American Philological Association


boremj of

C^JeL & o




1 '

JUffeS '

m - -


Baltimore, Tuesday, July 10, 18 11.

The Ninth Annual Session was called to order at 4 o’clock p. m., at the Johns Hopkins University, by Professor B. L. Gildersleeve, Vice-President.

An address of welcome was made by Mr. John T. Morris, President of the School Board of the city of Baltimore, to which the Vice-President replied.

The Secretary being absent, Professor J. M. Garnett, Principal of St. John’s College, Annapolis, Md., was elected Secretary of the meeting.

A report was presented from the Executive Committee, announcing that the persons whose names follow had been elected members of the Association:

Mr. C. C. Bates, Plymouth, Mass.; Professor E. S. Holden, Washington, D. C. ; Professor C. K. Nelson, St. John’s College, Annapolis, Md. ; Professor Austin Stickney, late of Trinity College, Hartford, Conn.; Professor W. B. Webster, Military Institute, Norfolk, Va. ; Rev. R. F. Weidner, Phillipsburg, N. J.

The Treasurer presented his report, showing the receipts and expenditures of the past year to be as follow:


Balance in treasury, July, 1876,

Fees of new members and annual assessments,

Interest, ------

Sales of publications, -


Printing Transactions, 1875,

Printing Proceedings, 1876,- Expenses of New York meeting,

Postage, expressage, stationery, etc.,

Profit and loss (coupon unpaid),

Balance in treasury, -















Proceedings of the

The Association is the owner of one bond of the Connecticut Western Railroac for $500.00, on which there are three unpaid coupons of $17.50 each.

On motion, Dr. J. Hammond Trumbull and Professor C. H. Toy were appointed Auditors of the Treasurer’s report.

A paper on “Temporal Coincidence of the Aorist Participle with the Primary Verb,” by Mr. Augustus C. Merriam, of Columbia College, New York City, was read by Dr. C. R. Lanman.

It has been pretty generally conceded that the aorist participle with ?MV'&avio, tvjx&vu ), Q&avG), Tteptopau, tyopao, and some other verbs, does not represent time past with reference to the primary verb, but coincides with it in time. But beyond its occurrence with the first three verbs just named, this usage does not appear to have been remarked in the Homeric poems. The question as to the admissibility of a wider use of it there presents itself in # 564, where Alcinous, speaking to Ulysses of a prediction of his father’s, says :

aXXa rod' &g rcore irarpog eytov e'ltc 6vt o g aitovca.

There is nothing in the context to determine whether he means, “I heard my father say,” or, I heard (from another) of my father’s having said.” The usual construction of the tense requires the latter. Is the former allowable? Upon a consideration of all the instances of cucovu with the participle in Homer, it becomes apparent not only that the former is admissible, but that it is the probable rendering.

Take first i 497, where Ulysses is washed back by the refluent wave produced by the mass of rock hurled before his vessel by the Cyclops, and has pushed off again in silence out of reach. He then, wishing a second time to taunt the monster, is addressed by his comrades, who beg him to restrain himself, declaring that they thought themselves dead men when driven to shore, and they add : el 6e (f>-& ey % a psv ov rsv r/ avdr/cavrog cikovgev , avv kev apa £’ r/peuv KEtyaXag, n. r. A..,

If he (Polyphemus) had heard any one of us cry out or utter a word, he would have broken our heads.”

Secondly, as the supreme crisis of the Odyssey is drawing on, the disguised Uiysses accompanies Philoetius and Eumaeus without the palace and asks them what part they would take in case their old master suddenly returned. They both respond with the fervent prayer that he may come and promise they will show him what might is theirs in his behalf. He thereupon discloses himself to them and says (<p 210) :

ro)v d’ aXktjiv ov tev anovoa ev £ a [ievov kpE avrig vrrdrponov oiicad' lkeg'&cu ,

Of the others not one have I heard pray that I again homeward might return.”

Thirdly, in K 276, as Ulysses and Diomed are starting out upon their noc¬ turnal scouting expedition, Athene sends a heron close by their pathway, and they saw it not with their eyes through the night’s darkness, but they heard it scream :

tol d' ovk Idov b(f)'&aX,polGLV vvKTa di’ opLfivaLTjVj d/l/la iclay £ avr o g cucovgclv .

American Philological Association .


Again, when Ulysses in disguise is struck in the banqueting hall with a footstool by Antinous, the poet says (p 492) :

rov . 7/ novae nepitypuv ~n.rjve7i6neia

/5/1 rjpevov ev peyapu,

Penelope in the women’s apartments heard him when struck.”

Here are four crucial instances where the context shows beyond any doubt that the act of hearing is an immediate one, and that the aorist participle stands as regards time for the common prosaic present which meets us so frequently in Xenophon and Plato.

In short, the instances of participial construction in Homer after dnovu and the kindred verbs aico, Trvv&avo/ucu, £ wirjfti , may he grouped under two general heads :

i. Where the object of perception is immediate, and falls directly under the sense, i. e., one hears such and such a thing with his own ears.

n. Where the object is only mediate , i. e., one hears from another that such and such a thing is so.

Under i., the following passages may be cited where the aorist participle occurs, and these are best divided into three classes; (a) where the primary verb means simply to hear; (b) to hear with implied idea of heeding and granting prayer; (c) to hear with implied idea of heeding and obeying :

i. (a). : # 564, < 497, <j> 210, K 276, p 492, T 380, B 182, K 47, n 76, 6 505.

(b) . A 380, n 531, A 453, II 236.

(c) . Z 281, y 337.

The instances of the present participle belonging here are :

(a) . 0 506, k 221, A 396, 4> 475, ■& 95, 534, 6 76, K 189, A 463, p 265.

(b) . n 515; £ 325, I 509, T 77.

(c) . 0 199, /3 423, r 419.

ii. Aorist Participle :

6 728, ($ 375, 6 748, P 377, N 521, P 427, T 322, 337, p 115.

Present Participle :

A 458, a 289, [3 220, 12 490, tt 301, II 129, y 94, 6 324, A 257, 6 732.

Infinitive : Z 386.

It will he remarked that we have under i., sixteen cases of the coincident aorist to fifteen of the present participle, not reckoning phrases repeated. If the six cases of (b) and (c) belonging to both tenses be put aside as admitting the more common explanation (and while this is possible, it is quite unnecessary in the light of the present investigation), the aorist participle has a majority of one over the present, demonstrating that this usage of the aorist was a deeply rooted one in the early stage of the language. And yet, in all the instances under ii., where the object is mediate and secondary, the usual distinction of tense is fully maintained.

This coincident use of the aorist after verbs of hearing I do not find in the Homeric hymns, in Hesiod, Pindar, Aeschylus, or Xenophon, although full indexes have been examined. In fact, I have met with only two instances outside of Homer: one in a fragment of the poet Xenophanes (6), and the other in the Argonautica of Apollonius Khodius (i. 278).

Such circumstantial participles as tyuvrjoag (A 284, a 122, et saepe), (pde^apevog (K 139, O 170), avaag (A 508, Z 66, N 413), ouonkrjaag (E 439, Z 54), ETtev^dpevog


Proceedings of the

(Z 475), ane^rjaag ((p 868, H 225), usually preceding a speech and accom, panying a verb of saying, as for example, apeag (puvrjoag errea irTepdevra- 7T poorjvda (a usage continued through into New Testament Greek, where the phrase cnronpi'd-elg eIttev is very common), have been explained by Classen as inceptive, in the sense of “having lifted up the voice,” “having begun to pray,” etc. But the question becomes a pertinent one whether this apparent awkwardness of expression may not find its explanation in the same use of the tense which has been proved to exist after verbs of hearing. The common kcll )uv pidvrjaag ettecl TcrepoEvra vtpocrjv&a, would readily bear the rendering, and to him in speech winged words he spake” the participle referring merely in an indefinite way to the time embraced by the primary verb. The numerous instances of present participles also occurring in these phrases show the same interchange as after the verbs of hearing.

Mr. E. Gr. Sillier, of Johns Hopkins University, read a paper on “A Comparative Review of the Accounts of the Battle of Salamis given by Herodotus and Aeschylus.”

Editors of Aeschylus’s Persae or of Herodotus have of course been in the very proper habit of illustrating their commentaries from the other author respectively ; and one of the latest writers on Greek History, Mr. Cox, seems to consider the battle of Salamis a morsel from which nothing more may be gotten. But within the last few years two valuable contributions by Kirchoff and Wecklein have appeared, on which this paper is based. In the introductory portion three questions were proposed :

(1.) What indications are there found in Herodotus himself about his own sources of information ? Herodotus emphatically designates himself as a gatherer and preserver of tradition, mentioning any specific authority but rarely, and then mostly in conflicting traditions.

(2.) What were the intentions of the author? They were fair and his veracity is unquestionable. Of bias and prejudice but little is noticeable. At the same time, the tradition which he gathered could not but be to some extent colored by several factors ; such as the tendency of allowing no blemish on the picture of past grand national events, or the sectional and personal dissensions and feuds, or the religious and moral conception of the author himself.

(3. ) What did Herodotus know of existing literature ? He knew it minutely and critically, and, not least, the dramas of Aeschylus, though mentioning him but once (ii. 156).

The more detailed comparison of the two accounts was begun with Persae 337 sqq. and Herodotus viii. 75.

The results were these : Herodotus takes Aeschylus into most accurate consideration throughout. Where Aeschylus gives only a general and poetical picture, Herodotus adds specifications of names, time, number, and locality.

( Aeschylus from his Panhellenic standpoint forbears mentioning any names of individuals or commonwealths on the Greek side.) Again, where Aeschylus has been very explicit and detailed, Herodotus is satisfied with presenting a brief and concise summary. One of the most striking illustrations of this attitude is in the account of the massacre on Psyttaleia.

In treating of the Persian disposition of their fleet as caused by the Themis- toclean message, the author believed himself to be able to show full harmony

American Philological Association.


between Aeschylus and Herodotus ; the rpeig aro~o%pi of Aeschylus being one line along the coast in the sound extending from Eleusis to the Piraeus, the second across the straits from Salamis to Munychia, and the third closing the western escape between Megaris and Salamis.

Grote’s disbelief in the correctness of Herodotus’s topographical propositions was exhibited as arbitrary and unwarranted. The plan of the battle which the author presented as his own comes nearest to that of Spruner, and differs most from that of Grote.

A paper by Professor Austin Stickney, late of Trinity College, Hartford, Conn., on “The Single Case-Form in Italian,” was read by Mr. C. J. Buckingham.

The question as to which of the old Latin cases was the prototype of the single forms which remain in the declension of the Romanic languages, has been often discussed, but is still unsettled. The various views may be conveniently arranged under three heads. According to the first, the simple ground-form remains, divested of the old case-endings and clothed in such new guise as each particular language has chosen. The second opinion is that we have in the modern nominal forms the remains of some specific case, differing in various countries, the survival being in virtue of something like conscious choice or logical necessity. Those who maintain the third view hold that the modern case-form is the phonetic result of the wearing away of the old endings, in consequence of which the cases came to coincide in a single form.

The facts of the phonetic decay of Latin are generally conceded ; its results differ, of course, in various countries. In France, it left a tolerably symmetrical system of declensions, owing to the persistence of the final s, and the general loss of the syllables after the tonic. In Italy, the paroxytones were tolerated or even favored, and the old endings remained vigorous much longer and in greater variety.

But phonetic decay, while it explains very well the singular number in Italian, is quite insufficient for the plural. After an examination of the facts as they appear in the language, it would seem that a complete statement of the origin of the nominal form should be made somewhat as follows : The present case- form is the result of the phonetic decay of the old Latin forms ; but whenever this alone would have left more than one form for a number, there was a sort of natural selection, resulting in the survival of that one which, from its phonetic character, best suited the habits of the people using it, or which, oftener recurring in ordinary language, impressed itself more distinctly on the mind ; in masculines and feminines, this was generally the continuation of one of the oblique cases, chiefly the accusative ; in neuters, generally of the common form of the nomina¬ tive and accusative ; and when the present form is a new one, it has been made after certain analogies already existing in the old language.

A recess was tben taken till 8 o’clock.


Tbe Association was called to order by the President, Professor S. S. Haldeman, of the University of Pennsylvania.


Proceedings of the

The Secretary reported the election of a new member:

Professor Jacob Cooper, New Brunswick, N. J.

Professor ~W. D. "Whitney, of Yale College, New Haven, Conn., read the first paper of the evening, on Surd and Sonant.”

Professor Whitney said that the true nature of the distinction between, for example, a p and a b, or an f and a v, had long been one of the disputed points in phonetics ; for some time past there has seemed to be a decided tendency to agreement among phonetists in the acceptance of the opinion that the b and v get their distinctive character from accompanying vibrations of the vocal chords ; but, very recently, there are signs of a reversal of this movement, seeming to render a new discussion of the point desirable.

It is generally conceded that the English v (along with the other so-called sonant consonants) does actually differ from its correspondent surd,” /, by an accompanying sonancy or tone. It is also well established that through a great part of Germany, at least, there is no sonancy in either member of any such pair, but, instead of it, a difference in force of utterance, the v etc. being- weaker. The question at issue concerns the relation and the comparative value of these two kinds of difference.

It may fairly be claimed by those who practise the English mode of distinction that in their utterance the difference of force is of no account whatever. Either f or v, either p or b, may be and is pronounced with every possible degree of force, without any detriment to its individual identity. The same is true of them as of all our alphabetic elements. The genesis of an e or an {-sound is usually and regularly by a phonetic “weakening” of an a-sound : but an i strongly pronounced does not become an a, nor an a weakly pronounced an i. Just so with an f in its relation to a p. The a or i or f or p or v or by once worked out as a constituent of the alphabetic system, may be uttered, unimpaired, with the whole range of force, just as of length or quantity, and just as (in the case of the sonant elements) of pitch.

But then, as alphabetic distinctions are capable of being founded on differences of quantity (as in the case of the long and short vowels), or on differences of pitch (as in the case of the Chinese tones), just so a difference in force of utterance of the same articulated sound may rise to absolute value in an alphabet. A great part of the German people, we are told, have no sonant b or v (and so on), but instead of them a weaker non-sonant correlative to p and f Such a sound is an essentially different thing from the other ; the two may be historical equivalents, but they are in no proper sense phonetic equivalents : witness the fact that, to real utterers of a sonant b, a German is distinctively one who inextricably mixes and interchanges his b’ s and p’s. If, now, it can be shown that the Indo-European and Sanskrit-Greek-Latin b was not a sonant counterpart of' p, but a weakened counterpart, then this German sound has a right to the name media, and to the sign b. But if (as is generally and doubtless correctly held) the sonant pronunciation is the older and more original one, and the weakened pronunciation without sonancy a later and locally restricted substitute for it, then the name and sign properly belong only to the English b, and not to the German, which is rather to be called a weak p.

American Philological Association.


Of course, the question whether and why the sonant letter alone is in practice subjected to a weakened utterance is one by itself, quite independent of the other.

The writer examined in detail some of the objections recently brought' against these views especially those presented by Professor Sievers, of Jena, in his valuable manual of Indo-European phonetics and endeavored to show that they are insufficient or untenable.

Professor J. B. Feuling, of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., next presented a paper on The Rime in Latin and Greek Poetry.”

This paper was prepared by the author with reference to a resolution of the Executive Committee adopted at the fourth annual meeting of this Association : “Resolved, That a section of Linguistic Pedagogics be established in this Association, to which section shall be referred for discussion all papers respecting methods of teaching,” etc.

The author stated that he would not have thought of bringing the subject before the Association if it were not for the entire neglect into which the rime seems to have fallen in the reading of Greek and Latin poetry. The view of Mr. George P. Marsh expressed in his Lectures on the English Language that it was a rule of both Greek and Latin composition to avoid all coincidences of sound, has caused undoubtedly this apparent neglect in the present generation.

The rime is found in its three-fold form, in the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of words; or, as the Germans call it, Anreim , Inreim, and Endreim. In Plautus we find the Anreim (alliteration) so frequently as to conclude that all verses which the poet wished to emphasize were adorned with alliterations. There seems to be no doubt that in early Roman poetry, which relied more on accent than on quantity, alliteration had a similar importance to that which it had in old Germanic poetry.

Through the influence of Greek models quantity gradually prevailed over accent, and with it alliteration lost its ground. In the later classical period we find the Anreim not so frequently as the Inreim and Endreim, but the latter frequently enough to lead us to suppose it was employed intentionally, although poetry had lost its popular character.

In Greek the vowel system is less corrupted than in Latin ; this fact was the cause of a greater variety of sounds which facilitated assonances and rimes so much that the poet felt obliged to avoid full Endreims lest his verse should become a jingle. Marsh’s explanation of the difference between Homer and Hesiod in regard to the occurrence of rimes that the more numerous critical revisions which the works of Homer passed through eliminated some instances of what to the Greek ear was offensive is an assumption which overlooks the fact that Anreim and Inreim occur more frequently in Homer than in Hesiod. In the fragments of the lyric poets, in Pindar, and in the dramatists, the Anreim and Inreim, without counting the Endreim, occur so frequently in significant passages as to convince us that the rime was employed as a foil to the meaning.

Professor Fisk P. Brewer, of Iowa College, Grinnell, Iowa, read the last paper of the evening, on “The Modern Greek Language in Cyprus.”



Proceedings of the

The speaker referred to the several collections recently made by Greek scholars of the folk lore of different localities, as Crete, Trebizonde, and Cyprus. In the latter island Professor A. A. Sakellarios, now of Athens, resided and taught for several years, and took down from the mouths of the people their proverbs and conundrums, their nursery songs and lays and tales in prose, the whole consti¬ tuting one hundred and seventy-three pages of vernacular Greek. The longer poems, some of them five hundred lines in length, occupy the first hundred pages of this book. They seem to have been composed at different periods, one of the earlier lays describing the capture of Cyprus by the Turks in 1571. Specimens of the minor verses were given, together with an outline of two of the prose tales. One of the latter had a resemblance to the old tale of the Attic tragedy respecting Oedipus and Jocasta.

The value of the collection is in the side-light it throws on the development of the language of ancient and modern Greece. This was illustrated especially by a discussion of the origin of the modern form of the verb to be in the third person. An earlier form, from which it was probably derived, is very common in Cyprus. Examples were given of ancient words retained among the common people, and of new words not used elsewhere in Greece.

The scholars of modern Greece were greatly commended for their diligence in collecting the facts respecting the present state of their language.

The Association thereupon stood adjourned to 9 o’clock Wednes¬ day morning.

Wednesday, July 11 Morning Session.

The Association resumed its session, the President in the chair. The Secretary reported the election of new members:

Rev. Cecil F. P. Bancroft, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. ; Mr. Porter C. Bliss, Editor of Library Table, New York City ; Rev. Richard E. Call, Mohawk, N. Y. ; Professor William R. Harper, Denison University, Granville, 0. ; Professor John B. Kieff'er, Mercersburg College, Mercersburg, Penn. ; Dr. Charles R. Lanman, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. ; Mr. R. F. Leighton, hoav in Leipzig, Germany; Mr. William A. Reynolds, Wilmington, Del.; Mr. W. E. Thompson, Genesee Wesleyan Seminary, Lima, N. Y. ; Professor A. B. Stark, Logan Female Institute, Russellville, Ky.

On recommendation of the Executive Committee, it was

Resolved, That the length of papers read before this Association be limited to thirty minutes, unless the time is extended by unanimous consent.

On motion, it was

Resolved, That this Association accepts, with thanks, the invitation to attend this evening a reception tendered to it by the Athenaeum Club.

American Philological Association.


On motion, it was

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the Chair to recommend a suitable time and place for the next meeting.

The President appointed as such committee, Dr. J. H. Trumbull, Professor C. H. Toy, Professor W. A. Stevens, Dr. George R. Entler, and Mr. T. C. Murray.

On motion, it was

Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed by the Chair to nominate officers , for the next year.

The President appointed as such committee, Professor W. W. Goodwin, President W. C. Cattell, Professor J. B. Feuling, Professor T. D. Seymour, and Professor W. B. Carr.

Professor Franklin Carter, of Yale College, read the first paper of the morning, on “The Yiews of Wilmanns] respecting the Authorship of the Nibelungenlied.”

Dr. Wilmanns (the successor of Simrock at Bonn) is a moderate Lachmannite, and has published a pamphlet Beitrdge zur ErJcldrung und Geschichte des Nibelungenlieds claiming to establish the composite origin of the great Middle- German classic from internal evidence. His previous success with the Gudrun in proving what the Germans call a “contamination” or combination of two or more separate versions in that poem, was so marked as to leave in the mind of any candid reader a firm belief in his originality and insight. The present brochure will not lessen the respect which the former inspired. Starting in the latter theme of the poem from two propositions which are probable (but which one may hesitate to admit as certain), he goes by sure and regular steps to the detection and exhibition of, first, an old original Rudegersdichtung, a composition in which Rudeger and Kriemhild are the main characters and Dieterich had as yet no share in the action. This was the old basis of the latter third of our poem. He claims, second, that a poem or a part of a poem in which Dank wart was the main hero, was incorporated with this Rudegersdichtung, and brought about certain changes in it and rendered connecting interpolated verses necessary. In other words a Dankwartsdichtung was interpolated in the Rudegersdichtung. He claims to establish, third, that another poem in which Iring was the main hero was also incorporated in the Rudegersdichtung, hut entirely independent of the insertion of the Dankwartsdichtung. Thus we should have R. and Da. for one form and R. and I. for another. But it is also plain to Wilmanns that the Dank- wart poet takes cognizance of the modifications of the Rudegersdichtung by the poet who introduced Dieterich, so that the one form would be R.-f- Di. -f- Da., and the other remaining as before R. + I., we have for our Nibelungenlied, at least for our theme of it, the contamination of R. -j- Di. -j- Da. with R. + 1.

Various steps in the analysis are open to criticism, but the main lines of proof (the premises being granted) are not easy to confute. Strong objections exist to some of Zarncke’s positions taken in the Literarisch.es Centralblatt against Wil-


Proceedings of the

manns. His reference of tlie inconsistencies of the poem to the peculiar style of the poet assumes the unitary individuality of the authorship and thus begs the whole question. The distinction between Laclimann’s lay theory and Wilmanns’s combination is ignored by Zarncke. The question lias been shifted by Wilmanns and the firing of the old guns is of little account. The artificial reasons in support of the Klirenherg hypothesis are seen to be unsub¬ stantial in the light of a searching analysis. In a decision between those reasons and Wilmanns’s steps the candid judge will accept the latter. But by reason of a want of absolute certainty in the premises, the exact lines of the versions cannot be insisted upon, and on this account it may be doubted whether Wil¬ manns’s little book will command the assent that it really deserves.

A paper by Professor F. D. Allen, of Mt. Auburn, Cincinnati, 0., on A certain apparently Pleonastic Use of <bc,” was read by Professor T. D. Seymour.

The paper related to the expressions og aXXog, og erepog, and cog avrog {oaavrog). After adverting to the unsatisfactory explanations hitherto current, the writer took the ground that the above phrases are simply the ablatives of 6 aXXog, 6 erepog and 6 avrog respectively, and mean strictly in the other manner,” in the same manner.” It is well known that the adverbs in -cog are in their origin simply the ablative case of their respective adjectives ; and it may well he that in these expressions cog is the ablative of the article 6, not, as commonly, that of the pronoun og. The use of the stem 6- for this adverb, in preference to the other article-stem to-, was illustrated by reference to the adverbs o-de and ovrog. The writer furthermore disapproved the form avrog still defended by Nauck and others, and contended that avrog (from avrbg) is the only correct spelling.

Professor W. W. Goodwin, of Harvard College, Cambridge, Mass., next read a paper on “The Text and Interpretation of certain passages of the Agamemnon of Aeschylus.”

The author remarked that it was wrong to suppose that no further light could be thrown on Aeschylus from inspection of the manuscripts, and instanced the reading to prj ’devat (for ro /ui) eidevai) in Agam. 1196, found by himself in Codex Venetus 616, where the necessary reading ro av dBevcu has been believed to be merely a conjecture of modern scholars. See Hermann, who says “omnes to p’ elbevai.” So late editors of the Agamemnon doubt whether iropdelv or 7 Todstv is the reading of Cod. Flor. in vs. 342 ; but nodelv, which is adopted by Hermann chiefly on the authority of this MS., is found in no MS. at all, and the Cod. Flor. (like all the others) has plainly rcopdelv.

The passages of the Agamemnon which were discussed are the following :

1. Yss. 105, 106: en yap OeoBev Karanveiet ttecBo poi) \nav, aknav gvpcpvrog alov. This reading of the MSS. was defended against the common emendations po'k-Kav and akica.

2. Vss. 249-254. Here the reading of the MSS. was defended against the modern substitutions, which can hardly be called emendations. The reading- advocated was :

American Philological Association.


tibia tie rolg pev Tradovoiv padeiv emppiner to peXhov ti’ sir el yevoix’ av iclvotg' rrpoxaipeTcv laov til t (J TrpocrevEiV. ropov yap rj^u cvvopOov avfaig.

This is the original reading of the Medicean MS., with the addition of ti- after peXAov, and the obvious correction h ret yevoiT (as other MSS. have it) for em ye pop- The fac-simile of the Codex Mediceus, published by Merkel at Oxford in 1871, gives rb peMov to tie npoKlveiv ’em yevoiT av kA voig, k. t. h. But to tie TTpoiiAvecv with the preceding colon is inserted by a later hand with different ink. The position of av with n'Avotg1 although preceded by the inserted clause h vel yevoiT is amply defended by such passages as Arist. Pac. 137 : aXA\ w pe\\ av pot (utUvv tinrAav etiei. No valid objection can be brought against ovvopOov (cf. avopdog , ’popOog), which as an aira^ eipppevov is not singular in Aeschylus. (See 6, below.) There is great force, finally, in the emphatic ai/Taig , at £he end of a passage which is chiefly parenthetic, recurring to the solemn expression (vs. 248) Texvai tie K aAxavTog ova cinpavToi. The whole passage may be freely rendered thus (from vs. 247) : “But what followed I saw not, and I speak not of it. I do say, however, that the prophetic arts of Calchas cannot fail to bring fulfilment (i. e. the vague horrors of Calchas’s prediction in vss. 147-155 must surely be realized). But [it is only by actual experience that we shall ever know what is to be the penalty for the sacrifice of Iphigenia, for] Justice brings knowl¬ edge within the reach of those [only] who have suffered (ncidei paOog) ; but the future you can hear of when it comes ; before that bid it farewell, and this is as well as to lament it beforehand ; [and one or the other we must do] for it will come clear and plain, in exact accordance with those (i. e. the forebodings of Calchas).”

3. In vs. 942 vinr/v Tr/vtie was understood to mean that kind of ving, referring scornfully and sarcastically to to vtKaadat in vs. 941, as if via t] could be the equivalent of to vmaciOai as well as of to viimv , as Ttph is equivalent to both rd Ttpav and to TtpaaOai. This interpretation, which is essentially that adopted by Paley, was defended against that advocated by Kennedy in a recent number of the Philological Journal.

4. In the difficult passage vss. 1025-1029, which can hardly be said to be interpreted at all by most of the explanations, notice was called to the strong antithesis of poipa and polpav, which gives the meaning : “But did not one fate appointed by the Gods hinder another (fate appointed by the Gods) from secur¬ ing more than its due.” This seems to point to a doctrine of “interference” of two lines of fate, by which either may be checked or balanced in a course which would, if unhindered, prove too destructive. This last desperate hope is all that the chorus can now see to warrant them in longer restraining their feelings vi rb <JKOT(p.

5. In vs. 1347, aXha KOivuauped’ av nug actyahfj (tiovAevpara^ the MS. reading av 7 rug (for eav tv cog, sc. ?/) was defended, the meaning being “But let us take counsel together, in case there may be any safe plans (for us to adopt),” or But, if any safe counsels shall occur to us, let us impart them to one another.” The latter gives essentially the same idea, without emendation, as Hermann’s av'nug1 for a av 7 rag (see Paley ’s note and translation).


Proceedings of the

6. In vs. 1599, (p/uuijev, a/nviTCTeL S’ arch ctyayijg kpojv (vulg. kfi&v), it was contended that the MS. reading kptiv should be retained, the simple kpacj, in the sense of vomit, being amply supported by the compounds k^epau, arrepaco, etc., though it does not elsewhere occur.

Professor W. I). Whitney, of Yale College, then read a paper on “The Principle of Economy as a Phonetic Force.”

The tendency to economy of effort, or ease of utterance, has long been recog¬ nized as the dominant, if not the exclusively governing force in the phonetic changes of language. But, as is apt to be the case with such things, there is, on the one hand, an inclination on the part of some to make an improper use of the law, applying it in an artificial and mechanical way to the explanation of phe¬ nomena; and, on the other hand, by a natural reaction, some are beginning to doubt or deny the prevalence of any such law. Professor Whitney’s paper was an attempt to correct both these tendencies, by defining more strictly the law in question, by pointing out the classes of facts already fully explained by it, as well as the remnant for which it is not yet made to account, and by showing the consistency of the law with all that we know thus far of the nature and history of language, and the extreme improbability that any other law of phonetic growth will be established in any degree whatever comparable with it. In the present imperfect state of our comprehension of linguistic facts, it would be premature to claim that everything is to be referred to this law ; but there is also no reason for yet declaring any problematical phenomena inconsistent with it and proving it inoperative.

Professor C. K. Nelson, of St. John’s College, Annapolis, Md., presented a paper on Semitic Studies, especially as Illustrated in Hebrew, and their Relation to Modem Philology.”

Professor B. L. G-iidersleeve, of Johns Hopkins University, next read a paper entitled “Personal Reminiscences of Friedrich Ritschl.”

In an association which numbers among its members devoted pupils of Ritschl, some mention should be made of the loss which not only classical philology but ideal philology, I may say, has sustained since we last met. Full of years, full of honors, but full of sorrows and sufferings as well, the master has passed away and left us rich with the record of his long and active and brilliant career, but poor by the loss of an incomparable teacher, of a gracious and loving friend. The philologian Ritschl, the great Latinist, the restorer of Plautus, the leader of Roman epigraphy, the keen critic, the unwearied student, a model to the last in his generous acquisition of new truth, of all these things others better fitted than I am have spoken ; and recognizing the impertinence of praising a man who is above my praise, I am content to be silent of matters in which laudation would presuppose a right of judgment. But of Ritschl the teacher, Ritschl the friend, the humblest of his pupils and his friends has the right to speak. Germany has many learned men, and he who seeks learning there will not easily go astray ; but after a longer sojourn he will find as he looks back that only

American Philological Association.


a few have been teachers to him. Of all mine and I count among them Bockh with his regal sway over Hellenism, K. E. Hermann with his fervid copiousness of thought and illustration, Schneiderrin with his subtle appreciation of the Greek tongue Ritschl made the deepest and most abiding impression. I first knew him in the time of his full vigor, at an age when enthusiasm and insight are oftenest found in beautiful balance ; and while he never declined, but retained his power to the last, it seems to me that it was a privilege to have seen him when the glory of his achievements was fresh about his head, and when the school which he founded was aglow with its recent consecration. The atmosphere of his auditorium was an atmosphere of life. In other lecture-rooms it was possible to doze, and the drowsy stream of learning would trickle through the ear and the arm into the pen down to the paper, and the somnolent student might wake up at the end astonished at the vast amount of erudition which had been thus fixed in black and white. But no such lazy note-taking was possible in Bits chi’s lecture-room, and indeed he had a sovereign contempt for the textual repetition of his every word. The traditional deification of the heft had no hold on Ritsclil’s discipline, as the master himself had no reverence for the published notes on the lectures of professors, no matter how worthy the professors may have been. The lecture was to stimulate, to impregnate, not simply to present a congeries of facts ; and valuable as was the new material which Ritschl set forth, it was his method of combination and presentation, the scientific spirit, the earnestness and ardor of his delivery that made his lectures so memorable. To follow one of his arguments was to watch the advance of a flying column ; it had all the inspira¬ tion of a battle, the flush of a triumph. His work was everywhere thorough, everywhere clean in style. Cum pulvisculo exhaurire was one of his favorite expressions. Exhaustive thoroughness in research, and sharp, clear, nervous expression of result are rarely paired as they were in him. A healthy model as well as an inspiring. But what shall I say of the divining-rod with which he revealed the springs of life within each pupil? To be with such a man was to become conscious of a higher scientific purpose ; to listen to his kind words of encouragement was to rise to a sense of a noble vocation. Ritschl’s life has many lessons for us all. He was the model of a classical philologian and the model of a university teacher, but the great lesson of all is the great lesson of the one most perfect life led on earth. He loved his work, he loved those who worked with him, and when I think of the stilted bearing of so many inferior men, the professional stiffness of so many who are nothing