IV.METRICA.

SINGULAR.DUAL.PLURAL.1.Nes-ochNes-ochowaNes-ochom.2.Nes-eNes-ostaNes-oste.3.Nes-eNes-ostaNes-osza.

Now it is clear that the doctrine to which these extracts commit the author is that of the secondary or derivative character of the form ofκand the primary or fundamental character of the forms inσ. The former is deduced from the latter. And this is the doctrine which the present writer would reverse. He would just reverse it, agreeing with the distinguished scholar whom he quotes in the identification of the Greek form with the Slavonic. So much more common is the change fromk,gand the allied sounds, tos,z, &c., than that froms,z, &c. tok,g, that theà prioriprobabilities are strongly against Bopp's view. Again, the languages that preeminently encourage the change are the Slavonic; yet it is just in these languages that the form inkis assumed to be secondary. Forsto becomeh, and forhto becomek(org), is no improbable change: still, as compared with the transition fromktos, it is exceedingly rare.

As few writers are better aware of the phænomena connected with the direction of letter-changes than the philologist before us, it may be worth while to ask, why he has ignored them in the present instances. He has probably done so because the Sanscrit forms were ins; the habit of considering whatever is the more Sanscrit of two forms to be the older being well-nigh universal. Nevertheless, the difference between a language which is old because it is represented by old samples of its literature, and a language which is old because it contains primary forms, is manifestupon a very little reflection. The positive argument, however, in favour of thekbeing the older form, lies in the well-known phænomenon connected with the vowelseandi, as opposed toa,o, andu. All the world over,eandihave a tendency to convert akorg, when it precedes them, intos,z,sh,zh,ksh,gzh,tsh, anddzh, or some similar sibilant. Hence, as often as a sign of tense consisting ofk, is followed by a sign of person beginning witheori, anshas chance of being evolved. In this case such a form asἐφίλησα,ἐφίλησας,ἐφίλησε, may have originally runἐφίληκα,ἐφίληκας,ἐφίληκε. The modified form inσafterwards extends itself to the other persons and numbers. Such is the illustration of the hypothesis. An objection against it lies in the fact of the person which ends in a small vowel, being only one out of seven. On the other hand, however the third person singular is used more than all the others put together. With this influence of the small vowel other causes may have cooperated. Thus, when the root ended inκorγ, the combinationκradical, andκinflexionalwould be awkward. It would give us such words asἔλεκ-κα, &c.; words likeτέτυπ-κα,ἔγραπ-κα, being but little better, at least in a language like the Greek.

The suggestions that now follow lead into a wide field of inquiry; and they may be considered, either on their merits as part of a separate question, or as part of the proof of the present doctrine. In this latter respect they are not altogether essential,i. e.they are more confirmatory if admitted than derogatory if denied. What if the future be derived from the aorist, instead of the aorist from the future? In this case we should increase what may be called ourdynamics, by increasing the points of contact between akand a small vowel; this being the influence that determines the evolution of ans. All the persons of the future, except the first, haveεfor one (at least) of these vowels—

τύψ-σ-ω,τύψ-σ-εις,τύψ-σ-ει,τύψ-ε-τον, &c.

The moods are equally efficient in the supply of small vowels.

The doctrine, then, now stands thatkis the older form, but that, through the influence of third persons singular, future forms, and conjunctive forms, so manys-es became developed, as to supersede it except in a few instances. The Latin language favours this view. There, the old future likecap-s-o, and the preterites likevixi(vic-si) exhibit a small vowel inalltheir persons,e. g.vic-s-i,vic-s-isti,vic-s-it, &c. Still the doctrine respecting this influence of the small vowel in the way of the developement of sibilants out of gutturals is defective until we find a real instance of the change assumed. As if, for the very purpose of illustrating the occasional value of obscure dialects, the interesting language of the Serbs of Lusatia and Cotbus supplies one. Here the form of the preterite is as follows; the Serb of Illyria and the Lithuanic being placed in juxtaposition and contrast with the Serb of Lusatia. Where a small vowel follows the characteristic of the tense the sound is that ofsz; in other cases it is that ofch(kh)

LUSATIAN.ILLYRIAN.LITHUANIC.LETTISH.Sing.1.noszachdoneso, donijenesziaunessu.2.noszeszedonese, donijeneszieinessi.3.noszeszedonese, donijeneszieinesse.Dual1.noszachwenesziewa2.noszestajneszieta3.noszestajnesziePlur.1.noszachmydonesosmo, donijesmonesziemenessam.2.nosześćedonesoste, donijesteneszietenessat.3.noszachudonesosze, donijeszeneszienesse.

FROM THETRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,JUNE 23, 1843.

In respect to the cæsura of the Greek tragic senarius, the rules, as laid down by Porson in the Supplement to his Preface to the Hecuba, and as recognised, more or less, by the English school of critics, seem capable of a more general expression, and, at the same time, liable to certain limitations in regard to fact. This becomes apparent when we investigate the principle that serves as the foundation to these rules; in other words, when we exhibit therationale, or doctrine, of the cæsura in question. At this we can arrive by taking cognizance of a second element of metre beyond that of quantity.

It is assumed that the element in metre which goes, in works of different writers, under the name of ictus metricus, or of arsis, is the same as accentin the sense of that word in English. It is this that constitutes the difference between words liketýrantandresúme, orsúrveyandsurvéy; or (to take more convenient examples) between the wordAúgust, used as the name of a month, andaugústused as an adjective. Without inquiring how far this coincides with the accent and accentuation of the classical grammarians, it may be stated that, in the forthcoming pages, arsis, ictus metricus, and accent (in the English sense of the word), mean one and the same thing. With this view of the arsis, or ictus, we may ask how far, in each particular foot of the senarius, it coincides with the quantity.

First Foot.—In the first place of a tragic senarius it is a matter of indifference whether the arsis fall on the first or second syllable, that is, it is a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded astýrantor asresúme, asAúgustor asaugúst. In the following lines the wordsἡκω,παλαι,εἰπερ,τινας, may be pronounced either asἥκω,πάλαι,εἴπερ,τίνας, or asἡκώ,παλαί,εἰπέρ,τινάς, without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.

Ἥκω νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας.Πάλαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.Είπερ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν.Τίνας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

or,

Ἡκώ νεκρον κευθμωνα και σκοτου ρυλας.Παλαί κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.Ειπέρ δικαιος εστ' εμος τα πατροθεν.Τινάς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

Second Foot.—In the second place, it is also matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded asAúgustor asaugúst. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say eitherνέκρωνorνεκρών, without violating rhythm of the verse.

Third Foot.—In this part of the senarius it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded asAúgustor asaugúst; that is, it is no longer a matter of indifference whether the arsis and the quantity coincide. In the circumstance that the last syllable of the third footmustbe accented (in the English sense of the word), taken along with a second fact, soon about to be exhibited, lies the doctrine of the penthimimer and hephthimimer cæsuras.

The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the third foot is derived partly fromà posteriori, partly fromà priorievidence.

1. In the Supplices of Æschylus, the Persæ, and the Bacchæ, three dramas where licences in regard to metre are pre-eminently common, the number of lines wherein the sixth syllable (i. e.the last half of the third foot) is without an arsis, is at the highest sixteen, at the lowest five; whilst in the remainder of the extant dramas the proportion is undoubtedly smaller.

2. In all lines where the sixth syllable is destitute of ictus, the iambic character is violated: as—

Θρηκην περαράντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ.Δυοιν γεροντοίν δε στρατηγειται φυγη.

These are facts which may be verified either by referring to the tragedians, or by constructing senarii like the lines last quoted. The only difficulty that occurs arises in determining, in a dead language like the Greek, the absence or presence of the arsis. In this matter the writer has satisfied himself of the truth of the two following propositions:—1. That the accentuation of the grammarians denotes some modification of pronunciation other than that which constitutes the difference betweenAúgustandaugúst; since, if it were not so, the wordἅγγελονwould be sounded likemérrily, and the wordἁγγέλωνlikedisáble; which is improbable. 2. That the arsis lies upon radical rather than inflectional syllables, and out of two inflectional syllables upon the first rather than the second; asβλέπ-ω,βλεψ-άσ-α, notβλεπ-ώ,βλεψ-ασ-ά. The evidence upon these points is derived from the structure of language in general. Theonus probandilies with the author who presumes an arsis (accent in the English sense) on anon-radical syllable.

Doubts, however, as to the pronunciation of certain words, leave the precise number of lines violating the rule given above undetermined. It is considered sufficient to show that, wherever they occur, the iambic character is violated.

The circumstance, however, of the last half of the third foot requiring an arsis, brings us only half way towards the doctrine of the cæsura. With this must be combined a second fact arising out of the constitution of the Greek language in respect to its accent. In accordance with the views just exhibited, the author conceives that no Greek word has an arsis upon the last syllable, except in the three following cases:—

1. Monosyllables, not enclitic; asσφών,πάς,χθών,δμώς,νών,νύν, &c.

2. Circumflex futures; asνεμώ,τεμώ, &c.

3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted into a final syllable;δώμ',φειδέσθ',κεντείτ',εγώγ', &c.

Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring an arsis, gives, as a matter of necessity, the circumstance that, in the Greek drama, the sixth syllable shall occur anywhere rather than at the end of a word; and this is only another way of saying, that, in a tragic senarius, the syllable in question shall generally be followed by other syllables in the same word. All this the author considers as so truly a matter of necessity, that the objection to his view of the Greek cæsura must lie either against his idea of thenature of the accents, or nowhere; since, that being admitted, the rest follows of course.

As the sixth syllable must not be final, it must be followed in the same word by one syllable, or by more than one.

1.The sixth syllable followed by one syllable in the same word.—This is only another name for the seventh syllable occurring at the end of a word, and it gives at once the hephthimimer cæsura: as—

Ἡκω νεκρων κευθμώνα και σκοτου πυλας.Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοίσιν εξεστεμμενοι.Ὁμου τε παιανών τε και στεναγματων.

2.The sixth syllable followed by two (or more) syllables in the same word.—This is only another name for the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) syllable occurring at the end of a word; as—

Οδμη βροτειων ἅιματων με προσγελα.Λαμπρους δυναστας έμπρεποντας αιθερι.

Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather than a hephthimimer; so that if it were at this point that our investigations terminated, little would be done towards the evolution of therationaleof the cæsura. It will appear, however, that in those cases where the circumstance of the sixth syllable being followed by two others in the same words, causes the eighth (or some syllable after the eighth) to be final, either a penthimimer cæsura, or an equivalent, will, with but few exceptions, be the result. This we may prove by taking the eighth syllable and counting back from it. Whatfollowsthis syllable is immaterial: it is the number of syllables in the same word thatprecedesit that demands attention.

1.The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by nothing.—This is equivalent to the seventh syllable at the end of the preceding word: a state of things which, as noticed above, gives the hephthimimer cæsura.

Ανηριθμον γελάσμα παμ|μητορ δε γη.

2.The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by one syllable.—This is equivalent to the sixth syllable at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which, as noticed above, rarely occurs. When, however, it does occur, one of the three conditions under which a final syllable can take an arsis must accompany it. Each of these conditions requires notice.

α). With a non-encliticmono-syllable the result is a penthimimer cæsura; since the syllable preceding a monosyllable is necessarily final.

Ἡκω σεβίζων σόν Κλύται|μνηστρα κρατος.

No remark has been made by critics upon lines constructed in this manner, since the cæsura is a penthimimer, and consequently their rules are undisturbed.

β). Withpoly-syllabic circumflex futures constituting the third foot, there would be a violation of the current rules respecting the cæsura. Notwithstanding this, if the views of the present paper be true, there would be no violation of the iambic character of the senarius. Against such a line as

Κα'γω το σον νεμώ ποθει|νον αυλιον

there is no argumentà priorion the score of the iambic character being violated; whilst, in respect to objections derived from evidenceà posteriori, there is sufficient reason for such lines being rare.

γ). Withpoly-syllables abbreviated by apocope, we have the state of things which the metrists have recognised under the name of quasi-cæsura; as—

Κεντειτε μη φειδέσθ' εγω | 'τεκον Παριν.

3.—The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by two syllables.—This is equivalent to the fifth syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding: a state of things which gives the penthimimer cæsura; as—

Οδμη βροτειων αἵματῶν | με προσγελα.Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ'πρεπον|τας αιθερι.Απσυχον εικω πρόσγελω|σα σωματος.

4.The eighth syllable preceded in the same word by three or more than three syllables.—This is equivalent to the fourth (or some syllable preceding the fourth) syllable occurring at the end of the word preceding; a state of things which would include the third and fourth feet in one and the same word. This concurrence is denounced in the Supplement to the Preface to the Hecuba, where, however, the rule, as in the case of the quasi-cæsura, from being based upon merely empirical evidence, requires limitation. In lines like—

Και τἁλλα πολλ' επέικασαι | δικαιον ην,

or (an imaginary example),

Τοις σοισιν ασπιδήστροφοισ|ιν ανδρασι,

there is no violation of the iambic character, and consequently no reason against similar lines having been written; although from the average proportion of Greek words likeεπεικασαιandασπιδηστροποισιν, there is every reason for their being rare.

After the details just given the recapitulation is brief.

1. It was essential to the character of the senarius that the sixth syllable, or latter half of the third foot, should have an arsis, ictus metricus, or accent in the English sense. To this condition of the iambic rhythm the Greek tragedians, either consciously or unconsciously, adhered.

2. It was the character of the Greek language to admit an arsis on the last syllable of a word only under circumstances comparatively rare.

3. These two facts, taken together, caused the sixth syllable of a line to be anywhere rather than at the end of a word.

4. If followed by a single syllable in the same word, the result was a hephthimimer cæsura.

5. If followed by more syllables than one, some syllable in an earlier part of the line ended the word preceding, and so caused either a penthimìmer, a quasi-cæsura, or the occurrence of the third and fourth foot in the same word.

6. As these two last-mentioned circumstances were rare, the general phenomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hephthimimer.

7. Respecting these two sorts of cæsura, the rules, instead of being exhibited in detail, may be replaced by the simple assertion that there should be an arsis on the sixth syllable. From this the rest follows.

8. Respecting the non-occurrence of the third and fourth feet in the same word, the assertion may be withdrawn entirely.

9. Respecting the quasi-cæsura, the rules, if not altogether withdrawn, may be extended to the admission of the last syllable of circumflex futures (or to any other polysyllables with an equal claim to be considered accented on the last syllable) in the latter half of the third foot.

FROM THEANNALS AND MAGAZINE OF NATURAL HISTORY,JUNE, 1859.

The text upon which the following remarks have suggested themselves is the Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera, with Hints on the Derivation of the Names, published by the Entomological Societies of Oxford and Cambridge; a useful contribution to scientific terminology—useful, and satisfied with being so. It admits that naturalists may be unlearned, and provides for those who, with a love for botany or zoology, may have been denied the advantage of a classical education. That there are many such is well known; and it is also well known that they have no love for committing themselves to the utterance of Latin and Greek names in the presence of investigators who are more erudite (though, perhaps, less scientific) than themselves. As a rule, their pronunciation is inaccurate. It is inaccurate without being uniform—- for the ways of going wrong are many. Meanwhile, any directions toward the right are welcome.

In the realities of educational life there is no such thing as a book for unlearned men—at least no such thing as a good one. There are make-shifts and make-believesadinfinitum; but there is no such an entity as an actual book. Some are written down to the supposed level of the reader—all that are so written being useless and offensive. Others are encumbered with extraneous matter, and, so encumbered, err on the side of bulk and superfluity. Very rarely is there anything like consistency in the supply of information.

The work under notice supposes a certain amount of ignorance—ignorance of certain accents and certain quantities. It meets this; and it meets it well. That the work is both a safe and reliable guide, is neither more nor less than what we expect from the places and persons whence it has proceeded.

It is likely, from its very merits, to be the model on which a long line of successors may be formed. For this reason the principles of its notation (for thus we may generalize our expression of the principle upon which we use the signs of accent and quantity as guides to pronunciation) may be criticised.

In the mind of the present writer, the distinction between accent and quantity has neither been sufficiently attended to nor sufficiently neglected. This is because, in many respects, they are decidedly contrasted with, and opposed to, each other; whilst, at the same time—paradoxical as it may appear—they are, for the majority of practical purposes, convertible. That inadvertence on these points should occur, is not to be wondered at. Professional grammarians—men who deal with the purely philological questions of metre and syllabification—with few exceptions, confound them.

In English Latin (by which I mean Latin as pronounced by Englishmen) there is, in practice, no such a thing as quantity; so that the sign by which it is denoted is, in nine cases out of ten, superfluous.Mark the accent, and the quantity will take care of itself.

I say that there is no such a thing in English Latin as quantity. I ought rather to have said that

English quantities are not Latin quantities.

In Latin, the length of the syllable is determined by the length of thevowels and consonants combined. A long vowel, if followed in the same word by another (i. e.if followed by no consonant), is short. A short vowel, if followed by two consonants, is long. In English, on the other hand, long vowels make long, whilst short vowels make short, syllables; so that the quantity of a syllable in English is determined by the quantity of the vowel. Theiinpiusis short in Latin. In English it is long. Theeinmendis short in English, long in Latin.

This, however, is not all. There is, besides, the following metrical paradox. A syllable may be made long by the very fact of its being short. It is the practice of the English language to signify the shortness of a vowel by doubling the consonant that follows. Hence we get such words aspitted,knotty,massive, &c.—words in which no one considers that the consonant is actually doubled. For do we not pronouncepittedandpitiedalike? Consonants that appear double to theeyeare common enough. Really double consonants—consonants that sound double to the ear—are rarities, occurring in one class of words only—viz. in compounds whereof the first element ends with the same sound with which the second begins, assoul-less,book-case, &c.

The doubling, then, of the consonant is a conventional mode of expressing the shortness of the vowel that precedes, and it addresses itself to the eye rather than the ear.

But does it address itself to theeyeonly? If it did,pitiedandpitted, being sounded alike, would also be of the same quantity. We know, however, that to the English writer of Latin verses they are not so. We know that the first is short (pĭtied), the latter long (pītted). For all this, they are sounded alike: so that the difference in quantity (which, as a metrical fact, really exists) is, to a great degree, conventional. At any rate, we arrive at it by a secondary process. We know how the word is spelt; and we know that certain modes of spelling give certain rules of metre. Our senses here are regulated by our experience.

Let a classical scholar hear the first line of the Eclogues read—

Patulæ tu Tityre, &c.,

and he will be shocked. He will also believe that the shock fell on his ear. Yet his ear was unhurt. No sense was offended. The thing which was shocked was his knowledge of the rules of prosody—nothing more. To English ears there is no such a thing as quantity—not even in hexameters and pentameters. There is no such thing as quantity except so far as it is accentual also. Hence come the following phænomena—no less true than strange,—viz. (1) that any classical metre written according to the rules of quantity gives (within certain narrow limits) a regular recurrence of accents; and (2) that, setting aside such shocks as affect our knowledge of the rules of prosody, verses written according to their accents only give metrical results. English hexameters (such as they are) are thus written.

In the inferences from these remarks there are two assumptions: 1st, that the old-fashioned mode of pronunciation be adhered to; 2nd, that when we pronounce Greek and Latin words as they are pronounced in the recitation of Greek and Latin poetry, we are as accurate as we need be. It is by means of these two assumptions that we pronounceTityreandpatulæalike; and I argue that we are free to do so. As far as the ear is concerned, theais as long as thei, on the strength of the doubletwhich is supposed to come after it. Itdoesnot indeed so come; but if it did, the sound would be the same, the quantity different (for is notpatulæpronouncedpattule?). It would be a quantity, however, to the eye only.

This pronunciation, however, may be said to be exploded; for do not most men under fifty draw the distinction which is here said to be neglected? Do not the majority make, or fancy they make, a distinction between the two words just quoted? They may or they may not. It is only certain that, subject to the test just indicated, it is immaterial what they do. Nine-tenths of the best modern Latin verses were written under the old system—a system based not upon our ear, but on our knowledge of certain rules.

Now it is assumed that the accuracy sufficient for English Latin is all the accuracy required. Ask for more, and you get into complex and difficult questions respecting the pronunciation of a dead language. Do what we will, we cannot, on one side, pronounce the Latin like the ancient Romans. Do what we will, so long as we keep our accents right, we cannot (speaking Latin after the fashion of Englishmen) err in the way of quantity—at least, not to the ear. A short vowel still gives a long syllable; for the consonant which follows it is supposed to be doubled.

Let it be admitted, then, that, for practical purposes,Tityreandpatulæmay be pronounced alike, and the necessity of a large class of marks is avoided. Why write, as the first word in the book is written,Papiliō´nidæ? Whether the initial syllable be soundedpapp-orpape-is indifferent. So it is whether the fourth be uttered as-own-, or-onn-.As far as the ear is concerned, they are both long, because the consonant is doubled. In Greek,πᾰππιλλιόννιδαιis as long asπᾱππιλλιόννιδαι.

Then comesMachā´on, where the sign of quantity is again useless, the accent alone being sufficient to prevent us saying eitherMákkaonorMakaón. Theais theainfate. We could not sound it as theainfatif we would.

Pīeridæ.—What does the quantity tell us here? That theiis pronounced as theiin the Greekπίονος, rather thanas theiin the Latinpius. But, in English Latin, we pronounce both alike. SurelyPī´erisandPie´ridætell us all that is needed.

Cratæ´gī.—Whether long or short, theiis pronounced the same.

Sinā´pis,Rā´pæ, andNā´pi.—The ( ¯ ) here prevents us from sayingRáppæandNáppi. It would certainly be inelegant and unusual to do so. Tested, however, by the ear, the wordsráppæandnáppitake just the same place in an English Latin verse asrápe-æandnápe-i. Is any one likely to saysináppis? Perhaps. There are those who sayDiannaforDiana. It is very wrong to do so—wrong, not to say vulgar. For the purposes of metre, however, one is as good as the other; and herein (as aforesaid) lies the test. The real false quantities would beDianaandsinnapis; but against these the accent protects us. Nor is the danger of sayingsináppisconsiderable. Those who sayDiánnaare those who connect it withAnnaand would, probably, spell it with twon's.

Cardamī´nĕs.—All that the first ( ¯ ) does here is to prevent us sayingcardami´nnes. The real false quantity would becarda´mmines. The accent, however, guards against this.

The second ( ¯ ) is useful. It is certainly better to saycardamín-eesthancardamín-ess, because theeis from the Greekη. And this gives us a rule. Let the ( ¯ ) be used to distinguishηfromε, andωfromο, and in no other case. I would not say that it is necessary to use it even here. It is better, however, to sayMacháōnthanMacháōn. By a parity of reasoning, the ( ˘ ), rejected in the work before us, is sometimes useful. Let it be used in those derivatives whereεreplacesη, andοreplacesω;e. g.having writtenMachaōn, write, as its derivative,Machaōnidæ—i. e.if the word be wanted.

This is the utmost for which the signs of quantity are wanted for English Latin. I do not say that they are wanted even for this.

One of the mechanical inconveniences arising from the use of the signs of quantity is this—when a long syllable is accented, two signs fall upon it. To remedy this, the work before us considers that the stress is to be laid on the syllablepreceding the accent. Yet, if an accent mean anything, it means that the stress fall on the syllable which it standsover.

A few remarks upon words likePīeridæ, where the accent was omitted.—Here two short syllables come between two long ones. No accent, however, is placed over either. Evidently, quantity and accent are so far supposed to coincide, that the accentuation of a short vowel is supposed to makeit look like a long one. It is a matter of fact, that if, on a word likeCassiōpe, we lay an accent on the last syllable but one, we shock the ears of scholars, especially metrical ones. Does it, however, lengthen the vowel? The editors of the work in question seem to think that it does, and, much more consistent than scholars in general, hesitate to throw it back upon the preceding syllable, which is short also. Metrists have no such objection; their practice being to sayCassíopewithout detriment to the vowel. The entomologists, then, are the more consistent.

They are, however, more consistent than they need be. If an accent is wanted, it may fall on the shortest of all possible syllables. Granting, however, thatCassiópe(whether theobe sounded as innōteornōt)is repugnant to metre, andCassíopeto theory, what is their remedy? It is certainly true thatCássiopeis pronounceable. Pope writes—

"Like twinkling stars themiscellanieso'er."

No man reads thismiscéllanies; few read itmíscellánies. The mass saymis´cellanies. Doing this, they make the word a quadrisyllable; for less than this would fall short of the demands of the metre. They also utter a word which makesCas´siopepossible. IsCássiope, however, the sound? Probably not. And here authors must speak for themselves:—

"Take,e. g.,CassiopeandCorticea: in words like the former of these, in which the last syllable is long, there is no greater difficulty of pronunciation in laying the stress upon the first syllable than upon the second."

True! but this implies that we sayCássiopé. Is-e, however, one bit the longer for being accented, or can it bear one iota more of accent for being long? No. Take-atfrompeat, and-tfrompet, and the result ispe—just as long or just as short in one case as the other.

The same power of accenting the first syllable is "particularly the case in those words in which the vowelican assume the power ofy. Latin scholars are divided as to the proper accentuation ofmulieres,Tulliola, and others: though custom is in favour ofmulíeres,mul´ieresappears to be more correct." Be it so. Letmulieresbemúlyeres. What becomes, however, of the fourth syllable? The word is no quadrisyllable at all. What is meant is this:—not that certain quadrisyllables with two short vowels in the middle are difficult to accentuate, but that they are certain words of which it is difficult to say whether they are trisyllables or quadrisyllables.

For all practical purposes, however, words likeCassiopeare quadrisyllables. They are, in the way of metre, choriambics; and a choriambic is a quadrisyllable foot. They were pronouncedCassíope, &c., by English writers of Latin verses—when Latin verses were written well.

Let the pronunciation which was good enough for Vincent Bourne and the contributors to the Musæ Etonenses be good enough for the entomologists, and all that they will then have to do is not to pronouncecratægumlikestratagem,cardamineslikeTheramenes, andvice versâ. Against this, accent will ensure them—accent single-handed and without any sign of quantity—Cardamínes,Therámenes,cratæ´gum,strátagem.

READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.APRIL 11, 1845.

The wordsσάροςandsarusare the Greek and Latin forms of a certain term used in the oldest Babylonian chronology, the meaning of which is hitherto undetermined. In the opinion of the present writer, thesarusis a period of 4 years and 340 days.

In the way of direct external evidence as to the value of the epoch in question, we have, with the exception of an unsatisfactory passage in Suidas, at the hands of the ancient historians and according to the current interpretations, only the two following statements:—

1. That eachsarusconsisted of 3600 years (ἔτη).

2. That the first ten kings of Babylon reigned 120sari, equal to 432,000 years; or on an average 43,200 years apiece.

Withdataof this sort, we must either abandon the chronology altogether, or else change the power of the wordyear. The first of these alternatives was adopted by Cicero and Pliny, and doubtless other of the ancients—contemnamus etiam Babylonios et eos qui e Caucaso cœli signa observantes numeris et motubus stellarum cursus persequuntur; condemnemus inquam hos aut stultitiæ aut vanitatis aut impudentiæ quiCCCCLXXmillia annorum, ut ipsi dicunt, monumentis comprehensa continent.—Cic. de Divinat., from Cory'sAncient Fragments. Again—e diverso Epigenes apud BabyloniosDCCXXannorum observationes siderum coctilibus laterculis inscriptas docet, gravis auctor in primis: qui minimum Berosus et CritodemusCCCCLXXXannorum.—Pliny, vii. 56. On the other hand, to alter the value of the wordἔτοςorannushas been the resource of at least one modern philologist.

Now if we treat the question by what may be called thetentativemethod, the first step in our inquiry will be to find some division of time which shall, at once, benaturalin itself, and also short enough to make 10saripossible parts of an average human life. For this, even adaywill be too long.Twelve hours, however, or half aνυχθήμερον, will give us possible results.

Taking this view therefore, and leaving out of the account the 29th of February, the wordsἔτοςandannusmean, not a year, but the 730th part of one; 3600 of which make asarus. In other words, asarus=1800 day-times and 1800 night-times, or 3600 halfνυχθήμερα, or 4 years+340 days.

The texts to which the present hypothesis applies are certain passages in Eusebius and Syncellus. These are founded upon the writings of Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus, Berosus, and Abydenus. From hence we learn the length of the ten reigns alluded to above, viz. 120sarior 591 years and odd days.Reignsof this period are just possible. It is suggested, however, that thereignandlifeare dealt with as synonymous; or at any rate, that some period beyond that during which each king sat singly on his throne has been recorded.

The method in question led the late Professor Rask to a different power for the wordsarus. In hisÆldste Hebraiske Tidregnunghe writes as follows: "The meaning of the so-calledsarihas been impossible for me to discover. The ancients explain it differently. Dr. Ludw. Ideler, in hisHandbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, i. 207, considers it to mean some lunar period; without however defining it, and without sufficient closeness to enable us to reduce the 120sari, attributed to the ten ancient kings, to any probable number of real years. I should almost believe that thesaruswas a year of 23 months, so that the 120sarimeant 240 natural years."p.32. Now Rask's hypothesis has the advantage of leaving the meaning of the wordreignas we find it. On the other hand, it blinks the question ofἔτηorannias the parts of asarus. Each doctrine, however, is equally hypothetical; the value of thesarus, in the present state of our inquiry, resting solely upon the circumstance of its giving a plausible result from plausible assumptions. Thedatathrough which the present writer asserts for his explanation the proper amount of probability are contained in two passages hitherto unapplied.

1. From Eusebius—is(Berosus) sarumex annis 3600 conflat. Addit etiam nescio quemnerumacsosum: nerumait 600 annis constare, sosum annis 60. Sic ille de veterum more annos computat.—Translation of the Armenian Eusebius, p. 5, fromFragmenta Historicorum Græcorum, p. 439: Paris, 1841.

2. Berosus—σάρος δέ ἐστιν ἕξακόσια καὶ τρισχίλια ἔτη, νῖ ρος δὲ ἕξακόσια, σώσσος ἑξήκοντα.—From Cory'sAncient Fragments.

Now the assumed value of the word translatedyear(viz. 12 hours), in its application to the passages just quoted, gives for the powers of the three terms three divisions of time as natural as could be expected under the circumstances.

1.Σώσσος.—Thesosus=30 days and 30 nights, or 12 hours × 60, or a month of 30 days,μὴν τριακονθήμερος. Aristotle writes—ἡ μὴν Λακωνικὴ ἕκτον μέρος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡμέραι ἑξήκοντα.—From Scaliger,De Emendatione Temporum, p. 23. Other evidence occurs in the same page.

2.Νῆρος.—Thenerus=10sosior months=the old Roman year of that duration.

3.Σάρος.—Thesarus=6nerior 60 months of 30 days each; that is, five proper years within 25 days. This would be a cycle orannus magnus.

All these divisions are probable. Against that of 12 hours no objection lies except its inconvenient shortness. The month of 30 days is pre-eminently natural. The year of 10 months was common in early times. In favour of thesarusof five years (or nearly so) there are two facts:—

1. It is the multiple of thesosusby 10, and of thenerusby 6.

2. It represents the period when the natural year of 12 months coincides for the first time with the artificial one of 10; since 60 months=6 years of 10 months and 5 of 12.

The historical application of these numbers is considered to lie beyond the pale of the present inquiry.

In Suidas we meet an application of the principle recognised by Rask, viz. the assumption of some period of which thesarusis a fraction. Such at least is the probable view of the following interpretation:ΣΆΡΟΙ—μέτρον καὶ ἁριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις, οἳ γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, οἳ γίγνονται ιε´ ἔνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ.—From Cory'sAncient Fragments[3].

In Josephus we find the recognition of anannus magnuscontaining as manyἔτηas thenerusdid:ἔπειτα καὶ δι' ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν εὐχρηστίαν ὧν ἐπενόουν ἀστρολόγιας καὶ γεωμὲτριας πλέον ζῇν τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς παρασχεῖν ἅπερ οὐκ ἧν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτοῖς προειπεῖν ζήσασιν ἑξακοσίους ἐνιαυτούς· διὰ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὁμέγας ἐνιαυτὸς πληροῦται.—Antiq.i. 3.

The following doctrine is a suggestion, viz. that in the wordsosuswe have the Hebrewשֵש= six. If this be true, it is probable that thesosusitself was only a secondary division, or some other period multiplied by six. Such would be a period of five days, or tenἔׁτηׁ(so-called). With this view we get two probabilities, viz. a subdivision of the month, and the alternation of the numbers 6 and 10 throughout;i. e.from theἔτος[4](or 12 hours) to thesarus(or five years).

After the reading of this paper, a long discussion followed on the question, how far thesaruscould be considered as belonging to historical chronology. The Chairman (Professor Wilson) thought there could be no doubt that the same principles which regulated the mythological periods of the Hindoos prevailed also in the Babylonian computations, although there might be some variety in their application.

1. Amahayugaor great age of the Hindoos, comprising the four successiveyugasor ages, consists of 4,320,000 years.

2. These years being divided by 360, the number of days in the Indian lunar year, give 12,000 periods.

3. By casting off two additional cyphers, these numbers are reduced respectively to 432,000 and 120, the numbers of the years of thesaroiof the ten Babylonian kings, whilst in the numbers 12,360 and 3600 we have the coincidence of other elements of the computation.

READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Van den Bergh,Taal. Mag.ii. 2. 193-210.

Groningen.—Laurman,Proeve van kleine taalkundige bijdragen tot beter kennis van den tongval in de Provincie Groningen.—Groningen 1822.

J. Sonius Swaagman,Comment: de dialecto Groningana, etc.: una cum serie vocabulorum, Groninganis propriorum.—Groning. 1827.

Zaamenspraak tusschen Pijter en Jaap dij malkáár op de weg ontmuiten boeten Stÿntilpoorte.—Groninger Maandscrift, No. 1. Also in Laurman'sProeve.

Nieuwe Schuitpraatjes.—By the same author, 1836.

List van Groningsche Woorden.—By A. Complementary to the works of Laurman and Swaagman. With notes by A. de Jager.—Taalkundig Magazijn, second part, third number, pp. 331—334.

Groninsch Taaleigen door.—J. A. (the author of the preceding list). Taalkundig Magazijn, iv. 4. pp. 657—690.

Raize na Do de Cock.—Known to Van den Bergh only through the newspapers.

Subdialects indicated by J. A. as existing, (a) on the Friesland frontier, (b) in the Fens.

L. Van Bolhuis.—Collection of Groningen and Ommeland words not found in Halma's Lexicon; with notes by Clignett, Steenwinkel, and Malnoe. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Over-ijsel.—J. H. Halbertsma,Proeve van een Woorden boekje van het Overijselsch.—Overijsselschen Almanak voor Oudheid en Letteren, 1836.

M. Winhoff,Landrecht var Auerissel, tweeee druk, met veele(philological as well as other)aanteckeningen door J. A. Chalmot.—Campen, 1782.

T. W. Van Marle,Samensprôke tusschen en snaak zoo as as der gelukkig néèt in te menigte zint en en heeren-krecht déè gien boe of ba zê, op de markt te Dêventer van vergange vrijdag.—Overijselschen Almanak, &c.ut supra.

Over de Twenthsche Vocalen en Klankwijzigingen, door J. H. Behrens.—Taalkundig Magazijn, iii. 3. pp. 332-390. 1839.

Twenther Brutfteleed.—Overijsselschen Almanak.

Dumbar the Younger (?).—Three lists of words and phrases used principally at Deventer. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Drawings of twelve Overijssel Towns. Above and beneath each a copy of verses in the respective dialects. MS. of the seventeenth century. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Gelderland.—H. I. Swaving,Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden.—Taalkundig Magazijn, i. 4. pp. 305.

Ibid.—Ibid.ii. 1. pp. 76-80.

Opmerkingen omtrent den Gelderschen Tongval.—Ibid.ii. 4. pp. 398-426. The fourth section is devoted to some peculiarities from the neighbourhood of Zutphen.

N. C. Kist,Over de ver wisslingvan zedetijke en zinnelijke Hoedanigheden in sommige Betuwsche Idiotismen.—Nieuwe Werken der Maatsch. van Nederl. Letterkund. iii. 2. 1834.

Staaltje van Graafschapsche landtal.—Proeve van Taalkundipe Opmerkingen en Bedenkingen, doorT. G. C. Kalckhoff.—Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen for June 1826.

Appendix to the above.—Ibid.October 1826.

Het Zeumerroaisel: a poem. 1834?—Known to Van den Bergh only through the newspapers. Believed to have been published in 1834.

Et Schaassen-riejen, en praotparticken tussen Harmen en Barteld.—Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1835. Zutphen Dialect.

De Öskeskermios.—Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Over Veluwe.

Hoe Meister Maorten baordman baos Joosten en schat deevinden.—Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Lijm.

Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden ae.—H. I. Swaving.—Taalk. Mag. iv. 4. pp. 307-330.

Aanteekeningen ter verbetering en uitbreiding der opmerkingen omtrent den Geldersehen Tongval.—Taal. Mag. iii. 1. pp. 39-80.

A. Van den Bergh.—Words from the provincial dialects of the Veluwen; with additions by H. T. Folmer.—MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Handbook, containing the explanation and etymology of several obscure and antiquated words, &c. occurring in the Gelderland and other neighbouring Law-books.—By J. C. C. V. H[asselt].—MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Holland.—Scheeps-praat, ten overlijden van Prins Maurits van Orange.—Huygens Korenbloemem, B. viii. Also in Lulofs Nederlandsche Spraakkunst, p. 351; in the Vaderlandsche Spreekwoorden door Sprenger van Eyk, p. 17, and (with three superadded couplets) in the Mnemosyne, part x. p. 76.

Brederoos Kluchten.—Chiefly in the Low Amsterdam (plat Amsterdamsch) dialect.

Hooft,Warenar met den pot.

Suffr. Sixtinus.—Gerard van Velsen.Amst. 1687.

Bilderdijk,Over een oud Amsterdamsch Volksdeuntjen.—Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen, 1808. Reprinted, with an appendix, at Leyden 1824.

Bilderdijk,Rowbeklag; in gemeen Zamen Amsterdamschen tongval.—Najaarsbladen, part i.

Gebel,Scheviningsch Visscherslied.—Almanak voor Blijgeestigen.

1.Boertige Samenspraak, ter heilgroete bij een huwelijk.

2.Samenspraak over de harddraverij te Valkenburg en aan heet Haagsche Schouw.

3.Boertige Samenspraak tusschen Heeip en Jan-buur.—These three last-named poems occur in Gedichten van J. Le Francq van Berkhey, in parts i. 221, ii. 180, ii. 257 respectively.

Tuist tusschen Achilles en Agamemnon. Schiutpraatje van eenen boer; of luimige vertaling van het 1eBoek der Ilias, by J. E. Van Varelen.—Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

The same by H. W. and B. F. Tydeman in the Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

Noordhollandsch Taaleigen, doorNicolas Beets.—Taalk. Magaz. iii. 4. pp. 510—516, and iv. 3. pp. 365-372.

List of words and phrases used by the Katwijk Fishermen.—MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Dictionary of the North-Holland Dialect; chiefly collected by Agge Roskan Kool.—MS.Ibid.

Zealand.—Gedicht op't innemen van sommige schansen en de sterke stad Hulst, &c.1642. Le Jeune; Volkszangen, p. 190.

Brief van eene Zuidbevelandsche Boerin, aan haren Zoon, dienende bij de Zeeuwsche landelijke Schutterij.Zeeuwsche Volks-Almanak, 1836.

Over het Zeeuwsche Taaleigen, door Mr. A. F. Sifflé,—Taalkundig Magazijn i. 2. 169—171.

Notes upon the same, by Van A. D, J[ager].—Ibid.p. 175—177.

Taalkundige Aanteekeningen, door Mr. J. H. Hoefft.—Ibid. 1. 3. 248—256.

Collection of words used in Walcheren.—MS. Library of Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Collection of words used in States-Flanders.—MS.Ibid.

North brabant.—J. H. Hoefft,Proeve van Bredaasch taaleigen, &c.—Breda 1836.

J. L. Verster, Words used in the Mayoralty of Bosch.—MS. Library of Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Jewish.—Khootje, Waar binje? hof Conferensje hop de vertrekkie van de Colleesje hin de Poortoegeesche Koffy' uyssie, hover de gemasqwerde bal ontmaskert.—Amsterd.

Lehrrhede hower de vrauwen, door Raphael Noenes Karwalje, Hopper Rhabbijn te Presburg; in Wibmer, de Onpartijdige.—Amst. 1820, p. 244.

Negro[5].—New Testament.—Copenhagen, 1781, and Barby, 1802.

The Psalms.—Barby, 1802.

Back to Index Next