 
represent instances of preserved I. E. oxytonesis in Doric, etc., etc. Yet each 
one of these explanations — quite reasonable when considered singly — is 
rendered improbable because they all operate in the same direction. Why 
do not some of these Doric accentual modifications operate in the other direc- 
tion, i. e. • recessively,' if they are merely the results of individual effects? 
Unless we wish to burden the Dorians with an apparently teleological choice 
of such analogies as tend to * procession,* we must assume that the reported 
Doric instances of* processive' accent — they are not actually quotable in the 
language — are due to some single fact in accentual phonetics whose scope and 
cause we are unable to determine owing to the deficiency of the tradition. We 
will encounter later on the same difficulty in Wheeler's (and Prellwitz's) 
attempts to explain the phenomena of Aeolic accentuation. 

'See p. 13, as also Prellwitz, loc. cit. p. 764. 


with Sk./^, I. ILpots^ but may be as well regarded as a second- 
ary Doric product out of Pan-Hellenic *ir6ff, as long as an Attic- 
Ionic fr»f is not discovered.' 

Trap and neuter vov are of especial interest, as illustrating the 
existence of recessive accentuation in monosyllabic nominal stems. 
They represent an I. E. non-thematic participle = Sk. *gvdnUy 
I. E. TsurU', This conclusion may be derived from Benfey's old 
discovery that Sk. gdgvani-y for ^sd-gvatU, is Greek i-froM--; see 
Wurzellexicon II 167 ; Orient und Occident I 573 ; ** Das indo- 
germanische Thema des Zahlworts * zwei ' ist du," Abhandlungen 
der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, XXI 7. The 
word *?raff lost its connection with any finite verbal system very 
early : hence the recessive accentuation, avoided by other parti- 
ciples, lodged within a finite system, forms Hke <^aff, jSSf, rkU, etc.; 
see above. On the other hand the Attic genitive plur. frayro)!^, 
dative plur. *ra<ri are still participial like ^dy^»y, crrdwwy, etc. The 
neuter participle irav, which is still preserved in &rav, frdfifray, frv^mav 
and vp6iravf in changing to vav, adopted both the quantity and 
accentuation of wwJ* 

I have left out of question the perispasis of the vocatives of long 
monosyllabic nouns. At first sight this is one of the strongest 
proofs of the recessive character of the circumflex in cases like vavg, 
etc. The classical example Zw, circumflexed vocative : Zevs, oxy- 
tone nominative, is reflected in Vedic dydus, vocative with inde- 
pendent svarita : dydtis^ nominative with udatta. Each pair goes 
back to I. E. couplet dieu(j), vocative with I. E. independent 
svarita: dieus^ nominative with acute accent. But the very an- 
tiquity of the recessive accent in the vocative makes it chronolog- 
ically unfit as an argument for the recessive character of the type 
Favff. The recessive accentuation of the vocatives z**?, o-wr^p, av 
6pom€, etc., is proethnic ; that of vavg at best Pan-Hellenic. That 
does not exclude the fact that both processes, the old recession of 
the tone in the vocatives to the first mora (Zcu), and the substitute 
for enclisis which is contained in the last resort in vavg, have finally 
worked to the same end, but the recessive accent in Z€v does not 
directly prove that the circumflex in vavg is also recessive. Cf. 
also the note on p. 17. 

* Of coarse the oxytonesis of wobg proves nothing for irwf , as the entire end- 
ing (-o{»f) is secondary ; cf. above s. v. ffovf, and G. Meyer,* §§77i 313- The 
latter also writes n6c in both places. 

*irav is explained differently by J. Schmidt, KZ. XXV 14. wtv occurs even 
outside of composition proper, e. g. Find. 01. 2. 93, 


A theory which ignores fn its consideration of long monosyl- 
lables so important and far-reaching a difference as that exhibited 
in the collection above is not calculated to inspire confidence. 
Wheeler does not anywhere allude to it ; much less does he make 
an effort to explain it away. Though such an attempt seems in 
any case an after-thought, I have nevertheless surveyed the ground 
as carefully as possible for some expedient by which the circumflex 
accent of the type val^ and Aeolic z<up, wrfif , etc., might be ex- 
plained without the assumption of recessive accent. But I cannot 
say that I have succeeded in finding one. Hanssen in KZ. XXVII 
612 f., by employing successfully Leskien's important little article 
' Die Quantitatsverschiedenheiten im Auslaut des Litauischen/ 
Archiv fiir slavische Philologie, 1881, Vol. V, p. 188 fg., has proved 
that a kind of circumflex accent* existed quite extensively on final 
syllables of words in I . E. times, but his proof does not include a single 
case of a monosyllabic noun-stem, nor indeed a single monosyllable. 
I hold myself ready to accept the original character of the circum- 
flex wherever there is good ground to accept it Hanssen may 
perhaps not have gone far enough in his assumption, or at least 
in the expVess statement of such accentuation, inasmuch as he 
gives only examples in which at least two of the languages com- 
pared (Greek, Lithuanian, and Gothic) testify direcdy to the exist- 

1 At least it appears as the ordinary circumflex in Greek. It is in reality that 
accentuation of a long syllable in which the summit-tone either permeates the 
two moras of which the syllable consists, or in which there is double summit 
accentuation (Sievers' Phonetik', 203; Bloomfield, Historical and Critical 
Remarks, 27-8). In Lithuanian grammar this mode of accentuation is called 
* geschliflfener ton,' after Kurschat's precedent. * Geschliffener ton ' is a mis- 
nomer for ' geschleifter ton ' (Leskien orally : Brugmann, Grundriss, I, p. 562, 
suggests * schleifende ' sc. betonung). We may designate in English this 
mode of accentuation by the term * drawled tone/ or * slurring tone ' (in the 
acceptation of the word in music). This I. E. drawled tone probably has a 
very definite scope (see Hanssen above), and we must for the present keep it 
differentiated from the genuine I. E. circumflex {svaritd) of Zetrz= Vedic dydus 
which is the result of the fusion of an acute plus a grave (^). In the ordinary 
recessive and contract circumflex : o\6a =: 6\6a^ rpeig z= rpiig (see below) we must 
recognize a third type of circumflex, phonetically very similar to the second, 
but chronologically very diflerent, inasmuch as the earliest date which we can 
assign to it is the Pan -Hellenic period. Even that is probably too early for 
the contract circumflex; see G. Meyer,^ p. 140. Heterogeneous accentual 
materials of the Greek have become fused by one mode of designation. In 
Sanskrit the first two kinds are designated respectively by the genuine svarita 
and the ud&tta ; the enclitic svarita (Whitney, §85«fg., Historical and Critical 
Remarks, p. 45) generally takes the sign of the genuine svarita. 


ence of the circumflex. For irodwv ^S\i. padttm we may suppose 
an I. E. pedorn with 'drawled ' or * slurring ' tone (see the footnote 
on p. 17), from the testimony of m/i^wp =Lith. szunu = I. E. kunam 
(despite giindm^ Atharva-Veda III 9, 4). Accordingly it seems to 
me not unlikely that the perispasis of long monosyllabic accusatives 
sg. and pi. may be founded upon this I. E. * drawled ' (* slurring ') 
tone, although the nature of the case is such that we may perhaps 
never be in the position to prove it. If we survey the list given 
above : sg. z^v, Doric Aay ; Doric /3a»y, Attic ^Zv^ ypaZvy vavp, hpZv, 

tnJVi Zvi fivVi X(y, rcv, ickeiVf Otvv \ pL Doric p&s^ Attic ^o€r, vavs^ avg, ^r, 

dffvsf fiv^t we are struck by the solidarity of the perispasis. Yet 
much of it is palpably secondary ; Doric Aav has a Hyper-Doric 5, 
as Zrjv =: I. E. diem (leaving the accent aside). Attic povv, pi. fiovt ; 
yovjr, plur. pav£; ypavp, pi. ypavgy are secondary formations: fiovvj 
vavv and ypavv after the pattern of the nominatives sg. /3ot)f , raw, and 
ypavs ; the ace. plural Pavs, tfavs, and ypavf in their turn after the pattern 
of the ace. sg. Pow, vavy, and ypavv. The accusatives fivp sg., ^aZs pi. 
are also secondary issue of the nom. /xv^, inasmuch as the stem is 
/ivf = I. E. mtiS' ; the proper accusatives are */iiwi for *fiu(ra and piag 
for */iuaaff (cf. G. Meyer*, pp. 321, 346). xXttv and xkeis are pretty 
certainly secondary to jcXcida, Hom. xXi^rda, pL nXudas. Doric 3tvp 
ace. to dtvt = d6<Jff can only be the product of a later propagation 
of the type, as the word is certainly originally a dissyllable. I do 
not venture to decide the question of the originality of the accusa- 
tives irvv, Ivf dpvp,^ \iv, Kiv ; pi. avs, vs, dpvs. G. Meyer', § 331 says : 
* Den I- und v-stammen kommt v zu : tdpiy, ir6\iv, Kty, Xiv, otJi',' etc. In 
§ 361 he places the ace. plur. ovst dpvf , 5s, among dissyllabic v-stems 
like ycVvff, vfKvst etc. It seems from one point of view that we ought 
to expect for long monosyllabic stems accusatives of the type sg. 
6(l>pva^ = Sk. dhrt/vam, ^atapathabrahmana III 2. i. 29, and Ho- 
meric o<t>pvaf = Sk. bhriivas. Cf. also Lat. suem. On the other hand 
Umbrian sim and sif point to Zv and Zs, Be this as it may there re- 
main in any case the accusatives z^y, )3«y, ^w, where I believe that 
both form and accent are original. I venture the following recon- 
struction : Zr^v = Vedic dyam =: I. E. die(u)m ; )3»v = V^dicgam =z 
L E. ^o(u)m ; p&s = Vedic ghs = I, E. ^o(u)s ; i. e. I suppose that a 
slurring or drawled mode of summit accentuation accompanied the 
utterance of these monosyllables. Direct unequivocal proof of this 

' There is in the Rig-Veda no single case of an ace. sg. in 'um, 
* The form occurs late, Oppian. Kyn. 4. 405, but can certainly make no claim 
towards direct identification with Sk. bhrtivofn despite the formal equality. 


assumption is impossible, as ' drawled ' tone and udatta have the 
same designation in the Veda (see the footnote on p. i j), but the 
morphology of the forms renders it likely enough. This is the 
only instance in which the circumflex may be even approximately 
proved original in the case of long monosyllables, and even if we 
consider it not impossible that it may yet be proved proethnic in 
other monosyllabic* words/ it is nevertheless quite incredible that 
types in every other respect so perfectly parallel to Zcw = dydiis 
as vavs-ndt^Sy and fiovs-gdtis, should have differed in this singular 
manner in their original accentuation. 

I have thought of the analogy of contract forms. So ^p (gen. 
rjpoi) is the lyric form for tap (Alcman 24) ; Attic o& = &f for 3/« 
= Lat. avis = Sk. avis; Attic ^^otr = (^(STr, ' cake, pill'; ^s>^ =3;: 
^dofi * a kind of fish '; or^p, <miT6s = ardapf OTeaTOft ' tallow *; &p :=: 
5ap * consort '; xp^y, Doric for icpcar * flesh ' = Ved. krdvis; yow = 
w6of 'mind'; ;(vow (kkow, Lob. Par. p. 93) =xi^or 'surface'; Attic 
Bpovf = 6p6os * noise.' Attic xow. is declined as though it were 
a monosyllabic stem (gen. x^i ^^t« X^y ^^cc. plur. xovs ', cf. Poot, 
potf etc.), yet it is in reality a dissyllabic stem like <l>op6s (xof6sy x^^^* 
contracted xo^O ; third declension forms of povs =2 p6fos also occur, 
e. g. genitive po6f like xo6s ; see Lob. Phryn. 454. 

The epic word ktjpj K^pos 'heart ' is explained by Gottling, p. 425, 
Leo. Meyer KZ. V 69 ; Misteli, tJber griechische Betonung, p. 1 18, 
as contracted from the later Ktap (tragic, lyric), in the same way as 
Ijp, ^pos from (lap, Curtius, Etymologic*, p. 143, points out the 
independent character of the stem i*KTjpd?), and Brugmann, in 
Curtius's Studien IX 296, note, explains the accent as an imitation 
of the contract accent of rjp, fjpot. The persistence of the cir- 
cumflex in the declension of the word renders this explanation 
fairly plausible (gen. Krjpos, dat. Krjpi) ; cf. also Wackernagel in KZ. 
XXV 280. 

The explanation of Attic <t>&s as equal to Homeric, etc., <l>dos is 
the current one; see e. g. Brugmann in Curtius' Stud. IV 173; 
G. Meyer*, p. 326. No one as far as I know has, however, offered 
any explanation which bridges over the difference in the stems of 
the two words: ^a/ccr- but <f)w. The stem <^r- seems to me 
better comparable with Vedic dhds, neuter in the oldest language, 
the r being ' adscititious ' (Brugmann, ibid.); cf. <fx»<r'<l>6poi and 
bhds-kara ' shining.' But the circumflex may be due to the fact 

1 The regularity with which long monosyllabic neuters are circumflected is 
worthy of attention ; Chandler §563 and above. 


that the form was felt to be associated with ^or as its contract 

The difterence between €& (Doric 5^ : Heraclean tablets i, 136) 
and ovdcif , ftiydciV (lacon. ovd^f lA. 79, 4) is as yet unexplained ; cf. 
Gottling, 246; Misteli 118; Hanssen, Philologischer Anzeiger 
XIII, p. 580. The evidence of Attic row = Kretic rrfw, etc., points 
to the fact that the oxy tone accent is the fundamental one, and that 
the perispasis of €& is secondary. I venture to propose the analogy 
of the contract circumflex of rpetr (Homeric and Attic) = rpccr 
(Inscr. of Gortyna, 9, 48) = Sk. trdyas=zl, E. ir/tes. The vig- 
orous analogical influence of numerals upon one another has long 
been noticed ; see Osthofi", Morphologische Untersuchungen I 92 
(g, ; Baunack, KZ. XXV 225 fg. One can understand easily how 
*€tff might be influenced by rptts, so as to become c&, while ovMs, 
/Aiydciff would be preserved from this contamination by being * out 
of the count,' and possibly by the blurred consciousness of the 
origin of the words. 

The circumflex of fUfS. may possibly be due to its assumed deri- 
vation as a contract form from Ionic /Wa (Hdt. 2, 180) ; fipa is 
probably more original than fivta. It is Hebrew-Phoenician njD ; 
cf. Lat. mina, Sk. mani (also a loan-word) ; cf. Zimmer, Altin- 
disches Leben, p. 50. 

The circum flexed form c' * thou art ' I have explained previously 
in a totally different connection and from a different point of view, 
as owing its orthotonesis — in distinction from the enclisis of €lfii, 
fWi, etc. — ^to the analogy of verbal forms with the circumflex due 
to contraction : see Historical and Critical Remarks, p. 59 (39). 
I see no reason for retracting this view, and I am not aware that 
any authority has objected to it, or that a more plausible one has 
been advanced hitherto.* 

Much of the perispasis of long monosyllables in Attic- Ionic may 
be in this way ultimately exhibited as secondary. The 'small 
investigation given above may serve rather as a guide in the matter, 
than lay claim to an exhaustive examination of the possibilities in 
that direction. Yet it seems to me that no one will be found will- 
ing to undertake the thankless task of explaining away all the 
instances of the circumflex on long monosyllables recounted above, 
without calling in the aid of that retraction of the accent which is 
an infallible law in the monosyllabic forms of the finite verb. 

> OslhofF's explanation of el, as equal to ef for I. E. /jI, with * nebentonig- 
tieftonigem vocalismus des personal-suffixes* rests upon too slender a basis of 
fact to inspire conBdence. See Zur Geschichte des Perfects, p. 18, note. 


And even the sturdiest determination in that direction would be 
of no avail on account of the Aeolic dialect. Wheeler has taken 
no account of the constant perispasis of long monosyllables in 
Aeolic, Zcvff, imi{, x^^y ^p&yfr, etc., etc. : we may assume that he has 
consistently placed circumflex and acute upon the same level here 
as throughout his work. Prellwitz, in his review, loc. cit. p. 757, 
recognizes this deficiency and proceeds to remedy it. But his 
processes do not in my opinion redound to the advantage of the 
cause. Prellwitz would explain the perispasis of Z€vs and irr&( as 
due to the analogy of Zrjp, Z€v, irr&Ka. This is well possible when 
taken by itself: it would be simple paradigmatic analogy. If we 
consider, however, that Aeolic yaos, yaizii non- Aeolic va69, vat; P6os, 
Kvpos = non-Aeol. Po6s, kvv6s, furthermore if we consider Aeolic 
Bvfjufs, (r6<fi0Sf n&rafios, etc., the fallacy of the assumption of such 
analogy becomes apparent. It is of the same sort as that criticized 
above in R. Meister's explanation of suspended perbpasis in 
Doric : ihere is no reason provided for ike infallible motion of 
these supposed attalogies in one direction. I shall return to this 
point more fully later on in connection with Wheeler's explanation 
of the accent of Aeolic Bv^im and tr6f^Q^. I fail to see how the 
assumption can be avoided, that certain accentual types, namely 
the * recessive * ones, have propagated themselves in Aeolic with- 
out reference to the function of the forms involved. 

Nor will it do to assume that the difference between acute and 
circumflex became indistinguishable at a period so early that the 
Homeric difference between Zcw and vav^ may be accounted as non- 
significant. Deutschmann, in his treatise De poesis Graecorum 
rhythmicae primordiis, Malmedy, 1883, p. 3, assumes this state of 
things for the first century A. D., but his assumption is fitly 
refuted by Hanssen in the Phil. Anz. XIII, p. 422. As late as 
Babrius the difference between acute and circumflex must have 
existed, for he categorizes words like Ka^v<A and roOro together, and 
differentiates ml^uka and /x^p ; cf. Hanssen, Rheinisches Museum 
XXXVIII, p. 239 {%. He could not have put the accentuation of 
xaftyo and Tovro upon the same level without recognizing that the 
fundamental difference between acute and circumflex is rather a 
topical than a qualitative one. The acute accent on a long syllable 
means in reality that the second mora has the acute, the first one 
being grave; ft^p:=fU€Trip; the circumflex on a long syllable 
means the accentuation of the first mora ; touto := rSino. Hanssen, 
Phil. Anz. XIII, p. 422, without offering anything new, well describes 


the ordinary (not 'drawled') circumflex as follows: ^ There is in 
fact in Greek but one {grammatical^ accent^ the acute ; but this can 
Jill bid one mora. Short syllables therefore admit of but one kind of 
accentuation : their vowel carries the acute ; syllables with a short 
vowel, long by position, also admit of only one kind of accentu- 
ation : their vowel bears the acute, they also have the tone on the 
first mora; syllables containing a long vowel (or a diphthong) 
admit of a twofold method of accentuation; the acute may stand 
on the first mora of the vowel (circumflex), or the acute may stand 
on the second mora of the vowel (acute on a long syllable). The 
designation of accent is deficient in marking an acute upon a short 
vowel and an acute upon the second mora of a long vowel by the 
same sign, and it is an unlucky circumstance that a special name 
and a special mark was not constructed for the acute on a long 
syllable, but for the circumflex. In reality the words Sk^ and irovy, 
which carry the same accent-mark, are not accented alike, and 
they are not both accented diflerently from o^^ , but Sk^ and oZ% are 
accented alike on the first mora, while n-ouff is accented on the 
second mora. The difference between acute and circumflex in all 
probability was given up along with the differentiation of short and 
long vowels, at a time when the difference in the pronunciation of o 
and 0) was given up ; at that time the difference in the accentuation 
of rd, T«, and r« was no longer felt.' 
This applied to vaZ^ and Zci;; means that the accent oivav^ is yavr, 

that of Zcvr is Zevff. 

The difference is a topical one, not one of quality only, and our 
previous considerations have made it probable that no other source 
than the recessive accent of the formally corresponding verbal 
forms will be found for accent of vavp , which deviates from the I. E. 
ndiis. The sporadic or unsettled character of the recession in the 
noun-types (vaCr, |3our but Zevr, |3af) is, as far as I can see, well ex- 
plained by the statements on pages 30, 50, 57 and 62 of my 
treatise, quoted at the beginning of this paper. The recessive 
accent in the verbal forms is enclisis, or rather a substitute for it, 
therefore a grammatical quality, which covers the entire ground ; 
in the noun it is secondary, no doubt analogical, apparently on the 
way towards absorbing it. This process of absorption is complete 
in the Aeolic dialect. The manner in which this analogy has 
operated I shall endeavor to delineate below. 

The considerations given thus far are in themselves quite suffi- 
cient to unsettle one's belief in Wheeler's hypothesis, with its 


fundamental idea of a subsidiary tone. In his assumption of a 
subsidiary tone on the third or fourth mora from the end, there is 
no provision made for the change from original */3i7(t) i. e. *i8cf 
:= Vedic^a/, to 35, i. e. */3«€ for j- *Prj ; from original *vavs, i. e. *vavs 
to vavsf i. e. vdw. Here it would be necessary to assume a subsidiary 
tone on the second mora from the end. Will any one be found 
willing to believe that a single long syllable was burdened with a 
summit tone and a subsidiary tone, and that at a certain time, to 
use Wheeler's own terminology, *trat ein Schwanken ein, das 
Spater zu gunsten einer der beiden Accentuation ausfallt * ? 

I believe that enough has been said to show that that part of 
Wheeler's first thesis which refers to monosyllables is not tenable. 
Still less do I find myself in the position to adhere to the second 
part of it. The claim that dissyllabic forms with short final syllable 
retain the inherited (I. E.) accent seems to me quite groundless. 

At all times comparisons like the following have been considered 
legitimate : olbat oMa^ oZ8€ := Ved. v/da, v/itha, vdda i= I. E. 
uoidm (?), uoistha, uotde; €lfu, *crt = Ved. /mt, //ti=z I. E. /tmt, 
iUi\ jJazrVedic hsa-=.\, E. i$i^ (?), perfect ind. act first sing,; 
i(c iy) = Vedic hsay I. E. ise, perfect third sing. ; dual and plural 
forms of the imperfect of the copula : ^<rroy, ijficv, ^otc = Vedic 
istanif asmUj asta ; icrlrat = Vedic g^te ; 5<rrai := Vedic aste. 

Comparative grammarians are usually pleased to speak of such 
cases as being equal sound for sound. But is it true that any 
respectable authority has ever ignored the thoroughgoing differ- 
ence in the accent ? There is absolutely no reason for doubting 
that the Vedic udatta of v/da, imi, etc., represents the I. E. acute 
or * cut * (* gestossen *) tone on the second mora of the first syllable. 
To my knowledge no one has ever hinted at a similar accentual 
condition in the cases above (/oS^r, cZfu, etc.). The circumflex on 
verbal forms of this type: r w, i. e. dissyllabic trochaic forms, 
has always been understood to be * recessive,' utterly independent 
of any accentuation prior to Greek period. oUba = Vedic v^da is 
* recessive ' precisely in the same sense as /35 = Vedic gat. No 
one will be found so bold as to assume a proethnic * slurring' tone 
or a proethnic svarita (cf. p. 17, note) for all dissyllabic trochaic 
verbal forms, whatever their connection. The very fact that the 
w€pi<nr(un9 in such cases is KarrjpayKaa-fiivi] shows that all etymological 
accentuation is superseded by the * recessive ' law. 

In the case of long monosyllables, the verb is recessive, without 
exception : the noun, according to our discussion above, has 


followed the verb only to a certain extent. On the other hand the 
entire body of trochaic dissyllables : verbs, nouns, pronouns and 
other parts of speech are properispomena,* aside from the Doric 
instances like nrtticcff, T^coicaf , iro/dcf , ^<^cr, ordcrai, Xi;<rat, etc., in which 
the perispasis is suspended. I have indicated above that these 
cases are in my opinion due to a genuine ' processive ^ reaction 
against the recessive tendency, and that Meister is of a different 
opinion. Whatever their explanation may be — none that is abso- 
lutely convincing has to my knowledge been advanced — it must 
not be forgotten that they rest almost entirely upon reports of 
native grammarians, and not upon good ' quotable ' material. 
The reported cases of suspended perispasis in trochaic dissyllables 
are no way fit for testimony against the assumption that this peri- 
spasis is Pan-Hellenic, and practically without exception. 

That the circumflex here, as in the case of the monosyllabic 
perispomena, indicates a difference of position, as well as one of 
quality, we may learn, aside from the general description of the 
value of the circumflex given above, from a single example of the 
type 1 vy, namely ouoi 'houses,* if we compare it with oucoi *at 
home.' It has been known for a long time that the syllable -koi 
of oUoi counted for one mora and thai the accent was therefore 
driven forward to the first mora of ol- (i. e. oUoi = <5i*cot), while in 
oUoi the second syllable counted for two moras, and the summit 
tone was therefore placed upon the second mora of ot- (i. e. oUot = 
Aiitoi). Misteli, Ueber griechische Betonung, p. 128, came very 
near to an explanation of this difference in his sentence : * Wenn 
oUoi von oticoi absticht und oi oi des Optativs uberall seine Lange 
wahrt, so ist im ersten Falle t eigentlich Casussufiix des Locativs, 
das mit dem Stammvocale o regelrecht zusammengezogen wurde, 
und die Folge davon ist eben die Lange, wahrend im Nomin. Plur. 
jedenfalls die Rede nicht von Zusammenziehung sein kann, so 
wenig als beim altindischen Pronominalausgang z. B. t/z=:Toi,y/ 
= ot u. s. w.* 

Leskien, in the article quoted above, broke the way toward a 
full explanation of this extraordinary difference by showing that 

* Joh. Alexandr., p. 5, 17 : iraaa ^i)aei fjioKpa irpb ppaxda^ A^/crwcyf, ktjt* iaw^c 
ixovaa tAvov, irepiairdTai; GSttling, p. 42. So unfailing is this law that forms 
which really ought to have an etymological accent upon the second mora of 
the first syllable are absorbed by the type — v-». So dovvat -zz *6oPivai zz Vedic 
ddvdne (*6oPevai is hypothetical because Cypr. dofevat has no accent) ; iraldeg 
for nafldec ace. to Meister, Zur Gr. Dial., p. 2, cf. above, p. ii, etc. 


the Lithuanian exhibited two kinds of syllable-tone (in distinction 
from word-tone): *cut* tone (* gestossener ' accent) and * drawled' 
tone (' geschliffener * accent) ; c£ the footnote on p. 17. Syllables 
which have the summit tone, as well *as syllables without 


the summit tone (grave syllables), exhibit this difference in the 
different treatment of the vowels. Hanssen in KZ. XXVII 612 
fg. successfully applied Leskien's discovery to Greek. Accord- 
ing to this theory, 01 in a final grave syllable is long if the same 
syllable with the summit tone has the circumflex ; on the other 
hand, if the same syllable with the summit tone has the acute, 
then it has the value of a short syllable. If we compare the 
two nominatives plural oUot and jcoXoi with the two locatives 
singular oUoi and 'i<r$fiot, we can see that the syllable 01 of 
oZkoc is counted short because it would have the acute when 
accented (c£ xoXoi), while the oi of oUoi is counted long, because it 
would be circumflexed if it were accented (cf. ^itrBftol). We may 
say that the second syllable of oUoi has the * sub-acute * accent, or 
* sub-cut ' tone, while the second syllable of oUot has the * sub- 
circumfley ' or * sub-drawled ' tone. Cf. also Brugmann, Grundriss 

I» PP- S33» 539. 
Nothing could show more directly the fact that the circumflex 

of oUoi really represents an acute on the first mora oUot = 61K01, the 
acute of aiKM an acute on the second mora : the result arrived at 
independently in the case of the long monosyllables is repeated 
here from a new point of view for trochaic dissyllables ; the circum- 
flex of these represents a summit accentuation of the first mora. We 
must therefore pronounce as incorrect the following of Wheeler's 
comparisons (p. 20 fg.) as far as the accent is concerned: ^os=z 
Sk. j/dvai; rrjos^iSk.iivaf; alOos =1 Sk. /dhas ; tldos =z Sk. v/das ; 
*aZyos (from iptavyiis) = Sk. djos ; itios = Sk. pivas ; oliiot == Sk. 
^as\ IfjLos zzz Sk. dfisas] d«r« (Hesych.) = Sk. flfi//-; d^^izrSk. 
dafnafi' ; cl/ia = Sk. vdsman- ; <^vfta = Sk. bhutnan.' ; x^^H^ (x^M^ '^ 
misprinted) = Sk. hdman- ; oi/iq = Sk. ^man- ; x»ma • Sk. adverbial 
locative h^man ; oZBap : Sk. udhar^ etc. 

One may be fairly surprised that Wheeler discriminated against 
these forms and shut them out from his theory of a secondary 
accent. They could have been well enough provided for under its 
shelter. He allows the secondary accent in iambic dissyllables 
(three moras) : why should it not also have developed upon trochaic 
dissyllables (of the same number of moras)? On p. 16 he says: 
' The only cases of monosyllabic stems like irov$, 9rod<$(, o^^, va6^i ic.r.X. 


which were fit to receive the subsidiary tone were the genitives 
and datives plur., and it is worthy of note that the accentual ex- 
ceptions which are almost unanimously reported by the gram- 
marians appeared in just these cases (iratd«v, etc.).' It seems 
unlikely that he, whose methods are most rigorous, should have 
allowed himself to override such considerations, because the as- 
sumption of recessively accented trochaic dissyllables would intro- 
duce exceptions into almost all his categories of dissyllabic words, 
and thus prevent the clean-cut arrangement of the words under 
his category I. Was he prevented from making the assumption 
of a secondary accent by the unlikely result : a principal and a 
secondary accent upon the same syllable, <^u^, i. e. ^^b^ia with a 
secondary accent developed upon the first l (cf, above)? His 
attitude here again seems to me, however, best described by saying 
that he has not regarded the difference between circumflex and 
acute as an expression of topical difference any more here than 
above in the case of long monosyllables. 

We may, I think, take this for granted from the way in which 
he explains certain points in the recessive accentuation of the 
Aeolic (Lesbian), 

It has long been customary to regard the Aeolic accentuation as 
an extreme carrying out of the recessive tendency, without refer- 
ence to the number of moras involved in a given word. Excepting 
a few uninflected, therefore solitary words, the prepositions and 
conjunctions ai/a, xard, dta, /Mra, ardpy alrdp, for whose oxytonesis 
there is good grammatical authority — they have the secondary 
proclitic accent — ^the whole mass of word- material has assumed 
the recessive accentuation, exactly as it holds in the Pan-Hellenic 
personal forms of the verb. Wheeler, p. 24, attempts to show that 
his theory of a middle tone needs to be applied also when one is 
face to face with the over-emphatic application of the recessive 
principle in the Aeolic. The Aeolic declension of Attic BZftjdt 
is Bvftosj Ovfuo (OtfAoio), Btfjuat dCfiov, Bvfie. He is not willing to 
recognize independent recession in every case, but applies his 
theory rigorously. Accordingly it is possible that the genitive 
and dative should have changed their accent, because the former 
contained three syllables and the latter is spondaic: there was 
room for the secondary accent. On the other hand, Bvfios and 
Bvfiov must have obtained their accent analogically from such forms 
as 6ifMei (!). But if the process is simply analogical, ^hy not Bvfios 
and 6tfioy ? When Meister, Zur griechischen Dialektologie, makes 


the assumption that Doric wrwKcr, yuvmiccf, etc., owe their acute to 
the analogy of trr^^^ yw^, etc., the assumption of analogy, whether 
made correctly or not, is a reasonable one. But if Stfuo shall affect 
forms like 6vfi6s, 6vfi6p by * blind analogy,' why the change to the 
circumflex? Thence I conclude that Wheeler did not bear in 
mind the difference expressed by circumflex when compared with 
acute : neither the topical difference nor the difference in quality. 
Brugmann, who has adopted for his ' Grundriss ' Wheeler's 
theory without expressed reserve, treats the matter corresponding 
to Wheeler's first thesis in §676, i. Do I err in believing that 
although he adopts this thesis in his statement, he ' hedges ' in 
the choice of his examples? The paragraph in question is as 
follows: 'Zweisilbige Worter mit kurzer Endsilbe lagen ausser- 
halb der Wirksamkeit des Secundaraccentes und hielten im allge- 
meinen den ererbten Worton fest. ir6da ntidesj irod6s nocrl : ai padam 
padas.paddSypatsU, rptU aus *Tpt{i)€St rpuri : irdyas tri^il, irivr^ 
dtf/KQ, eirrd: pdfica ddga sapid, ntpi: pdri, apicros: fk^as, etc. 
y6fKf}os: jdmbhas. imros: dgvas. dy6s: ajds. 6pB6s: Urdhvds, 
iiurBos : mT4hdm, ffvfju&t : dhumds, dyv6t : yajMs. kXvtw : grutds. 
yvwr6s : jfidtds, fiapvt : gurii^. ffSvs : svddit^, fUBv : mddku. y€<l>os : 
ndbkas, wOos : dndAas. ctfui : vdsma. With the exception of the 
single example «i)mi : vdsma, there is no word with a circumflex 
mentioned in the passage, and Brugmann may have admitted 
ct/ia because the diphthong is not Pan-Hellenic (Aeolic ?/ifMt and 

yc crftara = */€<rfuiTa, Doric T^fui, yforpa . oroX^, Hesych.) It does 

not seem to me to be without significance that Brugmann has 
failed to put his signature to accentual equations like cidor = 
v/dasy etc., even while adopting the theory which would render 
them legitimate. 

I believe that I have thus far shown that two types of mono- 
syllabic and dissyllabic words do not respond to Wheeler's theory, 
inasmuch as their explanation from his own point of view demands 
the assumption of secondary accent under circumstances not pro- 
vided for by the theory, and under circumstances intrinsically 
thoroughly improbable. Neither can I give in my adhesion to 
that part of thesis I which is left after deducting the long mono- 
syllables and the trochaic dissyllables, namely the p3rrrhic dissyl- 
lables. To begin with, one will naturally be less trustful towards 
Wheeler's attempt to derive the recessive accent on pyrrhic dis- 
syllables of Aeolic words, by the analogy of forms within the same 
paradigm, after the fallacy of such a derivation of forms like 


Oofjtos, Ovfiop has been exhibited above. One naturally asks here as 
several times before : Why this untiring consistency in these cases 
of * blind analogy *; why is the tendency always forward, why not 
sometimes the other way ? He explains the change from o'o<f>6s to 
a64ios as follows (p. 24) : * Obwohl der Nominativ eines zweisilbigen 
Nomens dem secundaren Accent nicht zuganglich sein mag, werden 
doch einige der andern Casusformen es immer sein konnen ; z. B. 
cro^ff aber <r6<^ov (with secondary accent). Und die Neigung zur 
Gleichmassigkeit in der Flexion vermochte dann wohl den einmal 
in die iambischen oder spondaischen Formen aufgenommenen 
recessiven Accent durch Analogic auf die trochaischen resp. pyr- 
rhichischen hiniiber zu fiihren. Solches war durchweg der Fall 
im aeolischen (lesb.) Dialekte.* But we may fairly ask : Why did 
not the * Neigung zur Gleichmassigkeit/ if untrammelled by any 
other tendency, occasionally equalize in the other direction, if the 
recession of the accent is due simply to paradigmatic analogy, and 
not to some other cause ? Wheeler assumes in the fourth category 
(his No. V) that a vacillation between the etymological and reces- 
sive accentuation took place in the case when the etymological 
or inherited accent was nearer to the end of the word than the 
recessive accent. What is it that deprived the Aeolic from the 
benefit of this choice ? Wackemagel, in his review, recognized 
the improbability of this view, without refuting it : ' Wol aber hatte 
er die Consequenzen seines Satzes, dass die Tieftonigkeit der 
aeolischen Mundart unmittelbar mit dem Secundaraccente zu- 
sammenhange, besser erwagen soUen. Der Secundaraccent ist den 
zweisilbigen Wortem trochaischer und pyrrhichischer Messung 
fremd, und doch sind diese im aeolischen ebenso barytonetiscb 
als die andern. Die par Ausnahmen von der Barytonese auf die 
sich der Verfasser S. 25 beruft (a»dy ordp u:s. w.) sind lauter Worter 
mit dem von ihm auch sonst anerkannten proklitbchen Accent auf 
der Endsilbe.' (Deutsche Literaturzeitung 1886, Nr. 7, Col. 221.) 
If the genuine retraction of the accent in Aeolic py rrhic dissyl- 
lables is due to the recessive * principle,' then the existence of the 
same in the other dialects is a priori ^rohzbl^y for the Aeolic does 
not anywhere do more than exaggerate the accentual facts of the 
sister-dialects. As far as oxytone pyrrhic dissyllables are con- 
cerned they do indeed largely retain their accent, but so do all 
kinds of I. E. oxytones which are not finite verbal forms. That is 
the one fortress which has never been scaled by the enclitic 
accentuation : it is ' the last ditch.' But exceptions to the retention 


of this oxytonesis are not wanting in the language any more in the 
case of the pyrrhic oxytone type (^u^ 0) than in the case of trochaic, 
iambic and spondaic oxy tones (~ 0, w ^, and - ^), and polysyl- 
labic oxytones. Examples are : vdpor * water-serpent ' (Homer) = 
Sk. udrds ' water-animal ' ; ti6yx^ ' shell * = Sk. gankhds ; it6Xis = 
Sk. purls ; ^xop ' bend, hook ' = Sk. ankds ; ckto^ ' sixth * = Sk. 
^a^thds \ ir€fiirrot = Sk. pah^thds. Much the simplest explanation 
of the paroxytonesis of tdjKkoi is to regard it as the recessively 
accented accentual equivalent of Sk. cakrds. kvkKos : ^KfiWos : 
cakrds = vnvos : "^aPtirvos = Sk. svdpnaSy Zend qafno = Old 
Norse sve/n (orig. Germ. *sv^fnos), Kluge KZ. XXVI 100, and 
Wheeler, p. 23, prefer to derive kvkKqs direct from the paroxytone 
German forms, Anglo-Saxon hveohly Old Norse kuel (for ^hvehl) ; 
both from a German stem hvihlo-. 

Singular is the explanation which is proposed on p. 33 for the 
accentuation of abstract nouns in -nr (-(rcr)> which are recessive 
without exception : cf. Historical and Critical Remarks, p. 50 (30). 
These were originally oxytones, as is shown by their vocalism and 
the prevailingly reported oxytonesis in Vedic and German.* But 
in Greek the whole type is completely in the bonds of the * reces- 
sive ' accent : ^eVtr , pLvi^ and pevaist irvoTK and ircvcrir, ycvo-ir, yvSHTiSf 

a$poi<ris, aXa-drfO'tSf SkvaiSf Cvfl^^t fidOrfo-iSf etc. Wheeler, p. 34, States 
categorically that this accentuation of the type is due to the fact 
that the abstracts in -ng (-crtO compounded with prepositions were 
originally accented on the preposition : Sk. dpaciti * reverence,* cf. 
offdrio-w; lii'krdnti *3scent'; prd'drpli*h3iUghiiness';Prd'nfii 'guid- 
ance,' etc. They therefore had room for the development of the 

secondary accent, thus : eic/9a<ri(, dpaPXrfa-iSy okatrtvcris, d<f>aip€fnSt etc., 

and from these the accent of the uncompounded abstracts was 
derived by transfer. This explanation is subject to suspicion to 
begin with, because the parallel formation of the perfect passive 
participles in -^ds (verbals in t6s) when compounded with prepo- 
sitions also accents the preposition, and yet never makes the least 
attempt to encroach upon the uncompounded forms. Thus we 
have Sk. vi-cyuta * fallen apart *: cytUd * moved, fallen '; dva- 
naddha ' bound down *; naddhd * bound *; prd-vt^ia * entered into *: 
vi^id * entered '; dva-ruddha * enclosed ': ruddhd * obstructed,* etc. : 

* For a few cases in which the accent of abstracts in -/«•/ seems to have left 
the final syllable and passed to the radical syllable in proethnic times, see 
Bloomfield, Am. Journ. Phil. I 296, and Wheeler, p. 33 (where other refer- 
ences may be found). 


see Bruno Lindner, Altindische Nominalbildung, p. 71. In the 
same way regularly in Greek cxdoror : hoT6s ; afKf}iP\ijTos : pXrirds ; 
tlfiirkrjKTos : ir\rjKT6s ; airoT€X€VTr]Tos i T€X«;Tiyr<$ff, etc. And even if it 
were granted that the absorption of the accent of the uncom- 
pounded nouns in -rtr (-aw) by the compounded might have been 
accomplished, although the old relations in the verbals in t6s were 
left undisturbed* — a, freaky choice of analogy — it does not appear 
clear in what way the accent of dn6Ti<ns could have affected the 
prehistoric *TicrU so as to render it rla-is. Wheeler's explanation 
approaches within dangerous proximity of a method which he else- 
where takes especial pains to deprecate. The recessive accent, he 
says (p. 6), is ' a principle of accentuation, and embraces paroxy- 
tones, proparoxytones and properispomena.' It would therefore 
be necessary that the various accentual types arising in the inflec- 
tion of orrdTKriff should have affected severally the corresponding 
cases and numbers of *TicriV. In other words : 
Nom. sing, dworitrcr changes ^Tto-tV to rla-is. 

Gen. sing, aworiaiot " *Ti<rios " rtcrtof. 

Acc. sing, dir^ria-ip " *Ttaip " TtVty, etC. 

For my part I do not understand in what sense the historical 
paroxytones nW and rla-iv can be imagined due to the proparoxy- 
tones d'rr6Ti<riv and cnrdriauf, unless the principle of recession in mr&naw 
and d7r6Ti<nv, and that too in the most abstract version imaginable, 
is supposed to repeat itself in Wo-tp and nViir— the very assumption 
which he contends against The explanation of the recession in 
the action-nouns in -rw (-(rty) is I think as follows : The large mass 
of abstracts in the language are recessive or barytone : they are not 
accented upon the ultimate. So the three most prominent types : 
neuters in -o? (ytvos) ; neuters in -fia G(«^M«)i masculines in -o- (Xd^oy, 
<l>6pos). The inherited contrast between oxy tone nomina agentis and 
barytone nomina actionis (<t>op69 : <l>6poSf i^evd^y : ^fteudos) is kept alive 
and even extended beyond its old limits (ddXi^off 'a long race- 
course,' based upon do\ix6s = Zend daregka, Sk. dirghd * long,' 
Lat. largMSy in imitation oirp6xos : rpoxoi)* The forms in *-ti£ (*-<rty) 
can easily have followed the accentuation of these abstract types, 

* Nay even there is a vigorous tendency on the part of the accentual type of 
the uncompounded oxytones to encroach upon the recessive compounds, e. g. 
diafiETpTfTdg, napapptfT^Ci Karadinrrd^, avpt^eprdc, etc. ; see L. v. Schroeder, KZ. 
XXIV 122. For the difference in the function of the compounded oxytones 
and barytones see GOttling p. 313, Kahner I, p. 415. 

' Compare the foot-note on p. 6. 


and if the Greek language really brought with it from the common 
stock sporadic instances of paroxytones (/3a<nf = Sk. gdiis = 
Goth, gaqtimps ; cf. above, p. 29, note), these may have helped on 
that analogy. 

Still more peculiar is the use which Wheeler makes of the unim- 
paired etymological oxytonesis of several substantival types in 
order to prove his theory that dissyllabic forms are not recessive. 
So notably the verbals in -nSf. On page 27 we have a list of 
dissyllabic forms of that category : /Sordr : Sk. gaids ; iCKvtAs = Sk. 
gruids =:OHG. hlui and Anglo-Saxon hlud^ both according to 
Vemer*s law from Germanic hla^ds. But he nowhere tells us upon 
what ground he makes the undisturbed oxytonesis of these forms 
dependent upon their dissyllabic and dichronic character. Are there 
no trisyllabic verbal adjectives in -nS$ with the same claim to origi- 
nality as the dissyllabic ones ? The types ri/ia-n$f = Lat. amd-ttis ; 
4>offi)-r6s = Lat. dele-tus ; fuaB»-T6s ^^ Lat. a^^r^tus ; ft€V€'T6s, (tkcXc- 
T<5ff, €fm€'T6f = moni-tus, hadi-tus ; epa-rds (Jpa-a-roi) : Sk. arl-s 
'friendly' (?Fick); *datMi'T6s in addfiaro; = Sk. dami-tds ^z'L^X, 

domi-tus ; ycXa-cr-n}; : yfXd<i» (cf. yeXd'O-aai) ; Gr. tfit-rSs := Sk. 

vami'tds ^ Lat. vomi-ius ; further twa-rds ; MaK'T6s ; oyiy-rrfj ; 
altrBtf-rSs, dpi$firf-T6f ; ^ao-tXcv-rdr are either directly inherited from 
the Indo-European or are more or less modified * continuators ' of 
L E. types.* Their numerical representation is probably more 
extensive than that of the dissyllabic forms. He does not even 
employ the ordinary domestic remedial expedient — to which we all 
of us resort for good and for bad — of explaining the undisturbed 
oxytonesis of the polysyllabic forms as due to the analogy of the 
dissyllabic forms. He simply mentions, 78 pages later (p. 105), two 
polysyllabic verbals in -rds, dfut^trds and epards under his fifth 
division : * when the inherited accent lay nearer to the end of the 
word than the place of the secondary accent a vacillation took 
place, which was decided in favor of one or the other.' They 
appear here quite accidentally, as it it were, as representatives of 
those who chose to retain the old accent. Surely the undisturbed 
oxytonesis in all uncompounded verbals' is a definite property of 
the entire category, inherited from the common period, unaffected 

> Cf. now especially Karl Ferdinand Johansson, De Derivatis Verbis Con- 
tractis Linguae Graecae (Upsala Universitets Arsskrift, 1886}, pp. 96,97, 100. 

^ This oxytonesis makes inroads eyen upon the compounded forms : dtaficrprf' 
t6^, irapap})ffT6gf KaraOvrfrSiy av/u^prdCt etc. See Leopold ▼. Schroeder in KZ. 
XXIV 122, and note 2 on p. 30. 


by all later vicissitudes of Greek accentuation, whether we call 
them secondary, enclitic, or recessive accentuation. This oxy- 
tonesis is moreover no doubt to be considered along with the 
oxy tonesis of the very numerous active participles, e. g. iinv = Sk. 
sdn\\wv'=z?i)s,.ydn\ trra^; 6tls\ dow; o/>vw: Sk. Tnvdn\ Xiirov: Sk, 
ricdn ; XcXocTrcvr : Sk. ririkvi/hS'^ etc. This brings us to another 
even more serious manifestation of the same error. Wheeler, in 
deference to his theory, has divided artificially in his presentation 
the accentuation of just those oxytone active participles : palpably 
the most single in origin and treatment. On p. 38 we have the undis- 
turbed oxy tonesis of \tnuip=zricdn ; €k&v : ugdni- ; aroputs : strtyvdn ; 
l»v \ydnt\ cW : sdn ascribed to their dissyllabic character.* The 
perfect active participle appears again on page 105 (XcXoifl-«>r, 9rc<^€v- 
y«ff, ir€<l>vast etc. : Sk. ririkvifis, bubhujv&ns-^ babhuvans-^ etc.), as 
though there were no link which binds together the accentuation of 
the dissyllabic and trbyllabic types in their common functiopal 
properties. He ought to have been deterred from this error by his 
own statement (p. 67), that the old middle participles dr^a/ion; 
* cistern,* ^Idy^vii * lowland,* most capable of developing the * sec- 
ondary * accent, remain oxytone. All this is of one piece, and in 
my treatise these facts were presented in peculiarly strong relief: 
cf. especially Historical and Critical Remarks, p. 50 (30). 

For the same reason I cannot grant in any sense that examples 
based upon the undisturbed oxytonesis of dissyllabic adjectives 
in -fxJff prove that dissyllabic forms, as suck^ preserve the old 
accentuation. It is true that /*aicpoff =: OHG. magar \ (rfp6£ * dry * 
=zSk.k^drds 'caustic*; ^vp69 zn k^urds 'razor*; further, ^d/x^y 
X(/3por, cmc^pof, (ranp6£y etc., are oxytone and dissyllabic, but this 
fact is rendered pointless as far as the theory is concerned by 
Ufi6s, lapos = Sk. t^rds ; nu'f}6s = Sk. plva-rds ; epvBpos := Sk. 
rudhirds ; TaK€'p6?, iray€'p6f, <l>ap€'p6sf fua-p6s ; KaOa-pos = giihurds 

(Wheeler, p. 61), Ppia-p6s, ;i^oXa-p6f, <f>op€'p6s, nXoKt-poSf TpofjL€-p6s, 

it€vBt-p6ii irovri'p6sf ^ox^rj-po^j \iyv'p6sf and a large number of others ; 
cf. Johansson, loc cit. p. 97. 

Surely any consideration which puts these facts into any other 
light than that into which the verbals in -rvs are put above is mis- 

* The motive by which Wheeler is induced to account in this way for fonns 
like A<ff4>p, iK6vf aropvb^ escapes my comprehension. They are iambic forms, and 
according to his theory are capable of taking the secondary accent. They 
would belong along with Ae?^«jr<if, ite^vyitq^ ire^wf, etc., to his category V, 
aside from the criticism giyen above. The same difficulty I find below in the 
case of the agent-nouns in -r^p, -fif]v^ -ftov, etc. 


leading. These adjectives have preserved the original oxytonesis 
as a category^ and have — barring singular cases — come in no way 
under the influence of the * recessive ' accent, whatever this be. 
I cannot for my part comprehend at all why we find (p. 36) 
the nomina agentis in -riyp introduced in illustration of the first 
thesis. All the examples given on this very page go to disprove 
the theory : they are either iambic dissyllables, as doi^p, iroriyp, 

^cr^p, OTarfjpf Or Spondaic dissyllables, as doftr^p, {ievienjp, ytwarrfpf 

dfjtrrr^p. All these are forms which ought to have the * secondary * 
accent, and Wheeler's reason for cataloguing them on p. 36 rather 
than on p. 105 is obscure in the extreme (dpni^p occurs in both 
places). All of these examples, as also ywmip = Sk. jdni-iar, 
Lat. geni'tory akt^rjr^p : Sk. rak^ttdf, IXar^p, aXtiirnjp, x^P^'^Pf 

noforfipy TtvKT^pt irci<7Ti}p, ytvarrip and rcvr^p, etc. (cf. p. I05)» again 

simply exhibit an old oxytone category, left with its inherited 
accentuation undisturbed by the later vicissitudes of Greek accen- 
tuation. All of them ought to have the recessive accent in order 
to prove anything for the theory of a * secondary ' tone. 

I will continue no longer to point out perfectly parallel errors in 
the rest of the material arrayed in support of the first thesis. Pages 
13-38 are in my opinion honeycombed with erroneous presenta- 
tion : the essential difficulties I have pointed out thus far. It will 
not prove difficult to apply the same adverse criticism to the use 
which is made of masculines in 'fiqp and -pw on p. 36 : they are 
capable of taking the * secondary ' accent, and belong to category 
V ; to the treatment of the adjectives in -w on p. 32 (cf. iXaxvf on 
p. 105) ; of the nomina agentis in -o> on p. 29 (cf. doid<$r, ipot^g, 

dpwy6s, apopySfi etc.). 

Only one other point needs, I think, especial mention, as it 
involves a view, held as far as I know, universally and yet methinks 
incorrectly: It has been the custom up to date in comparative 
grammar to regard equations like KXefopzrSk. grdvas\ av6os=z 
Sk. dndhas ; KpiPa^ = Sk. krdvis ; piOv = Sk. mddhu ; y« wr = Sk. 
kdnus ; rippa = Sk. tdrman ; jSactr = Sk. gdtis = Goth, gaqtlmps ; 
5icp« =zSk. dqrUy etc, as expressions of accentual equality.* This 
may be regarded as true in so far as the acute on a short syllable 

* An attempt to cite all the literature in support of this statement would 
involve references to every author who has considered Greek accent from the 
day of Bopp^s Vergleichendes Accentuationssystem down to our own day. 
I will therefore merely refer to Bopp*s work, especially pp. 25-35 \ Bloomfield, 
Historical and Critical Remarks, p. 39 (19) ; Wheeler, p. 26 fg. ; Brugmann, 
Grundriss I, §676, 1. 


in historical times in Greek, the udatta on a short syllable in his- 
torical times in Sanskrit, and finally the I. E. acute (' cut tone ') on 
a short do not differ from another in quality, barring perhaps such 
difference as is involved in the question whether they represent 
chromatic or expiratory accentuation, or a combination of both. 
It is also true that the summit-tone has never been anywhere else 
in these types. And yet there is nothing to show that they do 
not after all really exhibit the recessive accentuation. It must be 
considered wrong from the point of view of any theory to regard 
the accent of finite verbal types like t^pav (II. 3. 245), an augment- 
less imperfect 3d plur., as preserving in reality the same accentu- 
ation as Vedic bhdran, I. E. bhiranij), in spite of the perfect 
coincidence externally. The form ^pov is recessive, for enclitic 
-e. *<f)€pov ; it coincides therefore with Vedic enclitic bharan. This 
example is typical for every finite verbal form consisting of a paroxy- 
tone pyrrhic dissyllable. What right have we to assume that it is 
otherwise in the corresponding types of the noun ? What right have 
we to regard the 'recessive' accent as suspended in xXc/or, etc., 
while finding it in full force in y^tZhost tVios^ Upe^ost etc., and in certain 
cases of the inflection of #cX«f or itself : K\€pe(^<r)ap, etc. ? I venture 
therefore to assert that these types also are in reality recessive. 
There is in fact nothing but the * recessive principle * to be found 
in all dissyllabic word-forms, aside from the retention of proethnic 
oxytonesis, and some special deflections in every direction, due no 
doubt every time to singular analogies between word and word, or 
words and words. 

If the preceding exp'osition is at all correct, then the barrier 
which Wheeler has erected about dissyllabic word-forms must be 
considered as broken. To begin with, there is no difference 
between category I and V, aside again from special deflections 
arising from individual analogical effects. I have shown above 
sufficiently that he pursues an artificial and misleading method 
when he categorizes dissyllabic forms with the suffixes tSs, 
'p6g, '6s, as well as monosyllabic and dissyllabic active parti- 
ciples, under thesis I, as not being able to retract their accent on 
account of their dissyllabic (or monosyllabic) character, while at 
the same time reporting in a different part of the book that poly- 
syllabic forms of the same categories likewise refuse to retract the 
accent. I would only add to the details given above that there is 
no indication in the language that the recessive forms in category 
V are even numerically better represented than in category I. 


There is no boundary line of any sort between nominal monosyl- 
lables, dissyllables and trisyllables any more than between finite 
verbal monosyllables, dissyllables and trisyllables : /Say, ^5, XtVci, 
ot&i, ^'p«, (jHpofuv, <^€p»ft€v. All these types are repeated in the 
noun, but they have not become an infallible rule there : they have 
absorbed some types, while sparing others in a measure. 

The third thesis contains material which is absolutely otiose. 
Formslike dwd€Ka:=Sk.dvadaga; i<l>BiTos=:Sk. dk§t^as ; cia*€poy=Sk. 
dntaram ; vorcpor = Sk. liitaras ; Voc. Bvyarep = Sk. diihitar] ow©- 
irow = Sk. a^tapdd, etc., prove nothing for any theory. Etymo- 
logical accentuation, enclitic accentuation (if that be true), or the 
assumed secondary accentuation, all meet on neutral ground. I 
would only add here a statement parallel to that made above (p. 33 
ig.^ in connection with words like xXeof, SvBosy Kpeas, fuBv, etc. : I see 
no reason for regarding the accentuation of the type represented 
by dwdcica, Hyrtpoy, etc, as anything else than recessive. The coin- 
cidence of the accent with that of I. E. duodekni^ interam. etc., is 
indeed merely a coincidence, as is shown by (vrtpov, emfxap, etc. 

We are thus left with those longer word-forms, in which the ety- 
mological accent lay so near the beginning of the word as to leave 
more than three moras (or four in trochaic polysyllables) unac- 
cented : ^Tfbuiv = Sk. svadiydn ; *<^€po/ievoff = Sk. thdramdrpas. As 
willing as I should be on ^priori grounds to admit the effects of 
a secondary accent in the apparent shift forward of the summit- 
tone in rfilfav and <ti€p6fjLtvos, I find myself constrained to judge that 
there is no more real evidence of its quondam existence in such 
cases than in any of the preceding, barring of course combinations 
consisting of an orthotone word plus an enclitic, where the second 
accent has always been characterized as * secondary.' In the first 
place it is to be considered that the terminus a quo from which the 
count of moras starts in this category is evidently the same as in 
the preceding categories : the final mora of the word. It seems 
therefore very unlikely that an essentially different principle was 
in operation here than in the preceding cases. It would be totally 
against the spirit of Wheeler's theory to accept this secondary accent 
as anything else than a phonetic law, pervading the entire material 
of the language ; cf. his remarks on p. 8 and 9, bottom. But we found 
the assumption of a secondary accent in the types vavs (Aeolic 
ZcvO and €ldo9 an impossible one: therefore it is also unlikely 
here. Secondly, the mode of manifestation of the secondary accent 
in the polysyllabic forms would be an extraordinary one. It strikes 


me that a sober definition of a secondary accent means that the 
utterance starting with the summit tone has a tendency to repetition 
of the stress or pitch at regular intervals, or bars from the primary 
accent, and it is difficult to see how the end of the word, already 
accented, can be introduced as the guide for the deposit of the 
secondary accent. If the I, E. word bhiramenos ^ Sk. thdramd- 
7^ developed a secondary accent upon the second syllable in 
Greek, so as to produce <t>€p6fi€vogt we ought to have the secondary 
accentuation in every case upon the syllable following the primary 
accent. Instead of this it appears two syllables from the primary 
accent in ayewt^eTos = Sk. dnaptkifas=zL E. nnepidh^tos\ three 
syllables in dpan&tTov = Sk. dnapihiiasya z= I. E. hnepidh9tosiOy etc. 
To put the case still more strongly by bringing an example of an 
enclitic finite verb, which inclines upon the preceding orthotone 
word : Is there any likelihood that the phonetic need which did 
not allow even one unaccented (grave) syllable to intervene 
between primary and secondary accentuation in *<j!»cp<$/xevoff = I. E. 
bh/romenoSy later <l>€p6fi€vos, would be content to allow four grave 
syllables to intervene in I. E. meghisthom bhoreiomedha = fityiarok 
<l}ope6fi€6a ? One asks further : If this accentuation has nothing to 
do with the history of the word as such (the reverse is assumed if 
we adopt the theory of enclisis), what right has one to disregard 
the grave syllables in the word following the one for which the 
accent is being determined ? To illustrate, why are the first two 
grave syllables of €\a<l>f}6p in such a sentence as fUyun-ov (f>op(6fi€Ba 
Orjfravpov left out of account in fixing the accent of <l>op«6fi€6a if this 
accent is not determined by the character of <l>op«6fi€Ba as a word, 
but by the number of unaccented syllables preceding and following? 
Wheeler's own words on p. 7 can be brought up against him : * In 
der Phonetik des Satzes sind aber die vier letzten Silben in Sk. 
Utik^dmahdi ebenso sehr enclitisch wie die Verbform in vfgvd ^kasya 
vinddas iiiik^ate^ RV. II 13. 3; die zwei letzten Silben in tfy^po- 
fi€$a sowol wie die zwei letzten in dem Lautcomplex &^po)- 
irovriya.' If this is merely a question of sentence-phonetics, in 
which the individuality of the word, which is maintained particu- 
larly by its word accent, is given up, we must consider any group 
of unaccented syllables in the same light, and the development of 
the secondary accent on the unaccented syllables of fu(ytaTov 
<f>op€Ofit$a &r)crav)p6v would yield one secondary tone on the syl- 
lable Ba of <f>op€OfuBa, a second one on the syllable c of <f>op€ofieBa, 
and a third one on the syllable roy of fuyKrroy in addition to the 


accents actually written. Cf. also the statement on p. 119 : ' Die 
Eintheilung des Satzes in Worter ist immer mehr oder weniger 
kiinstlich. Dieselbe miisste sich in jedem verschiedenen Satz 
je nach dem Character des betreffenden Wortes und seinen Ge- 
brauch in dem betreffenden Satze verschieden gestalten/ 

Further, he who puts the grave syllables in a single word 
upon the same level as the enclitic syllables in a combination 
of an orthotone word plus an enclitic, ^avciri^cror like M^wKovrunx^ 
ought to point out some reason why both of the accents in the 
latter type are retained (oy^/xMroi/riya), while one is given up in the 
former {av^LOrroi), In the nexus of the sentence there is no more 
reason for one than the other. And if one were to assume that 
the first accent of Mpwroimva is due to an analogical restoration 
after the single word ib^Bpumov, in other words that the falling aside 
of one accent in the early types *<^p<5/4€Wff, ^avemSeros, *awirid«Tow, 
etc., was due to a law according to which a single word could 
bear but one summit tone, he would still have to point out the 
reason why the first and original accent always succumbed in the 
struggle for existence ? I do not believe that this could be ac- 
counted for without calling in the aid of some external analogy. 
And that would necessarily be the analogy of the finite forms of 
the verb. 07te is absolutely driven to recognize the possibility thai 
the analogy of accentual types is capable of being extended with- 
out reference to the function of the words involved. I shall present 
this view more systematically below ^ and would submit and empha- 
size that accentual investigations which exclude this point of view 
will ever tend to violent and complicated assumptions^ such as shall 
carry their own refutation with them. 

I believe that nothing has as yet appeared which is calculated 
to weaken my theory that the recessive accentuation in Greek is a 
modification of a special Greek law of enclisis, which has spread 
from the finite verb until it has absorbed many quantitative word- 
types in general in the Pan-Hellenic speech and all in the Aeolic. 
After our renewed survey of the ground, and after having demon- 
strated the untenableness of Wheeler's theory, the feeling of 
security in entertaining the theory of enclisis must be enhanced 
materially. There is as far as can be seen no other vol <yT& for 
the recessive accent, and I shall endeavor to show below that such 
objections as have been advanced are either not well taken, or 
are to be set aside by modifications which do not affect the main 
current of the theory. I will for the sake of clearness state the 
theory point for point : 


1. The Greek language exhibits distinctly in its treatment of 
enclitics an aversion against a limitless enclisis. The normal 
restriction of this enclisis is executed by repeating the summit tone 
or by supplying with a secondary tone — the difference does not 
appear in writing — after a certain number of syllables, or rather 
moras, as in the following examples : <^iXovr(i^f, ivBpionos nr, av6pam6v 
Tiva, w6pia7r6s (^lyci, etc This secondary accentuation is therefore 
the syntactical property of a combination of two words y the first of 
which is accented in such a way that fnore than the permitted 
number of unaccented moras would follow. A single word of any 
number of syllables does not carry more than one accent unless 
followed by such an enclitic. There is no reason to believe that 
such a secondary accent develops independently from these syn- 
tactical conditions upon any number of grave syllables however . 
great : witness e. g. the interval of five grave syllables in such a 

combination as fityiarov drjfiayoyov. 

2. The finite verb in principal clauses was enclitic in I. E. times 
and is so in Greek, when the number of syllables in all the forms 
of a given paradigm does not exceed the legal number of moras. 
Such cases are preserved in the inflection of dfu and (l>rjfu. Elsewhere 
the enclisis of the finite verb is checked by the excess of moras in 
the word to be inclined. Wherever some word or words in a given 
paradigm exceed the number of syllables which are allowed to be 
inclined, the entire paradigm is orthotone : those forms which have 
three or more moras take the enclitic tone on the third or fourth 
mora from the end ; when a member of the paradigm does not 
contain so many moras it places the accent as near to the theo- 
retically correct place as possible, i. e. on the first mora of the 

word. Thus, ^dodrjcrSfifBat ^(j}€p6fi€$a, ^Spw<ri, ^oid€, -cXiVcr, ^P^jt 

^<l>€p€T<o ; ^<f>€p<Of ^arav make up a representative group of enclitic 
verbal types, some of which are identical with accentual types 
arising out of a combination of an orthotone word plus a full enclitic, 

e. g. ■^<l>ip6fi(6a I av&p(an6irnva ] ^Spyvo't I ^aKpdrrjs ris ', -^<^cp€ra> : irar^p 

fiovt ciudponros irov, etc., while Others seem not to have any parallel 
among the ordinary combinations of orthotone word plus a full 
enclitic. Cf. for this Chandler, §935 fg., Wheeler, pp. 119 fg.* 

' I would not, however, as Wheeler has done, go so far as to deny the 
originality of all combinations which do not coincide with the verbal law : to 
assume, e. g., that avdpuird^ ti^ and av6pum6v rivuv are combinations in which 
the position of the secondary accent is regulated by the analogy of ivOpumdv 
Tiva seems to me very unlikely. Indeed, I consider that the assemblage of 


3. The question as to the manner in which the enclitic accentu- 
ation passed from the verb to the noun has been surrounded with 
unwarrantable difficulties. I do not hesitate to retract my own 
surmise, that the I. E. enclisis of vocatives and their qualifying 
words in the middle of a sentence formed the bridge for the transfer 
of the enclitic accentuation from verb to noun.* We have no enclisis 
of vocatives reported in Greek at all (no cases of vocative enclisis 
as in fx\u. and <^i7fii)i and it is perhaps not unlikely that the treatment 
of the vocative in the middle of a clause became identical with 
its treatment at the beginning (with I. E. accent on the first mora) 
before the transition of the enclitic recessive accent from verb to 
noun took place. So that the vocatives probably were all orthotone 
before the extension of the verbal enclisis and its substitute, reces- 
sion, into the noun began. I believe that the transition from verb 
to noun took place by a kind of analogy, which must be supposed 
to be largely in operation in all the movements of accent. This 
differs from the kind of analogy ordinarily discussed, in substituting 
for the two terms form and function the two terms form and accent. 
I can make my meaning clear very easily. Supposing we have a 
number of long monosyllables consisting of consonant + long vowel 
+ consonant pronounced with rising- falling inflection ( A)> i. e. with 
circumflex accent. Let us designate this type by xdy. Let us 
suppose that by its side there exists a single instance of a long 
monosyllable consisting of consonant + long vowel + consonant 
with falling-rising inflection (V), i. e. with cut tone (acute) on the 
syllable. Let us designate this type by x&y. Will any one be 
found willing to doubt that this single case, no matter how great 
its functional distance from the type xay^ might be attracted by 
the latter so as to conform to them in inflection of voice, as well as 
in number, arrangement and quantity of its consonants and vowels ? 
We may call this — the term is not a new one — analogy of sound 
or phonic analogy (lautliche analogic). The principle involved 
in the single example is one without which the rapid permutations 
of accentuation will never be explained. Wheeler labors strenuously 
with the doctrine advocated in my essay, that change in accent 

cases given on pp. 125-132 teaches rather, that the verhai treatment of enclisis 
is but one of many other which are possible in the language^ so that the law of 
verbal enclisis is not even binding for all combinations of orthotone plus 
enclitic, much less for every bit of unaccented territory as in the forms ^ijdiuv 
and *dvc7r/5erof, which Wheeler operates with. Evidently we do not as yet 
understand all the minutiae of Greek sentence-accentuation. 

^ Cf. Historical and Critical Remarks, 62 (42) ; Wheeler, p. 7, 49. 


can only be due to regular phonetic change or analogy. But the 
possibility of this kind of analogy does not seem to suggest itself 
to him. What straits and improbable assumptions he is led to by 
operating only with functional analogy we saw best above in his 
explanation of the completed Aeolic recession. Instead of grant- 
ing that phonic types equal in the number and arrangement of 
their consonants, equal in the number arrangement and quantity of 
their vowels, but differing in their accentuation, would tend to extend 
the similarity by allowing the accent of the lesis numerous instances 
(or for that matter even the more numerous instances) to follow that 
of the prevailing ones, he prefers the assumption that all the thous- 
andfold instances of recession in the Aeolic, over and above the 
Pan- Hellenic, were due to assimilation within the paradigm. But 
be cannot tell us what mysterious force always drove the simple 
paradigmatic assimilation into the arms of that kind of analogy 
which wound up with the accent either on the third (fourth) mora 
from the end, or as near to it as the number of moras contained 
in the word would allow. 

Accordingly I fail to see any other possibility of explaining the 
circumflexed trochaic dissyllables (type c: w, ocdf, ctS^or, roxtro^ d€vpo)y 
a type which is Pan- Hellenic, without any exception worth remark- 
ing ; cf. above, p. 24. If we assume that it belonged originally to 
finite verbal representatives of the type, due to recession, we have the 
only explanation with a genuine historical background which has 
been advanced since the days of the Misteli-Hadley theory. It would 
be interesting but unessential to see statistics as to the relative 
frequency of the verbal and non-verbal forms. I do not venture 
to assert which would turn out more numerous. In the same 
manner all the various enclitic verbal types of more than three 
syllables which exhibit the accent upon the antepenult when the 
ultima is short (<^op€Ofi€y, <^pca>/x€v, <f>op€6fi€0a) must have proved a 
phonetic type of such prevalence and attractiveness that all other 
accentuation before the antepenult was given up for it All the 
various verbal types of more than two syllables, which exhibit the 
accent upon the penult when the ultima is long (^op«o>, c^oped/xi/y, 
etc.) in the same way attracted to themselves the non-verbal types 
corresponding. We cannot escape the assumption of purely 
phonic analogy in this question, and though this kind of transfer 
seems to call forth our sympathy less readily, though the motive 
at the bottom of it is less easily apprehended than in the kind of 
analogy in which form is influenced by similarity of function, it is 


undoubtedly at work in the development of accentual systems. 
We may add of course that many nouns had the etymological accent 
upon the same place as the corresponding phonic verbal types, 
and this may have helped the process of transfer. All the words 
assembled in Wheeler's third category (p. 56 {%^ are of this sort 
This transfer of the enclitic and recessive accentuation to the noun, 
etc., has been so complete that only a few phonetic types have 
resisted it. They are ^ Our, z*vff), w C (fiaros, Bpavvi) ; ^ w w 

(<^tXi;rJff, y€V€rrjpy lapog) ] ^ ^ ^ (^Kvv&if, irorafuliv, 'ic^/ioi, rifirjs ', Hanssen 
KZ. XXVII 614) f \j ^ \j (6fjLoioSf ycXoior, cp^/ior, rroi/xof : Bloom- 

field, p. 41 [21] ; Wheeler, p. 113). A few old polysyllabic paroxy- 
tones may also be mentioned : icmk, €2dcVat : Ved. davdne \ dicromovt : 
Ved. a^apad' ; ytvtaBai : Ved. gamddhydi^ etc., although in the 
last two cases the paroxytonesis is identical with the 'recessive' 

But of these also the majority have made the resistance only in 
part, and the question as to whether a given form gives up its 
etymological accentuation is a matter which is usually determined 
by the category to which it belongs. It is not a question of the 
number of moras or syllables of which the word consists. It is 
one of the gravest errors of Wheeler's presentation that he gave 
to this fact a different coloring. Dissyllabic, trisyllabic, and pardy 
even quadrisyllabic (compounded) verbal adjectives in -ri^ ; adjec- 
tives in -poff and -vr ; monosyllabic, dissyllabic, and trisyllabic active 
participles («Sv, Xiyrov, n-c^v^O) etc., are oxytone throughout the 
language. On the other hand, dissyllabic and trisyllabic nouns in 
Tiff (-<riff), or the ordinals in fw-, fo- (Igdo/Aop, SydoPos : Ved. sapfamd-, 
a^iamd-), etc., are recessive. The cause of the transfer, while no 
doubt many times based upon some attraction within the language 
(cf. the explanation of the recessive accent of the abstracts in -tls 
above, p. 30), is in most cases simply a tribute to the more preva- 
lent accentual types, as n-cXcxv^ ^ Ved. paragds ; nokis =ipur^, 

and many others. 

Maurice Bloomfield. 

Baltimoeb, March, 1888. 


Die Herkunft der ^raterita festzustellen hat fur die historische 
Grammatik der germanischen Sprachen ein besonderes Interesse, 
da auf die Bildung des Prateritums sich die iibliche Unterschei- 
dung einer starken und einer schwachen Conjugation stiitzt. 
tiher den Ursprung des '' starken *' Prateritums ist man langst im 
Klaren; man weiss, dass es die regelmassige Fortsetzung des 
activen Perfects der arischen Ursprache bildet. Wie das 
"schwache'' Prateritum entstanden sei, ist noch immer eine offene 

Man nahm fraher an, das schwache Prateritum beruhe auf einer 
Zusammensetzung des Verbalstammes mit der altarischen Wurzel 
Me (oder wie man sie friiher ansetzte, dka) " tun." Diese Com- 
positionstheorie ist allmahlich aufgegeben, seit Wilhelm Bege- 
mann in seinen beiden Schriften "Das schwache Prateritum der 
germanischen Sprachen" (Berlin 1873) und "Zur Bedeutung 
des schwachen Piateritums der germanischen Sprachen" (ebd. 
1874) nachgewiesen hat, dass Bildungen wie mah-ia, kun-pa, 
nns-sa u. s. w. einerseits und nast-da, habai-da^fullno'da andrerseits 
in ihrer Ableitungssilbe urspriinglich nicht, wie die altere Theorie 
annahm, ein dh^ sondern ebenso wie die zugehorigen Participia 
(z. B. got. mah-t'S neben mah-ta) ein / enthielten. Seine mit 
Scharfsinn und Sachkenntnis begriindete Aufstellung wurde zwar 
zunachst von fast alien, die sich dariiber ausserten, abgelehnt. 
Aber sie ist zu Ehren gekommen, seit Windisch in den Kuhnschen 
Beitmgen zur vergl. Sprachforschung 8 (1876) S. 456 ff. und 
Moller in Kolbings Englischen Studien 3 (1880) S. 160 ff. — ersterer 
teilweise, letzterer ganz — ^ihr beigetreten sind.* 

^ Diesem Aufsatze liegt ein Vortrag zu Gninde, den ich auf der Versamm- 
lung der Modern Language Association of America zu Philadelphia am 30. 
December v. J. hielt. 

^ Freilich hatseitdem Paul in seinen und Braunes Beitrfigen 7 (1880) S. 136 ff. 
noch einmal den Versuch gemacht, die Annahme, dem Dental des Prateritums 
liege ursprUngl. dh zu Grunde, zu retten. Doch sind seine Einwendungen 
gegen die neuere Ansicht von M6ller ebd. S. 457 ff. {^* Kuw^a und das t- 
Prateritum '*) widerlegt. 


Mit der Erkenntnis aber, dass der Charakter des schwachen 
Prateritums urspriinglich eine dentale Tenuis war, ist das Problem 
dieses Prateritums noch nicht gelost, sondern es ist erst der Anfang 
zur Losung gemacht Es gilt weiter dariiber ins Klare zu kom- 
men, woher jener Tempuscharakter stammt* und worauf die 
auffallende Ahnlichkeit in der Bildung des schwachen Prateritums 
und des schwachen Participiums beruht. 

Begemann war der Meinung, der Zusammenhang zwischen bei- 
den Bildungen sei kein bios ausserlicher oder formeller, sondern 
es bestehe zwischen ihnen eine innere Beziehung (Prat. S. loo). 
Er bemtiht sich nachzuweisen, das Prateritum sei so zu sagen ein 
conjugiertes Participium, Ich glaube nicht, dass einer der Gelehr- 
ten, die Begemann in der vorhin erwahnten Ansicht beistimmen, 
geneigt ware, diesen Teil seiner Theorie mit derselben Entschie- 
denheit zu- vertreten wie jenen. Ja ich mochte glauben, dass eben 
deshaib, well bei Begemann die eine Aufstellung mit der anderen 
Hand in Hand geht, seine Theorie so lange Zeit gebraucht hat, 
sich in so weit, als sie begriindet ist, allgemeine Anerkennung zu 
erringen. Man darf zwar gegen B. nicht einwenden, dass aus 
einem passiven Participium kein actives Prateritum entstehen konne. 
B. hat in seiner zweiten Schrift gezeigt, dass dies moglich ist und 
seine Erorterungen Uber den Wechsel activer (transitiver) und 
medio-passiver (intransiliver) Bedeutung sind sehr lesenswert. 
Aber seine Beweisf iihrung lasst eine Liicke an der entscheidenden 
Stelle, nam] ich da, wo es sich um den Nachweis handelt, das 
schwache Prateritum der germanischen Sprachen sei auf solche 
Weise aus dem Participium entstanden. Es geniigt nicht, sich 
hierfar dara\if zu berufen, dass die Stammesstufe und der Anlaut 
des Suffixes in beiden Bildungen identisch sei. Auch Te-ray-ftai 
und re-ra/c-rai stimmen im Stamme und im Suffixanlaute zu rc-roy- 
/i€vo-t und ranrro'i^ aber trotzdem ist das griechische Perfect nicht 
nachtraglich aus alten Participialstammen erwachsen. 

Man hat andrerseits daran gedacht, den Tempuscharakter der 

^ Dieselbe Frage kehrt wieder beim irischen /-PrSteritum. Ich gehe auf 
letzteres hier nicht weiter eio, da mir ein historischer Zusammenhang zwischen 
diesem und dem gennanischen /-Prateritum nicht zu bestehen scheint und fllr 
die speciellen Verhaltnisse, welche beim germanischen schwachen Prilteritum 
vorliegen, aus dem Irischen kaum etwas zu gewinnen ist. Es genflge hervor- 
zuheben, dass wenn John Strachan in Bezzenb. Beitr. 13 S. 128 flf. Recht hat, 
das i des keltischen Prateritums wenigstens principiell in fthnlicher Weise 
aufzufassen ist, wie ich weiter unten den Dental des germanischen Prateritums 
zu erklaren versuchen werde. 


schwachen Praterita mit dem " Wurzeldeterminativ " / in Zusam- 
xnenhang zu bringen. Aber damit erhalten wir mehr einen blossen 
Namen als eine Erklarung. Zudem vergleicht sich dem sogen. 
" Wurzeldeterminativ " von Verben wie icpwr-r-o), ^V-t-«, dfiap-r-avtt, 
pleC't'O am nachsten der Dental in Verben wie got. al-^-an^ stan- 
d-an^ ohA.Jleht'an, Diese Verba aber bilden ein starkes Prateri- 
tum : got. aial^f siop, ahd. ^ahi, und wahren den Dental in ihrer 
Flexion durchweg. Schwerlich also diirfen wir gerade von ihnen 
Aufschluss liber den Charakter des schwachen Prateritums erwarten. 
Neuerdings pflegt die Frage nach dem Ursprunge der dentalen 
Tenuis des schw. Prat. zurQckzutreten hinter dem Bemahen, 
die Flexionsendungen zu begreifen. Man geht dabei allgemein 
von der Voraussetzung aus, die ja auch zunachst die natiirlichste 
zu seinscheint, dass in den schwachen Praterita alte Imperfecte oder 
Aoriste zu suchen seien.' Es wird, glaube ich, niemand behaupten 
woUen, dass die Versuche, die Endungen des Prateritums von 
diesem Standpunkte aus zu erklaren, besonders uberzeugend aus- 
gefallen sind. Statt auf sie im Einzelnen weitereinzugehen,mache 
ich im Folgenden den Versuch, von anderen Gesichtspunkten aus 
zugleich den Dental und die Endungen zu erklaren. 

Die Endungen des schwachen Prateritums zerfallen deutlich in 
zwei Gruppen. Sie stimmen im Dual und Plural des Indicativs 
sowie im Optativ uberein mit den Endungen des starken Prateri* 
tums, so dass sich die Flexion der schwachen Verba hier nur durch 
den vor den Endungen stehenden " Tempuscharakter " (im Goti- 
schen ausserdem durch den Zusatz' -id- hinter dem Tempuscha- 
rakter, also z. B. kun-p-ed-untt w'ahrend die ubrigen germanischen 
Sprachen einfach auf kun^p-um weisen) von derjenigen der starken 
Verba scheidet. Eigenartig aber sind die Endungen des schwachen 
Prateritums im Singular des Indicativs : got. nasi-da^ nasi-des^ 
nasi-da gegen nam^ nam-f, nam im starken Prateritum. Diese 
Tatsache lasst kaum eine andere Erklarung zu, als die, dass die 
alte Flexion des schwachen Prateritums im Singular des Indicativs 
erhalten, im ubrigen aber nach dem Muster der starken Praterita, 

' So Moller a. a. O., K6gel in der [mir hier nicht zug&nglichen] Zeitschr. 
f. d. Gymnasialwesen 34 S. 407, Kluge in Paul u. Braunes Beitr. 9 S. 155, 
Sievers ebd. S. 561, Bremer ebd. 11 S. 34. 

' Ich bitte diesen Ausdruck als eine rein ausserliche Beschreibung anzusehen. 
Er soil nicht etwa besagen, dass im Gotischen die Silbe -id- ein '* Infix " sei. 
Die Herkunft des -ed- bleibt einstweilen ein ungel6stes RStsel. 


d. h. des alten Perfects umgestaltet ist. Denn der arischen Ursprache 
dtirfen wir diese eigentumliche Combination der " schwachen " 
Endungen des Indicativs im Singular mit starken Perfeclendungen 
ausserhalb dieser Sphare nicht zutrauen. Beruht sie aber auf 
einer germanischen Neubildung, so werden wir nicht annehmen 
diirfen, drei eigenartige Singularformen seien, so zu sagen, auf 
eine Flexion gepfropft, in welcher den starken Perfectendungen 
ein / voraufging. Hatte der Singular des schw. Prat, einmal die 
Flexion des starken Perfects geteilt, so hatte man sie dort wol nicht 
wieder aufgegeben. Zudem ware die Herkunft sowol jener drei 
Singularformen wie des / ausserhalb dieser Formen unverstandlich. 
Es bleibt nur iibrig, die drei Personen des Singulars als den Kern 
der alten Bildung zu fassen, den Rest des Indicativs und den 
Optativ dagegen als Neuerungen anzusehen, bei denen man sich 
von einem gelaufigen Flexionsschema leiten liess. Von diesem 
Gesichtspunkte aus gewinnt das Problem des schwachen -Prateri- 
tums eine einfachere Gestalt. Es reduciert sich auf die Frage : 
wie sind die Singularformen des Indicativs dieser Bildung zu 
erklaren ? 

Ich habe die Singularformen des dentalen Prateritums eigenartig 
genannt. Das sind sie allerdings innerhalb des Activs. Ein 
anderes Aussehen aber gewinnt die Sache, wenn wir das Passiv 
mit heranziehen. Die Endungen der i. und 3. Singularis des 
schwachen Prateritums einschliesslich des " Tempuscharakters " 
haben im Gotischen ihr genaues Gegenbild in den mediopassiven 
Endungen des Prasens : -da (z. B. soki-dd) bei beiden Personen 
im Prateritum, -da (z. B. sokja-dd) bei beiden Personen im Prasens 
Passivi. Das -d- der Endung -da im Passiv geht auf ursprach- 
liches t zurUck, ebenso der Tempuscharakter des Prateritums. 
Die Ubereinstimmung ist in beiden Beziehungen so auffallig, dass 
ich mich wundere, weshalb noch niemand daran gedacht hat, sie 
naher ins Auge zu fassen. Liegt hier ein zufalliges Zusammen- 
treffen vor ? Oder haben wir in den Singularendungen des Prate- 
ritums wirklich alte Medialendungen zu suchen ? 

Wir konnen in der Geschichte der arischen Sprachen mehrfach 
beobachten, wie alte Medialformen in die Flexion des Activums 
hineingenommen werden, zumal in Sprachen, welche sich des aus 
der Ursprache ererbten Mediums allmahlich entledigen. 

Auf dem Gebiete des Germanischen selbst hat Bopp Vergl. 
Gramm. IP 254 Imperativformen wie got. aisteigadaUy lausjadau, 
liugandau fur Medialformen erklart (vgl. Scherer ZGDS. 199 = 


Mehrfach begegnen wir Medialformen innerhalb des Activs in 
den baltischen und slavischen Spracheu. Asl. vid& ist nach Miklo- 
sich (Formenlehre d. altsl. Sprache 2. Ausg., 1854, §252)' eine 
Medialform. Im Anschlusse daran hat Bopp (Vgl. Gr. IP 382 f.) 
die asl. Aoristendungen tU (2. 3. Sing.) und ntii (3. Plur.) dem 
Medium zugewiesen. Scherer ZGDS. 226 = • 345 fiigt das mu der 
I. Sing, des asl. Aoristes und das altpr. -aixn Formen wie asmai^ 
assai hinzu. " Diese Medialformen," sagt er, ** fristeten als unver- 
standene Nebenformen in der spateren Sprache ihr Dasein.^' 
Damit beriihrt sich die Annahme Hanssens KZ. 27, 615, altpr. 
assai gehe mit lit. esl und asl. jesi auf eine Grundform *esat 
zurQck, deren Endung der von got. kilpa-za und griech. *<l}aiv€-<Tai 
entspreche. Und so wird man iiberhaupt die Verbalendungen asl. 
'Si und lit. -/ der 2. Sing. (lit. -t zunachst aus -e entstanden, das im 
Reflexivum, z. B. suki-s gegen suk)^ erhalten ist, vgl. Bezzenberger 
Z. Gesch. d. lit. Spr. S. 194) dem Medium zuweisen diirfen. 

Das Altirische hat die alten Medialformen durch eine Neubildung 
mit dem Charakter r ersetzt, wahrt jedoch z. B. im Prasens secun- 
darium Reste des alten Mediums in activer Bedeutung.' 

Besonders nahe liegt es in unserem Falle, das lateinische Per- 
fectum zum Vergleiche heranzuziehen. 

" Das lateinische reduplicierte Perfect," sagt Fick in den Gottin- 
ger Gel. Anz. 1883 S. 586 f., " ist urspriinglich Perfect des Mediums 
und hat diesen seinen medialen Charakter erst eingebiisst, als 
iiberhaupt das alte Medium in seiner vom Activ geschiedenen 
Bedeutung unterging und durch ein neues Medium (Deponens) 

^ Miklosich hat diese Ansicht, die sich mehr und mehr als richtig heraus- 
stellt (vgl. z. B. Bopp und Scherer an den im Texte sogleich anzufuhrenden 
Stellen, sowie Osthoif Perf. S. 191) spater wieder aufgegeben. Wenigstens 
bezeichnet er in der 2. Aufl. seiner Vergl. Gramm. d. slav. Spr. (Bd. 3 S. 125) 
die Form vidi als ratselhaft. 

' Dies hat Stokes in Kuhns Beitr. z. Vergl. Sprachf. 7 S. 6 angenommen und 
ich glaube, man darf eher mit ihm an mediale Secundflrendungen als mit 
Windisch KZ. 27, 163 an das altarische Prasens Medii denken. Vielleicht sind 
die alten medialen Primarendungen im irischen Verbalsystem an einer anderen 
Stelle erhalten. Der Unterschied zwischen absoluter und conjuncter Flexion 
im Irischen hat ursprtlnglich nichts mit dem Fehlen oder Vorhandensein einer 
Verbalpartikel zu tun,sondern ist, wenn ich recht sehe^so zu erklaren, dass die 
absolute Flexion das alte Medium, die conjuncte das alte Activum fortsetzt. 
Es ist mir zur Zeit nicht m{)glich, diesen Gesichtspunkt weiter zu verfolgen 
und ich m5chte also meine Aufstellung nur als eine aufgeworfene Frage 
betrachtet wissen, die zu beantworten vielleicht ein anderer in der Lage ist. 


ersetzt wurde. Fick identificiert dann lat. dedi mit altind. dadi^ 
sieti mit altind. tcLsihe u. s. w/ 

1 Dieselbe Theorie hat bald darauf auch Osthoff, Zur Gesch. d. Perf. (1884) 

S. 191 ff. vorgetragen, und zwar, wie er S. 609 bemerkt, unabh&ngig von Fick. 

Osthoff citiert auch einen — mir hier nicht zug&nglichen — Aufsatz von Speijer 

in den M/rn, de la soc, de ling. 5 S. 185 ff., in 'welchem das -i des lat. Perfects 

auf gleiche Weise erklart wird. Man darf darin, dass derselbe Gedanke von 

drei Seiten unabh&ngig ausgesprochen ist, einegewisse Butgschaft dafttr sehen, 

dass er das Richtige trifft. — Es mag in diesem Zusammenhange auch Ficks 

Hypothese des lateinischen z^-Perfectums (a. a. O. S. 594 f.) erw&hnt werden, 

wonach das v in Formen wie/Zifv-f, gndv-l identisch ist mit dem u in altind. 

pa-prau^ja-jhau, Andrer Ansicht sind Osthoff Perf. S. 250 ff. und Stolz in Iw. 

MiiUers Handbuch d. klass. Altertumswiss. a S. 231, die es vorziehen das v^ 

Perfect als relativ spate Analogiebildung nach gewissen M-Wurzeln zu fassen, 

ohne einen begrUndeten Einwand gegen Ficks Ansicht vorzubringen ; sowie 

andrerseits G. Curtius in den Berichten d. S&chs. Ges. d. Wiss., Pl^l.-hist. CI. 

1886 S. 421 ff. und W. Schulze in Kuhns Ztschr. 28 S. 266 ff., die (las v- Perfect 

auf einem Umvrege aus dem alten Perfectparticipium herleiten> ohne Ficks 

einfacherer Theorie Uberhaupt zu gedenken. Trifft Ficks ErklSning, woran 

ich nicht zweifle, das Richtige, so ist auch beim lateinischen v-Perfect der 

** Tempuscharakter '* aus einem Bestandteile der Personalendung erwachsen. 

Man gestatte dazu noch eine weitere Bemerkung. Im Altindischen (d. h. in 

den Veden) lautet die 3. Sing. Perfecti von Stammen auf -a (wie ddy pra^ u. sL) 

gewOhnlich in Obereinstimmung mit dem klassischen Sanskrit auf -aM aus (also 

daddUy papr&ti)^ daneben aber begegnet vereinzelt der speciell vedische Ausgang 

'd {papf^ RV. I 69. ^Jaht RV. VIII 45, 37 nach DelbrUck Altind. Verb. S. 59). 

Also ein Schwanken zwischen -du und -<S, ohne Unterschied der Bedeutung, 

ebenso wie im Dual [dv&u neben dv&^ etc.). Wir haben nun Uber die Dual- 

formen endlich durch einen vorzUglichen Aufsatz Meringers RZ. 28 S. 217 ff. 

die lange ersehnte Auf klarung erhalten. Der Wechsel zwischen -du (-dv) und 

d gehOrt, wie M. bewiesen hat, unter die Sandhierscheinungen. Die erstere 

Endung ist die liltere ; sie hat in der Ursprache sich vor Vocalen erhalten. 

Vor Consonanten ist aus ihr die zweite Endung durch Ausdr&ngung des -v 

entstanden. Den Wechsel zwischen -du und -d im Perfect ebenso zu beur- 

teilen scheint mir so nahe liegend, dass ich es kaum fUr ndtig halten wttrde, 

dies ausdrUcklich hervorzuheben, wenn ich nicht sahe, dass Meringer S. 218 

Anm. sagt, im Rigveda sei das du des Duals von dem des Perfects verschieden 

und dass Brugmann Grundriss S. 490 f. zwar geneigt ist, die Meringersche 

Erklarung auf Locative wie agndu neben agnd auszudehnen, aber die Perfect- 

formen bei Seite lasst. Die Verschiedenheit, welche Meringer zwischen der 

Behandlung des Duals und des Perfects im Rigveda findet, erklart sich leicht, 

wenn man annimmt, dass die Ausgleichung der beiden Formen im Perfect eher 

erfolgt ist, als im Dual ; so dass wir die Entwickelung, welche im klassischen 

Sanskrit abgeschlossen erscheint, in den Veden beim Perfect weniger deutlich 

verfolgen k()nnen, als beim Dual. Der Grand, weshalb die Ausgleichung in 

dem einen Falle eher erfolgte als im anderen ist offenbar der, dass die Perfect- 


Also der Annahme, dass Medialendungen in die Flexion des 
Activs eingedrungen seien, steht an sich kein Bedenken entgegen 
und wir diirfen der im Gotischen so auflalligen Ubereinstimmung 
der Endung -da in der i. und 3. Sing, des schwachen Prateritums 
mit den gleichlautenden Endungen des PrSsens im Passiv weiter 

Vergleichen wir die Endungen des griechischen Verbalsystemes. 
Der auslautende Vocal der i.und 3, Sing, ist im Activ iiberall ver- 
schieden : <^fMo gegen ^^pct, ?dei(a gegen ?d«t£f u. s. w. Im Medio- 
passiv aber stimmt Taaro-o-fi-ai im Auslaute zu Tdaa-tT-ai im Prasens 
und demselben -at begegnen wir in der i. und 3. Sing, des medialen 
Perfects und Futurs. Dem mediopassiven Prasens des Griechi- 
schen entspricht, wie man weiss, das gotische Passiv ; das Futurum 
ist im Germanischen verloren gegangen. Es bleibt also unter den 
griechischen Verbalformen zur Ankniipfung fur die Endungen 
des " schwachen " Prateritums, nur das mediate Perfect ubrig. Und 
das wiirde ja, wie man sogleich sieht, gut zu der Tatsache stim- 
men, dass das germanische "starke" Prateritum mit dem grie- 
chischen activen Perfect identisch ist. 

Die Erwagungen, welche wir bis jetzt angestellt und die Paral- 
lelen, welche wir zwischen den Endungen des schwachen Prateri- 
tums und mediopassiven Endungen im Gotischen und Griechi- 
schen gezogen haben, soil ten mehr dazu dienen, uns auf den rich- 
ligen Weg zu fiihren, als zu beweisen, dass wir uns auf dem 
richtigen Wege befinden. Diesen Beweis wollen wir nunmehr 
zu fiihren versuchen. 

Unsere Auffassung schliesst die Annahme ein, dass bei dem 
alten medialen Perfect im Germanischen die mediale Bedeutung 
allmahlich hinter der perfectischen zuriickgetreten ist, oder mit 
anderen Worten, dass diese Bildung allmahlich gegen den Genus- 
unterschied (den Unterschied des Mediopassivum vom Activum) 

formen seltener waren. Aus dem Sammlungen von Avery JAOS. 10 S. 250 
und Lanman ebd. S. 340 ff. ergibt sich fUr den RV. folgendes Verhiiltnis : 

a im Dual: 1129 dim Perfect: 2 

du '* 171 du " 45 

1300 47 

d. h. eine Perfectform kommt auf etwa 27 Dualformen. Dass der Analogie und 
dem Streben nach Vereinfachung die in der Sprache seltener gebrauchten 
Formen am leichtesten unterliegen hat bereits Schleicher Die deutsche 
Sprache S. 61 bemerkt. 


indifferent wurde und man an ihr mehr das temporale Element, 
die prateritale Bedeutung, als wesentlich emp&nd. Dieser Vor- 
gang steht in Einklang mit der bekannten Tatsache, dass der 
Unterschied zwischen activer und passiver Function im Germani- 
schen teilweise in die alten Activformen verlegt ist, wo er sich an 
verschiedene, zun'achst zur Bildung des Prasensstammes dienende 
Suffixe kniipft. Z. B. full-na " ich werde erfUllt " ist trotz seiner 
activen Flexion das Passiv zu full-ja ** ich erfiille," fra-ltLS-na 
" gehe verloren " zu fra-lius-a " verliere," dis-skrii-na " werde 
zerrissen " oder " zerreisse " (intransitiv) zu dis-skreii-a " zerreisse " 
(transitiv) u. s. w. Uberhaupt ersetzen die Verba auf -«a-« bis zu 
einem gewissen Grade die Kategorie des Mediopassivs. So hat 
denn auch das schw. Prateritum dieser Verba passive Bedeutung 
z. B. gahailnoda sa ptumagus IdBrf 6 ircus Matth. 8, 13 ; tis/ulinoda 
fafa gameUdo ivKqp^ fj ypaxfo) Mk. 15, 28 u. s. w. Also wir nehmen 
im Germanischen eine wesentliche Verschiebungdes urspriinglichen 
Verhaltnisses zwischen Form und Bedeutung beim Ausdrucke der 
*' Genera ** wahr. Zur Charakterisierung des Mediopassivs dienen 
zwar teilweise — namlich beim passiven Prasens des Gotischen — 
noch die alten Medialendungen. Daneben aber ubernehmen 
gewisse Stammbildungssuf&xe intransitiv-passive Function, so dass 
ein Teil derjenigen Formen, welche urspriinglich Tempus und 
mediales Genus gleichzeitig zum Ausdrucke brachten, nunmehr 
fur die Verwendung in rein temporalem Sinne frei werden.'* 

Eine solche Ausgleichung und Mischung alter Medialformen 
mit dem Activum war dadurch erleichtert, dass jene ihrer Bedeu- 
tung nach von vorn herein dem Activ vielfach sehr nahe standen. 
Finden wir doch schon in den beiden Sprachen, die das alte arische 
Medium am getreuesten gewahrt haben, im Altindischen und 
Griechischen, active und mediale Flexion vielfach ohne Unterschied 
der Bedeutung neben einander, namentlich bei verschiedener Stamm- 
bildung; z, 6. altind. j/'-^a^-/« neben sdca-te (z^arerai, sequitur) 
" er folgt " ; vidd-t und viv^d-a ** fand, erlangte " neben vivid'i\ 
hdtaram agnim ni^edur " sie setzten den Agni als Priester ein " 

* Ahnlich wird man sich die Sache bei der oben erwahnten OberfUhrung 
des activen Perfects in eine aus activen und medialen Elementen gemischte 
Flexion im Lateinischen zu denken haben. Man empfand offenbar auch dort 
in den medialen f-Endungen vorwiegend die temporale Function, wfthrend 
nmgekehrt die Bedeutung des Mediopassivs ohne temporalen Sinn sich auf die 
r-Endungen concentrierte und deren Gebiet fiber seine ursprUnglichen Grenzen 
hinaus erweiterte. 


RV. IV 6, II neben gleichbedeutendem tdm (d. i. agnitn) hdtdram 
ni ^edtre RV. IV 7, 5 ; griech. yiyvAo-a-ic-a) neben yya-tro-iuu ; €^fu 

neben ta-o-fuu ; /3a-iy-« und ?/3i;-y neben firfao'fuu ; fro-<r;^-«, throB^oPf 
w*wovO-a neben w€i'(ro'fuii *, ^y^-crjc-tt, tBcarov^ T€'$VT)-Ka neben BaiT'ov'fuu 

u. s. w. Diese wenigen Beispiele liessen sich leicht zu einem 
langen Verzeichnisse vermehren. Man beachte dabei namendich, 
dass im Griechischen mehrlach sich ein mediales Futurum neben 
sonsdgen Activformen festsetzt, wie wir fiirs Germanische ein 
Eindringen des medialen Perfects in die Flexion des Activs 

So viel iiber den Bedeutungswandel. Hiernach wird zu zeigen 
sein, dass die Form der schwachen Praterita sich der Herleitung 
aus dem medialen Perfect fiigt Es handdt sich um dreierlei : die 
Stammesstufe, dep Accent, die Endungen. 

Der erste Punkt kann kurz erledigt werden. Der Verbalstamm 
hat im dentalen Piateritum diesdbe Gestalt, wie im dentalen Parti- 
cipium, bei den abgeleiteten Verben sowohl wie bei den Praterito- 
Prasentia. Das heisst: die Endungen des dentalen Prateritums 
treten, wie das Suffix des Pardcipiums, an den " allgemeinen " 
Stamm (im Gegensatz zum Prasensstamme), und zwar, falls der* 
selbe mehrfacher Abstufung fahig bt (wie bei den meisten Praterito- 
Prasentia), an die " schwachste ** Form. Das stimmt genau zu der 
Bildung des alten medialen Perfects, wie es namentlich im Altin- 
discheh und Griechischen erhalten ist 

Damit hangt eng die Accentuadon zukunmen, denn eben auf 
ihr beruht ja die Gestalt des Stammes. Wenn der Dental des 
schwachen Prateritums auf arisches /zuriickgeht, so muss dasselbe 
den Accent auf den Endungen gehabt haben, da nur unter dieser 
Voraussetzung sich das germanische ^(bezw. iSi) nach dem Verner- 
schen Gesetze erklart. Das mediale Perfect aber tragt im Altin- 
dischen, dessen Accentuation deijenigen der Ursprache am 
nachsten steht, den Ton auf den Endungen. 

Es ist also nur noch die wichtige Frage zu eriedigen ob sich die 
Endungen des dentalen Prateritums mit den Endungen des alten 
medialen Perfects derartig' vereinigen lassen, dass gleichzeitig der 
Tempuscharakter der Praterita seine Erklarung findet. 

Sehen wir zunachst, welche Gestalt die Singularendungen des 
mediopassiven Prasens und Perfects urspriinglich hatten. Scherer 
ZGDS. 227 = '347 hat angenommen, das Germanische setze im 
Singular des Passivs dieselben Endungen voraus, wie das Sanskrit : 
at sat tat im Prasens, ai sat at im Perfect. Das Perfect, meint er, 


sei verloren gegangen, im Pmsens seien die Endungen zu dem tai 
sai tai ausgeglichen, welches die gotischen Formen voraussetzen. 
Die Ausgleichung der Endung der i. und 3. Sing, hielt Scherer 
fiir urgermanisch, indem er (S. 197 = • 307) mit Grein (Ablaut S. 
37) in ags. hdite (i. und 3. Sing.) = got. haitada einen Rest des 
Passivums im Angelsachsischen sah und dazu altn. heiti (i. Sing.) 
aus derselben Form herleitete. Inzwischen hat Sievers in Paul u. 
Braunes Beitr. 6, 561 ff. erkannt, dass altn. heiH auf urgerm. 
*kaii'ai zuriickgeht, also noch die von Sch. fiir die i. Sing, in 
ihrer 'altesten Gestalt angenommene Endung enthalt. Die hierbei 
in Betracht kommenden Auslautsgesetze sind von J. Schmidt KZ« 
26, 42 &^ erortert. Schmidt kommt dabei zu dem Schlusse, dem 
altn. keiii entsprechend habe die i. Sing. Pass, im Gotischen einmal 
*haita gelautet. Die i. Sing, ware demnach nicht nur, wie Scherer 
woUte, in der arischen Ursprache, sondern auch noch im Urger- 
manischen von der 3. Sing, verschieden gewesen und die Aus- 
gleichung erst innerhalb der einzelnen germanischen Sprachen 

Eine ahnliche Doppelheit der Bildung nun, wie in altn. heiU 
gegen got. Jiaitada und ags. hdtte^ treffen wir im schwachen Prate- 
ritum an. 

Mit der kiirzeren Bildung, altn. heiti^ vergleicht sich im Goti- 
schen die I. 3* Sing, iddja " ging," die auf urspriingliches "^ty-ai 
zuriickzufiihren ist und fur das alte mediale Perfect der Wurzel 
«'- "gehen" (=gr. d^^ lat. eo u. s. w.) zu gelten hat Die Form, 
an der man sich bisher mit den verschiedensten Deutungen abge- 
miiht hat' und die Kluge Beitr. z. Gesch. d. germ. Conjug. S. 124 

* Ober die Behandlnng des anslautenden ai im Germanischen vergleiche man 
femer: Scherer ZGDS: * 302. 205. 609 ; Braune P.-B. Beitr. 2, 161 ff. ; Paul ebd. 
339 ff. n. 4, 452 ff. ; Leskien Decl. im Slav. -Lit. n. Germ. S. 126 ff. ; Mahlow 
D. langen Vocale S. 53 ff. u. 94 ff. Brugmann ist in seinem Grandrisse S. 518 
der Ansicht Pauls gefolgt, ohne auf Schmidts Aufsatz Racksicht zu nehmen. 
Doch entscheidet das schwache Pr&teritum, wenn ich nicht irre, die Frage 
nunmehr endgilltig zu Gunsten der von Mahlow und Schmidt vertretenen Auf- 

* Die sLlteren Ansichten aber got. iddja findet man angegeben bei Scherer 
ZGDS. 204 = * 324 Anm. und Begemann Prflt. S. 67 ff. Nachher haben Moller 
KZ. 24, 432 Anm. und Kluge Germ. Conjug. S 125 ff. vorgeschlagen, iddja mit 
altind. dydm^ 3. Sing, dydt zu identificieren, und ihrer Auffassung haben sich 
inzwischen mehrere Gelehrten angeschlossen (vgl. z. B. Bremer P.-B. Beitr. 11, 
55, Brugmann Grundriss S. 12S. 516). Die im Tezte gegebene ErklSrung ver- 
meidet die mit der Moller-Klugeschen Deutung verbundene Annahme, es sei 
in diesem einen Falle ausnahmsweise das alte Augment im Germanischen 


als '^ die grosste Crux der germ. Grammatik " bezeichnet, fiigt sich 
bei dieser Auffassung ungezwungen in das germanische Verbal- 
system und in den Kanon der germanischen Auslautsgesetze. 
iddja als i. Sing, lasst sich voUkommen identificieren mit lat. it 
(aus f-fund dieses aus H-t^=>*ty-ai)t dem sich spater — iibrigens 
in Composita wie adit, redti seltener als im Simplex — die Neubil- 
dung (vgl. Osthoff Perf. S, 225 lu s.) ivi zur Seite stellt (Material 
bei Neue Lat Formenl. II S. 397 fT. und Kiihner Aus£ Gramm. 
d. lat. Spr. I S. 504 ff.). Im Altindischen liegt das entsprechende 
Perfect nur in activer Flexion vor (3. Sing, iya ya, ^, Plur. 
fyiir)* Medial flectiert wiirde die i. 3. Sing. *0//lauten und letz- 
tere lK)rm — ^nicht das active tyA ya — ware das Correlat von got. 

Ausserhalb des Gotischen hat sich in den germanischen Sprachen 
eine Spur des Prateritums iddja nur in ags. dode erhalten. Wah- 
rend man friiher das d der ags. Form mit dem dd des got iddja 
in Verbindung brachte, haben MoUer KZ. 24 S. 432 Anm. und 
Ten Brink Zeitschr. f. dt Alt 23 S. 65 ff. erkannt, dass got iddja 
in der ersten Silbe von ^o-de erhalten ist, wahrend die zweite Silbe 
die von neuem angefiigte Endung der schwachen Praterita enthalt. 
(Vgl. dazu Kluge Bekr. z. germ. Conjug. S. 126, MoUer Engl. 
Stud. 3 S. 158 f. und Kpgel P.-B. Beitr. 9 S. 544). Das ^o der 
ersten Silbe wird von MoUer und Ten Brink als ija- gefasst Man 
darf es aber wol auch aus ijau herleiten und annehmen, dass es sich 
zu got. iddja aus ^iddjai verhalt, wie //<^, f^odc zu got. fijai)^, 

E^ gibt ausser got. iddja im Germanischen noch ein zweites 
Prateritum, welches in der i. und 3. Sing, unmittelbar das mediale 
Perfect der arischen Ursprache fortsetzt : ags. dyde, altfries. dede, 
alts, deda, ahd. teia^ die auf urgermanischem *ded-ai beruhen. 
Wir finden in diesem Falle die genau entsprechende Bildung im 
Altindischen vor : dadh'/{i. und 3. Sing, des medialen Perfects, 
von den entsprechenden Personen des reduplicierten Prasens- 
stammes der Form nach nicht verschieden), welchem Fick a. a. O. 

1 Dass die erste Silbe dieser Formen die alte Reduplication wahrt, ist langst 
richtig erkannt. Zur Erklarung der Stammsilbe hat man bisher das altindische 
Oder iranische active Perfectum herangezogen (z. B. Bopp Vgl. Gramm. II* 506, 
Windisch K. Beitr. 7 S. 459, Paul P.-B. Beitr. 4, 464 f., Kluge Germ. Conjug. 
S. 103 ff.) Oder an das reduplicierte Imperfectum des Activs gedacht (Bezzen- 
berger Ztschr. f. dt. Philol. 5 S 475, MoUer Engl. Stud, 3 S. 159, u. P.-B. 
Beitr. 7, 469.) 


das aus dedi entstandene -didi in lat cre-didl (d. i. cred-didt) zur 
Seite gestellt hat* Fiir die arische Ursprache ist dies Perfect als 
dhedh-a{ zu reconstruieren. 

Got. iddja und westgerm. *dedat sind, wie es scheint, die beiden 
einzigen Praterita, welche die urspriingliche, zum Altindischen 
stimmende Bildung der i. und 3. Sing, des medialen Perfects 
wahren. Alle iibrigen schwachen Praterita, also die der Verba 
praterito-prasentia und der abgeleiteten Verben, weisen vor der 
Endung -at einen Dental auf, stimmen also zu der 3. Sing, des 
medialen Perfects im Griechischen auf -rat. Das erklare ich mir 
folgendermassen. Wahrscheinlich batten Prasens und Perfect im 
Medium bei " unthematischer " Bildung urspriinglich dieselbe 
Endung. Nur die " thematischen " oder " bindevocalischen " 
Pnisensstamme — also diejenigen Verbalstamme, welche nach Picks 
Theorie (Bezzenb. Beitr. i S. i ff.) die einfache Wurzel in zweisil- 
biger Gestalt bewahren — ^bildeten von vorn herein abweichend die 
3. Sing, auf -tai statt auf -ai. Im Rigveda sind noch mehrfach 
" unthematische " Prasensformen auf -e in der 3. Sing, erhalten 
(vgl. Delbriick Altind. Verb. S. 70). Haufiger aber endigt die 3. 
Sing, auch dort schon auf -ie (Delbriick a. a. O. 67 f.) und im 
klassischen Sanskrit gilt letztere als die regelrechte. Im Griechi- 
schen ist die '* thematische '' Endung nicht nur im Prasens allge- 
mein durchgefiihrt, sondern auch ins Perfect iibertragen, das durch 
seinen Stamm vom Prasens hinreichend unterschieden war.* Im 
Germanischen hat sich im Prasens nur die thematische Bildung 
(urspr. -at, -sai^ -tai) erhalten. Nehmen wir mit Scherer an, dass 

'Mit ved. dadh/^ genn. ^dedai darf man vielleicht auch die dreimal auf 
altgallischen Inschriften belegte Form dede ** fecit " oder '* posuit '' (vgL Stokes 
in Bezzenb. Beitr. 11 S. 124 f. 128 u. 157) identificiren. Anslautendes at' scheint 
im Keltischen frQh durch ae hindurch in i und dann / tibergegangen zu sein. 

^ Mit anderen Worten : der Unterschied zwischen dem -ai und -tai in der 
prim&ren Endung der 3. Sing, des Mediums gehOrt zu den alten Verschieden- 
heiten der d- und »»- Conjugation. Ist diese Annahme richtig, und sie hat an 
der altindischen Flexion einen tats&chlichen Anhalt, so wird dadurch die Ver- 
mutung Brugmanns (Morph. Untersuch. I S. 13 Anm. u. S. 147) unwahrschein- 
lich, in der I. Sing, sei ursprUnglich -ntai die Endung der unthematischen und 
-ai die der thematischen St&mme. Man masste den Endungen der 3. Sing, 
gem&ss ja das umgekehrte Verh&ltnis erwarten. Ich glaube es reicht ftlr die 
z. Sing, die Annahme aus, dass sie im Medium ursprttnglich durchweg den 
Ausgang -ai (ohne vorausgehendes -m-) hatte. Das griechische -n-ai. ist dann 
als Netlbildung zu -cai, und 'Toa nach dem -/<<, -<t (Oi -t< der Actiys anzusehen, die 
erst ins Leben trat, nachdem in der 3. Sing, das ra< von der thematischen Bil- 
dung aus sich verallgemeinert hatte. 


das Perfect im Germanischen urspriinglich — entsprechend dem 
Altindischen — die Endungen -ai -sai -at besass (was fiir das -at 
der I. und 3. Sing, durch got. iddja und westgerm. *dedai ver- 
biirgt wird\ so musste es nahe liegen, dem Perfect, wie im Griechi- 
schen, die gebrauchlichere Endung der Prasentia zu geben. Eine 
Verwechselung konnte nicht entstehen, da das Perfect durch ver- 
schiedene Stammbildung sich vom Prasens geniigend abhob. 
Also die 3. Sing, im Perfect erhielt die Endung -iai. Die neue 
Form ist natiirlich nicht mit einem Schlage an die Stelle der 'alteren 
getreten, sondem beide sind langere Zeit promiscue neben ein- 
ander gebraucht: modernes -tai neben altmodischem -au Das 
Schwanken zwischen den beiden Endungen iibertrug sich von der 
3. Sing, auf die i. Sing, des medialen Perfects, da man in diesem 
Tempus von jeher gewohnt war, erste und dritte Person im Sin- 
gular durch dieselbe Endung auszudriicken. 

Das Eindringen der Endung 4ai in die i. und 3. Sing, des 
medialen Perfects war dadurch erleichtert, dass der anlautende 
Consonant dieser Endung iibereinstimmte mit dem Suffixanlaute 
des alten passiven Participiums auf -/t?-, das ja mit dem medialen 
Perfect von jeher die prateritale Bedeutung und denselben Tempus- 
stamm (abgesehen von der Reduplication, die ja aber im Germa- 
nischen auch beim Perfect meist au%egeben ist) teilte (vgl. ob. S. 
42 u. 50). Dass das Participium bei der Ausbreitung der 
Endung iai eine RoUe spielte,^ lasst sich beweisen. Die Ubertra- 
gung des Dentals in die Endung des medialen Perfects hat nur da 
stattgefunden, wo neben dem Perfect ein /-Participium stand, also 
bei den Praterito-Prasentia und den abgeleiteten Verben. In iddja 
und deda dagegen sind die alten Perfectendungen ohne das / 
gewahrt, weil sie kein solches Participium neben sich hatten. 

Ich habe hierbei angenommen, dass die i. und 3. Sing, des 
schwachen Prateritums im Urgermanischen durchweg dieselbe 
Endung hatten, wie es in alien germanischen Sprachen der Fall ist 
(got. -da^ ags. -^, altfries. -de^ alts, -da^ -de, ahd. -/a), ausgenommen 
im Altnordischen (i. Sing, -da^ auf den altesten Runeninschriften 
-A?,' 3. Sing, 'dcy -di). Man halt zwar neuerdings' gerade die 

* Bis zu einem gewissen Grade also beh£lt Begemanns Participialtheorie 
Recht. Allerdings aber ist es ein Unterschied, ob man das schw. PriLt. geradezu 
aus dem Participium herleitet, oder dem letzteren nur eine in bestimmten Gren- 
sen sich haltende Einwirkung auf die Entvrickelung des Pr&t. zaschreibt. 

* Die Beispiele bei Noreen Altn. Gr. §448 Anm. i. 
' Vgl. die oben S. 44 Anm. citierten Stellen. 


altnordische Weise fur die altere, indem man annimmt, die i. 
Sing, habe im Urgermanischen die Endung -do oder -den gehabt, 
und das -da der i. Sing, im Gotischen sei aus -do gekiirzt. Von 
dem Standpunkte aus, der in dem schwachen Prateritum eine 
imperfect- oder aoristartige Bildung mit urspriinglichlangem Vocal 
in der Endung sieht, liegt es ja auch nahe, sich das Verhaltnis der 
Endungen so zu denken. Aber die DifTerenz der i. und 3. Sing, 
im Nordischen lasst auch eine andere Deutung zu. Im Altnor- 
dischen haben Indicativ und Conjunctiv des schwachen Prateritums 
im Singular dieselben Endungen : -a in der ersten, -er Q-tr) in der 
zweiten, -e (-i) in der dritten Person. Das -a der ersten Person 
entspricht im Conjunctiv gotischem und urgermanischem -au. 
Der Indicativ des Prateritums ist im Altnordischen gelegentlich 
ganz oder teilweise durch den Conjunctiv verdrangt : skylda ist, 
wie sich aus dem Umlaute ergibt, eigentlich eine Conjunctivform, 
ebenso das neben munda in indicativischem Sinne gebrauchte 
mynda (s. Noreen Altn. Gr. §439 Anm. 3). Unter diesen 
Umst'anden wird man mit Gislason' das -a der i. Sing, als U^bertra- 
gung aus dem Conjunctive fassen diirfen. Es entspricht gotischem 
und urgermanischem -au wie z. B. in ^^a=got. ahiau (Noreen 
§113, 2). Die Formen der Runeninschriften, wie iazvido, worahio 
diirfen somit in ihrer Endung nicht unmittelbar f iir urgermanisch 
gelten, sondem ihr auslautendes -o ist (durch die Mittelstufe -au) 
aus urgermanischem -au entstanden. 

Zu den charakteristischen Endungen des dentalen Prateritums 
gehort ausser den bisher behandelten der i. und 3. Person die der 
2. Person des Singulars. Ich vermag fiir sie eine Erklarung, die 
mir selbst geniigte, nicht zu geben. Es liegt zwar nahe, an die 
secundare Medialendung der zweiten Person im Altindischen, -thas, 
zu denken. Aber einerseits ist es nicht wahrscheinlich, dass neben 
der primaren Endung der ersten und dritten Person von uralter 

' AarbOg. f. oord. Oldk. og Hist. 1869, wie ich aus dem Berichte von Mobios 
KZ. 19, 312 f. entnehme. Die Einwendungen, welche Paul in seinen u. Braunes 
Beitr. 4, 464 gegen diese Ansicht erhebt, scheinen mir von keinem Belang. 
Paul entgegnet in erster Linie : " Die Tendenz der Sprache geht viel mehr auf 
Ausgleichung als auf Schafiiing neuer Unterschiede." Ich bin immer der Mei- 
nung gewesen, dass in der Entwickelung der Sprache die Differenzierung eine 
ebenso wichtige RoUe spielt, wie die Cbertragung, dass beide in jeder Epoche 
der Sprachgeschichte Hand in Hand gehen. Aber auch wenn ich den princi- 
piellen Standpunkt Pauls teilte, wUrde mich das gegen G.*s Erklarung durchaus 
nicht einnehmen, denn dieselbe besagt ja eben, dass Indicativ- und Conjunctiv- 
endungen hier mit einander ausgeglichen seien. 


2iA\. her in der zweiten Person eine Secundarendung soUte gestan- 
den haben. Andrerseits sind wir bis jetzt nicht einmal in der Lage 
mit einiger Sicherheit anzugeben, welche Gestalt die 2. Sing, im 
Urgermanischen hatte. Gotisch und Nordisch weisen ^uf -es^ 
Altsachsisch und Althochdeutsch dagegen auf -ds. Wenn im 
Angel^chsischen (-^^, -est) und Friesischen (-^^0 der Vocal der 
2. Slng^zu dem der i. und 3. Sing, stimmt, so kann dies auf Gleich- 
machung beruhen. Vielleicht also ist ostgermanisches -is und 
westgermanisches -ds vorauszusetzen. Aber wie lassen sich beide 
vermitteln? Dazu kommt nun, dass in einem der beiden alten 
medialen Perfecta ohne dentalen Tempuscharakter die zweite Per- 
son ganz abweicbend gebildet ist. Zu alts, deda^ ahd. iiia lautet 
die 2. Sing. alts, d&di^ ahd. tdUy und diese Formen sind ofTenbar 
alter als die in Einklang mit der iiblichen Endung der 2. Sing, 
gebildeten ags. dydest, alts, dedos (vgl. Scherer ZGDS. 203 =* 323). 
Ds\^ fiihrt dann weiter auf die noch ungeloste Frage nach der Bii- 
dung der 2. Sing, der starken Prater ita im Westgermanischen.' 
Auch das urgermanische -/ der 2. Sing, der starken Praterita 
im Ostgermanischen harrt noch seiner Erklarung; in Kluges 
Annahme, dies / sei auf dem Wege der Formiibertragung an die 
Stelle eines lautlich berechtigten \ getreten (KZ. 26, 90 f.), kann 
ich nicht mehr als einen vorlaufigen Notbehelf sehen. £s scheinen 
eben bei der Bildung der 2. Sing, des Perfects im Germanischen 
uberall Verhaltnisse vorzuliegen, die wir noch nicht durchschauen. 
Vom Singular, oder genauer von der i. und 3. Sing, aus ist das 
i nach meiner Meinung auf den Anlaut sammtlicher Endungen 
des schwachen Prateritums ubertragen, indem gleichzeitig das / 
des Participiums dazu mitwirkte, diesem Consonanten die Bedeut- 
ung eines prateritalen Elementes zu geben und ihn allmahlich 
zum ''Tempuscharakter" des medialen Prateritums zu erheben. 
Eine Parallele hierzu bietet ausser der schon oben S. 47 Anm. 
beriihrten Entstehung des lateinischen z^-Perfects z. B. die Ent- 
wickelung des r*Deponens im Italischen und im Keltischen. 
Der Charakter dieses Deponens ist, wie kiirzlich Windisch in 
seiner lehrreichen Abhandlung " t)ber die Verbalformen mit dem 
Charakter r im Arischen, Italischen und Griechischen " ' (Leipzig, 
1887) iiberzeugend nachgewiesen hat, von Hause aus lediglich ein 
Bestandteil einer beschrankten Anzahl von Personalendungen, 

^ Znletzt hat dartlber, so viel mir bekannt ist, v. Fierlinger KZ. 27, 430 ff. 
*Abbandlungen d. SSchs. Gesellsch. d. Wissensch., Phil-hist. CI., Bd. X Nr. 6. 


namentlich der 3. Plur., und zwar nicht einmal urspriinglich rein 
medialer Endungen. 

Dass ausserhalb der Singularformen des Indicativs die hinter 
dem Dental stehenden Endungen des schwachen Pi^teritums aus 
dem starken Prateritum stammen, wurde schon oben (S. 44 f.) 

Diirfen wir uns die Entstehung des schwachen Prateritums in 
der angegebenen Weise denken, so haben die Verba praterito-pra- 
sentia nicht, wie man bisher annahm, sich ein neues Prateritum 
nach dem Muster der abgeleiteten Verba gebildet. Ihre Beson- 
derheit besteht vielmehr darin, dass sie neben dem activen Perfect 
mit prasentischer Bedeutung das urspriinglich mediale Perfect in 
prateritalem Sinne gewahrt haben. Bei den abgeleiteten Verben 
dagegen kann das mediale Prateritum nicht direct in die Ursprache 
zuriickreichen. "Abgeleitete Verba batten," wie Mahlow Die 
langen Vocale S. 13 mit Recht annimmt, " in indogermanischer 
Zeit nur einen Piasensstamm ; die iibrigen Tempera werden erst 
in den Einzelsprachen nach Analogie der primaren Verba neu 
gebildet." Aber wie wir im Griechischen und Lateinischen die 
Flexion der abgeleiteten Verba auch ausserhalb des Prasens voll- 
kommen ausgebildet finden, so wird auch im Germanischen die 
Obertragung des /-Prateritums und /-Partidpiums auf die abgelei- 
teten Verba schon in verhaltnismassig friihe Zeit fallen. 

Hermann Collitz. 

Brtm Mawr, Pa., 6. Fthr, z888. 



The &mous St. Germain Codex, which is marked in the critical 
apparatus of modem Greek Testament criticism by the sign ^i, 
has long been recognized as occupying a very important place in 
the so-called Old Latin or pre-Hieronymian text of the New Testa- 
ment. In the Gospel of St. Matthew in particular it contains so 
large a proportion of early non- Vulgate readings that its text has 
been reprinted in full by Dr. John Wordsworth, as a labor prelim- 
inary to the more gigantic design of the re-edition of the Vulgate. 
From the time of Robert Stephen this book has always attracted 
the student, and Dr. Wordsworth gives a very full and careful 
account of the labors of previous scholars (such as John Walker 
and Martianay) who have preceded him in the collation or ana- 
lysis of its text. It is very interesting to watch the growth of the 
study of any given manuscript, and to remark the increasing 
demand made by advancing scholarship for an accurate and com- 
plete acquaintance with the monuments upon which it is engaged. 
The study of the text is only imperfectly presented to us unless it 
contain a historical sketch of its progress as well as the final results 
which it involves. We may say, then, that with regard to the St. Ger- 
main Codex of St. Matthew we have reached the point in which we 
can in a moment determine any reading that it contains, and the next 
problem is to pass from the text and Its collators to its antecedent 
history, especially in relation to other Latin texts with which it is 
connected or from which it may have been derived : and this is a 
much more difficult matter; the transference of a text with proper 
descriptions from vellum to printed paper is largely a mechanical 
thing, requiring scholarship and attention and experience in early 
book-study, but not much beyond. With the text in the hands of 
the scholar in an accessible iform, the problem begins; viz: to 
write the history of the text of the St. Germain Codex in the 
period reckoned backward from its own scribe. The case in hand 
is one of peculiar interest : was the Codex formed upon a Vulgate 
basis with intercorrection from Old Latin texts, or was it based upon 
an Old Latin text and corrected by means of the Vulgate and other 


Old Latin MSS ? Dr. Wordsworth seems to incline to the latter 
belief: " the basis of our book was not a Hieronymian text, but a 
mixture of the Italian and European texts, which was corrected occa- 
sionally by the Vulgate, but has a large peculiar element, perhaps 
drawn from several MSS." Beyond this point he does not see 
his way, so that the problem of the text-origins of ^1 stands pretty 
much where it did before. It is not our object to express any 
opinion, at present, on these points, but to suggest that it often 
happens that before we can advance we must go back. Are we 
quite sure that we have fairly finished the paleographical study of 
the book itself? We have lost a good deal in the critical study, 
for instance, of New Test Greek MSS through the reluctance of 
collators to record peculiarities in their MSS which did not seem to 
directly concern themselves with the text, thus ignoring the fact that 
what does not immediately bear upon the text may bear very 
strongly upon the genealogy of the MSS. Accordingly I propose 
to discuss one or two trifling points in connection with the St 
Germain MS which have hitherto been insufficiently studied, and 
it is possible that in this way we may get some light on the larger 
questions that are involved. 

We begin, then, with the observation that the MS has in pre- 
vious days been used for what are called the " Sortes Sanctorum." 
Shortly after the publication of Wordsworth's Old Latin Biblical 
Texts No. I, containing the S. Germain text, the work was reviewed 
by M. Samuel Berger in the Bulletin Critique for 15 Sept 1884, 
who remarked inter alia as follows : " L'Evangile de S. Jean est 
partag6 dans le manuscrit, en 316 sections, et 185 de ces para- 
graphes (si j'ai bien compt6) sont accompagn6s de courtes devises, 
sans aucune relation avec la texte de EEvangile, ^crites en un latin 
barbare, et dont void, par exemple, quelques-unes. xxx (c. iii i) 
Perfecium opus, xxxi (iii 3) Insperaia causa perficiiur. xxxii 
(iii 7) Quod verum est diciio. xxxiii (iii 9) Si menHris arguent 
te. xxxiv (iii 12) Gloria magna, xxxv (iii 14) Pro manifesta- 
tione. xxxvi (iii 16) De jtldiHo quod verum est si dixeris^ libens 
eris. xxxviii (iii 19) Ad peregrinaHonem iHneris venies. II n'est 
pas possible de voir dans ces singuli^res notes autre chose que des 
formules de bonne aventure, de celle que Ton a appel6es sorUs 
saneiorum,** There is not the slightest doubt that M. Berger's 
explanation of these marginal sentences (which had been copied 
for Dr. Wordsworth by Mr. G. L. Youngman, but not understood 
by him) is correct. The book has been used for purposes of 


divination, a custom which seems to have prevailed in early times 
both in civil and ecclesiastical matters, and, perhaps we might add, 
especially in France. Without going into the matter in detail, it 
will be sufficient to observe that the most probable method of using 
the Saries would be by the selection of a number, for there are 
objections to the method of opening the book at random where 
the margins are thickly studded with sentences. Probably, there- 
fore, a number was selected, and the pages of the Gospel of St. 
John were turned until the sentence was found to which that num- 
ber was attached. 

By the kindness of Dr. Wordsworth, and the courteous assist- 
ance of one of the students in the Theological College at Salisbury, 
I have been furnished with a transcript of Mr. Youngman's notes 
on these Sortes, and am enabled to draw one or two further conclu- 
sions. The transcript shows the successive sentences arranged with 
the attached numerals in a series running with frequent chasms 
from i to ccxvi (read cccxvi). In a few cases the numeral is wanting, 
and there are occasionally slight clerical errors like the one just 
mentioned which are capable of immediate rectification. We will 
examine the series of sentences more closely presently. Mean- 
while let us turn to another peculiar feature of the Codex which 
has hitherto remained without explanation.. 

On fol. 89b the following note is made by Dr. Wordsworth : 
"At the end of the letter to Damasus is a sort of wheel full of 
numbers, apparently some arrangement of the canons which follow 
on 4^ pages." My attention was drawn to this wheel by Dr. 
Wordsworth, with an inquiry as to whether any explanation could 
be given of it, and I took the opportunity, when last in Paris, to 
look at it and make a copy. It is a wheel with eight compart- 
ments or sectors, and each compartment contains a series of 
numbers. For example, the sector which is least densely occupied 
with figures contains the numbers CXCVII, CCXIII, CCXL, 
CCXXI, CCXXVIII, CCXXXV, CCXLVI, and similarly, only 
with greater profusion, in the other sectors. 

In the first place we may dispel from our minds the idea that 
these have anything to do with the Eusebian Canons, for there is 
nothing to invite the identification ; and in the next place, observ- 
ing that the numbers form a broken series running from i to 316, 
we easily see that the wheel is a part of the Sortes Sanctorum, 
and that in some way or other its compartments are meant to 
facilitate the problem of determining one's destiny. So much is 


certain. We may not be able to say according to what method a 
number was selected from one of the eight compartments, but the 
relation between the wheel of numbers and the sections of St. 
John's Gospel is certain. 

When we come to examine the numbered compartments more 
carefully in comparison with the numbered sentences, we find that 
, in the majority of cases a number in one of the compartments 
corresponds to a number in the margins to which a sentence is 
attached, as of course it should do on the hypothesis of identifi- 
cation, obvious errors of transcription being corrected ; but there 
is a number of cases in which the two series will not agree, and 
the suggestion arises in one's mind that perhaps the wheel of 
numbers was not made directly from the margins of the Codex, 
but that both it and the series may be derived from some earlier 
and more complete series. This supposition would easily explain 
the incomplete character of the numerical assonances ; for example, 
in the first compartment of the wheel there are 33 numbers, of 
which II do not find a place in the numbers of the Sortes. We 
shall examine these and see whether the suspicion of an earlier 
set of divination sentences is confirmed in other directions, and 
although at first sight it seems unnecessary to seek a written 
original for so trivial a matter, I think we can establish its exist- 
ence with certaintv. 

Let us turn to another more famous MS, namely, the Codex 
Bezae. The lower margins of the Gospel of S. Mark in Codex 
Bezae contain, in a rude Greek hand, a succession of short sen- 
tences. Of these Scrivener says (p. xxxvii) : ** They consist of 
moral apophthegms, some of them silly enough." Amongst his 
facsimiles he gives a sentence from the margin of the verso of 
leaf 302 : 

cay ^\}Qi\ €X€yxova'iP cr*, 

and conjectures that these rude uncials may be due to the hand 
that wrote the nrXoc in Matthew and Mark, i. e. to a hand of the 
tenth century. Again, at the end of the book he makes a collec- 
tion of the sentences, 69 in number, but without noticing that they 
are a system of ''sortes sanctorum." 

When we examine these Greek sortes by the side of the Latin 
system in Cod. g-i we can easily see that they form a part of the 
same system. For example, the sentence quoted above is evi- 
dently the same as appears in ^1 under the form " Si mentiris. 


arguent te " ; and this is only one out of a very large number of 
coincidences so complete that we may be certain some connection 
exists between the two systems. In order to determine the nature 
of this relationship we must examine more closely, and we can 
easily assure ourselves in the first place that neither catalogue was 
taken from the other, for each list of sentences contains many 
thii^ that are wanting in the other. They are therefore derived 
from a common nucleus, either by independent accretions or 
omissions. In the next place, if the two sets of sentences be 
arranged side by side we can easily see that if a number be 
attached to each of the sentences in Codex Bezae corresponding 
to its place in the codex, the sentences thus numbered will be in 
harmony with the actually numbered passages in the margin of 
the St Germain Codex. In order to make this clear we may 
actually write down the first portions of each of the two catalogues 
as follows, the St. Germain list being given completely and the 
parallel sentences noted from the other list : 

S. Germain CocL Cod. Bezae. 

i. Cessa ei certaueris. (i). af^tr fi <fHKoyiiaf&itr. 

ii. qd fit C5plebita. (ii). ro ycyou/icyoy reXtovre. 

iiL non ad ipsis causa. (iii)- ovk tmrvxavis rov trap- 

iv. perficitur causa. (i"^)* rcXZov/tcyoy irap<ifta, 

(? xiii). spes bona. 

gaudium fiet (xiv). airo \wn<r ifs x^/xiy. 

XV. est dec6 dies fiet. (^^v). ftera Bfxa rjfjLtpaa- yaf€T€. 

xviii. etbene. (xviii). aKokovOriaov koi icoXoy (rv 


xxii. perfects opus. (xxii). rcXi/ov/icyoy vapyfia icaXoy. 

xxii, \ credere uia causa (xxiv). frun-cvo-oy onj ro trapyfjM 

1.XX1V./ bona e. jcoXov ecmy. 

etc. etc. 


The barbarisms are easily corrected in the foregoing ; ad ipsis, 
for example, = adipisceris, and so on. These corrections being 
made, it is seen that as far as it goes the list in Cod. Bezae is com- 
plete, though only a fragment of the original scheme ; and that 
the list in the St. Germain MS is a series of extracts from the 
original scheme. The agreement between the numbers shows 
that the Beza sentences and the St Germain sentences are taken 
from a numbered series of sentences similar to that in the St. Ger- 


main Codex, i. e. the numbers are not due to the sectional arrange- 
ment of St. John in the St. Germain Codex into 316 paragraphs, 
but to a similar arrangement in a previous codex. And since the 
St. Germain Codex has these pars^japh divisions also in common 
with the original from which the Sortes were taken, it follows that this 
original must have been, at least in St. John, the MS from which 
the St Germain Codex took the foundation of its text. And this 
being so, we are entided to affirm that there was a time when the 
original of the St. Germain Codex in St John, and probably the 
Codex itself, was in the same library with the Codex Bezae. Nor 
does the date to which the hands are to be referred militate against 
this supposition ; for we have see;n that Scrivener inclines to refer 
the annotator in Cod. Bezae to the tenth century, and the common 
idea with regard to the St Germain Codex is that it belongs to the 
ninth. Both of these estimates are approximate, and we can only 
say that the two series of annotations in the two codices belong to 
nearly the same period of time. Our conclusion points out the 
direction in which we are to look for the manuscript origin (or 

origins) of the St. Germain Codex. 

J. Rendel Harris. 


Ethnographical Introduction. 

The object of the present chapter is to trace the history of the 
early German settlers of Pennsylvania from their old homes in 
the Fatherland to their settlements in the province of William 
Penn. By thus ascertaining their ethnic origin it will be possible 
to determine the speech-elements brought by them to Pennsyl- 
vania soil and developed into the unique dialect termed " Penn- 
sylvania German" or " Pennsylvania Dutch" (called by those who 
speak it, " Pennsylvanisch Deitsch"). 

While the theme is of peculiar interest to the linguist, it has for 
the student of American institutions also an importance too often 
overlooked by our historians. Here two great branches of a 
powerful ethnic stem unite to develop under new conditions a new 
social and political organism. It is hence great historical injustice 
to include all the early settlements of Pennsylvania under the 
occupation and development of that province by Quakers (or 
Friends). It has been those of German blood, men like Rupp, 
Seidensticker, Egle, and others of local importance, who have 
called attention to the real significance of this German element in 
the colonization of America.' True, our liberty-loving poet has 
caught the plaintive note of the pioneer's song and woven it into the 
touching " Lay of the Pennsylvania Pilgrim," Franz Daniel Pas- 
torius leaving the scenes of literary activity and the *' iiberdriissig 
gekosteten europaischen Eitelkeiten" to find religious freedom 
and political quiet beyond the sea, in a humble cottage, over 
whose portal he set the Latin motto : 

"Panra domus sed arnica Bonis: procul este Profani." 
Klein ist mein Haus, doch Gate sieht es gem ; 
Wer gottlos ist, der bleibe fern.' 

^ This paper forms the first chapter of a more elaborate philological treatise 
on the Pennsylvania German dialect. 

* Of America, because from Pennsylvania a constant stream of migration has 
pushed its way into all parts of the West. Cf. Ranch's Handbuch, Preface, p. 8. 

>Cf. Seidensticker, Bilder aus der Deutsch-Pennsylvanischen Geschichte, 

S. 39. 


There is perhaps no State in the Union affording so many 
curious phenomena of social history as the Keystone State. Here 
are found living illustrations of nearly every step of our national 
development — the statesman, scholar, poet — worthy representa- 
tives of modern culture — and hard by, the crude, honest, industrious 
Palatine (Pfalzer) or Swiss, wearing the garb of the seventeenth 
century, observing the customs of his ancestors in their modest 
hamlets along the Rhine, contentedly indifferent to the march of 
literature, art or science. Here, too, is found the most varied 
commingling of nationalities — Dutch, Swedes, English, Scotch, 
Irish, Norwegians, Danes,^ French, Germans, not to speak of the 
promiscuous influx of Hungarians, Italians and what not, in the 
last few decenniums of the present century. 

It is in the midst of such varied ethnic forces that we are to seek 
the causes which have contributed to the formation of this impor- 
tant speech-island in the domain of German dialects. The subject 
proper will be discussed under two periods— the first, that of 
colonization "^ (1682-1753); the second, that of migration and 
frontier settlement (1753-1848). To give completeness to the 
treatment, it will not be amiss to review briefly early German colo- 
nization in other provinces of America. In the year 1705 a number 
of German Reformed left their homes between Wolfenbiittel and 
Halberstadt, went first to Neu wied in Rhenish Prussia, and thence to 
Holland, whence (1707) they sailed for New York, intending to 
join the Dutch settlements in that province ; but, driven by storm 
into the Delaware Bay, they started for New York by a land route 
through Nova Caesaria (N. J.). On reaching the regions watered 
by the Musconetcong, the Passaic and their tributaries, they halted 
and settled what is now known as German Valley of Morrison 
County, N. J. Many of their descendants are still to be found in 
Somerset, Bergen, and Essex counties. There were German settle- 
ments at Elizabethtown before 1730* and about the same time at 
Hall Mill. 

Of the 33,000 who at the invitation of Queen Anne left the 
Rhine country for London in the years 1708-9, 12,000 to 13,000 

* In 1853 Ole Bull attempted to settle a colony of Norwegians and Danes in 
Abbott Township, Potter County. Some of these colonists still remain in the 

' The early settlements of the Dutch on the Delaware, of the Swedes in the 
southeastern comer of the province, of the French pioneers in the western 
portion of the State, do not directly concern us here. 


arrived in London 1708. In the fall of 1709 one hundred and 
fifty families, consisting of six hundred Palatines, were sent under 
the direction of Christian de Graffenried and Ludwig Michel, 
natives of Switzerland, to North Carolina. Tobler and Zuber- 
bohler of St. Gall, Switzerland, settled with a large number of 
their countrymen in Granvill County, N. C, in the first third of 
the 1 8th century. Many Germans went from Virginia and Penn- 
sylvania to the mountainous regions of North Carolina. Lincoln, 
Stoke, and Granvill counties were settled by Germans. Those in 
North Carolina from Pennsylvania alone numbered in 1785 over 
1500 souls.* 

Another company of Palatine Lutherans left London in the 
year 1708 under the direction of Rev. Josua Kocherthal, arrived 
in New York probably in December of the same year and setded 
at Newberg. In June, 17 10, ten vessels set sail from London with 
more than 4000 Germans and, after a voyage of six months, 
arrived in New York. It is stated that 1700 died during the 
passage or immediately on landing. In the autumn, about 1400 
of the survivors were sent to Livingston's Manor on the Hudson. 
Of these, one hundred and fifty families went to Schoharie Valley 
in 17 1 2, and some found a home on the frontiers of the Mohawk 

Queen Anne sent some Germans to Virginia also, where they 
settled at Rappahannock in Spottsylvania County. They advanced 
later, however, up the river, and many of them crossed over into 
North Carolina. Shenandoah and Rockingham counties, Va., 
were settied before 1746 by Germans from Pennsylvania. Many 
of their descendants still speak the German language, or " Dutch," 
as Washington called it when referring to them in his surveys of 
their land.^ 

As early as 1 710-17 12 German emigrants came to Maryland 
and settled between Monocacy and the mountains, where Fred- 
ericktown was laid out in 1745. This settlement soon extended 
to the Glades, Middletown, and Hagerstown. In the years 
1748-54 about 2800 Germans were brought to Maryland, many 
of whom settled in Baltimore." 

In the year 1716-17 several thousand Germans, under the 

' Cf. Rupp, 30,000 German Names, p. 4, quoted from L5her, p. 69. 
* Quoted by Rupp in 30,000 German Names, p. 7, from Sparks' Washington, 
II 418. 
*Cf. Rupp, 30,000 German Names, p. 13, and Gayarre's Louisiana, pp. 360-1. 




leadership of John Law,' embarked for Louisiana, but Law landed 
them on the pontines of Biloxi, near Mobile. After exposure and 
death had wrought their ravages, about three hundred finally 
settled along the Mississippi, in the present C6te d*Or, thirty or 
forty miles above New Orleans. Their descendants forgot their 
mother tongue and adopted the French language. 

In the spring of 1734, some Lutherans from Salzburg in Upper 
Austria arrived in Georgia and settled Ebenezer in Effingham 
County. This colony received accessions and numbered in 1745 
several hundred families. In addition to forty or fifty Moravians 
who had already settled in the State under the leadership of 
Nitchman, there were also a number of Germans in Savannah. 
In the year 1732 about one hundred and seventy persons were 
brought over by Pury of Neuchatel and began a Swiss settlement 
called Purysburg, on the north bank of the Savannah, about 
thirty-six miles from its mouth. 

In the years 1740-1755 many Palatines were sent to South 
Carolina and settled Orangeburg, Congaree, and Wateree. In 
1765 more than six hundred Palatines and Suabians, sent over 
from London, settled a separate township in South Carolina. 

In 1739 a settlement was made by German Lutherans and 
German Reformed at Waldoborough in Lincoln County, Maine.* 

Ii^ 1753 George II of England induced a company consisting 
largely of Hanoverians to go and settle in Nova Scotia, They 
landed at Marliguish June 7th of the same year and laid out the 
town of Lunenburg, where their descendants are still to be found. 

I, — Period of Colonization (1682-1753). 

At the beginning of this period we are met by two groups of 
&cts which gave rise to the great influx of Germans into Penn- 
sylvania: (i) the unsettled political, religious and social condition 
of Germany ; (2) the influence of William Penn's travels in that 
country, which, at the beginning of the 17th century a pros- 
perous country, had been reduced by the Thirty Years War to 
the most wretched poverty. The peasant, whose condition before 
the war, though tolerable, was not without marks of the wars of 

^The famous visionary banker, author of "A Discourse upon Money and 

* Further survivals of their influence are Bremen in the same county, and 
Frankfort in Waldo County, Maine. 


the early i6th century, was brought to the last extremity. He 
t had caught the spirit of misrule from the lawless life of the sol- 
dier. Villages and towns lay in ashes ; many a promising son of 
the soil fell a victim to the plague, and many districts were left 
desolate. Burgher and peasant alike groaned under the weight 
of religious persecution. 

'* Where Catholicism still had foothold, the leaders of the Pro- 
testant party were swept away — especially the parochial clergy 
(Seelsorger) — most thoroughly in those provinces in which the 
Emperor himself was sovereign. Much had been done before the 
long war, but still, at the beginning of the struggle, the political 
majority, the keenest intelligence, the greater number of the con- 
gregations in Upper Austria, Moravia, Bohemia, and Silesia, were 
evangelical. At this point a thorough reformation was instituted. 
Burghers and peasants were driven to confession in crowds by the 
soldiers ; whoever, often after imprisonment and torture, refused 
to renounce his faith, was compelled to quit the country, which 
many thousands did. It was deemed a favor if the fugitives were 
granted an insufficient respite for the disposition of their movable 
property." * 

While southeastern Germany was suffering from the wounds of 
the Thirty Years War, the western provinces, especially the Upper 
Rhine country, were suffering under the ravages of Louis X IV. He 
had laid waste the cities of Alsace and taken possession of Freiburg 
in the Breisgau, Lorraine, Franche Comt6, Vaudemont, Saarlouis, 
Saarbriicken, Mompelgard, Luxemburg, and Strassburg. In 1685 
he revoked the Edict of Nantes, by which Henry IV had granted 
Protestants equal rights with Catholics (1598), thus driving out of 
France 500,000 Huguenots, many of whom sought refuge in Ger- 
many, Holland, and England. In the year 1689 the Rhine Palatinate 
(Rhein-Pfalz, Kur-Pfalz) was exposed to the most ruthless devas- 
tations. Terror reigned in hideous guise. If we add to these 
conditions the religious disturbances resulting from the pietistic 
movement throughout Germany, we shall find a ready explanation 
of the enthusiasm with which Germans hailed the hope of a 
peaceful home beyond the sea. 

It -was just prior to this culmination of woes that William Penn 
made his visits to Germany — the first in 1671, the second in 1677. 

During his first visit Penn went to Emden, Crefeld, and various 

> Freytag, Bilder III 199. 


points in Westphalia. It is, however, the second of his visits which 
has the greatest significance. This time he went to Rotterdam, 
Leyden, Haarlem, and, most important of all, Amsterdam, where 
a general assembly of Quakers (Friends) from various parts of 
Europe was convened. Besides the above-named places, Penn 
revisited Crefeld, Emden, and Duisburg, extending his travels up 
the Rhineland to Krischheim, Worms, Frankfort-on-the-Maine 
and neighboring points. The acquaintances made during this 
visit led to the formation of two important land companies, the 
Crefeld Purchasers and the Frankfort Land Company. The 
Crefelders were, however, stricdy speaking, private land-buyers 
and not an organization. 

It was as plenipotentiary agent of the Frankfort Company that 
Franz Daniel Pastorius arrived in Philadelphia, August 20, 1683, 
accompanied by ten persons. Their object was to prospect for 
subsequent emigrants. The first actual German colonists,' how- 
ever, arrived in Philadelphia October 16, 1683, by the ship " Con- 
cord" (the Pennsylvania- German "Mayflower"). This company 
of settlers consisted of thirteen families from Crefeld and the 
neighborhood. " Sie waren eine Sippe so zu sagen. So weit ihr 
Gewerbe hat ermitteln lassen, waren es grosstenthiels Leinweber, 
so dass Pastorius allerdings Veranlassung hatte, den Weberstuhl 
in das Stadtwappen von Germantown zu setzen " (Seidensticker). 

Siedensticker thinks the thirty-three souls mentioned are to be 
understood, from the correspondence of Claypoole and Furly, as 
thirty-three** freights." This being the case, the actual number 
must have been considerably more than thirty-three persons, as 
children under twelve years came as "half-freight" and those 
under one year of age came free. The names of these persons 
are interesting and significant.^ It was this group of colonists 
who, under the direction of Pastorius, began the settlement of 
Germantown, 1683. Seidensticker suggests that there may have 
been Mennonites among them, though Crefeld and Krischheim 
near Worms were strong Quaker points, and that the early 
divisions of Germantown— Krisheim, Sommerhausen, Crefeld— 
doubdess represented the places dear to them as homes in the 
Fatherland. Of the Crefeld Purchasers, who had bought in all 
18,000 acres of land in Pennsylvania, Jacob Telner of Crefeld 
came to America in 1684, Van Bebber in 1687, Jan Strepers of 

' Cf. Seidensticker, Bilder, S. 28, who cites Pastorius' " Grund- und Lager- 


Kaldenkirchen in 1691. Although no statement is found that 
fresh colonists came at these different times, it is hardly probable 
that these land-purchasers came over to settle without consid- 
erable companies of their immediate acquaintances. Thus we 
have located the first German settlers in Penn's Province. 

The next company of Germans to settle in Pennsylvania was a 
group of enthusiasts, called "The Awakened" ("Erweckte"), 
about forty in number, under the guidance of Johann Kelpius. 
They arrived in Philadelphia June 22d, and in Germantown on 
"St. Jojiannistag" of the year 1694. Kelpius himself was from 
Siebenbiirgen. He, with Koster, Falckner, Biedermann and 
others, had rallied around Pfarrer Zimmermann, who had been 
removed from his pastorate in Bietigheim in Wurtemberg. After 
a short stay in Halberstadt and Magdeburg, the company decided 
to emigrate to Pennsylvania. Zimmermann, however, died in Rot- 
terdatn, leaving Kelpius to direct the mystic wanderers into the 
new land. He accordingly settled the suspicious new-comers on 
the Wissahickon, a short distance from Germantown, probably 
near the present Hermit's Spring and Hermit's Lane. Kelpius 
himself was steeped in the teachings of Jacob Bohme, Dr. Peter- 
sen, and the English prophetess Jane Leade. With his little 
group of mystics he resolved to lead a hermit's life in the wilder- 
ness and await the second coming of Christ Their settlement 
was called " Das Weib in der Wiiste " (the woman in the wilder- 
ness). Besides the men above mentioned there were a number 
of women, but with no thought of earthly love in their life.* 
From the Chronicon Ephratense' we learn the further develop- 
ment of this society: "Ihre Anzahl war damals (1694) bey 
vierzig, hatte sich aber vermehrt, dann 1704 vereinigte sich Con- 
rad Matthai, ein Schweizer, damit" 

From 1704-1712 the first settlements in Berks County were 
made by English Friends, French Huguenots, and German emi- 
grants from the Palatinate. The Germans settled near Wahlink 

Isaac Turk, or de Turck, having been compelled, like thousands 
of his countrymen, to quit France, fled to Frankenthal in the 
Palatinate, emigrated thence (1709J to America and settled near 
Esopus, N. Y., but removed in 17 12 to Oley, Berks County, 

' Cf. Seidensticker, Bilder, S. 98 : " Und so wollten denn auch die Mitglieder 
des * Weibes in der Wiiste ' nicht freien und nicht gefreit werden." 
'A chronicle kept in the cloister at Ephrata, Lancaster County, Pa. 


Pa. In the same year a company of Mennonites purchased land 
in Pequea (in the present Lancaster County), Pennsylvania. In 
order to escape persecution for their religious convictions, they 
left their homes in the cantons Zarich, Bern, and Schaff hausen, 
Switzerland, in 1672, and setded in Alsace and along the Rhine 
above Strassburg. In 1708 they migrated to London to find 
protection in the realm of Queen Anne. From England they 
emigrated to America and setded first at Germantown. Soon a 
part of them removed to Pequea- Thai and formed the nucleus 
of the settlement at Eden. This colony received large accessions 
of both Swiss and Germans, especially in the years 17 11 and 17 17. 
Many distributed themselves among the various districts of the 
province without reporting to the provincial authorities either 
their names or origin.' The following from Rupp's edition of 
Benjamin Rush's Essay on the Manners and Customs of the Ger- 
mans of Pennsylvania will show the general character of the 
Germans who went at this period to England, Ireland,' and 
America, especially Pennsylvania : 

"From the middle of April, 1709," says Rupp in a note, "till 
the middle of July of the same year there arrived at London 
11,294 German Protestants, males and females. Of the males 
there were: husbandmen and vine-dressers, 1838; bakers,' 56; 
masons,' 87; carpenters, 124; shoemakers, 68; tailors, 99; butch- 
ers, 29; millers, 45; tanners, 14; stocking-weavers, 7; saddlers, 
13; glass-blowers, 2; hatters, 3; lime-burners, 8 ; schoolmasters, 
18; engravers, 2; bakers," 22; brickmakers, 3; silversmiths, 2; 
smiths, 35; herdsmen, 3; blacksmiths, 48; potters, 3; turners. 6; 
statuaries, i; surgeons, 2; masons,' 39. Of these 11,294 there 
were 2556 who had families." * 

We have given 17 12 as the date of the first settlement on 
Pequea Creek because the record of their land -purchase bears 
that date. It is possible that a few Germans had begun to take 
iip land here earlier. 

The manner in which they radiated from Germantown can be 
seen in the following statement: "In 17 16 Germans, French and 
a few Hollanders began to break ground twenty, thirty, forty, 

* Cf. John Dickinson's Report of 1719. 

' Many of the descendants of those who settled in Ireland may stUl be found 
in Ulster. 

' Enumerated twice because quoted verbatim. 

*Cf. Frankfurter-Mess- Kalender von Ostern bis Herbst 1709, S. 90. 


sixty, seventy miles from the chief town" * (Germantown). Large 
German settlements were made at the same time in the present 
Berks County, In 17 17 a German Reformed society was formed 
in Goschenhoppen ; some Low German Mennonites were settled 
on the Perkiomen and Schippack (Skippack) creeks; Germans 
and French in Wahlink, and some Huguenots in Oley.* 

In the year 17 19 about twenty families of Schwarzenau Baptists 
(Taufer) came to Philadelphia, Germantown, Schippack (in Oley), 
Berks County, and to Conestoga, and Miihlbach (Mill Creek), Lan- 
caster County. From the Chronicon Ephratense is taken the fol- 
lowing account of this company of "Taufer,'* now generally known 
throughout the State as Dunkards (Dunker orTunker): "At the 
beginning of the i8th century arose a large sect called Pietists, 
representing all ranks and stations. Of these, many returned to the 
church and became Church- Pietists (Kirchen-Pietisten) ; the rest 
betook themselves to the districts of Marienborn, Schwarzenau, 
and Schlechtenboden. From this latter branch two different 
societies were formed, * Die Inspirations-Verwandten ' and * Die 
Schwarzenauer Taufer.' In the year 1708 the following eight 
persons broke the ice : Alexander Mack as teacher, a certain very 
rich miller of Schriesheim on the Bergstrasse, his * Hausschwester,' 
a * Witwe Nothigerin,* Andreas Bone, Johann Georg Honing, 
Lucas Vetter Keppinger, and a certain nameless armorer. From 
these eight persons originated all the * Tauffgesinnten * among the 
High Germans in North America. The society of * Tauffer * (Bap- 
tists) in Schwarzenau became widely extended. One branch of 
it settled in Marienborn, and in the year 1715 are found in Crefeld. 
In 17 19 a party of them under Peter Becker came to Pennsyl- 

A few lines further on the Chronicle says of Konrad Beissel, 
the founder of the cloister at Ephrata," that he was expelled from 
the Kur-Pfalz, "like many others from Frensheim, Lambsheim, 
Mutterstadt, Frankenthal, Schriesheim, and other places, the most 
of whom [i. e. of which persons] ended their days in Pennsyl- 
vania." Konrad Beissel arrived in Boston, Mass., in 1720, came 
to Conestoga, Lancaster County, Pa., and settied at Miihlbach the 
same year. 

' Rupp, 30,000 German Names, p. 10. 
' Ibid. p. 29, note. 

' Cf. Siedensticker, Bilder, for a most interesting account of this cloister and 
the life in it. 


In the next company of Germans who settled in the province 
of Pennsylvania we find a remarkable instance of the toilsome 
migration of the time. In order to trace the steps of these weary 
wanderers who came to seek a peaceful retreat in the wild freedom 
of Tulpehocken, we must revert to the years 1708-9. These 
Germans were among the unfortunates who, driven by bitter per- 
secution from the Kur-Pfalz, had gone to England in 1708-9. At 
Christmas, 1709, four thousand were shipped in ten vessels to 
New York, where they arrived June 10, 17 10. In the following 
fell they were taken to Livingston's Manor to work out their pas- 
sage from Holland to England and from the latter to America. 
In 17 13 they were released fi'om the debt and betook themselves, 
about one hundred and fifty families, to Schoharie, N. Y, Most of 
these migrated to Tulpehocken, Pennsylvania, in 1723. The 
leading spirit of this Tulpehocken settlement, however, was Kon- 
rad Weiser, who came with another accession of Palatines in 1729 
and located near the present Womelsdorf, which had been settled 
by the Schoharie Palatines. 

The following report (made 1764) of Keith's administration 
(about the year 1729) affords additional testimony as to the great 
numbers of Germans coming in at that time : " He [Keith] settled 
in Pennsylvania a number of Palatines, . . . and those emigrants 
poured in such numbers into Pennsylvania that the government 
of the province refused to receive any more unless they paid a 
pecuniary consideration for their reception. This obliged many 
ships full of them to go to other British settlements." In one 
year no less than 6200 Germans and others were imported into 
the colony. In this same year that company of the T'aufer which 
had gone in 1720 to Westervam in West Friesland came to 
Pennsylvania. There is record of seventy-five Palatine families 
who arrived in Philadelphia in August of 1729 and settled in 
Quintaphilla, which seems to have been partly occupied, 1723-9^ 
by the Schoharie setders. In this same year (1729) emigrants 
from Germany settled also in the eastern part of the same county 
(Lebanon), and a company of German Jews made a settlement 
near Scheafferstown, the present inhabitants of which are largely 
of German descent. Here these Jews had a synagogue, and as 
early as 1732 a necropolis. In 1730 a few Dutch settled in Pike 
township, Berks County, where many of their descendants are 
stiU living. Kutztown in the same county was settled by Germans 
about 1733. 


In 1734 a considerable number of Schwenkfelders settled in 
Hereford township and on contiguous lands in Berks, Mont- 
gomery, and Lehigh counties, where many of their descendants 
are still to be found. Their number in 1876 was given as about 
three hundred families, constituting eight hundred members, with 
five churches and one school-house/ 

The next setdement of importance was made by the Moravians 
at Bethlehem, Northampton County, Pa. In the spring of 1740' 
Peter Bohler left Georgia with a few Moravians from Herrnhut, 
Saxony, who had attempted a settlement among the Creek Indians 
in 1734. In 1741 they began to build the town of Bethlehem (the 
present centre of the Moravian Church North). In 1745 most of 
those who had settled in Georgia, numbering several hundred 
families, migrated to Pennsylvania because they were religiously 
opposed to bearing arms in the war with Spain. They setded for 
the most part in the counties of Berks, Montgomery, Bucks, and 
Lehigh, and organized a church at Emaus as early as 1747.' 

In 1748 Reading, Berks County, was founded and continues to 
be one of the strongest German centres of the State. Dr. Egle's 
words are fitting here : " Reading, at the erection of Berks County 
(1752), contained three hundred and seventy-eight inhabitants. 
The original settlers were principally Germans from Wiirtemberg 
and the Palatinate, with a few Friends under the patronage of 
Penn. Most of the inhabitants being Germans, they gave charac- 
ter to the language and customs. For many years the German 
tongue was almost exclusively spoken, and is still used in social 
intercourse and religious worship in a considerable portion of the 
present population. Till 1824, the date of the erection of the first 
Presbyterian church, the religious services of the churches were 
held in German."* What is here said of Reading is true in 

*Mr. J. Y. Heckler writes me under date of September 17, 1887, that the 
Schwenkfelders* settlement is divided into two districts, the Upper and the 
Lower. They have six churches, located as follows: In the Upper District, 
(i) the Upper Hanover township, near the county line of Montgomery. Lehigh, 
and Bucks counties; (2) on the " Teufers Loch," Washington township, Berks 
County; (3) in Hosensack Valley, Upper Milford township, Lehigh County. 
In Lower District, (i) in the eastern comer of Lower Salford township ; (2) in 
southern corner of Towamencin township ; (3) in southern part of Worcester 
township ; last three all in Montgomery County. 

«Cf. Henry's Lehigh Valley (in five numbers). No. 2. pp. 172 ff. 

»Cf. Reichel, Friedensthal and its Stockaded Mill, Northampton County 

*Cf. Chapter on Reading in Egle's History of Pennsylvania (ed. of 1876). 


general of many smaller towns in the German districts of the 
State. One needs only to pass along the streets of Hambiuqg, 
Allentown, Lancaster or York, to find himself environed by this 
peculiarly German atmosphere. 

Thus I have traced the history of the German settlements of 
Pennsylvania through the period of colonization, as it may fitly be 
termed, without implying, of course, that the stream of emigration 
from the above named districts of Germany ceased to flow in the 
middle of the i8th century. On the contrary, the influx of Ger- 
mans became so great as to be almost uncontrollable. This will 
be seen in the following : " Im Herbste 1747 kamen nicht weniger 
als 7049 Deutsche in Philadelphia an. Im Sommer jenes Jahres 
landeten 12,000 Deutsche."' 

In the preceding pages the directions have been indicated in 
which this great German migration moved for the most part till 
the year 1848. 

II. — Period of Migration and Frontier Settlement 

( 1 750-1 800). 

The second period of Pennsylvania German history from circa 
1750-4 to the beginning of the present century was one of great 
agitation and extensive migration within the limits of Pennsylvania 
as well as beyond its borders. The peaceful colony to which the 
beneficent Penn, the pioneer of religious tolerance in America, 
had invited the persecuted of every creed, began to be disturbed 
by the omens of war. The savage neighbors of copper hue, won 
at first by the manly negotiations of Penn, and christianized in 
great numbers by the pacific teachings of both Quakers and Mora- 
vians, were now incited by the fury of France and became hideous 
monsters, spreading terror and death with the relentless tomahawk. 
Hardly had the Indian war-whoop, mingling in weird accord with 
the battle-cries of France, died away in the forest gloom, when 
the alarm of revolution sent dismay throughout the fair province of 
Pennsylvania, heralding the event which was to solve the problem 
of American independence, and transform loosely settled colonies 
into compact States of the Union. 

After the close of the Revolution a new movement begins in 
Pennsylvania. Enterprising pioneers from New England, New 
York and eastern Pennsylvania push into the northern and western 

* Cf. Dr. W. J. Mann, Die Gute Alte Zeit in Pennsylvania, S. 24, and Hall- 
ische Nachrichten, S. 125. 


portions of the State, opening; to the commerce of the world rich 
products of the soil and treasures of the mine. But to under- 
stand the migrations of Germans already settled in the province, 
and the isolated cases of this movement prior to 1750, it will be 
necessary to glance at the feud between the Pennsylvania Germans 
and the Scotch-Irish. Throughout almost the entire extent of the 
Kittatinning Valley, from northeastern Pennsylvania to northern 
Maryland, the Scotch-Irish were either already settled or settling 
when the Germans came into the region. It is a remarkable fact 
that most of the important settlements first made by the former 
are now occupied by the latter. This is particularly the case in 
the present counties of Lancaster, York, Franklin, and Cumber- 
land.* Apart from the apparent natural antipathy in the character 
of these races, the most potent cause of the feud was the Cressap 
rebellion in 1736. This was a raid made on the incoming German 
settlers in the southern part of York County. Cressap had come 
up from Maryland with " about fifty kindred spirits " and offered 
the Scotch-Irish, as their share of the booty, the improvements 
made by the Germans, on condition that they should aid him in 
dislodging the latter. From their failure in the attempt to drive 
out these so-called German intruders the Scotch -Irish have to 
date the era of their retreat before the advancing Teutons, This 
advance was sustained, not by force of arms, but by more efficient 
instruments of conquest, untiring industry and thrift. Following 
the track of these events, we find the Germans gradually occupy- 
ing the greater portion of lower Lancaster, York, and much of 
Franklin and Cumberland counties, while the Scotch-Irish move 
on into the unsettled districts along the Susquehanna and Juniata, 
with the Germans in their wake. It is but fair to state that the 
Scotch -Irish preference for the stirring scenes of border life doubt- 
less played a considerable rdle in this general migratory move- 

As early as 1728-9 we find Germans settling west of the Sus- 
quehanna in the rear of the advancing Scotch-Irish. In 1741 
Fred. Star and other Germans settled in Perry County, probably 
near Big Buffalo Creek. New Germantown was afterwards laid 
out and named after Germantown near Philadelphia. Pfautz 
Valley in the same county was settled about 1755 by Pfautz, a 

* In Cumberland County the displacement is not so far-reaching as in the 
others mentioned. In the large towns especially the Scotch- Irish population 
has continued to predominate. 


German. Most of the settlers seem to have come from the eastern 
part of the State. 

As early as 1747 a number of German families ventured to 
locate in Schuylkill County. Geo. Godfried Orwig and others 
from Germany settled at Sculp Hill, a mile south of Orwigsburg. 
A Yeager (Jaeger) family from near Philadelphia came to this 
valley about 1762. 

Soon after 1752 the Scotch-Irish of old Allen township in 
Northampton County were supplanted by Germans. Kreidersville 
was named for one of the German farmers who came in 1765. 
Gnadenhiitten (the present Lehighton and Hanover townships) 
was occupied by Germans. 

In the year 1755 a colony of Dunkards (or Baptists) settled in 
Blair County in what is called the Cove, where many of their 
descendants are still to be found " retaining well-nigh the same 
simplicity which marked their fathers — non-resistants, producers, 
non-consumers." * 

In the years 1757-60 many of the Scotch-Irish in Cumberland 
County were supplanted by Germans. Even as early as 1749 
the agents of the Proprietaries were instructed not to sell any 
more land to the Irish, but to induce them to go to the North 
Kittatinning Valley. 

In 1764 Hanover, York County, was laid out The following 
year (1765) records a noble civilizing enterprise undertaken by 
the Moravians among the Indians. April 3d of this year eight 
Moravian adults and upwards of ninety children set out from 
Bethlehem and reached Wyalusing, in the present Bradford 
County, May the 5th. This mission, opened by Zeisberger, the 
Moravian apostle to the Indians, 1763, received the name Fried- 
enshQtten. A school-house was built in which both adults and 
children learned to read the Delaware and German languages.' 
The place became a Christian German-Indian town. In the 
year 1772 Qune nth), however, they began their exodus from 
Friedenshiitten in two companies, one under Ettwein, the other 
under Rothe." At the time of the exodus they numbered one 
hundred and fifty-one souls. For the Moravian work among the 


' Dr. Egle, Centennial Hist, of Pennsylvania, cf. Cove, Blair County. 

'The rich results of Zeisberger's lexicographical work are carefully pre- 
served, for the most part in manuscript form, in the Moravian library at Bethle- 
hem, Pa. 

« Cf. Ettwein's Journal , 


Indians this was " the era of gradual decadence extending down 
to our own times, when there is but a feeble remnant of Christian 
Indians ministered to by the Moravians dwelling at New Fair- 
field, Canada, and New Westfield, Kansas."* 

In 1769 Berlin, in Brathes Valley, Somerset County, was settled 
by Germans. Later some Mennonites came and joined this settle- 

In 1773 Isaac Valkenburg, with his sons-in-law, Sebastian and 
Isaac Strape, from Claverack on the Hudson, settled at Fairbanks, 
Bradford County. Thither came also Germans from the neigh- 
borhood of Philadelphia. In this same year the Pennamites sent a 
German, Phillip Buck, to settle at the mouth of Bowman's Creek, 
and two others who settled at the mouth of Tunkhannock Creek 
in Wyoming County. There were possibly others with them. 

In the years 1787-9 John Nicholson gathered from Philadelphia 
and the lower Susquehanna about forty Irish and German fami- 
lies and settled them in Hopbottom, Susquehanna County. Dutch 
Hill, in the same county (just north of Wyalusing), was settled by 
persons of Dutch descent born in New York. In Cambria County 
the main source of the population was Pennsylvania German 
stock. Their pioneer was Joseph Yahns, and those who followed 
him were for the most part Dunkards and Mennonites or Amish. 
Yahns arrived in 1791 at Kickenapawling's old town. The others 
settled in the adjacent county, principally at Amish Hill. Their 
descendants are still to be found around Johnstown (Johns- or 
Yahnstown). A colony of German Catholics settled near Carroll- 
town. Columbia County was entered by Germans (among them 
Christian Brobst or Probst and Georg Knappenberger) in the 
year 1793. Germans are now found in great numbers around 
Catawissa, where formerly Quakers held sway. Zelienople and 
Harmony in Butler County are occupied mainly by Germans 
descended from a society of Harmonists who settled there in 
the years 1802-3. 

In 1807 Herman Blume, a native of Hesse-Kassel, with others, 
founded a German settlement at Dutch Hill, Forest County. 
Blume was followed by many of his fellow-countrymen (Hessians). 
In this (Forest) county was laid, too, the scene of many of Zeis- 
berger's labors. 

Greene County was filled up after the Revolution from the 
eastern counties of the State and foreign immigration. Where 

1 Quoted from Rev. W. C. Reichel by Egle, Hist, of Pa., p. 414. 


the mixture is so promiscuous it is difficult to discriminate after 
one or two generations. 

About 1830 Mennonites and Dunkards settled near McAllister- 
ville in Lost Creek Valley, Juniata County. 

Germans in Baltimore and Philadelphia effected a settlement 
on the "community' plan" at St. Mary's, Elk County. 

In 1842 and 1845 Garner brought from Europe an industrious 
company of settlers who located in Benzinger township in the 
same county. 

Thus we have traced in general outlines the history of German 
settlement in Pennsylvania down to that period of German emi- 
gration initiated by the revolutionary troubles of 1848. 

For our purposes these later arrivals have no special importance. 
In considering the dialect of the Pennsylvania Germans, it is the 
formative periods which are of the greatest significance, because 
during these the language not less than the people took firm 
possession of Pennsylvania soil. It will be noticed that in many 
cases only ther bare mention of an isolated German settler has 
been made. We have given the few traces that history has pre- 
served for us, being thus thankful for now and then a silent land- 
mark to indicate the track of the settler. It remains for the local 
investigator to trace family genealogies and note local peculiar- 
ities of speech-mixture in these minor settlements. 

Having thus glanced at the successive German settlements of 
Penn's province in their chronological order, let us consider more 
particularly the speech elements transplanted to Pennsylvania soil 
by these in-coming settlers. At the very outset the question arises. 
Why should these German colonists have retained their language 
and, to no slight extent, their manners and customs, while the 
Dutch and Swedes along the Delaware, and the French" in the 
western part of the State, practically lost all traces of their original 
speech? To answer this it will be necessary to consider the 
number and distribution, the religious, social, political and intel- 
lectual character and aims of these early German settlers. 

* The application of Fourier's economic plan in the Teutonia community is 
an interesting experiment for political economists of the present day. 

•The French settlement near Leconte's Mills. and Frenchville, Clearfield 
County, and the Norwegian-Swedish settlement under the direction of Ole 
Bull in Potter County, are too recent to fall within the scope of our present 
investigation. Either of these settlements, however, would amply repay a 
summer tramp if any dialectician should feel disposed to try the invigorating 
air of northern Pennsylvania. 



It is not possible to ascertain the exact number of Germans who 
settled in Pennsylvania from 1682- 1753, because in the years of 
the largest influx great numbers were allowed to enter the province 
and take up land near their fellow-countrymen without record or 
notice of either their origin or destination. We can, however, deter- 
mine the number approximately from the official reports of the 
time. For the ship-lists prior to 1727 no adequate documents are 
accessible or, so far as is known, extant ; from 17 27-1 777 Rupp's 
"Collection of 30,000 German Names" serves our purpose. 
According to Rupp, only about two hundred families of Germans 
had come to Pennsylvania before the year 1700. These had 
settled in and around Germantown. Sypher states that nearly 
50,000 Germans had found homes in the province before 1727, 
the year Rupp's lists begin. In 1731 the Lutheran membership 
of Pennsylvania numbered about 17,000, and that of the German 
Reformed Church about 15,000* (chiefly from the districts of Nas- 
sau, Waldeck, Witgenstein, and Wetterau). In 1752, of the 
190,000 inhabitants of the province about 90,000 were Germans.' 
In 1790, according to Ebeling,' the German population of Penn- 
sylvania was 144,660. Thus we may safely estimate the German 
population of the State in the year 1800 at 150,00a In 1870 the 
aggregate population of Pennsylvania numbered 3,521,975, of 
which number 1,200,000 were of German descent and 160,146 
directly from Germany, thus leaving 1,139,854 (more than six 
sevenths of the entire number of German blood) born for the 
most part on American (Pennsylvania) soil. 

When we come to the distribution of Pennsylvania Germans in 
those districts where they have preserved their dialect, it will be 
found impossible to give exact figures, because (i) no accurate 
record of births, deaths, removals and accessions is kept as is 
the case in Canada ;* (2) many, especially merchants not of Ger- 
man descent, speak the dialect fluently; (3) many who are of 
German extraction no longer speak the vernacular of their ances- 
tors, but regard it with an air of contempt, and use every means 
to become Americanized and lose even the reminiscences of their 
German traditions. That greatest of levelling influences, the 
public school, makes it imperative to speak English, thus dividing 

* Cf. Seidensticker, Gesch. d. d. Gesellschaft von Fennsylvanien, S. 18 ; Dr. 
Smith, Brief State of the Province of Pennsylvania. 
' Ebeling, Beschreibung der Erde, Abtheilung, Pennsylvanien. 
«Cf. Prof. Elliott, American Journal of Philology, 1885, PP. I35 ff. 


femilies, so that often the parents speak their dialect among them- 
selves and to the children, while the latter speak English among 
themselves and to the parents. In many sections of the State, 
Lancaster and York counties for example, which one or two 
generations ago were distinctively German, the old vernacular is 
fast disappearing and the English is becoming the current speech, 
leaving only the name of speaker and locality as reminders of a 
once flourishing German community. It is possible, however, to 
indicate approximately the status of what may be termed dis- 
tinctively Pennsylvania German districts. For the most part the 
genuine Pennsylvania German is to be found in the agricultural 
districts and country towns and villages, although in cities like 
Philadelphia, Allentown, Reading and Harrisburg there are large 
numbers whose vernacular is Pennsylvania German. In such 
cities as those just named it is possible to hear almost every dia- 
lectic variation, from the language of the Swiss to that of the 
Hollander, from the patois of the peasant to the polished speech 
of the literatus. But if we pass beyond the sphere of these great 
levelling centres, we shall find the original dialect and, to no slight 
extent, the customs of the simple pioneers in full sway. It is only 
necessary to state here that as a rule the general historic outlines 
have remained intact, the old settlements gradually enlarging, 
and in many cases sending out from their midst more adventurous 
spirits who became the nuclei of new settlements in the western 
counties of the State. The Germans were for the most part agri- 
culturists or local artisans and possessed their land. There have 
usually been some younger representatives willing to cultivate the 
paternal acres and perpetuate the ancestral title to the soil. 

To recapitulate, the distribution of the dialectic elements may 
be stated as follows : 

In the first settlement at Germantown were Crefelders till 
1709-10, when the " Pfalzer *" began to pour in from the Palatinate. 
Here are represented (i) Low Prankish and Rhine Prankish^ of 
the Lower Rhine province near Diisseldorf ; (2) South Prankish^ 
near the North Alemannic (Suabian) border ; South Prankish^ 
specifically Rhine Palatinate (^Rheinpf'dlziscK)\ (3) South Prankish-- 

*The term *'Pf&lzer" as used in the ship-lists is not sharply defined, and 
may apply to representatives not only of the Pfalz (Kurpfalz) but to any 
Rhinelander, and sometimes, it would seem, to any German. As a matter of 
fact, however, the most of the so-called Pfalzer were from the Rhenish Palati- 
nate, as their dialect shows. This will be discussed in another chapter. 


Alemannic of Alsace and Lorraine. In Berks County, where the 
inhabitants are stigmatized as '* dumb Dutch/' the speech-elements 
were (i) ^^ Rheinpf'dlzisch^^^ brought into Wahlink and Oley by 
French Huguenots temporarily living in the Palatinate and by 
native Palatines ; into Tulpehocken by the New York Palatines 
from Schoharie and others direct from the Palatinate; (2) Ale- 
mannic, brought into Bern by the Swiss ; (3) Welsh in Breck- 
nock, Caernarvon, Cumru, Robeson, and Union townships ; (4) 
Swedish in Union township; (5) Silesian, probably with Saxon 
and other elements, brought by the Schwenkfelder into Hereford 
township and lands adjoining in Lehigh and Montgomery coun- 
ties; (6) English^ in Union township; (7) Duich'^ (8) Suabian 
at Reading.* 

In the region of Eden (Pequea-Thal), Lancaster County, we 
find Alemannic elements from Ziirich, Bern, SchafThausen, and 
possibly a considerable mixture of ^' Rheinpfdlsrischy* which latter, 
with probably many other dialectic varieties, came also with the 
Dunkards (Tunker) to the regions along the Conestoga and 
Mahlbach, Lancaster County, and also to Skippack in Oley, Berks 

The few Dutch that settled near Pottsville, Schuylkill County, 
brought Lew German elements, as did those also in Pike town- 
ship, Berks County.* 

Into Northampton County came with the Moravians, Upper 
Saxon elements (Sachsen-Altenburg), and extended into Berks, 
Bucks, Montgomery, and Lehigh counties. 

Thus it is seen that the ethnic elements which developed the 
Pennsylvania German speech represent a wide and varied lin- 
guistic territory. Nor must it be supposed that, inasmuch as the 
Pennsylvania German is spoken of as a unit, such a complete 

* English is mentioned here to show the variety of speech-elements repre- 
sented in this one county. It will be understood that the English element is 
a constant quantity in every settlement of any importance in the whole 

* To Hamburg, Berks County, came the speech of Hamburg, Germany, but 
it soon came into contact with the great Pf^lzbch current and was merged in 
it and in the neighboring dialects. 

* In and around Reading, Berks County, the dialect elements were chiefly 
Suabian and Rhine Frankish, many of the settlers having come from WUrtem- 

berg and settled with Pfilzer from the various sources mentioned above. 

^ In Pike township* Berks County, the Dutch element is quite small com- 
pared with the Alemannic and Rhine Frankish. 


levelling has taken place as to render it impossible to trace the 
original dialectical characteristics. This will receive fuller treat- 
ment in the chapter on Phonology. 

The causes leading to the perpetuation of these peculiarities 
were in general the same as those which preserved to our time 
this widely spoken dialect itself. Rupp remarks that the Ger- 
mans who came to Pennsylvania before 1717 were for the most 
part persons of means. This in many cases was true, but they 
were as a class from the humbler walks of life, seeking a quiet 
retreat from the storms of persecution. They were men of firm 
convictions, and in many cases deeply imbued with the spirit of 
pietism. They cherished the traditions of the Fatherland, cared 
little for political power or prominence, were content to till their 
fertile acres in this occidental Eden unmolested in their religious 
and social rights and liberty. 

Here is a state of political units quite different from the early 
settlers of New England, where the responsibility of government 
was keenly felt by the individual settlers when they met in that 
greatest of Teutonic institutions, the town meeting. Besides the 
unobtrusive character of the early Pennsylvania Germans, there 
were other potent forces favoring the perpetuation of their lan- 
guage, such as the organization of German schools in all important 
German centres, the establishment of printing presses in German- 
town and Ephrata, from both of which towns German- American 
publications were distributed in great numbers throughout the 
province, varying in importance from Sauer*s American edition of 
the German Bible and the Chronicon Ephratense to the simplest 
tract and calendar. The pulpit has been and continues to be the 
great bulwark of conservative strength. 

M. D. Learned. 


Chaucer and Maximianus. 

One of the best known places in Chaucer is the speech of the 
old man whom the rioters meet on his way out of the woods, in 
the Pardoner's Tale : 

Thus walke I, lyk a restelees caityf, 

And on the ground, which is my modres gate, 

I knokke with my staf, bothe erly and late, 

And seye, *' leue moder, leet me in ! 

Lo, how I vanish, flesh, and blood, and skin ! 

Alias ! whan shul my bones been at reste ? 

Moder, with yow wolde I chaungen my cheste. 

That in my chambre longe tyme hath be, 

Ye ! for an heyre clowt to wrappe me ! " 

But yet to me she wol nat do that grace. 

For which ful pale and welked is my face. 

(C. T. 12,662-72 T.; C. 728-38.) 

With this may be compared the following, from the first elegy 
of Maximianus. The passage seems never to have been cited in 
illustration of Chaucer. 

Ortus cuncta suos repetunt matremqne requirunt, 

et redit ad nihilum, quod fuit ante nihil.* 
hinc est quod baculo incumbens ruitura senectus 

assiduo pigram verbere pulsat humum 
et numerosa movens curto vestigia passu 

talia rugato creditur ore loqui : 
" Suscipe me genitrix, nati miserere laborum : 

[membra peto gremio fessa fovere tuo : 
horrent me pueri, nequeo velut ante videri :] 

horrendos partus cur sinis esse tuos ? 
nil mihi cum superis ; explevi munera vitae : 

redde, precor, patrio mortua membra solo, 
quid miseros variis prodest suspendere poenis ? 

non est matemi pectoris' ista pati." 
his dictis trunco titubantes sustinet artus, 

neglecti repetens stramina dura tori. 

(El. 1 221-36 ; Bahrens, Poetae Lat. Min. V 326.) 

These two remarkable passages are strikingly similar, not only 
in their general drift, but in the special point of the old man's 

1 This line is a close translation of Euripides* rd fjofdhf elc oifdcv piwei (Fr. 
536 Nauck).— B. L. G. 

NOTES. 85 

knocking on the ground with his staff and calling upon his mother 
Earth to let him in. 

Maximian was a favorite author in the Middle Ages.' There is 
a free Middle-English version* of his first elegy in MS Harl. 2253, 
but it does not contain our passage. In the Court of Love (form- 
erly ascribed to Chaucer) he is quoted as an authority on love 
matters.* (See Boddeker, Altengl. Gedichte des MS Harl. 2253, 
p. 244, who apparendy has never seen the Latin Elegies.) On 
the whole, it is very likely that Chaucer had read Maximian, and 
that he imitated him, consciously or unconsciously, in the Par- 
doner's Tale. George Lyman Kittredge. 

Corrections and Omissions of L. and S. in Connection 

WITH Apoll. Rhod. 

Sriiu, To the exx. of this verb in pass, in a metaphorical sense 
should be added the curious expression ^ip-at doOiro^, Ap. Rh. 
II 81. 

dfjL€fyy(». ** It is never used of liquids, for in Ap. Rh. I 882 
dfUKyovai should be read." Decidedly dyApyovtriv is correct. Whether 
ayjpyfa is ever used of liquids or not, there is no objection to its 
use here. The subject of dfUpyovaip is fuXiaaai and the object 
Kafm6p, and Kafm6£, though it here means what is extracted by bees 
from flowers, can always surely be the object of dfiipy». Accord- 
ing to Merkel, diUKywtriv was the reading of the * prior recensio ' 
and is borrowed from there by Nonnus in Dion. V 246. It is also 
approved by Kochly, but all the best MSS have dfufyyovaiVf and 
it is unanimously adopted by modern editors. 

a^Xvtt. " II trans, to darken Ap. Rh. Ill 963." A reference to 
the line will show that fjxKvvav is intrans., as in Hom. ' became 

0oTfw6€is. A reference should be given to Ap. Rh. II 677, 
irXox/M>i fioTpv6(VT(£, a passage imitated by Milton, P. L. IV 301 foil. 

y€papdpvop. Add a reference to Ap. Rh. I 11 18. 

o/oiroXoff. In the sense of " solitary." Add to Pind. P. 4, 49 a 
reference to Ap. Rh. IV 1322 and 1413. The meaning of the 
word thpre is explained by ib. 1333, (prifiov6fioi, 

*See BShrens, V 313. 

' Another version is in MS Digby 86 in the Bodleian Library (see R. Ellis, 
A. J. P. V 163). 

* For if the basse ben full, there is delite, 

Maximyan truly thus doth he write. (797-8.) 
Cf. Maxim. El. i 98 (Bahrens, V 321): basia plena. 


SXkcuos. "drawn along, towed, of a ship, Ap. Rh. I 1314." 
We find here fmfiapy iirop^^o x^*/>^ I vqi-ov 6\Kaloioy and 6\k. is evi- 
dently a substantive. It is the same as okKfjiop of IV 1609 and 
probably means either the rudder (Soph. Frag. Dind. 388) ox part 
0/ the >&^^/(Schol. 1. c). 

3XoXv{a>. "Seldom of griefs like Lat. ululare, Ap. Rh. Ill 
1218." Certainly not of grief in 1. c, but in the usual meaning of 
crying aloud to the gods, here to Hecate. It is imitated in Virg. 
Aen. IV 168 and cf ib. 609. 

OTTflOTT^. "2. The eye^ Ap. Rh. II 109; pi. the eyeSy ib. 445." 
Singularly in both these passages ojtwtt^ does not mean eye^ but 
eye-sockety but it does mean eyes in Ap. Rh. Ill 1023, IV 1670. 

xpriofuxrvinj. " Need, Want, poverty, . . . Ap. Rh. I 837." No, 
here it means service , assistance. In II 473 it means need, want, 
xpri<r. has the same double sense as xp'ia. 

R. C Seaton. 


Plautinische Studien,von P. Lanoen. (Berliner Studien, V i.) Calvary & Co., 
Berlin, 1886. 

Professor Langen's previous volume, Beitrdge zur Kritik und Erkldrung des 
Plautus^ discussed the language of Plautus. It was distinguished from the 
notes in an ordinary commentary mainly by its extreme thoroughness, by the 
fact that the author did not pronounce judgment upon a word or phrase until 
he had examined every passage in which it occurred. This second volume 
exhibits in a high degree the same determination to get together all possible 
evidence before drawing a conclusion. The combination of acuteness. accu- 
racy, and wide knowledge of the rapidly increasing Plautus literature with this 
patient thoroughness makes the book the most important work upon Plautus 
that has appeared in many years. 

The subject here discussed is the origin and meaning of the repetitions of 
thought and inconsistencies of plot which occur in the plays of Plautus. In 
most authors such contradictions are to be rejected as mere glosses or interpo- 
lations, but in Plautus they are so numerous as to require some special hypoth- 
esis in regard to the transmission of the text. Leaving out ordinary glosses, 
two possibilities are open. First, the confusion may be due to '* double recen- 
sion "; this would give us two different texts of the same passage, one of them 
coming from Plautus himself, the other from an actor or dominus gregis who 
had shortened or otherwise altered the text at the time when the plays were 
brought back upon the stage. Cf. Cas. prol. 1-34. An evident case of this is in 
the double ending of the Poenulus. Then when the Corpus Plautinum was 
formed from actors' copies, the grammarians were unable to decide between 
different readings and incorporated both in their text. The second possibility 
is that the contradictions may be the result of contamination that is, of the use 
by Plautus of different parts of two Greek plays which have been joined into 
a single plot without sufficient care in reconciling inconsistencies. That Plautus 
sometimes contaminated can hardly be doubted in view of the direct assertion 
of Terence, Andr. prol. 18. 

The systematic treatment of these two possibilities apparently began with 
Osann, who in his Anaiecta Plautina (18 16) devoted a few pages to the sub- 
ject, but the main work has of course been done since Ritschl. He himself 
was apparently more inclined to regard repetitions as due to ordinary interpo- 
lation than to double recension, though in the preface to the Mercator, p. vi, 
he expresses the opinion that the Mercator, the Stichus, and the Persa have 
been largely worked over. Nor has he anywhere, so far as I know, declared 
himself in favor of the contamination of any of the twenty plays. The next 
work on the subject is Goetz* Dittographien im Plautttstexte^ Acta Soc. Phil. 
Lips. VI 235-328, published in 1875. While expressly disclaiming complete- 
ness, Goetz nevertheless covered most of the ground, discussing some of the 


most important cases of double recension, showing the motives which brought 
about the revision, and laying down with clearness and moderation the lines 
which future investigation would follow. Since 1875 the discussion of the 
subject has been confined mostly to dissertations dealing with single plays, 
and in this way Bacch., Men., Poen., and Epid. have received careful examina- 
tion. Reinhardt in Studemund's Studien I continued the discussion of several 
plays, especially of the prol. to the Merc. To all this must be added the notes 
and remarks scattered about in periodicals. 

Meanwhile the hypothesis of contamination was discussed by Ladewig, 
Ueberden Canon des Volcatius Sedigitus^ 1842. I have never been able to pro- 
cure a copy of this, but Ladewig apparently went too far in the assumption of 
double recension and of contamination. Geppert, Plaudniscfu Studien^ I, 1870, 
treated the '* Factische Wiedersprtiche in den ComOdien des PI. und Ter.," but 
superficially and without reaching any results. 

It has seemed worth while thus briefly to run over the course of earlier work 
in order to bring out the necessary incompleteness of it and to show the stand- 
point from which Langen approached the task. He says (Vorwort vi) : '* Er 
[der Verfasser] ist von dem Gesichtspunkte ausgegangen, dass, um eine eini- 
germassen sicheren Grundlage des Urteils zu gewinnen, bei dem fast voU- 
standigen Mangel ausserer Zeugnisse, alU KomOdien in gleicher Weise in den 
Kreis der Untersuchung gezogen werden mUssen.'' To this view Langen has 
come from seeing the inevitable one-sidedness of his predecessors and from 
feeling, doubtless, that inner impulse toward thoroughness which showed Itself 
in the Beitrage. 

The book consists of three parts^I. Breite der Darstellung und Wiederho- 
lung des namlichen Gedankens, pp. 1-88 ; II. Wiedersprtiche, Inkonsequenzen 
und psychologische Unwahrscheinlichkeiten, 89-232 ; III. Unechte oder fUr 
unecht erklarte Stellen, 233-387. 

Under the first head Langen takes up the plays in order and collects the 
passages where the same thought occurs a second or third time. The purpose 
here is to discover how far simple repetition of thought justifies the hypothesis 
of double recension, and the conclusion is that an extreme caution is neces- 
sary in such cases. Not only is mere repetition not a sufficient reason for 
rejecting a vs., but it is apparent that it is entirely in the manner of Plautus . 
to repeat ideas with but slight change. Much less can the fact that a vs. is 
not necessary to the thought expose it to suspicion. This may seem not at all 
novel, but what is new is the overwhelming and varied proof which these 88 
pages furnish. The evidence is cumulative, and the reader who accepts with 
slight questioning the first dozen cases as allowable exceptions finds himself 
carried from case to case until finally he discovers that the exception has 
become the rule. Nor is such a proof as is here given unnecessary. Again 
and again vss. which have been used as evidence of double recension are found 
in Langen's presentation to be supported by plenty of similar passages. In 
the Bacchides a rough count shows that Langen has thus saved about two 
thirds of the lines which some other scholars have proposed to cut out. The 
total eflfect of the first part of the book is therefore decidedly conservative ; 
it is quite in the line of other special studies (e. g., Becker on indirect ques- 
tions) which have done so much to render definite and accurate our knowledge 
of the language of Plautus. 


While the purpose of Part I is doubtless to lay a firm basis for criticism of 
the text, it has a secondary but hardly inferior value as a presentation of one 
side of the style of Plautus. Lorenz, Einl. z. Pseud., pp. 30-64, has given a 
valuable collection of phrases illustrating the fullness of expression and exu- 
berance of diction which characterize all the work of Plautus. He was a poet 
who never lacked a phrase, from whose pen words flowed in such profusion 
that, as he says of somebody's handwriting, alia aliam scandiL Of this ten- 
dency, which made him feel as if he had hardly expressed his thought until he 
had expressed it twice, Langen gives many further illustrations, and Part I will 
therefore have an especial value for the student of the Latin of the people, the 
Latin of daily life. Many of the cases cited seem to be precisely similar to 
the double phraseology which is found within single vss., and therefore allied to 
the heaping up of adverbs, turn igitur^ isiic ilico. They are, then, not peculiar 
to Plautus, but are due in part to the striving after emphasis which shows itself 
in all conversation, in part also to the desire for symmetry and responsion, as 
in Cicero's habit of using pairs of words. The list, however, should not be 
incautiously used to illustrate the conversational style, since many of the 
cases are to be accounted for in other ways, e. g., by great emotion, by the 
desire to bring in a joke or to summarize a preceding statement. 

Part II, pp. 89-232, deals with Sachiiche Mdngel^vtilYi the contradictions, the 
improbabilities, the instances of forgetfulness, which are our main dependence 
in attempting to discover contaminatio or double recension. If, as Langen 
says on p. go, such contradictions are found in all plays without exception, and 
not to any special degree in those which we know to have been repeatedly put 
upon the stage, then, though we cannot throw away entirely the only standard 
by which we can hope to test the plots, we must use that test with extreme 
caution. As Jn the first part, the evidence is cumulative in its effect, and no 
summary would do it justice, but some striking instances are the following : 
Cure. 343 ff., the soldier deposits 40 minae; in 535 f. he demands back only 
30. Epid. 153, the soldier is Euboicus; in 300 he is Rhodius. Epid. 53 ff.» 
Stratippocles owes 40 minae and 10 minae interest; in 141 f., 347, the interest 
is forgotten. These striking cases have very naturally been removed by 
excision or used as evidence of double recension or of contamination by 
scholars who have looked at them singly, but as it is now evident that such 
contradictions are found in all the plays alike, they afiford each other mutual 
support. They cannot, therefore, be' treated singly, but if they are removed 
at all, must be removed in accordance with some hypothesis which applies to 
all alike. Such a hypothesis is not likely to be formed. Rather it is probable 
that these inconsistencies are the work of Plautus himself, and that they indi- 
cate a freer and wider activity of the Roman poet in the translation of his 
Greek originals than has generally been ascribed to him. This will certainly 
be the case, if, as is likely, they appear to a less degree in the plays of 

Even more than in the first part, however, these examples need sifting and 
classifying before they can well be used as a basis for literary criticism. Cer- 
tain kinds of improbabilities must be set aside either as not bearing upon the 
text-questions or as not indicating any carelessness on the pare of Plautus. 
Such are {a) the inconsistencies in the calculation of time, which are both 


frequent and violent, and which have a bearing upon the division of the plays 
into acts ; such are (^) the difficulties in the action, which may have been in 
part explained by stage arrangement, or more probably may have been a kind 
of tradition on the Roman stage, like the ** asides " in Shakspere. Such scenes 
occur in Epid. I I, Pseud. I 3, and wherever a hurrying messenger makes a 
long speech, (c) Most. 659 ff. R., where Tranio is thrown into great confu- 
sion by some entirely natural questions, may serve as an illustration of a class 
of passages which show that the swindling was not in fact very well planned. 
Langen, in his treatment of these, does not give weight enougH to the farcical 
character of the plots. It is an excellence in a comic poet that his swindling 
should be absurd, and these improbabilities have no bearing whatever upon 
the settlement of the text. But even setting aside these classes of passages, 
evidence enough remains to justify the conclusion which Langen expresses on 
p. 90, that Plautus, both in his choice of Greek plays and in his own additions, 
attached greater importance to immediate comic effect upon a far from artistic 
public than upon aesthetic or psychological correctness. Sch511, in the new 
Captivi, Praef. xx, note, says of 152 sqq., 179 sqq., quos locos si Plautus sic 
scripsii^ mtuperandus sane est^ and this is certainly correct, for these feeble 
witticisms are inconsistent with the character or the situation of Hegio. But 
the underlying idea that Plautus would not have brought in a poor joke in the 
wrong place can hardly be held by one who has read Part II of Langen*s book. 

The principles of criticism, then, which are established in Parts I and II 
are mainly negative and cautionary. It is made evident that neither a simple 
repetition of thought in neighboring vss. nor a contradiction in the plot justi- 
fies of itself the hypothesis of interpolation or double recension or contami- 
nation. But it does not therefore follow (and Langen emphasizes this point, 
p. 233) that all that is in the MSS must be defended, and to save himself from 
the suspicion of ultra-conservatism, the author devotes Part III to an exami- 
nation of disputed or spurious passages, applying to them the principles which 
are derived from the inductions of Parts I and II. It is this part of the book 
which will doubtless excite the greatest amount of discussion and difference of 
opinion, for while Parts I and II are decisive so far as they go, no attempt is 
there made to fix absolute or positive rules. The test of double recension 
remains what it was before, minus the test of mere repetition or slight contra- 
diction. The defect of indefiniteness lies, of course, in the nature of the 
subject, not in Langen^s treatment of it, and may be lessened but cannot be 
removed by subsequent work. 

Omitting single vss., the plays show double recension in the following 
places : 

Amph. The longest addition is 479-495, for which, beside the reasons 
given, Beitrage, p. 42, others entirely conclusive are here adduced. Also 
1006 ff., with Mailer and Goetz, and 629 ff. with Ussing. 

Asin. Vss. 23-28 contain double recension, A 23, 24, 27, 28 ; B 25, 26, 27, 
28. Langen considers the latter genuine. From the long passage 106-125 
he cuts out only 109-110. Also 309-311, 480-483 (so Ussing, Ribbeck), 901-3 
and possibly 434-435. Cf. on all Goetz, Praef. Asin. xxii sq. 

Aul. 592-598 are an early interpolation. The only evidence of double 
recension is the double Strobilus-rdle. Vss. 485-488 are defended' against 
Goetz and Francken, but not successfully. 


Bacch. Of the thirty or more passages which Anspach, Brachmann and 
others have suspected, Langen cuts out only about one third ; the rest he 
defends on the grounds of Parts I and II, agreeing in this with Goetz, who 
in his ed. has taken a conservative attitude. Cf. Praef. Bacch. ix. In single 
passages there is some slight difference, e. g. Langen condemns 307, 312-314, 
which Goetz rightly retains ; Langen rightly condemns 884-901. From the 
great canticum^ IV 9, which has been cut to pieces by others, L. and G. agree 
in making only slight excisions. 

Capt. 102-107 are spurious, 530-532 are an interpolation, 521 is due to a 
second recension. In general very few non-Plautine vss. in the play. Langen 
expresses his satisfaction at 6nding that in this view he is in agreement with 
the latest ed. of Brix. On 241 ff. v. infr. 

Cas. Contains a few interpolations, but no evidence of double recension. 
This is the more remarkable (p. 278) as the play is known to have been put 
upon the stage a second time. 

Cist. I 2, 6-13, IV 2, 42-56 are the only considerable dittographies. 

Cure. 263-264 are double recension of 265 ff., 374-383 are not in their 
original form. 

£pid. 5-12 and 12-19 show double recension, but L. finds no ground for 
deciding which is the original. 31-33,109-111, 259, 261-266 are the other 
most important excisions. The last is discussed below. 

Men. 185-8 are a later addition and have crowded out the original vss. 
694-5 are also not from Plautus. In general Sonnenburg, de Men, retractata^ 
has gone much too far in finding evidence of double recension. 

Merc. In opposition to the opinion of Rttschl,^ Praef. vi, Langen (p. 306) 
finds no decisive proof of extensive and systematic working over. 149-165, 
373-3751 620-624, and the speech of Sura at the beginning of Act V (Rit) 
803-817 are all of late origin. 

Most. I 2 is mixed and may contain non-Plautine vss. L. cuts out only 
93-94 R. The long repetition in I 3 (208 ff.) is retained by L. (so Brix, Jahrbb. 
13I) I95)> hut in this he will hardly find followers. There is no (other) evi- 
dence of double recension. 

Persa. Vss. 440-448 are the only considerable interpolation. L. does not 
agree with Rit. in thinking that IV 9 has been greatly curtailed. 

Pseud. 262-3 3-^^ l^tc (hut not with Lorenz 259-261), and so 390-392, 
406-408 ; perhaps also 745-750, but no other long portions. See also what is 
said below. 

Rud. Beside single vss., 1 193-1 196 are a repetition of 1191-2. No syste- 
matic double recension. 

Stich. 1 67-1 71 were added by an actor to continue the supposed witticism 
in the preceding vss. 441-445 (only in A) are cut out by Rit., Lang. As to 
Act V, L. appears to be in doubt, but inclines to follow Teuffel in thinking 
that Plautus omitted the final scene of his Greek original and added Act V in 
something like its present shape. It may have been somewhat shortened since. 

Trin. Langen does not agree with Sch5ll in consiTlering 884-888 a second 
recension, though he is evidently not satisfied with his decision to cut out 879. 
For the rest his text would be about the same as that of Sch511 (Rit.'). 

True. 761, 797-8 belong to a later text 658-9 may be saved by placing 
them after 662. 


In connection with the evidence for double recension Langen takes up also 
the question of contamination. The Epid., which Ladewig and Langrehr 
have divided into two plots, is briefly discussed (pp. 146-7), with the conclu- 
sion that no such division is possible. The contradictions which have given 
rise to the hypothesis of contamination are either such as are shown in Part 
II to be characteristic of Plautus, or are to be explained by later working- 
over of the play. The Poenulus and the Miles Gloriosus, however, are con- 
taminated. In regard to the Poen., Langen*s conclusion (pp. 185 ff.) is that 
the first three acts came from one Greek play, the last two from another ; that 
the two sisters appeared in both and were the common element which rendered 
contamination possible ; that the scene of the first was laid in Athens, of the 
second in Calydon ; that the sisters in the first were ordinary meretrices^ bore 
Greek names, and hoped for freedom through the generosity of their lovers, 
while in the second they were aware that they were ingenuat and were on the 
day of the play for the first time to become nuretrices ; they bore Punic names, 
and looked forward to the possibility (realized in the play) of being discovered 
by their parents. The weak point in tliis hypothesis, which Langen himself 
suggests, is the extreme similarity which must be supposed to have existed 
between the two Greek plays, each representing a pair of sisters, the elder 
dignified, the younger frivolous, celebrating a festival of Venus. To account 
for these striking resemblances Langen supposes that one of the plays was 
derived from the other, and refers for a similar suggestion to Ribbeck, Alazon, 
p. 8, note. [Wagner, Introd. to Ter., p. xx, note I, makes the same supposi- 
tion in regard to the ^AvSpia and UepivSia.} While the great number of plays 
in the New Comedy and the narrow range of subject make it probable that 
there were many pairs of plays closely resembling each other (cf. Andr. prol. 
10, fui utrdmvis recti ndrit^ ambas ndverit)^ and while in fact it is this supposed 
similarity which underlies the whole theory of contamination, it is still true 
that the necessity for this additional hypothesis makes the contamination less 
easy of acceptance. It is certainly more probable than double recension, but 
the possibility of explaining the play by the latter must still be left open. 

The Miles Gloriosus has been brought to its present form through con1!kmi- 
nation and double recension. The combination of the two hypotheses should 
excite no suspicion, for the looseness of arrangement which resulted from 
contamination was in itself favorable to double recension, so that it is pre- 
cisely in the contaminated plays that we should naturally expect to find the 
work of the diaoKevaff'^ (cf. Poen. and Andr.). In the main Langen agrees 
with Lorenz (Einl. to edd.) and F. Schmidt (Untersuchungen fiber den Mil. 
Glor.). They hold that only the latter half of the play (813 to end) came from 
the *AXaC6v, while the earlier part is from a Greek play in which the hole in 
the wall formed the centre of the intrigue, by means of which Sceledrus and 
his master were cheated and the lovers enabled to escape. Of this play Plautus 
used only the first half (the Seeled rus-trick), substituting for the second 
half scenes from the *A^i^6v which effected the same end, the cheating of the 
milts and the Bight of Philocomasium, by a different intrigue. As to the 
introductory scene, Langen implies (p. 3x4) that he considers it a part of the 
first play, as does Lorenz. Schmidt connects it with the 'AAaC<^i;. 

Between the two parts come a long scene. III I, and a short one, III 2, in 


all 596-873, which are full of difficulties. In the play as it stands we have, 
592 ff., a statement from Periplecomenus that a senatus is going on in his house, 
to which he immediately returns. Then, 596 (beginning of III i), Palaestrio 
comes out to see if the coast is clear for holding the council in the street, and 
finding no one in sight, he calls out the others. But then no council is held ; 
instead, Palaestrio asks the others if they will agree to the plan as already 
formed in the house ^ and they agree without discussion or any explanation of 
the nature of the plot. Then vss. 615-764 are spent in a long talk, mostly 
monologue by Peripl., on social topics, which, from its subject and treatment, 
must certainly be of late origin. Then all at once Palaestrio recalls Periple- 
comenus and Pleusicles to the matter in hand, and proposes an entirely new 
plot, to which assent is given as before. After the short Lurcio-scene, the 
*A?xi^6v begins with the appearance on the sti^e of the two women who are 
to play the leading parts in the second trick. The contradictions are obvious. 
Lorenz minimizes them (Einl.* S. 35), considering that they do not go beyond 
the degree of carelessness which Plautus allows himself. Langen argues against 
this view (pp. 318 f.), and it is in fact extremely difficult to see any motive 
which can have led Plautus to put in such unnecessary and contradictory vss. 
as 612-615. Further, the long dialogue or almost monologue which follows 
not only delays the action, but is also in its tone and subject (praise of a 
bachelor's life) so opposed to the spirit of the time of Plautus that it would 
hardly have escaped police censorship. Schmidt seems, therefore, right in 
ascribing it to a later revision. Langen proposes to escape all difficulties by 
rejecting the whole scene, getting rid at once of the elaborate announcement 
of a council, the meaningless assent, and the new plot. He leaves, then, only 
the statement 592 if., which seems to mean that a senatus is going on in the 
house of Periph, and in this senatus he supposes the whole second plot to have 
been arranged. 

Against this hypothesis some considerations, both general and special, sug- 
gest themselves. First, the planning is too deliberate. Plautus nowhere 
makes his swindling tricks the work of a number of persons who carefully 
plan a campaign. Rather the tricks spring full-grown from the head of some 
slave, and, as has been said, they are- comic chiefly because they are so sudden 
and so short-sighted. And again, it is still less in the manner of Plautus to 
have anything essential to the story take place off the stage without giving his 
audience ample information of it. Even when a new action or a new char- 
acter is to come npon the stage, Plautus habitually announces it in a few lines 
intended to make it sure that the audience would not be confused. Still more 
necessary would it be that the action behind the scenes should be carefully 
made plain, if the audience was to know that anything at all was happening.* 
It may fairly be said that a council which is announced only by the words redea 
in senatum and Frequ^ns senatus p6terit nunc hab/rier^ and the subject of which 
it takes so much argument to discover, would have been for a Roman audience 
simply non-existent. The spectators, as Langen cuts down the play, would 
have seen two women come upon the stage at the beginning of III 3 and 

1 An English stage-manager said of the British public, " You must first tell them you are 
going to do so and so ; you must then tell them you are doing it, and then that you have done 
it, and then /erha^s they will understand you." 


begin to talk with Periplecomenns about some trick ; at the eleventh line they 
would learn that the plot was directed against the miles; at the twenty-seventh 
they might perhaps understand from hie noster anhiUctust that Palaestrio was 
the maker of the plot, and not till vs. 34 would they begin to get an inkling of 
the way it was all to be done. Nor is Langen correct, as it seems to me, in 
saying that the vss. which follow, 906 ff. and 1177 ff., sufficiently explain the 
method adopted for cheating the soldier, if we consider how little distinct 
explanation there is and how entirely ignorant the spectators must necessarily 
have been at this point in the play. Furthermore, the difficulty of getting 
along without more explanation, which would be great in any play, is much 
increased in the Mil. Glor. by the fact of contamination. For here we should 
have an audience not simply uninformed but misinformed^ The prologue and 
all the play down to 592 contain nothing to suggest a new plot, but everything 
to draw the attention toward the conmealus-vaXxx^t, and the twin sister, and to 
excite the expectation that the next step of the plotters-would be toward some 
further use of the same means which had proved so successful with Sceledrus. 
Without the help of III i, the first thirty lines of III 3 would have been a 
mere confusing riddle. That Plautus contaminated in so awkward a fashion 
is hard to believe. To effect the transition from one Greek original to the 
other, some explanation seems absolutely necessary, and that we shall have, if, 
with Schmidt, we retain from III i the opening vss., 596-611, and begin again 
with 765, the if^turoi which connects well with 6n. We have, then, a plot 
formed and sufficiently explained by Pal., entirely in accordance with the 
usual manner of Plautus. I am inclined to conjecture that the writer of the 
long dialogue between Peripl. and Pleus. did not venture to make so great an 
addition to a long play without cutting out something, and that he therefore 
omitted 765 ff., confused 807 ff. by further shortening, and originated the 
senatus behind the scenes to take the place of 765 ff. Vss. 592 ff. may have 
been changed or may perhaps have crowded out the original vss. (Could redeo 
in senatum rusum mean *' I am going back into the house again to hold a sena- 
tus'^? If so, we should get rid of the council two scenes long.) 

Among the hundreds of passages discussed in the book are some where 
Langen's opinion seems not quite decisive : 

P. 256. "Den beiden Versen, welche nun folgen, [Bacch.] 220 und 221, 
vermag ich keinen vernQnftigen Sinn abzugewinnen." Pistoclerus has been 
speaking of his new acquaintance, and Chrysalus remarks, 219, Quod am^s 
parattimst: qudd des inverUdst opw. Then he suddenly interrupts himself and 
assumes an attitude of ironical doubt, Nam istic fortasse aurdst opus^ " For I 
suppose you may need some money for your affair," Pist., anxious to have it 
all straight, Philippd quidem^ "Yes. in good coin." Chrys., **And very likely 
{fortasse) you want it at once («Vww)." Pist., "No, I must have it sooner 
than that, for the soldier will be here ' at once ' (and then it will be too 
late)." [Cf. Most. 338 dimt ' iam ' id mihi,] Chrys. (stiU ironical), •* Oh, 
there's a soldier in the business too, is there ? " It must be confessed that 
Philip quidem is not very clear, unless Pist. is anxious to have the money in 
good current coin, but the use of nam and of fortasse seem to be explained by 
the lazy irony of Chrys, — P. 248 f. Langen does not quite clear up Aul. 485-9. 
The preceding vss. set forth the advantages which rich men would secure for 


themselvet by marrying the daughters of poor men. The approval or disap- 
proval of the people has nothing to do with the matter, and 485 ff. are just the 
kind of social criticism which a later writer would be inclined to put in. — P. 293. 
The reasons given for cutting out Epid. 259 are conclusive ; not so with 261-66, 
where L. does not see that there is no reason why the answers of Epid. should 
harmonize with each other or with his position as a slave. Epid. is inten- 
tionally annoying the old gentlemen, and therefore he gives transparently 
false reasons for not advising them. The passage seems to me highly 
humorous. — P. 296. The confusion of Men. 130 (R) if. Langen would cure by 
cutting out 133 and placing 134 before 130. It seems plain, however, that 131 
(and perhaps 132 also) belongs with 129. Men. has two motives for rejoicing, 
the iurgium^ by which he has driven his wife back into the house, and the theft 
of the palla, and 131 is the step from one motive to the other. "That's the 
way (i. e. by the iurgium) to carry out such a trick as this theft." The order 
would then be 129, I3r, 132, 130, 134. — P. 302. The necessary indefipiteness 
of the principles derived from Parts I and II is illustrated in Langen's discus- 
sion of Men. 601. He shows with great acuteness that the cutting out of this 
vs. makes a contradiction, because Penic. must then hear 600 and perhaps 599, 
and so learn that Men. had not yet eaten the prandiwit. This, however, seems 
a slight contradiction, no greater, e. g. than the surprise of Calidorus in the 
Pseud, on learning that Ballio has sold his mistress, when all the time Cal. 
has a letter in his pocket informing him of the fact, and indeed is looking for 
Ballio to get him to break off that very sale. Such cases are extremely diffi- 
cult to weigh precisely. If the vss. after 603 were not lost we should know 
just how much Penic. overheard. — Pp. 272 ff. Langen will hardly find fol- 
lowers in his very radical treatment of Capt. 236 ff., where he cuts out 241-248. 
He finds two inconsistent lines of thought running through the passage, one 
being the demand of Philoc. that Tynd. shall render him the honor due to 
him as master, the other the request that Tynd. shall himself play the part of 
master. The reconciliation is in this, that Philoc. as the real master, demands 
that his slave show him obedience hy pretending to be the master. Some of 
the vss. are unintelligible, but not more than two or three. Langen has mis- 
understood the connection between 240 and 241. The words ndn ego erus Hb{^ 
sed seroos stim are logically the object of memineris, though they are expressed 
paratactically, and to supply qtaa with Langen or change servos to conserves 
with Acidalius and Ussing is to give the passage a sense entirely different 
from the natural one. — P. 357. Langen retains Pseud. 142, quoting Lor. Krit. 
Anh. and adding, " entbehrlich ist der Vers freilich sehr wohl, aber er stdrt den 
Zusammenhang nicht." The whole speech deals with the bad character of the 
slaves. Now the vs. Atfaciem quom aspUias eorum^ haudmdli videntur: dpera 
fallunt is not simply, as Langen says, *'das soUte man den Leuten nicht 
ansehen," but rather " There's a great contrast between their looks and the 
way they do their work," and this idea of a contrast does break the connec- 
tion. Usener and Lorenz are therefore right in removing the vs. 

In regard to the Pseud, in general, Langen rightly holds that Lorenz has 
not succeeded in explaining away the contradictions brought in by the double 
plot of Pseudolus. But neither does Langen bring order out of the confusion. 
The double plot, although the contradictions occur within 50 vss. of each 


other, he thinks may be accoanted for as a mere act of forgetful ness on the 
part of Plauttts, and he treats in the same way the astonishment of Calidorus, 
referred to above. The change in the attitude of Simo, to which Lorenz calls 
attention in his Einl., he does not notice. To these difficulties must be added 
the very long scene between Ballio and his hired cook, which delays the action 
and is hardly justified by Lorenz, Einl. S. 24. These are pretty serious incon- 
sistencies. Lorenz, Einl. Anm. 23, suggests double recension for the scene 
with the cook ; it is as likely that a partial eontaminatio may account for this 
scene and for the first part of I 2. 

But it is of slight moment whether Professor Langen's judgment on single 
passages be reversed or accepted. The value of the book lies not in the 
treatment of this or that passage, but in the thoroughness and patience of the 
inductions, in the scientific reserve, in the overwhelming completeness of the 
proof of the points which Professor Langen has sought to establish. These 
make the book not only indispensable to all students of Plautus, but also a 
model of critical method for philologists generally. 

E. P. Morris. 

Die Giganten und Titanen in der antiken Sage und Kunst. Von Maximilian 
Mayer. Berlin : Weidmann^sche Buchhandlung, 1887. 

This study owes its origin chiefly, of course, to the discoveries at Pergamon, 
and to the presence in the Royal Museum of Berlin of the famous Giant Frieze 
itself. The want of a sifted collection of the literary data and of a systematiza- 
tion of the mythological and archaeological problems made itself felt as soon as 
the nature of that composition became manifest. This is now supplied. Two- 
thirds of something over four hundred pages are dedicated to the legendary 
and literary sides of the subject. But a full hundred goes to the elimination 
of what pertains to the Titan myth, besides what attention cognate creations 
of Hellenic folklore require, — such as the Aloades, Kyklopes, and similar giants 
of local story. 

The author inclines to regard the word yiya^ as equivalent to ynv^^t 
adducing the Hesychian yiyeiog as the closest parallel. In this he is in accord 
with the ancients, from the author of the Batrachomyomachia down. But the 
Gigantes are autochthonous in his mythological interpretation also, sons of the 
soil, as they are in the myth itself. They represent the forgotten or subjected 
native races of the divers Greek cantons. Their theomachy is the mighty 
struggle made by these races against the Hellenic invaders, who chose to 
regard themselves as the children of light. The relation between the Canaanites 
(0^) or the Philistines {Goliath) and Israel, Huns {Hunm) and Teutons, is 
absolutely the same. All sons of the soil, men of clay, men of stone or wood — 
hnb dpvh^ r/d* aizh T^trpr^q^ as the old formula has it, — ^all leaf and grass heroes 
affiliate with the more pronounced character of the Gigantes ; in the obsoles- 
cent state of the myth-making faculty their number is large enough : HijTiEbq^ 
KoKpeiq^ Kpavaoit ^ffyf^t Ap^ffc^i *wAAirfa£, Tloiac, etc. Hence the puzzling 
recurrence of the name MeAia in genealc^cal trees ; £k fieXtav is equivalent to 
and dpv6q. Even the brass man Talos is a fuhiry^q and throws stones like 
any giant. This confusion of metaphor appears again in the instances of tree- 


men such as 'EAaro; and Apiuzc among the Lapithai (k^icUs), So we find 
that when Theseus goes among these, it is by authority of an ancestral fir-man, 
his maternal gprandfather Pittheus. The verse indeed in which Nestor charac- 
terizes Theseus himself as a Lapith (A 265) passes for an interpolation. The 
question arises whether the philological critic can afford to ignore the mytho- 
logical view. 

The digressions on the originally dissociated myths of the Titans and of 
Typhoeus serve to show that the individualizing tendencies of later story and 
art borrowed freely from apparently cognate, half obsolete creations. Art 
found in the old big-dragon story the suggestion of the form that became 
typical for the whole company of the yj^ycveif , and the nameless race of the 
Giants was supplied with a resonant nomenclature straight from the poetized 
Titanomachiai. This does not exclude borrowing from other handy sources, 
and Kyzikos, which, as Kirchhoff long since showed, lent its local Riesen^ 
maerchtn to the Homeric Odyssey, quite establishes its character ,as the Corn- 
wall of Antiquity. 

The chief value of Mayer's book, to our mind, lies not so much in the addi- 
tions he makes to the material of comparison that is fast accumulating around the 
Pergamene monuments, as in his systematic review of the pertinent remains of 
early Hellenic art. In sculpture this material is tolerably limited. Yet we 
may now compare not only the Megarian pediment-group at Olympia, but also 
that of the pre-Persian Parthenon with a quantity of black-figured Attic vases. 
In all these the opponents of the gods are purely human in appearance, pro* 
portions, and accoutrement. They wear the heroic panoply and fight with 
ordinary weapons of war, as in the metopes of Selinus. In the paintings the 
war-chariot has an important role, serving as it does to unite Zeus, Herakles, 
and Athena in a typical group. The personnel of divine champions brought 
together in one battle scene is but gradually extended. At first only to such 
divinities as came, so to speak, already armed: Poseidon, who crushes his 
opponent with the weight of an island hurled upon him, as in the poets ; then 
Ares ; later, Artemis and Apollon, Hephaistos, Hera, and Dionysos. The last 
appears accompanied by animals and followed by his thiasos. A group of 
satyrs and seilenoi arming for battle is one of the most graceful antitheses of 
Greek art. It appears on red-figured vases, sometimes as pendant to ti Gigan- 
tomachy on the obverse, sometimes as an independent composition. 

The increase in the number of the gods, and the resultant diversity, especially 
after the introduction of female combatants, in costume and in modes of attack 
prepares a natural transition to the sculpturesque nudity affected in the red- 
figured compositions. A reversion to the ruder weapons and missiles of the 
primitive legend goes hand in hand with this change. In the fifth century, 
then, the artistic t3rpe for the Giants is that of naked men hurling large stones 
at their divine antagonists. Such a type furnished a better subject for metopic 
than for pedimental compositions. Accordingly the Gigantomachia, which had 
nobly filled the eastern gable front of the temple of Zeus at Akragas, and of 
the old Parthenon at Athens, was reduced by Pheidias to a series of single 
combats separated by the triglyphs on the zophoros of the Perikleian temple, 
and had to cede its place in the pediment to a purely local legend. The 
increasing magnificence of the embroidered peplos of Athena was a sort of 


compensation for this. The Gigantomachia was its traditional subject. Mayer 
holds that at this time the Parthenos herself was arrayed therein. Its decora- 
tive division in stripes afforded little play for innovation on the old types. On 
the other hand, to Pheidias must be ascribed the invention — almost required 
by the shape of the shield for the interior adornment of which he selected the 
familiar subject — of allowing the Giants to make a general assault on the 
Olympians from below. As the Lenormant statuette and the Strangford shield 
reproduce the combat of the Amazons with which the outside of the shield of 
the great ivory-and-gold statue was adorned, so at least one vase, a jar from 
Ruvo, now in Naples (Overbeck, Atlas zur Kunstmythologie, V 3), may give us 
some idea of the new effiect attempted by the master mind of the Perikleian 
age. As to the Pergamene frieze, Mayer's observations will teach the replica- 
hunters to remember that the originals of copies are just as likely as not to be 
copies themselves. As his arrangement of the figures in the frieze, based on 
the wooden model used by the sculptor Freres in the Berlin Museum, cannot 
be considered final, we shall not follow it out in detail, but only observe that 
any placing of the slabs that does not recognize the intentional symmetry of 
the groups in which Zeus and Athena are respectively prominent fails to com- 
mend itself as reproducing the original order. 

The typographical execution of the work is not what one expects of the 
established reputation of the publishing house, even assuming that the author 
himself was responsible for careless proof-reading. Such monstra as iauchm 
(for iduscAen, p. 358), or ivdpuv (p. 7), are by no means isolated. 

Once, in the case of a bronze relief serving avrl Kprjirldo^ rot) PovXevnjptov in 
Constantinople (Themist. Or. XIII, p. 217) we are treated to some archaeolo- 
gists' Greek. " Die frage ist nur," says the author, " ob ev ry Kpryrridi dastand, 
Oder ob der sinnlich ansprechende u. technisch treffende begriff des Gegenleh- 
nens in dem (iberlieferten einen correcten ausdruck findet." As if dirri were 

not regularly equivalent to the "LAtinpro-^/ar, as^ or alsl 

Alfred Emerson. 

Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretem von Dionysius von Halikamass bis 
auf.den zweiten Philostratus, dargestellt von Dr. Wilhelm Schmid. 
Erster Band. Stuttgart, W. Kohlmayer, 1887. 

In this book Dr. Schmid, a pupil of Rohde's, has taken up in successive 
chapters ' the principles that regulate the language and style of Dionysios of 
Halikarnassos,' ' the second sophistic down to Herodes Atticus,' ' the Atticism 
of Dion Chrysostomos,' and ' the Atticism of Lucian.' More than half the 
book is made up of lists of words arranged with reference to their character. 
So under Lucian we have Attic words, Platonic, Xenophontean, Hippokratean, 
words taken from the orators, poetic words, of which the comic vocabulary 
makes a special section, words found only in later authors, words used first or 
alone by Lucian, while regard is had to the occurrence or non-occurrence in 
N. T. Greek. For the material of this part of the work Schmid is naturally 
dependent on indices and lexicons, and the value of his sorting varies very 
much with the trustworthiness and amplitude of his sources. His analysis of 
Lucian's diction shows that what Lucian himself says (Bis Ace. II 834 R.) of 


his works, that they are a combination of philosophic dialogue with comedy, 
is literally true in respect to the vocabulary, which is derived chiefly from three 
sources, Plato, Xenophon, and Attic comedy; but when Dr. Schmid takes up 
Dionysios of Halikarnassos,his remarks on the vocabulary and the grammar are of 
little importance. He has no Jacobitz to draw on, no Du Mesnil. And yet it 
must be said that some attempt to analyze vocabulary, tropology and syntax of 
at least the rhetorical works of Dionysios seems indispensable for the founda- 
tions of a work of which that rhetorician is the corner-stone. For most of his 
aesthetic judgments Schmid is dependent on Rohde, as might have been 
expected, but he has not always been careful to note the shifting of his master's 
views, and after coinciding with Rohde in accepting the Asinus as a genuine 
work of Lucian's, he has to record after the book is finished that Rohde has 
changed his mind. But this is only one sign among many that the book has 
not been thoroughly digested, and in every section we are called on to witness 
the gradual growth of the writer's knowledge, the gradual increase of his 
acquaintance with the literature, which, by the way, never becomes exhaustive. 
Why he should not have made himself familiar at an earlier date with Roeper's 
dissertation on the dual in Plato — ^which is of prime importance for one of his 
categories — is inconceivable. Why K&lker's treatise on Polybios, which appeared 
in Leipz. Stud. Ill, was reserved for the ' Zusatze ' is another riddle. Similar 
gaps are to be found for the looking. So no notice is taken of Sturm on trpiv^ 
of Weber on the final sentence, both of whom would have furnished him with 
categories for investigation, and no mention is made of Heller's interesting 
article on the final sentence in Lucian (1880). To many unfortunate Ameri^ 
cans, who dare not stir until they have secured the last minuscule * programme * 
from Krahwinkel, such a genial neglect on the part of a German will seem 
astounding. And yet, despite the tumultuousness and inequality of the work, 
one is glad to welcome to a neglected field a fresh and vigorous worker, and to 
all that Dr. Schmid says in commendation of Dionysios, of Dion, and of 
Lucian, those who are familiar with these authors will heartily respond. But 
Dionysios has long since been brought back to his rights by Blass, Dion 
has never lacked friends, and Lucian is a general favorite, so that the value of 
the book does not lie in the characteristics of these writers so much as in the 
detail work by which those characterisics are substantiated, and in the many 
proofs that Dr. Schmid has accumulated of the utter artificiality of the Greek 
of the whole period. When we sneer at ii KaOapebovaa of our day, we dare 
not be too enthusiastic about the Renascence of the Second Century. But as 
I have intimated above, as I have said elsewhere, almost the whole field lies 
fallow, and if Dr. Schmid has not been always careful in his tillage and betrays 
too often that he is a novice at the work, he has made a beginning in certain 
directions that will, it is to be hoped, have a good ending. The material for 
another volume is ready, he says. Every student of the period will welcome it 
when it comes, and welcome it the more heartily if the author profits by the 
manifold lapses and hastinesses of the present publication. A few notes jotted 
down in no unkindly spirit must close a notice that might be prolonged indefi- 
nitely if the critic's interest in the subject were the only norm. 

P. 49. ol ireadvres r«y orpaTturuv, which is perfectly normal, is paralleled 
with the abnormal itoXTm peXiov, and the partitive construction is said to be 


specially common in later writers ; but, p. 88, the discovery is made that the 
partitive genitive is pan-Hellenic and belongs to no period. — E. 92. irhvv^ 
oirovdatSraToc is cited as a curiosity from the schol. on Lucian, but, p. 238, irdw 
with the superlative is enlarged on as a peculiarity of Lucian's. None of the 
examples cited (p. 95) for the third future show a decline in the sense, tipiiatrai 
does not mean /&^(7era<, and the occurrence in certain verbs is in perfect 
accord with the meaning of those verbs. The old notion that metre had any 
considerable effect on the Attic usage cannot be defended. In So. Ai. 577 : 
ra d' dXAo rthxn Koiv* kptol TeOarfferai, we might have ra^errrat, but what a loss ! 
As for kpelVf Schmid is entirely too cautious (p. 96) when he speaks about the 
possibility that later writers may have taken the form for a present. There is 
no question about it, as Dr. Schmid might have seen by consulting Veitch s. v. 
See my note on Ep. ad Diogn. 2,8: ipeirs Kal vofii^ere^ where ipelre as a present 
is one of the ear-marks by which some wiseacres detected the hand of a forger. 
ipelv occurs as a present over and over in late Greek. So Dion. Hal. de admir. vi 
Dem. 54, p. 1 1 19 R., Epictet. Diss. 2, 14, i, and Aphthon. II 28, 5 ; 38, 12 (Sp.), 
to cite passages that happen to be at hand. Even in the classic period we have 
to ask ourselves whether epeiv is always felt as a fut., e. g. epci in Theogn. 492, 
Plat. Fhaedo 102 D. On the familiar encroachment of fi^ on ot> in later Greek 
Dr. Schmid sheds no new light. In the case of Dion he sees, with Blass, the 
influence of the mania for avoidance of hiatus in hrel fi^ (p. loi) and brt fttf^ 
but when he comes to Lucian this device fail^ him, and he falls back (p. 247) 
on Stegmann's confession of a like inability to set up any rule. Of the growth 
of the usage I have treated elsewhere (A. J. P. I 45), and I will only cite in 
confirmation of my stricture on a note in Geddes* Phaedo 63 B (A. J. P. VI 
496), the passage of Dion to which Schmid has called attention (II 112, i), and 
in which the indictment against Sokrates is quoted in the words of Xen. Mem. 
I, I with the change of ov with participle into //^. The periphrasis eifil with 
the participle is lightly handled (p. 117), though even for later times it might 
have been worth while to study the categories of classic use. (See W. J. Alex- 
ander in A. J. P. IV 291.) And, admirable as Kriiger's grammar is, we have 
later light on the use of the third person of the reflexive for the other two. 
See Bruno Keil's Analecta Isocratea as reported in A. J. P. VI 108. hnov as a 
realized e!, so to speak (p. 129), is common enough in the orators, whose use 
of it should have been noted. — P. 131. Schmid does not sufficiently take into 
account the sportiveness of Plato's use of iraiSec, While it is perfectly true 
(p. 172) that the so-called etymological figure is widely extended in all stages 
of Greek literature, it is also true that certain authors avoided it sedulously, as 
for example Isokrates (Blass, III 203). Is there, after all, any reasonable doubt 
as to the Atticism of i<^a and its forms (p. 233), or are we to revise all our 
texts ? Rauchenstein, on Lys. 7, 22, questions ^ac, but ^ac occurs in Isokr. 
12, 239, as Veitch notes, and ^^aavreg in Dem. 54, 4 : (l>t/aeu occurs in so famous 
a speech as 18, 68. The ambiguity of^df made the bifurcation into <l>daKuv 
and ^7<TOf a practical necessity. See A. J. P. IV 161. — P. 235. Schmid cites the 
authority of Bemhardy (p. 119) for the assertion that the Lucianic 6 rf/v avpcyya is 
due to Herodotean influence. This seems to be a forcing of Bernhardy's lan- 
guage, who considers Lucian's phrases ' odd ellipses.' On p. 242 note that 
oiofiai and vofxi^u with 6ti and ug do occur occasionally in classic Greek under 


circumstances of special temptation, as when an antecedent precedes or the 
exact formula of the thought is given. So oliLai rovro bri Plat. Protag. 345 D ; 
voutaavreg hri X. Hell. 5, 4, 62 ; vofd^eiu Qf Th. 3, 88, 3 ; cf. X. Cyr. 5, 4, i ; 
Eur. H. F. 298. Other verbs of thinking follow the same analogy. ovKiri as 
a sympathetic ov, so to speak, is not a recent importation into the language, 
and (p. 247) some reference should have been made to early use. See Her- 
mann's note on Pind. O i, 5, and comp. also v. 114. As to bre fi^ Kriiger {Dial. 
65* 5« 21) does not say that it occurs in Homer alone (p. 341), but only that it 
occurs in Homer. It occurs in so familiar a passage as Plat. Phaedo 84 £ ; cf. 
Imire fiif Rpbl. I, 354 C, and Laches 196 D. deZ, XP^ ^^^ ^'^ VikCy says S. 
(p. 241), do not seem to occur in Attic syntax with the perf. inf. This statement 
he takes back in the ' Zusatze/ but he can hardly be forgiven, as the construc- 
tion is notoriously Demosthenean. See Rehdantz Indices s. v. Infinitiv, and 
add 36, 13. 33 ; Plat, Legg. 949 E : avayKn ^povTievadtu ; cf. also Hdt. 5, 18. 
But I forbear, having written enough to show that in the absence of better aids 
than we have now it is a dangerous pastime to write about Atticism at all. 

B, L. G. 

The Gospel according to St. Matthew, in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian, and Old 
Mercian versions, synoptically arranged, with collations exhibiting all the 
readings of all the MSS. A new edition. Edited for the Syndics of the 
University Press, by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat, Litt. D., LL. D. Edin., 
M. A. Oxon. Cambridge: At the University Press, 1887. 

Those who have seen Prof. Skeat's editions of St. Mark, 1871, St. Luke, 1874, 
and St. John, 1878, are familiar with the plan of this edition of the Anglo-Saxon 

It was undertaken by Kemble, but St. Matthew was not completed at the 
time of his death in 1857, ^^^ it was finished the next year by the Rev. C. 
Hardwick. The work was then postponed for several years, until Prof. Skeat 
took it in hand and edited the other Gospels as above stated. His reasons for 
re-editing St. Matthew may be briefly condensed as follows : In the former 
edition the mode of use of capital letters in the MSS was entirely ignored ; 
so was the punctuation of the MSS and the contractions, and the accents of the 
MSS were sometimes retained and sometimes ignored : v and j were used in 
the printing, whereas the scribe of the Lindisfame MS never uses them, *' and, 
in fact,y was not used at all till the fifteenth century " ; while the letters p and *$ 
are used indifferently by the scribes of the A. S. versions, the printers of the 
former edition did not follow the MSS, but introduced still further variety. 

The principles on which Prof. Skeat has worked may be briefly expressed in 
his own words : ** To put it in the most striking manner, we may say that 
an editor's duty, at the present moment, is supposed to consist in an endeavour 
to represent the peculiarities of the MSS in the most exact and accurate 
manner ; he is expected to assume that the scribes meant what they wrote, and he 
must not venture to make any correction without giving due notice." While 
this is carrying very far the worship of the letter, which may be but the blunder 
of an illiterate scribe, it is difficult to see on what other principles uniformity 
in editing MSS can be attained. Hence, Prof. Skeat has undertaken this 
work in order that his edition of the Anglo-Saxon Gospels may be uniform. 


We have, as heretofore, the text of the Corpus MS (I), the oldest, c. looo 
A. D., in first column of the left-hand page, with various readings from the 
Cambridge MS (II) and the Oxford MS. (Ill) at foot of page ; the Hatton 
MS (V), the latest, c. 1160 A. D., in second column of the same page, with 
various readings from the Royal MS (VI) at foot ; the Cotton MS (IV) does 
not contain any portion of St. Matthew. The upper part of the right-hand page 
is occupied with the Latin text of the LindisfarneMS (VII) and its Northum- 
brian gloss, and the lower part with the Mercian gloss of the Rushworth MS 
(VIII). A collation of the Latin text of this MS with that printed is given in 
the Appendix. Both the Lindisfame and Rushworth MSS date from c. 950 
A. D., and the latter is in the Mercian dialect throughout St. Matthew, while 
in the other Gospels it is but a copy of the Lindisfame text. Prof. Skeat says 
with regard to this : " The Old Mercian glosses in the Rushworth MS are of 
peculiar interest and value, owing to the scarcity of early specimens of this 
dialect, and its close relation to the modern literary language. Unfortu- 
nately it is not easy to say whether it is a true specimen of the dialect, or only 
a specimen of the West Saxon of the period, as written out by a man whose 
ordinary dialect was Mercian." 

This gives a unique value to St. Matthew as compared with the other Gospels, 
for the Rushworth gloss in this Gospel and the Vespasian Psalter (printed in 
Sweet^s Oldest English Texts, £. E. T.S., 1885) are the chief specimens remain- 
ing of the Mercian dialect. As the texts are now accessible, it remains for some 
scholar to prepare a grammar showing the differences between Mercian and 
West Saxon on the one hand, and Northumbrian on the other. Although an 
Anglian dialect, it shows -^p and -et for 3 sing. pres. where Northumbrian has 
-eSf and the retention of the in fin. -if, which is dropped in Northumbrian. 
Besides differences in phonology, we notice p^ for the nom. article se^ and for 
the accus. Ipom^ although the latter is also used (unless }pe for pone is to be 
attributed to the scribe), and loss of -n in the weak declension, both noma and 
steorra appearing as accus., but the forms with -n are also used. We find both 
sendun and sindun for plural pres., the Northumbrian showing in the one case 
xfM/, and in the other arun. We are now dependent upon Sievers's Grammar 
for dialectic forms, and it is to be regretted that Prof. Cook, in his excellent 
translation of Sievers, has sometimes omitted or abridged the dialectic notes. 
Our thanks are due to Prof. Skeat for this completion of his valuable edition of 
the Anglo-Saxon Gospels. J. M. G. 

A Second Anglo-Saxon Reader, Archaic and Dialectal. By Henrt Sweet, 
M. A. Oxford : At the Clarendon Press, 1887. 

Mr. Sweet states, in his brief Preface to the above-named work, that its 
object is '* to give the student — ^as far as the often scanty materials will allow— 
the means of making himself acquainted with the leading features of the non- 
West-Saxon dialects of Old English," and this because they " are of equal — if 
not even more — rvalue to the historical student of English.*' 

Mr. Sweet is right about it, and we are thankful that he has given us this cheap 
and handy edition of these texts, for it is not every one that has access to his 
Oldest English Texts, or to Skeat's edition of St. Matthew, from which works 


the bulk of this Reader is taken. But we must regret that Mr. Sweet has not 
supplied a glossary. While for the grammatical forms we may look to Sievers's 
A. S. Grammar, as Mr. Sweet expects, '* the advanced student " may reason- 
ably require that Mr. Sweet should have furnished with this first edition the 
notes and glossary relegated to a ** future edition,*' for the lack of a glossary ' 
especially seriously interferes with the usefulness of the work, as there is no 
dialectic A. S. glossary in existence. In some pieces, as the Hymns and Gospels, 
the Latin furnishes the requisite aid, but many of the I^tin words of the Corpus 
and Epinal-Erfurt Glossaries are as unknown to the ordinary student of Latin 
as the Mercian and- Kentish words. I hope that Mr. Sweet will not delay long 
his notes and glossary. 

The contents of the little volume of 214 pages may be briefly stated as 
follows : the whole of the Corpus (Mercian) and Epinal-Erfurt (Kentish) Gloss- 
aries ; four brief Northumbrian inscriptions ; five brief Northumbrian fragments; 
extracts from the Northumbrian Liber Vitae, a list of names ; the Lorica Prayer 
(Mercian) ; the Codex Aureus Inscription (Kentish); thirteen Vespasian Hymns 
(Mercian), no Psalms being given ; St. Matthew, Chaps. VI, VII, VIII, from the 
Durham Gloss (Northumbrian) and the Rushworth Gloss (Mercian) ; Kentish 
Glosses, from Zupitza's edition in Haupt's Zeitschrift; and forty-seven short 
Charters from the seventh to the eleventh century, chiefly Mercian and 
Kentish, those from 31 to the end being from copies made by Mr. Sweet " in 
pursuance of a now abandoned intention of editing a collection of the post- 
Alfredian charters.'* We are thankful for what we have got, but should have 
been more so if we had had a good glossary. J. M. G. 

DnSD K'O ^DJ^O. A Treatise on the Accentuation of the twenty-one so-called 
Prose Books of the Old Testament, with a facsimile of a page of the Codex 
assigned to Ben Asher in Aleppo, by William Wickes, D,D. Oxford : At 
the Clarendon Press, 1887. 

Dr. Wickes, who has earned the gratitude of Hebrew scholars by his work on 
the accentuation of Psalms, Proverbs, and Job (n"OK ^D;?C3), has now completed 
his task. And as was to be expected from the previous book, his study on the 
accentuation of the prose books is at once so learned and so perspicuous as to 
furnish Old Testament students a standard guide on Hebrew accentuation. 
Originally intended as marks for the synagogal cantillation, the accents are of 
the highest importance for the exegesis of the Old Testament, since the cantil- 
lation was but a method of notation to assist in bringing out the sense in 
reading. Dr. Wickes has made an exhaustive study of the literature of the 
subject, and with the help of the indices the student will find no difficulty in 
referring, should he feel the desire, to the original sources. Opposite the title 
page there is a beautiful reproduction of a leaf of the Aleppo Codex assigned 
to Ben Asher, who lived about the beginning of the tenth century. But, for 
palaeographical reasons, as well as from the internal evidence. Dr. Wickes is 
inclined to consider, against Graetz and Strack, this codex considerably later. 

C. A. 


Philologus, XLV 1-4. 

No. I. 

1. Pp. 1-17. Critical discussion of the Odyssey (continued from Vol. XLIV, 
No. 4, pp. 592 if.), by A. Scotland. In this article are discussed and emended 
several passages of 6 and v. 

2. Pp. 18-33. The home of Theognis, by G. F. Unger. Theognis (v. 23) 
calls himself a Megarian ; but what Megara is meant? Plato, Legg. I 630 A, 
calls him noXirrfv t&v ev £uceAi(x lileyaf>iuv. Many others were of this opinion. 
But Didymos opposes their view; also Harpokration^who says: avrbg ydp ^/faiu 
6 irotjfr^i ^HX^ov fih yap iycjye koI etc Zwce^j^ irore ytiiav (v. 783). Plato probably 
understood 2t#ceA^v ycuav to be the land of the Sikeloi, a part merely of Sicily. 
The Scholiast on Plat, loc cit. thinks that Plato's statement is consistent with 
the assumption that Theognis was a native of the Saronic Megara and emigrated 
to the Sicilian ; but this opinion is erroneous, and otherwise of no importance. 
There were certainly two views, and those who held to each view did so merely 
because they saw objections to the other. That neither view was correct never 
occurred to any one. The context of v. 783 shows that IikeXt^ yala meant 
Sicily ; hence the Sicilian Megara is ruled out. But there is also no ground 
for believing that Megara on the isthmus was the home of Theognis. Stephanos 
of Byzantion, in his Onomastikon, enumerates six cities of that name ; in addi- 
tion to the two mentioned, one in Pontos, one in Illyria, one in Thessaly, and 
one in Molossis. The last three, however, were one and the same. It some- 
times belonged to one country, sometimes to another ; under Kassandros it 
belonged even to Makedonia (Plut. Pyrrh. 2). All that we know about this 
general region points to the territory of the Aithikes as the seat of this Megara. 
Could this have been the home of Theognis ? Vv. 1211-16 were banished from 
his works long ago, and assigned variously to Anakreon, Epimenides, Thaletas. 
They could not belong to Theognis, becauses of 1 2 16: ir6Xig ye fxh kari koX 
ijfuv icaA^ AjjOaiif) neiOufikvrf Tcedltf), for Lethaios was a river of Asia Minor, also 
of Crete. But a third one was overlooked (Strab. XIV i, 39): Ircpof d' earl 
Kfficuo^ 6 irspl Tplxiajv^ e^* ^ 6 ^AakX^ibg yewjfi^vcu T^^yerai. The Aithikes bor- 
dered upon Tp'iKKtj, and the river evidently flowed near Megara. We have 
another testimony of the poet, v. 1 209 : AWuv pev yhog dfii^ it67uv 6^ evreix^a 
Qij^riv OLKu naTp(^g yijq dnepwcdpevog. This passage also has been variously 
emended and hauled about. Now, in Cramer, Anecd. IV 97, is found AWec 
KoX 'Aiveg (of course for AWec «ai Alveg) eSviKd, Alvcf is a short form of AiviaveCf 
AWeg likewise of AWuce^, 

The fact that Megara, in the land of the Aithikes, was the home of the poet, 
would not prevent him from being a true Hellen, but would account for the 
oracle ( Anthol. Pal. XIV 73) which closes with a sentence ascribed to Theognis 


by Clemens, Strom. VII goi : v/tteZf d*(i lieyapeii ovre rpiTot aire rhapToc ov6^ 
SvodixaToi (An* h A($y^ ohr* kv api6iJL(f>, a sentence which could not possibly have 
been attered of the southern Megarlans at the period fixed by the rest of the 
oracle. [This article contains many details not given here, such as a discus- 
sion of Theogn. 782.] 

3. Pp. 34-53. On Plotinos, by H. v. Kleist. A complete analysis of Enn. 
Ill I, with some critical and explanatory notes. 

4. Pp. 54-62. On the Optica of Eukleides, by H. Weissenbom. This 
article has special reference to Heiberg's edition. Heiberg, with some hesi- 
tation, ascribes the Optica to Eukleides. Weissenborn agrees with him, and 
in the present article endeavors (i) to remove Heiberg's lingering doubts ; (2) 
to show that the Cod. Vindobonensis is at fault in certain passages ; (3) to con- 
tribute something to the understanding and appreciation of the Optica, and so 
to the solution of the question of genuineness. He shows that many of the 
discussions and problems, when put in proper form and correctly interpreted, 
are by no means unworthy of the great mathematician. 

4iZ. P. 62. In Tac. Hist. IV 15, i, A. Eussner strikes out et between ritu 
and patriis, 

5. Pp. 63-81. What did Geminos write? By Max C. P. Schmidt. This 
interesting discussion (which is to be continued) arrives at the conclusion that 
Geminos wrote only (i) ^loayuryii t\^ ra ^tvSfieva; (2) An Epitome of the 
Meteorology of Poseidonios ; (3) Qeupla top aa07jpdTuv, The frequent mention 
of Geminos in Proklos' commentary on Eukleides* Elements caused Bandinus, 
in cataloguing the Laurentian MSS, erroneously to record him as a commen- 
tator of Eukleides. Moreover, the ^laropiai yeuperpiKal never existed, as was 
shown by Nesselmann. Sprung from an early misconception, this error grew 
and became widespread. Schmidt cites many allusions to the supposed work, 
one of which (Sauv^rien, p. 77, 1766) runs thus: "II composa un ouvrage 
divis^ en six livres, intitule, Enarrationes Geometricae, dans lequel il exposa 
d*une manidre fort claire les decouvertes lesplus importantes." [This is nearly 
as bad as the ** Petrus Adsigerius " of magnetic fame, who turned up, probably 
not for the last time, a year or two ago in Vienna.] 

5^. P. 81. Th. Stangl emends a passage of the Panegyrici Latini. 

6. Pp. 82-99. On Alexand. Aphrod. de Mistione, by Otto Apelt. This 
work of Alexandros being of special importance on account of the light it 
sheds upon the teachings of the great philosophers, and of general value as an 
able treatise, Apelt in the present article makes a contribution to the estab- 
lishment of a pure text. The emendations are excellent. 

63. P. 99. Th. Stangl proposes to read in Cic. Orator 191 thus: . . . sunt 
enim qui iambum putent, quod sit oraHonis simillimus, qua de causa ,/£frt, nt is 
^-adhibeatur in fabulis, cum ille dactylus numerus hexametrorum magniloquen- 
tiae sit accommodation Ephorus autem, levis ipse orator ei profectus ex 
optima disciplina. 

7. Pp. 100-132. Flaviana (continued from XLIV 3, p. 517). IV. On 
the coinage of Vespasian, by A. Chambalu. This valuable contribution to 
numismatics contains a large catalogue of coins of the age of Vespasian. 


*jb, P. 132. G. F. Unger emends two passages in Theophrast. Char. (18 
and 19). 

8. Pp. 133-83. Reports. No. 53: Cicero's Letters since 1829, by Karl 
Schirmer. This article will not only serve as an excellent orientation for 
specialists, but will be found useful for such as wish to have a general knowl- 
edge of the literature of the subject including a compendium of the matter. 

9. Pp. i84>2oo. Miscellaneous: 

A. Pp. 184-90. Accounts of manuscripts r 

I. Xenophon. Description and collation of Cod. Marcianus (Venetus) 368, 
by O. Keller. 

B. Pp. 190-95. Interpretation and criticism of authors: 

II. In Pind. 01. XIII 113, W. Christ proposes iufiev for Idiftev, 

III. Lucil. Ill 19 f. (M.) corrected by O. Keller. 

IV. F. Becher defends the traditional text of Cic. pro Marcel. 4, 10. 

V. In Cic. Orator 131, Th. Stangl reads " cupiat/ffxAVwi/.** 

VI. C. Hammer emends Quintil. Declam. 308, 309, 310, one passage in 

C. Pp. 196-200. Reports of journals, reviews, etc. Revue Archeologique, 
1884, 10-12; 1885, 1, 2. Edinburgh Review, 1884, Oct. 

No. 2. 

1. Pp. 201-36. The Ashburnbam Library, by Th. Stangl. A history is 
given of the formation of this library and its subsequent sale, by which the 
MSS it contained found their way to Italy. The article contains a catalogue 
of the MSS that concern classical philology, and closes with a discussion and 
partial coHation of some of the more important ones : Caesar, Opera Omnia ; 
Pliny, Epistulae ; Sallust, Bella, Mutila ; Valerius Maximus. 

2. Pp. 237-244. Scaenica, by Albert MUller. £. Petersen in the Wiener 
Studien, VII, 1885, pp. lyS-Si^Jirsify, opposes the theory that when plays were 
acted in ancient Greek theatres a temporary platform was constructed over the 
orchestra for the evolutions of the choros ; and, secondly ^ discusses the geometric 
construction of the orchestra and logeion as given by Vitruvius. MUller, in 
the present article, comes again to the support of the theory of a platform. 
His arguments, of course, are drawn from the numerous passages in which the 
choreutae seem to come in contact with the actors, and the theatre of Epidauros 
is cited as a proof of the necessity of a platform on scaffolding, to bring the 
choros up to a plane a few feet lower than that of the logeion, with steps to 
connect them. Miiller then attempts to confute the views of Petersen con- 
cerning the geometric construction of Vitruvius. The reader who will under- 
stand him must construct diagrams of his own as he reads. 

2a. G. F. Unger emends three passages in Theophrast. Char., one in 5 and 
two in 6. 

3. Pp. 245-77. Timaios as source for Plutarch, Diodoros, and Dionysios of 
Halicarnassos, by Fridrich Reuss. The article seems to establish that Timaios 
was more largely drawn from, especially for Sicilian history, than had been 


yi, P. 277. Unger emends Theophr. Char. 30 xned. 

4. Pp. 278-313. On the '^laayixyij of Getninos, by Max C. P. Schmidt. 
First are discussed the editions, three in number ; then the translations ; thirdly 
the MSS; fourthly the work itself is viewed from several standpoints. It is 
shown that Geminos was a man of true science, and that this work is well 
worth studying for its scientific merit. Finally, the opinion of Blass, that 
the Eiffoyw)^ is merely an extract from the 'ETTiTo^//, is examined, with the 
result that Schmidt is inclined to accept it, but withholds judgment until he 
can more fully consider some difficulties which Blass's view encounters. 

5. Pp. 313-20. On the lijtalpa of Pseudo-Proklos, by Max C. P. Schmidt. 
This is virtually a continuation of the preceding article. The lAJMipa is shown 
to be a clumsy epitome of the Eiaayuy^ of Geminos. The editions, transla- 
tions, and MSS are briefly discussed, but no satisfactory theory is offered to 
account for the work^s bearing the name of Proklos. 

6. Pp. 321-68. Reports. No. 54. Polybios: Works concerning him, 1846- 
66, by C. Jacoby. Excellent for orientation. 

6a. P. 368. Unger emends Theophr. Char. 10 (one passage). 

7. Pp. 369-92. Miscellaneous. 
A. Accounts of manuscripts : 

VII. Cic. ad Att. in Cod. Med. 49, 24. Description and collation, by Hein- 
rich Ebeling. 

VIII. History of the Florentine MS of Tacitus, by F. Philippi. 
6. Interpretation and criticism of authors : 

IX. On yiwAa in Hesiod, by M. Hecht. 

X. Fr. Susemihl discusses Plat. Theaet. 147 d. c, 

XI. W. Christ discusses Dem. de Cor. 104. Since I2cx> is not divisible by 
16, he proposes to render etcro^ xal diKarog ** als sechster und gar als zehnter ** 
(i. e. "with five, or with nine others"). Then for avweKKaidsKa he proposes 
GvueK' Kal 6kKa [intending, as it seems to me, oi/ve^ KaX -cle/ca], comparing " wald- 
und hausthier," " schweinfleisch und -knochen." He confesses his inability to 
parallel this. [It is doubtful whether it can be paralleled. It once occurred 
to me that in Eur. Suppl. 778 we might read to. fih ct»-, t^ Sk SvarvxVt but 
several years of watching has failed to find anything analogous. And yet we 
should expect this power of a language that can say oiv Kaxitg iroulv and avr' 
df iroteiVf or airb fihv Wavov , . ,, and 6e (without iOavov)}, 

XII. When did Coelius Antipater write ? By K. J. Neumann. The date 
is placed several years after 117 B. C. The article contains a brief investigation 
of the ancient allusions to the circumnavigation of Africa (Libya). 

XIII. Under the head of " Vermischte bemerkungen," O. Keller explains 
the word massa and the (Roman) origin of the miners' sign or mark (J\ ), and 
then very plausibly argues that Satura (satire) is traceable to the Greek adTvpoi, 
and not to satura (as in lanx satura), 

C. P. 392. Reports of journals, reviews, etc. Edinburgh Review, 1885, 
Jan. and April ; Westminster Review, 1884, Oct. These reports are mere 
titles of articles. 


No. 3. 

1. Pp. 393-410. On the epitaph of Augustus (Monumentum Ancyrapum), 
by Johannes Schmidt. Bonnann, in 1884, published a program in which he 
argued that this inscription was composed by Augustus himself as an epitaph 
for his own tomb or monument. Schmidt accepted and further elaborated this 
view in Philologus XLIV, pp. 442-70. But O. Hirschfeld (Wiener Studien, 
1885, pp. 170-74) opposed this view* In the present article, of course, Schmidt 
comes again to its support. If we may judge after hearing but one side of a 
case, he makes it evident that the inscription was intended to be an epitaph. 

la. P. 410. In Thuc. V 81 Unger proposes ol AaKeSaifi6vioi kceWdvreg, 

2. Pp. 411-38. Reforms of the Roman calendar in the years 45 and 8 
B. C, by August Mommsen. This article elaborately investigates the question 
of the position of the intercalary day in the year and of the year of intercala- 
tion in the cycle, according to the reform of Julius Caesar, and then of 
Augustus. A brief abstract would not be intelligible. 

2d, P. 438. Unger emends a passage in Theophr. Char. 27. 

3. The day of the founding of Rome in story and history, by W. Soltau. 
In this article are explained the two different accounts of Tarutius, and other 
difficulties are discussed. The article is interesting to those concerned with 
the history of astronomy, showing, for instance, that already 130 B. C. the 
Romans were acquainted with the Chaldean cycle of eclipses. 

3a. P. 448. Unger emends one passage in Theophr. Char. 20 and two in 30. 

4. Pp. 449-69. The temple of Magna Mater at Rome, by Otto Gilbert. 
In Hermes 20 (1885), Pp- 407-29, O. Richter located the temple of Magna 
Mater on the Sacra Via between the Arch of Titus and that of Constantine. 
The present article recalls the overwhelming evidences long since produced 
by others, that the temple was on the Palatine, and brings new proofs of this 
fact. The remains which Richter took for those of the temple in question 
probably belong to the Aedes Lamm. 

5. Pp. 469-508. The oldest manuscripts of Cicero de Inventione, by 
Eduard Stroebel. Description, comparison and critical discussion of Pari- 
sinus 7774 A., Herbipolitanus Mp. m. f. 3, and Sangallensis 820. 

6. Pp. 509-51. Reports. No. 55. Eutropius (continued from XLIV 2, 
p. 300), by C. Waggener. This report reviews works that treat of the sources 
of the Breviarium. 

6a, P. 551. Th. Stangl emends Cic. Partit. Orat. 62, 64 and 68. 

7. Pp. 552-68. Miscellaneous. 

A. Pp. 552-62. Interpretation and criticism of authors : 

XIV. G. F. Unger emends Theophr. Char. 16 med. 

XV. O. Keller gives an interesting discussion of Lucilius Frag., Sat. 3, 
which served as a model for Horace's Journey to Brundisium. 

XVI. Unger discusses the Orphic Argonautika, especially v. 1164, where 
he proposes njMoaiv for v^eaaiv, 

B. Pp. 562-68. Reports of journals, reviews, etc. Edinburgh Review, 
1885, July-1886, July; Westminster Review, 1885, January-1886, April; 


Seances et travanx de PAcad^mie des sciences morales et politiqnes, 1883, 
January>i884, December; Anzeiger ftlr Schweizerische alterthumskunde, 
1883, April-i 884, October. 

No. 4. 

1. Pp. 569-95. The descent of Odysseus to Hades, by A. Scotland. 
Critical discussion of the whole episode, with numerous emendations of pas- 
sages in ic, A, [i, 

2. Pp. 596-613, Pindar's Seventh Nemean Ode a " Siegestodtenlied," by 
L. Bornemann. The theory is proposed that the hero, a boy, in the moment 
of victory died of sunstroke, or something of the sort. An analysis of the 
ode is given, and several emendations offered. 

za, P. 613. Unger emends Theophr. Char. 19 and 20 (one passage in each). 

3. Pp. 614-41. Studies in Xenophon's Anabasis, by H. Ball. i. An 
apparent inconsistency. In Anab. I 2, 9, T^o^vero^ has long since been 
recognized as an error. Some think it should be K'Xxdvttf} (II i, 10; 5, 37), 
others ^Aylaq (II 5, 31 ; 6. 30). But even when one of these names is substi- 
tuted for So^tvrroc, where is the other to be placed in the original organiza- 
tion of the army in Book I ? He was probably made general over the remnant 
of the forces of Xenias and Pasion after these had deserted because Kyros had 
permitted those of their troops that had gone over to Klearchos to remain with 
him. 2. Xenophon's election to the office of general. The author, by a care- 
ful investigation, shows that the majority of the 7joxayol in the division of 
Proxenos were Athenians, and so probably the majority of the private soldiers 
also. 3. A supposed error in the enumeration (I 2, 9). After discussing the 
various attempts to explain away the inconsistency between the sum total at 
the review and the sum of the individual commands previously mentioned, 
the author denies the existence of such inconsistency. The difference repre- 
sents the Milesian exiles, who have hitherto been overlooked in summing up 
the separate commands. 4. TliAay6pa^ or 'Z6,fuo^ ? In Anab. I 4, 2 it is Ilv^^a- 
y6pa^\ in Hell. Ill i, I it is Zdfuoc, that commands the Spartan fleet. Some 
stupid person, finding Ili4hry6pact added l&fuo^^ and a subsequent copyist, see- 
ing the absurdity, struck out the wrong word. Diodoros (XIV 19, 4 and 5) 
follows the erroneously corrected copy, except that he read 2dfioc, $. Remarks 
on special passages. Instructive notes on the following passages : Anab. I 3, 
14; 3, 12; II I, 3; I, 10; VI 2, 16; I 8, 15-17; 7. 12; 8, 12; VII 6, 26; II 

30. P. 641. Unger emends a passage in Theophr. Char. xo. 

4. Pp. 642-79. Contribution to the textual criticism of the Letters of 
Pliny the Younger, by Th. Stangl. I. Age and compass of the Codex Riccar- 
dianus ; also its list of persons addressed and of beginnings of letters. II. The 
genealogy of the Codex Riccardianus and Marcianus. III. Textual criticism : 
discussion of numerous passages, with many emendations. 

5. Pp. 680-88. Epistola ad Emestum de Leutsch, by H. J. Heller. 
Critical discussion of Hor. Sat. II 2, 29 f . ; Od. I 2, 39 f. ; Verg. Eel. I 66; 
Aen« III 443; V 289; VI 743; IX 315; X 198. In Hor. Od. I 2, 39 he 


proposes Acer et Paulli peditis cruentum | voltus in hostem (peditis^ dis- 
mounted ; hostem^ Hannibal, or the Carthaginians, at Cannae). 

6. Pp. 689-711. Reports. No. 56. Researches in the Orient, by A. 
Wiedeman. This report is confined to Egypt. It gives an interesting 
account of recent discoveries, especially in the field of Greek antiquities. 

7. Pp. 713-45. Miscellaneous. 

A. Pp. 712-24. Interpretation and criticism of authors: 

XVII. Discussion of Horn. II. IV 527, and III 360, by A. Spengel. 

XVIIL The date of the composition of Polybios' History, by Rudolf 
Hartstein. Books I and II were composed and published before 146 B. C. ; 
books III-VI composed before 146, but revised and published later. All the 
rest composed after 146. 

XIX. C. Fr. Miiller discusses Verg. Aen. v. 673, arriving at the conclusion 
that inarum is a rather unfortunate imitation of KZLvii in Hom. II. Ill 376. 

XX. E. Schroeder discusses Pomponius Mela, De Chorogr. II 7, §xii. 

XXI. Th. Stangl restores ne and inserts qiddem in Cic. Cat. 118, and 
strikes out nein II 27. 

XXI. Ferd. Becher discusses Quintil. X i, 72; 7, 6 ; 7, 24-25 ; 7, 31 ; 5, 13. 

B. Pp. 725-45. Reports of journals, reviews, etc. Memoires de la Societe 
nationale des antiquaires de France, 1881. The Academy, 1883, March 17- 
1884, August 23. 

8. Pp. 746-56. Indices, errata. 

M. W. Humphreys. 

Nbue JahrbOcher fOr Philologie und Paedagogik, 1886. 

Fascicle i. 

1. Pausanias und die Bildwerke in den Propylaien. P. Weizsacker. W. 
holds that his views formerly expressed (Arch. Ztg. 1874, no f.) as to the 
arrangement of the works of art in the Propylaea were substantially correct- 
He now investigates more particularly the probable location of each statue, 
asserting that Pausanias is always to be relied on, though often hard to inter- 

2. Zu Dionysios von Halikamasos. K. Jacoby. Textual comment on nine 

3. Zu Thukydides. K. Conradt. A criticism upon the view of Wilamo- 
witz as to the value of codex Vat. B, of which C. holds a lower opinion than 
W. The bulk of the article consists of textual emendations on 23 passages in 
Books I-III. 

4. Zur Textkritik von Xenophons Hellenika. O. Keller. K. has under- 
taken an edition of the Hellenika for the Schenkl-Freytag series, and gives 
here his view of the principles to be followed in settling the text. Codex B is 
the first and best for the whole Hellenika. But with this should be carefully 
compared M. C and F can occasionally be made useful. 

5. Zu Lukianos. H. Blumner. Note on a passage in the IIa>f JeZ haropiav 017- 
yp6^eiVf c. 45. * 

JiEPORTS, 1 1 1 

6. Ztt Valerias Maximus. K. Kempf, Berlin. Since the appearance of 
Kempfs edition of Val. Max. in 1854, based upon the oldest MS (Cod. Bemen. 
A, in Halm, B), discovered by him and shown to be of the ninth cent., the text 
has been the object of study of foremost scholars — of Madvig, Advers. critica; 
of Gertz, Symbolae criticae ad Val. Max. (see Tidskrift for philologi og paeda- 
gogik, 1874, pp. 260-290); of Vahlen, Eberhard, Fttrtsch (Naumburg pro- 
grammes for 1885, 1864, 1870); of Wensky (Breslau Matthiasgymnasium pro- 
gramme, 1879 ; JahrbQcher, 1882, 1883, 1884). The present paper offers some 
15 or 16 critical notes by Kempf, many being suggested by difficulties which 
other critics had met with. The article closes with a defense of some of 
his original emendations (II 10, 8 ; IV i, 8; V 6, quid aidrut verbis)^ against 
Halm, Fdrtsch, and others. 

7. Zu Ciceros Vermischten Briefen. L. Mendelssohn, Dorpat. Critical 
contributions on VIII 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14; V 9; VII 5 and 16; IX i. 

8. Th. V.'s Anzeige v. Gellii Noctes Atticae cd. M. Hertz, Vol. II. Hertz's 
text-edition, published in 1853, 1^^ never been perfectly satisfactory, with its 
short praefatio, its critical introduction resting entirely on Gronov, and its 
numerous parentheses, daggers, etc., rendering the text after all only half satis- 
factory. But now, thanks to him, we have a large critical edition, giving a 
text prepared with conscientiousness, complete information on the MSS, the 
use other writers made of Gellius, and a collection of textual emendations 
from all periods of critical study, good indices, and a praefatio which leaves 
nothing to be desired. Th. V. concludes with critical notes of his own. 

9. Kritische Miscellen. F. Polle, Dresden. On Lucretius II 45 ; Tibullus 
II I, 83 ; Tacitus dialogus 16, 22 (Halm) 31 ; 5, 38 ; 8, 38, 17. 

Fascicle 2. 

10. Nautisches zu Homeros. Continued from Jhbb. i885« p. 102. A. 
Breusing. (5.) In e 281, from the standpoint of a seaman, B. prefers the 
reading uc 5re J3iv6v to kpivdv, (6.) The idea of a floating island, irhjry ivl 
v^tfit K 3, arose from the familiar optical illusion of mirage. A number of 
other interesting suggestions, drawn from the experience of a nautical life, are 
scattered through the article. 

11. Zu Platons Kriton. G. H. MQller. In 53 C, M. would dispose of the 
annoying dv, aax^fiov b,v ^veia6aif by reading &axVf*ov 6v ^veloOai, 

12. Ueber das dritte Buch der Historien des Timaios. H. Kothe. The 
first part of the work of Timaios probably contained a description of the 
countries in which the events to be narrated took place. This is shown by 
several citations, especially by the extract from Book III found in Athenaios, 
VI 272 b, where Timaios ascribes to the city of Corinth the possession of 
460,000 slaves. This could not have been true until about the time of Timaios 

13. Zur handschriftlichen tlberliefening des Dion Chrysostomos. A. Sonny. 
A brief classification and estimate of the MSS. 

14. Die nachrichten fiber Thukydides. G. F. Unger. (i.) The statement 
of Praxiphanes (Maikellinos, 28 if.) that Thukydides lived as an exile with 


Archelaos does not refer to the historian, (a.) The historian Kratippos, who 
wrote a continuation of the history of Th., and who also giyes us some facts 
concerning his life« was actually, as stated by Dionysios, a contemporary of 
Th., and his statements in consequence have great value. Markellinos was 
in error in assigning K. to a much later period. 

15. Erotematia (continued from Jhbb. 1884, p. 34). Anonymous. A num- 
ber of brief notes, the first of which raises the question whether Dr. Sterrett 
failed to observe that the inscription which he published (Papers of the Am. 
School at Athens, Vol. I, pp. 64, xxxiv) is written in iambic trimeters, showing 
characteristic faults of the Byzantine period. 

16. Ad Plinii panegyricum. A. Eussner, Wircebui^i. It is proposed to 
read maiores before maioribus suis reddit^ c. 69; and between oblivionis and 
indulgentia to insert emergentia^ and instead of in konore hominum et in honore 
fanuu^ in ore h, et in h, f, 

17. Zur erkUrung der Horazischen oden. Th. PlQss, Basel. Plttss takes up the 
first ode of the first book with careful and detailed critical exposition, and com- 
bats Kiessling and his results set forth in his edition of this ode. The logical 
* gliederung und einheit ' of the poem he gives at length ; the ' idee ' would be : 
a lyric poet presents himself as protege to a noble patron, declaring the 
latter's exemplary life, and hoping his noble patron may formally confer upon 
him the office and dignity of the lyric singer. The ' reale empfindung * would 
be the joy the poet feels in his energies, mixed with anxiety or resignation 
which springs from the knowledge of his imperfections. The * poetische stim- 
mung ' in which this * reale empfindung * is given its artistic expression is humor, 
in the scientific and Horatiaa sense of the word. II. Ode I 28. In opposi- 
sition to the newest departures of Kiessling and Bobrik. The 'gedankengang' 
is first given, the chiastic movement of the thought being shown at the same 
time ; then follows the ' poetische idee,' and finally the * allgemeine stimmung *: 
empiric pessimism. Here follow notes in which PlUss justifies himself. 

The rest of this number is Niemeyer's, Kiel. I. Ode I 16, usually taken as 
a palinode, an apology made to a girl hurt by the poet's sarcasm. Lessing 
(Vade Mecum) says, not she, but her mother has been wounded, and the apology 
is to her. Lessing gave no reasons for this view. Niemeyer seeks to do so in 
the present paper. II. Ode I 14, 11-15. In these lines the idea is at first sight 
illogical, as Peerlkamp discovered: 'Although you glory in real advantages, the 
sailor does not trust in unreal ones, showy representations.' Bear in mind, 
however, the allegorical character of the poem, and that the Roman state is 
understood. The real idea is therefore : quamvis genus Romuleum et nomen 
Romamtm iactes, verbis speciosa haec, re inania sunt, IV 8, 15 ff. is next discussed 
and the logic of the lines pointed out. Next follows a discussion of I 33, and 
Kiessling's view that this poem describes the poet's transition from lighter songs 
to more*earnest themes. 

18. Zu Cicero de Natura Deorum. Goethe, Grossgl(^au. Critical notes on 
II 61, no, 140, 143, 155. 

19. Zu Sallustius. Ungermann, DQren. Or. Lepidi, 18. Ungermann proposes 
salvo before iure^ and reads atque illa^ quae turn formidine tnercatus sum^ pretio 
solttiOy salvo iure dominis tamen restUuo, 


20. Die handschriften der Caesares des Aurelius Victor. Opitz, Dresden. 

Fascicle 3. 

14. (Continued from Fasc. 2.) G. F. linger. (3.) The following statements 
concerning the life of Thukydides maybe considered reliable: His mother's 
name was Hegesipyle. He married a wealthy woman from Skaptesyle in 
Thrace. He was accused of treason by RIeon, and spent many years in exile 
in Thrace. By a decree proposed by Oinobios he was given permission to 
return to Athens. He died a natural death in Thrace, probably at the place 
where he had spent his years of exile. Only his cenotaph was in the tombs of 
Kimon. He left a son named Timotheos. (4.) The following are the important 
dates connected with his life, as nearly as they can be fixed : Birth, 450 or 
449; exile, 423-403; death, 395 or 394. 

21. Zum eleusinischen steuerdecret. K. Schafer. A criticism of the elabo- 
rate article of Adolf Schmidt (Jhbb. 1885, 681-744). 

22. Zum Hymnos auf den delischen ApoUon. H. Pomtow. Hermann was 
right, though Baumeister denies it, in believing that a line has been lost after 
81. But the missing line contained a different idea from that suggested by 

23. Anz. V. Autolyci de Sphaera, etc., ed. F. Hultsch. H. Menge. A very 
complimentary review, to which M. appends a statement of the contents of Cod. 
Vat Gr. 204, 

24. Zu Euripides Bakchai. £. Hoffmann. In 372, for XP^^^ (or xp^^o^) 
nripvya ^peig read XP^^ irTipvyi ^pei. 

25. Anz. V. lamblichi de Vita Pythagorica liber, ed. A. Nauck. K. Lang. 
The unwearied industry of Nauck has given to scholars still another invaluable 
work. lamblichus, though of trifling importance as a philosopher, is of great 
value as an authority in the history of Greek literature. This edition is praised 
by L. in the highest terms. 

26. Noch einmal das Catonische griindungsdatum Roms. Triemel, Kreuz- 
nach. Soltau (JahrbQcher, 1885, 553-60) has undertaken to prove 744 B. C. as 
Cato*s year for the founding of Rome, limiting the regal period to 238 years. 
The present paper is an expansion of what Triemel has already said in the 
Programme of the Kreuznach Gymnasium for 1884 (Kritische Geschichte der 
§lteren Quinctier). From his own standpoint Triemel goes again vevy care- 
fully through the evidences Dionysios (I 74) and Polybios furnish of their own 
and the annalists' dating of the foundation of Rome, and arrives at 753 B. C. 
and 501 B. C. as Cato*s most probable dates, the one for the foundation, the 
other for the expulsion of the kings. 

27. H. Haupt. Anzeige v. M. ZSUer's r6m. staats- und rechtsaltertamem. 
This little work (Breslau, verlag von W. KSbner, 1885, xii u. 438 S., gr. 8) is 
an examination undertaken logically and with much cleverness. Its bibliogra- 
phies and references are good; but one cannot say that ZGller has always 
judged correctly as to the tendency of latest results in the study of Roman 
constitutional history. 

28. Zu Vergilius Aeneis. Th. Maurer, Maintz. Note on IX 330. For 


Remi Schrader, Heyne and Peerlkamp read Remum, Maurer suggests : armt- 
gerumque premit, premit aurigamque sub ipsis. In fact Senrius, Aen. II 530, 
actually cites armigerumque premit. 

29* Zu Quintilianus. M. Kidderlin, Mdnchen. Notes on II i, 4 ; II 13, 2. 

30. Die einhcitlichkeit des Taciteischen Dialogus. W. Gilbert, Dresden. 
Peter and Andresen have placed us under obligations for their editions of the 
Dialogus. The former divides the treatise thus: 5-13, 16-26, 28-41, the first 
part being introductory and comparing the merits of oratory versus poesy, the 
second part taking up the fact that there has been a decay in oratory, the last 
discussing the grounds of the decay. Aper and Matemus have been the chief 
talkers in the first part ; it is Messala who takes up the decay of oratory. There 
is a great gap, however (of 6 MS pages), in his argument, and Matemus con- 
cludes. The question is whether Julias Secundus — the judge chosen for the 
discussion in the earlier part of the dialogue — takes part in this discussion, 
and where Maternus (the concluder) begins. Peter believes that Secundus did 
take part, that his speech fell out in the gap after c. 35, and conjectures his 
theme was the decay of so-called elocutio, Andresen gives c. 36-40 to either 
Messala or Secundus ; WeinkaufF gives c. 36-41 to the latter. Gilbert, how- 
ever, aims to prove that Secundus could have taken no part. As to the second 
question, it appears that Andresen is not right, although not so much mistaken 
as WeinkaufF. Gilbert's view is that all the chapters from 36 to 41 are to be 
given to Matemus. 

31. In scriptores historiae Augustae. E. Baehrens, Groningae. Critical 

Fascicle 4. 

32. Die schlangentopfwerferin d. altarfrieses v. Pergamon. W. H. Roschdr. 
R. pretty conclusively establishes the theory, first published by him in .1880, 
that the figure in question is either an Erinys or an Hygieia. The vase which 
she hurls at the hostile giant was intended to be represented as full of poisonous 
serpents, one of which is seen coiled around it. The design was probably sug- 
gested by the stratagem of Hannibal described by Nepos, Vit. Han. c. 10 and 
zi, and by Justinus, XXXII 4, 6. 

33. Musaios und Proklos. A. Ludwich. The Lycian Proklos shows in his 
style the influence of Musaios (cf. Hymn to ' A^o noAi^^Trij-, 31 , with Musaios, 
56, 330, 337). This fact is valuable as helping to fix the date of Musaios. 
Proklos lived between 412 and 485 A. D. The poems of Musaios must hence 
be placed at least as far back as toward the middle of the fifth century. 

34. Zu den fragmenten des Kynikers Krates. £. Hiller. Notes on the 
fragment of Krates in the IrpufjiaTeic of Clement of Alexandria, II 121. 

35. Zu Proklos. C. Baumker. A brief critical note. 

36. Herodianfragmente. A. Kopp. The Sjj^^^r^ioZ *OfitfpiKol in the Darm- 
stadt MS, ascribed to Herodian,is not an altogether spurious work, as declared 
by Lehrs, but is composed of genuine fragments arranged by another band. 

37. Zur lateinischen und griechischen sprachgeschichte. O. Keller, Prag. 
I. As "jrevO and ivad, x^ ^^^ X^* ^c related, so are urtft/^ and ara^ {cra^')^). 


Apex is primarily a sting ; cf. apes^ ^f^^iCt a bee or sting-fly. II. vUrap^ rightly 
explained by Movers (PhOn. Ill i, 104) = "^Op? !"» ^* ^* «*^^«^ wine, smoked 
or spiced wine. III. arvAof, stilus ; taeda^ dai^; ^vXucf/, siUqua, IV. testes'^. 
napaaT&Tatzzbpx^t^, V, irpo^Kig,p/vmuscis, VI. A^/rxzi: elentier. VII. The 
augment. VIII. Rough breathing in vdup, IX. coAors and hortari, X. cunctari, 
XI. Dyrrhachium, a Phoenician name. 

38. Ad Poenulum Plautinam. Hasper, Dresdae. Goetz reads, v. 137 : 
gerrai germanae hercle /t collyrae escdriae, Hasper : gerrae germanae kae de coUyrae 
itezz^gerrae germanae koI drl KoTJKvpai Turai, 

39. Des Catullus Juventius Lieder. Harnecker. This cites first the 
ungrounded charge that Cicero's relation to Tiro was not a morally pure one, 
and maintains that Juventius, of Catullus's poems, is probably an unreality. If 
Catullus did have an actual original, he had no deeper than a poet's passion 
for him. 

40. Die Idus als dies fasti. Soltau, Zabem (Elsasz). Against holding 
that the Ides were nefasti hilares before Caesar ; they were dies fasti. 

41. Zu Hyginus Fabeln. Otto, Glogau. Critical notes. 
Fascicle 5. 

4a. Das erste chorlied der Orestie des Aischylos. J. K. Fleischmann. A 
study of the connection of thought in this chorus, showing that it foreshadows 
not only the whole play but the whole trilogy. 

43. Zu Euripides Medeia. E. Hoffmann. Critical notes on 10 ff., 93 ff., 
106 ff., 214 flf., 228 ff., 287 ff., 333 ff., 431. 847, 848 and 857, 858. 

44. Kritische bemerkungen zur geschichte Timoleons. Ch. Clasen. There 
is the greatest divergence between Diodoros and Plutarch in their accounts of 
Timoleon. CI. has formerly shown that the former depends upon Theopompos 
as an authority, the latter upon Timaios. He now argues with much force 
that in this case the account of Diodoros is by far the more trustworthy. 

45. Zu Aristoteles Ilep^ aladfyjeoq. C. Bflumker. Brief textual notes. 

46. Zur griechischen Anthologie. A. Ludwich. A critical note. 

47. Die farbe und das geschlecht der griechischen opfertiere. P. Stengel. 
Black animals were generally offered to the subterranean deities and to the 
dead (except when the sacrifice to the latter was <5c detf) ; to the shining Helios 
only white or reddish ; to the other deities either light or dark according as 
the offering was made in confidence or in fear. As regards sex, males were 
demanded by Zeus, and females by Hera. In case of the other deities less 
regard was paid to correspondence in sex. To Athena, however, only females 
seem to have been offered, and to the heroes only males. 

48. Die zeitbestimmung des Thukydides Uber den anfang des pelopon- 
nesischen krieges. Adolf Schmidt In II i, Ui^odupov hi 6ho fi^aq hpxovrog^ 
the words In dio fi^ag probably arose from a misunderstanding of the abbre- 
viation for irog tjiuav dim. It would be comparatively easy for the sign which 


stands for rifuiav to be mistaken for the cunred form of i and so give rise to 
It I, The whole expression is to be translated ** one half year two months/' 
a meaning free from any ground of objection. 

49. Zu Demosthenes dritter Rede gegen Philippos. K. J. Liebhold. Three 
brief notes. 

(17.) Zur erklfirung der horazischen oden. Th. Plttss on I 3 ; H. Probst on 
I 4 ; Th. Breiter on I 4, 16-17 '» Rosenberg on III 3 ; Richter on III 8. 

50. Zar Interpretation von VergiliusGeorgica. Kolster. This dwells upon 
an analysis of the introductions and closing parts of the books, and points out 
the value of this favorite work of Vergil's, as regards his times and the history 
of literature. 

(28.) Zu Vergilius Aeneis. G. Heidtmann. This maintains that of the 
verses III 147-179 only 15 are genuine. 

51. Zu Caesars Bellum Gallicum. I. Funck, on frustra and fuquiquam 
(Wslfflin, Arch, f. Lat. Lexicog. II i if.) in B. G. II 27. II. Gebhardi, on the 
interpretation of B. G. VI 21, 3. 

(31.) Zu den Scriptores Historiae Aug. Peter, Meiszen. 

52. Zu Tacitus. F. Walter, MOnchen. Critical notes. 

53. Vier Capitel des Justinus. F. RQhl, KOnigsberg. Points out some 
of the greater difficulties in the criticism of this writer's text. 

Fascicle 6. 

54. Selbstanz. v. Poetae lyrici Graeci minores, I, II. H. Pomtow. The 
author explains the purpose of his book. The larger work of Bergk is unfitted 
for enjoyable reading on account of the vast amount of critical matter. This 
book is intended first of all to further the proper appreciation of the poems in 
question on their poetic and literary side ; and, besides, to help the reader to 
understand the historical and social point of view of the poets themselves. P. 
chose the chronological arrangement of the poems as being far better adapted 
to his purpose than the order adopted by Bergk. The first volume covers the 
eighth, seventh and sixth centuries ; the second, the fifth and fourth. The 
article closes with a discussion of some of the textual changes made. 

55. Zu Theokritos. H. BlUmner. Notes on i, 30 and 15, 37. 

56. Bemerkungen zu Appianos. L. Mendelssohn. M. defends the prin- 
ciples on which he has founded his text, especially against the criticisms of 
G. Kratt, who, it seems, often failed to perceive that it was on historical rather 
than grammatical grounds that M. made many of his emendations. 

57. Ennius und seine vorganger. E. Baehrens, Groningen. This points 
out the exaggeration and the bitterness of Muller's criticism on the works of 
Ennius (Quintus Ennius, L. MUller), and understands W. Meyer, in his excel- 
lent *' Ober die Beobachtung des Wortaccents in der altlat. Poesie " (MQnchen, 
1884), to refer to Andronicus as the " ordner der altlateinischen iamben und 
trochaen." It aims to maintain that the Satumian, the dramatic, and the dactylic 
do not lack a certain interrelation, but, on the contrary, Roman poetry exhibits 


the underlying principle of all things, in accordance with which one thing is 
evolved out of another. 

58. Die constitutio legitima des Comificius. Netzker. In the second ed. 
of his ' Rhetorik der Griechen u. R5mer,' 1885, Volkmann, who had accepted 
and developed most of the points in Netzker^s dissertation, * Hermagoras, 
Cicero, Comificius, quae docuerint de statibus,* Kiel, 1879, maintains, in oppo- 
sition to Netzker, a great difference in this respect between the status of 
Hermagoras and those of Comificius. In this article N. upholds and develops 
his original result. 

59. Ciceroniana. Philippson, Magdeburg. I. <U inventione, Cicero has 
followed Posidonius in his prooemium ; possibly also in his polemic against 
Hermagoras, in the whole portion dealing with argwnentatio, II. Die Pro- 
tagorasQbersetzung. Not a work of Cicero's earlier years, but belonging to a 
later period somewhat subsequent to the composition of * de officiis.' 

(28). Zu Vergillus Aeneis. Maurer, Mainz. Critical and explanatory note 
onX 156 ff. 

60. Zu Propertius. Faltin. Five critical notes. 

61. Zu Cicero's reden. F. Polle. Notes in Cat, I 23 and II 22, and pro 
Arch, 19, 

62. Zu Sallustius und Floras. Opitz, Dresden. This aims, by comparing 
Sallust, Cat. 43, i. with Floras, I 5, 8 (=11, 8), to find the ager FaesuianuSy 
not in Etraria, but ' in nicht zu groszer entfemung von Rom.' 

W. E. Waters. Edward B. Clapp. 

Romania, Vol. XV. 


G. Paris. Etudes sur les Romans de la Table Ronde : Guinglain, ou le Bel 
Inconnu. The romance of Guinglain, of which an analysis with extracts is 
here given, is characterized by M. Paris as one of the most agreeable and, in 
various aspects, one of the most interesting stories of the Breton cycle. It 
was written probably about the beginning of the thirteenth century, by Renaud 
de Beaujeu, whose possible connection with the historical family of Beaujeu 
cannot be clearly established. The narrative is simple and scarcely deviates 
from the well-worn grooves of similar compositions ; but the commonplaceness 
of the subject is relieved and redeemed by the charm of the details. The 
story is that of a young knight of Arthur's court who knows neither his father 
nor his mother, but who after various feats of prowess, including the final 
adventure of the."./£fr baiser*^ performed in the interest of Blonde Esmeree, 
prospective queen of Wales, discovers himself to be the son of Gauvain and 
Blanchesmains the Fay, and is offered the hand of the rescued queen. The 
history, to conform to works of its class, should properly end here, but is con- 
tinued with further episodes. This version of the poem is preserved in a single 
MS belonging to the famous library at Chantilly which has recently been 
presented to the French people by M. le due d'Aumale. It was published in 
a deplorably unskilful manner by C. Hippeau in i860. Light is thrown upon 


the construction of the romance by comparing it with an English poem called, 
by a French title, Ly beaus desconus^ which represents more faithfully than the 
French poem the common source of both. A still more ancient version of the 
story, though posterior to the above-mentioned in date of composition, has 
been more or less accurately preserved in a short Italian poem entitled Car^ 
dtdno. It is less easy to understand the relation in which a German poem, 
WigaUns^ composed in Bavaria about 1216 by Wirnt de Gravenberg, stands to 
the versions of the story already considered. The poem of Renaud de Beaujeu 
was in later times reduced to prose by Claude Platin, and survives in three 
rare editions, two of which are dated and belong to the first half of the sixteenth 
century. The latter redaction, finally, was analyzed by the comte de Tressan, 
in the Bibliothiqtie des Romans (1777). Through an inadvertence the author of 
the article speaks (p. 18) of the Orlando innatnorato as "V Orlando furioso du 
Bojardo.'' This study constitutes part of a treatise on the metrical romances 
of the Round Table, appearing in Vol. XXX of the Histoire litUraire de la 

A. Thomas. Les proverbes de Guylem de Cervera, po^me Catalan du XIII 
si^cle. This important collection of X169 proverbs, in rhymed quatrains, pre- 
served in a single MS of the library of St. Mark at Venice, is here carefully 
edited and for the first time published in extenso^ with an introduction enume- 
rating and supplementing the previous contributions of scholars to a knowledge 
of the same collection. Many of Cervera*s verses proverbials are borrowed from 
Solomon's Book of Proverbs, but the collection bears none the less the stamp 
of a certain originality. (For a number of emendations, suggested by A. 
Tobler, to the readings of the text as here constituted, cf. Zeitschrift f. rom. 
Philol. X, p. 313.) 

Eugene Rolland. L'Escriveto, chanson populaire du midi de la France* 
Ten complete and three fragmentary additional versions of a folk-song already 
treated by Nigra in Romania, XIV 231-73. 

Melanges. I. L. Havet. Le d^casyllabe roman. " Le vers principal de 
tout le moyen &ge grec est le trimetre iambique paroxyton^ prosodique dans 
toute son ^tendue et, de plus, tonique en sa p^nulti^me.** From this verse, the 
existence of which, however, as G. Paris points out in a foot-note, is nowhere 
attested before the appearance of the earliest Romance decasyllables, M. Havet 
attempts to account for the origin of the latter verse-structure. — II. A. Mussafia. 
Alcuni appunti sui '* Proverbi volgari del 1200" ed. Gloria. Rectifications of 
the text, or interpretation, of various passages. — III. P. Meyer. Un nouveau 
manuscrit du roman de Jules Cesar par Jacot de Forest. A second MS, found 
at Rouen ; the one previously known is at the National Library in Paris. — IV. 
E. Pasquet. Quelques particularit6s grammaticales du dialecte wallon au 
Xllle si^cle. Citations illustrating the following peculiarities : (i) **Z^J pro- 
nom personnel, regime indirect"; (2) Conjugaison du parfait en ont; (3) Par- 
fait en ins, — ^V. J. Comu. L'adjectif possessif feminin en lyonnais. The 
form mm, mentioned neither by Flechtner nor by Philipon (but by Zacher, 
Beitr. z. Lyoner Dial., p. 52 ; cf. W. Meyer, Gr6ber*s Zeits. X 315) is explained 
as coming from mi^ its n being attributed to the influence of the initial nasal. 
Final -la (as in mi(i\ becomes regularly i. Sin follows the analogy ofmin. In 


French Switzerland metna^ etc., recover their feminine a, — ^VI. G. Paris. 
La Poetique de Baudet Herenc. The name of the author of the little known 
Po/tique here in question was miscopied from the MS as published in the 
Archives des Missions. It is here set right, and the author identified with a 
certain ** Baudet Harenc de Chalon/' of the middle of the fifteenth century. 

Comptes-rendus. V. Henry. Contribution t Tetude des origines da 
decasyllabe roman (G. Paris). According to V. Henry, from the reading of 
whose book M. Havet was led to advance a theory of his own (see above), the 
Romance decasyllabic owes its origin to the "trim^tre iambique scazon" 
(choliambic). M. Paris characterizes this as an ingenious hypothesis, but 
objects that " ce n'est pas tel on tel vers frangais qu*il faut rattacher k tel ou 
tel vers latin . . . il faut etudier comment s'est etabli, k T^poque anterieure, 
le principe de la versification rhythmique en regard de la versification metrique.'* 
'* Je tiens, en terminant, k faire remarquer que j'ai depuis longtemps aban- 
donn^ I'idee que la versification latine ait pu etre rythmique d^s Torigine, et 
que le saturnien ftit fonde sur I'accent." — L. Cledat. Le Chanson de Roland 
(G. Paris). The Oxford Roland is written iiythe Norman dialect. Cledat, 
believing that the Roland is of tle-de-France origin, has in this edition y>a»- 
cis/ the text throughout. M. Paris considers at length and in detail the 
correctness and consistency with which this process, as well as the constitution 
of the text in general, has been effected. — G. Vising. Sur la versification 
anglo-normande (P. Meyer). The book confines itself to the question whether 
the versification of the Anglo-Norman poets is or is not syllabic, like that of 
the French poets of the Continent. The author passes in review the theories 
of his predecessors : (i) that of some of the leading German scholars, who hold 
that the Anglo-Norman versification has been strongly affected by Germanic 
(English) influence in the direction of substituting a fixed number of accents 
for a definite number of syllables in the verse ; (2) that of the directors of the 
Romania, according to whom the Anglo-Norman verse presents only such 
irregularities as are incidental to the rapid alteration, on English soil, of the 
French or Norman sounds. Mr. Vising attaches himself to the latter theory, 
which the reviewer here supports at considerable length. 

Piriodiques. Reports on various Romance journals, among which may be 
noted (as having accidentally been long delayed and hence not likely to be 
looked for here) an important notice by Gaston Paris of Romanische For- 
schungen, I 3 (1883). 

Chronique. Apropos of the death, October 19, 1885, of the well known 
Dutch scholar. Dr. Jonkbloet, his activity in the domains of Dutch and French 
literature is recorded and characterized. — The death of Mr. Henry Brad- 
shaw, librarian of Cambridge University, February 12, 1886, at the age of 53 
years, is made the occasion of a brief account of his scholarship and literary 
activity. — Brief mention of books addressed to the Romania. 


P. Meyer. Notice d'un MS messin. Analysis and extended specimens of 
the contents of a MS numbered 96 in the catalogue of the famous collection 
of manuscripts stolen by Libri from various Continental libraries and sold by 


him, in 1847, to the late Lord Ashburnham. This MS, as manipolated by 
Libri, proves to be composed of four fragments taken from as many different 
places, and so combined as to disguise their separate identity. The first of the 
four fragments, as was shown by the librarian of the Bibliothique Nationale 
at Paris, was purloined from the library of Orleans ; the second and third have 
not been identified ; while M. Meyer here gives an interesting account of the 
manner in which he discovered that the fourth fragment had been stolen from 
the library of the Medical School at Montpellier. 

A. Morel-Fatio. Melanges de litt^rature catalane III. Continuation of 
articles in Rom. X 497 and XII 230. We have here the text of a versified 
" Book of Courtesy,** or Fasset, of 1743 verses, accompanied by a critical intro- 
duction and by the text of the Latin Facetus (600 verses) of which it is a 
development. The latter is appended as an aid in the reconstitution of various 
corrupt passages in the Catalan version. 

P. Meyer. Les manuscrits fran9ais de Cambridge II. Biblioth^que de 
rUniversite. Continuation of an article in Rom. VIII (p. 305 ff.). The library 
of Cambridge University, while notably less rich in all respects than that of 
the University of Oxford, contains none the less a considerable number of 
manuscripts valuable for the history of French literature in the Middle Ages. 
The most satisfactory historical account of this library is a brochure of only 
31 pages, due to the pen of the late Henry Bradshaw, Librarian, and formerly 
Keeper of the Manuscripts. In the present article of 120 pages M. Meyer 
describes in detail a large number of the most important French MSS there 
preserved, with copious annotated extracts from their diversified contents. 

£. Picot. Le Monologue dramatique dans Tancien th^itre fran^ais. An 
article of 64 pages, presenting a classified inventory (i) of the Semums joyetix^ 
and (2) of the Monologues properly so called of the fifteenth and sixteenth 
centuries, with remarks, citations, and bibliography accompanying each title. 
The sermon joyeux Is a parody of the sermons in verse or in prose which pre- 
ceded the representations of the great Mysteries, The comedians, taking 
advantage of the license of their time, celebrated first the praises of various 
facetious " saints," such bs saint ffareng^ saint Oignon^ saint Andouille^ developing 
later a class of farcical discourses on the subject of women, marriage, drunk- 
enness, and even more questionable topics. These sermons, from the sim- 
plicity of their dramatic accessories, were in, order for all sorts of festive 
occasions. The Monologue dramatique^ by virtue of bringing into action the 
person himself who recites it, is more exacting alike of poet and of actor ; 
hence it happens that the pieces of this class are less numerous than those of 
the other. The formal rules, however, for the construction of the monologue 
and the sermon were virtually the same, both classes of composition presenting 
usually 200 or more verses, rhyming two and two, but occasionally occurring 
in the strophic form with alternating rhymes. Sermon and monologue were 
alike freely sprinkled with triolets. The whole number of titles here treated 
is twenty-eight. 

Melanges. I. Ad. Mussafia. Sul metro di due componimenti poetici di 
Filippo de Beaumanoir, 6d. Suchier. Suchier (Vol. I, p. cxlviii of his edition) 
takes the normal type of the verse in Beaumanoir*s Lai d'amows (Vol. II, p. 


285 fF.) and of the Premihe Fairasie (II 285 ff.) to be 7 + 4 syllables. Ascoli 
undertakes to show that the normal type is 8 -|- 4. Remarks are added on the 
text of Jehan et Blonde (II i ff.). — II. E. Philipon. Le possessif tonique da 
singulier en lyonnais. — III. Puitspelu. L'adjectif-pronom possessif en lyon- 
nais. Both articles directed against Comu's explanation of the origin of min 
in Lyonese. — IV, V. Puitspelu. Etymologies. 

Comptes-rendus. Nyrop. Adjektivernes Kcensboejning i de romanske 
Sprog (Gaston Paris). " M. Nyrop divides his activity between the study of 
the Romance literatures and that of the Romance languages, and in both 
domains shows himself well informed, judicious and intelligent.'* He studies 
in this work the masc. and fem. gender-inflection of the adjective in the 
Romance languages. It appears from his researches: (i) that the inflection 
showing gender (-f«.r, -a) is almost everywhere the only surviving one, having 
more or less completely absorbed the genderless forms (-fx, is^ etc.) ; (2) that 
the aspect under which this inflection with genders appears to-day in several 
of the Romance languages, is so different from the Latin form that without the 
aid of the historical links it would be difficult to recognize their identity ; and 
(3) that all the changes which have overtaken the Latin system have been 
either determined by phonetics or are due to analogy. M. Paris adds numerous 
important remarks. — A. Tobler. Vermischte Beitr&ge zur franz5sischen Gram- 
matik (Gaston Paris). Of the forty Beitrage collected in this volume, thirty- 
eight had appeared in the Zeitsch. fQr rom. Philologie, and have already been 
discussed in earlier numbers of the Romania ; the subjects of the remaining two 
are : (39) Discours direct precede de que ; discours direct continuant un discours 
indirect ; (40) Proposition avec le nominatif. '* Tel quHl est, ce volume est 
un veritable tresor d'observations fines et profondes, nees dans un esprit k. la 
fois tr^s penetrant et tr^s circonspect, qui dispose d'un incomparable mate- 
riel.*' — E. Koschwitz. Commentar zu den &ltesten franz5sischen Denkm&lern 
(Gaston Paris). Conceived on a good plan, and very well executed. When 
completed, will form the indispensable basis of all works on the most ancient 
period of the French language. While reserving fuller discussion of the 
problems here presented for his own long promised commentary, M. Paris, in 
his well known admirable spirit of scholarly fairness, reviews Professor Kosch- 
witz's work at length. — G. Heeger. Die Trojanersage der Britten (Gaston 
Paris). An excellent dissertation, which brings out interesting results for the 
history of literature. — In memoria di Napoleone Caix e Ugo Angelo Canello. 
Miscellanea di filologia e linguistica (G. Paris, P. Meyer, A. Morel-Fatio). 
This beautiful quarto volume of xxxviii-478 pages is characterized as in all 
respects worthy, both in form and substance, of the pious motive to which it 
owes its origin. Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Roumania, Germany, Switzer- 
land, have all contributed their quota of scholarship to the memory of two 
Romance scholars struck down in quick succession, in the full prime of life 
and intellectual activity. In the remarkably representative list of contributors 
occur the names of Villari, Crescini, Miklosich, Stengel, Merlo, Groeber, 
Gandino, Gaspary, Tobler, G. Paris, Paoli, Fumi, G. Meyer, C. Michaelis de 
Vasconscellos, Neumann, Miola, Wiese, Flechia, Obedenare, Cornu, P. Meyer, 
Avolio, Zingarelli, Mussafia, R. Renier, Suchier, A. d'Ancona, Fieri, Morosi, 
Gaster, Salvioni, Biadene, Mila y Fontanals, Novati,Fr. d*Ovidio, Monaci and 


Ascoli. The r/sum/ here given of the namerous articles, which range in 
length from five to fifty pages, is appropriately full and valuable, especially as 
regards the large number of new etymologies recorded.— Cafiele. Teatro 
espaiiol del siglo XVI (A. Morel-Fatio). The dramatic poets treated in this 
work are Lucas Fernandez de Salamanca, Miguel de Carvajal de Plasencia, 
Jaime Ferruz, Alonso de Torres and Francisco de las Cuebas. 

Periodiques. — Chronlque, and brief mention of books addressed to the 


The entire body (120 pp.) of this number of the Romania is devoted to a 
series of articles on the legend of Tristan. All the studies of the series, 
excepting that by Prof. Morf, are by pupils of M. Paris, and were read and 
criticized at the conferences of the Ecole pratique des haiUes itudes. They are 
as follows : 

J. Bedier. La Mort de Tristan et d'Iseut, d'apr^s le MS fr. 103 de la 
Bibliothdque Nationale, compare au po^me allemand d'Eilhart d*Oberg. The 
text in full of the episode of the death of Tristan and Iseut as given in MS 
fr. 103, which differs at this point from all the other Tristan MSS in prose, is 
appended to this study. — W. Lutoslawski. Les Folies de Tristan. A com- 
parative study of the versions given in the two poems published in the " Tris- 
tan" of Francisque Michel (1835-39). — L. Sudre. Les allusions i la legende 
de Tristan dans la litt^rature du moyen &ge. A collection of allusions to 
Tristan gathered from Provencal, French and foreign poets from the twelfth to 
the fifteenth century. — H. Morf. La Folie Tristan du manuscrit de Berne. 
A reconstitution of the text of the poem of Tristan as contained in MS No. 
354 of the Library of Bern, and published by Francisque Michel in his 
Poetical Romances of Tristan, London, 1835. — W. Sdderhjelm. Sur Tidentite 
du Thomas auteur de Tristan et du Thomas auteur de Horn. Concludes 
against identity of authorship. — G. Paris. Note sur les romans relatifs & 
Tristan. Calls attention to some of the more interesting results of the pre- 
ceding studies, with the concluding remark that much still remains to be done 
to clear up the poetical history of Tristan. 

Melanges. I. Paul Meyer. Le Chastie-Musart d*apr^s le MS Harleian 
4333. Notice and text (twenty-nine quatrains) of a poem existing, so far as 
known, in six MSS, of which only one has before been published. The ChasHe- 
musart stands in close relations with the Proverbia que dicuntur supra natura 
feminarum, published by Tobler, Zeitsch. IX 287-331. — II. R. Kohler. Le 
conte de la Reine qui tua son s^n^chal. Account of an Irish version of this 
story discovered by K5hler since the publication of his article on the subject 
in Rom. XI 581 ff. — III. Gaston Paris. Note additionelle sur Jean de Grailli, 
comte de Foix. Corroborates the information given by P. Meyer (Rom. XIV 
227) thatyay belle dofne was the device of Jean de Grailli. — IV. Gaston Paris. 
Un Article du DicHonnaire de M. Godefroy. Shows that the word leche ' app&t, 
amorce, friandise,* introduced into Godefroy's Dictionary, and apparently sup- 
ported by four citations, has no existence whatever in this sense. 

Comptes-rendus. Th. SUpfle. Geschichte des deutschen Kultureinflusses 


auf Frankreich, mit besonderer Berticksichtigung des litterarischen Einflusses. 
Appears well done and instructive for the modern period, but for that which 
precedes the sixteenth century is not what could have been expected. — W. 
K5ritz. Das S vor Consonant im Franz6sischen (G. Paris). A dissertation 
which deserves to be signalized, treating, as it does, an interesting point 
hitherto not clearly elucidated. The results arrived at may be considered 
established. The general rule in French is that s before another consonant in 
the interior of a word falls, first in pronunciation, then in the writing. A cer- 
tain number of words are found, however, which appear to violate this rule. 
KOritz divides these into six classes, and undertakes to account in every case 
for their deviation from regularity. In two preliminary chapters the author 
treats of the disappearance of ^ -|- consonant, as regards date and extension 
of the phenomenon. M. Paris's review of the work is detailed and instructive. — 
M. Wilmotte. L'Enseignement de la philologie romane Ji Pai;is et en Alle- 
magne (G. Paris). A report to the Belgian Minister of Public Instruction, by 
a professor of the Ecole Normale des Humanity at Brussels, describing the 
methods of instruction in Romance philology at Paris, Berlin, and Halle. 
To this are appended two brief philological studies by the author. 

Periodiques. Among the repfbrts of journals is given a careful analysis of 
the contents of Vol. I of Modern Language Notes and of Vol. I of the 
Transactions of the Mod. Lang. Association of America (in as far as these 
publications treat of subjects connected with Romance philology), by Dr. J. 
Stiirzinger, of Bryn Mawr College. Two or three points may be remarked 
upon : (i) Apropos of Dr. S.'s rejection of an emendation to a difficult passage 
in the Oaths of Strassburg, independently proposed, by a curious coincidence, 
from three different quarters at about the same time, M. Paris remarks in a foot- 
note : " Je paitage absolument, pour ma part, Topinion si bien appuyee par M. 
StUrzinger.** (2) In regard to the articles on Knapp's " Spanish Etymologies ** 
(which are signed by the writer of this present report), Dr. StQrzinger remarks 
that Professor Knapp " ne meritait pas I'honneur d'une refutation aussi 
detaillee.*' Looked at from the strictly scientific point of view, this may well 
be conceded ; but the author of the articles in question distinctly called atten- 
tion to the fact that they were designed for the benefit of teachers and students 
who do not control the data requisite for making the necessary rectifications. 
(3) In commenting on Mr. Henry R. Lang's article on *' The Collective Sin- 
gular in Spanish," Dr. S. expresses himself as follows : " Si M. L. a bien fait 
de signaler cet emploi, il a tort d'addresser une s^v^re reprimande 21 Diez pour 
ne pas I'avoir remarque." Dr. S. has evidently misunderstood the tone of 
Mr. Lang's remark, which certainly does not involve a " s^v^re reprimande.*' 

Chronique, and brief mention of books addressed to the Romania. 

H. A. Todd. 


Among the collections of casts of antique sculptures in the United States, 
there is probably none that surpasses that at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, 
both for the choice and representative character of the examples and for 
apt arrangement of the same in spite of serious difficulties in the architecture 
of the galleries. The monuments have been grouped with a view to exhibiting 
the history of Greek sculpture. That such a collection is greatly enhanced in 
value by being provided with a good catalogue goes without saying. In the 
Descriptive Catalogue of the Casts from Greek and Roman Sculpture, by Edward 
Robinson, Curator of Classical Antiquities (Boston, 1887, 119 pp.), visitors to 
the Museum will find such a guide. Modelled freely on the latest official 
guide to the Berlin collection (Wolters' Friedrichs' Bausteine), it shows an 
independent treatment of the subject, and bears witness on every page to the 
author*s learning, acuteness, and taste. By a happy choice of types, the several 
classes of information furnished with regard to the monuments are clearly dis- 
tinguished : a prefatory note to each description contains in small type concise 
statements as to the material of which the monument is made, source and 
history since discovery, restorations, with indications as to books or periodicals 
where the monument is best published. These notes are intended mainly for 
students. Then follows in larger type a description of the monument with 
appropriate remarks of a miscellaneous nature, from the point of view of 
archaeology and of aesthetic criticism. These comments are always to the 
point, and indicate to one who reads between the lines an extensive familiarity 
with the literature of the subject. The freshness of the author's information 
and the judiciousness of his taste are everywhere shown, as in his remarks on 
No. 133, the famous Praying Boy of Berlin, where he calls attention to the fact 
lately discovered that the arms are a modern restoration ; and in what he says 
about the figure hitherto usually called that of a woman mounting a chariot 
(No. 2, from the Acropolis of Athens). Mr. Robinson shows that this figure is 
nothing else than that of a youth in the ordinary dress of a charioteer. Excep- 
tion must be taken, however, to some of Mr. Robinson's positions, for example, 
his use of the word "published" in the introductory notes; the word in its 
strict sense should be used of illustrated descriptions and not of mere descrip- 
tions. '* Melan," on p. 23, is evidently a slip for Melian, and in the index the 
reference to the Praying Boy should be 133 and not 19. In commenting on 
No. 243, Apollo Citharoedus of the Vatican, Mr. Robinson seems to us to go 
too far in admitting that this figure may be a replica of the famous Apollo 
Palatinus of Scopas (Propert. II 31, 15). Overbeck, making use largely of 
Stephanies collections, especially of coin types, in the St. Petersburg Compte- 
rendu for 1875, has recently shown most conclusively that this cannot have 
been the fact (Ber. d. k. s^chs. Ges. d. Wissensch. Philol. Hist. CI. 1886, 1, pp. 


A brief bibliography of the principal histories of Greek sculpture, and 
an index, add to the value of this excellent book, which is much more than a 
mere guide to the Boston collection. The catalogue will serve a good purpose 
wherever there are Greek casts, however small their number, and it might even 
be used by lecturers on Greek art as a text-book. It is to be hoped that Mr. 
Robinson may soon give us a catalogue of the remaining classical antiquities 
in the Boston collection, viz., the vases, the figurines from Tanagra and Myrina, 
with some account of the charming casts of gems and of statuettes. 

J. H. W. 

Lewis E. Upcott's Introduction to Greek Sculpture (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 
1887, pp. xvi, 135) was originally prepared as a guide to a small collection of 
casts and photographs from the antique at Marlborough College, but the little 
book will be found useful to students in general. It contains a brief historical 
sketch, with descriptions of many of the important monuments, and running 
references to a few books where illustrations and fuller descriptions are given. 
There is little of archaeological detail, but much artistic criticism, which is 
usually apt and discriminating. Slight attention is paid to the beginnings of 
Greek sculpture, *' as being of less interest to the young student," and the para- 
graphs on this subject are hardly satisfactory. The opening chapter is on the 
relation of sculpture to religion and on the several forms of statuary art ; 
nothing, however, is said about the sculptor as ropevr^g. Then follow chapters 
on the periods and principal monuments, with clear characterizations; the 
book closes with an account of some miscellaneous monuments (we miss here 
the head by Scopas from Tegea, Journ. Hellen. Stud. VII), an excellent sketch 
of Greek-Roman and Roman art, and a meagre index. The introductory lists 
of authorities, and of the chief monuments according to the places where they 
are to be found, are well chosen. In the former, however, we miss accurate bib- 
liographical details, and the mention of some important books (as Baumeister*s 
Denkmaler, Wolters' edition of Friedrichs' Bausteine, and Roscher's mytho- 
logical lexicon) ; and in the latter, the monuments now at Ol3rmpia above all, 
and those at Dresden, Constantinople, and Turin. In a new edition the author 
will doubtless correct the spelling of Critius on p. 11 (it is right on p. 17); 
assign early coins with Medusa-type not to Athens but to Euboea ; ascribe the 
Naples Tyrannicides to an original by Antenor rather than to the work of 
Critius and Nesiotes (Jahrb. d. deutsch. arch. Inst. 1887, pp. 135-168) ; put the 
Olympian Zeus of Pheidias in an earlier period in the life of the artist, and 
rearrange the unfortunate order of the miscellaneous monuments described 
in his fourth chapter (where the more correct sequence would seem to be §§3, 
5, 1,2, 4, 6). Defects of this sort, however, are not fatal, and they are far 
from frequent. The book will admirably serve its purpose as an introduction 
both to the study of casts and to larger treatises on Greek sculpture. It may 
be added that in the preface Mr. Upcott generously offers his assistance to 
persons who may wish to form a small collection of casts such as that set on 
foot by him for Marlborough College. J. H. W. 

Alberto Agresti, tidero docente of the * Divine Comedy ' at the University of 
Naples, has put forth in a single brochure three of his recent public addresses, 


somewhat expanded (Naples, 1887: the Author), to which no general title is 
appropriated. The subjects treated are, " Dante e S. Anselmo," " Cunizza da 
Romano," and " La Verity sulle Colpe di Cunizza." In the first of these 
essays the author discusses, under seven rubrics, as many theolc^ical problems 
of the Paradiso (such, e. g., as Dante's view of Redemption, Original Sin, etc.), 
in the light afforded by a comparison of the works of St. Anselm. The 
remaining studies are devoted to an investigation of the career of Cunizza, 
sister of Ezzolino III (^Par, IX 32), and an attempt is made to reconcile 
Dante's apparent inconsistency in placing in Paradise a woman of Cunizza*s 
traditional reputation. H. A. T. 

Some preliminary notice is due to the importance of Swetis editum of the 
Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint (Cambridge, At the University 
Press), and we regret that the most that can be done here is to repeat the state- 
ment of the editor that the plan adopted by the Syndics for whom the work 
has been editeti includes the preparation of two editions with a common text. 
The text of the Vatican MS has been selected as that which on the whole 
presents the version of the Septuagint in its relatively oldest form. The failures 
of the Vaticanus are made good by the Alexandrinus ; where both fail, recourse 
is had to the uncial next in authority. The larger edition will have a full criti- 
cal apparatus. The manual edition, of which the first volume is now published, 
containing Genesis— IV Kings, confines itself to the variations of a few of the 
most important uncial codices already edited in letterpress or facsimiles. 

In the last (March) No. of the Classical Review (p. 85) Mr. Stan well sug- 
gests vetulum for -ve tuum in Persius 3, 29, and Mr. Mayor suggests that ve 
and vel may be taken as alternatives. This is too bad ! Have these 
scholars burned all their editions of Persius except Conington's ? Did not 
Heinrich * suggest ' vetulum in 1844, and does not Pretor maintain the alter- 
native use of 'Ve^ -veH No journal should be littered up with such happy- 
go-lucky notes. 

Correction. — In the last number, VIII 473, the line from Catullus (XXIX 
8) should read : Ut (not Auf) albulus columbus, etc. Our esteemed contributor 
takes the blame to himself for ' the inexplicable blunder.' 


Thanks are dne to Messrs. B. Westermann & Co., New York, for material 


Bercy (Paul). La langue Fran9aise: seconde partie. i2mo, a-f'^?^ PP* 
New York, fV. R, Jenkins [1888]. c. ^87. CL, {I1.25. 

Blackwell Q. S.) A Manual of German Prefixes and Suffixes. i6mo, 4+137 
pp. New York. ^. -^<7//<Sr» G>., 1888. 60 cts. 

Caesar (Caius Julius). De hello Gallico, i, 2, 3 ; with notes, by A. G. Pes- 
kett. i6mo. New York, MacmiUan &* Co., 1888. 75 cts, 

Hitchcock (H. R.) An English-Hawaiian Dictionary. i2mo, hf. roan, 256 
pp. San Francisco, TAe Bancroft Co.^ 1887. II2.00. 

Horace. Satires and Epistles. Ed. with notes by J. B. Greenough. i2mo, 
u+306 pp. Boston, Ginn 6* Co.^ 1888. CI., {I1.35. 

Jastrow (M.) A Dictionary of the Targumin, the Talmud, Babli and Jeru- 
shalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. In 12 pts. Pt. 2. 4to. New York, 
G, P. Putnam's Sons, 1888. Pap., $2.00. 

Key (T. Hewitt). A Latin-English Dictionary ; printed from the unfinished 
MS of the late T. H. K. 4to, 11+674 PP- New York, MacmiUan ^ Co,, 1888. 

King (W. Francis H.) Classical and Foreign Quotations, with translations, 
references, explanatory notes and indexes. i2mo, 6+608 pp. New York, T, 
Whittaker, 1888. jll.75. 

Livius (Titus). Book XXI, ed. by Marcus S. Dinsdale. i6mo, 15+192 pp. 
New York, Macmillan 6f* Co,, 1888. 90 cts. 

Molee (Elias). Plea for an American Language. i6mo, 303 pp. Chicago, 
/. Anderson &* Co., 1888. I1.25. 

Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments ; with critical notes, commentary, 
and translation in English prose, by R. C. Jebb. Pt. 3. The Antigone. 8vo, 
75+286 pp. New York, Macmillan 6* Co., x888. CL, I3.50. 

Virgil's Aeneid, translated literally, line by line, into English dactylic hexa- 
meter by Rev. Oliver Crane, D. D. 8vo, 40+258 pp. New York, TAc Baker 
&* Taylor Co., 1888. |l.75. 


Aristotle's Politics. With an introduction, two prefatory essays, and notes, 
critical and explanatory, by W. L. Newman. 2 vols. 8vo, 1080 pp. Frowdc. 

Arrian. Selections from Arrian. With notes. Edit, by Rev. John Bond 
and Arthur S. Walpole. i8mo, 144 pp. Macmillan, is. 6d. 

Cicero's Life and Letters : being a new translation of the letters included 


in Mr. Watson's selection, with historical and critical notes by Rev. G. E. 
Jeans. 2d ed. Post 8vo, 446 pp. Macmillan. 8s. 6d. 

Cicero. Offices. Book 3, with introduction, analysis, and commentary by 
H. A. Holden. 7th ed. Post 8vo, 166 pp. Cambridge Warehouse. 2s. 

Comparative Vocabularies of the Languages spoken at Suakin : Arabic, 
Hadendowa, Beni Amer. Sd. S. P. C, K. 2s. 6d. 

Euripides. The Bacchanals and other plays. The Bacchanals trans, by 
Henry Hart Milman ; the other plays trans, by Michael WodhuU. (Morley's 
Universal Library.) Post 8vo, 320 pp. Routledge, is. 

Greek and Latin Poets, Select Passages from. With English metrical ren- 
derings. Compiled by E. H. C. Smith. Cr. 8vo, 136 pp. Rivingtons. 3s. 6d. 

Homer's Odyssey. Books 1-12. With introduction, notes, etc., by W. W. 
Merry. New ed. Post 8vo. Frowde. 5s. 

Homer's Odyssey. Done into English verse by William Morris. 2d ed. 8vo, 
458 pp. Reeves &• Turner, 6s. 6d. 

Horace. Epistles. Book i,with introduction and notes by E. S. Shuck - 
burgh. i2mo, 158 pp. Cambridge Warehouse, 2s. 6d. 

Kirchhoff (A.) VolapUk ; or, Universal Language. Post 8vo, 62 pp. Sori' 
nenschein. 2s. 6d. 

Livy. Book 21. By Marcus S. Dinsdale. i2mo, 206 pp. Cambridge Ware- 
house. 3s. 6d. 

Newman (Francis William). Kabail Vocabulary, supplemented by aid of a 
new source. 8vo, 123 pp. TrUbner. 5s. 

Plato. Crito. With introduction, notes, and appendix by J. Adam. i2mo, 
104 pp. Cambridge Warehouse. 2s. 6d. 

Timaeus. Edit., with introduction and notes, by R. D. Archer-Hind 

8vo, 346 pp. MacmiUan. i6s. 

Portman (M. V.) A Manual of Andamanese Languages. i2mo, 230 pp. 
W. //. AUen. los. 6d. 

Sophocles' Oedipus, the King, the Dial<^ue. Metrically rendered by E. 
Conybeare, and the songs of the chorus, as written for the music of Dr. Stan- 
ford, by A. W. Verrall. Cr. 8vo, sd., 80 pp. Rivingtons. is. 6d. 

Sprague (C. E.) Handbook of Volapiik: International Language. Post 8vo, 
120 pp. TrUbner. 5s. 

Veitch (W.) Greek Verbs, Irregular and Defective. New ed. Post 8vo, 
728 pp. Frowde. los. 6d. 

Virgil. Book 9. Edit., for use of schools, by Rev. H. M. Stephenson. 
i8mo, 88 pp. Macmillan. is. 6d. 

Volapuk : An easy method of acquiring the universal language. On the 
basis of Alfred KirchhofFs ** Hilfsbuch," with key and a vocabulary by Kl. 
Aug. Linderfelt. i2mo, 128 pp. Milwaukee, Wis., Caspar & Zahn. Sd., 
2s.; 3S. 


Cucuel et Allftgre. M^anges grecs. Gr. in-8. Leroux. 3 fr. 
Delon (C.) La Grammaire fran9aise d'apr^s I'histoire. In-12. Hachette, 
Cart., 3 fr. 
Deux manuscrits proven^aux du XIV si^cle contenant des podsies de I'ecole 


toaloasaJBe. Pablics par J.-B. Noolct et C Chahinean , In-S. JKi 

15 fr. 

£pistoLuie grect oa iccaefl de lettres adressees ponr la pinpait i Chiysantbe 
Notans par les princes de Valadue et de Moldairie, etc., pnblie par ^mile 
Legnmd. Gr. in-S. Mmnnmmvt:, 30 fr. 
^▼eiUe (A.) Glosnire saintongeais. Gr. in-S. Ckaw^Mt, 15 fr. 
Henxy (V.) Precis de grunmiire oompaiee dn grec et dn latin. In*S. 
HachetU. 7 fr. 5a 

La Giasserie (R. de). fitndes de giammaire comparee. De la categoric dn 
temps. In-8. MmMommtuDe H Ltckrt. 5 f r. 

Noble le^on (la). Texte originaL Pablie par Ed. Montet. In>4. Fistk- 
bachtr, 12 fr. 

NoBTcan Testament (le). Tradnit an XIII siccle en langne proTenfale, 
snivi d'nn ritnel Cathare. Reprodnction photolithographiqne. public avec nne 
nouvelle edition dn riluel par L. CledaL Gr. in-8. Leroux. 50 fr. 

Poesies completes de Bertran de Born, pnbliees dans le texte original, par 
A. Thomas. In-8. Tonloose, A, Picard, 4 fr. 

R^les fondamentales de la syntaxe grecqne. d*aprds PouTrage de .\Ibert 
von Bamberg, 2 edition, entiirement remaniee par Ch. Cncuel, sous la 
direction de O. Riemann. In-12. C. KHncksUck. Cart., 3 fr. 5a 

Roman (le) de Galerent, par le trouvire Renaut, public pour la premiere 
fois d'apris le manuscrit unique de la Biblioth^que nationale par Anatole 
Boucherie. In-8. Maisonnmvt, 12 fr. 

Scheler (A.) Dictionnaire d*ctymologie fran^aise d'apr^s les resultats de la 
science modeme. 3 edition, revue et augmentee. Gr. in-8. Bruxelles, Viewfg, 
18 fr. 

Textes faciles en langue chinoise publics par la Societe sinico-japonaise. 
In-8. Maisoumuve. 6 fr. 

Tborkelsson (Pall). Dictionnaire islandais-fran^s. Premiere livraison 
(a-alblindur). In-8. Reykjavik, Nilssan, 4 fr. 

Zotenbe^ (Henri). Histoire d'Ali al-dIn,ou la Lampe merveilleuse. Texte 
arabe. Gr. in-8. Maisonneuve. 7 fr. 


Abhandlungen, Breslauer philologische. 2 Bd., 3 Hft. gr. 8. Breslau, 
Kbebner, m. 4.2a Inhalt : De Senecae philosophi librorum recensione et 
emendatione scripsit Otto Rossbach. Insunt Senecae fragmenta Palatina, 
edita a Guil. Studemund. xxxii, 184 S. 

Abraham Ibn Esra, Reime u. Gedichte, gesichtet u. gesammelt, ttbers. u. 
erlStttert v. Dav. Rosin. 3 Hft.: Aussergottesdienstliche Poesie. Nr. 63- 
89. gr. 8, S. iooa-166. Breslau, Koebner, m. 2. 

Ahlwardt (W.) Kurzes Verzeichniss der Glaser*schen Sammlung arabischer 
Handschriften in der K5nigl. Bibliothek zu Berlin, gr. 8, x, 47 S. Berlin, 
Asher 6» CJ?., 1887. m. 1.20. 

Albrecht (Paul). Philologische Untersuchungen. i Bd., I Hft. gr. 8, 61 
S. Hamburg, P, Albrecht s SettstverL m. 6. 

Archiv f. das Studium der neueren Sprachen u. Litteraturen. Hrsg. v. Ludw. 
Herrig. 79 u. 80 Bd., ^ 4 Hfte. gr. 8. 80 Bd. i u. 2 Hft. 240 S. Braunschweig, 
Westermann, m. 6. 


Archiv f. lateinische Lexikographie a. Grammatik m. Einschluss d. filteren 
Mittellateins. Hrsg. v. Ed. WOlfflin. 5 Jahrg., 4 Hfte. gr. 8. i Hft. 160 S. 
Leipzig, Teubner, m. 12. 

Auer (Hans). Der Tempel der Vesta u. das Haus der Vestalinnen am 
Forum Romanum. Mit 8 Taf. [Aus " Denkschr. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss.*'] 
Imp. -4, 22 S. Wien, Tempsky in Comrn, m. 6. 

Ausgaben u. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der romanischen Philologie. 
Ver6ffentlicht v. E. Stengel. 71 u. 72 Hft. gr. 8. Marbui^, Elwerfs Verl, 
m. 5.60. Inhalt : 71. Sprichw5rter, sprichw5rtliche Redensarten u. Sentenzen 
bei den provenzaliscben Lyrikem. Von Eug. Cnyrim. 75 S. m. 2. — 72. Die 
Metapher bei den Vorlaufern Moli^re*s [161 2-1654]. Von Ernst Degenhardt. 
145 S. m. 3.60. 

Earth (Bemh.) De Graecorum asylis. Diss, gr. 8, 77 S. Strassbnrg, Triib- 
ner. m. i.6a ^ 

Bergk (Thdr.) Griechische Literaturgeschichte. 4 Bd. Aus dem Nachlass 
hrsg. V. Rud. PeppmUUer. gr. 8, xii, 580 S. Berlin, Weidmann, 1887. m. 8 
(cplt. m. 30). 

Bezold (Carl). Die SchatzhOhle, syrisch u. deutsch hrsg. 2 Tl. gr. 8, xx, 
273 S. Leipzig, Hinrichs' Verl. m. 20 (cplt. m. 28). 

Birt (Thdr.) Zwei politische Satiren d. alten Rom. gr. 8, 130 S. Marburg, 
Elwerfs Verl, m. 2.20. 

Bradke (P. v.) Bettrage zur Kenntniss der vorhistorischen Entwickelnng 
unseres Sprachstammes. gr. 4, vi, 38 S. Giessen, RUker, m. 2. 

BrQnnow (Rud. E.) A classified list of all simple and compound cunei- 
form ideographs occurring in the texts hitherto published, with their Assyro- 
Babylonian equivalents, phonetic values, etc. Part I. gr. 4, ii, 200 S. Leiden, 
Brill^ 1887. m- 16. 

Classiker, deutsche, d. Mittelalters. Mit Wort- u. Sacherl&rgn. Begrtlndet 
V. Frz. Pfeiffer. 6 Bd. 8. he'ipzig^ Brt?ckAauf. m. 3.50; geb. m. 4.50. In- 
halt : Hartmann v. Aue. Hrsg. v. Fed. Bech. 3 Thl. Iwein, od. der Ritter m. 
dem LOwen. 3 Aufl. xix, 304 S. 

Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca edita consilio et auctoritate academiae 
litterarum regiae borussicae. Vol. VI, pars 2. gr. 8. Berlin, G, Reimer, m. 
19. Inhalt: Asclepii in metaphysica commentaria, edidit Mich. Hayduck. 
vii, 505 S. 

Corpus inscriptionum latinarum consilio et auctoritate academiae litterarum 
regiae borussicae editum. Vol. XI, Pars i. Fol. Berlin, G, Riemer. Cart, 
m. 62. Inhalt : Inscriptiones Aemiliae, Etruriae, Umbriae latinae, ed. Eug. 
Bormann. Pars I. Inscriptiones Aemiliae et Etruriae comprehendens. 52 
u. 594 S. 

Eichner (Ernst). Zur Umgestaltung d. lateinischen Unterrichts. gr. 8, 60 
S. Berlin, Gaertmr, m. 1.20. 

Falb (Rud.) Urgeschichte der Sprache u. Schrift. I. A. u. d. T. : Die Andes- 
Sprachen in ihrem Zusammenhange m. dem semit. Sprachstamme. gr. 8, vii, 
88 S. Leipzig, FriedricK m. 3. 

Festgruss an Otto v. Bdhtlingk zum Doktor-Jubilftum, 3 Febr. 1888, v. seinen 
Freunden. Lex.-8, v, 121 S. Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, m* 2. 

Fischer (Bernard). HebrSische Unterrichtsbriefe. In 10 Lfgn. i Lfg. 
gr. 8, 32 S. Leipzig, C. A, Koch. m. i. 


Goetz (Geo.) Quaestiones miscellae. 4, 10 S. Jena, Nettenkakn, m. — 50. 

Guenther (Otto). Quaestiones Ammianae criticae. gr. 8, 62 S. G()ttingen, 
Vandenhoeck &* Ruprechis Verl. m. x.6o. 
) Gutjahr (E. A.) Terenzische Betonungsfragen. Sprachwissenschaftlichc 

Studie. gr. 8, 17 S. Leipzig, Zangenberg &* Himfy. m. — 50. 

Hagen (Paul). Quaestiones Dioneae. Diss. gr. 8, v, 80 S. Kiel, Lipsius 
df TUcher, 1887. m. 1.40. 

Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft in systematischer Dar- 
stellung m. besond. Racksicht auf Geschichte m. Methodik der einzelnen 
Disziplinen. In Verbindg. m. Gymn.-Rekt. Dr. Autenrieth, ProfF. DD. Ad. 
Bauer, Blass, etc., hrsg. von Iwan Mttller. 9 Halbbd. gr. 8. 3 Bd. S. 305-688. 
N5rdlingen, Beck, m. 5.50. 

Hennen (Dr.) Eine Prttfung d.Unterrichts in der alten Philologie an Deutsch- 
lands Hochschulen. gr. 8, 16 S. Trier, Dr. HennetCs Selbstverlag, m. i. 

Hermes. Zeitschrift f. class. Philologie, hrsg. v. Geo. Kaibel u. Carl Robert. 
23 Bd. gr. 8. I H ft. 160 S. Berlin, Weidmann. m. 14. 

Herodoti belli persici historiae [libri V, VI, VII, VIII, IX], scholarum in 
usum ed. Alfr. Holder. Cum 5 mappis geographicis. 8, xxiv, 305 S. Wien u. 
Prag, Timpsky, Leipzig, Freytag, m. 1.80. 

historiae, recensuit Alfr. Holder. Vol. II. Editio major. 8, 420 S. 

Ebd. m. 4. (I et II, m. 6.) 

Hilgard (Alfr.) Excerpta ex libris Herodiani technici. gr. 4, 38 S. Heidel- 
berg. 1887. Berlin, Calvary &* Co. m. 2. 

Hirschfeld (Hartwig). Das Buch Al-Chazar! d. Ab(l-1-Hasan Jehuda Hallewi 
im arabischen Urtext, sowie in der hebr. Obersetzg. d. Jehuda ibn Tibbon 
hrsg. V. H. H. 2 Halfte. gr. 8, xlix u. S. 161-361. Leipzig, 0, Scktdsty 1887. 
m. 10 (cplt. m. 15). 

JahrbUcher, neue, f. Philologie u. P&dagogik. Hrsg. unter der Red. v. Proff. 
DD. Alfr. Fleckeisen u. Herm. Masius. T37 u. 138 Bd., 12 Hfte. gr. 8. i Hft. 
160 S. Leipzig, Ttubner, m. 30. 

Josephi (Flavii). Opera, recognovit Benedictus Niese. Editio minor. 2 
Voll. gr. 8, iv, 282 u. 317 S. Berlin. Weidmann, k m. 3. 

Josephy (Carl). Der oratorische Numerus bei Isokrates u. Demosthenes m. 
BerQcksicht der Lehren der alten Rhetoren. Diss. gr. 8, 141 S. Zdrich, KUmm^ 
1887. m. 1.20. 

Karabacek (Jos.) Das arabische Papier. Eine historisch-antiquar. Unter- 
suchg. Mit I Lichtdr.-Taf. u. 2 Textabbildgn. [Aus ** Mittheilgn. aus d. 
Sammlg. d. Papyrus Erherzog Rainer."] gr. 4, iii, 92 S. Wien, Hof- u. Siaats- 
druckereiy 1887. m. 6. 

Krebs (Frz.) Zur Rection der Casus in der spateren historischen Gracitat. 
2 Hft. gr. 8, 30 S. MUnchen, Lindauer. m. 1.20. 

Kurtz (Ed.) Miscellen zu Plutarch's Vitae u. Apophthegmata. gr. 8, 40 S. 
' V,^v^z\^^A, Neumanris Verl. m. i. 

Lackner (Wilh.) De incursionibus a Gallis in Italiam factis. Quaestio 
' historica. Pars I. Diss. gr. 4, 26 S. Konigsberg, Kock^ 1887. m. i. 

f Leiding (Herm.) Die Sprache der Cynewulfschen Dichtungen Crist, Juliana 

' tt. Elene. gr. 8, 795. Hamburg, Elwerfs Verl, m. 1.80. 

Lezius (Jos.) De Alexandri Magni expeditione Indica quaestiones. Diss, 
gr. 8, 160 S. Dorpat, Karow^ 1887. m- S- 


Livi (T.) ab urbe condita libri. Ed. Ant. Zingerle. Pars I, Liber I-V. 
Editio major. 8, ix, 288 S. Wien u. Prag. Tempsky, Leipzig, Freytag, m. 1.20. 

dasselbe. Scholarum in usom ed. Ant. Zingerle. Pars I, Liber I-V. 

Editio minor. 8, v, 251 %.\ Ebd. m. i. 

Luebbert (Ed*) Prodromus in Pindari locum de Pelopis pueritia. gr. 8, 20 
S. Bonn, Cohen b* Schn, m. i. 

Ludwich (Arth.) Scholia in Homeri Odysseae A 1*43, auctiora et emenda- 
tiora edita ab A. L. gr. 4, 27 S. K5nigsberg, Akadem. Buchhandlg, v, Schubert 
6f* SeideL m. — 20. 

Lttttgens (Carl). Cb. Bedeutung u. Gebrauch der Hilfsverba im frQhen 
Altenglischen. Sculan u. Willan. Diss. gr. 8, viii, 88 S. Wismar. Kiel, 
Lipsius 6r» Tischer, m. 1.80. 

Luzzatto (Samuelis Davidis) Tergestini, bibliotheca. Fasc. IL (In hebr. 
Sprache.) gr. 8, viii» 206 S. Przemysl. Wien, U^» m. 4. 

Lysiae orationes selectae. Mit Einleitgn., erklar. Index u. e. Anh. aus 
Xenophons griech. Geschichte. Fttr den Schulgebrauch hrsg. v. Andr. Weidner. 
8, viii, 168 S. Leipzig, Freytag, m. 1.25. 

Marquardt (Joach.) u. Mommscn (Thdr.) Handbnch der r5mischen Alter- 
thUmer. 2 Bd., 2 Abthlgn., 3 Aufl. gr. 8. Leipzig, Hirzel, 1887. m. 23. 
Inhalt : R5misches Staatsrecht y. Thdr. Mommsen. 2 Bd., i Abth. xt, 742 
S. m. 14.— 2. Dasselbe. 2 Bd., 2 Abth. xiv u. S. 743-1171. m. 9. 

Marschall (Karl). De Q. Remmii Palaemonis libris grammaticis. Diss, 
gr. 8, 86 S. Leipzig, Foch, 1887. m. 1.80. 

Meiser (Karl). Ob. historische l^ramen der R5mer. gr. 4, 42 S. MUnchen. 
Franz^ Verl., 1887. m. i. 

Melanges asiatiques, tires da Bulletin de I'academie imp^riale des sciences 
de St.-Petersbourg. Tome IX, Livr. 3. Lex.-8, S. 207-402. St.-Petersbourg. 
1887. Leipzig, K<7jj* 5bf/. m. 1.70. (1-3, m. 3.70.) 

Meusel (H.) Lexicon Caesarianum. Fasc. 9 et 10. gr. 8. 2 Bd. Sp. 1-400. 
Berlin, W, JVeber, 1887. & m. 2.40. 

Miklosich (Frz.) Die tarkischen Elemente in den sUdost- u. osteuropaischen 
Sprachen. Nachtrag zu der unter dem gleichen Titel gedruckten Abhandlg. 
I Halfte. Imp.-4, 88 S. Wien, Tempsky in Comm, m. 4.50 ; Hauptwerk u. 
Nachtrag I, m. 14. 

Muller (Hans). Das VerhSlltnis d. Neugriechischen zu den romanischen 
Sprachen. gr. 8, vii, 71 S. Leipzig, Friedrich, m. 2. 

Nadrowski (Rich.) Neue Schlaglichter auf dunkeln Gebieten der griech- 
ischen u. lateinischen Etymologic. 2, ganzlich umgearb. u. stark verm. Aufl. 
gr. 8, V. 134 S. Berlin, Issleib, m. 4. 

Ovidii Nasonis (P.) metamorphoseon selectarum, quas in usum scholarum ed. 
H. L. Nadermann, ed. V. 8, iii, 132 S. Munster, Coppenrath. m. —80. 

P&nini*8 Grammatik, hrsg.. ttbers., erWutert u. m. verschiedenen Indices ver- 
sehen v. Otto B(Jhtlingk. 9 u. lo (Schluss-) Lfg. gr. 8, xx S. u. Anhang S. 161- 
357. Leipzig, Haessel^ 1887. ^ m. 6. 

Paulson (Jobs.) Studia Hesiodea. I. De re metrica. Commentatio acad- 
emica. 4, iii, 168 S. Lund, Mdlier^ 1887. m. 4. 

Porta linguorum orientalium, inchoavit J. A. Petermann, continuavit Herm. 
L. Strack. Pars VIIL 8. Berlin, Reuther. m. 7.50. 


Prym (Eug.) u. Socin (Alb.) Kurdische Sammlungen. i Abtlg., Hft. a. u. b. 
Lex.-8. St. Petersburg, 1887. Leipzig, Voss^ Sort, m. 2.5a a. Die Texte. 
xiii, 70 S. m. I. — ^b. Cbersetzung. iii. 98 S. m. 1.5a 

Reicke (Emil). De rebus post Alexandri Magni mortem Babylone gestis 
quaestionum particula I. Diss. gr. 8, 37 S. K()nigsberg, Koch, 1887. m* i* 

Richter (Otto). Lateinisches Lesebuch. 4 Aufl. gr. 8. vi, 314 S. Berlin, 
NicoiaCs VerL geb, m. 2.8a 

Rundschau, neue philologische. Hrsg. y. DD. C. Wagener u. E. Ludwig. 
Jahrg. 1888. 26 Nrn. (B.) gr. 8. Gotba, F, A, Perthes, m. 12. 

Sarrazin (Greg.) Beowulf-Studien. gr. 8, vii, 220 S. Berlin, Mayer &* MUl- 
Ur, m. 5. 

Schleyer (Job. Mart.) Grosses WOrterbuch der Universalsprache VolapUk. 

4, sehr verm. Aufl. 12, xxii, 646 S. Konstanz, Schleyer's Zentralbiiro. m. 4.50. 
Schmidt (Adf.) Handbuch der griechischen Chronologic. Nach d. Verf. 

Tode hrsg. ▼. Frz- Rtthl. gr. 8, xv, 804 S. Jena, Fischer, m. 16. 

Schroeder (Ferd.) Thucydidis historiarum memoria quae prostat apud 
Aristidem, Aristidis scholiastas, Hermogenem, Hermogenis scholiastas, Aris- 
tophanis scholiastas. Diss. gr. 8, 58 S. Gottingen, Vandenhoeck 6^ Ruprecht^ 
1887. m. 1.4a 

Schultze (Ernst). De legione Romanorum XIII gemina. Diss. gr. 8, 114 

5. m. I Karte. Kiel, Lipsius <5r« Tischer, 1887. m. 3. 

Schuiz (J. Gust.) Attische Verbal-Formen, alphabetisch zusammengestellt. 
12, xii, 123 S. Frag, Store h Sohn, geb. m. i.6o. 

Schwalbe (B.) Griechisches Elementarbuch. gr. 8, xvi, 131 S. Berlin, C?. 
Reimer^ 1887. m* 2*40ii 

Schwarz (Wilh.) De vita et scriptis luliani imperatoris. Diss. gr. 8, 43 
S. Bohn, Behrend. m. 1.20. 

Smith (S. Alden). Why that " Assyrisches WSrterbuch " ought never to 
have been published, gr. 8, 16 S. Leipzig, Pfeiffer. m. 1.20. 

Sonny (Adf.) De Massiliensium rebus quaestiones. gr. 8, no S. Petropoli, 
1887. Dorpat, Karow, m. 2.80. 

Sophokles* Tragoedien. Erklart v. C. Schmelzer. 7 Bd. Trachinierinnen. 
gr. 8, 136 S. Berlin. Habel. m. 1.80. (1-7, m. 13.20.) 

Sophoclis Oedipus Coloneus. In scholarum usum ed. J. Holub. gr. 8, viii, 
62 S. Wien, Konegen, m. — 56. 

Sophoclis Oedipus tyrannus. In scholarum usum ed. J. Holub. gr. 8, viii, 
52 S. Wien, Konegen, 1887. m. — 56. 

Sprachproben,.altenglische, nebst e. WSrterbuche, hrsg. v. Ed. Matzner. 2 
Bd. Wttrterbuch. 10 Lfg. Lex.-8. 3 Abth. S. I-I20. Berlin, Weidmann. m. 
4.80. (I-II, 10, m. 64.80.) 

Spreng*s (Joh. Jac.) Idioticon Rauracum. Bearb. v. Adf. Socin. [Aus 
**Alemannia."] gr. 8, 45 S. Bonn, ffdnstein. m. 2. 

Strassmaier (J. N.) Babylonische Texte. Inschriften v. Nabonidus, ROnig 
V. Babylon (555-538 v. Chr.), v. den Thontafein d. Brit. Museums copirt u. 
autogr. 2 Hft., No. 266-540. Vom 7 bis zum 11 Jahre der Regierg. gr. 8, 
S. 161-320. Leipzig, Ed. Pfeiffer, 1887. & m. 12. 

Studien, altitalische. Hrsg. v. Dr. Carl Pauli. 5 Hft., mit 2 Taf. gr. 8, iv, 
161 S. Hannover, Ifahn, 1887. m. 8. (1-5, m. 35.) 


Studien, Berliner, f. classische Philologie u. Archaeologie. 7 Bd., 2 Hft gr. 8. 
Berlin, Calvary dr* Co, Subscr.-Pr. m. 2.60; Einzelpr. m. 3.20. Inhalt : Des 
Aeneas Irrfahrt von Troja nach Karthago. Uebertragung d. i u. 3 Buches der 
Vergilischen Aeneis in Oktaven, nebst Einleitg. v. Karl Troost. xx, 80 S. 

Berliner, f. classische Philologie u. Archaeologie. 7 Bd., i Hft. gr. 8. 

Berlin, Calvary &* Co. Einzelpr. m. 12. Inhalt : Die Erkenntnistheorie der 
Stoa [2 Bd. der Psychologie] v. Ludw. Stein. Vorangeht: Umriss der 
Geschichte der griechischen Erkenntnistheorie bis auf Aristoteles. viii, 389 S. 

Leipziger, zur classischen Philologie. Hrsg. v. O. Ribbeck, H. Lipsius, 

C. Wachsmuth. 10 Bd. gr. 8, iii, 327 S. Leipzig, Hirtel^ 1887. m. 7. 

Wiener. Zeitschrift f. class. Philol. Suppl. der Zeitschrift f. ttsterr. 

Gymnasien. Red. : W. v. Hartel, K. Schenkl, 10 Jahrg. 1888. 2 Hfte. gr. 
8. I Hft. 174 S. Wien, Ceroid* s Sohn. m. 6. 

Tanger (G.) Englisches Namen-Lexikon. 8, xxviii, 272 S. Berlin, Haude 
6r* Spener, geb. m. 5. 

Victor (Wilh.) Einftlhrung in das Studium der englischen Philologie m. 
RQcksicht auf die Anforderungen der Praxis, gr. 8, vii, 69 S. Marburg, 
Elwerfs Verl. m. l.8o; cart. m. 2. 

Vergili Maronis (P.) Opera. Scholarum in usum ed. W. Kloucek. Pars I. 
Bucolica et Georgica. Editio maior. 8, vi, 100 S. Wien u. Prag, Tempsky. 
Leipzig, Freytag. m. i.2a 

dasselbe. Pars I. Bucolica et Georgica. Editio minor. 8, v, 87 S. 

Ebd. m. — 7a 

Wessely (C.) Griechische Zauberpapyrus v. Paris u. London. Imp. -4, 184 
S. Wien, Tempsky in Comm. Leipzig, Freytag. m. 9.2a 


Andreoli (R.) Vocabolario napoletano-italiano. Torino. In-8, pag. 816. 

Gilberti (F.) Raccolta dei sinonimi della lingua ital. Milano. pag. 230. 
L. 1.50. 

Levi (S.) Vocabolario geroglifico-copto-ebraico. Vol. V. Torino. In-4. 
pag. 247. L. 30. 

Platone. Dialoghi, nuovo volgarizzamento di G. Meini, con argomenti e 
note. Torino. In-i6, pag. 228. L. 1.80. 

Sterlich (R. de), e Dib Khaddag (A.) Manuale di arabo volgare, raccolta di 
1200 vocab. e 600 frasi pid usuali. Milano. In.-i6, pag. 143, 4 tav. L. 2.50. 

Vallaurius (T.) Historia critica litterarum latinarum. Editio duodecima, 
accedit ir&ptpyov aliquot monumentorum latini sermonis vetustioris. Torino. 
In-8, pag. 203. L. 1.50. 



Agresti (Alberto). Dante e S. Anselmo. Cunizza da Romano. La veriti 
sulle coipe di Cunizza. Napoli» L'Autore, 1887. 3 1. 

Aristotle. The Politics. With an introduction, two prefatory essays, and 
notes critical and explanatory, by W. L. Newman. Vol. I. Introduction to 
the Politics. Vol. II. Prefatory Essay. Books I and II. Text and Notes. 
Oxford, At the Clarendon Press. New York, Macmillan 6» Co,, 1887. Through 
Messrs. Cushings & Bailey, Baltimore. $7.00. 

Arrian, Selections from, edited for the use of schools by J. Bond and A. S. 
Walpole. (El. Classics.) London and New York, Afarmt//a» ^Co. (Johns H. 
U. Publ. Ag.), 1888. 40 cts. 

Balg (G. H.) A Comparative Glossary of the Gothic Language, with especial 
reference to English and German. Second Part. Maysville, Wise, The Author. 
New York, B, Westermann 6f G?., 1887. 

Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum edita, curante Carolo 
Schenkl. Vindobono.eet'Pragvie, Sumptus fecit F. Tempshy, "Lipsiaitf Sumptus 
fecit G. Freytag, MDCCCLXXXVIIL 

Livi (T.) Ab Urbe Condita Libri. Scholarum in usum ed. Antonius Zin- 
gerle. Pars I, Lib. i-io. Ed. maior, i m. 20 pf. ; Ed. minor, 60 pf. 

Bum (Robert). Roman Literature in relation to Roman Art London and 
New York, Macmillan &* Co., 1888. Through J. H. Un. Publ. Agency. {I4.00. 

Converse (C. C.) God for Us. An American National Hymn. Erie, Penn., 
C. Converse, 

Crane (Oliver). Virgil's Aeneid translated literally, line by line, into Eng- 
lish dactylic hexameters. New York, The Baker 6f* Taylor Co,, 1888. 

Crusius (O.) Stesichoros und die epodische Composition in der griechischen 
Lyrik. (Commentationes Ribbeckianae.) 

Curtius* Griechische Schulgrammatik bearbeitet von W. von Hartel. 18 Aufl. 
(bound). 1888. m. 2.40. 

Genth (B.) Kurzgefasste griechische Schulgrammatik. 3 Aufl. Vienna and 
Prague, F, Tempsky, Leipzig, G, Freytag (bound), 1888. m. 2.10. 

Hartel (W. v.) Abriss der Grammatik des homerischen u. herodotischen 
Dialekts. Leipzig, G, Freytag, 1888. 60 pf. 

Hyde (Mary F.) Practical Lessons in the Use of English. Boston, D, C, 
Heath 6* Co,, 1888. 

Imperial University of Japan. The Calendar for the year 1887-88. Tokyo, 

Jeans (G. E.) The Life and Letters of Marcus TuUius Cicero, being a new 
translation of the letters included in Mr.*Watson*s selections, with historical 
and critical notes. Second ed. London and New York, Macmillan dr* Co,, 
1887. Through Messrs. Cushings & Bailey, Baltimore. {I2.25. 


Joseph! (Flavii) Opera. Recognovit Benedictus Niese. Ed. minor. Vols. 
I, II. Berlin, WHdtnannsche Buchhandlung, k m. 3. 

Latin-English Dictionary, printed from the unfinished MS of the late Thomas 
Hewitt Key. Cambridge, At ike University Press. New York, Macmillan 6^ 
Co., 1 888. (J. H. U. Publ. Agency.) $9.00. 

Lexicon Caesarianum. Confecit H. Meusel. Fasc. IX, X (Vol. II, Fasc. I, 
II). Berlin, Weber, 1887. 

Livy, Book XXI. Edited for the Syndics of the University Press. Cam- 
bridge, At the UniverHty Press. New York. Macmillan 6* Co., i888. Q. H. 
Un. Publ. Agency.) 60 cts. 

Lomb Prize Essays : No. I. Healthy Homes and Foods for the Working 
Classes. — No. 2. The Sanitary Conditions and Necessities of School -houses and 
School-life. — No. 3. Disinfectants and Individual Prophylaxis against Infec- 
tious Diseases. — No. 4. The Preventable Causes of Diseases, Injury and Death. 
Address Dr. Irving A. Watson, Sect. Am. Health Assoc, Concord, N. H. 

nAATQN02 TIMAI02. The Timaeus of Plato. Edited, with introduction 
and notes, by R. D. Archer-Hind. London and New York, Macmillan &* Co., 
1888. (J. H. U. Publ. Agency.) I4.00. 

Platonis Crito. With introduction, notes, and appendix, by J. Adam. Cam- 
bridge, At the University Press. New York, Macmillan &* Co., 1888. (J. H. U. 
Publ. Agency.) 90 cts. 

HAOTTAPXOT NIKIA2. Plutarch's Life of Nikias. With introduction, 
notes, and lexicon, by Hubert A. Holden. Cambridge, At the University 
Press. 1887. 

Polybius. The History of the Achaean League as contained in the Remains 
of P., edited, with introduction and notes, by W. M. Capes. London and New 
York, Macmillan 6» Co., 1888. (J. H. U. Publ. Agency.) |i.6o. 

Scheindler (Aug.) Methodik des grammatischen Unterrichts im Griech- 
ischen. Vienna and Prague, F. Tempsky. Leipzig, G. Freytag, 1888. m. 1.40. 

W5rterverzeichniss zu Homeri Iliadis A-A nach der Reihenfolge im 

Verse geordnet. Vienna and Prague, F. Tempsky. Leipzig, G. Freytag, 1 888. 
50 kr. 

Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. With critical notes, commentary, and 
translation in English prose, by R. C. Jebb. Part III. The Antigone. Cam- 
bridge, At the University Press. New York, Macmillan 6* O?., 1888. (J. H. 
U. Publ. Agency.) $3.50. 

Victor (Wilhelm). Einfiihrung in das Studium der englischen Philologie. 
Marburg i.-H., N. G. Elwert. m. 1.80. 

Virgil. Aeneid VI. Edited for the use of schools by T. E. Page. (Ele- 
mentary Classics.) London and New York, Macmillan &* Co., 1888. (J. H. 
U. Publ. Agency.) 40 cts. 

Wordsworth (William). The Prelude, or Growth of a Poet's Mind : an 
autobiographical poem. With notes by A. J. George. Boston, D. C. Heath &* 
Co,, 1888. 

Xenophon. Anabasis I, Selections from, edited for the use of schools by E. 
A. Wells. (Elementary Classics.) 'London and New York, Macmillan 6t* Co., 
1888. (J. H. U. Publ. Agency.) 40 cts. 




Vol. IX, 2. Whole No. 34. 



In this study no attempt will be made to give a new definition 
to the participle, that floater between noun and verb, which exer- 
cises a like function whether it be originally a gerund as the 
present participle in Italian, or a verbal noun as the present participle 
in English. It will be taken for granted that its mobile life is felt 
alike by all the members of our family, and that if there is a 
diversity, that diversity is to be sought in the frequency and in 
the sphere of its use and not in its meaning. Such a diversity 
strikes the most incurious as soon as he passes out of the domain 
of English into that of German. Normal English uses the present 
participle freely." In German the present participle, in a purely 
participial sense as distinguished from an adjective sense, is as rare 
as in English it is common. It is, I understand, wholly, or almost 
wholly, absent from the German Volkslied^ it is rare in dialectic 

* The substance of this paper was read before the Johns Hopkins Philological 
Association, Nov. 18, 1887. An abstract may be found in the Johns Hopkins 
University Circulars, No. 6a, p. 23. 

* In fact too freely. The careless use of the present participle is a subject 
of expostulation in every book on English composition. Meiklejohn, f. i., in 
his * English Language,' says (p. 169) : ' Take care that your participles are 
attached to nouns and that they do not run loose,* and gives vent to the fol- 
lowing counterblast (I. c.) : * Use a present participle as seldom as possible.' 
' Every sentence/ he adds, * ought to be neat, firm and compact.' No friend 
of irepipo^ is he. This assault on the popular usage is a just retribution for 
the grasping way in which the language has assimilated so many diverse 


poetry.* The large use of it by Goethe in his higher lyrics is 
due to a conscious principle of art, and Germans themselves criti- 
cise as unsatisfactory and exotic the attempts of German poets to 
attain the results of the English present participle by the employ- 
ment of absolute constructions." In English, on the other hand, 
the present participle occurs freely and without any note of strange- 
ness in all our literature from Chaucer down. It has its roots in 
Anglo-Saxon itself, and although the problem is complicated by 
the fact that Anglo-Saxon was to some extent under the domina- 
tion of Latin models, and still further by the confusion of the 
verbal noun and the participle, for all that the participle is used with 
idiomatic freedom in English, and the fact, if it is a fact, that it is 
used less frequently in old ballad poetry may perhaps be as 
satisfactorily explained by the character of the department as by 
the harking back to an old type.' Now, whether the relative use 

1 1 am not unaware that the periphrastic present participle is found in O. H. 
G. : was lebende, getriiwende was (see Grimm, D. G. IV 5 ff. 92. 125. 129), and 
that this .participle is swallowed up by the inf. in Alemannian (see Socin, 
Schriftsprache u. Dialekte, S. 183). But in this investigation, as in all aesthetic 
investigation, we have to do with performance rather than with potentiality. 
It is not the capital with which a nation starts that concerns us, it is the profit 
that it makes out of that capital. Given the common Aryan rhythm, the 
national characteristic is to be seen in the development, so that out of the same 
strain the Greek makes the hexameter, the others something that may be 
admirable in its way but certainly is not the hexameter. 

' The absol. construction with the passive participle is not uncommon (see 
Erdmann, Grundsatze der deutschen Syntax, §107), but the present participle 
is littU used in this way except in a few fixed expressions, e. g. * entsprechend,' 

* betreffend,* * anlangend.' See also Paul's Principien *, S. 131, and Otto Kares, 
Die Formenverh&ltnisse des Wortschatzes, Zeitschrift fQr Vdlkerpsychologie u. 
Sprachwissenschaft, XVII 4, S. 394. It is true that the present participle in 
composition with an object is very common in German, e. g. * feuerspeiend,* 

* grundlcgend,' * notleidend,' and the like, but that is very different from the 
free use of the participle with an object in modern English, and how adjec- 
tive such compounds are is shown by the difficulty of translating them into 
English, in which the participle is so alive. How little, after all, a great 
German scholar may appreciate the Greek participle is shown by Classen's 
treatment of the gen. absol., for which see Dr. Spieker in this Journal, VI 314. 

' The use of the present participle to form periphrastic tenses is, of course, 
an original possession of A« S., if anything is original ; but the use of the par- 
ticiple for abridging the sentence, as the process is popularly called, that is, for 
representing temporal, causal and relative clauses, is rather limited, and even 
in Early English the said abridgment is not much more common than it is in 
Anglo-Saxon. See Theodor MUller, Angels&chsische Grammatik, S. 250. The 
whole matter of the advancing use of the present participle in English is one 
that I leave to professed English scholars. If the advance is a fact, that fact 


of the participle in the different Aryan languages can be made to 
serve, so to speak, as a color test of those languages, is a matter 
for the comparative philologian to decide.* The student of Greek 
is chiefly interested in the behavior of the participles within the 
Hellenic domain. The extra- Hellenic domain concerns him only 
so far as it helps him to understand — ^and it does help him to under- 
stand — the Hellenic. 

That the Greeks were <f>ikofuToxoi is a common saying, and to 
judge by the wealth of formations, a true saying.* The language 
is much richer in participles than the Latin, much richer even than 
the Sanskrit, but in the classic Greek nationality wealth does not 
mean vulgar ostentation. CAt ha del panno pub menar la coda 
may be well enough for Italian. Wer lang hat Idsst lang hangen 
may do for German. The Greek uses the participle freely, if 
need be; but the use of the participle is with him a matter of style, 
not simply a matter of resource, so that in the actual employment 
of the participle and gerundial forms the poorer Sanskrit out- 
numbers and outlumbers' the richer Greek, and even the compara- 
tively indigent Latin manages to maintain a not ineffectual rivalry. 

may be conveniently illustrated by the two versions of Chevy Chase. The 
old ballad shows but two present participles proper in 282 verses; in the 
modern ballad there are nine present participles proper in 268 verses. 

I Otto Kares, 1. c. S. 385 : Nicht minder kann auch der Sat% . . . als ein 
Gemdlde angesehen werden, zu welchem jeder Redeteil einen durch seine 
gattungsmSlssige Function bestimmten Beitrag liefert. Den Umriss der ein- 
zelnen Figuren drQckt das Substantiv aus; das perspektivische Verhallniss 
derselben unter einander bezeichnen die obliquen Casus und die Praepositionen^ 
den Umrissen giebt das AttribtUiv Farbe und das Verbum Leben und Bewegung ; 
der ArtiJkel macht den allgemeinen Umriss zu einem individuellen und nur das 
Pranomen entfernt sich merklich von aller poetischen Darstellung. According to 
this scheme, the participle, being both adjective and verb, combines both color 
and motion, and this presentation is in harmony with what I had written before 
I came upon Kares* interesting article. But we must all beware of picturesque 
grammar and heed the words which Plato puts in the mouth of Simmias : kyh 
61 Tolg did rav elKdruv (* plausible analogies/ as Archer- Hind translates) rdc 
diroSii^eic TToiovfikvoiq Xbyoig ^ivoiSa ovciv dXa^dai, Phaedo, 92 D. 

'Jolly (Sprachwissenschaft. Abhandlungen der G. Gesellsch. Leipzig, 1874, 
S. 94} : Nur im Arischen, Litauischen und weitaus am besten im Griechischen 
hat sich das Particip seine alte Mittelstellung zwischen Nomen und Verbum 
noch gewahrt; nur im Griechischen war es daher im Stande, sich alien Func- 
tionen des Verbum finitum geschmeidig anzupassen und in unver2Lndertem 
Fortbestehen neben der in alien verwandten Sprachen flberwuchemden Hypo- 
taxis sich als redender Zeuge der neuerdings mit so grossem Unrecht ange- 
fochtenen Vorziiglichkeit des griechischen Sprachbaus zu behaupten. 

' What I have to say on the subject of Sanskrit I owe entirely to Professor Bloom- 
field, who has kindly furnished me with the following interesting illustration of 


That the participle has a decided stylistic effect was recognized 
by the Greek rhetoricians — it is one of Hermogenes* * means of 
<r€fiwJn;$ — but the extent of this recognition is much widened when we 
include what they say about n-XayiacrfuSr, a technical term which it is 
necessary to consider a little more closely before proceeding. In his 
admirable treatise ' de Tordre des mots dans les langues anciennes 
comparees aux langues modernes/ recently translated into English 
by Professor Super, M. Henri Weil, in speaking of what he calls the 
ascending order of the sentence, that order in which the development 
of the thought mounts up to the verb as to its climax, maintains that 


this order was what was meant by irXayiao-fu^r in the ancient rhetori- 
cians, viz. the interposition of a clause, whether in the form of a geni- 
tive absolute or of a causal sentence or what not, between the subject 
and the verb. My contention is that frXaytao-fuSr, meaning oblique 
construction, was first confined to the genitive absolute, and then 
extended to the participle in construction, as it is called, but never 
went beyond this, nay, was clearly discriminated from it by com- 
petent authority,* and that Professor Weil's view, resting as it 
does on a solitary instance of a late anonymous writer, has no 
sufficient warrant. What I have to say on' this subject is based 
on what I am inclined to think a fairly exhaustive collection of 
the passages of the Greek rhetoricians bearing on the matter, 

the heaviness of the gerundial construction ; comp. Max MQlIer*s interlinear trans, 
of the Hitopadesa, Bk. IV, p. 120: If I the meal-dish having sold ten cowries 
shall receive, then here just with those cowries pots-dishes-etc. having bought, 
with manifoldly increased those-monies again again betel nuts-clothes-etc. 
having bought, having sold, by Lacs-numbered riches having made, four-mar- 
riages shall make. Such a narrative would be impossible in a simple Greek 
story. Furthermore, the peculiar facilities for composition in Sanskrit enable 
the language to produce a participial effect, for where the Greek makes up 
what we may call an extemporized complex with hx^^ or cjv, there the Sanskrit 
regularly and readily forms a compound. This leads me to remark that as the 
facility for making verbal nouns in Greek was doubtless checked by the growth 
of the articular inf., so the growth 0/ compound adjectives may in like man- 
ner have been checked by the ease with which the participle would lend itself 
to momentary emergencies, e. g. Dem. 3, 25 : o^rcj ali^pov^^ ^aav koX a^pa h 
T^ T^g iro?^Teiag ifiti fihoirreg, 

* III 226 W. (II 292 Sp.) : in dhaefiv^ Xi^tc ^ Te bvofiatrriKti Koi avrd ra ovd/mra, 
bvofiaoTiKt^ de Atyu t^v re dwd rirv fijjfidruiv cif wdfiara ireKouffiivipf Kal Tfjv 
did fiero x^v, icri. 

' Cf. Aristeid. IX 438 W. (II 533 Sp.) : el ftkv ovv eirXayia^eg, ovrug av i?^ec 
A>7fdaJ7f (J^ r^f liTTTod pofiiag ^ rh 6i 6p6<nnf Toiovr6v ejriv, dg 6i i^ 
lirirodpofita iA^fev. 


made by Dr. C. W. E. Miller and myself. From this collection 
it appears that frXayiaafu^f means literally the use of an oblique case 
(wr&cnff rikayla) in contradistinction to 6f}B6TTfs, the use of the nomi- 
native (nr&ais opBrj, cv^eia). Now, in the Structure of the sentence, 
the use of the nominative carries with it the use of the finite verb, 
which finite verb in narrative is put in the indicative. This is 
6pB6Tijs in every sense. It is the upright case, it is the straightfor- 
ward narrative. irXayiaa/ndr or irXaytdnyff, on the other hand, is the 
use of an oblique case instead of the nominative, and can only 
occur in subordinate clauses, or rather in the equivalents of the 
same, and involves the use of the participle. The oblique case 
chiefly so used is the gen., the so-called gen. absolute, and hence 
the term wXaytacrfwJr is chiefly used of the gen. absol., though it is 
found of another oblique case, the accusative.^ opBSxrai, then, is to 
tell the story in the nominative, which is also the straightforward 
way. frXaytao-ai is to tell part of the story in the gen. abs., which 
is the indirect way. Now, the effect of the genitive absolute on 
style was early noticed, and while 6p6^s connoted KaBap&njSt* 

d<t>€K(ta* and sometimes dpi/ivri;?, irXoyiao-fu^r connoted ircpi^oX^, of 

which more hereafter, and atfiv&nfs. But it was felt that the effect 
of frept^oX^ was not confined to the genitive construction. A nom. 
hurrying to its verb is decidedly retarded by an interposed gen. 
absol., but even one clinging participle retards it somewhat, though 
not to the same degree, and so the participial construction gene- 
rally was called v\ayiafrfji6s, nominative and genitive alike, although 
the term meant by preference the gen. absol. But there the exten- 
sion stopped,* and Professor Weil's Anonymus stands alone, as it 
appears, in making v\ayiafrfji6s signify any interposed clause. Let 
us cite the passages. 

To begin with Hermogenes, chief of them all. In Hermogenes 
n\ayia<rfjL6si irkayidarai means by eminence the use of the gen. abs., and 
in III 206. 207 W. (II 277-8 Sp.), where he opposes n\aytaan6s to 
6p66Trj9 as he opposes 7r€pipo\^ to KaBap^s^ he turns the fjv KavdavXrjt 
of Hdt. I, 7 and the Kpolaos ^p of Hdt. i, 6 into Kpoiaov Svros and 
Kapdavkov Svtos respectively. These gen. constructions are supposed 

» Demetr. IX 88 W. (Ill 305 Sp.) 

* Hermog. Ill 205 W. (II 277 Sp.) : 0XVf^<* ^^ Kodapdrtrrog i) bpOdrr^g, 

* Aristeid. IX 453 W. (II 545 Sp.) : rd 6k xal dTro bpd^c irr^oeug &pxea6ai 
a^X^ TTo/eZ rdv ^dyov Kal rd Kara Kdfi/iara Xveiv ra vo^fiara, 

* Id. IX 434 W. (II 530 Sp.) : ra 6e bpOovvra vof^iara dpifiirrrrra ixei avri rov 
ir?uiyid^eiif. See my note on Pind. O. 1,51 : rdfiov . . . diedaaavro koI ^yov. 


to create a certain disturbance by suggesting the incompleteness 
of the sentence, by delaying the rounding of the thought, by 
troubling its clearness. We gain a certain grandeur and tenseness 
by the construction, a certain sweep, a certain n-cpt/SoX]?, such as H. 
recognizes as lying in the participle;* we sacrifice clearness. 
Again, he denies brilliance to a nominative opening (for so we 
translate 6p3oi>frai) unless it is immediately followed by 7r\ayia<rfi6g 
or some other o-xrjfxa ntpifiKriTiKdv,* and the example that he gives is 

from Dem. l8, 96 : vfins roiwvy AaK€baifiOpi<av yrjs Koi BaXdmjs dpx6vT<op 

KTf. Another example that he gives" is Dem. 18, 18 : toO yap *«icticov 
avfrravTos noXtfjiov, and, while he admits that there are other elements 
that contribute to the irfpiPoXrj of the sentence, such as parenthesis, 
enumeration, and many others, still Trkayiao-fjids is the chief factor, in 
illustration of which he cites further Dem. 9, i, the genitive abs. 
opening of the Third Philippic and the intercalated gen. abs. of 
21, 13 : €V€ibrf ov Ka$€irTtjK6Tos xopTffov, The next example of irXayt- 
a<rp6t;^ is also a gen. abs. (Dem. 9, i), an example which recurs in 
Anonymus VIII 648 W. (Ill 140 Sp.), who also cites a gen. abs. in 
Dem. 19, 50 as a good example of irkayiaaiidt^ 

But as the * peribletic ' effect does not lie in the oblique case merely, 
but also in the participle, it is not surprising to find that some 
authorities cite the nom. participle as well, and so the examples 
given by Aristeides are pardy nominative, partly gen. absol. See 
IX 350-1 W. (II 465-6 Sp.) ; IX 363, where the passage from 
Dem. 23, 4 should read nap vpmv &v, and not nap* vp&p &y (II 474-5 
Sp.) ; IX 375-6 W. (II 484-5 Sp.) ; IX 434 W. (II 530 Sp.) ; IX 
436-7 W. (II 532 Sp.) Comp. also Demetr. IX 98 W. (Ill 
305 Sp.), where he cites as an example of nXayia Xt^is a participle 
in the ace, for which, on account of t6 &<ra(f)is, he substitutes a 
finite verb, and again, a litde further on, where he gives as an 

J III 226 W. (II 293 Sp.) * III 269 W. {II 324 Sp.) 

«III 247 W. (II 307 Sp.) « III 300 W. (II 347 Sp.) 

*The effect of the gen. absol. on style was noticed long before the rhetori- 
cians above quoted ; cf. Dion. Hal. lud. de Isaeo 598 R., cited in Introd. Ess. 
to Pindar, cix, and in Dr. Spieker*s article on the genitive absolute (A. J. P. 
VI 338). I might add that Apsines, IX 494 W. (I 353 Sp.) mentions in passing 
as if it were a well known fact, bri 6 fiev Avaiag Kara bpduaiv dviprAufiivag rdc 
difjyt/aeig, 6 6i Aijfwafievrfc rr^xLyidi^uv fUT* evroviag (v. 1. kwoiac) eiadyei. The 
statement is certainly true of Lysias, in whom we have bpddrr/^ in i, 5 ; 3, 5 ; 
7, 4 (followed by n7Myiaafi6c) ; I2, 4 ; 13, 5 ; 16. 4 ; 17. 2 ; 20, 2 ; 21, 1 ; 22, 2 ; 
23, 2 ; 32, 4. Some of the most famous examples of Demosthenean irXayiaofid^ 
will be cited further on. 


example of trcpiaywyij Thukydides* famous description of the 
Acheloos (2, 102, 2), in which he likewise substitutes a finite verb 
for the participle. 

The only passage that I have found in which rr\ayi,avn6s means 
any intercalated clause is the one cited by Weil (p. 83 Engl, tr.), in 

which we read (III 589 W.): n-Xayioy de <r;^^fui bia yfviKTJs €K(l>€p6fifyoy 
irrcocrccoff olov <f}l\ov /not Bavovros • • • xal dirXof itav o'X^/xa rh ^ltj 
caraprlCov t6v \cyop koi t^p ^wotay avvrof/ws ak\a vnodiaartXXov koI fKKp€fiSiv 
irXdyiov Koi €fiireplPo\op cori re koi Xcycrai owp eWt koI t6 €ir€i yeyovt 
Tobf Ka\ rcdc Ka\ rode ical rode, dvoprja'trai rode. DoubtleSS 

this extension of the term n-Xaytoor/iof to any suspensory clause is 
natural, but the authority of the Anonymus who makes up such 
examples of 6p$6tt)s as Xpi<n-6ff yeyyarai, do(a<rare Can hardly be said 
to weigh against the evidence of the rhetoricians above cited, and 
irkayiatrfjios must continue to mean by preference the gen. absoL, but 
generally the participial construction, the stylistic effect of which 
was well known to the ancient rhetoricians, though almost wholly 
neglected by modern gFammarians. 

The participle, then, whether in construction or in the form of 
the genitive absolute, is, according to the rhetoricians, a o-xrjiMa 
trtpiffkffTiKovt is one of those forms that bring about vipi^oXri, 
irtpifiokf), according to Ernesti, Lexicon Technologiae, which is by 
no means superseded by Volkmann, means * der ausfiihrliche Vor- 
trag, circumducta oraiio* and so Volkmann,* P- 472, calls it *Aus- 
fiihrlichkeit.' But * full,' * copious,* * detailed,' which are the com- 
mon equivalents of * ausfiihrlich,' do not answer perfectly to irep*- 
ffKrjriKoSi and a better notion is gained of what is meant through a 
direct study of the word. 9re/>t/3oX^ means the act of compassing, 
of comprehending, and the effect of it is the sweeping into an 
embrace, or taking up into a train a number of notions. The 
former figure is justified by Herodotos, the latter by the rhetori- 
cians themselves. Herodotos says (i, 141) : Xa/Secv dfKl>iffkrj<rrpov 
Koi irtpiffaktiv nXrjBos iroXX6p t&p IxBu<op, Hermogenes (IX 206 W., II 

277 Sp.) : (I yhp irXayia<ra(ff vdvr<os n-ept^aXeis- • . . twoias yap SKKas 

* Quint. Inst. Or. 4, 3, 117, speaking of the tone of narrative suitable ioxparvae 
reSt says: quae in locis impetu feruntur et circumiectae orationis copia latent, 
hie expressa et ut vult Zeno, sensu Hncta esse debebunt. This * circumiectae 
orationis copia ' would correspond very well to irepipoX^^ta has been noted, 
and thus indicate the absence of TrTuayuuTfidg from simple narrative. The sgftsu 
tincta of Zeno would, as bpBovvra voi^naTa^ give the dpifiirtfg of which mention 
has been made above. 


€<l>€KKovTat oi irXaytacrfjLoL Now, what IS the effect of that sweep? 
At first its function may seem to be that of retarding the move- 
ment, and certainly if you compare the naked verb with the 
participialized verb that is true ; the naked verb gets to its destiny 
sooner. But the question is not between a naked finite verb on 
the one hand and the participialized finite verb on the other, but 
between two finite verbs. To take an instance that happens to be 
at hand. The type of the three synoptic Gospels is overwhelm- 
ingly diroKpiS€U cin-cy, of John oirtKpiBi] Koi eiirtp. Assuredly the latter 
is not the more rapid of the two. vtpifioK^, then, may have a 
rapidity, but it is the rapidity of a current. It is only when the 
current is choked, when the multiplication of participles becomes 
confusing, it is only then that we have /xccn-cJn;? or plethora of style. 
This is irepi^ok^ overdone. There is therefore no rest for frcpi/SoX^ 
until the circuit is completed and we feel that we must move for- 
ward until we reach the finite verb, and so Aristeides says of 
Aischines that at the close of a string of genitives absolute &p$»tr€ 
dc KOi dvenavatv rjfias.^ The participle, then, keeps up the movement, 
the finite verb concludes the movement, brings the sentence to a 
close. A sentence, on the other hand, made up of finite verbs, 
with repeated starts and repeated pauses, is not restful, and jerki- 
ness in the parts is not rapidity on the whole, so that a well 
participialized or eumetochic sentence rolls much more steadily 
than a sentence made up of finite verbs. It is a stream aqd not a 
succession of jets. Such a series of eumetochic sentences is to 
be found in Herodotos* story of Arion (i, 23. 24), an immensely 
popular performance, which Gellius undertook to translate, and 
which he says (16, 19) is couched in *celeri admodum et cohibili 
oratione vocumque filo tereti et candido.* Note cohibili^ for which 
an old critic wished to substitute volubiliy wrongly, as I conceive. 
If the participles had been omitted altogether the aratio would 
have been ceteris still, but not cohibilis; if the participles had been 
transmuted into finite verbs, the discourse would have lost some- 
thing of its speed. If, then, as has been shown, the rhetoricians 
do consider the participle as an element of style, and if they are 
right in so considering it, oligometochia and polymetochia cannot 
be neglected by us ; and as furthermore a matter of greater or less 

* IX 376 W., II 485 Sp. Compare what Demetrius says {trepi ipfi, IX 26 W., 
Ill 272 Sp.) of Thuk. 2, 102, in the famous passage about the Acheloos : ai'fincuja 
yap i/ Toiaimj iiEya7.oiTpknEia e/c Trjg nepuxyuyi/^ yiyovev Koi bk tov pdyig dvairaifaai 
re avrdv re Kal rbv ctKovovra, 



is involved, the whole subject might well fall under the dread 
rubric of statistics. But the process is tedious, and perhaps not 
remunerative in proportion to its tediousness. To count the 
number of finite verbs and the number of participles in a series of 
sentences and take the proportion might seem to be a simple 
matter, but this would only give us a coarse approximation, and 
sometimes not even that Participles are often degraded to adjec- 
tives or substantives, or, in other words, they may lose their move- 
ment even when they keep their color, or they may lose both 
movement and color. Then the participles are not of equal value 
for color. The present participle makes a broader stroke than 
does the aorist. It is the present participle that gives the peculiar 
roll to the Dionysiac songs in the Bacchae of Euripides and in 
the Frogs of Aristophanes. It is the present participle that gives 
pomp to the often quoted passage about the chariot of Zeus in 

Plato, Phaedr. 206 £: h fiip b^ fieyas fjy^iJiwv iv ovpav^ Zcvr iXavptov 
imjvhv &pfia irpStros fropcverai diaKOO'fi&p irdvra koi eirtixekovfitvos. It is the 

present participle that produces the current in the long-drawn 
(^rxoiyoTCMjU)* description of the Acheloos in Thukydides, already 
cited. It is the present participle that gives such a swirl and 
swing to the passages from Demosthenes (18, 44. 7 1), cited by Her- 
mogenes III 160 W. (II 244 Sp.)* And so cautions might be 
multiplied indefinitely. Still, if the field is wide enough, the aber- 
rations correct one another, and, if we are not satisfied with the 
mere statement in figures, so many finite verbs, so many parti- 
ciples in this or that piece, but construct the curve of variations,* 

'Anonym. IX 621 W. (Ill 114 Sp.) 

' In counting the participles one should not exclude the articular participle 
except where it has become out and out a substantive, for even with the article 
the participle does not deny its peculiar effect. Note, f. i., the roll of the arti- 
cular present part, in Dem. 18, 71 : 6 \ . . (T<l>erepi^6/ievoc koI KaraoKevdi^tJv , . . 
Kai kirixttptiv koI KaraXafi^Avuv . . . «ai KaraaKAirruv koI Kodtarac ..,«!* i^^' 
kavTtf TTotohfuvo^ Kol fcohopKQv , . . naX , , . avaip&v . . . Kar&yurv, nSrepov 
ravra fr&vra izotdv ijdlKsi koi iraptanMei koI IXve rifv elp^vffv ^ ob ; where the 
three finite verbs come in with crushing effect. By the way, the jar of the 
transition from participle to finite verb has long since attracted the attention 
of commentators, Find. O. i, 14; P. i, 55 ; 3, 53. 

* Outside of the ancient rhetoricians, I have found little aid as to the general 
aspects of the subject, and special treatises on the use of the participle do not 
seem to have considered the stylistic effect except in vague generalities. So 
Balkenholl says (de participiorum usu Thucydideo, p. 4) : Ex hoc autem 
frequent issimo participiorum usu magnam orationis prodire varietatem, accu- 
ratam subtilemque inter res et verba concordantiam, arctum inter enuntiata 


the principle will be demonstrable in a more exact way. At the 
same time, for carrying conviction in the first instance, it is only 
necessary to use large masses, and for this a rough count will 
answer. When a Grecian talks — as some Grecians talk — about 
the indifference of aorist and imperfect, the cheap incredulity may 
be cheaply dispelled by pointing to masses of imperfects and 
masses of aorists.* And so in the matter of the finite verb and 
the participle. The artistic effect of Pindar, P 4, 224 foil., where 
masses of participles are followed by masses of finite verbs, seems 
to be unquestionable." Nay, the poet himself tells us (v. 247) 
that time presses. He cannot afford to give us color, detail, and 
passes from a lef^aio to a staccato movement, not, be it understood, 
turning participles into finite verbs, but leaving out participles 
altogether. Another large splotch of color is found in the speech 
of Pausanias in Plato's Symposium, 181 D, where the mass of 
participles has not escaped the attention of commentators. Rettig 
sees in the aorist and in the asyndeton an artistic effort to express 
the fickleness and haste of the lover. To me aorist participles 
and present alike indicate rather the tumultuousness of Pausanias 
himself, who, in comparison with such a master of .the participle as 
Isokrates, is nothing but a Magician's * Prentice. Who that has 
ever read the Gorgias of Plato can fail to recall the rhetorical 
curveting of Polos, n&Xos by name and n-ebXof by nature, and who 
that has learned to appreciate the stylistic force of the Greek parti- 

primaria et secundaria nexum, praeclaram totius orationis perspicuitatem, singu- 
larem denique aciem et venustatem facile intelligitur. 

These be brave words which the author promises to make good as he goes on, 
but he never recurs to them. As for the praeclara perspictdtas we shall see that 
atvp^eia is the characteristic, not of the metochic, but of the ametochic discourse. 
That the participle contributes to kvdpyeia is true, as may be seen from the 
construction of verbs of actual perception, as compared with the permissible 
infinitive of Latin. But h&pyeia and oa^eia are not identical. Acies and 
venustas are intangible, and all that remains of the characteristic is magna 
orationis varietal ^ of which we shall have illustrations enough in the shifting 
proportions of finite verb and participle in the same author as well as in dif- 
ferent authors. 

* In X. Cyr. 4, 2, 28, where we have the description of a surprised enemy, 
there are no less than 16 imperfects in succession. For a string of aorists see 
Piud. P 4, 249, with my note. A string of imperfects in K 352-57 is followed 
by a string of aorists 306 sqq., and that imperfects are often succeeded by a 
solitary conclusive aorist is too common to need proof. See also my note on 
Pind. P 4, 25. 

' See my Introd. Ess. p. cix. 


ciples will fail to be amused by the participial aKipTfjfia of 47 1 ?* That 
this play on finite verb and participle was perfectly understood by 
later writers as well as by authors of the classic period seems to be 
plain enough. It is no accident that we find, for instance, in the Vera 
Historia of Lucian now a series of finite verbs and immediately 
afterwards a eumetochic sentence, to be followed by ametochia and 
then again by eumetochia (II 73 R.) The conviction once gained 
through the noticing of these masses, the finer shades are needful 
to train the power of observation until observation passes over into 
feeling and thus the circuit is completed. For the first immediate 
feeling resists analysis ; then when the complex sources of the 
feeling are revealed, the knowledge of those sources does not 
deaden the feeling itself, but quickens it and passes over into it. 
At that stage it is not necessary to construct ordinates and to com- 
pile tables — mechanical work, which is useful chiefly for training 
the artistic sense, subsidiarily for giving cumulative evidence in 
cases of disputed genuineness. As Isokrates says, in one of the 
few vivid figures to which he condescends (15, 268), one may 
spend a certain time in such matters, but one must not allow one's 
nature to be skeletonized thereover. 

As may be gathered from what has just been said, it is not my 
intention to pursue this subject myself until I drop to pieces a 
disarticulated skeleton on the desert of statistics, nor is it my 
intention to send others thither on the bare chance that they may 
find 3ome such jars of water as Herodotos tells of in his charming 
account of the route to Egypt (3, 6). And yet, without some 
statistical corroboration of what has been advanced, it seems 
hardly fair to leave the subject wholly, and so I will acknowledge 
that I have made something more than a three days' journey into 
the wilderness, and that some of my young fiiends have helped 
me here and there to collect specimens. These specimens have 
been taken chiefly from narrative literature ; for as the argumenta- 
tive part of an author is the home of the articular infinitive, so the 
narrative is the proper sphere of the participle. To be sure, the 
participle is not without its efl*ect elsewhere. Blass has commented 
on the brilliant epideiktic * effect produced by Isokrates' use of the 

^ Notice the cool comment of Sokrates, 47 1 D : xal kot^ apxag tcjv X6yuv^ u 
n£)Ae, iytjyi at kir^veaa brt fioi 6oKBig eh npbg r^ fitiropualv irenaidevtrdat, rov 6^ 
dia?Jyeadai ^fuhficevai xre.. Polos has been epideiktic, not apodeiktic 

'The much-discussed *EmTd<lnog of Lysias swells with participles in the 
true epideiktic style ; compare esp. §27 foil., and note also that the 'OXvfiniOKdc 
is polymetochic. 


participle (II 157), whereas inferior workmen such as Aischines 
(III B 205) and Deinarchos (III B 295 ; cf. L. Schmidt, Rh. M. 
XV 236 f.) lay the paint on very thick. But we leave everything 
out of view just now except narrative, and if we had material 
enough we might attack the dithyramb first. That the dithyramb 
was largely narrative is emphatically attested by Plato, who makes 
its narrative character its especial excellence in comparison with 
the drama, which he condemned as he condemned the dramatic 
impersonation that we find in epic poetry.' But in the paucity of 
the remains of the dithyramb we can only divine that its wine color 
was heightened by frequent participles, and we must not insist 
too much on such a coincidence as I have elsewhere pointed out 
(Intr, Ess. to Pindar, cix), in the famous passage of the Phaidros, 
where Sokrates speaks of himself as waxing dithyrambic (238 D) 
just as he emerges from a jungle of participles. And yet the undue 
multiplication of participles does give an intoxication to style. 
The finite verb has to be reached through a crowd of circum- 
stances, the logical relations are not clearly expressed, and the 
play of color in which temporal, causal, conditional, adversative 
rays mix and cross is maddening. This is not eumetochia, but 
pyknometochia, if you choose. Hence the strictures of Dionysios 
of Halikarnassos on Isaios' use of the gen. abs. already adverted 
to, and when we come to a weltering mass of genitives absolute in 
Lysias (3, 18), as when we come to a weltering mass of ablatives 
absolute in the clear-cut style of Caesar (B. G. 2, 25), we too stop to 
criticise, to criticise in the true sense and to ask ourselves whether 
this was a designed effect or the natural expression of the confu- 
sion of the scene described. 

So far, then, I have limited myself to the study of the narrative, 
and of prose narrative, so as to eliminate the troublesome question 
of rhy thni and metre ;* and although I have not collected any vast 

* Rpb. 3, 394 B : r7f iroi^e6g re koI fivQoXoyla^ ^ fthf dia fufifyyeQ^ 5A7 tarlVf 
Cxrrrep ai) ?iiyeig^ Tpay(f>6ia re xal KUfi^Sia^ ^ 6k 6t* a-KayyeTua^ avrov rov irottfTOv • 
eifpoig (T av avr^ fiaXurrd irov kv diBvp^fifiouQ ktL 

' But before proceeding to take up the participle in prose, I must do justice 
to the labors of two of my former students, whose results ^encouraged me to 
push forward a line of investigation which I had often indicated to others, 
which I had never myself had time to do more than project. I refer to the 
dissertations of Dr. Gonzalez Lodge (The Participle in Euripides) and Dr. C. 
W, E. Miller (The Participle in Pindar), and as neither of these dissertations 
has yet been published, it may be well in this connection to give a brief sum- 
mary of their results. 


masses of statistics, enough has been brought together to show 
that the vein is worth working. A certain norm, for instance, 

In his chapter * The Participle a Norm of Style,' Dr. Lodge has presented 
three sets of tables exhibiting, first, the number of participles in the three 
tragic poets ; second, the proportion of lyric and dialogue in the same, which 
has an independent interest in regard to the several plays and in regard to 
the oscillation in the development of dramatic art ; and third, the proportions 
in trimeter (including trochaic tetrameter), anapaestic and lyric. These tables 
I reproduce at the close of the article. 

With this material before him, Dr. Lodge next proceeds to consider whether 
the statistics thus gained serve to illustrate the character of Euripides as 
dtKavucdg (Ar. Pax 534: iroajry l^iffiaTtuv diKaviKinf)^ and as the home of the 
participle is the narrative, it is to the narrative that he turns his special atten- 
tion, giving as illustrations Andr. 1085-1165 with 31 parties., Medea 1 135-1230 
with 37 parties., where we find 11 59-1 169 just such a cumulation as we shall 
have occasion to notice in prose. Hipp. 1173-1254 yields 37 participles, 5 being 
crowded into 4 lines 1236-7; Ion 1121-1228, 44 partt. ; Herakl. 788-866, 32 
partt. ; H. F. 922-1015, 49 partt., a large percentage ; Supp. 650-730, 40 partt. ; 
HeL 1 525-1618, 46 partt.; Ph. 1090-1200,43 partt; El. 774-858, 39 partt.; 
Or. 866-956, 48 partt.; Ba. 677-774, 37 partt.; L A. 1540-1612, 26 partt.; 
L T. 1337-1419. 37 partt. 

' We see,* he adds, * from these figures that in these narratives of the &yyeh)t 
the proportion of participles is large. The custom is to start slowly and calmly 
with subordinate clauses. As the relater warms up and becomes vivid, he 
introduces participles and thus adds color. Also in almost every recital we 
find some culminating period, after which the messenger usually cools down 
and ends his story in the calm manner in which he began it.' 

* In the prologues the percentage is slightly smaller than in the messengers' 
stories, but, as a rule, the participles are more evenly distributed throughout 
the whole introductions, according to the usual constructions, without an at- 
tempt at display,' while ' in the controversial speeches we find that in close 
argument, where the speaker wishes his exact meaning to be understood and 
his logic to have its effect, he is very sparing of participles. When, on the other 
hand, the speech is rambling and the speaker is either incapable of logical ex- 
actness or indisposed to it, participles are more numerous. In the rhetorical 
monologues the participle as a vivifying and coloring agent comes out in force. 
But, nevertheless, Euripides, however free, is not excessive in his use of parti- 
ciples, and in his stories does not run beyond that simplest of Greek stylists, 
Lysias, who in XII, for instance, in the first five pages affords eighty cases of 
participles, or one to every two lines.' 

In the matter of the cumulation of genitives absolute or ir?Myiaaf£6^ Euripides 
is very moderate, and Dr. Lodge's conclusion is that in this as in other uses 
of participles Euripides cannot be called ducavuidg^ and we must see the ex- 
emplification of this tendency elsewhere than in the mere use of a special 

Dr. Miller's chapter on *The Stylistic Eflfect of the Participle in Pindar' is 
much briefer than the corresponding chapter in Dr. Lodge's dissertation, and 



seems to develop itself for Thukydides.* Several of his narra- 
tives show absolutely the same proportion of finite verb and 
participle (56 : 44), whereas the participle sinks below the average 
in the simple narrative of i, 126, the very passage which elicited 
from the astonished scholiast the famous exclamation, h XcW «y«\afr€v. 
A parallel with this is found in another simple narrative (6, 
62-5), and the average sinks still lower in the dry chapters (62-3) 
of the dry eighth book. In the passages selected Xenophon 
presents in narrative a much higher average of finite verbs than 
does the narrative of Thukydides, so that Xenophon's norm is 
Thukydides* extreme. Herodotos, again, while he seems to be on 
the whole polymetochic, shows a remarkable variation from the 
polymetochic i, 123, where Harpagos sends the hare to Cyrus, 
down to the oligometochic 3, 41-3, the Story of the Ring of 
Polykrates. Not without interest is the fact that Aqtiphon and 
Andokides, so unlike in other respects, seem to run close 
together in narrative. Isokrates would seem to have more color 
than Isaios. Demosthenes is much richer than either. But of 
this Proteus among the orators, as Dionysios calls him, one must 
always speak with a due recognition of the vast variety of his 
resources." Though he likes the color of the participle, he is too 
great a master of his art not to know the effect of opB&nfs in its 
place, and he whose roO yap ^<okikov <rv<TTdvTog TToXc/iov (18, 18) is a 
standing example of vXayiafrfjL6s has made use of the bpifjivnjs of the 
finite verb in the famous passage of the same great speech (§169): 
ttnnpa iiiv yhp tjv we.jwhich is severely oligometochic, the proportion 
being down to cr<oTTipias (§170) f. v. 68 p. c, partic. 32 p. c.,with the few 

serves mainly as a reinforcement of the section of my Introduction to Pindar, to 
which I have already referred. It was on the occasion of the preparation of 
this chapter that Dr. Miller made the collection of passages on izTuayiaofidg to 
which I have already acknowledged my indebtedness, and all his material was 
also generously made accessible to Dr. Lodge. 

' Dr. Gonzalez Lodge, of whose work I have just spoken, has sent me a state- 
ment of the number of participles and finite verbs in the first book of Thuky- 
dides, with the curve of their occurrences, which latter I am unable to reproduce 
here. According to his statistics, there are 2337 finite verbs and 1382 parti- 
ciples in the first book, or 63 : 37 — the speeches and argumentations being doubt- 
less responsible for the lowering of the proportion of participles, that seems 
to obtain in the narrative of Thukydides. 

'975 R. : fjdav ex ttoX^mv Si&XeKTov anerkXei /ifyaAojrpeTr^, Atri^, irepiTr^f 
airipiTTov, i^fjXXayfiiv/rv, awfjdif^ travijyvpiKfpt^ dhfdtvrfVf avarrfpav, IXapav, ainrrovov, 
dvetfiivjpff ^delav, irucpdv, ifiucfiVy naBfirucfpf^ ovSh ScdXXdTTovcav tov fisfivdevphov 
irapd Tolc dpx(^oig noofralg Upuriug. 


participles grouped at the beginning and at the end. The virulent 
invective of Demosthenes against Aischines, for which some of his 
editors are disposed to apologize (i8, 257-65), is as a whole poly- 
metochic, but in parts it is pyknometochic, in parts araiometochic. 
After he is fairly started he uses scarcely finite verbs enough to hold 
the sentence down (comp. esp. §259). When he winds up he dis- 
cards participles and makes his sharp antitheses ring with finite 
verbs. We have the roll and the tap of the drum again, the very 
same variation that we noticed in Pindar, that we noticed in the 
same speech of Demosthenes himself. Lysias, the model narrator, 
varies a good deal, as Herodotos, a model story teller, varies a 
good deal. So the briefer narrative of I is colored by a greater 
proportion of participles than XII,and the narrative of III (§§1-20), 
on the whole polymetochic, is araiometochic in some parts, pykno- 
metochic in others, notably in §18, to which I have already referred 
as a * weltering mass.' This narrative is the story of a man who 
wishes to extenuate his fault, and the tone is kept down, and yet 
participles and finite verbs hold each other in closer balance than 
we expect of Lysias (f. v. 52 p. c, part. 48 p. c), but this is dis- 
tinctly due to the heaping up of participles in the tumultuous 
passages. The bigger the row, the thicker the participles. It is 
true that the cut and thrust of the finite verb in asyndetic pas- 
sages produces a certain tumult, just as fine hatching produces 
on the eye the effect of a continuous surface, but the battle in 
Xenophon (cf. Hell. 2, 4, 33; 4, 3, 19) is not the street-fight in 
Lysias. In the model narrative (XXXII, §§4-10), justly extolled 
by Dion. Hal., de Lys. iud. 25 (p. 502 R.), the play of participle 
and finite verb is worthy of all admiration ; first the two running 
neck and neck, then the finite verb gaining, then the participle 
catching up with that peculiar cumulation which we have noticed 
elsewhere, and outstripping the finite verb, which, however, by a 
series of rapid strides makes the race again neck and neck until 
the woman speaker comes in and by her dpifivnjs gives the victory 
to the finite verb. 

But while there seems to be evidence enough of a general cor- 
respondence of the facts of the language to the requirements of 
the rhetorical theories of the rexfiKol and to the fundamental condi- 
tions of the form under consideration, there are also warnings 
enough against an attempt to 'reach conclusions on the basis of 
anything short of an exhaustive examination. Every author is 
under the more or less conscious domination of a habit What 
that habit is cannot be determined unless he lets us see a sufficient 


Stretch of his stylistic life. Isolated passages, such as have been 
taken up in this essay, only answer as illustrations, not as proofs, 
and the occasional variations are so wide of the average estab- 
lished by such specimens that we must simply set them down to 
the incalculable which makes the puzzle as well as the charm of 
individuality. Take, for instance, the story of the Healing of the 
Centurion's Servant, in Matthew VIII 5 foil, and Luke VII i foil. 
The statistics furnished me by Dr. Spieker and Mr. Clarke pre- 
pared me to find Matthew a trifle more oligometochic than Luke. 
It turns out that he is much more so here, that in the passage 
under consideration he may be called araiometochic, with 80 per 
cent finite verbs and 20 per cent participles, while Luke is fairly 
eumetochic (62 : 38). But further examination shows that Luke 
differs from himself nearly as much at times as these two versions 
of the same story differ from one another. The Parable of the 
Prodigal Son (XV 1 1 foil.) is oligometochic (77 : 33). The Para- 
ble of the Good Samaritan (X 30 foil.) is polymetochic, or if you 
will, pyknometochic (55 ; 45). So in the classic field Aischines, 
who is, at times, polymetochic ad nauseam usque^ can bring 
himself down to the bareness of oligometochia. 

Enough, it seems, has been said to show that here, as elsewhere, 
we must content ourselves with general correspondences, and com- 
paring wholes with wholes. Accepting these restrictions, therefore, 
we take a step further and try to sharpen our vision for variation 
within the language itself by a comparison with kindred languages, 
for in order to understand the individual we must deduct the 
national, and from this point of view the relation of the Greek 
participle to that of other members of the Aryan stock is not a 
matter of indifference. 

Now, the language that lies nearest to the Greek for purposes 
of comparison as to the use of the participle is the Latin, and I 
have thought that it might be profitable to make that comparison 
in three spheres. First, in those translations in which the only 
object of the Latin translator is to make a verbal transfer fi'om the 
Greek and no care is had for style, provided the grammar do 
not suffer actual violence. Second, in those versions which are 
hardly translations in our sense, but rather transfusions, those ver- 
sions in which, to use an image of Cicero's, the exchange is made 
by weighing ingots, not counting coins,^ in which the Latin writer 

' Cic. de opt. gen. orat. (§14): non enim ea me adnumerare lectori putavi 
oportere sed tamquam appendere. 


tells the Greek story in the Latin fashion with the original Greek 
before him as a general guide. Third, in which a genuine Latin 
story is told in a Latin way without reference to the Greek, which 
story is to be compared with a similar story as told by a Greek. 
One or two little excursions in some of these directions may be 
worth recording. 

In the first sphere mentioned we will take the Vulgate trans- 
lation of the New Testament. Now, the New Testament, if not 
Greek of the best type, is still Greek. That it is true Greek, and 
not Shemitic Greek merely, is shown more clearly by comparison 
with the Septuagint, which is closely modelled on the Hebrew. 
The N. T. narrative — and it is with the narrative that we are 
chiefly concerned — shows a fair number of participles, varying, it 
is true, with the different authors, but everywhere sufficient to 
keep off reproach. According to Dr. Spieker's unpublished 
statistics, which he has kindly permitted me to use, the genitives 
absol. in the four Gospels run per page thus : 

Acts 1.36 

Mark 81 

Lulce 78 

Matthew 72 

John 30 

This seems to be a very low average for John, and might well be 
ascribed to the scantier narrative in his Gospel ; but that the low 
figure is due, not simply to the smaller amount of narrative, but 
also to the peculiarity of his style in the narrative, would appear 
from Mr. Henry Clarke's statistics of the account of the crucifixion 
in the four Gospels, the proportion being : 

Luke . 4 . • .11 

Matthew 10 

Mark 9 

John • • • • • 5 

Surely the formula airoKpiBfis tint for the synoptics and air^KplBri Ka\ 
ciJTc for John is a compendium of the whole situation. But oligo- 
metochic as John is, he cannot compare with the LXX. As for 
the other Evangelists, I will take one sample from Luke. In the 
story of Samson (Judges XIV-XVI) there are some twenty-six 
participles,* and nearly all of them fall in with the Hebrew idiom, 

1 The variation of texts makes an exact count impossible. 



nay, some of them are actually Hebrew and not Greek, while Luke 
XXII 7 to XXIII end is of about the same length and has about 
four times as many participles. John, in a like stretch of narrative, 
would have about twice as many, to judge by Mr. darkens list. 

Amusing, and not uninstructive, is the comparison of the simple 
narrative of the Old Testament as reflected in the literal transla- 
tion of the Septuagint with the finery of Josephus, who tries to 
brave it with the best of the Hellenes,* and to this bravery the 
participle contributes no small share. Examples are to be found 
on every page of the Jewish Antiquities, which I am glad to cite 
by the convenient sections of Niese's new edition. One glaring 
specimen is his padded account of Solomon's Judgment (VIII 2, 
§§27-33). Another example is David's escape with the help of 
Michal (VI 10, 4, §§215-19). Not so much dressed up but still 
sufficiently characteristic is the Josephan rendering (VII 3, §§148, 
149) of the Parable of the Ewe Lamb (2 Sam. XII i foil.) which 
I will quote : 

LXX. Josephus. 

hiio avbpft ^(rcof iv fu^ ttoXci, th dvo ovdpcr t^v aMip Korf^Kovv woKiv 

irXovaiog koi €is nlvrfs * Koi ^v r^ hv 6 fiiP irkovaios ^v kcli. iroXXar 

frKovtritd iroifivia kol povK6\ia iroXXa ^^X^v dyiXas vrroCvylap re koi Bptfi- 

(r<f)6dpa Koi r^ Trtprjri oIk fjy ovdcV ftaroiv koi /3ottv, r^ ttcVi^ti d dfivas 

aXX ^ dfivas fiia fiiKpdf ^v eicnja'aTo im^pxt fua, ratmjv fiera t&p TfKvudv 

icoi irepieiroirja'aTO ' Koi e^Bpe^jr^v avrov dv(Tp€<f>€ av vdiatpovfiepos 

airr^v Koi (rvv€Tpd(f)rj fxer avTov Koi p.€Ta avrfj to, o'lrla Koi (piXofrropyia npos 

tS>v T€KV(ov alrov €ir\ t6 avrS * dnh rov avr^p ;( p » fi e y o s , ^ tis Stp xph^o-*^<^ 

dpTOv avTOv fjtrdu Koi €K tov TTOTTjpiov Koi 7rp6s Bvyartpa. (epov d ew«X- 

aVTOV €1TIP€ KOL €P T^ KSXlTtd aVTOV BdpTOf T^ v\oval<0 T&P fM€P IdltOP 

€Kd6(vb€ Koi ^p avT^ a>ff Bxrydrrfp' ovdip rj^laxrtp €K€ivos poaKrjfidT<op 
Koi ^XBcp 6doiir6pof irp6s top dpdpa KaraBva-as eva>;(^(rai rhp (piXop, 
rhp irXovo'iop koI e<f>€iaaTo Xa/3c(y ex vifiyl^as dc t^p dppdda tov irkmjros 
JTov iTOipviov airrov rov n-oc^craft r^ dirkairatr^ kcX ravrrjp v a pav Ktvd- 
dpbpi Tflp £ci/6> €K66vti,^ irphs ainhp Ktu a- as tlariao't t6p ^hop, 
cXajSe T^p dfxpdda toC dpdp6s rov ntptf 
T0£ Koi €7rolTja'€P avTfjp T^ dpdpl r^ 
iXOoPTi .irp6s avrhp* 

^ Unless I am mistaken, Josephus seriously inclines to polymetochia, of 
which we find many specimens in his writings, e. g. The Anointing of Jehu, 
IX 6, I (§§105-9); The Execution of Ahab's Sons, IX 6, 5 (§§125-9) *. The" 
Story of Jonah, IX 10, 2 (§§208-14). 

^ The articular participle does not count. That is Hebrew as well as Greek, 

t - 



This is enough to show that N. T. Greek, so far as the participle 
is concerned, cannot be said to be entirely swayed out of the lines of 
true Greek by Shemitic influence, and we may turn to the Vul- 
gate with more confidence and examine the way in which the 
translators have wrestled with the problem of rendering the poly- 
metochic Greek into the naturally oligometochic Latin. As this 
whole matter, however, will be made the subject of an exhaustive 
monograph by one of our Johns Hopkins students who has hap- 
pened to take an interest in this investigation, I will not anticipate 
his more accurate results, and will limit myself to a single speci- 
men, which will throw some light on what we may call the antique 
mechanism of translation from Greek into Latin. For in the struggle 
which the Latin idiom has with the Greek in the Vulgate rendering 
we see that it is conducted according to a technical method for the 
conquest of the Greek participle — z. method developed by centuries 
of practice in the schools of Rome. The history of Roman 
literature begins with translation, and there is no doubt that many 
of our most familiar Latin constructions owe, if not their origin, 
at least their frequency to the necessities of a perpetual wrestle 
with the more flexible idiom. Do we not detect even the best 
translations from the French, from the German, into English by a 
similar recurrence of technical devices ? Of course the standing 
puzzle was the aor. act. participle, for which the Latin has no 
equivalent, the nearest being the deponent perf. participle, of 
which, by the way, the Romans made all the use they could. The 
first chapter that we come to will answer, Matth. IL In this 
chapter the aor. active (or deponent) participle is roughly rendered 
by the' Latin pres. participle in no less than 14 instances, by cum 
with subj. in 2, by the abl. abs. passive in 3, by the finite verb in 
2, while a welcome deponent enables the Latin to cope with the 
Greek in one instance and TcXevr^VaiTOff *H/3«dou becomes defuncio 
Herode.^ So we see that although the participial construction 
has been retained against the idiom, there is an irreducible rem- 
nant, and nearly half of the aorist participles have been dodged. 
Owing to this forcing, however, the number of participles in the 
Latin keeps much nearer to the Greek than would be expected in 
a genuine Latin translation to which we now turn. As a speci- 

* Since this study was first projected, Mr. Milroy,the graduate student of the 
Johns Hopkins University above referred to, has made considerable progress 
in his detailed examination of the use of the Latin participle in the N. T. 
Vulgate. As a part of this work he has prepared a table of the Latin equiva- 


men of translation into real Latin I venture to take Gellius' ren- 
dering (i6, 19) of Herodotos' Story of Arion, i, 23. 24, a story, by 
the way, which being often told in many languages, offers especial 
advantages for comparison. Herodotos tells the story (i, 23. 24), 
which, as we have seen, was highly complimented by Gellius (16, 19) 
for its cohibilis oratio with a slight excess of finite verbs and oratio 
obliqua infinitives, while in Gellius' own version finite verbs and oratio 
obliqua infinitives outnumber the participles three to one, and Gel- 
lius' contemporary, Fronto, jerks out the same story (p. 237, Naber) 
with less than one participle to four finite verbs and equivalents.* 

lents of the Greek participle which will be not without interest in connection 
with what has been said above. This table I have his permission to repro- 
duce, so far as it relates to the four Evangelists and Acts : 

i . II « « 

"Sua.: "S A ^ .8. S «l.ja 

1+1 .+ ■2 3 I •§1^1 % • IS, ^ 

± a «. .A § § ► s i !-• i S Si I .a 3 1^. 3 

9 9^*0 O0'aSS>S«<3«' 9««99S< 9 0.m4 O 

O U > < S5S5<OfiP^pN3 O'POO'O'w O* H 0»^ H 

Matthew 159 49 69 6 4 z x z 990 596 809 

Mark 68 57 30 8 5 z z a z z 174 403 577 

Luke asx 58 89 13 19 a 3x4 zz 3 4a4 6aa 1046 

John ai7 60 iz 7 z 996 169 465 

Acts 167 Z55 67 Z4 zz 3 a 5 a z a 3 ax 435 803 za38 

(qnul) (quae- 

If we accept these statistics and take the average by verses, we find the fol- 
lowing order of frequency : 

No. Part. No. Verses. Av. 

Acts 1238 1007 1.23 

Luke 1046 1 151 ~ .90 

Mark 577 678 .85 

Matthew 886 1071 .83 

John 465 880 .53 

The count by trrixoi would make no essential difference in the order. See 
Harris, New Testament Autographs, A. J. P. Ill, Suppl. p. 20. The large 
proportion of the narrative in Acts, the small proportion in John, may serve 
to explain these figures in part. Of especial interest is the large use made of 
cum for getting at the effect of the participle. 

' Mr. M. S. Slaughter has had the kindness to make a preliminary examination 
of Livy for the purposes of this paper. I append his results. F. V. stands for 
finite verbs and equivalents (orat. obi. inf.). 









































This table gives Mr. Slaughter's maximum figures for the proportion of parti- 

- 1 















vox© "* « 








• • 






00 PO 


M m 







• • 









O mm o 

M t<« M 00 

00 1^ 


N 00 "* «** 
« fO 



»orx « \0 
w t** ^ 00 


^ "* 

00 »-i NO N 

00 M M M 



11 m 


• • 

»-i « 




NO *•* 



•i C^ 



NO »0 


• a 


00 t^ 




• • 




O *^ 



•S *2 o f 


• • ■ 

00 M On 

ONi^ On 


^00 onoo 

• • • • 

O NO VO «^ 

»0 coin On 
NO O O *^ 

O M »4 c*) 



«^ On •* 
^m OS 

• • • 
00 M 

^ * • 
\0 M M 

t** CO On 
On 11 


^ NO 
COQO 00 

Nd w d 

• • • 

N m CO 

On M M 



CO ro CO 

• • • 

roo NO 




NO "* 00 

t«* M O 

• • • 
O "^ »i 


CO On 00 

NOOO "^ 

4od NO 

• • • 

NONO 00 

O On in. 

00 •-• 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • « • 

sfts o • 

OnOn m 

t«* N On 

r«*\0 •'^ 



r<* »-i 


• • • 

r<* On Q 
r«* r<* O 

On n 

^00 fpm 

• • • • 

, • 

M »0 N 


t^ c< 


• • • • 
00 00 "* O 

o^ 0000 

« CO 


00 M N ON 

W COVO t** 

• • • • 

0\ w 00 


t** ^ 




• • • • 

O »o\o « 

C^ C4 O 



oovo ONO 

O t«<. OnN 

« • « • 


\0 M tl 

t^ N 


n' d too 

O M M 00 

O c^ 


>o O •-' f*^ 

• • • • 


• a • 

NC •* CO W 

OnOnM On 

f* « 

N »0 CO 

CO ^ »o 

dvc^ 00 


r«* M 




*f%th Nd 

c< c< ^ 

On c« 

• • • 
■ • • * 

. • • * 

4> n ,^ •. 


'<Ei Jl 




1- M 

M («« 



• • 

• • 


** t^ 










00 *** 

• • 






• • • • 
VO 00 N >-• 

O cOOn W 
00 « CONO 

O M *^ 


^ lONO "^ 
O c* ONO 

« • • ■ 

00 l>» t** t^ 


00 »- NO t^ 
00 iM N M 


OONO «^ ^ 

-* ONr«*oo 

H» CO «1 



t** »^00 On 
On M 


-^ rn r<* N 

co^ ^ r>* 
« • • . 

M M On t** 

« »'^ On 

•c S2fc 



Into the variation of the participle in different Latin authors I 
will not go at present, if ever. It is enough, in this paper, to have 
called attention to a subject which will repay more careful working 
than the present writer can hope to give it. 


ciples. By excluding gerundives, adjectivized participles, and the like, the 
proportion of participles is slightly lowered; but we will not haggle with the 
Latin language and will concede all that it can claim in the line of the parti- 
ciple. The grand total of the twelve passages gives us as an average — 

F. v. Part. 

68.50 (72.20) 31.50 (27.80) 

what we have called for Greek " severely oligometochic." 


Supplementary Paper. 

In an article on the Sequence of Tenses in Latin, published in 
the American Journal of Philology, Vol. VIII, No. i, I intimated 
that the phenomena noticed in dependent subjunctives appeared 
also in dependent, and even in independent, indicatives. The aim 
of the present paper is to present a statement of the uses of the 
Latin tenses which shall comprehend both modes and all uses of 

In the time that has elapsed, an examination of my article has 
been made by Professor Gildersleeve in A. J. P. VIII 2, pp. 228- 
31. Before proceeding, then, to my special purpose, I shall avail 
myself of his courtesy and endeavor to answer the objections 
which he has brought. In doing so, I am not without a hope of 
reaching common ground with him ; for certain sentences in his 
strictures approach so nearly the form in which I should state my 
own view that I conceive the difference between us not to be 

Let me briefly recapitulate the argument of my essay and the 
conclusions reached in it. 

For some reason or other, Latin-speaking people generally used 
the present or perfect subjunctive after primary tenses, and the 
imperfect or pluperfect after secondary tenses. That this usage 
came about by accident no one would claim. Only one explana- 
tion can be given, namely that, in the case at least of the greater 
part of the dependent subjunctives, the construction, whatever it 
may be, is descended from an original paratactic construction, and 
that the tense, of course expressing meaning in the paratactical 
structure, carried that meaning over into the hypotactical, and for 
a while retained it. All of us, whether advocates or opponents of 
the doctrine of the Sequence, must alike go back in our explana- 
tions to a time (varying, doubtless, for different constructions) 
when the tenses of the subjunctive were used in dependent clauses 
with unimpaired temporal feeling. Did they, by dint of habit, 
come to lose that temporal feeling, and to be, as tenses, partially 


void of content, retaining, of their old temporal force, the power 
of distinguishing between a finished and an unfinished action, but 
losing the power to convey the point of view from which the 
action is regarded ? 

I found, on a methodical examination of every class of subjunc- 
tive constructions in the language, that, in each of them, so-called 
exceptions appeared in good writers; and that, in every such 
instance, the explanation given by the adherents of the doctrine of 
the Sequence was that the tense under examination was used 
because it had such or such a meaning. But this explanation 
concedes a power on the part of this particular tense to express 
temporal feeling. Every one of the four tenses is shown, by 
the occurrence of such exceptions, to have this power. Here, then, 
is strong evidence that the unquestionable original force of the 
subjunctive tenses had never passed away. If at any moment a 
writer might use a tense in an unusual way to convey a certain 
meaning, the probability is very great that he did so because he 
habitually associated that meaning with that tense. 

This evidence for the temporal power of the tenses I found to 
be confirmed by a number of phenomena, among others, the 
following : 

A perfect subjunctive, itself depending upon a primary tense, is 
often followed by an imperfect subjunctive or a pluperfect sub- 
junctive, — a fact inexplicable on the theory that the tenses are used 
meaninglessly, by fixed habit ; for a meaningless tense depending 
itself upon a primary tense would have no power to divert other 
subjunctives into a secondary direction. 

The characteristic temporal feeling of the pos^g^uam, etc., clauses 
(namely the aoristic) appears alike in the indicative clause and in a 
subjunctive clause depending upon a secondary tense, and the 
characteristic feeling in the common expressions putaram^ etc., 
likewise maintains itself untouched in the subjunctive after a 
primary verb ; whereas, by the theory of the Sequence, the tense 
of the former should be the pluperfect, and of the latter the perfect. 

The common tenses in closely dependent indicative clauses are, 
as in dependent subjunctive clauses, the present and perfect after 
primary verbs, and the imperfect and pluperfect after secondary 
verbs. But no one would maintain that these indicative tenses 
had no temporal meaning. 

The conclusion reached in my essay was, therefore, that ** the 
tenses of the Latin subjunctive, alike in dependent and in inde- 


pendent sentences, tell their own temporal story"; to which 
formulation I added a second, that " no such thing as is meant by 
the doctrine of the Sequence of Tenses exists." The latter state- 
ment was certainly incautious. For I have since learned, in 
conversation and correspondence, that the tenet of the Sequence 
is held by those who accept it with as wide a latitude of interpre- 
tation as is said to exist, on doctrinal matters more vital, within 
the walls of the Church of England. I might better, then, have 
said merely that the tense of the subjunctive conveys meaning ; 
and that, in the work of the classroom, the explanation given by 
the pupil or teacher should state in each case what that meaning 
is, instead of contenting itself with the iamiliar formula, *' pluper- 
fect (e. g.) after so and so, by the Sequence of Tenses "; or, per- 
haps, "pluperfect because primary tenses are followed by primary, 
and secondary by secondary." 

We pass to the more important difficulties which Professor Gil- 
dersleeve points out 

The number of the exceptions to the general rule is very smaU. 
Out of 1015 dependent subjunctives in the Gallic War, e. g., only 
47 are irregular. 

The fact appears to me to carry with it no necessary evidence 
that the habitual tenses are void of temporal meaning. The present 
infinitive aflier verbs of promising and the like is rare ; but our 
grammarians are not content to explain the tense of that infinitive 
alone, leaving the regular future to be *' explained " merely by 
saying that it is the regular thing. On the contrary, the gram- 
marians are at pains to make clear to us what that Roman way of 
looking at the matter was, in the light of which they habitually I 

used the one tense and not the other in this construction. Still 
more striking is the case of the objective genitive as employed 
after cupidus and similar words. I suppose that, out of 1015 
prepositionless cases after cupidus^ 1015 would be genitives. Yet 
a student who, in parsing mortis in Horace's mortis cupidum^ 
should say " genitive after cupidus because cupidus always takes 
the genitive " would be approved by neither his master nor his 
grammar. In fact, it is evident that the application to the syntax 
of the cases of the method common in the treatment of the tenses 
would lead to a bareness of unmeaning inventory which would find 
no defenders. 

Professor Gildersleeve further urges the evidence of the rarity 
of the finished tenses in the final clause, as follows : " Why should 


the language . stick in this wooden way to the eternal td and ne 
with the present and imperf. subj. when there was no end of para- 
tactic ne with perf. subj. all around, to say nothing of an occasional 
pluperf. ? Exceptions occur under the influence of passion, per- 
haps under the influence of Greek, in which language the final 
delights in aoristic turns, but the drift has set in and we have to 
acknowledge a closer relation between leading clause and depen- 
dent clause than the character of the thought would seem to 
warrant To this extent there is mechanism." 

I should have thought the finished tense neither very common 
in the independent jussive nor suspiciously rare in the dependent. 
Roby's collection of final clauses (Grammar, II, pp. 274 seq.), 
though apparently made without reference to this point, affords ten 
examples of the finished tenses, and his collection of clauses afler 
expressions of fear — where the finished tenses would seem to be 
more natural — ^affords, as it happens, five cases out of a total of eight.^ 
In my own chance reading of late I have noted the following, 
which I quote for illustration : sed ne quis sit admiratus . . . (Cic. 
Off. 2, 10, 35) ; huic causae patronus exstiti, non ... uti satis firmo 
praesidio defensiis Sex. Roscius, verum etiam uti ne omnino 
deserius esset (Cic. Rose. Am. 2, 5); itaque ut aliqua in vita 
formido improbis esset posiia . . . (Cic. Cat. 4, 4, 8). But, at any 
rate, one should point out that, if a loss of the difference between 
the finished and the unfinished tenses in the final clause is of so 
much importance, then the fact that this difference is constantly 
kept up in every other construction should have great weight, and 
would seem to indicate that the discrepancy was due to some 
natural idiosyncrasy in final clauses. Let us see if we* can detect 
this idiosyncrasy. The feeling of the finished tense in the indepen- 
dent jussive is that of peremptoriness. The speaker, using it, 
expresses himself with a certain amount of authoritative impatience. 
But this feeling, whether common or rare in the independent sen- 
tence, is in the nature of things not likely to occur often in the 
subordinate clause. The very indirectness of the command would 
lead us to expect rarely to find in it the peremptory tone. I can 
make my meaning clearer by alluding to the fact that the peremp- 
tory jussive par excellence^ the imperative, fciils, by reason of its 
very peremptoriness and directness, to establish itself as an expres- 

^ Sentences of fear are expressly excluded by me as being paratactic — * Without 
admitting the survival of parataxis there is bo explaining the constructions of 
the verbs of fear' (A. J. P. VIII. p. 229).— B. L. G. 


sion of purpose in dependent clauses. The case is palpably not 
so strong with the be-it'done-and-done-with perfect, but a weaker 
shade of the same feeling would lead, to a certain extent, toward 
the same result In the clauses after phrases of fearing, on the 
other hand, the finished tense of an act that may hereafter prove 
to have come about would seem very natural, and is, I judge, by 
no means rare. 

The case of the definite versus the indefinite second person in 
prohibitions, which is not expressly cited by Professor Gildersleeve, 
is striking. We have no light upon the peculiar feeling which led 
to the distinction between the finished and the unfinished tense in 
the independent sentence. But at least it is clear that the depen- 
dent negative final clause had got its established form long before 
the development of the sharp difference between the tenses in the 
independent form ; for Plautus freely uses the present subjunctive 
in prohibitions addressed to a particular person. I need hardly 
say that I by no means regard hypotaxis as an ever recurring pro- 
cess of creation, nor deny that habits of speech establish them- 
selves in language, as e. g. in the case of the future infinitive in 
promises, mentioned above, or in the case of the common aorist 
in the postquam clause. But the existence of such habits does 
not prove that the established tense is meaningless. 

When Professor Gildersleeve defines the doctrine of the 
Sequence, I do not find myself differing from him, except that he 
does not touch upon the special tenet of my essay, that the 
dependent subjunctives have temporal expressiveness. But the 
apparent teaching of the grammars is much farther from my own. 
If they mean by the phrase " primary tenses are followed by 
primary and secondary by secondary," that the point of view is 
not likely to be changed between the stating of the main act and 
the stating of the subordinate act, and that consequently tenses 
belonging to that point of view are likely to be used in both 
clauses, then I should criticise their phraseology as being over- 
charged with meaning. Students, and indeed teachers, rarely, I 
fancy, suspect that so much lies hidden in these ten words. I find, 
in some of the grammars, certain rules of thumb for manipulating 
the tenses and choosing that one which Cicero would have been 
likely to employ. But in none but Schmalz's do I find anything 
about a temporal meaning in the subordinate subjunctive, except 
so far as the latter distinguishes between finished and unfinished 
action. And the result is that readers generally come to the belief, 


which Josupeit so frankly states in §83 of his grammar: " In the 
dependent subjunctive the conceiption of time utterly vanishes ; 
that conception is given by the governing verb ; nothing remains 
to the subjunctive except the conception of the act as complete or 
still lasting with reference to the governing verb." 

It was against this belief in a mechanical and meaningless use 
of the tenses of the subordinate subjunctives that my essay was 
directed. At the end of my first paper, I was led by the negative 
results which I had reached to set up the tentative doctrine that 
" a subjunctive clause is, in regard to its tense, not dependent upon 
the principal sentence : in dependent as in independent subjunc- 
tives, the tense conveys meaning, and owes its choice to that fact." 
In the second paper I was brought to a view which appears in the 
words, " the tenses of the subordinated subjunctives are expres- 
sive, not mechanically dictated by a preceding verb ** (A. J. P. 
VIII I, 72) ; "not specimens of a mechanical adaptation of out- 
ward form " (VIII I, 56). Justiy interpreted, in the light of my 
essay as a whole, my doctrine, though not always stated with 
guarded expression, cannot be held to be that there is a natural 
dissociation between the temporal feeling in the main verb and the 
temporal feeling in the subordinate verb. On the contrary, I 
made the natural association of temporal feeling between the 
main and the subordinate verb the very corner-stone of my 
explanation of the facts on which the familiar rule is based, and 
inveighed against that rule because it explained them otherwise. 
I pointed out, e. g., that the purpose with which an act is done 
is naturally entertained in the doing of that act, and consequently 
is expressed by a tense which will represent it as regarded from 
the point of view of that act ; and I even went so far as to show 
that in one set of subjunctives, the antequant clauses, a dissocia- 
tion of the temporal feeling from that of the main clause is incon- 
ceivable, so that no "exception" can occur. This language, 
though not orthodox, was in reality conservative of all that is true 
in the doctrine of the Sequence under the most liberal interpreta- 
tion of it, namely, that the point of view from which the subordi- 
nate act is regarded is generally either the same as that from 
which the main act is regarded, or, in the case of main aorists, is the 
time of the main act itself. To deny these propositions would no 
more have occurred to me than to deny that the phenomena are, 
in the great majority of cases, in keeping with the ordinary " rule." 
And, conversely, I supposed that my theory left me as free as any 


critic of my essay could be to explain a verb as being in this tense 
rather than that, because the writer looked at the act from the 
same point of view with that of the main act, or because he 
looked at it from a different point of view. 

Professor Gildersleeve calls attention to the fact that the perfect 
is the regular tense in subjunctive statements of habitual past 
acts attached to a primary tense, whereas the imperfect is very 
common in corresponding independent statements. I quote his 
words : 

" In oratio obliqua after a principal tense erai^ fuit are repre- 
sented by /uisse. What the language might have done is shown 
by the construction of memini with the pres. inf., is shown by the 
Greek use of the pres. inf. after a principal verb, after which it 
sometimes represents — varying with various authors — the imper- 
fect indie. Now just as erat and fuU are represented by f uisse, 
erat as well as fuit is represented by fuerii, and to maintain that 
every fuerit if turned into the independent form would become 
fuit would give a proportion of aorists and perfects entirely unparal- 
leled in the language. There are hundreds of passages in which 
any sound feeling would restore the imperfect ind. in the direct 
discourse. Cato may be considered an unsuspected witness, and 
Cato says in the opening of his De Agri Cultura : Quanto peiorem 
civem existimarint faeneratorem quam furem, hinc licet existi- 
marL That this existimarint would be replaced by the imperf. 
indic. in oratio recta is clearly shown by : Et virum bonum cum 
laudabant, ita laudabant, bonum agricolam bonumque colonum. 
Amplissime laudari existimabatur, qui ita laudabaiur. However, 
there can be hardly any dispute on this point." 

Professor Gildersleeve has drawn the line of sound feeling with 
somewhat too severe a hand, for he has left not only myself, but 
the unsuspected Cato, on the wrong side of it. Let me cite the 
passage again, beginning one sentence farther back: Maiores 
nostri sic habueruni et ita in legibus posiverunt, furem dupli con- 
demnari, faeneratorem quadrupli. Quanto peiorem civem ex- 
istimarint fcieneratorem quam furem, hinc licet existimare. Et 
virum bonum cum laudabanty ita laudaJbant, bonum agricolam 
bonumque colonum. Amplissime laudari existimabatur qui ita 

Cato's existimarint is exactly parallel with his habuerunt and 
posiverunt; and one's grammatical sense could not be impeached 
if one restored the perfect existimarunt for the direct discourse of 


existimarint.^ The aorist indicative, which presents the past as 
seen in summary from the point of view of the present, is freely 
used by the Romans in speaking of habitual past acts, e. g. 
Recitantis et benigne et patienter audiit, nee tantum carmina et 
historias, sed et orationes et dialogos (Suet. Aug. 89). The aorist 
subjunctive was used with the same feeling. The case is, as I 
shall show in a moment, in no essential way different from that of 
the ordinary use of the aorist, rather than the imperfect, in clauses 
depending upon a primary tense. Now the rare occurrence of a 
main verb in the present in combination with the ordinary imper- 
fect of an act seen as in process at a certain past time, is due to 
the fact that, though both the main verb and the subordinate verb 
proceed directly from the speaker's thought, yet a shifting of the 
scene, a change of the point of view in the close passage from the 
one to the other, would naturally rarely take place. There is no 
difference of opinion here between Professor Gildersleeve and 
myself. And if he has supposed such a difference to exist, then 
we are now on the way to that agreement which I should be glad 
to reach. 

Out of the original use of the imperfect to state an act as in 
process at a certain past time (for example cadebat, he was in the 
act of falling) grows, in some way, its use to state an habitual 
action. It is probable that the essential nature of the imperfect, 
its putting things from a past point of view, is not lost, and that it 

^ Habuerunt BXid. posiverunt zxt used to introdace a general statement, and in 
restoring the oratio recta we may confidently write exisHmahani^ not only on the 
strength of the parallel below, but in conformity with the commonplace of 
Latin syntax that the aoristic perf. of general statement is often followed 
by the descriptive imperf. But as Cato cannot be called up from the dead to 
tell us which tense he would have used, as the limits of statement and descrip- 
tion are not easy to draw, and as I have no desire to pit my feeling of Latin 
against Professor Hale*s, I do not insist on the special example. However, 
the fact remains that in the dependent question the perf. (aor.) subj. is used 
after a principal tense to the almost total exclusion of the imperf. subj. ; and 
while this does not mean that the temporal sense ^of the subj. is dead, it does 
mean that the perf., be it aorist, be it true perf., has been made to do duty 
for the imperf. under the mechanical pressure of the sequence of tenses. 
Whoever wrote the lemmata of Gellius wrote normal Latin when he represented 
the imperf. ind. by the perf. subj. (cf. VI 3, immiserint =z inserebant, and XIII 
6, dixerint =z appellabant), and thought no more about it than we do when we 
substitute the personal * He is said to have done ' for the impersonal ' It is said 
that he did.' If it is granted that the aoristic conception is more common in 
dependent discourse than in independent discourse, all that I claim is granted. 
It is not much. — B. L. G. 


Still differs from the aorist of an habitual past act in giving the 
series of acts as from an imaginative contemporaneousness, a 
sympathetic presence upon the scene, a dwelling upon the past. 
The English fails to convey this distinction between the imperfect 
of habit and the aorist of habit. Yet we can well believe that a 
tense-form like was walkings was thinkings was praisings could 
never have lost its special force of looking at an act from an 
imagined past point of view, even if in some way it had come to 
be employed of an habitual past action. That being so, a quanta 
peiorem cvuem exisiimarent^ in which the mind is back in the 
past, would be the natural tense with a main sentence like declarari 
videbatur^ but not with a licet existimari. Even our English 
" would " with the infinitive in the sense of an habitual action, though 
so far removed from the associations of the form of "progressive " 
action, still is rarely heard in connection with a main verb in the 
present. We may translate Cato's imperfects " in praising a man, 
they would praise him as a good farmer '\' but we should say, in 
the indirect question after a present, not *^ I ^onA&r why they ^sould 
do that,'' but "/wonder why they did that:' Yet the verb ''did " 
has full temporal expressiveness. 

I have spoken of the aoristic perfect, whether it be of an 
habitual action or not, as regarding a past act from the point of 
view of the present This definition of its force is not in keeping 
with the ordinary classification of the aorist, which makes it a 
secondary tense ; but a glance at Cicero's quaefuerit hesterno die 
Cn. Pompei gravitas in dicendo . . . perspicua admiratione 
declarari videbatur (Balb. i, 2) will dispel doubt. No other con- 
ception of the aorist can explain the temporal shift between y«^r/V 
and videbatur. In reality, the aorist is neither a secondary tense 
nor a primary. It regards a past act just as a man, standing in a 
given place, looks at a distant mountain peak. It has something 
in common with each of the two sets of tenses, the point of view 
of the one, and the dealing with a past time of the other. How 
completely, on the other hand, its established classification as a 
secondary tense breaks down, is quickly shown : 

We frequently find cases like the following (quoted in my paper) : 
Quaeramus quae tanta vitia fuerint in unico filio, quare is patri 
displiceret (Cic. Rose Am. 14, 41), in which, on the theory of the 
Sequence, the subjunctive fuerint, though itself tenseless, yet in 
some mysterious way has power to determine the tense of another 
verb, displiceret, and throw it off into the secondary set ! Such a 


view does not afford peace of mind. But upon the conception 
which I have expressed, the phenomenon is as intelligible as it is 
frequent. The aorist views the past from the present. Starting 
with his mind in the present, Cicero says quaeramus. Looking, 
still from that present, to the past, he says quae tanta vitiafuerini 
(not essent). But his thought, once having looked toward that 
past, will naturally, if he proceeds to connect other acts with it, 
see these ztntk reference to that same past ^ toward which his mind 
is now directed: and such a view is expressed by the imperfect or 
pluperfect. The aorist, indeed, is the common bridge of passage 
from one temporal scene to another. 

Now, after an explanation upon my own theory, let us try to 
deal with the aorist upon the theory of the Sequence. 

The common formula is that primary tenses are followed by 
primary and secondary (which are declared to be the aorist, the 
imperfect, and the pluperfect) by secondary (which of course 
must also mean the aorist, the imperfect, and the pluperfect). But 
the second part of the statement breaks down of itself, for the 
advocates of the doctrine count the aorist as an " exception " 
where it occurs after a secondary tense — the place in which, by 
the rule, it regularly belongs. 

In the passage from Cato already cited as quoted by Professor 
Gildersleeve against me, existimarint is clearly an aorist, not a 
present perfect. Yet it depends upon the primary tense licet^ and 
is therefore, by the whole system of the grammars, an " exception.'" 
I may remark, in passing, that it is a striking circumstance that a 
case which proves to be an exception to the rule should have 
chanced to be cited against an opponent of the rule in order to 
defend the rule. But the contradictions do not end here. By the 
rule, the aorist is seen to be an ** exception" after the primary 
tenses. But by the actual interpretation of the rule the aorist is 
an " exception " after secondary tenses, as in the case of the con- 
secutive clause, alluded to by Professor Gildersleeve in his review. 
Refuge in other tenses there is none, for there are no others. So, 
then, the aorist, in every case in which it occurs in the language, 
is an " exception." There is no rule, but only an unvarying viola- 
tion of a non-existing rule. That which occurs again and again 
is an "exception" to that regular usage which never occurs. One 

' So in a great array of clauses with perfects After 'Aatut dubium est quin and 
the like, and in indirect questions. The actual number of these " exceptions " 
is probably much greater than that of the " regular " perfects definite. 


could hardly imagine a more striking grammatical oxymoron than 
this state of affairs under which a blameless tense has so long been 
laboring. And it is evident that there must be some fundamental 
falseness of conception in a doctrine which conducts its followers 
to such results. 

We are ready now to attempt that broader and deeper view of 
the phenomena of tense which the exploits of the " rule " show 
to be necessary. I shall endeavor to state, by samples, the force 
of the various tenses in the modes under consideration, and to 
formulate the relations of these tenses, alike in independent and 
in dependent clauses, alike in subjunctives and in indicatives. The 
method to be employed is to be one of persuasion, through the 
apparent truthfulness and harmlessness of my propositions, not, as 
in my essay, one of strife. And I must be pardoned if, in my 
desire to carry my readers with me to the end, I conduct them by 
a number of short steps, each of which seems safe and not to be 
declined, in place of asking them to take the leap boldly. The 
treatment will therefore assume the form of continuous exposition. 

I. — The Meaning of the Tenses of the Indicative. 

(a). The Definite Tenses. 

The imperfect denotes an act as in process, or a state as existing, 
at a certain past time, which the speaker or writer has in mind. 

Hence the imperfect is used in descriptions of the state of 
affairs existing at such a past time. 

The pluperfect denotes the completed result of an activity, 
which result is stated as existing at a certain past time, which the 
speaker or writer has in mind. 

Since the activity itself must have been prior to the completed 
result, the pluperfect comes also to be used to denote an act as 
having taken place before the certain past time which the speaker 
or writer has in mind. 

Hence the pluperfect, like the imperfect, is used to express the 
state of affairs at such a past time, and also to denote an act seen 
as prior to such a past time. 

(J>). The Indefinite or Aoristic Tenses. 

The indefinite or aoristic perfect views the past from the present, 
i. e. it denotes an act or state, not as it looks with reference to 
some past time, but simply as it looks from the time of speaking 
or writing. 


II. — The Relations of the Tenses of the Indicative in Independent 


An examination of all the tenses of the indicative* shows that 
there are three possible kinds of points of view from which an 
act may be regarded, the past, the present, and the future, and 
that for each of these there are, beside an indefinite or aoristic 
tense, two definite tenses, e. g. there is an aoristic perfect, which 
simply tells us that a given act took place in the past, and there 
are two tenses which picture a state of affairs, etc., etc., in the 
past, the imperfect and the pluperfect. 

In narration, the story moves forward by the successive mention 
of successive events, through the use of the aoristic perfect, the 
historical present, or the historical infinitive, as in veni^ vidiy vicu 

At any one of these acts, the narration may pause for a descrip- 
tion of the state of affairs, etc., as they were at the time of that 
act ; such descriptions being given by imperfects or pluperfects. 
These descriptions may either precede or follow the verb of the 
main act : 

Cenabat Nerva cum paucis : Veiento proximus atque etiam in 
sinu recumbebai • . . Incidit sermo de Catullo Messalino. Plin. 
Ep. 4, 22, 4-5. (^Cenabat and recumbebai are independent sen- 
tences of circumstances.) 

Stridebai deformis hiems praedamque recentem 
Servabat; tamen \i\c properat . . , luv. 4, 58-9. 

{Stridebai and servabat are independent sentences of circumstances, 

with adversative bearing.) 

Plurima dixit 

In laevum conversus ; at illi dextra iacebat 

Bellua. luv. 4,119-21. 

{Iacebat is an independent sentence of circumstances, with ad- 
versative bearing.) 

Sed deerat pisci patinae mensura. Vocantur 
Ergo in consilium proceres. luv. 4, 72-3. 


{Deerat is an independent sentence of circumstances, with causal 

* In my essay on the Sequence in A. J. P. VIII i, pp. 67-70, and in a study 
of the Cum-Constractions, pp. 15-20 (Cornell University Studies in Classical 
Philology, No. I), I have treated with some fullness the question of the true 
conception of the forces of the definite tenses, showing that each of them car- 
ries to the hearer^s mind (i) the point of view from which the speaker puts the 
act ; (2) the stage of advancement of the act at that point of view ; and (3) 
the temporal relation of the activity itself to that point of view. 


The tenses which carry on the narration may be conveniently 
called the principal tenses, and those which give descriptions of 
the state of affairs, etc, at one and another point in the progress 
of the narration may be called the accessory tenses. 

(The pluperfect is occasionally used as a principal tense, to carry 
the reader suddenly on to the end of a new act, and, more rarely, 
the imperfect, to carry the reader suddenly on to a new state of 

In the same way, the present has two accessory tenses, the 
present and the present perfect or perfect definite, expressing a 
state of affairs, etc., in the present ; and the future has two acces- 
sory tenses, the future and the future perfect, expressing a state of 
affairs, etc., in the future. 

The same relations that we have found to exist among the 
tenses that deal with the past are found to exist among the tenses 
that deal with the present, and the same, again, among those that 
deal with the future, e. g. : 

O tempora, O mores ! Senatus haec iniellegit, consul videt : hie 
tamen vivit^ Cic. Cat. 1,1,2. {^InieUegit and videt are independent 
sentences of circumstances, with adversative bearing.) 

The general use of the tenses of the indicative in sentences 
logically subordinate, though grammatically independent, may 
then be stated as follows : 

Modifying circumstances, etc, are generally seen by the speaker 
in temporal relation to the acts which they modify, and hence are 
expressed by the accessory tenses ; these accessory tenses being : 
for the past, the imperfect and pluperfect; for the present, the 
present and present perfect ; for the future, the future and future 

Occasionally, however, modifying circumstances and main act, 
although really in temporal neighborhood to each other, may 
alike be looked at from the time of speaking, without regard to 
their temporal connection; and in this aspect both acts will be 
expressed by aorists, etc. 

Opposuit natura Alpemque nivemque : 
Diducit scopulos et montem rumpit aceto. luv. 10, 152-3. 

Still more rarely, the modifying act, etc., may belong to an 
entirely different period of time (temporal scene) from that of the 
main act, as e. g. when a generally existing fact is stated ad the 
ground of a certain act that took place in the past. 


III. — The Relations of the Tenses of the Indicative in Main and 

Stibordinate Clatcses. 

The same relations which we have found to exist between tenses 


in independent sentences continue to exist when one or more of 
these sentences is attached to another through a relative or con- 
necting particle. To use the narrative style again for an illustra- 
tion, the story advances by the successive mention of successive 
events, through the employment of aoristic perfects or historical 
presents or infinitives, and around any one of these acts may be 
grouped any number of descriptions of the state of affairs 
in the imperfect or pluperfect. And not descriptions of states 
of affairs alone, but modifying clauses in general, e. g. defining 
clauses, will generally be expressed by these same tenses, since the 
acts, etc, with which they deal will naturally be seen by the 
speaker or writer as they appear with reference to the time with 
which his thought is for the moment occupied. 

Quas legationes Caesar, quod in Italiam Illyricumque/r^^ra^o/, 
inita proxima aestate ad se reverti iiissii. Ipse in Carnutes, 
Andes, Turones, quaeque civitates propinquae his locis erant, ubi 
bellum gesserat, legionibus in hibernacula deductis in Italiam pro- 
fectus esty Caes. B. G. 2, 35, 2-3 (He was in a hurry, and so 
ordered^ etc. Notice, too, that although these tribes are still in the 
same geographical position at the time of the writing— ^c^?«<^ttatf 
his locis sunt — yet it is their position at the time of the events he 
is narrating that is of consequence to the narration ; whence the 

IV. — The Meaning of the Tenses of the Subjunctive. 

(jo). The Definite Tenses. 

Each of the tenses of the subjunctive has the temporal power of 
the indicative tense bearing the same name, and, in addition, a: 
future power. In either case, the point of view is the same for 
the subjunctive tense as for the indicative of the same name. 

The meanings of the subjunctive tenses are then, in detail, as 
follows : 

The imperfect subjunctive pictures an act as in process, or a 
state as existing, at a certain past time, which the speaker or 

* It has been my intention to prepare complete statistics of the uses of the 
tenses in dependent indicative clauses in the Gallic War, but other occupa- 
tions oblige me to postpone the plan. I have already gone far enough, how- 
ever, to warrant the statements made in the present paper. 


writer has in mind ; and it also pictures an act or state as looked 
forward to from such a past time. 

The pluperfect subjunctive pictures the completed result of an 
activity, existing at a certain past time, which the speaker or 
writer has in mind, or an act seen as prior to that time ; and it 
also pictures a finished act looked forward to from such a time (a 
future perfect from a past point of view). 

(J>). The Indefinite or Aoristic Tenses. 

The indefinite or aoristic perfect views the past from the present, 
i. e. it denotes an act or state, not as it looks with reference to some 
past time, but simply as it looks from the time of speaking or 

V. — The Relations of the Tenses of the Indicative and Subjunctive 

in Independent Sentences. 

The relations prove to be the same that we have seen to exist 
between the tenses of indicative sentences. If the narrator's 
thought is, e. g., in the past, any independent act seen by him in 
connection with that past will, if expressed by the subjunctive, be 
in one of the two tenses which have the force of representing an 
act with reference to a past point of view, namely, the imperfect and 
the pluperfect. 

<^\\\Afacerem ? Neque servitio me exire licebat Verg. Eel. 

Caesar in eam spem venerai se sine pugna rem conficere posse 
. . . Cur etiam secundo proelio aliquos ex suis amitteret? Cur 
vulnerari/a/^r^/ttr optime de se meritos milites ? Caes. B. G. i, 72. 

De. l!^onfuit necesse habere : sed, id quod lex iubet, 

Dotem daretis ; quaereret alium virum. 

Qua ratione inopem potius ducebat domum ? 
Ge. Non ratio, verum argentum deerai. De. Sumeret 

Alicunde. Ten Phorm. 296-3oa 

VI. — The Relations of the Tertses of the Indicative and Subjunc- 

live in Main and Subordinate Clauses, 

The relations prove to be the same that we have seen to exist 
between independent indicatives and independent subjunctives. In 
the case, for example, of narration, the story advances by the succes- 
sive mention of successive events, through the employment of aoristic 


perfects or historical presents or infinitives, and around any one of 
these acts may be grouped any number of descriptions of the state 
of affairs, in the imperfect or pluperfect. And not descriptions of 
states of affairs alone, but modifying clauses of all kinds, e. g. 
defining clauses, will generally be expressed by these same tenses, 
since the acts, etc., with which they deal will naturally be seen by 
the speaker or writer as they appear with reference to the time 
with which his mind is for the moment occupied : 

Caesar in eam spem venerat se sine pugna et sine vulnere 
suorum rem conficere posse, quod re frumentaria adversarios 
inierclusisset Cur etiam secundo proelio aliquos ex suis amit- 
tereif cur vulnerari patereiur optime de se meritos milites 1 cur 
denique fortunam periclitareiur f praesertim cum non minus esset 
imperatoris consilio superare quam gladio, Caes. B. G. 2, 35, 2-3 
(The enemy were without supplies, and therefore Caesar hoped to 
bring the affair to an end without fighting. Notice, too, that 
though what the writer says about the duty of a general is equally 
true at the time at which he writes, yet it is the existence of that 
duty at the time he is talking about that is of consequence to the 
narration ; whence the imperfect.) 


The relations which we have seen to hold among independent 
indicatives have been found to continue to exist when one or 
more of these sentences is attached to another through a relative 
or a connecting particle. And, similarly, the same relations are 
found to exist between indicatives and independent subjunctives, 
and, again, between indicatives and dependent subjunctives, etc., 
etc. A general statement, covering the whole ground of the 
phenomena, may then be made, as follows : 

If the speaker's thought is (already) occupied with a certain 
time, or if it turns toward a certain time, he will generally view 
acts or states which occupy a subordinate position with reference 
to the main act (whether in independent sentences or in depen- 
dent clauses, and whether in the indicative or the subjunctive) as 
they appear with reference to that time; and such a view will 
express itself in the accessory tenses of that time. E, g. if the 
speaker's thought is occupied with a certain time in the past (such 
an occi^pation with the past is expressed by the imperfect or plu- 
perfect, indicative or subjunctive), or if it turns from some other 
temporal scene toward a certain time in the past (such a turning is 


expressed by the aoristic perfect, indicative, subjunctive, or infinitive) , 
then acts or states which are mentioned as a help to the understand- 
ing of the situation (causes, hindrances, definitions, purposes, etc.) 
are likely to be thought of as they appear with reference to that 
past time ; and such a view of them will express itself in pluper- 
fects and imperfects, indicative or subjunctive. 

Each one of these tenses, whether indicative or subjunctive, is, 
in and by itself, a complete expression of a temporal feeling. 
Stridebaiy e. g. in the passage from luv. 4, 58-9, is a self-sufficient 
expression of a certain temporal idea in the speaker's mind, and, 
alone and by itself, carries that temporal idea to the mind of the 
hearer. But if we find such a tense before we have come to any- 
thing else that would seem to be pitched at the same time, we 
shall recognize that we are likely sooner or later to find a main 
verb which will tell us of an act that took place at the time already 
suggested to us as in the speaker's mind. And, conversely, if we 
find first an historical tense, we recognize that any logically con- 
nected indicative or subjunctive (whether independent or depen- 
dent) is likely to be in one of the tenses that express acts, states of 
affairs, etc., in a temporal scene of the kind already observed to 
be in the speaker's mind, namely, the past. In brief, the point 
of view of the writer or speaker being once shown, whether in 
a subordinate or a main verb, the reader or hearer will assume 
the temporal scene to remain the same throughout the whole com- 
plex of thought (whether in main or subordinate verbs, whether in 
indicatives or subjunctives), unless he meets with evidence of a 

But, on the other hand, there will occasionally come into the 
speaker's mind combinations of ideas which are not in temporal 
relation to each other ; as when, e. g., one gives, as a reason for a 
past act (expressed by an imperfect, a pluperfect, or an aoristic 
perfect), a fact that generally exists (expressed by a present) ; or 
as when one gives, as a reason for a past act viewed from the 
present (such a view is expressed by the aoristic perfect) another 
past act likewise viewed from the present (and so likewise 
expressed by the aoristic perfect of the indicative or the subjunc- 
tive) ; or as when one states the present result of a completed act 
(expressed by the present perfect), and adds to it a mention of the 
purpose with which it was begun (an expression of a past purpose, 
and so in the imperfect subjunctive). 

These exceptions to what is habitual fall under the one or the 
other of two heads : 


1. There may be an entire change of the temporal scene, as 
when one passes from a past to the present. Or 

2. Two acts may be viewed aoristically, instead of being viewed 
in their relation the one to the other. 

[Of quite a different character is that natural method of transi- 
tion from one temporal scene to another which is effected through 
the use of the aorist tenses. E. g. the mind, being engaged with the 
present, may turn and look back at the past (aoristic perfect of the 
indicative, subjunctive, or infinitive), after which it may dwell 
there, stating then-existing situations, aims, etc., in the accessory 
tenses belonging to that point of view.] 

These exceptions will, of course, occur more frequently or less 
frequently in proportion as the bond of thought between the main 
and the subordinate sentence or clause is closer or looser. In 
relative indicative clauses explaining who or what is meant by the 
antecedent, they are not infrequent, since the act mentioned to 
give this information may belong to a time considerably removed 
from that of the main act. In causal and concessive indicative 
clauses, on the other hand, they occur much more rarely. In rela- 
tive indicative clauses with more or less obvious causal or adver- 
sative bearing (a common class), they are likewise rare. 

The bond of thought between the subjunctive subordinate verb 
and the main verb is, in the nature of the subjunctive constructions, 
close, and, in certain cases, indissoluble. In causal and concessive 
clauses there is a relatively considerable play, and exceptions 
therefore occasionally occur.' In clauses of purpose, on the other 
hand, they are very rare. A past purpose, e. g., cannot possibly 
be attached to a future act, since it is the very nature of a pur- 
pose to be entertained in the doing of an act. Yet even in pur- 
pose clauses, certain variations are possible, as when, e. g., one 
states an act which is now going on (present), and adds a state- 
ment of the purpose with which it was entered upon (imperfect 

The Tenses in Subjunctives "by Assimilation^ — In a great 
number of cases of what is called the subjunctive " by assimila- 
tion," the modal feeling which in the main clause expresses itself 
in the subjunctive of a certain tense continues to exist, either 
unchanged in kind, or only slightly shaded, in the clauses attached 
to it, and is therefore expressed by the same mode, and by a tense 
that indicates the same point of view.* But the frequent recur- 

* Treated in my essay on the Sequence, A. J. P, VIII r, pp. 54-6. 


rence of such examples gives rise to the occasional use of a depen- 
dent subjunctive with only a formal likeness to the main subjunc- 
tive, and no true modal feeling; and it is the common opinion 
that in such cases the tense is likewise purely formal.* 

We may for convenience call the mode and tense in the one 
case the mode and tense of like feelings in the other the mode 
and tense of formal likeness. 

I add an attempt to state in " rules " both the reason of the facts 
of the uses of the tenses, and the facts themselves. 

Rules for the Individual Tense. — If the point of view is in the 
past, acts in process will be expressed by the imperfect, and 
finished acts by the pluperfect, whether of the indicative or the 
subjunctive. If the point of view is in the present, acts in process 
will be expressed by the present, and finished acts by the present 
perfect, whether of the indicative or the subjunctive. If the point 
of view is in the future, acts in process will be expressed by the 
future of the indicative, and the so-called present of the subjunc- 
tive, and finished acts by the future perfect of the indicative and 
the so-called present perfect of the subjunctive. If the point of 
view is in the present (the time of speaking), past or future acts 
not in the immediate neighborhood of that present will be expressed 
by aorists. States and habitual acts are expressed in the same 
way as acts in process, and are likewise capable of being looked 
at aoristically from the present. 

Rules for the Relations of the Tenses in a Complex of Verbs. — 
Subordinate acts, etc., whether in the indicative or the subjunctive, 
are generally viewed in the same temporal scene with the main acts 
on which they depend, and are therefore expressed by the acces- 
sory tenses. 

Erant omnino itinera duo, quibus itineribus domo exire pos- 
sent . . • . ; mons autem altissimus impendebat .... Allobrogibus 
sese vel persuasuroSy quod nondum bono animo in populum Roma- 
num viderentur, existimabant, vel vi coacturoSy .... Omnibus 

^ I am seeking, in my general statement of the uses of the indicative and the 
subjunctive tenses, for a form which shall, by its undeniable truth and reasona- 
bleness, quietly displace the common conception of the Sequence ; and on this 
point, therefore, on which I longest doubted, and on which I still feel a cer- 
tain hesitation (in A. J. P. VIII 56 I have spoken of it as the final battle 
ground of the possible claims of the common doctrine of the Sequence), I 
express myself with deference to general opinion. I ought to insist, however, 
that in the great majority of cases, even in this small territory, a perfectly true 
temporal feeling remains in the assimilated verb. 


rebus ad profectionem comparaiis diem dicunt . ... Is dies erat 
a. d. V. Kal. Apr. L. Pisone^ A. Gabinio consulibus. (Caes. B. G. 

1, 6, 4.) 

Exceptions. — i. Acts, etc., which are really in the same tem- 
poral scene may be viewed directly from the time of speaking, 
and hence both be expressed by aoristic tenses. 

Quia Tarquinios esse in exerciiu Latinorum auditum est, sus- 
Hneriira nan potuit, quin extemplo confligereni. Li v. 2, 18, 11. 

Nam hoc ioio proelio^ cum ab hora sepiima ad vesperum pug- 
natum sit, aversum hosiem videre nemo potuit. Caes. B. G. i, 26, i. 

2. Acts, etc., belonging in different temporal scenes may occa- 
sionally be connected together. Such a combination occurs more 
or less frequently according as the relation between the main clause 
and the subordinate clause is naturally loose or naturally close. 
But there is no limit to the possibilities of such combinations 
excepting those existing in the nature of things. 

Paccio ei verbis ei re osiendiy quid iua commendatio ponderis 
haberet; itaque in intimis est mtis^ cum antea notus non fuisset. 
Cic. Att. 4, 16, I. 

Numerandus est ille annus denique in re publica^ cum obmu- 
tuisset senahcSy iudicia conticuissent, maererent boni . . . . ? Cic. 
Pis. 13, 27. 

HiCy quantum in bello fortuna possit et quantos adferat casus^ 
cognosci potuit. Caes. B. G. 6, 35, 1-2. 

William Gardner Hale. 






Br. Gr. 




Fischer P.-D. G. 

Fischer K. Z. 





Kl. (Kluge) 



M. H. G. 

N. (Nadler) 

N. H. G. 

N. E. 

O. H. G. 


U. P. 

O. S. 

P. G. 

Paul Mhd. Gr. 


R. P. 


Sch. Pdn. 

Sch. M. B. 

Sch. B. W, 


Sch. Id. 


W. A. G. 

W. B. G. 

W. Mhd. Gr. 





Aargau dialect. 

Anglo-Saxon (Old English). 

Basel dialect. 

Braune's Althochdentsche Grammatik. 

Brandt's German Grammar. 

Bavarian dialect. 

Dutch (Hollfindisch). 

Fischer's Pennsylvanisch-Deutsche Gedichte. 

Fischer's Kurzweil und Zeitvertreib. 


Grimm's Deutsche Grammatik. 

Haldeman's Pennsylvania Dutch. 

'm Horn sei, Buch. 

Kluge's Etymologisches W5rterbuch. 

Kobell's Gedichte in pfalzischer Mundart. 

lexical (ly). 

Middle High German. 

Nadler's Gedichte in Pfalzer Mundart. 

New High German. 

New English (Modem English). 
: Old High German. 
: Old Norse. 

: Upper Palatinate (Oberpfalz). 
: Old Saxon. 
: Pennsylvania German. 

: Paul's Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (Zweite Aufl.). 
: Ranch's Pennsylvania Dutch Hand-book. 

Rhine Palatinate dialect (Rheinpfalzisch). 
: Sanders' Deutsches WOrterbuch. 
; Schade's Paradigmen. 
: Schmeller, Die Mundarten Bayems. 
: Schmeller's Bayerisches W5rterbuch. 
: Schandein's Gedichte in Westricher Mundart. 
: Schweizerisches Idiotikon. 

Sievers-Cook, Grammar of Old English. 
; Weinhold's Alemannische Grammatik. 

Weinhold's Bairische Grammatik. 
: Weinhold's Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 

Westrich dialect 
: Wiener Dialekt (Vienna dialect). 

Zeller's Dichtungen in pf&lzischer Mundart. 

the pennsylvania german dialect. 1/9 


§1. — ^The conclusions of the introductory chapter show clearly 
that the speech elements transplanted to Pennsylvania were pre- 
eminently those from the Rhenish Palatinate. The chapters on 
phonology and morphology will substantiate the fact that Penn- 
sylvania German, in borrowing from English to enrich its vocabu- 
lary, has by no means forfeited its birthright and become a pitiable 
hybrid of bad German and worse English^ but, on the contrary, has 
perpetuated in their pristine vigor the characteristics of its vener- 
able European ancestor, the Rhine Prankish, specifically Rhine 
Palatinate, " Rheinpfdlzisch,^* 

The following comparative view of Pennsylvania German pho- 
nology represents what is recognized in eastern and central 
Pennsylvania as the Pennsylvania German dialect. A more 
detailed treatment of dialectical differences in various portions of 
the State is reserved for a subsequent chapter. For reasons which 
will appear in the preface, a normalized text, differing from any yet 
in use among P. G. writers, has been adopted. The following 
treatment locates the P. G. form historically by stating (i) the 
Pennsylvania German word ; (2) (in parenthesis) the New High 
German and New English etymological and lexical equivalents, 
where the latter differ from the former ; (3) the Rhine Palatinate, 
Rhein-Pfalzisch or Westrich (usually the most nearly related 
European dialect; c£ Ethnographical Introduction, pp. 18-20); 
and (4) the Old High German equivalent (where peculiarly inter- 
esting, the Rhine Prankish form of the O. H. G. period). The 
most nearly related forms are printed in type so that the eye can 
catch at a glance the affinities of the word under consideration. 

In order to give both German and English readers a complete 
picture of our dialect, we have given the N. H. G. and N. E. 
equivalents, even at the risk of stating what the philologist would 
sometimes readily supply. 

The phonetic notation has been reduced to the simplest possible 
system. It is to be regretted that the new system of notation 
proposed by the Modem Language Association of America is not 
ready for adoption. After comparing the systems of Bell, Sweet, 
Storm, Winteler, and Sievers, I have adopted the following. It 
seemed preferable to retain the v instead of using in its place the 
o with the hook or inverted c, inasmuch as this sound is written 
a in most of the Germanic languages. In the table below, the 
equivalents in Winteler*s system are given in ( ). 



§2. Table of Equivalents* 

Vowels P. G. 


New English equivalent and example. 


(o' approaching o) 

o in hot, a in what. 


(«' approaching a) 

aw in law. 


x' as modified 



by the 



a m marry. 


a in car. 


^ in clever. 



e in met, bet 



a in pale, sale* 


last e in seven. 



i in six, fix. 



ee in keel, feeL 



in omission. 



5 in home. 



u in pussy. 



GO in pool, fool. 

Diphthongs : 


P + i) 

("' + i') 

oy in boy, coy. 


(o' + u) 

ou in house. 

ei (cf. 



ei in height. 

di (rare, cf. H., 

ch. I, §3), 

P. G. ex. 



ai in aisle (of London). 

§3. Consonants. 

b (voiceless) =z b as in N. H. G. bitter. 

V (voiced spirant, =r b with a stroke and represents original ^) ^ v as in N* 

£1. never, 
d (voiceless) =: d as in N. H. G. Ding, 
f (voiceless spirant) =z f as in N. H. G. finden, N. E. find, 
g (voiceless) = g as in N. H. G. Gift, N. £. gift. 
ch (voiceless spirant, in Italics to distinguish from P. G. ch = N. H. G. ch) 

= g (ch) as in N. H. G. selig. 
y (palatal, medial, =1 older intervocalic g) = y as in N. E. many a (when 

pronounced together), 
b (aspirate) =z h as in N. H. G. Hand, N. E. hand, 
j (for original j or consonantal 1) =z j as in N. H. G. Jahr, N. E. year, 
k (voiceless) = k as in N. H. G. K5nig, N. E. king. 
1 = 1 as in N. H. G. lang, N. E. long. 

1 (strongly liquid when intervocalic) = 11 as in N. £. willing, 
m = m as in N. H. G. Helm, N. E. home, 
n =: n as in N. H. G. Name, N. E. name, 
p (voiceless) = p as in N. H. G. Pein. 

r = r as in N. E. ring, often trilled, when medial as in N. E. borough, 
s (voiceless spirant) = s as in N. £. seven, 
t (voiceless) = t as in N. H. G. Topf, N. E. top. 

w represents original w (hw) less voiced (less dental) than w in N. H. G. was. 
z (t -|- s) = ts as in N. £. cats, 
ks (x). 

dzh (= N. E. j in John). 

sch (= s, N. H. G. sch) =: sh as in N. E, short. 
^ indicates nasality, 
ch (z= N. H. G. ch and written for it) = ch in N. H. G. ich. 



§4. — P. G. t> has a sound approaching that of ^, and is doubtless 
a very old one, as would appear from such forms as O. H. G. seal 
and scol^ kaldn and holSn^ or better zata and zota, where no liquid 
influence has to be accounted for (cf. Br. Gr. §25, 6, i). This 
sound (as short) has the same quality as the a in N. £. wallow ; 
as long, it is well known to N. E. in ally call, fall (for A.-S. cf. S. 
C. §51 ; for Alemannic, cf. W. A. G. §112; for the change before 
nasals and / cf. W. Mhd. Gr. §20). The sound occurs also in 
other German dialects; cf. Sch. Id. S. XVI, Hogel's Wiener 
Dialekt, S. 10. 

P. G. V represents : 

1. Germanic a, N. H. G. a, R. P. a (for Bav. cf. Sch. M. B. 
§108). P. G. nBcht (N. H. G. nacht, N. E. night), R. P. 
nacht (Z.) ; P. G. dBnk (N. H. G. dank, N. E. thank(s)) ; P. G. 
hBls (N. H. G. hals, lex. N. E. neck ; cf. halse, Spencer) ; P. G. 
iBnd (N. H. G. land, N. E. land), R. P. land (N.), Westr. 
lann (Sch.) ; P. G. misnn (N. H. G. mann, N. E. man) ; P. G. 
hBnd (N. H. G. hand, N. E. hand) ; P. G. schBnd(t) (N. H. G. 
schande, lex. N. E. shame). 

Note I. — In some cases P. G. has retained Germanic short a, 
while in N. H. G. this a has been lengthened. P. G. fBtdr (N, 
H. G. vater, N. E. father), R. P. vadder (N.), vatter (Z.), Bav. 
V£td9\ and vaii9\ M. H. G. vaier, O. H. G. vatar, 

2. a of Latin words introduced early. P. G. kBrd (N. H. G. 
karte, N. E. chart, card), M. H. G. karie «^ Fr. carte) ; cf. 
P. G. kBrd (lex. N. H, G. kammen; cf. karden, lex. N. E. 
card wool) ; cf. N. H. G. karde, M. H. G. karie, O. H. G. charia 
(lex. N. E. teasel, cardoon) < Lat. circa 7th cent. (Kluge). 

3. Germanic u (except Gothic, which has al, atf). P. G. dBrch^ 
dBr^ch (N. H. G. durch, N. E. thorough, through), R. P. durch, 
but cf. R. P. nor, norre (== N. H. G. nur) and worscht, M. H. G. 
durch, dur, O. H. G. duruh, durah, duri, dur, but Goth, ^alrh ; 
P. G. WBrzdl (N. H. G. wurzel, lex. N. E. root; cf. N. E. wurt), 
Goth, watiris] P. G. WBrscht (N. H. G. wurst, lex. N. E. 

4. in N. E. words introduced into P. G. Ex. : P. G. schop 
(= N. H. G. werkstatte, N. E. shop ; P. G. schlop (lex. N. H. 
G. kiichenabiall, schlampe, N. E. slop, swill, an untidy female. 


In consonantal combinations j/, sp^ si of words borrowed from the 
English are usually pronounced schl^ schp^ scht^ if initial ; cf. §40. 
§5. — P. G. V corresponds to : 

1. Original Germanic & (Gothic ^); cf. W. A. G. §44. (For 
O. H. G. 4 < Germanic <^, cf. Br. Gr. §34, a, i). P. G. pdar, 
R. P. a {p)y cf. pi. oderd (H.) (N. H. G. ader, lex. N. E. vein; cf. 
A.-S. ^dre), R. P. oder (N.), Bav. kda*, auda*, O. H. G. ddara ; 
P. G. m2'l9 (N. H. G. mahlen, lex. N. E. grind), R. P. mahle 
(N.), but cf. P. G. mola (N. H. G. malen) ; P. G. mvn^ (N. H. G. 
mahne, N. E. mane) ; P. G. hPS9 (N. H. G. hase, N. E. hare). 
For j^r more generally j6r, schli^, generally schlof; cf. §12, 3. 

2. Germanic au^ which in some cases }> ^ in O. H. G. (cf. Br, 
Gr. §45), and in others remained as a diphthong, written ou after 
the ninth century (cf. Br. Gr. §46), R. P. aa (A), P. G. Avh (N. H. 
G. taub, N. E. deaf) ; P. G. d? (N. H. G. thau, N. E. dew) ; 
P. G. l^ft (N. H. G. laufen, N. E. leap, etymologically but lexically 
N. E. run and walk) ; R. P. laafe (Z. and K.), Westr. lafe (Sch.). 

3. Germanic a, R. P. a. P. G. schl^dd (N. H. G. schade, 
etymol. M. E., N. E. scathe, scath, lexically N. E. damage, harm) ; 
P. G. TLPm^ (N. H. G. name, N. E. name), R. P. name (N. and 
Sch.); P. G. SPm9 (N. H. G. sama, lexically N. E. seed); cf. 
N. E. semen <^ Lat semen. 

Note I. — This correspondence extends also to contracted mono- 
syllables. P. G. mp6. (N. H. G. magd, N. E. maid), R. P. mahd 
(Z.), Bav. mdidy fna^d^ M. H. G. mageiy meit, O. H. G. magad^ 
Goth. maga\s. 

4. N. E. aw^ P. G. l2?messig (lexically N. H. G. gesetzmassig, 
gesetzlich), N. E. according to law, compound <^ N. E. law 
+ German massig. For formations of this kind cf. chapter on 
English Mixture. 



§6. — In P. G. as in O. H. G. original Germanic i' has remained 
(cf. Br. Gr. §29). Moreover, in many this <?; which in O. H. G, 
became i before i or u in the following syllable (cf. Br. Gr. 
§30, a and c), has persisted as ^' in P. G. Ex. : O. H. G. nimis, 
hUfiSy nimu, kil/u^ P. G. nemscht, helfscht, nem9, helfd. (For 
infinitives see examples below.) As in O. H. G. so in P. G. this 
original i' is pronounced short and open. The following examples 
show in striking manner the lengthening of this e in N. H. G. (cf. 
Brandt, §488, 2) : 

P. G. gev9 (N. H. G. geben, N. E. give), R. P. gewwe (N. 


Z.), Bav. g6bm ; P. G. nemd (N. H. G. nehmen, N. E. take, lexi- 
cal equivalent, cf. A.-S. niman), Westr. nemmd (Sch.); P. G. 
helf, nem, 2 sg. imper.; gebt, nemmt (K.), helft (K.), werd (K.), 
3 sg. indie, are all in keeping with the P. G. principle of avoiding 
the umlaut forms in the pres. indie, of strong verbs. The same 
tendency b found in other dialects, as for example R. P., Westr. 
The following are examples of nouns retaining this original Ger- 
manic e\ P. G. schwevdl (N. H, G. schwefel, lexically N. E. 
sulphur; cf. A.-S. swefl); P. G. nev9l (N. H. G. nebel, lexically 
N. E. mist, fog ; cf. O. S. neval), R. P. newwel (Z.). 

Note I. — P. G. writers do not distinguish orthographically 
between original Germanic e and e produced by the /-umlaut of a. 
For the latter we use the usual sign e. 

§7 A. — P. G. e represents : 

1. / of words introduced (as early as O. H. G. period) from 
Latin (N. H. G. i\ P. G. bech, pech (N. H. G. pech, lex. N. E. 
pitch or shoemaker's wax), M. H. G. bechypechy O. H. G. beh^ 
peh (cf. M. H. G.pjichy O. H. G. pjih <C^hzX. picem in 7th cent, 

2. e by /-umlaut of a, (i) N. H. G. e. P. G. denkd (N. H. G. 
denken, N. E. think; c£ A.-S. pencan and pyncan, N. H. G. 
danken) ; R. P. denke (Z.), Goth. \>agkjan ; P. G. eng (N. H. G. 
eng, lex. N. E. narrow), R. P. eng (N.), O. H. G. angi ; P. G. 
engdl, R. P. engel (Z. N.), ent, end (N.), Goth, aggilusy *anufs 
(Kluge), andeis, respectively. 

(2) N. H. G. 5 < /-umlaut of original Germanic a. (For N. 
H. G. e and a < /-umlaut of a, cf. Grimm, Gr. I 443, under AE.) 
P. G. mechtich (N. H. G. machtig, N. E. mighty), O. H. G. 
maMg; P. G. kreflo (N. H. G. krafte; cf. N. E. craft); 
krenkld, meschdd (N. H. G. krankeln, masten). 

An interesting verb falling under this class is P. G. sich schemd 
(N. H. G. sich schamen, N. E. shame [one's self], be ashamed), 
M. H. G. sich sckemen or sckameUy O. H. G. sik scamitty i and 3 
weak conj., Goth, sik skaman. In the N. H. G. dialects the regu- 
lar form is that with the umlauted stem-vowel : Aarg. si schdme, 
Basl. sckdmmey Vien. schame (reflex), Westf. sik sckemen. From 
all these examples it would appear that O. H. G. should have 
had *skamian corresponding to A.-S. scamian (jceatnian). The 
jftl. H. G. forms sckemen and sckamen would support this suppo- 

Note I. — It is a question whether P. G. secht (=:sagt or sagte ?) 



is to be considered as caused by the /-umlaut of a, or a case of as- 
similation of a in sacht (=:sagt) to the e of the juxtaposed er (fre- 
quent in narration); thus sacht'er^'^saechUer^^sacht-9r^ 
sechi'9r. I prefer to consider it a case of umlaut by analogy. Forms 
like er sacht, mar sacht (N.) would favor this latter view. 

3. Germanic a (N. H. G. a). P. G. hen (N. H. G. haben, N. E, 
have) ; cf. R. P. hawwe^ henn, hunn (N.) ; hen is the regular form of 
the plural, and seems to show the persistence of the^miginal i of the 
second syllable ; cf. O. H. G. habim-in (imh), 1 pi.; and habin^ 
3 pi. (Br. Gr. §304). The explanation would be that the b^w 
and dropped, and the a-e were contracted into e. This contraction 
finds an analogue in M. H. G. hAn^l&n (i ^\.)^haben, Idzen^ 
where the vowel of the first syllable carried the accent and per- 
sisted, while in P. G. that of the second syllable was retained. 
The differentiation into hvv9 and "^hen (infinitive), representing 
respectively the independent verbal idea of halien and the auxiliary 
haieriy as in M. H. G. (cf. Paul, Mhd. Gr. §180, 181), is not found 
in P. G. P. G. hen occurs only in the plural, while hBv3 is the 
regular form of the infinitive ; cf. R. P. hawwe (N.). 

4. (i) a in words borrowed from English (N. H. G. a), the P. G. 
representation of the N. E. pronunciation. P. G. bendi (N. H. G, 
bantam, N. E. ban tie, vulgar for bantum) ; P. G. mem (N. H. G. 
mamme» memm, mama, N. E. mam, vulgar for mama). 

(2) e in words introduced from N. E. P. G. benreil (Hededma 
pulegioides, N. E. penny-rile, vulgar for pennyroyal) ; P. G. desk 
(lex. N. H. G. pult, N. E. desk; for e before r cf. §17, 2) ; P. G, 
fens (lex. N. H. G. zaun, N. E. fence). 

5. Sporadically N. H. G. ei in unaccented syllables. P. G. ke, 
also ke (N. H. G. kein, lex. N. E, no (adj.) ; P. G. »n, 'n (N. H. G. 
ein, N. E. a (one) ) comes really under a, §76. 

Note I. — P. G. des is the regular form for N. H, G. dcLS in 
unaccented positions ; cf. W. Mhd. Gr. §30. To explain this as the 
genitive is quite unscientific and unnecessary, cf. H., pp. 35, 36. 

6. (i) Sporadically N. H. G. ie. P. G. schep (N. H. G. schief, 
N. E. skew ; cf. O. N. skewfr, Dutch scheef) ; R. P. schebb (N.); 
(cf. Kluge under schief, where he suggests Goth. *skaiba). 

(2) N. H. G. i of personal pronouns in unaccented positions. 
P. G. en9 (N. H. G. ihnen, lex. N. E. to them), M. H. G. in^ 
O. H. G. im^ itif Goth, im. As all of these examples show, tlve 
original vowel was short, having been lengthened in N. H. G. ; 
cf. Bav. Iner (eane* < ihnen ihr, Sch. B. W.). 


7. (i) ^< /-umlaut of (N. H. G. o). P. G. scheppd (N. H. 
G. schopfen, lex. N. E. dip, draw, Dutch scheppen, O. S. skeppian^ 
M. H. G., O. H. G. schepfen (early O. H. G. scopfen^scophian) ; 
P. G. lefifol (N. H. G. loffel, lex. N. E. spoon), M. H. G. leffel, 
O. H. G. ieffiL In both schepp? and leffsl we evidently have an 
/-umlaut of original a, the N. H. G. form with 6 having come in 
during the M. H. G. period (but cf. N. E. scoop, etc.). 

(2) But rfeal representatives of /-umlaut of (older u) are P. G. 
kennti kean^ (N. H. G. konnte, konnen, N. E. could, can; 
cf. A.-S. cunnan); R. P. kenne, M. H. G. kunnen, O. H. G, 
chunnan (cf. Schade Paradig., pp. 96, 97). As will be seen from 
the above examples under ^, a decided levelling has taken place in 
P. G. as compared with N. H. G. The sharp distinctions between 
the /-umlaut of a and of o have disappeared in P. G. ; cf. Low 
German /-umlaut of a. What is here said of e is true also of/, 
which includes an even larger number of sounds clearly differen- 
tiated in N. H. G. The full scope of this levelling process will 
become more evident in the comparative table which is to accom- 
pany this treatise. 


B. — P. G. 9 represents the vowel of the flexional syllable. P. G. 
renna (N, H. G. rinnen) ; dens ira (N. H. G. denen ihre = 
ihrer); ebbdr, ebbds (N. H. G. jemand, etwas; cf. §30, 2, i, 
note 2). 

§8. — P. G. / corresponds to the following : 

I. {a) Germanic ai before h, r, w (cf. Br. Gr. 14 b), N. H. G. 
i, P. G. er (N. H. G. ehre, lex. N. E. honor; cf. A.-S. 4r) ; R. P. 
ehr (Z.), Bav. ^r, 6r. 6a' (cf. O. P. ^i^O ; P. G. lera (N. H. G. 
lehren, lex. N. E. teach; cf. N. E. hrSy subs., and A.-S. l^ran, 
vb.) ; P. G. sel (N. H. G. seele, N. E. soul), R. P. seel (N.) ; P. G. 
kerd (N. H. G. kehren, lex. N. E. turn) ; P. G. me, mendr (N. 
H. G. mehr, N. E. more), Westr. mehner (Sch.) ; P. G. se (N. 
H. G. see, N. E. sea). 

(b) Germanic a/, which became in O. H. G. ei in latter part of 
the eighth century (cf. Br. Gr. §44 and notes), N. H. G. eu P. G. 
del (N. H. G. teil, N. E. deal), R P. dheel (N.), Bav. taal ; 
P. G. be" (N. H. G. bein, N. E. bone, lex. leg) ; P. G. emdr 
(N. H. G. eimer, lex. N. E. bucket; cf. A.-S. ^mbor, ombor), 
O. H. G. eimbar^ einiar; P. G. hem (N. H. G. heim, N. E. 
home), R. P. ham (Sch.), heem (Z. K.) ; P. G. hessa (N. H. G. 


heissen, N. E. hight, lex. be called), R. P. hesse (Sch. Z. K.) ; 
P. G. bed (N. H. G. beide, N. E. both), M. H. G. beide, bide\ 
P. G. leb (N. H. G. laib, N. E. loaQ ; P. G. led (N. H. G. leid, 
N. E. loth (?) ), Westr. led (Sch.), R. P. leed (Z.), but cfl P. G. 
leidd (N. H. G. leiden, lex. N. E. suffer). 

2. (a) N. H, G. a. P. G. er (N. H. G. ahre, N. E. ear (of 
grain), O. H. G. ehir (ahir). 

/-umlaut of original d (N. H. G. a). P. G. ze (N. H. G. zah, N. 
E. tobgh ; cf. A.-S. t6h), O. H. G. zdhi\ P. G. kes (N. H. G. 
k'ase, N. E. cheese, A.-S. cfese), O. H. G. chdsi^ Lat. cAseus. 

(3) /-umlaut of Germanic a, N, H. G. g, R. P. e. P. G. red 
(N. H. G. rede, lex. N. E. speech), M. E. rede (cf. N. E. rede- 
craft, Barnes); cf. Goth. ra][;S, R. P. redde, verb (N.), redd, 
substantive ; P. G. elend (N. H. G. elend, lex. N. E. misery ; 
cf. Goth, aljis (Kluge) ) ; P. G. mer (N. H. G. meer, lex. N. E. 
sea ; cf. Goth, marei) ; P. G. fdrherd (N. H. G. verheeren, N. E. 
harry, lex. N. E. devastate ; cf. Goth, harjis) ; P. G. frevdl, for 
original b cf. Kluge (N. H. G. frevel, lex. N, E. mischief) ; P. G. 
lega (N. H. G. legen, N. E. lay). 

3. Original Germanic e (cf. Br. Gr. §29, 30, c), N. H. G. e, P. 
G. mel (N. H. G. mehl, N. E. meal), O. H. G. melo ; P. G. beta 
(N. H. G. beten, lex. N. E. pray), R. P. bede (N.), O. H. G. 
bH6n\ P. G. weg (N. H. G. weg, N. E. way), R. P. weg (N.); 
P. G. besdm (N. H. G. besen, N, E. besom), Bav. besen^ besem 
{b&sriy besnt (?)), M. H. G. besen, besen, beseme, O. H. G. besamo, 

4. N. H. G. ^ in loan-words. P. G. te (N. H. G. thee, N. E. 
. tea), R. P. thee. 

5. N. E. a. P. G. meb(p)3l (N. E. maple, lex. N. H. G. 
ahorn) ; P. G. len, N. E. lane, N. H. G. ein schmaler weg, allee ; 
f ess (N. E. face, lex. N. H. G. gegeniiber stehen oder stellen). 
P. G. shows a splitting of the (diphthong) sound represented in 
N. H. G. by ei, a part appearing as diphthongs, a part remaining 
as the simple vowel e(9 ox e in unaccented position). Even in the 
abstract terminations -heit and -keit the diphthong is often heard, 
though the more regular form is e {9 or e\ This wavering is seen 
also in the stem syllable of many words, as P. G. kled and kleid 
(cf R. P. kleed (N.) ), both of which may be heard in the same 
district. This confusion is doubtless due to two causes: (i) the 
pronunciation of N. H. G. ei as heard from the pulpit; (2) the 
commingling of Germans representing districts of Germany in 
which the sound was pronounced respectively e and ei (cf, the 
treatment oip and vu^ §20). 


6. x-umlaut V (= N. H. G. au \ cf. §20, i), N. H. G. au, P. G. 
bem (N. H. G. baume, N. E. beams, lex. trees) ; R. P. baam 
(Z. N.), beem (K.). 

This e is the regular 2-umlaut olv^ and not to be confused with 
the N. H. G. /-umlaut of au (= P. G. t7«), which is ei. P. G. 
geil (N. H. G. gaule, lex. N. E. nags, draft-horses) <[ /-umlaut of 
gvul (cf. vu, §20, 2), R. P. gaul (N.), pi. gaiil (Sch.), gaul (N.). 

7. (a) /-umlaut of older (O. H. G.) e^ + ^i N. H. G. eu. P. G. 
fred (N. H. G. freuen, lex. N. E. rejoice), R. P. frod, peasant 
speech fraad (N.), frot, 3 sg., gefrdty p. p. (N.); Bav./r^/?~, 
frh" yfrdVUy M. H. G.frouwen, O. H, G.frauwin (^^tCJ^^ohf). 

P. G. fdrschpred (cf.>N. H. G. spreu, lex. N. E. spread, <if. 
N. E. spray), M. H. G. spraewen (cf. Kluge under spriihen). 

(Jf) /-umlaut of older 6 (O. H. G. <^ < Goth. au\ N. H. G. 
(long), cf. P. G. ^<; /-umlaut oio (short) §7 A, 7. P. G. hers (N. . 
H. G. horen. N. E. hear), R. P. hdre=here (N.) (O. H. G. 
hdrjan, Goth, hausjan); P. G. he (N. H. G. hohe, lex. N. E. 
height), R. P. hoh, rhymes with weh (N.); P. G. hechdr (N. 
H. G. hoher, comp. of hoch, cf. §38, 2, i) ; P. G. bes (N. H. G. 
bose, lex. N. E. bad, angry), R. P. b6s (N.), O. H. G. b6si. 

8. Sporadic instances of P. G. ^ : 

(i) for N. H. G. o and e. P. G. leb (N. H. G. lowe and 
leben, N. E. life). 

(2) N. H. G. ie + r. P. G. ber (N. H. G. bieme, lex, N. E. 
pear), R. P. hire (N.) ; cf. §10, i. 

(3) N. H. G. ia. P, G. demBnd (N. H. G. diamant, N. E. 
diamond) ; cf. Bav. demut, demant, " ademas " (Sch. B. W.). 

(4) N. H. G. u. P. G. der (N. H. G. thur. N. E. door), 
Westr. dehrche (Sch.) ; cf. R. P. dhur (N.), M. H. G. /«>, O. H. 
G. turi ; cf. N. H. G. thor. P. G. would seem to be the /-umlauted 
form of *dori; c£ O. S. dor, duru 

§9. Original Germanic / remains regularly in P. G. as in O. H. 
G, (cf. Br, Gr. §31. For exceptions in case of personal pronouns 
cf. e, §7 A, 6 (2) )• This / accordingly persists where, as in examples 
under 2, N. H. G. has lengthened it to ie. The province of / and 
i (like that of ^ and / of §§7, 8) is greatly extended by including 
the /-umlaut of « and u respectively. P. G. / represents : 

I. (a) Original Germanic /, N. H. G. / short. P. G. biddd (N. 
H. G. bitten, N. E. bid, including N. H. G. bieten and bitten 
(Kluge), Goth, bidjatu 


P. G. milich (N. H. G. milch, N. E. milk) ; for the second 
syllable cf. §15; P. G. dik (N. H. G. dick, N. E. thick); P. G. 
gift, fisch, fing9r, finnc (N. H. G. gift, fisch, finger, finden, N. 
E. gift, fish, finger, find), 

(J)) Germanic % lengthened to N. H. G. ie, P. G. kissl (N. 
H. G. kiesel, N. E. flint, pebble, lex. N. E. sleet) ; cf. R. P. 
Hes (N.), M. H. G. khel, O. H. G. chuil\ P. G. sib (N. H. G. 
sieb, N. E. sieve, but A.-S. sife) ; P. G. siv9 (N. H. G. sieben, 
N. E- seven), R. P. siwwe (N.) ; P. G. rigal (N. H. G. riegel, 
N. E. rail, lex. also bolt) ; P. G. sigdl (N. H. G. siegel, N. E, 
seal), R. P. Siegel (N.) ; P. G. sicht, 3 sg. ind. of sens (N. H. 
G. sieht, N. E. sees, older seeth), R. P. sicht (K.), sickscht, 2 
sg. ind. (Z.) (cf. §7) ; P. G. wis^l, widsr (N. H. G. wiesel, wieder, 
lex. N. E. weasel, again) ; cf. R. P. widder (Z.). 

2. The i-umlaut of original short u. In P. G. all umlauted 
vowels have fallen to simple sounds, o^e, o^e, u^i, «>/'. 
P. G. bichsr (N. H. G. bucher, N. E. books ; cf. A.-S. b^c) ; P. 
G. dinn(N. H. G. diinn, N, E. thin), O. H. G. dunnt; P. G. brick 
(N. H. G. briicke, N. E. bridge) ; P. G. ivsl (N. H. G. uebel, 
N. E. evil), O. H. G. udti; P. G. ivdr, R. P. uwwer (N.) ; P. G. 
miller, missd, rick, sinn (N. H. G. miiller, miissen, rticken, 
sande (or sinn). 

Note I. — P. G. zigdl (N. H. G. ziegel and ziigel, N. E. tile, 
A. S. tigel, and lex. bridle). In the former signification it cor- 
responds to N. H. G. ziegel, M. H. G. ziegel, O. H. G. ziagcd , 
<^ Lat. tegula ; in the latter to N. H. G. ziigel «^ ziehen), M. H. 
G. zugely zugel, O. H. G. zugil, zuhil (cf. A.-S. tygill, N. E. 
/^//= labor; cf. Skeat). 

Note 2. — A sporadic instance of P. G. / for N. H. G. du is P, G, 
siffar (N. H. G. saufer, N. E. sipper, in sense of tippler, drunkard), 
evidently by z-umlaut of original ^sUfjan (for original u persisting 
cf. Br. Gr. §32). The two parallel series would then be as follows : 

N. H. G. saufer, verb saufen, M. H. G. sUfen^O, H. G. 
sUfan, but P. G. sif{J^9r, M. H. G., O. H. G. sup/en (suffan), 
Goth. *s(ipjan, cf. with this N. E. sup, M. E. pr. p. supping, A.-S. 
sUpan and N. E. sip, A.-S. sipan. Both of these series point 
clearly to an original weak verb (with short stem-vowel) in both 
A.-S. and Gothic ; cf. Welsh sippian. 

Note 3. — P. G. i corresponds in a few cases to : (i) N. H. G. 
« = Germanic i before nasals. Ex. : P. G, finf, finif (N. H. G. 
fiinf, N, E, five, n dropped ; c£ A.-S. fif ), O. H. G. fun/ (older 


finf), Goth. fimf\ (2) N. H. G. «, where in the IIP ablaut 
series (cf. Br. Gr. §337) orthographic confusion of i and u crept in. 
Ex. : P. G. hilf (N, H. G. hulfe, hilfe. N. E. help), M. H. G. 
hilfe, helfSy O. H. G. hil/a, helfa (cf. Br. Gr. §31, a). 

Note 4. — P. G. krisch (N. H. G. gerausch (?), N. E. rush, lex. 
cry, shriek). 

§10. — From §9 it was seen that a large number of older z*s 
remain in P. G. There were, however, some of these original 
short /*s which > long in P. G. as in N. H. G. ; cf. §10 {b) below. 
P. G. / represents accordingly : 

1. {a) Original /> N. H. G. /. P. G. ig^l (N. H. G. igel, lex. 
N. E. porcupine) ; cf. Bav. egel, igel, O. H. G. igil ; P. G. bir 
CN. H. G. birne, lex. N. E. pear) ; P. G. idrich (lex. N. H. G. 
wiederkauen, N. E. ruminating). 

(Jf) Original short />N. H. G. ie (cf. Br. Gr. §31, 5). P. G. 
lis (N. H. G. riese, lex. N. E. giant), O. H. G. risi^ rise ; P. G. 
SChdil (M. H. G. stiel, N. E. steal, stale (Skeat), lex. N. E. handle), 
O. H. G. sHl. 

2. Original Germanic diphthong represented in O. H. G. by io 
«; eo) in 9th century (cf. Br. Gr. §17, c), N. H. G. ie. P. G. bigs 
(N. H. G. biegen, N. E. bow), O. H. G. biogan ; P. G. bids (N. H. 
G. bieten, N. E. bid = command), A.-S. beodan (in the sense of 
beat = overcome, etc. ; it is doubtless <^ the N. E. beat, A.-S, 
bedtan), O. H. G. biotan ; P. G. dib (N. H. G. dieb, N. E. thief, 
R. P. dieb (N.) ; P. G. gis(s)3 (N. H. G. giessen, lex. N. E. 
pour) ; P. G. lid (N. H. G. lied). 

3. z-umlaut of older « <[ O. H. G. «^? «^ Germanic 6 circa 9th 
cent.; cf. Br. Gr. §21, d). P. G. file (N. H. G. fuhlen, N. E.feel), 
R. P. fule (Z.), Bdcw.Jbln, O. H. G.ftwlen ; P. G. mid (N. H. G. 
miide, lex. tired), R. P. mud (Z.), Westr. mid (Sch.), O. H. G. 
muodi\ P. G. gri~ (N. H. G. griin, N. E. green), R. P. griin (Z.), 
grii' (K.); P. G. trib, rib, tir (N. H, G. trube, rube, thuren); 
tir is pi. of tir (der), cf. §8, 8, (4). 

4. The corresponding sound in borrowed words. P. G. schdim 
(N. E. steam) ; P. G. plesir (Fr. plaisir) ; P. G. -ira, infinitive 
ending. Ex. : P. G. kBrdsirs (N. H. G. karassiren, N. E. caress, 
lex, court). 


§11. — P. G. o corresponds to the O. H. G. ^<!« before a, e, o 
in the following syllable (cf, Br, Gr. §32, a), and represents : 


I. (j£) N. H. G. 6, P. G. koch (N. H. G. koch, N. E. cook), 
cf. verb kochd, R. P. kocht (Z.), 3 sg. ind., O. H. G. cochdn ; 
P. G. loch (N. H. G. loch, lex. N. E. hole), O. H. G. loh ; P. G. 
noch (N. H. G. noch. lex. N. E. yet); P. G. modal (N. H. G. 
model, masculine, N. E. model), O. H. G. module but cf. N. H. G, 
moduli, neuter, <^ Italian (Sanders). 

(Jf) N. H. G. 0. P. G. fogal (N. » G. vogel, N. E. fowl), 
Bav. fogl, O. H. G,fogal (cC Br. Gr. §32, a, 3); P. G. ofa (N. 
H. G. ofen, N. E. oven, lex. stove), R. P. offe (N.), Bav. 0/9^ \ 
P. G. odar (N.* H. G. oder, N. E. other, lex. or), R. P. odder, 
Bav. dd'?', O. H. G. ode, odo ; P. G. gdzogd, p. p. of zlgs or 
xiya (N. H. G. gezogen), R. P. gezoge (N.) ; P. G. wolfal (N. 
H. G. wohifeil, lex. N. E. cheap), R. P. wolfel (N.) ; P. G. 
kolrz'bi (N. H. G. kohlrabi, N. E, colerabi). 

Note I. — P. G. hochzich (N. H. G. hochzeit, lex, N. E. wed- 
ding), R. P. hochzich (N.), represents original o long. The P. 
G. adjective hoch is long, however, and thus perpetuates the long 
value of O. H. G. hoh. (For the conduct of ^ + ^ cf. §19, 2.) 

§12. — P. G. o long represents : 

1. O. H. G. d, Goth, an (cf. Br. Goth. Gr. §25, also Br. Gr. §45), 
N. H. G. 0. P. G. dod (N. H. G. tod, N.'E. death), O. H. G. 
iSd] P. G. Ion (N. H. G. lohn, lex. N. E. reward) ; P. G. not (N. 
H. G. noth, N. E. need), R. P. noth (Z.) ; P. G. rot, Ids (N. 
H. G. roth, los, N. E. red, loose, less). 

2. O. H. G. o, Goth, u, lengthened to N. H. G. o, P. G. wona 
(N. H. G. wohnen, N. E, won, lex. N. E. dwell, cf. A.-S. wunian, 
N. E. wont, p. p. adj.), O. H. G. w<min\ P. G. son (N. H. G. 
sohn, N. E. son) ; F. G. hoi (N. H. G. hohl, N. E, hollow) ; P. 
G. sol (N. H. G. sohle, N. E. sole) ; cf. R. P. lohn (N.), bohn 

3. {a) Germanic <^, O. H. G. 4 (cf. Br. Gr. §34, Grimm Gr. I 
442, A A I, /3), N. H, G. a (in some cases aK), P. G. mol (N. H. 
G. mal, lex. N. E. time, cf. A.-S. m^l, mael in Beowulf), R. P. 
mol (Z. K.), Westr. mol (Sch.), O. H. G. md,l\xi anamdli (Kluge) ; 
P. G. do (N. H. G. da, N. E. there), Westr. do (Sch.), R. P. do (Z. 
K.) ; P. G. no or no" (N. H. G. nach, lex. N. E. after) in verbal 
compounds like norechd (N. H. G. nachrechen, N. E. rake after). 
Both nOch and no are found in P. G. The latter is to be ex- 
plained as having dropped the h when its spirant quality was lost. 



The regular form in the accented position is n5ch, R. P. noh 
(Sch.), nooch (Z.), noht (Z.) ; cf. Sch. M. B. §566 ; P. G. mote 
(N. H. G. malen, lex. N. E. paint), R. P. molt (K.), 3 sg. ind. ; 
P. G. frogs (N. H. G. fragen, lex. N. E. ask), R. P. frog (Z.) i. 
sg. ind. ; P. G. brotd (N. H. G. braten, lex. N. E. roast), R. P. 
brota (Z.) ; P. G. blosa (N. H. G. blasen, lex. N. E. blow ; cf. 
blaze, blare), R. P. blost (Z.), 3 sg. ; P. G. not (N. H. G. naht, 
lex. N. E. stitch). 

(3) N. H. G. CM {£) representing O. H. G. d as i (a). P. G. 
sod (N. H. G. saat, sat, new orthography, N. E, seed), R. P. 
saat (N.). O. H. G. s&t\ P. G. wog (N. H. G. waage, lex. N. E, 
balance, scales, cf. verb weigh), O. H. G. wdga. 

Note I. — P. G. zoU'd (N, H. G. zahnlade) represents O. H. G. 
a, but Goth. u. 

Note 2. — In nouns of ze/a-stems P. G. d corresponds to O. H. G. 
A, N. H. G. ail. P. G. blo (N. H. G. blau, N. E. blue), Westr, 
bid (Sch.), R. P. bloo (Z.), O. H. G. blao ; P. G. /^gebroe (N. 
H. G, augenbrauen, N. E. eye-brows) ; cf. O. H, G. brdwa. 


§13. — In P. G. as in O. H. G. original Germanic u persists 
before nasal combinations (cf. Br. Gr. §32, a). P. G. u represents : 

I. (a) According to the above statement, N. H. G. H. P. G. 
dumm (N. H. G. dumm, N. E. dumb, lex. stupid), O. H. G. 
iumb ; P. G. dunscht (N. H. G. dunst, N. E. dust, lex. vapor) ; 
P. G. schtund (N. H. G. stunde, lex. N. E. hour), R. P. schtund 
(N.) ; P. G. kunnd (N. H. G. kunden, lex. N. E. customers, cf. 
(un)cooth), O. H. G. chund (n. sg.). 

{h) N. H. G. d, O. H. G. ^ or tt (cf. Br. Gr. §340, a, 3, «), A). 
P. G. kum(m)d (N. H. G. kommen, N. E. come, cf. S.-C. §390, 
note 2) ; R. P. kunime (p. p. same) (N.), O. H. G. had the form 
kuman, cf. last ref. to Braune ; P. G. g9num(m)'9 or g^nommd, 
p. p. of nemd (N. H. G. genommen, lex. N. E. taken), R. P. 
genumme (N.), O. H. G. ginoman; P. G. garunnd, p. p. of 
rinnd (N. H. G. geronnen, N. E. run), O. H. G. girunnan (cf. 
Br. Gr. §32, a, and §336, Paul Mhd. Gr. §44) ; P. G. sunn (N. H. 
G. Sonne, N. E. sun), R. P. sunn (N.), O. H. G. sunna ; P. G. 
sunscht (N. H. G. sonst, lex. N. E. otherwise), R. P. sunscht. 

Note I. — P. G. drumm (N. H. G. lex. trommel, N. E. drum). 
At first sight one might be disposed to explain this word as a 
direct borrowing from the English, but a closer examination will 


show that it is to be traced back to M. H. G. tnimme) tnimey 
trumbey O. H. G. trumpa, trumbay by assimilation of dy> m and 
dropping of the final e, which is the rule in P. G. 

Note 2. — P. G. forms like druck^i drockd (N. H. G. trocken, 
lex. N. E. dry) represent a near approach of the u to ^, a variation 
apparent in M. H. G. irucken^ irocken, O. H. G. trucchan^ troc- 
chan^ Bav. irucken. 

Note 3. — In forms like riinding or rundung the P. G. quite 
frequently employs the unumlauted form, a general tendency in 
P. G, most noticeable in verbs. N. H. G. has the same wavering, 
as for example rundung ^ rundung, P. G. luschderd (N. H. G. 
lustern, N. E. lust) ; cf. also P. G, luschderig ; P. G. hupso 
(lex. N. H. G. hiipfen, N. E. to hip, cf, hop), R. P. hupst, 3 sg, 

Note 4. — P. G. u occurs sporadically in nucka for N. H. G. 
ntcken, lex. N. E. nod. 

2. The corresponding sound in words introduced from N. E. : 
P. G. kunscht^^bldr, < N. E. cansiableQ^, N. H. G. konstable ; 
P. G. dzbump <[ N. E. jump, lex. N. H. G. springen. 


§14. — P. G. u represents the last stage of the passage of Ger- 
manic d into H (cf. Br. Gr. §38, 39, 40). In certain districts of P, 
G. territory, however, the last of the diphthong- forms uo is heard. 
I have noted the sound especially in the speech of the Swiss 
Dunkards of York Co. Ex.: guot (the u more prominent than 
the o) for the usual form gut. P. G. u represents accordingly : 

I. Germanic Sy N. H. G. «. P. G. blut (N. H. G. blut, N. E. 
blood), O. H. G. bluoi\ P. G. mut (N. H. G. mut, N. E, mood, 
lex. courage, spirit), R. P. muth (N.), O. H. G. muot\ P. G, 
grub (N. H. G. grube, lex. N. E. pit) ; P. G. bu, bub (N. H. G. 
bube, N. E. " bub," boy), R. P. Bu (N.) ; P. G. blum (N. H. G. 
blume, N. E. bloom, lex. flower), Westr. blum (Sch.). 

Note I.— P. G. fufxe<funf (N. H. G. funfzehn. N. E. fifteen) 
is due to compensatory lengthening, the n having dropped. The 
beginning of this change may perhaps be seen in forms like/^'»^, 
mand (c£ Kluge). 

Note 2. — Sporadically for older 4, N. H. G. 0. P. G. wu (N. 
H. G. wo, N. E. where), R. P. wo^ wu (Sch.), O. H. G. wa^ older 
wAr, Perhaps the more general pronunciation of this word is wo. 
In addition to the meaning where, this wo (wu) in P. G. is used 
like the N. E. relative who, and as such is to be considered a sur- 


vival of older relative; cf. R. P. '9ro'=^welcher, der (Nadler, S. 216). 
Note that the adverb d5 is always written with and not *du = 
N. H. G. da. 

Note 3. — P. G. has regularly uf qN. H. G. auf, N. E. up, cf. 
A.-S. up), R. P. uf, uff (Z.), M. H. G., O. H. G. uf\ P. G- 
iifpicko (N. E. *' pick up," lex. N. H. G. auflesen). 

Influence of liquids, 

§15. — One of the most striking phenomena of P. G. phonology is 
the extensive levelling influence of r on the preceding vowel, a 
fusion of the vowel and liquid sounds. But before considering this 
specific influence of r it will be better to dispose of the process 
generally termed 


The development of a vowel between a liquid and the imme- 
diately following consonant. P. G. milich (N. H. G. milch, N. 
E. milk) ; cf. O. H. G. miluh \ P. G. aenrot (N. H. G. arbeit, 
lex. N. E. work), R. P. arweit (Z.), Bav, arwet, M. H. G. arebeit 
(arbeit\ O. H. G. arabeit-, P, G. mBrik (mBiikt) (N. H. G. 
markt, N. E. market) ; P. G. baerik (N. H. G. berg, lex. N. E. 
mountain, hill) ; P. G. dBrich (N, H. G. durch, N. E. thorough, 
through); P. G. schtBrik (N. H. G. stark, N. E. stark, lex. 

§16. — This phenomenon extends to the nasals m and n alone fol- 
lowing a vowel. P. G. gend (N. H. G. gehen, N. E. go) ; cf. R. P. 
dhunne (N.) ; P. G. sens (N. H. G. sehen, N. E. see). This 
vowel-development is a natural outgrowth of the vocalic character of 
the liquid which Haldeman has termed in the case of r its " trilled " 
quality. P. G. wBmmds (N. H. G. warns, better wamms, lex. N. 
E. jerkin), R. P. wammes (N.), was considered by Haldeman (§9) 
to be due to such dissyllabization, but it is rather to be regarded 
as the older dissyllable still persisting; cf. M. H. G. wambeis, 
wambes, O. Yt. gambais (Kluge). Most of the forms under §15, 
however, are to be found in O. H. G. ; cf. O. H. G. churib, siarahy 
peragj kirich and variants, also Br. Gr. §69, 3, Weinh. B. G. §162. 

Influence of r on the preceding voweL 

§17. — A much more extensive phenomenon than that treated 
above is the levelling influence of r on the preceding vowel, thus 
reducing N. H. G. a, a, e, /, 0, o, u, U to sounds varying between 
ae and v in P. G. The preponderance seems to be in favor of a^, 


as will appear from the examples. As possible indications of this 
liquid influence in O. H. G. cf. such forms as lemin and limin^ 
sk'erm, skirm, er and fr, but cf. Br. Gr. §31, an. 2, 3, Paul, Mhd. 
Gr. §43. More significant forms are O. H. G. wurhia and worhia^ 
furhien dindforhten (cf. Br. Gr. §32, an. i). 

In P. G. there are practically two of these pre-liquid sounds, 
each having a long and a short ae (S), v (v). The long sounds, 
however, are not of very frequent occurrence. 

P. Q, ae-^-r represents : 

1. Germanic dj N. H. G. a. P. G. aerdvdt, aenrot (N. H. G. 
arbeit, lex. N. E. work), O. H. G. arabeit. 

Examples not numerous in genuine Germfin words, but more 
frequent in forms <^ N. E. where the N. E. pronunciation is retained. 

2. j-umlaut of Germanic a, N. H. G. a, ^ = a, and e •=.'€, P. G. 
aerg^rd (N. H. G. argern, lex. N. E. provoke) ; P. G. faenrd 
(N. H, G./ farben, lex. N. E. dye) ; P. G. aervd (N. H. G. erbe, 
N. E. heir), O. H. G. erbi^ arbi ; P. G. waerk (N. H. G. werg, 
lex. N. E. tow), O. H. G. werc^ werach\ P. G. T^dJtvch (N. H. 
G. zwerg, lex. N. E. dwarf) ; P. G. haerz (N. H. G. herz, N. E. 
heart), R. P. herz (N.) ; P. G. haerbscht (N. H. G. herbst, 
N. E. harvest, lex. autumn). 

3. N. H. G. i<C^ older / or Gothic a, P. G. zaerkdl (N. H. G. 
zirkel, N. E. circle), O. H. G. zirkil «[ Lat. circulum) \ P. G. 
gdhaem (N. H. G. gehim, lex. N. E. brain), O. H. G. himi\ P. 
G. haersch (N. H. G. hirsch, N. E. hart, lex. N. E. deer) ; P. G. 
kaersch (N. H. G. kirsche, N. E. cherry, cf Skeat); P. G. 
kaerch (N. H. G. kirche, N. E. church), R. P. kerch (N.) ; P. G. 
aerdd (N. H. G. irden, N. E. earthen). 

4. N. H. G. d (i??), /-umlaut of o, N. H. G. o (^?). P. G. 
daerrd (N. H. G. dorren (dorren), N. E. dry, lex. cure), O. H. G. 
dorrin ; P. G, haero or hero, cf. §8, 7, {b) (N. H. G. horen, N. E. 
hear) ; P. G. kaerb (N. H. G. korbe, lex. N. E. basket (cf. corbel). 

5. /-umlaut of original «, N. H. G. u, P. G. f9rkaerz9 (N. H. 
G. verkiirzen, lex. N. E. shorten); P. G. waerfld (N. H. G. 
wiirfeln, lex. N. E. throw dice), waerg or waeryd (N. H. G. 
wiirgen, lex. N. E. choke). 

Note I.— P. G. daerbendin =(N. H. G. turpentin, N. E. turpen- 
tine). This is sporadic occurrence of P. G. flt^ = N. H. G. tu 

§18. — For cases of ce cf. P. G. baer (N. H. G. bar, N. E. bear) ; 
P. G, kaer (N. H, G. karre, N. E. car). This word would seen^ 


to be the N. E. car, inasmuch as the vowel is long. It may there- 
fore be a word recently introduced without any reminiscence of 
the German karre. The pronunciation is evidently due to 
English influence. 

§19. — P. G. » 4" ^ represents : 

1. Germanic a, N. H. G. a. P. G. bBrmhaerzich (N. H. G. 
barmherzig, lex. N. E. merciful) ; P. G. dBrm (N. H. G. darm, 
N. E. gut, cf. tharm) ; cf. P. G. dBrmset (N. H. G. darmseite, 
cat-gut) ; P. G, dBrmdl, dBrmlich (cf. N. H. G. taumel, taume- 
lich, lex. N. E. giddiness, giddy ; cf. also P. G. kBrdoIisch for a 
clear case of inserted r, N. H. G. katholisch, cf. Weinh. Alem. 
Gr. §197, Weinh. B. Gr. §163) ; P. G. hBrd (N. H. G. hart, N. E. 
hard) ; P. G. kBrt (N. H. G. karte, N. E. card) ; P. G. bBrgd- 
ment (N. H. G. pergament). 

Note I.— Sporadic is P. G. dw (N. H. G. theer, N. E. tar). 
It is possible that N. E. influence is to be looked for here. 

2. (a) Germanic (?, N. H. G. o. P. G. mBry9 (N. H. G. mor- 
gen, N. E. morning), R. P. morge (N.) ; P. G. dBrn (N. H. G. 
dorn, N, E. thorn) ; P. G. fBmd (N. H. G. vorne, lex. N. E. in 
the front); P. G. Brd (N. H. G. ort, lex. N. E. place); fBf- 
geschtdr (N. H. G. vorgestern, lex. N. E. day before yesterday). 

{b) N. H. G. u, Goth. au. P. G. dBrscht (N. H. G. durst, 
N. E. thirst), Goth. \>aurstei ; P. G. dwdsldBub, -d»b (N. H. G. 
turteltaube, N. E. turtledove); P. G. fBrcht (N. H. G. furcht, 
N. E. fright) ; P. G. hwtich (N. H. G. hurtig, lex. N. E. hurry) ; 
P. G. kBrz (N. H. G. kurz, N. E. curt) ; P. G. schBrz (N. H. G. 
schurz, N. E. short, lex. shirt, apron). 

Note I. — In certain districts there is some variation in the pro- 
nunciation a and o before r, but the presentation given above 
generally obtains (cf. 'm Horn sei Buch, vocabulary). 

Note 2. — For » -f- r cf. forms like w«?r (N. H. G. war, N. E. 
was) ; grr (N. H. G. gar, lex. N. E. even). 

Note 3 — Long u '\-r and long 0'\- r generally remain in P. G. 
Ex. bord, later lengthening as in N. H. G. (N. H. G. bohren, N. E. 
bore), R. P. bohre, O. H. G. borSn, There are, however, excep- 
tions, as P. G. nBr and nur. 

Note 4. — P. G. waerrd, wwrs (N. H. G. werden, worden). 
For r due to the assimilation of the d to the preceding r, and an 
extension of this phenomenon in Westrich, c£ §42. 



§20. — The N. H. G. diphthong au is represented in P. G. by 
two sounds: (i) the long vowel-sound V\ (2) the regular N. H. 
G. diphthong-sound vu. The limits of these sounds, however, 
are not sharply drawn, as will be seen from doublets like dBub 
and d^b (N. H. G. taube). 

1. P. G. V represents (in this N. H. G. au category) : 

(i) Germanic a«<^0. H. G. ou (beginning of 9th century ; cf. 
Br. Gr. §53, §46), N. H. G. au, P. G. Avi (N. H. G. taufe, N. E. 
dip, lex. baptism), O. H, G. ioufa{i) ; P. G. bpm (N. H. G. baum, 
N. E. beam, boom, lex. tree), O. H. G. bounty Germanic form not 
clearly traced ; P. G. ivp (N. H. G. frau, lex. N. E. wife), R. P. 
fraa (N.) ; P. G. l^^fa (N. H. G. laufen, cf. §5, 2). 

2. P. G. vu represents : 

(i) Germanic ^ = 0. H. G. H, N, H. G. au (cf. Br. Gr. §41). 
P. G. bfBud (N. H. G. braut, N. E. bride), O. H. G. briti) P. G. 
hBus (N. H. G. haus, N. E. house), R. P. haus (N.) ; P. G. 
hBut (N. H. G. haut, N. E. hide), R. P. haut (N.) ; P. G. mBul 
(N. H. G. maul, lex. N. E. mouth), R. P. maul (N.) ; P. G. 
mBus (N. H. G. maus, N. E. mouse) ; P. G. SBu (N. H. G. sau, 
N. E. sow) ; P. G. hBuf9 (N. H. G. haufe(n), N. E. heap) ; P. 
G. SBufd (N. H. G. saufen, cf. §9, 2, Note 2). For other repre- 
sentatives of the N. H. G. au (as d=zau, u=zau) c£ §§12, 3, n. 2, 


§21. — The N. H. G. ei like au has two correspondences in 
P. G. I, e, and 2, ei, 

P. G. / represents : 

I. Germanic ai, P. G. del3 (N. H. G. theilen) ; P. G. blech 
(N. H. G. bleich) ; P. G. be^ cf. R. P. been-haus (N.) (N. H. G. 
bein) ; P. G. bed (N. H, G. beide). This simple vowel representa- 
tive of the Germanic a/ was not unknown to O. H. G. (cf. Br. Gr. §44 
an. 4). Braune*s explanation of this phenomenon as due to " ortho- 
graphische nachlassigkeit " is not consistent with the facts pre- 
sented by our dialect, for there is a clear distinction of sound in 
P. G. between e and ei. This e would develop naturally out of 
O, H. G, ei by supposing that the accent was on the first vowel of 
the dipththong and later overshadowed the i. Thus ei pronounced 


as Braune claims, > ^ + ^^ <^"h ^^ ^i ^ of which may be found 
in the dialect pronunciation. Thus the O. S. contraction of at y> t 
would be an analogous process, and the subsequent insertion of 
the i by the scribe would be to restore the original diphthong 
form, which harmonized with his pronunciation of the vowel. 
The O. H. G. forms uutz^ inigan, gihizzan^ bin are all doubtless 
true orthographic representations of the sounds as pronounced in 
certain parts of O. H. G. territory (in these cases Prankish) ; cf. 
P. G. wess (N. H. G. weiss), R. P. wees (Z.), enk^a (N. H. G. 
einig), g9hess9 (N. H. G. geheissen), cf. R. P. heest (N.), Westr. 
h^sst (Sch.), be, (N. H. G. bein). 
P. G. ei represents : 

1. Germanic / (Goth, et)^ N. H. G. ei, P. G. beisso (N. H. G. 
beissen, N. E. bite), O. H. G. bizzan ; P. G. weis (N. H, G. weis, 
N. E. wise), O. H. G. wts. 

2. O. H. G. iu, N. H. G. eu. P. G. fei^r (N. H. G. feuer, N. 
E. fire), O. H. G. fiur ; P. G. scheidr (N. H. G. scheuer, lex. N. 
E. barn), O. H. G. sciura. 

3. /-umlaut of the diphthong au^ N. H. G. du. P. G. heisdr 
(N. H. G. h'auser, N, E. houses). Note that the z-umlaut of V 
(N. H. G. au) is e (cf. §8, 6). 

Note I. — As in the case oip and vu there were doublets, so in 
the case of e and ei the same is true. This vacillation is most 
noticeable in the feminine endings het and heit, ket and keit, 
R. P. kat and keit (Nr). 


§22. — The P. G. diphthong vi (cf. Preface) represents : 

1. O. H. G. «, N. H. G. ai in a few words. P. G. m^^i (N. H, 
G. Mai, N. E. May), O. H. G. meio. 

2. O. H. G. ei, N. H. G. ei. P. G. Pi (N. H. G. ei, N. E. ^gg\ 
O. H. G. ei; P. G. wri (N. H. G. weihe, lex. N, E. hawk), but 
O. H. G. uie. 

3. N. E. oy. P. G. pri (N. E. pie, lex. N. H. G. kuchen). It 
will be noticed that this sound has undergone the change required 
by the phonetic law of P. G., that of pronouncing the a back. 
Accordingly the Italian a + * (^s in Eng. pie) > regularly P. G. 
P + i* 

Most of these sounds noted under pi are limited, however, to a 
comparatively small number of words. 

M. D. Learned, 

iv.-<:harleston provincialisms.* 

In every large city we find peculiarities in the language and 
customs of the people which serve in the aggregate to mark its 
distinctive and individual character. They strike the stranger, 
upon his first contact with its inhabitants, as archaisms or as inno- 
vations, at least as developments peculiar to the place itself. 
They are often, indeed, heirlooms which the founders of the city 
have left it, invaluable and sacred, whose historic worth is incom- 
parable to the philologist and historian. Often a single expression, 
or even sound, or a peculiar custom, conveys an historic truth 
more forcibly to the attentive observer than long chapters of dry 
history. For words, sounds, customs are the mosaics of history 
and the epic poems of the people. Moreover, these peculiarities 
set their seal, as it were, upon its citizens, identifying them with 
itself, and whatever distinction they may acquire, either at home 
or abroad, is reflected upon their native place. They carry us 
back, historically, to the fatherland of those pioneers who founded 
the city and peopled the adjacent country. They still preserve 
the kindred relations to the mother country, even after those of a 
political nature have been severed. We may see this in those 
colonies of Greece which have left their impress upon the country 
colonized, observable after everything Greek has passed away, as 
in Lower Italy, as in Marseilles. An American instance is the 
French influence in Louisiana ; another, though less to the point, 
is the French influence in Canada. 

One might gather invaluable information bearing upon the 
history of a city simply by collecting and collating its stock of old 
and new words, and noting the changes in its customs from decade 
to decade. It is not, however, within the scope of this article to 
attempt such a thorough investigation as that would imply. I 
shall confine myself to the more marked peculiarities in the 
pronunciation, tracing them back to the age when the first settlers 
came over from England. Many sounds still current in the daily 
speech of the Charlestonians were brought from England with the 

^ Read at the Modem Language Convention held in Philadelphia, Pa., on 
December 29, 1887. 


first colony in 1670. It is just after the close of the great Eliza- 
bethan period, Elizabeth having died in 1603; therefore the 
language of the latter part of the i6th and the whole of the 17th 
centuries must form the basis of our comparison. In other words, 
the grammar and pronunciation of Shakespeare will form the 
nearest approximation to that of England at this time. 

Notwithstanding the aid which these facts afford, we are con- 
fronted with a serious difficulty at the very outset, and one which 
every investigation of this kind involves. For " at any one instant 
of time," says Ellis, E. E. P., p. 18, " there are generally three 
generations living. Each middle generation has commenced at a 
different time, and has modified the speech of its preceding gene- 
ration in a somewhat different manner, after which it retains the 
modified form, while the subsequent generation proceeds to change ^ 
that form once more. Consequently there will not be any 
approach to uniformity of speech sounds in any. one place at any 
one time, but there will be a kind of mean, the general utterance 
of the more thoughtful or more respected persons of mature age, 
round which the other sounds seem to hover, and which, like the 
averages of the mathematicians, not agreeing precisely with any, 
may for the purposes of science be assumed to represent all, and 
may be called the language of the district at the epoch assigned." 
An additional difficulty presents itself in the great and almost 
unprecedented change that has swept over the South since the 
late war, modifying not only the customs and habits of its people, 
but changing likewise the whole tenor of their lives. The influence 
upon its language and literature, upon educational interest in gen- 
eral, has been exceedingly great, and the final result cannot yet be 
foretold. During the last twenty years the conservatism of the old 
South has been gradually retiring before the new and progressive 
spirit, and the pronunciation has undergone a more rapid change 
than ever before in its history. The end is not yet. At the present 
day we are in a transitional state of more than ordinary import, 
since the constant laws of phonetic change, ever in operation under 
all circumstances, have been accelerated. In our comparisons it 
will therefore be necessary to remember these facts, and to make 
due allowance for the old and the new, for conservatism and pro- 
gress. Furthermore it must not be forgotten that there is a great 
and fundamental difference between the American and English 
pronunciation. " The divergency of American and English pho- 
netic practice/' says Bell, in Essays and Postscripts on Elocution, 


p. 14, " seems to be less a modern departure on this side of the 
Atlantic than a survival of early English characteristics ; just as 
many words which have been classed as Americanisms are in 
reality old English terms which had dropped out of use in their 
native land." Similarities may therefore be misleading and it will 
be well to be on our guard against them. Bearing these precau- 
tions in mind we may safely venture an average comparison of the 
pronunciation in different sections of the country. 

A stranger in conversation with a Charlestonian first observes a 
slight shade of difference in the pronunciation of certain vowels and 
words. Peculiarities of this kind are naturally more marked 
among the middle and lower classes, though the prevailing sound 
which a given letter may have acquired in any place pervades to a 
certain extent all classes of society. This is especially true of 
Charleston, which, from its very foundation to the present day, has 
ever been conservative ; it has also been seclusive in the sense that 
it has never had a large floating population of mixed nationality like 
so many of our American cities. Hence the facility with which it 
has preserved certain vowel sounds and grammatical phrases that 
have changed in other places with the influx of new influences, the 
rapid progress of commercial and inland intercourse, and the vary- 
ing population. Another important element tending to the preser- 
vation of older, or provincial, English pronunciations and phrases 
is to be sought in the fact that the South has ever been conservative 
in its literature and education. The good old English authors of 
the days of their forefathers have ever been their favorite reading, 
the earlier period being mostly preferred. Few books and well 
read has been their motto. In their education they have been just 
as conservative. They have not advanced with the rapid strides 
of the North and West, nor have the American features of our 
present educational system received so great encouragement at the 
South as in the more progressive sections. The South has added 
almost nothing to its development. In ante-bellum times the sons, 
and often the daughters, received the principal part of their educa- 
tion abroad, in England, France, or Germany, or in all of these 
countries. As a consequence their education has never been 
thoroughly American; they have never thoroughly identified 
themselves with the American idea, have been but little influenced 
by American literature, have lived more under the influence of 
English ideas than the people of the North and West ; naturally 
enough the England they left when they came here. For they were 


too far from the mother country to feel the pulse that has been 
advancing England and have only seen and felt its faintest glimmer. 
Not that the South has not produced any writers or poets. She 
has always had her representatives in the field of literature, but 
they have ever been of the English school, or else peculiarly South- 
em, never purely American in the broad sense of the word. One 
good result has followed. The South has hitherto not been flooded 
with vicious cheap literature to such an extent as the North and 
West. For the cheap literatures of England and Europe did not 
stray so far, only the standard authors being imported ; that of the 
North did not find its way to the South. Hence the tone of the 
reading public has been higher, though the proportional number 
of readers has been comparatively less. Reading has never pene- 
trated so far downward into the lower strata of society as in 
England and the North. Unfortunately the new South has been 
precipitated into the whirl and bustle of progressive America, and 
the taste of her youth is becoming vitiated by the floods of cheap 
books which have in a measure acquired a monopoly throughout 
the whole country in the reading world of the middle and lower 
classes. Conservatism is consequently passing away to give place 
to the new order of things. Through her greater contact with the 
outer world Charleston is gradually losing her older pronunciation 
and archaic forms and expressions. The pronunciation of the 
vowels as taught in the schools is gradually superseding that of 
the fathers and mothers. In a few decades the latter will have 
entirely passed away. How much of its old conservatism the hew 
South will throw off" is a question of the future. 

As ** the essence of every living language lies in its sounds, not 
in its letters," which in England have not followed the many 
changes the sounds themselves have undergone in their develop- 
ment firom the earliest period to recent times, it will be advisable 
to begin the investigation with those sounds of the spoken Charles- 
tonian English peculiar to itself, and then trace the sound back, 
historically to its origin. This will lead us in England through the 
i8th and 17th centuries, and even as far as the i6th, to which 
periods the similar and divergent sounds of the North and West 
are also traceable, when not native growths. 

As phoneticians have not yet adopted a uniform set of signs for 
the diflerent sounds of the alphabet, I shall use those employed 
by Ellis, modified as the case may demand by those of Sweet, 
Vietor, Sievers and other phoneticians, always giving authority. 


In discussing the vowels it will be more in accordance with 
scientific principles to begin either with the palatal or guttural 
vowels rather than to proceed in the usual order from a to u or t, 
and then retrace our steps to a and pass to i or u. Since it makes 
but little difference whether u or / be treated first, I shall follow the 
order indicated by Storm, Eng. PhiloL, p. 64 (cf. also Sievers, 
Phon., pp. 96-7) and treat them in the order i, e, a, o, u, consider- 
ing in each case the intermediary sounds falling between the prin- 
cipal vowels. Then will follow the compound vowels and the 

The long /-sound, as is the case with all the long vowels, is 
accompanied by the vanish, cf. the pronoun he (pr. Hii'i); but this 
sound, which the words ear, herCy hear^ commonly have elsewhere, 
has not entirely replaced the older pronunciation of (ee) in there 
(dheer), Sweet's low-front-narrow, nearly like French p^re^faire. 
In the more common pronunciation the vowel sound of ear, air^ 
/^ar=lacryma, and tear:=zto rend, are not distinguishable. Hear, 
care f /air, etc., belong to this class and will be treated under (e). 
Pierce and the proper names Peirce^ Pierce, Pearce, (pr. piirs) 
always have the long /-sound, never being pronounced (pers) as in 
New England. Either and neither fluctuate between (ii) and (ai) 
as elsewhere. In one word ** tester" the long /-sound (tiistr) is 
the only pronunciation, whereas it always has the short sound of 
(e) in met elsewhere. In words from the Latin, like simultaneous, 
etc., the (i) is more generally pronounced (ai), rarely (/), the 
mpfe ordinary pronunciation in the rest of the country and in 
England. This would seem to be the pronunciation of the edu- 
cated. In commenting upon the /-sound of the i6th century Ellis 
remarks (p. 105, 1. c. ) : " The fine clear (i) is very difficult for an 
Englishman to pronounce, and although the Scotch can and do 
pronounce it, they not unfrequendy replace it with (e) or (e), not 
(e). In this respect they resemble the Italians who have so 
frequently replaced Latin / by their e chiuso or (e). The Dutch 
may be said not to know (i), as they regularly replace it by {e). 
The English sound (/) lies between (i) and (e). The position of 
the tongue is the same as for (i), but the whole of the pharynx and 
back parts of the mouth are enlarged, making the sound deeper 
and obscurer." There is a pronunciation of the sound (/) here 
which corresponds in a measure to that just described by Ellis. 
The conjunction if is frequently pronounced (ef), for that is the 
sound I always hear rather than (rf). I do not remember to have 
heard this sound in any other word. 



The long (e) is equivalent to (^^*j), but the shades between (a) 
and (e) difTer slightiy from those of the North and West, often 
approaching nearer to those in vogue in England. Such words 
as care^ there, Mary, which usually have the sound of a in at, cat, 
pat, (9e), (hence kp^J, dhp^J, mpeiri), are pronounced (keeJ, 
dheeJ, meeari), etc. Here belong e'er, ne'er, ere, there, where, 
bear, pear, tear±z\acrymai, tearzizto rend, swear, wear, fair, hair, 
here, their, scarce, mare, pair, prayer, stair, stare, chair, spear, 
dispear, gear, dear, deer, appear, and others. This pronunciation 
also prevails in England, though the other is possibly more 
frequent My personal observation fails in this respect, so that I 
am obliged to draw my inference from the remarks of Ellis and 
Sweet. Nor is it at all peculiar to the South ; it appears as an 
individualism in different parts of the country, especially with 
older people. The schools and the inexorable law of a ''standard 
pronunciation " are rapidly suppressing this relic of an earlier age, 
and one must observe the older people and those who have not 
had the benefit of the modern school drill to hear it spoken most 
perfectly. Still the most cultured people often use it ; I have even 
heard it from the platform and the pulpit. It is very ancient, going 
back to Chaucer and the earlier periods of the language (cf. Ellis, 
E. E. P., p. 262). Here the spelling was mostly (ee), occasionally 
(ea). The latter spelling (ea) was introduced in the i6th century 
to indicate a different pronunciation, just as (oa) in words like boar 
was introduced to indicate a different pronunciation from (00). 
" It was not till after the middle of the i6th century that anything 
like a rule appeared, and then ee was used for (ii), and ea for (ee)," 
Ellis, ibid. p. 78. " The introduction of ee, ea, was therefore a 
phonetic device, intended to assist the reader," ibid. 79. " The o 
which became (uu) was written 00, and the o which remained 
unchanged became oa^'^ It is Sweet's low-front-narrow, and has 
been especially treated by Prof, ten Brink in the Anglia I, p. 526 
ff., with particular reference to Chaucer. As nearly as can be deter- 
mined at this late date, the sound of the present Charlestonian 
pronunciation in these words is identical with that of the earlier 
period of Chaucer, and it can be traced through all succeeding 
periods of the language. I cannot say that it is "exceedingly 
interesting, now, to find in Chaucer hair written generally heer 
or here,'* as Prof. Smith in the Southern Bivouac for Nov., 1885, 
considers it ; for English spelling, especially in the present state, 
could show many very striking examples, not only of interest but 


of wonder, whether considered scientifically, historically, or practi- 
cally. At that time they tried to reflect the pronunciation in the 
spelling, and were at least consistent, though often failing in their 
attempt. It is, however, a matter of interest to be able to trace 
back a peculiar pronunciation to a remote period and observe that 
it has actually maintained itself over five hundred years through 
all the vicissitudes of time and place, and still remains as a monu- 
ment of antiquity in the spoken language of to-day. This has all 
the greater significance in a language which has undergone such 
violent and frequent phonetic changes as the English during that 
long period. In the 17th and i8th centuries we find the same 
pronunciation of many of these words, though other pronunciations 
were also current. Thus in the 17th century we have dhp^i (for 
both there and their) as well as dheej, etc. ; likewise t^«, tsh^J 
(for teary chair) in the i8th century ; also m^J, dh^J, etc. But 
(tiir), (tshiir), (a pronunciation often heard at the present day) were 
not uncommon then. When Prof. Smith (1. c.) says that the pro- 
nunciation (neej), etc., instead of (niij), etc., "may be due to the 
principle in philology that the Germans call Lassigkeit (careless- 
ness, laziness)," and that " it requires, for example, more effort to 
say (niii) than (neei), and that this pronunciation may be, in 
effect, the result of the same influence which makes the typical 
Southerner speak more slowly and drawl more than the Yankee," 
he errs in point of fact and history. How could that explain the 
(neej), etc., of Chaucer, which Prof. Smith cites as being the same 
as the modern Charlestonian ? Chaucer certainly had nothing of 
the typical Southerner in him, nor did the later Britons who pro- 
nounced these words (nili), etc., have any of the characteristics of 
the Yankee. Moreover, Max Miiller has long ago assumed that 
phonetic change is due to the very Lassigkeit of which Prof. 
Smith speaks, and here we have the more difficult (according to 
Prof. Smith) following the more easy. Finally it requires no more 
effort to say (niij) than (neej), as every one can convince him- 
self by trial. The real explanation lies in a different phonetic 
principle. A reference to Ellis, E. E. P., p. 89 ff"., would have 
given Prof. Smith a clearer idea of the process of the change from 
(ee) to (ii), a change more far-reaching in the 17th and i8th 
centuries than now. Even at the present day we often hear very old 
people speak of a (tshiij) and (obliidzh) ; the very common pronun- 
ciation of (diif) for (deef) is too well known to need mention here. 
We find the same change in the modern Greek and in the passage 


of the Latin to the modern Romance languages. Ellis considers it 
due to " a remarkable tendency to thinness of sound owing to a 
predilection for the higher lingual or palatal vowels," p. 89. " In 
the i6th century the spelling ee was introduced for those words in 
which the sound has actually altered to (li)," (ibid. 227), and the 
tendency since has been from (ee) to (ii). These are only monu- 
ments of the early pronunciation retained at the present day. The 
words agaifiy against, which have as a rule the pronunciation (agEn, 
agEnst) in the North and West, are almost always pronounced 
(ag^tfn, ag^^nst) in Charleston, a pronunciation which reaches 
back as far as the 17th century. The Latin prefix (^pre-) generally 
has here the sound (ii) in words Yik^ predecessor, etc.,(prii-di-ses-j), 
though (pred-i-ses-j) is not uncommon. I mention here merely as 
an individualism a word which I have heard pronounced occasion- 
ally in a peculiar manner ; it is the word very, which sounds as 
near as I can determine, like vj/ (Sweet's low-mixt-narrow, p. 27). 
Speaking in general terms and not with that strict accuracy 
which a phonetician might demand, the a-sound stands between 
the palatal and the guttural vowels, shading oif towards e and i on 
the one hand, and towards o and u on the other. The difference 
of sound observed in different localities results from the different 
shade or color adopted as the standard in any particular place. 
The pure a-sound as in faiher, or its Italian sound, is rare in 
Charleston; the tendency is rather to the p^-sound, as in man, cat, 
sad. Thus pa, ma, are pronounced (p^^, mp^), and not (pA, mA), 
the more common pronunciation. Before the mute / followed by 
m. we have the long (^p^), as in (bath, pr. hse^eih). Hence calm, 
palm, psalm are pronounced (kpe?em, i^^e^m, sp^^m). This 
sound also is frequently accompanied by the vanish {9e9e^'). 
Furthermore we have the same sound for a and au when they 
precede/" (^, gK), ft, n, nd, th, s(ss), and ^-tenuis ; ask, demand, 
ant and aunt, glance, bath, laugh, example, launch, grant, com- 
mand, dance, past, gaunt, jaunt, etc.)i and never (aask, di-maand), 
etc. The short p^-sound reaches back to the early part of the 17th 
century and long (^9e) to the middle of the same, but we also 
have (aa) in bath, ask, grant, as at present ; this may have been 
the more common pronunciation. Words in -aim were pronounced 
-AAm (awm) in the 17th century and are now divided between 
(-aam) and (-p^p^m). What Prof. Smith really means by writing 
cdlm,psdlm, is difficult to say, for the vowel a is here long and not 
short, nor is the circumflex the phonetic sign of any sound what- 


ever ; it usually indicates mere shortness. The contest still going 
on in such words as gaunt, haunly jaunty daunt, etc., began in the 
early part or middle of the i6th century. The earlier pronunciation 
of (au, as in the German Haus, hence gaunt) probably changed to 
{aa) or (aa), and then passed entirely over to (aa), as in (awn). In 
America we still retain the two latter, (gaant), in N. Y., and 
(gAAnt) in various parts of the country, and have added also the 
thinner pronunciation of (^pe^ent) ; the latter is very common and 
seems to be gaining ground (cf. Ellis, E. E. P., pp. 146-148). 
Some shorten the sound to (gprat). The sound (gAAnt) appears 
to have been the favorite in the 17th century and divides the i8th 
and 19th centuries with (g^e^ent). Again the letter a has been 
influenced by the preceding w in the one word was, so that one 
hears (wAz) instead of the ordinary (waz). In the pronunciation 
of many students the French (oi), therefore, sounds (wa) and not 
(wa, as rwA, Iwa, for rwa, Iwa). 

In discussing the ^-sounds we pass almost imperceptibly from 
the palatal to the guttural vowels, of which we have already noticed 
those belonging more particularly to a proper. The three usual 
sounds of Oy two of which are long, as in no, more, and one short 
as in noi, provided this should not rather be classed with the 
guttural sounds of a, are found here. The o in not probably 
stands on the boundary line between guttural a and o. Like the 
other long vowels when not followed by a second vowel, the long 
^-sounds are accompanied by a vanish, though in very rare 
instances the continental pure is heard. It is my impression that 
we in America generally pronounce the o in no and more exactly 
alike, or begin them alike and the glide on the r alone makes a 
slight difference towards the end of the sound, while in England, 
and individually in Charleston also, possibly in other places, it 
frequently has the sound of a in a/I, war, or aw in law (cf Vietor, 
p. 35, Ellis 1. c). I have often heard this sound in Charleston in 
such words as m^re, oar, etc., (mAAJ, aaj). This sound is 
nearly like that in the word morning (mAJniq) and not at all like 
that in mourning (m^^Jniq), between which Ellis and Sweet 
appear to make no difference. This sound (o) is, however, never 
heard in home, stone, etc., as Ts often the case in other parts of the 
country. The two words dog and god always have the sound (aa, 
as dAAg, gAAd). We still distinguish between borne (b^^rn) and 
born (bArn), mourning (m^^rniq) and morning (mArniq), showing 
more conservatism than England, as this distinction reaches back 


to the 17th century (cf. Storm, ibid. p. 93). The word /^^r some- 
times receives the sound (pooj) instead of (puai). The disap- 
pearance of the r after o, and under all circumstances, is not so 
prevalent in this country as in England, so that we still make a 
distinction between lord (lAad) and laud (lAd), cf. Ellis and Victor 
as above. The omission of r in more (moos), door (dooi), etc., 
will be mentioned under the letter r. The Latin prefix (pro-^) 
retains the long sound of (00) with rnaiiy people, programme ^ 
progress, process (pr^^-gnsm, pr^-gres, pr^^-ses), rarely (proD- 
gres, prDD-ses), never, however, proo-grBm in any part of 
America. The short sound is that of o in odd. Modern English 
has developed a tendency to lengthen the short radical vowel 
before the letters r, /, and the combinations /oT, mb^ nd, ng, a ten- 
dency which can be traced back- to Chaucer. The words pond, 
bond and a few others are generally counted among the exceptions 
to this law, but here pond and bond usually receive the pronunci- 
ation (pAAnd, bAAnd). The preposition to is almost invariably 
pronounced (t^^), exactly as in the time of Chaucer. 

In English we have a less rounded (labialized, or, as Sweet with 
more justice calls it, absence of lip-pouting or non-projection of the 
lips), more open u than the continental ; the close u appears rather 
as an individualism with us. The pure z^-sound as in toOy rule 
(with a slight vanish, of course) offers no variety, except that the 
pure 24-sound is retained in words like natural, literature, etc., but 
we shall consider the omission of the y-palatal sound after / under 
dentals. That shade of the t^-sound heard in put, pull, book, pud- 
ding, etc., has passed entirely over to its sound in but, hence the 
good majority of Charlestonians pronounce these words (pat, pal, 
bak, padiq; or is it, perhaps, the close Scotch u in come up. 
Sweet's low-back-narrow? Not having accurately observed the 
Scotch sound I am unable to decide. Ellis mentions the coexis- 
tence of the two sounds in many words, as (tu pat, bat3her). 
The first (tu pat) is very common here, but the second (batsher) 
seems more an individualism (Ellis, p. 175). The same remark 
applies to Walker's list of words given by Ellb, p. 175. Some 
have one sound, some the other, but all may have the a-sound 
with' individual people. According to Ellis the south of England has 
(a), while the north retains the older «-sound of the 17th century. 
The a-sound is a later development I have never noticed wad 
for would, nor wamBn for woman, but should not be surprised to 
hear it in individual cases. It is a pronunciation often heard in 


England, and I have heard it frequently with older people in 
Western New York and elsewhere. Sheridan gives a list of what 
he calls Irishisms, among which this sound takes a prominent place, 
and we recognize many of the Charlestonianisms just mentioned 
(bal, bash, pash, pal, palpit, padiq, kashcn, fat, pat, drav, 
strav), all of which are relics of this 17th century pronunciation, 
adopted by the Irish when they accepted the English tongue for 
their own. This sound is still heard in England and in various parts 
of America (generally with older people) and shows the tenacity 
with which certain sounds perpetuate themselves. The same may 
be said of all the peculiarities noticed. They date back without 
exception to the old country, and are not a new phonetic develop- 
ment in this country. 

The compound vowels offer but few peculiarities. The digraph 
(ei) has the simple sound in the word leisure^ which has the two 
pronunciations (lezhi and liizhj), the latter being the more gen- 
eral. The (oi) in words like boily toily oil^ has often among the 
lower classes the vulgar pronunciation of (bail), which then 
passes wholly over to (b^l, as in G. Hain) ; the first element of 
the compound seems to be rather an a (cf. Vietor, ibid. p. 37) 
than the u in but, which Ellis prefers. The employment of the 
2<-sound in but would seem affected in America. It is only men- 
tioned here because the long / in mine in rare individual cases has 
the former sound (moin). The first element appears to be the o 
in not and the second the i in river. Thus it passes from the vulgar 
pronunciation of (bail, tail, ail, to the correct one (boil, etc.). The 
French beauty has given us beauty ^ written earlier bewte (beutz). 
The modern French pronunciation has not reacted upon this 
word, though it has upon compounds from the same root (beau- 
fort, beaufain) adopted into English. The North Carolina town 
Beau/art reflects the modern French pronunciation (b^^-fort), 
while the South Carolina town of the same name reflects the i6th 


century pronunciation of these words (beu-fort, both French and 
English of the i6th century). Beaufain is the name of a street in 
Charleston and is pronounced (beu-fe^n). I have not observed 
(sheu and seu) for show and sow, though they exist in Western 
New York. 

The consonants do not offer many variations from normal pro- 
nunciation in other parts of the country, but a few peculiarities call 
for our attention. I will begin with the w which is nearest the 
vowels, to whichever class it may finally be placed. Mr. Bristed 


in his "Notes on American Pronunciation," quoted by Ellis, 
p. 1220, says: "The inhabitants of Charleston, and all the 
southern and south-eastern part of the State, pronounce initial w 
(whether at the beginning of a word or syllable) like v. Like v 
to me ; perhaps you would call it (bh) or German w (which I own 
myself unable to distinguish from v). This peculiarity is common 
to all classes, except those of the upper class who have lived in 
Europe or at the North. They are not aware of it. I cannot find 
any European origin for it. It is supposed to come from the 
negroes." Ellis also quotes from a letter of Prof. March : " A 
large part of the people of this region (Easton, Pennsylvania, U. S.), 
which was settled by Germans, do not use the teeth for English v^ 
or make with w the usual English sonancy, and they are said, 
therefore, to exchange w and v. I dare say the facts are the same 
at Charleston, South Carolina, of which Mr. Bristed speaks. I 
have heard it said that the South Carolina change was started by 
German market gardeners about Charleston, but one would think 
that there must have been some general tendency to this lautver- 
schiebung, or it could hardly have gained currency, as it has, among 
the proudest and precisest of colonial literary aristocracies." The 
fact of the matter is that the above statement rests upon a misun- 
derstanding. The exchange spoken of is entirely unknown here. 
I have never heard it myself, nor have any of my colleagues or 
friends, and some of them are native Charlestonians of over seventy- 
five years, with excellent hearing and remarkable powers of 
observation; such an abnormal sound as that would never have 
escaped them. In my German classes the students of German 
extraction are inclined to pronounce the German 7u (bh) like the 
English Wy a fault which it is impossible to correct. The native 
Charlestonians, however, never make that mistake, but always like our v. There is a large German and Dutch 
element here who speak a passably good English ; they may 
exchange the two sounds under discussion, and this may have led 
to the mistake. I have never heard it, if they, do.* The oppo- 
site exchange of w for v is occasionally heard among the lower 
classes, and more rarely even among the higher. Thus we hear 
people speak of their wocaiioriy of being prowoked, etc. In the 
combination wh the h is always silent. WheUy where^ etc., are 
pronounced (wen, wer). 

^ Since writing the above I have met one person who makes the mistake 
under discussion. I was told that a great many did the same. I hope to 
investigate the matter and give the results to the Modern Language Notes. 


The American r has a more distinct sound than Ellis (E. E. P. 
p. 196; cf. also Sweet, Handb. of Phonet, p. 186; Storm, Engl. 
Philol. p. 84 and 105-106) seems to admit for England, although 
far different from the continental r, and perhaps heard more in its 
effect upon the surrounding vowels than in any distinct sound of 
its own. But the practiced ear will always detect the distinct r- 
sound in such words 2.% farther y lord^ armSy bum^ curb, huri, lurk, 
in comparison ^\^ father, laud, alms, bun, cub, hui,^ Itick, which 
are by several phoneticians said to be identical in quality though 
differing in quantity. Bell in his University Lectures (1887, p. 52) 
makes the following excellent distinction between the English and 
the American r: "The English r is abrupt and purely lingual; 
while the American r is comparatively long, as well as labialized." 
Trautmann in his book on Die Sprachlaute distinguishes three 
grades of the r under consideration : a) in accented syllables like 
fur, work, scourge, etc., where the ris long; b) in unaccented 
syllables where the r is half long, or short, or sometimes under- 
short, and has only the r-sound without the addition of a silent 
vowel, as m fibre, acre, mere, care, beer, tear, fair, etc.; c) the r- 
sound is very fleeting, leaning toward open French o in encore 
when a voiceless consonant follows, as sort, pork, course, but is 
more distinct when a voiced consonant follows, as lord, board, form, 
etc. When the vowel a precedes, it is, however, almost inaudible, 
as in hard, harsh, harp, etc. But never in any of these cases does 
the r-sound, according to Trautmann, entirely disappear, except 
in the pronunciation of the lower classes. These remarks apply in 
general to the pronunciation of the r in Charleston, where there 
is always a perceptible r-sound. The final r differs in some cases 
from that in the North and West, and in England. I have never 
observed advenir, djunktr, lektr, neetr, pastr (f), piktr, raptr, 
skriptr, ledjisleetr, sewRtr, eeprn, so often heard in other parts 
of the country, i. e. the pure r-sound after the dental instead of tjur 
or tshjr as in the standard pronunciation. This sound may, and 
probably does, exist here. The vulgar pronunciation of (windr) 
to rhyme with (sindr) (window, cinder) is frequent enough, as is 
the case with all the other peculiarities in the pronunciation of r 
mentioned by Ellis, ibid. p. 201. We have already touched upon 
the disappearance of r-final in words like more, door (pr. mooB, 
dooB), etc. It is a negligence similar to that of the dropping of the 
g in the termination -ing, also very common here, less so at the 
North ^nd West. In the case of r the vanish often disappears and 
only (moo, doo) is heard. 


In passing to the dental series we observe first of all that the 
common terminations (tjur, tjr, tshr) are not especial favorites in 
Charleston. They are of course frequently met with in words like 
(n^rtshr, n^^tshur), but are avoided in n^^hurBl, or n^tshrl, 
litr^tshur, ledjlsk^shr, etc., which are here pronounced n^tur^l, 
litrBtur, ledjisl^^tur, etc., or sometimes even nPrtjunsl, etc. This 
is the dividing line of the 17th century, and the earlier pronunci- 
ation has been retained here. 

The opposite tendency manifests itself in the guttural series 
where the similar change resulting from the introduction of an /- 
sound between k^ g^ and a foUowmg o^-souad has modified the char- 
acter in words like cari^ garden (kjart, gjardn), etc. Here belong 
cart^ kind, scarlet^ sky, guard, guide, garrison, carriage, girl, etc. 
(pr. kjart, kjind, etc.). This change can be traced back as far as the 
i8th century (Ellis, ibid. p. 230) and possibly existed even earlier. 
Trautmann explains this phonetic change thus: **Anstatt der 
iiblichen hintergaumigen k und g hort man zuweilen, namentlich 
von alteren leuten, ^, und;^, also die mit j undy gleichortigen mit- 
telgaumenklapper. • . . Was Walker und Smart fiir eine art. von 
eingeschobenem i halten, ist das hohe schleifartige nebenge- 
rausch welches die mittelgaumenklapper zu begleiten pflegt, und 
welches durch das abziehen der mittelzunge vom mittelgaumen 
entsteht," (ibid. p. 183). Prof. C. F. Smith in his article in the 
Southern Bivouac for Nov. 1885 gives this as a peculiarity in 
Virginia also. It is not confined to Virginia and South Carolina. 
I have frequently heard it in Boston and Cambridge, Mass., and 
have no doubt that it is an individual peculiarity all over the 
country. Here it is the prevailing pronunciaGon. I have, how- 
ever,, never heard it called a "breaking" before; that expression 
is only applied to vowels, as far as I am aware. This process is 
called the palatalization of the guttural, and is probably as old as 
language itself. The example " geard " is also very unfortunate, 
as that is not a^, but the palatal 3 (cf. Sievers, pp. 61 and 118, and 
Trautmann, p. 183). The modern yard is the reflex of the A. S. 
(^eard), while garden, though belonging to the same root, does 
not appear until Chaucer's time, and even then with the hard 
guttural g. Guide appears about the same time (Chaucer) and 
comes to us through the Romance languages, though of Teutonic 
origin ; hence it could not have been influenced in any way by the 
A. S. Kind is A. S., but did not have this pronunciation at that 
early date, and probably not till the i8th century. 


The sound of ^ in assume^ consume^ enstiey pursue ^ pursuer ^ sue, 
suety vacillates between (sh, sj, s). I have heard all three sounds 
in one or another of these words, (enshu, ensju, or ensu). (asjum, 
consjum), etc., is the pronunciation of the schools and educated 
classes, (ashum, etc.), that of the careless and vulgar, while (asuum, 
etc.), belongs to the older pronunciation of the latter part of the 
1 6th and early part of the 17th centuries, having been preserved 
here, though now seldom heard. This double contagion of the 
development of an i before the u of such words, and the consequent 
passage of ^ to sk, has not spread to other words like suicide, sui^ 
adie, etc., as was the tendency in England in the i8th century. 
Another peculiarity in the pronunciation of ^ in combination with / 
is heard in the pronunciation of th^ word oyster ^ which here often 
has the sound of (oishtr). The general pronunciation is, however, 
the pure (st), though my own impression is that most people here 
give to the si a sound midway between that of (st) as heard in the 
English pronunciation of this combination, also heard in many 
parts of Germany, and (sht) as heard in the rest of Germany. It 
is certainly sharper than the st of the North and not so sharp as 
the (sht). 

The exchange of v for w in provoke, vocation, etc., has already 
been mentioned under w. 

The older voiceless sound of th in with prevails here, (widh) 
never being heard. In all other cases the (th) and (dh) conform 
to the general usage throughout the entire land. 

The above is by no means intended to be a complete and 
exhaustive account of all the peculiarities in the pronunciation of 
Charleston, as that would imply an extended investigation into all 
the strata of society and the employment of competent persons to 
carry it on. I have only given such sounds as I have heard in my 
daily intercourse with the people without even attempting to 
exhaust the subject. I must again caution all not to understand 
the above observations on the peculiarities of Charleston pronun- 
ciation as applying to Charleston alone. The peculiar circum- 
stances under which the whole country was settled would exclude 
any monopoly of sound by any one place, and the different dialec- 
tical peculiarities of England would afford a sufficient variety of 
sounds, both in the mother country and in America, to make the 
comparison of the sounds heard in one place with those of another 
an interesting subject of investigation. Moreover, I have only 
attempted to treat those sounds based upon the earlier Anglo- 


Saxon and Romance elements found in England after the Conquest, 
leaving out of consideration the French Huguenot and German 
elements of the population, both of which offer interesting problems 
for the phonetician. Again, the reflex influence of the negro ele- 
ment upon the pronunciation would repay a careful study, and it 
is to be hoped that some one with a sufficient acquaintance with 
the Gullah dialect will some day give the world the result of a 
careful comparison of the mutual influence upon the language and 
pronunciation of both whites and blacks. 

I have not touched in this paper upon the grammatical part of 
the language, but have notes of interest which I hope some day to 
give to the public. 

Sylvester Primer. 

CoLUiGB OF Chahlbston, S. C, Dec., 1887. 



In this paper there is presented simply a classification and list 
of all gerunds and gerundives found in the Letters of the Younger 
Pliny, leaving out of account the letters written by Trajan to 
Pliny in the tenth book. Also all cases of the so-called peri- 
phrastic conjugation, where the nominative or accusative of the 
gerundive is used with some form of esse, are omitted. A state- 
ment of the different constructions with their places of occurrence, 
and an estimate of their comparative frequency, is given. The 
results are interesting and may be useful in making comparisons 
with other writers of the Silver Age. 

Gertmd. i. Genitive of the gerund depending upon a sub- 
stantive and used absolutely, without any modifying or dependent 
words except in five cases. 

Dependent upon causa : vivendi 5. 5. 4, i. 12. 3 ; recitandi 5. 
3. 8, 7. 17. 5, 8. 21. 6 ; edendi 7. 17. 5 ; auspicandi, studendi 3. 5. 8 ; 
placendi 3. 18. 10; irascendi 5. i. 6; praeloquendi 8. 21. 3; con- 
sulendi 7. 27. 16; agendi 6. 31. 12; with tempus: — audiendi 1. 13. 
2 ; loquendi 3. 20. 3 ; dicendi 6. 5. 3 ; studendi 7. 9. 16 ; vendendi, 
comparandi 6. 19. 6 ; solvendi 7. 19. 10 ; silendi 8. 14. 6; censendi 
9. 13. 13; with ratio: — edendi 1.8. 13; quiescendi i. 5. 16; reci- 
tandi 5. 12. I, 7. 17. I, 6; medendi 9. 37. 3; with jus : — recu- 
sandi 2. 6. 2; conducendi 4. 13. 7; dicendi 9. 13. 7; querendi 9. 
13. 15 ; referendi* ad te 10. 31. i ; agendi 10. 56. 4 ; with neces- 
sitas: — ambiendi i. 14. 7; judicandi 4. 13. 7, 10. 66. 2; querendi 
6. 22. 3; computandi 6. 33. 9; agendi 9. 40. 2; with studmm: — 
scribendi, recitandi i. 13. 5; orandi 7. 9. 7; piscendi, navigandi, 
natandi 9. 33. 3 ; with cupido .'—audiendi 6. 5. 5 ; habendi 9. 30. 4 ; 
with genus : — studendi i. 6. 2 ; emendandi 7. 17. 7 ; praecipiendi 
8. 14. 6 ; venandi 9. 16. i ; with mos: — audiendi 2. 14. 9; in pub- 
licum consulendi* 9. 13. 21 ; discedendi 10. 96. 7 ; vf'iih/acu/ias: — 
dicendi 3. 3. 6 ; docendi 7. 27. i ; testandi* erga eum 8. 6. 5 ; with 
potestas : — eligendi 2. 6. 2 ; inquirendi, denuntiandi 6. 5. 2 ; with 
modus: — dicendi 8. 14. 6; dolendi, timendi 8. 17. 6; with occa- 
sio: — legendi, audiendi 2. 2. 9; scribendi 3. 17. i; pretia vivendi 
I. 12. 4; audiendi of&cio i. 13. 6; copiam dicendi i. 20. 18; 
dicendi species 2. 5. 6 ; dulcedo tecum loquendi* 2. 15. 12 ; initium 


gradatim desinendi* 2. 14. 14 ; pulchritudo jungendi 3. 19. 2 ; 
tacendi modestia, sedendi dignitas 3. 20. 3 ; adeundi locus 4. 16. i ; 
scribendi finis, legend! 5. 5. 6; stimulus monendi 5. 17. 4 ; carendi 
metus 5. 19. 5; forma negandi 5. 2a 7; spem fruendi 6. i. i ; 
lassitudine sedendi 6. 17. 2 ; diversitate censendi 6. 27. 3 ; dicendi 
magistrum 6. 29. 4 ; eloquendi varietate 6. 33. 8 ; vis explicandi 
7. 9. 2: carendi dolor 8. 5. 2; dolendi voluptas 8. 16. 5; scribendi 
fiduciam 9. i. 3 ; timendi pudor 9. 33. 6; procedendi libido 8. 6. 3. 
The citations marked * contain a modifying word dependent 
upon the gerund. This construction occurs 94 times, and makes 
up 59 per cent of all the gerund uses in Pliny. The frequency 
with which this genitive is used with a few words is noticeable. It 
is found in 48 per cent of all its occurrences with one of these six 
words, causa, iempus, ratio, jus, necessitas and siudium. This 
construction seems, from a comparison with the Annals, to be 
about twice as frequent in Pliny as in Tacitus. 

2. Genitive of the gerund depending upon a substantive 
(except in one instance) and used transitively with a dependent 

(a) With a neuter pronoun : — temptandi aliquid ratio i. 5. 16 ; 
faciendi aliquid vel non faciendi vera ratio 6. 27. 4. 

{S) With a personal pronoun: — occasiones obligandi me 2. 13. 
I ; materiam se proferendi 9. 13. 2. 

{c) With demonstrative pronoun : — tempus emendandi eum, id 
est disperdendi 7. 12. i ; propositum ilium reprehendi sed hunc 
tuendi 9. 19. 7. 

(flf) With an adjective: — cupidum ulteriora audiendi 2. 10. 7 ; 
studium magna et inusitata noscendi 2. 11. 10; facultatem nova 
magna vera censendi 6. 27. 5 ; similia inveniendi facultas 7. 9. 2 ; 
materia plura scribendi 9. 2. 2 ; with a substantive :— jus tribunatum 
petendi 2. 9. 2 ; dimidias et dandi et petendi 6. 2. 5 ; necessitas 
calculos tabulamque poscendi 6. 33. 9; materiam insectandi 
nocentes, miseros vindicandi 9. 13. 2; also unum facilitas manu- 
mittendi 8. 16. i. 

(j) With a relative clause : — intentio quidquid velis optinendi 
4. 7. 3 ; audiendi, quod difficile, et quod facile, visendi studio 6. 
33. 4 ; causae utrique quae desunt adstruendi 9. 7. 4 ; tantus audi- 
endi quae fecerint pudor quibus nuUus faciendi quae 9. 27. 2. 

This last division {e) might be taken separately, but it seems 
better to place it here as coming logically under the same head. 
There are then 27 cases of this construction, or about 17 per cent 
of all gerund uses. 


3. Gerund used with prepositions, (a) With ad: — imitandum 
I* 5* 13; audiendum i. 13. i ; dedamandum 2. 14. 2; laudandum 
2. 14. 6 ; signandum 2. 20. 10; emendum 3. 6. 4, 8. 2. 7 ; solven- 
dum 8. 2. 7 ; inquirendum 3. 9. 31 ; iudicandum 4. 29. i ; exhi- 
bendum 5. 10. i ; scribendum 7. 4. 5, 7. 27. 7 ; agendum 7. 19. 9 ; 
cedendum 8. 6. 8 ; optinendum 8. 24. 6. In all these 16 cases the 
gerund is used without any modifying adjunct. 

{U) With in: — dicendo i. 8. 17, 5. 13. 3; disputando i. 20. 6; 
scribendo 3. 21. i, 8. 21. 3 ; continendo 5. 12. 4; edendo 5. 12. 4 ; 
praedicando 9. 19. 4 ; laudando 10. 26. 2. In these nine cases also 
there is no modifying adjunct. 

{c) With a : — scribendo 3. 7. 4. The only case found. 

The gerund with ad occurs in every case but one after a verb 
actually or figuratively implying motion. Once it follows an 
adjective : valeniior amor ad optinendum 8. 24. 6. 

The ablative with in is used in six out of the nine cases found 
after an adjective or substantive of quality. This usage forms 
about 17 per cent of the whole number of gerunds. 

4. Ablative of the gerund without a preposition, denoting man- 
ner or means : — audiendo, discendo 1. 10. 11 ; agendo 6. 29. 4, 7. 6. 
13 twice; scribendo 7. 24. 8; convalescendo 8. 11. 2 ; parendo 8. 
14. 5 ; rescribendo 10. 43. 4. There is, besides, in 6. 29. 5 a 
quotation from Polio, containing the gerund agendo used twice in 
this way, but it is not counted in making this estimate, and we find 
only nin|2 cases of this construction in Pliny. 

5. Of the three cases of the genitive of the gerund depending 
on an adjective, one with a following accusative — cupidum ulter- 
iora audiendi 2. 10. 7 — has been already mentioned under §2, 
Another is quoted from Herennius Senecio — vir malus dicendi 
imperitus 4. 7. 5 — a parody on Cato's famous definition of an 
orator. The last case is bene faciendi tenacissima 10. 12. i. Pliny 
therefore uses this construction only twice. 

Gerundive. 6. Genitive of gerundive agreeing with substantive 
either expressed (a) or understood (l>) and dependent upon another 
substantive, or {/) adjective. 

{a) intentione rei familiaris obeundae i. 3. 2 ; veniam recusandi 
laboris et exigendi i. 8. i ; exercitatio contemnendae pecuniae i. 
8. 8 ; ratio scribendae epistulae 7. 6. 8 ; necessitas agrorum locan- 
dorum 7. 30. 3 ; necessitas locandorum praediorum 9. 37. i ; cura 
minuendi aeris alieni 9. 37. 2 ; praediorum comparandorum occasio 
10. 54. I. 


{b) causa referendae 8. 12. 2; repetundaruni with lex, 5 times, 

2. II. 3, 19. 8, 4. 9. 16, 6. 5. 2, 29. 9; with poenae 2. 11. 20. 

(jc) Once dependent upon an adjective instead of a noun, vir 
movendarum lacrimarum peritissimus 2. 11. 3. 16 cases in all, 
about 12 per cent of the whole number of gerundives. 

7. Dative of gerundive and substantive, used as a final clause 
after verb or adjective. This construction occurs only four times : 
agendae rei necessaria i. 8. 7 ; qui minuendis publicis sumptibus 
constituebantur 2. i. 9; emendis dividendisque agris adiutor 
adsumptus 7. 31. 4. The infrequency of this construction in Pliny 
as compared with Tacitus is very noticeable. In the first six books 
of the Annals we find 65 cases of its occurrence. It makes about 
3 per cent of all the gerundives in Pliny. 

8. Gerundive used in a passive sense in the predicate after cer- 
tain verbs to denote the object of their action. With curare : — 
defodiendam necandamque 4. 11. 7; with dare: — legendos 9. i. 2; 
legendum 9. 19. 6 ; with praebere : — conspiciendum se monstran- 
dumque 2. 13. 3 ; se captandum 8. 12. 2 ; dentes lavandos fi'ican- 
dosque 8. 18. 9 ; \nAi permittere : — ^te expoliendum limandumque 
1. 10. 1 1 ; ^xHaferre : — quos aemulandos 5. 14. 4 ; with mittere : — 
legendum ediscendum 6. 21. 7 ; with trader e: aliis adnotanda 7. 
17. 7 ; with prodere : — legenda (twice) 8. 6. 14 ; with habere in 
that construction new in Silver Latin (see Draeger, Hist Syn. 
596, and Thielmann in Wolfflin's Archiv 2. 69 reported in A. J. P. 
VII 123, 258):— quae nunc cum ficis et boletis certandum habent 
I. 7. 3 ; cum enitendum haberemus ut i. 8. 11 ; quae facienda ac 
tradenda haberemus 8. 14. 4 ; inpetrandumque a bonitate tua per 
nos habet quod la 94. 2. There are 16 cases of this construction, 
making about 12 per cent of all. 

9. Gerundive used as a simple attributive adjective, without so 
close a relation to the verb as in f 8 : — silenda i. 8. 15; laudanda 
I- S« i5» 3* 21. 3 ; laudandus 1. 14. i ; praetereundum 1. 14. 9 ; legen- 
dos 2. 17. 8 ; lectitandos 2. 17. 8 ; damnanda3. 9. 5 ; supprimendum 

3. 15. 3 ; miseranda 4. 1 1. 4 ; visendum 5. 6. 18 ; pudenda 5. 13. 9 ; 
emendanda 5. 12. 2, 10. 39. 6 ; notandum 6. 1 1. 3 ; scribenda 6. 1 1. 3 ; 
legenda 6. 16. 3 ; noscendum 6. 16. 7 ; miranda 6. 20. 8 ; horrenda 6. 
20. 9 ; visenda 6. 31. 16 ; spectandum 7. 4. 6 ; veneranda 7. 19. 7 ; 
imitandus7. 20. 4 ; amandum 7. 24. 2 ; probandum 7. 31. 6 ; trans- 
eunda 8. 6. 5 ; memoranda 8. 6. 5 ; custodienda 8. la i ; numerandus 
8. 12. 1 ; obliviscenda 8. 14. 7; tenenda 8. 14. 7; miserandum 8. 18.9; 
delenda 9. 10. 2 ; memorandum 9. 19. 3 ; reprehendenda 9. 26. 5 ; tem- 
peranda 10. 39. 6 ; reficienda 10. 49. i ; transferenda 10.49. i ; con- 


sulendus lo. 56. 3 ; remittendos 10. 96. 4. The boundary line 
between this usage and that of ^8 (a) is not always easy to fix, 
and doubtless some of the cases given here might by others be 
classed elsewhere. As counted here there are 41 cases of this 
construction, or about 31 per cent of all gerundives. 

10. Gerundive and substantive used with prepositions, {a) 
With ad: — signandum testamentum i. 9. 2 ; inplendas facultates 
I. 19. 2 ; liberos suscipiendos 2. 7. 5 ; legendos eos 3. 5. 20 ; co- 
nectendas amicitias 4. 15. 2; audiendos Quintilianum, etc. 6. 6. 3 ; 
quae noscenda 8. 20. i ; hos proferendos 8. 21. 2; ordinandum 
statum 8. 24. 2 ; similia condenda 9. 25. i ; cognoscenda quae 9. 
27. 2 ; incendia compescenda 10. 33. 2 ; colligendum umorem, com- 
mittendum flumini lacum 10. 41. 4 ; instruendam causam 10. 85. 3. 
Some of the following cases might possibly be regarded as gerunds, 
but it seems much better to consider them as gerundives and class 
them here : — visendum eum 2. 2. 8 ; simile aliquid elaborandum 
3. 5. 20; me salutandum 4. 13. 3 ; te salutandum 10. 43, i ; eum 
salutandum 10. 43. 3 ; quod petendum 4. 15. 4 ; instruendum se 
ornandumque 6. 25. 3 ; consulendum te 10. 96. 8. 

(^) With ob : — innocentes condemnandos, interficiendos 2. 11. 2. 

{c) With in /— condicionibus deligendis 1. 14. 9 ; causis agendis 
1. 20. 1, 2. 9. 4, 5. 13. 8 ; eligendo praeceptore 2. 18. 5 ; disponendis 
facultatibus 3. 19. 9 ; Regulo demerendo 4. 2. 4 ; petendis honori- 
bus 4. 15. 13, 17. 6, 8. 32. 2; inchoandis (honoribus) 4. 17. 6 ; " 
gerendis (honoribus) 4. 17. 6 ; permutando munere 5. 2. 2 ; 
retractandis operibus 9. 35. 2 ; emancipatione inplenda 10. 4. 3 ; 
exigendis pecuniis la 108. i. 

(JT) With de : — senatu habendo 5. 13. 5 ; agnoscendis liberis 
restituendisque natalibus 10. 72. We find here 45 cases, or about 
34 per cent of all gerundives used in Pliny, the proportional fre- / 

quency of occurrence being twice as great as in the corresponding 
construction with the gerund. 

II. Ablative of gerundive and noun used after verbs in the rela- 
tions of separation and means: — abstinui causis agendis i. 23. 2 ; 
agendis causis distringeretur 5. 5. 3 ; fruendis voluptatibus crescit 
dolor 8. 5. 2. A rare construction, occurring only in these three 

We find then in Pliny 130 cases of the use of the gerundive and 

158 of the gerund, but no strongly marked fondness for any 

particular construction except that of the absolute gerund in the 

genitive after the few words noticed under §1. 

S. B. Platner. 

The Origin of the English miLch, 

That the " root- vowel " of the Anglo-Saxon lyiel and lyt is long 
in quantity, may now, since the demonstration of Paul's conjecture 
(Beitrage, VI 244 f.) by Sarrazin (ib. IX 365 f.), and the further 
confirmation of Sievers* metrical tests (ib. X 504), be fiilly accepted. 
Holthausen has very recently (ib. XIII 590) contributed another 
factor to the solution of the relation between lytel and mycel. The 
vowel of mycely according to his acute observation, is due to asso- 
ciation with lytel^ whereas mikils and mikill respectively deter- 
mined the vowel in the Gothic leiHls and the O. N. lUilL This 
mutual influence of forms can be traced still further in the produc- 
tion of the English much. It is because Skeat, in his Etymological 
Dictionary, perpetuates the notion that much must be derived from 
the O. N. mjoky and in his Principles of English Etymology (p. 
1 29) disposes of the matter with saying that M. E. muche is " allied 
to M. E. muchely^ that this definite statement is here made of what 
to many readers must appear plain and self-evident. 

I would further add that assuming muchel in association with 
litel and lUe to have supplied mtuh as the fourth term in the 
equation, is but to recognize a process that could be inferred from 
the marked tendency, long prevalent in the language, to couple 
litel with muchely and Hie with much in poetic phrase, in popidar 
antithesis and in proverb, etc. Illustrations abound on every 
hand, so that the briefest indication of them will serve the present 
purpose. In King Horn (Wissmann's ed. 1. 115 1 MS C) ^^ muche 
ne lite " is already a " Flickphrase "; its perpetuation is marked, 
for example, in Chaucer's use of '*moche and Hie " in the Prologue 
1. 494 (notice liiely 1. 490). The Octavian (Northern Version) 
opens with the formula " Lytylle and mykille, olde and yonge," 
etc., which, in the varied form of " Litel and michel, lasse and 
mare," etc, occurs four times in Amis and Amiloun (Kolbing's 
ed. p. xlviii). It might be questioned whether in such a passage 
as F. Q. I, VI, XX Spenser intended any special effect by the 
association of the forms " muchelV and " /r//^," but the following 
lines (F. Q. I, IV, xlvi) bear their own testimony : 

'* Then« sighing soft ; * I leame that litU sweet 
Oft tempred is,* (quoth she) *with w«f^// smart.'" 


To the proverbial " many a little makes a mickle," may be added 
the saying, recorded in the Ancren Riwle (p. 296), of the woman 
who, when she saw that with a single straw all her houses were 
set on fire, exclaimed " muchelkume^ of lutein 

I am not unaware that in Morris' Hist. Outlines (p. 108), in 
Oliphant's Standard English, in ten Brink's Chaucerian Gram, 
(p. 14), and in Mason's Engl. Gram/, the native origin of muck is 
accepted, and that it may be inferred from the note s. v. 6ad th^t Dr. 
Murray's New Dictionary will do the same ; but the principle of 
analogy, and its reflection in such uses as have just been noticed, 
have not, to my knowledge, hitherto been applied to the subject. 

James W. Bright. 

Additional Note and Corrections to the Article 


Accent in Greek.' 

Professor Collitz has kindly directed my attention to the fact 
that Adalbert Bezzenberger was the first to establish the identity 
of the Greek circumflex on final syllables with the Lithuanian 
'drawled' (* geschliffen ' or better ' geschleift ') tone; see Bezz. 
Beitr. VII 66 f. Hanssen himself, who had neglected to 
acknowledge Bezzenberger's observation in his article in KZ. 
XXVII 6x2 £, repaired his omission in KZ. XXVIII 216. He 
there lays claim to originality merely for his attempt to estab- 
lish the same double mode of accentuation for the Gothic as well 
as the Greek and Lithuanian. Brugmann also has neglected to 
mention Bezzenberger's name in connection with this important 
point in I. E. accentuation ; see his Grundriss der vergleichenden 
Grammatik, Vol. I, §§671, 677. 

On p. 4 of my article, line 6 from the bottom, read syllables for 
monosyllables : on p. 36, line 17 fi"om the bottom, drja-avpSv for 
tka^p6p. Maurice Bloomfield. 


Principles of English Etymology. By the Rev. Walter W. Skeat. First 
Series: The Native Element. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1887. xxxir, 
541 pp. Svo. 

In Mr. Skeat we have an author who has a just right to construct a work on 
English etymol(^y. He does not address us as *' a never writer to an ever 
reader," but as one who by his genial, painstaking and productive labor of 
many years has won an enviable position in the knowledge of English in its 
entire history. His Etymological Dictionary has superseded its predecessors, 
and as the work of one man struggling against the odds of a new science it 
will always command high admiration. Nothing could therefore be more 
fitting than that Mr. Skeat should prepare a manual setting forth the principles 
followed in his Dictionary, and according to which he would have the elements 
of etymology taught and studied. And such is the avowed purpose of the book 
now before us. 

With the broadest charity for all previous efforts that have been made to 
expound in a compendious manner, and for purposes of class instruction, the 
principles of English etymology, it must be said that little more has been 
effected by them than to create an increasing demand for something better. 
But this little that has been done is just the "muchel" that Mr. Skeat could 
have desired. For can an author ask for more than for an eager and a con- 
fiding public that has undergone a preliminary preparation for the acceptance 
of the best that he may be able to offer ? However, Mr. Skeat appears not to 
have fully realized the attitude of his public. He has himself perhaps been too 
much engrossed in its gradual training to take an objective view of the progress 
that it has actually made. This is a matter of serious regret. For had Mr. 
Skeat been fully persuaded of the effect produced on teachers and students of 
English by the work of recent scholarship, to which he himself has contributed 
so much, he would certainly in this instance, it must be believed, have written 
a very different book. At a time when such a work as Skeafs Etymological 
Dictionary has found its way to every teacher's table ; when the successive 
parts of the great historical dictionary of the Philologh:al Society are eagerly 
awaited by hundreds who never before had so keen an interest in the story 
of their own language ; when teachers are struggling with the technical pages 
of Ellis, and looking for a new edition of Sweet's History of English Sounds ; 
when they are poring over the centuries of a past literature now restored to 
them by the publications of learned societies ; when they are delving in 
scientific periodicals and monographs printed in foreign tongues ; when, in 
short, they are looking everywhere for help towards release from a trifling 
dilettanteism that has so long enveloped the study of English in a false and 
unsubstantial glamour, surely at such a time, if ever, a writer on the principles 
of English etymology might have, nay, should have, broken with the tradition 


of treating the subject with something akin to temporizing timidity. That Mr. 
Skeat has thus underestimated the general need, and therefore written a book 
with his eye too much on the past, or at most on a partially misunderstood 
present, has resulted in the production of a work which, with all its merits — 
for it is not without these — must be acknowledged to fall short of the expecta- 
tions first aroused by its announcement. 

But every writer, it may be said, has the right to address a class of his own 
choice, and that the critic should only be concerned in considering how the 
adopted plan of a work has been carried out. According to this primary 
principle of criticism, Mr. Skeat's book, it must be admitted, will prove good 
reading to such *' beginners in philology" as are here particularly kept in view, 
for " a well -experienced archer hits the mark his eye doth level at.*' It has 
been Mr. Skeat's purpose to write a popular book which is to serve less as an 
end in itself than as a stimulating mean to something better. The reader is 
supposed to be in need of such a general survey of the scope and nature of the 
science of English etymology as shall engender in his mind an interest, and 
(shall it be said ?) a respect, which the tradition of the schools has too per- 
sistently withheld from a methodical study of his vernacular. And this 
purpose has been fairly well executed. Here are offered a succession of 
chapters, written in a clear and attractive style, to which the reader is required 
to bring no further preparation than the possession of a well tempered dispo- 
sition to be assured of an introduction to the true significance of a complex 
subject. This concession to the reader's point of view is the most prominent 
feature of the author's method, and determines the structure of the entire 

Coming closer to the work, attention may first be directed to its contents in 
general. The heads of the chapters indicate with sufficient fullness the author's 
plan ; these may be thus briefly summarized : The composite nature and varied 
sources of the vocabulary; Dialects in the Middle English and in the Anglo- 
Saxon periods ; History of the long vowels ; The cognate Teutonic and the 
c<^;nate classical languages ; Grimm's law ; Vemer's law ; Ablaut ; Umlaut ; 
Prefixes and suffixes; Derivation from roots; Modem English spelling; 
Phonetic spelling ; English consonants ; Phonological changes ; Doublets and 
compounds ; Early words of Latin origin ; The Celtic, the Scandinavian, 
the Old Friesic and the Old Dutch element; Effects of accent. These are 
mostly topics of fundamental importance in an historical sketch of the lan- 
guage ; it were cavilling to insist that a different selection and grouping should 
necessarily have been jnade. The author's reader — an exact description of 
him cannot be hazarded — ^whether reading for an examination in the Civil 
Service, or for any other not too serious purpose, will set a high value on the 
exposition of these topics, and in many instances, doubtless, feel particularly 
edified by those parts which he is least prepared to understand. 

But playing fast and loose in an endeavor to fit a reader to Mr. Skeat's pages 
is not bringing us, it must be felt, to any fixed line from which to measure in 
more exact criticism. We are therefore compelled to turn back and to start 
afresh by construing the author's purpose more rigidly than he himself has 
done. The preface opens with a promise which if rightly fulfilled would have 
yielded just the sort of book Mr. Skeat should have written for us. It is there 

'■■<-■'■" ■ix v^iv^H^n^^^^R 


stated that the phonetic laws and the principles of change and growth in words 
according to which the results recorded in the Etymological Dictionary have 
been obtained, need to be formulated and illustrated in some definite order. 
This is recognizing a need which is in no sense imaginary. It has been asked 
again and again, why the English etymologist does not take a hint from the 
methods employed, for example, in the domain of French, and deduce a body 
of rules and principles by which his work may be studied in a systematic 
manner ; and this necessity has clearly impressed Mr. Skeat, from whose own 
statements one would be led to expect his present volume, as a help to the use 
of his Dictionary, to correspond in the main to Brachet's Introduction. But 
Mr. Skeat has disappointed this hope. He has neither given us a systematic 
treatise on the phonetics, phonology, and morphology of English, nor even put 
his selected chapters on the history of the language in such form as to consti- 
tute a well planned text-book for elementary classes. And yet, in spite of its 
failures, it is as a text-book in the schools that Mr. Skeat's book must be 
acknowledged as by far the best that has yet been produced for the subject, 
and as such it can, and it is hoped will, be used with good effect. The 
teacher will, however, have to be on his guard against extreme disproportions, 
such as the undue space allotted to the treatment of Grimm's law, and will 
have to elicit laws and principles which are often concealed under a mass 
of excellent though not always well elucidated material. He should also be 
able, in many cases, to supplement the author's views with the results of such 
recent investigations as have here received little or no recognition, and to 
complete chapters that are fragmentary, such, for example, as the '* Note on 
the short vowels " (p. 71). 

In the hope then that teachers and private students of the elements of 
English philology will make proper use of this volume which is so far in 
advance of all other works of the same class, a few observations will be made 
that may serve to characterize with some minuteness the author's method, as 
well as modify or correct an occasional statement. 

In the fifth chapter the Anglo-Saxon long vowels are traced to their modem 
products, and since it is acknowledged at page 27 that it is " the chief object 
of the present work to exhibit so many examples of regular changes in the 
vowel-sounds as to enable the student to observe some of the phonetic laws 
for himself, or at least to understand them clearly," this may be taken as a 
typical chapter. This will also be found to belong to the more satisfactory 
portions of the book, for the author desists, for a refreshing moment, from an 
habitual elaboration of arguments to show that English has a history, and 
proceeds directly with the matter of that history, appropriately selecting, on 
the ground of the comparative simplicity of the processes involved, the destiny 
of the long vowels, as a beginning to the study of that complexity of changes 
which, in the course of centuries, has taken place in the language. As a 
general criticism at this point, the suggestion may be ventured that the classi- 
fication of words according to the consonants following the primary vowel 
would with advantage have been subordinated to a more simple and compre- 
hensive outline. In the case, for example, of A.-S. S (§45), the law of change 
in its simplest form might first have been illustrated with a list in which this 
law has been followed with exactness. This would be the type of sd^ — sooth ; 


ddm — doom ; mdd — mood; tdl—tooly etc. The remaining products of the same 
original sound could then be given in comprehensive categories ; of these there 
would in this case be two : {a) The vowel (high-back-narrow-round) has, in 
contrast to the chief law, been shortened. Illustrations are, fdt-^foot ; g6d — 
good; hdd^hood; cdc — cook ; h6c — hook^ etc. (3) The vowel has been not only 
shortened, but also unrounded and lowered, as in drdiSor — brother; mddor — 
mother; d^Ser — other; bldd — blood; fldd— flood; mdste — must; gldf-^ghve ; dd^ — 
doth^ etc. Under these heads the classification according to the consonants 
should be retained and made the basis of special observations. A free use, 
moreover, of dialect-forms, particularly of the Scottish, could be effectively 
made to enforce, often by contrast, the course of development followed in 
standard English. Another restriction or two must be made in connection 
with the chapter on the long vowels. The diphthongs, which in the Middle 
English period were developed from a vowel and a following palatal or guttural 
consonant, are here partially merged in the categories of the simple sounds. 
This confusion necessarily occasions a number of additional explanations, but 
these, however carefully made, do not compensate for the lack of such explana- 
tion where it has been omitted, nor do they counterbalance the disadvantage of 
a faulty classification. This important phenomenon, therefore, of the devel- 
opment of a new class of diphthongs, is not sufficiently individualized for the 
beginner, either by the incidental treatment it receives in connection with the 
simple vowels, or by the fuller observations in the chapter on the consonants, 
or by both combined. Again, there is a conspicuous omission of a proper recog- 
nition of the doctrine of open and closed syllables as affecting vowel quantities 
in the Middle Period (notice, however, such incidental remarks as -are found at 
pages 309, 313, etc.). And the principle of sentence-accent is also not well 
grasped, as is shown in the rather curious explanation offered for not as a 
differentiated form of " naught*\ " By constant use," we are told, ** naught was 
often * widened \ to not^' (p. 55) ; so too the development of one, an and a from 
the common base dn (p. 56) would well have served to enforce the same impor- 
tant principle; it is not specific enough to speak merely of " the indefinite 

To pass on to other portions of the work, it will be noticed that in the trans- 
lation of Verner's law (p. 149), the sonant spirant — the intermediate sound 
between the surd spirant and the ultimately attained sonant stop — is entirely 
suppressed, which for '* the beginner " must occasion an element of uncleamess 
in some of the illustrative examples. And since we are dealing with " prin- 
ciples," it is not correct to say (p. 152) that the participle slagen is the early 
form of the modern slain, for the Anglo-Saxon slagen would have given 
*slawn, just as dragen has given drawn. The forms in the early language, as 
Mr. Skeat well knows, were both slagen and slagen, and these are both regularly 
represented in the Chaucerian forms slawen (like drawen) and slayn, and it is 
the latter of these that persists in the present slain (cf. fagen > fain). At 
the same page it were better to say that the r-forms (of the present and first 
preterit stems, as defined later on) have been levelled under the /-forms, than 
to attribute the form -association to the influence of the infinitive alone. And 
now that Mr. Skeat has made use of an excellent term, " form-association," we 
must wonder that he has not expanded illustrations of this *' principle " to an 
entire chapter, which would have been exceedingly appropriate to his book. 


Mr. Skeat's method of dealing with the principle of Ablaut (vowel-grada- 
tion) is to9 serious a matter to pass without comment. It is difficult to under- 
stand why more care has not been taken in this subject to conform to scientific 
exactness. The chapter opens admirably with the illustration of "ksit^'Uv^ which 
is the best introduction that could be made. But to our great amazement^ 
instead of proceeding at once with the dfrtz/^-class, and then to the r^vx^-class, as 
would have been easy and natural, and made an exposition of ablaut in its main 
features comprehensible at a glance, we find Mr. Skeat suddenly interrupting 
the poetry of true scientific order with the doggerel of a classification which 
has so often been rejected, and which in this instance recoils on its adherent 
with dreadful havoc. Furthermore, it were surely not to be expected that in the 
same volume where special attention is given to Venter's law, ablaut would be 
discussed without the remotest reference to accentuation. This disregard of 
the original shiftings of stress brings with it a train of unhappy consequences : 
nothing is said of syllabic nasals and liquids ; the stem of the perfect plural, 
etc., is declared to be " of comparatively small importance " (p. 162) ; the 
significance of classifying stems according to the elements following the vowel 
is not rightly set forth. Mr. Skeat should also have been more exact in describing 
the value of the Gothic breakings at and ««/, and used diacritical marks to dis- 
tinguish them from the diphthongs; and his description of the reduplicating 
syllable, " the initial letter of the verb is repeated, followed by the diphthong 
at," contains a serious slip of the pen. 

A single observation will be made on the subject of Umlaut (vowel-muta- 
tion). The Teutonic scholar will not permit it to be said that e. g. ** ^gold-in 
became ^/e/-^ quite regularly " (p. 193, see also p. 197 and §193). Reference 
to Sievers* A.-S. Grammar, §93, note, will suffice to set the matter right. 

Chapter XVIII, in which there is brought together much excellent material 
on the history of the English consonants, cannot, for want of space, be now 
reviewed with any degree of fullness. A few points only will be lightly 
touched upon. In reporting the changes through which geminated ^(r^) has 
passed (p. 365), the author has again failed to distinguish, with elementary 
clearness, important underlying " principles." To leave aside the difficult 
matter of exactly determining the early phonetic value of cg^ it is quite inad- 
missible to allow a presentation of its subsequent values that does not aim to 
reconcile the apparent incongruity of such facts as : A.-S. secg ]> modem sedge; 
A.-S. seeg'On > modem say. Merely to say that " in some cases A.-S. cgziz. £. 
>, i. e. is vocalised ; as in lecgan^ to lay ; Ucgan, to iie ; bycgan, to buyt"* is not 
only to declare as true that which is quite impossible, but it is also to create 
the hurtful impression that such matters are the sport of the blindest caprice. 
In like manner no clue is given to an explanation of the origin of the final 
/•sound in words like ioughy trough^ enough^ etc. (p. 361). The delicate factor 
of differentiation of form according to sentence-use is here involved. The 
true solution of this interesting problem, which I hope, on some other occasion, 
to discuss in detail, lies in the direction pointed out by Prof, ten Brink at page 
34 of his Chaucerian Grammar, and may also be inferred from Dr. Karsten's 
theory for the origin in French of moeuf from moduni; -buef < -bodo; bUf<^ 
biadum ; nif < nidum^ etc. (Modern Language Notes, III 85 f.). Another 
instance of inexactness of method is furnished in the remark (p. 400) that h 


" certainly tends^ in some instances, to turn the vowel into the mod. £. long V*; 
a tendency that is well enough understood to admit of some generalization. 

The short digression on "ghost-words" (p. 398) may be cited in illustration 
of the author's practice of introducing at times, and in the most genial manner, 
matters of curious knowledge. As " ghost -words " Mr. Skeat, in his " Presi- 
dential Address " (the reference is given at p. 399, note i), designates " words 
which had never any real existence, being mere coinages due to the blunders of 
printers or scribes, or to the perfervid imaginations of ignorant or blundering 
editors." Of these spectres it may be permitted to contribute a few specimens 
to the general fund. In the prose preface to the Anglo-Saxon Baethius all the 
printed editions give Kuning in place of the manuscript form Kyning (the 
dotted y is unmistakable). In the same line will be found bee Ledene which is 
the creation of Rawlinson's printer; the manuscript reading is hoc Ledene. 
Junius, who prepared the copy used by this printer, wrote both hoc and bee in 
one ; whether he first wrote 0, or ^, he afterwards attempted to change the vowel 
to the alternative form, and in the chances of survival in the printed book the 
lot fell to e. The curious part of the story, however, is that this accident called 
forth from Jacob Grimm an elaborate argument (GOttingische Gelehrte 
Anzeigen, 1833, pp. 1586 f.) showing that boc-Ledene, a compound, is the only 
admissible form. Another example, and one that answers more exactly to the 
narrower definition of a " ghost-word," occurs in the same text at page 28 (line 
29) of Fox's edition. Here ormod of the Bodl. MS was misread by Junius, and 
has been retained by all the editors, as crinod, Junius afterwards inserted 
ormod in his marginal readings from the Cotton MS, but this never aroused 
the suspicion of one of the editors, who are, however, all to be praised for 
withholding conjectures as to the etymological relations of their cherished 
crinod. For words which agree with ** ghost-words " in the circumstances of 
their production, but differ from them in being real words, I suggest the name 
mctsk'words. The fictitious compound beC'Ledene is therefore in strictness a 
mask-word. To illustrate further, it is interesting to notice that Tennyson's 
**wily Vivien" has been playing her rOle under a false name, in a linguistic 
mask. In the recent publication of a ' Merlin ' MS, the editor, M. Gaston 
Paris, makes us aware (Introduction, p. xlv) that the name Vivien, for the lady 
of the lake, which appears first in the Lancelot, is a faulty reading for Niniane 
(cf. Modern Language Notes, III 78, note 2). A parallel case in the confusion 
of the same initial letters led the early printers into the error of naming the 
author of the Speculum Stultorum Vigellus, instead of Nigellus ; and the author 
of Piers the Plowman is indebted for one of his names, Robert, to a still more 
curious mistake (Skeat*s ed. 1886, II, pp. xxviii and 131). 

The following varia may be allowed to close this notice : The foot-notes at 
pages 171 and 354 are in conflict with each other. That ** German editors 
replace why v^* (p. 299) is an anachronism. Dr. Joseph Wright's investigation 
of the dialect of Windhill in the West Riding of Yorkshire (cf. The Academy, 
March 3, 1888) promises to throw new light on the origin of M in words like 
father^ mother^ hither^ etc. (p« 369). The nomenclature as expounded at page 40 
(cf. p. 43, note) is, so far as it relates to the term "Anglo-Saxon," altogether a 
mistaken one, and only serves to introduce new and unnecessary complications. 
Finally, the hope remains to be expressed that Mr. Skeat's Second Series of 


Principles, which is to complete the plan of the entire work, will not be long 
delayed, and that when it comes it will reveal the author at his best in scientific 
precision in combination with his never failing felicity of presentation. 

James W. Bright. 

A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles ; founded mainly on the 
materials collected by the Philological Society. Edited by James A. H. 
Murray, LL. D. Part III. Batter-Boz. Oxford, At the Clarendon Press. 

An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, based on the manuscript collections of the late 
Joseph Bosworth, D. D., F. R. S. Edited and enlarged by T. Northcote 
Toller, M.A. Part III. Hwi-Sar. Oxford, At the Clarendon Press. 

The great English dictionary is progressing slowly. The preface to Part II 
(see Journal, VII 514) was dated September, 1885, and that to Part III is dated 
January, 1887, although Part III was not received in this country until some 
months later. It continues to be characterized by fullness and thoroughness, 
and the immense amount of labor necessary to secure these objects causes the 
publication to be necessarily slow. Part III contains 8765 words, of which 
5323 are main words, 1873 combinations, and 1569 subordinate entries. Of the 
5323 main words, 3802 are in current use, 1379 obsolete, and only 142 foreign, 
or imperfectly naturalized. 

Every article is replete with interest and information. A glance at the 
twelve closely printed columns comprising the treatment of the verb Be well 
shows the systematic completeness of the work. We find Blizzard duly 
recorded, but in its usual meaning no earlier example is given than one in a 
letter of Dec. 29, 1880, from Chicago to the Manchester Evening News. Boy- 
cott appears on the last page, the earliest example being from The Times of 
Nov. 20, 1880, so that these two words have come into current use within eight 
years. The earliest example of Boy is from Behet^ c, 1 300. It occurs in both 
Kyng Horn and Havelok the Dane^ thought by some to be a quarter of a century 
earlier; but as Dr. Murray assigns the date r. 1300 to each of these, he doubt- 
less did not think it necessary to record these passages. It looks singular to 
see the word Bower^ as used in Euchre, occurring in literature not earlier than 
1 871, and that in Bret Harte's Heathen Chinee^ when it has been so long used 
colloquially. I doubt not that many American works, such as Baldwin's 
** Flush Times," or Judge Longstreet's " Georgia Scenes," would show much 
earlier examples. We find Blau and Blazed^ as applied to animals, first used 
in the seventeenth century, but Biaze-faced^ so common in this country, is not 
recorded. Both words, as applied to trees, are marked " U. S.," and the 
earliest examples given are from Wesley's works, 1737. Blatherskite^ spelt also 
Bletherskate, is marked ^* dial, and U. S. colloq.*^ The latter form is quoted 
from the Scotch song Maggie Lauder^ c, 1650, while of the former, the usual 
form in this country, no earlier example is given than one from Bartlett*s 
Americanisms^ 1848. While we find many compounds of Blue, and even Blue- 
nose, " a nickname for a native of Nova Scotia " (Judge Haliburton*s Clock- 
maker, 1837-40), we miss the **Blue-hen*s chickens," who certainly deserve a 


position in the great dictionary, if the Bltu-noses are honored with one. Among 
these compounds Blue Peter appears, both in its older nautical sense, and in 
its more recent application to the signal for trumps in Whist, of which the 
earliest example given is from Beeton's Handy Book of Games, 1875. 1"^^ 
term has crossed the ocean to this side, and has risen above the level of slang. 
Scotland is credited with the verb Bend zn^* to drink hard/' and the noun 
Bender -^L^^ a hard drinker," but the cognate Americanism " on a bender *' finds 
no place, so it must still be relegated to the dictionary of slang. It is some- 
what remarkable that the etymology of Big has not yet been discovered. Dr. 
Murray says that it is '* first known in end of thirteenth c. in writers of North- 
umbria and North Lincolnshire : hence perhaps of Norse origin " — which 
Prof. Skeat had already suggested — *' but its derivation is entirely unknown." 
The earliest example given is from the Havelok. Another common word of 
unknown etymology is Bigot. This part of the dictionar}' ends with Bos^ but 
its use as a pseudonym by Dickens is unrecorded. 

The few illustrations here given show the minuteness with which the vocabu- 
lary of the language is being treated. It would be well if a larger number of 
distinctively American works were read, lest many words, chiefly colloquial, 
should lack record in the pages of this invaluable Thesaurus of the English 
language. It should embrace the whole vocabulary of both branches of the 
English-speaking race, for, when once completed, it will be a KT^fta kg det, and 
it is not likely that the work will be done over again within the lifetime of any 
now living, if ever. 

After five years intermission we welcome Part III of the Bosworth-ToUer 
Anglo-Saxon dictionary, of which Parts I and II were noticed in this Journal 
(V 359)* '^^is part is unaccompanied by any preliminary statement, so that 
we are not informed as to the respective shares of Prof. Toller and the late Dr. 
Bosworth. It will be noticed, however, that the letters of the alphabet are not 
treated as fully as heretofore. Under / we do not find the repetition of Dr. 
Bosworth's statement that it was pronounced as in Modem English, e. g. A.-S. 
w/n =1 tuine^ which pronunciation is upheld by Dr. Weymouth, but all remarks 
on pronunciation are omitted. I hoped to find some further elucidation of 
*^^^ gold (Beowulf, 1107), and incge Idfe (Beowulf, 2577), but nothing further 
has been discovered. In the few words examined I cannot find that any addi- 
tion has been made to Grein from the poetic vocabulary. Prof. Toller^s great 
service to Anglo-Saxon lexicography is the incorporation of the prose vocabu- 
lary with that of the poetry in one work, and the giving us for the first time a 
fairly complete dictionary of the Old English language. An illustration of the 
extent to which the vocabulary is thus increased may be found under regoU Grein 
gives but one example from the poetry (Guthlac, 460), which is duly entered ; 
but Prof. Toller divides the meanings of regol into three subdivisions, under 
the first of which we have nine^ under the second two^ and under the third ten 
examples from the prose. Also, Grein finds but one compound, regol-faest, in 
the poetry. This is given by Toller, although with no citation but that from 
Grein, and seven other compounds are added from the prose. This develops 
into more than a column of fine print what occupies four lines in Grein. Per 
contra, under reord, but two examples are given from the prose, one from Kem- 
ble*s Matthew, Rushworth MS (here gecy^p should be gecypaep, Skeat's ed.), 


and one from Smith's Baeda. All the rest are taken from Grein, and some of 
those given by Grein are omitted, reodian is given with the example from the 
Elene 1239, a^cr Grein, but with no meaning, only (?). Grein says " cribrareV* 
and Zupitza " nach Grein^ sieben*'* so the student should have had at least this 
much help to the meaning. Some words just here have been examined, as 
reddatty redfan^ fednig^ rednig-indd^ reord-berend^ with the result that the only 
citations are those from Grein. The form redni^ given by Zupitza, is not noted, 
and rednig'mdd^ Elene 320, is wanting in Grein and here. The inference from 
this is that Prof. Toller has not made use of the glossaries to separate pieces 
of A. S. poetry, as that to Zupitza's Elene, for example, and has relied upon 
Grein for the poetic vocabulary. Grein's citations, while very full, and full 
enough for all ordinary purposes, are not complete ; but, except in the case of 
very common words, it would be well for a later lexicographer to make use of 
all available helps to secure completeness in citations of examples. Perhaps 
omissions of words will be found by those who search for them, but it is 
probable that they will be few. Prof. Toller seems to have taken great pains 
to secure accuracy in the prose vocabulary, and is to be congratulated on the 
result. I hope that Part IV is so far advanced that we shall not have to wait 
another five years for it. An appendix will doubtless be needed, but that can 
be prepared more at leisure. James M. Garnbtt. 

Epicurea. Edidit Hermannus Usensr. Leipzig, Teubner, 1887. 

With winning frankness Professor Usener tells us in the preface to his 
Epicurea that he was attracted to Epicurus, not by his admiration of the 
Philosophy of the Garden, but by the difficulty and obscurity of our great 
source of information on the subject, Diogenes Laertius. He cared more for 
the philological nuts to be cracked than for the philosophical fruits to be 
gathered. However, the discovery that much help was to be gained from a 
study of the MSS led from one thing to another. If a part is to be mastered, 
the whole must be understood, and the result is a most important contribution 
to the documentary history of Greek philosophy, and not only so, but a study 
full of interest and instruction even to those homines gramtnatici who usually 
have little pleasure in Epicurus and things Epicurean. 

After an account of the codices and the principal critical editions of Dio- 
genes L., and after supplementing his own work by a number of emendations, 
Usener takes up the question of the attitude of D. L. towards Epicurus, and 
denies that he was either Epicurean or Empiric. A man who knew no Epicu- 
rean later than the time of Zeno could not have been an Epicurean. A man 
who did not know Sarapion or Glaukias could not have been a physician of the 
Empiric sect. 

As for the sources of D., Usener agrees with Wilamowitz in thinking that it 
is high time to put an end to investigations about your ' tenth transmitters ' of 
other people's learning, about Demetrius, Diodes, Favorinus. Why, those who 
have called Diogenes a miserable compiler or an unqualified ass have done 
him too much honor. D. did not rise even to the dignity of being a copyist; 
he merely hired other people to copy for him, and on the strength of this 
literary activity took to himself the glory of authorship. In those da3rs a man 
bought books as one buys wines, and decanted them as one decants wines, not 


without mixing vintages and blending manufactures. It was a common trick 
of the times to take what we should call text-books or manuals, add, cut out, 
change, and then publish them again under new titles as new books. 
Galen complains of it as TertuUian complains of it, and how justifiable these 
complaints were is shown by specimens of this doctoring process taken from 
the Laertian life of Plato, and from that part of book X which forms the setting 
of the Third Moral Epistle of Epicurus. In the latter case our friend, whom 
we will continue to call Laertius, sent to the shop a lot of *■ copy,' consisting of 
a number of * books ' on the history of philosophy. This work belonged to a 
much earlier period, say to the time of Nero or the Flavii, and was addressed 
to some Neronian blue-stocking like Pamphila or to some of the concumhentes 
Graece of Juvenal. Together with this work were sent four compositions by 
Epicurus himself, and also a scholarly epitome of the Duties of the Sage 
according to Epicurus. The wild medley that ensued is what we have in our 
texts. But let us forgive Di<^enes for the sake of the precious letters of Epi- 
curus, without which we should be debarred from access to the esoteric disci- 
pline of the school. Unfortunately the terminology employed itself needs a 
key, and Professor Usener declines the task of interpreting the language of 
the epistles aAd contents himself with indicating the sources and the methods. 
As to the genuineness of the letters, the first, the Epistle to Herodotus, is above 
suspicion. The second, the Epistle to Pythocles, was not written by Epicurus 
himself, but made up by an Epicurean from the master's work iftpX ^vae(^. 
The only passage that may have been taken as it stands from Epicurus is the 
prooemium, but all of it goes back to the master, always, of course, with the 
reservation that Epicurus himself drew largely on his predecessors for his 
explanations of physical phenomena. The third letter, the Epistle to 
Menoeceus, is written with great care. We are called on to note the equable 
cadence of the periods, the dainty pointedness of the language, and the almost 
Isocratean avoidance of hiatus— a mechanical excellence, by the way, which 
we find in some of the poorest writers. This elegance of style — which Epi- 
curus notoriously not only neglected but despised — might at first make us 
suspicious of the genuineness of this production, but the fact is that by far the 
most of Epicurus' works belonged to the class of vKofiv^fjara of which no style 
was expected, and that he has been judged by these rather than by those frag- 
ments in which we can trace the same elegance of style that characterizes the 
third epistle. But the genuineness is put beyond a doubt by the testimony 
not only of Clemens Alex, and Laertius, but of Seneca, Sextus Emp., Lactan- 
tius, and Ambrosius, the last named of whom actually translates one passage 
and summarizes another. 

The last Epicurean contribution is the Hbellut vert aureus Ki'piai 66(ai, Cicero's 
ratae senUntiae (de fin. II 7, 20), which Usener prefers to call seUcUu sententiae on 
the strength of another passage of Cicero (de nat. deor. I 30, 85) and by reason of 
the appropriateness of the designation. This selection, however, was no more 
made by Epicurus himself than the aphorisms of Hippocrates were put together by 
Hippocrates, or the problems of Aristotle by Aristotle. The choice, after we 
pass the first four (^ Terpatj^dpfiaKoc), does not seem to have been wisely directed. 
Leading doctrines have been omitted, secondary ones introduced. And then 
there are traces of the rude severance of sentences from their context, there 


are inconsequences of arrangement, there are doublets upon doublets, proofs 
enough in all conscience to sustain Gassendi in his thesis that the Khpiai 66^ai, 
like the Enchiridion of Epictetus, was a selection from the various works of 
the philosopher. 

To these four important documents Usener has added not only all the frag- 
ments of Epicurus that have come down to us from antiquity, but also the 
various references to his doctrines. Needless to say the fragments of Philo- 
demus have had a special fascination for the editor of the Epicurea, who says 
with the openness of a great scholar, * fateor hie illic me cum litteras sensu 
cassas adponere taederet, ultra probabilitatem lusisse potius quam restituisse,' 
and actually indulges in a laugh at an exploded conjecture of his own. 

In fine, the work is the fruit of many years of labor, and that the labor of a 
great master. It is the bulkiest book that bears the honored name of the 
editor, and the meagre outline given here fails utterly to do justice to the im- 
portance of the work in matter and in method. 

B. L. G. 

Schriftsprache und Dialekte im Deutschen nach Zeugnissen alter und neuer 
Zeit. Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache von Adolf SociN. 
Heilbronn, Gebr. Henninger, 1888. 

The relation of the various German dialects to a generally recognized Schrift- 
sprcLche^ their struggle for supremacy as affected by political, religious and other 
circumstances, presents one of the most interesting and difficult problems of 
philological criticism. Twice in the earlier history of the German language 
an approximate unity seems to have been attained, and the final supremacy of the 
presentNew High German as the dominant literary speech cannot be dated earlier 
than the German classics of the eighteenth century. A book which undertakes 
to give the history of this gradual development can be written from two points 
of view. The author may give us his own results, based upon extensive inves- 
tigation of the subject, with due recognition of the work of those scholars who 
have labored in the same line. But he may also refrain from making original 
investigations, simply presenting what others have thought and discovered con- 
cerning the problems in question. The present volume belongs to the latter 
class. It is agreeable to notice that its young author does not impose upon us 
immature views of his own, which in the face of the vast material would at 
best be the repetition of others. We find in a careful and diligent manner 
here recorded the results of the work of leading investigators in the field, and 
beginners in the study of German philology will doubtless read Socin's book 
with much benefit. The author*s shyness in the expression of original opinions 
should not, however, have been carried so far as to cause him to refrain from 
pointing out new fields of inquiry, from propounding new problems and 
opening up suggestive perspectives. The book is written in a singularly cir- 
cuitous style, which makes it a task to struggle through the 536 pages. 



Rheinischbs Museum. Vol. XXXIX.^ 

Pp. 1-26. Ed. Zarncke. Parallels to the elopement in Miles Gloriosus. 
Rohde, Bacher, and Ribbeck have already called attention to a similar plot in 
the Arabian Nights. In the same line Z. discovers new instances. Closely 
akin to the plot in our play is the Albanian story of ' The priest and his wife/ 
and the Syrian tale of the ' Rich Jew and his wife/ where the intercourse is 
carried on by means of a secret door and an underground passage. More 
finished instances of the same tendency are 'La buona Grazia del Gobbo' 
in Italian, and the Turkish story called by Radloff * Das mit List gefreite 
Msldchen/ and ' Kamaralsaman and the wife of the jeweler ' of the Arabian 
Nights. The legends of * The wife of the goldsmith ' and ' The faithful fisher- 
man's son ' and Inclusa of the Seven Sages stand in closer relation to M. G. from 
the fact that they are acted on the seashore and the abduction is accomplished 
by sea. The legend of Inclusa embodied in the framework of the Se*'en Sages 
has travelled through the civilized world. Both have the opening of the wall 
and the escape by sea. In both the husband is duped and assists the lovers in 
their flight. And as In the Arab. Nights Kamaralsaman makes a present of a 
female slave, so M. G. makes a present of Palaestrio. So many points in com- 
mon are not accidental, but the original Greek legend must have been the basis 
of these stories. 

Pp. 27-33. O. Apelt. Sextus Empiricus. Conjectural emendations on 15 

Pp. 34-64, 239-59. J. Beloch. Financial history of Athens, i. Taxation of the 
allies. Pericles, Thuc. II 13, puts the annual contributions of the confederate 
states at 600 talents, while the lists from 466-5 to 440-39 show that the taxation 
aiv^ounted to 460 talents. After the incorporation of Aegina the tribute never 
rose above 400 talents. To reach so high a figure Pericles must have added 
the revenues from Samos and the customs levied on the Thracian Bosporos. 
The estimate of Aristides had been doubled in 425-4, and when in 414 the 
enormous expenses of the war demanded larger revenues and many of the 
allies threatened to revolt, political reasons suggested a change. A system of 
duties replaced the tribute. 

2. KirchhofiTs view that besides the sacred treasury there was also a secular 
depository is untenable. After a certain time the surplus of the tribute was 
consecrated to Athena Polias and merged with the income of the temple.' So, 
strictly speaking, there was no state treasury. 

1 The report of the Rh. Mus., which has fallen into arrears owing to the illness and the 
death of our lamented collaborator. Professor John H. Wheeler, will be brought up as soon as 
possible. — EDrroR A. J. P. 


3. The revenues of temples came from the temple lands of Attica, the 
Khfpovxioi, the anapx^ of the tribute, and a tenth of confiscated property. 
Guided by the income of the Delian temple B. gives a probable estimate for 
that of Athena. Adding the income of Athena Nike, I talent, and tuv &X^juv 
deuVf 13 talents, we have before the Peloponn. war 44 talents annually ; after the 
conquest of Lesbos, 51 talents annually; after increasing the tribute, 425, 59 
talents annually ; after the Sicilian catastrophe, 40 talents annually. 

4. Salary of the judges. The pay of two obols at the beginning of the war 
was raised by Cleon to three after the victory of Sphakteria, and entirely 
abolished in the spring of 411. From Aristophanes it appears that the two obols 
were again in vogue in 406, and the item diopeXiav on the budget shows that this 
rate had continued since 409. The trifling amounts paid under this item do 
not justify us in referring it, with Boekh, to the theorikon. Beloch calculates 
the sum paid to the judges in 410-9 at 33^ talents, while the annual expenses on 
the courts from 425-4-1 3-1 2, when the rate was three obols and the empire 
more extensive, at 100 talents. 

5. The cost of the Peloponnesian war. To the middle of the year 422 the 
average annual expense amounted to 1500 talents, or in all 13400 talents. In 
413 the total had been increased to 26,000. After the last date, owing to the 
uncertain extent of the empire and the tribute's being collected in the form of 
eiKoaT^j even an approximate calculation is not possible. During this period 
the fleet subsisted largely on contributions laid on hostile towns. Adopting, 
however, an annual average of iioo talents, B. brings the entire cost of the war 
to 35,000 talents. 

6. The function of nopurr^. The board consisted of 10 (?) members, and 
had to do with the ir6pog xPVf^&ffJv and a general control over the financial 
affairs of the state, a duty similar to that of the later knl rig dtoiK^et, B. 
thinks the office came into existence on account of the financial difficulties of 
413, and continued through all the troubled years down to the peace of 

Pp. 65-72. F. Marx. Animadversiones criticae in Scipionis Aemiliani his- 
toriam et Gracchi orationem ad versus Scipionem. i. Valerius Maximus' 
account of the famous words, Sat bonae ac magnae sunt, is pure invention. 
Lucius inaugurated the lustrum 612-142, and not Scipio (Cic. De Orat. 11, 
2b 8). 2. Scipio was sent as ambassador to Ptolemy Physcon after his censor- 
ship, and not before, as Cic. has it. 3. Some corrections in the speech of C. 

Pp. 73-117. Zielinski. Two groups in the Nat. Mus. at Naples. I. One 
is the marble group called Sacrifino a Cerere, It represents the sacrifice of a 
pig. In front is the bending figure of a youth blowing the fire. To the rear 
is an elderly person standing erect with a knife in his right and holding in his 
left hand the foot of the beast which is plunged in a cauldron. The group is 
not complete as it has been supposed to be. The fact that the standing figure 
is attentively watching something before him, and that the work is more care- 
fully finished on the side now out of sight, brings Z. to the belief that the 
point of view must be partially shifted. Five repetitions of the same scene 
on bas-reliefs, cameos, etc., corroborate his view. The group is traced back to 
Lykiskos, the son of Myron. 2. The bronze figure of the Capitol drawing a 


thorn out of his foot has a striking similarity to the fire-blower. It is found 
to have the same development. It is archaic and the original of the Castellani 
and others. The author is perhaps Strongylon, a contemporary of Lykiskos. 
also of the school of Myron. 

Pp. 118-40. Theo. Kock. Aristophanes as poet and politician. I. How 
far is Aristophanes justified in his boast that, unlike his rivals, he did not 
impose on his audience by bringing forward the same subjects from time to 
time ? K. holds that his claim is just. While the choice of subject was often 
determined by the tendency of the play, and so far demanded repetition, this 
repetition was not due to lack of resource ; it is only a proof of his earnest- 
ness. The effort to overthrow the demagogues, the resistance to modern 
tendencies in religion, education, poetry, the exposure of the jugglery of the 
soothsayers, the exhibition of the poverty of the people, are themes that neces- 
sarily occupy many of his pieces. But in the matter of plot there is no recur- 
rence found and his invention is truly wonderful, «ava;j;oi)(Ti7r^a4, SoSeKdKpotwov 
rd ardfia. From the Acharnians to the Plutus every situation is brand-new. 
As for the economy, we can judge only by the extant comedies. In all these 
the movement is the same. The prologue expounds the thesis, which is main- 
tained according to the dialectic method, however disguised by brilliant situ- 
ations, and this constructive part is followed by a series of loosely built scenes, 
forming what may be called the illustrative part. The pieces always end with 
the triumph of the main idea. The variations from this scheme are for the 
most part only apparent and result from the necessities of the situation, as in 

the Frogs. 

II. The independent position of the comic poets between the different 
parties and orders of society can only be explained when we assume that they 
were actuated by a sincere patriotism. Like the rest of them, Ar. was per- 
suaded of the corruption of democracy and ochlocracy, and history has sanc- 
tioned his opinion. Brought up to admire the heroes of Marathon, he devoted 
his services to the true aristocracy of Athens. He was no mere farce-maker 
without moral earnestness. He was an aristocrat from conviction. 

Pp. 141-150. Deecke. The leaden plate of Magliano. D. corrects here 
and there the translation of Teza, and after a minute examination of every 
word, comes to the conclusion that the Etruscan language, though closely akin 
to Greek, belonged to the Italic group of the Indo-European. 

Pp. 151-55. F. BQcheler emends and interprets a Greek inscription from 
the temple of Kamak. It probably dates from the period between 150 B. C. 
and 150 A. D. 

Pp. 156-68. Ancient and modem metricians allow in an iambic distich 
a dimeter and a trimeter, as in the frg. of Archil, diuS^ rig av6p6irov 5rfc | 6g hp* 
a^rrrf^ Kaierd^ ^wiivifjrv. As this form is counter to the epodic idea, and as 
Horace does not use it in ten epodes, W51fflin questions the tradition and 
supposes that the fable from which the Archilochian fragment comes was a 
part of a longer composition. 

Plato, Phaedo 100 d. I. By water reads eire bTry 6^ Kal dTTof irpoaayopshofuv, 
A. Fr&nkel. The sources of the speeches in Arrian's Anabasis. One part 
of the speeches is brief and suited to the situations ; another is wordy and 

REPORTS, 23 s 

rhetorical. The latter has a great similarity to the speech of Alexander at 
Jpsus as given by Cnrt. Productions of so different a character must come 
from different sources, and Frfinkel thinks that Arrian in the longer speeches 
has followed Kleitarchos and Kleobulos. 

Siegelin follows Strabo's authority in placing the route of Hannibal through 
the marshes of the Po, and not those of the Amo. 

O. Crusius. The Fabiani in the Lupercalia festival. We know from Ovid's 
Fasti, 5, 74, that the/bAa played a part in the rites of the dead, and C. thinks 
there is sufficient reason for supposing that it was also employed in the festival 
of the Lupercalia. Granting so much, this at once affords an etymolc^^ for the 
name Fabius, and explains the close relation between the Fabiani and Quin- 
tiliani and the traditional connection of these families with the Lupercalia. 

Pp. 169-208. In a long article Hirzel arrives at the conclusion that 
tvTtkkx'^^ <ind h6£?^x^^ '^^ their philosophical use correspond to kvipyeia and 

Pp. 209-30. F. Koepp. Syrian wars of the first Ptolemies. This is an 
attempt to fix the date of the wars referred to in Theocritus V 86, and a 
detailed account of the history of this period. 

Pp. 231-8, 428-45, 566-80. Stangl gives a text criticism of the scholiasts 
of the Ciceronian speeches. 

Pp. 260-73. G. Faltin. The battle of Trasimenus according to Polybius 
and Livy. The battlefield in Polybius is not only quite different from that in 
Livy, but in the account of the fight the Greek historian follows closely a locality 
which he had pictured to himself. By his description of the ground, disposi- 
tion of the troops, and the carrying out of a plan, he shows that he had a clear 
conception of the battle. If, however, we compare his account with the actual 
locality, there is no correspondence. So we arrive at the conclusion that, in 
spite of careful elaboration, he was unacquainted with the region. The nar- 
rative of Livy, on the other hand, suits the ground, and from a military point 
of view the arrangement of the forces and the course of action are intelligible 

Pp. 274-92. Biicheler. Conjectanea. B. makes a number of conjectures 
for Theocr., reproduces an Egyptian papyrus containing a metrical account in 
Greek of a war against Blemyas, and compares it with another in the posses- 
sion of Weidmann. From a neglected passage in Lydus, evidently drawn 
from a more ancient source, Claudian, the poet, turns out to be a Paphlagonian. 
Then follow remarks on Juv. IV 94, and a dozen passages in Plautus, besides 
notes on Persius, Lucil., Attalus Stoicus, Xenophon, and Varro. 

Pp. 293-300. Koehler. Exegetical and critical notes on the fragments of 
Antigonos of Karystos. 

Pp. 301-20. Th. Zielinski. The death of Cratinus. The manner of 
Cratinus* death, as recorded by Ar. Peace 701 foil., is a joke, and more than 
that, the dat^ is a joke. The man who won a victory with his Hvtivij over the 
Clouds in 423 could not have died in 425 — the date of the Lacedaemonian 
invasion, in which the fatal jar of wine is supposed to have been shattered. 
Furthermore, Z. thinks, on the strength of a scholion on the Birds 521, that 
he brought his 'Sifieaic on the stage again 415. 


Thucydides and Diodonis. J. M. Stahl finds that Thuc. II 70, 4 can be 
supplemented from Diod. XII 46, 7, and Diod. XII 62, 6-7 by Thuc. IV 12, 3. 
The close correspondence of the historians throws light on the question as to 
how Thuc. was used by Diod. — In Herodian V 7, 4 Stahl reads v^iaavrt^ 
instead of olf aneiaavreg. 

Kirchner. Trustworthiness of the documents in the speeches of Dem. In 
two instances K. identifies the persons in Dem. with names discovered on the 

Heylbut. Musonius and Sotion. A comparison with passages in Seneca De 
Ira.— Heylbut also has a note on the value of Felicianus* edition of Aris- 
totle 1542. 

Schans. Transmission of Ovid's libellus de medicamine faciei. The piece 
seems not to have belonged to the Carmina amatoria and S. is unable to bring 
himself to believe that Ovid is the author. 

An Oscan inscription. F. B[iicheler]. B. undertakes to account for the 
gaps in the poem by restoring the columnar arrangement of the archetype. 

The Golden Fish of Vettersfelde, discovered in 1 882 and now in the Berlin 
Museum, was supposed by Furtwangler to have been the blazon of a shield and to 
date from the sixth century B. C. But, as in the case of the only other bronze 
fish existing from antiquity(Momms.CIL. 1 532 ;t 6231), Gardthausen is of opinion 
that it is a tessera hospitalis given by a Scythian prince, who had a Greek 
goldsmith in his service, to a friend in Nieder-Lausitz. 

Pp. 321-38. Hiller. Contributions to the history of Greek Literature. 
The beginning of Tragedy. It is doubtful whether Aristotle considered 
Thespis the originator of tragedy. 

Pp. 339-47. Dziatzko. The MSS of Terence. Dziatzko had already shown 
that the chronological order of the plays of Terence (An. Hec. Heaut. Eun. 
Phorm. Ad.) corresponds generally to the order in the didascaliae (An. Eun. 
Heaut. Phorm. Hec. Ad.) if we count, as the grammarians did, from the first 
actual representation, which shifts the place of Hec. from 589 A. U. C., when 
it could neque speciari neque cogncsci^ to 574, when it was acted as plane nova. 
The only discrepancy relates to Eun. and Heaut. But it is of no moment when 
we have the reversed order in codex Lipsiensis and in a Paris MS. So also 
are they quoted by Geppert, who had access to MSS of the tenth century. 

Pp. 348-58. Krumbacher. A new codex of the grammar of Dositheus. 
Sangallensis was for a long time the only MS known of this writer. A few 
years ago the fragmentary Monacensis was found. Now K. has discovered 
another, Harleian 5642 Saec. IX, X. The cod. Sang, is second in descent 
from a lost cod. x, and from the same original x there existed a cod. z. This 
was torn, and from its pieces were copied the greater part of Harleianus and 
the Monac. as follows : 

Monac, HarL 


Pp. 359-407. 521-57. O. Hense. The order of the Eclogae in the Florile- 
gium of Stobaeus. In an article of 86 pages H. goes into a careful and elabo- 
rate comparison of the editions and MSS of Stob., and with the aid of long 
comparative tables is able to make a new arrangement of the eclogae. Critical 
and philological notes follow. 

Pp. 408-^7. F. Btlcheler. Old Latin. Continuation from XXXVII 4.> 
Fontensa in Placidus under F p. 45, 4 (Deuerling), glossed by ostenta^ should 
hefranUHa, with which comp. Greek PpovT^, Ppovr^toq^ PptfieiVyfremere^ and 
the suffix has its parallel in Oeresia and the like. It may then be Old Italian, 
but the Etruscan fronUu z=. fulguriator makes it likely that froniesia was intro- 
duced by the Etruscan disciplinay the Etruscan haruspUes, JUius belongs to the 
same radical ytx'O^ felare. It means * suckling/ and there are traces that JUius 
originally connoted the mother. In Plautus we never find mi fili^ the father 
says mi gnate or gfuUe mi^ and terrae filius^ fortunae f,^ alhae gaUinae y., perpe- 
tuate the old distinction. Romulus is R, Martis, or Mavortius, but Luptu filius. 
Many words have the same sound ^ith different origin and significance, and 
vice versa. There are four limaris — limare from lima * a file/ limare from limus 
*■ a girdle/ limare from limus * mud/ limari = rimari. On the other hand, 
adcesso {acciS) became regularly arcesso and accesso (see the MSS of Persius 3, 
45 and 5, 172) and accerso. In the first century after Christ, arcesso was distin- 
guished from accerso, was derived from arcere and limited to the meaning accusare. 
False etymology was also at work in duploma for diploma, comp. duplum^primi- 
legium iorprivilegium {comp. primus), and OcHmberior October (comp. imber). The 
odd circumstance that there is no incinctus * ungirt ' in Latin is explained by the 
close likeness to inciens already used for iyKitog, kyKVfiuv, and incinctus was not 
formed for fear of a Kaxifi^Tov. oktum may come from olere, but it is probably 
a euphemistic homonymy for an oletum corresponding to x66avav, inasmuch as 
oleium never means anything except stercus kumanum— the greater, to be sure, 
including the less, as in Pers. i, II3 : inlicere, inlex, inlecebrae lead us to expect 
inlicium^ And illicium does occur in Varro R. R. 3, 16 and elsewhere, but Varro's 
use of it rests on a false etymology. The inlicium of the old consular formula 
{voca inlicium Quirites ad me) i& an hypostasis of in loco (ilico), Greek words 
adopted into Latin may occur more frequently in the adoptive than in the 
national language, and sometimes with peculiar modifications and meanings. 
Comp. cyma, bolarium, patus in Querolus Sc. I is rrardc from ira/uz. Traffic, and 
is formed like SwarSc, BvtirSg. Of Latin words in Greek note SuvariK^, formed 
after donativum. From garum came yaprydpiov, or rather yO'P&piov =: b^vfia^v. 
The Greek equivalent of toga is r^pewoc or rfjpewa^ evidently a Latin word 
Graecized. Both toga and tebenna come from tegore (teg'/a\ tefa^ teba). In this 
connexion distinguish between Hgillum (tegillum) from tegere, and tlgillum from 
tignum, luppiter Tigillus belongs to the former word, which under the 
former Hgillum has been glossed tuguriolum. Another Latin word disguised 
in Greek is ixjaS^ hasta (comp. Umbr. hostd). Finally, B. takes up fulcipedia 
(Petr. Sat. 75), which is compounded like acupeMa 'swift foot/ A, fulcipedia is 
one who wishes to appear taller than she is, who mounts her high horse. Cf. 
Hesych. bpdoirijyiav brav yw^ iavri^ kiraipy npd^ rb fioKporipav ^iveaOai, where 

» See A. J. P. VI 843. 


Jinrf' is to be explained by ira^ifiwfrya. Cf. 741 Cassandra ealiguria. — mufrius 
in mufrius non magister (Petr. Sat. 58) is = fiii&rrHip, ab acta et acu (ib. 72) is 
equiv. to ab ovo * from A to Z/ and bonatus (ib. 74) comes from bonum^ as malaius 
<rrvyv6c from ma/um,^ 

Pp. 446-57. Von Hertling. Histoiy of the Politics of Aristotle in the Mid- 
die Ages. Von Hertling disproves successfully, it seems, a view prevalent 
among editors of the Politics that the commentary of Albertus Magnus was 
written after and influenced by that of his pupil Thomas Aquinas. 

Pp. 458-65. Stahl. A supposed amnesty of the Athenians. In the life 
of Thucydides, by Marcellinus (32-34) there is a mention of an amnesty 
granted by the Athenians after the disaster in Sicily. This is not supported by 
any other writer. Passages in Andocides (i, 67 ; i, 80) indicate the contrary, 
and Thuc. VIII 70, i clearly militates against it. Thuc. refers to the spring of 
411, when a new amnesty bill would hardly have been necessary. 

Pp. 466-80. In Prot. 31 2e Stahl proposes to read irepl ovirep Kal Maraadai (sc. 

A. Riese thinks he lights upon a German name in Strab. VII 7, 4, 2eai6ayKoc 
(p=c) = leyidayKO( =z Siegdank. 

C. Wachsmuth. On the order of the apophthegms of Demetrios in the 
Vienna collection. 

F. Leo. Stichi Plautinae versus Ambrosiani. 

Hoffmann. Rivalry of Laberius and Syrus. Macrob. Sat. II 7, 2, Laberium 
Caesar invitavit ut prodiret in scaenam et ipse ageret mimos quos scriptitabat 
(not with Teuffel, mimum quem scripserat). H. shows that historians of 
literature are mistaken in supposing that the contending parties appeared in 
ready-made pieces. As the challenge of Syrus reads ' ut singuli secum posita 
in vicem materia pro tempore contenderent/ they exhibited their wit in the 
manner of improvisation. 

Schwabe. Birthplace of Phaedrus. S., in his answer to WOlfflin, quotes Ph. 
V 52 as implying on the part of the poet that he stood nearer the Greeks than 
Aesop and Anacharsis, that his native land was Thrace, and that he was bom 
in Pieria, where Mnemosyne bore the Muses to Jove. Furthermore, H. ques- 
tions the possibility of explaining maUr me enixa est figuratively. 

L. Traube. The Latin Josephus. The correspondence between Albar of 
Cordova and Bodo-Eleazar (840 A. D.) brings to light that the real author of 
the so-called Hegesippus was still known, and that at the time a MS bore his 

Krumbacher finds on examination that the Harleian MS contains all the 
books of the grammarian Diomedes. Going back to the same archetype as 
the Puteanus and the other codices, it affords nothing new in the line of textual 

Lists of Greek kings. Busolt maintains Unger*s opinion in referring the 
lists to Ephoros, showing at the same time the dates are not based on historical 
evidence, but arranged according to a system founded on the supposed length 
of a generation in the age of Aristotle. 

1 Comp. AlexU fr. 96, 7 (III 433 Mein.) : rvyx^^*^ H-*-'^P^ tk oi)<ra, ^cAA&f ci' raif ^avKi<rtr 
ifKiKdrrvrat, which may explain iraAif&inrya rd iraAaid icarrvftaro. — B . L. G. 


Pp. 481-90. Kekul^. Arrangement of the figures on the east gable of the 
temple of Zeus at Olympia. Want of symmetry is the weakness of Cuitius. 
Accepting the principle of Treu, K. insists still further on agreement through- 
out. The close correspondence in the five central figures, the horses, and 
those on the extreme right and left suggests a similar disposition of the 
remaining figures, as Kekul^ sets forth in detail, which we cannot follow here. 

Pp. 491-510. Roemer. Criticism of the Rhetoric of Aristotle. The pas- 
sages on the text criticism are too numerous to be specified. A new collation 
of the Parisian MS Ac. is needed, and even after the skilful hand of Spengel, 
the work on the text is by no means finished. 

Pp. 511-20. W. Gilbert. Text criticism of Martial. 

Pp. 558-60. F. B. Oscan inscription. 

Pp. 561-65. Kalkmann. Hesiod's fuydXai 'Ho<<u in Pausanias. Pausanias 
quotes the KaraXoyog ywatKuv and the 'HoZat in several different ways, so that a 
discussion has arisen as to the number of poems. K. comes to the conclusion 
that the fJieydXcu 'HoZat was the general title including both works. 

Pp. 581-606. O. Crusius. A didactic poem of Plutarch. Galen's Jlporpen- 
Tucdc iirl rag rkxyaq was the introduction of a larger work, Uporp, iirl laTpiicfpf, 
of which the opening words remain in the last sentence of our fragment. 
After the loss of the principal part the title was accordingly changed. It is 
generally allowed to be by G. The inferiority in composition compared with 
his other works, and the difference in style of the different parts, are supposed 
to be the result of the various sources from which the lecture is drawn. Poetic 
language appears in chapters II and III, and later the rhythmic movement is 
so clear that a metrical reconstruction has been possible. Several sources 
have been proposed. The clue to the authorship C. finds in the so-called 
Lamprias Catalogue of Plutarch, where trtpi ^<fiuv aXdyuv icoirjTucdq (sc. T^og) is 
cited. The contents of our piece betray a familiarity with Plut. both in thought 
and treatment, and there is sufficient evidence to prove that G. used that 

Pp. 607-19. Th. Bergk. Tafiiai and the authorship of Themistocles. The 
article was found among B.'s papers, and is published by Hinrichs, though it 
is neither complete nor furnishes anything new. 

Pp. 620-40. F. B. Conjectanea. I. On Hesychius. 2. A Gr. epitaph. 
3. An elegy of Propert. on the death of Marcellus, the son of Octavia. 

With reference to the attitude of the lonians in the battle of Salamis, A. 
Bauer finds the account as given by Hdt. to be correct. Variations in later 
writers are due to rhetorical exaggerations. 

O. Crusius. A reply to the remarks of Reinesius on Timocles the tetra- 

Ribbeck proposes to read in Tac. Dial. 32, quasi una ex sordidissimis man" 
cipiis destituatttr^ instead of artificiis discatur, 

Sommerbrodt has collated several writings of Lucian in the Upsala MS. 
The readings frequently agree with the Marcianus. The MS is not older than 
the thirteenth century. 

The subscriptio *'Finit decimus liber Horatii," found at the end of the 
Ambrosianus 0. 136 sup. (=a Kell-Hold.), dating probably from the ninth cen- 


tnry, Zangemeister uses as another argument for his view that Q. Terentius 
Scaurus wrote a book of commentaries to each book of the poet. In vita Sep* 
timii Severi 19 §52, Zangemeister reads et themuu Severianae eiusdemque SepH- 
mianae (MS etiam ianae) in TrunsHberina regione^ observing that the locality 
was called Septimiana and that it still goes by the name * il Settignano.' — Z. 
shows that R or 9 in itinerary MSS does not, as Bergk thought, mean ratio or 
msta (German), but that it stands for require^ and is regularly used where the 
sum of shorter distances added is too large or too small and an examination is 
necessary : r : quinque supersunt. s signifies sunt^ not stadia, as : hie s[unt] XI 
minus. Sic is employed where the minor distances correspond to the sum 

Deecke connects the Etruscan erus (sun) with aruo, aruna, Gr. kpv-B.pdq, Ital. 
ru'd'iro-s, ro-h-it^ rUbere, rufus. Lusnn (moon) is the long form of lusxna from 
luxsna by a favorite Etr. metathesis. To this corresponds Lat. Ittna, Gr. 
'K{)Xyoq, He is not sure of a connection with Tii^dpov and lustrum, 

Andrew Fossum. 

Romania, Vol. XVI (1887). 


P. Meyer. Le roman des trois ennemis de I'homme par Simon. Some time 
ago the public librarian of Orleans discovered, in the binding of a book in 
his library, several leaves of parchment containing fragments of an Old French 
poem. On being submitted to M. Paul Meyer, these fragments were discovered 
to be portions of the unpublished and scarcely known metrical romance above 
mentioned, of which there is supposed to be in existence only a single com- 
plete copy, preserved in MS 5201 of the Bibliothique de T Arsenal at Paris. 
The poem has not before, so far as known, been made the subject of study. 
The "three enemies" here celebrated are "the world, the flesh, and the 
devil," the subject being one of the commonplaces of the pious literature of the 
Middle Ages. The poem would seem not to be, strictly speaking, translated 
from the Latin, but to have rather the character of a compilation of materials 
gathered from various sources, including the Scriptures, the Fathers of the 
Church, and the poets of antiquity and of the Middle Ages. Unlike most of 
the productions of the time, this poem bears the name of its author. Twice 
he speaks of himself, with touching humility, as ** le pauvre Simon," not, how- 
ever, from a vain desire for literary renown, but in order that grateful readers 
may be mindful of him in their prayers. Nothing is known of our " Simple 
Simon," other than that having first lived in the world, he afterward entered a 
religious order. He is not to be identified with any one of the Simons other- 
wise known in Old French literature. The general characteristics of his 
language would indicate that the poem belongs to the first half of the thirteenth 
century. As to the value of conclusions drawn from a study and comparison of 
the rhymes, M. Meyer remarks : ** II y a longtemps que j'ai appris & suspecter la 
solidite des arguments qu'on tire des rimes. Je montrerai un jour que la 
plupart des manuscrits du roman de Troie, de Benolt de Sainte-More, et 
notamment celui d'apr^s lequel a et^ faite I'edition que nous avons de ce 
po^me, appartiennent k une redaction qui a subi, en ce qui conceme les rimes, 


des remaniements considerables." For purposes of comparison the Orleans 
fragments, containing in all some 675 verses, are here printed face to face with the 
corresponding passages from the Paris codex. As an appendix to the above 
study there follows a detailed '* Notice da ms. de TArsenal 5201." This MS 
is mentioned as early as 1815 by Roquefort, but has not before been turned to 
account, nor have its contents been analyzed. It contains a large number of 
poems, grouped here by M. Meyer under 17 rubrics, with extracts and refer- 
ences to other MSS containing the same texts. 

Antoine Thomas. Lettres latines in^dites de Francesco da Barberino. M. 
Thomas here publishes several of Barberino'^ letters, discovered by him in the 
Imperial Library at Vienna subsequently to the publication of his work on 
Francesco da Barberino et la litt/rature proven^aU au moyen Age, The first and 
most important of these letters is one addressed, in the name of the Imperial 
Roman crown, ad serenissimum Henricutn imperatorem (Henry VII), exhorting 
him to come to Rome to receive the coronation. In style and spirit it may be 
compared to Dante's first Latin letter, in which, apropos of Henry*s approach, 
he invites all Italy to rejoice at the arrival of her spouse. 

A. Morel-Fatio. Le podme barcelonais en Thonneur de Ferdinand le 
Catholique. Article complementary to one in Rom. XI 333 ff. M. M.-F. dis- 
covers, in a work recently published, that eleven strophes (out of fifteen) of a 
poem presented in 1520 to the Emperor Charles V are all but identical with as 
many strophes of a poem offered fifty years later to Ferdinand the Catholic, 
and published by M.-F. in the Romania. The earlier text is here printed and 
availed of to emend various unsatisfactory readings of the other version. 

Melanges. I. G. Paris. Une version orientale du thdme de AlVs well that 
ends welL There have been hitherto known but three versions of the curious 
tale borrowed by Shakspere from Boccaccio (Decam. Ill 9) for his comedy of 
the above title. The two versions besides Boccaccio's are (i) an episode of 
the Magus Saga^ and (2) Le Chevalereux d*Artois, M. Paris finds still another 
in W. RadlofTs recently published Proben der Volkslitteratur der nordlichen 
tUrkischen Stdmme. — II. G. Paris. Sur le roman de la Charrette. In Flamenca^ 
V. 673, occurs the word Lyras, which has been supposed, from the context, to 
be the name of some unknown personage of the Round Table. M. Paris 
shows that the true reading is Vyras (*'le heraut") and traces the allusion 
involved to w. 5536 ff. of the Charete, The formula, Or est venus qtti aunera 
(or qid Paunera), which occurs in the Charete^ and which M. Paris had not met 
with elsewhere, he now discovers in a chanson composed in 1381, disguised 
in two different editions under the form of Or est venus qui I'aimera^ the original 
MS, however, reading correctly launera, — III. Maurice Prou. Etymologic du 
nom de lieu Chitry, A number of villages in France bear the name of Chitry^ 
Chitray, or Chitr/, These are all referred to Castriacus, from Castorittcus, indi- 
cating a villa belonging to Castorius. — IV, P. Meyer. Un nouveau manuscrit 
de la l^gende latine de Girard de Rousillon. At the Biblioth^ue Mazarine, 
No. 1329. — A. Mussafiaand E. L^vy. Corrections au Livre de Courtoisie. Nume- 
rous conjectural emendations to the text and glossary of the Catalan Facet, as 
published by Morel-Fatio, Rom. XV 199 ff. 

Comptes-rendns. Po^me moral. Altfranz5sisches Gedicht . . . zum ersten 


Male herausgegeben von Wilhelm Cloetta (M. Wilmotte). This poem, written 
in monorhymed strophes of five Alexandrine verses, presents a treatise on 
morals for the use of ordinary readers. M. Wilmotte subjects to detailed 
examination the editor's treatment of the dialect (which he considers insuffi- 
cient) and undertakes himself to determine the region in which the poem had 
its origin. Classification of the MSS and constitution of the text are favorably 
characterized.— I. MM. Robin, Le Prevost, A. Blosseville. Diction- 
naire du patois normand en usage dans le d^partement de TEure. II. H« 
Moisy. Dictionnaire de patois normand, indiquant particuliirement tous les 
termes de ce patois en usage dans la region centrale de la Normandie, etc. 
III. J. Fleury. Essai sur le patois normand de la Hague. These three works 
are reviewed in minute detail (i8 pp.) by M. Ch. Joret, who calls attention to 
the fact that, beginning in 1849 ^^^^ ^^ Dictionnaire du patois ttormand oi the 
MM. Dumeril, there are few provinces whose popular speech has been so 
zealously studied as that of Normandy. Of the first he concludes: '*s*il ne 
repond pas k Tid^e qu'on se fait aujourd'hui d*un dictionnaire de patois, il 
n*en a pas moins des merites incontestables"; the second he calls ** un vrai 
monument qu*a eleve, dans sa laborieuse retraite, le savant 6crivain, et Toeuvre 
le plus considerable dont les patois normands aient iik Tobjet"; the third ** ne 
se compose pas seulement d'un dictionnaire, il comprend encore une longue 
^tude sur la ' phon^tique et flexion/ ainsi que des textes et des observations 
sur divers idiomes populaires de la Basse-Normandie." A large number of 
etymologies are here critically tested. 

P6riodiques. Attention may be called to a learned study of Crescini, 
Idaiogos (Zeitsch. f{ir rom. Phil. X), in which it seems to be well established, 
especially by means of anagrams deciphered, that the story of Idaiogos in the 
Filocob^ as well as that of Ibrida in the Ameto^ is the history of Boccaccio 
himself, and accordingly that the author of the Decameron was born in Paris 
in 1 31 3, of a young girl or a widow seduced by his father. 

Chronique. Extended notice, by P. Meyer, of the late Noel (or Natalis) de 
Wailly, who died at Passy, Dec. 4, 1886, at the age of nearly eighty years. M. 
de Wailly began his career by writing on literary subjects for the National and 
the Glode. In 1830 he entered the Royal Archives as chief of the adminis- 
trative section, and thence, in 1852, passed to the historical section, where he 
replaced the historian Michelet. Two years later, appointed conservator in 
the department of manuscripts at the National Library, M. de Wailly remained 
at his post until 1870, when he took his retreat. He was especially known for 
his palaeographical studies, his labors'on the Recueil des historiens de France^ 
and his critical editions of Joinville and Ville-Hardouin. — Short notice of 
Francisque Michel, who died May 18, 1886, at the age of seventy-eight. 
Michel was known chiefly as one of the earliest editors of Old French texts. 
His literary activity began in 1830 and extended to the year before his death. 


Fr. Bonnardot. Fragments d'une traduction de la Bible en vers. These 
fragments were discovered in an ancient binding of the library of Treves. To 
a certain extent the lacunes have been supplied by comparison with two infe- 
rior MSS of the same work preserved in the National Library at Paris. All 


three MSS (as well as two others signalized by P. Meyer in a note) were 
executed in England. The present publication comprises 1013 verses, begin- 
ning in the midst of the address of the prophet Jahaziel to King Jehoshaphat 
(II Chronicles, xx 15). 

P. Meyer. Notice du ms. 1137 de Grenoble, renformant divers podmes sur 
saint Fanuel, sainte Anne, Marie et J^sas. This MS contains a series of five 
poems: i. The history of S. Fanuel (born of a virgin who had inhaled the 
fragrance of a miraculous flower, and himself giving being to S. Anne) ; the 
birth of John the Baptist ; the birth of the Virgin Mary. 2. The history of 
Mary and of Jesus, in which is intercalated a poem originally independent, 
viz.: 3. The Gospel of the Childhood (rEvangile de Tenfance). 4. The Pas- 
sion. 5. The Assumption. From each of these are given extracts together 
with comparisons from other sources. 

P. Meyer. Notice sur un ms. Interpol^ de la Conception de Wace (British 
Museum, Add. 15606). M.Meyer finds this MS, on account of its interpo- 
lations, ** Tun des plus difficiles it bien d^crire qui se puissent rencontrer." He 
has already devoted to it a long article in the Romania (VI 1-46), followed at 
intervals by two supplements, but scarcely hopes at present, after long pre- 
liminary studies, to clear away all difficulties. Wace has drawn, for his poem, 
upon an apocryphal opusculum, the De nativitate Mariae. He did not occupy 
himself with the origin of S. Anne, the mother of the Virgin, nor did it enter 
into his plan to relate the story of the Passion. The interpolator of the 
present MS, however, desired, on the contrary, to unite in a single compilation 
all that the popular poetry had to offer on the history of Jesus and of his human 
ancestors. Adopting, accordingly, Wace's Conception as a framework, he 
inserted in this various extraneous narratives. M. Meyer here furnishes an 
analysis of the poem, with extracts, calculated to bring out as clearly as pos- 
sible the sources and manner of these interpolations. 

P. Meyer. Fragments d'une ancienne Histoire de Marie et dej/sus en laisses 
monorimes (British Museum, Cott. Vit. D. III). The MS in question was 
seriously damaged by the fire of 1731, in which the whole Cottonian library 
had nearly perished. All that can be deciphered of the few folios that were 
rescued is here carefully garnered. 

£. Philipon. Ua accentu^ pr^c^d6 d*une palatale dans les dialectes du 
Lyonnais, de la Bresse et du Bugey. As the chief characteristic of the so-called 
Franco- Provengal group of dialects set up some years ago by Professor Ascoli, 
the latter places the passing to tV, f , or e of tonic a, preceded either in Latin or 
in Romance by a palatal sound. It has been observed, however, that the rule 
is subject to an important list of exceptions. M. Philipon, taking the position 
that, in view of these, the sole influence of a following palatal is insufficient 
to produce the change, submits the facts of the dialects above mentioned to a 
systematic classification, and discovers that accented a preceded by a palatal 
persists, but with a broadened sound, when final in Romance ; and passes to 
e only before a consonant. Hence he concludes that the transformation in 
question is due to the presence of a following consonant. 

H. Morf. Manducatum = manducatam en valaisan et en vaudois. Treats, 
under other conditions and slightly varying aspects, much the same question 



as that of the preceding article. The editors promise to revert to the inter- 
esting point of phonetics involved. 

E. Muret. Eilhart d*Oberg et sa source fran9aise. An article of seventy- 
five pages, ranged under six rubrics. I. Vauvre d* Eilhart. In the second 
half of the twelfth century, not far from the court of the Guelfs, at which 
Pfarrer Conrad had translated the Chanson de Roland, Eilhart d'Oberg, a 
knight of Brunswick and vassal of Duke Henry the Lion, composed the most 
ancient German poem on the loves of Tristan and Iseut. Eilhart is one of the 
earliest, if not one of the most important, of those skillful imitators of the 
French who have supplied Germany with her brilliant chivalrous poetry. He 
is not, however, a mere translator, but aims to give to his events and personages 
a German physiognomy. By its date and extent Eilhart's Tristan is the chief 
representative of the Arthurian version of the legend. Availing himself of the 
antecedent labors of Heinzel, Lichtenstein, and Vetter, the present writer 
undertakes to fix more exactly the place which Eilhart^s work holds in the 
ensemble of the tradition. II. DontUes g^n/rales dupohne. Under noms propres 
are discussed the forms of the hero's name, which in the French versions are 
Tristrand^ Tristram^ and Tristan^ while Eilhart uses Tristrant (which is also 
attested by the rhyme in Old French). Under g^ographie it is shown that, 
whereas in the Old French poems the name Bretagru was applied now to con- 
tinental Brittany, now to insular Britain, in Eilhart's work Britanjd is the 
kingdom of Arthur, and the royal residence is separated from Tintagel by a 
great forest only. Isneldone is identified with Snowdon. III. La premiere 
partie du pohne d Eilhart, Treats the Enfance de Tristan^ Le philtre d^atnour 
et le manage d Iseut ^ and other salient features. IV. Eilhart et BAvul. A 
comparison of the methods of procedure of the two authors. V. La seconde 
moitiS du pohne. Dealing chiefly with Tristan's stay at the court of King 
Arthur, the episode of the second Iseut, and the last adventures and death of 
Tristan. VI. La source. According to all probability Eilhart's source was a 
romance composed towards 1 1 70 in the north-east of France, in Picardy, or 
Flanders. Possibly the poet's name is preserved for us in that of a certain 
li Kievres {La Chievre\ who is mentioned in a text of that region as having 
rhymed L amour de Tristran et disault, 

A. Morel-Fatio. Textes castillans inedits du XIII si^cle. Compared with 
the wealth of early Italian and French, the Castilian poetry of the Middle 
Ages, as we at present possess it, is singularly slender in bulk. All that dates 
earlier than the fourteenth century is easily contained in a volume of a few 
hundred pages, nor can we look with much hopefulness for the discovery of 
new treasure-trove of any great importance. M. M.-F. here publishes, with 
appropriate introduction and notes, three small additions to our previous pos- 
sessions, disclosed in the examination of a Latin MS of the Biblioth^que 
Nationale. These are: (i) a Love Poem of 162 vv., rhyming two and two 
(with occasional assonance) ; (2) a ** Debate between Wine and Water," of 100 
w., rhyming as before (accompanied by an interesting page facsimile) ; and 
(3) the Ten Commandments (in prose), with commentary for the use of con- 

G. Paris. Un poime inedit de Martin Le Franc. With Charles d*Orl<5ans 
and Villon, Martin Le Franc is assuredly the most remarkable poet of the 


fifteenth century, his comparative obscurity being due to various causes, which 
are here set forth. His principal and only noteworthy work, Le Champion det 
Dames, belongs to the long series of productions devoted in the Middle Ages 
to the attacking or the defending of woman. M. Paris studies various inter- 
esting phases of the poet's writings, especially his numerous allusions to French 
poets and their works, and publishes at the close of his article a poem of sixty 
strophes (of eight verses each), entitled ComplainU du livre du Champion des 
Dames ^ maistre Martin Le Franc son acteur. 

£. Picot. Le Monologue dramatique dans Tancien th^&tre frauQais (second 
article). Sections I and II of the subject appeared in Vol. XV, p. 358 ff. We 
have here a continuation of over a hundred pages. III. Sermons sur Us buveurs 
et les cabarets ^ treated under five heads (29-34). IV. Sermons sur divers sujets 
(35-40). V. Sermons de sots (41-43). VI. Monologues ctAmoureux (44-56). 
VII. Monologues de charlatans et de valets (57-65). VIII. Monologues de soldats 
fanfarons (66-69). ^X. Monologues de Comidiens (70-74). 

J. B. Andrews. Phonetique mentonaise {suite et Jin), Continuation* of a 
study which appeared in Romania XII 354 ff. Treats of the atonic vowels, 
the consonants, and the " accidents generaux.*' By way of conclusion, the 
author states that the dialect of Mentone should be classed with the Provencal 
spoken on the banks of the Rhdne rather than with the Genoese lying on the 
other side, and supports his position by a series of comparisons. 

Melanges. I. J. Cornu. Andare, andar, annar, aller. There are in Latin 
two verbs whose use accords closely with that of the Romance andare, etc. : 
they are enare and endtare^ which were doubtless commonly employed. 
According to M. Cornu, they offer the same development of meaning as Fr. se 
sauvery and to them must in some way be referred the Romance words in 
question. The line of formal development would be: enatare^ anatare^ 
anitare ^ anidare ]> anedare ]> It. andare. In Gaul, andare seems to have been 
used for the most part with inde : ind* andare. To avoid the close repe 
tition of ndy we get by dissimilation iW annar, whence Prov. annar, anar, and 
this dissimilation seeming still insufficient to French ears, the verb becomes 
in North France aller and ahr. So, for the meaning, Lat. emergere, which is 
synon3rmous with enare and enatare, has assumed in Roumanian the sense of 
aller. — II. G. Paris. Choisel. An obsolete word of uncertain meaning 
(probably an appliance of a special sort of water-wheel), unsatisfactorily treated 
in the supplement to Littr^'s Dictionary. Its etymology, at least, M. Paris is 
prepared to vouch for as caucellum (in Low Latin, * cup,' ' drinking vessel '), 
diminutive of cauculum^ itself a diminutive of caucum. — III. P. Meyer. Le 
conte des Trois Perroquets. A newly discovered semi- Provencal version of a 
fable preserved in Latin in the Gesta Romanorum and the Dialogus creaturarum, 
the moral of which is : Audi, vide, tace,si tu vis znvere in pace, — IV. A. Thomas. 
Provencal ugonenc. Emendation of a mysterious word, aigonenc, occurring in 
Canello*s edition of Amaut Daniel (p. 106). It is the name applied to a cer- 
tain coin, ** ab Hugone, ut videtur," as defined in Ducange s. v. Hugonenses. — 
V. A. Thomas. Henri VII et Francesco da Barberino. Short rejoinder to 
an article by Signor Novati in the Archivio Storico Italiano, which was not 
brought to the attention of M. Thomas in time for his article on Barberino 


(see above). — VI. G. Paris. Une question biographique sur Villon. All the 
biographers of Villon, including the most authoritative, M. Auguste Longnon, 
agree in placing between the Lais^ written in 1456, and the Grand Testament 
(1 46 1 or 1462), the poet's condemnation to death (afterwards commuted to 
banishment). This opinion seems to M. Paris to be open to doubt, and he 
presents various considerations on the subject to M. Longnon, to whom the 
question is relegated for final decision, attention being called at the same time 
to the fact that from various points of view a different light is thrown upon the 
Testament according as it is r^arded as having been composed before or after 
the most tragic event of the poet's life. 

Comptes-rendus. Karl Beetz. C und eh vor lateinischem A in altfranzO- 
sischen Texten. Inaugural dissertation (G. Paris). The most interesting 
point brought out is that the existing patois do not present the intermixture of 
c and ch for Latin C (in strong position) before A, but that the words with e 
which are found in the various French patois, and the words with ch which 
occur in the various Picard patois, are borrowed words. The author further 
shows, from an examination of Picard charters, that the proportion of words 
with ch goes on increasing in them from the earliest down to those of the 
fourteenth century ; the progress of French influence on the written speech is 
thus traced (especially in terms juridical, technical, etc.), while to our own 
day the spoken patois of the same regions remain true to the Picard phonetics. — 
G. Biichener. Das altfranzOsische Lothringer-Epos. Betrachtungen fiber 
Inhalt, Form und Entstehung des Gedichts, etc. (G. Paris). " Ne tient pas ce 
que le titre promet." Presents some interesting resumes of what concerns 
manners and institutions in the three volumes published by P. Paris and E. du 
M^ril, but the difficult question proposed to himself by the author is not 
seriously approached. — I. G. Paris et J. Ulrich. Merlin, roman en prose du 
XIII« sidcle, publie, etc. — II. K. v. ReinhardstOttner. Historia dos caval- 
leiros da Mesa Redonda e da demanda do santo Graal, zum ersten Male ver- 
dflfentlicht, etc. Erster Band (G. Paris). These two publications are here 
announced together, inasmuch as the second completes the first, and corrobo- 
rates certain scientific conjectures of its chief editor, M. Paris, in a manner 
as important as it was unexpected. In the preface to Merlin^ M. Paris conjec- 
tures, or, more properly, concludes, from a careful comparison of the data 
bearing on the prose version of the so-called Huth MS, (i ) that the third part 
of the compilation of which the Huth MS preserves the first two, must have 
been essentially a Quite du saint graal ; (2) that this QuSte must have been 
similar to, but not identical with, the Quite du saint graal incorporated in the 
Lancelot attributed to Walter Map; (3) that it must have been set down to the 
name of Robert de Boron , and not of Walter Map ; and (4) that it must have 
been the Quite indicated in the romance of Tristan and there attributed to 
Robert de Boron. The Historia published by K. von Reinhardst5ttner proves 
to be a Portuguese translation of the missing third part, and fully confirms the 
positions taken, with rare acumen, by M. Paris. — A. Johannsson. Spr&klig 
Undersokning af Le Lapidaire de Cambridge (G. Paris). " M. J. sera une bonne 
recrue pour le petit groupe, dej^ si distingud, des romanistes suedois." The 
object of the first part is to establish that the 165 verses (out of 1376) which, 
in the Cambridge Lapidaire as published by Pannier, have only seven syllables 


instead of the normal eight, owe this defect to the copyist and not to the 
author. Considering the difficulty encountered by Johannsson in not a few 
cases of restoring the missing syllable even conjecturally, and also the fact 
that the copyist scarcely falls into other errors of versiBcation, Pannier seems 
to haye been only duly cautious in signalizing the phenomenon as an unsolved 
problem. The second part is devoted chiefly to a study of the language of the 
poem. — B. Ziolecki. Alix^ndre dou Font's Roman de Mahomet. Ein altfranzd- 
sisches Gedicht des XIII. Jahrhunderts neu herausg., etc. (G. Paris). F. 
Michel's edition of ^I^A^«f</, which appeared in 1831, is out of print. The 
present work leaves much to be desired, many rectifications being supplied by 
M. Paris. — I. G. Camus. L'opera salernitana ^^ Circa inslans^* ed il test© 
primitivo del Grant Herhier en fran^is, etc. — II. Saint- Lager. Recherches. 
sur les anciens ** Herbaria " {Ch. Joret). The first is a study of two MSS in 
the Biblioteca Estense of Modena, which are of great interest for the history of 
botany at the end of the Middle Ages : (i) a Latin MS, Tractatus de Herbis ; 
and (2) a French one, catalogued as DicHonarium gaUicum herbarium^ but called 
on the fly-leaf Livre des Simples, Examination shows that the latter is a trans- 
lation of the former work, but made from a diffierent MS. The second title is 
that of a learned and charming brochure which owes its origin to Prof. Camus*s 
treatise, extending in various directions the latter's investigations. — J. L. G. 
Mowat. Alphita [Anecdota Oxoniensa. Texts, documents, and extracts 
chiefly from manuscripts in the Bodleian and other Oxford libraries. Mediaeval 
and Modern Series, Vol. I, Part II], This publication owes its existence to 
the influence of Professor Earle's English Plant Names^ and was undertaken 
with a view to making known and preserving the names of English plants 
contained in the Bodleian MS Selden B. 35. 

Periodiques. — Chronique. Announces the new monthly review, Le Moyen- 
Age, which begins with January, 1888, and will be a general bulletin of 
information for the study of the Middle Ages. A running summary is promised 
of over six hundred European periodicals. — Under the head of " Livres 
annonces somraairement ** is given a condensed critique of each of the chapters 
of the first two instalments of Gr5ber's Grundriss der Romanischen Philologie. 

H. A. Todd. 

Nkue JahrbOcher fCr Philologie und Paedagogik, 1886. 
Fascicle 7. 

63. 1st der Homerische Hymnos auf Hermes contaminiert ? A. Ludwich. 
This hymn is not ** contaminated," as generally supposed, nor does* it present, 
as Hermann declared, a close agreement of thought with Apollodoros. The 
difficulties in the hymn arise from the fact that several passages, longer and 
shorter, appear in the received texts in the wrong order and connection. 

64. Kleine beitrage zur griechischen metrik. F. Blass. B. discusses 
briefly (i) unrecognized remains of Aristoxenos, (2) the triple time, (3) doch- 
miac rhythms, (4) ro Kar* cv&irhov clJof, (5) glyconic and kindred measures. 

65. Zu den fragmenten der griechischen epiker, VIII-XIV. R. PeppmUUer. 
(Continued from Jhbb. 1885, P- 837.) Critical discussion of seven passages. 


66. Zur kritik der Iphigeneia in Aulis des Euripides. H. StadtmQUer. 
Textual criticism of loi, 123, 149 and 151, 400, 407, 502-512. 

67. Eine lateinische Geminos-abersetzung. K. Manitius, Dresden. For a 
thoroughly critical edition of Geminos, translations into other languages have 
an importance. Such a one was made into the Arabic, and from this was made 
a Latin translation, which is still extant and occurs in a parchment codex of 
the 15th century, entitled ** Introductiones Ptolemaei in Almagesti." This is 
preserved in Florence. 

68. Die lateinischen Annalen des Fabius Pictor. W. Soltau, Zabem im 
Elsasz. The position taken is that the Graeci AnnaUs of Fabius Pictor were an 
altogether different work from the AnnaUs Latiui of one of his younger relatives. 

69. Die brOcken im alten Rom. G. Zippel, KOnigsberg. A treatise of some 
20 pages on the number, location, and date of erection of the Roman bridges. 

I. Pons Sublicius ; it lay between the Porta Trigemina and the Ponte Rotto, 

II. The two bridges to the island; built probably as early as 282 B. C. The 
one over the left channel was replaced by a stone one, 62 6. C, by Fabricius ; 
hence called Pons Fabricius. About the same time the bridge over the right 
bank was rebuilt by Cestius ; hence called Pons Cestius. This was again 
rebuilt by Gratian, 370 A. D. ; hence called Pons Gratiani. III. Pons Aemilius, 
the Ponte Rotto; this was the first Roman bridge made of stone, built 150 
B. C, and restored in the third century A. D. by Probus ; hence called Pons Probi. 
IV. Pons Mulvius, built at least 200 B. C, and restored in stone by Aemilius 
Scaurus, 109 B. C. V. Pons Neronis, at the west end of the Campus Martius 
near San Spirito ; built between 60 and 64 A. D. VI. Pons Aurelius, Ponte 
San Angelo, completed 134 A. D. VII. Pons Aurelius or Antoninus, Ponte 
Sisto ; begun by one of the Aurelian (Antoninian) emperors, and renewed by 
Valentinian I, called Pons Valentinianus. VIII. Pons Theodosii ; at the lower 
end of the city. 

70. Zu Plautus Truculentus. F. PoUe, Dresden. 

(28). Zu Vergilius Aeneis. Th. Plttss, Basel. A comparison between 
Vergil, Aen. I 494-504, and Homer, C 99-109, with an analysis of Vergil's 
poetic art. 

71. Ad Vergilii Vitam Suetonianam. J. W. Beck, Groningen. The cor- 
ruption of the original text is traced to the ornandi augendique cupiditas 
librariorum, rather than to the carelessness of Donatus. 

72. Die zeit des Horazischen archetypus. O. Keller, Prag. This places 
the time of the Archetypus, not in the first or second century, but in the third, 
since Fronto and Porphyrio used a copy independent of our Archetypus. 

73. Zu Tacitus Dialogus. C. John, Urach. 

Fascicles 8 and 9. 

74. Zur geschichte und composition der Ilias. K. Brandt. (Continued 
from Jhbb. 1885, P- 669-) ^^^- ^ie Kataloge. A vigorous defense of this much 
condemned portion of the Iliad. 

75. Zur Odyssee. A. Scotland, i. Omit /? 397, and in 396 for trTu&l^e read 
diTiye, 2. In P 434 read navvvx^n f^ i"^ V y* elg r^tj, 3. Omit P 374, and in 375 


read 'Kpiv / avr^ noOiaat k. t. X. So in <J 747 and 748 read //^ Trpiv aol ipeerv^ 
bri ^ KoiXiK i^l vifdg, irplv a* avrriv vodiaai <c. r. A. 4. Omit (J 1 1 7-120. 5. Omit 

76. Zur erklarong and kritik der Homerischen gedichte. A. GemoII. 
(Continued from Jhbb. 1883, p. 839.) IV. Zur composition der Odyssee. i. 
Is not the 20 days voyage of Odysseus from Ogygia to the Phaiakians a symbol 
of his 20 years absence ? 2. The 34 days absence of Telemachos is part of the 
plan of the Odyssey ; cf. /3 372, 6 589, 599, v 423, 424, tt 34. 

77. Zu dem Sapphocitat in nepl viffovg, H. Herscl. From 26. 7 (Jahn) read 
Tedvdiufif 6* bXiyu Wi6ehrpf t^ivo/iai dAAcc, irdv to (jtafidriov ETreiTrov, Iva Kal ov davfiA" 
l^oig^ K, T, A. 

78. Zur griechischen syntax. A. Weiske. (Continued from Jhbb. 18S4, p. 
826.) Certain constructions not properly treated in the standard lexicons and 
grammars are (i) the participle with avifjfjii ; (2) sTraiueiv with the infinitive ; (3). 
the genitive or accusative of the thing with {mo/ituv^K£iv ; (4) the construction 
after words of resemblance ; (5) the future optative in final and consecutive 
relative clauses ; (6) the infinitive and participle with traheiv, 

79. Die einheit des Parmenideischen seienden. C. Baumker. The promi- 
nent feature in the teaching of Parmenides is not the '* einheit '' of that which 
exists, but its " einzigkeit." 

(46). Zur griechischen Anthologie. A. Ludwich. Note on Ammianos, 
Anth. Pal. XI 413, 3. 

80. Zur frage nach der gliedening des Platonischen dialogs Gorgias. Ch. 
Cron. An interesting article in support of the author's position, stated in his 
edition of the Gorgias, that the discussions with Gorgias and Polos form one 
continuous whole, and not two separate divisions of the work. 

81. Skylla in der Aristotelischen Poetik. Franz SusemihI. The iKb?.?^ 
mentioned in Aristotle's Poetics, c. 15, is probably a tragedy by an unknown 
author, and is not the same as the ^idX^xi of c. 26. 

82. Die Korkyraischcn hfindel bei Thukydides. H. Muller-Strttbing. An 
elaborate attack (63 pp.) upon the credibility of Thukydides, in the author's 
familiar style, a style which has drawn upon him the severest criticism from A. 
Bauer and others. MuUer-StrQbing asserts that the sequel to the story of the 
sedition in Korkyra,as related in the fourth book, is nothing but a dittography 
of the narrative in the first book, and was probably undertaken by Thukydides 
to meet the criticisms called out by the improbabilities in the story as related 
in the earlier books. 

(46). Zur griechischen Anthologie. A. Ludwich. A brief note on Kometas 
Anth. Pal. XV 40, 8. 

Fascicle zo. 

83. Nicetae rhythmi de marium, flavionxm, etc., nominibus. L. Cohn. 
Ritschl was the first to speak of this little work of Nicetas, but he did not report 
the words of the author with perfect accuracy, nor did he notice the metrical 
form in which the work is written. Cohn therefore gives here the correct 
text, containing in all about 69 lines, and including the names of seas and gulfs. 


rivers, lakes and mountains, cities, peoples, and precious stones. Nicetas also 
composed other short treatises on grammatical subjects, chiefly unedited as yet. 
Cohn adds specimens upon spelling, and the definition of various terms, 
rhetorical and otherwise. 

(46). Zur griechischen Anthologie. A. Ludwich. Note on Palladas Anth. 
Pal. XI 377. 

84. De arseos vi Homericae. H. Draheim. "Haec igitur est arseos 
Homericae vis ac natura, non hercle diversa ab suavissimo illo Italianorum 
versu hendecasyllabo, in quo item vocabulorum accentus cum rhythmo sic ut 
cum ulmo vitis sociatur. . . . Illud tamen certum est esse arseos vim Ho- 
mericae positam in carminis rhythmo et vocabulorum accentu logico et 
gravitate syllabarum." 

85. Zu Sophokles Aias. J. Werner argues for the traditional irptaifUfv in 
477, translating *' Keiner erwahnung wert m5chte ich den mann erachten." In 
496 he would retain a^^c. H. BlQmner would read, in 651, for idrjkin^rjv^ 
kBrfydvdrfVy and in 652, for it vtv, 6h vvv, with the interpretation •* ich, der ich 
vorhin in hinsicht auf meinen gewaltigen vorsatz {rd detvd\ hart war, wurde 
von diesem weibe darin nur noch mehr bestarkt, gleichwie der stahl durch die 
15schung nur noch h&rter wird ; ihre worte haben mich immer barter reden 

86. Pheidias der vater des Archimedes. R. F5rster. This conjecture of 
F. Blass is supported by a scholium on Gregory Nazianzen found in the Bod* 
leian cod. Clarkianus Z2. 

(5). Zu Lukianos. R. Crampe. Three brief notes. 

87. Zur SphSLrik des Theodosios. H. Menge. A number of readings from 
the cod. Vat. Gr. 204 (which M. considers the oldest MS of this work), which 
may be regarded as better than those given in the text of Nizze. 

88. Die bedeutung von (fnXdvdf}uiTov in der Aristotelischen Poetik. F. Suse- 
mihl. The view of Zeller, that ^tMi^pmrov refers to the ** joy felt at the righteous 
punishment of the offender,'* is to be preferred to that of Lessing and Vahlen, 
who understand by it '* a feeling of human sympathy." 

89. Zu Platons Phaidon. K. J. Liebhold. Notes on 62, a ; 66, b ; 73, b ; 
74, d ; 81, e ; 82, d ; 83, b ; 88, a ; 104, d ; 104, e ; 105, a. 

90. Zu Horatius Carmen saeculare. H. Besser, Dresden. An analysis of 
the beauty of the poem in its composition and in its subject. 

(37). Zur lateinischen und griechischen sprachgeschichte (fortsetzung 
von ss. 267-271). O. Keller, Prag. Nervus =: thread, wire, Varro Rer. Rust. Ill 
5, 13. Vomitoria, the entrance to the theatre*seats, suggests for comparison 
Verg. Georg. II 461 f. Rhaetia = the German Riesz (cf. Bacmeister, Aleman- 
nische Wand. s. 126); vinum Rhaeticum =z Riessling. Juppiter Solutorius 
(Spanish inscription), a popular amalgamation of the ideas in tkev^kpio^ and 
Salutaris. Mustricula is for mo(n)stricula. Feriae denicales has no connec- 
tion with nex, but with denique. Hasta, asta, cf. the Skr. root oj, throw, shoot. 
Res, reor, ratio, reus, etymologically connected. Jlotici), from TzoUt^ z= to form, 
" gestalten." Julius, from Julus =r tovAof. Caesar is an Oscan form, as, is 

/REPORTS, 251 

shown by the termination of Osc. casnar^ corresponding to Latin Kaeso, com- 
pare eaesaries, Mons Caelius := gew51bter HOgel. Hermes, as messenger of the 
gods and as god of fIocks-~this latter office acquired by his being identified 
with a Pelasgian god of cattle, etc., whose name was developed from ipiia and 
who was represented in an ithyphallic way, tpua easily suggesting the ^aKkb^\ 
hence, from the similarity of sound, Hermes as the god of cattle, flocks, etc. 
Mopicu, the sacred olives, are those distributed^ or assigned, by the state. Paries := 
irapeid^ napfjiq. Interim is an abl. fo'rm. Piscis, originally pesca, pensca, the 
finny ont, Exinfularez=eine t»/f^/i2 losmachen. Dignus^aestimatus ; the 
abl. with it is that of price, Inclle identical with lynoOjo^, 'AyycAof , Persian 
iyyapog, used by Xenophon only of Persian messengers, not of Greek ones 

91. Ober die aussprache einiger Griechischer buchstaben: B, P, A, Z, H, 
T, A I, £T. Against Rangabe (Die Aussprache des Griechischen) who takes 
the Reuchlin standpoint, F. Blass (Ueber die Ausspr. des Griechischen, 2d ed., 
Berlin, 1882) takes the Erasmian standpoint. 

92. ZvL Hesychios. R. Foerster, Kiel. 

93. *• Haud impigre." W. Heraeus, Hamm im Westphalen. These words 
as they occur in Livy XXXII 16, iz,are a mistake of the author's, like Lessing*s 
niehtohne misfallen^ etc. 

94. Gedichte des Dracontius in der lateinischen Anthologie. K. Rossberg, 
Hildesheim. An attempt to show that the poems in the Anth. Latin, ed. Diese, 
389 and 672, were composed by Dracontius. 

Fascicle 11. 

95. Melissos bei pseudo-Aristoteles. O. Apelt. The object of the little 
work concerning Melissos, Xenophanes, and Gorgias (falsely ascribed to- 
Aristotle), is not to expound the doctrines of these philosophers, but rather to 
discuss and refute them. The author of the work belonged to the Peripatetic 
school, and his statement of the tenets of Melissos and Gorgias affords a valu« 
able supplement to what we know of the former from the fragments, and of the 
latter from Sextus Empiricus. Apelt gives a full account of the contents of 
the work so far as it applies to Melissos, and discusses the whole subject at 
considerable length. His views of the text, which rest mainly on a new colla- 
tion of the Leipzig MS, are to be developed in full in the forthcoming Teubner 
text edition, to be included in the works of Aristotle. 

96. Zu Anaxagoras von Klazomenai. H. Kothe. I. The assertion, so often; 
attributed to Anaxagoras, that snow is black, is to be explained by reference to 
his theory of perception. Color is not an objective reality, and snow, without 
the effect of light, is colorless or "black." II. In Diog. L. II 3. 8 the 
incorrect assertion is apparently made that Anaxagoras was the first prose- 
writer. The true correction of the text is not to substitute Anaximander for 
Anaxagoras, for this would leave the statement still untrue ; but to read, for 
ffVYYpap^C^ avv ypa^v* " with an illustration." III. The statement of Satyros 
that Anaxagoras was accused not merely aatpeia^^ but also fitfdia^^ may per- 
haps be traced to Stesimbrotos, who makes Anaxagoras the teacher of Themis- 


(8i). Skylla in der Aristotelischen Poetik, und die kunstform des dithy- 
rambos. Th. Gomperz. In reply to Susemihl (see above, fasc. g), G. argues that 
the 2/ci'XAa of c. 1 5 is the same poem as that mentioned in c. 26. He also main- 
tains the position, against the same critic, that in the dithyramb, even after the 
tragedy had been developed from it, there were solo-recitations in which the 
actor impersonated some character. 

(12). Ueber das dritte buch der historien des Timaios. J. Beloch. A brief 
reply to H. Kothe. (See fasc. 2.) 

97. Lucretius und die isonomie. P. Rusch, Stettin. Against the position 
that the Epicurean doctrine of Icovofiia (Cic. de nat. deor. I 19, 50 and 39, ZO9) 
was known to Lucretius. 

98. Zu Cicero De Natura Deorum. H. Deiter, Aurich. 

(51). Zu Caesars Bellum Gallicum. K. Schliack, Cottbus. Conjectures on 
V 31, 5 and VII 9. 5. K. Conradt» Stettin, maintains his interpretation of VI, 
21, 3 against W. Gebhardi. H. Gilbert on VII 29, i. 

(28). Zu Vergilius Aeneis. F. Week, Metz. On II 256. 

99. Horazische naturdichtung. Th. Pliiss, Basel. On Od. I 4. " This is 
throughout an absolutely lyrical composition ; a poem on nature. In a way 
which for classical literature was original, it represents with a humorous tone 
passing elegiac and idyllic sentiments. It is a poem for one time and one 
occasion, composed during the Sicilian campaign, a picture of how older men 
were affected on great occasions under definite conditions." 

100. Zu Valerius Maximius. W. Boehme. Critical treatment of a number 
of passages. 

Fascicle 12. 

loi. Anz. V. Platons Gorgias erkl&rt von J. Deuschle u. Ch. Cron. K. Troost. 
Troost proposes the following analysis of the dialogue: I. Negative. The 
worthlessness of rhetoric, (i) subject matter of rhetoric, 448-46rb, (2) natnre of 
rhetoric, 46ib-466a, (3) value of rhetoric, 466a'48ib. II. Positive. The 
"value of the philosophy of Sokrates, (i) subject matter of his philosophy, 481b- 
50oe, (2) its nature, 500e-52i, (3) its value, 52i-527a. 

102. Zum Apollonhymnos des Sokrates. A. Ludwich. In the first line of 
this hymn, as found in Diog. L. II 42, for K^eiv6 read nXeevif^, 

103. Zur handschriftlichen iiberlieferung der griechischen bukoliker. £. 
Hiller. H. has made a new collation of MSS ii and 23 (Ahrens) and finds 
that Ahrens w^s entirely correct in his belief that ii is a careful copy of 23, and 
so deserves attention, especially for those portions which are missing from 23. 

104. Ztt Euripides Hekabe. E. Hoffmann. Textual notes on eight pas- 

105. Anz. V. A. Kopp's beitrflgen zur griechischen excerpten-litteratur, Berlin, 
1 887. L. Cohn. In the work under review Kopp makes a pointed attack on the 
good faith of £. Miller, who, in his " Melanges de litterature grecque" (Paris, 
1868) published several grammatical treatises and extracts from a MS found by 
himself at Athos. Miller's book was received wtth great interest, and was taken 
as a basis for further investigations by several scholars. Kopp, in his BeitrSge, 


clearly expresses the suspicion that the work of Miller was valueless and decep- 
tive, and his alleged MS a fabrication. L. Cohn now writes from Paris a vigo- 
rous onslaught upon Kopp's book, and defends the authenticity and importance 
of Miller's MS and the worth of his book. 

(37). Zur lateinischen und griecbischen sprachgeschichte. O. Keller, Prag. 
I. Sub corona vendere. II. Argei. 

106. Za Livius. M. Mailer, Stendal. Critical treatment of a number of 
passages in books 31-35, continued from 1884, pages 185-195. 

107. Zu Plautus und Terentius. O. Keller, Prag. On senix, for an original 
senist used by Plautus and Terentius. 

loS. Zu Ciceros Tusculanen. W. Gebhardi, Gnesen. On non quia non^—^ 
aTTO^ elp/ffiivov, 

IG9. Zu Ovidius Heroiden. H. Gilbert, Meiszen. A critical treatment of 
VIII 104. 

no. Ztt Horatius Satiren. A. Weidner, Dortmund. On I 10, 27 and II 3, 

(93). Hand implgre. F. Vogel, NQrnberg. Additional instances suggested 
by Heraeus*s treatment of this phrase (fasc. 10). 
E. B. Clapp. W. E. Waters. 














" A private letter from Dr. Richard Wagner, whose excellent treatise on the 
Articular Infinitive in the Attic Orators was summarized and commented on in 
this Journal VIII 325, has furnished me with sundry corrections and variations 
which I am glad to make more widely known. The coincidences of our 
investigation are far more remarkable than the discrepancies, and in the 
general results no change has to be made. 

" So Behrendt, whose dissertation on the Articular Inf. in Thukydides I have 
received since the notice of Wagner's programme, gives 292 articular inf. for 
all Thuk., as against Forssmann's 274, and 140 for the speeches as against 
Wagner's 134, which would raise the average for the narrative to .31 instead of 
.30, of the speeches to a trifle above I instead of a trifle below. 

** With Dr. Nicolassen's count of the articular inf. Dr. Wagner's coincides 
with slight variants : 






All the rest coincide absolutely, even where we have such large numbers as in 
Memorabilia and Anabasis. 

*' More serious is the difference between Dr. AUinson's count of the articular 
infinitives in Herodotos and that of Karassek (Saag, Boehmen, 1883), cited by Dr. 
Wagner. Karassek has counted 37 against Dr. AUinson's 32, but the contrast to 
Thukydides is not at all affected by the larger number, and a similar remark may 
be made of Dr. Wagner's count of the articular infinitives in the dramatic poets. 
For Aischylos and Sophokles I followed Dindorf and EUendt : for Euripides 
and Aristophanes I instituted an independent search in which I was aided by 
my pupils. See Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc, 1878 (p. 12). Here Dr. Wagner has 
found more articular infinitives than we did. In Aischylos one in 156 vv., in 
Sophokles one in 106 vv., in Euripides one in 295, in Aristophanes one in 250, 
but the relations of the three are not essentially altered. Sophokles still makes an 
advance on Aischylos. Euripides still comes nearer to the standard of familiar 
speech. Aristophanes still shows the double effect of parody and drastic demon- 
stration. However, in such matters, as in all matters, what we want is absolute 
correctness, and the pleasure at the confirmation of general results must not 
lead us to neglect accuracy in detail." 

The above sentences were in print for the * Brief Mention ' department of 
the last number of the Journal, when I received through the kindness of Pro- 
fessor Schanz, the editor of the series, BickUins Entwickelung des substantiiderUn 


Infinitivs (WQrzburg, A. Stuber), which forms the seventh fascicle of the 
Beiirdge tur kistoriscken Syntax der griechischen Sprache, The results are in 
the main confirmatory of the conclusions which I had reached years ago, and 
which the author has not ignored. Into the divergences in detail I have not 
time to go now, and I can only say that they do not affect the genesis of 
the construction — a matter which is lightly touched by Bicklein — nor the effect 
of the articular infinitive on the style of the various authors ; and the con- 
cluding pages, which sum up the causes that led to the spread of the construe- 
tion, are in close accordance with the exhibit made in my first article on the 
subject (1878). B. L. G. 

Mr. MahAPFy's Greek Life and Thought^ from the Age of Alexander to the 
Roman Conquest (London and New York, Macmillan & Co.) is a bright and 
suggestive book. That is a matter of course. It is equally a matter of course that 
the book is not to be taken in dead earnest, that the investigator of the period 
must be at the pains to verify, and that the young student must not give way 
to the fascination of the many parallels that the author's wide vision discerns 
between ancient and modern history. But, after all, Mr. Mahaffy's Greek 
Life and Thought is hardly intended to be anything else than a running com- 
mentary on the latter half of the nineteenth century, and when, dazzled and 
perhaps a little fatigued by the long contemplation of this bright mosaic, one 
closes the eyes for the reproduction of the total effect, but two lines come out 
distinctly — the miserable narrowness of English scholarship and the unreason 
of Home Rule. These are the real theses that Droysen, Hertzberg, and Couat 
are used to prove. 

That written art, plastic art, pictorial art, all grow out of the same national 
root is theoretically true, but the attempt to interpret one in terms of another 
leads almost inevitably to strained analogies. Still, the fascination of the 
attempt is undeniable, and Mr. Robert Burn's Roman Literature in Relation 
to Roman Art (London and New York, Macmillan & Co.) will find interested 
readers. The five essays treat of: I. Roman portrait sculpture ; II. Historical 
military art in the Roman empire ; III. Composite and colossal art in the 
same ; IV. Technical finish and luxurious art in the same ; V. Roman archi- 
tecture, its nationality. In the first four the literary parallels are drawn not 
inaptly, but the fifth is frankly taken from the author's larger work Rome and 
the Campagna^ and is clearly used to bring the book up to the merchantable 

The notice of von Essen's Index Thucydideus (Leipzig, Teubner, 1887) has 
been deferred in order to await the results of constant use in Thukydidean 
work. For eight months the book has responded to this test in a highly satis- 
factory way, and in thousands of references only a few slips have been 
detected: adivaroi, jj 43, 21, should be ddijvara; jitXkuai^ tf 60, 28, should be 
fi, a 60, 28 ; inXtaei and irpoafii^ei seem to be registered as verbs, and irepudoifiev 
and irepiuielv are falsely alphabetized. Instead of complaining that the book 
is adapted to the Bekker stereotype text, future critical editors will do well 
to put the Bekker numerals on their margins, for such an index as von Essen's 
is worth many commentaries. 


The White and Seymour series, consisting of adaptations of the Haupt 
and Sauppe series, is moving forward. Dr. Fowler has added the Fifth Book 
of Thtuydides to Morris* First Book and Smith's Seventh^ which, by the way 
is passing through its second edition. It is a mistake to suppose, as has been 
asserted, that these rehand lings of Classen's work are mere translations 
throughout. Morris was, in fact, sturdily independent on many points, and 
the other editors have not taken their tasks lightly. At the same time, it must 
be said that an equal expenditure of force would have resulted in more dis- 
tinctly American editions, and that the speed of production has not been what 
was anticipated by the projectors of the series. Meantime the original Haupt 
and Sauppe series (Berlin, Weidmann) goes on from edition to edition. We 
have to record the appearance of the ninth ed. of Schnbidewin's SophokUs {Aias 
and Phihkietes) by Nauck, who makes his critical hand felt in every issue. 
Halm's Cicer<fs Ausgew&hlU Reden appears likewise for the ninth time, this 
time under G. Laubmann's superintendence. Schiller's Aesckyltu Perser 
comes out in a new ed. by Professor C. Conradt, and Eduard Wolff gives 
us the second vol. of his ed, of Tacitus' Historien, 

Mr. James Gow has undertaken to compress into one small volume, bearing 
the title A Companion to School Classics (London and New York, Macmillan & 
Co.), a mass of information which is usually taken for granted in the commen- 
taries prepared for schools, and it must be said that in the chapters which he 
has seen fit to include a vast deal has been packed away. The boy will still 
need his classical dictionary for the history of literature and for mythology, 
but the book being built up out of material furnished in most instances by the 
best and latest authorities, will be useful even beyond the schoolboy sphere. 

Steinthal's Ursprung dcr Sprache has appeared in a new edition, the fourth 
(Berlin, Dummler, 1888), which incorporates the researches and results of the 
last decennium. 

The first volume of Niese*s critical edition of Josephus^ Jetvish Antiquities^ 
containing the Praefatio and the first five books, appeared last year (Berlin, 
Weidmann), and has been followed by an editio minor with the text merely. 

Professor Domenico Pbzzi's Lingua Greca Antica — Breve Trattasicne Com- 
parativa e Storica (Torino, Ermanno Loescher) is an excellent manual for the 
advanced student of Greek, giving him more compactly and completely than 
he can, at least to our knowledge, find anywhere else, the recent results of 
scientific research in every domain of Greek grammar. With German methods 
Professor Pezzi has caught the German hankering for * VoUstandigkfit,' and in 
the 'Aggiunte e Correzioni,* the latest treatise and the latest article that had 
appeared up to the time of publication will be found registered and summarized, 
Johansson on that side of the water and Smyth on this. 

It is impossible to notice all the school-books that come to the Journal for 
review. In turning them over, however, one encounters remarkable things 


which are worth noticing as enlarging the area of possibilities. So in the Greek 
Testament Primer^ by Rev. Edward Miller (Clarendon Press), we have (p. 94) 
the following note, which is * Greek made easy ' with a vengeance : * 'Av expresses 
much the same as the English * sign ' of the subjunctive or optative mood ; but 
when it is placed first in a sentence it has the force of if^ 

To THE Reader. — Owing to the absence of the Editor, the last forms of this 
issue of the Journal were read by Professor Charles Forster Smith, of Van- 
derbilt University, who kindly consented to lend the aid of his accurate 
scholarship and his keen vision to the sacred cause of typographical correctness. 


Thanks are due to Messrs. B. Westermann & Co., New York, for material 


Plato. Apologia, Crito, Phaedo, and Protagoras, tr.. by H. Carey. New 
York, Scrilmer^ Welford, 1888. (Bohn's Select Lib.). lamo, 190 pp. CI., 60 cts. 

Rosenthal (R. S.) The Meisterschaft System for Latin. In 15 pts. Pt I. 
Boston, The MeiiUrschaft Pub, Co., 1888. 66 pp. i2mo, pap., 50 cts. 

Seneca (Lucius Annaeus). The Morals ; a selection of his prose, ed. by 
Walter Clode. New York, T. IVhittaker^ 1888. 280 pp. i2mo, cl., 40 cts. 

Thucydides, Book V, ed. on the basis of Classen's edition, by Harold North 
Fowler. Boston, Ginn <&• G?., 1888. 213 pp. sq. 8vo, cl., $1.50; pap., $1.20. 
Same, Text ed., 67 pp. sq. 8vo, pap., 25 cts. 

Wright (Jos.) A Middle High German Primer. New York, MacmiUan «&* 
Co,, 1888. 124 pp. i6mo, cl., 90 cts. 

Xenophon. Hellenica, Books I-IV, ed. on the basis of BUchsenschQtz's 
edition, by Irving J. Manatt. Text ed. Boston, Ginn 6* Co,, 1888. Z40 pp. 
8vo, pap., 25 cts. 


Aeschylus. Agamemnon. With Introduction and Notes. 3d ed., revised. 
Z2mo. Frowde, 3s. 

Aristotle's Treatise on Government. Trans, from the Greek. With an 
Introduction by Henry Morley. (Morley's Universal Library.) Post 8vo, 276 
pp. RotUUdge, IS. 

Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hennas. With an Intro- 
duction by Spyr P. Lambros. Trans, and ediL by J. A. Robinson. 8vo. Cam- 
bridge Warehouse, 3s. 6d. 

Homer. Odyssey, Book IX, With Notes by G. M. Edwards. Cr. 8vo. 
Cambridge Warehouse. 2s. 6d. 

Lempriere (J.) Classical Dictionary. (Routledge's Popular Library.) New 
ed. Post 8vo, 700 pp. RoutUdge, 2s. 6d. 

Lucian's Dialogues. Namely, the Dialogues of the Gods, of the Sea Gods, 
and of the Dead, Zeus the Tragedian, etc. Trans., with Notes and a Prelimi- 
nary Memoir, by Howard Williams. (Bohn's Classical Library.) i2mo, 330 
pp. BeU &* Sons. 5s. 

Martial. Select Epigrams. Edit., with Introduction, Notes, and Appendices, 
by Rev. H. M. Stephenson. i2mo, 470 pp. Maanilian. 6s. 6d. 

Smith (Wm.) A Latin-English Dictionary. 19th ed. 8vo, 1250 pp. Mur^ 
ray, 1 6s. 

and Hall ( T. D.) Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary. 

5th ed. 8vo, 970 pp. Murrey, i6s. 


Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. With Critical Notes, Commentary 
and Translation in English Prose, by R. C. Jebb. Part III. The Antigone. 
8yo, 340 pp. Cambridge Warehouse, I2s. 6d. 


Cust (Robert). Les races et les langues de TOc^nie. Traduit de I'anglais 
par A.-L. Pinart. In-i6. Leroux, 2 fr. 5a 

Frank (F.) et Chenevidre (A.) Lexique de la langue de Bonaventure Des 
Periers. In-8. Cerf, 10 fr. 

Lafont de Sentenac (Louis). Recneil de No^ls de I'Ari^ge en patois langue- 
docien et gascon. Precede d'une prciface et r^les orthographiques. In-i6. 
Foix, E, Lechevalier, a fr. 


Abhandlungen, philologische. Martin Herz zam 70 Geburtstage v. ehemal. 
Schaiern dargebracht. gr. 8, iii, 303 S. Berlin, Hert%, m. 8. 

Abicht (Karl). Die Wiener Handschrift d. Herodot. 4. 17S. Oels. Leip- 
zig, Fock, m. —90. 

Abraham (Fritz). Tiberias u. Sejan. gr. 4, 18 S. Berlin, Gaertner, m. I. 

BeitrSge zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache. Hrsg. v. M. 
Schanz. 2 Bd., 3 Hft. [der ganzen Reihe 6 Hft.] gr. 8. Wiirzburg, Stubet^s 
VerL m. 1.80. Inhalt : Der freie formelhafte Infinitiv der Limitation im 
Griechischen. Von L. Granenwald. 37 S. 

dasselbe. 3 Bd., 1 Hft. [der ganzen Reihe 7 Hft.] gr. 8. Ebd. m. 

4. (I-III, I, m. 17.80.) Inhalt : Entwickelongsgeschichte d. substantivierten 
Infinitivs. Von Frz. Birklein. 109 S. 

Cassel (Paulus). Mischle Sindbad, Secundus — Syntipas. Edirt, emendirt 
n. erklart. Einleitung a. Deutg. d. Buches der Sieben weisen Meister. 8, viii, 
426 S. Berlin, R, Schaeffer, m. 10. 

Chambalu (Aug.) Das Verh£ltnis der 4 katilinarischen Rede zu den v. 
Cicero in der Senatssitzung d. 5 Dezbr. 63 wirklich gehaltenen Reden. 4. 24 

5. Neuwied, Heuser^s Verl, m. — 75. 

Corpus inscriptionum latinarum consilio et auctoritate academiae litterarum 
regiae borussicae editum. Vol. XII. Fol. Berlin, G, Reimer, cart. m. 90. 
Inhalt: Inscriptiones Galliae Narbonensis, ed. Otto Hirschfeld. xxviii, 38 
u. 976 S. m. 3 Karten. 

Delitzsch (Frdr.) Assyrisches WOrterbach zur gesamten bisher verOffent- 
lichten Keilschrift}iteratur unter Berttcksicht. zahlreicher unver()ffentlichter 
Texte. 2 Lfg., gr. 4, S. 169-328. \Ax^zvg^ HinricK s Verl, Subscr.-Pr. m.30. 
(i u 2, m. 61.50.) 

Diodori bibliotheca historica. Editionem primam curavit Imm. Bekker, 
alteram Ludov. Dindorf, recognovit Frdr. Vogel. Vol. I. 8, xcvi, 533 S. 
Leipzig, Teubner, m, 3.6a 

EinzelbeitrSge zur allgemeinen n. vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft. 2 u. 
3 Hft., gr. 8. Leipzig, Friedrich, m. 21. (1-3, m. 24), Inhalt : 2. Die arische 
Periode u. ihre ZustSnde. Von F. Spiegel, x, 330S. 1887. m. I2. — 3. Psycho- 
logische Studien zur Sprachgeschichte v. K. Bruchmann. x, 358 S. m. 9. 

Euclidis opera omnia. Edd. I. L. Heiberg et H. Menge. Elementa. Ed. 


I. L. Heiberg. Vol. V. Continens elementoram qui fenintur libros XIV-XV 
et scholia in elementa cum prolegomenis criticis et appendicibus. 8, cxiii, 738 
S. Leipzig, Teubner, m. 7.50. (I-V [Elementa cplt.] m. 24.60). 

Evers (Edwin). Der historische Wert der griechischen Berichte Ub. Cynis n. 
Cambyses. gr. 4, 26 S. Berlin, Gaertner, m. i. 

Evers (Rob. W.) BeitrSgc zur Erklarung u. Textkritik v. Dan. Michel's 
Ayenbite of Inwyt. gr. 8, v, 117 S. Erlangen, Deichert, m. 2. 

Faulde (Aug.) Die Reformbestrebungen auf dem Gebiete der lateinischen 
Orthoepie u. ihr VerhSltnis zur Schule. gr. 8, 38 S. Neisse, Gravew's Verl, 
m. — 60. 

Fisch (Rich.) Lateinische substantiya personalia auf o (io), onis (ionis). 
Mit Benutrg. der Zettel zu Frage ii u. 12 in W5lfflin's Archiv f. latein. Lexi* 
cographieu. Grammatik. gr. 4, 30 S. Berlin, Gaertner, m. I. 

Foerster (Rich.) De Aristotelis quae feruntur secretis secretorum commen- 
tatio. gr. 4. 41 S. Kiel, C/niversitdts-Buchhandlg. m. 1.50. 

Fritsch (Adf.) Zum Vokalismus d. Herodotischen Dialectes. gr. 4, 47 S. 
Hamburg, HeroltTsche Buchh, VerL m. 2.50. 

Frontsni (luli) Strategematon libri IV, ed. Ghold. Gundermann. 8, xri, 
176 S. Leipzig, Teubner, m. 1.5a 

Hentze (C.) Die Parataxis bei Homer. I. gr. 4, 32 S. GGttingen, Van- 
denhoeck 6* Ruprechfs Verl, m. 1.20, 

Heraeus (Carl). Homer ische Formenlehre. 2 umgearb. Aufl. gr. 8, viii, 24 
S. Berlin, GroU, cart, m, — 5a 

Priiparationen zum I u. 13 Buche der Odyssee. 2 durchgehends verb. 

Aufl. gr. 8, iv, 60 S. Ebd. cart. m. i. 

Jackson (A. V. Williams). A Hymn of 2^roaster, Yasna 31, translated with 
comments, gr. 8, viii, 62 S. Stuttgart, Kohlhatnnur, m. 1.50. 

Jahrbuch, biographisches, f. Alterthumskunde. Begrttndet v. Conr. Bursian, 
herausg. v. Prof. Iwan Mfiller. 9 Jahrg. 1886. gr. 8, iii, 296 S. Berlin, Cal- 
vary &* Co., 1887. m. 10. 

Kern (Otto). De Orphei, Epimenidis, Pherecydis theogniis quaestiones 
criticae. gr. 8, no S. Berlin, NUolafs Verl. m. 3. 

Koch (GUnther). In carmen Hesiodi quod opera et dies inscribitur melete- 
matum criticorum specimen. Diss. gr. 8, 38 S. Rudolstadt, KeiL m. — 75. 

Krech (Paul). De Crateri yltrfi^iafidruv awayaryy et de locis aliquot Plutarchi 
ex ea petit is. Diss. gr. 8, 103 S. Gryphiswaldiae. Leipzig, Fock. m. 1.20. 

Kahn (Otto). Die sittlichen Ideen der Griechen u. ihre Verkttnder, die 
Tragiker. 4. 52 S. Leipzig, FocJk. m. i. 

Kussmahly (Frz.) Beobachtungen zum Prometheus d. Aeschylus, gr. 4, 24 
S. Berlin, Gaertner, m. I. 

Linsenbarth (Osc.) De Apollonii Rhodii casuum syntax! comparato usu 
homerico. Diss. gr. 8, 84 S. Leipzig, Fock, 1887. m. i. 

Menss (Heinr.) Der sogenannte Neid der GStter bei Herodot. 4. 21 S. 
Liegnitz, Reisner, m. i. 

Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca philologica Batava, collegerunt S. A. Naber, J. 
▼an Leeuwen, Jr., I. M. J. Valeton. Nova series. Vol. XVI, 4 partes, gr. 8, 
I Hft. 120 S. Lugduni Batavorum. Leipzig, Harrassowitz, m. 9. 

Mdller (Herm.) Zur althochdeutschen Allitterationspoesie. 8, 182 S. Kiel, 
Lipsius &* Tischer. m. 5. 


Monats-Anzeiger, philologischer. Hrsg. v. Rich. Heinrich. 2 Jahrg., Apr, 
i888-Marz 1889. 12 Nrn. gr. 8. Nr. 1, 12 S. Berlin, iP. /^^'wn'M. m.1.25. 

Noni Marceli compendiosa doctrina. Emendavit et adnotavit Lucianus 
Mueller. Pars I, gr. 8, xvi, 699 S. Leipzig, Teuhner, m. 20. 

Paul (A.) Ob. vokalische Aspiration u. reinen Vokaleinsatz. Ein Beitrag 
zur Physiologic u. Geschichte derselben. gr. 4, 60 S. Leipzig, Fock, m. 1.20. 

Platon's Laches. Mit Einleitg. u. Anmerkgn. v. Ed. Jahn. 2 rev. Aufl., 8, 
3CXXV, 93 S. Wien, Ceroids Sohn, cart. m. 1. 10. 

Probst (Arth.) Beitrage zur lateinischen Grammatik. 3 Tl., i u. 2 Lfg., gr. 
8. Leipzig, Zangenberg 6^ Himly, i m. 1.50. (I-III, 2, m. 8.) Inhalt: 
Altgrammatischcs u. Neugrammatisches zur lateinischen Syntax v. E. A. 
Gutjahr-Probst.* A. u. d. T. Der Gebrauch v. *'ut" bei Terenz u. Verwandtes. 
I u. 2 Lfg., xiv u. S. 175-325. 

Sachau (Ed.) Bericht fib. die ErOfihung d. Seminars f. Orientalische 
Sprachen an der kOnigl. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universit&t zu Berlin u. einige 
auf das Seminar bezUgliche SchriftstUcke. gr. 4, 20 S. Berlin, Asher &* Co, 
in Comm, m. — 50. 

Sallusti Crispi (C.) bellum Catilinae, scholarum in usum recognovlt Gust 
Linkerus. Ed. II curavit Phpp. Klimscha. 8, vii, 56 S. Wien, GeroUTs Sohn. 
cart. m. — 60. 

Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften v. J. Baunack, F. Bechtel, 
A. Bezzenberger, F. Blass, H. Collitz, W. Deecke, A. Fick, R. Meister, W. 
Prellwitz. Hrsg. v. DD. H. Collitz u. F. Bechtel. 3 Bd., i Hft., gr. 8. G5t- 
tingen, Vandenkoeck 6f* RupreckVs VerU m. 2.40. Inhalt: Die megarischen 
Inschriften, bearb. y. F. Bechtel. 59 S. 

dasselbe. 4 Bd., 2 Hft., I Abth., gr. 8. Ebd. m. 2.60. (I, II i. Ill i, 

IV, I 2, m. 27.60.] Inhalt : Wortregister zum i Hft. d. 2 Bds. v. Dr. Jobs. 
Baunack. S. 107-166. 

Schenkl (Heinr.) Die epiktetischen Fragmente. [Aus '* Sitzungsber. d. k. 
Akad. d. Wiss.'*] Lex.-8, 106 S. Wien, Tempsky in Comm, m. 1.60. 

Schleicher (Aug.) Die deutsche Sprache. 5 Aufl., gr. 8, ix, 348 S. Stutt- 
gart, Cotia. m. 7. 

Simon (Joh. Alph.) Xenophon-Studien. 2 Tl. Die Hellenika-Ausgabe d. 
Harpokration. 3 Tl. Zwei verlorene Hellenika-Handschriften. gr. 4, 32 S. 
Leipzig, Fock in Comm, m. 1.60. (1-3, m. 3.60.) 

Strassmaier (J. N., S. J.) Babylonische Texte. Inschriften v. Nabonidus, 
K5nig V. Babylon [555-538 v. Chr.], v. den Thontafeln d. Brit. Museums copirt 
u. autogr. 3 Hft., No. 541-807. Vom 11 bis zum 14 Jahre der Regierg. gr. 
8, S. 321-480. Leipzig, Ed, Pfeiffer, ^ m. 12. 

Steinthal (H.) Der Ursprung der Sprache im Zusammenhange m. den letzten 
Fragen alles Wissens. 4, abermals erwelt. Aufl., gr. 8, xx, 380 S. Berlin, 
DUmmkf*s Verl, m. 8. 

Sybel (Ludw. v.) Platon's Symposion, e. Programm der Akademie. gr. 8, 
viii, 122 S. Marburg i-H., Elwerfs Verl, m. 3. 

Taciti (Cornelii) ab excessu divl August! libri qui supersunt. Scholarum in 
usum ed. Ign. Prammcr. Pars I. Libri I-VI. 8, xl, 252 S. Wien, Ceroid* s 
Sohn, cart. m. 1. 8a 

Textbibliothek, altdeutsche, hrsg. v. H. Paul. Nr. 9. 8. Halle, Niemeyer, 


m. — 80. Inhalt: KOnig Tirol, Winsbeke n. Winsbekin. Hrsg. t. Alb. 
Leitzmann. iv, 60 S. 

altnordische. Hrsg. v. £. Mogk. Nr. 3. 8. Ebd. m. 3. Inhalt: 

Eddalieder. Altnordische Gedichte mytholog. u. heroischen inhalts, hrsg. v. 
Finnur J6nsson. I. Gedichte mytholc^. inhalts. xiv, 138 S. 

Vries (S. G. de). Epistula Sapphos ad Phaonem, apparatu critico instructa, 
commentario illustrata et Ovidio vindicata. gr. 8, ix, 155 S. Leiden. Berlin, 
Calvary &• Co. m. 4.50. 

Wagener (Carl). Hauptschwierigkeiten der latelnischen Formenlehre. gr. 
8, vii, 184 S. Gotha, F. A. Perthes, m. 2. 

Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenlSndischen Gesellschaft. Hrsg. v. den 
GeschaftsfQhrem DD. Pischel, Thorbecke, Krehl, Windisch, unter der Red. d. 
Prof. Dr. E. Windisch. Register zu Bd. XXXI-XL. Von Dr. Carl Adf. 
Florenz. gr. 8, iii, 89 S. Leipzig, Brockhaus* Sort. m. 4. 


Dal Pozzo. Glossario etimologico piemontese. Torino. In-8, 250 p. L. $. 
Levi (S). Vocabolario geroglifico copto-ebraico. Vol. VI (ed ultimo). 
Torino. In-4, 287 pag. L. 30. 


Bergk (Theodor). Griechische Literaturgeschichte. Vierter Band aus dem 
Nachlass herausg. von Rudolf Peppmtlller. Berlin, WeidmantC sche Buchkand- 
lung, 1887. 

Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum edita curante Carolo 
Schenkl. Wicn u. Prag, F. Tempiky, Leipzig. G. Freytag, i888. 

Platonis Laches. Scholarum in usum edidit Josephus Kiel. 40 pf. 
Crinagorae Mytilenaei Epigrammata. Edidit, prolegomenis, commentario, 
verborum indice illustravit Maximilianus Rubenson. Berlin, Mayer u, MUlUr^ 
1888. 3 m. 

Elements of a Comparative Grammar of the Indo- Germanic Languages, by 
Karl Brugmann. Vol. I. Introduction and Phonology. Translated from the 
German by Joseph Wright, Ph.D. New York, -5. Westermann &* Co,^ 1888. 

Gomperz (Th.) Nachlese zu den Bruchsttlcken der griechischen Tragiker. 
Wien, F, Tempsky, 1888. 

Gow (James). A Companion to School Classics. London and New York, 
Macmillan 6* Co,, 1880. Through J. H. U. Publ. Ag. $1.75. 

Groeber (Gustav). Grundriss der Romanischen Philologie. 3 Lieferung 
Schluss des I Bandes. Strassburg, K.J, TrObner^ 1888. 

Handbuch derklassischen Altertums-wissenschaft, herausg. von Iwan MUller. 
FUnfter Bd., I Abteilung (abgeschlossen). A. Geschichte der antiken Natur- 
wissenschaft von Siegmund GUnther. B. Geschichte der alten Philosophic 
von W. Windelband. NOrdlingen, C. B, Beck, 1888. m. 5.50. 

Haupt u. Sauppe. Sammlung griechischer u. lateinischer Schriftsteller mit 
deutschen Anmerkungen. Berlin, Weidmann^ sche Buchhandlung, 1888. 

Aeschylos Persae. Erkl. von Ludwig Schiller. Zweite Auflage bearb. 

von C. Conrad t. m. 1.2a 
Cicero's AusgewShlte Reden. Erkl. von Karl Halm. Zweiter Band. 

Besorgt von G. Laubmann. m. 2.25. 
Cornelii Taciti Historiarum Libri qui supersunt. Erklaert von Eduard 

Wolff. Zweiter Band, Buch III, IV u. V. m. 2. 
Homer's Iliade. Erkl. von J. U. Faesi. Erster Band, Gesang I-VI. 7te 

Aufl. von F. R. Franke. m. 1.80. 
Sophokles. Erkl. von F. W. Schneidewin. istes B^ndchen. Allgemeine 
Einleitung. Aias. gte Aufl. besorgt von Aug. Nauck. m. 1.50. 7tes 
BSndchen. Philoktetes. m. 1.50. 
Horace, The Epistles of. Book I. With Introduction and Notes by E. S. 
Shuckburgh. Cambridge, At the University Press, New York, Macmillan &* 
Co., 1888. Through J. H. U. Publ. Agency. 60 cts. 

Lockwood (S. E. Husted). Lessons in English, adapted to the study of 
American classics. Boston, Ginn &* Co,, 1888. I1.25. 


Men of Mark. Geo. W. Childs (Engraving). New York, Root 6f Tinker, 

Miller (Edward). A Greek Testament Primer. Oxford, At the Clarendon 
Press. New York. Macmillan 6r» Co., 1888. Through J. H. U. Publ. Agency. 
90 cts. 

Nature Readers. Sea-side and Way-side. No. 2. By Julia McNair Wright. 
Boston, D, C. Heath 6r» Co., 1888. 

Odyssey of Homer. Book IX. With Introduction, Notes and Appendices, 
by G. M. Edwards. Cambridge, At the University Press. New York, Macmillan 
6f Co., 1887. Through J. H. U. Publ. Agency. 60 cts. 

Old South Leaflets, General Series. No. i. Constitution of the United 
States. 2. Articles of Confederation. 3. Declaration of Independence. 4. 
Washington's Farewell Address. 5. Magna Charta. 6. Vane's "Healing 
Question." 7. Charter of Massachusetts Bay, 1629. 8. Fundamental Orders 
of Connecticut, 1638. 9. Franklin's Plan of Union, 1754. 10. Washington's 
Inaugurals, ii. Lincoln's Inaugurals and Emancipation Proclamation. 12. 
The Federalist, Nos- i and 2. 13. The Ordinance of 1787, etc. Price, five 
cents per copy ; one hundred copies, three dollars. Directors of Old South 
Studies, Old South Meeting House, Boston. Boston, D. C. Heath 6* Co., 1888. 

Phonetische Studien. Zeitschrift fttr wissenschaftliche u. praktische Phonetik. 
Heransg. von Wilhelm Victor, 2 Heft. Marburg-i-H., 1888. 

Polybius (Selections from). Edited by James Leigh Strachan -Davidson. 
With three maps. Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1888. 

Recent Examination Papers for Admission to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, 
Sheffield Scientific School, and Columbia School of Mines. Selected and 
edited for the use of preparatory schools, by John S. White. Boston, Ginn &* 
Co,, 1888. $1.25. 

Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften. Herausg. von Dr. Her- 
mann CoUitz. 

Dritter Band, erstes Heft. Die megarischen Inschriften bearbeitet von F. 

Bechtel. m. 2.40. 
VierterBand, IIHeft. I. Abtheilnng. Wortregister zum ersten Heft des 
zweiten Bandes von Dr. Johannes Baunak. GOttingen, Vandenhoeck u, 
Ruprecht, 1888. m. 2.60. 

St. Bris (Thomas de). Discovery of the Origin of the Name of America. 
New York, American News Co. 50 cts. 

Steinthal (H.) Der Ursprung der Sprache in Zusammenhange mit den 
letzten Fragen alles Wissens. Vierte, abermals erweiterte Auflage. Berlin, 
DUmmUf^s Verlagsbuehhandlung. 

Thucydides. Book V. Edited on the basis of Classen's ed., by Harold 
North Fowler. (College Series of Greek Authors.) Boston, Ginn 6* C('.,i888. 



Vol. IX, 3, Whole No. 35. 



In A. J. P. for 1887, p. 408, I gave some account of the Vatican 
Codex 3269 which contains the Dirae^ and immediately preceding 
it the Elegy on Maecenas. It is the subscription appended to this 
latter which gives the MS its value, finit elegia inuenia ab ^enoc 
in dacia : for we may reasonably infer that our MS copied exactly 
the readings which Enoch found in his newly discovered, seem- 
ingly Danish, codex. The value of these readings must be 
judged independently, and is not greatly affected by the goodness 
or badness of the variants which the same MS presents in the 
Dirae: for (i) the Elegia alone has the above-mentioned sub- 
scription, (2) though it is likely, as I suggested, that the Dirae 
in Vat. 3269 may have been also copied from Enoch's transcript, 
this is at best conjecture, and it is a well known fact in re diplo- 
ntaiica that the authority of the readings in any two works 
contained in the same codex and in the same handwriting must 
be judged separately, and determined, after all, mainly on internal 
grounds. The reason of this is palpable. The sources from 
which each separate work is transcribed may be of quite different 
dates, and therefore of quite different values. I will mention a 
telling instance. The Tours Ovid (of early thirteenth century) is 
one of the very best and most uncorrupted sources for constituting 
the text of the Ibis ; but it is not equally valuable in the Heroides. 

I will now give the readings of Vat. 3269 in the Elegia in 

Incipit mecenas maronis. 

■■ ■< J J 


3 erat 5 in religata ratis carina. . 6 Et redit. 8 sed repetitque 
senex. 9 tucum. 10 lUius. 11 Fidus eras nobis. 11 Regis eras 
genus hetruscf. 12 rhomane et tu. 16 pcxsse nocere. 17 doctas. 
19 uincit peritus harenas. 20 Lictof in extreme quam simul unda 
mouet. 21 Quod cinctus eras animo quoque carpi tur una. 22 
Diluuii ac nimia. 23 uexere. 24 precintos. 25 Liuida. 27 Nun 
minus urbis erat (at first I read this as erat with eras superscribed; 
perhaps it is more likely to be erraf) et cesaris obses. 28 Nun 
tibifecit 29 oscura amantem. 32 Maiores : mains obstinuisse 
fuit. 33 nimphasque canentes. 34 pomosi certa. 35 ortis. 37 
Marmora meonii uincunt monumenta libelli. 39 Quid faceret 
comes inget idem. 40 Miles et angusti fortiter usque pius. 41 
uoluerunt 42 Ignibus hostiles reddere lingua rates. 44 Quam 
tunc ille tener tam grauis hostis erat. 45 texerunt lata. 46 circum. 
47 fugientis. 49 Pax erat hec illo laxarunt otia cvltus. 50 Omnia 
uictores. 54 stupri turpis herer. 55 Hie tela in profugos tantum 
curauerat arcum. 56 Misit ad extremos exorientis equos. 60 
duas. 61,2 Sum memor et certe memini sic ducere tyrsos Bacchea 
purpurea candidiora niu^. 65 sandalia talos. 69 Inpiger multo. 
70 suas. 71 tecum tenera tecum. 72 erimanthe. 73 Vitro. 74 
Leuisti. 77 lassiua fauentes. 79 thorosa. 81 cum iam premit. 
82 Hidros. 83 renascentem tenet hydram. 84 inmanes. 86 
aduersas. 87 et enidas. 88 percubuisse diem. 89 et quid. 90 
signa. 91 dum te. 93 alierum uictor om, 94 odorata. 95 Vic- 
torem uictus metuat 96 in stata cemere. 98 moderatur. loi 
Conglutinantur. io2 Verberat et gelidos. 105 non est temera- 
rius. 107 Ergo saxa parens postquam scilleia legit. 108 Cyane- 
osque metus iam religanda ratis. 109 Viscera dissecti mutauerat 
arietis agni. 1 10 Aetas et succis omne perita suis. 1 1 1 iuuenes- 
cere posse decebat. 113 recurrentibus. 114 Ergo non reddit. 
115 Viuacesque magis ceruos decet esse pauentes. 119 titonus 
coniunx. 120 Atque ita iam. 122 coplacuisse. 123 actus. 
124, 125 om. 126 Tu dare. 129 chori iuuenem. 130 Que 
nemus. 131 infiiscis. i33Coritium olentes. 134 et 135 Nunc 
redditur. 136 decubuise. 137 Ter pilium fluere. 138 Dicebant 
tamenhunc. 139 annosa secula. 140 Disspensata nempe. 144 
Non naquam scitiens. 147 inquid turpiter. 148 bruti fidem. 
751 dicit. 152 qui prope. 153 Sed manifestus. 155 si tamen 
cesare. 156 satis est. 160 Nee tamen hoc ultra hoc potuisse 
uelim. 161 Sed. 163 Et dec&q& certe uiuam tibi semper amstr 
(this last word I could not decipher ; without the superscribed (') 



it would be amare), 164 tibL 165 quicquid. 166 Tunc ego. 
167 beate. 168 Vnus Mecenas. 169 uoluit quod contigit esse. 
173 et tibi sucrescant. 175 Sed tibi secura quoprimum liuia 
coniuns. 177 Cum deus in terns. 178 in patrio coUucet 

Ilia petit iauenes prima norente iunenta, 
Non oblita tamen f sed repetitquef senes. 


Non oblita tamen cit repetitque senes. 

As Gorallus (Le Qerc) observed, this passage is very similar to a 
line of the Epicedian Drusi, 372, spoken of Fortuna, 

Ilia rapit iuuenes, sustinet ilia senes. 

This might suggest 

Non oblita tamen suscipit ilia senes. 


Vincit ttulgares uincit fperitus harenas. 

Most MSS berUtis, 

This is usually altered into beryllus. But beryUus would hardly 
have been corrupted into peritus^ or even beriius; nor, to my 
knowledge, are beryls found in the sea ; nor is the word ever 
found in the feminine. The meaning is, I believe, much the same 
as in Prop. IV 5, 22 : Ei quae sub Tyria concha superbit aqua. 
II 16, 17 : Semper in Oceanum mittit me quaerere gemmas Et 
iubei ex ipsa iollere dona Tyro, The Syrian coast, on which both 
Tyre and Berytus lay, produced rare shells, which were bought at 
high prices either as curiosities or to be worked into cameos or 
other female ornaments. This interpretation also agrees with 
quam, which Enoch's MS with most others gives. The word 
Berytus is applied in 20 with an easily understood extension of 
meaning to the thing signified, in other words the Berytian sheU^ 

Litore in extremo quam simul unda mouet, 

'which the wave sweeps with it at the farthest verge of the beach,' 
L e. where it is nearest to the water. 
21, 22: 

Quod cinctns eras animo quoque carpitur ana 
Dilttuii ac nimia simplicitate tua. 

Edd. have rightly restored from other MSS discinctus and unum ; 
rightly also quod for quoque of all MSS. But for animo a great 
variety of conjectures have been proposed, amongst which I sig- 
nalize as very plausible Hilberg's nimio, with which compare 


Plautus' isiuc nimio ntagnae mellinaesi mihi^ where Ussing aptly 
compares Terence's pauio toUrMlis^ Heaut. 205. When, many 
years ago, I read through the Elegia for the first time in Riese's 
Anthologia Latina (No, 779), I wrote at the side mimOy and I still 
think this possible, * the one thing at which the farce-actor rails/ 
Cannegieter has restored mimo to Avian. Fab. V 9 : Ast ubi 
terribilis animo circum sieiii horror^ where it seems more than 
probable. Biicheler's Memo introduces a personage of very rare 
occurrence in Latin writers, though very frequent in the Greek 

Bahrens and Chatelain agree in restoring v. 22 as follows : 

Diluis hoc animi simplicitate tui. • 

Certainly nimia is quite outof keeping with the classical character 
of the Latinity of the Elegy elsewhere. 
27, 28: 

Num minus urbis erat custos et Caesaris obses ? 
Nunc tibi non tutas fecit in urbe uias ? 

Nuncubi, Scaliger, for Nutu Ubi. I think, wrongly, (i) The 
word is rare and does not stand on the same level as sicubu (2) 
Num iibi returns to the Liuide^ the jealous detractor of v. 28. 
* Has he not secured you unmolested streets ? ' i. e. by footpads 
and other night assailants. This is one of the many instances in 
which the reputation of the great scholar has overpowered the 
sober judgment of critics, even in despite of reclaiming MSS. 


Marmora meonii uincunt roonumenta libelli 
Viuitur ingenio, cetera mortis erunt. 

Scaliger conj. Marmorea Aonii, The variants minaei iunnei point 
rather to lonii: 'the poems of Homer oudive monuments of 

39. The form of the corruption i7igei {ingeref) in Vat. suggests 
integer rather than inpiger, Riese, I see, retains this integer of most 
MSS, but though Maecenas was no doubt a man of unblemished 
character, and as such well suited to be the companion of Augustus, 
it is obvious that he is thought of here as the indefatigable friend 
who not only shared his master*s journeys, but fought in his 
battles. The following verse which MSS generally give 

Miles et Augusti fortiter usque pius, 

is retained by Ribbeck, who explains ' fortiter defunctus erat idem 


comes inpiger et miles August! usque pius.' I think this does 
violence to the words ; surely the meaning is as given by Le Clerc, 
' he had done his part to the end, at once as unwearied companion 
and as soldier in Augustus' service, bravely loyal to the last/ Le 
Clerc aptly quotes Terence's Defuncius iam sum, nihil est quod 
dicaimikiy Eun. Prol. 15, where Pseudo-Donatus explains * omni 
labore liberatus sum,' * iam destiti periclitari,' The line, however, 
is a very weak one, though none of the proposed corrections seems 

42. The accus. hosiiles rates may be right if Ignibus is con- 
structed closely with lignUy almost as if it referred to it assonantly, 
t£^ihus (sua) ligna reddere^ sa hosiiles rates. The fact of reddere 
being chosen rather than dedere somewhat confirms this view. 


Quam tunc ille tener tarn grauis hostis erat. 

This reading of Vat. seems palpably right; the antithesis is double 
and very effective : * As youthful, so formidable a foe,' * He proved 
himself then a foe as formidable as he was young.' 
45. lata Vat rightly * far and wide.' 

53> 54 : 

Hie modo miles erat, ne posset femina Romam 
Dotalem stupri turpis habere sui. 

Vat. herere^ pointing perhaps to some corruption. At any rate 
it would be hard to parallel Romam dotalem stupri sui in the 
sense olpretium dotale stupri. Possibly 

Dotalem stupris subdere turpis heri. 
Propertius, speaking of Cleopatra, similarly says. III 11, 32 : 

Coniugis obsceni pretium Romana poposcit 
Moenia et addictos in sua regna patres. 

^ * Misit ad extremos f exorientis equos. 

I suspect another corruption. Perhaps acta orientis. 
61, 62: 

Sum memor et certe memini sic ducere tyrsos 
Bacchea purpurea candidiora niue. 

This passage is usually printed substantially as I have given it, 
with the change o{ Bacchea to Bracchia. This is not impossible, 
for in Ov. Met. Ill 518 one of Korn's MSS has ^^J/a, where the 
true reading is either bcu:chica or bacchia. But what is ducere 


ihyrsosf and what is purpurea niuef Both combinations are 
extraordinary. Does the poet mean that Bacchus' arms ' trail ' 
thyrsi, or *lead on' the bands of thyrsus-bearers ? and how could 
the very whitest arms be called more glistening than sparkling 
snow ? Even if the lustrous sheen of a swan's plumage could be 
called by Horace purple (purpureis oloribusy IV i, 20), this does 
not prove the application of the word to snow. It is true that 
there is sometimes a rose color in snow, known as rose-snow ; but 
this would be quite out of keeping in a comparison with white 
arms. Besides, purpureas precedes in v. 60. 

I have found in a Bodleian fifteenth century copy of the Elegia 
(Auct. F. 4, 28) a reading which appears to me to suggest a 
wholly new line of explanation : 

Sum memor et certe mem in i sic dicere tyrso 
Baccha purpttera candidiora niue, 

from which I elicit 

Bacche/fifr,/Mm candidiora niue, 

' I recall the past and am sure I remember thee, young Bacchus, 
saying thus frankly to thy thyrsus, words of candor beyond the 
unsullied snow* The candor of Maecenas is well known ; Horace 
addresses him as Candide Maecenas^ Epod. XIV 5 ; and what is 
more to the point, in v. 135 of this very Elegia we have Nunc 
preiium candoris habes, Bacchus is identified by the poet with 
Maecenas ; as I think will be clear if I quote the passage in full. 
He is illustrating the justifiable seclusion of Maecenas by the 
example of the gods, Bacchus (57-68), Hercules (69-86), Jupiter 
(87-92) : 

Bacche coloratos postquam deuicimus Indos, 

Potasti galea dulce iuuante merum. 
Et tibi secure tunicae fluxere solutae, 

Te puto purpureas tunc habuisse duas. 
Sum memor et certe memini sic dicere thyrso, 

Bacche puer, pura candidiora niue. 
Et tibi thyrsus erat gemmis omatus et auro. 

Serpentes hederae uix habuere locum. 
Argentata tuos etiam fsandalia talos 

Vinxerunt certe, nee puto Bacche, negas. 
Mollius es solito mecum turn multa locutus 

Et tibi consulto uerba fuere noua. 

The poet, who has just described Apollo as fighting on Augustus* 
side at Actium, carries on the same idea with Bacchus. He 


imagines himself at Actium, the comrade of the god in the battle, 
witnessing with him this new conquest of Indian tribes (^Indos, by 
which is meant the colored populaces of the farthest East, as in G. 
II 172, Aen. VIII 705, is probably meant to suggest Bacchus' 
ancient and mythical conquest of India, Prop. Ill 17, 22), and 
then, victory secured, the changed demeanor of the god, now that 
the dangers of war were over and the reign of peace has set in. 
* I saw thee change thy helmet to a wine- cup ; thy robes flowed 
loose about thee. Like a very wanton, thou didst assume a two- 
fold tunic, and each of purple. I recall thy free boyish words 
over the jewelled thyrsus that was thy companion (Bacchus is 
supposed to address the thyrsus perhaps as a witness to his 
sincerity) ; thou wilt not deny the silver-broider'd sandals round 
thy ankles. All bespoke a wanton's mood. Then didst thou un- 
bend and hold long converse with me ; then didst thou vent thy 
soul in new and choice words.' 

Le Clerc saw long ago that our poet here is describing* some 
actual person ; but that person cannot be M. Antonius, though 


the passages cited by him from Velleius, Plutarch, and Dion Cas- 
sius show that he, in a special sense, not only might be, but was 
often identified with Bacchus. Here, however, there could be no 
place for Antonius, the defeated opponent of Augustus, any more 
than in the similar descriptions of Actium in Vergil and Propertius. 
Rather the poet has Maecenas throughout in his thoughts ; the 
two personalities, of the god and the minister, are crowded 
together somewhat inartistically, suggesting indeed that Maecenas, 
in the effusive joy which followed the decisive defeat of Antonius 
and Cleopatra at Actium, had himself assumed the very same 
character as his defeated opponent ; had taken the jewelled thyrsus, 
double tunic and silvered sandals which Antonius had been in the 
habit of wearing in the character rot) yiov Liovvaov (^Bacche ptcer). 
Indeed, in the last two verses, 

MoUius es solito mecum turn mttlta locutus 
Et tibi consulto uerba fuere noua, 

the god slips entirely out of view, and we are confronted unmis- 
takably with the stilus remissus mollis et dissolutus which Macro- 
bius S. II 4, 12, ascribes to Maecenas, and which Augustus 
parodied in the well known words there quoted : Vale mel gen- 
tium^ meculle^ eburex Etruria^ lasar Arretinum^ adamas supernaSy 
Tiberinum margarituniy Cilniorum smaragde^ iaspi figularum^ 


berylle Porsenae^ carbuncule Arabice^ (so C. W. King) Iva trvvri^ 
irdin-a, fidXayfia moecharum. Cf. the words of Seneca, Ep. 114: nan 
oratio Maecenatis aeque soluta est quant ipse discinctus f non iam 
insigniia illius uerba quant culius^ quant coniitatus, quant uxor? 

65. Sandalia of Vat., scandalia of F. 4, 28, will hardly give 
way for talaria of many early MSS, with talos immediately fol- 
lowing ; but it is difficult to see what was the original word. It 
cannot have been Sicyonia, and is not likely to have been 
Tyrrhenica (see Pollux, where both these words are given as names 
of women's shoes) ; on the other hand, no word like sandicina or 
sandar{a)cina would seem to suit uinxeruni^ which must, I think, 
refer to some kind of fastening for ihefeet. 

Sic te cum tenera multum lusisse puella. 

For ntuliunt Vat. gives, with several MSS, tecum. If this is not 
a mere repetition of tecunty it may be a corruption of tectum^ or 
possibly of ntoechunu 
87, 88 : 

Fudit Aloidas geminos dominator Olympi, 
Dicitur in nitidum percubuisse diem. 

I rezA procubuisse with Arundel 133, and explain of Jupiter leaning 
forward into the bright light of day, i. e. looking downwards to earth, 
before sending his eagle to make a more thorough search for him. 
His own glance is not enough to find the Ganymede whom the 
more keen-eyed eagle ravishes and bears aloft to his master. 

Atqae aquilam misisse suam, quae qaaereret ecquid 
Posset amaturo digna referre loui. 

digna Heinsius for stgna of MSS, rightly, I think. 

Argo saxa pauens postquam Scylleia legit 
Cyaneosque metus iam religanda ratis. 

For pauens Vat. and F. 4, 28 give parens. This variant is inter- 
esting ; for if it is right, it may serve as a close parallel to o bona 
mater of Catull. LXIV 23, which I have explained in my com- 
mentary of the Argo. It is some argument in support of parens , 
that pauens forms a flat tautology with Cyaneosque metus y and 
this is not one of the faults of the Elegia, though it abounds in 
iterations of the same word. 
147, 148 : 

Mene inquit iuuenis primaeui turpiter ante 
Augustam tBruti non cecidisse f (idem. 


There can, I think, be no doubt that the change of Bruit to Drust, 
q{ fidem to diem^ is right ; indeed, they seem to be generally 
accepted by modem critics. But in v. 147 no notice has been 
taken of turpiier, most MSS giving luppiler. I confess to a 
leaning towards this reading of Vat. Maecenas might naturally 
think it shameful to outlive Drusus, 'not to have died before 
young Drusus in his prime had ended his short span of life.* At 
any rate it seems worth while to call attention to a unique v. 1. 

' Sed tamen hoc satis est, uixi te, Caesar, amico. 
Et morior/ dixit ' dum moriorque, sat est. 

' But yet I am content in the thought that living I was Caesar's 
friend. Now, I die ; and in my hour of death, I am contented in 
that thought.' Such, I think, is the meaning ; but it is also pos- 
sible that te Caesar^ amico extends to Et moriar^ * living I was 
Caesar's friend, and dying I am stilL* 


Cum dicar subita uoce fnisse tibi. 

A very elegant use of the euphemistic /«/, /mt, etc. = ' I am no 



Hoc mihi contingat, iaceam tellure sub aequa. 

Nee tamen hoc ultra fhos potuisse uelim. 
Sed meminisse uelim. uiuam sermonibus illic. 

Semper ero, semper si meminisse uoles. 

Nee tamen hoc ultra nil potuisse uelim, 
Sed meminisse uelim. 

'And yet this is not the only thing I could wish to have effected ; 
I would fain that thou shouldst remember me still.' 

Robinson Ellis. 


Platon est un incomparable philosophe. Tout ce que je regrette, c'est le 
tort qvL'on lui a fait en I'exposant k Tadmiration un peu p^dantesque de jeunes 
disciples qui se sont mis k chercher une doctrine arrdt^e dans les charmantes 
fantaisies philosophiques que ce rare esprit nous a laissees. — Rsnan. 

Mr. Archer- Hind's edition of the Timaeus deserves from all 
English-speaking students the ample recognition that it will as a 
matter of course receive at Cambridge. It is not^ in view of the 
subject, a laborious work, nor one of profound erudition. The 
purely scholastic and exegetical material of the notes is almost all 
to be found in Stallbaum and Martin. But we know what the 
literal method of Grote and the easy-going aestheticism of Jowett 
made of these materials. The architectonic or demiurgic mind of 
Mr. Archer-Hind has evolved a cosmos out of this chaos, and 
introduced light where, except to Platonic specialists, all was dark- 
ness before. Armed with this edition the lay student need wait 
no longer for the " wide leisure " of Emerson's " elect morning," 
but may dare to open the Timaeus at once. He will not under- 
stand all Mr. Archer-Hind's metaphysics (who does ?), but he will 
find the chief difficulties of the dialogue clearly explained in brief 
compass. It is better to be right than learned. Our editor's 
translations and explanations are generally right, and therefore, 
while I should have welcomed a larger number of pertinent illus- 
trations of Platonic idiom and style from allied dialogues, I am 
not. going to find fault with him at a time when the accumulation 
of statistical erudition, pertinent or impertinent, threatens to become 
the scholar's ideal. In fact the preface disarms such criticism 
by the announcement that the chief object of the edition is the 
elucidation of the philosophical significance of the dialogue, 
hitherto neglected. The text is in the main that of Hermann with 
a few trifling alterations. 

The notes are occupied with a clear English restatement of 
Martin's judicious scientific explanations, with an exposition of 

* The Timaeus of Plato; edited, with Introduction and Notes, by R. D. Archer- 
Hind. Macmillan & Co., London and New York. — Plato's Later Theory of 
Ideas. Henry Jackson, Journal of Philology, Nos. 20, 2a, 25, 26, 28, 30. 


the metaphysical theory set forth as a whole in the introduction, 
and with lucid interpretations of several difficult passages, where 
the editor's superior philosophic insight has enabled him to correct 
the errors of his predecessors. The most valuable part of the 
work is, I think, the close and rhythmic translation, added primarily 
with a view to relieving the notes of grammatical exegesis. It is 
not only generally correct, giving the true meaning in a number 
of passages where Jowett, Stallbaum, and even Martin had failed, 
but in rhythm and vocabulary it shows throughout a true feeling 
for the tone and movement of the original, the absence of which 
makes the version of Jowett so intensely irritating to the scholar. 

It is a pleasure to have the implied sanction of a scholar like 
Mr. Archer-Hind for two principles often ignored*: ist. That 
exact translation is the best possible form of grammatical exegesis ; 
2d. That easy modern essay English is not the proper dialect for . 
versions of the great classics. 

I cannot speak with like approval of the metaphysical theory 
that is expounded in the introduction and that runs through the 
notes. Any reasonably consistent philosophic interpretation of 
Plato is better than none ; for Plato himself certainly thought he 
was philosophizing, and the professed renunciation of the philo- 
sophic point of view is in reality a mere falling back upon the 
unconscious metaphysics of the vulgar : tlrt ^wro^y^iriov cTrc/x^ ^aXoo-o- 
^i^rcov ^CKonox^r^riov, And Mr. Archer-Hind's philosophic habit of 
mind, baseless as I hold the metaphysical fabric he has constructed 
out of the Timaeus, has repeatedly guided him aright, where the 
credulous literalness of Grote and the artless aestheticism of 
Jowett went astray. But, on the other hand, it has in a few cases 
led him into demonstrable errors. I propose in a subsequent 
paper to discuss these and some other matters wherein I differ 
from Mr. Archer- Hind, in such a way that my criticism may be 
used as a supplementary commentary to his book. But before 
examining Mr. Archer- Hind's treatment of the Timaeus in detail, 
it will be necessary to take account of the general interpretation of 
Platonism on which it is based. The leadership of the nineteenth 
century revival of Platonism has since the middle of the century 
passed from Germany and France to England. The writings of 
Whewell, Emerson, Grote, Mill, Jowett, Martineau, and Matthew . 
Arnold have taught Englishmen to find something more in Plato 
than the Coleridgian or Taylorian mysticism which was so repel- 
lent to De Quincey, Landor,and Macaulay. Constantly multiplying 


evidences of Platonic influence can be traced in the more thought- 
ful literature of the past quarter of a century ; and indications are 
not wanting that the dialogues have been a favorite study of late 
years among the keener minds at the universities. The result of this 
study, however, could hitherto only be divined from occasional 
utterances in the notes of the excellent editions published by Eng- 
lish scholars in the Clarendon Press Series. It has been evident 
all along that scholars would not acquiesce in the interpretation 
of Grote, which was at once pronounced inadequate even by 
such sympathetic critics as Lewes and Mill. But a new synthesis 
of results would have been premature in the years immediately 
following the publication of his ponderous volumes. The elabo- 
rate papers of Mr. Henry Jackson on Plato's Later Theory of 
Ideas, and the introduction to Mr. Archer- Hind's Timaeus, though 
by no means constituting a complete statement, now enable us to 
define more closely the direction which English thought is taking 
in this matter. Speaking generally, the tendency seems to be to 
seek in the Platonic dialogues a progressive metaphysical develop- 
ment towards a system of monistic idealism with modern analogies, 
and to correlate this view of the growth of Plato's thought with 
the literary criticism that places the Republic among his earlier 
writings and the abstracter logical dialogues last. This tendency 
I cannot but regard as misleading. The application of modem 
metaphysical formulas to the Platonic writings requires to be con- 
trolled by a much severer scrutiny of the Greek text than the 
impatient philosophic mind is often willing to give. The attempt 
to trace a progressive development of thought in the dialogues is 
foredoomed to failure from the start. Without wishing to be 
held to say that Plato had no period of growth and never changed 
his mind, I think the dialogues do show that he belongs to the 
thinkers whose thought is first revealed to us in its maturity and 
remains essentially the same through life, rather than to the Hegels 
and Schellings who go through periods and have a first, second, 
and third manner. If this view is sound, a judicious interpreter 
of Plato must rest content with showing from the dialogues what 
were the habitual thoughts and feelings with which Plato contem- 
plated the world of the fourth century B. C, and how they were 
related to the experience of that century. And the first task of 
such an interpreter will be to examine systems that profess to 
expound the gradual growth of a complete and consistent meta- 
physic in Plato, and to show that they will not bear confrontation 
in detail with the actual text 


Mr. Archer-Hind's is only the most recent of many attempts to 
represent Plato as what the philosophic jargon of the day politely 
or prudently calls a pantheistic monist. From the days when 
Panaetius rejected the Phaedo, Plato's concessions to "vulgar 
dualism " have been a stumbling-block to vigorous and rigorous 
philosophers. And the device employed by these logical people 
has always been the same : they stigmatize as mythical all that 
does not square with their interpretation. The inevitable develop- 
ment of Platonism into pantheism is a thought much dwelt on in the 
writings of the brilliant French school that grew up and worked 
under the stimulus of Victor Cousin. Pantheism is the abtnUy as 
they naively call it, towards which historic Platonism in Plotinus, 
Johannes Scotus Erigena, and Ficinus ever tends — the abyss that 
at one point of his career nearly swallowed up the politic Cousin 
himself— the abyss on the verge of which Vacherot and Ravaisson 
still find it a perilous pleasure to dance. The logical French mind 
with its direct methods deduces pantheism from Platonism very 
simply. If only the ideas have reality, and every idea is itself 
included in the next higher abstraction, the highest idea, that of 
Being, or call it by its synonym the Good or God, must absorb 
all reality and alone truly exist. So short by the high abstract 
method that ignores the real life in which the man's being was 
rooted is the distance from Plato to his spiritual antipode Spinoza. 
Less simple is the method followed by those German scholars of 
whom Teichmiiller is a type. They accept the anima mundi of 
the Timaeus as a pantheistic Stoic world-soul, reject the Demiurgus 
as a myth, and interpret all other elements of Platonism, including 
the ideas, into harmony with their hypothesis. Mr. Archer-Hind's 
affinities are with this school, but in his case we must take account 
of two further complications : i. Mr. Archer-Hind and his friend 
Mr. Jackson* have compounded for themselves out of Spinoza, 
Berkeley, Hegel, and Darwin, a peculiar mixed mode of logical 
idealistic evolutionary pantheism, which is the doctrine they 
naturally attribute to Plato. 2. Mr. Archer-Hind has accepted 
from Mr. Jackson the theory of two radically distinct stages in 
Plato's evolution, one in which he taught the hypostatized reality 
of all general notions (an hypothesis which could lead to pan- 
theism only by the French logical short-cut), and a later period in 
which he admitted ideas of natural kinds only. This later theory 

* This is a perhaps unwarranted inference of my own from their writings. 


of ideas Mr. Archer-Hind (Introduction, p. 27) combines with the 
" hint of the Philebus " that finite souls are derived from the 
infinite soul, and with the doctrine of Berkeleian idealism he 
manages to conjure out of the Theaetetus, the doctrine that "mate- 
rial objects are but the perceptions of finite souls," to this Hege- 
lian result : " In the Timaeus, then, the universe is conceived as 
the self-evolution of absolute thought. There is no more a 
distinction between mind and matter, for all is mind. All that 
exists is the self-moved differentiation of the one absolute thought, 
which is the same as the idea of the Good." This is for Mn 

'* la dottrina che si asconde 
Sotto il velame delli versi strani." 

The reader will feel that I do not take all this very seriously; 
and in truth, when one thinks of the rich and manifold intellectual 
life of Plato's time, of the constant pre-occupation of his mind 
with social, political, educational and literary interests, wholly 
ignored here, the attempt to interpret his masterpieces by means 
of ingenious juggling with the counters of an abstract terminology 
does seem very much like trifling. I shall endeavor in subse- 
quent papers to show how, without entire ignoring of equations 
of metaphysical formulas, the sounder interpretation of Plato 
must be above all psychological, historical, literary, and must 
never leave out of sight his predominant moral, social, and reli- 
gious feelings. Nevertheless, metaphysical ground and lofty 
tumbling is an exercise of the human mind to be studied and 
accounted for like any other, and my object in this introductory 
paper is not merely to protest against the theses of Mr. Jackson 
and Mr. Archer-Hind, but also to make their meaning plain to 
readers who may have been bewildered by the dialect in which 
they have been expounded by their authors. Nor, to be serious, 
would I deny that there is a sense in which such interpretations 
are sound. The history of philosophy seems to indicate that 
consistent metaphysical thinking tends to issue in some form of 
monism. Plato is, perhaps, when he chooses to be so, the most 
consistent thinker of whom literature holds record, and it is 
natural that his modern admirers should attribute metaphysical 
consistency to him also. But it is more than probable that Plato, 
with his constant concern for edification, and his deep-seated 
feeling that '' the father and maker of this universe is hard to find 
out, and impossible to proclaim to all men when found," cared 


much less for ultimate metaphysical consistency than his modem 
admirers. Mr. Archer-Hind, however, in his desire to maintain 
against the disciples of Grote the principle that Plato does not 
talk at random and does not contradict himself, offers us a rigid 
metaphysical interpretation of the Timaeus in which no allowance 
is made for these disturbing human elements. 

But before proceeding further with this subject it is necessary 
to turn back and examine from the beginning Mr. Jackson's view 
of Plato's later theory of ideas, which is accepted by Mr. Archer- 
Hind and made the basis of his entire exposition. As there are 
probably very few students who have really read and understood 
Mr. Jackson's voluminous papers, I will embody in my argument, 
subject to correction, a brief r^sum6 of their substance. Mr. 
Jackson starts from the conviction that there must be something 
more than Aristotelian misconception in the account of the later 
Platonic theory of ideas given in the Metaphysics. Examining 
the Philebus with this thought, he finds a clew to the later doctrine. 
The most important element of the dialogue, according to Mr. 
Jackson, is not as Plato repeatedly says, the ethical,' but the meta- 
physical. The introductory discussion on method is not, he 
thinks, what it appears to be on its face, an attempt to dispose of 
logical cavils (r^p tw atxJHor&p civj^X^o-cir) before. entering on the 
main discussion.* It is the proposal of metaphysical anopiai whose 
solution is to be coverdy suggested in the sequel.' 

1 Cf. iiD, 18E, 19C, 60BCD, 64A, 66E. 

* Cf. the numerous auAlogous passages of the Laws (6276, 637D, 644 A, 864B, 
jj//2v dt ovK kcTi ra vvv bvoftdruv iripi ihaepic Wyof), and of the Republic (454A, 
436CDE, 437 A), where Plato indicates his perception of possible logical prob- 
lems or cavils that he does not care to discuss. 

' This point is essential. Mr. Jackson's summary, J. of P. 20, 267, gives the 
letter rather than the spirit when he says (cf. 15C) : '* The question, ' How is it 
that the separately existent monad or idea is reproduced in a multitude of par- 
ticulars 7 having been raised, and all present except Philebus having agreed that 
the discussion of it should not be deferred." The question that must not be 
deferred, as appears from 19E-20B, is the contest between idov^ and vovc 
The subsidiary logical difficulties must be koXoc dfAoXoyjfdivTa'^-tL very different 
thing. The i/wXoyia on which Socrates insists is that the ** one and many " is 
an ** everlasting subjective affection of human language " (i5D),and when Pro- 
tarchus begs him to find some device to dismiss this confusion from our 
discourse (16A), he falls back, in language resembling that of the Phaedrus, 
on the method oi ideas and Ataipeaic as an immediate gift of heaven (16C-17B), 
and the practical conclusion relevant (18D) to the discussion in hand is that 
we must discriminate the kinds of ^^ov^ and voi)f. The young men insist 


The quadripartite division of all things into irc^r Snttpov iukt^ 
and oiVia is not what Socrates expressly declares it to be, a con- 
ceptual classificatory device for furtherance of the argument (23B), 
It is the discrimination of four actual permanent elements in things 
which can be definitely equated with the terms of other Platonic 
classifications introduced in other dialogues for other objects. On 
this supposition Mr. Jackson (J. of P. 20, 275 ; 25, 17) identifies 
the airtipov with matter, or rather with the four elements of the 
Timaeus, and the fuicrSp with matter on which a definite form or 
wipof is impressed by the action of curia or povs. When the fUKr6p 
is an inadequate impression of an imperfect form the result is a 
concrete individual object. The adequate reception of a perfect 
ir€pas in the an-ccpoy results in a '' type " in which Mr. Jackson sees 
the later Platonic idea. 

It is not easy to controvert a theory which hardly assumes to be 
based on Plato's own language, but which is rather a suspicion 
'* roused by the very pains which have been taken to obscure the 
fact " (J. of P. 20, 273). The true explanation of the Philebus and 
Sophist, as I have elsewhere shown, is that Plato is determined 
to place logic on a sure basis as independently of metaphysic as 
may be. The doctrine of ideas is *' hard to accept and hard to 
reject " (Republic, 532D), and it will require a wondrous man, 
wide experience, and great cleverness (Parmen. 129DE, 133BC) 
to reconcile their absolute unity and transcendental reality with 
their complex involutions in finite knowledge (Parmen. 133), in 
the undefined world of changing phenomena (Philebus, 15B), and 
with a?ie another (Republic, 476A). But since the rejection of 
ideas (Parmen. 135BC), or the treatment of them as incommuni- 
cable entities (Sophist, 259E), makes dialectic and even rational 
language impossible, we will, though we may not wholly solve the 
problem of being and non-being (Sophist, 251 A, 25 iD), arrange 
our own use of language with regard to them as becomingly as 
possible (Sophist, 254C) ; and, if we cannot show definitely that 
such transcendental monads exist (Philebus, 15AB) and how they 

only that Socrates, by whatsoever method he pleases, shall determine the 
original controversy (19-20). Socrates does not abandon the method of classi- 
fication here suggested, but returns to it as soon as he has dismissed the 
futile conception of a life of unmixed pleasure or knowledge. The elaborate 
classification of i^^waX and entaT^ftat that follows is subordinated to the higher 
classification of iripai aireipov and fUKriv in order to secure a basis of common 
elements for the final comparison. Such are the fierapdaeig kv r^ 4»t>.^;3^. 


are related to each other and to the fleeting things of generation ; 
if we cannot altogether cure this inherent and ageless affection of 
human speech (Philebus, 15D), which is perhaps attributable to 
the "casual and random habit of mind" (Timaeus, 34C) out of 
which we can hardly hope to rouse ourselves in our present 
dream-like existence(Timaeus, 52C), we will at least seek to free 
ourselves of this confusion as far as possible (Philebus, 16BC), and 
to find some better method to guide our definite discussions than 
this metaphysical eristic about the one and the many and the 
puzzles of irapov<rta (Euthydemus, 301 A),* which is always per- 
fecdy possible (Sophist, 259C) and perfectly futile. And this 
better method, the gift of the gods to man (Phileb. 16C), is 
always to look for an ideal unit in every multiplicity of perception, 
for we shall find it there if we are really synoptic and know how 
to look at once to the one and to the many ; and when we have 
found it, to analyze and redivide it by the method of the Sophist 
Phaedrus and Philebus in order that we may be able Xcyc^v re xal 

This is all definite and consistent enough even for a Plato. And 
it is just what Plato says, with no superadded subtlety of interpre- 
tation. When Mr. Jacksoi\ and Mr. Archer-Hind go on to 
demand a further absolute metaphysical consistency that shall 
finally do away with all problems, they ask of Plato what no human 
mind has yet achieved. They may find a meaning in their " hypo- 
thetical actualizations " of extra-spatial realities, or in the self- 
evolution of absolute thought under the limitations of space and 
time, but what do they suppose the rest of us can make of 
such formulas for the universe ? Plato never attempted a final 
formula, because he felt, with Renan, that " Toute phrase app]iqu6e 
^ un objet infini est un mythe — elle renferme dans des termes 
limit^s et exclusifs ce qui est illimit6. La tentative d'expliquer 
TinefTable par des mots est aussi d6sesp6r6e que celle de Texpliquer 
par des r6cits ou des images : la langue condamn6e k cette torture 
proteste, hurle, d6tonne; chaque phrase implique un hiatus 
immense." ■ And so after bringing his argument to the point of 

proof, a>f xpn 4>t^o<ro(ti€iv Koi dprnjs tmfuXtiaBai (Euthydemus, 275 A), 

and after pointing out the true method and discipline of sound 
philosophizing, he always takes refuge amid a cloud of metaphors 

* The Euthydemus, which is evidently a mature work, will be hard to fit to 
the later theory of ideas, 

* Revue des Deux Mondes, Jan. 15, i860. 


in some beautiful myth of which he can say only Bths dc irov xXbtw^ 

€1 akrfii\i Qlva Tvyxdv€i (Repub. 517B). 

To descend to more special criticism : the whole method of 
equating these terms, as if they were concrete substances, with 
other Platonic entities is wrong, because Plato takes great pains to 
make us accept the members of this classification typically as 
abstract general conceptions including the most varied and appa- 
rendy disparate phenomena. The ofn-cipov itself is an Idea (16, 17E) 
or <l>vaif (18A, cf. 60A where <f>v<n9 is used of r^ ayaB6v) which, 
though its very name suggests multiplicity, is to be compre- 
hended as a conceptual unit (23E ; cf. 25A), and the same holds 
of nipa^ and t6 fUKTdp (27D). The principle being radically wrong, 
we need not be surprised that the special equations are hope- 
lessly irreconcilable with Plato's actual words. In the study of 
the Timaeus (J. of Phil. 25, pp. 17, 18) the &irtipop is definitely 
equated with the four elements that compose the K&iriiot. But in 
20, 275 we find rfiovri and Xvn-17 not actualized referred to the (hrtipov. 
It is not easy to believe that Mr. Jackson realized his own meaning 
here. Certainly it is idle to seek a place for avrfj ^oyfjy or non- 
actualized r^boi^, in earth, water, fire, or air, or in any of their 
combinations. Moreover, if Plato intended the aw^ipov to be a 
synonym of <r&fui composed of the four elements, it is strange that 
he betrays no consciousness of this equivalence in 33D sqq. where 
he treats at large of tr&tia. The relegation of the ideas to the 
fuKTov is still harder to defend. It is not really necessary to 
assign the ideas any definite place in a scheme which, like all 
Plato's classifications, was framed for a particular purpose. But 
that aspect of the ideas which Zeller denotes by the phrase " the 
ideas as forces " is evidently allied to mWa, and the ideas as forms 
are as obviously connected with w/por — that whose very nature it 
is to pQssess and impart measure. Mr. Jackson's argument (20, 
282) that the assigning the ideas to nipas does not remove the 
difficulty of 15B, begs the whole question by assuming that Plato 
or anybody else has ever succeeded in satisfactorily demonstrating 
in language the fixed unities our instinct and our speech require 
amid the flux of experience. The same problem from the sub- 
jective side has baffled all modern philosophers. Kant's '* synthetic 
unity of apperception" is mere tautologous verbiage. Mill's 
" permanent possibilities " may supply a principle of unity for 
things ft Ti£ x^W ovTo»f 6vofidC<oVf but the continuity and unity of 
mind in memory Mill himself gave up as inexplicable. Why can- 


not we believe Plato when he says that the puzzle is an inherent 
limitation of human speech ? Why try to torture his words into a 
supposed metaphysical consistency which after all proves elusive ? 
For Mr. Jackson cannot really suppose that he has explained 
anything by talking of types formed of a tripos and on-rtpoir outside 
of space and time. Or that if the ideas, as he finally seems to 
hold, are in the mind of God, Plato would have admitted an 
SjTtipov there. Or that when we have once escaped the limitations 
of sense and sensuous logic by making the ideas vofniara Otov, 
we are bound to suppose the Platonic deity incapable of thinking 
of the good, the beautiful, and other relative terms of which the 
" later theory " does not recognize ideas. Why, Aristotle invented 
the whole theory of v6ri<nf pofivtm because, having rejected the 
Platonic postulate, he was unable to account in any other way for 
the conceptual unity of abstract relative terms which he could not 
attach to his first substances. 

Now the theory which is introduced into the dialogue by these 
unwarranted metaphysical assumptions can be maintained only by 
the most forced and artificial methods of interpretation. Briefly 
stated Mr. Jackson's view is that the &irttpov, by the introduction of 
a vo<r6v or definite quantity, is " actualized "; by the introduction 
of just the right or appropriate iroo-dv, namely the ixtrpiov, we get 
not merely an " actuality " but a " type " to either side of which 
" actualities " may diverge. These types are the later Platonic 
ideas. The hard and fast distinction between furpiov and iro<r6¥ is 
borrowed from the Politicus (283B-287A), where Socrates insists 
upon it for a special purpose (283D, dc* yhp dfj jtp^ t vZv awevbofuv)) 
namely, in order to discriminate between an argument long as 
compared with some other argument, and an argument long or 
short with reference to its own definite philosophic object. The 
distinction is needed in all the arts, says Socrates, for all assume a 
quantitative standard of right and wrong, and measure quantities 
generally, not merely against one another, but in relation to this 
absolute standard.' 

1 Mr. Jackson's note on this passage contains one or two singular statements. 
Ttfv n^c ytvkaeug avayKaiav ovoiav (283D) he translates *' the bare existence of 
becoming." A comparison of 284C, irpdc rj)v tov fierpiov yiveaiv, and of Cratylus 
432 A, baa Ik tivo^ apiBfiov avayKoiov elvai ^ pij tXiKU^ shows that the phrase means 
something like : With reference to the essential law of (their) generation, 
production. The suggestion that Aristotle's X6yoi ck tuv kmarfffiuv is an 
allusion to this passage of the Politicus is sufficiently disposed of by a refer- 


In a general way this distinction represents the Platonic conno- 
tations of furptovf which is a higher word than iro<r6v. In the 
Philebus, however, the distinction b not needed, and the two 
words, with many others, are used as loose synonyms throughout 
the dialogue. 

Mr. Jackson, however, insisting on the distinction, and using the 
n-mrdy for '' actualization " and the furpioyfor the formation of his 
type ideas, is led to treat airetpa everywhere as not actualized. 
He sees all things triple : first not actualized, then actualized by 
a fro(r($y, lasdy typified by a fUrpiov. Thus Btpfihv km irvxp69, 3w€ipa 
Hvra are temperature not actualized, whatever that may mean. 
The introduction of a iro<r6p gives an actual temperature, and the 
right YTocrdv produces &pa, etc. How &pa and the idea are related 
we are not informed.* Applied to the chief topics of the dialogue, 
r/bovrf and imarrifjai, this Conception leads to positive error. I have 
already referred to the attempted distinction between ^dov^ actualized 
and not actualized. In 275 n. this distinction is employed to 
explain the contradiction that Jowett and Grote find between 27E, 
" where rfiovri is assigned to ^eipov/* and 31C, where it belongs to 
fUKT6v. The contradiction exists only in the English translation. 
No scholar who really follows the Greek can miss the difference 
between assigning fjbovii to its class in the classification (ctr r6 
airupov yfvos — riBtpaty 25 A) and describing the place or seat in which 
it and Xvini and vovf occur and by what affection they are generated 
(31 B). But apart from this the distinction is naught Mr. Jack- 
son unfortunately omits one little word when he quotes and con- 
strues. Plato says nothing about a contrast between an aMi i^doyif 
and some other kind of ^dovrf. He says ffbovri di nrr€ip6s r « ahrri Koi 
Tov fttJT€ apx^ir— /lij/rc rcXos — txovros ytuovs ; and this is not a real anti- 
thesis between an absolute and an actualized ^doyi/, but only the 
rhetorical antithesis of a well balanced Greek sentence between 
ffboy^ herself and the class to which ^boyrj belongs. Mr. Jackson's 
further assertion that actualized pleasures, good or bad, are unhesi- 
tatingly assigned to the fuicrdp (20, 277) is, of course, equally 

ence to Zeller, Phil, der Griech. 1875, II i, p. 547, where the correct explana- 
tion is given, or to Aristotle, Metaphysics, I078b^*, cited by Mr. Jackson him- 
self, J. of Phil. 26, a66. 

' In 26, 243 n. Mr. Jackson discovers that *' the instances of fiucrdv alleged at 
25 E ff. and 31C ir/ieia &pa yaTJpfri apfxovia are neither ideas nor things, but 
states or conditions of things." This oversight, however, does not shake his 
Confidence in the theory. 



unwarranted.* Plato feels about the pleasures of appetite as 
Schopenhauer about the will to live — they are essentially insatiate. 
They recognize no limits, submitting all things to desire. The 
reader with a sense for the subtleties of Plato's style is constantly re- 
minded of this. He repeatedly applies the epithet <r<l>obp<n'aTas (45 A, 
63D) to such pleasures. Now he tells us (24C) Sn koX r6 ir<l>6bpa tovto . . 

Koi t6 y€ rjp€fui (cf. 47-^) — oirov €Vijtov ovk iarov €lvai irotrhv tKaaropf etC. 

(cf. 45 DE). In like manner Mr. Jackson allows himself to speak 
(20, 281) of an tm<mlfui ^irtipos od<ra which United with fierpiov pro- 
duces imariffiij ** properly constituted." But neither in the Philebus 
nor in Ast's Lexicon have I succeeded in finding a passage where 
Plato applies the epithet an-etpof to ifntniiit). It certainly is not a 
Platonic way of speaking. In 28A sqq. inurnniri is definitely 
assigned to the class of alria. Will Mr. Jackson maintain that 
there are three kinds of eVionJ/iij in the field? 

Lastly, if the Philebus is intended to expound a doctrine of 
ideas of natural kinds not including relative ethical conceptions, is 
it not strange that we meet at the beginning (15A) the rh KsiKhv tv 
KcX t6 ayaBhv €v of the Republic, and that near the end (62A) the 

philosopher who has knowledge of ra fjL^€ yiyv6fi€va fiifri diroXXv/icra, 
etc, is characterized as a ff^pov&v SvOpoTros airnj^ ir€p\ diKOioavvri?, o ri 

Htm? And if the ideas are explained as fuxra in this dialogue, is 

not the description of them as ra del Kara ra alrh &<ravTas d/itxr($- 

rara Uxovra (59C) singularly infelicitous for a Plato? 

It is to the Parmenides that Mr. Jackson first turns for confir- 
mation of the type ideas he has discovered in the Philebus. The 
Parmenides is in reality a powerful statement of the seemingly 
unanswerable objections to the theory of ideas with which, in spite 
of Mr. Jackson, the Socrates of the Republic is already familiar,* 
followed by a demonstration by the ex necessitaie method of 
the Sophist of the indispensableness for human speech of some 
assumption of ideas. In the Sophist the practical inference is 
drawn ; in the Philebus it is assumed ; in the Parmenides it has 

'Cf. 52C, where it is explicitly said of a^pal ^Sovai: tov airetpnv re kxelvov 
, . . irptfo6G>fiev airraid elvai y^y<wf. For yivo^ of vovc cf. 28A eif W, for its 
locus cf. 30D and (?) 59D. 

^ In J. of Ph. 20, p, 256 n. Mr. Jackson concurs with Zeller and Bonitz in 
holding " that when Plato stated the rpiro^ avOp<.moc in the Parmenides he must 
have been convinced that he could meet it triumphantly." But the rpiro^ 
ivOpurroc occurs in the Republic 597C ; and the Kotvuvla of the ideas with one 
another is also distinctly asserted 476. 


been left to the acumen of the reader, with what results we know 
only too well. But Mr. Jackson finds a very different doctrine in 
the Parmenides. To him it seems that Parmenides' destructive 
criticism of the ideas is applicable only to the ideas of the Republic 
and Phaedo which include relative terms and all other abstractions. 
Socrates* suggestion that the ideas are irapahtiyyMta is to him the 
introduction of the later Platonic doctrine, although the language 
of pattern, copy, and artist looking off to his model is familiar 
throughout the Republic. And, introducing a distinction not 
borne out by the text, between Kaff avra cidi; and ubt) not xaB' avrd, 
he argues that Parmenides' objections apply only to the latter and 
leave the former, the new paradeigmatic cTdi^, untouched. 

There is no space to follow his elaborate analysis in detail, but 
his two main propositions can, I think, be shown to rest upon 
misconceptions. He interprets I29D£ as a denial by Socrates, 
who is still in the stage of the Republic, of the possibility of a 
combination and disintegration among the ideas in themselves 
apart firom things C22, p. 288), and so when afterwards Parmenides* 
(with obvious reference to this passage, I may remark) brings 
about such combinations, Mr. Jackson regards this as a tacit aban- 
donment of the earlier view held by Socrates at the start. Now, 
the fact is that Socrates, who already in the Republic is aware 
that the transcendental reality of the ideas is a hard saying, and 
that their real unity is confused for us r;^ aKkjfkav Koivmvlci, does not 
here assert, as Mr. Jackson says, that he cannot conceive of such 
a Koivovla, but only that he should vastly admire the man who 
could exhibit to him this interminglement among the ideas in 
themselves as " manfully " as Zeno shows it in concrete things.' 
Parmenides approves of Socrates* transference of the problem of 
h Koi noXKd to the region of ideas, and in the sequel shows himself 
the man required. It is idle to object that the ultimate difficulty 
is not solved. It is solved here as much as it is in the Philebus 
or in the Sophist, by mere assumption of the necessary postulates 
of logic. It is an ayrfpav itdBos tS>v \6yov ip ^fuv, and we are brought 
no nearer a satisfactory explanation by the art of Hegel or Mill 

Ka\ raora ovraxrl BavfJUKrnjs oiioTjs us aKpifituiv \6yiidv (Ruthyd. 288A}. 

Mr. Jackson paraphrases Parmen. 129DE (J. of Phil. 22, 288. The 
italics are mine) : ^^ B\il I do 7iot see^ I grant, kaw any one who 
attributes a separate independent existence to tihi\ stick as likeness, 

' 143A. 

'Cf. Parmen. 129E, 1336, with Phileb. 15B and Charmides 169A. 


unlikeness, multitude, unity, rest, motion, etc., can suppose these 
etdi; to be capable of combination and disintegration/' And in 
28, 217, referring to this passage, he speaks of "the very warmth 
of Socrates' denial of the intercommunion of ctdi; '' as indicating 
'* on Plato's part a consciousness that in this respect, as well as in 
others, the earlier system stood in need of revision." Now, the 
correct translation of the sentence in question runs somewhat as 
follows : " But if a man, as I was just now saying, will first distin- 
guish and separate the ideas by themselves, as for example, likeness, 
and unlikeness, and multitude, and the one, and rest, and motion, 
and all such things, and then shall show them capable of being inter- 
mingled and disjoined in themselves (c£ r^ aXXrj \<op Koivwit}, Repub. 
476), why, I should * admire to see it ' (dyaifjLrjv) amazingly, O 
Zeno." The reader may judge for himself the value of a theory 
supported by paraphrases like the one cited above. 

One of the differences between my version and the paraphrase 
brings me to my second point — Mr. Jackson's habit of employing 
the phrase avra KaB' avra ttbtj as a technical term to denote a dis- 
tinctive class of ctdi; first discriminated in the Parmenides for the 
sake of the later theory. In the passage before us he speaks of 
** any one who attributes a separate independent existence to cid?;, 
such as," etc. That is to say, he simply ignores the article ra as 
he consistendy ignores elsewhere the W, the arra, the forms of eiV* 
or the Xeyco-^ai, with which the phrase avra koB' avrit cidi; is almost 
uniformly accompanied in Plato. But as we saw in the case of 
Untipos rjdovri avnf re xal, etc., it will not do to omit little words in 
construing Greek. 

This theory of a distinctive class of itaB^ aWh. ttbtf is applied (p. 
293) to Parmenides' argument that in the case of relative terms 
the idea] relatives will correlate with each other only and not with 
the things of this world, and so the ideas will be unknowable to 
man, and, worse yet, concretes will not be cognizable by God 
(Parmen. 133C sqq.). Now it is to be observed that Plato 
describes relative and non-relative terms here not by the words 

KaB' avra and /uii) xaB' avra, but by the WOrds wp6s ciXKriKas tlorh at mip 

and similar expressions (cf. also Charmides, 168-9). ^^* Jackson 
seems unconsciously to have transferred to this passage the phrase 

of the Sophist (255C), t&v ivrmv rd fA€v avra KaB* avrh, ra di rphs 

SK\r}\a acl Xcycer^oi. He thus confounds, by means of the 
ambiguity of the expression avrd KaB' avrd (which in the Sophist 
is cured by Xcyco'^ai) the familiar Platonic distinction between 


relative and non -relative terms, with his own new distinction 
between ahra Kaff avra €i8rj and €idrj which are supposed to be not 
avTct Kad' avra. And throughout the remaining papers he habitually 
employs the phrase in this unwarranted technical sense. Now 
Parmenides* final admission of the indispensability of ideas for 
dialectic (135BC) does not, as Mr. Jackson repeatedly asserts, 
leave us free to suppose that the ideas required to make knowledge 
possible may be only this assumed class ofaM Kaff avra €idff. On 
the contrary, Parmenides explicitly says : otbt on-ot Tp€yfr€i rffv diavotav 

€^€i firj iSty Ib^aj r&v Svr av iKaarov rfjp atn'rjp dec clvoi. Compare 

the entire passage with Sophistes, 255C, which proves, if proof is 
needed, that ra Srra include all terms both relative and non-rela- 
tive. Will anybody seriously maintain that the daJufiara KoXXiara 
Svra KM iieyiaraoi the "late" Politicus (286-7) which have no 
visible representative embodiment in the world of sense and must 
be grasped Xoy«, are not our old friends the Platonic ideas of the 
Republic and Phaedo? that they are not identical with rols 

Xoyto-fi^ XafAfiavofUvois (Parmen. I30A), with ixtiva & fiakiard rif ^ 

\6y<^ \dQoi Ka\ etdtj &v fiyrjaairo ctvai (Parmen. 135E), and that they do 
not at all periods of Platonism include those ideas of the good and 
the fair which were always for Plato the most important ^pra which 
\6yos was concerned to investigate ? 

Parmenides' argument that ideal relatives will correlate only 
with ideals will not bear the weight Mr. Jackson lays upon it. It 
is merely the casual employment of a familiar Platonic distinction 
in order to add one more to the numerous difficulties accumulated 
against the doctrine of ideas. Everything is against our taking it 
^ the new discovery by Plato of a fundamental objection necessi- 
tating a revision of his theory. . The distinction, clearly stated in 
the Symposium and Charmides (Symp. 199D, Charm. 168B), and 
recurred to in the Sophist, is so familiar to the Socrates of the 
Republic that he is aware of refinements in it which the Socrates 
of the Gorgias, intentionally of course, ignores.* He knows that 
unqualified relatives correlate only with unqualified relatives, and 
qualified with qualified.' Hence there is no ground for surprise 
that the Socrates of the Parmenides readily admits that B€la or 

^ Gorgias, 460BC. 

' Republic, 438. The Philebus, as we have seen, passes by the puzzles of 
the Parmenides as a^pa Tolq Myoiq kunddia. Hence it assumes (62A) the 
coexistence in one mind of knowledge of avT^ duuiioaivTi and human justice, of 
the 6eia and avdpunivri c^lpa. 


ideal dccnrorcta will correlate, only with Qwt bovXoavtn}, The admis* 
sion is only a specific application of the general rule formulated 
with almost pedantic distinctness in the Republic. Moreover, 
the weightier argument from cVcai^/ii; that follows, applies to any 
form of the theory of ideas. 'EiriemJ/iiy, if a relative term, is one 
of those awkward relatives, so troublesome to Aristotle, that 
abolish the distinction by making all things relative. If $€ia tm- 
arfifjaif relates only to the patterns laid up in heaven, and human 
knowledge only to the shadowy likenesses of the cave, our 
knowledge is equally confined to the shadows, the likenesses, or 
the copies, however we may limit or enlarge the class of those 
shadows to which we allow truly existent divine exemplars. But 
I am weary of this mechanical treatment of Plato's language. It 
is not true that Plato would have felt bound to revise a theory of 

ideas that made plausible 6 Syvwrra dvayKaCmv alrii €lvau On the 

contrary, he everywhere declares that in this dream-like life we see 
as through a glass darkly, that vws is not to be seen by mortal 
eyes (Laws, 897D), and that the truth which is our desire will be 
attained only in that after existence for which the philosophic life 
is the best preparation. Plato's antipathy is not to this high poetic 
scepticism that denies to 'mortal faculties adequate cognizance of 
the divine ; it is to the eristic scepticism engendered of much logo- 
machy, that concludes that there is nothing sound or true in any 
human X&yos (Phaedo, 90C), that denies the reality of ideas and of 
ideals in any sense, and as a practical consequence refuses to admit 
the validity of abstract terms and definitions «v toU trap* fifuv X&yots. 

Plato's concern with these puzzling objections to his theory is 
not that they remove the ideas to a transcendental world beyond 
our ken (he has the winged car that will transport him thither 
when the mood is on him), but that the man whose mind habitually 
dwells upon such cavils fu^dc n Spitirai eldos it^ Uaarovy and this 
practical difficulty he evades by stopping the mouths of opponents 
with their own hypotheses (Theaetetus, 183B), and by bidding 
friends accept the gift of the gods to man, and to look in all 
things for the ideal unity that they will be sure to find if they look 

And now, before examining Mr. Jackson's discovery in the 
second part of the Parmenides of the revised theory of ideas he 
thinks necessitated by the first p>art, let me reassure the experienced 

* Parmen. 133C. I am inclined to read aXka niBavd^ in spite of (Jwrovdn-worov, 
1 35 A. The sense is not altered. 


reader, who is probably preparing to ^kip, by protesting that my 
discussion of this vexatious theme, whatever its other faults, shall 
not be unintelligible nor mystic. And indeed the second part of 
the Parmenides, though dry, is not really difficult to any one who 
will follow the Greek text in its plain and obvious meaning. The 
ambiguity of the copula and similar logical catches furnished a 
feast for the 6^ifia3€is of Plato's time, as of our own. Aristotle 
to the end of his career paused to quibble over them whenever 
they came in his way. In the Sophist Plato solved the problem 
and gave an explanation of the nature of predication which, 
making allowances for the difference of Greek and English idiom, 
is substantially the same as that given in Mill's Logic. In the 
Parmenides he offers an elaborate systematic deduction of all the 
perplexing antinomies derivable from the ambiguity of the sub- 
stantive verb; in the Euthydemus a brilliant dramatic caricature 
of their first effect on the nimble and super-subtle Athenian intel- 
lect In the other dialogues he as a rule dismisses them with 
scornful allusion, thereby saving space for more profitable matters. 
That such discussions seemed weightier to- Plato than they do 
to a disciple of Mill' I would not deny. Their novelty and the 
peculiar idiom of the Greek language in negative predication 
would in themselves suffice to this result, and besides, Plato was 
determined to preserve the dignified associations of Being and its 
paronyms for the abstract studies he delighted to honor, and for 
his favorite contrast between the philosopher who dwells in the 
pure light of the real and the sophist who haunts the shadowy 
region of illusion. But it is perfectly idle to deny that the Par- 
menides, as Grote has clearly shown, is in the main an intentional 
and systematic illustration of the ambiguity of the copula. In the 

PhaedruS, 26 iD, Socrates says: rbif oZp 'EXcartK^y naXafjajdriP Xeyovra 
oifK ia/icy rexyv ^^x^* <l>aiV€<r6ai roir OKOvovai ra avra ofioia koX avofuaa kcX 

h Koi YToXXd, fuvovrd rt al Koi <t>€p6fAeva ; In the Timaeus, 38 A~B, after 
commenting on the ambiguities of cW, Plato adds : 2>y ovdtv aKpi^s 

\iyofuv, ircpl fiev oZv rovrtov rax iip oi/K clrj Kaip6s irpeirmy ep r^ irap6pTt 

diaKpi^oKoytiaOai, Now, in the Parmenides the veteran dtaKpi^oKo- 
y€'iTat about this very theme. For it is useless to assert that the 
one is the basis of the Parmenidean antinomies, when Parmenides 
himself tells us that he is to illustrate a general method of infer- 
ence from the alternative hypotheses of an fhai and a fifj cW, and 
the " one " is merely taken up as a convenient theme for the prac- 
tice of the method — every argument really turning upon the 


ambiguity of the copula. The argument is, moreover, conducted 
rixvn 11^ the true Platonic sense of the word : Phaedrus, 263D-E : 

dpxofJtfPOt . . • ^vayKaaw ^fiag viroXa/Sciv t6v "Epoyra t v ri t Siv 8vr a v 

t aiT6s € Pov\rf3ri. So throughout the discourse Parmenides is 
careful at the beginning of each subdivision to emphasize the par- 
ticular meaning of «Wi, absolute or relative, required for the infer- 
ences he is about to make (cf. especially 1606 and 163C). And 
Scnrcp ol rAfoi ao<fiurrai he pitches upon a youthful interlocutor who 
will not spoil the sport by suggesting distinctions and qualifications 
like the irapaxf^QiyyMTa with which Socrates annoyed the sophists of 

the Euthydemus; cf. 1376,1-/^ oZv\ cZttciv, ftoc airoKpivtirai \ If 6 vc«- 
raros ; fJKiara yhp Av vokxmpaypioviH (cf Euthyd. 295"6). 

Mr. Jackson, however, ignores the ambiguity of the copula, 
ignores the avowed purpose of bringing out contradictory con- 
clusions, and treats the 8 (9)* hypotheses of the dialogue as 
discussions of so many theories of the nature of cy and oXXa. 
Among the rejected theories he discerns Eleaticism in various 
forms and the "earlier theory of ideas," and he also, it need 
hardly be added, discovers elsewhere his own theory of the ideas 
as fUKra formed of a trepan and Sntipov, This later Platonic theory 
of ideas he finds in hypotheses II and III (IV), which I can most 
briefly characterize by saying that they contain exactly the 
doctrine of relative l&v and p^i U worked out in the Sophist. The 
relation to the Sophist is not discussed in Mr. Jackson's paper on 
the Parmenides. It was fully brought out in my dissertation on 
the Platonic Ideas (1884), and is treated at length in Mr. Jackson's 
paper on the Sophist (1885). Now, since arguments II and III 
(IV) contain exactly the conclusions of the Sophist, Mr. Jackson 
is obviously right in claiming that in a certain sense they repre- 
sent the acceptable results of the Parmenides, namely, just so far 
as the conclusions of the Sophist can be taken for final Platonic 
doctrine. But, as I have elsewhere shown, though the doctrine of 
the Sophist is Plato's practical postulate, which he is ready to 
maintain in behalf of human logic against all absolute philoso- 
phies of rest or motion, flux or incommunicable ideas, there are 
indications within the dialogue itself that the doctrine though 
necessary is not quite satisfactory to Plato's feelings. It is the 
result of that everlasting affection of human ^speech of which he 
complains in the Philebus. Both absolute being and absolute non- 

*Cf. my paper, De Platonis Idearum Doctrina, p. 41, where, however, the 
numbers are misprinted with reference to the two meanings of tlvai. 


being are wholly unmanageable h toU vap fffuv \6yois. We are 
obliged to content ourselves with a formula of relative being and 
non-being — the formula of Sophistes 256-57, and of Parmenides 

Well, Plato is quite willing to bid £irewell to absolute non-being 
(Sophist, 258E). But absolute being, though equally inexpressible 
in terms of human logic, is required by his feelings. This Mr. 
Jackson overlooks. But we shall never understand Plato so long 
as we overlook these things. The absolute hypotheses of the 
Parmenides (like the corresponding sections of the Theaetetus and 
Sophist),' are undoubtedly negative criticisms of absolute philoso- 
phies intended to prepare the way for the sounder practical logic 
of the 2d and 4th sections. 

But they are something more than this, as the Neoplatonists 
rightly felt They are (the affirmative hypotheses, not the nega- 
tive ones) Plato's half mystical reaffirmation of that absolute 
transcendental being which he could not abandon as poetry though 
he bent all his energies to the task of banishing it from the logic 
of predication. To convince ourselves of this we need only com- 
pare the predicates of the true and sleepless Being in the Timaeus 
with the predicates of the absolute and incognizable One in the 
Parmenides (cf. Timaeus 38A and 52B with Parmen. 141E). 

But when Mr. Jackson goes on to extract from II and III (IV) 
the doctrine of the ideas as fUKrdj I must dissent altogether, and 
can only point out that the gist of his argument (22, 317-18) 
depends on two or three assumptions not justified by the text. 
" We find," he says (the italics are mine), " in II that when iroWd 
mediate between € v and iTrtipov, both predication and knowledge 
become possible. How then do these iroXXa or kinds which in 
II and III make knowledge possible differ from the SyKoi or n-X^^ 
of VII, which do not ? They differ in that the former are, the 
latter are not, determinate." Now there is, I will venture to say, 
not a word in the Parmenides about iroXXd mediating between €P 
and ojreipo — not a word to justify the question-begging phrase 
"iroX X a or kinds" Throughout the passages referred to noXXd 
is used not in antithesis to but as a loose synonym of Sw€ipa. 

Mr. Jackson says (22, 327), " as in the Philebus so in the Par- 
menides, it is the recognition of ttoXXo mediating between cv koI 
airtipa which makes knowledge possible." But as a matter of fact 

* Cf. my Dissertation, pp. 46-7, and Mr. Jackson in J. of Phil. 28, p. 189 and 
p. 220. 


even in the Philebus iroXXa is rather a synonym of aircipa, and 
dpi$tA6f and 7r6aa are the words employed by Plato to indicate the 
middle terms the recognition of which distinguishes dialectic from 

The difference between the irX^^ of VII and the noWd of II is 
that the ft^ tlvai of ey in VII is taken absolutely (163C, r^ fu) tl<m 

\€y6ftt¥Ov &n\w <nifiaiv€i ore otdafiSk oifdafig tarui) SO that no principle 

of unity can be introduced into the multitude, while non-existence 
in II is interpreted relatively after the manner of the Sophist, 
and is found to admit a nw cJwu of fr, and consequently the intro- 
duction of a unity into the many. 

The technical meaning assigned to iroXXa here is wholly unwar- 
ranted, then, and the entire theory based thereon falls to the 
ground. Of a piece with this is the interpretation of V that fol- 
lows. " Here," says Mr. Jackson, '' a /a^ hf tp is found to partake 
of iroXXa . • . and to be capable of being known." This is a mis- 
understanding of the Greek. In 160E-161 A Plato says : tivai fxh 

dff T^ m ovx ol&v re tiwtp yt fiff ?(m, lurix^iv dt woXX&v ovdiy KuXvtt. Mr. 

Jackson, ignoring the real antithesis between c^ and fimx^^v, 
evidently translates, misplacing the emphasis: ''but nothing 
hinders its partaking of ir o X X a," understanding noWd in the quasi* 
technical sense in which it is opposed to cy. But the correct trans- 
lation is : " Now the one cannot have being if it is not, but nothing 
hinders its partaking of any number of things (predicates)." This 
may seem a trifling distinction, but Mr. Jackson bases a meta- 
physical theory upon it, and if the meaning I confidently assert 
the sentence must bear to a Greek ear requires further confirma- 
tion we have it five lines below : mil rov tKklvov nai IkWiav iroXXAy 

dpdyicrj avT^ furtivat.^ 

As for the passage 158D, it undoubtedly states that SKka become 
grouped as delimited unities by communion with tv which intro- 
duces n€pas ; but it does not state that the Platonic idea is itself a 
type composed of a nipas and an ^ntipov, which is what the theory 
requires. On the contrary, the tp which introduces wepat (if we 
must employ these equations) is itself the ideal unity, the unity 
fua£ rty6s Idias icai iv6s rivos (157D), the unity which we are bidden 
to search for, in the Philebus. This unity, when detected by the 

^ Mr. Jackson's retraction of his error (J. of P. 28, 220] is not quite clear, 
but does not, I think, meet my objection. I will add that the fi^ hv Iv 
'* becomes the subject of predication" simply because otherwise oh6e ^iyyeC" 
6ai del ovdev — the ex necessitate argument of the Sophist (339B). 


synoptic glance of the philosopher and disengaged from the 
confused multiplicity of things by human logic, is indeed pre- 
sented to us as an i^ eKdpmv ey n yvyovhs eldot Ibiav fitav avrb avrov txov 

mpov de T&v (rrocxctW (Theaetet. 203E). But there is nothing in 
the Parmenides nor anywhere else in Plato to indicate that its 
transcendental unity outside of the limitations of our dream world 
admits of any resolution or analysis whatever, and the Timaeus 
asserts the contrary. 

From the Parmenides Mr. Jackson proceeds to the Timaeus in 
order to confirm by an examination of Plato's great scientific 
masterpiece his proposition that " whereas in the period of the 
Republic and Phaedo it was proposed to pass through ontology 
to the sciences, in the period of the Parmenides and the Philebus 
it is proposed to pass through the sciences to ontology." And 
here Mr. Jackson and Mr. Archer-Hind are on common ground, 
so that we can study their theories together. The Timaeus seems 
at first to fit very nicely into the doctrine of the paradeigmatic 
idea. The material universe on the Platonic hypothesis is to be 
a living intelligent being — ^the visible finite copy of an invisible 
eternal model. Naturally enough then, as Plato is not treating of 
ethics, the good, the true, and the beautiful here, we find in the 
Timaeus ideas only of the natural classes of things needed for the 
construction of the universe, just as in the Phaedo the special form 
of argument employed brings before us only ideas of abstractions. 

The idea of animal generally with an Aristophanic vividness of 
personifying imagination quite incomprehensible to the tribe of 
commentator^ who try to interpret some deeper meaning into the 
avTO'C^Vy is taken for the original of the universe, and ideas of fire 
and of other elementary substances are suggested. If our authors, 
then, had merely pointed out that in the Timaeus ideas of rela- 
tions, etc., do not occur, they would seemingly have scored a point 
for their theory, and we could meet them only by urging that in 
all Platonic dialogues, only those ideas which are needed occur. 
But by attempting to find a consistent scheme of Hegelian idealism 
in the Timaeus, and to explain away in the "later" dialogues all 
forms of ideas not found there, they have exposed themselves to 
a very different sort of criticism. The Demiurgus they pronounce 
a myth. They really intend to identify him with the pantheistic 
Soul of the Universe. But Mr. Jackson in one place calls him a 
mythical duplicate of Ta^6v (J. of Phil. 25, 34), and Mr. Archer- 
Hind more subdy says that he is identical with the avTo-aya66v and 


With one element of the soul of the universe — the simple unity of 
thought conceived as still undifferentiated (Introduction, p. 43), 
and erroneously adds that his function is precisely that of vovt 
fiaaiXtw in the Philebus.^ The Demiurgus himself being mythi- 
cal, his creation of the universe in time is merely symbolical of 
''his self-evolution or differentiation into finite intelligences 
subject through their limitations to the conditions of space and 

The formation of the body of the universe gives Mr. Jackson 
no trouble. The four elements of the Timaeus are readily equated 
with the indeierminaie qualities of the Philebus (J. of P. 25, 18. 
The reader will note the question-begging form of expression). 
" It can hardly be by a chance coincidence that in both dialogues 
the materials out of which a&na is constructed are fire, air, water, 
and earth." We certainly, after Empedocles, need neither coin- 
cidence nor miracle to explain a commonplace of Greek thought. 
Of what else was tr&ita to be composed in the fourth century B. C. ? 
Of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen ? All this, of course, brings us 
round again to the paradeigmatic ideas. ^* Certain quantities 
acting as farms " develop out of those " indeterminate qualities," 
** organisms more or less perfect according as those quantities more 
or less closely approximate to certain standards." This we are to 
accept as Plato's real conception of that eternal, changeless and 
sleepless being of which he speaks in such high poetic strain in 
this very dialogue. Of course, if these combinations are to be 
taken seriously, it is not the four elements after creation that cor- 
respond to the ^irttpov, but those elements as they were when God 
was absent from them in that pre-cosmic chaos of Hesiod and the 
pre-Socratics on which Plato's imagination was certainly dwelling 
in spite of our authors (cf. €h t6u . . . thrttpov Syra rekoy, PoHt 274D, 
with Tim. 53B). But we are not concerned to rectify details here, for, 
ingeniously as all has been combined hitherto, the chief and fatal 
objection has only been postponed. Is the idea " in fact no more 
than a perfect particular ? " inquires Mr. Jackson (25, 19). Truly 
a question to be asked. 

The idea and particular differ as Sv and ytyv6fi€vovySSLys Mr. Jack- 
son. This sounds Platonic and suggests the real answer to all 
these problems. Only it is an answer that renders this elaborate 
theory quite superfluous. For the distinction between Hy and 

' If we must *' equate/' the Demiurgus answers to alTia^ etc., cf. my Disser- 
tation, p. 54. 


yiyp6fi€vov is (i) primarily a distinction in Greek predication^ which 
the metaphysical method ignores. (2) It is a distinction between 
the world of matter and the world of thought on which Plato 
insists (Timaeus, 27D, 28A), but which the metaphysical method 
eliminates.* (3) It is a logical and rhetorical distinction which 
Plato, with more or less consciousness of the fallacy, employs to 
exalt the abstraction which always ts the same (predicates), above 
the material object which now ts and now is not the same (predi- 
cate). (4) It is a distinction between voovfuva and <t>aiv6fi€va, on 
which Plato dwells for ethical and emotional reasons, but which 
he always expounds mythically and never metaphysically. But 
our authors having decided once for all to give, not an historical 
and psychological interpretation of Plato's writings, but a dialecti- 
cally consistent statement of his supposed metaphysics, cannot 
thus take refuge in distinctions which their analysis abolishes. 
In order to elude the difficulties which beset the relation of the 
idea to the particular (difficulties fully recognized by Plato in the 
" earlier " dialogues, and evaded by the dei^ ex machina of myth), 
they have forced upon the Platonic texts an elaborate artificial 
theory of reconstructed ideas. And when this theory in its final 
statement is met by the same objections, they innocently ask (25, 
20) : " Whither, then, shall we turn ? " Their answer is ** that if 
we cannot express Hwa in terms of yiyvSiuva^ we must express 
yiyv6fji€ua in terms of Si/ra." It would have been simpler to adopt 
this heroic method at the start before running the theory into 
a cul-de-sac. By " expressing yiyv6fifva in terms of 2wa," Mr. 
Jackson means interpreting into the world-soul of the Timaeus a 
doctrine of neo-Hegelian idealism. Historically and psycho- 
logically interpreted, the world-soul presents no difficulties to one 
who is familiar with the methods of the Greek imagination. Plato's 
object is to present an impressive poetical picture of creation in 
language that shall imply the pre-eminence of mind over matter on 
which he insists throughout the tenth book of the Laws as indis-* 
pensable to morality. The exigencies of human speech and the 
definiteness of the clear Greek imagination make him occasionally 
speak €lKrj and imply the priority of force and matter in some form. 
But priority and seniority, and even precedence in a sentence, are 

' Cf. Euthyphron, loBC. 

'Cf. Archer-Hind on Tim. 34A : "In the Timaeus, on the contrary, 
where the entire universe is the self-evolution of vovf , the distinction between 
spirit and matter is finally eliminated." 


honors which Plato is loiath to bestow upon base matter. If for 
the sake of making my meaning clear I may so far violate th 
<r€fuf6yf his feeling, on an infinitely higher plane, is analogous to 
that of the worthy Dogberry : " Write down that they hope they 
serve God : and write God first ; for God defend but God should 
go before such villains!" This, and this only, is his meaning 
when he says in 34B that ^u^^ is prior in creation to <rS>na, and Mr. 
Jackson's rigid metaphysical inference that from this passage " it 
is reasonable to suppose that Plato regarded * things * not as sepa- 
rate entities external to the mind but as sensations existing within 
it," is utterly fantastic. So again, when, after describing the cogni- 
tions of the world-soul by means of the figures of the circles of 
the same and the other in 37A-C, he defiantly acids : TovT(a d« ip f 

T&v Svrmv iyyiyv^aOoVy ay irorc rw avri 3X\o nXrfv ^X'l'' '^""V ^^ fiSXkoy fj 

TokriOis cpci, Plato is thinking of the materialists of the tenth book 
of the Laws who deny that these ordered movements imply an 
indwelling soul, and instead of reading in this ** a declaration that, 
whereas subject and object are identical, object is to be merged in 
subject, not subject in object," Mr. Jackson would have done far 
better to compare the analogous passage, Leges, 896C-D, where, 
in the same defiant way, the Athenian stranger having established 
the priority of soul as a principle of motion, smuggles in with his 
apx^i Kunfatiios not merely cognitions and opinions, but also rp^oi df 

jcal rfBrj koI ^ouXifcrciff. 

Again, when the Demiurgus creates the soul out ofraMv Bmpov 
and ovcTio, the same metaphysical perversity leads Mr. Archer- 
Hind to inquire into the inherent nature of the same, the other, 
and essence. One might as well analyze the personality of AiaXXayi/ 
in Aristophanes, or of the daughter of tardy-witted After-thought 
in Pindar. Plato is writing a natural history of creation that shall 
maintain the principle of rixvi against the materialistic principles 
of rvxri and unintelligent <^u(nr, which he combats in the Laws 

(888—889}. Bijo-tt ra flip if>v<r€t \€y6fitva irouta-Oai Btlq. rexvji (Sophist, 

265E) may serve as the text for the entire Timaeus. It is per- 
fectly arbitrary to say that the Demiurgus is the raMv or the idea 
of good, or undifferentiated thought, or any other metaphysical 
principle or abstraction. He is like the demiurgus or artisan of 
words in the Cratylus (389A). a simple personification of the 
favorite Platonic idea of artistic design as opposed to v6fW9, con- 
vention ; Tvxrif chance ; and ^uo-tr, unintelligent, blind nature. A 
divine art ($€ia rtxyn) necessarily (by avdynri Xoyoypa^Mif, Phaedr.) 


implies a divine artisan, a ^ctor r^x^ln^, the Demiurgus. It is 
necessary that man should understand kqt tldtf \9y6fitvov. Hence 
in the Phaedrus the soul of man is taken up in a winged car and 
shown the ideas <V r^ roirr<j> roir^. It is necessary that the soul 
should recognize everywhere in the mutual involutions of the 
ideas and in the fleeting phenomena of sense, the same^ the other^ 
and essence^ those three fxtyurra y€tnj of the elaborate logical theory 
finally worked out in the Sophist, but everywhere present to Plato's 
thought. Hence, on the Greek principle that like is known by 
like, Plato makes real substances out of these three abstractions, 
and puts them as plastic material into the hands of the Demiurgus 
for the formation of the soul. That is all there is of it. 

But our authors having interpreted the ravrdv and the Bmpov of the 
world-soul as Hegelian absolute vovs in its sameness and in its 
otherness, are forced in their progress towards metaphysical con- 
sistency to eliminate altogether the third of the three elements 
employed by Plato's imagination in his history of creation — the 
xmodoxn or mother of generation. 

Plato's own deduction of space is quite simple. The self-existent 
idea needs no medium, but a copy ex vi termini must be made in 
some matter — and this matter Plato, in half mystic and evidently 
embarrassed language, describes as a dim and difficult nature — 
apprehensible without sensation by a sort of bastard reasoning and 
hardly credible. 

The cause of this embarrassment is not far to seek. He cannot 
rid his imagination of the idea of space, any more than the post- 
Kantians can who think they have accomplished the feat. And 
in contrasting the permanency of this third element of things with 
the transitory copies of the ideas that enter into it and pass away, 
he is grudgingly led to bestow upon it those epithets of reality 
and existence which he prefers to reserve for the transcendental 
reality of the ideas. That the attribution of reality to the idea of 
space leaves no place nor function for the general idea of matter 
in the modern sense does not surprise Mr. Archer-Hind, and 
in truth need surprise nobody except Aristotelians. The gene- 
ral notions of space and matter are universal abstractions 
comprehending the same relations of experience from different 
points of view. If either of these conceptions is reified or hypos- 
tatized, no meaning is left for the other. All dynamic systems 
lose the conception of abstract matter in that of the space in which 
forces operate. Plato's copies of the ideas, his collective yiyeaw 


contains all the forces and qualities, dvya/xccr, imparted to the visible 
world from the ideas. The idea of abstract matter has nothing 
left to qualify it, therefore, but the notion of extension. This, 
though somewhat paradoxically expressed, is only the common 
sense of the exact sciences, as is substantially stated by Mr. 
Archer-Hind. We need not dwell upon it longer. But Mr. 
Jackson and Mr. Archer- Hind, feeling Plato's embarrassment in 
regard to this persistent notion of an everlasting space, attempt to 
interpret into the Timaeus one of those modem conceptions of 
the genesis of space and its idea which are now a common intel- 
lectual possession of hasty readers of Kant, Spencer, and Bain. 
If thought in its sameness and otherness is the only reality, this 
mystic mother of generation must be conjured out of it in some 
way. The methods of our two authors are substantially the same. 
Things or sensations, according to Mr. Jackson, are subjective and 
not really external to the soul. But souls are many and external 
to one another. The common sensation* of a number of souls is 
'' actualized '' at a given point in sp(ue (which by hypothesis has 
no existence except as the otherness or " externality " of the per- 
cipient ^ux«0» ^^^ we are thus led "to attribute to the actualized 
potentiality an external and continuous existence.'' Now I have 
no objection to a man's paying himself with words in this fashion 
if he chooses. I will even admit that these formulas may contain 
a certain amount of meaning if understood in a Pickwickian 
sense ; but they will not help us to interpret a writer of the fourth 
century B. C. 

Mr. Jackson is really not thinking of his Plato, but of Mill's 
" permanent possibilities,'* and Hegel's " Idee " in its otherness. 
Hence his determination, in despite of the text, to identify 
$dr€pov with x«p« (J- of P- 25, p. 22). Undoubtedly Smpov means 
other ; and otherness implies difference, and space and time are in 
the jargon of medieval metaphysics the principia individuationis. 
But there is no hint of all this in the Timaeus, and it would have 
been simply impossible for a stylist of Plato's super-subtle and 
meticulous consistency to apply the expressions : ravr^v avrriv acl 

vpovpifTtov ' iK yap rrjs iavr^s t6 napanav ovk cfiorarac dvpdfi€at (Tim. 50B) 

to an entity which he intended his readers to identify with 


Mr. Archer-Hind attains a similar result by a slightly different 

* Plato and Aristotle being innocent of these subtleties would at once 
inquire after rd inroKeifuva , , , & iroiel n^ aladtfoiv, At. Met. P. 5 in fine. 


path (Introduction, p. 27) : " From the Philebus," he says, *' we 
learn that finite souls are derived from the universal soul." To 
this it is to be objected that the passage on which he relies is mere 
pious Socratic commonplace (cf. Xen. Mem.) introduced by way 
of sportive digression to save Socrates the trouble of demonstrating, 
as is done in the Laws (888-895), that the universe is governed 
by intelligence. In the text the emphasis is all on the inference, 
temporarily needed for the argument, that the universe is ruled by 
soul. To reverse this emphasis and lay it on the derivation of the 
finite soul fi-om the infinite in order to find in the statement a doc- 
trine of pantheistic evolution, and to repeat the playful digression 
as one of the " results " of the Philebus, is utterly unjustifiable. 
" From the Theaetetus," continues Mr. Archer-Hind, accepting 
seriously Socrates' persiflage of the /k'ovrct, " we learn that material 
objects are but the perceptions of finite souls." The conclusion 
follows easily : If " things " are in our souls and our souls are 
part of the world-soul, the latter, which is merely Ta!Mv the Demi- 
urgus or the good in its otherness, must comprise the sum of all 
reality. Space and time, which are " a consequence and condition 
of our limitation as finite souls," come only with the differentiation 
of the absolute thought of the rayniv and are thus plainly identical 
with Odrepov, Thus far our authors are in essential agreement. 
There are some singular differences in their final interpretation of 
the ideas, however, resulting apparently from differences in their 
personal philosophemes. The notion of an all-embracing panthe- 
istic spirit dominates the mind of Mr. Archer-Hind. The difficulty 
of finding any real substrate for mind and matter preoccupies Mr. 
Jackson. The latter, after first telling us, as we have seen, that 
''external things" result from the actualization of the same 
potentiality of thought by different V^x<>(, and that the idea is this 
potentiality actualized by position in space in the soul of the 
world itself, is finally driven by the difficulty of attaching limita- 
tions of space or time to the ideas which Plato freed from all such 
bonds, to make this actualization in the case of the idea hypothetical. 
And in one place he even goes so far as to suggest that mind 
is not an oita-la at all, but (and here he is combining Mill's " per- 
manent possibilities " with Aristotle's cVl r&v &y€v vXi/r r6 aM cWi 
t6 poovp koX ri voovii€voy)f is to be regarded as existent only in the 
shape of its actualized voi/fuira, being in fact no more than a ficti- 
tious substrate. Mr, Archer- Hind, on the other hand, loses the 
reality of the individual soul not in a fictitious substrate, but in 


the world-soul ; and having further reduced the category of ftdi; to 
ctdi; of living things only, he finds room in that soul of which all 
other souls are parts for really and truly and not merely hypotheti- 
cally actualized ideas, thus dta ftaxpoO rii/<$r dicfcX^di^rof \6yov returning 
to the good old faith of the Neoplatonists that the ideas are the 
thoughts of God. And to this conclusion Mr. Jackson, after 
gravely recording his friend's protest that his ** hypothetical 
actualization seems to sacrifice the reality of the ideas,'* comes 
around when (J. of Phil. 25, 33) he calls the idea a ^^v6i\\ia hypo- 
thetically actualized in an infinite mind," whatever that may 
mean. Neither of them observes that their rejection of\ of 
relative terms and similar abstractions leaves unexplained the very 
difficulty which led Aristotle to invent the theory of the identity 
of vovi and yoif/Aara and v6y\tTi9 yoifcrco); before them.' If relative 
abstracta have not even the reality of hypothetical yojifwra, how do 

they manage oialas dfx&s yi iro»f avTtx^iirBai. ? 

Before concluding this preliminary paper it remains to examine 
some of the confirmations of the later doctrine of ideas discovered 
in the Theaetetus, Sophist, and Statesman. I have elsewhere 
analyzed the connection between the psychological treatment of 
the problem of i^cvdj)^ d($|u in the Theaetetus and the purely logi- 
cal discussion of the same question in the Sophist, and have shown 
that the Sophist and Statesman, like the Philebus, are best 
explained on the supposition that Plato is here mainly concerned, 
not with the perhaps hopeless ontological problem of the ultimate 
nature of the ideas, but with the practical problem of winning by 
assumption and apagogic arguments a basis for the necessary 
postulates of a working logic. There is no space to repeat and 
dilute that argument here. I can only exemplify in a few test 
cases the character of the interpretation to which Mr. Jackson is 
reduced by the exigencies of his theory. In J. of Phil. 20, 259 
he thought the Theaetetus led the way to the earlier Platonic doc- 
trine. On studying the Theaetetus he repents this obiter dictum. 
This is frank, but hardly inspires confidence. Like Theaetetus 
(157C), Mr. Jackson is at first in doubt whether Socrates is in 
earnest or is merely " trying " him. He finally decides that the 
teaching of the KOfirj^epoi (156 sqq.), the theory of complete rela- 
tivity (160B-C), must be taken for serious Platonic doctrine. The 
omniscient Buckle fell into the same trap. Both should have been 

* Cf. De Platonis Idearum Doctrina, p. 28. 


warned by the fact that K0ft^6? is generally a dysloj^istic epithet in 
Plato > and that the KOfiylr&r^poi of the Theaetetus are near kin to the 
KOfiylroi of the Politicus (285) who admit only relative measurements 
of things against one another and reject all absolute standards. 
It is argued from 155E that the KOfiyfrol cannot be materialists. 
Perhaps not in a certain obvious grosser sense. But their philosophy 
is essentially materialistic in that it fails to recognize the fixed 
unities of the ideas* or the action of beneficent design. If the 
bare admission of an dSparov (155E) takes a thinker out from the 
class of materialists, what inferences might we not draw from 
Lucretius' " corporibus caecis igitur natura gerit res " ? Moreover, 
the sensational idealism which is here attributed to the koix^€(>oi 
exists only for modern feeling. These refiners declare that all 
things are in motion, and that the sensation exists only as the 
spark struck out by the momentary clash of the sensible and the 
sentient. To us, after Descartes and Berkeley, the necessary 
inference appears to be that the object exists only as a presentation 
of the subject — because we identify the object with the elaborated 
sensation. But the Greeks thought of the object as the cause or 
one of the causes of the sensation. Throughout the passage 
under consideration we are told, not that the object is resolved into 
the subject, but that both object and subject, equally real or 
equally unreal and constantly changing, are borne along on a 
stream of constant change. Besides, even if we grant that sensa- 
tional idealism is implied in the teaching of the KOfii/^cpoc, the 
doctrine comes too heavily weighted to be accepted as Platonic. 
It is repeatedly and distinctly identified with the erroneous defi- 
nition of imanifjirj, with the uncom promising negation of all abso- 
lute existence in terms that recall the ideas, with the impossible 
dialect of the Heracliteans and with the ethical scepticism com- 
bated in the Laws. The Kofiy\r6T^poi are responsible for all the para- 
doxes from 156 to 186, and Mr. Jackson does not even attempt 
the hopeless task of distinguishing them from the Heracliteans 
and other extremists. Is it conceivable that Plato poured forth 
this stream of persiflage on a new and important discovery of his 
own? It is true that in the Symposium and Timaeus Plato 
seems to adopt in his own person the dialect of the ptovT€s to 
characterize the phenomenal world, but it is only to bring into 

*i6oC: avTO 6i h<p avrov ri ff hv ^ ytyv6fievov otre avTt^ Tietcriov^ etc. They 
accept frankly the position to which the el6o)v (f>i?j>i reduce the aTToproi^ but they 
reject the voTfra drra (Sophist. 246 BC). 


Stronger light the contrast with the fixity and permanence of the 
world of the ideas, which are both theoretically and, what is more, 
practically denied by the partisans of the <f)€pofieprj olaia. For the 
real ground of Plato's antipathy to the peovres lies not at all in their 
language concerning the world of fleeting phenomena, but in a 
matter almost wholly ignored by Mr. Jackson — their ethical 
scepticism and their nominalism. The K^fi^ftortpoi are virtually 
nominalists. They try not to admit o^ir, but only an oc^^oX^^r 6p&p, 
they recognize XtvKOp but not XeviccJTi;^ (156DE). Like Diogenes 
in the familiar anecdote, they have the eye to see Av^pamos, but lack 
the eye that discerns avBponirvnii, They have answered in the nega- 
tive the question raised in the Philebus, ^rav^ m ha av6p»nov imx^ipi 
TiOtaBat — the question whether such monads really exist — and have 
substituted for monad or ideas the uncouth term aOpoitrfia, which 
maybe compared with the "clusters" or "series" of sensations 
that constitute the only personality recognized by some modern 
nominalists. Now, apart from his metaphysical and ethical need 
of the ideas, Plato's sound logical instinct taught him the folly of 
attempting to dispense with or supersede in practice those neces- 
sary postulates of rational speech — abstractions. Hence his amusing 
polemic against the entire doctrine. Mr. Jackson's synopsis 
ignores these considerations till near the close of his paper (J. of 
Phil. 26, 269), where the rejection of abstractions in 157 A and 
182A is actually adduced to prove that Plato's doctrine in the 
Theaetetus is different from that of the Republic and Phaedo, 
in which, as throughout Plato, all processes and relations are sub- 
sumed under the abstractions that best express them, as causes. 

In confirmation of the alleged divergence between the Theaetetus 
and the 'Phaedo and Republic, Mr. Jackson says (26, 264), that in 
the latter " the \6yos is all that Plato has yet achieved," citing 
Republic 506 E and Phaedo 99E; and this Xi^^o^, he adds, is the 0X17^79 
d6(a firra \6yov in the third sense rejected in the Theaetetus. It is 
possible to prove anything by pressing the simplest phrases in this 
fashion. What can it avail to assert solemnly that the \6yos of the 
Phaedo " being obtained by dialp€<ns of the genus is the statement 
of the characteristic difference," when Socrates, after stating his 

method, lOoA, vnoOifitvot iKdarort \6yop tp ay Kpiva €ppi»fAfvi<rTarov 

•Ivai, gives as his first example of such a \6yof or proposition an 
assumption of the reality of the ideas, lOoB, \mo64ix€vos tlvai n koKcp 
alr6 Ka0' avrb koi aya&ov ri ? Mr. Jackson's interpretation of this pas- 
sage dates from his paper on Rep. VI 509D in J. of Phil. 19. 


There (p. 136), after distinguishing the idea from the general 
notion (a distinction, by the way, derived from Coleridge rather 
than from Plato), he interprets 99D : " The investigation of things 
having proved a failure, Socrates now proceeded to study their 
reality in definitions," etc. And so he understands the passage to 
mean that, failing of ^Xhr\ or ideas, Socrates declined on general 
notions Xoyoi or definitions. To which it is to be objected that 
\<ayQi here is obviously not the half-technical Xdyo^ rov ovoiurros of the 
Sophist, Politicus, and Leges, but simply language, discourse, 
words, as distinguished from perceptions of sense. Socrates 
grows dizzy in contemplating the objects of sense, and takes 
refuge in the abstractions of language, exactly as in the Parmenides. 
That is what the Greek says, and that is all it says. Mr. Jackson, 
who thinks that the XSyosy understood technically as ' concept of 
the understanding,' is the imperfect image of the Idea, and the 
missing second member of the quadripartite line of the Republic, 
compares the reflection of 6vra in \&yoif here with the relation 
between the higher and lower vorirdv there. But the Socrates of 
the Phaedo in comparing the reflection of ^vra in \6yois to the 
reflections of objects of sense in mirrors, etc., expressly warns 
us that his comparison is not truly representative of the real 
relation, for it is familiar Platonic doctrine that word is more exact 
than deed in more senses than one. The statement that this 
d€VT€pos ttXovs of thc Phacdo is identical with the inferior intellectual 
method of the Republic is misleading. The method of the Phaed(^ 
is essentially the dialectical method, not that of the arts and 
mathematical sciences. Socrates does not employ figures, symbols 
and images like the mathematicians ; but his argument proceeds 
avToi£ €tdeo-t. But though following the higher dialectical method 
which requires the reasoner to defend his hypothesis when attacked, 
he, having one special proposition to prove which he cannot prove 
in any other way, accepts one limitation from the lower method : 
He requires his interlocutors to grant his main hypothesis (lOoB) 
in order that they may attend to one thing at a time (lOiE). But 
every reader of the Phaedo must be aware that this is because the 
large leisure of philosophy is wanting there. The speakers are 
not limited by the vB<op KaTtnttyot^ of the Theaetetus, but they are 
by the approach of sunset, and Socrates is arguing irXeoveicriKw, A 
Platonist shows want of intellectual tact when he presses the argu- 
ments or the phraseology of the Phaedo. Socrates is unable to 
give a full account of that whereof the Timaeus says we need the 


assurance of a God for certainty ; but this does not alter the fact 
that the ability \6yov M6vai is everywhere, from the Gorgias to the 
Laws, the mark of the Platonic philosopher. If Plato has • 
'* achieved only the X&yos " in the Republic, what is his position in 

the Sophist when he says : rhv yovv \6yov oiqprcp iLv olol T€ &fi(v evirpc* 
. ircWara dia6rf(r6fAtBa ovras dfKf>oiv &fJLa (25 1 A) ? 

Once more Mr. Jackson finds (26, p. 267) a contradiction 
between Theaetetus 155B and Phaedo 102B-D, on the question 
how Socrates without changing? can be one year larger and the next 
year smaller than the growing youth Theaetetus. But in order to 
do so he is obliged to take the purely parenthetical unemphatic 
phrase aXXo <rov av^fjOfvros (155B), which occurs in the statement of 
the problem, as an explicit solution of the entire difficulty. It is 
nothing of the kind. The question is one of those puzzles which 
in the Republic are said to be stimulative of thought, and in the 
Theaetetus to awaken the wonder that is the parent of philosophy. 
In the Phaedo the problem is stated and then solved on the 
hypothesis of ideas. In the Theaetetus it is explained on the 
diametrically opposite view of Protagoras, «f Tov t6v Upcorayopav 
(fMfuv Xcyciy (155^)1 by a revelation of the esoteric doctrine that 
the Theaetetus of the next year is another man. But Socrates is 
quite as well aware in the Phaedo as in the Theaetetus that "the 
words ' tall * and * short * describe the relations in which he stands 

to something else " (cf. IO2C, aXX' Sri aiuKportfTa e^ci 6 Sw^rpanyp w/j^f 

io UtivQv fuytSos). In the Phaedo the napov<rla of two relative 
€i8rj is assumed to account for the predicates describing Socrates' 
simultaneous relation to two persons ; in the Theaetetus one person 
is by the doctrine of flux humorously treated as two, to account 
for Socrates* successively receiving different predicates in relation 
to him. But neither here nor elsewhere does Mr. Jackson estab- 
lish a serious divergence between the teachings of the Theaetetus 
and the " earlier '* dialogues. 

In his study of the Sophist, Mr. Jackson treats first of the 
diaip€{r€is (216-37 ^^^ 264-8). The lesson of these duuptafis is, he 
thinks, that the meaning of the general name Sophist is too 
uncertain to be hypostatized as an idea (28, p. 186), and so natu- 
rally enough the chief result of the dialogue for him is the con- 
firmation of the "later theory of ideas" by the proposition " that 
of artificial classes there cannot be eternal and immutable ctdiy " 
(ibid. p. 187). But observe that to reach this result he is obliged to 
assume (p. 185) that the seventh definition of the Sophist is pre- 


ferred to the others, " not because of any intrinsic superiority 
which it possesses, but because it has a direct bearing upon the 
inquiry instituted in this dialogue." Now, with the latter half of 
this sentence I concur. The seventh definition is preferred partly 
because it leads up to the inquiry about /&i) ^y, which had failed in 
the Theaetetus. But Mr. Jackson says it is also because it brings 
the Sophist into comparison with the Statesman, and affords Plato 
an opportunity to answer Isocrates. WeU, Plato had many aims, 
and it is not necessary to quibble about them. But only a scholar 
BltTw ^ia<f>v\dTT(ov could assert that the seventh definition had in 
Plato*s eyes no intrinsic superiority. It is of the very essence of 
the Sophist, in Plato's conception of him, that he deals in shows 
and unrealities. " Wherefore," says Aristotle, " Plato not inaptly 
assigns the Sophist to the firj Bv" Plato himself expressly says of 
these many definitions (232 A) that they imply a failure to perceive 
the essential aim and tendency of the object investigated. And 
when he has followed up the trail of the after-suggestion to the 
end, he boasts that he has not only caught and defined the real 
and true Sophist, but that he has defined the very essence of the 
non-being or unreal world (the Kara o-vfi^tfirjK^s of the more prosaic 
Aristotle) in which he dwells. And this misconception, forced 
upon Mr. Jackson by the demands of his theory, combined with 
his persistent misinterpretation of \6yos already pointed out, 
involves him in serious error when he passes to the digression upon 
iv and firi ov. From the words in 240A, r6 d* «« t&p \6yov ipamjfrtt, 
trt fiovovy etc., he concludes that since " the Sophist will demand a 
general definition and not a catalogue of instances," and since the 
demand for a general definition is notoriously characteristic of 
both Socrates and Plato (cf. Meno, 74-75), the Sophist here is 
Plato himself in his Socratic period when he composed the 
Republic. And so he rejects Campbeirs statement, that the 
Sophistic method is the caricature of the Socratic. But if we 
read Plato instead of combining his phrases we see at once that 
Campbell is right. The parallelism and the caricature are always 
present to Plato's mind (cf. the Euthydemus passim). In this 
very passage Mr. Jackson apparently overlooks the touch of 
caricature that discriminates the Sophist from Socrates. The 
Sophist checks your illustration drawn from physical eidwXa, ir/wcr- 

YTOCovficyor oi/re Korwrrpa oiht vdara ycyycoo-icciv, whereaS SocrateS, though 

he prefers eV rols \6yois aKontiv rffv dX^Stiap t&v 6irr<av, possesses above 
all others what Joubert calls the true metaphysic, the art of mak- 


ing, not the concrete abstract, but the abstract concrete, and in the 
Republic has recourse to this very illustration to clear up a diffi- 
cult subject.' That Plato, in the Republic (479 A sqq.), commits 
himself to the Zenonian heresy by declaring the particular KoKhvy 
in so far as it is /x^ K.dk6v^ to be non-existent is not true. He says 
the particular rolls about between the /i^ %v and the absolute being, 
and that since the particular both is and is not the general (predi- 
cate) under varying conditions, the particular can no more be said 
to be than not to be. And this is in perfect harmony with Sophist 

So when Mr. Jackson goes on (2S, 202) to declare that the 
tXhw ifiiKoi represent Plato's former self, and to point out that the 
doctrine maintained by Plato in the Republic and the Phaedo 
he now sees to be faulty, if for no other reason, at any rate for 
this, that it precludes the intercommunion of cTdiy, I can only 
point out again, as I have done repeatedly in the face of such 
assertions, that the intercommunion of cTdiy is distinctly recognized 
in Republic 476A, that the term employed is Kotvwla, and that the 
ideas used as examples would not be **Ka$* avra etdiy" on the later 
theory — so that the Republic in this case seems to fit Mr. Jackson's 
view that Koivwia is the proper later term for the relations of the 
firj KaB' avra €i6fj better than the Sophist. 

The Politicus is dealt with in the same way. Mr. Jackson 
insinuates his doctrine at the start (J. of Phil. 30, p. 281) by 
extracting from the remarks about the Statesman (p. 274E) a 
definitely formulated distinction " between a natural kind, eternal 
and immutable, and a conventional group," * a distinction which 
Plato's simple statement that the king of Saturn's age was one 
thing and the king of our degenerate day is another, does not on 
any rational literary interpretation of his language bring out. But 

*A similar lack of insight into Plato's feeling misleads Mr. Jackson in 
another criticism of Campbell and Zeller (28, 175). In Sophist, 230E, the 
Sophist having presented himself in the character of a practitioner of the 
catharsis of souls, the Eleatic stranger, thinking of the Socratic purification of 
the false conceit of knowledge, expresses his fear lest we may be assigning the 
Sophist a r61e above him (i. e. the rOle of the true philosopher). Mr. Jackson 
turns this into the commonplace irony of saying exactly the opposite of your 
meaning, by the interpretation : ** When we attribute sophistry to the practi- 
tioner of the k^^x^ we do him too much honor,'* and thus he naturally enough 
(30, p. 283) fails to see the relevance of Campbell's hesitating citation of 
Sophist, 231 A, for the missing dialogue of the Philosopher. 

* Cf. 28, 186-7. discussed above. 



this subject has perhaps been sufficiently considered in connection 
with the Sophist. The second result of the Politicus, according 
to Mr. Jackson, is that it disposes of the question What is knowl- 
edge ? and so by implication of the- question What is the philo* 
sopher ? 

Dialectic, trwoy^Yh ^^^ ^Mtp€(nst is employed in the Phaedrus with 
a view to consistency in the use of debatable terms, ** it leads to 
nothing more than agreement, 6fu>Xoy(a, between disputants as to 
the meaning to be put upon certain technical terms." The dialectic, 
however, that is called in the Sophist (2536^0) ^ t&v IKtvBipiav 
imurfiiifi, and that in the Politicus is assigned to the philosopher, is 
a very different thing. It is concerned with the likenesses and 
differences of avrk xaB* avrd 0idri, and the information it gives is 
truly * knowledge.' Now the objections to this ingenious theory are : 
(i) that dialectic is quite as closely allied to knowledge and quite as 
much concerned with resemblances and differences in the Phaedrus 
as in the Politicus ; and (2) that it is proposed in the Politicus and 
all the * later * dialogues to apply the method, not to Mr. Jack- 
son's aVra naB' avra etdi; of natural classes, but to the moral and 
aesthetic ideas which were always foremost for Plato. For the 
connection in the Phaedrus between dialectic and philosophic 
knowledge in the highest sense it is necessary to quote but a few 
passages out of many : cf. 259D ; ntiBtiy rixyfi with the Platonic 

associations of rtx^U (260D) ; w cav fifj Uavm (f>iXo<ro<f)ri<rg ovB^ Uavos 
fTore \ty€iv ^oroi ntpl old^vdg (26 1 A) ; rijv Sfxoionfra r&v Btrrwv xal 
apofjLoloTTjTa d#ept/3«ff dt€tdci/at (262A) ; 6 /x^ €yv»piKoi)s 6 €<mv «Ka<rrov r«v 
oirronv (262 B) ; T^v ofjalav decoct aKpi^s rrjs if>va€»s tovtov frp6s t rovt 

\iiyovs YT/KxrotW (207E). These and countless similar expressions 
that might be cited make us wonder whether the associations of 
diaiptais and dioXe/cTiK^ are really on the lower and different plane 
of eristic in the Phaedrus, or whether Mr. Jackson has invented 
the distinction offhand to fit his theory. The claim that the 
diaiptais of the Politicus is intended to be applied to the investiga- 
tion of the KoB* avra cidiy of natural kinds will not bear examination. 

The da^fiara KaWiara tivra xal fuyKrra of 286A, whlch can be grasped 

Xoy^ only, are manifestly not the type ideas of natural kinds, for 
we are expressly told that they have no sensible likenesses in the 
world of concretes whereby the mind may be easily led to a 
knowledge of them (285-6). They are, obviously, to any one 
who has no theory to prove, those ethical and aesthetic conceptions 
to which the " later theory " does not assign ideas, and on which 


Plato dwells so earnestly in the closing pages of the Laws (963-4). 
There he requires, in the last words perhaps he ever wrote, that 
the rulers of his state should have dialectical knowledge of the 
dpcri}^ cidi;, and the ability to render an account of this knowledge 
Xoy^. They must not only be able to discriminate at need the 
different forms of virtue, but solving the problem of the Philebus 
(i8£), they must further know these forms m Ivrw Svra ol voWd 

aXX tv TovTo fidvov dperfip. 

In thus examining the hypothesis of a double Plato point by 
point as it has been developed, I may have somewhat dissipated 
the force of my argument The chief objection to the theory 
in the mind of a genuine Platonist will always be the ever- 
strengthening impression of essential unity which the Platonic 
dialogues make upon repeated perusals. And this impression can 
perhaps be better conveyed by a positive than by a critical expo- 
sition. Another important consideration on which this method 
has allowed me to dwell only incidentally is the intermediate 
character of the Republic, Theaetetus, and Phaedrus. Containing 
as they do much of Plato's ripest thought and freshest style, they 
will always present an obstacle to the bisection of his work 
into periods radically distinct in either thought or style. The 
consideration of these dialogues, however, and the details of Mr. 
Archer-Hind's Timaeus, must be reserved for subsequent papers. 

Paul Shorey. 
Bryn MAvfVitJuw 13, 1888. 



Surprisingly little attention has been given by linguists to 
the Indian languages of this country, compared with the wide 
range of their investigations in other directions. Not only is this 
true with regard to the languages of the Indians, but also with 
regard to their history. Very few either know anything of or 
evince any interest in the peculiarities of our tribes, and this is the 
more to be regretted because with the last Indian the last hope of 
investigation will perish, for these people keep no records and 
have no desire to leave any traces behind them. 

The sole remnants of the great Wabanaki Nation, which have 
been allowed to linger about their former habitations, are the Pas- 
samaquoddy and Penobscot tribes of Maine, the Malisits and 
Micmacs of New Brunswick, and the Abenakis or St. Francis 
Indians of Lower Canada. All these Indians speak closely allied 
dialects, which, although bearing a general resemblance to each 
other in construction, are often very different in the individual 
words. As an illustration of the similarity and differentiation of 
these dialects I give below a list of the numerals up to ten, in 
three of the idioms : 


neqt (besq) 

taboo (neswuk) 

sist (nowuk) 













nolan (nonnoak) 

















The Abenakis, whose dialect appears in the table to be the most 
distinct, have rarely, if ever, any intercourse with the remaining 
Wabanaki, and, as they live surrounded by alien tribes, one 
cannot wonder that their language has departed somewhat from 


its original form. I have been told, however, by Abenakis, that 
the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot dialects are intelligible to them 
when spoken very slowly, and I have also heard Passamaquoddies 
state that they could scarcely understand Micmac at all, as the 
intonation of the language is entirely different. This is not sur- 
prising, for although the Micmacs live comparatively near the 
others, they are very conservative and never mingle. The three 
tribes, whose dialects are so closely allied as hardly to deserve the 
name of separate languages, are the Passamaquoddy, Penobscot, 
and Malisit. 

This is easy to account for, as the Malisits are on most friendly 
terms with the other two, and are quite frequently to be found in 
Bar Harbor, selling baskets and trading very amicably along with 

As these dialects are radically the same, the phonology and 
grammar are, of course, identical in all of them, for although the 
forms of words have differentiated, yet the sounds have remained 
almost unaltered, and only in a very few cases have the gram- 
matical forms changed. Therefore we may take it for granted 
that whatever general principle or characteristic might be alleged 
of one of these languages is perfectly applicable to the others. 
The Passamaquoddy and Abenaki dialects are those which I have 
made the most use of, as they are excellent specimens to illustrate 
the character of the entire group. 

The vowel sounds are very unclear and indistinct ; indeed it is 
often difhcult to distinguish them, for the Indians speak with the 
mouth half open and seldom loudly. A, e, i, o, u (continental 
pronunciation) are usually easy to recognize, but there are many 
sounds whose exact character is very difficult to discover. 

The first which we shall notice is the diphthong, which I have 
written aew. This conveys little idea of its exact pronuncia- 
tion, but is the nearest approach to the sound which a combi- 
nation of letters can reach. If the vowels ^ -+- 1/ be pro- 
nounced very rapidly, giving to each the same value, some idea of 
the sound can be obtained. The pronunciation of the Old Eng- 
lish diphthong (uw (cf. ^^?ze/=sea) must have approached this 
very closely. A. somewhat similar sound may be heard when our 
exclamation oh! is uttered sarcastically from one side of the 

Z., m, and n are semi-vowels, as in some of the Slavonic languages, 
containing a sound like a short, thick u* This is the case in all 


the dialects of this group, but the sound is often written with an e^ 
«, and even an z, by those who have not recognized its true char- 
acter. Thus, in the table of numerals cited above, the Passa- 
maquoddy Vwi^nuk (7) is often wrongly written uVwig'nuk. 
Nothing is so deceptive as the thick guttural utterance of an 
Indian, and I have frequently spelt the same word in two or three 
ways as the sound impressed itself differently on my ear. It is 
often the case in Indian languages that exactly the same combina- 
tion of sounds will be heard and interpreted differently by 
different individuals. 

There is an indistinct vowel sound which resembles a very short 
i2 ; it is heard generally after the guttural g^ and may be expressed 
by an apostrophe : ^, In the numeral Vwig'nuk it is heard very 
plainly between the g and the «, and also, but not so distinctiy, 
between the / and the w. It is not unlike the Hebrew vocal Sh* va in 
the word S'n:i where a short vowel is heard between :i and "i. 
When an Indian is speaking, however, he slurs this sound to such 
a degree that it was not until after one week of careful observa- 
tion that I even discovered its existence. 

Last, but by no means least of these peculiar vowel sounds is 
the initial whistle or wK^ which, to be thoroughly understood, 
must be heard from the lips of an Indian. It is produced by a 
forcible expulsion of the breath through the lips, which must be 
rounded as if to pronounce the vowel o. This makes a sound 
as if the speaker had begun to whistle but had suddenly ceased. 
Whether this utterance may be classified as a pure vowel or not 
is a question of some doubt, for it certainly partakes of the nature 
of the consonantal w. 

Among the consonants the explosives /, /, and k require par- 
ticular notice. In English, and in fact in most European languages, 
whenever an explosive is uttered, a gentle breathing is inserted 
between the consonant and the succeeding vowel. In the Indian 
dialects the explosive is pronounced with absolutely no breathing, 
so that it is often impossible to distinguish between a k and a g^ 
or between a p and a ^/ thus gad and kat represent the same 
sound. The indistinctness of pronunciation, therefore, is not at 
all confined to the vowels, for these peculiar voiceless consonants 
produce a most puzzling effect on the hearer, and render the 
sound of the language metallic and monotonous to the last 
degree. Th,f, and r are wanting. 

One of the most remarkable sounds imaginable is the guttural 


-q or 'kw. This occurs only at the end of syllables and is very 
soft in utterance ; so much so as to be often almost inaudible. It 
is formed by beginning a q and stopping suddenly before the fol- 
lowing tt-vowel is entirely pronounced. Many express it by kw^ 
and equally well, but as the sound b undoubtedly a single conso- 
nant, it seems more logical to express it by a single symbol. 

The accentuation of these dialects is not well marked, for the 
tendency in speaking is to drawl the sentences in a monotone, 
giving much the same value to every syllable. At the end of 
sentences the voice is allowed to fall, not, however, as in European 
languages, but more as if all the wind were expelled from the 
lungs and the speaker were forced to stop through exhaustion. 
Although in conversation the accentuation is monotonous, yet in 
the songs and rhymes, more particularly in the magic formulae, 
it is of the highest importance to intone correctly. In fact, the 
virtue of the charm depends frequently on the way it is said. The 
variations of some of these songs are so very difficult that it is 
impossible for a white man ever to learn them exactly. Some- 
times even in conversation the position of voice stress affects the 
meaning ; cf. kiskes igdn = how many years ? — but kiskes igdn-=z 
how old? Very subde distinctions in accent are observed in 
speech making ; in fact it is by such means that the orator pro- 
duces an effect or renders his meaning more emphatic. 

The Indian languages are apparently very irregular in character, 
but, after a careful examination of the grammatic structure, much 
of the seeming difficulty vanishes. Throughout the entire 
inflectional system a distinction is made between animate and 
inanimate objects ; in fact this may be said to be one of the ground 
principles of the language. There are separate forms in the sub- 
stantive, adjective, and verb for these two classes, yet actual gender 
is not recognized. The pronominal prefixes remain the same 
whether before substantives or verbs; thus tCntitauks^z my 
father, or n*mi^zi=zl eat. n* is the universal sign of the first 
person, while k' and w' represent the second and third persons. 
To distinguish between the singular and plural the substantives 
have one set of endings and the verbs another ; thus n'mitaukson 
=our father, while rC dupultiben'=z,'9i^ sit, from rCdup-^Y sit. In 
the first person plural a distinction is made whether all those 
addressed are included or not ; thus rCmitaukson = our father 
(exclusive), i. e. the father of two or more of us, but k'mitauksan 
= our father (inclusive), viz. the father of all of us. This idea is 


carried throughout the entire inflection. Substantives may be 
transformed to verbs and carried through all the intricacies of the 
conjugation. Thus from n^kao2em=i my cow, we have the verb 
rCokao2emi=z I have a cow. In the same way adjectives may be 
used verbally. Almost any idea whatever, no matter how subde, 
may be expressed by an Indian verb, for the extremely ductile 
character of the language admits of a my riad of forms. The nume- 
rals are copiously inflected according to the idea they convey ; 
thus we have pazeq :=i on^y papazegozn one by on^ypazgueda :=z 
once, papazgtieda:=z once each time, miamadii zzz&rstf but ntia- 
magimguak^z first,, if used to mark the order of chapters, verses, 
etc. The cardinal numbers also have two forms, a substantival 
and an adjectival : iadu=z two, but nezzvuk =ztwo in the adjectival 
sense, as nezwuk skttapyik^itvfo men. To illustrate the simi- 
larity of inflection in the various dialects I give the following 
table of examples in the Passamaquoddy, Micmac, and Abenaki 
languages : 

Passamaquoddy, Abenaki, Micmac, 

nmitauks^ my father tCmitogwes^ my father neloo, my food 

Jimitauks^ thy ** . k^mitogweSy thy •• keloo, thy *• 

w*mitauksl, his, her father vfmitoqsa^ thy " weloo^ his, her food 

excl. t^mitauksfiy our ** tCmitoqsena^ our ** na'cochit^ our father 

incl. k^mitauksn^ '• *' k'mitoqsena, ** " kesolq, our creator 

k'mitaukslf your " ICmitoqsowo^ your " ukwisl^ your son 

vfmitauksly their " vfmitoqsowo^ their " weloo-Hl, their food 

iCdupy I sit fCwajono^ I have saukawei^ I am quiet 

l^dupy thou sittest k*wajono^ etc. saukiivein^ etc. 

uhoy he, she sits wajona saukiweik 

excl. UdupulHbin^ we sit v^wajonobena saukewoltiq 

incl. Kdupibin^ *' ** k*wajonobena saukewollik 

ubuUu'uk, they " wajonak saukiwoUijik 

It will be seen from this table that the Micmac dialect has 
diflerentiated most in grammatic form. It has kept the pro- 
nominal prefixes in the inflexion of the substantive, yet in the 
conjugation of the verb they have fallen away and been replaced 
by endings. This fact may be due to the influence of the Esqui- 
maux, as the Micmacs had at one time considerable intercourse 
with that people, and some effect must have been thus produced 
on the language, isolated from their kindred as they were both by 
geographical position and by ceaseless feuds. 

Indian words are often small sentences in themselves ; thus 
rCwenochwas-queiss = I row. This contains the Penobscot wenoch^ 



a white man, and taken as a verb with the first personal prefix tC 
signifies I paddle (a boat) like a white man. The character of 
these languages is most favorable to word-formation, and their 
peculiarity of retaining only the elements and rejecting all super- 
fluous parts renders it possible to have a sentence of considerable 
length melted together in one word. By means of this formative 
power of his language the Indian can express any idea, no matter 
how abstruse, and indeed he often expresses very simple things in 
a rather abstruse way. Thus, wik-peq-higen =z a pump ; the 
elements of this are the root wik-peq from rCwikson or rCwikpeq 
=: I draw or pull, and Iiigen, which is a substantive ending, the 
whole word meaning something which one pulls, or briefly, a 
pump. In this case the idea of pulling, connected with a pump, 
seized the Indian mind, and therefore the above word was made 
to express this object, although it might with equal appropriateness 
have been called a * water-giver * or a * pipe from which to drink,' 
etc. The word for book, wig-higen^ is another instance of this 
peculiar formative system. The stem n/wig means to cut or to 
scratch, and when the Indians became acquainted with the art of 
writing, and perceived that it was done by means of a sharp 
instrument, this root received the additional meaning * to write.' 
Wig'higen therefore signifies something which is written, i. e. a 
letter or a book. From this noun comes the compound wighig^nup^ 
which means book-water, a rather quaint metaphor for ink. As 
an illustration of how a single root appears in a number of words 
of allied meaning compare. the following: 

p€S'yantesuk:=zdi window 
pes-saHkhenmagen = a lamp 
PeS'zezen =: a star 
np^saq = I shine 

V^^^ = light. 

The verb npesatun^ I smell, undoubtedly contains wiionzzL^ 

An analysis of an ordinary verb into its elements will give an 
excellent idea of this Indian method of word building. Nolidhas 
means * I am glad.* This contains : n\ pronominal prefix of the 
first person, wole, good, excellent, and kiidahas, the verb * to think.' 
The w\ which is always unstable in these dialects, is rejected. 
For another instance of this cf. wigwus^ mother, but nigwuSy my 
mother. The k in klidahas is forced out by the predominance of 
the two /'s in 'oU and Hidahas. It might here be stated that the 


Indian / is very marked, and has a thick dull sound which is 
seldom heard in European languages. Two /'s, therefore, liter- 
ally drown out the k. This gives the form nolidhasy * I think well, 
I am in a good state of mind, I am glad/ 

Such then, briefly considered, are the chief points of interest in 
the language of the Wabanaki. As far as I could discover, very 
little attention has ever been given to these tribes beyond the 
mere compiling of a comparative dictionary by Father Vetromile. 
No thorough grammatical treatise seems ever to have been written, 
and, therefore, it was solely from the mouths of the Indians in 
Bar Harbor and Canada that I gathered the above information. 
If able linguists were to examine with care the word-formation 
of some of these dialects, considerable light might be thrown on 
the entire group of American tongues, and perhaps nowhere on 
our continent can a better example of the general character of 
Indian languages be found than in these races of the Algonkin 


J. Dyneley Prince. 





Aap€ioy€vfiff t6 waTpunoffUOP 
yeyop fnurtpov^ 

When the words ytVor rnUrtpov are applied to a single person, as 
they are applied to Xerxes here, they can signify only our offspring. 
They cannot signify, as the scholiast and most commentators 
would have them, (rvyycv^is ^fup, our kinsman or our compatriot: 
yivos has no such meaning. But the offspring of the elders who 
recite these lines Xerxes was not ; and ytvos fifJT€pop, accordingly, 
they cannot call him. Further exception might be taken, were it 
not superfluous, to the epithet warp&vvfuop, a natural title indeed 
for the whole people which drew from its forefather Perseus the 
name of Persian, but devoid of special application to the king and 
conveying, in his regard, nothing not already conveyed by Aaptio- 
y€prjs. In Mr. Paley's translation * one of our race which bears the 
name of its ancestor Perseus * there is involved, even if we condone 
the rendering of ycW, a further fallacy which a glance at my italics 
will detect. As for Hermann's * genus a Perseo ductum, unde nos 
nomen habemus, ideoque nobis cognatum,' it has really little 
relation to the Greek. 

What has happened seems clear. The dipodia rh varp^vvfuop 
stands one line higher than it was meant to stand, and errs in one 
letter. The chorus should rightly enquire : 

nw &pa irpda'<r€i Xip^ris /Sao-iXevff 


y€POf rifMeT€p6v T€ irarpoapvfiiop * 

how it fares with Xerxes the king and with our Persian folk. 
Their care is not for Xerxes alone, but also for the men of whom 
he has emptied Persia : it is, as they say in w. 8 sq., apafii v6<tt<^ t« 

BaaiKtUf Ka\ voKvxpv<rov arparias. 



ToGrQ ht\ XiTroucr' iKavtA xputrtocrrSX/jLovs d6fJLovs 

Kal t6 Aap€iov re Kafihv Koiv6v €vvaT^piov, 

Koi fi€ KapSiav afjtinrcr^i (f>popTU ' (S d* vfiag €p& 

fivBovj ovdafjL&s tfiavr^t odor adclfiavTOSf (f}i\oij 1 65 

firj fuyas nXovTos Koviaas oZbas dvrpeyjrjj ttoSI 

SkfioPf tv Aapcior ^pev ovk avcv $€w rivos, 

I have briefly signified elsewhere my view of v. 165. efiavrrjs, 
which is supposed to mean ircpi e/xaur^f , is in the MS text destructive 
of sense : we learn as Atossa proceeds that her fear is not for her- 
self, but for her absent son and the fortune of Persia. A corruption 
is recognized by all recent editors, and Weil, with the approval of 
Kirchhoffand Wecklein, has conjectured fivBop otbafjims ifuxvTrjt old* 
ab€iiiaifTovy referring to Soph. Aiax 481 ovdclr ipti itoff m viropXrjTov 
\6yov, I Atar, cXe^ar, aX\a ttjs o-avrov (j>p€v6t» This gives no suitable mean- 
ing, for Atossa's speech is assuredly not wrtJiSXi^roff, nor, so far as I 
can discern, in any sense oifx iavrrjs ; but that so unsatisfactory a 
conjecture should have been made and approved is all the more 
striking a testimony to the strength of feeling against the MS 
text. I have proposed to write : 

€S d* vfias €pSi [sc. Trfv ^pomda J, 
6vfihv ovdafuas tfiavr^s oUcr adeifiavros rrX. 


ifiavnjs then depending on Ovfi6v. To cite only the most apposite 
examples of a widespread error, the Medicean MS gives fxvBovoOai 
for Bvpov(rBai in Ag. 1367 and Bvfi^ for fivSa in Soph. Ant. 718. 

But my purpose in reverting to the passage is to champion a 
neglected emendation of Rauchenstein's in v. 166. nXovros cannot 
Kovtaai nor can it dvTp€ylrai irodif and is now generally given up for 
corrupt. The correction which to me appears uniquely apt is 
Rauchenstein's (rrparSs. The change is really a slight one: or 
and TT are much confused in cursives and minuscules, p and X in 
all MSS of all ages, a and ov with especial frequency in the text of 
Aeschylus. Only by reading <rrpaT6s will you elicit any just sense 
from Kovlaas oZdas : Atossa fears lest the flight of the great army 
covering the face of the earth with dust should overthrow the 
fortune which Darius, God helping him, built up. Homer in s 
145, speaking of an army, uses cupv kopI<tov(tiv jrcdlov as an ornamental 
equivalent for <f)cv(oyraif and has kovIovtcs TreS/oio, of horses and 
chariots, more than once; Aeschylus in Sept. 60, the only other 


place where he employs the verb, has or par 6 s x®P«> kovici, 
and delights in the association of k6vis and arparSs : Suppl. 186 6p& 

icdviVi Svavdop oyycXov orpoTov, Sept. 79 M*^*""*"* trrparhs frrpar&mbov Xiit^v 

. . . alBipia k6vi5 /i€ irtlBti ffiavtitra^ probably Ag. 500. Let it not be 

thought that this reading would require ttoo-iV for nM : the singular 

n6^a is similarly used of a multitude in Suppl. 31. It is quite 

possible that Aeschylus wrote avrpi^ji vkhoi, but I only mention this 

lest any one else should make the same guess and fall in love 

with it. 


XO. oroTOTOt, ftdrav Str. 

ra noXta /ScXca nafifuyrj 

yas aw* 'Acidof ffkB* en aiav 

daaVf 'EXXdda \i>pav* 
AT. irkriOovfTi vtKpSiv dvair&rfuos €<l>Bapfi€vap 275 

^aXap2yos arrai was tc 7rp6<rxoi>pos roirof • 
XO. oTOTOToif (fyiKoiy ant. 

dXldova ftAfa nap^atfi^ 

KaT6av6vTa \iy€is <f>€p€a'3ai 

frXayKTols tv biir\dKi<r<n.v, 280 

All that I here propose to myself is to finish the correction of 
two errors already emended in the main. In vv. 273 sq. the appo- 
sition atav, x«/xii' is, to be sure, Greek, but not the Greek of a good 
writer. The function of apposition is to add something to the 
sense, and we therefore do not place in apposition two words 
which, like ala and x^P^> ^^^ synonyms. Weil has restored the 
diction of Aeschylus by what will be found on examination an 

easy change, rao-d' an 'Aaldos ^Xdev atas d^av *EXXrtda x^P^^^t ^^^ this 

is approved by Oberdick and Wecklein. But the illustrious critic 
and his followers have overlooked the fact that ala is not employed 
by the tragic writers except in places where the metre refuses yato, 
and that therefore tragedy may be ransacked in vain for such a 
phenomenon as aUg preceded by an ephelcystic v. No : just as 

Aeschylus writes Pers. 390 icaWo-xe yaiav not Karitrxtv olavy 502 XtTato-i 
yaUiv not Xiraio'tj' alavy Suppl. 272 av^M y(ua not avrjMv ala, IO39 X^^P-^^^ 

yaiat not x^^i^^^'V <i^f> SO he must here have written not ^X^ci^ alas 
but ^X^cyatas. And this will perhaps be even nearer to the MS, 
for the resemblance between r and n in capitals and uncials often 
amounts almost to identity. 

In V. 280 we are at once arrested by the question : why irkayKrols 
instead of liKayKrals ? There is here no such metrical excuse as 


may be pleaded for vXar^Krhi olva in Ag. 598. Further, it is felt on 
all hands that in vagrant cloaks is an absurd expression, and 
indeed that in this rapid summary of disaster such a detail as d«rXa- 
M<Tvw is itself somewhat trivial and beside the mark. Hence the 
rash invent unheard-of meanings for diVXa^ ; the prudent have 
recourse to conjecture. Hartung proposes (jTriXadecratv, which I 
think right and hope to establish ; but plainly the passage is not 
emended yet. frXayKTotf is now less defensible than ever ; to get 
rid of it, Hartung ruins the metre by writing ^\ayKr\ and is thus 
driven to more violence in the strophe ; Weil suggests wXayitr«v, an 
improbable alteration; Wecklein ?rXayjcTow, an improbable con- 
struction. And not only is further chanjg^e thus involved, but it is 
also far from clear how oTrtXcideo-inv became dtirXaAfao-iv. 

If however Aeschylus wrote frXaym-' h\ tmiKadta-aiv all is explained 
as the result of nXaymvicTrikadtaaiv. By a frequent error k was 
written for i<r; the correction, added above the line or in the 
margin, was mistaken, through the perpetual confusion of i with 
ot, for a correction of TrXdyjcr' to trXayKTois ; and out of the monstrous 
Km\dd€(r(riv the Greek word dtn\dK€(T<nv inevitably emerged, for 
KmXab and SiirXaK are different arrangements of the same six letters. 
It says nothing against this correction that a trochee in the anti- 
strophe thus answers a spondee in the strophe, since Aeschylus 
habitually admits such correspondence in glyconic bases : those 
scholars who retain 8iav in v. 274 may even prefer a trochee in v. 
280, but I myself find d4av a necessary alteration. Let me add, in 
favor of m'i that the epic form has a peculiar fitness as recalling 
the noTL oTTikaBfa-aip of Homer ; and, in favor of the entire emenda- 
tion, that the words fifXea X^yetf <f)ip€(rBai iv\ <nnXddf(r<np truthfully 

represent the 7r\T,Bov<n v€KpS>v dicrai of the messenger, while the MS 
reading puts into his mouth what he never said. 


aiyS) TToXat dvarrfvof cKirenXriyfjiJvTj 
KaKott * vTTcp/SdXXci yap rjd€ avpL^phy 
rh ftrire Xc^i fii^r ipwrrjaai irdOri, 

It appears impossible that v. 295 should mean t6 nr,Tf (r« X/gai 
irddrj firjTf €fi€ cptnTTJa-ai avrd I besides, grant it possible, the statement 
is untrue : the messenger has already given, between the ejacula- 
tions of the chorus, a terse and comprehensive summary of the 
ndOrj in question. It remains then to take Xc'fai apart from irddrj, 


with Atossa for its subject, in the sense of (l>B€y(a<rOai. But this 
again is impossible, for \ey<o is not so used : firjbiv Xc^ai would be 
required. The difficulty seems to have been first apprehended by 
Wecklein, who proposes ^o>mv : this word may have been expelled 
by a superscript gloss Xeytiy, and X/ytiv may then have been altered 
for metre's sake to X«f ai. There is a far simpler way : nothing 
more, I believe, is needed to restore the passage than the addition 
of a single letter: 

fXeyf at and ipwijaai, are almost synonyms ; but this virtual tautology 
is of a kind rather sought after than shunned by the tragic style : 

closely parallel is Soph. O. T. 1305 n6X\' aP€p€(rBai, noXka wQitrQai. 


ivravBa Yrc/iirei rovab , oinoff St ck v€&p 
(l>dap€PT€f ixBpoX p^aov eKO'to^olaTO, 
KT€lvoup €v\tipcaTop 'EXk^ytav arparbvt 
<f>ikovs d v7rcic(r^^ot€v ivclkl&v wopav. 

In this, the vulgate text, the word €K(r<oColaTo might not itself 
arouse suspicion. But suspicion is aroused when only two lines 
below we come to vrrtKa-tpCoitv; aroused not by the mere repetition, 
for the Greeks are less careful than the Romans and the modems 
to avoid this fault, but by the following considerations. When 
cWo>^<o and vn-cic(r^C<o occur with this brief interval, the element 
-cTJ^fo) ought to mean the same thing in each verb, and the 
elements wtck- ought to mean something more than the element 
€*c-. But the reverse is the fact. There is no tangible differ- 
ence, as there ought to be, between cV- in v. 454 and wr€#c- 
in V. 456: there is a tangible difference, as there ought not 
to be, between or^f© in v. 454, which signifies merely drtng 
to land (to meet death), and o-^^m in v. 456, which signifies 
save alive. And suspicion mounts to something like certainty 
when we turn to the apparatus criticus and find that the MS 
reading is not eWa>^omro but f£<ra>Coiaro, with #c written overhead as 
a correction. The question then is not whether we will stick to 
the MS or desert it ; no one dreams of sticking to it : the ques- 
tion is whether we will take the conjecture of a Byzantine scribe, 
which imports some difficulty, or the conjecture of a modern critic 
with the resources of science at his disposal. M. Stahl has pro- 


posed i^oiaolaro, an amendment suggested, I presume, by Herod. 

VIII jS oi}Sf €ir€hv y€VJjrai vavfLa)(ir)f €v6avra fiaXiOTa i^oiaofuvtou t&v re 

avbp&k Koi tS>v vavrjyuav, But the future Optative appears to be inex- 
cusable ; there is here no oratio obliqua. We shall approach the 
MS even more closely if we restore the word which the lexicons 
will show to be the most natural of all words for the occasion : 

MO T ayr\ 

Dindorfs b^inrm-av for de<77r<5Tov in V. 670 seems to me probably 
right; but my present concern is with v. 668. The answering 
verse in the strophe is ^oX^i/, dpxaios fiaXriy : when we compare the 
two it appears that the scansion must be v/-_o-w- To shorten 

the penultimate ai of dpxalos, as of TrerpaloSf iraXaioSf ycpaidst diKaios 

and dflXaios in tragedy, Hixiratos in Homer and XrjBaLos in Anacreon, 
is quite permissible. But it is not equally legitimate to lengthen 
Tt before A in v. 668 ; and a long syllable is therefore required in 
its stead. This should seemingly be restored by the almost 
imperceptible change kmvg yj, for KMvd tc. The confusion of yai 
and T€ needs no explaining ; but I will adduce another example 
of the same error, which I detect in Eum. 803. The MS there 

vfttis de T€ T^dt yi papxfv k6top 

The verse has no metre, and its meaning is precisely the opposite 
of the meaning demanded. I suppose that Aeschylus wrote 

vfxfh dc yaiij^ r^dc firf papvv k6tov 

yaiaiy by the omission of one at, became yai ; this surprising Dori- 
cism naturally evoked a marginal correction y^, which however 
missed its mark and was substituted not for yd but for filj ; then 
ya was further corrupted, as in Pers. 658, to rt, 


Toiydp Kaic&s dpaaavrts ovk i\da(rova 
Trdaxovciy TO de fieXXovcrt, Kovdina KaKSav 
Kpijirls virf<TTiv, oXX er cKTriducrai. 


I take for a starting point Schuetz's ItatMerai, believing it to be 
the first stride, and that a great one, towards the restoration of the 
passage. True, it is to insult Aeschylus to suppose him the author 
of such a sentence as results from this correction, if correction here 
stops short. But every impeachment which can be brought against 
tKirMa-ai is equally an impeachment of the MS reading (KiraiMrraif 
which apparendy therefore is recommended to its defenders 
merely by its intrinsic absurdity : neither koko, c inratdcvcrai nor KprprU 
iicnaiMerai has any vestige of a meaning. Against the emended 
line there lie two objections of great though unequal gravity. To 
take the lighter first, the clash of metaphor in Kpfjnis and iiaridvkTai 
is hardly credible : the laying of a foundation and the welling 
forth of a spring are two images which refuse to be made one. Still, 
the Greeks were less sensitive to such incongruity than we are, 
and though I think no real parallel can be adduced, it might yet 
be possible to find examples only less harsh than this. 

But there remains a far heavier, a fatal objection. It is entirely 
permissible to say, with impressive exaggeration, ovd«V« kqk&p 
Kprjnh v7r€<mvf that is, Calamity is as yet not even begun. Precisely 
thus does Prometheus say in P. V. 767 ott yap vvv aKtiKoas \6yovs \ 
€iyai d6K€i <roi firfdiirtop Trpooifiiois* But, having said so much, there 
you must stop : you cannot proceed to say aXX' tr fWiducroi, but it 
is still going on. Begin by saying that a thing is not y^tjinished^ 
then you may proceed to say, with such pleonasm as poets love, 

that it is still going on : oCdcVoo KaK»v \ €ir«rri BpiyKos, aXK* tr eKiridvrraiy 

for instance, would be the writing, not indeed of a decent stylist, 
but still the writing of a sane man. But to say that a thing is not 
yet begun but is still going on is such nonsense as not one of us 
can conceive himself uttering in the loosest negligence of conver- 
sation ; only when centuries of transcription by barbarians have 
imputed it to an incomparable poet, then we accept it as a matter 
of course. 

I will ask the reader not to take fright at what may strike the 
first glance as a violent change ; it is not really such. 

Kprjvlg air4a^J\K , aXX' cr iianhvtTai. 

V and It are commonly confused in uncials, and even if they were 
not, two words like Kprp^l^ and xpTwif , which coincide in five of their 
letters and differ only in one, are always easily interchanged. 
Why, in the verb <r/3«Via;/i«, /9 should tend to become t, I cannot 


tell ; but the fact is so : thus in Eur. Med. 1218 dnea-^rj has been 

corrupted to aire<mi, in Aesch. Ag. 879 KaT€(rfiriKa(rip to KoBearrfKatrik. 

But now diriarrjK and vntcrrip are palaeographically almost the same 
thing : air- and vw- are confused * dici non potest quotiens,' says 
Bast ; Tf and 1 were for ages identical in sound ; k and y in uncial 
MSS nearly identical in shape. For the metaphor see v. 745 

K a K&p loijce TT 17 y 17 iratnv rjvprjaOcu <f>tXoif, 


& daifioy^ &9 fi€ v^XX* €(r€px€rai icaicck 

SKyrjt fjtakicrra d ^df avfMf>opa daKVti 

drifiiay ye iraMs dfMf)X aui/um 

€(r3rjfidT<av KKCovaayf rj viv dfiirtx^^* ^5^ 

aXX tifUy Koi XajSovcra Kdafiop €k d6fJU0P 

vnavTidCfiv ifi^ waiSl 7r€ipa(rofJLai ' 

ov yap TO. (fytXrar iv KaKols npodu^frofuv. 

The earliest attempt to mend the metre of v. 852 is the trans- 
position tralB* €ft^ in the inferior MSS. This elision was of course 
impossible to Aeschylus, and the assumed corruption is inexpli- 
cable : few scribes would find trailf c/i^ a difficulty, no scribe would 
find €fi^ vaidi an improvement. The same objection holds against 
Burges' naidi fjLov and Lobeck's nalb* ip6vj which depart yet further 
from the MS : Lobeck's conjecture is moreover discountenanced 
by the wramafe vatJbL of V. 836. Other proposals are even less 

It seems to have been generally assumed that the words tpj^ 
rraidi, though themselves corrupt, nevertheless represent correctly 
the sense of the lost words or word. But there is no reason to think 
so, for naidi is readily supplied from what precedes : the dative is 
in like manner omitted after this verb in v. 410 n€p<rlbos yXoxraris 
p6Bos vTrrjvriaCt. Disembarrassed of this preconception I think we 
shall restore the verse without much ado : 

I will essay to meet him on his way. The descent from ifiirob&v 
through efjLiTidm to ifjiiraldm Consisted of the easiest stages : thence 
the shortest way to Greek was the transposition of one letter, €fjL& 
natdif which may well have stood in some ancestor of our MS, for 
one school of copyists writes epM where another writes €fi»i and 
where we write ep^. 


It will illustrate one stage in this corruption if I here emend 
Eur. I. T. 755-8 : 

€(alp€T6p fun d6s rAd , ijv ri vav£ frdOjj 
xl) bikroi iv «cXvdo>vi XP^H^^^ iiira 
d<f>av^s yivtfraiy trmfjui d ^ic(ra>(r<» fi6voPy 
t6p opKov (Ivai rdvdf firiKtr tfiirebop. 


Pylades and Iphigenia have interchanged oaths, she that she will 
send him safely away, he that he will carry her letter to her brother. 
But then it strikes him that he may lose the letter through ship- 
wreck and be therefore unable to fulfil his oath ; so he desires to 
make the exception that in those circumstances it shall no longer 
be binding. But this is not the meaning of the words r^i^ opKop 
thai rdvde iu)K€t l/iTrcdov. What Hfortdof 6pKos means we perfectly 

well know from v. 790 top d' SpKOP tp Kardtpoa inirtdwaofiep, we will 

perform the oath which I sware, and from many another passage 
where the phrase recurs: tfinwdos SpKos means an oath which 
is performed. Now Pylades cannot without absurdity beg of 
Iphigenia that if the letter is lost his oath shall not he performed: 
that is ex hypothesi certain. What he must ask is that his oath 
shall not be considered incumbent an him to perform^ that he shall 
be held guiltless though he does not perform it. And this in 
Greek will be : 

rbp SpKop cZvcu T6pd€ pj)K€T ipfirobap* 

See Aesch. P. V. 13 (r<^p pip iproKrj Aiif I ^x'l tAop bfj Koifbip 

i ptr o d c» p (T I, 

London, March^ 1888. 




§23. — In treating the P. G. consonants, it has been found most 
convenient to consider them under the following divisions : 

r I. Semivowels/ (jk), 'U) (y). 
I. Sonorous consonants I 2. Liquids /, r. 

1 3. Nasals w, n, 

( I. Labials b.p^f, 
II. Non-sonorous consonants \ 2. Dentals d^ /, (/^), {dK)^ j, z. 

I 3. Palatal gutturals g, k, ch (g). 

Sonorous Consonants, 

§24. — I. Semivowels/ {y). 

(i) P. G. initial/ corresponds to Germanic / (z). P. G. j5r 
(N. H. G. jahr, N. E. year), R. Pf. jor (Z., Sch.), johr (K.), O. H. 
G./dr ; P. G. jun^ (N. H. G. jung, N. E. young), R. P. jung (N.), 
O. H. G. jung. 

(2) P. G. y (medial for /) represents Germanic g, M. H. G. 
often dropped such a g between vowels ; cf. Paul, Mhd. Gram. §73. 
The phenomenon, however, seems to be very much more extended 
in P. G. than in M. H. G. P. G. sisry3 (N. H. G. sorge, N. E. 
sorrow), R. P. sorge (N.), O. H. G. soraga ; P. G. mBryd or 
morya (N. H, G. morgen, N. E. morning), R. P. morge (K., N.) ; 
P. G. felya (N. H. G. felge, N. E. felloe) ; P. G. bBrya or borya, 
but often borgd (N. H. G. borgen, N. E. borrow) ; P. G. reya 
and regd (N. H. G. regen, N. E. rain). Such double forms are not 
infrequent. Thisjv is especially frequent where a liquid precedes. 

Note I. — In sporadic cases this j/ represents N. H. G. k, P. G. 
ruya (N. H. G. (ruhe) ruhen, lex. N. E. rest), O. H. G. rouw^n. 

w (v), 

§25. — I. P. G. w occurs initially both alone and in combina- 
tions, and represents : 
(i) Germanic w, N. H. G»w. P. G. w«rd (N. H. G. wort, N. 


E. word), R. P. wort (N.), O. H. G. ivort) P. G. woU (N. H. G. 
woUe, N. E. wool), O. H. G. wolla ; P. G. wolf (N. H. G. wolf, 
N. E. wolf). 

(2) Germanic- Gothic hw, N. H. G. w. P. G. wBer (N. H. G. 
wer, N. E. who), older O. H, G. hwer^ Goth. hwas\ P. G. wel 
(N. H. G. welch, N. E. which, cf. A.-S. hwylc), Goth, kwileiks^ 
cf. Br. Gr. §292, an. i, 2, R. P. well, cf. N. s. 216. 

(3) P. G. w occurs in the following initial consonantal combina- 
tions ; kw Colder ^«), schw (older sw)^ zw (<^ Germ, ttv), cf. Br. Gr. 
§107. P. G. kwells (N. H. G. quellen, lex. N. E. boil), O. H. G. 
quellan ; P. G. schwerz (N. H. G. schwarz, N. E. swart), O. H. 
G. swar2\ P. G. zwe (N. H. G. zwei, N. E. two), R. Pf. zwee 
(Z., K.), O. H. G. zwei, Goth, iwau 

2. Medial w (written v to distinguish it from original w). This 
intervocalic v represents : 

(i) The original medial soft spirant b (cf. Br. Gr. §134, and an. 
I ; Paul, Mhd. Gram. §§33, 81, anm.), N. H. G. b between vowels, 
or a liquid and a vowel. P. G. gev3 (N. H. G. geben, N. E. give), 
R. P. gewwa (N.), O. H. G. (O. M. F. Tr. Cap.) ce gevene ; P. G. 
selvdr (N. H. G. selber, N. E. self, selv-), R. P. selwer (N.), O. 
H. G. (Tr. Cap.) selvo, selvemo, selveru. 

Note I. — P. G. V corresponds to N. H. G*f<C. ^<C * (S^- Paul, Mhd. 
Gram. §33), P. G. hBvdr (N. H. G. hafer, lex. N. E. oats ; cf. 
A.-S. haefer), R. P. hawwer, O. H. G. habaro , P. G. schwevdl 
(N. H. G. schwefel, lex. N. E. sulphur, cf. A.-S. swefl) ; O. H. G. 
sweval, swebal. 

Note 2. — P. G. w is voiceless in words borrowed from N. E. 
P. G. hBspowdr (N. E. hospower (vulgar for horse-power, lex.), 
N. H. G. pferdekraft. This w is retained to show that it is not 
native to P. G. It differs from the P. G. medial v in being pro- 
nounced voiceless. 

3. P. G. w does not really occur as a final, but in the case of wo- 
stems appears as a hiatus, as in M. H. G. (cf. Paul, Mhd. Gram. 

§§32, 74-) 

Liquids /, r. 

§26. — I. P. G. /, initial, represents : 

(i) Germanic /, N. H. G. / (cf. Br. Gr. §122). R G. lera (N. 
H. G. lehren. lex. N. E. teach, cf. A.-S. l^an), R. P. lehr, subs. 
(K.), O. H. G. liren. 

(2) Germanic hi, N. H. G. /. P. G. \pi^ (N. H. G. laufen, cf. 
§5, 2) ; P. G. laut (N. H. G. laut, N. E. loud), O. H. G. /^/< 


hint ; P. G. luddrvogdl (lex. N. H. G. aasgeier, lex. N. E. buz- 
zard). For these short 2^-sounds cf. §13. Initial consonantal com- 
binations with / are bl^fly gl, kl^ply schL 

2. Medial / in P. G. represents : 

(i) Germanic /, N. H. G. /. P. G. mold (N. H. G. malen) ; 
P. G. heild (N. H. G. heulen, lex. weinen, N. E. howl, lex. weep, 
cry), O. H. G. kiuwilSn ; P. G. kwelich (N. H. G. lex. qualend, 
N. E. lex, tormenting) = N. H. G. *qualig. 

(2) / in words taken from N. E. P. G. kolik (N. E. colic, lex. 
N. H. G. magenkrampf ) ; P. G. ixiBlBsich (N. E. molasses, lex. 
N. H. G. syrup). 

Note I. — The historic orthography has been retained in words 
which are under conditions of gemination (cf. Br. Gr. §§122, 96). 
P. G. wilte (N. H. G. wille, N. E. will), O. H. G. willo, Goth, wilja. 
In pronunciation the sound is not easily distinguishable from / in 
milich, welich, kelich, etc. (cf. §15), which are written with 
simple /. ^ 

3. Final / in P. G. represents : 

(i) {a) N. H. G. final / (= original /). P. G. el (N. H. G. oel, 
N. E. oil), O. H. G. oli (cf. Kluge). 

(Jf) N. H. G. -Ich < original Germanic -lik, P. G. wel (N. H. 
G. welcher, M. E. which), R. P. well (N.), O. H. G. welich ; P. 
G. sel (N. H. G. solch, N. E. such), R. P. sell (N.), O. H. G. 
solih, sulih (cf. Br. Gr. §292, anm. i, 2.) 


§27. — I. Initial r in P. G. represents : 

(i) (a) Germanic r, N. H. G. r. P. G. r^^d (N. H. G. rad, 
lex. N. E. wheel), O. H. G. rad\ P. G, r^m (N. H. G. rahm, 
older Eng. ream (Kluge), lex. cream). 

(b) Germanic Ar, N. H. G. r. P. G. tin (N. H. G. riihren, 
N. E. rear-, in rear-mouse, A.-S. hr^ran) ; P. G. rick (N. H. G. 
riicken, N. E. ridge), O. H. G. rucki folder hrukki, R. P. riick (Z). 

2. Medial r in P. G. represents : 

(i) Germanic r, N. H. G. r. P. G. Berva (N. H. G. erbe, cf. 
§17, 2); P. G. Bervat (cf. §17 (i)); P. G. Beryara (cf. §17, i). 

(2) Older s by rotacism according to Verner's law ; cf. Br. Gr. 
§182 b and §120. P. G. hera (cf. §8, 7 (^)), Goth. hamjan\ P. 
G. rira (cf. Goth, hrizjan?). For rr cf. remarks on //, §26, 2, 
note I. 


3. Final r in P. G. represents : 

(i) (a) Germanic r followed originally by a stem vowel, N. H. 
G. r. P. G. hor (N. H. G. haar, N. E. hair) ; P. G. wor (N. 
H. G. wahr, lex. N. E. true). 

(*) Original r persists in P. G. ex. jor (cf. §24, i (i)). For the 
dropping of original r in wu, do, cf. Br. Gr. §120, an. 2. 

Nasals nty n. 

§28. — I. P. G. initial m represents : 

(i) Germanic m (c£ Br. Gr. §123). P. G. mudddr (N. H. G. 
mutter, N. E. mother) ; P. G. mBn (N. H. G. mann, N. E. man) ; 
P. G. mBer (N. H. G. mahre, lex. stute, N. E. mare), O. H. G. 
merihay marha. At first sight one might be disposed to consider 
this to have been introduced from N. E., but it is the form which 
would be regular for the dialect as indicated by the cognates 

2. Medial m in P. G. represents : 

(2) Original m, N. H. G. mm. P. G. kBmdr (N. H. G. kam- 
mer, N. E. chamber), O. H. G. chamera^hzX.. camera; P. G. 
sumdr (N. H. G. sommer, N. E. summer) ; P. G. numd (lex. N. 
H. G. nur, lex. N. E. only). 

(i) Germanic m, P. G. schems (N. H. G. schamen, cf. §7, 2 
(2)) ; P. G. schemdl (N. H. G. schemel, lex. N. E. bolster), O. H. 
G. scamaL 

(3) m in words introduced from N. E. P. G. rumedis (N. E. 
rheumatism, vulg. " rheumatiz "; P. G. oBminetd, Rauch (N. E. 
nominate, lex. N. H. G. ernennen). 

Note I. 

3. Final m in P. G. represents : 

(i) Germanic m, N. H. G. m. P. G. hem (cf. §8 (i) (^)) ; P. 
G. keim (N. H. G. keim, N. E.lex. germ), O. H. G. chim^ chimo; 
P. G. sch^'m (N. H. G. schaum, N. E. scum (not mentioned by 
Kluge), lex. foam), O. H. G. scHm ; P. G. hvltn (N. H. G. halm, 
N. E. halm), O. H. G. halm. 

(2). N. E. m in words introduced on American soil. P. G. 
bBssdm (N. E. opossum, vulgar "possum," N. H. G. lex. 
amerikanische Beutelratte). 

Note I. — In a few words P. G. m in the unaccented final syllable 
remains, while in N. H. G. it has become n (according to the law 
of finals). P. G. b^S^m (N. H. G. besen, N. E. besom, lex, 
broom), O. H. G. besamo. 


Note 2. — P. G. mm final represents N. H. G. mm « original 
m-^-b). P. G. dumm (N. H. G. dumm, N. E. dumb), R. P. 
dumm (N.), O. H. G. iumb\ P. G. lamm (N. H. G. lamm, N. E. 
lamb), O. H. G. lamb. 

In P. G. oddm (R.)» ochdem (H.)i the original m is retained as in 
N. H. G. athem, odem, oden, lex. N. E. breath). R. P. Westr. 
ochdem (Sch.), O. H. G. Aium, Here t^'o dialectic forms go 
side by side, an instance of the mixture not infrequent in P. G. 
forms. P. G. bBlsBm (N. H. G. balsam, N. E. balsam), O. H. 
G. balsamo. 


§29. — I. P. G. initial n represents: 

(i) Germanic «, N. H. G. n (cf. Br. Gr. §126). P. G. nBcht 
(cf. §4, i) ; P. G. npb (N. H. G. nabe, N. E. nave, hub), O. H. G. 
naba; P. G. nira (N. H. G. nieren, c£ M. E. n^re, lex. N. E. 

(2) Germanic ^«, An (^kn). Cf. Braune, §150. P. G. npg^ (N. 
H. G. nagen, N. E. gnaw), O. H. G. nagan^ older gnagan ; P. G. 
nid (N. H. G. niet, lex. N. E. clinch), cf. O. H. G. kniotan (P. G. 
nidd, N. H. G. nieten). 

2. P. G. medial n represents : 

(i) Germanic «, N. H. G. n. P* G. mengd (N. H. G. menge, 
lex. N. E. crowd, multitude, cf. among <^ on mang(e) or on 
gemang(e)), O. H. G. menigi, managi ; P. G. bond, pi. (N. H. G. 
bohnen, N. E. beans), cf. R. P. bohti, sg. (N.), O. H. G. bSwdn ; P. G. 
mend (N. H. G. meinen, N. E. mean, lex. think), R. P. meend, 
meant (Z.), meenscht (K.), O. H. G. meinen. 

Note I. — P. G. nn medial represents : 

(i) Original Germanic nn (cf. Br. Gr. §95). P. G. brunnd (N. 
H. G. brunnen, N. E. burn, lex. spring), O. H. G. brunno ; P. G. 
rinnd (N. H. G. rinnen, N. E. run, lex. leak), R. P. rinne (M.), 
O. H. G. rinnan. 

(2) N. H. G. nd^ ni «^ Germanic «)>, nd)^ by assimilation. P. G. 
finnd (N. H. G. finden, N. E. find), R. P. gfunne p. p. of 
finne (N.), O. H. G. findan ; P. G. binna (N. H. G. binden, N. 
E. bind), cf. R. P. kinner (N.), O. H. G. binden) P. G. nunndr 
(N. H. G. hinunter, cf. N. E. under), R. P. nunner (N.), 
O. H. G. uniery under ; P. G. anndr (N. H. G. ander, N. E. 
other), R. P. anner (N.), O. H. G. andar ; P. G. benndr (N. 
H. G. bander, N. E. bands, lex. ribbons). . 

3. Final n of inflexion is wanting in P. G., thus leaving -p the 


regular ending of the infinitive and weak forms of nominal 
declension. P. G. g^ckd (N. H. G. gucken, lex. N. E. look) ; 
P. G. schtudtfd or studia (N. H. G. studiren, N. E. study) ; P. 
G. rechld or rechnd (N. H. G. recheln, rechnen, N. E. reckon). 

P. G. n final represents flexional n (i) in pronominal forms. 
P. G. an, 'n (N. H. G. ihn) ; den (N. H. G. den, demonstrative) ; 
'n (N. H. G. einen). 

(2) In certain verbal forms. P. G. hen (N. H. G. haben (pi. 
forms), cf. §7, 3; bin (N. H..G. bin). 

Note I. — P. G. nn final represents: 

(i) Germanic nru P. G. dann (N. H. G. dann, N. E. then), 
R. P. dann, O. H. G. danne ; wann (N. H. G. wann and wenn, 
N. E. when), Westr. wann (Sch.), O. H. G. wanne, 

(2) n of words introduced from other languages. P. G. bBlun 
(N. H. G. luftbalon, N. E. balloon). 

Note I. — For forms like gend, tune, cf. §16 ; and for nasalized 
vowels cf. §41. 

Labials b, p^f. 

§30. — I. P. G. initial b represents : 

(i) Germanic b, N. H. G. b. P. G. binnd (cf. 29, 2 (2)) ; buch 
(N. H. G. buch, N. E. book) ; bes (N. H. G. bos, lex. N. E. angry, 
bad) ; b^r (N. H. G. bahre, N. E. bier, barrow) ; b?^rd (N. H. 
G. bart, N. E. beard) ; P. G. b^^oU (N. H. G. baumwolle, lex. 
N. E. cotton) ; beiddl (N. H. G. beutel, lex. N. E. bolt, used to 
separate flour, cf. N. E. boodle.) 

(2) b of borrowed words. P. G. bell (N. E. bell, to ring a bell, 
N. H. G. schelle, schellen) ; P. G. b3d5 (Fr. bateau, lex. N. H. 
G. kahn, N. E. small flat-boat) ; P. G. bens (N. E. pence, lex. 
cent, penny,lex. N. H. G. pfennig), R. P. penning ; P. G. bes9l 
(cf. N. H. G. base, O. H. G. basa, lex. N. E. aunty). 

(3) N. H. G. p in many words, which often show a vacillation 
in pronunciation in P. G. P. G. b'emb9l(9) (N. H. G. pampeln, 
bammeln, lex. N. E." bum," loiter, R. P. 6ambeld, 3 sg. (N.) ; P. 
G. baerik (N. H. G. periicke, Fr. peruque, lex. N. E. wig) ; P. G. 
bredich (N. H. G. predigt, lex. N. E. sermon) ; cf. vb. preach. 

2. P. G. b medial represents : 

(i) N. H. G. / (for the most part in words of foreign origin. 
For original O. H. G.^, which remains/ in P. G., cf. Br. Gr. §131). 
P. G. bBbigBi (N. H. G. papagai, N. E. popinjay, cf. O. Fr. 
papegai) ; P. G. bBbir (N. H. G. papier) ; P. G. bBhb^l (N. H. 
G. pappel, N. E. poplar). 


Note I.— P. G. bBbdli (lex. N. H. G. kindlein, R E. baby) is 
perhaps to be explained as = biibdli (= N. H. G. biiblein) rather 
than as a new formation from the N. E. baby-liy which would 
have become beb^li in P. G. 

Note 2. — An interesting case of medial bb is P. G. ebb^r, 
ebbdS (lex. N. H. G. jemand, etwas, lex. N. E. some one, 
something), R. P. ebber, ebbes (N.), Westr. ebbes (Sch.), 
M. H. G., O. H. G. etewevy etewas^ eteswer^ eieswaSy cf. Goth. 
aip}^an and hwas, O. H. G. kwer. In P. G., as in R. P., this word 
has undergone labial lenization or stopping, i. e. passage 
from (slightly) voiced spirant to the sonant stop. The process 
must not be identified with that formulated in Verner's law, 
though having some resemblance to the latter, inasmuch as 
the change in P. G. and R. P. seems in no sense connected 
with Indo-European accent. The change is still going on in N. 
English in the speech of American negroes and children; cf. 
neb{b)ery eb(J))er for never^ ever. The stages of the changes in 
P. G. and R. P., traced from the early forms, would be for the 
masculine as follows : Goth. ai}>)>an -f- bvas (not found in this collo- 
cation) > M. H. G., O. H. G. eiewer (^^eitekver, cf. O. H. G. hver. 
Regular O. H. G. form would be '^eddewer, cf. O. H. G. eddeswer, 
eddes waz (in Kero's Glossary), Br. Gr. §295 dy W. Mhd. Gr. §314). 
In all these O. H. G. forms the aspirate h has disappeared). In N. 
H. G. this word is found only in the neuter and adverbial forms 
eiwaSy eiwcu Thus ehuer^ R. P. and P. G. ebber (w, originally 
slightly sonant ]> sonant stop and finally assimilated the /). 

3. P. G. b final represents : 

(i) Germanic b, and N. H. G. * + vowel. P. G. grub (N. H. G. 
grube, N. E. groove ?), O. H. G. gruoba ; P. G. hl?b (N. H. G. 
habe, N. E. have), R. P. habb ; P. G. schd»b (N. H. G. staub, 
lex. N. E. dust). 

Note I. — The combination schd occurs as initial, medial, and 
final. For b^v c£ §25, 2. As might be expected from what was 
said above, there is some confusion between b and py inasmuch as 
both are voiceless consonants. This fact was noted by Haldeman 
P. D, §5). 

§31. — I. Initial/ in P. G. represents: 

(i) Germanic p (cf. Br. Gr. §131), N. H. G. pf. P. G. pund 
(N. H. G. pfund. N. E. pound), R. P. pund (N.), O. H. G. 
pfuni'y P. G. pluk(g) (N. H. G. pflug, N. E. plough) ; cf. R. P. 


plog, O. H. G.pltiag (Otfried) ; P. G. pBn (N. H. G. pfanne, N. 
E. pan), R. P. pann (N.), O. H. G. pfanna \ P. G. p»d (N. H. 
G. pfad, N. E. path), O. H. G. pad (Otfried) ; P. G. pBrr9 (lex. 
N. H. G. pfarrer; cf. M. H. G. pfarre, lex. N. E. parson). R. P. 
parte (N.) ; P. G. peif (N. H. G. pfeife, N. E. pipe), R. P. 
peif (N.). 

Note I. — P. Q,p occurs in the initial combinations pl^ pr. P. 
G, plBtz, or blBtz (N. H. G. platz, N. E. plot, lex. place) ; P. G. 
pl'eg(k) (N. H.'G. plage, N. E. plague). 

(2) p in words recently introduced from other languages. P. 
G. poscht ofiBs (N. E. post-office, lex. N. H. G. postamt) ; P. G. 
pudd (lex. N. H. G. knospen, N. E. buds), would seem to be a new 
formation from N. E. bud ; but cf. Dutch bot. The word is doubt- 
less older than the English influence on R. P. 

2. P. G. p medial occurs for the most part geminated, and 
represents : 

(i) N. H. G. pp <io\Aex p. P. G. pBp(p)dl (N. H. G. poppel, 
N. E. poplar) ; P. G. rep(pd)l9 (N. H. G. rappeln ; cf. N. E. rap, 
lex. clatter). These words are written with one p by many P. G. 
writers. I have preferred to follow the N. H. G. norm. 

(2) (a) N. H. G. pf<i older Germanic pp. P. G. kloppd (N. 
H. G. klopfen, cf. N. E. clap, lex. knock). 

(Jf) N. H. G. pf by West Germanic gemination of p, P. G. 
scheppd (N. H. G. schopfen, lex. N. £. dip, shovel), O. H. G. 
schep/en, skaphjaUy skeffen (cf. Br. Gr. §130). 

3. Final// in P. G. represents : 

(i) N. H. G. pp followed by a vowel. P. G. kBpp (N. H. G. 
kappe, N. E. cap, lex. bonnet) ; P. G. dnipp (N. H. G. truppe, 
N. E. troop), 

(2) N. H. G,pfy Germanic//. P. G. kopp (N. H. G. kopf, N. 
E. lex. head), R. P. kopp (N.), pi. kbbb (N.), O. H. G. ckoph, 
chupf, cf. Sch. M. B. §618; P. G. schdnipp (N. H. G. struppe, 
lex. N. E. hames-hook); P. G. schipp (N. H. G. schippe, 

(3) N. E. /. P. G. dzhump (N. E. jump, lex. N. H. G. 

Note I. — P. G. schl'Bp(pXN. E. slop, swill, used of an 
untidy woman. This seems to be introduced from English, not- 
withstanding the fact that it could be consistently explained as the 
etymological equivalent of N. H. G. schlapp, schlappe ; cf. N. H. 
G. schleppe; cf. P. G. schlBppich, N. H. G. schlappig, N. E. 



Note 2. — Under this head belong words which contain m + 
P iPP)i N. H. G. mpf. In these cases P. G. and O. H. G. show 
the same stages of mutation (cf. Br. Gr. §131 ^). P. G. schdrump 
(N. H. G. strumpf, lex. N. E. stocking), R, P. schtnimbe (pL)» 

Note 3. — P. G. p corresponds sporadically to N. H. G. f. P« 
G. schep (N. H. G. schief ; cf. §7, 6 (i)). 


§32. — I. P. G./ initial represents: 

(i) Germanic /, N. H. G. /. P. G. f»r3 (N. H. G. fahren, N. 
E. fare), R. P. fahre, O. H. G. faran ; P. G. ftell9 (N. H. G. 
fallen, N. E. fall), O. H. G.fallan ; P. G. frogO (N. H. G.fragen), 
cf. §12, 3 («) ; P. G. fremm (N. H. G. fremd, lex. N. E. strange), 
R. P./r^w^(N.), Westr. fremm (Sch.), O. H. G.framadu 

Under this section belong compounds with the prefix for and 
other forms written in N. H. G- with initial v. 

(2) (a) f in words <]N. E. P. G. ftmis (N. E. furnace, lex. 
N. H. G. schmelzofen) ; fcerdwell (N. E. farewell, lex. N. H. 
G. lebe wohl). 

(J)) ph in Greek and Latin and other words. P. G. fBrisedf 
(N. H. G. pharisaer, N. E. pharisee). 

2. P. G. medial y" represents: 

(i) Germanic/, N. H. G./. P. G. hBufs (N. H. G. haufen, N. 
E. heap), O. H. G. hfifo. 

Note I. — P. G. ff'==- N. H. G. ^<|] Germanic p by gemination 
and mutation. P. G. leffsl (N. H. G. loffel) ; P. G. effentlich 
(N. H. G. offendich); P. G. effning (N. H. G. oeffnung), cf. 
§13, I, note 3. 

Note 2. — P. G.y" occurs sporadically for N. H. G. / in SCS9- 
frili (N. H. G. sassaparille, N. E. sarsaparilla, in analogy with 
SBSdfrBs ?). 

Note 3.— P. G. hef9 (N. H. G. hefe?, lex. topfe, lex. N. E. 
pots, cf. A.-S. haef), O. H. G. heffo. 

3. P. G. final /represents: 

(i) (a) Germanic ;&, N. H. G./(cf. Br. Gr. §132). P. G. schlof 
(N. H. G. schlaf, N. E. sleep), R. P. schlof (N.), O. H. G. sl(iLf\ 
P. G. ref (N. H. G. reif, N. E. ripe). 

{S) N. H. G.ff. P. G. pBf (N. H. G. pfaffe, lex. N. E. priest, 
cf. pope). 


Denials d, i {tK). 

§33. — I. P. G. initial ^represents : 

(i) West Germanic d (Br. Gr. §162), N. H. G. /, P. G. dPg 
(N. H. G. tag, N. E. day), R. P. dag (N.), Westr. dah (Sch.), O. 
H. G. tac{g) ; P. G. del (N. H. G. teil, cf. §8, i (^)) ; P. G. d^'l 
(N. H. G. thai, N. E. dale), Westr. dal (Sch.), O, H. G. tal. 

Note I. — Exceptions are foreign words, as tBkt (N. H. G. takt, 
lex. N. R bar in music) ; teks (N. E. tax, N. H. G. iaxe^ lex. 
steuer), R. P. tax ; P. G. termin (N. H. G. termin, N. E. term, lex. 
limit). R. P. termin (N.); tBlenta (N. H. G. talente, N. E. 

Note 2. — P. G. occurs initially also in the combination tr side by 
side with dr^ thus giving rise to double forms, as dr^k, trpg (N. 
H. G. trage^ N. E. drag, lex. carry, wear) ; P. G. dreurd and 
tfBurt (N. H. G. trauern). For dzch cf. §38, i. 

2. Medial d in P. G. represents : 

(0 Germanic f, N. H. G. d. P. G. odsr or odd^r (N. H. G. 
Oder, N. E. other, lex. or), R. P. odder (N.), O. H. G. odor ; P. G. 
schedd (N. H. G. scheiden, lex. N. E. separate, divorce, cf. N. 
E. shed, sheath), O. H. G. sceidan ; P. G. ei>d9 (N. H. G. 
einladen, lex. N. E. invite), O. H. G, laddn. 

Note I.— Germanic d, N. H. G. //. P. G. mud (d) 9r (N. H. G. 
mutter, N. E. mother), R. P. modd*r (N.), motter (Sch.), O. H. 
G. muotar\ P. G. wed (d) ar (N. H. G. wetter, N. E. weather), R. 
P. wedder (N.), O. H. G. w'etar (cf. Br. Gr. §§163-4, an. i). 

3. Final d in P. G. represents occasionally : 

(i) Germanic d, N. H. G. /. P. G. mud (N. H. G. mut, N. E. 
mood), R. P. muth (N.), O. H. G. muoL This, however, gives 
rise to doublets, mud and mut, as d final and / final are easily 

(2) Germanic p in rare cases. P. G. mpd (N. H, G. magd, N. 

E. maid), R. P. mahd (N.), cf. M. H. G. nuU (maget\ O. H. G. 

magad^ Goth. fndga\s^ 


§34. — I. P. G. / initial represents: 

(i) N. H. G. in foreign words; cf. §33, i (i), note i. 

(2) In a few words represents older /. P. G. turm (N. H. G. 
turm, lex. N. E. tower), O. H. G. hirra. 

2. Medial / represents : 

(i) Germanic d, N. H. G. /. P. G. bdhitd (N. H. G. behuten, 
cf. N. E. heed) ; P. G. nedich (N. H. G. nothig, N. E. needy, 



lex. necessary). Here, too, double forms occur as in the case of d. 
P. G. bid(d)9r, bitCt)er (N. H. G. bitter, N. E, bitter). 

(2) N. H. G. / + z. P. G. hitz (N. H. G. hitze, N. E. heat) ; 
P. G. sitz (N. H. G. sitz, N. E. seat) ; P. G. dids (Horn), tit 
(Ranch) (N. H. G. zitze, N. E. teat). For foreign words cf. note 
under §33, 1,(1). 

3. Final / in P. G. represents : 

(i) (a) Germanic d, N. H. G. . P. G. hut (N. H. G. hut, 
lex. N. E. hat) ; P. G- haut (N. H. G. haut, N. E. hide), R. P. 
haut (N.) 

(*) N. H. G. / when following a consonant. P. G. krikt (N. 

H. G. kriegt) ; kunscht *(M. H. G. hunst). There are many 

forms in rf, however (cf. §33, 3 (i)), especially where a liquid 


§35. — In P. G., as in N. H. G., the sound ih is to be found only 
in foreign words. Even these borrowed words are usually so far 
Germanized in pronunciation as to lose the spirant quality of the 
th. Thus Ranch, the most English of all the P. G. lexicographers, 
gives only the isolated word theory (=z N. E. theory, N. H. G. 
theorie) under /. Orthographically ih (dh) is of frequent occur- 
rence, but is pronounced as simple / (d\ In some localities, how- 
ever, the pronunciation of this dh has at least a reminiscence of 
the aspirate as in N. E. daughter (cf. Br. Gr. §167 (b) (c), an. 1,2); 
cf. Fisher, A. M. and K. Z. 

Gutturals gf k^ ch (^). 

§36. — I. P. G. initial g represents : 

(i) Germanic jf, N. H. G.jf. P. G. ge, gend (N. H. G. gehen, 
N. E. go), Westr. geh (Sch.), O. H. G. giriy gdn ; P. G. gev9 
(cf. §25, 2 (i)); P. G. gift (N. H. G. gift, lex. N. E. poison; cf. 


Note I. — Initial consonantal combinations with g are gl^ gn, gr, 
P. G. glock CN. H. G. glocke, lex. N. E. bell, cf. clock) ; P. G. 
gnpd (N. H. G. gnade, lex. N. E. grace) ; P. G. gro (N. H. G. 
grau, cf. §25, 3). Doublets occur, as klock and glock, klick and 

2. Medial g in P. G. represents : 

(i) Germanic g, N. H. G. g, more strongly guttural in P. G. 
than in N. H. G. P. G. spg9 (N. H. G. sagen, N. E. say), R. P. 


stuhcy Westr. sah, sake (Sch.), O. H. G. s&gen ; P. G. drt^gd (N. 
H. G. tragen, N. E. draw, lex. carry), O. H. G. iragan. 

Note I. For Germanic^ (in P. G. generally pronounced palatal), 
c£ §24, I, (2)) ; P. G. moryd (N. H. G. morgen ; bceryd (N. H. 
G. berge). « 

(2) Germanic A, N. H. G.g. P. G. schlrgd (N. H. G. schlagen, 
N. E. slay) ; cf. R. P. schlage (N.), O. H. G. slahan, 

3. Final g in P. G. corresponds to Germanic g, P. G. s^g 
(N. H. G. sage, N. E. say), R. P. sag ; P. G. dpg (N. H. G. tag, c£ 
§33> I (!))• This ^ is often pronounced as ^; cf. §37, 3. 

§37. — I. P. G. k initial represents: 

(i) Germanic k, N. H. G. k. P. (5. k?f9 (N. H. G. kaufen, 
lex. N. E. buy, cf. adj. cheap and noun chapman), R. P., cf. ver- 
kaaft (N.), O. H. G. chouf6n\ P. G. kom (N. H. G. korn, N. E. 
corn) ; P. G. kenild (N. H. G. konnen, N. E. can) ; P. G. koch 
(N. H. G. koch, N. E. cook). 

(2) N. E. c in borrowed words. P. G. kolik (lex. N. H. G. 
magenkrampf, N. E. colic) ; P. G. koppchd (N. E. cup, lex. N. H. 
G. tasse), a curious compound formed on the N. E. cup+P. German 
diminutive 'Ch9 ; P. G. kreidr (N. E. crier, lex. N. H. G. aus- 

rufer); P. G. krundr (N. E. coroner, lex. N. H. G. todten- 

Note I. — Consonantal combinations with k are kl^ kn, kr^ kw. 
P. G. kloppa (N. H. G. kloppen, N. E. clap) ; P. G. kni (N. H. 
G. knie, N. E. knee) ; P. G. krBft (N. H. G. kraft, N. E. craft, 
lex. power) ; P. G. kwet (N. E. quoit, vulgarly pronounced quat, 
lex. N. H. G. wurfscheibe). 

2. Medial k {ck) in P. G. corresponds to Germanic k (ck), N. 
H. G. ck, P. G. knBckd (N. H. G. knacken, N. E. knock, lex. 
crack) ; P. G. rickd (N. H. G. riicken, cC §9, 2) ; P. G. schdeckd 
(N. H. G. stecken, N. E. stick.) 

Note I. — Simple k (not geminated) occurs in combination with 
a nasal or liquid. P. G. dBnkd CN. H. G. danken, N. E. thank) ; 
P. G. melkd (N. H. G. melken, N. E. milk). 

3. Final k corresponds to Germanic g or k alone, and in combi- 
nation with nasal or liquid. P. G. schdek (N. H. G. steg, lex. treppe, 
lex. N. E. stairs, foot-bridge), R. P. schteeg (N.), O. H. G. sfec ; P. 
G. schdBerk (N. H. G. starke, lex. N. E. strength, cf. starch) ; P. 
G. schbuk (N. H. G. spuk, N. E. lex. hobgoblin) ; P. G. schbunk 
and adj. schbunkich (<:^ N. E. spunk, spunky, lex. N. H. G. 



§38. — I. P. G. ch initial is wanting, as in N. H. G., except in a 
few foreign words. Even here it is pronounced regularly as k^ 
unless the word be borrowed from N. English. P. G. kor (N. H. 
G. chor, N. E. choir), but cf. P. G. dzcheck (N. E. check, lex. N. 
H. G. wechsel) ; dzchif (N. E. chief, lex. N. H. G. haupt). These 
all belong under §33, though often written as in English. 

2. Medial ch in P. G. represents : 

(i) The older spirant A in a few words. P. G. hochi schul 
(N. H. G. hohe schule, hochschule, N. E. high school) ; P. G. 
hech9r (N. H. G. hoher, N. E. higher) ; P. G. nechdr (N. H. G. 
naher, N. E. ** nigher,** lex. nearer). 

(2) Germanic k {c\ N. H. G. cK P. G. such9 (N. H. G. 
suchen, N. E. seek), O. H. G. suohhan (cf. Br. Gr. §150 ff.). 

3. Final ch occurs in P. G. much more frequently than in N. H. 
G. because g of the adjectival ending is pronounced regularly ch. 

Final ch represents : 

(i) Germanic ^, N. H. G. ch. P. G. degrich (N. H. G. teigich, 
N. E. doughy) ; P. G. meglich (N. H. G. moglich, lex. N. E. 
possible) ; P. G. tegUch (N. H. G. taglich. N. E. daily). 

(2) Germanic g, N. H. G. g. P. G. kenich (N. H. G. konig, 
N. E. king), O. H. G. chunig\ P. G. heifich (N. H. G. haufig, 
lex. N. E. frequently) ; P. G. Brrich (cf. §19, 2). 

Note I. — P. G. ch^ both medial and final, represents Germanic 
h where the latter became ch in N. H. G. P. G. iBchd (N. H. G, 
lachen, N. E. laugh), O. H. G. lahhen, lahhan ; P. G. nBcht (N. 
H. G. nacht, cf. §4 (i)). 


§39* — The letter h is aspirate in P. G. and is written in the 
present work only where pronounced. Some writers, however, 
follow the earlier N. H. G. orthography and write it as a sign of 
length. In P. G. A is pronounced only when initial either of a 
word or of a syllable, and represents Germanic h. P. G. hut (N. 
H. G. hut. N. E. hood, cf. §14 (i)); P. G. hBnd (N. H. G. hand, 
N. E. hand, cf. §4 (i)). For Germanic h before vowels cf. Br. Gr. 
§153; for. Germanic h which became P. G. ch cf. §38, 2, (i), note i. 


§40. — P. G. s is the voiceless spirant in all positions. P. G. sel 
(N. H. G. seele, N. E. soul, cf §8, i); P. G. hessd (N. H. G. 


heissen, N. E. hight) ; P. G. n?S (N. H. G. nase, N. E. nose). P. 
G. s occurs in the following consonantal combinations : sch, schp, 
schi, corresponding to N. H. G. and Germanic sp, st P. G. 
schte'' (N. H. G. stein, N. E. stone) ; P. G. schproch (N. H. G. 
sprache). This pronunciation of Germanic sp, si is extended to 
these combinations in all positions in P. G. and not restricted to 
the initial syllable as in N. H. G. ; cf. P. G. WBrscht (N. H. G. 
wurst); rBschbdl (N. H. G. raspel, c£ Brandt, §24). 

Nasalized Vowels. 

§41. — ^The question of nasality in German dialects is too intricate 
to be discussed at length in this paper. It will be possible here only 
to outline the subject to form a basis for the treatment of the 
phenomenon in P. G. Schmeller and Weinhold mention various 
phases of this phenomenon : (i) medial nasalization heard east 
of the Lech, bcL''in9^ so^nne (Sch. M. B. §548 if., 554, 566-7, cf. 
W. A. G. §§8, 200-201) ; (2) final nasalization (Sch. M. B. 554, 
581-5 ; W. B. G. §§169-71. Of this there are two developments : 
(a) from a vowel combination, zu". bey, brey", g'nau'^\ (b) from 
consonant element (usually after omission of the consonant : no'' 
(= noch), wei" ranch (= weihrauch). 

In P. G. we ^ndi final nasalization the most strongly represented. 
This takes place in the stem in flexional elements. In P. G. 
the vocalic elements assume nasality without changing their 
vocalic quality (cf. H. §4). 

P. G. occurs mediaJly only in cases where the nasalized syllable 
is separable. Ex. : P. G. i^'fBng^ (N. H. G. anfangen, lex. N. E. 
begin), and may hence be considered as one phase ol final nasali- 
zation, of which the following are examples : 

(i) Nasalization caused by «. P. G. sche^ (N. H. G. schon, lex. 
N. E. beautiful), R. P. schon (N. Z.), Westr. scho' (Sch.) ; P. G. 
schte " (N. H. G. stein, N. E. stone), R. P. schteen (N.) ; P. G. 
hi^ (N. H. G. hin, lex. N. E, hence); P. G. ge~ (N. H. G. gehn, 
N. E. go) is sometimes heard for gend. So also schte ~ for 


(2) Nasalization caused by other consonants, (a) by ck. P. 
P. no"* (N. H. G. nach, lex. N. E. after) is heard instead of the 
more regular form noch. Fisher, P. D. G. and K. Z., Horn, and 
Ranch have regularly nock, if it occurs alone. 

M. D. Learned. 

Critical and Exegetical Notes. 

1. It is well known that in fulness and explicitness of statement, 
Herodotus often reminds the reader of his great exemplar, Homer. 
Zeugmata and other modes of pregnant expression are practically 
unknown to his style. In VIII 124, however, we read : apiarifia fup 

wv tldotratf Evpi/Siad^; Acui^r irn(f>€afoPj <rwf>iri9 de kcu dc^ufnjror Be/uoroicXcir, 

KcA rovro> cT€<l>avop iXalrfs. In the present passage, dpiarrfia must be 
understood to mean the prize for general excellence^ not for mili- 
tary excellence alone, for it has as its complementary genitives 
vof^lr^i KT€, Thus, too, Schweighaeuser takes it in his lexicon: 
**praemium virtutis sive bellicae sive civilis" (VIII 123, 124, 11). 
While in his commentary Schw. passes by the words in question 
without remark, in his lexicon he quotes the passage with a com- 
plement of his own : " apurrfjia fitv (nempe dprrrjt iroXefUKrjs vel avdpaya- 

Oiris) Udoaav Eitpv^Mrj kt^. Blakesley (London, 1854) by his pointing 
shows that he feels the compression of the sentence and strives to 
render it as clear as possible : dpumfia fUv wv Zboaav Evpvpiddjj, cXoxV 

ar€<f)apov * troffiiTig di Koi df^t&nproSf 6€/u(rro/cXci, Koi tout^ aTf<f>apov cXati^r. 

Baehr (Leipzig, 1861) points a comma after the first crTf<f>a»ov. 
Stein practically supports the view of Schweighaeuser, but goes 
further in expressing it in his editing, for he assumes a lacuna 
before EvpvPiabji. l* he lacuna seems to be so evident that we 
have only to look for a specific correlative for o-cx^iijp. In Attic it 
would probably have been Mpelas, but Herodotus uses dv^payaSiri 
seven times (Sch weigh. 1. I 99 ; I 136 ; IV 65 ; V 39, 42 ; VI 128 ; 
VIII 166), whereas dpdprjtri occurs but once, VII 99. 

2. In Dinarcbus c Dem. 28 there is an avadiirXaa-is: luvBwrhs 

ovTos, 2i *A$rjP€uoi, luvBiorhs oMs €<m TroXauSr. I WOuld propose tO 

bracket the second o^or, this probably being due to dittographia 
of a copyist. It is exceedingly awkward and renders heavy the 
rhetorical iteration of which it is a part ; the emphasis — and there- 
fore this contrivance of emphasis — is concentrated on the predi- 
cate, not on the subject. Cf. Dinarchus' habit elsewhere : rdrc, £ 

NOTES. 341 

'a. n$rc, Dem. 76 ; /caX&r yhp h 'A., kolKw olvp&yovoi ntpi rourtov ^rj<f>urd' 
fi€VOi, C. AristOg. 24; tK€tvoi ^aaVf in^tyoif £ 'A., &^ioi (rvfifiovXoi, C. 

Dem. 40 ; anptP&s yhp tore, £ ^aBtivoioi, aKpipStt, &riy c. Philocr. 22— 
generally there is some one particular word. 

3. Din. c. AristOg. §15. The tradition reads : mI rtr ovk &v 

tyKokiatt^p vfuv roXs tovtov de;(o/ieWff avfiPovkoyl This reading 

makes the participle attributive, and implies that the Athenians 
receive, or admit, Aristogiton (the defendant in the case) as an 
adviser, actually then, or habitually. But the context and the 
argument do not agree with this. The entire matter is in sus- 
pense ; the efforts of the speaker are made to gain a verdict of 
guilty against Aristogiton, and thus averi that which is at the 
moment merely an ideal conHngency, The participle btxoiUvois 
contains tYi^ protasis to iyKak€<r€ifv &v. A slight change, I believe, 
will suffice to restore to the participle its appropriate force: kqX ris 

6vK Sv ey/caXco-cicy vfuv t oiovtop dtxofievois avyLpovKov] and who 

would not blame you in case you should (acquit this man and 
thus) admit such a person as an adviser ? 

4. In Din. c. Aristog. 15 I would suggest the insertion of ovdcV 

after oihencmort '. rhy dc Korapcerov tovtov tt dya$6v fuv v/xar ireiroirjKtv 
ovdcTTwiroT* ^ovWv^ ef ov irp6£ lify iro\iT€iav irpoat\^\v$€t cf. Kriiger 

Synt §67, 12. 

5. Plut. Lycurg. I3> 5 • Tpinyi' ^ pifrpav biapvripov^vovtn rov AvKovpyov 
r^v K«BiKvov<rav Ctrl rovg airroifg fro\*piov£ arpartvtiy^ Iva firj noWaKtg 
dfivy€aBat e^i^o/xryoc iroKtfUKol y4imyr<u. froXXaxir does not Seem tO be 

in the right place. In its present relation to tSiCdptvoi it is pleonastic 
and senseless, and it is absurd to assume that the Spartiates should 
have been enjoined from making war upon the same people, i. e. 
to limit all their wars against a particular people to a single occur- 
rence. I would therefore shift iroXXdxif as follows : r^y K»\vovtray 

^iroXXaiciff^ Ctrl tov£ airrovs ncXefuovt or/Mircucti', tva fifj dpvvtaOai 
^Bi{6fievot iroXtfUKol ytvcnrrM, 

6. Xen. Anab. I 10, 10 : /SacriXcvr irapafA€i^dp(vos tlf t6 avrb a-)^p4i 
rareonjo'fi' dvrlav t^v (f)aKayya &air€p ^Srt^ t6 irp&roy paxovfitpos avvjjei. 

The ellipsis otherwise is very strained, and &Tt could easily have 
dropped out through its juxtaposition to t6, 

7. lb. I 9, 10 : Koi Acyey Sri ovk Sv nort ^<f>i\ov£^ vpooiroy cVc* &tta^ 

(jhKos avrot£ iytyero — if this is taken not as referring particularly to 
the Milesian exiles, but as describing the bearing of Cyrus towards 


his friends in general, then, indeed, there is no visible reference to 
a^roiff. ^tXovff may have lapsed on account of the proximity of 

8. lb. II 2, 34* ^O'* ^f^^wraB* ^p frpoadoKei ftoi read Trpoff-dcty fun 

doiccv or frpotrdety doicct fioi* 

£. G. SiHLER. 

Thucydides VII 43, 16, irapayy^iXas de ntpB' rffi^p&p a-iria icai rovs 
\ido\6yovf Kcu TtKTOvas ndyrcu \afioitp Kai HWr/y vr a patr K€viju ro(€V' 
fidr »v re koI 6aa j^dct, tjp t^parwrif rtix^iovras €x*iv» 

The commentators since Kriiger (Classen, Stahl, van Herwerden, 
Boehme, Lamberton) have generally considered the text corrupt 
here. Kriiger's note on ro{c«/idT«v is simply, " Hier erwart' ich ein 
Oder kein anderes Wort." Madvig (Advers. Crit. I, p. 330) sus- 
tained Kriiger's objection in the following words : " Recte 
Kruegerus ro£€v/iara>y in muniendi apparatu munitionem miratur ; 
ad defendenda opera omni exercitu et omni telorum genere usuri 
erant. Videtur Thucydides /ioxXcv/uxr«y posuisse, machinas signi- 
ficans ad pondera movenda et sursum tollenda; etsi /xoxXevo), 
lioxktvnjiy fi6x^w<ns apud scriptores reperitur, fi6x^€vfM non reperi- 
tur." Stahl adds to Madvig's comment : " lam ante eum Meinekius 
in Herm. Ill, p. 360, \a(€VfMT<av coniecit, quod quanquam in lexicis 
non inveniretur, recte tamen a verbo Xa£cua» derivatum esset idem- 
que significaret atque IV 4, i, cndifpta UBovfyya. Idem tamen 
dubitat, an rofcv/iara hie sint tormenta, ut apud Procop. B. Goth. I 

27, rav re To^tvfiarvv rhg firjxav^s Koi rovs dft<f>\ ravrff (ravrar ?) re;^irar 
^p frapaa'K€vi €i\«. Sane iam Aen. Poliorc. 3^) ^ irvp(f>6pa ro^^vfiara 

inter firjxaynfxaTa affert ; sed rofeu/uira nullo addito indicio pro tor- 
mentis esse posse exemplis non probatur, et expeditionis Siciliensis 
tempore tormenta ad expugnandas munitiones nondum in usu 
erant Cf. Ritst. et Koech. Hist, rei mil. Gr. p. 207, 29. Herw. 

Mnem. nov. sen VIII, p. 298 delevit Koi SKXrjp irapaanevfip ro^ftdrap 

re, qualia conicere tam facile quam improbabile est. Quis enim 
talia adscripserit ? Probabilis emendatio nondum inventa est." ' 

Jo wett, in his note on this passage, sustains the traditional reading, 
saying, " The place of ro^vfiara between carpenters and siege 
implements affords no reason for doubting the reading. Archers 
were more needed in a siege than in battle." Lamberton evidently 
has this note in mind when he says (note on the passage), 
"Archers may be useful in a siege, but they have nothing to do 
with wall-building. The word is evidently wrong." 

NOTES. 343 

I believe that Jowett is right in retaining the reading, but I 
would translate, not as he does, " supply of arrows," but ^^ force 
of archers*^ For iro/xio-icev^ = force, c£ Thuc VI 31, 6 ; VII 36, 3. 
To^tvfjtarat meaning ** archers,** occurs Hdt. VI 112, 7, oCrt tmrov 

\map\ovfTrii arfn o(rr€ ro^cvftarooy ^ IX 49> ^^1 ^^ ^<'^ norafAov ydp <r<fn 
ovK i^TJv vdoop <f>opi€<r6ai (md re rav 29nrca>v jcal To^tvfjuxnoy \ Plut. Pyrrhus 
21, Ka\ iroXXa Karafii^s dKOvricrfAara koI ro^cvftara roif Brfpiots tirrjyf, C£ 

on-Xa for ^Xirat, Xen. Anab. II 2, 4; III 3, 7 ; 4, 26, and a2;(/Ai7 for 
alx/iTfTritt Find. 01. VII 19. 

Nicias took a " force of archers " especially for the purpose of 
warding off attacks of cavalry and sharpshooters, who would be 
sure to harass the Athenians while building. Against these hop- 
lites would be useless. In VI 22, 4, Nicias asks for roi&ras noWovs 

Koi (TififvbovijfraSi Sir»g irphs t6 €K^iv»v ImriKhv avrfx^^h ^^d in VII II, 9 
he states that Unr^vai re Koi dKotmarcus fiiaaBipres dv€x»pvja-afuy is ra 
Tfi\ri, If we compare VI 44, 4 (XiBoKoyovs /cm o<Ta €S TtiXiCfi^p tpyoKeia) 
with our passage (ica2 rovs \t$o\6yovs koX riierovas vayras \afimv koI SKkrjv 
irapa<rK€vriv To^tvpdrmv re Koi oata Idet, tiv KparSxrij mxiCoirras ^X^^^)* ^^ ^^^ 

that exactly the outfit Nicias took to Sicily for throwing up fortifica- 
tions Demosthenes took up on Epipolae, plus the archers. (As to 
the archers of the Athenian army, 480 went out with Nicias (VI 
43» 13)* others with Demosthenes later (VII 42, 6). In VII 43, 

16, Koi ofra ?dci, fjy Kporwriy rtixlCovras t\uv is exactly equal tO ical wra 

er Ttix'^trphv ipyaktta of VI 44, 4 ; and hence Classen is wrong in 
saying that " the context would lead us to expect aid^pia \i0ovpyd,** 

for this is implied in nal Saa Idci, fjv KparSttn, TiiX'iCovTas ^X'^f-v* 

Furthermore, besides the fact that neither p6^€viia nor Xcifcv/xa 
occurs in any Greek author, it seems to me a strong argument 
against these or any other emendations, that Thucydides does 
not in any passage referring to wall-building name any special 
implements. In IV 4, 2 he says simply atfirjpia fih \iSovpya oIk 

txovT€s \ VI 44) 4) "^^ ^^ ^^ r€ix^<rp6y cp^aXeia *, VI 88, 37» "^^^ r^Xa 
is t6v n€piT€ixiO'p6y, wkivBia koX aidtjpov. If he had USed fjidx^fvfia or 

Xd^fvfta or any like term here, we might have expect^ to find it 
in the similar connexions just mentioned. 

Charles Forster Smith. 


Die Gliederung der altattischen Komoedie, yon Dr. Thbodor Zielinski. 
Leipzig, 1885. 

In an article on the Agon of the Old Comedy (Am. Joamal of Philology, 
Vol. VIII, No. 2) I expressed a purpose to publish a second article on the same 
subject, and then to review the work of Zielinski. Unavoidable delay has 
rendered it necessary to combine the two articles, which is not to be regretted, 
inasmuch as I had very little to say not found in Zielinski. The article just 
referred to indicated sufficiently his views with regard to the Agon, except that 
the question of the absence of that part from three comedies of Aristophanes 
was deferred for future consideration. This part of his work we will now 
take up. 

As the plays which have no Agon may have lost it through a revision, Z. very 
properly opens the discussion with an examination of the one play which all 
concede to have been revised — the Clouds. The essential part of Z.'s conclu- 
sions agrees with what has already been recognized as indisputable : that the 
Agon of the original play has been removed, but portions of it are found in 
the revised play. He assumes the following propositions as already settled : 
I. The extant play was never acted. 2. The whole Parabasis, the great Agon, 
and the closing scene, were not in the original play. 3. Vv. 1 10-120 have been 
inserted ; w. 731-739 form a dittography of w. 723-730. 

As to the scenery, he holds that the inside of the phrontistery is never seen. 
Where persons after entering are still in view, a yard (or garden) is meant. 
This theory removes some of the seeming inconsistencies which have been 
ascribed to the revision. 

The principal change which the poet intended to make in the second play 
was this : in the first play the instruction of Strepsiades was successful ; in 
the revised play it fails, in order that Pheidippides may be introduced. Hence 
the repetitions in the much discussed meditation scene, 694-803. In the 
original play it was an external inconvenience that was encountered — the bed- 
bugs ; in the new play it was an internal, insuperable hindrance — sleepiness. 
In this, as in some other parts of the discussion, too much stress seems to be 
laid upon mere jokes. I see no evidence that Strepsiades was inclined to sleep 
at all, and any one who sees in 705 f. evidence to the contrary, must«find Aris- 
tophanes very dreary. The humor of the situation is exquisite. Still the con- 
clusions of Z. are not shaken by these minor considerations. He very properly 
disposes of the phallos difficulty by asserting that there was no phallos either 
in the first or in the second Clouds. But for the nonsense of a scholiast we should 
never have heard of a phallos in this play. 

As further consequences of the theory maintained by Z., not only the great 
Agon, but also the secondary Agon between Strepsiades and Pheidippides, 
belongs alone to the revised play. That such is the case is shown by the allu- 


sions to the play in Plato*s Apology of Socrates, where it is clear that the charge 
of corrupting the young was not in the play as acted. Moreover, the secondary 
Agon is a mere echo of the great one. Elsewhere in his work Z. sets up the 
theory that the choric parts of each play are in the same rhythm, and that a 
revision always involved a change of the rhythm. This theory works well with 
his theory of the revision of the Clouds. The attempts of the author to remove 
the obstacles encountered by his theory, and also the discussion of the causes 
that induced Aristophanes to commence and to abandon the revision, though 
interesting and suggestive, I must pass over. 

The Parodos of the Clouds is shown to be a piece of patchwork. It contains 
the EpithesiSf or, as Z. calls it, the Epirrhema of the Agon > of the first Clouds. 
It is very similar to that of the Birds. In the lost Aniepithesis or Antepirrhema, 
Chaos and the Tongue were no doubt Udded to the gods. Vv. 439-456 probably 
- formed the Epistasis or Pnigos of the Agon, though a Parodos as such may have 
a Pnigos. The theoretical substance of the whole Agon is given by the author. 
The Antode is 457-475 ; the AntikeUusma, 476 f. 

Thus we have an analogy after which we may judge other plays that may 
have been revised. The three plays without Agon are the Acharnians, Eirene, 
Thesmophoriazousai. We begin with the Acharnians. There is no tradition 
of a revision, but the play bears marks of one. We find very formal prepara- 
tions for an important contest between J^ikaiopolis and Lamachos ; but when 
the latter actually appears the scene is a mere farce ; and yet, when it is over, 
the Choros — the whole Choros too, although the Hemichoria were previously 
arrayed on opposite sides — says 'Av^p vixg, roiai Xdyotai, (These words, it is 
true, introduce the Parabasis, and of course do not constitute a formal /Crisis 
or Sphragis.) Now, precisely this scene, 593-619, has already been recognized 
by some scholars as an insulated passage ; and here alone, according to Z., 
Lamachos is strategos, being elsewhere lochagos. Especially do vv. 1071 ff. 
prove that he was lochagos or taxiarchos,' as all the generals would have been 
present at the council whence issued the orders here served on Lamachos. 

Further, it will be remembered that the Dialysis or Epirrhemation is a pair 
of tristichs, each uttered by one of the antagonists. Now, if one compares the 
Dialysis of Lysistrate, 608-613, which immediately precedes the Parabasis, with 
the six verses that separate the insulated scene from the Parabasis in the 
Acharnians, it will be scarcely possible to doubt that these verses form the 
Dialysis of a formal Agon. 

But how did the play get into its present form ? The Acharnians received 
the first prize at the Lenaia. The poet probably began to revise it for a reper- 
Vormance at the Great Dionysia — a thing which was actually dolle in the case 
of the Frogs — but for some reason abandoned the purpose. Changes of circum- 
stances .may have rendered the Agon inappropriate. This view is confirmed 
by the choric ode 1150 ff., where curses are imprecated upon^ Antimachos, bq 
kfii Kijvaia xopffyov diriieXeuTe ktL 

> The nomenclature of Z. it as follows: Ode, Katakeleusmos, Epirrhema, Pnigos; Antode, 
Antikatakeleusmos, Antepirrhema, Antipnigos ; Sphragis, Epirrhemation. 

3 There is room for difference of opinion here, and Z.'s treatment is not wholly satisfactory. 
The plural ^6x01, he says, is used in 1073 because several Adfiaxo*. are mentioned, X07Z. He 
disregards 9i in 1073, and makes no allusion to 575, & Aa^a^' iipoit, tmv k6^v xal tmi' Mx^^y. 
Of 568 he says : " dass er verderbt ut, folgt schon aus dem gleichen An&nge mit v. 566." This 
last is a sample of a species of too positive inference which mars the book in not a few passages.' 


It must be confessed that there is a difficulty in the fact that this play in its 
present form offers no place for an Agon except where the insulated scene 
stands. Where, then, was the new Agon to be inserted ? Or, if a revised 
play may dispense with the Agon, why not an original play? Still this diffi- 
culty is not insurmountable, and it may be regarded as highly probable that 
the play at first had an Agon. 

Another play without Agon is Eirene. My own attempts to offer a plausible 
explanation of the present form of the play on the theory that it originally had 
an Agon, had proved fruitless^ Zielinski's theory is exceedingly ingenious, 
and his discussion displays much acuteness; but still we feel that this is the 
weakest case in favor of the universal use of the Agon. I shall give a brief 
outline. There were two plays which bore the name ElpTv?. That one of 
these was a revised form of the other, and that we have the revised play, is 
rendered probable by the allusions to Kleon, 268 ff., 313 ff., 647 ff., and, as Z. 
claims, 45 ff. Kleon was dead before the date assigned to the play. The 
objection that the play was nevertheless performed is not fatal ; for the poet 
was vastly more likely to leave inconsistencies and inappropriate allusions in 
a revised play than he was to insert them in a new play. Another objection, 
however, appears more serious : it was performed as we have it, and it contains 
no Agon. But what if the play was reproduced, not as a comedy, but as the 
substitute for a festal oration (Festrede) ? Such was, according to Z., actually 
the case. A statue of Eirene was to be dedicated, hence the figure that could 
not speak (657) ; it had been begun by Pheidias, hence the hitherto unex- 
plained verse 605 ; the dedicatory ceremonies were real, hence they take place 
in full view (not behind the scenes) and in the presence of women (963 f.). 
In this last passage, however, some will see evidence that women were not 
there ; and as to the statue representing Eirene, Z. disregards a serious diffi- 
culty. In favor of his view he cites Schol. Plat. 331 B, KUfUitSetToi Ak ('Apt- 
aroi^vJK:) fir* ical rd rjyf TLipfptfK icohtaaiKdv i^^pev (k^ifupev ?) hyakfia^ E&TroAtc A irro- 
XvK(fi^ H^Atuv 'NtKaic, This does, indeed, show that Eirene was represented by 
a statue ; but does it not disprove the theory that it was a statue of Pheidias, 
produced for the purpose of dedication? On the other hand, some of tlie 
details which I omit add strength to the theory. 

Finally, there is no Agon in Thesmophoriazousai, except an insignificant 
Epithesis introduced by a Kekusma^ 531 ff. The assumption that the two plays 
that bore this name were entirely distinct, rests on inadequate evidence. More- 
over, the fact that the lost play is cited as dehrspai does not prove that it was 
chronologically subsequent. The designations irp&repat or a', devrepai (eTepai) 
or p', are frequently used to denote respectively the well known play and the* 
less known. This usage was not uniform; accordingly the lost Thesmo- 
phoriazousai (Frag. 334 K) is called trpdrepiu by Hephaistion. Now, if one 
was a revision, it is a /n>n probable that it is the extant play. It will be seen 
that there are internal evidences that this is the case. 

The lost play represented the last day of the Thesmophoria — the Kalli- 
geneia; the extant play represents the middle day (Z. inadvertently says the 
third)— the Nesteia. This was a day of fasting, on which no sacrifices were 
offered ; cf. Schol. Thesm. 376, and especially Ar. Av. I5i9» oX^* oatrepel QeafjiO' 
^ptoic vjffrreifOfjiev, | &vev dwf^uv, (Mika's wine bottle was smuggled in, and her 
food was partaken of stealthily.) And yet Mnesilochos says, 284 f., a> Op^rrra, 


T^ Kttmjv KdBeXe, K^t* e^e?^ \ rd ir67rav\ oTwf XaPmaa Oiuu ralv Seaiv. 
This eyidently belongs to the lost play, the Kalligeneia. Again, Mnesilochos 
bids the servant withdraw, (Jo(fAo<f yap ovk k^em' dicoveiv tuv ^dyuv, whereas 
slaves are present in the rest of the play. The 2.6yoi here belong to the sacri- 
ficial ceremony of the Kalligeneia ; cf. Isae. de Phil, hered. 49, 3 ; [Dem.] 
Neaer. 74 if. The senseless verse 80, kinl rpirtf '<rrt Qeofio<popiuv i fiimi is a 
confusion of kweiTep etnl Oeefio^picw ^ Tpirrf (Kalligeneia) with e. e, G. rj /ii<T7j 
(Nesteia). Z. points out other marks of revision, dwelling especially upon 
the amoebaean prayer 295 fT., which he redistributes with ingenuity ; but the 
most important evidence is the following : At the opening of the play the 
Muses appear, prepared to take part in the Thesmophoria ; for that the Choros 
(i. e. Hemichorion) which utters 104 ff. is composed of Muses is obvious from 
40 f., iniS/fuei yap | diaaoq povaCw Mov fieMBpuw, and that they are to take part 
in the festival is shown by loi, lepav x^taig de^&jnevai ^afiwdSa Kovpai. This 
is confirmed by a passage in the Bioc EvpiviSov : ^iyowi Sk koI bri ywalxeg did 
Tohc V^^owf o^)f tTToiet eig airrdf did, tov noifffi&ruv roZf Qeafio^piotg kniaTTfaav avTift 
PovXdfievai dve^eiv * iipeiaavro Si avTov rrpurov fiiv 6 id rdg Mohaag^ 
hretra 6e pe^tuaafjihfov fujKkri avrdg KOKog kpeiv. That this is one of those 
absurd instances of confusion of the substance of a play with historical facts, 
is clear ; nor can there be reasonable doubt that the play in this case is the lost 
Thesmophoriazousai, its substance, as here given, being the same as that of the 
extant play except as to the presence of the Muses. Now compare this with a 
fragment (344 K) of the Kalligeneia, fi^re Moi'o-ac dvaKa?.dv ehjcopoarpOxovg, | 
fi^e Xaptrag fhav eif x^P^ *OJ{vfimac • | hddde ydp niaiv^ o>q ^rjotv 6 diddoKaXog. 
So the Muses and the Graces were already present ; and nine Muses plus three 
Graces make twelve Choreutai — a Hemichorion. And how appropriate, since 
Euripides himself says (Here. F. 673), rag Xdptrag Movtratg ovyKaTafiiyvi;^^ 
^iarrpf av^vyiav. In the Ravennas of the Nesteia, before the ode 659 if. 
stands f}fuxdpiov ywaiKuv, as if the other half-choros were not of women. This 
came over from the Kalligeneia. 

The dvrixopia, thus established, points to an Agon in which the'Muses and 
the Graces espoused the cause of Euripides, at least in so far as to save him 
from destruction. 

The fragments of the lost play fully confirm this view in several ways, and 
allude to the contest ; and the extant play, just like the revised Clouds, retains 
from the first play a Keltusnia (381 f.), which is followed by trimeters. 

At this point the author enters into a long and learned investigation as to 
the time of the performance of the Kalligeneia. He makes it tolerably clear 
that the Nesteia was never performed, and that the revision was never com- 
pleted. It must, however, be confessed that, as in the case of the Acharnians, 
it is difficult to see how or where the poet would have inserted the Agon ; but 
my statement in the article on the Agon is sustained — that we are not justified 
in assuming that we know of any play of the old comedy that was certainly 
composed without an Agon. 

So far I have spoken of the author's special discussion of the Agon. We 
now turn to the work as a whole. Its ultimate object is to lay the foundations 
and furnish well prepared materials for a history of Greek comedy as distin- 
guished from a mere history of comic authors. He holds that it is now time 
to cast aside the theories of ancients in the science of philology, as has long 


since been done in other sciences, much less to strain their statements beyond 
their intended scope, as has been done by applying to comedy Aristotle's 
treatment of tragedy. The difference between the form of tragedy and that 
of comedy Z. defines as follows : " Wenn auf ein voiles, aus Strophe und Anti- 
strophe bestehendes Lied eine unbestimmte Anzahl gesprochener Verse folgt, 
dann wieder ein voiles Lied, hierauf abermals gesprochene Verse, sohaben wir 
es mit der epeisodischen Composition zu tun ; diese ist der Tragoedie eigen. 
Wenn dagegen auf die Strophe des Liedes unmittelb^r eine bestimmte Anzahl 
gesprochener Verse folgt, und dieselbe Anzahl der Antistrophe angehfingt ist, 
so dass der ganze Abschnitt in zwei gleiche Telle zerflLllt, von denen jeder von 
einem ^Xoq und einer i^oi^ besteht, und die sich zu einander wie Strophe und 
Antistrophe veihalten — dann haben wir die epirrhematiscke Composition vor 
nns ; diese koromt in der Komoedie zur Geltung." 

The work is divided into two parts. In the first — ^*' The Theory of Epirrhe- 
matic Composition "—are treated the Agon, the Parodos and Parabasis, Syzy- 
gies and Epeisodia ; in the second — *' The Influence of the Dance on the 
Form *' (das Moment der Choreutik) — are treated Antichoria, Manner of Recit- 
ing, Errhythmy of Choric Odes, Eurhythmy and Symmetry. 

The treatment of the Agon has already been presented ; we next take up the 
Parodos and Parabasis. It is an error to apply to comedy what Aristotle and 
Anonymus XI say of tragedy. Wholly inadequate is the definition which 
makes the Parodos '* the first passage uttered by the Choros." The Parodos of 
the Clouds, for instance, does not begin with v. 275, but with 263 ; nor does 
it end with 313, but 456. There may be a secondary Parodos when there is a 
secondary Choros, and a second Parodos when the Choros, after leaving the 
Orchestra, returns. 

The composition of the Parodos is looser than that of the Agon, but Z. finds 
Odai and Epirrhemata everywhere. He attempts to analyze every extant 
Parodos. That of the Achamians, for instance, zonKsXn^ part first : Epirrhema 
(204-207), Ode (208-218), Antepirrhema (219-222), Antode (223-233), Epirrhe- 
mation (234-241); then follows an interscene (242-279) ; then part secorui: 
Kommation (280-283), Ode (284-302), Epirrhema (303-318), Antepirrhema 
(319-334), Antode (335-346). Here, in the very first example, we see that the 
definition of epirrhematic composition has to be modified ; the second part (if 
we denote lyric passages by a and tetrametric by i) has the form abba. 
Most readers would see only a b a^ and the author's separation of b into two 
parts is not wholly convincing. The analysis of the other Parodoi I omit.^ 

The Thesmophoriazousai has no Parodos — proof enough that the play is 
incomplete. The original Parodos was probably, like that of the Frogs, an 
adaptation of a mystic procession with appropriate hymns, hence not epirrhe- 

> On Nub. 991-397, Z. says : " Hier mllssen einige Verse ausgefallen sein. Denn wahrend zu 
Anfang des Antepirrhemas die Wolken noch als unsichtbar gedacht werden, fragt Strepsiades 
im anapaestischen Gedicht, das vom Antepirrhema nur durch die Antode getrennt ist, ob sic 
Heroinen seien. Das setzt ihre Erscheinung voraus ; aus dem Gesange allein konnte er ihr 
Geschlecht nicht entoehmen." One would think Sirepsiades might take their word for it 
without demanding ocular demonstration. The Antode, which he has just heard, begins 
VLapBivoi. hfifipo^opoi. Moreover, their voices could be (conventionally) female. Erroneous 
appears also the theory that in the Parodos of the Wasps the lamp-carriers actually ran off* 
f»om the Choreutai, and that viray', & irat, virayc is a call for them to return. 


matic. Here Z. discusses at length the question of the second performance of 
the Frogs, finding many marks of a revision, that is a didpStiXTic, not a dtaffKivff. 

The classification of Parodoi might be based upon the rhythm, which is 
adapted to the substance, some being trochaic, some iambic, some anapaestic. 
A complex Parodos, like that of the Wasps, may vary its rhythm. 

Another basis of classification might be the arrangement of the Odai and 
Epirrhemata. Some Parodoi, like the Agon, have the form aiad, sls Vesp. II 
and III, Lys. I, Eccl. II : some, the form 6 aba, as Acham. I, Nub. I, Eccl. I ; 
some, by chiasm, abba^zs Acham. II, and baab.SLS Pax ; finally bbaa occurs 
in Vesp. I. The remaining possible form aabb does not occur. 

In the Agon only actors can take part in the Epirrhemata ; in the Parabasis 
only Choreutai ; in the Parodos, both may take part, though originally only 
Choreutai could take part. The change probably occurred with the introduc- 
tion of the Prologue. 

Down to B. C. 422, that is, in Acham., Equit., Nub., the Choros enters and 
remains in the Orchestra during the Parodos. From B. C. 422 to 405, that is, 
in yesp., Pax, Av., Lys., and Ran., the Parodos included an &vo6o^ to the 
Logeion, and a Kddodog, From B. C. 405 on, that is, in Eccl., Plut., the Choros 
is again restricted to the Orchestra. 

In the Parodos the Pnigos is rare, and still more the Katakeleusmos (bor- 
rowed probably from the Agon). Proodic and mesodic verses occur as in the 
Agon, subject to the same metrical restrictions. The Epirrhemation occurs, but 
has the metre of Epirrhemata, not the iambic trimeter as in the Agon. 

In some plays a sort of Parodos is provided for important actors, as Equit. 

The Parabasis has been more fully explored by previous writers. To the seven 
usually recognized parts, our author adds another Pnigos and an Antipnigos, 
of course as iK0iaetc to the Epirrhema and Antepirrhema. No Parabasis 
exhibits all the nine parts. In Pax 11 27-1 190 are found the Pnige. 

In the history of the Parabasis three periods may be noted: i. The first 
six plays have a chief Parabasis with a^rAa and Syzygy, and a secondary Para- 
basis consisting of a Syzygy without dnXa, 2. From B. C. 414 to 404, three 
plays exhibit each only one more or less defective Parabasis. 3. After 404, 
two plays exhibit no Parabasis at all. In this period the Agon contains a 
simple EpicheiresiSf and the Choros is restricted to the Orchestra. 

The Parabasis having originally been a sort of epilogue to the play, the later 
Exodos never received a full development. An analysis of the Exodoi yields 
no results except that they are composed in a long metre, and the nature of the 
k^ddta marks three periods : x. when the i^66ia were existing familiar hymns ; 
2. B. C. 422-413, when the poet composed e^Mia of his own ; 3. when the old 
usage was resumed. 

In the third chapter the author discusses the extension of epirrhematic com- 
position beyond the limits of the Parodos, Agon, and Parabasis. Three 
different kinds of composition are found. First, there are Syzygies in which 
the Ode and Antode occur as in the Parabasis, but the Epirrhemata are 
parallel scenes in iambic trimeters ; and even the parallelism sometimes 
vanishes. Secondly, the epirrhematic composition is abandoned, and Epeisodia, 
alternating with Stasima, appear. There is no Epodos, because of the organ i- 


zation of the comic Choros, to be discussed in the sequel. Thirdly, the Inter- 
scene, a sort of Epeisodion without Chorikon, is sometimes employed. 

At this point the author gives a complete analysis of all the plays of Aris- 
tophanes. As a sample I give that of the Knights : Vv. 1-241 Prologue, 242- 
302 Parados, 303-460 secondary Agon, 461-497 Interscene, 498-610 Parabasis, 
611-755 Syzygy, 756-940 Agon, 941-972 Epeisodion 1,973-996 Stasimon I, 
997-11 10 Epeisodion 11,1111-1150 Stasimon 11,1151-1262 Epeisodion III, 
1 263-1 31 5 secondary Parabasis, 131 6 ff. Exodos. 

Epeisodia occur only after the Parabasis. The Interscene was probably 
introduced to give the Choros a rest between the Parodos (originally recited 
entirely by the Choros) and the Ode of the Agon. As the Antepirrhema and 
Antipnigos of the Agon were recited by actors, the Choros indeed rested, but 
the flute-player did not ; hence the Epirrhemation (($<dXuj<c) to give him time 
to catch his breath. Here it seems to me there is too much refinement. 

Comedy, then, had some parts that were characteristic of tragedy ; did 
tragedy, in like manner, admit any epirrhematic passages? The author finds 
Syzygies representing Stasima, and Syzygies representing Epeisodia. ^The 
phenomenon does not appear in Euripides. The two species of drama, accord- 
ing to Z., did not borrow these features from each other. The question, in its 
relation to tragedy, he does not discuss ; but the Epeisodia of comedy were due 
to a fusion of the Doric (epeisodic) with the Ionic (epirrhematic) comedy. 
As in architecture, and otherwise, the Athenians combined characteristics of 
both races, so in comedy are seen the effects of the Doric lyre and the Ionian 
flute. An ingenious but rather fanciful origin of Ode and Epirrhema from a 
flute contest is here proposed.^ 

The first chapter of the second part treats of avrixopia. First are investi- 
gated some of the theories as to the portion of the Choros that sung or recited 
the different choric parts, but especially the " Einzelchoreuten " theory of R. 
A mold t is combated.* 

Z. sets up this law : A single CfunruUs may be represented by an actor^ the whole 
Choros never ; that is, in passages which correspond to each other, if the Choros 
appears in one, and an actor at the same place in the other, *' Choros " means 
a single Choreutes. This occurs in the ye^vptofioi in the Parodos of the Frogs ; 
cf. also Acharn. 929-939 = 940-951. Further, in the Agon the Katakeleusmoi 
belong in form to the Epirrhemata (recited by actors), and hence must have 
been uttered by one Choreutes. It is thus rendered probable that the Epir- 
rhemata in other parts of a play were recited by single Choreutai, when they 
belong to the Choros. 

But who sang the Odai ? In tragedy there are Strophe and Antistrophe, 
implying movement and countermovement of the same persons ; and then there 
is Epodos. In comedy there are ffiS^ and dvr^Ji^, without Epodos, and it is 

1 1 do not understand the notion that in the song of the Chelidonizontes (Bergk, Poet. Lyr. 
Ill, p. 671) a certain part bears marks of improvisation, and if improvised, must have been 
sung by only one. Did it come to us through a stenographer? 

3 Unfortunately, in the midst of his triumph over Arnoldt, he exclaims, "Aber sollte es R. 
Arnoldt wirklich entgangsein, dass der Gebrauch von vii ^ta in negativen Saizen abaolut 
ungriechisch ist ? " The'examples known to me, some of which are nowhere cited, are : Pax 
ai8, Thesm. 551,640, Lys. 360; Diphil. 3a. 25; Antiph. 158. 6; Philetaer. 4; Plat. Theag. 
130 B {vTi Toi>s Btovi). Some of these may be doubtful, and some due to special causes ; but it 
is not possible to explain all away. 


obvious that ^6zfv and avrgidetv have reference to different sets of singers. 
Moreover, it is attested that in the 6nr?ia of the Parabasis the Choreutai 
arranged themselves avriTrpdauKov aAP^^^f. Hence the Ode belongs to the 
first Hemichorion, the Epirrhema to its leader (Koryphaios) ; the Antode to the 
second Hemichorion, the Antepirrhema to its leader. For the relative position 
of the Hemichoria, cf. Av. 352 f., Equit. 243. Such is Antichoria. Here Z. 
gives several further illustrations, and discusses the attitude of the Choros in 
Lysistrate, where there is dixopia. He finds double Antichoria ; but in the 
Agon, of course, ordinary Antichoria. In Ekklesiazousal there seems to have 
been but one Hemichorion : all the parts are single, and in the second Parodos 
the Epirrhemation is divided between the Choros and an actor (Praxagora). 
In Plutos only the Koryphaios is a singer ; hence in the Parodos, the Antodai 
are sung by an actor (Karion). 

Where there are Stasima in comedy, Antichoria is still to be assumed. 
Before Sophokles a Choros consisted of twelve members. In comedy two 
such Choroi, called Hemichoria, were employed for the sake of Antichoria. 
The superiority of the comic to the tragic Choros was only apparent ; but it 
would have been real if there had been no Antichoria in the Stasima of comedy. 
In some exceptional cases, however, such as the Ode Av. 400-405, and Exodia 
generally, the whole Choros seems to have sung. 

From this theory naturally flows another : in tragedy there was no Anti- 
choria. The author maintains that HMIX. in the MSS of tragedy means the 
Koryphaios or a single Choreutes. At this point C. Muff and O. Hense pass 
under review, and their doctrines are condemned. The nearest we have to 
Antichoria is in Aischylos, first in Suppl. 1018 ff., where it is Dichoria analo- 
gous to that in Lysistrate, which is there combined with Antichoria ; then in 
the Exodos of Eumen. we find Dichoria, and finally in the Exodos of Theb. 
Numerous details I omit here, as elsewhere. 

The manner of reciting (Vortragsweise) is discussed in the next chapter. 
Here are to be found many combinations revealing great acuteness and pene- 
tration on the part of the author ; and if to me the conclusions do not in all 
cases seem secure, that may be due to my want of familiarity with the subject. 

The author finds in the Attic comedy all the four types of our day : song, 
recitative, melodrama, conversation. The melodramatic type, a recent crea- 
tion in modern times, was at Athens created between Archilochos and Aris- 

The style of recitation is closely related to the form of verse and the 
structure of passages. Metrically comedy contains ukhj and htrji ; as to structure 
it contains Odai and Epirrhemata. But ftiT^ and lirrf do not correspond 
respectively with Odai and Epirrhemata ; for fii'kri^ in addition to pure ]yric 
verse, include what Z. calls the Ionic Strophe, composed in iambotrochaic or 
(anaclastic) Ionic rhythm, and this same rhythm may be used in Epirrhemata 
as well as in Odai. That is, iikTiij include Doric Strophe and Ionic Strophe ; 
hrii include Epe proper (tetrameters and dimeters) and trimeters; while Odai 
include Doric Strophe and Ionic Strophe in part, and Epirrhemata include 
trimeters, Epe proper, and Ionic Strophe in part. 

A difi'erence in the style of recitation was accompanied by a difference in 
metrical treatment of the same verse. For instance, when the Choros recites 
iambic trimeters, these are Inrj as in tragedy, not V^<a^ ^^^C» &nd they have the 


tragic structure. The neglect of Porson's law I have spoken of elsewhere, 
llie treatment of the iambic tetrameter is analogous. So the trochaic tetra- 
meter, which exhibits but two types, the other verses mentioned exhibiting 
three. The anapaestic tetrameter has but one form. Here I must pass over an 
interesting discussion of the three types of iambic tetrameter, and the differ- 
ence between the trimeters as It:ti in tragedy and as •<^0^ Xi§i€ in comedy. 
Whenever in comedy we hear of iinj^ tetrameters are meant.* 

In the third chapter of the second part is discussed Errhythmy of the choric 
odes. Here the author points out the dififerences between Aeolo-Doric and 
Ionic composition, in Harmony, in Rhythmic, and in Structure. He enume- 
rates all the Ionic Strophai of Aristophanes, and discusses also the Doric. In 
the former Errhythmy — ^uniformity of rhythm — is invariably found ; in the 
latter the exceptions are limited, and the fieraPoXai due to special causes. 

An examination of the choric parts of all the plays leads to the following 
conclusions: i. Errhythmy is maintained not only through each choric pas- 
sage, but throughout the choric passages of each play. 2. The revision of a 
play always affects the music, and so the rhythm. This may be utilized in 
determining what is old and what is new in the case of a play, such as the 
Clouds, whose revision was not completed. 

The secondary Parodoi have a special law : they occur only when the main 
Parodos is trochaic, and they must be in Ionic rhythm. 

In the last chapter of this part are discussed Eurhythmy and Symmetry. 
The investigation begins with the Parabasis. As the tetrameter has four bars, 
so four verses make a Strophe, and four Strophai a Perikope (16 verses). In 
the Parabasis the Epirrhemata ordinarily have this number of verses, but 
sometimes eight and sometimes twenty. The Epirrhema and Antepirrhema 
have the same number, that is, the music repeats. 

In the Parodos the sailing is not so plain. In Acharnians I all is normal. In 
Acharnians II, w. 303-334 are divided into two Perikopai, hence ad da. In 
Equit. 242-283 there is some trouble. In the Clouds a strange phenomenon 
occurs. The tetrameters of the Parodos, though not at all symmetrically 
divided by the lyric passages, still number 144 — nine Perikopai. To omit the 
intervening Parodoi, we find also in Av. 268-386 that the tetrameters are not 
symmetrically divided by the chorika, but still number just 96 — ^six Perikopai. 
On these facts Z. remarks : ** Hier einen Zufall sehen wollen hiesse fUr jede 
philologische Combination den Bodfen entziehen. Schon fUr einmal w&re es 
hOchst seltsam, wenn die Teilbarkeit durch eine so grosse Einheit, wie die 
Zahl 16 es ist, auf Zufall beruhen sollte ; fttr zwei derartige F&Ue ist es einfach 
unm5glich.*' Wiih this I must take issue. For one instance the chance is I 
in 16 ; for two, i in 256, and 256 is far from infinity. But nothing convinces 
like examples ; so I give a few. The idea enters my head that Aristophanes 
wrote his entire plays by sixteens. I turn to Dindorfs text (the one I always use) 
and find in the first play, the Acharnians, that the number is 1232 = 77 X 16— 
seventy-seven Perikopai. ** Schon fiir einmal wjlre es hSchst seltsam," u. s. w. 
I try the next play, the Knights, and find 1408 = 88 X 16 — eighty-eight Peri- 
kopai ! The law is proved, and we need not examine any further, for *' fUr 
zwei derartige Falle ist es einfach unmOglich." The hypothesis to Oidipoas 
Tyrannos contains 16 verses ; the Oracle, the Riddle, and the Solution together 
make another Perikope. The Prologos of the Frogs contains 208 verses =: 


13 X 16, the Embaterion of the Persians 64, that of Agamemnon 64. That all 
these coincidences are due to chance is demonstrable. 

The Agon is still more stubborn. Eight Epirrhemata with their eight Ant- 
epirrhemata are indivisible by 16, and in only one instance of these eight is the 
number in the Epirrhema the same as that in the Antepirrhema. A panacea 
is found. All the figures are expanded to the next higher multiple of 16, by 
assuming a pause in the recitation while the music continued. In one or two 
cases this seems plausible, in some highly improbable. In the Knights II 68 
is in this way expanded to 80, and in the Wasps pauses amounting to 11 tetra- 
meters are necessary. I do not deny the possibility of this ; but it is the least 
satisfactory part of the whole work. And yet, according to Z., the whole theory 
of epirrhematic composition depends upon the correspondence of Epirrhema 
and Antepirrhema. It seems to me possible that there should be a corres- 
pondence of another sort, which I shall not discuss here. In any case it 
appears to me that there is an obstacle to exact musical correspondence : ' some- 
times the Epirrhema and Antepirrhema are in different rhythms, anapaestic and 
iambic, or vice versa?- 

The Pnigos of the Parodos shows neither Eurhythmy nor Symmetry, while 
that of the Parabasis shows Symmetry. In the Agon it shows Symmetry in 
some cases. In the napd^affig proper-— the Anapaests — there is no Symmetry. 
The author challenges any one to produce Symmetry here as readily as he has 
done it in the epirrhematic parts. 

Likewise in the Syzygies, where there is no dance, there is no trace of 
Eurhythmy or Symmetry. 

The work closes with an adverse criticism of the " grosse Responsion '* 
theory. At the end are lithographs in the form of spectra, presenting clearly 
to the eye the complete analysis of several tragedies and comedies. 

In my article on the Agon I characterized Zielin ski's work as one of great 

importance. The perusal of several adverse reviews by German scholars has 

not changed my opinion. That the book contains numerous errors in details, 

I intimated in that article, and it must be conceded that the tone is rather 

vigorously polemic, and the self-confidence sometimes too great for security ; 

but it would be an easy matter to point out worse errors in some of the adverse 

criticisms of the work than in the work itself. Yet it is proper to state that I 

have not called attention to all the errors I observed, but have merely noted a 

sufficient proportion of them. To enumerate all the errors and give one-tenth 

of the truths would make on readers who have not seen it a false impression 

in regard to the merits of a book which, in my opinion, is 'destined to create 

an epoch in the study of the Greek drama. 

Milton W. Humphreys. 

An Introduction to Greek Epigraphy. Part I. The Archaic Inscriptions and 
the Greek Alphabet ; edited for Ihe Syndics of the University Press by E. 
S. ROBEKTS, M. A. Cambridge, 1887. xxii, 419 pp. 

Not the least service rendered the science of Greek epigraphy by Sir Charles 
Newton, the eminent keeper of the antiquities of the British Museum, was 

> The theory does not demand that the Epirrhema and Antepirrhema should necessarily 
have the same number of verses, but should each be made up of even Perikopai so that the 
same music could be used ; but the rhythm surely could not change. 


his papers on inscriptions in the Contemporary Review for December 1876, 
and in the Nineteenth Century, June and August 1878. These papers proved 
the stimulus to no less than two important works on epigraphy, the one in 
France, the other in England. Salomon Reinach, in his Traite dJ^pigraphie^ 
published in 1885, a work which created an epoch in the history of classical 
philology in a country renowned for its epigraphists, confesses with what admi- 
ration he perused the elegant and lucid essays which so happily collected the 
scattered rays of light cast by the inscriptions upon the political, social and 
religious life of Greece. Scarcely three years after the publication of Reinach's 
comprehensive treatise, Mr. Roberts pays his tribute to the same sources of 
inspiration, now collected by their author in the volume entitled Essays an Art 
and Archaeology (1880). 

Greek epigraphy is in fact in the air. The Corpus is now progressing towards 
a second edition ; England has already given us a manual of historical inscrip* 
tions ;' Germany, the dialect collection of Cauer, and that of Dittenberger, of 
wider scope ; and latest of all, the last work of Gustav Hinrichs was his 
Griechische Epigraphiky rich here and there in its collection of material, but 
not animated by that freshness of contact with the inscriptions which is such 
a happy feature of Reinach's Traits, It is no fortuitous circumstance that 
within the brief compass of three years we should have become richer by 
no less than three treatises on a subject that had remained, not unexplored, it 
it is true, but not worked up as a whole and in its larger aspects, since the 
days of Franz' EUmenta^ now nigh half a century. The last decade has been 
fruitful in discoveries of capital importance, and the time seems to have 
arrived when at least a preliminary sketch of the work accomplished is pos- 
sible. We retrace our steps to gain impetus. The great question in the 
history of the Greek alphabet — when and in what way the Phoenician char- 
acters were transplanted to Hellenic soil — has, it is true, as Kirchhoff says in 
the preface to the fourth edition of his Studien^ not been settled, but it has been 
brought much nearer to a definite solution by the results of the work of the 
last ten years, even though the labors of Taylor, Clermont-Ganneau, Wilamo- 
witz, and Gardthausen be regarded as following a deceptive and unsatisfactory 

Students of literature are now alive to the necessity of keeping pace with 
the progress of epigraphical knowledge. Epigraphy and dialectology go hand 
in hand even in their treatment at the hands of scholars. Franz's Ekmenta 
remained unsuperseded by another manual for forty-five years, Ahrens' 
Dialects for forty-two years. No one who has not made it his daily occupation 
to deal with the fascinating problem of the birth and growth of Greek forms, 
can realize to what extent the dialectologist is indebted to his brother epigraphist. 
Thus the delimitation by Meisterhans of the date in Attic inscriptions (550 
B. C.) before which medial consonants are not geminated ; the supposed exis- 
tence of a sibilant expressed on the Teian devoHo inscription by T (fti7uiTj?f), 
and on the Lygdamis inscription by the same character, 'OaTdT/of, the E for ri 
(long e) and nondiphthongal e<, H=:v from a (or from f 4" ^)> ^i^ points of 
seeming trivial importance, and yet of no slight value to the investigator of 
the Hellenic dialects. 

Mr. Roberts' volume aims at occupying a position midway between the 
selections of Cauer, Dittenberger, and Hicks on the one hand, and the treatises 


of Reinach and Hinrichs on the other, which profess to deal with all the 
questions arising from a study of Greek inscriptions. Mr. Roberts aims at 
supplying the want indicated by Newton in the first of the above mentioned 
papers : *< What is now wanted is a popular work, giving a classification of 
Greek inscriptions according to their age, country and subject, and a selection 
of texts by way of samples, under each class/' The first volume deals then 
solely with the form of the letters in the inscriptions prior to the adoption of 
the Ionic alphabet The second volume will embrace such documents as are 
of importance from the point of view of subject, dialect, and time, and drawn 
chiefly from the post-Euclidean period. 

A brief introduction gives an historical sketch of the Greek alphabet, com- 
prising a geographical and chronological division of the subject ; remarks on 
the change of the Phoenician characters upon their immigration to Greek soil ; 
a discussion on the sibilants, and the evolution of the guttural and labial 
aspirates ; a statement of the various theories as to the interrelation of the 
Eastern alphabet (^, ;t. V' = ^» X* V') and ^^^ Western alphabet (;r» ^. V* = s, ^, 
X) ; and notes on the abecedarian Then follow the inscriptions of the Eastern 
group (pp. 23-195), and of the Western group (pp. 196-309), annotated through- 
out, and a chapter on the Hellenizing alphabets of Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia, 
Cappadocia, Caria and Hispania (pp. 310-20), without citation of inscriptions. 
Appendix I deals inter alia with the age of the earliest inscriptions from 
Naucratis (p. 323) ; Appendix II with supplementary commentaries on such 
inscriptions as need more elaborate comment than was found possible in the 
body of the work. This second appendix is valuable for its extensive eluci- 
dation of the linguistic and other difficulties occurring in a portion of the 
Gortyna code, the Sigeum steli, the devotio inscription of Teos, the Halicar- 
nassian law of Lygdamis, the Locrian tables, and especially the Elean monu- 
ments. Addenda nova present various latest views, a series of tables sums up 
the contents of the entire work, and a capital index concludes the volume. 

Part I supplies the material for estimating the worth of those portions of 
Reinach's and Hinrichs' works which deal with the outward form and make-up 
of the inscriptions ; and at the same time places the student in possession of the 
facts by which the various divisions of the alphabet made by Franz, Mommsen, 
Lenormant, Taylor, and KirchhofT, may be critically estimated, and by which 
above all the great question of the origin and history of the complementary 
(non-Phoenician) signs T, <^, X, t*. Q may be studied. 

Mr. Roberts' entire first volume is a tribute to the genius of Kirchhoff. He 
has completely absorbed into his text the masterly treatise which has placed 
KirchhofT first among living Greek epigraphists. There is no passage of 
importance in the Studien which is not either directly translated or whose con- 
tent is not reproduced in Mr. Roberts' book. It is solely in the case of the 
Naucratis question that his allegiance wavers. The argument from proximity 
has here doubtless caused Mr. Roberts to suspend his judgment between 
KirchhofTs and Hirschfeld's plea and that of Mr. E. A. Gardner, though to 
our thinking the Abu-Simbel inscriptions must be referred to a period prior to 
those discovered at Naucratis. 

With this single exception, then, the volume rests entirely upon the Kirch- 
hoffian arrrangement of the Greek alphabets. And not merely in its general 
features, but even in the smallest details Kirchhoff has been followed, and side- 


lights caught up and reflected with a devotion unique among the race of 
scholars. Kirchhofifs views as to the genesis of the Odyssey have already been 
adopted in Mo and worked out in detail, and it is his fortune to have a second 
book meet a similar fate. 

No one can resent such propaganda, for it carries with it the furtherance of 
the most cautious views, free from any bias as to the relative priority of the 
Eastern or the Western alphabet. But what the scholar might justly demand 
is that the author of this valuable work should have brought the question as to 
the origin of " complementary" signs somewhat nearer its solution. Personal 
contact with such a wealth of archaic material must beget original conclusions. 
Yet there is no distinct advance whatsoever. Mr. Roberts evidently holds that 
he is not called upon to present aught else than an "anticipatory sketch"; 
whereas a more positive gain to science would have been an attempt at winning 
new results rather than a collection of that which had already been collected. 
Of the five hundred inscriptions (without counting coin legends) there is not 
one that has not been published before. 

Now.we may not take issue with Mr. Roberts because he has reached no decision 
as to whether i" comes from the Cyprian ^ or from an opened loop of kappa. 
But if his acceptance of the Kirchhoffian division into an Eastern and a Western 
alphabet is a working hypothesis, so far as the student is concerned (p. 3), we 
hold that the student should have the views antagonistic to, or modificatory of, 
that of Kirchhoff, presented in more space than half a page of fine print. 
Imperfect though his description be, Reinach's method of presentation offers a 
far wider horizon whereby the theories of Franz, Mommsen, Lenormant, and 
Taylor may be estimated (Traii/, p. 175-236). 

Mr. Roberts* procedure in dealing with the views of other scholars is, in one 
particular at least, the opposite of that of Hinrichs. Mr. Roberts absorbs into 
his text whole passages, side comments and single observations of others*; 
Hinrichs, with an overwrought devotion to a sense of justice, quotes the vgr^a 
ipsissima of his authorities, with an utter disregard of the effect upon the mind 
of the reader, whose nerves are tingling from the effort to read his labyrinthian 
sentences, rendered the more intricate by his persistent and detailed citation. 
Mr. Roberts' volume is a model of clearness ; every resource of the printer's 
and editor's art has been called into requisition to clarify an intricate subject ; 
and yet, to our fancy, it had been better to inform the student at the outset 
that no inconsiderable part of the commentary upon the inscriptions had been 
directly or indirectly transferred from the pages of others to his own. The 
criticism on Clermont-Ganneau's theory as to the supplementary signs, the 
note on the date of the Cretan inscriptions, the commentary on the Lygdamis 
inscription (No. 145), are nothing more than reproductions of previous com- 
ments by Taylor, Comparetti and others, though in the last case we are stimu- 
lated by the happy conjecture of tzoieIv (1. 8). 

We sincerely trust that we are doing Mr. Roberts no injustice, for his aim 
throughout has been to refer the student to the numerous authorities, quoted 
with a fidelity that deserves the highest praise, and a completeness that renders 
his work indispensable. This method of directing the student to other sources 
of information may have its advantages, but his gain would have been indubi- 
tably greater had his zeal been stirred by contact with the editor's personality. 
The work offers then practically nothing that has not been published some- 


where or other. But it is none the leu on that account a desirable addition 
to our apparatus. It achieves a complete success in furnishing us with enlarged 
appliances for the study of the pre-Euclidean inscriptions found chiefly in 
Roehl. In felicitousness of grouping, clearness of presentation, completeness 
of citation of relevant literature, this work far exceeds anything heretofore 
published. In no other publication can be found such concise and yet 
such complete introductions to each inscription. The author has spared no 
pains to bring his book up to date, even to the very day of publication. It 
indicates the high-water mark of contemporaneous epigraphical science. Omis- 
sions to refer to pertinent literature are very rare. In No. 27 (page 67) we 
miss an allusion to Thuc. V 5 and Fick*s Odyssee (pp. 9-11 ), where in explanation 
of the occurrence of f in the Chalcidian Ionic of Magna Graecia [fid^ Qfari/fg, 
VapvPifinK) it is plausibly suggested that the dialect was a mixed one, and 
that the f^s are in reality Doric. Certainly the a of TapvfdvtK, which Kirch- 
hoff (Studien* 126) attributes to a peculiarity of Chalcidian Ionic, finds an 
easy explanation in the presence of an admixture of Doric in the western 
colonies of the lonians. On page 262 (No. 261) Pischel, in Bezzenberger*s 
Beitr&ge VII 332, might have been adduced ; and p. 143 (No. 117), Ugdulena, 
Sopra una iscrizione Selinuntiana, 1871 ; p. 218 (No. 208), Schneider, de dialecto 
Megarica, 41-43 (referrecj to on No. 44a). To No. 145 (p. 1 74) di^^ Journal 0/ Hel- 
lenic Studies I. The appearance of the fourth edition of KirchhofTs Studien while 
Mr. Roberts' pages were in press has enabled references to the Studien to be cor- 
rected to the paging of the fourth edition. A few passages have escaped Mr. 
Roberts' cautious eye; e. g., page 215 (No. 204), page 75 (two). In some others 
Mr. Roberts has failed to notice the change in KirchhofTs views : thus page 
228 = K.' 132, 133, whereas the passage in question is no longer found in 
K.^ 14a Of far greater moment, however, is the accuracy with which the 
letters of the inscriptions are reproduced. It is well known that Roehl does 
not always represent the original with sufficient fidelity ; but Mr. Roberts' 
work fulfills all that might reasonably be expected, both in the facsimiles and 
in the type copies. In No. 14a, a coin of Gortyna, the nu^s and signta^s are 
not exact ; in No. 145 we have a curious instance of the transmission of an 
error from book to book through mere carelessness. In the first line we have 

the following letters preserved : . AAEO£[T]AAO A , which the 

later editors almost without exception transcribe as follows : Td^c 6 oiXXolyolQ 
kpovXe{}aaT[6\ as if the r of rddr and the characters ZEB ET£AT were visible 
and only PO and had to be supplied ; whereas on Mr. Roberts' facsimile 
there is not a trace of any letter between ovXAo- and A, and none from A to 
the end. Furthermore, according to Newton, the A of e/3ovAeiK7aro, which is 
undoubtedly preferable to htik?JiTo^^ should stand over the A of ZaA^- in the 
line below ; and in the same inscription, line 16, 1 notice that instead of C the 
final letter in Newton's copy is Z, It might have been well for convenience 
to have cited the numbers of Roehl's Imagines^ as well as those of his Corpus, 
These are, however, points of trifling moment in comparison with the general 
trustworthiness of the whole. Mr. Roberts, I see, clings to the spiritus asper 
in transcribing Ionic inscriptions from Asia Minor, whereas Bechtel has at last 
broken with the traditional usage ; an innovation which finds a partial support 
in the authority of Herodotus. Why the Doric accentuation should not be 
introduced is not clear, for forms like AaKe6aifi6vtoi, ^Afiavaioi (No. 258) are 


clearly not in line with Doric usage ; even if we do not go to the extent of 
writing kiroXefieov in the heading of the famous serpent-coil of Plataea, which 
Mr. Roberts, following Fabricius, now reads roiie tov ndT^fiov kiroXkfiecv. 

The utmost care has been taken to reach the highest degree of accuracy in 
the make-up of the work. I notice that at least two passages quoted incor- 
rectly by KirchhofT and G. Meyer, have been quietly corrected in passing. 
Only the teacher who has used Mr. Roberts' work with students can realize 
how faithfully the laborious duty of commenting upon so large a number of 
inscriptions has been performed. 

The following observations were jotted down during the perusal of 
the work : P. xiv : for Ahrens R, read Ahrens H. L. P. xv : insert 
Busolt's Griechische Alterthamer (Mailer Handbttcher IV I). Kuma- 
nudes looks strange under the guise of Cumanudes. P. 8, note 2 : for 
y. Mailer read /. Muller, The German original has slipped in here. It 
is correct on pp. xv, xvi. P. 33 (and 138): I do not see how there can 
be any doubt that Tp6<^v is a proper name and not a participle. f)o 
for pa is not a Doric peculiarity, and from the base *ype^- or *yep^ the ablaut 
verbal form would be ypo^u. The syntax too makes in favor of a proper 
name. The reference (top of page 33) to No. 113 should read 113^. P. 83, 
No. 46a : for fr^hvevg read TrAweirf . In the manumission decrees found recently 
on the Acropolis and published in the Am. Journ. of Arch. Vol. IV there is 
mention of the profession together with the name of the person, an occurrence 
rare in Attic epigraphy according to K5hler, Mitth. X, quoted by Mr. Roberts. 
P. 107 : the inaccuracy of Schatz*s tables of the Attic alphabet, reproduced 
on pp. 106, 107, is evinced in the case of 2, which, according to these tables, 
ought after 446 B. C. to have always four strokes ; whereas the a's of Hicks, 
No. 33 =: C. I. A. suppl. I, p. 37, have but three strokes (438 B. C). P. 115 : the 
change of o to spiritus asper occurs also in Argolic, e. g. hroiFrfky I. G. A 42 ; cf. 
also Cyprian tppoviut di/Li^dig. P. 129 (No. 98): Mr. Roberts says that ijf is 
apparently found in this inscription and in no other. This is scarcely correct : 
Arcadian GDI it22b7. Cyprian Berl. Phil. Wochens. 1884, p. 671. P. 129 (No. 
98) : vd for ?JS is not confined, as Mr. Roberts asserts, to the Greek of hicily 
and South Italy with the exception of kvOuv (Corcyra). We have irpoawevdeiu 
in Delphic, and even in the MSS of Alcaeus (84) we have ^v6ov, P. 129 (No. 
99) : on ^ApddOoio cf. the suggestion of Allen, Versificatum^ p. 77 (Papers of the 
American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. IV). P. 143 (No. 117) : 
the « of rldq, 6e6gy leTuv^vrtoi should yield to ov. See Schneider de dialecto 
Megarica, p. 57. The Megarian dialect follows the Attic procedure. In No. 
113b Mr. Roberts reads t6v Uakiov, but in 113 Avkciu (gen.) P. 154 (No. 130) : 
If [afi\a is correct, the H must be a slip. P. 159 (No. 132) : against Mr. E. A. 
Gardner's suggestion that ^And?^ is a vocative, is to be placed Prof. Merriam's 
happy conjecture that the sigma of the supposed aoc is in reality a »», Am. 
Journ. Arch. Ill 304. P. 169 (No. 142 B i) : The Ionic form is voroof, as in 
Mimnermus. vovcrof , Attic vocog^ by the way, cannot be explained from ^voytuo^^ 
•vovffffof ,but is from *ovofTipg^ cf. Old Norse snau'Sr, bereft^ bare, Germ. schnOde. 
P. 176, line 16 of No. 145, [♦oj/'^/i/owof is an easy conjecture. P. 212 (No. 198) : 
add Eretrian, P. 218 (No. 208): there can be no question that the Khxi- 
forms come from O^efe-. P. 226 (No. 233): for ^vp\ni.i] read ^oplai}]. Roehl, 
No. 221, has ^6p\aKi\ P. 231 : iox fragments xtti^di paytnents. P. 255 (No. 257): 


this inscription is preserved, not in the Bappaxelov at Athens, but in the Poly- 
technicum. P. 263 (No. 261): for 'OXvfjime read 'OXivKu. P. 264: for //in- 
ricks (note on line 12) read CoUitt (Die Verwantschaftsverhdlinisse^ etc.) P. 
278 (No. 277) : i\}ji\ MavTviai, which Mr. Roberts adopts, is very questionable. 
ev is at best very rare in Arcadian (see my paper on Arcado-Cyprian, Am. 
Phil. Assoc. Trans. Vol. XVIII), though it is true we have a case of kv in No. 
277 (epic, despite Meister). P. 287 (No. 291): Mr. Roberts' expulsion of the v 
in line 10, and his reading Toi<,v^Ta(mf [ye'\ypafi{u)ivoi is very doubtful. P. 298 : 
by an omission, the age of No. 300 is not specifically stated ; from the context, 
especially KirchhofTs note, one might suppose No. 300 belonged to the sixth 
century, whereas K. expressly states that No. 300 is to be dated about 400 
B. C. P. 335 : vdU is written in one case, NdZe in the other. P. 338 : irpo66fiev 
is not an Ionic form. P. 339 : note on 1. 37 seqq. of No. 142. This entire g 
on -et and -7£ in the subjunctive will have to be modified in the light of 
Schulze's paper in the twenty-second volume of Hermes. 

Herbert Wbir Smyth. 

The Fables of Avianus. Edited, with prolegomena, critical apparatus, com- 
mentary, excursus and index, by Robinson Ellis, M. A., LL. D. Oxford, 
1887. Pp. xlii, 152. 

Mr. Ellis has added to the deep obligation under which all students of Late 
Latin must feel towards him by his present edition of Avianus. The edition 
is both critical and explanatory. It might have been thought that little 
yet remained to do in settling the text after W. FrOhner [1862] had published 
collations of the Paris, and BShrens [Poetae Latini Minores, Vol. V] of the 
Leyden MSS. Mr. Ellis, however, has had his usual good fortune as a discoverer 
of fresh manuscript material. From the MSS which he has examined or 
collated at Oxford, Cambridge and London, he selects one [Harley, 4967, not 
earlier than 1300] as of " unique importance,'' while three others [all in the 
Bodleian, and ranging from the eleventh to the beginning of the fourteenth 
cent.] present numerous readings of interest. He has also collated the best of 
FrShner's Paris MSS [C, which he assigns to the tenth cent, at latest] — the 
enormous Treves MS of the tenth cent., which Bahrens only collated 
" raptim " — ^the St. Gallen fragment, etc. It will be seen that this is the 
fullest critical commentary that has yet appeared ; but in spite of the number 
and comparatively early date of the MSS, the text often stands in need of 
emendation. The emendations which Mr. Ellis either makes or adopts fall 
into two classes : (a) emendations of obviously corrupt and unmeaning pas- 
sages ; (/3) emendations of metre and syntax, which are based upon general 
views of what is possible or not in Latin of the epoch of Avianus. (a) The 
following brilliant examples of the first class may be cited, VII 14: Tunc 
insultantem senior de plebe superbum | Adgreditur tali singula uoce monens, 
MSS. Mr. Ellis suggests Adgreditur " tali cingula uoce mouesf*^ He proves 
from Varro, as against Servius, that cingulum was used for a dog's collar, and 
compares a similar corruption in the Codex Ambrosianus of Claudian. 
[Although this is almost convincing, it is perhaps worth while to mention the 
suggestion of a learned friend : Adgreditur curta talia uoce monens. This is 
based on the view of the Censor of Wopkens that talia uoce monens was the 



genuine ending, and that, a word after adgreditur having dropped out, the 
meaningless singula was inserted to prop up the metre. The omission of carta 
would be palaeographically very probable.] 

XI 8: lurabat solitam longius ire uiam, MSS. The bronze pot is speaking. 
Mr. Ellis points out that solitam is impossible " as the pots were on a quite 
exceptional journey," and restores certainly soiidam^ " its metallic course." 

XXI 5 : Sed uox implumes turbauit credula nidos. Most of the MSS give 
credula, but the vv. 11. pavida, sedula show that a difficulty was early felt. Mr. 
Ellis restores convincingly acredula (the poet apostrophizing the bird), which 
is glossed as luscinia [the Paris C gives De luscinia as the title of the fable] 
and sometimes corrupted in MSS to credula. Mr. Ellis follows the excellent 
advice of Cobet never to make a correction without giving a certain instance 
of a similar corruption. 

(/?) The second class of emendations depends on the positions advanced in 
the Prolegomena. In these Mr. Ellis elaborately discusses the name and per- 
sonality of Avianus — his date, style, and metrical peculiarities. The MSS mostly 
give (in the genitive) Aviani^ though the ninth century V omits the name alto- 
gether, and the Bodleian R (eleventh to twelfth cent.) gives AvUnu Citations 
in a grammatical treatise of the ninth century [in Hagen's Anecdota Helvetica] 
give Avienius or Avienus. (i) Frohner believes that the true name was 
Aviamus — a much commoner one, as appears from inscriptions, than either of 
the others. L. Avian ius Symmachus was father of the orator, but the twenty - 
four lines which are cited from him by his son show no similarity to the writings 
of the fabulist. (2) The Oxford MS O adds the praenomen FesH, which 
would tend to identify the fabulist with the author of the Aratea. But the 
complete difference of style between the two writers, and the silence of all the 
other known MSS, negative this assumption. (3) The MSS testimony, how- 
ever, is not equally decisive against the spelling AvUnus, in which case our 
author might be identified with either (a) a pupil and correspondent of Enno- 
dius, or (i3).an interlocutor in the Saturnalia. Mr. Ellis prefers the latter ; but 
his arguments against the friend of Ennodius are hardly conclusive, as they 
take for granted that the fabulist cannot be later than the fifth century — the 
very point which has to be proved. The Avienus of Macrobius — whose name 
is once at least written Avianus in the best MS of the Saturnalia — " is described 
as a modest and virtuous youth . . . who rarely speaks at much length himself, 
but keeps the conversation going by questions, interruptions, or whispered 
objections. Yet so far as his personality is introduced it is well suited to the 
character of a lover or writer of fables." The probability of this identifica- 
tion is increased if the Theodosius to whom the preface is addressed is the 
author of the Saturnalia. Some have identified him with Theodosius the 
Great, and two good MSS add impercUorem after the ad Theodosiuni of the pre- 
face. This testimony is of no more value than the addition of Festi to the 
title in another MS. A mediaeval scribe would have no compunction in 
making such identifications without a tittle of evidence, or in introducing his 
impertinent guesses into the text which he was transcribing. Mr. Ellis is 
amply justified in the stress which he lays on the general tone of the preface, 
which is that of an equal, not a subject ; cp. esp. *' Habes ergo opus quo 
animum oblectes, ingenium exerceas, soUicitudinem leues, totumque uiuendi 
ordinem cautus agnoscas." On these grounds Mr. Ellis assigns the fables to 


the last quarter of the fourth century, and traces allusions to them in several 
writings of this epoch— the Gratiarum Actio of Ausonius, which was delivered 
in 379, and more probably in a letter of Symmachus, I loi [written in 380 or 
381]: Qui fieri potest ut os unum contrariis adfectionibus induamus? with 
which he cp. Av. XXIX 2Z, 22. Mr. Ellis perhaps makes too much out of 
these references, as (whatever may be the date at which the fables took their 
present shape) their groundwork is at least as old as Babrius ; and the same 
consideration prevents us from attaching much weight to the allusions to pagan 
customs, which might suit with the pagan revival of 380 onwards, but might 
equally well have been taken on by a Christian copyist from his pagan prede- 
cessor. Mr. Ellis subjects the metre of the fables to a searching examination, 
which leads him to the same result. But it is here especially that the incon- 
clusive character of his evidence comes out most strongly. The traditional 
text cv popPdpf^ PappapiK(fi Kelrtu. It is full of sins against metre, syntax and 
sense. To what extent the last class should be corrected depends on one^s 
general estimate of the literary powers of Avianus. Mr. Ellis perhaps rates 
these somewhat too high. 

XVI 19, 20: Haec nos dicta monent magnis obristere frustra paulatimque 
truces exsuperare minas, MSS. Mr. Ellis certainly improves the passage by 
reading subsistert fluxa — the first word being given in Bodleian O, and the 
second suggested by lustra of Bodleian B. 

XXIV 4 : Edita continm forte sepulchra uident, MSS. Mr. Ellis restores 
very ingeniously the technical phrase cantinuo fronte ; but is not this too 
abstruse for Avianus ? 

The metrical question is treated in the same way. He rejects or inclines to 
reject some fables— certainly XXIII, and less strongly XXXV and XXXVIII— 
which accumulate licenses of metre and grammar. In discussing the Epimy. 
thia and Promythia he shows a certain indecision, but ends by rejecting the 
latter, and leaving a stain on the character of the former. ** In the Promythia 
I seem to detect a forger. Three of them are tetrastichs and all contain the 
word alteritu. He would seem to have wished to leave his mark on the 
bastard children of his creation . . . The Epimy thia, though at times and to 
some extent questionable, are not, like those in Babrius, so decidedly inferior 
to the bulk of the work as to justify us in rejecting them altogether*' (p. xxxiv). 
What remains, however, is far from immaculate. Some faults are corrected 
by the help of the new MSS. XLI 18: nobilibus «/, MSS; mbilibus »/, B. 
XI 6: uagus amnis^ MSS; uagans amnis^ B. XXII 6: precihus ut petentur^ 

MSS; cum peteretur, Ellis, from the Bodleian X, which gives ^oJfi}*rttur. 
But may not these MSS readings represent the attempts of scribes to 
improve the metre on their own account? Certainly, in XXVIII 12, B 
suspiciously obtrudes an impossible hie between domim and ora. In other 
cases Mr. Ellis resorts to more heroic remedies. In XXVII 10 the substitu- 
tion of comix for uolueris is over^bold. In XXXVIII 6 the substitution of 
sannis for salibui is si>eciotts, and is partially confirmed by a gloss over salibus^ 
cum reprehensionibus^ in a late MS. In the same spirit Mr. Ellis suggests 
emendations of other places where the received text would seem to point to a 
very late origin. In XXXVI 4 he changes expoiitis to hcuc positis^ and, though 
he doubts XXXVIII as a whole, yet he is ready to improve the Latinity by 


changing labotxUis of ▼. 7 into uaporatis^ and debilt of ▼. 12 into futtile, Sttch 
wholesale improyement seems hardly worth while; even if an originally fairly 
correct writer has suffered from one or more mediaeval recensions — ^an hypo- 
thesis which the popularity of the fables renders not improbable — ^is it not 
hopeless, the tradition being what it is, to try to remove the barbarous super- 
foetations ? Mr. Ellis has brought to the task a perhaps unique combination 
of literary taste, palaeographical insight and knowledge of Late Latin usage ; 
if his attempt carries so little conviction, it is not likely that another will be 
more successful. The commentary is in Mr. E.'s most thorough style. A 
peculiarly attractive feature is the use made of fresh MSS evidence, e. g. XXV 
14 oh sctdperet^ XXXV i on pignera^ 14 on nominatives like luis. The only 
criticism that can be applied to it is that of Scaliger on Casaubon*s Persius : 
la sauce vatit mieux que le poisson. An index verborum ends the book ; the 
commentary richly deserves one to itself. Walter Ashburnbr. 

Crinagorae Mytilenaei Epigrammata ed. M. Rubbnsohn. Berolini, 1888. 

The editor gives us in this monograph of 124 pages the 51 epigrams which 
bear the name of Crinagoras in the Palatine Anthology. He has had the 
advantage of a new collation of the Codex Palatinus made by StadtroOller, who 
is himself purposing a complete edition of the whole work. This collation 
has been executed with great care ; the first hand has been scrupulously dis- 
tinguished from the second or later hands, erasures marked, and in every case 
an attempt made to recover the original writing. Explanations of the more 
difficult passages are given in Latin ; and Prolegomena, amounting to 60 pages, 
discuss the life and times of Crinagoras, his diction and prosody, and some of 
the more disputed passages in the epigrams. On the whole, the work is con- 
scientious and in some respects new ; the writer, however, is obviously a very 
young man, and can hardly be said to settle many of the points which he has 
treated in the notes. Thus, in XXXI 5, oi 6* &pa dovn^tfaav doA^ef, what is 
the meaning of dovnyOtfaav} It seems to be unique, and R. is therefore 
right in retaining it ;.but it is not satisfactory to find that no suggestion of the 
meaning, whether it is a mere variation upon SoimTfoav^ or conveys some addi- 
tional notion, as is most likely, is attempted. Take again XXXVI 1-4, which 
the MS gives thus : 

rjyc 6toc yeve^ fih ayappudf hroc ^Apd^eo 

ifdup TTiXu^poic nlverai ^Apfievloi^ * 
Xoirai 6* ov fi^h}ig are irov fiaXoKoic irrl fiaX^lc 

rjfe^val 6* ayporkpuv Tpjfxi^epai ;i;t/xdp&iv. 

Several years ago I suggested in the Cambridge Journal of Philology that 
ayappud^ evrd( is a corruption of dyappucdevrog. Dioscorides states that the 
agaricunt, a kind of tree-fungus, grew ev ry ^Ayapi^ r^g ^Lapparuajg^ and it is 
therefore reasonable that the Araxes should be described as abounding in it 
The construction is of the condensed kind which, though perhaps not found 
elsewhere in Crinagoras, is sufficiently familiar to Greek scholars yeveij vdup 
niverai ^ yeveij eariv v6up b iriverai. 

In V. 3 the new editor accepts with no hesitation the conj. of Schneider, a 



critic whose learning was greater than his natural feeling or dexterity, /uzXa/cot 
ifri fia)^l^ writing thus : 

XdlTai, d* — oh fi^h)i^ oTe irov fiaXoKol hri fitOJidi — 
Y'edvat cT ayporipuv TprfxvTspat xtfi^dpuv^ 

This hardly commends itself to my judgment. I suggest as preferable, 

Xdirat d* ov fi^^iaiv ar^^ov fiaXaioolg iiri fjui2,Xoic, 

* its hair is not as sheep's, not with soft naps,' or possibly * not superposed on 
soft naps.' In any case I would not alter the metrically sound fiahtxolg errl 

In XL I, 2, which the MS gives thus : 

Odpoei xai riTrapai dtanTuaadkvra irpoaC^woiQ 
fiijduv ml ToiiTLiv ypd^ kvi rr^oaiv, 

the new editor rejects the conj. of Porson, ypd^Ku, and adopts Reiske's ypdiffov, 
but without his in for ivi^ 

ftvdov KoX Toinuv ypdyjfov hi Tr?Jociv, 

This leaves us confronted with several difficulties of no light sort : for (i) what 
is the construction of the accus. fivGov ? Hardly, as Rubensohn suggests, like 
the Homeric av 6^ Odpaet TdvSe 7' &e6?uov. (2) What can be the meaning of evl 
vXioffiv} The editor thinks that rvi is trajected and refers back to dtairTia- 
oBhra^ like hv <J' aftedvartf} TtyXvfifiai, A. P. IX 752, i. Most readers, I apprehend, 
will prefer to follow Dubner in reading : 

(.ivBov Koi roirruv ypdijfoi irt nXhaiP, 

for (i) yp&iJHu is nearer to ypdrim than ypdifwv ; (2) the double koI ' either ' 

* or ' comes out with perfect clearness ; (3) the infin. ypdtjxu depends on ddpaei. 

In XLII 1-3 : 

N^ov Ti^ ti Kol fit TrepiypdrlMVTe^ ^;|f(weyiv 

perpijGcu /3a/^ inTO. fi6vov aradioic 
ifimjg Kai riKTovoav irr* av^/uca map apohprj^ 

the editor translates r^ by ^nc^ comparing the Homeric ^^fuiri r^, Aesch. Sept. 
492 avSpi rv>. But it is obvious from the form of the sentence that it is the 
article, and refers to paii^ in v. 2, vijffov r^ fiai^ {ovaav) el nai fie ix''^'''^ 
Trepiypd'^lMivTeg perp^aai. 
Equally dubious is the explanation given of the construction of XLIV 3, 4 : 

delfjia yhp oinro 
dXh) rdaov yair^ ol^ kXeXi^ofiivrf^f 

' nondum alium terrorem quam terrae succussae (sive, terram succussam) novi 
tantum.' This seems to make the difficult genitive depend upon aXXo, Surely 
this must be wrong. It really depends on deifia ; and rdtrov, if not for Scov, 
which is perhaps impossible, is at least expiainedhy the genitive yaiifgeT^Tui^ofievti^^ 

* I know as yet no alarm so overpowering, the alarm of shaking earth.' 

It is abundantly clear from these short extracts how full of difficulties is the 
language of the Greek Anthology. Interesting as I have found these poems 
of Crinagoras, I cannot profess to think they have yet been explained 
adequately. ROBINSON Ellis. « 



Philologus XLVI. 
Heft I. I. — Treatisrs. 

I. Pp. 1-26. Duo Commentarii de Comoedia, by W. Studemund. These 
two commentaries, which were first edited by Cramer (Anecd. Paris. I, pp. 3- 
10), are re-edited by Studemund, and the variant readings from the MSS 
QRMPV are given in foot-notes. Valla's rendering of §2-10 of the first comm. 
and of §19-25 and §33 of the second is also given. 

P. 26. Tac. Dialog, de Or. la For transit et contentus est Th. Stangl pro- 
poses to read transisse contentus est, 

II. Pp. 27-34. Pseudo-Plutarchus De metro heroico, by W. Studemund. 
The commentary is re-edited according to Codex C (Paris. 1955), the variant 
readings of MSS P and M of Pseudo-Hephaestion being added. 

III. Pp. 35-47. On the Odyssey ; a critical discussion of the Prooemium 
and of the introduction to f , by A. Scotland. In the Prooemium he rejects w. 
5-10, proposes 6ifv for hS* in ii, rejects 15, in 19 substitutes aXy£* dvairX^avri 
for h ffireaai yXa^vpoiai and proposes /&a for Si^ and rejects 21 , 23-25. In the 
introduction to e he makes wholesale rejections and would read 4, 28 (substi- 
tuting ciVw f^d^^ for ij })a Koi)^ 29, 30, 31, 43* 

P. 47. Minucius Felix, Octavius 5, 10; 8, 3; ii, 6, emendations proposed 
by A. Eussner. 

IV. Pp. 48-56. Notes on Soph. Oed. Rex, by A. Spengel, who argues 
plausibly in favor of several emendations and interpretations. 

P. 56. Theophr. Char. 29. Emendations proposed by G. F. Unger. 

V. Pp. 57-69. rif and hariQ in pronominal repeated questions in Aris- 
tophanes, by W. Uckermann. With regard to the rule of the grammarians 
(see Kiihn. Ausf. Gr. Gram. II Theil, 2 Aufl., p. 1017 fF. ; Kr. Spr. 51, 17, 3), 
that in a question repeated by the one addressed before his answer regularly 
only the indirect interrogatives are used, Uckermann cites against the 40 exam- 
ples that sustain the rule 10 that have the direct interrogative. In 8 of the 10 
the direct interrogative is the reading of all the MSS (which the editors have 
emended, of course), in the remaining two the direct interrog. is due to conjec- 
ture. Uckermann's conclusion is therefore fully justified, that in pronominal 
repeated questions the direct interrogative is correct, though less frequent than 
the indir