Skip to main content

Full text of "The modern Greek language in its relation to ancient Greek"

See other formats

<bwttnaan ir*ss 




v v 


Formerly Scholar ofBalliol College, Oxford ; 
Modern Language Master at the Manchester Free Grammar School. 




sending out into the world the present volume, I have 
little else to say by way of prefatory remark than to express 
the sense of the obligations I am under to those who have 
helped and encouraged me. Foremost among these must 
stand the name of F. W. Walker, Esq., late Fellow of Corpus 
Christi College, and Head Master of the Manchester Free 
Grammar School, my kind friend and instructor, who is the 
cause, in a sense which he will sufficiently understand, of 
the publication of this work. 

My best thanks are also due to Professor Jowett for 
looking over a portion of the same while it was yet in 
embryo, and for most valuable suggestions which I have 
attempted to follow out ; and to my friends S. Verse's and 
A. Pantazides for the loan of various works which have been 
of indispensable service to me in the preparation of the final 
chapter of this book. Nor can I refrain from expressing 
my indebtedness to the learned lectures, and ever-ready 
willingness to communicate information with which all who 
have attended the public instructions of the Professor of 
Comparative Philology are so well acquainted, and which 
have had no unimportant influence in moulding the views 
hereinafter set forth. From Professor Gandell, and Dr. 



Hessey, Grinfield Lecturer on the Septuagint, I have also 
obtained valuable information. 

To Professor Blackie of Edinburgh my thanks are due 
for very kind and unexpected encouragement. He will 
easily discover where I have derived help from his interesting 
treatise on Greek Pronunciation. 

Last, but not least, I must tender my warmest thanks to 
the Rev. Hermann Eduard Marotsky, Minister of the Ger- 
man Church, Wright Street, Manchester, without the encou- 
ragement and confirmation afforded by whose critical know- 
ledge, my concluding essay on the dangerous domain of 
theology would hardly have been hazarded. 

I have no right however to be silent on other obligations 
of a less personal nature in themselves, though in one case 
at least proceeding from a personal and esteemed friend, the 
Rev. George Perkins, M. A., author of the lucid and able 
article in the Cambridge Journal of Philology for December, 
1869, entitled ' Rhythm versus Metre/ to which I am much 

Other works which I have advantageously consulted are 
Schleicher's ' Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik,' 
Renan's ' Eclaircissements tire's des Langues sdmitiques sur 
quelques points de la Prononciation grecque,' Mullach's 
' Grammatik der Griechischen Vulgarsprache,' Liidemann's 
' Lehrbuch der Neugr. Sprache,' Prof. Telfy's ' Studien iiber 
Alt- und Neugriechen und die Lautgeschichte der Griechi- 
schen Sprache,' Sophocles' ' Modern Greek Grammar' and 
' Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek.' 

Finally, I would take this opportunity of thanking the 
Curators of the Taylorian Institution at Oxford for their 
great kindness in granting me the use of the room in which 


I delivered a course of lectures which form the foundation of 
the present treatise. 

If I have passed over any in silence I hope it will be 
understood that such silence is unintentional. 

In conclusion, I will give some account of the best 
books to be used in the study of modern Greek, especially 
in its relations with ancient Greek. The most instructive 
works on the subject with which I am acquainted are Pro- 
fessor Mullach's ' Grammatik der Griechischen Vulgar- 
sprache/ Sophocles' ' Modern Greek Grammar/ and his 
' Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek/ All three of these 
works contain some account of the development of modern 
from ancient Greek; and each supplies in some measure 
the deficiencies of the others. Professor Mullach's work is, 
on the whole, the most scholarly and exhaustive. His account 
of the Greek dialects, ancient and modern, is specially valu- 
able. All would have been better for a larger and wider 
recognition of the discoveries of modern philology in the 
region of comparative grammar. Sophocles' works, espe- 
cially his Grammar, require to be used with caution. For 
the headings 'Ancient' and 'Modern' which he places over 
his various paradigms, should be read, in nearly every case, 
' Language of Polite Society' and ' Language of the Common 
People,' or 'Cultivated' and Vernacular;' for the so-called 
ancient forms never died out, but may nearly all be found 
in the more cultivated modern Greek of the middle ages. 
Where, however, the so-called modern form has completely 

supplanted the classical, as in eypdfacro for eypdcpov, ypd(pf(rai 

for ypdfai or ypdtyr], the fact should be noticed. Again, in 
other ways truth is sacrificed by Mr. Sophocles to system, 
as when he gives TOV narepa, roG civSpa, as the modern Greek 

b 2 


for rov irciTpos, TOV dvSpos. These forms occur no doubt, but 
the classical forms are more common even in the vernacular, 
in which however the metaplastic nominatives irarepas and 
avfyas have supplanted ira-r^p and 01/77/3. For the study of the 
popular language as contained in the Klephtic ballads, &c., 
Passow's ' Carmina popularia Greciae recentioris' renders 
all other collections superfluous. For the history of modern 
Greek literature Peucker's ' Neugriechische Grammatik ' con- 
tains some valuable contributions, which may be further 
supplemented from the NtoeXX^tKr) <JuXoXoyia, a work lately 
published in Athens, and forming a biographical history of 
mediaeval and modern Greek literature. 



Causes for the neglect of the study of modern Greek. Antiquarian 
prejudice; counteracted by utilitarianism. Political insignificance 
of Greece : hopeful signs. Obscurity of modern Greek literature : 
actual but unmerited. Direct practical utility of an acquaintance 
with the language. Reasons why it should be studied by scholars 
and theologians. The obstacle presented by the Erasmian system 
of pronunciation, pp. 1-7. 

On the Pronunciation of Greek. 

The opinion of Schleicher. What is meant by the general identity of 
modern and ancient pronunciation. Modern pronunciation either 
barbarized or legitimately developed. Difficulties of the former 
alternative. Examination of evidence regarding the original pro- 
nunciation of each letter. I. Vowels. II. Consonants. III. The 
aspirate. General conclusion, pp. 8-40. 

Accent and Quantity. 

Their connection in the law of accentuation. All modern Greek 
vowels not isochronous. Syllables not necessarily lengthened by 
stress. Real explanation of the supposed conflict between accent 
and quantity traced to our use of the Latin accent in Greek. 
Erasmus and the bear. Insular character of our prejudice. Stress 
brings out, but does not obscure quantity. How is emphasis 


given? View of Mr. W. G. Clark. Dominant importance of 
rhythm in poetry. Opposition of accent and quantity as the 
foundation of verse not absolute. Importance of quantity in 
accentual verse. Accent heard in quantitative poetry. Musical 
rhythm. Error of ignoring the importance of ictus. Significance 
of accent in ancient poetry. The rhythm of ancient Greek prose 
destroyed by ignoring the accent, pp. 41-67. 


On the Origin and Development of Modern Greek 

Origin not one, but various. Connection of grammar, logic, and meta- 
physic. No rigid line of demarcation. Mere accidence indepen- 
dent in a sense of the progress of thought. Levelling tendency. 
Tendency to metaplastic formations : common to ancient and 
modern Greek. Many apparent metaplasms not simply such. 
The preservation of archaisms in the vulgar language. Analogies 
in English. The Grinfield lecturer on the Septuagint. The prin- 
ciple of extended analogy. Phrynichus and modern Greek forms. 
The mixed declensions. Dialectic influences. Archaisms and 
dialectic forms of the Septuagint not artificial. The Macedonian 
dynasty and the KOIVT) 8id\fKTos. The disappearance of the dative 
case, pp. 68-84. 


The Origin and Development of Modern Greek 

Difference in modes of expression between modern and ancient Greek. 
Compound tenses. Tendency to waste words, pp. 85-90. 

Modern Greek Phraseology. 

Euphemism. The influence of philosophy; the Ionic philosophers. 
The Eleatics, Sophists, and Rhetoricians. Modern Greek particles 
more explicit but less expressive than ancient. Socrates. The 
Cyrenaics. The Cynics. Plato. The Stoics, pp. 91-100. 



The Historical Development of Modern from 
Ancient Greek. 

Hellenistic Greek. The Macedonian age. The language of the 
Septuagint and the New Testament not simply Hebraistic. Mo- 
dernism of the Septuagint : of Polybius : and of the New Testa- 
ment. New religious meaning of certain words. The age of 
Diocletian. Nubian inscriptions. The Byzantine period. Apo- 
phthegmata Patrum. Theophanes. Malalas. Leo the philoso- 
pher. Porphyrogenitus. Theophanes Continuatus. Specimens of 
popular language in Scylitzes and Anna Comnena. Close of 
the mediaeval period. Theodoras Prodromus the first modern 
Greek writer, pp. 101-113. 

Dialects of Modern Greece. 

Asiatic. Chiotic. Cretan. Cyprian. Peloponnesian. Dialect of the 
Ionian Islands. The Tsakonian dialect. Its Doricisms. Its de- 
clension : and conjugation. Traces of Semitic elements. Tsako- 
nian probably a lingua franca. Specimens of Tsakonian. Albanian 
considered as modern Graeco-italic. Its alphabet partly Greek 
and partly Latin. The infinitive mood. Conjugation. Pronouns. 
Prepositions. Numerals, pp. 114-137. 

Modern Greek Literature. 

Rochoprodromus. Sethos. The Book of the Conquest. Belthandros 
and Chrysantza. Gorgilas. Chortakes. Scuphos. Kornaros. 
Rhegas. Cumas. Coraes. Oekonomos. Nerulos. Angelica 
Palle. Christopulos. Klephtic ballads. Belief in genii. Analo- 
gies in the Old Testament. Cultivated Literature of the present 
day. Tricupes. Roides. Asopios. Rangabes. Zalacostas. Va 
laorites. Conclusion, pp. 138-177. 



On the Greek of the Gospels of St. John and 

St. Luke. 

Preliminary considerations. Greek of the New Testament popular, 
but not vernacular. Luke and the Acts somewhat artificial. 
Frequency of modernisms in St. John. List of striking modern- 
isms. The Revelation. The Gospel according to St. Luke. His 
modernisms. The Acts. Agreement with the results of German 
criticism, pp. 179-188. 

A Short Lexilogus, pp. 189-208. 

Index of Greek and Albanian "Words, pp. 209-216. 


Page 33, line 9, for ^6p8oAos read fj.(p8a\cos. 
35. '> 7-/ or fyfa ren(l fyQov. 
130, 26, and elsewhere, for e8c read i8{. 
., 141, 14,/or iTfpifiorjTov read irtpifio-fjTov. 



THE present spoken and written language of Greece is 
one of the most remarkable phenomena in the whole field of 
philology, and none the less remarkable, perhaps, is the 
small amount of notice which it has met with. 

It is a strange and unparalleled fact, that one of the oldest 
known languages in the world, a language in which the 
loftiest and deepest thoughts of the greatest poets, the 
wisest thinkers, the noblest, holiest and best of teachers, 
have directly or indirectly found their utterance in the far- 
off ages of a hoar antiquity, should at this day be the 
living speech of millions throughout the East of Europe 
and various parts of Asia Minor and Africa ; that it should 
have survived the fall of empires, and risen again and again 
from the ruins of beleaguered cities, deluged but never 
drowned by floods of invading barbarians, Romans, Celts, 
Slaves, Goths and Vandals, Avars, Huns, Franks and Turks ; 
often the language of the vanquished, yet never of the dead ; 
with features seared by years and service, yet still essentially 
the same ; instinct with the fire of life, and beautiful with the 
memory of the past. 

Yet it is perhaps still stranger, that while the records of 
its youth and manhood form the lifelong study of thousands 


in England, France, Germany, and the rest of Europe; 
nevertheless, almost the first symptoms of sickness and 
decay were the signals for us all to forsake it, few of us 
waiting to see whether its natural vigour had carried it on 
to a green old age, or whether, as most of us too easily 
assumed, it was buried in a quiet grave, and had given place 
to a degenerate scion, or had at best sunk into the dotage 
of a second childhood. 

It seems hardly too much to say that our conduct in this 
regard shows a kind of literary ingratitude which ought to 
shock our moral sense. Greece has in various ages preserved 
to us the succession of culture when the rest of the earth was 
overrun with savages. For us it has held the citadel of 
civilization against the barbarism of the world, and now 
the danger is over we have forgotten our benefactor, and 
trouble ourselves little how it fares with him. The case 
reminds us of the words of the Preacher, ' There was a little 
city, and few men within it ; and there came a great king 
against it, and besieged it, and built great bulwarks against it. 
Now there was found in it a poor wise man, and he by 
his wisdom delivered the city; yet no man remembered that 
same poor man/ 

The reasons for this neglect are many and various. With 
learned men of the old school it is due to a certain anti- 
quarian bent of mind, amounting to a positive prejudice 
against everything modern. The manner of life which 
such persons lead is not inaptly expressed in the words 
of Southey: 

'My days among the dead are passed, 

Around me I behold. 
Where'er these casual eyes are cast, 

The mighty minds of old. 
My never-failing friends are they, 
With whom I converse night and day.' 


To those extreme devotees of the ' good old times ' to 
whom Aristotle is the last of philosophers and Augustine 
the last of theologians, and with whom the fact that 
a language is dead is of itself almost the best reason for 
studying it, the discovery that the elder and nobler of the 
two sister tongues Greek and Latin is as really alive as it was 
in the days of Homer, can hardly be expected to prove 
welcome. This is, however, less and less the spirit of the 
learned in our own day. The study of Sanscrit and Com- 
parative Grammar has opened a new field and awakened 
a new interest. Now all languages, new or old, have at 
least a certain value, even though they be as barbarous and 
destitute of literature as most persons suppose the language 
of modern Greece to be. 

Again, from quite a different quarter a reaction has arisen 
against the exclusiveness of the old school; a reaction 
which forms part of the great utilitarian movement of this 
nineteenth century. The voice of the middle class, which 
has found a powerful spokesman in one of our most distin- 
guished statesmen, himself a scholar of no mean attainments, 
has been heard to declare, in the words of a Wise Man of old, 
that ' A live dog is better than a dead lion.' 

The remaining reasons for the general neglect of the 
language of modern Greece may be briefly summed up as 
follows : the political insignificance of the nation ; the ob- 
scurity of its literature; the small practical use of the 
language; and last, but perhaps not least, the prevalence, 
in our own land especially, of the Erasmian system of pro- 
nunciation. With reference to the first point, a few words 
may not be out of place. 

The political insignificance of Greece cannot be of very 
long duration. A people which has made such rapid strides 
in education as the Greek nation, since its independence 
was established, must be worth something after all. The 

B 2 


evils of place-hunting, national bankruptcy, squandered 
resources, and party strife, are inseparable for the present 
from a nation so suddenly called into existence, and com- 
posed of such very raw materials as was the Greek nation 
in 1828. They are evils deeply felt by the large majority 
of the people, and there are many signs that they are on 
the way to removal. As a hopeful symptom, I would refer 
to the appearance of a very ably edited illustrated periodical, 
now issued monthly in Paris, and supported by influential 
Greeks wherever the Greek language is read and under- 
stood. It is entitled ' 'EdviKT) 'ETri&wpj/o-is/ or ' National 
Review,' and contains articles, both original and translated, 
on every branch of Science, Literature, and Art. But the 
great importance and significance of the work appears to me 
to be the wholesome truth which it desires, as the chief 
object of its publication, to inculcate on the Greek mind. 
The ' Revue de Tlnstruction Publique ' for the 4th of 
November, 1869, thus comments on the periodical in 
question : 

' Les r^dacteurs de VEOviK^j 'EiriOtuprjcris se proposent de faire p^netrer 
dans leur pays les notions scientifiques dont 1'absence nuit, en Grece, 
au developpement de 1'agriculture, du commerce et de 1'industrie. . . . 
Persuades que la principale cause de 1'abaissement de la Grece est dans 
le manque de routes publiques, ils feront tous leurs efforts pour 
combattre ['institution ruineuse d'unc armre inutile, qui, depuis la 
restauration de la nation hellcSnique, a dvore plus de trois cents millions 
(de drachmes), et pour tacher de faire couler dans le domaine de 1'agri- 
culture et de 1'industrie ces flots d'or et d'argent depensds sans raison.' 

With regard to modern Greek literature, that it is obscure 
must be admitted, but that its obscurity is well merited is 
by no means so certain. To begin with the Epic poetry 
of modern Greece, ' Belthandros and Chrysantza ' is without 
question a far more imaginative poem than the ' Niebelun- 
genlied,' and I have little doubt that any one who would 
compare the two, would feel that the former is the work 


of a far superior genius. The popular songs of the Greek 
mountaineers are acknowledged by every one who knows 
them to be quite without parallel. 

In lyric poetry there are few writers, ancient or modern, 
with whom Christopulos would compare unfavourably. The 
present polite literature of Greece has scarcely had time 
to ripen, but one poet at least, Zalacostas, has certainly the 
marks of genius ; and the prose productions of Greece are 
already of sufficient importance to attract the notice of 
our best Reviews. 

With respect to the practical usefulness of the language, 
I may remind those who are accessible to no other argu- 
ment than that of direct utility, that a competent acquaint- 
ance with modern Greek will obviate the necessity of 
engaging an interpreter when travelling in Greece, Turkey, 
Egypt, and Asia Minor. Greek, as the language of the 
most thriving mercantile race, is the medium of communica- 
tion between many of the various nations of the East. 

The real importance of modern Greek is, however, 
rather a matter for the attention of the scholar, than the 
man of business or pleasure. I will briefly point out what 
I conceive to be the real advantages derivable from the 
study of modern Greek. 

I. First, I will mention what scholars like Ross and 
Passow have already noticed, that great light may be 
thrown on the meaning of classical authors from the study 
of the modern Greek language. But this is of course 
especially to be looked for in proportion as the usage of 
the writers departs from the recognized classical standard. 
Hence the knowledge of modern Greek is of chief signi- 
ficance in the verbal criticism of the New Testament and 

II. But this is not all. I believe, and I hope to be able 
to show, that the idioms of modern Greek may be employed 


in a manner hitherto quite unlocked for, in the criticism 
of documents of doubtful age, as for example the Gospel 
of St. John, with a view to determining the period at which 
they were written. 

III. Comparative philology derives no unimportant light 
from modern Greek, because it preserves many archaic 
forms, which are postulated by philologers, but not actually 
to be found in any known ancient dialect. 

IV. The relation between accent and quantity in poetry 
can never be fully nor fairly judged by any one who is 
not familiar with the sound of Greek read accentually, a 
familiarity which can hardly be acquired apart from a 
practical acquaintance with Greek as a living spoken 

V. The pronunciation of Greek and the interchange of 
certain letters within the limits of the Greek language is a 
sealed mystery to those who are ignorant of the sounds 
which tne Greeks of the present day give to the letters of 
their alphabet and their several combinations. 

To prove and illustrate the propositions here advanced 
will be the main object of the following work. 

The attention of the reader will be directed first of all 
to the question of the original pronunciation of Greek, 
partly on account of its philological importance, and partly 
because the prevalence of the Erasmian system of pronun- 
ciation in the West of Europe, and in England especially, 
where it may be said to have accomplished its own reductio 
ad absurdum, has built up a wall of partition between the 
Greeks themselves and those who make the Greek lan- 
guage their study, which completely severs us from one 

How small the resemblance between our pronunciation 
of (f>vT(vcravTfs and the Greek ! How can we wonder that 
in QMifyoolyoosdntes, he should fail to recognize his phitfyh- 


sandes ? Mutual disgust is the natural result of so great 
a disparity. When we hear Greek spoken by Greeks, we 
find it hard to believe that this jargon, as it seems to us, 
has any relation with the language we used to learn at 
school. On the other hand, the Greek who is not well 
acquainted with the origin and history of the controversy 
on Greek pronunciation, is liable to the mistake that a 
deliberate insult is intended by those who substitute for 
what are to him, at any rate, the harmonious sounds of 
his mother-tongue, a pronunciation which, however eupho- 
nious in itself, must sound to him at best like the hideous 
distortion, the ghastly caricature, of a familiar voice. 


On the Pronunciation of Greek. 

'Eav ovv /*?) fl8S> rf)v 8vva.jj.iv TTJS (pcuvrjs, tffoftai rq> \a\ovvn Pdpj3apo$' 
Kol & \a\u>v (V (pol Pdpffapos. Sr. PAUL. jC Coo. l^'U 

Das Altgriechische nach Art des Neugriechischen auszusprechen 1st ein 
Fehler, der auf vollstiindiger Unkenntniss der Sprachengeschichte 
und der Lautlehre iiberhaupt beruht. SCHLEICHER, Compendium der 
Vergleicbenden Grammatik. 

THE avros c0a of so distinguished a philologist as Schlei- 
cher, to the effect that to pronounce ancient Greek like 
modern Greek is a mistake founded upon complete igno- 
rance of the history of languages and of the whole doctrine 
of pronunciation, will probably be enough to set this question 
at rest in the minds of most people. The writer of these 
pages ventures to dissent from this conclusion, which Pro- 
fessor Schleicher arrives at entirely on ^ priori grounds, 
betraying at the same time a very insufficient acquaintance 
with modern Greek pronunciation. It must however be 
acknowledged that the theory of pronunciation which Pro- 
fessor Schleicher rather leaves to be inferred, than states as 
the one to which he inclines, has the striking merit of con- 
sistency, and is far superior to any form of the Erasmian 


Nor would we be misunderstood when we say that we 
favour the opinion of the general identity between the 
modern Greek pronunciation and that of ancient times. 
We do not mean to say, for example, that the diphthongs 
so called were never diphthongs in reality, or that <p was 
never pronounced like ph in haphazard. But all that com- 
parative philology can prove, all that a priori reasoning re- 
quires, and, as I think we shall see, all that a posteriori 
evidence for the most part allows us to believe, is, that the 
above letters were so pronounced in some pre-historic period 
of language, when Greek was forming, when the elements of 
which it consists were in a state of fusion. This, however, 
has nothing to do with the question, How is it most reason- 
able to pronounce Greek as we find it for the first time in 
the pages of Homer ? 

From that time, and we know not for how many centuries 
earlier, the language, notwithstanding the changes which 
have passed over it, remained in all its essential features 
stereotyped and fixed, especially as regards the forms of 
words and the manner in which they are written. Now, 
how does it stand with the a priori argument ? Is it most 
likely that the forms have been preserved, but the pronun- 
ciation utterly corrupted, or that both have been handed 
down to us together? To believe the first is to believe 
what is contrary to the whole analogy of what we know of 
other languages. Since Sanscrit was Sanscrit, who doubts 
that the pronunciation has been in the main preserved? 
Since German was German, who questions the fact that it 
was sounded as it now is ? Or how can we believe that 
Chaucer, whose English differs from our own as regards the 
grammatical forms more than Homer from Romaic, if read 
by us in the present day, would be perfectly unintelligible 
to himself? 

Again, the following argument must commend itself to 


every one's understanding. If the modern Greek pronun- 
ciation be not the same with that known to the ancients, it 
must either be a legitimate development from it, unaffected 
by external influence, or it must be a corruption, the result 
of foreign admixture. If a legitimate development, then no 
one can fix a priori the limits of its first appearance ; and it 
may just as well be as old as Homer as not. If it be the 
result of contact with foreign influences, then it will be 
possible to explain the peculiarities of modern Greek pro- 
nunciation from such external causes. Here we may at 
once eliminate Turkish, because we know that at the first 
appearance of the Turkish supremacy in Greece, hundreds 
of families fled to the West of Europe, bearing with them 
that very system of pronunciation which not only the Greeks 
still use, but which learned Europe universally allowed until 
the time of Erasmus. What then is left us ? French, Teu- 
tonic, Slavonic, Roman. But none of these throw any light 
ou the peculiarities of Greek pronunciation, as the sounds 
given to y, 0, 5, pfi, HIT, v8, vr, 01, et, 77, t, which receive illus- 
tration mainly, and indeed almost exclusively, from Greek 
itself. Again, the general, though by no means complete 
uniformity of modern Greek pronunciation wherever the 
language is spoken, is another very strong argument for its 
antiquity, and against its being a corruption resulting from 
contact with other languages. The fate of Latin has been 
very different. In the Spanish dialect of modern Latin we 
clearly trace the influence of Arabic, in Italian of Teutonic, 
in France of Celtic sounds. In Greek, on the other hand, 
though the countries where it is spoken are as widely distant, 
and the foreign influences to which it has been subject as 
diverse, we find, with very trifling dialectic variations, the 
same universal traditional pronunciation among learned and 
unlearned alike. In Egypt, in Asia Minor, on the shores of 
the Euxine, in Constantinople, in Athens, in Crete, in the 


Aegean, the pronunciation presents the greatest harmony 
just in respect of those letters on which the whole contro- 
versy turns. 

We shall now proceed to notice, one by one, the peculiar 
features of Greek pronunciation, and collect the evidence on 
the subject supplied by MSS., ancient inscriptions, the notices 
of grammarians, transcriptions into Latin and the Semitic 
languages of Greek words, &c., as it bears upon each par- 
ticular sound. At the same time we shall endeavour to 
show what we hold to be in itself the strongest proof of the 
general identity of modern and ancient Greek pronunciation, 
namely, that exactly the same letters appear to be inter- 
changeable in ancient as in modern Greek. Had' the letters 
in question altogether changed their force, this extraordinary 
coincidence, which would then have to be regarded as the 
result of mere accident, would be positively inexplicable. 
In order that this part of the evidence may present a more 
complete appearance, the corresponding changes in modern 
and ancient Greek will be given, even where there is no 
controversy with respect to the sound of the letters. We 
will begin with 



This letter is pronounced by the Greeks as a in most 
languages, or as ah, or the a in father in English. It has 
never been doubted that this was the original sound of a. 
Schleicher, however, points out that besides the first intensifi- 
cation of a into o, a, and 77, and its further intensification into <, 
an original a is often frequently represented by e or o. Thus, 
besides the dialectic forms fiepeQpov epoyv for fiapadpov apa-rjv, 
we have K\eos for xXafas, from grdvas, 7rXe7o> or TrXeto from 
pldvdmi, pe'F) from srdvdmi, (pepea-m answering to bhdras?, &c. 
So too in modern Greek we get riVora for TiVore, as in 


Aeolic, Kpe/3j3unoi> for Kpa/3/3cmoi>, pcrrdvi for pafpdvtov, CVTOV for 
auTot), ayytfoo for cyyifa, from fyyvs. 

As examples of a interchanged with o, we have in ancient 

Greek the Aeolic orporos ova ovex^p^o-f = (TTparos avto dff^cop^tre, 
fjuftpoTov for ijuftparov, i. e. TJfyiaproi/, o/iitos 1 and ap.a, OJK.OS and ayxoy, 

oppo)Sea> and dppo>5e&>. In modern Greek we have, in like 
manner, KarafioBpa for Karafiddpa, apfj-adia for 6pp.a8id. Com- 
pare the classical ,3o0pos with @d6pov, eVi/Sdtfpa. 

Schleicher observes that the three terminations of contract 
verbs, aw, ea>, and oo>, were all originally but one, viz. dco. So 
in modern Greek > is always represented by ao>, at least 
in the language of the common people. As ^/ratt for frrfl, 

for TreptTraretTe, <po[3a<rai for <po/3ettrat, i.e. 0oj3^ or 

A in ancient Greek is seldom weakened into v, yet this 
appears to have been the case in vvg, ovvg, KVK\OS, p.v\os, and 
a few other words, as p.v(rrag, which also appears in the form 
fiao-ra, and ftvdos, which is found side by side with ftdOos. 
In modern Greek we get o-Kixpos for o-Kd<pos or O-KO^T/. So, 
again, we have the diminutive appellation d<piov, as in x<pn- 
(ptov, frequently represented by ixptov, as favfyiov. 

In ancient Greek a is often weakened into t, as 10-61 for 
ds-dhi, -r(Qr)\Li for dddhdmi. Compare in modern Greek i- 
^aXa, fyixa\ici, with the classical ^ands, ^aKafft. In modern, 
as in ancient Greek, we have rj for a, ^t*cpj) for /uicpa, TTIKP?) for 
TriKpd, and a for >;, as /SeXoVa for /SfXoV?/. A in Homeric Greek 
becomes at, as alcrds, aid, dial, irapai. So in modern Greek 
KOTat/SaiVo), dvaiftatva, iriatvat for Tridvco, Ka6urratvt& for KaOundw. 
Atara, a covenant, may be another form of dt'atra, and pro- 
bably an older one. 

A is prefixed to many words more or less perhaps for the 
sake of euphony, as d/SX^po'y, fampoirq, atrmdpa, dcrracpis, in 

classical J 'A/Spvov, dftporavov, d^3StXXa, d^pdp.u\ov for fipdftvXov, 

, and many others, in modern Greek. 



Pronounced like e in better, only a little broader, more 
like the German a in Manner. This sound has never been 
made the subject of dispute. As a representative of an ori- 
ginal a, of which o is another, it is interchangeable with that 
letter, as OX&POS for ex&P s > m ancient ; OX&POS for fx@P s > %> 
for eo>, in modern Greek. Conversely, e&Wes for 
'A7reAAwi> for 'ATro'AAwi/, in ancient ; and "EKvp-nos for ' 
e\^e for m//*, in modern Greek. It is also prefixed, as 

eKflvos, fie, fp.e, in ancient ; TOVTO, e'rovro, o-e, eVe, (ru, ccrv, in 

modern Greek. 


This letter is pronounced by the Greeks like t, that is like 
ee in see, or e in fo; while the followers of Erasmus pro- 
nounced it, and still pronounce it, as the Italian e long, i.e. 
as ey in they. Hence in the early days of the controversy 
concerning the original sounds of the Greek letters, Reuchlin 
and his adherents, who favoured the modern Greek pro- 
nunciation, were called the Itacists or lotacists, while the 
Erasmians received the title of Etacists. The name is un- 
fortunate, because just the one point in which the advocates 
of the modern pronunciation would be most inclined to 
make a concession to their adversaries, is with regard to the 
sound of the letter ;. 

That T) was originally the representative of a sound dis- 
tinct from i is etymologically certain, inasmuch as in the 
Ionic dialect, and in certain cases in Attic, 17 stands for the 
doubly strengthened a, whereas i is a weakened a, in the 
few cases where it represents it. At the same time there 
are cases where T] represents a short a, as in recrcrapriKovTa, 
ftnr\r]crtos. In these instances 17 may perhaps stand for 
short t. 


E. Sophocles, in his Introduction to the ' Glossary of Later 
and Byzantine Greek/ London, 1868, adduces the authority 
of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Aelianus Herodianus, Teren- 
tianus Maurus, and Sextus, to prove that the sound of rj 
differed in their day from t, and was like the long Italian <?. 
Dionysius says, in pronouncing rj the breath strikes the roots 
of the tongue, in sounding i the back of the teeth. This, 
though a very vague distinction, is not altogether inapplicable 
to the difference between the sounds of ay and ee. Hero- 
dian simply says people are mistaken in saying VTJO-TIJS for 
v/Jorts. Here the difference implied may be very well one 
of quantity only. Terentianus Maurus says, distinguishing 
between e and 77, ' Temporum momenta distant, non soni 
nativitas ;' and Sextus says much the same thing, viz. * Kal 

o-uoTuXev fieV TO r\ yiWrai e, eKraQev fie TO e ylvtrai r).' That is, 

long e = r) ; short rj = e. This would seem to a casual reader 
to prove the point for which the Erasmians contend, viz. 
that T} was sounded ay. A little consideration will serve 
greatly to modify the value to be attached to their testimony. 
In the first place, it should be remembered they are all more 
or less Romanized Greeks, in as far as they are Greeks at 
all, and they would therefore readily imagine that the rj 
must or ought to be pronounced like the letter which they 
used to represent it ; and as to them e = e, they naturally con- 
cluded TI = e. Again, etymologically they were right : rj is 
not only the strengthening or lengthening of a, but also of e. 

As cpa>Ta> rjptoTTjcra, eVey/cco fjveyKov, cvpu r)vpov. 

Again, if rj was considered by the ancients as a long f, so 
was , for the old name of was ft, according to the prin- 
ciple which governed the original nomenclature of the Greek 
alphabet, and which was that each letter should be named 
by its long sound. So o was called ov, yet no one supposes 
that ov was really the long sound of o, because we know that 
ov was always transcribed in Latin by u. Equally certain is 


it that ft was almost invariably represented by the simple 
vowel i in Latin. Consequently we are led to the conclu- 
sion that ov and ei would be respectively the representatives 
of the English oo and ee, which are their exact phonetic 
parallels. For ov actually stands for oo in Greek, and for 
te : e. g. xp v<r ov ~ xp vcr v v ) <popeere = (popeire. In other words, 
as in English so in Greek it is plain, that certain long sounds 
corresponded actually to certain short ones, of which, ac- 
cording to a priori phonetic rules, they could not have been 
the representatives. An approximation to the English long e 
may be seen in the Dutch double e, and in the Hungarian /. 
That 77 and were very similar in sound is rendered highly 
probable both by the fact that they were each held to be the 
representatives of a long e, and that they were interchange- 
able even within the limits of the same dialect. So we have 
not only KTJVOS and T^VOS for Ktivos, but also /3ouAei and jSouX^, 
KKfis or xXftf, <\eiTos and K\T)TOS. Nor does the Latin tran- 
scription of 77 by e prove that it was sounded ay : for the 
Latin e represented very often an <?z", and on the other hand 
tended to become, and therefore probably closely resembled 
in sound, the simple I. So we have tristes from tristeis, 
written tristis ; Vergilius written Virgilius, &c. : and not only 
so, but in the Byzantine period designatus is transcribed in 
Greek dio-iyvdros : while, on the other hand, Plutarch writes 
Palilia, Ua\r]\ia '. where plainly 77 = long i. So that the tran- 
scription of 77 by e in Latin inclines us to believe, not that 17 
was sounded ay, but that e in Latin was hard to distinguish 
from I. When shortened, 77 tends to become *, not only in 
ancient but also in modern Greek, as for example, Sepoy, 
Ionic for ^po's, dvadep.a for dvd6rip.a ; and in modern Greek, 

ep6s for Irjpdy, Oepiov for drjpiov, pepiov for pripiov, Kfpiov for 

Of the very close resemblance between t and 77 in the time 
of Homer, that is between the sounds represented in later 


times by i and 77 respectively, we have, Professor Mullach 
thinks, instances in the parallel forms TJKCD and t*a>, (iriftoXos 
and C7n]fio\os (where 77 seems to be simply i lengthened by 
the combined force of the accent and the ictus), yiyas and 
yrjyevqs, which two forms we have together in the Batra- 

FrjyevcGW avbpwv p,ip.ovp,fvoi epya yiydvrav, 

7n'Sa from mjSaa), rjSe and I&F. In many of these cases i 
stands for long 77, in others for a shortened 77. Ross gives 
an inscription found at Carpathus in which ipaa>v stands for 
rjpwuv. The significance of this would depend greatly on the 
antiquity of the inscription. In the Cratylus of Plato, the 
obviously false etymology of A^r^p from 8i8a>/u and /^rr/p, 
derives all its little plausibility from the resemblance between 
77- and 81-. So in Aristophanes' Pax, 925, the point of a 
pun depends upon the resemblance in sound between &oi 
and porjQelv, and again, 928, between m and tyvia. Nor 
should the later parallel forms Trpiorr]? and Trpfjcms, o-Kqirav and 
o-KiTrav, with the Latin Scipio, which Plutarch writes S/crjTnW, 
be forgotten. 

All the Semitic transcriptions, of whatever age, agree in 
representing 77 by *', according to M. Renan, in his very 
learned and interesting pamphlet, ' Eclaircissements tire's des 
Langues se'mitiques sur quelques points de la Prononciation 
grecque.' Thus in the Syrian Peschito K^ar = Ktfo, Kvprjvr) 
= Kourini. 

In Hebrew we have Tarschisch for Tap^o-o-tfc, lima for 
/3^/xa, diathiki for 8ta0T)Kr], listis for \rja-TTjs. 

In Aethiopian, paraclilos = irapdKXrjTos, mestir for /iucrr^ptoi/. 
In Arabian, Dimas for Afoas. 

In the eighth century after Christ, Theophilus of Edessa, 
a Syrian astronomer who enriched his literature by transla- 
tions from the Iliad and Odyssee, introduced a system of 


vocalization, which M. Renan thinks must have represented 
a pronunciation reaching back to a very early age, and in 
which the letter i appears as an H turned on its side. 

In the New Testament, KajutXo? for Ka/z^Xoy, e'XaKT^o-e for 
fXaKTio-c, are no doubt errors in spelling, but they show the 
early prevalence of the confusion of ?? with * : so too e 

It is not of much importance that 9 represents in Alexan- 
drine and Hellenistic Greek the Hebrew .I, as in 'E/z/iai/ouTjX, 
2aXa0i)jX : because r; was the only letter left for this purpose, 
all the rest having been appropriated to the Hebrew sounds 
which they most resembled. 

There is another passage in Plato's Cratylus, 418 c, bear- 
ing on the sound of the letter r?, to the consideration of 
which we must devote a few lines, as it has been claimed 
both by the Itacists and Etacists respectively in support of 
their views. It is this : 

Of TraXaioi of f)fJiTpoi TO) laird KOI T<u SeXrct cv /xaXa e'xpairro, feat 
ov% fJKicrTa al yvvaiKfs, airrep /uaXicrra rr]v ap-^aiav (fxavrjv <ra>bv<rt. 
NUJ/ avr\ p.v TOV 'Iwra TJ Ei r) T Hra p.fTacrTp(povcri. . . . Olov of 
fjiev ap^aiOTarot ipepav TTJV rjp.fpav fKaXovv, of 8e e/xepav, of 5e vvv 

Here it seems we must read, instead of fj ^Ura, simply *Hra, 
the former 77 connecting 'lira ^ Et. 

The Erasmians are so far right in their interpretation of 
the passage, that we must agree with them in thinking that if 
Plato had not recognized a difference between i and 77, he 
would scarcely have distinguished the two as he has done ; 
but if we are really to believe that he meant 77 to represent 
the sound ay in day, then the result is most alarming for the 
defenders of the Erasmian system, inasmuch as we have it 
on the authority of Plato that the pronunciation of ^ra as 
, so far from being an innovation as the Erasmians con- 



tend, was the most ancient sound of that letter. The truth 
appears to be that Plato is thinking merely of the quantity of 
the respective sounds which he distinguishes. He speaks of 
77 as a grander sound than t or e, /xe-yaXoTrpeTreo-repov : by which 
he can only mean that it is longer or fuller. 

In any case he must have been wrong, at least as regards 
the general principle : for neither can we believe that the 
tendency to lotacism was an archaism which has been 
revived quite lately in modern Greek, inasmuch as we can 
trace the tendency throughout the historical period of the 
Greek language, and find it more and more strongly marked 
as the language grows older ; nor, on the other hand, can we 
believe that long vowels like 9 were originally represented by 
short ones like f. 

Plato knew of course nothing whatever of the now ascer- 
tained principles of philology, and he was led to his conclu- 
sions probably by the knowledge of the fact that f^fpa was 
found in ancient documents and inscriptions written, in de- 
fault of the letter 77, which was not_used as a vowel until 
the Archonship of Euclides, 403 B.C., e>e'pn or l^pa. If 
this view be correct, we may appeal to Plato in proof 
that the most ancient way of representing the letter 77 
was by t. 

The Scholiast on Eurip. Phoen. 685 tells us expressly that 
before the time of Euclides t was used for 17, o for oyie'ya. 
Theodosius the Grammarian, who lived in the fourth century 
after Christ (?), assures us that 77 was formed by joining two 
t's together. This is of course impossible, inasmuch as 77 
was originally used as the sign of the aspirate, but it shows 
at any rate that by Theodosius T) was considered as equiva- 
lent to a long or double t. 

The well-known line of Cratinus still remains to be 
noticed : 

1 'O 8' T]\i6ios &(TTTfp irpoftarov fir/ j3r} \tya>v 


Everybody feels, it is argued, that to represent the bleating 
of a sheep by a sound equivalent to /3T, /3I, the vowel being 
sounded as ee in see, would be inadmissible. 

After all, we must confess that the attempts to render the 
noises of animals by the articulate sounds of pepoTrav dvdpa- 
Trav, are very diverse and very unsatisfactory. We do not 
understand their language, and it is hopeless for us to at- 
tempt to reduce it to writing. The German peasant hears 
his frogs say acht, achl, the Greek ear seemed to distinguish 
the mysterious syllables PpfUfKCKeg. In English the very word 
bleat shows the possibility of associating an ee sound with the 
noise of the sheep. Yet we think our sheep say bah, bah, 
and I confess the Greek sheep seemed to me to say so too. 
But this may have been a Doricism. 

As however the letter y could hardly have been in use as a 
vowel when Cratinus wrote, it is nearly certain that he must 
have written /See, $ee, or perhaps simply /3e', /3e'. This being 
so, the whole argument of the Erasmians falls to the ground 
as a ' demonstration in unreal matter.' 


Pronounced unquestionably as ee in see. The letters with 
which it is interchangeable have been, or will be, noticed 
under their respective heads. 

O and . 

Both sounded nearly like o in core, gore, shorn, or like aw 
in saw. The distinction in quantity is rather felt than heard, 
and indeed o> at the beginning of a syllable sounds short, and 
o at the end of a syllable, long. Ao'yoy sounds \a>-yos ; irpay- 
fjLariKms, TTpaynaTiKos. That this was so in ancient Greek 
seems likely from the accent in TrdXewy, povoKcputs, &c. It is 
almost impossible to preserve the pure sound of o when 

C 2 


much lengthened. Our o in note is not strictly the o in not 
lengthened, but the sound 6 rapidly followed by do, as in boot. 
Double o sounds in English as it did in Greek, simply do. 
Ou was one form of long o, and w/xeya was another, the latter 
used no doubt in those cases where the o sound was still 
preserved. Thus it is that we have ou as a strengthened 
form for o : e. g. JJLOVVOS, ouAd/ifz/or, fio^drjpos, povxTfpos, modern 
Greek ; povpya for dpopyrj, modern Greek, and many others. 

Ou stands more frequently for w, as yovv, ovv for y&v, 3>v : so 
in modern Greek, Kifiovpi for Kiftwpiov, Kov<pbs for Koxjkdr, \l/ovviaa 

for ov^coj/t'^o), &C. 

T as a vowel. 

The modern Greeks generally pronounce this letter 
simply as a long i. Schleicher says it was originally 
sounded like the German or Italian u, but soon acquired 
the sound of the German u, or French u. The old sound 
is preserved in numberless modern Greek words, which 
may all be regarded as Boeotic' forms, like yowrj for ywr). 
Here follow a few examples, taken for the most part from 
Sophocles' 'Modern Greek Grammar:' 

, dyicouXa, ayxvpa, tiyKovpa, rvKavij, dovKavrj (cf. in Homer 

for TVTTOs), (TTOVpaKlOV fOT (TTVpCtKlOV, KO\\OVpa for KoXAvpd, 

Tpovrra for rpvira, <TKOV\OS for (TKuXoy, KouXXos for KuXXdy, povKavij 

for pvKavr], to which we may add KOVTO\IOV, undoubtedly a 
Doric or Boeotic form for KVTO\IOV, i. e. o-KiraXtoz>, /xov^/ioupi^a) 

for p-vpfjivpifa, povpfuyyi from p.vpp.T)g. 

In Chios, Thessaly, and Macedonia, according to Pro- 
fessor Mullach, the U sound is still heard. 

The Tsakones at present inhabiting the ancient Cynuria, 
whose name Professor Mullach thinks may be a corruption 
of the ancient KavKoves, have preserved to us another pecu- 
liarity of the pronunciation of v, namely, its tendency to 


be sounded like the English u, viz.yoo. Thus in Tsakonian 
we have VIOVTTO. for VVKTO, i. e. w. 

So in old Boeotian inscriptions we have Aioviovo-tos, AioiWa?, 
'OXiowTnWof. I suspect however, from the examples ad- 
duced, that both in the case of Tsakonian and Boeotian 
the i represents the liquid sound of X and v before u, as in 
modern Greek generally is the case whenever these letters 
stand before v, t, T] and similar sounds. 

In Syrian transcriptions v is generally represented by ou 
(English 00), as kindounos oksoufafon for KtvSwos ogvftcxpov. 
Similarly in the Chaldaean of Daniel, Soumphonia = Svptycwia. 

I may here remark, by the way, that to propose a Semitic 
origin for this and other Greek words in Daniel, is what 
no one could do, et M dea-iv 8ia(f)v\dTT(ov. And not only 
so, but the words in question, both as regards their form 
and signification, are evidently not earlier than the Macca- 
baean period. J'nnJpa tyavrepiv for ^aXrrjptov is a natural 
form enough for the Koivf) didXeKros which arose after the 
Macedonian conquests, but would be inexplicable before 
that time. 

Coptic and Aethiopian transcriptions agree with the 
earlier Syrian in transcribing v as ov, following, as M. Renan 
thinks, the Boeotic and Aeolic pronunciation which, it seems, 
largely prevailed among the Greek-speaking populations of 
the East. 

In later Syriac however, as in the Peschito version of 
the New Testament, we find i as the representative of v, ac- 
cording to the prevailing, though not universal, modern Greek 
usage : as Evroclidon = EupoKXvSaw, Didimos = Aidvpos, clamis = 
xhap.vs, hili=v\r]. In Sountico for SiWu^os the accented 
syllable preserves the 00 sound, while the unaccented has 
lost it. That the unaccented v was the first to become i 
we may infer from the common occurrence of such words as 
dov and /u,dXi/3off, <^ITVU> and ^vTevto, pdpfSiXos and /3pd/3vXos, 


and such endings as -rjpos, -vpos, -vXoj, -iXo'y, -77X0?, used 
indifferently, and apparently without any distinction in 

meaning, as avarrjpos, \iyvpos, dyKvXor, 7roiKi\os, ctri)Xoff, 

orpo'^iXoy, a1crv\os, tyrjXos. Neither accent nor quantity seem 
to be very fixed in such words; yet v\os seems most often 
paroxytone; when the accent is removed the tendency to 
become 77X0? or iXos would seem to increase. In Latin a 
short unaccented u also becomes easily 2', as in maximus, 
optimus, for maxumus, optumus^ another instance of the way 
in which the lotacizing tendency in Greek is paralleled in 
Latin. There are many instances, however, of an accented 
v becoming i : witness /3u/3Xo? and /3//3Xoy, fipi-6a> and ftapvda>, 
/3pvo>, (pirpov, (pvrpa, pvy^os and pis, pinrru) and piirTa> '. probably 
also nvd- and mO-, TTVO-TI? and irians, p-ixros (perhaps p.vaos) and 
p.lcros, ^fiBios and ^vdios, oSwr; and wfiiV, ^L^Lp.vdiov and "*l/ip.p.i- 
6iov. E and v are also interchangeable, as in fivKdop-ai and 

K\vrbs and /cXrjToy, also fcXfiToy, crrOXo? and or^Xr/, 

and <rTvpa from on/pffo), (p\r)vbs from <pi\va> <p\w6s. 

In Arabic, Aethiopian, and Persian transcriptions u is 
nearly always represented as /: Kipros, asicriton, sizi'ge, pilas, 
and so on, for Kvn-pos, do-vyKpirov, (Tvvyf, irv\as. The Septua- 
gint follows here, as in other cases, the lotacist pronunciation. 

In the Aeolic dialect ov sometimes stands for u, as 
Oovydrrjp ; but more often t, as i^-oy, tVe/>. 

The same three gradations are found in German : as 
funf, ftinf, in the South pronounced as finf; so nutzlich, 
niitzlich) and nitzlich. Uber stands in Martin Opitz, the 
founder of what is called the first Silesian School in German 
literature in the seventeenth century, for iiber, which in the 
South sounds as iber. Even in the written language, Geburge 
and Gebirge, gultig and giltig, Hiilfe and Hilfe, Spriichwort 
and Sprichwort are used indifferently according to the taste 
and fancy of the writer. 


AT and ET 

are pronounced in modern Greek as aw and ew in 
German when the v stands between two vowels or before 
a medial; in other cases as m or e< respectively. The 
English letters v and/" are only approximations to the Ger- 
man zv = @, and the Greek <. F and v in English, and in 
most European languages, are made by means of the upper 
teeth and the under lip, <, j3, and w in German, are formed 
by the contact of both lips. Any one who compares the 
two sets of sounds by pronouncing A/3 or Av-, and Av, A$, 
or Av and Af, in rapid succession, will see how much nearer 
the Greek /3, or v consonantal, and <p, are to the vowel 
sound oo, or even u (French), than the English approxima- 
tions. The transition from oo (u Italian) to w (German) 
is marked by the English w. 

It is worthy of observation that v never stands at the 
beginning of a word of Saxon origin; while in the middle 

of a word it generally represents either b or f; but very 

seldom, if ever, the German or Saxon w. 

That ov and cv were sounded as a/3 and e/3, if followed by 

a vowel, is generally admitted, and this is according to the 

analogy of Sanscrit. 

In these cases the v represents the digamma, which in 

its turn represents the Sanscrit or old Indian v, so-called, 

but what in reality is the consonantal sound of u = oo, into 

which the vowel sound is changed if followed by another 

vowel, as in grdvas, pldvdmi, srdvdmi = nXef-'os, TrXepco, peFi. 

The modern Greek forms TrXfuw, pevoo preserve the F, as u 


But there are signs that at a very early period the 

consonantal sound of v was heard even before a consonant. 
In Syriac, av and ev are rendered av and ev, as Evroclidon, 

Pavlos, Avgoustos; evkaristia = ev^a/no-Tia, evtikis = 


It is true that av in Syriac represents also to, as lavseph = 
'Icoo-qcp, Bariavna for Bapicow : and M. Renan suggests that 
av in Syriac was pronounced au (German), which is possible ; 
but in any case there is the fv = ev remaining. Av and o>, 
as well as the Latin au and <?, are plainly nearly related, 
whatever may have been their pronunciation : as rpavpa, 
rpco/za, Oavfia, Bapa, lautus, lotus, Claudius, Clodius, aut, o, 
amavit, amavt, amo. So in modern Greek p.avpos, M&pos, avriov, 

In modern Greek tv also sometimes becomes o>, as 
, >//-a>p.ara, with which we may compare euXaxa, a 
Laconian form of auXa, and the form o>Xa, also Doric. 
In MSS. we have the double forms \avpos and Xa/3por, \avpa 
and Xo/9pa, KaXaupoox//- and KaXa/Spwi// 1 . In Homer a\|/> is, I 
cannot doubt, for av + s = avs ; s being added, as in OVTWS , 
vdvs, and other adverbs. Compare fo'^oo and e^-w, the sig- 
mated deva> and eo>, and in modern Greek e7n'o-Te\//a, Ka-^ts, 
&c., for 7ricrTfva-a, Kavo-is. The Homeric word fydifjw is 
derived by Liddell and Scott in a procrustean manner from 
tyi, 6Ip.os, notwithstanding the long t and the 6, being a mere 
ending, while the last i of i$i is violently, and contrary to 
all analogy, elided between < and 6. 

1 KaiTTtp ou pa8tov ov TOIOVTOLS dv8pd(riv dirt(TT('iv,' I must 

submit, first, that there is no such ending as 0Z/zoy; and, 
secondly, if there is one thing certain about <p0, it is that 
no vowel has been dropt between the two letters. Let us, 
however, admit the identity of the Homeric and modern 
pronunciation, and we see at once that i$0ijuos is but another 
way of writing r/#0u/*or, the Epic form of fvdvpos. Here 
every single letter is accounted for, and the accent and 
quantity as well. In Wvs for ev8vs it appears that the (p 
has been lost. Probably &Vo>, 0W, 6iva are connected 
with <p#iVo> : as well as 6ta>, Qodfa, 66os, OCLTTOV, Sanscrit 

i) With <p&ii/o 



This combination as pronounced by the Greeks is not to 
be distinguished from e. So we get in the grammarians 
tyeKas and \lfaiKas, while ye- in the compounds seems to 
represent yai-. AiVv?, high, lofty, seems (cf. VTTCITOS, v-^na-ros, 
and tyri\6s, from virep) to be connected with rt. 

At-oV becomes edv. 3>eyyo> is from (paivco, and probably 
stands for <paiyya>. Kat and re for K are, according to 
Curtius, but two forms of the same word. The interjec- 
tions e and at suggest the same. Kei/6s for Kaibvbs, related to 

KttiwfUf fdopa and alapa, paivQfuu and ptvof, p,aifj.da) for fiF/iaco, 
dp.aifj.aKTOs for a/AaKeTos = a/na^T/roy, instead of a/n6fia^eroy, X mTT 7 

from x e/co > implying the verbal adjective x e s or X ' 7 " ' 5 '? are 
sufficient to show how often at stands for e. It invariably 
stands for the Sanscrit e in the verbal termination at, as 
(^epecrat, (frfpeTni, for bhdrase, bhdrate. 

At the end of a word at is short as a rule, both in 
prosody, as also before a following vowel in scansion, which 
renders it absolutely certain, that, in such cases at least, 
it could not have been sounded as a diphthong. Schleicher 
considers the termination of the second person plural pas- 
sive -a-6e, to stand for -a-dpe, which is short for -a-Bfai - 
-sdhvai. The diphthongal sound of at, as of the other so- 
called diphthongs, was probably heard only when it was 
written with a diaeresis, as is the case at present in modern 

In Latin at was represented by ae, as Aeacus, Aeneas, 
Maenades, and ae was most undoubtedly a monophthong, 
so much so that if the metre required it to be diphthongal, 
its archaic representative at was used, as terrai frugiferai. 

In Greek inscriptions belonging to the Roman period 
we find e representing at, and vice versd. When Plato, 
Crat. 412 d, is quoted as proof that 1*0101; was pronounced 


, because he derives it from 8uu6v, it may be sufficient 
to reply that Plato knew how to spell. In Callimachus, 
250 B.C., we have the following epigram: 

AvcraviT), crv de vm^i maXbs, Ka\bs, aXXa Trplv 

Where ex XXoy is supposed to be the echo of vai\i 

the initial consonants disappearing, as we know they 

actually do in an echo. 


This combination written without the diaeresis is, and 
no doubt was, sounded as t. Nat^i rhymes, as we have seen, 
to exei. In Latin, regularly appears as z', and in Greek 
itself we have 'iprjv and fip^v, tXXo> and eiXo>, 1X77 and ftX?/. 
Semitic transcriptions all point the same way, as well as 
the pun on aXX' l^anov and akfi^^aTiw in Diogenes Laertius. 
In the Scythian patois, Aristoph. Thesm., t stands for short ft, 
as o for <. Herodian, M. Victorinus, Choeroboscus, and 
Theognostus identify ei with i, while Sextus says it had a 
sound peculiar to itself. 


Now sounded like , 77, t, or v, that is, equivalent to ee 
in see. Originally it was sounded apparently more like 
* than any of the other letters or combinations, inasmuch 
as the name ityiXoi/ was given it to distinguish it from 
v bfyOoyyos or v Sta 8i<f>66yyov by the later grammarians. 
So in Boeotic we get TVS for rot?. In the same way 2\//iXov 
was so called to distinguish it from at or c Sta 8i<p66yyov. 
Thus John Lydus, a Byzantine grammarian, tells us, 

de dio\oyov vop.ia> TI piv (rr)p.aivei [Kuai'ara>p] Sta TTJ 
ypcKfrofJLevov, TI 8c \^tX^s J KvaiWcop rolvvv 6 777-777-7;? arro TOV 
quaerere olov (ptvvav. "On fie /IT) dtydoyyos (V npooip-lois 77 Xt'^tf, 
dXXa ^tXr; ypatpfrai, ovSerepov peit TCOV flpT)fj.VQ)V (TT][J,ait>ei TOV de 


Kal P\d<r<f)T]p.ov 8ia rrjs ypafyfjs eViSei^ei, on qiieror 

Hence it is evident that the word tyikov, which means 
simple as opposed to double, is falsely explained unaspirated 
by Kriiger and Buttmann, to say nothing of the inappro- 
priateness, amounting to absurdity, of calling e unaspirated, 
as though it had formerly been one sign of the aspirate, 
which it was not, as far as I know ; or applying this designa- 
tion to v, the peculiarity of which is, that except in a few 
dialectic forms it is invariably aspirated at the beginning 
of a word. 

The Semitic transcriptions of 01 are very various : some- 
times it appears as /, as kirogrellios for x oi P7P^^ ins : m 
Aethiopian sometimes as o, as Phonix for 3>oiVi, probably 
a mere mistake ; and most commonly by ou, i. e. u or oo, 
proving the similarity of the sound of 01 to u, which, as we 
have seen, is also represented by ou. 

The Aeolians changed ou to 01, as Molo-a for MoOo-a, which 
was probably very much the same thing as if they had written 
it Mvo-a. 

Oi is short (as a rule) in prosody, and often in scansion, 
and that not only at the end of a word : witness II. xiii. 275 
(quoted by Mullach), old' dperrjv olos eWi : and again, ToTo? 
eu>i> ofo? OVTIS. It was then plainly no diphthong. Oeconomos, 
a Greek writer of the present century, thinks it was sounded 
in some dialects as ou = u Italian, and in some as u passing 
into t. This appears to us highly probable. In modern Greek 

we find iTpovKO. for Trpoina, <f)\ov8iov for <p\oii$i.ov Or (foXoidtov, 

ar/xoTrXouj/ for ar/zoTrXotoi/, as well as the ordinary i sound. 
The Germans generally prefer o ( = eu French) as the re- 
presentative of 01, and compare oe which invariably tran- 
scribes it in Latin, but we do not know how the Latin oe 
was sounded, although we do know that it was, like the 
Greek 01, monosyllabic, and, like it too, easily passed both 


into u and i\ compare foedus with fidus> moenia with munire. 
If 01 and oe were really like the German o, then we may also 
compare such forms as sohnen, siihnen, and (according 
to Southern pronunciation) sihnen. 

The account of the ambiguous oracle in Thucydides, ii. 54, 
clearly proves at least the close resemblance in sound between 
Xoifj.6s and X</ioy. The sense which Mr. Sophocles obtains 
from the words is precisely the reverse; but he obtains it 
by sundry glaring mistranslations. He draws our attention 
to the fact that u5eo-0cu, &>i/o/*do-$ai, clprjo-Oat, and aaovrat, all bear 
reference to the sound of the word, which is partly not the 
case, and partly nothing to the point. 

He renders as follows: 'A dispute arose among men, 
some maintaining that the calamity mentioned had not been 
called (u>i>o/iao-&u) \oipbs but Xt/zoV.' whereas Thucydides 
says simply ' that it was not plague that was spoken of, but 
famine.' ' Again, the opinion prevailed at this time that the 
word said was Xot/ior:' whereas all that the words will bear 
is, ' the thing spoken of was Xot/zoV Again, TTJV ^^v eVoi- 
OVVTO could not mean ' adapted their recollections,' but simply 
c gave the account.' By such ingenious distortions does Mr. 
Sophocles adapt a passage, which is clearly a stumbling- 
block to his theory, into a bulwark of defence. 


sounds in modern Greek as t simply. Homer nearly always 
makes vibs two short syllables. In Syriac oios occurs for 
6 vio'f, which is the more remarkable as the usual Syriac 
representative of u alone is ou. 

Passing on to the consonants, we begin with 

B = German iy. 

Liddell and Scott admit that it was softer than our b. 
It frequently stood for the digamma in dialectic forms, i.e. 


in those words where the digamma was still sounded; as 
jSeiKtm, /SaXtKios, for e'tKocrt, 17X1*10?. So in modern Greek we 
have fidyya, a hollow, compare ayKo? and ay-yos, &c. ; fipiCa, as 
in ancient Greek for pia, in the sense of rye; ftovpKos, etymo- 
logically the same with 0/3*09, fipdxos, and pa^oOXa. 

It stands for the consonantal sound of v in such tran- 
scriptions as Aa/St'S, Sfftripos, probably in the proper name 
Ayaftos for dyavos; and the word drroXavu is only another 
way of writing an-oXtt/Sw. So in modern Greek we get avd/3co 
from ai/aTTTw, of which it is the root, in the sense of to burn ; 
compare the ancient Greek a#co, evavu. In the middle of a 
word it thus preserves the digamma in modern Greek, and 
in such positions may be equally well written as t>; e.g. 

TrXeuoo, peva), 7rXe'/3a>, pe/3o>. 

If o-/3as come from the Sanscrit sev, then it should properly 
be written aevas; but it is possible that atftonai meant ori- 
ginally ' I move for a person/ the ancient sign of respect ; 
and in that case it stands for o-euo/iat, of which o-0j3eco is 
certainly the causative, written with /3 instead of v, to 
preserve the sound of the last consonant in the root. Compare 

<po/3eo>, (, (pevya), i.e. (pfftyw. 

As a rule, however, /3 stands for the Sanscrit g, and thus 
in Greek it is interchangeable with y, as /3e'0upa, yetyvpa; 
&\e(papov, yXecpapov. So in modern Greek we have y\e<papov, 

), yoinra for jSovTra, yovyovpas for (36pj3opos (?) : cf. ydpyvpa, 

Before t, pronounced as y, it becomes, like y and 5, ^ : 
as vifa for j/i'j8i3- ; Xa^o/xat for Xa/Sto/nat. I can find no instance 
of such a change in modern Greek, but even in ancient 
Greek it is very rare, and probably arose from the fact that 
a y was heard in such cases after the /3. Thus rpt'^a and 
rpi/3o> are probably from the same root, rpifeo expressing the 
grating squeaking noise caused by rpi'/3o>. The intermediate 
form would be rpt'/Syco, which occurs in modern Greek, as 


well as both rp^ca and Tpi'/3a>. So vi$a> and vi'/3yo>, for 
are modern Greek forms. Cf. (pfftopai and 0e/3yo>, i.e. 

The hard unaspirated sound of b is preserved when # 
follows /*, as efi/SaiW, fjLJ36Xip.os. 

B is interchangeable with fi, as /ze/z/3pa? for /3e/i/3pa? (ancient 
Greek) ; /iudo>, /3i>Cdo> ; ;HW> dx?j3d8a (modern Greek) ; with 
<, as BiXar7roy, Macedonian for 4>iXt7T7roy (ancient Greek) ; 
cf. modern Greek &i\apds, BtXapdy ; aXel/3a>, dXe/(pa> ; P^TJO-KOVVI, 
<p\r)(TKOvvi (modern Greek) ; With TT, as /Sctreii/, Trarflv, TTUTIW;, 

/3im'i7 (ancient Greek) ; 'Apama for 'Apa/3ia (modern Greek). 

B, A are interchanged, as @(\<piv, /3X)p for 8e\<piv, SeXeap 
(ancient Greek) ; Kowdfii for Kowddt, from Ktvados (modern 


This letter is a guttural semivowel, like the German ^ 
in Tflg 1 : before t and e, however, it sounds like a very strong 
y ; in other words, it sounds more palatal. The sound of the 
Hebrew V, as preserved according to the most probable 
tradition, and most faithfully rendered by the Arabian g 
soft, as Professor Gandel informs me, corresponds exactly 
to the Greek y. Thus we find in the Septuagint rda, 
rdjuoppa, for nW 3 nioj^: which proves almost to demonstration 
that the present pronunciation of y must have prevailed in 
the time of the translators of the Septuagint. Only if we 
assume that y was a soft semivowel, can we understand its 
evanescence, not only as a transcription of V before an un- 
accented vowel, as 'A/iaXeV, 'HXi, but also in Greek words, 
especially before palatal vowels, as ala for yala, Iwos for 
and in the middle of a word between two vowels, as av, 
for eyo>t>, dXt'yoy; or before /*, as T^pa for r/uf/y/ia, as well 
as before a- in aorists of verbs, -d for -dyto>, aorist -aa-a for 
-an. So in modern Greek we get the dialectic forms Xios 

for dXt'yoy, lotv for eyo>i>, X'o> for Xeyco, irpapa for Trpay/na, &C. 


With a?a for yam we may compare laivo> for vytatvw. In 
ancient Greek vyuiivto, vyidfa, are no doubt all con- 
nected ; and in modern Greek it is hard to say in such 
forms as yiarpbs, yaT/ia for larpos, af//a, whether the y is to 
be considered as prefixed to the one form or omitted from 
the other. In yov\ta for oflXm it may stand for t, cf. ov\os 
and t'ovXoy, as in dypeo>, cupeo>. In modern Greek, as in 
ancient, y is often prefixed to X, as y\vi<o(peyyci for XVKO- 

<$cyyt } cf. Xu/co0cos, XOKO), yXaKw, \dpos, y\dpos ', as well as 
before v, as yveda for vr]6a>, y\d<p<i) for Xei^o). 

Here we may compare yXauo-o-o>, y\r)/j.rj ) yvocpos, for Xevo-o-o), 
XT^LIT/, v6<pos, i.e. ve(pos '. \vacra> is probably but a sigmated 
form of j3Xe'<o) or jSXfVo), standing for yXe^o-co : compare yXe- 
<papov, and in modern Greek yXeVo), also the modern Greek 

(rvvvf<pov, crvyv((pov. 

The letter y in modern Greek is often of etymological 
significance, in cases where it has disappeared from the 
classical form. A.vy6v or 'A/3yoi>, for woV, preserves the ori- 
ginal avjdn far more truly than even the form given by 
Hesychius, viz. <0/3eoi>, or the Latin ovum; as does /uiya for 
//ma, than the Attic Where two y's come together the 
first is nasal. That this was so in ancient Greek, we know 
from the fact that avy-, eVy-, &c. were always written ayy-, e'yy-. 
In this position the second y retains its hard sound, as is the 
case with /3 after /z. 

The nasal y is sometimes prefixed to a guttural in order 
to strengthen a syllable, as in Sanscrit so in ancient and 
modern Greek. Examples : Ak', ank'amt, diyydvu from root 
6iy- ) dyKadi from aKavQa (modern Greek), and Say/ca^ca for 


= Spanish </, or th in then, except after v, where it sounds 
harder. Thus a lisped = z, becomes 8. Accordingly we 
have Aei>s and Zevs, dpifrXos for api'S^Xoy, bp for SopKds. In 


modern Greek, frpKabiov for Sopitddtov, '/iat' for o/zafi. Most 
often this is the case when a palatal vowel has been ab- 
sorbed, as 7re6y for 7re8id?, and in modern Greek Mrrovfrwas 
for UoSeuv. Only on the assumption that 8 = th in then, can 
we understand how o-S came to represent in Doric, as 
/ieXiVSo), To>0ao-8a>, 0av/zao-Sa>, or how was accounted by the 
grammarians a double letter, compounded of 8 and a-, 
whereas etymologically it is extremely doubtful whether ever 
stands for ds, and certain that it never stands for 0-8, the fact 
being that o-S and 8s are ways of approximating the sound of . 
The sound of 8 being so soft, it easily passes into y before 
the half consonantal i, so we have yia for 8m, &c. Thus we 
have reason to suspect that ytyvpa was originally 8iai<pvpa, 
perhaps Aeolic for bialQvpa, although the accent and the 
earlier quantity are against this derivation. More certain 

is it that tci>K&> Stands for yta>Ka>, from 810x0) ; tamo for yiatvco, 

from diaivco ; the modern Greek yepbs or ytfpbs for 8iep6s, 
another form of vyuipos. So we have too in modern Greek 
laKiovy 8taKioi/, yiaKiov, for a rudder. If iepbs means originally 
strong, as some philologers think, 8iep6s, vyiepos, yfpos, and 
Itpos are all different forms of the same word; vypbs is 
probably the result of metathesis. So we see little reason 
to doubt the identity of {JaXor, glass, and yva\ov, yvaXat from 
yvaXos, hollow. The earliest meaning of vahov was a hollow 
transparent stone in which mummies were enclosed among 
the Egyptians (Herod. 3. 24). So aldepia yva\a, used of the 
heavens ; not the ' vault of heaven,' as Liddell and Scott 
render it, so much as the hollows of heaven, i. e. the spheres 
in which the stars were supposed to be embedded, like so 
many flies in amber. The modern Greek for va\ov is 


Z = z in English. 

Schleicher himself completely discards the notion of pro- 
nouncing f as ds or sd. Etymologically, it stands for yi, 8t, 


or /3t followed by another vowel, as vlftyo), i/i'/3to>, wa> ; rpi/3a>, 

rpi/3yeo, Tpiftiat, rpia> ; Zevs for Aieus, appofa for dpp.dyia>. So in 

modern Greek we get Smrd^co from diardyia), yaXd&os for 

yaXdyios or yXdyio?, ra-ou^oa from rcrouyico, from the Latin .f^tf / 

zd@a\r)s for Aid/3oXo?, dXoz> = 'ix vos > from yva\ov, shortened to 
yidXov, i. e. the hollow print of the foot ; fapi^qr, better written 
appi<prjs, an extravagant dresser, from SiappiVrco. The change 
of a- into mentioned by Liddell and Scott, is almost always 
before the letter p., as Zpvpva, &uKp6y, &iepdXeos, wypa, ^ivvrj. 
In modern Greek, <r before /n always sounds as This fact 
is of itself enough to prove the identity of the sound of in 
ancient and modern times. 

= th in thin, somewhat more forcibly pronounced 
than in English. 

e originally stood for the Sanscrit dh, and it appears to be 
Schleicher's opinion that it was anciently sounded as th in 
hothouse. But this must have been in the pre-historic 
period of the language. Perhaps such forms as OT&K?) for 
drriKT} may be relics of such a sound. In modern Greek we 
have rdrtfot for the Goths. But that 6 was very like the 
English th may be inferred from the fact that the Laconian 
dialect changes Q into <r, as o-dXao-o-a, o-eloy, 'Ao-di/a.. In modern 
Greek we get dxavTo-oxoipos for dKa.v66%oipos. In Aeolic 6 be- 
comes (p, as <j>r)p, (pXi/3co, <Xd<. So in modern Greek we have 

<P\i@a>, <p\i@epbv for 0Xij3o>, 0Xt/3epoV, (prjKapiov for 6r]<apiov. In 

Doric x sometimes stands for 6, as opvixos for Spvidos, so in 
modern Greek opvtxa for opvida, and, z^V* 57^^, a^ for 


Like the English k before the guttural vowels; before the 
palatals more nearly approaching the Italian c in civitk, and 
with a very close resemblance to a palatal /. The best idea 



I can give of this sound on paper is perhaps tk, as 
Kevrpov, Kirpivov, KCU, pronounced approximately tkeenos, tktn- 
dron, tk&treenon, tkeh ; not that a / sound is actually heard, 
but that after forming a palatal / (and our English / is mostly 
palatal) the tongue is in the right position for forming K. In 
Crete, K palatal sounds just like the Italian c before e or z', 
or our ch in chin. In the same way the Sanscrit ch was 
formed from k, through the influence of contiguous palatal 
sounds. It is therefore probable that the Italian c palatal is 
also legitimately developed from the old Roman sound given 
to c before e and 2, as in cecidi ; while the French c dental 
and ch palatal, the Spanish z and c palatal = th, the German z 
and c palatal = /j, are more or less unsuccessful attempts to 
approximate the true pronunciation. The palatal sound of < 
evidently represents the intermediate stage through which 
the guttural k must pass, and must always have passed, in 
order to become the palatal ch. In pronouncing K palatal 
the tip of the tongue may be seen in a Greek's mouth 
coming right up to the ep/cos 6d6vv ; not that the tip of the 
tongue is actually used in pronouncing the K, but the upper 
part of the tongue is brought so far forward that the ex- 
tremity necessarily reaches the teeth, and indeed protrudes a 
little beyond them. K palatal being thus so nearly allied to 
T, we shall not be surprised to find them interchanged. 

So we have in ancient Greek rls for KIS, re for /cat, rvpawos 
for Koipavos (for v and ot see above, as well as for at and *), 

K.IJJUOV for Tip&v, rrjvos for Kclvos, TTOTC for rroKf from ir6<a. So 

in modern Greek, especially in the Tsakonian dialect, /*M> 

for n/ico, <mA/3o'co for trrtX/3oco, (pKvdptov for <f)Tvdpiov, <Kai/o> for 
<^reiai/a>, i. e. fvQfidfa or ciidfidva. Conversely, repios Or 

meaning suitable, or similar, is possibly for Kaipios. 

and TII/OO-O-W, the latter form common to modern and ancient 

Greek, are clearly connected with KIVCG>. 

n and K are also found interchanged in Greek. The 


original form of ITTTTOS was IKKOS. So in modern Greek we 
have KonreXa and KOKGWTJ, a girl ; KOOKO, an indentation con- 
nected with KOTT-TO), KOTTTyi/cu. I much doubt whether d-Ka>Kr) 
be not also connected with the root KOTT-, instead of being 
a lengthened form for drf : and whether 8ioKa>xr), &c., ought 
not also to be written SiaKo)^, standing for 


Interchangeable with v, as in Doric r\vQa for rj\6a. So, in 
modern Greek, dw^avrbs becomes d\v<pavTos, while avdc in 
Tsakonian stands for oA(pt. 

A is also interchangeable with p : d/zeXyo> and dfif'pyto are 
originally the same word. 'A/iepya> is the older form, and is 
preserved in modern Greek for d/ieXya>. Here we must say 
a word on WKTOS dfioXy<5. Buttmann is quite right in re- 
jecting the translation ' milking time/ but plainly wrong in 
rejecting the derivation from d/ieXyo> or dp.cpya>. The form 
of the word is such that no other derivation is possible. 
Eustathius may also be right in saying that dpoXybs is an 
old Achaean word for dupr). A similar sense for OK^ is 
suggested by the word iVjudw, to bruise out, and t/c/idy. But 
the sense and derivation are quite plain and natural. 
NUKTOS d/xoXyoi means in the dregs of night, a most 
fitting and poetical expression for the dead of night. 
'A/idpyj/ or djuovpya, from d/xepyco, means, in both modern 
and ancient Greek, neither more nor less than dregs or 
lees, the squeezings out ; that is, what is left after the 
squeezing out of wine or oil. This is plainly the sense in 
which it is used to express clotted blood in Eur. Phaeth. 

2. 2.6, OVK cz/ioXyoi/ f'o/jio'pere, torou ri'y e'crrti/ atfiaroy ^a/xat 7recra>i/, 

where the cognate cgopop-yvvm, only another form of e'^a/uepyo), 
seems plainly used with a poetic sense of its identity in root. 
No more exact comparison could be used than the lees of 

D 2 


wine for clotted blood. Compare Isaiah's well-known apo- 
strophe, Ixiii. 1-3, beginning, ' Who is this that cometh from 
Edom?' The modern Greek form for dfaX^bs is d&fp(f)6s, 
more archaic than the classical, inasmuch as it is derived 
from the Sanscrit sagarbhjas. In modern Greek the common 
form for rj\dov is r)p&av\ and epxapat appears also as ep#o/icu, 
leading to the conclusion that eX0o> and epxp- al are not 
distinct but identical roots. For x an d 6, see above. 

So, too, a\<ptTov, avBos, and apros are probably all identical, 
and are verbal participles formed from dXe'o> or dXe'0o>, standing 
respectively for dX-d-rov and aXros with paragogic t inserted 
in the first case, as in 0X1^6$- in ancient, Kamvos in modern 
Greek. The 6 in dXe#o> seems to stand for <f>, which repre- 
sents the digamma: cf. aXcvpa or aXeFpa. I cannot doubt 
that dX0e&> and dv0co>, dXSmW and ap8a>, are all cognate words. 


With regard to the pronunciation of this letter there is no 
dispute : and the same may be said of 


When, however, the letters M and N are combined with 
TT and T respectively, /MTT, vr, these consonants become medials, 
instead of tenues, ep.7ropos = Jmboros, evrtpa - e'ndera. In the 
same way the guttural nasal y, when placed before , converts 
the K into its corresponding medial, oy/co? = oyyos. Moreover, 
/3, 8, and -y. after ^, v, and y nasal, become simple medials 
instead of semi-vowels. With 3 and 5 however this is not 
recognized by the educated, although it is universally pre- 
valent in the mouths of the common people. This phonetic 
law may be most shortly expressed as follows : /n, v, and y 
nasal take after them the corresponding unaspirated medial. 

Exception : If y be followed by x, the latter preserves its 




sound, and the same may be said of <p, 6 after p, and v : so 
that we may say, p, v, and y are followed by their corre- 
sponding unaspirated medial, or aspirated tenuis. 

In modern Greek therefore, as far as the sound is con- 
erned, we may write indifferently, at least according to the 
popular pronunciation, cppuiva) or e^iTraiW = embe'no, avrpa or 

ai/8pa = andra, avrpov Or avftpov = andron, aynos Or ayyos = dngOS, 

eV8uj/oj or evruvo) = endyno. No one can doubt that this was 
the case in ancient Greek from time immemorial, who will 
consider such forms as Trareco and f^arca, 'A/z/Spa/cia and 

5 AyiTrpaKia, eVrweo and cpdvo), fVTf\fj(na and fv8f\fx.eta } O.JKOS 
and ayyoy, Bpiyyos and OpiyKOs, cv&ov and eVror, ev86crdia and 
evTocrdia, pvvraKJjs and pvv8aKrj. 

Between /n and p, and ^ and p, p,X and vX, /3 (or TT), 5, or r 
respectively are inserted. 

So we have in ancient Greek, p.farrjp.^pia, dvdpos, d/ij3Xa/aWa> 
or a/iTrXaKicrfca), TJIL$\O.KOV or\a.Kov. In modern Greek, x a M~ 

TrXoj- for ^a/iT/Xo'y, Kopop,7r\o for K0p6p.r)\o, pirpe, p.fip, OI /3pe for 

2 is often prefixed, as <r/uKpoV, ancient Greek; o-p.iya>, modern 

Double o- in the later Attic dialect became TT, as in 
y, KOTTV<POS ; the intermediate stage must have been 
s, which is preserved in modern Greek. 

2<r in terminations like -ao-o-w in <puXao-o-a>, Kopvo-o-w, &c., 
stood originally for */, or ^/, but afterwards apparently also 
for yj instead of , as in Tao-o-o) and Trpao-o-oo. Schleicher 
imagines that in these cases ray- and -rrpay- are softened from 
rax and Trpa/c. So we get in modern Greek <puXayo>, <pv\dfa, 


Before this letter TT and < are sounded by the common 
people as $ and x > while, on the other hand, after $ and x, 
& has more the sound of r. This explains in ancient Greek 
the forms oxQrj and awi), OTTTOP and e<0dr, avdu = a(f>6is and 
a&ris = atyTis, fiTfvOev and fvdfvrev = evrctpdev and ev6c<f>Tfv, re- 

Has no exact representative in any European language 
that I know ; but is like a labial f, and answers to and the 
German w, as their corresponding sharp sound. 


X is like the German ch in Bach, but with this difference, 
that the German ch becomes palatal by the influence of the 
preceding vowel, while x is affected only by the vowel that 
follows it. The same thing applies to g and y. Thus the 
Greek says Z-x**, a-xn, ra-xvs, the German *x-o>, x- 7 7> TO^VS. 

Where the Greek says e-yo> the German says fy-a>, dividing 
the syllables differently. Thus to the Greek ear the German 
pronunciation of these Greek words sounds like !x tctf > "X-7, 
TIIX-VS, tyio>. In the same way the German words lach-en, 
mach-en, would naturally be read by Greeks Xd-xcv, pa-x f v, 
while trag-en would become rpd-ytv. 

The prehistoric pronunciation of and x as ph, and kh in 
haphazard and inkhorn, has left but the obsolescent relics, 
laKxrj, 2a7r0&>, O7r<pis, ftpoKxos, and these for the most part only 
when required by the exigencies of metre. In modern 
Greek Khurdistan is written Kxovdi(rrdv. 

X and K are often interchanged, as fo^o/icu $e/co/icu, o-^fXls- 


so in modern Greek especially after a, as <m'<, 

o-cdXao-/za, (TKoXeto for vxtfa, <rxoXao>ta, o-^oXeioi/ ; but also 

as t.hp 

as the representative of TTO-, (u consonantal) cr, /3o-, requires 
no further comment. 


This is no longer heard in modern Greek, and we do not 
know that it was ever sounded as h, though it is not easy to 
conceive of its having been sounded otherwise. The fact 
is, the so-called rough breathing stood properly for some 
letter which had been left out at the beginning of a word, 
more especially for o-. Often too it was written where it had 
no etymological meaning, and often omitted where we 
should expect to find it. If it had any sound it was most 
likely that of h, and like that letter in Latin, extremely evan- 
escent. The Latin h is a mere sign in all the modern Latin 
dialects, except in French, where a distinction is made be- 
tween an aspirated and an unaspirated h. But even in French 
neither the one nor the other is sounded (at any rate so far 
as the English ear can detect) ; and the only difference 
between the h in habit and the h in harpe is, that it is the 
custom to cut off the vowel of the article before the one and 
not before the other. So, too, in ancient Greek the only 
difference between the rough and the smooth breathing may 
have been that it was the custom to turn K, TT, T into x, $, 6 
before words which had the rough breathing, whereas before 
the smooth breathing they remained unaltered; while even 
this characteristic was effaced in the Ionic dialect. 

In modern Greek, though the rough breathing is not 
heard, it affects the pronunciation of a preceding tenuis ; and 


Several Compounds, as e^e'ros for eVeVo?, ^fBavpiov for fjuravpiov, 

show that the people have exercised their instinct in this 
matter quite independently of, because occasionally at va- 
riance with, grammatical traditions. They say too, a<' ov, 

0'orov, but KOTI, aTToXovs. 

The law of compensation with regard to aspirated con- 
sonants, as seen in such forms as x^ T P a ' wdpa, X LT< * V > Ktffav, 
&c., also holds good in modern Greek; e.g. 
losing its x> becomes 

The result of our comparison of modern Greek pronun- 
ciation with what appears to have been the pronunciation of 
classical times, is that even in the minutest particulars, so far 
as we can trace them, the same phonetic laws were at work 
in the time of Homer and of Thucydides as are at work 
now, and that they produced the same results. Can any one 
believe that anything short of a miracle could have pro- 
duced so exact a coincidence, except upon the assumption 
that the pronunciation now prevailing is in the main at least 
identical with that of ancient times ? 

The consideration of the question is, however, incomplete 
until we have discussed, as we propose doing in the next 
chapter, the kindred subject of Accent and Quantity. 


Accent and Quantity. 

QUANTITY, peyeGos, was the foundation of ancient Greek 
verse, though, as we shall see, by no means its only regulating 
principle. In modern Greek, quantitative verse no longer 
exists, and therefore the quantity of syllables has lost the chief 
significance which it once possessed. That quantity was 
ever recognized in pronunciation apart from metrical con- 
siderations there is but small evidence to show ; whereas we 
know that accents were introduced by Aristophanes of By- 
zantium about two hundred years before Christ, in order to 
preserve the true pronunciation of Greek at the time when it 
was becoming the vernacular of many Oriental races. The 
apparent influence which quantity had on accent is to a 
great extent, if not altogether, imaginary the result of an 
artificial theory. The reason that dvdp>7rov is not written 
avdpwnov, is by no means that ov is a long syllable, but simply 
because avQpwnov stands for dvQpaTroaio, dvdpa>7Toio, and the 
accent did not admit of being put further back than the last 
syllable but one. In TroXewr, o>? is no contraction, but 
simply stands for os ; consequently the accent is not drawn 

With regard to modern Greek, it is neither correct to say, 


with Sophocles, that all vowel sounds are isochronous, nor 
with Mr. W. G. Clark ('Journal of Philology,' p. 105), 'that 
the stress in modern Greek is exactly like our own, and is 
given by prolonging the sound as well as raising the voice. 

Thus \6yos, ovos, avdpa>7Tos are pronounced \a>yos, a>vos, av- 

6 POTTOS.' The examples which Mr. Clark adduces are correct 
as regards the fact, while they sufficiently refute the assertion 
of Sophocles that all vowel sounds in Greek are isochronous. 
But Mr. Clark has been misled with respect to the true 
explanation of the lengthening of the syllables in question, 
and that not only as regards Greek, but equally as regards 

Neither in Greek, nor in English, has the accent or stress 
any power to lengthen a vowel sound, although the absence 
of accent may in certain cases, and especially in English, 
tend to obliterate the sound of a vowel. In English as in 
Greek, and in almost all languages, when a syllable ends in 
a consonant, the preceding vowel is short; when in a 
vowel, that vowel is mostly long; a very simple and intel- 
ligible law of compensation, which in Hebrew is an estab- 
lished rule. 

It is surely a strange thing that most scholars should have 
concurred in regarding the combination or simultaneous 
recognition in pronunciation of accent and quantity, as an 
insoluble problem; for we ourselves solve the problem 
practically in every sentence we utter. The accent con- 
tinually falls on a short syllable, as getting, picking, impossible, 
critical; while a long syllable, whether long by virtue of the 
number of consonants heard, or by the long or diphthongal 
sound of the vowel, is perpetually found without the accent : 
abnormal, financial, fe'r file, perfume, perfect, a priori, which is 
nearly always so pronounced, in spite of the fact that the 
first i is short in Latin. So that we may say of this, as of 
many an other imaginary difficulty, solvitur ambulando. 


Nobody will any longer believe in the reality of the 
supposed conflict between accent and quantity, who con- 
siders for one moment its origin, which is nothing but our 
application to Greek of the principles of Latin accentuation. 
In Latin it is a rule that the accent always falls upon the 
penultimate when long, and in words of more than two 
syllables, never when short. So that one may say that, 
wherever it is possible, the long syllables receive an accent, 
and the short ones are unaccented. Every language has 
its own law of accentuation, and this was the Latin law, 
as far as we know it from Quinctilian, and a very simple 
and natural law it was; but perhaps there is scarcely any 
other language on the face of the globe whose system of 
stress is so uniform and monotonous. Now, just because 
the Latin accent, however fallaciously applied to Greek, does 
in a remarkable manner tend to preserve to a great extent 
(though by no means completely) the quantity of syllables, 
the notion has arisen that it could not be otherwise pre- 
served. That this notion is completely false is practically 
shown, first in our own language, secondly in Latin, in 
which we have to recognise, and do recognise, the length 
of the many long syllables which it is impossible even 
according to the Latin system to accent, and lastly in 
Greek as spoken in the present day, in which not only, 
as in every other language, are syllables containing several 
contiguous consonants long by the very nature of the 
case, but of the vowels some are always long, as v, i, 01, et, 
and others common, as e, at, a>, ov, the latter being long 
or short according as they stand at the end of a syllable 
or are followed by a consonant. Besides this, it is to be 
observed that all the common vowels sound short before p. 
The accent, so far from altering the quantity, only tends 
to make it more distinctly heard. For instance, ovp has 
the ov always short, but this is far more distinctly heard 


in (frayovpa than in ovpd; so, too, aip is always short, but 
this is far more plainly heard in egaipeais = egepeais, than 
in aipfTiKos. Q.S, os, when belonging to one syllable, are 
always short, but this strikes us more forcibly in the pro- 
nunciation of 7rpayp.aTiKo>s, than in that of CXTTT^TLOV. 

Erasmus himself never recommended the disuse of the 
Greek accent in pronunciation, and very well draws out the 
distinction between accent and quantity as follows. He puts 
his lesson into the mouth of a bear, who is made to say : 
1 There are some men so dense as to confound stress with 
length of sound, while the two things are as different as 
possible. A sharp sound is one thing, a long sound is another. 
Intensiveness is not the same thing as extensiveness. And 
yet 1 have known learned men, who, in sounding the words 
dvexov KOI OTT^OU, lengthened the middle syllable with all 
their might and main, just because it has the acute accent, 
though it is short by nature, in fact as short as a syllable 
could be. Why, the very donkeys might teach us the 
difference between accent and quantity, for they, when they 
bray, make the sharp sound short, and the deep one long/ 
Yet Erasmus is wrong in maintaining that the syllable 
formed by the ve in di/e'^ov is as short as a syllable can be, 
if by that he means that the has the shortest possible 
sound, inasmuch as standing, as it does, at the end of 
a syllable, it is inevitably lengthened more or less. The 
followers of Erasmus in Germany, however vicious their 
pronunciation in other respects, invariably read Greek so 
that the accent shall be heard, and never dream that they 
are sacrificing quantity. 

Our prejudice, then, against accents is for the most part 
insular, and deepened moreover by the insular peculiarities 
of our pronunciation. This is especially the case with 
respect to long and short v, which we ordinarily pronounce 
in exactly the same manner, namely as you. The result 




f this is, that when we want to show the difference between 
long and short v. we have no other means open to us than 

O 3 * 

at of laying a stress on the long v and leaving the short 

accented. In Tjur^ei and imevQwos we pronounce the 
v as jyou, i. e. really long, and we only distinguish between 
the long v in the one case and the short v in the other 
by flying in the face of the Greek accent, and reading 
the words respectively rjvrvxfi and vTrevdvvos. In this case, 
so far from preserving the true quantity by the use of the 
Latin accent, we are only covering a false one. 

The foregoing considerations must have made it plain 
every one who has followed them, that the Latin accent 
is neither an indispensable nor an infallible means of 
marking the right quantity of Greek syllables. Such dif- 
ference of quantity as is still recognised in modern Greek and 
other modern languages, so far from being obscured or 
altered, is only more strongly brought out by the accent. 
And although, as a matter of fact, the quantities of Greek 
vowel sounds at the present day no longer exactly cor- 
respond to the ancient quantities, yet it would be very easy 
to preserve and recognise the ancient quantities if there 
were any object in so doing. It is inconceivable that the 
difference between a long and a short a or i in ancient 
Greek was ever anything but a very subtle and evanescent 
one, to a great extent artificial and based upon the usage 
of scansion; and one, as we know, singularly inconstant 
and varying. 

The lengthening of o, however, seems plainly to have 
occurred subject to the very same conditions as in the 
present day. "OXos and ovXop, /3o'Ao/icu and /3ouAo/nai, p.6vos and 
fjiovvos, ov\ofj.evr]v, AluXov, vovos and vovvos, all present us with 
cases of o lengthened by position, that is, because it stands 
before but one consonant. Why do we never find irovaos and 
TOVCTOS, but always Trdo-o-oy and roWor, when the metre requires 


it ? Simply because at that early period of the Greek 
language the o- was felt to be, as it etymologically is, really 
double; TTOO-OS and rdo-os standing respectively for TTOO-O-OS 
and rSffo-os, i. e. (originally) jroa-tos and roVtos ; of which the 
i being consonantal, the o- belongs to the preceding syllable, 
making it impossible to lengthen the vowel. Thus we see 
that the greater the consonantal peyedos of a syllable, the 
less the pcyedos of the vowel, and vice versd. It is therefore 
incorrect to speak of the a in /3Xa being long by position ; 
it is short by position, and that just because the syllable is 
consonantally long. In Aio'Xou, on the other hand, the o is 
long by position, or at least has a tendency to become so, 
though short by nature. 

Having established, then, the variable and uncertain nature 
of quantity among the ancient Greeks, and, except so 
far as it was of etymological significance or depended on 
syllabification, its arbitrary and artificial character, we will 
proceed to enquire what was meant respectively by accent, 
Trpoo-oS/o, emphasis, or stress in Greek, and how it was related 
to quantity and quantitative rhythm. 

Mr. W. G. Clark, in his Essay on ' English Pronunciation 
of Greek,' quotes in answer to the question how emphasis 
is given, the words of Priscian : ' Vox tripartite dividitur, 
scilicet altitudine,latitudine, longitudine,' and remarks thereon: 
' Thus a syllable may be emphasized in three ways 

1 . by raising the note ; 

2. by increasing the amount of sound ; 

3. by prolonging the sound/ 

' Emphasis,' he observes, ' may be given by employing 

each of these methods, or any two of them, or all three 

On this we have only to remark, that i and 2 usually 

go together. By raising the note we necessarily, if we 


employ the same quantity of breath, also increase the sound, 
inasmuch as we economize breath. So the shriller whistle 
of a steam-engine, ceteris paribus, is always the louder. 

Emphasis by prolongation, though possible, is certainly 
very rare, if it ever occurs. 

' What we blend/ Mr. Clark proceeds, ' both Greeks and 
Latins kept distinct,' meaning i and 3. This is not quite 
accurate. We, that is Englishmen, and certainly the speakers 
of most modern languages, do not, as we have seen, blend 
together i and 3, whereas the Latins did so far blend them, 
that while they never lengthened a syllable because it was 
accented, they did as far as possible accent it where it was 

' In modern Greek the ancient tradition is so far preserved 
that the stress, as a rule, falls upon the syllable which in 
ancient Greek received the accent and in pronouncing which 
the voice was raised/ 'But/ continues Mr. Clark in the words 
already quoted and called in question, ' the stress in modern 
Greek is exactly like our own/ which is so far correct, 
' and is given by prolonging the sound as well as by raising 
the note/ Even were it true that the accent sometimes con- 
tributes to lengthen the sound of a vowel, it would be ob- 
viously only an accident of the emphasis and not part of 
it. The many cases (and they are the majority) in which 
a syllable is accented without any lengthening of the vowel, 
were sufficient to show that emphasis is given in modern 
as in ancient Greek simply by raising the musical or quasi- 
musical note, and not by prolonging the sound. But Pro- 
fessor Max Miiller, in one of his (I believe unpublished) 
lectures, has discovered an entirely new difference between 
ancient and modern accentuation, which, though nearer the 
truth on the whole than Mr. Clark's, is also very much 
at variance with what I am compelled to regard as the fact. 
He says that the ancient accent indicated a musical elevation 


of the tone, while the modern accent indicates simply stress. 
But what is 'stress?' Is it not an elevation of the tone? 
Mr. Clark and every one else has allowed that, whatever 
else they may suppose it to imply. Now the only difference 
between a musical and an unmusical intonation is this, that 
a musical tone consists of regular waves of sound, while 
an unmusical tone is a jarring irregular succession of un- 
equal vibrations. That the ancients spoke more musically 
than we do, especially the ancient Greeks, may be readily 
admitted, but that they absolutely sang all their words will 
not be easily believed by any one, and would render com- 
pletely nugatory the distinction between singing and speaking, 
which is as old at least as the literature and records of any 
known people. It is then, therefore, merely a question of 
degree as to the regularity, that is the music, of ancient 
and modern intonation. Of all cultivated languages, English 
is perhaps the least musical, except possibly Dutch. Then 
comes German as spoken in the north, after that German 
as spoken in the south. More musical are French, Welsh, 
especially in the pulpit, Spanish, and Italian. But the 
Greeks, especially when excited in preaching or public speak- 
ing, intone so melodiously, that something very like a tune is 
heard, of which the higher notes are always the more em- 
phatic syllables. So that if musical intonation really was 
characteristic of ancient Greek accentuation, this feature 
has been most faithfully preserved. The written signs for 
Greek accents, as we have them, are attributed to Aristo- 
phanes of Byzantium, but spme kind of notation for marking 
stress must have existed before his time. Not only does 
Aristoxenus, Aristotle's scholar, treat of accents, but a verse 
of Euripides has been discovered with accentual marks 
written on the walls of Herculaneum; and Plato himself 
used the word 7rpo<ra>8ia, the grammarian's term for a written 
accent. It is just possible that Trpoo-wSia may mean in Plato 


only the accent as heard, and not also as written, but this 
s not very likely. The Greek system of accentuation bears 
a close affinity to that of Sanscrit. 

Excepting isolated dialectic divergences, as *aXo? for KaAo'?, 
which for the most part have survived in various modern 
dialects of Greece, the general system of accentuation was, 
as its high antiquity would lead us to expect, everywhere 
the same, and there cannot be the smallest doubt that the 
Homeric poems were accented in the main as we have them. 

Now in what relation did accent stand to quantity ? 

The usual reply is, that it had nothing whatever to do 
with it, and just in this very point is said to lie the difference 
between modern and ancient versification. 

But this is not the case, for, in the first place, the word 
1 accent,' although the foundation of modern scansion, as 
the quantity of syllables was the foundation of ancient Greek 
versification, yet is by no means sufficient of itself to account 
for the run of a line. Both in ancient and modern poetry 
the apxireKToviKT), or sovereign science, as the Rev. G. Perkins 
well points out in the 'Journal of Philology' (vol. i. 253-263), 
is not metre, nor quantity, nor accent, but rhythm, to which 
the former are merely subsidiary. 

The recognition of the dominant importance of rhythm 
is due mainly to Bock, and the verification and development 
of the theory to Rossbach and Westphal, who are followed 
with some modifications by Dr. Heinrich Schmidt in his work 
entitled ' Die Eurhythmie/ of which only the first part, ' Die 
Eurhythmie in den Chorgesangen der Griechen/ has at pre- 
sent appeared. The relation of rhythm to metre and quantity 
are so well expressed by Mr. Perkins in his essay above 
alluded to, that I can hardly do better than quote his 
words : 

' The master-science, that to which metric is subsidiary, and for which 
alone it exists, is the science of rhythm. The facts and details of the 



mere metrician are to rhythmic what shaped stones and carved timbers 
are to architecture, not dictating the character of the structure, but 
themselves liable to be altered in subordination to the builder's thought. 
And when we consider how strong and self-willed is the rhythmical 
faculty, how we can make a clock tick to almost any time, it would be 
strange indeed if man's own creation, language, refused obedience to 
this plastic energy. Well, one way, and a most important way, in which 
rhythm asserts its dominion over metre is, that while recognizing and 
dealing with the metrical feet, it strips them of their independent cha- 
racter and individual ictus, and makes them parts of new and larger 
groups (to which the old rhythmic still gives the name of feet}, held 
together by one dominant ictus. Take for instance Tennyson's Locksley 
Hall. Assuming as we must that accent not quantity determines the 
relation of the syllables in English verse, the metre is trochaic tetra- 
meter catalectic. Yet no one would think of reading it by single 
trochees, with an equal stress on the first syllable of each. There may 
be some arbitrariness, more or less diversity in our modes of grouping 
and accenting, but group them we do. Most readers probably break 
the line into two rhythmical feet, each of four trochees, allowing for 
the catalexis in the last half; though they might not be equally agreed 
about the syllables on which to place the ictus. The scanning of some 
of the classical metres by dipodiae instead of single feet, which is gene- 
rally recognized as essential to the beauty of the verse, is itself a 
rhythmical rather than a metrical process. 

' But rhythm does more than combine a succession of metrical feet 
into a larger rhythmical foot with a single ictus. It takes liberties 
with metrical quantity, and declares that under certain circumstances 
a spondee or a dactyl shall be delivered as a trochee, that the a : 2 
relation shall for the time cease, and become, if not precisely 2:1, 
something sufficiently near to pass for it.' 

The proof that the modern rhythmicians are right in their 
principle is, that they have reduced the seeming anarchy 
of Choric and Pindaric verse to order, law, and rhythmical 
harmony, appreciable even by our modern ears. What 
before was mere prose they have rendered into poetry. 
Quantity, then, is not all in all in ancient Greek poetry, 
neither is accent all in all in modern verse. 

Here at once the absolute opposition between accent 



quantity is somewhat softened as soon as they appear 
but subordinate parts of a higher unity, namely rhythm. 
Again, the quantity of syllables is not wholly disregarded 
in modern poetry; it is impossible that it should be so. 
Glanced must be felt to be a longer syllable than met; the 
tongue cannot possibly get over the one in the same time 
that it gets over the other : and English verses in which the 
strongest ictus always fell upon the shortest syllables would 
be felt to be intolerably bad. If any one will compare Lord 
Derby's translation of the Iliad with that of Cowper, he must 
see that just in this respect the rhythm of the former is far 
superior to that of the latter. To illustrate the difference 
by an extreme and, as regards Cowper, merely fictitious case, 
let us suppose that where Lord Derby translates 

' Prone in the dust he gnashed the brazen point,' 
which (rhythmically) would have sounded still better had 
it been 

' Prone on the ground he gnashed the brazen point,' 

Cowper had rendered 

' Upon a sod he bit a metal head/ 
which is rather worse in point of rhythmical grandeur than 

' Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper.' 
But how much worse still may the rhythm be made, by 
lengthening every syllable which has no ictus, thus (the 
reader must excuse the time-honoured practice of nonsense 

' Stretched thus each bit each other's leg and head.' 
And yet the ictus falls far more regularly (in as far as ictus 
and word-accent may be regarded as identical) than in Lord 
Derby's noble line. Not only then is accent not everything 
in modern poetry, but quantity is plainly something. If we 
can now show that accent too was something in ancient 
Greek poetry, then the difference between quantitative and 

E 2 


accentual rhythm will resolve itself into one of degree, and 
rhythm will appear the one great unifying principle, the all 
in all of both modern and ancient verse. Now, as Mr. 
Clark remarks, 'We may infer from Aristotle (De Soph. 
Elenchis, c. iv.) that the accent was heard in the recitation 
of Homer, and from the famous story of the mistake made 
by the actor Hegelochus in line 279 of the Orestes of Euri- 
pides, we may infer that it was heard also in stage dialogue.' 
Again, in Plato's Republic (399 a), Socrates, who is dis- 
cussing with Adimantus which are the best kinds of music 
for educating the warrior classes in his ideal city, says, OVK 

olda ras appovias' dXXa KardXeiTre JJ.OL fKcivr/v rrjv apfioviav, i] ev re 
TroXe/UK// Trpd^ei OVTOS avftpfiov Kal ev Trdar) /3iaia> fpy curia irpcTrovrcof 
av p.ip,r]craiTO (pdoyyovs T KOI Trpocrcodias. 

This not only proves that in lyric poetry the accents had 
some significance, but it shows moreover that there were 
certain tunes, or classes of tunes, in which the rhythmical, 
which as rhythmicians tell us, must have been also the 
musical, beat, coincided more or less with the natural enun- 
ciation and the accentual stress. 

On the other hand Aristoxenus, a pupil of Aristotle, tells 

US, Aet TTJV (pcovfjv ev r<5 /ueXco&eii/ ras p-ev eVrmzcreis Kal dvecreis 

cxpavfls Troielo-dai. Now there are two ways in which the 
natural or accentual stress of words may be obscured, either 
by the musical beat (time) running counter to it, or by the 
musical note rising just where in the natural stress the voice 
would be depressed. 

In modern verse some account is nearly always taken of 
the accent, but at the same time we often have two distinct 
rhythms, a musical one, and a metrical or accentual one ; 
or indeed we may say, that every accentual or metrical 
rhythm is capable of being accommodated (and in the pro- 
cess of accommodation, more or less sacrificed) to very 
various musical rhythms. The musical rhythm modifies or 


Disturbs the natural or accentual, both by the non-coincidence 
of its ictus, and by the lengthening (or TOVTJ as the Greeks 
called it) of certain syllables. Thus in a popular modern 
Greek song the lines 

ApeS/rare iraXiv epacrral ev$aip.ovas vap<i(r(rovs y 
'Ho TOV Matou rovs Tfpirvovs KOL evwdeis TrapaSeicrovs' 
Kat TTJV Trapdevov ore\|mrf fjris cos avdos K\ivei' 
'Eyco 8ev KOTTTCI) Si' fj.e' drredavcv fKfivrj . . . 

becomes, when sung, 

Ape\/ra-a-a-T Trd | Xiv e-e-e-poorot 

'llo TOV-OV-OV pal ov TOV-OVS reprrvovs 

Kai fvcoSets TTO.- Kal ei/coSeis ira -paftfi-ei- 

Kat TTJV Trap6e--vov ore^a-a-are I TJTIS a>s u-a-avdos K\iVflfieifi 

'E-yw Sei/ KOTTTCO Si e/ie, diredavev fKfi-Ct-fi-tl-vfi. 

For the most part, however, we may say that the musical 
rhythm, in English, must bear a very close relation to the 
accentual. Still closer, may we infer, was the relation be- 
tween musical time and rhythm with ancient Greeks, inas- 
much as all their quantitative measures seem to have been 
formed with a direct view to music, whereas much of our 
own verse is only accidentally accommodated to a tune by 
an after- thought, or vice versd, the composer and the poet 
being usually two different persons. 

The difference then between a recited and a sung verse 
would be found in Greek neither in the metre nor in the 
rhythm, but only in the tone, that is, the ' elevation,' of the 
voice. In other words, in recitation the accent was heard ; 
in singing it might certainly be felt, as with us, but as far 
as sound goes it was swallowed up in the music. This is 
the view of Dr. Heinrich Schmidt (Eurhythmie, p. 13), ac- 
cording to whom the verse ictus = a louder sound, the word 


accent = musical elevation of forte. Mr. Clark, in the Essay 
above referred to, propounds a view exactly the opposite, 
supposing that the accent was heard in recitation only by 
means of an increase in the amount of sound, i. e. by the 
accented syllables being sounded louder than the rest. But 
if this were so, what, according to Mr. Clark's theory, be- 
came of the ictus and the rhythm ? For he says, ' When 
the rhapsodists recited epic poems in the open air to the 
assembled multitudes at Olympia or Crissa, they must have 
chanted in monotone or nearly so, else they could not have 
been heard by the vast audience. So also in the theatres, 
the players who had to make themselves audible to thirty 
thousand spectators, must have chanted the dialogue in a 
kind of ad libitum recitative.' How then, one naturally asks, 
was the ictus of the verse represented ? Not by more forcible 
or louder utterance, for that, according to Mr. Clark, was the 
way in which the word-accent was shown. Not by elevation 
in the pitch, because that is excluded by monotone. The 
fact is, ictus, which is the very essence of rhythm, has been 
overlooked by Mr. Clark altogether. He supposes that 
quantity constitutes the essence of rhythm. A more complete 
mistake could not be made. A number of long and short 
syllables may lie together in the order in which they stand in 
a hexameter verse, but ictus alone can separate them into 
bars, and, as by a magician's touch, clothe the dead skeleton 
of syllables with the life and vigour of a rhythmical succes- 
sion. Mr. Perkins, in his Essay above quoted, well remarks 
that we can make a clock tick to any time ; and we may 
add, a railway train often seems, by the rattling of its wheels 
over the regular intervals made by the joining of the rails, 
to beat time to a great variety of tunes, according as our 
fancy, or perhaps an occasional jolt, causes us to place the 
ictus here or there. Now this would be just the result with 
the hexameter, if the ictus had not been distinctly given : 


the pause at the end of the line, and the quantity, would have 
done something, but very little, towards leading the ear 
towards the right ictus, and the general rhythmical effect 
would have been as uncertain, or nearly so, as the ticking of 
a clock or the jolting of a railway train. The main thing 
must then have been to show the ictus. If the reciter 
took care of the ictus, the accent would take care of itself. 
Certainly the accent would only be heard in as far as the 
recitative departed from the completeness of monotone. 
And some such slight departure did, I doubt not, occur; 
for to chant in perfect monotone is all but as impossible 
of execution, as it is wearisome to the ear. Yet, I must 
confess the great difficulty here is a practical one. It is 
very hard to realize the distinction between a high and a 
loud note, not indeed in theory, but in practice. It is hard 
to say whether in the language of ordinary life syllables are 
emphasized by being pronounced in a louder tone or in a 
higher key ; the two seem always to go hand in hand. And 
this is really the difficulty to the modern reciter of quantita- 
tive verse : not how to combine quantity with accent, that 
is a very simple thing, and is a problem which we solve 
practically in every sentence we utter ; but how to combine, 
and at the same time distinguish, the accent of the word, 
and the ictus or beat of the verse. Yet, after all, the difficulty 
is one of small significance. As we have before observed, 
the accent would be always felt, whether heard or not, and 
could be no more mentally ignored than it is in a modern 
song, where very frequently it is in direct opposition to the 
musical beat. 

That notice was taken of the accent in writing verses will 
appear from the following considerations. First, we cannot 
ignore the accent even in modern song, where the musical 
beat by no means necessarily coincides with the accentual. 
Here, if the coincidence is too marked and constant, we get 


a jingling and monotonous effect. If, on the other hand, the 
musical beat is always at variance with the accentual, then 
we feel at once that the tune was never made for the words. 

Precisely the same relation should we a priori suspect to 
subsist between the rhythm ( = scansion = musical beat) of a 
Greek verse and its accentual emphasis. In other words, 
we should expect the accent as a rule neither wholly to 
coincide nor wholly to clash with the scansion, and this 
is precisely the case. Those lines in the ancient poets in 
which accent and rhythmical ictus exactly coincide, as well as 
those in which they are exactly opposed, are the exceptions, 
occasionally introduced no doubt by way of variety, but 
avoided as a rule. 

Of lines in which the accentual and quantitative rhythm 
coincide, I borrow the following examples from Mr. Sophocles' 
' Modern Greek Grammar/ and ' Glossary of Later and 
Byzantine Greek/ pp. 21 and 50 respectively. 

Iliad, ii. 188: 

OvTiva fJiiv /3ao*iA^a Kai el-oxov avdpa Ki^fiij. 

Odyssee, ii. 121 : 

Tacoi> OVTIS Ofjioia i/OT^tara HrjvfXoTreirj. 

Ib. ii. 225 : 

MefTcop 6? p* 'oSvffTjo? ap.vfji.ovos ?]v eVat/)or. 

Aristophanes, Ach. 68 2 : 

"Avbpa Ttdcavbv o~TrapaTT(i)V Kai rapuTTW /cat KVK.WV, 

Ib. Eq. 317: 

Tots aypoiKOKrtv iravovpytos uxrre (})aiveo~dai rra\v. 

Ib. Vesp. 38 : 

Ib. Lys. 310: 

Kav p.r) KaXovvTGiV rou? no%\ovs 


sophocles gives many more instances, which might no 
doubt be considerably multiplied. 

He also adduces, among others, the following examples 
of a double rhythm, the one accentual, the other quantitative. 

Quantitative Trochaics. 
Aeschylus, Pers. 157-159: 

*Q J3a6vd>va>v avcurcra II(p(ri8a>v VTrepTarr) 
Mr)TT)p r) SZepgov yepcua, ^alpe, Aaptiov yvvat. 
Qeov p.ev evvarfipa Hsparwv, 6fov Se KOL p-rjTrjp e<pvs, 
Hv TL (jLTj 8aifj.cov TraXatof ..... 

Aristophanes, Ach. 676, 712, 718; Nub. 576, 585: 

Ot yepoi/res oi TrnAaioi p.jj,<pop.(rda rfj Tro'Xei. 
Tot? veoicri 5' evpvTrpaxros KOI XaXoy ^a) K\eiviov. 
Tbv yepovTa rat yepovri, TOV veov ^e TO) vew. 
yap v/zti/ p.efjKpop.fO'ff emvriovi 
i'S' els tavrbv evdeus vve\KV(ras. 

Accentual iambic tetrameters, or o-n'xot TroXm/co/, the same 
as all the modern Greek popular ballads. 

Accentual Trochaics. 
Ib. Nub. 1045; Vesp. 241, 244; Lys. 313, 365: 

KamH riva yva>fj.rjv e^cov ^e'yeis TO. depfia Xovrpa ; 
2i/n/3Xoi> Se (pacri xpr]^ar(>v fX ftv 7ray7 " e ? avrov. 
'ETT' avrbv a>s Ko\ovp,fvovs o)V ^Si'/cT/crev* aXXa. 
Tts ^uXXa/Soir' civ TOV v\ov T>V ev Sajuaj 

Quantitatively scanned, these have the rhythm of the 
Tj-oXiTiKo's-, more usually found as an accentual measure. 

Rare as such exceptions are, we cannot attribute them to 
accident. Their comparatively frequent occurrence in Aris- 
tophanes is in itself suggestive. Is it not extremely probable 
that such lines were inserted by the poet, that it might be 


optional to the actor, as he judged best for comic effect, 
either to say or sing them, that is, to say them according 
to the accent, or to sing them according to the quantity ? 
That accentual rhythm was perfectly well understood by 
the ancients, and was in fact among some nations at least 
much older than quantitative, is almost certain. The Satur- 
nian measure among the Romans, the epic metre of the 
old German poetry, as the ' Niebelungenlied/ are essentially 
the same as the English popular measure, so often found 
in nursery rhymes, and ballads. Byron compares, 

'A captain bold of Halifax, who lived in country quarters,' 


EiTre 2> (pi\(X\rjva irS)S <pepeis rfjv cncAa/SiW 
Kai TTJV a.7rapay6pr)Tov TO>V TOVDKUV rvpavviav. 

We have just seen the same metre, both accentual and 
quantitative, in Aristophanes. 

In Latin and German it occurs in a somewhat mutilated 
form : as indeed not unfrequently in English, e. g. 

1 The king was in his counting house, | counting out his money, 
The queen was in her parlour, | eating bread and honey.' 

In the first line, if we divide it into two Ko>An, to use the 
language of the rhythmicians, we get an external catalexis, 
which we must remedy either by pause or by TOVTJ : in the 
second line we have both internal and external catalexis, 
which we must remedy, the first by TOVTJ, and the second 
by TOVJ] or pause. 

Compare the Saturnian verse: 

Quod re sua difeidens dspere afleicta 
Parens timens hc'ic vovit voto hoc soliito 
Decuma facta poloiicta leibereis lubentes. 

More uncouth and truncated still is the old German epic 
metre : 


' Gunther und Hagen die Recken wohl gethan. 
Beriethen mit Untreuen ein'n Birschen in den Tann : 
Mit ihren scharfen Spiessen wollten sie jagen gehn 
Baren, Schwein und Biiffel ; was konnte kiihnres g'schehn.' 

' How such lines/ observes Mr. Clark, referring to the 
iriKoi above quoted, ' would have puzzled Aristoxe- 
nus or Dionysius ! ' 

I think Dionysius himself gives us a pretty clear answer 
to the question what he would have thought of the ac- 
centual modern heroic measure, when he gives as accentual 
(rrpoarwdiKovs) the following lines which scan precisely in the 
same way : 

Ou /SejS^Xos MS Xeyerai TOV veov Aiovucrov 

Kayo) 8' f^epyao-irjs [reading corrupt] wpyiaa-^vos jyxoj. 

Hephaestion's Enchiridion completes the triplet thus : 

k'OSet'CDi' IleXovo'iaKoi' Kf(paios Trapa TeX^a. 
We will now once more return to the question, What was 
the value of the accent in quantitative rhythm ? To answer 
that question it will be necessary to remind the reader once 
more that rhythm is the dpxireKToviKr] of all verse, and 
quantity and accent only the subordinate means of which 
rhythm is the end. But rhythm would inevitably degenerate 
into jingle if it were not for some counteracting tendency. 
A verse which scans too easily runs away with the reader, 
and rattles off with ever-increasing speed like a railway train. 
Now there are two available means of checking this jingling or 
rattling tendency. The one is quantity, the other is accent. 
Both are available, whether in quantitative or in accentual 
rhythm. Accentual rhythm is perhaps more liable than 
quantitative to degenerate into jingle, because the natural 
accent of each word gives at once the rhythmical ictus ; the 
verse consequently tends to scan itself. This tendency may 
be remedied partly by the inherent quantity of certain long 


syllables upon which no accent falls ; partly by introducing 
an occasional variation between that rhythmical ictus which 
is given by the general or pervading accentual scansion, and 
the actual stress on particular words; so that the word- 
accent shall only generally, and not in every case, represent 
the rhythmical beat. Both means are needed, because, firstly, 
in accentual rhythm, quantity is of so little account, that 
its retarding tendency is not sufficient of itself to prevent 
a verse from becoming jingling and monotonous; and 
secondly, the variation in accent must be restrained within 
narrow limits, or it would spoil the music of the rhythm. 

Compare the somewhat monotonous and jingling rhythm 
of the ordinary modern Greek 

KaXu TO f-^ovv TO. /Sovfa, KaX6p.oip y fiv ol 
ttov \dpov Set/ Travre^ovve, Xdpov 8ev Kaprepovve' 
To KaXoKcu'pi 7rpo/3ara, KOI TOV ^et/xcoj/a %iovia. 
Tpfis dvo~p(op.voi /SouXozreu TOV adrj va ro'ctKiVoui', 
'O evas Xeyei, TOV Mai' va (3yfj, aAXoj TO KaXo/catpt, 

K' 6 TplTOS TO XlVOTTtopO, TTOV TTffpTOWe TO. (f)V\\a. 

Koprj t-avOrj TOVS filXyo-fv OVTOV 's TOV KUTO) 

p,f, dvo'pa>p.evoi p.ov, K ep.e 's TOV 
povrovv TO. pov^d (TOV, (pvcrovv KOI TO. /iaXXta 

KOI TO Ka\iyi crov, KOI p.ds voydet 6 Xapoy. 
' 'Eya> TO pav^a ftydvu TO, KOI TO. /^laXXta Ta Koj3u>, 
Kai Ta KaXiyoTraTTOfTO'a 's TTJV o~Ku\a T dmGovo). 
HdpTC p,e, dv8pa>p.voi p.nv, K e'/ie '$ TOV Trdvo) KOQ-/LIOI/, 
Na Trao), va ifiw T^ pdvva p,ov, TTCO? ffklftorai yui 
Na 7raa>, va i8a r* ddepfpia pov, TTWS K\aiovv yia 
' Kopjj, <rc'va T d8ep(pia o~ov fls TOV xP 
'K.oprj, o-fva f] p.dvva crov 's TTJV povya Ko 

with the lines quoted above : 

Aptyare 7rd\iv (pao-Toi fuSm'/uovar vopKiaraovs 
'Ho TOV Maiov TOVS Tfprrvovs KOI eutoSety 


Lai TTJV TrapQevov ort'\^arf, rjris cos livdos (tXlffl* 
'Eya> 8ev Korrrco BL eue' dirtBavev eKftvq, 

Aev KOTTTft 6 dvepao~Tos p.vpo~i.vr)s K\d($ov TrXeov' 
XAeudei TTJV obvvrjv TOV TO avBos TO a>paiov. 
Awarat fj.di>oi> TTevBifj-a, Kwrrdpio-anv, va Spe^y 
Bfftaprjufvrjs Ke^aXr)? ro juercoTroi/ va are^?/. 
K* eya) riyarrqcra TTOTC, K e'ya) dvTrjyaTrrjdrjv' 
AXXu dez/ e'A 1707x01/77 era TT\T)V <pev ! e\r)(T^.ovf)6r]v. 
Afv dvai 6 jSios Ma'toy atclu/tos* 6eV 
MapatVoj/rai at dvdrjpal TOV epu>Tos 
Kat (pfvyfi f) vfGTTjs p,as, a>s acrrpaTrr) 
'Os op/cot (Trade POTATO? els <rrr]Qr) yvvaiKfla. 

Here it will be observed Spe^are stands as regards the 

metre for 8pe\^a're, epaorat for cpao-rat, jfrt? for jyri?, 8Ji/art 
for Swarat, dvdrjpal for ftvQrjptu, do-rpaTrr) for aorpaTrr;, and SO 

on : the word-accent sometimes clashing with the ictus, as 
in Spe^are, Swarat, sometimes standing in the place of the 
fainter ictus, as in do-Tpairrj, peftaprjuevris, KetyaXris. The quantity 
of certain syllables has also a retarding influence, as in 

dvTr)yairr}6riv, which Stands irrationallter for am/yon-r^i/. I 

consider the above one of the most perfect examples I have 
met in any language, of melody without monotony, and 
rhythm relieved from jingle. 

In quantitative verse the same principles may be seen 
at work, but as accent is here the secondary element, and 
one rather felt than heard, the influence of quantity as a 
retarding force comes more prominently forward. The 
hexameter, according to its original rhythmical intention, 
consisted of dactyls, as 

'AvSpd p,oi ('went Movaa 7ro\vTpo7rov os p.d\a rroAXa, 

with one spondee at the end to indicate, as it were, that 
the rhythm had run itself out of breath, and must pause, 
before beginning again. Here the long syllables, with the 


exception of the final syllaba anceps, all receive the ictus. 
Spondees were then substituted for dactyls, in the hexameter 
verse : 

'Tardior ut paullo graviorque rediret ad aures.' 

It is true that, metrically, the long syllable is regarded 
as equal to two short syllables, but the rhythmical effect 
is different, because, now, long syllables occur without the 
ictus. No one doubts that the spondaic hexameter is slower 
and more majestic than the dactylic. A stronger measure 
was adopted to restrain the impetuosity of the iambic tragic 
verse, in accordance with the principle that Rest is the 
chief characteristic of Greek tragedy. Here in alternate 
feet long syllables were substituted for short at the discretion 
of the poet. The ear tells us at once why the long syllables 
were only allowed in the first half of each perpov: that is, 
before the second, and not before the fourth syllable. These 
second syllables received the stronger ictus ; therefore the 
effect of the long syllable immediately preceding was par- 
tially neutralized : had a long syllable stood before the 
weaker ictus, it would have overpowered it, and spoilt 
the rhythm. 

So much for the influence of quantity considered as a 
check to the rapidity of rhythm. 

We shall now proceed to show that accent had also a real 
though a secondary importance in this respect. The verses 
of Virgil are acknowledged to run more smoothly than 
those of Lucretius. Why? Mainly, without a doubt, 
because Virgil's scan accentually as well as quantitatively, 
not indeed completely, or they would be mere jingle, but 

Compare, for instance 

' Tityre, tii patulae recubans sub tegmine fagi 
Silvestrem, tenui Musam meditaris avcna,' 



' Quorum Agrigentinus cum primis Empedocles est.' 

The fact is, Virgil seems to have exquisitely struck the 
mean between lines that scan themselves and lines that can 

ardly be scanned. None read like mere prose, none are 

ere jingle. 

Lucretius mostly fell into one of the two opposite extremes. 
Either his lines read accentually, are mere prose, or they 
scan themselves, which, though with him a rarer, is a yet 
greater defect. E.g. 

' Hie est vasta Charybdis et hie Aetnaea minantur.' 


iuch lines are great favourites with schoolboys, and are 
proportionately rare in Virgil. 

If we compare the Latin hexameter with the Greek, we 
shall find the main difference to consist in this : that in 
Latin, accent and ictus nearly always coincide at the end 
of the verse, the contrary being only possible when the last 
word is a monosyllable, as in 

I' Empedocles e"st ; odora canum vis : ' 

inasmuch as the last syllable but one in Latin, if long, 
invariably receives the stress. In Greek, on the other hand, 
such endings as 

aXye' edrjKC, Aavaol(riv dpyyuv 

are common. 

Greek verse has thus the advantage of very great variety 
as compared with Latin. At the same time, the relation 
of accent and ictus is so nicely observed, that there is hardly 
in all Homer a line which, accentually read, sounds like 
mere prose. 

The same holds good of iambic verse, while in the choric 
measures there is nearly always an accentual rhythm, which, 


though it does not exactly coincide with the quantitative, 
is generally sufficient to indicate it : for example 

'lo> yevfdi. ftporwv, 

ODS vp.cis "(ra. KOI TO /n^5 

Tis yap, TIS dvrjp TrAe'oj/ 

TCLS evdatp-ovias (pepei 

f) TOCTOVTOV oaov do<elv 

KOI 5oaz>r' a.7roK\ivai ' 

To (TOV TOI TrapaSety// f 

TOV o~bv Sat/zova, TOV vov, <b rXd/icoi/ OtfitTroSa, 

Or again 

de dpofjiov < \v<rcrr)s 

p,dpya> y\<acr(rr)s d<paTi]s. 

Here the last line gives the clue to the quantitative scansion, 
but a regular accentual rhythm runs through the first two. 

In the iambic trimeter the Greeks seem specially to have 
avoided the regular coincidence of ictus and accent at the 
end of a line. The immense majority of verses, whether in 
Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, or Aristophanes, have no 
accent on the last syllable, and at least thirty out of every 
fifty will be found to have the accent on the last syllable 
but one. The later imitators observed this, and it finally 
became a rule that the end of every iambic verse should be 
accented on the penultimate. The same desire to check the 
too rapid run of the iambic trimeter was the origin of the 
choliambic verse. All the choliambics of Babrius are ac- 
cented on the last syllable but one. Thus, in the desire to 
avoid jingle, the later poets fell into the opposite extreme 
of harsh monotony, which the fine taste of the great originals 
enabled them to avoid. There is, then, a law in the very 
lawlessness of the Ancients ' Ars est celare artem.' 





What has been called the clashing of the accentual with the 
quantitative beat constitutes the real beauty of quantitative 

It is this TVTTOS dvTiTVTTos which makes the charm and 
melody of the old heroic verse. The accent and quantity 
of these two words as well as the thought expressed in them 
eem to me exactly to embody the idea of beauty in quanti- 
tative versification, which is, as beauty always is, the harmony 
of contrasts. Where both coincide, as very rarely in Epic 

' Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus,' 

ien the other part of the line (in which, happily for my 
llustration, this coincidence takes place) is realized : 

Kal Ttr]\L eVt Tr^/zcm KfZrai. 

The rhythm of Greek prose was, no doubt, wholly ac- 
centual, and is to my mind completely destroyed if read 
according to the Latin accent, as is done in our schools 
and universities. I will give as an example the concluding 
words of Aeschines' oration against Ctesiphon : 

a) [icv ovv 0) yrj Kal rj\if Kal dperr] Kal crvveo'is Kal TraiScia, 77 
TO. Ka\a Kal TO. alcr^pd, fteftorjOriKa Kal flprjKa. Kal 
ft fteV Ka\S)s Kal ai(os TOV d8iKr)p.aTos KaTrjyoprjKa, flirov a>s fj3ov- 

fipr)neva>v \6ya>v Kai CK TO>V 7rapaAfAetju/ifi>a)j/ avTol TO. 8iKaia <al Ta 
o~v/Ji<f)epovTa virep TTJS TroXecos \lsr](pi(rao'6. 

Compare the following words from the conclusion of a 
modern Greek funeral oration on Lord Byron : 

2v 8e, VTTfprj(f>avov 2OYAI, eprjfjiov Kal eyKaraXeAftfi/tevoi/, eva> 
(f>pio~o~ts o~rjp,pov djro TOVS fyovs TOV ?roXe/iou, TOVS 6opvj3ovvTas 
TO edatpos O-QU, Krj8evop,ev f)p.els rjo-i/x^s TCKVOV <rou irpocr(pi\es, 
TOV OTTOLOV ol 6<p6a\p,oi } dia iravrbs KXfio~6evTes } 8ev 6a o~e 


In conclusion, with regard to the practical question, how 
we are to pronounce Greek, I can only state, from my per- 
sonal experience and that of others similarly circumstanced, 
my unalterable conviction, that the man who has once 
learned to read Greek fluently, with accent and intonation 
as the Greeks read it, will never be able to tolerate either 
Homer or Xenophon or Sophocles read with the Latin 
accent and the miscalled Erasmian pronunciation. 

Any one who has followed the arguments and evidence 
adduced in the preceding chapter, must, I am sure, be 
convinced that the way in which the ancient Greeks pro- 
nounced their language was at least far more like the present 
Greek pronunciation, handed down as it has been by an 
unbroken line of tradition, than the wholly arbitrary system 
which the followers of Erasmus have invented : while few 
have ever questioned, I may say among continental scholars 
no one has ever doubted, the propriety of reading Greek 
according to the accent. 

If, moreover, the Greek accent alone preserves the true 
rhythm of the noble orations of Demosthenes ; if a practical 
familiar sense of it is absolutely necessary, as I have tried 
to show it is, in order to distinguish a bad verse from a 
good one, is it not time we abandoned, once and for ever, 
a barbarous method, whose only justification is that it 
enables Englishmen to speak Greek so that, in the words 
of Fuller, they can understand one another, which nobody 
else can? I subjoin a short sentence, with an interlinear 
English transcription embodying the chief peculiarities of 
modern Greek pronunciation: 

*O ovpavos Kcii 17 yrj OVK eVAao^trai/ fiiBvs, aXXa avtir- 
O ooranos tkeh ee yee ook eplastheessan ephthe^ss alia anep- 

Ti>x6r](Tav oXiyov KOT' o\iynv ov8\ ol (ivdpconoi 01 viol 
teekhtheessan oleeghon kat' ole^ghon oodh, ee anthropee ee ee-e6 


rov Qenv rjvpfffrjtrav eai(pvr)<; rAeiot a)S teal vvv, ovS' 
too theoo eebhr^theessan exephneess telee-ee oas tkSh neen oodh' 

< TOV ftdQovs TOV o~KOTovs KOI ^aoTiK^s (rvyxyo'fws 

ek too bhahthooss too skoa-tooss tkeh khaoteekeess seengkhe6ss8oss 

dyyf\(DV o~d\7Tiyiv 7rpoK\fi6r)o~av, ovSe TOV iroXffjLOV (pv&fi 
angelloan salpeengxeen proekleetheessan oodhfe ton-bolemon feessee 

dyaTTwa-t, aAXa TTfpl rfjs lavT&v (rcoTijpias (frpov- 

ah-gh-ah-poassee ahlah peri -tees eh-ahphtoan soateere^ahss phron- 

TIOVTS, <pevyov(ri TTJV aoTr\iav, KOI e^TTiTrrova-iv 

deezondess phebhghoossee teen ah-oa-plee-ahn tkgh embeeptoosseen 

epicri KOI p,d)(ais, KOI TTJV avdrjv TOV "Apeos 

erreessee tkgh mahkhehss tkSh teen ah-bhdheen too 'Ahrfios 

ai p.avddvov<n. 
phthenggestheh mahnthahnoossi. 

N.B. The circumflex accent sounds as the acute, and 
there is no reason to think that this was ever otherwise ; 
the circumflex being simply a way of recording the fact 
that an oxytone syllable had swallowed up a barytone by 
means of contraction : the acute accent, therefore, is plainly 
the predominating one, while the grave would be felt just 
in proportion as the uncontracted form was present to the 
mind. When dycnrd-cl becomes dyairq, there is no reason 
to think that the v is heard any more than the IWTO subscrip- 
lum, which is swallowed up by the a, just as the grave accent 
is by the acute. As to the written grave accent, it indicates 
that the syllable on which it stands receives a slight stress 
as compared with the unaccented syllables, but one which 
is almost lost by comparison with the accent of the word 
which follows it ; so that a word accented on the last syllable 
reads almost as if it were part of the next. 

F 2 


On the Origin and Development of Modern 
Greek Accidence. 

IF the question were asked, what is the origin of the 
Greek of the present day ? is it the offshoot of Byzantine 
literature, the creation of Church fathers, or of philosophers, 
sophists, and rhetoricians, or is its source to be looked for 
in the common dialect of the Ptolemaic era, in the idioms of 
Dorians, Aeolians, and Boeotians, or the vulgarisms of the 
Athenian market-place ? the true answer, perhaps, would be, 
it had its beginning in none of these and in all of them : in 
none of them alone, and in all of them together. 

In speaking of the history of a language we should bear 
in mind the distinction between its outer and inner part, the 
form and the matter, the skeleton of grammar, and the life 
which makes that skeleton a living body with a living soul. 
These two parts of language should never be confounded, 
and yet it is sometimes hard to keep them separate. For 
there is an essential, as well as an actual connection between 
them, which may be set forth as follows. 
The mere shapes and changes of words in a language 
may be called its grammar, while the thought of which these 
shapes and changes are the expression may be spoken of as 


the metaphysic of the age to which it belongs. But be- 
tween this outer part the grammar, and this inner part 
the thought, comes a third something, which is neither 
altogether outward nor altogether inward, and which, for 
want of a better name, we may call the logic of a lan- 
guage, or the way in which the thought finds utterance 
in words. 

Now, just as the metaphysic of one age will tend to be- 
come the logic of the next, so logic will in its turn become 
petrified into grammar, as we shall soon see by examples in 
the language before us. Hence the difficulty of drawing a 
rigid line of demarcation between the mere vehicle of thought 
and the thought itself. Grammar and thought, linked as 
they are in the nature of the case by logic, which is the way 
in which the one finds utterance in the other, merge together 
by scarcely felt degrees, like the waves of the stream of time 
which bears them along, so that it is often hard to say 
whether we are treading in the domain of philosophy 
or of grammar, or lingering on the border-land between 
the two. 

The combination of causes in producing phenomena is 
however no excuse for confusing them, when those phe- 
nomena are to be explained ; and when we are attempting to 
write the history of a language, we must beware of attri- 
buting every change and development to one source. We 
should begin by inquiring whether there be any part of 
language which is quite independent of the progress of 
human thought. If there be, we may then proceed to in- 
quire what are the causes which may have affected its de- 
velopment. Then we can go on to consider the influence 
of intellectual progress on such part of language as must 
be considered liable to be affected by it. 

Nor can we be long in admitting that there is that in 
language which may be changed independently of the ad_ 


vance of thought, or remain unchanged in spite of it ; and 
this is the mere form which words or inflections assume, 
which is a very different thing, it must be remembered, from 
changes in their usage and meaning ; or, again, from their 
disuse or introduction. To make this clear by an example. 
It is plainly, as regards the history of thought, a matter of 
indifference whether the word olvos be written with or without 
a digamma, whether we write cvrl as in Doric, eo-rt as in 
Attic, or five as in modern Greek, whether ecouroi) as in 
Herodotus, eavroC or avTov. It is very different when the 
Homeric demonstrative 6, 17, TO becomes the simple article, 
or when the infinitive mood in later Greek is supplanted by 
the subjunctive with tva. 

In accordance with the above remarks it is proposed in 
the following pages, first, to consider the mere forms of 
words and inflections, or the purely outward part of the 
Greek language ; then the structure, in which the movement 
of thought already begins to play a part ; finally, the use 
and formation of words, in which the inner life of the lan- 
guage attains its greatest significance. 

First, then, as to mere grammatical forms ; or, 


It must not be supposed that every form discussed under 
this head is in common use in the language of literature and 
of educated men. The cultivated language for the most 
part preserves the grammatical forms of the age of Thucy- 
dides, avoiding, as a rule, all the extremities of the later 
Attic dialect, as, for instance, 6d\arTa for &iXa<ro-n, or x f p~ 
povrjvos for xtpvovrjo-os. In the language of the common 
people, however, the following peculiarities may be briefly 


a. o'a, and words like it, make in the genitive TIJS dogas, 

in the plural fj dais, ace. ral? So^aty = ray Sd|a9. 

b. A host of nouns belonging to different declensions are 

made to follow One. Thus rap-ias, "A\vs, Mapi-i?, Or Mdprrjt, 

contracted from Maprtos, "Ap???, ndpis, K<pa\as, are, in the 
singular number, all declined alike, namely, by cutting off 
the sign of the nominative -$-, in the genitive and vocative, 
and changing it to v for the accusative. 

This v is dropped in pronunciation where the phonetic 
laws of the language admit it. 

c. The plural of many words, especially of foreign origin, 
is formed by adding -dfs to the stem, as Traa-dfes from Traa-as, 
pashas ; p.a'ip.ovdes from fj p.a'ipov, monkeys ; p-awddes, from 17 
p.dvva, mothers. 

These plurals are always paroxytone, whatever the accent 
of the word in the singular. 

d. Many feminines, whose root vowel is or ov, take 
s in the genitive singular, as f) p.a'ip.ov, rijs p.a'ip.ovs, 77 Ko>, TTJS 
KOJS (exactly the reverse of the classical form, which in this 
case is f/ Ko>s, TJ/S Koi). 

e. There are a few irregular nouns of a compound de- 
clension, especially verbals, in i/ioi>, as TO ypd-^tfjiov, genitive 

TOV ypa.ilfip.aTos, plural TO. ypa^ip.aTa. 

f. Metaplastic nouns or secondary formations are com- 
mon, as fj alya, 6 Trarepas, 6 /SacrtXeas. 

g. Of the pronouns, ep.e often appears as epeva, and a-f as 
eVe and eVei/a, r)p.fls becomes often (pels, and in the accusative 
both and pay. The latter, used as an enclitic, supplies 
the place both of fjpas and ^p.wv. 

vp,els becomes o-els and catls-, ace. and enclitic possessive 
aas, o-a?. The article, as enclitic and proclitic, is used for 
the personal pronoun in oblique cases. 

In the verbs : 

h. \eyovo-t becomes \eyovv Or \eyovve. For eXeyoi/ we have 


e Xeya ; for eXea?, e'Xee s ; for e'XeaTe, eXtgerc. In the passive, 
instead Of Xey^ or Xeytt, we find Xeyeo-at, for \(yop.e6a, Xeyd- 

v, and various other forms down to the tragic 

For eXcxfyv we get f\x&l Ka - In the imperative aorist act. 
X<?e for Xeot>, and do. passive Xe|ou for Ae^//. 

*'. In the present tense of contracted verbs in do, , the 
third person is often uncontracted, as dyandei for dycnra. 
'Aya7raj(rt appears sometimes as dya-rrovv or -oCj/e, sometimes 

as dyarrave. 'Ayanovp-fv is written for ayctTrco/zei/, whereas voeti, 

l, and the like generally become vodei, &c. ; eVt/z<v is eVt- 
, -fs, -f ; -o'o becomes -di>w, on the analogy of 5wo> for 
urw for eVrwco ; so Seco becomes fieVo). In ancient 
Greek we may regard cuV&> (pronounced ej>o>) as a strength- 
ening of eo), and ai/co as a strengthening of acu. 

/. The verb et/u presents all the appearance of a verb in 
the middle voice, being conjugated thus: etftm, efo-m, f'j/t, 

etfie^a, ftcr^f, eii/e ; impf. fj^ovv, ?j(ro, ^TO, fjp.f6a, rj<r()f, rjrov ; inf. 

da-Sat ; imper. eo-o. 

/^. The present participle active often appears as an inde- 
clinable metaplastic in as : ovras, Xeyoi/ra?, &c. The feminine 
\eyavara is however by no means disused. The only other 
participles in use among the uneducated are the present 
passive and perfect passive, the latter minus the redupli- 
cation, as ypappevos, dXifjipevos, 6pap.^fvos. The present par- 
ticiple sometimes appears as though formed from the con- 
jugation in -pi, e.g. fpxdpevos, \tydp(vos. The termination -/it, 
however, is never found in the common language of the 

Such are the main features of modern Greek accidence. 
Let us attempt to account for them and to trace their develop- 
ment. We will begin by inquiring what causes remain to us, 
when we have eliminated those which belong to the intellectual 
movements of the Greek mind, and, of course, could explain 


nothing so merely external as the bare accidence of a Ian- . 

First amongst the influences which would remain to be 
considered is the levelling tendency common to all lan- 
guages, or, in other words, the ever-increasing desire to do 
away with irregularities in grammar. 

It may be said that all language is originally regular in 
intention, but in the first formation of words, the stubborn- 
ness of matter, that is, the difficulty of pronouncing certain 
combinations of sounds, causes irregularities in the result. 
These irregularities are then transmitted from race to race, 
and the reason of them being forgotten, their exist- 
ence becomes an inconvenience, and a levelling tendency 
sets in 1 . 

So in English we now say, he climbed, he helped, for he 
clomb, he holp, and in Spanish the participle apreso has almost 
given way to aprendido. Here then at once we see the 
explanation of such forms as TOV "Apr), TOV "A\v, &c. The 
first instance of the latter form, so far as I am aware, is to 
be found in an anonymous writer of the tenth century, 
known as Theophanes Continuatus. 

In Constantine Porphyrogenitus, also an author of the 
tenth century (905 959), we get p.ovoyfvf) as the vocative of 
fjiovoyfVTjs. Porphyrogenitus, as he tells us himself, used 
frequently the current forms of the vulgar Greek of his day, 
excepting in his Life of St. Basil, which is written in an 
artificial language in imitation of classical writers. His 
numerous modernisms will be noticed in their place. The 
very same tendency made the ancient Greeks say TTJV epiv 
instead of TTJV epiSa, TOV yeXwv for TOV yeXoora, and the like. 

1 Accordingly Sanscrit is more irregular than Greek, and Greek 
than Latin; that is, the older a language is, the less regular is its 


We have also in Homer epos, epov for epcos, epara. Another 
similar influence is the tendency to metaplasms or secondary 
formations. From one point of view this may be regarded 
as one of the forms of the tendency to simplification above 
noticed, for it is plain if we turn ficunXfvs, ytpav, "Apa^, dvfjp, 
into /3acriXeas, yepovras, "Apaftas, avdpas, and decline them all 
like Ta/itW, we have got one scheme of declension instead of 
five. But still it remains to be explained how such a form 

as avdpas could arise from dvyp, Or /3ao-iAe'a? from /3a<nAevs. 

If we turn to the Septuagint we shall find our answer. 
There such forms as rbv f3acri\cav, TT}V alyav are of frequent 
occurrence, and it is plain that such forms postulate the 
nominatives 6 fiacrtXeas, fj alya. Yet such forms are nowhere 
found till we enter the confines of modern Greek (if we 
except a few names of animals and birds occurring in Aris- 
totle's Natural History, as, for instance, dcrKaXcairas from d<r- 
KaXcox//'). These metaplastic accusatives may have first existed 
alone, and the nominatives and other cases may have been 
formed from them. Yet the fact that the original form of 
yepwv, K.T.X. was ytpovrs, may explain why yepovras, which is 
only yfpovrs made pronounceable, is the vulgar equivalent of 
the classical yepw. For were yepovras simply metaplastic, we 
should expect always to find only yepovra as the genitive, but 
yepovros, dvdpos, Trarpos, &c. are the more usual forms even in 
the vernacular. In all likelihood the v was added to the old 
accusative merely from euphonic reasons to avoid the hiatus. 
It may be that it was almost silent, or seemed so to a Greek 
ear, when followed by a consonant, even when it formed an 
essential part of the word. This is the case in the present 
day, and the explanation of it is to be found in the pecu- 
liarity of Greek pronunciation. All consonants are pro- 
nounced by the Greeks with the utmost force and distinct- 
ness of which they admit; and v, being incapable of emphatic 
utterance, is by comparison scarcely heard except when 


followed either by a vowel or some consonant, the pro- 
nunciation of which it affects and thereby preserves its own 
existence. Thus in TT)I> AiyuTrro(v) the v of rty is never lost, 
whereas in rrj(v) 2a^o(z>) it is completely evanescent ; while 
in rrfv 7r6\iv (pronounced r^-bolin) it is preserved. 

Now where the v is so evanescent a letter, its presence is 
naturally imagined wherever it would facilitate pronunciation, 
and it would soon be liable to be written, though not 
sounded, even where there were no such reason for its 
introduction. There may however have been a special 
reason for accusatives like alyav and Qao-iXeav. Comparative 
philology teaches us that a v has been lost in these accusa- 
tives, as also in the pronouns o-c and f'p.e. What wonder then 
if this same v should have lived on in the mouth of the 
common people, and appeared in the Septuagint, the lan- 
guage of which is so evidently, as far as it departs from the 
classical standard (a few Hebraisms of course excepted), the 
vulgar Greek of the period. This consideration suggests a 
further explanation of the grammatical phenomena of later 
and modern Greek. This is nothing else than the simple 
and well-known fact that archaisms are constantly per- 
petuated in the language of the vulgar which have long 
since been lost to literature. Our own dialects are sufficient 
proof of this, to go no further. Witness / can-na, he's no 
rechl, kie, we do'n, for / cannot, he's not right, cows, we do 
where we have sounds or grammatical forms preserved to 
us which cultivated English ignores. Now to speak first of 
the language of the Septuagint, no mistake could be greater 
than to imagine that it was an artificial dialect, the results of 
an indiscriminate reading-up of the language. According to 
this theory, as recently enunciated by the Grinfield lecturer 
on the Septuagint at Oxford (Michaelmas Term, 1868), the 
Greek of the Septuagint is a farrago of words culled at 
random from Epic poetry, Attic Prose, and every conceivable 


dialect, and with a grammar, we are left to suppose, invented 
by the writers themselves. With the utmost respect for the 
learned lecturer, I would submit that such a theory is im- 
probable in itself, and does not explain the phenomena of 
the Septuagint. First, it is inconceivable that there should 
not have been found, even at the time when the earliest parts 
of the translation were made, Jews at Alexandria perfectly 
familiar with Greek as a spoken language. Again, if the 
translators had not been familiar with the language, it is 
impossible that they could have escaped grammatical slips 
such as using an imperfect for an aorist. Finally, the pe- 
culiar forms and usages which are found are easily explained 
by a reference to modern Greek and other unclassical Greek 
writers. For example, 7riao> is not peculiar to Doric, but 
occurs in the Revelation of St. John, and is common in 
modern Greek. 'ESoAtoCo-az/ is an imperfect from 8oAio'o> 
(3rd person plural), and is explained by the consonantal 
form e\eyocrat>, a Septuagint form, &c., and further illustrated 
by the modern Greek forms efioXtoCo-a, eVi/xoCo-a, of which the 
3rd person plural is respectively c8o\iov<rav and eVt/xovo-av. 
We may say if we like that such a form as eSoXiovarav or eAe- 
yotrav for eXfyov follows the conjugation in /, but we must 
not forget that there was originally no other conjugation, 
and that the a- in the 3rd person of c8o\iovo-av is, etymolo- 
gically speaking, just as much in its right place as in ISidoa-av, 
arrao-ai/, erideaav. What the <r does in this position is indeed 
a mystery, as it has no place in Sanscrit, and as far as I 
know its presence has not been explained. But if it was 
found, as it seems to have been, convenient to insert it for 
phonetic reasons here, we can see that it would be especially 
so if the usage of the language at any period required the 
imperfect to end in a instead of ov. Such a form as e'SoXioCa 
would plainly clamour for a sigma. It is true that o- is in 
Greek more often left out than inserted ; but the tendency 


to do the one, implies, as a general rule, the tendency to do 
the other. It is a moot point whether y and v in such cases 
as cv0i>-s, OVTCO-S, ales, ativ are ephelcystic or etymologic, i.e. 
added when found, or omitted when absent. With atis might 
be compared in modern Greek TiVorey. In such cases the 
force of analogy must be taken into account. Now that a 
was, for the termination of the imperfect, at least as old as 
ov, is just as likely as not. Originally, as we see from 
Sanscrit, the termination of the ist aorist and of the 2nd 
aorist and imperfect were the same. In Homer we have 

eov, and r)a ; in Ionic both erjv and ea for rjv, ' I was.' In 
order to account for the diphthong ov, however, we should 
lave to suppose either that v was changed to a after the 
contraction 8oXiW from eSoXtW had taken place, in which 
case the accent in such a word as e'SoXtoCo-a would be a 
mystery, or else, as appears to me to have been the fact, 
there was a paragogic vowel slipped in between the o and 
the a. This seems to have been so in the case of fa for 
ea, erjv, and ?jev for eev, and fjrjv, which would appear to 
present us with a pair of paragogic e's (e-e-e-ev). However 
that may be, we have the termination -a-a for the imperfect 
of contracted verbs in modern Greek, . and of contracted 
verbs only. In the Septuagint we have the termination 
-a-av in the 3rd person plural of many verbs, but as far as 
I know no trace of the a- in any other person. Yet the 
a- has just as much right (pace grammaticorum) to exist in 
any other person as in the 3rd, and it is my belief that in 
many parts of Greece where in the first person a was the 
favourite termination (e?Sa for eldov, etna for euroi/, which we 
have in the Septuagint and New Testament), e'SoXtoCo-a, e/u- 
o-ovo-a, &c. would inevitably arise. 

At any rate, it is important to remember that all the Greek 
that was spoken from Homer's day to the era of the Pto- 
lemies is not to be found in books, still less in Grammars, 


and, above all, that vulgar dialects both of ancient and 
modern times should be expected to contain far more 
archaisms than innovations. 

Let us see whether this principle will carry us further in 
the explanation of modern Greek forms. First then as to 
the nominative 86ais for 86ga. How are we to account for 
the i ? Schleicher, in his ' Comparative Grammar/ following 
as I believe in the steps of Bopp, postulates 8oga-i~as or some 
such form as the original plural of 86ga. It is but right to 
state that Professor Max Miiller differs from this view, but at 
any rate it is remarkable that the modern Greek form sup- 
plies exactly one of the stages of transition that the theory 
of Bopp and Schleicher demands. As to the accusative rals 
dogms, that is the Aeolic form, and as such an acknowledged 
archaism. Tats 86gais is ascertained to be a representative of 
ravs 86gavs, the modification of the vowel indicating the loss 
of the v. 

Turning next to the pronouns, we have already observed 
that cpeva and eVera for epe and o-e preserve the original v 
(in Sanscrit m, mam, and tvdm] of the accusative. 'E/ms- is 
referred to by Plato (Crat. 418 c) as an older form for 
foe Is. As to the enclitic and proclitic use of the article, 
it is (except for the accent in fhe latter case) the same 
as the Homeric usage, e.g. T6i/ eWoraxre, ' he killed him ;' 
dTrea-vXrjare TOVS, ' he spoiled them.' Passing to the verbs, we 
find in Aeyovz/ or \eyowe the traces of the old form Aeyom 
(exovi is quoted, I believe, by Hesychius as a Cretan form). 
In the passive the forms Atyeo-m, 2nd person present, \fy6- 
paorre or Aeytfyce vGa as well as fayopefav, are so plainly archaic 
forms that they need no explanation. In St. Paul's Epistle 
to the Romans we have already Kavxavai, ( thou boastest/ 
In the imperative aorist active \fge for Aeo> is Homeric. 
As to the imp. aorist passive A/ ou, I cannot but agree with 
Dr. Mullach that it is the classical middle i aor. imper. of 


erbs in /it used as a passive, there being no middle voice 
in modern Greek, as there was none in the KOIVTJ 8ia\(KTos. 
Few who compare such forms as a-rda-o with the corre- 
sponding modern vrdo-ov, Segov will be able to doubt this. 

The verb (dpi), so far as it presents us really with 
a middle form, has the precedent of the Homeric eo-o, which 
is precisely the modern Greek imperative, not to speak of the 
future eo-o/wu. But nearer examination shows us that is 

tiot conjugated throughout as a middle. The third person 
singular and plural cwai or five, the latter being more correct 
n writing, while in pronunciation the two forms are the 
same, is plainly not for emu and elvrai. Now the formation 
rf this word we are able to trace through its various stages. 
The oldest shape in which it appears is eWi, which in the 
Doric dialect was the same for both numbers. This evrl 
appears already in classical Greek as cvi in such phrases 
as OI'K ew, evLOL for COTIV oi. It is not unlikely that it was the 
vulgar word in regular use for eWi or eWi, though known to 
literature only in such short phrases as the above. In the 
Acts of the Council of Constantinople (536 A.D.), we find 
(vi used simply for eWi, 'Tis *vi Neoroptoj.' In Ptochopro- 
dromus, the first Romaic writer, we get eW, and soon after- 
wards the present form elvm or five. 

One other principle which seems to have been at work in 
the development of modern from ancient Greek is the prin- 
ciple of extended analogy. From this point of view modern 
Greek may be called the logical result of ancient Greek. In 
ancient Greek the dual number was disappearing ; in modern 
Greek, as already in the KOIVT) SiaXeim>?, it is gone. The 
middle voice as a separate formation was on the wane. In 
the New Testament we have d-rrfKpidrj for dncKpivaro, much 
earlier eftexfy f r f^aro ; in modern Greek the only relic of 
the ancient middle appears in the passive imperative aorist. 
In later Greek we have many instances of a tendency to 


dispense with a separate form for the perfect, using the aorist 
instead. In modern Greek the perfect has disappeared, 
leaving perhaps a trace of its former existence in such an 
aorist as efyjjKa for evprjKa. Already in the Septuagint we get 

cvprjKdv and f(i>pa.Kav, for vpr)Kacri and ecopaKaori. Verbs in fu 

have entirely disappeared in modern Greek, leaving behind 

them only such remnants as the participles 

pevos above noticed. The termination q/ca in 

<pr)Kct, &c., seems but a following out of the analogy of 

for e6w, e6r)Ka for edrjv, and so forth. Mr. Walker, High 

Master of the Manchester Grammar School, has called my 

attention to the fact that the termination KO. for perfects is 

almost unknown to Homer. 

Under the head of extensions of analogy we may place 
the double or mixed declensions, as TO ypfyipov, TO. ypa\^ip.ara, 
with which we may compare TO oveipov, TO. oWpara, &c. It is 
worthy of notice that the plural ra oveipara is the only one 
known to the common people (in Athens at any rate), and 
I have been corrected myself by my landlord in that city, a 
man who barely knew how to read, for saying TO 6Vipa. 

Phrynichus, the grammarian, notices the increasing use 
of this termination -t/zoi/, and complains particularly of the 
employment of TO yf\d<np.ov for TO yeXoioi/. One cannot but 
be glad that the forms prevailed in spite of Phrynichus, for 
they are a real gain to the Greek language. They consti- 
tute a class of verbal substantives with a shade of meaning 
not accurately expressed by any other word. Certainly 
there is no adequate ancient Greek translation of d^ovo) 
irnigipov o-fraOiuv, ' I hear the clash of mingled swords.' The 
force of the termination -tjuoi/ is that it places the word to 
which it is added midway between concrete and abstract; 
e. g. Ko\lfis would mean cutting, Ko/i/ia a cut ; but TO Ko^ipov a 
number of cuttings or stabbings, and is used to describe, as 
no other word could, an internal pain ; German Leibschnei- 


den. In the plural, as well as in the oblique cases of the 
singular, it is rather the concrete side of the meaning which 
comes into prominence. Hence we have the endings appro- 
priate to a concrete meaning ypa^t/xaros, ypa^ip-ara. The 
same explanation no doubt holds good with regard to oveipov, 
which may mean either dreaming in the abstract, or a dream ; 
while ovcipara means always particular dreams. 

It remains that we should notice the influence of dialects 
in the forms of modern Greek. The KOIVT] StaXe/cTos- was 
robably so called quite as much from the fact that it was 
o dialect in particular but a mixture of all, as that it was 
generally understood. Pindar's language was called by gram- 
marians Koivf], because they regarded it as a mixture of more 
han one dialect. 

Now the fact that the Greek of the Septuagint presents us 
with forms belonging to different dialects is one reason for 
the false notion above referred to, that the translators took 
their words at random from the several dialects, much as an 

nndiscriminating schoolboy might do in our own day. We 
_ire apt to forget that the Greek language was just as familiar 
to the Hebrews who wrote the Septuagint, as their own 
tongue. Just as they adopted the language of ' stammer- 
ing lips ' in Babylon, so they spoke Greek under the Ptole- 
mies; and, in all likelihood, both spoke and wrote that 
language with greater ease than their sacred tongue. The 
only natural explanation of the appearance of Doric forms 
like 7riao> and rare Homeric words like dyepw^oy in the 
Septuagint, is that they were current in the vernacular of the 
period, nia^w is to this day the modern Greek for ' to 
catch/ and in this sense it is that it is used in the Bible (cf. 
Latin opprimere), while dyepaxos is actually found in the 
Romaic popular ballads collected by Passow. We are con- 
tinually reminded of the existence throughout the history of 
the Greek language (at any rate beginning with the time of 



Aristophanes), of a common spoken dialect quite distinct 
from the cultivated language of literature, but seldom coming 
to the surface. As often as it strove to raise its head, some 
tyrant grammarian, a Phrynichus, a Dionysius, or a Choe- 
roboscus beat it down, till at last a poor monk, nicknamed 
Ptochoprodromus, in the eleventh century, by his example 
liberated Greek for ever from the shackles of the gram- 
marians, and showed that a language has neither power nor 
beauty except it be free. 

Meanwhile, of course, the language of literature, of the 
schools, and of the law-courts was comparatively stationary, 
while that of the people was continually developing and 
changing, as must ever be the case with a living spoken lan- 
guage. No doubt one of the first changes that came over 
the popular dialects was that they became mixed and merged 
in one. Probably it was only a very old Megarian who, even 
in the days of Aristophanes, would be heard in the Athenian 
market-place expressing himself thus, 

ap,/3aT irorrav fJiaSdav at x fvprjre TTO. 

Constant intercourse with men from other parts would 
soon soften down dialectic distinctions, especially when all 
political divisions were lost in the Macedonian monarchy. 
Doubtless the Attic dialect, as that of the most cultivated 
portion of the nation, would give the leading tone to the 
now}) SiaXe/crof, but at the same time we should quite expect 
isolated provincialisms to survive. This is actually the case 
not only in the language of the Septuagint, but also in the 
modern language of Greece. The modern Greek, when 
speaking in the vernacular of his country, says p-ixpr) with the 

lonians of Old, doas with the Dorians, raly rt/zaty for ras 

with the Aeolians, eo-o and $e{)e for lo-dt and 0eOoi/ with the 
Epic poets. Yet we may be well assured that the shepherd 
or vine-dresser who speaks in this way is as ignorant of the 


language of Dorians, lonians, or Epic poets, as a South- Sea 
islander. As peculiarly characteristic of the Boeotian variety 
of Doric Greek we may notice the preference of ov for v. So 
too in modern Greek we have KovrdXiov for wrdXiov from 
KvrdXr], TpovTra for Tpvira. Sometimes this ov represents an 77, 
as a-ovcrdfjii for a-rjcrafjuov, voviriais for (rrjiriai; compare Kpovvos 

and Kprjwi. 

With reference to such forms as vodo> for voea>, we may 
remind the reader, that, as we have seen above in the chapter 
on pronunciation, da> and > were originally one. So too 
eXfey for ?Xeas is only another instance of the equivalent 
value of short a and *. This again we see in ptXrepos, /3eX- 
TiW, from /3eXi-o's, which means that which may be put, placed, 
or thrown; /SeXros standing for /SaXroy, the regular verbal 
adjective of /SaXXcu : (for the change of a and e under similar 
circumstances compare TraXra and TreXr?/? ;) for the etymology 

of fieXrepos &C. compare (pepraTos, (peprcpos, from (pepTos, i. e. 

what is bearable; hence in the comparative degree more 
bearable or preferable. The forms paXrbs and (peprbs are 
common verbal adjectives in modern Greek. 

The paragogic e in such words as eXXoye'o>, &c., had a 
tendency to become t; so &arda), the modern Greek and 
most ancient form, as I believe, of Starao-o-o), must have 
passed through the following stages : Siarayeo) = (I am a 8z- 

rayos,) fiiarayta), fitaray/co, Siarabo, 8ia.rd(T(Ta>. Tayeco is found in 

Aesch. Persae, 764. 

The disappearance of the dative case from the common 
vernacular of Greece belongs rather to the head of Accidence 
than Syntax, as I believe it is mainly attributable to pronun- 
ciation. We have seen already, that in the vulgar dialect 
both a and ot tend to become ou. This will account for the 
fact that TO) eltre becomes in modern Greek TOV eme, and /*ot 
ewre, p.ov dire. Add to this the fact that the Greek idiom, 
especially the later Greek idiom, often places the genitive as 

G 2 


a kind of gen. commodi, in which position it really stands 

for the dative, as 'Edepaircwev avrov rrjv Ovyarepa, a mode of 

expression which meets us in almost every page of the New 
Testament, and the wonder will rather be how the dative 
should so long have maintained its rights, than that it should 
have finally disappeared. 


The Origin and Development of Modern Greek 


HAVING now, as far as our time and space allow, dis- 
posed of the mere grammatical forms of the modern Greek 
language, let us go on to examine 


Here we have left the region of archaisms and dialectic 
forms, and enter the territory of the history of the human 
mind. To the mere philologer the former part of the 
inquiry may seem the more interesting; for the philosopher 
the succeeding portion will present the greater attraction. 
That we may obtain in the outset a general view of the 
difference in structure and expression, we will compare part 
of the eighth chapter of Plutarch's Life of Caesar, as trans- 
lated by Mr. Rangabes, with the original as written by 

H yvapr) \onrov avrrj e(pdvrj Ot/rco de -nyy yvut^s (f>i\av- 

(pi\dv6pa>7ros, Kal l(rxvpbs 6 \6yos 6pa>7rov <pavi<TT]s Kal TOV \6yov 
OOTIS fppedr) 7Tpl avrfjs. At' 6 dwarfs eV avrjj prjQevros ov 



ov fiovov of /tier' avTov eycpdevres 
TTCtpeoexovro TTJV Trpdrao-ti/ O.VTOV, 
aXXa KOI TroXXoi ra>i> 7Tpoop,i\r)- 
, dpvovp,fvoi ray iSt'ay TWV 

TOV, ea>s OTOV rjXdfv T) crcipa TOV 
Kdrawoy KOI TOV KarXov. Owroi 
5' f]vavrio)drjcrav p.fd' opp-rjs, KOI 
a>s 6 Karcov /ufra roD Xoyov ep- 
pi\^e /cat virovoiav /car' avrov, 
<cai f^avecmj KOT* avrov /3iat'a)y, 
01 p.ei/ av8pes Trapedodrjcrav oTrcoy 
davaTcoduHTi' Kara 8e TOV Kai- 
o~apos ) ev o> ef-fjpxcTo riyy jSou- 
X^y, TroXXoi roil' i/e'cai/ roif (ppov- 
POVVTOJV TOV Ki/cepcova rore, opp,r)- 
o-avTfs, eorpr^av yv/j-va ra ^i<p; 
Kar' avTov. 'AXXa Xeyerat ort 
6 KouptW, 7Tpi/caXu\^ay rorf au- 
roi> 8ta r^y rrj^fvvov TOV, TOV 
f^rjyaye' Kai 6 RtKepcoi/, oraz/ 01 
veot TTpoo-f^Xf^av eiy avTov, on 
evevo-fv a7ro0ari/ca)y, (po/Sf/^eiy roi/ 
drjpov, f) TOV (povov oXcoy aftiKov 
KOI 7rapdvop.ov decapuv. Tovro 
ir>s 6 

(Is TOV Trepi r^y VTrarti'ay Xoyoi/ 
rou' Kanjyope^To 6' vorrtpov on 
6eV <!)(pf\Tjdr) Tore (K TTJS cvKcitpias 
rJTis apt'o-n; Trapouo-iafero fty at>- 
roi/ Kara rou Kaio"apoy, aXX' e'8et- 
\iao~fv ev&TTiov TOV dyfjiov, OO~TIS 
VTreprdrooy rjvvofi TOV Kat'crapa. 

p-ovov 01 /ifra TOVTOV 
7rpoo-(Tid(vro, TroXXoi 8c /cat reov 
?rpo aurou ray elprjp.evas yvotpas 
aTrenrdp-fvoi irpos TTJV fKfivov p.c- 
ea>s 7rt Karcoi/a ro 
KOI KarXov irepirfkBe. 
TovTatv Se veaviKws fvavria>6fv- 
T(ov, Kdrcoj/oy 5e /cat TT^J/ VTTOVOIGV 
ap.a TO) Xdya) o~vvf7rpio~avros 
avTa> KOI o~vyKaTfavao~Tdvros ep- 
pco/iej/coy, ot p.i/ aVSpey aTroda- 
vovp,evoi irapedodrjcrav, Kat'crapi 
fie 7-77 y /SovX^y e^tdvri TroXXot 
KiKepwva (ppovpovvrwv rdre i/ec ra ^i^)j; o-vv^pap-ovres tff- 
o-%ov. 'AXXa Kovptooj/ rf Xeyerai 
777 TTjftevvo) 7Tfpt/3aXa)v VTTff-aya- 
ytlv, avTos T 6 KtKepcoi/, a>y of 
vfavio-Koi 7rpoo-^\-^av, dvavev- 
crai, (poftrjdfls TOV dr/p-ov, TJ TOV 
(povov oXcoy (idiKov KOI Trapdvopov 
f)yovp.fvos. ToCro /nei' GUI/ ou/c 
o?8a oTrcoy 6 KiKepcoi/, etTrep ^v 

vcrrepov a>y apiora rai jcatpa) rdre 
7rapao~xovTi Kara rov KatVapoy 

vov TOV Kato-apoy. 


Here the words are all ancient Greek; but there is a 
strange departure from the old simplicity of expression, 
combined with a sort of effort to say a great deal, and a 
certain indescribable insincerity of language which is in itself 
a history. The mere words, the outer shell, are still the 
same as Plutarch himself, or even Thucydides, might in 
certain connections have employed ; but a change has 
passed over the spirit of the whole. It is as though a new 
soul had taken up its abode in an old body, or as if, to take 
a simile from an ancient story of Sacred Writ, the rough, 
out-spoken, stalwart elder brother were being counterfeited 
and supplanted by a wily younger one. ' The hands are 
the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.' 

We will now proceed to consider the syntax of modern 
Greek somewhat more particularly, and that we may follow 
a definite order we will begin with that part of syntax which 
seems most nearly to enter into the accidence of the lan- 

The compound tenses of the verbs may fairly claim our 
first attention. In modern Greek the future is formed in 
three ways. By the particle 6a with the subjunctive ; by the 
verb 0e' Aa> used personally, and followed by the infinitive ; 
and, thirdly, by the same verb used impersonally, followed 
by the subjunctive. Thus ypd-^co becomes 6a -ypa-^co, 6JeAa> 

ypa\|m(i/) for ypa\/^at(?) or $e'Xei ('"") ypa\^(o. Qa yp<tya> is 

usually regarded as a contraction for 0e'Aei va = 6e va = 6a 
yprtyoo ; but such a contraction would be quite without 
analogy, and I am much disposed to look upon 6a as a mere 
particle, to speculate on the etymology of which would be 
hazardous, though it may be either a part or a fragment of 
rax a > a possible dialectic form of which would be 6a-Ka ; cp. 
Kidav and x iT v > fvdevrev, fvrevdev. I cannot but think we 
have this very particle 6e or Ba in the optative interjection 
(We and aWe : fWe e'X&u is in modern Greek eWe va e\dy, which 


might be also written tl 6e va e\6rj. That 6a is equivalent in 
force to i'o-o)?, rax, * e , TS, "", &c., is evident from the fact 
that, in modern Greek, rax * X^ and to-cos e\Qrj may be used 
without Ba. In ancient Greek ci-0c e\6oi is plainly equivalent 
to ftTTcoy eXdot. I am the more inclined to regard 6a as a 
simple particle because its use with the subjunctive corre- 
sponds to the use of <e in Homer, with the same mood, while 
its employment with the imperfect, as 6a firfdvpow (vulg. 6a 
eTTcdvpovo-a), answers precisely to the classical eirfQvp.ovv av\ 
only that this usage is more exact in modern Greek, it being 
impossible to say 6a errfdvp-rjcra in the same sense. This 
would mean, not, ' I should have wished,' but, ' I probably 
did wish.' It is worth consideration whether av with the 
aorist indicative in ancient Greek has not sometimes the 
same meaning. However that may be, with 6a, if it be a 
simple particle, we have nothing at present to do. Qa TroXe- 
MO-O) is just as much in the spirit of ancient Greek as e 

TroX 6/117 (rco. 

But with 0\a> ypd\l/fi and 0eX ypfya) the case is different. 
GcXo) ypityfi explains itself. But what induced the Greeks 
to grow discontented with their simple future ypfya>? It 
seems to have been nothing else than a certain wastefulness 
of speech always observable in the Greek language, as in 
such phrases as ervxcv <*>v, /xc'XXtt Troieli/ (which latter is after all 
but another kind of compound future) ; but this tendency 
to waste words always increases in proportion as solidity 
of character and depth of thought begin to wane. Inanity 
always vents itself in expletives : and it is no wonder that 
we cannot write Cicero's Latin without swearing Cicero's 
oaths. Now every needlessly forcible expression is only 
another kind of expletive ; it fills up a proportionate void in 
the mind of the speaker and the hearer, and may be com- 
pared to a still more feeble resource of modern times, the 
printer's trick of italicising. The Nemesis of waste is want ; 


and so we find in the present case. ee\o> ypcn/m having 
come to mean, ' I shall write ; ' the need arises of a separate 
phrase for ' I will write.' This accordingly is expressed by 
the still more explicit mode of speech tfe'Xco Iva y/xtyco, $eX&> 
'va ypfyco. This use of Iva begins in the New Testament, 
where it is extremely common. But this leads again to a 
further need ; if Iva ypd^a in this and other cases is to be 
equivalent to ypfycu, what are we to do if we want to say 
Iva ypfya in good earnest? We must have recourse to a 
further periphrasis, and say dia Va (Si' Iva) ypd^a). This 
process is like the career of a perpetually insolvent debtor 
borrowing money at compound interest. The same prin- 
ciple may be seen at work in a vast number of words and 
expressions. To notice a few. The preposition &a, through, 

becomes diapearov, dva grOWS into dvdfjiea-ov, /iera is felt to be 

too weak to express the relation with, and accordingly 6p.a8rj 
(Vat'?) is pressed into the ranks of the prepositions. Tis 
becomes nolos ; T\S, /cany, Kavets, or Kafj-Troaos = respectively some 
one, any one, and some. Tapa (rfj &pa) supplants the simple 
vvv; Trds and enaaros become KaQfls, first, as most frequently 
in the New Testament, used only in the accusative /ca0' ei/a, 
but soon regarded and declined as one word, as already in 
the epistles of St. Paul : os and oo-rt? become 6 owolos (cp. il 
quale, el cual, le quel, in Italian, Spanish, French, as also 
TTOLOS with quel, c.). For the old TTOLOS the Greeks often say 
TTOIOS TIS, and the common people ri \oyfjs ; (the rl being used 
indeclinably, like wasfiir in German). Ti \oyrjs must have 
meant originally, ' of what vintage or gathering ? ' 

Examples of this kind might be multiplied without end ; 
but the limits of our space warn us not to linger too long on 
any one subject, however full of interest. We would rather 
point the way and draw the outlines which we think, with 
Aristotle, ' any one may fill up for himself.' 

The third or impersonal form of the future, &'X ypfya, we 


prefer to consider a little later on when we come to examine 
the influence of Greek systems of thought upon the develop- 
ment of the language. We will say now a very few words 
on the compound perfects. Of these there are two, ex (y f ) 
ypap,p,evov, which is simply a more explicit way of saying 
yeypcxpa, and will be quite familiar to the classical scholar, 
and f'xa ypfyfi from e^ 00 ypa^ai, which is difficult to explain, 
rather from the want of illustration and analogy in ancient 
Greek or other languages, than from any inherent unreason- 
ableness in the thing itself: yet we may compare the use of 
the German infinitive for the participle in phrases like ich 
hale ihn sprechen wollen, &c. Perhaps the idea present to 
the minds of those who first used it may have been, that as 
TO ypdfaiv, and even if the case required it TO ypfyai, might 
mean ' the writing,' so e^to ypd-^ai might be used for ' I have 
a writing,' of anything as a deed done, yeypa^evov /zoi eV. 
At any rate, he who is not scandalized at CKU>V emu need not 
be offended at ex ypd\^ai. 

It might be worth some one's while to see whether in 

certain cases OVK e^to ypd^at, OVK f^co flirfiv, OVK x fl <wro8ai, 

and the like, may not admit of a perfect sense, as used by 
Herodotus and other classical authors. With reference to 
both the future and perfect tenses in modern Greek, it is to 
be observed that being duplicate, according as the infinitive 
aorist or imperfect is employed, they give a greater precision 
of meaning than the simple forms ypd^a> or yeypcxpa are 
capable of expressing. rpa\^o> in ancient Greek might mean 
either 'I will write' (e.g. a letter), or, 'I will be an author.' 
In the one case it would be in modern Greek, da ypa\//-a>, 

0e Aa> ypd\l/i, or #e\fi ypa^o) ; in the Other, da ypdfpa, 6t\a> 
ypdfyci, Or $e'Xfi ypd(pa>. 


The Origin and Development of Modern Greek 

LEAVING for the present the subject of syntax, let us notice 
some changes in the meaning of words. 

In the language of Greece as it is in our own day, we 
shall be surprised and interested to find the eminently Greek 
tendency to euphemism carried out to a still further extent 
than in ancient Greek. AvQevrrjs means no longer ' murderer ' 
but ' master/ Possibly during the period of Turkish supre- 
macy the Greeks thought it came to much the same thing. 
This I have put under the head of euphemisms, though it 
appears to be a kind of inversion of the euphemistic ten- 
dency, inasmuch as a bad meaning has given place to a 
better one. But in all probability it is a real euphemism. 
A.vdevT7)s in the sense of murderer probably stands as a 
separate idiom from avdevrrjs, master. Avdevrrjs, meaning 
according to its derivation ' the very doer,' was employed 
to denote the doer of a particular crime. This etymological 
sense ' real doer ' was most likely never lost among the 
common people, and when, as especially under the Turkish 
dominion, fieo-Tnm/s was felt to be an odious term, avQevrTjs 
would be applied to the master, half to soften down the 
bitterness of the relation in the mind of the slave, half 


flatteringly and fawningly towards the master, as though the 
meaning were ' he is the real doer of all that is done, we 
are nothing but the tools/ A more palpable instance of 
euphemism may be found in such words as o-Koro'i/w, ' I 
darken/ for kill, ^o<a of an animal dying; compare the 
French crever, and the German crepiren. The meaning is 
literally of course ' to make a noise.' Death is still called 
Xdpav in the popular dialect, Xdpos or Xapuvras, etymolo- 
gically(?) 'the joyful God.' BcunXevct 6 fj\ios means 'the 
sun sets.' Such euphemisms are quite in the spirit of the 
Greek language in all ages. Who does not remember at 
the sound of O-KOTOI/OO the grand Homeric periphrasis for 
death, O-KOTOS oo-o-e xaXu^ei/? and who that gazes on the 
setting sun, as the Greek shepherd has so often done, from 
some commanding height, but feels the majesty of the great 
Ruler of the skies more sensibly as he lights up with his last 
golden rays, ocean, islands, clouds and mountain tops, and 
owns the fitness of the words put by Campbell into the 
mouth of the ' Last Man' who sees the sun set never to rise 
again : 

' Yet mourn I not thy parted sway, 
Thou dim discrowned king of day' ? 

If there is a difference between the euphemisms of ancient 
and modern Greece, it is perhaps that the modern ones are 
more stereotyped and fixed ; that the language of poetry has 
become the language of life. 

Thus much of the euphemisms in the Greek of our own 
day. There is however many a word which bears the 
impress of a deeper and harder kind of thought than that 
which is content with softening stubborn facts into gentle 

The biography of a new word and expression would often 
be a page from the history of philosophy. 


The whole language in its vocabulary, as well as in its 
structure, appears to have undergone a change from truth to 
fiction, from Nature to Art. If it be asked, When did this 
change begin ? the answer is, With the beginning of specu- 
lative thought ; an answer perhaps none the less true because 
it is indefinite. 

What has philosophy done for language generally, and 
what for Greek in particular ? might prove no uninstructive 
enquiry. The most comprehensive reply to the question 
would seem to be, that it gave terms for thoughts as well as 
for things. The main feature of a language before the 
beginning of speculative thought, is a kind of honest sim- 
plicity. Men call a spade a spade, not an agricultural 

Before philosophy, human research is a mere registration 
of given phenomena. It asks only what is there ? Philo- 
sophy asks, why is it there ? then, how is it there ? and lastly, 
is it there at all ? 

When new questions are asked, new answers must be 
given ; and new answers require new words, or at least 
words with new meanings. 

Even the Ionic philosophers have handed down a host of 
words to the colloquial language of to-day. Such are fao-is, 

apX*}, OTOIXOI>, e^drpia-is, dvadv^iaa-is, dvaXva-is, Kocrpos, aneipos, 

TTVKVQHTIS, dpaitiMrig. Could any of these words write its own 
biography, what a strange history that would be ! Had any 
of them been gifted with the tongue of a prophet, how it 
would have amazed the sages of old ! 

The unlettered Athenian in the Cafe de la Belle Grece, as 
he melts a lump of sugar in a cup of coffee, little dreams 
that the name by which he calls the process (dvaXvais) meant, 
in the mouths of the old Ionic philosophers, the dissolution 
of the elements of created things in decay or death; and 
scarcely could Heraclitus, with all his admiration of anti- 


pathies, have divined that Kotrpos, the divine order of nature, 

and aTTfipov, the formless void, should ever be wedded 
together in one expression, Koa-pos airfipos, and mean a 
' countless multitude/ perhaps a disorderly rabble. Could 
Anaxagoras have foreboded that KOO-^OS, which expressed to 
him divine beauty and perfection of arrangement iravra 

XptjuaTd TJV 6p.ov } eiYa vovs e\6u>v avra 8iK.6(rp,r]<Tf should in a 

very few hundred years become the subject of the Christian 
lament, ' the whole world lieth in wickedness ' ? Who could 
foresee that TO SXoyov, which would mean in the mouth 
of Heraclitus so much of matter as was untouched by the 
heavenly fire of reason, should come to signify in our own 
day a horse ; or that araix* toi/, an element, should presently 
become a ghost, the Sm'/iooi/ of the ancient Greeks, haunting 
murmuring rills or whispering groves, and terrifying the 
simple shepherd as he tends his flocks upon the lonely 
mountain side? Scarcely could Democritus and Leucippus 
have guessed, that of their philosophical terms o-x^p-a, 0(<ris, 
and rais, the first should mean in the present day, ' a monk's 
habit,' the second, { a place in a coach,' and the third, ' a 
class' in a steam-packet or a railway train, any more than 
Pythagoras could have foreseen that his doctrine of the 
Pilgrimage of Souls should have taken such firm root in 
popular superstition and popular poetry, that those lines of 

Km TTOTf jj.iv OTV<f>f\lofl*VOV crKvXaKos irapiovra 
&ao\v (iroiKTelpai KOI roSe (pdo-dai firos' 

Havo-ai, p,r)8c pcnri\ cVfii^ (piXov dvepos eori 
"Vvxr} frjv cyvw (p0y^ufj.fvr]s mow' 

should have found their echo in such words as these, uttered 
by the hero Tsamados in the person of a bird of the air : 

'Eyoj TTOuXt (TOV ( dXXd TrovXi 8ev' 
Etr TO vr)<rl TTOV ayvdvria fivat rcav Nafiapivcav, 


rrjv vareprjv TTVOTJV a(pr)o~a 

*O 'TtrajLtados eya> Kal qXda els TOV Ko<rp.ov. 
'2 TOVS ovpavovs irov Kaddpta ads ai>oiya)' 
Ma va eras '& COTO KOVTO. dvai f] ^ p.ov. 

To take another instance, how has the common language 
of modern Greece reversed the judgment of the Eleatics, 
when ro ov no longer means the most abstract but the most 

concrete Being, as 6 avdpaTros OVTOS etVai TO dvo-TV^earraTov ov 
TOV Koo~p.ov ! 

Even the Sophists have a claim, and not the least, to our 
attention. If these thinkers, or as some would perhaps be 
inclined to call them, talkers, have little right to the name of 
philosophers, it should still be remembered that they more 
than any philosopher, not excepting Plato, who owed more 
to them than he was aware, left their mark upon the Greek 
language, a mark which has never since been effaced. Be- 
fore their time men were in the habit of saying what they 
thought ; since they have rather inclined to think what they 
should say, a tendency from which even genius cannot now 
wholly shake itself free. Before the Sophists, thought was 
everything and expression as an end nothing; hence while 
it was often laborious, it was always unstudied. Since their 
age, expression has been too often either everything or 
more than half the whole. Antithesis, emphasis, precision 
of language, nice distinctions, well-balanced sentences and 
smoothly-rounded periods, these are the work of the Sophist 
and the delight of the Rhetorician. We can mark this 
leaven working already in the speeches reported by Thucy- 
dides, not so much as they were but rather as they ought 
to have been spoken: we can trace it in the orations of 
Demosthenes, it is the paramount feature in Isocrates and 
the later orators of Greece, and reaches a kind of climax in 
the discourses of Chrysostom* What a gulf is fixed between 


a Chrysostom and a Nestor ! And if we listen to any ser- 
mon or public address in Athens at this day, our ears are 
struck by the same balancing of epithets, the same rounding 
of sentences, which constituted in so great measure the art and 
the power of the early Rhetoricians. Here is a brief extract 
from a funeral oration on Lord Byron : 

Ti dv(\7ricrTOV o-vp.j3ej3T]K6s ! Tt diodpr]vT)Tov 8v(TTi>xi]fJ-ct ! 6\iyos 
Kaipbs elvai, dfi ov 6 \abs TOV iroXviradovs 'EXXaSoy oXoy X a P a K( " 
dyaXkiacris f8f\6rj els TOVS KO\TTOVS TOV TOV eTrio~rip.ov TOVTOV avdpa, 
not (TT]p.pov o\os 6\tyis Kai KaTT](peia Kcrra/Spe'xfi TO vcKpiKov TOV 
Kpe/3/3ari p.e TTiKpoYaTa Saxpua, *cai oSvperat drrapijyoprjTa. 6 yXvxv- 
TCITOS ^aipfrto-juos XPI2TO2 'ANE2TH eyeivev adapts TTJV f/nepav TOV 
Ilao-^a i? TO. x 61 ^ 7 ? r v 'EAX^WW xP ia " rtav ^ >v ' ...... Ae/cra /iJe/3ata, 

dyarrrjToi p,ov "EXX^i'fS', TroXv SenTO. fivai els TTJV o~Kiav TOV TO. daKpvd 
Has 8i6ri fivai Sa/cpva TQ>V K\r)povop.a>v TTJS dyaTrrjs TOV' aXXa 7ro\i> 
SfKTOTepa de\fi rjvai TO. epya pas fita TTJV Trarpifia' avTr/v Kal \iovr\v 

TT)V fVyVli>p,OO~VVT)V &TCI OTTO Tjflds 15 TOS (VfpyfO~iaS TOV, dVTTjV TT]V 

dfjiOi^rjv (Is TTJV jrpbs f) dyaTrrjv TOV, avTrjv TTJV e'Xa$pa>crii/ els TOS 
TaXaiTTcopias TOV, avrfjv TTJV 7r\Tjp(op,f)v 8ia TOV \ TTJS 7ro\VTip.ov 

For the purpose of Sophists and Rhetoricians, which was 
' not to convince but to persuade,' new words were needed. 
Such words, for example, as r<u oW indeed, literally in 
being, in the world of real existence (no bad comment on 
the consistency of a school whose leading axiom was that 
there was no such thing as Truth) Tov\dxio-Tov, KOT aX^eiai/, 
8rj\adr}, fjyow, are the true children of the Sophists and 
have survived to this day ; in fact, without them it would be 
impossible to carry on a connected conversation, or pen an 
article for a newspaper. On the other hand, the simpler and 
less explicit particles, such as /^i/, ye, ovv. rot, yap, have in 
modern Greek either received: a restricted sense, and thus 


made as explicit as was required, or have been sup- 
planted by others. So yap and ovv, which are very expres- 
sive but not at all explicit, have been entirely displaced by 
Std and \oar6v, which are very explicit but not at all ex- 
pressive. As the first stage of the displacement of yap by 
&oVt and ovv by Xonrtv, we may observe the frequent use of 
on for yap in the New Testament, which is I believe much 
more frequent than is the case in the Septuagint, and the 
constant occurrence of Xonrov for ovv in Polybius, wherever 
rather an emphatic ovv is required. 

To Socrates may perhaps be traced, or at any rate with 
his teaching may be closely connected, the modern meaning 
of such words as nadoXov, SidXou, oXoos (often emphatically 
joined for the sake of greater force oXo>s Ka66\ov, oXcoy 

Xov), aperf], flpooveia, rjdiKos, fTri(TTr)p.r) ) SiopKr/uds 1 . 

The Cyrenaics appear to have invented the word 
particular (as in the phrase nepmal f)8oval), which in modern 
Greek survives in the sense of certain, some, having degene- 
rated from a philosophical term to a mere part of grammar. 
So true is the remark above quoted that the metaphysics of 
one age will become the logic and finally the grammar of 
succeeding generations. A like fate has befallen some terms 
of the Platonic philosophy; as etducos from eldos, specific, 
which is now nothing more than part of the possessive 
pronoun 6 ddiKos pov, TO eldtKov TT}S, &c., mine, hers, and so on. 
A curious and interesting instance of a somewhat compli- 
cated metaphysical significance in certain grammatical forms 
is presented by the history of the pronoun avros. This word 
expressed originally what may be called the feeling of sub- 
jectivity rather than the idea : for the subject as an idea had 
as yet no existence. Nevertheless the subject appeared in 
the world very often in an objective light, and in Homer this 
is expressed by putting together the objective particle I with 
the subjective UVTOS in the oblique cases, as I avrov, of avro>, eo 



v, but it had never yet occurred to the Greeks actually to 
join the two together as subject-object. This by a kind of 
anticipation of philosophy occurs first in the more thoughtful 
age of Attic and Ionic literature, where we get cavrov. But 
both in the Homeric and Attic age there was as yet nothing 
but a kind of unconscious registration of metaphysical facts. 
The subject never till the time of the Sophists, and probably 
not until long afterwards, got so clear of itself that it could 
be spoken of as an objective reality, as a thing. Yet such 
must have been the case to a great extent before the modern 
Greek substitute for eavrov, epavrov, &c. could arise ; before 
men could say TW cavrov p.ov, rbv cavrov rov, &c. There may 
come a time perhaps when this tendency to objectivity in the 
subject may go farther still, and men will find no difficulty 
in contemplating the subject as an object, not only in its 
objective relations (as in the oblique cases), but even in its 
most subjective state, as the nominative. In this respect, 
the English language is ahead of the Greek, for we can say 
' himself in the nominative, though we almost require a 
' he ' to help it out ; whereas 6 nm>s TOU in Greek would be 
a barbarism ; 6 i8tos being used in such cases instead of the 

classical avros. 

In passing from Socrates and the Cyrenaics to Plato, we 
must not forget the Cynics, who have left their stamp on the 

language in such words as avrapn^s, avrdpKfia. 

If the Sophists gave a new direction to language, to Plato 
belongs the credit of having not inconsiderably increased its 
power of utterance. In truth the Sophists and Plato to- 
gether seem in great measure to have conquered the diffi- 
culties of expression, and by so doing to have given to 
Greek one of the characteristics of a modern language. As 
a mere matter of style Plato comes nearer to a modern 
Greek writer than Polybius, or any Hellenistic or eccle- 
siastical writer. We seldom reflect what labour and art were 


once employed in beating out those convenient expressions, 
those ways of turning a sentence, which make the flow of a 
modern language so easy and its sense so clear and precise. 
Here indeed other men have laboured and we have entered 
into their labours. 

Besides words to 'which the Platonic philosophy gave a 
new sense, as 8r}[j.iovpy6$, ' creator/ with all its derivatives, 
one is struck by the fact that many of his commonest 
phrases and words have established themselves in the col- 
loquial language of the present day. 

Upbs TOVTOIS, oTra>s fi^TTOTe, ureas, tfxuvfTCU, TTavrdiTCHTiv, apd ye, 

, roiyap, common and necessary helps to conversation 
in modern Greek, are the very hinges of the Platonic dia- 
logues, and when one hears a common peasant say /uaAiora 
for _yes, or 7ra>y 8ev eida = TT&S OVK eldov ; in emphatic affirma- 
tion, one cannot but be struck by such modernisms of Plato, 
or if the reader will, such Platonisms in modern Greek. 

But while modern Greek is indebted largely to Plato for 
its form, to Aristotle it owes much of its vocabulary. If we 
would understand how such words as vXij, vrroKeinevov, irapd- 

Seiyjua, VTrdp^eiv, Trporacrts', opei? } ova'iwo'rjs, eVSe^erat, %opr]yelv 

came to have their present meaning, it is almost necessary 
to go to Aristotle for the explanation. And yet how 
Aristotle himself would wonder at their modern employ- 
ment. TpacpiKr} v\r), ' writing materials ; ' oixn<adr]s 
vTrdpxei, ' an essential difference exists ; ' o-ol ev^ofi 
opfgw, ' I wish you a good appetite ; ' a^a-os irporaa-is, ' an 

immediate proposal ; ' v7roK.eip.evov drrapadeiyp-ario'Tov evepyeias, 

1 a subject of unexampled activity.' He would either think 
that every fool was his disciple, or that all his disciples were 

The Stoics were not much of independent speculators, 
but perhaps there is one idiom in modern Greek which may 
be an echo of Stoic resignation, namely the third form of the 

H 2 


compound future already noticed, 0e'Xei v airo6dvo> for d 
6avoi>n(u, as though it were, ' It wills that I should die,' that 
is, it is the will of that great unknown impersonal necessity, 
whom we sometimes worship with the name of God. 

As regards the philosophers, the history of innovations 
may almost be said to close with Aristotle and the Stoics. 

Succeeding schools having lost the grain, continued to 
thrash out the straw of Aristotle or of Plato, until words 
had little meaning left, and men had little hope of anything 

Yet in spite of the deadness of philosophers, and the 
active opposition of grammarians and pedants, the Greek 
language did not stand still. The conquests of Alexander 
and the consolidation of Greece gave rise to what was called 



The Historical Development of Modern from 
Ancient Greek. 

HITHERTO we have sketched the outlines of what may be 
called the basis of modern Greek, of which the principal 
elements seem to have been first as regards its accidence, 
archaisms, preserved in the vulgar dialect from generation 
to generation, a tendency to simplification or regularity both 
in declension and conjugation, and the mixture of dialects 
previously distinct; secondly, as regards its syntax, and the 
use and meaning of words, a change in the mode of thought 
and expression. 

Having now considered the origin of modern Greek, let 
us proceed briefly to trace its development, beginning with 
the so-called Hellenistic Greek. 

To the first or Macedonian age of the KOIVT/ 8ia\Kros be- 
longs the Greek of the Septuagint, though there is every 
reason to believe that this translation was made at various 
times, and by persons very variously qualified to fulfil their 
task. And here I may be allowed to remark, how very im- 
portant is a knowledge of modern Greek for the study of the 
Septuagint ; and I need not add of the New Testament also. 
So much the more in the latter case as we have there to deal 
with the meaning of an original instead of only with a trans- 


lation. It is a mistake to think that classical Greek + Hebrew 
will give us the Greek of the Septuagint. 

It is very easy to explain everything as a Hebraism, and 
the less our knowledge of Hebrew the more readily does 
the explanation suggest itself. Now there are Hebraisms in 
the Septuagint, and, though in a less degree, in the New 
Testament; but all unusual phrases are not Hebraisms. 
Polybius, certainly a contemporary of many of the trans- 
lators of the Septuagint, may have many Latinisms in his 
writings, but all his peculiarities are not Latinisms. What- 
ever light may be thrown on the Septuagint and on Polybius 
by Hebrew and by Latin, infinitely more may be gained both 
for the one and the other from a study of modern Greek. 
And what perhaps sounds still stranger, the Greek of the 
present day affords a better commentary on the language of 
Polybius, of the Septuagint, and of the New Testament, than 
either the writings of contemporary historians, rhetoricians, 
grammarians, and philosophers, who for the most part wrote 
a purely artificial Greek or than from the many thousand 
ponderous tomes which encumber the threshold of verbal 

To speak first of the Septuagint. We have already 
shown how the grammatical peculiarities of its authors 
are the first appearance of the same forms which are 
familiar to us in modern Greek. But more than this, 
the phraseology of the Septuagint is modern to an extent 
which is quite marvellous, when compared with that of 
contemporary writers, and only explicable by the assump- 
tion that the writers are using the common vernacular, which 
had already become in its spirit and essence much what 
modem Greek now is. For example, *Ee\Qe TT)S yfjs a-ov, 

Koi (K TTJS irvyyfvdas (rov...iravTs (eK\ivav, ap.a Tjxpftto&ijo-av,... 

rdfos di/cayyfieW 6 \dpvy avrwv, sound just like modern Greek 
familiar phrases. Let us mention a few well-known words, 


common to the Septuagint and modern Greek. 
rofjLcu, 'I visit;' airoKplvo^ai. (passive), 'I answer;' ricrrpe'(a>, 
' I return ; ' f)yovp.evos, ' a leader ' (in modern Greek the supe- 
rior of a monastery) ; vpna-Kwco, ' to worship ' or ' salute ; ' 
eYoi/ida>, 'make ready;' cvumov, 'in the presence of;' rrpoa-- 
K07rTu> and Trpo'oTKo/i/xa, 7retpda>, ' to tempt ; ' d/coXov&M in prefer- 
ence to eTro/icu ; Koi/iaj^iat in preference to euSco ; 0X0? for TTCLS ; 
ea>s fvos, ' as many as one ; ' KO.TOIK o>, for ' to dwell ; ' KaQefrpai 
and KaBifa, for 'to sit;' ra i>cma, for ' the clothes;' t/Trdyco for 
tlpi. Besides words of this kind, there are others, the pre- 
sent usage of which dates from the Septuagint, words to 
which Jewish ideas have given a new and higher meaning. 

Ovpavbs is no longer the mere blue sky, or a mythical 
name for one of many deities, but the habitation of the 
Ancient of Days. 'Ap-aprLa no longer a mistake, but the 
fundamental error of mankind, estrangement from God, and 
the breaking of his perfect law. Ui<ms becomes the trusting 
obedience of faithful Abraham, and of all the saints. Ada is 
the glory, or sometimes the honour of the Almighty. e O Kvpios 
is no longer the man in authority, but the name of the Lord 
of lords, and the King of kings. 

Before going on to the New Testament the order of time 
demands a few words for Polybius. It cannot be said that 
the general run of his sentences is so modern as the Septua- 
gint or the New Testament. Many of the novelties of this 
author are equally found in the New Testament. For ex- 

ample, he Uses irXrjv for dXXd, orav and 'av for ore and el. 
Other modern usages are aKp^v for en, as already Theocritus, 
iv. 60. Cf. Anthologia, P. vii. 141. "ibiov frequently for 
v, far more so than is the case in classical authors. 
in one place in the sense of same, the most usual 
meaning in modern Greek : 'idiov Kai Trapcm-X^o-iov rats TrdXeo-t 
<rvvelBr). Here, however, the translation is doubtful. 'An-6 in 
the sense of worth or weight, as OTTO 8e'/<a TaXdvrav, weighing 


10 talents. So the Greeks of to-day say 86s ftoi dnb 

XeTTTa, a;r6 p.ia Se/capa. Ets TOVS xaff fjfids xaipovs, which is com- 
pletely modern Greek, for eV rots KU& r^as xpovots. This use 
of els, as well as of Kmpos, belongs equally to the New Testa- 
ment. I will now add one or two examples of the modern 

phraseology of Polybius. 'O rrjs TrpaypariK^s io-Topias Tponos I 

i. e. the method of actual history. rjpny/zartKwy dtcyoq&Tow, 
ii. 50. 5. AiKctioSoo-ia, jurisdiction, xx. 6. 2; xxxii. 17. 19. 
Tpwyo/ifz/ for fo-diofj-fv, used, however, only in a proverbial 

expression. Aonrbv avaynrj crvy^uipciv ras dpxas KOI ras virodeafis 
fivai TJsevbeis, i. 1 5- Eif dXrjOtvas tvvoias ayetv. 2vfi(f)a>vovvT(s, in 

the sense of bargaining, already used in this sense by 
Xenophon, Hell. i. 3. 8. Kara ras TreptTTdo-fis, according to 

circumstances, Kara ras avru>v Trpoatpeo-fts. 'AmcrTraoyia, a 
diversion, XI. l8. 'Ex roO ^v e^e^cbpjyo-av &a rbv xpovov. Id. 
22, *) yap \^ts avTT) TOVTO rr^jnatW* /cvptwy. Etf (poftovs (TWf)(eis 

Ka\ rapaxds, into continual fear and distress. 

In the New Testament, among many others, we may 
notice the following modernisms : Eis for eV, as fls rbv KoKnov 
TOV Trarpo? , St. John i. 1 8. "iva with the subjunctive is used 
continually for the infinitive, as Matthew iv. 3, etVe Iva ol X/^oc 

OVTOI aproi ytvutvrai. 'Ava p.ecrov, for among : (i(pfs cKj3dXco, the 

modern as K^d\co. Bpe'x ft for vti, Matth. v. 45. "Evo%os fls 

TJJV yetvvav for TTJ ycevvrj. 'ETravoo opovs. Tlfpicra-orfpov for ir\iov, 

as TTfpicra-oTfpov Kpl/j,a, ' greater damnation.' Avtnco'Xcos for /uoyis 
or X^KUS, ' with difficulty/ Luke xviii. 24. Avrbs for &s or 
ouros passim. 'Eo-Ta^i/ for eo-Ti/i/ passim. The genitive for 
the dative as in modern Greek. Ou eyu OVK dp-ai agios Iva Xuo-o> 
oiVou rbv i/LuWa TOV {/TroS^juaroy. 'ifiov for * here,' the modern 

e'Sa> : Acts ii. 7, OVK ISov irdvTfS OVTOL tlcriv ol XaXovi/rej FaXiXaUMj 

o-r " fo f X a P lv 'tSe'rat. Cf. Lob. in Phryn. on the word. 

for eKao-ros in Romans xii. 5. Such forms as yef"'(X 
' to fill,' eyyi'C<w, ' to approach/ are mostly Hellenistic and 


[n Romans the phrase T>V TTJV d\t)0fiav ev ddiKiq 

receives considerable light when it is known that KOTCX^ in 
many dialects of modern Greek is used for the more general 
r)fvpu>, ' I know/ formed from the aorist of e&vpla-Kv, rj&vpov. 
Many another phrase, which to the mere classical scholar 
appears dark and strange, and in which critics of the school 
of Bengel think they hear the unearthly utterances of an 
oracle, would appear simple and natural to one versed in 
the vernacular of the modern Greeks. In leaving the New 
Testament we may remark finally how many words there 
are to which it has given a peculiar meaning which has now 
become the prevalent one, as 8ia/3oXoy, KoAacri?, 6\tyis, fMeravoeu, 
al&vios. Above all is it interesting to observe how the biblical 
word dyuTrrj has replaced the old expression epus. The word is 
Hellenistic, and hardly occurs, I believe, in classical Greek, 
although the verb dycnru) does. Now the verb dyarrS) implies 
the noun aya?r^, which must therefore have existed in the 
mouth of the common people long before it came to the 
surface in the Greek Bible. 'AyaTnj being derived from the 
root ayau-, as in dyafos, &c., is a far better word for Christian 
purposes than epo>y, and indeed it would have served even 
Plato better in his more religious moments. Compare the 
Platonic epco? with the Pauline dycnrrj in i Cor. xiii., and 
observe how this ' love' is with Paul, as the epms with Plato, 
not only the religious sentiment, but more generally still, a 
certain upward and outward longing of the soul, a divine 
principle of development, which is at once the only eternal 
element in, as it is the common substratum of all belief and 
all knowledge alike, mounting ever upward, according to 
St. Paul, from that which is in part to that which is perfect, 
as in Plato, from beautiful sounds to beautiful forms, from 
beautiful forms to beautiful thoughts, from beautiful thoughts 
to that idea of good which mortal eye of man never but in 
part beheld. 


With Polybius and the New Testament we pass within 
the Roman period. If any one desires to form an idea as 
to the state of the spoken language about 180 years after 
Christ, no book will be more useful than Lobeck's edition 
of Phrynichus' 'Eclogae' and Epitome. It is really astonish- 
ing to see how nearly every un-Attic form, against which 
Phrynichus protests, has established itself in the language 
of our own day. One may instance such forms as (payds 

and (paKas, vrjpov, now vfpov, for vdwp, (p\ov8iov for (Xoioy, Kpvpco 

for KpvTTTQ), dtro uaKp66fv, a common New Testament and 

modern pleonasm, Ai0aptoi/, oradepos, /3ao-iAro-a, 

<av(piov (and similar derivatives), fvtTfvfiv, Kopdo-tov, 

potftiov for poidtov. 

Passing on to the age of Diocletian let us stop for a few 
moments to read a Nubian inscription by a king Silco, 
Corpus Insc. iii. p. 486, which may serve as a type of the 
Greek spoken at that time in Aethiopia : 

'Eyw StA/tob /Sao-tXi'oTKoy Nou/3a&eoj> (cat oXi> rwv Ai$io7ra>J> rj\6ov 
els Tf\uiv Kal Td<piv, airag dvo eVoXe^T/o-a p-fra T>V B\(p.p.vo)V, Kal 6 

dfOS f8(OKV p,0l TO viKTJpa p.TCl TOIV f^BpUiV OTTa^, fVLKT](Ta TToXtV KO.I 

(Kpa.Tr)(ra rets TroXeis avrwv, fKaOecrdrjv p.(ra TU>V ox\a>v p.ov' TO p.ev 

TTp&TOV ttTTCl^ VLKT](J-a at'TOlV KOI O.VTOI rf^iOXTaV fJi. TTOir)O~a tpT)Vr)V 

per' avTcov KOI u^icxrav p,oi TO. e'id(o\a avrwv, KOI fatoTCWra TOV opKov 
avTtov a)S xa\oi flo~iv avflpcaTroi' dva^a)pr]6r)V ds ra ava fJ^fprj p.ov. 
OTf fyfyov6p.rjv /SaoriXiWo? OVK dnrf^dov oXtoy OTTiVto ra>j/ aXXa)j/ ]3a(ri- 
Xeoov aXXa aK^v fp.rrpoo'dfv avTcov. oi yap (pi\ov(iKOvo~tv per f^iov 
OVK d(f)u> (cf. dcpevvrai in New Testament) avTOVS fls x&pav av- 
T<!)v (I /J.T) KiiTr)i(i)o-dt> p. Kal TrapaKa\ov(TLV KaOfaOTJvai. 'Eyo) yap fls 
KaToo fJ-fpr) \f(DV flpl Kal fls avu> p.(pi) at^ flui. firo\fp.r]o-a /iera TWV 
B\/j.av(av Kal nptjuecos ecoj TeX[/x]ecof eV aira Kal oi aXXoi Nov/3a6aij/ 
dv<i)Tepa> firopflrjo-a ^copaj avTcav, tTrei&r) t(j)i\ovtiKr)o~av p.fT fp-ov. OVK 
d(p) avTuvs Kcidfo~6r)vai fls TTJV o~Kidv et/m) v7TOK\ivovcri fwi Kal OVK 
vr^pnv fO~a> fls TTJV olniav avT&v. ol yap (pi\ovfiKovo~i fioi 
yvvaiK&v Kal TO. iraibia avT&v. For wildneSS of 


grammar this inscription is not equalled even by the Re- 
velation of St. John, while for childishness of expression it 
stands unrivalled. The chief modernisms are o\a>v for 
Tcav, fTToXep-rja-a /iera as passim in the Revelation, and 

dprjvrjv airrSiV, d<j)> for d(pirjfja, eiraxav, a hybrid aorist- 

perfect like cvprjKav and cd>paicav in the Septuagint, evp^Ka and 
cftTjKa in modern Greek, and CO-CD els for eV, in modern Greek 

fie(ra els. 

Other Nubian inscriptions give, as in Romaic, such 
forms as y lov\is for 'lovXios, with genitive tovXt, TOV as enclitic 
for avTov, besides every possible extravagance in grammar 
and every conceivable error in spelling, the latter class of 
mistakes, however, invariably pointing to the identity of the 
pronunciation of that age with that of the present day ; as 

rj\Kva-e for eiX/cuo-e, TfKWS for TCKVOIS, ucftxrt for eiKcoo-t, ap^ewy for 
dpxaicos, ipeos for leptos. 

From the age of Diocletian to the Byzantine Period is but 
a step, and the history of the development of modern Greek 
from that time is shortly told. Until the time of Ptochopro- 
dromus, in the eleventh century after Christ, artificial Attic 
was still the language of literature ; but the popular dialect, 
often referred to by authors, keeps coming from time to time 
to the surface ; especially in such works as the ' Gospel of 
Nicodemus' (end of fourth century), the ' Apophthegmata 
Patrum,' 'Acts of the Council of Constantinople,' 536, 
'Theophilus Antecessor and Joannes Moschus/ 620, Jus- 
tinian's ' Constitutiones Novellae/ 565. In the ' Gospel of 
Nicodemus' and in Justinian we have a number of Latin 
words, not many of which, however, have survived. One of 
them, however, app,ara for arma, is a curious instance of 
Greek ingenuity in disguising barbarisms ; for an ' armed 
man' is in modern Greek dp^arwXos = oTrXiri/y, on the analogy 
of ap.apTO)\6s. See Sophocles' ' Glossary of Later and Byzan- 
tine Greek,' p. 59 of the Introduction. 


The chief modernisms of this period are 6 d/3/3as, roO d/3/3a, 
pi. ot dftpdbfs, KOTTciftiv for /coTrdStoi/, the modern KOTrdSt (a piece); 
TroXXu TO. err), as a form of salutation ; a^^v for ^^a, evi for 
eort : and the combination T as T&VIMS, rfayydpia. At the 
beginning of a word this is found only in barbarisms ; but 
in all probability the combination existed in certain words 
even in classical times, as a necessary intermediate stage 
between the old Attic double o- as in Koo-o-vfas, and the later 
Attic rr as in Korrvrpos. It is interesting to know that the 
vulgar Greek of the present day gives us KOTO-U$O?, or KOTV(J>OS, 
sometimes pronounced almost Kochvfyos. 

I subjoin a short specimen of the popular style adopted in 
this period from the ' Apophthegmata Patrum : ' 

Trore Trarepes (Is 'AXe^dvSpeiav K\t]deiTS VTTO Qeo<pi\ov rot) 

Iva 7TOlT)(rr) fV^^I/ KCU Kddf\r] TO. Ifpd. Koi (( 

irap avrov Traperedr] Kpeas p.6a")(iov. Kat fj(r6iov jj.r)8ev 
vop.fvoi KOI Xaftuiv 6 7TicrKO7ros cv Konddtv eficoKf TG> irXqcriov avrov 
\eya>v, 'l8ov TOVTO KaXov Kondbiv tortv, (pdyc dj3/3a. Ot 5e 
fVTfs finov, 'Hp.fls ews apri Xd^ai/a r)(r6iop.(v el 8e Kpeas WTI 
ov rpct)yop.fv. Kcu ov/ceVt rrpon-eQero ov&e fls e avrwv ytvaacrdai 

CIVTOV. A strange improvement on the Apostolic precept, 
' ask no questions, for conscience' sake/ The meanness of 
the language is in striking harmony with the moral degrada- 
tion of a religion of meats and drinks usurping the name of 

The next period in the history of the Greek language may 
be reckoned from 622, the date of the Hegira, to 1099. We 
have here before our eyes the transition in literature from 
the language of the grammarians to the language of the 

Theophanes (758-806) gives us -dfcs as the plural of 

nouns in -as, *As XaXTjo-cB/zev for XaX;jo-&>/if>, and &s fto-e'X&ao-t for 

tl(Te\66vra>v. The perfect participle without reduplication, as 

<Ti&r)p(0fj.fvos, /cuoreXXw/ifVof, 7rvpno\r]p.fvos ,' dirb with the acCU- 


sative, a-vv with the genitive, as well as dp.a with gen. Malalas, 
whose age cannot be determined with certainty, gives us in 
addition -fs for -a, as Hepo-es for nc'po-m, rals TrXaKdis, meta- 
plastic from 77 7rXd, as though it were 77 TrXdKa; K&V in its 
modern Greek usage, ofcu K&V rjaav, 'whatsoever they were 
like/ Mera with the accusative in the sense of with, as the 
mutilated modern /*e (?). The nameless biographer of Leo 
Armenius uses the ending -ow for -ova-i ; CK with the 
accusative, and evyevbs for evyevfjs. Leo the Philosopher, 
886-91 1, has IdiKos =proprium, as in Romaic, and the ending 
-ea-ai for -ei (second pers. sing, passive). Constantine Por- 
phyrogenitus, who wrote all his works, with the exception 
of the Life of St. Basil, in a style purposely popular, gives 
us aXXdt/*oi>, gen. a\\agip.a.Tos : cf. the form TO ycXdo-ifioz/, con- 
demned by Phrynichus : povoycvf) for the vocative of povo- 
yfvfjs ; the ending -KOS, proparoxytone (possibly a Latinism) ; 

eras for t>/ieoz>, TO>I> for avrSjv, cva for ei>, etVe for el: cure is prob- 
ably from fWJ, just as elve is from eWt : crov for o-ot, as KO\T) 
o-ov fjpepa, 'good morning to you:' va for tva, and ecos with 
the accusative. 

An anonymous writer, known as Theophanes Con- 
tinuatus, gives us "A\v gen. of "A\vs, XP V(T S for xP V(ro vs : 
Cedrenus, A.D. 1057, the numeral adverb eVrat for eirrdKis, 
This would appear to be a relic of an old instrumental 
ending. Scylitzes gives us the following specimen of the 

Common dialect, coi ae exrura (f)ovpv, eS> Iva tre ^aXdo-co = in 

modern Greek e'ya> ere e/cno-a (povpvf, eya) ere va (sometimes 
used for #d) <re xaXdo-o). 'ECO occurs in modern Greek as a 
dialectic form, as well as to>, la>v. Cf. Boeotian to>v, l&vya. 
Anna Comnena, who wrote a history of the Byzantine war 
about the year noo, gives another example in the following 
verse : 

To (rafifiaTOV TTJS rvpivrjs, 


Kat TTJV 8fVTcpav TO Trpau 
e, KaXcoy ycpaxiv p.ov. 

Here we have TO o-a/3/3aroi/ for ra> o-a]3/3ara>, cvorjo-fs for 
, the enclitic TO, x a P?7 r for X a P f ^ s used optatively, T^I/ 
for TJ; devrepa, KaXws as a form of salutation, still 
common in Greece, and the diminutive yepduv for yepovnov, 
on the analogy probably of o-KiAaKiov, diminutive of <TKV\OS, 
or, properly speaking, of o-/<uXa. repaK/ is contracted for 
yepuKiov, and, in modern Romaic, would appear as ye/>a/a. 

This closes the mediaeval period of Greek literature. 
The first writer who can be said to have used the po- 
pular dialect in its entirety was Theodorus Prodromus, 
nicknamed Ptochoprodromus ; a monk who lived in the 
reign of the emperor Manuel Comnenus, and addressed 
to him a series of popular verses, o-Tt^ot TroXmccoi, preserved 
to us by the grammarian Coray in the first volume of his 
'Atacta/ The burden of these verses appears to be the 
poverty of learned men. They are written with great spirit, 
and remind us of Juvenal. The Greek language is now 
emancipated, and begins again to show its native power. 
We subjoin an extract taken from Mr. Sophocles' book 
above-mentioned : 

Trjv Ke(j)a\r)v (rov, @acrt\cv, els TOVTO T'I p,e Xe'yeis ; 

*Ai> cx<o yeirovdv nvav Kf\r] iraiftiv dyopiv, 

Na TOV etna) Vi, Ma0e TO ypap-fjiariKov va 7077 J 

Ila/m KpavtapOK(pa\ov rrdvrts va p ovofidarovv. 

Na TOV eiTTQ) Vt, Ma$e TO T^ayydprjv TO Traiftiv o*ov. 

TfiTOvav if^o) 7T(Ta)TT)v, 

eve KaXo^ovvio-TT)S, eve *cai 

yap Idy TTJV avyrjv 

Aeyei as ftpd(rrj TO *paa\v ical /3aXf TO 
Evdvs TO (3pdo-(iv TO Xf-ytt Trpos TO iraibiv TOV 
Na TO, Traibiv /u,ou, dyopao~e 


t>epe Kal BXo^tKov rvpiv aXXrjv ora/uevapeav, 
Kai 80 s p.* va irpoyevo~u> ) KOI ToYe va TTCT^OVW . 
'A<p' ov 8e fpddo~r] TO rvptv Kal ra xop5oKOtXrria, 

Kav Tecra-epa TOV diftovcriv els TO rpavbv 
Kai irapevOvs V7r68rjp.av eTraipei Kai TTfT^ 
Orai/ 8e TraXtv, /Sao-tXev, ye^aros copa 

Pl7TTl TO K.a\a.7r6dlV TOV, pl7TTl KOI TO 

Kai Xeyei TT^V -yvi/aiKa TOU, Kupa Kai 6es 

Kai irpwTov \u.a<rov (Lat. MISSUS) CK&OTOV, dfVTepov TO 
o~<povyya.Tov } 

Kai Tpirov TO aKpLoiraGTOV 6<p6bv CLTTO p.epiov. 

Kai reraproi/ fj.ovoK.vdpov, TrXrjV jSXeTre i/a /LH) /Spcz^. 

'A<^' ov 5 o~ova iv Kai vtS/ferat Kai KaTCTT), 
A.va6fp,d p.e J3a(n\v KOI Tpio~avd6fp,d JJL } 
Ovrav o~Tpa<pa> Kai t'Sco TOV Xotrroi' TO TTOJ? KaOifci, 

To TTCOS araKO/OToVeTai va 77*0077 TO KOUTaXtv, 

Kai oufiev Tpt\ovv TO. o~d\ia JLIOU, cos r/je^et TO ?roTa/ztv. 

Kai e'yco vTraya) K' ep^o/zat TroSas p,Tp>v T&V orixwv' 

~Ev8vs r)Tw TOV 'utfj-ftov, yvpevw TOV o-Trovdflov' 

Fvpeva) TOV Trvppi^iov KOI TO Xotrra TO /xeVpa^ 
AXXa TO p.GTpa TTOV '<^eXoi)v 's TT)V apfTpov /zov 7Tivav J 

IIoTC yap 6K TOV ta/x)3ov va (pdyat ' 

>TT - > \ / / > / 

H 7TO)S 6K TOV TTUppl^tOV TTOTC /MOV VO \OpTO.O~(i) j 

ESe Tf^viTTjs cro(pio~Tr}5 fKelvos 6 
TO Kvpie '\(T)o-ov, rjp^aTO p 

The language here is essentially modern Greek, though 
the middle voice appears not quite extinct, as we have ?rpo- 
yeuo-co/iai, JTP^OTO, &c.; and v sometimes etymologic, sometimes 
ephelcystic, is written after a number of words where it is 
now left out, as V7ro'%iav, TraiSiv. "Ebc for i'8e strengthens the 
etymology of eS&> from I8ov. Ovdev is written for the modern 
8v. The form eve we have referred to on p. 79. 


For the subjoined translation I am responsible : 

' By your own head, O king, I swear, I do not know your 

meaning : 

Suppose I have a neighbour now, blessed with a boy in breeches, 
Shall I go tell him, " Teach your son his letters for his living " ? 
Sure all the world would dub me then a most consummate block- 

Nay, I should say, " Go, teach your son a bootmaker's profes- 
One of my neighbours cobbles shoes, perhaps pretends to make 


Now there's a famous manager, who understands good living. 
No sooner does he see the dawn streaking the sky to eastward, 
Than straight he cries, "Let boil my wine, and sprinkle in some 


Scarce has the hot potation boiled, when thus he hails his servant : 
" Here boy ! a shilling's worth of tripe go bring me from the 

market : 

A shilling's worth of cheese besides, Thessalian cheese, remember. 
If I 'm to cobble shoes to-day, I first must have my breakfast." 
And when the cheese comes with the tripe in dainty little clusters, 
Four times they fill him to the brim a mug of vast dimensions. 
And then he takes a shoe in hand and cobbles at his leisure. 
But when the dinner-time comes round, why then, my lord and 


Away with last and cobbling-board, the time has come for eating. 
" Good wife," he cries, " come lay the cloth, and get the dinner 

Bring me the broth, that's the first course, the second is an 


The third a haunch of venison pie, browned nicely in the oven, 
A mess of hotch-potch for the fourth ; take care it don't boil 

When all is served and he has washed, and seats himself at 


Curse me, your gracious majesty, not once, but three times over 
If as I look and contemplate the way he sits at dinner, 
Unbuttoning his waistcoat first, to hold his spoon the easier 
It does not fill my hungry mouth with water like a river. 
And I; I go and come again, and measure feet for verses, 


low hunting for a short and long, now for two longs together ; 
And now for two short syllables, with all the other measures. 
Alas! what help the measures my unmeasurable hunger? 
When, mighty prince, will shorts and longs provide me with a 

dinner ? 

Or how with two short syllables am I to fill my belly? 
Behold a shoemaker indeed, a skilful craftsman truly ; 
A blessing asked, he straight proceeds to polish off the victuals.' 


Dialects of Modern Greece. 

PROFESSOR MULLACH divides the existing dialects of modern 
Greece into six main varieties, besides Tsakonian and Al- 
banian, whose claim to be considered Greek dialects will 
be separately considered. These six varieties he designates 
as follows: i. That of Asia Minor, ai/aroAiK?) StaXocroy. 2. 
Chiotic. 3. Cretan. 4. Cyprian. 5. Peloponnesian. 6. 
That of the Ionian Islands. 


The chief feature of this dialect is the substitution of T for 
6, as TeX< for 6e\co, and K for x 5 m general a preference for 
unaspirated tenues. The dialect of Trapezus seems to 
have preserved us several Homeric forms, as adf = edtv, and 
&pov = was : for the substitution of v for s we may compare 
CXP C S, *xop*v, &c., where the s is first dropt, and then its 
place filled up by v efaXtvariKov. 

In the same dialect, i. e. of Trapezus, SixXoTros for dirarriXos 
has a very archaic sound. *Evi and *v still stand for tori, i. e. 

eVrt. "E\\vos = robuslus. 'Egfrrdyrj appears as exTraycy, 6vyd- 

rrjp as Ba.ya.rtpa. 'K stands for owe instead of the modern 


Greek *8ev. Ka = Kara). MaiXas = /5a7rto-/u,a, perhaps a blow 
on the mouth, possibly connected with maxilla, of which, 
however, the common modern Greek form is /zdyovXoi/. 
from 6ts, is in place of the modern Kptas 7rpo'/3ioi>, or ir 

Ovs Stands for eW. Hoamv = 8ep/xa, cf. TTCO-KOS. To Trpofiav = TO 
Trpoftarov. HoSe&ifa = Seo/^iat, cf. 


is said to preserve the Homeric <e, which appears also in 
Pontus as KCS, but I have never been able to discover an 
example in any of the Chian poems which I have read. 
'A8az/a is explained by Mullach 77877 vvv. Aa certainly stands 
for 877 in modern Greek, as eXa 8a = exactly aye 877, eXa being 
imperative present from eXdw or eXafw, the root form of 

= eXavvco. So tOO Kcipe da, o^t 8d, (for ov^i 877). 


abounds in peculiar forms and archaic usages. In the 
pronunciation the most marked feature is the sound of K as 
ch in cherry before e and i sounds. 'Yo-fTy is said to stand 
for the modern crds, eVets = vpels. The omission of the aug- 
ment and the use of 6, 77, TO as a relative strongly remind us 
of the Epic and Ionic dialects : e. g. 

Ta Kap,av /cat TO. (pepav. 
In Epic, TO. Kap.ov Kal TO. (pepov. 

In Cretan we also get the dialectic form povOe for 


appears, in common with that of Rhodes, to leave out in 
many instances the semivowels 8 and y, as /uedXos = 

I 2 


for /xeyay, to) tv TO dAXa<T(ra> for eya) Set' TO aXXa(rcro>. Mlllhich 

well compares oX/op Sicilian for oXryo?, lav, lu>vya Boeotic for 
tycoye, ft/Sea Epic for X6//3o>, and rot 1 , rat for ro5i and rafii in the 
Elian Rhetra. 'Corpus Inscript.' n. At'oy for 6\iyos is a 
Cyprian form. We have also the Pindaric opvtxa for opviQa, 

and also ax oy for fiddos. In Meo-aFoupt'a, or M(ra,3oi>piu, the 

digamma is preserved, r stands for the consonantal Iwra, 

as X^Pyu f r X^P 1 **) o-apavrapya for [Teo-]o-a/ja[Ko]j/rapia. The 

termination ioi> of diminutives appears as iv, as in Ptochc* 
prodromus and later Roman period (whereas in the common 
dialect of Greece it appears as t) : e. g. fiowiv, iraidiv, p.e\io-<nv : 

also TOVTOV for TOVTO * cf. in Attic ravrbv for Tdvro, and roiovrov 

for TOIOVTO : the latter form belonging also to Herodotus 
and the Odyssee. Aa/xyco stands for e\avva>, as vcpvos for 
o-e/Si/o'y : TT and p seem also interchangeable, as we get pXoiov 
for TrXoToi' and ?r^/xa for /ii^/ia. Iloi) va pfopev rcopa ^ whither 
shall we now tend? peop.fv being connected with ope 
We get also the metathesis dapwa, rpcn-vos, for Sdxpva, 
Tpfnopai and re'/37ro/zai are possibly the same root, in which 
case rpe'00) alone would be referable to the Sanscrit trip, 
tripdydmi. This metathesis leads us to connect rdp&os, rap- 
3eo, Tapfivfa with the modern Greek rpa^'o), eY/i/3ia, /o /r 
or /<? ^c> az^av, which doubtless was the original significa- 
tion of rap/3eo>. In Cyprus as well as in Crete the enclitic 
seems to be preferred to the proclitic construction, e?Sa TOV to 

TOV e?6a. 


in general seems to prefer verbs in an uncontracted form, 
as Tt/tiao), Tip.dfis, Tt/uafi. It appears to use the nominative for 
the accusative in such words as (<pr)p.fp\s for efpTj^pifta, but 
this may be a matter of pronunciation only. By a curious 
metathesis TO-J) stands for TT}S as well as for TOVS. This is 


also found, I believe, in the dialect of the Ionian Islands, and 
certainly in that of Crete. 

In addition to these general divisions, Mullach notices 
especially the dialect of Thera as peculiarly harsh and sing- 
ing, and draws attention to the archaism ntis duoveis for ntis 
ovondfca-at. Ai'Sw/zt, in modern Greek Si'Sca or StSowo, appears 

as Soj/co. Ta TrpaTT] = TO, Trpay/nara, from TO Trpdros. This must 

stand for TO irpaKos, and strengthens the theory of philologers 

that rrpay, TO wpdyos &C. are weakened for -npax.-. Xpj/^araco 

= xp?7/iaTe&>, which in the common dialect means only, ' I 
employ myself, spend my time/ &c., as exPW*TW a Mo CTTJ els 
TO ypafalov row, ' I was employed two years at his office/ is 
idiomatically used, according to Mullach, for xpw-p-fvu, among 
the Theraeans. 

In Cythnus, Psyra, and Chios, flvras, e/ra is used for TIS, 
TI, which appears to be a transposition for rtW, metaplastic 
from TIS (compare 6Wa[y] or 6Wa[i/] for 6Yaz>) ; and as such 
should be written iWa?, iWa. Yet ovrav looks very like oire dv 
[xpovov], especially when we remember that oire = ore occurs, 
as well as 6Waz/ for 6Vai>. In Cythnus too the termination i>e 
seems to be added on to certain words with no meaning at 

all, as xhp a ~ ve yivf-ve, p,avpa (pope6r)-ve } 1. e. X*lP a ^y^vfTo, pavpa 

(popfdjj, where it would seem we have the archaism of a 
neuter plural being used with a singular verb. In Cythnus makes ^px a > instead of rjpda or rj\da, an additional 
ground for connecting in one root fpBovpat, epxopat, rj\6ov, 

rjvQov, and rjpda. 

In Siphnos, Naxos, and Thera, the forms exouo-t, ei^aa-i are 
preferred to ex ovv an ^ elx av - They are also common in 

In Amorgos, Calymnos, and Astypalaea, x palatal is pro- 
nounced as sh, e. g. ?x cshi. The augment is lengthened, 

as fjypafpa for eypcKpov : cf. the common form fjiria for eiriov. 

The same thing occurs in ancient Greek in 0e'Xw, ij&e\ov ; and 


as r)6e\ov implies a form e'0eX&>, so probably eVti/co, eypdcpw are 
obsolete forms from which fjypa^a and TJTHO. have arisen. In 
these islands orot/xoy and 6\(vQcpos occur for eroi/xos and eXeu- 
tffpoy. Compare the common form opaptpos for ep.op<f>os, i. e. 

In Patmos the Aeolic accent, aXrjdrjs, naipos, 

oxr], obtains. 
In Rhodes, Carpathos, and Calymnos, ftx vo) ) ec 

Stand for Sei'^vo) (i. e. fietKi/vco), e'5fiej/, SouXfi>(o. Also yvupio 

and o-wao) for yvwpifa and o-vi>ao>, implying the forms yi>copi'5-<o 
and trvmyo) : afterwards, by the insertion of teora =y, made 

into yvcopityo, trvvdyyo, and hence yvapifa, crvvdfa. 

Here too, as in Asia, K appears to supplant x> as ea), oro-, epKOfjiai, TfKVLTijs. Here K may sometimes be the 
earlier sound. Tex 1 "! ^ s really aspirated from TfKvrj, compare 
Tifcro), eTfKov. So in modern Greek SeiKi>&> becomes 
8io>Ki>o>, SKa^vco, and in ancient Greek ^atrLvrjs is con- 
tracted to egaitpvrjs. N appears to have an aspirating influ- 
ence on a preceding tenuis. At the beginning of a word x 
sounds like h, as hdpts for xP ts - 

In Carpathos we get rera-apes for Tfo-a-apes, an intermediate 
form between reo-o-apes and rerrapcs, as KOT(TV<POS is between 
K6o-o-v<pos and Korrvcpos : and I cannot doubt the feminine ter- 
mination tVo-a, common in modern Greek, to be intermediate 
between lo-o-a and trra, as seen in /ue'Xto-o-a, /ue'Xtrra, notwith- 
standing the accent, which may arise in modern Greek from 
a Doricized lonicism, i. e. tVo^, tVo-a. 

In Rhodes, a is often weakened to *, as a-irepiv, o-cpoyyepiv 
for a-irapiov, (nroyydpiov (here too notice the termination /), 
for avoige ; -yeXa^y appears in ancient Greek for yoAi/wk ; 
plainly means ' the smile of the sea/ Compare too 
veXor, nvfXov, me fa, and their corresponding forms voXos, 

TrvaXov, TTidfa. 

In Carpathos, similarly, we have irevriKos and KadeXov for 


TTOVTIKOS and KadoXov. "o\vp.7ros is called "EXvpnos at the pre- 
sent day. 

Professor Mullach observes that fewer diminutives are 
found on the islands than on the mainland : the old forms 
rpdyos, ovcCXoy, and Kpios, have not yielded to rpayi, ovcuXi, and 


We have now to consider a very singular phenomenon in 
the shape of the Tsakonian dialect, the language of the inha- 
bitants of the ancient Cynuria. We can at present do little 
more than state a few peculiar forms and grammatical 
vagaries on the authority of Professor Mullach. First, then, 
we have undeniable Doricisms and antique forms which 
seem to carry us back to that period when Greek had 
scarcely parted from Latin. As Doricisms (partly Boeotic) 

let US notice (poova for (poovrj, KTOVTT> for KTVTTO), cf. ySovTros, 

ySou7ra> in Homer. An apparent tendency to use the voca- 
tive for the nominative, as &6r<rxv for Porpvs, dfvovp.fve for 

dwdpevos, Kcnrve, derc, xP*i which in the forms vopo, cro<po 

seems to explain itself partly as a dislike to s as a termina- 
tion, is paralleled by certain forms in Homeric Greek. 
Compare tWora, vecpeXj/yepeYa with the Tsakonian TroXiVa, 
vavra, epip/ra, Tf^v/rn, Trpocp^ra. Other peculiar forms are as 
follows : Kpi'e = Kpcus, endvov = 'iKava), an undoubted archaism ; 

yovvauea = yvvr], KOVC = KVCOV, viovra = VVKTO., i. e. vv, vi>x a = ovv^-f, 
cf. vvcrcTci), i. e. vv^yu), Trdcrxa = Trotra, evdcrx* = evQev (another 
archaism), Tcrxi ri: (poovp.fvos = <po/3ovp.evos, and <f)v(ovp.ev = 

(pvyuptv, cf. fyvfa. Zelos stands, according to Mullach, for 6dos, 
but he does not inform us for which delos, whether in the sense 
of uncle, or in the sense of divine. If it stand for the latter, 
I should derive it not from QUos, but from dlos, and write 
Io?, which might be compared with ap/jfoXos and dp/S^Xoy, &c. 
Z stands in Tsakonian instead of K before e and i sounds, 
which is only to be explained, so far as I see, by assuming 


that < was first softened to y. Thus *al, yal = yie = '. K is 

found for IT, as Kidva> for maw. P for X, as ypovo-o-a for 
yXeoo-o-a. Aa/cruXo? becomes SaruXo, 7rpd/3aTa npovara, the semi- 

vowel changing to a vowel, n68a, -nova] 0eXo>, 6eov and rorxfov; 
&'3(o-/zi, Sioi; ( observe the tendency, noticed elsewhere in 
Greek, to drop 8 and X) ; KVVCS becomes /coOe, Kf<pa\r) foixpaXa, 

Bvpovo) QrfjLovKOV, dya7rov(Ta dycnrova ', apovpa (another archaism) 
appears as ciyovpa ; avdpvnos a^pcoTro, crxta ^ia, dpirdfa = dftpdya), 
i. e. dpTrayco : yd is for yaXa, like Kpl, Sa>, epi, /3/n, aX^>i. 

is for apror, which I have above connected with aX&'co, 
aXcpirov, a\(vpov, &c. I therefore dissent from Professor 
Mullach in regarding avde as a word unkno\vn elsewhere in 
the Greek language, nopcvxf ( = * / ^)> to which Dr. Mullach 
can assign no etymology, appears to me to be evidently 
i. e. henceforth, further, as the Greeks say ra>pa 

in the common dialect, and the Germans nunmehr. 

becomes eV&r^f, and $'Xo> To-\eov, therefore noppadev 
would naturally become TrdppWo-^ei', while o> and o, as we 
have seen, readily become f, as in *o{5e, ttairve. We thus get 
ir6pp(6(rxev, the v of which may of course be dropped at 
pleasure ; and this is quite near enough to nop^x* to leave 
no doubt in my mind as to the derivation. The declension 
of the pronouns presents us with some very extraordinary 
phenomena : 

= eaov 

fit jfj.a>v vp.ov 

fp.oi fju fjfuv vdpov 

ep,e ei/t'ou fjfJ^ds tp-ovvave 

crv = fKiov, G. rt, D. vi, A. KIOV. 

PI. ffMOv, G. viovpov, D. viovpov, A. ep.ov. 

Of the third person only the following cases are known 

G. o-/, D. TJ, A. <ri. 
PL, G. and D. <rov. 


Here euov is plainly for e-noO = nov = TV. Cf. the Boeotian 

for Avo-i'nj, &C. ; for the K, Ktp.), &C. 

is declined as follows : 

N. Ttivepe } fTftva'i, exem. 
G. eretvov, erfivapt, ereivov. 

D. wanting. 

A. ercivevi, erttvcan, <fivi. 

It is difficult to conceive how these words can be accented 
as Professor Mullach writes them. No less extraordinary is 
the change from r to K in the Nom. and Ace. neuter. 

The formation of this declension, so far as it can be traced, 
is evidently barbarous, and proves to my mind that the 
Tsakonian is no pure dialect, but a jargon or lingua franca ; 
and I think we shall be able to trace certain Semitic elements 
in the structure of the conjugation. Here eYftWpe seems to 
me to stand barbarously enough for exflvos 6, in broad La- 
conian cWvop 6 ereu/at for eVceiVa 17, and fTfivapt still more bar- 
barously for fKcivap fj. Yet the t may be in all these cases 
merely the well-known demonstrative termination ; and per- 
haps in that case rmWpf should be erdvept. 

For OVTOS we get the inexplicable form : 

N. evrepij evra'i, t'yyi. 
G. fvrov, fvrapi, CVTOV. 

D. wanting. 

A. evrevi, evTavi, eyyi. 

PI. N. evTfl for all genders. 
A. Masc. 

and TI = respectively TI and res or Tcr^i. "Os, fj, o, is 

ertivepi; where we have a clear case of barbarism, 
inasmuch as the masculine and feminine endings e (for o?) 
and a are added on to the modern Greek indeclinable relative 



EI/U is conjugated thus in the present, evi, tWi, ewi ; 

ere, ivvi ; and in the imperfect, ep.a, ea-a, e/a ; epp.a'i, eraif, 

These forms are hopelessly barbarous, but it is pretty 
plain that C-KI is formed by adding a fragment of exdvos, *ei 
on to the prevailing vowel of the root, while in Ki-a'i we have 
two suffixes, one to show the third person, the other to mark 
the plural, viz. t, which runs all through the imperfect plural, 
and is probably nothing else than the article 01 added on. 
This again is just what we should expect from a Semitic 
race trying to learn Greek. The further formation of tenses 
is equally remarkable : eyaprfKa and epirolita are formed as a 
kind of aorist-perfects in Greek fashion, but the present and 
imperfect are expressed by the participle and the substantive 
verb joined by the letter p, which perhaps stands for o-, in 
which case we must assume that to simplify matters ypd<pa>v 
became ypd<pos, Laconian ypd<pop, and that p was written by 
analogy after a, where however, agreeably to our theory, it 
may be optionally left out. What is plain is, that these 
foreigners who were trying to learn Greek looked at each 
termination as a separate word, and probably regarded the 
root ypa<p- as in itself the participle, in accordance with 
Semitic principles of grammar. However that may be, 
ypd(f)a> is in Tsakonian ypa<p-ov-p-evi or ypaty-a-p-evi, accord- 
ing as the subject is masculine or feminine, and so forth. 
The substantive verb may also be prefixed, evi ypd(pov, evi 

ypdtya, &C. So, tOO, the imperfect, e/xa ypd<f>ov, Or ypa</>ov- 
pepa, &C. 

The present passive is similarly formed : ypo^ovpcycpat, &c., 

Or fi ypa^ov/ifve, &C., i. e. yp(i<f)op.fv6s e'ori, &C. 

The future is thus expressed : Beov va evi ypcxfrre, i.e. 0e'Aa> 
va instead of 6c\a> flvdai ypanrds', the verbal adjective 
supplying the place of the perfect participle. 


With the periphrastic present and imperfect we cannot avoid 




paring the Spanish estoy escribiendo, and drawing atten- 
tion to the fact that Spanish and Portuguese, the only Neo- 
Latin languages which were subjected to Semitic influences, 
e likewise the only ones in which this idiom is found. In 
ebrew there is no present tense, and, properly speaking, 
no imperfect, but the meaning is given by the participle and 
the pronoun, which are in force exactly equivalent to the 
participle -f substantive verb in an Indo-Germanic language. 
It is plain that the Tsakonian language did not develope, 
like other dialects of Greece, in a natural way. It is the 
language of a foreign race, adopting and adapting the 
materials of the Greek language, not once and for all, but 
gradually, partly during the time that Greek was still ancient 
Greek, and partly after it had become modern. The old 
Doric forms timora, a, &c., show that this foreign, as I think 
Semitic, tribe was settled in Cynuria before dialectic distinc- 
tions had been obliterated by the *om) SiaXexros : yet as we 
cannot with certainty assert that they ever were quite oblite- 
rated, it is hard to say how early or how late the settlement 
may have been formed. Again, tTTTrora, &c. may not be so 
old as Homer, for it may only be mutilated for 'nnroTas, as 
all words ending in s are. But at any rate, the Tsakonian 
dialect has preserved many ancient Greek words, as &>paKa 
for fldov, ffjiiroiKa for exa/za. 'Opaco and TToie'cB are not found 
in the language of the common people in the present day. 
Again, the distinction between dative and accusative is still 
partially preserved. The word endvov = wava seems to take 
us back nearly to Homer. To a>Xe for TO i'Aoi> and ayovpa 
= apovpa point back to a time far anterior to the later period 
of ancient Greek, certainly as far back as heathen times. 
On the other hand, many of the forms and constructions 
are plainly corruptions of modern Greek. 

That there has been then from time immemorial settled 
in Cynuria a foreign tribe which has mangled the Greek 


language, and clung to it in its mangled form with a tenacity 
which is astounding, I think I may assume has been made 
out. But what was this foreign tribe ? I know of but one 
people who are capable of doing what the Tsakonians have 
done, and that people is the Jewish race. They alone 
choose by a natural instinct the very broadest and harshest 
dialect of the people among whom they settle ; they alone 
seem capable of giving to each word the most barbarous and 
mutilated form which the imagination can conceive ; they 
are the only race which, though they live for centuries among 
strangers, will never learn to speak their adopted tongue 
correctly. Some Semitic element must certainly be at the 
bottom of the Tsakonian dialect, and what Semitic race so 
likely to have founded inland colonies but the Jews ? In the 
Tsakonian words for brother and sister, d6\ and ddia, I cannot 
but recognise a genuine Hebrew formation. Brother in 
Hebrew is 'ns (in the construct form), and ^nx seems a 
possible, though not in classical Hebrew an actual form, for 
the feminine of T 1 ^, i. e. sister. In the plural of the first per- 
'sonal pronoun we see, I think, a grotesque attempt to com- 
bine the vowels and consonants of the Hebrew and Greek. 
In the nominative 13 S anu, we have the two forms fvv and 
ffj-v, of which the first form is little more than an iotacized 
transcription of the Hebrew ; while the other has a little 
more resemblance to the Greek form. The genitive and 
dative vd-p.ov, seem to be made up of the Hebrew frag- 
mentary suffix 13, and a similar fragment of the Greek 
We have already seen by various examples, as ypdfov 
, KIHOV = rt/^wv, &c., that ov stands for -(ov, and 
knowing that a = ov, e.g. epi = fjpow, we have no difficulty in 
writing VU/JLOV into the required form vov-^v, at once. In the 
accusative (povvave, which could scarcely have attained so 
extraordinary a length except on some such theory as that 
here advanced, we seem to have the elements t 



softened first into epdvavov. and then, the final ov 
becoming weakened into t, and compensated in the second 
iyllable, epovvavi, and hence epovvavc, the i being weakened 
in its turn into e, as in Xe'yowe, five, &c., &c. The accusative 
singular eviov is evidently ^N = eVt and the fragment ou, 
which is either a part of eo-ov = in Tsakonian eyo>, i.e. cy^o> 
= eWo>, or more probably is simply the ending of the 
first person of verbs in o> which in Tsakonian = ov, and 
would of course by a Semitic race be regarded as a pro- 
nominal suffix, as indeed, in its original form, it really 
was. The foreigners whose settlement in Cynuria we were 
supposing, seem to have been rather puzzled by the fact 
that with the slight difference, unheard perhaps among the 
Greeks even in very early times, as now, and in any case 
barely distinguishable to the Semitic ear, between 17 and v, 
the first and second persons plural were the same, i.e. vpels 
and fjpeis. Having formed epovvnve = fjpds, they left out the 
vdve, which seemed to them the part of the word most clearly 
indicative of the first person, and used the mutilated epov for 
both the nominative and accusative of wels, the more so as 
epov came nearer their pronominal fragment QD than did evi. 

The genitive and dative viovpov, seem to be for and 
lovpS>v = vplv and vp>v, but with some prefix, probably t> and 
D = Xe and pi : pi regularly becomes v in Tsakonian, e.g. via 
= pia, &c. ; while X might very well become so. In any 
case the analogy of modernizing Greek would soon make 
the dative take the same form as the genitive. 

The way in which a ( = n) is added as a feminine termina- 
tion on to an indeclinable base, as in mrova, as well as perhaps 
11 H in erfiva'i, the correspondence of the frequently recur- 
ring masculine termination e with ~t and ov with ? iKH, all 
point to a complete confusion of Greek and Hebrew gram- 
mar ; a phenomenon the more interesting, as I believe it is 
held by Professor Max Miiller to be an impossibility. 


I copy out for the perusal of the reader one or two short 
specimens of the Tsakonian dialect, given by Professor 
Mullach in his 'Grammatik der Griechischen Vulgarsprache,' 
taking the liberty to emend his text, where such emendation 
appears obvious. 


Nt'a yovva-LKa e^a via KOTTO. onova Kadapepa Ki yewova 

Mia yvvfj ef^e \uav KOTTUV (opviv) fjns Ka6r)p.epav cyevva 
cva avyo. eia av vt8l rav Korra Troo^e Kpio~i da yevvdei 
cv avyov. eVo/nt^e av do)(ry TTJ opvidi TroXu Kpidiov da yevva 

5u/3oXai Kar* d/ze'pa ^e vi efJLTrolfc. 'AXXa & ACOTTO, OTTO 

8vo jSoXas Kaff fjp.fpav Ka\ TTJ (TO) cuape. 'AXXa f] opvis, UTTO 

Traor^ou TTO^OV 5ei/ efiiropifc TrX/a va ycvvdr) naveva avyo. 
TroXXoO ird\ovs 8ev fjfji7r6prf TT\COV va yevva Kavev avyo. 

The translation underneath is in modern Greek. Note 

that eiTTOife = errotKf, as Kal = f. 


Hfpov eva Kovf OTTO TO Trora/Lio p.e TO uplc *s TO TOV/ZO 

HfpS)V ftff KV60V OTTO TOV TTOTafJLOV p. TO KptaS fls TO (TTO/iO 

e opov Tao-ov (Heb. Taxa6 ?) TO vo TO [rf] ?] va<66- 


0-^aO-t Kl VOfllgoV 7TOV TO KOTO) 6pOVp.l> Kl aXXe 

O*KiaO~lV = TTjV flKOVa Cv6fJilc 770)9 TO KOTO OpWpfVOV TfTO aXXoff 

KOVC if (Ki *X OV K P' ie ** T0 T0v t la ' TOTf o^t* TO dXrjdivb dia 
Kvcav OTTOV ei^e Kpeas (is TO oro/ia. TOTC afpr/ne TO dXrjdtvbv 8ia 

va irdpc TO opovpevc, Ka\ CKI e OTTO TO. dovo (rrcpovre. 

TO oujievov Ka\ carrepfj&r) ica\ TU>V 8vo. 



'A(/>eyya \_\v6tvra ?] j/aftot>, TT' ecri VTOI/ ovpave, va. evi ayiacrre TO 
ovvop.dv TI, i/a ra$?7 TO 6f\r)fj.dv TI, va /ioX?/ a J3affi\ciav TI Vav V 
TOZ> ovpave, epov e cs rav fyj}' TOV av&e TOV tirunxTUOf Si vi 
[VLV ?] frdp.epe' e a<pe vdfj.ov TO. -^pie vdfj.ov Kadov ^e evv ffjLp.a(plvre 
TOV ^peovc^tXTre vdpov, e p; i/a <pepifpc epovvavf '$ Kfipaa-pb, dXXa 
fXevdepov va/iou OTTO TO KOKO. Notice the archaism /zoXfl. I 

remember seeing the form iyrjv or tytv as a Judaeo-Greek 
form in a specimen of Hebraistic modern Greek, but where 
I saw it I cannot now recall to mind. I cannot think of any 
Greek derivation for ffrov : the first part may be the Hebrew 
TN. Comparing Zfyov with Kadov, we see that it stands for 
epo>s: cf. also above, TTOV for ITUS. *Epws would be the 
Greek writing of t^N"i"TX = then first ; dann erst German, turn 
demum Lat. ; the sense being, ' as in heaven, so afterwards on 
earth/ The omission of o- in ToO/za for orc'/ua is also Hebra- 
istic, the combination or at the beginning of a word not 
being tolerated. Observe no Spanish word begins with st 
or sp. 

On a review of all the evidence, we find ourselves quite 
unable to say with Dr. Mullach, ' Die Sprache der Zakonen 
ist fur uns ein noch unentwickelter Zweig der altesten Ges- 
taltung des Hellenismus (!) und ein Schliissel zu verschie- 
denen Erscheinungen sowohl der alten und heutigen Dia- 
lecte, als der verwandten Sprachen/ 

It is true that some light may be thrown on other lan- 
guages, especially those in a transition state or in a process 
of amalgamation, by means of the Tsakonian dialect. For 
the rest we are sure that it can be no primitive or unde- 
veloped form of Greek, because we know that the greater 
part of Greek accidence was ready made before ever the 
Greek nation rose into existence. 


I cannot agree with the derivation To-a/tcoi/es from 
K might become TO-, pronounced almost as ch in church, 
before palatal vowels ; but I know no instance in Greek of 
such a change before a guttural vowel. The other deriva- 
tion, AaKwfs, is yet more improbable. 

In conclusion, I must leave the question to Semitic scholars. 
I feel confident that the more the matter is investigated, the 
more clear it will become that Tsakonian is a hybrid pro- 
duction of Greek and some Semitic language ; whether 
Hebrew or not I will leave to others to determine. 

I will pass on to consider as briefly as possible the Al- 
banian language in relation to Greek. The popular notion 
of the Greeks themselves that the Albanians are the ancient 
Pelasgians, may be after all not very far from the truth. 
Certain it is, that in Albanian, in spite of its corrupt or 
modernized state, as seen in the poverty of its case endings, 
&c., we do undoubtedly find the meeting point of Greek and 
Latin. Albanian is neither more nor less than modern 
Graeco-Italic ; and no greater service could be rendered to 
Comparative Grammar than an ideal reconstruction of an- 
cient Albanian. 

I can now do no more than barely indicate a few instances 
of the connection of Albanian with Greek on the one hand, 
and Latin on the other. First, then, the very alphabet is 
mixed in Albanian. We have both d and 5 as well as / and 
6 ; we have again both f and <?, and b as well as /3. Besides 
this we have, as in Sanscrit, a palatal v written h, and a palatal 
r = r, like n in Sanscrit. Again, the palatal y and K, which 
in modern Greek are used only before palatal vowels, have 
in Albanian an independent existence, like ja and chd in 
Sanscrit, which are only modifications of palatal g and k. 
In a word, there is a far greater wealth of both vowel and 
consonantal sounds in Albanian than in Latin and Greek ; 
and it is plain that when Graeco-Latin separated into Latin 


and Greek, the Greeks took along with them & j3 and 8, &c., 
the Latins b and d, &c., while many sounds, as for example 
sh, zh, they left behind them as far as we know altogether. 

The fact that we find in Albanian the Greek and Latin 
sounds combined, proves the general identity of the modern 
with the ancient Greek pronunciation to something very like 

To proceed to the grammar. The first thing that strikes 
us is the preservation in Albanian of the infinitive endings 
evai, dvai, and epev-ai, corresponding to the Latin substantive 
terminations en-i or en-e, and men-i or men-e : cf. pecten-e, 
nomen-e, specimen-e, &c. In Albanian we have these sub- 
stantive endings, as in Greek, but the infinitive mood is 
expressed not by a case-ending or suffix, but a separate 

word prefixed ; e.g. (pdv-ai = p, Bavow, \vcrep,ev-ai = jue \vo~ovp,ovv. 

The termination -ovp.ow slightly varied actually appears in 
Albanian as a substantive ending, e. g. apo'fp.fv = eXevo-t?, 
7rpedLKip.iv = praedicatio. Albanian gives us again the transition 
between -/u and o>, in the form op., <prjp.\ = 66p,. 

Albanian preserves the ablative termination /, which it uses 
for the genitive case ; e. g. 

vde diTT te p-ppertT epodtt. 

Explanation : m(de) diebus TOV imp'ratav = imperatoris He- 
rodis, with Greek termination y-s for -or. 

T as the sign of the third person singular in verbs is like- 
wise preserved in Albanian, as &or = $<m = (prjvi. But this / 
is often weakened into v, both in the third person singular 
and the second plural. 

I will give a few paradigms illustrating the relation between 
the verbal terminations in Albanian and Greek. 


Bop, = (pap.1 = (prjpl Suva = <pap.ev 

6oi> = fpacrl = (pfjs Bovi = (pare 

6a>T = <paT\ = (prjcrl 6wv = (paa\v, i.e. (pavri. 




6ds = e(prjv (e( 
6av = f<pacrav. 


in form is to be compared with yvav, Albanian rja-iv. 

With $ocrre = e^aovte compare i'crre = e<TKe. 

*Ep8a = modern Greek rjpda, classical r)\6ov; root, per- 
haps Sanscrit ard- ' to come ;' epdep. = fp^dopev, fjpQanc ; apOr = 

t\0CTtt>* f apdovv = eXdelv, i.e. \6efj.fV. 
Et/^i, &c. = lap,, te'j a<7T, tci/a, levi, lav. 

Albanian explains to us the meaning of the termination 
*a, which is so common in Greek both as an aorist and 
perfect termination, as we see in e-d^-Ka, e-Sco-m, Se'-Soo-Kcr, and 
in modern Greek in evpr/Ka, eopcka (Tsakonian), eypd^Ka, &c. 
In Albanian nap = ex**, of which one form seems to have 
been W 

Now the perfect in Albanian is thus formed : 

Kap. ddvovv Kfva ddvovv. 

Ke ftdvovv Kfvi ddvovv. 

KO. ddvovv KCLV ddvovv. 

Literally ex Sovvai, &c., as in modern Greek 
In Se-Scoxa, and e-Scoica, the root of the verb is put for the 
infinitive, and xa = ?x&> is used as a suffix. 

The Albanian for and is ede, plainly the Homeric Ide and 

not) and irov are in Albanian KOV, the original form: ris 
and TI are xl and Ka; Sanscrit kah, M, kirn, Latin qui, 
quis, &c. 

I will now illustrate the language further by a few sen- 
tences and words : 

*Ep6e re o-qyar, eSe re a-qyar VOVK e rrpirev. 
'HX0e dfj.(pi TO. SUa r)8e th SUa VTJ-OVK. e 7rape'Xa/3oi/. 

Ot ^a. 

/- ? *-JL 

Oi e<pa. 

*Arot = aurw. Cf. ayrap and drap, modern Greek dros 

*2* = ore, rjpQav. 

Inde (TKeTrrjv = ore ^X^oi/ ets r^v otxiav. N(/e appears to be 

the Latin zW#-, indi- t or z^-, and /i<5e above, the 
Latin w^; Greek d/z$t; ^ ( = eVi) is probably only 
another form of the same word. 

VoetreV, i- 
Vop^)ei/, i.e. 

= op(pai/o'y. 
; vdoKfv, edi 

= Tropi/eia, and would suggest an older form, 

la or KopFveia. 

Mda\a<pdi<e = eV r <pavepa>. The etymology is plainly z 

paid facie (palus = <#*, implied in palam). 
MIKOV = amicus ; vep.LK.ow, inimicum. 
KovXovrc = aTrdXvrot quasi aKo'Aovroi (?). 
/XT) Troifjs. 

K 2 


Ae'ou = yala, ficua, y?y. 
'Arte, eVcei. 

Pidfrvcriv, /3iabw. 


TlovX = fyewrja-e. In modern Greek TTOV\OS is a patro- 
nymic termination. Cf. Latin pullus, Greek TroiXos, 
also -pulus in disci-pulus, Albanian difreTrovXi. 

The word for God in Albanian is nepvdta nepvdi, gen. 
ncpvdie or Hfpvdur/, ace. nepvdive. Does this word contain 
the same elements as Diespiter, reversed ? 

The view that SftXtvot/ and 17X10? are connected is some- 
what strengthened by the Albanian for Tpuor, which is di\i. 
"ETOS is in Albanian Fir, cf. Latin vetus, Sanscrit vatsas. Fir 
becomes in the plural FTS. 

. It is interesting to find in the modern Greek <eYoy, i. e. 
eVt eros, the relic of the F in the form of the aspirate. In 
'EviaFros, dfro's is probably only transposed for Faros, and this 
helps us to understand Fehrev, the Albanian for avrov in 
eavrov, f Ffhrev being equal to t-avrov. I have written /3 here 
and elsewhere as F, because it seems almost always to re- 
present that letter. But the literal changes in Albanian seem 
by no means regular : h for instance represents sometimes 
X, and sometimes <j>, though it must be borne in mind that 
these letters are interchangeable in Greek. Thus we have 

hip, x^P ls ) h*p*, <f)opd', are-hep* = airy (popa, i.e. vvv, dii hfpf 8vo 

fopds, modern Greek for fit'?. Also ha. rpa>ya>, connected 
with root (pay- ; hiivypow, (payelv. (Is hunger connected with 
this form ?) 

Two Latin particles receive great light from Albanian, viz. 
re and se. 'Pe in Albanian means new, and <r. in composition 
<rf, means not, e.g. ar'iiavvder, ov bvvarat, ffipawdt = dftvvaroi, i.e. 



A passive verb is changed into an active in Albanian by 
prefixing the syllable ov, e. g. ddvow = bovvai, ovddvow = doOfjvai. 

The future tense is formed, like the perfect, by means of 
Kap. ( = e'^co) and the infinitive, but in the future the preposi- 

tion fjie is inserted : examples, Kap, jue Trep-yiairow, o/ioicotro), /or/* 

The pronouns in Albanian present some very remarkable 
phenomena : 

Greek. Albanian. 

N v \ * 


A. p.e /Me enclitic, p.ove emphatic. 

G~ / 

. pov, peye, 

D. /AOt p 

With the plural it is better to compare the Latin : 

N. nos vd. 

A. nos, Sanscrit ndh vd, emphatic vl. 

G. Sanscrit nah ves. 

D. nofa's, Sanscrit nah ve're, enclitic vd. 

In this veFe, written' also with the ablative termination 
we have the Latin bis or bus, the Sanscrit bhih, the Greek 
<i; or rather we have the Sanscrit bhi, the common element 
in -bkihj -bhyam, -bhyah, &c., for ve- has not only a dative, 
but more often an ablative, i. e. genitive force, as in drtWft = 

Kfiva>v, re TtavdeftT, TOOV 'l 

Greek. Albanian. Sanscrit. Albanian. 

N. 2v, TV TJ ytiyam yov. 

A. 2e re yushmdn yo\). 

G. Tflo Tfye, reyeT Qi\\. yushmdkam j/ovs. 

ra, and rtye ^^i.yushmabhy-am yov-fe. 

A.VTTJS is in Albanian ao-at, which in signification is as 
often dative as genitive. This comes very near the San- 


scrit asydh (gen.), asyai (dat.). The nominative is fyo, cf. 
Sanscrit zyam. Kere, TOVTO may be compared with haec-rc, 

The possessive pronouns are extremely puzzling. 
( = &pa firj) seems straightforward enough ; but when we come 
to "hriyovi, of which the genitive is 'ATM- rod, we see that the 
possessive pronouns have the peculiarity of taking the case- 
endings as prefixes, instead of suffixes. This same case- 
ending T appears in the possessive pronouns to be accusative, 
as well as genitive or ablative in force. Is not this so also 
in the Latin personal pronouns tete, nosm-ef, vosm-et? Ex- 
amples in Albanian are, feXa UT, aSeX^dy o-ov, T#r-feXd ddcXcpv 
(TOV, d8f\<f>6v o-ou. But this is not all : not only are the case- 
endings prefixed, but sometimes, at least, the differentiating 
signs of gender also ; so that nothing remains of the original 
pronoun but a single consonant. Thus fa = o-6s, y6te = 0-77. 
Thatjyo is a feminine termination we have seen in ay$, she, 
U we have in KUL = OVTOS. Yore seems moreover to have 
a double feminine termination, if we regard cp.e as = efu?- 
is plural, and, so far as I can see, for all genders. 

'Efj-rjv is repe ; vfjLerepav, rovyen and TOVI ' e'ficx, e'/** 
vv and vvf rjpfTepav, rcSv or ToVe ; fjfterfpa, r6va rj/jLeTepav, TWV. 

Internal changes of the vowel sound also take place, as 

T - ' v' i / 

1/1-OT TTOTJ/p p.OV, Tf TlfJi-CT TOV TTdTpOS flOU, Tffl-OT TTtlTfpa JJ.OV. 

When, however, the possessive pronoun is used substantively, 
it has a much simpler form, as 

yWe TC p.iar lav re riar 
Trdvra TO. (pa clcr\v TO. ad. 

For the oblique cases of o-dy, one form used is ravd and 
ravde, of which rdvde appears to be the feminine. The 
difference between rdvde and TUT seems to be that the one is 
used with a preposition, the other with a verb, as /ie T#r-feXu 

(ue TOV a5eX0dv (TOV in modern Greek), but DoviffKivc rdvd, e8e 


ravd, i.e. Ames vicinum tuum etoderis inimicum 

kl p,evl d 

We will conclude this account of the Albanian language 
with a few prepositions and numerals : 

Me = with, modern Greek /ze and /*a, ancient Greek pa, 

p.a TOV Ai'a. 

Upe'i =from> Greek rcapa. 
Ufp = through, Latin per. 
Kowdep = contra, 

e = in, Latin mdu-, z'ndo-, Greek ei/So- and 

e and utt = on, Latin ambz'Q\ Greek a 
= super. 

I. V\, f. VI. 

2. dii. 

3. Tpt, f. rpi. 

4. Karep. 

5. TTf'a-f. 

6. yidcrrf. 

7. orare (Sanscrit sap fa). 

8. re're. 

. vavdfT. 

II. vi/i^eSere, i.e. ei? K.T. A. eVt' 





50. TreereSe're, &C. 

100. KtW, Latin centum. 
1000. p.iy. 

It is observable here that Latins, Greeks, and Albanians 
count together as far as 10, although the form vdvder pre- 
sents some difficulty. Afterwards, however, the agreement 


ceases. Latin and Greek coincide in n and 12, but the 
exact coincidence goes no further. Where the ancient 
Greeks said Tpeis<alKa the Romans said tri-dccem. The 
agreement between Latin and Greek is, however, resumed 
in viginti, ('IKOO-I = (IKOVTI or FIKOVTI ; while in Albanian, 
v'i-er is plainly a different formation, and seems to be 
compounded of vi-, one, and er, which must mean a score, 
whatever its derivation. Afterwards, i-piSer*, &c. = not rpi'-f 
6eVe, but rpt x Sere, and so on. Yet the coincidence is again 
resumed in <(vd - centum, and piy = milk. The fact is, 
numerals after 10 afford no historical evidence as to the 
independence of different races, though their agreement, 
however occasional, does supply most indubitable proof 
of their having sprung from one stock. 

The same race may have two modes of counting beyond 
10, and one may be more fashionable than the other, or 
both may meet with equal favour. The ancient Greeks 
themselves said SeKarreire as well as Trei>TKai8cKa, and the 
modern Greeks say not only SeKcnrevrf, but SfKarpds, 8fKa- 

recrcrapes, SeKaeTrra, Se^ao/crco, deKaevvea. In the Teutonic lan- 
guages ii and 12 exhibit a similar divergence, while in 
English we say twenty-three, three and twenty, sixty or 
three score, &c. French, Italian, and Spanish count to- 
gether as far as 60, after which they diverge, though only 
to coincide again afterwards. The numerals, therefore, 
give us no grounds for doubting our original hypothesis, 
that Albanian presents us, in a mutilated shape, with the 
Graeco-Italic language before it had split into Greek and 

With regard to vdvde or vdvdtr, I question whether we 
have not the same word in the Latin nundinae, -inae being 
simply a termination. With regard to the derivation of 
v&vdet, I would suggest that as dnavim'sati in Sanscrit means 
less than twenty, i. e. nineteen, so dnadasa might be another 



form for nine, of which m/Sere or aVSer might be a contracted 
form. The influence of the v would naturally convert d into 
d, and we should then get aWer= 10, rendered more definite 
in Albanian by the prefix v\= i, hence mavder, vavdcr. 

We have already seen that Albanian preserves many of 
the Sanscrit forms which Latin and Greek have lost, and 
we will conclude this rapid sketch with one more ex- 

In Sanscrit, the two words anya and itara are used 
respectively in the sense of 'the one' and 'the other,' 
being combined in the compound anyatara, ( either.' Now 
in Greek we have erepos, and in Latin caeterus, both of which 
words may contain the same root as itara. But in Albanian 
we have both, opposed to each other, in vi-dn, ' the one,' 
and Ti-erpt, 'the other;' the prefix being in one case the 
indefinite, in the other the definite article. Here, too, we 
find vi actually added to avi, just as we have supposed it to 
be added to 


Modern Greek Literature. 

WE must distinguish, in the outset, between modern 
Greek literature and the literature of the modern Greeks. 
The name of modern Greek literati is legion, but the 
names of those who wrote anything worthy of record in 
modern Greek before the present century are very few. 
It is with the latter alone that we are at present con- 

The first modern Greek writer was Theodorus Ptocho- 
prodromus, 'the heaven-sent poor forerunner* of modern 
Greek literature, a satirist of no mean power, whose 
happiest verses were extorted by the pangs of hunger. 
A specimen of his style concludes Chapter VII. His date 
is given by Mr. Sophocles as 1143 1180. 

Almost contemporary with him was Simon Sethos, a 
chronicler, who is the first prose writer in modern Greek. 

Next in order comes the ' Book of the Conquest of 
Romania and the Morea,' or To nS>s of QpdyKoi e/cepfyo-av TOV 
Tonov TOV Mwpewf, supposed by Buchon (in the second volume 
of his ' Recherches Historiques') to be a translation from a 
French account of the same events. Elissen ably controverts 
this opinion by a comparison of the two works, in which he 


illy justifies the superior reputation of German over French 
criticism. The 'Book of the Conquest' may be best 
described as a rhyming chronicle, which might deserve the 
name of poor verse were it not so prosaic, or of bad 
prose were it not written in metre. It belongs to the 
fourteenth century. 

To the same period probably belongs the poem entitled 
' Belthandros and Chrysantza/ a romance of knight-errantry, 
in which we can plainly trace the effects of the cru- 
sades in Greece. The heroes of Greece are henceforth 
knights-errant, but the Greek of the age is so far true 
to himself as to be more susceptible of chivalrous than 
religious enthusiasm. The mistress of his heart is very 
prominent, while Mother Church is kept quite in the 
background. The plot of ' Belthandros and Chrysantza' is 
simple but imaginative. The hero is Belthandros (a Graec- 
ism for Bertram), the son of Rhodophilus, king of Romania, 
who has two sons, Bertram and Philarmus, one of whom 
he loves, and the other of whom of course he hates. 
Belthandros, the unfortunate object of his father's dis- 
pleasure, accordingly takes a journey eastward, and after 
heroic exploits performed at the expense and on the per- 
sons of his father's men-at-arms, who are dispatched to bring 
him back, he reaches Armenia, and the fortress of Tarsus. 
Riding by the side of a small stream, he espies a gleam 
of light in the running waters, and follows up the course 
of the rivulet a ten days' journey. It leads him to a magic 
building called the Castle of Love, built of precious stones, 
and surrounded and filled with every imaginable form of 
wonder in the way of automaton birds and beasts of gold, 
reminding us of Vulcan's workmanship. Then follows an 
introduction to the King of the Loves, the owner of the 
enchanted palace, who gives him the task of choosing the 
most beautiful out of forty women. He first selects three, 


and having thus equalized the problem to that which Paris 
had solved of old, he proceeds to award the palm to 
Chrysantza, who turns out to be the daughter of the King 
of Antiochia, and whose subsequent appearance at the 
Court of Rhodophilus "reconciles the father, and terminates 
the story with the slaying of the fatted calf. 

The following is an attempt to render the metre and the 
meaning of some of the most beautiful lines in this un- 
equalled poem : 

' Thus then together journeying, they reached the Turkish border : 
This passed anon, they entered next upon Armenia's frontier; 
And last of all approached the town of Tarsus, and its strong- 
And while Belthandros wandered through the country with his 


He found a rivulet, and lo ! beheld among its waters 
A sheen as of a falling star that leaves its track in heaven. 
There in the water's midst it gleams, and he in haste pursues it : 
Stream-upwards he betakes him, if perchance he may discover 
Whence erst was born that liquid flame that glitters in the 

Ten days' full space he wandered on, and when the tenth was 


He found a castle large and high, and goodly was the vision, 
Of pure sardonyx well hewn out, most cunningly proportioned. 
And high upon the summit of that fair and shining building, 
In place of catapults were ranged a marvellous assemblage 
Of heads of griffins carved in gold, full curiously fashioned, 
Wrought by a cunning master's hand, with great and wondrous 

wisdom : 

And from their open jaws amain, most direfully resounded 
Furious and terrible and shrill a grimsome noise of roaring; 
And thou wouldst say they moved as though the breath of life 
were in them.' 

The imaginative power and mastery of language which 
the author shows, bespeak a genius of the highest order. 
Like many another genius, he is among the nameless dead. 


His creative power reminds us sometimes of the 'Divina 
Comedia/ sometimes of the second part of ' Faust.' Even 
his sesquipedalia verba, or, as the Greeks call them, Xe'fts- 
o-xoivorevel.?, rather excite our admiration by the boldness and 
the beauty of their composition, than our impatience by their 

length. 'PO^OKGKKIVOS, (TTpoyyv\ofj.op(po7TT)yovvos, p.ot,poypd<pr)p.a, 
trwjuaTovpy^o-e?, 6\oar(op.aTu>p.vrj, ovpav68pop.os, Kpv(j)OKap,<ap.a ) how- 

ever they might raise the bile of a Phrynichus, have a power 
of harmony and a perfection of taste for which that poor 
pedant had neither eyes nor ears. 

Did the modern Greek language possess but this single 
Epic, to say that it is destitute of literature were a calumny 

The next writer we shall notice is Emmanuel Gorgilas, 
who forms the bridge between the Byzantine and the Turkish 
period of modern Greek literature. He was a native of 
Rhodes, and lived at the time of Constantinople's fall. 

The following works are attributed to him : 

1. Airjyrja-ts ei? ras Trp:'t^is TOV irepiftorjTov crTparrjyov r<i>v 

jueyaXou Ef\urapiov (fe$odr) cv Bei/en'a rw 1554 vrro 

'Pap-miTcrfTov els 4 TO'JUOVS), in which Belisarius ap- 
pears as an almost mythical character, a kind of Alexander 
redivivus, upon whom every kind of possible and impossible 
exploit is fathered. The work is metrical. 

2. To davartKov TT)S 'Pofiou (avfK$OTov ev rfj Hapicriavfi /3t/3Aio- 

3. The celebrated Qprjvos TTJS Koovo-rai>rii>o7ro'Ae<, which has 
been compared by its admirers to the Iliad ; whether from 
its length or from its merits, I am unable to say. The latter, 
and fortunately the former also, fall far short of that great 
original. A certain well sustained glow of patriotism, and a 
prophetic yearning of hope, are its only claims to be con- 
sidered in any sense a poem, and even these features are 
not sufficient to redeem it from wearisomeness. For curio- 


sity's sake I will give two short extracts, the one from the 
Opfjvos, and the other from the OavariKov TTJS ' 


To? ToVpKOV CIV d(pT]KTe TTjV TToXtl/ VO. KpaTr)(TT), 

QeXei yap TraXiv TO Qepibv Kal $eXei &vvap.d>cri, 
Kai 6e\ft KaraTrVfi TTO\\OVS 6 erKvXos aerdv 
Aonrbv Travv^TjXoTaTOi avQtvrcs p.ov prjyddes, 
Aydnrjv 0X01 /ca/iere va Trdre VTOIT f\8povs eras, 
Kal TQV (rravpov arjKuxreTe crT)p,d8i or' appard eras, 
Nai/ev ep-Trpos Kai iricrw eras cnjuddt 'ora eras' 
Na /3yaX\Te TOVS dcrefids diro ra yovtKa eras, 
Mccra aTro ra cnriria eras, K airo ra yovtKa eras. 


At TTiKpap.oS) at crv/JLepopa Trocrovf TO KOKO /xou' 
A.epr)K p.e TOV TtcopyiKdv Kal Tc<apyi TOV vlov fiov. 
K' ZTTIVOV, TTLVCO, Kal va 7ria> 6\ov<t>v ( = oXeof) rais TriKpdftais' 
Kai 5vo Kai -rpi'a opfpava OTTO Koprjv KO\ p-avaSfs, 
Tlatdia OTTO TO. p.e\r) p.ov, Kal dirb rats d8(\epdo'es. 
Kai icXat'co TTCOS eySe^ouj/rai fj,f)ves Kal'fs. 
TeToiais (roias) Sei> dfXovv va diovv (va iSaxri) aXX' oi fa 

Atdrt tuo-re m Xu7n;^oCi', TroXXa va iriKpadoveri. 

One scarcely knows whom most to commiserate, the man 
or the poet. 

In the sixteenth century we have no poet of eminence. 
Jakobos Triboles is a writer of most wretched doggerel. 

There were always plenty of preachers, like Cyrillus 
Lucaris, Meletius, &c., but their works have not for the most 
part come down to us. Almost the only examples of 
modern Greek in the sixteenth century consist of letters and 
fragments of speeches, chiefly the utterances of ecclesiastics. 



The great work of the seventeenth century is one which 
is almost unknown : the work of one Chortakes, a Cretan : 
entitled ' Erophile,' and written in the Cretan dialect. It is a 
tragedy, and opens with a monologue of Charon, the imper- 
sonation of Death, who speaks as follows : 

'H crypto K f) dveXinrrjTT) K 17 (TKOTfivrj Qvpid /xou, 
Kai TO SpfTraV OTTOV jSaaroi, Kai ravra TO. yvp.vd p.ov 
KoKKaXa, K rj TroXXat? fipovrals, K rj dorpanals 6p.d8i, 
"OTTOV TTJV yr)V dvoiacri } K eftyfJK dnov TOV "AS?;, 
Ilotof p-ova^d ra>ve l fii'^cas ^iiXta p.7ropovcri 
Na (pavepaxTOW (rr)p.epov V ocrovs p.e crvvTijpovtn 2 . 

'Eyoo/^iai Kelvos TO XotTroi/ air 0X01 p,e p.tcrovcri, 
Kai <rKV\oK.dpT] KOI rv(p\o K' anovov /ze XaXoOo-t. 

ajrov TT) jSao-iXevs 3 , T^ 'p,Tropfp.vovs ov\ovs, 

iovs K dvr)p.7ropovs, r* d<pevTCUS KOI rr) SovXous 1 , 
T} veovs Kai T^T) yepovras, p,i<povs Kai T^J) p.yd\ovs, 
TI <ppovip,ovs Kai T^J) XcoXowy, K o\ovs dvOpwirovs T' aXXous, 

ia, ytap,a ovre 4 p.ov (pavy pL^ya Kai davarova), 
K' els TOV ddo 5 TT) VIOTTJS row TTJ \povovs rovs T\fi6vo). 
Avovo) T^J) &6ai$ Kai rip,als TO. y v6p,ara p.avpta>' 
T^r) 8iKto<rvvais dtao-KopTrS), Kai T$ (pi\ials ^cBpt^o), 
T' aypiais Kapftials Karajrova), TT) \oyicrp.ovs dXXao-cra>, 
T^"' oXTTi'Se? pi^vo) 's p.ia uepia, Kai T* eyvoiais 6 Karardcrcroi' 

K' fKfl 7TOV p,e 7TO\V dvp.O TO. ' p,UTia fJLOV CTTpa(^)oo"t > 

Xcopais ^aXoi)j/ dXaKatpats 7 , Kocrp.oi TroXXoi /SouXovcrt. 

d reave, by themselves ; so irore /xou, in my life ; p.6vos fjiov, by 
myself; further down TTOTC TOVS : a peculiar modern Greek idiom. 

2 avvTTjpovcri, observe, for the more common irapaTrjpovffi. 

3 TT) &a<n\evs, i. e. TOVS PaaiXefs, contracted for TOVS QaaiKifas. 

4 TiafJicL, yiapcL OVTC, as soon as; etymology Si apa OVTC (xpovov). 

5 'A06, the ancient dOrjp with a different termination. 

6 eyvoiais = evvoiai. 

1 a\dfcaipais, Cretan for 6\6K\rjpai. Italian and Albanian both offer 


Uov TOM/ 'EXX^vo) 77 flacriXfials ] rrov TU> 'Pwuicov y roams 
HXovo-iais Kal [mope o/xz/ais %<apais ] TTOV rocratf -yvcocraiy ; 

K * * * .* * 

t OTO Xd/cKo KdTotKovv, /3ov/3ot /ne S/xeoy 8 oro/ua 
Sv/LU/ats 9 SeV (vp<i) TTOV or?) -yjy Xiyd/a X^P- a ' 
*fl 77X770-10 10 KciKoppitKoi KOI yiavra 8e 6a>pov(ri 
TTJ /iepats TTQJS XtyaiVoutrt, T^J) xpovovs TTCOS Trepvovcri J 
To r^es 11 eSid/S?;, TO irpo^dts rrXrjo 8ev dvio-Toparat, 
STTi'^a fJitKpT) TO o"fjp.fpo CTTOI (TKOTfLva Xoyarat. 
'2' eWz> dvoiyo(T(pdXiarp.a l<i TU> 
Kai 8i^<as \\nrrja-L Kap.ia ?racr 
Ta KaXX?; aj3vva>) K op.op(po TT/JOO-COTTO fie 14 

some analogy, e. g. wAatcy, K\d-fj,fv, Albanian Kidpovv, Latin cla-mare, 
Italian chiamare. 

8 /^e St'x^s, the /*e is pleonastic; compare the English without, and 
the vulgar German heard only in London, mitaus, e. g. ' Ich gehe 
aus, mitaus Sie zu mir kommen,' instead of ' ohne dass Sie zu mir kom- 

9, for If this be the oldest form of the word, it 
points to the derivation 78^0;, vulgar modern Greek for tKSvca, being, in 
fact, a participial adjective : for the accent, compare Se^a/if^ (a reser- 
voir), which is nothing but a participle used as a substantive. With 
ydvco for 'itSvo} one may compare yoovnos for KOOVITOS, i.e. teroviros = 

10 TrXrjaia fj.d\a, same root as m/j.rr\r)fju, &c. KOKicoppi&KOi, ill-fated. 
TO fiiiKo is modern Greek for Fate, generally derived from riscbio Italian ; 
but neither the accent, the form, nor the sense, agree with this deriva- 
tion. The idea seems rather to be the same as in irirpa}(j.tvov, tlpfiap- 
Hevrj, ' that which is deep fixed like a root in the ground,' pifa. 

11 TO tyes, yesterday evening ; formed on the analogy of x^ e ' $ > th e root 
being -^e, as in o^e, dirvtye, i>y/ifj.a6r)s, &c. 

12 dvoLyoatpd\ifffJ.a, from 0^0/70; and ff<jxi\ica, i e. &<T<pa\i<a, to make 
fast, hence to shut. 

13 vdaa, for irdvTa, as -avt for -avTi, -ovai for -OVTI, &c. 

11 ot, for Sev oii ; either contracted for ovotv, or the word Slv (neuter 
of 8eis) used negatively, as is the case in modern Greek with TtVore, 
fv, 5i6\ov, and in French withj'amou, du tout, &c. 


Pot's rcnrfivovs 8e XerjpovS), TOVS aypiovs e <o/3oi/u. 
Tovs (pevyovv 15 <$>rdv 6y\f)yopa } TOVS /xe farovv p.aKpaiva>, 
Kat 5/^o)f va fie <pdovo-i a~v\va rfr) ydpovs '/*7raiV. 
* * * * * * 

<E>rco^oi T* apTrare (pevyovcri, TO. o~(j)iyyfT Trerovcn, 
Ta TTfpp.aovT (rKopTrovv, TO Kri^eTe ^aXovat. 
2a <Tirl6a (rftvv TJ 86a eras, TO. TT\OVTT] <ra$ tra CTKOVT) 
'SKopTToiHrrjve KOL ^dvovrat, KOI rovopd eras \vovet 
2a 16 varov p.e TO ^epi <ras ypafip-evo els 7reptyid\i 
T] 6d\acr(ras, yrj 1 

His apostrophe to Joannes Murmures, a celebrated lawyer 
and a friend of the poet, is quite in the spirit of Dante or 
of Lucretius : 

2* e'8iaXea evyej/eorare Movppovp* v 

'PrjTopa V oXai? T^' dpfTals KOI TT] Tipals ye/xdre, 

Me Tovopd (rov TOVTO /xov TOV KOTTOV va 

Kai \dpi a?ro 7^7 -)(dpais crov TrXrjo-a va o~ov 

Ftart ocro <re 6a)pS) ^TJ\O, (re /SXeTreo /caXXo rdcro 

Me (TTrXdy^j/os dve^iicaKo, KcipeTpr] KO\OO~VVT). 

Kflcrai V TJ)J/ *7rfpr)(pdvr)(n paKpav TOV Kocrpov Keivrj 

Tfj (TKoreivfj, TTOV 8e yevva Xd/3pa ; oufie 

Ma riKra 19 /idi/o feat KUTTVO TO, Tpiyvpa 

15 Tovs (pfvyovv, i.e. ous <f>fv-fovfft, for ot <pfvyovai. A curious instance 
of attraction, rare in ancient Greek, from the nominative to the accusa- 

16 2$ = 'aav, i. e. wadv. ' 

17 7^, Cretan (also Chian) for 77. 

18 xdpai, Cretan for the modern x&pov, the ancient x a /- The accent 
need not perplex us, as the reader will perceive the accentuation in Crete 
is extremely variable and uncertain, and often diverges from the usual 
system. A little further down we have dvepoi for avepot. 

19 Ttficva, a curious corruption and metathesis for wife. Kvtfa itself, 
however, seems to be a mere onomatopoeic form, like sniff, snuff, 
scbnupfen (Germ.), &c., and T#KVO. may be the same. 




FiV odrjyos TT) crTpdras p.ov, va (puyco rov 
T' dvep.iK.als, K' ebs Tredvp-ca v dpdf-co crro Xi/^tcova, 
Ftari oa-ais 6e\ovv rapa^aty, K' dvep-oi va yepBoixri, 
K' ocra (pova-Koxrovv Ku/nara, oro /3pa^o? ei> p.7ropovcri 
HoTe TOVS va p,e pt'^ouo-t, y' aAXotw? va /ie ^fticDtrou, 
ras p.6v a>s "Afrrpo pov Xafirrpo TO Trpoo-coTro (r 

"? '/ 9O' V Si' 

eivat KaTTOKOTrjira ^aptcr/ia i/a crou ococra), 
v Ato, /ca^co? en'^aive, KaXa 21 8ei/ /at rocro, 
T^7 Ti>xr/s Soy TO (praia-ipo, KO\L TOV dekr^jidrov' 
Tiarl ^7/Xaty T^I) Trda-a Kaipbv eKpdrov. 
Ma .Kfivrj ^a/nat T' eppi^f, Kat TO (pTfpa TTOV crcova 
*2' opoy va /*' dvatjSao-ouo-i x|r^Xo TTOU r' 
MoO /COV/A' ovTa apxycrao-i Kal ^a/i 
KJ; ope^i ^' arro/Lietz/e /tovo, o-av TrpwTa? 
Kai/Tts Ta Bdppfif K e\in^, K cftftxve, K eVao-Q-e /^ou, 
Kets T^"' ovpavovs (rv^vorara TO vovv dvaifia^ p,ov, 
Mow KTi^ti Trvpyovs VTO yinXo Trep/SoXta O-TOV dtpa 
K' o, TI T^V VVKTU p,epip,vS>, xdverai TTJV fjp-epa. 

The following is an almost literal translation, in which, 
however, I have taken the liberty of shortening the metre by 
one syllable, except in one or two cases : 

' My visage fierce and pitiless, my dark and ghastly stare ; 
The sickle which I carry; my fleshless bones and bare; 
The lightning, with the thunder claps that shake the air around, 
Forth bursting from the jaws of hell, and rending all the ground, 
These things may tell you who I am ; it needs no words of mine : 
Whoso but looks on me to-day, my name may soon divine. 

20 diroKorijtra tlrXrjv : troK^rjaa, cf. Korea, KortofMt, KOTOS. The 
notions of wrath and daring are not far removed from each other. 
Compare fj.tvos with its cognate words, and kindred varieties of mean- 
ing : fj.evi in Albanian means haired. 

21 *a\a = Ta'xa, Iff (us : so dy/caXa, av Ka\d = tl KOU: cf. German wol, 
' perhaps ; ' obwol, ' although.' 



Yes, I am he whom all men hate, and call with one consent 
Hound-hearted, blind, and pitiless, whose soul can ne'er relent. 
I spare nor kings, nor potentates, the mighty of the earth, 
The master and the slave alike ; in plenty or in dearth ; 
The young, the old, the great, the small, the simple and the 


Whene'er I please I lay them low, never again to rise. 
Even in the flower of their youth their fleeting years I number ; 
Glory and praise and fame I whelm in dark eternal slumber ; 
The memory of righteous deeds swift to the winds I scatter; 
The closest bonds that friendship knits, I sunder and I shatter; 
The fiercest heart I quickly tame, sage counsels I confound ; 
Fair hopes I blight, and lofty thoughts lay even with the 


And wheresoe'er my eyes are turned with fell destructive power, 
Whole countries sink, whole worlds decay, and vanish in an hour. 
Where is the sovereignty of Greece ; where is the wealth of 

Rome ; 
Of mighty realms whilome the nurse, of wit the chosen home? 

' How poor they dwell within the tomb, the dumb and voiceless 


In some small corner of the earth, a sod above their head, 
Mere naked shades ! Thrice wretched men ! why do they not 


How day is dwindling after day, how soon their years are told? 
Yestreen is passed, the day before has left no trace in sight; 
To-day is reckoned but a span in yonder realms of night. 
Swift as the twinkling of an eye, I come and drag away 
My victim to the grave, and all without compassion slay. 
Beauty I quench, nor lovely face can draw from me a tear ; 
To the meek I show no mercy, and the proud I do not fear. 
Who shun me, them I overtake; who seek me, them I fly: 
Unbidden at the wedding feast a frequent guest am I. 
Wretches ! what ye would snatch escapes, and flies while scarce 

embraced ; 

Your gathered wealth is scattered soon, and what ye build effaced ; 
Your glory in a moment quenched, your riches like the dust 
Dispersed and gone; quick perishes the name for which ye lust; 
Left to the mercy of the sea, as 'twere with idle hand 
Inscribed upon the sounding shore, or in the drifting sand.' 

L 2 


' Thee have I chosen, Murmures, noblest and worthiest, 
Of orators most skilled and famed, of virtuous men the best ; 
Thee have I chosen, that thy name my labours might adorn, 
And to thy ears full echo of thy own deserts be borne. 
For howsoe'er exalted, thou dost rise before my view, 
By so much do I know thee kind, and good and patient too. 
Far, far art thou from haughty mien, the proud world's atmo- 

That gloom from whence no warmth is born, nor light is sent to 


But smoke and vapour dank and thick fill all the region drear. 
Be thou the guide of all my way, that I may 'scape the blast 
Of wintry storm, and safely reach the longed-for bourne at last. 
Let tempest rage, let winds arise, let billows roar and swell, 
Yet while I keep before my eyes, that face I love so well, 
My one, my guiding star, no rocks shall ever work me harm ; 
No breakers then shall touch me, nor stormy waves alarm. 
But if the greeting which I bring shall haply chance to be 
More worthy of my rash resolve than it is worthy thee, 
Oh, blame my fortune for the fault, and not my will, I pray. 
My heart would ever fain be borne on soaring wings away, 
But Fortune casts it to the ground, and clips the pinions spread 
To raise me high as Helicon to some tall mountain's head; 
Even as they begin their flight and skim above the ground ; 
Barren desire remains, as when I first was outward bound. 
And now in place of all she weened and hoped and showed and 


Moving my soul to lofty flight upon the wings of thought, 
She builds me castles in the sand, and gardens in the air; 
And what by night I meditate, day finds no longer there.' 

This last line seems suggested by the Sophoclean verse 

fi TI vi> d(j>f), TOVT fir qp-ap 

The next writer we shall notice is Franciscus Scuphos, 
born in Cydon in Crete, and educated in Italy, in 1669 pro- 
fessor at the Greek school in Venice, author of a work on 
Rhetoric 1681, from which we quote the following example 
to show how completely the rhetoric of the ancients con- 
tinues to live in the oratory of modem Greece : 


Me TO o"\r]p,a TTJS dfrjo-fcos 6f\a irapaKaXecrei TOV fXfvflfpaTrjv TOV 
Kocrp-ov Xpurrbv, va f\fv8fpd>o-r) p,iav (popav TO f\\rjviKov yevos oV6 
TYJV o~ov\fiav T>V 'Ayaprjv&v, KO.I O.TTO ras x f ^P as TOV 'OTOfiaviKOv 
Bpiapeooy. <fr$ai>, KptTa StKateoTOTe, (pddvfi ! "Ewy TTOTC ot rpicrddXioi 
EXX^ve? f'xovo~i va fvpio~KO)VTai els TO. 8fo~p.a rfjs SovXei'a?, Kal /ie 
vnepr)(j)avov TrdSa i/d TOUS TTOT^ TOI> Xai^ov 6 ftapQapos QpaKys ; ecoy 
TTOTf yevos roaov ev8oov Kal evyeviKov va TrpovKwa cirava) fls /3ao~tXi- 
KOV dpovov eva adeov TOvXovTrdvi, KCU y x<apais fxetvais fls rais 
dvaTf\\ei 6 oparos fjXtos, Kal fls dvdpwTrivrjv p,op(pfjv dverfiXas 
f<rv 6 aopaToy, a7r6 fj/j-Krv (f)fyydpi va ftaaiXfvcovrai ' } A, 
(re 7rapa<caXa, Trcoy elcrai o^t povov KptTrjs, dpr) Kal Trarrjp, Kal TTCOS 
TraiSevetSj dfj,r) dev Bavaroveis TO. TfKva <rov' odfv av 'icrcos Kal $ dp,ap- 
riais T>V EXX^vcoi/ fTrapaKivrjcrav TTJV 8iKatav opyrjv vov, av 'ureas Kal 
fls TT)v Kapivov TTJS t8tas TaJv dvopias crov fxd\Kfvcrav ra da-rpoTTe- 
\6Kia, 6ia va TOVS dfpavia-rjs OTTO TO Trpoacowov rrjs oiKOifJLevrjs, e&v 
OTTOV fl(rai 6'Xoy fvcnr\ayxvia ; (rvyx<apr)crai Kal (rj3vcrai iiuum fls TO 
TTfXayos TTJS dnfipov crov fXfTjfjLOcrvvrjs. *Ev6vp,r](rov, 6fdvdpa>7Tf 
*l7/o"ou, TTWS TO f\\r}viKov yevos f(TTddrj TO 7rp)Tov } OTTOV civot^e TOIS 
ayKaXais, 8ia va Sf^Qfj TO Qflov o~ov fvayyeXhiov' TO Trp&Tov OTTOV 
fp(jif ^a/xai TO. fi'ScwXa, Kal Kpfp-dpfvov fls fva v\ov <rf errpoo-Kv- 
VT)o~fv as 6(6v TO irpSoTov, OTTOV avrio-Taflr) TO>I> Tvpdvvu>v, onov p.f 
Too~a Kal Tocra j3do-ava fyvpfvav va fppia>o-ovv CITTO TOV Koapov TTJV 
irio-TLv, Kal dno Tat? Kapo~iais TMV ^pi.(TT(.avu)v TO 6elov aov oi'Op.a' 
fj. TOVS lop&Tas TU>V 'EXXrjviov rjvav, XpicrTe fjiov, fls SXrjv TTJV OIKOV- 
p.fvr]v T) eKK\rjo~ia aov' ot "EXX^^es TTJV fir\ovTr]o-av p,f TOVS drjcravpovs 
TTJS o-o(f)ias, TOVTOI Kal uf TTJV yXcoo-o-ai/, cat p.e TOV KaXapov, fj, TTJV 
TTJV 8ia<pfVTfvo-av \defenderunt\ TpfxovTfs p.e airfipov 
Kal els Tals (f)v\aKals, Kal fls Tals /xao-Ttyats, Kat fls 
TOVS Tpo^ovs Kal fls Tals foplais, Kal fls Tals <f)\6yais Kal fls Tals 
Trio-Q-ais, p.ovov Sta va o-ftvo-ovv TTJV rrXdv^v, Sta va a7r\u>o-ovv TTJV 
TTICTTIJ/, Sta va ae KJ)pvovv 6fdv6pa)7rov, Kal Sta va Xa/i\^j/ OTTOV \du- 
TTfi 6 rjXios, TOV o~Tavpov fj So|a Kal TO p.vo'Trjpiov' odfv, as fv- 
ffTrXayxvos, p.e TTJV df'iKrjv o~ov rravToo'vvap.iav KafJLf va (pvyovv TOV 
vybv TfToias ftapfiapiKrjs alxp-aXaxrias' as (piXoSopos Kal -TrXovcrio- 


ndpo)(os dvTaTrodoTrjs, dvoiyovras TOVS drjo~avpovs TCJV 6(ia)v crov 
Td)i>, v\l/(t)crai TrdXtv (Is TTJV Trporepav doav TO yevos, /cat, OTTO TTJV 
Koirpiav, (Is TTJV orroiav Ku$erai, dos TOV TO crKTjTTTpov KOI TO ftacri- 
\(iov. Nat, ere irapaKoXa) ua TO x a *P f f<^o } orrov e<pfpe TTJV x a P av 
fi? TOV Kocrp.ov' p.a TTJV Beiav crov (Keivrjv evcrdpKoxriv, (Is TTJV oirolav 
OVTCIS Qebs, fytvrjKfg (ii'dptanos, 8ia va (pavfjs p.e TOVS av8pu>Trovs (pt\dv- 
dpamos' p.a TO /3a7mo7ia, OTTOV p.ds orXwe CITTO TTJV dp.apTiav' p.a TOV 
o-Tctvpbv OTTOV avoie TOV irapdo'fio-ov, /ua TOV OTT^V /zas 
f8ti)K TTJV <i)T)v. Koi pa TTJV (vdoov cKfivTjv (ypo~iv, oTTOv p.ds ai/e/3a(Tf 
fls ra ovpdvia. Kai av io~a>s KOI rj <^>Goi>ats TOVTUIS ftev o~e TrapaKivovo~iv 
(Is o-7r\dyxvos, as <re jrapaKiVTjo-ovv TCI daKpva, OTTOV p.ov Tpe^ovv dirb ra 
6'^fiaTa, Kai (av d(V (faddvovv Ka\ ravra, f) <pa)vals } f/ Trnpax 
ayitov o~ov, oirov dnb oXa ra pepr) TTJS Tpio-ad\ias 'EXXaSo? 
$u>va(i OTTO TT/V KpfjTTjv 6 ' Avftptus, KOI o~f 7rapaAcaXf i va f 
TOVS y AyapT)vovs XVKOUJ O.TT fKflvo TO BaatXftof, (Is TO onolov C'TTOI- 


noXti* (vas ~Xpva6o-Top.os, KCU <re irapaKaXd vet P.TJV KVjncutTat drrb TOVS 
(\dpovs TOV YtoO (K(ivrj rj X">P a i orroC piav (popav d<pi(pa)6Tj TTJS MTJ- 
Tpos Kal HapBevoV (puivd^d TJ AtKarepiVa, *cal 8cix*ovTa o~ov TOV Tpo- 
X^>v, els TOV OTTOLOV ffiapTVpr)G( } o~( TTOpa/caXfT o Tpox^s ?raXt va yvpio~Tj 
TTJS TVXIS 8ta TTJV 'A\(dvdp(iaV (pu>vdovo~iv ol 'lyvarun drro TTJV 
'AvTioxfiav, ol Ho\vKap7Toi dirb TTJV 2/j.vpvTjv ; ol Aio^fcriot tirro Tas 
'A&ffvas, ol 2,irvpid<t)V(s drrb TTJV Kinrpov, Kal dd^vovTas o~ov TOVS 
\(ovTas OTTOV TOVS e'(r^i(rai', TOIS (f)\6yais OTTOV TOVS (Kawav, 
TO. (ride pa OTTOV TOVS (fa'pivav, (\7ri(ovo-i OTTO TIJV aKpav aov 
(vo~Tr\ayxvtav TWV AXlpllCttV 7idXea>j> Kal O\TJS TTJS 'EXXafioy TTJV 

Vincentius Kornaros, author of a popular poem in the 
Cretan dialect, entitled ' Erotocritus/ is generally reckoned 
as an author of the eighteenth century, for his work was first 
published at Venice in 1756. It appears, however, that he 
was born in Sitia in Crete in the year 1620. The opening 
lines of his ' Erotocritus' are well worth quoting : 


ToC KVK\OV TO. yvpicrfj-ara TTOV dv 

Kai TOV Tpoxov IT &pais i^Xa, K copai? ora J3a6r) Trrjaivovv, 

Kai ToO Kaipov TO. Trpayfiara, TTOV aVaTraupo Sei/ 

Ma crro KO\O Kels TO KO.KO irepnraTovv KOI Tp%ovv. 

Kai rail/ dp/xarcov 17 Tapa^aiy, ai ^p^rais Kai ra 

To{) epcoToy T; efj-Tropecres KOI rrjs <pi\ias rj X a P l 

Avrai'a ^t' fKivtyraffl rrjv arjufpov fjpepav 

N' ava6r)f3aXc0 Kai vairo) TO. Kup.av Kai ra (pcpav. 

The ups and downs of fortune's wheel, whose ceaseless circling 

Now scales the heights of heaven above, now sounds the depths 

of ocean, 

With all the changing things of time, whose current resting never, 
For worse, for better, fast or slow, is stealing on for ever : 
The troublous din of armed hosts, war's train of want and sadness, 
The ways and means of desperate love, the charm of friendship's 

gladness : 

These things have moved me to recount, and publish as I may, 
The fortunes and the deeds of men while it is called to-day.' 

In the eighteenth century we are met by the names of 
Kosmas the Aetolian, an educational and religious mission- 
ary, who founded schools throughout the length and breadth 
of Greece, and Rhegas of Pherae, the great forerunner of 
Greek independence. Countenanced by Pasbanoglus, the 
Bey of Venidi, whose friendship he had gained by saving his 
life when threatened by Mavrogenes, governor of Wallachia, 
he did all he could to incite the Greeks to rebellion, and 
addressed appeals to the European Courts to obtain a 
promise of their assistance in case of insurrection. He 
was finally betrayed to the Turks at Belgrade by the 
Austrian Government, and put to death by them on the 
spot. His two war-songs, beginning AeOrc nalfes T&V 'EXX^- 

va>v and 'fis TTore TraXX^rapm va ovp.fv Vra oreva, contributed 

in no small degree to fire the Greeks with that enthusiasm 


for liberty which soon resulted in the insurrection : but 
though full of spirit and fervour, they are remarkably want- 
ing in a sense of poetic fitness, and abound with sudden 
bursts of prosaic bathos which destroy in great measure 
their effect : e. g., 

'O v6fj.os o~ 

Na /3aXere 

Na Ka^Tf TTJV apfj,d8a 

Tov KaTTiTav-iracra. (!) 

Rhegas is honourably distinguished, among the many 
glorious patriots of modern Greece, as being the only 
one who seemed to understand that the faith of Islam 
was entitled to any respect. Religious bigotry mars 
the patriotism of almost every other Greek, and of the 
larger number of Philhellenes with whom I have come in 

In illustration of Rhegas' religious tolerance I quote 
Perrhaebus, who represents him as thus addressing Pas- 
banoglus : 

*Eai> eya), /Sf'q, ecraxra TTJV fayv crou OTTO TOV Qavarov, TOVTO %TO 
XP*s /xou, dioTi dod<d OTI evas Qfos (7T\a(rev o\ov TOV Koap-ov, 
&o~Tf t?[jif6a TrXao-juara KCU TeKva fvbs rraTpbs, /cat eVo^ei/cos ade\(f)oi' 
<f)cp<t) a>s 7rapa5eiy/Aa TO ef-fjs' OTCIV tis TTCITTJP yfvvr]o~T) /ca^' vTr66fo~iv 
TroXXovs vlovs, KOI 6 p.ev e avTtov yfvrj Sep/SiV?;?, (i\\os 
TT)S, aXXoy ^(u/xoTrcoXj/y, Kal aXXot pfTa^fipto-duxriv aXXa c 
/uara, dvvavrai OVTOI vapv^dwo-i TOV Trarepa rcoi/, KOI 717^ a.8(\(po<rvvr)v 
TO>V, cvfKa TTJS diacpopas TO>V eTrayytXyLtarcoi/ ; 5t/caioOi/rat <ipa tvd>iriov 
TOV GfoO out TOVTO vo. cnroaTpefyfTai KCI\ KaTciTpfxy 6 eis TOV (iXXof, 
evw 6 TraTTjp avT&v ayarra oXou? fatoTJS ; *Eav o~v Kav^ao~ai OTI f) 
' O6(op.aviKT) TTLO~TIS fivai Ka\\iTepa d(^>' oXay, KOI tya> TrciXtv (ppova> 
OTI f) fdiKT) p.ov V7>cpl3aivi oXas 1 , Kara TOVTO o~(pu\\ofjLev Kal ol dvo 
<pi\oveiKovvTS, 8inri 6 Qfbi, a>s KOIVOS iraTrjp, StaTUTTft vu. r/p.eda 
, StKatot, <^)iXa^/3co7rot, KOI va dyaTroop-fv TOVS VTTTJKOOVS, 


Kal va p) KaTao~iKa(tip.ev avTovs avdp-cas u>s TO. aAoya akz, Kaff oo~ov 
Se d(popa els ra 6pr)o~KevTiKa } fjfiels $ev e^oaev eovo~iav va eera- 
a>p,ez> Kal 8ia<piXoveiK)p.ev otra dvrjKovv els TOV QeoV fjaels ovre 
e'idouev, ovTe rjKovo-auev, ovre els Kavev ftijBXiov evpopev 
OTI 6 Qeos e7raiSev(re TOV SeTi/a diori TJTO TovpKos, fj TOV delva 
T}TO xpianavbs, rj TOV delva Stort TJTO f)\iocre\r)vo\dTpr]s K. T. X. /3Ae'- 
7TOfj,ev opens KCI\ d.Kovop.ev, Kal els TO. /3t/3Xt'a evpiaKOfiev ye-ypap.p.evov, 
ort 6 Qeus 7rai8evo~e KCU rraiftevei TTUVTOTC TOVS TvpavvovvTas TO 
7T\d(rp.a TOV, TOVS doe\<povs TCOV. 

Speaking of the Sultan he uses the remarkable expression, 

eeK\ive UTTO TOV dpop,ov TOV Qeov } KOI (as if Synonymous) Tas 
VTO\as TOV Kopaviov. 

That we may see side by side with this religious large- 
heartedness its natural counterpart, a deadly intolerance of 
tyranny, we will here give the oath which was administered 
by Rhegas to all his confederates : 

'Q, Pa(Ti\v TOV KoafMov, 6pKtopai els ere, 
^TTJV yvu>fjir]v Toil/ Tvpdvvcov va. p.rjv e'X^co Trore' 
Mr]T va TOVS SouXevo-o), p-f]Te va 
Ei? ra ra^i/LiaTa TO>V va. ar] 
Evoora) a> s TOV Koo~p,ov } 6 p.6vos p.ov O~KOTTOS 
Tov va TOVS d(pavio~a> va rjvai ora^epoV 
IIio-Toy els Trjv Trarp/Sa ovvrpi&v TOV vyov, 
Ki a^copttrroy va ^crca OTTO TOV crTpanjyov. 
K av 7rapn/3a TOV SpKov, v darpd^j} 6 ovpavos, 
Kai va pe KaTaKavarj, va yeV a>o~av 

In 1777 was born at Larissa, in Thessaly, Constantine 
Cumas, author of a great number of geographical, mathe- 
matical, and philosophical works : for the sake of its 
Platonic spirit I give the following extract : 

AXX fii/at, rrpbs Albs, (ppoviuos TCKTOW OO~TIS dyopdei aKeTrapviov 
Kai Trpioviov ra oTrota euTro^i^ovTai dnb TTJV xpvcra>o-iv Kal TOVS ciXXovs 


i/a KTr\T)paxr(i)O-i TO. i'fiia OVTU>V fpya, rjyovv TO ev va 
a, TO Se eTepov va irpiovifa ; aTrapaXXa/cra Trao^ft, vop,ia>, ocrrts 
8ia va aroX/a^ T^I/ -yXaicrcrai/ p.e yeviKas drroXvTovs /cai SOTIKOS KOI 
dvdyKTjv Xef-ets dcrvveidicrrovs, KivdvvfVd va. TTJV KaTacrrfjcrr) 
(is TOVS aKovovras fj 

The greatest name that appears at the end of the 
eighteenth century is that of Adamantios Coraes, the great 
patriot and linguistic reformer, and one of the most 
celebrated literati of Europe. 

It is quite a mistake to suppose that Coraes produced 
any revolution in the language of modern Greece, or that 
it is an artificial dialect resuscitated from the grave. The 
modern Greek of newspapers, novels, sermons, &c., is not 
half so artificial or pedantic as the writings of the Atticists 
of the paracme, or even as the Greek of Chrysostom and 
other fathers of the Eastern Church. All that Coraes did 
was to set an example to his countrymen in regard to style 
and the choice of words, which they were not slow to follow. 
His reform was a very simple one : he proposed to use the 
classical terminations, wherever these were not altogether 
obsolete, in preference to those which prevailed in the 
mouths of the common people; and in addition to this, 
to banish as far as possible all the foreign words which 
had crept into the language, and substitute Greek words, 
often new compounds, in their place. 

Coraes was born in Smyrna on April 27, 1748, studied 
in Amsterdam for six years, and for another six in France, 
at Montpellier, where he received the degree of Doctor of 
Medicine. In 1788 he came to Paris, and was there during 
the Revolution. Here he spent the greater part of his life. 
Here he wrote letters to his countrymen, encouraging them 
in the struggle for freedom, to which Rhegas was already 
instigating them ; and here he pursued those literary 


studies which have established his fame as an European 

His published works are as follows : 

La Me'decine Clinique. Montpellier, 1787 (p-frdcppaa-ts 

K TOV yepp-aviKov TOV Selle). 

Introduction a I'e'tude de la Nature et de la Me'decine. 

Catechisme Orthodoxe Russe (from the German of 
Plato, Archbishop of Moscow). 

Vade-mecum du Me'd.ecin. Montpellier (from the Eng- 

Esquisse d'une Histoire de la Me'decine. Paris, 1767 
(from the English). 

Pyretologiae Synopsis. Montpellier, 1786. 

'A.Se\<ptKr) 8i8a<7KaXia, an answer to IIcn-piK?) SiKacTKaXi'a, a 

forgery of the Turkish Government, published under 
the name of Anthimus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, for 
the purpose of allaying the tumultuary tendencies of 
the Greek subjects of the Porte. 

Les Caracteres de The'ophraste. 1799. 

Traite* d'Hippocrate, des airs, des eaux et des lieux. 
Paris, 1806. 

Ibid., second edition, with Greek Title. 1816. 

~BeKKapiov Trepi d8cKT]p,a.T(iov KOI TTOIV&V. Paris, 1802, 1823. 

2a\7noyza TroAe/iiaT^pioi/. Paris, 1803. (On the death of 

'HXio&opou AlOioTTiKa /3i/3Xia dew. Paris, 1804. In two 


Lettre du Docteur Coray sur le testament secret des 
Athe'niens, dont parle Dinarque dans la harangue 
centre Demosthenes. 

AidXoyo? dvo Tpai<cci> KarotKOiV rrjs Bei/eria?. 1805. Kai ev 

"YSpa, 1825. 
UpodpojJios 'EXXrjviKrjs jSt^Xio^KTjy. 18091827. 


T) j3ip\iodr]Kii. Paris, 1807-1835. 15 vols. (con 
sisting of editions of classical authors, with notes). 

Udpepya 'EXA. &tf3kio0r)Krjs. 18091827. 9 vols. 
'lAtaSoy pa-^to&im A. l8ll 1820. 
Atarpi/3?) avrocrxcdios Trepi ro{} 7Tpi(3or)Tov 

Paris, 1818-1825. 2 vols. 

IfpariKos. 1831. 
iepas KaTrjxTjareus. 
Ai>Tol3ioypa(pia. 1833. 

Besides numberless articles in the ' Logics Hermes/ a Greek 
periodical published in Vienna, on philological and political 

On his death he left his library and MSS. to the Gym- 
nasium at Chios, the birthplace of his ancestors. His 
unpublished works are more numerous, if not more volumi- 
nous, than those which have been given to the world. 
Besides this, the margins of many of his books are crowded 
with notes in his handwriting. 

Few countries, none certainly save Germany, can show 
such a literary Hercules as Adamantios Coraes, the second 
Leo Allatius of Greece. Would that some enterprising 
compatriot would undertake the complete publication of 
all his works. 

As contemporaries of Coraes we may mention, out of 
many literary men of no mean deserts, Constantine Oeko- 
nomos, whose turgid style formed as striking a contrast to 
the simplicity of Coraes as did, on the other hand, the 
abandoned vernacular of Jakobos Rhizos Nerulos, the 
unsparing satirist of the ' Logics Hermes ' and its promul- 

I give three short extracts to illustrate the above remark, 
taken respectively from the Ai/ro/3toypa0m of Coraes, the 


treatise Hep} Trpocpopds of Oekonomos, and the Ropa/ao-rim, a 
satirical comedy of Nerulos, in which I need hardly say the 
are the foltowers of Coraes : 

"OOTIS IcrTopii rbv 'iSiov ftiov xpeoooTel va o'rjp.eimo'rj KOI TCI /rarop- 
6<ap.aTa Kal ra a/zaprjjp-ara TTJS fays TOV, p,e TOCTTJV aKpifteiav wore 
p.r)T TO irpcoTa va p,ya\vvr], p.rjT ra SevTepa va o~p,iKpvvrj fj va trteoTra 
Travrdnao'L' Trpaypa SutrKoXcorarov 5ia TTJV e/j.<pvTov els o\ovs f) 
<pi\avTtav. "Ocrns a^i^tjSaXXet irepl rovrou, ay Kap.rj TTJV ireipav va 
X a P<*fl $vo p.6vov (TTLXOVS rrjs (3ioypa<plas rov Kal 6f\ei KaraX<z/3ei 
TTJV 8vcTKO\iav. Cor (US } Avro/3toypa0i'a. 

To Trcpl yvrjcrias ra>v e\\r)viK<Ji)v ypap-pdruv 7rpo<popds 
7rpd/3Xj;/Lia Trpo rpicov fjdr) ala>vu>v els TTJV Evpairrjv avacpvev, V 
iro\\aKis els TroXXouf 7ro\\S)v Kal p.fyd\u>v (rvfaTTjcre&v inrodecris. 
Oekonomos, Ilepl 7rpo(popas. 

The studied rhythm and inflated style is worthy of a 

Etrai dvo xpovia ro>pa OTTOU 6 Trare'pas /LIOU appcoo-ret cm tv aXXd- 
KOTO irados TO va 6ui\fj KopaKKTTiKa, KOI aXXo 8ev Ka[j.vfi Ttapa va 
va 7r\aTTrj Xeaty dvr)Kov(TTais K.a\ 7rapdfvais, va 
a^ /cart 5ta/3oXo^;apra rvrrco/ieVa, OTTOV ra 6vop.dovv Aoyiov 
KOI va ypd<prj Kal va XaX^ yXcoo'cra, OTTOV TTJV drjfjLtovpyfl 
6 idios. Ti va /cafia) ; yia va TOV inroxpeucra), /3tao> TOV CUVTOV 
P.OV va p.d6(t) avTals Tals a^SeVrarais 1 <p\vapias } Kal p oXov onov 
8ev yvpva rj yXSxrcrd p.ov *s aura ra Karapa/zeVa KopaKia-TiKa, 
jj. oXov roCro, cjretdr} Kal TO. Xarpeuei, /Sta^o/aat Keyui va TOV 
6/xiXo) rj) -yXaJo-o-a rou, Kal eis Ka6e Xe|i 'diKrjTov OTTOV fjdeXa irpo- 
TJV v%r) TOV, JVerulos, KopaKioTi/ea. 

Modern Greece has produced but few authoresses : of 
these Angelica Palle, chiefly known by her ode on the 
' Death of Lord Byron/ which I shall here quote, belongs to 
the beginning of the nineteenth century. 



Tovs \afjLirpovs vpvovs TTJS VIKTJS dfpivav 
K\av6p.S)V r}X f ~ L f]pa>(*>v o or parts' 
HiKp&s XuTroui/r' at ^u^ai TWV 'E\\r)va>v, 
T' aKovfi aicodev <a 


O (f)l\OS Tj\0' 7T\T)V fJ.6\lS TOV Cl 

SfcaTTTOW K\aiovTs TOV rd(pov CLVTOV, 
Iftov TO reXoy ev86a)v e\Tri8a)V, 
Kal TO Tpoiraiov 6avarov crK\r)pov. 

HX^e va ffnrvevo-ri as oXXoj 

ElS Ka0 (TTT]doS TTO\fJLO)V 6pp,t)V' 

II\f)V, (pev, 6 BapSo? eXTTiVas 
'l8ov p.Vfi els alaviov a-iooTrrjv. 


Sis devdpov KeTr' 677' ocoaym 
T^v Kopv<pr)v p.ov(riKov Hapvacr&ov' 
NiJi/ ?rp6 Tro8S)v (pdfipov(rd TOV TO KaXXo? 
Ilvor) TO fppi^f dvffjiov cr(f)o8pov 


'EXXa? ! cav TO crwfia TOV ff 'AyyXi'a 
Na ^>epi7 eis fii/^fia ^V/ra 
EtTre, Movcraii> w p.r)Tepa 

TCKVOV p-ov 6 vlbs TU>V M.OWT&V, 

reov f'pwTcoi/ TOVJ Qprjvovs, 


TOVS Kiv8vvovs, 
Td(pov as fXV *lpto<i>v 'y TTJV ytjv. 

Angelica Palle compares very favourably indeed with Felicia 

The metre is one peculiarly liable to run into jingle, from 


which it is only preserved by the retarding effect of a 
judicious irregularity in the word accent, and the frequent 
substitution of single syllables lengthened by TOM) for the 
trochees which form the first part of the dactyls. 

The great lyrical poet of Greece is, however, Athanasios 
Christopulos, who was born at Kastoria, in Macedonia, in 
1772, and who died in Moldavia, where he held the office of 
judge, in 1847. He is sometimes called the modern 
Anacreon, but is too original a poet to need any such 
metonym. Unfortunately, his undoubted genius was con- 
secrated chiefly to the glory of the wine -bottle, yet he wrote 
some love-songs of exquisite tenderness and beauty, which 
have been copied without acknowledgment by various 
modern poets. Consciously or unconsciously, the ' Night- 
ingale ' of Christopulos is certainly at the foundation of the 
' Swallow ' of Tennyson. Inasmuch as the nightingale 
sings, and the swallow only twitters, I confess I prefer the 
Greek to the English poet in this particular case. 

For four of the following examples I am indebted to 
C. C. Felton's ' Selections from Modern Greek Writers/ 


Na f) Tpi%s crov d 
'kflavdaie v dcnrpifrvv 

Na daicpvwv 
Na ere Xeyei Kal 6 "Ep 
irXebv flcrai yepos, 

'2 TO efjs KaXi) 

Ta <pi\f)p,(iT a(pr)(T TO, 

S/^ao-e Ta Trapevdvs, 
Kat ap%iva p,e vyeia 
Ta rriKpa TO. yeparcla 

2 TO fr)S va. TO. yfvdfjs. 



A6i/ ere irpeirovv TO rpayovdia, 

nij-y' tKfivos 6 
Totpa rd<f>os 

Teopa Xapos \VTrr) pos ! 
"Odev TrXeoi/ eroi/zacrov, 
'P^e oXa TO KaXd crou, 

Kai ra 5d*cpua /Sdcrra povov 
Ets r^v XUTTT;I/ K' ets rov TTOVOV 

Mia /itK/3)7 Traprjyoptd ! 

Ila ! 

TTLKpifavV ] 

Tt \' 7] ao~7rpr) TOVS f 
Totyap T a<nrpo 6ava.T6vci J 
* H (bi\cbvTas dyicvXovci, 

Ta ^etXaKta 's i 
To Tpavrd<pv\\6 /nay, f 
To XovXovSt TO>J> 'Epoorwv 

Eivai ao-npo Ka6ap6' 
Kai TO KOKKIVO 17 (pixris 
To <rvyKtpao~ev eirio~r)s 

M* fva xP^f" do'irpov8fp6. 

'H fJLVpTia TTJS *A.(f)pOO'lTT]S 

Els TO irpd<Tivo K\a8i rrjs, 

MeV s TO. <pv\\a Ta ^Xo>a 
*OXa xarao-Trpa, crav ^'ow, 
Ta XouXoufiia T^y (pvrpovei 

T* dv0T)pd, Kai Tpv(pcpd. 


Kai 6 Atas 6 

Fia T^S A.r)8as TOV TO KaXXoy 

KVKVOS yivue /zta (f)opd. 
N' aTroSei^ ' ets /ca^e pepos, 
*A<rirpais Tpijftus 0e\ y 6 ^Epcay, 

2ai/ TOU KVKVOV ra (j)Tepd. 

To \onrbv Key' oo-o de\i t 
As dcnrpia> dev jue fieXet, 

Ilai^reXai? ei> /ne XVTTO' 
Ort oo'o iravr atnrpifa, 
Tocro TrXeoj/ i/oori/it^a), 

Too* 6 epcoy ^i' ayaTra. 


*As yfvovfwvv Kadpe<pT7)sl 

Not /3Xe7reo-ai '$ ep,eva, 
K cya) va /SXeTrca Trai/ra 

To KaXXos (rov, K' ecreva. 
As yevovp,ovv ^revaiu ! 

2iya crtya i/' ap^L^at 
^" ^X'T" 3 r " /iaXXta o-ov, 

Na cr* ra 
As fji 

Kat oXoy i/a Kivrjcr<o 
2 ra (rrf]0T) crov va Trecro), 

rXu/ca va ra (frvarrjcrci). 
As fjiiow reXos virvos ! 

Na ep^co/zat ro /SpaSt;, 
Na Sevco ra -yXv/ca (rov 

Mara/aa 's TO a/coraSt. 

depaKrjs ! 




KiV drjftovaKi p.ov Ka\6 } 
Ktra Kai irdye VTO -ytaXo 

Trjv aKpiftr) irov 

Na Tray va p.e TTJV fvprjs' 
Kai <rav TTJV @pfjs KOI TTJV I 

ca yXvKa p, 
Na (TKv^rj va ere irdprj 
*Av or fpu>Tr}(rrj ri V ecru ' 

Kat iroios ere oreXm air TO vr\ai\ 
EtTre, Troy eifiai fiaipo 
novXt crrevayno<p6po \ 

Has 6 d(f)fVTT]s pov e'Sai 

Me (rreXvfi va <re 
Ta TTQ^T; /iou 
Me /Me'Xo? pa cr* ra Xe'ya). 

"Yorepa tr/c^e TOTretva 

Kat XaX^o-e TT/V viyavd, 

Kat opKiv rrjv \ ra 
2roi> Kop(po va (re 

*A.)( drjbovoKi p.' SeV 

0a ere ro TTW, E?crat Trtoro J 
'ETT/jSouXo /ij) ye'j/J/ff 
2rcW K^TTOJ' TToO tp-Traiveis. 


' Fly, nightingale, to yonder shore ; 
Fly, fly, what need I tell thee more : 
Go find me out my dearest, 
Go, if my prayer thou hearest. 
And when my dearest thou hast found, 
Begin to sing thy sweetest sound, 

That she may stoop and take thee, 
And her companion make thee. 



And if she then shall make demand, 
Who sent thee from the island strand, 
Say, " Hither come I flying, 
A bird of saddest sighing; 
My master sends me for a gift, 
That I in song my voice may lift 
To tell how he doth languish, 
And warble all his anguish." 
Then like a suppliant appear, 
And whisper softly in her ear, 
And plight thy master's duty, 
Swearing by all her beauty. 
Placed in the garden of her breast 
Ah nightingale, I cannot rest, 
Uneasy fears dismay me, 
Lest there thou shouldst betray me. 


"OTUV iriva* TO Kpacrdu 
2ro xpuo-d /xov TTOTrjpaKi 
Kai 6 vovf pMV a\i(r6rj' 
ToV dp)(ia) Kal 
Kat yeXai Kat 
K^ far) p! ci>xapicrTcl. 
Tort TTUVOVV 77 (ppovTidei 
Tore crftvvovv y e\Tri8es 
Tore (pevyovv of Kairvoi. 
KJ^ Kapdid P.OV ya\r)vici, 
Kat ro o'r^^ds' fiou ap^t 
N' dva<raivrj, v dvaTrvfj' 
Yia TOV Kuafiov 8ev u. 
'As yvpt'tfl, oTTwy ^e'Xet, 
To Kpao-a/a /^ou va ^. 
'H xai/ara j/a /i^ o-ru\^ 
ATT' ro ?rXayi vet 
N' d7roddva>p, 

M 2 


"Ooro e%u> TOVTOV) TOVTOV 
Tov aKfMTov p.ov irXovTov, 
Kocro mvo) Kdl pov<p)' 
"OAa o-Ky/3aAa ra e 
Eiy Kaveva dev 
Kat Kaveva 8ev 

From these examples it will be seen that Christopulos 
adopted the language of the common people in literary com- 
position. He had a theory that the vernacular was nothing 
but Aeolo- Doric, and that it ought so to be called, and, as 
Mr. Sophocles emphatically observes, 'it was called Aeolo- 
Doric.' After which I think nothing further can be said on the 
subject ; except it be that Christopulos was the author of an 
' Aeolo-Doric ' Grammar, and several other works, trans- 
lations, &c., in the same dialect. 

Before proceeding to our contemporaries in Greek litera- 
ture I will say a few words on the popular poetry, the name- 
less and numberless ballads, which after all are the pride of 
modern as of ancient Greece. 

However glorious and unparalleled the Iliad and the 
Odyssee may be, as works of genius, yet the mind that 
brought them forth remains a great unknown, and in their 
origin 'and first publication they were just as much ballads 
as the popular poetry of Greece. 

It has been already frequently remarked how curiously the 
old mythology of Greece survives in the popular superstitions, 
and yet at the same time how strangely it is modified. 
Charon for example, as in the following poem, appears 
rather as the Hermes Pompeios than the genuine Charon 
of the ancients. 



Ti efrat pavpa ra fiovvd, Kal OTfKOW j3ovpKO>neva ', 
Mfjv aW/xos ra rroXejaa; \ir\va. jSpo^j) TO. fipv; 
K* ot>8' avejjLos TO. 7roXe/ua, K' ouSe /3po^^ ra depvei 
Move 5ta/3aiV 6 Xapovra? /Lie TOWS' airfBap-^evovs' 
Sepvei TOVS viovs dno ffjurpoo-rd, rovs yepovras 
Ta Tpvfpfpa TTatSoTrouXa 's ri^f creXX' 

z/ ot yepovres, K ol veoi 

fJiov, Kove^ els x^P 1 ^ KOVC^/ els xpva ftpvcri, 
Na TTIOVV ol yepovres vepo, K ol vio\ va \i6apio~ovv, 
Kai ra fiiKpa 7raido7rov\a va fjido~ovv \ov\ovdaKia*' 
' K* ov8' els ^wpio Kovevat ya>, K ovde els Kpva ftpvcrC 
"EP^OPT* f] p.dvves yid vepd, yva>piovv TO. TratSid TK>V' 
Tva>piovTai T' ai>Spo'ywa, KOI ^ajpio-juo 8ev 

Of the so-called Klephtic Ballads, the finest with which I 
am acquainted is 

'O fj\tos eftao-iXeve, K 6 &TJUOS fiiara^ei* 
1 StJpTe, TraiSta juou, '? TO vepdv, "^cofju va (par aTro^/e. 
Kai <TV, AauTrpaKT) p dvetyif, KaBov c5a) 
Na ! T (ipfAaTa uov <p6peo~e, va foai 
Kal o~els, TratSia p,ov, irdp'.Te TO eprjuo o~7ra6i p.ov, 
Ilpdo-iva Ko^eTe K\a8id, o~Tpa>o-T p.ov va Ka$ura>, 
Kai (pepre TOV Trvev^ariKo va jjC eop.o\oyT)crg' 
Na TOV elrrS) Ta KpiaaTa jrov e^u> Ka/iw/^Va, 
Tpiavra XP OV '- daapTa)X6s, K' e'iKoo~i irevTe K\e(pTr]s' 
Kal Tcopa ju,' rjp&e BdvaTos, Kai 6e\a> v dnaiSdva). 
Kdp.CTe TO Ki&ovpi ftov ir\aTi>, 1^)7X0 va yevrj, 
Na o"Te*c 6p6bs va TroXepw, Kai SiVXa va ye^ii^ut. 
K' OTTO TO uepos TO Sf^t d^rfO'Te Trapadvpi, 
Ta ^eX(8dwa va 'p^tovTat, TTJV civoiiv va (pepovv, 
Kal T dr)8ovia TOV /eaXov Mai' va ue p.a6aivovv.' 


I offer the following as a nearly literal translation : 

The sun was falling from his throne when Demos thus commanded : 
' Oh ! children, get you to the stream, to eat your bread at even ; 
And thou, Lambrakes, kinsman mine, come near and sit beside me ; 
There, take the armour which was mine, and be like me a captain. 
And ye, my children, take in charge the sword by me forsaken; 
Cut branches from the greenwood tree, and spread a couch to rest 

Go fetch me now the priest of God, that he may come and 

shrive me, 

For I would tell him all the sins that I have ere committed, 
While thirty years a man-at-arms, one score and five a robber. 
And now to take me death has come, and I for death am ready. 
Then make my tomb on every side right broad, and high above me, 
That I may upright stand to fight, and stoop to load my musket : 
And on the right hand side, I pray, leave me a little window, 
Where swallows in the early year may bring the springtime with 

And of the merry month of May the nightingales may tell me.' 

As a fitting accompaniment to this I would cite another 
beautiful ballad, entitled 


Sa/SjSaroi/ o\ov TTiVa/Ae, TTJV KVpiaK okrjpepav, 
Kal TTJV devTtpav TO Trovpvov [Tr/jcotf] eVadi? TO Kpacri pat. 
*O Kairerdvos /u.' etrraXf i/a irdot Kpacri va 


Ka (va p.ovo7ra.Tta. 

To fioi/OTrdr* p? fj3ya\ at p.iav -^rrjXrjv paxov\av~ 
o\' OTTO 

Aev fifia, icai TO TraTrjtra airavu 'OTO Ke(pd\i' 
Eofjv (iKOvo) Kal (BpovTrjv OTTO TOV KCLTM Koa-fiov. 
Tt fX fis f^vfj/jia Kal /Soyyas Kal ' J3apvavao-Tevdfis 
TO x^ a a v ^ a P"> V^] va ^ fiavpij TrXaxa 
TO XP a / i ^ /^ a P f '> ^^^ *) fjuivpi] 7rXa/ca, 


MoV ro^o) pdpav K evrpOTrrjv K evens Kav^iov 
To TT&S /xe KaTcKppovqcrfs, fie irdrrjcrfs V TO K(f)d\i' 
Ta^a 8eV fjfiovv K eya> veos ] 8ev fjp.ovv 7raX\r]K.dpi ', 
Aev eVepTrarTjcra eya> ryv VVKTO. p.e fayydpt ; 
ihe following is given to show how the notion of the 
consciousness and, as it were, suppressed vitality of the dead 
is further connected with the old superstition of daemons or 
genii, which belongs not only to Greece, but to Eastern 
belief generally, as we see in the 'Arabian Nights.' In 
modern Greece the o-Tot^eToz/ seems always of a malevolent 
disposition ; and that that was the case in the early ages of 
Christianity we may infer from the use of daipoviov in the 
New Testament. Sad to say, this superstition has been 
known to result in human sacrifice, as in the case of the 
Bridge of Arta, which, according to the popular ballad, could 
not be built securely until the little daughter of the master- 
builder had been sacrificed to the genius of the place, by 
being thrown down and buried in the stones, which were to 
form the foundation of the structure. 

Do we not find traces of this dark superstition, which, like 
other dark superstitions, the Greeks seem to have borrowed 
from the East, in Joshua's curse pronounced over Jericho 
(Josh. vi. 26)? 'Cursed be the man before the Lord, that 
riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho : he shall lay the 
foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son 
shall he set up the gates thereof.' See the fulfilment of this 
curse in i Kings xvi. 34. And is it not a significant fact 
that the story of the 'temptation' of Abraham to offer up 
Isaac is associated with Mount Moriah, one of the hills upon 
which, according to tradition, Jerusalem was built ? 

'Ei^eff xiovt \|^i^aSiCT6 K 6 'idvvijs e 
TdVoi/ rpayovSif y\vKa KOI i/dori/ia 


Tov irr)p dcpas TTJV (p(ovf)v V TOV Apdnovros TTJV (pepei. 

'EftyfJK 6 ApaKos K etire TOV, 'lai/j/^, 6e va ere <dya>, 

Ftan Apdxo, ytart Ocpib, yiari 6a p.e crKoroocnjy ] 

Ftari diaftaivfis irdpatpa KOI Tpayovftels Travovpya' 

SVTTVO.S T* drjBovi air rats (pa>\iais KOI TO. 7rov\ia V TOUS 


SvTrvas K ep.e TOV ApaKovra p,e rr)v Apa/coi/Ticr(ra p.ov, 
A(pes fJic ApaKo va 8ia@a>, a(pcs fJ.e va Trepacrco' 

M e^et yia Trptorov UOVO-IKOV irp&rov Tpayovdiorfjv rov. 

The forms ApaKos nom., 8pd<ovTos gen., and 8pd<o voc., seem 
to show that dpdKos is not a metaplastic form, but rather a 
relic of the original form SpaKovrs, of which another modern 
form is dpdxovras, obtained by the insertion of a vowel to 
facilitate pronunciation. 

We will conclude these examples of the popular poetry 
of Greece with two more pieces, the first illustrative of the 
personification of Death as Xdpos : 

Et^e TO 0ccri rov orpa/3a Kai TO. ua\\ia K\a>(rp.fva' 
Kai Xdpos TOV ayvdvrfvfv arro ^i\T)v pa\ov\av, 
Kai (Is (TTfvbv KaTfftrjKe K (Kel TOV KapTcpovo-f' 
Toflev epxco-ai ; \0fvnj TTOV Trrjyaivcis ', 
TO. -IT para ep^ouai, <r TO o-TT^rt /iov Trrjyaivat' 
Tldyca va irdpw TO ^co/it, K' oTTi'cra) va yup/crto. 
Ke/acVa p? eWftA' 6 Qebs va irdpu) TTJV 
*A<po-c uc Xdpe, a<po~f fi, TrapaKoXS) va 
"E^a> yuvaiKa Trdpa vtav na\ 8ev TTJS irpfirft X*IP a ' 
*Ai> 7T(p7raTr}(TT] yXlycapa, \fyovv TTWS &'X avdpa, 
Kav 7rp7raTr](TT) rjo-vxa, Xeyovv Trcoy Kapapovfi, 
^E^o) Tratfiia ai/f/Xi/ca *cat opfpav 1 dirop.VT)o~KOvv' 
Ko \dpos 8ev TOV iJKovcrf, Ka\ fj0f\f va TOV 
Xdpe <rav diro^do-ia-es Kai ^'Xetv va pe irdpys 


Fta eXa va TraXe^cojue ere fw.ppapv 

Kaz> jue viKycrys Xape p,ov, p.ov Traipvfis TTJV 

Kav ere vtKrjcra) ?raX' eya> irrjyaivf '$ TO Ka\6v aov. 

'Errrjyav Kai eVaXei^av aV TO Trpan a>s TO yfvp.a } 

KavTov KOVTO. V TO 8ei\ivbv TOV Kara/Sai/' 6 Xapos. 

The following lines, sung from house to house at the 
approach of spring, by children, are plainly a remnant of 
the ^^oW/Aa of the ancients : 

XeXt&ora ep^fTdi 
'ATT' TT)V ao-irpav 6d\ao~crav. 
Ka^tre KOI XaX^cre' 
Maprt, fjidpTi p,ov KaXe, 
Kai (p\f(3dpr) 


Before closing this chapter, a few words are due to our 
contemporaries. The writings of many modern Greek prose 

authors, as for instance the 'lo~TOpia TTJS 'E\\rjviKTJs 7ravao~Tdo-a>s 

by Spyridon Tricupes, and the namo-a-a 'Iwdwa of Roi'des, 
are well known in England, and have been reviewed in some 
of our leading journals. Professor Asopios is well known 
by his Ela-ayayr) els uiv^apov, and Professor Damalas by his 
Uepl apxtov. Papparregopulos' history of Greece is remark- 
able for its clear and simple style, and the unstudied purity 
of its language. I shall content myself with laying before 
the reader a few specimens of verse from the pens of living 
or but lately deceased poets. 

A. R. Rangabes, late Greek Ambassador in Paris, is 
known not only as a scholar and archaeologist, but also as 
a poet. In his lighter moods, as a satirist, he recalls to our 
minds something of the great Greek comedian whom it is 
not unfair to suppose he imitates : 


Kat ra^a iroiovs \6yovs ttr^vpovj, a-ocpovs, 
irpOTfivfTf ', 's avrov TOV aW/zd/ivXoi/ 
TTOV f3d(pfTf, d(nrpifTf, /crej/i'ere, 
oyovpaiverf KOI \d6os ovop.deTf 
o~fls at yvvaiKfs Kf(pa\r}v } va p,dda>p,ev 
dev T)p.7Topovp,ev Trolos ai/fjuo? (pvo-q j 

Tov K0(rp,ov TOV virovpyiKOv TOV v A.T\avra 

as -\jsd\7] Trdv crro/ua' 

TTJV evyevrj TOV Kopv<pr)v <pi\6doos 

avdiTTei (payovpa. 
Tis oifie dd<pvai av (pvTpovovv els avTrjv " } 

T) CVTOfAO. j36o-KOVV ' } 

"Etv AiTj/a f] Kapftia KTJ KoiX/a TOU 
(po[3ov Tas 

A. &.v KaTOpdd>o~r]s va p.e Ka^irjs VTrovpyov 
XpfideTat TratSfia lacos ; av avTo, 
ofioXoyS) Trojy dev TTJV e^to. B. o^t 8a I 
Kaipos Sev elvat OTTOV elda imovpybv, 

K eK.pd.TCL TO KOvdvXl TOV 0)S 8lK\\aV 

K eo~Ka7rrev viroypa(pf)v, /cat wpoiafav 
TO. ypa/i/zara TOV KaKorjOeiat p.via>v. 

So much for the politics of Athens. The newspaper 
editor Sphecias describes himself as the editor of the 'Eatan- 
swill Gazette' might have done : 

IIoo? fiVat 7r\fjV evdfit^a 
els Tas 'Adrjvas (pv\\a irtpKTO'OTfpa 
c<f)T)fj.fpio'a>v Trapd (pv\\a 7Tpdo~iva. 
A. Eii'e TroXXa, aXX* OVK ev r< iroXXai TO ev. 
To (pv\\ov fiov five KavTrjpiov ov, .... 
KTJ vftpis fiov five yvp.vr) KCU uvuio'i)s, 
eiv e^tdva, ew ep.7rpr)o~TT)pios 8av\6s. 



8t8d(rK(ov TO. pr/Ta. KCU TO. dir6ppr)Ta 

Eiy TTJS opy^s fiov, av&pomre, TO (pvo~r]p.a 

6k va Tre'cr' r) vea (rov 
CLVTT) irov 

The power of Russia is thus finely described : 

'O ylyas TTJS itr^uos pas %a>v arrpa>p.vr)V TOVS irayfrovs, 
rr]v dixriv KOL dvaroXfjv arvve^ ' f s ayied\as rov. 
y A8dp,as els TO ore/i/ia TOV TOV IIoXou XafiTrei 6 do-Trjp' 
Trarei K WTO TO /3^/Lia TOV (rxL^ovr oi irdyoi TOV Ovpd\' 

K CIV f) TTVof) TOV CTTJ]6oV5 TOV VTTfpftopfia 6v\\CL. 

The following appear from the headings to be founded on 
German originals : 


OS; Sag' an o lieber Vogel mein. 

IIov /i' a7rXo))Lieva ra irrfpa 
TTfTas \(VKT) Trepio~Tfpa, 

or' e<j> y fji 

TOVS Trayovy <ptpft TOV f3oppd ', 

'"OTTOU 77 avoids yt\a, 
Kai avpai rrvtovv &7ra\a 

fKei TTCTC!) 

TO (pas TJT) 
r)TG> TO. av6rj TO. 

UTTJVOV p.r) (pevyrjs, 
trots p.ds 

fld\TT6l TO TTVp T&V Kap8t)t>. 


r) KctpSia (pi\iKr] 
TraXXei rravrov. Aei> /iot d 
fjids drravra, 
yopyf] TTfra 

Kflg evas OTCyOS 


OS; Leise fliehen meine Lieder. 

MrjV Kot/zaorat, ^ (TfXjJw; 
Xa/X7rei dpyvpa, 

Kdl TTjV KOp.T]V TT]S KTlVl 

els <rTi\7rva vepd. 

*Ej3ya' va I8rjs' fls <pv\\a 

fls TO (pa>s XP vcr <* 
\apvyyi TJ ^tXo/ij^Xa 

da/ua ws rd era. 

AKOVCTOV ri \^ciXX' f) yXaxTtra 

17 p.ayfVTiKr). 
2u TO (pwg) KOI (ri> f) a><ra 


To Trdv ir\rjpfs (ippovias 
KOI Oepp-wv 7raXp.(0>v. 


" Avoi^nv (t>paia 

i/a crKiprfjO'' 77 yfj' 
Ka\ fvros fjiov v dvarclXr) 

TrdpifpooTos avyr). 

At ^u^ai fias 8e, wy TOVOS 

s v dva/3ovv 
fls rov ovpavov. 


A very popular poet in Greece is Zalacostas, who has 
been dead some ten years or more, a voluminous translator 
from Italian poets, and as an original writer full of power 
and imagination, though rather unequal in felicity. He has 
the merit, if merit it be, of introducing a vast variety of new 
metres into modern Greek versification. He would appear 
to have passed the greater part of his life in conversation 
with the manes of Greek heroes and martyrs, indignant at 
the degradation of their country. 

The following may serve as an example : 

Ely TOV Tvpftov eKelvov irXrjo-iov, 

r]ve<a^drj pe irdrayov %do~p.a' 

Kai TTJS yrjs eic TO>V o-ir\dy%v(i>v T>V Kpvwv 

eTivd^drj deKaTrrjxy (dcr/ia. 

*A ! dev TJTO TOV vov p.ov aTTUTrj, 

P-T]T (fipovftov TOV (f)6j3ov fLOV 

B\o(rvpbv TrepiecTTpecpe 'part, 
Kai \ap,7rd8a (pXoywv 
fj.e TTJV aVap/ca 

eV apfTpov yvpov 
6 aWrjp KOI f] yrf KOI ol \idoi, 
Kai fj KOVIS avrrj TO>V papTvpav 
* * * * * 

Tovs ycvvaiovs pas fjAprvpas eiSa 
ocroi eTrccrov Tnoreoos (plXot 
5ia \iiav OavovTfs Trarpida. 

s, (TKvdpatTrol Kai opyiXoi 

.e\r) 6\aap.eva 
/cat 7r\7]ya>v dia^aivovra 

Aristoteles Valaorites writes for the common people in 
vernacular Romaic. 

f o EpvKoXaKas, ' The Vampire/ is thus described, or rather 


addressed by the widow of the deceased Thanases Vagias, a 
notorious wretch : 

Ties p.ov TI (rreK<rai Qavdo~r), 6pd6s, 

TIO.TI, Qavdcrrj pov, ftyaivcis TO /SpaSu j 
"Yirvos yia (rtvave ftfv flv 'crrbv 

Ta>pa 7repd<rave 
Ba$eta (/fppi^ave pecra 'or^ yrj. 
vya cnr\a-)(yi<Tov p.e. Qa 

2ra<rou pcucpiirepa. ...... Tiari fie <riudcis ', 

Qavd<rr) ri eca/ia Kal fie rpop.dfis j 
HS>s eicrai Trpdcrivos ! pvpifis X^P* 1 ' 
Ties fiou, fiej/ eXuawrfs, QavdoTj, aKOfjui ' 

Notice here the imperative ires for ewres, and compare a$, 
&c. This is another relic of the verbs in /xt. 

I will conclude this chapter with two anonymous frag- 
ments of Greek popular songs. For the German ren- 
dering of the first, which is more successful than the 
English, I am indebted to my friend Herr Julius Henning, 
of Athens : 

ndvra vd ' 
Tt p.fyd\T) eu 
Tt iriKp&s 6 

Ti TTJV 6f\(i) j ri TTJV 8e\a> TTJV 
AaKrvXi'8* OTTO /zaXXta 


AUTO fj-evet not (Mapaivci 
MaKpav OTTO <re, 
Ti Ti 

' Ever to abide with thee 
Were the height of purest bliss ; 
But the bitter, cruel parting, 
Where is grief to match with this? 
When I am far from thee, 
What is life, ah, what is life to me? 

' One memorial still is left, 
A ring from thy fair tresses braided; 
Nothing else my soul can cheer. 
This remains, but I am faded : 
And thus forsaken here, 
How can I, nay, I cannot live a life so drear.' 

' Stets vereint mit dir zu sein 
Ware Himmelsseligkeit : 
Ach du bitteres boses Scheiden ! 
Ewig flieht das Gliick mich weit : 
Was, Geliebte, fern von dir 
Frommet wohl, ja frommet wohl das Leben mir? 

' Nur aus Locken noch ein Ring 
Bleibet als Erinnerung mir: 
Andrer Trost ist nicht zu finden ; 
Dieser bleibt, ich bleiche schier. 
Was, Geliebte, fern von dir 
Frommet, nein es frommet nicht das Leben mir.' 

I know nothing in any language more beautiful of its 
kind than the following, with which I gladly close a long 
and laborious but not ungrateful task : 

Eiy TO pevpa rfjs a>rjs p.ov 
Ata TI va v aTravrfjcro ', 
Ai' e/xe a<' ov dev rjcro 
Atari va &f I8a> ...... 


Kai p.f e aT 
STfi/aypovs va V7ro<pep<a, 
Kat ye\ds diori /cXat'co, 
Aia a~e K.CU 


H va rravcrrj TJ TTVOT] fiov' 
Icras, \cru>s, <rrr)v flavrjv /uou 

ot trrevaypo p,ov 
TJV Kapdiav crov v f\Kvcrovv 
eXo) fjiovov, orav crfivcrovv 
TTJS fays pov at arty/iOi, 
Eva ( 
Qs x ai P Tl(r l J >bv v 
Kets roi> rafov fj.ov va 
"Ev (rov 8dicpv di ffie. 

I have attempted the following German translation, find- 
ing it beyond my powers to render the sense and metre in 
English : 

An dem Strome meines Lebens 
Ach wozu dir noch begegnen? 
Da ich liebe dich vergebens 
O warum dich wiedersehn ? 

Dir, Erbarmungslose, gelten 
Unaufhorlich meine Seufzer, 
Und du lachest, well ich weine, 
Und verhohnst mein bitt'res Flehn. 

Ach, genug! nun lass mich leben, 
Oder sterben doch im Frieden ; 
Ja vielleicht wenn ich geschieden, 
Wirst du deinen Hohn bereun. 
* * * * 



Nicht will ich dass meine Seufzer 

Ein so kaltes Herz bewegen ; 

Nur dass wenn sich nicht mehr regen 

Meines Odems matte Ziig', 

Eine jammervolle Klage 

Du zum Abschied nach mir sendest, 

Und an meinem Grabe spendest 

Eine Thrane noch fiir mich. 


On the Greek of the Gospels of St. John and 
St. Luke. 

I MUST now hasten to redeem a promise, made at the 
commencement of this work, by indicating, in however brief 
and cursory a manner, what kind of light may be derived 
from the study of modern Greek with regard to the respec- 
tive ages of documents of disputed authenticity. I shall 
confine my remarks principally to the Gospels of St. John 
and St. Luke, only premising that the following is thrown 
out merely as a kind of forerunner to a work which I hope 
one day to accomplish, and which, if its ideal is ever realized, 
will consist of a comparison of the Greek of the various 
books of the Septuagint, apocryphal or otherwise, and of 
those of the New Testament, with a view to determining 
how far the evidence of language confirms or weakens, and 
how far it is an adequate criterion of, the results of modern 

For the present, I would remark in the outset that several 
cautions must be borne in mind in attempting to weigh 
evidence of this kind. In the first place, it is obviously not 
enough to count up a number of modernisms in two docu- 

N 2 


ments, and balancing the number found in the one against 
the number found in the other, at once draw the hasty 
conclusion that a majority of modernisms proves a later 
origin. For many other questions have to be taken into 
consideration, and above all that most important one, is the 
style of the authors such that they admit of this simple 
comparison? Is there evidence of artifice and pedantry, 
such as would lead us to expect the avoidance of modernisms ? 
are there signs, as in most of the Fathers, of a straining after 
archaic expressions ? And if so, in what degree ? For there 
are degrees of pedantry on the one hand, and degrees of 
familiarity on the other. Plato is more popular in his 
phraseology than Thucydides, Aristotle often more so than 

Then, again, the frequent occurrence of a single mo- 
dernism is more significant than the occasional occurrence 
of many ; and again, there are some modernisms which are 
far more striking and unquestionable instances than others. 

Such are some of the considerations to be borne in mind 
in applying the test of language as an evidence of the 
antiquity of documents ; to which we may add another and 
very obvious one namely, the limits which the slow growth 
of language sets to any accuracy in determining the age of 
any writing by the light of style and diction alone. Thirty 
years is a scarcely appreciable interval, but a hundred years, 
or even two generations, may make a very marked dif- 

Let us now approach the subject a little more in the 

The first thing that strikes us is that the Greek of the 
New Testament, however popular, familiar, and simple, is 
by no means so vulgar, so nearly a vernacular, as that of the 
Septuagint. We miss with few exceptions, and those to be 
found chiefly in the Apocalypse, forms like (Ida, eXeyoo-ai/, Xa- 


, TreVc for Trecrov, &c., all of which we know must have 
existed in the age of the New Testament, just because they 
have been preserved in modern Greek, sometimes in a 
slightly altered shape, up to the present day. What then 
may we generally conclude with respect to the Greek of the 
New Testament as a whole ? We answer, that while it was 
familiar and popular it was not vernacular; it adopted the 
homely expressions, but did not as a rule let itself down 
to the grammatical level of the common people, in which 
respect it may be compared to the style of a popular 
modern Greek newspaper, which is familiar enough to be 
readily intelligible, but not enough so to be vulgar ; neither 
altogether the spoken language of the common people, nor 
yet by a long way the book-language of the learned. 

But when we come to compare the books of the New 
Testament among themselves, we do not find them exactly 
the same in style; there is a certain striving after semi- 
classical words and expressions in Luke and the Acts which 
we miss in other parts, while the Epistles may be looked 
upon, for the most part, as such simple utterances of the 
feelings called forth by the occasions on which they were 
written, that, a priori, we should expect the use of more 
familiar expressions in them than in other writings of the 
New Testament. If therefore we find Trai/rore for aet, and 
Ka6fls for exao-roy, in St. Paul's Epistles, this does not argue 
their late date with anything like the force that the occur- 
rence of the same words possesses in St. John, where the 
theological speculative style would naturally lead us to look 
for an avoidance of too familiar expressions ; and therefore 
their presence in St. John's Gospel argues that, in the time 
when it was written, these same familiar expressions had 
risen to the level of book -language, and were no longer 
confined to conversation. 

Now let us notice briefly what are the most striking 

i8a APPENDIX i. 

modernisms in the fourth Gospel, and see whether they 
can be reasonably accounted for except on the hypothesis 
of a very much later origin than that of the first two 

The most significant fact which lies on the surface of St. 
John's Gospel is the immense frequency of certain modern- 
isms. For example, Tndfa (modern Greek iridva, eVtWa) occurs, 
not sometimes but invariably, for <nj\\ap.fidva>. Now there 
is no doubt that indfa occurs in the Septuagint in the 
modern Greek sense, but then the Septuagint was much 
nearer the vernacular of the time ; but infrequent occurrence 
in the fourth Gospel shows it must have been written at a 
time when mdfa had become the recognized word for <rv\- 
Xa/i/3ai><, and that moreover in a more cultivated style than 
that which the Septuagint represents. And who can help 
noticing that where the fourth Gospel says Tnafa, those of 
Matthew and Mark say Kpara> or o-v\Xap,j3dvu ? And yet the 
style of Matthew and Mark is not more refined or elevated, 
but less so, than that of St. John. Again, St. John says 
fydpiov for lx&vs : compare John vi. 9 with Matthew xiv. 15, 
Mark vi. 35. Now no one denies that fydpiov is as old as 
Aristophanes, but he uses it as intentionally quoting the 
vernacular, while the fourth Evangelist employs it as the 
natural word. But more striking still is the use of rpwycD for 
f<rdia>, not in a colloquial, but in the most solemn and mys- 
terious connection possible : 6 Tpwya>v pov TTJV o-dpica, KOI rrivcov 
p.ov TO at^ca, %ti U>T)V al&viov, 6 Tpa>ywv p.f, KaKtlvos ^crtrat dt */if, 

6 Tpd>y<aV fJLOV TTjV (TOplCO. KOI TTlVtoV fJiOV TO CUjMa, V tp,ol fJLfVd KOI 

fya> fv avTw, 6 Tpaycav TOVTOV TOV apTOv ^TjafTai els TOV al5>va. 

Here Tpwyo* is invariably, and eV0ia> not once, used as the 
present, answering to 0ayo>. In modern Greek rpavya) is the 
only present of $oya> in use. In Polybius, indeed, we have 
dvo Tpwyopfv d8fX0ot, but this is quoted as a proverb, a 
familiar colloquial expression, just as fressen and saufen are 



Igarly used in German for essen and trinken. It is there- 
re an exceptional usage, which goes to prove the point 
hich we desire to settle, namely, that rpuya as applied 
a human being in the sense of simply eating, did not 
stablish itself in the written language until the time of St. 

John. But I shall perhaps be told that in chap. xiii. St. 

John quotes the Septuagint, Psalm xli. 9, thus, 6 rpwyw /uer' 

TOV apTov, cirfipev eV fpe TTJV TTTfpvav OVTOU. Let US See 

whether this is a quotation. Let us turn to the passage in 
question, and what do we find ? That St. John has actually 
been at the pains of translating eV&W into rpnyav, thereby 
proving beyond the possibility of a doubt that he deliberately 
preferred rpuyav to eV&W, as more familiar and more intelli- 
gible. Again, how constantly, and indeed almost invariably, 
does St. John use vTrayw for effu where St. Matthew and 
Mark frequently use /ScuW, rropeuopai, &c., and with whom 
vTrayo) is of comparatively rare occurrence. Again, the use 
of &o>po>, the modern Greek 0o>pa>, as simply equivalent to 
/3Xe7ra>, is characteristic of St. John, and to some extent of St. 
Luke. Notice too the continued recurrence of mo-reva els in 
St. John instead of ma-reva with the dative. 

We will now give a brief view of the remaining modern- 
isms in St. John, and challenge any one to produce a like 
array from either St. Mark or St. Matthew : 

ElS TOV KO\7TOV TOV TTUTpOS '. OV y<0 OVK flfjit O.lOS "(.VOL \V(TO) O.VTOV 

TOV l/jidvTa TOV vTroSjyjLtaTOf, where one of these genitives must 
stand for a dative ; observe that Matthew says &gto$ fiaorao-ai, 
not Iva (Saorao-oo. Ilpairds fiov yv, compare in modern Greek 
P.OVOS p,ov, Trore /zov, whereas in classical Greek this kind of 
relation is expressed by the dative, e. g. ZSia aur 
in Thucydides ; a><r for <$, modern Greek axrav ; trov 
ri pe Sepetff, both familiar modern Greek phrases ; 
TTJS o-vKr)s; <pep<-Te in an aorist sense, as in modern Greek, 
where the present is (pepva> ; the continual use of apn for 


vvv, the frequency of diminutives, as $pay<fXXtoi/, 

(modern Greek equivalent of npros), WTLOV, &c. ; TTOV 
for TTOI f tort ; the frequent use of periphrastic perfect 

passives, rjv aTroo-raX/xei/o?, eyevero drreoTaX/nei'or, aTrecrraX/ieVos 1 
et/zt, rjv ftfl3\T]fj.fvos, &C. ; eVavco TTOvrtov for eVt Tram, eVJ with the 

accusative implying rest; dcp^e rfv 'lovdalav, in the modern 
sense, instead of dvfx<*>pw V 7r '> fKade^ro ; irpoaKwat, used now 
with the dative, now with the accusative ; a-waya Kapnov, 
modern Greek a-vvdfci Kapirov; the frequent use of KOTTOS, a 
common modern Greek word ; the frequency of such forms 
as XnXtd, dvdpaKia ; vernacular forms, as the accent itself 
shows, though with some analogy (e. g. orpnrta) in classical 
Greek. In modern Greek as spoken by the common 
people the termination La regularly appears as id ; the fourth 
Evangelist says also ovcoria for CTKOTOS, preferring the form in ia 
with the modern Greeks, who say a-KOTtd, 8po<rid, cfxand, for O-KO- 
ro?, SpoVoy, (pS>s ; 5'Xos frequently for TTOS, as in modern Greek ; 
d0' tavTov for e'(jf>' eavroG ; the far more frequent use of iva with 
the subjunctive ; the comparative rareness of the aorist parti- 
ciple, and frequency of the copulative /cat ; for example (one 
instance out of many), eyepdels apov a-ov rfjv K\ivr)v, Matthew ; 
eyetpat apov, St. John. Here too observe St. John uses the 
modern Kpdft&arov (Kptftfidriov) St. Matthew says eycpdds 

a.Trri\6f, St. John ^pe TOV /cpd/S/Saroi/ avrov KOI nepifirdrfi ; OTT' 
fj.avrov for 7T* (fj.avTOi> ; et? ov fairiKaTc, 7rai8dpiov ev, for iratftiov 
without fv ; TrXotdptov for TrXoiov, and -n\oiov for vavs ', e^oprd- 

crdrjre, a common modern Greek word ; the frequent repeti- 
tion of avroG, avrov, and the loss of all distinction between 
avrbv and avrdv ; TT&S ovros ypdp.fuiTa ol8(, modern Greek 7rS>s 
OVTOS ypdpftar r)fvp(i ; ds Kadds, one by one ; rjvoi^f side by side 

with dWo)f ; fU)tova for ovdfva ; (h TO. orrtVo) J oTTtVo) f/xoG for 

fJ.TCl p. ; KO(Tp,OS fOT O^Xof J fitO /i/CTOU aVT&V for 8l OUTOOJ/ ; 

for tyv&KCUn, cf. modern Greek evprjKav; <r/cop7rt^a>, 
t'^eo, nposcpdyiov, /SaoTa^ej, passim for (pcpa>' f vndytis et 




APPENDIX 7. 185 

br f Keure ; evnW<Ttt, ycpifa, (yyifa ; enecrev fls TOVS rroftas avTOv 
Stead of eVeo-ei/ avT<a Trpo 7roSa>z> ; fTOf)acv eavrov, 

vToV, showing that the middle voice is on the wane ; 

pioro) tor X a P lv Ol a i ovapiov, TO. ip.a.Tia ; OTTOV VTrcryco tor OTTOI et/ni ; 

.own TroXXai, many dwelling-places (P.OVTJ is modern and Byzan- 
ine Greek for a monastery ;) epcpavi&iv ; *al avrol e'Xa/3oi/ for 
E e'Xa/3oi/ ; /SaXe in the sense of ' put ;' ^O^oy ^v, in modern 
Greek ^v^os ^TO; eon o-v^^aa v/x,Ti/ for ftco^arf, in modern 

Greek crvvr]6eLd o~as fivai ; o(pfi\d airoQavfiv ; TrapacrKevrj without 

the article as a proper name, so in modern Greek Trapa- 
7 = Friday ; 777 /xia ran/ o-a/3,3aTa>i>, so in modern Greek rfj 

ia TOV 'ATrpiXi'ov ; 6ty ra Se^ta /^ep// roO TrXoi'ou. 

Many of these modernisms occur in the other Gospels ; 
but it is the frequency of their occurrence, the comparative 
regularity and consistency in the usage, and above all the 
presence of certain special modernisms of a very marked 
character, which make it impossible, I think, for any dispas- 
sionate reader to avoid the conclusion that the fourth 
Gospel must have been composed at least two, or perhaps 
three, generations later than either the first or the second. 

As to the Revelation of St. John, it can scarcely be com- 
pared with the Gospel, for it approaches much nearer the 
vernacular, and is so wild and barbarous in its grammar, 
that it is hard to believe it was written by one perfectly at 
home in the Greek language. Therefore the very striking 
modernisms in it, as Ko\\ovpiov eyxpi-o-ov TOVS 6<p6a\p.ovs o-ov, in 
modern Greek KoXXovptoi/ eyxpio-e TOVS 6<f)6a\p.ovs o-ov, in ancient 

Ko\\vpiov eyxpio-ov TO"IS 6(p6a\fjLols o-ov, Or, better, KoXXvpiop fyxpi- 
crat TOVS o(p6aXp.ovs ; Vcrr6? for Qeppos, dwar] for 5<S, Swo-ovo-t for 

Sobo-wo-t, and that for Sojo-t, eVra&j for eWq, &c., do not enable 
us to assert on philological grounds the later origin of the 
Apocalypse, while the matter and spirit of the book point 
rather to an earlier period. 

The Epistles of John, at least the first Epistle, which alone 

1 86 APPENDIX /. 

gives fair scope for judging, closely resembles the Gospel in 
phraseology, but it is a kind of resemblance that looks like 

A few words on the Gospel according to St. Luke. This, 
we have already observed, betrays a certain pedantry of style. 
There is a would-be classical ring about such phrases as 

dvara^acrdai 81^77 crti/, Iva finyvws Trepl o>v KaTrjxTjdrjs TTJV do-fpaXfiav, 
fdoe Kapn iraprjKoXovdrjKOTL avvOev iracriv aKpij3a>s, which shows 

an effort to struggle against the common familiar style of 
writing prevailing among the early Christians, who were 
mostly, as St. Paul says, ifowrai TW Xoya>. All the more 
striking therefore are the modernisms in St. Luke, which are 
continually cropping up in the midst of his most ambitious 
attempts, even when the effort is most sustained, as in the in- 
troduction to the Gospel. For example, T&V irfn\r)po^)opr]^tva)v j 
which probably means ' those things of which information 
has been given/ 7r\r)po<pop> meaning in modern Greek like 
fiSoTroio), to inform. Again, e f<pr)nfpias 'A/3/a is an extremely 
modern expression, and hardly intelligible till we know that 
in modern Greek efapepios means a priest. Notwithstanding 
all his Atticizing tendencies, Luke exceeds all but St. John 
in modernisms, and some of these are of a very startling 
character. For instance, eV avrfj rfj &pa, in that hour ; in 

modern Greek (1$ avrrjv rrjv &pav. 

St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, all have avrbs used with- 
out the article as equivalent to OVTOS or eKel>>os, but only 
St. Luke, as far as I have discovered, uses it with the article 
and a noun in this sense. Nor does any other use even 
avros, especially with *m, so persistently as a simple demon- 
strative or personal pronoun. Other remarkable modernisms 
are evXa^fjs for fiVf/S^s-, prjSfv for ov8tv, ir\r)v for aXXa passim, 
for 7r/;o<re7rf<re ; cf. modern Greek pyx ~ ^iWo) ; 

TTJS oiKi'a? for 17 TTTaxrtf ; tifpfs KJ3a\a> he shares with 
St. Matthew J 6 fiiKporepos for 6 fXa^ioroy, irfpia-fTOTepov for 

APPENDIX i. 187 

Xebi>, are modern Greek ; so too are p?re fi^re for ofce 
re; t/utmoyieW ; the very frequent use of oXoy for TTOS; the 
employment of vTrrjpxf, vTrapx" (common to St. Luke and 
St. John) as simply equivalent to rjv, eWt; iropevov ei? flpi'ivrjv 
for ev elpfjvT] QfXeis (*ura>p.fv ; Kara awyKvpiav (in modern Greek 
also KCLTO. <rwTvxiav) ', f(pda<rev for arrived simply; oTTTao-m for 
vision. Els fTT) TToXXd, xii. 19, is a regular form of congratula- 
tion in Greece at the present day. The phrase ' rich toward 
God ' is hard ; we should rather say ' rich in God/ taking s as 
equivalent to fv. Hoia u>pa for rivi &pa is modern Greek. C O 
Kavo-cav is also modern Greek. Ev<, of ' festive enjoy- 
ment/ is used in exactly the same connection in three places 
in St. Luke as in the modern Greek drinking-song : 

<&e'/)re KepacrTf 
BaXre vu 7riovp.e, 
Na ev< 

The phrase ev(ppaLv6p.fvos Kad 1 ^tpav \ap.rrp5>s has a modern 
ring in it which is quite astounding to one familiar with col- 
loquial Greek. We have, again, els rfv KOITTJV for eV rfj KOIT~J. 
'Qdwao-ai, <pdyca-at KOL irifo-ai are startling modern forms, com- 
ing as they do so close together. 'Avdirea-ai is clearly a false 
spelling for dwwreo-e, chap. xvii. 7, as there could be no 
meaning in the middle. Am pea-ov 2apap*las KOL FoXtXauw, p-era 
, with observation, a singularly modern phrase, 

for (TTO.S, Svo-KoXus for ^aXeTroiy, TpvpaXias, cf. dvdpaiudy 
&C., Kaipbs for xpovos, eyyifav, eirdvoa for eiri, TraiSeuo-co = castigabo, 
larxy<0 passim for tovvaftcu, TO TTWS TrapaSoj, eixaipiav, \peiav e^o/uei/, 

TO f fvamiov avrov, u>p.i\ovv for e'XaXow, a-vgrjrf'iv, ev\oy), 

= simple ^avw, are other modernisms of St. Luke. 
*EKpvfie is an interesting form because condemned by Phryni- 
chus, who, if the German critics be right, was almost a con- 
temporary of the writer of this Gospel, 


There can be little doubt that the Acts of the Apostles 
belongs to an age as late as the Gospel according to St. 
Luke, if not later. There is much general similarity in the 
language, notwithstanding the difference in the spirit and 
tendency of the whole; but one phrase claims our especial 
notice, as a very decided modernism not found elsewhere 
in the New Testament. This is the word yevcracrdai used in 
the sense not of 'to taste/ but 'to eat/ in fact 'to dine;' 
cytvcro TrpoaTTfivos Kai fjQeXe yevcrao-dai. In modern Greek 
is dinner, yfvop.m, to dine ; irpoyfi>op,ai, to breakfast ; TO 
the afternoon. 

I need not remind those who are acquainted with the 
critical investigations of Baur, Schwegler, and Hilgenfeld, 
that the conclusions to which a purely philological exami- 
nation seems likely to lead us are the same to which they 
have arrived on other grounds, grounds quite strong enough 
in themselves, but still not so readily admitted by most, 
that they can altogether afford to dispense with even such 
evidence as the present, which, while not altogether as con- 
clusive as some might desire, is yet, as I think even this 
meagre sketch has shown, not mere fancy or guess-work, but 
subject to definite rules ; and capable of leading to definite 
results. Above all, I think it is an advantage when a ques- 
tion of this kind can be removed for a moment from the 
heated arena of theological strife, and looked upon in the 
clear ' dry light' of the passionless science of philology. 


A Short Lexilogus, containing a few of such words in 
modern and ancient Greek as seem to derive addi- 
tional light by comparison. 

"A/3aXe, or a /3<iXe, Callim. Fr. 455, Anth. P. 7. 699, and 
, Alcman. Fr. 2, is said to be equivalent in meaning to 
a>$eXe, &c., and seems to be an imperative from 
That /3aXe, or /3aXe, should mean ' grant' is not at all 
unnatural, but what an abundant confirmation of this theory 
is it to find in modern Greek the derivative form /SoXeT- 

;, ayavo'y, "Aya/3os. The probable radical identity of 
these words has been noticed above. The modern Greek 
dyavrtKos, or dya^riKos = epwrtKos, seems to make this etymo- 
logy still more likely. 

Ayye'XXco. The derivation of this word can hardly be any 
other than ai/a-xeXXoo; KeAXco being used in the sense of 
Ke'Xo/zai, and possibly identical in root with re'XX&> in eVireXXco. 
At any rate the root of the second half of the word is (as 
Professor Max Miiller informs me) gar-, which appears in 
Ke'Xofiai, Ke'XaSor, and KaXe'co ; and as the form ye'X- is not found 
elsewhere in Greek, I think we must assume that the y is the 
result of the contact of K with the nasal. 


"Ayovpos. This is the modern Greek form of aa>pos. The 
interest attaching to it consists in the fact that it implies a 
form ya>pa for &pa, which is precisely what the cognate forms 
ydre in Zend, jahr in German, &c., would lead us to 

'AypoiKoi. This word would mean, if found in ancient 
Greek, 'to be boorish, rude, or ignorant;' in modern Greek, 
on the other hand, it means to know, e. g. 

Kai ocroi TOV 7roXe/x,ou TTJV rexvrjv dypoiKOvv. 

War Song of Rbegas. 

Here the signification which usage has sanctioned seems to 
be the very reverse of the original. Perhaps we have an 
intermediate stage in the aypouoo-o^of, ' coarsely wise,' of 
Philo, and the aypoi<os o-o^m of Plato's Phaedrus, 299 E. 
We too talk of being ' rough and ready.' What if we should 
have in the history of this word the record of the popular 
prejudice against philosophy, as a useless unpractical study 
which we have described in the Republic of Plato ? 

Is it not as though the honest farmer said, vpcls pev <f>i\o- 
o-o^eTre, <ryo> de dypoiKoi), i. e. ' while you are star-gazing I am 
working in my farm.' To such a man <iAoo-o0/a is 'the 
would-be-wisdom,' aypoueia ' useful knowledge.' 

This accords very well with the usage of dypoiKa>, which 
means to know an art, rather than a science; as in the 
example quoted above. There was, moreover, very likely a 
sense of irony in this use of aypoiKu, as though it were, ' I am 
the boor, as you philosophers call me.' With regard to the 
transitive use of dypoiKw in the example cited above, I thank- 
fully adopt Professor Max Mailer's suggestion, that it may 
originally have meant ' to cultivate/ comparing oiKovopS>. 

'AXerpi is modern Greek for aporpov. Does not this go far 
to establish the original identity of the roots dpo- and d\e- or 
Petavius, Uranolog. p. 258, calls the constellation 


Orion d\Tpoir68iov. In modern Greek aAerpoTro'Sioi/ is neither 
more nor less than a ploughshare. Its aptitude as applied to 
the constellation in question is striking. 

'A/IT), a modern Greek word for ' but/ ' however/ should I 
think be written dfifj or &^ which in classical Greek is 
hardly found save in the compound d^yenr) = OTTOHTOVV. The 
meanings, ' in some way or another/ and ' anyhow/ ' how- 
ever/ are very nearly allied. 

"Atos is from aya>, according to Liddell and Scott ; whether 

in the sense of 'that which weighs' or 'that which is esteemed.' 

This derivation prepares us to recognise in povagid, modern 

Greek for 'solitude/ i. e. p.ovat;ia (cf.o-rparta for orpaTta, &C.), the 
etymology juoray-o-iaj in povag or p,ovvd, Od. ii. 417? povdy-s', 

and in povafa, povdyu!) = ' I live lonely/ ' I lead a lonely life.' 
It seems very likely that the termination -ao> is often to be 
thus explained, as standing for an original -dya>. So we have 
7mpao>, ' to lead an attempt/ i. e. to attack, tempt, or tease, 
of which the aorist is in modern Greek eWpaa ; pointing to 
an original ireipdyo), just as a-wdya> is in modern Greek 

metaplastic for dpds. This word throws light on 
iveco, cited by Hesychius. The word dpdda in 
modern Greek means ' turn/ ' order/ ' row.' 

probably connected with the Sanscrit bdrbaras, 
vdrvaras, which according to Bopp = stultus, and with the 
Latin lalbus, balbutio. The modern Greek /3e'p/3epor, ' stam- 
mering/ /3ep.3epia), ' to stammer/ is a striking and obvious 
confirmation of this etymology. 

Ba<7Tao>. This 's a very interesting word, because its 
etymology involves so many others; and also because, while 
it occurs in almost every Greek writer from the age of 


Homer to that of the New Testament, we only find its deri- 
vation in modern Greek. Baordo> is plainly a compound 
standing for fiaora aya>, as we may see from /3doray/ia, fia- 
OTCIKTOS, and the modern (really most ancient) Greek aorist 
e/3d<rraa. Baora aya> can mean nothing else than 'I bear 
burdens.' But what is the etymology of /3a<rrd ? We have 
the answer in modern Greek, in which /3d<i> means ' I put/ 
and in sense = /3dXXo>. Baora means, accordingly, burdens, 
loads, things placed on the back of the horse, mule, or ass. 
A word of cognate meaning is /3aW, which leads us to 
connect /SaiW, /SaW, fiafa, and /3t/3a'o>. 

Assuming, as I think we may, that this is the radical sig- 
nification of the ancient /3aco in the Homeric, di/e/icoXia pd^is, 
TrcTrvvpcva fidgets, &c., we have a striking analogy in the 
word Xe'yoo, which originally meant ' to put,' the English lay 
and the German legen being doubtless from the same root. 
Here belong, modern Greek or, 
with the simple verb t'is = curae mihi est, i. e. 'I put 
myself into it.' With fidfrp,ai,, cf. franca, ep,fiaTeo), 
and in modern Greek fiaiva>, cpiraiva>. For the phonetic law 
on which such changes depend, see p. 37. 

BSoXXo) means, in ancient Greek, ' to milk.' I more than 
suspect this is a vulgar corruption, taken from the mouth of 
the common people, of eVc/3a\Ao>, the modern Greek /SyoXXw, 
which is by metathesis for ey/SoXXw. BydXXo> at/wi means ' I 
bleed,' and /3ydXXo/iai alpa, ' I am bled.' So /SyoXXw ya'Xa, ' I 
milk/ and /3yaXXo/xai ya'Xa, ' I yield milk.' Compare fifes 
fi8d\\ovrai ya'Xa, Arist. H. A. 3, 21, 2. The etymology of 
fideu from eK-fieat, ' I put forth/ fie<a being the transitive of 
i, 'I go ;' /35eXXa, i. e. ' the vomiter/ from /35eXXto, i. e. 
for eK/3dXX<u, whence also /3SeXvo-o-o), is more than 

or fifKKos, which Herodotus says is Phrygian, Hip- 


ponax Cyprian, for 'bread/ should be compared with the 
Albanian dowa, which also means ' bread.' Here too belong, 
as Professor Max Miiller reminds me, the German backen, 
Gebdck, the English bake. 

and yaXfjvr} are said to be connected. The Doric 
form ydXavbs means, in ancient Greek, '' calm/ of the sea, in 
modern, ' blue/ of the sky. 

Ttpivos is another form for yvpivos; compare in modern 

Greek yvpvco and yepvu = yvpa>. 

Tiepddvt for yiepddviov means, according to Passow, in the 
Glossary appended to his ' Carmina popularia Graeciae recen- 
tioris/ aquatile. He rightly connects it with dpbaiva. Are 
the names Jordan (supposing it be Indogermanic) and 
'idpSavos not connected with the same root ? This seems 
likely. We must not, however, forget that the yi- in yiepddvi 
may stand for fit-, i. e. Sid. 

TXrjyopa, yprjyopa, eyprjyopa or 6y\r)yopa ', a neuter plural, 

used adverbially from ypfyopos (connected with eyeipa), lypi]- 
yopa). The word ypfjyopos, though found only in modern 
Greek, plainly existed in the age of the Septuagint, as is 
proved by the word yprjyopw, which is equivalent in force to 

ypyyopos tlfU. 

rx/o-xpos, oXto-^aiVo), 6\i<r6r)p6s. That these words are con- 
nected seems probable from the modern Greek yXiarpda), 

'co, ' to slide/ yXiarepos = 6\i<r6r)p6s. 

This word is explained by Liddell and Scott to 
mean ' the Grim One.' The mediaeval and modern mean- 
ing of yopyos is simply ' swift/ Xenophon uses yopybs of 
* spirited horses/ and Eustathius of ' a concise style.' Is not 
yopybs connected with eyeipu, standing for yopios? See on 

p. 1 1 6 ^wpya for x</3ta. 

Aidfpopov in modern Greek = KepSos, TO. 8id(popa = TOKOS : com- 
pare Thuc. iv. 86. 



, Clem. Al. 231, receives abundant illustration 
from the modern formations, ira6alvu> for TTUO-^O), p.a&aiv<o for 

for Tvy\>, aTrodaivw for dTrodvrjo-Ka, K. r. X. 

eiipus. Are not these words connected with the 
modern Greek fipup-T], /3p<0fiao>, stench, stink? If apw/xa be, 
as Pott suspects, connected with the Sanscrit ghrd, ' to smell,' 
that too must stand for an original yp5>p.a or /3payia. 

Za/3a, lorica, a modern Greek word. Does not this mean, 

' that which goes across/ i. e. Ata^a. To ai>a',3rt, TO Kara/3a 

occur in the sense of dvdpao-is and Kardpao-ts. So too Zo/36s 
seems to be formed from Sia/3a-, and to mean that which 
'slants' or 'goes across/ as a diagonal. Its derivative 
meaning, ' silly/ ' strange/ ' foolish/ may well be illustrated 
by the English 'queer/ compared with the German quer. 
A similar etymology is suggested for p?> tpoi>, fcp6va> = 
' wrinkle/ ' furrow/ ' to wrinkle/ ' to furrow/ where we can 
hardly fail to detect the etymology 8i-dpos, 8i-dpov, 8i.ap6co. 

Qavfj is modern Greek for Odvaros, which is, however, 
equally common. Savr] is plainly a more primitive form, 

and is implied in r^iidavos, Bavfiv, &C. ; ddvaros, like Ka^arof, 

being a derivative, and adjectival or participial rather than 
substantival in form, as we see in dBdvaros] cf. 

"I. This, the nominative of e, "v, or u>, appears in modem 
Greek as the masculine article. ' In some parts of Greece/ 
says Mr. Sophocles (Modern Greek Grammar, p. 65), 'the 
uneducated use 17 for 6, as f) 8da-Ka\os, f) avdpas.' But he adds, 
' This peculiarity does not extend beyond the nominative 
singular.' Surely that is a most significant fact, and proves 
beyond dispute that this f] (or i as I should write it) is cer- 
tainly not the feminine article used ignorantly for the mascu- 
line. Add to this the fact that in Albanian t or t appears 


as the masculine nominative of the definite article, and there 
is scarcely any room for doubt as to the identity of the 
modern and ancient 1. 

ri is common in the New Testament and Septuagint for 
we have no example of this in modern Greek, but Iva- 
rtaa> means ' to be obstinate ;' which, if the word be of Greek 
derivation at all, must mean ' to keep asking why?' 

Kapo-*oy. Hesychius and Suidas give this form, but we 
only find the forms eyxdpo-toy, eVtKapo-ios in classical writers. It 
is therefore interesting in modern Greek to meet with 

= fvavrlov. 

KAmco. Is not this connected with K/mo>? The modern 
Greek K\QVCO, xXavyco, Cretan Kpava>, compared with Kpavyij, 
seem to render this more likely than not. We should think 
too of the German klagen and our cry. 

KoKKaXos means ' the kernel of a pine-cone/ KOKKaXia, ' land- 
snails.' In modern Greek TO. Ko<Ka\a stands for TO. oa-ra. 
With regard to the association of ideas, compare OO-TOVV, 

oarrpciKov, and oorptHus = KOKKO\OS. 

KoXa. Does not this word mean ' one who sucks like a 
leech,' perhaps connected with *o'XXa, KoXXaco? The com- 
pound /3pov-Ko'Xa, /3pu*oXa, in modern Greek means 'a 
blood-sucker,' ' a vampire/ Epovs, according to Hesychius, 
= ineiv ; and ftpvv flrceiv, Ar. Nub. 1382 = ' to cry for drink.' 
The flatterer is called *oXa because he is a parasite. 

Koj/ra in modern Greek means 'near.' What is its deriva- 
tion? If Donaldson (New Cratylus, p. 349, 3rd edit.) is 
right in regarding *ca-Ta as a compound of *a = <ev and the 
suffix TO, then, as he points out, there must have been a form 
In this case KOVTO. may very well be another form of 
a, the change of o and e being, as we have seen, almost 

o 2 


a matter of course in Greek. From KOI/TO = ' by/ or 'near/ 
we get the adjective KOVTOS, short, which occurs already in 
Byzantine Greek, and Kovrevu, 'to approach/ also KOVTO.K.IOV, 
' a breviary/ 

, KpuoraXXof, Kpvepos. In modern Greek itpvos, <pva t 
is the common word for 

?, dfjL<pi\vKrj, Xeucro-co, yXaixrcra). With these should be 

compared the modern Greek y\vK.o$eyyfi, yXuKo^apa^ei, ' it 

Mo. In modern Greek this word is used both in a nega- 
tive and positive sense : as in the formulas /xa TOV o-ravpov, 
and p.a TO vat, which latter form of affirmation or negation 
appears to be a relic of heathen times, the obvious derivation 
being p.a TO vatov, vaiov being a diminutive for vaov. Ma is 
also used in formulas of supplication, as o-e 7rapaaXo> //a 
TOV dfbv for Trpbs TOV &eo\>. Donaldson considers p.a as another 
form of M, and connects both with ^e, t^e, considering mere 
subjectivity to be the primary notion. He also connects ^ 
with fjif)v, and the whole series with ^e in fif-ra. Now it is 
certainly interesting, and seems to be significant, that in 
modern Greek we have p.f)v for ^, and ^.e in the sense of 
' with/ for /xcTo. This leads us to the further inference that 
P.TJV is really for n^-va, just as r\v appears to be for fna, Sans- 
crit. Now p.fjva is actually found in modern Greek as an 
interrogative particle. 

This leads us to consider the force of va, which Donaldson 
everywhere regards as denoting remoteness from the speaker. 
As a termination he finds it in ai/, JW, and fjv, but nowhere 
as a separate word. But in modern Greek we have va 
as an independent word in what, if Donaldson be right, is 
its most primary form and signification. Na means ' see 
there/ voilh } va TO, le voila. It is also used (like vrj in 



as a strengthening demonstrative suffix, e. g. avrdva ; and 
once, if not twice, though modified in the second place, in 

the forms epevave, etrevave. 

In the vulgar, but we cannot doubt extremely ancient, 

forms avTijvos, avrovvos, CLVTOVOS = avros, avrfjvr) = avrr], avTovoov = 

avrcov, &c., we find this objective particle v- inserted in the 
middle of a word. 'Am occurs in modern as in ancient 
Greek for the shorter a privative, e. g. dvdfiados, dvap.e\) } for 

means, in modern Greek, ' to fight.' The root is 
a very common one, which, according to Professor Max 
Miiller, we have under a great variety of forms ; which may 
be referred however to two main heads, namely mar- or mal- 
as their respective starting-points. The original sense is to 
grind or crush. From it we get, among other words, mri- 
ndmi Sanscrit, Greek, and I suspect also p.w\os, 
as well as the modern Greek /uaAo'i/co, and p.a\fpbs, which 
means 'quarrelsome/ Mola and JJLV\OS are from the same 
root ; and, it need hardly be added, the English ' mill/ which 
in its secondary and vulgar employment bears the same 
sense as na\6va>. 

Mrjyapr), riyapr), riyap, i.e. p.rj yap fj, ri yap fj, rlyap, equiva- 

lent in sense to p.a>v, ^. The force of the several particles 
is very plain, and is preserved intact, although the particles 
themselves are for the most part obsolete in modern Greek. 
Tap = ye ap is equivalent to ' why then/ w has the force of 
* do not imagine/ and i) = ' or/ introducing the following 
verb : so wyapr) f'pxerai = ' surely then he is not coming 
[or] is he ? ' In German the form of expression is very 
common, and wyapr) epxtrai might be almost literally trans- 
lated thus, Er wird ja denn nicht kommen, oder ? Similarly 
riyaprj would mean ' What then ?' or ' Is it really so ?' The 
forms wyaprj, riyaprj are interesting, inasmuch as they 


preserve the old conjunction yap which is elsewhere sup- 
planted by diori. 

Mvtjo-Ka and pvaio-Kio are modern Greek forms for peW 
Compare 0j/jJo-Ko> and the Doric dvaia-KO) in ancient Greek. 

'OpoCo-c, opovo-e. Perhaps both ways of accenting this word 
are allowable. 'OpoCo-e would then be an imperfect from the 
root opo-, as in modern Greek e'xpuo-ovo-e from ^pvo-dw (xpv- 
o-oi/ca), while opova-e would be a first aorist from 6pova>. In 
modern Greek we seem to have a derivative form opovo> in 

yiovpovcriov, i. 6. diopovcriov = opp.Tjp.a, ' a sally/ 

ne'StXoz/ and ireraXov. These appear to be but different forms 
of the same word, when we know that nfraXov in modern 
Greek is the regular word for a horse- shoe. We may com- 

pare Treftavpos and ireravpos. The Ionic form of ircraXov IS 

nTT)\ov, for which neriXov, ireSiXov, would be a natural 

Trepaca. I am inclined to connect both these 
words by means of the modern Greek Trepi/aw, which has the 
sense of the latter. 

, TTOU. This word is always written as a proclitic nov, 
never as an enclitic TTOU, in modern Greek; but this can 
hardly be more than a matter of writing, for its use as a 
qualifying particle is very similar to its classical employment, 
though more restricted. It is chiefly used in such exclama- 
tions as the following : dvo-Tvxn? KV *lvai, i. e. ' unhappy man 
that he is/ or ri SUOTU;^S TTOU eivai, ' how unhappy is he/ 
Here it seems a connecting particle, like the French que, as 
' que paresseux que vous etes/ And is it not also a connect- 
ing particle in ancient Greek, e. g. in ro^a TTOU, ra>r TTOU, 
TTOU, fdv TTOV, ore irov ? Just so we say 'if that' in old 
English. Does not this help us to understand how irov has 
come to be used in modern Greek as an indeclinable rela- 


tive? Let us see whether we have not at least something 
which looks very like this vulgar usage in the colloquial 
language of Aristophanes. In the ' Knights,' line 203, the 
d\\avT07ra\7)s puts the question 

n S' d-yicuXo^TjX^f fOTWj 

to which the answer is 

avTO TTOU Xeyet, 
on ayKvkais rat? x P (T ^ v apirdfav <pep*i- 

Here Adolph von Velsen (Aristophanis Equites, Leipzig, 1869) 
reads TOUTO TTOV Xe'yei, being offended at avrbs used apparently as 
a simple demonstrative. Mr. W. G. Clark (Journal of Philology, 
vol. ii. p. 314) retains the reading of the MSS., but trans- 
lates ' The thing speaks for itself;' in which case, I presume, 
the TTOU must be translated ' I take it.' But surely this is a 
very stilted expression for so colloquial a style. With regard 
to the meaning of avro, there are innumerable instances 
where it plainly means simply ' that,' even in classical Greek ; 

as, for example, avrb owe eiprjrai, o fiaXiora e8, Plat. Rep. 

362 d; and aui-6 av (fa TO fie'oi/ efy, Xen. An. 4. 7, 7; where 
to say with Liddell and Scott that TOVTO or e'/mi/o is under- 
stood, is very like begging the question. In the New Testa- 
ment avTos meets us at every turn in the sense of OVTOS or 
cKdvos, and indeed it is almost a necessary demonstrative, 
inasmuch as it holds a middle position between OVTOS and 
exelvos, just as O.VTOV, in modern and ancient Greek, holds a 
middle place between o>8e and c. 

Now in modern Greek the sense of auro TTOU Xey, or, as we 
should prefer to write it, avTb TTOV Xry, would be very simple 
indeed, and suit the passage exactly. 

The question is, 'What does dyKuXo^j/X^s mean?' and the 
answer is, 'Just what it says;' co>r6 TTOU Xe'yei. Surely this is 
better than, ' I imagine it speaks for itself.' 

AUTO TTOU Xe'yeis is a very common phrase in modern Greek ; 


so common, that I have known and conversed with people 
who invariably prefaced their remarks by this singular ex- 
pression. It means ' as you say/ and implies either that the 
speaker's words have been suggested by some remark which 
the person addressed has let fall, or that he reckons at any 
rate on your agreement with what he says. 

. This word means, as stated on page 94, a ghost 
or demon among the modern Greeks. Yet that is hardly a 
sufficient definition of the word. Sroixflov is, according to 
the popular belief, the principle of life or spiritual power 
which lies concealed in every natural object, animate or 
inanimate. For a very striking and singularly felicitous 
explanation of the origin of this superstition, see an essay 
' On the Origin of Animal Worship ' &c., in the ' Fortnightly 
Review' for May i, 1870, by Mr. Herbert Spencer, who, 
regarding the belief in the continued existence of an active 
personality after death as the origin of all religious be- 
lief, supposes that the names of natural objects, as ' moun- 
tain/ 'bear/ lion/ &c., were first applied to the living in 
default of abstract names, in order to indicate height, shag- 
giness, fierceness, and so forth ; that such metaphors were 
perpetuated in patronymics; that succeeding generations, 
ignorant of the origin of the metaphor, interpreted it as 
literal fact, and supposed that they were really descended 
from mountains, bears, or lions : hence arose the belief that 
that other self, which continued to exist when the body 
was dead, and needed to be propitiated, was to be looked 
for in animate or inanimate natural objects. The belief in 
monsters would arise from compound patronymics, such as 
would be formed when, for instance, 'a chief, nicknamed 
the Wolf, carries away from an adjacent tribe a wife who is 
remembered either under the animal name of her tribe, or as 
a woman/ 


Unite with this once universally prevalent superstition, the 
reserving power of the Greek's poetic and vivid imagina- 
tion, and w r e seem at once to understand the secret of Greek 
mythology and of Greek superstition. The Christian dogma 
has succeeded to a great extent in supplanting the first, but 
it has left the second almost untouched. 

The vrjpfiftes, or water nymphs, still survive as vapaidfs or 
among the modern Greeks ; while Xdpwv, though de- 
prived of his boat and his office of ferryman, conducts the 
souls of the dead to "AS*?? on horseback. But in no respect 
is the belief of ancient Greece more faithfully preserved than 
in regard to the da[p.oves or oroixa, the personified powers of 
Nature. According to the Greek belief, anything may be- 
come a o-roixflov, from a rock or a river to a bird or a beast. 
Often this oroixeToz/ is conceived of, like the ancient daip.wv, as 
the spirit of some departed hero, with whose actions during 
life this or that natural object has been especially associated. 
Sometimes, on the other hand, and this is still more com- 
mon, the powers of nature are personified without being 
identified with any particular human being. Achilles con- 
versing with his horses, or with the river Scamander, is 
exactly the kind of thing which meets us at every turn in 
popular modern Greek poetry. The question which we 
have now to ask is, How old is the signification which the 
modern Greeks give to oroixetoi/, and how did it arise ? What 
is really the force of o-roi^t lov ? In the first place, we must 
most decidedly differ from Liddell and Scott, who regard it 
as a diminutive of o-roixos, ' a row/ and leave us to infer that 
because o-roi^or means ' a row of poles' (or indeed of anything 
else), that therefore the so-called diminutive oroixetoi/ might 
mean ' a little pole ; ' hence they give as the original meaning 
of o-roixflov, the upright rod which throws its shadow on the 
sundial. But O-TOI^OS- would not give us O-TOIX^OV as a diminu- 
tive, but a-roixiov, just as roixos gives us rotxiov ; -flov is never 


used as a diminutive termination. It may cause surprise 
that, believing as we do in the general identity of the modern 
and ancient pronunciation of the Greek language, we should 
have so much difficulty in accepting an etymology which 
would simply require us to regard as another way of 
writing t ; but here the modern Greek language itself enters 
a most emphatic protest against confusing a short t with the 
diphthongal el, or even with I. Had oToi^elov stood for orot- 
Xiov, it is a matter of absolute certainty, which no one 
acquainted with the principles of modern Greek etymology 
could doubt for a moment, that its Romaic form would have 
been a-rotxi But this is not the case. It appears as aroixeio, 
just as pvT)p.tlov appears as /ui^/ietd, and the final o is never lost ; 
fiov and lov regularly preserve the o, lov as regularly loses it 
in modern Greek. Si-o^eio? then is no diminutive form of 
a-Tolxos, as it cannot stand for orotxiW. Nor, if it were, could 
it mean a little rod ; it would rather mean a little row. 

There is no doubt about the derivation of (rroixelov ; it must 
come, like orolxoy, from orei^a, which although only found in 
the derivative sense of 'directing one's steps,' 'proceeding,' may 
have meant originally ' to arrange.' Hence we see its con- 
nection with (m'xoff and oroxab/Liai. Bearing in mind the 
force of the termination, we see that as TO /nz/i/^elov means 
'that which reminds,' 'memorial;' so (rroixtiov might mean 'that 
which arranges,' ' marks out,' ' points.' The ovoixflov of the 
sundial was the intelligent part of it, compared to a human 
being who observes the progress of the sun in the heavens, 
and hence called also yvupw. Or, to get the meaning still 
more simply from orei'x<>, may not orot^etov have signified 
' that which moves ?' referring of course to the shadow 
of the upright rod, rather than the rod itself. That 
<rrotxeioi> really had this meaning appears from the phrase 
SfKuTrovv o-Toixftov, i. c. supper time when the shadow was 
ten feet long. In any case, the idea of regular, in- 


tentional, intelligent motion indicative of intelligence is 
:ontained in the word crm'x<<> and o-Toi^etoi/; and it was of 
course the shadow to which life and intelligence were attri- 
buted. There must have been something awfully mysterious 
in the regular progression of that shadow across the dial, 
even to the inventor who had some dim perception of 
natural cause and effect ; but how much more to the ordi- 
nary man who had none. That little upright rod, he ob- 
served with amazement, had a shadow like his own, a second 
self; and this second self was far more knowing (yvd>pa>v) 
than the little rod which always stood still in the same place. 
Then he would soon observe that rocks and trees and 
animals had also their O-TOIX* * ; and aToixeiov would naturally 
become with him a name for that living or moving person- 
ality which he seemed to find connected with, and hidden 
behind all natural objects. Do we not now understand why 
(TKia is used of the spirits of the departed ? and, what is still 
more remarkable, how it is that we have inherited the word 
gnome, plainly connected with yi/eb/ieoi', in the sense of spirit 
or genie ? SKidfa, a-Kid&iwi, meaning in modern Greek re- 
spectively ' to frighten/ ' to fear/ and the masculine derivative 
a-Kios or to-Ktof, from O-KIU, are sufficient indications of the ap- 
palling sense of personality with which the Greeks still con- 
tinue to regard shadows. 

But now, how are we to connect this meaning of aroix^ov 
with the Platonic and subsequent philosophic usage of the 
word in the sense of ' element?' This is not very difficult. 
The shadow, the orotxeloi/, was the mysterious hidden self, the 
inner personality of all things, shrinking away almost to 
nothing in broad noonday, and slowly but regularly creeping 
out as the sun approached the horizon. Therefore to the 
popular mind, and more or less even to themselves, the 
inquiry of the physical philosophers after the beginnings of 
all things was a kind of necromancy, a search for ghosts. 


Hence it is that for a long time the Ionic philosophers had 
no difficulty in enduing their oroi^eTa or dpxal with life and 
motion, or rather they were unable to conceive of them as 
divested of these attributes of personality. It belonged 
naturally to Plato, the great popularizer of philosophy, to 
adopt the people's word a-roixflov, and give it a philosophical 
meaning, thus combating in friendly guise the eW/xn KOI d\i- 
pavTfs (Rep. 387 c) of the popular superstition. What a 
fine conception do we here obtain of the struggle between 
Greek enlightenment and Greek superstition. To get at the 
bottom of these vTotxela, these dreadful phantoms, to pene- 
trate to their pt&paTa with Empedocles, and show, as he 
thought he could, that there were but four of them after all ; 
this was, as the physical philosophers vainly hoped, to ' rob 
the grave of victory, and take the sting from death/ 

The word orotxe fa, as applied by Plato to the letters of the 
alphabet, indicated originally not the signs, but the 'living 
voices/ the souls, so to speak, of the letters, just as litterae 
and elementa litter arum were distinguished by the Latin 
grammarians. That this word o-roi^etov would inevitably con- 
nect itself in Plato's mind with his doctrine of ideas, is seen 
at once, and the full force of his polemical attitude towards 
the popular belief appears when we consider that the 
oroi^eTa of the common people were the antipodes of his 
own. Shadows were with him the least real, with them 
the most real, of all appearances. His oroi^eta were ideas, 
theirs were shadows and reflections. 

It was the very essence of the popular notion of O-TOIX^OV 
that it should exist independently of the object which first 
suggested it. So bears and rams were soon found in the 
sky among the stars, where their outlines were fancifully 
traced. Hence we have the signs of the Zodiac also called 
o-Tot^fia (Diog. L. vi. 102). Hence, too, orot^eTa is used by 
ecclesiastical writers, and by Manetho especially, of the 


evenly bodies. Most striking and conclusive is St. Paul's 
use of the word oroi^eta in phrases like TO. oroi^em TOV KOO-^OV 
(Gal. iv. 3, &c. ; Col. ii. 8, 20). Baur (Christenthum der 
drei ersten Jahrhunderte, p. 49) and Hilgenfeld (Galater- 
brief, p. 66, Das Urchristenthum und seine neuesten Bear- 
beitungen : Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie, erster 
Jahrgang, Heft i. p. 99) expressly attribute this sense to 
St. Paul's words, and Hilgenfeld quotes Philo Judaeus (De 
Humanitate, 3, p. 387 ; De Parentibus Colendis, 9, ed. 
Tauchn. v. p. 62; De Vita Contemplativa, i, p. 472), the 
Clementine Homilies (x. 9. 25), and even a Sibylline frag- 
ment anterior to the time of Christ (Orac. Sibyll. iii. 80, ed. 
Friedl.), in support of this view. How too, he pertinently 
asks, could St. Paul speak of the oroi^em TOV KOO-^OV as the 
guardians or tutors of mankind before Christ, and of their 
being enslaved or in bondage under them, and how could 
he so directly oppose them to Christ unless he attributed 
to them a real personality ? That St. Paul means especially 
the heavenly powers by o-roi^e?a TOV Koo-pov is plain from the 
connection in which he places them with the observance of 
' days and months and times and years.' How vivid his 
realization of the conflict between Christ and the 
TOV Koo-p-ov may be seen from Ephesians vi. 12: "o OVK 

fj/.uv f] TraXr) Trpbs alp.a KOI crdpKa, aX\a Trpbs TUS ap^as (observe 
that ap;f7 is a synonym for oroi^eioi'), Trpbs TUS eowtaf, Trpbs 


p.(iTLKa TTJS irovrjpuu ev rots enovpaviois. 

We are now in a position to understand how 
in Byzantine Greek comes to mean ' to enchant/ and 
oW, ' to haunt,' o-rotxaa>, ' to be haunted/ in modern Greek. 

and TiTdrj. There is every reason to believe, with 
Liddell and Scott, that these two forms are etymologically 
connected. The change of u and i, as well as the change of 


accent, is perfectly regular. An exact analogy as regards 
the meaning is supplied by the modern Greek /3dia, ' nurse,' 
which we cannot but regard as connected with pmos, ' little.' 

&ddva>. In modern Greek, <p6dva> means simply ' I arrive,' 
' I come ;' TO <pddo-i[j.ov, ' the arrival.' It means, however, also 
' to be in time for,' as e<pda<ra TO dTp.6ir\oiov, ' I caught the 
steamer :' this is, however, its transitive sense. The ordinary, 
absolute employment oftftddvv in classical Greek is represented 
in modern Greek by the compound Trpocpddvco. The modern 
usage of <$>0dva> approaches most nearly to the ancient in the 
phrase cpddvfi, ' it is enough.' Yet the fact that the compound 
irpo(p6dva> is used by Aeschylus, Aristophanes, and Euripides, 
is proof enough that (pddvw might mean in ancient Greek 
simply 'I arrive,' 'I come,' 'I reach' (i. e. my destination), other- 
wise Trpofpddva would be a pleonasm. The non-recognition 
of this, in modern Greek the common, and, as we believe, 
even in ancient Greek the original meaning of (frOd, has 
caused much difficulty to the commentators on Thuc. 

III. 49. 3, KOI rpirjpr) evBvs a\\r)v UTrforeXXoz/ Kara <r7rov8j}v, 
OTTO)? fjif], <pdacrdcrr}s rrjs devrepas, fvptocn 8ie(pdapp,evr}v TJ\V TTO\IV : 

where we have only to disabuse our minds of the prejudice 
that (pQao-doys must mean ' having first arrived,' translating 
simply, ' lest, on the arrival of the second, they should find 
the city destroyed,' and all is clear. 

Xdw. This root appears in the modern x av( > <to l se / 
and in x aT nP L (from x aT ^ (0 ) = TTO'^OJ. 

Vr}\a(f>>. Liddell and Scott derive this word from ^dco, 
^dXXco, ^add\\a>, ^aXdo-o-o), the -a<pda> being a mere termina- 
tion.' But even mere terminations must have some meaning, 
and we will endeavour to suggest a more plausible and 
complete etymology for ^Xa^eo than one which barely ex- 
plains one half of the word. 

To begin with what is most obvious: a(pda>, II. vi. 322, 


KOI ay/cuXa TO' dcpovvra, is derived simply enough from 
77, and means ' to touch/ or ' to feel : ' therefore ^r)\-a(pda> 
means plainly, to touch or feel in a particular manner, and 
implies an adjective ^77X0'?, with a corresponding adverb 
\}/T)\a>s or ^77X0. But I//T/XOS, so written, is not found. We 
know, however, by the derivation of ^1X6? from tyda>, that 
this word is merely an iotacism for ^rf\6s, and ought so to be 
written : cf. aTrarr/Xo'?, from dirarda). Now what does ^iXos- 
or ^j/X6s according to its derivation mean ? One significa- 
tion is no doubt ' rubbed bare/ but an equally natural one, 
and the prevailing one in modern Greek, is ' rubbed fine/ 
used, for instance, of tobacco that has become powdery from 
keeping, or of small coin. To distinguish this meaning 
from the classical, as preserving most faithfully the ety- 
mology from -v^ao), we may, if we like, write the word ^X6s- 
when used in this sense. Hence we have, as a matter of 
course, ^77X0*07, ' to split hairs/ ' to mince matters ; ' ^77X0- 
<ro(j5)&), ' to be over-subtle/ no doubt a play upon <^iXoo-o0w ; 
\}sr)\oypd<pa>, < to write fine;' ^rj\oTpayov8>, 'to sing gently;' 
and an infinite number besides, for the modern Greek 
language has an unlimited licence in multiplying such 
compounds. Who, then, can resist the conclusion that 
i^TjXa^aco means ' to touch lightly/ ' to feel about one/ like 
the German herumtappen. Its usage in ancient Greek bears 
out this etymology most strikingly. Xenophon, Eq. 2. 4, 
uses it in the sense of ' stroking/ Latin palpare. In Aris- 
tophanes, Pax 691, we have fv o-oYa> ^r/Xa^av Ta irpdynaTd : 

comp. Eccl. 315, and Plato, Phaed. 99 b. In Odyssee 
ix. 416, we have it used of the blind Cyclops : 

fie <rrfvdx<0v re Kai a>SiVa>i> 68vvr)<nv } 
Xfptrt \lrr)\a(f)6(aVj djro p.ev \LBov eiXe dvpdcov, 
AUTOS 5' eii/i Ovpycri /ca^e'^ero X f ^P TTfao-trar 
Ei' rivd TTOV p.fT oea-o-i XdjSoi (rTfixovra 6vpae. 


Compare also Acts Xvii. 27, r)Teiv rbv Kvpiov, el apa 
crfiav avrov Kai fvpoifv. 

is used by Plutarch in the sense of ' tickling/ 
and the essential condition of tickling is, as we know, a light 

This is one of those cases where a knowledge of modern 
Greek enables us to pronounce with certainty for a deriva- 
tion which it would seem has not so much as suggested itself 
to philologers who have not made modern Greek their study. 
It is one of those extremely simple and obvious etymologies 
which, when once observed, make us wonder how they could 
have so long lain hidden. 

. In modern Greek, \^$a'o> means not ' to vote,' 
but ' to care for ' or ' regard ; ' apparently from tyr/fos, in the 
sense of cipher, as we say, ' to reck not/ ' reckless/ &c. 




e, p. 189. 
y, 107. 
d|85eXXa, 12. 

afipdyw, 119. 
af}pdfj.v\ov, 12. 
a/SpoVai'OJ', 12. 

a.yyfX\<a, 189. 

29, 104, 

07705, &y/cos, 29. 


a/yKouXa, 2O. 
&yKovpa, 2O. 
&yovpa, 122. 
&youpos, 189. 
aypoiKw, 190. 
aSava, 114. 

t, 28. 
dere, 1 1 8. 
006, 113. 
aflfa, 001, 123. 
at av, 25. 

a?7a, afyay, 71, 74, 75- 
at'et, 12. 
at'ep, otes, 77- 

, 25. 
, 105. 
, 103. 

", 35 I02< 
aitovfis, Il6. 
aXaKaipais, 143. 
60w, 36. 

, 16. 

', 190. 
, 117. 
oAAa< / uoi', -OTOS, 1 08. 
d\\ J l/J-aTtov, 26. 
, 93. 
1 08. 

, 36. 
aua, 12. 

/C6Tos, 25. 
e/c, 30. 
a/JLaprla, IO2. 

, 37. 
a, 37. 
Hpficav, 107. 

&/j.(ros irp6ra.ffis, 99. 
o/i^, a/i^, 190. 
a/j.o\yw, 35. 
afiopyn, 20, 35. 

ov, 113- 
avdfiaOos, 190- 

ava.6viJ.iaff is, 93- 
avai&aivca, 12. 
) 93- 
, 89. 
, 136. 


, 36, 120. 
, 137. 

, 144- 
, 103. 
^10?, 191. 
&ireipov, 93. 

'A.tre\\<av, 24. 
cbrd, IO2, 104. 
airoK6Ti]ffa, 146. 
OTrJ) /jLa.Kp60ev, 105. 
"ApojSas, 74- 
apd" 7e, 99, 
apaSa, 191. 
dpataffis, 93. 
'Apairta, 30. 
&pSf/j.v, 129. 
aper)/, 96. 
"Ap77, 71- 
fy>0T, 130. 
ap(n\os, 1 1 8. 
apfiaOia, 12. 
Sp/xora, 1 06. 

, 106. 



apow, 191. 
Sprt, 183. 
a>y, 107. 

A. 93- 
, D/ia, 193. 
&y, 103, 107. 
do-di, 133. 
d<7/mAa>7ray, 74. 
&<nra,K, 132. 

dtrrcuply, 12. 

drdp, 131. 

dre-fope, 132. 

a-ne, 132. 

O.T p.6ir\oiov , arfiOTrXovv, 


at^v, 31. 
avrdva, 196. 
avriov, 24. 
aSrty, 38. 

avros, parbs, 132. 

ai^a--, 29. 

S^ey, 103, 186. 

d(p' oS, 40. 

(fty, 24. 

fi>3, 134. 

fidyya, 24. 
/3a{,ci), 192. 
jSii'a, fiaibs, 205. 
3aAe, 185. 

5,8 3 . 
/Java), 192. 
fidp&apos, 191. 
Bapiw^a, 24. 


.f'ay, 71, 74. 

*. 143- 
ro, 1 06. 

a^a>, jSaaTd, 184, 
)8aTe?j/, 30. 

c, 24. 
y, II 5 . 
Vw, 192. 
i>, 192. 



)8e/c^y, fitKKos, 192 
jSeA^ca, 12. 
/BeArepos, )S 
/8jU)3pdy, 30. 
jSepeflpoi/, II. 
/3er, 131. 
&<pvpa, 29. 
j8e'a>, 192. 
)37j, ^^, 18. 

!, 16. 

, 192. 

BiAapay, 30. 
BiAiTTTroy, 30. 

, 3- 

r, 12. 

)8oi', jSorjfleTv, 16. 
jSoAe?, 189. 

;u , 118. 

)8ovA77, 15 

2 9 . 

2 9 . 

'*. 37- 

, 103. 



fipiOca, j8apu0w, 22. 



>, 3- 

, 12. 


ya, 119. 

70!, 1 18. 
" i, 30- 


. 33- 



ydpyvpa, 29. 
, 187. 

78ua?, 144. 

, So, 105, 108. 
w, 189. 
, 73. 
, 105. 
ytpaKiv, 109. 
yepwos, 193. 
76pj/w, 193. 
yepovrs, 74- 

, lS8. 
y(<f>vpa, 32. 

7^?. 145- 
777761/^5, 1 6. 

7'a, 3 2 - 
yiaivca, 32. 
, 32. 
, 145. 
7/70?, 1 6. 
yivvos, 30. 
yiovpovariov, 198. 
yia>K(*>, 32. 
yXaKta, 31. 
7Aapoy, 31. 
7AeTrw, 29. 
y\t<papov, 29. 
y\e<pff(0, \tvff &&>, 31. 
y\-f)yopa, 193. 

>, 193- 

, 2O2. 
ta), 117. 

yopybs, 193. 
7ouAia, 31. 
701)1', 2O. 
7<ju'a?Ka, 1 1 8. 
7oS7ro, 29. 
yovpyovpas, 29. 
ypdfJL/jiara olSe, 184. 
ypdcpop, 121. 

t 121. 



ypacpovpevi, 121. 
', 121. 

ypdfyi/u.ov, Si. 
yprjyopos, 193. 
ypov(T(ra, 119. 
ypu>u.ct) 193* 
yvaXov, 32. 

8a, 114. 
Aa$i8, 29. 
SayKavw, 31. 
8ai/ua>v, 94, 2OI. 
Sdvovv, 130. 
SdpKva, 31. 
ScfcruAo, 119. 
8e, Sev, 144. 
Setx^w, 1 1 8. 
5evov[j.eve, 1 1 8. 
SfW, 72. 
Sefoi', 79* 
5eou, 132. 
Sepets, 183. 
Sere, 135. 
Aei/s, 31. 

j, SKO/J.CU, 38. 
t'^w, 24. 
.?]/uas, 16. 

j, 16. 

y, 98. 
i, 194. 

ITJ/CTJ, 16. 


8iai<pvpa, 32. 
Sia/ctov, 32. 
8id\fKTos now)), 115. 
Sia/j.fffov, 184. 
Sia i/a, 89. 
Sidpos, 194. 
8/ara, 12. 

C, 83- 

, 149. 


AiSu^os, 1 6. 
8t8a>, 8t5($j/w, 1 1 6. 

y, 32. 

o, 187. 


SiKaiov, Siaibv, 26. 

i, 132. 
Siopifffj-bs, 97. 
8(ou, 119. 


ftlWKW, 32. 

i&X vu> > JI 8. 
5<5rcu, 1 1 6. 

S^as, So^ats, 71, 78, 82. 
I, 20. 

Spditos, 1 68. 
Spoffia, 184. 
rfii, 132, 135. 


y, 185- 


97. 132- 


' 103. 185. 

tyvwKav, 184. 
fy&v, ^o. 
e'Se, IIO, 130. 


S(ra, 76. 


!, 80. 


t|ei/, 1 1 8. 
f&ov, 127. 
edr)Ka, 80. 
eTfle, 87. 
^a>, 1 1 6. 
6t'8t/cbs, 97. 

:, 106. 
>, 26. 

!, 71, 108. 
slvai, five, 79> 108 
eft/ray, f?vra, 117- 

', 26. 


eis, 103, 187. 
:, 71, 108. 

i, 118. 
efx^w, 1 1 8. 

P 2 

, IIO, 123. 

S, 1. 
Kl, 122. 


, 187. 
e/co>, 1 1 8. 
\a, 115. 

?Ac-7ci, 72, 83. 
lAefes, 72, 83. 
e\ e'x^Tj :a, 7 2 > 80. 
eAAej/os, 113. 
*E\ufAiros, 24. 
e/*a, 122. 
6>as, 71. 

, 37. 


^e, 134. 
e>eVa, 71, 78. 
IjUepa, 1 8. 

, 17. 

at, 192. 
, 37- 

f/j.iro'iKa, 122, 123. 
, 36. 

, 185. 
va), 28. 

, 37. 
/, 37. 
, 37. 
', 38. 
, 119. 
s, 119. 
evoi%, 1 1 8. 
, 36. 
i, 127. 

, 38. 
, 37. 

iW, 37, 7 2 - 
, 187. 

<t>vr)s, 1 1 8. 
.1, 35. 

, 103, 184, 187. 
, 1 6. 

, 97. 
, 24. 

u, 109. 

, I O6. 


*, 36, 
1 30. 

*' J 9- 
epiv, 74 
ep/co/iai, 1 1 8. 
epos, cpor, 74- 


fpffTJV, II. 

epo>s, 104. 
eVa, 122. 
*Ve, 13. 
eVels, 71. 
lo-eVa, 71, 78. 
fs<, 117. 
ecro, 79, 82, 107. 
ecrov, 1 20, 125. 
l(rra0T7, 185. 
eVrafljjj/, 103. 
eVi/, 13. 

e, 121. 
C", 103. 
eros, 29, 132. 

D, IO2. 

2 4 . 


fvKaiplav, 187. 
euAajS^y, 1 86. 
ev\oya>, 187. 
0p7j/caj/, 1 06. 

f, 21. 


y, 187. 


D, 103, 106. 
eroy, 39, 132. 

. 24. 

>, 107. 

. 25. 

fupctKav, 1 06. 




, 194. 


', 185. 
Zei/s, 33. 
^Tjraei, 12. 
CTo, 120. 
^Tos, 119. 
C/tepSaAe'oy, ^,, ,^, ^. 

/CpOS, f/], ZfJLVpVtt, 


opKa8iov, 31. 

;, 1 20. 
', 12, 1 06. 

IT, 197- 
fiyov/Atvos, 103. 
^7po0a, 117- 
^5e, 16, 130. 
'HAl, 30. 



', 12. 

', 72. 


f ', 35- 
r;|eupcc, 105, 184. 

tf-ma, 117. 
~ ^ 

Tlpua, 36. 

ijp^aro, III. 


TJUpOV, 14. 


60,87,88,90, 130. 
dayarepa, 114. 
0aV, 130. 
0a^, 194, 175. 
0d$, 130. 
0e, 8 7 . 
0?oy, 119. 
06'Aet va, 87. 
06Aets elVrtDjue*', 187. 
0fAa) ya, 87. 

t/'a), y , ^w, ^4. 
0e'oy, I 2O, 122. 
dfais, 94. 
0cw, 24. 
dfcapw, 183. 

6r)Kapiov, 32. 


w, 105. 
, 129. 
0d^i, 129. 

0OOTT6, I3O. 

Bpiyyos, 87. 

0VfJ.OVKOV, 1 2O. 


'> 143- 

' 144, 183. 
duo- tv, 130. 
0ar, 129. 

y, i 94 . 

tafj/a), 32. 
IO.KIOV, 32. 

^774, 121. 

4777, tyiV) 127. 
2f7/cai', 121. 
t'Se, 16. 

tSov, 104. 

/epoy, 32. 

f0iy, 24. 

//cai/a), 119. 

iK/j.du, iK/, 35. 

f/caxri, 107. 

\TJ, 26. 

JfAAw, 26. 

1/j.dTia, 103. 

t/xepa, 1 8. 

'/I'a, 89, 104, 109. 

tVarl, iVaTtd^co, 194. 

frj/i, 122. 

Vi/i/oy, 30. 

Jf^ray, Jf^ra, 117. 

iov/*iv, IOV/JLUV, 125. 

iVep, 22. 

fpTjv, 26. 

5f^oy, 22. 

lw, itbj/, idcvya, 109, 

/cafle'Aov, 1 1 8. 


a, 12. 
Ka06\ov, 97, II 8. 
KOI, re, 25. 

y, 25. 
Kaipios, 34. 
naipos, 109. 

KCUJOOS, I 1 8. 

KaKOppiiKOi, 144. 
KoAa, 146. 

/caAos, 1 1 8. 
KaAcSs, no. 
K<yt, 130. 
Kd/j,i\os, 17. 

Kd/JLTTOffOS) 89. 

/cay, 109. 
/carets, 99. 
. , *95- f 

KaOTeAAa^eVoS, IO8. 

KOTajSJflpa, 12. 
tcarat/Saiiw, 1 2. 
KaTfp, 135. 
/carexco, 105. 

,J, 78. 

6, 25, 88, 115. 

5 OT** 

KcAo^at, 189. 
Kepiov, 15. 

K6S, 115. 

/cere, 134. 

, 1 30. 

Ki.dfj.ovv, 144. 
KiaVco, 199. 

Kl&OVpl, 2O. 
KlO&V, 40. 
KIHOU, I 24. 
Kt/XWJ', 34. 

, 21. 


Kls, 34- 

/cAafa), Kpdfa, 195 

K\pQS, 23. 

/cAe?s, K\fjs, 15 



^ rC&ci'a, 145- 
KoifJ.&, 103. 

/COU^ f5tcA6KTOS, 21, IOI. 

Koipavos, 34. 

;, Ko/ccoAa, 195. 


f, 105. 
/coAAovpa, 2O. 
Ko\\ovpioV) 185. 
KOVTO., 195, <Wa, 1 1 8. 
KOTtaSi, 108. 
KOTre'Ao, 35. 
KopaKiffTiica, 157. 
Kopdffiov, 106. 
Kovppfvia t 131. 
Kop6/*r]\o, Kop6fj.Tr\o, 37. 
Kopvo-crw, 37. 

K6T(TV<t>OS, 37, I 1 8. 

KoCe, 119. 
/couAAbs, 2O. 

KOVt/Sfp, I 38. 

KouTaAioj/, 20, 83. 
KovQos, 15. 

KpfftfiaTlOV, 12. 

Kpidpi, 1 1 8. 
/cpte, 199. 
KpovvbS) Kp"f)vrii 33- 

KpV&W, 1 06, 187. 
KpVOS, 195. 

Kpv(f)VKd(>iJ.a, 14!. 
Kptie, 132. 

KTOVTTW, 119. 

KitOpa, 40. 

KVK\OS, 12. 

Kvirpos, 21. 

KVptOS, IO3. 

Kxoi'Sia'Taj', 38. 
/cai/co, 35. 
/ccoAe, 123. 
Kcos, 71. 

Aa^o^ai, 29. 
ActyU'&j, 1 1 6. 

\dpos, 31. 
Xavpos, \dfipos, 24. 
XrydfJ-evos, 72. 
\fjfffat, 72. 
\fjovTas, 7 2 
A7ouj/, \eyovve, 72. 
Af|e, 72, 78. 
Ae'|ov, 72, 78. 
Aeutrffo!, 31. 
Aeo>, 30. 
ATJO-T^S, 1 6. 
\iyvpbs, 22. 
Xiddpiov, 1 06. 
AIOJ, 30, 1 1 6. 
Atotmas, 21, 121. 
Aoyrjs, 89. 
\oi/, \ifjibs, 28. 
\onrbv, 97, 104. 
\vK6(po}S, 31, 196. 


;ua, 196. 
jj-dyovXav, 115. 


fj.aifj.ov, 7. 
/xaAepbs, 197. 
(j.d\t<TTa, 99. 
1, 135. 

fj-tyer, 133. 
fj.ed\os, 115. 

, 41, 46. 


/j.e\i(r<Ta, 1 1 8. 
/j.f \iff8o}, 32. 
fj.e\iffffiv, 1 1 6. 
, 30. 
, 97. 

Mecrapovpia, 116. 
i'y, 106. 




. .. . . 197- 

nr)i', fjitjva, 96, 196. 

/"?, 185. 

*?, 12. 

p.\oiov, 1 1 6. 

z, 146. 
Aios, 21. 

I 9 I - 

/u^a^a Ta>i/e, 143. 
Hov-)i, 185. 
Movo7i'7y, 73. 

ol, 83. 


p.ovpya, 20. 
fj.o fifMyyi, 20. 

MoGVa, yuottra, 27. 
s, 20. 


, /LtTJKCtOyUOl, 22. 

/uOcroy, /xTtroy, 22. 
/J.vffTa, fj.d<TTa, 1 2. 

/*0>p6, 37- 

Mapos, fj.avpos, 24. 
/ua>j taps, 131. 

vo, 87, 196. 
vdvdeT, 135, 136. 
vapa'/'Ses, i/epe'/'Sey, 2OO. 
vditKiv, 131. 
"t. "fff, "^, 133- 

VtfJiiKOVV) 131. 

Vfpbf, I'tpOV, VTtpbv, I O6, 

y, yi>((f>os, 31. 

. '#, 31- 
S, vf]<JTr)s, 14. 
If), 120, 126, 135, 136. 
i/tow, 137. 
1/^70;, 33. 
i/iTfT, 131;. 

O !l * i>i? 

j/ioCra, 119. 
vodca, 83. 

^u/crbs a/xoA745, 35. 

uetr, 1 06. 
, |77p5s, 15. 

y7/cos, t77oy, 36. 
oSui'Scrai, 187. 

OOl^l'T?, cc5il^ 22. 

4 97- 

olv&piv, 115. 
ofos, 27. 
6\fv9fpos, 1 1 8. 
oA/os, 1 1 6. 

c^Aos, ^Aajj/, 103, 184, 


ruifjifvt], 141. 

', 31- 

^ /JllKpOTfpOS, 1 86. 

o/uop<pos, 1 1 8. 
bvdpiov, 185. 
oj/ei'para, 80, 8t. 

6Wa, cJi'Te, 117. 
iWas, 72. 
oi>v, 1 2. 

OI/CO, 12. 

', 21. 

foray, 185. 

OTTT^S, 38. 
07T<|)is, 38. 


OpOV(T, 197. 

STJ, 97. 
Sroi/uos, 1 1 8. 
, 132. 
', 133- 

O&doVK, 131. 



ovpavdSpo/jLos, 141. 
ovpavbs, 103. 

/, 116. 
, 181. 

Trapal, 12. 
irapaK\r]Tos, 1 6. 

v, 103. 
iraaa, 144. 
7ra<rxa, 119. 
Trarfpas, 71. 
n-fHiAoj', TrcraAoy, 198. 
Trej/Tj/cos, 1 18. 

^ 135- 
TTfpyioitTovv, 133. 
irepnra.Ta.Tf, 12. 

, 104, 1 86. 
, 104. 
eVe, 135, l8l. 
iridvo), iriaivci), Trtdfa, 12, 

TTlffa, TTldfa, 1 1 8. 

i, 187. 

UCO IS, 183. 

irvffTis, 22. 
TrAci/ca, 109. 
7rA6fw, II, 23,29. 
TrAV, 103. 
7T\r]po<popa>, 1 86. 
ir\-f](ria, 144. 
, 1 1 6. 

^0*0?, 89. 

, Trdita, 34. 
, 1 2O. 

7TOT /iOU, 183. 
7TOU, TTOU, 184, 1 
TTOUa, I 2O. 

TToC jtieVety, 183. 


irpay/j.a.TiKias, 104. 
irpajjia, 30. 
Trparr;, 117. 

irp?(rTs, Trpfo-rr/y, 1 6. 
irpofffppr)tv, 1 86. 



j.a, 113. 


Trpovara, 1 20. 
irpovKU, 27. 
irva\ov, irve\ov, 1 1 8. 
TrvKvcaats, 93. 
TV Acts, 22. 
7rvpiro\tj/j.fvos, Io8. 


, 99. 

, 29. 
*, 132. 
pe'fa>, II, 23, 29.>, ii 6. 
peTravt, pafpdviOf, 12. 
priyfj.a, p-f]x vw j 1 86. 

P"*C< 0/'C. 2 9- 
pi&Kbv, 144. 

pvyxos, p"?s, 22. 

f>V7TTCa, p'iirTto), 22. 

pus, 129. 

(TO, 131, 145., 127. 
ffapavrapya, Il6. 
eras, 71, 109. 
ffayar, 131. 
fff, V, ffe/j.ovi'dfT, 132. 
crffias, 29. 
2ej87jpos, 29. 
(T)8o/xa<, <Tfvo/, 29. 

CTiTeptV, 1 1 8. 
0~KO,(pOS, 12. 

A)s, 39. 

rial', ffKiirav, 1 6. 
fc, 203. 
. 39- 


ffKO\fib, 39. 
ffKorta, 184. 

ffKOTOVto), 92. 
ffKV\O,KlOV, 1 1 6. 
(TKV(pOS, 12. 

^, 80. 


ffovffa.ij.1, 83. 
(rrafleiy, 187. 
ffradfpbs, 1 06. 
ardirov, 79. 
cmfrre, 135. 

ffTfp^e, 176. 
cr-n-jAT?, (TTuAos, 22. 
vpa, 22. 


93, 99, 200. 

vos, 141. 

ffvyKvpiav, 187. 
ffv&iTfiv, 187. 
o-y^irye, 22. 

epii', 118. 


, 141. 

3, = a, 115, 145. 
, 134. 

TapTTjcrcros, 1 6. 


, 1 1 6. 
re, 129, 133. 
Tfitvr), 1 1 8. 


re/i-ar, 134. 
T6^te, 134. 
TeV crapes, 1 1 8. 

, 133. 

pm, 108. 

, 108. 
T^?, rV, 75- 
TTJI/OS, 34. 
T(, 120, 133. 
TI Ao-yTjs, 89. 
TteVpt, 137. 
T^-lr, 134. 

TtOV, 121. 

Tii/as, 117. 

TiTTOTa, I I . 

rfjJfiyp.a, 30. 


TOJ/, I 1 6. 
ToSt, 134. 

rovfj,a, 126, 127. 

TOUS = OVS, 145. 
TOVTOV, 1 1 6. 

Totty^, 134. 
rpayi, 118. 
T ^, 135- 

rpfirvbs, Tfpirvds, Il6. 
rpovira, 83. 
W, 182. 


<, 119, 121. 

vr], SovKavrj, 2O. 
Tvpavvos, Koipavos, 34. 
TUS, 27. 

TUT, 134. 
TWV, IO9. 

TW/>, ToVe, ToVa, 134. 
Toipa, 89. 

pa TrAeov, 1 20. 


uf, vT\via.) 16. 
t>tos, 28. 
U'AT?, 21, 99. 
#o, 126. 

uTroyw, 103, 183. 
virapxo, 99, 187. 
VTraTos, 25. 
virevdwos, 45. 
V7r68r)/>, in. 

i', 99. 
, 115. 
MT, 134. 

s, 25. 

(pdyecrai, 187. 
(paivfrai, 99. 
(paivca, <peyyca } 25. 
t, (pe@yu, 29. 

(pfpros, (pfprepos, (pfpra- 
TOS, 83. 
u|e, 82. 


i/w, 24, 187. 



<pi\oaro<pia, 196. 
<pirpov, (pvrpa, 22. 
(pKeidvw, <pTidv<a, 34- 
(pKvdpiov, (prvdpiov, 34. 

r, <f>\vvds, 22. 

ovvi, 30. 

, <p\i!3p&v t 33. 
^XouStoi/, 27. 
4>o/3acra<, 12. 

(poov/j.fvos } 1 19. 
k 27. 

.V*T, 15. 

(poped five, 117. 

', </)i)^<x!, 1 19. 

, 37- 






hdvypovv, 132. 
Xava>, xj 206. 
XP'S, hdpis, 1 1 8. 
Xdpos, Xapwi/ray, 92. 
Aepe, 132. 



, 21. 

I S* 


1 1 6. 

tyavrepiv, 31. 
^5, 144. 

>a>, 206. 

W, 208. 


^o^wiet, 92 


t 28. 
0)6l/, 21. 
pa, 189. 
dipa/ca, 128. 







H <D 

!H O 











University of Toronto 








Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. "Ref . Index FUe'