Home > Full text of "Transactions .."

Full text of "Transactions .."


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 individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ 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

atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/






Cambridge wWbhtlological Society.



Cambridge pilological Docietp.

OF THE i122

_—" Pbilologtcal Hoctetyp.

FOR 1881 AND 1882.






(AU rights reserved.)



In the present volume of Transactions are included in
extenso or in abstract the papers read before the Society
in the years 1881, and some of those read before it in
1882, the remainder of the latter have been already —
published separately in the Proceedings of the Society for

For the sake of convenience some of the papers have -
been taken out of the chronological arrangement and are
printed separately at the beginning of the volume.

The paper by H. I. H. Prince L.-L. Bonaparte is pub-
lished in concert with the Philological Society of London.
Of the other papers and notes contained in the volume
none have been published before except two which are
given in abstract.

Some reviews are included in this volume as in the
previous one. The one on English Etymology by Professor
Zupitza has been translated from the German.

An Index to the first two volumes has been added.
It may be however pointed out that a full Table of
Contents has been also prefixed to each.

Hon. Sec.

Dee. 6, 1883.


P REFACE . ry e e e e e : � e � � V

Neo-Latmy Diarects, 4.1.4. PRINCE L.-L. BONA-

PARTE ...., e a, x de 1
Spetime RErorM IN ITs Rapincee TO THE Histone OF

Ewoarrear Trerparmenr HY. SWEET See eg

Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society,


On page 264 of Volume IT. in law 11 of the Society, for “in the
‘Michaelmas Term,” read “in the Lent Term.”


On Prorertius II 2. 3, 4, JAMES GOW , . ... 157
el as AN Icezanpic Umuaut, �. MAGNUSSON. .. . 157
MeEaniInG or EPPEIN, . RIDGEWAY Sui. Se 160

Soppocies OEDIPUS TYRANNUS 328, 329, B. “Hy.
KENNEDY (7. E. B. MAYOR, }. PEILE, �. P.
POSTGATE). ~ . . � 6 2 �� � � �� � eo 162

‘SLenp ME youR Ear” sm ArisropHanEes, 4. W.
VERRALT., -s 2 ln 8. a od Se te SR 2 164


PREFACE . Ges : ae ae

Nero-Latmy Directs, 7.2H. PRINCE L.-L. BONA-
PARTE eo 03k Re. ee Yen” SO ald ee es fet oe

Spevtme Rerorm in rs RELatIon To THE History oF
EneuisH Lireraturne, 2. SWEET,

Norges on tHe Text oF Puato’s PHALDO, HENRY

TueEeE Homeric rucnoerss: WAL TER LEAF.

Ricoarp Croxz, HERMAN HAGER , , a er

Roman Survey anp Distrvution or Pusric Lanp,
H. 7. ROBY, . . . 2... es ee tg

On AristotteE POLITICS I 6 and IV (VII) ‘16, HENRY

On Artstotte POLITICS I 6, x P. POSTGA TE :

Some Notes on tHe POL/ZICS or Anistottr, WILLIAM


e e id e �


On Propertivs II 2. 3, 4, JAMES GOW

ei as aw Icenanpic Umnaut, Z. MAGNUSSON ,


SopHoctes OZDIPUS TYRANNUS 328, 3829, B. H.
KENNEDY (jf. �. B. MAYOR, 7. PEILE, jf P.
POSTGATE). - ae ee ee ee

‘‘Lenp ME yourR Ear” in AristopHanes, 4. W.









Notes on Lucan, 7 P. POSTGATE

On Prato MENO, 86x, �. S. THOMPSON (ZZ. �ACKSON).

Cicero ACADEMICS JT 39-42, R. D. HICKS

SopHoctes 4V7/GONE 413-4, A. H. COOKE (A, Ww.
FULFORD) Lk os on

SopHoctrs OZDIPUS ‘TYRANNUS 328, 329, 2B. #H.

MEETING ON Scatuive a

EneLisH Erymotoeres, W. W. SKEA r.

On Apasia IN Pontus, W. RIDGEWAY ,

Nores on Tuucypmes, � ?. POSTGATE, ;

Notes on Puavtus MILES GLORIOSUS anp MOSTEL.

Prnpar OLYMPIANS II 56 to Enp, 4. GRAY,

On KAAZQ, zErc., 4. W. VERRALL ,

On THE Ionic TERMINATIONS IN -atat, -ato, W. RIDGE WA y.

AwnuaL MEETING. ....

Derervation oF Axrmpo,.�.. 1/4 GN iss On. :

On Arscoytus AGAMEMNON 1227, A. W. VERRALL.

Rerorm oF Latin Pronunciation, 7 P. POSTGATE



Homer In 1881 anp 1882, W% LEAF.

Prato in Enetand In 1881 ann 1882, &. D. HICKS

Viner mn 1881 ann 1882, H. NETTLESHIP .

PRoPERTius IN 188] anp 1882, 7 P. POSTGATE.,

Asta, H. F. TOZER . ,

EneiisH ErymoLoey in 1881 anp 1883, �. Z UPI TZA.


Orricers FoR 1883
List oF Mempers For 1883

InpEx ...... . �











of the

Cambridge Wbhilological Soctety.




Proressor J. P. Postaate’s very interesting paper “ On the
Latin words for grapes,’ printed in the first volume of the
‘Transactions of the Cambridge Philological Society,” }
induces me to extract from my manuscript “ Lexicon Com-
parativum omnium Linguarum Europearum” and present
to the Cambridge Philological Society the following list of
words connected ‘with the vine and numbering over two
hundred, not only in Latin, Low Latin, and in what I
consider its fifteen derivative languages, but also in as
many of their dialects, sub-dialects and varieties (about one
hundred and forty) as it has been possible for me to collect,
either from the most accredited lexicographers, or during
my frequent excursions, undertaken with a merely linguistical
object, from 1843 to 1869, throughout numerous localities
of France, Switzerland, the two Neo-Latin Peninsulas, and
their adjacent islands. This list, notwithstanding its being
nothing more than a rich comparative collection of words
without any etymological comment, yet may be useful, as a
supplementary help, to those who might feel inclined to
continue or extend Prof. Postgate’s etymological researches
on this attractive topic.

My object then, at present, is simply comparative; and,
in order to obtain the nearest equivalent of each English

1 Pp. 302 foll.

VOL. II. : 7 1


IT�. 1. Iratran: Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca.
‘Firenze, 1729-88, 6 vol. fol.; id. 1843, 1 vol. fol.; zd. 1863-81,
4 vol. 4to.; Manuszi—Vocabolario della lingua italiana. Fi-
renze, 1833-40, 4 vol. 4to.; Rigutini and Funfani—Vocabolario
italiano della lingua parlata. Firenze, 1875-76, 8vo.; Fanfani
—Vocabolario della pronunzia toscana. Firenze, 1863, 16mo.;
Barberi, Basti, and Cerati— Grand dictionnaire frangais-
italien et italien-francais. Paris, 1838-39, 2 vol. 4to.; Alberti
— Grand dictionnaire frangois-italien et italien-francois.
Milan, 1826-28, 2 vol. 4to.; Baretti — Dizionario italiano
ed inglese. English and Italian Dictionary. Bologna and
Florence, 1830-32, 2 vol. 4to.

2. ITALIAN DIALECTS: Neruccit— Vernacolo montalese
(contado) del sotto-dialetto di Pistoia. Milano, 1865, 8vo. ;
Politi—Indice delle voci del dialetto senese. Venetia, 1615,
8vo.; Raccolia di voci romane e marchiane. Osimo, 1768, 8vo. ;
Avoh—Saggio sopra alcune voci del dialetto alatrino. Roma,
1880, 8vo.; Marcoaldi—Vocaboli pit genuini del vernacolo
fabrianese. Fabriano, 1875, 8vo.; Mattei—Pruverbj, detti e
massime corse. Paris, 1867, 12mo.; Zraina— Vocabolario
siciliano-italiano. Palermo, 1873, 8vo.; Vincentiis (de)—Vo-
cabolario del dialetto tarantino. Taranto, 1872, 8vo.; Santis
(de)—Saggio di vocabolario vernacolo barese-italiano. Bari,
1857, 4to.; Finamore—Vocabolario dell’ uso abruzzese. Lan-
ciano, 1880, 8vo.; Savini—La grammatica ed il lessico del
dialetto teramano. Torino, Roma, Firenze, 1881, 8vo.; Ritis
(de)}—Vocabolario napoletano lessigrafico e storico, Napoli,
1845, 2 vol. fol.; Ambra (d’)—Vocabolario napolitano-toscano
domestico d’arti e mestieri. Indice Toscano e Napolitano.
Napoli, 1873, 8vo.; Boerio—Dizionario del dialetto veneziano.
Indice italiano-veneto. Venezia, 1856, 4to.; Patriarchi—
Vocabolario veneziano e padovano. Padova, 1821, 4to. ;
Schio (da)—Raccolta di voci usate a Vicenza. Padova, 1855,
8vo.; Nazari—Dizionario vicentino-italiano. Oderzo, 1876,
8vo.; Angeli—Piccolo vocabolario veronese e toscano. Verona,
1821, 8vo.; Nazari—Parallelo fra il dialetto bellunese rustico
e la lingua italiana. Belluno, 1873, 8vo.; Assolini—Vocabo-
lario vernacolo-italiano pei distretti roveretano e trentino.


Venezia, 1856, 8vo. ; Schneller—Die romanischen Volksmun-
darten in Sidtirol. Die italienischen Mundarten. Gera, 1870,
8vo.; Dictionnaire de la langue franque ou petit mauresque.
Marseille, 1830, 12mo.

ITT�. Sarpintan: Spano— Vocabolario sardo-italiano e
italiano-sardo. Cagliari, 1851-52, 3 vol. 4to.; Porru—
Dizionariu universali sardu-italianu. Casteddu, 1832, fol.

IV�. 1. Spantso : Diccionario de la lengua castellana por
la Academia Espafiola. Madrid, 1852, fol.; Domingues—
Diccionario universal franc�s-espaiiol. Espaiiol- franc�s.
Madrid, Paris, 1853-54, 2 vol. 8vo.; Franciosini— V ocabolario
italiano e spagnolo. Vocabulario espaiiol � italiano. Venezia,
1796, 2 vol. 8vo.; Diccionario espaiiol-italiano � italiano-
espaol. Paris, 1860, 2 vol. 12mo.; Connelly and Higgins—
Dictionary of the Spanish and English languages. Espaiiol-
ingl�s. Ingl�s-espaiiol. Madrid, 1797-98, 4 vol. 4to.; Velas-
ques de la Cadena—Spanish-English and English-Spanish
pronouncing Dictionary. Paris, 2 vol. 8vo.

2. SPANISH DIALECTs: Borao—Diccionario de voces ara-
gonesas. Zaragoza, 1859, 4to.; Hollandsche Spraakkunst
ten gebruike des eiland Curacao. Santa-Rosa, 1849-53,
3 vol. 8vo.

V�. 1. PortuauEse: Moraes Silva—Diccionario da lingua
portugueza. Lisboa, 1844, 2 vol. 4to.; Carvalho, Jodo de
Deus—Diccionario prosodico de Portugal e Brasil. Lisboa,
1878, 16mo.; Fonseca (da), Roguete—Diccionario francez-
portuguez. Portugais-francais. Pariz, 1841, 2 vol. 8vo.;
Costa (da) e Sa—Dizionario italiano e portoghese. Lisboa,
1773-4, 2 vol. fol. ; Borda—Dizionario italiano-portoghese e
portoghese-italiano. Rio de Janeiro, 1853-54, 2 vol. 8vo. ;
Canto (do) e Castro Mascarenhas Valdez—Diccionario espaiol-
portugu�s. Lisboa, 1864-66, 3 vol. 4to.; Bluteau—Tabla de
palabras portuguezas, remotas de la lengua castellana. Lisboa,
1721, fol.; Vieyra—Portuguese-English and English-Portu-
guese Dictionary. London, 1827, 2 vol. 8vo.

2. PoRTUGUESE DIALECTS: Bluteau—Vocabulario de pala-


vras do Minho e Beira. Lisboa, 1728, fol.; Cuveiro Pittol—
Diccionario gallego. Barcelona, 1876, 8vo.; Cub� y Soler—
Cat�logo de voces del sub-dialecto berciano. Leon, 1861,
8vo.; Berrenger—Method of learning the corrupted Portu-
guese spoken in India. Colombo, 1811, 8vo.; Callaway—
English, Portuguese, and Cingalese Vocabulary. Colombo,
1818, 8vo.; Fow—Ceylon-Portuguese, Singhalese, and English
Dictionary. Colombo, 1819, 8vo.

VI�. GENoxsE: Casaccia—Dizionario genovese-italiano.
Genova, 1876, 8vo.; Olivieri—Dizionario genovese-italiano.
Genova, 1841, 16mo.; Paganini—Vocabolario domestico
genovese-italiano. Genova, 1857, 4to.; Andrews—Vocabulaire
frangais-mentonais, Nice, 1877, 8vo.

VII�. Gaxxo-Iratic: BiondeHi—Saggio sui dialetti gallo-
italici. Milano, 1853, 8vo.; Cherubini—Vocabolario milanese-
italiano. Milano, 1839-56, 5 vol. 8vo.; Monti—Vocabolario
dei dialetti della citta e diocesi di Como. Appendice. Milano,
1845-56, 2 vol. 8vo.; Tiraboschi—Vocabolario dei dialetti
bergamaschi antichi e moderni. Bergamo, 1873, 8vo.;
Zappettini—V ocabolario bergamasco-italiano. Bergamo, 1859,
18mo.; TZiraboschi— Parre ed il gergo de’ suoi pastori.
Bergamo, 1864, 8vo.; Melchiorri — Vocabolario bresciano-
italiano. Brescia, 1817-20, 3 vol. 8vo.; Vocabolario
bresciano e toscano. Indice toscano e bresciano. Brescia,
1759, 8vo.; Samarani—Vocabolario cremasco- italiano.
Crema, 1852, 8vo.; Peri—Vocabolario cremonese italiano.
Cremona, 1847, 8vo. ; Coronedi-Berti—V ocabolario bolognese-
italiano. Prontuario italiano-bolognese. Bologna, 1869-72,
2 vol. 8vo.; Ferrari—Vocabolario bolognese-italiano colle voci
francesi. Bologna, 1835, 4to.; id. bolognese-italiano. Bologna,
1853, 8vo.; Maranesi—Vocabolarietto domestico modenese e
italiano. Modena, 1867-68, 8vo.; Galvani—Saggio di un
glossario modenese. Modena, 1867, 8vo.; Vocabolario reggiano-
italiano. Reggio, 1832, 2 vol. 8vo.; Morri—Vocabolario
romagnolo-italiano. Faenza, 1840, 4to.; id. Persiceto, 1863,
8vo.; Mattioli—V ocabolario romagnolo-italiano. Imola, 1879,


todaischa. 1770, 8vo.; Der, Die, Das oder Nomenclatura.
Scuol, 1744, 8vo.; Pallioppi— Ortografia et Orto�pia del
idiom romauntsch d’Engiadin’ota. Coira, 1857, 16mo.;
Heinrich—Fuormas grammaticalas del linguach tudaisch.
Seguonda ediziun. Coira, 16mo.; Alton—Die ladinischen
Idiome in Ladinien, Gr�den, Fassa, Buchenstein, Ampezzo.
Innsbruck, 1879, 8vo.; Schneller—Die romanischen Volks-
mundarten in Siidtirol. Die ladinischen Mundarten. Gera,
1870, 8vo.; Bottiger—Rhetoromanska sprakets Dialekter.
Upsala, 1854, 8vo.; Groden, der Grodner und seine Sprache.
Bozen, 1864, 8vo.; Gartner—Die Gredner Mundart. Linz,
1879, 4to.

X�. Onp ProvencaL: Raynouard—Lexique roman. Paris,
1838, 6 vol. 8vo.; Dies—Altromanische Glossare. Bonn,
1865, 8vo.; Bartsch—Chrestomathie, grammaire, glossaire de
la langue provencale. Elberfeld, 1868, 8vo.

XI�. Catratontan: Diccionari catal�-castell4-llati-frances-
italia. Barcelona, 1839, 2 vol. 8vo.; Diccionario de la lengua
castellana con la correspondencia catalana. Por una sociedad
literaria. Barcelona, 2 vol. 8vo.; Labernia—Diccionario
castellano-catalano-latino. Barcelona, 1844-48, 2 vol. 8vo.;
id. Diccionari catald-castella-llati. Barcelona, 1864-65, 2
vol. 8vo.; Saura—Diccionario castellano-catalano. Barcelona,
1862, 16mo.; zd. Diccionario catalano-castellano. Barcelona,
1869, 16mo.; Lacavailleria, Dulach—Gazophylacium Catalano-
Latinum. Barcinone, 1696, fol.; Nebrissensis — Lexicon
Catalano-Latinum et Latino-Catalanum. Barcinone, 1560-63,
3 vol, fol.; Eserig—Diccionario valenciano-castellano. Va-
lencia, 1851, 8vo.; March Austas—Las obras, con el vocabu-
lario. Valladolid, 1555, 8vo.; Palmyreno—Vocabulario del
humanista. Valentiz, 1569, 3 vol. 8vo.; Figuera—Diccionari
mallorqui-castella. Palma, 1840, fol.; Diccionario completo
mallorquin-castellano. Palma, 1859, 8vo.; So/er—Gramatica
de la lengua menorquina. Mahon, 1858, 8vo.

XII�. Provencar: Honnorat — Dictionnaire provengal-


Hafelin—Die Neuenburger Mundarten. Berlin, 1874, 8vo.;
Champollion-Figeac—V ocabulaire du patois de l’Is�re. Paris,
1809, 12mo.; Rivi�re- Bertrand — Muereglie. Traduction en
dialecte dauphinois de Mireille, de Mistral, pr�c�d�e de notes
sur le langage de Saint-Maurice de ]’Exil. Montpellier, 1881,
8vo.; Gras— Dictionnaire du patois for�zien. Lyon, 1868,
8vo.; Onofrio—Essai d’un glossaire des patois de Lyonnais,
Forez et Beaujolais. Lyon, 1864, 8vo.; Glossatre g�nevois.
Gen�ve, Paris, 1827, 8vo.; Humbert—Glossaire genevois.
Gen�ve, 1852, 2 vol. 12mo.; Gilli�ron—Glossaire du patois
de la commune de Vionnaz (Bas-Valais). Paris, 1880, 8vo.;
Versuch uber den Kanton Wallis. Worter. Ziirich, 1820,
d2mo.; Versuch tiber den Kanton Waat. Ziirich, 1815,
382mo; Callet—Glossaire vaudois. Lausanne, 1881, 8vo.;
Hafelin—Glossaire des patois romans du canton de Fribourg.
Leipzig, 1879, 8vo.; Dartois—Coup-d’wil sur les patois de la
Franche-Comt�. Vocabulaires. Besancon, 1855, 8vo.; Paulet —~
Essai d’un vocabulaire du patois de Plancher-les-Mines
(Haute-Sa�ne). Paris, 1878, 18mo.; Dictionnaire patois-
frangais a l’usage des �coles des Vosges. Nancy, 1842,

XIV�. Otp Frencw: Roguefort—Glossaire de la langue
romane. Paris, 1808-20, 3 vol. 8vo.; Burguy—Glossaire
de la langue d’oil. Paris, 1870, 8vo.; Bartsch—Glossaire de
ancien francais. Leipzig, 1866, 8vo.; Gachet—Glossaire
roman des chroniques rim�es. Bruxelles, 1859, 4to.; Chassant —
—Vocabulaire latin-frangais du x11e Si�cle. Paris, 1857,
12mo.; Godefroy—Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue frangaise
et de tous ses dialectes du x1� au xve si�cle. Paris, 1880,
4to.; Cange (du)—Glossarium Gallicum. Parisiis, 1850, 4to. ;
Kelham—Dictionary of the Norman or Old French language.
London, 8vo.

XV�. 1. Frencu: Dictionnaire de Acad�mie Francaise.
Paris, 1876, 2 vol. 4to.; Compl�ment du dictionnaire de
Acad�mie Francaise. Paris, 1842, 4to.; Littr�—Diction-
naire de la langue frangaise. Paris, 1863-77, 5 vol. 4to.;,



rumunischeSprachdenkmahler.Istro- und macedo-rumunischen
Worterbucher. Italienischer Index zum istro-rumunischen
Vocabular. Wien, 1881-82, 2 vol. 4to.



N.B.—The figures show the languages according to the list (which see).






Abruzzese, dial. 2.
Ag�nois, subd. 12.
Alatrino, var. 2.
Angevin, subd. 15.
Aostan, dial. 13.
Aragonese, subd. 4.
Ardennois, subd. 15.
Asturian, dial. 4. |
Auvergnat, dial. 12.
Barese, subd. 2.
Bayonnais, var. 12.
B�arnais, subd. 12.
Beirao, var. 5.
Bellunese, subd. 2.
Berciano, var. 5.
Bergamasco, dial. 7.
Berrichon, subd. 15.
Bolognese, dial. 2.
Bresciano, subd. 7.
Bressan, dial. 13.
Brivadois, subd. 12.
Broyard, dial. 13.
Burgundian, dial. 15.
Castrais, subd. 12.
C�venol, subd. 12.
Champenois, subd. 15.
Comasco, var. 5.
Corsican, subd. 2.
Cremasco, var. 7.

Cremn, Cremonese, subd. 7.

Dauph. Dauphinois, subd. 12;


1 Flor.
1 For.










dial. 13.
var. 9.
Ferrarese, dial. 7.
FoR�zIEN, DIAL. 13.
Fourgois, var. 13.
Franc-Comtois, dial. 13.
Fribourgeois, dial. 13.
Galician, subd. 5.
Gascon, dial. 12.
Genevese, var. 13.
Gru�rin, subd. 13.
Guernesiais, var. 15.
Jurassien, subd. 18.
Languedocien, dial. 12.
Lillois, subd. 15.
Limousin, dial.
subd. 12.
Lorrain, dial. 15.
Lucchese, var. 2.
Majorcan, var. 11.
Manceau, subd. 15.
Mantovano, subd. 7.
Marchigiano, var. 2;
subd. 2.
Mentonese, dial. 6.
Messin, subd. 15.

dial. 9;


1 Names printed in small capitals show the dialects which represent the whole



Minorcan, var. 11.
Minhoto, var. 5.
Mirandolese, var. 7.
Modenese, subd. 7.
Montois, subd. 15.

. Montb�liardais,subd.15.
. Montpelli�rain, subd.12.

Morvandeau, subd. 15.
Namurois, subd. 15.
Narbonnais, subd. 12.
Neapolitan, dial. 2.

Neufchatelois, dial. 13.

Nigard, subd. 12.
Nivernais, subd. 15.
Norman, dial. 15.
subd. 9.
Padovano, subd. 2.
Parmesan, dial. 7.
Pavese, subd. 7.
Percheron, subd. 15.
Piacentino, subd. 7.
Picard, dial. 15.

. Piedmontese, dial. 7.

Pisan, var. 2.

- Poitevin, dial. 15.

Quercinois, var. 12.

. Queyrassien, var. 12.

Reggiano, subd. 7.
Riojano, var. 4.


Rom. Roman, var. 2.
Romg. Romagnuolo, dial. 7.
Rouch. Rouchi, subd. 15.
Rouerg. Rouergat, dial. 12.
Rov. Roveretano, subd. 2.
Saint. Saintongeais, subd. 15.
Sass. Sassarese, dial. 2.
Sav. Savoyard, dial. 13.
Sie. Sicilian, dial. 2.
Sienn. Siennese, var. 2.
Tar. Tarantino, dial. 2.
Temp. Tempiese, subd. 2.
Tor. Teramano, subd. 2.
Tre. Ticinese, subd. 7.
Toul. Toulousain, subd. 12.
Tour. Tourangeau, var. 15.
Triest. Triestino, var. 2;
subd. 8.
Tyr. Tyrolese, dial. 9.
Val. Valaisan, dial. 13.
Vald. Waldese, var. 7.�
Valenc. Valenciano, var. 11.
Valt. Valtellinese, subd. 7.
Vaud. Vaudois, dial. 13.
Ven. Venitian, dial. 2.
Ver. Veronese, subd. 2.
Vierv. Viervetois, var. 15.
Vie. _ Vicentino, subd. 2.
Vosg. Vosgien, dial. 13 ;
subd. 15.
Wall. Walloon, dial. 15.


acc. according ; aceus. accusative ; coll. collectively ; dal. dialect;
East. Eastern; fem. feminine; North. Northern; pl. plural; South.
Southern ; subd. sub-dialect ; var. variety ; West. Western; ++ plus.
By Bible, after a Wallachian word, the edition of Jassy, 1865-69,
is exclusively meant. |
** indicate the Low Latin words, and * is prefixed in every

1 Names printed in small ,capitals show the dialects which represent the whole



language, dialect, subdialect, or variety to those words which are
antiquated, or obsolete, or uncommon, or not very common, or less
used, or not principally used, or used in a figurative sense.

Names of localities or explicative words are put in a parenthesis ;
and, if they be authors’ names or titles of works, they are always
preceded by the words, acc. to, in order to distinguish them from
local names.

When the name of one of the sixteen languages is immediately
followed by that of its dialect, the word quoted belongs only to the
dialect and not to the literary or principal dialect itself by which
the whole language is represented.


This list, although very rich in words connected with
the vine, has no pretension to be complete. It is not such
for two reasons : firstly, because it has not been in my power
to collect all the words of this kind in all the Neo-
Latin dialects, sub-dialects, and varieties; and, secondly,
because I have purposely excluded from it: 1�. All definitions
and compound words (except the English); 2�. Words not
exclusively used in speaking of the vine, or at least not more
particularly applicable to it; 3�. Regular diminutive or
augmentative forms of words, when no accessory idea is added
to that of diminution or augmentation ; 4�. Names of peculiar
qualities of vines or grapes, and those indicating their par-
ticular diseases; 5�. Names of operations relating to the
culture of the vine; 6�. Names of vessels, etc.; 7�. Adjec-
tives, verbs, and similar words indicating no material object.

The Low Latin and dialectal Italian, Spanish, Portuguese,
and French names are not given when they do not differ
more or less in form, meaning, or orthography from those
still in use in the standard language to which they belong.

This applies also: 1�. To the Sardinian, Genoese, Gallo-
Italic, Friulano, and Romanese words, when they are similar
in every respect to the Italian; 2�. To the Catalonian words,
when they do not differ from the Spanish and Old Provengal;
3�. To the Provengal words, when they are similar to those
of French and Old Provengal; 4�. To the Franco-Provencal


-words, if they be the same as those of French, Old French,
and Old Provencal; 5�. To the Old French words, if they
be similar to the French; 6�. To the French dialectal words,
when they do not differ from the Old French; and, when
a dialectal word is given in one of the principal dialects of a
language, it is not repeated in the other dialects of the same

The words of the various languages, dialects, sub-dialects,
and varieties contained in this list are generally given in the
orthography adopted by the best authors of dialectal dic-
tionaries. To write all these words in a strictly phonetical
orthography common to all these forms of speech would have
been very desirable; but, unfortunately, what is desirable is
not always possible. This is certainly the case at present,
not only because a great number of these dialects have never
been treated phonetically in any work, but also because the
most competent phonetists, even belonging to the same
locality, disagree very often amongst themselves in their
appreciation of the sounds. In a great number of instances,
however, and when it has been possible for me to give my
own appreciation of the sounds of those dialects which I
know practically or have heard spoken by natives, I have taken
upon myself (in the impossibility of applying to them a
strictly phonetic orthography) to assist the future phonetists,
by adopting several new means? for the rendering of certain
sounds, as italic letters, small capitals, suppressions of letters,
apostrophes, etc., excluding, however, all new characters,
which would have altered too much the orthography in
general use. I enter into some details:

1, (a, #@) are pronounced as a in fat.

2. (4) is pronounced as the Scotch a in “ man,” man.

3. (4), nearly as wu in much. In Latin, as ain father, but
short. |

4, (�, e) express generally the French �, but (e) sounds

sometimes as semi-open e; and in the Portuguese usual
_* Latin, Low Latin, Old Provencal, Old French, and French words are given
in their established orthography, and Italian and Spanish words are also, with

very few exceptions, retained unaltered. The adoption of these new means,
ore, does not apply, or applies very seldom, to these languages.


orthography (which I have not dared to alter in this par-~
ticular), (�) sounds as the French �@& This applies also t”
the Portuguese dialects.

5. (€) 1s pronounced as the French �.

6. (8), generally, as the French �, except in Portuguese
and its dialects, where if sounds as the French �, and in
Romg., where it receives a peculiar sound of (4. e), verging
slightly to (10. eu), as in “ and�,” to go.

7. (6), as (4. �), but it occurs only in Romg.

8. (&, in, im), as the French in in “vin,” wine, (6) being
always atonic.

9. (e, ’), both as the French e in “ cheval,”’ horse.

10. (eu), as the French ew in “ peu,” Uittle, but it occurs in
the list with this sound only in Genoese, Piedm., Auv., Jur.,
Gen., and Franc. Anywhere else (eu) sounds (4. o+21. u).

11. (i), as the Wallachian deep 2.

12. (i, in, im), as the Portuguese im in “ marfim,” ivory.

' 13. (6, 0), as the French o in “ d�vot,” devout, but (0)
sounds sometimes as a semi-open 0; and (0), in Portuguese,
as the French 0 in “ d�vote,”’ fem. of “d�vot.” This applies
also to the Portuguese dialects.

14. (0), as the French o in “ d�vote.”

15. (6), generally, as the French 6, but in Portuguese and
its dialects, as the French o in “ d�vot,” and in Romg.,
as (18. 0), verging slightly to (18. ce), as in “cdr,” heart.

16. (6), as (13. 6), but it occurs only in Romg.

17. (0), as 00 in food, but short.

18. (ce), as the French ew in “ veuf,”’ widower.

19. (ou), as (21. u), but it occurs in the list with this sound
only in Provencal, Franco-Provengal, French, and their
dialects. Anywhere else (ou) is (13. 0+ 21. u).

20. (du), as (2. 4421. u), or. nearly so.

21. (u), a8 00 in food, but short, except in Provencal,
Franco-Provengal, French, and their dialects, where (u) is
(24. u).

22. (fi), a8 00 in good, or nearly so,

23. (un, um), as French “ un,” one.

24. (u), as the French uw.


25. (b, v), as the Spanish 4, a continuous bi-labial sound, as

in “ haba,”� bean.

26. (c), before a, 2, #, 0, wu, and the consonants, or at the
end of a word, is generally pronounced as c in calf, but before
e and � it receives the sound (50. tch) in Italian and its
dialects, in the Non-Italian dialects of Italy, and in Walla-
chian ; the sound of (51. th), in Spanish and its dialects and
in the Portuguese dialects of Spain; and the sound of s in s0,
anywhere else, including Northern Gal.

27. (ch) is pronounced as c in ca/f in Italian and its dialects,
in the. Non-Italian dialects of Italy, and in Wallachian ; as
(50. tch), in Spanish and its dialects and in the Portuguese
dialects of Spain; as the German ch in “nacht,” night, in
Saint. ; and as the English ch anywhere else.

28. (chj), as a sound intermediate between (50. tch) and
the palatalized k; asin Friulano “ ras-chje,” a small bunch of
grapes. |

29. (dh), as �h in the.

30. (dj), as the English /.

31. (dz), as the Italian z in ‘‘la zona,”’ the sone.

32. (dd), as a strong velar dd; as in Sic. “ ariddaru,”

33. (g), as g in go, before a, o, u, and the consonants,
but before e and 4, as (80. dj), in [talian and its dialects, in
the Non-Italian dialects of Italy, and in Kutzo-Wallachian ;
as the German ch in “ nacht,” in Spanish and its dialects; as
(50. tch), in Valenc.; as the German guttural continuous g
in “tage,” days, in Saint.; and as s in pleasure, anywhere

34. (ghj), as a sound intermediate between (30. dj) and
the palatalized hard g; as in Temp. “scalughja,” a@ small
bunch left behind by vintagers. |

35. (gl) before i not followed’ by a vowel and (gli) before
any other vowel than 7 are pronounced as (89. lh) in Italian,
its dialects, and Romanese. Anywhere else, as hard g+/.

36. (h), as the German h, in Gasc., Lorr., Vosg., Mess.,
and Wall. Anywhere else it is mute.

37. (hh), as the Arabian �.


38, (j), as y in yes, it occurs only in the Italian and Non-
Italian dialects of Italy; as the German ch in “nacht,”
in Spanish and its dialects; as (50. tch), in Valenc.; as the
German g in “ tage,’’ in Saint.; and ass in pleasure, any-
where else.

39. (lh, ly), as the Italian g/ in “ figli,”’ sons.

40. (Il), as the preceding, but only in Spanish, its dialects,
in the Non-Spanish dialects of Spain, and also frequently in
French and its dialects. The Italian // is pronounced as a
strong /, which applies also to the Central and Southern
Italian. Anywhere else (Il) is pronounced as a single /.

41. (Jc), as a strong German ch in “ nacht.” !

42. (7), as a strong Manx dental / in “ooyl,” apple.

43. (dt), as the strong Welsh // in “ colli,”’ to dose. }

44, (m, n) are not pronounced, but the preceding vowel
becomes nasal.

45. (N), as ng in singer.

46. (nh, ny, fi), as the French gn in “digne,” worthy.

47. (s), a8 8 in so, when it does not occur between two
vowels, in all the words of the list; and, generally, as the
English z, when it does. In a very great number, however,
of Italian, Tuscan, and Central or even Northern March.
words, and in all those belonging to the Roman and Southern
Italian dialects, to Spanish and its dialects, tothe Portuguese
dialects of Spain, to Valenc., and to Wallachian, s occurring
between two vowels is not pronounced as an English z, but as
8 in 80.

48. (ss), as 8 in so, except in Italian and in its Central and
Southern dialects, where it is pronounced as a strong voice-.
less s, as in “ osso,’’ bone.

49. (s), as the English sz.

50. (tch, tx), as ch in child.

51. (th), as th in thick.

52. (ts), asthe Italian s in “la zappa,”’ the spade.

53. (ty), as a palatalized d; as in B�arn. “ bitatye,”’

1 See my ‘‘ Observations on the sag aero of the Sassarese dialect of.
Sardinia,’ in the ‘“‘ Transactions of the Society of Cymmrodorion of London.”’
Vol. 4, p. 11, for (dc) and (�t), and p. 12, for (/d).


54, (x), as the English sh, except in Cagl. and Genoese,
where it sounds as s in pleasure.

55. (z), generally, as the English z, but in Italian and its
dialects and the Non-Italian dialects of Italy, as (52. ts); and
in Spanish and in the Portuguese dialects of Spain, as (51. th).
In Northern Gal., however, it is pronounced as s in 80.

56. (s), as (31. dz).

57. (’‘). Tonic accent. These two signs show very often
tone-and quality of sound at the same time, as in (4. 6; 5�;
13. 6; 14.6; 20. du). Whenever they indicate merely the
tone, they are found expressed in print only: 1�., in the last
syllable of words ended with a vowel; 2�.,in the last syllable
but one of words ended with a consonant; 3�., in the tonic
syllable of words of more than two syllables. And every word
bearing no printed accent is understood to have it: 1�, in
the last syllable of words ended with a consonant; 2�. in
the last syllable but one of words ended with a vowel.

These rules do not apply to French and its dialects, where
the indication of the tonic accent is unnecessary on account
of the total absence in them not only of proparoxytona, but
even of real paroxytona. In fact, the numerous French
words ended with e bearing no accent are paroxytona for the
eyes, but real oxytona for the ears.

58. (). Long quantity.

' 59. (~). Short Latin quantity. (See 3. �.

Note that double consonants between two vowels are, in
the Non-Italian dialects of Italy, almost always pronounced

as if they were written single.


(1.) Vineyard: a.) An extent of ground planted with vines.
1. Latin: vin�&d, *viniai, *palmes; **binea, **vignea,
**vinera, **vitis, **ceppa, **sarmentum (acc. to.
Diefenbach), saramentum (id.). ,
2. ITALIAN: vigna, vigneto, *vignazzo; Central March.
cortina (ace. to “‘ Raccolta” ); North. Cors. bigna.
3. SaRDINIAN: Central: binza; South. bingia.


Or He

- 14,



. SPANISH: villa; As�. vifieu.
. PortuacuEseE: vinha; Indo-Portuguese: uzera, ouzera,

vinho, orti, orte, orta.

. Gaxto-ITatic: Berg. egna, igna, vidur, vigndl (2o-

mano); Bol. vegna; Romg. *vign�; Parm. vignee.

. FRIULANO: vignaal, *vigne.

. RomangseE: Oderl. v�gna (ace. to Carigiet) ; Tyr. vignee.
. OLD PROVENGAL : vinha, vinna.

. CaTALONIAN: vinya; Valenc. vinya.

. PRovengaL: vigno; Lang. bigno; Monitp. bigna; Bay.

bigne; Auv. vigna; Briv. vegna.

. FRranco-ProvencaL: Jur. vena (Saint-Amour) ; Fourg.

v’gneu; Lower Val. vegn’; Vaud. vegna; Gruer. vign’ ;
South-East. Vosg. vegn’ (Vagney); v�gn’ (id.).

Otp FrencuH: vingne, vine, visne.

Frencu: vigne; Berr. *chapon; Perch. vinn; Upper
Mane. vingn�; Champ. vingg (Marne); Champ. v�gn
(Aube); Burg. v�gn; Lorr. vin (Laleuf), v�nn
(Pexonne), v�enn (id.), v�nn (id.); Vosg. v�n (Le
Tholy), vigneu (Ban-sur-Meurthe), vigni (Moyen-
moutier), v�gneu (Provench�res), v�gni (Saales), v�nhi
(Vexaincourt); Wall. viegn, vignob; Pre. vingn; Saint.

WALLACHIAN: vie, jie (popularly), vii (acc. to the
Bible), vini& (acc. to Schinnagl) ; Kutso- Wallachian :
ginye; Istro-Wallachian : terta.

(2.) Vineyard: b.) An extent of land laid out in vineyards a.).


Latin: vinetum; **biniale, **vignalis, **vignoblum,
**vinablium, Rica: **vineale, **vinearium, **vi-
neatica, **vineatus, **vinena, **vinenea, **vinericia,
**vineta, **viniale, **vinoblium, **vinobre, eoIauOr

'2. Irattan: vigneto, “vignaio, *vignato, *vignata; Sic.

vignitu, *vignetu, vignali, *vignera, vignazzu; Abr.
vignal’; Neap. vignale, vetimma; Pad. vignale, videga;
Bell. vidiga; Rov. vignal.

3. SARDINIAN: Central: bingada.


4. SpaNIsH: viiiedo, *veduiio, *viduiio, *vidueiio.

5. PortucvugssE: vinh�do, *vinhar.

7. Gatto-Iraric: Mil. vidor ; He: vidur, vignol (R-
mano); Parm. vidour.

8. Frrutano: vignaal.

10. Otp ProvencaL: vinnal, *vinnar, vinher, *vinhier,
vinayres, *vinares.

11. CaTaLoniaNn: vinyer, vinyar, *vinyet, vinyedal; Valence.
viny�do, vinyedo, *vinyero; May. viny�t.

12. ProvencaL: vignoble, vigneiredo, vignar�s; Lang.
bigneir�do; Toul. bign�, bign�s; B�arn. bitatye;
Central Rouerg. bignouople, *bignople, bignal (Saint-
Geniezs) ; Auv. pan.

13. Franco-ProvengaL: Lower Dauph. vignoblou; Vaud.
v gnoublho, v’noublho, v’gnoladzo, vignoladjo; South-
East. Vosg. vignob’.

14. OLp FRENcH: -vignou, vignoy, vignau, vigno, vignole,
vignol, vigneul, P vignon.

15. Frenco: vignoble; Berr. vinobl, *cuvaj.

16. WaLLAcHIAN: viet (acc. to Bobb), vinet (id.).

(3.) A plantation of vines made up of several portions of land.
1. Latin; **complanatum, **complanctum, **complan-
tum. | | :
5. Porrucurse: bacellada.
15. Frencu: complant; Poit. pllante�.

(4.) A district of vineyards.
15. Frencu: Berr. bann�e, banni.

(5.) A farm formed of vineyards held on condition of the
proprietor’s receiving some portion of the produce.
15. Frencu: Mess. mou�tross.

(6.) A lawiatn of young vines.

1. Latin: n�vell�tum; **planterium, **maleollus, **mal-
heolus, **malholius, **malhollium, **maliolus, **mal-
leollus, **malliolus, **mallolius, **vinale, **vinhale, .
**malones p/., malhones, p/., malolem accus,


. Ivatran: Tar. past’n.

. SPANISH: majuelo, *dacillar, *bacelar.

. PortucuEsE: bac�llo.

. Catatonian: mallola, mayola, mallol, mayol; Maj.


12, Provencar: planti�, plantado; Zang. malhol,:planti�,
*plan; C�v. malhaou, malhoou, *malhot, *mayod ;
Monitp. plantada; Gase. planto; Central Rouerg.
plontado, *plontid�, *plon, plontod, molhouol, *molhol.

‘13. Franco-ProvencaL: Jur. plant�e ; Broy. tchapounar.

14. Otp Frencu: mailhol, malhol, mailole.
15. Frencu: *plantat; Poit. pllantt.

pa Or He dD

(7.) A nursery-ground of vines.
| |. Latin: vitiarjum.
7. Gaxto-Itatic: Romg. vid�ra.
12. Provengat: Central Rouerg. plontado, *plontio.
15. Frencu: mess. pipinn; Lower Manc. poupini�rr (ace.
to Lorrain). |

(8.) An enclosed vineyard.
15. Frencw: Berr. ma.

(9.) A vineyard all in one portion.
15. Frencu : Saint. pyanti, pyantitt. —

(10.) A detached portion of a vineyard.
15. Frencw: Berr. ecar.

(11.) Vineyard of which the rows are laid out in trellises.
4. SpanisH: dacelar, *bacillar.
@. Gatto-Itaric: Piem. autin.

(12). A vineyard laid out after the fashion of � gamet ”’ vine-
yards. 3
15. Frencn: Champ. gami�rr (Aube).

(13.) A vineyard upon a hill.
@. Gaxtno-Itatic: Mil. ronch.


16. Watiacutan: d�al, podgorie, podgoria (acc. to Pont-
briant), viet (acc. to Bobb), vinet (td.).

(14.) Vineyards upon hills (cod/.).
7.-Gatio-Itatic: Mil. roncaja.

(15.) Vineyards upon hills, laid out in terraces of steps
7. Gaxuto-Itaric: Mil. roncaja; Com. ronch.
8.. FRIULANO: ronch.
15. Frencu: Ang. chapio.

(16.) A place where male vines grow.
1. Latin: masciiletum. . .

(17.) A plantation of undressed vines abounding with shoots.
4. SpanisH: bacelar, *dacillar.

(18.) A vineyard of wild vines.
12. ProvencaL: C�v. lambrusquiciro. ,

(19.) Vine: The plant which produces grapes.
1. Latin: vitis, *vin�&, *palmes, *iiva; **trelhia, **ceppa.
2. ITaLian: vite, *vigna; Central March, ite (Fabriano) ;
North. Cors. bita; Sass. viddi; Sic. viti; Zar. cippon ;
Neap. vita; Ven. vida; Vic. visela; Rov. guida.
3. Sarpin1An: Central: bide, *binsa; South. sermentu,
*sarmentu, idi (in some places).
4. SpanisH: vid, “parra, *vijia; -As�. vide.
5. PorTuGuEsE: vid�ira, vide, *vinha; Indo-Portuguese :
vinha, vid�, vida.
. Gatuo-Itatic: Mil. vit; Berg. it, viit, Crem. ida;
Bol. vid; Romg. vida; Parm. vide; Piedm. vis, vi.
8. FriuLano: vid, vit; Triest. wi.
9. Romanzse: Ober/, vit; Tyr. vignve.
10. Otp PRovENGAL: vit.
11. Catalonian: cep, *vinya, parra; May. cep.
12. ProvencaL: vigno, vigna (Nimes); Lang. bigno;
Montp. bigna; Gasc. bit; Bay. oube; Lower Lim.
trelho; Awv. vigna; Briv. vegna.


13. Franco-ProvencaL: Bress. cepa; Fourg. v’gneu;
Lower Val. vegn’; Vaud. vi; South-East Vosg. vegn’
(Vagney), v�gn’ (id.).

14. OLtp FReEnNcH: vit, *vingne, *vine, *visne.

15. Frencn: vigne; Perch. vinn; Upper Mane. vingn� ;
Champ. vingg (Marne); Champ. v�gn (Aube) ; Mor.
vingn; Burg. v�gn; Lorr. vin (Laleuf), v�enn
(Pexonne), v�enn (#d.), v�nn (�d.); Vosg. v�n- (Le
Tholy), vigneu (Ban-sur-Meurthe), vigni (Moyen-
moutier), v�gneu (Provench�res), v�gni (Saales), v�nbi
(Vexaincourt); Wall. vign�b; Pic. vangn; Saint. vegn.

16. WaLLACHIAN: vitsi, jits% (popularly), vitse (ace. to Bobb),
vie (ace. to the Bible), vid (id.); Kutso-Wallachian :
gite; Istro- Wallachian: ruje, braid’, bro�id’, vinyal.

(20.) Quality and kind of vine.

2. ITALIAN: vitigno, *vizzato; Sienn. vitazzo; Neap.
vetimma; Ven. vignal.

4. SpanisH: veduiio, *viduno, *vidueiio.

5. PorTuGurEsE: viddnho.

7. Gatio-Itatic: Mil. vidor ; Com. vidoo ; Do vidur ;
Bol. vidour; Romg. vdez, *videz, vider, vid�ra.

14. Orv FRENCH: cepage.

15. Frencu: *c�page; Berr. viin, cupin; Saint. visan
(ace. to Jonain.).

(21.) Quantity of. vines.
2. Iratian: Ven. vignal; Vie. vignale. |
7. Gatio-Itatic: Mil. vidor; Com. viddo; Berg, vidur ;
Bol. vidour ;, Romg. vdez, *videz, vid�ra.

(22.) Vines arranged quincuncially.
12. ProvencaL : platissado.

(23.) A shrublike vine.
1. Latin: ** see (51.).

(24.) Ay vine keeping itself up by the sis a its branches.
14. Otp FRENcH: trexe.


(25. : A vine-trellis.
1. Lavin: pergiil’, trichil, *trichvlum, *tricla, *tricled,

*triclia; **trelia, **trigila, **trigula, **trilia, **trilla,
**trillia, **parrale, * *topia.

. Irauian: p�rgola, *pergolato, *pergolaria; TZemp.

trigghja; Sass. parrali; Sic. pr�ula, p�rgula; Tar.
prev 1; Neap. pr�ola, pr�gola, pr�vola,

. Sarpinian: Central: p�rgula, triga, trija, *tricla ;

North. parra, parrali.

. SPANISH: parral.

. PorrucuEse: parr�iral.

. GENOESE: angidu, teupia, *topia; Ment. traja.

. Gatto-Itatic: Mil. topia, p�lgora; Romg. p�rgula ;

Ferr. p�rgula; Parm. pergole; Piac. toppia; Pav.
topix. |

. Friu.ano: pi�rgule, pidrgule.
. Orv PrRovenca.: treilla, *trelha, *trilla.
. CaTALONIAN : parral, *trilla.

ProvencaL: tr�lho, trelha (Nimes), tr�you (Aries),
aoutin, “ooutin, *fielagno, *fieragno, filagno (Var),
ban pl. (Hi�res), bane pi. (id.); Lang. trelho; Gase.

. Franco-ProvencaL: Lower Dauph. trelh’ ; Lower Vail.


. Orv FrRENcH: troille, traille, treulle, trelle.
. Frencw: treille; Berr. chad�enn (West) ; Saint.


(26.) Several vine-trellises united together. .



Latin : **pergolatus, **trilhatum.
IraLian: pergolato, *pergoleto; Sic. priulatu, pir-
gulatu, pergulatu; Zar. privulit; Ven. pergola.

. SPANISH ; emparrado.

PortTucusse : latada. —

. Gatto-Iratic: Mil. topiaa, pelgoraa ; ; Com. topiada ;

Bol. pergolat; egg. pergl�da ; sli pergul�t ;

| Parm. pergola; Pav. tupia..


CaTALONIAN: emparrat; Valence. emparrat.


12. Provencan: aoutinado, *ooutinado; Lang. trelb&-}
Gase. trilhado; Central Rouerg. trelhat, *trelhady <>;
North. Rouerg. trilhat (Entraygues).

15. Frencu: Berr, trillaj, trillaj, *tr�illaj; Champ. 1& 258
(Aube), panno (id.).

I. Latin: pergiilana ; **pergula, **camborta.

SPANISH: parra.

PORTUGUESE : parr�ira.

GrEnorse: Ment. traja.

CATALONIAN : parra. |

Provenca: tr�lho, trelha (Nimes), tr�you (Arles 2;

Lang. trelho ; Gase. trilho; Auo. treglha.

13. Franco-ProvengaL: Lower Dauph. trelh’.

14, OLp Frencu: treix, traix, chambry (ace. to Lorraiye );
chambord (id.).

15. Frencu: treille; Berr. trill, trill�j, trillaj, tr�ill ex—_j,
chad�enn (West); Champ. otin (Aube), utin (ida ;
Morv. rajign�e (neighbourhood of Avallon); Loa-=*
chambr� (Allain); Mess. chambri, chabri (R�miliy � ;
Ard. chabli.

(27,) A vine climbing a wall or a tree.


(28.) A vine growing on props.
2. Irat1an: broncone (acc. to Manuzsi); Neap. ten —
necchia; Ven. tir�la.
7. Gatto-Iratic: Romg. tir�la (Imola) ; Piac. tirdn.
15, Frencu: Berr. jou�l.

(29.) Vines growing on props (coll.).
2. Iratian: broncone (acc. to Manuzzi).
12, PRoveNcAL: *cavaliero.

(30.) A vine climbing over very high props.
14. Otp Frencu: hautaigne.

(31.) A vine growing on props parallel to the ground.
15. French: Champ. fourch (Marne), grapillon (id.) ;
Champ. �chamm (Aube), �cham� (td.)


(32.) A straight and long row of vines held together by
stakes and poles.

2. Iraian: anguillare; Sass. dldini; Tar. impalat ;
Rov. bina.

3. SARDINIAN: Central: sediner South giuali.

7. Gauio-Irartic: Berg. trosa; Bresc. fild, tiradur; Bol.
alva; Regg. pergl�; Romg. laz�ra; Parm. tirade;
Pav. topie; Pied. taragna,. filagn, *filagna, ressa (a
country word ).

14. Otp Frencu: bairigne. |
15. Frencw: Berr. jou�l�e; Ard. b�rign.

(33.) Two or more straight and long rows of vines held
together by stakes and poles. ,
2. IraLian: pancata; Sienn. anguillare, anguillaccio.
7. Gatuo-Iratic: Bresc. palada; Mod. pruvana; Romg.
laz�ra; Mant. tir�la; Parm. filagn.
13. Franco-ProvengaL: Vaud. utin pl. (Coppet), otin
pl. (id.). ,

(34.) Vine carried along from tree to tree.

1. Latin: rumpus, tradux, fin�tum; **travices pi.

2. Irattan: arbusce�llo (acc. to Manusszi), *arbusce�lla (id.),
*arbucello (td.), *arbuc�lla (id.); Country Tuscan (acc.
to Mattioli): p�rgola (near Florence) ; tira (Valdarno) ;
salciaia (Valdichiana); tralciaia (Mugello); trecciaia
(Valdinievole); ritdrta (Casentino), catena (id.); pendia
(Versiglia); Pts. pendaglidla (acc. to id.); Lucch. pen-
dana; Central March. carneali p/, (Fabriano), tirate
pl. (id.); Ven. tir�la. .

7. Gatto-Iraric: Tic. romp; Bol. bindana Mod. tirela;
Romg. tir�, tir�la (Imola). -

8. Friv.ano: trauli.

(35.) A place planted with vines sundae anne fioin tree
to tree.
1, Latin: rumpotin�tum. �
7. Gatto-Iraric: Prac. filagn ; Pav. vidur.



(386.) A tree to which a vine clings and which it climbs.


PoRTUGUESE: uv�ira.
ProvEncAL: trelhds, trelha�, *trilha.
Oxup FRencu: hautain.

(37.) The utmost ranks of vines.


(38. A vine-stock.

Latin: antes pi.

1. Latin: mat�rif{, mat�ries; **ceppa, **vitis, **tracl amex.

. Ivauran: North. Cors. calzu; Tar. cippdn; F�a=r.


. SPANISH : cepa.

. PortuevrEse: c�pa; Beir. uv�ira.
. GenogsE: Ment. sep.

. Gatio-Itaric: Mil. vidascia.


. CATALONIAN: cep; May. cep. :
. PRovENcaL: souco, souca (Nimes); Ag�n. bidot; Ca 4

tral Rouerg. meto.

. Franco- ProvencaL: Lower Dauph. cepa; Vara.

gourgna, grougna, ‘*grolha, ‘*gourlh’, *gorgm �,

. Orv FReENcH: racimal.
. FrencoH: cep; Berr. c�, coss, sar, beurtt, burtt, cupy#* �

Mess. hhou�ill; Wall. l�p; Ard. sap; Saint. c�tt.

A vine-stock bent round.

. Frenco: Zorr. chlootinn.

A row of vine-stocks.
. CATALONIAN : tira.

. PRovENcAL: fielagno, *feragno, filagno (Var), ban

pl. (Hi�res), bane pi. (id.); Lang. filholo, “lago;
C�v. bida.
Franco-ProvencaL: Vaud. aorgna, *orgna, *orna ;
Franc. ordon, ourdon, oudon, oudion, pol�r’,


15, Frencn: iv. ourdon (Clamecy); Champ. ordon
(Marne) ; |

(41.) A young vine.
1. Latin: **maleollus, **malheolus, **malholius, **mal-
hollium, **maliolus, **malleollus, **malliolus, **mallo-
_ ius,
4. SpanisH: Rioj. majuelo.
5. PortuGcuEseE: bac�llo; Gal. maliolo.
10. Orv ProvengaL: maillol, malhol.
12. ProvencaL: C�v. malhaou, malhoou, *malhoi, *mayoi.
15. Frencu: Saint. visan (ace. to Boucherie).

(42.) A young vine-stock pruned for the first time.
15. Frenca: Pott, ravalur.

(43.) A vine-stock until five years old.
15. Frencu: Saint. pyantt.

(44.) An old vine.
15. Frencu: Saint. coss.

(45.) An old vine-stock rooted out for fuel.
4. SPANISH: ceporro.

(46.) A vine dying off.
15. Frencu : Champ. mahonn (Aube).

(47.) A vine-stock bearing no grapes.
13. Franco-ProvencaL: Frib. Broy. tchapon.

(48.) A deserted vine the sprigs of which entwine.
15. Frencu: Ard. tr�.

(49.) An undressed vine abounding with shoots.
4, SPANISH: parral.
11. CaTaLonian: parral.



(50.) An uncultivated old vine.
2. Iratian: Sic. vitusa.

(51.) A wild vine.




Latin: **labrusca, **labrusta, **labustra, **laberosca,

**labrosca (all five also occurring, as well as lambrusca,
ace. to Diefenbach, in the sense of (8, 23, 52, 177, 179,
193). ? .

. Ivratran: Bell. vidison.
. SPANIsH: labrusca, parriza, *parron.
. PorTUGUESE: labrusca.

. CATALONIAN: Ilambrusca; Valenc. parrissa.


Op ProvengaL: labrusca, lambrusquieira.

ProvengaL: lambrusco, lambruscou (Arles), embrusca
(Nimes), *lambrusquiero, treilhiero, eigrassiero, bedi-
gana (Nimes); Nic. bedigana; Upper Dauph. lam-
brutso; Lang. lambdruisso, lambresqui�iro, trelh�iro ;
C�v. lambrusqui�iro; Montp. lambrusea; Lower Lim.
lombrustso; Rouerg. bit-haougue (acc. to Azais).
FRaNcO-PROVENGAL: Jur. lambrutsa, lambritsa ; Lower
Dauph. lambrusca; Franc. lambrutch’, lambritch’.
Oxp Frencu: Jambrunche.
FrencoH: *lambruche, *lambrusque, *lambrot, *la-
brusque; Berr. lambreuch, embrinch (L�r�), embrunch
(id.), viann, vigann ( West.), vicann (id.); Upper Manc.
lambreuche, lambrun; Port. r�sin�tt.

16. WALLACHIAN: cirpene.

(N.B.—The Latin labrusci, labruscum, and the Italian
lambrusca, *lambrusco, *lambruzza, do not mean so much “a
wild vine,” as a peculiar kind of it.)

(52.) A large wild vine.
1. Latin: **see (51.).

(53.) Wood left by a vine-dresser after cutting the vine.
13. Franco-PRovenxcaL: Gen. porteur.
15. Frencn: *cource.


(54.) The dead wood of a vine.
12. ProvencaL: Lang. souquet; Castr. souquilhow, souquil.

(55.) A vine-root..
15. Frencn: Champ. cour� (Aube).

(56.) Vine-roots (col/.).
15. Frencu: Mess. hhou�ill.

(57.) Roots of the vine remaining underground after the
vineyard has been pulled up. ,
2. Iratran: . Zar. vitus.

(58.) The filaments of the roots of the vine.
15. Frencn: Champ. chevlu (Marne).

(59.) A vine-branch.

1, Latin: sarmentum, *diramen, *dirimentum, palmes,
*palma; **saramentum, **sarmenta, **sermens,
**traucis, **tranix, **tranex, **trance.

2. ITALIAN: sermento, *sarmento, *sermente, tralcio,
*tralce; Central March. sciarmiento (Fabriano); Sass.
sermentu; Sic. sarmentu; Neap. chiaccone, tennecchia ;
Pad. tir�la (ace. to Patriarchi); Ver. tiron; Bell.
refos; Mov. monzina.

3. SARDINIAN: Central: sermentu, *sarmentu, bidighinzu;
South p�rtia.

4. SPANISH : sarmiento. |

5. PorTUGUESE: sarm�nto, vide; Gai. sarm�nto, gromo,

6. GENOESE: puassa; Ment. traja.

7. Gatto-ITatic: Mil. tros, m�rza (Upper Mil.); Com.
vidascia; Berg. mader; Bresc. sermeta, trdsa; Bol.
‘serm�int, sarm�int; Mod. ploon; Regg. plon; Romg.
sarment, *serment, cadnaza (a country word); Mant.
meedar, graspa; Parm. med�r, medersane; Piac.
parfil; Piedm. sermenta, *sarmenta, meil, *meir, mej�,
majeul, *majei; Vad. sarmanta, ma�.


. FRIULANO: vidizon.
- Oro PrRovencaL: serment, “*eisermen, ‘*issermen,


. CATALONIAN: sarm�nt, *“serm�nt; Valenc. eixarment,

*sarment; Ja. sarment.

. PROVENGAL: avis, vis, *vise, *visi, *avi, sarmeiN,

einsirmein, gavel (JVimes), paraNgoun, “paravoun ;
Upper Dauph. vi; Lang. bis, bise, bisi, abit, *albis,
sarmeN, eissirmeN *sermen, *issermeN, *eisermeN ;
Toul. eissermen; Ag�n. ensirmen; Gasc. charmenx,
eicharmen, *gaouero: B�arn. chermen; Lower Lim.
sirmen ; Central Rouerg. *golis; Auwo. parasot.
Franco-ProvencaL: ress, sarman; Neuf. s�rm’
(North-Eastern Vignoble); Lower Dauph. sarmanta.

. Otp FRENcH: serment.
. FrencH: sarment; Serr. ch�, *ma; Zorr. sarmott

(Domgermain), marin (Landremont); Montb. serman ;
Wall, vi; Pic. gav�l; Saint. essarmen, essermen..

. WALLACHIAN: vitsdi, jits&i (popularly), vitse (acc. to

Bobb), cep (acc. to Frollo), vlastar, vlastare (acc. to
“‘ Lexicon’’), viajar, curpen (ace. to Cihac), carpain
(td.), curpene (td.), cirpend (d.).

(60.) Vine-branches (col/.).


— *capidd pl. (only used in the locution “ in capidd’’).


Iratian: Central March. poderi pl. (Fabriano); Tar.

PoRTUGUESE: vidonho.

GauLo-ITatic: Mil. trosada; Com. trosia; Romg.
vid�ra ; Piedm. melaja (ace. to “ Psal, 80-11,” Ed.
of 1540).
FRANcO-PRovENcAL: Vaud. boulai, boulay’.

Frenew: Lorr. f�bhatt pl. (Mailly).

(61.) Vine-branches cut to the size of the vine (coll.). ~

. 1d.

Frencx : More. javal.

(62. The chief branch of a vine.

1. Latin: r�sex, custos, sagitta, pollex.


2. ITALIAN: sa�ppolo, sa�ttolo, *guardia; Sienn. saetta ;
Tar. pedardl; Abr. r�s’ch’, scarpetta; Ven. supion,
maton ; Rov. sgarz, garz.

4. SPANIsH: perchon.

7. Gatto-Itaric: Mil. popolanna ; Brese. trap�l; Parm.

1]. Catatontan: pistola, *pdlze.
15. Frencw: Mess. mariin.

(63.) A strong vine-branch, capable of bearing from seven to
eight buds.
15. Frency: Ang. cou�st.

(64.) A vine-branch cut shorter than the other.
12. PrRovengaL : souquilhoun.

(65.) A vine-branch growing from a new one and hanging
attached to the soft part.
1. Latin: mat�rii, mat�ri�s.

(€ 66.) A vine-branch grown at the base of the vine.
2 ITALIAN: viticcio, vignudlo; Central March. roccetta
(ace. to “* Raccolta’’) ; Ven. troza.
7. Gatto-Iratic: Bol. ploun.

€ G7.) A vine-branch turned bow-wise, with the top set in
the ground. |

1. Latin: mergus, *candosoccus.

2. ITALIAN: capogatto, *m�rgo.

4. SpaNIsH: codadura.

7. Gatio-Itaric: Bresc. gobada; Piedm. cugidira.

11. CaTALonIAN: capficat, toria, colgat.

14. OLD FRENcH : ‘marcot, margoute, margote, marguotte,

planteis, planteir.

15. Frencu: Berr. jacol, jacob ; Champ. ployan (Marne) ;

Lorr. beuildin (Domgermain), cain (Allain).

(68) A vine-branch containing many bunches.
0. Portuaugse: Bere. carreiia.
13, Franco-Provengat : For. viloun.


(69.) A vine-branch covered with buds.
3. SaRDINIAN: South. carriadroxa.
4, SpanisH: Arag. alargadera.

(70.) A vine-branch with its leaves.
2. Irauran: Ven. pampano.
6. GENOESE: pampanu, *pampinu.
7. Gatio-ITaLic: Romg. paempan, *peempen.

10. OLD ProvengaL : pampol.

12. PRovEncaL: pampo; Upper Dauph. vi; Lang. *pam-
pre; Upper B�arn. pampoi; Lower Lim. *mouso ;
Central Rouerg. pompo, *pouompe, *pampe, *espampe,
*romo, *ramo; Auv. pampre.

13. Franco-ProvencaL: For. bran.

15. FReNcH : pampre.

16. WatacHian: cirpen (ace. to Cihac), cairpain (�d.),
curpene (id.) cirpend (id.).

(71.) A thin and barren vine-branch grown on the lower
part and near the trunk of the vine.
4, SPANISH: jerpa.
5. PorrucuxEsE: Gal. xerpa.
7. Gauio-Iraric: Vailt. rdgne pi.
11. CatTaLonian: padrastre.

(72.) A cut vine-branch.
7. Gatto-Itatic: Com. vidascia.

(73.) Cut vine-branches (coZ/.).
7. Gatto-Irazric: Valt. vidiscion.

(74.) A vine-branch transplanted with its roots.

2. Iraxtan: barbat�lla; Sienn. barbat�llo; Central March.
barbato (Fabriano); Sic. varvotta, *barbotta; Neap.

4, SpaNisH: barbado, *darbudo.

dS. PortvueuEsE: Gal. barbada.


. Gatto-Itatic: Mil. rasol, rasce, magnos (a country

word) ; Berg: roersur, roersti; Brese. predessa; Bol.
tajol; Regg. tratora; Romg. caviluta, *cavluda; Piac.
pruvan�in ; Piedm. barbat�la, capun.

12, ProvencaL: barb� (Valensole), courb� (Les Me�es) ;

Upper Dauph. barbi; Lang. barbot, barbiot; Toul.
barboulat; Lower Lim. eouidzodi, *borbado; Central
Rouerg. borbudo.

13. Franco-ProvencaL: For. barbio; Gren. barbua; Vaud.


barbuva, barbua.
Oxtp FrencH: chevelue.
FrencuH: sautelle; Pott. ch’volur; Saint ch’vlu.

(75.) A bundle of vine-branches.




Latin: **javella, **gavelli pl.

GeENoEsE: Ment. gavele pi.

Gaxto-Iratic: Mir. vlup, *vidon ; Parm. videreel.
PROVENGAL: gav�ou, *djav�ou; Lang. gabel; Ce�o.
*bis� ; Lower Lim. dzovelo; Central Rouerg. monoul,
gobelo (Millau); South Rouerg. gob�l (Nant); Quere.

Frencu: javelle; Pott. javelon (Niort); Saint. javel.

(76.) A bundle of vine-branches with the grapes hanging




to them.

Irat1an:: p�nzolo, p�ndolo; Sic. p�nnula; Tar.
privular ; Neap. pi�nnole; Ven. picagia, rozzada.
SaRDINIAN: Central: pesu, appesile, pesile (Goceano) ;
South. appicconi.

. GENOESE : pendessa.
. Gauto-Itatic: Mil. rdsch, fiocch (a country word),

fiocch�t (id.), mazz�t (id.); Berg. rds, trosa (ace. to
Zappettini); Bresc. picaja, pendes; fegg. ulz; Parm.
uls, *ros; Prac. roezz.

. FRIULANO: raw�zz, arw�zz, riw�zz.
. CATALONIAN: penjoy, *penjoll; Valence. pentxoll:

Maj. penjoy.


12. ProvencaL: cargueto, mouissino, visado, *trelheto ;
Ni�. visada; Lang. andot, bisado; Gasc. *mouisseno;
Central Rouerg. pigno, *pino, *pin�lo, *pin�l, *cargo.

14. OLtp FrENcH: moessine, moisine, mainnesine (acc. to

15. Frencu: moissine; Zour. mosill; Berr. moussinn,
mouinsinn, mousslinn; Wail. pld�y.

16. Watwacuian : visl& (ace. to Codresco).

(77.) A packet consisting of several bundles of vine-branches
with the grapes hanging to them.
12. ProvengaL: Central Rouerg. pin�lo.

(78.) Twelve bundles of vine-branches tied with a withe.
15. Frencw: Saint. javel.

(79.) A small bundle of vine-branches.
15. Frencu: More. z�val (part of Morvan nivernais).

(80.) A small bundle of vine-branches roughly representing
a child coiffed with a biggin.
15. Frenca: Saint. beyinn.

(81.) An old hardened vine-branch.
1. Latin: draco, juniciilus.
4. SPANISH : serpa.
5. PorruGuEse: Gal. serpa.
7. Gatio-Itatic: Mil. bernardon.
11. CaTaLoNiaN: verguer.

(82. : A dry vine-branch.
1. Latin: sarmentum.
2. ITALIAN: sermento, *sarmento, *sermente; Sic. sar-
mentu; Neap. chiaccone; Rov. sarmenta.
. PortucurEsE: sarm�nto; Gal. vides pi.
6. GENOESE: puassa.



7. Gatio-Itaric: Mil.trds; Berg.s�rmeda( Valle Imagna);
Bresc. trosa, sermeta; Bol. serm�int, sarm�int ; Mod.
vlop; Romg. sarment, *serment, cadnaza (a country
word); Mant. medar; Piedm. sermenta, *sarmenta;
Vaid. sarmanta.

10. Otp PRovENGAL: serment, *eisermen, *issermen.

12. PrRovENcAL: avis, vis, *vise, *visi, *avi, sarmeiN,
einsirmein, gavel (Vimes) ; Lang. bis, bise, bisi, abit,
*abis, sarmeN, elssirmeN, *sermen, *issermeN, *eiser-
men; Toul. eissermen; Ag�n. ensirmen; Grasc. char-
men, *eicharmen, *gaouero; B�arn. chermen ; Lower
Lim. sirmen ; Central Rouerg. bitch, *bit, *bits, *obdise,
obit (Millau), *obic (id.), *abise, *gobit.

13. Franco-ProvencaL: Bress. sarman.

14. Op FrENcH: serment.

15. FrencH: sarment.

16. WaALLACHIAN : vitsd, jits% (popularly), vitse (acc. to.
Bobb), cep (acc. to Frollo), surc�a (acc. to Vaillant),
surcel (acc. to “‘ Lexicon ’’), gate} (acc. to the Bible).

C383.) A bundle of dry vine-branches.
2. Iratian: Rov. sarmenta.
7. Gauto-Itatic: Regg. vidon.
15. Frencu: Berr. beurtt, burtt.

€ 84.) A dead vine-branch used for the purpose of joining
the extremities of two young vine-shoots.
7. Garto-Iraric: Mil. posca (Briansa).

€ 85.) Vine-branches of the wild vine.
15. Frencu: Pott. treuillaj.

C86.) A flexible branch of a wild vine.
12. ProvengaL: Lang. bissano.

C87.) The portion of the vine-branch of the preceding year,
remaining after the vine has been pruned.

12, PRovENGAL: cargo, cornovi; Central Rouerg. oucbro,
*obro, *courretcho, courredjo (Montbazens).


15. Frencu: *vi�te, *viette; Berr. arcon, piq-en-t�er ;
Champ. are (Marne), courg�e (id.); Champ. plion
(Aube), ployon (td.); Ang. arch�, dag (Beaufort),
couran (id.).

(88.) The tip of a vine-branch.

1. Latin: flagellum.

2. Irattan: Stenn. cacchio.

5. PortucursE: pimpdlho, gimo, gommo; Cal. bac�lo.

7. Gauio-Itatic: Mil. gars; Parm. ploun; Piedm.

10. Otp PRoveEnca.: flagel.

12. PRoVENCAL: aparouN, apanoun.

15. Frencu: Berr. vargou; Champ. brou (Marne); Champ.
tal (Aube); Mess. mariin (R�milly) ; Pott. pouss.

(89.) The extremities of the vine-branches all together.
2. ITALIAN: capaia (only used in the locution “ a capaia”’ ).

' (90.) The tip of the vine-branch remaining on the vine-stock
after pruning.
4, SpaNnIsH: saeta.
11. Caratontan: galet.

(91.) A vine-shoot.

. Latin: pampinus.

. SARDINIAN : South. pudoni, cabudiana.

. SPANISH : p�mpano.

. PoRTUGUESE: pampano.

. GENOESE: pampanu, *pampinu.

. Gatio-Iratic: Brese. trosa.; Crem. mader, madirol ;
ftomg. p�mpan, *p�mpen; Parm. ploun, sproun ;
Piedm. brumbu.

11. Caratontan: *redolta; Min. pampol.

“IO Or P GC =

(92.) A cutting of a vine.
15. Frencu: Lorr. m�yeuy (Landremont).


C93.) Remains of the pruning of the vine (coll.).
15. Frencw : Morv. javal.

(94.) Abundance of vine-shoots.
4. SPANISH : pampanaje.
11. CaTALONIAN: pampolada.

(95.) Second shooting of the vine.
13. Franco-ProvencaL : Lower Val. r’byolon.

(96.) Vine-shoots united and following the direction of a row
of plants.
7. Gauio-Iratic: Prac. parfil.

C97.) Braided vine-shoots (coil.).
2. Iranian: Central March. cortina (acc. to a private and
reliable informant).
7. Gatio-Itatic: Com. trosa; Bresc. trosa.

(98.) A vine-shoot tied to a small stake.
7. Gaxto-Iraric: Mil. tros ; Com. trdsa.

(€99.) A vine-shoot growing between two vine-branches.
2 Irauian: Tar. oustarol.

_€100.) A vine-shoot with bunches, cut off from the vine.
15. Frencu: Mess. mennch�e.

C101.) A vine-shoot with two bunches, cut off from the vine.
2 Irauian: Bell. z�mpede.

(102.) A brittle young vine-shoot.
13. Franco-ProvencaL: Gen. bro.

(108.) A sterile vine-shoot.
1. Latin: racemarius.

(104.) The juice of the vine-shoots.
4. SPANISH: pampanada.



(105.) A bundle consisting of a few vine-shoots.
2. Iravian: Pad. tir�la.

(106.) A vine-shoot cut down to two eyes.
15. Frencu: Berr. art�, art�, pouss6.

(107.) A vine-shoot cut down to two, three, or four eyes.
2. Irautan: cursonc�llo, *bazzudlo, *sagonc�llo; Tar.

test ; Ven. rasolo; Ter. cacch-j.

. SPANISH : pulgar.
. Portucusse : pdllegar.
� Gatto-Iratic: Mil. caved (Upper Mil.) : Bol. sgoun;

Parm, sproun.

. CaTaLontan : brocada; Valenc. brocd, brocada.
. PROVENCAL: cargo, cornovi, escou�, pourtadour ; Cen-

tral Rouerg. conot.

. FrencH: courson, coursonne, *billon; err. vari,

*v�rj, corn�, cour]; Champ. courso; Poit. broch.

(108.) A layer of a vine.


LatIN: propago, propages; **propagatio, **propa-
gans (both also occurring, as well as “ propago,”’ acc. to
Diefenbach, in the sense of (19, 27, 38, 41, 51, 59,
67, 70).

. Irat1aN: propaggine, propagine; TZemp. prubaina ;

Sass. prubbaina; Sic. purpdina, *pruppaina, *pur-

_ pania; Zar. prubase’n; Neap. propajena, calature ;


Ven. refosso ; Ver. tratora.

. Sarpinian: Central: probaina, prabaina (Marghine) ;

South. brabaina.

. SPANISH: provena, mugron, “codal, *rastro; Arag.


. Porrucugse: mergulhao, *mergulho, *mergulhia, *pro-


. GENoEsE: Ment. cabus.
. Ga.to-Itatic: Mil. provanna, retraccia (Brianza) ;

Berg. proana, refos (Olera) ; Brese. provana, tratura ;
Bol. pruvana, prupagin ; Mod. tratoora; Mant. arfos ;
Parm. tretoure; Pav. pruvene; Piedm, pruvana.



. FRIULANO: rasizz, resizz, risizZ, rasul.

. Otp PrRovengcaL: maillol, *malhol.

. CatatoniAn: mallol, mayol, mallola, mayola.

. PRovencaL: malhoou, mayoou, *malhou� ; Lang——.

malholo, plan; C�v. malhaou, *malhof, *mayou ,
pariaisen ; Central Rouerg. bout, *cap; South. Rouerg -
molhouol (Belmont), molhol (td.); Aur. maglhd_—�
maglhet, madjo, madji.

. Franco-ProvencaL: Lower Dauph. �mayan; For—_—

chavoun, chapoun ; Vaud. chapon, tchapon, tsapon.

. Orv FrencH: mailhol, malhol, crocete, crossete.
. FRENCH: crossette, *avantin, *maillot, *mailleton =>

Berr. chabo, chapon, *cross ; Aug.*cuch�.

. WALLACHIAN: vits%, jitsi (popularly), vitse (acc. (—— >


A bastard cast of a clipped vine.

. Latin: **vitulamen, **vitulo, **vituligo, **vitulatus —-

**vitiligo, **bituligo, **butiligo.

. Iravian: femmin�lla.

. SPANISH: esforrocino.

. PortucvusrsE: Gal. *borda, *borde.
. Garxto-Itatic: Parm. beestzerdon.
. Frencu: *�cuyer.

a ) A vine-leaf.
1. Latin: pampinus; **pampenus, **pampilus, **pan—



phinus, **papinus, **p&pinus (a// five also occurring,
acc. to Diefenbach, in the sense of (38).

. ITALIAN: pampano, *pampino, *pampana; Sass. pam-

pinu ; Sic. pampina ; Neap. chiaccone.

. SaARDINIAN: Central: pampinu.

. SPANISH: pA&mpana.

. PorTUGUESE : parra, *pdmpano.

. Gatto-Itatic: Romg. pampenna; Ferr. pampan ;

Mir. plon.

. FRIvLANo: pampul.
. Otp PRovENGAL: pampol.



1]. CaTaLonian: pampol, *pampa, *pampana.

14. Otp FrencH: tain (ace. to Chassant).

16. WatacHian: cirpen (acc. to Frollo), cairpin (id.),
cuirpene (id.), cirpend (id.).

C 4.13.) Vine-leaves (coll.).
2. Iravian: Central March. cama (Fabriano).

C Ei 14.) A vine-leaf rolled up.
1. Latin: pampinus.

C L165.) Abundange of vine-leaves.
11. CaraLoniaNn : pampolatge, *pampolam. ’

C 8.16.) The bud of a vine.

1. Latin: gemma; **tradux (acc. to Diefenbach).

2. Irauian: Neap. j�mmola, j�mma.

7. Gatto-Itatic: Romg. sema, gema; Piac. plon;
Piedm. gema.

12, PRovENGAL: paraNgoun, *paravoun ; Tou/. bourrod ;
Central Rouerg. bourre, *obis.

13. Franco-ProvengaL: Vaud. bolon; Franc. bouss’,
b�ss’, boussott’, b�ssott’, beussott’.

ld. Frencn: Ang. g�mm.

C417.) Vine-buds taken away from the vine (coll.).
12. PRovENGAL: abroutoun.

(118.) A vine-bud beginning to come up.

12. ProvengaL: bourro; Lang. bourre; Central Rouerg.
bourrou, *espaoume, espaoune (Segala), modjenc
(Aspri�res), *matsenc; South Rouerg. pampe (Re-
quista); North. Rouerg. espompel (Viad�ene); Quere.

15. FrencH: bourre; Berr. rouach (only used in the locution
“en roudch’’), rouch (id.).

(119.) A bud of the vine, despoiled of its leaves.
12, PROVENGAL: avis.


(120.) A bud of the vine, showing the grapes.
13, Franco-PRovENcAL: Franc. aparu.
15. Frencu : Monitb. �peru.

(121.) A vine-bud growing from the collar of the root.
15. Frencn: Champ. s�rviniin (Aube); Champ. noueu,
nouou, nouo ( Yonne).

(122.) A small lateral bud of the vine.
12. Provenga.: Central Rouerg. trabourrot, *saboretratcho.

(123.) An unfruitful vine-bud. s
' 15. Frencn : Champ. loubo (Marne).

(124.) A useless bud of the vine.

12. ProvencaL: Central Rouerg. trabourre, *trabourroi,
*tchucobi, *tchutchobi; South. Rouerg. bouorlhe (Saint-
Sermin), *bouorlho (id.), *borlhe (id.), *bouorli (�d.),
borlho ; North Rouerg. bouorlio (Laguiole).

13. Franco-ProvengaL: Vaud. laou, leou.

(125.) A knot of the vine.

15. Frencu: Serr. corne.

(126.) A bunch of grapes.

l. Latin: wvi, botryo, *botrio, *botryon, *botrus,
*botruus, ricemus ; **rasemus, **nacermus (both also
occurring, as well as “ racemus,”’ acc. to Diefenbach, in
the sense of (1, 19, 38, 41, 59, 70, 184, 155, 161, 174,
177, 184), **botria, **botro, **potrus (the three
occurring, as well as “ botrus,”’ acc. to Diefenbach, in the
sense of (149), **grappus, **grapa, **grappa, **raspa,

2. Irauian: grappolo, *grappo, *raspo, *racimolo, *graspo,
*pigna; Rom. rampazzo; Alatr. pennia; Temp. butroni;
Sass. buddr�ni; Sic. rappa, *rappu, *grappulu; Zar.
grap, grap’l; Bar. cann�ch’!; -Adr. racciap’l, *schianda;
Ter. ciappareett’; Neap. *grappa; Ven. *graspa; Ver.
arzimo; Bell. regia; Rov. picca, rasim, brdccol.

Or ph CO









� :
. SARDINIAN: Central: budrone; South. gurdoni.
. SPANISH: racimo; Arag. uva; Ast. recimo.
. Portuaursr: cacho, *racimo; Beir. gaipo; Gal.

recimo; Indo-Portuguese : escol, ouva, uva.

. GENOESE: rappu; Ment�. rap, raca, rasime pi.
. Gatto-ITaric: Wil, sgrazza, grappa, uga; Com. sgraz,

sgraza; Berg. grata; Crem. grap�l, sgrata, rdmpol ;
Cremn. grapell; Bol. grap; Mant. s-chjanch; Pav.
spras, grape; Piedm. rapa.

. FRIvLANO: rapp, *grapp, *grasp.
. RomanesE: Oberl. madargnun, *madergnun, *bar-

dagliun, *batun, eua, *euva, *jeua, *jua, *juva, *uga,
*iva, *aua; Oberh. *bardun ; Lower Eng. zoch, *soch,
ua, *uja, *uva; Upper Eng. punchj�l, punchj�r ; Tyr.
piccsee (Fassa), rusgin (Gardena), rosin (id., acc. to

Otp PRovENcAL: uva, razims p/., *rasims (d.),
*razains (id.).

CatTatonian: rahim; Valenc. rahim; Maj. r�ym,
r�ym; Min. rem.

PROVENGAL: grapo, *ratcho, *rapugo, *galaspo, *pein-
dou, peindoi (Grasse), rasin, *rin, *rein; Queyr. aro;
Lower Dauph. rasin; Lang. *lambrusco; C�v. raco ;
B�arn. gaspe; Montp. grapa; Bay. grape; Central
Rouerg. pigno, *rosin, *roin; South Rouerg. mouiss�lo
(Saint-Affrique) ; Auv. grapa.

Franco-ProvencaL: Vaud. rapa; France. rap’ (Plan-

Oxtp FrencH: grape, crape, bourgon, bourgeoun,
borjoun, bromest.

FRENCH: grappe, raisins p/.; Lorr. gr�p (Luneville) ;
Montd. r�p; Mess. r'bo; Wail. troc, r�hin (Villers) ;
Nam. tropp; Ard. brom� ; Lower Norm. cral�e; Poit.
rapp; Saint. rasin.

WaALLaAcHIAN : stragur, strigure (acc. to the Bible),
ciorchind, ciorchin (acc. to Frollo), grapa& (acc. to the



Bunches of grapes (codl.). :

1. Latin: **acinarium, **acinatium, **acinacium,








A suspended bunch of grapes.

. SPANISH : colgajo.

. PoRTUGUESE: pendura.

. PRovENgAL: peindilhado; C�v. pendilhado.
. Franco-Provenga.: Jur. biu, blu.

A bunch of grapes preserved.
Latin: botr�o, *botrio, *botryon.

A large bunch of grapes.

Latin: **bumastha,**bumasta, **bumastus, **bumastes,
**bumastis, **bumaste, **bamaste, **brumasta, **bru-

Oxtp FRrencnH: bromest.

A small bunch of grapes.

. Latin: **grapium.

. Iratian: Sic. sgangu; Ven. rechjo; Ver. rechja.

. SPANISH: Arag. carrazo.

. PortucuEse: Gal, canga; Berc. gallo.

. GENOESE : sc-chjancu.

. Gatto-Iratic: Berg. gramost�l (Valle Gandino), gra-

modstol (id.), gremost�l (id.), gremodstol (id.); Romg.
garav�l; Pav. sgresl�i, sgreslin, sgresl�.

. FRIvLANO: ras-chje. .
. Romanese: Oberi. *torclet, *turclet.
. ProvengaL: rapugo, soungl�; Lang. lambret; Ce�v.

lambro; Nard. cascamel; Lower Lim. orlot; Central
Rouerg. boutel, *boutil, *lombrot, trabout (Estaing),
mouiss�lo (Peyrelau) ; South. Rouerg. lambrot (Ville-
Jranque), pinelot (id.), braousselhou (id.), mouiss�l
(Saint-A ffrique), *embouiss�l (7d.).

Frencu: Montb. gr�pillon; Wall. rinhal.


(132.) A very small bunch of grapes.
12. ProvengaL: Gase. chingloun.
15. Frencn: Wall. rinhtal.

(183.) A bit of a bunch of grapes.


Iratian: Central March. rancischia.
Gatto-Itatic: Piedm. s’chjanch.
PROVENCAL : rapugo, soungl� ; Gasc. chingloun.

(184.) A stalk of a bunch of grapes.
LaTIN: scapus; **acinarium (acc. to Diefenbach).
2. ITALIAN: raspo, graspo; Pist. racchio (Montale) ;



Central March. ticcio (Fabriano), ticchio (d.); Zemp.
scapacciula, scapacciulu; Sass. i/cubazzulu ; Zar. rasp;
Neap. streppone, streppa, raspa; Ven. graspa.

. SARDINIAN: Central. car�na; South. scovili.

. SPANISH: escobajo, raspa, *rampojo; Arag. garraspa.
. PortuGuxse : engaco; Berc. bangallo.

. GENOESE: rappussu, *raspussu; Ment. raca.

. Gatto-Itatic: Mil. sgrazza; Bresc. raspol, spelegata ;

Cremn. gratta; Bol. sgrapoja, graspoja; fod. graspa ;
Regg. vinazz pl.; Romg. rasp; Ferr. graspuja; Parm.
grasp ; Piac. racca; Pav. grape; Predm. rapus.

. Frru.ano: raspolon.
. CATALONIAN: rapa; Valenc. raspall.
. PRovENcAL: raco, *ratcho, raca (Nimes), *racado,

*visado, *mesque; Lang. grapo, gaspo, rapugo; Montp.
grapa; Ag�n. gaspil; Lower Lim. lierpi, nierpi; Cen-
tral Rouerg. *crapo, carpo (Campagnac), *grepe.

. Franco-Provencat: Franc. tchacd, tchacd.
. OLD FRENCH: rape.
. Frencu: rafle, rape, *raffe; Champ. ribo (Marne) ;

Lorr.r’bo (Landremont); Wall. h�mm, h�nn, *h�y�mm,
Pout. rapp.

Wa tuacuian: ciorchina (ace. to Vaillant and to Frolio)
carcel (acc. to Cihac).

(135.) A stalk of a bunch of grapes dried on the plant.


PROVENGAL : arasto.


(136.) Sour taste of the stalk of a bunch of grapes.
2. ITALIAN: raspo.
7. Gatio-Iratic: Brese. raspi; Romg. rasp; Ferr. raspin ;
Parm. reespein.

(137.) A bunch left behind by vintagers.
13. Franco-ProvengaL: For. r’simola.

(138.) A small bunch left behind by vintagers.

2. Iratan: raspollo, *raspo, *racchio; Temp. scalughja;
Sass. idcaluggia; Sic. racioppu; Tar. racidep; Ter.
schiand’; Neap.raspole, graspole; Ven. rechjo, rechjoto;
Ver. rechja.

3. SARDINIAN: Central. iscaluza ; South. sciscilloni.

4. SpanisH: redrojo, *redruejo, cencerron, rebusca, rebusco ;
Arag. racimo.

5. PorTuGugEsE: rabisco, rebusca, rebusco; Gal. refugallo.

6. GENOESE : sc-chjaNncu.

7. Gatto-Iratic: Mil. grapp�ll; Berg. rampol; Brese.
resem, roes�mbol; Bol. garavel; Romg. garav�el;
Parm. s-chjanch; Pav. respus, sgresl�i, sgreeslin,

8. FRIULANO: ras-chje.

11, CaTaton1an : gotim, *dagot, *agrassot, *singlot,

12. ProvencaL: rapugo; C�v. tchabrioule�.

13. Franco-ProvengaL: For. boutilhoun.

(189.) Unripe small bunch left behind by vintagers.,
2. ITALIAN: agrestino.

(140.) A bunch with few clusters of grapes.
2. ITaLian: racimolo, *gracimolo; Zar. racitep; Neap.

rappole, rappe, grappe.

(141.) Small bunches of grapes which are late in mpening
12. ProvencaL: Central Rouerg. rouibrado (Peyrelau),
*rebouibrado (id.).


“a ) An unripe small bunch with few vine-berries.
<2. Irattan: racchio.
6. GENOESE: sc-chjancu.
@. Gatio-Iratic: Romg. garave�l.
15. Frencu: Berr. albott, *ablott, *damos�l.

(143.) Small bunches of grapes that never ripen (col/.). -
_ 4, SpanisH: agrazon. |

11. Catatonian: Valenc. agrasso.

13. Franco-ProvencaL: Vaud, agr� pi.

(144.) A bunch of sour grapes.
5. Portucuxrse: Gal. acid.
12. ProvencaL: Upper Dauph. aigra.

(145.) A small bunch of sour grapes.
11. CaTaLonian: agrassot.

(146.) A bunch of grapes not yet developed.
15. Frencu: Berr. lamm, atach; Upper Manc. lam�;
Poit. form; Saint. formanss.

(14'7.) An abortive bunch of grapes.

15. Frencu: Champ. enveuill, vrill, vrill�tt (Aube) ;
Champ. �polon (Yonne).

(148,) Refuse bunches of grapes (coll.).
15. Frencu: Champ. d�tour (Marne).

(149.) A cluster of grapes in a bunch.
1. Latin: ric�mus.
2. Iratian: racimolo, *gracimolo, schidntolo (acc. to
Foresti) ; Sic. sgangu; Neap. rappole, rappe, grappe.
. SPANISH: gajo; Arag. raspa.
. PortuGuEsE: escddea; Minh. gaipo; Bere. gallo.
. GENOESE: sc-chjancu; Ment. rapugh.
. Gatto-Itatic: Berg. rampol; Cremn. s-chjanchell ;
Bol. garavel; Romg. garav�l; Parm.s-chjanch ; Piac.
. rasan�ll, s-chjanch�ll ; Pav. sgreesl�i, sgreeslin, sgreesl�.
VOL, II. 4

~I > Or iP


8. FRIvLANO: ras-chje.

11. CaraLonian: gotim, *bagot, *agrassot, *singlot,
*xenglot; Valenc. txinglot; Min. penjoy.

12. ProvencaL: rapugo, *grapilhoun, soungl�, alo, “aro ;
Lang. lambret; C�v. lambro, broutigno, *broutilho,
tchabrioul�; Nard. cascamel; Castr. lambrusco; Cen-
tral Rouerg. boutel, *boutil, *lombrot, trabout (stating),
mouiss�lo (Peyrelau) ; South Rouerg. lambrot (Ville-
franque), pinelod (id.), braousselhoi (�d.), mouiss�l
(Saint-Affrique), *embouiss�l (id.); Querc. mouissolo.

13. Franco-ProvencaL: Neuf. r�ssai (La Paroisse), res�m
(id.); Lower Dauph. lhicota; Lower Val. grap’dhon ;
Vaud. grap’ lhon.

15. Frencu: grappillon; Berr. rapillon.

(150.) Clusters of bunches of grapes (cod/.).
12. ProvencaL: Lang. mouisselun.

(151.) A cluster of grapes cut from a bunch.
4, SPANISH : carpa.

1]. CaraLonian: gotim ; Valenc. txinglot.

(152.) A cluster at the top of a bunch of grapes.
13. Franco-ProvEencaL: Gen. epola.

(153.) The stalk of a cluster of grapes in a bunch.

1. Latin: r&�c�mus; **moissina, **marcum.

(154.) Tendrils and bunches appendant to the vine-branches

15. Frencu: Berr. atach ; Champ. assizz.

(155.) The tendril of the vine.
1. Latin : cliviciili, capr�dlus; **corimbus, **corymbus,
**corinibus, **corinibi, **cornubius.
2. ITALIAN: viticcio, vignudlo; Central March. roccetta
(acc. to “‘ Raccolta”’); Abr. gravijuol’ pl.; Neap.
corriule; Ven. pampano, vigiarole p/.; Rov. cavriol.


3. Sarpintan: Centrai. lorighitta; South. sinzillu, inzillu.

4. SpanisuH : tijereta, tijerilla.

5. PortuGueseE : tesourinha. |

7. Gatto-Itanic: Mil. cavrie; Berg. cavriel; Crem.
cavriol; Cremn. cavriool; Bol. ploun, *pampen,
cariulein, caveriol ; Romg. cariulen, *cavari�l, caveri�
(Imola); Mir. cavariol; Parm. ceveriel; Pia.
cavarice; Pav. riss.

8. FrIuLANo: cwarn, raculin, gritul, vidizze.

11. CaraLonran: tisoreta, estisoreta, espotsim.

12. Provenca.: filheiroun, *filheiroou, *fureiroun, *fiou,

*filholo, *fiolo.
15. Frencu: vrille, *cirre, *nille; Champ. vrill�tt (Aube).
16. WALLACHIAN : circeiu, cdrceiu, carcel, cep (acc. to
Frollo), cirpen (ace. to Cihac), cirpin (td.), curpene
(td.), curpena (7d.).

(156.) The string coming out of the wood when the vine is
15. Frencw: Ard. pampin�e.

(157.) The blossom of the vine.
4. SpaNnisH: cierne (only used in the locution “‘ en cierne”’).

(158.) An abortive vine-blossom.
11. CaTaLonian: caragolet.

(159.) The blossom of the wild vine.
11. Catatonian: llambrusca.

(160.) The stamen of the blossom of the vine.
4. SPANISH: cierna.

(161.) Grapes (col/.): The fruit of the vine.
1. Latin: iva, *vitis (metonymy), *ric�mus (synecdoche).
2. Iranian: uva; Sass. uba; Sic. racina; Ven. ua;
Lingua .Franca: rasin (Algiers). |
3. SaRDINIAN: Central. ua, aghina (Marghene), aghi-
n�dda (Olsai) ; South. axina.


IH ot




. SPANISH: uva; Asf. recimos pi.; Curassao Spanish:

weindreif (a Dutch word), raseentji.

- PortucuksE: uva; Indo-Portuguese: ouva.
. Genozse: uga; Ment. rasim.
. Gatto-Itatic: Mil. uga; Berg. wa; Jargon of the

shepherds of the Province of Bergamo: limbroesca,
mocia; Bol.u; Romg. ova, ova (Imola); Ferr. vo;
Parm. uve; Piedm. uva, ua.

. FRIULANO: ue, uve. ,
. RomangsE: Ober/. eua, *euva, *jeua, *jua, *juva, *uga,

*aua; Oberh. iva, jeva; Lower Eng. ua, *uja, *uva;
Tyr. use (Ladin), wee (Gardena).

. Op PRovENGcAL : razim, *rasim, *razain, *uva.
. Caratonian: rahim; Va/lenc. rahim; Maj. r�ym,

r�ym; Min. rem.

. PRovENGAL: rasiN, *rin, *rein; Nic. rain; Upper

Dauph. rasin; Giasc. arrasin; B�arn. arrasim; Bay.
arresin; Central Rouerg. rosin, roin; Auv. rasin, cepan.

. Franco-ProvengaL: Neuf. r�ssai (La Paroisse), res�m

(id.); Sav. r�s�@; Vaud. r’sin, r’si; Aost, r�sin;
South.-East. Vosg. r�sin.

Op FRENCH : reisin, roisin, rosin, rasin, ragin, resin.
FrencH: raisin; Berr. *vendanj}; Perch. r�eisin ;
Champ. r’sin (Marne), r’san (id.), rijin (id.), risin (td.),
rusin (id. at Somme-Tourbe) ; Champ. rajin (Aube) ;
Morv. rasin; Lorr. rajin (Domgermain), rahhin (Lun�-
ville); Montb. r�sin, r�jin; Ban-de-la-Roche: r�sin;
Mess. r�hhin, r’jin, r’bhin (R�milly); Wail. troc;
Nam. reujin; Ard, r�chin, r�ssin, rou�ssin; Pic.
rou�san; Lill. rojin; Rouch. reusin (Bavat); Mont.
roujin ; Guern. grapp.

WALLACHIAN: strugure, strigur, poamad ; Kutzo-Wal-
lachian: ata; Istro-Wallachian: grozdi, grozge,
grozda, grojdi.

(162.) Fresh grapes put in to restore wine.

- 6.

GENOESE: Ment. vinassa.
FRENCH : rape.


2. Irauian: acino, *uve pl.; Rom. vaco; Central March.
vago (Fabriano); Sass. pupioni; Sic. cocciu; Abr. vach’.

3. SARDINIAN: Central: pupujone; South. pibioni.

4. SPANISH: *uvas pi,

5. PorTUGUESE: *uva, *�cino; fal. bago; Indo-Portu-
guese : carni.

6, GENOESE: axinella, *uga, . |

7. Gatto-Itatic: Mil. pincire;. Piedm. asin�l, *uve
pl., ue (id.).

8. FrruLano: asin.

9. RomantsE: Oberi. maine pl., *euvas pl., *juvas pi. ;
Oberh. *ivas pil., *jevas pl.; Lower Eng. *uas pil., *ujas pl.

10. Op PRovencaL: *razims pi., *rasims pi., *razains pi.,
*uvas pl.

11. Caratontan : : Valenc. *rahims pl.; May. ne pl.
r�yms pl.; Min. rems pl.

12. PRovENGAL : adji, aidje, *uvos pl.; Lang. adje, atche ;
Gasc. grun, *gru, gruo, chingloun; Central Rouerg.
grut, *grup, *grudo, *grud, *gruno; Awe. ground.

15. Frencu: Champ. grumm (Aube); Morv. greumm,
gr�mm ; Wall. r�hin, rinhin. | .

16. WaxtacHian: acind (acc. to Frollo), b�an& (acc. to
Balasiescu), broboana (td.), borbdand (ace. to“ Lexicon’’),
*striguri pl.; Kutzo-Wallachian: agoridhi; Istro-
Wallachian : grozde pl., grojde id. |

(185.) A large grape.
1. Latin: **bumastha, **bumasta, **bumastus, **bu-
mastes,**bumastis, * *bumaste, * *bamaste, **brumasta,


(186.) A grape with its stalk.
1. Latin: botryo, *botrio, botryon.

(187.) A stalk of a grape.
1. Latin: scdpio, scoptum, scopus, *botryo, *botrio,
botrydn, *sarmentum ; **esna, **raspatium, **moissina,


7. Gawtoziratic: Com. pincire.
14. OLp FRENcu: raste.

(188.) A small grape that dries before ripening.
13. Franco-ProvencaL: Vaud. melh’rin.

(189.) A raisin: A dried grape.
1. Latin: **passula.
2. Irautan: passola, passula; Neap. passe. |
9. RomanesseE: Oberl. euetas pi., *jeuetas (d.), *juetas (id.),
u�tas (id., acc. to Carigiet), *euvetas (id., acc. to the
Bible, Ed. of Coire, 1818).

11. Caratontan : pansa; Valenc. pansa.

12. ProvencaL: pansos pi., passurelos (id.), passeriya (id.,
Nimes); C�v.passarilhos pl.; Central Rouerg. possorillos
pl., *passarillos (id.). .

14, Oup Frencu: passerilles pi.

15. Frencu: Ard. passreill p/. passrill (id. ).

16. Wattacuian : stafida’ (acc. to “ Lexicon ’’).

(190.) A grape dried by the sun.
16. WatiacuiaAn : roscichind, rosichin’ (acc. to Vaillant).

(191.) Vine-berries beginning to grow.
18. Franco-ProvengaL: Gen. agr� pl. (only used in the
locution “en agr�’’).

(192.) Small abortive vine-berries without juice (col/.).
13. FRranco-ProvencaL: Vaud. d�sannei pl. (Montreur).

(193.) A wild grape.
1, Latin: **, see (51).

(194.) The skin of a grape.
1. Latin: vinactus; **vinacium, **vinac�um.
2. Irauian: fidcine; Sienn. fidcino; Zar. scarp.
3, Sarprinian: South. foddi.
6, GENOESE : beretta.


7. Gatto-Itatic: Bol gofla; Ferr. graspuja; Pred.
bus�t, bursdt.

8. Frivtano: cidful.

11. Caratonian: Maj. pellofa, *pellerdfa.

15. Frencn: Berr. bourss.

(195.) The skin of the trodden grapes.
11. Catatonian : pellofa, *pallofa.

(196.) Grape-skins and grape-stones either to be trodden or
already trodden.
7. Gatto-Iratic: Com. vinasc.

(197.) Pressed grapes (co/l.).
15. Frencu : Ard. trul�e.

(198.) Pressed grapes from which the must has not been
2. Irauian: Tar. past; Ven. grandua.
13. Franco-ProvengaL: For. g�nou.
15. Frencu: Niv. jon (Clamecy).

(199.) Residuum of grapes after expression.

1. LATIN: vinacta, vinacea p/., *brisa; **vinacia, **vina-
cium, **vinatium, **vinasium, **vinaceum, **vina-
cinum, **vinarium, **acinarium.

2. ITALIAN: vinaccia, *grasse pl.; Central March. frisco-
lata (Fabriano) ; Sass. binazza; Sic. vinazza, vinazzu,
Tar. vinaz; Neap. venaccia, venacciare; Ven. graspe
pl., sarpe (7d.); Pad. graspajole; Vic. zarpe pl.; Bell.

. SaRDIN1aNn: Central: binatta; South. binazza, binaccia.

. SPANISH : orujo, casca, *lia; Arag. brisa.

. PortTueuEsE: bagaco, buruso; Gal. bagullo; Bere. bullo.

. GENOESE: rappussu, rappu; Ment. asen�.

. Gatto-ITatic: Com, vinascia; Berg. grate pl.; Bol.
vinazza, graspa, graspoja; Ferr. grapa; Mir. graspi
pl.; Mant. graspe pl.; Parm. vinass; Piac. racca;
Pav. gusse pl., craspi (id.).

“EOD Or ph Co



Iratian: agr�sto; Neap. agr�sta; Ven. gr�sta; Rov.
agpr�st. .

4. SPANISH : agrazo.

5. PortTuGukEse: agraco; Gal. acio.

6. GENOESE: agrassiu; Ment. aigret.

7. Gauio-Itaric: Bol. agrest,agherstdun; Piedm. agr�st.

FRIULANO: agr�st, *gr�st.

. OLD PRovENcAL: agras, *eygras.

. CATALONIAN: agras; Valenc. agras.

PROVENCAL: aigras, eigras; Upper Dauph. aigra.
OLp FRENcH: vergus.

Frenco: verjus; Montb. vordju; Wall. v�rdju;
Vierv. v�rdjeu; Saint verju.

(209.) A grape-stone.

1. Latin: vinac�um; **arillus, **arillum, **vinacium,

~I os

**vinatium, **vinasium, **vinacinum, **acinus,
**ocinum, **acimen, **acmen, **acrimen, **acermen,
**acium, **acimus, **acinatium, **acinacium, **anna,
**moissina, **pepinus.

N.B.—acinus and acinum also occur, according to
Diefenbach, in the sense of (112, 161, 177).

. ITALIAN: vinacciudlo, *dcino, *fidcine ; Central March.

grani�llo (Fabriano); Sic. vinazzolu, vinazzu, ariddaru,
*arilla; Zar. gridd; Neap. arille, agrille; Ven. zigolo;
Rov. vinazzol.

. SPANISH: granuja.
. Portucugse: bagulho, grainha, grailho.
. e e \ e
. Gatto-Itatic: Mil. vinascice ; Berg. vinasseel; Brese.

venasscel; Crem. vinassol; Cremn. vinazzool; Bol.
vinazzol, *gramusteix; Mod. gramusten; Romg.vinazol,
vinazO (Imola); Ferr. gramostin; Parm. vinesscel;
Prac. racchitt.

. FRIULANO: asin.
. CaTALONIAN : brisa; Valenc, granulla, *granutxa.




Tue following paper is founded on an address on the above
subject delivered on the dth of May, 1881, at the Guildhall,
Cambridge, the meeting having been convened by the Cam-
bridge Philological Society.

Its object is to show that spelling-reform is as much de-
manded by historical and etymological considerations as by
‘ purely practical ones ; which, of course, necessitates a sketch
of the history of English pronunciation and spelling.

The subject is so vast and complex that anything more
than a sketch cannot be attempted here. It has also as yet
been but imperfectly investigated, its serious study dating
only from the appearance of the first part of Mr. Ellis’s
Early English Pronunciation (1869), still in progress, which
has laid the foundation of the historical study, not only
of English pronunciation, but of pronunciation generally,
although his views require to be supplemented, and some-
times corrected or modified, by the results of Comparative

Our Anglo-Saxon ancestors first learned the use of the
Roman alphabet mainly from the Celts, as is clearly shown
by comparing the shapes of the letters, which in the oldest
English, Welsh, and Irish MSS. are substantially identical,
and quite distinct from the Continental modifications of the
Roman alphabet.1 The agreement is especially striking in
the case of r (=f), y (s), and p (r). They supplemented
it by adding from their own Runic alphabet (which was

1 See Rhys’s Lectures on Welsh Philology.


probably a very early modification of some North-Etruscan
alphabet), the letter p (z) to take the place of the clumsy
uu, and ) for the sound they originally expressed by �h, or d
(between vowels). .

The sounds they attached to the letters were, as nearly as
possible, those they had in the contemporary Celtic tradition.
Hence they used c before all vowels to express the sound of
k, as in celel ‘kettle,’ as is still done in Welsh; while on the
Continent � before + and e had already become �s or ta, so
that even in the oldest High German we find cit written for
sit (Mod. G. seit). The vowels a, e, 7, 0, � were, of course,
pronounced as in Italian and German, e expressing the close
sound of French �, the open � sound being expressed by @ in
Old English. y had its original sound of French u, which
it keeps to the present day in Swedish and Danish, having
been introduced into those languages through intercourse
with England. oe was used to express the sound of French
eu, which it doubtless had already in later classical Latin.
The English were thus in possession of a remarkably full
and accurate alphabet—at least as far as the vowels were
concerned, and consequently their system of spelling was,
on the whole, not only phonetic, but accurately phonetic.
It could not have been anything but phonetic, for there was
no tradition to fall back on.

With the Norman Conquest (and, indeed, some time
before it) the Old French orthography was introduced into
this country, and soon began to modify that of English.
This acted unfortunately in many ways.

In the first place, Old French spelling, although phonetic
in its application, was not so in its basis, the older values of
many of the Roman letters having been corrupted and lost
by the time French began to be reduced to writing. Thus
Latin � before e and i had become (�s)! and (s), although
still kept in writing. In the vowels @ had been entirely

1 To prevent confusion letters used phonetically will be enclosed in parentheses.
In the notation here used (a, i, u) have their Italian values, (e, 0) =Fr. �, close
It. 0, (�, 0) =the corresponding open sounds, (&)=E. @ in man, (y) =Fr. , (a)
=KE. er in err, father, (8) =E. uin but. In the conss. (zh) as in azure, (dh) as
in then. Long vowels are doubled.


disused, so that e was used to express both close and open e.
Latin long u, as in Jina, had become (yy), although June,
une, etc., were still written with uw. Indeed, there was no
_letter to represent the sound; for the Latin y had become
completely confused with � Latin short �w and long o
changed into a sound between (u) and (0), which was con-
sequently written indiscriminately with either letter, as in
eurt, cort (Latin curtum), and amur, amor (L. amorem), the
long vowel being afterwards written ou (amour), the sound
also becoming pure (uu), as in Modern French.

All these confusions passed into Middle English ortho-
graphy. Such pairs as Old E. h�r ‘here,’ and Aer ‘ there”
came to be confused under the spellings her and ther, though
the sounds remained unchanged. Old E. s@ ‘sea’ and s�o
‘(I) see’ were at first distinguished as sw (=see, open) and se
(see, close), but by Chaucer’s time they were written indis-
criminately see, se, though they have been kept distinct in
the archaic Irish-English pronunciation to the present day.
The French uw was introduced to express the sound of O.E.
y, not only in busy=O.E. bysig, where the ~ is still kept, but
in all other words as well. Hence the O.E. u in hus (huus)
‘house’ could not be kept, but the later French ow was
adopted, so that though the pronunciation was retained, the
new spelling /ous was introduced. So also in nou, cou from
O.E. ni ‘now,’ cit ‘cow.’ But ow was also used to denote
diphthongs, as in knou (knoou) from O.E. cndwan ‘know,’ flow
(floou) from fl�wan ‘flow.’ Even in Modern E. the vowel of
now from O.E. ni is still quite distinct from that of know
from cndwan. As in French, o was written for short (u) as
in comen, sone from O.E. cuman ‘to come,’ sun ‘son.’ .

But the Middle English use of these partially unphonetic
symbols was still entirely phonetic almost down to the time
of Caxton—that is to say, people tried to represent the sounds
of the words they wrote down as closely as their defective
means would allow. But meanwhile in later Old French
the influence of the fixed Latin orthography began to show
itself in such spellings as debte for the older dette, dete on the
analogy of debita, which passed over into English, the infec-


tion spreading to English words as well, as in island for
tland, O.E. �gland, through confusion with French is/e (quasi
isle-land). 7

The printing-press made the spelling more and more fixed,
while the pronunciation underwent great changes. In -
Tudor English (ii) and (uu), as in Old and Middle E. win,
his, became diphthongized, till at last they assumed their
present sounds of (ai) and (au), as in wine, house. Close (ee)
and (00), as in see (vb.) and moone became (ii) and (uu), as in
the present pronunciation of see and moon, while the open
(ee) and (00), as in see (mare), stoon (lapis) became close (ee,
oo). By the end of the 17th cent. (u), as in come up, had
assumed its present sound of (e), and (ee) became (ii), as in
sea. Equally marked changes are going on at the present
moment, In the rising generation a broadening of the
diphthongs is very noticeable, by which, for instance, (ou),
as in no, is approximated to (au), nearly as in now. By the
end of the next century a pronunciation will probably prevail
among the educated which will be an exaggeration of the
vulgarest uneducated pronunciation now existing.

We may sum up by saying that the cause of the unphonetic
character of our present orthography is the retention of
older spellings after the pronunciation had changed, which
divergence is increasing. It is important to observe that
English spelling was always in intention phonetic, apart
from a few etymological vagaries, only a few of which (such
as island) became permanently fixed. Shakespere himself
spelt as phonetically as he could, and many of the best
classical scholars before him, such as Cheke, were ardent
spelling-reformers. They failed in making the spelling
wholly phonetic because of the want of phonetic science,
without which the difficulties of a complex and rapidly
changing sound-system could not be grappled with. Never-
theless many important changes were introduced, such as
the differentiation of � and v, by. which such spellings. as
“‘ reuiue vs, saue vs from euil, leaue vs not vnto ourselues ”
were reformed to “revive us, save us from evil, leave us
not to ourselves,” Also the introduction of ea and oa to

VOL. II. 5


‘distinguish e�, oo=(ee, 00) from ee, oo==(ii, uu), as In sea,
gee; moan, moon.

The stock argument against spelling-reform has been that
it would obscure the history of the language. Mr. Freeman,
for instance, declaims against it as a “reckless wiping out
of the whole history of the English language.” This is
somewhat curious reasoning from a historian. Mr. Freeman
himself would probably be the first to admit that history
is nothing else but a record of development, that develop-
ment is a progressive series of changes, and that consequently
where there is no change, or no record of change, there can
be no history. Now, the facts of the development of lan-
guage are its phonetic changes, and these phonetic changes
ean be adequately recorded only by phonetic spellings. - If
the phonetic changes which constitute an important linguistic
generalization like Grimm’s Law had not been recorded in
phonetic spelling by the Hindoos, Greeks, Romans, and our
own ancestors, we should have been utterly unable to trace
them, and consequently should have remained for ever ignorant
of the history of the law in question. In short, linguistic
history and etymology can be based only on a continuous
series of phonetic spellings. The people who are loudest
against spelling-reform are those who are most ignorant of
the facts of the history of English, and most strenuously
Oppose any attempt to make English literature and language
a part of University studies.

The expression “etymological spelling” in its conven-
tional application is really unmeaning. Properly speaking,
all spellings are etymological: however much a word is
reduced, it still retains some traces of its origin. Even such
a word as age still bears plain marks of its origin from
aetaticum. In its conventional sense, “etymological spelling”
implies the retention of the phonetic spellings of earlier periods
after they have become unphonetic; the gf in such a word as
night is dignified with the-title of etymological simply because
it is no longer pronounced, while the etymological merits of
the consonants of such words as same arid sister, compared
with the Greek homd�s and the Latin soror, are ignored.


Again, what etymological information is really afforded by
such a spelling as night? None at all; for night itself is not
an etymology, but merely one of the isolated facts of which
etymologies are made up: it is a link in a chain, not the
chain itself. All that night tells us is that a certain word
existed in a certain form in Middle English; it tells us
nothing about the living English form, or those of the earlier
periods. In fact, etymological spelling involves writing the
same word at least twice over: night (or nikht), nait. So also
getaticum, eidsh, and there are many intermediate. stages:
edage, eage, age (=aadzho). If the spelling aefaticum had
been kept throughout, we should have lost all traces of inter>
mediate changes, as we have in the case of. night, and still
more strikingly in that of name. The Old E. form was
nama with two short (a)s. In Middle E. the final vowel
became � (=9), and the (a) was lengthened. In Tudor E.
the: final vowel. was dropped. In the seventeenth century
the (as) passed through (ee) into (ee), which has been diph-
thongized into (ei), this diphthong being now in process of
broadening into (ai). Under the two spellings nama, name
is, therefore, disguised the long series nama, name, naame,
naam, naem (=n), neem, neim, naim.

When we say that a// spellings are etymological, we mean,
of course, all correct spellings, or, in other words, all phonetic
spellings. ‘The only unetymological spellings are the un-
phonetic ones.. The s of is/and is etymologically incorrect,
because if never was phonetic—never was pronounced at any
period whatever. The k of knee and the g of gnaw are
etymologically correct, because in the Tudor period, when
the spelling became fixed, these consonants were still Bro
- We see then that historical considerations call for a
series of phonetic spellings, as far as possible on such
# uniform basis as will best facilitate comparison—a basis
which, as regards the vowels, is best afforded by a return
to the original Roman values of the letters.. There is also .a
-growing tendency among spelling-reformers to consider this


of early Middle and Old English (0.E. dufu, cuman). Nor is
the useful distinction between Jearnt and learned, blest and
blessed, anything but the revival of earlier spellings, some
of which are still retained. Corrections of etymological
blunders need no advocacy, as in the Chaucerian delite for
delight, coud for could (O.E. cijbe), which owes its 7 to the
analogy of would and should (0.E. wolde, scolie), tland for
island, soverein for sovereign, which has nothing to do with
reign, hole for whole (cp. heal and O.E. Ad/).




In a recent paper ‘On Plato’s Republic v1 509 pv’ (Journal of
Philology, x 182), having occasion, p. 148, to quote Phaedo
101 c sqq., I pointed out that the sentence ef 5� Tis adris Tis
trrof�cews Exouro, yalpew �gns dy kat ov atroKxpivato, &ws av
Ta at �xeivns oppnO�vta ox�yrato, el cor addANAOLs Evpaovel
% Stadwvei, though apparently the very echo of its surround-
ings, is in reality alien and irrelevant, and should therefore
be bracketed as the gloss of some studious but injudicious
reader. Several similar interpolations, due, it may be, to the
same hand, have been already detected by the commentators,
and are bracketed by Schanz in his admirable edition: e.g.
trois 5& moAXois amriotiav Trap�ye 69 E; Kal Tails p�v y’ ayabais
dpewov elvat tais S€ Kaxais Kdxwv 72D; Ste mpoOupetras pev
mavrTa towavr elvat oloy �xeivo, oti S� avtov havArotepa 75 B:
but I am inclined to think that the list of rowavra mjyara is
by no means complete, and that I can myself make two or
three additions to it.

(1) Ap’ ody obras eye, Edn, juiv, � Sypla; ef pev Eorw
& Opvrocdpmev dei, Kadov te Kal ayabov xa waca % Totavrny
ovata, Kal �rt tavrny Ta �k TOV aicOncewy TravTa dvad�poue,
UTdpXoveav WpOTEpov avevpiaKorTeEs HMETEPAV OvaAaD,
kat tadtTa �xelvy amerkaCopev, avaykaiov, ot ws woTeEp
kal Taira �orw, olTw Kal THY Huet�pay Yruyny elvat Kad apiv
ryeyovevar nuas’ et S� pn ott Tata, dAAws av 6 NOyoS odTosS
epnpevos ein. 76 E. Socrates here invites Simmias’ assent to the
propositions : ‘ if there are ideas to which we refer our sensa-


At 618 Socrates has said to Cebes, ‘That is the answer
which you should give to Evenus, bidding him at the same
time farewell and follow me with all the speed he may.’
Hereupon Simmias expresses his surprise that Socrates should
send such a message as this to Evenus. ‘I thought he was
a philosopher,’ Socrates replies: ‘if he is a philosopher, he
will be willing to follow the dying man: though he will not,
I presume, do violence to himself; for that, we are told, is
wrong.’ ‘But,’ asks Cebes, ‘how do you reconcile the rule
which prohibits suicide with your doctrine that the philoso-
pher will be willing to follow the dying man?’ (IIas rotro
h�yets, @ SeKpates, TO wy Oeuerov elvas Eavrdv BidlecOas, �b�-
rev & adv to atroOvncxovts tov dirccogov ErecOa; 61 D)
Socrates thinks that Cebes and Simmias must have heard the
subject (i.e. the prohibition of suicide) discussed by Philolaus:
but, on hearing that this is not the case, professes himself
willing to state his own views. This brings us to the end of
chapter 5.
Now, in ch. 5 the phrase rep) trav toovTwyv, which I have
understood to mean ‘about the prohibition of suicide,’ might
perhaps mean ‘about the philosopher’s willingness to die’
or ‘about the philosopher’s willingness to die as well as about
the prohibition of suicide,’ but (1) the first sentence of ch. 6
Kara ri &1) oty tror� ob dact Oeyirov elvat aitov �avtov atro-
xtwrbvat, � Zw@xpates; (2) the general tenour of the chapter,
exclusive of the debatable sentence which I have transcribed.
at the beginning of this note, and, above all, (3) the opening
words of ch. 7 *AAAX’ eixos, fn 6 K�Bys, rodto ye [sc. To wy
Geuerov evar �avrov Bidfeo Oat] dalverac. 6 p�vror viv bn �deyes,
70 TOUS Pidocddous padlws ay eB�rew aTroOvnoKew, Eouxe TOUTO,
& Yoxpares, ardw@, �.T.r., show conclusively that in ch. 6
it is the prohibition of suicide which is alone under discussion,
and accordingly that in 62 todro is equivalent, not to the two
propositions 47) Oeuerov elvar �avrov BidfecOar, eO�rdew dv TO
arobujcKxovts Tov pirdcogov �rec Oat, nor to the single propo-
sition 6�Xew dv TO aroOvyncKovts Tov dirdcodov ErrecOar, but
to the single proposition ym Oewurdv eivas �avrov Brdbeo Oar.
This view of the meaning of rodro is confirmed by the reflec-


tion that, whereas rovro is declared to be dzrdod�, �.e. a rule of
universal application, wy Oewsrcv elvas �avtov BualeoOas is
correspondingly supposed to be a rule of universal applica-
tion, but �0�rew dv tO arroOvyoKovts ErecOat is acknowledged
to be a rule which applies only to a limited class, that of the
philosophers. Now, this being so, in the two sentences, lows
p�vros Oavpacr�y cot daveitat, eb TovTo povov TaV aAov
arravTov amAooy �orly and ols B�Ariov reOvavat, Oavpactor iaws
cot haivetat, et TovToLs Tols avOpwrrols ut) BoLoV �oTLY avTors
�avtovs 0 Tovey, GAN’ GAXov Sel trepiu�vew evepy�ernv, the
paradox is stated twice. The one sentence says, ‘ You will no
doubt be surprised to find that the prohibition of suicide ig
absolute, not limited by any qualifications:’ the other says,
‘You are no doubt surprised to find that those for whom death;
is better than life are not at liberty to do what is for their
advantage.’ In fact, the two sentences state consistently and
correctly what it is which surprises Cebes in Socrates’ teach-
ing; but as the terms of the former sentence are vaguely:
general, the iteration is not otiose. It would seem then that,
if we omit the words xal ovd�rore tvyyavea to avOpamre
@omep Kal tadXa Eorwy Gre nat ols B�Ariov teOvavar H Shr, the
remainder of the extract will give a perfect sense; and it is.
immediately obvious that, if we further omit the superfluous
words Javpactov tows cot paivetat, ei TovToLs Tots avO parrots,
we at once obtain an unexceptionable and perspicuous
sentence. :

Next, let us suppose the words todTo povoy Trav a&AdNwv
ardavTwv arnovv �oti cal to be omitted. The residue, it
would seem, will now mean: ‘you will be surprised to hear,
(1) that, whereas other rules are qualified, it is not at some:
times and in some cases only, but at all times and in all cases,.
that death is better for a man than life, and (2) that it is
wrong for those for whom death is better to do what is for
their advantage.” Thus, whereas when we started from e
TOUTO LOVOY TOV AdAwWY atravTwv amdovy �orl the unqualified
rule was found to be 7) Oeyutroveivas �avtov BidkeoGat, when we
start from et ovd�rrote Tuyydver TO avOpaTr@ WaTrEp Kai TaAAG
�otw Ore Kal ols B�Atiov TeOvavar } SHv the unqualified rule


usual, the interpolator borrows his phraseology from the
context. It is noteworthy that the gloss, if gloss it is, is
ancient; see Simplicius in Epictetum, p. 63, cited by Schanz!

� 2. Corruptions.

(1) Eipydfero 5€ye% wepertn ; Nal. 104 pv. 4.e. ‘And it was
the idea of odd which made three odd? Yes.’ But can 9
qepirry stand for the idea of odd? We know avro 0 qepit-
r�v, and 1 3 gore qepirtov, and 4 Tod mepitrod id�a, and f
mepiTToTns, just as we know avro 7d xaddv, Td 8 gore Kadoy, #
Tod Kadod id�a, and 7d KdAXos: but we do not know 4% zrepitr)
any more than we know 7) cad. Hence I cannot doubt that
we ought to read here,-as in 105 c, 7 weperrorns.

(2) ‘Neavras, olpat, Kav et TO dapuKroy dvorcOpov Fv, orroTe
�rt ro mip yuypoy te �mne, ovmot av amecB�vvto ovd
a@ir@ANuTO, GANA cov Ay aredOov w@yero. 106 a. .

In the antecedent context Socrates has spoken of 76 p
Seyouevov ty To dptiou td�av as dvdptiov; of 7d Sixasov pi)
Seyopevov kad 8 dy povorrdy un S�yntas as ddtxov Kad dpovoor ;
of 6 dy Odvarov py dS�xntar as abdvarov ; of 7d wn Seyopevov
Thy Tov Oepuod id�av as AOepuov; the compound in some cases

1 I take the opportunity of noting another goss gece which has occasioned
trouble in a very important passage. In 100 p the books give rotro 3t awAgs xal
a&r�xves Kal tows ebhOws Exw wap’ euavr@, 8ri obk HAAO Tt worel adTS KaAddy A %
�xelvov Tov Kadod elre wapouola efre xowwvla etre Sry 5h Kal drws tporyevopeyn’
ob yap Er: Tovro SucxuplCoua:, GAN’ rt TE KarG Ta Kare ylyvera nadd. That
the text cannot stand, is universally admitted; and various attempts have been
made to rectify it. Thus, for wpoo-yevoudyn (which, if it is retained, acid
requires the addition of the words 7 id�a), Wyttenbach, followed by the Ziiric
editors, substitutes xpooayopevou�vn, a friend of Heindorf’s wpoo-yevduevoy, Stall-
baum wpoo-yryvduevoy ; while Daehne, followed by Madvig and Schanz, brackets
efre before Srp, and Ueberweg at once brackets efre before 8x and substitutes
wpoo-yevou�vou for rpoo-yevou�vn. For my own part, I am convinced that xpoc-
yevouevn is an interpolation, the phrase efre Srp 3h kal Sxws needing no supple-
ment: cf. laws 899 B efre dv cduacw dvoteat, Coa byra, Koomove: wayra, obpaydy
efre 8xn Te xal8rws. But I should hardly have ventured to prepoune this solution
of the difficulty, if I had not found unexpected confirmation of my conjecture in
the commentary of Olympiodorus, who says plainly (ed. Finckh, p. 148) 6 3€ gnaw,
efre Sn xa) Srws.


sting ready to hand, but in others (dvdprvov, depo) being.
ented for the occasion. To keep up the parallelism, we
it in this place, not ayuctov, but ayvypov: and of this
ding a trace is perhaps preserved in the MSS. of Stobaeus,
phys. 1 41 � 16, which have ro ypuypov.

lurning to Schanz, I find that I am anticipated in this
‘gestion by Wyttenbach. I must confess to a feeling of
prise that the correction has not been accepted by the
tors. ,




audiyuners, audhiyvos, augeercooa.

“auheyunecs (yviov’ vett. yodds) utrimque validis artubus
instructus Goebel, utraque manu agilis Doed.” is the un-
usually meagre account of the word in Ebeling’s Lexicon.
That is to say, the ancients derive the word from yuecs=
lame, the moderns from yviov=member. Both are unsatis-
factory, as they take no account of the � which appears
in both words; the derivation from ryuids is additionally
unsound, because adjectives in -ets are always derived from
substantives, not from adjectives (see Goebel, de Epithetis
Homericis tn -ets desinentibus, Vienna, 1858, especially with
reference to ofvoes, p. 24): while if it came from yviop, it
would mean indeed “ utrimque artubus instructus,” but the
indispensable “ validis ’’ would be absent.

It is far more satisfactory to refer the word at once to a
substantive *yu7 in the sense of “crook,” “curve.” Though
the word is not found in this simple sense, yet we have yuns
=the curved piece of wood in a plough,’ and hence “a
field” or “ plough-gate,” iuger; while the existence of a
root yu implying curvature is abundantly proved by ywadov
= the hollow of the hand (�y-yvad-itev), or the curved
breastplate; yupd�s bent round, Od.x1x246. Probably yavAos=
‘‘ jug,” yadA\os = merchant vessel (Curtius, Gr. Et. no. 127),
come from the same root, and are named from their round-
ness; and I would also suggest that the Aiuvn I'vyain (Zl. 11 865)
(I'v-y-ain, with “ broken reduplication”) belongs here, and
means strictly “the Lake of the Hollow.” (Strabo, by the
way, says that it was afterwards called Kodon, which seems to


been suggested; unless we go back to �yyin, a pledge,
apparently as being “put into the hollow of the hand,”!
which comes straight from the root, but not exactly by the
same process, which gives yviov. This hardly authorizes us
to assume *yin= hand in a general sense, including the hand
which grasps as well as the hollowed hand which passively

. Hoffmann and D�derlein have attempted to refer the epithet
to the point of the spear only, and explain “curved on both
sides” as of a flat point, more or less oval, with cutting edges.
But this is hardly satisfactory ; such a property of the point

would not be sufficiently obvious to give an epithet to the

whole spear. Diintzer again would have it = “ wounding on

both sides,”’ 7.e. “ two-edged,”’ from a root yu to hurt, whose

existence remains to be proved.

A much more obvious quality of the long shaft would be
its elasticity, which is alluded to in passages such as Ji, xii
504, aixyn S Aivelao xpadatvom�vn xara yalns @yeto. For
want of a better interpretation, I would therefore explain the
word to mean “bending both ways” from its elasticity. Thiss
appears to give a sufficiently true and graphic epithet for a
spear eleven cubits long (J/. vi 319), and is unobjectionable
as to formation.

apdt�rxtooa. The received explanations of this epithet
of the Homeric ship generally assume that the latter portion
of the word means “curved”; and the qualities of the ship
described are said to be either (1) “curved at both ends,”
i.e. with. rising prow and poop; (2) “with curved ribs”;
(3) “curved” in plan, te. of a guasi-oval shape. But all
these appear to do violence to the very definite meaning of
the root Fed (uol-u-o, etc.), which invariably expresses the
idea of “wheeling,” “revolving,” or “twisting”; an idea
which does not pass into that of simple curvature, or in-
considerable deviation from a straight line, so far as I can
judge from an examination of the uses of �dlocew and

_ ' The word then corresponds to the Latin manus, mancipium, in being used
in the sense of marriage, betrothal.


thus find their proper place without causing any of the
difficulty which lexicographers appear to have felt in corre-
lating them. It has been urged against the sense “swaying,”
and might equally be suggested here, that the epithet is
generally used of ships drawn up on the land. This is
literally true; it is used so in fourteen passages out of
twenty. But such a fact has little weight in the face of the
‘very conventional use of epithets in Homer.

I may mention that Dr. Goebel translates “ auf beiden
Seiten glutroth,” from root Fad to burn (?). The word might,
it is true, mean “shining on both sides,” without violating
phonetic laws, if referred to root ceX; but when Dr. Goebel
draws us a pretty picture of the “tarred ship under the bright
sky and sunshine coming over the violet-blue sea, and the
ship’s ‘cheeks’ glittering with the reflexion from sun and
sea,” he must bo reminded that in order to give reflexions
from both sides of the ship, at least two judiciously disposed
suns would be required.



of the year 1513) he asks him if he has any money entrusted:
to him for charitable purposes, and recommends Croke as a
worthy recipient of such bounty. But'no help comes from
that quarter ; Colet waxes angry at such a supposition, and
replies: “Quod scribis de R. Croco miror, quid ego cum
pecuniis aliorum ? unde judices aut suspicere apud me ease
pecunias quoquo modo mihi creditas? non adsto moriturig,
non blandior pecuniosis viduis, non immisceo me in testa-
mentis divitum, non quaero familiaritates locupletum, non
laudo peccata eorum, non jubeo redimant scelera sua pecuniis
arbitrio meo positis. crede, apud nos qui non est id genus
hominum, non facile habebit pecunias eleemosynarias ”
(p. 1524).

It is not possible to trace with absolute certainty Croke’s
movements after leaving Paris. We know (1) that he
matriculated at Cologne, March 20th, 1515: Magister
Richardus croce angelicus dioc. lundenen. professor literarum
grecarum iuravit et solvit universitati tantum (C. Krafft in
Zeitschrift f. preuss. Gesch. vol. v. p. 491); and (2) that he
matriculated at Leipsic, in the summer semester of the same
year, t.e. after April 23rd (St. George’s Day, when the
new rector is elected): ‘ Mgr Richardus Crocus Britannus
Londoniensis equestris ordinis qui Graecas professus fuit
litteras ” (copied from the original). (8) In a letter dated
March 2nd, 1515, from G. Spalatin to J. Lange, the follow-
ing sentence occurs: Scio enim Crocum Lipsiae frequens
habuisse auditorium, neque solum Scholasticos gregarios, sed
etiam doctores Theologiae celeberrimos discipulos, et quidem
eos quorum fortassis quatuor aut sex plus mercedis ei dederunt,
quam multi tribuent (Briefe u.-Documente aus d. Zeit d. Re-
form. etc. v. K. und W. Krafft, p. 1385); (4) in a letter
usually dated 1514 Erasmus writes to Linacre: Crocus
regnat in Academia Lipsiensi publicitus Graecas docens
literas (p. 186) (but this date is more than doubtful); and (5):
Mutianug in a letter to Reuchlin dated September 18th (year
not given) refers to a recent visit paid him by Croke: Nuper
Crocus Britannus (qualem ipse se facit, quanquam ob linguae:’
mobilitatem et mores graecanicos videatur esse graeculus,


nam Theocritum iucundissime legit et cum gratia balbutit)
cum apud me quiesceret et Grocinum et Aleandrum et nescio
quos magistros laudaret, deesse sibi dixit hebraicam scientiam
etc. (quoted by Bo�cking, Hutten. oper. Suppl. ii. p. 352);.
and it was probably on this occasion that Mutianus called
Croke’s attention to the fine library lately founded at.

Krafft, mainly relying upon the date of Erasmus’ letter (4),
supposes. that Croke made two stays in Leipzig: viz. in 1514
before his stay at Cologne, and again after it in 1515; but in
a note added in the Preface (p. 2) he calls this arrangement
doubtful, since the date is uncertain, and indeed it would.
seem strange to suppose a double stay at Leipsic, since in his
Encomium Croke does not refer to it at all. Yet what in that
case becomes of Spalatin’s statement (3) ? .

After leaving Paris Croke probably proceeded first to
Louvain ; for in his Encomium Congratulatorium (1515) he
says: “ Louanii, fateor me summa cum humanitate exceptum
opera Joannis Paludani, Rhetoris, viri cum ipsa canitie, tum
omni litterarum et virtutum cumulo venerandi. Coloniae
concessum, vbiuis scholarum, occlusa etiam nisi mercedem
porrigentibus, ianua praelegere. Sed � zro7ros quanto plus
de vestra Lipsia mihi nunc polliceor?” It is true, in the
concluding words of the Preface to his Edition of Ausonius,
the order is inverted: “ Vale et Crocum tuum primum
literarum Graecarum Colonie Louanii Lypsieque tue publicum
professorem ama,” but remembering the dates of the matricu-
lations at Cologne and Leipsic, we cannot arrange his visit to’
Louvain otherwise. His stay cannot have been long enough
to allow of his making a mark there; for I have not been
able: to find mention of his name in several works on the

history of that University.

In Cblogne he must have been lecturing for some time

1 To this Croke refers in a letter addressed to Frederick III.: Bibliothecam
€rexisse te narrabat tuus Mucianus, omni delectissimorum quorumque librorum
Senere refertam. Cuius fama quum me in has regiones impulerit, ita et ad te,
Cuxus vultus argento ductos non sine magna veneratione saepe contemplatus sum,
et Academiam visendam tuam ita accendit, ut numquam mihi satisfactum putem,

Onec oa Principem Fridericum meo obsequio fuero demeritus propitium
(quoted by B�hme, de literat. Lips, op. Acad.). ?


nocte se conveniri, si quamuis longe extra oppidum ius-.
sisset, omnes libenter, inquit, obsequuti fuissent (quoted by
B�hme 1,1.) ; nor must we forget Spalatin’s letter (3) and
what Croke himself says in his Encomium of the professors
’ of philosophy, law, and divinity: ‘“Postremo tam pii, tam
humiles, ut ne lectiones quidem meas adire erubescatis idque
grandiori adfectaque prope aetate, Catonem nimirum imitati
qui Graecas litteras canus discere inceperat.”’ Or can there
be a stronger proof of his great success as a teacher than the
hatred of the Sophists, one of whom is made to say: “ Et
alius est hic qui etiam legit in Graeco, vocatus Ricardus
Crocus et venit ex Anglia. ego dixi nuper ‘ Diabole, venit iste
ex Anglia? Ego credo quod si esset unus poeta ibi ubi
piper crescit, ipse etiam veniret Liptzick” (Bocking, Hutt.
oper., p. 276, 19 foll., cf. carmen Rithmicale magistri Phil.
Schlauraff, p. 200, 48 foll.). By the wish of George, Duke
of Saxony, the Faculty of Arts decreed Croke 10 guilders
““ut ad famam nostre Achademie et profectum studiosorum
Jegeret gratis unam lectionem in grecis litteris.” Soon the
Faculty petitioned the Duke when he visited Leipsic for a
stipend of 100 guilders for Croke, and when no immediate
action was taken, and the same sum was offered him from
-Prague, a petition (B) was sent up to Dresden, signed by.
2.5 masters of arts (March 12th), repeating their request in
still more urgent terms. Whether their prayer was granted.
�r not, we do not know; but so much is certain, that Croke
_ ‘ewas in every way satisfied with the Senate of the University
zand with the Duke, whose generosity to scholars he greatly
In 1517 Croke returned to Cambridge, where he proceeded
to his M.A. in the same year.!_ Mullinger makes Croke stay
an Dresden for two years after leaving Leipsic, probably be-

1 In P. Mosellanus’ letter, dated March 24th, 1517: Jam tum enim hinc in

Patriam solvere parabat ; and in Emser’s, March 17th, 1517: Et nunc patriam

iturus, etc. ; and in a letter dated August 25th, 1517, Mosellanus writes to

Joh. Caesarius of Cologne: ‘‘ Nam quia lustrissimus princeps meus Georgius

Saxonum dux magnificentissimus studia nostra in hoc sua fovet munificentia, ut

-Lipsica haec ‘Aca emia jam ante latinis artibus quantum fieri potuit florentissima
mune nostra opera graecis quoque studiis illustretur,”’ etc.


book, was Valentin Schuman; is 4apyavrnpos a translation of
Schuman P (irddnua, Snpa, Saya, Sapavrnp, something like
onpua, onuavtop P)

In 1516 he published his “Tabulae graecas literas com-
pendio discere cupientibus sane quam necessariae,” Schuman
being the printer. This is in many respects a most interest-
ing work. It was considered for a time the first Greek book
printed with movable type in Saxony ; it can no longer claim
this distinction, since five years before a reader had been
printed in Wittenberg eicayoyn mpoc Twy ypappatwy �dAXn-
ve, yet it marks a great advance on the Wittenberg print,
where all accents are omitted, and only those capitals occur
which could be taken from Latin type (cf. Kohler, Lebens-
beschreibungen merkwiirdiger deutscher Gelehrter, bd. 1).
It is dedicated Academie, Senatui et Philosophorum: in vrbe
Lipsiensi, corone, by whose wish, as he states in the preface
(dated February 26th), he had undertaken the work. The
concluding sentence of the preface runs: In quo (ie. in his
own rules about the formation of the tenses) si quid peccatum

sit, id candidus lector amice precor admoneat, et nos corrigat
non egre perlaturos, nihil enim minus de me dici velim quam
ovros un duTw vo�n, unt adrov axovov �v Oupe BadrAnrar.
In its sixty pages he treats his subject in the following order:
declinatio articulorum, decl. nominum (prima (ac no), secunda
(a �), tertia (oo ov), quarta (wo); de imparisyllabis; decli-
nationes nominum contractorum : prima to octava, then vooc).
Then follow numeralia, de formatione Comparativorum et
Superlativorum, de verbis (five conjugations t�p7rw,. rd�xa,
GvvrTw pdddo, and verbs in ws; de verbis circumflexis) ; de
Pronomine, de adverbio ex quarto Theodori.'! Not the least
interesting point about these Tabulae are two poems printed
together with them, addressed to Mutianus: “Ad librum ut
Muttianum Vtriusque juris doctorem amicum suum plurimum
venerandum salutet,” and a shorter one on the motto of

utianus “ Beata Tranquillitas ” (C).

ey * A. second edition by his pupil, Philippus Nouenianus (Neumann), 1521,
Aditis solum in calce per nos verbis anomalis huius linguae studiosis maxi-

MOPere necessariis.’



In the same year (Horawitz says in 1519, but the Leipsic
edition clearly has: Lipsiae in aedibus Valentini Schumann,
Anno mpxvi) Croke published a translation of the 4th Book
of Theodorus Gaza, which he dedicated to the Archbishop of
Mayence and Magdeburg (although he allows that the Duke
George and the University have a prior claim to this honour),
promising to undertake also a translation of the first three
books at the request of Th, More. The coat of arms of the
Archbishop: one eagle, two lions, and four griffins suggest
to Croke the following elegy (D). In the Preface Croke
again quotes Greek, applying to the Archbishop �mpem� �v
moAnoicw Kal �Eoyov ipwecow (Il, ii. 483), citing �o odpavoy
Upp addredwar (from Theocr. vy. 144), and remarking with
regard to the difficulties he had had to overcome in the
translation : “ Et si graeci aliqui dyAdov cohvpBnrov (Diog.
Laert. ii. 5.7), suum Theodorum egere affirment. Habitant
enim ei apud nos dei (ut inquit Heracletus).”

The Senate of the University granted Croke copyright for
four years for this, and all other publications (Cautum est ne
quis hune librum D, R. C, aut quemvis alium ab eodem in
hac inclyta urbe versum, compositum, aut excusum intra
quadriennium imprimat, aliunde ne impressum huc aduehat),

There is only one more poem to be mentioned, and this
marks Croke’s position in regard to the religious movements
of the time; he accompanied the Reprobatio orationis ex-
cusatoriae picardorum etc, of Hieronymus de Ochsenfurt
with a poem, beginning: Quis hanc perfidiam tuam

Such was Croke’s work at Leipsic, and it bore rich fruit
For we cannot be far wrong in supposing that when in the
statutes of 1519 Greek was formally recognized as part of
the University curriculum (de illustrissimi principis Georgii
stipendio graeca Theodori Gazae grammatica interpretabitur
[sic]), this was mainly the result of his teaching; for when
he left Leipsic, he left behind him a pupil well qualified to
become his successor, P. Mosellanus. Croke was greatest
as a teacher of grammar, as Camerarius says. This was
perhaps the most pressing need of his time; but he lectured



A.—Guilelmi Budaei, regii secretarii epistolae. Basil. a.
1521, p. 168.

Tovariedpos Bov�aios Kpdxp
ev TparTeLy.

M�rrets ev & Kpoxe aud) ta TOV EAAnVOY od peTplas €7re-
dace, ds 5%) apds av8pa Aativoy �u� AaTivos dv adres, EXAT
vitew mponpnoa, TH Oye, yevvaiws 8) Kal akveraivas. ST
p�vtot ths hidlas nav Ths wadaas euvyncOns, Svodopely TE
gouxas Ta �oyara pepopevos THS OLKELOTHTOS VOV Tap’ �uol, THY
aTpwrelav tye Tuyxdvery col mpoatiKov, pevnpoovvoy Tt mrapexe
abai oe xphy Kai ywapiopa ovK apvdpov Tis OptrAlas 7 mda. sco
yap Tod Kpoxov ovepatos as tye wot yvapiwou avdpos kai oicelas
Eyovros, ov mdvu TL Tdye Viv Exov w�uvnuat. ov nv TovToU �*
Sera Sucap�otas of Set Siaxciabas 4 Strws 8} dviaSfvar. ove
tit POovica Ttav tpedarrav, ods Hd�ws Te domralomas Sv’ Cru ~
ToA@Y Kal Sia Tyuns Ayw, eixoTws. avdpes yap eiow �exetyo™ +
wot Te Kal TWOANOIS TOV E“ov Staxpepovrew copia KeXxapra piv” .
gol ve pny Everts Kal TOV Guolwy avTois Trap’ �wod Tux woe
Tour’ errpsenes 7 H. pepe 87, ” mpooeupeph ge Tovros Tois Bperre—™
vots Trap�xou Tois cols, lod te akt�pacrov, Kayo oor loa KO
rovTos Pidukas Tpocolcopat. tod. pev 5) tH �rictoNy avOf——"
Tpokaerdpevos ovK andas avri€eviobvTd aot, el Tov col TOU
kataOvpiov EAAnuioTh dvTeTicT�ANeLW Huds. Foouar yap Ka
TAUTY TH yooon Thy ptdorroviay doxav. �ppwoo, Kal Tay €=—*
boFcov Toutwvl Kal oyiwy Tov avOt, TOvS cot PiArarous Tpo——

evr� pot. �u Ilapnoiow avbertnpi@vos tpltyn totap�vou rer
vexvas Th voTepala.

B.—Codex Diplom. Saxoniae Reg., p. ii. vol. 11, p. 406.

Cum celsitudo tua novissime hinc discederet, illustrissix

princeps, supplicatum est serenitati tue, ut domino Ricar~—
Croco, qui in hoc gymnasio in tuum summum honorem



Gryphes habent Aquilamque et habent tua signa Leoness -
Sic leo quadrupedum gloria, vt illa auium.

Rostro alisque aquila est, leo corpore gryphus et unus

_ Est duo, sunt cuncta et singula vita tua

Namque ale doctrine aquilam: te nobile stemma leonem,
Fecit utrumque deus, iunxit utrumque deus.


(Grom. Inst. p. 348), derives it from dicis or Sin and mane
(sunrise). I suppose this to mean “After the fashion of

(e) Rudorff (Grom. Inst. pp. 342, 343) considers the mean-
ing to be �wo-cutter, and though attributing without sufficient
evidence a derivation to Varro, refrains from adopting it.
This derivation is from duo and caedere.

_(f) Nissen (Zemplum, p. 12) takes decumanus to be from
decem, and thinks that it was so called partly because ten was
with the Romans the perfect number that made the row —
complete (10 rods to a worsus, 10 feet to a rod, 10 men tom
a decury, etc), and partly to the use of decumanus for a largae==>
thing, i.e. decumana oua, and decumani fluctus (Fest. p. 71).

Now it seems to me that it would require very strong==—>
reasons to make a sober etymologist believe that decumanum—=s
had in this, or in other uses, any other original meaning
than ‘of or relating to the tenth.’ decem is ‘ten,’ decumts——38
is ‘tenth,’ decumanus is ‘of the tenth.’ So much I take=_e
to be certain. And I can suggest an easy origin for it-——3
application. The century was a square plot divided intem==0
tugera. Two tugera formed an heredium, which was thas==<
size of the original allotments. The century containe——1t
(10x 10=) 100 heredia, which were not separated bwamy
balks, but only by marks erected by the proprietorss==-
Measuring along a side, after the tenth heredium, comes�
between this century and the next, a dimes or balk, whick—~
may easily therefore have been called dimes decumanus, 1.e
the division line, in this case a balk, belonging to the tenth=—
heredium. In the same way the wia quintana in-the camp——
was in Polybius’ time (vi. 80) adjoining the fifth manciple— -
Originally it may have been applicable to all balks, bw
as the word cardo came to be applied to the North an
South lines, decumanus was left for the East and West
lines. The firet line drawn by the Augur in whatevers™
direction would of course divide the whole district intesx—
two parts. It was his practice, probably from the simple=="
observation of the rising sun, to draw first the line from—™


who epitomized Verrius Flaccus, who was a freedman in the
reign of Augustus. We know nothing of the circumstances
in which the expression ager uiritanus was used: and it would
be rash to rest much on the word populo as implying that the
distribution did not take the form of a colony.

The second passage is Varr. #.R. i. 10, where he says,
guattuor centuriae coniunctae appellantur in agris divisis uiritim
publice saltus. Siculus Flaccus says sa/tus is the name given
to 25 centuries. Nothing more is known of either kind of

-saltus. The bri coloniarum as they are called speak of �erri-
torva in saltibus adsignata (p. 211). There is no reason why
this should mean Varro’s sa/fus rather than Siculus Flaccus’
saltus. As the salius of 4 centuries is not mentioned in the
Corpus Gromaticorum and the saltus of 25 centuries is, one
presumption is the other way.

The third passage adduced by Mommsen is. much the
most important, and has, I think, been quite misunderstood.
Siculus Flaccus says: diuisi et adsignatt agri non! unius sunt
condicionis, nam et diuiduntur sine assignatione et redduntur sine
iuisione. diusduntur ergoagri limitibus institutis per centurias,
assignantur uiritim nominibus. (Mommsen quotes only the
last sentence diuiduntur...nominibus.) I translate freely.
<< Divided and assigned lands are not all held on the same
tenure. You may have a division of lands without their
being assigned, and you may have a restoration of lands
without their being divided. Division is the separation of
the land into centuries by regular balks. mergoment is the
appropriation of the land to individuals by name.” That is
to say, division and assignment are different things, and are
not always found together. Usually they were parts of one
process: first the land was regularly divided into square
blocks, then each of these blocks was appropriated to 100, or
5O, or 10, or 3 persons, according to the extent of allotment
allowed, and their names were entered in the register as
holding so many iugera each in that century. Suppose there
were 1000 men, and the measure allowed was eight sugera,

* Non is not in the MSS., but all agrec in inserting it, and it seems to
be r equired.



sunt... his ego duobus generibus facultatem ad se aere alieno
liberandas aut leuandas dedi. “To relieve the public land of rent
by a bad law” is a very suitable expression: “to relieve the
public land of a bad law by a rent” seems to me a very strange
one. But that Cicero should use words apparently conveying
the former, but intended to convey the latter, seems to me the
strangest thing of all, except that one who is at the head of
Roman historians and one of the first Latin philologers should
impute this to Cicero, in order to save a writer of the second
century A.D. from haying made a confusion in the authorship
of two laws which were passed towards the end of the second
century B.c.

6. Niebuhr in the famous chapter on the Public Land and
its occupation, which has been the basis of modern inquiry
into the Agrarian laws, and directed attention to the writings
of the Gromatici, argues against the notion that the State let
its lands in the modern sense of the term. What the State
let was, according to Niebuhr, the tithe or tax. And he
adduces (ii. 140) a passage from Hyginus which treats of the
Roman dealings with conquered lands, and justifying the
expression emerunt ius uectigalis, understands it of taking a —
lease of the tithe, described as a purchase of the right to
the tithe for a sum, not paid down once for all, but payable
yearly. Niebuhr expresses doubts of the value of Hyginus’
authority, and finds a difficulty in the concluding sentence
of the passage,

Now Hyginus was not an antiquary or historian inquiring
into the use of the public land in the early times of the
Republic, but a practical land surveyor, with public records
of the tenure of land before him. What he describes or
alludes to are the facts of the land and of the records, and
the inferences a land surveyor would draw from them. I
believe he found nothing mentioned in the records or
visible on the land of a date earlier than the Gracchi;
and the assignments of public land which he saw recorded
were in the main those of Julius Cesar and the earlier
emperors, It is hazardous therefore to apply his statements


to dealings with the public land at the time of the early
agrarian laws. But for the later period, I take it, his
authority and that of the other Gromatici are more trust-
worthy than the ordinary run of historians. :
Hy ginus found four classes of land: occupatorius, quaestorius,
-wectigalis, diuisus adsignatus. The first had no state balks and
boundaries ; the second was land divided by balks into plots
of fifty iugera, i.e. quarter centuries, and had been public
dand sold by the quaestors; the fourth I have already spoken
of; the third he describes in the passage from which Niebuhr
amakes an extract. It was land bound by a rent, and belonging
either to the Roman people, or to a colony or borough or
other local organization. Its origin was this. When lands had
been captured in war, and divided into centuries for assign-
ament to the soldiers, there was more than was required for
the number of allottees. qui superfuerant agri uectigalibus
subtectt sunt, alii per annos (some supply quinos) alit uero
-mancipibus ementibus, id est .conducentibus in annos centenos
pluresue (so Huschke and Mommsen for plures uero): finito
allo tempore iterum ueneunt locanturque tta ut uectigahbus est
consuetudo ... mancipes autem qui emerunt lege dicta ius uecti-
gaits ipst per centurias locauerunt aut uendiderunt proximis
quibusque possessoribus. Niebuhr says: “ If this writer, whose
conceptions were certainly not clear, attached any distinct
meaning to the last sentence, it must be understood of a
gnodus or composition, for the tenth sheaf.” I am nof certain
ef Niebuhr’s meaning, but I suppose his view to be this.
"The state imposed a tax of a tenth of the produce on these
ands. Contractors bought from the state the right to this
tithe and engaged with the nearest occupiers to take the
| ithe and give them money for it. Rudorff (Grom. Inst.,
p. 315, n. 225) supposes the nearest occupiers to be the
Persons who were themselves charged with the payment of the
tithe, and explains per centurias as meaning per annos centenos.
Degenkolb (Piatzrecht, p. 328) has made some objections
fO these views, which I partly reproduce.

A. Hyginus speaks of letting the lands: why should we


A very similar passage to this of Hyginus is seen imm
Siculus Flaccus, p. 162 (cf. also pp. 136, 137), and helps
to show that what was before the eyes and mind of botk—
writers were the leased lands lying near and among thea
assigned lands; and that these are but distantly related t—~
the occupation of the public land which was the groun�
of the old agrarian laws.



Now the Adyou of X and Y

i. All slavery is unjust

ii, All slavery is just
�marXaTrovow:! i.e. slaveries which X pronounces unju@m st,
Y pronounces just. How is it, then, that these Aoyoe �a\\c=smer-
tovolw ? What is the reason of the controversy betweoemmsen

X and Y ?

The reason is, Aristotle tells us, that, as dper7 with propmmmmer
appliances is able to exert force or violence, while force � �or
violence implies dyaOov of some sort or other, X and Y agree
In assuming that where there is Bia, there there is dpemm-y,
and consequently suppose that they differ fundamentally in
their notions of Sica:ov. That is to say, on the assumpti �on
that Bia is always accompanied by dper?, X, who conceiw7es
that in the cases which he has examined fia is detestab� Ie,
and does not see anything to distinguish these cases fro�m
other cases, condemns all relations between inferior amd

1 That, as Heitland remarks (Notes Critical and Explanatory, etc., Cambricl �%
1876, p. 11), �waaAdrrey means primarily to ‘overlap,’ whether by sug�<-
position, �g. rH �wadAdte: tav SanriAwy m | ty 300 palverar. ey 2. 460b 20,
Pnp@v �xdAdAatis axperhs. Plutarch de audiendo 45D, or by juxtaposition, <9.
Kapxapdiovra ydp dorw boa �xmadAdtre tobs dddvras Tous dfeis. ZB 1. 50la 18,
seems to me certain. For secondary uses of the word, I may quote [had ==
358 rol 3 Epidos xparepijs xa) duoilov wodguoro weipap �wadAdtawres ex” �-
poor tdvuccay. Plato sophist 240c @. Kwdurete: toabrny rw wewrd�nc oe
aunrAoKhy 7d wh dv Te SvTt, Kal wdda Krorov. #. as yap obx kromoyv; Bets
yoo Sri kal viv dia THs ewadAdzews trabrns 5 woAvK�dados aogioThs AvdyxoeKY
nuas Td wh bv odx �xdyras Suodoyeiv elval wws. Aristot. Zi8 1. 60la 22 ry a
d�xn xapxapddouv gor) xaot Tots dd0001w, ds �raddAdrrovea TE y�vae Tay lyotomaw-
TI� 1. 1317a 1 ratra. . . wove? ras wodrtelas �wadAdrrew, Sore dporoxpariass Tt
dAvyapxiKds elvat wal wodrrelas Snpoxparixwr�pas. px. 1. 464b 28 �warrd-wr Te
Ta voowdn Thy diow odpata Tois BpaxvBlos. But when may propositionss
said to ‘overlap’? At first sight two cases suggest themselves: (1) Adi X te Y
might be said to overlap Some X ts Y, and (2) Some X ts Y and Some X is amt
Y might be said to overlap one another, provided that these subcontraries 2
incompatible. It appears however that �raAAdrrew marks not'so much
transgression of a limit, as the invasion of a region beyond, and consequemcmtly
that Ali X is Y could not be said to �wadAdrrew Some Xis Y. For this reass�%
as well as because �radAdrrew understood in the former of the two semcu™
indicated above, would not find a proper antithesis in d:acrdyrer xwpls, I t-xale
�waAddrrew here in the latter of these senses, the whole field of slavery beim. th
debatable ground which from opposite quarters X and Y have overrun. <7
the phrase diacrdytwy xwpis, which represents the relative position of X ane
when they have withdrawn to their own sides of the field, compare the kind rod
use of xexdpiora in ux 1. 464b 27. Thus while I agree with Heitland 30%
‘overlap’ is the best English equivalent for �wadAdrrev, I demur to cae
unqualified statement that the latter word expresses the relation in which s=—™*
contraries stand to one another. (In the above Aristotle is quoted by Bonitsz.


superior which are not based upon ‘loyalty,’ ! ze. the willing
obedience which an inferior renders to a kind and considerate
superior ; while Y, who conceives that in the cases which he
has examined fia is respectable, and does not see anything
to distinguish these cases from other cases, takes as his
principle ‘ might is right.’

‘When however the two theories are withdrawn within
their proper limits, so that they dseataot ywpis and no longer
�7ranXatrovet, the theory which X advances against Y and
the theory which Y advances against X. (drepou Noyor) have
neither force nor plausibility as against the modified doctrine _
a@s Sef to B�Xtiov Kat’ apetny apyew Kat Seomdlev.?

In short, X and Y, jumping to the conclusion that Bia is
always accompanied by dpery, and consequently overlooking
the distinction drawn by Aristotle between Sia which has
dpety and Bia which has not dpery, suppose that all other
slaveries resemble those which they have respectively studied,
and accordingly pronounce, the one, a// slavery unjust, the
other, ali slavery just. Let X only realize that he is arguing
from cases in which fia rests upon ayafov te to cases in

1 The commentators take for granted that efvoia is the ‘ benevolence ’ of the
superior, and it must be admitted that my interpretation, ‘ loyalty,’ ‘ the willing
obedience which an inferior renders to a kind and considerate superior,’ is not
recognized by the lexicographers. See however Xenophon oecon. 7 � 37; 9 $$ 5,
12; 12 �� 5-8; 15 � 5 (in all which cases the olx�rys is efvous to his master and

j ); Aristot. nic. eth. 1x 5 �� 3, 4 6 wey yap evepyernbels av’ Gv w�rovOey
droveue: thy etvoiay, Td Sinaia Spav' ... Saws 3 4h ebvora Se dperhy Kal emelkedy
viva ylyerat Srav te pari Kadds tis 4 Gvdpetos # 1� Totovrov: Polus Pythag. ap.
Stob. fortl. T. 9. p.106 oikeray worl Seondras etvoia, Seororay 5t ror) Oepdwovras
aadepyovia (in a list of the various forms in which justice appears): Herodotus
v. 24 ovd�va elval cev ebyodorepoy . . . xrnudtwv mdvrwy �orl Tiysdtaroy avhp
iros cuverds re xal efvous (where Darius addresses Histiaeus). Similarly in an
Anscription published in the report of the Archaeological Institute of America,
On the investigations at Assos, 1881, the inhabitants of Assos swear loyalty to
Caligula—ecdvofoew Taly Kaloaps SeBaorg—asking him in return tye 3:d pynuns
weal xnSepovlas thy w�Aty: and in an epitaph:on a dog contained in the same
~wolume we read Zor d0Aov oropyiis tpa kal xvoly, &s vu nal Hde ebvous obca
TF pope: ojpa A�Aovye rd5e.

* In other words, so long as X maintains that All slavery is unjust, and Y that
All slavery is just, Y has something icxup�y and w:@aydv to urge against X,
-% has something ioyupdy and widavdy to urge against Y. But when X and Y
respectively fall back from their advanced and untenable positions to the position
of Aristotle, Y has no longer anything icyupd�y or m@aydy to urge against X,
& has no longer anything icxup�y or m�aydy to urge against Y. It will be seen
“hat I take robs Adyous and ray Adywy to be ‘ the theories of X and Y,’ drepo
' Fyax to be ‘ the theory adverse to X's theory and the theory adverse to Y’s theory,’
-€. “the theories of Y and X.’


which @/a rests upon dpery, and let Y only realize that he iam jg
arguing from cases in which ia rests upon dapern to cases I _aan
which Pia rests upon dyaov 7, and both will immediatel_dilly
see that the doctrine @s def td B�ATIOv Kat’ apeTHy Apyew Kemmen}

deozrotew includes just so much of their respective theories =amms

has a solid foundation. |

(2) IV (VII) 16, 1885a 32—34.

re Se %) Siadoyy tav T�xvwv Tois wey apyouevns �ot—at
Ths axuhs �av yivntat Kata doyov evOrs y�veots, Teis
d� 48n Katadedup�vns THs HAtKias Tpds Tov TaV �BSopnKO —TA
�rav aptOucv. As my interpretation of this passage appeam— Ts
to be novel, it may be worth while to put it on record.
At the beginning of the chapter (1834b 32 sgq.) Aristo7ai&-le
has said that in framing regulations about marria 3�
the legislator should take three things into account: (i) t he
ages of the man and the woman should be such that th �my
shall simultaneously reach the rT�dos rHv yevrjoews,— a
other words, should be such that, when the man is sevent—J:
the woman shall be about fifty; (ii) regard should be ha=d
to the duadoy7 Trav r�xvwv; i.e. there should not be too gree
a disparity of age between father and children, lest tH —�
father should have no comfort from the children, and t=
children no protection from the father; nor yet too great 4
parity, lest familiarity should breed contempt; (iii) in orda=*
that the children may be strong and healthy, the parents 46
the time of procreation should not be immature. Now nm Y
scheme, Aristotle continues, which provides that marrace@
shall take place between a man of 37 and a woman of Mt
(1335b 28), and that procreation shall cease when the mas-™*
is 54 or 55 (1335a 35), satisfies each of the three conditios 4 �
laid down above: for, (iii) the period of procreation, whic—=
lasts for the man from 37 to 54 or 55, and for the wome==™ =
from 18 to 35 or 86, falls within the years of the dau of ti �
body (1335a 80); (i) there is a disparity of nineteen yeam—
between husband dnd wife, so’ that when the woman is 50 <<—*


further step that superiority in dpery is no title to rule, an
extreme view that does not seem to have been often taken.
Y is driven to assert the justice of all slavery and to mention
as his dikavov that might is right (rd Tov xpe/rtova dpyeww).
This then is the entanglement which Aristotle seeks to clear
up, and which consists in the two parties being misled
through acquiescence in the same fallacy into supposing that
their theories are inconsistent and upholding without necessity
contradictory propositions. In elucidating the confusion
Aristotle points out the external facts which have given
occasion to it. These are twofold, one which appeals more
directly to the champions of slavery, viz. that dpery, if
supplied with external appliances, is most of all capable of
applying force effectually, and another appealing chiefly to
its opponents, that force is never employed except by the
possessor of some advantage (a@yafov), This mode of dealing
with a question, viz. of first pointing out in what an error
consists, and then what is the extrinsic cause of men falling
into it, may be compared with that adopted in ch. 9, where
the same word �va\\drrev occurs. In �� 14 sqq. Aristotle is
explaining why it is that people suppose that the acquisition
of wealth is without limits, odd�v wAovTou t�pas; and he first
gives the trap into which they fall. This is to cuveyyvs
avrop, (i.e. the proximity of both kinds of ypnyatiote�y, the
natural and unnatural,) �7raXXdarree yap } Yphows ToD avToD
oUoa ExaTepa THs Yenuatiotixys, in other words, the fact
that the practical applications of the two kinds of ypnuatie-
Tix overlap or cross through being concerned with the same
article, This is the external cause of error. In �16 he
gives the reason why men fall into it, aitiov 6€ Tavrns THs
diabl�cews (Viz. ToD diaTeNeLv 7) cwley olopevor dey 4 aveEew THY
Tov vouicparos eis azretpov), he says, To orrovdatew tept To Gay
ara ay TO ed Gv... . door Se nal rod ed Cv �ariBddrovrat,
TO Tpos Tas adtoNavces Tas cwpuaTiKkas CnTodaw, War’ ered
cal tobr’ �v TH KTHoE palverat irdpyew, aca 1 SiaTpLySy
Tepl TOY YpHwaTicpov �ott Kal TO Erepo eldos THs YpnwaTic=
Tuchs dia Tovr’ �edjdvbev. It may be added that, just as here
two ypyceis erraAdatTovew because they have the same object


less familiar form oyoxdzrovs than opuoxdrrovs from it, and
furthermore the desire to get a word adapted to hexameter
metre would tend to its introduction into the text. That
however xamrvds can be taken as equivalent to �oria is more
than doubtful, when we remember the strong religious feeling
for the hearth in early times. The word is evidently meant
to express the same idea as the duocimvor of Charondas,
which means people having a common store of food. I
would therefore propose to read the word as opoxamou,
with the penult long, taking it as the Doric form of opoxrprow,
meaning those who have a common plot of ground. What
is more likely than to have a Doric form from the Cretan
Epimenides ? In this case 6uoclmvos and opoxarros represent
exactly the same idea regarded from slightly different pomts
of view. duoxamrot implies a common piece of land to furnish
food, Gpocimvot a common store of the food produced by that
land, just as in 11. 5, 5, we read of a common ynmeday, and 4
common xaprds. It would appear that the stage of social
development implied in this passage is what is known a8
the Joint Family of the Hindus. There we find, as Sir H.
Maine tells us, that the proceeds of the undivided property
must be brought into the common chest or purse.!

Aristotle then goes on to say that the village is composed
of several families, and states that the coun is xatd guow
as it were an droixia of the oixia. This represents the fully
developed village community as in Russia. The words eat?
dvow refer to their having a common ancestry, just as all
the Russian peasants of the same village believe in theif
common ancestry.

Here I must dissent from Mr. Heitland’s expungement of
dqroucia, and from his reading dm oixias. For we should
rather expect yiyveoOau �x than elvas azo, (cf. 1. 6, 2, 1255),
1; vir. 3, 10, 1808a, 26); and (2) Aristotle does 00
explicitly say that the village is an dazrouxia, but that it
resembles one (�otxe). It may be worth pointing out the wot

1 For further illustration �f. L. H. Morgan, Ancient Society, pp. 69-70
ae ae | (the Iroquois) cultivated maize, beans, squashes and tobacco in =

.... Lhey constructed long ; oint tenement houses, large enough to cont
five, ten, and twenty families, and each family practised communism in living -


TaT�pa Ws VIaV 7) VioV WS TATPOS, 7 @s GdeAgors GAAHAwY. The
difficulty here is how to manage Ty oixeornta and. diadpor-
tigev. Susemihl and others take it as a loose accusative;
others propose xara for xat before tv, and make zrat�pa ete.
the subject of dsadporrifev. Congreve governs the accusative
oixetorntra by Sadpovtifew, and then proceeds as Susemihl,
making d:adpovritew change its construction suddenly and
take a genitive. Furthermore, why have we as before the
viav and matpos? May it not be better to govern oixewryta
by Svadpovritey, as Congreve does; but, then, instead of
changing the construction, let us regard 4 mar�pa, etc., 38
exegetical of the wide term oixedTns, in which case I would
construe somewhat thus: “So the result is that in such s
constitution as Plato’s, least of all is it necessary to have
regard for the mutual family feelings implied in these names
(of father and son), namely, father in relation to son, or 4 602
in relation to father, or brothers with their correlative
brothers.” Aristotle wants to show that the relations implied
by such relative terms as father, son, brother, will disappear.
For such an expression a8 7aTnp @s viod, We may compare
Aristotle’s term for a logical species, eidos as ty�vous, that isan
eldos viewed in relation to a genus; cf. Met. x. � 10798, 34,
and tapias ws -kowov in Pol. virt. 11, 18146, 17, Gras te
abr�v trapackevdtew pvraxa nal tapiav ds Kowvav GM
py &s iSiwv. In any case I would alter the position of the os
which stands before ddcAgovs, and place it before dAAn\wv-
For dvadpovrifew with an accusative, cf. Hippoc. Aer. 280-
ir. 5, 22, 1264a, 34. dGAXA word wArov eixds elvas yadeTOUS
Kal dpovnuatav wAnpes 7 Tas wap’ �vlots eldwTelas TE cat
meveateias kai Sovreias. The words xal dovreias are obnoxi02�
to many editors for no just cause. Susemihl is inclined �
eject them. Schneider reads zreptoixias, Schmidt proles:
which means a class of Cretan serfs. Now Thue. v. 22
gives the name dovAeia to the Helot population of Sparte�-
By the word Sovdeias here Ar. means the serf populatior� *
of states like Argos and Crete, which were called Tupvjor
at Argos, and ’Adapiora, or “Apdapidrar at Crete.

i. 7, 15, 1267a, 26. ot & �yovres dutvew ov Svvnowte™


long time, there had been no opportunity for Helots acquiring
their freedom. This-implies that they were only a temporary
class on the way to full citizenship. Such a system would
prevent the very evil pointed out by Ar. here, dAvyav@p@ria
ToAeuotvT@y tok ypovov. Now it was quite natural that
Sparta when, after overthrowing Athens, she arrived at
the zenith of her power, would be very jealous of admitting
nout homines amongst her citizens. As a caste grows weaker,
it grows prouder, and it is to the abandonment of this
custom, still in vogue in the Peloponnesian War, that
Aristotle refers.

11. 9, 20, 12705, 13. In the sentence xai Sua rd Thy apyny
elvat Alay peyadnv Kai icor�pavvoy Snuaywyeiv avtovs tvaryKa-
fovro kat ot Bacidreis etc., I would alter adtods to avrol.
Susemihl reads avrovs nvayxatov Kal tovs Bacideis. The
corruption arose from a scribe thinking that it was necessary
to have an object for dyuayeyeiv, which is quite unnecessary,
as may be seen from vir. 11.

The kings were driven to try and outbid the Ephors with
the people, and by this surrender of their dignity, the trans-
ition to Democracy was precipitated. If the kings had tried
to curry favour with the Ephors, it could have only been
for the purpose of maintaining their own prerogatives, which
clearly is not Aristotle’s meaning.

11. 10, 6, 1272a, 10. �xkrnolas b� wer�youer mavres xupia &
ovdevos oT GAX’ 4H cuverriyyndica: Ta SoEavra Trois y�pouet Kab
rots Koopots. Susemihl, L. and 8., and Congreve all render
cuveriwendicat, “to joi in ratifying a law.’ To make his
meaning clear, Susemihl adds in parenthesis oder su verwerjen.
Now the verb erundige is the word specially used of putting
a question to the vote and is never found in the sense of
ratifying in the active until Dionysius of Halicarnassus. By
the compound verb here, Aristotle wants to show how utterly
powerless the ecclesia was in Crete. They have not even
the power of ratifying the decrees of the gerousia and xoapou,
but simply, as the French say, assistent at the promulgation
of the decrees without any power of rejection as Susemihl
supposes. The cvvy means that they are simply powerless
adjuncts to the putting of the question by the xoopor.


En vin. 1. Stay �eripndityras apy tis, the simple verb
�ninnpifew is used passively, is put to the vote, where L. and
S. wrongly take it as ratified.

m1. 12, 7, 1274a, 29. Oddrnros 8 dxpoatny AuKoidpyov
scat ZaNeveov K.T.X.

To the arguments advanced against the genuineness of this
entire chapter by Gottling, and by Susemihl and others
against all of it from vopyob�ra: & �y�vovro to the end, I
would add one derived from the fact that here we have
OcdArros as the form of the genitive, whilst in the assuredly
gemuine passage, 1. 11, 8, 1259a, 7—olov 76 Odrew Tod
M ernoiov—we have the Ionic genitive, Aristotle as elsewhere
using the proper dialectic form, cf. ouoxdzrovs supra, and
"A pyira, v. 5, 13406, 26, and the quotation from Alcaeus (111.
14, 10) rv xaxordrpida Tirraxov modews tas dy�dw Kal
BapuSaipovos �otdcavto tipavvov p�y’ �raiv�ovtes dodr�es.
Plato on the other hand regularly changes into Attic quota-
tions from other dialects, cf. Gorg. 485 �, 505 �, with Dr.

hompson’s note.

in. 2, 2, 1275, 26-30. Topyias p�v odv 6 Acovtivos, ta
H�v icws dropav 7a 8 cipwvevduevos, �n, xabdarep Sdpmous
€lvay rods id Tov ShuoTroLeV Treromp�vous, oftw Kab Aapt-
_Sadous tovs id tav Snuvovpyav tremomp�vous, elvat yap Tivas
Aapicorowts. Commentators since Schneider, not content
With the double meaning of Syusovpyol, have striven to force
� double meaning on Aapicaiovs, and L. and S. from this
Passage alone give Aapicaios=“ a kettle.”

The object of this note is (1.) to examine the evidence for
this view, (11.) to show that the words eva yap tivas Aapt-
Foz7rowvs (NapicaioTrocovs Camerarius) are an interpolation.

‘With reference to the first, (a) the point of the comparison
les between Gduous and Aapicalovs—Kabdrep . . . obta.
Why drag in another comparison which leaves the original
�me out in the cold? (6) What are the data for (a) the �
�Xistence of vessels made at Larisa and deriving a name
from thence, (8) for determining the form of that name ?

(a’). The existence of such vessels is proved by the line

Tos Aapioaiws Kuroyaotopas �rntijpas.
Leonidas Tarent. (Anth. Pal. v1. 305).


(@’) Our data for determining the form of the name are,
(i) The line just quoted, (ii) Xapscomrovovs, MSS. Pol. Zc. (ii)
Tdvaypa=a copper kettle, (Hesych.) ; Tavarypis, Pollux, 10.
156; (iv) The supposed play on Aapicaiov;, lc.

With reference to (i), observe that Aapicaios is not used
as a noun, but is only the adjective with �yyrjp; with
reference to (ii) Xapicorroos can only=a Jarisa-maker, not 4
larisasan-maker ; (iii) on the analogy of tdvaypa, Tavayps,
we should expect Adpica, Aapicis; (iv) Dr. Thompson
justly remarks that “it seems unlikely that Aapicaios without
a substantive would have suggested any other notion but
that of a man of Larisa” (Gorg. p. 180). These considera-
tions make it very improbable that Aapicaios was the name of
a kind of vessel, but make it slightly probable that some such
vessel was called a Adpica. If this inference is correct, the
double-barrelled joke is exploded.

Now I come to the second object of my note. Let us turn
the bon mot of Gorgias from the indirect narration into his
actual words, viz. :—�a0dep Odpmos cio ly of bard TeV OAporTroln
TeTrotnu�evot, ovtw xat Aapicaio. of tro taV Snusoupywv
TeTronevot, etal yap tives NapicoTrotol. Now notice (a) that
Gorgias is not content with his jest, but he must needs add
its interpretation, for the words elvas ydp Tivas AapiooT ows
depend on �n, whilst Aristotle resumes his own discourse
with �o7. 8’ dmdobdv ; (b) that the comparison is between
dAmous and oAporomv (xabdmep) and Aapicaiovs and dq
oupyav (obtw cal). The Sdmor are a main constituent, and
no interpretation which throws them into the background
can be right. A gloss-writer, perhaps not understanding
that the point of the jest lay in the double meaning o
Snusoupyds (both magistrate, and mechanic), and who knew of
the manufacture of some kind of hardware at Larisa, ano
perceived that Gorgias evidently alluded to the existence �
some such manufacture there, wrote an explanatory note to th
effect that there was a class of artizans called Jarisa-maker=™
which subsequently was put into the text. The point of th --
jest is that Larisaean citizens were manufactured just lik
(Larisaean) 6Ayor, and the agreement in gender of ddpou™


and Aapicalous lends force to the allusion. Thus we both
preserve the reference to the peculiar industry of Larisa,
and give due prominence to the important word dAous,
which is utterly ignored by Schneider’s explanation. The
only illustration I can think of for the joke is that similarly
it might be remarked of Sheffield that the Master-Cutler
(Snpcoupyos) manufactures cutlers, just as blade-makers manu-
facture blades. I have retained Aapicozroiovs, the reading
of the MSS., as preferable on critical grounds. If Aapi-
gatoTrovovs was the genuine reading, it would be patent that
the gloss-writer understanding. (as ‘did likewise all the early
commentators) Syusoupyot in the sense of mechanics only,
proceeded to explain it by making a compound of Aapucaios,
and rosety to correspond to �6Amomows. If what I have
said with reference to the importance of dAmous is correct,
the correction capicotroiovs, ascribed to Victorius by Eaton,
may be discarded. I may add that William translates by
Larisso-factivos showing that his MS. read Aapicozracovs.

in reference to this passage it is worth quoting a few lines
from the great Larisaean inscription recently found by H. G.
Lolling, and published by him in the Mittheilungen des
deutschen archdologischen Instituts in Athen vit. 61 seqq., and
also by Th. Mommsen in Hermes (1882), xvut. 467 seqq.
PadiEap�vas Tas Todos yadiopa TO wrroyeypappevov IIa-
vdppoe Ta Extra er ixads cdveretos (-To. Mommsen) yevop�vas
a@yopavop�vtovy tovv Tayouv wavrovy Puidtairot Tot Bacidevos
ypdupata m�uxpavros tot TOs Tayos Kal Tay Tod, Sie Kl
Tlerpaios xai "Avdyxirios kat ‘Aptotovoos, ovs (=as) at Tas
mpeaBeias ey�vov0o, evepaviocoer avtou, ToK Ki Kal a dpp�ovv
p�orrodt xe ovv Kal �r�pos �rrivocicoupey a&ios ToL Tap Gupe
MONLTEULATOS ET TOL TrapEeovTOS Kpevvewev radi~acBew Gype,
8 Ke TOUS KaToLK�vTEegoL Trap Gppe IlerO[ a |Aodv (= Oeacadwv):
kat Tov addXovv ‘EdXdvovv Sobet a troduTeia.
' It contains two letters from Philip V. of Macedon. The
date is 214 B.c. The following points may be noticed: (1) It
is conclusive in favour of the spelling. Larisa. (2) The cause
9f the deficiency of population is given. (3) The kind of


of the story of Hannibal sending by his brother Mago the
rings of the Roman equites, as told by Livy, xxu1.12? “ad
fidem deinde tam laetarum rerum, effundi in uestibulo curiae
iussit (Mago) annulos aureos, qui tantus aceruus fuit, ut
metientibus dimidium super tres modios explesse sint quidam
auctores. fama tenuit, quae propior uero est, haud plus
fuisse modiv. adiecit deinde uerbis, quo maioris cladis
iudicium esset, neminem, nisi aqaiten; atque eorum re
primores, id gerere insigne.”’ From this Cart

custom Hannibal thought that the rings would be the bork
way of proving to the One Hundred that the flower of the
Roman army had been annihilated. Mago’s statement about
the equites may be’only the addition of a Roman, who was
ignorant of this custom at Carthage,

iv, 8, 3, 13284, 30. �rav & 7 7d wey TovTou Evexey TO Se oF
Evexev, ovdev ev ye TovTOLs Kotwov aX’ 7) TO ev Trooas TO OE
NaBetv x.r.r. Here Mr. Postgate, to whose general treat-
ment of this difficult passage I give my adherence, changes
AaBeiv to wafeiv. It does not seem likely that wa@eiv, the
natural word to use, would be ousted by AaSeiv. Further-
more, this use of Aafeiv, said of the thing acted upon,
in antithesis to moeiv, can be supported by Plato Apol.
25 E, �yw d� 67 eis tocotrov apablias he, wate Kal TOUT’
@yvo�, ott �dv Twa poxOnpov Ton ce Tov EvvorTwr, Kiwdvvetoa
Kaxov Tt NaBetv an’ avtov.

tv. 11, 5, 1330), 4. tdarev &@ cal vaydrov padiora pev
Urdpyew mAHGos oixetov, ef S� uj, TodTO ye ebpntar dia ToD
KatacKevatew vrroboyas ouBpiow tdacw apOovevs kal peyadas,
wate pnd�Trore UirodciTrew Eipyouevous THs ywpas Sua TONEMOV.
Bekker after Coraes reads �mu\eitrerv. Madvig turns etpyope-
vous into eipyou�vors. Susemihl is right in saying that both
are unnecessary, but wrong in saying in the index to his
third edition that t7o)e/7recy is intransitive, doubtless taking
eipyou�vous as its subject. wddara is rather the natural
subject—that water may never fail them, and that this is
Aristotle’s regular use of the verb is plain from Rhet. 1. 13,
20, Urrodeiron yap av 6 aiwv Siapiuodytra ; and again Rhet.,
m1. 17, 21, ody dsrodelzrer adTov 6 Noyos.


Fallow field), But the lexicons show no trace of a word ve�=
#iouale, although 7 ves is found (ef. vetoia Rafeins, IL x.
=355, and 2 veds is used in Attic Greek. In any case the
<shange is unnecessary, as dAo� is used in this connexion,
<f. Eur. Phoen. 18, cveipew t�xvav adroxa, and Soph. Oed.
"Tyr. 1210, watpaat adoxes. For a very similar metaphor
“we may compare the oracle given in Pausanias 1x, 37, 4.
@)Gorts (sc. “Epyivw) �s Aeddods wal �powerm mepl rraidwv
pa tade 7 ITIvGia.

*Epyive, Kivp�voio rai IperBaviadao,
ovr’ HArGes yeveny Sitjpevos, ANN’ Ere Kal viv
iatoPBoni y�povre v�ny motiBadhe Kopovny.

(There is doubtless the same play on xopwvny here, as in the
-well-known line �xxoper Koper Kopwvny, civ Kopois Te Kab
wcopais with which may likewise be compared the Hesiodic
fragment, �r’ dp’ “Ioyus �ynue Kopwriv. vide Donaldson’s
Pindar Pyth i. 15).

Iv, 16,9, 13354, 28. i tas p�v dpworrer epi tiv Tav
@xKTwxaidexa �Tav aAkiay avtevyivat, trols 8 �mta Kal
—zpiixovra [x pixpov|. �v roco’Tm yap axudtovci te Tois
=xopact cvleviu �orat, Kal mpos Tiv TWadXNav Tis TexvoTOLias
<vyKaTaBijcetac Tois ypovois evxaipws ete d� 7) Stadoyyn Tov
~Texvev Tois jev apyoerns (apyopevors IT") Errac tis apis, eav
wyivntat ard Noyor evOds 7) y�vvnats Tots bE On KaTaXEdULEVNS
—Tijs Wikias Tpos Tov TOV EBdSouyKovTa �r@v aptOuov. The words
3) Siaboyn Tay T�xvwy x.7T.., have always been a difficulty.
Wongreve says Trois p�v, sc. toils T�xvois, Tois S�, 8c. Tois
“yoveicot. Susemihl does not offer any explanation, Now
the whole passage deals with the adjustment of the ages of
the sexes. Ar. taking as his point of departure the syn-
�chronous cessation of fertility in the man and woman, strives
to adjust their ages in such a way that their offspring may
be as vigorous as possible both men�al/y and physically. He
cannot let the men marry before 37, for (a) the women would
be under eighteen, and too weak to be mothers, and (/) the
men would not be in their �n/e//ectual prime which is at 49;
Ghdthets a1, 24, 13900; 9, deudta 88 73 uty capa dd Tov

VOL, II 10


words prevents us explaining tois m\eioTous as epexegetical of
araow. Aristotle is dealing with the case of doxnots. What
is the material on which the doxntns works? Surely:
aratoes. Therefore read vravoiv; and for form of phrase cf.
tats wAclotas rorect below, 12898, 17, and 1295a, 25, ris &”
apioTn TodtTelia, Kab Tis Apiotos Blos Ta�s TAEioTais TOAEoL
aat Tos TrEiaTaLs T�V avOperTrwY.

vi. 1, 6, 1289a, 2. yp S� rovavrny eionyeicOas thew Av
padios �x tav trapyovedy Kal mecOnocovta Kal Svvyjcovta
acevety, �.7.X. Susemihl and Madvig think �cvety is corrupt.
The former proposed xtyeiy (which he has now given ‘up)
influenced by William’s prosequi, and recipere of Aretinus. In
his third edition he suggests, doubtfully, either �xpivesy or
watacKevafery. Madvig proposes either xasvodv or xaworopelv.
That alteration is needless, and that �ivety is used by Aristotle
in the sense needed here, cf. 1804a, 39, 1298a, 38, and also
ai xwyoes, 138008, 38.

vi. 4, 25, 12924, 6. rovro S� ylveras Stay Ta Whdlopata
AUpLA 7 GAG pr) 6 vopos. oupBalver 88 TodTo 8a Tors Snua-
ywyous. �v p�v yap Tals Kata vowov Snwoxparoup�vass ov
ryiveras Snuaywyos, GAN ot B�XticTOL THY TrodTOY Eioly ev
arpoedpia: Strov 8� ol vomot wy evot KUpLoL, �vradOa ylvovtat Sn-
payoyol. On this Congreve remarks :—‘‘ This seems an odd
remark with the history of Greece such as we have it. It seems
to require the attaching a rather limited sense to the term
Snpayeryos, not such as would have been attached to it in any
Greek state by the party which would have claimed to be ot
B�Attcto. Tay ToNTav. We require a more extended ac-
quaintance with the internal workings of other Greek
democracies to estimate the remark. Athens is, in fact, the
only one which we can fairly judge of, and it is not true of
Athens. The Athenian democracy was eminently legal and
constitutional, and yet there were demagogues in the ordinary
sense, and there, as well as everywhere else,—in fact, it is a
necessity of government,—yndicpara were frequent, without
superseding the real efficacy of law.” As regards what sense
the of B�dtistos THv TodTav Would have attached to the
word dnuaywy�s, I am unable to speak, but surely it is


here used by Aristotle in the sense which he attaches to it
everywhere in the Politics.- y-y�/cuara are certainly necessary,
but not such outrageous yry�/cuaTa as were proposed by the
Snuaywryol, and ratified by the people at the so-called trial of
the Six Generals. Such is the state of things that Aristotle
has in view, when the people, instead of adhering to the way
provided by the laws for dealing with any matter, eagerly
catch at the proposal of any “ decree-monger” under the
passions and whims of the moment. It was to provide
against this danger that ypad7 wapavduer was constituted at
Athens; but, in the case of the Generals, the ypad1 wapa-
vowwv itself was flung aside (vide Curtius’s Greek History,
ut, 510). In fact, the mongering of novel decrees was
evidently so part and parcel of the d�nuaywyds in what I take
to be the ordinary meaning of the term, that Aristophanes
introduces the yrndicpatoTm@dns as a dramatis persona in the
Birds, 1035, seg. Most persons will be inclined, I fancy, to
admit that the decrees dealing with the Six Generals
‘superseded the efficacy of law.”

VI. 7, 1, 12984, 39. m�umrtn 8 �otly i) wpocwyopeveras
Td Kowov dvoua Tracdy (moAtTeiay yap Kadodcw) GAAa
Sut TO py ToddaKis ylverOas DAavOdver Tors TELp@pevous
dpili uci Ta Tov TodLTELaY elon Kal ypavTaL Tais T�TTAapaet
povov, womep IIkatwv �v tals wodvtefats. Susemihl charges
Aristotle with inaccuracy in this assertion, on the grounds
that Plato called his ideal state dpsoroxparia, like Aristotle
himself; and that Plato uses tipoxpatia to express what
Aristotle divides into improper aristocracy and zo\sreva,
Plato, in Rep. 544 p. seqg., is consistent in keeping the term
apiotoxparia for the ideal state; so he is therefore driven to
use such terms as o cata tiv Aaxwvixny TodsTelav, 9 diAo~
Tijos TOALTELA,—Ovoma yap OUK Exw eyOouEvoY GAO" 7} TYMOK-
patiay 7 Tiwapxiay aut KAnt�ov. Aristotle escapes this
difficulty by the phrase of 7 xadoup�vn apictoxpatia, He is
here simply dealing with actually existing forms of goyern-
ment, and is quite justified in thus dealing with Plato’s
division of actual governments.

vi, 12990, c. 15, �8. ov yap eurodiodow addjAals, Kal


tators have taken these sentences as if there was no difference’ - �.
between dvaypddew and �yypddev, avaypapy and �yypady. — 5
This is quite incorrect. By dvaypdpeoOat, dvarypady, Aristotle,
refers toa registration of deeds and of decisions in purely civi__|
cases, as is plain from the passage I first quoted, and fromm
avaypadas cuvadrAaypatov in � 22. �yypadew on the othae =
hand is the regular word used of the register of state debtor— a
in the Acropolis, for which cf. Plat. Legg 784 D. Demosttam.
1074, �yypadeoOas rois mrpaxtopow, and again �yyeypappeces
�v Th axpotroAe, Demosth. 771, 6.

vi. 10, 16, 18116, 3. �ab 4 (�ribects) Tod ebvotlya~ DY
Evayspa 76 Kirpig: Sid yap 76 Thy yuvaixa traped�cOa, Ta”
vioy avTov amr�xtewev as UBpispevos. Some commentators,
puzzled at a married eunuch, proposed to read Evvodyos @-S
@ proper name, but unfortunately his name is given @S
Thrasydaeus by Theopompus, Frag.111. That such, however�
was by no means uncommon, it is sufficient to quote the cas�&
of Potiphar (Genesis xxxvii. 36), where the Septuagim �
version states, of 5� MaSinvaios drr�Sovto tov ’Iwand Ietepp Zz
T@� omddovt. Dapawm apyxtpayeipp. Again, Montesquiers
Esprit des Lois, xv. 19, says: ‘“ Au Tonquin, dit Dampier�
tous les Mandarins civils et militaires sont eunuques. L�
m�me Dampier nous dit que dans ce pays les eunuques n�&
peuvent se passer de femmes et qu’ils se marient.”’

Juvenal (1. 22), alludes to the same custom.

cum tener uxorem ducat spado, Maeuia Tuscum
figat aprum cett.

vit. (v). 11, 31, 1315a, 29. ddedas yap �avtadv �youse #
ot Sia Oupov �miyerpodvtes, xaOdrep nat ‘Hpdxdeltos elra=>
Xarerov ddckwy eivar Ouud pdyecOa, uyns yap wvreicla—m-
Aristotle evidently means to paraphrase yuyjs wvetcOat b> _—Y
agedas �avtav �yovow ; this sense however it is difficult &—�
get out of @veicOat, which furthermore is sadly in lack of a—
object. If we read the good Ionic word �vecOas, it give==5
exactly the sense required, “for they despise, make light c=2
their life.’ For �vec@ae with the genitive cf.'Od. v 37
Copyists would easily have mistaken a word unknown 1—™
Attic, especially too as �fwveicfar occurs some half doze =








Thursday, February 10. Ata meeting held in St. John’s
College, the President, Professor Mayor, in the Chair, the
following new members were elected :
Rev. E. W. Blore, M.A., Trinity College.
Rev. James Mayo, B.D., Trinity College.

_Mr. Gow communicated a note on Propertius 1 2. 3, 4

cur haec in terris facies humana moratur ?
Tuppiter, ignoro pristina furta tua.

‘The pentameter only requires a note of interrogation at
tia � end to make it intelligible. “Am I ignorant of your old
&-@erours, Jupiter?” is Propertius’ way of saying, ‘“ Were
‘Kx ose amours realities?’? The argument is that Jupiter’s
= Wdowing Cynthia to remain on earth among men (Aumana)

18 a reason for doubting the truth of the stories of his attach-
Ment to the heroines of old.

Mr. Maenisson read a few notes “On ei as an Umlaut
OF & in Icelandic.”

There were certain cases in which e did occur as an
Wndoubted derivative of d by no other conceivable process
than that of umiaut. In these cases the nature of the


the intelligence of the toilers of the deep had unravelled the
mystery of the sail. Immediately that. great discovery in
maritime science was made, to sai/ became the general word
for moving in ships over water, while betta naturally would
be a special term for that manifestation of the progress
known as beating or tacking, which was easily and
cunningly performed by the familiar oar, but could not,
or at least only with difficulty, be executed by the newly-
invented unmanageable square sail. |

Vevsr, a catch, Mr. Magnisson derived from od% a “net;
where the d% corresponded to and in Germ. wand (Gewand,
etc.). Lexicographers derived it from German Weide,
pasture; the connexion between animal and pasture was in
many cases obvious, but in none such as to warrant the
assumption of the two words standing in the relation of
& primitive and derivative to each other. VerSr,=the act
of netting, as well as that which is netted, a catch, agreed
thoroughly with primitive methods of hunting. By further
examples Mr. Magniasson illustrated the d-ei Umlaut, con-
cluding by observing that a further investigation into this
chapter of Icelandic etymology could not fail to be pro
ductive of results which bore importantly on Teutonic
philology in general.

Prof. SkEat, in agreeing with these derivations, observed
that for ve’Sr—fishing, the English had an equivalent im
waith, e.g. in Wallace. He caught some fish: some English-
men came to him and demanded a share, saying, “ Waith suld
be delt, in all place, with fre hart.” Wallace, 6. 1, 1. 386.

Mr. RincEway read a paper on �ppew in Homer and 82
Olympian Inscription.!

He showed that lexicographers, being led astray by the
peculiar Attic usage of opev in a bad sense, had endeavou
to force a like sense on all the passages in Homer where it 3
found. He maintained that, wherever it does bear such a sen 8�
it is closely joined to some qualifying word, e.g. Od. Iv 36%

1 Journal of Philology, vol. xii. p. 32 (1883).


was condemned, he became a servant of the offended god, and
could only be ransomed by paying a heavy sum, and which
had jurisdiction over the Sacred lands, of which Deucalion
was a tenant) unless the people should make a decree.” The

whole of the document is thus made to refer to Deucalion
and the Chaladrians.

Thursday, March 10. At a meeting held in St. John’s
College, the President, Professor Mayor, in the Chair, the
following new members were elected :

A. H. Cooke, Esq., B.A., King’s College,
Professor A. Palmer, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin.

' The following were elected honorary members :
Professor G. G. Cobet, Leyden.
Professor G. Curtius, Leipzig.
Professor K. Halm, Munich.
Professoy J. Zupitza, Berlin.

The Secretary read a paper by Professor KEnnepy 00
Sophocles Oedipus Tyrannus 328, 329.

‘The seer Teiresias, refusing to disclose to king Oedipus
and his councillors the terrible secret which he knows, says
| eye 8 od pun) Tore

Tau ws dy eit py Tao Expnva KaKd.
Ocd. T. 328-9.

The first thing which occurs here is that ov pq mote
requires an aorist subjunctive; this cannot be �xdyve, which
with 7) means Jest I disclose. It must then be elrw; and it
is elrw. But what of ds dv which also demands a subjunctive!
Can elzrw suffice for the two? Surely it must; but how expla
this? Here lies the difficulty. What help does context give!
Let us see. Taya my things, and ta od your things, are in
manifest antithesis. This indicates that xaxd is not to
treated as a substantive, but as an adjective: ‘ lest I disc 2
your things (to be) evil.’ �xdyjvw has for its correspond128
word cizw, but �xaxd has no correspondence. Can W��

1881 MARCH 10. SOPHOCLES OED. 7. 328, 9. 163

supply one by the remaining phrase as dv (el7rw)P Yes, I
answer, we can. ‘Teiresias characterises the conditions in
which Oedipus stands (ra od) as xaxd. So much he lets out:
but for the present he delicately refrains from characterising
his own conditions (i.e. the secret confided to him by heaven)
as ayaa fraught with good to Thebes by terminating the
pestilence. Therefore, instead of an epithet to taya, he
interposes as av (elzrw) however I may call them (whatever
they may deserve to be called). This, I doubt not, is the
true meaning : ‘ I will never speak my things, call them what I
may, lest I disclose your things as evil.’ Examples of this use
of ws av are: Hom. Il. u 189 as av �yov elo Twedapcla
mavres. Soph. Ay. 1369 as av roinons, tavtayod ypnoros
y �cer. Dem. de Cor. 292 70 r�pas, as av o daipwv BovrAnO7
TAVTW@V yiyveTat.

With this interpretation may be compared the treatment
of this passage by the late Mr. Linwood, an excellent scholar.

He emends it thus

Tavres yap ov ppoveir’� �yw 8’ ob wy Tote
Tay ws dv eitev un Tao �exdnvo KaKd.
His notes (Theban Trilogy, 1878) are:
“Ov dpoveire are not wise, �yw & ob uy tote sc. ov Ppovica,
but never will I be so.

tap —xaxa. That I may not, by divulging what I would
say (Ta �ud), bring your misfortunes to light.”

(1) My interpretation leaves the MS. text unchanged,
and explains so as to give the particles ws ay (jointly) a
virtually adverbial force, reposing on the ellipse of cia,
howsoever (I may call them). Mr. Linwood doubly emends,
by his colon after zror�, and by edzdv for eizra.

(2) As to Mr. Linwood’s explanation. If any scholars
are inclined to think such an ellipsis as od uy wrote od hpovycw
an any way tenable, I would remind them that od �poveire
here does not mean ‘ ye are unwise’ in our ordinary sense,
“ye judge wrongly’ or ‘ye act wrongly’; but simply ‘ye
do not know,’ ‘ ye are ignorant,’ as often: for instance 302.


dpovets ota voow Evvertiv. 569, �p’ ols yap pr ppova ovyay
dire. Teiresias does know, as he says above 316, dpoveiv as
Sewvov. It is therefore absurd to suppose him saying here:
‘I will (or shall) never not know, that I may not by divulg-
ing,’ etc. 7

(3) By this colon, the reading e/zrav, and the treatment of
xaxd as substantive (which I make a proleptic predicative

adjective), Linwood destroys the studied and fine antitheses
of the clauses—.,

ov pn | Taya | elrw as dy (elrw)
\ \ \ > V4 4
BN Ta oa | exhynve | Kaka.

(4) My present view (in which I rest with full assurance)
is the outcome of long mental incubation. I had myself
adopted eizav, but so as to supply from it el with od pq
mote. See Studia Sophoclea p. 62. This however equally
loses the exquisite antithetic construction.”

Prof. Mayor doubted the possibility of the ellipse of ee.

Mr. Pritz agreed with Dr. Kennedy’s translation of os
av and with the proposal to make xaxd a predicate.

Mr. Posteate thought it possible to adopt Dr. Kennedy’s
interpretation in the main, and to take u7—�xdyvw together
as one word ‘fail to disclose.’ For the use of ju) Plat.
Phaedr. 106 might be compared oyon7 yap dv Te dAXo pOopar
pn S�youro et TO ye ABdvarov aidtov bv POopav d�Eerar (compare
also Ar. Ran. 42 od rot, wa thv Anpntpa, Sivapyas ph yedav):
The sense would then be that, however Teir. might expre*
the secrets entrusted to him, he would be forced (hence tb?

strong double negative) to reveal the dreadful truth abou

Mr. VERRALL read the following notes:
** Lend me your ear,” in Aristophanes.

The Scholiast upon Ar. Av. 1647,
Sedp ws eu’ atroya�pnoov iva Ti cou Neyo,
cites as a parallel Eur. Jon, 1521,

Sedp” EXO’: �s ods ydp cot Noryous eizreiy O�deo.


Considering the rarity of such illustrations in the Scholia
and the simplicity of the line to which the note is appended,
it is difficult to see the occasion or point of the citation.
This difficulty would disappear if the text of Aristophanes
were slightly modified thus:

Sedp’ ods euarroxpnooy iva rl cot Neyo.
Come, lend me your ear that I may speak a word tn it.

Here there is @ peculiar expression calling for notice ; and
the line from Euripides offers a suitable paraphrase.

Note on the verb evOevetv.

This verb (connected, it is said, with the Sanskrit dhana,
wealth) is somewhat too largely defined in the Lexicon. It
does not mean, primarily at least, fo flourish, but to flourish
in a particular respect, namely, that of produce or offspring.
Good examples occur in two passages describing the blessings
conferred by the Eumenides, Aesch. Hum. 907: 7

kapTrov Te yaias Kal Botav �ripputov
aotoiow evdevodvra pun) Kapvew Ypdve,
and again, ibid. 944:
pnrd 7� evOevodovra ya
Eby Sumdolow �uBpvois

This primary use continues to have an important influence
upon the use of the word. It explains, for example, Dem.
F. L. 4138, rovs wev ypnuar’ eiknporas nal dopa. . . adbcicay
cal vooy �xew tryobvTo Kal THY ToL evOevetaBar Tov 5� KaTN-
yopoovra Ti; �uPeBpovrncbar, tTHv Todw ayvoeiy, K.T.. Here
the words t7v mow evOeveicbar should in some way be a
compliment to the Macedonian party. The common transla-
tion and that their country was flourishing is pointless. Trans-
late rather they acquitted them, thought them sensible men, and
the country happy in such children. It should be considered
whether this narrower meaning of ed@eveiy does not give the
fue explanation of the remaining example in Aeschylus

(Zum. 892 foll.):


XO. advaca’ ’A@ava, tlva p� bys eyew par ;
A�O. waons dmrnpov’ oifvos' S�xou 88 av.

XO. Kat 87 d�deypae? tis 5� wou Teun p�vet ;
A�. ws pn tw’ olxov evOevetv dvev a�ber.
XO. ov tovto mpdFeas, doTe we cH�very TOcov ;

897 AO. Te yap c�Bovts Evphopas dpPwcoper.

Following the analogy of the other two passages alrea cl-y
cited from the same play, we should suppose that the blessi 2 @
which the Eumenides were supposed to confer upon the houase
of their worshipper was not general prosperity, but the
special boon of offspring; and indeed a prerogative specia 1
and limited is implied by the word tiyy. If so, we must
render 897 accordingly: fuudopai signifies “ the deed Of
kind” (Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act m1 Sc. i.). That
such a meaning is possible is proved by Aristoph. Lysis€2~.

ov yap ovd�rroT evppavOncerat
aynp �av wn TH yuvarnl cupd�pn,
which is a jest upon Eur. Med. 12,
auTn Te wavra Evpd�povo’ ’Idcou
iprep peylotn yiyverat cwrnpla
Stay yuvn mpos avdpa py Styoorath.
(that is, in all things complying with Jason.)

Mr. Posteate read the following notes on Lucan, Booke *
(Messrs. Heitland and Haskins’ edition).

Lines 44, 45. multum Roma tamen debet ciuilibus armis
quod twbi res actast.

In these lines, which form part of a passage where Luce”
addresses the Emperor Nero in a strain of unrepublico#”
eulogy, it is much more in keeping with 88 sqq. quod si 7"
aliam uenturo fata Neroni inuenere uiam, etc. tam ni�s �
superi, querimur ; scelera ipsa nefasque hac mercede placent, eC”
to take res actast in the sense of actumst, “since it was �0!
thee that all was lost.” |


413 an sidere mota secundo
Tethyos unda uagae lunaribus aestuat horts.

Not by the ‘second’ planet, but through the ‘favourm ng
influence’ of the moon.

452, 453. sols nosse deos et caeli numina uobis
aut solis nescire datum.

The sense of these lines, which refer to the Druids, is
obscure. But it may be noted first that Weise’s wos aut sodi
nostis deos aut soli nescitis is far too obvious a truism to
have been intended by Lucan. And the passage quoted in
H. and H.’s notes, 3. 416 �antum terroribus addit quos timeant
non nosse deos is not in point. In nescire Lucan’s scepticism
peeps out. ‘You are the sole depositaries of all human
knowledge or rather of that ignorance which stands in its

453, 4. nemora alta remotis

incolitis lucis.

nemora are the open spaces, the glades surrounded by the
sacred trees. See Prop. 4 (5). 9. 24 ducus ubi umbroso fecerat
orbe nemus. (Compare my remarks on Jucus in the Tran-
sactions of the Philological Society (London), 1882-3-4,
Part I. p. 149.)

694 noua da mihi litora Ponti
telluremque nouam. utdi iam, Phoebe, Philippos.

It is incredible that Lucan should have thought Pharsalus
and Philippi were on the Black Sea. Besides da, as coD-
trasted with the indicatives adjoining, shows that something
is referred to that the prophetess does not see, but wishes t�
see. tam indicates a climax. This must be the battle �
Philippi which extinguished republican hopes. Read pont
with a small p. The sense is ‘Let us have a new ea
and sea. The last touch has been put to the pollution of th
old world.’


time of Plato. While not professing to have arrived at
any satisfactory view regarding the passage, he thought
that justice had hardly been done to the view put forward
by Mollweide, who holds that the question throughout deals
with the shape of the figures, not their size; that the problem
virtually is, ‘“‘ What sort of triangle is capable of being i-
scribed in a semicircle?” and that the answer given is that
this will be possible if the triangle is capable of being
divided into two triangles similar to the whole, since, under
these circumstances, and only under these circumstances,
will the triangle be a right-angled one. Though Benecke,
in his important tract on this passage, pours contempt on
this solution, it is a matter for argument whether the solu-
tion he himself proposes is not open to at least equal

Mr. Jackson argued that two similar triangles, e.g. the
triangles ADC, BAC in Euclid v1.8, could not be spoken of
as the same; and consequently that the words ef p�y �ott TobT0
To yewplov tovodTov, olov mapa thy Sobcicay avtod ypaypyv
Tapatewavta �ddelTrew TowovTm ywpiw, olov av avrd 1
qTapatetap�vov 7 could not, be rendered (as proposed by Moll-
weide and Mr. Thompson) ‘if the triangle BAC is of sucha
shape that when you apply 7 (i.e. not the triangle BAC, but
the similar triangle ADC) to the side AC, it (i.e. the triangle
ADC) falls short of i� (i.e. the whole triangle BAC) by another
similar triangle BDA.’ He understood the problem to be
‘to determine whether a triangle equal to a given square (i.
one of the squares mentioned at 82 B sqgq.) can be inscribed in
a given circle,’ and he thought that, whether zrapareive
meant ‘to extend’ or ‘to apply,’ Socrates’ conditional answef
was in effect ‘if the radius of the circle is equal to the side of
the square, a triangle equal to the square can be inscribed 1.
the circle.’

Mr. Hicks read the following observations on Cicer~@

- Academica 1 39—42:

Comprehensio xatadnis (to be distinguished from visuras
acceptum et approbatum � 41, which is more precisely xatakyr—


king’”’—and again, 1. 869, was xadov adedyoavras albray
yaln �€v addoddTn Onyv Eupevat; (two chieftains murmuring
together) ‘how is it right that we should linger on ina
foreign land, careless of the contests?’ Again, to illustrate
the author from himself, in the only other passage in which
he uses the verb adedeiv (Elect. 980, vpuyijs aedroarte
mpovotntny povov) “careless of” or “lavish of their lives”
we have exactly the same sense. He saw then no reason to
doubt the universal opinion, that the word here meant
‘to be careless of,’ which was the obvious sense required.

Secondly, to turn to the question of the reading. The
MSS. with one consent read the future optative, ddevdnoo.
The alteration to ddewdjoat, the so-called optative of “in-
definite frequency,’’ was obvious, but why then the consensus
of the MSS. the other way? Plainly we must keep adedjon
and seek an explanation of the future optative which would
be in keeping with its usage in Greek, viz. after a past tense,
representing the future of the oratio recta. This Mr. Fulford
saw; but his version was strange—“in order that one and
another might be unsparing of this toil ’—explaining e as=
el mws. But, as a matter of fact, this was no explanation at
all, simply because it did not make the clause part of oratto
obliqua, but merely a dependent final clause.

To illustrate the passage, he quoted O. T. 796, �devryo els
pnrrot’ ovroiuny, &c., which Mr. Cooke thought bore no like
ness whatever to the present case, except that it contained
the same tense.

There was, however, a very simple explanation of the
passage, which would be best seen by comparing Philoct. 376:

> A \ La me) tA va)
Kayo yorwUeis evdus Hpaccoy KaKois
* * * * .

Ei Tae Kelvos OTA’ ahaipnoolTo pe.
A clear parallel.

Now, recollecting the idiomatic usage of e�, not only aft—
Oavpdto, &rA@, �rawe, but also after dyavaxtd, oyeTuala
and the like, we translate this, “I assailed him with rm
proaches, that he should rob me of...,” the e� clause, in fa-—


word points back to some distant period when some cOr,
munication passed between these races by means of a
interpreter. It has nothing whatever to do with our worm
tell, of which the old meaning was simply to count ; cf. Russ
tolkovate, which means both ‘to interpret’ and ‘to talk.’

Wench is short for �wzenchel, which in Middle English
meant simply an infant, whether male or female, and is used
in the Ormulum with reference to the babe born at Bethlehem.
This has been pointed out before; but we may go further,
and observe that it is allied to A.-S. winclu, children, and
wancol, unsteady, tottering. The original sense is unsteady ;
and the reference is to the tottering gait of children learning
to walk. This explains its application to both sexes, whilst,
at the same time, the modern restriction of its application to
the weaker sex is not inappropriate.

Weary is A.-S. w�rig, with long e. Now the A.-S. long �
is invariably modified from long 0. We therefore at once
obtain its etymology, from the A.-S. w�rian, to tramp about.
Again, like other verbs in -an, this verb must be a secondary
one, from a substantive w�r, which meant both a moor and
sea-weed. Thus wdrian is to tramp over a moor, which is
certainly wearying. Further, the r stands for an older , 38
shown by the use of woos in the sense of sea-weed, noted by
Webster. But zoos, A.-S. w�s, is the usual word for ‘ moisture,
juice, wet, mud, swamp,’ and is still preserved, without its
initial letter, in the modern English ooze. Hence the true
sense of weary is ‘tired with tramping over cosy ground.
This is strikingly confirmed by the Icel. vds, explained
mean ‘ wetness, toil, fatigue, from storm, sea, frost,
weather, or the like.’ Weariness is the result of struggling
against wet, whether it be that of the swamp beneath out
feet or of the storm that beats upon us. Perhaps some of 8
can remember having to contend against both swamp and
storm at once, and can recall our feelings at the time.

Wraith is properly a Lowland Scotch word. Jamiesod
explains it as connected with ward, because the wraith 18;
properly, the apparition of a man’s guardian angel, warnlDg
him against future peril. The transposition of ther cans


> adiucobyras xpivas xa? jovylay Tovs � addous cay oixeiv.
‘We should strike out oixciy. It was a question of life and
death, not of being settled or not. Classen’s parallels “ olxeiv,
pradgnant, s.v. a axwdvves (1 124. 3), aapares (v1 92. 5)”
are not really to the point.

xv 86. 1. ef ro watptov wapels To WA�ov Tos GAbyoLs 7
TO �\acaov Tois Tact Sovkwcayt. If Mr. Verrall’singenious
change of zrapeis into mdpex in Soph. O.C. 1212 rod perpiov
m7e�pex, in Eur. Ale. 939 wdpex To popotpov and Plato Laws
192c wdpex 7rd p�rpiov be correct, this would seem to be
another example. In any case the usage of maples requires
more support. The scholiast’s explanation ta watpva xara-
Avaas is justly doubted by Poppo.

Thursday, June 2. At a meeting held in St. John’s
College, Professor Skzat, Vice-President, in the Chair, the
following were elected:members :

F. J. Candy, Esq., M.A., Emmanuel.
Sir H. J. 8S. Maine, LL.D., Master of Trinity Hall.
Rev. J. B. Pearson, D.D., Emmanuel.

Mr. VERRALL read a paper on some passages of Plautus,
Miles Gloriosus and Mostellaria.

In the Miles Gloriosus several of the lacunae assumed by or
after Ritschl are unnecessary.

Miles Gl. 635 sqq. (111 1. 40.)

PE. Immo, hospes, magis quom periclum facies, magisnosces meam
comitatem erga te amantem.
PL. quid opust nota noscere ?
PE, * * * # * a %
ut apud ted exemplum experiundo habeas, ne quaeras Joris.
S26 (1 6. 46).
PE. si hic non uidebit mulierem be id * .
: : * es � aperitur forts.
LZ, uerum quom multos muita admisse aeceperim
inhonesta propter amorem atque aliena a bonis.
* * * * * * *

mitto iam ut occidi Achiles ciuts passus est.



Second, in the a��a Sern which P. keeps unused in his quiver
and which are only gwvavra cuveroicr there isa veiled allusion
to the Eleusinian mysteries. ‘I could say much more on this
theme, i.e. the condition of the dead, but I refrain; what I
might add would be comprehensible to the initiated fever )�
but for the many it would require interpretation.’ Lines
61-2 (where read igov 6 . . ica & �v) should be compared
with fragm. 95, which also dapints the lot of the happy dead,
and especially the eternal swxshine which they enjoy even
when it is night in the upper world. Again in Ar. Ranae
155, Heracles, who has himself been initiated, and who we
should recollect was especially connected with the foundation
of the lesser Eleusinia, is describing to Dionysus the after-
world of the initiated, and among other sights and sounds
tells him �yet te das KaAdoTOY Wamep �vOdde, Again the
curious notion in 68 that the souls of the just pass through
three cycles before they attain the consummation of reaching
the tower of Cronos reappears in an adapted form in the
Phaedrus, 249 a. In that passage (which, Dr. Thompson
remarks, ‘is full of phrases borrowed from the Eleusinian
rites’), we are told that the human soul before reaching the
consummation called mr�pwois passes through ten periods,
each of 1000 years, and at the end of each period is
offered its choice of any form of life into which to pass
next; but the philosophic soul, if after three such periods
it persists in its choice of the philosophic life, at once obtains
its wings. The same passage speaks of the xa\\os Aapmpov
and avy! xafapa witnessed by the �womtevovres. In Hat,
11 123 we find mention of a similar cycle of .3000 years,
associated with the worship of Demeter and Dionysus,
This idea of a periodic revolution, says Hdt., was borrowed
from the Egyptians by the Greeks, by some at an earlier, by
some at a later date; and he adds with noteworthy caution, tov
�ya eid@s Ta ovoyata ov ypddo. Here we see in Hat. the
same shrinking as in Pindar from what was regarded as a for-
bidden. subject, the same which restrained Pausanias (1 38. 6)
from describing what was within the /epov at Eleusis. Hat.
is perhaps right in supposing that the cycle theory came to


probable, for the correspondence of the two forms illustrate
a general law of parallelism between such forms in Icelandi_amy
and Anglo-Saxon; such for instance was the case with A-=
cyneg and Icelandic kongr, and a similar one that of tine ((c—
older tined P), Icel. tindr, the ‘tooth’ of a rake or a harrowe=y
That keneg therefore was once upon a time the Early Englis=a—s},
name for a staple, was thus rendered not only quite probab —�o
from the formal point of view, but from the point of view �of
the sense it bore in kene-bo, kimbo, quite certain.

Finally, Mr. Magnusson suggested that A.-S. cag, a ‘keg,’
was an outcome of the older ceneg, a staple, which must ha~wr
done duty among the primitive Teutons for fastening dooms,
as kengr had done among their Scandinavian neighbours;
kengr, ceneg and ceg, therefore, were, in all probability, cog-
nate names for one and the same object. The base of kengr
was kang (kag), and remained still observable in the collo-
quial saying in Iceland at kanga vis hur�, ‘to rattle with the
key in a door,’ which showed that key with its base cagan
was a cognate to kengr. But kinga, though connected with
kengr by the Lexicographers, had nothing to do with that
word, but was a Low Latin introduction, from cingula, ‘a
round, coin-formed ornament.’

Mr. VERRALL read a paper on the simile of the pion
xuov isch. Ag. 1227 sqq.}
veov T� �rrapyos ‘Idiov 7’ avacrarns
+ ov� oldev ola yA@ooa pLoNnThs KUVOS
A�Eaca Kaxtelvaca hatdpovous Sixnv
arns NaOpaiou TevEeTar Kaxh TVyy fT.

The most plausible correction proposed for this passage #8
that of Madvig, substituting AciEaca for N�Eaca, hasdpov ots
for dasdpovovs and dy€eras for reverat, but

(1) the metaphor yAdooa �xtetvaca ods Si�eras is absurd.

(2) S�env arns AaOpaiov is pointless and inconsistent with

the use of the adverbial d�cnv elsewhere.

1 See Journal of Philology, x p. 299 sgq. (1881).


pointed out that it was possible to preserve the position of
the accent in many cases, even if we gave it in our English
fashion a stress value: and that we might pronounce oikhd-
menos, oikhom�nous, kal�s and kallos as the. Greeks did.
This might be done in all cases except where the accent fell
on a vowel which closed a syllable and was followed by ~
another, where the stress accent would lengthen the vowel as
in eremian. He however further observed that if we gave
the words a pitch accent, and such as the Greek accent really
was, the difficulty disappeared, and in illustration of this he
read a passage from the beginning of the Persae, giving the
words a pitch accent on the proper syllable.

Mr. Postgate concluded by again pointing out the necessity
of some action being taken by the University in the reform
of the pronunciation of the ancient languages, especially in
that of Latin.

A discussion followed in which the PRestpEnt, Professor

Mayor, Professor Skeat, Mr. Verraut, Mr. Canny, Mr.
Ripe@Eway and others took part.

A resolution was passed that a Committee be appointed for
the purpose of drawing up a scheme for the reform of the
present pronunciation of Latin, to be submitted to the
Society at a subsequent meeting.

Thursday, December 1. At a meeting held in St. John’s
College, the President, Mr. Munro, in the Chair, the follow-
new members were elected :

F. T. Arnold, Esq., Trinity College.
F. J. H. Jenkinson, Esq., M.A., Trinity College.
W. Wyse, Esq., Trinity College.

The Secretary announced that Dr. Hayman intended to
dedicate his Odyssey, vol. 111, to the Society. It was
resolved to send Dr. Hayman a suitable acknowledgment of
the compliment.

VOL. II. 13


A Committee with power to add to their number was,
appointed to draw up a scheme for the reform of Late-

‘Mr. Jackson read a paper on Passages in Plato’s Phaedomm,

Professor SkEaT read a paper on the roots SAK, SKA, SK;
in English. |

The root sak, to cut, appears in Lat. secare,tocut. Relate
words are secant, section, segment, bisect, insect, etc.2? ATs
sickle, of Latin origin; sazifrage, sassifras; scion, of French
origin; and probably serrated. English roots from the same
root are saw, see-saw, scythe, sedge. Risk is Spanish, from
resecare, as shown by Diez.

The root ska, to cut, appears in the extended forms sxka�,
SKAD, SKAP, SKAR. The base sKAN accounts for E. scathe and
(possibly) for coney ; also for canal, channel, kennel, of Latin
origin; the initial s being lost in some cases.

The base sKAD accounts for schedule, of Greek origin;
and the E. scatter, originally to burst asunder; whilst the
E. shed, to part, is closely allied. It also appears in the
weakened form skip, whence schism, schist, zest, squiil, abscind,
rescind, abscissa, shingle in the old sense of ‘ wooden tile,
sheath, sheathe, shide, an old word signifying a thin piece of
board, and skid. With loss of initial s, we have Lat. caedere,
to cut, connected with which are caesura, concise, decide, pre
cise, homicide ; also chisel and. scissors, the last being misspelt
owing to a false popular etymology from scindere. The bas
SKAP, also KAP, to cut, accounts for apocope, syncope, comms,
chop, chump, scoop, capon, sheep, shape, ship, shave, scab, shabby)
shaft. The base sKaR, to shear, accounts for shear, share, shtT�s
shore, score, shirt, skirt, shard, sherd, scaur, skerry, scars)
sheer off (which is Dutch for ‘to cut away’), and even see"
Also for character, cuirass, scourge, scorch, and perhaps ce4! t
This base also appears as sKAL, whence scale, scall, skull, sk@*

1 Printed on p. 70.

2 The etymologies of all the words here mentioned are given in Skeet’
Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.


shell, scallop, scalp, shelf. There is also a form SKUR or SKRU,
to cut, whence scrutiny, scruple, shroud, shred, screed, scroll,
and probably screw. The base sKaR is also extended to SKARP
or SKALP, to cut; hence excerpt, scarce, scalpel, sculpture, sharp,
scarf; also harvest, grave, grove, groove, graphic, graft; also
scrap, scrip, scarp, escarpment. All these can be fairly traced,
explained, and accounted for; and show that the Aryan
root sAK, to cut, with its various developments, is a well-
attested fact which is worthy of being carefully considered.



HOMER IN 1881 AND 1882.

Hfomerischen Realien. Von Dr. E. Buchholz; Zweiter Band; Ocffentliches
eand Privates Leben. Erste Abtheilung, das Oeffentliche Leben. . Leipzig,
Engelmann, 1881. pp. 436.

Gebrauch der Konjunctiv und Optativ bet Homer. Von Dr. Wilhelm Goecke
( Progr.). Malmedy, 1881. pp. 24.

> Ranke. Die Doloneia. Teubner, Leipzig, 1881. pp. 82.

emann. Reise in der Troas im Mai, 1881. Mit einer Karte. Brockhaus, .
Leipzig, 1881. pp. 77.

Odysseam eiusque Scholiastas curae secundae. Scripsit H. J. Polak. Fase.
grior, Leyden, E. J. Brill, 1881. pp. 275. Fasc. posterior, 1882.

EE. Brentano. Zur L�sung der Trojanischen Frage. Nebst einem Anhang :
einige Bemerkungen zu Schiiemann’s Ilios. Mit einer Karte der Troischen
bene und zwei Planen. Heilbronn, Henninger, 1881. pp. 138.

Adolf Kiene. Die Epen des Homer. Hannover, 1881. pp. 123.

~. Kayser’s Homerische Abhandlungen. Herausg. con Hermann Usener.
Leipzig, Teubner, 1881. pp. xlviii, 106. |

emit Kichly Opuscula Philologica. Vol. �: Opuscula Latina. Edidit Godo-
Fredus Kinkel. Leipzig, Teubner, 1881.

er’s Ilias, fiir den Schulgebrauch erkla�rt von K. F. Ameis. 2ter Band, 2fes
Heft, Ges. xvi-cviii, bearbeitet von Dr. C. Henize. Leipzig, Teubner, 1880.
pp. 135.

ang zu Homer’s Ilias, Schulausgabe von K. F. Amets. 6tes Heft. Erlauter-
Rigen zu Ges. xvi-xviti, von Dr. C, Hentze. Leipzig, Teubner, 1881.
pp. 155.

ersibus apud Homerum perperam iteratis. (Programm des Gymnasiums 2u
Bartenstein). Vom Gymnasiallehrer E. Lenz. Bartenstein, 1881. pp. 32.
erische Aufsdlze, von Rudolf Hercher. Berlin, Weidmann’sche Buchhand-
lung, 1881. pp. 96.

C. Thiemann. Grundztige der Homerischen Modus-Syntax, sowie Lehre vom
Gebrauch tnd Unterschied der Partikeln &v und w�v. Berlin, Mayer &
Miiller, 1881. pp. 565.

4A. Gemoll. Einlettung in die Homerischen Gedichte. Mit zwei Kartchen.
Leipzig, Teubner, 1881. pp. 30.


Baenitz. Bemerkuhngen zum ersten und zweiten Buche der Ilias. Inawroslay,
1881. pp. 30.

Dr. Haesecke. Die Entstehung des ersten Buches der Ilias. Rinteln, 188),

. 26,

Dr. "Richard Siegfried. Ad Compositionem Librorum Iliadis axvitt ad sxxit.
Programmabhandlung des Gymnasiums zu Fuerstenwalde. 1881. pp. 16.

Etymologische Erklarung Homerischer Worter. Zusammengestellt von Dr. H.
Anton. Fortsetzung aus dem Vorjdhrigen Programm. Die Mannlichen
Gottheiten > Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, Apollo, Ares, Hephaistos, Hermes.

Dr. Emil Brocks. Zu Ilias zvit 330. Schwetz, 1881. pp. 4.

Verbum Homericum. Die Homerischen Verbalformen susammengestellt von -
Eugen Frohwein. Leipzig, Teubner, 1881. pp. 144.

Homer. Von Karl Frey. Bern, Maxfiala,.1881. pp. 48.

Dr. K. Burehardi. Ueber den Gebrauch der Pronomen ofos bet Homer. Fr.

' ‘Wagner, Duderstadt, 1881. pp. 16 (Program).

J. E. Harrison: Myths of the Odyssey in Art and Literature, Londo,
Rivingtons, 1881. pp. 219.

Homeric Grammar, by D. B. Monro. Oxford, 1882.

Karl Sittl Die Wiederholungen in der Odyssee. Miinchen, Ackermann, 1882,
pp. 192.

G. Kobilinski: De A, I, Y, Vocalium apud Homerum Mensura. Koenigsberg,

Leupold, 1882. pp. 33..

Hecht, M. Quaestiones Homericae. Koenigsberg, Kiewning, 1882, pp. 29.

De Monumentis ad Odysseam Pertinentibus Capita Selecta scripsit Johannes Bolte,
Berlin, Mayer and Mueller, 1882. pp. 68.

Homerische Studien, von Dr. Ad. Faust. Strassburg, Triibner, 1882. pp. 41.

Etymologische Erklarung Homerischer Worter, von H. 8. Anton, Erfurt,
Villaret, 1882. pp. 143.

Die Entwickelung der Homerischen Poesie, von Benedictus Niese. Berlin,
Weidmannsche Buchh. 1882. pp. 261.

C. Rothe. De Vetere quem ex Odyssea Kirchhofius erwit N�orw. Programm
du College Royal Francais. Berlin, 1882. pp. 219.

G. Hinrichs. Die Homerische Chryseisepisode. ‘‘ Hermes’? xvi Part 1.
1882. pp. 58-123.

Ir is, I trust, not by any oversight that I have failed to
discover any works published during 1881, with the es-
ception of the first two on my list, which can claim to be
contributions of any importance to Homeric scholarship.
England appears to have been nearly barren. I have come
across only two works in our own language, a small school
edition of the first book of the Iliad by Mr. Pazzy, which 38
singularly free from the occasional eccentricities which 9
often intrude themselves in the midst of that scholar’s best
work; and a translation of the Iliad by Mr. Hasstovs


der Tage in [lias und Odyssee.” The first gives a scant
sketch of a few of the elements of the Homeric questiory
laying far more stress upon inconsistencies than is advisab_—
for beginners. The second and third give a very bri_.
account (illustrated by two maps borrowed from other book—
of the localities, and insisting on the impossibility of ca�y,
ciliating them with the poems. The last chapter is a bay,
analysis of the Iliad and Odyssey divided according to the
days of the narrative; a piece of work which the author
himself very wisely depreciates, when he says “the Homeric
poems do not bind themselves to time; they begin or end
a day whenever the situation appears to demand it.”’

- The two school-programmes by Baenrrz and Haxseckr
deal with the same well-worn problem in the same
well-worn way. Dr. Baenitz is not satisfied with Lach-
mann’s resolution of the first book into three distinct
Lieder, but finds that it consists of five sections by five
different poets; his analysis being mainly. directed to
proving that the scene in Olympus is by a different hand
from the “ plaint of Achilles ” in which Thetis first appears.
The remarks on the second book aim chiefly at establishing
two theses: first, that the speech of Agamemnon in the
assembly was serious advice, and not meant merely to test
the people; secondly, that the “catalogue” was written
strophically, and that all lines which interfere with this
arrangement are interpolated.

- Dr. HagsEckeE would show that the first book, as we have
it, is formed by the fusing of three forms in which the pias
was sung at different periods, with a few lines interpolated
by the commission of Peisistratos.

It is to be hoped that Lachmann would blush at the
arguments of his disciples.

Dr. SizcrrieD, though far from being a defender of the
unity of the Iliad, is chiefly concerned in this programme
with rebutting the arguments of the many critics who have
endeavoured to make out that the five books which form
Lachmann’s “ Achilleis’’ are an inferior patchwork by
numerous and late hands. While rejecting, with almost all

HOMER IN 1881-2. 209

commentators, the battle of the gods in xvi, as well as the
incident of the slaying of Asteropaios, he maintains that,
with the exception of several short passages in each book,
the story hangs well together, and does not deserve the
animadversions of its assailants. He even defends with
great ingenuity the much-disputed lines xvir 228-232, and
altogether shows a spirit of moderation and good sense which
it is pleasant to find in German criticism. Though not very
original, the pamphlet may be found useful by scholars
interested in the minuter study of the Homeric question.

Dr. Anron’s continuation of an essay of which 32 pages
were published last year consists of a very brief r�sum� of
the derivations of names and epithets of gods which have
been proposed by various etymologists; with the very
obvious intention of bringing Dr. Goebel—“ mit dem iiber-
haupt,”’ Dr. Anton asserts, “eine neue Epoche der Worter-
klarung beginnt”’—into the most favourable light. Time
will judge Dr. Goebel, if he ever gets a hearing ; meanwhile
this little work is too compressed to be of value for practical
purposes, and too one-sided and partial for those who would
wish to form a fair opinion on the merits of the new departure
in etymology ; which if it is worth anything, deserves a very
careful study in the original work.

Dr. Brocxs ingeniously conjectures d7r�p ia, in Il. xvi1 330,
for the very obscure wzepd�a of the vulgate; a word which
has puzzled ancient and modern commentators alike. dijo
�xovras he translates “ guarding their folk,” and compares
Il. xxrv 729. He unfortunately does not attempt to explain
away the obvious difficulty that there is no sufficient reason
why so easy a phrase should ever have been altered into an
obscure one; perhaps he supposes the explanation to lie
in the apparent impiety of supposing that a city could ever
have been saved “ in spite of Zeus.”

. Frouwein’s Verbum Homericum is a posthumous work,
sitroducad by a few words by Dr. Delbriick. It consists of
e complete index to all the verbal forms in Homer, arranged
an all cases under their primaries; a method which has its
advantages in certain scientific investigations, but will hardly

VOL. II. 14

HOMER IN 1881-2. 211

Last year, 1882, brought us one work of capital importance,
Mr. D. B. Monro’s Homeric Grammar ; the most considerable
contribution of English scholarship to Homeric philology.
Of course no account of it can be needed here.

Ficx’s short paper in Beszenberger’s Beitrdge, vi, p. 189 sq.,
presents an entirely new view of the Homeric dialect, and one
which deserves the most careful consideration. The sketch
which he there presented has since been developed at length
in a restoration of the Odyssey to what he maintains to be its
original form, the Aeolic dialect.

Dr. Sirti analyses with great fullness all the cases where
lines_in the Odyssey are repeated either from other books or
from the Iliad, in order to find the indications which may
exist as to the priority of one or other of the duplicate
passages. He proceeds with a good deal of sound sense, and
his results are well worth consideration. His main conclu-
sions, which may pass for a sort of “ left-centre ” creed in the
line of Homeric parties, are roughly these. That the Odyssey
was originally based on the older nostos contained in books v
to 1x, but interspersed with considerable interpolations.
This was then extended by the addition of the later nostos,
books x to x11, and the poem “‘ Odysseus in Ithaca ”’ scattered.
over the last twelve books. But these two additions he is at
least inclined to believe were by the original poet; he thus
decisively differs from Kirchhoff. Then came the Telemachia
and the large addition from the middle of the 23rd book to
the end of the 24th; and finally many interpolations, notably
the Theoklymenos episodes.

The greater part of the Iliad, including the catalogue and
the funeral games, and probably the Presbeia, is older
than the whole of the Odyssey; the Doloneia and the 24th
book are however younger than the original parts of the
Odyssey, but older than the Telemachia.

KosiLinskt’s dissertation starts from the assumption—no
doubt a correct one—that short vowels can be lengthened by
the arsis but that they must remain short in the thesis.
The passages which contravene this law are considered and

HOMER IN 1881-2. 213

was first brought to light succeeding rhapsodes built up in
gradual layers the structure as we have it, each taking
advantage of the work of his predecessors without being
able to add much from his own store. The bulk of the work
is taken up in an exposition of these later strata, and is about
as dreary as the rest of the myriad of similar productions with
which Germany has favoured us. Itis hardly to be conceived
that Niese will find many followers.

Dr. Rorue is in the main a devoted follower of Kirchhoff ;
the first portion of his essay aims at proving the correctness
of that critic’s analysis of the first half of the Odyssey, and
supporting it by tracing out the vexed question of the sup-
planting of the motive of the wrath of Poseidon by the
motive of the wrath of Zeus on behalf of Helios. To this
end Dr. RorHe conjecturally reads [Tocedav for Kpoviwy in
x11 405, and makes up the original account of the shipwreck
from x11 403-414, 420, 421, vir 251-253. The second part
of the programme however combats Kirchhoff’s view that the
“first continuation” which brought Odysseus home to his
house was the work of a later hand than the “first nostos.”
Dr. Rorne shows good reason for considering that the oldest
form of ‘‘Odysseus in Ithaca”—1in which there were only
twenty suitors and they were slain, not in the palace, but in
the grove of Apollo outside the town—was an integral part
of the oldest Odyssey.

The thesis of H1nricus’s elaborate essay is that the episode
of the restoration of Chryseis to her father, Il. 1 428-492, is
a piece of miserable patchwork composed of reminiscences not
only from the Iliad and Odyssey, but also to a great extent
from the hymn to the Pythian Apollo. He gives a table
showing that some portion at least of every line throughout the
passage is borrowed, almost always losing its appropriateness
in the process. His method is thus the same as that of Sittl in
the work above noticed; a method which is at the present
moment the principal instrument of the advanced criticism in
Germany. The “Flickmeister”’ to whom we owe the cento he
considers to be the same as the unfortunate ‘‘ Redactor ” who
has had to endure such outpourings of contempt from Kirchhoff


and his followers for the way in which he reduced the Odyssey
to the miserable condition in which we now have it.

Note.—It is necessary to call attention to the fact that
various circumstances have made it impossible for me to claim
any pretence to completeness in the above list of Homeric
work for the last two years. The programme literature for
1882, in particular, I have hardly been able to touch, and I
fear that my apologies may be due to more than one author
whose work may have deserved especial respect.



H. Jackson: On Plato’s Republic, v1 509D agg. in Journal of Philology, x
132-150; Plato’s Later Theory of Ideas, 1, ib. x 258-298; wu, id. xx

R. D. Archer-Hind: On some difficulties in the Platonic Psychology, tb. x 120-131.

W. H. Thompson : Introductory Remarks on the Philebus, 1b, x1 1-22.

L. Campbell : A Neglected Manuscript of Plato, ib. xi 195-200.

J. Gow: The Nuptial Number, Republic vir 246, ib. x11 91-102.

I. Bywater : Atakta, ib. x 72-78.

C. Badham : Platonica, in Mnemosyne, x 290-294, 324; Ad libr. x de legibus,
tb, X 337-354, x1 47-58; Ad libr. viii de legibus, ib. x1 190-202; Paraili-
pomena, ib. x1 237-245.

A. W. Benn: The Greek Philosophers, 1171-274. Kegan Paul, 1882.

B. H. Kennedy: The Theaetetus, with Translation and Notes. Cambridge
University Press, 1881.

L. Campbell: The Theaetetus with English Notes. 2nd edition. Clarendon Press,

T. Maguire: The Parmenides with Introduction Analysis and Notes. Dublin, 1882.

J. Purves: Selections from the Dialogues. Clarendon Press, 1883. _

EncLtisH work upon Plato is headed by three articles of
Mr. H. Jackson in the Journal of Philology, vols. x, xi, the
commencement of what bids fair to be the most important
enterprise of recent years in this department. The first or
introductory paper modifies considerably the usual interpre-
tation of rep. v1 509 D. It begins (� 1) by rejecting the
ordinary views, (1) that the universe is compared to a quadri-
partite line, and (2) that three of the four sections correspond
to the aic@nrd, pabnparixd, id�at of Arist. metaph.16. On
the contrary, the simile is put forward to teach that as
particulars have ‘images,’ �.c. shadows or reflexions, so the


I may single out the treatment of the different paradoxes of
the One and the Many (14 c), of the passage 25 c—k, of the
different but allied functions of p�rpiov and crocoy, and the
confirmation derived from a new interpretation of politicus
283 B—287 a. The results obtained are then shown (with
one or two exceptions) to agree to the letter with the
summary of Platonism given in Arist. metaph. 1 6, which
chapter receives a thorough discussion and elucidation.

The paper on the Parmenides is no less rich in valuable
results. Grote had accustomed English scholars to the view
that in cc. i-vii of that dialogue Plato is urging against his
own theory, the theory of rep. x and Phaedo, objections that
he has nowhere answered. But Grote failed duly to recog-
nize the positive side of the criticism, or to call attention to
the suggestion (Parm. 182 p) that Forms or Kinds (e/�n) are
models and types established in nature, whereof particulars
are copies and likenesses. This suggestion Mr. Jackson takes
to be the foundation of the maturer Platonism ; as he puts it,
the theory of immanent ideas is superseded by a theory of
paradeigmatic ideas. The idea is incognizable by man. At
the same. time its assumption is indispensable for the attain-
ment of knowledge. Ideas served to Plato as a basis for
a theory of knowledge, to which the latter part of the
Parmenides is found to afford contributions at the same time
that it determines to some extent (1) the contents of the
world of ideas, (2) the relation of idea to particular. Space
forbids a further summary of the results of this masterly
investigation. The hypotheses of the latter half of the
dialogue are explained in an entirely novel way, as pre-
senting distinct contemporary theories, Eleatic, Socratic,
Cynic, Platonic, of the relations of & and rdAAa, theories which
are successively passed under review to ascertain what account
they give of predication and knowledge. The explanation
bears upon it the stamp of reasonable probability, and
additional confirmation is afforded by the agreement (1) of
the Parmenides with the Philebus, (2) of both with the
Platonic system as depicted by Aristotle.

Lastly, it should be noticed as characteristic of these

VIRGIL IN 1881 AND 1882.


W.H. Kolster. Vergil’s Eklogen in threr Strophischen Gliederung nachgewisse
mit Kommentar. Leipzig, Teubner, 1882.

Clement L. Smith. Virgil's instructions for ploughing, fallowing, and rotation
of crops (Georg. 1 43-83). American Journal of Philology, Vol. iii No. 8.

Conington and Netileship. The Works of Virgil, with a Commentary by John
Conington, M.A. Vol. �., Eclogues and Georgics, fourth edition, reiet,
with corrected orthography and additional notes and essays, by H. Nettleshig,
M.A. London, Whittaker and Bell, 1881. �


Dr. James Henry. -Aeneidea, or critical, exegetical, and aesthetical remarks
the Aeneid. Vol. iti. Dublin, Printed for the Trustees of the Author,
1881 and 1882.

Ladewig’s Virgil. Vol. w. ed. Schaper.

Iohann Kvicala. Neue Beitrage zur Erklarung der Aenets, nebst mehreren
Ezcursen und Abhandlungen. Prag, Tempsky, 1881.


E. Albrecht. Wiederholte Verse und Verstheile bet Vergil. Hermes, Vol.
part 3.

Wenzel Kloucek. Zu Vergilius. Zeitschrift fiir die Oesterreichischen Gymnasien,
1881. Parts vim and 1x.

T. L. Papillon, M.A. Virgil, with an Introduction and Notes. Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1882.

Mr. Kotster’s commentary is elaborate and careful; the
main characteristic of the book, however, is the author's
attempt to re-establish the principle of a strophic division of
the Eclogues. Ribbeck’s strophic arrangement is, in Mr.

VIRGIL IN 1881-2. 225

with the beginning of the line. In IV. the author discusses
the symmetry of words in the Aeneid under the following
heads: (a) an adjective at the beginning, a substantive at the
end (emnes—annos): a genitive at the beginning, another
case at the end (Zithoni—cubile) : (6) substantive at the be-
ginning, adjective at the end (ductores—ferentes): and other
words in adjectival connexion similarly balanced; e.g. nudla
—sororum: quidquid — curae: quos— maritos. (c) Balance
between two verbs: accipiunt—fatiscunt: cedebat—trahebat ;
with many other grammatical correspondences. V. In this
essay the question of alliteration in the Aeneid is treated
with extraordinary industry. It must however be remarked
that the subjects of these essays hardly seem to deserve the
pains bestowed upon them.

It is noteworthy that Henry, Schaper, and Kvic�ala all
maintain the genuineness of Aeneid 11 567-88 (iamque adeo
—ferebar). Kvicala thinks that Virgil struck these lines out
after he had written v1 511 foll. (a passage inconsistent with
them), and that Varius and Tucca therefore published the
Aeneid without them. In answer to this it may be urged
that the editors of the Aeneid had no compunction about
leaving other inconsistencies in the narrative untouched.
But the problem really reduces itself to a simple issue. The
lines in question exist in none of the oldest manuscripts ;
they are unknown to Tiberius Donatus, and not one of them
is quoted by a single grammarian, but Servius asserts that
they were expunged by Varius and Tucca. Apart from the
unquestionable merit of the verses themselves, this is the
only piece of evidence that we have on the subject; and
what is it worth? Varius and Tucca were intimate friends
of Virgil, and Varius was an: epic poet second only, if
second at all, to Virgil himself. Is it conceivable that two
such men would have been guilty of the Vandalism of
destroying twenty genuine lines of Virgil P

Secondly, had they really done so, we may be pretty
certain that no record of the fact would have remained.
There is absolutely no proof of any copy of the Aeneid ever
seeing the light but that which they edited.

VOL. It. | 15


But, thirdly, we may dismiss the statement of Servius as
‘worthless. For if we believe it, we are also entitled to
believe his other assertion (which indeed has much older
authority in its favour) that the Aeneid began with tlle ego
qui quondam. .. The fact seems to be that it was easy for
‘any clever interpolator of the Aeneid to allege that his lines
had been expunged by Virgil’s literary executors. On
1 204 and vt 289 Servius quotes four very passable hexa-
‘meters, which no one, so far as I know, now supposes to
have come from the hand of Virgil, but which have just
the same external evidence in their favour as those in
the second book: ab eius emendatoribus sublati sunt.

ALBRECHT’s paper is a very careful study of a point of

KxouceK’s Notes are of more or less value on isolated
passages. The writer proposes some absurd conjectures, 38
Veneris proelia for praemia, Aen. Iv 33, and tgneus for ingens
x11 894. ,

Mr. Parriton’s edition embodies, in a serviceable and
attractive form, the results of most of the recent Virgilian




Select Elegies of Propertius, with Introductions, Notes, and Appendices, by
J. P. Postgate (Macmillans, 1881, pp. cxlviii, 272).

Propertius in 1880 with some new Emendations, J. P. Postgate. (Transactions of
the Cambridge Philologtcal Society, 1 pp. 372-86, 1881, London, Triibner.)

Beitrage zur Berichtigung der Elegien des Propertius, J. Vahlen, (Monatsbertcht
der kinigl. preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften eu Berlin, 1881, pp. 335-862.)

Quaestionum Propertianarum specimen, L. Polster. Programm des konigl. Gymna-
stums zu Ostrowo, 1881, pp. 17.

Lu lateinischen dichtern, E. Baehrens. (Fleckeisen N. J. fiir Philologie, 1881,
p. 408-410.)

Quaestiones Propertianae, scr. R. Scharf. (Inaugural Dissertation, Gottingen.)
Halle, Nietschmann, 1881, pp. 73.

Zu Prop. tt 21. 11 8qq., R. Bitschopfsky. (Wiener Studien 111 p. 303, 1881.)

Eine Properzhandschrift, H. Schenkl. (Wiener Studien 111 p. 160, 1881.)

Quaestiones Propertianae (Dissertatio Inauguralis), Carolus Brandt. Berlin,
pp. 50.

Ueber zwei elegien des Propertius von J. Vahlen. (Aus den Sitzungsberichten der
kiniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin vom Jahre 1882, p. 263.)

Quaestiones Propertianae 11, J. Weidgen. (Progr. des kinigl. Gymnasiums.)
Coblenz, 1882.

Kritische Bemerkungen v. Guido Kiihlewein. (Festgruss dem Dr. H. Heerwagen,
pp. 1-17. Erlangen, 1882.)

Grungen der antiken Buchform: Properz, Th. Birt. (Das antike Buchwesen,
pp. 413-426. Berlin, Hertz.)
tanum, R. Ellis. (Journal of Philology, x1 174. 1882.)

Gedicibus Propertianis Dissertatio Philologica, scripsit R. Solbisky. pp. 36.
‘eipzig, Teubner, 1882.

My own contribution to Propertian studies may be first
briefly disposed of. Its contents are as follows:—Introduction
on the Life and Works of Propertius (Ch.1 Life and Character,


Ch. 11 Works and Style, Ch. 11 Grammar and Vocabulary,
Ch. tv Metre and Prosody, Ch. v Literary History) ; Fasti
Propertiani; Text (about 30 elegies); Notes; Table of the
Relations of Cornelia; Appendix A. Manuscripts and Con-

parison of Readings with those of Baehrens’ and Palmer's

edition; Appendix B. On fulcire and its cognates; Appendix .
C. Comparison with the numbering of other editions ; Index
to notes. I take this opportunity of acknowledging the
numerous appreciative and helpful criticisms of my book. I
must mention in particular those of Prof. Exxis*in the

Academy of July 9, 1881, Prof. Parmer in Hermathena, No.

Vili p. 826, 1882, and of Dr. Macnus in the Philologische
Wochenschrift of Sept. 9, 1882; and in the Athenaeum of Sept.
8, 1881, and the Spectator of Dec. 3, 1881. I also take the
opportunity of correcting some errata which had escaped me.
P. xxiii (note 2) for 11 8. 3 read 11 8. 89, p. xl 2. 17 sor allayed
read alloyed, p. lvi, note 1 (end) for Argynnus read Argennum,
p. cxxiv for alteration read alternation, p. cxlvii (margin) for
Petrarch and read Petrarch etc. Text: p. 42 v. 80 for reddita
read credita. . Notes: p.94 n. on v. 14 line 7 for untried read
unfelt, �. 105 n. on �. 8 last line for land read hand, p. 138 4.
on v. 22 line 3 for texts read stems, p. 188 v. 14 for ‘nymphs’
read ‘nymph,’ p. 163 foot-note for G. T. read W. T., p. 1651.
on v.47 for hunc read hic, (the same mistake occurs in the text)
p. 180 n. on �. 57, for ear read car, p. 205 n. on o. 52 for per
fidia read perfida. Index: p. 264 prefatory note for line read
verse, col. 2, 1. 3 for scribendo read scribendi, p. 266 col.2
euertere should be auertere and is consequently out of its
place, 267 col. 1 s.c. forma the second reference should be
206. 61. On p. xxxii of the preface, note 1, the reference
to the pseudo- Donatus would have been better omitted. Onp.
191, note on v. 6, the Greek illustration should be expunged.
It illustrates nothing but infatuation.

Nor need I say much about my review of Propertiat
literature in the Transactions of 1880. It consists of eleven
pages on the books published in that year, to which is sub
joined a sort of appendix of four pages more, containing emen-
dations and critical observations on about twelve passages

PROPERTIUS IN 1881-2. 229

In these Beitrdge Herr VAHLEN gives an account of the
changes which he introduced into Haupt’s text of Propertius
(1879)! and the grounds which induced him to make them.
In the course of this he is led to speak of Baehrens’ MSS. (of
which he seems to have formed a too favourable opinion) as
compared with the Neapolitanus and Groninganus (G), the
interpolated character of which latter he shows by several
examples. He deals with the following passages (Haupt’s
edition) 14. 4, 114. 4, 118. 5, 1 27. 18, 1v 10. 20 (where
he quotes other exx. of the accumulation of final a). In12.7
he reads quo submittat, taking the quo with melius (= quanto
melius) after Lachmann Lucret. p.226. He places a full stop
at uias and in v. 13 retains the MSS. dtora natiuis persuadent
picta lapillis for persuadent se picta (esse)—an improbable pro-
posal, not sufficiently supported by Vahlen. In 11 16. 12 he
reads una with N. and defends it by a somewhat indis-
criminate collection of passages. In 11 2. 28 he would give
peraeque with N (rightly). He departs from the MSS. in
the following cases: 11 10. 25 cudmen (MSS. carmen, which is
better, see my note on the passage), 11 10. 25 conuicia for
MS. conuiuia (rightly). In some cases he has abandoned
Haupt’s emendations for the received text, as 115. 8; 11 10.
25 nondum etiam (H. etenim) and rightly so; although so
common a phrase as nondum etiam does not require Vahlen’s
array of illustrations. So in 1 6. 4 domos Memnonias which
he well illustrates by 111 13. 3-8 clausas—pudicas (H. puellas:
other changes of H. here might have also been abandoned
with advantage). In 1 13.47 he reads quis (nom.) tam
longaeuae minuisset fata senectae Glallicus Iliacis miles in aggert-
bus? making it a wish; but query? In tv 8. 88 he keeps
.respondi which he illustrates from Seneca de ira 111 6. 3,
16.5. In1. 3. 16 he keeps e� arma.

Emendations which he does not put in the text are tv 4. 55
si posces for sic hospes (?), 111 8.19 in iurgia uertas (?), 11 25. 33
sepelire (P), 11 82. 56 at (for et), also suggested by others, 11 26.

1 TI take this opportunity of assuring Dr. Magnus that my taking no notice of
this edition (which appeared to him so surprising) was due toits being a bare text
with no critical apparatus.


49 nam (?), 11 32. 36 prius for Parim(?). Vahlen’s paper
concludes with a mention of some transpositions which he
regards as necessary, 11 9. 8-16 and m1 8. 9-26.

Herr Potsrer’s ‘Specimen’ isworth attention. Amongstthe
best of his proposals is the suggestion that in m1 3. (Teubner
text 1880) v. 8 regiaque Aemilia uecta tropaea rate, which he .
refers to Aemilius Paulus, and v. 12 anseris et tutum wee
Suisse Iouem should change places, a change which in any
case improves the chronological order of the events. Iniv3.
7 he would read te modo uiderunt mitratos Bactra per ortus
et modo munito Neuricus hostis equo,a very tempting conjecture.
In tv 4. 39, 40 guid mirum in patrios Scyllam saeuisse capillos
candidaque in s(a)euos inguina uersa canes he proposes
senos, the best conjecture that has been made here. Se
however for the text my Propertius Introd. p. lxv note. In
Iv 11. 26 he is again ingenious, reading fallax Tantalee
o corripiare liquor for Tantaleo. The change however is not
quite convincing. In 1v 11. 50 he is possibly right m
reading accessu for assensu, though he dwells too much on
the fact that adsessu is a drra& Neyopevoy. In 58 of the same
elegy he reads cui sacratos for cuius rasos. In 1v 2. 8
caeruleus cucumis tumidoque cucurbita uentre me necat 4
zunco brassica uincta leut he reads decet, comparing 1
4. 58 te toga picta decet, 1v 3. 34 et Tyria in radu
uellera secta suos he reads serta, comparing Ov. Met.
6.56. In 1v 8.13 s tulerint castae is certainly an m-
provement on si fuerint castae; but it is a case in which
it is impossible to decide. He concludes with two sug-
gestions on Tibullus, one, a plausible defence of the MS.
reading 1v 5, 11 mane Geni, cape tura libens which he
contends is the adj. manus, and one, in which the inevitable
Nemesis appears, on 1 1. 67 inter dgnos, which might be
considered if it would scan. Polster’s work, of which the
above are selections, is marked throughout by ingenuity and
attention to palaeographical probability.

Herr BAazEHRENs proposes to alter 11 33. 9 cum te iussit haber�
puellam cornua Juno, u1 6. 25 non me moribus illa sed heriis
wmproba uicit, and Iv 7. 41 e� grauiora rependit iniquis pens

PROPERTIUS IN 1881-2. 233

I have pointed out elsewhere. He is-more successful in
defending the voc. praeuecta in v. 19. On 22 he propounds
a view of werba querar taken absolutely, which is in inde-
pendent agreement with mine. In 11 1. 5 siue illam Cois
Julgentem incedere cogis, a passage which he discusses
with great minuteness, he defends the MS. reading, taking
cogis in the sense of causing or something of that kind, and
as referring only to the result. He compares Hor. Ep. 1 9.
2,11 1. 226, etc. His arguments are worthy of attention;
but they hardly reach the point of conviction. Lastly
{p. 279) he defends the genuineness of 11 34. 387, 8
Theseus infernis, superis testatur Achilles hic Ixioniden ille

Herr WEIDGEN discusses twelve passages of the last two
books. Perhaps-his most fortunate proposal is to read in Iv
(v) 9. 42 aspicite haec fesso uizx mihi tecta patent for
accipit... terra patet, though here tecta must be called
doubtful. Where the words occur again in v. 66 he would
read accipit. haec fesso nune mihi terra patet. In tv (v) 4.55
he would read si capies, patria metuar regina sub aula, the
latter part of which is ingenious. In 11 18. 3 (tv 17) 31 he
would read ut t2bi—nauta sinas hominum qui traicis umbras
—hac animae portent corpus tnane citae, comparing 119. 16.
In iv 9. 24 he proposes Jucus ubt umbroso segregat (for
fecerat) orbe nemus, an unnecessary emendation, as indeed is
shown by a passage which he quotes himself, Ov. A. A. m1
689 stlua nemus non alta facit. His proposals are some-
times much too rash, e.g. 1v (v) 4. 55 for a duce Tarpeio he
would read hac uice turpe louis.

Herr KuHLEWEIN has observations and emendations on
about 14 places of Propertius of which the most likely are ~
wntecta for intecta 1v (v) 11. 7 and Atossa (referring to
Xerxes’ army) for Etrusca 11 4. 1 (L. Miiller’s text) non
tot Achaemeniis armatur Atossa sagittis. In 11 30. 35
he wishes to read guamquam Idaea parens (Cybele) for guamvis
Ida parens and defends the proposal at great length.

Following out his views upon the ‘ancient book’ with
a view to Propertius, Herr Birt seeks to show that the


traditional division. of four books is erroneous and that
the poems should be divided into a single book (Cynthia
- Monobiblos) and a collection of four books (rerpdBiPros
ovvragis) which were published together. The theory
has a good deal to recommend it. Besides the argu-
ments adduced by Lachmann in favour of a five book
arrangement which Birt reinforces, eg. the argument
from the subject of 1 13 sed tempus, etc. (on which
however Birt lays too much stress!) and the inordinate
length of book ‘11,’ it has the advantage of explaining the
curious title Monobiblos, which no doubt represents a correct
tradition as it appears in the Martial lemma, and also of
accounting (which Lachmann’s theory does not) for Nonius’
quotation of zam liquidum nautis aura secundat ster (mm Ql.
14) from the 3rd book. It is curious that. the Cynthia was
much less known than the Tetrabibios, which supplies 11 out
of the 12 quotations from the grammarians. The following
table represents the traditional order and that of Lachmann
compared with that of Birt:

I I : CyntH1a Monosisias.
o �=| em | | fmm
Uncompler) | (incomplete)
III IV | do. III
IV V do. IV


In order however to estimate properly the force of Birt’
arguments it would be necessary to consider his book a8 8
whole; and to do this is foreign to our present purpose.

1 His transposition of 7, 8 after 20 is unnec , a8 quando can well meal

guoniam, and there is no need to trouble about the characteristic Properta?
exaggeration in extrema.

PROPERTIUS IN 1881-2. 235

Mr. Exuts’s Propertianum is a proposal to read lamosis
‘boggy ’ for the first word in rv (v1) 7. 81 ramosis Anio qua
pomifer incubat aruis for the pomosis of the edd. spumifer
he regards as ‘ heyond doubt.’

Herr Sousisxky’s dissertation reached me late and has only
been able to receive a cursory examination. So far as I can
judge from this, it is a production which is well abreast of
recent criticism and well worthy of consideration. He takes
Baehrens’ nomenclature of the MSS. and discusses the fol-
lowing points in regard to them. I. De fide familiae AF, under
the three following heads: 1) (A)FN uwerum seruauerunt, DV
grauioribus corruptelis aut interpolationibus deformatis; e.g.
117. 25 candida felict soluite uela choro AFN, noto DV.
Then he adds nonnulli loct ubt uestigia tantum uert seruata
sunt in (A)FN, altera familia ab integritate magis deflexa.
2) DVN praeferendi sunt libris AF aut corruptis aut inter-
polatis, e.g.1 1.13 (D)VN wulnere, AF arbore. He goes on:
nonnullis locis aut D aut V ad alteram stirpem AF prauam
scripturam exhibentem deflecus est; e.g. in 11 12, 92 nec
quisquam ex illo uulnere sanus abit VN rightly, but FD erit.
3) F solus paucissimis locis genuinam lectionem praebel, e.g.
115.25 atque haerentes sic nos uincire catena uellet uti
nunquam solueret ulla dies where F alone has wellet. The
second division of the dissertation is entitled De auctoritate
Neapolitant et familiae DV and embraces the following sub-
divisions. 1) N preserves the true reading or traces of
It (a) against the other MSS. (b) with F? V? as in m1 13.
47 minuisset (c) with F? in a few places e.g. 1 24. 10.
2) DV(A)F have preserved the true reading or traces of it
where N is corrupt,.e.g. 111 18. 24 scandendast torui publica .
cymba senis. The next deals with the places where N shows
a lacuna in which, rightly as I think, he maintains that too
much weight has been attached to the lacunae. 3) Contains
cases where DV has the true reading as against N(AF); e.g.
18.7 pruinas, N ruinas. YV has the right reading by itself
in 111 8. 42 mel t2bt sit rauco praeconia classica cornu flare
nec Aonium cingere Marte nemus. In two places iv 11.
25 laxa catena, F lapsa and 1v 11. 70 aucturis, uncturis DV,


nupturis F', DV are nearer to the true reading than F. In
fine Solbisky thinks crisin Propertianam niti Neapolitano et
Jamia DV. He gives N the place of honour and places
the consensus of DV next. AF he considers to be made
up from the source of N and the source of DV and to be of
little importance.

He then gives the following stemma :—


An index locorum concludes the dissertation.



thoroughly investigated. The ruins of Assos occupy 4
volcanic crater, on the summit of which was the Acropolis,
while from this the ground descends to the sea in a succession
of terraces, separated from one another by precipitous cliffs.
Its break-neck position laid it open to a sarcasm of the
Athenian wit, Stratonicus, preserved for us by Strabo, who
said, adapting a line of the sixth book of the Iliad—
“Acaov 10’, ds Kev Oacoov or€Opou sreipal? ixnat.

The summit, besides being naturally steep at the sides, was
escarped, and by the construction of enclosing walls was ren-
dered impregnable. -A fissure in the rock formed a natural
well, and at this point deep cisterns were excavated. Thus
nature and art combined to make it a stronghold. At different
points between this and the sea were a stoa and a theatre,
and below the town a mole projected into the sea, which
secured to the place a monopoly of the export and import
trade of the Southern Troad, and was thus the great source of
its prosperity. At the same time the cornucopia on the coms
of Assos testifies to the fertility of its territory.

The temple, which was most probably dedicated to Athena,
stood on the Acropolis, and seems to have been the only
public building in that area. Its position was singularly
imposing, for “the peak rose so steep, that, standing within
the peribolos of the fane, one could look down into the holds
of the vessels in the port beneath.” It was constructed in an
archaic Doric style, and is the only known Doric peripteral
temple in all Asia Minor, with the exception of that of
Athena Polias, recently excavated at Pergamon, which was
built at a much later period. One noticeable point about it
is the remarkable similarity of its dimensions to those of the
Theseium at Athens. Mr. Clarke gives a restoration of the
front. But the sculptures of its epistyle and metopes are its
greatest treasures. Thirteen reliefs of this series are already
in the Louvre, having been removed to Paris in 1888, but
eight more have now been discovered. The subject which
they represent is believed to be some part of the story of
Heracles, and among the figures are introduced both winged
sphinxes and centaurs whith human forelegs. The latter


feature, which has been so fully treated by Mr. Sidney Colvin
in his paper “‘ On Representations of Centaurs in Greek Vase-
painting,” in the “Journal of Hellenic Studies for 1880,” is
sufficiently common upon early painted vases and engraved
gems, but had not before been discovered in monumental
stone-carving. In other respects, also, these sculptures,
which are at once archaic and original, are of great value in
the history of Greek art.

Another object, which attracted the attention of the
American archeologists, is “the only known example of an
ancient Greek bridge.” To say this is to take for granted
that the bridge of Xerocampo, in the valley of Sparta, which
is arched and composed of polygonal stones, dates from
Roman times; and this seems probable, notwithstanding that
the polygonal style is usually characteristic of Hellenic work
of an early date. In the bridge at Assos the principle of the
lintel has been consistently carried out. A number of the
piers which supported it have been discovered, and in one
place the stone beams of the platform are still in position.

The value of this book is greatly enhanced by the numerous
and excellent plans and views that accompany it. It also
contains a valuable essay on sites in the Troad by Mr. Lawton,
in which it is suggested that further excavations should be
made on the Bali-dagh or Hill of Bunarbashi, and a complete
account of the geology of Assos by Mr. Diller.

2. This is the fifth and concluding part of the publication of
the discoveries of the German Government’s Expedition at
Olympia. The whole of the area of the Altis, or consecrated
enclosure, has now been laid bare, and within it one important
object, which had hitherto escaped the excavators, was found
at the end of 1879, viz. the great altar of Zeus. The found-
ations of this were brought to light, not far from the centre
of the Altis, halfway between the temple of Zeus and the
Metroum. The German archeologists are thus able to say,
“The Altis of Olympia is now at last unrolled like a manu-
script, which, though often written over, and containing
many blank or damaged places, yet on the whole lies complete


Photographs of these are given, and also of heads of several
figures from both the eastern and western pediments of the
temple of Zeus. As in former issues of the results of the
explorers’ discoveries, the letterpress and illustrations are
accompanied by a ground-plan of the excavations; and while -
those which have previously appeared have a value of their
own in describing the progress of the work, this one has the
most permanent interest, as showing the entire work, when

3. Professor Sacnau, when travelling in Syria and Meso-
potamia in the winter of 1879-80, undertook to investigate
the site of the later capital of Armenia, which had been up
to that time one of the most disputed points in ancient
geography. Sir H. Rawlinson, and Kiepert following him, had
placed Tigranocerta at Tel Abad near the Tigris; others at
Diarbekir, and elsewhere. The ancient authorities on whom
Prof. Sachau mainly relies, and whose statements in his
opinion have not hitherto had sufficient weight attached to
them, are Strabo and Tacitus. He proves that Tigranocerta
was situated in Mesopotamia, and by determining the
boundaries of that country shows that Diarbekir lay outside
of them. The part of the Taurus range which was south of
Diarbekir was called Mount Masius, and Tel Abad was
situated in a valley in the heart of that range ; but Professor
Sachau is opposed to its claims, because Strabo states that
Tigranocerta and Nisibis were under Masius, and this in the
case of Nisibis certainly means that it was in the level
ground at its foot. He ultimately fixes the site of Tigrano-
certa at a village called Tel Ermen, a little distance to the
south-west of Mardin, at which considerable remains of
antiquity are found, and the position of which exactly corre-
sponds to the data given by Tacitus, viz. that it is thirty-seven
miles from Nisibis, and on the banks of a river. This site
he considers to be favourable for a capital, and to correspond
to the account of Lucullus’s campaign in those parts which
is given by Plutarch and Appian. Apparently we are
forbidden to look for greater certainty than this, for Prof.

VOL. Il. , 16


Sachau holds out little hope of discovering evidences of the
early history of the place by excavation, owing to the short-
ness of the period during which the city flourished.

The Journal of Hellenic Studies for 1881 contains two
papers by Mr. W. M. Ramsay, entitled, ‘‘ Contributions to
the History of Southern Aeolis ” ; and in the same journal for
1882 are “Studies in Asia Minor” by the same writer,
relating to (1) the Rock-Necropoleis of Phrygia, and (2)
Sipylos and Cybele. |

In the Mittheilungen des deutschen Archaeologischen Institutes
in Athen for 1881 is found an account by Herr Trev of the
excavations on the site of Tegea made by Signor Cavadias,
and his discovery of the foundations of the temple of Athena
Alea, together with a description of the works of art, some
of them from the pediment of the temple, which have been
found at that place.



neither on view in the periodical-rooms of our Libraries, nor
on the shelves, but are inaccessible while waiting to be bound.

The importance of Skrat’s etymological labours has been
unanimously recognized by critics. Whoever wishes to
pronounce judgment on them must not think so much of
the corrections which they have already received in detail
and still must receive, as of the quantity of good which
they contain, as compared with the works of Skeat’s in-
mediate predecessors. Of these the best was undoubtedly
. the Etymological Dictionary of E. Miller; but even this,
cannot claim independent merit. One can hardly say more
in its praise than that it is a careful English etymological
index to Grimm, Diez, Matzner, Koch, ete. Between Skeat
and Wedgwood, however, the difference is enormous!

The first praiseworthy point in Skeat is the clear arrange-
ment of his material. After the word in question follows
first a brief definition of its meaning. After that the reader
finds indicated in brackets by means of regular abbreviations, .
whether the word is genuinely English, te. whether it 18
the continuation of an originally Germanic expression, oF
if this is not the case, from what language English has
borrowed the word. If in that language also it 1s not
original, it is indicated by one and sometimes several
abbreviations, by what stages the word has found its way
into the language from which English took it. Skeat
rightly draws attention to this point, p. ix. Then follow
quotations, intended to show which were the older forms,
and in the case of borrowed words when the word gained
a footing in English: in doing so Skeat has rightly seldom
contented himself with the quotations of others, but hes
verified them whenever he could. He has intentionally
made an exception only in the case of Shakspere, by
generally trusting to Alexander Schmidt’s Lexicon. Every
one who knows this excellent work, will allow that he
could do so with a good conscience. Skeat next cites i0
the case of genuine English words, the identical or related
words of the other Germanic or Indo-European languages
or in the.case of borrowed words, their previous history. At


the end of every article he points out kindred English words,
collects derivatives, rejects obvious but false etymologies, etc.,
as the case may be. Only we fail to find in the case of words,
whose origin is not at once plain, a statement as to the scholar,
who was the first to propose the etymology given. At the
end of the book, besides corrections, various useful lists are
given: 1) Prefixes, 2) Suffixes, 3) Aryan roots, 4) Words
arranged according to their origin, 5) Examples of Lautver-
schiebung (Grimm’s Law), 6) Homonyms, 7) Doublets.

In the smaller book Skeat has omitted the quotations and
complete explanations, but has always given everything that
is essential, so that it ought to suffice for every one except
specialists. The arrangement is different, in so far as kindred
words stand next each other; but references in ieee
order are always to be found.

Whether Skeat was always obliged to go so far back as
he has, admits of a difference of opinion. It seems to me
remote from the function of an English etymological dictionary
to trace not only the native, but also the borrowed words
to their (as is now pretty generally believed) somewhat
problematical roots.

The great pains, which Skeat has spent on this portion of
the work, would have been more profitably applied in clearing
away further difficulties, which concern the etymology of
English as such.

In his observance of phonetic laws Skeat far surpasses all
his predecessors, though here and there even he has over-
ridden. them. In particular the Keltic etymologies stand in
need of revision.

After these general remarks I beg to make a few comments
on single articles, as they presented themselves to me in using
the book.

Angel. Skeat assumes this to be Old Engl. enge/, engel,
but in that case the word would now be engle, as e.g. Old
Eng. angel has given Mod. Eng. angle. The pronunciation
of the g in Mod. Eng. ange] and the Mid. Eng. form aungele
prove that the word enge/ derived directly from the Latin
was afterwards superseded by the corresponding French word
(angele, angle, now ange).


wealth, health, and other similar sbs.” So Skeat. I only
need to refer to Varnhagen in the Anseiger fir deutsches
altertum, 1x. 179, where he collects several examples of
Engl. p or th=Lat. d, t. I add asseth (cf. Skeat s.v. assets),
and O.E. seonoS=Lat. synodus.

Fallow. ‘ The G. fal-b as compared with fal (fahl) shows
that fall-ow ts an extension of fal=pal in pale.’ This is based
on @ misunderstanding of the German forms. New H.G. fahl

is the successor of M.H.G. val, which again, by the M.H.G.
ie for unaccented e, stands for vale, which again, according
to rule, stands for O.H.G. valo, the o of the termination
growling out of �. But the other N.H.G. form owes its
origin to a casus obliquus, e.g. falbes, which stands for
M.H.G. falwes (of. N.H.G. schwalbe=M.H.G. swalwe). There-
fore fahi like falb presupposes the stem falwa.

Fledge. Phonetic laws do not allow a derivation of flegge,
fligge, from Old Norse fleygr. Ettmiller quotes without any
proof “‘flycge, adj. id quod uolare potest.”” Even were the
existence of the word never to be established, we should, I
think, nevertheless be obliged to assume such a one=0.H.G,
fluechi, M.H.G. clicke, N.H.G. fliigge. Mid.E. flegge is then
the Kentish form.

Forehead. This word is found as early as the O. E. period,
ef. Bosworth-Toller under forh�afod.

_ Giddy., Skeat quotes examples only from Mid.English, and
remarks expressly, “ Zhe A.S. gidig 1s unauthorized, being
only found in Somner’s dictionary.” In Bosworth-Toller also
there is only a reference to Somner. But the word is found
in the Glosses to Aldhelm de virginitate, published first
by Mone and then by Bouterwek: Aaene gidigan. i. vecordem
(Haupt’s Zeitschrift fiir deutsches altertum 9, 520b). Against
the derivation of giddy from O.E. gidd song, giddjan sing,
which Skeat accepts without hesitation, there is 1) the
meaning of O.E. gidig; 2) the circumstance that in O.H,
and Mid.E. the word is written with only one d; 3) the
circumstance that the g in the adjective does not become
y in Mid.E.

Goad. Skeat rightly takes the word = Mid.E. gode, OQ. E


Mule. Skeat refers mule to the Mid.E. mule, and this
again to O.E. mui, and this to the Lat. mudus, and ac-
cordingly describes the word as borrowed directly from Latin.
It cannot, however, be doubted, in my opinion, that mule is
rather to be assigned to the French contingent. The Mod.E.
pronunciation of mule proves that in Mid.E. mule the u was
pronounced like French wu, for which reason it can only be
French mule=Lat. mula. So also the final �. in Mid.E. is
explained. In Old English, by the way, md�/ should be
written with long w: that is proved not only by Lat. m�dus,
but also O.H.G. and M.H.G. mil, N.H.G. maul end maultier.
Had not in Mid.E. the word borrowed from French re-
placed that borrowed from Latin, we should find Mid.E.
*moul, Mod.E. *moul or movel.

Ruddy. Skeat remarks: “A.S. rudig*, not found ; formed

with suffix -ig from rud-on, the pt. t. pl. of reddan, to redden.”
I have made a note of the O.E. adj. out of the Glosses, p. 475a,
already quoted under giddy: purpureus, rubicundus, rudi (of
course for an older form rudig). If Skeat says rudig is derived
from rudon, he presumably only means that it has the same
vowel as the Plural Preterite of the strong verb. It comes
surely primarily from rudu ‘redness.’

School. Skeat explains it as a doublet of shoal. That this
is not right has been shown by Sievers in Paul and Braune’s
Bettragen, 1. 418, cf. my remarks in the Anszeiger f. d. altert.
6, 30. School, O.E. sc�l (not sc�lu, at least not in the best
period), is a word borrowed early (cf. O.H.G. scuola, N.H.G.
schule); on the other hand shoal, O.E. scolu, is a genuine
Germanic word—Old Saxon scola.

Scold. Skeat considers the verb older than the substantive.
“Not in A.S. Formed from Du. schold, pt. t. of the strong
verb schelden to scold.’ Iam not quite sure how Skeat means
this. He defines the English word not as “Dutch” but as
“Old Low German.” He uses this definition according to
p. xiv. for “a not very large class of words, the precise origin
of which is wrapped in some obscurity.” I venture upon an
explanation in which I make the substantive my starting-
point, as Stratmann gives six quotations for it, while for


the verb there is only one passage. In one of the passages
quoted, from a northern text, it is written scalde: Stratmann
has put a note of interrogation to this form, as I believe,
without reason. I identify this sca/de with Old Norse skaldi,
which Vigfusson explains as follows, “a poetaster, a nickname
given in Iceland to vagrant extemporiszing versemakers . .. the
word is never given to really good poets.’ A really good poet
is indicated by skd/d, and it is surely to that that the Plural
skaldess in Ormulum 2192 is to be referred. Both words
are derivatives from a strong verb=—N.H.G. schelten. (Ci.
especially skd/dskapr ‘a libel in verse.’ To scold as a verb can
be classified with skalda “‘ to make verses, but in rather a bad
sense.” I will end by calling attention to M.H.G. scheltere
(Weinhold, Deutsche frauen II? 183).

Show. Perhapsit would be in place with regard to this and
other similar cases to call attention to the not quite regular
course of the sound changes: cf. Anseiger f. d. altert. 2, 6
Skeat writes the O.E. word without accent “ sceawian,” re
marking expressly at the end of his article: “ Grein AS,
sce�wian, with an accent; but cf. the Gothic form.” On this
we must remark 1) that the Goth. skawjan does not corre
spond exactly to the English word, as the former is conju-
gated like Goth. nagyjan=0O.E. nerjan, and the latter like
O.E. sealffan=Got. salb�n ; 2) even if we allow that the
O.E. sceawian comes from the same proto-Germanic adjective
(cf. Goth. us-skaws), as Goth. skawjan, that nevertheless n
O.E. sceawian the ea ought to be marked with an accent, as
it does not correspond to the Goth. � so much as to au, which
has developed itself out of @ before tc.

Sprout. As this is the same as Maid.E. sprouten, spruten,
it cannot be O.E. spr�vfan. But instead of explaining the
word as Frisian, as Skeat does, I ask what mght have.we
to assume for the O.E. present a form with �o? I conclude
from the Mid.E. and Mod.E. forms of the word, that the
OE. like the Frisian had 4 in the present (�/ above, under

Stag. Skeat, like all his predecessors, has failed to noti�
that the word already occars in the Laws of Canute: regalem


Jeram, quam Angli staggon appellant (Schmidt Gesetse der
Ags. p. 320). The derivation of the word from stigan seems
to me very doubtful. | |

Stand. By an oversight Skeat states that: “the A.S. p.t.
st�d may be explained as put for stond=stand, the long o being
due to the loss of n.”’ But in English, n only falls off before -
J, Pp, 8, h. O occurs in the preterite, because the verb is con-
jugated like faran, f�r. The n was originally only in the
present (ef Old-Norse standa, st6%, std%um, sta%inn), but in
the West Germanic languages has also penetrated to the
participle, in some (though not in English) even to the

Thrash. The O.E. form Airscan, quoted by Skeat by the
side of Aerscan, ought to be struck out. He probably as-
sumed if on account of Airsced in Grein, but even then it
is as little justified as it would be to assume diran by the
side of beran on account of bireS. For other forms, than
the present, Skeat seems to have no illustrations. I have
made a note of: he sloh hi and Jerse (2nd MS. %earsc)=quos
caedebat Greg. Dial. 3, 26; Aurhsun, burcson, Surscon, Surscun,
Luke 22, 63, 64; geSurscon, Mt. 21, 35 (North.GL.).

Till (2). To derive this preposition and conjunction from
the Old Norse, as is generally done, will not answer, because
the word does not occur in the Northumbrian Glosses for the
first time, but as early as the Northumbrian version of
Caedmon’s Hymn (heben til hr�fe—= West Saxon heofan t6
hr�fe), which was written down before the visitation of
England by the Danes; cf. Zeitschr. f. d. altert. 22, 214).
It also occurs on the cross of Ruthwell: aebpilae til dnum.
In Frisian also �i/ occurs as a preposition.

Tread. Skeat quotes the Old Norse �ro%a, tro%inn, to ex-
plain the Mod.E. part. trodden by the side of O.E. treden. This
is unnecessary, as o for older e occurs also in the participle
of other verbs: cf. spoken over against O.E. sprecen (not
found in Old Norse); gotten O.E. begeten (West S. begieten,
begyten, begiten; Old Norse getinn). The change is due
to the analogy of verbs with original e before a liquid in
the present.


guean absolutely the same: queen, cw�n is the Goth. kw�ns,
O.N. kedn, an i-stem with a long vowel. Quean, cwene, on the
other hand, is Goth. kwind, O.N. kona, an n-stem with an
originally short vowel. I can only repeat what I have lately
said in the Anseiger fir d. altert. 9, 191: “ Everything
points to the supposition that the vowels of the two words
were distinguished in pronunciation, as they are to this day
in spelling, till the time when the �-sound (written ea) passed
into 3.”

Wile. It is usually regarded as a genuine Germanic
word, but I believe it to be just as much Romance as guile.
I here briefly repeat the opinion which I expressed in the
Leitschrift fir das gymnasialwesen, xxiv. p. 488: wile in the
Saxon Chronicle of the year 1128 may be a French word,
and flygewilum ought to be altered with Ettmiller into

I hope that Skeat will concur with my remarks com-
paratively oftener than with those of WEpGwoop, who has
treated about 200 words in such a way as to repeat in most
cases the explanations in his Etymological Dictionary. He
deals principally with cases in which the facts as at present
known to us do not afford material for a definite decision.
‘Wedgwood’s Dictionary shows everywhere, that when he
wrote it, he had no notion of the phonetic laws of the Indo-
Germanic languages. That he has since supplied these un-
pardonable deficiencies in an etymologist, I am very much
inclined to doubt, judging by what he says under dairy, gate,
prison (cf. my notice in the “ Deutsche Litteraturzeitung,”
1883, p. 13sg.). It is rarely the case that I can adopt his

Mr. PaumeEr, the author of Folk-etymalogy, expresses him-
self as follows with regard to his task, p. vii, “By Folk-etymo-
logy is meant the influence exercised upon words, both as to their
form and meaning, by the popular use and misuse of them. In
a special sense, it 1s meant to denote the corruption which words
undergo, owing either to false ideas about their derivation, or to
a mistaken analogy with other words to which they are supposed
to be related.” | Besides the Introduction and Appendices, the


and �ge come by a mark of length, while egesian is without

P. 211, s.v. LEAVE, “ A.S. ledf (permission),”’ is made out
to come “ from lyfan to permit.”” If one word ‘has the accent,
‘why not the other too? But what would Palmer say if any
one tried to derive the Lat. ordo from ordinare? P. 487, s.v.
WHORE, he explains, “ A.S. ceafes, cyfes,” as “akin to ceipjan
to buy.”” He does not, therefore, perceive that except the
initial consonant, everything in both words is so different
that a connection is absolutely out of the question. Asa proof
that “y often interchanges with j,” the author quotes p. 453,
s.v. yellows, among other things, “yoke, Ger. joch; young,
Ger. yung.” The context shows that the question is about 7
with the English sound of the letter: that the German 7 in
the words quoted has not this sound, Palmer does not seem
to be aware. One more instance only of this kind: p. 599,
KNEE, he says, “ KNEE is in O.E. know (Chaucer ...), cneo
(Ancren Riwile), A.S. cned, cneow... Perhaps the modern
form 1s due to internal vowel-change denoting the plural, like
0.E. geet (Carton) plur. of goat, teeth of tooth, etc.” In the
explanation of Mod.E. knee, it is self-evident that the form
know ought not to serve as the starting-point, but knee, which
is established also for Chaucer by the rhyme with he, charitee,
be. This is, of course, O.E. cn�o. So all is perfectly regular.

In other cases besides this the’ author must be taxed
with taking for granted a disturbance of the regular
development. P. 171 he says, “‘ Hight,’ the perfect tense
of the O.E. verb hatan to call or be called=O.E. h�t, h�ht,
corresponding to the reduplicated perfect in Gothic haihait
Jrom haitan. The g seems to have crept in from a mistaken
analogy �ith pight=pitched, tight=tied,” etc. We may just
remark by the way, that Palmer is not consistent in his termi-
nology, as he here calls O.E. what is generally denominated
by him ‘4 S.,’ and that heht should be written with a short
vowel. But what I principally wish to point out here is
that gh� is the regular substitute for O.E. h�.

P. 220. Jload-star and load-stone are called ‘‘ misspellings
Jrom false analogy of lode-star and lode-stone.”” But in these


words oa is no less justified than e.g. in road=rdd, goad=g�d
woad=wadd, toad—tddye.

P. 636. ‘‘ Mass, the Roman celebration of the Eucharist,
seems to be an arbitrary assimilation of O.E. messe, from Lat,
missa, to the familiar word mass, Lat. massa, a lump ... or:
perhaps a connection was imagined with Heb. mazzah, the un-
leavened bread eaten at the Passover.” In Mid.E. the word is
not only messe, but also masse. Mod.E. mass is of course
based upon the latter, which again is the regular continua-
tion of O.E. messe.—Ghi for an older h%, f� for f%, Palmer
(s.v. DROUGHT, p. 104; HEIGHT, p. 168 and 630) explains by
analogy with thought, might, etc. It is, however, certainly a
purely phonetic process parallel to the change of sp to st in
nostrils, hustings, ete.

P. 633 he says, “JUDGE, being derived directly from Fr. juge,
has no right to the d, which has been inserted to bring the word
into visible connection with Latin iudex, judicature,” etc. That
is however not to be thought of: Mod. Eng. judge stands for
Mid.E. jugge, as Mod.E. bridge for Mid.E. brigge, Mod.E. edge
for Mid.E. egge, etc. Dg is written for g (Mod.E. 7) as the
double letter, just as tch is written for older cch, which stood
for chch.

Palmer overshoots the mark still more often, in cases
where on account of the meaning exhibited by the word, he
does not content himself with the Etymon, which the form
of the word points to, but assumes the influence of another.
I will, to begin with, quote a few examples in the case of which
similar changes of meaning in other languages, particularly
in German, prove Mr. Palmer’s assumption to be groundless.

‘“‘ Become, fo suit, fit, set off to advantage, as when a certain
dress or colour is said to become one (decere),.a distinct word
Srom become, to happen, be-cuman, is the modern form of
A. Sax. be-cw�man, from cw�man, fo please or profit; cf.
German bequem, convenient.—See Comuty (p. 25).” To
begin with, be it noticed that we look in vain for comely,
to which we are referred, on p. 72 where it ought to be
found. In the next place, I think that Palmer’s view is ex:
ceedingly doubtful, for the reason that O.E. becw�man or MidB.


bequemen are not established. But Palmer’s assumption must
seem quite unnecessary when we consider that M.H.G. be-
komen (Lexer I., 167) and (early) Mod.H.G. bekommen (Grimm
I., 1426 nr. 3) occur in the same sense. ‘DoG-sLEEP, an
expression used.in Ireland for a light slumber easily broken,
might be conjecturally identified with the Icelandic phrase, ‘a
sitja upp wv dogg,” to recline upon a high pillow, to he half erect
in bed, where dogg seems to be a pillow’ (p. 101). I will not
stop to show how bold Palmer’s explanation would be, even
if we were obliged to allow that dog could not in this case
mean “dog.” But that I am not in a position to do, as
the dog, as is well known, is a very light sleeper. In
German, too, we say “er schlift so leise, wie ein hund”
(he sleeps as lightly as a dog); cf Lucretius 5, 861, dew-
somna canum fido cum pectore corda.—‘ Leather, used in
Scotland, Ireland, and Prov. English, for to flog or beat soundly,
as if to lash with leather thongs (A.S. leper). Jt is the O.E.
lSere, used in the same sense; cf. A.S. (t6-)lisian fo fear
(to Limb, from li%u, a limb), li�ere, a sling; Prov. Eng. lither,
supple, pliant, lithe, to make supple, Cleveland leathe’ (p. 211).
About some of the words quoted by the author I am
unable to judge; but so much is certain, that ��%jan with
short % has nothing to do with dither and lithe, which are
traceable to O.E. Se with long 2=Mod.H.G. linde (gelinde).
As to “ to leather” in the above sense, it is exactly the
German /edern, which, according to Grimm vi. 496, means
1) ‘to prepare leather, to tan leather’; 2) (metaphori-
cally), to beat, in lower-class speech, and widely extended
through the dialects. Cf. “einem das leder vollhaun”’ or
“gerben” (leder=human skin).—Tuick, “as colloquially
used in the sense of familiar, intimate as bosom-friends are,”
Palmer, p. 387, separates from the ordinary word thick,
and traces it to Old Norse Aykkja. Cf. however Mod.H.G.
“dicke freundschaft,” ‘sie sind sehr dick mit einander,”
and so on.—TH1EF, “a popular name for an inequality in the
wick of a candle, or loose portion of tt that falls, causing tt
to waste and smoke, so called as if it stole so much of the candle.
It may be a derivative of the A.S. pefian, to rage, originally

VOL. Il. 17


to be hot or burning” (p. 388). In German, however, ‘deb’
is used in quite the same sense, as also “ wolf” and “ rauber”
(cf. Grimm, ii. 1087).

The author’s anxiety to discover folketymologies every-
where causes him to fall into the most extraordinary
conjectures. He says, for instance, p. 240: ‘ MILK, in
Shakespeare’s ‘milk of human kindness’ (Macbeth, 1. 5), may
possibly be a reminiscence of the Old English word milee,
mercy, confused with mylche milk.’ Instead then of a beauti-
ful poetic use of a word (cf. Schiller’s imitation “die milch der
frommen denkart,’’ Tell 3, 3), a senseless reminiscence !—
“ABLE 7s Old Eng. hable, Fr. habile, Lat. habilis. . . Th
word seems to have been assimilated to, perhaps confused with
Old Eng. abal, strength, ability.’ In the O.E. word 6 stands
as the remains of an older orthography for f, with which the
word is generally written. The word able has no A, for the
simple reason that at the time of its adoption into English,
it had none in French either: the spelling with h, occurring
in early Mod. Eng., is caused by Mod. Fr. habile or Lat. habilis.
—‘ Honey-Moon, as if mellis luna, “‘ The first sweet month
of matrimony,” is no doubt the same word as Icel. hjon, 4
wedded pair, man and wife, hj�na-band, matrimony, hj6na
seng, marriage-bed. Another related word is Icel. hynottar-
manu�r, “ wedding-night month,” and so on.’ To begin with,
the author has made a slip in quoting a word invented
by Vigfusson as a really existent one. Under hAyndtt
Vigfusson says, “May not the English honeymoon be �-
rived from this old word, gs. hynottar manu�r=the wedding-
night month?”’ Further, whoever wants to prove the agency,
of folketymology in the word honeymoon, which to any
unprejudiced person is quite transparent, must first estab-
lish an older form for it, which is less transparent. The
word, the history of which I am not in a position here to
follow up further, seems tolerably new, and for that reason
alone the derivation of Palmer or rather Vigfusson is to be
rejected quite definitely. Palmer himself points out a
Irish expression, which is a literal reproduction of ‘“honey-
moon.” I do not dispute that we have to deal with al


Irish imitation. In the same way I regard the Fr. lune de
miel, Mod.H.G. honig-monat, honig-mond (Lessing, Goethe ;
Grimm. 4, 2, 1790) as appropriated from English. These
instances show, however, that we have no internal reason for
taking honeymoon in any but the obvious way. And who is
to adduce an external one P

I sincerely regret that the undeniably great perseverance
of the author is not accompanied by a thorough knowledge
of language and above all things by a sounder method. I feel
bound to give the warning all the more emphatically to re-
ceive his statements with caution, as the large mass of quota-
tions might easily make the impression of great thoroughness
and trustworthiness on one who was not at home in the sub-
ject. But Ido not therefore deny that a critical reader can
learn a good deal from this book. Palmer’s introduction may
be recommended to any one with a turn for philology as both
instructive and highly interesting.

In conclusion I beg to call attention to two works, whose
professed subject is not indeed English Etymology, but which
will be of use to every English etymologist. One is entitled :

Altdeutsches Worterbuch von Oscar ScHapE. Zweite um-
gearbertete und vergehrie Auflage. Halle-a-S, 1872-1882.

‘It is far more copious than Wackernagel’s, and, above
all, especially refers to English for comparison. The other
is entitled :

Etymologisches Worterbuch der deutschen Sprache von Dr.
Friedrich Kiues, Strassburg.

It is at present in four parts, but is intended ultimately
to contain six or seven. Kluge knows the English language
thoroughly, especially its oldest period, and is very fond of
taking it into account.


February, 1883.



10 All questions involving extraordinary expenditure shall be
submitted to a general meeting.

11 The president, treasurer and secretaries and at least three
ordinary members of the Council, shall be elected annually by
ballot, at a general meeting to be held in the Michaelmas Term, the
three senior members of the Council retiring annually, and the
president being capable of being elected three years in succession
and no more.

12 Of the three vice-presidents, one shall retire annually
by rotation, and be incapable of re-election for the two years
next following.

18 No member whose subscription is more than one year i
arrear shall be entitled to vote or read papers at any meeting.

14 The names of any members whose subscription is mor
than two years in arrear may, after due notice, be removed from
the list of the Society, and such removal may be announced at
. the next general meeting and published in the proceedings of the
Society at the discretion of the Council.

15 The president, or in his absence, the chairman pro fem., shall
have, in addition to his own vote, a pasts vote in case of equality
of numbers in any division.

16 The accounts of the Society shall be audited annually by
two auditors, to be elected at a general meeting in the Lent Term.

17 A meeting of the Society shall take place at least once i
each term ; the time and place of meeting being determined by the
Council from time to time.

18 Members may introduce to the meetings of the Society
strangers, not being resident members of the University, who may,
with the sanction of the Council, read communications to the

19 No communication shall be read to or published by the
Society without the approval of the Council and the author’s name.

20 Any proposed change in these laws shall first be submitted
to the Conncil, and, if approved of by them, to the Society at on�
of its general meetings.

21 No law shall be altered or repealed and no fresh law enacted
without the concurrence of at least two-thirds of the member

fambridge pbhtlologtcal Soctety.


Rev. ‘Prof. W. W. Sxeat, M.A., Christ’s.


Prof. E. B. Cowet., M.A., Corpus Christi. Auditor.
Rev. R. Burn, M.A., Trinity.
H. Jackson, M.A., Trinity.


Rev. Prof. B. H. Kennepy, D.D., St. John’s.
J. Pet, M.A., Christ’s.

Rev. W. F. Movutton, M.A.

A. W. Verrati, M.A.

Rev. Prof. J. E. B. Mayor, M.A., St. John’s.

Rev. Prof. F. J. A. Hort, D.D., Emmanuel.

J. KE. Sanpys, M.A., St. John’s. Auditor.

J. B. Atten, M.A., St. John’s. |

Rey. 8. 8. Lewis, M.A., Corpus Christi.

Prof. W. Wricut, LL.D., Queens’.

Rev. H. A. J. Munro, M.A., Trinity.

W. Rivceway, M.A., Caius.

J. E. Nixon, M.A., King’s.

J. P. Posreate, M.A., Trinity.




Cambridge Wbilological Society.

December 1, 1883.

* denotes compounder. Where no date of election is given, the member



joined the Society in 1872, the year of its commencement.


Professor J. N. Madvig, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Professor C. G. Cobet, Leyden, Holland.

Professor T. Mommsen, Charlottenburg, Berlin.

Professor G. Curtius, Leipzig, Germany.

Professor J. Zupitza, Berlin.

Professor W. W. Goodwin, Harvard Galtspe: Moassachu-
setts, U.S.A.

Professor B. L. Gildersleeve, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, U.S.A.

1882. Rev. Prof. C. Badham, The University, Sidney; care of

Messrs. Triibner & Co., Ludgate Hill, London, E.C.


1880. Philological Society (London): Secretary, F. J. Furnivall, Esq.,

3, St. George’s Square, Primrose Hill, London, N.W.


80. Oxford Philological Society: Secretary, Prof. Nettleship,
17, Bradmore Road, Oxford. |

80. Hellenic Society: Secretary, G. A. Macmillan, Esq., 22,
‘Albemarle Street, London, W,

80. Smithsonian Institute: Washington City, U.S.A.


Abbott, Rev. E., D.D. (St. John’s), City of London School:
32, Abbey Road, St. John’s Wood, N.W.
79. Allen, J. B., M.A. (St. John’s); New (Oxon.): 13, Free
School Lane. |
Allen, 8., M.A. (Corpus): 1, Northumberland Place, Kings-
town, Ireland.
80. Arblaster, E., M.A. (Clare): Grammar School, Cork.
74. Archer-Hind, R. D., M.A., Trinity.
80.*Arnold, E. V., M. A, Trinity.
81. Arnold, F. T. " Trinity.
*A tkinson, Rev. E., D.D., Master of Clare College.
*Austen-Leigh, Rev. A., M.A., King’s.
Babington, Rev. Prof. C., D.D. (St. John’s): Cockfield
Rectory, Sudbury, Suffolk. |
76. Balfour, G. W., M.A., Trinity.
78. Bell, Rev. W., M.A. (Christ’s): The College, Dover, Kent.
75. Bensly, R. L., M.A., Caius. a
73.*Beresford-Hope, A. J. B., LL.D. (Trinity): Arklow House,
- Connaught Place, London, W. |
74. Birks, Rev. E. B., M.A. (Trinity): The Vicarage, Trump-
81. Blore, Rev. E. W., M.A. , Trinity.
Bowling, Rev. E. W., M. A. (St. John’s): Houghton-Conquest
Rectory, Ampthill, Beds. ,
*Burn, Rev. R., M.A. (Trinity): St. Chad’s, Cambridge.
74. Butcher, Prof. S. H., M.A. (Trinity): The University,
Edinburgh. |
Butler, Rev. H. M., D.D. (Trinity): The School, Harrow-
*Canterbury, The Lord Archbishop of, D.D. (Trinity): The
Palace, Lambeth.
81. Candy, F. J., M.A. (Emmanuel): Ditton, Cambridge.


1872.*Carver, Rev. A. J., M.A. (D.D.), Queens’: Lynhurt,
Streatham Common, Dulwich, 8.E.
*Chambers, C. E., Trinity.
1880. Chase, Rev. F. H., M.A. (Christ’s): 14, Brookside, Can-
1876. Chawner, W., M.A., Emmanuel.
1875. Colvin, Prof. Sidney, M.A., Trinity.
1881. Cooke, Rev. A. H., M.A., King’s.
*Cowell, Prof. E. B., M.A., Corpus: 10, Scrope Terrace,
1880. Cox, J., M.A. (Trinity): Warden of Cavendish College.
1880. Dale, A. W. W., M.A., Trinity Hall.
1872.*Davis, Israel, M.A. (Christ’s): King’s Bench Walk,
Temple, E.C.
1883. Davies, Rev. J., M.A. (St. John’s): 16, Belsize Square, South
Hampstead, London.
1881. Donaldson, 8S. A., M.A. (Trinity): The College, Eton,
*Durham, Lord Bishop of, D.D. (Trinity): Bishop Auckland,
1876. Edleston, Rev. J., LL.D. (Trinity): Gainford Vicarage,
1880. Edwards, G. M., M.A., Sidney Sussex.
Elwyn, Rev. R., M.A. (Trinity): Vicarage, Ramsgate, Kent.
England, E. B., M.A. (Trinity): The Owens College, Man-


Fanshawe, H. E., M.A. (Corpus): 17, Botolph Lane,
*Fennell, C. A. M., M.A. (Jesus): The Villa, Trumpington,


1879. Flather, J. H., M.A. (Emmanuel): Cavendish College.
Francis, A. L., M.A. (Jesus): Blundells School, Tiverton.

1877. Francis, H. T., M.A., Caius.

1883. Frazer, J. G., M.A., Trinity.

1879. Fulford, Rev. H. W., M.A., Clare.

1880. Fynes Clinton, E., M.A. (St. John’s) : The Grammar School,
Wimborne, Dorset.

1880. Gill, W. A., M.A. (Magdalene): East Down Park, Lewisham,
London, S8.E.

1873. Gotobed, Henry, 13, Hill’s Road, Cambridge

1880. Gow, James, M.A. (Trinity): 35, Fitzroy Square, London, W.


1876. Grant, C. E., M.A., King’s.
1878. Gray, A., M.A., Jesus.

*Green, Rev. W. C., M.A. (King’s): The School, Rugby.

1875. Greenwood, Prof. J. G., LL.D., The Owens College, Man-

1881. Gwatkin, Rev. T., M.A., St. John’s: 1, St. Mary’s Passage,

1883. Hadley, W. 8., B.A., Pembroke.

1880. Hager, Dr. H., 1, Derby Road, Fallowfield, Manchester.

* Haskins, CE. M.A., St. John’s,

1879. Hayman, Rev. Henry, D.D. (St. John’s, Oxon.): Aldingham
Rectory, Ulverston.
1880. Heathcote, W. E., M.A. (Trinity): Round Coppice, Ivor
Heath, Uxbridge, Bucks.
1881. Heslop, T. P., M.D., Sir Josiah Mason’s College, Bir-
1880. Hicks, R. D., M.A., Trinity.
1874. Holden, Rev. H. A. LL.D. (Trinity): 20, Redcliffe Square,
London, 8. W.
Hort, Rev. Prof. F.J.A., D.D. (Emmanuel): 6, St. Peter’s
Hutchinson, Rev. C. B., M.A.(St. John’s): TheSchool, Rugby.
1882. Hiigel, Baron Friedrich von: 4, Holford Road, Hamp-
stead, N.W.

*�Image, J. M., M.A., Trinity.

*Jackson, Henry, M.A., Trinity.

*Jebb, Prof. R. C., M.A. (Trinity): The University, Glasgow.
1883. James, S. R., M.A. (Trinity): Eton College, Windsor.
1881. Jenkinson, F. J. H., M.A., Trinity.

1873. Jessopp, Rev. A., Me. A. (St. John’s): Scarning Rectory,

*Kennedy, Rev. Prof. B. H., D.D. (St. John’s): The Elms,


1873. Kirkpatrick, Rev. Prof. A. F., M.A., Trinity.

1880.*Leaf, Walter, M.A. (Trinity): Old Change, London, E.C.

1881. Lendrum, W. T. (Caius).

1882. Levander, H. C., M.A. (Pembroke College, Oxon.): 30,
North Villas, Camden Square, N.W.

*Lewis, Rev. 8. S., M.A., Corpus.

*Lumby, Rev. Prof. J. R., D.D., St. Catharine’s.

1882. Macmillan, G. A.: 29, Bedford Street, Covent Garden, W.C.


1882. Macmillan, M. C., M.A. (Christ’s): 29, Bedford Street,
Covent Garden, W.C.
1878. Maddock, Rev. H. E., M.A., Clare.
1873. Magnusson, E., M.A., University Library: 26, Bateman
Street, Cambridge.
1881. Maine, Sir H. J. S., LL.D., Master of Trinity Hall.
1881. Mayo, Rev. James, B.D. (Trinity): 6, Warkworth Terrace,
Mayor, Rev. Prof. J. B., M. A. (St. John’s): Gussuspte
House, Kingston Hill, Surrey.
*Mayor, Rev. Prof. J. E. B., M.A., St. John’s.
Merivale, Very Rev. C., D.D. (St. John’s): The Deanery, Ely.
1882. Michell, W. G., M.A. (Trinity) : The School, Rugby.
1874. Monro, C. H., M.A., Caius.
*Moss, Rev. Hi. W., M.A. (St. John’s) :. The School, Shrews- -
bury. ,
1872. Moule, ‘C. W., M.A., Corpus.
1875. Moulton, Rev. W. F., M.A., The Leys School, Cambridge.
*Munro, Rev. H. A. J., M.A., Trinity.
1883. Murton, G., B.A. (Trinity).
1876. Neil, R. A., M.A., Pembroke.
1874.*Nixon, Prof. J. E., M.A., King’s.
1877. Orpen, Rev. T. H., M.A., Pembroke.
Paley, Prof. F. A., M.A. skesthoep Bonobo: Bournemouth.
1881. Palmer, Prof. A., M. A.:. Trinity College, Dublin.
1880. Parry, R. St. Folin, M.A., Trinity.
1881. Pearson, Rev. J. B., D.D., Emmanuel.
*Peile, J., M.A., Christ’s.
Perowne, Rev. E. H., D.D., Master of Corpus.
1876. Peskett, A. G., M.A., Magdalene.
1879.*Postgate, Prof. J. P., M.A., Trinity.
1876.*Rawlins, F. H., M.A. (King’s): Eton College, Windsor.
1883. Raikes, Right Hon. H. C., LL.D. (Trinity) : _Liwynegm,
Mold, Flintshire.
*Reid, J. 8., M.A., Caius: The Croft, Newnham, Cambridge.
1875.*Rendall, Prof. G. H., M.A. (Trinity): University College,
1879. Ridgeway, Prof. W., M.A. (Caius): The Queen’s College, Cork.
*Roberts, Rev. E. 8., M.A., Caius.
*Roby, Prof. H. J., M.A. (St. John’s): Wood Hill, Pendleton,


1879. Rushbrooke, W. G., LL.M. (St. John’s): City of London
School, London, E.C. -
1882. Rutherford, W. G., M.A.: (University College, Oxon.):
Westminster School, London.
*Sandys, J. E., M.A., St. John’s.
1877. Savage, Rev. H. E., M.A. (Corpus): Pelton Vicarage,
Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham.
*Scott, Rev. C. B., D.D. (Trinity): 19, Dean’s Yard, West-
minster, 8.W.
Seeley, Prof. J. R., M.A., Caius: St. Peter’s Terrace,
1879. Selwyn, Rev. E. C., M.A., King’s: The College, Liverpool.
1877. Sharkey, J. A., M.A., Christ’s.
Sidgwick, Prof. H., M.A., D.L., Trinity.
1879. Sing, Rev. G. H., M.A., Corpus.
*Skeat, Rev. Prof. W. W., M.A. (Christ’s): 2, Salisbury
Villas, Cambridge.
Smith, W. F., M.A., St. John’s.
1873. Spratt, A. W., M.A., St. Catharine’s.
Storr, F., B.A. (Trinity): 40, Mecklenburgh Square,
London, W.C.
*Swainson, Rev. Prof. C. A., D.D., Master of Christ’s.
Taylor, Rev. C., D.D., Master of St. John’s.
1876. Thompson, E. S., M.A., Christ’s.
*Thompson, Rev. W. H., D.D., Master of Trinity College.
1883. Tottenham, H. R., M.A., St. John’s. .
1874. Tovey, Rev. D. C., M.A., Trinity : Eton College, Windsor.
1882. Tucker, Prof. T. G., B.A. (St. John’s): Forton Bank,
Garstang, Lancashire.
1880. Vardy, Rev. A. R., M.A. (Trinity): King Edward’s School,
1874.*Verrall, A. W., M.A., Trinity: Newnham Terrace, Cam-
1880. Vince, C. A., M.A. (Christ’s): The School, Repton.
1880. Wallis, Rev. F., M.A., Caius.
1879.*Welldon, Rev. J. E. C., M.A. (King’s): The College,
Dulwich, S8.E.
1880. West, H. H., B.A., Trinity: St. Patrick’s Deanery, Dublin.
1883. Westcott, F. B., B.A., Trinity.
Wilkins, Prof. A. S., M.A. (St. John’s): The Owens College,


1879. Williams, W. H., M.A. See The Leys School, Can-:
*Wordsworth, Rev. C., M.A. (Peterhouse): Glaston Rectory,
*Wright, Rev. A., M.A., Queens’.
Wright, Prof. W., LL.D., Queens’.
*Wright, W. Aldis, M.A., Trinity.
1881. Wyse, W., B.A., Trinity.
*Young, Rev. E. M., M.A. (Trinity): Sherborne, Dorset.

Members are requested to send corrections of any errors in this lt
to the Secretary.


Index of Subjects (continued).

Forcellini’s Lexicon, remarks on, 156.

Four Cardinal Virtues, the, 96.

French spelling, influence upon English
spelling, II. 63.

Future Participle in Greek and Latin
supine in -wm, 93.

Grammatical Terms in Latin, 105.

Grapes, Latin words for, 302.

Gothic 4 scale, 17.

Gothic enclitic -h, -uh, 53.

Greek deponent verbs having aorists
ending in -@ny, 48.

Greek Literature, early, 127.

Greek Lexicons, supplement to, 9.

Greek Lexicography, errors in, 67.

Greek Tablets found at York station,

Greek verbs apparently parathetic
compounds with 4- and due-, 61.

Harshness and softness of letters,
Hindu idea of, 33.

Hendiadys and Zeugma, 152.

Heraclitus, alluded to by Aristotle, IT.
138, 152.

Homer and tragic poets, 213 sqq.

and Quintus Smyrnaeus, 290 sqq.

spurious archaisms in, 276 seqq.

Hyginus, authority of, II. 107.

Icelandic, Umlaut of @ to ei, II. 157.

Idiomatic Translation, 145.

India, a Diary in, by John Marshall, 8.

“‘ In puris naturalibus,’’ 47.

Inscription on an odla discovered at
Steeple Morden, 204.

Internal evidence, nature and limits of,

Isocrates, occasion of sixth letter of, 10.

Kine, extension of meaning of Sanskrit
terms relating to, 16.

Kiprn, of Aeschylus, 231.

Kovrdtioy, a, 183.

Landn�mab�k, sailing directions of, 314.
Larisa, magistrates of, II. 137.
Latin compound construction, some
terms of, 104.
Latin and Romance languages, biblio-
graphy of, ITI. 2 sqq. ;
Latin, If. 2.
Low Latin, IT. 2.
Catalonian, II. 7.
Franco-Provencal, II 8.
French, Old, if. 9.
—— New, II. 9.
-—— Dialects, II. 10.

Frioulan, II. 6.
Gallo-Italic, II. 5.
Genoese, ITI. 5.
Italian, II. 3.
dialects, IT. 3.
Portuguese, IT. 4.
dialects, IT. 4.
Provencal, Old, II. 7.
—— New, II. 7.
Romanese, II. 6.
Sardinian, II. 4.
Spanish, IT. 4.
—— dialects, IT. 4.
Wallachian, II. 11.
Latin and Romance words connected
with Viticulture, 302 *44 II. 1-61.
Grapes, Romance words for Il.
51, sqq.
Grapes, bunch of, IT. 44 sqq.
Grape, a single, IT. 56, 57.
Grape pulp, II. 59.
Grape skin, II. 57, 58.
Grape stone, ITI. 61.
Grapes, residuum of pressed, II. 58.
Must, II. 59.
Raisins, IT. 54.
Vine, vinestock. IT. 23 sqq.
—— blossom, IT. 61.
—— branch, II. 38 sqq.
—— bud, IT. 43, sq.
—— leaf, IT. 42. sqq.
—— yoots, II. 31 sqq.
-—— shoot, layer, II. 59. sqq.
-—— tendrils, II. 50.
—— trellis, II. 25.
Vineyard, II. 19 soq.
Latin epitaph at Ascalon, 167.
Latin-English Dictionary by Lewis
and Short, criticism on, 196.
Latin Mood, 104, ;
Latin Subjunctive, so called potential
and jussive uses of, 94. ;
Legends of Greek Tragedy and Heroic
Myth, Connexion between, 213.
Lewisand Short’s Latin Dictionary, 196.
Lex Thoria and Lex Agraria, Mommsed
on, II. 104.
Literal Translation, 142.

Madvig’s Adversaria, criticisms of, 67.
Metaphors, rendering of, 150.
Middle English Spelling, IT. 64.
Mommsen on wiritanus ager, II. 99.
on Lex Thoria, II. 104.
Mood, see Conjunctive.
MS. of Aristotle’s Ethical Treatises, 44.
MS. of 15th century, 91.
Mutes and liquids, short vowels length-
ened before combination of, 134.


Index of Subjects (continued).
‘Myrmidons’ of Aeschylus, 219.

N, transference of.from end of one word
to beginning of next, 15.

Negatives and prohibitives in Latin, 63.

Negatives in composition in Greek, 74.

Niebuhr on the ager publicus, II. 106.

’Odvcceds axavOowAht, 235.
Oedipus legend in Tragedy, 213.
Orientation, date of, 191. -
*OoroAdyo: of Aeschylus, 231.

Participles, translation of, 148.

Penelope of Aeschylus, 230.

Philoctetes legend in tragedy, 214.

Philological Society, work of a, 1.

Phoeniz of Euripides, 217.

Phonetic change, causes of, 17.

Phryges of Aeschylus, 225.

‘Post Epic’ words in Homer, (Paley)
271 sqq.

Predicative Dative in Latin, 261.

Prefix a- in English, 15.

Prefix un- in English, 62.

Present Indicative, translation of, 147.

President's address, 17, 30, 50, 76, 109.

Printing, discovery of, effect on English
spelling, IT. 6.

Pronunciation, Latin, reform of, II.

‘Proteus’ of Aeschylus, 230.

Wuxooracla of Aeschylus, 228.

Puns and xapa xpoodoxlay in Aristo-
phanes, 28.

Quintus Smyrnaecus, character of his
poems, 290.

‘ Read to,’ Greek words for, 248.

Reflexive verbal and noun formations
with Old Scandinavian reflexive pro-
noun, 24.

Relative pronoun translation, 146.

Romance language, bibliography of,
see Latin.

Romance sounds, pronunciation of, IT.
14 sqq.

Roots aK- and MaGau, 61.

Root 26 in Z6vos, etc., 51.

Roots sak, etc. in English, II. 194.

Roots roA-, tad-, TAa, 51.

Runic Alphabet, origin of, 121.

S to R in Latin, transition from, 9.


Sanskrit and Latin, 15 words common
to, 14.

Scotch proverb sokand seill ts best, 314.

Ships, Catalogue of, in Euripides Iphi-
genia at Aulis, 101.

Short vowels, lengthened before com-
binations of mutes and liquids, 134.

‘ Sisyphus’ of Aeschylus, 231.

Socrates, his Sa:indvioy onueioy, 23.

Sophists, defence of Mr. Grote’s account
of the S., 10. ;

Spartan franchise, grants of, II. 133.

Spelling, etymological, unmeaning in
its conventional sense, II. 66.

Pee real etymological is phonetic,

. 67,

Spelling reform, discussion on, II. 176.
Spelling reform in English, II. 62 sqq.

' Spelling reform, not a wiping out the

history of the language, II. 66.
Spelling reform to be based on Romance
values of the letters, II. 68.
Spelling reforms, value of partial, II.

Spelling, unphonetic character of Eng-
ish, II. 65.

Spenser’s Faerie
archaisms in, 11.

Surgeons in Greek Armies, 116.

Queen, pseudo-

Tablets, votive, found at York station,
69, 397 seqq.

Tabula Lusoria, 170.

Talent, the Homeric, 245.

Thorius or Borius, II. 104.

Tiberius Gracchus the elder, 8.

Tibullus rv 13, genuineness of, 239.

Tisias, date of, 238.

‘To save appearances,” 46,

Translation from Greek and Latin,
notes on canons of, 138.

Tyre, church at, as described by Euse-
bius, 189 sqq.

Vase, Greek, of fifth century B.c., 80.
Viticulture, Latin and Romance terms
connected with, 302sqq; II. 1 sqq.

Wasse, Joseph, literary career of, 82.

Words found in two Indo-European
aug only, 14.

Written history, lateness of, deduced
from Thue. 1 1-23, 11.

Written literature, early Greek, 127,



dyopt wAhGovea, 301.

&Cv�, 57.

aixdAAw, 25.

&arok, II. 144.

augiyvhes, II. 78,

a&udlyvos, II. 79.

�ugieAiooa, II. 80.

&varros, unchallenged, 74.
dvarp�pw, fatten up, 67.
"AmnAL�rns, 13.

araptnpds, 19.

ay arovoorhoew, 183.

Bop�as, 13.

yrwomaxev, usage of, 240.
Acagixh udxatpa, II. 124.
Siapporticey, c. acc., IT. 132.
SovAela, II. 132.

Spdyua, 311.

Spdeca, 311.

Spaxds (gen.), 311.

Sp�upa, 311.

dp�wewv, tpvyay, 311.
Sperreis, tpvyntal, 311.
e�uBarevey, 73.

�vorh, 25.

�radAdrrew, II. 114n., 121 8q., 129.
�xippo8os, 19.

Eppewy in Homer, II. 160.
evOevety, II. 165.

eSvoa, II. 115n., 121n., 131.
jidevts (Sxaudvd), Il. v. 36, 41.
‘hreporetw, 25.

TEs, 212.

toa, Spora, 28.

kara with acc. in apparently contra-

dictory senses, 55.
kardAniis, II. 171.
xeveuBarebw, 65.
xopovn, II. 145.
x�domos, II. 138.

x�xu (Hesych.), 25.

xvavos, 39.

kan and: y�vos, relation of, II. 141.

AaBely, of thing acted on, II. 142.

Addos, inhonesta, II. 139.

Aapioaios, IT. 135. |

Aaporods better than Aapaasoroids,
IT. 135 sqq.

_ Adyou, IT. 121, 123 n.

paprrw, 25,

" pal arovoorhcew, 183.

penpol and pnpla, 202.

pyhuoves, II. 151.

vabkAnpos, kuBepynrhs, mpwpets, 22.

Sapos, daplCew, 49.

6BeAtonxoAvxmoyv, II. 126.

Saws, IT. 130.

dudxawos, II. 125.

bverOa, IT. 152.
-oouvos, -oouvn, in Greek tragedy, 250.
wAwO@lov, 172.

mpob�Aupvos, 20.

pduara, 310.

pdg, 310.

pododdetvdAos ’Hds, 301.

pot, 310.

Selpios dorhp, 177.

okorovpat, passive as well as middle, 16.
onovddopuara, II. 147.

-cuvacopeiv, 74.

ovvernningplicey, IT. 134.

oxoAh, lecture, IT. 141.

Tv) way, corrupted from TORGY, rpordy,
etc., 204.

Ttpaxnrl(w, 47.

8An, silua, 136.

Srodelrev, construction of, II. 142.

xOCds, 41.

wpoberety, 202.


acinus, 306, 308, 311.
arcesso and accerso, 45.
arcifinius, II. 95 sqq.

atriarius, 312.

botryo, 304,

calees, 172.

cardinales uirtutes, 96.
condicto, conditio, 184.
eculeus, 210.

ous, 268.
decumanus, II. 97 sq.
granum, 306, 308.

INDEX. 277.

Index of Words (continued).
hemina sanguinis, 180, 297. rvacemarius, 305.
inhabslis, 67. racemus, 304, 307, 310.
intercisius limites, II. 99. scopio, scopius, 307.
tus uectigalis, II, 108. sermo in Servius meaning ‘ word,’ 49.
latrunculi, 172. seruos, 14.
libera schola, 59. | tipula, 176.
licentia poetica, 178. uncus, 12.
nominibus assignare, II, 104. uua, 303, 307, 310.
““non for ne,’’ 63. uinaceum, 307-309.
occupatorius ager, II. 99. uiritanus ager, Mommeen on, IT. 99.
per centurias, II. 108. uiritim diuisus ager, II. 100.
racemari, racematus, racemosus, 306. VTERE FELIX, 204.
aggrace, etc., 11. key, II. 190.
aim, 70. love, ‘nothing,’ 27.
akimbo, II. 188. mandarin, 208.
an in sense of ‘ if,’ 175. marmoset, 208.
anneal, 176. mask, 209.
atone, 35. neap and ebb, 17.
bask, busk, risk, etc., 25. patch, 209.
dace, dare, dart, 175. platchet, 209.
Jiush, clash, flash, crash, etc., 26. slowworm, II. 177, 179.
Srisk, fresh, busk, ete., 26. ‘ sokand seill ts best,’ 314.
glamour, 33. talk, II. 178.
gain, 72. weary, II. 178.
gypsey, 12. wench, II. 178.
jute, 208, wraith, II. 179.
keight, etc., 11. wyvern, 11. 179.
IcrLanDIC— IcELANDIC oracle
beita, ‘ tack,’ II. 159. sekja, ‘advance,’ 315,
lyf ‘ whit,’ 28. verdr, ‘catch of fish,’ II. 160.
keng-boginn, II. 188. SanskRIT—
lida, ‘ bury,’ IT. 158. gocharaand other compounds of go, 15.



Agamemnon 16
276, 7
Choephorae 472-3
Eumenides 441

















> 125
172, II. 190


829 sqq. II. 165

Persae 297, 8
‘Prometheus 420
Sept. c. Theb. 24
145, 6
Supplices 983-4
Anthology— 1x 482
Acharnians 920-5
Aves 1647
Equites 570
Pax 114-7
Vespae 642
Nicomachean Eth.1 7.16
v 6.12
vir 10, 2
Politics, 11. 3
2. 6

II. 124
II. 125

Aristotle (continued)—

Politics, 1 2. 7 II. 127
2.10 57
6. 1 II. 1118qq.,
[119 sqq., 128 sqq.
9. IT. 131
10. 4 II. 131
u 4. 8 IT. 131
5.22 IT. 132
8. 1 IT. 133
9.17 IT. 133
9.20 IT. 134
10. 6 IT. 134
12. 7 IT. 135
mr 2. 2 II. 135 8qq.
3. 2 II. 138
3. 6 II. 138
3. 7 IT. 138
4.9 II. 139
4.17 II. 139
5. 9 IT. 139
9.11-14 II. 140
12. 6 IT. 141
Iv (vm) 1. 1 II. 141
2.10 IT. 141
8. 3 IT. 142
ll. 3 IT. 142
12. 2 IT. 148
14.11 IT. 144
16. IT. 144
16. 9sqq. II. 1162qq,,
[145 sq.
16.11 IT. 146
16.13 IT. 146
16.14 TI. 146
17. 1 IT. 147
17. 3 Il. 147
17. 5 II. 147
17. 6 II. 147
17. 9 IT. 148
v (vir) 2. 5 II. 148
vi (Iv) 1. 1 II. 148
1. 6 IT. 149
4.25 II. 149
7.1 II. 150
15. 8 ITI. 160
vi (vr) 5. 7 II. 161
8. 7 IT. 161
8. 8 II. 151
viii (v)" 10.16 IT. 152
11.31 II. 152

Fals. Leg. 413
Alecestis 312
Helena 381
Hippolytus 276
Ion 3

Iliad 1 424


InpEx or Passaces—GREEK (continued).


1r 604, 605

v 36

xv 18, 19
xvir 506-8 211, 245

Odyssey vit 87 39
Passim 320sqq., II. 199sqq.
Orat. xxv1 17 119
Isthmians 11 39, 40 163
vir 43 163
Nemeans i 8,9 162
18 162, 252
29 252
32 252
1v 17 253
38 253
vil 86 sqq. 254
98 sqq. 256
vir 48 256
Ix 16 257
40 257
x 30 257
x1 46 257
Olympians 11 56 sqq. II. 183
ut 8,9 166
vi 73, 4 166
Apol.Socr.26D,B 246
33 B 79
Crito. 44D 79
Meno. 86zn IT. 169
Phacdon 62a II. 73
988 II. 71
10lo =6II. 70
104p II. 76
1064 II. 76
Philebus. 128 20
21. 3B 20
25 D 102
26 D 20
30 B 20
46 B 20
5lz 21


Plato (continued ).
Philebus 56 c
64 8
Republic v1 488
Theaetetus. 2078

Passim 333 sqq. II.


Antigone, 413-4 II.

Ajax, 399-400
Electra, 451-2
Oedipus Coloneus, 30
Oedipus Rex. 210


173 sqq.

328-9 123, II. 162, 175

Philoctetes 527
Trachiniae, 553-4
Fragments, 319 .
Theophrastus, passim,
Thucydides— 1118.2
ir 17
iv 18.4
v 49
v1 11.6




InpEex or PassaGEs—GREEK (continued).

Thucydides (continued).

vi 67.1 116
vir 75.4 55 103. 2
102. 2 102 Xenophon—
vir 14.2 164 Agestiaus,r 2
31.2 165 1 9
56. 4 102 de Vect.1v 14
Colossians ii. 18, 19 65 Ephesiansi. a
1 Corinthians vii. 1 80 vi.
ix. 1 80 St. John xviii. 98
ix. 24-27 66. 2 Timothy i. 15
Catullus— 35. 4,5 312 Propertius (continued).
Cicero— I 6.19
Academica 1 89-42 IT. 170 sqq. 8. 7
Brutus 36, 136 II. 104 16.29
Milo 21. 57 210 20.62
De Natura Deorum 11 1.47

111 35. 84 21
Orator 48.160 . 54

Gromatici Scriptores passim. II. 95 sqq.

Epodes v 87-88 162
Satires 1 3.120-1 88

I 1. 86 31

mu 4. 77 55

Juvenal— 1 153-5 11, 114
vir 165-6 114

x 65-6 114

Lucan— 1 44, 6 II. 166

151 sqq. II. 167
164, 5 I1.167

167 sqq. II. 167
220 sqq. II. 167
327 II. 167
413: = II, 168
452-4 II, 168
694 IT. 168

Lucilius, fragments of, in Cic. de Fin.
11 � 23, de Fin. 1 $7, Or. 11 � 25,

Plin. N. H. Praef. � 7—168
Plautus—Miles 526 II. 181

635 IT. 181

881 IT. 182

936 sqq. IT. 183

Mostellaria 62 IT, 183
460 II. 183

Propertius— 1 1.33 187
2.25 188

Thucydides (continued ).
vir 86.3




111 26.15, 16 (1128.61, 62) 383
32. 1 (11 34. 1) 384
29 (11 34.29 189
92 (11 34.99) 312
Iv (111) 11. 5 189
17.27 384
19. 7,8 384
21,19-22 385
v (tv) 1.37, 38 385
2.11, 12 385
4.14 249
5.61 189
64 386
8. 1 249
39 386
9.70 386
10.42 386
11. 6 189
17 8qq. 266
37 sqq- 267

Passim 372 sqq., II. 227 599.


Inst. Orat. xu 10.17 54
Servius —Passin 387 8qq.
Tibullusu— tiv 13 239

Aeneid v1 585-6 182

x 185-6 81

Georgics 1 613-4 56
Passim II, 228 5qq

INDEX. 281.


ARISTOTLE (1880), by H. Jackson.
368 sqq.
Bernays, Aristotelische Theorie
es Drama ie ire tae 371
Grote, Aristotle aan 368
Hatch, W. M., Moral Phiio-
sophy Of Ae ws suase . 370
Susemihl, Aristotelis Ethica Ni-

Wallace, E., Outlines of Philo-
sophy of Aristotle Sater. - 3k 368

Wilson, J. Cook, Aristotelian
Studies ise ee uae 368

HOMER (1880-2), by W. Lzar.
321sqq. II. 199sqq.
Adan, L., ee u. episch.
Cycles —— ae cassette 330
Anton, H. S., ” Etymologische
Erkl�rung Hom. Worter II. 209
Fortseteung as IT. 212
Avia, Odyssey in English verse 323
Baenitz, sum I u. II der Il. I1. 208
Bolte, J., de monumentis ad Od.
pertinentibus .... sds II. 212
Brentano, zur L�sung der Troj.
Fagen, tresses IT, 203
Brocks, E., zu Iv. zvit 330 II. 209
Buchholz, E., die Hom. Realien :
Band II, Abtheilung I: das
Ocffentliche Leben... II. 201
Burchardi, K., ofos 6. Homer II. 210
Du Cane, Sir C., Odyssey I- XII

in English verse one tues 324

Dunbar, H., Zl. avi wae 322
Concordance to Odyssey and

yMns ier sures tates 327

Ebeling, Lexicon Homericum ..... 330
Faust, A., Homerische Studien

IT. 212
Fowle, E., Book I of Homer's
Iliad (for schools)... au 323
Frey, K., Homer _..... II. 210
Fro wein, E., Homerische Ver-
balformungen..... re II. 209
Frolich, H., d. Militar mediein
Homers nas 327

Gemoll, A., Hinleitung in d. Hom.

Gedichte �c sae IT. 207
Giles, Homer's Iliad 100000 sn 324
Goebel, Lexilogus zu Homer u. d.

Homeriden Sst; salient - “stead 324

Goecke, Gebrauch d. Konjunctiv
u. Optativ bei H...... IT, 201

HOMER (continued).

Haesecke, Entstehung des IB. der
LUGS sic seis aes II. 208
Hagemann, A., Figennamen bei
TD sige, dees. Ses wee O27
Hailstone, H., Z/. wai... ou. 322
Harrison, J. E., Myths of the -
Odyssey ae tases IT. 210
Hecht, M., Quaestiones Homer- —
BCOE aie nas �. II, 212
Hentze, Homer's Ilias Schulaus-
gabe v. K. F. Ameis..... IT. 205
Anhang zu H.’s I. v. dessel-
DOR. sare cae S aess IT. 205
Hercher, R., Homerische Au Wf
BALZE ore saeen I, 206
Hinrichs, G., @. Hom. Chryseis-
episode eae tas IT. 213
Kayser, K. L. Homerische Ab- �
handlungen ..... ww� II, 204
Kiene, A., die Ependes Homer II. 204
Kobilinski, G., De .A, I, Y, ap.
Hom. mensura uocalium II, 211
K�chly H., Opuscula Philo-
logica, vol. Co. + ds II, 205
Kopp, H., Aurea Catena Homeri 329
Lahme Cr, L., de apodotico &€..... 327
Lenz, E., de uersibus ap. Hom. —
perperam iteratis ..... IT. 206
Mahafty, J.P. (Historyof Greek
Literature) wn. sue II. 328

' Morgan, R., Odyssey, literally

translated Bien. “ae. sacs 324
Niese, B., Entwickelung der Hom.

5 re II. 212
Polak, H. J., Ad Odysseam cius-

que Scholiastae curae secundae

Pratt, J. H., & Leaf, W., The
story of Achilles we sass 323

Ranke, F., die Doloneia IT. 202

Rothe, C., ” de Vetere spoil

VOOTP — ass ee I. 213
Sandford, P., Iliad xxii. 323
Sayce, A. H., On the Language

of Homer oe asses ‘aie
Schliemann, Z/ios sass 326

keise in der Troas II, 202
Schrader, H., Porphyrii Quaes-

ttonum Hom. reliquiae _...., 329
Sidgwick, A., Homer's Iliad xxi 322
Lut 322

Siegfried, R., Compositio libro-
rum Itiadis xviit ad xxii II. 208



Inpsx or Reviews (continued).

HOMER (continued).

Sittl, K., Wiederholungen in der
Odyssee i tks II. 211

Thiemann, C., Gebrauch u. Un-
terschied der Partikein ty u.
HEV nace saese ete II. 206

PLATO (1880, in England 1881-2) by

R. D. Hicxs 333 sqq; II.215 sqq.
Apelt, 0., observationes criticae

in Pl. dialogos 344, 354, 355, 361
—— ueber den Parmenides _..... (844
— zum Commentar von P.’s

Parmenides wc. see tae 349
Archer-Hind, R. D., Difficulties

in Platonic Psychology II. 218
Badham, C., ad Pl. Philebum..... 349
Platonicd wi oases II. 220
— ad l. x de legibus..... II. 220
— — 1. viii Parulipomena II. 220
Becker, Th., zur Erklarung v.

Platon’ s Laches tise a 355
Benn, A. W., Greek Philoso-

ne II. 220
Bruns, J,. Plato’s Gesetze _..... 362
Bywater, I., Atakta ..... IT. 220
ae Ie, a neglected MS. 0 uA

a 219

— Opies ss II, 221
Church, F. J., Euthyphron,
Apology, Crito and Phaedo

translated into Eng... smn 367

Cobet, C. G., ad Pl. Protagoram 357
Drygas, re P.’s Erziehungs-
EhCOTTE —— nurse nates ene 340
Dziatzko, K., Kritisches zu P.’s
DOG OW aa asi as 365
Fischer, C., tiber d. Person des
Logographen in P.’s Euthy-

DOMUB., —sasse tates tetas 356
Forster, R., Sophron u. Platon..... 360
Gobel, K., ber d. Platonischen

Parmenides wu ae sees 346
Gow, J., hi cane Number a

Republio aun tras 220
Hasbach, ” Aasthetik te :

Schopenhauer | ne ce 339

Heine, T., de ratione quae Pla-

tons oum poetis Graecorum

ay gui anie eum florue-
ae . 338

uit, ‘0. (6 Sophistecat-it? wore

de "Platon Poets

Jackson, HI., Plato's later tery

Of Tdeas ia anen
—— (n Plato's Republic II, 216

PLATO (continued).
Kennedy, B. H., Theactetus,
Translation and Notes II. 221
Kleist, H. v., Methodologische
bedeutung des Protagoras .... 308
Liebhold, K. J., zu Platon’s
Philebus he, ise ~ 349
zu Platon's Politeca w. 360
L�schhorn, K., kr. Studien sur

platonischen wu. christlichen
Ethik ae aan cages ww 340
Maguire, T., Parmenides II. 221

Mu er-Stribing, H., Protagorea 342
Miinz, B., Zr kenntniss u. Sen-
sationstheorie des Protagoras 342
Noble, C., Staatslehre Platons in
geschichtlicher entwicklung ..... 335
Purves, J., Selections from the

Dialogues... II. 221
Rettig, G. F., die Zahl in P.’s
Staat 0. sun wee BOL

Schanz,M. , Platonisopera (112 9) 334
Schmidt, H. ., exegetischer Kom-
mentar zu P.’s Theatet. _ .... 342
Stein, P., Aristophanis Eee.
argumentum e iv Reipublicae
libro sumptum wwe 301
Susemihl, F. , Abfassungszeit des
Pl. Phaidros.. wn 302
Tannery, P., I’ �ducation pla-
tonicienne —.... “ woe 300
Thompson, W. H. , Introduetory
remarks on the Phaedrus It. 29
Usener, H., Abfassungszeit d.
Pi. Phaidros ... � wees O00

Wells, G. H., Euthyphyro wee. 340

Zeller, E = zur Geschichte d, pla-
tonischen wu. aristotelischen
Schriften sus w.. 940, 359

VIRGIL (1881-2) by H. Nerriessr.
IT. 228 sqq.

Albrecht, E., wiederholie Verse.

ub. Verstheile b. Vis yes II. 226

Conington & Nettleship, Works
of Virgil (4th ed.), vol. i IT. 223
Henry, J., Aeneidea vol. tii II. 224
Kloucek, W., 2% Vergilius II. 226
Kolster, W. H., V.’s Eklogen
in strophischer Gliederung mit
Kommentar ...... ~. I. 222
Kvicala, J., Bettrage eur Erkla-
rung der " Aeneis wee �LT, 24
Ladewig, Virgil, ed. Schaper,
OObBMisis cass tes II. 224



InpEx or Revrews (continued).

VIRGIL (continued).
Papillon, T. L., Virgil II. 226
Smith, C. L., Virgil's instruc-
tions for ploughing, etc. II. 223

PROPERTIUS (1880-2) by J. P.
' Postcate 372sqq., II. 229, sqq.
Baehrens, E., Propertius (text) 372

Reviews of do. ... 380 (bis)

sts lateinischen dichtern II. 230

Birt, T., Properz (Das antike

Buchwesen Bede. lg II. 233
Bitschofisky, R., zw Prop. [I 21.
V18q. snes II. 231
Brandt, K., Quaestiones Proper-
tlanae..... tie Sadie II. 231
Ellis, R., on P....... me wwe 380
— The Neapolitanus of P. ..... 381
Propertianum II. 235

Kihlewein, G., kritisehe Bemer-
kungen 26 Pri, vse IT. 233
Leo, F., Vindictae Propertianae 378
Otto, A., Fabulae Propertianae,
D3 Se ar 379
Palmer, A., Propertius (text)... 375
Peiper, Quaestiones sri anne,

Parsi an wee 880
Polster, Quaestionum "Proper-

tianarum Specimen ..... II. 230
Postgate, J. P., Propertiana .... 382
—— Select Elegies of P. II. 227
—— Emendations of P. II. 228

Scharf, Quaestiones Propertianae
II. 231
Schenkl, eine Properz-handschrift
IT. 231
Simpson, F. P., Note on P....... 382
. Solbisky, K., de Codd. Proper-
CANES esas w. II. 235
Vahlen, J., Beitrdge zur Berich-
tigung der Elegien des P. II. 229
—— ucber zwei Elegien des P.
II. 282

PROPERTIUS (continued).
Weidgen, J., Quaestiones Pro-
pertianae tt ..... we LI. 233

SERVIUS (1880) by H. Nett.esx1r.
387 sqq.-
Linke, H., de Macrobiit Satur-
naliorum fontibus _..... we O93
Thomas, E., Essai sur Servius et
son commentaire Deas, sae 387
Wissowa, G., de Macrobii Satur-
naliorum fontibus _..... wns ODD

WESTERN ASIA _ (1881-2)
by H. F. Tozer II. 237-42

Clark, J. T., and others, Jnves-

tigations at Assos ..... II, 237
Olympia, die Ausgrabungen zu,
Part v0 ae sues II. 239

Ramsay, W. M., Studies in Asia
Minor, ete. we saree II. 242

Sachau, E., wher die Lage von
Tigranokert@.u. even II. 241

Treu, Cavadias’ excavations on

Site Of Teged wn saves II. 242
by J. Zurirza __... II. 243 sqq.

Palmer, A. 8., Folk-etymology
II. 253

Skeat, W. W., Etymological Dic-
tionary of Eng. we _ LIT, 248
Concise dow wu IT. 243

Wedgwood, H., Contested ety-

mologtes tn Skeat’s Dictionary
II. 253

Kluge, F., Etymologisches Wor-

terbuch ad. deutschen Sprache
IT. 259
Schade, O., altdeutsches Worter-
buch (2nd ed.) is IT. 259



Allen, J. B., 138.
Allen, S., 109.
Arnold, E. V., 261.

Bendyshe, T., 41, 103.

Birks, E. B., 29, 73, 101.

Bonaparte, H.I.H. Prince L.-L., II.

Cooke, A. H., II. 173.

Cowell, E. B., 8, 14, 15, 17, 30, 33,
39, 48, 49, 51, 76, 109.

Cullinan, Max C., 87.

Dahlmann, R., 52.
Doig, W., 182, 210.

England, E. B., 209.
Fennell, C. A. M., 9, 25, 34, 89, 109,

Fulford, H, W., II. 175.
Francis, A. L., 9.

Gardner, P., 80.
Gow, J., II. 157.

Hager, H., 84, 246; II. 83-94.
Haskins, C. E., 88.

Hayman, H., 127, 183, 189, 213, 270.
Hicks, R. D., II. 170 sqq.

Hort, F. J. A., 22, 63.

Jackson, H., 9, 20, 22, 23, 29, 34, 44,
66, 102, 136; II. 70-7, 111 sqq.,

170. |
Jebb, R. C., 10, 21, 22, 42, 75.

Kennedy, B. H., 14, 16, 58, 59, 81,
94, 104, 123, 156, 172; II. 162-4,

Kenrick, J., 48.

Kempthorne, J., 155.

King, C. W., 347.

Jaurence, P. M., 111.
Jaaf, W., II. 70-7.

Lewis, S.8., 29, 39, 63, 69, 161, 204,
240, 261.

Magnisson, E., 24, 25, 35, 70, 120,
314; II. 157s8qq., 179, 188.

Mayor, J. B., 28.

Mayor, J. E. B., 9, 46, 49, 63, 67, 82,
91, 96, 109, 156, 178, 184, 196, 297.

Munro, H. A. J., 81, 168.

Nixon, J. E., 63, 94, 109, 132.

Paley, F. A., 9, 12, 16, 21, 22, 2%,
39, 40, 41, 49, 51, 85, 92, 93, 101,
130, 136, 138, 169, 202, 298.

Pearson, J. B., 176.

Peile, J., IT. 164.

Postgate, J. P., 187, 239, 252, 266,
oe 312; II. 118, 164, 166-8, 180,

Ridgeway, W., 209, 210, 244; II. 160,
179 sq., 185 sq.

Roberts, E. S., 40.

Roby, H. J., II. 95 sqq.

Sandys, J. E., 16, 182.

Savage, H. E., 134.

Shilleto, R., 48, 59, 61, 74.

Sidgwick, H., 10, 21.

Skeat, W. W., 11, 15, 17, 38, 45, 54,
60, 62, 73, 86, 113, 175, 208; II.
160, 177 sqq.

Swainson, C. A., 183.

Sweet, H., II. 62-9.

Taylor, C., 14, 65.
Thompson, E. 8., II. 169.

Verrall, A. W., 204, 212, 238, 244,
a 297, 311; II. 164 sqq., 181 5qq.,

Wratislaw, A. H., 9, 13, 18, 31, 42,
56, 78, 113, 162.

INDEX. 285


Election of Members, 19, 28, 30,39, Election of Officers, 8, 18, 30, 50, 76,
41, 42, 50, 58, 61, 70, 74, 76, 81, 103, 201, 299.
87, 96,1038, 113, 123, 132, 136, 138,
156, 162, 167, 169, 172, 183, 202, Miscellaneous, 9, 18, 300, 311; II.
208, 240, 244, 249, 252, 266, 299; 162, 169, 177.
Il. 157, 162, 181, 187, 190.



of the
Cambridge philological Society

For the Wear 1882,


Cambridge tlological Soctety.
LENT TERM, 1882.


At a Meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, Feb. 9, 1882,
Professor SxeEat, in the absence of the Prestdent, in the Chair,

H. F. Wuison, Esq., Trinity College,
was elected a member.

A vote of thanks was passed to Mr. Vansrrrazrt for his present of
the Philological Museum and the Museum Criticum to the Society’s

It was agreed to purchase a complete copy of Kuhn’s Zeitschrift
for the library.

Prof. A. S. Wizxms communicated a paper on a MS. of Cicero’s
De Oratore and Orator in St. John’s College, Oxford.

‘It seems to have been first collated by Thomas Cockman (De
Oratore, Oxf. 1696): and Bp. Pearce, who knew it from Cockman,
praises it highly. The collations of the other MSS. by Lagomarsini,
Ellendt (1840), Piderit, and Ravaisson (Codex Abrincensis), now
enable us better to estimate its value.

The MS. is a small folio of 28 leaves (55 pages, the last blank)
written in double columns in a neat and clear hand. The ink has
kept its colour except on the first page. It has numerous
contractions, such as the Tironian abbreviations for e� and cons, the
misunderstanding of which latter has led copyists to change
consules into asinos (Wattenbach, Einleitung, p. 74).

The MS. contains

De Oratore 1. �� 1—128 cogitanti—stimo, 157—193 citatae—
ciuili. m1. 60—69 feriit—a doctore tidant, 19—20 ti—arte, 39—50
eloqu�t�—cohortatio, 30—39 mediocris—qd d�, 69—245 p’ma
—p fit (omitting 90—92) exprimat—quid enim, 228 colligtr. mr. 1
istituenti—17. 110 i ut iure—ad jinem. Onartor 91 robustius—
ad finem.

Thus it belongs to the second class of codices mutili. It wants
I. 128—156 and m1. 18—109; but it contains 1. 124—128, which
are wanting in the older Erlangen, and m. 231—245, which are
added in A by a somewhat later hand. The dislocation of the four
passages towards the beginning of Bk. 11., evidently corresponding
to the displacement of four leaves by a binder, is the same as in


2 Campripce Purovoeicat Socrery’s Procrrpixes.

� and other codices mutils. Its readings show considerable resen-
blance to y. In 11. 1—18 I have noted more than eighty readings
of Z, none of which are given by Pearce or Ellendt. For fourteen
the reading of +, as given by Sorof, agrees with Z. In seven thereis
discrepancy (one being an error in Z, six in y), A having im all
these cases the right reading. From an inspection of the readings
of A, +, and Z in these and other instances, we can infer a very
close connexion between A on the one hand, and Z � on the other.
It would seem Z and y were not derived directly from A, but
through the medium of a copy which fell to pieces and was
wrongly rebound. Z however represents A more accurately than
y- Zand +, though only holding a secondary place in the 2nd and
3rd books, where we have A, rise to the position of excellent
authorities where A fails us.

It may be added by the way that, though the readings of A are
of very great value in determining the text, the same cannot be
said of its omissions.”’

Dr. WaupsteIn read a paper on dxpoxetpiopes, Ar.. Eth. N. m.
i, 17, p. 1111 (Bekk.).

‘‘ Aristotle is enumerating the categories of harmful human
action, which, from particular ignorance on the part of the agent,
are not to be considered criminal. These categories are illustrated
by definite instances from real life, and to the last 70 mis, olov
jp�pa } odo�pa, is added as an illustration cai det€ac Bovdopevos,
worrep oi dxpoxerpiCouevor, ratatecey av.

As this passage stands, it fails to illustrate the category, and
cannot be construed into good sense. Our difficulties are increased
by our ignorance of the precise nature of the dxpoyerpiopos. If, 98
has been supposed, this game consisted of boxing, wrestling,
sparring, the illustration falls flat.

A painting on a vase in the possession of M. Camille Lecuyer at
Paris, together with a relief published by Clarac (Mus�e de Sculpture,
Vol. 1. Plate 184, No. 55), and another published by Krause
(Gymnastik und Agonistik, etc., Vol. 1. Pl. x. Fig. 29), show this
gume to have been similar to one practised by boys with us, m
which the fingers are interlaced, and the point is to bring the
adversary to his knees by forcing back his wrist, only with the
important addition that the Greeks did not begin with interlacing
their hands, but stood opposite one another and strove to seize the
mont favourable grip of the hands, the most decisive part of the
gume, In this act, the one striving to seize, the other to avoid
the hand of his opponent, involuntary striking must have been 8
most frequent occurrence.

The point of the illustration, however, does not so much lie im 4
mistake of two separate acts within one game, but in the slipping
from the typical act of one game into that of another, the
dxpoxeipiCemevos falling into the action of the pancratiast or
pugilist, It is the involuntary transition from the lightest and
most inoffensive of games to the heaviest and most severe of games.

CamBRinpcE PurnonoeicaL Socrery’s PRocEEDINGS. 3

That it is this step from a light to a heavy game which is the point
of the illustration, is evident from the fact that Clemens Alexan-
drinus, who (Strom. m. 14, p. 461) enumerates these categories of
Aristotle, does not hesitate ‘to take another instance, but again one
in which a competitor in a harmless game causes death to his
antagonist, a frequent occurrence in the heavier games.

The de@€at BovNonevos, which, as Bernays has shown, is a lapsus
on the part of the scribe from the fact of the same having occurred
only two lines above, is to be replaced by @?€a:, which Turnebus
saw in several manuscripts.”’

Mr. Riverway suggested that detfac was for �pafacOa, through

Dr. Watnpster then read the following paper :

‘* To the description of the Polygnotan pictures in the Lesche of
the Cnidians at Delphi Pausanias devotes seven chapters (Lib. x.
capp. 25 to 31). The twenty-ninth chapter, which deals with the
second picture representing Odysseus’s descent into Hades, begins
with the mention of two figures, Perimedes and Eurylochus, the
companions of Odysseus, who are preparing the offering of the
black rams to Hades, Tw 6� 759 por eatetNeypevwr cioiv �vwrepor
ToutTwy iepeia Kai of �taipot tod "Odvacews Tlepiundys nai EvpvdXoxos
G�povtes, ta d� eote p�eAXaves xpioi ta iepeta. Then follows the
description of a seated old man who is twisting a rope of reeds,
which is eaten as fast as he twines it by an ass behind him. This
figure, the cicerone said, had the inscription “Oxvos. This man
Pausanias believes, and his information is again on the authority of
the people at Delphi, to have had an unthrifty wife, and in later
literature '! this name occurs as a personification of thriftlessness and

We cannot help feeling that these attributes apply solely to the
wife and not the “Oxvos, if to anybody at all. The whole allegory,
a direct personification of human ideas, is very forced and contrary
to the spirit of Greek works of the time of Polygnotus, while the
story is one that would readily become popular with the people,
and be taken up by later writers. It is the only instance of such
an allegory known before the middle of the fourth century in
Greek art. That Pausanias himself felt doubt concerning this
tradition is evident from the way in which he takes pains to quote
this story on the authority of others ( peta 6€ abtovs dyyp �ore
Kadipevos, emypappa d� "Oxvoy etvat Ne�yer Tov dvOpwrov ca 6 a 7a
ovv �s tod "Oxvou rH yuvatka €0€Novow aivi~acOat tov TloNvyywror,
x.7.r.), and in the way in which he tries to satisfy himself and
others in referring to a custom among the Ionians and the name of
a bird sOarRs which have no tangible bearing upon the subject.

1 [As in Bega vy. 3. 21—
Dignior obliquo qui funem torqueat Ocno,
aeternusque tuam pascat, aselle, famem. ]

4 CamBriper Pumotoarcat Socrety’s Prockeprvas.

The whole story and position of "Oxvos here and in later traditions
cannot be satisfactorily explained, and if we bear in mind how
credulous was Pausanias and how ignorant were the ceceront, we
must question whether the whole story was not invented upon the
basis of an abbreviated or obliterated inscription.

Bearing this in mind we must consider whence Polygnotus took
the scenes which he represents. We find that the first picture
was taken from the Iliu Persis, the second from the Nekuia. The
second picture corresponds entirely to the contents of the 11th book
of the Odyssey. But here there is no mention of “Oxvos. We do
find the two comrades of Odysseus sacrificing the black rams, and
immediately before this as well as a few lines above and at the end
of the 10th book we do find the mention of ’Oxeavos.

avtoi 5� avte mapa poov ’Oxeavoto
qouev, opp’ �s xpov dgixcped’ ov hpace Kipxy.
* �v@’ iepyia pev Tlepiunons Edpunoxos te

�oxov' K.TNe

When we consider that localities are indicated in these v�ry
pictures and throughout the whole of Greek Art by means of
human figures, that the great world-stream is often represented
as an aged man, we must be inclined to believe that the "Oxcvos of
the picture is really ’Qxeavcs, his action being a simple mode of
expressing the endless flow and change of the element which he
personifies, and this will be still more evident to us when we
remember that on several reliefs this rope-twisting old man 1
seated beside the Danaids whose endless drawing of water #
acknowledged to be an illustration of the same course of nature.
The story of "Oxvos therefore was spread through the misreading of
the inscription ’Oxeaves.” :

Mr. Parey communicated a paper on Sophocles, 0.7. 1380,
kad\or’ dvyp els ev ye tals OnBars tpagecs, of which the following
18 @ summary.

‘Oedipus is giving reasons for his self-inflicted blindness, of
which the last is that he might not look on the temples and statues
of the Gods in Thebes in which he had lived so long and honourably,
and from which he had excluded himself by his edict against the
murderer of Laius. Lines 1379—82 are most naturally taken, ‘0!
which (statuesof the Gods)I, the most unhappy king, after having beet
brought up as well as any man could be, at least in such a city as
Thebes, deprived myself by my own proclamation that the impious
homicide should be repelled by all.’ I have remarked in a little
manual on Greek particles that ye per se rarely means ‘at least’
(yoov). Asin v. 1877, ‘my eyes,’ it simply emphasizes ; but here
it seems to =yowv. Apparently there is a contrast between the’
shrewdness of Oedipus in solving the riddle of the Sphinx and the
proverbial dullness of the Thebans. But zpageis is a further
difficulty, as Oedipus was brought up with Polybus in Corinth.

CamBriner Puomotoeicat Socrety’s PROCEEDINGS. 5

Are we to acquiesce in the theory that zpageis = dtatpiyas, or
translate it ‘having been matntained (in royal dignity) as well as
any one could be in such a dull and stupid city as Thebes’ ?—a
city which he elsewhere goes out of his way to praise. But the
logic also is faulty. Why does Oedipus say ‘I have deprived
myself of the temples after living in such a city as Thebes as well as
aman could do’? Perhaps he put dvyp tpageis ‘ brought up to be
a true man,’ cf. Oed. Col. 393. But as dvyp eis with superlative
generally means ‘most for any one man’ (Trach. 460, etc.), the
expression may be a confused one for dvyp tpagets kadNor’ avyp eis.
Otherwise we must have recourse to the ye otzosum, in which case
we had better reject the verse as spurious.”

Dr. Kennepy sent a note on the same passage, in which he said
he had omitted to remark in his forthcoming edition what had
however long since struck him, viz., that when Sophocles makes
Oedipus say he has lost all pleasure in gazing on

city or citadel, or of the gods

statues and temples, of which I the wretch, —
the one in Thebes of all most nobly reared—
deprived myself, etc.

he perhaps meant by the emphasis �v ye tats O7nBacs to express his
Athenian contempt for that illiterate and unartistic character of
the Thebans which gained for them the well-known proverb,
acknowledged by one of themselves to whom it was certainly
inapplicable—Bowwz�avy dv. And the ye might hint that, though to
have been bred in Corinth was better than to have been reared in
Thebes, yet there was something better still, to have been educated
in Athens. As to construction, ev ye rats O7Bacs must be taken
in close connection with dvyp efs, and ca\\ota tpagdeis afterwards;
‘the one man above all in Thebes at least who had received an
excellent education,’ t.e. ‘who had been better educated than any
other man in Thebes.’


At a meeting held in St. John’s College, on Thursday, Feb. 28,
the Prestdent Mr. Munro, in the Chair,

The Rev. C. Bapnam, D.D., Professor of Classics in the University
of Sidney,
was elected an honorary member.

Votes of thanks to the Philological Society (London), the Oxford
Philological Society and the Hellenic Society were passed.

Mr. Cooxe read a paper, ‘‘ On the imperatival force of the Latin
subjunctive,’ of which the following is an abstract.

6 Camprinerk Paroroeican Socrety’s Procrepives.

“Mr. Roby, in his Syntax (�� 1596—1604), divides the tenses
of the subjunctive, when used m commands and prohibitions, a

(a) In present, and, in prohibitions, perfect tenses.

(5) In imperfect and pluperfect tenses, of advice applicable to
circumstances no longer existing.

On the first of these two divisions we find a note, to the effect
that ‘the use of the subjunctive in the second person, present
tense, is rare, except when the subject is indefinite.’ This remark
relates only to commands; for, although one example only is given,
a reference is given to � 1544, which also contains one example,
from Ter. Andr. 430, explained however in that section as a hypo-
thetical, not imperatival, use of the word. |

Now this use of the second sing. pres. subj. in commands is
anything but ‘rare’ in Plautus—e.g.

Bacch. 417 morem geras.

ib. 1061 proin tu quaeras quid ferat.
ib. 1189 accipias potesque et adcumbes.
Curc. 271 pacem et Aesculapio petas.
ib. 457 dicas quid uelis. argenttm accipias, cum illo mittes

Next comes a note on � 1600. ‘In prohibitions to a definite
person, the present subjunctive active is found occasionally in the
comic poets, once in Horace.’

So far from this being an ‘occasional’ use in Plautus, it is the
rule: compare Capt. 14, 247; 331, 349, 398, 434, 548; Cure. 213,
539, 565, 568, 713. This list might be extended to any length. —

Then as to ‘once in Horace.’ The reference given by Roby 18
Sat. 11. 3. 88, ne sis patruus mihi. On what principle does Mr. Roby
admit this, and exclude such passages as these,

Od. 1. 33. 1 Albi ne doleas . . . . neu decantes,

Od. m1. 1. 37 sed ne retractes . . . . mecum quaere.�

The ordinary explanation, which makes the me clause ‘ final’
after something mentally supplied like ‘I tell you that,’ 1s ex-
ceedingly clumsy and unpoetical, while the last example given
above where an imperative (quaere) parallels the ne clause, seems
conclusive in favour of a construction amply supported by earlier
Latin, and therefore familiar to Horace, whose love for archaism 18
well known.!

1 It is possible that we should explain in the same way Hor. Od. rv. 9. l

ne forte credas interitura,

and Virg. Ecl. 3. 28—30
ego hanc uitulam (ne forte recuses,

bis uenit ad mulctram, binos alit ubere fetus)

depono, .
construing ne recuses, not ‘that you may not refuse (I tell you that) twice she
comes... .’” but ‘‘do not refuse.”” Yet it must be admitted that in both
cases the word forte tends to give the ne a ‘‘ final ’’ sense.

CamBringe Puimoxoercat Socrety’s PRroceeprines. 7

Next as to division (d) � 1604.

Six examples are quoted, without mark of distinction. A con-
sideration of these forces one to the opinion that no arrangement
of these tense-usages will be satisfactory, which does not separate,
or contrast, command and prohibition as expressed by them.

For instance, his first example,

Ca. non ego illi argentum redderem? Me. non redderes,

neque de eo quicquam neque emeres neque uenderes.

Plaut. Trin. 133—4,
is very different from his fifth

frumentum ne emisses, sumpsisses id nummorum.

Cic. Verr. 3. 84.

In the first case non redderem is a deliberative subjunctive in the
past (‘I not pay.’ echoed by non redderes in the same tense and
mood); in the second, e emisses, sumpsisses are respectively pro-
hibitions and commands in the past.

Precisely similar instances to that given above from the
Trinummus, viz. Plaut. Merc. 638, Cic. Sest. 19. 20, are put by
Mr. Roby under quite a different heading i in � 1610.

An instance of xe prohibitive with imperfect subjunctive (a use
not given by Mr. Roby) will be found in Plaut. Pseud. 437 uel tu
ne faceres tale in adulescentia.

The following classification is proposed of the tenses of the
subjunctive in this imperatival sense: �.g.

(i) ne facias paralleled by facias.

(ii) nefeceris ,, �, [feceris ].
(i111) ne faceres __,, �, ifaceres.
(iv) ne-fecisses _,, �� Lecisses.

Examples of (iii) and (iv) prohibitive are, from the nature of
the case, not common.

Examples of (iii) and (iv) jussive are found in such phrases as
‘At tu dictis, Albane, maneres,’ which may be taken as a pure use
of the mood, as a command in the past, without any ellipse of a
suppressed protasis, e.g. ‘had you been doing your duty, you would

. . If, as is agreed, �w facias can mean ‘do,’ there i is nothing
against tu faceres meaning (literally) ‘have been doing.’

It remains to complete the parallel in the case of (ii). Though
little, if any, trace remains of (�.g.) fecerts in the sense of ‘do’
(which is quite what we should expect, since the idea could be
expressed in two other ways), yet this imperatival sense of the
perfect subjunctive is distinctly shown in the first and third
persons; �.9.

Virg. "Aen. VI. 46, hac Troiana tenus fuerit fortuna secuta.

In expressions of a ‘modest’ wish :

Hor. Sut. 1. 3. 64, qualem me saepe libenter obtulerim tibi,
Maecenas. Cf. Sat. 1. 10. 5.

Commonly in the ‘ concessive’ sense of ‘suppose that,’ ‘ granted.’

Cic. pro. Mil. Milo de Clodii reditu unde praesciuit ? quaesierit

8 CamsBripce Paroioericat Socrery’s PRockEDInes.

sane; seruum argento corruperit. Add Hor. Sat. m.1.45: also the
much-debated dixerit aliguis : and possibly also, though doubtfully,
uiderts as in Cic. Phil. m. 46. 118 sed de te tu uideris.”

Mr. Rinaeway read notes on Aristotle Pol. 1. 1.

(1) 1.2.5. Ods Xapwvdas p�v caret opoorrvors, Erimevidns 6
o Kpys opoxarovs x.t.’. The better MSS. have opoxazovs, the in-
ferior ouoxarvovs, preferred by Grote and St. Hilaire. Epimenides
wrote in hexameters: hence opoxazovs (xan, used only of cattle)
does not suit. omoxazvouvs was read, because (a) it suited the
metre, and (b) cavvos was more familiar. �azvos cannot = �ova.
ouoxarrovs evidently expresses the same idea as opoorrvous, which
=‘ having a common meal-bin.’’ Read opoxdzovs Doric for
omoxytrous (Kiros) =** with a common plot of ground.” The Cretan
poet used a Doric form; and for the retention of the dialectic form
in Aristotle cf. Oar�w inf. xfros is the common plot of ground
that furnishes the common food supply (omy). Cf. u. 5. 3
ynmedov and xapzos. The scale of social development indicated by
Arist. seems to be (1) original ofc�a. (2) ofcos=joint family of
Hindoos or Sclavonic house-community, where the proceeds of the
undivided property (�jzros) must be brought into a common chest
or purse (vide Sir i. Maine). (3) The otxos breaks up into
separate ofx�at forming the xcwuy (=the Russian village com- .
munity); all are sprung or believe themselves sprung from 4
common ancestor (ooyadaxres). Mr. Heitland’s dz’ o�x�as for
admrotkia oixtas cannot be accepted. For (a) it needs � rather than
do, cf. 1. 2.2. (6) Ar. does not explicitly state that the village
48 an dzro:xia Of the oix�a but is like it, eouce. (c) Ar. wants to
show that the �wu comes from the first o�c�a, and is not composed
of any chance persons inhabiting contiguous oc�/a, and therefore
Uses arora AS Expressing direct descent.

(2) 1. 2. 5. Read rerewOeis and xwprcGeis for tedewOer and
xwpioOev. If construed as it stands, it is nonsense.

(3) 1.6. There are �hree theories of slavery here.

(A) Aristotle’s own. Slavery dice: is just.
(B) Slavery dices and vopw is just.
(C) Slavery @uce: and vopw is unjust

The corresponding theories of Justice are (A) 70 Bedr�ov xaz
dpetny Set dpxew (the mark of which is �@:Ada between master and
slave). (B) 70 tov xpetrrova dpyev. (C) edvora.

B and C overlap (�va\Xarrerv) through confusing Bia and dperp.
B thinks Aca always implies dper), C thinks dperq implies Bea, and
it is owing to this mistake (�:a rod70) that they hold their respective
thoories of justice, since, if B and C cease to overlap (�cactaytwy
xwpis contrasted with �radXarrev), the overstatements (drepo
Noyos Of B and C will have no force. The overstatement is on
the part of C ws od ef 10 BedXtiov Kat’ dpetny dpyew nai deoroCew
(the negation of Aristotle’s own theory); but now instead of stating

CamBrince Puimotocicat Society’s PRoceepines. 9

in a similar way B’s, 7.�. that preeminence in Ava gives a claim to
dpxev Kat dear oFeu, he goes back to � 1, where he first touches
B’s rcs (0 ‘yap vopos opodoryia TEs €oTty, €v uw Ta Kata 7oNEpLov
Kpatoupeva THY KpatoUvTwY elval Hac); and then puts B’s over-
‘statement in a slightly different form, �.e. that, since vepos
sanctions Bia, and since vopos 18 di�cacov m1, B therefore holds
slavery vouw to be just theoretically, but he denies it practically, for
fear of being denominated a slave himself, in case of capture. B
confines the word doddos to BapBapor, and thus ovd�y drXo Cntr .
4 70 voc Soddov, he coincides in practice with Aristotle’s theory.
On the other hand C differs from Aristotle in practice as well as

There is an ambiguity in the term dper7. With Ar. it is moral
and mental excellence; with B it includes physical as well as
mental and moral; whilst C understands it only in physical sense,
and therefore rejects slavery vce as well as slavery vopw.
B making it include physical excellence is thus led to defend
slavery vow.

(4) 1.10.5. 0 6€ roxos �.7.X. For the idea ef, Plat. Rep. 555 z,
TOU TaTpOs exryovous TOKOUS K.T.N.

(5) m. 4. 8. ovrw cupBaiver Kai THY OlKeLoTnTAa THY pos
G\Xndous �.7.r. Instead of governing ox. by dcadporriCev, and
then by change of construction with zatepa as subject governing
gen. vir, or taking oixecor. as a loose acc. or reading KATA THY OLK.,
govern otk. by dcadp., and also zartepa etc., taking ws visy closely
with mar�pa Ge regard a father as having correlative sons,” etc.) and
cf. eidos ws yevous.

(6) 11. 5. 8. Mention of horses and dogs naturally suggests
hunting. So read �v tats dypacs for �v tots aypots.

(7) m. 5. 22. eidwredas te xai weveotetas xai SovAecas. Modern
edd. object to �ai Sovdecas; Susemihl is inclined to reject it, others
emend it. It is better to keep it as it refers to other serf popula-
tions, �.g. Tuuvyoros at Argos, "Adapidrac at Crete. For dovdeca 80
used cf. Thuc. v. 23.

(8) 1.7.15. Read duvveoOa: instead of the very unusual active

(9) m. 8. 1. In the interpolated description of Hippodamos
(the antique Oscar Wilde) Cav TEpleptyOTEpov Tpixov TE 7Get Kal
Koopw woNvteel, ett S� eoOnTos edteNOvS pev x.7.r., there 18 NO
construction for �s@j70s. Susem. rejects moAuTeXe?, a8 having only
inferior MSS. authority, and reads xouys, which does not go well
with TpLX Ov. ers d� 18 wanting in some MSS. zodAvtedods was
written in the margin by a scribe who did not understand ebrehods,
then inserted beside coonw, so spoiling the construction, and �7 ��
inserted to make connexion. Expel moduteder ere S€; then it
TUDS tprxoHv te whHOE Kai Koomy Veer “cut,” cf. Aesch.
Supp. 246) eaOijr08, �TX

(10) ei p�v te�v mpot�pwv puaikeas peredidooay (the Spartans)
tis moNtecas �.t.X. Neither does this refer to aliens (Congreve)


10 CamBrincE PamoxoaicaL Socrety’s Procerepines.

nor to early kings, nor to poOaxes, but rather to the granting of
citizenship to Helots through the stage of Neodamodes (cf. Miiller,
Dor. 11. 45, Arnold ad Thue. v. 34), a practice in vogue as late as
the Peloponnesian war. ;

(11) um. 9. 20. For dypaywyetvy adtovs nyayxafovro xai of
Baocrets read airoi. Sypaywyeiv is used abso titel, ef. vi. 11.
The kings tried to outbid the ephors for popular favour.

(12) mo. 10. 7. cvveriyngicar= not “join in ratifying” (L.
and �. and edd.), but rather=‘‘to be mere adjuncts” (cf. Fr. asssster)
to the putting of the question, cf. vir. 1 dray �miyrngifntas apxy,
‘is put to the vote,” not ‘‘ ratified” (L. and 8.).

(13) mo. 12. 7. Oddy70s. Oadew is a form used in the story of
how he “struck oil,” 1.11. This is another proof of the spurious-
ness of 1. 12.?


Art a meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, March 9,
the President, Mr. Munro, in the Chair,

the following were elected members :
M. C. Macmrtran, Esq., M.A., Christ’s.
G. A. Maomitian, Esq.

A vote of thanks was passed to the Pustic Onator for the present
of a copy of the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology and the
Publications of the English Dialect Society to the Society’s Library.

Mr. Munro read a paper on Aeschylus Agamemnon 1156—1159
(Kennedy = 1186—1189 Paley).

He argued against both Madvig’s and Mr. Verrall’s emendations
of this passage; and proposed to read as follows:

vewv 7 erapxos IXov 7” dvaotatys
ovK oldev ola yAWooa pLonTHS KUVOS,
NeEaca xaxtetvaca Gatdpovovs Soxnv
dns NaOpacov, tevfetat Kany TUX]:

‘The captain of the fleet and destroyer of Ilium knows not what
the tongue of a lustful she-hound, speaking as she spoke and
lengthening out with a gay heart the ambush of dark crime, will
achieve—with foul success.’

The neut. plur. accus. of the pronoun oia is quite regular as the
object of revferar: Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides have, each
of them, more than one instance of such neuters after reyyavo.

1 “Mr. R. D. Hicks has pointed out to me that Spengel proposed xwprodels
and reAewbels (Studien Arist. 1866) and that Busse in a degree thesis (1881) has
anticipated me in &ypas.’’—W. R.

CamBRInGE Puimotocicat Socretry’s Procreprvas. 11

ptonros, with accent thrown back, in the sense of ‘ lustful’ is well
attested. The MS reading of v. 3 cannot be right, as exrecvaca
has then no object, and the whole clause in fact affords no proper
sense. Soxyy for d�cnv, a very uncommon word for a very common
one, is a slight palaeographical change. For dox7)v comp. Hesychius :
doxat’ �v�dpat, wapatnpyoers: and again ey doxy’ �v �mBouhy. The
word therefore meant ‘ambush,’ ‘hostile watching for,’ ‘ deliberate
plot,’ any sort of ‘dark treachery,’ like inmetdiae in Latin, guet-apens
in French. Tho’ �v��pa, in this metaphorical sense, is far less
common than its synonym �tnstdiae or guet-apens, it is so used by
Plato and Demosthenes. do�n is confirmed by Homer's �v zpodoxnory,
and his frequent use of its verb docedw in precisely analogous senses.
With drys XaOpadov should be compared doAdavy dryv in v. 1457
(1501). gatdpcvovs may be abundantly illustrated: �xaxovovs,
Kovhovovs, vYryAovous, TaXxUvoUS, peyadovovs, KpuPivovs, kpvyivous,
OnNvvovs, etc.

We thus get a complete sense and construction; and the words
well depict Clytemnestra’s appalling equanimity, the long pro-
tracted dissimulation of her tongue. Compare Jeremiah ix. 8 ‘One
speaketh peaceably to his neighbour with his mouth, but in heart
he layeth his wait.’

Mr. Vrrratt read a paper upon the meaning of Adarrew and

“The use of Aare is very different at different periods (see
L. and 8. s.v.), and its use in Aeschylus (it was contended) is not
that of Attic prose, but that of Homer and the older poets generally ;
the meaning �o arrest, hinder, embarrass is required by several of
the Aeschylean passages and possibly in all; the meaning �o tmure
is nowhere necessary and must not therefore be assumed. PXazrecOar
must signify to be hindered in Ag. 120 BraBevta AorcOiwy Spopwv
and Cho. 956 Ackay . . . . Brartopevav. The analogy of the last
passage is in favour of a similar rendering of o BAartwy Cho. 327 ;
arrest gives as good a sense as injure in Kum. 661 ofa: wy Brayry
Geos and a better sense in Prom. 196 ei’ 7+ uy Brarre (thou art em-
barrassed) Noyw. (Should we not read Noyou, translating if nothing
hinders thee from telling? Cf. Ag. l.c.) A comparison of Prom. 196
with �bid. 763 suggests a corresponding translation of �� wy ts
BraBy there is no hindrance. The substantive has the same sense in
Theb. 201 wn BraBnv Occ, Hum. 491 BraBa objection or obstruction
(cf. Zyrtaeus, 8. 42, for the expression Brartew dicns to hinder of
justice), Hum. 938 devdpornpwv. BraBa the cold wind (note antithesis
to droypos) which checks the trees. In discussing Hum. 491 dcca*
xai BdaBa (so the MSS.), Mr. Verrall proposed to restore the
syllable wanting to the metre between dca and �ai by reading
dicac <Kka>xat (dcea xaxa) by a wrong sentence. In conclusion he
criticized the common rendering of OeoBAaBodvra (sinning against
the gods) in Pers. 831. OeoBdaBetv is equivalent to GeoBraBys
etvat to be infatuated, an early example of the formation of a verb

12 CaMBRIDGE PattotoeicaL Socrety’s PRocEEDINGS.

in -ew from a compound adjective in which the verbal element is
passive (god-distraught); cf. yuxoppayetv, appwartety, dmpaxteiv
and (in later Greek) a large number of such forms.”

Mr. Jackson read two notes, of which the following are abstracts: .

‘�(1) In the apologue of the ring of Gyges, Plato Republic, 359
D sqq., it is related that the shepherd, descending into a chasm,
discovered a hollow horse of brass having windows in its sides,
through which he looked and saw what seemed to be a corpse of
more than human stature, rod7vov d� dAXo pev ovbdev, wept SE TH KELP
xXpuaodv Saxrvdtov, Sv weptedopevov exBqvac. To complete the sen-
tence which I have quoted, some editors give exec before odie�,
others Geperw after daxtvdcov. Both readings appear in some MS.
or other, but as neither can be said to be well supported, it is
reasonable to suppose that they are conjectural additions to the
text. Accordingly they are rejected both by Baiter, who supposes
the words t�eiy eyovra to be understood from the clause last but
one preceding, and by Madvig, who substitutes for rodrov d� d\o
pe�v obdev, the words wAovrou d� oddev. Neither expedient appears
satisfactory. Furthermore there is something grotesque in this
description of a corpse, of stature more than human, ‘having
nothing on but a gold ring’ (Jowett), and it is noticeable that the
nudity of the corpse is not mentioned, either in Cicero’s paraphrase,
de Offcits ur. 9 � 38, or in that of Niz�mi, translated by Prof.
Cowell, Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, 1861. Would it not
seem that Davies and Vaughan show a sound instinct when they
translate ‘from which he took nothing but a golden ring off the
hand, and therewith made his way out,’ a meaning which certainly
cannot be extracted from the text as it stands? In order to obtam
the desired sense and to provide government for dAXo ovder and
xpucoiv Sdaxtv\ov, it is only necessary to omit the relative ov
after daxruNsov, and to alter rod7ov into trovrTov.

(2) It is well known that when Plato established himself at
Athens in 387, he came into collision with Isocrates, who was not
only a writer of forensie speeches, but also a professor of political
philosophy: and it is now generally acknowledged that several
of Plato’s dialogues contain references to his rival. But I am not
aware that any one has considered the early part of the sixth book
of the Republic from this point of view.

(a) The apologue of the ship, with its tall, burly captain, dull
of sight and hearing, ignorant of navigation, and its equally
ignorant, riotous, crew struggling for the helm, while the skilful
navigator is regarded as a stargazer and a babbler—(which apo-
logue, by the way, seems to be developed from an ecxwy of the
historical Socrates, see Xen. Memorab. mt. 9 � 11, and to be directly
referred to by Aristotle, Politics tv [vir]. 2, 1824 b, 24, 30)—has
for its main purpose to show that the philosopher is useless as 4
politician, only because his fellow-citizens do not invite his help.
Incidentally, however, we are told that the ignorant, riotous sailors

CamBRIpGE Paimotoeicat Socrery’s PrRrocreEprnes. 13

apply the epithets vavzixes, xuBepyytixes, emeorapevos Ta Kata vaby,
to 6 os dv EvANapBavery Sewvos 7 VE O7ws aptovaty 7H mecOovtes 7 BraComevot
Tov vavxdnpoy, 488 D. Have we not here an allusion to Isocrates,
who, himself taking no part in political life, taught the young
Athenian to win the ear of the dfpos, and so to secure the helm of
the state ?

(6) At 498 4 sqq. Socrates describes the djuos as a monster, whose
keeper studies its whims and tempers, the meaning of its various
cries, and the means by which to soothe and to rouse it, calls the
results of his observations wisdom, systematizes them into an art,
and opens a school, though in reality he knows not which of the
monster’ s fancies and desires are good, and which are bad. Is not
o THY THY TONY kai wavrodaT iby Evviovtwy opynv kai dovas
KaTavevonkevat aopiav 7 nyovpevos 493 c, here figured as the keeper
of a monster, Isocrates, the political philosopher as he called him-
self, the political charlatan as Plato thought him ?

(0) At 495 B sqq. we are told that when philosophy is deserted
by her natural relations, she becomes the prey of certain mannikins,
who, attracted by the dignity which she retains even in her degra-
dation, leave their miserable crafts to seek her out. Such creatures
remind Socrates of a bald-headed tinker, who, having made some
money, goes to the bath and washes himself, puts on a wedding
garment, and proposes to marry his master’s daughter, now that
she is poor and desolate. Have we not here another allusion to
Isocrates, who, as we know, denying the title of philosopher to his
rival at the Academy, claimed it for himself?

It would have been strange, if Plato, when in the Republic he
was developing his own educational system, had not made some
reference to the system of his popular rival.”’

On the first passage discussed by Mr. Jackson, Mr. Vrrraty
remarked that, if the relative oy is omitted, the second of the
changes proposed is unnecessary, a8 todvoy may be regarded as a
second accusative after zocjoavta understood with ddXo pe�v odder.

The Secretary then read a paper from H.I.H. Prince L. L.
Bonaparte on the Latin and Romance terms of vine culture.
This paper, which consisted of an extract from the Prince’s Com-
parative Polyglot Dictionary, will be shortly printed tm extenso by
the Society.




Ar a Meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, May 4,
the President, Mr. Munnzo, in the Chair,

The accounts of the year 1881 were passed; and it was resolved
that the same be printed and circulated among the members at the
end of this term.

The Public Orator read four papers from Professor Mayor, of
which the following are summaries:

(1) Seneca Hist. 121. � 4 non desistam .... uoluptates ituras
in dolorem compescere et votis obstrepere. quidni? cum maxima
malorum optauerimus et ex gratulatione natum sit quicquid

On this Madvig (Advers. m. 522) remarks: ‘Sic codices (aut
alloguimur) et Haasius, sine sensu; perspicuum est enim, stultitiam
uotorum humanorum ex eo ostendi, quod; quae nunc lugeamus et
quibus liberari cupiamus, ex uoto nobis acciderint et cum gratu-
latione accepta sint. sed quod Fickertus substituit, gutcquid
obloguimur, etiam prauius est ; nihil enim aliud est nisi: guscquid
contra (quos aut quod?) dicimus. suspicor fuisse: guscqguid amolimur.
nam lacrimanus nimis longe abit.”

To begin vorepov rpotepov, ‘Ounpexws. If amolimur or lacrimanus
had been in all MSS., I should have suspected corruption. ‘ What-
ever we get rid of (or weep for) began with congratulation ’ is but
a wooden antithesis. Fickert (in 1842) was not the first editor to
read obloguimur, which is found in the first edition of Erasmus,
1518, and in all editions which I have seen up to Fickert’s. _Allo-
quimur is found in the first edition (circa 1470), and in an ed.
Ven. 1490 fol.

If any word in any Latin author ought to have been sacred from
corruption, it is this.

Victorius in his Variae lectiones vit. 23. proved that alloquor =
wapauv0�opar—condole, comfort. He emended the passage of
Varro 1.1. v1. � 57, which has since appeared in all lexicons:

hine adlocutum mulieres ire aiunt,
quom eunt ad aliquem locum consolandi causa.

CaMBRIDGE PurmoLoeicat Socrety’s PRocrEepines. 15

Muretus in his Variae lectiones, 11. 4, followed by Bentley and by
all lexicons, cites a passage from the Troades of Seneca 619, 620,
alios parentes allogut in luctu dece, tibi gratulandum est, misera
quod nato cares. Here we have the same opposition between
gratulor and alloquor, ‘ congratulate ’ and ‘ condole,’ as in our text.
Since the days of Muretus it ought to have been impossible for
any editor to read in Epistle 121 anything but alloguimur.

Once more. Muretus warned the world against the smperits who
corrupted Hor. Epod. xu. 17. 18. by inserting ef.

illic omne malum uino cantuque leuato,
deformis aegrimoniae e� dulcibus alloquiis.

He says with perfect justice :

‘‘ Ita interpretati sunt, moneri Achillem a Chirone, ut ad Troiam
leuaret omne malum deformis aegrimoniae tribus rebus; uino,
cantu et iucundis sermonibus. non autem id dixit Horatius, sed
uinum et cantum uocauit dulcia deformis aegrimoniae alloquia, id
est, yAuxea wapapvora.”’

Bentley must have forgotten this lesson, when he conjectured,
but happily kept out of his text, ac dulcibus alloquiis, ‘ wine and
song and pleasant conversation.’ It is amazing that so consummate
a scholar should make aegrimontae depend on omne malum. Bentley
however draws a true distinction between zapapuOdopaz (zapapvOcov,
rapauvOca) and alloguor (allocutto, alloguium) when he says that the
Greek words very frequently take as their object a �hing (some
misfortune, sickness, etc.), while the Latin words ordinarily take a
person as their object. I have examined all passages, cited in
lexicons and indexes, in which allocutio, alloguium, alloquor, occur,
and find as examples of allogus rem only aegrimoniae in Horace and
quicquid here (if indeed gutcguid be accusative of the object, and
not rather, as Mr. Smith suggests, a cognate accusative: guecquid
alloguimur=quicquid est allocutionum).

Yet again: Lambinus, on the passage of the Epodes, cites, and
Klotz and Corradini place in juxtaposition to the passage of the
Troades, a second certain instance of antithesis between gratulor
and alloguor. Valerius Maximus, uo. 7. �6 nostra urbs....
Imperatorum proprio sanguine manantes secures ... . ex castris
incerta publice speciosas, priuatim lugubres duplici uultu recepit,
gratuland: an alloquends officio fungeretur.

One further criticism. I can only suppose that quod in Madvig’s
parenthetical question guecquid contra (quos aut quod?) dieimus, is a
misprint for gusd. He confesses in the preface to Vol. mu. of the
adversaria that he wrote the volume in haste; it must also be
remembered that he is nearly blind.

It may be thought that I have made too much of a small
matter. But any conjecture found in Madvig’s works is almost
sure to find its way into texts. Some time since I defended the
received reading in Sen. de otio 3, � 4 (sic ad iter, quod inhabile
sciet, non accedet) from Madvig’s conjecture quot inhabilem se seciet.

16 CaMBRIDGE Putiotoercat Socrety’s PRoceeprnes.

I observed that all lexicons cite snhabile ster from the digest, and
proved that snhabilis is nearly as often an epithet of things as of
persons. Yet im Koch’s edition of Seneca’s dialogues so-called,
Madvig’s corruption stands in the text. I take this occasion to
warn our members against implicit trust in the Teubner texts.
The editions, for example, of Seneca by Haase, and Gellius by
Hertz, are, I believe, the least trustworthy in existence.
(2) Ovid Metamorphoses, 11. 503, 504,

omnia trita simul, quae sanguine mixta recenti
coxerat aere cauo, uiridi uersata cicuta.

On this Madvig (Advers. m. 82) remarks: ‘‘ineptum et ridiculum
est, ceteras potionis uenenatae particulas uersari cicuta, nimirum
quasi trulla. rectum est mersata, cicuta copiose affusa.”’

If Madvig had compared the kettle of Medea (Ov. Met. vu.
278—280) he would have seen, what �wzrzdi should have told hin,
that cicuta is the stem of hemlock, used to stir the ingredients of
the potion.

omnia confudit summisque immiscuit ima.
ecce uetus calido uersatus stipes a�no
fit uiridis primo.

Add that miscere uenena is a technical term (Juvenal 1. 70 n.).

Ritschl long since called for a erttica uannus to sift the chaff of
Madvig’s conjectures from the wheat. Certainly any one who
would merely digest the criticisms which they have already called
forth, would do a good service to letters. |

(3) In puris naturalibus. Seven years ago (20th May, 1875,
Journal of Philology, v1. 174—5) I pointed out to the Society that
this phrase had its origin with the schoolmen, and remained m
use after the reformation among philosophers and theologians. I
have since met with ‘ pure naturals,’ ‘mere naturals,’ in Andrewes
and Jeremy Taylor (several times). Sorbi�re, a Frenchman who
wrote a somewhat shallow account of a vasit to England under
Charles II., used the phrase as a mere purpureus pannus, as he used
the name of Des Cartes to gain credit with Dr. John Wallis. The
first example of the grotesque modern use that I have met with is
in Wieland’s introduction to Hor. Epist.1. 16: ‘a good old comrade,
to whom we have always displayed ourselves 1m purts naturalibus,
le. evidently ‘ without disguise,’ ‘as we are.’

No branch of lexicography has been more neglected than that
which deals with proverbial sayings of this kind: it is plain that
combination alone, and that of many persons working on different
lines, can lead to any satisfactory result. Our Journal, or Notes
and Queries, would no doubt always be open to contributions.
Many years must elapse before any one can be competent to publish
a dictionary of our Gefliigelte Worte.

(4) The dwarf Atlas of Juvenal vr. and Robert Brownsng.
Tuy. vir. 32,

nanum cuiusdam Atlanta uocamus.

CAMBRIDGE PuHrLoLocicaL Socrety’s PRocEEDINGS. 17

I assume that the following is an unintentional parallel, and
therefore the more important as an illustration of the principle.

Passages from the French and Italian Notebooks of Nathaniel
Hawthorne (Strahan, London, 1871) 1. 11 (9 June, 1858): ‘his
pone s] little boy Robert, whom they call ‘‘ Pennini” for
ondness. The latter cognomen is a diminutive of Apennino,
which was bestowed upon him at his first advent into the world,
because he was so very small, there being a statue in Florence of
colossal size called Apennino.’

Professor A. Patmer (Trinity College, Dublin) sent the following
emendation of Horace, Sat. 1. 6.

Non quia, Maecenas, Lydorum quicquid Etruscos
incoluit fines, nemo generosior est te,

nec quod auus tibi maternus fuit atque paternus,
olim qui magnis legionibus imperitarent,

ut plerique solent, naso suspendis adunco

sgnotos, ut me libertino patre natum.

‘‘The last line is commonly read as above, but there is very
scanty MS. support for u� Out of fifteen MSS. cited by Holder
only two, and those not first-rate, have u� at first hand. Seven
have aut, which Holder reads. But curiously two have aut ut, one
has ut ut, one e� aut, while another L (Lipsiensis of the tenth
century ) has the strange reading aut me ut. Surely this points to
some corruption. Again, instead of the simple natum of the
vulgate, although there was no temptation for the scribes to
wander, four of the best MSS. have natos, two natus. Hence,
thanks to Holder for his recension, I have no hesitation in saying
that what Horace wrote was:

ignoto, aut, ut me, libertino patre natos.

The writer of the archetype was in a hurry to bring in his
accusative, and changed ignoto to tgnotos, leaving the line a foot
too long, and causing all the various corrections in subsequent
MSS. I only leave out an s.”

Mr. Herrianp sent a reply to Mr. Ridgeway’s paper ! on Aristotle
Pol. 1. 2. 6. as follows:

(a) ‘* Why does my proposal ‘ need � rather than dc’? Cannot
the notion of descent be conveyed by azo? To the quotation given
in my pamphlet, P- 8 note, add Thue. m. 15. �5 of az’ Aq vaiwy
“Iwves, VI. 76. �3 6 daot aro opay qyoav Fumpaxou, vi. 57. � 4” Twves
�vres Kal dr’ "AGnvatwy, Odyssey x. 350—1 yeyvovtat 8’ dpa tai oy

€k TE Kpnvewy aro T ddodwy ex O lepdv wotapiy . . . � K.TNe

1 See Proceedings above, p. 8.

18 CamBripeE Parmotoaicat Socrety’s Proceeprnes.

How does 1. 2. � 2 affect the matter? oicia � moXews seems to
me to denote order of sequence, not descent—‘ it will cease to be
modus and become [will have become | o��a.’

(5) I freely grant that Aristotle does not say ‘that village ts
dzrocxia, but doce.’ But I do not grant that this is fatal to my
proposal. I take dz’ oixdas ecivac after �ouxe to mean ‘ seems to be
descended from.’ And I still believe this to be a reasonable
meaning, and one directly derivable from the Greek as I timidly
proposed to read it.

(c) That I also hold that ‘ Aristotle wants to show that the
xwpy comes from the first ofcca, and is not composed of any chance
persons inhabiting contiguous o�ac’ is I trust sufficiently clear
from the words of my published pamphlet. Indeed how any one
could on any other supposition propose to read dz’ oixcas instead of
dzrotxta otxcas I cannot for the life of me understand. As soon as
any one shows how this sense is to be gathered from the traditional
reading, I shall cease to desire a correction of the text, but not
sooner. I think I have shown that to retain dzocx�a is on the face
of +t simply a violation of the meaning of the word. I merely seek
to lay the onus proband: on those who would adopt what seems to
me a far more revolutionary proceeding than my hypothesis of 4

Mr. RipeEway remarked in reply that an emendator incurred the .
onus probandt (1) that the text is corrupt, (2) that his proposal
‘conforms to Greek usages. With respect to the first point
Mr. Heitland says ‘‘one MS. omits of�as after dzrocxca,”’ but he
omits to tell his readers that the aforesaid MS. (P*) is only one of
the third-rate MSS. Aristotle wanted to express the idea that one
community (xwy) stood in the relation of offspring to the other
(otcca). The familiar terms pytporodus and dzoccia expressed such
a relationship to every Greek, so that Aristotle had the familiar
word dzoccca ready to hand to make clear his meaning. At the
most it would be a very slight extension of the term to make it
include the parent oic�a which was the nucleus of the cwuy. But
even this is unnecessary. Ar. regards the cwuy as being composed
of the ocxcac of the children of the original man and woman, upon
whose death, their occd�a ceases to exist, in which case there is 10
extension of the literal meaning of dzocxca.

With regard to the second point he maintained his former state-
ment that efvac de twos was not good prose Greek in the sense of
‘offspring,’ and that statement was confirmed by the fact that a
scholar hke Mr. Heitland had. only quoted in support of it the
well-known line:

ov yap ao Spvos eat wadaipatov odd azo 7r�tpys,

and had in his note been only able to add four quotations, none of
which applied to the case. For in the fresh Homeric quotation
yiyvovtat azo, not eto, 18 used, and the three quotations from
Thuc. come under a well-known use of dro, expressing remote

CaMBRIDGE PuHitoLtocicaL Socrery’s Proceepines. 19

origin or dependence, like efs dao SXzaprys, of dro Wratwvos, ete.
With reference to the first Homeric quotation (1) pace tanti virt it
was rather inconclusive to quote Homer in support of a construction
in Aristotle, and (2) the line cited is one of the most disputed in
Homer as regards its meaning. As however Plato quotes it in the
sense given it by Mr. Heitland, it is worth while to see what
evidence he gives on the subject of ecvar dio tvos.

Plat. Apol. 34 p Socrates says ov’ �yw azo Spuos ob6' aro w�tpys
m�puxa (not eiui), ddr’ €€ dvOpwrwv (not am’ dvOpwrwv) Again
Rep. 544 D 7 oles ex Spvos woGev } ex wetpas tas ToNLTELas yityvecOac.

Surely Plato was a fair judge of fourth century Greek Prose, and
these two quotations indicate that he will not use e’vac azo twos on
any account. This is confirmed by the fact that no instances of
such a construction are found in Bonitz’s Index Arist., Ast’s
Lex. Plat., Schweighaenser’s Lex. Herodoteum, Pindar, Homer,
Wellauer’s Lex. Aeschyleum, Beck’s Ind. Euripidis, Beatson’s Ind.
Sophoclis (Oed. R. 415 may be an exception), Aristophanes
(aravella), though we do find azo used after yiryvecOa, hovar,
mepuxevat, etc.

Mr. Patey communicated a paper on Aesch. 4g. 1229 (Dind.)
obk oldev ola yAdooa ponris Kuvos x.7.d. In defending the vulgate
against the changes proposed, he thought it not improbable that
tev�erac was the future of tevyw. Cf. Hesych. revEouevy� wounoovea.
The construction is ofa \�Eaca oia tev€erar, quis uerbis dictis ac
longo sermone tractis quidnam sibt demum paratura sit. The tongue
is mentioned and not the person because it was the speech that was
to put the king off his guard and which led him into the snare.
at�povovs seems genuine, and gadporv ods is not supported by
at�pots woty Ar. Pac. 154 which is rather to be compared with
micare aurtibus, etc. Mr. Paley could not accept Mr. Verrall’s
explanation of rvyxnv drys ‘a chance of hurt,’ and his construction
of tuyxavery tUxnv as a cognate acc. He could see no difficulty
whatever in dteyv “Arys NaOpaiov, ‘ like a doer of mischief in secret,’
as we have dicnv Gadpas seAnvys in this very play. Mr. Munro’s
reading Soxyv and explanation did not seem to have the genuine
ring of tragedy: but he was undoubtedly right in taking picy77 as
‘lewd,’ a sense expressly recognized by J. Pollux.

Mr. E. 8. Tompson suggested that the MS. reading might
stand, but punctuated thus:

bd tO v A , 8
ovv oldeyv ola yAwaoa puLoNTHS KUVOS,
NeEaca Kaxtetvaca Gar�povovs dixyv,

drys NaOpacov rev�erat xaxy TUX.

‘� Knows not what things the tongue of the lewd she-hound, that
with gay heart hath uttered and spun out at length her ‘ justice,’
may achieve by an evil chance of treacherous mischief.” The
speech of Clytemnestra (vv. 855—-913 Dind.) is seemingly pointed
to by the word �xtecvaca: cf. v. 916. This speech, though doubt-

20 Camsripcr Purtoroeicat Socrery’s ProcreEeprnaes.

less a trap, is at the same time a plea or apology. In our passage
it might be possible to translate dicynv ‘plea.’ But instances of
d�cxy in this sense are hard to find; for in Eum. 491 the reading is
uncertain; and Sept. c. Theb. 584 is a line of very doubtful
genuineness. However one may suppose Cassandra to quote the
word ��cyv from the last lines of Clytemnestra’s speech, where
dtxn and dccatws are both prominent.


At a meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, May 25,
the President, Mr. Munro, in the Chair,

The following were elected Members :

C. E. Cuamsers, Esq., Trinity College.
W. G. Mircuett, Esq., M.A., Trinity College.
T.G. Tucker, Esq., B.A., St. John’s College.

Dr. Kennepy read the following paper : ;

‘‘'Various editors and translators of Thucydides have variously
interpreted the concluding words of this chapter. My own view,
which differs in some degree from any given in the volumes of
Arnold, Poppo, Goller, Kriiger, Klassen, Meyer, Bloomfield,
Sheppard and Evans, Dale, Crawley, Jowett, may perhaps be
best understood and appreciated if it winds up a free translation
of the whole preceding context. In the funeral oration of Pericles
(Thuc. 1. 32-46) the 42nd chapter immediately follows the orator's
splendid picture of Athens as the glorious ornament and pattern of

Avo by Kal �pqcuva Ta rept wh Toews, ddacKadiay TE rovovpevos
pa rept icov qpiv elvat Tov ayiva Kat ots tHvde pyndev umapye
opotws, Kae THY edoyiav dpa eg’ ots viv Aequ pavepay onpeiors
xaQtorTas. Kai eipytat auras Ta peyioa� a. yap 7 mou Uuvyoa a
TOVOE Kal TiY ToWWVdE apEeTat Exoounoay, Kai oUK dy moN ots THY
‘EAM yyw � icopporros WOTEp TwVe o oyos TWV epywy pavecy. Soxet
�€ poe �n oov avi�pos dpetnv mpwry Te paviovca Kat TeAevratg
BeBatovoa 9 vov. THVdE karaaTpogy. Kae yap tots ta\Aa Xetpost
S�xatov tTHV �s Tous Trohewous vrep THS mrarpibos av�paya0iay mport-
OecBau’ ary ayy yap Kakov dpavicavres KOLVWS paddov we \yoav
} ek TiY idtwv eBhaypav. raves be OuTE TOUTW TLS THY �re d7roXavotv
mporymnoas �pahaxtan, ovTe mevias �dribe, ws Kady ett _Srageyur
abryy mouth cerer, dvaBodnv tod Seevod errouoaro" THY d� Tay
�vavtiwy Tipwptav wo0ervorepay avTwv haBovres Kas xevdvvwy apa
tovoe KaN\LoTOY vopicavres �Bovdy Oy car per avrod tous pev Tepe
petoOar tiv d� ediecOar, Edride p�ev tO dhaves tod xaTopOweaey

CamBripeE Puimoroeicat Socrety’s Proceeprves. 21

�mitperavtes, epyw S€ wept tod 46y opwvevov aia adtois atvodytes
memoO�vat, Kai �v adty TO duvvecOa Kai wabety padrov yYynoapevot
q} TO evdovtes cwleaOat TO p�v aicxpov Tod Noyou euyov, to & �pyov
Ty owpate vrepevay, Kai di’ EXaXloTov Katpod tYXNS dua aymy THS
dons wadXov h tod S�ous drndAaynoav. .

‘I have dwelt at length on the character of our city for these
reasons :—I wished not only to prove that people without any of
the advantages resembling ours have not an equal stake with us in
the present contest, but also to justify clearly by striking facts
my eulogy of the men over whom I am now speaking. Its chief
grounds are contained in what has been said already ; the glories
of our city which I extolled were conferred on her by the virtues
of these men and of others like them: and there are few Greeks in
whose praises word and deed would be shown so evenly balanced
as in this case. In my opinion the death of each now lying before
us amply proves the worth of a man, whether it be the first
indication or the final confirmation. For in favour of those whose
conduct in other respects was less creditable, it is but just to put
forward their bravery in war for their country’s cause: they have
cancelled evil by good, and the benefit of their public services has
been greater than the harm of their private acts. No rich man
among them became a coward from over-esteeming the prolonged
enjoyment of his wealth: no poor man put off the hour of peril in
the natural hope that even yet he might escape poverty and be
rich. Such aims they embraced with less longing than the chastise-
ment of their enemies: and, as they deemed this moreover the
noblest of dangers, they frankly welcomed it, resolving, while they
punished the foe, to let their aims stand over; trusting to hope for
success in a future which they could not see, but for work in a
present which they did see minded to rely upon themselves. In
that work they thought more of resistance even to the death
than of safety by retreat: the word of shame they fled from, the
brunt of action they personally bore, and in fortune’s briefest
crisis, full of high-wrought determination, free from dread, they
passed away.’

My version of this chapter will, I hope, for the most part
explain and defend itself. But the concluding words need special

It will answer no good purpose here to tax particular scholars
with this or that error. There are three points to be decided, and
a8 My opinion on each of these has been long considered and held
with full conviction, the shortest and simplest course is to state it.

1. Does zvxns depend on &’ �daxdorov xatpod, Which stands
before it, or in aya dxpy, which follows it? I reply without
hesitation, on the former ‘of these, as all editors but Arnold have
held. :

2. It is a necessary consequence of the last answer, that the
genitives dofys, d�ous, depend on dxu, not on the verb dzrn\Xaynoay,
which accordingly means ‘ departed,’ ‘ died’ or ‘ passed away.’

22 CamMBRIDGE PuitotoeicaL Socrery’s Proceepines.

3. I hold, in contradiction to commentators and translators
generally, that dof7: cannot be rendered glory without making
the passage nonsensical.

Klassen’s note here is the best and deserves attention. He
says: ‘dof s contrasted with d�ovs must have a _ subjective
meaning.’ I cordially agree. But he unhappily adds: ‘not that
of indeterminate, but of glorious expectation: when their souls
were not full of fear, but in the highest anticipation of the glory to
be gained.’ This exegesis, in my judgment, involves a confusion
of thought. Aoc�a has two general meanings and uses: one of
these, ‘ opinion,’ ‘ expectation,’ is subjective: the other, ‘ reputation,’
‘glory,’ is objective. These senses cannot coexist in the word:
it must mean one or the other, not an amalgam of the two, as
Klassen tries to make out. What he first says is true, that here
the subjective sense is required; the objective sense (glory) must
not be thrust in over and above.

I do indeed believe that the subjective sense given here by Thucy-
dides to Sofa is very large. I think he uses it to comprise the sum of
all those feelings which he ascribes to these men in their death-
struggle; and, as flying from disgrace was one of these, desire of
glory is so far implied. But we should be wrong in saying that
this is specially denoted by the word �ofa, and that the word is
chosen for the purpose of including it. Perhaps the nearest
approach to the meaning may be ‘the determination to do (�dedoxr0
avrois) what they deemed their duty’ as soldiers and patriots.
Some may prefer ‘ expectation.’

Again, I believe that the expression padXoyv 7F is one of those
which grammarians would place under the figure pedwors, as when
odk �Xacowv is used for pecCwv. I believe that the presence of
‘fear’ is not implied by its use but excluded entirely : in short
that padXov f= xai ovr. I have written above, ‘full of high-
wrought determination, free from dread. I might write, to the
same effect, ‘ when determination (or expectation) not dread, was at tls
highest? IfI am asked why Thucydides should bring in dos at
all, if there was none of it, I reply, because a death-struggle seems
to all beholders or hearers a dreadful thing: and what they think
of it they are tempted to ascribe to those engaged. ‘ Yes,’—the
historian would say—‘it is in its nature decvov, but each of these
mon, when in it, felt not the ��os.’? See above ‘ovre...-
dvaBoArnv tod Sevod �romaato.’

Probably rhythm and alliteration had some share in determining
Thucydides to use the word dofys as opposed to Sd�ous.

I set this passage in the late examination for the Chancellor's
Medals; and, as I found most of the candidates clinging to the
notion of ‘glory,’ this circumstance, added to my sense of the
general mistake of commentators, has led me to publish my own
interpretation of the passage.

As Arnold’s view was advocated by a member of the Society, I
am constrained to state it, with my objections.

CamMBRinGE Purnoroaicat Socrety’s Prockeprnes. 23

The concluding words of this chapter Arnold represents and
renders thus: ‘xai dv �\ay�orov xatpod, and in the briefest moment,
tUxns dua axuy, when their fortune was at its height, rys dofys
paddov 4} tod d�ovs amndAayyoayv, they were taken away from
what was their glory rather than their fear;’ then adding:
‘Death found them not dreading his approach, fearful and miserable,
but in the height of their glory; for the battle was not their
terror but their glory.’

Against this view I have to urge:

(1) & �Xaxdorov xarpod is a phrase which lacks support. Thuc.
would have written 6” �A@yiorov without subst. Tuyys added
makes all the difference. See xa:pod tvxetv often; and tux Kai
xacpos Plat. Leg. rv. 709.

(2) ztdxns dua dxpy is an objectionable arrangement. It should
be dua axuy t’xys. Neither can it be rendered, ‘when their
fortune was at its height:’ nor can good reason be shown for any
such expression being here brought in. But &’ �daytorov Kacpou
7�xns, ‘in fortune’s briefest crisis’ (or ‘opportunity’), ie. ‘a
fatal struggle, very soon decided,’ gives excellent sense. See
Kriiger. If this argument be accepted as settling the government
of rvxys, the subsequent interpretation of Arnold falls to the
ground. But let us consider it on its own merits.

(3) As to arn\Adyyoar, it can mean ‘ were freed’; it can mean
‘were removed’ (Antig. 422); it can mean ‘were removed by
death,’ i.e. ‘passed away,’ ‘died.’ So Eurip. Her. 995 �xe�vov
& avad\axOevros, ‘ when he was dead.’

(4) As to �d0&a, how does it obtain the meaning ‘glory’? The
primary sense ‘opinion’ is used objectively, ‘the opinion of others
about some one.’ See Soph. Oed. Col. 258 ri da7a Sofns, # 7�
�dn Sovos kahjs patnv peovons wh�edypa yiyverat; Now let us ask,
what rational sense is there in saying, that a man who dies in
battle ‘is removed from the opinion of men concerning him, not
from his fear’? or even ‘is removed from his glory (obj.) not from
his fear’? ‘The glory’ is purely objective, i.e. his renown in
the minds and mouths of others; his fear belongs to his own mind,
if existing at all. Arnold’s translation ‘what was their glory,’
and his paraphrase, ‘the battle was not their terror but their
glory,’ are both alike ‘blendwerk,’ verbiage disguising the truth
of the Greek original by the ambiguous sense of ‘ glory’ in English,
where it can mean not only fame,’ ‘renown,’ but also ‘boast.’
‘Awake up, my glory.’ Arnold, like all other interpreters, was
unable to rid himself of the idea that dcfs here means glory, and
thus he has (almost unconsciously) striven to attach to it some
subjective element, which may qualify it to stand in contrast with
��ovs. The Scholiast, whose version condemns Arnold’s con-
struction, is possessed with the same idea of dof s. He writes:
axpalovres, Pyoiv, �v evdokia nai obxi Setdig ar�Oavov. Such,

with slight variation, is the tone of all editors, Klassen not

24 CamsBripcr Puimotoaicat Socrety’s Proceepinas.

escaping the infection. It is true, that dc€a, in its objective use,
may often be rendered ‘glory’ without impropriety, particularly
in the orators; yet I doubt whether in any place ‘reputation’
might not express its singular, and ‘ good opinions’ its plural use,
in the laudatory sense. I ask then, confidently, is it not impossible
to say that these men, dying in their brief struggle, ‘ were re-
moved from their reputation, from the good opinion entertained of
them, not from their fear’? They were not removed from that
‘glory’; they gained and kept it by their fearless death, as the
orator declares in the very next chapter (43); coin yap ta owparta
didovtes idta tov aynpwv erawov �dapBavov, kai tov tahoy �mianpora-
TOV, odK Ev Ww KElvTat WaNXov, GAN ev ua y doka adtioy Tapa Tw evTUXOvT!
dei cai Noyou Kai �pyou Kaipy deiuvyotos KataNelreTat, avdpiv yap

�emiavav raca yi tapos �.7.X. On all these grounds I contend

that dof)s must be rendered here by a purely subjective word,

whether it be ‘determination’ or ‘expectation.’ I am indebted to

my friend Mr. Jackson for the following passage, which strongly

supports my adoption of the former rendering: Plato, Rep. 412%

Tpyt�ov ... e& PvNakeKol Etat TovTOU Tod Soypatos Kai pyTE yorTeve-

pevoe pnte Brafopevor �xBadXovery �riavOavopevor Sokav THY 100

movety Sety & +H wodet B�dXrtoTa. To the same effect are the various

places in which Law is spoken of as zoXctix7 Sofa, ‘ the determina-

tion of the State.’

(5) Finally, Arnold and his advocate prefer the rhythm given to
the sentence by his explanation. If A. and B. interpret a passage
differently, each usually finds a better rhythm in his own interpre-
tation. Arnold thought his clauses ‘better suited to the natural
pauses of the voice.’ This I do not perceive: and while, in his
arrangement, the combatants trip to their ‘ removal from glory not
fear’ in trochaic rhythm without any pause—

parXov 7 | rod ddous darn\Xayynoay,

in mine, the orator, after saying, in sustained tone, cai 6’ edaxiotov
katpod t�xns, is supposed to raise his voice and utter with proud
dignity the words dua dun tis de&ys paddov F tod S�ovs, then
dropping it slowly to the ‘sad and solemn cadence dy\Xayqoar.
This rhythm seems to me the more suitable of the two to such 8
place as this. But Ishould not have raised the question of rhythm
except in reply to what has been said on the other side.”’

Dr. Kennepy gave a new interpretation of Euripides Zroade
(ed. Tyrrell), 1167—1172.

‘Ex. & GeAra0’, ws coe Oavatos WdOe Svotvy 7s.
ei m�v yap eOaves rpo Toews, AByns TUX WY
yauwy te Kat THs tooOeov Tupavvidos,

paxaptos 700" dv, et Te THYOE MaKapLoY.

vov � att’ idwv pev yvovs te of Yuxy T�Kvoy,
ovK ota0’ expnow 8 ovdev ev Somos ‘exw.

CamBripeE Puinotoeicat Socrery’s PRocrepines. 25

After quoting Mr. Tyrrell’s note Dr. Kennedy said:

‘‘Mr. Tyrrell has, in correspondence with me, very cordially
accepted my interpretation, which, placing a comma after yvovs ze,
and connecting on oxy with the verb otoOa, understands that
dative to mean ‘with “thy (disembodied) spirzt.’? In the classical
Nexuca, as Homer and Virgil show, the shade or disembodied spirit
remains what it was at death. And here Hecuba condoles with
her murdered grandchild Astyanax, calling his death �vorvx7s,
because he did not live to be a warrior, a husband, and a sovereign,
and so to possess in the nether world the memories and prestige
belonging to these characters. I take adz’ to be avra, those things.
I render freely thus :—

Ah darling! how ill-fated came thy death !

If thou hadst died before the city’s walls

Its champion, after reaching man’s estate

And marriage rites and godlike royalty,

Blest thou hadst been, if aught of these is blest.

But now—though thou didst see, didst recognise
Those things, my child—thy spirit knows them not:
None didst thou use, when all were housed with thee.

The peculiar antithesis of participle i�w� p�v yvovs ze and finite
verb �xpyow od deserves special notice.”

Mr. Rosy read a paper on points arising out of the Gromatics
Veteres of which the following is a summary :

Arcifinius. The derivations which have been given of this word
from arcere fines or arcere wicinos are all unsatisfactory i in meaning
and impossible in form, the position of the verb and noun in such
a compound being reversed. aretfintus is ‘‘bow-bounded.” The
ancient arcus had often the shape of a double curve joined by a
straight line and was thus a symbol of an irregular line. areifinius
ager is land with wavy natural boundaries as opposed to land
bounded by the straight lines of Roman surveyors. So Balbus
describes it (p. 98), extremitatum genera sunt duo unum quod
per rigorem obseruatur, alterum quod per flexus: rigor est quicquid
inter duo signa ueluti im modum linese perspicitur, per flexus
quicquid secundum locorum naturam curuatur ut in agris areifiniis

Decumanus is the name of a balk between centuries, normally
running KE. and W. It has been the subject of wild speculations.
But it must be derived from decuma and must mean ‘ of the tenth.’
The centuria was a square plot of land divided into zugera, two
sugera forming an heredium or original allotment and there being a
hundred heredia in the century which were not separated by balks
but only by marks erected by the proprietors. Measuring along
the cardo or a side after the tenth heredium comes a balk, limes,
which thus belonged as it were to the tenth plot. Hence limes
decumanus and then simply decumanus.

Mr. Roby then controverted Mommsen’s view of the difference

26 -CamBripner Putmonoaicat Socrety’s PRocEEDINGS.

between ager wiritanus and ager colontarius (Corp. Inscr. 1. pp. 88,
89), viz. that colonial land was divided into centuries by balks and
given by lot and only to a relatively small number of persons,
which was fixed by a law authorising the distribution: whereas
ager uiritanus was divided into saltus of four centuries, it was not
given by lot and to all Roman citizens subject only to ther
willingness to receive it and the amount of distributable territory.
Mommsen’s seven instances of utrttim diutsus ager prove nothing,
as he does not assert that wiritim cannot be applied to a colony,
and in two of them according to Livy (Iv. 47, 48, v. 24) the
distribution was colonial which shows that L. did not recognize
the distinction. In Festus Paul Hpit. L. 373 wiritanus ager
dicitur qui uinitim populo distribuitur (the only place where
utritanus is found) populo cannot be pressed to mean the whole
people. Nor does Varro #. &. 1 10 quattuor centuriae coniunctae
appellantur in agris diuisis uiritim publice saltus prove anything, for
the saltus mentioned by the surveyors was twenty-five centuries
(p. 158). The third place from Siculus Flaccus, Diuisi et adsig-
nati agri non unius sunt condicionis; nam et diuiduntur sine
adsignatione et redduntur sine diuisione. diuiduntur. ergo agn
limitibus institutis per centurias assignantur uiritim nominibus,
may be translated freely ‘ Divided and assigned lands are not all
held on the same tenure. You may have a division of lands
without their being assigned, and you may have restoration of
lands without their being divided (cf. Grom. p. 162). Division is
the separation of land into centuries by regular balks, assignment
is the appropriation of the land to individuals by name.’ Assign-
ment and division are thus different things, and are not always
found together. Assignment may be made without division
(Frontinus Grom., p. 4, Siculus Flaccus, p. 160, a passage which
seems to have escaped Mommsen) and division without assignment
(cf. p. 163). mominibus assignare, to register the land in the
proprietors’ names, 1s opposed to per centurtas diuidere, not as a
different mode of allotment, but as a different part of the same
process. wiritim diuidere is not necessarily division to all the
people but merely to endividuals of the body or number specified.

_ Mr. Roby next criticized Mommsen’s rendering of Cic. Brut. 36.
136 (Corp. Inscr. 1. 77), Sp. Thorius... . qui agrum publicum
uitiosa et inutili lege uectigali leuauit. Appian B.C. 1. 27 gives
the history of the public land after C. Gracchus. The Gracchi had
prohibited the sale of the allotments and imposed a tax on the
holders. Three laws followed. The first removed the prohibition
of sale, the second put an end to any further allotments and allowed
the holders of lands yet undistributed to retain them by paying a
tax or rent, the revenues thence accruing to be distributed to the
people in lieu of the lands. The third law removed the rent.
Appian attributes the second law to Szovpios Bopros, probably a
misreading of Ocpsos. So far most writers are agreed. The
discrepancy which thus arises between Cicero and Appian Mommeen

Campringe Puirotoarcat Socrety’s Procreprnas. 27

would remove by translating the Cicero ‘“‘Sp. Thorius . . . . who
by imposing a rent on the public land, relieved it from the faulty
and impolitic law of the Gracchi:”’ an impossible translation not
justified by Cic. Lael. 20 � 72 where no ambiguity could arise. It
is not a difficult supposition that Appian confused the authors of
the second and third laws.

Mr. Roby finally criticized some remarks of Niebuhr’s in his
Roman History, u. 140, on the tenure of public lands. The
passage of Hyginus (Grom. p. 116) there quoted refers to leases of
the land, not of a mere ground rent. proximi quique possessores
would be suitable tenants of the land, but not suitable as sublessees
of a ground rent. per centurias (locauerunt) probably here means
not ‘by a century at a time,’ but in the several centuries, as in
p. 121 and p. 125.

Mr. Jackson read a paper on Aristotle Polttics 1. 6. 12554,
7 sqq., of which the following is a summary :

To the question stated at the beginning of ch. 5—z7o7epoy
B�dr10v Kai Sckarov tive Sovredverv, 7 ov, ada waca Sovdela Tapa
Gvow �or’v ;—Aristotle makes answer, that, as it is advantageous
to both and to each, and therefore just and natural, that body,
appetite, beast, and female should be respectively subject to soul,
reason, man, and male, so it is advantageous to both and to each,
' and therefore just and natural, that a man who is inferior in dpery of
soul should be subject to a man who is in that respect supenor.
At the same time he recognises the obvious fact that the custom of
selling prisoners taken in war sometimes reduced to slavery men
who by right of dpery should be free. His contention 1s then, that,
since theoretically de? to BedNtiov Kat’ dpeTny dpxew Kat Scondte,
in practice some slavery is just and natural, some slavery is unjust
and unnatural.

It had been maintained however in the course of a contemporary

(i) by X, that all slavery is unjust and unnatural, because
violence is wrong ;

(ii) by Y, that all slavery is just and natural, because might is
right ;

(iii) by Z, that all slavery is just and natural, because what is
legal is just. Thus, while Aristotle declares that in practice some
slavery is just, some slavery is unjust, X holds that al/ slavery is
unjust, Y and Z hold, though on different grounds, that ali slavery
is just. The purpose of the sentences 1255 a 12—21 is then to
show that the positions of X and Y are open to attack precisely in
so far as they differ from the position of Aristotle himself.

Now the Aoyo: of X and Y, (i) all slavery is unjust, (11) all
slavery is just, �aN\arrovo.v: i.e. slaveries which X pronounces
to be unjust are pronounced by Y to be just. What is the reason
of this difference of opinion ?

28 Camsripce ParoroeicaL Socrety’s PRocEEDINGS.

The reason is, that, a8 dpery with proper appliances is able to
exert force or violence, while force or violence implies dryadov of
some sort or other, X and Y agree in the hasty assumption that
where there is Bia, there there is dper7, and consequently suppose
that they differ fundamentally in their notions of dccacov. That is to
say, starting from the assumption that Sia is always accompanied
by dpery, and consequently ignoring Aristotle’s distinction between
Bia accompanied by apery and fia not accompanied by dpe, X
condemns all relations between inferior and superior which are not
based upon evvoa, ‘loyalty,’ ‘the willing obedience which an
inferior renders to a kind and considerate superior,’ and Y takes as
his principle Might is right.

When however the two theories are withdrawn within their
proper limits, so that they decrace ywpds and no longer �rak-
Natrover, the adverse theories (dtepor Noryor), i.e. the theory which
X advances against Y and the theory which Y advances against X,
have neither force nor plausibility as against the modified doctrine
maintained by Aristotle, ws de? ro B�dtiov Kaz’ apetny dpxew cat

Two words in this passage need a word of explanation: (4)
€ra\Xatrecy Means primarily, as Mr. Heitland points out, ‘to
overlap’; whether by superposition, 0.g. t7 �raddaker riev daxtihwr
460 B 20, or by juxtaposition, e.g. dea �zaddXatret tovs ddovtas
tous otets 501.4 18; for secondary uses, see Iliad xm. 358, Plat.
Sophist 240 c, Aristotle 501 a 22, 1817 a 1, 464 � 28: in this
place it describes the mutual relation of two incompatible sub-
contrary propositions: (bd) for the meaning which I have given to
evvora, see Xen. Oecon. 7 � 37; 9 �� 5,12; 12 �� 5—8; 15�5
(in all which cases the oix�rys is edvovs to his master and mistress):
Aristot. Wie. eth. rx. 5 �� 3, 4: Polus Pythag. ap. Stob. florii.T.9
p. 106 otxeray roti Seocroras evvora, dearotav b€ roti Ocparovias
xadenovia: Herodotus v. 24 odd�va elval cev edvodorepov ..- =
KTNMaTwY TavTwy EoTi Tyuwratov uvyp Dios euveEToS TE Kat EVVOUS
(where Darius addresses Histiaeus).




At a Meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, Oct. 19,
the President, Mr. Munnzo, in the Chair,

The Secretary read a paper by Dr. Hayman of emendations on

Trachiniae 628,
E�vys idwv
mpoadeypat, avtny @ ws �deFaunv Gi dws,
we should read zpocddyuad’, airav 0 ws edeEaunv diedrws, where
avrny is for �uavryy.
Philoctetes, 684—6,

ds ovr’ �p�as tiv’ ovte voodicas,
GN’ toos ev tacos avnp
WrAAVO’ wd’ avakws.
From the corresponding lines, 696—700,
obs’ Os Ocppotatay ainada Kynxiomevay EXx�wy
> , b! > ’ ,
evOnpov Todos nrtotce GuANOLS
Katevvdcetey, et Tis �prrecor * *,
U � D. e a
PopBa�dos ex te yas edery,

(Campbell’s text)

where a subst. such as vooos is much wanted, and xarevyacecey has
probably a short a, catevvafw being the Sophoclean form rather
than xarevvaw, cf. Trach. 95, Ant. 838, Zrach. 1005 (transitive),
we should probably read os ovr p�Fas ode voodicas twva a complete
senarius. In the second line for the unmetrical �v tco:s we should
read dvoctots, toos dvootoes ‘just as if profane,’ being like Jos
avav�w, Hom. Od. 10. 378.

Ocd. Col. 277, 8,

a ‘N A A 9 ‘N A
kat wn Oeovs timwytes Etta Tous Deovs
potpacs (Vv. Ll. pocpas, potpav) roretaOe pydapds. yyetoOe d�
Pr�zewv pev abtovs mpos tov evoeBi Bpot&y x.7.d.


E- toe =e ame mae ao dresses Polena, ff whch
‘te 2.16 + HABE

Tm St Ferm =r ew � finercme . . . . Siem yep tue
ware sere, TTIBSCSSISS EEree � Ie INSEE of Aapcecor:,
eel ee eee a ant �. ira fie peer aleme give
ieee * 2 ate | = ees of in rete = “A” te examine
te smance oe ge 2 ew sow fiat che work are: 7
quer wanes �86eemmer—een=. MIT. sre IMmerpalsted.

weemiei ge ox a ie out* % Wie uve the dats for 1) the
sess af ses ale a ere gmt Yeceiving a name inom
Sietes, oe eee Se: Ses os Sht eee ?

a Tie aes oC SUT wees 3 proved by the line 7:


= Tie ame cr 2e eS (1)
Mi waAnT watt WSS a> Fu —.2 Ic “he ansiory of Taveype=8

CANS Bee SATO: voy. Pal Tit 13565; wv) The supposed

puLT SL Anaman.. Goat

| & cas Aqwmuane & Iok tHel we mnem. imi a5 adj. with evry
‘= weave HEE Je meet seruesansker, mot larisacan-

(5 on exaioey we suomi sxgect Anuoc. Legusrs; (iv) Dr. Thomp.
fon remarks � meme TSk2y thst Ncmewios without a substan-
tite wens tave siggesGel Ext ster man, bot that of a man of
Larisa * Gee yp i. Tees comsiderstions make it ery
improbable that anv veel was caixd Acpeontes, but slightly pro-
babi: that wma such wesw] was calcd Aceoe. If this inference is

correct, the double-barrelied joke is exploded.

B. (a, On tuming the jcke of Gorgias mto direct narration, we
find he gives not only the jest, but the interpretation thereof. For
etvac -jap 7.X. depend on <p9, whilst Ar. resumes his own discourse
with gon �’ axXovv. (6) No interpretation which leaves out
Gdpous can be right. Some one perhaps not seeing that the point
lay in the double meaning of �ymovpyos, and knowing of some
hardware manufacture at Larisa, and that Gorgias alluded to it,
wrote a note to the effect that there was a class of mechanics called

Campringe Puimoroeicat Socrery’s PRocEEDINGS. $1

larisa-makers, and this got into the text. The point of the joke is
that the dnucovpyoi and odozocot manufactured Larisaean citizens
and (Larisaean) doe by the same method, just as though it were
said in reference to Sheffield that the Master-Cutler and the blade-
makers manufacture guildsmen and blades on the same principle.
The gender of �dApmovs suiting Aapicacovs lends force. This will
preserve the reference to the peculiar industry of Larisa, and give
due prominence to the important word �dpovs, hitherto ignored.
If there was authority for Aapicacorrocovs, it is easy to see that it
was manufactured by some one from Aapicaiovs and zoretv to
correspond to oApozrorovs.

m. 8, 2. eizep ovw cai Snpoxpatodvtat tives �.7.A. William
renders this �n democratiam versae fuerunt, after which Susem.'?
reads cata Snpoxpatiay �tparovto. Did not William take �npoxpa-
vovvrat as if from dypoxparow, and hence his version ?

mt. 3,6. womep xai wotapous x.7.. Ref. to dicta of Heraclitus.

mi. 38, 7. edzrep yap kowwwya tis 9 TONS, Cott S� KoLYwWHLa TOKLTOV

The MSS. reading is to be retained. For 7 wcAxs is the subject
of xotywvia wor. wo. For the sense cf. m1. 4, 1. For construction,
xo.vwvea is found commonly with either kind of gen., and at m1. 9,
14 is found again with two genitives, though Susem. after Scaliger
inserts xap:v with one of them, evidently on account of the pre-
ceding sentences, where however both genitives are objective,
whilst in both passages quoted one gen. is suly., the other ody.

m. 5,9. ddd’ drov 70 toLlodToOY �mixexpuppevov �otiv, amarys
Xapiy tev svvotkovvtwy €oriv. This is explained by vu. 3, 11—12,
610 door Aon svvotcous �dcEavto 4 �zotkovs, x.t.r., Where cuvorxety
is used absolutely as here. From this it is plain that ovvoicor=
joint settlers of alien race (+o uw ouegeAov), in the original azoce�a ;
�vrotxot = immigrants of alien race into an already established
drrotxia. So here the meaning is that at the founding of a city the
main body of citizens of the same race are afraid of offending the
smaller bodies of different race, which are their ovvocxor. Conse-
quently dzarns xapev they. do not openly state in their constitution
the doctrine that petoccous a7) pet�exery THY Tyudy, though determined
to put it into practice in due time.

m. 9, 11—14. In this passage scholars are troubled by finding
yevn mentioned with ofxat, cipac and zoXkss, whilst in 1. 1 Ar. is
silent about them. The reason is that inti. 1 he is getting at the
modes synthetically. First the oix�a, then the xwyy, lastly the
xdpac disappear in the vous. Here on the contrary he is proceeding
analytically. Starting from the vodrs, he perceives as units within
it first oixd�ac, then yevy as evidenced by @vota, etc. Next the
sutures of the y�vy within the zeds indicate the divisions formerly
existing between the separate ��pa: before their cvvotccicpos. Thus

32 CamBripGe Pxuioroeicat Socrety’s ProckeEepres.

in the process of analysis the evn are of the utmost importance,
whilst in that of synthesis they have no place, as its function ceases
on the combination of x#ma: into the village. The cw is the
earlier stage of that of which the y�vos within the city is the later

mm. 12,6. e yap padrrov 70 ti peyeOos x.7.r. Eject padndov,
which has got in from �vaycdXov, and carry on cvpzBAnzov from the
preceding sentence.

Iv. 11, 3. wore pydeote broderery eipyomevous K.T.X. emthet-
qevv (Koraes), eipyouevors (Madvig), wzodecrey intransitivam
(Susem.). v�ara is the subject and dzoXecre is quite regular, cf.
Rhet. 1. 18, 20, iwonedwor yap ay 6 aiwy dcapcOmodvra, and again
Rhet. un. 17, 21.

Iv. 12, 2. ta xvpwwrata tov dpxetwy avoottia.

Ar.’s idea is that the citizens’ messes should be held on the scene
of their employment, e.g. messes of @vAaxes in Gudraxtypra, 80 here
that of magistrates, which is of course the most important. Insert
va before tv dpxecwv ; it would easily fall out after. cvpewrara.

Iv. 12, 6. �wei 5€ 10 wANOos—eis iepets, eis dpxoutas, mperet
kai TY iep�wy avocitia TWepi THY THY LepHV oixodomnuaTwY exXeLV THY
ca�iv. There is no need to change dpxovtas. All citizens can be
called equally om\irac or dpxovtes. For they are each cata p�pos,
ef. rv. 9, 10. cv before 7Hy iepSv is wanting in IT’, and is not
translated by Aretinus. cpr is used as adj., though twice in this
chapter used as noun=temples. Just as Ar. wishes the dvAaxes
and magistrates to have their mess at the scene of their employ-
ment, so here the priests are to have theirs in the buildings of the
temple. Omit 74� with II’, and read for it ra, and read oixadopy-
pata. The disorder arose from otcodounpata being changed to
agree with ‘ep#v. 7a had nothing to depend on, was omitted by
one family of MSS., and in the others changed to r7v in the vam
effort to get a construction. For use of wep: with acc. cf. next sect.

Iv. 14,11. �ai de� ras rod BeAtiovos aipetwt�pas elvat Tois
Suvapevois tuyxaveww 4 racwy 7 toiv dvotv. Omit 4 before racwr,
which is to be taken closely with zvyxavew, i.e. if we have the
choice of all zpaf ees, etc.

Iv. 16,10. eve d� 9 Siadoxy TY T�xYWY Tots pEev apxXopmEryS,
�.7.. The whole passage deals with the adjustment of the ages of
the sexes. Ar. takes as point of departure the synchronous cessa-
tion of fertility and seeks so to adjust their ages that the offspring
may have the maximum of physical and intellectual vigour. Men
must marry before 37; for (4) women would be too young, and
(5) the men would not be in their tntellectual prime, which is 49.
The men have just turned their physical axpy at 35 (cf. Rhet. 0.
14), and are physically beginning to go down the hill (though
steadily increasing in mental power); but this is counterbalanced

CamBringE. Pumotoarcat Socrety’s PRockeprnes. 33

by the fact that the women are just coming to their physical prime.
Thus when the limit of sexvozrorda is reached, 54 for men, 35 for
women, the man is at the end of his intellectual, the woman at the
end of her physical dxuy. Read then tavs ev for rozs ev, just as
in the preceding sentence tas p�v and rovs d� are contrasted.

e a A aA
Iv. 17,6. 9 yap tod wvevpatos Kabetis mores THY iaxdv tots
wovovet. For zovover read rvevpocw

v. 2,5. �ore b€ cai tHy �NevOepiwy, �.t.d. Read tiv dvedevOdpwr,
or perh. dveNevOepiwv.

vi. 1,1. �ai ris tots mXelotors pia mac, x.t.X. For mracw
read zaoiv; cf. rats rNecoracs vroXece infra.

vil. 11, 31. d@ecdis yap �avtiv exovoww—YWuyis yap wreicOa,
cf. Eud. Eth. um. In.each place there is no object for wretc@ac.
Ar. intends to paraphrase wreisOat by agerdis eyovow. Read the
good Tonic word dvec@ac=to think light of, and for gen. cf. Od.
v. 879. That it is a very old mistake is plain from Plutarch and
Tamblichus, who quoted it with a whole clause of varied form to
give an object for wvretc@a:.


At a Meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, November 2,
the President, Mr. Munro, in the Chair, |

The following were elected Members: |

H. C. Levanper, Esq., M.A., Pembroke College, Oxford.
W. G. Rournerrorp, Esq., M.A., Balliol College, Oxford.

Dr. Hacer communicated a paper on Richard Croke, of which
the following is an abstract. ‘‘Mullinger in his history of the
University of Cambridge, p. 527, refers to Croke’s going abroad
and his stays in Pans, Cologne, Louvain, Leipsic, The brief
mention there can be filled up from several sources. In Paris he
attended the lectures of Aleander. Croke was in Leipsic for some
time during 1514 (letter of Erasmus, 1514? in Erasmi epp. L.B.
p-. 136, and letter of G. Spalatin, dated March 2nd, 1515). In the
autumn he visited Mutianus, who probably at this time called
Croke’s attention to the fine library at Wittenberg. From there
he went to Cologne, where he must have been lecturing for some
time previous to his matriculation (March 20th, 1515), and which
he left almost immediately afterwards.

CamBrince Puimonoeicat Sociery’s PRoceEeprves. 35

imparisyllabss ; declinationes nominum eontractorum: 1a to via,
then vooc), next numeralia de formatione comparativorum et superla-
twvorum de verbis (five conjugations t�prw, wh�xw, dvdrw, Yah,
and verbs in -me; de verbis circumflexis); de adverbio ex quarto
Theodori. Not the least interesting feature about these �adbulae are
two poems printed with it addressed to Mutianus. In the same
year (not, as Horawitz says, in 1519), Croke published a transla-
tion of the fourth book of Theodorus Gaza which he dedicated to
the Archbishop of Mayence and Magdeburg. In the preface Croke
again quotes Greek, Homer and Theocritus; and the arms of the
Archbishop (one eagle, two lions, four griffins) suggest to him a
Latin elegy. For this and his other publications the Senate
of the University granted Croke copyright for four years. One
other of Croke’s poems requires mentioning. He accompanied the
Reprobatio orationis excusatoriae picardorum, etc. of Hieronymus de
Ochsenfurt by a poem beginning guts hane perfidiam tuam picarde.

Croke’s work at Leipsic bore rich fruit. Mainly in consequence
of his exertions Greek was formally recognized as part of the
University curriculum (1519). For he lett behind him a pupil,
P. Mosellanus, well qualified to succeed him. Croke was greatest
as a teacher of grammar as Camerarius says. He was widely
known amorgst the German scholars of his day as is testified by
his correspondence. Nor was the intercourse broken off when he
returned to England. He could not however induce P. Mosellanus
to come to England.

Mr. VERRALL read papers upon the following subjects :

(1) *Epzovea (also 7 "Epuzovea and 7 eurovea).

This word, the name of a certain bogie or apparition, appears to
have signified 7 pophas dervas adNacoovea, she who assumes various
strange forms, or more briefly, the changing one. (See the passages
cited from Aristophanes and Demosthenes in Ziddell and Scott, s.v.)
In form it is, like M�dovca, Kp�ovaa, ’ Ap�Oovea, etc., a participle,
and points therefore to the existence of a verb eure = pophas
G\XNacoev. A compound of this participle �z�urovca (cf. �vad-
Adsceav) taking several forms successively should be restored in Plato
Crito 46 C ov�) a av wetw THY VOY TapovTwY 7 TWY TONNWY duvapus
wom Ep mrat�as Aas | poppohuraytas, deopovs kai Ouvatovs �r�urrovea
Kat xpnpatwv adap�cees—not though the power of numbers should even
surpass her present effort to frighten us, like children, im over-shifting
shapes of fine, imprisonment, and death. The MSS. reading, ‘�m-
w�uxovca, though apparently simple, is intrinsically bad; the
metaphor of the Mopuw or bogie affords no place for the notion of
sending, and in any case it should be not �xizdurovoa but �eguetoa.

Professor Sxreat suggested that the root of �uze:v was perhaps
Feur-, a labialised form of wank-(shift), from which are derived
among other words the Latin vacillor, the German wanken, and the
English wench.

36 CaMBRIDGE PHimoLoaicaL Socrety’s PRocEEDINGS.

Mr. Nixon observed that, even if the verb cue and its
participle eurovea Were not in use, Plato might have coined
�r�urovea, figuring as a bogie, direct from the proper name ”Eyurovea

(2) Eur. Med. 1159 foll. and 947—963.

On the former passage it was pointed out that it appears to be
constructed with careful ambiguity, so as to maintain the parallel,
indicated elsewhere in the play, between the poisoned KOopos
(bridal raiment) sent by Medea to her rival, and the xocmos used in
adorning the dead for burial.

Upon the latter (947 foll.) the writer advanced the theory that
the poison of Medea, as also that of Deianira in the Zrachtniae, is
applied and concealed by means of the y piua or scented oil used by the
Greeks and Romans for garments worn on festal or solemn occasions.
In connexion with this theory were propounded the corrections
Xpymatwv for ypnuatwy in 963 and advpa for abya in 982. The
arguments, which are too long to be presented in an abstract, will
be published hereafter.


At a Meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday, Nov. 16,
the President, Mr. Mono, i in the Chair,

The Secretary read a paper from Prof. A. Patmer (T.C.D) on
A lost Greek proverb.

‘‘The proverb is the equivalent of the English ‘Fine words
butter no parsnips.’ It 1s to be found in Plaut. Poen. 1. 1. 9, a
passage given in Geppert’s text as follows:


Saepe ego res multas tibi mandaui, Milphio,
dubias egenas inopiosas consili;

quas tu sapienter docte et cordate et cate
mihi reddidisti opiparas opera tua.

quibus pro beneficiis fateor deberi tibi

et libertatem et multas grandes gratias.

Scitumst, per tempus obuiam si est uerbum uetus.
nam tuae blanditiae mihi sunt, quod dici solet,
gerrae germanae, edepol Ajpor Ajpoe meri.
nune mihi blandidicus es: heri in tergo meo
tris facile corios contriuisti bubulos. �

CamBRIDGE PuimoroarcaL Socrety’s PRocreEeprves. 37

Here the slave Milphio, vexed at his master’s empty praise with
nothing substantial accompanying it, says he has a proverb, for
that is a regular use of werbum in Plautus, which will express what
he thinks, But in the ordinary reading no proverb is there, but
an awkward and common-place line, where the proverb ought to
come: gerrae germanae edepol Af#por Ajpoe mert, which is about as
far from the MSS. as a line can possibly be. The MSS. give for
the latter part of the verse :

haedecol lyrae lyrae.

that is to say, without the alteration of a letter: ai d� codddpac
Nupaz, that is, ‘but loaves are the real lyres’ or, ‘presents are
true praise.’ Does edepol occur so seldom in Plautus that the
scribes of the Palatine MSS. were puzzled by it and changed it to
haedecol? If so, what idea did they attach to this remarkable
word that they unanimously substituted for it ?

In the ordinary reading \fpor is an old correction for lyrae, and
mers is an addition tacked on by Weise, who also tries to make out
a proverb in the first line of Milphio’s speech by reading

scitum est, per tempus si obuiam is, uerbum uetus,

making out that per tempus st obutam ts is the old proverb. But
(1) there is not much of a proverb about that phrase in any
application ; (2) it has no application here; (3) quod dict solet shows
that the proverb is yet to come.”’ |

Mr. Parry sent a paper ‘On Mr. Munro’s Emendations of
Euripides ” (Journal of Philology, No. 20, pp. 2833—252).

In fr. 59, we should retain +77 rvy7y. The poet is speaking of
persons whom fortune or fate’ has actually made slaves.

In fr. 149, read for cv, ‘‘No man is fortunate who is not favoured
by heaven in most of his endeavours.’’ There is plenty of authority
for cvvO�Xecv, ‘‘ to have a common will.”

No alteration is required either in Medea v. 966, xecvys 6 dacuwy,
xeiva vov avter Oeos, ‘ hers isthe luck now; that is the side which
the god is making great.”’ Cf. for the neut. pl. Pers. 397.

Fr. 162. Hence we should retain 7 typyovs, comparing for the
sentiment Aesch. Suppl. 975. The poet says, amorous young men
are not easily kept safe at home, for ‘‘ Love laughs at locksmiths.”

In the last verse, which is a common metaphor from a bird or a
bee alighting, read � 8 dy (or 7 & av) wpootty Kurpis, ydiorn
haBety. mpoojtae is a gloss on zpoofy.

In 167, we should punctuate thus,

e a � , A > #

y Yap Soxyots, Tatpact patdas etxevac


In 230, xadAcorov ex yaeas (springing out of the earth) v�wp
cannot be altered with the least probability.

38 Camsrempez Parmoroericat Socrery’s Procerprves.

In 250, I read ofrwes Soxodor perv, Ppovodar 8 oddev x pypatwv
tr�ptepov. The gloss dpovety to doxovcx caused it to be corrupted
to Ppovodeat.

In fr. 264, rds tUxas tas tH� Bpormy seems an obvious and
certain correction.

In fr. 324, v. 5, I propose aBporns for 7Byrns, and meduce oy
for redux’ dde. Cf. Bacch. 968.

In 414, it seems clear from Hipp. 645, xpqv & �s yuvatca
m@poaToAov pev ov mepay, that here too we must read zpoo7oov
mepay (for dav). In the third line, from v. 1005 of the same play,
we should read

7a & aioxpa pucet cod car’ oPOarpmovs exer.

In'457, for dva:to, proposed by Mr. Munro, idiom requires ovavo.

In 514, tiv xevidv Sofacuatwy seems a case of abstract for
concrete, ‘‘those vain pretensions’ for ‘‘those vain pretenders,”’
viz. to true nobility.

In fr. 554, we should not alter gavetoa, perhaps a metaphor
from sighting land in a storm, as in Agam. 872. The addition of
fadXov to a comparative is easily defined.

In fr. 582, v. 7, read ypayavta 7’ eirety tov NaBovta 7’ cidevat.

In 608, tvpavvis may be a nominativus pendens. Inv. 3, x pew
appears to be an accusative absolute, like �ov and dofay. ‘ When
one has to rob (ruin) one’s friends, or put them to death, there is
the greatest fear always before us lest they should do something,”
viz. in anticipation or in revenge. Compare Qeovs tovs �yryeveis
mopOciv, Theb. 578, where the person is used in place of the
possession dzwOety seems rather weak; it should at least be
dmioat, and the construction ofs wieiota GoBos wapeore, “ those
who are most dangerous ’”’ is doubtful.

In 620, v. 3, for ety coos read �Fior sodos, exeat saptens. Sipe
yacas kAecoToy May mean a cave or closed cell in the earth.

In fr. 652, read cai Noyor. ‘‘ Hopes and promises (or professions)
often deceive mortals.” Cf. Antig. 389, for yevderv.

In fr. 664, zovos povwOeis dvev t�xns means toil without the
necessity of being a workman.

In fr. 739, tpevw is genuine. The poor aids his inherited
nobility by his disposition, tpo7w.

Fr. 773 should be read �ax rHs tYvxys, from the mere fact of being
rich, Secvov d� tots rANovTOvGL TovTO xy’ �eumuTov, *‘ Because Plutus,
who is blind, is their friend, have they also blind minds by the
very luck that has befallen them?” That is, ‘‘Shall we say that
they become fools from the mere fact of being rich ?”

In fr. 794, read xdv coi dcafOeipas doxH. In 1. 3, for the gloss
paOnon read �xiorycee In the last verse read, od 8 avtos avrov
�uhavile poe Aeywv.

In fr. 801, read ef rs for �o7v in v. 1.

In fr. 830, I think Ay cuws should be retained, ness quod
nihilo minus, ete.

Camsrmngk Pamoxroercat Soctrety’s Procezpmvas. 89

In fr. 892, wy roy adroy seems to me clearly right, “the same
person should not always be in misery.” Compare Zroad. 1206,
ov�eis autos ebtuxel Torte.

In fr. 1039, v. 4, I think for eEwOer we must read cFw pev.
‘� Wealth is indeed a thing that is exempt from troubles and the
cares of business, but it does not bring the credit which results
from bravery.”

In fr. 1046, v. 2, read pa redux’ evoov peveryv. ‘A woman who
is not of herself disposed to stay at home is watched to no purpose;
to do so only makes bad worse.”
~ In fr. 1052 cwparos seems clearly right.

Mr. F. T. Annotp communicated a note on Eur. 7. 7. 1419.
The MSS. read:
4 Povoy tov Abdou
duvynpovevtov Oca mpodode’ adtoxerat,

in which the phrase zpododvac P�vov Gea is very strained. We
should read

4 povov tov ’vy Abr de
9 e A a3 @e ,
apvynpovevtos Seay mrpodove’ adtoxerat,

‘‘who, unmindful of the sacrifice at Aulis (i.e. her rescue by
Artemis), is now caught betraying the goddess.” Badham has
already given |

9 hovov tod ’v Adr�e

> ’ A a9 ey 2
apyynmovevtoy Geay mpodove adioxertat.

dovov=ovov �vexa, ‘forgotten so far as the sacrifice is concerned’ ;
which however does not give such good sense, provided it is
possible to establish the active meaning of duryypcvevros=duynpwr.
The only passage quoted in the Lexicon for this is Diog. L. 1, 86,
d\Notpiwy Se caxdv auynpovevtov etvac, which would prove nothing
if the words were Diogenes’ own. But they seem to be a quota-
tion from Bias of Priene (so Orelli Carm. Sentent.), which fact
seems to make the alteration to duvypovevtos worth considering.


Ar a General Meeting held in St. John’s College on Thursday,
November 30, the President, Mr. Muwnno, in the Chair,

The Secretary communicated an emendation from Prof. A.
Parmer, T.C.D., of Mart. vo. 46 as follows:

40 CaMBRIDGE PuitoLoaicat Socirery’s PRocEEDINGS..

‘� The lines are

Commendare tuum dum wis mihi carmine munus
Maeonioque cupis doctius ore loqui,

excrucias multis pariter me teque diebus
et tua de nostro, Prisce, Thalia tacet.

diuitibus poteris Musas elegosque sonantes
mittere: pauperibus munera pexa dato.

I have printed the last line according to the reading of the
Palatine (P), one of the best of the MSS. of Martial. Others have
plena or plana. Mr. Stephenson repeats Prisce with Beverland.

I conceive however that pexa very nearly represents the truth.
Martial says, ‘You may send high-flown poems to the rich: to the
poor send plain presents without poetry.’ This latter idea Martial
I think expressed thus:

——— pauperibus munera zefa dato.

meCa, ‘prosaic,’ ‘plain,’ ‘unromantic,’ is just the word required,
and pexa is the nearest Latin word it could be corrupted into.”

The Secretary read a paper from Mr. W. Lear on the etymology
of three Homeric words.

audeyunecs. Ebeling Lex. says “‘ dugiuyuyers (yutov, vett.
xwos) ‘utrumque validis artubus instructus’ Goebel, ‘ utraque
manu agilis’ Doed.”” But both these derivations disregard the :,
and the second, from yuwes, overlooks the fact that adjectives in
-ecs always come from substantives (see Goebel de Epithetis
Homericis in -evs desinentibus, Vienna, 1858, esp. p. 24). It 1s
much better to take it from *yuy ‘crook, curve.” Cf. uys
curved piece of wood in a plough (afterwards ‘' plough-gate,”
suger), yvarov hollow of hand (�y-yvad-cfev), curved breastplate,
yauNos jug, yad\os merchant vessel (Curt. Gr. Et. no. 127). Perh.
the Acuvy Tv-y-acy Il. 2. 865, lake of the hollow (acc. to Strabo
called afterwards KoNon, ? xo’An). Hence yu-i-ov of bending parts
of body, moveable extremities, yv-s-os crooked and maimed. Hence
dupiuyvnecs might = ‘‘ with a crook on both sides,’”’ bandy-legged ;
cf. cudozodiwy of the same god.

augcyvos is used eight or nine times as epithet of a spear and
is generally explained to mean ‘‘ utramgue manibus tnstructus,” ie.
with a point at each end. But dud: means ‘on both sides,” not
‘Cat each end.” As before, the loss of the �is without analogy.
And there is still the serious objection that Homer would scarcely
have called the metal points at the butt and the ‘‘ business ’’ ends
of the spear yv�a or hands. Hoffmann and Doederlein refer the
word to the point only and explain it ‘‘ curved on both sides ” as of
a flat point more or less oval with cutting edges. But this is a

CamBrRinGE PuinoioaicaL Socrety’s Procrepres. 41

property of the point hardly obvious enough to give its name to
the whole spear. A more obvious one is the elasticity of the long
shaft. Compare Il. 18. 504 aiyyy & Aivetao xpadaivopevy Kata
yacas wero. Hence dudiyvos seems to mean ‘ bending both ways,”’
‘* flexible.”

aduds�Xcaoa. All the received explanations of this word (1)
‘curved at both ends,” i.e. with rising from a poop: (2) ‘‘ with
curved ribs:’’ (3) ‘‘ curved ”’ in plan, i.e. of a guast-oval shape, do
violence to the meaning of the root Fer (uol-u-o, etc.), which
always means ‘‘ wheeling,” ‘‘ revolving,” or ‘‘ twisting” and does
not pass into that of simple deviation from a straight line. So of
the foot in circling dances (Eur. Or. 171); in Homer of chariots
wheeling round, warriors rallying from a flight. ‘‘ Twisted both
ways”’ does not express in the least the gradual curve of a ship’s
form. The old interpretation ‘‘ rowed on both sides ”’ is not to be
defended by Soph. 47. 358 dy\sov �Xoowy wratav, of the oar-blade
which approximately describes an oval. And of course the word
cannot come from root �p, row. The Schol. on Il. 2. 165 explains
it as dugot�pwOev .aotpehopuevas kai �pecoopevas Which suggests the
simplest and most suitable explanation, viz. ‘‘ wheeling round both
ways,” i.e. easily steered, handy. Although the word is generally,
le. 14 passages out of 20, used of ships drawn up to land, this has
we weight in view of the very conventional use of epithets in


The PresrpEntT criticised in detail Mr. Paley’s observations on
Euripides read at the last meeting.

Addendum, p. 12 (2).—Since this note ‘‘On references to
Isocrates in the sixth book of Plato’s Republic”? was communicated
to the Society, the writer has discovered that Teichmiiller calls
attention to the subject in his Literartsche Fehden im vierten
Jahrhundert vor Chr. pp. 103-105, 1881.

Erratum, p. 20.—For Mrtcue.t read MicHett.


SOCIETY. 1882. No. I.—III.


alloguium =. ‘ : ; i. & : 2 14
arcifinius ‘ : : ‘ pe NS : ‘ 25
decumanus . ; ‘ ; : : : ; 25
in puris naturalibus ‘ ; : : ; : : 16
uiritanus ager : : . : ‘ , , . 26
axpoxXetpia pos ‘ ; ~ ~ 16 ;: ‘ � : 2
audiyunes . ‘ ; ; ; ; ‘ : ‘ 40
appiryvos ‘ : , P : . : ; ; 40
dupiedicca . ; < : : , ‘ ; ‘ 41
praBn, Brarrw . : ; : ‘ . : : 11
dofa . , : , : F . , : 23
"Eurovoa, Pinte . : ; , ; ; : 35
*Oxvos misreading for ’ Oicdiiies ; : . ‘ . 3
Cicero, Orator and de eas MS. of : ‘ ;
Croke, Richard . : : ‘ : 33
Greek Proverb, a lost . ‘ 5 ‘ 36
Juvenal’s Dwarf Atlas and Robert Browning ; ; � 16
Latin Subjunctive, imperative force of . : : ; 5
Niebuhr on Roman public lands. : : : : 27
Plato and Isocrates : ‘ ‘ . 12,41
Vine Culture, Latin and Romance terms of < s ; 13
Cicero, Brut. 36.186 . ; , � . : ; 26
Horace, Sat.1.6.6 . : : : : ; . 17
Ovi, Met. 1. 503 - a �= se om & 16
Marriat, vi. 46 . ; , � ‘ ; ; ‘ 39
Seneca, Hp. 121.�4 . So 3 : . : ‘ 14
Axrscuytus, 4g. 1156-9 : : ; : : ‘ 10
1229 . : ‘ : ; ‘ : 19
AnistotLe, Lith. N. m1. 1.17. ; ‘ ‘ ; ; 3
Pol. 1. 11. passim . ‘ ‘ : : , 8

12.6. i ' : . ‘ � 17

CaMBRIDGE PuitoLtocicaL Socretry’s PRrockEpmrvnes.

AnistoTLE, Pol. 1. 6 : : : 27
IIl.—VIII. passim ‘ : 30
Evrrprpss, Iph. Taur. 1849 39
Med. 947-63 36
966 37
1159 sq. 36
Tro. 1167-72 24
Fragments passim . 37, 41
SopHocies, O. C. 277, 8 29
O. T. 1380 4
Philoct. 684—6 29
Trach. 628 . 29
‘ Fragm. 348 . 30
Prato, Rep. 359 p sq. 12
ARNOLD, F. T. 39
Bonaparte, H.I. H. Prince L. L. 13
Cooke, A. ; 5
Hager, H. 33
Hayman, H 29
Herrianp, W. E ‘ 2 d ; : . ‘ 17
JACKSON, H. . : : : : ; z : 12, 27, 41
Kennepy, B. H. 5, 21, 24
Lear, W._. ‘ ‘ ‘ ; Z ‘ � ‘ 40
Mayor, J. E.B. . . ; : , : ; ; 14
Monro, H. A. J. M. ; 10, 41
Nixon, J. E. 36
Patsy, F. A. ; ; : � : ‘ ; 4, 19, 37
Parmer, A. , , : ; : : : 17, 36, 39
Riverway, W. .. ; : ‘ ‘ ; . 38, 8, 18, 30
Rosy, H. J. 25
Sxeat, W. W. 35
THomeson, E. 8. . ‘ : : : ; ‘ 19
Verratt, A. W. . : : : ; . . 11, 13, 35
Watpsterm, C. tj ‘ P ‘ ;
Wiizins, ALS... ‘ : ; 1
Accounts : : ‘ , ‘ : ; 14
Elections . ; ; j ‘ : ; 1, 10, 20, 33
Honorary Member 5
Votes of thanks : ‘ ‘ : 4 1, 5, 10
Miscellaneous � : : : : , ; 1






There can be no doubt that in classical philology we are in a state of great
activity. All nations are interested in enlarging the science of antique life and in
contributing to the discovery of early art remains which can give new conceptions
for the aesthetic tastes of the present generation. All research however becomes
more difficult as the field for labiont increases ; therefore, a review intended to give
a survey of these investigations would be fully entitled to provide for a general want.
This is the purpose of the ‘‘ BERLINER PHILOLOGISCHE WoOCHENSCHRIFT,’’
which will give :

CxiassicaL Scnoots oF Germany, Austria, Huncary, SwitTzERLAND,
Hoitianp, Itaty AnD Rvuss1a.—ReEpPorts oF Screntiric SocrEeTies. —
Notices oF THE ProGreEss oF DiscoveRY.—OriGiInaL COMMUNICATIONS

The ‘‘ BERLINER PHILOLOGISCHE WocHENSCHRIFT ”’ will have weekly from
thirty-two to forty columns largest 8vo. Price (including postage) :
4s. 60. QUARTERLY.

All Booksellers and Newsdealers will be able to supply the ‘* BERLINRER PHILOLOGISCHE
WocHENSCHRIFT,” on these conditions.
Specimen Numbers are sent free of charges on application to Publishers.
* * The Meetings of the Campripcz PuinoLocicaL Society are regularly
reported in the WocHENSCHRIFT.


The AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY, ar under the auspices of the
Johns Hopkins University, and edited by B. L. Gildersleeve, Professor of Greek,
is now in its fourth volume. The Journal is open to original communications in
all departments of Philology, classical, comparative, oriental and modern. A
large portion of the space is given to condensed reports of current philological
work, and arrangements have been made to present phate! summaries of the
chief articles in the principal Philological Journals of Europe. The Journal
appears in the ordinary review form, four numbers (about 500 pages) constituting
a volume.

Price to Subscribers Three Dollars a year.

Macmittan & Co., London and New York.

B. L. GrupERsLEEVE, Baltimore, Md. (P. O. Drawer 2.)


Stichometry I., J. R. Hannis; Studies in Pindarie Syntax III., the Eprror ;
Words for Colour in the Rig-Veda, E, W. Horxins; Harbours of Ancient
Athens, T. W. Luptow; Dying Alexander of Uffizi Gallery and Giganto-
machia of Pergamum, ALF. EMERSON.

Notes. Reviews AND Boox Norices. Reports. CoRREsPONDENCE,

Search more related documents:Full text of "Transactions .."

Set Home | Add to Favorites

All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download

Copyright © 2011
This site does not host pdf,doc,ppt,xls,rtf,txt files all document are the property of their respective owners. complaint#downhi.com