The modern Greek language in its relation to ancient Greek

ee Za

=

ALKA

ror

AD NNN NINA AC.

a Bee. ot

x

‘

NA

SANNA

~ a ;

SANNA NS ANS:

if” See
aera fe

ae
eS gr Pg Ne

”

(Qaim @ Larenoon qiress DEUTER SITY
J

THE MODERN

-

CREEK LANGUAGE.

IN ITS

RELATION TO ANCIENT GREEK

’
‘
o>

EE -By
& 4 " fu. i
EY M* GELDART, B.A.

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

Wxford

ot af-
M DCCC LXX n 3

PREPAC E.

In 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. Versés 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.

b

ae", ee > ee
x . * al
. : 3 “a

vi | PREFACE.

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
indebted.

Other works which I have advantageously consulted are
Schleicher’s ‘Compendium der Vergleichenden Grammatik,’
Renan’s ‘ Eclaircissements tirés des Langues sémitiques sur
quelques points de la Prononciation grecque,’ Mullach’s
‘Grammatik der Griechischen Vulgarsprache,’ Liidemann’s
‘Lehrbuch der Neugr. Sprache,’ Prof. Telfy’s ‘ Studien tiber
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

PREFACE. Vii

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 eypadeoo for éypapov, ypapeoat
for ypdpe or ypadpy, the fact should be noticed. Again, in
other ways truth is sacrificed by Mr. Sophocles to system,
as when he gives rod marépa, rot avdpa, as the modern Greek

b 2

(

pe a ee a ee

viii PREFACE.

for rod warpds, tod dvSpés. These forms occur no doubt, but
the classical forms are more common even in the vernacular,
in which however the metaplastic nominatives warépas and
évdpas have supplanted warp and avnp. 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 NeoeAAnvxy @irodoyia, a work lately
published in Athens, and forming a biographical history of
mediaeval and modern Greek literature.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTERS
Introduction.

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.

CHAPTER II.
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.

CHAPTER II.
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

x CONTENTS. — .

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.

CHAPTER IV.

On the Origin and Development of Modern Greek
Accidence.

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 sow?) didAextos. The disappearance of the dative
case, pp. 68-84.

CHAPTER V.

The Origin and Development of Modern Greek
Syntax.

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

.

CHAPTER VI.
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. g1-100.

CONTENTS. xi

CHAPTER VII.

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. Theodorus Prodromus the first modern
Greek writer, pp. 101-113.

CHAPTER VIII.
Dialects of Modern Greece.

Asiatic. Chiotic. Cretan. Cyprian. Peloponnesian. Dialect of the
Tonian 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.

CHAPTER IX.
Modern Greek Literature.

Piochoprodromus. Sethos. The Book of the Conquest. Belthandros
and Chrysantza. Gorgilas. Chortakes. Scuphos. Kornaros.
‘ Rhegas. Cumas. Coraes. Ocekonomos. WNerulos. 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. Vay
laorites. Conclusion, pp. 138-177.

APPENDIX I. ae

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.

APPENDIX IL.
A Short Lexilogus, pp. 189-208.

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

CORRIGENDA.

Page 33, line 9, for (uepddrcos read (yepdaréos,
» 35, » 7,for hv0a read fvOor.
» 130, ,, 26, and elsewhere, for é5¢ read é5é.
» 141, 4, .14,/for wepiBonrod read mep:Bonrov.

ee! ee

CHAPTER: I.

Introduction.

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

B

(oo OURS ee Sees ee ee
2 INTRODUCTION. es

in England, France, Gennany; 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 peas: the city; yet no man remembered that
same poor man.’

The reasons for this nephed! 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.’

INTRODUCTION. | 3

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 irae
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

4 INTRODUCTION.

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 ‘EO ’Emedpnots, 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 Il’Instruction Publique’ for the 4th of
November, 1869, thus comments on the periodical in
question :— ;

‘ Les rédacteurs de l’"E@vxr ’EmOedpyors se proposent de faire pénétrer
dans leur pays les notions scientifiques dont l’absence nuit, en Grece,
au developpement de l’agriculture, du commerce et de l'industrie. . ».
Persuadés que la principale cause de l’abaissement de la Gréce est dans
le manque de routes publiques, ils feront tous leurs efforts pour
combattre l’institution ruineuse d’une armée inutile, qui, depuis la
restauration de la nation hellénique, a dévoré plus de trois cents millions
(de drachmes), et pour ticher de faire couler dans le domaine de I’agri-
culture et de l'industrie ces flots d’or et d’argent dépensés 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

INTRODUCTION. aug:

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
Septuagint.

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

6 INTRODUCTION. —

in a manner hitherto quite unlooked 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 jos/ulafed 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
language.

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 the 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 reducto
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
another.

How small the resemblance between our pronunciation
of ureicavres and the Greek! How can we wonder that
in our /yoolyoosdnies, he should fail to recognize his phztéph-

INTRODUCTION. 7

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,

CHAPTER Ip.

On the Pronunciation of Greek.

Edy obv pr €ldQ rihv Sivapw Tis povfjs, écouar TH AadrodyTt BapBapos*
kal 5 Kaddv év eno BdpBapos.—Sr. Pavt. TL Cer I4¢*I/

Das Altgriechische nach Art des Neugriechischen auszusprechen ist ein
Fehler, der auf vollstindiger Unkenntniss der Sprachengeschichte
und der Lautlehre iiberhaupt beruht.—Scuteicuer, Compendium der
Vergleichenden Grammatik.

THE atrés pa 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 @ frzor? 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
system.

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 9

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 ¢ was
never pronounced like ff in haphazard. But all that com-
parative philology can prove, all that @ przorz reasoning re-
quires, and, as I think we shall see, all that @ posterior?
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 griord 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

10 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

every one’s understanding. If the modern Greek pronun-

a

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 @ priorz 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
on the peculiarities of Greek pronunciation, as the sounds
given to y, B, 5, wR, pr, vd, vr, ot, €, 7, 4, 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

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. ES

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

VoweEL Sounpbs.

A.

This letter is pronounced by the Greeks as @ 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 ainto o,a, and n, and its further intensification into o,
an original a is often frequently represented by e or o. Thus,
besides the dialectic forms BépeOpov epany for Bapabpor apony,
we have xdéos for xddfas, from grdvas, mhéFfo or mea from
plévdmt, péFo from srdévdmi, pépeca answering to bhdrasé, &c.
So too in modern Greek we get rimora for rimore, as in

12 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

Acolic, xpeSBdriov for xpaSBdrior, pend for papdnov, edrod for
avtov, adyyi€w for éyyi{w, from eyyis.

As examples of a interchanged with o, we have in ancient
Greek the Aeolic aTporos 3: ove OugxOpnge = = orpards ive dvexapnoe,
iuBporov for iuBparoy, i.e. fuaprov, duos sand 4 dpa, dykos and éykos,
éppwdéo and dppwdéo. In modern Greek we have, in like
manner, xara8d6pa for xataBdOpa, dppabia for éppabia. Com-
pare the classical 8é@pos with BaOpov, ém8dpa.

Schleicher observes that the three terminations of contract
verbs, dw, é, and de, were all originally but one, viz.jdw. So
in modern Greek éw is always represented by da, at least
in the language of the common people. As (yrde for ¢yréi,
mepimarate for mepurareire, poBaca for poBeiom, i.e. PoPh or
poBet.

A in ancient Greek is seldom weakened into v, yet this
appears to have been the case in vvé, dvu€, xikdos, pwAos, and
a few other words, as ptoraé, which also appears in the form
paorag, and BvOos, which is found side by side with Baéos.
In modern Greek we get oxigos for oxddos or oxadyn. So,
again, we have the diminutive appellation d¢vov, as in ywpa-
quov, frequently represented by tdior, as (avq¢uor.

In ancient Greek a is often weakened into 1, as tof for
ds-dht, riOnyus for dédhémt. Compare in modern Greek Yi-
xada, Wiyadife, with the classical yaxds, yaxd¢e. In modern,
as in ancient Greek, we have n for a, puxpy for pixpa, mxpy for
mixpa, and a for n, as BeAdva for BeAdvn, A in Homeric Greek
becomes at, as aierds, alei, dual, mapai. So in modern Greek
kataiBaive, dvaiBaive, naive for midve, kabioraivw for kabiordve,
Aiara, a covenant, may be another form of diara, and pro-
bably an older one.

A is prefixed to many words more or less perhaps for the
sake of euphony, as d8Anypds, dorepomn, domraipw, doradis, in
classical; ’ABpvov, a8pdravov, a8deddAa, a8pdyvdrov for BpaBuror,
dordxv, and many others, in modern Greek.

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 13

E.

Pronounced like e in defer, only a little broader, more
like the German & 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 6xOpds for éyOpés, in ancient; 6x6pds for €xOpds, d£o
for ¢, in modern Greek. Conversely, éddvres for dddvres,
*Amwé\dov for ’ArdAXAov, in ancient ; and ”EAvyros for "OAvpmos,
ewe for 6wé, in modern Greek. It is also prefixed, as keivos,
éxeivos, mé, ue, in ancient; rodro, erovro, oé, éve, ov, éov, IN
modern Greek.

H.

This letter is pronounced by the Greeks like ¢, that is like
ee in see, or e in be; 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 Iotacists, 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 7.

That » was originally the representative of a sound dis-
tinct from « is etymologically certain, inasmuch as in the
Ionic dialect, and in certain cases in Attic, 7 stands for the
doubly strengthened a, whereas « is a weakened a, in the
few cases where it represents it. At the same time there
are cases where n represents a short a, as in Te~oapHKovra
SitAjowos. In these instances 7 may perhaps stand for
short «

14 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

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
differed in their day from 1, and was like the long Italian e.
Dionysius says, in pronouncing » the breath strikes the roots
of the tongue, in sounding « the back of the teeth. This,
though a very vague distinction, is not altogether inapplicable
to the difference between the sounds of ay and ec. Hero-
dian simply says people are mistaken in saying wjorns for
vjotis. Here the difference implied may be very well one
of quantity only. Terentianus Maurus says, distinguishing
between ¢ and 7, ‘Temporum momenta distant, non soni
nativitas ;’ and Sextus says much the same thing, viz. ‘ Kal
ovotadev pev TO 7 yiverat c, exrabey dé rd € yivera yn.’ ‘That is,
long «=; short 7=e. This would seem to a casual reader
to prove the point for which the Erasmians contend, viz.
that » 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 »
must or ought to be pronounced like the letter which they
‘used to represent it; and as to them e = é, they naturally con-
cluded »=@. Again, etymologically they were right: 7 is
not only the strengthening or lengthening of a, but also of «.
AS €pwre npornoa, évéyKw iveykov, evpw nupov.

Again, if 7 was considered by the ancients as a long e¢, so
was e, for the old name of ¢ was «i, 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 od, yet no one supposes
that ov was really the long sound of 0, because we know that
ov was always transcribed in Latin by uw Equally certain is

Ty ce _ |
a
,

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 15

it that « was almost invariably represented by the simple
vowel 7 in Latin. Consequently we are led to the conclu-
sion that ov and « 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 e for
ec: €. 2. xpvadov = xpvaotv, popéere = Hopeire. 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 @ prior 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 7 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 xjvos and rivos for keivos, but also BovAee and BovdAn,
KAfjs OF kels, KAecrOs and kKAntéds. Nor does the Latin tran-
scription of » by @ prove that it was sounded ay: for the
Latin @ represented very often an ¢, and on the other hand
tended to become, and therefore probably closely resembled
in sound, the simple 7. So we have /ristes from /risée7s,
written ¢ristis; Vergilius written Virgilius, &c.: and not only
so, but in the Byzantine period deszgnatus is transcribed in
Greek d:ovyvdros: while, on the other hand, Plutarch writes
Palilia, Wadydva: where plainly y =long z. So that the tran-
scription of 7 by é in Latin inclines us to believe, not that
was sounded ay, but that @ in Latin was hard to distinguish
from 2. When shortened, 7 tends to become e«, not only in
ancient but also in modern Greek, as for example, Hepés,
Ionic for npdés, dvabepa for dvd6nua; and in modern Greek,
Eepds for Enpds, Oepiov for Onpiov, pepiov for pnpiov, kepiov for
Knpiov.
Of the very close resemblance between « and 7 in the time
of Homer, that is between the sounds represented in later

16 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. a
times by « and 7 respectively, we have, Professor Mullach
thinks, instances in the parallel forms jxo and ike, émiBodos
and énn8odros (where n seems to be simply « lengthened by
the combined force of the accent and the ictus), y/yas and
yryemms, Which two forms we have together in the Batra-
chomyomachia,—

Tyyevéewy avdpay pipovpevoe epya yryavrav,—

wida€ from mda, 78¢ and ide. In many of these cases ¢
stands for long 7, in others for a shortened 7. Ross gives
an inscription found at Carpathus in which fp@ey stands for
jpowv. ‘The significance of this would depend greatly on the
antiquity of the inscription. In the Cratylus of Plato, the
obviously false etymology of Anunrnp from Sdidou. and pnrnp,
derives all its little plausibility from the resemblance between
6n- and &-. So in Aristophanes’ Pax, 925, the point of a
pun depends upon the resemblance in sound between ot
and fonéeiv, and again, 928, between ti and tia. Nor
should the later parallel forms mpiorns and mpjotis, cxnrev and
oxixav, with the Latin Scipio, which Plutarch writes =xyrior,
be forgotten.

All the Semitic transcriptions, of whatever age, agree in
representing » by 7, according to M. Renan, in his very
learned and interesting pamphlet, ‘ Eclaircissements tirés des
Langues sémitiques sur quelques points de la Prononciation
grecque. ‘Thus in the Syrian Peschito Knpas = K7/o, Kupnyn
= Kourinz.

In Hebrew we have Zarschisch for Taprnoods, dima for
Biya, diathiki for dann, lists for Anorhs.

In Aethiopian, paraciitos = mapakdyros, mestir for pvornproy.
In Arabian, Dimas for Anyas.

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

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 7

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

In the New Testament, xdyidos for xdundos, éddkrnoe for
éXdkrioe, are no doubt errors in spelling, but they show the
early prevalence of the confusion of » with «: so too e€umvicw
for e€vrvnjce. ;

It is not of much importance that y represents in Alexan-
drine and Hellenistic Greek the Hebrew ?, as in ’Eppavounh,
Sadrabipr: because n 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 y, 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 :—

¢ ‘ es ee: an oA ‘ “ , > , > “ ‘
Oi madawol of juérepor TO (Gta kal TS Seta ed pdda expGrro, kai
> id ¢ Lg a , _ \ > , ‘ ,
ovx FkioTa ai yuvaikes, aimep padiora THY apxaiay Povnvy ca {ovor.
As <qlseee a aA F re
Nov avti pev rod “Iléra 4 Ei 7 "Hta petacrpedovor, ... Otov oi
A 5 , ee 4 \ c 7 Caw € AT ey ¢ ‘ “
pev apxadrara: inepay tiv nucpay exddovy, oi d€ éuepav, of de voy
e
Nuepav.

Here it seems we must read, instead of 4 "Hra, simply ”Hra,
the former 4 connecting “Iéra #) E?.

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 « and y, he
would scarcely have distinguished the two as he has done;
but if we are really to believe that he meant 7 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 jra as
ira, so far from being an innovation as the Erasmians con-

C

‘ee
»~ FY:

18 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. —

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 -
n as a grander sound than ¢ or e, peyadomperéotepov: 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 Iotacism 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 were originally represented by
short ones like «.

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 jyépa was
found in ancient documents and inscriptions zrz#/en, in de-
' fault of the letter »,—which was not used as a vowel until
the Archonship of Euclides, 403 B.0.,—é€yépa or inépa. If
this view be correct, we may appeal to Plato in proof
that the most ancient way of representing the letter y
was by «. .

The Scholiast on Eurip. Phoen. 685 tells us expressly that
before the time of Euclides « was used for y, o for apéya.
Theodosius the Grammarian, who lived in the fourth century
after Christ (?), assures us that » was formed by joining two
’s together. This is of course impossible, inasmuch as 7
was originally used as the sign of the aspirate, but it shows
at any rate that by Theodosius y was considered as equiva-
lent to a long or double «.

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

“‘O 8 nribios donep mpdBarov Bi Bi Aéyov Badiger.’

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 19

Everybody feels, it is argued, that to represent the bleating
of a sheep by a sound equivalent to i, Bi, the vowel being
sounded as ¢e in see, would be inadmissible.

After all, we must confess that the attempts to render the
noises of animals by the articulate sounds of pepdérev avOpo-
mov, 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, acht, the Greek ear seemed to distinguish
the mysterious syllables Bpexexexé€. 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 dah, dah,
and I confess the Greek sheep seemed to me to Say so too.
But this may have been a Doricism.

As however the letter 7 could hardly have been in use as a
vowel when Cratinus wrote, it is nearly certain that he must
have written Beé, Beé, or perhaps simply B¢, Bé. This being
so, the whole argument of the Erasmians falls to the ground
as a ‘demonstration in unreal matter.’

I.

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 Q.

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 @ at the beginning of a syllable sounds short, and
o at the end of a syllable, long. Adyos sounds Aw-yos; mpay-
parikas, mpayparicés. ‘That this was so in ancient Greek
seems likely from the accent in wédcws, povdxepws, &c. It is
almost impossible to preserve the pure sound of o when

q@2

tae | OR a a? ee ee

20 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

much lengthened. Our o in zofe is not strictly the 0 in of

lengthened, but the sound 6 rapidly followed by 00, as in do04.
Double o sounds in English as it did in Greek, simply 60.
Ov was one form of long o, and épéya was another, the latter
used no doubt in those cases where the e sound was still
preserved. Thus it is that we have ov as a strengthened
form for o: €. g. podvos, odAdpeEvos, woxOnpds, povyrepds, Modern
Greek ; povpya for duépyn, modern Greek, and many others.

Ov stands more frequently for , as yodv, ody for yar, dv: sO
in modern Greek, «:Sovps for x Bdproyv, kovpds for kopds, youvita
for dWavito, &c.

Y as a vowel,

The modern Greeks generally pronounce this letter
simply as a long «. Schleicher says it was originally
sounded like the German or Italian uw, but soon acquired
the sound of the German #, or French uw. The old sound
is preserved in numberless modern Greek words, which
may all be regarded as Boeotice’ forms, like your for yuvn.
Here follow a few examples, taken for the most part from
Sophocles’ ‘ Modern Greek Grammar:’—

"AykvXos, dykovya, dykupa, aykoupa, ruxdvn, Sovkdyy (cf. in Homer
dodmros for timos), crovpdxvoy for orupdxtov, koddovpa for KoAdvpa,
tpovra for rpira, oxovAos for oxvdAos, kovAdds for KvAAds, pouKdyn
for puxdyy,—to which we may add kxovrddwov, undoubtedly a
Doric or Boeotic form for kuraduoy, i. €. oxurddAvov, —pouppovpito
for puppupi{e, poupyiyy: from pippné.

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

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

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 21

be sounded like the English x, viz. yoo. Thus in Tsakonian
we have wotrra for wi«ra, i. e. wv0&, .

So in old Boeotian inscriptions we have Atomovo.os, Atovoias,
*OXwovvTiwvos. I suspect however, from the examples ad-
duced, that both in the case of Tsakonian and Boeotian
the . represents the liquid sound of A and » before v, as in
modern Greek generally is the case whenever these letters
stand before v, «, y and similar sounds.

In Syrian transcriptions v is generally represented by ox
(English 00), as kindounos oksotifafon for xivdvvos d£vBagov.
Similarly in the Chaldaean of Daniel, Soumphonia = Suppovia,

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, e py 6éow dStapvddrrevy, And not only
so, but the words in question, both as regards their form
and signification, are evidently of earlier than the Macca-
baean period. ~HIDB wavrépw for adrnpwor is a natural
form enough for the xow) Siddexros 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 z as the representative of v, ac-
cording to the prevazlzng, though not universal, modern Greek
usage : as Lvroclidon = Eipordvdor, Didimos = Aidvpos, clamis =
xAapis, Azli=tdrn. In Sountco for Swwrvyos the accented
syllable preserves the oo sound, while the unaccented has
lost it. That the unaccented v was the first to become «
we may infer from the common occurrence of such words as
poruBdos and pddcBos, ditiw and durevo, BapBiros and BpaBuros,

A

22 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

and such endings as -npds, -vpds, -vAds, -tAds, -yAds, used
indifferently, and apparently without any distinction in
meaning, as avornpds, Aryupds, dyxvAos, morkidus, e€&itydos,
otpdBiros, atovdos, tyndés. Neither accent nor quantity seem
to be very fixed in such words; yet vAos seems most often
paroxytone; when the accent is removed the tendency to
become ndos or wos would seem to increase. In Latin a
- short unaccented w also becomes easily 7, as in maximus,
optimus, for maxumus, opfumus, another instance of the way
in which the Iotacizing tendency in Greek is paralleled in
Latin. There are many instances, however, of an accented
v becoming +: witness BuBdos and BiPXos, Bpi-@e and Bapiée,
Bpio, pirpor, pirpa, pvyxos and pis, pimrw and pimra: probably
also 7¥6- and m6-, riots and riots, puoos (perhaps picos) and
picos, Yidios and Wiis, ddvvm and ddiv, YippiOcov and yuppi-
@uv. E and v are also interchangeable, as in puxdopa and
pyxdoua, KAuvtds and kAnrés, also KAerés, ordAos and ornAn,
ornpryé and ortpa& from ornpitw, prnvos from prvo = prvvds.

In Arabic, Aethiopian, and Persian transcriptions v is
nearly always represented asz.: Azpros, astcriton, stzige, pilas,
and so on, for Kimpos, dovyxprrov, avfvye, midas, The Septua-
gint follows here, as in other cases, the Iotacist pronunciation.

In the Aeolic dialect ov sometimes stands for v, as
Oovyarnp; but more often 4, as tos, tmép.

The same three gradations are found in German: as
funf, fiinf, in the South pronounced as jinf; so nulzlich,
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 der, which in the
South sounds as zder, Even in the written language, Gediirge
and Gebirge, giiltig and giltig, Hilfe and Hilfe, Spriichwort
and Sprichwort are used indifferently according to the taste
and fancy of the writer.

'

i ee
—

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 23

AY and EY

are pronounced in modern Greek as aw and éw in
German when the v stands between two vowels or before
a medial; in other cases as ad or ef respectively. The
English letters v and fare only approximations to the Ger-

man w=, and the Greek ¢. /#' and vin English, and in

~

most European languages, are made by means of the upper
teeth and. the under lip, ¢, 8, and w in German, are formed
by the contact of both lips. Any one who compares the
two sets of sounds by pronouncing AS or Av-, and Az, Ad,
or Av and Af in rapid succession, will see how much nearer
the Greek 8, or v consonantal, and ¢, are to the vowel
sound oo, or even zw (French), than the English approxima-
tions. The transition from oo (z 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 4 or f; but very
seldom, if ever, the German or Saxon w.

That av and ev were sounded as af and ¢§, 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 z, so-called,
but what in reality is the consonantal sound of uw = 00, into
which the vowel sound is changed if followed by another
vowel, as in grdvas, plévdmi, srdvdmi = kdeFos, mhéeFo, péeFo.
The modern Greek forms mAevo, pedo preserve the F, as vu
consonantal.

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 Lvroclidon,
Pavlos, Avgoustos; evkaristia =ebvxapwria, evitkis = edrvyns.

24 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

It is true that av in Syriac represents also a, as Javseph =
"Iwonp, Bariavna for Bapwova: and M. Renan suggests that
av in Syriac was pronounced az (German), which is possible ;
but in any case there is the ev=ev remaining. Av and a,
as well as the Latin au and a, are plainly nearly related,
whatever may have been their pronunciation: as rpadpa,
tpapa, Oaitpa, bapa, lautus, lotus, Claudius, Clodius, aut, 0,
amavit, amavi, amd. So in modern Greek padpos, Mapos, adriov,
@riov, Bavkddwoy, Bakdd.ov,

In modern Greek ev also sometimes becomes o@, as
Wevpara, Wouara, with which we may compare eiAdka, a
Laconian form of avdaf, and the form dag, also Doric.
In MSS. we have the double forms Aavpos and AaBpos, Aavpa
and AdBpa, kadtaipoy and Kadd8poy. In Homer ay is, I
cannot doubt, for ad+s=ats; s being added, as in ovras,
ev6vs, and other adverbs. Compare défo and épa, the sig-
mated. devo and evw, and in modern Greek émiorewa, nays,
&c., for ériorevoa, xaiois. The Homeric word ipépos is
derived by Liddell and Scott in a procrustean manner from
idu, Oiuos, notwithstanding the long « and the 6, being a mere
ending, while the last « of tx is violently, and contrary to
all analogy, elided between ¢ and @.

‘Kaimep ov padiwv dv rowvtros avdpdow amoreiv, I must
submit, first, that there is no such ending as Oimos; and,
secondly, if there is one thing certain about 6, 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¢é@mos is but another
way of writing yvévpos, the Epic form of e®évpos. Here
every single letter is accounted for, and the accent and
quantity as well. In J@ds for «v@ds it appears that the @
has been lost. Probably dé, Ocivw, Oiva are connected
with déivo: as well as O€@, Ood{w, Odos, Oarrov, Sanscrit
dhivaémi, with Pbdva, pbéwper, POéwor,

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 25

Al.

This combination as pronounced by the Greeks is not to
be distinguished from «. So we get in the grammarians
wWéxas and waixas, while ye- in the compounds seems to
represent ya-. Ailmvs, high, lofty, seems (cf. draros, tYyuoros,
and iyndds, from imép) to be connected with emi.

Ai-dv becomes édy. ¢yyw is from gaive, and probably
stands for gatyyw. Kail and re for xe are, according to
Curtius, but two forms of the same word. The interjec-
tions é and a? suggest the same. Kedvds for xadyds, related to
Kalvups, eopa and aidpa, paivoua and pevos, pamdw for pepdo,
dpyaudkeros for dudkeros = auaynros, instead of dpepaxeros, xairn
from xéw, implying the verbal adjective xerds or xarrds, are
sufficient to show how often a stands for «. It invariably
stands for the Sanscrit ¢ in the verbal termination a, as
hépera, pepera, for bharasé, bhdrate.

At the end of a word a 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 -o6e, to stand for -c@Fe, which is short for -c@Fa =
-sdhvat. The diphthongal sound of a, 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
Greek.

In Latin a 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 az was used, as “errat frugiferat.

In Greek inscriptions belonging to the Roman period
we find « representing a, and vice versé. When Plato,
Crat. 412 d, is quoted as proof that dikaoyv was pronounced

26 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

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

Avoavin, od Sé vaiyt kadds, Kadds, GAAa mply eimeiy

*Q5e capas, nyo gyoi tis Gddos exe.

Where éye: @Ados is supposed to be the echo of vaixe xadds,
the initial consonants disappearing, as we know they
actually do in an echo.

EI.

This combination written without the diaeresis is, and
no doubt was, sounded as. Naix: rhymes, as we have seen,
to éxye. In Latin, « regularly appears as z, and in Greek
itself we have ipyy and elpyv, DA and edo, tAn and €iAy.
Semitic transcriptions all point the same way, as well as
the pun on aA indrioy and ddepparwy in Diogenes Laertius.
In the Scythian patois, Aristoph. Thesm., « stands for short «,
as o for . Herodian, M. Victorinus, Choeroboscus, and
Theognostus identify « with «, while Sextus says it had a
sound peculiar to itself.

Ol.

Now sounded like «, n, «, or v, that is, equivalent to e
in see. Originally it was sounded apparently more like
v than any of the other letters or combinations, inasmuch
as the name tWiAov was given it to distinguish it from
v dipOoyyos or v dia dipOdyyou by the later grammarians.
So in Boeotic we get ris for rots. In the same way {Aor
was so called to distinguish it from a or € dia dupOdyyov.
Thus John Lydus, a Byzantine grammarian, tells us, Zyrjoa
Se d&droyov vopifo ri pév onpaiver [xvaicrwp| dia rhs dipOdyyou
ypapdpevov, ri b€ Wiris; Kvaiorwp roivuy 6 <ntnrns amd rod
quaerere oioy epevvav. “Ore dé pi) SipOoyyos ev mpooupias 7H AeEts,
GdAa Wig ypdpera, oddéerepoy péev Trav eipnuevav onpuaiver tov Se

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 247

pepyiporpov Kal Brdodnpyoy did ris ypadis emideiEer, Ore gueror
peppopat,

- Hence it is evident that the word yaAdy, 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 o are very various: some-
times it appears as 7, as kzrogrellios for xoupoypiAdwos: in
Aethiopian sometimes as 0, as Phonix for Going, probably
a mere mistake; and most commonly by ow, i.e. u OF 00,
proving the similarity of the sound of o to v, which, as we
have seen, is also represented by ow.

The Aeolians changed ov to o, as Moica for Movoa, which
was probably very much the same thing as if they had written
it Mioa.

Ox is short (as a rule) in prosody, and often in scansion,
and that not only at the end of a word: witness Il. xiii. 275
(quoted by Mullach), 078’ dperjy oios goor: and again, Toios
eov oios ors. It was then plainly no diphthong. Oeconomos,
a Greek writer of the present century, thinks it was sounded
in some dialects as ov =u Italian, and in some as v passing
intov. This appears to us highly probable. In modern Greek
we find mpotvxa for mpoika, provdiov for Proridiov Or Proid.ov,
arpdémiovv for drudm\ouoy, as well as the ordinary « sound.
The Germans generally prefer 6 (=eu French) as the re-
presentative of o, and compare oe which invariably tran-
scribes it in Latin, but we do not know how the Latin ve
was sounded, although we do know that it was, like the
Greek o, monosyllabic, and, like it too, easily passed both

a Ma i
"

28 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

into w and 7: compare foedus with fidus, moenia with munire.
If o. and oe were really like the German 6, then we may also
compare such forms as sdhnen, stihnen, and (according
to Southern pronunciation) szhnen.

The account of the ambiguous oracle in Thucydides, ii. 54,
clearly proves at least the close resemblance in sound between
Aoiwds and Ads. 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 derOa, dvopacba, eipjoda, and doovra 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 (avopdcOa) Aowds but Auywds:’ 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 Aomds:’ whereas all that the words will bear
is, ‘the thing spoken of was Aowds.’ Again, rv pynuny éror-
odvro could not mean ‘adapted their recollections,’ but simply
‘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.

YI

sounds in modern Greek as « simply. Homer nearly always
makes vids two short syllables. In Syriac ozos oceurs for
6 vids, which is the more remarkable as the usual Syriac
representative of v alone is ow.

Passing on to the consonants, we begin with

2

B=German w.

Liddell and Scott admit that it was softer than our 0.
It frequently stood for the digamma in dialectic forms, i.e.

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. —.29

in those words where the digamma was still sounded; as
Betkatt, Badixios, for cixoot, jAikuos. So in modern Greek we
have Bdyya, a hollow, compare dyxos and ayyos, &c.; Bpita, as
in ancient Greek for fifa, in the sense of rye; Bodpxos, etymo-
logically the same with épxos, Bpdyos, and paxoddAa.

It stands for the consonantal sound of v in such tran-
scriptions as Aaid, S<8npos, probably in the proper name
AyaBos for dyavés; and the word dmrodavw is only another
way of writing drokd8@. So in modern Greek we get dvdSo
from dvdrrew, of which it is the root, in the sense of to burn;
compare the ancient Greek atv, evave. In the middle of a
word it thus preserves the digamma in modern Greek, and
in such positions may be equally well written as v; e.g.
TAEV@O, pevw, TAEBO, peBa.

If Bas come from the Sanscrit sév, then it should properly
be written cevas; but it is possible that o¢8oua meant ori-
ginally ‘I move for a person,’ the ancient sign of respect;
and in that case it stands for cevoua, of which coBéw is
certainly the causative, written with 8 instead of v, to
preserve the sound of the last consonant in the root. Compare
poke, heBouar, Pevya, i.e. PeByo.

As a rule, however, 8 stands for the Sanscrit g, and thus
in Greek it is interchangeable with y, as Pépupa, yépupa;
Bréhapov, yAéepapov. So in modern Greek we have yAédpapor,
yAérw, youra for Bovma, youyoupas for BépBopos (?): cf. yapyvupa,
yapyarewr,

Before «, pronounced as y, it becomes, like y and 4, ¢:
as vif for viBie-; Adfoua for AdBiopa. 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 8. Thus zpito and
tpi8w are probably from the same root, rpi{w expressing the
grating squeaking noise caused by tpi8. The intermediate
form would be rpi8y#, which occurs in modern Greek, as

30 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

well as both rpifo and rpi8o. So vi8w and viByo, for vite,
are modern Greek forms. Cf. PéBopa and PeBya, i.e. hevyo.

The hard unaspirated sound of 4 is preserved when 8
follows p, as euBaive, éuBdripos.

B is interchangeable with p, as peuBpas for BewSpas (ancient
Greek) ; pufdw, Bufdw; xnun, dxnBdda (modern Greek) ; with
g, as B&urros, Macedonian for Gidurmos (ancient Greek) ;
cf. modern Greek &:Aapds, Bidapds; adeiBo, dreipw ; BAnoKodn,
pAnoxodm (modern Greek); with 7, as Bareiv, mareiv, rurivn,
Burivn (ancient Greek) ; ’Apamid for "ApaSia (modern Greek).

B, A are interchanged, as Bedpiv, Bryp for derAdiv, SedAedp
(ancient Greek); xovrd8e for xovvdd:, from xivados (modern
Greek).

Ks

This letter is a guttural semivowel, like the German g
in Zag: before « and e, however, it sounds like a very strong
yj; in other words, it sounds more palatal. The sound of the
Hebrew y, 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 Taga,
T'époppa, for MY, 772¥: 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 » before an un-
accented vowel, as ’Auadéx, "HAi, but also in Greek words,
especially before palatal vowels, as ala for yaia, ivvos for yivvos;
and in the middle of a word between two vowels, as iy, Atos
for eyo, ddtyos; or before p, as tyjya for tpAypa, as well
as before o in aorists of verbs, -a¢w for -dyi@, aorist -aca for
-afa, So in modern Greek we get the dialectic forms Aios
for dAtyos, iy for éywy, éw for A€yo, mpapa for mpaypa, &c,

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 31

With aia for yaia we may compare iaive for tiyaive. In
-ancient Greek tyaive, iyo, idopae are no doubt all con-
nected; and in modern Greek it is hard to say in such
forms as ytarpds, yaya for iarpds, aiva, whether the y is to
be considered as prefixed to the one form or omitted from
the other. In yovdAa for otdca it may stand for s, cf. oddos
and tovdos, as in dypéw, aipéw. In modern Greek, as in
ancient, y is often prefixed to A, as yAuvxodéyye: for duko-
héeyyer, Cf. Avkédpws, Aak@, yAakd, Adpos, yAdpos; as well as
before v, as yvéOw for vnOw, yreipa for Aeixo.

Here we may compare yAatvooe, yAnun, yrddos, for \etoca,
Anpn, vdpos, i.e. vépos: Nevoow is probably but a sigmated
form of Bdépw or Brera, standing for yAépow: compare yré-
gapoy, and in modern Greek ydéro, also the modern Greek
auvvepov, cv-yvedov.

The letter y in modern Greek is often of etymological
significance, in cases where it has disappeared from the
classical form. Avydy or ’ABydv, for adv, preserves the ori-
ginal aydn far more truly than even the form given by
Hesychius, viz. éBeov, or the Latin ovum; as does péya for
puia, than the Attic pia. Where two y's come together the
first is nasal. That this was so in ancient Greek, we know
from the fact that dvy-, évy-, &c. were always written dyy-, éyy-.
In this position the second y retains its hard sound, as is the
case with 8 after p.

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: A’, ank'ami, dryyave from root
6vy-, a@yxd&t from dkavOa (modern Greek), and dayxdyw for
ddxve.

A

= Spanish d, or ¢h in shen, except after v, where it sounds
harder. Thus a lisped ¢=z, becomes 8. Accordingly we
have Aev’s and Zevs, dpitndos for dpidndos, Copé for dopxds. In

ee Na aoa

32 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

modern Greek, (opxddiov for Sopxadiov, pati for duade?. Most
often this is the case when a palatal vowel has been ab-
sorbed, as me(ds for medids, and in modern Greek Mrovfouvas
for Tlodeay. Only on the assumption that 6 = #h in then, can
we understand how od came to represent ¢ in Doric, as
periodo, twOdcdo, Oavpdcdm, or how ¢ was accounted by the
grammarians a double letter, compounded of 6 and a,
whereas etymologically it is extremely doubtful whether ¢ ever
stands for ds, and certain that it never stands for od, the fact
being that o6 and ds are ways of approximating the sound of ¢.

The sound of & being so soft, it easily passes into y before
the half consonantal 1, so we have yia for dia, &c. Thus we
have reason to suspect that yé@uvpa was originally dvaipupa,
perhaps Aeolic for é:aiévpa, although the accent and the
earlier quantity are against this derivation. More certain
is it that idkw stands for yoko, from dik; iaive for yaiva,
from diaivw; the modern Greek yepds or yepds for diepds,
another form of tyiunpds. So we have too in modern Greek
idxiov, Sidxiov, yudxcov, for a rudder, If iepds means originally
strong, as some philologers think, dvepds, tyvepds, yepds, and
iepds are all different forms of the same word; dypds is
probably the result of metathesis. So we see little reason
to doubt the identity of vados, glass, and yvador, yuddka from
yvadés, hollow. ‘The earliest meaning of vadoy was a hollow
transparent stone in which mummies were enclosed among
the Egyptians (Herod. 3. 24). So aidgpia yiada, 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 dadoy is
yuanoy.

Z=z in English.

Schleicher himself completely discards the notion of pro-

nouncing ¢ as ds or sd. Etymologically, it stands for y, &,

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. — 33

or fx followed by another vowel, as viByo, viBia, vito; rpiBo,
rplByo, TpiBio, rpitw; Zeds for Areds, dppdtw for dppdyio. So in
modern Greek we get dardfo from diardyw, yaddgios for
yordyios OF yAdytos, roovfw from reovy, from the Latin sugo ;
ZdBarns for AéBoros, <adov = iyvos, from yiadorv, shortened to
yiddoy, i.e. the hollow print of the foot; apidns, better written
Cappidns, an extravagant dresser, from d:appimro, The change
of « into ¢, mentioned by Liddell and Scott, is almost always
before the letter p, as Zutpva, Cuixpds, Guepdareos, Cuiypa, Cuwin.
In modern Greek, o before » always sounds as ¢. This fact
is of itself enough to prove the identity of the sound of ¢ in
ancient and modern times. 3

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

© originally stood for the Sanscrit dh, and it appears to be
Schleicher’s opinion that it was anciently sounded as ¢/ in
hothouse. But this must have been in the pre-historic
period of the language. Perhaps such forms as dr6:«7 for
arriuxt) may be relics of such a sound. In modern Greek we
have T'éréo. for the Goths. But that @ was very like the
English 42 may be inferred from the fact that the Laconian
dialect changes @ into o, as cdAacca, ceios,’Acdva.. In modern
Greek we get dxavrodxoipos for dxavOdxorpos. In Aeolic @ be-
comes ¢, as orp, PAB, rdw. So in modern Greek we have
PrAIBo, PrBepov for PAB, OdABepor, gnxapiov for Onxdpov. In
Doric x sometimes stands for 6, as épuxos for épuGos, so in
modern Greek épuya for dpu6a, and, vice versd, 4vn for axvn.

K.

_ Like the English & before the guttural vowels; before the

palatals more nearly approaching the Italian ¢ in c7vif/a, and

with a very close resemblance to a palatal 4 The best idea
D

34 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

I can give of this sound on paper is perhaps /f, as xeivos,
Kévtpoy, kitpwov, kal, pronounced approximately skeenos, thén-
dron, théetreenon, théh ; 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 «. In
Crete, « palatal sounds just like the Italian ¢ before e or 2,
or our ch in chin. In the same way the Sanscrit ch was
formed from 4, through the influence of contiguous palatal
sounds. It is therefore probable that the Italian ¢ palatal is
also legitimately developed from the old Roman sound given
to ¢ before e and 7, as in cectd/ ; while the French ¢ dental
and ch palatal, the Spanish z and c palatal = ¢h, the German 2
and ¢ palatal = /s, are more or less unsuccessful attempts to
approximate the true pronunciation. The palatal sound of x
evidently represents the intermediate stage through which
the guttural must pass, and must always have passed, in
order to become the palatal ch. In pronouncing « palatal
the tip of the tongue may be seen in a Greek’s mouth
coming right up to the épxos édévrwv; not that the tip of the
tongue is actually used in pronouncing the «, 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. XK palatal being thus so nearly allied to
t, we shall not be surprised to find them interchanged.

So we have in ancient Greek ris for xis, re for kai, rupavvos
for koipavos (for v and o see above, as well as for a and e),
Kipoy for Tiny, raves for xeivos, wore for méxe from méxa. So
in modern Greek, especially in the Tsakonian dialect, xupto
for Tiu@, oxiABdw for oriABdw, pxvapoy for prvdpiov, preidvo for
preiave, i.e. evOed{w Or evOeava, Conversely, répios Or taipios,
meaning suitable, or similar, is possibly for xaipws. Twato
and rwacow, the latter form common to modern and ancient
Greek, are clearly connected with xwéo.

II and K are also found interchanged in Greek. The

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 35

original form of immos was ikkos. So in modern Greek we
have kxoréAa and xox, a girl; «oka, an indentation con-
nected with xémr-re, xomjvat. I much doubt whether a-xoxy
be not also connected with the root xor-, instead of being
a lengthened form for dx: and whether dixwx7, &c., ought
not also to be written d:axoxy, standing for dvaxor7.

A.

Interchangeable with v, as in Doric #v6a for 76a. So, in
modern Greek, dvvdavrds becomes ddvdarrés, while a@ée in
Tsakonian stands for aAqu.

A is also interchangeable with p: duekyo and dpépyo are
originally the same word. ’Apépyo is the older form, and is
preserved in modern Greek for duekyo. Here we must say
a word on vukros duody@. Buttmann is quite right in re~
jecting the translation ‘ milking time,’ but plainly wrong in
rejecting the derivation from dpédyo or dpepyo. The form
of the word is such that no other derivation is possible.
Eustathius may also be right in saying that dyodyds is an
old Achaean word for axyy. A similar sense for dp is
suggested by the word ikxudo, 4o bruise out, and ixuds. But
the sense and derivation are quite plain and natural.
Nukrés duwoky6 means in the dregs of night,—a most
fitting and poetical expression for the dead of night.
*"Audpyn Or dpovpya, from dpépyw, 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 dporydy éEoucpéere, clrov ris €oTw aipatos xapal recor,
where the cognate e€oudpyrumz, only another form of eEapépya,
seems plainly used with a poetic sense of its identity in root.
No more exact comparison could be used than the lees of

D2

, - < 1, " > ies oes i
36 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. =

wine for clotted blood. Compare Isaiah’s well-known apo-
strophe, lxiii. 1-3, beginning, ‘ Who is this that cometh from |
' Edom?’ The modern Greek form for adeAdds is adeppés,
more archaic than the classical, inasmuch as it is derived |
from the Sanscrit sagarbjjas. In modern Greek the common :
form for #\oy is #pbav; and épyouae appears also as epOopa,
leading to the conclusion that €\@m and épyoua are not
distinct but identical roots. For x and 6, see above.

So, too, ad¢derov, avOos, and dpros are probably all identical,
and are verbal participles formed from ddé or ddédw, standing
respectively for dA-6-rov and dAros with paragogic « inserted
in the first case, as in doAryds in ancient, camwdés in modern
Greek. The 6 in ddé6 seems to stand for ¢, which repre- |
sents the digamma: cf, ddevpa or dAefpa. I-cannot doubt
that ddééo and dvOéw, adddaive and apda, are all cognate words.

M.

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

N.

When, however, the letters M and N are combined with
mand r respectively, yz, vr, these consonants become medials,
instead of tenues, €umopos = émboros, tvrepa = éndera. In the
same way the guttural nasal y, when placed before «, converts
the « into its corresponding medial, dyxos = dyyos. Moreover,
8, 5, and y. after w, v, and y nasal, become simple medials
instead of semi-vowels. With 8 and 8 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, », and y
nasal take after them the corresponding unaspirated medial.

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

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 37

sound, and the same may be said of ¢, 6 after # and »: so
that we may say, », 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-
cerned, we may write indifferently, at least according to the
popular pronunciation, €uBaive or éeumaivw = embéno, avtpa or
avépa = andra, ayrpov or avdpov = andron, aykos or ayyos = dngos,
évdtve OF evrivw = endyno. No one can doubt that this was
the case in ancient Greek from time immemorial, who will
consider such forms as marém and éuBaréw, "ApBpaxia and
"Aumpaxia, evrive and évdv, evrédexeca and évdedexera, dyxos
and dyyos, Opiyyos and Opiykos, évdov and évrds, éevddcbca and
evréobia, puvraxns and puvddkn.

Between p» and p, and v and p, pA and vA, B (or m), 5, or r
respectively are inserted.

So we have in ancient Greek, peonuSpia, dvdpds, duBdakicxw
OF aum\akioxe, 7pBdaxov Or F#umdaxov. In modern Greek, yap-
mos for xapundds, xopéumdo for kopdundo, papé, wSpé, or Bpé for
Hope.

= is often prefixed, as opixpds, ancient Greek; cpiyo, modern
Greek,

Double o in the later Attic dialect became rr, as in
kdcovpos, xétrupos; the intermediate stage must have been
xérovpos, which is preserved in modern Greek.

=o in terminations like -doow in gdvAdooa, koptaca, &C.,
stood originally for «j, or 6, but afterwards apparently also
for y instead of ¢, as in rdccm and mpdcow. Schleicher
imagines that in these cases ray- and mpay- are softened from
tax and mpax. So we get in modern Greek ¢vAdyo, duvddgo,
but gvAak7.

ats

38 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

T=.

Before this letter m and « are sounded by the common
people as ¢ and x; while, on the other hand, after ¢ and x,
6 has more the sound of r. This explains in ancient Greek
the forms 3x6y and derj, dards and épOds, adbis = dphis and
aris = Gris, evreddev and evOcirev = evrépOev and évbédrev, re-
spectively.

®,

Has no exact representative in any European language
that I know; but is like a labial % and answers to 8 and the
German w, as their corresponding sharp sound.

X.

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 tog andy. Thus the
Greek says ¢-yo, d-xn, ra-xvs, the German éy-@, dy-n, rays.

Where the Greek says é-y the German says ey-o, dividing
the syllables differently. Thus to the Greek ear the German
pronunciation of these Greek words sounds like ¢yvo, dy-n,
rax-vs, eyia. In the same way the German words /ach-en,
mach-en, would naturally be read by Greeks Ad-yev, pd-xer,
while “rag-en would become rpd-yev.

The prehistoric pronunciation of ¢ and x as pA, and A in
haphazard and inkhorn, has left but the obsolescent relics,
laxyn, Tampa, dis, Bpdxxos, and these for the most part only
when required by the exigencies of metre. In modern
Greek Khurdistan is written Kyovdiorav.

X and « are often interchanged, as déyouat déxopa, vyedls

ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK. 39

oxedis; so in modern Greek especially after o, as oxife,
oxddaopa, oxodted for oxifw, oxdrAacpa, oxoreiov; but also
kapkéot for kapxnotov.

¥

as the representative of mo, @ (v consonantal) o, Bo, requires
no further comment.

Tue ASPIRATE.

This is no longer heard in modern Greek, and we do not
_know that it was ever sounded as 4, 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 «. 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 4, and like that letter in Latin, extremely evan-
escent. The Latin / 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 Z. 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 / in Aadzt and the 4 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, 7, r into x, $, 0
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

40 ON THE PRONUNCIATION OF GREEK.

several compounds, as éeéros for én’éros, weOadprov for peravpior,
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, dq’ od,
ap’srov, but xéri, dn’ddovs.

The law of compensation with regard to aspirated con-
sonants, as seen in such forms as xvrpa, xvOpa, xir@v, KiOav,
&c., also holds good in modern Greek; e.g. K«oxAedproy,
losing its x, becomes xovAcdproy,

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.

CHAP TE RTE.

Accent and Quantity.

QUANTITY, péyebos, 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 dv@pemrov is not written
avOparov, is by no means that ov is a long syllable, but simply
because avOpamrov stands for dvépamoct0, avOpemow, and the
accent did not admit of being put further back than the last
syllable but one. In édews, ws is no contraction, but
simply stands for os; consequently the accent is not drawn
forward.

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

42 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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 Adyos, dvos, dvOpwros are pronounced Adyos, dvos, av-
@poros.’ ‘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
English.

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 gé#ing, 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, fertile, pérfime, pérfect, a priori, which is
nearly always so pronounced, in spite of the fact that the
first 7 is short in Latin, So that we may say of this, as of
many an other imaginary difficulty, solvztur ambulando.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY, ~ 43

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, 4, o, «1,
and others common, as «¢, 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

44 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

in dayovpa than in ov¥pd; so, too, ap is always short, but

this is far more plainly heard in éfatpeots = éépeors, than.

in aiperikés. Qs, os, when belonging to one syllable, are
always short, but this strikes us more forcibly in the pro-
nunciation of mpayparixas, than in that of éemjriov.

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 -—
‘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
dvéxov kai dméxov, 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 dvéyou 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

no

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 45

of this is, that when we want to show the difference between
long and short v, we have no other means open to us than
that of laying a stress on the long v and leaving the short
unaccented. In niriyee and tmrevévvos we pronounce the
v as you, 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 nvruyee and tmevdivos. 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
to 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 « 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. “Odos and oddos, BéAowar and BovdAopa, pdvos and
podvos, ovAoperny, Aiddov, vécos and voicos, all present us with
cases of o lengthened by position, that is, because it stands
before but one consonant. Why do we never find rodeos and
rovoos, but always méacos and réocos, when the metre requires

46 _ ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

it? Simply because at that early period. of the Greek
language the o was felt to be, as it etymologically is, really
double; aécos and récos standing respectively for méccos
and réccos, i.e. (originally) méows and réows; of which the
« being consonantal, the o belongs to the preceding syllable,
making it impossible to lengthen the vowel. Thus we see
that the greater the consonantal péyeOos of a syllable, the
less the péyeOos of the vowel, and vice versdé. It is therefore
incorrect to speak of the a in Bdaé being long by position;
it is short by position, and that just because the syllable is
consonantally long. In AiéAov, 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,
mpoowdia, 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
together.’

On this we have only to remark, that 1 and 2 usually
go together. By raising the note we necessarily, if we

OS. ee

™ ————

sae

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 47

employ the same quantity of breath, also increase the sound,
inasmuch as we economize breath. So the shriller whistle
of a steam-engine, ce/erzs 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 1 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 1 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
long.

‘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

48 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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 sha‘, 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 some 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 mpoo@éia, the grammarian’s term for a written
accent. It is just possible that mpoowdia may mean in Plato

‘ACCENT AND QUANTITY. _ 49

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

_ Excepting isolated dialectic divergences, as xddos for xadés,
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
‘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 dpyirexrovuxn, 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 Chorgesingen 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

E

a ro < bg se ee ee

Us i

50 | ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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 2:2
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

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 51

and 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 me/, 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 ‘hat 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
verses),—

‘Stretched thiis each bit each éther’s lég and héad.’

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

52 | ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

accentual rhythm will resolve itself into one of degree, and
thythm 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, Ov«
oida ras dppovias’ GAG Karddeuré prow exelynv thy dppoviay, i &v Te
moheuiky mpager ovros avdpeiov Kai ev maon Braip épyacia mperdvTws
dy pupnoarro POdyyous te Kat mpoo@dias.

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 nafural enun-
ctation and the acceniual stress.

On the other hand Aristoxenus, a pupil of Aristotle, tells
us, Act thy hoviy ev TO pedodeiy Tas pev emitdces Kal dvéces
dgaveis moveicOa. 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

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 53

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

Apéware mddw épaotal evdaipovas vapkioccous,

Wl ~ h \ \ \ >? , *
IId tov Maiov rods teprvois kal evaders mapadeicous
Kal riv mapbévoy aoréare iris @s avOos KXiveu

"Eya Sev kémr@ du’ eye’ amébavev exeivn . . .
becomes, when sung,

4

Apewd-a-a-re ma | Aw €-e-€-pacrai

> , ‘ / ,
Evdaiat-aywovds | vapki-v-i-vrcous
> \ , he , re

IIo rov-ov-ov pat ov TOU-OUs TEpmTVOUS
Kal evades ma- | kat evaders ma | -padet-e-ei-evrovs
Kal ryv map0é-e-€vov oréyya-d-aré | ris as d-a-dvOos Khivevetecet

> \ \ /, y > 7 > 4 7 > , , ,
Ey dev kdntw Si eye, | améOavév éxei-et-ei-et-vi.

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 vzce 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
thythm, 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 /ouder sound, the word

bh ty) © -. 4 oO ee ee ~~ —
a 4 & r) ‘im "oO os hy

54 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

accent = musical elevation of fone. 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 /ibitum recitative.’ How then, one naturally asks,
was the zcfus of the verse represented? Not by more forcible
or /ouder 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, ze/us, 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 zc/ws 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:

————— ——— as

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 55

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 zc/us. If the reciter
took care of the zc/us, the accent would take care of itself.
Certainly the accent would only be eard 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

— ae a me | ES

56 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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 @ prior7 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 :—

“Ovrwa pev Baoidja Kai eEoyoy avdpa kcyein.
Odyssee, ii. 121 :—

Tdwv ovtis dpota vonsata Tyvedorein.
Tb. ii, 225 :—

Mevrap ds p’ ’Odvarjos dpvpovos jev éraipos.
Aristophanes, Ach, 682 :—

7 , co
Avdpa TiOwviy orapatrav kal tapdtrwy Kal KuKar,

Ib. Eq. 317 :—
Tois dypotkowy mavovpyws aore aiverba mayo.
Ib. Vesp. 38 :—

Ths aptromm@Ados Aabdvr exherapev rov Sdpor,

Ib. Lys. 310:—

Kay pa) xadotvvroy rods poxhods xad@ow ai yuvaikes.

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 57

Mr. 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 :—
72 Babvfovev dwacca Lepcidov simeprary
Mirnp 1 Répéov yepad, xaipe, Aapciov ytvat.
Gcod pev edvvdrepa Tepodyv, Oeod Sé cal pyrnp epus,
"Hy te py Saiuov madaids.....

Aristophanes, Ach. 676, 712, 718; Nub. 576, 585 :—
Oi yépovres of madaiol peudperba TH ode.
Tots véowst & ed’pvmpaxros kal Addos yo KAeviov.
Tov yépovra T@ yeporvti, tov véov Se TO veg.
"Hotxnpevae yap tpiv peppdpecO évavriov.

Tyv Opvardri& eis eavtov eiOéws EvveAkvoas.

Accentual iambic tetrameters, or oriyoe modurixoi, the same
as all the modern Greek popular ballads.

Accentual Trochaics.

Ib. Nub. 1045; Vesp. 241, 244; Lys. 313, 365 :—
Kairot tiva yvopuny éxov eyes Ta Oepya Aovtpa;
SipBrov S€ dace xpynparov exew dravres adrov.

"Er avrov &s KoAoupevous Sv ndixnoev’ add.
Tis EvAAdBorr’ dv tod EvAov trav ev Sdu@ oTpatnyar ;

“Anrov pdvoy Srpatvddidos tH SaxtiA@ TpocedOar.

Quantitatively scanned, these have the rhythm of the orixos
modirikds, 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

58 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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,’
with
Eimré pas & piredAnva tas hépers tTiv oKAaBiav

‘ ‘ > , n~ , ’
Kat tHv anmapayopntov tav Tovpkwy trupavyiay,

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.

‘ 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 k@da, to use the
language of the rhythmicians, we get an external catalexis,
which we must remedy either by pause or by rovyj: in the
second line we have both internal and external catalexis,
which we must remedy, the first by rovn, and the second
by ror) or pause.
Compare the Saturnian verse :—
Quéd re stia difeidens Aspere afleicta
Parens timens héic vévit véto héc sohito
Décuma facta polotcta leibereis lubéntes,
More uncouth and truncated still is the old German epic
metre :—

« bs — “A

army,

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 59

‘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 kénnte kiihnres g’schehn.’

‘How such lines,’ observes Mr, Clark, referring to the
orixot modirixot 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
(mpoo@é:kovs) the following lines which scan precisely in the
same way :—

Ov BeBndos ws Aéyerar Tov véeov Arovicov

Kayo 8 é€epyacins [reading corrupt] dpyacpévos Fxo,
Hephaestion’s Enchiridion completes the triplet thus :—

‘Odevw@v Tlehovorakdy kveaios mapa réApa.

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 dpx:rexrom«) of all verse, and
quantity and accent only the subordinate means of which
rhythm is the end. But rhythm would inevitably degeneratz
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

60 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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 orixos modurucds—

Stat Ee
Kaha 16 €youy ta Bovvd, kaddpuoup’ eiv’ of Kduros,
Ilod Xdpov dev mavréxouve, Xdpov Sev kaprepovve*
\ , / \ ‘ Lol ,
To kadokaipt mpdBara, kal Tov xeiusa@va xidua,
a ,
Tpeis dvSpwpevor Bovdovrac tov adn va Toakicour,
oa - od ,
“O €vas eye, Tov Mai va Byh, aAXos 7d Kadokaipt,
A ’
K’ 6 rpiros rd xwdrwpo, mov méprovve ra PiAXa.
a>
Képn &av6) robs pitnoev aitod’s tov Kato Kdcpo*
‘TI ’ > 5 , 9). * Ae ‘ , 7 ’
dpte pe, avdpmpevor pov, kK eye's TOV Tava KdopO,
“a fel ol /
‘“Képn, Bpovrovvy ra podyd gov, huoovy kal ra paddud gov,
s ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ~ / © , ?
Krumdet kal TO kadiyt oov, Kal pas voyde 6 Xdpos.
“Eye ta povya Byavw ra, kal ra paddia Ta KdBa,
4 ‘ u > \ , > a ,
Kai ta kadvyoraroutca 's tiv oxdda t ambdve,
/ > cA , > \?> A , ,
Ildpre pe, avdpwpéevor pov, k’ eue'’s Tov mava Koopor,
Na mde, va iSO TH pdvva pov, mas Odiferar yd péva,
A ~ _? ,
Na do, va id86 7 adépfhia pov, Tas KAaiovy ya epeva,
‘Képn, wéva 7 adépdia gov eis rov xopd xopevour,

Képn, céva 7 pavva cou’s tiv povya KxouvBevriage,’ —
with the lines quoted above :—

‘
Apéare madw épactal eddaipovas vapkiocous

~ y .
*IId rod Maiov rovs reprvois Kai evades mapadeicous

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 61
Kai riv mapbévoy ordpare, iris as dvOos Khiver’
"Ey® dev xomr@ S0 enue? dréOavev éxeivn.

Aév kémre. 6 dvépaotos pupoivys Kdddov méov’
XAevater tiv odvvny tov 1d avOos rd wpaior.
Avvara povov mévOina, kumdpiooov, va Spewn
BeBapnueryns Keadijs TO pér@mov va oreyp.

K ey® nydrnoa more, K eyo avtnyannOny’

"ANAa Sev eAnopdvnca mAnY ged! eAnopovnOnv.
Aev ecivat 6 Blogs Mdios aidmos’ Sév civat’
Mapaivoyvra ai dv@npal tov eépwros pupaivac

Kal devye: 7) vedrns pas, as aorpami raxeia,

e Lig , > , -
Qs OpKOoL orabepérnros €ls orn yuvatketa,

Here it will be observed SpéWare stands as regards the
metre for Speydre, epacrait for epacra, Aris for Aris, Sdvarae
for duvdrat, avOnpai for avOnpa, dorpann for dorpanrn, and so
on: the word-accent sometimes clashing with the ictus, as
in dpéWare, dvvarat, sometimes standing in the place of the
fainter ictus, as in dorpamn, BeBapnyevns, kepadjyjs. The quantity
of certain syllables has also a retarding influence, as in
avtnyarnény, which stands zrrationaliter for aytnyarnbnv. 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

*Avdpa pot evvere Movoa todvtporov ds pada moAdd,

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

end. ---y

62 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

exception of the final syl/aba 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 pérpov: 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
comparatively.

Compare, for instance—

‘Tityre, ti patulae recubans sub tégmine fagi
Silvestrem, tenui Musam meditaris avéna,’

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 63
with
*Quérum Agrigentinus cum primis Empédocles ést.’
The fact is, Virgil seems to have exquisitely struck the
mean between lines that scan themselves and lines that can
hardly be scanned. None read like mere prose, none are
mere 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.—

‘ Hic est vasta Charybdis et hic Aetnaea minantur.’

Such 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

‘Empédocles ést ; odéra 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

arye eOnke, + Aavaoiow dpnyov
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,

64 ACCENT AND QUANTITY. Bale ht

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

*I@ yeveal Bpordr,

&s tyas toa kal rd pndev Cooas evapibya,

tis yap, tis avnp méov

ras evdayovias éper

} togovrov dcov Soxeiv

kat Sdfavr’ doxNivat ;

TO ody rou mapdderyp exon,

tov coy Saipova, Toy ody, & trdwv Oidimdda, Bporay

ovdey pakapifo.

Or again—

Tpoxodweira 8 dupad” ediydny,

éEwm b€ Spduov épopar Avoons

mvevpare pdapyo yAooons akparns.
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.’

- ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 65

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

It is this rémos dyrirvtos 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
seem 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
poetry,—

‘Indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus,’—

then the other part of the line (in which, happily for my
illustration, this coincidence takes place) is realized :—
kal mp él mate keirat,

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 :—

~ e
"Ey® pev ody & yh Kal HALE Kal dper? Kal civeots Kai mraideia, 7
‘ * \
Siaywaokopey Ta Kaha kal Ta aicxpd, BeBonOnxa Kai eipnea. Kai
> ‘ a + Sage fe « © U 4 = ¢ >
€t pev Kad@s Kal agiws Tov adiKnaros Karnydpyka, eiov as €Bov-
Aéunv ei S€ evdecorépws, ws edvvdunv. ‘Ypeis S€ Kai ex Trav
ye pos, n
> ’ , \ > n~ , > \ A / ‘
ecipnuevoy Adywy kai €k TOY TapadeAetppevey adrol Ta Sikaia Kat Td

ouudhepovra trep ths TéoAews Whhicacbe,

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

\ , e , »” \ 3 , a. ie
Zu O€, vmepnpavoy SOYAI, Epnuov kai eykaradehetmpévor, eve
, a a
picoes onpepov ard rovs ifxous Tod modguov, Tovs OopvBodvras
\ »” 7 , c cal € , , ,
Td €Oapds gov, Kndevouev nucis ovxws TeKvoy gov mpoodirés,
Tov 6moiov of édOadpol, dia mavrds kreoGevtes, Sev Oa oe tSwow

eXevepov.

66 ACCENT AND QUANTITY.

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 otpavis kal yn odx emrdoOnoav evOis, ada dver-
O ooranos tkth ee yee ook eplastheessan ephtheéss all4 anep-
TvxOncav ddj{iyov Kar’ 6Alyov' ovd'*, of avOpwra oi viol
teékhtheessan oleéghon kat’ oleéghon oodh, ee 4nthropee ee ee-eé

a) a

ACCENT AND QUANTITY. 67

rod Geod nipéOnoay ekaidpyns rédercor Gs Kal viv, od8
too theod eebhrétheessan exéphneess télee-ee oas tkéh neen oodh’
€k tov Bddovs rod oxdrovs Kat xaoriKhs ovyxXUTEews
ek too bhahthooss too skoa-tooss tkéh khaoteekeess seengkheéss&oss
dyyéhov oddmuygw mpoexrAnOnoav, ovd€ roy médreuov pice
angélloan sélpeengxeen proekleétheessan oodhé ton-bélemon féessee
ayaract, GANG wept THs éavTav ceTnpias dpov-
ah-gh-ah-podssee ahlah peri -tees eh-ahphtoan soateereéahss phron-
ti¢ovres, evyovat Tv —aomrA Lap, kat €utritrrovow
deézondess phébhghoossee teen ah-oa-pleé-ahn tkéh embeéptoosseen
€pice ~— kal paxyas, kal THY avdyvy Tov “Apeos
érreessee tktéh méahkhehss tkth teen ah-bhdheén too ’Ahréos

pbeyyer Oa pavOdvovot.
phthénggestheh mahnthahnoossi.

NV.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 dyamd-el becomes dyama, there is no reason
to think that the‘ is heard any more than the iéra sudbscrip-
tum, which is swallowed up by the a, just as the grave accent
is by the acute. As to the writen 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.

CHAPTER TV.

On the Origin and Development of Modern
Greek Accidence.

Ir 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

ON MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE. 69

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.

a mh _— Er —_ a Te SY eee

70 ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

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 oivos be written with or without
a digamma, whether we write évri as in Doric, éori as in
Attic, or eve as in modern Greek, whether éwvrod as in
Herodotus, €avrod or airod. It is very different when the
Homeric demonstrative 6, 4, 7d becomes the simple article,
or when the infinitive mood in later Greek is supplanted by
the subjunctive with wa.

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,

I. Tue Accripence oF Mopern GREEK.

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, @adarra for @dAacoa, Or yxep-
pénoos for xepodynoos, In the language of the common
people, however, the following peculiarities may be briefly
noticed.

OF MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE., vp

a. da, and words like it, make in the genitive rijs d0gas,
in the plural 7 ddéas, acc. rats Sdéas = ras Sdéas.

6. A host of nouns belonging to different declensions are
made to follow one. Thus rapias, “AAvs, Maptis, Or Maprns,
contracted from Mdpruos, "Apns, Ildpis, xehadds, are, in the
singular number, all declined alike, namely, by cutting off
the sign of the nominative -s, in the genitive and vocative,
and changing it to » 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 -des to the stem, as wacddes from macas,
~pashas ; paipovdes from 7 paipod, si a pavvddes, from 7
pavva, mothers.

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

d. Many feminines, whose root vowel is o or ov, take
s in the genitive singular, as 4 paipod, rijs paipots, 7 KO, ths
Kés (exactly the reverse of the classical form, which in this
case is 7 Kés, ris K@).

e. There are a few irregular nouns of a compound de-
clension, especially verbals, in tmov, as ro ypayipor, genitive
Tov ypavvivaros, plural ra ypayivara.

J. Metaplastic nouns or secondary formations are com-
mon, as 7 alya, 6 mwarépas, 6 Bacwdeas.

g. Of the pronouns, évé often appears as epéva, and ce as
éoé and écéva, jyeis becomes often €ueis, and in the accusative
both €uas and pas. The latter, used as an enclitic, supplies
the place both of jas and nar.

tyuets becomes oeis and éseis, acc. and enclitic possessive
aas, gas. The article, as enclitic and proclitic, is used for
the personal pronoun in oblique cases.

In the verbs:

A, eyovor becomes Aéyour or Aeyouve. For éXeyov we have

Sea ae we

s ee

72 ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

€heya; for édeas, eheEes; for édeéare, ehefere. In the passive,
instead of déyp or Aé€yet, we find A€éyeora, for Aeydpeba, eyd-
peore, Neydpaoray, and various other forms down to the tragic
heyopecOa.

For €hex6nv we get édéxOnxa. In the imperative aorist act.
Aefe for Ae€ov, and do. passive Acéov for A€xOyru.

z. In the present tense of contracted verbs in do, 6, the
third person is often uncontracted, as dyamde for dyana.
"Ayaréou appears sometimes as dyamodv or -odve, sometimes
as dyarave. “Ayarovpey is written for dyar@puev, whereas voéet,
voet, and the like generally become vode, &c.; éripov is ér-
podaa, -es, -e; -do becomes -déve, on the analogy of dive for
diw, evrirw for évri@; so dé@ becomes devw. In ancient
Greek we may regard aivw (pronounced évw) as a strength-
ening Of é@, and dvw as a strengthening of do.

j. The verb eiyi presents all the appearance of a verb in
the middle voice, being conjugated thus: eiua, eioa, «ive,
civeOa, eicOe, eve; impf. quovv, Roo, Fro, #ueba, jobe, Frov; inf.
eioOa ; imper. eco.

k, The present participle active often appears as an inde-
clinable metaplastic in as: dvras, Néyovras, &c. The feminine
Aéyouoa 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 ypappévos, Oyipévos, Opappévos. ‘The present par-
ticiple sometimes appears as though formed from the con-
jugation in -, e.g. épxdpevos, heyduevos. The termination -u,
however, is never found in the common language of the
people.

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

i ae =

OF MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE. 73

nothing so merely externa] as the bare accidence of a lan- |
guage. :

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’.

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 rod ”“Apy, rod "Av, &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 povoyern as the vocative of
povoyerns. 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 ri épuw
instead of ry epida, tov yédAwv for rdv yédwra, and the like.

™

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

oes ee i ee oe

74 ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

We have also in Homer épos, pov for épas, Zpwra. 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 Baoueds, yépav, "Apa, avip,
into BacwWéas, yépovras, "ApaBas, avSpas, and decline them all
like rapias, we have got one scheme of declension instead of
five. But still it remains to be explained how such a form
as dvdpas could arise from dvyyp, or Baoidéas from Bacrdeds.
If we turn to the Septuagint we shall find our answer.
There such forms as rév Bacay, ri atyay are of frequent
occurrence, and it is plain that such forms postulate the
nominatives 6 Baowéas, 7 atya. 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, doxa\omas from do-
kako). ‘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
yépov, K.T.A. WAS yépovrs, may explain why yépoyras, which is
only yépovrs made pronounceable, is the vulgar equivalent of
the classical yépwv. For were yépovras simply metaplastic, we
should expect always to find only yépovra as the genitive, but
yeportos, avdpds, marpos, &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 », being incapable of emphatic
utterance, is by comparison scarcely heard except when

OF MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE. 75

followed either by a vowel or some consonant, the pro-
nunciation of which it affects and thereby preserves its own
existence. Thus in ri Alyrro(v) the v of riv is never lost,
whereas in 17(v) Sdyo(v) it is completely evanescent ; while
in rv mékw (pronounced rnp-bélin) it is preserved.

Now where the » 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 afyav and Baouéav. Comparative
philology teaches us that a » has been lost in these accusa-
‘tives, as also in the pronouns oé and eye. 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 Z can-na, he’s no
recht, kie, we don, for I 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

76 ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

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, mdf is not peculiar to Doric, but
occurs in the Revelation of St. John, and is common in
modern Greek. ’Edo\wtcay is an imperfect from dodo
(3rd person plural), and is explained by the consonantal
form éAéyooay, a Septuagint form, &c., and further illustrated
by the modern Greek forms edodotca, ériyodca, of which the
3rd person plural is respectively ¢dodwticay and éripodcay,
We may say if we like that such a form as édododcay or é€he-
yooav for édeyov follows the conjugation in jx, but we must
not forget that there was originally no other conjugation,
and that the o in the 3rd person of edodotcay is, etymolo-
gically speaking, just as much in its right place as in édidocay,
ioracav, éridecavy, What the o 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 édoAcoda
would plainly clamour for a sigma. It is true that o is in
Greek more often left out than inserted; but the tendency

OF MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE. |

to do the one, implies, as a general rule, the tendency to do
the other. It is a moot point whether s and » in such cases
as evOd-s, ovrw-s, aiés, aiev are ephelcystic or etymologic, i.e.
added when found, or omitted when absent. With aies might
be compared in modern Greek rimores. 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 1st aorist and of the 2nd
aorist and imperfect were the same. In Homer we have
ja, gov, and ja; in Ionic both émv and éa for jv, ‘I was.’ In
_ order to account for the diphthong ov, however, we should
have to suppose either that » was changed to a after the
contraction ¢doAiow from édodlooy had taken place, in which
case the accent in such a word as éSodwtca 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 ja for
éa, nv, and ev for ev, and iv, which would appear to
present us with a pair of paragogic é’s (é-e-e-ev). However
that may be, we have the termination -ca for the imperfect
of contracted verbs in modern Greek,. and of contracted
verbs only. In the Septuagint we have the termination
-cav in the 3rd person plural of many verbs, but as far as
I know no trace of the o 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 («ida for «idoy, cima for eirov, which we
have in the Septuagint and New Testament), eSodotca, éuc-
govoa, &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,

ON OP ee ee ee ee ee ee

78 ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

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 ddfas for 8é£4. How are we to account for
the «? Schleicher, in his ‘Comparative Grammar,’ following
as I believe in the steps of Bopp, postulates dofa-1-as or some
such form as the original plural of dééa. 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 rais
ddéfas, that is the Aeolic form, and as such an acknowledged
archaism. Tats dé€as is ascertained to be a representative of
ravs dd€avs, the modification of the vowel indicating the loss
of the v.

Turning next to the pronouns, we have already observed
that éuéva and éveva for eve and ce preserve the original »
(in Sanscrit m, mdm, and tvdém) of the accusative. ‘Epeis is
referred to by Plato (Crat. 418 c) as an older form for
jpeis. As to the enclitic and proclitic use of the article,
it is (except for the accent in the latter case) the same
as the Homeric usage, e.g. Tov éoxérwce, ‘he killed him;’
arecvAnoe tous, ‘he spoiled them.’ Passing to the verbs, we
find in Aéyouy or déyouve the traces of the old form Aéyorre
(€you is quoted, I believe, by Hesychius as a Cretan form).
In the passive the forms Aéyeoar, 2nd person present, Aeyd-
paote OF AeyduecOa as well as Aeydpebev, are so plainly archaic
forms that they need no explanation. In St. Paul’s Epistle
to the Romans we have already xavyaoa, ‘thou boastest.’
In the imperative aorist active Aéfe for Aefov is Homeric.
As to the imp. aorist passive \¢fov, I cannot but agree with
Dr. Mullach that it is the classical middle 1 aor. imper. of

OF MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE. 79

verbs in ps used as a passive, there being no middle voice
in modern Greek, as there was none in the xown Sud exros,
Few who compare such forms as ordoo with the corre-
sponding modern ordcov, d¢fou will be able to doubt this.

The verb eiya (ciut), so far as it presents us really with
a middle form, has the precedent of the Homeric gvo, which
is precisely the modern Greek imperative, not to speak of the
future cova. But nearer examination shows us that efua is
not conjugated throughout as a middle. The third person
singular and plural «iva or «ive, the latter being more correct
in writing, while in pronunciation the two forms are the
same, is plainly not for etrau and eivra. Now the formation
of this word we are able to trace through its various stages.
The oldest shape in which it appears is évri, which in the
Doric dialect was the same for both numbers. This épri
appears already in classical Greek as é in such phrases
as ovk é, go for éorly of. It is not unlikely that it was the
vulgar word in regular use for évri or éori, though known to
literature only in such short phrases as the above. In the
Acts of the Council of Constantinople (536 4.p.), we find
éu used simply for éori, ‘Tis & Neordpwos. In Ptochopro-
dromus, the first Romaic writer, we get &ve, and soon after-
wards the present form eva: or eive.

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 xow diddexros, it is gone. The
middle voice as a separate formation was on the wane. In
the New Testament we have dmexpi6n for dmexpivaro, much
earlier €5€x6n for dé€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

80 ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

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 etpaxa for evpnxa. Already in the Septuagint we get
evpnxay and éwpaxay, for etpnxace and éwpdxaox Verbs in pu
have entirely disappeared in modern Greek, leaving behind
them only such remnants as the participles Aeydyevos, épxa-
pevos above noticed. The termination nxa in édéxOnka, éypa-
gnxa, &c., seems but a following out of the analogy of ¢exa
for wv, €6nxa for nv, and so forth. Mr. Walker, High
Master of the Manchester Grammar School, has called my
attention to the fact that the termination xa for perfects is
almost unknown to Homer.

Under the head of extensions of analogy we may place
the double or mixed declensions, as rd ypayumor, ra ypayipara,
with which we may compare 10 dveipor, ra dveipara, &c. It is
worthy of notice that the plural ra déveipara 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 ra dvetpa,

Phrynichus, the grammarian, notices the increasing use
of this termination -mov, and complains particularly of the
employment of 1d yeAdowor for rd yeAoiov. 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 dkove
opléipov orabiav, ‘I hear the clash of mingled swords.’ The
force of the termination -ioy is that it places the word to
which it is added midway between concrete and abstract;
e.g. kéyus would mean cutting, kéuya a cut; but rd kéyipov a
number of cuttings or stabbings, and is used to describe, as
no other word could, an internal pain; German Lezdschnez-

OF MODERN GREEK ACCIDENCE. 8I

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—ypayiparos, ypayipara. The
same explanation no doubt holds good with regard to dvetpor,
which may mean either dreaming in the abstract, or a dream ;
while éveipara means always particular dreams.

It remains that we should notice the influence of dialects
in the forms of modern Greek. The xown diddexros was
probably so called quite as much from the fact that it was
no dialect in particular but a mixture of all, as that it was

~ generally understood. Pindar’s language was called by gram-
marians xown, because they regarded it as a mixture of more
than 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
indiscriminating schoolboy might do in our own day. We
are 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 maf» and rare Homeric words like dyépwyxos in the
Septuagint, is that they were current in the vernacular of the
period. TIdgo 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 dyépexos 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

G

ee ae ee ee Ok ee re
‘ * ; tie 7 ah a ae

82 ‘ON THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT
y:
Aristophanes), of a common spoken dialect quite distinc

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,—

dBare morray padday ai x’ evpyré ma.

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
kon) Suddexros, 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 pxp) with the
Ionians of old, dé£as with the Dorians, rats ripais for ras risas
with the Aeolians, éro and qedée for to& and devfov 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

~

OF MODERN GREEK. ACCIDENCE. 83

language of Dorians, Ionians, 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 xourdduov for xurddvoy from
kurddy, tpovra for rpira. Sometimes this ov represents an 7,
as coved for onoduov, covmais for onmiac; compare kpovvos
and xpnyn.

With reference to such forms as vodw for voéo, we may
remind the reader, that, as we have seen above in the chapter
on pronunciation, dw and ¢@ were originally one. So too
édeées for €de~as is only another instance of the equivalent
value of shortaande. ‘This again we see in BéArepos, Bed-
tiwv, from BeArés, which means that which may be put, placed,
or thrown; BeArds standing for Badrés, the regular verbal
adjective of Ba\Aw: (for the change of a and « under similar
circumstances compare wadra and wéArns ;) for the etymology
of Bédrepos &c. compare gépraros, Péprepos, from eprds, i. e.
what is bearable; hence in the comparative degree more
bearable or preferable. ‘The forms Badrés and ¢epris are
common verbal adjectives in modern Greek.

The paragogic « in such words as éAdoyéo, &c., had a

tendency to become +; so diardgw, the modern Greek and

most ancient form, as I believe, of duardsow, must ‘have
passed through the following stages: dvarayéo = (I am a dia-
tayés,) Siardyio, Svatdyjo, Sarat, dvardoow. Tayéw 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 and o tend to become ov. This will account for the
fact that r@ etre becomes in modern Greek rod eime, and pol
cime, pod etme. Add to this the fact that the Greek idiom,
especially the later Greek idiom, often places the genitive as

G2

8 - Testament,—and the wonder \ will rather be
oe so es have maintained its rights, than init

CHART ERGY.

The Origin and Development of Modern Greek
Syntax.

Havine 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

Tue Syntax oF MopEern GREEK.

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 Cesar, as trans-
lated by Mr. Rangabes, with the original as written by
Plutarch.

‘H yvopn Aourdy adrn épdvy Otro dé ris yvapuns didar-
pravOpwros, kai icxupds 6 Adyos Opamov aveions Kai Tod Adyou

a > 4 A - cat
doris eppéOn rept aris. Av’ 6 Sdwvards em’ ari pnbévros ov

a ee
4

86 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

ov pdvoy of per’ adrov eyepbevres
mapedéxovro tiv mpdracw avrod,
GAAA Kal toAdol Tdv mpoopsdAn-
, > , 4 7
cavToy, apvovpevot Tas idias Tov
, ca \ > ,
yropas, mapedéxovto tiv éduxny
Tov, €ws Grov HAOEv 7) GTELpa Tod
Kdrevos kai rod KdrAov. Obdrot
> a
Y nvavri@Onoay pcb” dpyns, Kal
c ec , 4 a“ , a»
ws 6 Katwy pera Tov Adyou €p-
\ c , > > a
puve kat wtrdvoiay Kat’ avoid,
\ > 4 > ’ ~ ,
kal efavéotn Kat’ avrov Btaias,

of pev avdpes trapedd@noay ows

Oavarwbdct* Kata S€ tov Kai-
> 2 br a
gapos, ev @ e&npxero ths Bov-

a 4 a , aA
Ajjs, To\Aol Tov vewv Ta dpov-
7 , 4 ¢ ,
povyray rov Kixépova tére, dppn-
cartes, €oTpe ay yupva ta Eidn
kar’ avrod. "AdAd déyerae Sri
6 Koupiy, mepixadvwas rére ad-
\ ‘ “a , \
tov ua rhs tnBévvov tov, Tov
eEnyaye’ Kal 6 Kixépov, dray of
_véot mpowéBreYray els adrov, dre
evevoev arroparikas, PoBnbels tov
Sjpov, 7) tov ddvoy Grws GdiKkov
Kai trapdvonov Oewpav. Tovro
duws Sev n&evpw mas 6 Kixépar,
>
dy etva adnbes, Sev rd eypawev
’ ‘ \ “A c , ,
eis Tov mepl Ths tmareias dyov

a ’
Tov’ Katnyopetro 8 vorepov drt
dev apeATHOn Tore ex THs evKatpias
ad 3.5 f / ° >
iris adpiorn mapovotdgero eis ad-
Tov kara Tov Kaigapos, Gdn’ &det-
Alavev evortoy rod Shou, doris

© , >t \ s
virepratws nuvoet Tov Kaioapa,

pévoy of pera TovToy dmaTapevot
mpooeridevro, mohAol dé Kal Tay
mpd avrod ras eipnuevas yvopas
areumapuevor mpos TH ekeivou ME-
réatnoay, ews emt Karova rd
mpaypa Kat Kardoy sepindde.
Tovray d€ veauxds evavtiobev-
tov, Kdrovos S€ Kal ry tmdvovay
4 “a , ,

Gua T@ Adyo cuverepEioayTos
> lod A / >
ait Kal ovykareEavacravros €p-
-. € ‘ cA > 6
papevos, of pev avdpes amoba-
vovpevo. tmrapeddOnoav, Kaicape
dé ris Bovdns e&udvte woddol Trav
, 4 , ,
Kiképova povpovyt@y tore vewy
yupva ta Eichn ovvdpapdyres €ré-
axov. *AdAa Koupioy re Aéyerat
7 TBeve tepiBarov imekaya-
= > /, c a © c
yetv, autos Te 0 Kixepwy, ws ot
veavioxot mpoceBreWay, dvaved-
cat, poBnbeis tov Sypyov, 7} rdov
ddvov dws Gdixov Kal tapdvopov
¢ 4 “~ ‘ > >
yyovpevos. Tovro pev ovv ovK
oida Gras 6 Kixépwr, eirep tv
addnbés, ev T@ tepl Ths wmareias

1) $s, t Pp ™) t
ovk eypayev' airiay Sé elyev
A < a» lod rod
VOTEPOY WS apioTa T@ Kaip@ Tore
mapacxévrt Kata tov Kaioapos
pa) xpNodpuevos, GAN amodeAvacas
4 ~ ¢ ~
tov Onpov vmeppuas meptexdpe-

“~ ,
vov Tov Kaivapos.

OF MODERN GREEK SYNTAX. 87

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-
guage.

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 6éAw used personally, and followed by the infinitive ;
and, thirdly, by the same verb used impersonally, followed
by the subjunctive. Thus ypayo becomes 6a ypdyo, Odo
ypawe(v) for ypanpar(?) or OéXeu (va) ypuyo. Ca ypaye is
usually regarded as a contraction for Oédka va = Oe va = Oa
ypavo; 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
raxa, a possible dialectic form of which would be @a-ca; cp.
KOov and yirav, evOedrev, evredbev. I cannot but think we
have this very particle 6¢ or 6a in the optative interjection
eiOe and aie: eiOe €XOor is in modern Greek cide va €XOn, which

— © SO ee
ad 4 7 ”

88 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT |

might be also written e 6é va &6y. That 64 is equivalent in
force to tows, raya, xe, tos, dv, &C., is evident from the fact —
that, in modern Greek, ray’ €A@y and tows €\6y may be used
without 64. In ancient Greek ¢t-Oe do: is plainly equivalent
to eirws iO. I am the more inclined to regard @a as a
simple particle because its use with the subjunctive corre-
sponds to the use of xe in Homer, with the same mood, while
its employment with the imperfect, as 6a éme@ipouv (vulg. 6a
éreOupodoa), answers precisely to the classical émebvpouv av;
only that this usage is more exact in modern Greek, it being
impossible to say 0a émreOvynoa in the same sense. This
would mean, not, ‘I should have wished,’ but, ‘I probably
did wish. It is worth consideration whether ay with the
aorist indicative in ancient Greek has not sometimes the
same meaning. However that may be, with 64, if it be a
simple particle, we have nothing at present to do. ©d qode-
pnow is just as much in the spirit of ancient Greek as ke

ToAELITo.

But with 62d ypayer and Oédet ypao the case is different.
GéAw ypave explains itself. But what induced the Greeks
to grow discontented with their simple future ypaWo? It
seems to have been nothing else than a certain wastefulness
of speech always observable in the Greek language, as in
such phrases as éruyev dv, wéAAee roveiv (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;

OF MODERN GREEK SYNTAX. Se

and so we find in the present case. O¢do ypape 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 édo tva ypaya, b€ho
"va ypavo. This use of ta begins in the New Testament,
where it is extremely common. But this leads again to a
further need; if tva ypayo in this and other cases is to be
equivalent to ypdya, what are we to do if we want to say
iva ypayo in good earnest? We must have recourse to a
further periphrasis, and say Sid ’va (8 wa) ypayo. 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 d:, shrough,
becomes d:apécov, ava grows into dvdpueoor, pera is felt to be
too weak to express the relation w7fh, and accordingly épadn
(’uagq) is pressed into the ranks of the prepositions. Tis
becomes moios ; ris, karis, Kdveis, OF Kapmocos = respectively some
one, any one, and some. Tapa (ri Spa) supplants the simple
viv; mas and éxaoros become xaéels, first, as most frequently
in the New Testament, used only in the accusative xaé’ éva,
but soon regarded and declined as one word, as already in
the epistles of St. Paul: és and écrs become 6 droios (cp. z7Z
quale, el cual, le quel, in Italian, Spanish, French, as also
motos With guel, &c.). For the old motos the Greeks often say
moids tes, and the common people ri Aoyjs; (the ri being used
indeclinably, like wasfi#r in German). ‘Ti doyjs 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, 6éAec ypavo, we

go THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT ETC. 7 7

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, éx@ (ye)
ypappéevov, Which is simply a more explicit way of saying
yéypapa, and will be quite familiar to the classical scholar,.
and ¢yo ypaver from éx@ ypdaya, 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 zch
habe thn sprechen wollen, &c. Perhaps the idea present to
the minds of those who first used it may have been, that as
7d ypapev, and even if the case required it rd ypaya, might
mean ‘the writing,’ so ¢xyo ypdya might be used for ‘I have
a writing, of anything as a deed done, yeypappévov poi éore.
At any rate, he who is not scandalized at éxay etva need not
be offended at ¢x@ ypawat.

It might be worth some one’s while to see whether in
certain cases otk ¢xw ypayat, odk eye elmeiv, odk tyee amodei~at,
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 ypayow or yéypapa are
capable of expressing. Tpdy 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, 6a ypayo,
bédw ypawe, or Oeder ypavw; in the other, 64 ypado, b€ro
ypape, OF bree ypada.

CHAPTER VE.

The Origin and Development of Modern Greek
Phraseology.

Lzavine 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. Avéévrns 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.
Avéévrns in the sense of murderer probably stands as a
separate idiom from aiéévrns, master. Advdervrns, 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, Seomdérns was felt to be an odious term, avdévrns
would be applied to the master, half to soften down the
bitterness of the relation in the mind of the slave, half

92 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

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 cxordvo, ‘I
darken,’ for kill, yopde of an animal dying; compare the
French crever, and the German crefiren. The meaning is
literally of course ‘to make a noise.’ Death is still called
Xdpwv in the popular dialect, Xdpos or Xdpwvras, etymolo-
gically(?) ‘the joyful God.’ Baoidever 6 FAcos 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 cxoréve the grand Homeric periphrasis for
death, oxdéros dace kxddvpev? 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
metaphors.

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

OF MODERN GREEK PHRASEOLOGY. 93

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
implement.

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 dvovs,
Gpxn, orotxeiov, ekdtpiots, dvabvpiacis, dvddvots, Kéopos, ametpos,
mukvecis, dpaiwois, 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 Café de la Belle Gréce, as
he melts a lump of sugar in a cup of coffee, little dreams
that the name by which he calls the process (dvdAvovs) 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-

bd

94 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

pathies, have divined that kéopos, the divine order of nature,
and drepoyv, the formless void, should ever be wedded
together in one expression, xdéopos Gmepos, and mean a
‘countless multitude,’ perhaps a disorderly rabble. Could
Anaxagoras have foreboded that xécyos, which expressed to
him divine beauty and perfection of arrangement—zdrra
xpnwara fv pod, eira vovs €AOov adra Svexdopnoe—should in a
very few hundred years become the subject of the Christian
lament, ‘ the whole world lieth in wickedness’? Who could
foresee that 7d ddoyov, 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 orocxeiov, an element, should presently
become a ghost, the Saizev 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 cyjya, béors,
and rd&:s, 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
Xenophanes,

Kal woré pu orvpedcCopéevov okvAakos tmapidvra

baolv émouxreipar Kat réde dca eros"
Tladom, pnde pam¢’, exewn cbitov avepos ett
Vox tiv eyvov pbeyEaperns aiwv’

should have found their echo in such words as these, uttered
by the hero T'samados in the person of a bird of the air :—

"Ey® moval god daivoya adda oval dev etuar’

~ > a ’
Eis rd vnol ov ayvdaytia eivas tév NaBapiver,

OF MODERN GREEK PHRASEOLOGY. 95

"Ekei thy vorepny mvony apnoa Tmodepnarras.
“O "Toapadds cia éy® kal na eis Tov kdcpor.

a nn rd é
*S rods ovpavods mod xabopa Kabdpia ods *Eavoiyo

na An “ >
Ma va ods 86 amo xovra eivar 4» "miOvpid pov.

To take another instance, how has the common language
of modern Greece reversed the judgment of the Eleatics,
when ré éy no longer means the most abstract but the most
concrete Being, as 6 dvOpwmos otros civas rd dSvotvxéoraroy dy
Tov Kéopov |

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

96 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT —

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 aveAnorov ovpBeBnkds! Ti a€voOpnynroy dvorixnyua! ddLyos
kaipos eivat, ag’ ob 6 Aads Tod modvmabods ‘EAAddos GAos yapa Kat
dyahXiaors €d€xOn eis rods KdArous Tov Tov éemionyuov Tovroy dvdpa,
kai onpepov Sdos OdjWis Kal Katnpera KaraBpéxyer rd veKpixdy Tov
kpeBBare pe muxpdrara Sdxpva, kat ddvperat dmapnydpnta. 6 yAvki-
raros xatpeticpos XPIZTOS "ANESTH @yewer dyapis rv tepav Tov
Ildoxa «is ra xeiAn tv “EAAnv@y xpioTiavar,...... Aexra BeBaa,
dyarnroi pou “EdAnves, Todd Sexra eivar eis ri oKidy tov Ta Sdxpud
pas Sidre eivar Sdxpva tov KAnpovdpwv tis ayamns Tov' GAAa Todd
dexrérepa Oder Hvac Ta Epya pas Sia tiv marpida’ avriv Kal pdovnv
Ti evyyopoovyny Cntet awd juas eis Tas evepyeoias Tov, avTiy THY
apouBny eis THY mpos Huds ayamrny Tov, aitiy THY edadpwor eis Tas
Tadaur@pias Tov, avtiy THY TAnpophy Sia Tov xapdv THs modvTipou

Cans Tov.

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@ évri—zndeed, 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)—rovAdyiorov, car’ ddnbeav,
Sndad#, #yovv, 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 py, ye, ody, roi, ydp, have in
modern Greek either receivedja restricted sense, and thus

OF MODERN GREEK PHRASEOLOGY. 97

been made as explicit as was required, or have been sup-
planted by others. So yap and od», which are very expres-
sive but not at all explicit, have been entirely displaced by
diére and dourdy, which are very explicit but not at all ex-
pressive. As the first stage of the displacement of yap by
didrt and ody by Aouwrév, we may observe the frequent use of
ére 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 Aoudy for ody in Roly bras, wherever
rather an emphatic ody 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 xa@ddov, diddov, das (often emphatically
joined for the sake of greater force—dras Kadrov, drws did-
Aov), dpern, elp@vera, 7OiKds, émotnun, Sopropds.

The Cyrenaics appear to have invented the word pepixds,
particular (as in the phrase pepixat 7Sovat), which in modern
Greek survives in the sense of cer/ain, 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 «idi«ds from cides, specific,
which is now nothing more than part of the possessive
pronoun 6 «idixdés prov, 7d ciduxdy rns, &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 airés. 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 é with
the subjective airs in the oblique cases, as € airdy, of ada, éo

H

ee eT ee

98 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

avrod, 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 éavrév. 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 éavrdy, guavrdy, &c. could arise; before
men could say rév €aurdv pov, rov éavrdv tov, &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 éavrds rov in Greek would be
a barbarism ;—6é ios being used in such cases instead of the
classical airés.

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 avrapxns, adrdpkeca.

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

OF MODERN GREEK PHRASEOLOGY. 99

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 Snpovpyds, ‘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.

IIpés rovro.s, draws Syrore, tows, paiverar, mavramacw, apa ye,
pdduora, tolyap, 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 pdd\wora
for yes, or mas Sev cidSa = mas ovk cidov; 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 dAn, troxelpevoy, mapd-
Serypa, tmdpxew, mpdtacis, bpekis, ovowdns, evdéxerar, xopnyeiv
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. Tpaduxy vAn, ‘ writing materials;’ ovowdys Suapopa
imapxet, ‘an essential difference exists;’ ool etxyoua Kadi
dpe&wv, ‘I wish you a good appetite ;’ dueoros mpédracis, ‘an
immediate proposal ;’ tzokeipevoy dmapaderyparicrou évepyetas,
‘a subject of unexampled activity.’ He would either think
that every fool was his disciple, or that all his disciples were
fools. ;

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

100 THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT ETC.

compound future already noticed, @éAe v dmobdvw for dro-
Gavodpa, 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
better.

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 Kou) di:ddexros.

re TRV es.

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 xow duddexros 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-

102 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

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
criticism.

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
modern Greek now is. For example, "EgedOe ex tis yas cov,
Kal €k Tis ouyyeveias cov...mdvres e€exhivav, dua HypewwOnoar,...
rapos dvewypeévos 6 Adpvy§ airar, sound just like modern Greek
familiar phrases. Let us mention a few well-known words,

OF MODERN FROM ANCIENT GREEK. 103

common to the Septuagint and modern Greek. °*Emoxer-
roua, ‘I visit;’ dmoxpivoua (passive), ‘I answer ;’ emorpeda,
‘JT return ;’ 7yovpevos, ‘a leader’ (in modern Greek the supe-
rior of a monastery); mpooxvy, ‘to worship’ or ‘salute ;’
éeroudto, ‘make ready ;’ éevomov, ‘in the presence of;’ mpoc-
ként@ and mpdckoppa, metpdtw, ‘to tempt ;’ dxohovéd in prefer-
ence to éropa; komaeua in preference to evda; édos for mas;
éws évds, ‘as many as one;’ Kara, for ‘to dwell;’ kabé{opa
and xa6ifw, for ‘to sit;’ ra inaria, for‘ the clothes ;’ tmdéye for
eit. 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.

Ovdpavds is no longer the mere blue sky, or a mythical
name for one of many deities, but the habitation of the
Ancient of Days. ‘Apapria no longer a mistake, but the
fundamental error of mankind, estrangement from God, and
the breaking of his perfect law. iors becomes the trusting
obedience of faithful Abraham, and of all the saints. Adéa is
the glory, or sometimes the honour of the Almighty. ‘O Kupuos
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 mAjv for dddd, érav and dy for ére and ei.
Other modern usages are d«piy for érz, as already Theocritus,
iv. 60. Cf. Anthologia, P. vii. 141. “Idsov frequently for
éavrov, far more so than is the case in classical authors.
“Idvoy in One place in the sense of same, the most usual
meaning in modern Greek: idvov cat wapatAnovov tais médeor
ovveBn. Here, however, the translation is doubtful. ’Amé in
the sense of worth or weight, as dé déxa raddvrov, weighing

104 THE HISTORICAL DEVELCPMENT

ro talents. So the Greeks of to-day say 8és po: amd déxa
Aenrd, ard pia Sexdpa, Eis rods ka? jas kacpois, which is com-
pletely modern Greek, for ev rois xaé’ jyas xpdvos. This use
of «is, as well as of xaipés, belongs equally to the New Testa-
ment. I will now add one or two examples of the modern
phraseology of Polybius. ‘O ris mpayparixns ioropias tpédros :
i.e. the method of actual history. Upayparicas dievonOnear,
ii. 50. 5. Askaodocia, jurisdiction, xx. 6. 2; XXxil. 17. 19.
Tpwyopev for eabiovev, used, however, only in a proverbial
expression. Aowrdy dvdykn ovyxepeiv Tas dpxas Kal ras dmobEeces
civat Wevdeis, 1. 15. Els dAnOwas évvoias aye. Suptpavodvres, in
the sense of bargaining, already used in this sense by
Xenophon, Hell. i. 3. 8. Kara ras mepirrdoes, according to
circumstances, kata tas attav mpoapéoes. ‘“Avticmacpa, &
diversion, xi. 18. ’Ex rod nv ékexopnoay dia rov xpdvov, Id.
22, yap hékts avtn rodro onpaivec kupios. Eis pdBous ovvexeis
kat rapaxas, into continual fear and distress.

In the New Testament, among many others, we may
notice the following modernisms :—RKis for év, as eis roy Kédrrov
rod marpés, St. John i. 18. “Iva with the subjunctive is used
continually for the infinitive, as Matthew iv. 3, ele iva of Aidoe
obror dprou yévwrtar. "Ava péoov, for among: ddes ék8ddo, the
modern ds ékBddo. Bpéxe for ver, Matth. v. 45. "Evoyos eis
ri yeevvav for ti yeevvy. *Emdvw Gpovs. Tleptoadrepov for mhéor,
as mepirodrepoy kpiva, ‘greater damnation.’ Avoxddws for pdys
or xaderas, ‘ with difficulty,’ Luke xviii. 24. Adros for ds or
otros passim. "Eordbny for éorny passim. The genitive for
the dative as in modern Greek. Od éy ovk cia déws iva \iow
avrov Tov iudvra tov wrodnparos. “Idod for ‘here, the modern
ebm: Acts ii. 7, ov« Wot mavres obroi eiow of hadovvres Tadsaior ;
Evxapiore for xdpw eidéva. Cf. Lob. in Phryn. on the word.
KaOels for €kacros in Romans xii. 5. Such forms as yepifo,
‘to fill, éyyi¢w, ‘to approach,’ are mostly Hellenistic and

modern.

. OF MODERN FROM ANCIENT GREEK. 105

In Romans the phrase rév rv dAnbeav év ddicia katexdvrov
receives considerable light when it is known that xaréyo in
many dialects of modern Greek is used for the more general
n&evpw, ‘I know,’ formed from the aorist of eEevpioxw, 7£evpor.
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 d:dBodos, kddaots, OdiYis, peravoew,
ai@mos. Above all is it interesting to observe how the biblical
word dydrn has replaced the old expression épas. The wordis
Hellenistic, and hardly occurs, I believe, in classical Greek,
although the verb dyaré does. Now the verb dyar@ implies
the noun dydmy, which must therefore have existed in the
mouth of the common people long before it came to the
surface in the Greek Bible. ’Ayamn being derived from the
root ayav-, as in dyafés, &c., is a far better word for Christian
purposes than épes, and indeed it would have served even
Plato better in his more religious moments. Compare the
Platonic ¢pes with the Pauline dydamy in 1 Cor. xiii., and
observe how this ‘love’ is with Paul, as the gpes 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.

106 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

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 ¢ayds
and ¢akas, vnpdv, now vepdv, for vdap, provdiov for Prous, kpiBo
for xpimra, dd paxpdéev, a common New Testament and
modern pleonasm, A@dpiov, orabepds, Bacihicoa, yeddomor,
Covquoy (and similar derivatives), Eevcrevew, xopdovov, evyapioTe,
poidiov for poidiov.

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:— _

"Ey® Sika BacwWioxos NovBadav kal ddov rav Aidiérov 7dOov
eis TéApuv kal Taduv, Gnak dvo émodeunoa pera TOv BAeupvov, Kai 6
eds CSwxév por TO viknpa pera Tav exOpav amak, eviknoa maw kal
expdtnoa Tas méAes adTav, exabécOny pera THY bxAwY pov’ TO pEV
mporov drak éviknoa ai’tav kai adrol ngiwody pe. eroinca eipnynv
per avTav kal Spoody por Ta eidwAa adray, kal éemictevoa Tov dpKoY
avTav ws Kadol eiow cvOpwrot avaxwpnOnv cis Ta dvw pépn pov,
dre eyeyovduny BaowWiokos otk ampdOov Srws éricw Trav GAov Bact-
A€wy GAA axpny Eumpoober airav. of yap qidroverkovow per €pod
ovk ape (cf. apéwvra in New Testament) adrods eis y@par ad-
Tov ei pn) KaTnEi@oay pe Kal mapakadodow KabecOjva. “Ey yap eis
Karo pépn dew cil kal eis dvw pepy aif eivi. emoheunoa pera Toy
BAeywpvov kal Ipipews Ews TéeA[plews év dmra€ kai of Gow NovBadaov
dvorépw erdpOnoa xaopas adrav, ered) eidroveiknoay per euov. ovK
ape adrods KcabecOjvae eis tiv oKidy ety) broxAivovel pot Kal ovK
froxay yvnpiv tow eis tiv oikiavy adrdv. of yap idoverkodai por

dpra(m tev yuvakev kal ra madia airav. For wildness of

*

"

*
OF MODERN FROM ANCIENT GREEK. 107

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 6dev for mav-
Tov, érodéunoa pera aS passim in the Revelation, and émoinca
cipnyny per avrav, ape for dpinut, érwxay, a hybrid aorist-
perfect like evpyxay and é#paxay in the Septuagint, eipixa and
@8nxa in modern Greek, and éco eis for év, in modern Greek
péca eis.

Other Nubian inscriptions give, as in Romaic, such
forms as "Iod\us for “lovAvs, with genitive fovAr, rov as enclitic
for avrov, 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
nAkuoe for eiAkvoe, réxvus for réxvors, ikaot for cikwor, dpyéws for
dpxaiws, eiepéos for iepéos.

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, dpyara for arma, is a curious instance of
Greek ingenuity in disguising barbarisms; for an ‘armed
man’ is in modern Greek dpparwdds = émAirns, On the analogy
of duaprwdds. See Sophocles’ ‘Glossary of Later and Byzan-
tine Greek,’ p. 59 of the Introduction.

7
108 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The chief modernisms of this period are 6 a8Bas, rod a884,
pl. of d8Pddes, xonddw for xomddvov, the modern xomdd: (a piece);
Toda ta €rn, as a form of salutation; duSev for Bia, é for
éore: and the combination rf, as rfoupas, r¢ayyapea. 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 kéaovdos, and the later
Attic rr as in xérrupos. It is interesting to know that the
vulgar Greek of the present day gives us kérovdos, or kérupos,
sometimes pronounced almost xéchugos.

I subjoin a short specimen of the popular dee adopted in
this period from the ‘ Apophthegmata Patrum :’—

"HAOdy more marépes eis Adekavdpecav KrAnOevres bd Geodirov rot
apxlemtoxdmov iva moon evxynv Kai KabedAyn Ta iepd. Kat éoOidvrov
aitéy map avrod mraperéOn kpéas pdoxvov. Kal fodrov pndev diaxpi-
vopevor Kat AaBay 6 emicxoros év korddw eaxe TH TANTIoV adTOD
yépovrt A€ywv, "180d tovTo Kaddv komad éeoriv, paye aBBa. OF de
drroxpilévres eiov, “Hyeis ws dpte Adxava noOioper ei 5€ Kpéas €ore
ov Tpwyopev. Kal ovxérs mpooebero ovdé eis e& airav yevoarba
airov. 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
Christianity.

The next period in the history of the Greek language may
be reckoned from 622, the date of the Hegira, to to99. We
have here before our eyes the transition in literature from
the language of the grammarians to the language of the
people.

Theophanes (758-806) gives us -dSes as the plural of
nouns in -as,*As AaAnooper for AaAnoopev, and ds eicéAOwox for
ciceAOdvrwv. The perfect participle without reduplication, as
odnpwpévos, kagTeAAwpévos, mupmoAnpevos ; amd with the accu-

OF MODERN FROM ANCIENT GREEK. 109

sative, odv with the genitive, as well as dua with gen. Malalas,
whose age cannot be determined with certainty, gives us in
addition -es for -a, as Ilépoes for I¢pom, rais mdkas, meta-
plastic from 4 mAdé, as though it were 7 mAdka; «dy in its
modern Greek usage, ofa xiv joav, ‘whatsoever they were
like.’ Mera with the accusative in the sense of wrth, as the
mutilated modern pée(?), The nameless biographer of Leo
Armenius uses the ending -ovy for -ovor; é« with the
accusative, and evyevds for edyerns. Leo the Philosopher,
886-911, has idixds = proprium, as in Romaic, and the ending
~eoat for -e. (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 adddAdgmov, gen. ddAagivaros: cf. the form rd yeAdowov, con-
demned by Phrynichus: povoyery for the vocative of povo-
yevns ; the ending -scos, proparoxytone (possibly a Latinism) ;
ads for ipav, rov for ab’ray, éva for &v, eive for ef: eice is prob-
ably from écoi, just as eve is from évri: cov for co, as Kadz
gov nuepa, ‘good morning to you:’ va for wa, and éws with
the accusative.

An anonymous writer, known as Theophanes Con-
tinuatus, gives us “AAv gen. of “Adus, xpuads for xpuoois:
Cedrenus, A.D. 1057, the numeral adverb émrdi for érrdxis,
This would appear to be a relic of an old instrumental
ending. Scylitzes gives us the following specimen of the
common dialect, é@ oé éxrica gotpve, e& iva oé yaddow = in
modern Greek €y® oe Extica oipve, ym oe va (sometimes
used for 64) oe yadkdow. "ES Occurs in modern Greek as a
dialectic form, as well as iw, iov. Cf. Boeotian idv, idvya.
Anna Comnena, who wrote a history of the Byzantine war
about the year 1100, gives another example in the following
verse :—

Té caBBarov ris tupwis,
Xapys *Adékte, evdnees To,

110 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT .

Kat riv devrépay 1d mpai
Eire, Kadas ‘yepaxw pov.

Here we have 1d ocaSBarov for ra caBBare, evdnoes for
evdnoas, the enclitic ro, xapys for xapeins used optatively, ry
Sevrepay for ri Sevrépa, Kadés as a form of salutation, still
common in Greece, and the diminutive yepdxy for yepdvrior,
on the analogy probably of oxvAdkov, diminutive of oxiddos,
or, properly speaking, of oxvAag. Tepaxw is contracted for
yepaxvov, and, in modern Romaic, would appear as yepakt.

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, orixot modurixoi, 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 :—

“ a ‘

Ti Kkepadny cov, Baowred, eis Tovro ri pe deyets ;
by + / ‘ ” \ >
‘Av €xy@ yeirovay twav Kéxn madly aydpw,
Na roy ein ’r1, Mabe ro ypapparixdoy va Chon;

\ Ul / A > > /
Ilapa kpaviapoxepadoy mavres va p odvopacour.
Na rov ein& ’t1, Mabe ro tlayyapny rd madiy cov.
Teirovay ¢yo merlarny, taxa Wevdorfayyapny’
TIAjv €ve Kadovroumorns, eve Kal xapokdrros.
¢ \ ” \ | Ie U
Oray yap ibn thy abyny meptxapaccoperny,
Aéyer ds Bpdon rd Kpacw kal Bade 7d mumépw*
EvOds ro Bpavew 7rd Ocpydy eyes mpds 7d maidiy Tov

Na ro, madiv pou, aydpace yxopddéxowWa orapévov,

OF MODERN FROM ANCIENT GREEK. 111

épe kal BAayixov tuply adAnv orapevapeay,
Kal dds pe va mpoyevowpa, kal tore va mer(dve.
Ad’ of d€ Pbdon rd tupw kal ra yopdoxordirhia,
* * * * *
Kav téooepa tov didovow eis Td tTpavoy povypovri*
Kai rapevOds tmddnpuay émaiper kai mer Cover.
“Orav S€ madw, Bacidred, yepatos Spa hOdon,
c
Pinter td Kadarddw tov, pimrer kal TO cavidi,,
Kai déyet thy yuvaika tov, Kupa kal bes rpamétu*
Kal mpdrov piooov (Lat. missus) éxeordv, Sevrepov 7d
,
aopovyyaror,
Kal rpirov rd daxpidracrov dpOdv ard pepiov.
Kal réraprov povdxvOpov, mryv Brere va pr Bpdty.
Ad’ od 8€ mapabécovew kali vivera Kal Katon,
"Avabeua pe Bacired kai rpicavdbeud pe,
acd a! -
Ovrav otpape kai ido tov Aowrdv TO was KabiCer,
Te cal > id A , A /
0 TGs avaxourdverar va midon TO KouTady,

‘ > A , A , c pa A ,
Kai ovdev rpéxovy ra oddua pov, as Tpéxet TO troTapuy.
K ‘ An! ¢ ‘ we A , na a , “

al €y® Umayw x épxoua mddas petpay TeV oTiyav
EvOis (nr@ tov tauBov, yupetw roy ozovdeiov’
Tupevo tov muppixiov kat ra Aouad Ta péTpa.
> a A cal
Adha Ta pérpa rod “pedody ’s tiv dperpdv pov treivay ;
Ilére yap é€k tov iapBov va ayw Koopoxparop ;
> cal U

H m@s €k Tov muppixioy more prov va xopTaTe ;
wy a“

Ede rexvirns codioris éxeivos 56 trlayyapns.

> \ , »7 »” c ,
Eire to Kupie “henoor, fpEaro povkavicery.

The language here is essentially modern Greek, though
the middle voice appears not quite extinct, as we have zpo-
yevooua, ipEaro, &c.; and v sometimes etymologic, sometimes
ephelcystic, is written after a number of words where it is
now left out, as trd8nuar, madiv. “Ede for ie strengthens the
etymology of 66 from idod, Ovdev is written for the modern
dev. The form éve we have referred to on p. 79.

‘ee a a ae i hha bi

112 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT —

For the subjoined translation I am responsible :—

‘By your own head, O king, I swear, I do not aw your
meaning :

Suppose I have a neighbour now, blessed with a to 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-

head.

Nay, I should say, “Go, teach your son a bootmaker’s profes-
sion.”

One of my neighbours cobbles shoes, cia ae pretends to make
them ;

Now there’s a famous manager, who understands good living.

No sooner does he see the dawn streaking the sky to eastward,

Than aeSEN Ve cries, “Let boil my wine, and arias in some
pepper.”

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, Thessatiat 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
master,

Away with last and cobbling-board, the time has come for eating.

“Good wife,” he cries, “come lay the cloth, and get the dinner
ready,

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

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
over.”

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

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,

OF MODERN FROM ANCIENT GREEK. 113

Now 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.’

CHAPTER VHI.

Dialects of Modern Greece.

Proressor Mutuacu 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:—1. That of Asia Minor, dvarodcxi diddexros. 2.
Chiotic. 3. Cretan. 4. Cyprian. 5. Peloponnesian. 6.
That of the Ionian Islands.

at. DraAtect or Asta Mrnor.

The chief feature of this dialect is the substitution of r for
6, as rédw for 6d, and « for x; in general a preference for
unaspirated tenues. The dialect of Trapezus seems to
have preserved us several Homeric forms, as de = ev, and
dyov = fipos: for the substitution of v for s we may compare
éxoues, €xouev, &c., where the s is first dropt, and then its
place filled up by v épedAxvorixdy.

In the same dialect, i.e. of Trapezus, Sikdoros for dmarnhds
has a very archaic sound. “Ew and ey still stand for ¢ori, i.e.
éevri, “ENXevos = robusius. “Egerayn appears as éxmdyev, Ovyd-
mp as Oayarépa. °K stands for otk instead of the modern

- DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 115

Greek *8. Ka=xdro, Maégidas = pdmopa, perhaps a blow
on the mouth, possibly connected with maxzila, of which,
however, the common modern Greek form is pdyovAov. Oindpw,
from dis, is in place of the modern xpéas mpdBuov, or mpoBarrvov.
Ods stands for éws. dori = dépya, cf. réoxos. Td mpdBav = 7d
mpdBarov. Todedi¢e = déoua, cf. yovarigeo.

2. THe Curran DIALECT

is said to preserve the Homeric xe, which appears also in

Pontus as xes, but I have never been able to discover an
example in any of the Chian poems which I have read.
*Adava is explained by Mullach #5y viv, Ad certainly stands
for 4) in modern Greek, as #ha 6a = exactly dye 87, €da being
imperative present from éAd@ or éAdFw, the root form of éAdfv
=édavvo. SO too kdpe dd, dye Sa, (for odxt 57).

3. THE Cretan DIALECT

abounds in peculiar forms and archaic usages. In the
pronunciation the most marked feature is the sound of x as
ch in cherry before e and: sounds. ‘Yoeis is said to stand
for the modern oeis, évcis = ipeis. ‘The omission of the aug-
ment and the use of 6, , rd as a relative strongly remind us
of the Epic and Ionic dialects: e. g.

\ ; \ \ 4
Ta Kdpay kai ta dépay,

In Epic, ra xdpov kai ra épor,

In Cretan we also get the dialectic form pove for pire.

4. THE Cyprian DIALect

appears, in common with that of Rhodes, to leave out in
many instances the semivowels 8 and y, as peddos = peydXos
12

116 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

for péyas, id &v rb d\Adoow for eyo dev rd dAAdoow. Mullach
well compares ddAios Sicilian for dAtyos, iav, iovya Boeotic for
éywye, (8 Epic for «iB, and rot, rat for rodt and radi in the
Elian Rhetra. ‘Corpus Inscript.’ 11. Atos for ddtyos is a
Cyprian form. We have also the Pindaric épuya for dpa,
and also Pixos for Babos. In Mecafovpia, or MecaSoupia, the
digamma is preserved. I stands for the consonantal téra,
as xapya for xwpid, capavrapya for [rec]oapalKo|yrapad. The
termination doy of diminutives appears as i, as in Ptochoe
prodromus and later Roman period (whereas in the common
dialect of Greece it appears as i); e. g. Bowviv, radi, pedioow;
also rodrov for rodro; cf. in Attic radrdy for ravrd, and rovodrav
for rowdro: the latter form belonging also to Herodotus
and the Odyssee. Adve stands. for éAatvw, as ceuvos for
aeBvds : m and pw seem also interchangeable, as we get pAoiov
for mAotov and avqjpa for prjya, lod va petouer rapa ; whither
shall we now tend? péCopev being connected with dpéyopat,
We get also the metathesis Sapxva, tpemvds, for Sdxpva, repmvds.
Tpéronar and réproua are possibly the same root, in which
case rpépw alone would be referable to the Sanscrit ¢r7p,
tripdyémt. ‘This metathesis leads us to connect rdpBos, rap-
Béw, rapBi¢w with the modern Greek rpaBéw, érpaSita, fo furn
or fo go away, which doubtless was the original significa-
tion of rapBéw, In Cyprus as well as in Crete the enclitic

seems to be preferred to the proclitic construction, «ida rov to
rov ida,

5. THE PELOPONNESIAN DIALECT

in general seems to prefer verbs in an uncontracted form,
aS Tiudw, Tiudes, Trude. It appears to use the nominative for
the accusative in such words as éedpnpepis for éepnuepida, but
this may be a matter of pronunciation only. By a curious
metathesis roy stands for rjs as well as for rovs. This is

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 117

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 més dxoves for mas
dvopdteca, Aidoys, in modern Greek did or dd6vo, appears
as 8dvw, Ta mpdtn = Ta mpdypara, from 76 mpdros. This must
stand for ré mpdxos, and strengthens the theory of philologers
that mpay-, rd mptiyos &c. are weakened for mpdx-. Xpnyaraw
= xpnuaréw, Which in the common dialect means only, I
employ myself, spend my time,’ &c., as expnydrnoa dvo ern eis
To ypadeidy rov, ‘I was employed two years at his office,’—is
idiomatically used,according to Mullach, for ypyo eto, among
the Theraeans.

In Cythnus, Psyra, and Chios, eivras, efvra is used for tis,
ri, Which appears to be a transposition for rivas, metaplastic
from rs (compare évra[s] or évra[y] for dray); and as such
should be written ivras, ivra, Yet évrav looks very like évre dv
[xpévov], especially when we remember that évre = ére occurs,
as well as évray for érav. In Cythnus too the termination ve
seems to be added on to certain words with no meaning at
all, as xnpa-ve yive-ve, padpa opebn-ve, i.e. xnpa eyévero, pavpa
épopén, where it would seem we have the archaism of a
neuter plural being used with a singular verb. In Cythnus
Zpxouar makes jpxa, instead of Apa or #AOa, an additional -
ground for connecting in one root €pOovpa, épxoua, HrOor,
qvbov, and #péa.

In Siphnos, Naxos, and Thera, the forms ¢xovor, e/yaou are
preferred to ¢yoww and «fyav. They are also common in
Crete.

In Amorgos, Calymnos, and Astypalaea, x palatal is pro-
nounced as sh, e. g. éyec ésht. The augment is lengthened,
as ifypapa for éypadov: cf. the common form #ma for émov.
The same thing occurs in ancient Greek in 6édo, #6edov ; and

118 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

as #Oedov implies a form é6é\w, so probably éniva, éypdpw are
obsolete forms from which #ypadpa and ma have arisen. In
these islands éromos and ddctbepos occur for éromos and édev-
Gepos. Compare the common form dpopdos for euopdos, i. e,
evpopos,

In Patmos the Aeolic accent, ddnOns, kaipos, vépoy, Kévra,
KdAos, Bpdxn, Obtains.

In Rhodes, Carpathos, and Calymnos, ¢ixva, geEev, ovAevo
stand for Seiyve (i.e. detxviw), eter, Sovrtevo, Also yvepio
and ovvdw for yepif{e and cvrage, implying the forms yrwpid-e
and ovvayw: afterwards, by the insertion of léra=y, made
into yvwpidyo, cvvayyo, and hence yrapite, cvvate,

Here too, as in Asia, x appears to supplant x, as ékw, oro-
ka{ouat, €pkoua, texvirns. Here « may sometimes be the
_ earlier sound. Teéxvy is really aspirated from réxyy, compare
Téxtwyv, tira, érexov. So in modern Greek deikva becomes
Secixvw; Sidkve, Sioxvw, and in ancient Greek éfamivns is con-
tracted to e€aipms. N appears to have an aspirating influ-
ence on a preceding tenuis. At the beginning of a word x
sounds like 4, as Aapis for xaprs.

In Carpathos we get réroapes for réocapes, an intermediate
form between réocapes and rérrapes, aS xérovdos is between
xdcougos and xérrugos: and I cannot doubt the feminine ter-
mination ‘roa, common in modern Greek, to be intermediate
between ciooa and irra, as seen in pédiooa, pédAirra, notwith-
standing the accent, which may arise in modern Greek from
a Doricized Ionicism, i. e. iron, iroa.

In Rhodes, a is often weakened to ¢, as ovrépw, opoyyépw
for ovrdpwv, oroyydpwv (here too notice the termination w),
évoiée for dvor€e ; yeAavys appears in ancient Greek for yadnvds ;
yadnm plainly means ‘the smile of the sea.’ Compare too
vehos, mvedov, meé{o, and their corresponding forms dados,
mvadov, mat.

In Carpathos, similarly, we have mevrixds and xaéédov far

*

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE, 119

movrixos and xafddov. “OAvymos is called "Edvuros at the pre-
sent day.

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

Kpeapt,

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 d@eva for daovn, xrovrd for xrumad, cf. ydodmos,
y8ouré in Homer. An apparent tendency to use the voca-
tive for the nominative, as Béraxv for Bérpus, devotpeve for
Suvapevos, xamve, deré, xopé, which in the forms véyo, cod
seems to explain itself partly as a dislike to s as a termina-
tion, is paralleled by certain forms in Homeric Greek.
Compare inmédra, veheAnyepéra with the Tsakonian soXira,
vavta, epiunra, rexvira, mpodyra. Other peculiar forms are as
follows :—xpie = kpéas, éxavov = ixavw, an undoubted archaism ;
youvaixa = yurn, Kove = Kvwy, viodta = vikta, 1. e. WE, vixa = dvvy-s,
cf, vioow, i.e. wyyo, macxa=Taoa, evOcye = évOev (another
archaism), toxi=ri: ofovpevos = poBotpevos, and picovpev =
piyoper, Cf. pio. Zeios stands, according to Mullach, for 6eios,
but he does not inform us for which éeios, whether in the sense
of uncle, or in the sense of divine. If it stand for the latter,
I should derive it not from @6cios, but from dios, and write
ios, which might be compared with dpi{ndos and dpidydos, &c.
Z stands in Tsakonian instead of « before « and « sounds,
which is only to be explained, so far as I see, by assuming

> % 5 _— sy) 7 = —— —) oe

120 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE,

that « was first softened to y. Thus kal, yal= ye =. K is
found for m, as xidve for madvw. P for r, as ypodoca for
yéoou. Adxrvdos becomes ddrvAo, mpd8ara mpovara, the semi-
vowel changing to a vowel, wé8a, rota; Oédo, O€ov and reyéov;
di3@-1, diov (observe the tendency, noticed elsewhere in
Greek, to drop 8 and A); ktives becomes. kove, xepadn Coudada,
bupdva Ovpovkov, dyarotvca ayaroda; apovpa (another archaism)
appears as dyoupa; avOpwros Gbparo, oxida Cia, apratw = 48paye,
i.e. dprayw: ya is for ydda, like xpi, 6, &p1, Bpi, dAdu. “AvOe
is for dpros, which I have above connected with ddééo, dre,
aAdirov, Gdrevpov, &c. I therefore dissent from Professor
Mullach in regarding avée as a word unknown elsewhere in
the Greek language. Tdpecye ( = viv), to which Dr. Mullach
can assign no etymology, appears to me to be evidently
néppwobev, i.e. henceforth, further, as the Greeks say ropa
mdéov in the common dialect, and the Germans nunmehr.
"EvGev becomes évOcxe, and Oédw roxéov, therefore méppaber
would naturally become réppwécxev, while » and o, as we
have seen, readily become e¢, as in Kode, kamvé. We thus get
réppeboxev, the v of which may of course be dropped at
pleasure; and this is quite near enough to mdpecye to leave
no doubt in my mind as to the derivation. The declension
of the pronouns presents us with some very extraordinary
phenomena :—

eyo = exo Tpeis = evd, eud
e“ov pl nav vayov
enol pal nuiv = vaov
éue —_ eviov nas €wovvave

avd = extod, G. ri, D. vi, A. kiov.
Pl. euov, G. movpov, D. wovpov, A. éuovd.
Of the third person only the following cases are known :—

G. ai, D. m1, A, oe.
Pl., G. and D. cov.

‘

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 12!

Here éxiod is plainly for e-riod = riod = rv. Cf. the Bocotian
Awovoias for Avoias, &c.; for the x, Kipa, &c.
’Exeivos is declined as follows :—

EY , wy - +
N. ETELVEDE, ETELVAL, EKELVL,
a »” a
G. €TELVOV, eTretvapt, ETELVOU.
D. wanting.

” x ”
A, ETELVEVL, ETELVAVL, EKELVL,

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 « in the Nom. and Acc. 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 éreivepe seems to
me to stand barbarously enough for éxeivos 6, in broad La-
conian ékeivop 6 érewai for éekeiva j, and éreivap: still more bar-
barously for éxeivap 7. Yet the « may be in all these cases
merely the well-known demonstrative termination; and per-
haps in that case éreivepe should be éreivepu.

For obros we get the inexplicable form :—

N. vrepu, vrai, tyyt.
G. &rov, évrapt, &vrov.
D. wanting.
A. &ren, &vran, eyyt.
Pl. N. évret for all genders.
A. Mase. erov.

ris and tr = respectively r¢i and réés or roxi. "Os, #, 0, is drove,
érova, @rewept; where we have a clear case of barbarism,
inasmuch as the masculine and feminine endings « (for os)
and a are added on to the modern Greek indeclinable relative
Orrov.

122 ‘DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

Eivt is conjugated thus in the present, @, goo, 2m; gupe,
ére, vm; and in the imperfect, gua, goa, kv; eupai, erat, tycai.

These forms are hopelessly barbarous, but it is pretty
plain that ¢-«: is formed by adding a fragment of ékeivos, kei
on to the prevailing vowel of the root, while in «-ai we have
two suffixes, one to show the third person, the other to mark
the plural, viz. «, which runs all through the imperfect plural,
and is probably nothing else than the article of 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: éyaujxa and éymoika 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 ypapev
became ypddos, Laconian ypapop, 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 ypad- as in itself the participle, in accordance with
Semitic principles of grammar. However that may be,
ypapo is in Tsakonian ypad-ov-p-e or ypad-a-p-en, accord-
ing as the subject is masculine or feminine, and so forth.
The substantive verb may also be prefixed, é« ypapov, é
ypapa, &c. So, too, the imperfect, gua ypddov, or ypadov-
pena, &C,

The present passive is similarly formed: ypapovpevepen, &c.,
or év ypadovpeve, &C., i. €. ypapdpevds ear, &C.

The future is thus expressed: Oéov va éu ypapré, i.e. beho
va fa instead of Oé\w eloOa yparrés; the verbal adjective
supplying the place of the perfect participle.

A
With the periphrastic present and imperfect we cannot avoid

‘

—————— CU SC

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE, 123

comparing the Spanish esfoy escridiendo, and drawing atten-
tion to the fact that Spanish and Portuguese, the only Neo-
Latin languages which were subjected to Semitic influences,
are likewise the only ones in which this idiom is found, In
Hebrew 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 + 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 inréra, 4, &c., show that this foreign, as I think
Semitic, tribe was settled in Cynuria before dialectic distinc-
tions had been obliterated by the coun) duddexros: 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, imméra, &c. may not be so
old as Homer, for it may only be mutilated for imméras, as
all words ending in s are. But at any rate, the Tsakonian
dialect has preserved many ancient Greek words, as apdxa
for «iSov, éumoika for éxaya, ‘Opdw and mow 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 ékdvov = ikdvw seems to take
us back nearly to Homer. To x@de for rd évAov and ayoupa
= dpovpa 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

124 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE,

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, a6: and aéia, I cannot
but recognise a genuine Hebrew formation. Brother in
Hebrew is ‘JS (in the construct form), and 78 seems a
possible, though not in classical Hebrew an actual form, for
the feminine of “ON, i.e. szsfer. 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 38 anu, we have the two forms éw and
éuv, 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-pov, seem to be made up of the Hebrew frag-
mentary suffix 1), and a similar fragment of the Greek
jpav, We have already seen by various examples, as ypadou
= ypdpov, kod = tiway, &c., that ov stands for -oy, and
knowing that a = ov, e.g. gua = jour, we have no difficulty in
writing vdyou into the required form vov-per, at once. In the
accusative éuovvave, which could scarcely have attained so
extraordinary a length except on some such theory as that
here advanced, we seem to have the elements ép-dvaxvou = €u-

+

a
—-

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 125

MIN softened first into ¢udvavov, and then, the final ov
becoming weakened into «, and compensated in the second
syllable, ¢uotvan, and hence ¢yovvave, the « being weakened
in its turn into e, as in Aéyouve, ceive, &C., &C. The accusative
singular éviov is evidently "‘IN=et and the fragment ov,
which is either a part of éoov =in Tsakonian eya, ie. eyyo
= éso®, or more probably is simply the ending of the
first person of verbs in » 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 7 and 4,
the first and second persons plural were the same, i.e. tpeis
and mets. Having formed euotvave = quads, they left out the
vave, which seemed to them the part of the word most clearly
indicative of the first person, and used the mutilated ¢yod for
both the nominative and accusative of jeis, the more so as
€uov came nearer their pronominal fragment 02 than did evi.

The genitive and dative movpov, seem to be for ioupiv and
iovpav = ipiv and tyuér, but with some prefix, probably ? and
D=ne and we: pe 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 4 (=) is added as a feminine termina-
tion on to an indeclinable base, as in émova, as well as perhaps
‘1 in @rewai, the correspondence of the frequently recur-
ring masculine termination « with "T? and ov with 4877, 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.

126 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

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.

I,

Nia youvatka €xa via xérra Grova kabapépa €xi yevvova

Mia yu elye play kérrav (dpyw) iris KaOnpépay = eyéwa_—©
éva avyd. ek vouita dy wdt rav Kérra maoye Kpict Oa yevodet
év avydv, evouite av Shon tH Opubc word KpiOiov ba yewa
8uBorat_ kar duépa fe vi eumoite. "AANA G kérra, amd
S00 Bokds kaP iyepay Kat rh (rd) kape. "AANA 7 Bpms, amd
maoxou maxou Sev éumopife mAia va yervan Kaveva avy.

ToAdod mdaxous Sev numdpere mr€ov va yevva Kavev avyd.

The translation underneath is in modern Greek. Note
that éuoite = émoike, as kal = ¢e.

2.
A o a > 4 Y ‘ 4 , > Y a
Ilepod €va xove amd Td moraudo pe TO Kple ‘§ TO Tovpa

Ilepdy els Kvov amd tov morapov pe TO kpéas eis rd oTdpa

¢é dpod racov (Heb. rdya6?) rd to ro [7H ?] vaxdd-
kal 6pav troKkaT@ Tov vdaros THY da7ro-
oxact xt vouifov mov Td Kdtw dpovpeve ext GAXE

okiaow = TH eikdva evduife mas TO KdTw Spopevov ro GAAos

Kove mw €ku €xou Kpie o° TO Tovma, Tére ante rd GAnOwd dia
> a

Kvwv Grou elye Kpéas eis TO ordua. Tére adake Td aAnOwdy dia

\ , 4 c , 4 ” b] > A 4 oe ‘

va mape TO Spovpeve, Kal Kt ¢€ amd ra dSovo crepoure.

b) U \ a s > / ‘ a“ ‘
va Tapn TO Opw@peEvov, Kat eorepnOn Kai Tay dvo,

‘DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 127

3. Tue Lorp’s PRAYER.

"Adéyya [Addévra ?] vdpov, m gor’ ordy ovpave, va eu d&yiacré Td
ovvopdy ti, va vaby rd OeAnpay tL, va poAn & Bacireiay Tt ody ’o
rov ovpave, eCpov ¢é és ray iyn* tov ave tov emiovovoy dt vapov vw
[vv ?] odpepe’ Cé ape vdpou ra xpie vdpou Kabov ¢é évd eupadivre
rov xpeoudirire vdpou, C2 pr va pepicepe ewotvave ’s Kespacpd, GAdd
éAevbépov vapov amd rd xaxd, Notice the archaism pddy. I
remember seeing the form tyjv or tyw 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 ¢{pou: the first part may be the Hebrew
8. Comparing {pov with «aod, we see that it stands for
@{pos: cf. also above, mod for més. "Ef{pws would be the
Greek writing of UNIS = then first; dann erst German, tum
demum Lat.; the sense being, ‘as in heaven, so afterwards on
earth. The omission of o in rotya for ordua is also Hebra-
istic, the combination or at the beginning of a word not
being tolerated. Observe no Spanish word begins with s/
or sp.

On a review of all the evidence, we find ourselves quite
unable to say with Dr. Mullach, ‘Die Sprache der Zakonen
ist fiir uns ein noch unentwickelter Zweig der iltesten 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,

128 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

I cannot agree with the derivation Todkwves from Kavkoves :
« might become re, 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, Adkwves, 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 dand 8 as well as ¢ and
6; we have again both e and é@, and 4 as well as 8. Besides
this we have, as in Sanscrit, a palatal » written 7, and a palatal
ry =f, like ¢7 in Sanscrit. Again, the palatal y and «, which
in modern Greek are used only before palatal vowels, have
in Albanian an independent existence, like 7é@ and ché in
Sanscrit, which are only modifications of palatal g and 4.
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

~ _

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 129

_and Greek, the Greeks took along with them ¢ 8 and 4, &c.,
the Latins 4 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
demonstration.

To proceed to the grammar. The first thing that strikes
us is the preservation in Albanian of the infinitive endings
évat, dvat, and éeuév-ar, corresponding to the Latin substantive
terminations ev-z or en-e, and men-c or men-e: cf. pecien-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. pav-at = pé Oavovy, AucEpev-at = pe AVTOUpovy.
The termination -ovpovy slightly varied actually appears in
Albanian as a substantive ending, e.g. dpdeyev = edevors,
mpedixyuv = praedicatio, Albanian gives us again the transition
between -w and a, in the form op, dyui= dp.

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

vdé dirr = fs ppetur épodit.
Explanation : — zm(de) drebus rot tmp rdatov = tmperatoris He-
rodis, with Greek termination 7-s for -or.

T as the sign of the third person singular in verbs is like-
wise preserved in Albanian, as 6@r = dari = noi. But this ¢
is often weakened into », 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.

Present.
Gin = apt = dnp O6cva = caper
Bove = gaci = dis 66ur = dre ‘
6ar = gart = dai Gav = cacy, i.e. parri.

K

130 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.
Aorist.
Oa§ = epny (épaca).

Oav = epacayr,

Imperfect.

Odare = €-hacke.
Ooarw = epackor.

Goow in form is to be compared with joay, Albanian #éw.
With 66ére = &paoxe compare ire = eoxe.

"Epda = modern Greek #p6a, classical jAOov; root, per-
haps Sanscrit ard- ‘to come;’ epdep = FAGoper, pOaye; apbr =
ehbéra; apdovy = eddeiv, i.e. édOepev.

Eiui, dc. = idp, ié, 67, iéva, iévs, iar.

Albanian explains to us the meaning of the termination
_ ka, Which is so common in Greek both as an aorist and
perfect termination, as we see in @-6y-ka, ¢-8e-ka, d¢-So-xa, and
in modern Greek in eipyka, opaxa (Tsakonian), éypadnka, &c.
In Albanian «dp = yo, of which one form seems to have
been éko,

Now the perfect in Albanian is thus formed :—

Kap Sdvovy xéeva Savoury.
ke Odvovy xevt Sdvovv.
Ka Sdvovv xav Sdvovp.

Literally ¢yo Sodvai, &c., as in modern Greek éxw dace:
In dé-doxa, and @-dexa, the root of the verb is put for the
infinitive, and «a = yo is used as a suffix.

The Albanian for and is ée, plainly the Homeric ié¢ and
n0é.

Ilo} and ov are in Albanian xov, the original form: ris
and ri are xi and «a4; Sanscrit hah, kd, kim, Latin gut,
quis, &C.

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. ‘131

I will now illustrate the a hee a further by a few sen-
tences and words :—

"Epde phe ré cayar, ee té cayar voix € mpirév.
"HAGe dugt ra sua 78€ 12 sua vn-orx € mapédaBor.
e BY
t 6a.

x
Oi éda.

"Aroi = airg. Cf. adrap and drdp, modern Greek dris
and adrés.

Ovdouk.

"E-O0K-et

Ovdeihrove.

°E- Seixvve.

Si epdév.

S7 = Gre, #pOav.

Ndé &rérn.

Inde oxérny = Gre fdOov cis riv oikiay, Ndeé appears to be
the Latin zudu-, zndi-, or inde-, and pbé above, the
Latin ambi, Greek dudj; pdi ( = émi) is probably only
another form of the same word.

Voerév, é-shoirn-cav.

Vepdév, i.e. Foppév = dppavds.

Ndtexw, Suxovy ; vddxév, édiwx-car.

Ber or Fer = FéOev(?).

Koupféma = ropveia, and would suggest an older form,
kopBveia OF KopFveia,

Méahapdxe = &v +6 gavep>. The etymology is plainly zx
palé facie (palus = open, implied in palam).

Mikov = amicus ; vépixovy, tnimicum.

Kovdouré = drddvrot quasi dxddovror (?).
Mas dans, pi) trois.
K 2

132 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

“Aotrak, Graé(?), +

Ov-bapr, moinOnTo.

Aéovu = yaia, daia, yi.

"ATi€, EKEL.

Biddy, Biafovow, Biacovr.

Kpile, kapa,

TlovA = éyévmoe. In modern Greek movdos is a patro-
nymic termination.. Cf. Latin jul/us, Greek m@dos,
also -pulus in disct-pulus, Albanian diééroud. ©

The word for God in Albanian is Mépydia Mépvd, gen.
Tlépydie or épyvdicé, acc. Weépvdivé. Does this word contain
the same elements as Dvespiter, reversed?

The view that deAwdy and FAws are connected is some-
what strengthened by the Albanian for #Avws, which is dire.
"Eros is in Albanian Fir, cf. Latin vefus, Sanscrit vaésas. Fir
becomes in the plural Fiérs.

.It is interesting to find in the modern Greek é¢éros, i.e.
émi éros, the relic of the F in the form of the aspirate. In
’Evafrés, afrds is probably only transposed for Fards, and this
helps us to understand Féfrev, the Albanian for avrév in
éavrov, € Féhrev being equal to €-airdév. I have written 8 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: 4 for instance represents sometimes
x, and sometimes ¢, though it must be borne in mind that
these letters are interchangeable in Greek. Thus we have
hip, xapis; hepé, popa; dré-hepé = adrH hopG, i.e. viv, dit hepé dvo
gopds, modern Greek for dis. Also ha tpayw, connected
with root fay-; havypovy, payeiv. (Is hunger connected with
this form ?)

Two Latin particles receive great light from Albanian, viz.
re and se. ‘Pe in Albanian means new, and o’. in composition
oé,means nol, e.g. o povvder, od divara, cépourdé = advvarou, i.e.

> ad a
doGeveis, dppworot, vooovytes.

"a .

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 133

_ A passive verb is changed into an active in Albanian by
prefixing the syllable od, e.g. Sddvouy = dodva, odddvovy = Sobjva.
The future tense is formed, like the perfect, by means of
xap (= €x@) and the infinitive, but in the future the preposi-
tion we is inserted: examples, xdp pe wépyitirouy, dpormoe, Kap
TEpyiairouv apolwka, Kap pe Ovmepyuiirour, SpowwOnoerat.
The pronouns in Albanian present some very remarkable
phenomena :—

Greek. Albanian.
N. éyav, ia ouv.
A, pe pé enclitic, pode emphatic.
G. pod, peto peeve, peyel,
D, pot BE, mEVe.

With the plural it is better to compare the Latin :—

~N. nos vd.
A. nos, Sanscrit nah vd, emphatic vé.
G. Sanscrit nah veg,
D. nobis, Sanscrit nah véFe, enclitic vd.

In this véfe, written also with the ablative termination véfer,
we have the Latin d¢s or dus, the Sanscrit dhzh, the Greek
gt; or rather we have the Sanscrit 447, the common element
in -bhth, -bhyam, -bhyah, &c., for ve- has not only a dative,
but more often an ablative, i.e. genitive force, as in drivefe =

, a , a > ’
excivov, TE Trovdefer, tev “lovdaiwr.

Greek. Albanian. Sanscrit. Albanian.
N. 3v, rd ri yiyam yoo.

A. 3eé ré yushmin yoo.

G, reio réye, Téyer Gen. yushmékam yous.
D. ra, and réye Dat. yushmabhy-am _yoo-Fe.

A’rjs is in Albanian doa, which in signification is as
often dative as genitive. This comes very near the San-

134 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE.

scrit asyéh (gen.), asyad (dat.). The nominative is dyo, cf.
Sanscrit zyam. Kéré, rovro may be compared with haec-ce,
ct-tra.

The possessive pronouns are extremely puzzling. “Qpa eye
( = Spa éun) seems straightforward enough; but when we come
to”Ar: yotz, of which the genitive is “Arir row, we see that the
possessive pronouns have the peculiarity of taking the case-
endings as prefixes, instead of suffixes. This same case-
ending r 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 #é, nosm-et, vosm-et? Ex-
amples in Albanian are, Féda dr, adehpds cov, rifr-FAAG ddeAPaO
gov, adeAdv gov. 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 ar = ods, ydle = on
That_yo is a feminine termination we have seen in ayd, she,
a we have in ki#u=obros. Vére seems moreover to have
a double feminine termination, if we regard gue as = un. Vora
is plural, and, so far as I can see, for all genders.

"Epi is réye; tpyerépav, rouyén and rot; eud, eula; tpérepos,
ty and ive; fperépav, rev or révé; fyérepa, réva; Huerépwv, Tov.

Internal changes of the vowel sound also take place, as
"Tp-ar Tarn pov, TE TipL- ér TOU marpos ov, TEL- ar marépa pov.
When, however, the possessive pronoun is used substantively,
it has a much simpler form, as

a 2 4
yide ré piar iay ré iar

, \ PS at \ ,
TavTa Ta Epa «ELOY TA oa,

For the oblique cases of ods, one form used is ravd and
ravde, Of which rdvde appears to be the feminine. The
difference between ravde and rir seems to be that the one is
used with a preposition, the other with a verb, as pé réir-Féda
(ue rov adeApdv cov in modern Greek), but Dots fexuwé ravd, ee

a"

DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE, 135

Ri evi dvépixouv ravd, i.e. Ames vicinum tuum et oderis inimicum
tuum.

We will conclude this account of the Albanian language
with a few prepositions and numerals :—

_Mé = wath, modern Greek pé and pa, ancient Greek pa,
pa tov Aia,
Upéi = from, Greek mapa.
llép = through, Latin per.
Kotvdép = contra.
Ndé = in, Latin indu-, tndo-, Greek evdo- and évro-.
Méé and pi = on, Latin amdz'(?), Greek audi.
Simép = super.
r. vi, f. vi.
dit.
rpée, f. tpt.
KaTEp.
TCE,
yiddre,
érdre {(Sanscrit sdpia).

fia
TETE.

7

© OITAV LY B

. vavder,
10. deré,
11. mpbed€eré, i, e, els K.7.A. emidexa.
12. dlipbed€eré.
20. viter.
30. tpideré,
40. Katepderé,
50. meoederé, &C.
100, xivd, Latin cenium.
L000. piy.

It is observable here that Latins, Greeks, and Albanians
count together as far as 10, although the form vavdér pre-
sents some difficulty. Afterwards, however, the agreement

136 DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. -

ceases. Latin and Greek coincide in 11 and 12, but the
exact coincidence goes no further. Where the ancient
Greeks said rpeisxaiSeca the Romans said /ri-decem. The
agreement between Latin and Greek is, however, resumed
in wviginti, cikoor = eikovre Or fFeixovre; while in Albanian,
vi-Cer is plainly a different formation, and seems to be
compounded of m-, one, and ¢ér, which must mean a score,
whatever its derivation. Afterwards, rpideré, &c. = not tpi+
déré, but rp x deré, and so on. Yet the coincidence is again
resumed in «ivd = centum, and piy = mille. ‘The fact is,
numerals after ro 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
ro, and one may be more fashionable than the other, or
both may meet with equal favour. The ancient Greeks
themselves said Sexamévre as well as mevrexaidexa, and the
modern Greeks say not only Sexanévre, but Sexarpeis, dexa-
réccapes, Sexaenrd, Sexaoxra, Sexaevvea, In the Teutonic lan-
guages 11 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
Italic.

With regard to vavde or vdvder, I question whether we
have not the same word in the Latin nundinae, -inae being
simply a termination. With regard to the derivation of
vavdet, | would suggest that as dvzavimsat in Sanscrit means
less than twenty, i.e. ninefeen, so tinadasa might be another

4
ae —

‘DIALECTS OF MODERN GREECE. 137

form for nine, of which dvderé or avder might be a contracted
form. ‘The influence of the » would naturally convert 6 into
d, and we should then get avder = 10, rendered more definite
in Albanian by the prefix ri=1, hence mavder, vavder.

_ 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-
ample. |

In’ Sanscrit, the two words amya and z/ara are used
respectively in the sense of ‘the one’ and ‘the other,’
being combined in the compound azya/ara, ‘either.’ Now
in Greek we have érepos, and in Latin caeferus, both of which
words may contain the same root as z/ara. But in Albanian
we have both, opposed to each other, in m-du, ‘the one,’
and ti-érpt, ‘the other;’ the prefix being in one case the
indefinite, in the other the definite article. Here, too, we
find v actually added to au, just as we have supposed it to
be added to dvder,

CHAPTER. [X.

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-
cerned.

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 Td més of payor exépdnoav rov
rérov Tod Mwpéws, 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

.

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 139

fully 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,

140 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

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-

hold.
And while Belthandros wandered through the country with his
followers, |
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

streamlet.

Ten days’ full space he wandered on, and when the tenth was

ended,
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,

4

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 14f

His creative power reminds us sometimes of the ‘ Divina
Comedia,’ sometimes of the second part of ‘Faust.’ Even
his sesgucpedalia verba, or, as the Greeks call them, A¢feus
oxoworeveis, rather excite our admiration by the boldness and
the beauty of their composition, than our impatience by their
length. ‘PoSoxdécxwwos, otpoyyvAouoppomnyouvos, poipoypadnua,
cwparovpynoes, OAoT@paT@LEVN, OdpavdSpopos, Kpvpokdpoua, 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
indeed. 7

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 :—

I. Awmynots eis tas mpigers tod mepiBontod orpatnyod Trav
‘Popaioy peyddov Beduoapiov (e£edd0n ev Beveria tH 1554 bd
@paykicxov “Payraroérov eis 4 réuovs), 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. Td Oavarikdy ths ‘Pdédou (dvéxSorov ev rh Tapiovary BiBd10-
Onn).

3. The celebrated Opivos ris Kovoravrwvorddews, 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-

142. MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 7

sity’s sake I will give two short extracts, the one from the
Opjvos, and the other from the Cavarikdy rijs ‘Pd8ov.

18

Tov Totpxov av adyxere tiv médw va Kparnon,
Ogre yap wddw 7d Oepidyv Kai beer Svvapoce,

Kat Oéhe. xaram’rei moddods 6 oKvAos a@oav Spdxos*
Aourov mavuynddrarot avdevres pov pryades,

"Aydany ddou Kdpere va mare ’otods exOpovs cas,
Kal rév oravpdv onkocere onudds ot dpyard cas,
Na@vev €umpos kal “ricw cas onuadd: ’ord Koppid cas"
Na Bydddere rods doeBeis awd ra youd cas,

Méoca amd ta onitia cas, K amd Ta youd cas.

II.
Ai mixpayos, at cuudopa mécove rd Kakd pov’
"Adike pe tov Tewpyiday kat Tewpyt rov vidv pov.
K’ exwoy, rive, kat va m1 dovav ( = drwv) tals mixpadats*
Kat dvo kal rpia dppava dd Képnv Kat pavddes,
Tladia amd ra pen pov, kal dd rais ddeApddes.
Kal kdaiw mas éydéxouvrar pives Kat éBdopuddes.
Térovus (roias) Sév Oedovy va diodv (va iaor) ddA ovde va
yevbovor,

Aibrt dare va AvmnOodv, moAAA va muxpabodor,

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.

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 143

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 :—_

1

c o/s > 7 aS A ,
H dypia «7 avedimntn Ky crore Owpid pov,
Kai 16 Sperav’ drov Baord, kai tadra Tra yupvd pov
Kéxkada, «9 ToAXals Bpovrais, x 7 dotparals duddi,
"Orou thy yay avoigact, x éBynn amov tov "Abn,

A > , 1 s A ~
Tlows eta povayd rave’ Sixws pica prropovct

\ 0 , 29 ¢ a 9
Na avepocovy onpepov ’s’ Scovs pe ocuvTnpodvor”.

* * % * * #
"Eyapat Keivos Td dowdy dm’ Sow pe pucodor,

Kai oxvdoxdpdyn Kal tupdd x’ drovoy pe adovor.

“VP Eydp arod ry Baceds?, 1G *propepevous oddovs,

TC) mAovctovs « aynptopous, TC ahevrats Kal tip Sovdous,

TQ) véovs kal réy yépovras, puxpods Kat TC peyddovs,

TC) Ppdvipovs Kal ri A@dAods, kx’ Sdovs avOp@movs tL’ GAdovs,
Trapd, yrapa dvre* pod avy piyvw kal Oavardve,

K’ eis rov dOd° rf widrns tous roy xpdvous Tous Tedeidva.

Avéva réy ddé&as kal riysais Ta *yduata pavpifo*

TQ) Sixcoovvats Stacxoprd, kal rip pirsals xapifa,

TC’ Gypiats kapdiais Katarove, th Aoywpovs dAddooo,

TC’ ddmides pixva ’s pid pepid, kal ro eyvoms® xarardoco’

K’ éxet mod pé modv Oupd ra *paria pov orpadovor,

X@pais xadodv GAdkaipats’, Kdopor moAAol Bovdodvor.

povaxd Ttouve, by themselves; so moré pov, in my life; pdvos pov, by

myself; further down moré tous: a peculiar modern Greek idiom.

2

3
4
5
6
7

avvTnpovat, observe, for the more common maparnpovat.

77) BaotAEeds, i.e. Tos BaciAéFs, contracted for rovs Baoir€éFas.
Tiapa, yaya ovre, as soon as; etymology 6: dua évre (xpédvov).

’AO6, the ancient d@7p with a different termination.

éyvows = Evvora.

GAd«apais, Cretan for 6Aé«Anpar. Italian and Albanian both offer

144 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

lod trav “EMAjv@ 7 Baoideais; rod Té “Powdy 7 réoas
TlAovovas kal prropeduevars xopais; mod récas yrocats ;
“ % * * * Mahe
raxol ord Adkko Karo.xody, BovBol pe dixos® ordpya
Voxals ydupvais® bev £evpw mod ort yh Acydee xapa,

°Q myo” Kaxoppificor Kai yidvta 8€ Owporor

TQy pwépacs mas Aryaivovor, thy xpdvouvs THs Tepvodar;
Td Wes" ediudBn, Td wpoxOes mAnd Sev duoroparar,
Sriéa pikpy TO onuepo oTa ckorewd oyara..

"> evav avoryoopddiopa™ tov dupate arocave

Kai Sixws Avmnow Kapa mao dvOpwro cKordve"

Ta xdddn oBive, « duoppo mpdcwro Se! Aumovpat,

some analogy, e.g. wAaiw, xAd-yev, Albanian mdpouv, Latin cla-mare,
Italian chiamare.

8 we dixws, the pe 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-
men.’

9 ySupvais, for yupvais. If this be the oldest form of the word, it
points to the derivation yivw, vulgar modern Greek for éxddw, being, in
fact, a participial adjective: for the accent, compare defapevy (a reser-
voir), which is nothing but a participle used as a substantive. With
yitw for *«dUw one may compare ydotmos for xdodmos, i.e. xrovTos =
aTUTOS.

10 pAnoa=pddrAa, same root as miuwAnpu, &c. KaxKoppi(icor, ill-fated.
70 fprcixd is modern Greek for Fate, generally derived from rischio 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 wempwyévor, eippap-
pévn, ‘ that which is deep fixed like a root in the ground,’ fifa.

11 7) és, yesterday evening; formed on the analogy of x6és, the root
being -e, as in dpé, dmdwe, dyipabhs, &c.

2 dvovyoopdAiopa, from dvolyw and ocpadi{w, i e. daopaditw, to make
fast, hence to shut.

13 gaoa, for mavra, as -aor for -ayTt, -ovor for -ovri, &c.

M4 §2, for Stv=ov; either contracted for oddév, or the word déy (neuter
of dels) used negatively, as is the case in modern Greek with rimore,
moré, xavév, 5ddov, and in French with jamais, du tout, &c.

:
7
1
1

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE, 145

Tovs ramewvods 5€ enpovd, tos aypiovs 5é hoBovpat.
Tovs pevyouv’’ ray éyAnyopa, Tovs pe (nrovy paxpaive,
Kal Siyws vd pe Kpdfovos ovyva rly ydapous *uraive.

a * * * x +
Sraxoi 7 adprare hevyovor, ta ociyyere merovor,

Ta meppatovere oxoprovy, Tra krifere yxadovor.

Sa onida cBiv 7 Sd€a oas, Ta mrovVTN Gas ca oKdYN
Skoprovenve kal xdvovrat, Kat Tdvoud cas dvdvet

Sa? varov pe Td xépt oas ypappevo eis mepry:dde

Sr Sudxpiot roy Oddaooas, yy! yaua® ory maomddn.

His apostrophe to Joannes Murmures, a celebrated lawyer
and a friend of the poet, is quite in the spirit of Dante or
of Lucretius :—

DS edudde~a edyevéeorare Movppoup’ iwndorare,
‘Pyropa “nm Sdkas tC” dperals Kal rly Tials yeudre,
‘ 4 , ~ A , \ ,

Mé révoud cov rovTo pou Tov Kémov va oroXica,

+ , WSS * A , , x ,
Kai xape amd rQn xdpats cov mAnoa va cov xapica.
Tuatt 600 oé Owpa yWnrd, ce Brew Kado dco
Me omddyxvos dve€ixaxo, Kauerpn Kadoovrn.

> > 4 > , A ~ , U
Keioat ‘3 thv “mepnpdynot paxpdy tov kdécpou Keivn

\ A “ ‘ a , Qs n ,
Ty) oKorewn, mov dé yerva AdBpa, ovd€ pas yxapiva

Ma rfixva’® pdvo kal xarvd Ta tpiyvpa yepiter,

15 Tods pevyour, i.e. obs pev-youat, for of pedyouor. A curious instance
of attraction, rare in ancient Greek, from the nominative to the accusa-
tive.

16 SQ =’oav, i.e. wodv. F

17 yn, Cretan (also Chian) for #.

18 ydpar, Cretan for the modern xdyov, the ancient yapat. 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 dvéyor for dvepor.

19 r(ixva, a curious corruption and metathesis for xvi(a. Kvi(a itself,
however, seems to be a mere onomatopoeic form, like sniff, snuff,
schnupfen (Germ.), &c., and t¢ieva may be the same.

L

a we am YN ee TF " oT

146 [MODERN GREEK LITERATURE:

% * * * *
Tw’ ddyyds th) otparas pov, va piyw Tod xemova
TC dvepixais, kK as meOvpe v apago ord Ayuava,

Tuarl écars Oédovv tapayais, x dvéwour va yepOovor,

K é0a dhovoxocovy kipata, ord Bpaxos dev propovor
Tloré rovs va pe pigovaor, y addo@s va pe (nptoaor,
Owpiavras pov’ @s "Actpo pov Aaumpd TO TpoTeTd Gov.
Kay elvae kamokétnca™® ydpicpa va cov doce,

“Ako, xabas ériyawe, xada™ dev eivar Tdc0,

TQ) Toxns dds 7d raicyo, Kdye Tod OeAnpdrov’

Tuart Wndals réy meOupuais maca Kaupov é€xparov.

Ma xeivn xdpa rl eppiée, Kai Ta hrepa Tov cova

"S dpos va p avaiBdoovor ydd rod r ’EAtkova

Mod xd dvtd dpynoact Kal xapndomrerovca,

Ky dpe&t p’ dmdpewe podvo, cay mpatas mAovca.

Kdyris ra Odppee x édmite, K eSeryve, K Crago pou,
Kelis r¢° ovpavol’s avyvérara rd vod avaBalé pov,

Mov xrifer mipyous ord yuadd mepBddta ordy dépa

kK 4 ‘ f a , A £59
0, TL THY VUKTa PEPLLVO, XaveTat THY npEpa.

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.

2%” Gmoxérnoa = érAnv: érédpunoa, cf. koréw, Koréopa, dros. The
notions of wrath and daring are not far removed from each other.
Compare pévos with its cognate words, and kindred varieties of mean-
ing: pevt in Albanian means hatred.

% kakd=Tdya, tows: so dyKadd, dv kadd=ei wat: cf, German wol,
‘perhaps ;’ obwol, ‘ although.’

~

| MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 147

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
wise,

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
ground, ;

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
dead,
In some small corner of the earth, a sod above their head,
Mere naked shades! Thrice wretched men! why do they not
behold
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

148 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 1

‘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 IJ know thee kind, and good and patient too.

Far, far art thou from haughty mien, the proud world’s atmo-
sphere,

That gloom from whence no warmth is born, nor light is sent to
cheer,

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
taught,

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—

” 4 , cod -~ 9 i ae »*
el ru WWE apy, ToT em nuap Epxerac,

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 modern Greece :—

‘

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 149

~ a , ; na
Me 7d ox7pa THs Senoews Geko mapaxadréoer Tov ehevOepwriy Tod
Kéopov Xpicroy, va ehevdepaon puday opay rd EAAnuiKov yévos amd
A 8 , cal > n~ A Lee | \ Cal a 3 a
thy Sovdetay Tav ’Ayapnvayv, Kal amd Tas xelpas Tov ’OTopamKov
eo
Bpidpews. BOave, kpira Sixaiwrare, HOave! "Ews wére of rpiodOdrot
o aA
EdAnves €xovoe va edpioxwvra eis ta Seopa ths Sovdeias, Kal pe
, ‘7 r
bmepnpavoy 166a va Tovs math Tov atudv 6 BapBapos Opdkns; ews
, , , »*+ : AQ > A \ oS , °. ,
more yevos técov evOogov Kal evyemKdyv va mpooKuva émave eis Bacidt-
\ , oo a , , ee , > , > \ c ,
kov Opdvov eva GBeov TovrovTrau, kal 7 X@pats ekeivats eis Tals d7roiats
3
avaréXet 6 dpards Atos, Kal eis avOp@rivny popdiyy avéreidas Kal
’ ”
€ov 6 ddparos, amd Hucv deyydpe va Bacievavra; “A, évOvunoou,
a a > ‘ a
g€ Tapakad@, Tas eioa Bye pdvov KpiTHs, Guy Kal TaTHp, Kal Tas
, | x , i) , a A, 0 + eee
_madevets, apn Sev Oavardvers Ta Téxva cov’ dev dy tows Kal 7 dpap-
D aa, § , > ’ \ fon a ees A ‘
tiats Tav “EAAnvev erapakivncay thy Sixaiay dpynv cov, av tows Kal
3 A a a 3sQ/ an > ld ~ > , A 3
eis THY Kdyuvov ths idias Tav dvopias ood éxdA\xevoay Ta doTpoTe-
, A ‘ A 3 , > A A a“ > , > ‘
Aexia, Oia va rors adavions amd Td mpotwmoy Tis olkowevns, ead
€ ~ > or > r , ? ‘ a + * > \
Orov eloat OAos evoTrAayxvia, cvyx@pynoa Kal oBioa ékeiva els Td
, a > U ld ,
médkayos THS ameipov gov éeAenwoovvns. "EvOuunaov, OedvOpere
’ “ a“ \ 4 a a
Ingov, m&s TO EhMANUiKdV yévos eaTdbn TO Mp@rov, érrov dvoke Tals
> , A \ - - A a
aykadais, dia va SexO7 7d Oeiov cov evayyéAdov’ Td mpatov érod
”
€ppige xapyal ra etdwda, kal xpeuduevoy eis eva Evov oe empocki-
vnoev as Oedv' TO TpSTov, 6rod avtictadbn THY TUpdvvev, dod pé
, \ , , SF oe \ xe , a '% A , A
Toca kai Toca Baoava éyupevay va Eeppi(acovy amd tov Kécpov TH
‘ \ > A / a ~ cal
mioTW, kal amd Tats Kkapdiais Tav xpiotiavav 7d Oeiov cov svopa'
A A ° cal “ c 7
pe tous iOpras Tay “EAAnvev ni~ave, Xpioré pov, eis OAnv thy oikov-
, ec >
pevny 1) exkAnoia gov" of "EdAnves Thy emdovTnoav pe Tovs Onoavpods
aS , A A A A a A 4 A
THs copias, rovToL Kal pe THY yA@ooar, kal pe Tov KdAapoy, pe Thy
47 A \ Ld
iSiav (anv tiv diaéevrevoay [defenderunt| rpéxovres pe dsretpov
, \ >
peyadowuxiav kai eis tals dvAakals, kal eis tals pdoreyas, Kal els
A A 4 3
TOUS Tpoxous Kal eis Tals é€opiais, kal cis tals pddyais Kal eis Tals
, 4
migcats, povoy dia va GBvoovy thy mAdynv, dia va EaTrAOTOUY Thy
f oe A ,
mot, Ova va oe knpvfovv OeavOpwror, kat did va Adpryn Gov Adp-
of “~ A
met 6 HALos, TOU oTavpov 7H dda Kal Td pvorHpiov’ dOev, ds edq
A \ wo Ff
omhayxvos, pe THY Ocikny gov mavrodvvayiay kde va cbvyouv tov

(vyov rérovas BapBapixns aixpadocias’ as. pirddwpos Kal movowo-

150 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

> , a
mapoxos avramoddrns, avotyovtas Tovs Onoavpovs Tay Oeiwy cov xapi-
Tov, Uewoa Tad eis THy mporepay SdEav Td yévos, Kal, awd THY
xompiay, eis THv dmoiay KdGerat, dds tov Td oKAMTpoy Kai Td Baci-
Aevov, Nal, w€ mapakad@ pa 7d xaipe exeivo, dmov ehepe Tv Yapav
els Tov Kéopov’ pa THv Geiay cov exeivny évodpKwow,, eis Thy brotay
? -
évras eds, eyivnxes GvOperos, dia va harps pe ros dvOpwmovs pidrdv-
Opwros’ pa To Bartiopa, érov pas emAuve amd Thy duapriay’ pa Tov
atavpoy érod pas avoge tov mapddeccov, pa tov Oavaroy bred pas
a» A , ‘ A \ + > , + c “ cal Sw
eOwxe THY Conv. kai pa tHv evdokov exeivny eyepaw, drod pas avéBace
> \ oe ‘ ” wed \ , ‘ ‘ a
cis Ta Oipdma, Kat dv tows kai 7 pwvais rovtas Sév o€ mapakiwovow
cis omAdyxvos, as o€ mapaxwyoovy Ta Sdkpva, dod pod Tpéxouv amd Ta
a ‘ oA ‘ , ‘ “ ¢c ‘ c , col
Oppara, kai eay Sev POavour kai radra, 7 pwvais, 7 mapaxddeoas Tdv
dyi@v gov, érov amd 6a Ta pépn Ths TpiraOXias “EAAdSos hwvatover.
5 r
Povater awd tiv Kpyrny 6 ’Avdpéas, kai o€ mapaxadei va eEohobpevons
‘ > ‘ , Le a ca - A © La > /
Tovs “Ayapnvovs huKous an’ éxeivo td Bacidetoy, eis Td drotov émoi-
a , , \ ¥ , > \
pave THS xptoT@vYpou gov Toipyns ta mpd8ara’ Havater dxd Tv
IldAw vas Xpvodoropos, kal wé mapakadei va py Kupteverat amd Tovs
€x9povds tov Yiovd exeivn 4 Xapa, dod piav hopav adiepwbn tis Mn-
tpos Kal IlapOévov' pavager » Aikatepiva, kal deiyvovrad cov Tov Tpo-
xov, eis Tov rolov EwapTipnoe, oe mapakadel 6 Tpoxds wads va yupion
ris toxns Sia tiv ’AdeEdvdperav’ gwvafovow oi “lyvation amd rip
"Avridxerav, of TloAvKaproe add thy Spvpynv, of Arovdctoe awd ras
"AGnvas, of Srupidwres ad tiv Kimpov, cal deiyvovras cov rods
héovras émov rtols e&€ryicav, rais Adyas dod Tovs exavoay,
ra aidepa drod rtois €Oépicav, éAmifovot and tiv akpay gov
evorAayxviay tev €\AnuKdv nddewv kal OAns tis “EMados thy

, ,
arodvtpocw,

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 :— ‘

‘

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 151

Tod kvkdov ta yupicpata 70d dvaiBoxararBaivour,
a a U
Kal rod tpoxod m Spas Wydd, x Spas ord Ban myaivovy,
Kat rod xaipod ra mpaypara, od dvanaipo dev Exouv
Ma ord Kadd kels TO KaKd Tepimatovy Kal Tpéxour.
Kal rév dpparov 4 tapaxals, ai xpnracs Kai ra Bapn,
“~ A cal ,
Tod epwros 7 eumdpeces Kal THs pidias 1} xXapt,
> U > > , : A U ec ‘
A’rava p ékwnoaoe THY ohyepoy Tuepav

N’ dvadnBado Kal va’rd Ta Kapay Kal ra épay.

‘The ups and downs of fortune’s wheel, whose ceaseless circling
motion

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 Acire maides tay “EAAN-
vey and ‘Qs mére madAnxdpia va Codpev ’cta oreva, contributed
in no small degree to fire the Greeks with that enthusiasm

152 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

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 vépos cas mpooraget
Na Bddere aria
Na kare tiv dpydada

Tov Kamtray-raca. (!)

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
contact.

In illustration of Rhegas’ religious tolerance I quote
Perrhaebus, who represents him as thus addressing Pas-
banoglus :—

"Edy eyo, Ben, €owoa tiv Conv cov amd tov Odvarov, TovTo Fro
xpéos pov, dure do€d{w dre Evas Oeds emdacev doy roy kdopor,
oa ” , \ , * A : 4 c / > ’
dore eiweOa mAdopara kal réxva évds marpds, kal éxropevws adeAgoi'

, c , ey Lee @ \ , Ee ee
Pépw ws mapdderypa 7d éEns* Grav eis Tmatip yevrnon Kal’ irdbeow
moAdovs viovs, kal 6 pev €& adrav yéevn SepBions, GAdos mpayyarev-
THs, GAdos YoporadAns, kal Got peraxeipirOGow adda érayyéA-

, 2 > - ‘ , Wes, > ’
para, Svuvavrat obrot vapynOaor Tov Tarépa Twv, Kai thy adeApoovyny
Tov, evexa THs Siacbopas tav emayyedparer ; Sikaodvra dpa évarcov

a a A a ‘oe , ‘ , c= 4 >
Tov Ocov dia TovTo va dmoorpederar kal Katatpéexy 6 eis Tov GdAov,
So. . e \ > ~ > - 5X > #¢ - is Or A “ a ec
€va 6 Tatip a’tav ayana ddous enions; “Eav ov xavyaoa ore 7
‘Odwpavixy miotis elvar Kaddurépa ad’ ddas, Kal eyo mdrw pova
re % €duKn rou UmepBaiver Odas, KaTa TovTO adddAopey Kai of dvo

“ / ¢ \ ec 4 ‘ cal , , »
iroverxovvres, dust 6 Oeds, @s Kowds trarip, pas Sardrret va nueba

co , , ‘ 4 > na ‘ c 7
eihixpiveis, Sikarot, irdvOpwro, Kai va ayar@pev rods tmnxdous,

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 153

: :
kai va pay Karadixd(wpev adirovs avdpas ws Ta GAdoya (aa, kal’ doov
de > a > A ‘ e tal ‘ + > U A 3 ,
€ apopa eis ta Opnoxevrixd, nueis Sev Eyowev eEovoiay va eferd-
Capev kat Siadidroverk@pev Soa dvnjxovv eis tov Oedv' Hyeis odre
” ” > ” > ‘ , ” ,
eOopev, oUTe Nkovoaper, ovTe eis Kavev BiBAiov evpomev yeypappevor,
6rt 6 Oeds eraidevoe tov Seiva Sidte Aro Tovpxos, 7 Tov Seiva Side
hTo xptotiavds, it) Tov Sewa Sudte Aro WAco~eAnvoddrpns K.T.r. BNeE-
o ‘ > , A A ‘ > , aR
TopeEVv Ouws Kat akovowev, Kal eis Ta BiBAia evpioKopev yeypappeEvor,
o ¢ \ 5) , i iY , , \ a ‘
drt 6 Oeds emaidevoe Kal maidever mavrote Tov’s TupavvoivTas TO

mAdopa Tou, Tors ddeAdovs Tav.

Speaking of the Sultan he uses the remarkable expression,
eEéxdive dd tov Spduov tov Geov, kai (as if synonymous) ras
evrodds Tod 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 :—

> n a , ,
°Q Baowed rod kdcpov, dpkiCopa eis oe,
> \ / a , \ \ ’ a ,
Srv yvopnv Tov Tupavvev va piv €AOo more’
, , lol
Myre va rovs Sovrevow, pte va mravebd,
Eis ra -ragivard tov va py mapadoda*
ia 3) , (A > ‘ , ¢ , ‘
voom (@’s Tov Kédopov, 6 pdvos pov oxKomds
Tov va rovs adaviow va Ava ocrabepds*
A
Iliords eis tiv marpida ovytpiBw tov (vydv,
2
Ki axopicros va (now amd tov orpatnydr.
> Kh a ted
K a mapaB tov dpkov, v aorpayn 6 ovpavs,

K ‘ 5) ‘ , Q RED CLS ,
at va pe KaTakavo7, va yey woayv kaTvos.

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 :—

> > > A \
AAX etvat, mpos Avds, Ppdvipos téxr@v doris ayopdter ckerdpriov

‘ , \ e loa >
Kal MpLovoy Ta Orola epmodifovrat amd THY xpvowow Kal Tovs GAXovs

154 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

oTokiopovs va exmAnpoowor Ta idia abrdv épya, Hyouv rd & va
medexa, TO Sێ Erepoy va mprovitn ; amapdddakra Trac xet, vopifa, dots
dia va ororion THy yA@ooay pe yerKas amohvtovs Kal SoriKds kal
xeopis avdykny AeEets dovveHlorous, KuSvveder va tiv KaTaoThon
dxardAnmroy eis Tovs akovovtas 7) avaywackovras.

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 /z#erati 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

4

ope

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 155

studies which have established his fame as an European
scholar.
His published works are as follows :—

La Médecine Clinique. Montpellier, 1787 (yerappacis
€k Tod ‘yepyavxod rod Selle).

Introduction 4 |’étude de la Nature et de la Médecine.
Ibid.

Catéchisme Orthodoxe Russe (from the German of
Plato, Archbishop of Moscow).

Vade-mecum du Médecin. Montpellier (from the Eng-
lish). 3

Esquisse d’une Histoire de la Médecine. Paris, 1767
(from the English).

Pyretologiae Synopsis. Montpellier, 1786.

*AdeAgdixy Sidackadia, an answer to Ilarpixy Sikackadia, 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 Caractéres de Théophraste. 1799.

Traité d’Hippocrate, des airs, des eaux et des lieux.
Paris, 1806.

Ibid., second edition, with Greek Title. 1816.

Bexkapiov mept aduxnudrev kal mowav. Paris, 1802, 1823.

SdAmiopa Tokemornpiov. Paris, 1803. (On the death of

Rhegas.) |
‘HAwod@pov Ai@tomua BiBdia Séxa. Paris, 1804. In two

volumes.

Lettre du Docteur Coray sur le testament secret des
Athéniens, dont parle Dinarque dans la harangue
contre Demosthénes,

Auddoyos Svo Tpaxkév katoikay rhs Beverias. 1805. Kal ev
"Y¥dpa, 1825.

IIpddpopos “EdAnvixijs Bi8dvoSnxns. 1809-1827.

156 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

“EAAnviKy BiBrioOhKn. Paris, 1807-1835. 15 vols. (con-
sisting of editions of classical authors, with notes).
Tidpepya “EAX. BiBdv0bnKns. 1809-1827. 9g vols.
"Tiddos papwdia A, 1811-1820.
AtarpiBy abrooxédios wept rod mepiBonrov Sdyparos Tay oKem~-
tikav piiocdpov Nop kaddv, Néu@ kakdv.
“Araxta. Paris, 1818-1825. 2 vols.
Suvexdnpos tieparixds. 1831,
Bivois fepas Karnynoews.
AvroBioypapia. 1833.
Besides numberless articles in the ‘Logios Hermes,’ a Greek
periodical published in Vienna, on philological and political
subjects.

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 ‘Logios Hermes’ and its promul-
gators.

I give three short extracts to illustrate the above remark,
taken respectively from the AiroBwypapia of Coraes, the

7

‘MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 157

treatise Iept mpopopas of Oekonomos, and the Kopaxiorikd, a
satirical comedy of Nerulos, in which I need hardly say the
Képaxes are the followers of Coraes :—

"Ooris ioropet tov iSiov Biov xpeworei va onueroon Kal Ta KaTop-
6 , ‘ AY U ~ co A , > / e
@para kal Ta duaptnyata THs (wns tov, pe Téony axpiBeay Sore
BITE TA TPOTa va peyarvvy, pyre Ta SedTepa va opuxpivy } va cwwraG
mavrdract’ mpaypa Svokod@raroy dia thy eudvrov eis SAovs Huas
giravriav, “Ooris audiBddre epi rovrov, ds Kaun tiv meipay va
xapdgn Sv0 pdvoy otixous tis Bioypadias tov kai Oédet KaraddBer
tiv Svoxodiav,— Coraes, AiroBoypagia.

TO mept ynoias tov EAAnviKdv ypappat@v mpodopas aodvKpoTov
mpoBAnpua mpd tpiav dn aiavey eis tiv Eipdany avapver, bripée
modakis eis trodkdovs moAAGv kal peydrov ou(ntnoewv indbeots.—
Oekonomos, Ilepi mpogopas.

The studied rhythm and inflated style is worthy of a
Prodikus.

Eiva S00 xypéma toHpa drov 6 marépas pov dppwortei am év dddb-
Koto mdOos TO vd buiAp Kopaxtotixd, Kat Gddo Sev Kauver Tapa va
oKcarign Aekuxd, va mrdtTn AE~Eais aynKovorais Kal mapakevas, va
diaBatn dire StaBodéxapta tumepéva, dod Ta dvopatour Adytov
‘Eppa kal va ypddn Kai va af pud yAdooa, drod tiv Snuwovpyet
6 tdios. Ti va xduo; ya va Tov iroxpeoow, Bitlm Tov éavrdy
pov va pdm adrais tais andéoraras ddAvapias, Kai p’ dArov érrod
dev yupya 9) yAd@ood pov ’s atta ta Katapapéva kopakiorikd,
pb Grov rodro, ered) Kal Ta arpever, PBidfopa Kéeyd va Tov
OpthG 7H yA@ood Tov, kal cis Kabe EEL “Sixprov drod FOeha mpo-

héper, pe Sider tiv edxn tov.—Verulos, Kopaxiorixa,

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.

158 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

I. P
Tovds Aapmpods vpvous ris vikns dapivev
Kiav6pav nxt npoov 6 orpards*

Ilixcpaés Avrodvr’ al Wuyxal rdv ‘EAAjver,
T dover paxpdbev Kai xaipe 6 &xOpds.
2.

"O idros HAGE TAI pds Tdv €idSov

Zkarrovy Kdalovtes Tov Trapov avrod,

Idod 1rd reAos evdéEwv édridar,

Kai rd rpdémaov bavarov oxdnpod.

3-

"HAGe va eumveton ds GAdos Tupraios

Eis xdOe oriOos mod¢uev dpunv’

T1Ajv, ped, 6 Bapdos éAmioas pataiws

"1800 peéver eis aidmov ciomny.

4.

‘Qs SévSpov xeir’ Sm? exdoper peydros

Thy Kopudiy povotxod Tapvaccod’

Nov mpo rodav pbcipoved tov rd KdddAos

IIvon 7d eppuy avéuov apodpod

5.

‘EAAds | ay 7d cpa tov 7 ’Ayyia

Na épy eis prqjpa (ytd marpixdy*

Eire, Movoa@v ® pntépa ydvu«eia,

Eivac réxvov pou 6 vids trav Movodr.

6.

Karadppovay trav éporav rods Opnvous,

“Hdovjs pry dkovov tiv peorny,

"E¢nre: da npowyv rovs xwdvvovs,

Tdgov as e€xyn npawv ’s tiv yy.
Angelica Palle compares very favourably indeed with Felicia
Hemans.

The metre is one peculiarly liable to run into jingle, from

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 159

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 rom) 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.’

OLD AGE.

Na 7 tpixes cou dpxigovy,
"Adavacie v aompicouv !
Na daxpiav éroyn!
Na oé déyet kal 6 "Epos,
Sire mréov cioa yépos,
*S 1d €Eqs Kady Yuyn.
Ty vedtnta xatpéra,
Ta diqpuar adnoé ta,
Héxace ta mapevbis,
Kai dpxiva pe byeia
Ta muxpa Ta yepareia

> 1d éfns va ta yevdjs.

160 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE,

Aév o€ miavouy Ta dovdovd.a,
Aév o€ mpémovy ta tpayovdia,
Thy éxetvos 6 xaupds*
Tapa tapos mAnoudce,
Tapa Oavaros povage,
Tapa Xdpos dumnpds !
“Obev mr€ov érousdcor,
‘Png da ra Kadd gov,
Tlé rov kéopov EXE TEIA!
Kai ra Sdxpva Bdora pédvov
Eis rv Avmnv K’ eis Tov mévov
Mid puxpy mapryopia !

ANSWER TO THE PRECEDING,

lla! 7 rpixes pe av dompifouy
Mnyres tdxate mxpicour ;

Ti &’ 7 dompyn rovs Badin;
Tovyap t dompo Oavardve ;
*H gidavras dayxvAdver

Ta xewddka ’s thy adn;
Td rpavrapvAdd pas, mparov,
Td Aovdovds: trav *Eporav

Eivat dompo Kabapé°
Kal rd kdxxwo 7 pvaws
Td ovyképacey erions

M’ éva xpap’ dompovdepd,

‘H pupria ras “Adpodirns
Eis ro mpdowo Kdadi ths,

Méo’ ’s ra pidda ra yxAod
“Oda xdraompa, atv xin,
Ta Aovrovdia tHe Hurpdvec

T’ avOnpd, xa rpvpepa.

4

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

Kal 6 Aias 6 peyddos

Tua ths Andas tov td KdAdos
Kixvos yivke pud copa.

N’ drrodciE’ cis Kdbe pépos,

“Agmpats tpixas Ged’ 6 "Epos,

~ ,
Sav tod Kikvou Ta prepa.

TO Aourdv Key’ dao Bede,
"As dompito dév pe péret,
Tlavrek@s Sev pe Avra’
gy a > > ,
Ott 000 ravr aompifa,
eS ' Téc0 mov vorripita,

Too’ 6 épws p dyara.

LOVER’S LONGING.

“As yévoupow xabpéprns !

Na BrXéreca ’s épéva,
K’ éy® va Bréro rdvra

To KadAos cov, K éveva,
"As yévoupovy yrevdxe!

Ztya avya v dpyxivo
Na oyxifo ra paddua gov,

Na o° ra ovxvoytevita !
“As ijpouv depdxns |

Kai ddos va Kunow
"S ta ornbn cov va réco,

TAvKa va ta hvonoe.
“As juouv rédos tnvos !

Na epx@par rd Bpddy,
Na d€vm ra yAvkd cov

,
Mardkia ’s rd oKordad:.

161

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

THE NIGHTINGALE.
Kiv andovaxe pov xadd,
Kiva kal maye ’ord add
Thy dxpiBy mov Eevpecs,
Na mas va pe thy evpys*
Kal ody thy Bogs Kal hy, idns
*Apxiva Kei va Kedadsjs,
TAvka yAvkd pe xape
Na oxv yn va oe mdpy
*Av o épwrnon tio’ eov;
Kat mows o€ oredves dn’ rd yal;
Eine, m@s eipar Sapo
TlovAt orevaypopédpo |
Tas 6 ddévrns pov ea
Meé oréAves va o€ Tpayovda"
Ta ma6n pov va kdalyo
Me pédos va o” Ta eyo.
"Yorepa oKvye raed
Kal AaAnoé THY ovyard,
Kal dpi’ rnv ’s ta Kaddn
Driv xépho va oe Bad"
*Ax andovdk p’ Sev Baora
©a cé TO 7a, Eloa mord;
"EniBovdo pi) yevns

Srov Kirov mod epraives.

TRANSLATION OF ‘THE NIGHTINGALE.’
‘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.

4

> ne

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

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.’

BACCHI LAUDES.

"Oray wivw rd kpacdke
"3rd xpuocd prov mornpakt
Kal 6 vois pov (adioGij
Tor’ dpxitw Kal xopeva,
Kal yeA® kal xwpareva,
Ky (on p edyapiorei.
Tére mavovy 7 ppovrides
Tére aoBivovy 9 eAmides
Tére pevyouv of Kxamvoi.
Ky xapdia pov -yaAnvices,
Kai ro ornOds pov apyxite
N’ dvacaivn, v davarvy
Tua tov xécpov Sev pe péret,
"As yupitn, dmas Oédet,
TO kpacdk pov va ¢F.
‘H xavdra vd pr) orivn,
“Ar? rd mdye va pr) ety,
N’ droOavepe pati.

M 2

163

164 ‘MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

“Ooo éxyw rovTov, TovTov

\ a = a
Tov dkévordy pou mdadrov,
Kéco tivo Kal povpa*
"Oda oxiBara Ta exo,

> 2 Qt: ’ ;
Els xaveva dev mpooexa,
Kai xaveva dev npa.

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.

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 165

CHARON AND THE GHOSTS.

4 > a f ,
Ti elvat patpa ra Bovvd, kal oréxovy Bovpkpeva ;
Mi’ dvepos Ta modeua; pyva Bpoyn ta Sepver;
K” ovS dvepos ra modepa, « ovde Bpoyy ta Sépvet
Move SiaBaiv’ 6 Xdpovras pe tods dameOappévous*
épve tovs wovs amd eumpoorda, Tovs ‘yépovras KaTomt,
Ta rpupepa madérovda ’s thy weAN appadiacpeva,
“~ “¢ ’ , € : , = ‘
Tlapaxadovv of yépovres, k’ of véor yovarifouy
‘“Xdpe pov, kdvel cis xopid, kdvey eis xpva Bpvot, —
A “a ec la / > c 4 4 ,
Na modv of yépovres vepd, k’ of mol vad ArOapicour,
Kal rd puxpa maddémovda va pdcovy dovdovddkta.’—
‘K’ 008’ eis ywpwd Kovedo yo, k ovdé eis Kpva Bpvor*
x ’ P
>. 9.2'@ , \ / , \ ‘ a
Epxovr 4 pavves yid vepd, yvwpifovy ra radia Tov

Tvapivovra 7’ dvdpéyuva, Kat yopirpo Sev exovr,’
p poyv Xepirp x

Of the so-called Klephtic Ballads, the finest with which L
am acquainted is

THE BURIAL OF DEMOS.

“O HAwos éBacireve, x’ 6 Anos Siarager
‘Supre, madid pov, ’s Td vepdv, oul va pdr andwe.
Kal ot, Aaumpdkn p dveyré, xdbov €d® Kovrd pov"
Nd! 2 , , eg ? ,

a! 7 appara pov pédpece, va joa Kameravos
K A “ ‘ , \ ad ,

al geis, maidua pov, mapste TO epnuo orabi pov,
IIpdowa koWere kdadid, oTpdoTé pov va kairo,
Kat dépre tov mvevpatixo va p e€opodoynon’
Na A > “~ ‘A , ~ aw th

a Tov cim® Ta Kpivara mov exw kapopeEva,
Tpidvra xpd duapradds, Kk eikoou mévTe KAEeprns

2. > ’
Kai tropa pw npbe Oavaros, kai. Oéko v arabdvo.
,
Kdyere TO KiBovps pou mAaTv, Wydd va yevy,
~

Na orek dpOds va Todrepa, kai Sima va yepice.

> > cal
K’ dmd rd peépos 1d Se&t adnate mapabupi,

\ >
Ta xehiddma va ‘pyovra, tiv dvotw va épovr,

\ > > U
Kal r anddma tov Kaddov Mdi va pe. pabaivour.’

166 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

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
me.

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
them,

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

‘H BOH TOY MNHMATOS.

SaBBarov drov wivapye, THY Kvptak’ dAnpEpar,

‘A ‘ iA ‘\ » > , \ ,
Kal tiv Sevrépav 7d movprvdvy [mpwt] é€o@On 1d pact pas.
¢ , > »* A , \ \ 1s

O xamerdvos p’ €oteike va md@ Kpaci va Pépa,
Eévos ey@ kat apabos Sev iEevpa rov Spdpor,

> A / U ‘ , ,
Kenjpa otparas £oorparas Kal eva povordria.
TO povordrs p eByake oe puay Wydrv paxovdav"
"Hray yeuarn prnpata Od’ amd modAnkdpia,
"Ey pyijpa iray povaxdovy géxwpor “rd ta adda"
Aev eida, kai 7d wdtnoa awav@ “ord Kepdds’

4 > , ‘ ‘ > ‘ , ,

Bony dkovw Kal Bpovrny and tov Kdtw Kdopor.
Ti €yes priya cai Boyyas kai ‘Bapvavacrevdgecs ;
, ~ “a “ U ¢ 7 ,
Mnva rd xa@pa gov Bape, pyva ») pavpy mAdKa;
Ovde ro ySpa pod Bapei, ovd€ 4 pavpn mAdka,

.

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 167

Méy rédyo pdpav K évtpomy x evay kaipoy peyddov
To mas pe karappdvnces, pe mwatnoes *o TO Kearse’
Taya Sev fuovv « éyd véos; Sev Huovy maddnxdpr 5

Acy éemeprarnoa eyo Tip viKra pe peyydpt ;

The 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 oroixyeiov 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 Sapémov 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 1 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 ?

TOY MOYSIKOY KAI TOY STOIXEIOY.
"Eves xed Wixddice kK 6 “Idvyns erpayovda,
Técov tpayovdse yAvKad Kal vooriysa Kowdddet,

168 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

Tov mp’ dépas tiv paviy ’o rod Apdkovros tiv dépers

"EBynk 6 Apaxos ® elmé tov, "Idvn, O€ va o€ haya,

Tari Apdko, yiari Oepid, yrari 64 pe oxordons ;

Tiart SiaBaivers mdpwpa kal rpayovdeis mavotpya"

Eumvas Tt dnddve an’ rais pwdiais kal ra movdkud. x Tods
kdusrovs.

Zunvas « é€yue tov Apdkovra pe thy Apakdvriccd pov,
“Ades pe Apdko va diaBd, apes pe va mepdoo*
Tpdmefav €y’ 6 Bacwdeds Kal p eyet Kadeopevor"

M’ €xeu yd mp@rov povorkdy mparov tpayovdurrhy Tov.

The forms Apdxos nom., Spdxovros gen., and dpdko voc., seem
to show that 8pdkos is not a metaplastic form, but rather a
relic of the original form Spdxovrs, of which another modern
form is Spdxovras, 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 :—

AcBévrns epoBddaev amd ra kopphoBovna,
Eixe 7d éou tov orpaBa Kal ra padre kAwopeva*
Kai Xdpos tov ayvdyrevev amd yidry paxoddar,

\ > 4 id > > 5 4 a“ -
Kat eis orevoy xaréBnxe « éxei Tov Kaprepoice
AcBévrn méOev epxerar; eBEvtn mod mnyaivers ;
"Amd Ta mpara épxoua, o rd oniri pov myaive*

, A , 4 4 > > , 4 ,

Ildyo va mdpw 7d oul, « dricw va yupico.
Keyeva p eared’ 6 Ocds va mdpw ri Woyny cov.
"Adoe pe Xdpe, ahoe pe, mapaxare va yoo,
"Exo ‘yuvaika mdpa véav kal dev ris mpéres xnpa’
“Av meprarnon yAlyepa, Aéyouv ms Oda avdpa,

* , ° ag n
Kay mepratnon jouxa, Aێyouv mwas Kapapdvet,
"Exo madi dyndixa Kal Spay amropyncKovy
K6 Xdpos dev rdév wxovoe, kal HOede va tov mdpy’

Xdpe adv dvoddawwes kai Oéders vad pe wdpys

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. ‘169

Tia €da va madeope oe pappapér’ adore’

Kav pe vixnons Xdpe pov, pov malpves ryv yuxnv pov,
Kay o€ vixnow mad eyo miyyawe ’s Td Kaddy ov.
"Emjyay Kal érddeyav dr Td mpot os Td yedpa,

a ?
Kavrod xovra ’o 1d Seduvdy tov xaraBav’ 6 Xdpos.

The following lines, sung from house to house at the
approach of spring, by children, are plainly a remnant of
the xeAdéuopa of the ancients :—

XediOova epyerat
_ "Ar rhv adompav Oddaccar.
= KdOnce kai AddAnoe*
Mdprt, pdpte pov kane,
Kai preBapn PrBepe
Kady yuoviters, kav movrites,

Ide dvouEw pupitecs.

Before closing this chapter, a few words are due to our
contemporaries. The writings of many modern Greek prose
authors, as for instance the ‘Ioropia ris “EAAnuikis emavactacews
by Spyridon Tricupes, and the Hdmooa "Iwdwa of Roides,
are well known in England, and have been reviewed in some
of our leading journals. Professor Asopios is well known
by his Eicaywy7 «is Mivdapov, and Professor Damalas by his
Ilepi dpxav. 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 :—

170 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

Kai raya rroious Adyous icyupods, coors,
mporeivere ; "5 adrov tov dveuduvdAoy

mod Badere, dompiere, xreviere,
ayoupaivere Kat Adbos dvopacere

geis ai yuvaixes Kechadiv, va pdbopev

> “a lal “
Sev nymopovpev troios dveyos uaa ;

Tod kéapov rod tmovpyiKod tov “ArAavra
/ a ee
ds ddn wav ordpa
TV Evyevn Tov Kopudyy irddo€os
dvantet chayodpa.
>
Tis oide Sddva dy durpdvoy eis adriny;
vA w+ /
}} €vropa Bdokovp ;
EW Airva 4 kapdia Ki Kowdia Tov
poBod ras éxpnEecs.

a

A. “Av xatopOaons va pe Kans troupydy
xpetagerar tradeia tows; adv avrd,
Gporoy® mas dev tiv eyo.—B. dye da!
Katpos Sev eivat drod eida tmoupydv,
K éxpdret Td KovdUAL Tov ws SikeAday

>» c \ ©. ee /

kK €oKanTey vroypadiy, Kat apoiatay

Ta ypdupard Tov KaKonbevat purdv.

So much for the politics of Athens. The newspaper
editor Sphecias describes himself as the editor of the ‘Eatan-
swill Gazette’ might have done :—

Ilds eivat mAnv évdputa
eis ras ’AOnvas puddAa mepicodrepa
ednpepidov mapa vdAda mpdotva.
A. Eive moddd, GAN otk ev TH TOAAP 7d eb.
TO PvAdov pov eive kavrnpov df, ....
Kh UBpis pov eive yuri Kal davards)s,
el” éxidva, ely eumpnornpios Savdds.

pe adbrov darifa rov “EAAnuKdy adv

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 171

Siddoxcov ra pyta Kal ra dwdppyta. .. . -
Els rhs dpyfs pov, avOpare, rd pionpa
Ecppitopern O¢ va wéo’ H véa Gov

indAnyis, adi) mov KaTeKpdrnoes.
The power of Russia is thus finely described :-—

‘O ylyas ris ioxvos pas exav oTpapvny Tos mayeTous,
\ , > ‘ oo > ,
tiv Svow Kal avarodny avvey’ eis Tas ayKddas Tov.
“~ , °
’ASduas eis Td oTeupa Tov Tov TIdAov Adpre 6 aoTnp
mare « bd To Baya tov oxifovr of méyos Tov Ovdpad*

K ei 4} mvoh Tod aTnOovs Tov tmepBopeia Oiedda.

The following appear from the headings to be founded on
German originals :—

I. DEPISTEPA.
Sxonds; Sag’ an o lieber Vogel mein.

Tlod p dmd\@péva ta mrepa
metas NevK TEeptoTepa,

or ed” Hpav

Bapts xeuov
Tovs mayous epee tod Boppa 5

‘"Orouv 9 avogts yea,
.Y > 4 ¢ 4
kal atvpat mvéovy dmaha
€KEL TrETO
TO Pas (nt@

Qnt® ta avbn Ta moda.’

TIrnvoy ph hevyns, Seceov
mas pas KaredaBe yxeipor.
Geppiv, Oeppov

€vros Tpav

Oddret Td Tip Tay Kapdidy.

172

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

© @eppy Kapdia didrixy

mddec mavrod. Aév pot dpkei,’
eas aravra,
Kavli met

° Fed id -
keis E€vas oréyas perotkel,

Il, NYKTEPINON.
Sxonds; Leise flichen meine Lieder.
Mn Kowaoa, 1 ceAnn
Aduret apyupa,
kal Thy Kduny ths exreivet
eis oTimva vepd.
"EBya’ va idis* cis pidda
eis TO hds xpvoa
Aaptyyil’ Biroundra
dopa os Ta od.
“Akovgov ti \dAN’ } yhoooa
1) payevTiKn.
Sd 7rd das, kal od 7 oa
eloat povcikn.
Td wav mAnpes dppovias
. Kal Oeppadv tmrarpar,
"ENOe, KévOovv ék kapdias
eyetpov Wadpudv.
"Avoikov wpaia yxeiAn,
va oKipTnS 1 Yi"
Kat evréds frou Y avareiAn
mappwros avyn.
Ai wWoxai pas de, as révos
pédous cuppaver,
"Ades v avaBoty ovyxpdves

> ‘ > ;
€ls TOV ovpavor,

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 173

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 :—

Eis rov ripBov éxeivoy mAncior,

> , ‘ , , a

nvedxOn pe Tdtayov xdopa

kal THs ys €k Tov ondyxvav Toy Kpvov
erwax6n Sexdrnyy aca. '

a | 8e > “ ~ > ,

Al dev nro Tov vov pov ararn,

pyre ppovdoy rod PdéBov pov mAdopa.

BAoovpoy tepieotpede "ude,
kai Aaprdda royay Siarripev
Be Thy doapka xeipa expdret,
"EdepudvOn em auerpov yvpov
6 aidnp kal 7 yn Kal of Aion,
kal 4 Kdéms avT) Tey paptiper.
* * * * *
Tovs yevvaiovs pas pdprupas €ida
doo erecov miatews pido
dua piay Oavdyres rrarpida.
Karngeis, cxvOpmmol Kai dpyiror
karedeikvvoy pédn Odacpéva

kat wAnyav Siaxaivovta xeiAn.

Aristoteles Valaorites writes for the common people in
vernacular Romaic.

‘O Bpuxddaxas, ‘The Vampire,’ is thus described, or rather

174 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

addressed by the widow of the deceased Thanases Vagias, a
notorious wretch :—

Tlés pov ri oréxerat Gavdon, dpbés,

BovBos oa Aeiavo ’ord pdria eumpés ;
Tiari, Oavdon pov, Byaives rd Bpadv ;
"Ymvos yua cévave Sev civ *ordv “Adn ;

Tapa repdoave xpdvoe rodXoi*
Babes o'eppigave péoa “or yi.
evya omdaxvicov pe. Ca KoipunOd,
“Ades pe ovxn vavarravOd.......

, - la , ‘4 /
Srdvov paxputepa...... Tvart pe oxiagers ;
, a4 x ‘ ,
Oavaon ti Exaya kal pe Tpomacets ;
~ > , s a P
Tl@s eioat mpdowos! pupifes xopa
Ilés pov, dev eAvaces, Oavdon, akdpa ;

Notice here the imperative mes for eiwés, and compare a¢es,
&c. This is another relic of the verbs in pu.

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 :—

Ildvra va “pea palo,

Ti peyadn edroyia!

Ti mixpds 6 xapiopos,

Té peyddAn dvorvyia!

paxpay "md a€, Wux7,

Ti riv O€d\@ ; ti rv OAdw tiv Con ;

AaxruXi® amd paddua

> col
pov’ ayduynois pod pévet.

‘

a

‘MODERN GREEK LITERATURE. 175

“Ado dév mapyyopéi,

Aird péver kal papaiver......

Makpay ard o€, Wuxn,

Ti tiv Oetw; Sev thy Gedo tH (an!

‘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 béses 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 :—

> 4 can ~ ~
Eis td pevpa ths fans pov
4 | enh ae , _
Ata Ti va oO arayvTno@ ;
>
Av épe ad’ ot dev foo

Atari va oé id05......

176 MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

Kal pe exapes dravotas
Zrevaypovs va vropepa,
Kai yedds didrt kAato,
Awa oé kai Opnved4.

Srép§e, kdue } va (now

H va maton mvon pov"
“Iows, tows, orjv Savy pov
TIAgov perapednOijs.

* * * *
Aev (nr&, of orevaypol pou
Tyv kapdiav cov v édkicovr"
Cw pdvor, Grav oBicour
Ths {ans pov ai orrypai,
"Eva otevaypov Opnvady

‘Qs xaperiopov v adjons,
Keis rov rahov pov va xvons
"Ev ov Saxpu dv eye.

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
Unaufhérlich meine Seufzer,

Und du lachest, weil ich weine,
Und verhéhnst 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.
¥ * * *

MODERN GREEK LITERATURE.

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.

»

7

—

APPENDIX 1.

— 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
research.

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

oe, shat
180 APPENDIX I. ae 4

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 avordance 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
Plato.

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-
ference.

Let us now approach the subject a little more in the
concrete.

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, éAéyooay, €Ad-

‘

7

APPENDIX I. 181

Booav, méoe for mécov, &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, @ priorz, we should expect the use of more
familiar expressions in them than in other writings of the
New Testament. If therefore we find wavrore for dei, and
xabeis for &kaoros, 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

184 APPENDIX TI.

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
Gospels.

The most significant fact which lies on the surface of St.
John’s Gospel is the immense frequency of certain modern-
isms. For example, mdf (modern Greek mdva, emiaca) occurs,
not sometimes but invariably, for ovAAapBavw. Now there
is no doubt that md{o occurs in the Septuagint in the
modern Greek sense, but then the Septuagint was much
nearer the vernacular of the time; but its /reguent occurrence
in the fourth Gospel shows it must have been written at a
time when mafw had become the recognized word for ovA-
Aau8ave, 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 maf, those of
Matthew and Mark say xparé or ovAAapBavw? 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
éwapiov for ixdis: compare John vi. 9 with Matthew xiv. 15,
Mark vi. 35. Nowno one denies that éWapiy 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 rp#ye for
éo@iw, not in a colloquial, but in the most solemn and mys-
terious connection possible: 6 rpa@yar pov tiv odpka, Kal tive
pov TO aina, ¢xer (wiv aidmov, 6 Tpaywv pe, Kakeivos Cnoerat OF eye,
6 Tpwywoy pou tiv odpka kal mivay pou TO aipa, év euol péver Kai
ey@ ev aitd, 6 Tpayor rovrov tov adprov tnoera eis rov aidava,
Here rp#yo is invariably, and éc@im not once, used as the
present, answering to ddyo. In modern Greek rpéye is the
only present of @ayw in use. In Polybius, indeed, we have
dt0 tpwyopey adedAdoi, but this is quoted as a proverb, a
familiar colloquial expression, just as /ressen and saufen are

.

APPENDIX 1. 183

vulgarly used in German for essen and ¢rinken. It is there-

fore an exceptional usage, which goes to prove the point
which we desire to settle, namely, that tpwyo as applied
to a human being in the sense of simply eating, did not
establish 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 rpayev per’
€“ov Tov dprov, émjpev em eye tiv mrépvav avtod. 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 ecéiav into rpwyer, thereby

proving beyond the possibility of a doubt that he deliberately
preferred rpayav to éciwv, as more familiar and more intelli-
gible. Again, how constantly, and indeed almost invariably,
does St. John use tayo for eiju where St. Matthew and
Mark frequently use Baivw, mopevopa, &c., and with whom
trayo is of comparatively rare occurrence. Again, the use
of Gewp@, the modern Greek Op, as simply equivalent to
Bhera, is characteristic of St. John, and to some extent of St.
Luke. Notice too the continued recurrence of morevo es in
St. John instead of morevo 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 :—

Eis rov kdéhrrov Tod murpds: ob éyd oik elu Akos va Mbow adrod
Tov inavra tod wrodnparos, where one of these genitives must
stand for a dative; observe that Matthew says détos Baordoa,
not iva Baotdcw. Lpards pov jv, compare in modern Greek
pévos pov, more pov, whereas in classical Greek this kind of
relation is expressed by the dative, e.g. idig atra duapdpe
in Thucydides; aoei for és, modern Greek aodv; od pévers,
ri pe Oepes, both familiar modern Greek phrases; drokdérw
THs ovens; pépere IN an aorist sense, as in modern Greek,
where the present is depyw; the continual use of dpm for

184 APPENDIX I.

viv; the frequency of diminutives, as qpayédAuv, dvdpov,
opiov (modern Greek equivalent of dpros), adriov, &c.; rod
tmayer for mot efor; the frequent use of periphrastic perfect
passives, jv drooradpévos, éeyévero dmectahpuévos, amerradpévos
eiul, nv BeBAnuevos, &C.; emdvw wavrov for emt maou, émt with the
accusative implying rest; apie tiv “Iovdaiavy, in the modern
sense, instead of dveyapnoev ard ; exabélero ; mpooxuvd, used now
with the dative, now with the accusative; ovvdye xaprév,
modern Greek ouvvater xaprév; the frequent use of xémos, a
common modern Greek word; the frequency of such forms
as Aadid, dvOpaxia; vernacular forms, as the accent itself
shows, though with some analogy (e. g. ozparia) in classical
Greek. In modern Greek as spoken by the common
people the termination (a regularly appears as id; the fourth
Evangelist says also cxoria for oxéros, preferring the form in fa
with the modern Greeks, who say cxorid, Spoord, horid, for oKd-
tos, Opdcos, pas ;—éos frequently for was, as in modern Greek ;
ap’ éavrov for ef’ éavrod; the far more frequent use of iva with
the subjunctive; the comparative rareness of the aorist parti-
ciple, and frequency of the copulative cai; for example (one
instance out of many), éyepbeis dpov cov tiv kdiynv, Matthew ;
éyetpat dpov, St. John. Here too observe St. John uses the
modern xkpdSBaroy (kpeBBariov); St. Matthew says éyepdels
amndOe, St. John jpe tov xpaBBarov adrot Kal meprenarer ;—dr’
éuavrod for én’ euavrov ; eis bv HAmixare, matddpiov ev, for mardiov
without €v; mdoudpiov for mAciov, and mdoiov for vais; éxopra-
aOnre, 2 common modern Greek word; the frequent repeti-
tion of avrod, adrév, and the loss of all distinction between
airoy and airdy; mas otros ypaupara oide, modern Greek ras
obros ypdppar’ n&evper; ets Kabeis, one by one ; yvoge side by side
with dvéw€e; pndéva for oddéva; eis ta driaw; dériaw eyod for
pera ene; kdopos for dxdos; Sia pécov airav for 80 adbrav;
éyvoxav for éyvoxacr, cf. modern Greek evpynxav; ooprife,
diacxoprife, mpospayiov, Baorage, passim for hépa; imdyeis exei

APPENDIX I. 185

for excioe ; eEvrrvicw, yepilo, éyyita; emecev eis rods médas avrov
instead of érecev aird mpd médav; érdpakev éavrdv, épavépacev
éavrév, showing that the middle voice is on the wane; «vxa-
pior@ for xdpw oida; dvdpiov, ra iudria; érov taayo for droe cir;
poval modal, many dwelling-places (pov is modern and Byzan-
tine Greek for a monastery ;) ¢upavigew; xai adroit €haBov for
ot d€ €AaBov; Bare in the sense of ‘put ;’ Wdxos qv, in modern
Greek Wixos fro; gore cuvnbeca ipiv for eioOare, in modern
Greek ovvnOerd cas civar; dqeiher drobaveiy; mapackev) without
the article as a proper name, so in modern Greek sapa-
oxevy = Lriday ; rij pa tdv caB8drov, so in modern Greek rH
pd TOU “AmpiAiov; eis Ta Seka pwepyn Tod mAoilov.

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 Greck language. Therefore the very striking
modernisms in it, as KoAAovpioy eyxpivov Tos d6POadpuovs cov, in
modern Greek xoddovpiov eyxpire Tovs dpOadpovs cov, in ancient
KoAAvpiov eyxpicov trois dpOadpois cov, Or, better, KoAAupio eyxpi-
cat Tois épbaruovs; Ceords for Oeppuds, Son for 86, Sdcover for
doco, and that for dé01, éoraén for éorn, &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

| =
t —

186 APPENDIX 1.

gives fair scope for judging, closely resembles the Gospel in
phraseology, but it is a kind of resemblance that looks like
imitation. .

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
dvaragacbai Sirynow, iva émvyvds wept Sv xarnxnOns thy aopdade.ay,
@oke xayot mapnkodovOykdrt dvobev maow dxpiBds, 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, iSi@rac 7G Adyo. 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, rév rem\npopopnpever,
which probably means ‘those things of which information
has been given,’ mAnpodop meaning in modern Greek like
cidorod, to inform. Again, é€ épypepias ’ABia is an extremely
modern. expression, and hardly intelligible till we know that
in modern Greek épnpepios 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, é¢v atrf rp apa, in that hour; in
modern Greek eis airhy tiv dpar.

St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, all have atrés used with-
out the article as equivalent to ofros or ékeivos, 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
airés, especially with «ai, so persistently as a simple demon-
- strative or personal pronoun. Other remarkable modernisms
are «vdaBis for edoeBns, undev for ovdév, wry for dda passim,
mpooeppntev for mpooemece ; Cf. modern Greek phyva = pinta ;
ro piyypa tis olktas for 4 mraows; apes ékBddw he shares with
St. Matthew; 6 pexpdrepos for 6 €Adyioros, meproodrepoy for

.

APPENDIX I. 187

mdégoy, are modern Greek ; so too are pyre—pyre for otre—
ovre; ivatiopevov; the very frequent use of édos for was; the
employment of imfpxe, imdpyee (common to St. Luke and
St. John) as simply equivalent to jv, éori; mopetov eis eiphyny
for év cipnyn; Odes etr@pev; Kara ovykupiay (in modern Greek
also kata ovvrvxiav); épOacev for arrived simply; émracia for
vision. Eis &rn moddd, Xii. 1g, 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 és as
equivalent to ¢v. Iloig Spa for tix Spa is modern Greek. ‘O
xavcov is also modern Greek. Evdpaivona, of ‘festive enjoy-
ment,’ is used in exactly the same connection in three places
in St. Luke as in the modern Greek drinking-song :—

a a ms
E xov édaore,
Pepre Kepaore
Bare va movpe,

Na evdhpavbodpe.

The phrase edppaivdpevos kab’ jpépav hayrpas has a modern
ring in it which is quite astounding to one familiar with col-
loquial Greek. We have, again, eis tiv xoirny for ev rH Kourij.
*Oduvaom, Payera kai mieoa are startling modern forms, com-
ing as they do so close together. ’Avameca: is clearly a false
spelling for dvamese, chap. xvii. 7, as there could be no
meaning in the middle. Avd pécov Sapyapeias kai TadiAaias, perd
mapatnpnoews, With observation, a singularly modern phrase,
atabels for oras, Svoxddws for yaderas, tpupadias, Cf. dvOpaxia,
&c., katpos for xpdvos, eyyifew, émavw for émi, radevow = castigabo,
icxdo passim for divaza, rd THs mapada, edKatpiav, xpelav exoper,
duicxupifero, evamiov avrov, @pidovy for é€Addouy, ougyreiv, edidoyd,
WaPo = simple Watw, are other modernisms of St. Luke.
"Expue 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.

188 APPENDIX I.

There can be little doubt that the Acts of the Apostles 7

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 yedoac6a used in
the sense not of ‘to taste,’ but ‘to eat,’ in fact ‘to dine;’
eyévero mpdomewos Kal #Ocke yetoarOa. In modern Greek
-yedpa is dinner, yetoua, fo dine ; mpoyetoua, fo breakfast; rd
andyevpa, 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.

APPENDIX II.

A Short Lexilogus, containing a few of such words in
modern and ancient Greek as seem to derive addi-
tional light by comparison.

"ABade, or & Bade, Callim. Fr. 455, Anth. P. 7. 699, and
Bade, Alcman. Fr, 2, is said to be equivalent in meaning to
cide, cif dere, &c., and seems to be an imperative from
BaAw. That Bard, or Bddre, 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 Pod¢ =
licet.

“Aydan, adyavés, “Aya8os. The probable radical identity of
these words has been noticed above. The modern Greek
ayavtikds, OF dyaprixds = epwrixds, seems to make this etymo-
logy still more likely.

Ayyed\ko. The derivation of this word can hardly be any
other than dva-Kéhto; «Ado being used in the sense of
keAona, and possibly identical in root with réAdo@ in émréddo.
At any rate the root of the second half of the word is (as
Professor Max Miiller informs me) gar-, which appears in
kédopuat, KeAados, and kadéw; and as the form yéA- is not found
elsewhere in Greek, I think we must assume that the y is the
result of the contact of « with the nasal.

190 APPENDIX II.

“Ayoupos. This is the modern Greek form of dwpos. The
interest attaching to it consists in the fact that it implies a —
form yopa for épa, which is precisely what the cognate forms
yére in Zend, jahr in German, &c., would lead us to
expect.

*Aypoue. 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.

Kal dcot Tov modeuou thy Téxyny aypo.Kkovy.
War Song of Rhegas.

Here the signification which usage has sanctioned seems to
be the very reverse of the original. Perhaps we have an
intermediate stage in the dyporkdcodos, ‘coarsely wise, of
Philo, and the éypoos copia 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, ipeis pev pido-
copeire, éyd dé dypoxd, i.e. ‘while you are star-gazing I am
working in my farm.’ To such a man ¢iAogopia is ‘the
would-be-wisdom,’ dypouxta ‘useful knowledge.’

This accords very well with the usage of dypouwxé, 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 dypouxd, as though it were, ‘I am
the boor, as you philosophers call me.’ With regard to the
transitive use of dypouwé in the example cited above, I thank-
fully adopt Professor Max Miiller’s suggestion, that it may
originally have meant ‘to cultivate,’ comparing oikovops.

’Adérps is modern Greek for dporpov. Does not this go far
to establish the original identity of the roots dpo- and dXe- or
d\eF-? Petavius, Uranolog. p. 258, calls the constellation

+

APPENDIX II. Ig!

Orion dAerporddiov, In modern Greek dXerporddiov is neither
more nor less than a ploughshare. Its aptitude as applied to
the constellation in question is striking.

Avy, a modern Greek word for ‘ but,’ ‘ however,’ should I
think be written dum or du, which in classical Greek is
hardly found save in the compound dynyérn = éreooiv. The
meanings, ‘in some way or another,’ and ‘anyhow,’ ‘ how-
ever,’ are very nearly allied.

“Aéwos is from ay, 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. povagia (cf. orparia for orparia, &c.), the
etymology povay-cia; in povdé or pourd€, Od. ii. 417, povdy-s;
and in povdte, pordyia =‘I live lonely,’ ‘I lead a lonely life.’
It seems very likely that the termination -d(# is often to be
thus explained, as standing for an original -dyw. So we have
reipatw, ‘to lead an attempt,’ i.e. to attack, tempt, or tease,
of which the aorist is in modern Greek émeipafa; pointing to
an original meipdye, just as ovvdy is in modern Greek cvvaga,

aor. éovvaka,

"Apada, metaplastic for dpds. This word throws light on
dpadéw = kwéw, cited by Hesychius. The word dpdéa in
modern Greek means ‘turn,’ ‘ order,’ ‘ row.’

BdpBapos, probably connected with the Sanscrit dérbaras,
varvaras, which according to Bopp = s/wltus, and with the
Latin Jalbus, balbutto. The modern Greek BépBepos, ‘ stam-
mering,’ BepSepifw, ‘to stammer, is a striking and obvious
confirmation of this etymology.

Baord{m. 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

192 APPENDIX II.

Homer to that of the New Testament, we only find its deri-
vation in modern Greek. Baord{ is plainly a compound
standing for Baora ayo, as we may see from Bdoraypa, Ba-
oraxrés, and the modern (really most ancient) Greek aorist
eBacraga. Baora ayo can mean nothing else than ‘I bear
burdens.’ But what is the etymology of Baora? We have
the answer in modern Greek, in which Bd{o means ‘I put,’
cand in sense = dA, Baord means, accordingly, burdens,
loads, things placed on the back of the horse, mule, or ass.
A word of cognate meaning is Bdyw, which leads us to
connect Baiva, Bdvw, Bdfo, and BiBdgo.

Assuming, as I think we may, that this is the radical sig-
nification of the ancient Bd{w in the Homeric, dvepadca Badgers,
mervupeva Bdfes, &c., we have a striking analogy in the
word Aéyw, which originally meant ‘to put,’ the English Jay
and the German /egen being doubtless from the same root.
Here belong éumdgoua, modern Greek eumdfopa or euBdfonat,
with the simple verb Bdfoua «is ri = curae mihi est, i.e. ‘1 put
myself into it.’ With Bd{oua, eumdfoya, cf. maréw, euBaréw,
and in modern Greek Baiva, éuraive. For the phonetic law
on which such changes depend, see p. 37.

BddAA@ means, in ancient Greek, ‘to milk.’ I more than
suspect this is a vulgar corruption, taken from the mouth of
the common people, of ékS8ddd@, the modern Greek Byddda,
which is by metathesis for éyBdAA\o, Bydddw aiva means ‘I
bleed,’ and BydAAopa atya, ‘I am bled.’ So Byddd@ yadda, ‘I
milk,’ and BydAAopa ydda, ‘I yield milk.” Compare Bées
BdddXovra ydda, Arist. H. A. 3, 21, 2. The etymology of
Bdém from ék-Béw, ‘I put forth,’ Béw being the transitive of
Béoua, ‘I go;’ Bdedda, i.e. ‘the vomiter,’ from deArq, i. e.
exBehAw for éxBdAdo, whence also BdeAvoow, is more than
probable,

Bexds, or Béxkos, which Herodotus says is Phrygian, Hip-

‘

. APPENDIX II. 193

ponax Cyprian, for ‘bread,’ should be compared with the
Albanian dodxa, which also means ‘bread.’ Here too belong,
as Professor Max Miiller reminds me, the German Jdacken,
Gebdck, the English dake.

Tedavjs and yadnvn are said to be connected. The Doric
form yadavis means, in ancient Greek, ‘calm,’ of the sea, in
modern, ‘ blue,’ of the sky.

Tépwos is another form for yipwos; compare in modern
Greek yipya and yépvw = ytpa.

TvepSdu for yrepSdvioy means, according to Passow, in the
Glossary appended to his ‘ Carmina popularia Graeciae recen-
tioris, aguatile. He rightly connects it with dpdavo. Are
the names Jordan (supposing it be Indogermanic) and
*Idpdavos not connected with the same root? This seems
likely. We must not, however, forget that the y- in yepddu
may stand for &-, i. e. dud. 5

TAyyopa, ypyyopa, éeypyyopa Or dyAnyopa; a neuter plural,
used adverbially from ypyyopos (connected with éyeipa, éypn-
yopa). The word ypiyopos, though found only in modern
Greek, plainly existed in the age of the Septuagint, as is
proved by the word ypyyopd, which is equivalent in force to
ypiyopds elu.

TAioxpos, ddtcOaivw, dducbnpds. ‘That these words are con-
nected seems probable from the modern Greek yAcorpdo,
yAuotpéw, ‘to slide,’ yAurrepis = ddcoOnpds.

Topy. ‘This word is explained by Liddell and Scott to
mean ‘the Grim One.’ The mediaeval and modern mean-
ing of yopyds is simply ‘swift. Xenophon uses yopyés of
“spirited horses,’ and Eustathius of ‘a concise style.’ Is not
yopyes connected with eyeipw, standing for yopws? See on
Pp. 116 xwpya for xwpud.

Avahopoy in modern Greek = képSos, ra Sudhopa = réKos : com-
pare Thuc. iv. 86.

O

a“ (Th. ee ee — o a ae

194 APPENDIX II.

"Exnabaivona:, Clem. Al. 231, receives abundant illustration —
from the modern formations, ra6aive for macxo, pabaivw for —
pavOave, tuxaive for tvyxdve, drobaivw for dmobvncka, k. T.X.

Eipoes, edpds. Are not these words connected with the
modern Greek Bpaopn, Bpopudo, stench, stink? If dpopa be,
as Pott suspects, connected with the Sanscrit ghrd, ‘to smell,’
that too must stand for an original ypépa or Bpapa.

z
1
q
a
'

ZdBa, lorica, a modern Greek word. Does not this mean,
‘that which goes across,’ i.e. Avda. Td dvd8a, 7d KardBa
occur in the sense of dvdSac1s and xardBacots. So too ZaBds
seems to be formed from daSd-, 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 guwer,
A similar etymology is suggested for ¢dpos, {dpov, {apdve =
‘wrinkle,’ ‘furrow,’ ‘to wrinkle,’ ‘to furrow, where we can
hardly fail to detect the etymology &-dpos, 8:-dpov, d:-apdw,

av) is modern Gréek for 6dvaros, which is, however,
equally common. av} is plainly a more primitive form,
and is implied in jpidavos, baveiv, &c.; Odvaros, like xdyaros,
being a derivative, and adjectival or participial rather than
substantival in form, as we see in a@dvaros; cf. xduaros,

axdparos,

“I, This, the nominative of é, i, or &, appears in modern
Greek as the masculine article. ‘In some parts of Greece,’
says Mr. Sophocles (Modern Greek Grammar, p. 65), ‘the
uneducated use 4 for 6, as 4 8doxados, 7 dvdpas.’ 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 7 (or ¢ 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 ? or ¢ appears

APPENDIX Ii. 195

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 7.

‘Ivart is common in the New Testament and Septuagint for
diari; we have ho example of this in modern Greek, but iva-
tua{m means ‘to be obstinate ;’ which, if the word be of Greek
derivation at all, must mean ‘ to keep asking why?’

Kdpows. Hesychius and Suidas give this form, but we
only find the forms éyxdpouos, émxdpows in classical writers. It
is therefore interesting in modern Greek to meet. with

kapol = évayriov.

Khaio. Is not this connected with xpdto? The modern
Greek kAavo, krabyo, Cretan xpato, compared with xpavyf,
seem to render this more likely than not. We should think
too of the German A/agen and our cry.

Kéxkados means ‘ the kernel of a pine-cone,’ koxxddva, ‘ land-
snails. In modern Greek ra kéxkada stands for ra dora.
With regard to the association of ideas, compare éorodr,

a»
dorpaxov, and dorpakis = KékkaXos.

Kédag. Does not this word mean ‘one who sucks like a
leech,’ perhaps connected with «éAda, KoAAdw? The com-
pound Bpov-xdérat, Bpvkdda€, in modern Greek means ‘a
blood-sucker,’ ‘a vampire.’ Bpots, according to Hesychius,
=mew; and Bpdv cimetv, Ar. Nub. 1382 = ‘to cry for drink.’
The flatterer is called xkéda£ because he is a parasite.

Koyra in modern Greek means ‘near.’ What is its deriva-
tion? If Donaldson (New Cratylus, p. 349, 3rd edit.) is
right in regarding xa-ra as a compound of xa=xev and the
suffix ra, then, as he points out, there must have been a form
kevrd, In this case xovra may very well be another form of

xevrd, the change of o and e being, as we have seen, almost

O 2

196 APPENDIX II.

a matter of course in Greek, From xovra = ‘by,’ or ‘near,’
we get the adjective xovrdés, short, which occurs already in
Byzantine Greek, and xovredo, ‘to approach;’ also xovrdkioy,
‘a breviary.’

Kpvos, Kpvoraddos, xpvepds. In modern Greek xptos, xpva,
kpvov is the common word for woxpds.

Avkdéhas, dudirven, hetoow, yAavoow. With these should be
compared the modern Greek yAvxodpéyyer, yAvkoyapaces, ‘it
dawns.’

Md. In modern Greek this word is used both in a nega-
tive and positive sense: as in the formulas pa rov oravpdr,
and pa 7d vai, which latter form of affirmation or negation
appears to be a relic of heathen times, the obvious derivation
being pa 7d vaiov, vatov being a diminutive for vady. Ma is
also used in formulas of supplication, as oé€ mapaxahko pa
tov Oedv for mpds rod Geod. Donaldson considers pa as another
form of uy, and connects both with pé, eué, considering mere
subjectivity to be the primary notion. He also connects pj
with pv, and the whole series with pe in pe-rd. Now it is
certainly interesting, and seems to be significant, that in
modern Greek we have piv for py, and pe in the sense of
‘with,’ for werd. This leads us to the further inference that
piv is really for p-va, just as jv appears to be for éa, Sans-
crit. Now pnva 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 dvd, iva, and #v, 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,’ vorld, vd ro, le voila, It is also used (like » in rim)

APPENDIX II. 197

-as a strengthening demonstrative suffix, e.g. airdva; and
once, if not twice, though modified in the second place, in
the forms epevave, eoévave.

In the vulgar, but we cannot doubt extremely ancient,
forms atrijvos, atrodvos, aitdvos = airdés, a’tnyn = aitn, airdévev =
avrav, &c., we find this odjective particle v- inserted in the
middle of a word. ’Ava occurs in modern as in ancient
Greek for the shorter a privative, e. g. dvdSa0os, dvapedd, for
aBabos, aueda.

Madévw 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 mai-
as their respective starting-points. The original sense is to
grind or crush. From it we get, among other words, mr7-
ndmt Sanscrit, pdpvaya Greek, and I suspect also pados,
as well as the modern Greek paddvw, and parepds, which
means ‘quarrelsome.’ Zola and pidos 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 paddve.

Mnyapn, tiyapn, Ttyap, i.e. pa) yap #, Ti yap #, tlyap, equiva-
lent in sense to pay, py. 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 dp is equivalent to ‘ why then,’ »# has the force of
‘do not imagine, and #= ‘or,’ introducing the following
verb: SO pnyapy epxera =‘ surely then he is not coming—
[or] is he?’ In German the form of expression is very
common, and pnyapy epyera might be almost literally trans-
lated thus, Lr wird ja denn nicht kommen, oder? Similarly
tiyapn Would mean ‘ What then?’ or ‘Is it really so?’ The
forms pyyapn, tiyapn are interesting, inasmuch as they

i.

198 APPENDIX II,

preserve the old conjunction yap which is elsewhere sup-
planted by dre.

Mynoxw and pvaicce are modern Greek forms for pévo.
Compare @ynox and the Doric 6vaicce in ancient Greek.

*Opodce, dpovae. Perhaps both ways of accenting this word
are allowable. ’Opodce would then be an imperfect from the
root dpo-, as in modern Greek expuootce from xpvodw (xpv-
advo), While 8povce would be a first aorist from dpovo. In
modern Greek we seem to have a derivative form dpove in
yeoupovaror, i. €. Svopovovov = Sppnua, ‘a sally,’

TiéS:Aov and wéradov. ‘These appear to be but different forms
of the same word, when we know that séradov in modern
Greek is the regular word for a horse-shoe. We may com-
pare wédavpos and wéravpos. The Ionic form of zéradov is
mérndov, for which wériaov, médidov, would be a_ natural
iotacism.

Ilépynut, mepdw. 1 am inclined to connect both these
words by means of the modern Greek mepvaw, which has the
sense of the latter.

Ilov, rov. This word is always written as a proclitic od,
never as an enclitic mov, 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: dveruxis mod eivat, i. e. ‘ unhappy man
that he is, or ri dvorvxis mod «iva, ‘how unhappy is he.’
Here it seems a connecting particle, like the French gue, as
‘que paresseux gue vous étes.’ And is it not also a connect-
ing particle in ancient Greek, e.g. in rdya mov, tows mov,
et mov, édy mov, dre mov? Just so we say ‘if that’ in old
English. Does not this help us to understand how zoo has
come to be used in modern Greek as an indeclinable rela-

APPENDIX II, 199

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\AavroraAns puts the question—

ti & dykvdoxnAns eoriv;
to which the answer is—

aité mov heéyet,

, Gre aykvAas rais xepolv dprdfov épe.
Here Adolph von Velsen (Aristophanis Equites, Leipzig, 1869)
reads rodré mov Neyer, being offended at airés 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 wov 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 aird, there are innumerable instances
where it plainly means simply ‘ that,’ even in classical Greek ;
as, for example} atré ovk elpyra, 6 pddiora ee, Plat. Rep.
362 d; and aird ay én 1d déov et, Xen. An. 4. 7, 7; where
to say with Liddell and Scott that rodro or ékeivo is under-
stood, is very like begging the question. In the New Testa-
ment airds meets us at every turn in the sense of odros or
éxeivos, and indeed it is almost a necessary demonstrative,
inasmuch as it holds a middle position between odros and
éxeivos, just as avrov, in modern and ancient Greek, holds a
middle place between &de and éxet.

Now in modern Greek the sense of airé mov déyet, Or, aS We
should prefer to write it, atrd mod Aéyer, would be very simple
indeed, and suit the passage exactly.

The question is, ‘What does dyxvAox7kns mean?’ and the
answer is, ‘ Just what it says;’ aird mod déyer. Surely this is
better than, ‘I imagine it speaks for itself.’

Aird mod A€yets is a Very common phrase in modern Greek ;

200 APPENDIX II.

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.

Zroixeiov, ‘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. Sro.xeioy 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 1, 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.’

+ we _*
APPENDIX Il. 201

_ Unite with this once universally prevalent superstition, the
preserving power of the Greek’s poetic and vivid imagina-
tion, and we 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 vypeiSes, or water nymphs, still survive as vapaides or
vepaides among the modern Greeks; while Xdpwv, though de-
prived of his boat and his office of ferryman, conducts the
souls of the dead to “Aéys on horseback. But in no respect
is the belief of ancient Greece more faithfully preserved than
in regard to the daiyoves or oroyeia, the personified powers of
Nature. According to the Greek belief, anything may be-
come a orovxeiov, from a rock or a river to a bird or a beast.
Often this crotxeiov is conceived of, like the ancient daiper, 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 orovyeiov, and how did it arise? What
is really the force of oro:yeiov? In the first place, we must
most decidedly differ from Liddell and Scott, who regard it
as a diminutive of oroiyos, ‘a row,’ and leave us to infer that
because oroiyos means ‘a row of poles’ (or indeed of anything
else), that therefore the so-called diminutive ororxeiov might
mean ‘a little pole;’ hence they give as the original meaning
of crovxeiov, the upright rod which throws its shadow on the
sundial. But crotyos would not give us ororxetov as a diminu-
tive, but cro:xiov, just as toixos gives us Totxiov; -etoy is Never

202 APPENDIX Il. . 4

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 ¢e as another way of
writing (; but here the modern Greek language itself enters
a most emphatic protest against confusing a short « with the
diphthongal ¢, or even with t. Had crotxeiov stood for cro-
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 oroxi. But this is not the case. It appears as crovyed,
just as pynpeiov appears as prnperd, and the final o is never lost;
ciov and tov regularly preserve the o, tov as regularly loses it
in modern Greek. rocxeiov then is no diminutive form of
aroixos, as it cannot stand for orexiov. 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 crovyeiov; it must
come, like erotxyos, from oreiyo, 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 oriyos and ocroxydfoua. Bearing in mind the
force of the termination, we see that as rd pynyeiov means
‘that which reminds,’ ‘memorial;’ so crotyeiov might mean ‘that
which arranges,’ ‘marks out,’ ‘points.’ The oroyeiov 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 yyoperv. Or, to get the meaning still
more simply from oreiyo, may not ororxeiov have signified
‘that which moves?’ referring of course to the shadow
of the upright rod, rather than the rod itself. That
oroxetov really had this meaning appears from the phrase
Sexdrovv orotxeiov, i.e. Supper time when the shadow was
ten feet long. In any case, the idea of regular, in-

.

APPENDIX It. 203

tentional, intelligent motion indicative of intelligence is
contained in the word oreiyw and orovxeiov; 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 (yoper)
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 oro:xeia; and orotyetov 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
oxa 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 yvopev, in the sense of spirit
or genie? Sido, oxd{ouar, meaning in modern Greek re-
spectively ‘to frighten,’ ‘to fear,’ and the masculine derivative
axis Or toxwos, from oxi, 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 crotyeiov
with the Platonic and subsequent philosophic usage of the
word in the sense of ‘element?’ ‘This is not very difficult.
The shadow, the orotxeiov, 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.

-

204 APPENDIX II.

Hence it is that for a long time the Tonic philosophers had —
no difficulty in enduing their orocyeta or dpxat 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 crotxeiov, and give it a philosophical
meaning, thus combating in friendly guise the évepor kat ddi-
Bavres (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 crovyeta, these dreadful phantoms, to pene-
trate to their putmpara 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 orotxeia, 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 /tferae
and elementa litterarum were distinguished by the Latin
grammarians, That this word oroyeiov 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
aroxeia 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 orotxeia were ideas,
theirs were shadows and reflections.

It was the very essence of the popular notion of crovyeiov
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
oroxeia (Diog. L. vi. 102). Hence, too, oroxeia is used by
ecclesiastical writers, and by Manetho especially, of the

"

——L—

APPENDIX II. 205

heavenly bodies. Most striking and conclusive is St. Paul’s
use of the word orotxeia in phrases like ra crotxeia Tod Kéopov
(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 fiir 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, § 1, 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 cro:xeia rod kéopov 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 oro:xeia rod xkéopou 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 oroxeia
rod kdcpov may be seen from Ephesians vi. 12: "Ore ov« gorw
Hiv 1) wWadn mpds aipa Kal odpka, dAdAd mpds Tas dpxas (Observe
that dpx?) is a synonym for ororxeiov), mpds tras eovoias, mpds
Tovs Ko~poKpdropas Tod aKdrous Tod ai@vos TovTOU, mpds Ta mMveEv-
paTiKa THS Tovnplas €v Tois emoupariots. :

We are now in a position to understand how oro.yedo
in Byzantine Greek comes to mean ‘to enchant,’ and orotyer-
éve, ‘to haunt,’ croryerdfw, ‘to be haunted, in modern Greek.

Tur@os and rtir6y, ‘There is every reason to believe, with
Liddell and Scott, that these two forms are etymologically
connected. The change of v and ., as well as the change of

206 APPENDIX Il. :

accent, is perfectly regular. An exact analogy as regards”
the meaning is supplied by the modern Greek dia, ‘ nurse,’
which we cannot but regard as connected with Batds, ‘ little.’

:

|

&6dvo, In modern Greek, ¢éavw means simply ‘I arrive,’
‘I come;’ 76 POdoupor, ‘ the arrival.’ It means, however, also
‘to be in time for,’ as ¢péaca rd drpomdaov, ‘I caught the
steamer:’ this is, however, its transitive sense. The ordinary,
absolute employment of Pédvo in classical Greek is represented
in modern Greek by the compound zpofédve. The modern
usage of dave approaches most nearly to the ancient in the
phrase $édve, ‘it is enough.’ Yet the fact that the compound
mpopOdva is used by Aeschylus, Aristophanes, and Euripides,
is proof enough that ¢éav@ might mean in ancient Greek
simply ‘I arrive,’ ‘I come,’ ‘I reach’ (i.e. my destination), other-
wise spop6dvw 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 $@dve, has
caused much difficulty to the commentators on Thuc.
III. 49. 3, Kat rpinpn «dOds Gddnv dréored\dov Kata arovdiy,
bras py), pbacdons ths Sevrépas, etpwor SuehOappevny thy morw :
where we have only to disabuse our minds of the prejudice
that ¢@acdons must mean ‘having firs/ arrived,’ translating
simply, ‘lest, on the arrival of the second, they should find
the city destroyed,’ and all is clear.

Xdo. This root appears in the modern xdva, ‘to lose,’
and in xarjp (from xaréw) = rd6os.

Vnrapo. Liddell and Scott derive this word from ‘Wao,
WdAXAe, WabddrAw, Wardoow, the -apdw 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 WyAapo than one which barely ex-
plains one half of the word.

To begin with what is most obvious: dda, Il. vi. 322,

s

APPENDIX IL. 207

Oapnka kai dykvda 76é’ dpdwvra, is derived simply enough from
adn, and means ‘to touch,’ or ‘to feel:’ therefore WA-apdo
means plainly, to touch or feel in a particular manner, and
implies an adjective Wdds, with a corresponding adverb
Was or Wynd. But Wydds, so written, is not found. We
know, however, by the derivation of Ads from wae, that
this word is merely an iotacism for WAds, and ought so to be
written: cf. dmarnddés, from drardw. Now what does WiAds
Or Ads 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 Wd, we may, if we like, write the word pydds
when used in this sense. Hence we have, as a matter of
course, Wnoxord, ‘to split hairs,’ ‘to mince matters;’ yydo-
cop, ‘to be over-subtle, no doubt a play upon PAocaopa ;
Wnroypape, ‘to write fine;’ ynAorpayovds, ‘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
YWnAapdw means ‘to touch lightly,’ ‘to feel about one,’ like
the German herumiappen. 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 ey oxér@ napa ra mpcypyara :
comp. Eccl. 315, and Plato, Phaed. 99 b. In Odyssee
ix. 416, we have it used of the blind Cyclops :—

Kvkhoy S€ orevdyov te kal addivay ddvrnou,
Xepoi Wyraddev, dxd pev Aibov cide Ovpdar,
Airos & eivi Oupnot xabéCero xeipe meTdooas

Ei rwd mov per decor AdBa oreixovta Oupace.

208 APPENDIX II,

Compare also Acts xvii. 27, ¢yreiv rév Kupuov, et dpa Wndaby-

> NA
cevay avroy Kal evpouer.

Yyprdpyois is used by Plutarch in the sense of ‘tickling,’
and the essential condition of tickling is, as we know, a light
touch.

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. .

Ynpifo. In modern Greek, Wypdo means not ‘to vote,’
but ‘to care for’ or ‘regard ;’ apparently from Widos, in the
sense of cipher, as we say, ‘to reck not,’ ‘reckless,’ &c.

ite

GREEK

&Bare, p. 189.

&BBas, 107.

a&BSEAAQ, 12.

&BAnxpods, 12+

GBpdyw, 119.

&Bpduvrov, 12.

&Bpdravoy, 12.

&Bptov, 12.

Gyamdel, 72.

dydrn, aryauTikds, “Aya-
Bos, ayavds, 29, 104,

aryyi@w, 12.
ayyos, &ykos, 29.
dryépwxos, 81.
eyKdG, 31.
aykovAa, 20.
dykoupa, 20.
&youpa, 122.
&youpos, 189.
GyporK@, 190.
adava, 114.
adepods, 36.
&ecOa, 28.
Gere, 118.

&Oe, 113.

&Oia, Ot, 123.

ai av, 25.

atya, altyav, 71, 74, 75-
aiel, 12.

aiey, aits, 77.
aierds, 12.

INDEX

OF

AND ALBANIAN

AidaAov, 45.

aimds, 25.

aidvios, 105.
aidpa, 25.
&koAovdG, 103.
Gey, akuHv, 35, 102.
&kovers, 116.
GAdKaipas, 143.
dA€0w, 36.
dAciBw, 30.
dAciupdriov, 26.
aA€Tpt, 190.
&AeTporddiov, 190.
GANOns, 17.
&AAdE mov, -aTos, 108.
GAN? iudrioy, 26.
&Aovyov, 93.

“Adv, 108.
arAdpavros, 35.
&Agitor, 36.

dua, 12.
damdneros, 25.
*Auarék, 30.
duaptia, 102.
&uBrakloKkw, 37.
*"AuBparla, 37.
&uBwv, 107.
aueryo, 35-
auépyw, 35.
&uecos mpdtacis, 99.
Guth, ani, 190,
WONG, 35:
audpyn, 20, 35.

WORDS.

&uov, 113.
avdBabos, 196-
avdbeua, 15.
avabvuiacis, 93+
dvatBalvw, 12-
avdAvats, 93-
avdwecov, 89.
tvderé, 136.
aveAvrrntn, 144+
&v0e, 36, 120.
av, 137.
dvovryorpdAioua, 144.
avriomacpa, 103.
tos, 19T.
dareipov, 93.
&mexplOn, 79.
*ATréeAAwY, 24.
ard, 102, 104.
amoxdrynoa, 146.
dd pwaxpdbey, 105.
“ApaBas, 74.
apd "ve, 99,
aipdda, IT.
dpalwois, 93.
*Apamia, 30.
&pdeuev, 129.
diperh, 96.

“Apn, 71.

&p0r, 130.
apl(nros, 118.
apuabia, 12.
dpuara, 106.
dpuatwards, 106.

210

a&pdw, I9t.

tpri, 183.

&ipxéws, 107.

apxn, 93.

tpwua, 193.

&s, 103, 107.

dod, 133.

aokadrdmas, 74.

&omak, 132.

aordxu, 12.

dorapis, 12.

a&orepom), 12.

ardp, 131.

aré-bepeé, 132.

Grit, 132.

&rudmAouy, a&tpdmAovy,
27.

avyov, 31.

avtava, 196.

avriov, 24.

adtis, 38.

aitotvos, 196. h

abtos, Fards, 132.

aw, 29.

tes, 103, 186.

ad’ ov, 40.

by, 24.

yd, 134.

Baryya, 24.
Baw, 192.
Btia, Babs, 205.
Bare, 185.
Badixios, 29.
Badtds, 83.
Bdvw, 192.
BdpBapos, Igt.
Bapiwva, 24.
Baotréav, 74.
Baothéas, 71, 74.
Baoirever, 92.
BaortFs, 143.
BaotAiooa, 106.
Baord@w, Baord,
192.
Bareiv, 30.
Bavedruov, 24.
Baxos, 115.
BydAdw, 192.
BddAAw, 192.

184,

INDEX.

BdێAAa, BdeALTow, 192.
Bdéw, 192.
Belxari, 29.
Beds, Békkos, 192.
BeAdva, 12.
BéATepos, BeAtds, 83.
BeuBpas, 30.
BépeOpov, 11.

Ber, 131.

Bépupa, 29.

Béw, 192.

Bij, BH, 18.

Bijua, 16.

BiBaQw, 192.
Biddy, 132.
BiAapas, 30.
BlAurmos, 30.
BAépe, 31.
BAnokovv, 30.
Bd0pos, 12.

Bot, BonOcty, 16.
Bode, 189.
Bdroman, 45-
Béroxv, 118.
BovaAc:, BovAn, 15.
Bouviv, 115.
Bovpkos, 29.
Bpdxos, 29.

Bpe, 37-
Bpexexenté, 19.
Bpéxet, 103.
Bpl(a, 29.

Bpidw, BaptOw, 22.
Bpdxn, 117.
Bpundaaké, 195.
Bpdun, 193.
BuBAos, BiBAos, 22.
Budw, 30.

Bv@os, 12.

Butivn, 30.
BwkdrLov, 24.

ya, 119.
ya(a, 30.
yaoi, 118.
yaia, 30.
yaipa, 31.
yardCios, 33.
yadavos, 33.
yap, 9, 197.

yapyaréwy, 29.
yapyupa, 29.
ySovmos, 187.
ySuuvals, yidw, 144.
yeAavijs, 117.
yerdomoy, 80, 105, 108.
yédAw, 189.
yérov, 73.

yeuiGw, 105.
yepdkiv, 109.
YEépwvos, 193.
vyepv@, 193.
yépovTs, 74.

"yepds, 32.
yevoarba, 188.
yéupa, 32.

yn, 145.

ynyevns, 16.

vid, 32.

yralyw, 32.

yidkioy, 32.

yiapd, 145.
yidore, 135.
yiarpos, 31.

ylyas, 16.

ylvvos, 30.
ytoupovatov, 198.
yidkw, 32.

yAake@, 31.

yAdpos, 31.
yAérw, 29.
yAépapor, 29.
yAégpow, Actor, 31.
yAnyopa, 193.
yAvotpalyw, 193.
yAloxpos, 193.
yAvKopeyyet, 31.
yve0w, 31.
yvépwy, 202.
yvwplw, 117.
T'éuoppa, 30.
yopyos, 193.
yovAua, 31.

your, 20.

youvatka, 118,
youma, 29.
yolpyoupas, 29.
ypdupara olde, 184.
ypapop, 121.
ypapovmeve, 121.

;

ypaoupévi, 121.
ypapre, 121.
ypabiuara, 81.
ypdbimov, 81.
YPHYopos, 193.
ypovooa, 119.
Ypaua, 193.
yuaroy, 32.
yar, 20.

da, 114.
AaBis, 29.
SayKdvw, 31.
daluwy, 94, 201.
ddvouy, 130.
ddpkva, 31.
SdrvaAo, 119.
de, Sev, 144.
Selyvw, 118.
Sevovpeve, 118.
dévw, 72.
d€tou, 79.
déov, 132.
ddpeis, 183.
déré, 135.
Acids, 31.
devw, 24.

déxouat, Séxouat, 38.

débw, 24.
Ajpas, 16.
Anunrnp, 16.
Snusoupyds, 98.
didBa, 194.
didBodos, 105.
diabhjcn, 16.
Sialvw, 32.
Sialpupa, 32.
Sidiiov, 32.

didAexTos Kow?, I15.

Siapéoov, 184.
did, vad, 89.

didpos, 194.
dlara, 12.
diardw, 83.
diapévrevoay, 149.
didpopoy, 193.
Atdupos, 16.
didw, Siddvw, 116.
Siepds, 32.
Sucxupitero, 187.

INDEX.

dixaodocia, 103.
Sixaov, diaidy, 26.
dlkAomos, 113.
dint, 132.
diopiouos, 97.
dlov, 11g.
digvyvaros, 15.
dirt, 129.

didkw, 32.
didxvw, 118.
Sdvw, 116.

Sdtas, Sdéats, 71, 78, 82.
douvxdyn, 20.
dpaxos, 168.
dpoo1d, 184.

dt, 132, 135.
divw, 72.

dean, 185.

éav, 25.

éavTov, 97, 132.
éyauKka, 122.
evyiqw, 103, 185.
eyvoas, 143.
éyvwxay, 184.
eyav, 30.

éd¢, ILO, 130.
e€d€x On, 79:
eSorodaa, 76.
eddvTes, 13.
€5@, 103.
dwKa, 80.
éecev, 77.
éeitev, 118.
(pov, 127.
ZOnra, 80.

eG, 87.

efBw, 116.
eidixds, 97.
ciepéos, 106.
etAw, 26.

eluat, 71, 108.
eiva, eive, 79, 108.
elvras, elyta, 117.
eZpnv, 26.
cipaveia, 97.
eis, 103, 187.
eloa, 71, 108.
efxact, 118.
efxvw, 118.

P 2

‘211

éxdvov, IIo, 123.
éxeivos, 13.

ext, 122.
exmrabatvoua, 193.
éxpuBe, 187.

exw, 118.

éAa, 115.
eAdxtice, 17.
fAeya, 72, 83.
érekes, 72, 83.
€rA€xOnka, 72, 80.
€AAevos, 113.
“EAuutos, 24.
gua, 122.

éuas, 71.
euBatew, 37.
éuBdAtuos, 30.
gue, I34.

euéva, 71, 78.
éuepa, 18.
*Eupmavovya, 17.
éumdCoum, BdCoua, 192.
éutatvw, 37.
éumotka, 122, 123.
gutopos, 36.
eugavicew, 185.
évatw, 28.
evdedéxeia, 37.
évdov, 37.

evidc Gia, 37.
evOedrev, 38.
évOoxe, 119.
evénoes, 119.
evoke, 118.
évrepa, 36.

évrept, 127.
evrevder, 38.
évtbs, 37.

évrivw, 37, 72.
évémiov, 187.
etamlyns, ekaipyns, 118.
eEdru101s, 93.
akoudpyrvus, 38-
eturvicw, 93.
érdvw, 103, 184, 187.
érfBoros, 16.
emioThun, 97-
eriorepa, 24.
émrdi, 109.
érwxav, 106.

212

EpOouat, pda, epdeu, 36,

Eprouat, 118,
epos, por, 74.
pony, 11.

Epws, 104.

éoa, 122.

éot, 13.

éoeis, 71.

évéva, 71, 78.
éshi, 117.

oo, 79, 82, 107.
écov, 120, 125,
éord0n, 185.
eorddny, 103.
éod, 13.
erewepe, 121.
éroimdtw, 103.
eros, 29, 132.
evryevds, 104.
ebdw, 102.
ebOuuos, 24.
ev00s, 24.
edxaiplav, 187.
evAaBhs, 186.
evAoya, 187.
edpnray, 106,
EvpoxaAviwr, 21.
evTUXNS, 23.
evppatyduevos, 187.
evxapiotla, 23.
evxapioT@, 103, 106.
ep’ Eros, 39, 132.
EpOds, 37.

eye, 13.

ew, 24.

€@, 107.

édpa, 25.
édpakay, 106,

(aBa, 194.
ZdBadns, 33.
(aBds, 194.
(dAov, 33-
(apipns, 33.
(dpos, 194.
(é, T19.
(etos, 119.

INDEX.

(eords, 185.

Zeds, 33.

Cntdet, 12.

Cia, 120.

(ios, I1g.

(uepdarcos, Cuivyma, Cui-
Kpos, Cuwtn, Zudpva,

33-
Copxddiov, 31.
Cope, 31.
(oupdaAa, 120.
(wiipiov, 12, 106.

th, 70.

qv, 197.
nryovmevos, 103.
Hypapa, 117.
nde, 16, 130.
*HA), 30.
HAkuoee, 107.
HuBraKoy, 37.
HhuBparov, 12,
Four, 72.
HumAakov, 37.
vOov, 35.
nketipw, 105, 184.
hmm, 117.
hpea, 36.
hptaro, 111.
hpxa, 116.
npotnoa, 14.
nvOvpos, 24.
nipov, 14.
nuToxel, 45.

04, 87, 88, 90, 130.
Oaryarépa, 114.

av, 130.

Oavh, 194, 175.
0a5, 130,

62, 87.

Oeios, L1g.

OAc va, 87.

OéAais elrwuev, 187,
0éAw va, 87.

Bévw, Oelvw, Siva, 24.
Oéov, 120, 122,
O€o1s, 94.

Oéw, 24.

Bewpa, 183.

Onndpov, 32.
Ovyydvw, 31.
OAtumevos, 72.
OAtis, 105.
Op, 129.
Odva, 129.
06m, 129.
Goce, 130.
Opaupévos, 72.
Opiyyos, 87.
Oupovxou, 120. |
Oaua, 24.
bay, 129. q
Owpia, 143. '
O@wp@, 144, 183. ca
OG, 130.

Oa7, 129.

7, 194.

ialyw, 32.
idxwov, 32.
iaxxn, 38.
iarpds, 31.
yy, 121.
iyn, tyw, 127.

| tyniai, 121.

ide, 16.

Yiov, 103.

i800, 104.

iepbs, 32.

i@ds, 24.

ixdvw, 119.

ixudw, ikuas, 35.
Ykwot, 107,

YAn, 26.

TAAw, 26.

iudria, 103.

inépa, 18.

ta, 89, 104, 109.
ivarh, warid{w, 194.
wv, 122.

ivvos, 30.

tras, Wwra, 117.
foupiv, ioum@y, 125.

id, iay, idyya, 109,
116,

"Kk, 114.

Ka, I15, 130.
xabels, 104.
xabérov, 118.
Kabli(w, 103.
Kabioralyw, 12.
Kabddov, 97, 118.
Kal, Te, 25.
Kaudvos, 25.
kalpios, 34.
Kaipos, Log.
Katpos, 118.
kaKkoppiCirot, 144.
Kara, 146.
Kadabpwy, 24.
KdAos, 118,
KOA@S, TIO.
Kan, 130.
Kairos, 17.
Kdurrogos, 89.
Kay, 109.
Kavels, 99:
kamve, 119.
Kapkéot, 39.

Kapot, 195.

KaoTeAAwmévos, 108.

kaTaBd0pa, 12.
KaraBaivw, 12.
KaTép, 135.
KaTéxw, 105,
KaToURe, 103.
Kavwves, 20,
Kavxtioa, 78.
Kdds, 24.

Ké, 25, 88, IIS.
KELVvOS, 34.
KéAouat, 189.
keplov, 15.
kes, 115.
KETE, 134.
Kepadas, 71.
Kt, 130.
Kidwouv, 144.
Kidvw, 199.
KiBovpt, 20.
KiOcev, 40.
Kimov, 124.
Kiuwv, 34.
klv8uvos, 21.
KwVew, 34.

INDEX.

kis, 34.

Kral, Kpdw, 195.
KA€Fos, 23.

KAels, KAS, 15.
KAeTOs, KAUTOS, KANTOS,

15, 22.

Kvioa, Tikva, 145.
Koim@uat, 103.

kowh didAexros, 24, 101.
Kolpavos, 34.
KéKKaAos, KéKKaAG, 195.
Kok@vn, 35.
KéAaé, 195.
KéAagis, 105.
KoAAoupa, 20.
KoAAovptoy, 185.
kovTd, 195, KévTa, 118,
konddi, 108,
koTéAa, 3 5.
KopakioTiKa, 157.
Kopdotov, 106.
KoupFeéevia, 131.
Kopdunro, KopdumaAo, 37.
koptoow, 37.
Kétavgos, 37, 118,
Kove, I1Q.
KOUVAAdS, 20.

kovvbep, 138.
kourdAuoy, 20, 83.
Koupos, Is.

KpeBBdtiov, 12.
Kpidpt, 118,
Kple, 199.
Kpouvos, Kphvn, 33.
KptBw, 106, 187.
Kpvos, 195.
Kpupukduwua, 141.
Kpue, I 132.
KToUT@, 119.
KvOpa, 40.
KUKAOs, 12.
Kumpos, 21.
KUp.os, 103.
Kxovdioray, 38.
KOKA, 35.
K@A€, 123.

K@s, 71.

AdCouau, 29.
Adurw, 116.

213

Adpos, 31.

Aadpos, AdBpos, 24.
Aeyduevos, 72.
Aéyeou, 72.
A€yovTas, 72.
Aéyouv, A€youve, 72.
Aéée, 72, 78.

Aé€éou, 72, 78.
Actoow, 31.

A€w, 30.

Anorhs, 16.
Avyupds, 22.
ALOdpiov, 106.

Alos, 30, 116.
Avovoias, 21, 121.
Aoyiis, 8g.

Aomos, Ads, 28.
Aourdy, 97, 104.
Aukdpws, 31, 196.
Avoémevat, AvToumouV,

129.

pa, 196.
bdiryovAov, IT 5.
adn, 89.
podw, 25.
Maiwod, 7.
sadepds, 197.
MaALoTA, QQ.
Mardvw, 197.
patiAas, 115.
Mdprns, 71.
MBpE, umpe, 37.
ubadapde, 131.
ube, Mbl, 135.

Me, 109, 133, 196.
peas: MeYe, Meyer, 133.
bmedAos, I15.
Méyebos, 41, 46.
HeAadpioy, 39.
méeAtooa, 118.
MeAlodw, 32.
meAloow, 116.
MeuBpas, 30.
Mepikos, O7.
Meplov, 15.
MecaFoupia, 116.
péoa eis, 106,
meta, 107.
MeTavorew, I0O5.

214

enyapl, 197.

uy, uhva, 96, 196.
fed, 185.

plkov, 131.

muKph, 12.

Mly, 135, 136.
MAotoy, 116.
Motpoypagnua, 146.
MéAuBSos, wdAtBos, 21.
Movatla, Igt.
Mdvaxd Twve, 143.
Movi}, 185.
Movoyeri}, 73.

Hod, Hol, 83.

Hovde, 215.

Mouvak, Igl.
Movvos, 45.
Moupya, 20.

Mo guryyt, 20.
Moupnoupl(w, 20.
Moioa, woica, 27.
MOouXTEpOS, 20.
protfouvas, 33.
Miya, 31.

nut, 39.
HuKdouar, Mnkdoua, 22,
pvoos, Higos, 22.
uborak, udorag, 12.
peope, 37.

M@pos, pavpos, 24.
Mas bdns, 131.

va, 87, 196.

vdvder, 135, 136.
vapaldes, vepeldes, 200.
vdiéxw, 131.

ve, véFe, vd, 133.

véulkouv, 131.

vepdv, vépov, vnpdy, 106,

118,
véos, yvépos, 31.
vhOw, yveOw, 31.
VROTIS, VHOTNS, 14.
vy}, 120, 126, 135, 136.
vidvi, 137.
viByw, 33-
viter, 135.
viovTa, 119.
vodw, 83.
vduo, 119.

~~. ye oe

INDEX.

vuntds &MorAy@, 35.
vixa, T1Q.

tevireve, 106.
tepds, Enpds, 15.

bykos, dyyos, 36.
dduvaou, 187.
eet oly, 22.
Ve

oir pw, ITs.
oios, 27.
ddebBepos, 118.
6Alos, 116.
dAos, SAwy, 103, 184,

187.
dAws, 97.
dAogwpaTwmern, 141.
buadet, 31.
6 uixpdrepos, 186.
buoppos, 118.
ovdpioy, 185.
dvelpara, 80, 81.
dvexaépnoe, 12.
bvra, dvTe, E17.
byTas, 72.
bvvé, 12.
évw, 12.
dtvBador, 21.
béw, 13.
brov, 185.
émrrds, 38.
éropls, 38.
Bpebis, 00.
bpuixa, bprixos, 33.
dpodee, 197.
dT, 97.
bromos, 118.
ovbdgr, 132.
ovddvouv, 133.
ovdeiprove, 131.
ovdouk, 131.
ovAdmEvos, 20.
obv, 20.
ovmepyiaiirouv, 133.
ovpavddpouos, 141.
ovpavds, 103.
obo dins, 99.
5xOn, 38.
6x 5a, 115.

> i

madly, 116.

nich 181.

mapdderyua, OQ.

mapa, a 8

mapdKAnros, 16,

mwapamAnoov, 103.

Tidpis, 71.

nace, 144.

waa a, TIg.

mwarépas, 71.

méSthov, wéradov, 198.

mevTikos, 118.

wep, 135.

mepyairouv, 133.

mwepimarare, 12.

mepioadrepov, 104, 186.

mepiordcess, 104.

Tlépoes, TO9.

mwéoe, 135, 181.

midyw, mialvw, Tidlw, 12,
81.

mew, mid Cw, 118.

mlecat, 187.

morevw eis, 183.

mtoris, mUoTIS, 22.

mloris, 103.

mAdka, 109.

mwAEFw, II, 23, 29.

mA}, 103.

mAnpopopa, 186.

mAhota, 144.

mvjua, 116.

modedi(w, 115.

motos, 89.

mwéKe, WOKAa, 34.

mwéperxe, 120.

méorw, I15.

moré pov, 183.

mov, Tov, 184, 198.

mova, 120.

TOUA, movAOS,
132.

mov péeveis, 183.

mpay-, 37+ N

TPAYUATIKWS, IO4.

mpapa, 30.

™paTn, II7.

mpéi, 135.

mpiortis, mplorys, 16.

mpooéppntev, 186.

7™OAOS,

™ bl — - ‘Vt @&— Bee as a a
J “=e ‘ -

mpdokouua, 113.
mpdoracis, 99.
mpovata, 120.
mpovKa, 27.

mvadov, mvEAoV, 118.
TUKYWOLS, 93.

mUAas, 22.
TupToAnmevos, 108.
muTivn, 30.

m@s Sev, 99.

paxovaAa, 29.

pe, 132.

péFw, I1, 23, 29.
pé~ouev, 116.
pewani, papdviov, 12.
piyyma, phxvw, 186.
~ plga, Bpica, 29.
piCicdy, 144.
podoxédxwos, 141.
pvyxos, pis, 22.
porre, pinrw, 22.
pas, 129.

od, 131, 145.
oduepe, 127.
capavtapya, 116,
oas, 71, 109.
odyar, 131.

o€, °o, céuovvder, 132.

o€Bas, 29.

SeBijpos, 29.
céBouat, cevouct, 29.
oets, 71.

o.répiv, 118.
oKdpos, 12.

oKeAls, oXEAls, 39.
Seynriwv, oximwy, 16.
oKidw, 203.

oKi(@, 39.
oKiABda, 34.
oKéAagua, 29.
okKoAELd, 39.

oxotla, 184.
TKoTdvw, 92.
oKvAdkiov, 116.
oKvqos, 12.
oplkmor, 80.

goBéw, 29.

coumiais, 83.

INDEX.

covodu, 83.
oradels, 187.
oTabepds, 106.
oTdcov, 79.

OTdTE, 135.

&réxy, 131.
orépte, 176.
OTHAN, TTDAOS, 22.
ornpryé, otipak, 22.
orlxot woAtTiKol, LLO.
TTOLXELOY, Q3, 99, 200.
oT poyyvAouopportyyov-
vos, 141.
avykupiav, 187.
ou(nreiv, 187.
avlvye, 22.
guvTnpovat, 143.
opoyyép, 118.
TXT, 94.
TwLaTOoUpynoes, IAI.

Ta, 133,=8, 115, 145.

tdvde, 134.

TakIS, 94.

TapBu(w,TapBéw, TpaBéw,
116.

Taprnoods, 16.

TATOO, 37:

TauTov, 116.

Té, 129, 133.

rTéxvn, 118.

Tékvus, 107.

TEM-AT, 134.

TEME, 134.

rétoapes, 118,

Téye, TEYET, 133.

tlayydpia, 108.

Tl, T¢es, I21.

T(lkva, Kvioa, 145.

TCoupas, 108.

7, THM, 75-

THVOS, 34.

ti, 120, 133.

tl dAovis, 89.

TLeT pL, 137.

TiM-ET, 134.

Tov, 121.

tlvas, 117.

tlrota, Il.

TUIMO, THA LA, 30.

215

tolyap, 99.

Tov, 116.

TOU, 134.

Touma, 126, 127.

Tovs =obs, 145.
TovTov, 116,

Tovyév, 134.

tparyi, 118.

Tpe, 135.

Tpemvos, TepTVvds, 116.
TpovTa, 83.

Tpa@yw, 182.

TIOvWw, 33.

toxl, I1g, 121.
tukdvn, Sovedyn, 20.
Tupavvos, Kolpavos, 34.
Tus, 27.

TUT, 134.

TOY, 109.

Tov, Tove, TVA, 134.
Tapa, 8g.

Tapa TAEov, 120,

Badros, 32.

bt, invita, 16.
bids, 28.

BAN, 21, 99.

to, 126.

imdyw, 103, 183.
bmdpxw, 99, 187.
bratos, 25.
brevOuvos, 45.
brddnuav, III.
dmokelwevoy, QQ.
does, 115.

ur, 134.
tirros, inrds, 25.

pdryerat, 187.

paiverat, 9g.

palvw, péyyw, 25.

peBouat, PéEByw, 29.

pépecat, 25.

peplfepe, 127.

pepTos, péprepos, pépra-
Tos, 83.

pevie, 82.

Pp, 33-

pnkdpiov, 33.

podvw, 24, 187.

216

pbiva, 24.
pirogogla, 196.
gitpov, pirpa, 22.
preidyw, Prev, 34.
prudpiov, prudpior, 34.
panvos, pavvds, 22.
pancKody, 30.
PAlBw, pAiBepdy, 33.
paovdioy, 27.
poBaca, 12.

poBéw, 29.
polovmevos, IQ.
Polit, 27.

popa, 132.

popeere, popeire, 15.
popednve, 117.
pucoumer, pUGw, 119.
puadyw, 37.

pvots, 21.

INDEX,

puretw, pitdw, 29.

ha, 132.
xalrn, xerds, 25.
xdmar, xduov, 145.

xaumrAds, xaunrds, 37.

hdvypouv, 132.

xdvw, xdw, 206.
xdpis, hdpis, 118.
Xdpos, Xdpwrras, 92.
hepé, 132.

xXhpa-ve, 117.

hip, 132.

XITOY, 40.

XAauds, 21.
XovArdpiov, 40.
Xpnuatdw, 117.
xpucdov, xpucody, 15.
XUTpa, 40.

Xwpya, 116.
Wards, yxdra, 12.

Wavrépi, 21.

wes, 144.

WnAage, 206.

yines, rds, WAdy, 27,
200.

Woe, 208,
WipbOrov, WimplOov, 22.
Wopde, 92.

&Beov, 21.
wAak, 24.
avoudoba, 28.
@Ov, 21.

&pa, 189.
apara, 128.
@riov, 24.

4608
ts Edmund Martin

sy OO" pee
pe! Doe

AT

Geld

LaGr.Gr
G41L5m

The modern Greek language

University of Toronto

_ Library

DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET

Acme Library Card Pocket
Under Pat. *‘ Ref. Index File"
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU

ea vet!

Ft