the so-called "genetic" method. And to this last the philological method certainly bears some resemblance, inasmuch as in both sciences we strive to understand the historical development of their objects.

However, it is not my intention to discuss these views more in detail. There is no necessity, for my immediate purpose, of showing whether SCHLEICHER's views are right or wrong, but only how they arose and worked within him.

It cannot be denied that SCHLEICHER'S fondness for natural science is more plainly traceable in his chief works than Hegelianism. But we can only judge from detailed observation how deep these influences were in separate instances. Accordingly I now pass to a critical survey of SCHLEICHER'S philological achievements and views.

In SCHLEICHER's first works we can still plainly discern the philosophical atmosphere in which they originated, inasmuch as they aim less at a through investigation of details than a systematic survey of a broad field. For in the first part of his Sprachvergleichende Untersuchungen he traces certain influences of (the so-called "zetacism") through as many languages as possible, and in the second part [Die Sprachen Europa's] he gives the outline of a system of linguistics. Very similar in character is a much later work, Die Unterscheidung von Nomen und Verbum in der lautlichen Form (Sächs. Ges. d. Wiss., Leipzig, 1865). In addition to these general studies SCHLEICHER began very early to appropriate to himself a special field, the Slavonic languages, and here he has acquired a reputation of which no change in time or opinion can rob him. SCHLEICHER stands beside Miklosich in this field somewhat as BOPP does beside GRIMM in the Germanic one. He more than any one else has helped to illumine the Slavonic languages by the light of comparison. In his Lithuanian studies he brought a wholly new material within the reach of science, by collecting the Lithuanian forms here and there, as a botanist does his specimens, and preserving them for all time in the herbarium of his grammar. In consequence of his academical duties (in Bonn, Prague and Jena) he was also compelled to devote his constant attention to the other IndoEuropean languages, and thus was prepared, in the broadest

imaginable way, for the chief work of his life, his Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen (Weimar, 1861), which we must regard as the crowning glory of his career, since an early death called him away from still greater plans.

SCHLEICHER'S Compendium is the conclusion of a period in the history of philology, the beginning of which was formed by Bopp's works. This is the reason why the general impression produced by the Comparative Grammar on the one hand and the Compendium on the other is so utterly different. BOPP was obliged to prove the essential identity of the IndoEuropean languages, while Schleicher regarded it as established; it was Bopp's place to acquire, SCHLEICHER's to organize. BOPP's attention was especially occupied with what was common to all Indo-European language; it was SCHLEICHER's task to make the individual languages stand out clearly on this common background. Hence the comparative Grammar is a connected narrative, while the Compendium could without much trouble be resolved into a number of separate grammars. The author of the Grammar in his demonstration of single points employs principally the form of investigation, which he handles with a natural charm of manner; in the Compendium, on the contrary, we find almost exclusively the concise and monotonous style of assertion. The older work may be compared with the exposition of an interesting lawsuit, the younger with the paragraphs of a code of laws.

The difference is less striking when we compare the views which are brought forward in the two books. In the first place, Bopp's theory of the origin of inflection was in the main adopted by SCHLEICHER, although he formulated it differently. Like BOPP he regarded roots, which in his opinion were inevitably monosyllabic, as the constituent elements of the Indo-European. Like BOPP he distinguished two classes of roots (although he considered it probable, contrary to Bopp, that the so-called "pronominal" roots were derived from the verbal ones). Like BOPP he recognized affixed pronouns in the stem and word-forming suffixes. Only on single points was his opinion different. For instance, in the explanation of the middle endings, where BOPP was uncertain, he expressed

himself decidedly in favor of the theory of composition, which he carried out to the smallest detail. He followed POTT in his view of the plural endings of the active; he held that the element of the optative was not the root i or i, but the pronominal root ya (without, indeed, informing us how the meaning of the optative could be explained under this assumption); and in the subjunctive, which Bopp had not regarded with certainty as a special mood, he discovered a pronominal root a.

There does seem to be a marked difference in the interpretation given to the idea "inflection", which SCHLEICHER in the Compendium, § 2, defines as follows: "The essence of inflection lies in the vocalism". These words, which at first sight are very striking, must be understood thus. SCHLEICHER recognises two classes of languages in which the forms originate by means of composition, the agglutinating and the inflectional. He finds the peculiarity of the latter in their ability to change the root-vowel for the purpose of expressing relation; so e. g. slut is compounded of and ut, the being μι, changed to ε in order to express the relation. The inflectional languages accordingly possess the principle of composition, and beside this the capacity of changing their root-vowel as just shown. But in his definition SCHLEICHER mentions only the latter of these distinguishing qualities.

We can readily perceive that beneath this form of the definition there lurks a remainder of SCHLEGEL's conception of inflection, with which at an earlier period SCHLEICHER'S views were more in accord; but this remainder is so trifling in its actual significance that it may be overlooked, and we can justly characterize SCHLEICHER as an adherent of Bopp's agglutination theory.

SCHLEICHER also agreed with Bopp in assuming that not the primitive period alone had the capacity to produce new formations by agglutination, but that composition might also appear in the individual languages, in the same way as in the parent speech, as for instance in the Latin perfect.

The difference seems widest in the department of phonetics, but even here it is not a difference of principle. In principle SCHLEICHER's stand-point was the same as BOPP's, since it was also his opinion that the phonetic changes of language

do not exhibit development, but decline, and since he admits occasional (although much rarer) exceptions to the prevailing phonetic laws.

But there is a very considerable difference in degree between the phonetic systems of the two scholars. What a stately appearance SCHLEICHER'S Lautlehre presents, occupying, as it does, half of the whole Compendium, compared with BOPP's scanty and unevenly written chapter, which bears the title "System of writing and phonetics" [Schrift- und Lautsystem]! It was SCHLEICHER's task to sift down and turn to account the great mass of detailed investigations which had been undertaken since BOPP's time by POTT, BENFEY, KUHN, CURTIUS and others. In his treatment of the subject we can observe the progress intimated above. The differences of the separate languages are taken into account, all related instances are carefully placed side by side, and the probability of each single instance measured from the result obtained. Thus SCHLEICHER established a long series of carefully weighed, well-grounded phonetic laws, which were destined to serve as a regulating principle for every etymologist, and he has undeniably won great credit by this task of sifting and arranging.

Of course all such laws have only a provisional value. For since obvious etymologies form the material from which the phonetic laws are derived, and this material can perpetually increase and change, it is always possible that new phonetic laws should be recognized, or old ones transformed. This idea, whose correctness has been amply confirmed by experience (for how much that is new has been discovered by FICK alone!) was not sufficiently appreciated by SCHLEICHER. This was probably owing to the fact that he himself, with his methodical mind, had no conception of that combining fancy which is indispensable to the discovery of new etymologies, and therefore undervalued etymologizing in general.

We conclude from the foregoing that in all important points which have hitherto been mentioned, the difference between Bopp and SCHLEICHER cannot be called a difference of principle. But one point still remains, which at all events brings SCHLEICHER's originality into the clearest light, — I

refer to the reconstructed Indo-European parent speech [Ursprache). I find the earliest mention of this parent speech in the preface to the Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache, where we read:

"In comparing the linguistic forms of two kindred languages, I try first of all to trace back both the compared forms to their probable fundamental from, i. e., the shape which they ought to have, leaving out of account the later changes; or at any rate, to bring them upon the same phonetic plane. Now since the oldest languages of our family (even the Sanskrit) do not exhibit their oldest phonetic form, and since the different languages are known to us in very different degrees of age, this difference in age must first be eliminated as far as possible, before there can be any comparison; the given quantities must be reduced to common terms before we can compare them, whether the expression thus obtained be the oldest form which can be deduced for both the compared languages, or the oldest form of one of them."

Hence, in comparing two languages, we can either reduce the form of one language to that of the other (e. g., Slavonic pekąšta to a Sanskrit *pacantyasya, v. the work quoted above), or trace both forms back to a common primitive form. The first method, so far as I can see, has very seldom been actually applied by SCHLEICHER; the second, on the other hand, if for "the comparison of two languages" we substitute the words "comparison of all Indo-European languages", contains the following rule for the construction of fundamental IndoEuropean forms: from a form which appears in all languages, subtract all that is due to the special development of the individual languages, and what remains will be the primitive form. An example will make these directions clear. "Field" in Sanskrit is ájras, in Greek ȧypós, in Latin ager, in Gothic akrs. Now we know that in Gothic g has become k, and that an a was lost before the s; thus we obtain from the Gothic the primitive form agras. We know further that the Greek o is derived from a, so that we likewise obtain agras, and so with each language in turn. Hence agras may be regarded as the primitive form, and by a similar process we deduce the accusative agram, genitive agrasya, ablative agrāt,