the cases have to express. From particles with a local sense are derived both pronouns and numerals: they are employed as case-suffixes. After setting forth in this way their origin, Scherer seeks them in quarters where we are not accustomed to perceive them, and imagines that he discovers the suffix of the locative in the final -á of the nomina agentis, in the composition-vowels a and i, in the gerund in -ja, in the future participle passive, in several nominal stems, and also in the third person singular and plural. After having enumerated the suffixes of these, Scherer proposes to investigate the link which, in his opinion, should unite them together. "May it not be that ant, ans, ra, ta, are participial suffixes? May not a, i, ra, ta, s (as) be locativecase, or, which is the same, ablative-case suffixes? Must we not therefore declare as such, in the sense of our preceding inquiries, also ant, ans? What have we then in all of them but endings of locatives or combinations of them, or, in other words, local particles suffixed? "" In such way

1 Kuhn justly observes that the reasoning of Scherer cannot carry with it conviction, since we must require special proofs for all and each of the forms of the third person which is under discussion. Besides, continues Kuhn, this person cannot be connected in several cases, for phonetic reasons, as a locative either with the present participle, or with the past participle (from which, moreover, it is separated also by the difference of meaning): cf. Sanser. dvěšti with dvišant, Gr. TUTTε with TUTTOVT-, Lat. amat with amant-, etc. Lastly, as he has already explained the present participle in ant as a locative to which the suffix of the ablative (=locative) has been added, if we are willing to believe that from this present participle are derived the third persons with lo

cative case-suffixes, we shall evidently have in them this case expressed no fewer than three times : hence we shall have to conclude that the original Aryans, in order to say he knows, adopted an expression equivalent to know + in + in + in!

The critical observations also of Steinthal (1.c) on Scherer's locative are worthy of note. How in the world, asks Steinthal, how in the world can we believe that more cases have been developed from the locative, while the farther we go back towards the sources, the more numerous, as a rule, do the forms appear, many of which have been lost in what, in the career of language also, may be called a struggle for life? How in the world shall we conceive so great an abundance of means to express a single idea? Nor,

does Scherer seek, and flatter himself that he discovers, unity in the inflexion of Aryan!

In the work of the learned German scholar there is, to 75 use the expression of Steinthal, as it were the programme of a scientific life; we admire in it marvellous scholarship, rare power of intellect, high aims: but it cannot be said. that the author has attained his object. The reason of this has been, we think, well indicated by Kuhn, when he reproached Scherer with having too often abandoned the field of history in order to trace causes by a method more subjective than objective. He has not had recourse in equal measure to all the Aryan languages from which he might have derived important information: of Greek, observed Kuhn, he did not make as much use as he should have done in the examination of the most ancient forms, absorbed as he was in the consideration of the Indo-Iranic Aryan. Moreover, continues the illustrious philologist just mentioned, in the Vedic and in the Zend forms he did not always know how to distinguish the various periods of their development: hence, as he did not observe the different age of several among them, and could not conceive as contemporaneous forms so diverse, he referred them to various origins in certain cases in which they may with reason be considered to have sprung successively from a single original form, which we frequently see still surviving, beside the later forms which were developed from it. To these observations of the two illustrious German linguists we think it not unseasonable to add that Scherer does not seem to us to have given adequate proofs of all the transformations of sounds which he has affirmed. To the 76 defects of this work already mentioned may be added that in the opinion of this critic, is the identity of sound and meaning, of which Scherer frequently tries to convince us, proved by valid argu

ments.

1 E. g., what we read on p. 228 does not seem to us sufficient to demonstrate that even in the ProtoAryan the original m could be changed to n between vowels.

G

of an exposition which certainly does not command the sympathy of readers, for whom it is impossible, without an effort of attention, to follow the author through all the meanderings of the investigation in which he wanders, without always sufficiently troubling himself about those who must follow him through the intricate paths. And, to conclude, it seems to us very deplorable that a work like this, which undoubtedly gives evidence of long, accurate, profound researches, of earnest and extensive studies, of a mental energy possessed by few, should, owing to the not unfrequent predominance of the imagination over cool reason, owing to the systematic tendencies with which it has been composed, have failed to result in that usefulness to science which it might have conferred, if the author had resolutely followed a method of investigation consistent with more strict criteria.

§ 15. From the fundamental principle of Bopp's morphology, according to which the suffixes are to be considered as words once possessing an independent existence, and afterwards united with roots and with stems to define their meaning yet more clearly;' from this principle, which has been accepted, in varying measure it is true, by almost all the philologists of the new historico-comparative school,* diverged, more perhaps than any one else, in their endeavour to advance the science of the Aryan languages by new methods, Rudolf Westphal and Alfred Ludwig. The first, of whom we are now to speak, already known and praised for his researches into German phonology and Greek rhythm and metre, drew upon himself afresh the attention

1 See, with regard to the morphological investigations of Bopp, Bréal's introductions to his French translation of the Vergleichende grammatik of the great German. See also Benfey, Geschichte der sprachwissenschaft und orientalis

chen philologie in Deutschland, München, 1869, pp. 470-515.

2 Among these it may suffice to quote A. Schleicher and M. Müller, who by their writings contributed so much to the diffusion of Bopp's doctrine.

of students by the daring hypothesis which he conceived in 77 order to explain the origin of the Indo-European speechforms, and which he first propounded here and there in the Philosophisch-historische grammatik der deutschen sprache,' afterwards in the Methodische grammatik der griechischen sprache, and in the Vergleichende grammatik der indogermanischen sprachen. In our remarks on Westphal's system we shall frequently make use of the critical observations of Tobler1 and of G. Curtius. We hope further that, when regard is had to the novelty, the power of philological imagination (for so we may be allowed to term it), the extent of the investigations which we find in the works of Westphal above mentioned, and especially the profound difference which separates his doctrine on the origin of the Aryan forms from the theory of Bopp, our readers will not be inclined to blame us if we discuss the audacious but often attractive hypotheses of Westphal in a somewhat more minute manner than we have done, and intend to do, with respect to certain other investigations which, as far as concerns the scope of this book, seem to us of less importance.

To understand properly the grounds of Westphal's morphological system we consider the following preliminary remarks almost necessary. In order to explain the genesis of the personal endings, in other words, of the

1 Jena, 1869: see especially pp. 89-198.

2 Jena, 1870.. .: see part 2nd (Semasiologie und syntax, etc., section 1st, v-xl, 53-280).

3 Erster theil: Das indogermanische verbum nebst einer übersicht der einzelnen indogermanischen sprachen und ihrer lautverhältnisse, Jena, 1873 see principally vii.-xxxix. 97128, 134-8, 138-43, 231-44, 24449, 581-2, 589-600, 600-8, 609-42,

643-53, and, in the Appendix, pp. 56-98.

4 In the review of the Phil.-hist. gramm. d. deutschen spr. (Zeitschrift für völkerpsychologie, etc. vi. 482-8).

5 Das verbum der griechischen sprache seinem baue nach dargestellt, i. Leipzig, 1873, pp. 19-34.

6 Westphal, Meth. gramm, d. gr. spr., part 2nd, Preface.

87 verbal flexion of the Aryan languages, Bopp used the same means which others had adopted to explain the origin of such endings in the Semitic dialects, in which the connexion had already been noticed between the suffixes of the first two persons of the verb and the personal pronouns, and the result was that these persons were even then regarded as compounded of the verbal stems with the pronouns in question. This opinion, chiefly through Bopp's instrumentality, not only prevailed in the doctrine of the terminations of the verb of Aryan stock, but spread to almost all the suffixes of this stock, although, to tell the truth, it is not all the most learned and distinguished inquirers who have cheerfully acquiesced in this hypothesis. And in fact it was not favoured either by the two brothers Schlegel or by Lassen. Three arguments were opposed to it by Westphal:-1st, the necessity of admitting, even in Proto-Aryan, phonetic corruptions which we have no right to attribute to it, among which deserve to be mentioned at all events the mutilations which we are constrained to suppose must have taken place in the forms of the middle if we wish to remain faithful to the doctrine generally followed; 2nd, the impossibility of explaining the meaning of certain endings, especially in nominal inflexion, if with the followers of Bopp, we recognise in them only pronominal stems; 3rd, if only Semitic, and not Aryan, availed itself of phonetic symbolism, the use of which in the former stock is manifest, evidently Aryan would be less rich than Semitic in means of expressing the determinations of ideas, and hence, in the great realm of languages, would occupy an inferior position, a conclusion which modern philology would reject. According to Westphal, therefore, the theory of phonetic symbolism should be introduced also into Indo-European 79 philology,' especially since the most recent investigations

1 Our own Ascoli, too, in the letter to A. Kuhn, above quoted, af