You are on page 1of 17


THE HISTORICAL METHOD I. Language as History. The scientific grammar is at bottom a grammatical history, an not a ling!istic la"#boo$% The seat of a!thority in lang!age is therefore not the boo$s abo!t lang!age, b!t the &eo&le "ho !se the lang!age% The ma'ority of "ell# e !cate &eo&le etermine correct !sage (the mos loquendi as Horace says)% E*en mo ern ictionaries merely recor from time to time the changing &henomena of lang!age% +olff "as right "hen he concei*e of &hilology as the ,biogra&hy of a nation%- The life of a &eo&le is e.&resse in the s&eech "hich they !se%/ +e can "ell agree "ith 0enfey1 that ,s&eech is the tr!est &ict!re of the so!l of a &eo&le, the content of all that "hich has bro!ght a &eo&le to self#conscio!sness%- Ho"e*er, "e m!st not thin$ that "e can necessarily arg!e race from lang!age%2 The historical conce&tion of grammar has ha to "in its "ay against the &!rely theoretical an s&ec!lati*e notion% Etymology "as the "or$ of the &hiloso&hers% The st! y of the forms, the synta., the ialects came later% The "or$ of the rians "as originally &hilology, not scientific grammar%3 (a) COM0I4I45 THE 6ARIO7S ELEME4TS % It is not in ee easy to combine &ro&erly the *ario!s elements in the st! y of lang!age% Sayce consi ers Steinthal too &sychological an Schleicher too &hysical%8 The historical element m!st be a e to both% Pa!l9 ob'ects to the &hrase ,&hiloso&hy of lang!age- as s!ggesting ,meta&hysical s&ec!lations of "hich the historical in*estigation of lang!age nee s to ta$e no co!nt%1 See Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 9 f. 2 Kleinere Schr., 1892, 2. Bd., 4. A t., p. !1. " See Sayce, #rin. of $o%p. #hilol., 18&!, p. 1&! f. 4 See Kret'ch%er, Einl% in ie 5esch% er griech% S&r%, 189(, pp. 2, ". Sayce SA)$*, A. +., ,ntroduction to the Science of Language -1880.. ///, Language -*ncyc. Brit., 11th ed., 1910.. ///, #rinciple' of $o%parati0e #hilology -18&!.. Steinthal S1*,21+AL, +., 5eschichte er S&rach"iss% bei en 5riech% !n R:mern% 1% A!fl% -189031891.. ///, ,ntroduction to the #'ychology and Science of Language -1900.. Schleicher S$+L*,$+*4, A., Com&en i!m % *ergl% 5r% % in og% S&rachen% 3% A!fl% -18&(.. ! #rin. of $o%p. #hilol., p. 50i. #aul #A6L, +., #rinciple' of the +i'tory of Language -1888.. 1r. ( #rin. of the +i't. of Lang., 1888, p. 55i. 71he truth i' that the 'cience of 8hich 8e are thin9ing i' philo'ophy in the 'a%e 8ay a' phy'ic' or phy'iology i' philo'ophy, neither %ore, nor le''.:

He &refers the term ,science of &rinci&les%- The st! y of lang!age is a tr!e science, a real &hiloso&hy, "ith a &sychical as "ell as a &hysical basis% It is &ro&erly relate to the historical nat!ral sciences "hich ha*e been s!b'ect ,to the mis irecte attem&t at! ing them from the circle of the sciences of c!lt!re%-/ Lang!age is ca&able of almost &erfect scientific treatment% ;retschmer1 o!tlines as mo ern a *ances o*er ancient grammar the &sychological treatment of lang!age, the &hysiology of so!n , the !se of the com&arati*e metho , the historical e*elo&ment of the lang!age, the recognition of s&eech as a &ro !ct of h!man c!lt!re, an not to be se&arate from the history of c!lt!re, "orl #history an life of the &eo&les% He thin$s that no lang!age has yet recei*e s!ch treatment as this, for &resent# ay han boo$s are only ,s&eech# &ict!res,- not ,s&eech#histories%(b) PRACTICAL 5RAMMAR A COMPROMISE % Historical &ractical grammars ha*e to ma$e a com&romise% They can gi*e the "hole *ie" only in o!tline an sho" e*elo&ment an interrelation in &art% It is not &ossible then to "rite the final grammar of 5ree$ either ancient or mo ern% The mo ern is constantly changing an "e are e*er learning more of the ol % +hat "as tr!e of Mistriotes2 an <annaris3 "ill be tr!e of the attem&ts of all% 0!t none the less the "ay to st! y 5ree$ is to loo$ at it as a history of the s&eech# e*elo&ment of one of the greatest of &eo&les% 0!t it is at least &ossible no"

1 #rin. of the +i't. of Lang., 1888, p. 550ii. See ;on 6lrich<' 5r!n l% !n 5esch% er Philol%, 1892, p. 22= 7=! er "issenschaftlichen 5rammati$ gesellt sich ie historische 0etracht!ng% Sie !nterschei et ie Perio isier!ng er S>t?e *on eren loser 6er$n@&f!ng, ie "echseln e 0e e!t!ng er Parti$eln, en 5ebra!ch er Mo i !n Tem&ora, ie erfahr!ngsm>Aig festgestellten Regeln er Synta., en S&rachgebra!ch er Schriftsteller .: On the 'cientific 'tudy of the >9. language '9etched hi'torically 'ee ?ac9ernagel, Die ;!lt% er 5egen"%, Tl% I, Abt% 8, pp. "143"1(. Kret'ch%er K4*1S$+@*4, #., Die Einl% in ie 5eschichte er griech% S&rache -190(.. ///, Die Entsteh!ng er -SitA. er. d. ?ien. A9ad., 1900.. ///, Die griech% 6aseninschriften ihrer S&rache nach !nters!cht -1894.. 2 Einl% in ie 5esch% er griech% S&r%, pp. "3!. +e hi%'elf here %erely outline' the hi'torical ac9ground of the >9. language. " " , ! "! #$ %#&'" (! ), 1894, p. (. Bannari' BA22A4,S, A. 2., A +i'torical >ree9 >ra%%ar -189&.. ///, On the 1rue @eaning of the -$la''. 4e0., 190", pp. 9" ff... 4 7A' a %atter of cour'e, , do not pre'u%e to ha0e 'aid the la't 8ord on all or %o't of the'e point', 'eeing that, e0en in the ca'e of %odern >9., , cannot e e5pected to %a'ter, in all it' detail', the entire 0oca ulary and gra%%ar of e0ery 'ingle 2eohellenic dialect.: +i't. >9. >r., 189&, p. 5.

to ha*e the right attit! e, than$s to the boo$s alrea y mentione an others by 0 ernhar y,8 Christ,/ +!n t,1 <ohannsen,2 ;r!mbacher,3 Schan?,8 5% Meyer,9 I% M@ller,B Hirt,C T h!mb,D Dieterich,/E Steinthal%// The Latin synta. recei*e historical treatment by Lan graf,/1 not to mention English an other mo ern lang!ages% II. Language as a Living Organism. (a) THE ORI5I4 OF LA457A5E % S&eech is in ee a characteristic of man an may be consi ere a i*ine gift, ho"e*er slo"ly the gift "as "on an e*elo&e by him%/2 Sayce is !n o!bte ly correct in saying that lang!age is a social creation an the effort to comm!nicate is the only tr!e sol!tion of the ri le of s&eech, "hether there "as e*er a
Bernhardy B*42+A4C), >., +issenschaftliche Synta. er griechischen S&rache -1829.. ! +issensch% Synt% er griech% S&r%, 1829. $hri't $+4,S1, ?., 5eschichte er griech% Literat!r bis a!f ie =eit <!stinians% 3% A!fl% (/DE8)% 8% A!fl% -191".. 1 5esch% er griech% Lit%, 189". ?undt ?62C1, 6:l$er&sychologie% 1% A!fl% -1904.. ". Aufl. -1911 f... 2 ;Dl9erp'ychol., 1900, 2% A!fl%, 1911 f. " 0eitr% ?!r griech% S&rach$%, 1890. Kru% acher K46@BA$+*4, K., 0eitr>ge ?! einer 5eschichte er griech% S&rache -Kuhn<' Eeit'chr., 188!, pp. 4813!4!.. ///, Das Problem % ne!griech% Schrifts&rache -1902.. ///, Das Programm es ne!en Thesa!r!s % griech% S&r% -1909.. ///, Die griech% Lit% es Mittelalters -;!lt!r % 5egen"art, Tl% I, Abt% 0iii, 190!.. 4 0eitr% ?! einer 5esch% er griech% S&r%, 188!. SchanA S$+A2E, @., 0eitr>ge ?!r histor% Synta. % griech% S&rache -1882/.. ! 0eitr% ?!r hist% Synt% er griech% S&r%, 0 % ,3F;,,. @eyer @*)*4, >., 5riech% 5rammati$% 2% A!fl% -189(.. ( Ess% !n St! % ?!r S&rachgesch% !n 6ol$s$%, 0 % ,, ,,, 188!, 189". @Gller @HLL*4, ,., +and uch d. 9la''. Altertu%'8i''en'chaft -188!/.. & Han b% er Altert!ms"iss. +e edit' the 'erie' -1890/.. +irt +,41, +., Han b!ch er griech% La!t# !n Formenlehre (/DE1)% 1% A!fl% -1912.. 8 Han b% er griech% La!t# !n Formenl% Eine Einf@hr% in as s&rach"iss% St! % es 5riech%, /DE1, 1% A!fl%, 1912.

s&eechless man or not% ,5rammar has gro"n o!t of gest!re an gestic!lation%-/3 0!t s&eech has not create the ca&acities "hich mar$ the ci*ili?e man as higher than the sa*age%/8 Ma. M@ller remar$s that ,lang!age forms an im&assable barrier bet"een man an beast%- 5ro"ls an signs o not constit!te ,intellect!al symbolism%-/9 Pa!l in ee , in o&&osition to La?ar!s an Steinthal, !rges that ,e*ery ling!istic creation is al"ays the "or$ of a single in i*i !al only%-/B The &sychological organisms are in fact the tr!e me ia of ling!istic e*elo&ment% Self#obser*ation an analogy hel& one to stri$e a general a*erage an so ma$e grammar &ractical as "ell as scientific% (b) E6OL7TIO4 I4 LA457A5E % 5ro"th, then, is to be e.&ecte in a li*ing tong!e% Change is inse&arable from life% 4o lang!age is ea so long as it is !n ergoing change, an this m!st be tr!e in s&o$en an "ritten !sage% It is not the f!nction of the
1hu% 1+6@B, A., Die Forsch% @ber ie hellen% S&r% in en <ahren 190231904 -Arch. f. #ap. ", pp. 44"3 4&".. ///, Die griech% S&rache im =eitalter es Hellenism!s -1901.. ///, Die s&rachgesch% Stell% es bibl% 5riech% -1heol. 4und., 1902.. ///, Han b!ch er griech% Cial. -1909.. ///, Han b!ch % ne!griech% 6ol$ss&rache% 1% A!fl% -1910.. ///, Han b!ch es Sans$rits. ,, >ra%%ati9 -190!.. ///, 7nters% @ber % S&% As&er im 5riech% -1889.. 9 Die griech% S&r% im =eitalter es Hellen% , 1901. Cieterich C,*1*4,$+, K., 7nters!ch!ngen ?!r 5eschichte er S&rache *on er hellen% =eit bis ?!m 10. Bahrh. n. $hr. -1898.. 10 7nters!ch% ?!r 5esch% er griech% S&r%, 1898. 11 5esch% er S&rach"iss% bei en 5riech% !n R:m%, Tl% ,, ,,, 1891. 12 Hist% 5r% er lat% S&r%, 190". $f. Stol? !n Schmal?, Lat% 5r%, 3% A!fl%, 1910I Craeger, Hist% Synt% er lat% S&r%, 0 % ,, ,,, 18&8, 1881I Lind'ay, 1he Lat. Lang., 1894. ,n Bd. ,,, of Landgraf<' >r., >olling 'ay' -p. 2. that Latin >ra%%ar a' a 'tudy i' due to the Stoic' 8ho did it 7in der eng'ten ;er indung %it der Logi9.: $f. origin of >9. >r. 1" See ?hitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 18(8, p. "99. 14 Sayce, ,ntr. to the Sci. of Lang., 0ol. ,,, p. "01. 1! ?hitney, Car8ini'% and Lang., 4eprint fro% 2orth A%. 4e0., Buly, 18&4. @Gller @HLL*4, @AF, 1hree Lecture' on the Science of Language -1891.. 1( 1hree Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 9. See al'o 1he Sile'ian +or'eJherd= 7Language and thought go hand in handI 8here there i' a' yet no 8ord, there i' a' yet no idea.: @any of the 8riter' on ani%al' do not accept thi' doctrine.

grammarian to sto& change in lang!age, a thing im&ossible in itself% S!ch change is not !s!ally cataclysmic, b!t gra !al an *arie % ,A "ritten lang!age, to ser*e any &ractical &!r&ose, m!st change "ith the times, '!st li$e a li*ing ialect%-/ In general, change in !sage may be com&are to change in organic str!ct!re in ,greater or lesser fitness%-1 The changes by analogy in the s&eech of chil ren are *ery s!ggesti*e on this &oint% The *ocab!lary of the 5ree$ tong!e m!st therefore contin!ally e*elo&, for ne" i eas eman ne" "or s an ne" meanings come to ol "or s% Li$e"ise inflections *ary in res&onse to ne" mo*ements% This change brings great "ealth an *ariety% The i ea of &rogress has sei?e the mo ern min an has been a&&lie to the st! y of lang!age as to e*erything else% (c) CHA45E CHIEFLG I4 THE 6ER4AC7LAR % Ling!istic change occ!rs chiefly in the *ernac!lar% From the s&o$en lang!age ne" "or s an ne" inflections "or$ their "ay gra !ally into the "ritten style, "hich is essentially conser*ati*e, sometimes e*en anachronistic an &!r&osely archaic% M!ch slang is finally acce&te in the literary style% The st! y of grammar "as originally confine to the artificial boo$#style% Dionysi!s Thra. e.&ressly efine grammar as " * !+ , -% . ", / #&% It "as "ith him a concern for the &oets an "riters, not , ie S&rache es Lebens%-2 5rammar (, 0%&), then, "as first to "rite an to !n erstan "hat "as "rittenH then the scientific inter&retation of this literat!reH later the st! y of literary ling!istic !sage% It is only the mo erns "ho ha*e learne to in*estigate the li*ing s&eech for its o"n historical *al!e% 0efore the isco*ery of the 5ree$ inscri&tions the istinction bet"een the *ernac!lar an the literary style co!l not be so shar&ly ra"n for the 5ree$ of the classical &erio , tho!gh Aristo&hanes sho!l ha*e ta!ght !s m!ch% +e ha*e mo*e a"ay from the &osition of M!re/ "ho sai I ,The istinction bet"een the lang!age of letters an the *!lgar tong!e, so characteristic of mo ern ci*ili?ation, is im&erce&tible or b!t little efine in the flo!rishing age of 5reece% 4!mero!s &ec!liarities in her social con ition ten e to constit!te classical e.&ression in s&ea$ing or "riting, not, as "ith !s, the &ri*ilege of a fe", b!t a &!blic &ro&erty in "hich e*ery Hellene ha an eJ!al interest%- The &eo&le as a "hole "ere "on erf!lly "ell e !cate , b!t the e !cate classes themsel*es then, as no" "ith !s, !se a s&o$en as "ell as a literary style% <annaris1 is clear on this &ointI ,0!t, s&ea$ing of Attic 5ree$, "e m!st not infer that all Athenians an Attici?e 5ree$s "rote an s&o$e the classical Attic &ortraye in the aforesai literat!re, for this Attic is essentially "hat it still remains in mo ern 5ree$ com&ositionI a merely historical abstraction; that is, an artistic lang!age "hich nobo y s&o$e b!t still e*erybo y !n erstoo %- +e m!st note therefore both the *ernac!lar an the literary style an e.&ect constant change in each, tho!gh not in the same egree% =arnc$e in ee still so!n s a note of "arning
1& #rin. of the +i't. of Lang., p. 5liii. 1 #aul, #rin. of the +i't. of Lang., p. 481. 2 , ., p. 1". KGhner 'pea9' of 7 as organische Leben er S&rache: and of ,ein $lares, anscha!liches !n lebens*olles 0il es groAen !n $r>ftig bl@hen en S&rachba!ms%- A!sf@hrl% 5r% er griech% S&r%, /% 0 %, 1890, p. iii. " Kret'ch%er, Einl% in ie 5esch% er griech% S&r%, 189(, pp. "3!. 1 A $rit. +i't. of the Lang. and Lit. of Anc. >reece, 18!0, 0ol. ,, p. 11&. 2 Op. cit., 189&, p. " f.

against too m!ch attention to the *ernac!lar, tho!gh a nee less one%2 In the first cent!ry A%D% the *ernac!lar 5ree$ "as in common !se all o*er the "orl , the character of "hich "e can no" acc!rately set forth% 0!t this non#literary lang!age "as not necessarily the s&eech of the illiterate% Mahaffy3 is *ery &ositi*e on this &oint% ,I sai '!st no" that the Hellenistic "orl "as more c!lti*ate in arg!ment than "e are no"a ays% An if yo! thin$ this is a strange assertion, e.amine, I &ray yo!, the intellect!al as&ects of the E&istles of St% Pa!l, the first Christian "riter "hom "e $no" to ha*e been thoro!ghly e !cate in this training% Remember that he "as a &ractical teacher, not li$ely to commit the fa!lt of s&ea$ing o*er the hea s of his a! ience, as the &hrase is%- Hat?i a$is8 laments that the mon!ments of the 5ree$ since the rian &erio are no longer in the &!re act!al li*ing s&eech of the time, b!t in the artificial Attic of a bygone age% The mo ern 5ree$ *ernac!lar is a li*ing tong!e, b!t the mo ern literary lang!age so &ro! ly calle 1- is artificial an !nreal%/ This ne" conce&tion of lang!age as life ma$es it no longer &ossible to set !& the 5ree$ of any one &erio as the stan ar for all time% The English "riter to# ay "ho "o!l !se Hoo$erKs style "o!l be affecte an anachronistic% 5oo English to# ay is not "hat it "as t"o h!n re years ago, e*en "ith the hel& of &rinting an (&art of the time) ictionaries% +hat "e "ish to $no" is not "hat "as goo 5ree$ at Athens in the ays of Pericles, b!t "hat "as goo 5ree$ in Syria an Palestine in the first cent!ry A%D% The irect e*i ence for this m!st be so!ght among contem&oraries, not from ancestors in a istant lan % It is the li*ing 5ree$ that "e esire, not the ea % III. Greek not an Isolated Language. (a) THE IMPORTA4CE OF COMPARATI6E 5RAMMAR% <!li!s CLsar, "ho "rote a "or$ on grammar, ha in min Latin an 5ree$, for both "ere in constant !se in the
Earnc9e EA42$K*, *., Die Entsteh!ng er griech% Literat!rs&rachen -1890.. " Die Entst% er griech% Literat!rs&r%, 1890, p. 2= 7Denn man liefe 5efahr, en Chara$ter er Literat!r en$m>ler g>n?lich ?! ?erst:ren, in em man, ihre eigenartige 5estalt!ng *er$ennen , sie nach en 4ormen einer ges&rochenen M!n art corrigirt .: But 'ee Lottich, De Serm% *!lg% Att%, 1881I and Apo'tolide', op. cit. @ahaffy @A+AKK), B. #., A Sur0ey of >ree9 $i0iliAation -189&.. ///, >ree9 Life and 1hought -189(.. ///, #rogre'' of +elleni'% in Ale5ander<' *%pire -190!.. ///, 1he >ree9 ?orld under 4o%an S8ay -1890.. ///, ?hat +a0e the >ree9' Cone for $i0iliAationL -1909.. 4 #rog. of +ellen. in Ale5. *%p., 190!, p. 1"&. +atAida9i' +A1E,CAK,S, >. 2., Einleit!ng in ie ne!griechische 5rammati$ -1892.. ! Einleit!ng, p. ". 1 7Eine Literat!rs&rache ist nie eine Art 4ormals&rache .: Sch8yAer, +elts&r% es Altert%, 1902, p. 12.

Roman "orl %1 Formal Sans$rit grammar itself may ha*e res!lte from the com&arison of Sans$rit "ith the nati*e ialects of In ia%2 Hence com&arati*e grammar seems to lie at the *ery heart of the science% It cannot be sai , ho"e*er, that Pini, the great Sans$rit scholar an grammarian of the fo!rth cent!ry 0%C%, recei*e any im&!lse from the 5ree$ ci*ili?ation of er the 5reat%3 The "or$ of Pini is one of the most remar$able in history for s!btle originality, ,!ne histoire nat!relle e la lang!e sanscrite%- The Roman an 5ree$ grammarians atten e to the !se of "or s in sentences, "hile the Sans$rit "riters analy?e "or s into syllables8 an st! ie the relation of so!n s to each other% It is not &ossible to state the &erio "hen ling!istic com&arison "as first ma e% Ma. M@ller in The Science of Language e*en saysI ,From an historical &oint of *ie" it is not too m!ch to say that the first Day of Pentecost mar$s the real beginning of the Science of lang!age%- One m!st not thin$ that the com&arati*e metho is ,more characteristic of the st! y of lang!age than of other branches of mo ern inJ!iry%-/ The root i ea of the ne" grammar is the $inshi& of lang!ages% Chinese grammar is sai to be one of the c!riosities of the "orl , an some other grammatical "or$s can be regar e in that light% 0!t o!r f!n amental obligation is to the Hin ! an 5ree$ grammarians%1 (b) THE COMMO4 0O4D I4 LA457A5E% Prof% Alfre o Trombetti, of Rome, has so!ght the connecting lin$ in all h!man s&eech%2 It is a gigantic tas$, b!t it is o!btless tr!e that all s&eech is of !ltimate common origin% The remote relationshi&s are *ery iffic!lt to trace% As a "or$ing hy&othesis the com&arati*e grammarians s&ea$ of isolating, aggl!tinati*e an inflectional lang!ages% In the isolating tong!es li$e the Chinese, 0!rmese, etc%, the "or s ha*e no inflection an the &osition in the sentence an the tone in &ron!nciation are relie on for clearness of meaning% 5iles3 &oints o!t that mo ern English an Persian ha*e nearly ret!rne to the &osition of Chinese as isolating lang!ages% Hence it is inferre that the Chinese has alrea y gone thro!gh a history similar to the English an is starting again on an inflectional career%
2 King, ,ntr. to $o%p. >r., p. 2. " Sayce, #rin. of $o%p. #hilol., p. 2(1. 4 >o let d<Al0iella, Ce J!e lKIn e oit M la 5rNce, 189&, p. 129. ! King, op. cit., p. 2 f. 71he %ethod of co%parati0e gra%%ar i' %erely au5iliary to hi'torical gra%%ar,: ?heeler, ?hence and ?hither of the @od. Sci. of Lang., p. 9(. 1 ?hitney, Life and >ro8th of Lang., 18&!/, p. "1!. 2 K. +off%ann, Ober ie Ent"ic$el% es 0egriffs er 5r% bei en Alten , 1891, p. 1. " See hi' oo9, 1he 6nity of Origin of Lang. Cr. Alli'on Cra9e, Ci'c. in +e ., >aelic, >othic, AngloJSa5., Lat., Ba'Mue and other $auca'ic Lang., 1908, underta9e' to 'ho8 7funda%ental 9in'hip of the Aryan tongue' and of Ba'Mue 8ith the Se%itic tongue'.: >ile' >,L*S, #., A Short @anual of $o%parati0e #hilology. 2d ed. -1901.. ///, 1he >ree9 Language -*ncyc. Britannica, 1910.. 4 @an. of $o%p. #hilol., 1901, p. "(.

Aggl!tinati*e tong!es li$e the T!r$ish e.&ress the *ario!s grammatical relations by n!mero!s se&arable &, an s! Inflectional lang!ages ha*e ma e still f!rther e*elo&ment, for "hile a istinction is ma e bet"een the stem an the infle.ional en ings, the stems an the en ings o not a&art from each other% There are t"o great families in the infle.ional gro!&, the Semitic (the Assyrian, the Hebre", the Syriac, the Arabic, etc%) an the In o#5ermanic or In o#E!ro&ean (the In o#Iranian or Aryan, the Armenian, the 5ree$, the Albanian, the Italic, the Celtic, the 5ermanic an the 0alto#Sla*ic)%8 In o#E!ro&ean also are Illyrian, Mace onian, Phrygian, Thracian an the ne"ly# isco*ere Tocharian% Some of these gro!&s, li$e the Italic, the 5ermanic, the 0alto#Sla*ic, the In o#Iranian, embrace a n!mber of se&arate tong!es "hich sho" an inner affinity, b!t all the gro!&s ha*e a general family li$eness%9 (c) THE ORI5I4AL I4DO#5ERMA4IC SPEECH % It is not claime that the original In o# 5ermanic s&eech has been isco*ere , tho!gh ;retschmer oes s&ea$ of , ie in ogermanische 7rs&rache,- b!t he consi ers it only a necessary hy&othesis an a !sef!l efinition for the early s&eech#!nity before the In o#5ermanic stoc$ se&arate %/ 0 r!gmann s&ea$s also of the original an gro!n #s&eech (Ur- und Grundsprache) in the &rehistoric bac$gro!n of e*ery member of the In o#5ermanic family% 1 The science of lang!age has as a historic isci&line the tas$ of in*estigating the collecti*e s&eech# e*elo&ment of the In o#5ermanic &eo&les%2 Since 0o&&Ks ay this tas$ is no longer im&ossible% The e.istence of an original In o#5ermanic s&eech is the "or$ing hy&othesis of all mo ern ling!istic st! y% This eman s in ee a st! y of the In o# 5ermanic &eo&le% Horatio Hale3 insists that lang!age is the only &ro&er basis for the
! Brug%ann, ;!r?e *ergl% 5r% er in oger% S&r%, /% Lief%, 1902, p. 4. ( See @i'teli, Characteristi$ er ha!&ts>chlichsten Ty&en es S&rachba!es , 189". Kor further literature on co%parati0e gra%%ar 'ee pp. 10 ff. of thi' oo9. 1here i' an *ngli'h tran'lation of Brug%ann<' Bde. , and ,, called *le%ent' of the $o%p. >r. of the ,ndoJ >er. Lang., ! 0ol'., 188(39&. But hi' KurAe 0ergl. >r. -190234. i' the handie't edition. @eillet -Intr% M lKPt! e Com&% etc%, pp. 44134!!. ha' a di'cri%inating di'cu''ion of the literature. 1 Einl% in ie 5esch% er griech% S&r%, 189(, pp. &39. Brug%ann B46>@A22, K., *le%ent' of $o%parati0e >ra%%ar of the ,ndoJ>er%anic Language' -tran'lation y ?right, 189!.. ///, 5riechische 5rammati$% 2% A!fl% -1900., the ed. Muoted. 6ierte *ermehrte A!fl% of A. 1hu% -191".. ///, 5r!n riA er *ergl% 5r% % in og% S&rachen% 1% A!fl%, 0 e% ,, ,, -189&3191".. ///, ;!r?e *ergleichen e 5rammati$ er in ogermanischen S&rachen -1904.. 2 ;!r?e *ergl% 5r%, /% Lief%, 1902, p. ". " , ., p. 2&. Bopp BO##, 6ergleichen e 5rammati$ -18!&.. 4 #op. Sci. 4e0., Ban., 1888.

classification of man$in % 0!t this test brea$s o"n "hen <e"s an Egy&tians s&ea$ 5ree$ after erKs conJ!ests or "hen the Irish an the American 4egro !se English% The &robable home an "an erings of the original In o#5ermanic &eo&les are "ell isc!sse by ;retschmer%8 It is !n eniable that many of the same roots in slightly ifferent forms in all or most of the In o#5ermanic tong!es% They are !s!ally "or s that refer to the common omestic relations, elementary agric!lt!re, the or inary articles of foo , the elemental forces, the &rono!ns an the n!merals% Infle.ional lang!ages ha*e t"o $in s of roots, &re icati*e (no!ns an *erbs) an &ronominal% Pini fo!n /BE9 s!ch roots in Sans$rit, b!t E gren has re !ce the n!mber of necessary Sans$rit roots to 8CB%9 0!t one m!st not s!&&ose that these hy&othetical roots e*er constit!te a real lang!age, tho!gh there "as an original In o#5ermanic tong!e%B (d) 5REE; AS A ,DIALECT- OF THE I4DO#5ERMA4IC SPEECH % 5ree$ then can be regar e as one of the branches of this original In o#5ermanic s&eech, '!st as French is one of the escen ants of the Latin,/ li$e S&anish, Port!g!ese, Italian% Com&are also the relation of English to the other Te!tonic tong!es%1 To go f!rther, the se&aration of this original In o#5ermanic s&eech into *ario!s tong!es "as m!ch li$e the brea$ing#!& of the original 5ree$ into ialects an "as !e to nat!ral ca!ses% Dialectic *ariety itself im&lies &re*io!s s&eech#!nity%2 5ree$ has *ital relations "ith all the branches of the In o#5ermanic tong!es, tho!gh in *arying egrees% The 5ree$ sho"s eci e affinity "ith the Sans$rit, the Latin an the Celtic3 lang!ages% Part of the early 5ree$ stoc$ "as &robably Celtic% The 5ree$ an the Latin flo!rishe si e by si e for cent!ries an ha m!ch common history% All the com&arati*e grammars an the 5ree$ grammars from this &oint of *ie" constantly com&are the 5ree$ "ith the Latin% See es&ecially the great "or$ of Riemann an 5oel?er, Grammaire compare du Grec et du Latin%8 On the "hole s!b'ect of the relation of the 5ree$ "ith the *ario!s In o#5ermanic lang!ages see the e.cellent brief isc!ssion of ;retschmer%9 0!t the hy&othesis of an original 5raeco#Italic tong!e cannot be consi ere as &ro*e , tho!gh there are many &oints of
! Einl% in ie 5esch% etc%, pp. &392. ( See @a5 @Gller, 1hree Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. 29. & Sayce, #rin. of $o%p. #hilol., 18&!, p. 0i. 1 See @eyerJLG 9e, 5r% er r:m% S&r%, 2 0 e%, 1890, 1894, 1899. 2 See +irt, Han b% er griech% La!t# !n Formenl%, 2d ed., 1912, p. 1". $f. Conald'on, 2e8 $rat., p. 112 -*thn. Affin. of the Anc. >ree9'.. " ?hitney, Lang. and the Study of Lang., 18(8, p. 18!. See Brug%ann, >riech. >r., p. != 7Die griechische, lateinische, in ische !%s%"% 5rammati$ sin ie $onstit!ti*en Teile er in ogermanischen 5rammati$ in gleicher +eise, "ie ?% 0% ie orische, ie ionische !%s%"% 5rammati$ ie griechische 5rammati$ a!smachen .: 4 See +older, Altcelt. Sprach'ch., 1891 ff. 4ie%ann and >oelAer 4,*@A22 and >O*LE*4, 5rammaire Com&arQe ! 5rec et ! Latin. , -189&., ,, -1901.. ! Synt., 189&. PhonQt% et Pt% es Formes 5rJ% et Lat%, 1901. ( Einl% in ie 5esch% er griech% S&r%, pp. 1!"31&0.

contact bet"een 5ree$ an Latin%B 0!t 5ree$, as the ne.t ol est branch $no"n to !s, sho"s more $inshi& "ith the Sans$rit% Constant !se of the Sans$rit m!st be ma e by one "ho "ishes to !n erstan the historical e*elo&ment of the 5ree$ tong!e% S!ch a "or$ as +hitneyKs Sanskrit Grammar is *ery !sef!l for this &!r&ose% See also <% + ac$ernagel, ltindische Grammatik% I, Lautlehre (/CD9)% II, /, !inleitung "ur #ortlehre (/DE8)% So Th!mbKs $andbuch des Sanskrit% I, Grammatik (/DE8)% Ma. M@ller/ &layf!lly remar$sI ,It has often been sai that no one can $no" anything of the science of lang!age "ho oes not $no" Sans$rit, an that is eno!gh to frighten anybo y a"ay from its st! y%- It is not J!ite so ba , ho"e*er% Sans$rit is not the &arent stoc$ of the 5ree$, b!t the ol est member of the gro!&% The age of the Sans$rit ma$es it in*al!able for the st! y of the later s&eech# e*elo&ments% The 5ree$ therefore is not an isolate tong!e, b!t s!stains *ital relations "ith a great family of lang!ages% So im&ortant oes ;retschmer consi er this as&ect of the s!b'ect that he e*otes his notable !inleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache to the setting forth of ,the &rehistoric beginnings of the 5ree$ s&eech# e*elo&ment%-1 This effort is, of necessity, fragmentary an &artly inferential, b!t most *al!able for a scientific treatment of the 5ree$ lang!age% He has a l!mino!s isc!ssion of the effect of the Thracian an Phrygian stoc$s !&on the 5ree$ "hen the lang!age s&rea o*er Asia Minor%2 IV. Looking at the Greek Language as a Whole. +e cannot in ee ma$e an e.ha!sti*e st! y of the entire 5ree$ lang!age in a boo$ that is &rofesse ly concerne
& #rof. B. L. >ilder'lee0e, Bohn' +op9in' 6ni0., ha' al8ay' taught >ree9, ut hi' Latin >ra%%ar 'ho8' hi' fondne'' for Latin. See al'o +enry, A Short $o%p. >r. of >9. and Lat., 1890, and A Short $o%p. >r. of *ng. and >er., 189". ?hitney ?+,12*), ?. C., A San'9rit >ra%%ar -1891.. 4th ed. -191".. ///, Language and the Study of Language -18(&.. ///, Life and >ro8th of Language -18&!.. ?ac9ernagel ?A$K*42A>*L, B., Das Dehn!ngsgeset? er griech% Ko%po'ita -1889.. ///, Die hellenistische 5emeins&rache. -Die ;!lt% % 5egen"art, 1l. ,, A t. 0iii, 190!, pp. 983 "0!.. ///, Die S&rache es Pl!t% etc% 1eile ,, ,, -189!3189(.. 1 1hree Lect. on the Sci. of Lang., 1891, p. &2. 2 #. !. #rof. Burro8' -Ci'c. in $rete, 190&, pp. 14! ff.. rai'e' the Mue'tion 8hether the >ree9 race -a lend of northern and 'outhern ele%ent'. %ade the >9. language out of a preJe5i'ting ,ndoJ*uropean tongue. Or did the northerner' ring the >9. 8ith the%L Or did they find it already in the NgeanL ,t i' ea'ier to a'9 than to an'8er the'e Mue'tion'. " See pp. 1&1324".

only "ith one e&och of that history% As a matter of fact no s!ch "or$ e.ists% <annaris3 in ee sai that ,an RhistoricalK grammar, tracing in a connecte manner the life of the 5ree$ lang!age from classical antiJ!ity to the &resent time, has not been "ritten nor e*en serio!sly attem&te as yet%- <annaris himself felt his limitations "hen he face so gigantic a tas$ an fo!n it necessary to rest his "or$ !&on the classical Attic as the only &ractical basis%8 0!t so far he e&arte from the &!re historical metho % 0!t s!ch a grammar "ill come some ay% (a) DESCRIPTI6E HISTORICAL 5RAMMAR% Mean"hile escri&ti*e historical grammar is &ossible an necessary% ,Descri&ti*e grammar has to register the grammatical forms an grammatical con itions in !se at a gi*en ate "ithin a certain comm!nity s&ea$ing a common lang!age%-/ There is this '!stification for ta$ing Attic as the stan ar for classical st! yH only the tr!e historical &ers&ecti*e sho!l be gi*en an Attic sho!l not be ta!ght as the only real 5ree$% It is &ossible an essential then to correlate the 4% T% 5ree$ "ith all other 5ree$ an to !se all 5ree$ to thro" light on the stage of the lang!age !n er re*ie"% If the 5ree$ itself is not an isolate tong!e, no one stage of the lang!age can be so regar e % ,+olff1 e&recates the restriction of grammar to a set of r!les abstracte from the "ritings of a Rgol enK &erio , "hile in reality it sho!l com&rise the "hole history of a lang!age an trace its e*elo&ment%- H% C% M@ller2 in ee tho!ght that the time ha not arri*e for a grammar of 5ree$ on the historical &lan, beca!se it m!st rest on a greater amo!nt of material than is no" at han % 0!t since then a *ast amo!nt of ne" material has come to light in the form of &a&yri, inscri&tions an research in the mo ern 5ree$% M@llerKs o"n boo$ has a e no little to o!r $no"le ge of the s!b'ect% Mean"hile "e can !se the historical material for the st! y of 4% T% 5ree$% (b) 74ITG OF THE 5REE; LA457A5E% At the ris$ of slight re&etition it is "orth "hile to em&hasi?e this &oint% M@ller3 is a&ologetic an eager to sho" that ,the 5ree$ lang!age an literat!re is one organic, coherent "hole%- The ialectical *ariations, "hile
4 +i't. >9. >r., 189&, p. 0. ! , ., p. 5i. 1hu% 'ay'= ,+ir sin noch sehr "eit *on einer 5eschichte o er historischen 5rammati$ er griechischen S&rache entferntH er 6ers!ch *on <annaris, so an$ens"ert er ist, $ann och n!r &ro*isorische 5elt!ng beans&r!chen, "obei man mehr ie g!te Absicht !n en FleiA als as s&rachgeschichtliche 6erst>n nis es 6erfassers loben m!A%- Die griech% S&r%, etc% , 1901, p. 1. $f. al'o Kru% acher, 0eitr% ?! einer 5esch% er griech% S&r% -1884, p. 4.= 7Eine ?!sammenh>ngen e Darstell!ng es Ent"ic$el!ngsganges er griechischen S&rache ist gegen">rtig nicht m:glich.: But it i' %ore po''i le no8 than in 1884. 1 #aul, #rin. of the +i't. of Lang., 1888, p. 2. 2 Oertel, Lect. on the Study of Lang., 1902, p. 2&. 1hu% -1heol. LiteraturAeit., 190", p. 424. e5pre''e' the hope that in a future edition of hi' >r. de' 2. 1., Bla'' %ay do thi' for hi' oo9= 7Die S&rache es 4% T% a!f em groAen Hintergr!n er hellenistischen S&rachent"ic$l!ng beschreiben ?! $:nnen.: @Gller @HLL*4, +. $., +i't. >ra%%. d. hellen. Sprache -1891.. " Hist% 5r% er hell% S&r%, 1891, p. 14 f. 4 , ., p. 1(. On 7 ie griechische S&rache als Einheit: 'ee 1hu% <' a le di'cu''ion in +and . d. griech. Cial. -pp. 1312.. ?ith all the di0er'ity of dialect' there 8a' e''ential unity in co%pari'on 8ith other tongue'.

conf!sing to a certain e.tent, o not sho" that the 5ree$ i not &ossess original an contin!o!s !nity% As early as /EEE 0%C% these ialectical istinctions &robably e.iste an the s&eech of Homer is a literary ialect, not the fol$#s&eech%8 The original so!rces of the 5ree$ s&eech go bac$ to a far istant time "hen as one single lang!age an Asiatic i iom ha ta$en E!ro&e in its circle of infl!ence%/ The translator of 0!ttmannKs Greek Grammar s&ea$s of Homer ,almost as the "or$ of another lang!age%- This "as once a common o&inion for all 5ree$ that "as not classic Attic% 0!t Thiersch entitle his great "or$ Griechische Grammatik %or"&glich des homerischen 'ialekts, not sim&ly beca!se of the "orth of Homer, ,b!t beca!se, on the contrary, a thoro!gh $no"le ge of the Homeric ialect is in is&ensably necessary for those "ho esire to com&rehen , in their "hole e&th an com&ass, the 5recian tong!e an literat!re%-1 0!t Homer is not the ga!ge by "hich to test 5ree$H his &oems are in*al!able testimony to the early history of one stage of the lang!age% It is a &ity that "e $no" so little of the &re#Homeric history of 5ree$% ,Homer &resents not a starting#&oint, b!t a c!lmination, a com&lete achie*ement, an almost mechanical accom&lishment, "ith scarcely a hint of origins%-2 0!t "hene*er 5ree$ began it has &ersiste as a ling!istic !nit till no"% It is one lang!age "hether "e rea the E&ic Homer, the Doric Pin ar, the Ionic Hero ot!s, the Attic Seno&hon, the Tolic Sa&&ho, the Atticistic Pl!tarch, Pa!l the e.&onent of Christ, an inscri&tion in Pergam!s, a &a&yr!s letter in Egy&t, Trico!&is or 6lachos in the mo ern time% 4one of these re&resentati*es can be regar e as e.crescences or im&ertinences% There ha*e al"ays been !ne !cate &ersons, b!t the 5ree$ tong!e has ha a contin!o!s, tho!gh chec$ere , history all the "ay% The mo ern e !cate 5ree$ has a $een a&&reciation of , ie Sch:nheiten er $lassischen S&rache%-3 M@ller8 com&laine that ,almost no grammarians ha*e treate the 5ree$ lang!age as a "hole,b!t the "or$s of ;r!mbacher, Th!mb, Dieterich, Hat?i a$is, Psichari, <annaris, etc%, ha*e ma e it &ossible to obtain a general s!r*ey of the 5ree$ lang!age !& to the &resent

! Brug%ann, ;ergl. >r., 1902, p. 8. 1 Kret'ch%er, Einl% in ie 5esch% er griech% S&r%, 189(, p. (. On the un%i5ed character of the >9. tongue 'ee ?ac9ernagel, Die griech% S&r%, p. 294, 1l. ,, A t. 8 -Die ;!lt% er 5egen"%.. On the antiMuity of >9. 'ee p. 292 f. Butt%ann B611@A22, A., 5rammati$ % ne!t% S&rachgebra!chs -18!9.. 2 Sandford, #ref. to 1hier'ch<' >9. >r., 18"0, p. 0iii. " @i'' +arri'on, #rol. to the Study of >9. 4el., 190", p. 0ii. 4 +atAida9i', Einl% in ie ne!gr% 5r%, 1892, p. 4. ! Hist% 5r% er hell% S&r%, 1891, p. 2. #'ichari #S,$+A4,, B., Essai s!r le grec e la Se&tante -Re*% es Qt! es '!i*es, April, 1908.. ///, Essais e grammaire historiJ!e nQo#grecJ!e -188(31889..

time% Li$e English,9 5ree$ has emerge into a ne" s&here of !nity an consistent gro"th% (c) PERIODS OF THE 5REE; LA457A5E % It "ill be of ser*ice to &resent a brief o!tline of the history of the 5ree$ tong!e% An yet it is not easy to gi*e% See the isc!ssion by So&hocles in his Greek Le(icon (&% // f%), ina eJ!ate in *ie" of recent isco*eries by Schliemann an E*ans% The follo"ing is a tentati*e o!tlineI The MycenLan Age, /8EE 0%C% to /EEE 0%C%H the Age of the Dialects, /EEE 0%C% to 2EE 0%C%H the Age of the , 2EE 0%C% to 22E A%D%H the 0y?antine 5ree$, 22E A%D% to /382 A%D%H the mo ern 5ree$, /382 A%D% to the &resent time% The early stage of the 0y?antine 5ree$ (!& to 9EE A%D%) is really an the rest is mo ern 5ree$% See a ifferent o!tline by <annaris/ an Ha ley an Allen%1 As a matter of fact any i*ision is arbitrary, for the lang!age has ha an !nbro$en history, tho!gh there are these general e&ochs in that history% +e can no longer call the &re#Homeric time mythical as So&hocles oes%2 In naming this the MycenLan age "e o not "ish to state &ositi*ely that the MycenLans "ere 5ree$s an s&o$e 5ree$% ,Of their s&eech "e ha*e yet to rea the first syllable%-3 Tso!ntas8 an Manatt, ho"e*er, *ent!re to belie*e that they "ere either 5ree$s or of the same stoc$% They !se the term ,to esignate all 5ree$ &eo&les "ho share in the MycenLan ci*ili?ation, irres&ecti*e of their habitat%-9 Ohnefalsch#Richter ()ont* +e%*, Dec%, /D/1, &% C91) claims Cy&r!s as the &!r*eyor of c!lt!re to the Creto#MycenLan age% He claims that Hellenes li*e in Cy&r!s /1EE to /EEE 0%C% The MycenLan
( See Bohn Koch, *ng. >r., for an ad%ira le i liography of 8or9' on *ng. -in Ergeb% !n Fortschr% er germanist% +iss% im let?ten 6iertel'ahrh% , 1902, pp. 8931"8, "2!34"&.. 1he >er%an' ha0e taught u' ho8 to 'tudy *ngli'hO Sophocle' SO#+O$L*S, *. A., >ree9 Le5icon of the 4o%an and ByAantine #eriod -1888.. *0an' *;A2S, A. B., $retan #ictograph' and #reJ#hPnician Script -189!.. ///, Kurther 4e'earche' -1898.. 1 +i't. >9. >r., p. 55ii. $f. al'o Schuc9 urgh, >reece, 190(, p. 24 f. @oulton -#rol., p. 184. count' "2 centurie' of the >9. language fro% 12&! B.$., the date of the %ention of the AchQan' on an *gyptian %onu%ent. +adley and Allen +ACL*) and ALL*2, >ree9 >ra%%ar -189!.. 2 >9. >r., 188!, p. 1 f. Cei''%ann indeed 8ould ha0e only three di0i'ion', the Cialect' up to "00 B.$., @iddle #eriod up to (00 A.C., and @od. >9. up to the pre'ent ti%e. +auc9<' 4ealencyc., 1889, p. ("0. $f. @Gller, Hist% 5r% er hell% S&r%, 1891, pp. 423(2, for another outline. " >9. Le5., etc., p. 11. 4 1'ounta' and @anatt, 1he @ycenQan Age, 189&, p. "1(. ! , ., p. ""! ff. ( , ., p. 2"!.

infl!ence "as "i e#s&rea an comes , o"n to the *ery a"n of historical 5reece%-B That 5ree$ "as $no"n an !se "i ely !ring the MycenLan age the researches of E*ans at ;nossos, in Crete, ma$e clear%C The early linear "riting of the Cretans came from a still earlier &ictogra&h% The 5ree$ ialects emerge into light from abo!t /EEE 0%C% on"ar an c!lminate in the Attic "hich flo!rishe till the "or$ of er is one% The Homeric &oems &ro*e that 5ree$ "as an ol lang!age by /EEE to CEE 0%C% The ialects certainly ha*e their roots ee& in the MycenLan age% Ro!ghly, 2EE 0%C% is the time "hen the 5ree$ has become the !ni*ersal lang!age of the "orl , a #eltsprache* 22E A%D% is the ate "hen the seat of go*ernment "as remo*e from Rome to Constantino&le, "hile A%D% /382 is the ate "hen Constantino&le "as ca&t!re by the T!r$s% +ith all the changes in this long history the stan ar s of classicity ha*e not *arie greatly from Homer till no" in the "ritten style, "hile the 5ree$ *ernac!lar to# ay is remar$ably li$e the earliest $no"n inscri&tions of the fol$#s&eech in 5reece%/ +e $no" something of this history for abo!t 2EEE years, an it is at least a tho!san years longer% Mahaffy has too &oor an i ea of mo ern 5ree$, b!t e*en he can sayI ,E*en in o!r miserable mo ern &igeon#5ree$, "hich re&resents no real &ron!nciation, either ancient or mo ern, the lyrics of So&hocles or Aristo&hanes are !nmista$ably lo*ely%- 1 (d) MODER4 5REE; I4 PARTIC7LAR% It is im&ortant to single o!t the mo ern 5ree$ *ernac!lar2 from the rest of the lang!age for the ob*io!s reason that it is the abi ing "itness to the &er&et!ity of the *ernac!lar 5ree$ as a li*ing organism% It is a "itness also that is at o!r ser*ice al"ays% The mo ern 5ree$ &o&!lar s&eech oes not iffer materially from the *ernac!lar 0y?antine, an th!s connects irectly "ith the *ernac!lar % ria "as ,the great c!lt!re#reser*oir of the 5ree$#Oriental "orl U the re&ository of the ancient literary treas!res%-3 +ith this general &osition Th!mb heartily agrees%/ Hat?i a$is1 e*en saysI ,The lang!age generally s&o$en to# ay in the to"ns iffers less from the common lang!age of Polybi!s than this last iffers from the
& , ., p. "2!. See al'o Beloch, >riech. >e'ch., ,., 8!= 7A!ch sonst $ann $ein ="eifel sein, aA ie my$en>ische ;!lt!r in 5riechenlan bis in as 6III% <ahrh!n ert geherrscht .: Klinder'J #etrie -Bour. of +ell. Stud., 5ii, 204. 'pea9' of 1100 to 800 B.$. a' the 7age of @ycenQan decadence.: 8 $retan #ictograph' and #reJ#hPnician Script, 189!, p. "(2I cf. al'o Bour. of +ell. Stud., 5i0, 2&03"&2. See Bannari', +i't. >9. >r., p. 22, for further proof' of the antiMuity of >9. a' a 8ritten tongue. @o''o -#alace' of $rete, 190&, p. &" f.. argue' that the @ycenQan linear 'cript 8a' u'ed 1900 B.$. $f. *0an', Kurther 4e'earche', 1898. 1 Brug%ann, >riech. >r., p. 1". See al'o +atAida9i', Einl% in ie ne!gr% 5r%, 1892, p. ". 2 Sur0ey of >9. $i0iliA., 189(, p. 209. $f. further @o''o, Ca8n of $i0iliA. in $rete, 1910I Bai9e, King' of $rete, 1910I Firmen, =eit !n Da!er er $retisch# my$en% ;!lt% , 1909. " 1he %odern literary language - 1-. i' really %ore identical 8ith the ancient cla''ical >9. But it i' identity 'ecured y %u%%ifying the dead. ,t i' identity of i%itation, not identity of life. $f. 1hu% JAngu', +and . of @od. >9. ;ern., Kore8ord -p. 5i f... 4 Cieterich, 5esch% er by?% !n ne!gr% Lit%, 1902, p. 2. 1 7Die he!tige griechische 6ol$ss&rache ist ie nat@rliche Fortset?!ng er alten .: Die ne!gr% S&r%, 1892, p. 8. See +eil%eier<' oo9 on the 4o%aic >9. -18"4., 8ho fir't 'a8 thi' connection et8een the %od. 0ern. and the 0ern. .

lang!age of Homer%- Since this is tr!e it at first seems o that the st! ents at the 7ni*ersity of Athens sho!l ob'ect so m!ch to the translation of the 4% T% into the mo ern *ernac!lar% They forget that the 4% T% is itself "ritten in the *ernac!lar % 0!t that "as so long ago that it is no" classic to them% Certainly in the 5os&els, as + ellha!sen2 insists, the s&o$en 5ree$ became literat!re% ;no"le ge of the mo ern 5ree$3 hel&s the st! ent to esca&e from ,the Procr!stean be of the ol 5ree$- "hich he learne as a fi.e an ea thing%8 It is &robable that Roger 0acon ha some 0y?antine man!al besi es the ol 5ree$ grammars%9 ,In Englan , no less than in the rest of +estern E!ro&e, the $no"le ge of 5ree$ ha ie a"ay, an here also, it "as only after the conJ!est of Constantino&le that a change "as &ossible%-B +estern Christians ha been afrai of the corr!&tions of &aganism if they $ne" 5ree$, an of Mohamme anism if they $ne" Hebre" (being $in to ArabicV)% 0!t at last a change has come in fa*o!r of the mo ern 5ree$% 0olt? in ee has a *ocate mo ern 5ree$ as the common lang!age for the scholars of the "orl since Latin is so little s&o$en%C There is in ee nee of a ne" "orl #s&eech, as 5ree$ "as in the 4% T% times, b!t there is no lang!age that can no" '!stly ma$e s!ch a claim% English comes nearer to it than any other% This nee has gi*en rise to the artificial tong!es li$e 6ola&@$ an Es&eranto,/ the latter ha*ing some &romise in it% 0!t the mo ern 5ree$ *ernac!lar has more merit than "as once conce e to it% The i ioms an &ron!nciation of the &resent# ay *ernac!lar are often seen in the man!scri&ts of the 4% T% an other 5ree$ oc!ments an m!ch earlier in inscri&tions re&resenting one or another of the early ialects% The &ersistence of early English forms is easily obser*e in the *ernac!lar in &arts of America or Englan % In the same "ay the late Latin *ernac!lar is to be com&are "ith the early Latin *ernac!lar, not "ith the Latin of elegant literat!re% ,S&ea$ing generally, "e may say that the 5ree$ of a "ell#"ritten ne"s&a&er Wthe literary lang!ageX is no", as a r!le, far more classical than the Hellenistic of the 4% T%, b!t eci e ly less classical than the 5ree$ of Pl!tarch%-1 +hat the relation bet"een the 4% T% 5ree$ an the mo ern 5ree$ is "ill be sho"n in the ne.t cha&ter% It sho!l be note here that the 4% T% 5ree$ ha a
2 1ran'l. y B. +. @oulton in >r. of 2. 1. >9., 190( and 1908, p. "0, fro% Re*% es Pt% 5rJ%, 190", p. 220. $f. Kru% acher, Das Prob% er ne!gr% Schrifts&r%, 1902. ?ellhau'en ?*LL+A6S*2, B., Einl% in ie rei ersten E*angelien -190!.. 2. Au'g. -1911.. " Einl% in ie rei ersten E*ang%, 190!, p. 9. 4 See 4Gger, Pr>&% bei <oh% Antiochen!s, 189(, p. &. ! 1hu% , Han b% er ne!gr% 6ol$s&r%, 189!, p. 5. ( 4oger Bacon<' >9. >r., edited y 2olan and +ir'ch, 1902, p. l5 f. & , ., p. 5lii. 8 Hell% ie internat% 5elehrtens&r% er =!$!nft, 1888. Li9e8i'e A. 4o'e= ,Die griechische S&rache U hat U eine gl>n?en e =!$!nft *or sich%- Die 5riechen !n ihre S&r% , 1890, p. 4. +e plead' for it a' a 7?elt'prache,: p. 2&1. But Sch8yAer pointedly 'ay'= ,Die Rolle einer +elts&rache "ir as 5riechische nicht "ie er s&ielen%- +elts&r% es Altert% , 1902, p. "8. $f. al'o A. BoltA, Die hell% S&r% er 5egen"%, 1882, and >9. the >en. Lang. of the Kuture for Scholar'. 1 $f. B. $. O<$onnor, *'peranto 1e5tJ oo9, and *ng.J*'per. Cict.

strong mo!l ing infl!ence on the 0y?antine, an so on the mo ern 5ree$ beca!se of the !se of the 5ree$ 4e" Testament all o*er the "orl , !e to the s&rea of Christianity thro!gho!t the Roman Em&ire%2 The great Christian &reachers i not in ee !se a &ec!liar ecclesiastical 5ree$, b!t the 4% T% i ten to em&hasi?e the ty&e of in "hich it "as "ritten% ,The iction of the 4% T% ha a irect infl!ence in mo!l ing the 5ree$ or inarily !se by Christians in the s!ccee ing cent!ries%-3 Com&are the effect of the ;ing <ames 6ersion on the English lang!age an of L!therKs translation of the 0ible on 5erman% V. The Greek Point of View. It so!n s li$e a tr!ism to insist that the 5ree$ i iom m!st be e.&laine from the 5ree$ &oint of *ie"% 0!t none the less the ca!tion is not s!&erfl!o!s% Traine ling!ists may forget it an so commit a grammatical *ice% E*en + iner8 "ill be fo!n saying, for instanceI ,A&&ellati*es "hich, as e.&ressing efinite ob'ects, sho!l nat!rally ha*e the article, are in certain cases !se "itho!t it%- That ,sho!l - has the "rong attit! e to"ar 5ree$% The a&&ellati*e in 5ree$ oes not nee to ha*e the article in or er to be efinite% So "hen +iner often a mits that one tense is !se ,for- another, he is really thin$ing of 5erman an ho" it "o!l be e.&resse in 5erman% Each tong!e has its o"n history an geni!s% Parallel i ioms may or may not in a gro!& of lang!ages% Sans$rit an Latin, for instance, ha*e no article% It is not &ossible to &arallel the Hebre" tenses, for, "ith the 5ree$, nor, in ee , can it be one as bet"een 5ree$ an English% The English translation of a 5ree$ aorist may ha*e to be in the &ast &erfect or the &resent &erfect to s!it the English !sage, b!t that &ro*es nothing as to ho" a 5ree$ regar e the aorist tense% +e m!st ass!me in a lang!age that a goo "riter $ne" ho" to !se his o"n tong!e an sai "hat he meant to say% 5oo 5ree$ may be *ery &oor English, as "hen L!$e !ses " 2 3+ / + 4! (L!% 1I1B)% A literal translation of this neat 5ree$ i iom ma$es barbaro!s English% The 5ree$s sim&ly i not loo$ at this cla!se as "e o% ,One of the commonest an gra*est errors in st! ying the grammar of foreign lang!ages is to ma$e a half#con'ect!ral translation, an then reason bac$ from o!r o"n lang!age to the meaning of the originalH or to e.&lain some i iom of the original by the formally

2 Be , On the 4ela. of @od. to $la''. >9., in ;incent and Cic9'on<' +and . to @od. >9., 188&, p. 294. Bla'' actually 'ay'= 7Der S&rachgebra!ch es 4e!en Testaments, er *ielf>ltig *om 4e!griechischen her eine *iel bessere 0ele!cht!ng em&f>ngt als a!s er alten $lassischen Literat!r%: KGhner<' Au'f. >r. etc., 1890, p. 2!. Bla'' al'o 'ay' -i ., p. 2(. that 7eine "issenschaftliche ne!griechische 5rammati$ fehlt .: But +atAida9i' and other' ha0e 8ritten 'ince. " See 4einhold, De 5raecitate Patr!m, 1898. 4 Be ?iner ?,2*4, >. B., De *erbor!m c!m &rae&% com&os% in 4% T% 7s! -18"43184".. ///, 5ramm% % ne!t% S&rachi ioms (/C11)% B% A!fl% *on L@nemann -l8(&.. ! >r. of the 2. 1. >9., @oulton<' tran'l., 18&&, p. 14&. , i ., p. 290.

ifferent i iom "hich is o!r s!bstantial eJ!i*alent%-/ 0roa !s "as the greatest teacher of lang!age that I ha*e $no"n an he has sai nothing tr!er than this% After all, an e !cate 5ree$ $ne" "hat he meant better than "e o% It is in ee a great an iffic!lt tas$ that is eman e of the 5ree$ grammarian "ho to# ay !n erta$es to &resent a li*ing &ict!re of the or erly e*elo&ment of the 5ree$ tong!e ,?! einem sch:nen !n groAen 5an?en- an also sho" ,in the most bea!tif!l light the flo"er of the 5ree$ s&irit an life%-1 Deissmann2 feels strongly on the s!b'ect of the neglect of the literary e*elo&ment of Primiti*e Christianity, ,a s!b'ect "hich has not yet been recogni?e by many &ersons in its f!ll im&ortance% H!ge as is the library of boo$s that ha*e been "ritten on the origin of the 4% T% an of its se&arate &arts, the 4% T% has not often been st! ie by historians of literat!reH that is to say, as a branch of the history of ancient literat!re%-

1 Broadu', $o%%. on @t., 188(, p. "1(. See al'o >er er, Die S&r% als ;!nst, 1. Bd., 18&1, p. "21= 7Der gan?e Chara$ter ieser o er 'ener S&rache ist er Ab r!c$ er 4at!r es Lan es, "o sie ges&rochen "ir % Die griechische S&rache ist er griechische Himmel selbst mit seiner tief !n$len 0l>!e, ie sich in em sanft "ogen en >g>ischen Meere s&iegelt .: Broadu' B4OAC6S, BO+2 A., $o%%. on @att. -188(.. 2 KGhner, A!sf% 5r% er griech% S&r%, 18"4, p. i0. +o8 %uch %ore 'o no8O Cei''%ann C*,SS@A22, A., Bi le Studie' -1901.. 1r. y A. >rie0eI cf. 0ibelst! ien -189!. and 4e!e 0ibelst! ien -189&.. ///, 0iblische 5r>cit>t etc% -1heol. 4und'chau, O9t. 1912.. ///, Die Hellenisier!ng es semitischen Monotheism!s -2. Bahr . f. d. 9l. Alt., 190".. ///, Die ne!t% Formel 7in $hri'to: -1892.. ///, Die S&rache % griech% 0ibel -1heol. 4und'chau, 190(, 2o. 11(.. ///, Die 7rgeschichte es Christent!ms im Lichte er S&rachforsch!ng -,ntern. ?och., "0. O9t. 1909.. ///, Hellenistisches 5riechisch -+erAogJ+auc9<' 4ealencyc., ;,,, 1899.. ///, Licht *om Osten -1908.. ///, Light fro% the Ancient *a't -1910.. 1r. y Strachan. ///, 2e8 Light on the 2. 1. -190&.. 1r. y Strachan. ///, #apyri -*ncyc. Bi l., ,,,, 1902.. ///, St. #aul in the Light of Social and 4eligiou' +i'tory -1912.. " *5po'. 1i%e', Cec., 190(, p. 10". $f. al'o K. O0er ec9, +i't. Eeit'chr., neue Kolge, 1882, p. 429 ff.