both Greek and Latin and in many inscriptions. In the Arcadian rite described by Pausanias (p. 94) we observed that it was the nymph Hagno, not Zeus, whom the priest addressed. Rain followed in this case; but whether ordinarily the nymphs were asked directly for rain or whether the custom was to leave it to them to fill wells and streams in ways unspecified, are questions into which I have no time now to enter. I merely suggest the topic to future investigators.

VII.-On Some Ancient and Modern Etymologies.

BY PROF. MINTON WARREN,

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

Periero and peiero have long puzzled scholars. Lindsay, Latin Language, p. 199, says: “Pejěro and ējĕro (cf. conierat, coniurat, G.G.L. IV. 322, 33) have not yet been thoroughly explained." See also p. 587. More recently Ferdinand Sommer, Indogermanische Forschungen, Bd. XI. (1900), p. 56, says: "Sehr zweifelhaft ist peiĕrare (Osthoff, Perfekt, S. 115 Anm.) das, falls es zu peior gehört, auch die Vokalstufe *peios enthalten könnte; das Wort ist und bleibt eine crux; auch die Ausführungen von Stolz (H.G. 170) befriedigen nicht."

Before Osthoff, Alcuin had connected peiero with peius, but in a different way, cf. Keil, G.L. VII., p. 307. "Periurus qui male iurat, peiero vero verbum r non debet habere; est enim quasi peius iuro." This was doubtless a current popular etymology, which did not lose sight of the connection of the word with iuro. Osthoff, in 1884, explained peiero as a denominative from peius in the original sense of "entstellen, verhunzen." In 1885 Gustav Meyer, Zeits. für Oest. Gym. 36, p. 280, gave a similar explanation. Brugmann, Gdr. II., p. 402, admits the explanation as possible. L. Havet, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique, VI., p. 22, without mentioning Osthoff, gives essentially his view. "Peierare signifie donc à l'origine 'rendre pire, altérer, fausser, violer.' Ius peieratum est un droit corrompu (par faux serment). L'étymologie populaire crut voir dans ce dérivé de peius un composé de per et de iuro, doctrine qui ne paraît pas conciliable avec les lois phonétiques." Wharton, in his Etyma Latina (1890), has "pējero, swear falsely; 'make worse, alter, violate,' fr. pējes- (cf. mājestas beside major)." Despite this array of authority, it seems to me that there is very little to

be said for this explanation. It disregards the fact that perierare is better attested than peierare in Plautus, and ignores the fact that such denominatives from comparatives are of late development in the history of the Latin language. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that deiero, which is found in Plautus, although evidently a compound of iuro, owes its e solely to the analogy of peiero. A common explanation must be found, I think, for periero, deiero, eiero, and the form conierat (coierat) found only in Glossaries and explained as coniurat. The difficulty of course is in accounting for the short e in these compounds, and I do not think it is met by assuming, with Stolz, the existence of a primitive verb iuro with short u alongside of iuro.

Before proceeding to state my view, I shall speak briefly of the forms found in Plautus. There are some sixteen cases of the verb periuro (periero) in Plautus, in three of which the reading is disputed. Only seven of these passages are found in the Ambrosianus, namely, Cist. 500, Merc. 539, Poen. 480, 1242, Pseud. 354, 1057, Stich. 192. In all except the last of these passages A has the spelling with u. In Stich. 192,

ni vere perierit, si cenassit domi,

Bugge would read perieraverit, but Leo takes perierit in the sense of interierit. In Poen. 1242, A has periures with the other Mss. where the metre requires perieres. In two other passages not found in A, Bacch. 1030 and 1042, the best Mss. have periurem and periuret where the metre requires the form with . Perierat is well attested for As. 293. There are nine passages where, so far as the metre is concerned, forms with e might be substituted for the better attested forms with u. Moreover, in Stich. 229, A alone has perieratiunculas, the other Mss. having periuratiunculas. It is quite possible, therefore, that periero was the more common form in Plautus, and that periuro has been substituted for it not simply in the three passages where the metre requires periero. The forms found are periuras Poen. 480, perieras Ussing, Leo, perierat As. 293. Peierat Men. 814 without Ms. authority Schoell. The Mss. read delurat or delirat, and Leo reads deierat.

Perierant Truc. 30 Schoell. Perierandum Leo and GS., periurabo As. 322, periuravisti Pseud. 354, periuravit Merc. 539. Perieraverit? or perierit Stich. 192. Perierem Bacch. 1030, periurem BCDFZ, perieres Poen. 1242, periures A with other Mss., perieret Bacch. 1042. Periuret Mss., periuraris As. 562 and 570, periuraverint Curc. 268, periurare Cist. 500 and Pseud. 1057.

For the existence of the form without r, peiero, the evidence is very slight for Plautus, although it is occasionally found in FZ and has been introduced by editors (cf. the critical apparatus to Asin. 293, Bacch. 1042, Poen. 480 and 1242, Pseud. 1057, Truc. 30). The adjective peiurus and the noun peiurium are somewhat better attested. See Studemund, Rhein. Mus. 21, 588.

The explanation, which I have to propose, starts from the form IOVESTOD of the Stele recently discovered in the Forum, which, with Hülsen, Skutsch, Thurneysen, and other scholars, I regard as the earlier form of iustod, iusto.

In I.F. XI., p. 342, v. Grienberger explains iovesat at the beginning of the Duenos inscription as equal to iurat, translating "es schwört bei den Göttern, der mich sendet." I do not think that this makes good sense, and v. Grienberger himself admits his inability to establish the connection with what follows.1

Yet I think every one must admit that the earlier form of iurat would have been iovesat, which by syncopation gave iousat and then by rhotacism iourat. The diphthong ou is abundantly attested in inscriptions.

In the compound verb the phonetic development was somewhat different. In the early period the accent would of course rest upon the preposition. Now, just as dénovo gives dénuo, éndovo induo (cf. Umb., anovihimu), túpover tú puer (cf. Archiv, XII., p. 281), so périovero would give périuero, or, in the stage before rhotacism, périoveso would have given périueso. One further change took place.

1 I have attempted, Harvard Studies, XI. 164, reading ioveset, to explain this as the older form of iouset, iussit, an explanation which also rests indirectly on the assumption that iovestod equals iustod.

Minerva is now explained (cf. Brugmann, Gdr. I.,2 pp. 232, 319, 324) as coming from *menes-oua through menesua, Minerua, Minerva, larva as from lasua, lasoua. So I think in periuero, resulting from periovero, there was a tendency to pronounce the vowel u as v (English w), but the difficulty of pronouncing after consonantal i caused the u to drop out. Thus we get instead of periuero, periero, and similarly in eiero and deiero. By this theory the short e is fully explained, and there is no necessity to dissociate peiero from iuro on the one hand or from eiero and deiero on the other.

The dropping of v(u) after a consonant is seen in aperio, operio for apverio, opverio, cf. Brugmann, I.F. I., p. 175, in battere for battuere, battalia for battualia, cf. Archiv, I., p. 249 and X., p. 421, and Schuchardt, Vocalismus, II., p. 470. The Appendix Probi, Archiv, XI., p. 329 has februarius non febrarius. See the note of Heraeus. Febrarius is abundantly attested in inscriptions and has its descendant in the Italian Febbraio. It is found also in a papyrus of the first century, first published in 1900.1 Schuchardt gives (II., p. 467 f.) many examples of u dropped in vulgar Latin. So Ianarius for Ianuarius, Conflentis for Confluentes, which gives us the modern Coblenz.

An interesting English parallel is seen in swear= iuro, whereas in the compound answer the w, although written, is not pronounced.

As to the form peiero, which seems not to be clearly established for Plautus, but which is frequent enough in later Latin (see Georges, Lexikon der Lat. Wortformen, s.v.), I should explain the dropping of the r as due to the same causes which have led to its disappearance in praestigiae, crebescere, and other words. A form like perierare or perieraris with three successive 's was difficult to pronounce, but neither the second nor the third could be dropped without making the form unintelligible and consequently the first was dropped. Cf. Grammont, La Dissimulation consonantique, p. 28. The forms deierare and eierare may also have contributed to the disappearance of the r, which was further helped on by a popular etymology connecting the word with peius.

1 Archives Militaires du 1er Siècle, Jules Nicole et Charles Morel, Genève, 1900.