so our scribe, by retaining his natural n (even in enberig, grornbær, unneg, etc., where the erect form would have fitted. in better between the neighboring letters), has betrayed the fact that the rarer runes belong to his natural hand and that, when he uses the usual runes, he is adopting forms that were then encroaching upon the usage of his home. The conclusions that we have thus been able to draw from our inscription are of importance, not only to the history of Old-English runes, but also to the history of runes in general, and thus to that of the Western Greek alphabets. We have seen that the succumbing hand retained the broken Greek iota with the value of i. In the usual runic system the two forms of iota have become differentiated, so that the broken one stood for j (cf. p. 190 above) and the straight one for i. This differentiation is a part of the 3 × 8 formulation of the futhark, and this formulation was regarded by Wimmer as original, and is probably still generally regarded as common Germanic. In the article referred to above (Wimmers Runenlehre in Philologische Studien) I proved by argumentation that this formulation could not have been original. In our inscription we now find the historic evidence that there once was a highly developed system of runic writing in use in northern England that was independent of this formulation and maintained itself until a comparatively late date, that is, until after the time of i-mutation and the development (in other Old-English territory) of the runes a and No out of Nai and Han (Modern Language Notes, June, 1896) and of out of the A and <c of earlier inscriptions. This establishes the position taken by me (Journal of Germanic Philology, II., p. 374, etc.), that the 3×8 formulation was made in some one locality and then extended to others. Attention must also be called to the fact that thee in the isolated system is a development of an erect Greek E, while the e (MM) of other runic systems arose out of a prone Greek. We have also seen that the variant runes for a and a had a development independent of that of the usual rune F. Similar diversity is found in the earlier stages of other alphabets. It was but yesterday that we were taught that the Latin alphabet of the republic must be derived (except for G) from some one Greek alphabet having all the same characteristics. We now know that it was the resultant of various rival forms of Greek alphabets, and that HR and V prevailed only after a struggle with BP and Y, all of which were once in use in Rome. In a forthcoming paper (read at the Philological Congress at Philadelphia in December, 1900) on the Praenestine Cista at Paris, I have shown that O and were both in use in Praeneste, and were differentiated, not as close and open1o as in the Ionic alphabet, but as open and close o, as in the alphabets of Delos, Paros, Siphnos, Thasos, etc. The diversities that I have pointed out in the development of the runes, indisputably establish my contention that the Greek letters came to the Germanic peoples as they did to the Italians. Various forms came in and vied with one another, the weaker succumbing sooner or later to the stronger. We have not yet arrived at the point where we can see just when and how the Greek letters passed to the Germanic peoples, but every bit of new evidence is against the theory of their artificial construction, and brings the history of their development into harmony with what we know of the development of other ancient alphabets. I may add that Napier is in error in saying (p. 371 ft.) that the variant @-rune is identical with the c-rune used on the other side of the casket. The variant @-rune is (not X) and the c-rune is, and this distinction is carefully made in every case. Vietor (p. 8) is also in error in supposing that 1 It is high time that scholars cease to speak of 0 and 2 as having been used to distinguish the short and the long sounds of o. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the Greeks did not attempt to indicate quantity (witness a v), but did largely distinguish the open and the close o and the open and the close e. Thus O represented the o in poetic, & the o in or, E represented the first a in aerial, H the a in care. That the close vowels were short and the open vowels long was an accident. Still, scholars that know better, continue to express themselves in a way (for example, "das Bedürfnis einer Differenzierung des langen und kurzen o-Lautes," Larfeld in Müller's Handbuch, I., p. 521) that can only result in misleading learners. the variant a-rune is identical with the c-rune; they too are in all cases carefully distinguished. Vietor, who wishes to read FX N as āglāc, imagines our scribe in a truly pitiful plight. He says: "possibly the carver intended to put [translation of German setzen] AC, but, having used up the sign C as A, was at a loss what to do, or found the space was too narrow." I shall deal with this matter more fully in the review in Anglia. Napier errs also in supposing that, when the scribe uses the ordinary runes F (in the ligature fa) and Me among the variant runes, he is using them not in their ordinary values but as arbitrary signs for some other sounds. (Napier was probably led to this idea by supposing that the variant @-rune was only the ordinary c-rune with an arbitrary value.) No violence is done by supposing the letters to have their normal values, and it is not at all strange that a scribe who used two different sets of letters in one and the same piece should have let two of one system slip in among the others. I have done so myself many a time in writing a passage of English after writing one of German or Greek. In the case of særden, the scribe may have been unwittingly led to use Min contrast to the following n. Vietor (p. 9) suggests that the rune may be "a disfigured u." see a u in the letter in as much as s@rdun is the older form, the more so as I have shown that the engraver's natural u was N and the e in afitatores appears in Napier's fac simile in almost exactly this form. One might suppose that the engraver had to some extent confused his natural u and his acquired Me. Vietor's fac simile of afitatores, however, shows the letter to be an M without question, and careful examination of the various fac similes makes it certain that we have the same rune in særden. We must, therefore, see in særden the not uncommon Northumbrian coincidence of the preterit indicative with the preterit subjunctive (Sievers, § 364, A 4). One is tempted to I said above that it would not be strange if a scribe who used two different sets of letters on one and the same piece should have let some of one system slip in among those of the other. We have a similar case1 on the back panel of this very casket. The scribe was translating from the Latin, and had writen in runes Her fegtab Titus end Giubeas, when he came to the subordinate clause (describing the second half of the picture) ut hic fugiant Hicrusalim habitatores. By mistake, he began to copy this in Latin instead of translating it—but continued to write in runic! When he had got his written as N, he discovered his mistake and, while continuing in Latin, used Latin letters. The T he placed in the blank space under the central ornament above the arch, hic fugiant Hierusalim, follows along the upper right-hand edge. When he turned the panel and completed the sentence, he again slipped and wrote the Latin word in runes! A few words as to what the inscription does not give us. There was no occasion for a sign for p or ŋ, and, of course, none for the old z-rune; hence none of these occur. X is used for both the voiced and the voiceless fricatives, standing thus on a par with,, and . therefore does not appear for x2 and is used only for the initial breathing. The only word in which we might expect a j-rune is the name of the Jews, which appears as giubeas. Here we find both X and I employed to represent j, and we may infer that the runic system natural to the engraver had no special letter for the sound. appears twice for a, and A once for y, but neither in the inscription with the variant runes. In this there was also no occasion for the use of the runes for / and c. It is particularly unfortunate that the scribe did not have an opportunity to show us what forms the runes for c, n, and p had in his native hand. We are so much in need of further information as to the development of these runes, that one cannot but seriously regret that this unique monument does not render us in these particulars the aid it does in others. 1 Burg (cf. Vietor, p. 10) deserves credit for the suggestion that the ▲ was "a corruption of ut" and that fugiant was a subjunctive dependent upon it. I found the T and the explanation of the confusion of English and Latin and of runes and uncials. 2 On a subsequent occasion I shall show that Sievers was right in suggesting h as the normal value of, though it was later used for x too. ΧΙ. — Notes on the Greek Θεωρός and Θεωρία. BY DR. CLARENCE P. BILL, ADELBERT COLLEGE. I. THE word ewpós has the following meanings: (a) Spectator: Aesch. Cho. 245, Pr. 118, Fr. 289; Eur. Ion. 1076; Plat. Legg. 637 C, 953 A, Rep. 467 C, 537 A, Tim. 57 D, Epinom. 986 D; Aristot. 1336 b 36, 1358 b 2, 1391 b 17. (b) A delegate sent by a state to attend a festival in another state : Aesch. Θεωροὶ ἢ Ἰσθμιασταί, title of a tragedy to which belong Frgg. 79-82; Plat. Legg. 950 D, E; Dem. 19, 128. (c) One who goes to consult an oracle : Theogn. 805; Epich. in Ath. 3, 107 a; 7, 362 b; 9, 408 d; Soph. O. C. 413, O. R. 114; Eur. Hipp. 792 and 8o7 ; Thuc. 5, 16, 2. (d) An envoy sent to announce in another state the coming celebration of a festival : In First occurs in an inscription, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 5, 303 (c. 276 B.C.). literature first found in Polyb. 31, 3, 1. (e) A regular magistrate employed by certain of the Thuc. 5, 47, 9; and Archaeologische-Epigraphische no. 2. 1 Under each meaning of ewpós references are given to all examples which occur in the works of writers not later than Aristotle, or in inscriptions of the same period. No attempt is made to give a complete list of later examples. |