XIII.

Veit ek at beit enn bitribyggvíng meðal dyggvanbúlka skiðs or báðumbenvöndr konúngs höndum:úfælinnklauf álaeldraugar skör haugagullhjaltaðum galtargrandráðr Dana brandi.

Veit ek at beit enn bitri

byggvíng meðal dyggvan

búlka skiðs or báðum

benvöndr konúngs höndum:

úfælinnklauf ála

eldraugar skör hauga

gullhjaltaðum galtar

grandráðr Dana brandi.

Eptir fall þeirra bræðra gekk Hákon konúngr svâ hart fram at alt hravkk fur honum; sló þá felmt ok flótta á lið Eiríks sona, en Hákon konúngr var í öndverðri sinni fylkíng, ok fylgði fast flóttamönnum, ok hjó tídt ok hart; þá fló ör ein, er Fleinn er kallaðr, ok kom í hönd Hákoni konúngi uppi í músina firir neþan öxl, ok er þat margra manna sögn at skósveinn Gunnhildar, sá er Kispíngr er nefndr, ljóp fram í þysinn ok kallaði: gefi rúm konúngs bananum, ok skaut þá fleinnum til konúngs; en sumir segja at engi vissi hverr skaut; má þat ok vel vera, firir því at örvar ok spjót ok önnur skotvâpn flugu svâ þykkt sem drífa; fjöldi manns fèll þar af Eiríks sonum, en honúngarnir allir komust á skipin, ok rèro þegar undan, en Hákonar menn eptir þeim; svâ segir Þórðr Sjáreksson:

Varði víga myrðirvídt svá skal frið slítajöfur vildo þann eldastöndvert fólk á löndum:starf hófst upp, þá er arfiótta vanr á flóttagulls er gramr var fallinnGunnhildar kom sunnan.Þrót var sýnt þá er settustsinn róðr við þraum stinnamaðr lèt önd ok annarrúfár bændr sárirafreks veit þat er jöfriallríkr í styr slíkumgöndlar njörðr sá er gerðigekk næst hugins drekku.

Varði víga myrðirvídt svá skal frið slítajöfur vildo þann eldastöndvert fólk á löndum:starf hófst upp, þá er arfiótta vanr á flóttagulls er gramr var fallinnGunnhildar kom sunnan.

Varði víga myrðir

vídt svá skal frið slíta

jöfur vildo þann eldast

öndvert fólk á löndum:

starf hófst upp, þá er arfi

ótta vanr á flótta

gulls er gramr var fallinn

Gunnhildar kom sunnan.

Þrót var sýnt þá er settustsinn róðr við þraum stinnamaðr lèt önd ok annarrúfár bændr sárirafreks veit þat er jöfriallríkr í styr slíkumgöndlar njörðr sá er gerðigekk næst hugins drekku.

Þrót var sýnt þá er settust

sinn róðr við þraum stinna

maðr lèt önd ok annarr

úfár bændr sárir

afreks veit þat er jöfri

allríkr í styr slíkum

göndlar njörðr sá er gerði

gekk næst hugins drekku.

FRITHIOFS SAGA.

XI.

Frithiof hos Angantyr.

Nu är att säga huruJarl Angantyr satt än;Uti sin sal af furu,Ock drack med sina män;Han var så glad i hågen,Såg ut åt blånad ban,Der solen sjunk i vågen,Allt som än gyllne svan.

Vid fönstret, gamle HalvarStod utanför på vakt;Hann vaktade med allvar,Gaf ock på mjödet akt.En sed den gamle hade;Hann jemt i botten drack;Ock intet ord hann sade;Blott hornett i hann stack.

Nu slängde han det vidaI salen in och qvad,"Skepp ser jag böljan rida;Den färden är ej glad.Män ser jag döden nära,Nu lägga de i land:Ock tvenne jättar bäraDe bleknade på strand."

Utöfver böljans spegel,Från salen Jarl såg ned:"Det är Ellidas segel,Och Frithiof, tror jag, med.På gångan och på pannan,Kånns Thorstens son igen:Så blickar ingen annanI Nordens land som den."

Från dryckesbord held modigSprang Atle Viking då:Svartskåggig Berserk, blodigOck grym at se uppå."Nu, sad' han, vil jag pröfva,Hvad rycktet ment dermed,At Frithiof svärd kann döfva;Och alldrig ber om fred."

Och upp med honom sprungoHanns bistra kämpar tolf:Med forhand luften stungo,Och svängde svärd ock kolf.De stormade mot stranden,Hvor tröttadt drakskepp stod.Men Frithiof satt å sandenOck talte kraft och mod.

"Lätt kunde jag dig fälla,"Shrek Atle med stort gny."Vill i ditt val dock ställa,Att kämpa eller fly.Men blott on fred du bederFastän än kämpe hård,Jag som än vän dig leder,Allt up til Jarlens gård."

"Väl är jag trött af färden;"Genmälte Frithiof vred,"Dock må vi pröfva svärden,Förr än jag tigger fred."Då såg man stålen ljunga,I solbrun kämpehand;På Angurvadels tunga,Hvar runa stod i brand.

Nu skiftas svärdshugg dryga,Och dråpslag hagla nu;Och begges skjöldar flyga,På samma gång itu.De kämpar utan tadelStå dock i kredsen fast;Men skarpt bet Angurvadel,Och Atles klinga brast.

10.

"Mod svärdlös man jag svänger,"Sad Frithiof, "ei mitt svärd."Men lyster det dig länger,Vi pröfva annan färd.Som vågor då on hösten,De begge storma an;Ock stållbeklädda brösten,Slå tätt emot hvarann.

11.

De brottades som björnar,Uppå sitt fjäll af snö;De spände hop som örnar,Utöfver vredgad sjö.Rodfästad klippa hölleVel knappast ut att stå;Ock lummig jernek fölleFör mindre tag än så.

12.

Från pannan svetten lackar,Och bröstet häfves kallt;Och buskar, sten, ock backar,Uppsparkas öfver allt.Med bäfvän slutet bidaStållklädde män å strand;Det brottandet var vidaBerömdt i Nordens land.

13.

Til slut dock Frithiof fälldeSin fiende til jord,Hann knät mod bröstet ställde,Och tallte vredens ord,"Blott nu mitt svärd jag hade,Du svarte Berserksskägg,Jag genom lifvet lade,På dig den hvassa ägg.

14.

"Det skal ei hinder bringa,"Sad Atle stolt i håg,"Gå du, ock ta din klinga,Jag licgar som jag låg.Den ena, som den andra,Skal engång Valhall se:Idag skal jag väl vandra;I morgon du kanske."

15.

Ei lange Frithiof dröjde;Den lek han sluta vill:Han Angurvadel höjde;Men Atle låg dock still.Det rörde hjeltens sinne;Sin vrede då hann band;Höll midt i huggett inne,Ock tog den fallnes hand.

LONDON:Printed bySamuel Bentley & Co.,Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

LONDON:

Printed bySamuel Bentley & Co.,

Bangor House, Shoe Lane.

[1]Qu. the people ofEuten, in Holstein.[2]Zeus, p. 591.[3]From Zeuss,v. v. Frisii, Chauci.[4]The chief works in the two dialects or languages.[5]Probably, for reasons, too long to enter upon, those of Grutungs and Tervings; this latter pointing to Thuringia, the present provincial dialect of which tract was stated, even by Michaelis, to be more like the Mœso-Gothic than any other dialect of Germany.[6]Nearly analogous toOstro-goth, andVisi-goth.[7]The meaning of these terms is explained in§ 90-92. The order of the cases and genders is from Rask. It is certainly more natural than the usual one.[8]Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in§ 85.[9]Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in§ 85.[10]The syllablesvulg-, andBelg-, are quite as much alike asTeuton-, andDeut-sch; yet how unreasonable it would be for an Englishman to argue that he was a descendant of theBelgæbecause he spoke theVulgarTongue.Mutatis mutandis, however, this is the exact argument of nine out of ten of the German writers.[11]Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. 40.[12]And on the west of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and Friesland; and then north-west is the land which is calledAngleand Sealand, and some part of the Danes.[13]He sailed to the harbour which is called Hæðum, which stands betwixt the Wends (i.e.the Wagrian Slaves, for which see§ 42) and Saxons, andAngle, and belongs to Denmark ... and two days before he came to Hæðum, there was on his starboard Gothland, and Sealand, and many islands. On that land livedAngles, before they hither to the land came.[14]Zeus, invoc.[15]Zeus, invoc.[16]Zeus, invoc.[17]See G. D. S. Vol. ii. II.[18]Zeus, p. 492.[19]As inAmherstandinherent.[20]The meaning of the note of interrogation is explained in§ 148.[21]Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine.[22]Natural History of Man.[23]This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar.[24]As inShotover Hill, near Oxford.[25]As inJerusalem artichoke.[26]A sort of silk.[27]Ancient Cassio—"Othello."[28]This class of words was pointed out to me by the very intelligent Reader of my first edition.[29]V. Beknopte Historie van't Vaderland, i. 3, 4.[30]Hist. Manch. b. i. c. 12.[31]Dissertation of the Origin of the Scottish Language.—Jamieson'sEtymological Dictionary, vol. i. p. 45, 46.[32]Sir W. Betham's Gael and Cymry, c. iii.[33]Scripturæ Linguæque Phœniciæ Monumenta, iv. 3.[34]To say, for instance,ChemistforChymist, orvice versâ; for I give no opinion as to the proper mode of spelling.[35]Mr. Pitman, of Bath, is likely to add to his claims as an orthographist by being engaged in the attempt to determine, inductively, the orthoepy of a certain number of doubtful words. He collects the pronunciations of a large number of educated men, and takes that of the majority as the true one.[36]Gesenius, p. 73.[37]Write one letter twice.[38]Rev. W. Harvey, author of Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Vindex Catholicus.[39]Murray's Grammar, vol. i. p. 79.[40]Used as adverbs.[41]Used as the plurals ofhe,she, andit.[42]Different fromilk.[43]Guest, ii. 192.[44]Orcall-s.[45]Thou sangest,thou drankest, &c.—For a reason given in the sequel, these forms are less unexceptionable thansungest,drunkest, &c.[46]Antiquated.[47]As the present section is written with the single view of illustrating the subject, no mention has been made of the formsτυπῶ(typô), andἔτυπον(etypon).[48]Obsolete.[49]Obsolete.[50]Obsolete.[51]The forms marked thus[51]are either obsolete or provincial.[52]Obsolete.[53]Soundedwun.[54]Obsolete.[55]Præterite, or Perfect.[56]Philological Museum, ii. p. 387.[57]Vol. ii. p. 203.[58]Found rarely; bist being the current form.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 894.[59]Over, under, after.—These, although derived forms, are not prepositions of derivation; since it is not by the affix-erthat they are made prepositions.He went over,he went under,he went after—these sentences prove the forms to be as much adverbial as prepositional.[60]In the first edition of this work I wrote, "Verbs substantive govern the nominative case." Upon this Mr. Connon, in his "System of English Grammar," remarks, "The idea of thenominativebeinggovernedis contrary to all received notions of grammar. I consider that the verbto be, in all its parts, acts merely as a connective, and can have no effect in governing anything." Of Mr. Connon's two reasons, the second is so sufficient that it ought to have stood alone. The true view of the so-called verb substantive is that it is no verb at all, but only the fraction of one. Hence, what I wrote was inaccurate. As to the question of the impropriety of considering nominative cases fit subjects for government it is a matter of definition.[61]The paperOn certain tenses attributed to the Greek verbhas already been quoted. The author, however, of the doctrine on the use ofshallandwill, is not the author of the doctrine alluded to in the Chapter on the Tenses. There are, in the same number of the Philological Museum, two papers under one title: first, the text by a writer who signs himself T. F. B.; and, next, a comment, by the editor, signed J. C. H. (Julius Charles Hare). Theusus ethicusof the future is due to Archdeacon Hare; the question being brought in incidentally and by way of illustration.The subject of the original paper was the nature of the so-called second aorists, second futures, and preterite middles. These were held to be no separate tenses, but irregular forms of the same tense. Undoubtedly this has long been an opinion amongst scholars; and the writer of the comments is quite right in stating that it is no novelty to the learned world. I think, however, that in putting this forward as the chief point in the original paper, he does the author somewhat less than justice. His merit, in my eyes, seems to consist, not in showing that real forms of theaoristus secundus,futurum secundum, andpræteritum mediumwere either rare or equivocal (this having been done before), but in illustrating his point from the English language; in showing that between double forms likeσυνελέχθηνandσυνελέγην, and double forms likehangandhanged, there was only a difference in degree (if there was that), not of kind; and, finally, in enouncing the very legitimate inference, that either we had two preterites, or that the Greeks had only one. "Now, if the circumstances of the Greek and English, in regard to these two tenses, are so precisely parallel, a simple and obvious inquiry arises, Which are in the right, the Greek grammarians or our own? For either ours must be wrong in not having fitted up for our verb the framework of a first and second preterite, teaching the pupil to say, 1st pret.I finded, 2d pret.I found; 1st pret.I glided, 2d pret.I glode: or the others must be so in teaching the learner to imagine two aorists forεὑρίσκω, as, aor. 1,εὕρησα, aor. 2,ἑῦρον; or forἀκούω, aor. 1,ἤκουσα, aor. 2,ἤκοον."—p. 198.The inference is, that of the two languages it is the English that is in the right. Now the following remarks, in the comment, upon this inference are a step in the wrong direction:—"The comparison, I grant, is perfectly just; but is it a just inference from that comparison, that we ought to alter the system of our Greek grammars, which has been drawn up at the cost of so much learning and thought, for the sake of adapting it to the system, if system it can be called, of our own grammars, which are seldom remarkable for anything else than their slovenliness, their ignorance, and their presumption? Is the higher to be brought down to the level of the baser? is Apollo to be drest out in a coat and waistcoat? Rather might it be deemed advisable to remodel the system of our own grammars."This, whether right or wrong as a broad assertion, was, in the case in hand, irrelevant. Nogeneralsuperiority had been claimed for the English grammars. For all that had been stated in the original paper they might, as compared with the Greek and Latin, be wrong in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. All that was claimed for them was that they were right in the present instance; just as for a clock that stands may be claimed the credit of being right once in every twelve hours. That the inference in favour of altering thesystemof the Greek grammars is illegitimate is most undeniably true; but then it is an inference of the critic's not of the author's. As the illustration in question has always seemed to me of great value,—although it may easily be less original than I imagine,—I have gone thus far towards putting it in a proper light.Taking up the question where it is left by the two writers in question, we find that the difficulties of the so-calledsecondtenses in Greek are met by reducing them to the same tense in different conjugations; and, according to the current views of grammarians, this is a point gained. Is it so really? Is it not rather the substitution of one difficulty for another? A second conjugation is a second mode of expressing the same idea, and a second tense is no more. Real criticism is as unwilling to multiply the one as the other. Furthermore, the tendency of English criticism is towards the very doctrines which the Greek grammarian wishes to get rid of.Wehave the difficulty of a second conjugation: but, on the other hand, instead of four past tenses (an imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist), we have only one (the aorist). Now, when we find that good reasons can be given for supposing that the strong preterite in the Gothic languages was once a reduplicate perfect, we are at liberty to suppose that what is now the same tense under two forms, was, originally, different tenses. Hence, in English, we avoid the difficulty of a second conjugation by the very same process which we eschew in Greek; viz., the assumption of a secondtense. But this we can do, as we have a tense to spare.Will any process reconcile this conflict of difficulties? I submit to scholars the following hypotheses:—1. That thetruesecond future in Greek (i.e., the future of verbs with a liquid as a characteristic) is a variety of thepresent, formed by accentuating the last syllable; just asI beát you=I will beat you.2. That this accent effects a change on the quantity and nature of the vowel of the penultimate.3. That the second aorist is animperfectformed from this secondary present.4. That the so-called perfect middle is a similar perfect active.[62]Transactions of Philological Society. No. 90, Jan. 25, 1850.[63]Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance of conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding itstruenature. The relative is always apartof the second proposition. A conjunction isno partof either.[64]Unless another view be taken of the construction, and it be argued thatἔδωκεis, etymologically speaking, no aorist but a perfect. In form, it is almost as much one tense as another. If it wants the reduplication of the perfect, it has the perfect characteristicκ, to the exclusion of the aoristσ; and thus far the evidence is equal. The persons, however, are more aorist than perfect. For one of Mathiæ's aorists (μεθῆκε) a still better case might be made, showing it to be, even in etymology, more perfect than aorist.Κτείνει με χρυσοῦ, τὸν ταλαίπωρον, χάρινΞένος πατρῷος, καὶ κτανὼν ἐς οἶδμ' ἁλὸςΜεθῆχ', ἵν' αὐτὸς χρυσὸν ἐν δόμοις ἔχῃ.Κεῖμαι δ' ἐπ' ἀκταῖς.Eur.Hec.[65]It is almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text is really a beautiful couplet of Withers's poetrytransposed. It was advisable to do this, for the sake of guarding against the effect of the rhyme. To have written,What care I how fair sheisIf she be not fair to me?would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disappointing the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written,What care I how fair shewere,If she were not kind asfair?would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by supplying one.[66]In the first edition of the present work I inaccurately stated thatneithershould take a plural andeithera singular verb; adding that "in predicating something concerningneither you nor I, a negative assertion is made concerningboth. In predicating something concerningeither you or I, a positive assertion is made concerningone of two." This Mr. Connon (p. 129) has truly stated to be at variance with the principles laid down by me elsewhere.[67]Latin Prose Composition, p. 123.[68]Quoted from Guest's English Rhythms.[69]To the definition in the text, words likeoldandboldform no exception. At the first view it may be objected that in words likeoldthere is no part preceding the vowel. Compared, however, withbold, the negation of that part constitutes a difference. The same applies to words likegoandlo, where the negation of a part following the vowel is a point of identity. Furthermore, I may observe, that the wordpartis used in the singular number. The assertion is not that every individual sound preceding the vowel must be different, but that the aggregate of them must be so. Hence,prayandbray(where theris common to both forms) form as true a rhyme asbrayandplay, where all the sounds precedinga, differ.[70]Forprosópa. The Greek has been transliterated into English for the sake of showing the effect of the accents more conveniently.[71]For the sake of showing the extent to which theaccentual elementmust be recognised in the classical metres, I reprint the following paper On the Doctrine of the Cæsura in the Greek senarius, from the Transactions 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 recognized, 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 accent,in 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, andaugúst, used 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 asἡ´κω,πα´λαι,ει´περ,τι´νας, or asἡκω´,παλαι´,ειπερ´,τινα´ς, without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.Ἡ´κω νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτου πυλας.Πα´λαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.Ει´περ δίκαιος εσθ' εμος τα πατροθεν.Τι´νας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.or,Ἡκω´ νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτου πυλας.Παλαι´ κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.Ειπερ´ δικαιος εσθ' εμος τα πατροθεν.Τινα´ς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.Second Foot.—In the second place, it is also a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded asAúgustor asaugúst. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say eitherνε´κρωνorνεκρω´ν, without violating the 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 hepthimimer cæsuras.The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the third foot is derived partly froma posteriori, partly froma 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: asΘρηκην περασα´ντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ.Δυοιν γεροντοι´ν 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 had 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 wordἄγγελονwould be sounded likemérrily, and the wordἀγγέλωνlikedisáble; 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; asβλε´π-ω, βλεψ-α´σ-α, notβλεπ-ω´, βλεψ-ασ-α´. 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; asσφω´ν, πα´ς, χθω´ν, δμω´ς, νω´ν, νυ´ν, &c.2. Circumflex futures; asνεμω´, τεμω´, &c.3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted into a final syllable;δω´μ', φειδεσ´θ', κεντει´τ', εγω´γ', &c.Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring, in the senarius, 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 the nature 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 hepthimimer cæsura: asἩκω νεκρων κευθμω´να και σκοτου πυλας.Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοι´σιν εξεστεμμενοι.Ὁμου τε παιανω´ν τε και στεναγματων.2.The sixth syllables 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; asΟδμη βροτειων αἱ´ματων με προσγελα.Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ´πρεποντας αιθερι.Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather than a hepthimimer; so that if it was 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 hepthimimer cæsura.Ανηριθμον γελα´σμα 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 σεβι´ζων σο´ν Κλυ´ται|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 asΚαγω το σον νεμω´ ποθει|νον αυλιονthere is no argumenta priorion the score of the iambic character being violated; whilst in respect to objections derived from evidencea 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; asΚεντειτε μη φειδε´σθ' 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; asΟδμη βροτειων αἱ´ ματῶν | με προσγελα.Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ´πρεπον τας αιθερι.Αψυχον εικω προ´σγελῳσα 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 likeΚαι ταλλα πολλ' επει´κασαι | δικαιον ην,or (an imaginary example),Τοις σοισιν ασπιδη´στροφοις|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 likeεπεικασαιandασπιδηστροφοισιν, 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 hepthimimer 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 penthimimer, 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 phænomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hepthimimer.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.[72]Sceolon,aron, and a few similar words, are no real exceptions, being in structure not present tenses but preterites.[73]Quarterly Review, No. clxiv.[74]Quarterly Review, No. clxiv.[75]From the Quarterly Review, No. cx.[76]From the Quarterly Review, No. cx.[77]Apparently alapsus calamiforspede.[78]J. M. Kemble, "On Anglo-Saxon Runes,"Archæologia, vol. xxviii.[79]But not ofGreat Britain. The Lowland Scotch is, probably, more Danish than any South-British dialect.[80]In opposition to the typical Northumbrian.[81]Quarterly Review—ut supra.[82]The subject is a Lincolnshire tradition; the language, also, is pre-eminently Danish. On the other hand, the modern Lincolnshire dialect is by no means evidently descended from it.[83]For some few details see Phil. Trans., No. 36.[84]Transactions of the Philological Society. No. 93.[85]Philological Transactions. No. 84.[86]Transactions of the Philological Society, No. 92.[87]Quarterly Review, vol. xliii.

[1]Qu. the people ofEuten, in Holstein.

[2]Zeus, p. 591.

[3]From Zeuss,v. v. Frisii, Chauci.

[4]The chief works in the two dialects or languages.

[5]Probably, for reasons, too long to enter upon, those of Grutungs and Tervings; this latter pointing to Thuringia, the present provincial dialect of which tract was stated, even by Michaelis, to be more like the Mœso-Gothic than any other dialect of Germany.

[6]Nearly analogous toOstro-goth, andVisi-goth.

[7]The meaning of these terms is explained in§ 90-92. The order of the cases and genders is from Rask. It is certainly more natural than the usual one.

[8]Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in§ 85.

[9]Compare with the Anglo-Saxon adjectives in§ 85.

[10]The syllablesvulg-, andBelg-, are quite as much alike asTeuton-, andDeut-sch; yet how unreasonable it would be for an Englishman to argue that he was a descendant of theBelgæbecause he spoke theVulgarTongue.Mutatis mutandis, however, this is the exact argument of nine out of ten of the German writers.

[11]Tacitus, De Mor. Germ. 40.

[12]And on the west of the Old Saxons is the mouth of the river Elbe and Friesland; and then north-west is the land which is calledAngleand Sealand, and some part of the Danes.

[13]He sailed to the harbour which is called Hæðum, which stands betwixt the Wends (i.e.the Wagrian Slaves, for which see§ 42) and Saxons, andAngle, and belongs to Denmark ... and two days before he came to Hæðum, there was on his starboard Gothland, and Sealand, and many islands. On that land livedAngles, before they hither to the land came.

[14]Zeus, invoc.

[15]Zeus, invoc.

[16]Zeus, invoc.

[17]See G. D. S. Vol. ii. II.

[18]Zeus, p. 492.

[19]As inAmherstandinherent.

[20]The meaning of the note of interrogation is explained in§ 148.

[21]Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine.

[22]Natural History of Man.

[23]This list is taken from Smart's valuable and logical English Grammar.

[24]As inShotover Hill, near Oxford.

[25]As inJerusalem artichoke.

[26]A sort of silk.

[27]Ancient Cassio—"Othello."

[28]This class of words was pointed out to me by the very intelligent Reader of my first edition.

[29]V. Beknopte Historie van't Vaderland, i. 3, 4.

[30]Hist. Manch. b. i. c. 12.

[31]Dissertation of the Origin of the Scottish Language.—Jamieson'sEtymological Dictionary, vol. i. p. 45, 46.

[32]Sir W. Betham's Gael and Cymry, c. iii.

[33]Scripturæ Linguæque Phœniciæ Monumenta, iv. 3.

[34]To say, for instance,ChemistforChymist, orvice versâ; for I give no opinion as to the proper mode of spelling.

[35]Mr. Pitman, of Bath, is likely to add to his claims as an orthographist by being engaged in the attempt to determine, inductively, the orthoepy of a certain number of doubtful words. He collects the pronunciations of a large number of educated men, and takes that of the majority as the true one.

[36]Gesenius, p. 73.

[37]Write one letter twice.

[38]Rev. W. Harvey, author of Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Vindex Catholicus.

[39]Murray's Grammar, vol. i. p. 79.

[40]Used as adverbs.

[41]Used as the plurals ofhe,she, andit.

[42]Different fromilk.

[43]Guest, ii. 192.

[44]Orcall-s.

[45]Thou sangest,thou drankest, &c.—For a reason given in the sequel, these forms are less unexceptionable thansungest,drunkest, &c.

[46]Antiquated.

[47]As the present section is written with the single view of illustrating the subject, no mention has been made of the formsτυπῶ(typô), andἔτυπον(etypon).

[48]Obsolete.

[49]Obsolete.

[50]Obsolete.

[51]The forms marked thus[51]are either obsolete or provincial.

[52]Obsolete.

[53]Soundedwun.

[54]Obsolete.

[55]Præterite, or Perfect.

[56]Philological Museum, ii. p. 387.

[57]Vol. ii. p. 203.

[58]Found rarely; bist being the current form.—Deutsche Grammatik, i. 894.

[59]Over, under, after.—These, although derived forms, are not prepositions of derivation; since it is not by the affix-erthat they are made prepositions.He went over,he went under,he went after—these sentences prove the forms to be as much adverbial as prepositional.

[60]In the first edition of this work I wrote, "Verbs substantive govern the nominative case." Upon this Mr. Connon, in his "System of English Grammar," remarks, "The idea of thenominativebeinggovernedis contrary to all received notions of grammar. I consider that the verbto be, in all its parts, acts merely as a connective, and can have no effect in governing anything." Of Mr. Connon's two reasons, the second is so sufficient that it ought to have stood alone. The true view of the so-called verb substantive is that it is no verb at all, but only the fraction of one. Hence, what I wrote was inaccurate. As to the question of the impropriety of considering nominative cases fit subjects for government it is a matter of definition.

[61]The paperOn certain tenses attributed to the Greek verbhas already been quoted. The author, however, of the doctrine on the use ofshallandwill, is not the author of the doctrine alluded to in the Chapter on the Tenses. There are, in the same number of the Philological Museum, two papers under one title: first, the text by a writer who signs himself T. F. B.; and, next, a comment, by the editor, signed J. C. H. (Julius Charles Hare). Theusus ethicusof the future is due to Archdeacon Hare; the question being brought in incidentally and by way of illustration.

The subject of the original paper was the nature of the so-called second aorists, second futures, and preterite middles. These were held to be no separate tenses, but irregular forms of the same tense. Undoubtedly this has long been an opinion amongst scholars; and the writer of the comments is quite right in stating that it is no novelty to the learned world. I think, however, that in putting this forward as the chief point in the original paper, he does the author somewhat less than justice. His merit, in my eyes, seems to consist, not in showing that real forms of theaoristus secundus,futurum secundum, andpræteritum mediumwere either rare or equivocal (this having been done before), but in illustrating his point from the English language; in showing that between double forms likeσυνελέχθηνandσυνελέγην, and double forms likehangandhanged, there was only a difference in degree (if there was that), not of kind; and, finally, in enouncing the very legitimate inference, that either we had two preterites, or that the Greeks had only one. "Now, if the circumstances of the Greek and English, in regard to these two tenses, are so precisely parallel, a simple and obvious inquiry arises, Which are in the right, the Greek grammarians or our own? For either ours must be wrong in not having fitted up for our verb the framework of a first and second preterite, teaching the pupil to say, 1st pret.I finded, 2d pret.I found; 1st pret.I glided, 2d pret.I glode: or the others must be so in teaching the learner to imagine two aorists forεὑρίσκω, as, aor. 1,εὕρησα, aor. 2,ἑῦρον; or forἀκούω, aor. 1,ἤκουσα, aor. 2,ἤκοον."—p. 198.

The inference is, that of the two languages it is the English that is in the right. Now the following remarks, in the comment, upon this inference are a step in the wrong direction:—"The comparison, I grant, is perfectly just; but is it a just inference from that comparison, that we ought to alter the system of our Greek grammars, which has been drawn up at the cost of so much learning and thought, for the sake of adapting it to the system, if system it can be called, of our own grammars, which are seldom remarkable for anything else than their slovenliness, their ignorance, and their presumption? Is the higher to be brought down to the level of the baser? is Apollo to be drest out in a coat and waistcoat? Rather might it be deemed advisable to remodel the system of our own grammars."

This, whether right or wrong as a broad assertion, was, in the case in hand, irrelevant. Nogeneralsuperiority had been claimed for the English grammars. For all that had been stated in the original paper they might, as compared with the Greek and Latin, be wrong in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. All that was claimed for them was that they were right in the present instance; just as for a clock that stands may be claimed the credit of being right once in every twelve hours. That the inference in favour of altering thesystemof the Greek grammars is illegitimate is most undeniably true; but then it is an inference of the critic's not of the author's. As the illustration in question has always seemed to me of great value,—although it may easily be less original than I imagine,—I have gone thus far towards putting it in a proper light.

Taking up the question where it is left by the two writers in question, we find that the difficulties of the so-calledsecondtenses in Greek are met by reducing them to the same tense in different conjugations; and, according to the current views of grammarians, this is a point gained. Is it so really? Is it not rather the substitution of one difficulty for another? A second conjugation is a second mode of expressing the same idea, and a second tense is no more. Real criticism is as unwilling to multiply the one as the other. Furthermore, the tendency of English criticism is towards the very doctrines which the Greek grammarian wishes to get rid of.Wehave the difficulty of a second conjugation: but, on the other hand, instead of four past tenses (an imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, and aorist), we have only one (the aorist). Now, when we find that good reasons can be given for supposing that the strong preterite in the Gothic languages was once a reduplicate perfect, we are at liberty to suppose that what is now the same tense under two forms, was, originally, different tenses. Hence, in English, we avoid the difficulty of a second conjugation by the very same process which we eschew in Greek; viz., the assumption of a secondtense. But this we can do, as we have a tense to spare.

Will any process reconcile this conflict of difficulties? I submit to scholars the following hypotheses:—

1. That thetruesecond future in Greek (i.e., the future of verbs with a liquid as a characteristic) is a variety of thepresent, formed by accentuating the last syllable; just asI beát you=I will beat you.

2. That this accent effects a change on the quantity and nature of the vowel of the penultimate.

3. That the second aorist is animperfectformed from this secondary present.

4. That the so-called perfect middle is a similar perfect active.

[62]Transactions of Philological Society. No. 90, Jan. 25, 1850.

[63]Notwithstanding the extent to which a relative may take the appearance of conjunction, there is always one unequivocal method of deciding itstruenature. The relative is always apartof the second proposition. A conjunction isno partof either.

[64]Unless another view be taken of the construction, and it be argued thatἔδωκεis, etymologically speaking, no aorist but a perfect. In form, it is almost as much one tense as another. If it wants the reduplication of the perfect, it has the perfect characteristicκ, to the exclusion of the aoristσ; and thus far the evidence is equal. The persons, however, are more aorist than perfect. For one of Mathiæ's aorists (μεθῆκε) a still better case might be made, showing it to be, even in etymology, more perfect than aorist.

Κτείνει με χρυσοῦ, τὸν ταλαίπωρον, χάρινΞένος πατρῷος, καὶ κτανὼν ἐς οἶδμ' ἁλὸςΜεθῆχ', ἵν' αὐτὸς χρυσὸν ἐν δόμοις ἔχῃ.Κεῖμαι δ' ἐπ' ἀκταῖς.Eur.Hec.

Κτείνει με χρυσοῦ, τὸν ταλαίπωρον, χάρινΞένος πατρῷος, καὶ κτανὼν ἐς οἶδμ' ἁλὸςΜεθῆχ', ἵν' αὐτὸς χρυσὸν ἐν δόμοις ἔχῃ.Κεῖμαι δ' ἐπ' ἀκταῖς.

Κτείνει με χρυσοῦ, τὸν ταλαίπωρον, χάριν

Ξένος πατρῷος, καὶ κτανὼν ἐς οἶδμ' ἁλὸς

Μεθῆχ', ἵν' αὐτὸς χρυσὸν ἐν δόμοις ἔχῃ.

Κεῖμαι δ' ἐπ' ἀκταῖς.

Eur.Hec.

[65]It is almost unnecessary to state that the sentence quoted in the text is really a beautiful couplet of Withers's poetrytransposed. It was advisable to do this, for the sake of guarding against the effect of the rhyme. To have written,

What care I how fair sheisIf she be not fair to me?

What care I how fair sheis

If she be not fair to me?

would have made the grammar seem worse than it really was, by disappointing the reader of a rhyme. On the other hand, to have written,

What care I how fair shewere,If she were not kind asfair?

What care I how fair shewere,

If she were not kind asfair?

would have made the grammar seem better than it really was, by supplying one.

[66]In the first edition of the present work I inaccurately stated thatneithershould take a plural andeithera singular verb; adding that "in predicating something concerningneither you nor I, a negative assertion is made concerningboth. In predicating something concerningeither you or I, a positive assertion is made concerningone of two." This Mr. Connon (p. 129) has truly stated to be at variance with the principles laid down by me elsewhere.

[67]Latin Prose Composition, p. 123.

[68]Quoted from Guest's English Rhythms.

[69]To the definition in the text, words likeoldandboldform no exception. At the first view it may be objected that in words likeoldthere is no part preceding the vowel. Compared, however, withbold, the negation of that part constitutes a difference. The same applies to words likegoandlo, where the negation of a part following the vowel is a point of identity. Furthermore, I may observe, that the wordpartis used in the singular number. The assertion is not that every individual sound preceding the vowel must be different, but that the aggregate of them must be so. Hence,prayandbray(where theris common to both forms) form as true a rhyme asbrayandplay, where all the sounds precedinga, differ.

[70]Forprosópa. The Greek has been transliterated into English for the sake of showing the effect of the accents more conveniently.

[71]For the sake of showing the extent to which theaccentual elementmust be recognised in the classical metres, I reprint the following paper On the Doctrine of the Cæsura in the Greek senarius, from the Transactions 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 recognized, 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 accent,in 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, andaugúst, used 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 asἡ´κω,πα´λαι,ει´περ,τι´νας, or asἡκω´,παλαι´,ειπερ´,τινα´ς, without any detriment to the character of the line wherein they occur.

Ἡ´κω νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτου πυλας.Πα´λαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.Ει´περ δίκαιος εσθ' εμος τα πατροθεν.Τι´νας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

Ἡ´κω νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτου πυλας.

Πα´λαι κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.

Ει´περ δίκαιος εσθ' εμος τα πατροθεν.

Τι´νας ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

or,

Ἡκω´ νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτου πυλας.Παλαι´ κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.Ειπερ´ δικαιος εσθ' εμος τα πατροθεν.Τινα´ς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

Ἡκω´ νεκρων κευθμωνα και σκοτου πυλας.

Παλαι´ κυνηγετουντα και μετρουμενον.

Ειπερ´ δικαιος εσθ' εμος τα πατροθεν.

Τινα´ς ποθ' ἑδρας τασδε μοι θοαζετε.

Second Foot.—In the second place, it is also a matter of indifference whether the foot be sounded asAúgustor asaugúst. In the first of the four lines quoted above we may say eitherνε´κρωνorνεκρω´ν, without violating the 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 hepthimimer cæsuras.

The proof of the coincidence between the arsis and the quantity in the third foot is derived partly froma posteriori, partly froma 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 περασα´ντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ.Δυοιν γεροντοι´ν δε στρατηγειται φυγη.

Θρηκην περασα´ντες μογις πολλῳ πονῳ.

Δυοιν γεροντοι´ν 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 had 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 wordἄγγελονwould be sounded likemérrily, and the wordἀγγέλωνlikedisáble; 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; asβλε´π-ω, βλεψ-α´σ-α, notβλεπ-ω´, βλεψ-ασ-α´. 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; asσφω´ν, πα´ς, χθω´ν, δμω´ς, νω´ν, νυ´ν, &c.

2. Circumflex futures; asνεμω´, τεμω´, &c.

3. Words abbreviated by apocope; in which case the penultimate is converted into a final syllable;δω´μ', φειδεσ´θ', κεντει´τ', εγω´γ', &c.

Now the fact of a syllable with an arsis being, in Greek, rarely final, taken along with that of the sixth syllable requiring, in the senarius, 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 the nature 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 hepthimimer cæsura: as

Ἡκω νεκρων κευθμω´να και σκοτου πυλας.Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοι´σιν εξεστεμμενοι.Ὁμου τε παιανω´ν τε και στεναγματων.

Ἡκω νεκρων κευθμω´να και σκοτου πυλας.

Ἱκτηριοις κλαδοι´σιν εξεστεμμενοι.

Ὁμου τε παιανω´ν τε και στεναγματων.

2.The sixth syllables 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 αἱ´ματων με προσγελα.Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ´πρεποντας αιθερι.

Οδμη βροτειων αἱ´ματων με προσγελα.

Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ´πρεποντας αιθερι.

Now this arrangement of syllables, taken by itself, gives anything rather than a hepthimimer; so that if it was 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 hepthimimer cæsura.

Ανηριθμον γελα´σμα 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 σεβι´ζων σο´ν Κλυ´ται|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

Καγω το σον νεμω´ ποθει|νον αυλιον

there is no argumenta priorion the score of the iambic character being violated; whilst in respect to objections derived from evidencea 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 φειδε´σθ' 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 αἱ´ ματῶν | με προσγελα.Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ´πρεπον τας αιθερι.Αψυχον εικω προ´σγελῳσα σωματος.

Οδμη βροτειων αἱ´ ματῶν | με προσγελα.

Λαμπρους δυναστας εμ´πρεπον τας αιθερι.

Αψυχον εικω προ´σγελῳσα 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 ταλλα πολλ' επει´κασαι | δικαιον ην,

or (an imaginary example),

Τοις σοισιν ασπιδη´στροφοις|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 likeεπεικασαιandασπιδηστροφοισιν, 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 hepthimimer 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 penthimimer, 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 phænomenon presented in the Greek senarius was the occurrence of either the penthimimer or hepthimimer.

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.

[72]Sceolon,aron, and a few similar words, are no real exceptions, being in structure not present tenses but preterites.

[73]Quarterly Review, No. clxiv.

[74]Quarterly Review, No. clxiv.

[75]From the Quarterly Review, No. cx.

[76]From the Quarterly Review, No. cx.

[77]Apparently alapsus calamiforspede.

[78]J. M. Kemble, "On Anglo-Saxon Runes,"Archæologia, vol. xxviii.

[79]But not ofGreat Britain. The Lowland Scotch is, probably, more Danish than any South-British dialect.

[80]In opposition to the typical Northumbrian.

[81]Quarterly Review—ut supra.

[82]The subject is a Lincolnshire tradition; the language, also, is pre-eminently Danish. On the other hand, the modern Lincolnshire dialect is by no means evidently descended from it.

[83]For some few details see Phil. Trans., No. 36.

[84]Transactions of the Philological Society. No. 93.

[85]Philological Transactions. No. 84.

[86]Transactions of the Philological Society, No. 92.

[87]Quarterly Review, vol. xliii.

Back to Index Next