paedias, which are far more bulky than any we have in the English or other European languages. Then come the Canonical Confucian Classics, with their hair-splitting commentaries; the Buddhist and Taoist works; the topographies; the biographies; the dictionaries; with the vast collections of essays and poetical compositions. The standard works in mathematics, agriculture, medicine, and other arts or sciences, in some cases a thousand or more years old, compare most favorably with the very best productions of Europe of the same dates.

The Chinese are not likely to throw away hastily these treasures of literature handed down as a rich legacy by their forefathers. They form the bond of union, binding together hundreds of millions of people, of widely different characteristics, into one vast commonwealth. The Chinese could no more do without them than we could give up our Bible, or Shakspere, or our Greek and Latin classics. They will engraft upon them whatever they feel to be of most value that can be translated from our Western books. The Confucian Classics and a few other works have been translated into English or other European languages. Much valuable service to philology still remains to be done in this direction.

10. F in Bacchylides, by Miss Beatrice Reynolds, of the Los Angeles High School.

Bacchylides, like Pindar, is eclectic in his treatment of F. Words with an original initial F sometimes permit hiatus, sometimes do not; in many instances it is a question whether hiatus is due to F or to the ictus. In no case does F help to make position.'

Medial F keeps the vowels open in ἀέθλον, ἀοιδά, ἀείδω, ἀέλιος (not always), ἀείρω (not always), ἀέξω (not always), ἄελλα, ἄελπτος, ἀερσίμαχος (a doubtful word), πνέω, πλέω.

The false F in elλero Fióv (arrow) V 75, is perhaps due to a confusion with Fibs (virus); cf. ▲ 116, èk d' ëλer' ¡bv. Further examples of false F are XVII 131, φρένα (F)ἰανθείς, ΙΙ, 7, αὐχένι (F)ἰσθμοῦ. The last is of interest to students of Pindar on account of Gildersleeve's contention for Fireμós in the Isthmian Odes.

Adjourned at 5.30 P.M.

THIRD SESSION.

The Third Session was called to order at 8 P.M. Owing to the absence of President Wheeler, the annual address of the President of the Association was omitted, and Professor Flügel spoke to the Association and many visiting teachers on University Ideals.'

FOURTH SESSION.

SAN FRANCISCO, December 29, 1900.

The Fourth Session was called to order at 9.30 A.M.

11. The Principles of Hermeneutics, by Professor J. Goebel, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

The application of the so-called scientific method to the problems of language and literature has, in my opinion, resulted in failure wherever it has not been restricted to the physiological functions of human speech. The final test of the scientific method, the test of the experiment, cannot be used by the philologian and the historian. The intellectual process by which we gain knowledge in the mental and historical sciences is called understanding. It may be called the process by which we know from given sensual signs a psychic factor. If our understanding is to become an artistic process, and carry with it the force of general validity, the manifestations of life which we are to understand must be permanently fixed. The artistic understanding of such permanently fixed manifestations of life is called interpretation or hermeneutics. The latter is concerned chiefly with the interpretation of the forms of human existence which are preserved in writing.

A short history of hermeneutics was here given, extending from its origin among the Greeks, to Schleiermacher, the greatest of modern interpreters.

At its best, hermeneutics had, up to Schleiermacher's time, been a system of rules, the parts of which, i.e. the single rules, had been held together by the aim of giving an interpretation of general validity. Schleiermacher went back of these rules to the analysis of the process of understanding. According to him, understanding is essentially a process of reconstructing and recreating, which is closely related to the creative act in the poet.

The interpretation of literary works is the artistic development of the process of understanding which takes place in the comprehension of all spoken or written works. The process of understanding consists of two elements: the understanding of speech as a part of common language and as a product of thought. We must distinguish, therefore, between grammatical and psychological interpretation. Whatever is to be explained in a work of literature must be explained from the language which the author and his hearers or readers had in common. Extensive reading alone can give this knowledge of the common language. Careful attention must be given to the new word formations of an author. It is necessary not only to distinguish between the real and the metaphorical sense of words, but also to go back to their original meaning and the subsequent history of their meaning. The original unity of the meaning of a word always governs the author in his use of the word, whether he is conscious of it or not. The concrete and sensual meaning is always the original meaning of words.

What is true of single words is true also of the connection of words in sentences. The knowledge of the syntactical usage is as necessary as the knowledge of the author's vocabulary. Since the meaning of a word frequently depends on the connection in which it is used, the importance of parallel passages is evident.

While the grammatical interpretation thus proceeds to understand the language of an author from the single words to the most complicated syntactic constructions, the psychological interpretation aims at the understanding of the productive process in the mind of the author.

The first aim of the psychological interpretation is to comprehend the unity of a work and the principal features of its composition. By the unity of the work, we understand the final motive or impulse which moved the author; by the principal features of the composition, we understand the individuality of the author as it reveals itself in the impulse.

The psychological interpretation may also be defined as the understanding of style. By style we do not only mean the exterior literary form of a work as it is expressed in language, but also the inner form which shows itself in the peculiar conception and arrangement of the subject matter. This distinction between the inner and exterior form of a work of literature is one of the greatest importance in Schleiermacher's Hermeneutics.

Psychological interpretation is divided into psychological interpretation proper and technical interpretation. It is the object of the former to understand the original impulse of the writer from his individuality, the origin of his thoughts from the totality of his life. The aim of the technical interpretation, on the other hand, is to trace back the author's work to the point where he began to meditate over the original impulse and choose the method of representation. While the meditation of the author refers to the conscious development of all the elements contained in the original unconscious impulse or conception of the work, the composition refers to the method of arranging the single parts of the work, or the expression in form of the contents developed by meditation. Again the individuality of the author will reveal itself in both processes. For a full understanding of the author it is necessary to know the relation between the act of meditation and composition in the mind of the writer.

From the preceding, it follows that exact knowledge is possible in the mental sciences without the aid of the scientific or laboratory methods. It is possible chiefly because we can reproduce in our inner experience the phenomena which we study. This cannot be said of the processes involved in the scientific experiment, because the phenomena of nature are pictures only of a reality reflected in our consciousness.

The Merrill.

paper was discussed by Professors Lathrop, Clapp, and

12. Corrections to Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon, eighth edition, by Professor A. T. Murray, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

These notes, made at various times, have been carefully compared with the (partially revised) eighth edition of the Lexicon, and are submitted, in this condensed form, in the hope that they may be of service when a thorough revision of that most useful book is undertaken. Some of the notes are of slight importance, but in lexicography exactness is to be insisted on.

aßpórλouros: in Eur. I.T. 1148, xλdâs, though generally read, is only an emendation of Markland's; the Mss. have xairas.

aßporns: for Eur. I. T. 1343, read I.A. 1343.

άуkáλŋ: Ar. Ran. 704 is really from Archilochus.

ἀκριδοθήκη: this form alone is given; yet in Theoc. I. 52, ἀκριδοθήραν is read by all the best editors, nor do Ziegler's Mss. show any variant. άvaπaúш: Theoc. 1. 17 is not "of the dead," but of Pan; it should be cited under II. 2. a, not II. 2. c.

ávaπTux: in Eur. El. 868, ȧμñ voal is not the probable reading. Read ἀμπτυχαί, with L2.

ȧravonμepitw: in the citation from Xen., read èïí, not eis.

ároλayɣávw: in Lys. 101. 3, is not "be named judge by lot," but "fail to be drawn as judge."

ἄσκη: "doкnois Plat. Com." But Pollux, 3. 154, whence the statement

is drawn, should be cited in full.

βλίτον: the plant should be defined, as this alone explains βλιτομάμμας. See editors on Ar. Nub, 1001.

βοή: βοάσομαι τὰν ὑπέρτονον βοάν, cited from Phryn. Com. Προαστρ. 4 (read 2a7. 4), occurs also in Ar. (Nub. 1154), and is really a quotation from the Peleus of Eur. (or Soph.). Again, Boǹv lorával is cited only from Antiph., but is common in tragedy, especially in Eur.

γόμφος: sub fin., for γόμφιος read γομφίος.

Yopyóvæτos: Ar. Ach. 1124 is inexactly cited.

Saiμováw: "c. acc. cogn. Ar. Thesm. 1054." A certainly wrong interpre

tation.

διάημι: in Οl. 5. 478, read διάη μένος not διάημενος (sic!)

Evepois: why the mention of Athenian women?

ikvéopaι: Plat. Protag. 311 D is cited both under II. 2. and under II. 3. b.;

the latter alone is right.

oμópуvuμ: Eur. Bacch, is not parodied in Ar. Ach.!

πivýxoμaι: in Theoc. 23. 61, cannot mean "came up from the nether world." ÉTITρоTEÚш: Ar. Eq. 212 is twice cited, once with the correct reading dμov, and once with πατρίδα.

épyágoμa: sub fin., for Ar. Lys. 148, read Ar. Eccl. 148.

EvρimiSapioтopavigw: correct and amplify from schol. Plat. Apol. 19 C.

(worpa: to be inserted, as read by best editors in Theoc. 2. 122 (i.e. πepì ζώστραισιν for περιζώστραισιν).

npioáλmy: Hesych. alone is cited, but the best editors give the word in Ar. Av. 888, supplied from a scholium.

Oñλus: line 8, for "Posit. and Comp." read "Comp. and Superl.”
Opéμμa: Antiph. Parasit. 1. 3 is cited under 3, and again under 5. The

former alone is right.

Kakoppołew: both passages cited from Ar. are Euripidean echoes. KаλUTTÓS: is used of two endings in a parodic passage in Ar. Thesm. 890. κатÓTTηS: Aеsch. Theb. 36 belongs, not here, but under kaтоTTηp, where it

is again cited.

Kvôμa: in Ar. Eccl. 36, is not used of one feeling for the door-handle in

the dark"; Praxagora has a light, and is only seeking to rouse

her neighbor, Oроyaνŵσα тǹν Oúpav; cf. Thesm. 481.

Koμчeía: Plat. Phaed. 101 C is cited as Phaedr. 101 C.

λáσкш: III, "in this sense only in Attic Poets, chiefly Trag."; but the

passages in Ar. are all tragic echoes.

μáσrıţ: II. sub fin., “ μ. Oɛoû of sickness, Ev. Marc. 5. 34”; but the text is simply ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγός σου.

μodúvw: in Theoc. 5. 87 the obj. is masc.

vavotoλéw: Ar. Av. 1229 is paratragedic, and the other occurrences in Ar.

are parodies.

gavlós: I. 2. fin., with the passage from Clem. Alex., Eur. I.T. 73 should

be cited.

olTos: sub fin., it should be stated that in Eur. I.T. 1091, editors read oikтpóv, after Barnes.

opadós: I. 4., Theoc. 12. 10 is cited with Aesch. Prom. 901 (óμalòs váμos, of marriage with an equal), but the lover simply prays that he may be loved even as he loves.

ŏμßpos: add = a snow storm, ll. 12. 286.

oxλnpós: Eur. Hel. is not parodied in Ar. Ach.!

Taλaμáoμaι: Ar. Ach. 659 is from Eur., so, probably, Pax 94.

Telpάw: Ar. l'esp. 1025 should be cited under IV. 2, not under I.

TEμTTAîos: for Xen. Anab. 6. 2. 9, read Xen. Anab. 6. 4. 9. The passage is also inexactly cited.

Tivάw: “Ar. Pl. 297 (v. 1. weɩv@vтa)," rather, "ex emend. Brunckii

(Mss. πεινῶντα).”

Tλi: add another definition, from Schol. Ar. Ach. 217, TÒ ȧπÒ TÊS

χειρὸς εἰς τὸν λιχανὸν δάκτυλον διάστημα.

πpâyos: of the Aristophanic passages cited, Lys. 706 is from Eur., and Av. 112 is paratragedic.

πрoσouρeîv: Ar. Ran. 95 is wrongly interpreted.

Tрouρyou: the citation from Ar. Eccl. 784 should be τ роυрyou.

TуρоTiηs: the v is marked short; it should be long.

Tupoos: the metaph. use in Eur. El. 587 is not noted; cf. páos.

pivos: II. 2, for Ar. Av. 1274, read Ar. Pax 1274.

σλýν: in Ar. Thesm. 3, it is weariness, not anxiety, that troubles Mnesil..

στáμvos: Ar. Lys. 196 belongs, not here, but under σraμviov.

στομφάζω: at the end occurs “ cf. στομφάζω,” read “ cf. στόμφαξ.”

στρόβος: at the end, for " cf. στροβύω,” read " cf. στροβέω.”

σTρovlós: I. 2., in Anab. 1. 5. 2, the word is fem., not masc.

σvvdokéw: Eur. I. T. 71 is wrongly interpreted.

σUVTEίVW: Eur. I. T. 207 is wrongly interpreted.

σûply: II. 2., not "the hole in the nave of the wheel," but the nave itself is the meaning in all the passages cited, unless in Soph.. El. 721 it is the projecting end of the axle.

ovpila: top of p. 1505 a. For κισσοδέτας ὁ κάλαμος, read ὁ κηροδέτας

κάλαμος.

PATEpos: "not found in Att." Yet it occurs, in anapaests, in Eur. Hipp. 185 and 192, and has some warrant in Anab. 1. 9. 29.