δὲ βοῶν ἐπάσαντ' ἀροτήρων, on which the scholiast remarks ἀσεβὲς évai édókeι Tov ȧpórηy σpáşaı.1 Germanicus translates, Aratea 136, ειναι ἐδόκει τὸν ἀρότην σφάξαι. Polluit et taurus mensas adsuetus aratro. Varro, R. R. 2, 5, 4, says, "hic socius hominum in rustico opere et Cereris minister, ab hoc antiqui manus ita abstineri voluerunt ut capite sanxerint, si quis occidisset, qua in re testis Attice, testis Peloponnesos, nam ab hoc pecore Athenis Buzuges nobilitatus, Argis homogyros".? Cf. Pliny, N. H. 8, 180, socium enim laboris agrique culturae habemus hoc animal tantae apud priores curae, ut sit inter exempla damnatus a populo Romano die dicta qui concubinae procaci rure omassum edisse se negante occiderat bovem, actusque in exilium tamquam colono suo interempto". I write sakrufikiod with u rather than i because this seems to have been the earlier form; cf. George's Lex. der Lat. Wortformen under sacrificium and sacrificare. Neither word occurs in Vol. I1 of the Corpus. For ƒ of course FH may have been written as in the Numasios inscription. So too in Poplifugiod. = I have That lovestod iusto is now generally conceded. pointed out in Harvard Studies (XI, 163) that the gloss of Paulus, p. 74, iovistae compositum a Jove et iustae, shows that such a form was not unknown to ancient grammarians. Iustum sacrificium is used by Servius (Dan.), A. III 279," ergo quoniam non ad iustum sacrificium Iovem invocaverint, ideo illi piaculum solvunt". Macrobius, S. 3, 11, 7, uses iusta libatio. Cicero, N. D. III 38, has "Iustitia quae suum cuique distribuit "; Cicero, De Leg. 2, 30, iustae religionis; Suetonius, Cluad. 21, iustum atque legitimum (munus). Cato, Agr. 139, in a formula manifestly old, has "si deus, si dea es, quoium illud sacrum est, uti tibi ius est porco piaculo facere" etc. I take iustum in the sense of the Greek vóμμov, by which it is glossed, Corp. Gl. II 336, 38 and 396, 57, or in the sense of кaðñкov. Plus iusto3 is glossed, Corp. Gl. II 152, 38, Πλέον τοῦ καθήκοντος. I shall content myself with citing only a few examples in point from Greek inscriptions: ZP. II, n. 48, l. 16, ó đè θυσιάζων τῇ ἑβδόμῃ τὰ καθήκοντα πάντα ποιείτωι τῶι θεῶν, followed immediately by λαμβανέτωι δὲ τῆς θυσίας ἧς ἂν φέρῃ σκέλος καὶ ὦμον, nefas putabant". See Sueton., Dom. 9, and compare Bovoóve, Homeric Hymns, Hermes 436, with the comment of Allen and Sykes in their edition (London, 1904). 1 Cf. von Prott and Stengel, Rhein. Mus. 52, 198, n. 2, and 409. 2 Wilamovitz (Hermes 37, 307) emends to bomagiros. 3 Cf. Sidonius, Epist. 3, 3, 9, iusto plusculum. 271 τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ κατακοπτέτωι ἐν τῶν ἱερῶι; in the same insc., 1. 9, παρέχειν δὲ καὶ τῷ θεῷ τὸ καθῆκον, and l. 23, ὁμοίως δὲ παρέξουσιν οἱ ἐρανισταὶ τὰ καθήκοντα τῶι θεῶι; CIA. II 1, 622, καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς θυσίας ἃς καθῆκεν θύειν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κοινοῦ; ZΡ. II, n. 129, VI 9, παρέξει δὲ καὶ στεφάνος τοῖς ἥρωσι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τὰ ποτὶ τὰν θυσίαν πάντα καὶ καρπώσει τά τε ἐκ τοῦ ἱερείου νομιζόμενα ἱερά; and just before τοῖς θεοῖς τὰ τε ἐκ τοῦ ἱερείου νενομισμένα ἱερά, ΖΡ. II, n. 48, θύειν τοὺς γεωργοὺς καὶ τοὺς προσχώρους τοῖν θεοῖν ἦι θέμις καὶ τὰς μοίρας νέμειν; ΖΡ. ΙΙ, n. 46, 1. 113, ὁ ἱερεὺς δὲ ἐπιτελείτω τὰς ἐθίμους λιτουργίας ; ΖΡ. II, n. 7, 1. 10, κατὰ τὰ ἀρχαῖα νόμιμα; 1. 24, ὅπως μηδέποτε τοῦτο ἐκλειφθείη μηδὲ ὀλιγωρηθείη ποτὲ τὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας; ΖΡ. ΙΙ, n. 28, 1. 9, ὁμόσαντας τὸν νόμιμον ὅρκον. Cf. Dionysius, I 24, εἰ δὲ δὴ καὶ τούτων λάβοιεν τὴν δικαίαν μοῖραν and τους τε θεοῖς τὰ δίκαια ὑπουργεῖν ἀξιοῦντες. Thurneysen, Rhein. Mus. 56, 162, has already accepted the reading loiguiod and connected it with linguere, λοιπός. He even suggests that it may refer to the remains of a sacrifice. I take it of course as a verbal adjective like capios. For the o compare λοιπός, λέλοιπα, Socius, gomia. Walde derives the perfect liqui from loigui. Reliquiae (sc. partes) is probably itself a verbal adjective formed like eximius. The Greek inscriptions furnish some striking parallels to the use of loiquiod, except that the Greeks usually mention the gods first, and then the share left for mortals. Compare ZP. II, n. 58, 1. 96 (a very important long inscription from Andania of the early part of the first century B. C.), Ἱεροῦ δείπνου. οἱ ἱεροὶ ἀπὸ τῶν θυμάτων τῶν ἀγομένων ἐν τῶι πομπᾶι ἀφελόντες ἀφ' ἑκάστου τὰ νόμιμα (= iustod) τοῖς θεοῖς τὰ λοιπὰ κρέα καταχρησάσθωσαν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν δεῖπνον; ΖP. II, n. 131, 1. 27 (I give as restored by ZΡ.), τὰ δὲ κρέα δίδοσθαι τοῖς θύσασι ἀφαιρεθέντων[ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν τῶν νομιζομένων = sakrufkiod iovestod loiquiod. ZP. supports the restoration by references to n. 156, v. 41, and n. 180, v. 7 (not yet published), and n. 144, C, l. 26 sqq., ἀφαιρεῖν δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἱερείων ἅ ἂν δοκῆι καλῶς ἔχειν ἐπὶ τὴν τράπεζαν τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς πᾶσι ὅσα ἐστ [. . . .] τῶν ἱερείων χράσθω ὁ τὸν γάμον ποιῶν. I would also call attention to ZP. II, n. 129, VI, 1. 14, οἱ δὲ ἐπιμήνιοι οἱ θύοντες τὰς θυσίας ταύτας ἀποδωσοῦντι τῶι κοινῶι τός This would be of course the earliest example of the Ablative Absolute. The construction is disputed for the Twelve Tables (see ALL. 13, 272) but seems to be Italic, being found in Oscan and Umbrian (see Conway, Italic Dialects, p. 50r) and in the Paelignian aetatu firata fertlid (see Thurneysen, Rhein. Mus. 43, 350). τε ἐλλύτας πάντας καὶ τῶν σπλάγχνων τὰ ἡμίση, τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ ἑξοῦντι αυτοί. ὁ δὲ ἀρτυτὴρ διελεῖ τὰ ἱερὰ τοῖς παροῦσι; and to the use of ὑπολειπόμενα by Suidas under κωλοκρέται, ὅτι νόμος ἦν τὰ ὑπολειπόμενα τῆς θυσίας τοὺς ἱερέας λαμβάνειν ἃ εἶσιν οἷον δέρματα καὶ κωλαῖ. Compare also Hesychius, θεωμορία, ἀπαρχή . θυσία ἢ ὁ λαμβάνουσιν οἱ ἱερεῖς κρέας, ἐπειδὰν θύηται . θεοῦ μοίρα. To sum up, my restoration of lines 10-16 is as follows: poplifug]IOD IO (vei) VXMEN 3 VELOD NEQV[e skelos estod I supply, as the subject of datod, rex, which, as will be seen, I make the subject of the last clause in the preceding inscription. No one can realize more fully than I how doubtful are some of the particular words which I have supplied. Other supplements have occurred to me, but I have given those which seem to me most probable and best supported by inscriptional evidence. While certainty in detail is unattainable, I trust that on the inscription as a whole I have succeeded in shedding some light, and have pointed out the way by which perhaps eventually a more definite solution may be reached. 1 Mistake for DATOD. MINTON WARREN. 2 = Territori. 3 Perhaps for VOLED. II. LATIN vs. GERMANIC MODAL CONCEPTIONS. Mr. Jespersen' in a recent plea for greater independence in the methods of modern philology, found heart to deprecate the baneful influence of the Latinist's methods upon the philologist who deals with modern languages. His was not the only protest of this nature. The prefaces of Germanic philological works seem to be incomplete at present unless some such warning 2 appears. The protest is no doubt called for; I would by no means deny its timeliness, though I still hope that the division of labor Jespersen desires will not also lead to an ignorance of the many good suggestions which may come from a sane comparison of languages. The fault, however, does not lie on one side alone. It will be necessary here in calling attention to the relationship of Germanic to Latin problems of syntax to point out an equally baneful influence upon the Latin problems that has emanated from the Germanic workshop. My purpose in doing so is of course not simply to retort with a senseless "tu quoque" to the protest that I have cited, but rather to call attention to a danger which seems in no slight degree to affect the methods of classical philologists. The danger to the grammarian of modern languages which Mr. Jespersen has pointed out, as well as the converse danger that I shall attempt to indicate, comes from an unscientific employment of the comparative method. Now this danger will always be present, for all science is monistic. Scientific classification is ultimately satisfied with nothing short of an allcomprehending systematization of all the related facts with which it deals; in the syntax of the Indo-European languages this means so far as possible an attempt to group the constructions of all the Indo-European languages into one comprehensive scheme. The almost insuperable' difficulties contained in such a program 1 Englische Studien, 35, pp. 7-12. 2Cf. e. g. Behagel: Syntax des Heliand (preface); Wunderlich: Der Deutsche Satzbau, p. 259; Behagel: Gebrauch der Zeitformen, p. 157 "So sehr also stehen unsere Grammatiker unter dem Bann der lateinischen Syntax". The attempt is not hopeless when we take into consideration modal and case forms, as well as the idiomatic forms; for these often prove very stable and tend to restrain the meanings from ranging too widely. should be evident at once. Syntax deals primarily with semantics. Semantic changes depend very largely upon the caprices of psychology, and even the most positive empiricist does not claim an ability to formulate the laws of thought. The morphological changes involved in the history of words like Gk. ønyós, Lat. fagus ; Goth. boka; book, follow laws that are fairly well understood. The trained philologist if told that the changes were regular could give the series pretty accurately on the basis of any one of them. However, he would find it quite a hopeless task to give the meanings of the cognates in the series on the basis of any one of them. They happen to be about as follows; Gk., "oak"; Lat., "beech"; Goth., "letter of the alphabet"; Eng., "book". We may attempt ex post facto to explain the semantic changes here involved, but we have not been able to formulate laws to account for those changes.' Such are the difficulties involved in attempting a science of comparative syntax if it be based upon function alone. Yet syntacticians persist in comparing constructions as to function, speaking e. g. of the Indo-European subjunctives of conditions, indirect discourse, and the potential optative, etc. I shall not condemn such comparisons; I shall only indicate in brief how the modal treatment of Latin, for example, has suffered from categories imposed by conceptions gained in daily intercourse with, and study of the Germanic languages. 1 At times while the morphological changes are quite regular the meaning remains quite unchanged throughout, as in the case of gamya-te, Baívw, venio, qima, "come". 'Mr. Gildersleeve has repeatedly called attention to the danger of loose comparisons, cf. A. J. P. XXIII, p. 133. See too the law laid down and repeatedly emphasized by Wood regarding the semasiological possibilities of words. In A. J. P. Vol. XX, pp. 254, ff, he shows the great danger of connecting words on the ground of similarity in meaning only. If such caution is needed in treating words, certainly as great caution is needed in syntactical study where the underlying morphological bases are more fickle. Cf. the converse law, A. J. P. Vol. XIX, p. 40, ff. In a recent paper entitled "A Century of Metaphysical Syntax," Mr. Hale has sketched the influence of Kantian categories upon Latin syntactical terminology. The influence was certainly strong. I would suggest however, that the categories would hardly have been adopted so readily nor retained so persistently had not the vernacular of the grammarians who used them afforded so much apparent support for them. In fact the early German grammarians seem occasionally to have reached such distinctions quite apart from the influence of Wolff and Kant. E. g. Adelung, Lehrgebäude der |