A great improvement thereon is gained by a suggestion due to Mr VanSittart, ἐλιλαίετο δ' ὀστέα ῥάξαι, which is excellent Greek; only too good, I fear, for the pitiful poet who composed the epitaph. 1. 4. In the next line the metre is neglected, and an unprecedented construction given to κτερίζειν. τάφῳ κτερίζειν occurs (Soph. Antig. 204), and another construction is generally quoted from the elegant epigram of Simonides (113 = Anthol. Pal. 7. 270): τούσδε ποτ ̓ ἐκ Σπάρτας ἀκροθίνια Φοίβῳ ἄγοντας ἓν πέλαγος, μία νύξ, εἷς τάφος ἐκτέρισεν. The metre of the line may be set right by suggesting ἀλλὰ φίλος τ ̓ ἤμυνε καὶ ἐκτέρισαν τάφον οὗτοι κ.τ.λ. OUTO] OUT? is proposed by M. Wachsmuth, 'nove dictum pro TaÚTη'! I prefer oûtoɩ, which is due to M. Rhousopoulos. 1. 5. oùs eleλov piλéwv] Apparently means 'those who, in my friendship, I desired (should rescue and bury me)'. iepas...vnós] This use of iepòs is a revived archaism, borrowed from the earlier poets and preserving the memory of the times when iepòs meant little more than 'great' or 'grand.' Cp. iepòs ixoús (Il. 16. 407), iepòv μévos, iepǹ) is, and the Sanskrit ishiras (‘mighty,' 'vigorous') for is-ara-s, with which iepòs and its Aeolic form iapós are connected by Curtius (Grundzüge der Griech. Etym. § 614). 1. 6. oμa] Possibly a paronomasia on the conjectural name Shomer. The whole of the rude inscription may be roughly rendered as follows: Let none think strange that o'er me are displayed, A ruthless lion onslaught on me made, But my true comrades left the good ship's bow, In conclusion, though the Greek of the epitaph is obviously of a second-rate character, and the versification in one case hazardous in the extreme, yet the comparative rarity of similar bilingual inscriptions, and the minor points of interest attaching to some of the details, will perhaps be an adequate excuse for introducing the subject to the readers of the Philological Journal. St. John's Coll. Cambridge. J. E. SANDYS. P.S. As a pendant to the above I send another bilingual epitaph of a more recent date and a simpler character. When at Basle a few years ago, I walked to the village of Dornach, and from the many exquisite inscriptions in its neatly ordered churchyard, selected the following, which commemorates the death of four sons and daughters of the Ditzler family, all of whom died within a single month in 1865. Hier ruhen in Gott unsere lieben Kinder, u.s.w. Wir blicken auf, von schwerer Last Von Kummer überwogen; * Gott, sie sind bei Dir; Was aber bleibt uns hier? Ein ödes Haus, ein Trauerkleid Ein Herz ertrückt von bittrem Leid. The rendering offered below was composed in the Albthal the day after. Πένθεσιν ἀΓεΙΝΟΪΣ ΒΕΒΑΡΗΜΕΝΟΙ, ΟΔΜαεί τ ̓ ἄτης χειμασθέντες, ὅμως εἰς θεὸν ἀμβλέπομεν. J. E. S. 55 ON GLOSSOLOGY. · By the late PROF. GROTE. [The following pages form a digression in a course of Lectures on Philosophy, and were intended to be preparatory to the analysis of different technical terms belonging to Moral Philosophy.] I. In order to analyze the language which philosophers have employed in respect of Morals it will be necessary for me to make use of one or two new-coined words, which I will begin by defining as accurately as I can. I shall not use the term 'word' as a technical term at all, but instead of it when I mean words as sounded I shall use the term phone (like zone, pwvý, Cwvn), and when I mean words as thought I shall use the term noem (vónμa) like poem. Similarly I shall use the adjectives phonal and noematic; and I shall give the name of phonal or noematic schematisms to modifications of the primary noems and phones. Without some such nomenclature as this (the particular words are a matter of indifference), I do not think it is possible to represent the real nature of grammar and the true relation of one language to another. It will be seen that languages differ from each other, first noematically, in regard to that which is expressed by them, and secondly, phonally, in regard to the expressing sounds. Each language has therefore its separate noematism, which in fact, so far as we may unify or generalize it, is the fassung, comprehension or view of things, which for one reason or another the formers and speakers of that language had. Man and nature being (to speak broadly) every where nearly the same, the entire noematism of one language, according to its extent, is not far different from that of another; but this substantial or general likeness admits a vast deal of circumstantial difference. The phonism of one language differs from that of another in, 1st. The different radical phones used in it. 2nd. The different distribution of these among the noems, and 3rd. The different laws and ways in which the phones are schematized. These three points, together with the difference of the noems requiring to be phonized (i. e. of the noematism mentioned above), make up the variety of languages. I would wish it to be understood that I use the word noem simply as a term in respect of language, without any consideration of the logical nature of the thing, and in fact expressly to avoid such logical consideration. Logically, a noem may be called a concept, a notion, or what we will; but I would have the term bear simply a relation to language, and mean the thought-word, that, whatever it is, which the sound stands for, for every word is of course used as standing for something. Every noem the unity of which is not either strongly marked in physical nature, or else capable of mental measurement, is of course to a certain degree necessarily vague; we cannot make altogether sure of its identity in different minds; though its vagueness is limited by use and communication. This want of mutual correspondence becomes greater when we compare one language with another, and there may be apparent identity of two noems where really the degree of coincidence is but imperfect. Still a very considerable latitude in this respect will not interfere with practical use, and most terms of one language may be converted into those of another without any great degree of periphrasis. This is the substantial unity of noematism in different languages; but, though sufficient for use, yet for philosophical purposes greater accuracy is required. Accuracy of thought and of language consists mainly in the clear mental view of the noems, their exact force and bearing, their extent, &c.; and, in accordance with this, in the careful use of the phones which express the noems. Such a clear view is exceedingly difficult, and hence the difficulty of ascertaining the exactness and the degree of coincidence of noems in different languages. Yet such clearness of view is essential for any valuable consideration of the moral noems which form my special subject at the present time. Before however examining these moral noems specifically, there are two other technical terms which I shall employ and which need some explanation. Since the primary unifications1 are naturally physical and the common recognition of physical objects is therefore the basis of the communication of ideas between men, it is plain that all abstract, moral, or other than physical ideas are, and must be, expressed in language by means of physical ideas. In all these abstract words therefore we have of necessity besides the actual noematism, or meaning of the word in use, something which for our present purposes I will call its dianoematism; that is, on examining the phonism we find it expressing something different from what the word means, and if we trace its history we find it leads ultimately to a physical idea. This is a matter which has lately had much attention drawn to it, and in one way and another I shall perhaps have to speak more about it. At present I would ask you to remember carefully that a noem is a thought-word as it exists in use, as it is meant by the speaker and understood by the hearer, quite independent of its dianoematism, or the noems and phones through which, in fact and historically, it has come to be expressed. The historical change of the meaning of words is the other fact which is of so much glossological importance that it seems to me to need a distinct term to express it, and I shall call it perinoematism. The subject has been treated most ably and beautifully for his particular purpose of practical conclusion and instruction by Mr Trench, but it is a thing which evidently besides its practical importance has its regular laws, capable of investigation and valuable for scientific purposes. For the present however I have merely wished to describe the word. For glossology, or the science of language, with whatever view we cultivate it or to whatever use we apply it, it seems to me that the distinction of phone and noem, or whatever other words we like to express the thoughts by, is the step which is necessary now. I have adopted it for my own private use, not with reference to philosophy more than to the general consider 1 The term 'unify' had been used in previous lectures to express the formation of general terms. |