Skip to main content

Full text of "Proceedings at New York, October 25th and 26th, 1882"

See other formats


STOP 



Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world byJSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



Proceedings at JSTew York, October, 1 8S2. cxxi 



Proceedings at New ITork, October 25tb and 26th, 1883. 



The Society met at 3 o'clock p. m., in Room No. 23 (Prof. 
Short's) of Columbia College. In the absence of the President 
and Vice-Presidents, Prof. Charles Short of Columbia College 
was called to the chair, and presided at the meetings of Wed- 
nesday afternoon and evening. The Corresponding Secretary 
explained on behalf of the President, Prof. Williams, that, 
thought steadily gaining in health, he was not yet sufficiently 
restored to bear the fatigue and excitement of the sessions. 

After the reading of the minutes of the last meeting and the 
settlement of the oi'der of the present one, it was announced on 
the part of the Directors that the Annual meeting for 1883 
would be held in Boston, as usual, and on Wednesday, May 
23d; Professors Abbot and Toy would act as a Committee of 
Arrangements for it 

The following persons were then elected Corporate Members : 

Mr. G. Wetmore Colles, of Morristown, N. J. ; 
Prof. David G. Lyon, of Cambridge, Mass. ; 
Prof. Thomas R. Price, of New York City.. 

A very brief summary of the correspondence of the past half- 
year was given by the Secretary. 

Rev. L. H. Mills sends from Hanover an account of the 
progress of his work on the Gathas, noticed in previous issues of 
the Proceedings. He hopes to have a volume ready to appear in 
a few months. 

Prof. C. de Harlez, of Louvain, regarding himself as unfairly 
treated in a criticism of his work by Prof. Luquiens, published in 
the Proceedings for May of this year, had sent for distribution to 
metnbers present at the meeting extra copies of a reply to the 
criticism, communicated by him to the Louvain "Museon." 
These were laid upon the table for members to take, and the Sec- 
retary gave notice that he had in his hands a brief rejoinder by 
Prof Luquiens, which would be read at a later session (see below). 

Communications were now presented, as follows : 

1. On Words for Color in the Rig-Veda, by Mr. E. W. Hop- 
kins, of Columbia College, New York. 

Geiger's article on color in the Rig-Teda is the only work of authority on this 
subject. The purpose of the present paper is to see if the facts set forth in that 
article he correct, to give a more detailed discussion of the color-words, and 
finally to investigate the theory on which the belief in a gradually developed 
color-sense in man is founded. 



cxxii American Oriental Society: 

The great mass of color-words in the Rig- Veda Indicate colors which cannot he 
referred to any one invariable standard, but which express the lighter shades of 
red and yellow, or reddish-yellow. The word hari and harita. which means hte- 
rally the 'burn-color' (from \/ghar), is used generally to indicate 'yellow;' but 
it cannot be proved that the meaning 'green' is unknown to this word in the 
Uig-Veda. In the later literature the word meant 'green' and 'yellow' both; 
and something of the same sort may be assumed for the Rig-Veda, when we find 
the earth called prihivi harivarpas (iii. 44. 3), or the frog (vii. 103. 6) called harita. 
The meaning ' green 'is not proved for these passages, but cannot be disproved: 
a fact which should have some weight when applied as an argument to a theory 
which, like the development theory, rests on wholly negative data. The word for 
' blue,' wHa, which in the later language may mean 'blue' without any idea of 
darkness combined with it, has been assumed by Geiger to mean in the Rig- Veda 
only 'grey' or ' dark -brown.' But in the discussion of this woi-d Geiger fails to 
note that, whereas the moaning 'dark-brown' might possibly suit one or two 
passages, it is impossible to assume such a meaning for every case : for instance, 
yiii. 19. 31, where the first sparks (or dark-blue flames?) of the newly-lighted fire 
have the adjective nllavant applied to them. So, too, the same adjective, when 
applied to the hansa, may mean 'dark-blue;' at any rate, Geiger has not proved 
that the blue tone of this adjective, which was later so general, is entirely foreign 
to the Rik, but only that, from the few passages where it is used, it might be 
made to correspond to ' dark-brown ' in order to suit his theory. 

Before discussing the development-theory as applied to the Rig- Veda, the same 
process of reasoning was applied to Milton's Paradise Lost, and in detail to the 
Nibelungen-Lied. It was shown that these poems exhibit the same comparative 
use of color-words as Homer and (if we took all Geiger's statements as proved) 
the Rig-Veda. From this the conclusion was drawn that simple mention or non- 
mention of color was no proof either of a lack of development of color-sense, or of 
a lack of proper terms to express color. Good reasons exist why we do not find 
green and blue mentioned as we find red and yellow in the Rig- Veda. A. statis- 
tical survey of the use of words for grass, meadow, fields, etc., in the Rig- Veda 
shows that such words were merely introduced as an accident of the thought. 
No description is given in any way. It is therefore misleading when Geiger 
speaks of fields, trees, etc., being so often described, and yet not called green. 
They are not "often described;" and when a rare epithet occurs, it is one of 
utility, almost never of beauty. Therefore the lack of description extends over the 
color together with the other attractions of these natural products. What was 
not useful was not regarded. In the same way it is an error to say that the 
firmament is frequently spoken of but not called blue. The firmament is rarely 
alluded to. What is described is the lower heaven, the clouds, the sunrise, the 
lightning. On these phenomena of nature the whole burden of epithets rests. 
But these all give no opportunity for the use of ' blue.' Red and yellow would 
naturally be the foremost colors. It was these glaring colors that accompanied 
the deities, and it was the object of the hymns to worship these deities by 
describing their phenomenal appearance. Beauty for its own sake was not 
admired or described. Therefore the Vedie singers did not pass in their descrip- 
tions out of the light-colored three-fold heaven of glaring light, except in an 
occasional chance allusion to the ndkasya prstham. the round-backed firmament 
that shut in the lower sky. As on earth, need and not beauty gives the impulse to 
the hymn. It seems to be more a defective development of esthetic appreciation 
for the beautiful in itself than a defective development of the human retina that 
causes the scarcity of words for green and blue in the early literatures. 

2. Syriac Miscellanies, by Prof. Isaac H. Hall, of Philadelphia. 

The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, of Bdessa, has been elegantly edited, with 
an elegant translation, a good index, and maps, by Professor William Wright of 
Cambridge. It has long been known as an important source of history, in its 
abridged Latin translation by Joseph Simon Assemani, pp. 262-283 of the first 
volume of his Bibliotheca Orientalis. The first complete edition of the Syriac 
text appeared in 1876, edited for the Deutsche Morgenldndische Gesellschaft, in their 
AbhamMungen, Band vi., No. I., Ohronique de Josue le Stylite, eerite vera Van 515, 



Proceedings at New York, October, 1882. cxxiii 

texte et traduction par M.V abbe Panlin Martin. Wright's edition is provided with 
excellent foot-notes, explaining all his emendations of the MS. The date of the 
Chronicle appears to be A. D. 507, and it is preserved in a MS. written at some 
time between A. D. 907 and 944, being incorporated mto the larger work of 
Dionysius of Tell Mahre, patriarch of the Jacobites (ob. A. D. 805). The only MS. 
of the work is preserved in the Vatican Library. The reason for mentioning this 
work here is to note that it supplies documentary testimony, almost as ancient as 
any we have, for the numbering now in use of the Hebrew Psalms. In chapter 
xxxiv. of the Chronicle, according to Wright's numbering, is a mention of the 
" eighteenth Psalm," which the context shows to be ihe same as that known in 
the Hebrew and English by the same number. The whole context, also, looks as 
if tiie passage could not have been altered at all, but preserves the original form 
of the Chronicle. So, at all events, we have a testimony to this numbering which 
goes back to the early part of the tenth century ; and, in all probability, to the 
beginning of the sixth. It is to be remembered, also, that the Syriac service 
books do not cite the Psalms by number, bui by the opening words of a section. 

Attention was also called to the well-known possibility of a change from t to 1, 
■or the reverse, in Hebrew; and the like in Syriac. If actual examples of this 
■change can be shown, it might tend to acquit the critics of too great rashness, 
when they think they detect it by a reasonable conjecture. In Syriac, the change 
is very rare, yet it is now and then made by an individual scribe. But one case 
.appears in Luke xxiv. 32 (treated of in the Proceedings for October, 1880), where 
the Curetonian, Peshitto, and Harclean have all adopted an eiToneous change 

from 9 to S. The error not only occurs in the MSS., but has passed into many 
■of the printed editions, including some of the best of them. Another case appears 
in 2 Corinthians iv. 18, where >* -^ rr, OKoiroUvTOv r//i(jv, has been changed in 
many MSS. and editions to hi i>«, 'we rejoicing;' which makes good sense, 
though of course it is wrong. The latter, erroneous reading is that of the oldest 
and the latest printed editions, and of all the MSS. I have examined. The varim 
iectiones of the printed editions do not inform us whether the correction, as it 
stands in sundry printed editions, rests upon MS. authority or upon conjecture 
only. 

Another apparent instance of the change of one letter for another appears in 
Mark xiv. 33, in the Peshitto rendering of kKdafijieladai. kuI ddt/fiovelv ; which is 
precisely the same as that for XvizeloQai koI udy/ioveiv in Matthew xxvi. 37. For 

the first word in each of these phrases tlie Peshitto has 09bM&4WMk^, which 
very well renders AvirelaBai, but not iKda/ij3Ela6ai. For the latter, the Syriao 
requires a 9 in place of the Sk. The cliange might easily be made in most 
Syriac MS. alphabets by simply omitting the diacritic point; as otherwise the two 
letters are easily mistaken for each other. I do not lind that any printed edition 
■or MS. has the right letter. 

All these are manifest historic instances of the general change of letter, and of 
A general acceptance of the wrong one. It ought not to frighten us, therefore, 
when a conscientious critic offers a reasonable conjecture based on the assump- 
tion of a similar change, though it cannot, from the nature of the facts apparent, 
be either proved or disproved historically. 

Several examples of the sort occur in the Apocalypse ; but as all the printed 
■copies rest upon one MS. only, it would hardly be fair to insist upon them in this 
oonnection. 

The spelling of the word Peshitto, as the name of the chief Syriac version of the 
Bible, varies greatly among different writers ; and some remark thereupon seemed 
called for, not as news for Orientalists, but for the benefit of those who have not 
the facts under their eyes As to the fixed points of the orthography, the e rep- 
resents the Oriental sh'wa, and may be represented by an e, an " (superior, as the 
printers say), or an apostrophe ('), according to the preference of the transliterator. 
The i is the long vowel, and may be written with a makron or circumflex {i or 1) 
or left unaccented. The o represents the Western Syriac pronunciation, chiefly 
Maronite ; but may be replaced by an a, representing the Eastern pronunciation, 
of the Jacobites and Nestorians (the latter call themselves Chaldeans, and abhor 



cxxiv American Oriental Society : 

the name of Nestorjans). However, the Syriac written vowel is the same in both 
cases. 

As to the poiuts of yariation, the sh represents simply the consonant shin; and 
it is absurd for any one but a German to transliterate with sch. as is often done 
by ill-informed writers. The chief point refers to the U; for which many write- 
only t, and some tih. The fact is that the word, in this use, is a feminine adjec- 
tive, agreeing with one of several nouns which severally stand for ' editio ' (in 
the old Latin sense, when applied to books), for 'version,' or 'copy,' or tor 
'portion of Scripture.' The oldest term comes down to us from Gregory Bar 
Hebraeus (13tU century), in the preface to his Thesav/rus Arcanorum. It is there 

2Xj&J>&9 ?<NfliffiillT. ^editio simplex;' the word editio bearing the meaning 

just above stated. Some would render versio simplex ; but that is scarcely correct. 
Another term, modern and still in vise, may be seen, for example, in the American, 
Bible Society's edition of the Syriac New Testament (a reprint of that of Justin 
Perkins, Urmia, 1846), New York, 1874. At the beginning, each, of 2 Peter, 2 and 
3 John, Jude. and the Apocalypse, is a note, stating that the book is not in the 

llS^t^i that is called ?^ A '*™: but is written in other ancient 2i\J»Ml. 
The word ZA^^mI means here either 'copy 'or 'work;' or, substantially, 'ver- 
sion.' It is a derivative from a word which furnishes the common name for the 
modern chapters in the Arabic Bible, and the ancient sections of the Syriac Bible. 
The verbal tbrm from which it is immediately derived seems to mean to elaborate, 
sometimes to collate and correct, a book. 

Thus, in any event, the two fs seemed called for; the first being a teth, the 
secoud a lau. Accordingly, it is correct enough for ordinary purposes; tt for 
more accurate purposes ; while tfh is altogether unobjectionable. It should here 
be stated, however, that the Western Syrians no longer pronounce the tau as an 
English th in any case. It is always the simple t with tbem. The Eastern Syri- 
ans still pronounce the tau like our th (in thin), in certain cases. But the single t 
can be used by one iaformed of the facts only in mere defereuce to a supposed 
English usage, which is now abandoned by most scholars. 

The sum is, therefore, that Peshilto or FesMtta is practically near enough for 
ordinary English ; while Peshito is wrong, and Peschito is unworthy of any one 
who writes English. If the Germans did not make t\vo consonants out of sh, and 
if sch were not a single consonant with them, we might — use the suppositions as 
we liked. But their necessities of transliteration should be uo pattern for us. 
Until we are ready to abandon our perfect transliteration of Jebel for the awkward 
German Dschebel, we ought not to yield our better sh for their misleading sch. 
Misleading, for many respectable students often mistake it for skh : that is, s fol- 
lowed by the guttural kh. 

Concerning the meaning of the name Peshitto, nothing is more common than for 
tiros to explain it as signifying 'literal;' but that seems to be a mistake. That 
explanation is by some said to distinguish the Peshitto Old Testament from the 
Jewish targums (which were not used by the Syrian Christians); or else, from the 
one made simply from the Hebrew, in distinction from the Hexaplar, made from 
the Septuagint, by Paul of Tela, at Alexandria, A. D. 616. As to the New Testa- 
ment, no version less 'literal' is put forth in the way of contrast, by_ those who 
urge the meaning ' literal.' In fact, neither of these meanings has sound founda- 
tion in fact; for the Peshiito is the least 'literal' of the versions; and the 
' simple ' manner of making is an idea which no Syriac scholar could entertain ; 
for it requires ideas to be put into the word which it does not have in Syriac. 

The word Peshitto appears sometimes to be applied to the Old Testament, 
whence it has been inferred that the name was first given to the latter, and then 
to that version of the New Testament which commonly accompanied it. But 
whether that be the case or not, the only versions of the New Testament common 
among the Syrians were the PMloxeniau and Harclean. So that, at all events, 
the name Peshitto only distinguished that version from the Syriac Hexaplar of the 
Old Testament, and" the Philoxenian and Harclean of the New Testament. 
Accordingly, we should not expect to meet the name before the seventh century, 
the date of the Hexaplar and Philoxenian ; and, in fact, we do not find it liU 



Proceedings at New York, October, 1882. cxxv 

much later : at the earliest, in the ninth century ; and the first clear statement ia 
that of Gregory Bar Hebrieus, above referred to. 

Xow for the facis. The Peshitto is 'a wonderful version; mostly literal, but 
always idomatio. always Syrioizinr, never Grecizing; never shunnintr a para- 
phrase, but often inserting a paraphrase of mere explanation. Us genius much 
resembles that of Luther's German Bible, which is far less literal than most 
modern versions, yet magnificent in its German reproduction of the sense and 
spirit of the original. On the other hand, the Hexaplar, the Philoxenian, and the 
Harclean, were slavishly literal, keeping the Greek idiom and order of words, and 
even sometimes reproducing Greek infiexions of proper names ind transferred 
words. p]very one of them was a far more literal version than the Peshitto ; and 
no Syrian scholar could fail to know it. 

Moreover, the Hexaplar was founded on the LXX. of Origen's Hexapla : and 
both it and the pair of New Testament versions, viz. the Philoxenian and Har- 
•clean. were crowded with the asterisks and oheli of the Origenistie MSS. Besides 
this, the Philoxenian and Harclean had a margin of annotations, sometimes giving 
the words of the Greek original in Greek, sometimes the .same transliterated into 
Syriac ; besides other matter of explanation and comment, almost entirely critical. 
The MS. on which White's edition of the Harclean is founded contains in the mar- 
gin the alternative ending of Mark's Gospel, found otherwise in the Greek imcial 
Codex L. In short, these versions were critical, annotated works, for the use of the 
learned ; and could scarcely be appreciated to the fullest extent except by those fa- 
miliar with the Greek. I n contrast with these, the Peshitto presented only the clear, 
simple, or single (that is what Peshitto often means, when we say it means simple) 
text, iminvolved by textual marks or marginal notes. Now, to turn back to our old- 
est accessible authority, Gregory Bar Hebrsetis, we find that he states the Peshitto, 
" which is conformed to the Hebrew text," to be the basis of liis comments, and 
only mentions the LXX., with the Greek versions of Aquila, Symraachus, Theo- 
■dotion, etc., as the source of some of his illustrations. But he Qoes not give any 
meaning to the name l-'eshitto. And he only speaks of the Peshitto New Testa- 
ment Ijy way of noting the date of its supposed making, stating that it was trans- 
lated after the same Peshitto pattern as the Old Testament. The word which I 
render here by ' the same pattern ' is one of the untranslatables. All it means is, 
the ><ew Testament portion of the same thing. Gregory Bar Hebrieus does not at 
all explain the word Peshitto ; but he mentions, in contrast with it, the Philoxe- 
nian, the Harclean, and the Hexaplar. And the difference above stated between 
those and the Peshitto would be entirely evident to him. He would never have 
said that the Peshitto was more literal than the others; nor do any of his words 
bear the meaning— nor could they bear the meaning — that the name refers to a 
rendering from the original texts. Moreover, that would not distinguish it from 
the other Syriac versions of the New Testament; and it is only at the close that 
he speaks of the Hexaplar. 

It is plain, from what he does say, that those who have supposed that he 
defined it as Peshitto because it was made from the Hebrew and Greek have 
■committed a double error; first, of having failed to read for themselves, and con- 
sequently of mistaking his mention of Greek for Syriac versions. A misunder- 
standing of Wiseman's ^- eadem simplici forma" (Horce Syr., p. 90), as a transla- 
tion of what I have called untranslatable, has been the second error. Wiseman's 
note (idem, p. 89) shows that he did not himself misunderstand it. 

It is, however, but fair to state that those who think the 'literal' character of 
the translation gave the name to the Peshitto have some color for their opinion 
from Pococke's trpslation of the words of the Arabic historian Abulfaraj. That 
speaks of the Syriac version, ■■quod simplex vocant, quod in ejus versione elegantice 
ratio habita non sit." But this statement is quite contrary to fact, and cannot be 
accepted. It is not to be supposed that the Syrians would be guilty of such a 
lucus a non in a matter so grave ; while the Arabian historian would follow the 
instincts of bis profession in all the ages, and manufacture an explanation to order 
Dvithout scruple. 



cxxvi American Oriental Society : 

3. On Differences of Use in Present-Systems from the same- 
Root in the Veda, by Prof. M. Bloomfield, of Baltimore, Md. 

Prof. Bloomfield began with pointing out the importance, both to Sanskrit 
grammar and to general Indo-European grammar, of the question whether there- 
are to be discovered in the earliest Veda any traces of a difference of use, func- 
tional or dialectic, among the present-stems— often two or three, and sometimes 
numerous — ^found to occur there from the same root. He reviewed some of the 
leading facts in the case: the (including intensives) dozen or more present-stems- 
of the root Ir (tar-tir-tur) ; the six from pi-pya; the five from is, hu, and otliers;. 
and so on. A part of these formations are evident results of transition from one 
system to another, brought about by some form or forms derivable from more- 
than one stem. In other cases, an isolated present-form is due to the influence of 
a similar formation from some other root occurring along with it. Yet it must be 
granted that, in all the languages of the family, the same root not infrequently 
makes present-stems with different formative elements. We might naturally look 
to find the cause of this either 1. in an original functional difference of the various 
formations — a variety of temporal or modal use ; of causal, factitive, continuative, 
intransitive use, or the like — or, 2. in the dialectic or stylistic habit of different, 
localities or literary compositions. Prof. Bloomfield's paper presented the results, 
mainly negative, of a search through the Rig- Veda for differences of these two- 
kinds. 

Delbriick is the scholar who has given this subject most attention, in his Grund- 
lagen der griechischeu Syntax (Halle, 1819). The main result which he claims 
concerns the root-present. This, he assumes (p. 1 1 2), was originally the present 
of incipient action (das Prasens der eintretenden Handlung), basing his view upon 
another supposition: namely, that the root-aorist was originally the preterit of 
the root-present. As for the other present-formations, he regards it as extremely 
probable that to every one of them there was once attached a delicately differen- 
tiated meaning, too delicate to be taken hold of by our linguistic sense. Accord- 
ingly, in another passage (p. 100), he says : " The oldest Sanskrit shows that in the 
case of many roots there existed several present- formations. So there are found 
from root bhr the three, hhdrti, bhdrati, and bibharti. A difference of function we 
do not feel here any longer; but it is to be assumed that it did once exist. It 
may be assumed in addition that bhdrti indicated momentary action, bharati con- 
tinuous action, and bibharti repeated action." But the root bhr is almost unique in 
showing a distinct functional difference between its two stems bhara and bibhar r 
the former being, m the terminology of Slavic grammar, " perfective," regularly 
followed by the dative and be?t rendered by 'convey;' while the " imperfective "■ 
Ubhar is used without the dative, and means ' support.' Typical examples are 
bhara grnate vdsuni, 'bring good things to the singer' (RV. ix. 69. 10); and 
v6su hibhdrsi hds'ayos, ' thou bearest wealth in thy hands ' (RV. i. 56. 8). Fur- 
ther examples for the perfective bhara are RV. x. 94. 1 ; v. 1. 10; ii. 14. 8; AV. 
ix. S. 24; X. 8. 15; iii. 15. 8: for the imperfective bibhar. RV. x. 32. 9; vi. 53. 8;. 
i. 39. 1 ; X. 69. 10; etc. etc. ; A V. xii. 1. 1 5 ; ii. 4. 1 ; ix. 4. 6 ; etc. etc. The stem 
bhar occurs only twice, and is also imperfective. 

This important functional difference naturally suggests further investigation on 
the same hne. Accordingly, all reduplicated presents in RV. have been looked 
through and compared with the other present-systems from the same roots; but 
without any positive results. Examples are as follows: Prom root sac, present- 
stems sisac, saca, sofc, sa(»a ; no perceptible difference between them: examples,. 
RV. ix. 84. 2; viii. 5. 2; x. 27. 19; ii. 22. 1 ; vii. 5. 4 ; i. 101. 3. From root vrt, 
stems vavart, varta, vart: in forty passages examined, no other difference than 
that of transitive and intransitive, which is pretty regularly (though not precisely) 
distributed between active and middle forms; examples of intransitive use are 
RV.iii. 61..H; x.in.5; viii. 6. 38 (t'artfe' ; only case): of transitive, RV. x. 26. 8 ;. 
vii. 36. 4. From roots gam and ga: no differentiation of meaning among all the 
different forms (the discussion of whose character, and distinction of present from 
perfect and aorist, is difficult, and would require too much space here). It is espe- 
cially disappointing to us that no specialization of meaning appears in the stein 
gddiM, no inchoative sense as in the Greek |3ao«:' Wl. So in the Homeric /jo/cpiJ 
(8t;8af, ' making long strides,' is seen an intensive or frequentative meaning of thft 



Proceedings at New York, October, 1 882. cxxvii 

reduplicated form, which is wanting in Vedio jiga. From the root tr, whose es- 
pecially numerous present-stems were noticed above, the formations in the main 
show no differences of use: so, for example, iitar at RT. ii. 31. 2; and tdra at 
RV. i. 32. 14. But iira forms an exception; it is used only with prepositions, 
and has a causative sense. From the root hu, the various present-stems {juhu, 
hdva, huvd, hU, hvdya) are used with entire equivalence : examples are RV. i. 4. 1 ; 
vii. 26. 2 ; x. 81. 7 ; i. 89. 3 ; 35. 1. Other roots discussed with the same result 
are mad-mand. vap, muc, cit, jus, bhi, hvr. From the root 2 yu, however, the 
" inchoative " present-stem yiicha has a distinct intransitive value, ' keep one"s self 
away,' the other presents being transitive : compare RV. viii. 39. 2 ; 52. 1, with 
vi. 41. 13; V. 2. 5. The other roots making a reduplicated present are not even 
worth mentioning; and it must accordingly be confessed that, with the exception 
of the unique couplet bibhar and bhara, there is nothing traceable in the Vedic 
use of the reduplicated present which should tend to overthrow the current opinion 
to the effect that its functional differences, if they ever existed, have been wiped 
out. 

In one present-stem evidently derived from the root tr, namely tu'rva, there is 
to be noted an occasional causative value : e. g. tu'rvatam. \ma\ nara dwitd't 
(RV. vi. 50. 10), 'save me, ye men, from ill-hap.' Other examples are found at 
RV. i. 100. 5; viii. 20. 24; 74. 10. But there are also passages, as RV. vi. 15. 5, 
where tu'rva is equivalent with other stems from the same root. The same causa- 
tive force, now, is very apparent in jfirva from the root jr (e. g. EV. ii. 30.5 ; 
vii. 104. 4; viii. 60. 7), while jdra and/«rd are almost invariably intransitive (jwrd 
is causative at i. 182. 3). And dhu'rva, apparently formed in a similar manner 
from a root dhr, and meaning ' damage,' may also be causative in value. A like 
tendency seems observable in stems of the type jtniia. This stem, as well as the 
more original jinu (which occurs only twice in RV.), is readily explainable as 
causative of 1 ji, and signifying ' cause to prosper.' Among the otlier various stems 
of ji no functional difference is to be detected (as to the middle-passive jiya, see 
below). The stem inva has a like causal force ; and examples of the more primi- 
tive inu are used in the same manner: e. g. iv. 10. 7; x. 120. 7. On the other 
hand, pinva proves nothing ; for while it is itself distinctly causal, the other stems 
coming from the root pi or pi are much the same, ' cause to swell ' in the active, 
with additional reflexive value in the middle : for examples, active, see RV. i. 6J . 6 ; 
iv. 16. 21; middle, see RV. i. 79. 3; 164. 28; iv. 27. 5. The same is llie case 
with rnvd; the causal sense is shared by it with rnu and iyar : see RV. i. 174. 9 ; 
ii. 42. 1 ; ix. 7. a ; but intransitive uses also occur, as at RV. i. 35. 9 ; vi. 2. 6. The 
stem hinva. occurring only twice, has a value that may be understood as causal ; 
but so also has hinu, in its numerous occurrences. And wlien we consider that 
the so-called root hi occurs in RV. almost only in these two present-systems, we shall 
be led to suspect that it is nothing more than a weak root-form of hd. The root 
dhinv of the grammarians corresponds to a stem dhinu of the Brflhmanas, and its 
moaning ' satiate ' may also be regarded as causal, and related to dhd. ' suck, 
drink,' as hi to hd. In this connection, note also the so-cailed root mrn and the nd 
present-stem of the root mr ; both are causal (cf. AV. v. 29. 1 1 ; vi. 142. 1) ; while 
mara is intransitive (e. g. RV. i. 191. 12 ; x. 86. 11). 

We have thus found a number of «M-presents having a more or less pronounced 
causal sense. The same, now, may be sought further in the stem sunu. Under 
the roots s«, 1 sm, 2 su, (jrassmann intimates that the three may be only one, but 
without going into details. If the original root meant something like ' bring to 
light, produce, set in motion,' we have these senses unimpaired in the stem suvd ; 
the middle stem su, 'bring to light for one's self,' naturally signifies 'give birth 
to;' and TOBM with its causative force is 'cause to bring forth, press out.' It is 
unnecessary to refer to examples, as the three are separated in Grassmann's 
lexicon. 

All attempts, however, at tracing a similar value in other na-stems appear to 
lead to no result. Among those roots under which search has proved in vain may 
be mentioned str, man, rdh, irp, vr. We can only claim to have demonstrated the 
probabihty that a causal value once, or in certain cases, attached itself to the 
nasal classes. 

The sk- or eft-class is the most disappointing of all, in view of the peculiarly 
marked character of the present-sign, and the inchoative value which appears here 



cxxviii American Oriental Society : 

and there to belong to it in the related languages. Two of the most important 
stems of the class, gacha and yucha, have been already disposed of, and any spe- 
ciality of meaning has been found only for yucha. The stem icha does also In a 
measure exhibit a peculiar fimclion. which is not easy to characterize. Grassmann, 
while recognizing the original identity of 1 is and 2 is, explains icha by ' set one's 
Sflf in motion toward something;" while the other stems are explained upon the 
basis 'set in motion;' we have here, then, a reflexive or intransitive sense for 
icha, comparable with the intransitive one of yucha. But this use of icha is not 
universal (cf. RV. i. HO. 6), nor is it impossible to show points of contact with the 
presents of 1 is and 2 is (cf. RV. ii. 20. 5). Nor do the stems ucha, yacha,. and 
rcha offer conditions favorable to the presumed inchoalive value of the ch. The 
last two do indeed show some tendency to differentiation in meaning from the 
other stems of their respective roots, but not distinct enough to make it valuable 
in the consiileration of more general questions. 

Ir) the ^a-class (or rfCu-class) is seen a marlced tendency toward intransitive, 
reflexive, or even passive function (Whitney, Sl<t. Gr., § 162); and this is some- 
limes so clear as to furnish a distinct intransitive conjugation over against the 
transitive of the present-stems. So, from the root drh or driih, the stem dr'hya 
(e. g. RV. iii. 30. 15; viii. 24. 10; 80. 7), against driiha (e.g. ii. 17. 5; vi. 67. 6; 
X. 101. 8). The intransitive use of rudhya with anu is too familiar to require 
illustration. And jl'ya (AV. jlyd) is used along with and as equivalent to full 
passives: so at RV. ix. 55. 4; x. 152. 1 ; the same is likewise true of ml'ya. On 
the other hand, the cases in which ^o.-stems are not intransitive, and do not differ 
in sense from other present formations from the same root, are also common. 

As regards the remaining conjugation-classes, enough material has been collected 
and e.xamined^and lo some extent exhibited above — to put beyond question the 
fact that there is nowhere any specialization of the use of a class, in any way that 
should help us to a conception of the original value of its class-sign. 

A search for traces of dialectic use was also imdertaken. and carried far enough 
to show that it would doubtless continue to be fruitless, so far as the present- 
stems are concerned. A number of prominent roots were made the basis of the 
investigation, and their present-stems numbered as fnuud distributed among the 
books of the Rig- Veda, in order to see whether a given book employed a given 
stem, or more than one. with such predilection as might be presumed due to 
dialectic tendencies. But absolutely no such tendencies come to light. By way 
of example mar be given the statement in detail for the root hU: it is a fair illus- 
tration of the state of affairs niso in regard to the other roots : 



Book 


hu 


juhu 


huva 


hava 


hvaya 


johu 


total 


I 


4 


1 


21 


44 


19 


6 


95 


II 








8 


7 


1 


1 


n 


III 








6 


11 





3 


20 


IV 








4 


7 


2 





13 


V 


3 





6 


6 


3 


5 


23 


VI 


6 


(1 


10 


9 


4 


1 


30 


VI r 


2 





15 


16 


1 


8 


42 


VIII 


3 





.'i2 


33 


2 


2 


72 


IX 








H 











3 


X 


1 





13 


8 


10 


2 


34 


Val. 


1 


] 





2 








4 



Total 20 2 118 143 42 28 353 

It is easy to see that there is but one point here which has any significance as 
disturbing the equality of distribution of the present-systems: namely, that hvaya 
has 29 out of its 42 occurrences in the 1st and 10th Books, in accordance with 
the generally recognized later character of thi'Se Books— /iioj/a being the only 
present-stem that has survived in the later language. 

Finally may be noticed the numerous cases in which two or more of these stems 
occur in the same hymn: hava and hvay-i are found in differ, nt verses of i. 21, 22, 
36, 27, 102, 114. 117; ii. 12: iv. 39; vi. 26. 33; x. 17; hava and huva in different 
verses of i. 127; iii. 20; vi. 60: vii. 32, 56; viii. 1, 13. 22, 27, 32, 66; x. 150; hava 
and hu in different verses of i. 106; vi. 46; vii. 30; hvaya and hu in different 



Proceedings at Neic York, October, 1882. cxxix 

verses of x. 112; hvaya, hava, and huva in different verses of i. 23; viii. 5, 26; 
hvaya, huva, hu in different verses of v. 56- In the same verse are found hvaya 
and hava at ii. 12. 8; hava and huva at vii. 41. 1 ; x. 160. 5. 

This paper, being unfinished at the end of the afternoon session, 
was taken up again and completed at the evening session. 

4. The Color-System of Vergil, by Prof. T. R. Price of Colum- 
bia College, New York. 

In Greek poetry, light is the expression of life ; but, in Latin poetr^', light is 
converted into color. Kspeeially is the poetry of Vergil marked by great variety 
and richness of color-effects. The word coior, in its antique sense, as distinct from 
its modem scientific sense, denotes the cover, or surface, of things, distinguish- 
able and separable from their substance. The word is used by Vergil in at least 
six different senses. To express high color, Vergil uses 27 terms, and to express 
blacks, grays, and whites, which in Latin are often true color-terms, he uses 15 
terms more. Thus each term has to express a large number, 26 at least on the 
average, of closely related tints. Vergil uses the color-terms of the red-group 77 
times, and of the green-group 65 times. For the violet-group he has no special 
term at all. Of the color-terms lying between red and green he makes 97 uses; 
and of color-terms lying between green and violet he makes 57 uses. Of the 
group lying outside of the spectrum, purples, whites, grays, and blacks, he makes 
304 uses. 

All color-impressions consist of three elements: hue, luminosity, and purity of 
color. Vergil's use of color-terms, like the painter's use of pigments, does not 
express abscjhite hue, but hue as varied by luminosity and purity, and especially 
by contrast of color. Examined in this way, Vergil's use of color-terms is always 
accurate, the result of close and loving observation. 

To fix the exact meaning of a color-term is a problem of philology. To solve 
the problem, we must know: 1. the etymology of the word; 2. the physical 
standard of the color; 3 the extension of the terra on both sides of the standard ; 
4. the variation of the color in purity and luminosity ; and 5. the variation i f the 
color by contrast. Each color-term used by Vergil has been separately studied, 
so far as the material allows, by each of these Ave methods. 

Color as conceived by Vergil differs from the diffusion of color in the real world 
in three ways. The colors that lie about the middle of the spectrum predominate 
over the colors of both ends; warm colors, including the purples, predominate 
over cold colors; and the more luminous predominate over the less luminous. 

The Vergilian color-system is largely in advance of the Homeric, and almost up 
to the full measure of modern art- Red, red-yellow, yellow, green, green-blue, andf 
blue are all distinctly recognized, and marked by distinct terms. Violet is absent; 
but there is clear evidence that, although Vergil had no distinct term for violet, 
he had the sense of the color itself. 

5. On the new edition of the Cylinder Inscription of Assurbani- 
pal, by Prof. D. G. Lyon, of Cambridge. 

In the British Museum are several copies of this cuneiform text, more or less 
complete, and numerous fragments of other copies. I'he inscription has three 
times been published in cuneiform characters: 1. in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of 
"Western Asia, vol. iii., London, 1870 ; 2. in Mr. George Smith's Historv of Assur- 
banipal, London. 1871; 3. in the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western A'sia, vol. v., 
London, 1880. The first edition presents a large number of lacunce, although the 
text was partially restored from other cylinders and tablets containing the same 
narrative. The second edition is an attempt to present in chronological order the 
narrative of Assurbanipal's history, as recorded in various cylinder inscriptions 
and on tablets- While filling many of the lacunce of the first edition, it leaves 
many others which could not at the time be fiUed. The happy discovery of Mr. 
Hormuzd Rassam has added a new cylinder to the treasures of ihe British Museum, 
and Mr. Theopliilus Pinches, who prepared this new copy for the 5th volume of 
W. A. I., has done a capital piece of work. Only two parts of lines are wanting 
in this long and beautiful text, the lamrm having been filled by Mr. Pinches from 
•other cylinders. 



cxxx American Oriental Society : 

Translations of the cylinder inscription have four times been published, all from 
the pen of Mr. George Smith: namely, in History of Assurbanipal, London, 1871 - 
Records of the Past, vol. i., pp. 59-108, London, 1875; Assyrian Discoveries, pp. 
319-376, London, 1875; Records of the Past, vol. ix., pp. 39-64, London. 1877 
(the last only a reprint irom the History of Assurbanipal after Mr. Smith's deatli). 
Sir H. C. Rawlinson and M. Jules Oppert are said to have translated parts of the 
Egyptian campaigns (Records of the Past, vol. i., p. 57). The great improvement 
of the last edition of the original over older editions entitles this important te,xt to 
a new translation. 

The course of the narrative in the cylinder text is well known. The inscription 
is a record of nine campaigns of the Assyrian monarch, two of them being directed 
against Egypt, one against Tyre, and one against Arabia. The whole is intro- 
duced by an account of the youth and accession of Assurbanipal, and closed by 
the narrative of Jiis rebuilding the harem {btt riduti) at Nineveh. 

The present paper is only preparatory to a future one, whose object will be the 
discussion of some passages made clear by the new edition of the original, and of 
such others as have been inaccurately translated, or as present, either in idea oP 
in mode of expression, parallels with Hebrew usage. 

The expression sharru sha ilu idushu atta, V. R.* ii. 123, is rendered by Smith 
' the king whom God has blessed art thou.' More correct would be the transla- 
tion 'the king whom God knows (= foreknew) art thou.' Idu, 'know' (=; Heb. 
jn')! occurs often, but not, 50 far as I am aware, in the sense ' bless.' The sense 
' know, foreknow ' is not only etymologically better, but agrees well also with the 
opening passage of this inscription, where Assurbanipal represents himself as pre- 
ordained by the gods to be the king of Assyria. The use of ilu is very rare in the 
singular, except where the name of the god follows, as ilu Ashur, ilu Nabu, or in 
phrases where god and man are compared or contrasted, as lubushti Hi u sharri, 
'clothing of god and of king.' IT. K. vii. 31b. In our passage the word has a 
monotheistic tone, which is seldom seen in writings of tlie date of Assurbanipal. 

The passage shalamtasTiu iddHshu indashsharu pagarshu, ' his dead body they cast 
down, i;hey tore in pipces his corpse.' V. R. iii. 8, 9, illustrates at once the paral- 
lelism so frequent in Assyrian writing, and the striking similarity of the Assyrian 
and the Hebrew vocabularies. Shalamta, accus. o( shalamtu, is a fem. noun from' 
the verb shaldmu, ' finish ' (Heb. dW/i and signifies ' something which is finished, 
done, past,' hence 'dead body:' a use similar to that of nSfllD, from '73J, 'fall. 
Pagar, construct from pagru, is synonymous with shalamtu, and is the same word 
as Heb. ijg. while the Syriac pagrd means 'bo3y ' in general, as well living as 
dead. IddH, by assimilation from indi. is from the verb nadil. synonym of adH. 
both of which the Hebrew presents in its mj and riT- IndashsharO, = intashsharA 
is represented in Hebrew by the single word nK>j, ' a vulture,' so called because it 
tears its prey in pieces. 

Among numerous parallels with Old Tes ament narrative may be mentioned the 
utter desolation of the fields of Blam, V. E. vi. 100 ff., parallel with 2 Kings iii. 25 ; 
the restoration of the goddess Nana to her sanctuary at Erech, V. R. vi. 107 ff., in 
some respects similar to the account of the restoration of the Ark from the land 
of the Philistines, 1 Sam. vi. ; and the tragic death of XJmmanaldas, V. R. vii. 30 ff., 
parallel with the story of Saul's death, I Sam. xxxi. But the discussion of these 
and of other points is reserved for another paper. 

6. Remarks on certain Readings of the Vatican MS. of the 
New Testament, by Prof. Charles Short, of Columbia College, 
New York. 

Prof. Short made an oral communication in reference to matters connected with 
the Oodex Vaticanus, or Codex B, of the Old and' New Testaments. By the cour- 
tesy of the Librarian of the Vatican, he had himself, after some delay, been 
allowed to see the Codex in June, 1881, during a visit to Borne. He had exam- 



'*By V. R. is meant volume v. of the "Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western 
Asia." This method of citing has become quite general, is brief, and is also cor- 
rect, inasmuch as Sir Henry Rawlinson is editor of the work. 



Proceedings at New York, October, 1882. cxxxi 

ined it, as fully as the brief time permitted, writlen out a description, and prepared 
a Jac-simile of a part of it. He gave an account of the publications made of the 
text: Cardinal Mai's edition was finally .issued in 1857, and followed by a cheaper 
edition of the New Testament in octavo in 1859. In view of the unsatisfactory 
character of this publication, Tischendorf attempted to obtain permission to do the 
work over again, in the style of his Codex Sinaiticus, but was refused; the intima- 
tion being given him that the enterprise would be undertaken by Ttalian hands. 
He was suffered, however, to spend Some tliree weeks of study on the MS., in the 
spring of 1866; and this enabled him in 1867 to put forth a quarto edition of the 
New Testament far superior to any that had preceded it. H is title, which overstates 
his brief and hurried work, was : N. T. Vaticanum post Angeli Mai aliorumque imper-^ 
feckis labores ex ipso codice edidit etc. The project of Pius IX. has since been real- 
ized. The new edition, rivalling the imperial Codex Smaiticus in magnificence, 
consists of six volumes, sq. folio. The New Testament appeared in 1868, and was. 
criticized severely by Tischendorf in his Appendix N. T. Vaticani, 1869. He was 
replied to by the Roman editors, and made a violent and bitter rejoinder in a 
pamphlet in 1870. Along with the concluding volume (containing the Apparatus 
Criticus), published in 1881, was issued a brochure of 31 pages in small folio, 
giving a general account of the great work. Prof. Short had received a copy of 
this brochure from one of the collaborators of the edition; and he presented in 
detail to the Society, with blackboard illustrations, some of the points of difference- 
demonstrated by it between the Codex and Tischendorf s edition of it, amounting; 
to not less than seven for the first page of the Codex. 

This was the last paper offered during Wednesday evenin":. 
On meeting again at the same place in the morning, Prof. I. H. 
Hall in the chair, the Society resumed the hearing of communica- 
tions. 

7. Rejoinder to the Counter-Criticism of M. do Harlez, by Prof. 
J. Luquiens, of Boston; communicated by the Corresponding 
Secretary. 

The personal character of the following remarks finds its only excuse in the- 
article lately published in the " Museon " by M. de Harlez, and reproduced in 
pamphlet form, Under the title: Origine de I'Avesta, Systeme et Critique de H. 
Luquiens. Without wasting any expression of surprise or regret, I may say that 
M. de Harlez, having taken offense at my criticism of his recent work on the 
Avesta (see Proceedings for May, 1882), has chosen this way to manifest his 
indignation, and accuses tne of self-contradiction, bad faith, and prevarication. 
These are very harsh words ; but, in a somewhat obsolete dialect of Zend [lolemics, 
they mean simply that on some points — as, for instance, the value of his own 
writings — M. de Harlez's opinion and mine are at variance That he holds to tiie 
old style of warfare is to me quite evident, from the singular qualification which 
he appends to his charges at the very outset: my guilt is hardly personal, it; 
seems, not inborn with me ; I am simply a victim of disreputable fellowship. Once- 
even my labors were promising, gave expectancy of something better, but in a 
fatal moment (woe worth the day I) I joined the d priori anti-traditional school, 
and forthwith adopted their ''Sad mania of perverting others'" opinions. There 
is al-o a further mitigation of the charges against me. M. de Harlez acknowledges: 
namely, that I borrowed from my ill-favored associates their procedure, but not. 
their insulting language; but if I, though in evil company, have kept to the pris- 
tine fairness of my speech, why should M. de Harlez, still in the folds of unblem- 
ished orthodoxy, apply to my criticisms such opprobrious epithets? Is there a 
privilege of hard language connected with sound doctrine ? I must regret, how- 
ever, that since M. de Harlez is pleased, to consider my guilt as the result of 
newly formed connections, he has not been at pains to specify the date of thia 
evolution; my literary baggage is so slender as to make the task an easy one; in 
reality, of two essays which alone bear on the subject, the first, published in th& 
New Englanderin 1879, implied my belief in the high antiquity of the Avesta; 
and the second (Journal of Philology, Sept., 1881) outlined with unmistakable pre- 
cision my attitude in regard to Avestan tradition. As these are the very issues. 



cxxxii American Oriental Society : 

between us, I must conclude either that my former essays were by no means go 
promising as my adversary kindly admits, or tliat my guilt began at the exact 
moment when my criticism reached his ow<i writings. 

Be this as it may, honesty forbids me to see any assuagement of my faults in 
others' participation. M. de Harlez may not fully understand this, but t must 
disclaim belonging to any school in the sense he attaches to that word: I object, 
namely, to being shut in by so narrow a classification as would prevent me from 
carrying my sympathy or approval from one side to another over the field of 
Avestan studies. I will acknowledge a sort of sequence between the several 
positions which a scholar may hold in this study; one cannot well base the inter- 
pretation of the Avesta on linguistic comparison alone without admitting also a 
high antiquity of the Avesta ; in this respect I gladly follow in the footprints of 
the men whom M. do Harlez drives into a corner by themselves under the name 
of '■ d, priori anti-traditional school." Yet I should feel wanting in catholicity if 
I failed to express my deep sympathy for the works of Windischmann, Spiegel, 
and others — a sympathy as sincere as if it rested on onformity of method. In 
their historical position, narrow as it seems to me in some respects, I see a greater 
insight into the religions value, more regard for the individuality, of Mazdeism, 
than in the point ot view which makes of the Avesta a philological phenomenon 
chiefly interesting on the score of its affinity with the Vedas. For M. de Harlez 
himself, I have more than the fellow-feeling just mentioned; we both, though 
«ach in his own manner, exerted ourselves against the hasty spread of a mythical 
conception of the Avesta. If he ever ascribed my part in that contest to mere 
school feeling, he was mistaken ; I had then and have to-day no other rule than 
my responsible and rational appreciation of the facts at hand; and, following this 
rule, I mind not being counted out of school by strict partisans on either side. 

This unwillingness on M. de Harlez's part to admit any free exercise of judg- 
ment out of the ruts of acknowledged schools is characteristic of the part of his 
Answer which refers to my opinion as to the age of the Avesta. He there reit- 
•erates the arguments of his Introduction, and comes to the conclusion that his 
plea is right in all points, and mine wrong throughout: so say contending lawyers 
in court; and yet the decision rests with the jury. I, for one, gladly leave the 
case with the reading public. If I open the argument anew, it is to remark that 
M. de Harlez. having thrust me of his own accord into a school of his own descrip- 
tion, assumes to lay upon my shoulders the burden of all that has beep advanced 
by the members of that school. Thus, for instance, I am made to adopt Haug's 
theory of a direct opposition between Gathfts and Vedas. Now in my essay, 
" The Avesta and the Storm Myth," printed three years ago, I already expressed 
strong misgivings as to the plausibility of this view; and farther' study has con- 
firmed my doubt. I must then beg to say that " Vedism " is not necessarily iden- 
tical with "Vedas;" the former means rather a stage in the religious and cosmo- 
gonic thought of the Vedic Aryans — a stage of which the Rig- Veda is indeed the 
highest utterance, but which must have existed in various forms, and with more 
or less definiteness, according as the localities were situated nearer to, or farther 
from, the religious centres; therefore, I felt bound not to be more definite than 
my convictions would allow, and located new-bom Mazdeism " on ground distinc- 
tively Iranian and yet within reach of Vedism though it be one of its furthest rami- 
Jkations" — which is far from holding the view that ''the Gathas continually 
allude to the Vedas." Nor is there a contradiction between the belief just 
■expressed and my subsequent admission that certain practices of later Mazdeism 
denote a Scythic influence. If this be a contradiction, not half my sin has been 
told; for I see in the Veudidad traces not only of Scythic, but also of Semitic 
notions ; I so little exclude exotic influences from my general conception that I see 
in their absence or presence — i. e. in the more or less purity of the tenets — the 
very criterion of the respective ago of Avestan writings: a view which is not 
belied by my statement that " nothing' in the Avesta suggests the proximity of 
any but kin or kith until we come to the very latest strata of Mazdeic wriiings." 
If "it was so difficult to reproduce in their integrity my views, which when put 
in print hardly fiU two pages," will not M. de Harlez, whose statements are dissemi- 
nated over a large octavo and innumerable pages in lesser bulk, condone the 
errors of the sarde nature which I am supposed to have committed? 

Let us now examine M. de Harlez's charges of unfairness, or some characteristic 



Proceedings at New York, October, 1882. cxxxiii 

samples of them ; for there is hardly a statement of mine that he does not resent 
as a personal injury. 

In the first place, I wronged him grievously by ascribing to him the view that 
Mazdeism was the outcome of Semitic, and. more especially, of Jewish contact 
and mfluence. "No one has ever clamied," he says, "that Zoroastrianism had 
to a certainty borrowed from the Jews." My carelessness on this point is dearly 
inexcusable, for I have been imposing upon the good faith of my fellow-members, 
presentinp: as a serious belief of M. de Harlez that which was a mere hypothesis, 
a speculative by-play, as it wore. But though I regret the time wasted in the 
consideration of what I was dull enough to talce in earnest, I am glad that M. de 
Harlez, even at this late hour, qualifies his theory ; for I much fear that I am not 
the only reader upon whom his statements left a wrong impression. My mistake, 
however, was not unnatural; wlien, in his Origines, M. de Harlez prefaced his 
elaborate argument with the striking dilemma that either the Jews or the Iranians 
have borrowed from each other. I candidly inferred that our writer, having to his 
satisfaction disproved the latter thesis, was bound to the converse proposition, 
even though he modestly asked his readers to draw their own inferences. But 
if " no one " ever defended the certainty of the contributions of Judaism and Sem- 
itism to the Avestan doctrine, will M. de Harlez tell us who wrote the pages ccv. 
and cevi. of his Introduction, and among others the following passage : " "We 

believe that we can affirm as indvMiable that the principles of this 

transformation, of this new creed (the Avesta), were taken from the Western 
neighbors of Iran, from Babylon and the Israelites." 

In the preceding instance I merely "falsified " the facts; but there was in my 
criticism a part even less approvable: to wit, my characterization of M. de Har- 
lez's interpretation ; and surely, if it be wrong to criticize M. de Harlez's views, 
my remarks on his method were deeply dyed in guilt ; for they alone, of all others, 
were to an extent personal. Not entirely so, however ; for I hold the belief that 
no system of interpretation of the Avesta which rests upon the data of tradition 
can be so consistent with itself as not to desert occasionally its premises for the 
opposite iiround of etymology and linguistic comparison, and that to this alloyage 
of disparate methods we owe most of the jar and checker-work of our versions. 
If these strictures were uttered in connection with M. de Harlez's work, it was 
because, as a very result of the step forward which I acknowledged in his personal 
etforts, the conflict of the dual methods is more marked. Nor is this general 
statement gainsaid by the declaration on p. 12 of his Answer that "the only good 
method is that which takes tradition into account, not blindly, btit with discern- 
ment." If this means any thing, it is a claim on his part to follow alternately 
tradition, and comparison according to a law of his own, whether it is called " dis- 
cernment " or discretion. The example I .selected to prove my point proves pre- 
cisely the reverse, says M. de Harlez ; it may be so ; I lay no claims to infalli- 
bility ; but whether he is right in accusing me of bad faith will be best established 
by a short review of his plea. I, namely, selected the word draona, and blamed 
the motley rendering it received in his version : ' bread ' and ' sacrificial bread ' iu 
a'.'cordance with a PArst custom, and ' offering ' In accordance with his own dis- 
cernment. Now, says M. de Harlez, no one ever did regard the draona of the 
Avesta as an equivalent of the modern (P&rsi) darun. The " no one " so often 
quoted by M. de Harlez is a mysterious personage, who deals with very sweeping 
statements, and who is, in the nature of things, ditficiilt to reach. But I dare say 
that "no one" is not acquainted with the facts; for M. de Harlez himself, in his 
note to Vd. v. 16, says very positively that the draorta, not darun, was a little 
round loaf of the size of a five franc piece. Again, he was so far from taking 
darun as the starting point of his rendering, that on the contrary he derived 
draona, in his Handbook, from Sanskrit dravina, 'good, gift, present,' and 
regarded 'offering' as the principal sense. M. de Harlez, who forgets sometimes 
what is written in the very work he defends, will forgive me if I failed to remem- 
ber what is said in his handbook; yet, though it may seem strange to trans- 
late a word written in Media not earlier than the 6th century before our era in 
accordance with a word current among Indie Aryans at least four or five hundred 
years back of that date, we cannot but acknowledge this gratifying progress in 
Avestan methods. I must, however, suggest that an etymology is often a super- 
fluity in the study -room of a "traditional" scholar; Spiegel also had one; he 



<5xxxiv American Oriental Society: 

connected draona, ' small loaf,' with Skt. drona, ' SHrt«-kettle,' but never claimed 
to have squeezed the former out of the latter meaning Claims to an etymological 
method must rest on better grounds ; if indeed M. de Harlez asserts that out of 
his etymology dravina he unfolded in the course of a rational process the mean- 
ings 'offering, consecrated wafer, and bread.' I am disarmed; and only wonder at 
the wealth the Sanskrit words bore in their flanks. But I must say that from the 
facts 1 infer a very different process, not unlike the one outlined in my criticism : 
namely, that M. de Harlez, groping from the traditional meaning ' small loaf,' 
gradually came to verge close upon Sanskritic grounds; it appears to me that it 
is not Skt. dravina which gave M. de Harlex the meanings 'offering' and 'bread,' 
but the meanings ' bread ' and ' offering ' which led him to give Skt. dravina the 
•sense he sug-gests; for, being a Sanskritist as well as a Zend scholar, he will 
allow me to say that, the word dravina (from dm, ' run '), meaning even in the Vedas 
nothing but ' movable wealth ' in opposition to real and landed property, cannot in 
the anterior Aryan period have meant 'gift, present, or offering.' M. de Harlez's 
additional explanation of his method clears np some obscurity in my conception of 
it, but does not change it materially; and if I hold it even now, my criticism 
based on such facts and statements as were found in his version alone could not 
but take the form which he incriminates. 

I hope that I have not overstepped the bounds of len;itimate polemics in any 
word I have here said, any more than in my previous remarks. There are in his 
Answer many things, especially about my own views, which I have read with 
interest, and, I hope, with profit: but this is not the time to answer them. The 
harsh language I freely forgive ; its very profuseness defeats its end ; but I must 
insist upon the right of evolving my appreciation of a writer's works out of Ms 
works themselves, not out of his own estimate o£ tliem. 

8. On Eggeling's Translation of the Qatapatha-Brahmana, by 
Prof. W. 1). Whitney, of New Haven. 

The writer began with a general account of the work under examination. It 
forms a part of the series ' Sacred Books of the P]asl," published under the edito- 
rial charge of M. MiUler; and it is, so far as ancient India is concerned, the most 
legitimate and valuable member of that series. The latter is somewhat open to 
unfavorable criticism, both for what it includes and for what it omits, in its Indian 
■division. It is chiefly made up of works which,, like the Upanishads, have been 
repeatedly and well translated already ; or of those which, like the law-books, are 
very welcome additions to Indian knowledge, but have too little to do with 
religion to fall properly under the title of "Sacred Books;" or of those which, 
like the Bhagavad-Gita, are liable to both these objections; and it does not include 
«t present, or promise for the future, any Vedic text. If anything was confidently 
-expected by the public from this enterprise, it was a version of the Rig- Veda in 
English from Mijller's own hand; and ic would be curious to learn on what 
grounds he accounts for the withholding of such a version. There are in exist- 
ence, it is true, two complete German translations, but neither of them is satis- 
factory, and both are far more inaccessible to English readers than are versions 
of many of the works included in the whole series, in its various departments. 
The English Rig- Veda begun by Wilson is so little in accordance with, and so far 
behind, the present state of Vedic scholarship, that it must be pronounced hardly 
better than worthless; and even Wilson's continuator seems to regard it as not 
worth completing; for he has suffered sixteen years to elapse since the last 
volume of it appeared. 

No one will doubt the desirableness of including at least one work of the 
Brahmana-class among the published Sacred Books of India ; we can only question 
whether it was worth while to begin so vast a work as the Qatapatha in a series 
already nenrly full ; for the volume now issued, of 450 octavo pages, gives not any 
more than a fifth part of the whole ; and five such elegant volumes would cost 
more than the original Sanskrit text. But perhaps a fragment of the Qatapatha is 
t)etter worth having than the whole of any other Brahma^a; for it Is certainly 
the most generally interesting, as well as the most extensive, of the works bear- 
ing the name. Even the (as yet little known) Jaiminlya- or Talavakara-Brahmana, 
if we include with it its Upanishad-Brahmajja (of which the Kena-Upanishad is a 



Proceedings at New York, October, 1882. cxxxv 

chapter), is somewhat smaller and much more tedious ; the Aitareya-Brahmania, 
already published, has only about a quarter as much matter; and none of the 
others is more comprehensive than this. 

Parts of the Qatapatha have been already translated: so the first chapter, by 
Weber, in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. iv. (1850); this was 
the tirst specimen of the Brahmana style rendered in a European language; then 
considerable passages of this, as of other BrShmanas, by Muir, in his five volumes 
of Original Sanskrit Texts; and somewhat over a chapter (next following the 
contents of the volume now under discussion), on the ceremony of consecration 
for the Soma-sacrifiee. by Dr. Lindner (Leipzig, 1878). Delbriick also, in his 
volumes of contributions to comparative syntax, gives numerous Brahmana- 
■extracts, taken especially from this text, and rendered with a care, and an appre- 
■ciation of the niceties of style, which are not exceeded, if they are equalled, by 
any other scholar. 

Eggeling's translation is made with competent knowledge, both of the Brahmana 
style and of the details of the ceremonial with which it deals, and is worthy of 
Tiigh commendation. For some purposes, a closer adherence to the letter of the 
text, with its curiously broken and jointed clauses, would be desirable ; but it is 
ty no means easy to maintain this and make the version at all readable, and the 
author is not fairly to be blamed for following a different method. His notes are 
valuable, adding to the comprehension of the text, and especially interesting as 
giving occasional glimpses of the further inane intricacies of the ceremonial, 
passed unnoticed by the Bralimana, and in part perhaps unknown at its period. 

It appears here and there as if Prof. Eggeling (unless he is careless in his cita- 
tions) had a slightly different text before him from the published one. Consider- 
ing the excellence and accuracy of the latter (quite wonderful for the time at 
"Which it appeared), and the improbability that another will be put forth for a 
long time to come, it is the obvious duty of any one undertaking a work like that 
before us to report with conscientious care every correction of an error, or substi- 
tution on manuscript authority of a better reading, vrhich he finds occasion to 
make in Weber's text. 

There are, of course, as necessarily in every such work, occasional oversights, 
due to haste and insuSBcient revision. The worst of these — rendering ne "jire at 

1. ii. 5. 24 by ' washed their hands ' (as if ninijire) instead of ' did not sacrifice,' 
against the plainest evidence of the accentuation and the context — he has doubt- 
less himself long since noticed; it is one of those humana to which even an accu- 
rate worker is occasionally liable. Here and there an instance occurs of a phrase 
badly rendered in one place while it is correctly understood elsewhere : thus, for 
•example, ydi 'smn iyarh jitih at I. vi. 2. 1, 2 (compare IL iv. 4. 15) ; dvayam rendered 
'twice' at L viii. 3. 14, but correctly 'a twofold reason' at ix. 1. 1; 3. 7. A 
number of cases of omission of a word or phrase or sentence might bo pointed 
out (e.g. at Lvi. 3. 13; ix 1.27. II. i. 3. 1 ; 4. 22; ii. 1.8; iii. 3. 18, 20; v. 1. 11; 

2. 38); but none of them is of particular consequence. Numbers and persons are 
sometimes wrongly rendered (e. g. I. iii. 1. 3 ; v. 4. 12 ; ix. 1. 11. II. iii. 1. 14). More 
important is a not very infrequent mistranslation of the aorist : as a present (e. g. 
IL iv. 1. 11; 2. 11); as an imperfect (e.g. L iv. 1. 39; viii. 3. 11, 17; ix. 1. 20; 

3. 10, 1 2. IT. vi. 1. 15) ; or, what is much worse, as an optative (e. g. I. vii. 3. 10, 11. 
II. i. 4. 19, 20): surely, the use of this tense is accurate and consistent enough in 
the Brahmana to call for consistent treatment in a translation. Now and then, 
an erroneous rendering or division depends upon the neglect of a point of accent : 
instances are II. iii. 1. 11 ; iv. 3. 13; and especially II. ii. 2. 20, where Eggeling's 
complete mistranslation is corrected from Delbruck in a note at the ^nd of the 
volume. 

Examples of an objectionable or unhappy rendering of single words and phrases 
are for the most part too unimportant to give In detail. A very common instance 
is the translation of kapala by 'potsherd' (perhaps after Haug): or does Prof. 
Eggeling believe that the Hindu offerings were actually made on fragments of 
broken pottery? 'Equipment' for sambhdra (II. i. 1. 1 etc.) is so ill-suited that 
the translator is not able always himself to adhere to it. 

It is also a matter of course that any one going over the translator's work after 
him will find now and then a passage which appears to have been wrongly 
apprehended— as, Indeed, there are passages of difficult and doubtful interpreta- 



cxxxvi American Oriental Society : 

tlon, in regard to which the opinions of scholars may be expected to be at vari- 
ance. A few cases are cited here.* The obvious meaning of the last sentence in 

I. iii. 1. 22 is: 'One and the same [everywhere], forsooth, is the significance of 
cleansing: he just malses it thus sacriticially pure.' The passage I. vi. 1. 4 is 
rather to be rendered: 'That, now, was an offense to the gods; they said: 
"verily, for less than this, enemy begins hostilities against enemy ; how much 
more, for what is on such a scale! Contrive ye how this may be otherwise than 
thus." ' There is much to object to in the translation of I. vi. 3. 26 ; the accent of 
the first dpnoti is neglected (it means ' whichsoever two in each several case he 
gains by means of the two butter-portions ') ; ahordtre and ardhamdsdu are left 
out; and the subjunctive asat is turned into an aorist. A little later, at 33, 
anyatoghdtin signifies 'striking in another direction:' that is, one whose back is 
turned toward his attacker can make no effective resistance, because, if he deals a 
blow, it is in another direction than at his assailant. The last half of I. viii. 2. 8 
should read : ' Now whenever the metres gratified the gods, then the gods grati- 
fied the metres ; now then it has been previous to this that the metres, harnessed, 
liavo borne the sacrifice to the gods, have gratified the gods' — and hence he now 
proceeds on behalf of the gods to gratify the metres. The asserted reference to- 
forbidden degrees of kinJred at I. viii. 3. 6 is certainly a pure fijfment of the 
commentators. In I. ix. 2. 27, the words ydira-yatrd "sdrh caranam tad mm are 
wholly misunderstood ; they mean ' (them he thus in due form dismisses) about 
their several businesses.' At II. ii. 3. 3, as everywhere else where it occurs, the 
translator appears to misunderstand the particle ed, and his version is both an in- 
accurate and a tame rendering of the colloquially lively original : ' " Here we come 
aaain," said the gods; and lo! Agni out of si^htl' At II. iii. 2. 3, Asant Pausava 
('the non-existent dusty one') is not the place where they throw the ashes, but 
the ashes themselves. In II. iv. 2. 1-3, tlie assignments of gifts are unacceptably 
rendered; they are as follows: to the gods, ' be the sacrifice your food ; yours be 
immortality, yours might, and the sun your Ught;' to the Fathers, 'be your eat- 
ing month by month; be the funeral-oblation (svadhd) yours, yours thought- 
swiftness, and the moon your light;' to men, 'be your eating at evening and at 
morning; be progeny yours, and death yours, and the fire your light.' At 

II. iv. 3. 13. attention to the accent of yajeta would have saved the translator his 
difficulty with the particle vd: -if he have [already] sacrificed, or if he be sacri- 
ficing with the new- and full-moon offerings, then let him sacrifice with this one.' 

The method of transliteration pursued in this, as iu the other volumes of the 
series of Sacred Books, is highly unacceptable; it is the general editor's own 
"Missionary Alphabet," a mixture, too ugly to be tolerated, of roman and italic 
letters and small capitals in the same word. The original device was, to be sure, 
an ingenious one, and the alphabet has its own proper sphere of usefulness— 
namely, where the resources of a well-furnished printing-office are wanting, and 
one must accept thankfully the best means of distinction that are available. But 
it was certainly a grave error of judgment on Miiller's part to impose its use upon 
the Clarendon press, and in these handsome and costly volumes. 

This closing the list of communications, the Society passed a 
vote of thanks to the authorities of Columbia College for kindly 
allowing it the use of the room it had been occupying, and 
adjourned, to meet again in Boston, on the 23d of May, 1883. 

*A fuller exhibition of them, as well as of the other points criticized by the 
writer, will be found in his paper as published in Gildersleeve's American Journal 
of Philology, No. 12.