1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d4984616994646a139e69ff145a7333b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=qwe%7EhI6zOAVNakybrmB1jaP1sr2NBMiTm%7EVFXYnXNBJyXDaSW9CA8zul7RYh-AQEhj%7E1rCUMryM7uNi27LXJP1Ns1fsnpNkqpIKxd%7ERWxdLN6HEH2OQ-mh-o4R1QzVWVOQJXV-pNHWnez3kK58bhJD3wpRpRSji2zcGpTMLTbhUrhfmYKnys3ZajoFtQe%7EhTlYX2inoNc2kCVZ9AOzZkr3OI34%7E9oSohVLzmTs7xwKsR1maRZInR2C5uqMq3erDcowuFYeC13Tw-JvIXhT0EgQtekGVYW1yCIM56ksDt6ekl%7EjzAAZx3EhMJQ6mnbW7tlwfps458xpeCAXaEyH%7ERAA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
78555919476e18da67ce162c35f47c20
PDF Text
Text
SECOND ANNUAL ADDRESS
OF
THE PRESIDENT
/
TO THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
Delivered at the Anniversary Meeting, Friday, 16th May, 1873.
BY
ALEXANDER
J.
ELLIS,
Esq.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.
Introduction
..........................................................................................................' ...
Report by the President on Phonology ...........
Report by the President on the Papers read before the Philological Society in
the three years ending 31st December, 1872 ............................
Report by the President, assisted by Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte, on
Basque
..........................................
Report by A. J. Patterson, Esq., on Hungarian.....................
Report by J". Muir, Esq., of Edinburgh, on Sanscrit Lexicons ............
Report by Prof. Aufrecht, of Edinburgh, on Sanscrit Grammars ....................
Report by J. Peile, Esq., Tutor of Christ's College, Cambridge, on Greek ...
Report by Dr. W. Wagker, of the Johanneum, Hamburg, on Latin
......
Report by F. J. Furnivall, Esq., on Parly English, p. 35, with an Appendix
by Rev. W. W. Skeat ........................................................................................
Report by the President on the formation of an English Hialect Society
...
Report by the President on Professor Max Miiller’s latest views of the
Philosophy of the Origin of Language ........................
PAGE
1
3
9
12
16
19
22
26
29
45
47
48
�PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY
COUNCIL,
1873-4.
President.
ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
Vice-Presidents.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN.
THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID’S.
EDWIN GUEST, ESQ., LL.D., Master of Caius College, Cambridge.
T. HEWITT KEY, ESQ.
WHITLEY STOKES, ESQ.
THE REV. DR. RICHARD MORRIS.
Ordinary
JOSEPH PAYNE, ESQ. (Chairman).
TH. AUFRECHT, ESQ.
E. L. BRANDRETH, ESQ.
C. CASSAL, ESQ.
C. B. CAYLEY, ESQ.
THE REV. B. DAVIES.
II. H. GIBBS, ESQ.
J. W. HALES, ESQ.
E. R. HORTON, ESQ.
THE REV. DR. KENNEDY.
Members.
HENRY MALDEN, ESQ.
J. MUIR, ESQ.
JAS. A. H. MURRAY, ESQ.
RUSSELL MARTINEAU, ESQ.
HENRY NICOL, ESQ.
J. PEILE, ESQ.
CHARLES RIEU, ESQ.
THE REV. W. W. SKEAT.
HENRY SWEET, ESQ.
HENSLEIGH WEDGWOOD, ESQ
Treasurer.
DAN BY P. FRY, ESQ., Local Govt. Board, Gwydr House, Whitehall, S.W.
Hon. Secretary.
FREDK. J. FURNIVALL, ESQ., 3, St. George’s Square, Primrose Hill, N.W.
Extracts from the Philological Society's Pules.
“The Philological Society is formed for the investigation of the Structure, the
Affinities, and the History of Languages; and the Philological Illustration of the
Classical Writers of Greece and Rome.”
“Each Member shall pay two guineas on his election, one guinea as entrance
fee, and one guinea for his first year’s contribution. The Annual Subscription
shall become due on the 1st of January in each year. Any Member may compound
for his contribution by the payment of Ten Guineas, exclusive of his entrance-fee.”
Members are entitled to a Copy of all Papers issued by the Society, and to
attend, and introduce a friend to, the Meetings of the Society, on the first and
third Fridays in every month, from November to June.
Subscriptions are to be paid to the Treasurer, or to the Society’s Bankers,
Messrs. Ransom, Bouverie, & Co., 1, Pall Mall East, W.
Applications for admission should be made to the Honorary Secretary,
F. J. Furnivall, Esq., 3, St. George’s Square, Primrose Hill, N.W.
�SECOND ANNUAL ADDRESS
OF
THE PRESIDENT
TO THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
Delivered at
the
Anniversary Meeting, Friday, 16th May, 1873.
By ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, Esq.
SUMMARY OF CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction .............................
1
Report by the President on.
Phonology
............
3
Report by the President on the
Papers read before the Philo
logical Society in the three
years ending 31st December,
1872
....................................
9
Report by the President, assisted
by Prince Louis Lucien
Bonaparte, on Basque
...
12
Report by A. J. Patterson, Esq.,
on Hungarian............................
16
Report by J. Muir, Esq., of Edin
burgh, on Sanscrit Lexicons ...
19
Report by Prof. Aufrecht, of
Edinburgh, on Sanscrit Gram-
Report by J. Peile, Esq., Tutor
of Christ’s College, Cambridge,
on Greek...............
Report by Dr. W. Wagner, of
the Johanneum, Hamburg, on
Latin
...............
Report by F. J. Furnivall, Esq.,
on Parly English, p. 35, with
an Appendix by Rev. W. W.
Skeat .....................................
Report by the President on .the
formation of an English Dialect
Society
...........
Report by the President on
Professor Max Muller’s latest
views of the Philosophy of the
Origin of Language
......
26
29
45
47
48
Introduction.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Members of the Philological Society,—
The address I delivered at the last Anniversary was con
fessedly merely an introduction to that series of Annual
Reports upon the Progress of Philology which our late
esteemed President, Dr, Groldstiicker, bequeathed as an obliga
tion to his successors in this Chair. In endeavouring to carry
out his views, I feel how just was his estimation of the diffi
culties of the task proposed, which are indeed sufficient to
prevent any President from carrying it out single-handed.
The necessity for seeking assistance from others who should
1
�2
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
be Members of the Society was in Dr. Goldstiicker’s eyes the
very essence of his plan. I have not been able to carry out
this limitation strictly, but, as an experiment, I have en
deavoured to do so as far as possible. On other occasions
circumstances may induce your President to seek assistance
in any accessible quarter rather than abstain from laying
desirable information before the Society. On the present
occasion I have been very careful in distinguishing con
tributed adornments from my own web.
My original intention was to supplement the valuable
summary given by Pott in the last edition of his “ Etymologische Forsch ungen” at the close of 1869, and bring down
the account of philological research to the close of 1872.
This intention I soon abandoned. I found not only that it
would require special laborious research, for which my other
duties left me no leisure, but that, if I attempted to compress
the account into the limits of an address, it would probably
result in a mere catalogue of books, tedious to listen to, and
impossible to remember. It then occurred to me that as this
was to be practically the first Report presented to the Society,
it should rather deal with the present state of philology,
than with its special progress during the last three years.
But even this design I have been unable to carry out as I
could have wished. On future occasions it will be open to
my successors either to review the whole history of the pre
ceding year, or to take up some special parts, which may
have become prominent during that time, or to which the
President has been naturally led to pay more attention. We
must, I think, never attempt too much. Few things are more
tedious to listen to than a scramble over a wide subject.
Notwithstanding the kind assistance of many friends, to
whom I here tender my best thanks on the part of the
Society, my present Report, although almost unreasonably
long, is very defective and even fragmentary. Our Homer
is too plethoric for any nutshell. The illness or other en
gagements of Members from whom I hoped to receive
assistance have also led me to abandon several special
branches, some of which will I hope be taken up next year.
�(DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
3
My present Report is therefore merely an attempt, not a
model.
“ On le peut; je l'essaye; un plus savant le fasse.”
But enough of exordium which threatens to bear a whaleshead
proportion to the body of my address.
Phonology.
Phonology (to begin with my own department) is the side
where philology touches physics. Philology overflows into
many regions. Language is essentially the visible symbol
of man’s views of natural relations. It teems with incunabular metaphysics and logic. It bears the impress of
changing civilisation. It is the only indisputable tradition.
And the science of language, when constituted, must meander
through all these regions. But language is first of all a col
lection of audible sounds generated by a special apparatus.
How it is generated, and how when generated it is appre
ciated, is consequently the first problem of philology, and
it is purely physical and physiological. Until it is solved,
better than by the first cunning alphabet-maker, we cannot
understand how it has been solved by his numerous com
peers, each no doubt with his own theory founded on his own
narrow knowledge and local habits. And until this is ac
complished, we do not know the-words we see, that is, we do
not know the most rudimentary facts on which the science
we contemplate must be established. How far are we ad
vanced towards the solution of this problem ?
The research is almost entirely of modern growth in
Europe, and it has had much to contend with in the passage
of an Aryan language through a Semitic symbolisation
utterly inadequate to represent any of the numerous phonetic
systems which are in practical daily European use. Men
first attacked the problem for its practical value—to teach
the deaf and dumb to speak, to teach a foreigner to pro
nounce, to make a child learn reading more easily. Kempelen’s speaking machine, which has been reproduced by
Wheatstone, and to which Faber’s was mainly due, made
the sounds of language a physical phenomenon, independent ’
�4
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
of life. Johannes Muller’s researches, followed by those of
Willis, Briicke, Merkel, Helmholtz, and Donders, aided by
the beautiful apparatus of Konig, have made them a physio
logical phenomenon. The especial requirements of the
singer led to Garcia’s laryngoscope, which in the hands
of Czermak, Merkel, Madame Seiler, and Herr Behnke of
Birmingham,1 has quite recently thrown new light upon
some of the obscurest problems of speech-sounds, by making
the actual motions of the glottis visible. The necessities of
correcting defective utterance have given occasion for the
closest observations upon convulsive, nervous actions in the
various mobile cavities whence speech issues, and in their
natural interceptors. None seem to have turned their obser
vations on these matters to better account than Mr. Melville
Bell, whose Visible Speech marks an era in phonology, and
contrasts most favourably with the purely physiological
contemporary alphabets of Briicke and Merkel. The neces
sities of missionary enterprise have rendered imperative the
actual reduction of unwritten languages to a visible form,
and no system has found more favour in this respect than
Lepsius’s. In the pure interest of comparative linguistics,
Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte has endeavoured to find
signs for all the sounds which he has heard actually pro
nounced. But his most recent collection of sounds, far
larger than any of those hitherto formed by his predecessors
in the same field of research, has not yet been published.
The great care with which these sounds have been actually
ascertained to form parts of spoken language, as distinguished
from the possibilities of theorists, makes them an indispens1 See Czermak’s papers read before
the Vienna Academy, especially: Sitzungsberichte, Matb. Cl. Band xxix,
No. 12, 29th April, 1858, pp. 557-584,
and Band lii, Abth. 2, Heft x, 7th
Dec., 1865, pp. 623-641. Merkel: Die
Funktionen des menschlichen Sehlundund Kehlkopfes, 1862. Mad. Seiler:
Aites und Neues uber die Ausbildung
des Gesangorganes, 1861, of which a
revised English translation was pub
lished in Philadelphia, U.S., in 1871,
under the title of: The Voice in Sing
ing. Herr Emil Behnke has twice lec
tured on this subject before the Tonic
Sol-fa College: once to the medical
students of University College (re
ported in the Lancet for Feb. 8, 1873),
and once to a musical audience there.
He has the rare power of shewing his
glottis reflected in the laryngoscope
while he is in the act of singing, and
of hence demonstrating the meaning of
the registers of the human voice.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
5
able thesaurus for future phonologists, the value of which
is greatly increased by its skilful arrangement. It is to be
hoped that the key-words at least of this tabular arrange
ment will be made accessible to all phonologic students. I
have personally to thank the Prince for the kindness with
which he has made it accessible to me, both in a laborious
transcription, and by oral communication. With the Russian
extensions of the Cyrillian alphabet to meet the wants of
their comparative philologists, I am unfortunately not ac
quainted. Lepsius’s alphabet is also meant for philology,
but both his, Prince L. L. Bonaparte’s and the Russian
system—as also Bell’s, Briicke’s, and Merkel's, in a still
greater degree—labour under typographical difficulties. It
was to obviate these, without proposing any system of
phonology, that I introduced my own Palaeotype, from
which the commonest jobbing printer can set up a repre
sentation of sounds, that can be transliterated almost exactly
into Bell’s, and, with certain modifications, into Lepsius’sj
Briicke’s, or Merkel’s. But we have within the last few
years reached such an advanced stage of phonological re
search, that the fundamentally different habits and views of
nations respecting speech-sounds, formerly quite overlooked,
become sensible. It is the inability of English and Germans
to understand one another as to the most common sounds in
their own languages which creates the difficulty. The dif
ference is really one of great philological importance. It is
at the base of the whole difficulty of mediae et aspiratae. It
will, when thoroughly overcome, probably lead to the ex
planation of Grimm’s law. The difficulty is not indeed felt
only between England and Germany; German phonologists
in different districts misunderstand each other.1 Naturally
1 The following passage contained in
a note from Mr. Henry Sweet, received
(Sth March, 1873) while I was en
gaged in preparing this address, forcibly
illustrates my meaning. “ I find that
Ivar Aasen (who has written the first
■Norwegian Grammar) actually takes
the description given by the Danes of
their glottal catch, and by a little
alteration makes it so utterly unin
telligible, that he is able to apply it
to the modulative Norse tones! This
shews us what we may expect from .
written accounts of sounds. I may
note that Aasen is on the whole de
cidedly above the philological average
in describing sounds.” Now the Nor
wegian modulation (consisting in a
�6
THE PRESIDENT S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
we Northern Europeans all misunderstand Romance and
Indian phonologists.
Now I think this very satisfactory—of course not as an
end, but as a means. The present stage of phonology is that
of an acknowledged and felt necessity for more inquiry, more
observation, more experiment, especially more internation
ality. Writers like Rumpelt and Scherer/ who seek to turn
Brucke to philological account, because he is an acute physi
ologist, are rather too hasty. It is a healthy sign that
philologists should seek such help, but it is a pity that they
do not also go beyond their own national, or rather local
habits. Philology deals especially with geographical trans
missions, and with hereditary tendencies to pronounce in
certain ways, at least as marked as other linguistic and racial
characteristics. We shall never understand comparative
philology till these are properly weighed and understood.
We are still seeking the path through a shifting bog of
ignorance.
This also complicates some phonological questions which
are exciting much interest at the present day. How did
our ancestors speak in Europe ? In other words, what is
the value of their letters ? Grimm was unfortunately no
phonologist. “ Die Luft ist zu diinn,” was his celebrated
phrase. Hence the whole Gothic, Teutonic, and Scandinavian
languages have still to be investigated. Mr. Sweet’s recent
paper on Danish pronunciation will serve to shew you what
difficulties have to be here encountered, and the necessity of
attending to what outsiders are apt to consider as absurdly
minute distinctions, forgetting that all beginnings are minute,
and that development must be studied in cell-growth, not in
adult forms. Corssen’s ponderous work on Latin pronuncia
tion is a great mine, but is deficient in comparative phonology;
he is evidently a German speaking Romance. Roby’s Latin
change of pitch while uttering sounds)
is a substitute for the Danish glottal
catch (consisting in a momentary
stoppage of voice by complete closure
of the glottis), but is of an utterly
different character. Mr. Sweet is for
tunately familiar with both, and hence
can detect the confusion. But fancy
an uninformed Englishman endeavour
ing to discover the facts amid this
fog!
1 Rumpelt: Das natiirliche System
der Sprachlaute, 1869. Scherer: Zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 1868.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
7
grammar endeavours to make use of the most recent English
phonology, but (as he so often quotes my own writings, I feel
a right to say as much) modern English and ancient Latin
sounds had probably such different bases, that the modern
restoration may be very unlike the ancient edifice. The
investigation is going on. . The Oxford and Cambridge profes
sors have issued a syllabus of Latin Pronunciation for schools,
and we shall probably soon be speaking in a way which a
Roman Rip van Winkel, with sinological anticipations,
might call “ pigeon Latin.” Still all these are steps in the
right direction. The danger is dogmatism. In modern
languages I may mention in passing my own attempts to
reach Early English, which have this vantage-ground, that
the modern and ancient phonological systems in this case are
at least genealogically related. Much still remains to be
done in the Romance languages, Diez notwithstanding.
Greek is almost a terra incognita. We talk of the glorious
sounds of that language, which we read in a way that
would be, no doubt, as unintelligible to ancient, as it certainly
is to modern Greeks, and about as pleasant to both as is to us
a Frenchman’s attempt at reading English before he has
learned the alphabet. And all Europe utters equally insane
cries, and thinks it spouts Homer and Aeschylus.
One word on the direction of phonological inquiry which
is now specially needed. It is not so much more analysis
and systematisation that we require. In fact we rather
labour under a load of systems of universes, themselves un
explored. It is a careful examination of the synthesis of
sounds in different nations, and even small localities, that is
principally wanted. Whether in proceeding from (p) to
(aa), we commence with an open or closed glottis, and, if
with the latter, whether we insert a dull non-vocal intrapharyngeal thud, or whether we come on the vowel smoothly
or explosively, or even with a jerk accompanied by a puff,—
these are questions of real philological importance. These
varieties in progression from sound to sound generate new
sounds, which lead to various linguistic transformations.
Hence we should obtain information about them if possible
�8
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNEAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
first hand, by observations on the life. The different theories
hitherto propounded by philologists, from the depths or
rather the shallows of their own limited experience, are
mere ignes fatui. Alphabetists have uniformly shirked the
whole inquiry. The various actual results produced from
the same apparent combinations of letters under different
national habits are as surprising as they are important for
comparative philologists to understand with accuracy.
It is with great satisfaction that I can turn to two papers
read before our own Society, as exemplifying in the happiest
manner the kind of phonetic research which philology now
urgently requires,—the intelligent, practical, minute, ex
haustive analysis of existing usage. Of Mr. Jas. A. H.
Murray’s treatise on “ The Dialect of the Southern Counties
of Scotland,” read at the close of 1869, but only just pub
lished as the Second Part of the Philological Transactions
for 1870-2, further mention will be made in the Report on
Early English, as respects its linguistic value. But I would
here draw attention to the admirable manner in which the
real Scotch sounds have been for the first time presented to an
English reader, their historical relations considered, and their
dialectal differences explained, on pp. 93 to 149, and 237 to
248 of that work. The only piece of phonological work
on dialects comparable with this is Schmeller’s Mundarten
Bayerns, 1821, which is, however, greatly inferior in phonetic
knowledge and powers of discrimination, though more minute
in local details. The two works together form models on
which to base future dialectal work.
The paper of Mr. Henry Sweet on Danish Pronunciation
'{Philological Transactions for 1873-4, pp. 94-112), which I
have already mentioned in passing, is one of the acutest
phonological investigations of recent times. Mr. Murray
was writing of his own native pronunciation, and comparing
it with Southern English, with which he had been for years
familiar. Mr. Sweet spent a summer over an entirely new
language, in which the orthography offered no assistance,
and pronouncing dictionaries did not exist. He had with
his own spade, as it were, to dig the pronunciation of every
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
9
word out of the native mine; first to bring his ear to recog
nize the novel sounds and their very remarkable synthesis,
and then to determine when and where they had to be used.
Mr. Sweet fortunately began his phonetic career by a study
of Mr. Bell’s Visible Speech, and he was already a good
Scandinavian scholar before he attacked the modern lan
guage. This paper shews what we may look for from such
a combination. It will, I hope, some day be enlarged to the
dimensions of a book. The clear account of the Danish and
Norwegian systems of tones, their contrast and relation;
the discrimination of the exceedingly curious anomalies in
the labialised vowels; the original rules, deduced from ex
haustive lists made by himself, for the peculiar distinctive use
of close and open vowels; the degradations of the consonants
into the second elements of diphthongs; the whole treatment
of initial and final consonants; the remarkable determinations
of the comparative lengths of consonants after long and
short vowels in Danish and English; each observation
enough to make an observer’s reputation;—will stamp this
paper as a classical example of the phonological treatment
of language.
Philology
in the
Philological Society.
Our own Society has certainly developed a decided inclina
tion for phonologic research. Of the 51 papers which have
been read during the three years ending last December, 15
or nearly 30 per cent, are more or less closely connected with
Phonology. Prof. Hewitt Key gave us three papers on
Latin Accent and Rhythm. Mr. Sweet criticised the late
Prof. Koch’s theory of the Anglo-Saxon ea, and gave us that
valuable paper on Danish pronunciation already characterised.
Mr. Cayley treated the hard and soft consonants and discre
pancies in early alphabets. Dr. Weymouth raised a theory
of old English and Anglo-Saxon pronunciation, in opposition
to one I had ventured to propose. Mr. Brandreth expatiated
on vowel-intensification. Mr. Nicol selected the old French
labials, and Prof. Cassal the modern French accent tonique.
�10
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
And finally I troubled the Society with my paper on Glossic
and some conversational remarks on accent, quantity, and
diphthongs. My Glossic paper was indeed related to one by
Mr. Fry on improving English orthography ; and these two
papers, arising out of many meetings in committee, finally
gave rise to a two-nights’ discussion, which confessedly left
the matter where it would have probably continued to lie
whatever had been our decision—namely with the conservativism,
negligence, fancifulness, pedantry, purism,
or radicalism of individual scribes.
As to the languages with which we dealt during the same
time, Prof. Hewitt Key’s papers on Latin accent and rhythm,
already referred to, and three others on some errors and
omissions in Latin dictionaries, with another on the com
pression of Latin words (which I might have classed among
the phonetic papers), and a short paper on an ode of Horace
by Mr. Schonemann, gave Latin the preference over English.
But our own language had several papers by Prof. Joseph
Payne, especially in relation to the origination of many pro
vincial English words through the Norman. Mr. Murray
illustrated Shakspere’s usages from modern dialects, and re
marked on the dialectic varieties of the prose works attributed
to Hampole. Mr. Fry dealt with “ Chinee” and kindred words;
Dr. Morris read some notes on English grammar and the old
Kentish dialect, and amused us with detailing various
eccentricities in the older and newer forms of our language;
and Mr. Wedgwood contributed a few additional etymolo
gies. Mr. Yates wrote on the orthography of past tenses
and participles. Mr. Sweet finally gave us an interesting
paper on the special characteristics of the Anglo-Saxon
language of the time of Alfred.
These were our main subjects. But French in its old form
was treated by Dr. E. Mall in a paper on Marie de France,
and in its modern form by Mr. Dawson, and afterwards by
Prof. Cassal for genders, in addition to his phonetic re
searches. The Celtic and Sanscrit were the only other
languages which had more than a single contribution. We
had a paper on the accusative plural in the British language
�DEmVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
11
and on the Irish verb by Dr. Whitley Stokes, and one on
Welsh affixes by Mr. Powell. I think that my passing
notice on scoring sheep in Yorkshire belongs rather to
this head.
Sanscrit was treated two or three times by Dr. Goldstiicker,
Pennsylvania German by Prof. Haldeman, Danish by Mr.
Sweet, the Mosquito dialect by Messrs. Charnock and Blake.
The other papers were more general. Mr. Wheatley gave
us some more reduplicated words, Dr. Weymouth treated
Euphuism, Dr. Goldstiicker spoke of the derivation of words
from sound, Dr. Oppert discussed the Graal, and I read my
address on the relation of thought to sound.
As our friend Dr. Wagner’s extra volume on Mediaeval
Greek does not come under consideration, we have nothing
in our list relating to Greek or Hebrew, nothing about
Gothic, Teutonic, or Old Horse, almost nothing about the
older Romance languages, and nothing at all about aggluti
native or monosyllabic languages. Native Asiatic, African,
and American are ignored. Egyptian and Assyrian re
searches have had no interest for us. It is evident therefore
that several of our Members who are well qualified to give
us the result of their studies on some of these languages,
have been either absent or too busy to prepare papers. The
fifty-one papers have been read by or for twenty-seven
authors, all of whom, however, were not Members of our
Society.1 This summary shews the active state of philology
among ourselves. The passive mine is much richer, but
owing to circumstances not workable. There will always be
some prevalent study in such societies. We began with
classics. For the last three years we have not cared to
touch Greek. The First Part of our Transactions for 1873-4,
which has just been delivered to Members, contains three
,
1 The following is an alphabetic list
of the authors, the figures annexed
shew the number of the papers.
When a paper was divided into parts
read on different evenings, each part
has been counted as a separate paper,
The two evenings devoted to discus
sions have not been reckoned:—Bran-
dreth 1, Cassal 2, Cayley 2, Charnock
and Blake 1, Dawson 1, Ellis 5, Fry
2, Goldstiicker 3, Haldeman 1, Jere
miah 1, Key 7, Mall 1, Morris 2, C.
Murray 1, J. A. H. Murray 2, Nicol 1,
Oppert 1, Payne 5, Powell 1, Schonemann 1, Stokes 2, Sweet 3, Wedgwood
1, Weymouth 1, Yates 1.
�12
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
papers read this year, and omits many of those already menJ
tioned. This partly arose from the circumstance that many
of the other papers were not ready for press, and it was
desirable to issue this Part before our anniversary. But as
our year terminates in December, it will be convenient to
defer noticing such papers as have been read subsequently,
till the next address of the President. And now let us look
to the outside world.
Basque.
Education in English schools was contrived when I was
a boy,—and though somewhat improved, I am glad to think,
during the intervening forty years, yet, like the tree, it
preserves its old bend, and may therefore be still regarded as
contrived, undesignedly of course, and perhaps unconsciously
(which makes amendment not particularly hopeful),—to bring *
up a boy’s mind in the one Aryan faith, of the one Aryan
linguistic mode of thought. The instrument was mainly the
Latin grammar, to which even all other Aryan heresies were
made to succumb. Boswell reports a speech of Johnson
which puts the feeling thus generated in a very strong light.
“I always said,” quoth the oracle, “ Shakspere had Latin
enough to grammaticise his English” (anno 1780, aet. 71).
We know now what to conclude of Johnson’s own knowledge
of English grammar. Latin and Greek, eternally ground
in, with French as an “ extra,” and English merely as a
medium for “ construing,” is the received English prepara
tion for linguistic study. Well, we have got out of it a
little. Thanks to Christianity, some people had to learn
Hebrew, and the Semitic verb at least ought to have opened
our eyes. But if any philologist wishes to see how truly all
Aryanism and Semiticism are merely the favoured literary
dialects of the world, how extremely remote they are from
representing all logical connections of thought, to indicate
which inflections and insertions, reduplications, guna, and
umlaut and ablaut, conjugational forms and voices, and the
other paraphernalia developed by these systems of language in
different proportions, are supposed to have been constructed,
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
13
in ways which different scholars have wanted words laudatory
enough to characterise ; if any philologist wishes to see radiearianism and hereditary preservation of forms of words
break utterly down, and find a system of language which
preserves its individuality by its mere mode of grammatical
construction, let him study the Basque. We are indebted to
the personal labour, critical acumen, and unwearied perse
verance of Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte, for our only
trustworthy knowledge of this extraordinary language.
Gifted with great power of appreciating sounds, and having
long studied their representation, he has been able to write
them down intelligibly from oral delivery. The phonetie
peculiarities of Basque, especially in the sibilants, are such
as never occurred to our a priori alphabetists, and require
considerable phonetic acrobatism to imitate. The Prince has
lately presented our Society with his linguistic maps of the
Basque provinces, which he has promised to explain at our
next meeting, and he has also furnished us with copies of
almost all his publications on the Basque languages, in
cluding his recent remarkable studies on the Basque verb,
perhaps the most complicated in existence, some of the
peculiarities of which he will, doubtless, point out, as they
form the criteria for dialectic separation. These I will not
anticipate. The Society is, as I have said, through the
kindness of the Prince, in possession of these works, usually
extremely difficult to procure, and can therefore peruse them
at leisure. That Aryan scholars should be put into a position
to study such remarkable phenomena in their libraries, in
stead of hunting them through mountain and vale, from
village to village, and mouth to mouth, is a great gain to
philology. The Prince has not completed his task, although
he has completed his collections, and it must be the desire of
all linguistic scholars that he will have life and health, as
he has the desire and the intellectual power and requisite
patience, to accomplish a task he has so worthily begun.1
1 Besides his account of the Basque
verb and his map of the Basque dialects,
the Prince has published numerous
works, either written hy himself or by
his direction, forming materials for the
study of the language. His second
�14
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
The Basque language is one of the most ancient in the
world; but it has no literature. The oldest existing trace
of the Basque language is a list of forty words, incidentally
introduced into a work by Marineo Siculo in 1530. The
oldest book is a short set of poems, in rhyme, by Bernard
Dechepare, rector of St. Micbel-le-Vieux, partly devotional,
partly erotic, printed at Bordeaux in 1545, of which only
one copy is known to exist, being Y 6194 P in the
National Library at Paris.1 The next in date, and the
only one really of value, is a Protestant translation of the
New Testament, with Liturgy and Catechism, printed at
Rochelle in 1571.2 Another edition of the Catechism with
Calendar was printed the same year, with a different form
of the so-called dative plural, which is extremely rare. The
more recent Basque works seem to be chiefly prayers, hymns,
catechisms, and devotional or ascetic works. Many, though
not the most important, of its words have materially changed
in the course of time. It has a power of adopting and in
corporating new and foreign words with ease. Its' different
dialects sometimes use totally different words for even the
commonest objects, such as sun and moon. But the immense
majority of words are of course common, with mere variations
of form, to all the dialects. The Basque is an agglutinative
language, but is widely different from the other great agglu
tinative families, with which it scarcely shares more than the
negative properties of being non-Aryanic and non-Semitic.
The peculiar construction of its verb, which, with sharply
marked distinctions, runs through all the dialects, binds
catalogue, extending to the year
1862, has 25 entries respecting Basque,
and I find 24 more in the additions
to that catalogue. These consist of
translations into various Basque dia
lects of the Song of the Three Children,
the Lord's Prayer, a text of John,
Dialogues, Genesis to Leviticus, the
whole Gospel of St. Matthew, the Re
velations, Doctrina Cristiana, the Books
of Ruth and Jonah, Song of Songs,
Miserere, Catechism, the whole of the
French-Basque Bible, together with a
Vocabulary, Comparison of Basque and
Finnish, Basque Sermon preserved at
Arbonne, Note on supposed genitives
and datives plural, and the great work
on the Basque verb, with maps, already
mentioned. It is the labour of a life
time devoted to linguistic science.
1 Reprinted and translated into
French, so far as decency allowed, in
1847.
2 The first complete Bible in the
Basque language, comprising both the
Old and New Testaments, is that in
the dialect of Labourd, brought out by
Prince L. L. Bonaparte, begun m 1859
and concluded in 1865.
�DEuJpvERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
15
them firmly together, and separates them clearly and defi
nitely from all other languages.1 These investigations
into Basque mark then a great step in philology. . They
give us a new visual instrument for seeing the circula
tion of the blood corpuscules of language. We must not be
in too great a hurry to systematise and genealogise. It is
said that Adam and Eve spoke Basque in Paradise. I can’t
disprove it. But if so, the descendant tongues of to-day are
not so like their parents as man is to the gorilla.
I cannot conclude this reference to Prince Louis Lucien
Bonaparte’s labours on Basque, without special reference to
the magnificent donation which he has made to our Society,
not merely of his works on this particular subject, but of an
almost unique collection of all his linguistic works on Uralian, Albanian, Celtic, French, Spanish, Italian, and English
dialects, phonetics, and other linguistic researches, comprising
138 out of his 162 distinct publications, the missing twentyfour being generally such as were printed in very limited
numbers, or consisting of cancelled editions.2 Even of those
which are presented, there are many that he could not replace
if lost. Probably no such collection of his works exists in
England, except at the British Museum, the Athenaeum Club,
1 Not being myself acquainted with the Basque, I have submitted the above
statement of characteristics to Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte; and I believe
that it will be found substantially correct.
2 An analysis of the numbers in the printed catalogues of the Prince’s works
gives the following results. A “number” is any distinct paper or work, from
a single page to 1376 pages (as in the case of the French Basque Bible). For
the classification of these languages see below, p. 17 note.
Polyglot
Basque
Celtic
Modern Greek
Albanian
Italian
Spanish
Portuguese
French
German
English
Friesic
Russian
Uralian
Total in
Presented to
Catalogue. Philo. Soc.
5
49
7
1
3
36
1
2
7
1
35
3
1
11
3
35
5
1
3
35
1
1
6
1
32
3
1
11
Catalogues, etc.
Maps, Verb, Dialects, Bible, etc.
Cornish, etc.
Corsican Mai’not.—St. Matthew.
St. Matthew.
Italian and Sardinian.—St. Matthew.
Asturian.—St. Matthew.
Galician.—St. Matthew.
Picard, Provenqal, etc.—St. Matthew.
Transylvanian.—Song of Solomon.
St. Matthew and Song of Solomon.
St. Matthew.
Song of Solomon.
Karelian, Livonian, Syrjanian, Permic,
etc.—St. Matthew.
�16
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
and on his own shelves; nor could he form another. Originally
destined for the Library of the Louvre, the Prince determined,
after the burning of that Library during the time of the
Commune, to present this collection to a linguistic society.
We must all feel much gratified at the choice which he has
made ; and I hope that we shall be stimulated to return our
thanks to the donor in the way which, I am sure, will be
most pleasing to himself,—by prosecuting the studies for
which he has given us such ample materials.
Hungarian.
There is another non-Aryan tongue, surrounded by Aryanism, but unlike the last, with a literature full of life, the
language of a nation which is growing into political im
portance, becoming indeed, as the principal portion of the
Austrian empire, one of the great powers of Europe. The
Magyar or Hungarian language is very little known or
studied by linguists. But it is the most accessible and literary
of the so-called agglutinative languages, with speakers pos
sessing all European culture, and perfectly acquainted with
the principal European tongues—men who can speak in
English as Kossuth spoke to us awhile ago—and it is
written with Roman letters after a system readily under
stood, which puts our own orthography to shame, whereas its
Dravidian congeners, which are scarcely studied by any but
Madras officials, have entirely new systems of writing, and its
Turkish cousin is of all tongues spoken in Europe the worst
spelled. Our Society, thanks to a former member, Mr.
Pulszky, possesses a fine collection of Magyar books, and I
should be glad to find some member taking up so important
a study, and furnishing us with a comparative view of Hun
garian and Aryan forms of thought as traceable in linguistic
structure. Thus the absence of grammatical gender, the
same word d serving for he, she, or it, must correspond to a
direction of thought entirely different to the Aryanic. The
Hungarians have devoted much attention to their own philo
logy, 80 that materials are abundant. I am indebted to Mr.
Arthur J. Patterson, an eminent English authority on this
�17
DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
remarkable language, which, by the bye, presents several
curious phonetic characters, for the following account of the
recent philological activity of the Hungarians.
tf Perhaps the most fruitful advance that has been made in
philological study in Hungary during the last two years has
been the establishment, at the commencement of 1872, of a
new philological periodical, entitled Magyar Nyelvor. Its
title is formed on the analogy of the German compound
Sprachwart, and may be translated Watchman of the Hunga
rian Language. As it concerns itself with Hungarian
etymology, questions of Hungarian grammar, corrections of
mistakes made in the current literature of the day, the ex
amination of remains of old Hungarian literature, and the
recording of popular songs, proverbs, dialectical peculiarities,
etc.,—reference to the cognate Ugrian languages 1 being
1 In a brochure recently published,
summing up the researches that have
been made in the field of the FinnUgrian family of languages, Dr.
Donner, of Helsingfors, divides that
family into five branches: (1) the
Finnish proper, including the Karelian,
Estonian, etc.; (2) the Lapp dialects;
(3) the Syrjanian; (4) the Permic
dialects; (5) the Ugrian, properly so
called, comprising the Ostiak, Vogul,
and Magyar languages. Dr. Donner’s
brochure has been carefully analyzed
by M. Edouard Sayous in the Revue
Critique for the first quarter of 1873.—
A. J. P.
Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte’s
classification is as follows, shewing
more exactly the position of this
group of languages. It is taken from
his “ Classification Morphologique des
Langues Europeennes,” with MS. ad
ditions. “ Premiere Classe. A. Souche
basque: 1 Basque. B. Souche altaique.
. . a. Famille ouralique.—a) Sousfamille tchoude: i. Branche finnoise :
2 Finnois. 3 Esthonien. 4 Livonien.
n. Branche laponne: 5 Lapon.—b)
Sous-famille permienne: 6 Permien
et zyriain. 7 Votiak.-c) Sous-famille
volgaique: i. Branche tche'remisse:
8 Tcheremisse. ii. Branche morduine:
9 Morduin.-«Z) Sous-famille oi'goure :
I. Branche hongroise : 10 Hongrois.
ii. Branche Vogoule: 11 Vogoule. iii.
Branche ostiaque : 12 Ostiaque. (N.B.
Le finnois avec 1’esthonien et le li
vonien, different du lapon a peu pres
comme le grec differe du latin. Il en
est de meme du tchdremisse par rapport
au morduin, et du hongrois, du vogoule
et de 1’ostiaque entre eux.) . ... fl.
Famille samoyede, y. Famille tartare,
8. Famille tongouse, e. Famille mongole, avec leur sous-familles et leur
branches. C. Souche Dravidienne, etc.
D. Souche caucasique occidental?, etc.
E. Souche Caucasique orientale, etc.
F. G. H., etc., etc. Autres Souches
tres-diffdrentes entre elles, quoique appartenant a cette pbemi^re classe.”
The remainder of this classification
is subjoined, as being important to the
Members of the Philological Society, in
connection with the works presented
to them by the Prince, and analyzed
in the footnote to p. 15. “ Deuxieme
classe. A. Souche indo-germanique.
(N.B. Les noms des langues mortes
sont imprimes en caracteres italiques.)
. ... a. Famille celtique: i. Branche
gaelique: 13 Gaelique. n. Branche
bretonne :—a. 14 Gallois.—b. 15 Cornouaillais.—c. 16 Breton................ j9.
Famille greco-latine: i. Branche albanaise: 17 Albanais. ii. Branche
grecque: 18 Grec. 19 Grec moderne.
iii. Branche latine :—a. 20 Latin.—
b. 21 Italien. [22. Espagnol. 23
Portugais].—c. 24 Franqais. 25 Ro-
2
�18
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
strictly subordinated to the above objects,—it is of a more
popular character and appeals for support to a wider public
than the philological journal of an older standing—Philologiai Kozlony (Philological Gazette), which came to an end
with the year 1872. The editor of Magyar Nyelwr, Mr.
Szarvas, whose speciality is the study of the remains of
mediaeval Hungarian, has published during the last year a
treatise on the tenses of the Hungarian verb.
“ Dr. Budenz has, during the period in question, read some
interesting papers before the Hungarian Academy, one of
them being an elaborate critique of Dr. Vambery’s treatise
on the words common to the Hungarian and Turkish lan
guages. But it is understood that he has in an advanced
stage of preparation a work on the words common to
the Hungarian and Ugrian languages, somewhat on the
model of Curtius’ Griechische Etymologie. Dr. Budenz is
also preparing a short Finnish Grammar and Beading-book,
for the use of Hungarian students, which will soon be pub
lished.
“ Another Ugrian scholar, Mr. Paul Hunfalvy, has recently
brought out a book on the dialect of the Vogul language
spoken on the banks of the Konda, in Siberia. It contains a
grammar and glossary of the translation of the Gospel of
St. Matthew into the Konda Vogul dialect, executed by M.
Popov, and revised by Professor Wiedemann, of St. Peters
burg, and published by Prince Louis Lucien Bonaparte.1
Before this translation the only specimens of the Vogul
language that Mr. Hunfalvy had to work on were two series
of questions and answers on the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten
Commandments, communicated by Satigin, the representaman. 26 Rhetique.—d. 27 Valaque.
. . . y. Famille germano-scandinave.
i. Groupegermanique.—a. 28 Gothique.
29 Allemand ancien. 30 Bas-allemand
ancien. 31 Anglo-Saxon. 32 Frison.
—b. 33 Allemand. [34 Bas-allemand.
35 Hollandais.] 36 Frison moderne.
—c. 37 Anglais, ii. Groupe scandinave.—a. 38 Islandais.—b. [39 Suedois. 40. Danois]............... 8. Famille
slavo-lettonienne. i. Branche slave.—
a. 41 Slavon. 42 Russe. [43 Illyrien. 44 Slovene.] 45 Bulgare.—
b. 46 Polonais. 47 Boheme. 48
Lusaeien.
49 Folabe.
(N.B. Le
dialecte cassubien est encore parle.)
ii. Branche lettonienne.—a. 50 Li
thuanian.—b. 51 Frussien.— c. 52
Letton.”—A. J. E.
1 This work is among those pre
sented to the Philological Society by
the Prince.—A. J. E.
�BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
19
Bye of the independent Vogul princes, to. the Hungarian
traveller, Reguly. In his preface Mr. Hunfalvy shews that
although the translator of the Gospel is a Russian, the
Vogul of the version is much less Russianised than that of
Satigin, and consequently proportionably more valuable for
philologists. Of course, too,, the Gospel affords a much
larger store of linguistic materials.
“ Lastly it may be mentioned,, as a sign of increased in
terest in philology, that a translation of the Finnish epic
Kalevala into Hungarian verse, by M. Barna, appeared in
1871. It was reviewed by Dr. Budenz in the Academy,
September 15th, 1871, with especial reference to the lin
guistic side of the work, and the relation of Magyar to
Finnish.”
Sanscrit.
Passing at once to the Aryan languages, we naturally
turn first to Sanscrit. As my predecessor, Dr. Goldstiicker,
was an eminent Sanscrit scholar, who had devoted himself
especially to Sanscrit lexicography, on which he held pecu
liar opinions with great tenacity, I was anxious to secure a
communication on this especial subject from one in whom
Dr. Goldstiicker himself had confidence. Mr. John Muir,
of Edinburgh, a Member of our Council, a friend of Dr.
Goldstucker, and an eminent .Sanscrit scholar, has kindly
furnished me with the following contribution on this sub
ject.
“In 1843 a ‘Notice of European grammars and lexicons
of the Sanskrit language,’ written by the late Prof. H.. H.
Wilson, appeared in our Transactions. Since that time
contributions to Sanskrit lexicography have been made by
Professors Benfey,. Goldstiicker, Max Muller, Aufrecht,
Grassmann, and others. But I must pass over the labours
of these scholars, in order to be able to notice at more length
the Sanskrit Worterbuch of Messrs. Bohtlingk and Roth,
compiled with the co-operation of Professors Weber, Whitney,
Schiefner, Stenzler, Kuhn, and Kern, and at one time of
Prof. Aufrecht, begun in 1852 and steadily .continued to the
�20
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
present time. Of this work six quarto volumes have alreadyappeared, and it will apparently be completed in one other
volume. This great and epoch-making Thesaurus, by far
the most important work of its kind which has yet been
published, whether as regards its compass or its intrinsic
.value, contains, as far as it has come out, 7976 columns^:
3988 pp. Not only is the number of words greatly in excess
of those in Wilson’s second edition (though a few are omitted,
and some of the significations of those retained are excluded
as without authority), but the senses of the words are more
systematically and scientifically arranged. In particular,
the compound verbs, which are ranged alphabetically after
the simple roots, are far more copiously expounded. Refer
ences are given either to the native Dictionaries in which
the words are found, or to the passages of the books in which
the different meanings occur.
“The most interesting feature in this work is, perhaps,
the interpretation of words occurring in the hymns of the
Veda, many of them obsolete, or employed in different senses,
in later Sanskrit. For this portion of the work Prof. Roth
is avowedly responsible. The principles upon which he
proceeds are stated in the introduction to the first volume.1
He asserts that the native interpreters of the Vedic hymns,
living in comparatively modern times, when the ideas, re
ligion, and institutions of the people of India had undergone
a long series of modifications, and holding all the opinions
current in their own age,—destitute (it may be added) of the
faculty (only recently acquired even by European thinkers)
of transporting themselves into the past, of entering into its
feelings, and thinking its thoughts,—did not possess the quali
fications requisite for the correct comprehension of those
hymns, which not only represent a far more ancient set of con
ceptions and beliefs, but are full of obsolete words. He con
siders that the writings of these commentators do not form a
rule for the scientific expositor, but are merely one of those
1 See a translation of his remarks in
the Journal Royal Asiatic Society, vol.
ii., new series, pp. 307 ff, and Prof.
Roth’s article, Reber GelehrteTradition
u.s.w. in the Zeitschrift der morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, xxi. 1, ff.—J. M.
�DELIVERED B¥ ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
21
helps of which the latter will avail himself for the execution of
his difficult task, a task which is not to be accomplished at the
first onset, or by any single individual. He therefore seeks to
proceed philologically to derive from the texts themselves the
sense which they contain by a juxtaposition of all the passages
which are cognate in diction and contents. This method
is no doubt a correct one, though everything depends on its
proper application. This scheme of interpretation, though
approved by all, or most, other eminent Sanskritists,1 was
emphatically condemned by our late President,2 who main
tained that the Indian commentators were quite as able as
European scholars to bring together and compare all the
passages in which particular words occur, that in the case of
hapax legomena the guesses of the former were as good as those
of the latter, and that their methods of procedure were not
purely ^etymological, but involved a reference to an ancient
and genuine tradition. In support of his own views on the
interpretation of the Veda, Prof. Goldstiicker read a paper
before the Koyal Asiatic Society in answer to one by my
self, of which nothing more than a meagre abstract (pub
lished in the Athenceum at the time) ever appeared. It is to
be regretted that this paper was never elaborated by the
author, and his views supported by the great learning and
ingenuity of which he was master, as, although it may be
doubted if he would have gained many converts among
scholars able to form a correct judgment, he would prob
ably have brought together much important information,
and thrown additional light on many questions connected
with Indian antiquity.
1 To the previous supporters of this
view may now be added Mr. A. C.
Burnell, who, in the valuable preface
to his edition and translation of the
VamQa Brahmana (Mangalore, 1873),
—in which he gives much information
regarding Sayana, and identifies him
with Madhava and Vidyaranya,—ex
presses himself as follows: “ The great
controversy which has prevailed so long
respecting Sayana’s competence to ex
plain the Vedas, is fast approaching its
end; the above sketch of his life and
works will shew that the followers of
the ‘ German school ’ are historically
right. That they are so theoretically,
is established by an amount of proof
offered by Max Miiller, Weber, Whit
ney, Roth, Muir, and others that has
long vanquished all reasonable hesita
tion on the part of the Sanskritists who
were once inclined to prefer Sayana and
Indian precisians to the results of com
parative philology.”—J.M.
2 See his Panini, pp. 241 ff.—J. M.
�22
the president’s annual ADDRESS FOR 1873
“Prof. Goldstiicker’s own Dictionary, ‘extended and im
proved from the second edition’ of Wilson’s, has unfortunately
remained a mere fragment, embracing only a portion of the
words beginning with the first letter of the alphabet. The
first fasciculus was published in 1856, and the sixth and last
in 1864. The scale on which it is composed, as compared
with Wilson’s, may be understood from the fact that its 480
pages reach no further than p. 66 of the latter. The number
of words is greatly increased, and the explanations of many
of them are far more elaborate than in Wilson. Some of the
articles are of encyclopaedic dimensions. Perhaps the most
important parts of the work are those which define the mean
ings of the technical terms of Indian philosophy, in which
the author was a high proficient. But the entire work, so
far as it goes, is of great value.
“The only other work calling for notice is that of Prof.
Monier Williams, published last summer (containing 1186
4to. pp., much more closely printed than the 988 pp. of
Wilson’s), which supplies, in a practical manner, the want,
so long felt, of a complete Sanskrit and English Dictionary,
and will tend greatly to facilitate and promote the study of
Sanskrit in this country. It includes an immense number
of words not to be found in Wilson, and embodies in a con
densed form the new materials to be found in the parts of
Bohtlingk and Roth’s work published up to the time of its
appearance.”
Prof. Aufrecht, of Edinburgh, who is also a Member of
our Council, has kindly supplemented the preceding lexico
graphical remarks of Mr. Muir by the following relating to
Sanscrit Grammaticography.
“ Sanskrit Grammar is based on the grammatical aphorisms
of Panini, a writer now generally supposed to have lived in
the fourth eentury b.c. At that time, Sanskrit had oeased to
be a living language, and was only kept up artificially by
being made the vehicle for the education of the upper classes.
It would be interesting to know what style of language
Panini chose as the standard of his observations. It was
certainly not the idiom of the Vedas, as he seldom treats
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
23
this with his usual accuracy, and only mentions it in order
to show its discrepancies from the classical style, or, as he
terms it, the language of the world. We believe that long
before his own time a scientific and poetical literature had
already sprung up, and that a certain number of writers were
chosen by him and his predecessors as the representatives
and patterns of the classical language. Panini was himself
a poet, and the great commentary on his grammatical rules
contains many fragments of early poetry. Treatises on law,
long anterior to the law-book of Manu, are still in existence,
and names of ancient writers on other than sacred subjects
are frequently cited. However this may be, it is quite
certain that the so-called classical Sanskrit, as taught by
Panini and his numerous commentators and imitators, is not
a language which had its foundation in the colloquial usage
of an entire nation or the educated portion of it, but rather
in the confined sphere of grammatical schools which fed
themselves on the rich patrimony of previous illustrious ages.
This development of the Sanskrit finds a striking analogy in
the Rabbinic language, which’also is to be traced back to
the endeavours of religious scholars to endue with new life
an idiom rapidly dying out.
“ The introduction of Sanskrit lore into Europe forms
a new epoch in the study of the language. The European
Grammarians tried from the very first to arrange Sanskrit
grammar, not according to the chaotic manner of the Natives,
but after the models of their own Greek and Latin grammars.
They used more or less fully and accurately the native sources,
but tried to free themselves from the trammels of a system
which for its comprehension required years of study. It is
principally owing to the genius of Bopp that Sanskrit
grammar has become as lucid as that of any other
ancient or modern language which we are in the habit of
studying. But Bopp was not satisfied with the compara
tively easy task of digesting the principles of Sanskrit
grammar according to European models ; this had been done
before him in a very satisfactory way by Wilkins. But his
principal merit consists in having brought to bear on his
�24
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
subject the light of his philological discoveries, and in basing
his rules on purely scientific principles. His aim was to
trace everywhere the genesis of the grammatical forms, not
to content himself with a mere classification. Advanced
scholars might from time to time discover, and have some
times too severely criticised, the want of a thorough know
ledge of the native grammarians, and the mistakes which in
consequence here and there disfigured his grammar. Never
theless, it may be said that all the distinguished Sanskrit
scholars of the present time have learned from him their
Sanskrit; and Bopp was not slow to correct in subsequent
editions any mistakes which had been pointed out to him.
Bopp’s Grammar appeared in six editions,1 five in German,
and one in Latin. Its principal defect is the absence of
Syntax. Wilson and Williams are the only scholars who,
to some extent, have tried to supply this deficiency.
“ Bohtlingk, the editor of Panini, published in 1843 and
1844 two essays on Sanskrit Declension and Accent, both
based solely on native sources. The latter essay is of some
historical importance, as having first called attention to a
subject entirely unknown before. Benfey, in a review,
entered more fully on the latter topic, availing himself for
this purpose of the few then accessible accentuated texts of
the Vedas. Bopp, in a separate book, showed the agreement
between the Sanskrit and Greek accent. Aufrecht published
an essay on the accent in Sanskrit Compounds, and Whitney
wrote a treatise on the system of accentuation in the Atharva
Veda.1
2
“Professor Boiler, of Vienna, published in 1847 a Sanskrit
Grammar, in which an attempt was made to give the ma
terial, as supplied by the native grammarians, in some
completeness, and to accentuate every part of the grammar.
This work does not seem to have attracted much notice,
although it is done both accurately and systematically.
“ A more ambitious aim was pursued by Professor Benfey
1 The fourth edition of his smaller
Grammar appeared after his death in
1868.
2 An account of Prof. Whitney’s
view of Sanscrit accent is given in the
last footnote to my paper on “Accent and
Emphasis,” in the Philological Trans
actions for 1873-4, p. 163.—A. J. E.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
25
in his Complete Grammar of Sanskrit, Leipzig, 1852. Ac
cording to his own statement, it was his object to show
precisely and clearly all that is forbidden and allowed in
Sanskrit, and to render fully the native exposition of gram
mar. There can be no doubt that Benfey has brought
together a heap of material for the erection of a palace, but,
unfortunately, in endeavouring to outvie all that had been
done before him, he has not sufficiently separated cumbersome
rubbish from the really valuable bricks and stones. The
beginner, wishing to learn Sanskrit from this book, would
arrive at the conviction that it is a language in which the
exception forms the rule; and the advanced scholar will find
it an easier task to consult his Panini, than to have recourse
to this exposition of the native system. We have to speak
with more praise of the Practical Grammar by the same
author, brought out in English by Messrs. Trubner, although
experience has proved to us that the epithet ‘practical’ is
hardly justified. A grammar in which declension is placed at
the end of the book, and which in all earnest contains a de
clension of sutus, said to mean ‘ well shining,’ a word sprung
up in the muddled brain of a crazy grammarian, would, at
least in this country, not be called practical.
“ Professor Stenzler has put together in 42 pages (Breslau,
1868) the Essentials of Sanskrit Grammar in a most satisfactory
manner, and we know of no other book so well adapted to the
use of those who wish to learn the elements of the language.
“ Within the last thirty years, several grammars have
been published in England, and have gone through new
editions. The grammars of Professors Wilson, Williams,
and Muller are too well known to require a special criticism.
But we cannot conclude without drawing attention to Pro
fessor Kielhorn’s Grammar, printed at Bombay in 1870.
Both for clearness and accuracy we consider it the best gram
mar hitherto published in the English language.
“ The books we have hitherto spoken about were written for
practical purposes. But a historical grammar, after the
model of Grimm’s Deutsche Grammatik, still remains a de
sideratum. We should like to see a work which would trace
�26
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
the language through the different stages of the Vedical
writings down to the great Epics and Puranas, and show
the gradual development of Sanskrit into the ancient and
modern popular dialects, which have arisen on its ruins.
Materials for such a task are gradually accumulating, and it
requires only a master-spirit to complete and properly digest
them.”
•
Greek.
For the following account of recent researches on Greek
I am indebted to Mr. John Peile, Tutor of Christ’s College,
Cambridge, a Member of our Council. Allow me in especial
to direct your attention to the phonetic questions which arise
in them, and to the concluding observations upon general
syntactical transformation in language: the former shew
the impossibility of advancing in philology without much
increased knowledge of phonology; the latter bring the
solidarity of languages strikingly before us, and warn us
against the confusion of development with decay.
“ A careful discussion of the Ionic dialect has been given
by Erman in Curtius’ Studien. This has been long wanted.
The results are not very full, but they at least shew how
much can be certainly known. Erman has printed all the
prose Ionic inscriptions which we possess: those of the
Corpus, and those edited more lately by Newton, and by
Lenormant: he has also availed himself of the labour of
Kirchhoff (Studien zur Gfeschichte des Gfriechischen Alphabets}.
We thus have the inscriptions of the sixth and fifth centu
ries—those of Magna Graecia and Euboea, of the twelve
Ionic cities, and of Thasos, Halicarnassus, etc.: then those
of the fourth century, in number 40. To these inscriptions
he rightly attributes much greater importance than to the
MSS. of Herodotus, which sometimes shew Atticisms, some
times hyper-Ionicisms. His principal conclusion is, that the
later Ionic dialect differed much less from the Attic than is
commonly supposed. But he shews considerable divergence
(as might be expected) among the western Ionians from the
typical form : and in that form itself some slight variations,
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
27
the natural result of time. Among other results of his in
vestigation is a clear proof that the v e^eX/cvo-rifcov was
found in older Ionic (a fact commonly denied), with precisely
the same irregularity as in Attic, and more rarely in the
later inscriptions. . The Euboean inscriptions shew the
natural influence of Hellas proper, in the preservation of a
in some words where Ionia weakened it into y. He thinks
that a difference of sound underlies the variants e and ei
found nross-wise in both Attic and Ionic, though not com
monly, ei being the usual spelling : one sound he thinks
belonged to the true diphthong arising from the meeting of
e and t, or from the intensification of i; the other to the
merely compensatorily lengthened e. It is not probable that
the diphthongal sound was long preserved pure : it possibly
sank first into the close e-sound followed by a glide, though
denoted still by ec: while e probably denoted the close e
pure, and
the open e. With respect to the absence of
contracted vowels, which is commonly assumed to be peculiar
to Ionic, Erman has shewn conclusively that contraction
was common to all the branches, except that of Thasos, as
early as the 5th century.
u In the same journal Siegismund has an exhaustive paper
on Greek metathesis. The facts are admirably arranged.
In Greek, as in other languages, the greater number of the
sounds so transposed are liquids; and Siegismund rightly
explains the fact by the nature of the sound. He thinks it
probable that the liquid expanded itself (so to speak) into a
liquid and vowel: it thus stood between two vowels,—the
original vowel of the root, and its own offspring:1 and either
of these could be dropped: so that the place of the liquid
was altered if the original vowel was the one that suffered.
Undoubted examples of vowels thus engendered are seen in
1 “ An r is combined -with a halfrnora [or measure, svaramo.tra] in the
middle of the vowel mora of the rvowel, just as a nail is with the finger;
like a pearl on a string, some say;
like a worm in grass, say others.”
Native commentator on the rule i. 37
in the Atharva-Veda Prati<;akhya, as
translated by Prof. Whitney. This in
terposition of an r in the midst of a
vowel, ready therefore to obliterate
either end, as in old Sanscrit ar and
later ri, corresponds precisely to the
view in the text.—A. J. E.
�28
the president’s annual ADDRESS FOR 1873
rap{a))(r]—fromVrap^, and paX(a)Kos—fromVpaXtc: but here
both vowels remained. Other cases of metathesis are excel
lently explained by Siegismund as due to a principle which
we see in daily operation, i.e. that in pronouncing a word
hastily, when we have each component part of it in our
mind, we sometimes in our hurry anticipate one element,
and so bring it forward out of its proper place: thus,
e.p., he would explain the curious form apidpos for apifipos
attributed to Simonides, and found (in the form of a verb
aptOpeoy) in Callimachus and Theocritus. No doubt this
is but one operation of the ordinary principle of phonetic
change.
“ Prof. Campbell, in the preface to his edition of Sophocles,
has called attention to the character of the Greek language
in the fifth century, which differs from the uniformity found
alike in Epic construction and (rather differently) in the
Attic orators. It was (as he says) a creative period, when
the resources of the language were fully felt, and not yet
limited by grammarians; when each author developed, not
only his thought, but also the instrument of its expression, as
he pleased;—a transition-time, when the original instinct of
language breaks forth afresh, and throws the old materials
into new combinations impossible in a more advanced literary
period. Striking examples of this force are to be seen in
Pindar, Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Thucydides : in all of
these we see creative power, not merely of thought, but also
of language, breaking out in a tentative, irregular, and often
incomplete way. Written composition was still a novelty:
the writers were conscious of their manner of expression, as
well as of their matter: they analyzed their language; and
thus arose a mass of minute distinctions in expression be
longing rather to the language than to the thought: they
concentrated their language ; whence came considerable
obscurity : lastly they gave free play to their language ; and
thus came change of construction in the very middle of a
sentence, so that the connection of the words is natural,
rather than grammatical. No doubt, each of these authors
struck out a different path from each of the others: but all
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
29
were subject to the same influences, and the common result is
very noticeable.
tf Much light may be thrown by studies like these, not only
upon the syntax of a particular language, but also on the history
of syntax as a whole: that is upon the limits in expression
imposed upon itself by human thought. In Greek we thus
ascertain approximately the accretions of the Sophoclean era:
we may apply the same kind of calculus to the Epic dialect,
so far as is possible under the uncertainty of the age of some
of the poems: and in the Iliad and Odyssey, whatever the
age of each poem may be, it seems to me at least certain that
the syntax is old. We may thus eliminate from each of
these periods the special, and ascertain their common,
element; and so find out the simply Greek form of expres
sion natural to it from its earliest beginnings as a separate
language. We might then compare this residuum with a
similar (not equally rich) result to be gained from the
Latin: then compare this Graeco-Italian form of expression
with the result of tracing the much simpler development of
Sanskrit syntax from the plays back to the Vedas. Lastly a
still smaller representation of the growth of North Europe
might be gained from the Lithuanian: no Teutonic language
is at once sufficiently pure from foreign admixture and in
possession of a sufficiently rich inflexional system. We
should thus arrive at a starting-point, from which to investi
gate the common syntax of the Indo-European family.”
Latin.
Our old colleague in the Council, Dr. W. Wagner, whose
absence we have had much cause to regret since he has been re
called to his own country to hold a position at the Johanneum
in Hamburg, has kindly consented to come among us in
spirit if not in body, and has sent us a short resume of Latin
philology. And we must be the more indebted to him, that
he has not hesitated to rewrite it for us, after his original
paper miscarried by post, and undaunted by this misfortune,
promises a longer contribution on another occasion. He
says:—
�30
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
“.Latin philology has been advancing steadily within the
last year. The powerful impulse given to a more careful
study of the Latin language and its literature by Ritschl and
Lachmann is still producing new effects, and the school of
philologers trained by Ritschl are developing a surprising
activity. The great collection of inscriptions originally
undertaken at the suggestion of Ritschl and Mommsen is
proceeding with a rapidity far surpassing the rival publica
tion of the Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum. A collection of
the Pompeian inscriptions, executed by Dr. Zangemeister,
appeared only two years ago, and we have already received a
new instalment of the work, comprising the inscriptions of
the regio decima of Italy, edited by Th. Mommsen himself.
Besides its linguistic interest, this volume may also be con
sidered an important contribution to the ancient geography
of the district, as it has been possible to. ascertain the exact
situation of more than one place by means of these in
scriptions.
“ Among the various editions of authors published last
year, we may mention in the first place Lucian Muller’s
edition of the fragments of Lucilius, a stout volume with a
most careful index and prolegomena. A collection of the
important fragments of the earliest Roman satirist, the model
of Horace, had been promised by Lachmann, but his prema
ture death had not allowed him to publish more on the
subject than a few very suggestive treatises prefixed to the
indices lectionum of the Berlin University. Other scholars
having been deterred from the attempt by M. Haupt’s re
peated insinuations that he was going to publish Lachmann’s
edition left in MS., L. Muller has done wisely not to delay
his work, as the more than twenty years elapsed since Lach-I
mann’s death and the procrastination peculiar to Haupt
rendered vain any further hope to obtain Lachmann’s work.
In an author so difficult as Lucilius, it is but natural that we
should not always agree with the Editor’s suggestions and
emendations, but we owe him a debt of gratitude for fur
nishing us with a scholarly edition of Lucilius.
“ The editions of Horace, Catullus, Tibullus, Propertius,
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
31
and Rutilius Numatianus, lately published by the same
scholar, are merely intended as forerunners of his contem
plated great Corpus poetarum latinorum, which is to supersede
the antiquated Corpus by Weber, and the unscholarly work
of Sidney Walker generally current in England. L. Muller’s
criticism in his edition of the erotic poets will of necessity
frequently provoke contradiction, but there still remains a
great deal of what is new and original, much that is sugges
tive, and some that is true. His Propertius seems to be the
least satisfactory part; but this is a most difficult author, and
one that requires repeated study to become familiar with his
peculiar manner. Mr. Paley’s edition of Propertius, with
English notes, is convenient for practical use, but lacks actual
scholarly insight, and displays a peculiar want of critical
faculty in an editor who seems to be so thoroughly at home
in his tragedians, but less familiar with Latin scholarship.
“ In speaking of Latin literature, we must needs mention
the firm of Teubner at Leipzig, to whose exertions so many
valuable works are due. They have lately published a new
volume of the Latin grammarians (by Keil), containing that
most important writer Marius Vic.torinus, whose work in
cludes such valuable notices on archaic Latin. Among the
new publications of the Bibliotheca Scriptorum Lat. et Graec.
Teubneriana, we notice chiefly an excellent edition of the
Controversiae of the elder Seneca (Seneca rhetor) by Pro
fessor M. Kiessling of Greifswald, an edition containing
many sagacious emendations of the text, and excellent in
dexes ; an important edition of Cicero’s Letters (in two
volumes) by the Danish scholar Wesenberg, whose separate
treatises and occasional observations communicated to his
friend Madvig had previously excited much interest, and
who has now placed before us what may be called a sur
prising performance in point of familiarity with Cicero’s
diction and Latin style in general. This edition , is to be
followed up by a fasciculus containing the arguments justi
fying the principal emendations. The editions of Dictys and
Dares, the two fabulous historians of the Trojan War, by
F. Meister, belong likewise to the Bibl. Teubn. The edition
�32
the president’s annual ADDRESS FOR 1873
of Dares contains an interesting review of the influence
exercised by this author upon the writers and poets of the
middle ages, and will therefore be acceptable to a wider
circle of readers.
“ In the Tauchnitz collection of Latin authors we may
mention A. Riese’s edition of Ovid, the second volume of
which contains a valuable edition of the Metamorphoses,
with the best and most concise critical commentary to be had
for this work.
“ In the grammatical investigation of the Latin language
a new system has been successfully adopted of late. The
comprehensive works of Vossizts and Rudimanmis, which
seem to embrace the whole of Latin literature, belong to a
naive period which held it still possible that one man should
exhaust the whole literary life of the language ; of late, we
have preferred detailed and minute investigation to issuing
new grammars of the whole language. The pronunciation
and letter-changes of Latin have been carefully investigated
by Corssen, Latin spelling has been historically revised by
Brambach (who has also made his results accessible to teachers
in his Kulfsbuclilein fur lateinische Rechtschreibung'), and two
important monographs have been published on the syntax of
quom by Lubbert and Autenrieth. Liibbert’s method is sta
tistical, and has led to important results. The distinction
made by our grammars between quom causal and quom tem
poral did not, as he shews, exist in early Latin; it was only
gradually forming in the time of Plautus and Terence, neither
of whom ever uses quom temporal with the subjunctive im
perfect and pluperfect. The historical and statistical method
is also employed in Drager’s Kistorische Syntax, a work
greatly to be recommended for its accuracy and careful elabo
ration. The author gives nothing but what he himself has
collected, and this is perhaps the only point to which excep
tion might be taken. His work would be more complete had
he also utilised the labours of his predecessors. By the same
author we possess a valuable monograph on the style of
Tacitus, and a very good work on Apuleius and African Latin
has lately been published by Koziol, an Austrian scholar.
�83
DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
The best work, however, of this kind, is Kuhnast’s Hauptpunkte der Livianischen Syntax (Berlin, Weber, 1872), quite
a masterly work in every respect. A similar work on Cicero
would be quite a boon to the student of Latin. It is in
credible how many erroneous statements concerning Cicero
and classical Latin keep floating through our grammars, one
of which always carefully copies the errors of its predecessors.
Kiihnast shews that many phrases and constructions, dis
dained by over-anxious purists, are most excellent Latin, but
somehow have not got admitted into dictionaries and grammars.
“ The texts of the principal authors of the Latin language
have been so much changed and improved by the labours of
this Century, that there is now a wide field for energetic
young philologers in cultivating the historical grammar of
the language. In return, textual criticism will also be bene
fited by these detailed investigations, and the nice shades of
thought will be brought out by this kind of study. We
have passed the stage of a sentimental admiration of the
ancient authors, such as we find it in the editions of Heyne
and his school; our eyes are fully open to the shortcomings
and failings of Latin literature when considered aestheti
cally, nor do we any longer attribute to this literature the
‘ humanizing ’ influence so naively believed in by former
centuries—there is among us very little of that which may
be termed elegant scholarship—which is all very nice, but
perfectly useless—in fact, we do not work like ladies, but
like men mindful of a serious purpose, which is in the first
line : to trace the intellectual life of the great Roman nation
in its literature; and secondly to shew and follow the con
necting links between this literature and the other nations
of Europe and Asia. To attain this end it is necessary to
pursue the most minute investigations, but not to generalize
without sufficient data and foundations. But the days in
which it was held the height of Latin scholarship to write a
splendid Ciceronian style, and to turn neat Latin verses,
are past, and will never return.”1
Owing most probably to some incompletness in the expression of my
intentions, Dr. Wagner has confined
his remarks to the contributions to
3
�34
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
Our friend Dr. Wagner gauges woman’s work by the old
standard. But when we find a lady, like Miss Anna Swan- 1
wick, translating JEschylus; another, like Miss Stockwell,
taking the first Greek prize at Antioch College, U.S., against
all the 700 young men there; and another, like Miss White,
at the same College, solving a problem in mathematics in
which 1500 male students had failed; we may remember
past times when Hypatia taught at Alexandria, or more
recent days when Mrs. Somerville translated Laplace, and
own that superficiality does not depend on sex, but on habits
of civilization, which may change, and we hope will change
for the better—if indeed it be true that two heads are better
than one, and that in literature and science as well as
sociality, it is not good for man to be alone.
The above account of the two American ladies is given on
the authority of Miss Beedy, herself a graduate of Antioch,
who justly remarked that of course such successes did not
necessarily represent the general powers of American women,
as naturally only the most capable had as yet availed them
selves of the recently granted University privileges. But as
it was suggested to me that some information should be
obtained respecting the progress of ladies at Cambridge in
England—Cambridge in America is still closed to them—I
applied to Mr. Henry Sidgwick himself, whose name is
widely known in connexion with ladies’ studies at Cambridge,
and he has kindly sent me the following account:
“ The facts as to our young ladies are these. Two have
been examined by the examiners for our Classical Tripos,
• one of whom would have obtained a second class and the
other a third; one other, similarly, by the mathematical
examiners, who would have obtained a second class. So the
result is not exactly triumphant, though sufficiently en
Latin Philology in 1872. Hence his
omission of all English publications
except Paley’s Propertius. He, how
ever, wishes me to state that there are
very few English scholars for whom he
entertains a higher respect than Prof.
Munro, whose Lucretius was published
in 1866. Roby’s grammar, of which
the first volume in its first edition came
out in 1871, and the second has not
yet appeared, Conington’s Virgil, and
Robinson Ellis’s Catullus, have conse
quently been passed over. It was im
possible to alter this arrangement in
time for the anniversary.—A. J. E.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
35
couraging. It ought, however, to be borne in mind, that
they had not been to classical schools, like the young men.
I believe the quality of their work was in all cases better
than what would be expected from their places, as they had
not learnt to answer questions as quickly as the young men.
The quality of Miss Cook’s work (the 2nd class classic) was
especially commended. I have not myself taught any
classics to ladies, but my experience of two years’ teaching
of philosophy is that they (my pupils at least) quite equal
the best young men in the closeness and thoroughness of
their study.”
Mr. Peile, who informed me that he has taught Greek, by
correspondence only, to a few ladies during the past two
years, although of course finding it difficult to arrive at any
definite conclusion from such small data, has been led to
“ believe that with a similar training women could become
fully as good scholars as most of our first-class men at Cam
bridge,” although, under the circumstances, of course, he
“ cannot prove it.”
It would be out of place to go into the general question of
the intellectual rivalry of the sexes, but the preceding re
marks and information respecting the aptitude of the female
mind for the severer forms of University study in comparison
to that displayed by young men of the same age engaged on
the same subjects, although suggested by a passing allusion
in Dr. Wagner’s contribution, while enforcing an opinion in
which all earnest philologists must cordially agree, cannot be
considered inappropriate in addressing a Philological Society,
which, like our own, numbers ladies among its members.
Early English.
The great attention which our Society has paid to the
early stages of our home-grown language, from the time that
it was more or less distinctly separable from the imported
tongues whence it was elaborated, as a cultivated plant from
a wild flower, requires me to devote a large section of this
Report to its consideration, and this I have been more easily
able to effect, owing to the necessity of deferring especial
�36
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
reference to its incunabula, Anglosaxon (including Gothic
and the other Teutonic branches), Old Norse (including the
other Scandinavian forms), and Old Norman (with the older
Romance languages). The Members of our Society could
not desire a better reporter on Early English than their
own Honorary Secretary, Mr. Eurnivall, the Director of
the Early English Text and Chaucer Societies; and I have
great pleasure in presenting them with the following sketch
from his pen.
“As the revival of the study of Early English, which has
been such a marked feature of linguistic inquiry of late years,
originated with the Philological Society, I may, perhaps,
be allowed to reach back some years, and remind our
Members that delay on the part of our late much-lamented
President, Prof. Goldstiicker, in producing his Sanskrit Affix
paper for our Transactions of 1858, led to the printing
of my Early English Poems and Lives of Saints early in
1862; that this encouraged Dr. Richard Morris to edit the
Liber Cure Cocorum later in 1862; and in 1863 to begin, with
Hampole’s Pricke of Conscience, that series of dialectal texts,
accompanied by treatises on their peculiarities, which has
done so much for his own renown, and for the firm founda
tion of Early English work. In 1862 Dr. Whitley Stokes
edited for the Society The Play of the Sacrament; in 1864
Dr. Weymouth followed with his critical edition of the
Castel off Loue; and in the latter year was-founded the Early
English Text Society, to carry on the publication of Early
English Texts, which the Philological Society had so well
begun, but, from want of funds, had been forced to abandon.
“ Since that time the work at Early English, viewed
philologically or linguistically, has been continued mainly
in four directions :—I. the development of the characteristics
of our early dialects ; II. the clearing-up of the limits
and ‘ notes ’ of the several periods of our language ; III.
its lexicography; IV. its pronunciation at different periods.
“ I. Dialectal Characteristics.—As in his Preface to Ham
pole’s Pricke of Conscience Dr. Richard Morris had, in 1863,
gathered together the distinctive marks of the great Northern
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
37
dialect, so, in 1864, in his Early English Alliterative Poems
(written perhaps about 1360 a.d., and edited from the
unique MS. Cotton Nero A x.), he collected the characteristic
signs of the Western division of that Midland dialect,1 which
afterwards became the groundwork of our standard English
speech. In 1865 Er. Morris edited, from the unique MS. in
Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, The Story of Genesis and
Exodus, written about 1250 a.d. in the East-Midland dialect;
and in his Preface to this work he shewed, not only what
were the differences between the Eastern and Western divi
sions of the Midland dialect, but also those' between the
Southern and Northern parts of the East-Midland speech.
He assigned the Genesis and Exodus1 to the Southern section.
2
By contrasting both Southern and Northern East-Midland
forms and vocabulary with those of the Southern dialect, he
was able to shew the large influence of Danish in the lan
guage of our Mid-Eastern counties.
“ In 1866> Er. Morris dealt with the third great division
of our dialects, the Southern (in which he included the
speech of the district formerly called Western), as shewn by
the Kentish treatise of Dan Michel, of St. Austin’s, Canter
bury, The Ayenbite of Inwyt, 1340 a.d. As this was written
in the South, just about the time that Richard Rolle of
Hampole wrote his Pricke of Conscience in the North, Dr.
Morris, in a long Grammatical Introduction to the Ayenbite,
carefully contrasted the distinctive peculiarities of the
Southern and Northern dialects,—a task to which he devoted
70 pages,—and then,, after shortly noticing the lexicogra
phical differences of the two dialects, gave, in pp. 72-85,
full ‘ Outlines of Kentish Grammar, a.d. 1327-40.’
“Dr. Morris’s results were soon summarized, and addi1 An extract from the West-Midland,
version of the Cursor Mundi is printed
in Dr. Morris’s “ Legends- of the Moly
Hood," 1871, pp. 108-161. In his
First Series of Old English Homilies,
“The Wooing of our Lord” contains
West-Midland peculiarities which are
discussed in the Preface.—F. J. F..
2 The Bestiary, from the unique
Arundel MS., re-edited by Dr. R. Morris
in his Old English Miscellany, 1872, be
longs also to the Southern section of
the East-Midland dialect, while the
Ormulum belongs to the Northern. A
fragment on p. 200 of this Old English
Miscellany is like in dialect to the
Genesis and Exodus; and a copy of the
Moral Ode in Dr. Morris’s Old English
Homilies, Series II., 1873, has EastMidland peculiarities.—F. J. F.
�38
the president’s ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
tional illustrations of his positions added, in a short treatise
by Dr. Wm. T. P. Sturzenbecker, of Copenhagen, called
‘ Some Notes on the leading Grammatical Characteristics of
the principal Early-English Dialects.’ This was drawn up
at the suggestion of Prof. George Stephens, the well-known
Professor of English in the University of Copenhagen, of
whom Dr. Sturzenbecker had been a pupil. But in 1867 Dr.
Morris had the opportunity of summing-up his own results
in the Grammatical Introduction to his ‘ Specimens of Early
English, selected from the chief English Authors, a.d.
1250-1400,’ in the Clarendon Press Series of School and
College Class-books, which gave the English public for the
first time in their history a general view of their early gram
mar and language, and introduced them to a number of
authors and works they had hardly heard of before. On the
edition becoming exhausted, Dr. Morris arranged to increase
the book in size, and extend it upward to Anglo-Saxon
times, so as to join on to Thorpe’s Analecta. He therefore
divided the work into two parts, and put the second into
the Rev. W. W. Skeat’s hands to re-edit. A second edition
of this second part (which was itself a second edition) is
now in the press ; but the re-edited enlarged edition of Part I.
has not yet appeared, though the text of it is all printed.
In 1872 Dr. Morris made a further contribution to our
knowledge of the early Southern dialect by his short sketch
of the grammatical forms in five Old Kentish Sermons of the
13 th century, which he edited from the unique MS. Laud
471, in his Old English Miscellany, 1872. He also pointed
out the differences between the forms in these Sermons and
those in the Ayenbite a hundred years later.
“A very valuable sketch of the Northern dialect as a
whole, and its subsequent fortunes in Scotland, to which
country it was, as a literary language, confined after the
fifteenth century, is contained in Mr. J. A. H. Murray’s
Historical Introduction to his ‘Dialect of the Southern
Counties of Scotland,’ forming Part II. of the Society’s
Transactions for 1870-2.
The merits of Mr. Murray’s
thorough discussion and description of the South-Scotch
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
39
dialect, its history and present characteristics, are too well
appreciated by our Members to need further confirmation
by me. Dr. Kaufmann, in his Inaugural Dissertation1 for
■his Doctor’s degree last year, summarized and discussed the
grammatical and phonetic characteristics of the language of
the Scotch poet William Dunbar, who wrote in the beginning
of the 16th century.
“ II. Linguistic Periods.—The second part of Dr. Morris’s
great services to the knowledge of English historically was
seen in 1867, when he produced his First Series of Old
English Homilies and Homiletic Treatises of the 12th and
13th centuries. In his Grammatical Introduction to this
work he dealt with the specially transitional period of the
formation of English inflexions, which Sir Frederic Madden
had termed Semi-Saxon,2 as being half-way between AngloSaxon and Early English. Dr. Morris showed that the lan
guage of the 12th century must be divided into two halves, in
the former of which the older Anglo-Saxon forms prevailed,
while in the latter the modern forms had the predominance;
and that in the former the unsuspected and unobserved
phenomenon appeared, of a number of different endings (five
for the genitive only) struggling for ascendancy, till the
language settled down into the comparative peace of the
first version of Layamon’s Brut, the early period of the
victorious final e, which had been before supposed to repre
sent the preceding fermenting period as well as its own.
“ In 1872 Dr. Morris laid the results of his ten years’ work
before the public in a much condensed form, in his ‘ Historical
Outlines of English Accidence,’ which—with appendices based
on the admirable work of our late Honorary Member, Dr.
C. Friedrich Koch, ‘Die Historische Grammatik der Englischen
Sprache,’ 1863-1869, and incorporating much of the excellent
Grammars of Matzner and Sachs and Fiedler—has far
1 Traite de la Langue du Poete
Ecossais William Dunbar, precede d’une
Esquisse de sa Vie et de ses Poemes, et
d’une Choix de ses Poesies: par Johannes
Kaufmann, Docteur en Philosophie a El
berfeld. Bonn,E. Weber, 1873.—F.J.F.
2 This name has been much ridiculed
by a newspaper writer, whose know
ledge of the details of English histori
cally is ludicrously beneath what Sir
Frederic’s was.—F. J. F.
�40
THE PRESIDENT S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
surpassed any work of like kind in English, and proved the
superiority of the historical treatment over all others.1 This
book is to be followed by ‘ Historical Outlines of English
Syntax’; and then I trust that Dr. Morris will enlarge his
Accidence by a series of examples of every word and con
struction in each of our three dialects, somewhat after
Burguy’s manner in his Grammaire de la Langue d'O'il.
“Mr. Murray’s researches have likewise resulted in the
establishment of distinct stages in the development of the Low
land Scotch, which he has designated the Early, the Middle,
and the Modern periods respectively; the first of these ends
about 1475, the second with the union of England and
Scotland, and the disuse of the Scotch as a literary medium. Mr.
Murray has pointed out numerous characteristics by which
genuine specimens of the early period may be at once distinguishedfrom those of the 16th century, and thus works which
have been vaguely thrown together as ‘ Old Scots ’ satisfactorily
arranged in chronological order. In many respects this is
perhaps the most important result of his investigations.
“ In the present year Dr. Morris has issued a Second Series
of Old English Homilies, from the unique MS. in Trinity
College, Cambridge, which he has shewn to have been
copied by a scribe who adapted them to his own dialect,8
that of the Southern division of the East Midland, so that
these Homilies rank with the Bestiary, Genesis and Exodus,
and Havelok.
“To the many other publications of the Early English
Text Society, Mr. Skeat’s excellent edition of the FourText St. Mark,3 etc., I do not allude, as they rather offer
material for the philologist to deal with hereafter, than
advance his knowledge now, save so far as they work out
Dr. Morris’s views. Still, in Mr. Skeat’s Prefaces to his
Havelok, William of Palerne, Partenay, and Joseph of
1 Compare the latest Grammar by
Dr. Wm. Smith and Mr. T. D. Hall,
in which muster is given as an example
of the feminine ending ster; and kine is
called a contraction of cow-en!—F.J.F.
2 The original version of these
Homilies was in the Southern or
West-Saxon dialect.—F. J. F.
3 The latest of these Texts, the
Hatton MS. 38, illustrates the same
period as the First Series of Old
English Homilies.—F. J. F.
�DEWOSKED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
41
Arimathie, will be found very valuable independent discus
sions of the dialectal and grammatical peculiarities of these
several Texts, while in his Preface to Text B of ‘William’s
Vision of Piers the Plowman,’ Mr. Skeat has shewn how
widely the practice of his author and the best scribes of the
B Text, in their treatment of the final e of the perfect tense,
etc., differs from the accepted theories on this subject. Mr.
Henry Sweet’s important essay on the characteristics of the
Anglo-Saxon of Alfred’s time, Prof. March’s Anglo-Saxon
Grammar, etc., belong to the subjects deferred.
“ III. Dictionaries.—The admirably full Glossaries of the
late Sir Frederic Madden to Havelok, William and the Were
wolf, Sir, Gfawayne, Layamon, the Wicliffite Versions of the
Bible, etc., together with those of Dr. Morris, Mr. Skeat, Mr.
Brock, and other Early-English-Text-Society editors, offered
a capital foundation for any scholar to build up a Dictionary
on. The first1 to raise such a structure was Dr. F. H. Stratmann, of Krefeld, the second edition of whose ‘ Dictionary of
the Old English Language, compiled from writings of the
xn, xm, xiv, and xv centuries,’ 1871-3, is just completed.
So far as the Vocabulary goes, the book is admirably trust
worthy and careful; but unluckily Dr. Stratmann did not
conceive that his duty was to register all the words found in
our printed texts from MSS. of the dates assigned in his title:
and I believe that his book must be at least trebled in bulk
(or number of entries), before it can supply the student with
all he requires in a real Early-English Dictionary. Dr.
Stratmann is now hard at work on a Supplement to his
excellent book, so that the defect I have pointed out is
in course of being remedied. Of Dr. E. Matzner’s EarlyEnglish Dictionary only the first part has yet appeared. It
1 Our friend Herbert Coleridge’s
‘ Glossarial Index to the printed Eng
lish Literature of the Thirteenth Cen
tury,’ Triibner & Co. 1859, led the
way; but it was confined to the half
century 1250-1300 a.d. Mr. Way’s
profusely annotated and excellently
edited Promptorium, and Mr. Thomas
Wright’s Volume of Vocabularies for
Mr. Joseph Mayer, are universally
known as most valuable contributions
to Early English Lexicography. Mr.
Wright’s second volume of Vocabularies
from the 10th to the 15th century is
just ready. "Ultimately the two are
to be amalgamated, and sold to the
general public.—E. J. F.
�42
the president’s ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
unfortunately has a misleading title: 1 Altenglische Sprachproben, nebst einern Worterbuche. Zweiter Band: Worterbuch. Erste Lieferung.’ This has led many people to sup
pose that it is only a dictionary to the words in the editor’s
excellent Altenglische Sprachproben, or Specimens of Early
English (Part I. in verse, Part II. in prose, the only desidera
tum in which is, that the texts should have been compared
with their MSS.). But such is not the case. The Worterbuch
covers the whole range of Early English, and is refreshingly
full in vocabulary and quotations, with careful distinctions
of the shades of meaning in the uses of every word—a point
in which Dr. Stratmann’s work is defective. The only fault
that I see in Dr. Matzner’s book is, that the quotations are
not arranged in either strictly chronological or dialectal
order, so that the student gets confused as to the history and
locality of the forms of a word; and the only drawback I
know to an Englishman’s use of the book is, that the
meanings of the early words are given in Grennan only,
instead of both German and English. But it is very grati
fying to us Englishmen to see how soon, and how zealously,
our Teutonic brethren have come forward to share our work
at our own branch of the common tongue. If only we can
persuade our German kin to abstain from “ re-writing ” all
Early English texts, and turning them, full of the variations
of individuality and nature, into monstrosities of uniformity,
impossibilities of systematic spelling and form, we shall have
nothing but cause to rejoice at the help of the grand German
legion of learning whose fame fills the world.
“ To general English Lexicography many important con
tributions have of late years been made. The first edition
of Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood’s English Etymology was fol
lowed by Eduard Mueller’s excellent etymological English
Dictionary, Kothen, 1865-7. This, by the revised edition of
Webster, to which Dr. E. Mahn, of Berlin, contributed the
etymologies — a wonderful improvement on the author’s,
making the new Webster the most generally useful Dic
tionary that I have come across. This again, by Mr. Wedg
wood’s second and thoroughly revised and enlarged edition
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
43
of his ‘Dictionary of English Etymology? a book which,
notwithstanding occasional weaknesses,—though departing
from the historical method that it generally pursues,—is yet full
of suggestiveness, of research, and happy insight, and points
always to the discovery of those answers which the philo
logist longs to find, for his questions to every root, ‘ Where
did you spring from ? What did you first mean ? Tell me
for help to know the history of mind and man.’ Dr.
Latham’s new edition of Todd’s Johnson scarcely calls for
notice here, as hardly any Early English was added to it,
and its etymology is miserably meagre; but its enlarged
vocabulary and additional quotations (though these are not
always arranged chronologically) are points in its favour.
The small dictionaries of Mr. Donald for Messrs. Chambers,
and Mr. Stormonth for Messrs. Blackwood, are, on the whole,
creditable performances.
“ In special English Lexicography, the most noteworthy
books are Mr. J. C. Atkinson’s Glossary of the Cleveland
Dialect, 1868; those in our Society’s Transactions—Mr.
Barnes’s Grammar and Glossary of the Dorset Dialect,
1864; Mr. Gregor’s Dialect of Banffshire and Glossary of
Words not in Jamieson’s Dictionary, 1866; Mr. Edmon
ston’s Glossary of the Shetland Dialect, 1866; Mr. Peacock’s
Glossary of the Lonsdale Dialect, 1867. The ‘ Etymological
and Comparative Glossary of the Dialect of East Anglia,’ by
John Greaves Hall (London, 1866), I have not seen.1
“IV. Pronunciation.—Mr. Bichard Grant White made an
exaborate attempt to ascertain Elizabethan pronunciation by
means of rhymes, puns, and misspellings, in 1861,2 and
1 The Manchester Literary Club
have printed and circulated, for com
ments and additions, sheets of the A,
B, and C words of the collections for
their “ Glossary of the Lancashire
Folk-Speech”; and state that having,
“since the issue of the B sheets, re
ceived from Mr. James Pearson, of
Milnrow, a manuscript list of dialectal
words current in the Fylde of Lanca
shire, the Club Committee intend in
future lists, as in the C sheets, to mark
those words which are believed to be
peculiar to the Fylde, Furness, Lons
dale, and other districts, leaving it
to be understood that the words not
specially so denoted are current either
in South and East Lancashire or
generally throughout the county.”—
F. J. F. Arrangements have been
made for placing copies of this Glossary
in the hands of members of the English
Dialect Society, mentioned on p. 47.—
A. J. E.
s A full abstract of Mr. Grant
White’s appendix to vol. 12 of his
�44
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
Messrs. Noyes and Peirce applied the works of the 16th
century orthoepists to the same purpose in 1864; although,
unfortunately, these two writers were not acquainted with
the best of them, Salesbury.1 But a connected history of
the pronunciation of English had never been attempted—
probably never thought of—until our present President, Mr.
Ellis, took it up, and in 1867 produced the First Part of his
‘Early English Pronunciation, with Especial Reference to
Shakspere and Chaucer,’ followed in 1869 by Part II., and in
1871 by Part III., while it is confidently anticipated that
Part IV., completing the work, will appear early in 1874?
Considering that Mr. Ellis has to read this Report himself, I
will confine myself to saying that I rejoice that our Society
has been the means of producing it. These phonetic investi
gations have been worthily supplemented by Mr. J. A. H.
Murray’s treatise, lately issued by our Society, on the Dialect
of the Southern Counties of Scotland.”
You will have doubtless noticed one curious omission in
Mr. Furnivall’s contribution. The American abolitionist,
Garrison, is reported to have said, that he had so much to do
in saving the bodies of the slaves that he had no time to
think of his own soul. Mr. Furnivall has been so much
occupied in recording the work done by others that he has
had no time to think of the mainspring, his own unceasing
labours in setting others to work, and in setting others the
example of how to work, on Early English. The extra
volumes of our Society are mainly due to his suggestion, and
have been produced under his stimulus. The Early English
Text, the Chaucer, and the Ballad Societies are really his
creations, and live by his life. I omit to notice his editions
edition of Shakspere, containing these
researches, is given in my Early English
Pronunciation, pp. 966-973.—A. J. E.
1 In the North .Amer. Rev., April,
1864, pp. 342-369. All the authorities
cited by them are mentioned in my E.
E. Pron., p. 917, note, and all their re
sults are given in the footnotes to pp.
975-980 of the same work.—A. J. E.
2 The state of the work is as follows.
Part IV. will consist of four chapters
and the indexes. The two first of these
will be sent for press on 1 June. The
third will probably be completed in MS.
by the end of June. One of the most
laborious sections of the last is com
plete in draft. How long the indexes
will take it is impossible to say, but I
hope, if the many adverse circumstances
which I am obliged to allow for as
possible, are good enough to permit me,
to have the text printed by 1 Sept., and
if so the fourth part ought to be ready
before our next Anniversary.—A. J. E.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
45
of Robert of Brunne, the Babees Book, and other minor
works, to draw especial attention to his great contribution to
accurate English philology, the magnificent Six-Text Edition
of Chaucer, still in progress, which I regard as entirely his
own in conception and execution. Mr. Furnivall has in this
work inaugurated a new era in philology. No one will
henceforth be satisfied with collations of important works.
An editor may patch up a text to shew his own particular
views, and defend them in elaborate comments. But students,
who wish to know what the works are like, will now require
the lively counterfeits of their oldest existent forms placed
side by side for actual comparison one with another and each
part with its whole; not a mosaic presentment of disaccordant
patches. This is what Mr. Furnivall has done for our first
English poet, mostly with his own hand, entirely by his own
thought, and no notice of Early English philology read from
this Chair can be complete without fitting mention of this
great philological work accomplished by our own Honorary
Secretary.
Mr. Skeat, whose admiration for the English language
is certainly not founded on ignorance, for few have ex
amined its documents more minutely, has supplemented Mr.
Furnivall’s sketch by the following plea for the due position
of English scholarship :—
“ The careful and acute researches of Dr. Morris with
respect to questions of dialect well illustrate the new method
which has arisen of regarding our old literature, not as a
compilation of unintelligible monstrosities of forms, but as
representing modes of speech which were actually in the
mouths of men in the olden times. Yet this is only one side
of the matter. Equally careful work has been expended
upon questions of etymology, both by Dr. Morris and by
other editors. Perhaps few have contributed so much to
forming habits of strict scholarly accuracy as the late Sir
Frederic Madden. He clearly regarded our English speech
as worthy of the same kind of exact critical study—both in
kind and degree—as it has generally been the English habit
to reserve for the study of the “ classical languages ” only.
�46
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
This principle has been conscientiously followed out by most
of the editors for the Early English Text Society, with the
hope that wild etymological speculations and guess-work
derivations that set at defiance all known laws of language
may soon become things of the past. The due recognition
of this important principle, now that it has once been per
mitted to see the light, must never more be lost sight of. It
is not for us to make premature guesses, but patiently to in
vestigate. Our own tongue yields to none other in copious
ness, in versatility, in many-sidedness; and there is no reason
why English scholarship should not be as critical, as exact,
as minute, and in every way as sound as any other. It is just
because our English editors have at last begun both to per
ceive this and to act upon it, that the Glossaries to our texts
have also begun to have a solid value, very different from
that of those in some old editions wherein the editor fre
quently refrained from indicating by references to what
passages his explanation referred ; in order, we may suppose,
that the reader might not so easily be enabled to catalogue,
and in some cases to rectify, his blunders.”
Finally, English takes a prominent place in the Proceed
ings of the American Philological Association. In those for
1871, there is an important paper by the late Prof. James
Hadley, of Yale College, Connecticut, U.S., on “English
Vowel Quantity in the Thirteenth Century and the Nine
teenth,” and another by Prof. Francis A. March, of Easton,
Pennsylvania, on “Anglo-Saxon and Early English Pro
nunciation.” In those for 1872, Prof. Hadley, who was then
a Vice-President, read a paper on “ The Byzantine Pronun
ciation of Greek in the Tenth Century, as illustrated by a
Manuscript in the Bodleian Library,” which I had adduced
as collateral evidence of Anglo-Saxon Pronunciation (Early
English Pronunciation, pp. 516-527). This was Professor
Hadley’s last paper. Prof. Whitney, of Yale College, in
sending me a copy of it, says: “You will see what a loss
English studies, as well as classical and comparative philplogy, have suffered by his death. No more painful and
disabling blow, certainly, could have fallen on our com
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
47
munity of American scholars.” To Prof. Hadley we owe,
according to Prof. Whitney, “ a clear and succinct view of
the history and connections of English Speech, prefixed to
the latest edition of Webster’s Dictionary,”1 and I must record
my personal obligations to him for an appreciative and disc.riminating review of the first two parts of my Early English
Pronunciation in the North American Review (April 1870,
pp. 420-437). English philology can ill spare so able a
worker in her vineyard. Among other papers read before
this American Philological Association in 1871, I notice
Dr. Fitz Edward Hall on “the imperfect tenses of the
passive voice in English,” presented by Prof. Whitney,
notes on my Early English Pronunciation by Mr. Bristed,
and Mr. Trumbull on “ a mode of counting, said to have
been used by the Wawenoc Indians of Maine,” which is my
Yorkshire Sheep-scoring, already referred to. In the session
for 1872, we have Mr. Bristed on “ erroneous and doubtful
uses of the word such’' Mr. W. Worthington Fowler on
“ the derivation of English monosyllabic personal surnames,”
Mr. Trumbull on “ English words derived from Indian lan
guages of North America.” Prof. March inquires: “Is
there an Anglo-Saxon Language ? ” and follows this up by
a paper on “ some irregular verbs in Anglo-Saxon,” shewing
that he had no doubt on his own mind. Finally Prof. S. S.
Haldeman read a paper on “Some Points of English Pro
nunciation and Spelling.”
English Dialects.
In connection with English studies, I am delighted to have
’it in my power to announce that the Rev. W. W. Skeat, a‘
Member of our Council, to whom our own and the Early
English Text Society are so deeply indebted for long, la
borious, and accurate work, has started, and with his usual
promptitude and vigour actually set on foot, an English
Dialect Society. Many of you are aware that I mooted
this question in the introduction to the Third Part of my
1 “Language and the Study of Language,” 1867, p. 211. See also the last
two lectures of this work with reference to
Prof. Max Miiller’s theories, infra p. 49.
�48
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
Early English Pronunciation.
But I have never felt
vigorous enough to carry it out. It is to me a matter of
faith that we cannot at all properly understand varied Early
English—which consists solely of dialects—without under
standing the varied English of to-day, whether in phonetical
or grammatical construction, and I have long felt that time
is running distressingly short. Intercommunication is draw
ing a wet sponge over the living records of our nascent
tongue. The intentions of the English Dialect Society
started by Mr. Skeat are—1) to bring together those in
terested in Provincial English, that is, every one interested
in the history of our language, 2) to combine the labours
of collectors by providing a common centre and means of
record, 3) to publish, subject to proper revision, MS. col
lections of words, and 4) to supply information to collectors.
One of the first labours of the Society will be to form a
complete catalogue of all existing works on the subject, and
I am greatly pleased to announce that Prince Louis Lucien
Bonaparte has agreed to allow his private collection of nearly
700 works—from little pamphlets to large books—in, on, and
about the English dialects, to be catalogued for the use of
this Society. I am sure that merely to mention the launching
of such a scheme under such guidance, is to recommend it to
every Member of our own Society, and I hope that there will
not only be a general cry of good speed! but an early and
general promise of co-operation.1
Origin
of
Language.
In my last year’s address considerations of the relations of
thought to sound as the pivot of philological research, natu
rally brought me face to face with some of the theories of
the origin of language, as the pooh pooh I bow wow ! and ding
1 The Treasurer is the Rev. J. W.
Cartmell, Christ’s College, Cambridge;
the Subscription, half a guinea only;
Tankers, J. Mortlock & Co., Cam
bridge, whose London correspondents
are Messrs. Smith, Payne, & Smith,
1, Lombard Street; Hon. Secretary,
Rev. W. W. Skeat, 1, Cintra Terrace,
Cambridge, to whom all communica
tions on dialects are to be addressed,
and who will supply printed rules of
directions for collecting and recording
words. Early adhesions are of great
importance.
�49
DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
together with the notion of roots. In this country
Prof. Max Muller has long been favourably and popularly
known as the defender of radicarianism, or the hypothesis
of roots. He has just completed a course of lectures at the
Royal Institution (22 and 29 March, and 5 April, 1873), on
what he termed “ Mr. Darwin’s Philosophy of Language,”
but which, after hearing, I think should have been entitled:—
■ the Annihilation of Mr. Darwin’s theory of evolution, by
Prof. Max Muller’s philosophy of language.” The object of
the lectures was indeed to shew that language, as conceived
by Prof. Max Muller, formed an impassable barrier between
the ape and man. i( Ho animal speaks,” said the lecturer,
quoting with serious approval Schleicher’s joke, “ if a pig
were to say to me, I am a pig, he would thereby cease to be
a pig.” In which case, perhaps, a logician might doubt
whether it was a pig before it spoke. But in order to arrive
at this result, Prof. Max Muller had to separate language
into two domains, emotional and rational. The first he
admitted to be common to man and animal. The second he
considered the appanage of man. But this rational language
he made to consist in using phonetic forms to represent
general concepts. These general concepts were asserted to
be in fact the peculiarity of man. The Professor seems to
consider that they are obtained a, priori. “ You cannot say,
this is green, unless you have first the idea of green,” were
the words he used. In this case I fear that when I, for one,
say “this is green,” I speak like a parrot. I own not to
having “the idea of green,” not even to guessing what it is.
I know of course the disputes about primary colours, whether
green is simple or mixed, primary or secondary. I know
grass green, pea green, sea green, arsenical green. When I
bought penny colours as a child I knew bice green, chrome
green, sap green. When I mixed prussian blue and gam
boge I made blue greens and yellow greens. I have since
learned to recognize red greens, brown greens, purple greens,
neutral greens; in fact, a whole bunch of greens. But I
have no “idea of green,” that is, of “green absolutely,”
nothing separable from light passing into and being reflected
4
�50
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873
from a definite absorber, or passing through a definite re
fracting medium with a definite angle of incidence, or from
a mixture, natural or artificial, of several such beams. And
when I look upon all these greens I see that the name has
passed from one to another by a process of joint consimilation and differentiation, all entirely a posteriori, nothing at
all a priori. And I have had several friends who, through
colour-blindness, saw resemblances wher,e I saw differences,
and put among the greens what I put among the reds, and
conversely. So having no general concept of green, I doubt
whether I have a general concept of anything else. And
then I come to think, whether upon Prof. Max Muller’s
theory, the people who class me among men may not be
committing a mistake entirely similar to that of my colour
blind friends, whether in fact I am not a gorilla myself, or
at most the missing link. Seriously, these questions are not,
so far as I can see, to be solved d priori. Animals, to my
mind, have concepts, with quite as much a right to be
termed general as any which I possess myself, the difference
being one of degree. As to the impossibility of speechless
animals ever becoming speaking men, I feel that this is a
mere postulate. The embryonic man passes through foetal
stages of lower animalism.1 The born man passes from
1 See, M. Serres, Principes d’ Embryogenie, de Zoogenie et de Teratogenie, forming vol. 25 of the M emoires
de l’Academie des Sciences de l’lnstitut
Imperial de France, 1860, 4to. pp. 942,
with 25 plates. On p. 380 we find:
“ S’il est curieux de voir, comme nous
venons de l’indiquer, l’anatomie comparee reproduire 1’embryogenie humaine, combien n’est-il pas plus im
portant de voir celle-ci repeter a son
tour, sur d'autres points, l’organisation
des animaux! Quoi de plus remarquable et de moins remarque, avant
nos travaux, que ce singulier prolongement caudal que presente l’embryon
de l’homme de la cinquieme a la
sixieme et septieme semaine ? Si un
caractere saillant distingue l’homme
des mammiferes et des quadrumaines,
c’est assurement l’absence du prolongement caudal. Or voici que l’embryon
nous reproduit ce prolongement, nous
decelant, pour ainsi dire, par un signe
tout exterieur, les ressemblances qui le
lient plus profondement a la chaine des
etres dont il constitue le dernier anneau.
Ce caractere presente meme cette particularite veritablement saississante,
que c’est lors de sa manifestation et
pendant sa dure'e que se reproduisent
les repetitions organiques de l’anatomie
comparee. . . . c’est alors enfin que
l’encephale humain se deguisent sous
les formes de'volues aux poissons, aux
reptiles et aux oiseaux. Et ce qui
complete la chose, c’est que ce pro
longement caudal n’a qu’une existence
dphemere, comme toutes les ressem
blances organiques de l’embryon, il
disparait dans le cours du troisieme
mois; et c’est aussi a partir de cet
instant que l’homme, laissant derriere
lui tous les etres organises, s’avance a
grands pas vers le type d’organisation
qui le constitue dans sa vie exterieure.”
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
51
speechlessness to speech—provided he can hear, and with
Prof. Whitney I put in a plea for the deaf and dumb. The
rapidity with which the bom man, his transitional stages
passed, develops into a speaking animal under favourable
circumstances of audition and environment, is what the evo
lutionary hypothesis would lead us to anticipate. But, with
all that, he is usually twelve months dumb, less amenable to
command at first than most adult dogs. Then in another
twelve months he slowly acquires extremely concrete or par
ticular concepts. The general concepts, under favourable
circumstances, grow rapidly, but in twenty years they are
seldom very distinct or numerous. After forty years he
begins to clarify them. At sixty, which I am fast approach
ing, he ceases to be surprised at their paucity, but rather
wonders at their mere existence, and sometimes doubts that.
Yet he has then conversed, according to the usual accept
ation of the term, for half a century. The belief in a
necessity of general concepts for the formation of roots,
and thence of language (itself to be considered as connate
with thought, so that all four, general concepts, roots, lan
guage, and thought, are but phases of one act, which is the
theory I understand Prof. Max Muller to maintain), seems
to me dissipated by the mere history of talking man.
Space does not allow me to treat such a subject with the
necessary detail or necessary seriousness. I mention it, as
one of the most recent statements put forth by a well-known
philologist. But I conceive such questions to be out of the
field of philology proper. We have to investigate what is,
we have to discover, if possible, the invariable unconditional
relations under which language, as we observe it, forms, de
velops, changes, or at least to construct an empirical state
ment of definite linguistic relations, and ascertain how far
that statement obtains in individual cases. Real language,
the go-between of man and man, is a totally different organism
from philosophical language, the misty ill-understood expo
nent of sharp metaphysical distinctions. Our work is with
the former. We shall do more by tracing the historical
growth of one single work-a-day tongue, than by filling
�52
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1873.
waste-paper baskets with reams of paper covered with specu
lations on the origin of all tongues. What enormous work
is wanted for the historical investigation of one single branch
of philology is shewn by the labours of Grimm and his
compatriots in Germany, supplemented by the existing inves
tigations of Early English explorers. What still greater
work is required for the comparison of a single family of
related languages, is shewn by the work which Bopp initiated
and Pott is unweariedly carrying on for Aryanism. The
danger is that we should shut ourselves up in one little
“clearing,” and not see the primeval forest in which we
work for the fine trees that immediately surround us.
Societies like ours are intended to obviate this defect, and
addresses like the present are meant in some small degree to
focus inquiry, that we may better see one in all and all in
one. I regret much that the work has not fallen at first into
abler hands, but I would raise up my own feeble voice, which
I feel acutely to be the voice of an outsider in philology,
to beg philologists to relegate these philosophical questions
on origins to a period when more is known of actualities and
development, and to work, with “ a long pull, a strong pull,
and a pull altogether,” to make the real living organism
intelligible, and to track its growth day by day as it can now
be watched, in order to understand not only-how it has
reached its present state from anterior conditions traceable in
existing monuments and documents, but how its present
state will hereafter change, whether such changes have or
have not conduced to the improvement of language as the
expression of thought, and what connection there is between
the development of man, and the chief instrument by which
it can be recorded. When I think of what all this implies,
I may well repeat the Horatian invocation, recalling the
Queen of Fair Speech from the heaven of speculation to the
earth of investigation, from the trump divine to the pipe
human, and proclaiming the comparative endlessness of the
task before her—
“Descende caelo, et die, age, tibia
Regina longum, Calliope, melos.”
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Second annual address of the President to the Philological Society delivered at the anniversary meeting, Friday, 16th May, 1873
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ellis, Alexander John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 34 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on front page: M D Esq from the author 1 June 1873. Includes bibliographical references.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Philological Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5276
Subject
The topic of the resource
Philology
Language
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Second annual address of the President to the Philological Society delivered at the anniversary meeting, Friday, 16th May, 1873), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Philology
Press
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/cee4a9a55db6b42ee4a60986261fc3d4.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=A0rGULPBPz76Mu0F0xFRC6GVB1vIEF7rXFii17MFu6ngb4ZZOeJDbk00fKUnzYdJCqHKPUxZFX7otEwHKE92eFsb1X0166ASQfbWnNZu0jwaQTBArF0R%7Egk8JDVueQW87s4v7O5ftz4DKW4vPN8Ia2veba8N0wCen0-Zd0YNT3csjuQLufdU44AP0HkYY7X%7EOftuPY3n-HwUhG4gisek2rrt0lfItQ%7EBqoiIF0egbSh-rO1BaKsNklLWiY1cPGmzbKq8DaLVl%7EGArGkAgnMazVrrTEZphK%7EdDjM1DKe9XRUJgqft5DKwKCAM9OBUHkOOt9i2XFQGs6ctZB%7E%7EN80wbg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
103329a3fd6d3f2bb3260f18450b7af8
PDF Text
Text
f t
FIRST ANNUAL ADDRESS
OF
THE PRESIDENT
TO THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,
Delivered
at the
Anniversary Meeting, Friday, 17th May, 1872.
By ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, Esq.
Introduction.
Gentlemen,—It was, as you are aware, the intention of our
late lamented President, Professor Goldstiicker, to make our
Anniversary conform to those of other learned Societies, by
delivering an annual address. We have been hitherto ac
customed to make our anniversaries in no respect differ from
ordinary meetings, except in the passing of accounts and
election of officers. In other Societies the retiring President
usually delivers an address, referring to the work performed
or the losses sustained during the preceding year, thus
giving the proceedings on that occasion a distinctive cha
racter. Prof. Goldstiicker considered that it would greatly
contribute to the vitality of our Society, and especially
increase the interest which the new members who have joined
ns take in our proceedings, if the President, on his retiring
either altogether or for re-election, were to deliver an address
which should contain a report of what had been effected
in each part of Philology during the preceding year. He
conceived that no President would be able from his own
resources to furnish such a report, but that different. members
1
�2
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
of the Society could contribute an account of their own par
ticular branches, and that from these quota the President
should endeavour to construct an interesting general view.
The conception was one worthy of its author, and strikingly
shewed his great interest in the continued vitality of this
Society. There will always be a time of pressure in Societies,
when the original members have died out, or have been re
moved from active participation by various avocations, often
calling them to a distance, or making imperious demands on
their time. This plan of inducing numerous members to work
for the common good, thus creating a general interest in the
objects of the Society, preventing it from becoming too one
sided, and shewing the points to which attention should be
directed, was altogether happy, and we awaited its fulfilment
with much interest. Unfortunately, as you know, just about
the time when he would have commenced his preparations
for the first of these addresses, Prof. Groldstiicker was removed
from the scene of his labours. The Council having requested
me to act as President until the anniversary election, it
devolved upon me to carry out our late President’s intentions
as far as possible. But the work which I already had before
me did not permit me to attempt anything requiring so much
preparation. I have therefore hastily put together some
thoughts which have long floated through my mind, in the
hope that they may prove a sort of introduction to such a
series of reports.
Bespeaking your indulgence, then, for an attempt which I
am acutely conscious of not possessing sufficient knowledge
or time to carry out in a manner befitting the occasion, I
venture to lay before you the best general view which I have
hitherto been able to form, of the connection of all those
numerous investigations into the nature, origin, and use of
language, which are comprised under the common name
of Philological Research.
�3
DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
On
the
Relation of Thought to Sound as
Philological Research.
the
Pivot
of
Professor Blackie began a recent lecture (26th April, 1872)
on modern Greek by defining Philology as “ cracking about
words.” He said that every one now-a-days, “ ladies and
all,” understood what it meant, thanks to Archbishop Trench
and Prof. Max Muller. How perhaps Archbishop Trench
would not object to having his pleasant gossiping, books
called “ cracks ” about language—in the Scotch sense, not of
course in a rather common family slang sense, where “ cracks”
mean “ fibs ”; though I am afraid that at present no one even
with the best will can tell many “ cracks ” about words with
out innocently perpetrating many “ fibs ” by the way. But
Prof. Max Muller, though he has cast his remarks in the
popular form of lectures, delivered to those singularly and
provokingly mixed audiences, which crowd the theatre of the
Royal Institution when a “ crack ” man has to “ crack ”—
whether about words or anything else,—certainly claims a
somewhat higher aim, when he styles his subject the Science
of Language. For my own part I fear that we have no real
science of language at present; that despite the enormous
labour already bestowed, it has only resulted in a collection
of materials, and that these materials, utterly insufficient not
withstanding their huge proportions, are mostly of the wrong
sort, and when not of the wrong sort are mostly of the wrong
shape, for a really scientific investigation.
The extent of philological inquiry is something appalling.
The second edition of Pott’s Etymological Researches—still
incomplete—extends, excluding prefaces, to 5656 pages, of
45 lines each, or more than a quarter of a million of lines,
containing more than two millions of words. And this only
represents part of the printed labours of one man. Add the
books he quotes, especially in his wonderfully comprehensive
“ scientific arrangement of the science of language,” prefixed to
the fourth division of the second part of the work just named,
�4
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
and dated Christmas, 1869, and these “cracks” about words will
sound like the very “crack” of doom ! And then venture for a
moment to imagine that almost all of the work will have to
be done over again when the really scientific method has been
discovered ! The prospect is not refreshing, and perhaps the
Philological Society will not thank me for suggesting such
an idea. But why so ? If a learned Society exists, it exists
essentially as a learning Society, and in this case it is well to
know that there is much for it to learn. And I hope to show
that there is much for each individual member to do, however
amateurish he may feel. The lions are. few, but they want
troops of jackalls, and the great body of such Societies as the
present consists of “lions’ providers,”—shewn in the present
case more especially by your having supplied the place of a
dead lion by a living jackall.
It is quite useless to trace the changes of meaning which
the word Philology has undergone, from the mere gram
matical range which it once possessed, to the immense sphere
which it now arrogates. But it is as well to consider roughly
what studies are usually comprised under this loose term,
before inquiring what is the pivot round which they all
turn,—on which of course will depend the formation of the
corresponding science,- if it be indeed formable. These seem
to be:—
The actual existing vocabulary and grammar of living
languages, considered independently.
The same considered historically.
The same considered comparatively.
The same considered at once historically and comparatively,
so that the comparisons relate to past as well as present.
The genesis of the words by descent and initially.
The similar genesis and relation of the constructions.
The contrast (or resemblance) of words and constructions
for objects and relations apparently similar (or dissimilar).
The relations of whole languages historically, and geogra
phically, including ethnology.
The complete study and comparison of dead Eterary
languages, and their literature.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
5
I exclude a priori theoretical relations which have wasted
reams of paper, and amused no one but their inventors,—
if them.
Now my acquaintance with all these matters is very much
like a butterfly’s with honeys—he has not made any, but he
has tasted many, and perhaps from not being a bee himself,
he has no very marked apiarian prejudices. To drop meta
phor, though I have had the good or ill fortune to go through
one private and two public schools, where of course Latin and
Greek were the staple products,—where the usual imperfect
methods resulted in the usual imperfect fabric,—yet the
greater part of my life has been spent away from words ; and
when I have recurred to them, as I have over and over again
(for they have always had a certain fascination for me), I
have rather looked at them as a mathematician or a physicist,
than as a so-called scholar. Hence I have never been con
tent with the sound and fury of commentators,—“Sic Smithius,
perperam! Absurde correxit Jonesius! ” with other amenities,.
—where downright contradictions are bandied about with the
sole effect of rendering it probable that there was no solid
foundation for either opinion. Nor have I been content with
the etymological explanations which are so confidently and
variously given by different writers. I never could see how
in the world they found it all out, and had disagreeable sus
picions that it might be all guess work—wherein I almost
fear I was right. Now it so happened that the particular
little part of the study of letters which from an early time
attracted my attention was letters literally, or rather that
which letters seemed meant to recall, and after floundering
about hopelessly after the usual fashion, I saw that speech
sounds must be studied in the living speaker, and not in the
dead alphabet. And thus by degrees the thought grew up
in me, that the whole of language was also a thing to be
studied in the living speaker, and not in fossil books. The
form which this conception ultimately took was, that the
turning-point of all philological research is the relation of
thought to sotind. I should be much surprised if this con
ception were new. The relation has indeed been already
�6
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
considered, but mainly, if not solely, in connection with the
origin of language, and has then been treated far too per
functorily, and with far too many d priori assumptions, to be
very fertile or certain in results. That is not by any means
the view I take. To my mind the relation of thought to
sound is the scientific matter of philological investigation,
connecting all its parts, suggesting the methods to be em
ployed, and indicating the ultimate Utopia of its intention.
But when stated thus laconically and baldly, it will probably
not be understood as I conceived it. It is therefore necessary
to enter into some detail.
In the first place, the formula appears too comprehensive.
Should sound in general be understood, or only speech sounds
in particular ? Surely philology does not deal with music,
for example, not to mention other descriptions of sounds pro
duced by the organic and inorganic world ? But is not sing
ing a species of speech sound, and is there not an intimate
connection between alterations of pitch and significations of
words ? How can vowels, accents, especially Chinese tones,
be understood without reference to music ? And do not the
inorganic and organic sounds so react on thought as to call
forth imitative speech sounds ? Hence it seems to me that
the domain of philology embraces the whole of the domain of
sound, not merely those parts which are commonly included
in physical text-books, but all those more recondite physio
logical sections which are considered in Helmholtz’s Lehre
von den Tonempfindungen, together with other extremely diffi
cult and complex researches into the production and dis
crimination of vocal sounds, by the organs of man and other
animals. We are thus led to consider phonology as embrac
ing only a portion of the sounds to be studied or allowed for
by the philologist. Certainly a very important part, and
divisible into two distinct branches, the production of sound,
and the appreciation of sound, but still not the main part,
which for philology is, the cerebral effect produced first by
the sound itself, and next by the attempt to imitate it. It is
needless to say that few even professional philologists are well
or even moderately well informed upon these points. In fact,
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
7
the amount of acquaintance with phonetics on their part is
ordinarily so small that we cannot feel surprised at their
generally confusing letters with sounds, which amounts to
taking pictures for men. Yet these sounds are the first rude
elements of the subject which they profess to treat.
Next, thought appears too limited, and certainly is so, if the
word is to be confined to the intellect. I use it however
here as a convenient abbreviation for the whole result of
cerebral action, whether merely perceptive and reflective, or
moral, whether due to the senses and intellect, or the emotions
and will. In order to understand the relation between thought
thus conceived and sound, it would seem necessary to begin
by a profound philosophical a priori analysis of the human
mind and its powers, with their laws. But such a beginning
would infallibly end in misfortune. A thinker who makes
such an analysis works from his own limited surroundings,
and is fettered by his own limited acceptation of his own
limited language. Hence he leaves out of consideration in
numerable relations which to him may be either incompre
hensible or ridiculous, but which rise spontaneously in other
minds affected by other circumstances, and find their expres
sion in language. The special analysis of thought required
is that of untutored men, uneducated peasants, savage tribes,
growing children. It is extremely difficult to conduct, eVen
rudely, owing to the contrast between these minds and the
highly cultivated investigator’s, and to the absence of any
well-understood medium of communication. If it is difficult,
or rather impossible, to translate faithfully from one cultivated
language into another,—that is to use phrases covering pre
cisely the same ground, neither more nor less,1—what must
1 As it would be rash to assume that
the new edition of Pott’s Etymologische
Forschungen is in every one’s hand, I
take the liberty of citing the words
in the original (2ten Theiles, lte
Abtheilung, 1861, p. 24): “ Was ware
erst von ITebersetzungen zu sagen ?
d. h. Umgiessung eines gedanklichen
Stoffes in verschiedene Formen je nach
Sprachen (Systemen), derenkeins (auch
6elbst dann nicht immer, wo es sich um
nahverwandte handelt) dem anderen,
vollends nach der subjectiven Seite
hin, weder im Ganzen, noch, hochstens
mit geringen Ausnahmen, in den Einzelnheiten, sich streng congruent
zeigt. (Als augenfalliges Beispiel diene
etwas Kleuker’s Uebertragung des
Zendavesta aus Anquetil’s Franzosischer ins Deutsche, wenn man
bedenkt, dass Anquetil seinerseits auch
nicht eigentlich das Zendische Origi-
�8
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
it be to transfuse shapeless thoughts into shapely words ! But
until we can form some conception, however rude, of the
germinal thoughts of the untutored, we cannot advance far
in understanding the relations with which language deals.
Now having defined the two matters compared—thought
and sound—more precisely, we are prepared to deal with their
relations, which are mutual, thought reacting on sound to the
full extent that sound acts on thought.
The first relation is physiological and solitary, due to the
termination of the auditory and vocal nerves in the brain,
whereby these organs are brought into connection with the
organs of thought, and influence and reflect it, as the motions
of the body and face influence and reflect our feelings and
intentions. That this is the fact we know roughly well
enough, through ordinary lesions. But it would be desirable
not only that philologists should have some notion of phy
siology, but that physiologists and medical men generally
should be more or less acquainted with some of the principles
nal, sondern meist nur durch die vermittelnde Zwischenform des Pehlwi
wiedergab!) Nicht genug, dass jeder
Sprache ein. mehr oder weniger eigenthiimliches und individuelles grammatisches System (noch von Verschiedenheit des lexicalen Stoffes Absehen
genommen) zum Grunde liegt, und die
Besonderheit ihrer Stilart eine ganz
unnachahmliche zu sein pflegt, wie
sollten sich zwei Sprachen einander
decken, wenn selbst in stammgemeinsamen die Worter, ja oft einander etymologisch gleiche Wdrter, selten auch
nur noch lautlicb vollig zusammenstimmen, und, begrifflicher Seits, der
Einheit ihrer Genesis zum Trotz, in
ihrer weiteren Geschichte sich haufig
auf ausserst divergenten Entwickelungshahnen dahin reissen liessen ? Vgl. z.
B. Lat. chore Viehhof (frz. basse-cour,
Hiihnerhof), wie noch in dem Salischen
Gesetze curtis (der Hofraum bei dem
Hause), das militarische cohors u. s. w.,
und dagegen nun der fiirstliche Hof,
frz. cour, mit seinen Sprosslingen courtoisie (aus curtensis), wie bourgeoisie
(aus burgcrisis'), courtis-ane (mit neuem
Suffix: eig. aulica), cortege (Gefolge)
u. s. w. nebst ihren germanischen Gegen-
bildem Mhd. hovesch, hofsch, Nhd.
hoflich, hofisch, hiibsch. Hieher
gehort auch die Frage, ob und in wie
weit es in einer Sprache sinngleiche
oder gleichbedeutende Wortergeben
konne. . . . Geht man von dem unlaugbar richtigen Satze aus, dass, was
seinem Ursprunge nach grundverschieden, es auch inseinem Wesen sein
miisse: dann kann man nicht umhin,
Sinnes-Gleichheit
etymologisch
auseinanderlaufender, ja selbst zwar
wurzelgleicher, aber in den BildungsZusatzen ungleicher Worter schon
prinzipiell in Abrede zu stellen.
M an wird zwar behaupten diirfen:
etymologisch, d. h. ja nun eben schon
a principio ungleiche Worter oder
Formen konnen zwar einander (nach
dem zu bezeichnenden Objecte hinwarts) gleich-geltend sein oder werden, Gleiches bedeuten, wenn man
diesen Ausdruck auf den inneren subjectiven Sinn derWorter einschrankt,
—niemals.” (Translating the last re
mark into Mr. Mill's language, “radi
cally distinct words may come to have
the same denotation, but will never have
the same connotation.”)
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
9
and practice of philology. The relation of cerebral condition,
of auditory condition, of vocal condition, would then be better
studied. The interaction and counteraction of the other
senses would also be better understood. Thus the language
of the blind must be totally different from that of the deaf.
And the effect of different degrees of blindness and deafness
must be important.1 The phenomena of voicelessness, of
stammering, stuttering and so forth, have all strict bearings
upon philological studies, and require careful record by per
sons who are at once physiologists and philologists. The
effect of disease, especially cerebral disease, upon vocal power
as well as mental conceptions, and the expression of concep
tion by speech, ought to be well watched. Some beginnings
have been made in this direction, but the records are usually
in medical journals which are beyond the range of philologists,
and the medical recorders seem often strangely ignorant of
the very rudiments of philological knowledge which would
make their observations valuable. Thus the remarks on the
powers of uttering vowels and consonants in the remarkable
cases of a severed epiglottis and a closed glottis which I lately
brought before your notice from an American medical journal,
as pointed out to me by Prof. Max Muller, were deprived of
half their interest and value by the rudimentary ignorance of
their recorder. Lately there were some curious observations
and plates on the contact of parts of the mouth in producing
sounds laid before the Odontological Society (Transactions,
Feb. 1872), but I have failed to elicit any valuable result
from them, owing to the same rudimentary ignorance in the
experimenter. It might be worth while to ransack medical
records for years back in this country, America, France, and
Germany, for cases bearing on this point. When the index
of subjects in the Royal Society’s Catalogue is published (it
is not yet commenced), we may have some means of grouping
and studying these cases, which lie at the root of all philology.
The second relation between thought and sound is again
solitary or individual, and is partly medical, but principally
1 All consideration of gesture language
is here-omitted, although it is always
of importance as accompanying spoken
language between “ sighted ” people.
�10
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
such as can be more or less accurately observed by persons
without a medical education. It consists in the influence of
sound upon individual thought and feeling, and the expres
sion of feeling or thought by spontaneous exercise of the
powers of producing sound, without reference to any listener.
Waves of air arising from the same source actually affect
different organisms very differently, and those from different
sources affect the same organisms in different ways. This is
a matter of common observation.1 But to be of use philologically it should become a matter of scientific observation.
It is not enough,—it is often entirely misleading,—to say,
“ a child I knew did so and so,” “ a baby I was told of shewed
such and such feelings.” This is mere gossip; possibly
founded more on inference than on observation. In fact the
great difficulty in making observations is to abstain from
inference. I am afraid it is a difficulty which pervades all
departments of ordinary observation, and is especially felt in
such as are here contemplated. Another difficulty is that of
eliminating the habits of the observer himself, so as to record
as much as possible the habits of the person observed without
alloy. A third difficulty arises from the necessity of putting
oneself in the place of another, of feeling with another’s
nerves, and of evolving from confused expression the sensa
tion actually experienced. Then comes a fourth difficulty in
expressing those sensations or interpreting them to others.
This is attempted chiefly by analogies, often misleading. One
says a sound grates, another that it beats, another that it is
sandy, another that it is scratchy, another splashy,—do these
indicate the same sensation from the same source, or different
sensations ? Observe the difficulty that a patient has in
making the doctor understand his sensations, and the gene
rally perfunctory way in which different doctors will arrive
at totally different conclusions from the same indications.
Now all these sensations are the elementary ground of
most explanations of the formation of language. Take the
three principal theories, irreverently termed Poohpooh ! Bow1 Compare Merchant of Venice, act
4, scene 1, speech 8, respecting the
effect on some frames of mind of the
“ bagpipe singing in the nose.”
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
11
wow ! and Dingdong ! The Doohpooh! or interjectional
theory, is based on the natural phonetic expression of various
sensations, feelings, thoughts; an expression of an involun
tary character, and quite irrespective of a listener. But till
we have something like a scientific record of what these
“ natural ” expressions are, among persons of different ages,
and degrees of culture, especially under different social and
geographical conditions, and in the rudest and most primitive
states of existence, we have really no proper basis for this
theory. It will mean one thing in England, another in
China, another in Caffreland, and so on. It is evident that
in order to record the cries, we should require an instrument
very much more refined than any which we now possess,—
although Mr. Melville Bell’s Visible Speech1 goes a great
way towards supplying it, further indeed than most people,
perhaps than ten or a dozen people in the whole world, are
at present capable of following him. All records hitherto
given must consequently be looked upon with suspicion.
They are only makeshifts of the vaguest possible kind.
They are similar to the answers one gets to the common
question: What is Miss Brown like ? “ Oh ! she’s a fair girl,
one of those bright complexions you know, not a coarse
dairymaid’s red, but a splendid colour, and bright eyes,
darkish, hair reddish brown and warm, fine figure, and
middle height, and magnificently dressed ! ” I believe that
would give a much better idea of Miss Brown, than most
representations we have of sighs, and groans, and cries of
delight and horror, and other oh! ah ! and poohpooh ! sounds.
1 Inaugural Edition, London, 1867,
4to., pp. 126, and 16 plates. As Mr.
Bell’s symbols are not “ cast in type ”
for ordinary use, it is as well to remember
that my own Paleeotype allows of their
transliteration into the commonest existenttypes of all sizes, asshewninmy^arZy
English Pronunciation, p. 15. Other
recent attempts are those of Prof. Ernst
Briicke, Ueber eine neue Methode der
phonetischenTransscription, Wien, 1863,
8vo., pp. 65, which has been adopted
and somewhat modified by Dr. H. B.
Bumpelt, in his Das natiirliche System
der Sprachlaute und sein Verhaltnis zu
den wichtigsten Cultursprachen, Halle,
1869, 8vo., pp. 227; and that appended
by Dr. C. L. Merkel to his Physiologie
der menschlichen Sprache (physiologische Laletik), Leipzig, 1866, 8vo.,
pp. 444. But both systems are far in
ferior to Mr. Bell’s in comprehensive
ness, arrangement, and form of symbol.
Rumpelt and Wilhelm Scherer (Zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, Ber
lin, 1868, 8vo., pp. 492) both apply
Briicke’s phonology philologically.
�12
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
I should be sorry to propound a theory of femininity upon
the above description of Miss Brown. I fear that interjectionalists have been led too far in propounding a theory of
speech upon written representations of these cries in different
languages, having scarcely any closer connection with the
original.
The Bowwozo ! or onomatopoetic or imitational theory is
liable to even greater sources of error. The vocal organs of
animals vary extremely from those of man ; the forms of the
resonance cavities especially, on which distinct vocality
mainly depends, and of the closing portions, the teeth, lips,
tongue, cheeks, are so differently disposed that the vowels
and consonants must be physically distinct from anything
producible by ordinary man. Some persons with great power
of mimicry get out imitations which may be lauded as more
natural than nature—as in the well-known fable of the
squeaker versus the pig. But this is not usual, and we may
safely say that the cries of animals, when not conventionally
dished up to children by nurses and grannies, are v.ery
differently conceived by different children, especially in
different countries. I have myself listened over and over
again to one of the most distinctive cries, which we hear
repeated so often in England, the cuckoo’s note, and have
failed to make out the consonant or the first vowel. Again I
have listened carefully to sheep and goats, which have an
interest to us from the Greek /3t?, and Phrygian /Se/cos,1 to
try and discover the initial consonant. Seldom or ever could
I detect any approach to a labial. In fact the animal gene
rally opens its mouth before commencing the sound, so that
the labial glide is impossible. The effect seems to me purely
in the glottis, and resembling the Arabic ain. Even the
celebrated bowwow itself is seldom labialized; though the
dog does sometimes make a glide which recalls a sort of lip
effect, and ends his cry with a bastard oo, which is I believe
1 Of course I take the word jBe/cbs,
said to be Phrygian, but also said to
have been uttered by children who had
never heard any but goats cry (Her.
2, 2), to be a mere imitation of that
cry in Greek letters fiex, with a Greek
termination added. The
is the
sheep’s cry in Cratinus, Dionys. 5 J
/j.r)Kdo/j.ai, ($Krix<kop.ai, were the verbs
for bleating.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
13
to be made without any labial action. The old Greeks have
/3av /3ctv, which of course in modern Greek becomes (bhabh)
or (bhaph),1 and this last maybe compared with the “ waffing
cur ” of Yorkshire, shewing how slender a foundation the
natural cry gives for fixing the diphthongal sound. In pass
ing, I may call attention to the resolution of the diphthong in
the verb
which those who can may pronounce, and to
the guttural form of the modern Greek
I do not
dispute that many words are intended to recall the sensations
experienced in hearing sounds, but how far they are imitational or not I have no means yet of determining. Here
observations on savages are much to be desired, but these
should be conducted by people who have at least some inkling
of how to exhibit the sounds used by the savages, and have
taken some care to compare these with the cries actually
made by the animals. It would be also desirable to compare
these imitations with the range of speech sounds used by the
different imitators in ordinary language, as it is evident that
their power of imitation will be materially limited by the
sounds at easy command. This will probably give a key in
many cases to the different ways in which different nations
conceive or represent the cries, believed to be the same,
although perhaps even animal cries are geographically differ
entiable. I pass over the non-animal sounds represented,
as their consideration would lead me too far.
The Dingdong ! theory has, so far as I know, received no
other name; let us call it symphonesis. It is that advanced
by Prof. Max Muller, and christened I believe by Prof.
Whitney. “There is,” says Prof. Max Muller (Leet. Sci.
Lang. 1, 370, first ed.), “a law which runs through nearly
the whole of nature, that everything which is struck rings.
Each substance has its peculiar ring. ... It was the same
with man, the most highly organized of nature’s works.”
The theory is, we are told in a note, originally Heyse’s, and
was published by Steinthal. The “ ringing ” is stated to be
used, “ of course, as an illustration only, and not as an
1 Read (a) the short of a in father
and (ph, bh) as/, and v, sounded with-
out bringing the lower lip against the
teeth.
�14
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
explanation.”1 I am afraid that as an illustration it is very
defective, presenting scarcely the vaguest analogy to any one
who thinks on the subject physically. Prof. Max Muller’s
notion is that in obedience to this ringing, “ each conception,
as it thrilled for the first time through the brain,” received
“ a phonetic expression,” but that the instinct by which this
was effected has long become extinct.2 He considers roots to
be these phonetic expressions. But I pass them over for the
present, as they seem to me to belong more naturally to the
relation next considered. Of course if this instinct no longer
exists, it cannot be at all investigated. But I am inclined to
attach some reality to symphonesis, and to think that it is at
least as active now as ever. It is certainly overridden among
people who speak a cultivated language, to whom words have
long been counters, and in watching the gradual evolution of
language in a child the influence of this disturbing environ
ment has to be carefully allowed for.
In attempting to trace symphonesis in adults, association
of various kinds also presents a great difficulty, and may
exist in numerous cases where not only the observer but the
observed (often one and the same person) are unconscious of
its influence. Thus the names Lydia, Rhoda, Millicent,
Ernestine, Lilias, will “ ring ” to the last degree romantically
in many an ear, partly from romantic associations, but also
probably from their “sweet sounds.” We can hardly per
haps associate them with earnest, thoughtful, resolute, though
thoroughly feminine women, pledged to carry out a principle
of justice to their own sex, and fully equal to the task. Of
course this is mere absurdity. Names are given long before
1 See this theory rather severely
handled by Prof.William Dwight Whit
ney, on pp. 268—270, and 282, note, of
his “ Oriental and Linguistic Studies.
The Veda; the A vesta; the Science of
Language,” New York, 1873, sm. 8vo.,
pp. 417, a republication of reviews of
these subjects, which criticises various
other theories of language under the
headings of “ Bleek and the Simious,
Schleicher and the Physical, Steinthal
and the Psychological Theory of Lan
guage.”
2 The “ thrill ” of pleasure, or what
ever else it may be called, which passes
through the whole nervous system
when pleasurably excited by some new
thought, feeling, conception, or recog
nition of the justness of an analogy, of
success in any way,—this is certainly
not extinct, and its frequent experience
probably gave its origin to the whole
theory, and has made that theory so
readily received. As to the extinction
of root-formative power, see below, p.
28.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
15
qualities are developed, and fortunately are not now supposed
to have a meaning, although Humpty Humpty, whom the
last wondrous fairy tale, Through the Looking Glass, has
raised into a great authority on language, declares that a
name must mean something, and that Alice, with a name
like hers, “might be any shape, almost” (p. 116). How
what shape would you give to the five ladies I have just
named ? I assure you that I had no romantic notions rung
in to me, but on the contrary a most satisfactory impression
of the potentiality of womanhood, when I heard the speeches
delivered in Parliament against the Women’s Disabilities
Removal Bill, on the first of this month, criticised this
day week by Miss Lydia Becker, Miss Rhoda (Jarrett, Mrs.
Millicent Fawcett, Mrs. Ernestine Rose, and Miss Lilias
Ashworth. The “ ring ” of these names will henceforth
be to my ears no “uncertain sound” (1 Cor. 14, 8), but
a most enlivening peal of welcome to more than half of
the human race. Thus do associations interfere with ob
servation.
But take another instance. A young artist, writing to me
from the Pyrenees the other day, pronounced the new-fallen
snow to be “ scrumptious ” (skronrshos). The word is not in
the dictionaries. I fling it down before the Society to make
what they can of it. Ho one will fail, I think, to grasp its
meaning. I had not the slightest difficulty. Is it interjectional, imitational, or symphonetic ? Does it imitate, the
sensation created by the sight of the new-fallen snow to an
artistic eye in the atmosphere of Southern France ? The
word, which I believe is not uncommon among young men
at the present day, is probably some school or college slang
revivified, but it can scarcely have been thus applied before.
Was it a direct application? or associative? or analogical?
Was there ever a root to the word ? Had it a history, a
descent ? Was it, when invented, a pure fancy of the
moment, with nothing but absurdity and freakdom to gene
rate it ? These questions, at any rate, are not absurd or
freakish. They are questions which the philologist has to
ask himself over and over again, with little chance of success
�16
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
in answering them, till he has been able to register numerous
observations carefully made and corrected for possibilities of
error. That we have none such yet to speak of, shews how
far we are from a science of philology. That there are so
many to make, shews what a wide field lies open to the
amateur, whose essential use to science is to collect scattered
facts in off-regions for professors to sort and appreciate.
The third relation between thought and sound is the most
important to philology, and the two preceding are in fact
merely introductory. It is the social relation, the most
mysterious and least understood, but the most active of all.
The pith of it is this, that one sound suggests a single
thought in two minds, and that one thought suggests to one
mind a sound, which on being uttered excites the same thought
in another mind. The fact that this is approximatively true,
makes language possible. The fact that this is not exactly
true, makes language ambiguous. My own impression, one
that has grown upon me with years and experience, is that
this is very far from being precisely true. So far from the
same sound calling up the same thought in two minds simul
taneously, I believe that it frequently calls up irreconcilably
different thoughts. So far from one man being able by
words to convey his thought to another, I believe that he
frequently only succeeds in exciting an irreconcilably dif
ferent thought. So far from every man understanding every
other man who speaks what we are accustomed to call the
same language, I believe that no man does precisely under
stand any other man, and that every man occasionally
egregiously misunderstands every other man. I am sorry
to say, too, that at present I do not see any direct way out of
the difficulty. Heaven protect us from an eruption of philo
sophical language! Its burning lava would soon settle the
business. Thought would have to take lodgings in Her
culaneum.
Let me refer again to that great authority whom I have
already quoted, Humpty Dumpty, as he discoursed when
sitting on a wall, before that stupendous tumble which vainly
called in requisition all the king’s horses and all the king’s
�’ DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLTS, ESQ.
17
men,—bating two horses wanted in the game, and two mes
sengers, as we subsequently learn (p. 139).
“ There’s glory for you! ” [cries he, after putting in a clincher,
p. 123.]
“ I don’t know what you mean by 1 glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “ Of course you don’t—
till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you ! ’”
“ But ‘ glory ’ doesn’t mean ‘ a nice knock-down argument,’ ” Alice
objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, “ it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean
so many different things.”
“ The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “ which is to be master—
that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute
Humpty Dumpty began again.
“ They’ve a temper, some of them, particularly verbs,—they ’re the
proudest; adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs; how
ever, I can manage the whole lot of them ! Impenetrability 1 That’s
what I say ! ”
“Would you tell me, please,” said Alice, “what that means ?”
“Now you talk like a reasonable child,” said Humpty Dumpty, look
ing very much pleased. “ I meant by ‘ impenetrability ’ that we’ve had
enough of that subject, and that it would be just as well if you’d men
tion what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop
here all the rest of your life.”
“That’s a great deal to make one word mean,” Alice said in a
thoughtful tone.
“ When I make a word do a lot of work like that,” said Humpty
Dumpty, “ I always pay it extra.”
“ Oh ! ” said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other
remark.
“Ah, you should see ’em come round me of a Saturday night,”
Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side,
“ for to get their wages, you know.”
(Alice didn’t venture to ask what he paid them with ; and so you see
I can’t tell you.)
I make no apology for introducing this exquisite fooling
into a grave argument. The whole question of language and
philology is so charmingly touched that I recommend all
interested in them to read the whole dialogue, and especially
the subsequent explanation of the nonsense words in the song
2
�18
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
of the Jabberwock. Humpty Dumpty is a perfect type of
your philosophical-language-monger. If he does not make
words himself on an individual classification, he gives new
meanings to old words till he loses the social character of
language entirely, and locks himself into a box as effectually
as the poor bride in the “ Mistletoe Bough ! ” leaving future
generations to find bare bones and wonder how they got
there.
Language teems with life. It is born of two, by the inter
action of the instincts of each. The ball of sound and sense
is driven like a shuttlecock from one to the other in quick
alternation. The individual corners and projections are
broken off by the repeated blows. A. something, a residuum,
rather battered and worn, but still available, remains. And
this forms the medium of communication. It recalls in each
something of the separate individuality of each. Perhaps
each thinks too much of his own crooks and crotchets, and so
misunderstandings arise, but the shapeless lump is bigger
than all its broken warts, and so it serves—somehow. Bather
“a lame and impotent conclusion” truly. But then “suck
ling fools and chronicling small beer” (Othello 2, 1, sp. 59)
is the chief end and aim of language ; the wise men and the
dainty drinks are too rare to be much regarded by the “ com
mon drudge twixt man and man” (Merch. of V. 3, 2, sp. 12).
These vague metaphors are certainly not scientific, but they
may serve to convey to you in some rude way a thought which
is not very distinct in myself, and by their very roughness
will illustrate the difficulties under which we labour in con
veying and receiving conceptions by the highway of speech.
But I wish strongly to impress on you the social genesis of
language. The usual theories of the origin of language are
too individual. The Poohpooh ! the Bowwow! and the Dingdong ! theories might serve for Bobinson Crusoe. With Man
Friday would begin real language—attempted and partially
effected interchange of thought by mouth and ear. It is my
own belief that no two hearing and speaking persons could
be thrown together on a desolate island without inventing a
language; whereas no length of time would evolve a language
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
19
from the consciousness of a solitary.1 The very conditions of
the vitality of the race, reproduction and maternal care, secure
sociability—secure therefore the genesis of language. Every
mother and child have probably a language of their own for
some time, and occasionally some words of it remain through
the overwhelming floods of national speech. But cut off this
disturbing element. Let the parents have no great voca
bulary of their own, and see how enriched and altered it may
become by the additions of the new life. Let these words
pass on to other children. Let a little society be formed by
the addition of a few strangers. Let the local wants suggest
local terms. And a new variety, a new dialect, a new lan
guage arises. I am told that along the Italian Riviera, about
San Remo and that way, nearly every bay has its own dialect,
and these dialects rapidly become mutually unintelligible. I
also learn that the Erse of Kerry is not understood in Donegal.
In Norway every valley seems to have a peculiar spoken
dialect, but all learn a uniform written language, which of
course greatly controuls the change. In nomad tribes we
hear of language rapidly changing. In large and thinly
peopled districts, languages vary with great suddenness.
These little speechlets die unchronicled. They are worth
nothing for what they convey. But they are worth much
for shewing how the great languages of the world were
formed. It is often by studying the lowest animals that we
gain the key to the highest. The great complexity of culti
vated languages, products of various mighty causes, over
whelms us. We run a risk of omitting essentials in artificial
abstractions. We must discover the genesis of language, if
at all, in the continuous genesis of patois, dialects, jargons,
lingue franche, camp speech, savage talk. The peasant’s
1 It is possible that he might create
a system of signs to recall facts, as an
aid to memory. A man at one time
(remembering himself or conceiving of
himself as existing or thinking at some
past or future time, is in a certain re
spect doubled and forms a retrospective
or prospective society, so that he notes
something now for himself to under
stand then, or reads something now
written then. In this respect memory
replaces sociability. But though this
may affect sign language, it does not
affect speech language in its origin,
which is all that is here coiisidered.
Practically, however, both memory lan
guage and gesture language tend to
modify speech language. But for writ
ing and action our speech would be
materially different.
�20
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
words must be carefully noted, and compared with the pea
sant’s habits of thought. The wild man’s untutored utterance
must be mastered and contrasted with his untutored con
ceptions. It is hard, very hard. The observations hitherto
made are, I am afraid, in many, perhaps in most instances,
often little better, and often much worse, than waste paper.
The missionary is so anxious to convert that he perverts
everything by the way. He begins by translating the Testa
ment (which must be at best a fairy tale of an enchanted
region to the mind of a savage), long before he has mastered
the rudimentary notions of the mind he addresses, the point
of view, the colour, under which it sees everything. Even in
collecting European patois, a cultivated man converses with
the people, and almost necessarily misconceives their thoughts
and misrepresents their words. At best he is not familiar
with their speech, so as to be able to tell a story in it as the
peasant would. And yet stories written by such persons,
rarely from oral tradition (and if so, too often doctored), in a
conventional orthography which may recall the speech some
what to him, but has little phonetic meaning to an outsider,
are about the best representatives of growing living organic
speech that we possess. Here is a vast field for the observer
who is faithful and will give us facts and not foist in his own
semilearning. It is really lamentable to read the etymologies
in our provincial glossaries. They are no part of the glossary
maker’s business. Let him give the words faithfully as re
gards sound (in construction as well as isolation), let him
illustrate the words extensively by phrases collected from
actual hearing (not invented for the occasion by himself), let
him endeavour as well as he can to convey the meaning
by careful analogies (not by mere synonyms often grossly
misleading), and he has done his part. The rest belongs
to a man with wider knowledge, having hundreds of such
glossaries and other vast resources at his command.
Of course I do not stay to consider the use of all this. I
suppose we have to base the science of philology. I try to
indicate one of its most important means, the study of freely
developed speech, the illiterate organism. We are to study
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
21
language as a phenomenon, not as an instrument. But this
is a comparatively modern idea. Language was studied only
for its applications. Latin contained all the learning in the
world, and was the language of its religion. Hence it was
acquired, just as French and sometimes German are now ac
quired by most of us, as a means to an end. If we could get
ideas from Latin and convey them by Latin, that was enough.
Whether the Latin we learned was the same in form as that
which Cicero spoke or wrote was a trifle. We assumed it to
be. Then Greek was, as it were, rediscovered. Latin and
Greek books went through the crucible of scholarship. Their
orthography was improved, their errors amended. Learned
men—not shams, really learned men of the time—pruned
them, till they resembled the yew-trees of fantastic shape.
Hebrew was of course not forgotten, and,, thanks to> Jewish
persistence, never really died. But then religion played mad
pranks with language. Adam was assumed to have spoken
Biblical Hebrew—just as most English children supposed (I
did for one) that he spoke English, and that dog, cat, lion,
and so forth, were the names Adam gave- We English
children were not more absurd than our fathers, when they
made all languages descend from Hebrew. But there was
one advantage in this; it turned thoughts from the mere
application of language, to the examination of language per
se. This age has shifted. Almost in our own days came the
discovery of Sanscrit, and philology proper began—but, alas !
at the wrong end.
Now here I run great danger of being misunderstood.
Although for a scientific sifting of the nature of language I
presume to think that beginning at Sanscrit was unfortunate,
yet I freely admit, that had that language not been brought
into Europe,—had not the exigencies of Indian government
forced open its locks, and given the precious book within to
the philologists of the world,—our knowledge of language
would have been in a poor condition indeed, and philology
could hardly have hoped to rise above the dilettanteism im
plied in its name. The effect of the discovery of Sanscrit
has been to raise into existence a set of ingenious and labo
�22
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNEAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
rious men, who have determined to unearth the secret of
language, who have toiled night and day with an industry
and a disinterestedness beyond anticipation to accomplish
their mighty task, and who have actually succeeded in bring
ing to light a variety of most astounding facts, shewing an
historical connection hitherto unsuspected, and an aptitude
of language to accommodate itself to circumstances, to new
conditions and new influences, under definite laws,—which
at once dissipates the ridicule of -those who, with Voltaire,
would define etymology as a science where the consonants go
for next to nothing and the vowels for nothing at all. It
would especially ill become one that unworthily occupies a
chair just left vacant by a distinguished Sanscritist, whose
loss not only our own limited circle but the whole world of
letters must deplore, to speak disparagingly of Sanscrit
studies. We are under the greatest obligations to those dis
tinguished men whb have undertaken to unravel its secrets
and to shew its connection with the languages of Europe.
Yet I must repeat, that for the pure science of language, to
begin with Sanscrit was as much beginning at the wrong
end as it would have been to commence zoology with palaeon
tology,—the relations of life with the bones of the dead.
And I am afraid that one of the consequences will be an ex
treme unwillingness to undertake that long and troublesome
living examination of living speech wherein alone, as it
seems to me, can we hope to find the key to the mystery.
Laborious as it may be to pore over manuscripts, to compare
letter by letter, to exhume, as it were, bone after bone of
long interred skeletons, and place them side by side for com
parison, carefully studying every little projection and de
pression, the labour is as nothing compared to the patient
watching of habits, registering of usages, slow acquirement
of uncongenial thought, accurate appreciation of living
changing sounds, in thousands of thousands of instances, on
which we must base our real science of language. The
change is like that which converted conchology, the mere
classification of the hard shells, into malacology, the study
of the living mollusc, by which alone the shell received its
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
23
explanation. But it is harder. The conchologist was at least
a naturalist, that went forth to the sea-shore to collect, or
gathered spoil through sailors in every quarter of the globe.
The malacologist had to become the hardy dredger, the
careful dissector, the painful microscopist, the patient aquariumist, yet he remained a naturalist. But, in this case, the
bookman has to be converted into a natureman; the chair
and library have to be forsaken for the horse and hut; lite
rature has to become science. Had we not a kind of inter
mediate creature called an ethnologist, we might despair of
the attempt ever being made. But the intimate connection
of ethnology with philology on the one hand, and biology,
including sociology, on the other, lets us hope that future
generations will rejoice in a light we can only prognosticate.
In the first place, we cannot read Sanscrit. It is almost
like the first reason for not firing a salute—having no can
non. But we have the cannon here—it is the powder which
fails. I shall be told that I could not bring a more ground
less accusation against Sanscrit, which has a model alphabet.
But that alphabet is not primitive. The great works' ex
isted for ages in the mouths of men alone before they were
written down, and the great works were certainly not the
first efforts of the language. By the time that these works
were written,—in an alphabet which of course surprises Euro
peans very much, used as they are to a mere bludge (it’s the
only word with which my mind would “ ring ” in this con
nection, and so I present it to you for analysis,1—I never
heard it before),—by that time I can feel no doubt that the
pronunciation had materially changed, and that the alphabet
. 1 It was suggested that the word
must have arisen from a kind of NorthAmerican-Indian-incorporation of bl-ot
and sm-udge. I can’t recall any such
words having passed through my mind
at the moment when this suggested it
self so forcibly that I could not find any
synonym, and felt forced to commit it
to paper. No doubt the associations
with bl-ot, bl-otch, blu-r, and perhaps
blu-nt, blu-ster, blu-sh, together with
po-dgy, sl-udge, f-udge, sm-udge,
worked upon my mind, but I could not
point out any two words precisely which
more than any other two worked upon
me to make the compound. But has
not some such eclecticism always worked
after a few words have become current ?
How else could Murray’s and Adolf
Wagner’s extravagant notion — that
nine principal roots and nine after-roots
sufficed for all languages—have arisen ?
(Pott, Et. F. Theil 2, Abth. 1, p. 76.)
But to refer bludge to the “ roots ”
bla-\-ag or ba-\-la-\-ag, would be a
cerebral lesion, absolute brain-split
ting, in my own case.
�24
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
was meant to secure an artificial sacerdotal recital. Again,
the pronunciation of that comparatively late alphabet itself
is not understood. No one can for a moment agree with (ee,
oo, ri, rii, lri, lrii, tsh, dzh, nj)—(I employ my paleeotypic signs
as usual). Two letters are called (sh), which cannot be true.
The sounds of the letters called (h) and (v) are disputable.
The real distinction between the dental and cerebral t, d, n,
is not understood here, and seems to be falsely laid down by
Bopp and others. The Anus vara and Visarga are stumblingblocks. Moreover, no one in England seems to think it worth
while to attempt to pronounce these Sanscrit letters according
to any definite theory. Who thoroughly comprehends the
system of accentuation and quantity? Who practises the
chant in which the long verses were certainly uttered ? What
ear knows the rhythmic effect of the quantity? Who can
tell the difference between the extremely artificial language
of the poems and the language of common life which gene
rated the Pracrit, and was the real existing organism from
which the Sanscrit was sublimed ?
Then for the sister dialects. Zend I put aside as a mass
of conjectured pronunciation. Greek is a subject of dispute
at almost every stage. There is hardly a point on which
opinions do not differ. Thus it, t, k, may have had (as Rapp
appears to think) those strange middle sounds heard in
Saxony, which are “bats” to the German ear itself; /3, 8,
7, may have hovered between the modern Greek sounds and
the ordinary English b, d, g. What pages and pages of dis
sertation do not </>, Q,
recall! Who can declare the value
of t ? What was cr itself ? Rapp makes it a sound inter
mediate between (s) and (sh). For the vowels, if a, i, are toler
ably secure, who can precisely give the distinctions between
e, y, and between o, co ? Who knows v ? Among the diph
thongs, not to mention ov, who knows av, ev, gv, wv ? Who
can clearly distinguish at, et ? What of vt ? And as for the
diphthongs with t subscript, what is to be said ? Then the ac
cents—the terrible accents; so important that the grammarians
had to invent them in order to assist foreigners in distress;
—what distress have they caused to us poor foreigners !
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
25
The Latin pronunciation is a subject of controversy at this
moment.1 And then, remember, all these troubles turn upon
a fixed orthography, invented ages after the time for which
we want really to know the pronunciation of Greek and
Latin,—the time of change. In fact, although we are com
paring Sanscrit, Greek, and Latin (I pass over the other
languages for brevity), for the very purpose of seeing their
growth, we are comparing full-grown skeletons bone by bone,
and the foetal system escapes us ! Can we hope, out of this,
to get at those principles and laws which make a science ?
Could Darwin have drawn his theory of evolution from geo
logical data ? Geologists all exclaim that geology furnishes
no transitional forms. Would geologists recognize them as
transitional if they found them? I am afraid that the
history of the salmon would lead us to think otherwise.
Can we then see the transition between these languages ?
It is easy to invent transitional sounds and forms. This has
been done, in a very remarkable way. But what we want is
to find real transitional forms between living languages, and
then we shall, for the first time, have some ground for the
former, which are at present mere “bottomless fancies.”
One merit of the investigations introduced by Sanscrit, is
the conception of a root. As Pott has shewn, the term root
is due to Varro;2 but the present conception goes far beyond
Varro’s hint, good as it is. Pott’s latest extremely careful
and guarded definition is as follows : “ Roo^ whether verbal
1 An allusion to the new interest
excited in the subject by the mooting
of a proposition to alter our strange
insular pronunciation of Latin in schools,
and introduce one more consonant with
what we can glean from Cicero and
Quintilian.
2 Pott, ibidem, p. 188, note, says:
“ Radices lingua; Ov. M. 6, 557, bezeichnet, auch bildlich, den Theil der
Zunge womit sie fest sitzt, also nicht:
Sprachwurzeln. Allein in Varro, L. L.
vii. 4, kommt eine recht brave Stelle
vor, worin er von der Unmoglichkeit
spricht, wegen des hohen Alters der
Worter noch immer durch alle genealogische Verbindungs-Arten hindurch zu ihren letzten Etymen vorzu-
dringen. Darin sagt er nun z. B. auch
vergleichsweise : ‘ Igitur de originibus
verborum qui multa dixerit commode,
potins boni consulendum, quam qui
aliquid nequiverit, reprehendendum ;
prcesertim cum. dicat etymologice non
omnium verborum dici posse causain.
. . . Neque si non norim radices arboris,
non possem dicere pirum esse ex ramo,
ramum ex arbore, earn ex radici bus quas
non video: quare qui ostendit equitatum esse ab equitibus, equites ab equite,
equitem ab equo, neque equos unde sit
dicit, tamen hie docet et plura et satisfacit grato. Quern imitari possimusne,
ipse liber erit indicio.’ Ganz unser
eigenster Fall! ”
�26
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
or pronominal, differs from letter or syllable in being, not
merely a phonetic, but also a conceptional unit,1 of words and
forms genetically related, which was present in the mind of
the framer of language as a prototype when he created them J
nay, which is more or less clearly felt, when not entirely
obscured, by every speaker with respect to the language he
uses (generally his mother tongue). Or, conversely if you
will, these words and forms, carrying this unit within them,
being again divested by the investigator of language of all
their multifarious, internal or external, phenomenal forms,
thereby revert in their nakedest simplicity and truth (ctv/zof in
Greek signifies the real cause, or base of words) to the root, as
to their respective common origin, to the intellectually further
indecomposable atoms of speech.” Translating this from
metaphysics into physics, we may say that words can be
separated into classes, each characterised by its separate con
stituents possessing a phonetic portion, either identical in all,
or related according to certain known individual or national
habits and analogies in the use or substitution of speech
sounds; and each characterised also by some fundamental
conception to which the individual conceptions of its con
stituents can be with more or less difficulty referred. The
fact is, that the determination of roots is extremely difficult;
that different men determine the phonetic original differently,
and also differ in its conceptional interpretation. When
strictly exhibited, as the kernel of the verbal nut, it is a
something which is nothing—a mere philological figment,
1 The italics correspond to Pott's
spaced letters. The following is the
original passage: “Wurzel (und das
gilt nicht bloss Von Verbal-, sondern
auch z. B. von Pronominal-Wurzeln) ist, nicht wie Buchstabe oder
Sylbe, die bloss lautliche, sondern auch
begriffliche Einheit genetisch zusammengehoriger Worter und Formen,
welche dem Sprach-Bildner bei deren
Schopfung in der Seele als Prototyp
vorschwebte, ja, wo nicht ganz verdunkelt, mebr oder minder deutlich von
jedem Bedenden gefiib.lt wird mit
Bezug auf diejenige Sprache (zumeist
die Muttersprache) deren er sich bedient.
Oder, umgekehrt wenn man will,
diese Worter und Formen mit einem
solchen Einheits-Punkte in ihrem
Schoosse, durch den Sprach-For sche r
erst wieder entkleidet von aller Mannigfaltigkeit, aussern wie innern, ihrer
Erscheinungs-Formeri, somit in
ihrer nacktesten Einfachkeit und Wahrheit (Etymon im Griech. bezeichnet
den wahren Grund, die Base der
Worter) kehren zu der Wurzel gleichwie zu je ihrem gemeinsamen Anfangspunkte, zu den nach r iickwarts g e i s t i g
nicht weiter zerlegbaren Atomen der
Sprache zuriick.” Pott, ibid, p. 224.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
27
which no speaker ever knew, and which, even with the best
intention, it is difficult to comprehend. The phonetic unit
undergoes so many transformations in its various incarna
tions, that it is often recognizable only by the eye of faith.
Wherever the help of Sanscrit fails, and the root has to be
divined or collected from other sources, the difficulties in
crease so rapidly, as Pott himself points out (ibid., pp. 246—
g52), that perhaps no such root can be regarded as univer
sally accepted by philologists. Nay, even in Sanscrit, such
a man as Lepsius has called in question the originally mono
syllabic character of the roots.1 With the conceptional
portion, matters are still more unsettled. To suppose that
the extremely abstract notions which radicarians (if I may
coin the term, to avoid the ambiguous ‘ radicals ’) assign to
their phonetic quintessences, were really in the minds of rude
men beginning to speak, is contrary to all experience as to
the formation of abstract notions in the living growing
minds of to-day. Recognizing, however, broadly the exist
ence of phonetic units and conceptional units among at least
the Aryan languages, is it possible to propound any theory
which could be put to the test of observation ? I throw out
the following for examination.
The word simply, as a sound conceptionally affecting two
human beings at one time in practically the same manner,
being the first social product of the relation of thought to
sound, let us suppose the circle of society to become extended.
Both sounds and senses vary in different mouths and brains.
Different acts and objects are performed and viewed re
sembling in some vague manner the acts and objects denoted
by the accepted but slightly variable speech sounds. The
I 1 Lepsius’s words (Palaog. S. 63,
91, 92), as quoted by Pott (Et. F. Th.
2, Abth. 1, p. 217), with his inserted
[? !], are : “ Um die Gunirung rich
tig zu erkennen und die namentlich in
der Sanskritconjugation so sonderbaren,
anscheinend willkiirliehen Einschiebungen von Vocalen und Consonanten
auf ihren Begriff zuriickzufuhren, miissen wir uns zuerst wieder darauf berufen, was wir oben erkannt hatten, dass
die Sprache durchaus auf urspriingliche
Lautabtheilung hinweist, und dass,
wenn diese auch spater verletzt werden
musste, dies doch am wenigsten von
den Stammen anzunehmen ist.
Nothwendiger Weise werden daher [?!] alle jetzt anseheinend
consonantisch auslautenden
Stamme urspriinglich zweilautig oder zweisylbig.”
�28
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
resemblance and the variety, as accepted by at least two per
sons at once (that is, suggested by one and acknowledged
with more or less certainty by the other), are expressed by
sounds resembling with a difference. This differentiation of
sound and sense is readily carried on, and to an observer ages
afterwards furnishes a presentiment, rather than an image,
of a phonetic and conceptional unit. If we watch the growth
of general conceptions in children at school (which is a real
forcing house in this respect) and of our own selves in after
life, we shall not find much difficulty in acknowledging the
readiness with which obscure resemblances are seized, and
the extreme diversity of the points of connection. The con
ceptional unit, with its great vagueness, and, to a subsequent
philosophical eye, wondrous abstraction, is a phenomenon for
which we ought to be prepared. That this conceptional unit
should be accompanied by a correspondingly Protean phonetic
unit, will occasion no difficulty to any one who hears new
words grow up among children or in cliques. But both
points are matters for living observation. That the root
creative power is dead, I, for one, cannot believe, although
this is affirmed by all radicarians.1* That it ever lived in the
sense which radicarians assign, I, for one, also cannot believe.
True, if there are about 1000 original languages, each with
about 1000 roots, as Pott estimates,3 it may be difficult for
1 Pott {ibid, p. 230): “ Das Zeitalter
der eigentliehen Ur-schopfung, d. h.
worin ihr Grundstock an Wurzeln und
sonstigen streng-primitiven Elementen
(wie meist die Pronominalstamme und
Anderes dieser Art) sich zuerst bildete,
haben die Sprachen, soweit menschliche
Erinnerung reicht, langst im Riicken.
Seit aber jene ganz eigentlich schopferische Urkraft der Sprache erlosch
(und wir begegnen ihr, wie gesagt,
historisch nirgends mehr oder kaum)>
von da ab beschrankt sich alles weitere
Schaffen in den Sprachen nur auf ein
U mbilden, abgegranzt im Verandern
jenervorhin erwahnten Grundelemente,
theils an sich, theils durch combinatorische Zusammenfugung derselben,
unter einander. Ein Schaffen mit und
in lediglich altern (ererbten), zum
hochsten von fremdher (tralaticisch)
erborgtem Materiale: es wird keinem
Werderuf mehr ins leere Nichts hinein
durch die That geantwortet. . . . Nach
einer Seite hin also ist, wir miissen es
unweigerlich bekennen, in den Sprachen •
ein Stillstand, eine offenbare Ohnmacht, namlich im Schaffen von unbedingt Neuem, singetreten.”
2 Pott {ibid, p. 73): “ Es mag aber
schon an dieser Stelle gesagt sein, dass,
wie keine Sprache leicht das Maass von
einem halben Hundert buchstablicher Grundelemente (d. h. wenn
man nicht im Mitzahlen aller feineren
Unterschiede, nach Ton, Quantitat und
sonstigen leisen Farbungen etwas zu
frei verfahrt), so etwa ein Tausend
die Mittelzahl abgeben darf fiir die
Wurzeln, deren sieh auf und ab je die
eine oder andere Sprache bedient.”—
And again {ibid, p. 83): “ Die Zahl
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
29
any sound to be uttered by one man and understood by an
other, which a thorough radicarian could not assign to some
one of these million original roots already established to his
own satisfaction. But this would not in the slightest degree
impugn the creation of the root among the new speakers.
It is indeed only the cultivated whose vocabulary is limited
by the immense resources at their command. The unculti
vated have constantly to form new words, and in doing so,
most probably, as their use of them extends, proceed from
this first social product, the word, to the second social pro
duct, the root, the connecting phonetic and conceptional core
of differentiated words.
There remains a third and extremely important social pro
duct, bearing indeed a great resemblance to the second, so
great a resemblance in fact, that until Sanscrit radicarianism
was current in Europe, it took its place; I mean differentia
tion according to the mutual relations of the duo (the speaker
and the listener), and of each or both of the duo to the non-duo
(that is, all which is neither speaker nor listener), considered
generally as divisible. Having already drawn too largely on
your patience, I must touch very briefly upon a section of my
subject, well fitted to absorb my whole time. The first por
tion of this product relates to what we denote by pronouns
der Wurzeln in den Verschiedenen
Sprachen der Erde zu finden ist, wir
sahen es, ein Problem, dessen einigermassen ausreichende Losung nocb die
sorgfaltigste und unermiidliche Arbeit
von Jahrhunderten verlangt. Eben so
unsicher steht es aber aueh zur Zeit
mit der wirklichen Zabl menschlicher
Spra,chen; und will ich in dieser
Betracht auf meine Rassen, S. 230 fgg.
verweisen, um die Schwierigkeiten die
ser Frage (860, die von Adrian Balbi
gegebene Zabl, ist noch die annaherungsweise zutreffendste) nicht hier
aufs neue erortern zu miissen. Wir
wollen statt obiger 860 Sprachen als
runde Summe 1000 setzen. Auf jede
von diesen dann weiter durchschnittlich
ebenfalls 1000 Wurzeln gerechnet,
ergabe dies fur die Gesammtheit all er
Erdensprachen ungefahr die Summe
von Einer Million an Sprachwurzeln.
Eine Million Wurzeln (man verstehe
mich wohl: Wurzeln; indem hier die
Legionen von W or tern ausser Acht
bleiben, die aus jenen entspringen)
welches Gedachtniss (sicherlich nicht
derer, ‘die wir j etzt leben,’ das unsere)
vermbchte sie zu tragen ? Wie aber ?
hattedennoch—wunderbareWeise—das
Urvoik, eine solche Last in seinem
Hirn nicht nur zu tragen, sondern sogar
schopferisch zu erzeugen, die Fahigkeit
besessen? . . . Selbst indess das Vorhandensein einer einzigen Ursprache,
die von alien ubrigen Idiomen die erste
Grundlage ausmachte, eingeraumt, . . .
so miisste doch zum mindestens die
Auffindbarkeit einer solchen an der
grossen Menge von Wurzeln scheitern,
welche iiberdem zum grossten Theile
unter einer geradezu unabsehbaren
Fiille von Wortern und Wortformen
versteckt liegen.”
�30
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
and prepositions, affixes and inflections, which, however, in
different languages assume extremely different forms, and
often I believe are originally mere differentiations of sound
and sense in the original word, and not at all new words first
monosyllabically coordinated or subordinated, next agglu
tinated, and thirdly fused or chipped into inflexions. Whether
this order, which corresponds to Prof. Max Muller’s theory
of languages, be established by historical documents in any
single case, or not, I do not know.1 But the two former
stages do not appear necessary for the evolution of the third.
They may all three be perfectly independent formations.
The extremely different character of the Aryan and Semitic
inflexional systems seems to point to such a diversity of origin.
The American incorporative arrangement is also quite dis
tinct in its nature. With these relations I would group the
whole of the accidence and syntactical construction of lan
guage. They are merely developments of the relations of
the duo to the non-duo, or the interrelations of parts of the
non-duo as viewed by the duo, either with or without distinct
reference to themselves. To these syntactical relations belong
all the etymological part of grammar, with composition and
ordinary formative syllables and letters, the result of a con
scious grouping of conceptions consciously expressed.
With this terminates the general view of philology as
centering in the relation of thought to sound, where thought
expresses all cerebral action and sound all acoustical phe
nomena. The first relation was physiological and nervous.
The second was individual, arising from the thoughts excited
or expressed by sounds in human beings taken separately,
and led to the interjectional, imitational and symphonetic
theories, all more or less imperfect. The third relation was
social, characterised by a common thought excited in at least
two persons by the same sound; and its first product was the
word, the second the root, and the third the inflection and its
representatives. Thus the whole of philological research is
reduced to one conception, which I propose to term meropy,
1 Humboldt’s classification of languages as: isolating, agglutinating, incorpo
rating, and inflecting (Pott. Et. F. Th. 2, Abth. 4), is another matter altogether.
�DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
31
as the nucleus of a real science which has long outgrown any
meaning radically or derivationally attachable to either philo
logy or etymology,—the love of words, or the science of the
true. The word meropy is not in the English vocabulary,
nor, in its abstract form, in the Greek, that great well whence
we bucket up our abstract terms. But it is Greek and very
ancient Greek in its origin, though what old Homer exactly
meant by his yepoives •avdpcoiroi is matter of dispute. That
the word was distinctive of man, and that it related espe
cially to his power of speech, there is little doubt. The first
syllable mer is usually connected with yepos, and supposed
to refer to articulate utterance—an opinion defended by Pott
(Et. Forsch., Theil 2, Abtheil. 3, p. 527). Benfey (Griech.
Wurzellex. 2, 39) throws out the suggestion that yap- and
yep- in yap-rvp, yep-cyva, yep-yep-os, yep-oires (the singular
is not found), signifies thought. If so, meropy would express
my conception with sufficient nearness. As a new form of
an old word there will certainly be no harm in imposing
this meaning upon it,—of course, with Humpty Dumpty’s
permission.
The view that I am seeking to urge upon you is that
language is a living thing, the outcome of the social con
nection of two or more beings capable of hearing and pro
ducing sound, and that it must be watched and registered
as it now grows; that, in short, our only hope of really
catching the laws of its formation is to study it in its present
life, and not, as hitherto almost exclusively, in its past death.
And in reference to the applications of comparative philo
logy, let me ask: Have we not been too eager to infer social
connection, such as emigrations and immigrations, tides of
invasion, ethnological conclusions in short, from resemblances
of sounds of words, especially names of places, from the more
recondite resemblances of root admitting such varieties as are
roughly indicated by Rask’s or Grimm’s law, and from the
still more seducing resemblance of grammatical construction ?
Taken altogether, when pointing the same way, these resem
blances are certainly very overwhelming to one who hears
them for the first time as propounded by scholars whose very
�32
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872
names have a religion in their sound, by means of picked
instances, dexterously manipulated, and sweeping over regions
where poor Ignoramus can only wonder that mortal eye ever
peered. But has sufficient attention been paid to the infinite
diversities which are thus quietly backgrounded? Is not
diversity an element, and a most important element, in the
comparison ? Again, has sufficient attention been paid to
the spontaneous evolution of similarities (I exclude identities,
as altogether dubious), through the similar constitution of
thought and sound influenced by more or less similar con
ditions of environment ? Ought we not rather to reverse the
conclusion hitherto drawn, and instead of inferring contact
from, linguistic similarity, to require some historical proof of
contact before admitting that the resemblance in speech may
be more than casual, that is, before admitting that we have a
vera causa for the resemblances? The bearing of this on
ethnology is very evident, and, as before said, it is to ethno
logy that philology must here look for help, rather than
conversely.
Now what influence would be exerted on philological re
search by such a view as mine, if generally adopted? It
would I think, in the first place, fix great and marked atten
tion on existing forms of speech, not merely on those possess
ing a literature, — for all philologists must join in Pott’s
hearty reprobation of Lachmann’s incapacity to see the use
of studying any other languages,1—but especially on those
1 Pott (Et. F., Theil 2, Abth. 3, p.
vii): “Der Kritiker Lachmann gestand
blankweg seine Unfahigkeit zu begreifen, wie man sich mit Erforschung
einer Sprache abgeben konne, welcbe
keine Literatur besitze. 0 uber euch
armen Tropfe: v. d. Gabelentz,
Castren, Schiefner, Hodgson,
Gallatin, Kolle, und wer sonst zu
eurem Gelichter gehort, auch W.
v. Humboldt nicht zu vergessen.
Vemehmt euer Todesurtheil und
lasst euch hinrichten. Der grosse
Kritiker hats gesprochen; und—was
ware denn auch die Lachmannische
Philologie ohne das Sichten von Lesarten, wozu es natiirlich der Perga
ment e bedarf, und die dazu nothige,
empirische Kenntniss von Sprachgebrauch? Wer nur Kritiker und
nichts als Kritiker ist und sein will
(oder: kann), wie kame dem leicht eine
Ahnung davon, dass es, ausser dem
philologischen Sprachstudium oder
dem, wie es Schaub nicht unpassend
genannt had, schlechtweg instrumentalen, noch eine andere Art
Sprachforschung gebe, welche, nicht
begniigt mit der Spracherlernung als
dienendem Mittel, als Selbstzweck
sich zur Aufgabe setzt—wissenschaftliches Begreifen der Sprachen, hoher
wie niederer, mit oder obne Literatur,
als ebenso vieler Ausschnittedesallgemeinen und volklich-besonderten
Menschengeistes?” Bravelysaid!
�3.3
DELIVERED BY ALEXANDER J. ELLIS, ESQ.
not possessing a literature, and the peasant dialects of those
which do possess one, as the real fermenting mass whence
language grows. In the next place it would lead to a greater
appreciation of efforts, fortunately already begun, to investi
gate the descent of literary languages historically. There is
not much chance at present of the fossil literary languages
being forgotten, but it is only by the living observation, and
the historical affiliation, that we can hope to re-compose them,
and see them as we now picture to ourselves the wondrous
geological re-creations of the scientific palaeontologist.
Now the studies requisite for this purpose are, first and
most essentially, a general acquaintance with comparative
phonology. This is a branch of philology which has lately
attracted considerable attention. German philologists are apt
to consider that the subject has been exhausted by Johannes
Muller, Lepsius, and Briicke,—few seem to know the laborious
Merkel, to whom we owe the most thorough physiological
examination of the vocal organs yet published. So far from
this being the case, these writers have not succeeded in
explaining the cultivated sounds of English and French.
Frenchmen seem even in a worse condition; but Volney for
merly, and Edouard Paris just now, have made a beginning.
In England we have worked hard, and Melville Bell has
laid a noble foundation. But every one, so far as I can see,
labours under nationality. Till this nationality is thrown
off by dealing with many nationalities, we shall not make
much progress towards the general relations of speech sounds
on which meropy, as a science, must be based.
The next step is, with the best phonology we have, to study
living speech. The missionaries, as already hinted, are very
doubtful assistants. I am afraid their natural eagerness to
transplant the savage mind to Judaea, or to give it neo
platonic abstractions, or even their denominational exiencies,
however ecclesiastically praiseworthy, greatly interferes with
the purity of the native dialect, and that all Scriptural trans
lations and missionary tracts and hymns must be looked upon
ethnologically and philologically with suspicion. And the
worst of it is, they not only give a false representation, but
3
�34
THE PRESIDENT’S ANNUAL ADDRESS FOR 1872.
they actually corrupt the native organic action and poison the
stream of meropy at its source. Then we have peasant
dialects, gathered under great disadvantages and often with
faulty tools. Let me, however, note with peculiar pleasure
Schmeller’s Bavarian labours, and congratulate the Philo
logical Society in having given rise to Mr. Murray’s Lowland
Scotch and Prof. Haldeman’s Pennsylvania German studies.
After this we have the historical investigations, of which
Grimm and Diez are our present models. But I must not
omit to mention the great impetus which the historical study
of our own language has received from the labours of Koch,
Stratmann, Matzner and others in Germany, and the publica
tions of our own Early English Text and Chaucer Societies
in England, already bearing fruit in Dr. Morris’s Historical
Outlines of English Accidence. And sometime before the
arrival of the Greek Kalends, our own Society may perhaps
contribute its long-announced, actually conceived, but unfor
tunately still embryonic Historical Dictionary of the English
Language. But all these studies are necessarily preliminary.
Until trustworthy reprints, not doctored, not corrected, not
re-spelled according to a system, have been for some years
before the world, not merely in English, and Anglo-Saxon
(for which we are so much indebted to our Secretary, Mr.
Eurnivall), or Old Saxon (as in that splendid model Schmeller’s
Heliand}, but in all the languages of Europe, and especially
in those classical tongues which most of us only know in a
mediaeval orthography and a scholar’s recension,—until that
good time has come, we, and our children to the third and
fourth generations, will not be able to trace languages his
torically upwards either in sound or thought. We ’have
hitherto been forced to build on the sand, and all our erec
tions must be looked upon as temporary lodgements, mere
shelter for the navvies before whom stands the rock they have
to pierce.
Such is my butterfly view of philological honey.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
First annual address of the President to the Philological Society delivered at the anniversary meeting, Friday 17th May 1872
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ellis, Alexander John
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 34 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Includes bibliographical references
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[The Philological Society]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5277
Subject
The topic of the resource
Language
Philology
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (First annual address of the President to the Philological Society delivered at the anniversary meeting, Friday 17th May 1872), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Language
Philology
Phonology