Full text of "Transactions of the American Philological Association"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world’s books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the

public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individual
personal, non-commercial purposes.

and we request that you use these files for

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

+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

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

About Google Book Search

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

Se ee mere parr wer ER 7 UWE REROR <2 980 Segre 10 See ETSI) TE =

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

1882.

V/7 — XIX

VOLUME XiIil.

Published bo the Association.

CAMBRIDGE:
JOHN WILSON AND SON.
Gnibersity ress.
1882.

P|]

vet 2
CONTENTS OF VOL. XIII. v.\4-\4

I. The Greek New Testament as published in America. . 5
By Dr. Isaac H. HALL. :

II. Alien Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek . . 34
By Professor A. C. MERRIAM.

III. Notes on Latin Quantity . . . . . . 1... + 50
By Professor Tracy PECK.

IV. Influence of the Latin Syntax in the Anglo-Saxon
Gospels. . . .. .
By Professor W. B. Owen.

V. The Ablaut in English. . . . 2. . «© 2. «©» © © 65
By Dr. Benjamin W. WELLS.

VI. The Indo-European Case-system . . . . .. . . 88
By Professor WiLL1am D. WHITNEY.

APPENDIX : —
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Session, Cam-
bridge, 1882. . . . . «©. . 6 ee eee OH
List of Officers and Members . . .....+. . li
Constitution of the Association. . . ....-..- Ix
Publications of the Association. . . . . . . . .~ Ixii

ow »

ii a an o .
id e

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
1882.

I.— The Greek New Testament as Published in America.
By ISAAC H. HALL, LL.B. Pu. D.,

OF PHILADELPHIA.
I. Preliminary.

ASIDE from the bibliophile’s passion or the collector’s
mania, there are sundry sound reasons for an inquiry into
the history and character of the Greek New Testament as
published in America. Most of these reasons are those de-
veloped by the inquiry itself, and centre themselves in the
varieties of text thus disclosed; varieties existing not only in
the critical editions, but in the adored Zertus receptus itself —
before the critical editions had much circulation, or, as to
most of them, an existence.

Secondary, but still a fact and noteworthy, is the revelation
thus made of the industry and enthusiasm of the earlier
American editors; who, to a greater extent than is com-
monly suspected, exercised an independent judgment and
skill. Although their pioneer work would not fill the wants
of to-day, it has been rather too meanly judged by their
successors, and deserves at least an honorable record. ;

The ground, moreover, is almost unbroken. In O’Calla-
ghan’s American Bibles,! only sixteen editions of the Greek
Testament are described or enumerated; a mere fraction of
the number then existing; not to mention those issued in the
twenty-two years that have since elapsed— nearly all of them
prolific, except the four years of war.

1 A List of Editions of the Holy Scriptures and Parts thereof, printed in
America previous to 1860. By E. B. O’Callaghan. Albany, 1861.

7 H. Hall, [ 1882.

In the last two centuries, though theological books abounded,
it was an almost unheard of thing to see a quotation from the
Greek Testament—at least, in Greek type—in an American
book. Nor were the English citations always made from our
Common Version. The lawyers were apt to follow Coke’s
example, or to cite at second hand from him and others, who
quoted the Vulgate Latin and supplied an original rendering
therefrom. The clergymen had not altogether ceased to use
or to quote the Genevan Bible, the version which came over
to New England with the early settlers, and which still is often
to be seen preserved for its associations and its ancient family
record. To this day certain theological books are printed in
this country with their Scripture citations from an English
version earlier than our Common one. An every-day exam-
ple of this is the edition of Luther’s Commentary on Galatians
commonly circulated among the Presbyterians. This trans-
lation (it is a revision as well) antedates our Common Version,
and still keeps its Scripture citations unchanged.

Of course the Greek Testament was in the land, in numbers
abundant for the times. I have no data, even approximate,
to form a judgment as to the particular editions which were
most common; but in the theological libraries and in private
collections I have seen evidence of their great variety. For
many years, too, I have known it as a fact that the rarer and
more highly prized editions used to be regularly sought by
certain second-hand dealers for exportation to Europe; where,
until recently, such old treasures readily brought a higher price
than here. To judge from such facts as are apparent, the ear-
lier immigrants chiefly brought editions produced in Antwerp,
Leyden, Geneva, and Lyons, with a sprinkling from presses
along the Rhine, and some of Paris make; but just before and
after the American Revolution, more copies came from Eng-
land and Scotland. However, but few editions were produced
in England before the settlement of Massachusetts. I can find
traces of but two! printed before 1620.

1 These were Vautroller’s (H. Stephens’s text), London, 1587, 16mo; and
another of the same text, ¢ Regia Typographia, London, 1592, 16mo. The Lon-
don Beza of 1565, mentioned by Scrivener (Plain Introd. to N. T. Crit., ed. 1874,
Pp- 390, note 1; also, his V. 7: Gr., ed. 1873, etc., p. viii.) is doubtless a mistake.

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 7

Il. Zhe Mill Editions.

The earliest Greek do0k printed in America, so far as I can
discover, is the Enchiridion of Epictetus (“‘ex editione Joan-
nis Upton accurate expressum”), with a Latin translation,
published at Philadelphia by Mathew Carey in 1792. The
type is quite small, and is apparently the same as that used
thirty years later, with much less skill, in Kneeland’s Greek
Testament—to be described farther on.

But the first Greek Testament printed in America, as all
acquainted with the general subject know, was published at
Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1800, by the famous printer
Isaiah Thomas (b. 1749, d. 1831). The book is now rather
uncommon, though easy enough to be had a few years ago.
It bears many slight resemblances to the various English edi-
tions of William Bowyer—a series of at least twelve editions,
varying slightly from each other, which appeared in London
at various times from 1715 to 1812. Of these Bowyer editions,
that of 1794 (an edition not noticed by the bibliographers, but
the last of the series to appear before Thomas published) seems
to have furnished Thomas with his title-pattern. At least, its
title is exactly reproduced, line for line, word for word, and
style for style of type, in the Thomas edition, except only as
to date and names and place of publisher. Thomas’s titlepage
reads as follows: “H KAINH | 4IA@HKH. | NOVUM |
TESTAMENTUM. | JUXTA EXEMPLAR JOANNIS MILLII
Ac- | CURATISSIME IMPRESSUM. | [Ornament—a caduceus
with cornucopias at the sides. ] | EDITIO PRIMA AMERICANA. |
WIGORNIZ, MASSACHUSETTENSI: | Excudebat ISAIAS
THOMAS, JUN. | SINGULATIM ET NUMEROSE EO VEN-
DITA OFFICINE SU, | APRIL — 1800.” The book is a
I2mo, pp. 478.

At the end of some copies is bound in a leaf of advertise-
ments dated December 25, 1802; but the copies are all one
impression; for stereotyping was then unknown in America,
and no reason could exist for dating back the issue. The text
is, of course, divided into verse-paragraphs. As to accessory
matter, it has only one page, containing “A Chronological

8 Il. H. Hall, (1882.

Table of the Books of the New Testament,” with a statement
at its end that it has “been, carefully and faithfully, collected
from the writings of the famous Rev. Nathaniel Lardner, D.D.”
(The name Nathanael is here misspelled, as well as the Lat-
inized ‘“‘Isaias” of the titlepage.) This table is signed “Caleb
Alexander;” but no other external professions of editorship
appear. A somewhat similar table, condensed and altered
from Mill and J. A. Fabricius, occupies a like place in the
Bowyer of 1794, and seems to have given more than one hint
for the construction of Alexander’s table; though the two
differ slightly in length and in dates. The subscriptions to
the Epistles copy those of Bowyer (or Mill at second hand)
exactly, even to giving the numbers of the otiyou in the va-
rious books (see the authorities therefor in Kiister’s Mill), and
that partly in Greek numerals and partly in Greek words, just
exactly as Mill and Bowyer gave them—with only one dif-
ference. That difference is, that these numbers are wanting
in the subscriptions to 2 Corinthians, Galatians, 1 Thessalo-
nians, and Titus; evidently because in each of these cases one
of the Greek numerals was the 4oppa or sampz,; characters for
which Thomas probably had no type, nor an editor bold
enough to spell out the numbers in words.

However, this edition does not appear to be a slavish re-
print of any former work. On the titlepage, to be sure, it
professes to be an accurate reprint of Mill; but so do many
other editions that exhibit intentional alterations. The same
is true of the great majority of the very numerous English
editions which have made that profession— ever since the
original Mill appeared. I have devoted no little time to
searching for some edition of which this one of Thomas
might be an exact reprint; but thus far I only find that while
some of the Bowyer editions show some of the same alter-
ations of Mill, no one of them agrees nearly enough to pass
for the exact pattern. I must therefore believe that the editor
exercised his own judgment, and derived his changes in the
text from some edition of the Elzevir family.

In order to show this, it must be remembered that three
leading editions were the main sources of the text of the ordi-

Vol. xiii] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 9

nary editions of that time. These were Robert Stephens’s of
1550, Beza’s of 1565, and the Elzevir of 1678 (not of 1624 or
1633, though these are commonly regarded as standards of
comparison). Mill’s edition (London, 1707, fol., and Kiister’s
Mill with additions, 1710, 1723, 1746) keeps generally the text
of Stephanus, departing from it in only four places of moment:
viz. Matt. 24: 15, reading éoTws for éoros; I Pet. 3:11, adding
ayabov, Enrnodtw; I Pet. 3: 21, @ Kal nas for 6 Kal nuas; and
Rev. 2:5, tayu for tayer. The Kiister edition, indeed, returns
to the Stephanic text in the first and last of these places. Thus
the Mill text might be classified as a Stephanic text; and
such would be its classification in this paper, did not a series
of facts occur which compel a little different treatment.

But Thomas, while keeping the departures of “Mill from
Stephanus, adds a number of other departures; such as the
following: Matt. 23: 13, 14, reversing the order of the two
verses; Mark 8: 24, omitting 67: and op@; Luke 1: 35, adding
é< gov; John 18: 20, reading madvtoGev of for wavrote of; Acts
9: 35, Sdpwva for Sapwvav; Acts 17: 25, cat ta mdvra for
Kata mavra; Acts 21: 3, advadhavévtes for dvadavaytes; Acts
21: 8, #Aopuev [sic] for #APov; Rom. 7: 6, amoOavortos for
aro@avovres; Rom. 8: 11, d:a Tod évotxodvTos . . . 1vedpaTos
[ste] for 8:8 76 évotxodv .. . mvedtpa; Rom. 12: 11, Kupi for
Katp@; 1 Cor. 15: 31, duetépav for juerépav; 1 Tim. 1: 4, oixo-
Soptav for ofxovopiay; Rev. 5: 11, adding cal Hv 6 dpiO yds avrov
pupiddes pupiddwov; Rev. 11: 1, adding Kal 6 ayyedos elorjKet ;
Rev. 11: 2, €€wOev for éowfev. These specimens show noth-
ing but editorial judgment, together with a Beza or a late
Elzevir text, or both, from which to select the variant read-
ings. It is not necessary to pass upon the editorial judgment
here displayed—which is sometimes good and sometimes bad.
The facts we are concerned with here are, first, that the work
of an editor is manifest, and that better than might have been
expected from the Latin of the titlepage; and second, that
the profession in the title that the text is an accurate reprint
of Mill, is intentionally false. But the title was copied from
English editions which had made the same false pretense —
already for nearly a century. And not only so, but the lauded

10 I. H, Hall, [1882.

textus receptus has been perpetually juggled with in the same
way; so that it is rare to find two editions that agree exactly,
or one that bears out the professions of its titlepage. The
horror with which the simple-minded venerators of the fertus
veceptus shrink from the latest critical texts and the latest
revised translations is a mild sensation in comparison with
the confusion which a little closer examination of its various
exemplaria would bring upon them. The /ertus receptus of to-
day—or of former times, for that matter—is nothing but a
shadow and a ghost, which its professed adherents and
admirers would generally be the last to recognize as an
acquaintance.

Following the order of genealogy, instead of the order of
time, we come upon a second edition, virtually, of this Greek
Testament of Thomas; published at Boston, in 1814. Its
title proper differs slightly from that of the other in the lines,
but not in the words. Instead of the caduceus with the cor-
nucopias, the ornament here is two reclining figures support-
ing the open Bible, with the verse 1 Cor. 15:22, in Greek,
underneath for a motto. Then the words “ BOSTONIA: |
Excudebat ESAIAS THOMAS, Jun. | Typis Watson &
BANGS. | 1814.” Its form is 16mo, pp. 478, like the other.
The accessory matter is the same chronological table, but dif-
ferently arranged, and without signature. The Latin for
“Isaiah” is this time correctly spelled (Esaias) on the title-
page. Otherwise this edition so nearly resembles the last
that a very close look is needed to see the difference. It co-
incides with the former, page for page and line for line, and
almost letter for letter, only it spells out most of the ligatures
and employs more recent forms of type for some of the let-
ters. A mutilated copy of this edition might also be recog-
nized by the erroneous page-number 231, in place of 431. It
agrees with the former in all the departures from Mill, above-
mentioned, and adds a few more of its own besides. Of these
last are: Matt. 6:6, the Erasmian rapetov for Mill’s tapcetov
(a variation of which the more recent editions of Pritius, or
the title of Schmidt’s Greek N. T. Concordance, may have

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 11

been a nearer source); Mark 6: 33, wrpoondOov for wrponrBov
(perhaps an error, but committed in the earlier Brylinger
series of editions, from 1542 onward); and 1 Cor. 15: 33, the
ancient ypyjora [thus accented] restored in place of the
metrically adapted ypijc8’. It is, however, a very tolerable
Mill. ;

Following still the order of genealogy—almost every one
is familiar with Bagster’s “‘Polymicrian Greek Testament,” edi-
ted by William Greenfield, with its (Greenfield’s) Lexicon,
and other conveniences for the beginner. This first appeared
in England in 1829. It seems to vary from Mill’s text in only
three noticeable places, viz.: Acts 17: 25, «ai wavra for xara
mavra; Acts 21: 3, avapavévtes for dvabdvayres; and Colos-
sians I: 2, KoAoaaais for KoXaccais; all intended to be adop-
tions of Elzevir or Beza readings; only the first is a misprint
for cal ta wavta. This English edition has been repeated
many times without date; and of the copies imported to
America, some bear the imprint of Wiley, New York; and
_some others that of Lippincott, Philadelphia. But an actual
reprint has appeared in America, issued many times, both with
and without date, and with different imprints. Its title and
form are as follows: “H KAINH AIA@HKH. | NOVUM
TESTAMENTUM | AbD | EXEMPLAR MILLIANUM, | cum |
Emendationibus et lectionibus Griesbachii, | praecipuis vocibus
ellipticis, | thematibus omnium vocum difficiliorum, | atque
locis Scripturz parallelis. | Studio et Labore | Gulielmi Green-
field. | Hanc editionem primam Americanam, | Summa cura
recensuit, atque mendis quam plurimis expurgavit, | JOSEPHUS
P. ENGLES, A. M.” 32mo, pp. 571; lexicon, pp. iv. 281.

As the title states, it was edited by Joseph P. Engles, A. M.,}
whose claim to have purged it of many errors committed in
the original edition is not wholly unfounded. From the latter
it differs chiefly in substituting an English preface for the

1 Joseph Patterson Engles (b. 1797, d: 1867), a Philadelphian, graduated at the
University of Pennsylvania, 1815; pastor of Seventh Presbyterian Church, Phil-
adelphia, 1820; editor of “The Presbyterian,” 1834; president of the Presbyte-
rian Board of Publication 1863. He published “Records of the Presbyterian
Church,” a “ Bible Dictionary,” and other works chiefly devotional. —

12 I. H. Hall, [1882.

Latin one of the London editions. In this English preface an
apparent error of the Latin is made more definitely an error
by stating that the text “is that commonly called the received
text, which was first published at Leyden, A. D. 1624, by Elze-
vir, and republished in folio at Oxford, by Mill, A. D. 1707.”
Which shows that the editor possessed at best but a second-
hand knowledge of the matter. As to text, he retains the
three above-mentioned instances of departure from the Millio-
Stephanic text to the Beza-Elzevir; except that he corrects
the error of the London edition in Acts 17: 25, and reads xai
Ta mavra.’ All the perfect copies of this edition seem to con-
tain the familiar plate with the words “ The New Testament”
in forty-eight different languages; though the London editions
sometimes omit it. It first appeared in 1832, published at
New York, by J. Leavitt; then Philadelphia, H. Perkins, 1841,
1846; Philadelphia, Perkins & Purves, 1844, 1846; New York,
A. S. Barnes & Co., 1846; Philadelphia, H. Perkins, 1850;
also, without date, Philadelphia, Peck & Bliss, Theodore
Bliss & Co., and Lippincott. All the copies have ‘“ Hanc
editionem primam”’ on the titlepage. I am not certain that
this list is exhaustive. But this American edition is not so
easy to find as formerly.

1 In making his corrections, the author made use of “a very accurate copy of
Mill’s Testament, published at Oxford in 1825; the various readings, with Gries-
bach’s Testament, published in Cambridge, New England, in 1809.”” This Oxford
edition of 1825 is not very easy to find, and is not noticed in Reuss’s Bibliotheca.
If it was one of the series which reproduces the Oxford ed. of 1805, Engles could
not have followed it. But there are at least two series of Oxford professed re-
prints of Mill, one of which (including that of 1805) is rather a Bowyer text than
a pure Mill; the other series, starting in 1825, being a faithful reprint. But the
Oxford and Cambridge reprints of Mill are generally altered here and there.

2 Jesse Ames Spencer, D. D., b. 1816. For a sketch of his life and numerous
works, see Fohknson's Cyclopedia, iv. p. 426.

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 13

cal Seminaries. | By Rev. J. A. Spencer, A. M., | author of |
‘The Christian Instructed,’ ‘History of the English Refor-
mation,’ etc. | ro xadXov xayabov. | New York: | Harper and
Brothers, Publishers, 82 Cliff Street. | 1847.” This title is
fairly descriptive, except as to the author himself. It was
evidently intended first as a class-book, and to contain only
the Gospels and Acts — which indeed were issued separately
the same year, 1847, and again in 1859. Other editions of the
entire book were issued by the same publishers in 1859 and
1865. Only the Gospels and Acts have notes; but the Epis-
tles and Revelation have a little accessory matter in the shape
of general introductions and tables. It is a book of no little
merit and usefulness. Its text is very nearly that of Burton
(Oxford, England, 1831, and several subsequent editions),
which departed from Mill to Elzevir in fourteen noticeable
places, which may be found enumerated in Prof. Dr. Eduard
Reuss’s Bibliotheca Novi Testamentt Grect (Brunsvige, 1872),
p. 154. Spencer professes to adopt Burton’s text, and to
venture to differ therewith only on a few occasions, and then
principally in the pointing, the use of capital letters, and other
particulars of a like grade of importance. But he leaves Mill
for Elzevir in two places more than Burton, viz. in the last two
of the three just mentioned in the case of the Polymicrian.
One more edition, and that a noteworthy one, exhibits Mill’s
text professedly; though I cannot speak from personal exam-
ination as to its variations. This is the elaborate Greek-Eng-
lish work of the American Bible Union in 4to, published at
New York from 1854 onward; the first volume issued contain-
ing 2 Peter; I, 2, and 3 John; Jude; and the Apocalypse.
In the small portion I have examined, it leaves Mill for Elzevir
in a few places, as, e. g. the place already noticed by Reuss
(tdem, p. 157), Rev. 3: 1, inserting éwra before wvevpara.
But the notes of this edition give it a thoroughly critical char-
acter, and as such it should be classed. To have changed the
text materially would have been a work too bold for its con-
templated purpose, and for the times. A later edition ofa
part of this work, the Epistle to Philemon, small 4to, 1860,
anonymous, but, I believe, by the late Dr. H. B. Hackett,

14 I. H. Hall, — [r882.

shows independent editorship in the text also. Concerning
the issues of this work, I have been promised complete infor-
mation, but have not yet received it. But as to the issues
which I have observed, a second edition of some of the parts
appeared in 1858; others bear date 1860; and the immense
bound volume which contains the great bulk of them, entitled
““The Sacred Scriptures,” etc., bears date 1861; though the
parts which compose it bear the dates of their own impres-
sions, severally.

Ill. Zhe Leusden (Elzevir) Editions.

As already seen, this can only be the “ editio prima Amen-
cana” as a Leusden edition; for it is the second of the Greek
Testament absolutely.- The corrector named on the titlepage
was the printer, as we see from the note at the end of the
book: ‘“Excudebat J. Watts.” In this edition an editor’s
work has no place. As it professes, it is a reprint of the fa-
mous edition of John Leusden, in which 1900 select verses are
marked with a *, as containing together all the words of the
New Testament; and words which occur only once, or very
rarely, are marked by a f and ¢{ respectively. For its imme-
diate original, the “ London edition” mentioned on the title-
page, we have three from which to choose. One of these was

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 15

issued at Leyden by the Wetsteins in 1772, but bears also on
the titlepage the imprint “ Londini, apud Joannem Nourse.”
The second so closely resembles this one, line for line and
page for page, that it requires close scrutiny to see that they
actually are different issues. It was published at London in
1794; and bears the imprint of six different publishing houses,
of which the first named is F. Wingrave. The third, dated
1804, is of exactly the same description as the second, ex-
cept that it contains some misprints not found in the other
two, and has the imprint of seven different publishing houses,
of which the first named is F. Wingrave. The form of each
is I2mo, pp. 699, on sheets a trifle smaller than the American
Bradford. Those of 1772 and 1794 have the well known Wet-
stein maps, which are lacking in the edition of 1804, as well
as in the American editions. |

The text of this edition need not be dwelt upon at length,
since, except in just one noticeable change, it is pretty purely
the Elzevir of 1678. The first Leusden appeared at Utrecht
in 1675, in two different forms, with nearly the Elzevir text of
1633; but the second Leusden, 1688, struck out a new path,
following the Elzevir of 1678. <A series of editions kept this
latter text till 1740, when the change above referred to was
introduced: viz., the adding xat otpadeis pos Tovs pabnras,
el7re at the beginning of Luke 10: 22. It was this edition of
1740, or rather its Greek-Latin form of 1741, from which de-
scended, by mere reproduction, the editions of 1772, 1794,
and 1804 above mentioned; either of which, again, may have
been the immediate parent of the American Bradford. Of
this ancestral series, the first edition was published at Am-
sterdam and London; at Amsterdam by the two houses of
Boom and Van Soemeren, and in London by-Sam. Smith.
The other editions of the series were all issued by the Wet-
steins at Amsterdam. A double group of offshoots of this
Leusden edition, each with its very trifling variations, ap-
peared during the same period. One of the two started at
Frankfurt-a.-M., 1692, edited by Rudolph Leusden, son of
John. Another, more nearly conforming to the Elzevir of
1633, was published at Leyden from 1699 onward. It is of a

16 LH. Hall, [1882.

form rather minute, and probably the first Greek Testament
ever stereotyped. It usually bears the imprint of Luchtmans.
Then followed a long series of branches, more or less differ-
ent from Leusden’s original and from each other, issued by
various publishers at various places in Germany.

In the same year with the Bradford edition just mentioned,
the same publisher issued the same Greek text without the
Latin, calling it “‘ Editio Secunda Americana’”’; but it is sec-
ond only as a Leusden. Watts is named as the corrector
and printer of this edition also. It is a 12mo, like the last,
pp. 286.

The next edition of Leusden’s New Testament appeared at
New York in 1821; the title being like the Bradford edition
as far as applicable; the note of publication being ‘ Novi-
Eboraci: Typis et Impensis Georgii Long, No. 71, Pearl
Street, 1821.” This is a 12mo of small sized sheets, pp. 699;
being page for page, line for line, and word for word, a close
copy of the editions of 1772, 1794, and 1804 above referred
to; but in every respect save thickness it is a smaller book.
It might be called a “facsimile” of either; only, as it copies
the misprints of the edition of 1804, the last 1s doubtless its
immediate parent. (One of these misprints, for example, is .
in John 19: 30 TeréXnotae for TeréXeorat.)

These three editions, the two Bradfords and the Long, are
the only Leusden editions, so far as I know, ever published
in America; though one phenomenon of the book-stores and
libraries, to be mentioned farther on, speaks otherwise to the
unwary.

To be mentioned in this connection, as presenting a text of
the same general family, is the peculiarly constructed Har-
mony of the Gospels by the Rev. Dr. James Strong. Its text
is nearly the Elzevir of 1633. This is a 12mo, published at
New York by the Harpers in 1854; also, the same year, by
J. C. Riker, and again by the Harpers in 1859.

It may be added that these four books are the only Ameri-
can representatives of the European fertus receptus; and that
not one of them is a perfect representative of either of the

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 17

patterns — that is, of either the Elzevir of 1624 or that of

1633.
IV. The Griesbach Editions.

The next family to appear came in order of time next to
the Bradford Leusdens of 1806; starting with the most im-
portant of our early issues. This was the reprint of Gries-
bach’s Manual (Leipzig, Goeschen, 1805), his third edition and
most finished text; issued at Cambridge, at the University
Press in 1809. The form of this reprint is 8vo, pp. xxiv, 615.
Its titlepage differs from that of its original by adding the
words: ‘“Cantabrigiz. Nov-Anglorum 1809. Typis Aca-
demicis; sumtibus [sz¢] W. Wells et W. Hilliard.” It has a
titlepage for each volume (the second volume beginning with
Acts), but the paging is continuous throughout, disregarding
in the enumeration, however, the titlepage to volume i1., and
the blank pages on each side of it. The whole is a pretty
accurate piece of work; and adds to the original only one
page of matter: the publishers’ dedication to the President
and Fellows of Harvard University. This edition had a de-
servedly wide circulation; and it has been taken as the basis
of all the Griesbach texts published in this country — though
its successors have generally followed it only Jongo tntervallo.
This edition was used by Mr. Engles, as he states in his Eng-
lish preface to the American Polymicrian Greek Testament
noticed above, in verifying the Griesbach readings given in
that volume.

The Gospels of this text, accompanied by a vocabulary,
were issued at Boston in 1825, by ‘‘Cummings, Hilliard, and
Company, Washington Street.” The type is the same as
that used in the volume just mentioned; the form 8vo, pp. iii,
240; Lexicon, pp. 71. The marginal readings are omitted.
This volume was “prepared in consequence of the new ar-
rangement of the studies in Greek, preparatory to admission
into the University at Cambridge,” ‘the Corporation having
substituted Jacobs’ Greek Reader and the Four Gospels for
the Collectanea Grzeca Minora and the whole of the New Tes-
tament.” The titlepage, indeed, says that it is ‘“ Designed for
the use of schools.”

18 I, Hl. Hall, (1882.

This text next appeared in Moses Stuart’s edition of New-
come’s Harmony, published at Andover by the Junior Class
of the Theological Seminary, in 1814, and printed by Flagg
and Gould. This appears to be the first Greek Harmony of
the Gospels published in this country. An “Advertisement”
states that it had been the editor’s intention to follow an ar-
rangement of Townson’s, mentioned by Newcome, and fol-
lowed by White’s Diatessaron; but as no copy of Townson
could be had, Newcome was the best resource. The original
Newcome appeared at Dublin in 1788, folio; a harmony con-
structed on the basis of Le Clerc, Amsterdam, 1699, folio.
The form of this American Newcome is 8vo, pp. xvi, xii, 424,
188. Another edition appeared the same year, in 4to.

Another issue of the same text appeared at Philadelphia in
1822-23, in parallel columns with an English Version, edited
by “Abner Kneeland, minister of the First Independent
Church of Christ, called Universalist, in Philadelphia”; also
the Greek text alone (1822) and the English version by itself
(1823), and perhaps each of them twice. At least, some copies
of the Greek are dated 1823; which I am inclined to believe is
the ¢vue date of both the single texts. It was “ published by
the Editor, No. 9 North Second Street, and sold by him —
also by Abm. Small, No. 165 Chestnut Street.” William Fry,
often said to be the publisher, was the printer (spelled “ printe”
in vol. i., but “ printer” in vol. ii.). The form is a rather small
12mo, vol. i., pp. xvi, 360; vol. ii., pp. ix, 444. The Greek is
printed without accents, and the Griesbach margin is omitted.
The first volume appeared as an experiment; with a preface
containing, among other things, the Greek Alphabet, direc-
tions for pronunciation, and the declension of the article and
personal pronouns. An abstract from Parkhurst’s Greek
Grammar is promised for the second volume, provided the
work meets with sufficient encouragement — which promise
is fulfilled at the end of the second volume. The long lists
of errata in each volume show the editor’s care and the print-
er’s ability; but it is to be remembered that the editor, as he
himself says with regret, lacked the privilege of an early clas-

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 19

sical education.! The type of this Greek Testament appears
to be the same as that used in the “‘ Enchiridion of Epictetus,”
mentioned above as probably the first Greek book published
in America, with, however, more recent forms for some of the
letters intermingled. The use of the type can be traced in a
series of small Greek grammars, and other books, printed in
Philadelphia, by Carey, Aitken, and Fry, respectively.

Still another Griesbach New Testament has been issued in
this country; printed, however, without either breathings or
accents. This is the notorious ‘‘Emphatic Diaglott” now
regularly published by the “ phrenological” firm, S. R. Wells
& Co., of New York. It is an astonishing edition, by reason
of its high price, its mysterious name, and its other qualities.
It was first published by the editor, Benjamin Wilson, at
Geneva, Illinois; the issue extending over a period of seven
years, ending in 1863. The second edition, or the first issued
in a complete form, was published by Fowler & Wells, New
York, in 1865; the editor’s preface being dated 1864. Its
claims are best set forth by its title: ‘“‘The Emphatic Diaglott:
containing the Original Greek Text of what is commonly styled
the New Testament, (according to the Recension of Dr. J. J.
Griesbach, ) with an Interlineary Word for Word English Trans-
lation; a New Emphatic Version, based on the Interlineary
Translation, on the renderings of eminent critics, and on the
various readings of the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209 in the
Vatican Library. Together with Illustrative and Explanatory
foot notes, and a copious selection of References; to the whole
of which is added, A Valuable Alphabetical Appendix.” No
remarks need be made upon the style of editing, or upon
either of the translations. The Griesbach margin is generally
omitted, except when it happens to coincide with a “ Vatican
Manuscript, No. 1209” reading. But as to the source of these

1 Abner Kneeland (b. 1774; d. 1844) was a Baptist clergyman, then Univer-
salist, then Deist. He edited a Universalist periodical in Philadelphia (1821-23) ;
the Olive Branch, N. Y.; founded the /#vestigator at Boston (1832); in 1836 was
tried before the Supreme Court at Boston for blasphemy. He published several
other books.

20 I, H. Hall, (1882.

Vatican readings, I judge from sundry indications, such as
“Evpoxd\vowyv” (Acts 27: 14) without note of a variant, that
it was some reprint of the inaccurate edition of Angelo Mai;
probably that of Appleton, New York, 1859.

The form of this ‘‘ Emphatic Diaglott”! is a 12mo, appar-
ently; with no paging or sheet signatures, except in the Ap-
pendix, which has pp. 44. As far as I have traced this edition,
it has reappeared in 1871, 1876, and 1880; also the Gospel
of Luke separately in 1878, in quest of patronage through
the “ International Sunday-School Lessons.”

V. The Stephanic Editions.

The Stephanic editions are treated separately from the Mill
editions, only because the phenomena in America require it.
They form the next thread to be taken up in chronological
order. The first of these was the edition of Peter Wilson,
LL. D., Professor Emeritus of Columbia College, New York.
This was first published in 1822, at Hartford, Connecticut, by
Oliver D. Cooke & Sons; stereotyped by Hammond Wallis,
New York. In Reuss’s Brdbltotheca N. T. Gr., p. 163 (and its
“Index Editionum,” p. 296), the first issue is mistakenly
set down as “New York, stereotypis Hammondi Wallis.
1808.” But stereotyping was not introduced into America
till about 1813; and Peter Wilson was not Professor Emeritus
of Columbia College till 1820; and about 1808 he must have
been too busy with his Latex Prosody (New York, 1810) to
be editing a Greek Testament. Indeed, his known labors and
published works account pretty well for all his time. (See
Dr. H. Drisler’s art., Wilson, Peter, in Johnson’s Cyclopedia.)
Moreover, Reuss had not seen an edition of 1808, nor does he
state his authority. The origin of the error is probably to be
seen on p. 137 of Reuss’s Bibliotheca — in a confusion for the

1 This word, I am informed, has been used as meaning z#terlinear ; and there-
fore may not be a mistake for “Diglott.” But in the book itself it is not the
“interlineary” part that is “emphatic,” but the other English version.

2 Peter Wilson, b. 1746, in Scotland, studied at the Univ. of Aberdeen, re-
moved to New York 1763, member of New Jersey Legislature 1777-83, codifier
of the New Jersey laws 1783, Prof. in Columbia College 1789-92 and again 1797~
1820. In 1820 he was made Professor Emeritus. d. 1825.

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America, 21

moment with the (Scotch or) English printer, Andrew Wilson.
An index error in O’Callaghan’s American Bibles, p. 414, of
“C. P. Wilson” for “ curva P. Wilson,” may have added to the
confusion. Reuss had seen no edition earlier than 1829.
This edition of Wilson is a 12mo, pp. 368, with no acces-
sory matter; but bearing on the titlepage the statement that it
is ‘‘ad exemplar Roberti Stephani accuratissime impressum.”
Dr. Edward Robinson had written to Reuss that “it has no
critical value, and probably Prof. Wilson did nothing more
than read the proofs.” But Reuss found otherwise. He states
that out of the 56 differences of moment between the first
(1546) and third (1550) editions of R. Stephanus, Wilson re-
tains the reading of the first in 38 places; also that he deserts
the latter in 22 other places. All which I have verified. The
places which Reuss gives in particular may be summarized as
follows: from the Complutensian N. T., as retained in Ste-
phanus of 1546, to Erasmus or Elzevir, 10 places; from Eras-
mus, as retained by Stephanus of 1546, to the Complutensian,
2 places; from the older Stephanus to the later, 6 places;
also, 3 places where the first three Stephanus editions agree,
but Wilson leaves them all for Elzevir; and also one Erasmian
reading adopted by Wilson which occurs in neither the Ste-
phanus nor the Elzevir editions. (See Reuss, Bzbotheca,
pp. 163, 164.) The places not given in particular can be
easily picked out from the lists (zdem, pp. 50-58).' An ex-

1 The places specified 7” particular by Reuss are as follows: departures from .
the Complutensian to Erasmus or Elzevir, Matt. 9: 17, &u@drepa for &éupdrepor ;
Matt. 26: 52, &moAodvra: for &roPavotyra:; Mark 11: 1, BnOpayy for ByOcpayih ;
Matt. 24: 31, odAmryyos pwvijs for odAmiyyos nal ports; I Pet. 2: 21, quay, Huiy
for dua, duty; Luke §: 19, 8a molas for moias; Matt. 19: 9, ef uh éwl wopy. for uh
ér) wopy.; Matt. 21: 1, same as Mark 11:1; Luke 3: 2, dpxsepéwy for apxiepews ;
Rom. 2: 5, omitting xa) after dwoxaAdpews. Departures from Erasmus to Com-
plutensian: Acts 12: 25, SavaAos for MadAos [this also in R. Steph. 1551]; 2 Tim.
4:13, peadvny for pa:ddvnv. Leaves R. Steph. 1546 for a later R. Steph.: Mark
8: 34, €A@ety for axoAouvdetv; Mark 14: 32, €ws mpocedtmpa: for ews mpooedtoua;
Mark 8: 13, eis rd wAotoy for eis mAotov; I Cor. 15: 33, xpno@ for xpnora; Phil.
2:1, ef rwa for ef tes; Rev. 10: 4, wh Tavra ypddns for wh Tavra ypdgns. Leaves
Steph. for Elz.: Matt. 21:7, éwexd@:cay for éwexd@ioev [this also Steph. 1551];
Coloss. 1: 2, KoAogoats for KoAagoais; I Pet. 3: 21, 6 wal judas for & Kad has.
Erasmian unknown to Steph. or Elz., Mark 7 : 26, Supogowlkiooa for Supopolneaca.
The differences of particularly mentioned, z. ¢, the 38 first mentioned above,
can easily be picked out from Reuss’s lists (dem, pp. 50-54).

22 Ll. H. Hall, (1882.

amination of these variations from the Stephanic editions,
without going any farther, will make us agree entirely with
Reuss — “editionem hic quoad textum plane singularem
reperi” (zdem, p. 163).

Wilson’s New Testament has had an enormous circulation,
and is still in use by very many. The editions which have
come to my knowledge are the following: Hartford, Cooke,
1822, 1825, 1827, 1829; Philadelphia, Towar & Hogan, 1829,
1831, 1833; Philadelphia, Haswell (with other firms, one in
Pittsburgh), 1838; Philadelphia, Barrington & Haswell, not
dated, but issued in 1854; Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1854,
1858, 1859, 1860.

Following Wilson, in the same family, and next also in order
of time, comes one of the most remarkable pieces of book-
making to be found in modern sacred literature. This pro-
fesses to be John Leusden’s, with the Latin version of Arias
Montanus; also to have Leusden’s 1900 select verses marked
with a *, besides his f and {, for their several purposes. The
title is evidently copied from the Leusden edition of Long,}
so as to have an orthodox and market-catching title for a
Greek-Latin edition. It is a12mo, pp. 775, Greek and Latin in
parallel columns, and first published in New York by Collins
and Hannay, stereotyped by Hammond Wallis & Co. Reuss
(tdem, pp. 128, 129), without seeing it, had noted it as a gen-
uine Leusden, on the authority of a distinguished American
clergyman, a college president and theological professor. But
the fact is otherwise, as Reuss would have known had he seen
that edition; for he did detect it in the repetition of 1858.
So far from being a Leusden, of the Elzevir family, it is noth-
ing but a Wilson, from plates that the stereotyper (who two
years before had stereotyped Wilson) could easily furnish,
and apparently did; with scarcely more alteration than to cut
them in half lengthwise, so as to fit the pieces alongside the
Latin column. Wilson, however, is altered in one place, viz.,

1 Long was employed as a printer by Collins & Hannay for other publica-
tions. The names of Collins, Hannay, Long, and Dean all appear on the title-
page in some books.

Vol. xiii.) Greek New Testament as Published in America. 23

by inserting the verse Luke 17: 36, so as to accommodate the
Latin and tally better with the real Leusden editions. But
besides the general falsehood of the title, these minor state-
ments about the 1900 select verses marked with a *, and the
+, and the f, are false likewise. No trace whatever of any of
them appears in the text.

O’Callaghan (Amer. Bibles, p. 368), first finding this book
in its issue of 1858, unsuspectingly and innocently remarks
that it inverts the order of the verses Matt. 23: 13, 14; not
knowing that this inversion was one of the distinguishing
characteristics of a family of texts different from Leusden.

The deceptive character of this edition is only equalled by
the extent of its success. It is still in print, apparently from
the very same plates as at first, and still finds a ready market.
I am informed by the Philadelphia booksellers that this edi-
tion, together with Wilson and the Polymicrian, are the ones
which the new crop of students, every autumn, chiefly pur-
chase. It may readily be recognized by a mistake in the title
to Matthew, where an O still holds the place of a 9, as it has
done from the beginning.

The re-issues which have come to my knowledge are the
following: New York, Collins, 1835, 1840; New York, Dean
(also Collins), 1840; New York, Dean, 1844, 1849; Phila-
delphia, Lippincott, 1855, 1858, 1859, 1860, 1863, 1865, 1878,
1880. Wilson under false colors has had a circulation rather
more extended than Wilson under the true.

Whatever doubt may be entertained of the propriety of
classing the two foregoing publications among the Stephanic
editions, none can exist with regard to the reprint of Scriv-
ener’s convenient manual, by Holt, at New York, 1879.
Scrivener’s Manual, as is well known, is a reprint of the third
edition (1550) of R. Stephanus, with footnotes showing the
different readings of the most noted critical editors, and a
different type to mark the variant places. It first appeared in
1850, and has reached at least its ninth edition; those of 1873,
and later, having been considerably revised.

24 I. Hl. Hall, (1882.

VI. Zhe Knapp Editions.

Knapp’s text was the next to make its appearance; in the
shape of a Harmony of the Gospels constructed by Dr.
Edward Robinson on the basis of Newcome, and with New-
come’s notes; published at Andover, by Gould & Newman
in 1834; 8vo, pp. xxvill, 328. Knapp’s fourth edition! is ap-
parently the text here followed. Knapp’s text differed some-
what from Griesbach, but seems to have inserted only one
reading peculiar to himself; the other variants coming from
other less known editors, among whom Mace (1729, published
anonymously — too much censured in his own time, and too
much neglected later) seems to be chiefly followed. Knapp’s
- editions were published at Halle in 1797, 1813, 1824, 1829,
1840. The second and third are identical; and so, again, are
the fourth and fifth.

Knapp’s text again appeared in “The Student’s New Tes-
tament,” edited by R. B. Patton, and published by Charles
Starr, New York, 1835. It was printed on ruled writing-paper
with very wide margins (the edition being intended for note-
taking students), and so arranged that a verse always ends at
the foot of a page. Otherwise this edition keeps Knapp’s
paragraphs, also his spaces to mark sub-paragraphs (like
Bengel’s before Knapp, and Westcott & Hort’s more recently) ;
and all his other conveniences and accessory matter. It has
also a preface by Patton. It is a reproduction of Knapp’s
fourth edition entire. This, stereotyped, was issued again at
New York by J. C. Riker, in 1845, and by the same again,
without date. It was to be had either separately or bound up
with the English Old Testament, printed on the same ruled
paper with broad margins. The whole formed ‘‘ The Student's
Bible.” It was a large 4to, the New Testament having pp.
xix, foll. 248; the numbering of the leaves containing the text
being by leaves or folios, not by pages.

1 That is, the fourth genuine Knapp. The edition published by Valpy,

London, 1824, though called “fourth edition,” is really an altered reprint of the
third.

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America, 25

VII. Muscellaneous.

From this point onward we traverse ground more familiar,
where little more than enumeration is necessary.

The American edition of Bloomfield (2 vols. 8vo, pp. xxxii,
597, 631) appeared at Boston in 1837, under the superin-
tendence of Moses Stuart, and with a preface by him. The
publishers were Perkins & Marvin; also Henry Perkins, Phil-
adelphia. It is a difficult matter to trace or to enumerate all
the re-issues. Perkins & Marvin seem to have published five
editions, and then to have transferred the work to Lippincott.
And there is apparently some confusion in the numbers. 1
have seen many of different dates; the last issued at Phil-
adelphia in 1868, by J. B. Lippincott & Co., designated as the
fourteenth American edition. This book is more noteworthy
as a multum in parvo commentary than as a text. In the lat-
ter point of view, indeed, it is behind the age in almost every
respect. It is to be considered as an altered Mill; but it has
little critical merit of the desirable sort. Its mention of the
readings of the MSS. is made in a manner so loose and care-
less that the natural expansion thereof in the ‘ninth edition
(London, 1855) results in many statements wholly imaginary ;
such, for example as citing the Vatican MS. in a portion of
the New Testament where that MS. is lacking! The first
original Bloomfield appeared at London in 1832; the second,
much amended and improved, in 1836. It is this second
edition which is reproduced in the American edition.

Bloomfield’s minor edition (London, several editions be-
tween 1840 and 1860), 12ma, was imported by Lippincott,
and is said to be seen sometimes with their imprint, but I have
seen it only with their name on the back of the bound volume.
I do not know that this edition has ever been reprinted in

1 That, however, is scarcely equal to the Lord Bishop of London’s remark in
The Speaker’s Commentary on 1 Tim. 3: 16 (N. T. vol. iii, p. 780): “ The Vatican
MS. cannot be appealed to [z. ¢. as to whether the reading is 8s or 6eds], because
the jealousy of Rome has prevented accurate collation, and the edition published
by Cardinal Mai proves to be not so much a faithful reproduction of the MS. as
an edition of the New Testament grounded upon it.” The Lord Bishop surely
ought to know that the Vatican MS. does not contain the Pastoral Epistles.

26 I. H. Hal, (1882.

America. (For the curious matter of its readings — their al-
leged agreement and actual difference with the larger editions
—see Reuss, Bibhoth. N. T. Gr., p. 238.)

Robinson’s Hahn,! the next in order (12mo, pp. xxviii,
508), is also too well known to need description. It first ap-
peared in 1842, with three different forms of titlepage, two of
them dated. One of these was published at New York, by
Leavitt & Trow; the other at Boston, by Crocker & Brewster.
The third, without date, bears the imprint of Leavitt & Allen,
New York; and this was often re-issued. The other dated
issues which have come to my knowledge are: New York,
Leavitt, 1845, 1854, 1857; New York, Appleton, 1868, 1875.

Robinson’s Harmony (8vo, pp. xx, 235) naturally belongs
to the same text. This, Robinson’s own arrangement, and
Hahn’s text, was published in 1845, at Boston, by Crocker &
Brewster. Other issues, the same place and publisher, 1851,
1853 (rev. ed.), 1857, 1859, 1862, 1865.

Another specimen of the Hahn text appears in the “ Col-
lectanea Evangelica,” or selections from the Gospels, with a
passage or two from the Acts, arranged in “ chronological
order” so as to form a connected history of the principal
events in the life and ministry of Christ. Its compiler is
N. C. Brooks, A.M., then principal of the high school in Bal-
timore, afterwards LL.D., and president of the (Methodist)
Baltimore Female College. The ‘‘Collectanea”’ was intended
as a school book,’ and is provided with notes and a lexicon.
It is a rather small 16mo, pp. 210, published at Baltimore,
1847, two editions the same year, by Cushing & Brother, also
Sorin & Ball at Philadelphia; third edition, New York, A. S.
Barnes & Co., also Cincinnati, H. W. Derby & Co., 1849.

To the same Hahn text conform also Owen’s Acts,® 12mo,

1 All the American Hahn texts are the cav/ier. The later Hahn text, 1861,
etc., has not been reprinted here.

2 One of a series of school books edited by the compiler; a series recom-
mended by Edgar A. Poe, then editor of the Broadway Fournal, N. Y. His
recommendation is printed in the fly-leaves of the first two editions of the “Col-

lectanea.”
8 John Jason Owen, D.D., LL.D., b. 1803, d. 1869, president of the College

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 27

pp. xii, 276, New York, Leavitt, 1850, 1852, 1856; New York,
Appleton, 1869, 1876; and chiefly also Prof. Samuel W. Tur-
ner’s editions of several Epistles, with English translation, and
a commentary. These were, Hebrews, pp. viii, 186, N. Y.,
Stanford & Swords, 1852; Romans, pp. xvi, 252, N. Y., Stan-
ford & Swords, 1853, and again, 1855; Galatians, pp. xiii, 98,
N. Y., Dana & Co., 1856; Ephesians, pp. xix, 198, N. Y.,
Dana & Co., 1856; allin 8vo. All these are known as works
of high character.

At this point comes in an edition of the Gospel of John
(12mo, pp. 292), edited by Geo. William Heilig, and pub-
lished at Philadelphia by Charles Desilver, 1861. This is
‘one of the “ Hamiltonian System” series of school-books, as
improved by Thomas Clark, containing an “ interlinear and an-
alytical translation,” and a great deal of accessory matter. One
half of the book seems to be a reprint of James Hamilton’s
Gospel of John in Greek, etc., fifth ed., London, 1847; . and
the other half matter compiled by Heilig, from well known
sources, which he states in full. The Greek text is professedly
that of Theile’s ed. stereotyp., Leipzig, Tauchnitz, 1858.

Tischendorf’s text (ed. viii, cvzt. maj.) is adopted in the
Harmony of the Gospels by Prof. Frederic Gardiner, D.D.,
8vo, published at Andover, by Warren F. Draper, 1871,
1872, 1873, 1875, 1876 (revised ed., pp. lv, 268, 64), 1879,
1880.

The rest of the list seems to be made up merely of reprints
of European editions, or of editions printed in Europe, but
bearing the name and place of an American publisher.

The 8vo edition of Cardinal Angelo Mai’s New Testament

of the City of New York. It is of this edition of the Acts that “J. H.W.” thus
speaks in M0’ Chintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia, vol. vii. p. 496: “It was a frequent
comment of Prof. Owen’s that theological students were unable to combine the
study of Greek and of the Bible at the same time, to remedy which he finally
translated the Acts of the Apostles into Greek, appending a dictionary of the
words in the same language.”” Dr. Owen’s scholarly work has, however, met a
very competent and sensible, as well as wide, appreciation.

28 Il. H. Hall, (1882.

after the Vatican Manuscript was re-issued in New York by
D. Appleton & Co., in 1859, but without the necessary tables
of errata of the Leipzig and London editions.

The first volume (Gospels) of Alford’s Greek Testament
was issued by the Harpers, New York, 1859, 8vo; the entire
work by Lee & Shepard, Boston, 1871, and repeatedly. The
original Alford appeared in London in successive parts, dated
respectively 1859, 1860, 1861, 1862. It has passed through
six editions, each with its revisions and corrections, and partly
through the seventh; the last being stopped by Dean Alford’s
death. It was then printed as a “new edition.” The Amer-
ican editions of Lee & Shepard have been only the English
sheets. An issue of theirs dated 1877 was called the “seventh
edition; ”” but those of 1878 and 1880 were called “ new edi-.
tion.” The editions I have traced appear in the list at the end.
The abridged edition of Alford, by B. H. Alford, is said to
have been imported in sheets by Lippincott, and to bear his
imprint; but I have only seen copies of Longmans’ (London)
edition, with Lippincott’s name on the back of the binding;
as, for example, the edition of 1869. It is a 16mo, pp. xxvii,
644.

Wiley of New York has reprinted the Critical Greek-
English of Bagster (text of Scholz, with various readings of
other editors), 16mo, in 1877 and 1880, besides having his
imprint on editions manufactured in England. Lippincott,
Philadelphia, has also his imprint on sundry editions of the
same book. These editions with Wiley’s or Lippincott’s im-
print are either undated, or dated some year of the last decade.
Wiley’s name appears also upon certain copies of Tregelles’s
New Testament.

Draper of Andover has issued a number of editions of Elli-
cott’s text and commentary — of several of the Epistles of
Paul, both separately and in sets, at various times from 1862
to 1881. |

And last, Westcott and Hort is issued by the Harpers, New
York, 1881, 1882, with an introduction to vol. i. by Dr. Philip
Schaff; besides another edition of the text of vol. 1., inter-
leaved with the Revised English version, 1882. Both these

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 29

editions contain some serious misprints, as, ¢. ¢., @pav for dwar,
in Matt. 10: 9; but they are in the original English plates.

VIII. Zhe Foreign Supply.

Every one knows that the American editions by no means
comprise the entire supply of Greek Testaments used in this
land during the present century. Yet the American editions
— especially the non-critical — have had an immense circula-
tion amongst three classes: (1.) Those who have revered the
textus receptus almost as a matter of religious faith, and have
known nothing of its myriad variations. These have been the
easiest prey for the vendors of the sham editions—a natural
result; but what a commentary upon their ignorant despising
of the labors of conscientious critics! (2.) Those who cared
little for a critical text, and wished only to have a taste of the
original flavor for themselves. (3.) The multitude of stu-
dents who used the New Testament as one of their early aids
in acquiring the Greek language. To these might be added
a fourth: those sermonizers who, not very familiar with the
Greek Testament, used the cheapest means for ‘‘ examining
critically,” as their phrase is, their sermon text, with the help
of lexicon, grammar, and our Common English. version.
These, of course, were the least excusable and the least
profited of all.

But of the foreign editions most current here in the first
half of this century, the popular ones would seem to be the
various Scotch and English editions based on Mill, the Greek-
Latin reprints of Leusden by the Wetsteins and by Wingrave,
etc., with the Knapp and Scholz editions. The scholars had
their Valpys, later their Burtons, and a few others, very much
as they now have their Wordsworth. It is within the course
of the present generation that Webster and Wilkinson, used
a little, gave way to Alford for those who could afford it.
Meanwhile, for popular use, Tischendorf was beginning to
eclipse all others, with the rather feeble rivalry of Scrivener.
The larger editions of Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and
Tregelles, like their predecessors, Mill, Bengel, Wetstein, have
always been within the reach of the better scholars, though
their popular circulation was never contemplated.

30 l. H. Hall, [1882.

At present, while for certain purposes Scrivener’s manual
is, and will be, popularly preferred, it is plain that the choice
of the bulk of students, in the matter of a manual, lies between
Westcott and Hort on the one hand, and Von Gebhardt’s
Tischendorf on the other. The fact is encouraging; for it
shows decidedly the progress of correct ideas. Westcott and
Hort’s edition will win and hold its place by sheer merit; but
the additional conveniences found in Von Gebhardt (the va-
rious readings of Tregelles and of Westcott and Hort, the par-
allel references, etc.), as well as its lower price, give it a very
strong claim upon the preference of students.

Since the Old World must remain the depository of the
vast mass of material for restoring the true text of the Greek
Testament, it is hardly to be supposed that America, at least
for the present, can well supply the critical text for the world.
But American scholars have not been idle or unfruitful in their
contributions to the common end. Were this the proper
place, it would be interesting to sketch in outline their work
of the sort; a work of which the most remarkable item and
example is that, now in progress, of two American scholars
engaged in compiling the Prolegomena which Tischendorf’s
death left wanting to his great critical edition.

But from like or kindred efforts the American scholars have
never improperly hung back; nor are their researches or their
results to be ignored at home, any more than in other quar-
ters of the scholarly world.

IX, Chronological List of Greek New Testaments published in A merica.

NoTE. — A * designates a part only of the Greek New Testament. Where
the entire item is in brackets, the edition is one actually printed abroad. Where
an earlier text or edition is chiefly followed, the earlier name is generally given
in parenthesis at the first occurrence of each example.

1800. (Mill.) C. Alexander. Worcester, Thomas, 12.
1806. Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Bradford, 12.
1806. Leusden. Philadelphia, Bradford, 12.
1809. Griesbach. (3d ed.) Cambridge, Wells & Hilliard, 8.
1814. (Mill.) Boston, Thomas, 12.
* 1814. (Griesbach, 3d ed.) Stuart. Newcome’s Harmony. Andover, Flagg
& Gould, 8.

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America. 31

* 1814.
1821.
1822.

The same, 4.
Leusden, Gr.-Lat. New York, George Long, 12.
(R. Stephanus.) Peter Wilson. Hartford, Cooke, 12.

1822-23. (Griesbach, 3d ed.) Kneeland, Gr.-Eng. Philadelphia, Small, also

1822.
1823.
1823.
1824.
1825.
* 1825.
1827.
1829.
1829.
1831.
1832.
1833.
* 1834.
1835.
- 1835.
1837.
1838.
1840.
1841.
[1842.]
1842.
1842.
1844.
1844.
1845.
* 1845.
1845.
1846.
1846.
1846.
1846.
* 1847.
1847.
* 1847.
* 1847.
1848.
1849.
* 1849.
* 1850.
_ 1850.
* 1851.
* 1852.

* 1852.

Fry, 12.
The same, Gr. only, £2.
The same, Gr.-Eng., 12.
The same, Gr. only, 12.
(Wilson.) Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. New York, Collins & Hannay, 12.
Wilson. Hartford, Cooke, 12.
(Griesbach, 3d ed.) Gospels. Boston, Cummings & Hilliard, 8.
Wilson. Hartford, Cooke, 12.
Wilson. Hartford, Cooke, 12.
Wilson. Philadelphia, Towar & Hogan, 12. .
Wilson. Philadelphia, Towar & Hogan, 12.
(Greenfield.) Polymicrian, Engles. New York, Leavitt, 32.
Wilson. Philadelphia, Towar, Hogan, & Thompson, 12.
(Knapp, 4th ed.) Robinson, Newcome’s Harmony. Andover, Gould, 8.
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. New York, Collins, 12.
(Knapp, 4th ed.) Patton. New York, Starr, 4.
Bloomfield (2d Lond. ed.), Stuart. Boston, Perkins & Marvin, 8.
Wilson. Philadelphia, Haswell, Barrington, & Haswell, 12.
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. New York, W. E. Dean, also Collins, 12.
Polymicrian, Engles. Philadelphia, H. Perkins, 32.
2.a. WRobinson’s Hahn. New York, Leavitt & Allen, 12.
Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Leavitt & Trow, 12.
Robinson’s Hahn. Boston, Crocker & Brewster, 12.
Polymicrian, Engles, Philadelphia, Perkins & Purves, 32.
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. New York, Dean, 12.
Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Leavitt & Trow, 12.
(Hahn.) Robinson’s Harmony. Boston, Crocker & Brewster, 8.
Patton. New York, J. C. Riker, 4.
Bloomfield, 5th Amer. ed. Boston, Perkins, 8.
Polymicrian, Engles. Philadelphia, Perkins, 32.
Polymicrian, Engles. Philadelphia, Perkins & Purves. 32.
Polymicrian, Engles. New York, Barnes, 32.
(Burton.) Spencer, Gospels. New York, Harpers, 12.
(Burton.) Spencer. New York, Harpers, 12.
(Hahn.) Collectanea Evv., N. R. Brooks. Baltimore, Cushing, 16.
The same, 2d ed., 16.
Bloomfield, sth Amer. ed. Boston, Perkins, 8.
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. New York, Dean, 12.
(Hahn.) Coll. Evv., Brooks, 3d ed. New York, Barnes, 16.
(Hahn.) Owen’s Acts. New York, Leavitt, 12.
Polymicrian, Engles. Philadelphia, Perkins, 32.
Robinson’s Harmony. Boston, Crocker, 8.
(Hahn.) Turner’s Hebrews, Gr.-Eng. New York, Stanford &
Swords, 8.
Owen’s Acts. New York, Leavitt, 12.

32 I, H. Hall, {1882.

=
*

* *& & & €

=
*

1853. Robinson’s Harmony, rev. ed. Boston, Crocker, 8.
1853. (Hahn.) Turner’s Romans, Gr.-Eng. New York, Stanford & Swords, 8.

[1854.] #.d@. Wilson. Philadelphia, Barrington & Haswell, 12.

1854. Wilson. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1854. Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Leavitt, 12.

1854. (Elzevir.) Strong’s Harmony. New York, Riker, 12.

1854. The same. New York, Harpers, r2.

1854-1858. (Mill.) Gr.-Eng. Amer. Bible Union, New York, 4.

1855. Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1855. (Hahn.) Turner’s Romans, Gr.-Eng. New York, Stanford & Swords, 8.

1856. Owen’s Acts. New York, Leavitt, 12.

1856. (Hahn.) Turner’s Galatians, Gr.-Eng. New York, Dana & Co., 8.

1856. (Hahn.) Turners Ephesians, Gr.-Eng. New York, Dana & Co., 8.

1857. Robinson’s Harmony. Boston, Crocker, 8.

1857. Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Leavitt, 12.

1858. Wilson. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1858. Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1858. Amer. Bible Union, Gr.-Eng., 2d ed. of sundry parts. New York, 4.

1859. Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1859. Spencer, Gospels. New York, Harpers, 12.

1859. Robinson’s Harmony. Boston, Crocker, 8.

1859. Wilson. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12. °

1859. Codex Vaticanus, Mai. New York, Appleton, 8.

1859. Spencer. New York, Harpers, 12.

1859. Strong’s Harmony. New York, Harpers, 12.

1859. Alford, Gospels. New York, Harpers, 8.

[18s59. (Scholz.) Critical Gr-Eng. New York, Wiley, 16.]

1860. Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1860. Wilson. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1860. Ellicott, Galatians. Andover, Draper, 8.

1860. Amer. Bible Union, Gr.-Eng., 2d and 3d edd. of certain parts. New
York, 4.

1860. [Hackett,] Philemon, Gr.Eng. New York, Amer. Bib. Union, small 4.

1861. (Theile.) Geo. Wm. Heilig, John, Gr.-Eng. Philadelphia, Desil-
ver, 12.

1861. Amer. Bible Union, Gr.-Eng. New York, 4.

1862. Robinson’s Harmony. Boston, Crocker, 8.

1862. Ellicott, Ephesians. Andover, Draper, 8.

1863. Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1863. Ellicott, Ephesians. Andover, Draper, 8.

1863-4. (Griesbach, 3d ed.) B. Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, Gr.-Eng. Ge-

neva, Illinois, 12.

1864. Ellicott, Thessalonians. Andover, Draper, 8.

1865. B. Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, Gr.-Eng. New York, Fowler &
Wells, 12.

1865. Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.

1865. Robinson’s Harmony. Boston, Crocker, 8.

1865. Ellicott, Epp. Paul, whole set. Andover, Draper, 8.

-1865. Ellicott, Pastoral Epp. Andover, Draper, 8.

Vol. xiii.] Greek New Testament as Published in America.

1865.
1865.

1866.

eee ke Hh Hh OH

1866.

1868.

* 1868.
[? 1869.

# 1860.

{1870.

1871.

[1871.

* 1871.
* 1871.
* 1871.

[1872.
* 1872.

[187 3.

* 1873.
187 5.
1875.
1875.
1875.
1875.
1876.
* 1876.
* 1876.
*

1876.
1876.
1877.

*. 8 © ©
ot

(o()

“J

Ke)

nm
— pe
SS
m O

1865.
1865.

1866.

Ellicott, Galatians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Ephesians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Philippians, Colossians, etc. Andover, Draper, 8.
Ellicott, Thessalonians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Pastoral Epp. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Galatians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Ephesians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Bloomfield, 14th Amer. ed. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 8.
Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Appleton, 12.

Ellicott, Epistles, whole set. Andover, Draper, 8.

B. H. Alford (Alford abridged). Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.]
Owen’s Acts. New York, Appleton, 12.

Tregelles. London, Bagster; New York, Wiley, 4.]

B. Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, Gr.-Eng. Geneva, IIl., 12.
Alford. Boston, Lee & Shepard, 8.]

Ellicott, Epistles, whole set. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Philippians, Colossians, etc. Andover, Draper, 8.
(Tischendorf.) Gardiner’s Harmony. Andover, Draper, 8.
Alford, 6th ed. Boston, Lee & Shepard, 8.]

Gardiner’s Harmony. Andover, Draper, 8.

Alford, 6th ed. Boston, Lee & Shepard, 8.]

Gardiner’s Harmony. Andover, Draper, 8.

Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Appleton, 12.
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.
(Scholz.) Critical Gr.-Eng. New York, Wiley, 16.
Spencer. New York, Harpers, 12.

Gardiner’s Harmony. Andover, Draper, 8.

B. Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, Gr.-Eng. New York, Wells, 12.
Owen’s Acts. New York, Appleton, 12.

Ellicott, Philippians, Colossians, etc. Andover, Draper, 8.
Ellicott, Thessalonians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Galatians. Andover, Draper, 8.

(Scholz.) Critical Gr.-Eng. New York, Wiley, 16.
Alford, 7th ed. Boston, Lee & Shepard, 8.]

Alford, “new edition.” Boston, Lee & Shepard, 8.]
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.
Ellicott, Epistles, whole set. Andover, Draper, 8.

B. Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, Luke. New York, Wells, 12.
(R. Stephanus, 3d ed.) Scrivener. New York, Holt, 16.
Ellicott, Epistles, whole set. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Galatians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Ellicott, Ephesians. Andover, Draper, 8.

Gardiner’s Harmony. Andover, Draper, 8.

B. Wilson, Emphatic Diaglott, Gr.-Eng. New York, Wells, 12.
(Scholz.) Critical Gr-Eng. New York, Wiley, 16.
Pseudo-Leusden, Gr.-Lat. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 12.
Ellicott, Epistles, whole set. Andover, Draper, 8.
Gardiner’s Harmony, rev. ed. Andover, Draper, 8.
Ellicott, Pastora] Epistles. Andover, Draper, 8.

34 A. C. Merriam, . [1882.

1881-82. Westcott & Hort (Schaff). New York, Harpers, 16.
1882. Westcott & Hort (Schaff), Gr-Eng. New York, Harpers, 16.

Without Date ; and not enumerated in the foregoing.

(Greenfield.) Polymicrian, Engles. Philadelphia, Theo. Bliss, 32.
The same. Philadelphia, Peck & Bliss, 32.

The same. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 32.

Robinson’s Hahn. New York, Leavitt & Allen, 12.

(Knapp, 4th ed.) Patton. New York, Riker, 4.

(Scholz.) Critical Gr..Eng. New York, Wiley, 16.

The same. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 16.

[The same. London, Bagster ; New York, Wiley, 16.]

{The same. London, Bagster; Philadelphia, Lippincott, 16.]
[Greenfield, Polymicrian. London Bagster; New York, Wiley, 32.]
[The same. London, Bagster; Philadelphia, Lippincott, 32.]

With regard to the sources of information upon which the fore-
going statements rest, they are almost entirely from personal inspec-
tion of the books themselves. The chief exception is in the case
of Ellicott’s Epistles and Gardiner’s Harmony, wherein I have
chiefly, but not entirely, depended upon information obtained di-
rectly from the publisher. A very few others, scarcely half a dozen
in all, rest upon personal information by letter from well known
Biblical scholars. A pretty full set of specimens are in my own
possession. The works of bibliographers and catalogue compilers
have been of no little help in personal search; but I have not relied
on their unverified statements.

Il. — Alien Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek.

By AUGUSTUS C. MERRIAM,

PROFESSOR IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

IN most languages possessing a definite article it appears
to be a very general law that nothing shall be inserted between
the article and its noun except such words or phrases as are
attributive to the noun. So strictly in fact does this obtain
that it may be regarded as a law founded in the very nature
of simple and unaffected language, while any violation is either

34 A. C. Mernami,, . [1882.

1881-82. Westcott & Hort (Schaff). New York, Harpers, 16.
1882. Westcott & Hort (Schaff), Gr..Eng. New York, Harpers, 16.

ee
s e
OO
-
— 7, 2 em

PRUPBSOVUBR AN FUE te UU srs

IN most languages possessing a definite article it appears
to be a very general law that nothing shall be inserted between
the article and its noun except such words or phrases as are

r attributive to the noun. So strictly in fact does this obtain
that it may be regarded as a law founded in the very nature
of simple and unaffected language, while any violation is either

Vol. xiii.} Alten Intruston between Article and Noun in Greek. 35

poetic, or due to poetic influence in a highly rhetorical and
elevated style. The order of words in Cicero and Livy is so
artificial, and bears so many resemblances to the Greek, that
if the Latin had ever possessed an article we might expect to
find alien elements intruded into the attributive position. But
in the Romance Languages, which have flowed from the Latin
and have developed the article, no such intrusion is admitted ;
a fact which may be placed among the many other evidences
that these modern languages sprang from the simple folk-
Latin, instead of the artificial and stately prose of the Au-
gustan Era. So it is, also, with the Modern Greek vernacular,
though what individual purists may do in their eager imitation
of ancient models may be hard to assert. In general its only
insertions appear to be the genitive of the personal pronouns,
and the demonstratives in agreement with the noun, both fol-
lowing an attributive standing next to the article. This, too, is
. exactly what occurs occasionally in ancient Greek, and has
been noticed frequently enough by our grammarians; and, in
fact, is scarcely an exception to our general principle; rather
the wonder is that, with all the comprehensiveness of the
Greek feeling for the attributive, these pronouns should have
ever had any other position than the attributive.

Ancient Greek, however, exhibits a remarkable violation of
the general law, whereby alien words of every class—verbs,
adverbs, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, conjunctions, nay, even
conditional, nominal, final, and other clauses—are thrust into
the attributive position; a fact which I have never been able
to find formulated in any grammar or commentary, ancient or
modern, although many editors in the treatment of individual
cases appear to have had a consciousness of the principle
underlying the idiom. To exhibit the law of this idiom, and
to show its prevalence, as well as its development and prog-
ress through the various stages of the language, is the object
of this paper.!

The ancient rhetoricians gave the name darepBardev xa’
uTrépGecw or Kat’ advactpopyy, to any wide separation of the arti-

1 The references in this paper are to the Teubner text-editions. The page of
the Teubner text is made the standard for the statistics.

36 A. C. Merriam, [1882.

cle from its noun, and the stock quotation as an example is
Dem. Ol. ii. 15: tv Tod S:amrpdtacOar TabdO’ & undels Ta@ Torte
GdXos MaxeScvar Bacirevs Sofav. If this were the only spec-
imen they give, it would be doubtful if the class to be treated
here could be placed under that head; for any word or phrase
which individually or comprehensively forms an attribute of
the noun, may properly be placed in the attributive position,
although long and unwieldy clauses are usually avoided by
writers in the simple style. Now the entire hyperbatic clause
in the Olynthiac passage is an adjunct of do€av, and is con-
sequently in its admissible position; something like Chap-
man’s, ‘The golden-rod-sustaining Argus’-Guide.” An
anonymous rhetorician in Spengel, iii. p. 136, quotes not
only this passage from the Olynthiac, but also o 8’ dp’ &xOope
haidipos “Extwp (M 462), adding that the latter stands for
0 &€ haidipos” Extwp &xOope. Likewise Phoebammon (Sp. iii.
p. 48) cites under this head, o Seiva rov Seiva érvarnaer étaipov.
The last example illustrates what I shall distinctively call
umepBarov xa’ irépOecw, and also exemplifies the law which
regulates the idiom.

This law is simply an extension of that recognized by our
grammars in the case of the genitive of the personal pro-
nouns, and the demonstratives, namely, that the alien element,
as the verb here, zs admitted only when an attributive also
stands between the article and its noun, and normally the
adjunct must precede the alien element. ‘To speak figuratively,
the verb here is a stranger, prohibited from entering the house-
hold without the personal presence and introduction of one of
the family; or, a metic that must have his patron. There is
a third and familiar class of words, neither citizens, nor yet
exactly metics; I mean the particles, which may stand at any
time between article and noun. These as given by Kiihner are
pév, wev ydp, wev odv, Sé, 8’ ody, yé, Sé ye, 6€ nai (rare), Té, ré
yap, Tol, tolvuv, yap, 67, dpa, ad, péev odv Sn, and, rarely, the
parenthetic oiuar. To this list some additions might be made,
especially in the combinations, but it is substantially complete
and well known. To the most of these particles this position
belonged by prior right of immemorial occupation, and the

Vol. xiii.] Alzen Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek. 37

rest have gained it by enlisting under the same standard.
Long before the demonstrative o had begun to weaken into
the article, the particles had become firmly established in the
second or third place in the clause, and we see them often in
Homer following this demonstrative, a position which was not
altered by the altered power of the latter as article.

Ground being thus laid, we may begin the task of tracing
this idiom historically. Should the dictum of Aristarchus in
relation to the article in Homer be admitted without challenge,
it would be illogical to examine the Iliad and Odyssey on this
point; but few at the present time incline to accept it without
abatement; and, as the germ, if not the full flower of so much
else in the Greek language is found in these poems, so this
idiom occurs in various stages of advancement, and occasion-
ally in entire harmony with its completed form. The posi-
tion of o at the beginning of a line with a proper noun at the
end, and various words between, is very familiar. Here o is
explained, and rightly, as the original demonstrative, and the
noun as its appositive, and instances of the same may be found
occasionally in the later poets. But an example such as: le
6’ 60’ 0 KAvTOS Hev ’AxiAXreds, T 320, is quite like many prose
forms. So, too, the passage quoted by the anonymous rhet-
orician, referred to above, is poetic only in the position of the
verb before the attributive. Phrases beginning with of d\Xor
frequently approach or coincide with prose constructions; of
6’ dAXot wpos “Odvutrov icav Geol, P 518; of 8’ adXou od oduy
mapecav Oeoi, A 75; ot 8’ Gdrrou Girorynte vewtepor avdpes
Erovtat, y 363; tev §’ Gdrr\wv ovtwa olda avOperwr, £ 176;
tov 6’ add\wv py tis ’Ayatav rev0écOw, mr 133: likewise with
some other adjectives, as of 8’ dpa mdyres émiayov ules
'Axaav, H 403; THv orony pev drexrpoddryouue XdpvBo., pw
113, 428; 0 Opacds efrrer’ ’OSvaceds, « 436: with the adverb;
tav wpoobev érrevOopueba Kréa avdpav, I 524: and in the case
of the possessive there is complete harmony; as, ryv onv
moTideypevot opunv, B 403; Tos pey éovs npvKaxe povuyas
immous , E 321; To éuov Sor appa, F585; rd o@ ert pale,
T 483; 7) 8’ eux ovde arep vlos everrAnaOjvas axoitis, X 452; cf.
A 608, 6 71. Even the preposition appears between the

38 A, C. Merriam, [1882.

attributive and the noun, as among the later poets; 7@ o@ émi
paleo, T 483; THs auTHs Evex’ ayyedins, 7 334. These exam-
ples do not pretend to be exhaustive, but they are sufficient
to show that the idiom began early and began in poetry, where
it must still be traced for some centuries to come before the
rise of prose composition. And here I must add that my sta-
tistics below do not pretend to be exhaustive in the wide field
which has been included in the survey. Some cases will nat-
urally slip by one; even a Homer might nod in such a task; but
the cases adduced are actually noticed, so that the sum total
in any instance may be somewhat greater, but not smaller.
Let this stand, as Herodotus says, for the whole treatise.

Hesiod, in the Works and the Theogony, has a few instan-
ces with proper names, which of course need not be classed
here, and one case with dAdos, if at 8’ drArau par adpar
evrumrveiovalt, be read in Theogony 872, where pawaipa: is
found in many MSS.

Next in order of time come the writers of the Gnomic and
Lyric Period, and in treating these I have followed Bergk in
his Anthologia Lyrica, Teubner text-edition, since we have
there all the most important fragments. Accordingly, I find,
in Tyrtaeus (10, 3) one instance of the idiom; in Archilochus,
3 (50, 57,85); Simonides Amorg., 1; Solon, 2; Sappho, 2;
Erinna, 2; Anacreon, 4; Simonides Ceos, 8; Theognis, 11.
Here, with the vast change in sentiment, manners, govern-
ment, in metre and language, from the Epic, we find an
approximate change in the development of the article, which,
though still removed from the frequency and delicacy of Attic
prose usage, is now fairly established, and the instances of our
hyperbaton are not only clear but also about as frequent as in
the poetry of any period except the tragic. The adjunct reg-
ularly attaches itself to the article, except in Erinna 6, and
Simonides Ceos 117; the intruder is generally a verb, but not
exclusively, and in Solon 27, 3 it is the main part of a tem-
poral clause; the possessive is a favorite as attribute, occur-
ring 5 times, and the preposition with its case becomes the
adjunct in Sappho 29, and Erinna 6. Certain peculiarities
exist which we shall revert to when Herodotus falls under
review.

Vol. xiii.] Alzen Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek. 39

Next in the same Lyric field follows Pindar, where my sta-
tistics exhibit 52 instances, 15.in the Olympic Odes, 18 in the
Pythian, 9 in the Nemean, and 10 in the Isthmian. The at-
tributive uniformly adheres to the article, though where more
than one belongs to the same noun, the foreign element
may be thrust between (O. 1, 68; P. 5,55). In 34 cases the
adjunct is an adjective, 4 times a possessive, once adds,
‘same’, so great a favorite in prose, and appearing already
in Homer; the remainder is made up variously of genitives,
adverbs, prepositional phrases, and participles. The intruded
element is mainly the verb, often with all its adjuncts, whether
subject or predicate or both, so that the number of words
mounts up from four and five to seven and eight or even ten,
forming therein a striking feature of his style. A vocative
phrase occurs thrice, as it did once in Archilochus (85). The
preposition is a favorite; audi thrice, és thrice, éi, év, and
amo each once. Even the predicate adjective occurs alone.
The proper name in apposition with o or 4, and separated
from it by words without adjunct, as in Homer, occurs but
rarely; I have but one actually noted down. If Isth. 1, 14,
TO pev Gppatt teOpirmm yépas be construed according to
Heyne, as I understand him, a difficulty is presented; because
he deems it an unattributive dative placed between article and
noun without attributive. But the Scholiast regards ro as
used adverbially without connection with yépas, and perhaps
rightly; still this is not necessary, since the dative may be
considered a proper attributive depending on some participial
idea unexpressed, as Ta yap S0A@ te pn Sixaip xrnpata, Soph.
O. C. 1026; and we may compare tyv bird Mevnrov ypadnpy,
Xen. Mem. tv. 4, 4, and Kiihner on Mem. ii. 1, 34. Another
case has been sufficiently elucidated by the grammars, and
has its parallels in both prose and poetry. When an attribu-
tive participle has adjuncts of its own, the whole may stand
as compound attributive between article and noun, or part of
the phrase may appear within and a part without, so that even
a word or expression which is itself not attributive to the noun
may be all that remains within, producing an apparent viola-
tion of our general law for this hyperbaton; but it is only

40 A. C. Merriam, [ 1882.

apparent. The example which I have noticed of this in Pin-
dar is O. 13, 53: Tay matpos avtia Myéevay Oepdvay ydpov
aura (cf. Erinna 5).

In Aeschylus I find 84 instances within the space of 257
pages of the Teubner text, or an average of one to every 3
pages, while in Pindar the average was about one to 34 pages.
The Prometheus presents a wide disproportion to the other
plays, containing 37 cases within 34 pages, or one to some-
what less than a page. Of the others, the Supplices has 3
cases, Persae 7, Septem 10, Agam. 14, Cho. 5, Eum. 8. The
attributive is an adjective 51 times, possessive 12 times, geni-
tive 7 times, avros 5 times. It does not adhere so uniformly
as in Pindar to the article. I have noticed three exceptions,
where the alien precedes the adjunct (Suppl. 51, Paley; Agam.
836, 1450). Two of these are Homeric, and one, Agam. 836,
is the well known rots 1’ avros avrov mjpacw, where the order
is partly due to the metre, and partly to the fixity of the ex-
pression avros avrod, though Aeschines (3, 233) says autos
Tyhv auto Suvacteiav, and Xenophon, (Mem. i. 4.9), r7v cav-
Tov ov vrvynv. The same position recurs Soph. Ajax 1132,
O. C. 1356, imitated by Longinus 15, 3 (Spengel i. 264)..
Plato Alc. II. 144 C is a duplication of Soph. O. C. 930;
ToL THY avTos avTov. The construction with the participle
noticed in Pindar occurs Prom. 313, Tov viv dyAov TapovTa.

The foreign element as usual is mainly the verb; d8¢ ap-
pears 4 times, but not yet ovros and éxetvos; the preposition
5 times in the Prom., once inthe Eum. The number of words
forming the inserted phrase is much more moderate than in
Pindar; I have not observed any case of more than five. A
difficulty at first sight is presented by Septem 632, tov avrod
cov Kaciyvntoy, since avTod, as well as cov, has commonly the
predicate position, and our law would be violated; but it is
getting to be pretty well understood that avrot when em-
phatic or semi-reflexive may have the attributive position as
here. An early case is Hes. Theogony 754, piuver THY adris
@pav; and Theogony 470 is similar, roxjas tous avris. Tyr-
taeus (10, 3) has rv 8 avrod mpodutrovra modu, and Theognis,
besides other cases like this, also Tov abrovd ynpwoe TroAN@V

Vol. xiii.] Alien Intrusion between Articleand Noun in Greek. 41

(955), and ray avray avrituyelv érréwv (1334), where, as in the
Aeschylean example, avtod forms the adjunct which intro-
duces the alien word.

A more difficult passage is Prom. 289: To Te yap pe, Soxa,
Euyryevés ot rws écavayxafer, where between ro and Euyryeves
we have pe and Sox, both alien, without a ghost of an attrib-
utive. There are two ways of surmounting this obstacle. It
may be observed that when the article is construed with an
adjective without a noun expressed, the Greek mind did not
regard the ports as closed with the same strictness as with the
noun, and occasionally admitted craft otherwise excluded.
Or we may regard Sox as admitted on the same principle as
its synonym oiuas later on in prose, while ye will fall under
the head of an Jonicism to be treated below.

Sophocles exhibits a marked and continuous increase in his
employment of our idiom. I find 238 instances within 347
of the Teubner pages, or about I to 14 pages; in the Ajax,
25; Elec., 32; O.T., 43; O.C., 49; Antig., 22; Trach., 32;
Philoc., 35. The prominence of the possessive pronoun
among the attributives is a noticeable feature, occurring 97
times, the adjective 90 times, genitive 32 times, adverb 18
times; autos 4 times. I have noted but 5 divorcements of
the article and attributive (Aj. 311, El. 287, O. T. 1171, O.C.
1356, Tr. 117), not including cases where no adjunct occurs,
a few of which are found, mainly with proper names in imita-
tion of Homer, and offer no features differing from those
already noticed among his predecessors, except o 8’ edz’
’Odvacevs, Philoc. 371, which, like Eur. Elec. 781, is also
Homeric. |

The interposed element, for the most part a verb, is here of
greater variety; several times we find conjunctions and con-
junctive clauses; prepositions, 17 times; ovTos, twice; d65e,
twice; éxetvos, once.

Akin to the interposing of non-attributive adjuncts of the
participle, noticed in Pindar, is a similar insertion of adjuncts
of an extruded attributive adjective; thus, O. C. 1514, at
TwoANa Bpovral SiateAcis ; so Aristophanes Pax 294; Aeschines
3,241. Allied to this is rov paxpav aratav Tovey, Aj. 888;

42 A, C. Merriam, [1882.

likewise the interlacing of two nouns both of which have the
article and one, or both, attributives; as, ro Tas ev@dyou otopa
dfpovridos, O. C. 131; cf. Xen. Anab. ii. 6, 29. Still more
common, especially in prose, is the interlacement, where one
is the participle with its article, as o rav Kpioca Bovvopov éxav
axtav, El. 180; cf. 695, Aesch. Eum. 768, Plat. Leg. 657 A,
Protag. 353 A, Hdt. vii. 96, etc. Of course, one of these
phrases must be dependent on the other, and it is interesting
to see how carefully the main feature of our rule is observed,
however intricate the interlacement.

The well known insertion of tpav, O. T. 62, and of jpov,
O. T. 1458, between article and noun without adjuncts is ab-
normal, it is true, but the article in both instances with peév
opposed to a following article with 5é carries it back close to
the Homeric demonstrative. But see tay in 2 Cor. 1, 6
(twice); 7, 7 (thrice); 11, 8; 12, 19; 13,9, without such
reason.

In the 19 plays of Euripides the occurrence of this idiom
is slightly less frequent than in Sophocles, 436 times ac-
cording to my count, or once in about 1? pages. The posses-
sive has nearly the same prominence as in Sophocles, 162
cases, to 168 adjectives, 68 genitives, and 30 adverbs and ad-
verbial phrases. Separation of noun from its adjunct is gen-
erally limited at most to four or five words, as in Sophocles
and Aeschylus, though Eur. Suppl. 741 1s a marked exception
if allowed at all. Severance of adjunct from its article is con-
fined to two or three instances, and the occasional absence of
attributive is to be explained as before. The interposed de-
monstrative is rarer than in Sophocles; I find dd 3 times, odtos
twice, éxeivos not at all. In the use of avros 18 times as
attributive he comes nearer prose. The inserted preposition
is not so common, proportionately, as in Sophocles, there
being only 19 cases of it in all. Of interlaced expressions I
find about a dozen, with a tendency to insert an appositive
proper name before its subject (a@ &é Aids “EXeva xopa, Iph.
Aul. 781), somewhat like 0 Ma/avépos mrotapos, in prose, but
not without attributive. If anywhere, we are strongly tempted
to see a violation of our general law in To dSewov Hv Bean’ idetv,

Vol. xiii.] Alien Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek. 43

Bacch. 760, making dewov predicate; but the commentators
are right in holding to the attributive use.

Aristophanes yields 10 instances from the Clouds, and 13
from the Frogs, or about I in 5 pages; and some of these,
especially in the Frogs, are parodies of tragic lines. The pos-
sessive appears as adjunct 4 times, while the alien is chiefly
the verb; 5 times it is ovros, once évexa, and once tis after an
adjunct. |

In several of these particulars we are nearer the prose of
this period, to which our attention must now be directed.
And in this field we must begin with Herodotus as the earliest
whose writings have come down to us in any entirety. We
know how constant was his imitation of the poets; in fact
Demetrius (Spengel iii. p. 287) says that it is not so much
pipnots as petaGeois. Hence we might expect to find this
hyperbaton with some frequency, as is actually the case. In
the 720 Teubner pages I have counted 109 instances, or I in
6% pages. These are exclusive of certain peculiarities to
be treated by themselves. The possessive was rare as attrib-
utive (3 cases only); but avros occurs 22 times; otherwise
there was no peculiarity in the adjunct. The verb plays the
important part as usual in the hyperbatic element; but odros
enters 24 times (in 14 instances, after avros), and de 3 times.
Of prepositions, only zepé (ii. 43, 148) and efvexa (viii. 100,
ix. 85), are intruded, as is usual in prose. The participle
of the genitive absolute occurs vi. 43 (Trav dAAwy Katare-
AupLEVwOY oTpaTHywVv), examples of which I have found else-
where only Eur. Herc. Fur. 37, Demosthenes De Cor. 18, and
Argument to Andocides iii. The article and participle inter-
lace with article, attributive, and noun, v. 22, and vii. 96. I
have placed by themselves 5 instances (i. 18, 103, vi. 75, vii.
Ili, 115) of the verb interposed between article and parti-
ciple with omitted noun, though here and generally the law
holds that the verb shall stand next to the participle, or at
least follow one or more of the adjuncts of the latter. Notice-
able cases of the attributive phrase, partly without and partly
within, are vil. 124, 184, 11. 53, 87, 169, and vii. 145, which last
is peculiar in having the article repeated after the noun, and

44 A. C. Merriam, [1882.

therefore leaves some ambiguity; but a comparison of i. 207
(ra 5é pot waOnpara ra éovra, Stein), ix. 71, and vii. 172,
seems to settle the question.

The inserted vocative, r7s o7s, I’Nad«e, SovNopevos Sexato-
cuvns, vi. 86, is very rare in prose (Dem. De Cor. 21, Plat.
Alc. ii. 138 A, Xen. Hel. ii. 3, 43), though somewhat of a fa-
vorite in poetry, and that as early as Archilochus, as has been
shown.

There remain to be treated certain violations of our general
law, which fall under three heads, enclitic pronouns, the en-
clitic rls, and the partitive genitive. Now it is a fact easily
observed in Homer that the enclitic pronouns gravitate towards
the head of the clause, and have pretty constantly the second
or third position, especially following the conjunction, and
already there we have such phrases as Tw 6€ of Ow Kupto (B
217), and this fixed position remains a characteristic of the
Ionic dialect. In Archilochus we read 7 6é of copy (29), 7 Sé
ot caOn (97); in Sappho, a dé pw’ pws (2); in Erinna, ra dé
Tot Kada oapata (6); in Hipponax, ot dé wev wavtes oddvtes
(62); in Anacreon, ai 5é peu hpéves (81); in Theognis, of pe
diros (575, 813, 861 — without conjunction; so pot, Hdt. vii.
38). So Hdt. has of 7 times between article and noun without
attributive (sometimes as possessive, sometimes not), soi twice,
ogi thrice. Once of adheres to the article and an adjunct fol-
lows (iii. 153); it occurs after the adjunct, ili. 74, 1x.64; simi-
larly, off at i. 159, 166, vii. 160. jé adheres to the article
once (i. 115), and piv once (v. 46), both with following attrib-
utive (compare Erinna 6, Aesch. Prom. 289, Eur. Hippol. 10,
Hel. 922, Hipponax 62, and the position of these pronouns
in Hdt. when inserted between the preposition and its case, as
vi. 63,92, 50). Imitations of this lonicism appear sporadically
in Attic prose; as, Plat. Phaedr. 236 D (0¢ 5€ wor Aoyos), Sym-
pos. 177 A, Lucian Nigr. 2. In Lucian’s Ionic imitation, De
Dea Syria, he quite outstrips his model. Within 22 pages
he intrudes pot once, of twice, wiv twice. Hdt. once (ii. 65)
extends this usage to duiv; cf. Plat. Apol. 39 C, ro dé vmip
jonv éevavriov aTroBnaeTat. .

Another Ionicism is the insertion of rés without attributive,

Vol. xiii.] Alzen [Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek. 45

occurring 23 times in Hdt.; or if an adjunct is used, tis ad-
heres to the article, as i. 124, 187, 180, iii.63; cf. ii.175. This
seems to follow the same principle as the enclitic pronouns,
and its prevailing position in Homer is the same as theirs.
An example approaching the Herodotean usage is Iliad E
424, Tov Twa Kappélovca ’ Ayatiabwy evirémdwv, where, how-
ever, the attributive is seen, though extruded. Similar to the
Attic is tov 8’ dArAwv py tis ’Ayaim@v, Odyssey m 133, o 62.
Herodotus has dAXo added to 71, ii. 179 (cf. i. 124, Thuc. iii. 5,
Aesch. Prom. 772), but in tev ris "AOnvaiwv avnp, vii. 143, avnp
is extruded.

That the partitive genitive is sometimes intruded without
attributive is a common assertion of the grammars and com-
mentators, but this position is pretty generally confined to
phrases where an adjective or participle ts used without the
noun expressed, in which case, as we have seen, a certain li-
cense is permitted. It is used most commonly by Herodotus
and Thucydides, rarely elsewhere, and then the adjective is
more frequent than the participle. In Hdt. we have it with
the participle, i. 167, iv. 2, v. 77, vi. 57, 119, 130, vii. 110, 129,
Vili. 4, 66, 68, 129; with the adjective, i. 53, 177, ili. 113, iv.
167, vii. 156, ix. 29. In several of these, the genitive is avrov
or avta@yv, all instances of the occurrence of which, after the
article, Stein lumps under one head, as if all were alike. But
we must distinguish three classes, the first of which is the
partitive already noticed Ci. 167, 177, ili. 113, iv. 2, 167, vii.
110, 129, 156, viii. 66, 68, 129). Ino 8 a’tav péyiotoy éort
tetyos (i. 98), placed here by Stein, avtav simply forms a
compound attributive with péysorov, as in TO pév vuy péytoT w
avTav TEpevos (ii. 178), Tod dpiatov avOpwrrewr dotdod (i. 24),
Tov 6€ mavtwy ndicrov axovopatos (Xen. Mem. ii. 1,31). The
second class is where avtov is emphatic, as i. 165; the third,
where it is semi-reflexive, as ii. 133, vi. 30, 111, which is com-
mon in Hellenistic Greek. This last is extended to opewy in
ot Te ohéwv O7réwves, ix. 50; cf. Tous yap dy vrirovs tous c dar,
Thuc. vi. 64, and rovs vouous Tovs odor, Arrian Anab. i. 18, 2.
In Hat. i. 143 we have roios 8é abrav vnoiwrnot, where avtav
is usually regarded as a partitive; but if so, it certainly is a

46 A. C. Merriam, [1882.

rare case, since it stands between article and noun without
attributive, and it may be regarded as a simple “their.” So
ot yap 6) Tav AiBvwv vouases, iv. 187, is a simple variety for
ot AiBves of vopddes. Lastly, of 5é dv Tépoas AdBecxov occurs
at iv. 130, where dy appears to have deserted to the ranks of
the favored particles, as Eur. Phoen. 512, rats (MSS.) yap av
OnBais trode yévorro, Thuc. vi. 64, Aesch. Suppl. 1055 (?),
Hdt. 11. 174 (?). .

The plain style of the Ionic Hippocrates exhibits our hy-
perbaton but rarely; in the treatise De Aere, usually regarded
as genuine, I have but one example.

Turning now to Attic prose I find 11 cases in the first bk.
of Thuc., 97 pp., or I in 9 pp. Only 4 of these have the
verb inserted; the others have 7yov, adrav (partitive), évexa,
wepi, 70n, TL twice.

Xenophon: — Anab. first 4 bks., 138 pp., 9 cases, or I in
15; verb thrice, éveca and obros once. Memorabilia, 141 pp.,
7 cases, or I in 20 pp.; verb 4 times.

Plato: — Apology, 33 pp., 7 cases; verb 3 times, oros twice.
Crito, 16 pp., I case, tis. Protagoras, 63 pp., 7 cases; verb
4 times, ovros and évexa once. Republic, first 3 bks., Ior pp.,
Ig cases; verb II times, ovTos once, éxeivos once. Phaedrus,
68 pp., 20 cases, I in 32 pp.; verb 13 times. Total pages
under review, 281, 50 cases; average, I in 5% pp. These
do not include three instances of the verb between the article
and infinitive and following the adjuncts of the latter, Republic,
332 A, 339 C, 405 C.1 Noticeable: the greater frequency of
occurrence in the poetic Phaedrus, and especially when Soc-
rates professes to be under the poetic afflatus; the Ionic o de
pot Aoxyos, Phaedrus, 236D, Symp. 177 A (already referred
to); Apol. 39 C (quoted above) ; and Phaedrus, 240 C, 7) yap,
oiuat, ypovov iootns, where otwat adheres to the article with
adjunct following. But enough has already been said of all
these peculiarities.

1 Such intrusion between article and infinitive is rare, but in general holds to
the rule that the intruded verb or other word shall follow one or more adjuncts
of the infinitive, as, roby Sduotow Fv ScartacOas yAuKd, Soph. O. C. 769. Dem.
Ol. ii. 3 is an exception. |

Vol. xiii.] Alsen Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek. 47

Turning back to the Orators, I find no instances in the
Helen of Gorgias, and but 2 in the Palamedes. The total
number of pages is 17. No verb.

Alcidimas, in his highly rhetorical Sophistes, has 4 cases
in 11 pp., all verbs.

Antiphon: — 87 pp., 8 cases, or I in II pp.; verb 5 times,
ovTos once according to the MSS.

Andocides : — 63 pp., 4 cases, or I in 16 pp. (rejecting the
speech against Alcibiades); verb 3 times.

Lysias: —the first 11 genuine orations, 89 pp., 5 cases, or
I in 18 pp.; verb 3 times.

Isocrates : — Panegyric, 45 pp., 5 cases; Demonicus, 12 > pp. '
I case; Euagoras, 19 pp., none; total, 76 pp., 6 cases, or I in
124 pp.; all verbs.

Isaeus : — first 3 orations, 48 pp., 4 cases, or I in I2 pp.;
verb once, ovros once, Tis once, éxaaTos once.

Demosthenes : — three Olynthiacs, first Philippic, 37 pp.,
16 times; verb II times, ovros 4 times; De Corona, 80 pp.
(omitting decrees), 34 cases; verb 21 times, ovros 3 times,
éxeivos twice, évexa 3 times. Total number of pages 117, |
49 cases, or about I in 24 pp.

Aeschines : — Adv. Ctes., 78 pp., 30 cases, or I in 22 pp.;
verb 20 times (besides twice between article and participle),
ovros 4 times, éxetvos twice.

Lycurgus : — Leocrates, 41 pp., 6 cases, or I in 7 pp.; verb
5 times. —

Aristotle: — Rhet., first 20 pp., P cases, I in 4 pp.; verb
4 times.

Polybius : — first 30 pp., 15 cases, I in 2 pp.; all verbs.

Apollodorus : — 30 pp., 9 cases, I in 34 pp.; all verbs.

Dion. Hal.: — De Comp. . 20 pp., 14 cases, I in 1% pp.;
13 verbs.

Longinus : — 46 pp., 39 cases, I in If pp.; 31 verbs, ovTos
twice, éxeivos 3 times.

Plutarch : — Lycurgus, 39 pp., 19 cases, I in 2 pp.; 16 verbs,
ovTos Once. .

Lucian : — first 190 pp., 45 cases, I in 42 pp.; verb 8 times,
ovTos I9 times, éxetvos 10 times; omitting demonstratives we

48 A. C. Merriam, [ 1882.

have Ito 12 pp. In his best pieces included here, the Dream,
Timon, Dial. Deorum, Marin., Mort., we may observe a return
to the simplicity of Thuc. and Xen.; for in these 5 pieces the
verb occurs but once.

Arrian : — Anab., first bk., 2 cases, neither of them the verb.
One is ris in the Attic position, while at ii. 26, 4, and vii. 24, 2
it adheres to the article, with attributive and noun following,
the rare position in Herodotus.

New Testament: — Epist. to Hebrews, ris once, verb twice,
all after avros. 1 Corinthians, none. Gospel Matthew, only
n SeEta oov yelp, 5, 30; 5,39. John, none.

It is needless to trace this idiom further. We have seen it
originate in poetry and receive there its fullest development,
attaining its greatest height in the tragedians; Aristophanes,
as in so much else, tends towards prose. Herodotus, domi-
nated by the poets, almost meets Aristophanes; but the other
early prose writers, both historians and orators, employ this
hyperbaton charily, as becomes their simpler style. Demos-
thenes, in his earlier speeches, while still under the influence of
the frugal Isaeus, imitates his master’s frugality; but in the full
flow of his perfected rhetoric, in the Olynthiacs, Philippics, and
De Corona, he surpasses even Pindar and Aeschylus in the rich-
ness of his usage, and in this he is rivaled by his opponent
Aeschines, and even exceeded by Dionysius, by Longinus, by
Plutarch, nay, by Polybius himself. Hence we can see that
for this later period it had become a favorite artifice of lan-
guage for all who made any pretence to rhetorical diction.
That it was taught in the schools as a regular figure is plainly
apparent from the references to it in the rhetoricians, although
they treat it without distinction from the idiom of any wide
separation of the article from its noun, and apparently they
never laid down the law in the case of the alien with the article,
‘perhaps because they did not separate it, or because they
obeyed the law idiomatically but unwittingly, as is the case so
often with us in our mother tongue. Hermogenes regards it’
as a beauty, and indeed it does possess a very comely shape-
liness, especially when the verb is so neatly enclosed within
its own object or subject, or in general when the enclosed

Vol. xiii.] Alten Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek. 49

word bears some governing or governed relation to the en-
compassing phrase, as it does chiefly. Moreover, juxtaposi-
tion of similar or contrasted words is often thus produced, so
that it becomes the medium of various rhetorical artifices;
and lastly, it frequently exists through obedience to that
subtle law of rhythm to which the Greek ear was«so deli-
cately attuned.

When, however, we leave the province of rhetorical writing
and come close to the plain and natural language of the peo-
ple, as in the Gospels and the Septuagint, we find that the
idiom has scarcely an existence, and the case is little changed
in Modern Greek. Upon examining a translation of Hdt. into
Romaic by Rhadinos, published in 1836, I find that all the in-
stances of this hyperbaton in the original, throughout the last
five books, have been altered, and the simple order restored,
except vii. 199, ix. 14, 33, where oTos remains interposed after
an attributive.

The only downright exception to our general law for the
admission of the alien element, that has fallen under my notice,
is £41) TOV, Tapaiwa, TeAEToV pu) Eévov wot Topevons, Anacreontic
iv. This has been altered by some editors to ray map’ oive
teXeTov, While Rose changes the order to Trav reXeTav Trapawa ;
Bergk makes no change, but remarks that the whole ode is
“‘semi-barbarous,” a judgment in which most of the editors
agree. In fact, it appears to have been composed by some
late poetaster, ignorant not only of metre, but of that genuine
Greek idiom which was as firmly imbedded in the language
as the rocks in the everlasting hills.

50 Tracy Peck, [1882.

III.— Notes on Latin Quantity.

By TRACY PECK,

PROFESSOR IN YALE COLLEGE.

IN recent discussions of the “ Roman” method of pro-
nouncing Latin, the quantitative feature in that method has
been made perhaps unwarrantably prominent and formidable.
Advocates of that method have spoken of a ratio of two to
one as subsisting between long and short vowels, and have
proposed elaborate devices for realizing this ratio: opponents
of that method have naturally made the most of the great
difficulty— if not absolute impossibility—of naturajjzing so
foreign and exact a system, and have further emphasized the
fact that we are and always must be ignorant of the natural
length of many vowels. But, if these assumptions and infer-
ences were well authenticated, if our ignorance of the ancient
pronunciation of Latin were greater than it really is, and if
our capacity and facilities for grappling with the inherent dif-
ficulties of the problem were far less than they really are,
there would still be no reasonable ground for regarding either
with detraction or with discouragement those who are labor-
ing conscientiously and intelligently toward a restored pro-
nunciation. Few indeed are the matters of faith or practice
in which more can be hoped for than a near and nearer ap-
proach to the absolute truth; and the scholar who has not the
steadily inquiring mind, and the ready courage to adopt the
solid results of scientific research, may well look to his cre-
dentials. It need be a reproach to no reform if it fall short
of the ideals which are set up by its antagonists or by its own
zealous champions.

But 1s there any evidence that the Romans, in the ordinary
use of their language, practically recognized the mathematical
ratio referred to? And unless such evidence is abundant and
conclusive, are there not strong @ priort presumptions against
the view, in the matter-of-fact character of the Roman people,

Vol. xiii.] Notes on Latin Quantity. 51

and in the very nature of the question at issue? The tragedian
Accius—who was a grammarian and purist as well—did in-
deed propose that long vowels be doubled in writing, as aara,
leege, luuct ; but perhaps this proposal favors rather the view
that the every-day use of the language tended so to obliterate
the distinction between long and short vowels that such graph-
ical devices were resorted to by the doctrinaires. At any rate
_the device was but little used and was opposed by the satirist
Lucilius. Then the attempt was made to stamp long vowels
in the text by a superscribed mark called afer: but there was
no popular acceptance of this, and in the extant vestiges of
it, as in the Monumentum Ancyranum, there is no consistency
in its employment. Quintilian (IX. 4, 47) says: “Longam —
syllabam esse duorum temporum, breuem unius, etiam pueri
sciunt:” but it is of facts in verse composition with reference
to rhythmical prose that Quintilian is here speaking, and after
he has said all, he seems to feel that much attention to such
matters was an unwholesome symptom, and (IX. 4, 142) he
frankly concedes that a harsh and vigorous manner of speech
was better than the emasculate fashion which reminded him
of dancing to the most wanton music. And in Cicero’s dis-
cussions of prose-rhythm it clearly appears that many of his
contemporaries regarded the whole subject as puerile, finical,
un-Roman. 3

Apart from these quasi-exceptions I find nothing in the
writings of the classical period which supports the dogma that
the quantity of Latin vowels was, in practice, peculiarly pre-
cise or exacting. But, as this is only negative, it may be of
advantage if we group together some facts in the development
and experience of the language, the cumulative force of which
justifies us in believing that those who used Latin for the ordi-
nary social purposes allowed themselves great latitude in the
quantitative utterance of its vowels. Of course it is not meant
that the Romans were practically ignorant or heedless in this
matter: every line in classical Latin poetry is constructed with
reference to a recognizable difference, in time, between long
and short vowels, as are many of the sentences and periods of
the masters of Latin prose, and we losé much of the music

52 Tracy Peck, (1882.

and rhythm of all good Latin style if we ourselves ignore those
subtle and alternating differences to which the Roman ear was
So sensitive.

Naturally the illustrations must be mainly drawn from poe-
try; but what is true of those who used the artificial and
imported systems of verse that prevailed in Rome, must be
true a fortiori of those who talked prose. As scholars are
still at issue in regard to some of the metrical principles of
Plautus and Terence, very limited use will be made of these
writers, though more than any others they confirm all that
will be said, and though the language of their plays seems to
be an almost perfect representation of the language of Rome’s
best society. Acelius Stilo—Rome’s earliest scientific philol-
ogist, and the teacher of Varro and Cicero—said that the Muses,
if they had wished to talk Latin, would have used the speech
of Plautus, and the many enthusiastic and discriminating
praises which the ancients paid to the diction of Terence are
summed up in Caesar’s phrase—puri sermonis amator.

First of all, the variation in the quantity of final vowels is
noticeable. Remains of early Latin and the corresponding
forms in cognate languages show that Latin was originally
burdened with long final vowels. The tendency to shorten
such vowels appears with the appearance of the literature.
Latin speakers had developed a system by which the accent
was drawn back from the ultima; this fact and the natural
economical tendency to hurry over all syllables, except those
which were radical or emphasized, greatly facilitated the dis-
integrating process. Then with Ennius, the introduction of
a foreign structure of verse, and widening interest in Greek, a
check was given to this tendency. But the struggle went on
till finally, under the Emperors, the guiding principle in Latin
versification was accent, as distinguished from quantity.

That final a2 was long in the nom. sing. of the first declen-
sion is seen from its occasional occurrence in earlier inscrip-
tions and in Plautus, from the archaic gen.-d, as well as from
the corresponding forms in Sanskrit and Greek. Final o in
verbs was originally long, and this is its usual length in the
poets of the Republic; but there are exceptions on every

Vol. xiii.] Notes on Latin Quantity, 53

hand, and in the poetry of the Silver Age it is prevailingly
short. O was thus freely treated at the end of nouns, pro-
nouns, numerals, and adverbs, as, wzrgo, ego, oct6, citd; in fact,
no limit was set to the shortening of final 0 except at the dat.
and abl. of the second decl., and even this limit was trans-
gressed as early as Seneca (uincendd, Tr. 273: lugendd, Herc. -
O. 1867) and Juvenal (wzgz/andd, III. 232). In every-day ad-
verbs and verb-forms final e was shortened regularly or at the
pleasure of the poet,.as, dené, caué and, in Martial (XI. 108),
salué, Inthe regular work of the language it is not credible
that mzhz, ¢161, stbz, 261, and ud¢ could exclusively treat final 7
as “common.” In Plautus, according to the best authorities,
many original and ordinary iambs become pyrrhics; as, rogd,
aocé, abt, bond, mani: and in Plautus and Terence many long
vowels —not themselves final, but in final syllables— are short-
ened ; as, fords, bonts, uzrds. The precarious hold which final
s had on distinct enunciation doubtless helped this tendency.
Here belongs the long list of nouns of the third decl. whose
abl. sing. ends in Z or 4, as mari and maré. Quintilian speaks
(I. 4, 8: I. 7, 24) of the medius guidam sonus of final z.

In all Latin poetry, syllables which are ordinarily short are
sometimes made long. The habit of ascribing such deviations
from the prevailing usage to the effect of the metrical ictus,
or to poetic license, is indolent and explains nothing. The
older poets, as Ennius, Plautus, Lucilius, naturally recognized
the quantity which was historically more correct and was still
heard all about them; later poets might well imitate even the
exceptional usages of their forerunners, though it is very
doubtful if they would have gone beyond what was at least
sometimes heard from the best speakers. Such abnormal
lengths do occur much more frequently in the thesis of the
foot, and either before a caesura or a pause in the thought—
where the exceptional measurement is less observed. But
they also occur in the arsis, and perhaps only where it cannot
be shown that the vowel was once long should the rarer length
be charged to thesis. Nor is “poetic license” the talisman to
which recourse.can here or elsewhere be duly had. The
Roman poets were certainly sometimes perplexed in their

54 Tracy Peck, [1882.

endeavor to fit the Latin vocabulary to the molds of Greek
verse, and they now and then helped themselves on by heroic
remedies; but we must protest against the notion that such
consummate artists in expression and such careful metrists as
Lucretius and Catullus and Vergil and Horace would have
allowed themselves to use forms and sounds which were not
recognized as correct by the cultivated circles in which they
moved. Vergil’s metrical treatment of the enclitic gue is pe-
culiar and suggestive. Sixteen times he lengthens the vowel
of this little word. Possibly, with his antiquarian taste, he
felt that he was using the original quantity of the vowel;
probably he was affected by the Homeric treatment of Te, and
perhaps a fondness for greatly varying his music was present
here, too. Repeatedly in Vergil (¢. g. A. III. 91), as in Ovid
(M. X. 262), gue is both long and short in the same line.
Final vowels were not merely thus freely lengthened or
shortened; they sometimes vanished altogether. Literary
documents have transmitted to us but five apocopated imper-
atives (dic, duc, fac, fer, inger), but these exist side by side with
the longer forms, and are in all probability types of a wide
usage. The same remark applies to the contracted adverbial
expressions magnopere and fantopere, and the genitives and
vocatives of the second declension from nominatives in -zzs.
Gellius devotes a chapter (IX. 14) to showing, by citations
from numerous authors, that the gen. and dat. of the fifth de-
clension often ended in -e or -2, instead of in -e?. Colloquial
forms like un, satin, utden, are instructive here, as well as in
regard to the sound of final s and the free movement of the
accent. Ennius reduced caelum, domum and gaudium to the
grotesque forms cae, do, and gau. . Perhaps hypermetrical
verses — especially where the concurrent lines divide the
thought—may be explained as instances of apocope, or as
quasi-absorption of the supernumerary into the next preceding
syllable. Full of suggestive interest is Quintilian’s statement
(XI. 3, 33, 34): “dilucida uero erit pronuntiatio primum si
uerba tota exierint, quorum pars deuorari, pars destitui solet,
plerisque extremas syllabas non perferentibus dum priorum
sono indulgent: ut est autem necessaria uerborum explanatio,

Vol. xiii.] Notes on Latin Quantity. 55

ita omnes imputare et uelut adnumerare litteras molestum et
odiosum; nam et uocales frequentissime coeunt et consonan-
tium quaedam insequente uocali dissimulantur.” This import-
ant passage shows that the avoidance of hiatus, by the quick
half-pronunciation of contiguous vowels in different words,
obtained in conversation as well as in poetry. Cicero (Or.
44, 150; 45, 152) speaks of the extreme sensitiveness of the
Romans in this particular, and tells us that not to combine
sounds was a mark of boorishness, and that, whatever the
Greeks might do, the Romans were not allowed to keep their
words apart. According to Seneca (Ep. 40) some refused to
call Vinicius eloquent because he could not fuse together three
words. Cicero (de Div. II. 40) states that when Crassus was
leaving Italy on his unfortunate expedition, the cry of the
vender of figs from Caunus — Cauneas — might have been
understood as the ominous warning, Caue ne eas !

The terms by which this frequent synalepha is referred to
(contrahere, coagmentare, contungere, cotre, conglutinattio) seem to
show that it was not so much a suppression of one sound as
the coalescence of two sounds into one—a genuine diphthongal
result. Noteworthy in verse are the different effects of syn-
alepha: sometimes a long final vowel before an initial vowel
is left intact; sometimes it is treated as a short vowel; some-
times it appears to be entirely sacrificed.

But variation in and total extinction of quantity affect
medial as well as final vowels. Martial (IX. 11), expressing
regret that he cannot adjust ‘Earinos’ to his hendecasyllabic
verse without taking liberties with the first vowel, states that
the Greeks can say ’Apes “Apes, but that such freedom is not
allowed those who cultivate the stricter Latin Muses. But
such liberties do run like a thread through all Latin poets,
Martial included, and in him alone (V. 11) is found the bold
measurement smardgdus. Usually in verse, vo, in compo-
sition, is consistently long or consistently short; but in many
words it is either long or short with apparent lawlessness. In
Lucretius we find prdpagare five times, propagare twice. At
VI. 1027 he measures prdpellat, but two lines later, propellat.
For the noun propago Vergil has the o long (G. II. 26), and

56 Tracy Peck, (1882.

short (A. VI. 870). In Martial occur prépino (1. 68) and prd-
pino (II. 15). There is the same, though less extended, fitful-
ness with ve in compounds, as, récido, réduco, rélatum, reéligio.
The poets seem to have found a peculiar pleasure in playing
with quantities when a word is soon repeated}; thus, in the
same line, Yguidis, liguida (Lucr. IV. 1259), «62, wbt (Tib. II.
3, 27), cbt, t1bt (Mart. I. 36, 1), captd, capio (id. IT. 18, 1), dhe,
Ohe (id. IV. 89, 1), and ots, Zoos (Prop. II. 3, 43, 44). The
same fancy is noticeable where a naturally short vowel pre-
cedes a mute and a liquid, as, pairibus, patres (Lucr. IV. 1222),
padtris, patrum (Verg. A. II. 663), nigrvis, nigro (Hor. O. I. 32,
11), woliicrt, uolicres (Ov. M. XIII. 607). Lachmann (Lucr. I.
360) gives quite a catalogue and discussion of words with
biquantal vowels, as, céturnix, glomus, liquor, rudo, uactllo.
When a long radical vowel is short in derivatives, the shifting
of the accent is often said to explain the change in quantity,
as, acer dcerbus, dik adtiiturnus, liceo licerna, moles mdlestus,
pisio pisillus, offa Sfella, scribo conscrtbillo: accent may per-
haps be here recognized as one of the factors, but accent
cannot explain the varying length in such congeners as dix
diico, fides fidus, léx légo, sédeo sédes, statio stamen, tégo tégula,
uox u0co. A short penult occurs here and there in all styles
in the third plural of the perfect active, and in the first five
lines of the sixth book of Lucretius—a very carefully elab-
orated passage —we find this almost bewildering variety of
forms and quantities : — dididtrunt, recreauérunt, rogarunt,
dedérunt, genuére.

This licentious treatment of the medial vowel sometimes
went to its complete extrusion. No account is here made of
the many syncopated forms which appear to have become
fixed before the literary period, as adzsciplina (discipulina),
templum (tempulum), gigno (gigeno), publicus (populicus),
_alumnus (aluminus). In some of these there lingered on an
apparent consciousness of the original longer form: thus,
adextera and dextra, supera and supra exist together. Lucre-
tius uses saeculum forty times, and uniformly as a dissyllable;
in Catullus the same word is six times a dissyllable, once a
trisyllable; Vergil and other poets are less uniform. Not

Vol. xiii.] Notes on Latin Quantity. 57

unfrequently the penultimate vowel is dropped from circulus,
periculum, oraculum, uinculum, and others likethem. Solidus
and soldus, ualide and ualde exist side by side. Augustus,
who was exceptionally careful with his Latin, corrected (Quint.
I. 6, 19) his grandson for preferring calidus to caldus, and the
emperor's reason is well worth quoting: ‘“ non quia id non sit
Latinum, sed quia sit odiosum et, ut ipse Graeco uerbo signi-
ficauit, mepiepyov.” The schoolmaster Quintilian (I. 6, 17)
charges “ molestissima diligentiae peruersitas” upon those who
would say audactter rather than audacter. Here belong the
syncopated verbal forms like postus, replictus, tristi, consumpse,
promtsse, survrexe. Of considerable value is the fact that such
contractions occur with quite unusual frequency in the satires
of Horace. These compositions, Horace insists, are but ‘ fa-
miliar talks’ (sermones); they certainly and intentionally lack
the poetic dignity and curious and varied music of his other
works. According to Aulus Gellius (XIX. 7), Laevius said
oblitteram instead of oblitteratam, and the Romance languages
are full of analogous mutilations or substitutions. In Lucre-
tius are many sporadic cases of contraction, as coplata, probeo
(prokibeo), unorsum, singlariter, and— probably without a
parallel in classical meter — dvizndi (II. 991). As Lucretius
was a didactic poet, passionately endeavoring to win men to
his master’s philosophy, is it to be supposed that he would
have thus used his language if thereby his readers would have
been offended? The easy merging of two or three concurrent
Latin vowels into a single vocal result explains forms like
amastt, nolo (neuolo), prosa ( prouersa), prudens, and perhaps
pracco ( praeuoco), decuria (decuuiria). The statelier verse pre-
sents auunculus as a quadrisyllable; in Plautine scansion it is
a trisyllable, and its reduction to the mere diminutive ending
in the descendants and cognates of Latin (oncle, Onkel, etc.)
suggests how the word may have been familiarly pronounced.
Under this head reference may be made to the equivalent end-
ings in -«wm and -zam for the gen. plural of the third declen-
sion, as apum apium, dentum dentium, and also to synizesis,
as ra, guoad, ius, so, deorum, alued, ostrea.

Less frequent, but found in perhaps all poets, is a change

58 Tracy Peck, (1882.

in the standard number of syllables in a word when the ele-
ments of a diphthong are individualized, or when a consonant
is vocalized or a vowel consonantized, as agua, coépi, suddent,
suésse, peruolud, stlud, and genua, tenuis, fliitiorum, abiete, con-
siltim. In most of these examples the aggregate quantity
continues the same after the transformation; in others, there
is a change in this particular, as omnia, stelto (Verg. G. IV. 243),
taentis (id. A. V. 269), ebulltat (Persius II. 10).

The Latin language was naturally constantly receiving Greek
words into citizenship, and Quintilian’s statement (I. 5, 60) is
important that the strict Latin party accented Greek words
after the Latin analogy, as Castérem. This measurement of
this particular word is not found in extant Latin poetry, but
-as Ennius did lengthen the penult of Hectorts, we have a
hint as to what may have been heard in the literary clubs, and
still more on the streets of Rome. In some adopted Greek
words a new quantity was certainly stereotyped, as ancdra
(aryxipa), crépida (xpnris), platta (1rrateta), prologus (m1poXoyos),
triitina (rpvravn). Variations in Greek quantities were perhaps
not so frequent as to have influenced the Romans, but inter-
esting certainly are such dimetric forms as ‘dv%p ’av7p, ” Apes
” Apes, “iaos "taos, KaXOS, pidos dtros, aro-, ® Tav.

The habit of treating a large number of Latin vowels as
sometimes long and sometimes short — the vowels which are,
from their position, called “common” —, and the fact that the
Latin had not, like the Greek, the great advantage of separate
characters for long and short vowels, must, it seems to me,
have led to very frequent inconsistency in the time of uttering
vowels not “ common” by position.

When the vowel of a syllable long by position is itself long
by nature, is it likely that the Romans in reading poetry prac-
tically paid much heed to this natural length? Catullus’s
Fourth Poem and its parody, in one of the minor poems as-
cribed to Vergil, are almost the sole specimens of entire
poems in unadulterated iambic verse, and something of the
rippling melody, of the clearly intended musical effect of these
exquisite pieces seems to me to vanish, if we give more than
the barest recognition to the long vowels imbedded in conso-

Vol. xiii. ] Notes on Latin Quantity. 59

nants. And the same remark applies to no small part of the
best Latin poetry. |

In Aulus Gellius there are several chapters (II. 17: IV. 17:
VII. 15: IX. 6: XII. 3) which tell of animated discussions
among the grammarians and literary men of his time in regard
to the proper length of many vowels, as of the o of pro in
composition, the @ in certain frequentatives like actito, the e¢ in
gutesco, the vowel of the preposition that is compounded with
zacto. And if in these fragments—this dust, rather — that
we have received of the ancient literature we discover clear
evidences of disagreement in the theory and practice of the
educated circles, what are we to infer as to the latitude of
usage among the ordinary users of the Latin speech?

IV.— The Influence of the Latin Syntax in the Anglo-Saxon
Gospels}

By W. B. OWEN.
PROFESSOR IN LAFAYETTE COLLEGE.

I TAKE the following passage from the introduction to Pro-
fessor March’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar. “The Anglo-Saxon
was shaped to literary use by men who wrote and spoke Latin,
and thought it an ideal language; and a large part of the lit-
erature is translated or imitated from Latin authors. It is not
to be doubted, therefore, that the Latin exercised a great in-
fluence on the Anglo-Saxon: if it did not lead to the intro-
duction of wholly new forms, either of etymology or syntax,
it led to the extended and uniform use of those forms which
are like the Latin, and to the disuse of others, so as to draw
the grammars near each other.” In going over one of the
Anglo-Saxon gospels for another purpose, I incidentally noted
a few points which aptly verify this opinion.

Just when and by whom these gospels were translated is not
known; it seems probable, however, that they were taken

1 The remarks in this paper are confined to Matthew and Mark.

60 W. B. Owen, (1882.

from the old Latin version, the same that Jerome made the
basis of his translation. Whoever the translators were, they
were scholarly, and it was a labor of love. The version is
notable for its fidelity, its simple candor, and for a certain
appealing tenderness which makes us feel that the writers
wished the words to be heard and heeded. As a result of
such work, and where the very phrase was held to be sacred,
we should naturally expect a degree of care that would lead
to literalness and frequent imitation.

On the other hand, it is to be remembered that the subject-
matter is simple narrative, and that the Latin is the Latin of
the people, as unlike Cicero or Tacitus as Bunyan is unlike
Gibbon. A great part of the idioms that fill Latin grammars
do not appear; so that in this sense the Latin approaches the
Anglo-Saxon, or any kindred tongue in which the main out-
lines of syntax are the same. While the Anglo-Saxon follows
the Latin closely, often word for word, it keeps in the main
its own idiomatic structure. In some parts of the syntax,
however, the language is more elastic and free than in others,
and here we find a prevalent conformity to the Latin.

One of these particulars is the use of participles and incor-
porated clauses. The Greeks were ¢iAopéroyot, and in the
frequent use of participles the Vulgate follows the Greek.
Our versions have kept up the habit about in the following
order: Wycliffe most (following the Vulgate with scarcely a
break), Anglo-Saxon next, the Authorized Version next, and
Tyndal least — our modern version returning somewhat to
the free use of participles.

I note a few instances under heads suggested by the forms
in the Authorized Version, and give single illustrations.

Participle for co-ordinate clause: ereuntes autem statim pha-
risaet...constlium faciebant,; pa pharisei utgangende peahte-
don; ‘went out and took counsel,’ Mark iii. 6.

Relative clause: erat 2bt homo habens manum aridam ; man
for-scruncene hand haebbende; ‘which had a withered hand,’
Mark iii. 1.

Temporal clause: et curcumspictens eos cum iva; hi bescea-
wiende mid yrre; ‘when he had looked round about on them
with anger,’ Mark iii. 5. :

Vol. xiii.] njfluence of Latin Syntax an Anglo-Saxon Gospels. 61

Relative clause -+ the antecedent: vaeautem pregnantibus ;
wa cennendum; ‘woe unto them that are with child,’ Mat.
xxiv. 19. This occurs rarely. The antecedent pronoun usu-
ally appears; as, zte potzus ad vendentes ; gad to pam cypen-
dum; ‘go rather to them that sell,’ Mat. xxv. 9.

Participle used substantively: audzte parabolam seminantis ;
gehyre ge paes sawendan bigspell; ‘of the sower,’ Mat.
xiii. 18.

Participle as an adjective: quando te vidimus esurientem
... Sittentem ; hingrigendne...pyrstendne; ‘an hungered...
thirsty, Mat. xxv. 37.

Conditional clause: sz cadens adoraveris me; gif pu feal-
lende...; ‘if thou wilt fall down and worship me, Mat.
iv. 9.

As an object: cum consummasset Fesus verba haec praect-
prens duodecim discipulis suzs ; geendude hys twelf leorning-
cnihtum bebeodende; ‘had made an end of commanding his
twelve disciples,’ Mat. xi. 1.

For infinitive: ut appareant hominibus jejunantes ; paet hig
aeteowun mannum faestende; ‘that they may appear unto
men to fast,’ Mat. vi. 16.

In the progressive form: evat entm docens eos; he waes hi
laerende; ‘for he taught them,’ Mat. vii. 29.

The absolute construction occurs seventy-five times in
Matthew, and fourteen instances reappear in the Anglo-Saxon ;
it occurs forty-five times in Mark, and twenty-two instances
reappear. There is one case only of this construction in the
Anglo-Saxon not copied from the Latin (Mat. xiii. 1).

Most of these usages are familiar, possibly none of them a
total stranger to the native syntax of our ancestors, but in the
regularity and frequency of their occurrence there is a consid-_
erable interval between the gospels and contemporary prose.
The same interval, and a corresponding approach to the Latin
may be seen, too, in the frequent use of synthetic forms, ex-
pressing relations without prepositions.

The dative object occurs on an average nearly every other
verse: et pulsanti aperietur,; and pam cnuciendum bid ontyned ;
‘to him that knocketh,’ Mat. vii. 8. Wycliffe here uses the

62 W. B. Owen, [ 1882.

preposition more than Tyndal or the Authorized Version, and
he uses it regularly with forgive, answer, threaten, obey, com-
mand, give. Not so frequently, yet often, we find the dative
instrumental: Hwilcum bigspelle widmete we hit; ‘with what
comparison shall we compare it,’ Mark iv. 30: so also the
dative of manner, and of time. The dative of the possessor,
not a favorite construction in Anglo-Saxon, occurs nine times
in Matthew, and five times in Mark. The dative after words
of likeness is frequent; after comparatives, two instances oc-
cur in Matthew, and one in Mark. The home habit is, as
with us, to use the nominative with ponne. After the corre-
sponding construction in Latin, verbs meaning please, satzsfy,
serve, commana, obey, threaten, and belteve take the dative.

Prohibitions are expressed by a periphrastic imperative,
nillan, with the infinitive, in imitation of the Latin xolz, nolite:
nolt timere,; nelle pu ondraedan; ‘fear not,’ Mat. 1. 20; xolste
putare; nelle ge wenan; ‘think not,’ Mat. v. 17. Twenty-
seven instances of this idiom occur in Matthew: eleven of
them are copied in Anglo-Saxon, but sixteen are translated
without the circumlocution; as, oli tuba canere ante te, ne
blawe man byman beforan pe; ‘do not sound,’ Mat. vi. 2.
Mark has five instances, and only one is copied in Anglo-
Saxon. Bede so translates this Latin form occasionally, and
the only instances of it noted in Grein I find to be translations
of the same idiom.

The infinitive is used to express the purpose of motion:
vent enim separare hominem...; ic com man asyndrian...;
‘I am come to set a man at variance,’ Mat. x. 35; guzd existis
in desertum videre ; hwi eode ge ut on wesden geseon; ‘ what
went ye out for to see,’ Mat. xi. 7, 8,9; vent solvere legem;
ic com towurpan pa ae; ‘I am come to destroy the law,’ Mat.
v.17, etc. The usual form in Anglo-Saxon is the gerund;
as, he hi asende godspell to bodigenne ( praedicare), Mark
iii. 14; ut eode se saedere his saed to sawenne (ad semtnan-
dum), Mark iv. 3.

The infinitive with subject accusative, following the Latin,
occurs oftener than is usual in Anglo-Saxon.

The verb is often omitted in imitation: et zzmtct hominis
domestict ejus; and mannes fynd hys gehusan; ‘and a man’s

Vol. xiii.] Jnfluence of Latin Syntax in Anglo-Saxon Gospels. 63

foes shall be,’ etc., Mat. x. 36; so eage for eage, Mat. v. 38;
and feawa gecorene ( pauct vero electt), Mat. xxii. 14; wa
eow, Mat. xxiii. 13, 15, 16, etc.

Intransitive verbs are made transitive in imitation: Beatz
qui esuriunt et sittunt justitiam,; Eadige synt pade rihtwis-
nesse hingriad and pyrstad; ‘hunger and thirst after right-
eousness, Mat.v. 6. One MS. has ‘for rihtwisnysse,’ and
Bosworth adopts that reading. Rachel plorans filios suos ;
weop hyre bearn, Mat. ii. 18; but wepan is elsewhere not
infrequently transitive.

Wyrde, taking the genitive in cases noted in Grein, takes
(A. S.) me in imitation of dignus: nis he me wyrde (won est
me dignus), Mat. x. 37, 38, etc.

Adjective without noun: mesctat sinistra tua quid faciat
dextera tua; nyte pin wynstre hwaet do pin swydre; ‘let not
thy left hand know,’ etc., Mat. vi. 3; and hi laeddon him
aenne deafne and dumbne (surdum et mutum), Mat. vii. 32.

Subject omitted when followed by a relative clause: Eadig
ys sede ne swycad on me; Jbeatus est qui, etc.; ‘blessed is he
whosoever shall not be offended in me,’ Mat. xi. 6; ne under-
fod ealle menn pis word ac pam pe hit geseald ys; sed quibus
datum est; ‘all men cannot receive this saying, save they to
whom it is given,’ Mat. xix. II.

Predicate omitted: des ys sodlice be pam awryten ys; ic
enim est de quo, etc.; ‘this is he of whom,’ etc., Mat. xi. Io.

Pronoun repeated in relative clause: cujus non sum dignus
procumbens solvere corrigiam calciamentorum gus; Paes ne
eom ic wyrde paet ic his sceona pwanga bugende uncnytte;
‘the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down
and unloose,’ Mark 1. 7.

Anglo-Saxon and translates ef, even in its stronger meanings,
‘also’ (usually expressed in Anglo-Saxon by and eac, or eac),
and ‘even’: negabo et ego eum, and ic widsace hine; ‘him
will I also deny,’ Mat. x. 33; szc ertt et generationit huic,; and
swa bid ysse cneorysse; ‘even so shall it be also,’ etc., Mat.
Xil. 45; 2a et vos scitote; and wite ge swa; ‘so likewise ye...
know,’ Mat. xxiv. 33.

Peculiar verbal turns abound, which result from the attempt
to give an exact translation: 2//2 manus injecerunt in eum, hi,

64 W. B. Owen. [ 1882.

hyra handa on hine wurpon (where we might expect legdon),
Mark xiv. 46.

The phrase ‘witness against’ in the Authorized Version,
uniformly representing the Greek xarapaptupéw, appears in
various dress in Latin, and the Anglo-Saxon follows with
scrupulous literalness: ‘estificantur, Mat. xxvi. 62, is onsec-
gead ; objictuntur, Mark xiv. 60, is onwurpad ; accusant, Mark
xv. 4, is wregead. In ‘onwurpad’ for oljictuntur, the trans-
lator has succeeded better in hitting upon a literal turn of the
word than in giving the idea characteristic expression. The
same is true of his translations of mztfere, a word of wider
ranges of meaning than Anglo-Saxon sendazn, its literal equiv-
alent: mitle te deorsum,; asend pe ponne nyper, Mat. iv. 6;
mittentes rete in mare; sendende hyra nett on pa sae, Mat
iv. 18; so ‘rich men casting gifts into the treasury;’ heora
lac sendan on done sceoppan, Luke xxi. 1.

A fuller showing of these features of the translation will be
easy when there is a more complete vocabulary of the Anglo-
Saxon gospels, a work which I now have in hand.

The introduction of Latin words is not uncommon in the
Homilies; with reference to the gospels, however, it has often
been noted that, whereas other versions adopt terms from the
Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, it is a characteristic of the Anglo-
Saxon to use native words, and where words are wanting, to
form home-made compounds: centurzo is ‘hundredes ealdor’;
in ortente is ‘on east-daele’; dzsczpulus is ‘leorning-cniht’ ;
parabola is ‘big-spell’; sabbath is ‘reste-daeg’; scrzba is
‘boc-man’ or ‘writer’; phartsee is ‘sundor-halgan’; somo
hydropicus is ‘waeter-seoc man,’ etc., etc. Many examples
might be given, too, of idiomatic home-phrase, unlike the
Latin; as, apert nobis, jaet us in, Mat. xxv. 11; the factitive
depending upon Zo: ge didon paet to sceadena scraefe, Mark
xi.17; aeghwylc daeg haefd genoh on his agenum ymbhogan
(sufficet diet malitia sua), Mat. vi. 34, etc., etc. Generally,
however, in the arrangement of words, as well as in syntactical
forms and idiomatic phrases, the gospels have come under
the influence of the Latin more than other translations in
Anglo-Saxon literature, not excepting even Alfred’s transla-
tion of Bede’s Ecclesiastical History.

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 65

V.— The Ablaut in English.

By BENJAMIN W. WELLS, Pu. D.,

FRIENDS’ SCHOOL, PROVIDENCE, R. I.

SYNOPSIS.
I. Scope of the Essay, p. 66. 2. Analogy, p. 8o.
II. The Germanic ablaut, p. 66. 3. Isolation, p. 81.
III. The oF. ablaut, p. 68. 4. Foreign influence, p. 81.
Ia., p. 68. 5. Residua, p. 81.
Ib., p. 69. 6. Doubtful verbs, p. 81.
Ic., p. 69. . 7. ME. compared with MHG., p. 81.
II., p. 72. V. The NE. ablaut, p. 82.
IIlI., p. 73. A. The present, p. 82.
IV., p. 75. B. The preterit, p. 83.
V., p. 76. C. The participle, p. 84.
Notes, p. 78. VI. The NE. weakened verbs, p. 86,
Table, p. 79. List, p. 86.
IV. Decay of the ablaut in ME., p. 79. Causes, p. 86.
1. Phonetic causes, p. 80. Conclusion, p. 88.

IT has been said that the consonants are the skeleton of a lan-
guage, the vowels its flesh and blood. While the vowels are more
subject to internal change and to influence from without than the
consonants, they reflect more clearly in their modifications the spirit
of alanguage. This is in a peculiar degree true of the Germanic
dialects, and in no one of them more noticeably than in the Old
English. The most important modification of vowels in the Indo-
European group of languages is the ablaut, which is preserved with
surprising fulness and regularity in the Germanic dialects, and best
of all in Old English, sometimes called Anglo-Saxon, which I take
for the foundation of this study.

The processes of phonetic development and decay have never
shown themselves more general or more rapid than in the later
periods of English, so» that the study of the development of the
ablaut during this time is as difficult as it is instructive. Except
in the points mentioned in section I., my aim is less to make this
study exhaustive than to make it accurate and suggestive.

The abbreviations are as follows: oc. stands for Old Germanic ;
woc., for West Germanic ; G., for Gothic; oN., for Old Norse ; OHG.,
for Old High German ; os., for Old Saxon; o£., for Old English ;
ME., for Middle English ; Nz., for New English. Middle English

66 B. W. Wells, [1882.

comprehends the period from 1150 to Elizabeth’s reign ; New Eng-
lish applies to what is now in good use. Verbs which are found
only in the present are marked with an interrogation point ; those
which have both strong and weak forms with a+; W. stands for
weak, S. for strong. New English verbs which, though weak, have
strong participial adjectives, are marked Ws.

SECTION I. SCOPE OF THE EsSay.

I propose in this paper to give a statement of the Germanic ab-
laut, its classification, and some account of its extent in the various
dialects, and secondly, to show how this ablaut was developed in
o£. I shall give a complete list of strong verbs in o£. with the
corresponding strong verbs of OS., OHG., ON., G., so far as such exist,
and with added signs to show whether, and how, they appear in ME.
and NE. The OE. words are given in the normalized West-Saxon
spelling.

Since a satisfactory analysis of the mr. ablaut would require a
more detailed study of the dialects and the geographical relations
of the documents than the limits of this paper would allow or the
the state of ME. phonetics warrant, only those ME. verbs have been
considered which show sometimes or always weak forms ; but the
general principles which caused and controlled the weakening have
been shown. Here also, for convenience of reference, the words are
given in the o£. West-Saxon form. The list of ME. strong verbs can
be found in section III.

The forms of the ablaut in NE., their origin, and the reasons why
they were sometimes abandoned have been treated in detail.

SECTION II. THE GERMANIC ABLAUT.

The ablaut is classified according to the vowel of the present
stem. There are four proper ablaut classes, with the present vow-
els in Indo-European: a’, a'z, a1u, a®. There is in or. a fifth class,
but this was in oG. a reduplicating class, and got its o£. ablaut by
contraction of the reduplication with the root-syllable. The oc.
presents, corresponding to these Indo-Europeans vowels, have e, ¢,
eu, a. The preterit has in the singular a darker sound in the first
three classes, and in the fourth, where this was impracticable, its
place was taken by lengthening ; the preterit singular then was a,
ai, au, 0. The preterit plural, on the contrary, owing to the accent,
took the lightest possible form, which in class I. was nothing or

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 67

“ schwa ;”’ in IL., z,; in IIL, 4, in IV. the plural follows the analogy
of the singular and has 2a, though this can be explained as a con-
traction (Scherer, Deutsche Sprache, 257). Where the vowel had
vanished in I., if but a single consonant followed, the preceding
reduplication, united with the root and the resulting vowel, was 2,
thus dar would have in the preterit dabr-um = b@rum,; but where
a double consonant followed, such contraction was impossible, and
the place of the vowel was taken by an w-swarabhakti; thus, dhandh
becomes babndum = bundum in the preterit. The vowels of the
preterit plural are then @ (), 2, 4,0. The participle has also, owing
to the accent, the lightest possible forms; but here there was no
reduplication, and so in class I. the “schwa” took the form ¢ be-
fore single mutes or fricatives, and elsewhere 0. In IV. the vowel
of the present was retained. The vowels of the participle are then
€ (0), 2, u, a.

The four ablaut classes have therefore in oc. the following forms :
Ia. (before single mutes or fricatives), ¢, a, @, e; Ib. (before single
nasals or liquids), ¢, a, 2, 0; Ic. (before two consonants), ¢, a, 4, 0;
II., ez, az, 2,2; III., eu, au, uu; IV., a, 0, 0, a. From these ablaut
classes all strong verbs in Germanic are developed according to
regular phonetic laws.

The number of strong verbs in the various Germanic dialects
varies with the extent of the literature. There are in Gothic, 138;
in ON., according to Vimmer, 194, but this number is not complete ;
in OHG., 237; in OE., 253, together with a large number of uncertain
verbs. In these numbers, preterito-presentia and verbs of class V.
are excluded. We may regard a verb as oe. if it is common both
to G. or ON., and to OE. OS., or OHG., that is, to East and West
Germanic ; many verbs, however, are confined to a single dialect,
and of these there are 19 in Gothic, 35 in OHG., and 39 in OE.; oth-
ers are found only in the East Germanic group or in the West Ger-
manic group, but are not common to both; of such there are 2 in
Gothic, 52 in oHG., and, 53 in o£.; of verbs which are certainly o«.,
the Gothic has 107 ; OHG., 150; OE., 161. ‘The number of distinct
verbal stems with ablaut in all the dialects is about 400. The ok.
has the fullest and truest picture of the ablaut. In the detailed
examination which follows, in each class the oc. verbs are placed
first, then the wc., and finally those confined to oz. The abbrevi-
ations which follow the verb indicate its subsequent history. Notes
at the end of section III. explain anomalies and defend the classi-
fication wherever it seems doubtful.

. 68 B. W. Wells, [ 1882.

Section III. THe O._p ENGLISH ABLAUT.

Class Ia. oc. ablaut e, a, a, e.

The regular OE. ablaut is ¢, @, 2, ¢; but this is subject to the fol-
lowing modifications.

1. Initial g changes the ablaut to é# (y), ed, e@, (y). For ex-
ample, giéfan, gedf, geafon, gitfen.

2. When the vowel is initial, it coalesces with the reduplication
in the preterit singular to @. For example, e/an has @¢ in the pre-
terit singular.

3. Preceding yr has the same influence as following 7, see Ib., in
troden from tredan, and in dbrocen from brecan. The same irregu-
larity occurs in G. ¢rudans and brukans.

4. Following 4 breaks ¢ to éo and @ to éa. Before a vowel the
h may fall out and éo coalesce with the following vowel to ¢o. For
example, séohan (séon), séah.

5. When the present stem ends in 7a, e becomes # and the conso-
nant following is doubled. The simple consonant reappears in the
other forms. Examples are: diddan, licgan, sittan, picgan.

6. Grammatic change of s to 4 6 to d, and & to gin the preterit
plural and participle, owing to the Indo-European accent, occurs in
wesan (cf. NE. was, were), cwedan, feon, pléon, séon.

This class contains 27 verbs. 20 ate OG.; 4 are WG.; 3 are OE.
only.

The oc. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
biddan ME. NE. biddan bittan bidja bidjan
brecan ME. NE. brekan brecan breka W. _ brikan
cwedan ME. NE. W. note 1 quethan quedan kveda qian
drepan ME. + trefan drepa
etan ME. NE. etan ezzan eta itan
gicfan ME. NE. gebhan geban gefa ' giban
gi€tan ME. NE. getan gezzan _ geta gitan
lesan ME. + lesan - lesan lesa lisan
licgan ME. NE. liggjan liggan liggja —S_ ligan
metan ME. NE. W. mezzan meta mitan
nesan. nesan nisan
recan ME. rechen MHG. ?reka rikan
s€on ME. NE. sehan sehan sia saihvan
sittan ME. NE. sittan sizzan sitja sitan
tredan ME. NE. tretan troda trudan

bicgan ME.? biggean W. dikkan W. piggja

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 69

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
wefan ME. NE. weban vefa
wegan ME. NE. W. wegan vega wigan
wesan ME. note 2. wesan wesan vesa wisan
wrecan ME. NE. W. wrekan rehhan reka wrikan

The we. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG.
cnedan ME. NE. W. cnetan cf. ON. knoda W.
féon fehan cf. ON. feginn
pléon plegan pflegan
sprecan ME. NE. sprecan sprehhan

OE. only are: fricgan, screpan, swefan. Sievers (as. Grammatik)
adds fefan ; I do not know upon what evidence.

ME. are 21. 185S.; 2S. and W.; 1 present only.

NE. are 16. 1158.; 5 W.

Class Ib. oc. ablaut e, a, a, o.

The o£. ablaut before 4 7, is ¢, @, 2,0; before m, it is 2, a, a, u.
Preceding w coalesces with the ablaut vowels to u, 0, 0, u, in cuman,
com (often written coom and com, but hardly long), comon, cumen.

The class contains 10 verbs 6 are OG.; 4 are WG.

The 0G. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
beran ME. NE. beran beran bera bairan
cuman ME. NE. kuman cuman koma qiman
niman ME. niman neman nema — niman
sceran ME. NE. , sceran skera
stelan ME. NE. stelan stelan stela stilan
teran ME. NE. zeran tairan

The we. verbs are:

OE, OS. . OHG.
cwelan ME. quelan quelan
dwelan ME.? dwelan twelan
helan ME. helan helan
bweran note 3 dweran

ME. areg. 8 S.; 1 present only.
NE. are 5, all S.
Class Ic. oc. ablaut.e, a, u, o.

The or. ablaut when undisturbed by consonant influence was ¢,
@,u,o. This occurred only in: dregdan, brestan, stregdan, prescan,

70 B. W. Wells, [1882.

for in all other cases a following 7, 4, 4, or nasal, changed the
vowels.

1. Before 74+ consonant and 4+ consonant the ablaut is ¢é0, éa, u,
o; before /+ consonant it is ¢, ¢a, u,0; a preceding g can change ¢
to é.

2. Before nasals the ablaut is /, a, u, u.

3. There are 3 peculiar presents ; /rignan, murnan, spurnan. In
Srignan the zis due to the #, otherwise the verb is like drestan; in
murnan, spurnan, the u for éo may be compared to the a for ¢ in ¢roden,
la. 3., and with the influence of 7# in NE. (fern, carn, etc.). The
other parts of these verbs are like those of déorgan.

4. Grammatic change of 3 to d, and 4 to g occurs in the preterit
plural and participle of wéord3an, felhan, and would occur in the
questionable séor6an.

This class has 77 verbs. 39 are OG.; 22 wc. ; 16 OE. only.

The oc. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
béorgan ME. bergan bergan biarga bairgan
brestan ME. NE. W. brestan brestan bresta
bindan ME. NE. bindan bintan binda bindan
bregdan ME.+NE. W. bregdan _ brettan bregda
bringan note 4 bringan __ bringan briggan
brinnan ME. NE. W. brinnan ___ brinnan brenna brinnan
déorfan ME. W. derven derben MHG. diarfa
drincan ME. NE. drinkan _trincan drekka drigkan
felhan ME. W. felhan felhan filhan
findan ME. NE. findan fintan finna finban
frignan ME.+ frignan fregna fraihnan
gi¢ldan ME.+NE. W. geldan geltan gialda gildan
giéllan ME. NE. W. gellan gialla
-ginnan ME. NE. -ginnan -ginnan -ginnan
helpan ME. NE. W. helpan helfan hialpa hilpan
hrindan hrinda
hwéorfan ME. hwerbhan hwerban hverfa hwairban
linnan ME. linnan linna W. _linnan
rinnan ME. NE. rinnan rinnan rinna rinnan
sincan ME. NE. sinkan sincan soékkva sigqan
singan ME. NE. singan singan singva siggvan
slincan ME. NE. cf.slihhan slinka Swed.
slingan ME, NE. slingan slingva
spinnan ME. NE. spinnan spinna spinnan
springan ME. NE. springan springan springa
spurnan ME. W. NE. W. spurnan spurnan+ sperna+
stincan ME. NE. stincan stékkva __stigqan
stingan ME. NE. stinga stiggan?

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 71
‘OE, OS. OHG. ON. G.

swelgan ME. swelgan __ svelga
swellan ME. NE. WS. swellan svella
sweltan ME. sweltan swelzan svelta swiltan
swéorfan ME. NE. W. swerbhan swerban _ sverfa swairban
swimman ME. NE. swimman svimma
prescan ME. NE. W. drescan priska priscan
pringan ME. pringan dringan _— préngva
wéorpan ME. NE. W. werpan werfan verpa wairpan
wéordan ME. note 5 werthan werdan verda wairpan
windan ME. NE. windan wintan vinda windan
winnan ME. NE. winnan winnan vinna winnan

The we. verbs are: ‘

OE. OS. OHG.

belgan ME. belgan belgan cf. on. bolginn
bellan ME. NE. W. ‘bellan
céorfan ME.+NE. W. kerven MLG. cf. O. FRIS. kerva
climban ME.+NE. W. chlimban
clingan ME. NE. chlingan
crimman chrimman
delfan ME.+NE. W. delbhan __telban
féohtan ME. NE. fehtan cf. oN. fikta W.
grimman grimmen MHG.
hlimman limman
hrimpan rimpfan
limpan ME. limpfan
meican melcan
scrincan ME. NE. schrinken MLG.
selcan . selken MG.
sinnan sinnan
stéorfan ME. NE. W. sterbhan _sterban
sweorcan ME. swerkan
swindan ME. swintan
swingan ME. NE. swingan swingan
brintan drinden MG.
wringan ringan

OE. only are:
béorcan ME.-+NE. W. grindan ME. NE. swincan ME.
cinnan hwéorran teldan ME. W.
cringan note 6 meltan ME. NE. Ws. tingan
cwincan murnan ME. W. NE. W. | pindan ME.
giélpan ME. NE. W._ stregdan bingan ME.
géorran ME.

Doubtful are: séordan, scéorfan (Sievers).

ME, are 60.
NE. are 42.

48 S.; 7 S. and W.; 5 W.
22 S.; 20 W.

2 are Ws.

See section V. C. 6.

72 B. W. Wells, [1882.

Class II. oc. ablaut ei, ai, i, i.

The or. ablaut is 2, @, #, 2.

1. Initial g, s¢ can change @ to e@ (ge@n, scean).

2. Following 4 is dropped between vowels and ? coalesces with the
following vowel to ¢o ; hence arises a similarity with class III. which
caused some confusion. See note 7. ;

3- Grammatic change of 3 to d and & to g occurs in the preterit
plural and participle of #6an, midSan, scridan, snidan, teon, peon, wreon.
The class has 56 verbs. 35 are OG.; 11 are WG.; 10 OE. only.

The oc. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
bidan ME. NE. bidan bitan bida beidan
bitan ME. NE. bitan bizan bita beitan
blican ME. + blikan blichan blikja
cinan ME. + kinan chinan keinan
clifan ME. klibhan cliban klifa
drifan ME. + NE. - dribhan triban drifa dreiban
ginan ginan gina
gripan ME. + NE. W. gripan grifan gripa greipan
hnigan hnigan hnigan hniga hneiwan
hnitan hnita
hrinan ME. ? hrinan hrinan ___ hrina
lidan ME. liban lidan lida leiban
-lifan ME. libhan liban leiban
léon lihan lihan lia W. leihvan
migan ME. note 7 miga
ridan ME. NE. ritan rida
risan ME. NE. risan risan risa reisan
scinan ME. NE. skinan scinan skina skeinan
scitan ME. NE. W. note 8 scizan skita
scridan ME. scridan scritan skrida
sigan ME. sigan sigan siga
slitan ME. + NE. W. slitan slizan slita
snidan ME. sniban snidan snida Snetban
spiwan ME. note 9 spiwan spiwan spyja Cl. V. speiwan
stigan ME. note 7 stigan stigan stiga steigan
stridan ME. NE. stritan strida +
swican ME. swican swihhan _ svikja
swifan ME. ? svifa sweiban
t€on ME.? tihan zihan tia W. teihan
bé€on ME. note 7. bihan dihan beihan
wican ME.? wikan wihhan vikja
-witan ME. + NE. W. — witan wizan vita W. weitan
wlitan ME. lita
wridan ME. NE. W. rida

writan ME. NE. writan rizan rita

Vol. xiii.] The Ablayt in English. 73

‘The we. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG.
flitan ME. flizan
glidan ME. NE. W. glidan glitan
gnidan ME. gnidan gnitan
hlidan hlidan
midan ME.? midan midan
scrifan ME. NE. Ws. skribhan scriban cf. Lat. scribere
s€on ME. note 7 sthan ON. sia W.
slipan ME.? slifan
smitan ME. NE. smizan
strican ME. NE. strihhan ;
wréon ME. note 7 rihan

OE. only are:

dwinan ME .+ rinan ME. + - snican ME.? note II
grisan ME. ripan note I0 slidan ME. NE.
nipan sican ME. W. slifan ME.?

‘ bwitan

Doubtful are : cidan, cnidan, cwinan, wridan(Sievers).

ME, are 48. 31 are S.; 8 are S. and W.; 1 is W.; 8 are present
only.

NE. are 18. 11 are S.; 7 are W. 1 is Ws.; and one strong verb

has a strong participial adjective differing from the participle ; see
section V. C. 6.

Class III. oc. ablaut eu, au, u, u.

The oF. ablaut is ¢o, @a, 4, 0. Some OE. verbs have # in the pres-
ent ; and this seems to have been oc. also, at least in some cases ; its
Origin is uncertain. Cf. Schmidt Vocalismus, I. 140 ff.

1. Following & is elided between vowels ; the present remains ¢o
however, being unchanged by the contraction.

2. Grammatic change of s to 7, 3 to d, and 4 to.g, occurs in the
preterit plural and participle of céosan, dréosan, fleosan, hréosan, leosan,
hreodan, léodan, reodan, séodan, fleon, teon; it would have occurred
also in the questionable sweon.

The class contains 52 verbs. 36 are OG.; 7 are WG.; 9 are OE.
only.

The oc. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.

béodan ME. note 12 biodan biotan bioda biudan
bréotan briezen MHG. __ briota

74 B. W. Wells, [1882.
OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
biigan ME. + NE. W. biogan biuga biugan
céosan ME. + NE. kiosan chiosan kiosa kiusan
cléafan ME. + NE. W. kliobhan _—_clioban kliufa
créopan ME. + NE. W. cf. criochan kriupa
dréogan ME. + driogan triogan _drygja W. driugan
dréopan ME. W. driopan triufan driupa
dréosan ME. driosan driusan
fl€ogan ME. NE. fliogan fliuga
figéon ME. NE. W. fliohan fliohan fiyja W. i pliuhan
fléotan ME. NE. W. fliotan fliozan fliota
fréosan ME. NE. friosan friosa
géotan ME. giotan giozan giota
hléotan ME. hliotan hliozan hliota
hréosan ME. hriosa
hritan ME. + riizan hriota
léodan liodan liotan liudan
léogan ME. NE. W. liogan liogan liuga liugan
léosan ME. NE. Ws. liosan liosan liusan
lican ME. likan lihhan lika likan
liitan ME. + lizén W. liita
néotan niotan niozan niota niutan
réocan riuhhan riuka
réodan rioda
réofan ME. NE. note 13 riufa
scéotan ME. NE. skiotan sciozan skiota
sciifan ME. NE. W. scioban skiuban
s€odan ME. NE. Ws. siodan sioda
sl€éopan ME. sliofan sliupan
smiigan smiegen MHG. smiuga
siigan sigan siga
siipan ME. stifan siipa
téon ME. tiohan ziohan tiuga tiuhan
bréotan driozan priota priutan
biitan ME. W. diozan biota
The we. verbs are:
OE. OS. OHG.
bréowan ME. + NE. W. briuwen MHG. cf. on. brugga W.
briican ME.? NE. W. brikan? brihhan W. cf. O. FRIS. bruka S.
céowan ME.? NE. W. chiuwan
gréotan griotan .
hréowan ME. + NE. W. hreuuan _—s riuwan cf. oN. hryggva W.
réotan riozan
sprittan ME.? NE. W. spriezen MHG. cf. O. FRIS. spriita S.
OE. only are:
bréodan ME. gréosan smeocan
criidan ME. NE. W. héodan striidan
diifan ME.+ hréodan, cf. On. part. hrodinn stican ME. NE. W.

Vol. xiii. ] The Ablaut in English. 75

Doubtful are: géopan, héofan, sp€oftan, swéon (Sievers).

ME. are 37. 22 are S.; 10 are S. and W.; 2 are W.; 3 are only
in the present.

NE. are 21. 5 are S.; 16 are W. 2 are Ws. See section’V.
C. 38.

Class IV. oc. ablaut, a, 6, 6, a.

The OE. ablaut is @, 0, 0, @, yet the participle often follows the
analogy of the present and is written a, which before nasals is the
regular form.

1. Initial g, sc may change the ablaut to ed, ¢0, ¢0, ed.

2. Between vowels # is elided and the vowels coalesce to éa; so
slean, Gothic slahan. Following x (4s) changes a to éa in wéaxan;
this gives the verb the appearance of Class Va., and accordingly we
find in the preterit the form wéox for and with the regular wox.

3. When the oc. present stem was 7a the consonant following the
root-vowel was doubled and the vowel was umlauted from ¢ toe;
éa to te; ed to 1é. Examples are: steppan, hitehhan, sciéppan. The
double consonant and the umlaut are confined to the present. See
Class Ia. 5.

4. Standan had 2 originally only in the present, but in o£. it has
made its way into the participle also.

5- Grammatic change of 4 to g in the preterit plural and parti-
ciple occurs in fléan, hlichhan, lean, slean, pwéan. The 5d in hebban
becomes / in the other forms.

This class contains 31 verbs. 25 are OG.; 5 are WG.; I iS OE.
only.

The oc. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
acan ME. + NE. W. aka
alan ala alan
dafan ME. daban
dragan ME. NE. dragan tragan draga dragan
faran ME. NE. W. faran faran fara faran
fléan ME. NE. W. fla
galan ME. galan gala
gnagan ME. NE. W. gnagan gnaga
grafan ME. NE. WS. grabhan __ graban grafa graban
hebban ME. NE. hebbjan _hefjan hefja hafjan
hladan ME. NE. Ws. hladan hladan hlada hlaban
hlichhan ME. NE. W. hlahhan hlahhan hi&ja hlahjan
sacan ME. NE. sakan sachan sakan

B. W. Wells, [ 1882.
OE. OSs. OHG. ON. G.
scacan ME. NE. skakan skaka
scafan ME. + NE. Ws. scaban skafa skaban
- sciéddan + note 14 scaddn W. skada W. skapbjan
sciéppan ME. + NE. Ws. skapan scaphan skepja+ skapjan
sléan ME. NE. slahan slahan sla slahan
standan ME. NE. standan stantan standa standan
sweran ME. NE. swerjan § swerjan sverja swaran
tacan ME. NE. note I§ taka cf. tékan
pwéan pwahan dwahan pva pbwahan
wacan ME. NE. vaka W. wakan
wadan ME. NE. W. watan vada
wéaxan ME. NE. W. wahsan wahsan vaxa wahsjan
The we. verbs are:
OE. OS. OHG. ON.
bacan ME. + NE. W. bachan baka W.
léan ME. ? lahan lahan
spanan ME. _ 8panan spanan spana W.
steppan ME. + NE. W. steppan stepfan W.
wascan ME. NE. W. wascan vaska W.
OE. only is: rafan.
ME. are 27. 19 are S.; 7 are S. and W.; 1 only present.
ME. are 23. g are S.; 14 are W. 4 are Ws.; see section V.
C. 6.

Class V.

The verbs of this class could not develop an ablaut in oc., and
formed their preterits by reduplication only. They are classified
according to the vowel of the oc. present. Va. has @ followed by
two consonants; Vb. @; Vc. 0,; Vd. at; Ve. au. The last four
can in no case develop an ablaut ; the @ in Va. is hindered by the
two consonants from contracting with the reduplication in oc. (cf. Ic.
in section I), and so is distinguished from class IV., which has a
followed by one consonant, or an equivalent consonant combi-
nation.

In OE. the present in Va. becomes éa before liquids, @ before
nasals ; when #4 follows, the 2 coalesces with the @ to 0, and the 4
is elided between vowels. In Vb. the present becomes @ before
consonants, @ in verbis puris. In Vc. it remains 6 except where a ja
stem causes an umlaut to ¢. In Vd. it is @, which after g may be-
come ea. In Ve. it is ea.

The preterit retained the reduplication in Gothic, but in the other
Germanic dialects traces only remain of the older form. In OE.

Vol. xiii. ] The Ablaut in English. 77

these are dréord, léort, réord, for and with dred, let, red in Vb., and
heht, léolc, for and with Az, /écin Vd. The regular preterit vowel
is é when the present has @, a, or when the preterit shows traces
of reduplication, but ¢o9 when the present has éa, ¢a, @, 0. Occa-
sionally we find co for ¢ by analogy. For the cases of grammatic
change, see the participle.

The participle is always like the infinitive except where this has
umlaut (wépan) when the participle has the unumlauted form, and
in hon, fon, where the participle retains the ” and has grammatic
change of 4 to g (hangen, fangen). The same occurs also in the
preterit, singular and plural (eng, feng).

The class contains 56 verbs. 31 0G.; I0 WG.; 15 OE. only.

The oG. verbs are:

OE. OS. OHG. ON. G.
Va.
blandan ME. blandan _ blantan blanda blandan
féaldan ME. NE. W. faldan falda falban
féallan ME. NE. fallan fallan falla
fon ME. fahan fahan fa fahan
gangan ME. note 16 gangan gangan gagga gaggan W.
héaldan ME. NE. haldan haldan halda haldan
h6n ME. NE. hahan hahan ha hahan
stéaldan staldan
wéaldan ME. note 17 waldan __—waltan valda waldan
Vb.
bl#san ME.? note 18 blasan blasa blésan
gretan ME gratan grata grétan
lztan ME.+NE. W. latan lazan lata létan
mawan ME. NE. Ws. majan+ ma
redan ME.+NE. W. radan ratan rapa rédan
sawan ME. NE. Ws, sahan+ sajan W. sa saian
sl#pan + ME. + NE. W. note 19 slapan _—_slafan slépan
wawan | wajan W. waian
Ve.
bldtan bljdzan+ blotat+ bl6tan
growan ME. NE. gruoan W. groa
hwOpan note 20 hwopan
rowan ME. NE. W., roa
‘Vd.
hatan ME. +note 21 hétan heizan heita haitan
lacan ME. W. : _ leika laikan
sceadan ME.+NE. W. skédan sceidan skaidan
Sswapan ME. +NE. W. note 24 swépan sweifan sveipa+

78 B. W. Wells, [1882.
OE. OS. OHG, ON. G.
Ve.
béatan ME. + NE. - bbzan banta +
biian note 22. buan W. biiwan + biia bauan +
éacan Okan ouhhonW. = auka aukan
éadan Oodan auda
héawan ME. NE. Ws. hauuan » houwan hdoggva
hléapan ME.+NE. W. hldépan loufan hlaupa hlaupan
The we. verbs are:
OE. OS. OHG. ON.
Va,
bannan ME.+NE. W. bannan banna W.
spannan ME.? NE. W. spannan spanna W.
wéalcan ME.+NE. W. walchan valka W.
wéallan ME. wallan wallan cf. vella Ic., G. vulan?
Vb.
blawan ME. NE. blajan +
crawan ME. NE. crajan +
dr#dan ME.+NE. W. dradan tratan
brawan ME. NE. drajan+
Ve.
hrdpan ME. ? hropan ruofan + G. hropjan, ON. hroépa W.
wépan ME.+NE. W. wopan wuofan+ § G. wopjan, ON. cepa W.
OE. only are: |
Vb. hl6wan ME.? NE. W. Ve.
cnawan ME. + NE. hw6san bréatan, note 25
Ve. spowan déagan
bl6wan ME.+NE. Ws. swogan ME. +note 23 héafan, note 25
cnddan Vd. hnéapan, note 25

fl6wan ME.+NE. W.

glowan ME.+NE. W.
ME. are 40. 18 are S.; 17 are S. and W.; 1 is W.; 4 are only in the present.
NE. are 29. 9 are S.; 20 W.; 4 are W.s. See section V.C.6.

swafan, note 24 spréatan, note 25

NOTES.

1. CweSan is weak in NE., beqgueathe ; the isolated form guoth is strong.

2. Wesan in NE. only in was, were. This, with sodden and forlorn, is the only
case of grammatic change in NE. It is also the only case of distinction between
the preterit singular and plural.

3. bweran Ib. is classed as oG. because of ON. bverra Ic.

4. Bringan. The usual preterit d7d4/e, and the participle 4r0h/, are from a
weak *brengan which occurs in Os. In ME. drimgen is the only relic of the strong
forms.

5: WéorSan occurs in NE. only in the phrase, ‘‘ woe worth the day.”

6. Cringan cannot be the source of NE. cringe, which would in that case be
strong. It is not ME.

7. Migan, stigan, ston, béon, wréon may take forms of III. throughout, owing to
the analogy of the present.

Vol. xiii. ] Lhe Ablaut in English. ' 79

8. Scifan is OG. and ME.NE. It does not occur in o£. Mss., but was certainly
OE.

9. Spiwan. ME. NE. are from spéowian OF. W.

10. Aipan, a corruption of OF. vitfan W. ME. has from the same source a
strong verb of ITI. from which is derived the NE. reap. Ripfan is obsolete in ME.

Il. S#ican may be oG., cf. Danish s#igge S. on. is W. The NE. sneak cor-
responds neither in spelling nor pronunciation to this verb.

12. Béodan. Many ME. and all NE. forms unite with those of d:ddan. The
verb survives in forbid.

13. Kéofan. In ME (Cursor M. 7809), and in NE. reeve.

14. SciéSdan. ME. scaden W. is from OE. sceStan W.

15. Zacan was probably borrowed from on. It occurs but once in og., in
Aelfric’s Grammar. .

16. Gangan has in ME. no preterit. Its place is taken by OF éoae.

17. Wéaldan. NE. wield is from OE. wieldan W.

18. 5/@san is OG. and ME. It does not occur in OE. Mss., but it is found in
Lye’s Glossary.

19. Sl@pan has weak forms frequently in late OE.

20. Hwépan. NE. whoop is of recent origin.

21. Hdtan. NE. only in the obsolete Aight.

22. Buan. The OE. preterit is W., but the participle is S.

23. Swdgan is not OG., for Gothic swogan is W.; but it may be we., for os.
swogan occurs only in the present.

24. Swdfan, swdpan are derived from Class II. Cf. OE. swifan, ON. sveipa,
and note 25. |

25. Bréatan, héafan, hnéapan, spréatan, are derived from Class III. Cf. of.
bréotan, Gothic hiufan, hniupan, OE. spriitan, and note 24.

The following table groups the statistics of the preceding sec-
tion : —

Whole no. of
Of. verbs.
OE. only.
Whole no. of
ME. verbs.
Present only.
Whole no. of
NE. verbs.

3
Oo
6
fe)
9
I

ff Kt COC mm m=

=
wm

——

Total. | 309 | 192 | 63

mt
Oo

SECTION IV. THE DECAY OF THE ABLAUT IN MIDDLE ENGLISH.

To what extent and for what causes was the ablaut abandoned

in ME.?
The table has shown that more than one fourth of the or. strong
verbs which remain in ME. have sometimes weak forms, though but

80 B. W. Wells, [ 1882,

nine are always weak. There were four causes which produced this
result.

1, The ME. phonetic development would often make two verbs,
which could be easily distinguished in O£., almost identical in sound.
In this case the verbs could be most easily distinguished if one of
them took weak forms. In the same way the phonetic development
would make two or more ablaut vowels identical, and so make weak
endings necessary to distinguish the tenses. To these considera-
tions are due the weak forms of the following 25 verbs : —

Bannan. The xn caused confusion of the present and preterit.

Béorcan, clorfan, déorfan. The following r in some ME. dialects would make
present and preterit identical, hence the weak forms. The preterito-presens
déarf may also have affected déorfan.

Béatan, draédan, raedan, laétan, hdtan, sceddan, \ost all phonetic distinction in
the ablaut in ME. The final dental in the preterit also gave them the appearance
of weak verbs. Gvractan was kept strong only to save it from confusion with
Gréttan W. Lacan, hléapan, slacpan, though without the aid of the final dental,
have yielded to the same influence.

Blowan, brtowan, hréowan, wéalcan, through the influence of the w, became
identical in all ablaut forms, and so were weakened. In é/dwan this was aided
by the necessity of distinguishing it fram d/dwaz.

Céorfan, see béorcan.

Cinan is rarely weak, perhaps because in the preterit it might have been con-
fused with cam preterito-presens. See witan.

Delfan, geldan, teldan. The / like r in déorcan. Here would belong /éa/dan,
féallan, but the weak forms of these verbs are doubtful and probably errors.

Déorfan, see béorcan. Draédan, see béatan.

Dréopan, drepan, rare and weak, in different documents, to avoid confusion
with one another.

Geldan, see delfan. Hatan, hléapan, see béatan.

Hréowan, see bréowan. Ldcan, laecan, raedan, see béatan.

Sceddan, slacpan, see béatan.

Slitan, witan, owing to the dental (cf. dée¢am) had in the preterit plural the
appearance of shortened weak forms, and these gradually asserted themselves
elsewhere. Watan was helped in this by the preterito-presens wd? (cf. cinan and
cann, déorfan and déarf).

Weéalcan, see bréowan. Wéitan, see slitan.

All these words, except J¢atan, so far as they occur, are weak in
NE.

2. A weak verb of similar sound and allied meaning occasionally
weakened a strong verb. Thus we have the following 5 cases : —

Felhan Ic. becomes first _fe/en Ib., and then yields to the analogy of fé/an W.
Gripan is confused in ME. with gv7ffen W. which is derived from the OE. word.
Lesan is confused in ME. with /ésun W.

Rinan is confused with OE. rignan, ME. reinen W.

Sican is confused with sicettan OF W. ME. W.

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. SI

3. When the OE. present has a peculiar vowel so that it resembles
weak rather than strong verbs we may expect weak forms. Thus
are explained Alichhan, scitppan, steppan, wépan, owing to the umlaut ;
bregdan, frignan, swogan, owing to the absorbed g, which produced
a diphthong otherwise unknown among strong verbs ; dizgan, dufan,
hritan, litan, putan, murnan, spurnan, for 4, u is elsewhere found
only in weak verbs ; scedfan may also be placed here, for in this verb
ed becomes éa, which is without analogy among the strong verbs.
In all 15 verbs. |

4. Where the on. had weak forms corresponding to an o£. strong
verb, the ME. occasionally followed this dialect. There are 5 cases.
bacan oN. baka. dwinan ON. dvina. | swapan ON. spa.
blican on. blika. glowan ON. gloa.

5. Residua. <Acan and flowan are usually W. in me. and always
in NE. I know of no other reason for their weakening than the an-
alogy of bacan, blowan.

There are also 8 verbs which show sporadic weak forms in ME.
and are for the most part strong in NE. These weak forms have
little if any grammatical importance, and are rather to be looked
upon as graphical errors. The verbs are: céosan, cleofan, climban,
cnawan, creopan, dreogan, drifan, hebban. |

6. The verbs which occur only in the present can now be classi-
fied according to the analogy of the others. Strong were : dwéolan,
hrinan, lean, miSan, slifan, swifan, picgan; probably also snican,
wican, for strican, swican were strong, though d/ican, sican were
weak. Zon, too, was strong, but with a change of class to III.
See section III. note 7.

Strong and weak were: d/zsan, briican, ctowan, hlowan, hropan,
slipan, spannan, spritan.

7. If we contrast the ME. with the MHG., we shall find the latter
far more conservative in its ablaut, and more uniform in its devel-
opment. This is due to the conservative character of the Hc. vocal-
ism, and to its freedom from foreign influence. But though the mE.
is less tenacious of the ablaut than the MHG. we have here no com-
pleted process, but rather the beginnings of a change which is even
now not completed, a prophecy which is being fulfilled. What the
NE. will be is clearly foreshadowed in the scattered weak forms which
are like the drops that tell of the coming shower. Still the persis-
tency of the ME. ablaut in the midst of the far-reaching phonetic
and inflectional changes which characterized this period is a cause
of surprise when we turn to the next stage in the history of the lan-

guage, the NE. of to-day.
6

82 B~ W. Wells, [1882.

SECTION V. THE ABLAUT IN NEw ENGLISH.

Less than one half of the o£. strong verbs remain in NE., and of
these more than one half are weak. In place of 309 OE. verbs we
have but 154, of which but 73 are strong ; while of the OHG. 280, the
NHG. has preserved the ablaut in 153. Even where the ablaut is
retained it consists of but two or, at the most, three vowels, while
the phonetic laws of ME. and NE. have caused wide divergence even
among verbs of like class, crossing and confusing the sharply cut
lines of the of. ablaut.

In NE. the preterit singular and plural have the same vowel, ex-
cept in was, were ; grammatic change is abandoned, its only relics
being were and the participial adjectives sodden and forlorn. The
ablaut vowels are governed in sound by the following consonants ;
sometimes the vowel of the preterit is found in the participle, but
more often the reverse is true.

In the following the present, preterit, and participle are treated
in order, and the OE. classification retained. Where the NE. form
does not correspond phonetically to the o£., notes are added. A
list of strong verbs which have been added since the OE. time, and
of strong participial adjectives corresponding to weak verbs, is
appended.

A. The Present.

a. The present of the NE. strong verbs is from the Of. present in
71 cases.

Ia. Bid, break, eat, get, give, lie, see, sit, speak, tread, weave (11).

Ib. Bear, come, shear, steal, tear (5).

Ic. Bind, cling, drink, fight, find, begin, grind, run — note 1, shrink, sing,
sink, sling, slink, spin, spring, sting, stink, swim, swing, win, wind, wring (22).

II. Bide, bite, drive, ride, rise, shine, slide, smite, strike, stride, write (11).

ITI. Choose — note 2, cleave, fly —note 3, freeze, reeve, shoot — note 4 (6).

IV. Draw, heave, forsake, shake, stand, swear, take, wake (8).

V. Beat, blow, crow, fall, grow, hold, know, throw (8).

B. In two cases the NE. present is from the participle ; IV. s/ay,
V. hang, are from slegen, hangen. The contracted o£. presents
stean, hon were abandoned even in ME., and presents formed after
the analogy of the other verbs of these classes from the participles.

y. The following new strong verbs occur in NE. (11).

Ta. Spit, o£. spittan W. II. Chide, ox. cidan W. (Sievers S.).
Ib. Wear, OF. werian W. Hide, o£. hydan W.
Ic. Dig, o£. dicjan W. Strive, O. FRENCH estriver.
Ring, OE. hringan W. Thrive, on. brifa S.
Stick, OE. sticca, noun. IV. Stave, OE. noun nom. pl. stafas.

String, OE. streng, noun.

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 83

NoTEs. I. Run is from ME. runnen = ronnen = urnen == ornen = OE. dornan
(e6 for éo) = rinnan.

2. Choose from céosan (é0 = 0), see note 4.

3. Fly. O¥. flcon and fléogan, to avoid confusion with one another, received —
the first, a dialectic present (/Zy); the second, weak forms.

4. Shoot, from OE. scéotan (e6 for €0). The preterit skot suggests scotjan OE.
W., but is from the participle O£. scofen.

B. The Preterit.

The preterit corresponds to the OE. preterit singular in 40 cases ;
in 14 it is from the participle aided by the preterit plural; in 13 from
the participle alone ; in 6 cases it is due to a change of class. The
causes of these variations from the regular development will be
considered after the lists have been given.

a. From the preterit singular are :

Ia. Ate, bad, gave, got, lay, sat, saw (7).

Ib. Came (1).

Ic. Drank, began, ran, sang, sank, shrank, sprang, stank, swam, won (10).

II. Abode, drove, rode, rose, shone, strode, smote, wrote (8).

IV. Shook, forsook, stood, took, woke (5).

V. Beat — note I, blew, crew, fell, grew, held, hung — note 2, knew, threw (9).

B. From the participle and preterit plural are:

Ic. Bound, clung, fought, found, ground, slung, slunk, spun, stung, swung,
wound, wrung (12).
II. Bit, slid (2).

It is to be noticed that in Ic. the tendency is to abandon the
preterits in @ and to form them in this way;so one often hears,
though one seldom sees, the preterits degun, drunk, sung; see also
V. B. e.

y- From the participle alone are :

Ia. Broke, spoke, trod, wove (4).

Ib. Bore, shore, stole, tore (4).
III. Chose, clove, froze, rove, shot ; see V. A. note 4 (5).

The four verbs of Ia. followed in ME. the example set by OE.
tredan (section III. Ia. 3) and, owing to the r and w, developed
an o in the participle.

5. The following have changed class:

Ib. Hove, swore, from OE. hof, swor, IV.; as in German, from the participle,
as all verbs of Ib., owing to the umlaut in the present.

Ic. Struck from OE. strde II. We find the regular stroke in Shakspere. The
cause of the change is not clear.

V. Flew, drew, slew, from OF. fléah III., droh IV., sl6h IV. These verbs would
have lost the ablaut entirely, see section VI., if they had not changed class.

84 B. W. Wells, [ 1882.

e. The later additions to the strong preterits follow the analogy
of a. in the following ; Ia. spat, Ic. rang, II. strove, throve. From
the analogy of 8. are: Ic. dug, strung, stuck; Ul. chid, hid. Stove
follows the analogy of hove, — that is, it is from the analogy of par-
ticiples of Ib.

NoTEs. 1. Seat is phonetically the equivalent of both déafaz and dZot ; ortho-
graphically it corresponds to Jéatan, but the verb is nevertheless strong owing to
the participle beaten.

2. Hung, ME. hong = heing = héong = OE. héng (éo for é in class V., see sec-
tion III.; 206 is common, see section V. A. note 2, 4).

Why did not all these verbs follow the oF. preterit singular?
In Ia. the preceding 7, w, in Ib. the following r /, would have acted
on the OE. ablaut in such a way as to make present and preterit
singular alike; to avoid this the participle is taken. In Ic. the or.
had beside the form in @ a secondary form in o for the preterit
singular before nasals ; this was too near the w of the participle to
resist its analogy. In II., dé and s/d, owing to the dental, seemed like
shortened weak preterits (cf. chid, hid, and section IV. 1 séz/an) and
so took the place of the regular forms. This similarity caused the
dropping of the participial ending in s/sd; and in three cases shit,
slit, twit, it got into the present also, making a wholly weak verb,
see section VI. The irregularity in struck is not explained. In III.
since OE. @o and ¢éa are indistinguishable in NE., either the participle
must be taken or the class changed. The shortening in sof, like
that in ¢vod, is due to the dental. In IV. the class is changed when
unlaut, or absorbed g in the present, removed the verbs from the
analogy of their associates.

C. The Participle.

The NE. past participle is regularly from the o£. form, but in
7 cases it is from the preterit, and in one case from a participial
adjective ; an attempt to explain these irregularities is made at the
close of the section.

a, From the or. participle are:

Ia. Bidden —note 1, broken — note 2, eaten, given, lain, spoken — note 2,
trodden, woven — note 2 (8).

Ib. Borne, come, shorn, stolen, torn (5).

Ic. Bound, clung, drunk, fought, found, ground, begun, run, shrunk, slung,
slunk, sprung, spun, stung, stunk, sung, sunk, swum, swung, won, wound, wrung
(22.)

II. Bitten, driven, ridden, risen, slid or slidden, smitten, stridden, struck (see
V. B. 8.), written (9).

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 85

III. Chosen, cloven, flown, frozen, shot (see V. A. note 4), rove (6).

IV. Drawn, forsaken, shaken, slain, taken, waken (and hove, sworn, see V.
B. 8.) (8).

V. Beaten, blown, crown, fallen, grown, known, thrown (7).

8. From the preterit singular are :

Ia. Got and gotten, sat (2).
II. Abode, shone (2).
IV. Stood (1).

V. Held — note 3, hung (2).

y- From a participial adjective is seez, OF. gestene. It does not
correspond to any OE. verbal form.

6. Participial adjectives have sometimes preserved strong ablaut
vowels which are lost in the verbs. These correspond in their vowel
always to the OE. participle. They are: blown (of flowers, etc.),
Sorlorn, graven, hewn, laden, molten, mown, shapen, shaven, shriven,
sodden, sown, swollen. ‘There is also a participial adjective with a
strong ending from an OE. weak verb ; this is rotten, OE. rotjan, W.
The OE. s¢rican, II. has in NE. gone over to Ic. in preterit and par-
ticiple, see V. B. 6. but the adjective stricken preserves the old
ablaut vowel.

«. The new strong participles follow the analogy of a. in Ib. worn ;
Ic. dug, rung, stuck, strung; Il. chidden, hidden, striven, thriven;
IV. stove, but with a change of class to Ib., like hove, V.B. 8. The
analogy of £. is followed in Ia. spaé.

NoTEs. 1. Bidden owes its vowel to the analogy of the present.

2. Broken, spoken, woven, see V. B. y.

3. Held. There is an obsolete 4o/den and a participial adjective beholden from
the OE. participle.

Why did not all these words follow the ok. participle? In Ia.
got, sat, spat, owing to the dental, were taken for weak preterits, and,
as such, transferred to the participle. Seen is not explained. In
II. abode, had it developed regularly, would have fallen together
with the participle of did. Shone is not clear. In IV. stood, owing
to the dental and the peculiarity of the present, is treated like a
weak preterit, and so transferred to the participle. In V. ela
shows the same dental influence that we have seen in Ia. and IV.
Hung follows the analogy of all other strong verbs with w in the
preterit, and transfers this form to the participle.

In general, the NE. ablaut vowels correspond to the or.; where
they do not, the special and peculiar influences are not difficult to

86 B. W. Wells, [1882.

see. Simplicity has been the aim of every change, practical com-
mon-sense has been the guiding power. We have now to see how
far the verbs which have become weak in NE. owe the loss of the
ablaut to the same causes which we have seen at work here.

SecTION VI. THE NEw ENGLISH WEAKENED VERBS.

There are 81 verbs which have become weak in NE. Here the
present alone preserves an ablaut vowel, which is usually that of
the o£. present, though in the following four cases the participle
has been preferred: flay, OF. flaegen; shit, slit, twit, OE. sciten, sliten,
at-witen. See section V. A. £., and B. ad fin. In a few cases the
phonetic development of the NE. present is slightly irregular, cf.
for instance, mourn with spurn, but this belongs to the special his-
tory of the o£. sounds. The NE. weakened verbs are:

Ia. Knead, mete, bequeathe, weigh, wreak (5).

Ic. Bark, bell, braid, burn, burst, carve, climb, delve, help, melt, mourn, spurn,
starve, swell, swerve, thrash, warp, yell, yelp, yield (20).

II. Glide, gripe, shit, shrive, slit, twit, writhe (7).

III. Bow, brew, brook, chew, creep, crowd, flee, fleet, lie, lose, rue, seethe,
sprout, suck, shove (15). |

IV. Ache, bake, fare, play, gnaw, grave, lade, laugh — note 1, shape, shave,
step, wade, wash, wax (14).

V. Ban, blow (of flowers, etc.), dread, flow, fold, glow, hew, leap, let, low,
mow, read, row, shed, sleep, sow, span, swoop, walk, weep (20).

Note 1. Laugh is not from Aehhan, but from the unumlauted 4/éahan, which
is not uncommon in OE.

The loss of ablaut is due to the character of the vowel in the
present and the nature of the following consonant. The rules may
be formulated as follows:

1. The verb is strong when the vowel is followed by 2 + conso-
nant, s, and ¢ (except after 7), and when the or. present vowel is
1, ¢, t¢, é, €0, 4, except as provided in 2. This accounts for 60 strong
verbs out of 73. It fails to account for Ia. Ze; III. cleave, fly, reeve,
shoot; IV. draw, slay; V. beat, blow, crow, grow, know, throw.

2. The verb is weak when the vowel is followed by liquid + con-
sonant (except in case of é2), m+ consonant, g, w,; and usually
when the present vowel is followed by a dental ; further, whenever
the vowel is ¢0, éa, a@, a, @, 0, u, %@; except as provided above. This
accounts for 72 weak verbs out of 81. It fails to account for Ia.
bequeathe, wreck; Il. gripe, shrive, writhe; III. lose; IV. ache, bake;
V. fold.

Vol. xiii.] The Ablaut in English. 87

Exceptions to1. Lie, Ia., is strong to distinguish it from ée, III. ;
it is often confused in speaking with /zy,W. Cleave, reeve, have
frequent weak forms, but they are still regularly strong. 7Zy has
changed class, and is strong to distinguish it from zee. Shoot has
the same forms that it would have were it weak. Draw and slay
have changed class to preserve the ablaut. Bea?, if it had short-
ened the preterit and participle, would have fallen together with
these forms of det; it retained, therefore, the long forms and the
ending ez. Blow, crow, know, throw, Vb., and grow, Vc. (by anal-
ogy of Vb.) are strong, though mow, sow in Vb. are Ws., and all
other verbs in Vc. are W. Why Vb. and Vc. are treated differently
in NE. is unexplained. |

LEixceptions to 2. Bequeathe owes its weak forms to its legal
usage ; cf. hanged, legal for hung. Wreck is W. because of OE.
wrectan, NE. wreck. Gripe is unexplained. Shrive, owing toa
consciousness of its foreign origin, and to its ecclesiastical use (cf.
bequeathe) is Ws. A derivative with an ablaut vowel is Shrove-
tuesday. Wreritheis unexplained. ose is W. because of OE. losjan,
W. Ache, bake, see IV. 4,5. old is a denominative to feal/d, and
not immediately from the verb.

The influence of following consonants on the verbs is to be thus
explained.

The Nasals. Single nasals do not affect the vowel, but m + con-
sonant so far lowers the present of Ic. as to prevent ablaut. In IV.,
V. # + nasal is accompanied with ablaut partly on account of the
analogy of Ic., but more on account of the peculiarity of the verbs
(stand, hang. See V. A. B., B. note 2, C. ad fin.).

The Liquids. Single liquids do not affect the ablaut, but liquid +
consonant always prevents ablaut in Ic., and tends to preserve it in
Va., for it lowers the vowel of the present, and so destroys the dis-
tinction between the ablaut vowels in Ic., while it magnifies it in Va.
Note the exception, fold.

The dentals, traces of whose influence we have already seen in
section V. B. C., often produce weak verbs, but by no means regu-
larly. To their influence, aided at times by the analogy of like-
sounding weak verbs, we owe the weakening of Ia. knucad, mete ;
Il. glide, shit, slit, twit.

G and g + consonant unite in ME. with the preceding vowel to
form a diphthong, which places these verbs out of the analogy of
their class. Most of these become weak, a few change class, V. B. 6. ;
one only, é¢, Ia., retains strong forms.

88 W. D. Whitney, : [1882.

W, by coalescing with the preceding vowel, usually destroyed the
ablaut. The peculiar exceptions are noted at the.close of “ Excep-
tions to 1.”

S favors strong forms in III., except for 4ose; the cause ‘is not
clear.

C in IV. (ve. &) preserves the ablaut, and gives the OE. 0 a short
sound. Ido not know the cause of either the shortening or the
weakening.

Of the 81 NE. weakened verbs 41 only were always strong in ME.;
32 have strong and weak forms, 3 have only weak forms, and 5 are
only in the present. Plainly, then, we have here only a continuation,
or fulfilment of the ME. processes. There is nothing new here; no
new elements, such as have affected the vocalism, have been at
work ; the old laws have only become more universal in their appli-
cation. The desire for clearness and simplicity, the practical sense
which surmounts every difficulty with sureness and readiness, has
become more clearly marked, and so the English ablaut in its
changing fortunes is a reflection of the mental characteristics of the
race.

VI. — General Considerations on the Indo-European Case-System.

By W. D. WHITNEY,

PROFESSOR IN YALE COLLEGE.

THAT the whole system of declension in Indo-European
language is, as compared with the system of verb-inflection,
a matter of great and unsolved difficulty, will be generally
admitted. No one of the three departments of expression
involved in it— gender, number, case—has had even its
main historical outlines laid down to the general satisfaction
of scholars. The time, it would seem, has not yet come for
dealing successfully with the subject. What is wanting, in
order to put us in condition to do this, is (apart from the
general improvement of linguistic philosophy), on the one
hand, a better comprehension of the more modern and sec-
ondary declensional elements which have been produced here
and there among the languages of our family ; and, on the other

Vol. xiii.] “The Indo-European Case-System. » 89

hand, a thorough study of the analogous but less systematic and
shapely forms of expression in languages of lower structure.
It is from the latter source, indeed, that important improve-
ments in the theories of Indo-European form-history in all
its parts are especially to be expected. But it is also, if Iam
not mistaken, possible to help the movement in some measure
by a general review of the ground, and criticism of the
methods and results of. recent investigators: and that is what
will be attempted, and for the case-system only, in the present
‘paper.

A few points respecting the original value of the cases
appear to be pretty well established; general opinion is fairly
settled in regard to them, and they look as if likely to stand
the test of further examination— which is, of course, in the
present state of our knowledge, the most that can be claimed
for anything in primitive language-history.

Thus, in the first place, the exceptional character of the
genitive, as an adnominal or adjective case. The verbal con-
structions of the genitive appear to be secondary only; there
is no difficulty about the satisfactory explanation of them as
such. . The formation of this case, then, falls into the general
department of the derivation from noun-stems of secondary
stems, signifying ‘ relating to or concerned with’ what is ex-
pressed by the primitive — this being the fundamental sense
of all secondary adjective-formations. The predominance of
the sense ‘ belonging to,’ which finally makes of the case an
almost exclusively ‘“‘ possessive” one, is a matter of gradual
development, analogous with that which has made the con-
spicuous body of possessive suffixes, and the class of pos-
sessive compounds, in Sanskrit. As to the affiliation of the
earliest Indo-European genitive-endings with adjective-making
suffixes-actually in use as such, it has been, as is well known,
repeatedly attempted, and with a degree of success; but the
results reached are not regarded as certain. Frequent in-
stances however occur, in the later history of the languages
of our family, of interchange between genitive case-forms and
derivative adjective-stems: familiar examples, among the pro-
nouns, are the Sanskrit asmd@ka ‘our’ and yusmdaka ‘your,’

go. W. D. Whitney, [1882.

the Latin zoster and vester, and the Germanic mzne and thine,
and so on. Opinion differs somewhat as to the direction of
derivation here; and we perhaps even oftener see it stated
that the adjectives are made from the case-forms; but this
appears to me a false and indefensible view: we have in re-
ality in such cases a repetition of the process by which the
primitive genitives were made, by stereotyping a no longer
inflected adjective-form into a case-form. This is as much in
accordance with all the usual processes of derivation in our
languages as the taking of a case-form and inflecting it
adjectively would be opposed to them.

Again, in the second place, certain other of the cases
appear clearly to have had originally the office of indicating
local relations. These cases are three. The ablative indicates
the relation of removal, or is the from-case. The instrumental
indicates the relation of concomitance or adjacency, passing
over into that of means or instrument: it is the wzk- or by-
case, in the various senses of those prepositions. The locative
indicates the relation of place where: it is the @#- or zz-case.
These views, too, are so widely held that they may be said to
have the general assent of linguistic scholars. There are, to
be sure, those who oppose them. Thus, for example, Penka,
in his monograph on the case-system,! holds that the partial
use of the locative in Sanskrit as indicating the goal of motion
and action, as a sort of ¢o-case, is not less original than the
other; and he even lays this assumed fact at the basis of his
whole case-theory, claiming that if the locative includes two
such irreconcilably diverse meanings as ‘at’ and ‘to,’ we
must infer that no case-form was created to fill any single
definable office: whence follows—and soon. Whereas, in
truth, there is nothing in this Sanskrit use of the locative
to cast any doubt upon its primitive unitary character; it is a
thing evidently of secondary origin, entirely analogous with
the transfer of English usage which has made it customary

1 Nominalflexion etc., Vienna, 1878. It contains a convenient report and
review of all the theories of explanation brought out up to that time, accom-
panied with a destructive criticism which one can mostly approve and enjoy ; but
the author’s own theory, when he finally produces it, is at least as unacceptable
as any of the rest.

Vol. xiii.] The Indo-European Case-System. QI

for us to say “ go there” and “come here” instead of “ go
thither ” and “ come hither,” or with the transfer of Sanskrit
usage which has made the genitive also to no small extent
express the goal of action (as in ‘ give it his’ instead of ‘to
him’). Again, Schleicher, finding traces of more than one
form of the instrumental in earliest Indo-European speech,
suggests that the one form may have been created to signify
concomitance, and the other instrumentality. A most unfor-
tunate and valueless intimation this; since the expression of
instrumentality can only have been a development out of the
expression of concomitancy, or of something kindred and
equally external or physical: such a development as is seen
in the prepositions dy and wth themselves, our present
indicators of the means and instrument, though both of them
not long ago were particles of adjacency only, and one (dy)
still retains in part that value.

This point is one of the highest importance in the theory
of the case-system and its origin. It may be laid down gs a
universal truth that all designation, of the relations of objects
as well as of objects themselves and their activities, begins
with what is most physical, most directly apprehensible by
the senses. The whole body of intellectual, moral, ideal,
relational expression comes by processes of gradual adapta-
tion from the expression of sensible acts and qualities and
relations; such adaptation is all the time going on in the
_ present history of the languages we use, and their past his-
tory is in great measure an exhibition of the same move-
ment — the grandest and most pervasive movement which is
to be seen in them. We have not succeeded in demonstrating
the origin of any bit of expression until we have traced it up
to its physical value; if we have to stop short of that, we
must not fail to see and acknowledge that our quest has not
reached its goal. Now among the relations of objects, those
of place are obviously the most physical and sensible; and
our languages are filled with results of the transfers of desig-
nation from local to more ideal relations. The whole class of
pronouns, with all that has come by derivation from them, is
founded on conceptions of relative place; the adverb-prepo-

92 W. D. Whitney, : [1882.

sitions of locality and direction, whose origin goes back to a
very early period of the development of our ancestral speech,
have been ever since, and are still, the fertile source of ex-
pression for the most various conceptions: we have only to
look into the history of present and past uses of words like
of, from, for, in, out, in order to find abundant illustration.
From particles of place come by a next transfer those of
time; and those of manner, degree, and modality in general
are at no difficult distance. Our general knowledge of lan-
guage shows nothing more primitive and fundamental, as
underlying the expression of place-relations; and we are
therefore entitled to rest satisfied with the explanation found
for the instrumental, ablative, and locative cases, and to
regard their local values as the original ones, serving as
basis to the whole variety of their other uses.

As regards, however, the other three cases, the matter is
much less clear. There is, in the first place, the dative: how-
ever much, in later time, it may wear the aspect of a fo-case,
the students of early Indo-European speech do not feel
authorized to assign it that office. Thus Delbriick, who had
earlier (Kuhn’s Zeztschrtft, vol. xviii.) suggested as its funda-
mental meaning a “ physical inclination towards something,”
at present, in his latest publication (Syzt. Forsch., iv. 53),
assents to the view expressed by Hiibschmann (Zur Casus-
lehre), that it is to be regarded rather as “a purely gram-
‘matical case,” as designating “that which the predication
concerns” (welchem die Aussage gilt). This is most unsatis-
factory and unacceptable. To say that the origin of the dative
is still involved in obscurity for us, and that we do not succeed
in tracing its office back of the point at which it stands as
secondary object of a verb, is to take intelligible and defensi-
ble ground; but to explain the case as per se the indicator of a
grammatical relation, namely that of something affected by the
predication, appears to me like a virtual confession of igno-
rance, made under cover of a claim of positive knowledge.
There is no such thing in language as an originally grammat-
ical case or form of any kind; this can only be the outcome
of aseries of adapting changes, passed upon something that

Vol. xiii.] The Indo-European Case-System. 93

had once a sensible and definable value. One might as well
explain the subjunctive as a purely grammatical mode, indica-
ting contingency of action; or the passive as a voice created
to signify recipience of action; or of as the sign of the gram-
matically adjective relation of one noun to another. More-
over, the form of statement of the dative meaning, as given
by Delbriick, seems open to serious objection. There is
no member of the ‘sentence that is not truly concerned in
the predication, and that is not sometimes, or in some lan-
guages, taken in, distinctly or impliedly, into the very
structure of the verb, the essential predicating word. If
the whole sentence is not to be called the predication,
then this name and quality must be limited to the verb
alone; and the first and most indispensable member “ which
the predication concerns” is the subject, from which the action
proceeds; the next, in immediateness and frequency, is the
object, to which it most directly addresses itself; then follow
the other circumstances, of remoter object, means, place, and
so on, in their various degrees of nearness and indispensa-
bility. For all these, our language, in the course of its grad-
ual development of the membered sentence out of the original
holophrastic word-sentence or root, has provided various dis-
tinct means of expression; among the rest the dative case,
which has its own special degree and mode of concernment
to designate, like all the others. And the question is in respect
to all of them the same: namely, from what starting-point,
and through what intermediate steps, the expression of that
particular kind of concernment was arrived at. A dative
relation (along with an accusative one) seems to be
wrought into the structure of the Indo-European verb itself.
in the inflection of the middle voice; and the South-African
languages have a special conjugation-form meaning ‘to do
for some one’ (e. g. donela, ‘see for, from dona, ‘see’). In
like manner, we may say, the English verb zck involves in
itself the instrumental concernment, which in German has to
be expressed by an instrumental phrase (mt dem Fusse
stossen, ‘thrust with the foot’ ).

The circumstance pleaded by Delbriick, that “the genuine

94 W. D. Whitney, [ 1882.

dative is not construed with prepositions,” cannot be allowed
any considerable measure of force as against the primitive
local value of the case, in view of the original absence of
prepositional character in these simple words of direction,
and their gradual change of office, accompanying the trans-
formation and specialization of the cases. The capacity of
acquiring prepositional construction might as easily be lost
by an originally local dative, as gained by an originally adjec-
tival genitive (or, according to Delbriick’s view, by an origi-
nally “ purely grammatical”’ accusative).

It seems better, then, to regard the primitive office of the
dative asa matter thus far obscure, and to look for its eluci-
dation hereafter, along with the general clearing-up of the
subject of case-formation. The theory of an originally
“grammatical” value is not one on which we have reason
to repose even provisionally.

But the same claim, of an originally grammatical value, is
made by Hiibschmann and Delbriick for the accusative also.
The latter scholar, indeed, appears clearly in connection with
this case to violate his own fundamental rules for dealing with
questions of origin. In his Introduction to the work already
quoted, he expresses himself as follows, in opposition to the
old method of arriving at the “fundamental idea” (Grund-
begriff) of aform: ‘As fundamental ideas, have been hitherto
often set up such general ideas as seemed to their authors best
calculated to bind together in one comprehensive scheme the
-manifold uses of a form (so, for example, ‘ possibility’ in the
case of the subjunctive mode). In recent time, such attempts
have been with good reason abandoned, because it was evident

that they could lead to nothing that had historical value.” In
" coming, now, to deal with the accusative, Delbriick first reports
Hiibschmann’s general scheme of classification of its uses into
“ necessary”’ and “‘independent;” and then he recognizes as
the only fundamental idea that can bind the two classes to-
gether into one comprehensive scheme the following: ‘The
accusative denotes a complement or nearer definition of the
verbal idea”! A more vague and shadowy generality than
this, by way of substitute for a real primitive value, out of

Vol. xiii.] The Indo-European Case-System. 95

which the other values should have historically developed,
can hardly be conceived. Under it can, to be sure, be grouped
without difficulty all the accusative uses; but also, unfortu-
nately, and with equal facility, the uses of all the other four
adverbial cases. ‘‘ Complement or nearer definition of the
verbal idea” is a definition that impartially fits accusative,
dative, instrumental, locative, and ablative — one might say,
like a mitten, but that a mitten does at least keep the thumb
apart from the other four fingers. The accusative certainly
has its own set of uses, separate from those of the other cases ;
and our quest should be after the use which lies historically at
the basis of the rest; how we are furthered by the setting-up of
a fundamental idea which includes the whole body of cases
save the nominative, and does not really exclude even that
(since to specify the actor is strictly to limit or define the
otherwise indefiniteness of the action), it is not easy to see.
Far better were it to make a frank confession of ignorance, say-
ing that it is thus far possible only to state and classify the
varieties of accusative use, since the starting-point of their
development is not yet determined or determinable.

It may be questioned, however, whether we are reduced to
the necessity of such a confession; whether it may not be
found practicable to rank the accusative with the three cases
treated of above, as also one of originally local value — namely,
as the /Zo-case, or that which denotes the immediate goal of
motion or action. This seems to me so much more probable
than any other of the explanations given of the case, that I am
ready to adopt it, provisionally, or until some sound reason
shall be brought against it, or some other theory placed upon
a yet better foundation. We cannot, of course, in such a
matter expect anything like a demonstration, excluding all
possibility of an alternative theory; it is only a question of
greater or less plausibility, on the one side and on the other.
The evidences that make in favor of the proposed explanation
are briefly these: first, the improbability that, in any scheme
of designation of local relations, this simplest and most funda-
mental relation would be passed over; and this improbability
is so strong that, if not here, we should seem called upon to

96 W. D. Whitney, (1882.

look for the expression of a /o-relation in the dative. Then,
second, and especially, the peculiar fitness of such an office to
pass over into what has confessedly been, from the earliest
traceable period of Indo-European speech, the leading office
of the accusative: that of designating the direct object of the
verb, the person or thing to or unto or upon which the action
expressed by the verb directs or expends itself — for that is all
that is really implied in the grammatical relation of direct
object. The expression of this grammatical relation is thus
with entire ease derivable from one of local relation ; and, so far
as I can perceive, in no other way. With those who appreci-
ate the necessity of finding an underlying physical basis for
all “purely grammatical” items in language, the argument
here given will go a great way; and as the philosophy of lan-
guage-history comes to be better understood, that necessity
will be more clearly seen. Inthe third place, there are abun-
dant indications in early Indo-European speech, especially in
Sanskrit, of the actual use of the accusative as goal of motion
after verbs; and this construction with prepositions endures
' down even to the latest times: the former as well as the latter
is most acceptably viewed as the relic of an earlier more
widely spread condition of things. We have no reason what-
ever to assume that the accusative was at the beginning any
more restricted to use with verbs than were the other cases
now called by us “ adverbial ” because of their predominantly
adverbial constructions; each was employed wherever the
local relation which it expressed was called for. Infinitives
and participles are nouns and adjectives which, because of
the inferior concretion in them, by usage, of the meaning of
action, have retained the original capacity of “verbal” con-
structions shared by them with the proper verbal forms; and
the Sanskrit shows how uncertain is the line of division be-
tween them and ordinary nouns, and how easily even a sec-
ondary and comparatively modern adjective derivative can
pass over into the class of participles, or take on all the func-
tions of such.

It is a matter of course that no mere study and classifica-
tion of the uses of the accusative will ever bring us to a per-

Vol. xiii.] The Indo-European Case-System. 97

emptory theory of their origin and mutual connections. The
shifts and transfers, the extensions and restrictions, gradually
brought about by*®usage, are too manifold and baffling for
that. We might as well hope to draw out a unitary scheme
of the Greek genitive uses, or the Latin ablative uses, without
the help of historical study, which shows us of what diverse
elements each of those cases is made up. What we have to
do is to inquire of comparative grammar, and, if that fails us
or renders an uncertain answer, of sound and sober linguistic
theory, for a solution of the problem of origin, and then to
let that govern our understanding and presentation of the
particulars of usage. The variety of constructions of our
infinitive with ¢o, which is a rude analogue to the assumed
original zo-accusative, is wholly puzzling to one who does not
hold fast to the historical clue. And the case is yet worse
with the infinitives of Greek and Latin. Tell a classical gram-
marian of a couple of generations back that his much-studied
infinitives were only derivative nouns in an oblique case, and
he would have held you in derision. So with many at pres-
ent, as regards the primary physical and.local fo-value of the
accusative; but the question of its acceptance depends, after
all, only upon whether, among the various not demonstrably
impossible explanations of the case, this is the one that has
most in its favor. Another theory worthy of mention and
attention will be noticed a little further on.

There remains for discussion the nominative, which is also
a case of much difficulty and difference of opinion. Not,
indeed, as regards its office; this, so far as we can see, has
been from the beginning that of designating the performer of
the verbal action; but as regards how it came by its charac-
teristic sign or signs: since we might naturally expect to find
it the bare unaltered stem, and only in that way distinguished
from the other cases, whose definable speciality of office en-
titled them to special modes of designation. The probability
is decidedly greater here than anywhere else in the case-
system that the ending is a mere repetitional demonstrative
element, grown on to the stem, to which it was appended
without definable office. Such appendages are frequent

98 W. D. Whitney, [1882.

enough in a variety of languages; and even in our own mod-
ern tongues a repetitional pronoun is often vulgarly added
after the proper subject (¢#2s fellow HE says, and the like).
But we also ought not to leave out of view the possibility of
a guast-ablative origin for the nominative (suggested, I be-
lieve, by an English investigator): ‘from this, such and such
action, to that,” is not, in the inchoate period of sentence-
development, an inconceivable first model for a simple three-
membered clause, of subject, verb, and object.

If a repetitional demonstrative should come finally to be
recognized as the most acceptable origin of the nominative-
ending, the question would of course arise, whether the accu-
sative-ending might not best be explained as of the same
character. This would then involve a theory of the order of
case-making like that of Curtius, who holds (in his Chronolo-
gie) that the accusative was for a period the only oblique case,
until certain parts of its wide office were taken possession of
by the three (or four) other cases, created to signify certain
local relations. It would not at all necessarily imply any dis-
tinction of ‘here’ and ‘there’ between the nominative and
accusative signs; since, except in forms of the first person,
the actor is no nearer to the speaker than is the object; there
would rather be a gradual separation in usage of two appended
elements originally equivalent and interchangeable, with as-
signment to different offices. It would be like the distinction
of secondary derivatives, originally signifying general appur-
tenance, into possessives, patronymics, gerundives, and so on.

As regards the genesis of the case-endings themselves,
from what elements they come, and what the process of their
reduction to their present form, little or nothing of import-
ance has yet been made out. It is obviously useless to pick
out a member or two from an extensive system, and claim to
give a satisfactory explanation of them, while the other mem-
bers remain obscure. Nothing can be called truly satisfactory
that does not include a considerable part of the system. The
recognition of pronominal stems in the s and m of the nom-
inative and accusative singular is the item most confidently
asserted and most widely accepted; but even this is beset

Vol. xiii.] The Indo-European Case-System. 99

with too many doubts and difficulties to be taken for anything
better than a plausible conjecture, to which future investiga-
tions may perhaps give a more substantial character. The
same thing must be said of the speculations of A. Bergaigne
(in the Mém. Soc. Ling., ii. 358 ff.), who, with an excess of in-
genuity, strives to demonstrate in the forms of cases (minus
their most important elements, the final s, #, and @) a com-
bination of various derivative suffixes, sometimes as many
as three or four, with the stem. In the present condition
of the general question, such work is of no assignable value;
one and another item in it may finally be proved right, but it
casts no light in the meantime upon the origin of cases; it
deals only with the analysis of derivative suffixes. As has
already been shown, a real connection appears to exist
between general noun-derivation and genitive-formation; but,
on the other hand, the connection of the other local or ad-
verbial cases is with adverb-formation. This is a point of
high importance, and its recognition seems to be an essential
step of progress toward a true account of the cases. The
relations, of form and function, between the cases and adverbs
are so obvious as never to have escaped notice; and as we
see interchanges between adjectives and genitives through the
whole history of Indo-European speech, so we see the same
between the other oblique cases and adverbs — from the gu or
giv of the Greek, and the Prakrit ablative in do (=the Sanskrit
adverb in ¢as), down to such modern instances as the French
en and y, and the Italian vz and cz. The truth here involved
is apt to be put in the form of statement that an adverb is
a stereotyped case-form; but that, though in part correct, is
one-sided and incomplete: it does not include the numerous
and distinct classes of adverbs made by special adverbial
suffixes, separate from case-endings; and, especially, it does
not apply to the earliest period of form-making. More accu-
rately, there is noultimate historical distinction between adverbs
and case-forms — just as there is none between substantives
and adjectives, and, still further back in our language-history,
even between nouns and verbs. A case is ultimately an
adverb, made alike from all noun-stems, and with varieties

100 W. D. Whitney. [1882.

(on what basis formed we do not yet know) adapted and
appertaining to the various number-forms of each stem.
Case-making, then (apart from the genitive), is one division
of the wider department of adverb-making, and to be solved
as such; and no theories of origin of the case-system and of
case-endings will be likely to be successful, except as they
take due account of this relation of the two subjects. We
have, to be sure, to make with all probability the theoreti-
cal assumption of a yet earlier period in language-growth,
when adjective-making and adverb-making were as yet
undifferentiated processes; but the origin of the case-
system lies hitherward from, or at least forms a part of,
their differentiation.

APPENDIX.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FOURTEENTH
CAMBRIDGE, 1882.

TREASURER’S REPORT.

LisT OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSOCIATION.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

ANNUAL SESSION,

e 6 e
e em; eee wee e
on, 7° ee oe leo e
Ba Se © oe «
e @
e e e e ee « er
e
“e..,° PL Bid @ c.e6ce e e eo @e
oe @ we oe? ee e ee ry
. o%e “og? e 6
ee eo: e_°e oe e *“,° e ’
e@ee "80 ee @2e 06 t “9

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE FOURTEENTH
ANNUAL SESSION.

(From the Autograph Registry Slips.)

Frederic D. Allen, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William F. Allen, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Cecil F. P. Bancroft, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.
Charles E. Bennett, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Charles J. Buckingham, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
Lucius H. Buckingham, English High School, Boston, Mass.
Henry F. Burton, University of Rochester, N. Y.
William C. Cattell, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.
Martin L. D’Ooge, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
William W. Eaton, Andover, Mass.
Basil L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Frank M. Gilley, Chelsea, Mass.
William Greenwood, Cambridge, Mass.
Isaac H. Hall, Philadelphia, Pa.
Samuel Hart, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.
Milton W. Humphreys, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Hans C. G. Jagemann, pons Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
john Norton Johnson, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
obert P. Keep, Williston Seminary, Easthampton, Mass.
Thaddeus D. Kenneson, Harvard University, ambridge, Mass.
Charles R. Lanman, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Thomas B. Lindsay, Boston University, Boston, Mass.
{ules Luquiens, Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.
rancis A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.
Philippe B. Marcou, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Augustus C. Merriam, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
C. K. Nelson, Brookeville Academy, Brookeville, Md.
W. B. Owen, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.
Charles W. Park, Bombay, India.
Tracy Peck, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
William T. Peck, High School, Providence, R. I.
B. Perrin, Western Reserve College, Cleveland, Ohio.
Edward D. Perry, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
Samuel Porter, National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C.
Henry Preble, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Charles P. G. Scott, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
J. B. Sewall, Thayer Academy, South Braintree, Mass.
homas D. Seymour, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Clement L. Smith, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Frank Webster Smith, Lincoln, Mass.
William A. Stevens, Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.
Frank B. Tarbell, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Edward M. Tomlinson, Alfred University, Alfred Centre, N. Y.
Crawford H. Toy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
James C. Van Benschoten, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
Henry C. Warren, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Minton Warren, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
John H. Wheeler, University of Virginia.
John Williams White, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William D. Whitney, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
oseph Colver Wightman, Taunton, Mass.
ohn Henry Wright, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. [Total, 52.]

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Tuesday, July 11, 1882.

THE Fourteenth Annual Session was called to order at 3 P. M., in
the Assembly Room of the Faculty of Harvard College (University
Hall), by the President, Professor Frederic D. Allen of Harvard
College, Cambridge, Mass.

The Treasurer, Mr. Charles J. Buckingham of Poughkeepsie,
N. Y., presented his report. The summary of the year’s income
and expenses is as follows:

RECEIPTS.
Balance on hand, July 13, 1881 . . . 2... «ww. 1 «$418.46
Fees, assessments, and arrears paidin . . . . . . $540.00
Sales of Transactions ........2.2.2.. 399-50
Interest on deposits . . . . ..... 2 eee 17.25
Total receipts forthe year . . . . .... 2... 956.75
| $1,375.21
EXPENDITURES.
Balance due on Printing for 1880 (vol. xi.) . . . . . 365.40
Plates for Proceedings for 1881 (vol. xii.)} 2... . 115.83
600 copies of Proceedings for 1881, separate .. . . 29.30
Plates for Transactions for 1881 (vol. xii.)!. . . . . 222.22
600 copies of vol. xii. (Tr. azd Pr. together)! . . . . 103-50
Reprints of separate articles for authors. . . .. . 37.00
Postages . . . Soe ee ee 65.85
Mailing, shipping, ‘and expressages Se ee ew 35-05
Job-printing . . .. . rn 109 o)
Copying . . «© 1. 1. 1 ee ew ee ee eee 2.60
Sundries . . . . oe tee ee ee 14.23
Total expenditures for the year? 2... 2... 2... 1,030.08
Balance ° on hand, July ro, 1882 . . . . . 1... 345.13
$1,375.21

™ The sum of items 2, 4, and 5 gives the cost of composition, corrections, electrotyping,
press-work, paper, binding, etc., for vol. xii., viz., $441.55.

? This sum really includes, besides the expenses of the last fiscal year, the great bulk of
the expenses of the preceding.

3 An oversight (involving an error against himself ) was made by the Treasurer, in
omitting to enter the sz of a bill for $65, the stems of which he had already entered. A
true voucher for this sum of $65 is in the Treasurer’s hands. The reported balance of
$410.13 is therefore here corrected.

iv American Philological Assoctation.

The bond of the Connecticut Western Railroad Company, numbered 960, for
$500, with 13 semi-annual and unpaid coupons of $17.50 each attached thereto,
being the same lately held by the American Philological Association, was ex-
changed by its Treasurer, July 10, 1882, at Hartford, Ct., for certificate, No. 781,
of three shares, of One Hundred dollars each, of the Hartford and Connecticut
Western Railroad Company, made payable to C. J. Buckingham, Treasurer of
the American Philological Association.

On motion, the Chair appointed Professor J. C. Van Benschoten
and Professor Henry F. Burton a committee to audit the Treasurer’s
report.

The Secretary, Professor Charles R. Lanman of Harvard Uni-
versity, Cambridge, Mass., presented the following report of the
Executive Committee :

a. The Committee had elected as members of the Association ;

Rufus B. Richardson, Ph. D., Professor of Latin, Dartmouth College, Hanover,

N. H.

John H. Wright, Professor of Greek, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.

William H. Hawkes, M. D., Washington, D. C.

John Norton Johnson, A. M., Graduate Student, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.

Charles Darwin, Librarian of the Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.

W. S. Scarborough, Professor of Ancient Languages, Wilberforce University,
Wilberforce, O.

James C. Mackenzie, Ph. D., Principal of Classical School, Wilkesbarre, Pa.

Ralph L. Goodrich, Clerk of U.S. Courts, Little Rock, Ark.

Henry Johnson, Professor of Modern Languages, Bowdoin College, Bruns-
wick, Me.

Clement L. Smith, Professor of Latin, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

James A. Harrison, Professor of English, Washington and Lee University, Lex-
ington, Va.

Philippe B. Marcou, Instructor in French, Johns Hopkins University, Balti-
more, Md.

William G. Hale, Professor of Latin, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Jules Luquiens, Professor of Modern Languages, Institute of Technology,
Boston, Mass.

Edward Delavan Perry, Tutor in Greek and Sanskrit, Columbia College, New
York, N. Y.

John H. Wheeler, Professor of Greek, University of Virginia.

George M. Lane, Professor of Latin, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Frank M. Gilley, Teacher of Classics, High School of Chelsea, Mass.

John Avery, Professor of Greek, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.

William H. Treadwell, Instructor in Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Frank Webster Smith, Graduate Student, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

S. E. D. Currier, Roxbury, Mass.
&. The Proceedings of the session of July, 1881, had been published Novem-

ber 17, 1881. The Transactions for the same year had been published February

13, 1882.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Vv

c. By advice and with consent of the Executive Committee the Secretary had
’ distributed thirty-five complete sets of the Transactions among the principal for-
eign libraries and learned societies. They had been forwarded free from Wash-
ington to their several destinations by the Smithsonian Institution. The list is
given on pages lviii, lix. The Secretary had also sent copies of the eleventh and
twelfth volumes of the Transactions to fifty of the principal libraries of the United
States, gvafis, with a circular, offering to complete the set for twelve dollars (half
the old price). Asa result of these and other efforts, since about the beginning
of 1881, he had sold publications of the Association to the amount of $530.50.
The advantages of these sales were twofold: one of the fundamental objects of
the Association, “the diffusion of philological knowledge,” was thereby furthered,
and the condition of the treasury was bettered. The libraries which thus become
subscribers to the publications of the Association are given on pages lvii, lviti.

d. The bills against the Association, especially the printers’ bills, had been
paid early and promptly, and the balance of $345 in the treasury was therefore
much more significant than usual, inasmuch as heretofore the bills for printing
had often run over from one fiscal year to another. The Association had no
debts save a few small current dues.

e. The Executive Committee had voted to continue the reduction in the price
of complete sets of the Transactions. A complete set, accordingly, now costs*$12,
and will, upon the appearance of the thirteenth volume, cost $13. The price of
volumes not sold in complete sets will be $1.50 apiece, to members and non-
members alike; and no reduction will be made on this price, except, of course,
that for orders for nine, ten, or eleven volumes not more than the price of a
complete set will be charged.

f- The Committee gave their approval to the advertising of the publications
of the Association in “The Publishers’ Trade-List Annual,’ and directed the
Secretary to continue the same.

g. The Committee recommended the adoption of the amendment to the Con-
stitution which had been proposed in due form (see Proceedings for 1881, p. 15)
at the previous meeting, and by which the annual assessment would be reduced
from five dollars to three dollars. :

The Committee proposed the following arrangement for the hours
of the sessions: for Tuesday evening, from 8 o’clock until the close
of the President’s address ; for Wednesday, from 9 A.M. to 1 P.M,
and from 2 to 4; for Thursday, from 9 a.m. to 4 P.M., and from
2.15 to 6 if an afternoon session should be necessary. The arrange-
ment was accepted without objection.

The proposed amendment to the Constitution was adopted.

The Secretary presented an invitation from Colonel Theodore
Lyman, extending to the members of the Association the hospitali-
ties of his home in Brookline. It was accepted with thanks.

Communications were then presented as follows:
1. The Written Alphabet of our Colonial Fathers, by Mr. J.B.
Sewall, of Thayer Academy, South Braintree, Mass.

vi Amerian Philologual Assoctation.

The earliest records of the town of Braintree, Mass., bear the date of 1643.
The most interesting of its early documents is the original deed of Wampatuck,
Sagamore, dated August 5, 1665, conveying the territory of the original town to
its first inhabitants. This document is written in some degree ornamentally, but,
for the most part, in a plain, careful hand. The letters of the alphabet differ
very considerably from those of to-day. (Enlarged copies of the forms used in
the deed were here exhibited.)

In the records, the Anglo-Saxon form of ¢ occurs, and also the German form
of 7, and a form for ¢4, which, curiously, does not occur in the deed, viz., the
character y. Most striking is the general resemblance to the German written
alphabet. Letters having the same or nearly the same form with the German
are: capitals, B, Cy D, #7, M, NV, P, S, V, W, Y; small, G, Cc, a, f, 4, z, k, /, m,n,
pr 1%, 5, 4, U, ¥,%. The similarity of capitals to the form of Old English printed
capitals is also noticeable. In the diary of the Rev. Samuel Niles (the first
pastor of the present First Church of Braintree), commencing November, 1697,
the Anglo-Saxon form of ¢ is frequent in the earlier part, but not in the later.
A form for ¢, resembling a small written ¢, is frequent, but not invariable, as in
Massachusetts. The question is suggested whether this fact has anything to do
with the spelling Massathusetts, which is sometimes to be met with. For the
letter 4, besides the present form, there is a form resembling our capital £
dropped one half or more below the line. In the Wampatuck deed this form is
only final; in the Plymouth records its position does not seem to be limited.

The form for ¢2, except in the deed, and in the Niles diary after 1721, is y. In
the diary it appears in + and »’; in the records, in y¢ and y*, and in the proper
name Bethiah. In other documents, I have found also y" (there), y” (their), yo,
y by, and y’abouts. This character, as Mr. Earle has shown in his Philology of
the English Tongue, is a relic of the rune b (thorn), which may be readily seen
by reference to Anglo-Saxon facsimiles, ¢. g. in the Early English Text Society’s
volumes. There it is still clearly distinct in form from the letter y. The letter
y was at last written in place of the rune, but always retained, of course, the
phonetic value of shorn, except indeed now-a-days, when it is often pronounced
as y (in the article 4°, for example) by persons ignorant of the history of the
matter when reading mock-antique or archaistic newspaper paragraphs. After
the ambiguity in the value of the character y arose, and the true ¢#orx had been
given up, the sound of ¢Aorn came to be written with the digraph 44. It is inter-
esting to find so many relics of the Anglo-Saxon written alphabet at so late a
date. :

Professor John Williams White of Harvard University, as Chair-
man of the Committee appointed (see Proceedings for 1881, pp. 15,
16) to confer with the American Association for the Advancement
of Science on the subject of granting the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy Aonoris causa, reported as follows : —

The Committee, consisting originally of Professors White, Manatt, and Lan-
man, was subsequently enlarged to five by the addition of Professors Whitney
and Gildersleeve. The Resolutions adopted by the American Philological Asso-

ciation at Cleveland, July, 1881 (see Proceedings for 1881, p. 4), were presented
by the Chairman of the Committee to the American Association for the Ad-

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. vii

vancement of Science, at Cincinnati, in August, 1881 (see Proceedings of the
American Assoctation for the Advancement of Science, vol. xxx. Ppp. 373-377), and
action was taken thereon as is shown by the following extract from the volume
last cited : —

“The following resolutions were reported to the Standing Committee by a
sub-committee, with the recommendation that they be brought before the Associ-
ation for action:

““* Whereas, Many colleges in the United States have in recent years conferred
the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, not by examination, but honoris causa:

“* Resolved, 1. That this Association concurs with the American Philological
Association in deprecating the removal of this degree from the class to which it
belongs (viz.: B. D., LL. B., M. D., and Ph. D., degrees conferred after examina-
tion), and its transfer to the class of honorary degrees. .

“*2, That a committee of six, including the President of the Association, be
appointed by the Chair to co-operate with the Committee of the American Philo-
logical Association in addressing a memorial to the Boards of Trustees of all
colleges in the United States empowered to confer degrees, stating the objections
to conferring the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Aonorts causa, and praying
them to discontinue the practice, if it exists in the colleges under their control.’

“The resolutions having been accepted by the Standing Committee, and the
degree of Doctor of Science included in the recommendation, the report was
submitted to the Association. The resolutions were thereupon, after discussion,
unanimously adopted.”

In May, 1882, the joint committee of the two associations sent the following
Memorial to the Boards of Control of 430 colleges in the United States. The
answers to this communication, with a single exception, heartily concurred with
the views expressed in the Memorial.

To THE BOARD OF CONTROL OF

GENTLEMEN, — The undersigned, a joint Committee of the American Philo-
logical Association and of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, respectfully present for your consideration the resolutions appended to
this communication; and in obedience to their instructions they ask your atten-
tion to the following facts. 7

The degree of Doctor of Philosophy has been adopted by American colleges
from the universities of Germany. The faculties in nearly all German univer-
sities are four in number, — theology, law, medicine, and philosophy. The last
embraces the humanities and the mathematical and natural sciences. In all re-
spects the degree conferred in the faculty of philosophy is of equal dignity with
the degrees conferred in the other faculties. In order to obtain it the candidate
—if a native — must first have pursued successfully the studies of the gymna-
sium or vea/-school; must have been in residence at a university for three years ;
must present a thesis, which at many universities is printed; and must pass an
examination. In Germany, the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is as much a
professional degree as that in Theology, Law, or Medicine.

When this degree was first transferred’ to this country, the conditions under
which it was conferred abroad were rigidly maintained here. These conditions
still exist in full force in the eight or ten universities which since that time have

Vili American Philological Assoctation.

provided courses of study in philosophy for Bachelors of Arts. But meanwhile
the practice has been established of giving the degree Aonoris causa; and this
practice has rapidly increased. The Reports of the United States Commissioner
of Education at Washington for the years 1872-1879 inclusive prove that it has
been transferred from the class of degrees given on examination to the class of
honorary degrees. In these eight years the degree of Doctor of Philosophy was |
given honoris causa 170 times. The Commissioner’s list includes 415 colleges,
sixty-eight of which gave the degree onoris causa. The greatest number of times
the degree was thus given by any one college is twelve; the smallest, one. It is
a striking fact that in 75 per cent of these 170 cases the degree was given by
colleges which had never conferred it by examination; whereas there are many
distinguished colleges on the general list, which, having no provision for con-
ferring the degree by examination, have abstained from giving it as a mere
honor.

On the other hand, during these eight years the degree was conferred after
examination 175 times, by twenty-four colleges. Thirteen of these at the same
time gave it also Aonoris causa. Three of this number, however, gave it honoris
causa each but once, and thereafter conferred it only by examination, the first
nine, the second ten, and the third seventeen times. If we except these three
colleges, the degree was conferred only seventeen times after examination by
colleges which gave it also honoris causa. Eleven of the twenty-four colleges
abstained altogether from giving the degree as a mere honor, and these eleven
conferred it in all 122 times. This is about 70 per cent of the total number of
175 cases in which it was conferred after examination.

These statistics show that the degree of Doctor of Philosophy has been estab-
lished in the United States as a professional degree ; that at the same time it has
been largely given as a purely honorary degree; but that in the great majority of
instances this has been done by colleges which have not provided graduate courses
of study in philosophy and have never conferred the degree after examination.

* An inspection of the list of persons upon whom this degree has been conferred

honoris causa by colleges in the United States leads the Committee to believe
that a widespread misapprehension concerning its true intent and significance
exists among Boards which possess the power of conferring academic honors.
It has been regarded as a compliment to be bestowed on persons perhaps worthy
of honorable distinction, but possessing no technical training in philosophy, and
seems to have been considered an honor intermediate between the degrees of
Master of Arts and Doctor of Laws. It has been conferred upon masters
of high schools and principals of academies, whose capacity to manage such
institutions, however conspicuous, is nevertheless not evidence of those profes-
sional acquirements which the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ought always to"
signify.

To confer the degree in this manner is to misuse it and ultimately to destroy
its value; but all colleges are interested in maintaining it in its integrity. It
is in a pre-eminent sense the appropriate degree for teachers, a large and growing
class of persons in this country. Three colleges in the United States have within
the last twenty years conferred this degree after examination upon 119 different
persons, of whom 75 per cent have adopted the profession of teaching. It is
reasonable to suppose that the number of colleges in the United States which
within the next fifty years will establish graduate schools in philosophy will be —

Proceedings for ‘fuly, 1882. 1X

large. The degree which these schools will then confer will be that of Doctor
of Philosophy, and it is for the interest of all alike that its significance should
not be obscured. Looking at the degree in the light of its past and future sig-
nificance, the impropriety of conferring it otherwise than by examination is
obvious. There are no sufficient reasons for conferring this degree differently
from the three other professional degrees, for example, from that of Doctor of
Medicine, which is only rarely given 4onoris causa and which confers on its recip-
ient peculiar professional privileges. Only six of the sixty-eight colleges men-
tioned above gave the degree of Doctor of Medicine honoris causa during the
eight years covered by the Commissioner’s reports. They so gave it eight times
in all; but during the same time conferred it after examination 1546times. Only
one of these six institutions during the eight years conferred the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy after examination.

The objections to conferring the degree of Doctor of Philosophy onoris causa
apply equally to the degree of Doctor of Science. This degree is set apart for
candidates in the general subject of philosophy who make special studies in the
natural sciences; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
was led to include it in its resolutions from the fact that, although it is a degree
which has only recently been conferred in the United States, it also has already
been given honoris causa.

The Committee believe that a clear understanding of the facts on the part of
the governing boards of colleges and universities will stay the evil so earnestly
deprecated by the two Associations which they have the honor to represent.
They believe also that it will be possible to maintain the significance of the
degrees of Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Science only by a universal agree-
ment on the part of colleges in the United States to abstain wholly from confer-
ring them omoris causa. As the representatives, therefore, of their respective
Associations, they pray you, if the practice of giving these degrees honoris causa
has arisen in the college under your control, that it shall by your authority from
this time be discontinued.

Joun Witurams WHITE (Chairman), Harvard | Gzorce J. Brusu (Chairman), Yale College;
University; Wittiam D. WuitTney, Yale Wittram B. Rocers, Mass. Institute of
College; Basi. L. GiLpgrRstzEve, Johns Technology ; H. CARRINGTON BoLTon, Trin-
Hopkins University; Irving J. MANatTT, ity College; F. A. P. BARNARD, Columbia
Marietta College; Cuartes R. Lanman,| “College; J. P. Lesitgy, University of Penn-
Harvard University. sylvania; F. W. CLARKE, University of Cin-

cinnati.

For the American Philological Association. For the American Association for the

Advancement of Science.

May 10, 1882.

x American Philologial Assoctation.

TABLE

Showing the manner of granting the Degree of Ph.D. by Seventy-nine Colleges during th
years 1872-1879.

The degree of Doctor In 1872 | 1873 | 1874 | 1875 | 1976 | 1877 | 1878 | 1879 | Total

of Philosophy was{|— | |, |W. 1,17 | | |” 1p)” 12 | Oa
conferred. . . . EX. |4ON-| EX. |BON-| CX- |AON-| CX. NON.) EX. AON.) CX. |\hOn- EX. |AOn.| CX. |Ae
By colleges (11 in num-
ber) conferring it ca | 12
ly after examination ;
By colleges (55 in num-
ber) giving it only ho- eee s |... | as]... | az] .. fwd... | ao]... fag]... | 20]... | 28. pe
noris causa; . .
By colleges (13 in num-
ber) conferring it both 2) ..] 8]...
after examination and 2 4
honoris causa. .

otal. —a eee ee — —e_ ——— ——— ——_ —_—_—_—_
After examination. . 14 |——-| 25 |__| rz |——] 12 [i] 18 —_
Honoris Causa. . . se Tee PET ee Pas fe fg] | Bp. | gy | 32]. | 35] |

For the conduct of further possible correspondence in regard to
the subject of the above Memorial, the Committee was continued
another year.

The reading of papers was resumed.

2. The Semitic Personal Pronouns, by Professor C. H. Toy of
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

The origin of most relational roots is unknown; that is, we are not able to say
whether they came into existence in an independent way, or were derived from
other parts of speech. Various attempts at such derivation have been made: it
has been supposed, for example, that certain of the Semitic pronouns and prepo-
sitions could be traced to verbs; but nothing has come of these attempts, for
which, indeed, there are now no sufficient data. We may, however, hope from
an examination of the existing stems to reach the simplest primitive Semitic roots,
a knowledge of which is in any case indispensable to inquiries into origin. On
account of the original simple demonstrative character of all pronouns, it is better
to treat them all together; but for convenience’s sake this paper will be confined
to the personal pronouns. There seems to be no reason why the suffixes should
be regarded as abbreviations of the separate pronouns, and I shall accordingly
treat them as independent stems. The third person, as the clearest in form and
probably the earliest, may properly be considered first.

Third person. First, the suffix-forms. In masc. sing. we have 4z (Arab.), 2#
(Heb., Eth., Sab.), s# (Ass., Min.), 47 (Aram.), 4 (Aram., Heb.), # (Heb.), 22m
(Sab.) (?), # (Phen.); from which it appears that the ground-forms are Az or su,
and 4z, the #@ and 7 being mere euphonic lengthenings of # and #, and not the re-
sult of composition with or absorption of another letter. Vowel or consonant
may be dropped, leaving 4 or #; the latter, uniting with the final @ of the noun-
stem, produces & The demonstrative # (commonly appropriated to the plural)
is sometimes added, and then, the 4u being thrown away, remains as sing. masc.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Xi

sign. The s-stem probably preceded the 4-stem. In the fem. sing. we need note
only the forms 4a, 4d, h, sa, st, and observe that while 7 occurs in both genders,
w has here been assigned to masc., and @ to fem.; but we shall see that 2 was
also masc. The plural and dual are made by the addition of m and # to the sing. :
plu. masc., hum, homu, hiin, htm; fem., hun.na, hon, hén; dual, humd. The
original plural ending is mx or nu for masc., and #z for fem.; to which was some-
times added a demonstrative ma or na for emphasis; in the dual appears ma
instead of mu. Heb. and Aram. have é for original «. There was no original
difference of gender between # and 2, nor were these at first signs of number.
There is no distinction of cases, except in Ethiopic, in what appears to be a later
formation.

The separate or isolated forms are manifestly built up from the suffix forms.
In masc. sing. we find 4.wa (Arab.), with which are identical 42’ (Heb.) and 4#
(Aram.); further, Aa (Aram.) = 4a.wa; then s#(Ass.) = su.wa, and we’eté (Eth.)
out of ¢« and wa to which is added ’a2. The feminine has the parallel forms 4i.ya,
hi’, hi, hai = ha.ya, st = si.ya, ye'eti = ya’.a.ti. In addition to the s- and 4-stems
we find here forms in 4, which may be regarded as the earliest, though it seems
likely that the three once existed side by side. The 4a also is seen to be masc.
as well as fem.; there is no original distinction of gender between the vowels.
The wa and ya are demonstratives, occurring in other combinations not infre-
quently; from which also it appears that there is no inherent distinction of gender
between them. The plural forms are mostly identical with the suffixes. Aram.
adds an #: masc., héntin = hu.nu.n for hu.nu.nma; fem., hénén, from the same.
Eth. has a double set of plurals: 'emdntu, ’emanti, where well-known demon-
stratives are prefixed to the és, and we’etomé, we’eton, where the fu is inflected like
hu above.

Second person. Object-suffix (added to nouns and verbs): sing. masc., a, 4d,
k; fem., £2, £2, &; plu. masc., hum, hemi, kin, hem; fem., kunna, ken, ken; dual,
kumd. The stem is 4a, 4, or £u, the three being originally equivalent; m and
nm as above.

Subject-suffix (added to verbs): sing. masc., éa, ¢d, 4, ka; fem., 2, ¢, Ai; plu.
masc., tum (for tu.mu), tun (for tu.nu), tem (for tu.mu), kemé (for ku.mu); fem.,
tunna, tén, ten, hen ; dual, tumd. The stem is prevailingly 4, which acts like the
kabove. Ethiopic has 4 here as well as in object-suffix. There is no interchange
here between ¢and 4£—they are originally distinct and independent stems; nor
need we look for some compound form, as éa.ka, out of which both may have
come. But why one language has chosen one, and others the other, does not
appear. 7

Separate forms: made by prefixing a to the ¢-forms. The inflections are the
same as those above described. The az is a common demonstrative.

First person. Object-suffix: sing., to nouns, ya, 7, 4, where ya is the original,
and the others probably come from its junction with the genitive case of the noun,
as malki from malki.ya (and the 7 is abbreviated from 7); to verbs, 72, #2, #, which
seems to have no connection with yz ; this latter is identical with the same stem
in the third person; plural, 2a, ”d, ni, ni, 2, the vowels being mutually equiva-
lent. This #-stem is found in the other persons, and abundantly elsewhere.

Subject-suffix: sing., /, #, 4, ku, where the relation between ¢ and & is the
same as in the second person; plu., a, 2d, i, n, nan, where i does not appear
(though it was probably once in use), and in one form (az) the stem is doubled
for emphasis. |

xil American Philological Assoctation.

Separate forms: sing., ana, and, ani, dni, énd, anaku, Gndki; plu., anki, ani,
nahna, naknu, anahnu, anahni, henan. The base in the singular is a, mz; in the
plural, #a, #; all three vowels were probably once in use for both numbers. In
the singular this simple base has been strengthened sometimes by a prefix, and
sometimes by a prefix and a postfix; the prefix is the demonstrative @ (found
elsewhere), which is Jengthened into d, and diphthongized into é (in two cases the
stem-vowel d passes into 4, a change common in Hebrew and Aramaic) ; the post-
fix is ku, &, identical with the suffix-form. The plural sometimes contents itself
with the prefix a, using x as stem; usually it adds the 4, in the form of 4, and
then further strengthens by addition of ma, 22, or mu. Several dialects in this
case omit the prefix, and Aramaic, further omitting the stem a, makes compen-
sation by doubling the added a, thus: henan = henana, for na.he.na.

The personal pronouns are thus common demonstrative stems, employed in
simple form for suffixes, and combined in various ways for the separate forms.
These latter are built up on the suffixes, and seem, therefore, to have followed
them historically. Inasmuch as the simple forms do not appear as separate or
isolated pronouns, it is possible that the personal pronoun first appeared as a
suffix; that is, existing demonstratives, meaning ‘this,’ ‘that,’ were attached to
nouns and verbs, acquired a personal sense, and then, on being isolated, were for-
mally strengthened. This, however, would amount to no more than saying that
the pronominal forms were strengthened as the pronominal idea acquired greater
consistency. The same thing seems to have happened with the ordinary demon-
stratives and relatives.

Originally there was no difference of gender, number, or case between the
different stems; usage gradually established certain distinctions. The distinc
tion of person also was of gradual growth. The s- and 4-stems were appropri-
ated to the third person as the one nearest to the general demonstrative. The
second person as object (and in one dialect as subject) was expressed by the &
stems, as subject and isolated by the #forms (which last survived in one dialect
in the third also). To the first person were assigned the - and y-stems as ob-
ject, the forms (in one dialect the 4) as subject, and the strengthened 7 as iso-
lated. We can hardly hazard a guess as to the reasons which determined this
distribution of stems. Nor can we infer, from the fact that these stems are all
found in Indo-European, the original identity of this family and the Semitic.

3. Further Words as to Surds and Sonants, and the Law of Econ-
omy as a Phonetic Force, by Professor W. D. Whitney of Yale
College, New Haven, Conn.

Professor Whitney reminded the Association that he had read papers on these
two subjects at the meeting of 1877, which were printed in the Transactions for
ithat year (issued in 1878); and he asked permission to add at the present time a
few remarks upon certain later discussions of them. Though the subjects may seem
quite separate and diverse, they will yet be found to have a near practical con-
nection with one another.

First, as to the distinction of surd and sonant alphabetic sounds: a well-worn
theme, of which many perhaps are weary, but which cannot well be let alone
until false views are thoroughly eradicated. These, to be sure, are dying out,
and may be expected to disappear in another generation; but they die hard.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Xili

Founded, as they seem in the main to be, upon the peculiar usages of a part of
Germany, they are especially current in that country, though by no means restricted
to it. In their grossest form they are statable thus: “a 6 (for example) differs
from a # simply by being a weaker utterance;” and this definition is even yet
widely current. Then again, “a 4 is especially a weaker utterance than a /; but
it is also, at least sometimes, characterized by sonancy.” Once more, “the us-
ual and normal is sonant, but it is also a weaker utterance, being related to 7
as a lenis to a fortis; and the characteristic of sonancy not infrequently disap-
pears, leaving behind only a difference of force.” This last is a rough statement
of Sievers’s latest view, as laid down in his Grundziige der Phonetik (Leipzig,
1881; the work is an altered and extended second edition of his Lautphysiologie) :
it is proposed to be here examined and criticised.

Our speaking involves a great variety in the force of utterance applied, under
varying conditions. There is the difference, in innumerable degrees, of louder
from softer delivery; the difference, less unrestricted, of the more emphatic
from the less emphatic parts of one and the same sentence ; and the difference,
yet more restricted but still noteworthy, between the accented and unaccented
parts of one and the same word, and even of one and the same syllable. These
differences depend upon voluntary changes in the energy of expiration, of that
“muscular action by which a current of air is driven through the larynx and
mouth. To the degree of energy of expiration, in each particular case, the
action of the interfering and shaping organs of utterance adapts itself; they
assume just that amount of stiffness and resistant force which the force of ex-
pulsion demands, in order to the production of the right sound. If one blows
very hard, one compresses the lips accordingly, to make a / or 4; violent com-
pression without a corresponding pressure from behind would be artificial, a
useless affectation.

Here is a rea] and primary distinction in regard to force of utterance, affecting
all the constituents of speech; in virtue of it, our #’s and our 0’s alike, along
with every other element of our utterance, are now /fortzs and now /emis. Our
natural continuous speaking involves a constantly alternating crescendo and dimin-
uendo of force. An emphatic word is strengthened in every part; an accented
syllable has more stress than an unaccented. The added force is mainly percep-
tible in the vowels of the word or syllable; but it also extends to the consonant
surroundings of an emphasized or accented vowel, just as it extends to both vow-
els and consonants in louder general utterance. Thus, for example, the accented
6 of difed is stronger than its unaccented 9, especially if a heavy accent be laid
on the word. So also the consonant following a short accented vowel shares in
the increased force of the latter, while one following a long accented vowel has
the weaker quality of the unaccented syllable, since (as first pointed out by Mr.
Sweet) a long vowel is a diminuendo utterance; and hence the 6 of peddle is
stronger than the second / of people; and the initial 2 of such words as doubt,
dight, date, dote is stronger than their final 7.

But there is also another kind of difference of force which Sievers, to the
detriment of his whole exposition of the subject, mixes up with this. To illus-
trate it, he has devised and describes ( pp. 18-19) an ingenious bit of apparatus:
a glass tube, namely, bent into the form of a U and partly filled with water, and
having at one extremity a short rubber tube, the end of which is introduced into
the mouth as far as behind the point of closure or approximation of the mouth-

XIV American Philological Assoctation.

organs by which any given pair of sounds, surd and sonant, is produced. If one
utters upon this instrument a # and 4, for example, one sees clearly that, with a
given general force of expiration, the » depresses the column of water in the
hither arm of the glass tube much more notably than the 4. From this exper-
iment Sievers teaches us to draw the conclusion that a 4 is in itself a weaker
sound than a p— that a 4 is a denis anda pa fortis.

It is, however, upon the least reflection evident that the difference here is only
a secondary one, a mere result of the sonancy of the 4. In uttering a sonant, one
drives the air through a closed slit, formed by the stretched and approximated
vocal chords; while in surd utterance no obstacle is interposed between the lung-
bellows and the column of water in the tube. Just so, if one were to blow di-
rectly into a tube in the ordinary way, first with the orifice open, and then with
an india-rubber membrane stretched tightly across it and slitted, he would find
much more effort necessary to produce a given effect in the latter case than in
the former. The result of the experiment, accurately reported, is then this: we
see clearly that sonancy imparted to the current of breath so checks it or nar-
rows it at one point that it has less pressure to exert at another; the muscular
force is divided, a part going to produce the vibration of the vocal chords, and a
part acting upon the organs of mute closure, and evoking from them a corres-
ponding effort of resistance. There is nothing in it tending to show that a 4 is
produced by a weaker effort than a f, or that, under circumstances, when both
are contiguous to the same vowel, as in d:fed (or the d@ and ¢ of date), the sonant
may not be a stronger utterance than the g — and that, not only primarily, in vir-
tue of the muscular effort involved, but even secondarily, as measured by the
effect on the column of water.

It appears evident, therefore, that we have no right to give the name of /enis
to a sonant, which is producible with any degree of effort, and may be made
stronger than the corresponding surd in the same syllable without in the least
altering or obscuring the distinctive character and relative value of the two,
unless we carefully define the term /enis as having nothing to do with a less ex-
penditure of effort in utterance, and apply to the latter some different name.
The two kinds of /enz¢fas, primary and secondary, have very different parts to play
in the history of speech. As involving, by reason of its sonancy, a less degree
of pressure at the lips, a 6 may break into a spirant more easily than a J, and this
may be plausibly alleged as the reason why a sonant is in general less stable,
when once generated, than a surd; but it does not in the least follow that a 4 is
itself the product of a weakening action, or a f of a strengthening action; as be-
tween these, it is simply a question of adding or withdrawing the vibration of the
vocal chords. In the German word 4ed, for example, the final sonant is pro-
nounced surd, because to the German organs (as to those of the ancient Sanskrit-
speakers) it seems easier to stop the sonant vibration with the vowel, instead of
prolonging it after the lip-closure; and the circumstances that the vowel is here
long, and the following mute therefore (primarily) a /emzs, and that the end of a
word is the point above all others where in general a weakening action appears,
do not in the least stand in the way of the effect. If we are to apply fortis and
lenis to the secondary results of surdness and sonancy, we must call also the 4 of
ha a fortis, and its a a lenis.

Further on in his work (p. 56), Sievers himself distinctly acknowledges that
the /enitas of a 6 is solely a secondary consequence of its sonancy ; but he labors

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XV

to belittle the importance of this difference, and involves himself, it appears to .
me, in certain unclearnesses and inconsistencies. The point of most consequence
concerns the real character of those non-sonant sounds which in South German
dialects have become substituted for the older Germanic media. In the present
edition of his work, Sievers for the first time fully admits that the original and
proper characteristic of both Indo-European and Germanic media is their so-
nancy, and that their surd utterance is a local corruption; but he finds no diffi-
culty in supposing that, having been formerly sonant /enes, they have dropped
the element of sonancy, and become /emes pure and simple. This however ap-.
pears to be, on the contrary, an assumption of extreme difficulty. That the ordi-
nary laws of crescendo and diminuendo effort, depending on emphasis and accent,
should undergo momentary suspensions or violations from point to point in order
that a single consonant sound may be distinguished by inferiority of force — that,
for example, the accented 4 of dzfed should be weakened by a voluntary relax-
ation of effort below the degree of the unaccented 4, and the 4 of feddle below
the second £ of Jeople—has a most artificial and implausible aspect. Infinitely
easier would it be to suppose that the original weakening action in the glottis
had been in some way modified, so as to lose its sonantizing, without altogether
losing its weakening, effect. Just this is the view of Briicke, who declares the
South German weak @ etc. to be whispered sounds—that is to say, sounds in
whose utterance the vocal chords are not brought to full vibrating tension and
closure, but, by being narrowed to the position of rustling, so obstruct still the
stream of breath as to leave a chance to distinguish 4 from /, in that imperfect
way in which it is distinguished in whispering. Sievers (p. 96) refers to the view,
but bluntly pronounces it ‘“‘false,” and accuses those who hold it of “thoughtlessly
copying ” it from Briicke. It is, however, far from deserving such contemptuous
treatment, and Sievers’s attempts to refute it will hardly be pronounced satisfac-
tory until he shall appear to appreciate more fully the general bearings of the
case, and the great difficulties in the way of accepting his own opposing ex-
planation. If the 4 of the South Germans were a mere weakened 7, if the
glottis were not involved in its utterance in some way that rendered sonancy
impracticable, there would seem to be no reason why the despairing efforts
one sometimes sees them make to utter an ordinary sonant 4 should so fail of
success. ,

Sievers finally intimates (p. 96) that an unnecessary amount of zeal has been
expended upon the discussion of this subject, and claims that it is a matter of
indifference whether one speaks of surd fortes and /enes, or of strong and weak
surds. He does not, however, consider that the contest began, and still in great
part continues, against those who held and hold that “weakness” is ¢he distinc-
tion of a 6 from a /; that he himself has only in this latest publication (in part,
presumably, under pressure of criticism upon his former views) come so near to
setting the matter upon its true basis; and that even his present view (besides
the objections to which it has been shown above to be liable) is calculated to give
aid and comfort to the holders of the old grossly erroneous opinions. It has
been truly claimed that a false apprehension of the interchanges of surds and
sonants as results of weakening and strengthening has worked more mischief in
theoretic phonetics than any other single error. And its maleficent influence is
not yet at an end, even in the mind of Sievers himself, as the second part of this
paper will endeavor to show.

xvi American Philological Association.

The conclusions arrived at in the former discussion of the law of economy
as causing the phonetic changes of language were briefly these: 1. that the ten-
dency to economy or convenience fully explained the great majority of such
changes; 2. that no other law or tendency had been successfully shown to have
anything to do with the matter; 3. that a true view of the forces concerned in
the life of language and of their way of working appeared to suggest the possi-
bility of no other; whence it was inferred; 4. that the residue of exceptional
cases, not yet brought under the law, would in all probability, with the progress
of phonetic science, be found to be also only resujts of its working. We have
now to see whether any of these conclusions have been refuted by more recent
investigation.

The subject of the causes of phonetic change it does not lie in Sievers’s way to
discuss with fulness; but he passes rapidly over it, intimating his opinions with
sufficient clearness. After noticing (p. 196) the general reference of change to
the law of economy, he directs attention to the numerous apparent exceptions —
numerous enough when reviewed in detail, though extremely few when compared
with the plain examples of the working of the law. And among them he includes
the conversion of sonants to surds in the Germanic rotation of mutes ! —a sufficient
evidence, as intimated above, that too much stress has not yet been laid upon the
fact that a sonant does not involve a weaker effort of utterance than a surd.
Here, now, is the most important, or certainly the most often urged, apparent
violation of the law, found to depend, after all, on an erroneous valuation of
sounds: how many of the rest are to disappear in the same way we shall know
better by and by. In view of such exceptions, Sievers pronounces the dogma
that all phonetic change depends on the tendency to ease “decidedly false:”
which is just about as far wrong on the one side as the dogma itself, ga@ dogma,
would be on the other. No one has the right to say that the tendency in ques-
tion has explained everything; nor, again, that it will not some time explain
everything: the question is still an undetermined one. Sievers also does not
attempt to set up any other and rival principle. He points out that all sounds
to which one is used are about equally easy, and only unaccustomed ones hard;
he might have gone further, and said that the “strong” sounds are, if anything,
easiest in isolation or in simplest combinations. He apparently fails to see that
it is only the necessity of rapid transition from one position of utterance to an-
other in continuous speaking which calls for a facilitation that issues in phonetic
change — and that, in his processes of “spontaneous” change as well as the rest.
He points out, justly enough, that all the initiatory essays of alteration are spo-
radic, individual, various; but he does not add that the only demonstrated (if not
the only conceivable) general direction in which they should occur — and, yet
more, in which they should secure imitation and general acceptance — is that of
facilitation. To make a comparison of a kind now popular: these individual
attempts at change are like the infinite slight variations of form and function
among animals; while natural selection, by survival of the fittest, is shown in the
ratification and adoption of those which make for convenience —a convenience
which (as Sievers also sees) is of very relative character, varying everywhere with
the habits of speech of different communities, and having intricacies which we
are far from fully comprehending.

The same subject is treated by Delbriick, in his Zinlestung in das Sprachstu-
dium (p. 118 ff.), but after a fashion that calls for but brief notice from us, since

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XVII

he does not take the trouble to discuss with seriousness any of the points involved.
After stating in a general way what is claimed for the law of economy,! he brings
against it, in the first place, the question whether, after all, we are authorized to
assume that the tendency to ease plays such an exclusively dominating part in
human society. This, however, no one has ever had any thought of assuming;
the true question is whether, considering what we know of language as the in-
strumentality of communication and thought, and what we know of its mode of
use, we can trace, or ought to be able to trace, in a certain department of its
changes, the operation of any other tendency than that to ease. He goes on to
suggest that, ‘on the contrary,” the general endeavor would naturally be, when
learning to speak, to imitate as closely as possible what one hears. But in this
suggestion appears to be involved a curious misapprehension of the whole general
question, which, really involves as a premise what he here urges as an objection.
What we are asking, namely, is this: when each generation learns to speak from
its predecessors, and like them, having no intention to deviate from their speech,
and no consciousness of doing so, how does it happen that the phonetic form of
language is nevertheless all the time and everywhere changing? Then he further
inquires (giving Benfey the credit of the hint) whether what is pleasing, quite as
much as what is easy, might not be striven after (erstreét). Certainly, if there
were any “striving” at all in the case; but there is not; the whole is done in
utter unconsciousness; no speaker is aware that his’ new way is easier, or even
that it is a new way; he adopts it because it is easier, without knowing it. The
tendency to ease is, as was said before, a hidden and insidious force, like gravi-
tation, always pulling at what is above the surface, and drawing it down unless
it be held up — the holding-up force in language being the imitation and reten-
tion of former modes of speech. To admit a tendency to what is pleasing would
imply that the unreflective users of a language are aware of points in their utter-
ance which they disapprove, and would fain amend — which, of course, is absurd.
It would also imply a reversion to the old times of darkness, when “ euphony ” in
language-history was supposed to lie in what pleased the ear, rather than in what
is convenient to the organs of utterance. Delbriick thinks, then, that this ten-
dency, along with others that might be conceived of (what they should be he does
not go so far as to intimate), may perhaps work efficiently against the tendency
to economy. Finally, he urges that the history of language shows numerous phe-
nomena of change which are opposed to the assumed law, cases of strengthening
instead of weakening. That is to say, he, like many others, is prepared already
_ to pronounce all apparent exceptions forever irreconcilable with the law. But if
ninety-nine hundredths, or even only nine tenths, of the phenomena fall plainly
under it, while the remainder is diminishing with the improvement of phonetic
science, and if no other concurrent law has been found, our true attitude at pres-
ent would seem to be one of expectancy.

Delbriick’s contribution to the discussion of the subject must be held, accord-
ingly, to mark no advance in its comprehension, but rather in part a falling-back ’
to points of view which might have been regarded as already left behind.

A few words, finally, as to a peculiar theory brought forward by Osthoff, at

1 In part, in the words of the present writer; going back, however, to the latter’s ‘‘ Lec-
tures’ of 1867, while overlooking the later statements of his “ Life and Growth of Lan-
guage” of 1875, and his special and greatly expanded exposition of the subject, of 1878.

XVIli American Philological Assoctation.

the Gera meeting, in 1878, of the German philologists and schoolmen.! This
scholar, after maintaining that the laws of phonetic change work absolutely and
without real exceptions (a dogma which is at least premature, and may perhaps
be finally found undemonstrable), went on to determine the reason somewhat
thus: the German rotation of mutes shows conversion of sonants to surds — that
is (once more !), of weaker to stronger elements — as well as the contrary ; hence,
it is impossible to ascribe phonetic changes to economy ; and we must assume that
they are owing to physical alterations in the organs of utterance. That is to say,
the old Germans said ¢ha/, and the high Germans say aas, instead of the original
tad, because the muscular apparatus in their throats and mouths has in such a way
grown different that the exertion which once made the one now makes one of the
others! It is not well possible to conceive of anything more unfortunate, more at
variance with the plainest truths of the science of language, than this. It ignores
the fact that we all /eavm our modes of utterance, and that the infant, whether his
ancestors have spoken French, English, or German, acquires with precisely the
same ease either of those languages. It is the most striking recent exemplification
of the fact that one may be an able and distinguished comparative philologist
without being saved from falling into the most palpable errors in matters that con-
cern the life and growth of language.

It may safely be claimed, then, that the discussion as to the law of economy
remains where it was left by us five years ago: no one has succeeded in estab-
lishing any new law to stand by the side of this one; nor has any one, it is be-
lieved, changed essentially the aspect of any of the obstacles which were in the
way of its universal acceptance. But the most formidable of these in effect is
still, as formerly, the deeply-rooted error which regards the conversion of a surd
to a sonant as the result of a weakening process.

The Association then adjourned until 8 Pp. M.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Tuesday, July 11, 1882. —

EVENING SESSION.

The Association was called to order in Sever Hall at a few min-
utes after 8 p.m. by the Vice-President, Professor M. W. Humph-
reys of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

The Annual Address was delivered by the President, Professor
Frederic D. Allen of Harvard University.

4. The University of Leyden in its relation to Classical Studies.

_ After speaking of the year just past, and the deaths of Professor Lyman Cole-
man, a member of the Association, Theodore Bergk, H. L. Ahrens, John Muir,
and others, the President said that in the whole course of classical studies since
Erasmus’s time there might be easily discerned three turning-points, each marked

1 The writer quotes from memory, having been present at that meeting; he has not had
access to the complete publication of Osthoff’s paper (as one of the Wissenschaftliche Vor-
trdge series); and in the brief abstract of the Gera report this part of it is omitted.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. xix

by the appearance of a single man of pre-eminent genius; and that thus four
periods might be distinguished. These men were Scaliger, Bentley, and Wolf.
During two of these four periods, philological study centred in Leyden; hence
the importance of this university for our studies.

It was especially fortunate for classical study, at the end of the sixteenth cen-
tury, that the Dutch were able to take it up. The studies of the French, closely
connected with the Huguenot movement, were coming to an end; there had been
Budé, Turnébe, Lambin, and later, Scaliger and Casaubon; but after them there
was an immediate decline, as the influence of the Jesuits in the state prevailed.
And in Germany and England the civil turmoils of the seventeenth century were
necessarily unfavorable to all serious research. But classical studies found a
refuge in Holland during the era of her material and intellectual greatness. The
favorable conditions for philological study in Holland were pointed out — among
them the absence of a national literature.

The foundation of the Leyden University, immediately after the memorable
siege of 1574, was next described, and reasons given for its extraordinary pros-
perity. Leyden had the advantages which a fresh start, without hampering tra-
ditions, gave, at a time when the struggle between the new and the old educations
— the classical and the scholastic, the “ poets ” and the “artists” — was not yet
entirely ended. The number of foreign students was from the outset very large.
The outer and inner appointments of the Academy were not in the least magnifi-
cent. There were eight professors at the beginning: throughout the next century
the customary number was about twenty. The buildings were disused convents,
most of the lectures being held, from 1581 on, in the old White-Nun Cloister,
which was burned in 1614, and rebuilt without much change, and is now still in
use.

There have usually been two chairs of instruction in classical literature at
Leyden, called respectively those of “Greek” and “ History,”— the latter mean-
ing practically Latin literature; but a good deal of Lehr/rethert prevailed. The
Greek chair has often been occupied by a Latinist who took but a perfunctory
interest in his department. |

After mention of Tiara and Vulcanius, the first professors of Greek, Fustus
Lipsius was named as the first Leyden teacher (1579-1591) of far-reaching repu-
tation and influence, and as representing admirably the main features of the phi-
lology of the coming century. These characteristics, which were dwelt on at
some length, were given as follows: (1): Latin literature was almost exclusively
cultivated; Greek was looked on as a far-off language, somewhat as Sanskrit now
is, and was more neglected in the seventeenth century than it had been in the
sixteenth ; (2) text-criticism was altogether a matter of individual acumen and
divinatory power; the importance of manuscript investigation was not realized;
(3) the main strength of this age of scholarship lay in interpretation, especially
in material interpretation — explanation of the things spoken of, the matters
treated of; and in this field wonders were accomplished; (4) these were the first
attempts at supplying systematic treatises on history, geography, antiquities, lit-
erature, etc.,— crude beginnings, taking the form of monographs, mainly impor-
tant as collections of passages. The speaker mentioned Lipsius’s work in each
of these departments, with especial praise of his editions of Tacitus, Velleius, and
the two Senecas.

Scaliger’s connection with Leyden was a superficial one, as he held only a sort

xx American Philological Association.

of honorary professorship without teaching duties (1593-1609), and he spent only
the last years of his life at Leyden; nevertheless he was an important factor of
Leyden’s greatness. Two chief characteristics of Scaliger’s scholarship were
pointed out, his unexampled skill in conjectural criticism, and the breadth and
catholicity of his learning: as examples of these two respectively were described
his edition of Festus, and his work on Chronology.

The chief lights during the next half-century were Daniel Heinsius, who
taught uninterruptedly for fifty years, and with him successively Meursius, Vos-
sius, and Salmasius, Salmasius’s professorship being, like Scaliger’s, a sinecure.
These men were briefly described, and other lesser scholars named. Heinsius
owed his great popularity to his talent at verse-making, and his eloquence and
enthusiasm as a teacher. The speaker gave examples of the shallowness and
puerility of his critical procedure. Meursius, the Greek antiquarian, had great
diligence and some constructive power, and his monographs laid a good founda-
tion for subsequent work. Vossius was much more than a philologist and only
a part of his voluminous writings concern us. Specimens from his “ Etymolo-
gicum ” of the Latin language are damnum from 8andyn, agua from &-xod, ‘ pour-
ing together,’ guatuor from x&repov, ‘and another,’ etc. Salmasius, the last of
the eminent French scholars, had little direct effect on Leyden philology, though
his importance for science is considerable.

The time from 1655 (Heinsius’s death) to 1741 comprises three generations :
the first marked by J. F. Gronow, who ranks along with Lipsius as one of the
two coryphaei of the Netherland Latinists. Gronow was a German by birth, a
man of little brilliancy, and not in the least many-sided, but of solid learning and
judgment, and one who exerted a steady influence in the direction of sound
method. He did not a little work in the collation of manuscripts, though with
nothing like the thoroughness which we now demand; yet one sees in him the
beginnings of method in the diplomatic part of text-criticism. Other work of the
same kind was done by his contemporary, Nicholas Heinsius, Daniel’s son. But
their example was not generally followed, and much of their knowledge died with
them.

The next generation found at Leyden Jacob Gronow, son of the foregoing, and
Jacob Voorbroek (Perizonius), who were succeeded in turn by Peter Burman the
elder and Sigebert Havercamp. This era is remarkable for what we may call
the cyclopaedic tendency, —a general striving to collect and mass together in big
books the accumulated results of predecessors’ labors, as if men had a feeling
that there was to be a sort of winding up, and that philological activity was to be.
diverted into new channels. This found expression in two ways: first, in the
vast collections of monographs, the chief of which are the “ Thesaurus Antiqui-
tatum Romanarum,” edited by Graevius at Utrecht, and the “ Thesaurus Antiqui-
tatum Graecarum ” of Jacob Gronow at Leyden, and secondly, the numberless
“variorum” editions, with the collected commentaries of foregoing editors, the
two Burmans and Havercamp being the great representatives of this compilatory
kind of learning. Oudendorp, who was contemporary with Hemsterhuis, was
the last of this series of Latinists.

The year 1741 marked a turning-point, and the advent of Hemsterhuis sig-
nalized at Leyden the Greek revival, which had already begun elsewhere. The
speaker traced this new movement back to somewhat obscure beginnings in
Germany and England, without being able to state definitely its causes. Hem-

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Xxi

sterhuis was at any rate the first to bring Greek studies conspicuously into notice
again, and may be called the restorer of Greek. The new Greek philology had
these features in marked contrast with former studies in Greek: it concerned
itself first of all with the writings of the older “classical” period, and very much
with the distinguishing of Attic from non-Attic usage ; and in general, minute
linguistic criticism was its chosen field. So the Greek grammarians were zeal-
ously studied, as auxiliaries in this research. Hemsterhuis’s immense influence
was exerted mainly by word of mouth; his printed works are few in number;
but in fifty years of oral teaching he founded a school of Hellenists that has lasted
in unbroken continuity till the present day. The speaker mentioned also the
theory of the Greek language which was taught in Holland in the last century,
and the derivation, by “analogy,” of all its words from root-verbs, EIQ, AABO,
and the like. This system is known to have originated with Hemsterhuis, though
he never put it into print himself.

Hemsterhuis’s most distinguished pupils were, in the first generation, Valck-
enaer and Ruhnken, and in the second Wyttenbach. All these worked on in the
same spirit. Ruhnken’s interesting personal career was touched on, and the
scholarship and labors of Ruhnken and Valckenaer compared. The years during
which these Hellenists were together at Leyden (1766~1785) were the last years
of the European importance of Leyden for philology. As early as the death of
Valckenaer the prestige of Holland in these studies was impaired. Other coun-
tries were awakening; in particular, Heyne at Gottingen had given a fresh im-
pulse and brought philological study to the front in Germany, and Wolf was just
beginning his career at Halle. So the leadership quietly slipped away from Ley-
den and from Holland. The foreign students rapidly fell away, and Leyden, from
a European university, became what she is now, simply a Dutch university.

The succession of teachers during the present century was noticed, and the
connection traced between the school of Hemsterhuis and the present circle of
Dutch philologists, of which Cobet is the head. In conclusion a comparison
was drawn between the German philology of the present day and the Dutch phi-
lology of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and besides other deficiencies
of the latter, was noted the little sense for what the Germans call “higher criti-
cism,” — the detection of interpolations and spurious writings.

The Association adjourned to 9 o’clock Wednesday morning.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Wednesday, July 12, 1882.

MORNING SESSION.

The Association came to order at 9.30 A.M. The Secretary read
the minutes of Tuesday’s sessions, and they were approved. The
reading of communications was then resumed.

5. The World of Beowulf, by Professor F. A. March of Lafayette
College, Easton, Pa.

The world of Beowulf is a strange world. Its characters ar strange; the ac-
tion goes on in the midst of a strange nature. Some explanation of its strange-

XXII Ameriwan Philological Association.

ness was attempted by examining the manner in which its effects on the different
senses ar presented. The words wer collected which show the effect of objects
on the sight, then those which represent sounds, smel, taste, etc. The use of
descriptivs of sight is very abundant. It is the habit to giv the color of objects.
But upon collecting the words they ar found to describe degrees of light and
shade, rather than different qualities of color. Objects ar described as bright,
white, grey (beorht, blac, blonden, brfin, scir, torht, har, greg), or as dark,
murky, swart, wan (deorc, myrce, sweart, wan), or the like. Of red, orange, yel-
low, green, blue, indigo, violet, yellow is the only one that figures in this erly
world. Yellowiscommon. The ocean, the roads, the horses ar yellow. It is the
great expanse of a white and dark world in the far north, a monochromatic sketch
of a world not yet tinted. Into the midst of this nature, however, man brings
some specks of color. These ar carefully described as fah, variegated, — pecu-
liarly colord. Furniture and arms wrought with gold ar golde-fah, or with jewels,
sinc-fah; and we hav b&n-fah, brfin-f&h, st&n-fah—the roads ar stan-fah — but
oftenest of all ar objects bl6d-fah, dreor-fah, sw4t-fah, wael-fah. The blithe-
some raven is black of course; and horses of the chiefs ar glistening, d/anc;
in one splendid gift which Beowulf makes to his lord there ar four horses of
apple-yellow (zppel-fealuwe). In this pale land is found no breth of fragrance.
There is but one mention of smel. A dragon is said to smel or follow the scent
of his enemy’s footprints. Nor ar the flavors of taste distinguisht. There ar
great feasts celebrated, but no solid food is mentiond. Beer, ale, wine, mead,
ith and wered flow freely, but their taste is not described. Water is abundant, |
but it starts no suggestion of drinking. Cold and hot, hard and soft, occur.

But, perhaps, the most impressiv fact relates to the descriptivs of sound. So
far as objects of nature ar concernd, there ar no such descriptivs. The inani-
mate world utters no sounds. Men talk, laugh, two or three times; they weep,
roar with pain or grief, sing, play the harp, sound the trumpet, rattle their armor,
make a din. Three or four times objects associated with men ar raisd to ani-
mation and utterance. A wepon sings, the ship and the funeral pile of Beowulf
roar, the black raven, blithe of heart, announces the rising of the sun. But the
great world surrounding man is silent,—a soundless as wel as a colorless
world. In this world men, a few weak beings, liv their life, standing by each
other, and fighting monsters. No man harms any other man in this story. Beo-
wulf risks his life over and over to help others, and this is his simple nature; not
a religion, not a duty even, —a simple matter of course. He has no ambition;
does n’t want to be a king, does n’t seek adventures. He was neglected and
overslaughd in his youth because he was not enterprising. He is good-natured
thru and thru, and serenely wise; loyal above all to the king and his children,
and to Hygd, the young queen. The later romances would hav been sure
to make this Lancelot in love with this Guinevere. But Beowulf is not of that
kind. He forms no ties. He is more like the lion of the romances who gards
the Lady Una, and livs for nothing more than a tuch of her hand. This type
of caracter that likes to lie in the sun, but rises to any emergency, is a favorit
with all mankind. He is not, however, presented with any elaboration of car-
acter. The poet seems only interested in the story he is telling, not in the
development of the caracter of his hero.

There ar some things in the poem which, in spite of its general rudeness and
obscurity, suggest that the author had a cultured and even artificial love of the

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XXili

picturesk. The opening of the poem is one of the most picturesk incidents to be
found among the tales of erly man. The obsequies of the hero Scyld, by embark-
ing him in his boat with his tresures and trofies, and his flag flying above him,
and sending him out to sea to return whence he had come an infant, the story of
Hiawatha, of the Kalewala, of Arthur and the rest, is the same in its picturesk
effect as that of Tennyson’s Ulysses.

No one can say who receivd the load,
says the Beowulf.

It may be that he reacht the happy isles,
And saw the great Achilles.

This beginning, so striking in itself, has a certain artificial aspect, because it
is not a part of the following story, but relates to the ancestor of the heroes of it.
The conclusion is also in the same picturesk manner. A monument is wrought
over Beowulf with striking ceremonies, on a hill high and broad, and seen afar
by seafaring men. Ten days they built it, the best of funeral piles, that far-
seeing men might find it most honorable and becoming. The same manner is
shown in many particular descriptions, as in that of the region in which Gren-
del had his lair. Striking details ar here givn simply for picturesk effect. The
author knew something of the Bible. He mentions God, the devil, hevn, and
he], very much as men do now. He puts the Bible monsters on the same foot-
ing as those of his own mythology, just as Milton does. But there is no Christ
or any special Christian thought in the book. Several passages suggest an
acquaintance with Homer or Virgil. But if the author had taste to decorate
parts of his poem, he had not sustaind vigor of imagination to bring the whole
of his materia] into an epic unity.

6. A Bibliographico-critical Sketch of the Greek New Testaments
published in America; by Dr. Isaac H. Hall of Philadelphia, Pa.

Reasons exist, aside from mere curiosity, for an inquiry into the history and
character of the Greek New Testament as published in America. These reasons
mainly centre themselves in the varieties thus disclosed of the various repre-
sentatives of the /extus receptus, so called, and the habits of editors who have pro-
fessed to issue it. The inquiry also discloses a generally unsuspected industry
and enthusiasm of the early American editors. The whole ground, moreover,
is new; O’Callaghan’s American Bibles enumerates only sixteen editions of the
Greek Testament, a mere fraction of those issued previous to 1860.

After a short sketch of the early supply, accessible before the Greek New
Testament was printed in America, the author discussed the American editions
in families, taking them in the order of appearance of the first representative of
each respectively, and noting the character of the text as compared with its ar-
chetype.

The first Greek book printed in America was (probably) the Exchividion of
Epictetus, with a Latin translation, published at Philadelphia by Mathew Carey
in 1792.

The first Greek Testament issued in America belonged to the Mill family, and
was published by Isaiah Thomas at Worcester, Massachusetts, in 1800. The

_ XXiv American Philological Assoctation.

differences of text from those of Mill were such as to disclose an independent
editorship, with Beza or a late Elzevir as the source of the variations, though the
title states that the book is an accurate reprint of Mill. Its immediate pattern, as
to form and sundry minor details, was probably a Bowyer edition (1794) that has
escaped the bibliographers. Other editions of the Mill family are: one by Thomas,
Boston, 1814; the American Polymicrian (edited by Joseph P. Engles), a reprint
of Bagster’s Greenfield’s Polymicrian, with sundry corrections; Spencer’s, New
York, Harpers, 1847, etc.; and the American Bible Union’s first series, 1854, etc.

The next family were the Leusdens, a branch of the Elzevir family. These
included the two printed by Bradford, Philadelphia, 1806, and one by George
Long, New York, 1821. Strong’s Harmony, New York, 1854, etc., also presents
an Elzevir text. These four books are the only American representatives of the
textus receptus, and not perfect at that.

Next followed the Griesbach editions. First of these was the reprint of Gries-
bach’s Afanual, and most elaborate text, issued at Cambridge by the University
Press (Wells and Hilliard), in 1809. Other editions are the Gospels of the same,
Boston, 1825; Moses Stuart’s edition of Newcome’s Harmony, Andover, 1814;
Kneeland’s Greek and Greek-English, Philadelphia, 1822, 1823; and the notorious
Emphatic Diaglott, edited by Benjamin Wilson, 1863-1864, etc.

Next to appear were the Stephanic editions. The first of these was that of
Peter Wilson, Hartford, Cooke, 1822 (not 1808, as stated in Reuss’s Bibliotheca),
and often since by various publishers. This is professedly a reprint of the edi-
tion of Robert Stephanus; but an examination shows abundant marks of inde-
pendent editorship. This was followed by a Greek-Latin edition, the Greek from
the same stereotype: plates, patched here and there to accommodate the Latin,
and the whole furnished with Leusden’s title-page; published by Collins and
Hannay, New York, 1824. Though a stupendous sham, and not Leusden’s at
all, but belonging to an altogether different family, this edition has had the largest
circulation of any Greek Testament ever published in America, and is still in
print from the same plates, being now issued by a firm in Philadelphia. Another
—and the best — representative of the Stephanic family is the reprint of Scrive-
ner’s Manual, by Holt, New York, 1879.

Next follow the Knapp editions, first represented by Robinson’s edition of
Newcome’s Harmony, Andover, 1834, and then by Patton’s 7he Student's New
Testament, New York, 1835, etc.

Of other families are the Bloomfields, starting in Boston in 1837, and running
through at least fourteen editions; the Hahns, beginning with Robinson’s, 1842,
etc.; Tischendorf, in Gardiner’s Harmony, 1871, etc.; Scholz, in reprints or in
imported sheets of Bagster’s publications; and the various reprints of Ellicott’s
Epistles.

In treating of the several families an account was given, as far as necessary,
of the foreign sources of each, in addition to the descriptive and critical infor-
mation which formed the bulk of the paper.

After a few comments on the foreign supply, the paper closed with a chrono-
logical list of the Greek Testaments published in America, including Harmonies
of the Gospels and other portions of the text. The number was about eighty
editions of the entire New Testament, and about fifty which contained only a
part thereof.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XXV

7. Alien Intrusion between Article and Noun in Greek, by Pro-
fessor A. C. Merriam of Columbia College, New York.

In most languages only attributive words or phrases are admitted between the
article and its noun, and so strictly does this obtain that it may be regarded as a
law founded in the very nature of simple and unaffected language, while any vio-
lation is either poetic or due to poetic influence in a highly rhetorical and elevated
style. It appears to be in obedience to its early moulding under poetic influence
that ancient Greek admits alien words and clauses of all kinds, especially the
verb, between article and noun, but under the strict application of a law which
had not been heretofore formulated, tothe knowledge of the writer, except for the
genitive of the personal pronouns, the demonstratives, and tis.

The Law: The alien element is admitted only when an attributive also stands
after the article, and this must normally precede the alien element; as, Ie 3° 80°
6 xAuTds Rey’Axirdeds, T 320.

Rare, outside of the Epos, and poetic is the order of M 462, cited by an anony-
mous rhetorician (Spengel, iii. p. 136), under brepBardy nad’ dwépOeoww :

6 8 tip’ ExOope paldiuos “Exrwp.

Prevalence: Homer; idiom in various stages of advancement; cf. @ 518, A 75,
¥ 363, ¢ 176, © 133, H 403, #113, 428, « 436, B 403, E 321, ¥ 585, 7 483, © 334,
A 452, A 608, 8 71. — Hesiod, Theog. 872 (?).

Gnomic and Lyric fragments (Anthologia Lyrica, Bergk, Teubner text): Tyr-
taeus, one instance; Archil., 3; Simon. Am., 1; Solon, 2; Sappho, 2; Erinna, 2;
Anacr., 4; Simon. Ceos, 8; Theognis, 11. |

Pindar: 182 pp. (the page of the Teubner texts is the standard throughout),
' §2 cases, or I in 34 pp. The adjunct regularly adheres to the article, but the
inserted phrase may amount even to ten words, a characteristic feature.

Aeschylus: 257 pp., 84 cases, or I to 3 pp. The Prom. alone has 37 to 34 pp.
Noticed and explained, Sept. 632, Prom. 289.

Sophocles: 347 pp., 237 cases, or 1 to 14 pp. Neaticeable is the prominence
of the possessive as adjunct; 97 times, adj. go.

Euripides: 763 pp., 436 cases, or 1 to 1} pp. Possessive, as in Soph. Sepa-
ration of noun from adjunct generally limited to four or five words, as in Aesch.
and Soph.

Aristophanes: Clouds and Frogs, 115 pp., 23 cases, or I to § pp. In many
particulars nearer the prose of this period.

Herodotus: 720 pp., 109 cases, or I in 63 pp.

Hippocrates: De Aere, one case.

Thucydides: First Bk., 97 pp., 11 cases, or I in 9 pp.; verb only 4 times.

Xenophon: Anab. first 4 Bks., 138 pp., 9 cases, or I in I1§ pp.; verb thrice.
Mem. 14! pp., 7 cases, or I in 20; verb 4 times.

Plato: Apol., Crito, Prot., Phaedr., Rep. first 3 Bks., 281 pp., 50 cases, 1 in 53
pp.; verb 31 times.

Gorgias: Helen, none; Palamedes, 17 pp., 2 cases.

Alcidamas: Sophistes, 11 pp., 4 cases; all verbs.

Antiphon: 87 pp., 8 cases, 1 in II pp.; verb § times.

Andocides: 63 pp., 4 cases, 1 in 16 pp.; verb thrice.

Lysias: the first 11 genuine orations, 89 pp., 5 cases, 1 in 18 pp.; 3 verbs.

xxvi American Philological Assoctation.

Isocrates: Paneg., Dem., Euag., 76 pp., 6 cases, 1 in 12} pp.; all verbs.

Isaeus: first 3 orations, 48 pp., 4 cases, I in 12 pp.; verb once.

Demosthenes : Three Olynth., First Phil., De Cor., 117 pp., 49 cases, 1 in 24 pp.;
verb 32 times.

Aeschines: Adv. Ctes., 78 pp., 30 cases, or 1 in 23 pp.; verb 20 times.

Lycurgus: Leocrates, 41 pp., 6 cases, 1 in 7 pp.; verb 5 times.

Aristotle: Rhet., first 20 pp., 5 cases, 1 in 4 pp.; 4 verbs.

Polybius : first 30 pp., 15 cases, I in 2 pp.; all verbs.

Apollodorus: 30 pp., 9 cases, I in 34 pp.; all verbs.

Dion. Hal.: De Comp., 20 pp., 14 cases, 1 in 1} pp.; 13 verbs.

Longinus: 46 pp., 39 cases, I in 14 pp.; 31 verbs.

Plutarch: Lycurg., 39 pp., 19 cases, 1 in 2 pp.; 16 verbs.

Lucian: first 190 pp., 45 cases, I in 4% pp.; verbs 8, obros 19, éxeivos 10 times;
verb but once in the five best pieces, a return to early Attic simplicity.

Arrian: Anab., first Bk., 2 cases; neither a verb.

New Testament: Epist. to Heb., rls once, verb twice; 1 Cor., none; Matth.,
gov twice; John, none.

Exceptions to the Law: (1) the well known particles uéy, etc.; to the most of
these this position belonged by right of immemorial occupation; the rest have
gained it by enlisting under the same standard; even &», Eur. Phoen. (Paley) 511,
Hdt. iv. 130. (2) in Ionic Greek, the enclitic pronouns inserted without attribu-
tive; as, B 217, Archil. 29, 97, Sappho 2, Erinna 6, Hippon. 62, Anacr. 81, The-
ognis 575, 813, 861, Hdt. of 7 times, pol twice, of thrice; cf. iii. 153, 74, i. 159,
166, vii. 160, i. 115, v. 46, Aesch. Prom. 289, Eur. Hip. 10; imitated sporadi-
cally in Attic; Plat. Phaedr. 236 D, Sympos. 177 A, Luc. Nigr. 2. With Hdt.
iii. 65 (duiv), cf. Plat. Apol. 39 C. Similarly, the enclitic rls, 23 times in Hdt. ;
or if adjunct occurs, rls adheres to the article; as, i. 124, 187, 189, iii.63. These
Tonicisms are due to the strong gravitation of these pronouns towards the head
of the clause in Hm. and Hdt., so as usually to assume the second or third posi-
tion, especially after a conjunction.

The intrusion of the partitive genitive is almost entirely confined to cases where
the participle or adjective is used without expressed subject, or the genitive
forms a complex with an attributive word. In Hdt. 1. 143, abra@yv is probably
semi-reflexive. .

Only apparent exceptions are the instances where an alien word or phrase
appears within, but actually belonging to an extruded participle, adjective, or
noun with which it forms a compound attributive ; as, Thuc. ili. 56, Soph. O. C.
1514, Hdt. vii. 124. )

If the verb is interposed between article and participle used without its noun,
it must stand after one or more adjuncts of the participle; as, Hdt. i. 18, 103,
vi. 75, Vii. 111, 115, Aeschines iii. 31, 77. Similarly, if intruded between article
and infinitive, it follows some adjunct of the latter; as, Soph. O. C. 769, Plato,
Rep. 332 A, 339 C, 405 C; exception, Dem. Ol. ii. 3.

From the foregoing evidence the idiom is seen to originate in poetry and re-
ceive there its highest development, especially in the tragedians; Aristophanes,
as in so much else, tends towards prose. Herodotus, dominated by the poets,
almost meets Aristophanes; but the other early prose writers, both historians
and orators, employ this hyperbaton charily, as becomes their simpler style.
Demosthenes, in his earlier speeches, while still under the influence of the frugal

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XXVvii

Isaeus, imitates his master’s frugality; but in the full flow of his perfected rhetoric,
in the Olynthiacs, Philippics, and De Corona, he surpasses even Pindar and
Aeschylus in the richness of his usage, and in this he is rivaled by his opponent
Aeschines, and even exceeded by Dionysius, by Longinus, by Plutarch, nay, by
Polybius himself. In fact, for this later period, it had become a favorite artifice
of language for all who made any pretence to rhetorical diction; when, however,
we come close to the plain and natural language of the people, as in the Gospels
and the Septuagint, we find the idiom has scarcely an existence, and the case
is nearly the same in modern Greek. *

8. The Eleventh Chapter of the First Book of Thucydides, by
Professor Milton W. Humphreys of Vanderbilt University, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

In this paper! were discussed, first, the expression pdyn éxpdryoay in § 1, and,
secondly, the repetition of efAow in §§ 2-3.

I. It was proposed to read éxparh@noay for éxpdrncay.

(a.) If we retain éxpdrnoay, the following difficulties present themselves:

1. Unless a reason for an event is cogent, a mere intimation of the reason is
not allowable; whereas, in the present instance, the reason is not only not cogent,
but is absolutely paradoxical.

2. As a fortification is needed more by a defeated army than a victorious one,
the Greeks would have fortified before fighting, if they were going to fortify in
case of victory. In this connection was discussed B 701-2.

3- The construction of entrenchments was merely incidental to their re-
maining in the country: if they could remain a single night, they could for-
tify. Why then should Thucydides single out this one evidence that the
Greeks — remained ?

4- The statement implies that a defeated army could not halt in the vicinity
of the battle-field long enough to entrench itself; whereas Thucydides himself
records instances of the contrary. Cf. v. 73, etc.

5- The emphatic 003’ évyrat@a, ‘not even under these circumstances,’ just
after mention of the supposed victory, implies that a victory would xaturally
have induced them to concentrate their forces, which is ridiculous.

6. As it was a war against a small city (B 122 ff.) and the object and con-
fident expectation was the immediate conquest or destruction of Troy, it is ab-
surd to suppose that the Greeks, after a victory, would halt to construct fortifi-
cations rather than press on to the city.

(6.) If on the other hand, we read éxparh@noay, all difficulties vanish.

1. The reason assigned for the conclusion that the Greeks were defeated is
natural and satisfactory just as it stands, and is supported by H 337 ff., 436 ff.

2. The emphasis of ot3’ évrai@a becomes quite appropriate.

3. The expression (udxp) xparnOjva: is often used by Thucydides of a mere
temporary defeat. Cf. vii. 49, 1; vii. 55, 2; vii. 60, 4, etc.

4. Kriiger’s objection that udyp xparobyres in § 2 refers to udxn expdrncay
in § I is strangely erroneous, as is shown below.

II. (a.) The difficulty which some commentators find with the repetition of
eZAov in §§ 1-2 is due to their overlooking the fact that two distinct modes of

1 Published in full in the American Fournal of Philology, vol. iii., no. 12.

XXVill American Philological Assoctation.

capture are meant: first, by storm after a victory; secondly, by a siege, in case
the Trojans declined a battle with the entsve Greek army. It would be difficult
to omit efAoy in either place, without rendering the passage hopelessly obscure.
Here Classen’s explanation was criticised.

(5.) That pdxyp xparovyres does not refer to udxy éxpdrycay in § 1, is shown
by the following considerations :

1. The clause of ye xal ody GOpdo: AAAS dpe: TE Gel waparvxdyrs dvreixor Would
be wholly superfluous.

2. The aor. part. xparhoayres would ‘have been used (as in viii. 1, 3; vii. 11,
1) of so remote an event.

3. If we take udxp xparoivres in close connection with efAoy, all is in order.
The pres. part. is often employed to describe means, manner, or immediate cir-
cumstances, even of a specific occurrence; and especially common is this use of
xparéy. Cf. i. 116, 2; ii. g1, 1 (impf. = aor.), etc. For a striking illustration,
compare § 6 with § 7 of Paus. i. 13.

III. The paper closed with a paraphrase of the chapter, incorporating these
views.

g. The Form and Force of the Aorist Tense in Greek, by the
Rev. J. Colver Wightman of Taunton, Mass.

The object of this paper was to ascertain the original significance of the first
aorist tense by a study of its genesis and by a comparison of its formal charac-

teristics —its sibilant tense-sign and the augment in its indicative — with similar
elements in Ancient Egyptian.

‘The Association adjourned at 12.30 P. M.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Wednesday, July 12, 1882.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Association was called to order by the President, Professor
Allen, at 2.20 P.M.

On motion, the Chair appointed a committee, consisting of Pro-
fessors C. H. Toy, B, Perrin, and M. Warren, to nominate officers
for the ensuing year.

_ On motion, Professors Van Benschoten, Tracy Peck, and Merriam

were appointed a committee to recommend a suitable time and
place for the next meeting, and the reading of papers was then
resumed.

10. Notes on Latin Quantity, by Professor Tracy Peck of Yale
College, New Haven, Conn.
The object of the paper was to consider the frequent assertion that in the

time of utterance of long and short vowels in Latin a strict ratio of two to one
was observed. While it was admitted that this exact system is at the basis of

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. — XXiX

the poetry of the classical period, and that as an ideal it was sometimes striven
for in rhythmical prose, it was maintained that there is no evidence that such
a system was practically realized in the ordinary uses of the language.

An examination of the best verse showed that, at the end and in the body of all
kinds of words, long vowels were often treated as short, and short vowels as long,
and that by apocope or syncope such vowels frequently disappeared altogether.
The habit of ascribing this free treatment to the effect of the metrical ictus or to
poetic license was characterized as indolent and ynsatisfactory. Statements in
the best authorities show that hiatus was avoided in conversation as well as in
poetry. Cases of synizesis, of the resolution of a diphthong into its elements, of
the vocalization of consonants and the consonantization of vowels, were adduced
in support of the doctrine of the paper. Reference was made to the fact that in
words borrowed from the Greek, the Greek quantities were not always preserved
in Latin. The fact that the Romans regarded short vowels in certain positions
as either long or short, and the absence of separate characters for long and short
vowels, must have affected the utterance of vowels not standing before a mute
and a liquid. It was suggested that the music of much Latin verse must have
been impaired if vowels naturally long, but followed by more than one consonant,
were uttered differently from short vowels. Passages in the best ancient author-
ities on Latin usage caution against an over-fastidious counting off of syllables in
pronunciation; and other passages, which allude to discussions among the edu-
cated Romans as to the proper length of many vowels, show that great latitude
and inconsistency must have prevailed among the people themselves.

Remarks upon this paper were made by Professor Humphreys.

11. The Influence of the Latin Syntax in the Anglo-Saxon Gos-
pels, by Professor W. B. Owen of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

The Anglo-Saxon Gospels wer translated from the old Vulgate. The version
is notable for its fidelity and care, and illustrates, even more than other transla-
tions in Anglo-Saxon literature, the influence of the Latin idiom upon the syntax
of that language. The paper discust and illustrated several points in which the
conformity to the Latin is most plainly seen.

First, in the use of participles: noting these under heds suggested by the
forms in the Authorized Version, we find participle used for co-ordinate clause,
relativ, temporal, conditional clauses, for relativ clause plus its antecedent, for
the infinitiv, as a noun, as an adjectiv, used objectively, used to make the pro-
gressiv form. Nearly half the instances of the absolute construction found in
Matthew and Mark ar copied in the Anglo-Saxon. There is a considerable
interval in these respects between the Gospels and contemporary prose not
imitativ.

The same interval may be seen too in the frequent use of synthetic forms.
The dativ object, the dativ instrumental, the dativ of manner, of time, of the
possessor, of likenes, after comparativs, after verbs meaning Z/ease, serve, com-
mand, believe, etc., ar a few of the constructions in which the influence of the
Latin may be seen.

Prohibitions ar exprest by a perifrastic imperativ — ‘nillan’ with the infin-
itiv, in imitation of Latin #o/i, xofite. Conformity was also traced in the use of
the infinitiv with subject accusativ, the use of the infinitiv to expres the purpos

xxx American Philological Association.

of motion,—the usual form being the gerund,—in making intransitiv verbs tran-
sitiv, and in various omissions and repetitions.

Several verbal turns wer also referd to, resulting from the attempt to giv an
exact translation, such as ‘and’ translating ¢¢ in its stronger meanings—‘also,
even;’ ‘wurpon’ for s#jecerunt in the passage, ¢/i manus injecerunt in eum, where
we might hav expected ‘legdon’; ‘onwurpadh’ for objictuntur, a literal turn of
the word but not a characteristic expression of the idea. So often with mitrere,
a word of wider ranges of meaning than ‘sendan,’ its literal equivalent, etc., etc.

With reference to the introduction’ of Latin words, it has often been noted
that whereas other versions adopt terms from the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, it
is a characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon to use nativ words, and, where words ar
wanting, to form home-made compounds. It is in the arrangement of words, the
syntactical forms, and idiomatic frases, that the influence of the Latin is mainly

seen.

12. The Locutions “Two first” and “ First two,” by Professor
F. A. March of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

When several attributiv adjectivs precede a substantiv, each prior adjectiv
commonly describes or defines the complex notion exprest by the substantiv and
intervening adjectivs. Descriptiv adjectivs denoting qualities residing in the ob-
ject ar more closely related to it than definitivs, which giv the number, quantity,
position, or other relations of the object. Descriptivs ar placed nearer the sub-
stantiv than definitivs. We say “two yellow flowers,” not “yellow two flowers.”
The common order of thought is to combine the quality yellow with the flowers,
then ¢wo enumerates the complex objects, yellow flowers. When two descriptivs
or two definitivs ar used, the same princip] generally determins their order. A
class is made by combining one of the attributivs with the substantiv, and this
class is further distinguisht or defined by prefixing the other attributiv.

We often make classes upon a cardinal number. We divide objects into twos -
or threes. If we enumerate these pairs or triplets, the ordinal is put first. We
say “the first two, the second two, etc.,” ba forman tw monna cynnes, the first pair
of mankind, Caed. 12, 31; on bem dédrum prim dagum, in the second three days,
Orosius, I, I, 13; first six, Spenser, Shep. Cal. August, first of a succession of
sixes; the last hundred years, Trench, Eng. P. and P., 55. So we say “the first
_ twenty-four hours,” i. e. the first day. We speak of “the first ones,” “the three
first ones,” but not the “first three ones.”

We sometimes make classes characterized by an ordinal number. Books may
be classified as first volumes, second volumes, and the like. Each college class
has its first man.’ In parliament a class of speeches ar calld first speeches. ‘The
best first speech that ever yet was made,” Byron, D. Juan, 13, 90. In enumer-
ating objects so classified the cardinal must precede the ordinal. ‘Send me two
first volumes of Maetzner” must be writn, if one wants two copies of that
volume.

We may also make a class of first objects from a single series ; frst, besides
its definit denotation in counting, also has an indefinit denotation like other super-
lativs. We call a number of objects fst, which ar at and near the beginning of
aseries. We say “four of the first years of a man’s life” as we do “four of the
ablest men.” And so, including the whole of such a class, we say “the four first
years,” “the four ablest men,” not “the ablest four men.”

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. _ XXXi

But often classes may be made either way. A preacher may divide his hymn
into first verses ‘and last verses, and say “sing two of the first verses,” or “ the
two first verses ;” or he may classify them by twos, and say “sing the first two
and the last two verses.” Nothing calls for one classification more than the other.
In such cases is there any idiomatic habit which, in the absence of preference
and reflection, leads to the use of one order rather than another ?

I. The most far-reaching influence of this kind is the grammatical form of
first and last. They ar superlativs, and superlativs ar prevailingly descriptivs
and attach themselves closely to their nouns. This leads to a prevailing use of
two first, two last, and the like. Thus in our lighter literature may be found: forty
last years of his life, Addison, Works, 2, 283; two first, two last, same on Mil-
_ ton, 13, 14; the three first Dutch governors, Irving, Knick. N. York, 36, and Life,
I, 204, 138; two last nights, Fielding, Tom Jones, 277; two last speeches, Gold-
smith, Vicar of Wakefield, 14, ch. v.; two first, Thackeray, Lect. 313; five
last, same, 281; two last centuries, A. Trollope, B. Towers, ch. 22; two first,
Hughes, Tom Brown at Oxford, I, 139; two first cantos, H. Lytton Bulwer,
Life of Byron, xix; three first, Clelia, 2, 59; two first, Sterne, Sent. Journ., 9;
two last hours, Richardson, Clarissa, 1250; two first dances, Miss Austen, Pride
and Prej., 1, 96; two first volumes, Gil Blas, Trans., 320; two eldest, Miss Evans,
Mill on the Floss, 53; Don Quixote, Trans., 210.

- From poets also, Thomas Phaer in 1558 publisht a book entitled The Seven ~
First Bookes of the Eneidos of Virgill, and in 1562, The Nyne First Bookes.
Shakespeare has two latter, Pericles, 5, 3; Milton, the two last years of Hono-
rius, Prose Works, 2, 247 ; Cowper, the three or four first years, Southey’s Life,
1,17; Byron, the four first rhymes, D. Juan, 1, 222; the two last, Life, xv; D.
Juan, 1, 217, and to Murray on D. Juan, Cant. II.; so J. G. Percival, Life, 487;
Warton on Pope, 1, 132, 272, 359, 414. And from historians, Sir John Mande-
ville, if he may pass for a historian, has “the two best cities,” 258; Hume, the
two last books, Hist. Eng., 3, 348; Lingard, the six first centuries, Ang. Sax.
Church, 1, 379; Macaulay, six first kings, Hist. Eng. 1,14; 5, 107; Prescott, two
last, Phil. II., 2, 352; Motley, two first, D. R. 1, 240; Tacitus, two former, Trans.
Hist., 5,12; Froude, two first, Hist. Eng., 7, 43; 3, 193; few last years, 1, 193;
two last, 2,97; three last, 4, 110; Bancroft, Hist. U. S., 6, preface; Carlyle, T.,
Fred. II., 2, 382.

The following ar references to essayists: Cotton, Translation of Montaigne,
57; Todd’s Life of Milton; Burke, Works, 2, 2; 4, 56; 2, 58; 3,210; Teign-
mouth, Life of Sir Wm. Jones, 2, 189; Halliwell, Fairy Myth, 229; Nursery R.
181; Wright, Thos., Lyrics Temp. Ed. I., V.; Masson, Milton, 2, 539; Craik,
three last.great sunbursts, Eng. Lit., 2, 453; Blair's Rhet., 38 ; Spedding’s Bacon,
eight Jast books, 2, 555, and often; Collins, Aristophanes; Morley, English writ-
ers, 1, 173; Schlegel, Dram. Lit., Trans., 82; Mandeville, Fable of Bees, Craik,
2, 256; E. Everett, on Byron, in Allibone; Carlyle, J. A., Dante, 15; J. Warton,
in Todd’s Milton, 3, 370; Warton’s Pope, 2, 289; Walton’s Lives, 157.

Here ar some references to filosofers: D. Stewart, works, 2, 269; 2, 286; 3,
360, and often; Wm. Hamilton, Lect., 450; Bacon, 1,77; Berkeley, Principles
of H. K., Introduction; three last, Hartley, on Man, 18; Tucker, Light of N., 1,
136; Morell, 447; Chalybaus, Trans., 334; Butler’s Analogy, 1, 5; Whately
Rhet., 270; Herbert Spencer, Psy., 261; Whewell, Phil. Ind. Sc., 2,73; Aris-
totle, Organon, Trans., I, 191.

XXXil American Philological Assoctatton.

II. This general analogy is often overcome by a large cardinal. Thus Burke,
who has “two first,’ has “last forty,” 3, 112; and Dugald Stewart changes to
“first nine,” “ first seven,” 2, 27; 358.

III. It is also overweighd by the habit of making frequent groups on par-
ticular cardinals. Our system of numbers makes frequent groups of tens, hun-
dreds, and the like. So sevens hav always bin frequent groups. “The first ten,”
“the first seven,” ar therefore prevailing expressions.

IV. In extemporaneous speech the order of words is often determind by the
order of thought. A preacher, giving out a hymn, may hav determind to giv out
some first verses, but not determind how many. He wil then say: “sing the
first [after making up his mind] two verses.”

V. Personal habits as to precision and other matters easily overweigh the
grammatical analogy. Mathematicians and logicians and other very precise men
prefer idioms in which the most precise meanings ar used; they do not like to
speak of more than one first or last object. Some of them do, however. Day’s
Algebra, 183, and often, speaks of the two first couplets ; so Davies’s Analyt.
Geom., 322; 341; and Sir W. R. Hamilton’s Quaternions, 75 and elsewhere.
Wedgewood, also known as a filologist, entitles one of his books “The Geom-
etry of the Three First Books of Euclid.” So in Mansell, Prol. Logica, 95; and
old Pecock (Marsh, E. L., 476), “‘of the whiche thre proposiciouns the two first
ben clepid premissis.”

The scientists ar next in this kindof precision, but “two first,” “two last,” ar
frequent in Darwin, Species, 222; Domest., 1, 327, 328, 329; on Man, I, 170; so
Agassiz, Classification, 107; 127; two first fingers, Wallace, Malay Archipel.
144.

The lawyers: the order “two first” is found in Bacon, I, 77; 4, 15, v.;_ Black-
stone, I, 240; Wheaton, Laws of N., 496; Elliott’s Debates, Va.,6; Th. Jeffer-
son, Elliott’s Deb., Va., 3, 4.

The filologists might be expected to be very precise, but their familiarity with
grammatical analogies inclines them strongly to “‘two first,” “two last.” We find
these in Bopp, Comp. Gram., Trans., 1, 202; two last vulgarisms, Bartlett, Amer-
icanisms, under oxgh? ; Bullions, Eng. Gram., 59; Crosby, Gk. Gram., 429; Ellis,
‘Early Eng. Pronunciation, often; Evans, on Versification, 135 and often; Gibbs,
Teutonic Etym., 3; 79; 80; Guest, Eng. Rhythms, 1, 14, 15; 354; Head, Shall
and Will, 14; 69; Hodgson, in Bunsen, 1, 136; Knapp, Eng. Roots, 109; Mit-
ford, Harmony of Lang., 10; Max Miiller, Sc. of Lang., 179; 237 and elsewhere;
Pickbourne, Eng. Verb, 18 ; Rask, Thorpe’s Trans., 27; Skeat, Etym. Dict., under
andiron ; Thorpe, Caedm., iv.; Vernon, Ang. Sax. Guide, 27; two latter, Vers-
tegan, Restitution, 172; Wilkins, Nat. Gram., 308 and often; Wilson, Mahabh.
v; Sansk. Gram., 388; Hind. Theater, 1, lix; Whitney, Language and Study, 92;
1335 I9I.

Proof-readers incline to the definit form. They easily apprehend that there
can be but one first..

Preachers exert the greatest influence on this idiom, because they use it so
often before imitativ audiences in giving out hymns, and the like. As this is a
definit numerical announcement it naturally inclines them to the definit idiom.
But those who choose to say “ two first verses ” may support themselvs by the
authority of Isaac Watts and many other good men, as well as our English
Bible.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XXXili

“T have not confined myself here to the sense of the Psalmist, but have taken
occasion, from the ¢hrce first verses, to write a short hymn on the Government of
the Tongue.” I. Watts, note to Psalm 39; “One thing needful, or serious med-
itations upon the four Jast things,’’ Bunyan, title of a poem; Alford’s Testa-
ment, 3 First Gospels, title; Thornwell, on Truth, 199, 200; Moses Stuart, on
Romans, 347; Bishop Hall, in Warton’s Spenser, 1, 187; Conybeare and How-
son, Life of St. Paul, 83; lfric’s Homilies, 1, 270, ba bred forman gebédu, the
three first prayers; seven last (plagues), English Bible, Rev. xx. 1, xxi. 9.

And finally there is one great authority for the Queen’s English, the Queen
herself. She says, in her Life in the Highlands, 46, “I read to Albert the
three first cantos of the Lay of the Last Minstrel.”

13. On Surds and Sonants, by Professor March.

If a sonant is emfasized, magnified for examination, we hear a voice murmur
with it, or in whispering, a whisper rust], 26d, é6#, ab@ba.

If a surd is treated in the same way we hear an & with it, p-Adé.

English-speaking men use much murmur breth, and our fonetists incline to
emfasize it and judge all consonants by its presence or absence.

Germans, on the contrary, use litt] sonant breth and much aspirate. This is
a most important peculiarity, the race trait which givs rise to the peculiar
changes in Grimm’s law. (See American Philological Association Transactions,
vol. for 1873, pp. 101 ff.) The aspirate sounds ar with them the most promi-
nent, and they study their positiv qualities and incline to judge all consonants by
the presence or absence of aspiration.

Aspiration being understood to mean the peculiar sounds of breth blown thru
open vowel cords, the German and English judgments amount to the same thing
in clear and distinct articulations, but some obscure and weak sounds the Eng-
lish might call surds because no murmur can be herd with them, and the Germans
call weak, i. e. sonant, because no aspiration is herd with them.

It is to be wisht that we coud clearly set forth the vibrations of air which strike
the ear and produce sounds, that we had some fonograf to study them by.

Take p and 46. They hav different vibrations produced at the vocal cords.
But these vibrations in the breth at the vocal cords ar combined at the ear with
new vibrations produced in its passing thru the mouth, and the distinctiv carac-
ter of 4 resides in vibrations causd at the lips. It may be givn to common vowel
sound as wel as to murmur. Ar the added vibrations from mouth and lips the
same for 6 and p?

The closed vocal cords for 4 make a different sound from open cords, not
only by vibrating, but also by changing the quantity and direction of the currents
of breth, and so changing the rustls made in the mouth. The upper organs ad-
just themselvs to this difference of currents by slight changes in their form and
tension, which sensibly affect their vibrations. Whether these differences ar of
any practical importance in the classification and description of consonants is a
question. They ar interesting to experimenters in fonology.

In making experiments it is desirabl to use the familiar fact that the sound
made in closing to a mute is different from that made in opening from one, e. g.
not to identify the sonancy of closing 4 in ad with the opening to a following
murmur. The organs often cloze sonant and open surd, as in some German final
sonants, and in dissimilated gemination, where the opening from a sonant is

XXXIV American Philological Association.

made surd by assimilation with a following letter, as where the opening from m
is changed to / by a following ¢, A. Sax. emtig becoming empty, Northamton,
Northampton; cf. also simper, imp, into, sent, and Sanskrit 64, dh, etc. (See
American Philological Association Transactions, vol. for 1877, p. 151.)

Experiments on surds and sonants with inspired breth ar interesting, and with
whisper. Explain, for exampl, the sonancy of inspired whisper 44, 24, gd.

The hour of four having arrived, about forty members of the
Association, and several of their friends, proceeded in open car-
riages to the residence of Colonel Theodore Lyman in Brookline.
The route was from the College Yard across the Brighton Bridge
over the Charles to Allston, Longwood, and Brookline Centre, by
High street over the hill to Jamaica Pond, and then through Rock-
wood and Warren streets to Mr. Lyman’s home. Here the party
was most kindly received and entertained by Mr. and Mrs. Ly-
man. The company took leave a little before dusk. Returning
by way of Heath street, Chestnut Hill Reservoir, and Brighton
Market, over the Charles by the Abattoir, and then between Mt.
Auburn and the river, they reached the College at dark.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Thursday, July 13, 1882.

MORNING SESSION.

The Vice-President, Professor Humphreys, called the Associatioi
to order at 9.15 A.M.

The minutes of Wednesday’s sessions were read and accepted.

Remarks upon Professor March’s paper (no. 13) were made
by Professor Samuel Porter of the National Deaf-Mute College,
Washington, D. C.

The reading of communications was resumed.

14. The Ablaut in English, by Dr. B. W. Wells, Friends’ School,
Providence, R. I.; read, in the author’s absence, by Professor
W. B. Owen.

The paper showed the origin and structure of the old Germanic ablaut and
its development in Old English. Then, taking the Old English for a foundation,
it traced the gradual decay of the ablaut in Middle and New English, and
showed how the remnants of the ablaut manifested themselves, and under what

conditions.
There were four classes of strong verbs in Old Germanic, the ablaut in each

being as follows:

I. e, a, schwa (or vanishing) ;
II. ei, ai, i;
III. eu, au, u;

IV. a, 6, a.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XXXV

In New English a fifth class was added, consisting of verbs which formed the
preterit by. reduplication in Old Germanic. The nature of the root-vowel fixed
absolutely the class of ablaut.

In Old English the same laws that modified the vowels in other cases acted
on the ablaut and so produced some variety, while the general lines were strictly
adhered to. The ablaut here was:

I. a. e, ae, ae, e;
I. & e, ae, ae, O;
Ie ¢, éa, u, o; or, before nasals,
i, a, u, u;
II i, a, i;
III Eo, éa, U;
IV a, }, 2;
V. —‘- Various vowels in the present and the past formed with é@ or 2, with

some relics of reduplication.

Excluding class V., there were in Old English 255 strong: verbs, of which 167
were Old Germanic, 49 West Germanic, and 39 found only in Old English. These
data were compared with those for Old High German, which has 237 strong
verbs, of which 150 are Old Germanic and 52 West Germanic, while 35 are
peculiar to the Old High German. In Gothic there are 138 strong verbs, of
which 107 are Old Germanic, 2 East Germanic, and 19 peculiar to the Gothic.
Old Norse has about 200 strong verbs.

In Middle English the influence of the Old Norse through the Danish inva-
sion led to giving up the ablaut, wholly or partially, in many cases. Many verbs
also became obsolete in this time; but Middle English shows only the beginning
of a process which at the present time is nearly completed; for in New English
there remain of the Old English 311 strong verbs (including class V.) only 153;
and of these 80 are weak.

The weak verbs are those which in Old English had x +- consonant, / +- con-
sonant, m -}+ consonant, g, or w after the root-vowel. While after 7, 4, m, n,
m -+ consonant, s and ¢, we have usually strong forms. Further, verbs which
had 4, ze, éo, z, in the Old English present, are strong in New English, unless
disturbed by the consonants mentioned above; while those which had a, d, 6, %,
i, 20, or dé, are weak, unless followed by the consonants last mentioned.

When the ablaut is retained each member is phonetically derived from the
corresponding Old English form, unless there be some good ground for devi-
ation, in order to avoid confusion. Owing to the variety in the ablaut which
the Old English phonetic laws produced, and the still greater variety produced
by the New English laws acting on these already diversified forms, no classifi-
cation in New English can have more than an historic value.

15. On ov pf with the Future in Prohibitions, by Professor C. D.
Morris of the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.; read, in
the author’s absence, by Professor Minton Warren.

It was assumed in this paper that the two od uf constructions need not be

explained in the same manner. The ordinary account of the use of the double
negative in denials, that there is an ellipsis of some expression of fear between

XXXVI American Philologial Assoctation.

the two, was accepted as sufficiently probable from the fact that such word of
fear is not seldom actually found, and found even in cases where the notion of
fear can be used only ironically; i. e. where it might be said that the notion not
of fear but of Aofe was the one required by the context. Cf. Plat. Apol. 28 b:
& 3h woAAobs Kal KAAous Kal &yabobs Evdpas Fpnxev, olwa: 82 nal alphoew obdéev 3é
Sewdy uh év euol orf, ‘the rule is in no danger of breaking down in my case.’

But it 1s a serious error to attempt, as Kiihner does, to explain od uf in prohi-
bitions in this manner. His confusion is so great that he actually quotes Eur.
Hipp. 606 ob uh xpocoloes xeipa pnd’ Eye: wéwA@y as an example both of denial
and of prohibition. Nor again is it consistent with a belief in the original dif-
ference of the two negatives to adopt Elmsley’s explanation, e. g., of od ph
AaAheeis, as if it were equivalent to ‘will you not not-talk;’ and the same con-
sideration forbids us to suppose, with Professor Goodwin, that the uf merely
reinforces the od so that the two have the weight of a strong single negative in
both constructions.

We get a hint at a more satisfactory explanation of the construction in ques-
tion by considering such a line as Soph. Ai. 75 (Dind.) od ofy’ dvdter unde Se:Alay
dpet; The effect of this is: ‘hold thy peace, and do not exhibit cowardice.’
We have here two commands, the first positive, the second negative. The pos-
itive command is conveyed by the use of od with the future taken interrogatively;
and in this part of the line there can be no question about the interrogative
character of it; for otherwise, instead of being a command to do something, it
would assert that the thing desired will not come to pass. It is a recognized use
of the 2nd person of the future to convey a command to do a thing, whether
stated affirmatively, as in Ar. Nub. 1352 wdvrws 8 ro¥ro Spdoes, or stated inter-
rogatively with ov, as ob rovro Spdoes; In the latter case the negative od has its
regular force in asking questions; i. e., like the Latin nomne, anticipating an
affirmative answer.

As then the former half of our line is explained perfectly by the regular use
of od with the 2nd person of the future taken interrogatively, why may not the
second part also be explained in a corresponding manner? As ov in questions
expects an affirmative reply, so uf expects a negative one. Aesch. P. V. 962:
Bh rt col Sond rapBeiv; Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 10, dAAG wh dpxeréxrwov BobrAa yevérOat;
where the expected answer is given, oSxouv &ywy’, ¥pn. Interpreting the second
half of the line on this principle, unde Se:Alay dpet; will be ‘and w#// you exhibit
cowardice?’ the prohibition being contained in the circumstance that the speaker
asks a question about a fact, the existence or continuance of which she depre-
cates, in a form which shows that she expects an answer declaring that the state
of things objected to shall cease or not exist.

It is true that such expressions as pydt SeiAlay adpei, following a question with
ov, are usually treated as if their explanation depended on the supposed previous
existence of such phrases as od wh Anphoes. The force of the od, for example,
before aiy’ avétet is assumed in some way to hold over, so that after it has served
to give to the former clause its indispensable negative, it has still some negative
force left to supply an imagined want in the latter half of the line. But why, if
this force of the negative od is needed in the second member of such lines, is the
negative itself never repeated, the prohibition being always introduced with «al
Hh or unde? ~=And yet the repetition of od would, in many at least of the instan-
ces, have been quite easy. Why, in this case for example, might not Sophocles

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. XXXVIii

have written od3t uh Setdds gavel? So in O. T. 637 Sophocles might have writ-
ten cov wh as well as xa) wh, and would, one ray suppose, have done so, if he
had felt that ob had anything to do with the prohibition.

It being shown that the notion of a prohibitive command may have connected
itself naturally with «4 and the future, and that the presence of an od accom-
panying this ## is not essential to the prohibitive force of it, what is to be said
about those cases where od uf are used together with the future in a sense sub-
stantially the same? For example: Ar. Nub. 367: motos Zevs; od uh Anphoes:
ovd’ ors Zevs. tl Adyers oH}; Leaving out of view for the moment the question of
punctuation, in regard to which Dindorf exhibits great inconsistency, and which
is of comparatively slight importance, — as the matter now discussed is only the
origin of the expression and not the way in which it affected the consciousness
of those who used or heard it, —what are we to say about the presence of the
ob? It has been shown that ph Anphoes ought to be able, on the recognized
principles of the interrogative sentence, to convey the notion of a prohibition,
and it appears in sentences like that quoted from the Aias to have this meaning.
May not the ov be regarded in this construction as what Professor Gildersleeve
has called it in another connection, a ‘free’ negative, i. e. one which, like our
‘nay,’ merely indicates that the attitude of the speaker’s mind in regard to what
has been said or proposed is one of negation.! The assumption of a ‘free’ odx,
with the implication suggested, is in accordance with the actual usage of the |
combination in question. For though the books are silent as to any limitation
in the use of od wf with the future as a form of prohibition, an examination of
the passages where it occurs will show that it is employed only where the com-
mand is to break off and discontinue an action already begun or at least threat-
ened; and the od, which precedes the really prohibitive phrase, seems intended
to deny the fitness under the circumstances of an existing state of things, as if it
were ob xpéwet TovTO, ov Xph TovTO woety. Two or three instances will elucidate
this. In Ar. Nub. 297 (Dind.) od ph oxdper pndt worhoes Erep of rpuvyodaluoves
ovrot Comes in with great propriety to stop the buffoonery of Strepsiades, who
had just described his feelings in a way that threatened results which would in-
terfere sadly with the decorum of the school. So in 1]. 367 of the same play ob
Hy Anphoets comes in just in time to cut short the simple confession of the old
faith which Strepsiades had begun. In Ran. 200 Charon gives explicit directions
to Dionysus where he is to sit, how he is to use his arms, etc.; but the god is
evidently a wilful bungler, and accordingly Charon says to him od wh ¢Avaphoess
éxwy. In Soph. Trach. 971 Hyllus enters and sees his father lying apparently
dead, and begins to make loud lamentations. The old servant says: olya, réxvov,
Bh Kuwhons ayplay édbvnvy warpds auddpovos. And when Hyllus begins again to
speak the servant interrupts him with: od ph ’teyepets Tov Srvy kdroxov. There
is one passage in which od uf with the future appears not to have the required
force. In Eur. El. 383 we find ob wh ppovhced’ of xevav dotacudrwy wAnpeis
wAavac0e. It occurs in a speech of Orestes in which he protests against the
popular criteria of a man’s merit — wealth, birth, military prowess, etc. It is

1 Since the reading of this paper Professor Gildersleeve pointed out to the writer a note
in his edition of Justin Martyr to this effect: “Perhaps it may be best to consider od as
‘nay,’ and uf as an interrogative expecting a negative answer.” This is of course a com-
plete anticipation of the present theory.

XXXVIII American Philological Association.

translated in the Latin version of Fix ‘nunquamne sapietis,’ which would of
course have been expressed by od ¢povhaere; Paley felt the difficulty and intro-
duced his ‘own conjecture a&g¢povfeere. But though this will give the required
sense, it is not necessary if we interpret ¢povfeere in the sense ‘adopt such wis-
dom as this’ which has just been denounced. In this case also od may be taken
as summing up the several denials which Orestes has just uttered.

But if this is the origin of the combination od pf in prohibitions, and it is
essentially interrogative in character, there can be no doubt that it was felt and
used as appropriate in particular circumstances without there being necessarily
present any conscious memory or apprehension of its history. And accordingly
there is no need for us to be continually reminding ourselves of it by punctuat-
ing with an interrogation point. Indeed there are some instances where it is com-
bined with other imperative forms so closely that inconvenience would be felt if
the attempt were made to separate them by punctuation or intonation. This
fact is not indeed decisive, as is sometimes said, against the interrogative origin
here attributed to the od «} form of prohibition. Granting that it was felt as a
simple prohibitive imperative there is no reason why it should not be combined °
directly with other imperative expressions. So in Eur. Bacch. 343 we have first
the interrupting command (0d ph xpocoloes xeipa), stopping Kadmus, who is ap-
proaching to put a bacchic wreath on the head of Pentheus; then a positive
command expressed by the future (Saxxevoes 38’ iév), and then a further prohi-
bition with undé (und? etopdpte: ucoplay thy chy euol): and so the example from
Ar. Nub. 296 quoted above is followed immediately by the imperative dA’
ebphues.

It seems to be a weighty objection to the theory that in both the od uf con-
structions the combination od uh has the force of a strong single negative
(Goodwin, 47. 7: § 89), that, if that were true, whatever ob cwdpovnces taken
interrogatively may mean, od uh swdpovheets, also taken interrogatively, ought
to express the same meaning, only with added strength. But in fact the latter
has just the opposite meaning to the former.

Remarks upon this paper were made by Professor Gildersleeve.

16. Report of the Committee on the Reform of English Spell-
ing, by the Chairman, Professor F. A. March of Lafayette College,
Easton, Pa.

The Philological Society of England has past a resolution requesting H.
Sweet, Esq., to communicate with us in order to ascertain whether it is practi-
cabl to effect a complete agreement with the American Philological Association,
so that “a joint scheme miht be put forth under the authority of the two chief
filological bodies of the English-speaking world.”

Mr. Sweet has communicated with your Committee. This agreement on a
joint scheme has been before this Association since 1875, and it is presumed that
the Association wil stil regard it as desirabl. As to the manner of preparing
the joint list of amended words, the Committee recommend that the work be in-
trusted to a committee of the Association, and since the meetings of the Associ-
ation ar only annual, and successiv ratifications and amendments might delay the
final agreement very long, that power to act be granted to the Committee within
the limits of former accepted reports, and in accordance with such other instruc-
tions as may be givn at this meeting.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. "XXxix

An open letter has been addrest to the Committee by T. R. Vickroy, Ph. D.,
of St. Louis, urging it to recommend to this Association a number of new types.
The Committee does not see the way clear to any additional recommendations
on the subject of new types.

On motion, the report was approved. The Committee was con-
tinued another year, and the names of Professor W. F. Allen of
the University of Wisconsin, and of Professor Thomas R. Price of
Columbia College, New York, were added, so that the Committee
now consists of Messrs. March (Chairman), Allen, Child, Louns-
bury, Price, Trumbull, and Whitney. The Committee was empow-
ered to act within the limits imposed by their report as accepted by
the American Philological Association.

The Secretary announced the election of the following new

members :

Frank B. Tarbell, Professor of Greek, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Thaddeus D. Kenneson, Graduate Student, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass. .

Hans C. G. Jagemann, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

Henry Preble, Tutor in Latin, Harvard Univeristy, Cambridge, Mass.

William Wells Eaton, Andover, Mass.

Charles E. Bennett, Graduate Student, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Maurice Bloomfield, Professor of Sanskrit, Johns Hopkins University, Balti-
more, Md.

E. M. Tomlinson, Professor of Greek, Alfred University, Alfred Centre, N. Y.

On behalf of the Auditing Committee, Professor Henry F. Bur-
ton reported that the accounts of the Treasurer had been examined
and compared with the vouchers and found correct. The report
was accepted. |

Professor Toy, on behalf of the committee appointed to nominate
officers for the year 1882-83, reported as follows:

For President — Professor Milton W. Humphreys, Vanderbilt University, Nash-
ville, Tenh.

For Vice-Presidents — Professor M. L. D’Ooge, Michigan University, Ann Arbor,
Mich.; Professor Thomas D. Seymour, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

For Secretary and Curator — Professor Charles R. Lanman, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.

For 7reasurer — Charles J. Buckingham, Esq., Poughkeepsie, N. Y.

For additional members of the Executive Committee —

Professor Basil L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Professor Francis A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Professor Thomas R. Price, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, Hartford, Conn.

Professor William D. Whitney, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

xl American Philological Association.

On motion, the report was accepted, and the persons therein
named were declared elected to the offices to which they were
respectively nominated.

Professor Van Benschoten reported for the committee on time
and place of meeting. It was recommended that the next session
be held at Middletown, Conn. On motion, this part of the report
was accepted. After considerable discussion, the determination of
the precise time of the beginning of the meeting was left to the
Executive Committee.

The reading of papers was resumed.

17. Emendation to Euripides’s Cyclops, v. 507, by Professor
T. D. Seymour of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

In the second episode of the Cyclops of Euripides, Odysseus comes forth from
the cave and tells the chorus of satyrs what had taken place within. Polyphe-
mus had kindled his fire and milked his cows, and when the water boiled and the
coals were ready, he killed two of the Greeks and roasted the rump and boiled
their limbs. Then, sated with his feast, the monster reclined upon the ground.
The Ithacan, according to a divine suggestion, then bore to the Cyclops a bowl
of Maron’s wine, with which he was pleased and of which he demanded another
and another draught. Then he turned to song and (Odysseus tells the satyrs),
delighted with this draught of Bacchus, desired to go for a revel to his brothers,
(445) éw) xa@pow Eprey mpds kacryvhrous bre: | KéxAwmas hodels rede Baxxlou xorg.
About sixty lines after this story of Odysseus, after the hero had made known his
plan for revenge, the Cyclops appears on the scene with the following words:
(503) mawamat, wAdws pty olvou, | ydyupat ¢ Bards Bn, | oxdpos dAxds Os yeut-
aGels | ror céAua yaorpds pas. | (507) drdyes pw’ 6 xdpros etppwy | ew xduov Fpos
pass, | ew) KixAwmas &deAqous. | pépe jot, Eeive, pep’, dandy Ev8os por.

It certainly is quite unexpected by us here that Polyphemus should speak of
the grass, the herbage, as inviting him to go to his brothers. 6 xdpros #pos Spas
cannot be a poetical expression for “the charming weather of spring.” It can-
not mean “the grass invites me to sit down here and drink,” for v. 541 comes as
a fresh and attractive thought, «al phy Aaxvedés y’ od8as avOnpa xAdn. There
for the first time he thinks of lying down and drinking before his own cave.
That él KixAwmras &deApous is in apposition with and explanatory of ém) xca@poy,
is shown by the other uses of «@uos within a few lines; as v. 451, emou pev adrdy
Tove’ &rakAdiw, where the emphasis is not upon rodée, but it is taken for granted
that if he has a «amos he will go to his brothers. So v. 534, muypas 6 w@mos Aol-
Sopdy 7” Ep pidez, where x@mos as usual implies companions in drinking, and is
contrasted distinctly with remaining and drinking at home. We must remember
also that in vs. 507 fg. we expect only the statement by the Cyclops of the wish
which was reported by Odysseus in vs. 445 fg.

If we are dissatisfied with the present text we need have the less scruple in
changing it, since the tradition of this play has been notoriously corrupt. Bern-
hardy calls attention to v. 397, 8{30u nayelp@ carelessly written for “A:dou payelpy,
Vv. 247, imepooxdou for ei! dpecndov, v. 571, ovryavra for oxa@vra, v. 677, kaTréxAuce

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. xli

for xaréxavoe. If, then, we consider ourselves at liberty to change the text, I
would propose to read v. 507 drdyet x’ 5 pépros wrA. “I am full of wine and de-
light in the youthful beauty of the feast, laden to the top of my stomach like a
merchant vessel with her hull filled to the deck. My /ading leads me on to a
revel in the time of spring, to go to my brothers, the Cyclopes. Come, stranger,
give me the bottle.” He is heavily laden, but is excited, not burdened, by the
load.

18, On the Smile of Aphrodite, Theoc. I. 95, 96, by Professor
T. D. Seymour.

‘Theocritus in general is surprisingly free from that affectation of curious learn-
ing which we are accustomed to call Alexandrian, from the antiquarian spirit of
Callimachus and Apollonius of Rhodes. The scenes and characters of his idyls
are pictured most distinctly in an apparently unconscious manner, which conceals
all its art. But in the so, of Thyrsis, in the first idyl, the fates have been sadly
unpropitious to the Mss. and to us, or the poet took much less than his usual care
to make the situation clear and present a picture with firmly drawn lines. Daph-
nis pines away contending against the might of love. For whom he pines we
know not. Hermes comes from the mountain to comfort him, and asks him of
whom he is so much enamored, but no reply is vouchsafed. The herdsmen come,
Priapus comes; to these, too, Daphnis makes no reply. Then comes Aphrodite,
sweet and smiling. But she upbraids and taunts Daphnis, who in turn mocks at
her. Then he bids farewell to the rivers, trees, and beasts of Sicily, and dies.
The story of Daphnis, more than anything else in Theocritus, has been the sub-
ject of discussion and conjecture. It seems to be pretty well agreed now that
the Daphnis of the first idyl is to be treated alone, that his story can receive little
light from the Daphnis of Stesichorus or from the Daphnis of the other idyls.
We must acquiesce in our ignorance of the story. Upon one point, however, i. €.,
the attitude of Aphrodite toward Daphnis, perhaps more light may be thrown by
the consideration of vs. 95, 96, 4v0é ye way GBeia kal & Kémpis yeAdooa, | Adépia
ty yeadoiou, Bapiy 8° dvd Oupdy Exo1va. In the second of these verses the Mss.
are agreed in giving Ad@pia or some collateral form, Adépa or Addpn. The phrase

“secretly smiling,” however, was thought to be offensive. It could hardly mean
“laughing in her sleeve,” for the tone of the goddess in addressing Daphnis is
much rather that of open taunt and exultation. So it could hardly mean a “quiet
laugh.” Hence &8¢a has been adopted by Hermann and Fritzsche, although it is
easy to see how 48a might have been written carelessly from the AB¢ia above;

put it is impossible to believe that Ad@pia should have displaced &Béa in all Mss.
Abirens proposed to read AdBpa uly eeyeAdwoa, “scornfully laughing out at him.”
fordsworth proposed adpiv (for &6peiy) from &@péw, as accusative of specifica-
ae Jaughing at the sight” These emendations are uncertain if not improb-
‘also seem unnecessary. We’ notice the meaning of yeAdw in v. 36 of

1, GAA’ dead udy rHvov worwépkerar EvBpa ‘yeAdoa | KAAoKa 8’ ad xorl

is maiden now destows her smiles on one lover and again lends
\ther." Compare also VII. 156, &s él owpg | abris ey
yerdoous | Spdypara rad udewvas ev duporépaiow Exovres.

at such a harvest-home, may I fix the great winnowing

in, and may the goddess of the grain smile upon me with

xlii American Philologual Assoctation.

sheaves and poppies in her arms.” In these smiles is nothing of scorn, nor con-
tempt, nor mockery, nor amusement, nor simply pleasure and satisfaction; the
principal element is good-will, favor. This meaning seems probable for v. 96,
and this view is strengthened by vs. 138 fg. xé uéy réc0” elway awexatcaro Ty
3’ ’Adpodira | 0eA’ avopPGoau. “As he said this he sank back and died, but
Aphrodite strove to raise him up.’ The goddess, then, does not come to insult and
mock Daphnis, but with the hope that he at last will yield to her authority and
be saved. She comes with the same good-will which filled the hearts of Hermes
and the others who came before her. But her authority had been slighted and
she pretends anger.

The signification of Bapdy 8’ ava Ouudy fora demands more careful considera-
tion. Bapdy seems to mean savage, cruel, angry, as four lines below we find
Koérp: Bapeia; IT. 3, ds Tow duol Bapdy edyra plrov xaradfooua bv8pa. In III. 15
Eros is Bapis @eds. dvéxotoa is more troublesome, but it is used literally of hold-
ing up a torch, and figuratively as in Eur. Cyclops, 203, dvexe, wdpexe, “show
here, let ’s see.” ®

The whole passage thus considered gives us: “ Next came Aphrodite sweet
and smiling with favor; secret/y smiling upon him, but pretending to be angry.”
This furnishes the contrast required by Ad@pia wév. It is nearly Milton’s “ Vaunt-
ing with rage but racked with deep despair.” It receives the best possible illus-
tration from a probable imitation by Nonnus, Dion. XXXIV. 303, efxe vdoy
yeAdwyra, xddrov 8 avépnve xpoodéry, which Meineke quotes, but with the remark
that Nonnus reversed the situation.

With this interpretation the reading of the Mss. can stand, and is to be pre-
ferred to any conjecture yet proposed.

So far as I know, Zetsche of Altenburg, in a program of 1865, was the first
to call due attention to the fact that Aphrodite was not an enemy of Daphnis.
He, however, thought the passage corrupt, and intended to propose a remedy in
a program which I think has not yet appeared. After writing this I find some
similar views in an inaugural dissertation by Krumbholz, Rostock, 1873. He,
however, reads aud for avd, an emendation which seems not only unnecessary
but inadmissible.

19. General Considerations on the Indo-European Case-system,
by Professor W. D. Whitney of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Professor Whitney called attention to the great and hitherto unsolved difficulty
of the Indo-European declension, in all its items, of number, gender, and case.
The numerous attempts at explaining the case-system are conveniently reviewed
and destructively criticised by Penka (Wien, 1878), whose own theory, however,
is not less untenable than any of the rest; and the most recent investigations
seem to be open to serious exception, in method or in results. It was intended
in this paper simply to clear the ground a little, and mainly in a negative way.

A few things in regard to the formation and use of the cases are fairly well
established. Thus, in the first place, the exceptional character of the genitive,
as an adnominal case; the analogies of its use are with the adjectives, its more
recent new forms are of adjective kindred, and the explanation of its origin consti-
tutes a part of the general subject of secondary adjective-formation. In the sec-
ond place, of the remaining cases, all adverbial in value, at least three are clearly

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. xiii

recognizabie as made primarily to express local relations: the ablative is the /rom-
case; the locative is the ##- or a¢-case; the instrumental is the 4y- or w#th-case.

There is no reason, in the present condition of our knowledge of language, why
we should question this, or look for anything more ultimate. All sign-making,
whether in the way of words or of forms, begins with the designation of what is’
most apprehensible by the senses, most physical; and no relations have more

this character than relations of place ; from their expressions, as is abundantly seen

in the history of adverbs, come by figurative transfer expressions of time, of man-
ner, of cause, and so on.

As regards now further the dative case, its primary value is hitherto disputed
and questionable. To say, as one or two have lately done, that the dative ex-
presses originally a grammatical relation (that of remoter object), and not a local
one, is simply to make a confession of ignorance while trying to give it the aspect
of positive knowledge. There is no such thing in language as a form originally
expressive of a grammatical relation; this must always be the final outcome of
something at first grosser and more physical. Nothing is gained by giving such
an account of the case, and its explanation may be adjourned to a time of better
knowledge.

The same objection applies to any alleged “explanation” of the accusative
case as that denoting the grammatical relation of object of a verb (or, yet worse,
denoting relation to a verb—as if all the other cases, except the genitive, had
not that value). This, again, is only equivalent to saying that we are unable as
yet to discover what lies behind the objective use of the accusative. But we are
perhaps not reduced so far. There is nothing substantial in the way of our par-
alleling the accusative with the ablative etc., as a case of local relation, the fo-case.
In favor of this may be alleged the extreme improbability that in a scheme of
designation of local relations the ¢orelation would be left out (if not here, we
should be driven to seek it in the dative); and further, especially, the perfectly
natural and easy way in which a Zo-case would be convertible to the case of the
direct object. There are abundant signs in early Indo-European language of the
use of the accusative also as goal of motion. We are not to expect a demon-
stration of this origin, or a classification of accusative uses which forces us back
to the /o-relation as the only possible fundamental one; things do not go that way
in language. But the more the necessity is realized of seeking a physical relation
underneath or behind a so-called grammatical one, the more, it is believed, will
the explanation of the accusative as primarily the ¢o-case commend itself to gen-
eral acceptance.

The nominative remains, as a point of special difficulty, because we should
naturally expect in it the bare stem. The probability is much greater here than
anywhere else in the system of a mere repetitional demonstrative, grown on to
the stem; although there are other possibilities; and the suggested quasi-ablative
value is by no means to be discarded as absurd — “from this, action, to that”
is a conceivable first model for a simple clause, with subject and object.

Notwithstanding the labor and ingenuity expended upon the matter, it can
hardly be claimed that a successful beginning has been made of tracing the case-
endings to the elements, pronominal or other, out of which they should have
arisen. An isolated explanation, of more or less plausibility, for one or two ele-
ments out of a considerable system, while all the other elements remain obscure,
is of no appreciable value. But a point of primary and fundamental importance

xliv American Philological Assoctation.

appears to be this: as the subject of formation of the genitive case is a part of
the more general subject of secondary adjective-formation, so that of the other
or adverbial cases belongs with adverb-formation, and must be solved along with
that. There is no original historical distinction between an adverb and a case-
form. Not that every adverb is primarily a case-form, any more than every case-
form is primarily an adverb; the two formations simply run together in the past,
like adjective and noun, or, later, adverb and preposition; and in the more re-
cent history of our languages, down to modern time, adverbs and cases (other than
genitives) exchange offices, as do adjectives and genitives. Doubtless there lies
a stage yet further back, where adjective-formation and adverb-formation are as
yet undifferentiated; but case-making lies hitherward from, or at least forms a
part of, their differentiation.

20. On initial P in Gothic and Anglo-Saxon, by Charles P. G.
Scott, Ph. D., of Columbia College, New York.

The paper was a contribution tu the atempt tu determin the extent of the
apearance of initial g in Teutonic. All the words in Gothic and Anglosaxon
having initial wer colected, and each word was traced, as far as it cud be done
with certainty, tu its original tung. Eliminating the words proved tu be of foren
origin, and those due tu editorial errors, a few of the remaining words apeard
tu be Teutonic, leaving a considerabl number which giv no satisfactory acount
of themselves.

The etymologies wer traced out in ful detail. Only results can here be givn.

Marks: s. strong, w. weak, m., f., #. gender, uv. verb, etc., t hapax-legémenon,
? doutful, referring to the word or mark émediately preceding. Variant forms
in parenthesis; only ‘regular’ variants ar givn. Regular nativ derivativs and
compounds ar not counted in the numbering, and ar gencrally omitted in the
Anglosaxon list. Proper names ar reservd for special treatment.

GOTHIC.
A. WORDS OF LATIN ORIGIN.
I, DIRECTLY FROM LATIN: II. From LATIN THRU GREEK:
I. ft pund sz. 2. praitdria (praitauria) sf

2a. praitoriaun 2.

B. WORDS OF GREEK ORIGIN.
I. DIRECTLY FROM GREEK:

I. fpaintekusté wf. 7. praufétés sz.
2. paraklétus sv. 7a. prauf€tus sz.
3. paraskaiwé wf. 76. prauféteis sf
4. paurpura (paurpaura) / 7c. praufeéti svz.
4a. paurpurdn wy. 7a. praufétja wm.
5. tpistikeins aaj. 7e. praufétjan wu.
6. praizbytairei (praizbyterei) wf 8. psalma sf

6a. t praizbytairi sz. 8a. t psalms w/-

II. From GREEK THRU LATIN:
Q. papa wm. ( perhaps directly from Greek).

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. xlv

C. WORDS OF EASTERN ORIGIN.
From HEBREW:

I. paska (pasxa) wm.

D. WORDS OF SLAVIC ORIGIN.
I. plinsjan wz. (and perhaps plats: see F. 3).

B. WORDS OF TEUTONIC ORIGIN.

I. paida sf
Ia. ga-paid6n wz.

2. tana-praggan red. v.
3. tpuggs sm. (or pugg? s#.)

F. WORDS OF UNCERTAIN ORIGIN.

I. t peika (-bagms sm.)

2. t plapja sf (Greek ?)

3. plats sm. (Slavic? Teut. ?)

ANGLOSAXON.

The names following certain words indicate that the word is found first or

only in the authority cited: Som., Somner; Benx., Benson; Bosw., Bosworth;
Lttm., Ettmiiller; Lye; Leo; Earle; Skeat.

For the sake of brevity, definitions ar omitted in most cases; but they ar

partly supplied by the direct Eng. derivativs of the Anglosaxon, which ar in
small capitals.

A. WORDS OF LATIN ORIGIN.

I. DIRECTLY FROM LATIN, WITH ANGLOSAXON INFLECTION:
a. Ecclesiastical terms.

paganisc adj. PAGANISH
pell (pell) sa. PALL
predician wz.

4. prim sf. PRIME
5. T ptr ad7.

B. Botanical terms.

palm sf PALM

papig (popig) 5s. ? POPPY
peru (pere) sf (pera wm.) PEAR
peruince sf ? PERIWINKLE

Pic sm. ? PITCH

pirige (pyrige) zzz.

pisa we. (pise wf.) PEASE

13. pin sf (pinn?) PINE

14. plante wf (plant? sf) PLANT |
15. t polenta wm. (polente? w/.)

16. polleion (polleian) sz.

17. porr sa. ?

18. portlaca wa. ?

y. Miscellaneous words.

palant (palent) sz. ?

paled adj.

pann (pan, pon) sy. ?

papol (popol, papel) s7z. ? PEBBLE

papelan wz. (Leo)

pipligend (pipelgend, pypylgend,
etc.) pres. part.

25. pal sm. POLE

26. pzerl (pearl) sf ? PEARL

27. penig (pending, etc.) 5%. PENNY
28. ft pihtin 57. ? (Zea)

29. pinn sf pen, style, PIN (Som.)
30. pensn.? inclosure, PEN (Leo)
302. on-pennan wv. UNPEN

xlvi American Philologual Association.

31. pinsian wz. 41. prafost se.

32. pil swf? PILE, stake, etc. 42. profian wv. PROVE

33- pil s#n.? (pila wm.) mortar 43- pumic (-stan 5.) PUMICE
(Hence pilan wv. pound ) 44- pund sz. POUND (weight, money)

34. pin smf. ? (PINE v.) 45. punt s#.? PUNT

35. pltim (-feder sm.) 46. pylce (pilce) wf PILCH

36. port sm. PORT, haven 47. pyle s#.? PILLOW

37. port sf (porte w/?) PORT, gute 48. *pyltan wv. PELT (Shear)

38. portic sa. 49- pyngan wv. PING

39. posling sy. 50. pytt (pitt) sms. PIT

40. post swf. ? POST

II. From LATIN UNCHANGED:
gi. Pater-noster sz”. PATER-NOSTER 53- Tt priores p/. (Zye)

52. t primus aq. 54. t proletarii (Ovosius)
III. From LaTIN THRU OLD FRENCH:
55. t pais sud. PEACE (Chron. 1135) 58. pouerte sub. POVERTY (Lye)
56. prisun s«d. PRISON (Chron. 1112, 59- poure aaj. POOR (Lye)
1137) 60. poute? [piete ?] sud. PIETY (Lye)
57. t priuilegie sd. PRIVILEGE (Chron. 61. pynt seb. PINT (Som., Ben., Lye,
1137) Bosw.)

These ar not Anglosaxon, but Erly Middle English. There ar no references
except as givn.
IV. From LaTIN THRU CELTIC:
62. panne w/. PAN, vessel (Lat. patina)

B. WORDS OF GREEK ORIGIN.
I. FrRoM GREEK THRU LATIN, WITH ANGLOSAXON INFLEXION:
a. Lcclesiastical terms.

I. papa wt. POPE 4. preost sv. PRIEST
2. pentecoste wf ? (pentecosten s#.) 5 psalm (sealm, salm) 592. PSALM
PENTECOST 6. psaltere (psalter ?) s#. ? PSALTER

3. pistol sm. PISTLE, letter
B. Botanical terms.
7. peterselige (petersilie, -sylige, si- 9. pliime wf ? PLUM
lige, -silium) w/. ? 10. prutene sv. ?
8. peonia wm. ? (peonie wf.) PEONY

y. Miscellaneous words.

11. t palistas smpl. (Orosius) 15. platum sz.
12. f pellican sv. ? PELICAN 16. purpur sm.? (purpura w.,-e?
13. tT philosoph sm. wf.) PURPLE.

14. plaster s#. PLASTER
II. From LATIN-GREEK UNCHANGED:

17. t pandher (sic: Grein) sub. PANTHER 20. psalterium szd.
18, paralysis sub. PARALYSIS 21. pepones suéb., pl. ( Bot.)
19. T prologus sxé. 22. polion sub. POLY (Bot.)

24.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. xivii

III. From LATIN-GREEK THRU OLD FRENCH:

23. per, pére sub. PIER, Som. (Gr. wérpa)
Not Anglosaxon, but Erly Mid. Eng.

IV. From LATIN-GREEK THRU CELTIC:

preett (pret) saz. (Gr. rparrin-é-s)
Hence prettig aa@7. = Eng. PRETTY.

24a. pet sm. ?

I.
2.

Ween m

PKS A HTAwM

Hence petig adj. — Same as preceding, with loss of r; cf. sprecan, specan.

C. WORDS OF EASTERN ORIGIN.

ALL THRU GREEK AND LATIN:

I. From OLD PERSIAN:

paradise sz. ? PARADISE 3. pawa (pea) we. PEA-cock
pard sm. PARD 4. persoc (persuc) sa. ( Bot.)

II. From SANSKRIT:
§. pipor, pepor sz. ? PEPPER (Bot.)

III. From HEBREW: |
pascha s#. PASCH 7. pharisee (farisee) sm. PHARISEE

D. WORDS OF CELTIC ORIGIN.

I. DIRECTLY FROM CELTIC:

pot sz.? PoT (Leo)

potian wy. PUT

pol (pul?) s#2. POOL

pund sz. ? POUND, fold, pen

peac sz. ? PEAK

pic sf. PIKE

poc (pocc) sv. ? POCK
poha (pohha) wa. purse
geposu sf. POSE

9 Pa

II. From CELTIC THRU SCANDINAVIAN:
10. ploh sm.? PLOUGH

EB. WORDS OF TEUTONIC ORIGIN.

I. FRoM SCANDINAVIAN :
pad sz. ? padde wf. ? PADD-ock 3. piga (pige?) wf
pzeran wv. 4. posa, pusa wz. (pose, puse? z/-)

II. NatTiv ANGLOSAXON:

pad sf. Io. pluccian wv. PLUCK

ped sm. PATH. II. pricu sf (prica wm.) PRICK
pearroc swt. PARK 12. princ sz. ?

peord sz. ? (Runic f) 13. pullian wv. PULL

pleén su. (Hence pleoh sz., 14. pung sm. ?
pliht sf, plihtan wv.) I5- pipe w/. PIPE (imitativ)

xlvili American Philological Assoctation,

FP. WORDS DUE TU MISTAKES.

I. MISTAKES IN TRANSLATION :

1. t “Pernex, a swift, martin,” Bosw.; Riddle 41, 1. 66, ed. Grein.

Due to orig. Latin lus pernix aguilis, where pernix is an adj., ‘swift,’ rapid.
2. “Pada...volucria quz cadivis in prelio vescuntur,” Ben., Appendix.

Due to comp. salowig-pdda, wk. adj., applied to the raven.
3. t Pila? a pile, heap,” Bosw. after Lye; pile wf, Leo; hence pilan wv. “to

pile up,” Bosw. after Lye; Leo.

Due to a mistranslation of Exod. xvi. 14, on pilan gepilod, properly,

pounded ina mortar. (See A. I. 7. 33-)

II. MISTAKES IN READING MSS. :
4. t “ Pul-stef, a pole-staff,” Bosw. after Lye; Leo.

A misreading of Greg. Past. Care 37.2 (p. 266, ed. Sweet), where the Hat-

ton MS. has dat. i#/-stefe, and the Cotton MS. fs/-stafe, in the sense of Jestle.
5 t“ Proletarn, pvoletarii, Oros. 4. 1,” Lye.

Bosworth’s careful edition gives (Oros. Bk. IV. ch. 1, § 2) the Latin form
proletarit without variants. The Ags. undotted double z is easily mistaken
for # or ”.

6. “Pyrige, an, f, pera, Cot. 217,” Zam.

This cannot be the Lat. péva from Greek wfpa, but is rather a Low Lat.

variant of firus. Ettm. gives the reg. “ pirige, di7us” in its proper place.
7. “Perewes Saga, R. 32,” Lye, Bosw. .
For “pere wos [wos] safa,” Ben. = pear’s juice.

The next four instances ar due tu the common confusion of the Anglosaxon
letter wen with f.
8. “Plips dalbus,” Ben. ; Lye, Bosw.
For wips, wlisp, LISP.
9. “Por-hana, a ruff, pheasant,” Bosw.; Lye, Leo.
For wér-hana, ‘ moor-cock.’
10. “Pinpel, a pimple, axaédola,” etc., Lye.
For winpel, Eng. WIMPLE, a cloak.
11. “Pig-telgode aiplois,” Lye, ‘‘pigtelgod aiplois,” Ben.
For “wig-telgode dip/ois,” Lye, ‘a doublet, cloak,’ Bosw., who puts the
word s. v. wig, war.
Similarly we find wopig in Lye, but with a reference to fopig.
12. t “ Posc dasis,” Ben., followed in alfabetical order by “ post, posts, basés.”
For fost, Anglosaxon ¢ and c being easily confused.
13. t “ Ped adj. immaturus (scheint verschrieben fiir ded, quod v.),” Leo.
Cf. “bed, ped aaj. tmmaturus Hpt. gl. 518,” Leo.
14. t“anc-pelgnis? xaufragium Hpt. gl. 421, ist wahrscheinlich ein Druck-
fehler,” Zeo.
Perhaps for *an-swelgnis, for *and- (07 on-) swelgendnis; cf. “swel-
gnysse i. q. swelgendnesse,” Lye; “swelgendnysse, voracitas, deglutitio,
it. vorago, gurges, charybdis, barathrum, Cot. 46,” Zye.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. xlix

G@. WORDS OF UNCERTAIN ORIGIN.

The etymologists hav offerd explanations of most of these words; but in no
case does the evidence presented apear tu be conclusiv.

Where the evidence

has seemd tu be strong enuf tu warrant it, the probad/ origin is indicated.

I. WoRDS WELL AUTHENTICATED, OCCURRING IN CRITICAL EDITIONS OF
ANGLOSAXON TEXTS. EXCEPT flega AND ITS DERIVATIVS, THEY AR ALL
RARE.

I. pcan wz. (Teut. ?) 8. ft portian wz.
2. pida wm. PITH (Teut. ?) Q. prass sw. ? (Scand.? Lat. ?)
3. t pine (-wincle w/.) (Lat. ?) 10. predne sm. (Scand. ?)
4. plece wf. ? (Teut. ?) Il. priit adj. PROUD.
5. pleette sv. PAT (Teut. ?) 12. punian wv. POUND. (Hence also
6. plega wm. PLAY (Teut. or Lat.) PUN.)
7. plot sm. PLoT (Slavic? Teut. ?) 13. t pita wm. Pout, a fish.
II. WorRDS OCCURRING ONLY OR CHIEFLY IN MS. GLOSSARIES OR IN THE

ERLY PRINTED DICTIONARIES, OR OTHERWISE SO CIRCUMSTANCED AS TU
CAUSE DOUT OF THEIR ORIGIN, SENSE, OR FORM.

1. palstre Som., palster Zttm., palstr Zye. (From pal?)
2. “pang toxecum” Som., Ben.
3. parian we. (a-parod, Som.)
4. pecg sm.? PIG? doutful: Earle ap. Skeat. (Scand. ?)
5. “petraoleum, Zetreleum,” Ben. (Greek ?)
6. pénung: “land-penung,” Lye.
7. “peord, a peon in chess,” Bosw., ascribed tu Lye, but not found.
8. “peord, vulva,” Leo. (Scand. ?)
9. “pic-bred, glans,” Ben.
Io. pidele sz. ? Leo.
11. pillsape z/f ?
12. pince sz. ? Leo. (Teut. ?)
13. be-pincge sz.? (Teut. ?)
14. f pinne wf ? flask.
15. pintel sv. ? Leo. (Teut. ?)
16. “pislefer-his scriptorium,” Lye. (Greek ?)
17. pice? “pice epestomium,” Som. (Celtic ?)
18. pilade? “pilade, pilede, p/umbatus,” Som. (Lat. ?)
Ig. pise, pise? aay. (Lat. ?)
20. ‘“plegena apricum, Cot. 180,” Lye.
21. “pletta ovile,” Ben. Lye. (Lat. ?)
22. “plicit, prora ; plicitere, roreta,” Leo.
23. “‘pranga caverna,” Ben., Lye.
24. “prate ornatus, excultus,” etc., Som. (Prob. for pretig: see B. 23.)
25. “prenan nictare,” Ben.; “be-prenan, be-prewan... #éctare,” Lye. (Scand. ?)
26. “ preowst-hwile, zctus oculi, a moment,” Som. ; “preowt-hwil, S.,” Bosw.
27. “pritigan pipare,” Lye.
28. “prot-bore forum,” Ben. ; “ prod-bore,” Lye.
29. “pucel przapus,”’ Leo.

] American Philological Association.

30. “pud(d) m. sulcus, gl. Prud. 787,” Leo.

31. “puduc m. der Kropf, struma, gl. Prud. 597,” Leo.

32. “pun dicoca,” Ben. ; “ bicoca, heeferbleta vel pun,” Ae/fr. gloss.

33. “ pund /a/pa, a mole or want [sic]," Som. ; Ben.

34. pytan: utdpytan, Numbers xvi. 14; also pycan ut, Chron. 796, ed. Earle,
where Gibson and Thorpe print pytan. If pycan is right, it is connected
with fic (see D. 2), and so of Celtic origin. Cf. potian D. I. 7.

35 “‘pytlan caus. hohl ausarbeiten,” Zeo, from Kemble’s charters. (Lat. ?)

SUMMARY.
Goth. Ags.
Words of Latin origin... ..... +... 2 62
“« “Greek “ se ew ee 9 24
« Eastern “ a a rr 7
« “Slavic “ re | _
“« “Celtic “ - fe)
“« © Teutonic “ soe eee ek ee _
. Scand. - 4
Nativ 3 It
“due tu mistakes - 14
“ of uncertain origin. . . 2... 1. 1... 1 3 48
Total 19 180

From the Anglosaxon total shud be deducted the words of Latin and Greek
origin which hav bin transferd unchanged (10), or hav cum thru the Old
French and ar rather Middle English (8); also the words due tu mistakes (14).
We thus find the number of Anglosaxon words beginning with # tu be 148, of
which 48 stil await a conclusiv explanation. They offer a tempting challenge
tu the etymologist.

21. The Wages of Schoolmasters in Ancient Rome, by Dr. R. F.
Leighton of Brooklyn, N. Y.; read by title, by the Secretary.

On motion of Mr. L. H. Buckingham, it was

Resolved, That the following minute be put on the Records, and be commu-
-nicated to the parties concerned :

The American Philological Association desires to express its hearty thanks
to the President and Fellows of Harvard College for the use of their halls for
the meetings of the Association, to Colonel Theodore Lyman for his kind hos-
pitality in entertaining the members of the society at his residence in Brookline,
and to the gentlemen by whose liberality the pleasant excursion of Wednesday
evening was made possible. ;

On motion, the Association then adjourned.

-J

OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

1882 — 83.

PRESIDENT.

MILTON W. HUMPHREYS.

VICE-PRESIDENTS.

MARTIN L. D’OOGE,
THOMAS D. SEYMOUR.

SECRETARY AND CURATOR.

CHARLES R. LANMAN.

TREASURER.

CHARLES J. BUCKINGHAM.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

The officers above named, and —
BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE,
FRANCIS A. MARCH,
THOMAS R. PRICE,
J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL,
WILLIAM D. WHITNEY.

MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION.*

Eben Alexander, East Tennessee University, Knoxville, Tenn.
Frederic D. Allen, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William F. Allen, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Joseph Anderson, Waterbury, Conn.

N. L. Andrews, Madison University, Hamilton, N. Y.
Stephen P. Andrews, 201 East Thirty-fourth st., New York, N. Y.
William H. Appleton, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.
John Avery, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.

Cecil F. P. Bancroft, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.

J. W. Barnes, Perth Amboy, N. J.

Charles C. Bates, Plymouth, Mass.

H. Louis Baugher, Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg, Pa.

C. T. Beatty, High School, East Saginaw, Mich.

George Bendelari, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Charles E. Bennett, 19 Bridgham st., Providence, R. I.

James S. Blackwell, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
Maurice Bloomfield, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
E. W. Blyden, Monrovia College, Liberia.

James R. Boise, University of Chicago, Chicago, III.

Charles E. Brandt, Farmington, Conn.

H. C. G. Brandt, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y.

Fisk P. Brewer, Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa.

John A. Broadus, Southern Baptist Theol. Seminary, Louisville, Ky.
Charles J. Buckingham, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.

L. H. Buckingham, English High School, Boston, Mass.
Henry F. Burton, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y. (47 North av.).
Henry A. Buttz, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J.
Richard E. Call, Mohawk, N. Y.

W. B. Carr, Leesburgh, Loudoun Co., Va.

Franklin Carter, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.
William C. Cattell, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

* The addresses of this list have been corrected to date of printing, so far as
practicable.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. liii

Talbot W. Chambers, 70 West Thirty-sixth st., New York, N. Y.
Elie Charlier (Life Member), Central Park, New York, N. Y.
Francis J. Child, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Albert S. Cook, Montville, N. J.

Jacob Cooper, New Brunswick, N. J.

Howard Crosby, University of New York, New York, N. Y.
Edward P. Crowell, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

S. E. D. Currier, 2 Cedar st., Roxbury, Mass.

Charles Darwin, Library of the Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Edward De Merritte, Chauncy-Hall School, Boston, Mass.
Schele De Vere, University of Virginia.
Martin L. D’Ooge, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich.

T. T. Eaton, Petersburg, Va.

William Wells Eaton, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt.
August Hjalmar Edgren, University of Lund, Sweden.

George R. Entler, Franklin, N. Y.

Carl W. Ernst, office of Daily Advertiser, Boston, Mass.
Ambrose J. Faust, Washington, D. C.

O. M. Fernald, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.
Gustavus Fischer, Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J.

M. M. Fisher, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.

A. J. Fleet, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.

John Forsyth, Newburgh, N. Y.

Samuel Garner, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Ind.
James M. Garnett, University of Virginia.

Henry Garst, Otterbein University, Westerville, O.

B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Frank M. Gilley, 189 Washington av., Chelsea, Mass.

Ralph L. Goodrich, U. S. Courts, Little Rock, Ark.

William W. Goodwin, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Richard T. Greener, Howard University, Washington, D. C.
James B. Greenough, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Ephraim W. Gurney, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William Gardner Hale, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Isaac H. Hall, 725 Chestnut st., Philadelphia, Pa.

William G. Hammond, 1417 Lucas Place, St. Louis, Mo.

H. McL. Harding, Brooks Academy, Cleveland, O.

Albert Harkness, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

William R. Harper, Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, IIL.
Caskie Harrison, Dryburg, Halifax Co., Va.

James A. Harrison, Washington and Lee Univ., Lexington, Va.
Samuel Hart, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

William H. Hawkes, 1733 G st., N. W., Washington, D. C.

B. J. Hawthorne, State Agricultural College, Corvallis, Oregon.
Charles R. Hemphill, Columbia, S. C.

liv American Philological Assoctation.

Theophilus Heness, 159 York st., New Haven, Conn.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Cambridge, Mass.

Newton B. Hobart, Hudson, O.

George O. Holbrooke, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

Selah Howell, Watertown, Mass.

E. R. Humphreys, 129 West Chester park, Boston, Mass.
Milton W. Humphreys, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
John T. Huntington, Hartford, Conn.

Ashley D. Hurt, Male High School, Louisville, Ky.

Hans C. G. Jagemann, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Edwin E. Johnson, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

Henry Johnson, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.

John L. Johnson, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss.

John Norton Johnson, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Elisha Jones, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Robert P. Keep, Williston Seminary, Easthampton, Mass.
Asahel C. Kendrick, University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y.
T. D. Kenneson, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
W. S. Kerruish, 222 Superior st., Cleveland, Ohio.

John B. Kieffer, Mercersburg College, Mercersburg, Pa.
D. B. King, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Louis Kistler, Northwestern University, Evanston, IIl.
Miss Mary H. Ladd, Chauncy-Hall School, Boston, Mass.
George M. Lane, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Charles R. Lanman, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
‘Lewis H. Lapham, 68 Gold st., New York, N. Y.

C. W. Larned, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y.
Albert G. Lawrence, Newport, R. I.

R. F. Leighton, 109 Lefferts place, Brooklyn, N. Y.

John M. Leonard, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.

John R. Leslie, Newport, R. I.

Thomas B. Lindsay, 20 Beacon st., Boston, Mass.

William S. Liscomb, Providence, R. I.

Thomas R. Lounsbury, Yale College, New Haven, Ct. (22 Lincoln st.).
Rebecca S. Lowrey, 162 West Forty-seventh st., New York, N. Y.
Jules Luquiens, Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.

Merrick Lyon, University Grammar School, Providence, R. I.
James C. Mackenzie, Classical School, Wilkesbarre, Pa.

Irving J. Manatt, Marietta College, O.

Francis A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Philippe B. Marcou, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
D. S. Martin, Rutgers Female College, New York, N. Y.
Winfred R. Martin, 20 East Twenty-eighth st., New York, N. Y.
R. H. Mather, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

W. Gordon McCabe, University School, Petersburg, Va.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. lv

Irwin P. McCurdy, Frederick Female Seminary, Frederick City, Md.
Joseph H. McDaniels, Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y.

Miss Harriet E. McKinstry, Lake Erie Female Seminary, Painesville, O.
Charles M. Mead, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
John Meigs, Hill School, Pottstown, Pa.

Augustus C. Merriam, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Charles D. Morris, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

F. A. Muhlenberg, Univ. of Pa., Philadelphia, Pa. (4307 Walnut st.).
Wilfred H. Munro, De Veaux College, Suspension Bridge, N. Y.
Joseph H. Myers, Milton-on-Hudson, N. Y.

C. K. Nelson, Brookeville Academy, Brookeville, Md.

Edward North, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y.

J. O. Notestein, University of Wooster, O.

Bernard F. O’Connor, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Howard Osgood, Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.
Charles P. Otis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.
W. B. Owen, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Lewis R. Packard, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (226 Church st.).
William A. Packard, College of New Jersey, Princeton, N. J.

E. G. Parsons, Sumner Academy, South Byfield, Mass.

Tracy Peck, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (87 Wall st.).

William T. Peck, High School, Providence, R. I. (350 Pine st.).
William R. Perkins, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Bernadotte Perrin, Western Reserve College, Cleveland, O.

Edward D. Perry, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

William C. Poland, Brown University, Providence, R. I. (12 Barnes st.).
Samuel Porter, National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C.

L. S. Potwin, Western Reserve College, Cleveland, O.

John W. Powell, Washington, D. C.

Henry Preble, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Thomas R. Price, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Charles W. Reid, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa.

DeWitt T. Reiley, Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J.

William A. Reynolds, Wilmington, Del.

Leonard W. Richardson, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

Rufus B. Richardson, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.

W. G. Richardson, Austin College, Sherman, Texas.

Lawrence Rust, Kenyon College, Gambier, O.

Julius Sachs, Classical School, 38 W. Fifty-ninth st., New York, N. Y.
Wesley C. Sawyer, Lawrence University, Appleton, Wis.

W. S. Scarborough, Wilberforce University, Wilberforce, O.

Henry Schliemann, Athens, Greece.

C. P. G. Scott, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Walter Q. Scott, Wooster University, Wooster, O.

Jotham B. Sewall, Thayer Academy, South Braintree, Mass.

lvi American Philologiual Association.

Thomas D. Seymour, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (174 Orange st.).
Joseph Alden Shaw, Episcopal Academy, Cheshire, Conn.

Edward S. Sheldon, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Henry E. Shepherd, Baltimore, Md.

L. A. Sherman, State University, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Charles Short, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

E. G. Sihler, Classical School, 38 W. Fifty-ninth st., New York, N. Y.
Clement Lawrence Smith, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Frank Webster Smith, Lincoln, Mass.

Edward Snyder, Illinois Industrial University, Champaign, II.

A. B. Stark, Logan Female College, Russellville, Ky.

Benjamin F. Stem, Classical Institute, Easton, Pa.

Frederick Stengel, School of Mines, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
William A. Stevens, Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.
Edward F. Stewart, Easton, Pa.

Austin Stickney, 35 West Seventeenth st., New York, N. Y.

Charles W. Super, Ohio University, Athens, O.

Miss A. L. Sweetser, Mount Holyoke Seminary, South Hadley, Mass.
Frank B. Tarbell, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Franklin Taylor, High School, Philadelphia, Pa. ,

Zachary P. Taylor, Central High School, Cleveland, O.

John Tetlow, Girls’ Latin School, Boston, Mass.

J. Henry Thayer, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
Calvin Thomas, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich.

William E. Thompson, Genesee Wesleyan Seminary, Lima, N. Y.
Edward M. Tomlinson, Alfred University, Alfred Centre, N. Y.
Crawford H. Toy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

William H. Treadwell, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

J. Hammond Trumbull, Hartford, Conn.

Francis W. Tustin, University at Lewisburgh, Pa.

Milton Valentine, Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg, Pa.

James C. Van Benschoten, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
Addison VanName, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

C. Osborne Ward, 486 Adelphi st., Brooklyn, N. Y.

Miss Julia E. Ward, Mount Holyoke Seminary, South Hadley, Mass.
Henry C. Warren, 67 Mount Vernon st., Boston, Mass.

Minton Warren, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

W. B. Webster, Military Institute, Norfolk, Va.

R. F. Weidner, Rock Island, Illinois.

James C. Welling, Columbian University, Washington, D. C.
Benjamin W. Wells, Friends’ School, Providence, R. I.

J. B. Weston, Christian Biblical Institute, Standfordville, N. Y.

Mrs. A. E. Weston, Christian Biblical Institute, Standfordville, N. Y.
A. S. Wheeler, Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven, Ct. (27 Eld st.).
Benjamin I. Wheeler, Providence, R. I.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Wi

John H. Wheeler, University of Virginia.

John Williams White, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

William Dwight Whitney, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

W. H. Whitsitt, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.
J. Colver Wightman (Life Member), Taunton, Mass.

Alonzo Williams, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

R. H. Willis, Norwood, Nelson County, Va.

Edwin H. Wilson, Middletown, Conn.

William Epiphanius Wilson, King’s College, Windsor, Nova Scotia.
John H. Wright, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.

[Number of members, 221.]

THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES AND INSTITUTIONS (ALPHABETIZED BY TOWNS)
SUBSCRIBE FOR THE ANNUAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

Albany, N. Y.: N. Y. State Library.

Andover, Mass.: Phillips Academy.

Andover, Mass.: Theological Seminary.

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan University.
Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins University.
Baltimore, Md.: Peabody Institute.
Bloomington, Monroe Co., Ind.: Indiana University.
Boston, Mass.: Boston Atheneum.

Boston, Mass.: Boston Public Library.
Brooklyn, N. Y.: The Brooklyn Library.
Brunswick, Maine: Bowdoin College Library.
Buffalo, N. Y.: Young Men’s Library.
Burlington, Vt.: University of Vermont.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College Library.
Champaign, Ill.: Illinois Industrial University.
Chicago, Il].: Public Library.

Cleveland, O.: Adelbert College of Western Reserve University.
Crawfordsville, Ind.: Wabash College Library.
Davidson, N. C.: Davidson College Library.
Easton, Pa.: Lafayette College Library.
Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University.
Geneva, N. Y.: Hobart College Library.
Greencastle, Ind.: Indiana Asbury University.
Hanover, N. H.: Dartmouth College Library.
Iowa City, Iowa: State University of Iowa.
Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University.
Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University.
Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University.

lvili American Philologual Assoctation,

New York, N. Y.: Astor Library.

New York, N. Y.: Union Theological Seminary.
Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society.
Philadelphia, Pa.: The Library Company of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, Pa.: The Mercantile Library.
Providence, R. I.: Brown University.

Providence, R. I.: Providence Atheneum.
Sewanee, Tenn. : University of the South.
Springfield, Mass.: City Library.

Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama.
University of Virginia: University Library.
Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress.
Waterville, Maine: Colby University.

Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College Library.
Windsor, Nova Scotia: King’s College Library.
Worcester, Mass.: Free Public Library.

[Number of American Institutions, 44.]

TO THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES AND INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN SENT COM-
PLETE SETS (VOLUMES I.—XIII.) oF THE TRANSACTIONS.

British Museum, London, England.

Royal Asiatic Society, London.

Philological Society, London.

Society of Biblical Archeology, London.

India Office Library, London.

Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland.

Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta. .

Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Shanghai.
Japan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Yokohama.
Public Library of Victoria, Melbourne.

Sir George Grey’s Library, Cape Town, Africa.
Reykyavik College Library, Iceland.

University of Christiania, Norway.

University of Upsala, Sweden. .
Russian Imperial Academy, St. Petersburg.

Austrian Imperial Academy, Vienna.

Anthropologische Gesellschaft, Vienna.

Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, Italy.

Reale Accademia delle Scienze, Turin.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. lix

Société Asiatique, Paris, France.
Athénée Oriental, Paris.
Curatorium of the University, Leyden, Holland.
Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, Batavia, Java.
Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin.
Royal Saxon Academy of Sciences, Leipsic.
Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich.
Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, Halle.
University of Bonn,
University of Jena.
University of Kénigsberg.
University of Leipsic.
University of Tiibingen. .

[Number of Foreign Institutions, 35.]

[Total, (221 +- 44 -+ 35 =) 300.]

CONSTITUTION
OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

ARTICLE I.— NAME AND OBJECT.

1. This Society shall be known as “The American Philological Associa-
tion.”

2. Its object shall be the advancement and diffusion of philological
knowledge.

ARTICLE II. — OFFICERS.

1. The officers shall be a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and
Curator, and a Treasurer.

2. There shall be an Executive Committee of ten, composed of the above
officers and five other members of the Association.

3. All the above officers shall be elected at the last session of each annual
meeting.

ARTICLE III. — MEETINGS.

1. There shall be an annual meeting of the Association in the city of New
York, or at such other place as at a preceding annual meeting shall be deter-
mined upon. |

2. At the annual meeting, the Executive Committee shall present an annual
report of the progress of the Association.

3. The general arrangements of the proceedings of the annual meeting shall
be directed by the Executive Committee.

4. Special meetings may be held at the call of the Executive Committee, when
and where they may decide.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Ixi

ARTICLE IV. — MEMBERS.

1. Any lover of philological studies may become a member of the Association
by a vote of the Executive Committee and the payment of five dollars as initia-
tion fee, which initiation fee shall be considered the first regular annual fee.

2. There shall be an annual fee of three dollars from each member, failure in
payment of which for two years shall #/so0 facto cause the membership to cease.

3- Any person may become a life member of the Association by the payment
of fifty dollars to its treasury, and by vote of the Executive Committee.

ARTICLE V.— SUNDRIES.

1. All papers intended to be read before the Association must be submitted
to the Executive Committee before reading, and their decision regarding such
papers shall be final.

2. Publications of the Association, of whatever kind, shall be made only under
the authorization of the Executive Committee.

ARTICLE VI.— AMENDMENTS.

Amendments to this Constitution may be made by a vote of two thirds of
those present at any regular meeting subsequent to that in which they have
been proposed.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

THE annually published “ Proceedings ” of the American Philo-
logical Association contain an account of the doings at the annual
meeting, brief abstracts of the papers read, reports upon the pro-
gress of the Association, and lists of its officers and members.

The annually published “ Transactions” give the full text of
such articles as the Executive Committee decide to publish. The
Proceedings are bound with them as an Appendix.

The following tables show the authors and contents of the first
twelve volumes of Transactions :

1869-1870. — Volume I.

Hadley, J.: On the nature angi theory of the Greek accent.

Whitney, W. D.: On the nature and designation of the accent in Sanskrit.

Goodwin, W. W.: On the aorist subjunctive and future indicative with 8rws
and od ph.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On the best method of studying the North American
languages.

Haldeman, S. S.: On the German vernacular of Pennsylvania.

Whitney, W. D.: On the present condition of the question as to the origin of
language.

Lounsbury, T. R.: On certain forms of the English verb which were used in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On some mistaken notions of Algonkin grammar, and
on mistranslations of words from Eliot’s Bible, etc.

VanName, A.: Contributions to Creole grammar.

Proceedings of the preliminary meeting (New York, 1868), of the first annual
session (Poughkeepsie, 1869), and of the second annual session (Rochester,
1870).

1871. — Volume ITI.

Evans, E. W.: Studies in Cymric philology.

Allen, F. D.: On the so-called Attic second declension.

Whitney, W. D.: Strictures on the views of August Schleicher respecting the
nature of language and kindred subjects.

Hadley, J.: On English vowel quantity in the thirteenth century and in the nine.
teenth.

March, F. A.: Anglo-Saxon and Early English pronunciation.

Bristed, C. A.: Some notes on Ellis’s Early English Pronunciation.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. |xiii

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On Algonkin names for man.
Greenough, J. B.: On some forms of conditional sentences in Latin, Greek, and
Sanskrit. |

Proceedings of the third annual session, New Haven, 1871.

1872. — Volume III.

Evans, E. W.: Studies in Cymric philology.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: Words derived from Indian languages of North
America.

Hadley, J.: On the Byzantine Greek pronunciation of the tenth century, as
illustrated by a manuscript in the Bodleian Library.

Stevens, W. A.: On the substantive use of the Greek participle.

Bristed, C. A.: Erroneous and doubtful uses of the word such.

Hartt, C. F.: Notes on the Lingoa Geral, or Modern Tupi of the Amazonas.

Whitney, W. D.: On material and form in language.

March, F. A.: Is there an Anglo-Saxon language ?

March, F. A.: On some irregular verbs in Anglo-Saxon.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: Notes on forty versions of the Lord’s Prayer in Algon-
kin languages.

Proceedings of the fourth annual session, Providence, 1872.

1873. — Volume IV.

Allen, F. D.: The Epic forms of verbs in dw.

Evans, E, W.: Studies in Cymric philology.

Hadley, J.: On Koch’s treatment of the Celtic element in English.

Haldeman, S. S.: On the pronunciation of Latin, as presented in several recent
grammars.

Packard, L. R.: On some points in the life of Thucydides.

Goodwin, W. W.: On the classification of conditional sentences in Greck
syntax.

March, F. A.: Recent discussions of Grimm’s law.

Lull, E. P.: Vocabulary of the language of the Indians of San Blas and
Caledonia Bay, Darien.

Proceedings of the fifth annual session, Easton, 1873.

Tyler, W. S.: On the prepositions in the Homeric poems.

Harkness, A.: On the formation of the tenses for completed action in the Latin
finite verb.

Haldeman, S. S.: On an English vowel-mutation, present in cag, keg.

Packard, L. R.: On a passage in Homer’s Odyssey (x. 81-86).

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On numerals in American Indian languages, and the
Indian mode of counting.

Sewall, J. B.: On the distinction between the subjunctive and optative modes
in Greek conditional sentences.

Ixiv American Philological Assoctation.

Morris, C. D.: On the age of Xenophon at the time of the Anabasis.
Whitney, W. D.: @éce: or 0éve: — natural or conventional ?

Proceedings of the sixth annual session, Hartford, 1874.

1875.— Volume VI.

Harkness, A.: On the formation of the tenses for completed action in the Latin
finite verb.

Haldeman, S. S.: On an English consonant-mutation, present in proof, prove.

Carter, F.: On Begemann’s views as to the weak preterit of the Germanic verbs.

Morris, C. D.: On some forms of Greek conditional sentences.

Williams, A.: On verb-reduplication as a means of expressing completed action.

Sherman, L. A.: A grammatical analysis of the Old English poem “The Owl
and the Nightingale.”

Proceedings of the seventh annual session, Newport, 1875.

1876.— Volume VII.

Gildersleeve, B. L.: On ei with the future indicative and éav with the subjunctive
in the tragic poets.

Packard, L. R.: On Grote’s theory of the structure of the Iliad.

Humphreys, M. W.: On negative commands in Greek.

Toy, C. H.: On Hebrew verb-etymology.

Whitney, W. D.: A botanico-philological problem.

Goodwin, W. W.: On shad/ and should in protasis, and their Greek equivalents.

Humphreys, M. W.: On certain influences of accent in Latin iambic trimeters.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On the Algonkin verb.

Haldeman, S. S.: On a supposed mutation between / and x.

Proceedings of the eighth annual session, New York, 1876.

1877.— Volume VIII.

Packard, L. R.: Notes on certain passages in the Phaedo and the Gorgias of
Plato.

Toy, C. H.: On the nominal basis of the Hebrew verb.

Allen, F. D.: On a certain apparently pleonastic use of ws.

Whitney, W. D.: On the relation of surd and sonant.

Holden, E. S.: On the vocabularies of children under two years of age.

Goodwin, W. W.: On the text and, interpretation of certain passages in the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus.

Stickney, A.: On the single case-form in Italian.

Carter, F.: On Willmann’s theory of the authorship of the Nibelungenlied.

Sihler, E.G.: On Herodotus’s and Aeschylus’s accounts of the battle of Salamis.

Whitney, W. D.: On the principle of economy as a phonetic force.

Carter, F.: On the Kiirenberg hypothesis.

March, F. A.: On dissimilated gemination.

Proceedings of the ninth annual session, Baltimore, 1877.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Ixv

1878. — Volume IX.

Gildersleeve, B. L.: Contributions to the history of the articular infinitive.
Toy, C. H.: The Yoruban language.

Humphreys, M. W.: Influence of accent in Latin dactylic hexameters.
Sachs, J.: Observations on Plato’s Cratylus.

Seymour, T. D.: On the composition of the Cynegeticus of Xenophon.
Humphreys, M. W.: Elision, especially in Greek.

Proceedings of the tenth annual session, Saratoga, 1878.

1879. — Volume X.

Toy, C. H.: Modal development of the Semitic verb.

Humphreys, M. W.: On the nature of czsura.

Humphreys, M. W.: On certain effects of elision.

Cook, A. S.: Studies in the Heliand.

Harkness, A.: On the development of the Latin subjunctive in principal clauses.
D’Ooge, M. L.: The original recension of the De Corona.

Peck, T.: The authorship of the Dialogus de Oratoribus.

Seymour, T. D.: On the date of the Prometheus of Aeschylus.

Proceedings of the eleventh annual session, Newport, 1879.

1880. — Volume XI.

Humphreys, M. W.: A contribution to infantile linguistic.

Toy, C. H.: The Hebrew verb-termination uz. —

Packard, L. R.: The beginning of a written literature in Greece.

Hall, I. H.: The declension of the definite article in the Cypriote inscriptions.

Sachs, J.: Observations on Lucian.

Sihler, E. G.: Virgil and Plato.

Allen, W. F.: The battle of Mons Graupius.

Whitney, W. D.: On inconsistency in views of language.

Edgren, A. H.: The kindred Germanic words of German and English, exhibited
with reference to their consonant relations.

Proceedings of the twelfth annual session, Philadelphia, 1880.

1881.— Volume XII.

Whitney, W. D.: On Mixture in Language.

Toy, C. H.: The home of the primitive Semitic race.

March, F. A.: Report of the committee on the reform of English spelling.
Wells, B. W.:. History of the a-vowel, from Old Germanic to Modern English.
Seymour, T. D.: The use of the aorist participle in Greek.

Sihler, E. G.: The use of abstract verbal nouns in -o«s in Thucydides.

Proceedings of the thirteenth annual session, Cleveland, 1881.

Ixvi American Philological Assoctatton.
1882.— Volume XIII.

Hall, I. H.: The Greek New Testament as published in America.
Merriam, A. C.: Alien intrusion between article and noun in Greek.

Peck, T.: Notes on Latin quantity.
Owen, W. B.: Influence of the Latin syntax in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels.

Wells, B. W.: The Ablaut in English.
Whitney, W. D.: General considerations on the Indo-European case-system.

Proceedings of the fourteenth annual session, Cambridge, 1882.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1882. Ixvii

The Proceedings of the American Philological Association are
distributed gratis upon application until they are out of print.

Separate copies of articles printed in the Transactions are given
to the authors for distribution.

The “ Transactions for” any given year are not always published
in that year. To avoid mistakes in ordering back volumes, please
state — not the year of publication, but rather — the year for which
the Transactions are desired, adding also the volume-number,

according to the following table :

The Transactions for 1869 and 1870 form Volume I.

“e “ ‘¢ 1871 form Volume II.

6c 66 66 1872 cé 66 III.
6c 66 66 1873 «cs 66 IV.
6c 6s 66 1874 66 & Vv.

6c 66 66 1875 6s 66 VI.
66 66 &“ 1876 66 6c VII.
6c 66 ‘6 1877 66 rT VIII.
6c 66 “66 1878 66 7 IX.
6 6 66 1879 66 66 xX.

“ “ “1880 “ XL.
“ “ “7881 “ XT
“ “ “ 3882 “ = = XIII.

The price of these volumes is $1.50 apiece. No reduction is
made on orders for less than nine volumes (see p. v). The first
two volumes will not be sold separately.

TEMPORARY REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF COMPLETE SETS.

Single COMPLETE SETS of the Transactions (volumes I.—XIII.) will
be sold, until further notice, at thirteen dollars a set.

It is especially appropriate that American Libraries should exert themselves
to procure this series while it may be had. It is the work of American scholars,
and contains many valuable articles not elsewhere accessible ; and, aside from
these facts, as the first collection of essays in general philology made in this

country, it is sure to be permanently valuable for the history of American
scholarship.

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

1883.

VOLUME XIV.

Publishes by the Association.

CAMBRIDGE:
JOHN WILSON AND SON.
nibersttp Press.
1884.

CONTENTS OF VOL. XIV.

I, The Caesareum and the Worship of Augustus at
Alexandria. . 2. 2. 1. 6 2. © © «© © ©») 5S
By Professor AuGustus C. MERRIAM.

II. The Varieties of Predication ........ . 36
By Professor WILLIAM D. WHITNEY.

III. On Southernisms ......... +. «© « 42
By Professor CHARLES F. SMITH.

IV. The Development of the Ablaut in Germanic .. . 57
By Dr. BENJAMIN W. WELLS.

APPENDIX :—_
Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Session, Mid-
dletown, 1883 . . . «© «© © «© « © © «© @ iii
List of Officers and Members ......- . © XXxii
Constitution of the Association . . . ... . « xli

Publications of the Association . ....... . Xxiiii

TRANSACTIONS

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
1883.

I.— The Caesareum and the Worship of Augustus at
Alexandria.

By AUGUSTUS C. MERRIAM,

PROFESSOR IN COLUMBIA COLLEGE.

WueEN Mr. Dixon, in 1877, was engaged in removing the
fallen obelisk of Alexandria to London, he excavated about
the base of its fellow, now standing in Central Park, New
York, to ascertain the form of the original pedestal, and dis-
covered upon the mutilated claw of one of the bronze crabs
supporting the obelisk a Greek and a Latin inscription. These
were dimmed by a thick rust, but after the removal of this by
the aid of acids, they were read, and published in an Alexan-
drian paper, by Neroutsos, who also published them in the
“Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique,” 1877 and 1878.
Mommsen copied them from the Alexandrian paper, in: his
“ Staatsrecht,” 1877, and from the Bulletin, in the “ Epheme-
ris Epigraphica,” 1879, with a page of comment; while Lum-
broso treated of them in the “ Bullettino dell’ Instituto” of
Rome, 1878. Soon after the crabs were brought here by
Commander Gorringe, the inscriptions were published by
G. L. Feuardent, with some notes which were afterwards
embodied by Commander Gorringe in his “ Egyptian Obe-
lisks.” All of these editors accepted the original reading of
Neroutsos as correct, in accordance with which Barbarus,
Prefect of Egypt, was said to have erected the obelisk at
Alexandria in the eighth year of Augustus, B.c. 23-22.

ROILNOLL foes
AOLNLONOLASLIXdY
(BIHOA NVZOdVE Iva

BS d Ws wal “i AC Yi oT

wD 22YIIIPYI YYW yY!

I DHFR
WASH WIO
Then. Oho

8 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

Attention being called last winter to some discrepancies ex-
isting between the published readings of the inscriptions
and their actual appearance on the bronze, I began an investi-
gation of the matter, and proved from Strabo, Dio Cassius,
and Josephus that the date 23-22 was historically impossible
if Barbarus was Prefect,! and then discovered that L IH was
the real reading of the Greek date, and ANNOXVIII that of
the Latin, bringing the actual year of erection down to 13-
12 B. C., a date wholly free from historical objections ; further-
more, that Barbarus was at home in his native Casinum
probably at the very time when the former reading had
made him Prefect of Egypt. The full details of this in-
vestigation have been given in a monograph recently pub-
lished,? and I wish here merely to put on record the correct
form of the inscriptions in fac-simile, and restored.

Momnsen, after treating of the ‘inscriptions themselves in
the Ephemeris, proceeds to speak of the obelisks, and the
temple before which they stood, as follows: “These inscrip-
tions inform us by whom and when these obelisks were erected
in Alexandria. The place where they stood is mentioned by
Pliny (xxxvi. 14): Duo (obeltsct) sunt Alexandreae ad portum
in Caesaris templo, quos excidit Mesphres rex, quadragenum
binum cubitorum. Strabo also speaks of this temple (794),
and by him it is called 76 Katcdpiov. It is described more at
length by Philo (Legatio ad Caium, 22), where he asserts that
an imperial form of government is preferable to liberty, be-
cause, throughout the whole world, all temples are far sur-
passed by those of Caesar, and especially at Alexandria ; ovdev
yap totovrov éott Téuevos oloy TO Neyouevov SeBaortiov éemi-
Barnpiov Kaicapos vews, x. tT. But Neroutsos incorrectly
assumes that this temple was built to Augustus. Rather,
since it is called the temple of Caesar by Pliny, and the as-

1 Since this was written I have learned that Herman Schiller had already
arrived at the same conclusion (Geschichte der rom. Kaiserzeit, I. 1. 198, A 1),
having rejected the authority of the earlier reading of the inscription on the
ground of its irreconcilability with the evidence of the historians. See Berliner
Philolog. Wochenschrift, Jan. 5, 1884. _ |

2 The Greek and Latin Inscriptions on the Obelisk-Crab in the Metropolitan
Museum, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1883. .

Vol. xiv. ] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 9

cription Caesar Appulsor suits best the father, Augustus must
be thought to have consecrated the temple to his deified
father, for he certainly would not, even in Egypt, have built
it to himself. Surely, since he, in following his father’s
footsteps as it were, had himself also landed in Egypt, it is pre-
sumable that the worshippers of Augustus in Egypt offered
sacred rites to him also in the same temple; and the more
so that, according to the testimony of the Acta Arvalium,
the temples of Caesar. belonged to all the deified (dzvz).
Hence, it is easily understood why the temple of Caesar was
commonly called by the Alexandrians the Sebastion.”

Some of these points deserve consideration. Not many
words need be spent on the somewhat singular statement that
Philo “asserts that an imperial form of government is prefer-
able to liberty, decause, throughout the whole world, all other
temples are far surpassed by those of Caesar, and especially
at Alexandria.” If our editions of Philo presented any such
inconsequent proposition, I incline to think that Mommsen
would have been among the first to propose some emendation
of the text. What Philo did say will be seen below.

Pliny’s expression, Caesaris templo, tends to show that the
temple was that of Julius and not of Augustus, Mommsen
thinks. This resolves itself into a simple question of Pliny’s
usage of the word Caesar. A careful reading of the Natural
History yields the following statistics: Caesar Dictator occurs
31 times; Caesar Augustus, 6 times; Tiberius Caesar, 21
times; C. or Caius Caesar, for Agrippa’s son, 7 times, for
Caligula, 8 times, for Julius, 3 times; Claudius Caesar, 32
times ; Germanicus Caesar, 9 times; Drusus Caesar, 4 times;
Nero Caesar, once; Vespasian Caesar, once; Titus, twice;
Domitian, once; L. Julius, twice; Vopiscus, once.

Caesar alone refers plainly to Julius 38 times, either the
title Dictator having been employed just before, or some
other circumstance, fixing easily the allusion. All of these
cases but 10 occur in the sections devoted to astronomical
matters, where the calendar of Julius is followed, and the
whole is introduced by Caesar Dictator. Caesar alone desig-
nates Augustus about Io times, Claudius 3 times, Nero once.

10 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

_ These are in the main explicit enough from their attendant
circumstances ; so that the phrase in question is really to be
compared only with such expressions as i” Caesaris ptscinis
(ix. 78, x. 89), 2% pluribus Caesaris villis (xxxii. 7), domus
Caesaris in Palatio (xxxv. 36), denominated Palatinas domos
Caesarum at xxxvi. 4 (cf. /aurus, janitrix Caesarum, xv. 30) ;
in all, or the most of which, Augustus was the original pos-
sessor, but they belonged later to his successors. Quite
similar is the expression 7” forum Caesaris, xvi. 86, and
XXXV. 45, where one is probably the forum of Augustus, the
other that of Julius. The conclusion is that no argument in
the case can be based on Pliny’s usage of Caesar, except that
the context must in general determine who is referred to; and,
following this, we should attribute the reference in the pas-
sage in question to Augustus rather than Julius, inasmuch as
it is both preceded and followed by an allusion to the time of
that Emperor.

Here, however, a fact must be taken into account which ap-
parently has escaped the notice of Mommsen, as of many others
who have touched the subject. This is a statement of Dio’s
(li. 15), that after the death of Antony, at Alexandria, ‘his
eldest son Antyllus, upon the entrance of the forces of Augus-
tus into the city, fled to the Heroum of Julius which Cleopatra
had built, and was there slain.! Suetonius, in recounting the
circumstance, mentions only the image of the deified Julius ;?
Plutarch says nothing of either (Anton. 81). Here, then, we
have positive evidence that there was at that time a building
of some kind at Alexandria consecrated by Cleopatra to Julius,
and containing his statue. The Heroum is usually a small
chapel of indefinite size; but it is the same word which Dio
uses many times of the temple erected by Augustus, in the
Forum at Rome, to Julius, on the spot where the body of the
Dictator was burned, and where a column and altar at first
were placed. This structure is called veds by Appian (Bell.

1 “AyrvaAdos, kalrot Thy re Tov Kaloapos Ovyarépa hyyunuévos nal és 1d Tov warpds
abrov hppov, & KAcondrpa eremolnnet, xarapuvyay, ev0ds dopdyn.
2 Simulacro Divi Juli, ad quod post multas et irritas preces confugerat, ~~
abreptum interemit. Aug. 17.

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. II

Civil. i. 148), and aedes by Vitruvius (iii.); while Pliny, speak-
ing of Augustus, uses the phrases, zm templo Caesaris patris
(xxxv. 10), 2% delubro patris Caesaris (xxxv. 36), both in allusion
to this shrine. Hence, the Heroum at Alexandria may pos-
sibly have been of some considerable size, but it cannot answer
to Philo’s description of the Sebastion in that particular. Of
its situation we have no direct information.

Next in the order of time comes the statement of Strabo,
who, in describing the city of Alexandria, proceeds from the
Lochias, on the east, round the harbor to the Poseidion, from
which Antony built out the mole where he constructed his
Timonium, after the battle of Actium, remains of which are
still to be seen. “Next,” he says, “is the Caesareum ;” but he
vouchsafes no further information. Its site, however, is fixed
by his description to be at least in the close vicinity of that
where the obelisks were erected by Barbarus. The guesses
at what Strabo meant by his Karodpiov have been numerous ;
my own opinion will be seen below.

Our main knowledge of the temple and its surroundings
must be derived from the elaborate description of Philo Ju-
daeus. This learned and eloquent Jew was a native of Alex-
andria; and as he was a man of advanced years when he was
chosen to head the deputation sent by the Jews of his native
city to Caligula at Rome, in A. D. 40, he must have been quite
a lad when Barbarus erected the obelisks, and may have wit-
nessed the very spectacle itself of this achievement of Pontius.
At all events, he was perfectly familiar with the whole his-
tory of the temple and its worship. The occasion of his
embassy to Rome, of which he has given us so vivid a pic-
ture, arose from the inordinate desire of the half-crazed
Emperor, not only to be deemed a god, but to be actually
worshipped as such in every quarter of his dominions. He
had been quick to accept the honors paid him by the Alex-
andrians, who had placed images of his majesty even in the
chapels of the Jews, a desecration which these had never
before suffered from Roman emperor or Ptolemaic king, and
which was now sought to be removed by the eloquent repre-
sentations of these deputies. Their efforts were unsuccessful,

12 ' Augustus C. Merriam, [ 1883.

but the assassination of Caligula within a few months relieved
them from the abhorred profanation. The account which
Philo afterwards wrote of the affair has come down to us
under the title Legatio ad Catum, Caligula being almost uni-
versally known to his contemporaries and the ancient histo-
rians as Caius. Philo’s allusion to the Caesareum, or Sebastion
as he styles it, is introduced in the course of a contrast which
he draws between the unblushing insistence with which Cali-
gula claimed that he was a god, and demanded corresponding
worship, and the greater merits but greater moderation of
his predecessors. “Why,” he asks, “should the Alexandrians
thrust the images of Caligula into the Jewish chapels with
such eager devotion, when they had never done this in the
days of the Ptolemies, although they were accustomed to
believe these to be gods, and to inscribe and call them such?
But worship of their kings was not surprising in them, when
they filled their temples with ibises, and dogs, and wolves, and
all manner of beasts, which they adored. Perhaps, however,
they will now say what they would not have said then, (for
they are accustomed to pay fulsome adulation to the pros-
perity of their rulers rather than to the rulers themselves,)
that, as the Emperors are so much greater than the Ptolemies,
so ought they to receive greater honors. But if so, why
should Caius receive higher honors than Tiberius, so much
his superior in every way? And what shall we say of him
who transcended human nature in all virtues, who on account
of the greatness of his autocratic sovereignty, as well as his
nobility of character, was the first to receive the appellation
of Sebastos, obtaining it, not through successive transmissions
in the family, as some portion of an inheritance, but being
himself the source of worshipful majesty to his’ successors?
When the entire human race seemed destined to perish in
internecine conflict, it was he that turned them to better ways,
and deservedly won the appellation of Defender from Evil
_(AndeEixaxos). This is the Caesar who calmed the storms that
had burst forth on every side, who healed the common maladies
of Greeks and Barbarians, which had risen from the east and
south, and spread to the north and the setting sun. This is

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. . 13

he who struck off, not merely loosed, the fetters which bound
and galled the habitable world. This is he who delivered the
sea from piratical craft and filled it with merchant marine.
This is he who bestowed freedom upon all cities, who brought
order out of chaos, who civilized and harmonized wild and
bestial nations, who extended the limits of Hellas to include
many Hellases,—the guardian of peace, the grantor of all
rights, who hid nothing good or noble in all his life. _ But
this unsurpassed benefactor, during all the three and forty
years that he ruled over Egypt, they hid behind the veil in
comparison, setting in our chapels neither statue nor image
nor painting in his behoof. And yet,! if to any one novel and
incomparable honors ought to have been decreed, to him were
they becoming ; not only because he was the very source of
the family of the Augusti, nor merely because he was the first
and greatest and universal benefactor, having proved himself
such by transferring the helm of the ship of state to a single
pilot wonderful in his directing wisdom, namely, himself, in
place of the rule of the many, —for the (Homeric) saying,

‘Til fares the state where many masters rule,’

is opportune, since universal suffrage is productive of multi-
farious evils, — but decause the entire inhabited world decreed
honors to him coequal with those of the Olympian gods. And
proofs of this are to be found tn the temples, the propylaea, the

1 Kal phy ef rim nawds nal efapérous tet Wyndl(ecOa: timds, exelvp mpoojkoy Fy,
ob pdvoy 8ri Tov ceBaotlou yévous apxh tis eyéveto Kal rnyh, ode Sri mparos Kal
péyioros Kal xowds ebepyérns, dvtl rodvapylas év) xuBepvitn wapadobs 7d Kowdy
oxddos oiaxovopetv, avrg, Oavpaclyp Thy Hryepouhy emorhunv — 7d yap “Obx dyabby
woduxoipavin” A€AeKras Sedvrws, dweid} woAuTpénwy aitlas kaxav al rodAupnpla: —
GAN’ Sri nal rica f olnoupéyyn Tas igoAuurlous abtre@ Tipas ewn-
olaoaro. Kal paprupotc: nat vaol, xportaaa, mporeuviopata, oroal,
Gore 8ca: tav wérewy, 7) véas } warcial, Epya pépovor peyadonpeny, THE KaAAE Kal
peyébe: Tay Kacapelwy wapeuvnyepetobat, nat uddiora Kara Thy jperépay *"AArAetdy-
Specay. Ovddey yap towtrdéy dors tTépevos, olov rd Acydpevov SeBa-
oriov, éwmiBatnplov Kaloapos veds, avrucpt ray evoppotdrwy Amévov
peréwpos Tpurat péyioros Kal exipavéoraros, Kal ofos obx érépwht, kardwAEws dvaln-
drwy, év ypapais nal avdpidor, nal apytpp nal xpvog mepiBeBAnuévos ev KvKAg,
Ténevos ebpvratoy, aroais, BiBAoOhKats, avdpaot, tAgeot, rporvaAatos, ebpuxwplais,
iwal@pois, Exact rots eis woAuTeAdoraroy Kécpoy hoxnpévov, 2AwLs kal avayo-
mévots nal natramAdovet cwrhpios. Philo, Leg. ad Cai. 22.

14 - Augustus C. Merriam, [ 1883.

vestibules, the porticos; so that the architectural splendors
in every city, whether young or old, are surpassed in beauty
and size by the temples of Caesar, and especially in our own
Alexandria. For there is no such sanctuary as that called
Sebastion, the temple of Caesar Epibaterios, which stands
rearing aloft its stately front, face to face with the fairest of
harbors, — the largest as well as the most conspicuous of ob-
jects, to which nothing is comparable elsewhere, crowded
with offerings of paintings and statues, highly wrought with
gold and silver on every side, its sacred enclosure of the
most spacious dimensions, with its porticos, libraries, halls,
groves, propylaea, open spaces, promenades, all adorned in the
richest manner,— the saving hope of all who weigh anchor
_from the harbor or enter within its shelter. Accordingly,
though possessed of such excellent reasons, though all men
were everywhere acquiescent, they did not introduce any in-
novations touching our chapels, but the old customs of their
fathers were still retained by each. Did they, then, omit any
act of adoration that was owed to Caesar? Who in his senses
would say that? Why, then, did they neglect this? I will
tell you frankly, without reservation. They knew that his
anxious solicitude was just as great to secure their patrial
rights to each, as to the Romans themselves, and that he
accepted honors of this kind, not because he blindly deceived
himself in order to destroy the customs of the several na-
tions, but because he deferred to the majesty of his autocratic
power, which becomes more commanding and revered by
such adoration. That he was never enslaved or puffed up
by such extravagant honors is clearly proved by the fact that
he never wished himself to be addressed as Master or God
(Suet. Aug. 53), and was vexed if any one so named him.”

In this argument of Philo’s we have many points of interest —
to the question at issue. I do not see in his words a single
hint of the slightest kind that this temple was the sanctuary
of Julius. To Philo it is the worthy shrine of the greatest of
human beings, Augustus, whose worship, though unbefitting
a Jew, might well be forgiven and fittingly defended in a
Gentile. Not only this, but it does not seem to enter the

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 15

thoughts of Philo that Julius ever had anything to do with
this. temple, which certainly appears strange if it were origi-
nally dedicated to him.

In the second place, we observe that Philo’s language pre-
sents the divine honors paid to Augustus in Egypt undera
somewhat different aspect from that of the Ptolemaic kings.
When Alexander the Great conquered Egypt he gave out
that he was the son of Ammon, and for motives of state policy
he maintained this attitude there; because it had been the
custom from ancient days, in this land of many gods, to build
temples to their kings, and regard them as the divine emana-
tion of the Sun, or some other deity. The Ptolemies pursued
the same policy ; and in the Rosetta Stone we find the reigning
king, Epiphanes, called “the living image of Zeus, son of the
Sun, Ptolemy the eternal, beloved of Phtha,” “him that was
born of the deities Philopatores, Ptolemy and Arsinoe,” “the
present god, born of a god and goddess, even as Horus, the
son of Isis and Osiris, the defender of his father Osiris ;”
then his line is traced back through the gods Philopatores,
the gods Euergetae, the gods Adelphi, and the gods Soteres.!
Others of the royal family were also numbered among the
deities, in addition to the reigning king and queen; and these
ascriptions were continued down to the close of the dynasty,
Cleopatra the famous being styled the New Goddess on
some of her coins, and she assumed the title of the New
Isis after the Armenian victories of Antony (Plut. Ant. 54).
Antony himself claimed and received in Alexandria the ven-
eration and worship of the Egyptians, as the fructifying Nile-
god, Osiris. Hence, when Augustus became master of the
known world, the people of Egypt were prepared as usual to
accept him as the new ruler and new divinity. But Augustus
was not a second Antony, nor indeed a second Julius, who had
been prompt to welcome his own apotheosis, even at Rome, in
his lifetime. As in Egypt, so in Western Asia, it had long
been customary to deify their rulers, and Roman proconsuls had
often received such honors. But at Rome, from the time of

1 See C. I. G. 3834, where the Emperor Antoninus himself, in a letter to the
people of .Azani, names his predecessors in similar language.

16 Augustus C. 3icrriam, [1883

Romulus to that of Jutius Caesar, scarcely a case was known,
though some ground for it was found in the worship paid to
the Lares. Octavianus eagerly ava:ied himself of the oppor-
tunity to deify Juiius directly after his death, as a means of
exalting himself in the eyes of the vulzar, as the adopted son
of the Dizus. But he saw clearly that it would be a mistake
for him to proceed further at Rome, at least for the present.
After his first burst of fury and revenge was over, and the
assassins of Caesar were destroyed, his poiicy was henceforth
one of peace, and consolidation of the power which Julius had
won, but had lost too soon to render permanent. The fate of
his father was ever before him, and he entered into a cool cal-
culation as to the surest means of avoiding the perils which
had confronted and destroyed the other. While retaining the
reins of power firmly in his hands, he acted the part of a
republican patriot with studied moderaton. Unusual titles
and royal prerogatives he studiously avoided in appearance,
while he gradually assumed their realities without resistance,
and without shock to the feelings of bis subjects. In fact, he
pursued a general policy of humility, which tended greatly to
strengthen him in his delicate and difficult position amid the
contending factions and secret conspiracies of his reign. Not
only was this true in his relations to the state, but also in his
attitude towards his own deification and worship. At Rome,
he insisted unswervingly upon his refusal of the expressed
wishes of many to erect temples to him within the city (Suet.
Aug. 52), and Dio asserts (li. 20) that no one of any consid-
eration ventured to engage in his worship within the borders
of Italy; but this statement is to be accepted with consider-
able allowance. Inscriptions show that there existed both a
flamen Augustalis and an Augusteum at Pisa in his lifetime,
and a flamen, or sacerdos, and mintsirt in his worship occur in
inscriptions from Pompeii and Praeneste, while the Salii named
him among the other gods in their songs. His friend Vedius
Pollio, who became noted especially from an uncanny habit
of feeding his unlucky slaves to the murenae in his fish-ponds,
and who left these ponds to Augustus when he died, B.c. 15
(Dio, liv. 23), cherished a Caesareum within his grounds

mR PND by ey iA bed ham ot ie fd i MN OW of be bd ch af Gdoliet.gibogof4

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 17

COrelli, 2509). Such private worship, offered to him and his
Lares and Genius, with altars at the firesides, and at numer-
ous shrines about the city, became more and more common at
Rome as year succeeded year, and he found that the time was
ripe for it; while his deification in the lines of Virgil, Horace,
Propertius, and Ovid is too familiar to need reference. In
other words, while officially frowning upon open ascriptions
as god, he actually regarded them with a lenient, if not a fos-
tering eye; fully aware, as Philo says, how important a factor
they formed in maintaining, when rightly wielded, the power
which he had striven so hard to attain. In the distant prov-
inces the case was different from that at Rome. The cities of
Sicily placed him among their gods as early as 35 B. c. (App.
Bel, Civ. v. 132). In the East he could permit their usual cus-
tom to be followed with more impunity, for the very reason
that it accorded with the habits of the people, instead of con-
tradicting them as at Rome. The victory of Actium made
him master of the East as well as the West ; and as their ruler
he permitted the people of Pergamus and Nicomedia to erect
temples in his honor, with the condition, however, that Roma
should share in his worship. This goddess had long been the
object of adoration in the provinces, and to place her side by
side with himself in these temples was another stroke of policy,
which exhibits the same astute mind in the definite pursuit of
his settled aim. This condition he is said to have imposed
upon all the provinces where temples were erected to him
(Suet. Aug. 52), and we find it complied with at Ancyra (eo
ZeBaora nat Oca ‘Powun),- and at the seaside Caesarea of
Herod, where colossal statues were erected to both, —that
of Augustus modelled after the Zeus at Olympia, and that of
Roma after the Here of Argos (Joseph. Bel. Jud. i. 21). We
find this community of the two deities also at Cyme, Mylasa,
Nysa, and Cyzicus in Asia Minor, on the Acropolis at Athens,
and at Pola in Istria. While Augustus was in Spain, B.c.
26-25, the people of Tarraco obtained permission to erect an
altar to him there. Later, the temple of Olympian Zeus
at Athens was completed and dedicated to. his Genius, and

Herod’s zeal was so great that Josephus declares that he filled,
2

18 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

not only his own country, but all the regions dependent on
him, with temples in honor of Caesar (Bel. Jud. i. 21).

What was the actual state of the case, then, in Egypt?
From Philo we see that the Emperor's interdict against open
ascription as god or master, dominus, Searrorns, — the relation
of master and slave — (Suet. Aug. 53), was known; but Philo
bears equal testimony to the fact that “the whole inhabited
world decreed him honors equal to the Olympian gods,” that
temples were built to him, especially the Sebastion, and that
he accepted this worship for reasons of state. Upon the
authority of Sharpe (Hist. Egypt, ii. p. 94) we have it dis-
tinctly asserted that “In the hieroglyphic inscriptions on
these temples (Philae, Talmis, Tentyris) Augustus is called
Autocrator Caesar, and is styled Son of the Sun, King of
Upper and Lower Egypt, with the other titles which had
always been given by the priests to the Ptolemies and their
own native sovereigns for so many centuries. Thus the his-
torians of Rome, who are almost deceived by the modest
behavior of Augustus, and are in doubt whether he was sin-
cere in begging the Senate every tenth year to allow him to
lay aside the weight of empire, may have those doubts cleared
up in Egypt; for there he had assumed the style and title of
king within ten years after the death of Cleopatra.” At
Dabode, just above Philae, are to be seen the ruins of a temple
whose sculptures were “mostly added by Augustus and Tibe-
rius. The name of Augustus in one instance is followed by
the expression ‘God Philometor, though in the other ovals
he is the beloved of Pthah and Isis.” (Wilk. Top. Thebes,
p. 476.) Here, again, we find the titles of the reigning Ptol-
emies ascribed to Augustus, and his worship implied. The
inscription of the temple at Philae consecrated under Bar-
barus, B. C. 13-12, has no title of divinity, but that of Ten-
tyris, A. D. 1, under Octavius, a member of the Emperor's own
gens, styles him Zeus Eleutherios, This is upon the pro-
pylon of the temple of Isis, which was built by the people of
the town and Nome, and consecrated in behalf of Augustus.
Likewise in the great temple at Philae, Catilius, in B. c. 8, offer-
ing his inscription of adoration, says, “ Consecrated to Caesar,

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 19

ruler of the sea, a Zeus swaying limitless regions, son of
Zeus, — (Caesar) the Deliverer, Master of Europe and Asia,
Star of all Hellas, that rose as a mighty Zeus the Savior.”
Here, as before, we have the forbidden appellation of God,
and that of Master besides. This is poetic, it is true; but
when taken in connection with what has already been ad-
vanced, it may be accepted in its full sense, just as the “god
Augustus” occurs in an inscription of Apamea (C. I. G. 4474),
and in others from Cyme in Mysia (C. I. G. 3524), and Lesbos,
and Delos, all belonging to the lifetime of the Emperor.

With such precedents, then, was no temple to be built and
consecrated in his honor at Alexandria, the very hot-bed of
adulation of rulers, — where, as Philo says, no readier tongues
were to be found among either Greeks or barbarians to sa-
lute as god,! where this ascription was held in such awe that
they bestowed it on ibises and serpents, and where they
were accustomed to employ all the expressions which other
nations address to their gods, not masked and veiled, but
openly and unblushingly ?2_ Mommsen assumes that Augus-
tus would not have erected the temple to himself, which in-
deed is very likely; in fact, it was the people or rulers of
the several places themselves who erected the temples in
his honor, as in Asia Minor, Judea, Gaul, Spain, Greece,
and in Egypt itself. Besides, if he had done anything of
the kind himself there, it is likely the temple would have
stood, not in Alexandria, but at the neighboring Nicopolis,
where Augustus did direct the building, not only of a city,
but of temples also, so that the temple of Serapis, in Alex-
andria, and other ancient shrines, were abandoned, so to
speak, in consequence of the erection of those in Nicopolis
(Strabo, 795). This statement of Strabo, together with his
omission to give any description of the Caesareum, leads me to
think that these passages at least refer to the period of his
sojourn in Alexandria, at which time the Caesareum was merely

1 Oddévas eBpev [Tdios] ofre ‘EAAhvay otre BapBdpwy éxirnde:orépous ’AXrctav-
Spelwv els thy Tis Guérpou Kal drip diow dvOpwrlyny emiOuplas BeBalwory.

2 ob wAaylws, GAA’ vrixpus Eracw éxpévro Kkataxdpws ois dvduacw, 80a rots
brros Fos emipnul(ecba: Oeots. Leg. ad Cai. 25. Cf. Suet. Nero, 20.

20 Augustus C. Merriam, [ 1883.

the Heroum of Julius, situated within the precinct where the
Sebastion was erected a few years later, as a separate and
distinct building, when the mushroom Nicopolis had shown
the limits of its capabilities, and the people began to enjoy
the great benefits accruing to the city from the policy of the
Emperor in clearing the canals, and increasing so immensely
the trade with Arabia and India, of which Alexandria pos-
sessed the monopoly. If we suppose, furthermore, that Strabo
wrote, in later life, after he had been at Rome, the passage
where he mentions the obelisks of Heliopolis, and adds that
two were removed to Rome (805), we have a reasonable ex-
planation for his omitting to speak of those which were trans-
ported to Alexandria in B.c. 13-12, after he left that city. It
is possible that, in the Sebastion, Roma was made to share
with the Emperor in the honors of consecration, but the lan-
guage of Philo gives no hint of such association, nor does
it occur at Philae and Tentyris, nor at Narbonne (Orelli,
2489).

In the inscription of Catilius at Philae we meet with the
Poseidonian epithet ITovrowédovrz, “ Ruler of the Sea,” applied
to the Emperor; and this brings us to a consideration of the
singular aspect under which he was regarded, according to
Philo, in the Sebastion at Alexandria, “the temple of Caesar _
Epibaterios, the saving hope of all who weigh anchor from
the harbor or enter within its shelter.”

Mommsen coins the word Appulsor as a representative of
"EsriBarnptos, and Yonge translates the phrase, “ the temple
erected in honor of the disembarkation of Caesar,” while the
old Latin translator renders, femplum Caesaris navigantium
praesidis. Since Mommsen and Yonge agree on the one
hand, as opposed to the Latin version, in the initial idea of
the epithet, it is worth while to consider which is right. Here
the lexicons help us little. They cite the passage in Pausa-
nias where the epithet is applied to Apollo, and Professor
Sophocles in his Byzantine Lexicon adds this from Philo.
Perhaps we shall arrive at its usage best by taking up a series
of kindred words which relate to the sacrifices that were of-
fered by mariners in harbor. Such sacrifices must have been

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 2

as early in their origin as men began to appreciate the dan-
gers of the deep; and prayers would be offered for a safe voy-
age, at embarking, and thanks and vows would be paid for
dangers passed, on landing. Nestor in the Third Odyssey
tells of the sacrifices he offered in Tenedos after the fall of
Troy, on his way homeward ; and upon arriving at Geraestus
in Euboea they offer many thighs of bullocks to Poseidon for
having passed the mighty deep (y 159, 179). For such sacri-
fices we have three classes of words, the most of them rather
late as found in literature, notwithstanding the existence of
the custom at so early a period.

First, those relating to embarkation, ra éuBarypia. Philo-
stratus (Vita Apol. Tyan. 227) speaks of sacrificing the emda-
teria of the voyage,! and Heliodorus (4. 16) mentions some
Phoenician merchants in the Greek seas, who are offering
their embaterion because they expect to start in the morning
for Libya, if the wind breathes favorably upon their design.
This offering is made to the Tyrian Heracles. Elsewhere
(5. 15) he alludes to embateria made to Dionysus,? as Philo-
stratus (687) does, figuratively of a speech, where the prayer
ascends to Protesilaus.2 Plutarch in his treatise De Solertia
Animalium (36) uses the word advaBarnprov for the same rite,
and the sacrifice is probably to Apollo, whose dolphin had
guided the ship out of storm into the harbor of Cirrha.4

Secondly, those relating to disembarkation, é«Barnpua.
Himerius (Eclog. 13. 38) says that his words are struggling
to anticipate the future, in their eagerness to unite the ode of
embarkation with the songs of disembarkation.® Herodes
Atticus on recovery from illness sacrifices his éeBarnpia tijs
vooou ¢Philostr. 562). Synonymous with the é«@arypia are
the azoBarnpia. Teucer the Cyzicenian says that these were
offered by Helenus on landing in Epirus from Troy® (Steph.

1 éuBaripia wrod Ovcarres.

2 éuBaripia re Aconiow Kal 7dov Kal Eorevdov.

8 alpwyuev €& Addbos... 7d 5° éuBarhpia Tot Abyou T@ IIpwrecirew efx Ow.

4 ro motov gis Kippay xaréorncev: S0ev dvaBarypiov Ovcavres, K. Td.

5 of 5é pou Adyou Kal mpodraBely pixpod 7d méArov Wdlvyover Kal rots éxBarnplos
pédeoe Tip @pihv rhy émiBarhpiov cuvdwat srevdovew.

6 OicarvTt droBarihpia év "Hrrelpy,

22 Augustus C. Merriam, ° [1883.

Byz. in voc. Buthrotum). According to Josephus (Antigq.
Jud. i. 3), the place where Noah landed from the ark and
offered sacrifice was called by the natives Apobaterion. When
Crassus was to cross the Euphrates on his fatal expedition,
the omens for departure, dvroBaOpa, were of the very worst!
(Dio Cas. xl. 18).

Thirdly, the éBartjpia which may be sacrifices either at
embarking or disembarking. The passage quoted above from
Himerius represents the former, and the éiSa@pa of Apollo-
nius Rhodius (i. 421) is said by the scholiast to be its syno-
nym. For its use in relation to disembarkation we have the
reading of the Etymologicum Magnum, which, in quoting the
story of Teucer of Cyzicus, instead of using, as Stephanus
Byzantius does above, the form é«Barypia, gives éruBarnpia.
The rhetorician Menander (Spengel, Rh. Gr. iii. 377) offers
the formal skeleton of the éuBarnptos Aoyos, or speech to be
delivered either upon one’s arrival after absence in one’s
native land, or arrival in some other country, or in address
to a governor just arrived to take charge of the city or
province. Libanius is cited as authority for either meaning
of ériBarnpta.

Similar to these are the more familiar dsa8arnpia, or sacri-
fices at crossing a river or boundary line, especially in vogue
among the Spartans (Thuc. v. 54, 55, 116; Xen. Hel. iv.
7.2). For Crassus the diabaterza were bad at the Euphrates
(Dio, xl. 18), and Lucullus sacrificed a bull to the same river as
his diabateria (Plut. Lucul. 24). At rivers the offering is made
to the river-god, as Herodotus describes Cleomenes as doing
at the Erasinus; and, as the omens were not accepted by this
god, Cleomenes marched away to the sea, to which he again
sacrificed, and then passed over to Nauplia (Hdt. vi. 76).
When starting out upon an expedition from Sparta, the kings
first consulted Zeus Agetor, and if he was propitious they
marched to the confines and there sacrificed to Zeus and to
Athene. This is declared -by Xenophon (Rep. Lac. xiii.) to
be an institution of Lycurgus. With this custom we must
apparently connect the statement of Polyaenus (i. 10. 1) that

1 kal rd SuaBaripia rd re dwbBabpd ogice Sucxepéorara éyévero.

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 23

when the Heracleidae, Proclus and Temenus, were marching
upon Lacedaemon, at the mountains they offered sacrifices to
Athene, which he calls trrepBarnpia.*

Next we have to consider the deities to whom the sacri-
fices were made, and the epithets applied to them. Thus far
we have had incidental mention of Poseidon, the Tyrian Her-
acles, Protesilaus, Dionysus, Apollo, rivers, the sea, Zeus,
and Athene, as the object of such adoration, and the epithet
of “the Leader” applied to Zeus. According to Ctesias
(Pers. 17), Xerxes at the Hellespont sacrificed to Zeus Dia-
baterios, i. e. the god who extends his protection and safe-
guard to the venture. In like manner, when Alexander the
Great crossed the Hellespont, he built altars, where he had
started from Europe and where: he landed in Asia, to Zeus
Apobaterios and Athene and Heracles (Arr. An. i. II. 7).
Here again Zeus is the god who has given safe passage, and —
to whom thanks are due accordingly. When, then, we find
an inscription from Hermione (C. I. G. 1213) in which the
Emperor Hadrian is called the god, the son of a god, the Zeus
Embaterios, what other meaning has this ascription than that.
Hadrian was there worshipped as the deity propitious to mari-
ners who embark for sea? It corresponds exactly to Apollo
Limbasios in Apollonius Rhodius, i. 359, 404, a passage so
instructive in this connection that it merits some considera-
tion, When Jason and his companions have launched the
Argo in the bay at Pagasae, they build an altar of stones upon
the shore; and, standing with two bullocks beside it, Jason
uplifts the barley and prays to his patrial Apollo: “ Hearken,
O king, who didst promise to me at Pytho to show a success-
ful accomplishment of my journey, for thou art thyself the
cause of my labors. Therefore do thou conduct our ship
thither, and back to Hellas, with all my comrades safe. Then
hereafter as many of us as shall return will place upon thy
altar goodly sacrifices of bullocks, and others at Pytho, and
others at Ortygia, boundless gifts. Now come and accept our
sacrifice, which we offer to thee as the first fruits, the epibathra

1 We may further compare the terms elocrijpia, elond\Uora, Karirhpia,
éécr7pros. .

24 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

of this ship. And may I loose, O king, through thy guidance,
our anchor with happy fate, and may the wind breathe propi-
tious, by means of which we shall pass the deep with the fair
sky above us.” Then the sacrifice is completed in due form,
and the prophet Idmon interprets the excessive brightness
of the altar-flame as the kindly response of the god. This
picture presents the whole formula of the embateria, and the
epibateria in one of its aspects, the sacrifice, the prayer, the
vows, the expected protection and guidance. In this case the
deity addressed is the patrial Apollo, who had been consulted
as to the expedition. Pindar, in his Fourth Pythian Ode
(194), represents Jason as offering the prayer to Zeus in
similar language. In fact, the deity, as may be seen above,
is variously chosen, according to the predilections of the indi-
vidual. Poseidon was no doubt the usual object of the
prayer, and the scholiast on the passage of Pindar tries to
explain why Zeus was selected instead of the god of the sea.!

Again, when Jason and his companions land at Cyzicus
and at Cius, they raise an altar on the shore to Apollo
Ekbastos, and pay their dues to him (Ap. Rh. i. 966, 1186).
Hesychius tells us that Artemis was called LEkdateria at
Siphnos, and the connection of this goddess with the sea
is seen from such epithets as vyoocoos (Ap. Rh. i. 570),
Aiywaia (Paus. iii. 14. 2), etc. Upon an Ephesian coin
of the Emperor Antonine, Apollo is called the Emdbasios
of the Ephesians (Eckhel, ii. 516, “AmcAAwv ‘“EpBacuos
"Edeciov).

Now, upon arriving at our Apollo Epzbaterzos and Caesar
Epibaterios we must needs view the ascription in the same
light as those which have already been adduced. In describ-
ing the precinct of Hippolytus at Troezene, Pausanias (il.
32. 2) says that, besides the temple of that hero, there is also
a temple of Apollo Zpzébaterios, the offering of Diomed on
having escaped the storm which fell upon the Greeks when
returning from Ilium. Here the epithet corresponds precisely
to Ekbasios, and represents the deity to whom the ekdbateria
were offered, the deity who, like the epzbates, or armed hoplite

1 Cf. Virg. Aen. v. 772-776; Hor. Epod. 10, etc.

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 25

on board a trireme, has battled with the enemy, the storm,
and brought the sailor safe and victorious into harbor, as
Philo represents Augustus guiding the ship of state safe out
of the storms of civil war into the harbor of peace and pros-
peritys Hence, Caesar Epzbaterios means the deity to whom
the efzbaterta, the sacrifices at embarking and at disembark-
ing, were offered, who rules the sea, and protects all sailors,
exactly as the Latin translator viewed it. This too is one of
the alternatives which Virgil advances in his First Georgic
(29-31), when questioning what kind of a god the great Octa-
vianus is destined to be, a passage which has been supposed
to have been written soon after the battle of Actium, when
temples had already been decreed to him in Asia, and the
Senate was showering honors upon him approaching the same
exaltation. The passage runs thus: “Or wilt thou appear as
the god of the measureless deep, and sailors worship thy
divinity alone, Ultima Thule be thy slave, and Tethys win
thee as her son-in-law by the offer of all her waves.” Some-
what similarly Propertius (iii. 11. 71), addressing the sailor,
says: “Therefore, whether seeking or leaving the harbor, O
sailor, be mindful of Caesar on the whole Ionian deep.” And
at Aegae in Cilicia occurs an inscription in which he is ad-
dressed as a god in conjunction with Poseidon the Preserver,
and Aphrodite Euploia (C. I. G. 4443).1 Under this aspect
we also find an explanation for that inscription (C. I. G. 4352)
from the seaport town of Side in Pamphylia, where a certain
Tuesianus has instituted a festival called the Tuesianian Epi-
baterion in honor of Athene and Apollo.2 This is explained
by Franz, followed by Liddell and Scott, as the “festival to cel-
ebrate the advent of a god”; which does not seem to satisfy
Professor Sophocles in his Lexicon, for he expounds it as “a
feast in honor of the arrival of (the statue of) a god,” and puts
a query after it. All difficulties vanish, however, if we sup-
pose it to be a regular maritime festival, where sacrifices on
the part of the city were offered for success in their ventures

1 GeG TDeBaord Kaloapr cat Mocedan ’Acpadrelw cat ’Adposelrn Etw)ola.
2 ércredodvros Oduw Tlaupudcaxhy Tounovavetov émiBarhpiov Oedy “AOnvas xal
AréA\)\wros.

26 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

upon the sea, and presented to Athene and Apollo as the
deities who were there the object of prayer and worship by
sailors. We have already seen Athene addressed in the
diabateria and hyperbateria, and her connection with the sea
is denoted on many coins by the accompanying symbol of the
trident, and one story made her the daughter of Poseidon and
Lake Tritonis (Paus. 1. 14. 6). Athenian ships carried her
statuettes at their prows, and it is probable that the epzbateria
were usually offered to her by Athenian sailors (Aristoph.
Achar. 547, and Schol.; Ovid, Trist. i.9. 1). Though the
passage in Pausanias is a solitary instance of ésrt8arnpcos ap-
plied to Apollo, yet this deity appears often as the god of
sailors under the epithet Delphinius, as early as the Homeric
Hymn, and many temples in various quarters of the Greek
world belonged to him as such. As we have seen, Apollo-
nius says that Jason built an altar to Apollo E#daszos (Argon.
i. 966), and another to the same god as Eméasios (Argon. i.
359, 404). A similar epithet is Aktios, as god of the sea-
shore; and it was this god at Actium who cast aside his lyre,
took his stand above the ship of Augustus, and flashed an
unexpected light into the face of the enemy, while he grasped
his bow and exhausted his quiver in defence of Rome and
Augustus, as Propertius fondly declares (iv. 6). Upon this
god the Roman conqueror never afterward wearied in lavish-
ing his most splendid gifts, whether in his temple at Actium,
on the Palatine Hill, where stood, as Propertius says (iv. I. 3),
the temple sacred to Phoebus of the Sea (aval: Phoebo), or
elsewhere. The identification of Apollo with the Sun had
been made in early days, and was now one of his chief phases ;
and as such he was also connected with seafarers, as the deity
who put to flight the clouds and brought calm out of storm ;
as Philo again describes Augustus in the civil wars, and Philo
is contrasting throughout the false Apollo, Caligula, with
Augustus, to whom he ascribes all the qualities of the real
god. And here it is interesting to compare the fact stated
by Propertius (ii. 31. 11) that above the roof of the Palatine
temple of the Naval Apollo was placed a chariot of the Sun
in gold.

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria, 27

The close connection between Augustus and this Apollo-
Phoebus meets us at every turn. Indeed, the story ran that
he was the son of Apollo, that god in his own temple having
appeared to the mother of the future Emperor in the form of
the Aesculapian serpent. Before his birth, his father dreamed
that the effulgence of the sun sprang from the womb of the
mother that was to be. It is noticeable that Suetonius
quotes this account from Asclepiades, of Mendes in Egypt,
where the story may well have originated, and been fostered
later at Rome. Dio and others repeat it in sober earnest.
His father, while in Thrace soon after, consulted the oracle of
Bacchus concerning his son, when the priests told him that
certain prodigies were vouchsafed them which had never
before occurred, except in the case of Alexander the Great,
who also claimed descent from a god. On the following night
he dreamed that his son appeared to him in more than mortal
form, arrayed in the thunderbolt, sceptre, and arms of Jupiter
Optimus Maximus, with a crown of Apollonian rays stream-
ing from his head, and standing in a laureated chariot
drawn by twelve horses of exceeding splendor. While still
an infant, though left by his nurse at evening in his cradle,
he was not to be found in the morning, until, after long
search, he was discovered upon the topmost turret lying face
to face with the rising sun. When entering the city, after the
death of Julius, under a clear sky, the sun was suddenly
encircled by a crown. Such stories must not be made light
of; their influence upon his superstitious contemporaries and
upon Augustus himself was extraordinary. While studying
at Apollonia, he ascended with Agrippa to the observatory of
the astrologer Theogenes, whom Agrippa had consulted
before, and from whom he had received promises of the most
exalted fortune. Augustus refused to disclose the day of his
birth, through fear and shame lest his fortune should prove
less exalted than that of his friend; but at last, when pre-
vailed upon, the astrologer leaped from his seat, fell upon his
knees before him, and offered his adorations as to a god.
Augustus believed so thoroughly in his fortune that he even
published his horoscope; and he wished it to be believed that

28 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883. |

there was something of divine power in the peculiar bright-
ness of his eyes, and was delighted if any one, under his con-
centrated gaze, dropped the eyes as if before the brilliancy of
the sun (Suet. Aug. 79). He said in public that the comet
which appeared soon after the death of Julius was believed by
the people to show that the soul of Julius was received among
the gods ; but in his heart, as Pliny says (ii. 23), he rejoiced at
the omen as produced for himself.

Having thus shown the intimate association inculcated
between Augustus and Apollo, and especially the evident
exertions to identify him as the son of that god, we may ven-
ture to adduce an Alexandrian coin (Feuardent, No. 541)
bearing the naked head of Augustus on the obverse, with the
legend 2EBASTO, and on the reverse a temple with four
columns and a prominent roof, with the legend KAIZA.
Between the two central columns rises an Aesculapiah staff
entwined by a serpent. Now, we know how common it was
to represent a famous temple, with some attributes of the
deity, on the coins of a city, and especially if the temple had
just been built. For instance, on the Roman coins of Augus-
tus we see the Palatine temple with six columns, and Apollo
holding his lyre (Cohen, No. 45), and likewise that of Jupiter
Tonans with the same number of columns, and Jupiter holding
his sceptre (Cohen, 158). Another represents the temple of
Mars Ultor with four columns, and military ensigns in the
middle (Cohen, 37). Hence it seems to me possible that the
Alexandrian coin just adduced presents to us with the usual
conventionality the Sebastion of that city as the temple of
Augustus, with the attributes of Apollo’s son Aesculapius.

The idea of attainment of divinity by man was based at Rome
‘upon the achievement of deeds too great for ordinary human
nature. Horace has expressed it in his famous ode beginning
Fustum et tenacem propositi virum, and proceeds :

| Hac arte Pollux et vagus Hercules
Enisus arces attigit igneas,

- Quos inter Augustus recumbens
Purpureo bibit ore nectar.

To this list of those who have attained the starry citadels by

| Vol. xiv. ] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 29

such deeds, he adds Bacchus and Quirinus. It was the name
of the last which Octavianus wished to assume, instead of
Augustus, but was dissuaded by prudential reasons. The
stages through which Caligula advanced, as described by
Philo (Leg. ad Caium, 11-15), are significant in this connec-
tion. He began by likening himself to the demigods, Her-
cules, the Dioscuri, Bacchus, Trophonius, Amphiaraus, and
Amphilochus; then he appeared dressed in the various
guises of these, and carrying their attributes. Not content
with this, he finally assumed the complete divinity of Apollo,
Hermes, Mars. In the East it was usual to designate such
divinities as the “New” so-and-so. We have seen how Cleo-
patra was denominated the New Isis ; at Athens an inscrip-
tion styles Caius, the adopted son of Augustus, the New
Ares (C. I. G. 311); Caligula called himself the New Diony-
sos; Nero became the New Agathodaemon (C. I. G. 4699) ;
Antinous, the New Iacchos and Pythios; Aurelius and
Verus, the New Dioscuri (C. I. G. 1316); and some empress,
the New Roman Here (C. I. G. 3956 b). In the language of
the East, Augustus would have been the New Quirinus if he
had followed his own inclination, and perhaps at Alexandria
he may have been styled the New Aesculapius. Now Aescu-
lapius is not only the Healer, as Philo denominated Augustus,
but also the deliverer from the dangers of war, and the god of
sailors. He is revealed in the second of these aspects by an
inscription recently discovered on the site of the Asclepieion
at Athens,! and in the last by inscriptions recovered from the
island of Syra? (Bullet. Corresp. Hellénique, 1878, pp. 86, 87).
Aristides also speaks of him as the god who saves from the
deep and brings into a peaceful harbor (65), the one who leads
and rules the universe, the savior of all, the helmsman of every
ship (67). In the sanctuary of Aesculapius at Athens, Au-
gustus is united with that god and Health in an inscription
of adoration (Athenaion, v. p. 319); and in a similar precinct
at Epidaurus, the great centre of Aesculapian worship, one
inscription shows the people rendering their offerings to Livia,

1 glwOels éx [r]@u rodrduwv xal AurpwOe[é]s.
2 edxapiorodpev TO ['Ack]Anmid of &v rH perrty[oraxd wrolw.

30 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

the wife of Augustus; and another declares that the goddess
Drusilla, the daughter of Germanicus, had a priestess there
(Athenaion, x. p. 528).

Other considerations also may have contributed to this
assimilation. Horace tells us that under the reign of Augus-
tus each man may spend his days upon his own hillside,
training his vine as he will. Thence he returns to his wines,
and when the dessert is placed upon the table he gladly
addresses Augustus as god; with many a prayer, and with
abundant wine poured from the patera, he beseeches him, |
joining his godhead with the Lares, like Hellas mindful of
Castor and mighty Hercules (C. iv. 5. 29-36). The deity
among the Greeks, to whom this libation was poured after the
removal of the viands, was generally Agathodaemon (Athen.
xv. 47, 48), the giver of all good, whose connection with Hygeia
was acknowledged in the same rites: This Agathodaemon, or
Good Genius, in Egypt, is sometimes Kneph, or Chnubis, with
his emblem the snake, the god of Canopus, but assumes many
Protean forms as the representative of the sun, — sometimes
Osiris, sometimes Serapis, who is now called Aesculapius, now
Jove, now Osiris, now Pluto (Tacitus, Hist. iv. 84). Again, ac-
cording to Wilkinson (Ancient Egyptians, iii. 121 seq.), Horus,
the son of Osiris, has the title and attributes of Hat, or Aga-
thodaemon. His distinguishing title is the avenger, and the
support and defender of his father (as Augustus proclaimed
himself), and he was the type of legitimate succession in
Egypt, the representative of royalty and divine majesty ; and
as such there would be an especial desire to identify Augustus
with him, as Sharpe. says was actually done in the inscriptions
‘of Upper Egypt, where he was styled ‘the Son of the Sun.”
Horus was also “the director of the sacred boats,” under
which form was indicated “the governor of the world”; just
as Chnubis was Canopus “the pilot,” at the Canopic mouth
of the Nile, just east of Alexandria. |

With such numerous lines tending to ready union, and with
the quickness of imagination with which the people of the
cosmopolitan Alexandria availed themselves of such mytho-
logical combinations, it is not difficult to see why the phase

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 31

which the deification of Augustus assumed was that of the
god who presided over the main industry of the port, com-
merce over seas,— the god who cleared the sea of pirates,
and directed the merchants’ ventures safely across the waters ;
to whom the edbateria should be fittingly sacrificed. It is
this view which Philo has in mind throughout his description
cited above, and in this there appears to have been a sort of
transfer from the former dynasty of the Ptolemies. Alex-
ander the Great commanded that Hephaestion, after his death,
should be deified as a hero and worshipped as the god of.
mariners at the Pharos of Alexandria (Arr. An. vii. 23. 7;
Lucian de Calumn. 17); but when the lighthouse on that
island was built under Philadelphus, it was consecrated to
the parents of this king, the first of the dynasty of the Ptole-
mies, and they became the saviors of seamen (Lucian, Quom.
Hist. Conscrib. 62; Letronne, Recueil, 11. 528). Hence the
Sebastion probably took the place of the Pharos as the centre
of this cult.

That Augustus might be viewed under other phases,
whether in Alexandria or elsewhere, is nowise surprising in
that age, when complexity in unity and unity in complexity
formed the prevailing idea in relation to the godhead. Zeus
is the appellation which he receives in the inscription at Ten-
tyris, and in that of Catilius at Philae ; and it was as the
Olympian Zeus that Herod represented him at Caesarea.
Horace regards: him as a terrestrial Zeus, in C. 1. 12. 51,
lil. 5. 2; and Ovid in his Tristia, iii. 1. 35, and Fasti, i. 608.
On many coins, and in some inscriptions, he is supposed to
be one with Apollo, as C. I. G. 2903, Orelli 1436, and the
dazzling effulgence that streamed from the vessel of the
leader at Actium, while ascribed to Apollo by Propertius as
quoted above, is assigned by Virgil to Augustus himself (Aen.
vill. 681). This no doubt was a favorite aspect under which
he was regarded, and is one of the phases which we have
found established at Alexandria, where his aspect was likely
to be as Protean as the luminary which served as his physical
symbol. |

From all these combinations it becomes pretty clear that

32 Augustus C. Merriam, [1883.

the obelisks were erected before the temple in Alexandria,
not merely as ornaments, but as consecrations to the deity of
the temple and the deity of light, thus continuing the use to
which they had originally been put by the Egyptians. It has
already been suggested by G. L. Feuardent that a reason for
the selection of the crab to form the support to these shafts
may be found in the fact that the sea-crab was a frequent
emblem of Apollo, and especially of maritime towns and those
which received their name of Apollonia from that deity; a
connection which, like that of the dolphin, is no doubt to be
explained from the maritime side of the Apollonian worship.
In the case of the Alexandrians, too, it is noticeable that the
sun is in the zodiacal sign of the Crab at the period of the year
when the Nile begins to rise and pour the blessed waters of
Increase and plenty over the land, and the country becomes
a navigable sea. Then, too, the sun is Horus in the fullest
vigor of his strength, and then his rays rest longest upon the
earth; for it is the solstitial period, at whose close the sun
begins to imitate, as Macrobius tells us (Sat. i. 17), the retro-
grade motion of the crab, and Cancer was therefore styled
one of the two Gates of the Sun; and the Agathodaemon
serpent is described by Hephaestion as one of the three
Decani in Cancer. Even the obelisks which were conveyed
to Rome, Augustus did not regard as mere ornaments or
insignia of a conquered land. Both were consecrated by him
to the Sun (Solé donum dedit), and one of them served for
many years as a sun-dial.

Of this worship of Augustus as Epibaterios, in Alexandria,
during his lifetime, we have, as I interpret it, some curi-
ous confirmatory evidence from Suetonius. During the last
days of the Emperor’s life he determined to accompany Tibe-
rius, on his way to IIlyricum, as far as Beneventum. Fol-
lowing his usual habit of journeying by sea wherever it was
possible, he sailed down the coast of Latium, and, making a
circuit about the Bay of Naples, stopped for four days at Capri,
one of his favorite resorts. As he was passing by the Gulf —
of Puteoli on his way thither, it chanced that an Alexandrian
ship had just put into port, and the passengers and sailors,

Vol. xiv.] ‘The Caesareum at Alexandria, 33

dressed in white and crowned with garlands, were offering up
their efzbateria, or thanks for a prosperous voyage, and burn-
ing frankincense, singing in thanksgiving to their deity, the
Emperor, “Through him they lived, through him they voy-
aged the deep, through him they enjoyed both liberty and
fortune.”! It does not appear that they knew the object of

their thanks and praises to be passing by; and Suetonius
goes on to relate that the Emperor was so delighted with what
he had heard that he bestowed forty gold pieces upon each of
his companions, and exacted a promise from every one that
he would spend the entire amount in the purchase of Alex-
andrian merchandise, while he remained himself in a high
state of self-exaltation and of hilarity during the entire re-
mainder of his stay. In significant contrast with the feelings
excited in the breast of Augustus by this incident stands the
story related by Quintilian (vi. 3. 77), that when the people of
Tarraco sent deputies to announce that a palm had sprung up
upon his altar in their city, he replied with keen sarcasm, “It
is plain how frequently you have built your sacrificial fire
upon it.”

The hymn of the Alexandrian sailors has its analogue in
Horace’s ode (C. iv. §) written a short time before the obelisks
were erected in Alexandria, and begging Augustus to’ return
again to the city from the North: “Give back its light to thy
native land, O noble leader ; for when thy countenance beams
upon the people like the spring, more grateful glides the day
and more brightly shines the sun..... For the kine then
roam the pastures in safety, Ceres and fostering Increase nur-
ture the fields, and the sailors flit over a calm and peace-
ful sea.” This idea we find again expressed in a somewhat
different form on a coin struck in Asia, as early as 28 B.c.
(Cohen, No. 39). On one side is the legend LIBERTATIS
VINDEX ; on the other, Peace holds a caduceus, and by her
side rests a mystic coffer from which a serpent stands erect, —
all encircled by a crown of laurel.

1 Forte Puteolanum sinum praetervehenti vectores nautaeque de navi Alex-
andrina, quae tantum quod appulerat, candidati coronatique et tura libantes
fausta omina et eximias laudes congesserant, fer tllum se vivere, per lum navi-
gare, libertate atque fortunis per illum frui. Suet. Aug. 98.

34 Augustus C. Merriam, [ 1883.

Hence the evidence which seems to me to show conclu-
sively that the temple, before which the obelisks were erected,
was originally built and consecrated to Augustus by the Alex-
andrians, is, in the first place, the unmistakable testimony of
Philo, and, in the second, the particular phase of his worship
which is proved to have existed there during his lifetime.
Finally, the size and splendor of the structure itself, as detailed
by Philo, preclude the idea that it was the Heroum of Julius
mentioned by Dio; while the erection of the obelisks before it
proves that in B.c. 13-12 it was what Philo describes it, the
most conspicuous sanctuary in the city. Much, too, may be
attributed to the zeal of Barbarus in the Emperor’s behalf,
which is evinced by his inscription at Casinum some ten
years earlier,! and by the consecration at Philae as well as at
Alexandria in the same year, 13-12. That the temple in later
days, as time passed on, should have become a common shrine
of the Caesars, is natural enough, and Neroutsos discovered on
its site in 1875 an inscription containing the adoration of the
Decani of the pretorian cohort to the Caesars who were gods.
This is dated in the sixth year of Lucius Aurelius Verus,
A. D. 166, at which time at least ten of the Caesars had been
formally deified by decree of the Senate, besides a number of
the females of the family; but that the temple was originally
built and dedicated by Augustus to Julius, there does not
seem to be a particle of evidence.

1 See Obelisk-Crab Inscriptions, pp. 31-33:

2 Acxavav Trav év orbdy mpacroply Td mpockiynya Oedy Kaicdpuw ev rpde ry
oTh\y dvayéyparrat, Kaloapos A. Adpydov Otrpou ceBacrod Exry Ere. Bull. Cor.
Hell., 1878, p. 177.

Norte. — Some weeks after the foregoing paper was read before the Associa-
tion, through Mr. Davidson’s deservedly appreciative review in the American
Journal of Philology (iv. 219-222), I first became aware of the existence of
Professor Lumbroso’s “ L’ Egitto al Tempo dei Greci e dei Romani” (Rome,
1882), and learned that he had there devoted a chapter to “The Temple and
Hymn to Augustus.” Though the book was ordered at once, it did not reach
me until the last proofs of the foregoing pages had been returned to the printer.
Professor Lumbroso’s conclusions are at one with mine in many points, notably
in relation to the dedication of the temple to Augustus, the explanation of Epi-
baterios, and the worship of the Emperor as the god of seamen, and the interpre-

Vol. xiv.] The Caesareum at Alexandria. 35

tation of the passage from Suetonius, which he calls the hymn of the sailors.
He adds the following citation from Suidas, who appends it without explanation
to the word julepyov: PAvravip St Brodduer veoy péyay, 8orep odv jyulepyos
a&revclpOn. Ty SeBacrg St tredgcbn. With a proper acknowledgment of the
provoking ambiguity of the reference here, Lumbroso conjectures that it relates
to the Sebastion which was begun by Cleopatra for Antony, and completed by
the Alexandrians for Augustus. In our ignorance of such matters in the wide
empire of the East, we can say no more than that this conjecture is possible ;
but it deserves recording as a possible factor in the problem, pending the appear-
ance of some new monumental evidence which may settle the question.

Another point worth noticing here is some testimony which I have recently
met with, which proves conclusively that. Augustus began to be worshipped as a
god in Egypt immediately after the subjugation of the country. This testimony
is from two Demotic Stelae in the British Museum, translated by Revillout in
the Revue Egyptologique (1882, ii. 98-102). These stelae were originally from
Memphis, where they were erected by the orders of Augustus in the seventh
year of his reign. One is the memorial of Nofre-ho, wife of Pse-amen, the other,
of the latter’s brother, Imouth, members of the family of the high-priest of
Memphis. Their father and mother are known through the hieroglyphic stelae
translated by Dr. Birch in the Archaeologia, vol. xxxix. Imouth died in the last
year of Cleopatra’s reign, after a short incumbency of the high-priesthood, and
his brother was appointed in his place by Augustus, “in the first year of the
God, the son of the God, the great foreign God, Caesar Autocrator,” and as
‘prophet of Caesar.” These expressions are repeated in both memorials. It is
noticeable that this family was especially devoted to Imouthos, the Egyptian
Aesculapius, from whom Imouth received his name, from the fact that his mother,
long childless, prayed to that deity for offspring, until he appeared to her in a
dream and promised that her prayer should be fulfilled after the performance of
certain rites. The attributes of this Aesculapius are very similar to those given
by Philo to Augustus. See Birch, /oc. cé¢., p. 320, seg.

. A. C. MERRIAM.

Columbia College, June 5, 1884.

36 William D, Whitney, 1883,

Il.— Zhe Varieties of Predication.

By WILLIAM D. WHITNEY,
PROFESSOR IN YALE COLLEGE.

THE simplest complete sentence is composed of two mem-
bers, each a single word: the subject noun and the predicate
verb. For the noun as subject, there are various possible
substitutes, but not for the verb as predicate; in languages
like ours, there is no predication without a verb-form, and the
office of predication is the thing, and the only thing, that
makes a word a verb. There is no other acceptable, or. even
tolerable, definition of a verb than as that part of speech
which predicates. The point is one of no small consequence
in grammar, in view of the long-standing currency of other:
and false definitions ; and it may fairly be denied that one
who is not right in regard to it can call himself a gramma-
rian. What has confused men’s minds respecting it is espe-
cially the inclusion of infinitives and participles in the verbal
system, as the non-finite parts of the verb; while in fact they
are merely nouns and adjectives, retaining that analogy with
the verb in the treatment of their adjuncts which has been
lost by the great body of ordinary nouns and adjectives ;
and the line that separates them from the latter is indistinct
and variable.

The primary predicative relation, then, is that sustained by
the verb to its subject. Its formal establishment, by setting
apart certain combinations of elements to express it and it
alone, appears to have been the first step in the development
by our family of languages of the sentence out of those form-
less entities of expression which we are accustomed to call
roots. Any other variety of predication is of later date and
of secondary origin.

In the developing syntax of the language, namely, the
adjuncts of the predicate verb gain in logical significance at

Vol. xiv.] The Vartettes of Predication. 37

the cost of the verb itself; the latter forfeits more or less of
its primary value, and becomes a “verb of incomplete predi-
cation”: that is to say, in the actual usage of the language, it
is not enough in itself to stand as a member of the sentence,
but craves a complement ; though still indispensable, it has
lost its absoluteness and independence. In one direction of
this development, the extreme is reached when certain verbs
are attenuated in meaning to the value of a “copula,” or
assume the office of indicating merely the mental act of predi-
cating, the whole logical significance of the predication lying
in the added word or words, which, from being originally ad-
juncts of the verb, have now grown to be qualifiers of the
subject of the sentence. Thus we come to have predicate
nouns and adjectives; they are definable only as being by
means of the copula made descriptive of the subject, or predi-
cated of the subject through the instrumentality of a verb.

_ Then it comes to be possible to analyze every predicate
verb into two parts: the copula, which expresses the act of
predication, and a noun or adjective, which expresses the sub-
stance of what is predicated ; as, he 2s running, for he runs; he
was a sufferer, for he suffered. ‘This analysis is areal one, and
for certain purposes important ; but it is mere artificiality and —
pedantry to impose it, as some systems do, upon every verb, in
the description of the sentence. To do this is to do violence
to the history of language. No tongue ever arrived at the
possession of a copula by incorporating in a form-word the act
of predication. Languages which have no verbs have no
copula, as a matter of course; a word used predicatively is
their substitute for a verb: a word capable of standing in a
variety of uses, and pointed out as predicative in this partic-
ular case, either merely by the requirements of the sense as
gathered from the totality of expression, or by its position
relative to the other items of expression; or, it might possibly
be, by a “ particle” — which then has only to grow on to the
predicatively used word in order to make a predicate form, or
a verb. A copula verb is only made, as everything in lan-
guage that is formal is without exception made, by the gradual
wearing down to a formal value of verbs that originally had

38 William D. Whitney, [188 3.

material significance — the latest case close at hand being
the reduction of Lat. stadat to Fr. &ait; this is but a single
example of a most pervasive and characteristic mode of
growth in language.

Since the grammatical structure of language is indeed a
growth, and all its distinctions the product of gradual differ-
entiation, grammar is everywhere full of imperfect classifica-
tions and transitional forms and constructions ; and so it is
also in the department of predication. ‘The copula is, as we
may say, a verb of extirpated predication, and the words that
follow it are descriptive purely of the subject; others are
verbs of more or less incomplete predication, with predicative
complements, these latter being partly qualifiers of the sub-
ject, but partly also modifiers of the verb itself. Examples
are, he stands firm, she walks a queen, tt tastes sour, they look
weary. Such constructions occasion much difficulty to me-
chanical analyzers of the sentence, and the difficulty is sought
to be avoided in various ways. To see their true character,
we must apply the definition already laid down: the noun or
adjective is predicative so far as it is made through the verb
descriptive of the subject; it is an adjunct to the verb, or
adverbial, so far as it describes the action: of the verb itself.
Thus, she walks a queen means partly that ‘she has a queenly
walk,’ and partly that ‘she is shown by her walk to be a
queen.’ If it is worth while (and it seems to be so) to dis-
tinguish these transitional cases from the normal predicate,
and to mark them by a name, nothing can so suitably express
their double character as the term “ adverbial predicate.”

Yet another variety of predication comes into use, in con-
nection with the object of the verb. A most important kind
of incompleteness of mere verbs as predicates is shown by
those which demand the complement of a direct object.
This object originally (as seems altogether probable) denotes
that to or at which the action expressed by the verb imme-
diately directs itself; it finds incorporation in a special case,
the accusative, which then becomes the most frequent and
important of the oblique cases. Then verbs expressing cer-
tain actions come to be so usually followed by an expression

Vol. xiv.] The Varieties of Predication. 39

of the recipient of the action that they acquire the character
of “transitive” verbs, and appear to lack. something when no
object is added. And the. sentence-form subject-verb-object
becomes. as. prevalent in our languages as the sentence-form
subject-copula-predicate (noun, etc.).

Next are developed in many languages modes of. expression
which, without turning the sentence into a really compound
or complex one, yet virtually make the object a subject of fur-
ther predication. Thus, for example, J make him fall means
‘he falls, and I bring it about,’ or ‘I cause that he falls’;
and J see him fall, or I hear him fall, and so on, are of the
same character. Such phrases are not at the outset different
in character from the equivalent ones, J cause his fall, I see
hint falling, and the like; but out of them grows in some lan-
_ guages an important and conspicuous construction, that of an
infinitive with its subject-accusative (most used in Latin, of
the languages familiar to us) : a construction which is at first
strictly limited to a governing verb, but gradually acquires a
degree of independence, and becomes a new clause-form, and
almost a new sentence-form. A sort of analogy to this, and a
very instructive one, is seen in such English sentences (not
elegant, nor strictly correct, yet common enough in familiar
speech) as for him to do so would be quite insufferable, where
the zm has come to seem to us a virtual subject to zo do, in-
stead of object of the preposition foy, which connects it with
the adjective znzsufferable.

A case of kindred character, though not leading to so im-
portant results in the development of the sentence, is that by
which a noun or adjective (or its equivalent) is made directly
predicative to an object noun. Examples are, J make him a
ruler, I make it black. That the logical value of the words
ruler and black in these little sentences is that of predi-
cates to Azim and i¢ respectively, is past all question. The
fact appears from every test that can be applied, in the way
of transfer into other and equivalent forms of expression: ‘I
cause that ke be a ruler’ (change to a subordinate substantive
clause with its regular subject and predicate) ; ‘I cause z¢
to be dl/ack’ (change to accusative-subject with an infinitive

40 William D. Whitney, [1883.

copula and following predicate) ; ‘it is made black’ (change
to passive form, with object turned into subject, and the ad-
jective etc. becoming an ordinary predicate to it as such) ;
and so on. The predicate word is also often absorbable into
the verb itself: thus, ‘I blacken it’; which is analogous to
‘I fell it, i.e. ‘make it fall’ — one of the points of contact
between denominative and causative formations. That is to
say, fell is analyzable into fa//, as the material part of the
predication, and a copula of causation instead of the ordinary
copula of existence ; and d/acken, in like manner, into the same
copula with the adjective d/ack, as the material part of the
predication, And not only logically, but by fundamental defi-
nition, are the words of which we are treating predicates ;
since they are, like the other cases considered above, words
which by and through the verb of the sentence are made de-
scriptive of something : only this time of the object, instead
of the subject. Here then we have one more kind of predi-
cate, quite different from the rest; if we name it after its
essential characteristic, we shall call it an “objective predi-
cate,” or “predicate of the object.” It occurs oftenest and
most plainly with the verb make, ‘but there are many others
with which it may appear: thus, verbs which virtually involve
the idea of making, as “I choose him ruler,” “they appointed
him consul”; verbs of considering and the like, as ‘‘ we
thought him honest” ; “men ca// her handsome” ; and various
less classifiable cases, instanced by “I saw her safe home,”
“we heard the water trickling,” “he keeps his mouth shut”;
and soon. The construction shades off into one in which the
added adjective or noun is merely appositive, as in “they
found him sleeping,” and the like.

There is also in English, as in some other languages, the
interesting case of a verb used factitively, or in the sense of
causing or making by means of the action represented by it
in its ordinary use, and necessarily accompanied by an objec-
tive predicate belonging to its object: thus, “he wzfed his
face dry,” “you will walk yourself lame,” “he struck his ene-
my dead at his feet,” and soon. To trace the beginnings and
development of this idiom in English, and to define its limits,

Vol. xiv.] Lhe Varieties of Predication. 4I

would be an interesting subject for a special study in the his-
tory of English constructions. |

This last kind of predicate, the objective, calls for the more
notice, inasmuch as it is apt to be either ignored, or indis-
tinctly and inconsistently treated, in the grammars. I have
not noticed that any English grammar (excepting, of course,
my own) gives an account of the construction accordant with
that above. Goold Brown, for example, after noting one or
two cases, and the difficulties of other grammarians in dispos-
ing of them, says, “I pronounce them cases of apposition.”
K. F. Becker calls the noun or adjective thus used simply a
“factitive”: “The object is conceived as an effect of the ac-
tion ; this relation is called the relation of the factztzve.” He
does not, so far as I see, use the term “ factitive object”; yet
the language quoted, and his putting his treatment of it
under the head of “the object,” fairly justify those who have
so called it after him and as if by his authority. This both
ignores the essentially predicative character of the construc-
tion, and leaves out of sight the employment in it of an adjec-
tive ; since no adjective can properly be called the object of a
verb. But Kiihner likewise, in both his Latin and Greek
grammars, puts the case under the head of “two accusa-
tives”; as if an accusative object with an adjective describ-
ing it could properly be so classified. He calls, to be sure, ©
the second accusative an “accusative of the predicate,” thus
recognizing its real character; but it is not noticed under the
head of predicative constructions. Even Madvig’s account is
open to criticism. He says that a verb may have, “ besides
its object, the accusative of a substantive or adjective, which
constitutes a predicate of the object, and serves to complete
the notion of the verb (strictly speaking, this accusative forms
an apposition to the object).” The essential syntactical rela-
tion is here accurately defined in the first instance ; but the
definition is rather spoiled by the added parenthesis, which
seems to imply that in a higher sense the relation is apposi-
tive rather than predicative. If Madvig had said, instead, that
the construction is by its historical origin appositive, and still
shades off into that, he would have been more nearly right.

42 Charles F. Smith, [1883.

IIL — On Southernisms.

By CHARLES F. SMITH, Pu.D.,
PROFESSOR IN VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY.

Tue South has not been, like the West, much given to the
coining of new words. The nature of the people, their institu-
tions, especially that of slavery, and the fact that they were an
agricultural people, have made them particularly conservative
in all respects. But for those things that we learned from
negro nurses, and from which we rarely in after life entirely
free ourselves, the South would be hardly second to New
England in the preservation of pure English speech ; not ex-
actly, it is true, of the English of the day, but of the English
speech of fifty or a hundred years ago. Even the negroisms
are rarely anything but survivals, or oftener corruptions, of
old usage; and indeed they are responsible for comparatively
few of these corruptions, having simply preserved, not made
them. This was to be expected, since the poorer classes in
rural districts have invariably a very limited vocabulary, which
they hand down, almost unchanged and unenlarged, from gen-
eration to generation. When we hear a common countryman
or mountaineer use a word not familiar to us, we may be sure
that in most cases it is not a new word, but belongs to the
dialect of one or two hundred years ago. Some one, writing
recently of a trip to some Southern mountains, said the dia-
lect impressed him as if he had been suddenly transferred to
Chaucer’s time. I am sure that, if a careful observer were to
spend some months in the rural and mountainous districts of
some of the older Southern States, as Virginia, North Caro-
lina, South Carolina, and Georgia, he would be well repaid by
the stock of old words he would collect from the folk-speech.

Most of the peculiarities of pronunciation in the language
of educated Southerners are simply, I think, the relics of a
former usage, as for instance 4aiy, pronounced on the sea-
board of South Carolina often 4éar (cf. Spenser, who rhymes

Vol. xiv.] On Southernisms. 43

heare with appeare and deare); and here again we see, perhaps,
the source of the well-known Southern pronunciation of dear,
hear, near, etc.; or cyar, gyarden, etc., in Virginia and South
Carolina, which probably date from a very early period of the
language and survive only here. I think a close observation
of the language of fairly well educated people of the rural
districts of the South would show both words and style to be
in a greater degree archaic than is the case with the same
class anywhere else; that many forms or sounds obsolete else-
where would be current in their daily speech, and still more in
their writing. On the other hand, I think the South has con-
tributed fewer new terms than any other part of our country.
This state of things finds its best explanation, I think, in ad-
dition to what has been mentioned above, in the reading of
the class just referred to. I know a gentleman from one of
the most retired districts of South Carolina, who is pretty
well educated and is a great reader, but has few books. He
has, I remember, Scott’s novels, a collection of British poets,
a copy of Shakespeare, a few medical works, and perhaps some
other books, but not very many. His custom is to commence’
with the first volume of Scott, for instance, and read them all
through, and, when he has finished the whole set, begin over
again. Magazines and reviews he rarely sees, and the later
poets and novelists he scarcely knows, It would not be
strange if his language had a flavor of Scott.

W. H. Page, writing of “An Old Southern Borough,” in the
Atlantic for May, 1881, says concerning the class of which I
have been speaking: “ You will find old gentlemen who know
Shakespeare and Milton, but not one in a thousand knows
anything of Longfellow and Tennyson. Not unfrequently,
much to your surprise, you may learn that one of these guar-
dians of the post-office has read Byron and Burns annually
for the last ten years, and he is perfectly familiar with every
character in Scott. When he writes or makes a speech, he
leaves his inert conversational tone entirely, and employs a
diction and manner that have an antique Addisonian dignity
and profusion.” !

1 Cf. ‘‘The Contributors’ Club,’’ Atlantic, September, 1880, and Prof. Schele De
Vere, Americanisms, pp. 321, 511, 541.

44 Charles F. Smith, [1883.

I do not propose to discuss here such terms as heap,
mighty, pert, right, reckon, sick, slick, etc., which are generally
known to be in common use at the South, though not alto-
gether peculiar to that section; I propose rather to record
the terms which are at least not generally known in the signi-
fication here given, and most of which, if mentioned in the
dictionaries, are marked obsolete. Many of these usages are
of constant occurrence, and known to every Southerner; and
in not a few cases it was a surprise to me to learn that the
usage was not given in the dictionaries, and current every-
where. In the case of about half the words I give here, the
usage is somewhat rare, and confined to certain localities. I
have tried to guard against mistakes in bringing forward here
usages which might be familiar to parts of the country with
which I was not well acquainted, by submitting lists of the
words to friends, professors in different parts of the New
England, Middle, and Western States; and yet I expect,
when this paper appears in print, to find some of the usages
here presented more generally known in the North than I had
anticipated.

The limits of the paper allow me to give only a part of my
list of such usages. I hope, by means of personal observation,
and by correspondence with those who I feel sure will be
interested in the subject, that I can in course of time attain
some valuable results. The time spent upon Southernisms
now, as well as upon Southern usages in general, is not ill
spent, because many of these idioms are already passing out
of use; and as we travel more and trade more, and inter-
course between all parts of the country becomes more gen-
eral, that which is peculiar to us will, in large measure,
die out.

1. Bat the eyes, ‘to wink.’ Quite common in the South. “‘ Purithy
Emma,’ se’ she, ‘you hol’ your head high; don’t you bat your eyes
to please none of ’em,’ se’ she.” J. C. Harris, Century, May, 1883,
p. 146. Halliwell and Wright give af, ‘to wink,’ from Derbyshire,
and datt, ‘to wink, or move the eyelids up and down,’ from Cheshire.
It is no doubt the same with the root of English fo deat.

Vol. xiv.] | On Southernisms. 45

2. Blink milk, ‘milk somewhat soured.’ West Virginia. It is evi-
dently a transfer of the term from d/inked-ale, ‘sharp or stale ale.’

3. Brotus (pronounced like brought us). According to Bartlett’s
Dictionary of Americanisms this is a word used exclusively by “Negro
market women, itinerant street hucksters, and schoolboys in Charles-
ton, S. C., and means the superfluity of a helping, the running over of
a measure which has been heaped up and shaken down. It is the
gratuitous surplusage which the vendor gives his customer for his
patronage.” The Creole word for the same thing in New Orleans is
lagniappe. It is probably the same as drotts, ‘ fragments or leav-
ings’ (North of England), as given by Halliwell and Wright.

4. Buck, ‘to bow or bend.’ Professor Schele De Vere (Ameri-
canisms, 327) says, “The fact that players at Three Card Monte,
as it is most commonly called, are said to duck at Monte, causes
the familiar phrase of ducking at anything, in the sense of putting
forth one’s whole energy”; and he quotes the following from a San
Antonio paper of 1870: “You'll have to duck at it like a whole
team, gentlemen, or you won’t hear the whistle near your diggings for
many a year.”’

This explanation is not satisfactory, and I feel sure that the one
phrase comes not from the other, but both from a common and very
old source. In fact, in these phrases, and in the phrase ducked and
gagged, as well as to buck, used of a Texas horse, we have, I think,
what remains of duck, the intermediate form between A. S. ddgan and
the intransitive duckle,? ‘to bend or buckle to a thing.’ This duck/e
is derived, it is true, as some lexicographers say, from 44gan, but as a
diminutive from éuck, which bears the same relation to ddégan that
sith biicken, Low German bucken, does to biugan, biegen. Compare
sith aufbuckeln in Schmeller’s Bayrisches Worterbuch.

The evidence for the form Juck in this sense in Old English is as
follows. Halliwell gives ducker, “a bent piece of wood, especially that
on which a slaughtered animal is suspended.” He adds, “Hence the
phrase as bent as a bucker. The term is applied also to a horse’s hind
leg. (Suffolk.)” He also gives Jowk and dowked, ‘bent, crooked’
(North), and dowk-iron, ‘a circular piece of iron which lines the
interior of a cart or wagon-wheel’ (West). Compare also buxom,

1 To spring forward with quick, short, plunging leaps, and come down stiff-legged with
the head between the forelegs, and as near the ground as possible.
2 Compare: And as the wretch whose fever-weakened joints,
Like strengthless hinges, buckle under life. (Shakespeare.)
And, —Go, buckle to the law. (Dryden.)

46 Charles F. Smith, [ 1883.

earlier bucksome, Ger. biegsam. Further, also, Scotch duckie, ‘a
spiral shell,’ which Jamieson connects with Ger. ducken, ‘ to bend.’

Now as ducked in the phrase ducked and gagged means clearly
‘bowed or bent,’ the exact equivalent of gebiickt; as the phrase /o
buck at, quoted from the Texas paper, is precisely equivalent to our
buckle to or buckie down to, namely, ‘to bend down forward for the
purpose of putting out one’s whole energy in pushing or pulling a
thing’; as the main idea in the ducking of the Texas horse seems to
be ‘bow or bend’ (cf. the Bavarian sich aufbuckeln, ‘to raise the back’
like a cat); it seems to me pretty clear, considering also the similar
uses of what seems to be the same form of the stem in old or provin-
cial English, as given above, that we have in duck the form inter-
mediate between ddgan and buckle. No etymologist seems to have
taken this view.

5. Carry, ‘to lead or escort.’ This is common everywhere in the
South. The president of a Southern university spoke recently of
“a committee of two of the faculty authorized to carry around with
them a man to estimate the damage done to the university property,”
and a professor in the same institution said he had “ been carried all
over College, from bottom to top, by the president.” To
carry a horse to water is a common performance. ‘This usage seems
.to have Bible authority, for we read, Lev. iv. 21, “ He shall carry forth
the bullock without the camp and burn him”; and 2 Chr. xiv. 15,
“They smote also the tents of cattle and carried away sheep and
camels in abundance”; and again, Gedaliah’s duty was “ ‘that he
should carry Jeremiah home” (Jer. xxxix. 14).

6. Coat, ‘a petticoat.’ Still used in the South. So undercoat in
the same sense. “Cousin Sally Dilliard and Mose, like genteel folks,
they walked the log, but my wife, like.a darned fool, hoisted her coats
and waded through.” Henry Watterson, Oddities of Southern Life,
p. 478. Bailey and Johnson both give coat for a woman’s petticoat.
Halliwell says that it isso used in Cumberland, and adds that any
‘gown was formerly called a coat. Cf. Romaunt of the Rose: “And
‘she hadde on a-cote of grene of cloth of Gaunt”; also Locke’s “a
child in coats.” Avfriend writes me that the word was “so used a
generation or two ago in seaboard Massachusetts.”

7. Collards is, as Bartlett says, “a corruption of colewort, a kind
of cabbage grown at the South, the leaves of which do not forma
close head.”” Webster says co/ewort in this sense is obsolete ; but in
the South no word, as no dish, is better known among the poorer
whites and negroes than collards or greens. Uncle Remus frequently

Vol. xiv.] On Southernisms. 47

mentions co//ards ; e. g. “ Brer Rabbit make so free wid de man’s ¢a/-
fard patch dat de man tuk’n sot‘a trap fer ole Brer Rabbit”’ (p. 123).
Gilmore, M/y Southern Friends, p. 54, speaks of “the poor trash who
scratched a bare subsistence from a sorry patch of beans and col/lards.”
Halliwell and Wright give cod/ard for colewort in the East of England,
and collets for young cabbages in Berkshire. Spenser speaks of “ fat
colworts and comforting perseline.”’

8. Crope, preterit and past participle of creep, is common among
the negroes and poorer whites. It was once used by a pupil of mine.
Uncle Remus (p. 55) says, “ Brer Tarrypin he crope under de bed.”
Cf. Piers Plowman (Prol. 186 = 370), ‘‘ We crope under benches.”
Halliwell quotes from Gower (MS. Soc. Antiq. 134), “ This lady who
was crope aside, As sche that wolde hireselven hide.” ‘ By that time
the little thing had crope three or four miles off.’ South.

9g. Dansy, says Prof. Schele De Vere, “is used in Pennsylvania of
persons who are failing from old age.” It is still used also in Virginia.
Grose quotes dansy-headed (Norfolk and Suffolk) as ‘ giddy, thought-
less.’ It is Scotch also; cf. Jamieson, donsie or doncie, meaning ‘ dull
and dreary’ (Hamilton), ‘stupid’ (Roxb.). The noun dansie or
dancie means in Scotch ‘a stupid, lubberly fellow,’ and has perhaps
the same origin as Engl. dunce, and from the noun comes, no doubt,
the adjective with its easily derived meanings both of ‘saucy’ and

‘stupid ov dull.’ The latter signification is the one nearest the Vir-
ginia usage, where it applies, I believe, only to a feeling of physical
dulness or weariness or weakness.

10. Ding and dinged, moderate forms.of an oath, about like darn,
peculiar to the South, according to Prof. Schele De Vere and Bartlett.
“‘ Tf I ever takes another (thrashing) for her or any of ’em, may I be
.dinged, and then dug up and dinged over again.” (Henry Watterson,
Oddities, etc., 338.) ‘ Mr. Bill Williams said ‘he’d be dinged ef he
had had a hot waffle, even when thar was waffles, sense that dad-
blasted Yankee had moved up to old Miss Spouter’s eend.’” (Ibid.,
317.) Halliwell gives it as a moderated imprecation. It is doubtless
a figurative use of the obsolete ding, ‘to throw or dash with violence.’
‘Cf. Middle English dimgen, ‘to knock,’ Scotch ding, ‘to beat.’ The
verb is not found in Anglo-Saxon. Cf. also Milton’s “ ding the book
:a.coit’s distance from him.”

11. Doted, ‘decayed inside,’ of a tree. It .is quite common in
South Carolina and other Southern States. A correspondent in Ohio
“has heard it, but not often.” Halliwell gives doated, ‘ beginning to
decay.’ Johnson quotes Howell (1650), “And the dofard trees serve

48 Charles F. Smith, [ 1883.

for firing,” where dofard is evidently the same as dofed. I think
that Nares makes a mistake in defining do/ed as ‘stumpy’ in the
following passage : —

Then beetles could not live | Upon the hony bees,

But they the drones would drive | Unto the dated trees.
It must mean ‘ decayed or hollow.’

12. Fill, ‘to draw.’ ‘This usage, derived from the old word ///,,
‘shafts,’ is, so far as I know, confined to North Carolina. Bartlett
mentions ///s as “a common mispronunciation of ¢hz//s” ; but Shake-
speare has (Tr. and Cr., iii. 2), “An you draw backward, we ’ll put you
i’ the 7#Z/s.” So in the Merchant of Venice, ii. 2, the folio of 1623
reads, “‘ Thou hast got more haire on thy chin then Dobbin, my pfz-
horse, has on his taile.” Nares gives also these examples: “I will
Give you the forehorse place, and I will be I’ th’ 2s,” from Woman
Never Vexed, 1632; ‘ Acquaint you with Jock, the forehorse, and
Fibb, the 7/-horse,” from Heyward and Rowland, Fortune by Sea
and Land. Johnson quotes the word from Mortimer’s Husbandry,
and Halliwell has ///er, ‘ shaft-horse,’ and j#//-dil/s, ‘the chain-tugs
to the collar of a cart-horse by which he draws.’

13. Forenent or Forenenst, ‘opposite to, gegeniiber.’ Used still in
rural parts of the South not affected by immigration, so that it is cer-
tainly a relic of the speech brought over from the mother country.
According to Prof. Schele De Vere, it is used in Pennsylvania. Web-
ster says it is obsolete, quoting Fairfax, “The lands /forenenst the
Greekish shore.” It is Scotch and Irish. Cf. Schele De Vere, and
Benet’s Lssay on Americanisms. Talliwell gives it also from North
of England.

14. Frazle, ‘to unravel cloth’; used also of anything coming apart
into strands. It is used everywhere in the South, and I was surprised
to find that it was not in the dictionaries and in good use everywhere.
We have also the expression a// frazled out, figuratively used, about
equivalent to ‘used up.’ Halliwell has 40 frazie, ‘to unravel cloth,’
and /razlings, ‘ threads of cloth torn or unravelled,’ East.

15. Fresh, “used locally in Maryland for a stream distinct from the
tide water, as ‘ Allen’s Fresh.’ The lands in Talbot County, Md., are
divided into /rveshes and sa/ts." (Bartlett.) Halliwell gives fresh as a
Kentish word, meaning ‘a little stream or river nigh the sea.’ Fresh
for ‘freshet or overflow,’ in which sense Johnson quotes it from
Grose (North) and Crutwell (Lincolnshire), is still common among
the lower classes of the South. Milton, as well as Shakespeare, uses
it to denote a pool of fresh water: “I'll not show him where the

Vol. xiv.] On Southernisms. 49

quick freshes are.” Tempest. In Virginia it means also ‘a small
tributary of a larger river,’ and Beverley (story of Virginia) already
mentions “ the /reshes of Pawtomeck river.” Freshet seems to have
been once used in the sense in which fresh is now used in Maryland.
Cf. “ Now love the /reshef and then love the sea.” Browne, Brit.
Past. (1613). So Milton: “ All fish from sea or shore, /reshet or
purling brook.”” See Schele De Vere, p. 475.

16. Lrumenty, fromety, or furmity, ‘wheat boiled in milk, to which
sugar and spice are added’; used in Maryland, Virginia, North Caro-
lina, and other Southern States. It is given in the dictionaries, but I
cannot find that.it is now known anywhere in the North. Beverley
(History of Virginia) defines homony as ‘ Indian corn soaked, broken
in a mortar, husked, and then boiled in water over a gentle fire for
ten or more hours, to the consistency of furmify.’ Frumenty is un-
doubtedly the. original form, and derived from Latin frumentum. Dr.
Gower (Todd’s Johnson) says: “ Frumenty makes the principal enter-
tainment of all our country wakes. Our country people call it jr
mity.” Nares, who says it is still a favorite dish in the North of
England, gives examples from 1585 down, with the various forms, —
Jurmenty, furmentie, furmity, furmety.

17. Galled. Galled spots in a field are places where the soil has
been washed away, or has been so exhausted that nothing will grow.
The word is common in South Carolina, and perhaps generally in the
South. Halliwell gives “ gaués, ‘spots where grass, corn, or trees have
failed.’ (South.)” Wright has “ ga//s, ‘springs or wet places in a
field, and bare places in a crop.’” Nares quotes from Norden’s
Surveiors Dialogue (1610): “I see in some meddows gau/ly places,
where litle or no grasse at all groweth, by reason (as I take it,) of the
too long standing of the water.” Johnson quotes from Ray, Ox the
Creation: “If it should fall down in a continual stream like a river,
it would ga// the ground, wash away plants by the roots, &c.” I think
this usage is transferred from the ordinary one of gaé/, ‘to wear away
by friction, to break the skin by rubbing,’ to a spot in a field where
the soil has been worn away by constant tilling and the action of
water; and after the meaning ‘an unproductive spot’ was once
established, it was then applied to wet spots also.

18. Hoip, the old preterit and past participle of 4e/f, is still used
among the lower classes in many parts of the South, and from this
they even form an infinitive 40 4olp (hope), instead of fo help. “Con-
siderably 40/p up”’ is a phrase often heard ; cf. “A man is well holpe
vp that trusts to you.” Com. of Err, iv. 1. Uncle Remus (p. 112)

50 Charles F. Smith. "[ 1883.

says: “Brer Bar, he Aopfe Miss Meadows bring de wood.” “I
holped him ter plow las’ month,” writes C. E. Craddock, AMantic,
May, 1883. “But it can’t be hoped, and so I takes the responsibility.”
H. W., Oddities, etc., 358. Cf. Macbeth i. 6: “But he rides well ; and
his great love, sharp as his spur, hath 4o/p him to his home before us.”
Halliwell has Aoap, ‘ helped,’ from Essex. Lolpen, the past participle,
is found in the Bible, Bacon, Spenser, etc.

19. Hone, ‘to pine or long for anything,’ is not yet obsolete in the
South, though perhaps rare. Uncle Remus (p. 198) says: “ Some-
times w’en I git kotch wid emptiness in de pit er de stummuck, an’
git ter fairly Aonén’ arter sump’n w’at got substance in it, den it look
like unto me dat I kin stan’ flat-footed an’ make more cle’r money
eatin’ pies dan I could, if I wuz ter sell de las’ one twixt dis an’
Chrismus.” Johnson gives the following example from Burton’s
Anatomy: “His heart is still with her, to talk of her, admiring and
commending her, lamenting, honing, wishing himself anything for her
sake.” Halliwell gives it as from Devonshire.

20. Yag,‘to prick or pierce with a thorn or any sharp-pointed
thing.’ Common in various parts of the South. So in South Carolina,
a man in swimming was said to have been “ Jagged by a snag.” It
seems to be Scotch, for Jamieson gives 40 jag, ‘to job or pierce,’ and
the noun jag or jagg, ‘a prick with a sharp instrument.’ “ Affliction
may gie him a fagg and let the wind out o° him, as out o’ a cow that’s
eaten wet clover.” feart of Midlothian. ‘The form often heard in
South Carolina and elsewhere is 7oog which means rather ‘to punch, ,
ane may be the same as jag.

. Foggle, ‘to shake up and down or move up and down on a
olank suspended between supports at each end.’ From this we have
the word jogg/ing-board to indicate the contrivance itself. Yoge/ing is
a favorite amusement of children in South Carolina, and the joggling-
board on the front piazza is a common sight. As a large part of my
childhood was spent on the joggling-board, I supposed, till I looked it
up, that the word was in all the dictionaries. Halliwell has 40 joggle,
*to shake,’ and yogg/e in our sense is perhaps a misapplication of this.
The word in Webster for shaking up and down is 7igg/e, which we do
not know in this sense in the South. ¥ogg/e seems to be the more
correct form for shaking, or for any unsteady motion.

. ower or jour, quite common in the South in the sense of
persistent quarrelling or scolding. | It seems to be also an old Eastern
Massachusetts usage, but is rare there, I hear, if still known. This I
take to bé the word used by C.-E. Craddock in‘a dialect: tale (Afan-

Vol. xiv.] On Southernisms. 51

tic, January, 1880): “ But law, I can’t stand hyar all day jozzn’ ’bout
Rufus Chadd.” Halliwell and Wright give jouring, ‘a scolding,’
(Devonshire), and Nares, who thinks it may have been coined from
juro, quotes from Hayman’s Quodlibets (1628) :

I pray that Lord that did you hither send,

You may your cursings, swearings, jourings, end.
Wright, however, takes jouving here to mean ‘ scolding,’ and no doubt
correctly.

23. Kink, the old Scotch word, is still used in West Virginia, and
perhaps elsewhere in the South, of a child’s losing its breath by cough-
ing especially, or crying, or laughing. It is so defined by Bailey and
Halliwell. Cf. the old Dutch hincken, kichen, Germ. keichen; also
the obsolete or provincial Eng. 4i7k-host, Germ. Ketchhusten. Todd's
Johnson surmises, it seems to me probably enough, that chin-cough,
‘whooping-cough,’ is more properly 2##-cough, which would be exactly
equivalent to Aink-host, Germ. Keichhusten.

24. Mang means in West Virginia the ‘slush about a pig-sty.’ Hal-
liwell has mang, ‘a mash of bran and malt,’ from mang, A.S. mengan,
‘to mix ov mingle,’ cf. mang-corn. The West Virginia usage has the
‘same source as the word in Halliwell. A student of Vanderbilt Uni-
versity (from West Tennessee) was heard to say recently: “ Well, if I
fail on my examination, Ill have the consolation that I am in the mang
[i. e. ‘the crowd’], as the old people in my country say,” exactly
Germ. Menge. Cf. Scotch mix one’s mang, ‘to join in anything.’

25. Misery, ‘a pain’; universal among the negroes and lower
classes in the South. A friend writes me that old people in the West
use it so. “Mrs. Johns, sitting on the extreme edge of a chair and
fanning herself with a pink calico sun-bonnet, talked about her hus-
band and a misery in his side and in his back, and how he felt ita
comin’ on nigh on ter a week ago.” C. E. Craddock, Atlantic, May,
1878. Halliwell gives misery, ‘constant bodily pain’ (East).

26. Poor is pronounced fore almost universally in the South ; in
fact, I.should consider this pronounciation one of our shibboleths, —
and hence I give it, though one (and only one) of my correspondents
(from Massachusetts) writes me that he is familiar with it. “ Simon
Burney air a mighty ove old man.” C. E. Craddock, in the Atlantic
Monthly. “ And now they want to turn it all on my fore daughter.”
H. Watterson, Oddities, etc. It is at léast as old as Piers Plowman
(Prol. 83) : “ Pleyned hem to the bischope that hire parisshes were
tore.” So repeatedly, if not invariably, in Piers Plowman.

27. Priminary, ‘a predicament or difficulty,’ given by Bartlett, on

52 Charles F. Smith, [ 1883.

the authority of Sherwood’s Georgia, as Southern. I am not ac-
quainted with the usage, but it has old English, as well as Scotch
authority. It is of course, as Johnson says, from premunire (Lat.
pracmonere), the old writ in the common law. Johnson gives as
second meaning ‘the penalty so incurred,’ and third, ‘a difficulty, a
distress ’ (“a low ungrammatical word”). Halliwell gives, from the
North, priminery, ‘ difficulty.’ Jamieson has primanaire.

28. Rip, ‘a lean horse,’ not uncommon in South, though a low word.
“There ’s an old 77 down there in the stable ; you may take him and
ride him to hell, if you want to,”’ said an irate Carolina farmer to a
foraging party during the war. Johnson gives vf, ‘refuse,’ as “a
rip of a horse.” Wright gives it as ‘a lean animal’; cf. Germ.
Gerippe. .

29. Seepy and seepage. Prof. Schele De Vere says that seep means,
in New England, ‘to run through fine pores or any very small open-
ings’; but the adjective seepy and the noun seepage, common in West
Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, &c., are not known to any of my cor-
respondents in the North or West. Cable says, in one of his Creole
tales : “When the Anglo-American flood that was presently to burst in
a crevasse of immigration upon the Delta had thus far been felt as slip-
pery seepage, which made the Creole tremble for his footing.” Seepy
land means in Virginia, Maryland, &c., land under cultivation, not
well drained. It is no doubt the same as séfe, ‘to drain or drip,’
which Halliwell and Grose quote. Worcester, in his Supplement, gives
seepy as “Scotch and U. S.,” and quotes from Johnson “ seapage and
sewage.” The root appears in the A.S. sipen-fge, ‘ lippus, trief-augig.’

30. Servant was the common Southern euphemism for ‘slave’ in
the ante-bellum times. Servant (with the contrast “ Aired servant’)
and dondman are the Bible words; but in Jer. ii. 14 and Rev. xviii
13 we have slave.

31. Skew-bald, same as ‘piebald,’ given as obsolete in Webster, is
still sometimes used of a horse in the South. Nares says it is still
used in that sense in Cheshire, and quotes from Cleaveland’s Poems of
1651: “You shall find | Og the great commissary, and which ‘is
worse, | Th’ apparatour upon his skew-bal’d horse.”

32. Slashes, ‘wet or swampy grounds overgrown with bushes.’
The slashes of Hanover Co., Virginia, became famous as the birthplace
of Henry Clay. Bartlett quotes from Beverley’s Virginia: ‘‘ Although
the inner lands want the benefit of game (which, however, no pond or
slash is without),” &c. It is of the same origin with Halliwell’s s/ashy,
‘wet and dirty,’ and with the Scotch sash, ‘to work in what is wet

Vol. xiv. ] On Southernisms. 53

and flaccid.” Doubtless the noun was used in England at the time of
the settlement of Virginia, but I find no trace of it.

33. Sack, ‘a luncheon or hasty repast,’ is, I believe, despite the fact
that one, and only one, of my correspondents (Massachusetts) knows
it (and he has lived in the South), a Southern expression. . “‘ You’d
better stay en take a snack wid me, Brer Fox,’ sez Brer Rabbit, sez
he.”” Uncle Remus, p. 99. Johnson gives it as common in this sense
in various parts of the North of England. So Jamieson has both
snack and snatch in this sense. It is the old English sack, ‘to
snatch,’ The expression /o go snacks, i.e. ‘to go shares,’ is the com-
mon one in the South, while fo go snucks is the usual form in the
North and West ; though the former is still used in Massachusetts.

34. Sobbed or sobby, ‘soaked or wet,’ commonly applied to land,
though also to other things, is the Southern word for soggy, which we
never or seldom use, I think. ‘The high lands are sobéed and boggy.”
Charleston letter to Mew York Herald. “Cranberries will grow in
sobby ground, where nothing else can be raised.” JVorfolk Fournal.
Sobby bears the same relation to sod, ‘to sop or suck up’ (which occurs
in Mortimer’s Husbandry, and seems now to be obsolete except in
Suffolk), as soggy does to soak. Dickens has soppy. Halliwell gives
sobbed, ‘soaked with wet’ (Warwick). Cf. Bartlett and Schele De
Vere. ;

35. Stfob, ‘a small post or stake oy stump of a shrub,’ commonly so
used in many, if not all, parts of the South. It is not elegant, however.
Wright has sfod, ‘a post, a small stake’; so also Jamieson has both
stob and stad in this sense ; cf. Germ. S/ad.

36. Stile. To stile a gun is to aim it, as a cannon, or to direct a
small gun by putting it on supports. Halliwell has ¢o stile, ‘to direct,
as a gun’; Jamieson, stile, ‘to place or set’; to s¢i/e cannons, ‘to
plant them.’

37. Strut, ‘to be over-full, to swell out.’ One of my correspond-
ents from New York marked this as common in that State; two
others from there do not know it; nor do any others of my correspond-
ents know it. It is not common, but still used at the South ; so said
a negro nurse recently. Webster quotes from Dryden: ‘ The bellying
canvas strutted with the gale.” Again Dryden: “The goats with
strutting dugs shall homeward speed.”’ Cf. Germ. strofzen. Todd’s
Johnson quotes from Drayton: “That makes each udder strat abun-
dantly with milke.” Promptorium Parvulorum: “ Strowtyn, or bocyn
owt ” (‘to swell or bend out’).

38. Swash. Bartlett says: “In the Southern States of America. a

54 Charles F. Smith, [ 1883.

name given to a narrow sound or channel of water lying within a
sand-bank, or between that and the shore.’”’ In this sense, I think it
is entirely Southern. “It is said they took refuge in the swash be-
hind the house.” Vew Orleans Bee, 1869 (De Vere). Wright gives
swash (2), ‘a crack or channel in the sand made by the sea.’

39. Swingeing or swinging, ‘huge, great,’ is quite common in the
South ; used generally by children. A “swinger” in the same sense
is, I believe, common enough in the North. It is very old, as the
examples cited by Todd's Johnson show: “I wote not who doth
rule the winds and bear the swinging sway.” ‘Turberville, 1567. “A
swinging storm will sing you such a lullaby.” B. & Fl. Nares quotes
from the ist. of Fack Horner: ‘ Quoth Jack, now let me live or
die, | I'll fight this swinging boar.”

40. Suchor so... as that, instead of such or so. . . that. Iven-
ture to record this as a Southernism, because only one of my corre-
spondents (from Massachusetts) knows it. ‘The Faculty are favorable
to such a reduction of studies as ‘hat a man can do his work well.”
Chancellor of Vanderbilt University. ‘It is strictly a local measure,
the bill being so drawn as ¢hat it applies only to Nashville.” ashville
American, 1883. I recently heard the expression from three Southern
college presidents and two professors. It occurs in the Life of Bunyan:
“Wherefore I did labor so to speak as that thereby, if possible, the sin
and the person guilty might be particularized.” Cf. Maetzner’s /n-
glische Grammaitik, iii. 2, 2d ed., pp. 505 and 419.

41. Zhoroughfare. Bartlett gives this word, in the sense of a ‘ low
gap between mountains,’ as Southern, citing “ Thoroughfare Gap ” in
Fauquier Co., Virginia; so “ Thoroughfare Mountain.” It is prob-
ably an application of the original and literal meaning of thorough-
Jare, and doubtless quite old in this sense. .

42. Trash, in the phrase “ poor white trash,” so common among
the negroes, though it may be here simply a usage coined from frash
in the general sense of anything worthless, has classical authority. It
is possibly the survival of the usage in Shakespeare, “TI suspect this
trash | To be a party in this injury.” Othello v. 1. Again, Othello
li, t: “If this poor ¢vash of Venice, whom I trash | For his quick
hunting, stand the putting on.” Halliwell has ¢vash-bag, ‘ a worthless
fellow.’ Children are called ¢rundle-bed trash. | .

43. Use, ‘to frequent, to inhabit.’ The word in this sense is put
down as obsolete already in Todd’s Johnson ; so Webster and Wor-
cester ; but it is still in daily use at the South. Uncle Remus (p. 68)
says, “ Der’s an old gray rat w'at uses "bout ’yer.” It is by no means

Vol. xiv.] .On Southernisms. 55

a negroism, but common. among almost all classes. ‘“ There’s a cloud
that uses around White Sides (mountain),” said a North Carolina
mountaineer. (Benet.).. Spenser (F. Q.) has, “ In these strange ways
where never foot did use.” Milton, Lyczdas : —
| Ye vallies low, where the mild whispers USE

Of shades and wanton winds, and gushing brooks. .
B. Jonson : “ He wseth every day. to a merchant’s house, where I serve
water.” The noun use is frequently employed in conversation in the
South in a very odd way, namely, J have no use for him, meaning,
‘I do not like ‘him,’ about as strong as ich mag thn nicht.
44. Upping-block, ‘a horse-block,’ in common use in West Virginia.
Halliwell gives it as so used in various dialects in England.

45. Wain, ‘a wagon, ’ Prof. Schele De Vere gives as “ still in daily
use in some parts of the United States, e. g. in the peninsula east
of the Chesapeake, one of the first parts of Virginia and of North
America that were colonized.” . Cf. Spenser: “There ancient night
arriving, did alight | From her high weary wain.” Halliwell gives it as
still in use. The ordinary form wagon is borrowed from the Dutch.

46. Wall the eyes, that is, ‘to roll the eyes.so as to show the white.’
I can remember this as a very common way among the little negroes
in South Carolina of showing displeasure, and expressing impudence,
when they did not dare say anything. It comes of course from the
noun wadll-eye, or the adjective wad/-eyed..

47. While, for ‘till’ Bartlett quotes the usage from Sherwood’s
Georgia as Southern ; for instance, stay while I come, for ‘stay till I
come.’ I understand it is so used in Tennessee. The dictionaries
give it as obsolete. Cf Shakespeare’s Macbeth, iii. 1: “‘ WAd/e then,
God be with you.” Beaumont and Fletcher: “I'll lie under your bed
while midnight.” Halliwell gives it in this sense from Yorkshire.

48. Whommle, ‘to turn a trough, or any vessel, bottom upwards, so
that it will drain well’; used in West Virginia. Halliwell gives whom-
mie, ‘to turn over.’ (various dialects). Jamieson has whummil, wham-
ble, and guhem/e, in the same sense.

49. Wrack-heap, as it probably should be spelled, or rack-heap, as
- It is spelled commonly, means in West Virginia ‘a confused mass of
logs and other rubbish, usually accumulated by high water.’ Some
one from West Virginia wrote once a letter to some Northern paper
describing an immense rack-heap which floated down a river and car-
ried away a bridge ; but as the word was not known where the paper
was published, the strange phenomenon was announced of a rock-
heap floating down ariver. I find from Jamieson that wrad, or wrack,

56 Charles F. Smith. [ 1883.

or wreck, means, 1. ‘ whatever is thrown out by the sea, as broken
pieces of wood, sea-weed, etc.’; and 4. ‘refuse of any kind’ (so
Halliwell, rack, ‘ weeds, refuse,’ Suffolk); and here perhaps we find

the origin of the expression. More probably we have here simply the
old form of the word wreck preserved ; cf. Milton’s “A world devote
to universal wrack.”

50. Year, as a pronunciation of the word ¢av, I run the risk per-
haps of being charged with maligning my people when I call this a
Southernism ; but while it is the universal pronunciation among the
lower classes, it was not confined to them a few years ago. I recall
two ladies of excellent family, both professors’ wives, who regularly
pronounced it year, or rather yer. When I was a boy at school, a
common conundrum with us was, “ Why is Tick’s mouth like an
overseer’s wages?” And the answer was, “ Because it runs from
year to year.” Tick was a German boy. Uncle Remus (p. 205)
says: “Come yer, son, whar dey ain’t no folks, an lemme drap some
Jawjy (Georgia) intment in dem years er yone.” ‘ My gal baby keeps
up sich a hollerin’, I can’t hear my own years.” J.C. Harris (Uncle
Remus) in the Century. This pronunciation seems to be very old,
since Halliwell quotes from the Nominale manuscript :

| But sone thei cane away here hedes wrye,

And to fayre speche lyttely thaire yeves close.
I might add that earth is quite commonly pronounced yearth or yeath
among the lower classes at the South; so hear is pronounced yer;
and here, which is usually, I think, pronounced Ayere among the better
classes, is pronounced yere among the lower. All these have, of
course, old English or provincial English authority, and I suspect
that they are common among the lower classes of the North as well as
the South.

[NotEe. — Of these words the following are given in Bartlett, without
any statement as to English usage, viz.: dat, brotus, coat, ding, doted,
fills, fresh, seepy, slashes, swash, thoroughfare, while. |

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic. 5 7

IV. — The Development of the Ablaut in Germanic.

By BENJAMIN W. WELLS, Pu. D.,

FRIENDS’ SCHOOL, PROVIDENCE, R. I.

In this paper I propose to speak of the strong verbs in
Gothic, High German, English, Saxon, and Norse, with occa-
sional reference to the Frisian. I shall first give a complete
list of the strong verbs in each dialect, then examine the
relations of the dialects to one another in the distribution
of the verbs with Ablaut, and finally I shall examine the
question how far these verbs are old, and how far they may
be shown to be peculiar to the individual dialects. I shall
try also to show the causes and general lines of the new
developments in the Ablaut. The phonetic development of
the Ablaut vowels I shall not touch upon here.

Section I.

Lists of strong verbs have already been published. The first was
by Grimm, in his Grammar. This was extended and improved by
Amelung in his Bildung der Tempusstamme, 1871; but further in-
vestigation and study has shown even this later list to be so faulty
that it seems necessary, in order to win a firm foundation for our
work, to present the facts once more in the light which the last
twelve years have shed upon them, before proceeding to exantine their
meaning. | .

The table of strong verbs which follows contains all the strong
verbs which occur in Gothic and Old Norse (the East Germanic dia-
lects), and in Old English, Old (and Middle) High German, and Old
Saxon (the West Germanic dialects). ‘These are arranged, according
to the classification used in my paper on the English Ablaut in the
Transactions for 1882, in parallel columns, and alphabetized accord-
ing to Old Germanic “Stems” constructed to represent the simplest
form of the root-vowel with the consonants that would have accom-
panied it in Old Germanic had the verb been present there. A
uniform alphabet is thus attained for all the dialects, and the blank

58 iB. W. Wells, f 1883.

spaces left by the absence of a verb in any dialect are filled by related
forms in Italics, where such occur. The table includes the reduplicating
verbs of Class V., and the preterito-presents. Where only participles
occur, they are given in parentheses. Notes have been added, at the
close of the list, to such verbs as seemed to demand any particular
remark.

The abbreviations are as follows: oc. stands for Old Germanic ;
wo., for West Germanic; G., for Gothic; on., for Old Norse; OnG.,,
for Old High German; os., for Old Saxon; o£., for Old English;
ME., for Middle English ; NE., for New English.

A mark of interrogation (?) defore a word implies a doubt whether
it should be placed where it is. The same mark a/fer a verb implies
_ that it is found only in the present tense. The sign + means that
both strong and weak forms occur. W. stands for “ weak,” and
S. for “strong”; A. for adjective, N. for noun.

I. a.
Stem. G. ON. OE. OHG. OS.
at itan eta etan ezzan etan
bad bidjan bidja biddan bittan biddan
brak} brikan breka W. brecan brechan brekan
drap drepa drepan trefan
5 dav divan deyja IV. déad N. towjan W. agjan w.

fah fahéps N. (feginn) féon fehan
fat fitan feta . ?fetan fezan
frat freta
fnah fnehan

1o frag fricgan
fragn? _fraihnan fregna frignan fregnan
gab giban gefa gi¢fan geban geban
gat gitan geta giétan | gezzan getan
hlaf hlifan

15 jah jehan gehan
jas jesan
jad jetan
knag kna pret.-p. cndwanvV. cndan Ww. bi-knegan?
knad knoda W. cnedan cnetan

20 kvap qipan kveda | cwedan quedan quethan
lag ligan liggja licgan liggan liggjan
lak leka leccan W. (lechen) |
las lisan _ lesa lesan lesan lesan
mag mag pret.-p. ma maeg mac mag

25 man man pret.-f. man man man N. - man

- mat mitan meta metan mezzan

nah nah pret-p. g-ndgr A. néah nah genig As

Vol. xiv.} Development of the Ablaut in Germanic.

Stem.
nas
nap
30 plag
rag
rak
sahv
sat
35 skah
skrak
skrap
slak
sprak
40 snav
stak
strap
svab
svapl?
45 svak
trad
trag
trak
pag
50 vab
vad
vag
vas
vrak

55 bar
bram
_ dval
hal
kval
60 kvam
nam
skal
skar
stal
G5 swar
tam
tar
tram
pvar8
7O val

G.
nisan
nipan

rikan
saihvan
sitan

snivan
stik N.

trudan
trigo N.

vidan
vigan —
visan
vrikan

bairan

duals A.

hava N.

qiman
niman

skal pret.-p.
stilan

timan
tairan

puairhs A.

vulan ?

ON.
nest N.

nao N.

reka? |
sja

sitja
skaga W.

_skrapa W.

(slokinn)
sprek N.
SNUQA V.
stikill N.
streda
sofa
swia Il.

troda
trega

biggja
vefa
waor N.
vega
vesa
reka

bera
brim N.
dvol N.
hel N.
kvelja W.
koma
nema
skal
skera
stela -

lamr A.

prerra Ic.
vella Ic.

OE.

nesan

nédsan W.

.pléon

recan
séon

_Sittan

Scé0n W.

screpan
Sledc A.
sprecan

OHG.
nesan
ga-ndda N.
pflegan

regen MHG.

rechen MHG.
sehan
Sizzan |
scehan
schrecken MHG.
scarbon W.
Slach MHG. A.
sprehhan

Snéowan Ill. .

sticel N.

stregdan Ic.

swefan
swadre N.
swec N.
tredan
tregjan W.

picgan
wefan
wed N.
wegan

' Wwesan

wrecan

I. b.

beran
brim N.
dwelen

-helan

cwelan
cuman
niman
sceal
sceran
stelan

tam A. -
teran.

pweran
wéallan Vv.

stehhan
stredan
swebjan W.
swedan
‘swehhan
tretan
trdgi a.
trehhan
dikkan W.
weban
wetan
wegan
wesan
rehhan

beran
breman
twelan
helan
quelan
kuman
neman
skal
sceran
stelan
sweran
zeman
zeran
tremen MHG.
dweran
wallan Vv.

OS. .
nesan
natha N.
plegan

sehan
sittan

sprekan
stekan
swebjan W.

swek N.
trada N.
tregan

thiggean W.
webbi N.
wad N.
weg N.
wesan
wrekan

beran
bremm/ja N.
dwelan
helan
quelan
kuman
niman
skal -
Shard A.
stelan

terjan W.

wallan V.

Stem.
ann
balg
ball
band
75 barg
bark
blaggv
braggv
bragd
80 bramm
brang®
brann
brast
dalb
85 darb
dars
dant
drank
faht
go falh
fand
flaht
gall
gald
95 galp ©
gann
gard
garr
glamm
100 gnest
gnall
grann
grand
gramm
105 hall
halp
hank
hand
hlamm
110 hnaggv
hramp
hrand
hrankv
hrasp
115 hvarr
hvarb |

G.
ansts N.
balgs N.

bindan
bairgan

bliggvan

briggan
brinnan

draban Iv.
dars pret.-p.
drigkan
filhan

finpan
flahta N.

goyan W.
gildan

ginnan
gairdan

grundus N.

grammjan W.

hilpan

hinpan
hlamm N.

hvairban

B. W. Wells, 1883.
I. c.
ON. OE. OHG. OS.
ann pret.-p. an an
(bolginn) belgan belgan belgan
bella bellan beHan bil N.
binda bindan bintan bindan
bjarga béorgan bergan bergan
berkja W. —_ béorcan
blowe ME. N. biiuwan Itt.
(brugginn) dréowan 111. briuewan Ul.
bregda bregdan brettan bregdan
brim N. brim N. brimmen MHG. bremmyja N,
bringan bringan bringan
brenna béornan brinnan brinnan
bresta brestan brestan brestan
delfan telban delban
djarfa Ww. déorfan derben MHG. derven
? darr N. déar tar dar
detta dynt N.
drekka drincan trinkan drinkan
féohtan fehtan
fela Ib. felhan felhan felhan
finna findan fintan findan
SJiéax N. flehtan
gella giéllan gellan
gjalda giéldan geltan geldan
gjalifa WwW. _—giélpan gelfan
ginnan ginnan ginnan
géorran gurren W. MUG.
glimmen MHG.
gnesta Lnestan W.
gnella
grinnen MHG.
grannrN. grindan grinden MG. grundN.
gramr A. grimman grimmen MHG. gram A.
hellan
hjalpa helpan helfan helpan.
hinka W. hinkan
hu N. hunda N.
hiam N. hlimman limman
hndggva hnéaw A. ge-nau A.
hrimpan rimpfan
hrinda hrindan
hrékkva
hrespan
hwéorran
hverfa hwéorfan hwerban hwerban

Vol. xiv. ]

. Stem.
kann

karb
karr
120 klamb
klamp
klang®
klankv
knall
125 krang
kramm
kramp
kvall
kvank
130 lang
* lann
lamp
lask
malk
135 marn
nanp
rann
salk
sangv
140 sankv
sanp
sard
skald
skalf-
145 skall
skanp
skarr
skranp
skrand
150 skrank
sland
slang
slank
slamp
155 small
smalt?
- smart
snark
snarp
160 snart
spann
sparn
sprang

Development of the. Ablaut in Germanic.

G. ON.
kann pret.-p. kann
klifa I.
klékkva
kremja Ww.

61
OE. OHG. OS.
cinnan kan kan:
cann pret.-p.
céorfan kerven MG.
cherran
climban chlimban
klimpfen MHG.
clingan chlingan
clokken W.ME.
cnellen MHG.
cringan
crimman chrimman
(kroppinn) &vampeN. ME. crimpfan
quellan
cwincan
leihts A. lettr A. langre A. lingan
linnan linna W. linnan linnan
limpan limpfan
| | leskan . eskjan W.
miluksN. mjolkN. _ melcan melcan
maurnan W. morna W. murnan mornen W. mMmornen W.
nanpjan W. nennaW. niSanw. nindan n@Sian W.
rinnan renna rinnan rinnan rinnan
selcan selken MG.
siggvan syngva singan singan singan
sigqan sokkva sincan sincan sinkan
Sandjan W. senda W. sinnan sinnan st8 N.
serda serdan serten MG.
skeltan
skjalfa scelfan W.
shillings N. skella scilling N. — skellan skilling N.
_ «Skinn N, scinn N. schinden MHG.
skera Tb. sceran Ib. skerran
skreppa | schrimpfen MHG.
skreitan Il. skrintan
scrincan schrinken MHG.
slindan , slitan Il. slintan
slyngja slingan slingan
slinka Swed. slincan slihhan tt.
-sleppa slipan Il. slimm A.
smella
melta W. meltan smelzan melijan W.
smerten ME, smerzan
snerhan
snara W. snerfan
snerta
spinnan spinna spinnan spinnan
sperna spurnan spurnan spurnan
springa springan springan springan

Stem.
sprant
165 stang

stanky

starb
start
stragd
170 svalg
svall
svalt

svamm

svand

175 svangv

svank
svarb
svark
taggv
180 tald
tang
tramp
trann
bahs

185 bamp |

pand

pang .

pans

barb
190 pars

prand

brangv

brask
pvarr
195 bvang
vall
valt
valv
vand
200 vank
vann
varp
vars
varp

205 vrang

bid
bit

stiggan
stigqan

sviltan
suumsi N.

SUALLU AR W.

svairban

trimpan

pezhan It.
pinsan

parf pret.-p.

pairsan

prethan 11.
priskan
puairhs A.

oulan Tb.

valtjan W.
vilvan
vindan

vinnan
vairpan
Vairs A.
vairpan
vrungo N.

beidan
beitan

B. W. Wells,

ON.
spretta
stinga
stokkva
starf N.

stréSa Ta.
svelgja
svella
svelta
svimma
SUINN? A.
SUANPY A,
svikja II.
sverfa
svarkr N.
tyggva
tiald N.
tengja W.

damfpi N.

puner A.
pistill N.
parf

perra Ww.

pryngva °
priskya W.

pverra.
puinga W.
vella
velta
vilva N.
vinda -

vinna
verpa -
Uorr A.
verda
vringa

bida +
bita

OE.

(sproten III.)

stingan
stincan
stéorfan

stregdan
swelgan
swellan
sweltan
swimman
swindan
swingan
swincan
swéorfan
swéorcan

teldan
tingan

pix! N.

pindan
pingan
pestel N.
péarf
pyr A.
prindan
pringan
prescan

pueran Ib.

puang N.
wéallan V.
wéaltan V

windan

-WINCJAN W.

winnan
wéorpan
qwuers A.
wéordan
wringan

IT.

bidan
bitan

OHG.
sprinzan
stanga N.
stinkan
sterban

sterzen MHG.

stredan Ic.
swelgan
swellan
swelzan
swimman
swintan
swingan

stithhan Il.

swerban

Et-swere

zelt N.
sengt A.

trinnen MHG.
dehsen MHG.
dampen W. ME. dimpfen MHG,

? d&ha N.
dinsan
darf .
derran W.

drinden MG.

dringan
drescan
dweran Ib.
dwingan
wellan
walzan V.

wintan |
winkan
winnan
werfan
werren
werdan
ringan

bitan

sterban

' gwellan

sweltan

swingan
swican Il.
swerban
swerkan

tengi A.

pringan

pwingan

wallan V.

windan
wankol A.
winnan
werpan
werren
werdan

bidan
bitan .

Vol.:xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic.

Stem. |
blik
bris
210 brip
dig
drib
drit
215 dvin

220 glip
glit

gnid

gli
grin

225 grip .

gris
hlib
hlid
hnigv
230 hnip
hnit
hrin9

hrib |

hvin
235 ihe

kill

kid®

knid2

kin!
240 klib
klip
krig
kvin
kvip
245 lib
lihv
lik
lim
lip
250 lis
mig -
mip |
nip
nip
255 rid

dik -

deigan

dreiban

ON. .
blikja +

adeigr N.

_ drifa

_ drita

dvina W.

fisa

fit N. Swed.

. gina +

glitmunjan W.

greipan
hieibjan W.

hneivan

aih pret.-p.

kijan

kheinan W.

glaSr a.

glita W.

Lrima N.
gripa

hitfa w.

hhO N.
hniga

hnita
hrina
hrifa
hvina
a

hid N.

hind N.
klifa

klipa +

gainon W.

leiban
leihvan
leikan W.

leipan

leisan

maidjan W..
netp N.
ga-nipnan W.

raids A.

Aueina W. .

kvida +
lifa W.
Yaw.
lika Ww.
lim N.
lida +
leéra W.
miga

metSa W. -

nO Nz

rida

(hnipinn) -

OE.
blican

dwinan.

flitan
ginan
glidan

glivan Ww.
gnidan

grinnian W.

gripan -
grisan

hlidan
hnigan

Anipian W.

hnitan
hrinan
riven ME.
hwinan ?
ah

ctnan Il.
cidan ?
cnidan ?
cinan
clifan |

clyppan W.

cwinan

.cWi0an W.

lifan ©
léon
licjan W.
lim N.
lidan
léran W.
migan
midan
nt0 N.
nipan
ridan

blichen

(brisen MHG.)

(briten MHG.)
teig N.

tichen MHG.
triban .
drissen MG.

jist N. MHG.
viizan
ginén W.
gliten MHG.

(gliffen MHG.)

glizan
gnitan —
glien MHG.
grinan

.grifan

-Jipan

lit N.
nigen MHG.

212 N. MHG.
hrinan
riban

eih

chinan Xl.

chinan
chliban

_krigen MG. .

weinon W.

: Jiban

lihan.

(lichen MHG.)
limen MHG.
lidan

lérran W.
migen NNG.
midan

niden MHG.

’ yitan |

Os.
blikan

driban

glidan

glitan
gnidan

gripan

hlidan

hnigan
hrinan

sh
Rinan Il.

kinan
kliban

. liban

lihan
likon W.

lidan
lérjan W.

midan
nto N.

260 rip
rist!2
sig
sih
sik
sip
skib
skid
skin
skit
skip
skri
skrib
skrid
skrit
slid18
slik
slip
slit
smit
280 snik
snip
snivi4
spiv
sprit!5
stig
strid
strik
svib
svig
svik
svin
svip!é
svip!?
tih
295 pih
prib
prih
pvit
vig
300 vik
vip
vis
vit

265

270

275

285

290

rignjan W.
reisan
vaupjan W.
vrits N.

skeinan

skaidan V.

skreitan
sleidan

smeitan
sneipan
speiwan
steigan

striks N.
sveiban

suikns A.
sucipains

teihan

. peithan

preihan
veihan
veipan

veitan

ON.

regn N.
risa

rista
siga
dW.
sida +
ski8 N.
skina
skita
SRt8 N.
skrida

shOrar N.

slinka Ic. Swed.

slipa W. Icel.
slita

smita W.
(snikinn)
snida
sniva
SPpyja V.
spretia Ic.
stiga
strtO0a W.
striuka Il.
svifa +

svikja

svipa
svida +

Od Ww.

pda w.
prifa
pryngva Ic.
pretta Ww.
vig N.
vikja

veit pret.p.

W. Wells,

OE.

rinan +
risan
ripan
writan II.
sigan
séon
sican

scid N.
scinan
schiten ME.
scddan V.

scrifan
scridan

slidan
slincan Ic.
slipan
slitan
smitan
snican
snidan

“sniwen ME.

spiwan
Split NE. W.
stigan
striden ME.
strican
swifan

swican
swintan Ic.

swadsul N,
téon

peon

prafjan W.

pringan Ic.
pwitan
wigan
wican
Wwifjan W.

witan

OHG.
rihan
riman
reganon W.
risan
voufan W.
rizan Xi.
sigan
sihan

stid N.

schiben MHG.

schiten MHG.
skinan
schizan

schiden MHG.

skrian
scriban
scritan
schrans N.
sliten MHG.
slihhan
slifan
slizan
smizan
snahhan W.
snidan
sniwan
spiwan
sprizen MG.
stigan
stritan
strichan
sweibon W.

skinan
sk@an V.
skriban

skridan
skritan

slitan

snidan
spiwan

sfigan
Strid N.

swigen MHG. + swiyon W.

swibhan
swinan

swafen MHG.

swedan Ja.
zihan .
dihan

drihe MHG. N.

wihan
wihhan
wifan
‘-wisan
wizan

swikan
swipan ?

tihan
pihan

pringan Ic.
wig N.

wikan

witan

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic.

Stem.
vlit
305 vrih
vrit
vrip

G.
viits N.

writs N.

biudan
biugan

bligevan Ic.

. briikjan W.

aubd N.

daug pret.-p.

driugan

driusan

pliuhan
? fants A.

giutan

£retan Vv.
hiufan

hniupan

hnupo N.

kiusan

kriustan
liubs A.

ON. OE.
lita wlitan
wreon
rita writan
ripa wridan
IIT.
bjoda béodan
bjiiga biigan
bauta tv. béatan Vv.
blowe ME. N.
brugginn Ic. bréowan
brika W. briican
brjota bréotan
bréodan
difa N. diifan
duga W. déah
drjga Ww. dréogan
drjtipa dréopan
dreyri N. dréosan
fjttka Sog NE.
fijiiga fléogan
Sia w. fléon
fijota fléotan
frjdsa + fréosan
£AULN N. géeopan
gjosa
gjota géotan
greosan
grata Vv. greotan
hjitfa W. héofan W.
héodan
hljota hléotan
hnupla W. khnéapan Vv.
hnjésa
hnjoda hnossjan W.
hrygeva W. hréowan
hrjosa hréosan
hrjota hriitan |
hrjoda (hroden)
| céowan
kjdsa + céosan .
kljiifa cléofan
criidan
krjiipa créopan
liufr A. léofan

OHG. OS.
litze MHG.N. wiitiN.
rihan
rizan writan
riden MHG. wredjan W.
biotan biodan
biogan
biuzen MHG.
bliuwan
briuwen MHG.
brihhan w. briikan?
briezen MHG. dréton Ww.
dubo N. adufd N.
toug dig
triogan driogan
triufan driopan
tror MHG.N. driosan .
fliogan
fliohan fliohan
fliozan fliotan
friosan
gauf N.
giozan giotan

?gruos MHG. N. gruri N.
gvdzen MUG. W. griotan?

hiufan W. hiovan?
hliozan hliotan
niusan

hniutan

hriuwan hreuuan
? roso N.

riizan ?

chiuwan

chiosan kiosan
chlioban clioban
criiden MNG.

criochan

krifen MG.

? kristen MHG. W.

liub A. liof A.

snsvan Ia.

stubjus N.

stiipa
sjoda
skjota
sleppa Ic.

sléopan

slita Swed.

sinjiiga
SHUG YV.
spretia Ic.

stiipa

striks N.See 11. strjiika

tiuhan

puthaurn N.

priutan

(toginn)
pjota

prjota

smiigan

sméocan
snéowan
spéoftan
(sproten)

stiipjan W.

striidan

strican II.

sweon
téon
pttan
preotan

IV.

égan W.
acan
alan
anda N.
bacan
(dafen)
dead N.

dréfan W.

dragan
faran
fléan
Srid A.
galan

spriozen MHG.
stiuban
? stupfN

stritjan W.
strihhan 11.

ziohan
diozan
driozan

towjan W.
truobjan W.

tragan
faran
flin MNG.
Sra a.
galan

skiotan

stuypen O.
[Dutch.

tiohan

ando N.

djjan w.
drobljan W.
dragan
faran

Jrid A.

Vol. xiv. ]

Stem.
gav
395 grab
gnag
hab
hlah
hlap
400 hnaf
kal
klav
lah
lap
405 mal
mat
rap
raf?l
sab
410 sak
skab
skak
skap
skap
415 slah
span
stand
stap
svar
420 tak
pvah
vad
vah.
vahs

425 vak
vask

alp
ar
bann
430 bland
fanh
fall
falp
gang
435 hanh
hald
hals

prang

Development of the Ablaut in Germanic.

graban

hafjan
hlahjan
hlapan

halds A.
laian V.

malan
mot pret.-2.
rapjan

sakan
skaban

skapjan
skapjan
slahan

standan

svaran
tekan V.
pvahan

vahsjan
vakan

alpan
arjan ?

blandan
fahan

falpan
gaggan +
hahan
haldan
hals N.

- praggan

ON.

geyja
grafa
gnaga
hefja
hl#ja
hlada
hnafa
kala
kla
ld w.
lepja W.
mala
mot N.

- vada W.

SOR N.
skafa

. skaka

skepja
skada W.
sla +
Spenja W.
standa

sverja
taka

elda-sk W.
erja W.
banna W.
blanda
fa .
falla
falda
ganga
hanga +
halda
halsa W.

pranga W.

OE.

grafan
gnagan
hebban
hliehhan
hladan

caljan W.
cldwt N.
léan
lapian W.
méaloN.
mot
redjan W.
rafan
sap N.
sacan
scafan
scacan
sciéppan
sciéddan
sléan
spanan
standan
steppan
swerjan
tacan
pwean
wadan

wéaxan
wacan
wascan

V.a.

fald A.
ertan W.
bannan
blandan
fon
féallan
féaldan
gangarr
hon
héaldan
héals N.

OHG.

graban

-nagan |

hebban
hlahhan
hladan

halt A.
chléwa N.
lahan
laffan
malan
muoz
redjon W.

seffan
sahhan
skaban

skaffan
skadon W.
slahan
spanan —
stantan
stepfan W.
swerjan

dwahan
watan
wahan
wahsan
wachén W.
waskan

alt A.
erran:
bannan
blantan
fahan
fallan
faltan
gangan
hahan
haltan

67
Os.

graban
nagal N.
hebbjan
hlahan
hladan

kald A.
lahan

malan
mot
redjon

sebbjan
sakan

skakan
skapan

slahan
spanan
standan
steppan
swerjan

pwahan

wahsan
wakon W.
waskan

ald A.

ban N.
blandan
fahan
fallan

gangan
(hangen)
haldan

halsen -++ MHG. helsjan w.
pfrengen MHG. W.

445 valk

455 slap

G.
saltan

spilda N.

staldan
valdan

vulan Tb.
valijan W.

blésan

grétan
létan
rédan
slépan
tékan
watan V.

laian
saian

vaian

bldtan
fldkan

hropjan W.

hvdpan

sudgjan W.

vopjan W.

flodus N.

B. W. Wells,

ON.
salla W.

speld N.

Spanna W.

valda +
valka W.
vella Ic.
vella W.

blidta +

hrépa W.

apa W.

Jloa W.
20a W.
groa +
hlda?
TO6a +

OE.
séaltan

Spist NE. W.

spannan
stéaldan
wéaldan
wéalcan
weéallan

wéaltan +

V. b.

bl&sen ME.

br@da N.
dr&dan
gr&tan
1%tan
r€dan
sl#pan
tfacan IV.

waWan V.

blawan
cnawan
crawan
léan \V.
mawan
sawan

prawan
wawan

V.c.

bléotan

hrdpan
hwdsan
hwopan
cnddan
swogan
wépan
blowan
fl6wan
glowan
growan
hlowan
rowan
spowan

[1883.

OHG. OS.
saltan salt N.
skaltan skaldan !
spaltan
spannan spanan Iv.
-Stalt A.
waltan waldan
walkan
wallan wallan
walzan
bagan -+- ? bagan
blasan
bratan
tratan dradan
g7azen MHG. W. gratan
lazan latan
ratan radan
slafan slapan
wazan watan
blahan +
kndhan W. knégan W.
krdhan Ww.
lahan Iv. lahan Iv.
mahan W. |
sdhan W. sahan +
dr#n -- MHG.
wahan W.
bl6zan +
fluohhan + fldkan
hruofan + hropan
sweg N. Swogan W.
wuofan -+ wopan
bluohan W. bloan Ww.
fiuot N. Jjiod N.
gluohan W.
gruohan W.
hldjan W.
rucjen W. MHG.
spuohan W. Spot N.

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germantc. 69
V.d.
Stem. G. ON. OE. OHG. OS.
aik aikan. cthhin Ww.
aisk cf. aistan W. cf. @sta W. dsctan Ww. eischen MHG. askin w.
frais _— fraisan fraista Ww. frdsanw. freisen W. MHG.
hait haitan heita. hatan heizan hétan

485 hvais24 . hv@sa W. hwsan
laik laikan leika lacan leichen -+- MHG.
mait maitan meita W. mite N. meizan
naip%t ganipnan W. | napan
skaid skaidan skeid N. scadan skeidan skédan

490 svaif sveitban ll. svifa+i. swafan swetbin W.
svaip sv¢ifains N. sveipa-+- | swapan sweifan swépan
tais . tésan.W. zeisan
plaih _—iplaihan Jichjan W.

| V.e.
aud (audinn) (éaden) -6t N. (Sdan)

405 auk aukan auka . (€acen) ouhhon W. (dkan)
aus ausa
baut bauta -+ béatan bdzan
braut brjofa 111. _—ibréatan briezen TII.MUHG. bréton w.
daug déagan tougal A.

500 hauf =«_ Aiufan ul. Ayitfa w. héafan hiufan W. hiovan ?

-hlaup — hlaupan hlaupa hléapan loufan hldpan
hnaup Aniup~an il. hnupla W. hnéapan
skraud skrud N. scréadjan W. skrotan
spraut sprettalc. spréatan Spriozen III. MHG.

505 staut stautan Sstuttr A. stozan stotan
bau bauan + bua buan ++ bonwen W.MHG. bouan W.
hau havi N. hoggva héawan houwan (hauwan)
nau b-nauan nia + néod N. nian niod N.
sau soa + ? sona N.

510 snau22 szivan ta. sniia snéowan Ill.
spau Speivan II. spyja+ spiwan Wl. Spiwan 11. sprwan Il.

NOTES TO THE LIST.

1. brak. The West Germanic dialects have participles according to Ib., but
Frisian has Ia.

2. fragn. The x is only in the present in Ea., but it makes its way occasion-
ally into other forms in O£., and always in os. The stem /rag is an offshoot of
this stem. -

3. pvar. Fick, 3. 142, separates the wG. word from the Ec. given here, and
compares to the WG. ON. pvara N.

4. ball. on. ded/a = hit, hurt; we. de//an = to bell, with which compare on.
belja and boli ; yet the meanings of the strong verbs can be reconciled, and they
are from one stem.

70 B. W. Wells, [ 1883.

5. brang. The pret. and part. are always weak in Gothic, and often in we.

6. klang. O&. clingan = to contract; OHG. chlingan = to ring; yet they are
from the same WG. stem.

7. smalt = malt. The two stems exist side by side in Germanic; outside
of Germanic we find only madd ; yet the related stem 0G. smart, Indo-European
smard, proves the sto be old. See Fick, 3. 236, 357; 1. 836, 721.

8. glid. ON. glady = OHG. giat is from an OG. stem giad, which appears as
gland in HG. dialectic glandern, and with the absorbed nasal in gird.

g. hrin. The ON. rina means “squeal” ; wc. means “touch.”

10. ih. In OHG. and os. the singular is not found. The infinitive is oHG.
¢igan, OS. égan.

11. ki and kin may be identical, and the # originally part of the present stem,
as in fragu Ia. The G. verb occurs only in the participle Azjans.

12. rist for vrist = vritt. So Scherer, Deutsche Sprache, 247. If this is so,
the words from the older dialects are related to vist, else there are no words
connected with it.

13. slid. This is shown to be Gothic by the Old French esiider. See Dietz,
Worterbuch, 575. See also Schade, Wo. 825.

14. sniv. The ME. is strong, rarely weak. The ox. is weak and rare.

15. split, and also spvst, is borrowed into HG. from LG., whence also English
split. The stem is from sfrant, Ic.

16. svip. The strong verb is found in ON. only in preterit; in MHG. only
in present and preterit. os. has only /forswé, which may be from sweifan V.
All these forms are derived from a verb of class V., stem svaig. See Schade,
W6., 914.

17. svip. On the relations of this stem to svap Ia. and sup IIT., see Schade,
W., 906, and Johannes Schmidt's Vocalismus 1. 58.

18. hrup. ON. 4rjoda = “strip, disable, vomit forth,” Vigfusson, Dict. 286;
ON. hropinn, OE. hroden are participial adjectives, corresponding in form to the
verb, but meaning “ dressed, painted, adorned.” It is difficult to reconcile these
meanings.

19. sug. The on. has saga and stiga, the OF. sécan and sigan.

20. spuft. This stem is doubtful, owing to the double consonant. I find the
word in Sievers’s Anglo-Saxon Grammar given as Northumbrian.

21. raf. The o£. verb occurs only in Genesis 2078 deréfan, which may be
miswritten for rzfox, preterit plural of réofan III., but this word corresponds
with Latin rapio. Cf. Schmidt’s Vocalismus II. 292, 465.

22. vald Ia. has in oN. a strong present and preterit and a weak preterit and
participle; grd, ro of Vc. have in ON. weak preterits but strong participles. The
same is also true in ON. of sd Vb. and nau, snau Ve. See Wimmer, Grammar,
§ 156. |

23. The stems d/ds, erat, ldt, rdd have 2in the present and 6 with reduplica-
tion in the past in Gothic. They therefore, and also /d, sd, wd, show both ablaut
and reduplication. In other dialects they are regular members of class V. Like
these in Gothic is tekan, stem 7d ; but here t the other dialects have the stem
tak IV.

24. hvais, naip. Hwesan is given by Sievers in his Grammar, p. 137, without
citation; sdfamn is placed here because of genéop, Exodus 475; but the form may
be a mistake for gendp from nigan II.

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic. 71

25. bau. The preterit is weak in G., OE.

26. kid, knid. o£. cida# occurs in present in Aelfric’s Homilies I. 96, IT. 158,
and in Waldere. It may be identical with the weak cidan. Sievers gives it as
strong, Grammar, p. 130; cnidan is found in Sievers, but Leo and Grein have
not the word. I know no passage in which it occurs.

SEcTION IJ, — ANALYSIS OF THE TABLE.

There are in all srz stems. Of these, 54 belong to Ia., 16 to Ib.,
135 to Ic., making 205 with a! as root-vowel. Class II. has 102
stems; here the Indo-European vowel was a#. Class III. has 73
stems ; the root-vowel is az. Class IV., containing the verbs with a,
has 46 stems. Class V. has 85 originally reduplicating verbs.

The following table shows the distribution of the verbs among the
dialects according to classes : —

Ia Lb Le I. IT. IV. Vz. Total.

G. 27 8 36 j.27 21 +25 #«®236 = 180
ON. 30 6 59 43 39 27 34 235
OE. 32 mr = 68t 664 0 «5700 32s 0-337
O.andMHG. 40 15 99 =72 45 #=$§.}2}} 46 344
OS 21 8 37 35 24 42:1 28 174

All Dialects 54 16 135 102 73 46 85§ 511

The next step in the investigation is to consider the relation of the
dialects to one another, so that we may see how far each follows in
the beaten track, how far it opens a path of its own, and whether a
group of dialects can be distinguished from the others in any important
particulars. I shall give first a list of those verbs which I have found
in all the five dialects ; then those found in four; then those found in
East Germanic and West Germanic, though only in three or two dia-
lects ; then those found in West Germanic in three or two languages ;
and, finally, those which occur in one dialect only.

Common to all dialects are the stems: I.a. at, bad, gab, gat,
kvad, lag, las, mag, sahv, sat, vas, vrak (12). I.b. bar, kvam, nam,
skal, stal (5). I.c. band, barg, brann, drank, falh, fand, gald, halp,
hvarb, kann, rann, sangv, sankv, svalt, svarb, parb, vand, vann, varp,
varp (20). II. bid, bit, drib, grip, hnigv, ih, lip, ris, skin, snip, stig,
vit (12). III. bud, gut, kus, lug, luk, nut, tuh (7). IV. drag, far,
grab, hab, hlah, hlap, skap, slah, stand, svar, pvah, vahs (12). V.a.
bland, fanh, gang, hanh, hald, vald; b. lat, rad; d. hait; e. hlaup
(10). Total, 78 stems.

The following 65 stems occur in four dialects : —

72 B. W. Wells, [ 1883.

G. ON. OE. OHG. I.a. fat, mat, rak, trad, vag. I.c. spann, stankv.
III. bug, prut. IV. skab. V.a. fald; b. blas; c. blot; d. laik;
e. bau. Total, 15.

G. ON. OF. OS. I.a. man, fragn. V.b. grat,sa; e. auk. Total, s.

G. ON. OHG. OS. IV. mal. Total, 1.

G. OE. OHG. OS. I.a. brak, nas; I.c. brang, dars, gann. II. lib,
lihv, spiv, tih, pih. III. dug, drug, fluh, lud, lus. IV. sak, mat.
V.b. slap; d. skaid. Total, 19.

ON. OE. OHG. OS. I.c. balg, bragd, brast, sparn, sprang, svall,
prangv. II. blik, hrin, klib, sig, skrip, slit, svik, vik, vrit. III. drup,
flut, hlut, klub, ruk, skut. V.a. fall; d. svaip; e. hau. Total, 25.

Of the following, 77 stems occur in three, 97 in two, dialects. Of
these, 74 are confined to the we.

G. ON. OE. I.c. stang. II. svib. IV. al. Total, 3.

G. ON. OHG. V.e. nau. Total, 1.

G. OE. OHG. I.a. nah; I.b. tar; I.c. lann, prask. II. slid, smit,
vig. III. skub, slup. V.a. salt. Total, ro.

G. OE. os. III. drus. Total, 1.

G. OHG. OS. V.c. flok; e. staut. Total, 2.

ON. OE. OHG. I. a. drap, fah, vab; I.b. skar; I.c. ann, ball, gall,
sard, slangv, svalg, svamm, vrang. II. drit, mig, rid, rif (hrif), skit,
sniv, vrip. III. brut, flug, frus, hrut, krup, rut, sug, sup, sup, smug,
put. IV. flah, gal, gnag, vad. V.e. baut. Total, 35.

ON. OE. oS. IV. skak. V.e. aup. Total, 2.

ON. OHG. oS. II. svip. Total, 1.

G. OE. IV. dab, skap, vak. V.a. stald; b. va; c. hvop. Total, 6.

G.OoHG. JI.a. vad; I.b. tam; I.c. sland, pans. II. vip. V.a.
ar; d. mait. Total, 7. .

c.os. II. skrit. III. huf. Total, 2.

ON. OE. I.a. svab, pag; I.c. hrand, slank. II. gin, hnit, hvin,
snik, vlit. III. hrus, hrup, lut, rub, rud. IV. ak, tak. V.c. gro,
hlo, ro. Total, rg.

ON. OHG. I. a. strap, lak; I. c. kramp, skall, sprant, skramp, vall.
III. hnus, hnup, slut. Total, ro.

on. os. I.a. trag. III. stup. Total, 2.

OE. OHG. OS. I.a. plag, sprak; I.b. dval, hal, kval; I.c. dalb,
darb, starb, svang. II. glid, gnid, kin, mip, skrib. III. hru. IV.
lah, span, vask. V.a. vall; b. drad; c. hrop, vop. Total, 22.

OE. OHG. I.a. knad; I.b. pvar; I.c. faht, galp, gramm, grand,
hlamm, hramp, karb, klamb, klang, krimm, lamp, malk, salk, sann,
skrank, malt (smalt), smart, svand, prand. II. flit, sih, slip, strid,

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic. 73

strik, vrih. IIT. bru, ku, krud, sprut. IV. bak. V.a. bann, spann,
valk, valt; b. bla, pra. Total, 38.

oF. os. I.c. svark. II. hlid. III. bruk, grut. IV. stap. To-
tal, 5.

oHG. OS. I.a. jah, stak; I.c. pvang, varr. IT. glit. IV. sab.
V.a. skalt; b. bag, vat. Total, 9.

. The following 193 are confined to one dialect : —

c. I.a. hlifan, nipan, divan, snivan; I.b. vulan; I.c. bligevan,
gairdan, hinpan, trimpan, pairsan, vilvan. II. deigan, kijan, leisan,
preihan. III. hniupan, kriustan, siukan. IV. og, anan, draban, frap-
jan, rapjan. VV. alpan, praggan, tekan ; laian, aikan, fraisan, plaihan.
Total, 30.

on. I.a. freta, kna, (slokinn) ; I.c. bryggja, detta, gnesta, gnella,
hnyggja, hrokkva, klokkva, skjalfa, slippa, smella, snerta, tyggja,
pverra, velta. II. fisa, (hnifinn,) klipa, kvipa, rista, sipa, svipa, prifa.
III. fjtika, gjosa, ljdsta, strjika. IV. deyja, geyja, hnafa, kala, kla.
V. ausa, spyja, soa, snua. Total, 38.

OF. JI.a. fricgan, screpan ; I. c. béorcan, géorran, hwéorran, crin-
gan, cwincan, murnan, stregdan, swincan, teldan, tingan, pindan, pin- .
gan. II. dwinan, grisan, cidan, cnidan, cwinan, nipan, rinan, ripan,
sican, pwitan. III. bréodan, difan, géopan, gréosan, héodan, léofan,
smeéocan, sneowan, spéoftan, struidan, sweon. IV. rafan. V. cnawan,
crawan, mawan; hwosan, cnddan, swogan, blowan, flowan, glowan,
spowan ; hwésan, napan, swafan ; breatan, deagan, heafan, hnéapan,
spreatan. Total, 54.

ouc. I.a. fnehan, jesan, jetan, scehan, swehhan, swedan, rehhan ;
I.b. breman, sweran; I.c. flehtan, hellan, hinkan, hrespan, cherran,
quellan, lingan, leskan, smidan, skeltan, skerran, scrintan,. snerhan,
snerfan, winkan. II. grinan, lipan, rihhan, riman, scrian, slihhan,
swinan, wisan. III. bliuwan, kriochan, stiuban. IV. leffan, wahan.
V. spaltan, bratan, zeisan, skrotan. Total, 41.

MHG. I.a. regen, schrecken; I.b. tremen; I.c. brimmen, glim-
men, grinnen, klimpfen, cnellen, schinden, sterzen, trinnen, dehsen,
dimpfen. II. (brisen), (briten), tichen, (gliffen,) glien, krigen,
(lichen,) limen, niden, schiben, schiten, schiden, splizen, swigen. III.
biuzen. V. halsen, eischen. Total, 30. Total of onc. and MHG., 71.

Nore. The following 18 verbs have been added to OE. since ME.
times: From the French, aviven +- ME., finen +-.ME., prove -+- NE.,
striven + ME. NE.; from Norse weak verbs are dingen ME. NE. W.,
flingen ME. NE.; from a Norse strong verb is ¢hrzven ME. NE. ; from OE.
weak verbs are dig NE., 7ingen ME. -+-, NE. S., rol NE. +, Saw NE. +,

74 B. W. Wells, [ 1883.

show -+- NE., spit + NE., stick NE., Strow -+- NE., wear NE.; from OE.
nouns are save + NE., string NE. None of these are to be considered
as original. They are formed according to very obvious analogies, and
are often sporadic in their appearance.

If we examine the lists just given, we shall find that the c. has 103
verbs in common with the ON; 137 in common with the OE. 133
with OHG.; and 108 with os. Further, the on. has 182 in common
with O£.; 166 with OHG.; and 114 with os. The o£. has 242 verbs
in common with oOuG., and 157 with os. The ouc., finally, has 157
in common with os. It will thus be seen that or. stands in closer
relations to every other Germanic dialect than any others among them-
selves, except OHG. and os., where the correspondence is equal. It
may at first surprise us to find OE. so much more closely related to on.
than the G., but if we compare the number of verbs in each case with
the number of coincidences we shall find that the fer cent of coinci-
dences between G. and on. is 57, while that between o£. and on. is 54.
The closest relation between any two dialects exists between OE. and
OHG., which share more than 70 per cent together.

These lists suggest many other subjects for comment; but I will
pass immediately to the third division of my subject.

Section III. — THE GROWTH OF ABLAUT.

When we consider the scanty material which the early period of any
language affords, it is obvious that many words must have existed that
have not come down to us. The absence ofa verb from a dialect is
therefore no proof that it did not exist, and we must depend on
other evidence to show whether verbs can be traced back to the
common oc. source. If we examine the list given above, we find 243
verbs common to East and West Germanic, 74 verbs confined to West
Germanic, and 194 to a single dialect. The question I propose to
essay is, How many of these latter 268 are to be attributed to the oe. ;
how many are original to we. or to the single dialects? *

Wherever the Indo-European languages show strong verbs corre-
sponding to the Germanic there can be no hesitation in pronouncing
the latter to be old ; but this is rarely the case. When the European
derivatives of the root show ablaut-vowels, the chances are in favor of
the age of the verb. So, too, when the East Germanic contains deriv-
atives with ablaut of a West Germanic verb, and vice versa; yet in
some cases the verb is the derivative of a noun, even when other dia-
lects show ablaut. We have to consider the age of the manuscript in

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic. 75

which the verb appears, and also whether it may not have been formed
by analogy. Space fails here to enter into all these details with every
verb. I have limited myself to indicating as briefly as possible the
nature and degree of evidence of age. This I have also pointed out
even when I have classed the verb as new. Where I have given no
reference I know of no more evidence of age than the related forms
given in the main list ; if there are no forms given there and no refer-
ence here, the verb is isolated. The references are to the third edition
of Fick’s Wérterbuch (Fick), to Schade’s Adtdeutsches W orterbuch,
second edition (Schade), and to Johannes Schmidt’s Vocalismus

(Schmidt, Voc.).

The folowing 59 verbs may with more or less certainty be pro-
nounced OG. :

I.a. knad of. oHG. Cf. Dan. knede, on. knoda; O. Prus. gnode,

O. Slav. gneta.
sprak OE. OHG. OS. Ablaut derivatives in Lithuanian and Sansk.
See Schade, Wb. 856; Fick, Wb. 3. 355.
stak oHG. OS. Ablaut deriv. in G. on. and Slavic ; Schade, 868.
_hlafc. Abl. der. in Grk. Lat. Stem is Slavic. Fick, 1. 541.
skrap OE. ON. OHG.; Lith. Lat. Grk. Schade, 780.
Jnah onc. Cf. rveiv, rvon, mvetpa.
jas onc. Grk. Skr. Fick, 1. 183.
skah onc. Cf. onc. schiht, and Slavic. Schade, 785.
trak oHG. Low G. Fris. Slavic. Schade, 952.
I. b. dval oF. OHG. OS. Cf. G. dvals, on. dvol; Lat. Grk. Fick, I.
640.
hal OF. onG. os. Cf. G.; Slav. Grk. Lat. Schade, 384.
kval OF. OHG. OS. Cf. ON. ; ; Slavic. Schade, 693.
I. c. dalb OF. OHG. Os. No EG. ablaut, but Slavic. Schade, 925.
malk OE. OHG. Cf. G. ON.; Slavic, Lat. Fick, 1. 174, 720.
sanp OE. OHG. Cf. G.ON.; Lat. Slavic. Fick, 3. 318; Schade,
765.

smatt of. OHG. Cf. G. on. ; Grk. Sansk. Fick, 1.175 ; Schade,
587.

smart ME. oHG. Cf. Swed.; Lith. Lat. Sansk. Schade, 833.

starb OF. OHG. OS. Cf. oN. Lith. ; but note the altered meaning.
Schade, 869; Fick, 3. 347.

svangv OE. OHG. OS. Cf. G. oN.; Lith. Schade, 916; Fick, 2.
505.

pvang OHG. OS. Cf. oN. Slavic. Fick, 3. 142.

vars OHG. OS. Cf. G. ON.; Lat. Slav. Fick, 3. 2958.

II.

III.

IV.

B. W. Wells, [ 1883.

gard G. Cf. onc. on. O£.; Lith. Fick, 3. 102. Grk. Lat.
Fick, 1. 580.

hanpc. Cf. oF. onG. Fick, 1. 545; Schade, gor.

pers G. Cf. ON. OE. ONG. ; Sansk. Lat. Grk. Fick, 1. 600.

skalf on. Cf. OE. scielfan, scéalfor, scylfor. Leo, as. Glos. 247.

pang o£. Cf. on. pungr, and pA II. Schmidt, Voc. 1. 52.

fiaht ouc. Cf. Lat. Grk. Slavic. Fick, 1. 681; 3. 193.

hank onc. Cf. on. skakkr, Sansk. khanj. Fick, 1. 804.

karr onc. Lith. Lat. Schade, 483; Fick, 1. 565.

nanp onc. Cf. nap I.a. Fick, 3. 160; Schade, 651.

skrand onc. Cf. skrit II. Schmidt, Voc. I. 172; Fick, 3. 339.

vank onc. Cf. Lith. Schade, 1162.

paks muc. Cf. Sansk. Lat. Grk. Lith. Fick, 1. 86; 3. 128.

git OHG. OS. Derivatives in G. ON. OE. OHG. Schade, 337, and
Schmidt, Voc. 1. 57.

kin OF. OHG. OS. See Note 11.

mip. OE. OHG. OS. Cf. cG.; Lith. Grk. Lat. Sansk. Schade, 607 ;
Fick, 1. 176.

sth OE. OHG. Cf. the stems sig and s#&. Schmidt, Voc. 1. 63.

slip OF. OHG. Cf. on.; Lett. Grk. Schmidt, Voc. 1. 162; Fick,
2. 504.

aigG. Cf. On. OE. OHG; Grk. Lat. Sansk. Fick, 1.1183 3.147.

lis Gc. Cf, on. and wo.; also Slavic and Lat. Schade, 543.

prifon. Cf. o£. prafjan, and Schmidt, Voc. 1. 53.

hni~p on. Cf. OF. hnipian, hnapian.

rih onc. Cf. Lith. Grk. Sansk. Schade, 714; Fick, 1. 195;
3+ 253-

bru o£. onG. Cf. on. Grk. Lat. Fick, 1. 696.

hru of. onc. os. Cf. on.; Grk. Irish, Zend. Fick, 1. 539.

ku Of. OHG. Cf. Slavic. Fick, 2. 351.

suk G. Cf. OE. OHG. ON. Schade, 770.

struk on. Cf. oHG.; Slavic, Grk. Schmidt, Voc. 1. 161.

smuk o£. Cf. Low G. Lith. Grk. Schade, 832; Fick, 1. 835.

snu of. Cf. c.snivan I.a.,and on. sniia V. Schade, 839; Fick,
1. 8293; 3. 351.

blu onc. Cf. c. bliggvan I. a., and Schmidt, Voc. 1. 108; Fick,
I. 703.

bak of. oHG. Cf. Grk. Fick, 1. 678.

agG. Cf. Fick, 3.125; 1.9.

drabc. Cf.or. onc.; Lith. Schmidt, Voc. 2. 22 ; Schade, 925 ;
Leo, Angels.-Glos. 49.

Vol. xiv.} Development of the Ablaut in Germanic. 77

Jrapc. Cf. on. oHc. Fick, 3. 190; 1.149; and ouG. frag.

halon. Cf. OF. OHG. G.; and Slavic, Lat. Fick, 3. 44.

vak oHG. Cf. Sansk. Latin, Grk. Schade, 1075; Fick, 1. 204.
V. lac. Cf. O.Icel.Z@w. Sansk. Grk. Lat. Fick, 1. 187, 747.

kna@ or. Cf. on. oHG.; Sansk. Lat. Grk. Fick, 1. 68, 559.

The total number of oc. verbs in each class is therefore, I.a. 40,

I.b. 11, Ic. 73, II. 55, III. 52, IV. 33, V. 38; in all 302. The
additions are, to I.a. 9, I.b. 3, I.c. a1, II. ro, III. 8, IV. 6, V. 2;
in all 59.

The following verbs are certainly or probably peculiar to we. : —

I.a. jah, plag (from Lat. p/ic@re, Schade, Wb. 678); I.b. pvar;
I.c. darb, faht (Fick, 1. 658), galp, grand, gramm, hlamm, hramp
(Fick, 1. 523), karb (Fick, 1. 574), klamb, klang, kramm (Fick,
2. 352), lamp (Schade, 559), salk, skrank, svand, svark, prand. II.
flit, glid (Schmidt, Voc. 1. 58), gnid, hlid (Schmidt, Voc. 2. 251),
skrib (from Lat. scribere), strid, strik (Schade, 879 ; Schmidt, Voc.
1. 54), vrih, III. bruk (Fick, 1. 703), grut (see V.b.), krud, sprut
(see V. and I.c.; Schade, 858). IV. lah, sab (from Latin sapa),
span (Fick, 1. 829, shows Grk. forms according to I. a.), stap (Fick,
1. 821; Scmidt, Voc. 1. 128, 155; I. E. stems stab I.a. and stamb
I.c.), vask. V. bann, skald, spann, valk, vall (see I. b. and I.c.),
valt (see I.c.), drad, vat (Schade, 1105 f.), bla, pra, hrop (originally
weak), vop, svOg.

The number of we. verbs in each class is therefore, I. a. 2, I. b. 1,
I.c. 17, IT. 8, III. 4, IV. 5, V. 13; in all 50.

The following verbs seem peculiar to the separate dialects : —

I.a. G. divan (see IV.), nipan, snivan (see III.) ; on. freta, knega
(analogy of m@), (slokinn) ; or. fricgan (from /ragm) ; OHG. jetan,
swedan (Schade, 906), swehhan ; MHG. regen, schrecken.

I.b. Gc. vulan (Fick, 1. 772); OHG. breman (from bremo; see
Fick, 1. 702), sweran (Fick, 1. 257) ; MHG. treman.

I.c. «. bliggvan (see III.), trimpan, vilvan (Ec.) ; ON. (brugginn)
see III., detta (Fick, 3. 144), gnesta, gnella, hnéggva (Fick, 3. 81),
hrokkva, klokkva, sleppa (cf. oHG. slimm), smella, snerta (Fick, 3. 350),
tyggva, pverra (see I.b.), velta (see V.) ; o£. béorcan (Fick, 3. 206),
géorran, hwéorran, cringan, cwincan, murnan (w. in EG., and usually
IN wG.), stregdan (analogy of bragd), swincan, teldan (Fick, 3. 120),
tingan (Fick, 3. 116), pindan (Fick, 1. 88); oxc. hellan, hrespan,
quellan (Schade, 694), lingan (Schade, 560; Fick, 1. 190), leskan,
(usually weak), skeltan, skerran (see I.b.), snerhan, snerfan (Schade,

78 B. W. Wells, [ 1883.

839) ; MHG. brimmen (see I. b.), glimmen (from glimen MHG.), grinnen
(from grinen MuG.), klimpfen, knellen, schinden (usually weak), sterz-
en (usually weak), trinnen, dimpfen (from dampf, but cf. Schmidt,
Voc. 1. 157). .

II. oc. kijan (see Note 11), preihan (yet see Schmidt, Voc. 1. 53) ;
on. fisa (Fick, 1. 833; 3. 186), klipa (originally weak), kvida (origi-
nally weak), rista (or vista), sipa (from seidr = Lith. saitas == Muc.
seid), svida (Schmidt, Voc. 1. 58); o£. dwinan, grisan (see III.),
cidan, cnidan, cwinan (from cwanian, which is oc.), nipan (Schmidt,
Voc. 1. 59), rinan (for rignan w.), ripan (for riepan w.), sican, pwitan ;
OHG. grinan, hlifan, rman (for hrinan), scrian (Fick, 1. 812), slihhan
(Schmidt, Voc. 1. 54), swinan, wisan (Fick, 1. 220, 786) ; MHG. (bri-
sen, from drise N.), (briden), (gliffen, from weak g/iffen), tichen,
glien, krigen, lichen (from onc. /ichen w.), limen (from Zz N.), niden
(from za N.), schiben (from schiben weak), schiten (from schit n.),
schiden (from scheiden V. and schidon w.), spliten (also sfriten and
sprizen, Schmidt, Voc. 1. 58), swigen (originally weak).

III. c. hniupan (cf. on. and o£.; Schade, 409; Fick, 1. 807),
kriustan ; ON. fjtika, gjosa, ljOsta; o£. breodan, dtifan, géopan (Schade,
344), greosan, héodan, léofan (from /éaf and /ufu), spéoftan, stridan,
sweon; OHG. criochan (cf. créopan OE.), stiuban; MHG. biuzen
(see V.).

IV. c. anan (Fick, 1.12), rapjan (from rapjo) ; on. deyja (see
I.a. G. divan original ablaut III. Fick, 1. 119 ; Schade, 948), geyja,
hnafa (Fick, 1. 807), kla (from 4/0 N.) ; OF. rafan (yet cf. Schmidt,
Voc. 2. 292, 465) ; OHG. laffan (Fick, 1. 751).

V. c. alpan (from a/ps), praggan (from Slavie, Schade, 685), tak
(see IV.), aikan (Schmidt, Voc. 2. 474), fraisan, plaihan (Schade,
204) ; ON. ausa, spyja (see II.), soa, sniia (see I.a. and III.) ; or.
crdwan, mawan, hwosan (Fick, 3.94; 1.555), cnodan, blowan (Fick,
I. 703), flowan (Fick, 1. 665), glowan (Fick, 1. 578), hlowan (Fick,
I. 529), spiwan (Fick, 1. 829), hwsan, napan (see II.), swafan (see
II.), bréatan (see III.), déagan, héafan (see III.), hnéapan (see III.),
spréatan (see III.); onc. spaltan (Schade, 846), bagan (originally
weak), bratan (Fick, 3. 216), zeisan, skrotan (Fick, 1. 818; 2. 491;
3. 339) 3 MHG. halsen (onc. is weak), eischen (OHG. 1s weak),

The number of isolated verbs in each class is therefore, I.a. 12,
I. b. 4, I.c. 45, IL. 39, II. 17, IV. 8, V. 34; in all 159.

This examination of these 268 verbs shows us that §9 can be proved
to be oG., while 50 are wc., and 159 remain confined to a single
dialect. A more detailed study of these would show, that in most in-

Vol. xiv.] Development of the Ablaut in Germanic. 79

stances they are differentiated forms of already existing stems, or are
formed by analogy from nouns or weak verbs. There remains a small
number which the existing material does not allow us to explain, though
we cannot doubt their origin was the same as that of the great major-
ity. Here I take leave of this subject, having shown that fully two
fifths of the Germanic strong verbs have no claim to be regarded as
the common heritage of the race, and that the ablaut in Germanic is
a living force, not, as in the classical languages, a survival whose use
and meaning is forgotten.

APPENDIX.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIFTEENTH ANNUAL SESSION,
MIDDLETOWN, 1883.

TREASURERS REPORT (p. xiii).
LisT OF OFFICERS AND MEMBERS (p. xxxii).
CONSTITUTION OF THE ASSOCIATION (p. xli).

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION (p. xliii).

MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE FIFTEENTH
ANNUAL SESSION.

Cyrus Adler, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
Joseph Anderson, Waterbury, Conn.

Charles J. Buckingham, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.

Oscar H. Cooper, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Martin L. D’Ooge, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Thomas H. Eckfeldt, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
James M. Garnett, University of Virginia, Albemarle Co., Va.
Thomas D. Goodell, Public High School, Hartford, Conn.
Charles W. Haines, Sachs’s Collegiate Institute, New York, N. Y.
Isaac H. Hall, Philadelphia, Pa.

Calvin S. Harrington, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
Karl P. Harrington, High School, Westfield, Mass.

Caskie Harrison, Brooklyn, N. Y.

W. T. Hewett, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Milton W. Humphreys, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Edmund M. Hyde, Pennsylvania Military Academy, Chester, Pa.
Charles R. Lanman, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.

Francis A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Augustus C. Merriam, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
Elmer T. Merrill, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.

C. K. Nelson, Brookeville Academy, Montgomery Co., Md.
Tracy Peck, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

B. Perrin, Adelbert College, Cleveland, Ohio.

William C. Poland, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

Samuel Porter, National Deaf Mute College, Washington, D. C.
Sylvester Primer, Charleston, S. C.

Rufus B. Richardson, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.
Julius Sachs, Collegiate Institute, New York, N. Y.

Charles P. G. Scott, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
Thomas D. Seymour, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Frederick Stengel, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Franklin Taylor, High School, Philadelphia, Pa.

James C. Van Benschoten, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
John B. Weston, Christian Biblical Institute, Stanfordville, N. Y.
William D. Whitney, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

E. H. Wilson, Middletown, Conn. [Total, 36.]

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

MIDDLETOWN, Conn., Tuesday, July ro, 1883.

THE Fifteenth Annual Session was called to order at 3 P.M., in Judd
Hall, on the grounds of Wesleyan University, by the President, Pro-
fessor Milton W. Humphreys, of the University of Texas.

Communications were presented as follows : —

1, On American Editions of the New Testament in Greek, by Dr.
Isaac H. Hall, of Philadelphia.

Dr. Hall’s paper was supplementary to his article! on “The Greek New Testa-
ment as published in America” ( Zramsactions for 1882, vol. xiii. pp. 5-34), cor-
recting a few oversights and adding a great number of new facts. The matter
presented was given, as nearly as possible, according to the order of the former

article, so as to constitute a strict supplement. Much of the matter related to
critical and bibliographic information, often respecting the European originals
of certain American editions.

The corrections related chiefly to the following : (1.) Injustice done to Isaiah
Thomas, or his editor, in remarks about the Latin form of his namé given on the
title-page of his New Testament of 1800. (2.) The erroneous account given of
Joseph P. Engles, editor of the American Polymicrian, which had followed a
common, but misleading authority. (3.) The account of the Polymicrian New
Testament itself, in which was corrected a spreading mistake about the issues at-
tributed to Leavitt, 1832, and Barnes, 1846. Both these are English New Testa-
ments, with Greek titles for the whole New Testament and for each separate
book. (4.) The account of the first Leusden Greek New Testament of 1675, and
a Pseudo-Leusden from the same press the same year. (5.) The account of the
publications of the American Bible Union. (6.) Sundry minor details about
editions actually printed abroad, but heretofore supposed to be American re-
prints. Some of the mistakes thus corrected have been of long standing among
the bibliographers ; and the facts were arrived at only with difficulty. Other
corrections are rather the resolving of doubts by fuller information than the
rectification of any mistake.

1 This article has in the mean time been revised and enlarged, and published as a
separate volume by Messrs. Pickwick & Co., Philadelphia, 1883.

iv American Philological Association.

The additions proper fill many gaps throughout; but their principal items
are the addition of unrecorded issues and the description of editions heretofore
omitted. The latter include, —(1.) Macknight’s Apostolical Epistles, Greek-
English, 6 vols 8vo, Boston, W. Wells and T. B. Wait & Co., 1810; text nearly
the Elzevir of 1678. (2.) Gospels, Acts, and Apocalypse, Greek-English, by L. H.
Tafel, Philadelphia, also other firms in New York and London, not dated, 8vo.
(3-) Harmonia Evangelica, by N. C. Brooks of Baltimore, published by Claxton,
Remsen, & Haffelfinger, Philadelphia, 1871; a book which is only the plates of
the author’s Collectanea Evangelica, with new title-page and a few alterations in
the plates to correspond. (4.) Buttz’s Romans, New York, Nelson & Phillips,
1876, 8vo; text of Scrivener’s R. Stephens of 1550. (5.) Shedd’s Romans, New
York, C. Scribner’s Sons, 12mo, not dated, but issued in 1879; text nearly that
of Lachmann.

Of unrecorded issues of editions already described, the supplementary list
comprises 49 of the entire New Testament, and 39 of parts, or 88 in all. The
former list, after deducting corrected items, numbered go editions of the entire
New Testament, and 64 parts, or 154 in all. The total numbers, therefore, are
139 editions of the entire Greek New Testament, and 103 parts, or 242 in all.
At the same time, it was to be seen that the issues which have eluded search
must number at least about 30, and perhaps many more.

It appeared, also, that every year since 1832 has seen the issue of at least one
Greek Testament in America, while one year, 1859, saw as many as eleven.
None are recorded for the years 1801-1805, 1807, 1808, 1811-1813, 1815-1820,
1826, 1828, 1830, 1832; twenty blank years, though it is not at all certain that
they all really were so.

During the sessions the following new members were elected : —

Dr. J. W. Abernethy, Professor of English, Adelphi Academy, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Cyrus Adler, 870 North Eighth Street, Philadelphia, Pa.

Wm. M. Baskerville, Ph. D., Professor of English, Vanderbilt University, Nash-
ville, Tenn.

Miss Eva Channing, Forest Hills Street, Jamaica Plain, Mass.

Oscar H. Cooper, Tutor in Greek, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Thomas H. Eckfeldt, Tutor in Greek, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.

L. H. Elwell, Instructor in Greek and Sanskrit, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

Thomas D. Goodell, Ph. D., Public High School, Hartford, Conn.

James M. Gregory, Howard University, Washington, D. C.

Francis B. Gummere, Swain Free School, New Bedford, Mass.

W. T. Hewett, Professor of German, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Edward W. Hopkins, Ph. D., Instructor in Latin and Zend, Columbia College,
New York, N. Y.

Edmund Morris Hyde, Instructor in Classics, Pennsylvania Military Academy,
Chester, Pa.

Frederick Lutz, Professor of German, Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass.

Elmer T. Merrill, Tutor in Latin, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.

Rev. George Prentice, Professor of Modern Languages, Wesleyan University,
Middletown, Conn.

Dr. Sylvester Primer, Charleston, S. C.

Benjamin E. Smith, Union Square, New York, N. Y.

Proceedings for Fuly, 188 3. Vv

Charles Forster Smith, Ph. D., Professor of Greek, Vanderbilt University, Nash-
ville, Tenn. .

George C. S. Southworth, Professor of Belles-lettres, Kenyon College, Gambier,
Ohio.

Rev. Wm. G. Spencer, D. D., Rector of Christ Church, New Haven, Conn.

Morris H. Stratton, State Board of Education, Salem, New Jersey.

Henry P. Wright, Professor of Latin, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

2. Southernisms : Specimens of Old or Provincial English Words still
current in the South of the United States, but obsolete elsewhere, by
Professor Charles Forster Smith, of Vanderbilt University ; read by the
President, Professor Humphreys.

The South, unlike the North and West, has coined few new words. The
nature of the people, their institutions, especially that of slavery, and the fact
that they were an agricultural people, made them conservative. When we hear
a common countryman or mountaineer use a word unfamiliar to us, it is gener-
ally safe to assume that it is not a new word, but a survival of a dialect of one
or two hundred years ago. A careful observer who should spend some months
in the rural and mountainous parts of some of the older Southern States, such
as Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, would be able to col-
lect from the folk-speech many items both interesting and valuable for the
history of English.

It should be added that time devoted ow to the study of Southernisms in
speech, as well as to Southern usages in general, is well spent, inasmuch as the
facilities for travel, trade, and intercourse between all parts of the United States
are now increasing so rapidly that what is peculiar to the South will soon have
died out entirely.

Professor Smith’s paper discussed the usage, signification, and history of fifty
words. These may be simply enumerated. They are: bat, blink-milk, brotus,
buck, carry, coat, collards, crope, dansy, ding, doted, fill, forenent or forenenst,
frazle, fresh, frumenty or fromety ov furmity, galled, holp, hone, jag, joggle,
jower, kink, mang, misery, poor, priminary, rip, seepy azd seepage, servant,
skew-bald, slashes, snack, sobbed -or sobby, stob, stile, strut, swash, swingeing,
such ov so. . . as that, thoroughfare, trash, use, upping-block, wain, wall, while,
whommle, wrack-heap, amd year (as a pronunciation of ea7).

Remarks on this paper were made by Messrs. Humphreys, Seymour,
Hall, Poland, and others.

3. On the Development of the Ablaut in Germanic, by Dr. B. W.
Wells, Friends’ School, Providence, R. I. ; read by Professor Lanman.

The paper treated of the distribution of the strong verbs in the Germanic dia-
lects, and of the relation of the dialects to one another in this regard; and
closed with an attempt to show to what extent, and why, new verbs with ablaut
had sprung up in the dialects.

Though lists of strong verbs had been published by Grimm and Amelung,
these needed so much revision and correction that a new list had been prepared

vi Amerian Philological Association.

as the basis of this study. This contained 511 stems, of which 243 were shown to
be Old Germanic, while 74 were confined to two or more of the West Germanic
dialects, and 194 were found in one dialect only. Of these 72 are High German,
§4 Old English, 38 Norse, and 30 Gothic.

The 511 verbs are divided into five classes (see Proceedings for 1882, page
xxxv), containing Ia. 54,1 4. 16, Te. 135, II. 102, III. 73, IV. 46, V. 85 verbs.
The distribution of the verbs of each class among the dialects is proportional to
their number.

The Gothic has in all 184 verbs, sharing 103 with the Norse, 137 with the OE,
133 with OHG., and 108 with os.

The Norse has 234 verbs, sharing 182 with the OE., 166 with OHG., and 114
with os.

The o£. has 333 verbs (or if we add ME. and NE,, 351), sharing 242 with the
OHG., and 157 with the os.

The HG. has 342 verbs, sharing 157 with the os.

The os. has 167 verbs.

From this it appears that the OF. stands in closer relation than any other dia-
lect to each and all the Germanic dialects.

The question was then proposed whether the verbs which occurred only in
West Germanic, or in a single dialect, were to be regarded as Old Germanic;
and canons were laid down by which this could be determined from a compari-
son of the derivatives of the stem in Germanic and European languages. The
application of these canons showed that 24 West Germanic stems and 35 isolated
verbs were present in Old Germanic, while of those that remained many could be
_ proved to be original to the dialect in which they occurred. These new forms
were formed after the analogy of the old verbs, and were partly from nouns,
partly from weak verbs, or from strong verbs of other classes. Some were bor-
rowed from other languages, others were merely imitative of sounds.

The ablaut is, then, a living force in every Germanic dialect, not, as in the
classical languages, a survival whose use and meaning are forgotten.

The phonetic development of the ablaut and its later history in the dialects
was reserved for another occasion. .

As Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements, Professor Van
Benschoten, of Wesleyan University, made announcements concerning
boarding-places and mail facilities.

The Secretary, Professor Lanman, of Harvard College, on: behalf of
the Executive Committee, made the following report : —

a. The Proceedings of the session of July, 1882, had been published in 750
copies, September 22, 1882. The Transactions for 1882, vol. xiii., had been pub-
lished in 600 copies, December 23, 1882.

b. Twenty-one of the thirty-five foreign libraries and learned societies to
which sets of Transactions had been sent have replied, leaving fourteen yet to
be heard from. The forwarding of matter by the Smithsonian Institution is
slow, but sure.

c. The list of American Public Libraries where complete sets of the Trans
actions may be found had been increased to the considerable number of 51.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. vii

d. The bills against the Association have all been paid, and there is no claim
against the Association.

é. The Executive Committee had voted to continue the reduction in the price
of complete sets of the Transactions (see last page of cover).

The Association then adjourned until 8 p. m.
>

MIDDLETOWN, Conn., Tuesday, July 10, 1883.

EVENING SESSION.

The Association assembled in Judd Hall, the Vice-President, Pro-
fessor D’Ooge, of Michigan University, in the chair.

The Annual Address was: delivered by the President, Professor
Milton W. Humphreys, of the University of Texas.

4. Conservatism in Textual Criticism.

Conservatism is often misjudged; its opponents ignore the evils that it
attempts to combat, and judge it absolutely; whereas, if the evils did not exist
or did not need checking, those who are conservative would pursue a very differ-
ent course. Conservatism in textual criticism consists merely in clinging to
what is certain, and rejecting all doubtful or unnecessary emendations; but no
absolute rules can be laid down for drawing the line between the certain and
the doubtful. Much harm is done in all sciences, and especially in philology, by
failing to distinguish between what we certainly know and what we think we
know. Witness the numerous theories which have exploded, some of them in
our day, and left us much to unlearn, which is more difficult than learning. Be-
sides, the explosion of theories, or even of what have been recognized as “ doc-
trines,” brings any science into bad repute, and deters men from its prosecution.
Moreover, the application of false methods, especially in textual criticism, may
so impair the foundation on which others hereafter are to build, that it will be an
arduous task to establish the truth, and scholars will be forced to keep constantly
before them the manuscript readings. In fact, this has actually resulted in some
instances from hasty emendations. Almost all the examples of violations of the
Porsonic law excused by elision have been suppressed by emendation. The
view entertained by some, that it is better for a dozen genuine verses to be taken
trom an author than for one spurious verse to be attributed to him, is extremely
pernicious if put into practice. If the twelve genuine verses were removed acci-
dentally in removing one spurious verse, the question might be debatable; but
they will be removed because of some characteristic, which characteristic will
thus be eliminated from the author’s works.

All error in emending, therefore, and all that leads to error, must be avoided.
Every one proposing to emend, except in special cases, must devote himself to
a thorough study of the entire subject of textual criticism. It is always danger-
ous for any one to deal with a subject with which he is not familiar. There are
many sad illustrations of this fact in a large number of our periodicals and
books. Even so simple a subject as the Greek accentuation is not likely to
be treated correctly by an editor who has not made himself familiar with it.

viii American Philological Assoctatton.

While Americans may claim to have as great aptitude for textual criticism as
any other nation, our advantages are very far below those of most Europeans.
We have not the manuscripts, and those which we possess in fac-simile certainly
do not as yet supply us with adequate material. There are, moreover, various
reasons why we cannot rely upon second-hand information in regard to diplo-
matic material. The science of palzography (especially Greek) is as yet in its
infancy,and many errors have already been committed by editors of fac-simile
manuscripts. Nor is it any better with collations and other information which
those offer who have examined manuscripts. Some of the errors are due to the
unsatisfactory state of the science of palzography, others are due to individual
ignorance, others to carelessness, and others are entirely inexplicable. Ch.
Graux was the first to point out, for instance, the fact that no doméycinz are as
old by some two centuries as was universally assumed. Gardthausen has made
serious errors in regard to ink used in past ages. Some manuscripts, which
seem to be dated, have been assigned to a wrong period; while the special
errors in citing the readings of manuscripts are countless.

Some critics err as to the sufficiency of the grounds for emending. Among
their errors may be mentioned the assumptions that ancient writers were infal-
lible, that what is very rare or isolated must be spurious (while some commit the
opposite error of needlessly introducing rare or doubtful expressions), that their
own conception of an author’s style is necessarily correct and perfect, that
everything they do not understand is spurious, and that everything they do not
like is an interpolation. There are critics also who overlook evident marks of
genuineness, and others who forget that, if everything which happens to exhibit a
certain characteristic is spurious, there must be vastly more spurious passages
not happening to exhibit it. Many critics show a misconception of the causes
which lead to errors in copying, and often attribute to the eye mistakes made by
the mind and hand. Some, again, seem to forget the various stages through
which the art of writing has passed, and fail to make corresponding discrimina-
tions. The war upon repetitions has been waged too vigorously. Many modern
books contain more striking repetitions than some which have been removed
from ancient works. Many who devote themselves to textual criticism make
mistakes which justify us in charging them with unpardonable carelessness
or great ignorance, or both combined. Even the simplest metrical laws, for
instance, are often violated in emending the poets.

Seeing, then, how limited are the advantages of Americans, how immature the
science of palzeography, how untrustworthy second-hand information, and how
slippery and full of pitfalls the field of textual criticism, we should adopt as our
general rule the words of Madvig, adstinere et aliorum prolerviam arcere. :

The Association adjourned to Wednesday morning.

MIDDLETOWN, Conn., Wednesday, July 11, 1883.

MORNING SESSION.

The Association was called to order at 9.45 by the President. The
Secretary read the minutes of Tuesday’s sessions, and they were ap-
proved. ‘The reading of communications was resumed.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. ix

5. The Force of Aé«y in the Greek Theosophy, by Dr. C. K. Nelson,
of Brookeville Academy, Maryland.

The Alyn of the Greeks was their highest metaphysical conception. It was
purely ideal; it scorned all restraints of theophanies and incarnations; it was
proud, arrogant, and defiant of all authority but its own. With its unseen ven-
geance it tracked the crimes of Oedipus and Orestes, and yet, after their purifi-
cation through suffering, declared them innocent in the court of its own supreme
arbitrament. Prometheus could bid defiance to Zeus, but was compelled to bow
his head in meekest submission at the bare mention of Alin. The fact that the
principle involved in the conception of Aflxy was not associated with any partic-
ular god may be illustrated by the Homeric distinction between dixaos and
Geovdhs. The omnipotence of Alxn, its superiority even to Zeus, is abundantly
exemplified by Plato and the tragedians.

6. The Caesareum and the Worship of Augustus at Alexandria, by
Professor A. C. Merriam, of Columbia College, New York.

In the Ephemeris Epigraphica for 1879, Mommsen publishes Neroutsos’s ver-
sion of the Obelisk-Crab Inscriptions now in the Metropolitan Museum, New
York, and adds his opinion regarding the temple before which our New York
obelisk was erected in Alexandria. This opinion is that the temple was not
built to Augustus, but by him to his father Julius, because Pliny calls it the tem-
ple of Caesar, because Philo Judaeus styles it the temple of Caesar Epibaterios,
and because under the general policy of his reign Augustus would not have built
the temple to himself even in Egypt. Philo calls the temple Sebastion, it is
true; but this is to be explained by the union of the worship of Augustus with
that of Julius in the same sanctuary, though Mommsen intimates by the use of
the word divus that this did not take place till after the death of Augustus.

These points were discussed in detail by Professor Merriam. The careless-
ness with which Mommsen has treated his authorities might be seen from a sin-
gle passage, where he makes Philo enunciate the singular proposition that “ An
imperial form of government is preferable to liberty, because throughout the
whole world all other temples are far surpassed by those of Caesar, and espe-
cially at Alexandria,’ —a statement of which Philo is by no means the father.
Pliny’s usage of “ Caesar ” was so indiscriminate for any of the Emperors from
Julius to Vespasian, that, when employed alone, the context must determine the
particular individual intended, and in the passage in question this rule favored
Augustus. Next, the passage of Philo was given where he describes the temple,
and where the context proves that Philo was speaking of Augustus and Augustus
alone as the god of the sanctuary, and as such in the lifetime of that Emperor.
Hence, the Sebastion, the temple of Caesar Epibaterios, must be the temple of
Augustus, with the ascription Epibaterios, which Mommsen translates Appulsor,
and Yonge renders the phrase, “the temple erected in honor of the disembar-
kation of Caesar.” This interpretation of the epithet was held to be incorrect ;
that it rather signifies the god who presides over the sea, to whom the sailor’s
sacrifices were offered upon landing and embarking. These sacrifices were
designated by three classes of words: first, those.relating to embarkation, ra
éuBarhpia, as Philostr. 227, 687, Heliodorus, iv. 16, v. 15; or d&vaBarhpia, Plu-

x American Philological Association.

tarch de Sol. An. 36. Secondly, those relating to disembarkation, éxBarnpza, 25
Himer. Ecl. xiii. 38, Philostr. 562; or dwoSarfpia, Steph. Byz. in voc. Buthrotum,
Joseph. Antiq. Jud. i. 3; or &wdBadpa, Dio Cass. xl. 18. Thirdly, those relating
either to embarking or to disembarking, éw:Barfpra, as Himer. Ecl. xiii. 38, Schol.
Ap. Rhod. i. 421, Etymologicum Magnum, Libanius, Spengel Rhet. iii. p. 377.
Similar to these are the 8:aSarfpia, Thuc. v. 54, §5, 116, Xen. Hel. iv. 7. 2, Dio
Cass. x]. 18, Plut. Lucul. 24; cf. Hdt. vi. 76, Xen. Rep. Lac. xiii., Polyaenus,
i. 10. 1 (dwepBarhpia), and the terms eloerfpia, eiondAdora, xarirhpia, bEirhpios.
The deities to whom these sacrifices were shown to have been offered were
Poseidon, the Tyrian Heracles, Protesilaus, Dionysus, Apollo, rivers, the sea,
Zeus, Athene, Artemis; and among the ascriptions in this connection we have
Zeus Apobaterios (Arr. An. i. 11. 7), Zeus Diabaterios (Ctesias, Pers. 17),
Apollo Embasios (Ap. Rhod. i. 359, 404, an instructive passage, and on a coin
of the Ephesians), Apollo Ekbasios (Ap. Rhod. i. 966, 1186), Artemis Ekbateria
(Hesychius), Hadrian as Zeus Embaterios (C. I. G. 1213), and Apollo Epibate-
rios at Troezene, where this deity was worshipped with this epithet in a temple
founded by Diomed as a thank-offering on having escaped the storm which befell
the Greeks on their return from Troy. Accordingly, Caesar Epibaterios is to be
explained in the same way, and this phase is one of the alternatives which Virgil
had in view for the godhead of Augustus in the First Georgic (29-31), which is
hinted at by Propertius (iii. 11. 71), is found in inscriptions (C. I. G. 4443), and
shown from Suetonius to have been in existence at Alexandria during the lifetime
of Augustus (Suet. 98). Although, on general principles of state, Augustus did
banish public worship of himself from Rome, except of his Genius or Lares, he
was privately worshipped there in his lifetime, and publicly in other parts of
Italy, as proved by inscriptions ; while in Asia temples were built to him as
-early as 29 B. C., where he was worshipped in conjunction with Roma, and this
cult spread through the other provinces. According to Sharpe (Hist. Egypt, ii.
94), in the hieroglyphics of the temples in Upper Egypt, within ten years after
the death of Cleopatra, Augustus was given the same ascriptions as the Ptolemies
before him, who were regularly worshipped as gods, and his adoration in the
province is likewise proved by Greek inscriptions. Hence, it was natural that
the Alexandrians, who received more benefits by far from the administration of
Augustus than the inhabitants of any other part of Egypt, should have erected a
temple to him, and it was the people of the provinces who built the sanctuaries
in his honor, not the Emperor himself. If built by him to Julius, it would rather
have been in the adjacent Nicopolis, which he at first attempted to make a for-
midable rival to Alexandria. Dio states (li. 15) that an Heroum of Julius, built
by Cleopatra, existed at Alexandria in 30 B. C., and it is probable that this
Heroum was what Strabo, about 20 B. c., calls Kaisarion, and was situated
within the precinct where the Sebastion was built a few years later, perhaps in
part through the zeal of Barbarus in the Emperor’s behalf. It was not unnatural
that, when Augustus was deified by the Alexandrians, they should have made
. him the god presiding over the main industry of the port, commerce over seas,
and he seems to have succeeded in this to the honors of Hephaestion and the
first Ptolemy, who were so worshipped at the Pharos; but besides this, proof was
adduced of an evident attempt to make him out the son of Apollo, and it was
conjectured that he might have been regarded in Alexandria as a “New”
Aesculapius, who, as well as Apollo, extended his functions to presiding over

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. xi

the sea (Bulletin Corresp. Hellénique, 1879); while to the Egyptians proper
this would assimilate him to Horus, the Sun-God and type of legitimate sov-
ereignty. As such, the obelisks were fitting emblems to erect before his temple,
even as the two which were brought to Rome three years later were conse-
crated to the Sun, the nearest approach to this idea which was ventured upon at
Rome.

Remarks were made on this paper by Dr. Hall and Professor Mer-
riam.

4. The Harmonies of Verse, by Professor F. A. March, of Lafay-
ette College, Easton, Pa.

The elements of rhythm ar fixt in speech. The accented syllabls of words
and the accented words of frases and sentences, the long and short syllabls and
the pich ar determind by the habit of each language. One can tel in what lan-
guage a crowd ar talking by the rhythm of the murmur, tho no sing] sound can
be distinguisht. Dialects may also be distinguisht. The American rhythm is
different from the English. The American pulse and breathing ar quicker, the
rise and fall of nervous energy more rapid. We make more frequent use of
secondary accents, and so make the intervals between stress more nearly equal,
and the average interval shorter. |

In every speech, however, all sorts of combinations of the natural intervals
may be made, and so a musical or an unmusical current of sound. The source of
the music in musical prose is in great part the agreeabl succession of long and
short intervals of stress and pich in the current of its spoken words.

Musical prose, then, mav be characterized as having melody.

Poetry is characterized by harmony ; its characteristic music is produced by
the combination of different series of sounds.

Verses ar made acording to a pattern. To a schoolboy this may be known
merely as a rule of prosody, but with the poet it works in the wil, and produces
in his imagination a series of sounds coresponding to it, like the humming of a
tune. In any verse two series of sounds ar implied: first, the words utterd
with their natural accents to giv the thought ; second, a rhythmic murmur in the
imagination representing the pattern of the verse. |

The musical merit of the verse depends in great part on the harmonies
between these series.

There ar two extremes where the music disapears. (1.) The two series may
run exactly together, so as to make the prose accent and the metrical stress coin-
cide. This seldom ocurs thru any long sentence; but unskild readers often
feign it by sing-song or cantilation, changing the natural pronunciation to that of
the verse pattern. .

(2.) The natural interval between the accents may be so much longer in the
words than in the murmur that they cannot be givn in acordant time, or
the accents of the two series may be otherwise so differently adjusted as to
make a chord impossibl. In this case, whatever melody the series of words may
hav, it is bad as verse; it runs over into prose.

Between these extremes, differences in the two series serv as the basis of har-
monies. Slight differences of time between the beats, or of the time of particular
syllabls, or of their number, or differences in amount and distribution of stress

xii American Philologiwal Assoctation.

or pich, giv charm to the rhythm where the chords ar perfect, and may produce
a perpetual variety of harmonies.

Harmonies of this kind ar esential to verse; it may hav others. Thus true
songs hav their proper tune in adition to the two esential series of sound in
the verses, and it is often so like these series that it can run with them thru the
mind and ad new harmonies to the verse. Composers of such songs sometimes
tel us that the music, some old air perhaps, haunted them, running in their minds
day and night, until thoughts and words at last came to them, which ran in
harmony with it.

Something like these musical airs ar long-drawn combinations of cadences,
running thru hole verses perhaps, such as hardly ocur in speech for utility, but
ar the creations of imagination working upon sound, prior to words in the mind
of the poet, and stimulating and guiding the composition of the verses by which
they arexprest. Later poets take up these cadences, and know them like tunes of
music, and make new verses to them. And readers recognize them, as they read,
as sources of peculiar harmonies; sometimes they stigmatize such verses as
imitativ, insted of rejoicing in their beuty.

This way of analyzing the music of verse suggests some remarks.

1. In mere melody prose has the advantage of verse. It has a greater range
of material and greater freedom of combination.

2. To apreciate poetry as such, to feel the harmonies of verse, it is necesary
to be so familiar with its meter that a murmur of its rhythm may flow stedily
thru the mind as one reads.

3. We see why new forms of verse fail of popular apreciation, if they ar of
any complication.

4. It is a matter of curious inquiry how many persons realy perceiv the har-
monies of elaborate poetry, and how many of those who delight in it perceiv
only its melody as tho it wer prose.

5. We see why metrical prose and iregular meters ar so differently judgd.
Persons who notice only melody may be pleasd with such composition, when
those who notice harmonies wil hav pattern rhythms of verses continualy started
by this and that metrical cadence, and started only to run into a tangl of discords.
It is best to print metrical prose as prose.

6. The process may be seen by which a new poem in peculiar rhythm makes
the rhythm popular. At first it pleases by its melody only. Then the cadences
of striking frases and passages fit their tune in the memory, until gradualy the
hole rhythm runs with the words.

7. There wil be a general acordance in every nation between the rhythms of
its poetry and its prose. The peple wil not find plesure in poetry unless its
melody is familiar. On the other hand, poetry reacts on prose. The erly Eng-
lish meters ran prevailingly in long feet; acordingly the rhythm of the Bible,
Bunyan, and the like, is trisylabic. But in Milton, Irving, Dickens, it is dissylabic.

Remarks were made on this paper by Professor D’Ooge and Rev.
Dr. Anderson.

The Treasurer, Mr. Charles J. Buckingham, of Poughkeepsie,
N.Y., submitted the following summary of the accounts for the year
1882-83 : —

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. xill

RECEIPTS.
Balance on hand, July 10, 1882 «1 ww ww ew ww www we $345.13
Fees, assessments, and arrears paidin . . . . . . . » $417.00
Sales of Transactions . . . . . . «© « 2 2 + « « « 387.00
Interest on deposits .. . re ee 13.50
Dividend on Conn. Western stock a 4.50 |
Total receipts forthe year. . . 1... 1. 2. eee ese 822.00
$1,167.13
, . EXPENDITURES.
Plates for vol. xiii. (1882) . . . oe 6 6 e+) 6$399.08

750 copies of Proceedings for 1882, separate . 2 + © 6 «~~ 44.60
600 copies of vol. xiii. (Tr. avd Pr.together) . . . . . 127.50
Reprints of separate articles for authors . ...... 35-75

Postages ... 0)”

Mailing,’ shipping, and expressages . a rr 47-20

Job-printing . 2. 2. 2. 1. 1 1 ee ew ew ee we ew 20.35

Sundries . . 2. 1. 2 6 1 ee ew ew ew we ew ew ws 15.10

Advertising . . se 6 6 « ~~ 17.50

Expenses of memorial to U. Ss. Colleges (4) . se ee 33-74
Total expenditures forthe year . . . 2. 2 1 6 es ew eo $801.25
Balance on hand, July 9, 1883. . . . 2. 2. 2 + «© we ew ow 365.88
$1,167.13

On motion, the President appointed as a Committee to audit the
Treasurer’s accounts, Professors J. M. Garnett and Caskie Harrison.

As Committee to recommend a time and place for the next meeting,
the President appointed Professors Rufus B. Richardson, A. C. Mer-
riam, and W. T. Hewett.

On motion, the Chair appointed as Committee to nominate officers
for the ensuing year, Professor W. D. Whitney, Rev. Dr. Anderson,
and Dr. Julius Sachs. |

On behalf of Professor Rice, the Curator of the Museum, notice was
given that the collections were open to such members of the Associa-
tion as desired to see them.

An invitation was given to the Association to meet the Faculty of
Wesleyan University at the Chapter House of the Eclectic Society, on
Wednesday evening at 7 o’clock.

An adjournment was had at 12.30 P. M.

1 “ Mailing ” includes wrappers, wrapping, and addressing.

xiv American Philological Association.

MIDDLETOWN, Conn., Wednesday, July 11, 1883.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The Association was called to order at 2.45 P. M., the Vice-Presi-
dent, Professor D’Ooge, in the chair.

8. The Mute Consonants, Sonant and Surd, by Professor Samuel
Porter, of the National Deaf Mute College, Washington, D. C.

The design of the paper was to direct attention to the composite character of
the surd and sonant mutes, —the so-called senues, p, ¢, k, and mediae, b, d, hard g.
They occur, (1.) as initial, before a vowel; (2.) final, after a vowel; (3.) initial,
before / or 7, or a y or w sound, in English, and other consonants besides these,
in some languages; (4.) final, after a consonant; (5.) medial, before or after a
consonant.

I. As initial to a vowel, what is distinctive in the surds is an interval of
silence preparatory, and then an explosive utterance. The latter is, in part,
actually in the vowel. A vowel can by itself be so uttered, by an abrupt opening
of the glottis and larynx, with tone-vibration of the vocal cords. After a surd
mute, the vowel explosion is co-instantaneous with the lip or tongue and palate
parting. It involves a preceding momentary closure of the glottis. The vowel
position is in some cases taken beforehand (e. g. ‘ pay,’ ‘ pea’). When not so, it
is yet reached so quickly as to be to all intents co-instantaneous with the breath
explosion. This explosion of the vowel is a character that we ascribe to the con-
sonant, but this does not distinguish one surd mute from another. What differs
in them is not tone, but breath-sound attendant, — in the same way as », th so-
nant, and gs are differentiated, not by the tone, but by accompanying breath-sound.
For the surd mutes, the breath-sound is explosive,—a puff, by breath accumu-
lated within the elastic walls of the mouth-cavities and suddenly released. It is
simultaneous with the vowel utterance, and is thus a lapping over of the con-
sonant upon the vowel. It is recognizably different for f, 4, 2, severally. This
is the usual and norma) way in at least the English and the Romanic languages.
Yet there are persons who, aiming at a finer or more soft enunciation, give the
breath-explosion before the vowel ; almost necessarily, however, with a more or
less decided 4 sound, a rough breathing, and sometimes exaggerated in theatri-
cal fashion: ¢. g. “ P‘fay me,” “ C‘ome, p‘ensive nun,” “ Who st‘eals my p‘urse,”
&c. This really turns the ¢ezues into what, in Indo-European speech, was the
original form of the asfivafae, out of which came the later spirants. In this style,
the vowel starts with the glottis open beforehand, and, though still with abrupt-
ness, yet loses the proper explosive effect. Something of this general sort is a
prevailing characteristic of German speech. This separation of the initia] mute
from the vowel tends to throw it back, as a final, upon a preceding syllable; as,
‘ cent-aur,’ ‘ plac-ate,’ ‘ cap-acious..’

The sonant mutes are so called because of the muffled sound from the glottis
with the mouth organs in a closed condition. As the glottis is thus open and
vibrating beforehand, it cannot pass directly to a proper vowel explosion: it
can give a swell, but not a staccato or a marcato. Thus, the distinctive character
of the sonants involves another character, viz. the absence of explosive tone

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XV

effect in the succeeding vowel. Moreover, the stream of vibrated breath is nar-
row and scanty, and the walls of the oral chamber are in a yielding state, and
not in the tense condition which is fitter to give the puff — the breath explosion
—of the surds. There is, indeed, breath expelled and lapping over upon the
vowel, but not exploded.

The style that interjects an 4 sound tends to obscure the difference of surd
and sonant. (Cf ‘b‘ay,’ ‘ p‘ay’).

II. In the surd mute as final after a vowel, we find another element. The
closure of lips, or of tongue upon palate, preceding the interval of silence, gives
a percussive sound, by the impact of the organs, unlike the explosive above
noticed, except in the same general character of abruptness. It is more of the
nature of a click than of a breath-sound. There is, besides, at the same instant,
an abrupt ending of the vowel, but not distinguishing one surd mute from an-
other. The percussive effect differs for all three. With this, a different reso-
‘nance for each, as the organs approach to contact, contributes somewhat to the
total effect.

In the sonants, the necessary lax condition of the oral walls precludes the
percussive effect.

In a final surd mute, we have, ordinarily, the explosive effect added after the
interval of silence; but not always. When followed in the next syllable by a
sonant of the same organic position (either a mute or a nasal), this element is
properly suppressed; as, ‘ cup-bearer,’ ‘cut down,’ ‘at noon,’ ‘accost,’ ‘midship-
man,’ ‘Etna.’ It may sometimes, when a sibilant or any spirant follows, or a
nasal, or another surd mute, or an /or 7, be almost, though not wholly, suppressed ;
as, ‘excellent,’ ‘rhapsody,’ ‘cut-throat,’ ‘acknowledge,’ ‘Stepney,’ ‘ cut-purse,’
‘uprise.’ When the same mute ends one syllable and begins the next, as ‘scatter,’
‘upper,’ ‘ cat-tail,’ we have the final element of the first syllable percussive, and
the initial of the second explosive. Thus, if not doubled, the consonant is split
into two. Whether — or how —to indicate this, is for the Committee on Spell-
ing Reform to inquire.

[Under the heads III., IV., and V., the paper gave examples of yarious com-
binations employed in English, with remarks upon the resulting modifications of
the qualities of the mutes. ]

This analysis of the mutes, especially as initial, is strikingly confirmed by the
case of Mr. Edwin Cowles, editor of Zhe Cleveland Leader, Ohio, who, with
otherwise perfect hearing, has never heard a note above, as he says, the sixth
octave on the piano-forte, — which would be not higher than three octaves above
the middle C, — and who is thus actually unable, not only to hear an s or an /,
but cannot, by the ear, distinguish one mute consonant from another.

In review, we see how the composite nature of these consonants, with the dif-
ferent modes of pronunciation in different languages and dialects, may have led
to conflicting views. If the element of sonancy is reduced or obliterated in prac-
tice, it will be overlooked, and the definition be made to turn upon other features.
The two sets will be described as “soft,” or “ weak,” or “ flat,” on the one hand,

1 In the cases observed by Dr. Wollaston (Philosophical Transactions, 1820), the lowest
limit was higher than this by an octave plus a third, with nothing said about inability to
distinguish spoken sounds.

xvi American Philological Assoctation.

and “hard,” or “sharp,” on the other, instead of sonant and surd,—as is so
commonly done by German philologists, and by the English, following in their
wake.

In whispered speech, it is indeed only by degrees of force and abruptness
that we distinguish the two sets; but we make them suggest the outspoken
sounds as sonant and surd.

This much may be taken for certain: since degrees of abruptness and force
admit of no hard and fast line of division, the distinction originally indicated by
separate alphabetic characters must have been that of sonant and non-sonant, of
tone and of breath-sound. The other characteristics grow out of these, and are
thus secondary to these as the primary, — precisely as tone primarily distinguishes
v, th sonant, and s, from /, #4 surd, and s. The phenomena of assimilation find
only in the primary a truly rational explanation. Whenever the sonant element
falls away or becomes obscured, this is to be regarded as a manifest phenome-
non of “ phonetic decay,” and as a real loss or impairment of capacity in the
language.

g- On the Varieties of Predication, by Professor W. D. Whitney,
of Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

The simplest complete sentence is composed of two members, each a single
word: the subject noun and the predicate verb. In languages like ours there is
no predication without a verb-form, and the office of predication is the thing,
and the only thing, that makes a word a verb. Infinitives and participles,
though usually included in the verbal system, are in fact merely nouns and ad-
jectives, which retain a certain analogy with the verb in the treatment of their
adjuncts.

The primary predicative relation is that sustained by the verb to its subject.
The establishment of a form of expression for this relation appears to have been
the first step in the development of the sentence in our family of languages.

Later, the adjuncts of the predicate verb gain in logical importance, at the
cost of the verb itself; the latter becomes a “ verb of incomplete predication.”
The extreme of this development is reached when certain verbs are attenuated
in meaning to the value of a “ copula,” and the whole logical significance of the
predication lies in the added word or words which now become qualifiers of
the subject. These “predicate nouns and adjectives” are made descriptive
of the subject only by means of the copula, or are predicated of the subject
through the instrumentality of a verb.

It is of course possible to analyze every predicate verb into two parts: the
copula, and the predicate noun or adjective ; as, ke is running, for he runs; he
was a sufferer, for ke suffered. This analysis is a real one, and useful for certain
purposes ; but because it can be imposed on the different varieties of predicate,
we must not suppose that the copulative form is anything else than secondary.
The copula-verb is always made by the wearing down to a formal value of
verbs that originally had a material significance ; an example is the reduction of
Lat. sfabat to Fr. etait.

The copula is a verb of extirpated predication, and the words that follow it
are descriptive purely of the subject. Others are verbs of more or less incom-
plete predication, with predicative complements, and these latter are partly

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XVii

qualifiers of the subject, but partly also modifiers of the verb itself. Thus she
walks a queen means partly that ‘she has a queenly walk,’ and partly that ‘she
is shown by her walk to be a queen’; that is, the noun is predicative so far as.
it is made through the verb descriptive of the subject, and is an adjunct of the
verb, or adverbial, so far as it describes the action of the verb itself. This
variety may be termed the “ adverbial predicate.”

Verbs expressing certain actions come to be so usually followed by an ex-
pression of that to or at which the action directs itself, as to appear.to lack
something when that expression is not added. This kind of incompleteness of
the mere verb as predicate is so common that the sentence-form subject-verb-
object becomes as prevalent as the sentence-form subject-copula-predicate.

Next are developed in many languages modes of expression which, without
turning the sentence into a really compound or complex one, yet virtually make
the object a subject of further predication. Thus, 7 make him fall means ‘he
falls and I bring it about,’ or ‘I cause that he falls,’ and is not at the outset
essentially different in character from the equivalent one, 7 cause his fall. A
conspicuous development of this kind is the construction of infinitive with
subject-accusative.

Again, a noun or adjective is often made directly predicative to an object-
noun. Thus, in the sentence, / make tt black, the word d/ack has the logical value
of a predicate to z#, as appears from the equivalents, “I cause it to be black,”
“it is made black,” “I blacken it.’? The last of these shows how the predicate
word may be absorbable into the verb itself, and illustrates one of the points of
contact of the denominative and causative formations. We may name this the
“objective predicate.” It occurs oftenest with make; also with choose, call,
keep, etc.

Interesting is the case where a verb is used factitively and is accompanied by
an objective predicate belonging to its object; thus, “he wéfed his face dry,”
“you will wa/k yourself dame,” and so on. Here /ame is a predicate of the
object, and is made so by the action of the verb. This factitive objective predi-
cate has been either ignored or else very unsatisfactorily treated by many emi-
nent grammarians. The word ary or /ame is neither a case of apposition, nor a
factitive object, nor a second accusative ; its essential syntactical relation is that
of predicate to the object through the action of the verb.

Remarks upon this paper were made by Professors Weston, March,
and Primer.

10. On a Greek Inscription from Larisa, by Dr. Julius Sachs, of
New York.

After a brief account of the discovery of the now celebrated inscription, its
importance as illustrated by the various publications on its contents was dis-
cussed; reference was made to its value for the elaboration of a phonetic
scheme of the Thessalian dialect (cf. R. Meister, Greek Dialects, vol. i.), and more
particularly to the increase in our knowledge of dialectic inflections. |

By the aid of a partial reprint of the inscription there were discussed the
genitive forms in o:, considered by Blass and others as locatives performing the
functions of the genitive. Exception was taken to this opinion: —1. because

: 2

XViii Amencan Philological Association.

such an incrustation, limited to one case of one declension only, seemed illogical;
2. because of lack of sufficient evidence for the usurpation of the genitive func-
tion by the locative. The genitive ending was traced from origina] ooro through
various stages to oo and finally to o, of which the o: is but a “graphic” repre-
sentation.

A critical review of the pure verbs in Thessalian led to the conclusion that
Robert’s formula, “all pure verbs are conjugated in the Thessalian dialect ac-
cording to the analogy of the verbs in mi,” is inaccurate: there is no abandon-
ment on the part of the former of their conjugation system; they simply give
greater weight to the first or conjugational vowel.

In the diverging views of the various editors as to the forms wor rés, rox xl,
&r ras, ér roi, the author of the paper inclines to consider each group one word
rather than two, mainly because in inscriptions and manuscripts one of the two
assimilated consonants is frequently omitted.

Comment on the strange accusative plurals like rds rayés was followed bya
query, whether in the anomalous obyxAc:ros yevoudvas (line 10 of inscription),
emended by Robert into ovy«Acirou, there might not lurk a heteroclite formation ;
again, the frequency of the genitive absolute as a crystallized mode of concise
enunciation with complete abandonment of its logical foundation was noted;
finally, many of the peculiarities were explained on the assumption, that in this
inscription, an official document, there is a conscious revival of the archaic, into
which, however, many colloquial forms have crept.

The inscription was originally published by H. G. Lolling, Wittheilungen des
deutschen archdologischen Instituts in Athen, vii. 61 ff.; cf. also Robert in Hermes,
xvii. 467 ff.; Mommsen in Hermes, xvii. 477 ff.; and finally Hermes, xviii. 318.

11. Edward Wallace’s Translation of Aristotle’s Peycholoey: by Dr.
C. K. Nelson.

This translation is a most successful interpretation of a very difficult book.
Wallace gives a copious bibliography. His introduction is a complete exhibit
of the Aristotelian philosophy, and points out the defects as well as the merits
of the system. The rendering is as literal as the Greek of Aristotle admits, and
is especially meritorious in supplying the links of thought, as, for instance, where
some pregnant particle requires expansion to a brief clause or sentence.

12. The Guilt or Innocence of the Antigone of Sophocles, by Pro-
fessor D’Ooge, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

This question was considered especially in its bearing upon the genuineness
of Ant. 905-915. Boeckh and those who agree with him maintain that in this
passage Antigone seeks to justify her conduct, and to reassure her own con-
science under a sense of guilt incurred by disobeying the edict of Creon. The
aim of the paper was to show that this passage, so far from being an attempt at
exculpation, is a reiteration by the heroine of her sense of duty from a new and
more imperative point of view.. The writer goes on to show that Boeckh’s view
was inspired by the theory of Hegel, who supposed that the central idea of the
Antigone is to set forth and harmonize the relations of the citizen to the state,
and of the individual to the mandates of religion. From this point of view, the

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. x1x

play represents two transgressors, as well as two victims. This theory is ably
refuted by M. Girard in an article contained in vol. cxxvii. of the Revue des Deux
Mondes, entitled “‘ La Critique Savante en Allemagne.” It is there shown that
no such conflict between the state and the family, between civil and religious
duties, was ever entertained by the Greek, but that human must be in harmony
with divine laws, to which indeed they owe their origin. The paper then sought
to show that all those interpretations of the utterances of the Chorus that seem
to condemn Antigone are due either to this false view of the attitude of the
heroine towards human authority, or else to the false notions of the functions
of the Chorus that are still so prevalent. The Chorus is not the invariable ele-
ment in the play. The most absurd conclusions must follow from regarding the
Chorus as “the impartial and judicial spectator,”’ or, still worse, as the mouth-
piece of the poet himself. In interpreting the words of the Chorus it is essential
to inquire, first, .who constitute the Chorus; and, second, in what situation it
expresses any given sentiment. So in the Axétigone, it is manifest that at the
outset the Chorus is afraid of Creon, and speaks timidly or not at all. Only
when it has become impressed with the dreadful warning and prediction of Tire-
sias, is it courageous enough to call in question the conduct of Creon. The
wepiwéresa of the Chorus is almost as marked as that of Creon. This point was
illustrated from other plays.

The statements of the Chorus in 853-856 and 872-875 were considered more
particularly, because, as commonly interpreted, they are understood to be a con-
demnation of Antigone. But the Chorus as yet sees Antigone’s conduct only
from one point of view, viz. Creon’s. Besides, the condemnation is partly soft-
ened by saying warpqov 3° éxrivess rw’ GOAox, and the whole passage is intended
to excite the pity of the spectator. Taking into one connected view all that the
Chorus says with reference to the deed of Antigone, we may be tempted to
adopt the opinion of Langheld in his monograph on 905-9165, that in its closing
words, y7pq Td ppovety e3{3atay, the Chorus refers to itself as well as to Creon,
and means to say that the experience of the king has taught it also a lesson of
wisdom.

13. The New England Pronunciation of 0, by Professor Edward
S. Sheldon, of Harvard College, Cambridge.

The pronunciation meant is that heard in New England in such words as
stone, home, bone. The following list represents for the most part my own natural
pronunciation ; in cases where I am no longer certain, I put a question-mark, as
also for some words which have been given me by other persons. The list is
probably pretty complete for the pronunciation in Bath and Waterville on the
Kennebec River in Maine twenty years ago. Compounds and derivatives keep
the same sound. I was born in Waterville, but lived in Bath till my twelfth
year, when the family moved back to Waterville. I am the youngest of the
family. Except where I have put two question-marks, or added a note to the
contrary, I think every queried word belongs in the list..

Alone. (Almost certain; but not Jone, Boat. (Noun and verb of course in-
lonely, only ?) cluded ; I give only the simple word.)

XX American Philological Association.

Bolster.

Bolt.

Bone.

Both.

Broke (preterit of dreak).

Broken (p.p. of dreak).

Choke; aéso choker (‘a collar’).

Cloak.

Clomb. (I should be tempted to pro-
nounce so in reading; of course the
word is only a book-word to me.
The dialect form, I think, is c/sm
[« as in def] or clim.)

Close. (?? Ifit belongs here it is only
the adjective, never the verb, but
even the adjective is doubtful.)

Coat.

Coax.

Colt (also Colt, proper name).

Comb. (Also in catacombs, though tocall
it a case of popular etymology might
be misleading. In all apparent com-
pounds comé keeps the same sound).

Dolt.

Extol. (? I think I have heard it so
sometimes, and pronounced it so
myself, though it was always a book-
word to me.)

Folks.

Hoh! (Interjection of contempt, =
‘nonsense’; cf. Sook.)

Hoax (?).

Holm. (? Sopronounced in 4olm-oak,
learned at school as a book-word,
translating the Latin word é/ex. The
/ was not silent.)

Holmes (the proper name).

Holster. (? Hardly a word belonging
to my dialect, but I should naturally
pronounce it like do/ster.)

Holpen (not a word of the dialect;
cf. clomb and holster).

Holt (? proper name).

Holt. (? Noun corresponding to hold,
verb, which latter word never has
the sound in question.)

Home.

Hope.

Jolt. (? I think I pronounced it so
formerly.)

Load (?).

Lonely (?).

Molten. (? Rather a book-word to me.)

Most.

Moult.

Nobody. (? The first o is meant.)

None.

Open (?).

Only (?).

Poke. (But I have marked Joker as a
little doubtful. I think it belongs
in the list.)

Polk (? the proper name). |

Polka. (? It almost certainly belongs
in the list.)

Pooh (cf. Hoh).

Poultice (?).

Poultry (?).

Revolt. (Cf. extol; of course an early
learned book-word. But the adjec-
tive revolting always had, I think,
the o as in not.)

Road.

Rope.

Rode. (?? Never, I think, natural to
me. I doubt if it is ever so pro-
nounced in Maine. My only au-
thority for it thus far is from Mas-
sachusetts.)

Smoke.

Soak. (? I feel pretty sure it belongs
in the list.)

Soap. ,

Spoke, spoken (from the verb sfeak,
also spokesman).

Stone.

Suppose (?).

Swollen (? not now, if ever, natural
to me).

Throat.

Toad.

Upholstery (cf. holster).

Woke and Awoke (?).

Wrote. (? I think I have heard it, but
it is not natural to me.)

Whole azd Wholesome.

Yolk. (? Rathera book-word to me. I
never knew whether the 7 was silent
or not.)

Yoke (??).

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. xxi

The Association adjourned till Thursday morning.

In the evening occurred a social meeting of the Faculty of the
University, the members of the Association, ladies, and other invited
guests. The company assembled at the house of the Eclectic Society,
pleasantly overlooking the valley of the Connecticut, and spent the
evening in agreeable intercourse and song.

MIDDLETOWN, Conn., Thursday, July 12, 1883.

MORNING SESSION.

The Association assembled at 8.50 A. M.

Professor Garnett reported for the Auditing Committee that the
Treasurer’s accounts had been examined and found correct. The
report was accepted.

The minutes of Wednesday’s sessions were read and approved.

Professor Richardson reported for the Committee on time and place
of meeting. It was recommended that the next session be held at
Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H., on the second Tuesday in July,
that is, July 8, 1884. After considerable discussion of a proposal to
hold the meeting one week later (on the 15th), the proposal was re-
jected by the Association, and the original recommendation accepted
without modification.

The Executive Committee has decided not to allow a discount to
the Trade on the Transactions.

The formation of a library is not among the objects of the
Association ; nevertheless, the Committee has instructed the Secre-
tary not to refuse such works as may be offered by way of gift or
exchange. :

The Committee appointed to nominate officers for the year 1883-
84 reported as follows : —

For President, — Professor Martin L. D’Ooge, Michigan University, Ann Arbor,
Mich.

For Vice-Presidents, — Professor Tracy Peck, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. ;
Professor James C. Van Benschoten, Wesleyan University, Middletown,
Conn.

For Secretary and Curator, ~ Professor Charles R. Lanman, Harvard College,
Cambridge, Mass. |

For Zreasurer, — Professor Edward S. Sheldon, Harvard College, Cambridge,
Mass.

XXIL Ameruan Philologial Association.

For additional members of the Zxecutrve Committee, —

Professur Basil L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Professor Francis A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Professor Thomas R. Price, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull, Hartford, Conn.

Professor William D. Whitney, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

On motion, the report was accepted, and the persons therein
named were declared elected to the offices to which they were
respectively nominated.

The reading of papers was resumed.

14. Hamlet’s “ Dram of Eale ” and what it “ Doth,” by Dr. C. P.
G. Scott, of Columbia College, New York.

The whole passage, Hamlet, i. 4. 17-38, “ This heavy-headed revel, east and
west,” etc., is diffuse, involved, and repetitious, but to a careful reader it is clear
enough, except the last three lines : —

The dram of eale
Doth all the noble substance of a doubt
To his own scandal.

I. The first problem is to find the infinitive required by doth, and this must
be concealed in ofa doubt. The statement evidently intended is not true always,
but it is true often. The qualification off is therefore required, and should be
read in place of of. O/t is used above in a statement, “so, oft it chances,” of
which the lines in dispute are a summarized repetition. Read of? rather than
often, since the latter was a new word in Shakespeare’s time, and less common
than 9/7, even in prose.

What now is the infinitive disguised by a doudt? The following suggestions
have been made: doudt, in the sense “throw doubt upon,” but this meaning
is unsupported ; dout, in the sense “ destroy,” but this sense is not apposite,
and dout does not have this sense, and is at best a very rare word, occurring in
two passages of Shakespeare at most, and with the sense “ do out, i. e. put out,
extinguish ”; abate is a conjecture of Hudson, but the sense assigned it, “de-
press,” is not suitable ; af/aint, debase, and other conjectures, may be passed by.
Dr. Scott suggests corrupt.

II. What is the thing that “corrupts the noble substance ” of a man’s repu-
tation and character, and brings it into “scandal”? It is the ‘‘ dram of eale,”
a “dram,” i. e. ‘‘a little” of something bad. The quarto of 1611 and the un-
dated quarto have ea/e; the quarto of 1604 reads ea/e, and this is believed to be
right as against ea/e.

The reading cafe suggested Theobald’s emendation dase; but the use of the
adjective without the definite article in place of the substantive is not at all fre-
quent; dase occurs 135 times in the plays in the sense “ degraded, low, mean,
ordinary,” but never in the sense of “baseness.” Similar objections militate
against the emendation z/e. The conjectural reading dale gives no good sense.
fii is a plausible conjecture, but, considering the frequency of the word, it is
hard to see how it could be corrupted to ea/e.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. Xxiii

I believe the right word is evi. vil, in the exact sense here required,
namely, a moral taint, a “ vicious mole of nature,” is common in Shakespeare and
everywhere. In this and other shades of meaning the noun occurs sixty-one
times in the plays, twenty-two times at the end of a verse, as in the line in ques-
tion. As an adjective evil is found twenty-one times, as an adverb twice. But
how came evz/ to be printed cafe? The metre allows a final atonic syllable, but
only, or usually, before a natural pause. There is no natural pause here, and so
the atonic syllable may have been suppressed by contraction, leaving an ac-
cented monosyllable at the end, as required. That is, ev? (or rather eud, as
then spelt), pronounced 4vz/ (é as in they), was contracted to &, spelt phoneti-
cally (but with the already conventional “ silent ” final ¢) eale ; ea being then the
recognized digraph for the @ sound, which digraph still survives with that sound
in break, great, yea, in the “Irish” pronunciation of speak, eat, meat, please, reason,
etc., and, with slight modifications since developed, in the modern dear, tear,
wear, head, dead, stead, bread, pleasant, etc.

This pronunciation of ea gives the point to Falstaff’s pun, which most readers
fail to appreciate: “If reasons (pronounced vézzz, as if ‘raisins,’ cf. M. E.
spelling veisins, Alisaunder 5193; also ratsins, as now) were as plenty as black-
berries, I would give no man a reason upon compulsion.” 1 Hen. IV,, ii. 4.

This contraction of evél (euzl, euel, cule) to eale is paralleled by the very com-
mon contractions of ever (ewer) to e’er, often spelt eve in Shakespeare (compare or
ever, developed from or ere, supposed to be for or e’er), never (neuer) to ne'er,
often spelt zere, even (euen) to e’en, often spelt ene (so good even contracts to
| good den and godden). So devil (deuil, deuel) contracts to Middle-English del (an
occasional form), Scottish del, deel, provincial English deel, deele, dewle, and dule.
The Devil is simply invaluable to dramatists. The word occurs 280 times in
Shakespeare’s plays, 123 times in prose, and 157 times in verse. The metre often
requires it to be a monosyllable, but I have not taken the trouble to examine all
the instances in the original editions to find out whether it is ever printed as an
obvious monosyllable. Such contractions, however, occur much earlier than
Shakespeare’s time : —

In Lustructions for Parish Priests by Fohn Myrc, written about A. D. 1400 (ed.
Edw. Peacock, London, 1868), de/ and e/ rhyme (lines 360-365) : —

Wychecrafte and telynge,

Forbede thou hem for any thynge ;
For whoso be-leueth in the fay
Mote be-leue thus by any way,
That hyt ys a sleghthe of the de/,
That maketh a body to cache e/.

The editor notes: ‘‘ de/ or de(ue)l 5 ef or e(ue)l.”
In Specimens of Lyric Poetry (ed. T. Wright, London, 1842) def again occurs

(p. 111) :—
The de/ hym to-drawe.

In Halliwell’s Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words (gth ed., London
1878) appears the entry :—
Eile, Evil. Nominale MS.

In the Ancren Riwile, written about A. D. 1200 (ed. J. Morton, London, 1853),
occurs a word spelt variously ele, ezl, el :—

XXiV American Philologual Assoctation.

The blake deth lesse eile to then eien (p. 50).

Mid gode riht muwen eithurles beon ihoten ¢i/-thurles, vor heo habbeth idon muchel ei?
to moni on ancre (p. 62).

Theo thet on eni sved doth (var. ei/ ; p. 186).

Uvele iheowed (var. e/; p. 368).

But may not ei/e, esl, el, in these passages, be the M. E. substantive in the
sense of “ pain, harm,” associated with M. E. ele, ei/, “ painful, troublesome,”
from A. S. ege, cognate with Gothic ag/us, 83bcxoAos? It may be. Note, how-
ever, that this alleged M. E. substantive occurs only in these passages, if
it occurs anywhere, and that there is no corresponding A. S. substantive
egiu, associated with eg/e, though there is a Gothic substantive ag/o, “ trouble,
OAlyis.” Note, also, that in two of the passages from the Ancren Riwle
etl or ef actually occurs as a variant of sve/ (=cxel), in one of the two (p. 368)
as an adverb, There isno M. E. or A. S. adverb associated with es/e or egie,
“troublesome.” (The verb is very common: A. S. eg/san, M. E. ezlen, E. ail.) Still,
the loss of « (=v), between two vowels is so rare at this early period that, while
one may consider ¢#/, ese, in the passages cited, or in some of them, to be the
same word as euel, the influence of the other ele, ei/, “ troublesome,” upon the
form must be admitted. Finally, we are not to ignore the influence of M. E. ile
(E. 27), from Icel. sir, earlier Hr, Swed. sila, el-, Dan. se, originally identical
with exel.

Whether the view here set forth as to the reason why ese/ (eus/, evil) appears
as eale can be sustained or not, I have no doubt that evé/ is the word intended.
The lines in dispute, as thus emended, are not particularly brilliant or original;
but they will do. They have caused more controversy than they are worth Zer
se. But they are not ger se. They are a part of “ Hamlet.”

This paper may be found printed z# extenso in Shakespeariana for November,
1883.

Remarks were made upon this paper by Prof. F, A. March.

He said that he had been accustomed to think that the errors in this passage
were from misreading rather than mishearing. The main mistake in eale was
reading a for #, which was of course Shakespeare’s way of writing the vw of the
evil ; eule is one of the spellings of evé/ in early English (see Morris’s Specimens,
Vol. I., s. v.), and Shakespeare may have written it here; but whether he wrote
cule, euel, euil, the ductus literarum is easy —for a printer who has a dram of
ale in his head. Reading @ for w probably occurs also in Julius Cesar, ii. 1.
83: For if thou path thy native semblance on.

Fath for putte.

The great trouble in the passage has been with ofa doubt. The meaning is,
however, fairly certain. It must be, as Prof. Scott says, “The little evil cor-
rupts the whole substance,” and probably by pervading, “ o’erleavening ” it.
But Shakespeare uses subdue in this sense : —

My nature is suddu’d
Yo what it works in, like the dyer’s hand. — Sonn. cxi.
His face suddwd
Yo penetrative shame. — Ant. and Cleo., iv. 14. 74.
My heart’s suddu'd
Euen ¢o the very quality of my lord. — Othello, i. 3. 251.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XXV

Read then,
The dram of evil
Doth all the noble substance oft subdue
Zo his own scandal.

And you have a striking Shakespearian figure, and a characteristic rhythmical
repetition to boot. I had cherished this reading as my own, — the Cambridge
collators do not give it, — but Mr. Furness has found it in Chamébers’s Household
Shakespeare, to the editors of which it was suggested, it seems, by Mr. Swynfen
Jervis.

15. On Slighted Vowels in English Unaccented Syllables, by Pro-
fessor W. D. Whitney.

Hardly any language goes so far as ours in not only lightening the force
and quantity of its unaccented vowels, but also effacing their distinctive char-
acter, and reducing them toward or to the so-called neutral vowel-sound, or
utterance in the position of breathing. The various kinds and degrees of this
reduction were illustrated in the paper, and the methods of their successful
notation were discussed.

Remarks on this paper were made by Messrs. Taylor, March, Sey-
mour, Whitney, Hewett, and Weston.

16. On so-called Tmesis, by Professor Thumas D. Seymour, of
Yale College, New Haven, Conn. :

Td uy Karas Adyety od pdvow els abrd rodro WANmpeAts GAAA Kal Kandy Tt euro?
tais puxais. The grammatical term ¢mesis is pernicious. It suggests to the bet-
ter students a surgical operation, the severing of a preposition from the verb to
which it rightly belongs. It is evident that the term was originally used in ac-
cordance with this view. As in all other grammatical matters, Attic prose usage
was the norm; all deviations from that were considered irregularities. Ennius
doubtless thought that he was doing only what Homer had done before him
when he wrote “saxo cere comminuit drum”; he did not see why verbs alone
should be dissected and the distecta meméra scattered in the sentence where con-
venience prompted. Most American philologists feel first a wrench and then an
emotion of triumph when they overcome their inherited tendency to say that
“the preposition is separated from the verb by tmesis.” But the burden of proof
still seems to be thrown upon those who say that the position of the preposition
was originally as free as that of any adverb or modifying particle ; that its use
was simply directive, to explain the relation between the verb and its case, or to
modify the verb alone; and that what is called anastrophe gives us the original
accent of the preposition unchanged by the later more intimate connection be-
tween the preposition and the noun or verb.

Perhaps it would be more rational to separate preposition and verb in Homer,
unless there is distinct evidence that they were considered as one word. Such
evidence might be found in the meaning of the compound verb when it differs
from the meaning of the simple verb plus the preposition. More distinct evidence
is found in the change of quantity of the initial vowel of &xovéovro. The a was

XXvi American Philological Association.

lengthened, not by the poet because of the exigencies of the metre, but by the
Greek people themselves, who disliked the too frequent recurrence of short syl-
lables. The practice of Demosthenes is well known. This may be illustrated
by ’a@dyaros x. 7. A., which are found in the scenic poets, and thus settled as the
pronunciation of the people. Still more familiar is the rule for the comparison
of adjectives, which gives us cogdérepos, but wiordérepos, a rule which was not
firmly fixed in Homer’s time. In wp 361 we read aol 36 yéva: 1d3” évire\A@
awry rep dobon. In order to justify the éxl by the analogy of 4 209, od yey 3)
7Téd¢ pei(oy ext xaxdy x. 7. A., we have to separate the émf from the verb, and explain
the f as justified by the caesura. A stronger case is that of &moapeto@a:, A 230,
275. The hiatus is justified best by its place in the verse; in the one verse azo
comes before the diaeresis after the first foot; in the other, it comes before the
bucolic diaeresis.

We seem thus to find two words in which in our texts the preposition is
wrongly attached to the verb. This removes the presumption that the two are
to be considered as a compound whenever this is possible. Some authorities
think that awd is never adverbial in Homer, but we have seen two probable
examples. But if the two have not become one word when the preposition
immediately precedes the verb and modifies it, the presumption is much stronger
that, if the preposition in Homer is separated from the verb, it simply modifies
it, and we are not to say that it is “an example of tmesis.”

17. The Personal Element in Dactylic Hexameters, by Professor
F. A. March, of Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

In the so-calld dactylic hexameter, so much freedom is alowd in the use of
dactyls or spondees, and of different kinds of dactyls as classified by the position
of the prose accents, and in the management of the caesuras, that it is next to
impossibl that any maker of many verses should fail to show his personal
preferences for particular cadences or combinations of feet.

In 1879, at the Newport meeting of the Asociation, when a paper was red on
Geddes’s view of the Composition of the Iliad, Professor March suggested that a
study of the meter would show its truth or falsity. The facts of the present paper
ar givn to enforce this suggestion upon our Grecians, and no pretence is made
that they ar thoro inductions.

The following tabl shows the number and distribution of the spondees ina
hundred lines of Longfeliow (Evangeline, Prelude; I. 1. 1-40; II. v. 1-40),
Goethe (Hermann und Dor. I. 1-100), Vergil (Aeneid I. 1-20; II. 1-60; IX.
431-450), Ovid (Met. I. 1-20; XI. 591-610, 621-640; XV. 96-115, 810-829),
Theocritus (Idyl. I. 1-40, to1-120; II. 1-20; VIII. 1-20), Hesiod (Works and
Days, I. 1-100), Odyssey (I. 1-100), Iliad (I. 1-100).

Foot. 1st. 2d. 3d. 4th. 5th. Total.
Longfellow, 20 44 45 45 154
Goethe, 6o 22 54 52 188
Vergil, 44 37 46 51 178
Ovid, 15 52 61 45 173
Theocritus, ~ 36 st 36 II I 134+1
Hesiod, 30 43 II 25 6 109 -+- 6
Odyssey, 33 42 16 22 4 Ii3+4
lliad, 45 35 18 3 4s +44

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XXVli

These counts wer made in sections of twenty lines each. The general type of
verse givn by these totals is also givn in most of the selections by the totals of
each section. Thus, in Longfellow the sections giv the following tabl : —

Foot. 1st. 2d. 3. 4th. 5th.
Prelude, 3 6 5 5
I. 1. 1-20, 3 8 § 8
I. 1. 21-40, 4 10 8 9
II. v. 1-20, 5 12 10 12
II. v. 21-40, 5 8 II oi
Total, 20 44 45 45

In Goethe : — |

Foot Ist 2d 3d. 4th. sth
H. & D. 1-20, 15 5 9 15
H. & D. 21-40, 13 4 14 12
H. & D. 41-60, 10 3 9 12
H. & D. 61-80, 12 5 II 6
H. & D. 81-100, 10 5 Ir 7
Total, 60 22 54 52

Plain differences ar seen even in this simp] counting of the feet. The begin-
ning of the verses shows the personal element best. Longfellow begins with a
dactyl by preference, and lets spondees come in the three following places with
nearly equal frequency. Goethe begins with a spondee followd by a dactyl, then
two spondees. To indicate that the difference is a personal matter and not a
result of the different languages, the following sections ar givn of Voss’s dedica-
tion of his translation of the Iliad into German : —

Foot. 1st.

2d. . .
Lines 1-20, 6 6 6 4 1
Lines 21-40, 5 6 9 7
Lines 41-60, 5 6 7 3
Lines 61-80, 9 4 II 8 I
Lines 80-92, 5 2 6 4

Vergil is more like Goethe, and Ovid like Longfellow, in the beginning of the
verse; but in Ovid there is a characteristic predominance of the spondee in the
third foot. Theocritus begins somewhat like Longfellow, but his third foot is
like his first, and the verse takes a run of dactyls in the fourth and fifth places.
The verses of Hesiod, the Odyssey, and the Iliad, as givn in the tabl, show the
same type of verse, as markt by the hole number of spondees, and by the third
place, where the verse is divided, which is prevailingly a dactyl: sections of
twenty verses ar not infrequent without a singl spondee in the third place, or
with fewer spondees in the third than the fifth. There ar more dactyls in the
fourth place than in the first or second. But the first hundred lines of the
Odyssey agree with Hesiod in the relation of the first to the second place (30 < 43
and 33 < 42), while the corresponding lines of the Iliad invert the relation
(45 > 35). We may take these as the ancient Achillean type and the Odyssean
type. The Iliad wil then be found to be Achillean in some parts, Odyssean in
others.

XXVill American Philologual Association.

The Catalog is Achillean. Beginning with II. soo, the hundreds run

46 40 24 33 10
42 39 27 30 16
43 4! 18 42 7
40 3! 17 27 14
None of the sections of twenty lines vary much from the type; 540-560 has
8...10 in the first two places; 620-640 and 700-720 both hav 7...8. The ninth
book, the Embasy, is also Achillean; only one of the hundred lines makes an
average of the other type, and that contains a talk of Ulysses, the beginning of
which is in a section counting up §...12. Other sections vary somewhat.
The parting of Hector and Andromache, on the other hand, is Odyssean: the
hundreds run, beginning VI. 239,

36 50 10 39 4
30 38 13 20 II
35 37 14 34 2

The tenth book, Doloneia, is Achillean in the introductory councils, but at
line 140 where Ulysses comes in, the meter changes; 140-160 sum up,

4 10 6 2 I
The hundreds are : — |
44 37 14 19 10

40 40 16 24 I
35 41 22 28 5
4! 47 17 29 7
36 42 18 26 2
38 40 14 17 3
In book eighteenth, Hoplopoiia, the hundreds ar : —
27 37 13 21 4
33.—=—i«<“ 4 8 37 4
27 40 18 28 10
36 38 14 28 4
48> 38 14 27 7
39 46 17 25 7

The encounter of Thetis and Vulcan, 380-420, the making of the shield and
the description of its war scenes, 460-540, ar in Achillean, and explain the con-
dition of 400-500.

The numbers of the hundred of the second book ar : —

43 33 18 34

44:32 23 38

33S 44 9 38

43 38 16 36

33< 42 15 41

The third hundred includes the Thersites affair; the fifth includes the ornate
description of sacrifices, and the series of similes describing the advancing army.
And so with the other books. The eighth has for the first two feet of its hun-
dreds 47 | 43, 491 41, 37 <42, 39< 44, 48 | 40, 30| 29. The third book has

mom ON

_ Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XX1X

AO | 40, 39 | 31, 42 | 42, 31 < 49, 23<C25. The twenty-third has 35 < 38, 30 < 34,
43 | 37, 46 | 43, 45 | 40, 41 | 40, 39< 42, 30 <4I, 41 | 37. The twenty-fourth has
42 < 45, 38 | 30, 35 | 27, 33<. 36, 43< 46, 40< 45, 45 | 38, 41 | 40. Whether
these variations indicate any change of authorship, or merely change of theme
and motiv, is not to be decided without a comprehensiv study of both the Iliad
and Odyssey. They ar found also in the Odyssey.

Remarks were made on this paper by Professor Hewett.

The conclusiveness or even the probability of the results attained by any such
(nvestigation as this depends, of course, upon the completeness of the examina-
tions of authors. In the case of Goethe, it would be highly desirable to compare
the metre of Hermann und Dorothea with that of Voss’s Zuzse. It is certain that
we should not have had Hermann und Dorothea in its present form had not
Voss’s charming idyl preceded it. Similarly Voss’s translation of Homer
should have been compared; for by it the hexameter was first naturalized in
German, and Goethe admired it greatly. In like manner I should look for the
sources of Longfellow’s metres in the German and Scandinavian authors (espe-
cially Tegnér) rather than in the classical poets, and should seek the sources of
the Hiawatha in the Finnish epic Kalevala.

18. Report of the Comittee on the Reform of English Spelling, by
the Chairman, Professor F. A. March, of Lafayette College, Easton,
Pa. |

In the exercise of the power to act which was givn to the Comittee at the last
meeting in response to the comunication of the Philological Society of England,
inquiring whether it was practicabl to efect a complete agreement upon amend-
ments of spelling, so that “a joint scheme miht be put forth under the authority
of the two chief filological bodies of the English-speaking world,” the Comittee
submitted to the Philological Society of England, as a basis for the joint scheme,
the lists of amended words and the rules for amendment containd in their report
for 1881, as interpreted by the pamflet on “ Partial Corections ” issued by the
Philological Society in 1881.

At a meeting of the Philological Society, April 20, 1883, it was voted unani-
mously to omit certain of the corections formerly recomended, so as to bring
about an agreement between the two societies in acordance with the proposal of
your Comittee. The following scheme of partial reform is now jointly aproved
by the Philological Society of England and the American Philological Asociation,

_and is recomended for imediate use.
1. e.—Drop silent ¢ when foneticaly useless, as in ive, vineyard, believe,
bronze, single, engine, granite, eaten, rained, etc.
2. ea.— Drop a from ea having the sound of &, as in feather, leather, jealous,
etc.
Drop ¢ from ea having the sound of a, as in heart, hearken.
3. eau. — For beauty uze the old beuty.
4. e0o.— Drop o from ¢o having the sound of é, as in jeofardy, leopard.
For yeoman write yoman.
§ i.— Drop é of parliament.

XXX American Philological Association.

6. o.—For o having the sound of ii in df, write « in above (abuv), dozen,

some (sum), fongue (tung), and the like.
For women restore twimen.

7. ou.— Drop o from os having the sound of ii, as in journal, nourish, trouble,
vough (ruf), tough (tuf), and the like.

8. u.— Drop silent » after g before a, and in nativ English words, as guaran-
tee, guard, guess, guest, guild, gust.

g. ue.— Drop final se in apologue, catalogue, etc. ; demagogue, pedagogue, etc. ;
league, colleague, harangue, tongue (tung).

10. y--—~ Spel rhyme rime.

1r. Dubl consonants may be simplified :—

Final 4, d, g, 2, 7, t, J, /, 8, a3 ebb, add, egy, nn, purr, butt, bailiff, dull,
buzz (not all, hall).

Medial before another consonant, as battle, ripple, written (writn).

Initial unaccented prefixes, and other unaccented syllabls, as in addre-
viate, accuse, affair, etc., curvetting, traveller, etc.

12, b—Drop silent 4 in domé, crumb, debt, doubt, dumb, lamb, limb, numb,
plumb, subtle, succumb, thumd.

13. c— Change ¢ back to s in cinder, expence, fierce, hence, once, pence, scarce,
Since, source, thence, tierce, whence.

14. ch.— Drop the & of ch in chamomile, choler, cholera, melancholy, school,
stomach.

Change to & in ache (ake), anchor (anker).

15. d.— Change d and ed final to ¢ when so pronounced, as in crossed (crost),
looked (lookt), etc., unless the ¢ afects the preceding sound, as in
chafed, chanced.

16. g.— Drop g in feign, foreign, sovereign.

17. gh.— Drop & in aghast, burgh, ghost.

Drop gh in haughty, though (tho), through (thru).
Change gh’ to / where it has that sound, as in cough, enough, laughter,
tough, etc.

18 1.— Drop / in could.

19. p.— Drop £ in receipt.

20. s.— Drop s in assle, demesne, island. .

Change s tos in distinctiv words, as in abuse verb, house verb, rise
verb, etc.

21. sc.— Drop ¢ in scent, scythe (sithe).

22. tch. — Drop 4, as in catch, pitch, witch, etc.

23. w.— Drop w in whole.

24. ph. — Write / for pA, as in philosophy, sphere, etc.

On motion, the Report was aproved, and the comittee apointed in
1875 was continued for another year. It now consists of March
(Chairman), W. F. Allen, Child, Lounsbury, Price, Trumbull, and
Whitney.

On motion of Professor Whitney, it was voted that the following
minutes be placed on the printed records : —

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XXxl

The American Philological Association desires to express its deep and grate-
ful sense of obligation to Mr. Charles J. Buckingham, of Poughkeepsie, N. Y.,
for his faithful services to the Association in performing through a period of
seven years the duties of Treasurer, and its sincere regret that the condition of
his health prevents him from longer retaining the office he has filled so well.

‘ It was also voted that

The American Philological Association returns its hearty thanks to Wesleyan
University for the use of its halls for the meetings of the Association, and to the
Faculty of the University and the gentlemen of the Eclectic Society for the
pleasant reception at the Society’s Chapter House.

On motion, the Association then adjourned.

OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
1883-84.

PRESIDENT.

MARTIN LUTHER D’OOGE

VICE~PRESIDENTS.

TRACY PECK.
JAMES C. VAN BENSCHOTEN.

SECRETARY AND CURATOR.

CHARLES R. LANMAN.

TREASURER.

EDWARD S. SHELDON.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
The officers above named, and— |
BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE.
FRANCIS A. MARCH.
THOMAS R. PRICE.
J. HAMMOND TRUMBULL.
WILLIAM D. WHITNEY.

MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL
ASSOCIATION.

J. W. Abernethy, Adelphi Academy, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Cyrus Adler, 870 North Eighth St., Philadelphia, Pa.
Eben Alexander, East Tennessee University, Knoxville, Tenn.
Frederic D. Allen, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William F. Allen, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
_ Joseph Anderson, Waterbury, Conn.
N. L. Andrews, Madison University, Hamilton, N. Y.
Stephen P. Andrews, 2o1 East Thirty-fourth St., New York, N. Y.
William H. Appleton, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa.
John Avery, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.
Cecil F. P. Bancroft, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass.
Wm. M. Baskerville, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Charles C. Bates, Plymouth, Mass.
C. T. Beatty, High School, East Saginaw, Mich.
George Bendelari, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.
Charles E. Bennett, O. Hauptstrasse, 248, Heidelberg, Germany.
James S. Blackwell, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
Maurice Bloomfield, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
E. W. Blyden, Monrovia College, Liberia.
James R. Boise.
Charles E. Brandt, Farmington, Conn.
H. C. G. Brandt, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y.
Fisk P. Brewer, Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa.
John A. Broadus, Southern Baptist Theol. Seminary, Louisville, Ky.
Charles J. Buckingham, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
L. H. Buckingham, English High School, Boston, Mass.
Henry F. Burton, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y. (47 North Av.).
Henry A. Buttz, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J.
W. B. Carr, Leesburgh, Loudoun Co., Va.
Franklin Carter, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.
William C. Cattell, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.
Talbot W. Chambers, 7q West Thirty-sixth St., New York, N. Y.
3

XXXIV American Philological Association.

Miss Eva Channing, Forest Hill St., Jamaica Plain, Mass.
Elie Charlier (Life Member), 108 West Fifty-ninth St., New York, N. Y.
Francis J. Child, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Albert S. Cook, Montville, N. J.

Oscar H. Cooper.

Howard Crosby, University of New York, New York, N. Y.
Edward P. Crowell, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

S. E. D. Currier, 2 Cedar St., Roxbury, Mass.

Charles Darwin, Library of the Geological Survey, Washington, D. C.
Edward De Merritte, Chauncy-Hall School, Boston, Mass.
Schele De Vere, University of Virginia.

Martin L. D’Ooge, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich.

T. T. Eaton, Louisville, Ky.

William Wells Eaton, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt.
Thomas H. Eckfeldt, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
August Hjalmar Edgren, University of Lund, Sweden.

L. H. Elwell, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

George R. Entler, Franklin, N. Y.

Carl W. Ernst, Boston, Mass.

Ambrose J. Faust, Washington, D. C.

O. M. Fernald, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.
Gustavus Fischer, Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J.

M. M. Fisher, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.

A. J. Fleet, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.

John Forsyth, Newburgh, N. Y.

Samuel Garner.

James M. Garnett, University of Virginia, Albemarle Co., Va.
Henry Garst, Otterbein University, Westerville, O.

B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Frank M. Gilley, 27 Marlboro St., Chelsea, Mass.

Thomas D. Goodell, High School, Hartford, Conn. (19 Townley St).
Ralph L. Goodrich, U. S. Courts, Little Rock, Ark.

William W. Goodwin, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Richard T. Greener, Howard University, Washington, D. C.
James B. Greenough, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
James M. Gregory, Howard University, Washington, D. C.

F. B. Gummere, Swain Free School, New Bedford, Mass.,
Ephraim W. Gurney, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William Gardner Hale, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Isaac H. Hall, 2 East Eighty-sixth St., New York, N. Y.
William G. Hammond, 1417 Lucas Place, St. Louis, Mo.

H. McL. Harding, Brooks Academy, Cleveland, O.

Albert Harkness, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

William R. Harper, Baptist Theological Seminary, Chicago, Il.
Calvin S. Harrington, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XXXV

Caskie Harrison, Brooklyn Latin School, 185 Montague St., Brooklyn, N.Y.
James A. Harrison, Washington and Lee Univ., Lexington, Va.
Samuel Hart, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

William H. Hawkes, 1330 New York Ave., Washington, D. C.

B. J. Hawthorne, State Agricultural College, Corvallis, Oregon.
Charles R. Hemphill, Clarksville, Tenn.

Theophilus Heness, 142 Crown St., New Haven, Conn.

W. T. Hewett, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Cambridge, Mass.

Newton B. Hobart, Hudson, O.

George O. Holbrooke, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

Edward W. Hopkins, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Selah Howell, Ayer Academy, Ayer, Mass.

E. R. Humphreys, 129 West Chester Park, Boston, Mass.
Milton W. Humphreys, University of Texas, Austin, Texas.
Ashley D. Hurt, Male High School, Louisville, Ky.

Edmund Morris Hyde, Pennsylvania Military Academy, Chester, Pa.
Hans C. G. von Jagemann, Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana.
Henry Johnson, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me.

John L. Johnson, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Miss.

John Norton Johnson.

Elisha Jones, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich.

Robert P. Keep, Williston Seminary, Easthampton, Mass.
Asahel C. Kendrick, University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y.
T. D. Kenneson.

W. S. Kerruish, 222 Superior St., Cleveland, Ohio.

John B. Kieffer, Mercersburg College, Mercersburg, Pa.

D. B. King, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Louis Kistler, Northwestern University, Evanston, III.

Miss Mary H. Ladd, Chauncy-Hall School, Boston, Mass.
Charles R. Lanman, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Lewis H. Lapham, 68 Gold St., New York, N. Y.

C. W. Larned, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y.
Albert G. Lawrence, Newport, R. I.

R. F. Leighton, 109 Lefferts Place, Brooklyn, N. Y.

John M. Leonard, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, O.

John R. Leslie, Newport, R. I.

Thomas B. Lindsay, Boston University, Boston, Mass.

William S. Liscomb, Providence, R. I.

Thomas R. Lounsbury, Yale College, New Haven, Ct. (22 Lincoln St.).
Rebecca S. Lowrey, 162 West Forty-seventh St., New York, N. Y.
Jules Luquiens, Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.
Frederick Lutz, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Merrick Lyon, University Grammar School, Providence, R. I.
James C. Mackenzie, Lawrenceville, N. J.

XXXVI American Philological Association.

Irving J. Manatt, State University, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Francis A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Philippe B. Marcou, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

D. S. Martin, Rutgers Female College, New York, N. Y.

Winfred R. Martin, High School, Hartford, Conn.

R. H. Mather, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.

W. Gordon McCabe, University School, Petersburg, Va.

Irwin P. McCurdy, 723 South Twentieth St., Philadelphia, Pa.

Joseph H. McDaniels, Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y.

Miss Harriet E. McKinstry, Lake Erie Female Seminary, Painesville, O.

Charles M. Mead.

John Meigs, Hill School, Pottstown, Pa.

Augustus C. Merriam, Columbia College, New York, N. Y. (124 East
Fifty-fifth St.).

Elmer T. Merrill, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.

Charles D. Morris, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

Wilfred H. Munro, De Veaux College, Suspension Bridge, N. Y.

C. K. Nelson, Brookeville Academy, Brookeville, Md.

Edward North, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y.

J. O. Notestein, University of Wooster, O.

Bernard F. O’Connor, Columbia College, New York, N. Y. (136 East
Twenty-ninth St.).

Howard Osgood, Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.

Charles P. Otis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, Mass.

W. B. Owen, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Lewis R. Packard, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (226 Church St.).

William A. Packard, College of New Jersey, Princeton, N. J.

E. G. Parsons, Derry, N. H.

Tracy Peck, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (87 Wall St.).

William T. Peck, High School, Providence, R. I. (350 Pine St.).

William R. Perkins, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.

Bernadotte Perrin, Western Reserve College, Cleveland, O. (837 Case
Ave.). _

Edward D. Perry, Columbia College, New York, N. Y. (913 Seventh Ave.).

William C. Poland, Brown University, Providence, R. I. (12 Barnes St.).

Samuel Porter National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C.

L. S. Potwin, Western Reserve College, Cleveland, O.

John W. Powell, Washington, D. C.

Henry Preble, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

George Prentice, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.

Thomas R. Price, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

Sylvester Primer, Charleston, S. C.

Charles W. Reid, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa.

DeWitt T. Reiley, Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J.

William A. Reynolds, Wilmington, Del.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XXXVI

Leonard W. Richardson, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.

Rufus B. Richardson, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.

W. G. Richardson, Princeton, N. J.

Lawrence Rust, Kenyon College, Gambier, O.

Julius Sachs, Classical School, 38 West Fifty-ninth St., New York, N. Y.
Wesley C. Sawyer, Lawrence University, Appleton, Wis.

W. S. Scarborough, Wilberforce University, Wilberforce, O.

Henry Schliemann, Athens, Greece.

C. P. G. Scott, Columbia College, New York, N. y.

Walter Q. Scott, Wooster University, Wooster, O.

Jotham B. Sewall, Thayer Academy, South Braintree, Mass.

Thomas D. Seymour, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (174 Orange St.).
Joseph Alden Shaw, Trinity School, Tivoli-on-Hudson, N. Y.

Edward S. Sheldon, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

L. A. Sherman, State University, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Charles Short, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.

E. G. Sihler, Classical School, 38 West Fifty-ninth St., New York, N. Y.
Benjamin E. Smith, care of Century Co., Union Sq., New York, N. Y.
Charles Forster Smith, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.

Clement Lawrence Smith, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Frank Webster Smith, Lincoln, Mass.

Edward Snyder, Illinois Industrial University, Champaign, III.

George C. S. Southworth, Kenyon College, Gambier, O.

Wm. G. Spencer, Rector of Christ Church, New Haven, Conn.

A. B. Stark, Logan Female College, Russellville, Ky.

Frederick Stengel, School of Mines, Columbia College, New York, N. Y.
William A. Stévens, Rochester Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y.
Edward F. Stewart, Easton, Pa.

Austin Stickney, 35 West Seventeenth St., New York, N. Y.

Morris H. Stratton, State Board of Education, Salem, New Jersey.
Charles W. Super, Ohio University, Athens, O.

Miss A. L. Sweetser, Mount Holyoke Seminary, South Hadley, Mass.
Frank B. Tarbell, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Franklin Taylor, High School, Philadelphia, Pa. (629 North Twelfth St.).
Zachary P. Taylor, Central High School, Cleveland, O.

John Tetlow, Girls’ Latin School, Boston, Mass.

J. Henry Thayer, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (67 Sparks St.).
Calvin Thomas, Michigan University, Ann Arbor, Mich.

William E. Thompson, Genesee Wesleyan Seminary, Lima, N. Y.
Edward M. Tomlinson, Alfred University, Alfred Centre, N. Y.
Crawford H. Toy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

William H. Treadwell, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

J. Hammond Trumbull, Hartford, Conn.

Francis W. Tustin, University at Lewisburgh, Pa.

Milton Valentine, Pennsylvania College, Gettysburg, Pa.

XXXVili American Philological Assoctation.

James C. Van Benschoten, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
Addison Van Name, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Miss Julia E. Ward, Mount Holyoke Seminary, South Hadley, Mass.
Henry C. Warren, 67 Mount Vernon St., Boston, Mass.

Minton Warren, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.

W. B. Webster, Miiitary Institute, Norfolk, Va.

R. F. Weidner, Rock Island, Illinois.

James C. Welling, Columbian University, Washington, D. C.
Benjamin W. Wells, Friends’ School, Providence, R. I. |

J. B. Weston, Christian Biblical Institute, Standfordville, N. Y.

Mrs. A. E. Weston, Christian Biblical Institute, Standfordville, N. Y.
A. S. Wheeler, Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven, Ct.
Benjamin I. Wheeler.

John H. Wheeler, University of Virginia.

John Williams White, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
William Dwight Whitney, Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

W. H. Whitsitt, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.
Alonzo Williams, Brown University, Providence, R. I.

R. H. Willis, Norwood, Nelson County, Va.

Edwin H. Wilson, Middletown, Conn.

William Epiphanius Wilson, King’s College, Windsor, Nova Scotia.
Henry P. Wright, Yale College, New Haven, Conn. (128 York St.).
John Henry Wright, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.

[Number of Members, 332. ]

THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES AND INSTITUTIONS (ALPHABETIZED BY TOWNS)
SUBSCRIBE FOR THE ANNUAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

Albany, N. Y.: N. Y. State Library.

Andover, Mass. : Phillips Academy.

Andover, Mass.: Theological Seminary.

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Michigan University.

Athens, Greece : American School of Classical Studies.
Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University.
Baltimore, Md.: Peabody Institute.

Berea, Madison Co., Ky.: Berea College.

Berkeley, Cal.: University of California.
Bloomington, Monroe Co., Ind.: Indiana University.
Boston, Mass.: Boston Athenzum.

Boston, Mass.: Boston Public Library.

Brooklyn, N. Y.: The Brooklyn Library.

Brunswick, Maine: Bowdoin College Library.
Buffalo, N. Y.: Young Men’s Library.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. XXXIX

Burlington, Vt. : University of Vermont.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College Library.

Champaign, Il.: Illinois Industrial University.

Chicago, II].: Public Library.

Cleveland, O.: Adelbert College of Western Reserve University.

Crawfordsville, Ind. : Wabash College Library. —

Davidson, N. C.: Davidson College Library.

Easton, Pa.: Lafayette College Library.

Evanston, IIl.; Northwestern University.

Geneva, N. Y.: Hobart College Library.

Greencastle, Ind.: Indiana Asbury University.

Hanover, N. H.:’ Dartmouth College Library.

Iowa City, Iowa: State University of Iowa.

Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University.

Lincoln, Neb.: State University of Nebraska.

Marietta, O.: Marietta College Library.

Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University.

Milwaukee, Wis.: Public Library.

Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University.

Newton Centre, Mass.: Newton Theological Institution.

New York, N. Y.: Astor Library.

New York, N. Y.: The College of the City of New York. (Lexington
Ave. and 23d St.)

New York, N. Y.: Union Theological Seminary. (30 Clinton Place.)

Olivet, Eaton Co., Mich.: Olivet College Library.

Paris, France: Bibliothéque Nationale. (Care of Brentano Brothers,
New York.)

Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Society.

Philadelphia, Pa.: The Library Company of Philadelphia.

Philadelphia, Pa.: The Mercantile Library.

Providence, R. I. : Brown University.

Providence, R. I.: Providence Atheneum.

Sewanee, Tenn. : University of the South.

Springfield, Mass.: City Library.

Tuscaloosa, Ala.: University of Alabama.

University of Virginia, Albemarle Co., Va.: University Library.

Washington, D. C.: Library of Congress.

Washington, D. C.: United States Bureau of Education.

Waterville, Maine: Colby University.

Wellesley, Mass.: Wellesley College Library.

Windsor, Nova Scotia: King’s College Library.

Worcester, Mass.: Free Public Library.

[Number of subscribing Institutions, 55. ]

xl American Philological Association.

To THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES AND INSTITUTIONS HAVE BEEN SENT COM:
PLETE SETS (VOLUMES I. — XIV.) OF THE TRANSACTIONS, GRATIS.

British Museum, London, England.

Royal Asiatic Society, London.

Philological Society, London.

Society of Biblical Archeology, London.

India Office Library, London.

Bodleian Library, Oxford,

Advocates’ Library, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland.

Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.

Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Shanghai. -
Japan Asiatic Society, Yokohama.

Public Library of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Sir George Grey’s Library, Cape Town, Africa.
Reykyavik College Library, Iceland.

University of Christiania, Norway.

University of Upsala, Sweden.

Russian Imperial Academy, St. Petersburg.
Austrian Imperial Academy, Vienna.
Anthropologische Gesellschaft, Vienna.
Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, Italy.

Reale Accademia delle Scienze, Turin.

Société Asiatique, Paris, France.

Athénée Oriental, Paris.

Curatorium of the University, Leyden, Holland.
Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, Batavia, Java
Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin, Germany.
Royal Saxon Academy of Sciences, Leipsic.
Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich.
Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, Halle.
Library of the University of Bonn.

Library of the University of Jena.

Library of the University of Konigsberg.

Library of the University of Leipsic.

Library of the University of Tibingen.

[Number of foreign Institutions, 35.]
[Total, (232+ 55-+35 =) 322]

CONSTITUTION

OF THE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

ARTICLE I.— NAME AND OBJECT.

1. This Society shall be known as “The American Philological Associa. .

tion.”
2. Its object shall be the advancement and diffusion of philological
knowledge.

ARTICLE II. — OFFICERS.

1. The officers shall be a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and
Curator, and a Treasurer. .
- 2. There shall be an Executive Committee of ten, composed of the above
officers and five other members of the Association.

3. All the above officers shall be elected at the last session of each annual
meeting. .

ARTICLE III. — MEETINGS.

1. There shall be an annual meeting of the Association in the city of New
York, or at such other place as at a preceding annual meeting shall be deter-
mined upon.

2. At the annual meeting, the Executive Committee shall present an annual
report of the progress of the Association.

3. The general arrangements of the proceedings of the annual meeting shall
be directed by the Executive Committee. |

4. Special meetings may be held at the call of the Executive Committee, when
and where they may decide.

¢”
‘

xlii American Philological Association.

ARTICLE IV. — MEMBERS.

z. There shall be an annual fee of three dollars from each member, failure in
payment of which for two years shall zfso facto cause the membership to cease.

3. Any person may become a life member of the Association by the payment
of fifty dollars to its treasury, and by vote of the Executive Committee.

ARTICLE V.— SUNDRIES.

1. All papers intended to be read before the Association must be submitted
to the Executive Committee before reading, and their decision regarding such
papers shall be final.

2. Publications of the Association, of whatever kind, shall be made only under
the authorization of the Executive Committee.

ARTICLE VI.— AMENDMENTS.

Amendments to this Constitution may be made by a vote of two thirds of
those present at any regular meeting subsequent to that in which they have
been proposed.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

" The annually published “Transactions” give the full text of
such articles as the Executive Committee decide to publish. The
Proceedings are bound with them as an Appendix.

The following tables show the authors and contents of the first
twelve volumes of Transactions:

1869-1870. — Volume I.

Hadley, J.: On the nature and theory of the Greek accent.

Whitney, W. D.: On the nature and designation of the accent in Sanskrit.

Goodwin, W. W.: On the aorist subjunctive and future indicative with 8rws
and ob pf.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On the best method of studying the North American
languages.

Haldeman, S. S.: On the German vernacular of Pennsylvania.

Whitney, W. D.: On the present condition of the question as to the origin of
language.

Lounsbury, T. R.: On certain forms of the English verb which were used in
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. .

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On some mistaken notions of Algonkin grammar, and
on mistranslations of words from Eliot’s Bible, etc.

VanName, A.: Contributions to Creole grammar.

Proceedings of the preliminary meeting (New York, 1868), of the first annual
session (Poughkeepsie, 1869), and of the second annual session (Rochester,
1870).

1871. — Volume II.

Evans, E. W.: Studies in Cymric philology.

Allen, F. D.: On the so-called Attic second declension. ,

Whitney, W. D.: Strictures on the views of August Schleicher respecting the
nature of language and kindred subjects.

Hadley, J.: On English vowel quantity in the thirteenth century and in the nine-
teenth.

March, F. A.: Anglo-Saxon and Early English pronunciation.

Bristed, C. A.: Some notes on Ellis’s Early English Pronunciation.

xliv American Philological Association.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On Algonkin names for man.

Greenough, J. B.: On some forms of conditional sentences in Latin, Greek, and
Sanskrit.

Proceedings of the third annual session, New Haven, 1871.

1872. — Volume III.

Evans, E. W.: Studies in Cymric philology.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: Words derived from Indian languages of North
America.

Hadley, J.: On the Byzantine Greek pronunciation of the tenth century, as
illustrated by a manuscript in the Bodleian Library.

Stevens, W. A.: On the substantive use of the Greek participle.

Bristed, C. A.: Erroneous and doubtful uses of the word such.

Hartt, C. F.: Notes on the Lingoa Geral, or Modern Tupi of the Amazonas.

Whitney, W. D.: On material and form in language.

March, F. A.: Is there an Anglo-Saxon language ?

March, F. A.: On some irregular verbs in Anglo-Saxon.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: Notes on forty versions of the Lord’s Prayer in Algon-
kin languages.

Proceedings of the fourth annual session, Providence, 1872.

1873.— Volume IV.

Allen, F. D.: The Epic forms of verbs in de.

Evans, E. W.: Studies in Cymric philology.

Hadley, J.: On Koch’s treatment of the Celtic element in English.

Haldeman, S. S.: On the pronunciation of Latin, as presented in several recent
grammars.

Packard, L. R.: On some points in the life of Thucydides.

Goodwin, W. W.: On the classification of conditional sentences in Greck
syntax.

March, F. A.: Recent discussions of Grimm’s law.

Lull, E. P.: Vocabulary of the language of the Indians of San Blas and
Caledonia Bay, Darien.

Proceedings of the fifth annual session, Easton, 1873.

1874.— Volume V.

Tyler, W. S.: On the prepositions in the Homeric poems.

Harkness, A.: On the formation of the tenses for completed action in the Latin
finite verb.

Haldeman, S. S.: On an English vowel-mutation, present in cag, keg.

Packard, L. R.: On a passage in Homer’s Odyssey (x. 81-86).

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On numerals in American Indian languages, and the
Indian mode of counting.

Sewall, J. B.: On the distinction between the subjunctive and optative. modes
in Greek conditional sentences.

Proceedings for Fuly, 1883. xlv

Morris, C. D.: On the age of Xenophon at the time of the Anabasis.
Whitney, W. D.: &toe: or 0éoe: — natural or conventional ?

Proceedings of the sixth annual session, Hartford, 1874.

1875.— Volume VI.

Harkness, A.: On the formation of the tenses for completed action in the Latin
finite verb.

Haldeman, S. S.: On an English consonant-mutation, present in proof, prove.

Carter, F.: On Begemann’s views as to the weak preterit of the Germanic verbs.

Morris, C. D.: On some forms of Greek conditional sentences.

Williams, A.: On verb-reduplication as a means of expressing completed action.

Sherman, L. A.: A grammatical analysis of the Old English poem “The Owl
and the Nightingale.”

Proceedings of the seventh annual session, Newport, 187 5

1876,— Volume VII.

Gildersleeve, B. L.: On ei with the future indicative and éay with the subjunctive
in the tragic poets.

Packard, L. R.: On Grote’s theory of the structure of the Iliad.

Humphreys, M. W.: On negative commands in Greek.

Toy, C. H.: On Hebrew verb-etymology.

Whitney, W. D.: A botanico-philological problem.

Goodwin, W. W.: On shall and should in protasis, and their Greek equivalents.

Humphreys, M. W.: On certain influences of accent in Latin iambic trimeters.

Trumbull, J. Hammond: On the Algonkin verb. :

Haldeman, S. S.: On a supposed mutation between / and wz.

Proceedings of the eighth annual session, New York, 1876.

Packard, L. R.: Notes on certain passages in the Phaedo and the Gorgias of
Plato.

Toy, C. H.: On the nominal basis of the Hebrew verb.

Allen, F. D.: On a certain apparently pleonastic use of ws.

Whitney, W. D.: On the relation of surd and sonant.

Holden, E. S.: On the vocabularies of children under two years of age.

Goodwin, W. W.: On the text and interpretation of certain passages in the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus.

Stickney, A.: On the single case-form in Italian.

Carter, F.: On Willmann’s theory of the authorship of the Nibelungenlied.

Sihler, E. G.: On Herodotus’s and Aeschylus’s accounts of the battle of Salamis.

Whitney, W. D.: On the principle of economy as a phonetic force.

Carter, F.: On the Kiirenberg hypothesis.

March, F. A.: On dissimilated gemination.

Proceedings of the ninth annual session, Baltimore, 1877.

xlvi American Philological Association.

1878.— Volume IX.

Gildersleeve, B. L.: Contributions to the history of the articular infinitive.
Toy, C. H.: The Yoruban language.

Humphreys, M. W.: Influence of accent in Latin dactylic hexameters.
Sachs, J.: Observations on Plato’s Cratylus.

Seymour, T. D.: On the composition of the Cynegeticus of Xenophon.
Humphreys, M. W.: Elision, especially in Greek.

Proceedings of the tenth annual session, Saratoga, 1878.

1879.— Volume X.

Toy, C. H.: Modal development of the Semitic verb.

Humphreys, M. W.: On the nature of czesura.

Humphreys, M. W.: On certain effects of elision.

Cook, A S.: Studies in the Heliand.

Harkness, A.: On the development of the Latin subjunctive in principal clauses.
D’Ooge, M. L.: The original recension of the De Corona.

Peck, T.: The authorship of the Dialogus de Oratoribus.

Seymour, T. D.: On the date of the Prometheus of Aeschylus.

Proceedings of the eleventh annual session, Newport, 1879.

1880. — Volume XI.

Humphreys, M. W.: A contribution to infantile linguistic.

Toy, C. H.: The Hebrew verb-termination x.

Packard, L. R.: The beginning of a written literature in Greece.

Hall, I. H.: The declension of the definite article in the Cypriote inscriptions.

Sachs, J.: Observations on Lucian.

Sihler, E. G.: Virgil and Plato.

Allen, W. F.: The battle of Mons Graupius.

Whitney, W. D.: On inconsistency in views of language. |

Edgren, A. H.: The kindred Germanic words of German and English, exhibited
with reference to their consonant relations.

Proceedings of the twelfth annual session, Philadelphia, 1880.

1881.— Volume XII.

Whitney, W. D.: On Mixture in Language.

Toy, C. H.: The home of the primitive Semitic race.

March, F. A.: Report of the committee on the reform of English spelling.
Wells, B. W.: History of the a-vowel, from Old Germanic to Modern English.
Seymour, T. D.: The use of the aorist participle in Greek.

Sihler, E. G.: The use of abstract verbal nouns in -ors in Thucydides.

Proceedings of the thirteenth annual session, Cleveland, 1881.

RETURN CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT _
TOs 202 Main Librar
LOAN PERIOD 1
HOME USE

ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS.
RENEWALS AND RECHARGES MAY BE MADE 4 DAYS PRIOR TO QUE DATE

LOAN PERIODS ARE 1-MOfTH, 3-MONTHS, AND 1-YEAR.
RENEWALS: CALL (415) 642-3405

DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
FORM NO. DD6, 60m, 1/83 BERKELEY, CA 94720

— + ee

» GENERAL LIBRARY - us. BERKELEY

— 80005645?

—— eee eee

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Transactions of the American Philological Association"

See other formats