Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

Bloomfield would not, as I infer from an informal conversation, accept as proved on Greek ground this Baltic-Slavonic circumflex on a vowel + liquid or nasal, with which Wackernagel operates to explain evð á mote, etc. Hirt, however (p. 38), accepts Wackernagel's contention with enthusiasm, and not only says, “wir müssten eigentlich ¿vdov te schreiben, wobei alles klar wird,” but he actually finds it necessary to account for the properispomenon oikov co-existing with the ‘drawled' tone on the ultima, and he says (1.c.), “als notwendige Folgerung ist nun aufzustellen, dass die einfachen langen Vokale mit Stosston ā, w für den Akzent kurz waren, es müsste eben so gut xôpā, wie oicou geschrieben werden." Certainly this is going still further than the suggestions here offered with all due hesitation.

There would still remain ώστε, είτε, είθε, and the strange vaíxı, etc., though bote and cite may perhaps be sufficiently explained as composed of the union of proclitics and enclitics.

One other contention made by Wackernagel in his Beiträge raises an objection that he does not seem to have noticed. He contends (Beitr. p. 21 ff.) that the Greeks really pronounced every accented ultima before an enclitic with the acute accent even where the circumflex was written : thus αγαθού τινος was pronounced αγαθού τινος. This would avoid the violation of the 'three morae' law which occurs in åyaloû Tlvos, where the circumflex really brings the accent four morae from the end of the combination. He says (p. 21): "Da ein wirklicher Zirkumflex nicht zwei unbetonte Silben hinter sich haben kann, muss in solchen Fällen ein Akut gesprochen und der Zirkumflex bloss darum geschrieben worden sein, weil er der betr. Form auch sonst eigen war.” But in the case of αντινων, even if one were to assume *ώντινων for the pronun. ciation, we should still have an equally inadmissible proparoxytone with a long ultima.

His statement of the accentuation of the last syllable before an enclitic must therefore be made more sweeping or this explanation must yield to another.

Finally, — to return to the terminations with trochaic cadence, — Wackernagel's convincing application of the enclisis of the finite verb, upon which is built up his whole theory of the 'recessive accent,' deals notably with a case of the skipping over the trochee. The whole paradigm of eiuí exemplifies it, and the forms orui and onoi — certainly the most prominent of that paradigm — are of the same measure : in their case it was oxytonel or nothing, unless under certain exceptional conditions.

So, too, among the enclitic pronouns the only trochaic forms, obwé and opwiv, are oxytone when accented at all.

Cf. e.g. the anomalous ti onui; Soph. 0. T. 1471.

IV. The Origin of Sigma Lunatum.

BY JOHN HENRY WRIGHT,

HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

The earliest and indeed the only form of sigma found upon the most ancient Greek papyri 1 is the sigma lunatum, or crescent-shaped sigma, — a form also referred to in literature as far back as the age of Alexander. In a well-known line of the iambographer Aeschrio, the contemporary and friend of Aristotle,2 the (new) moon is described as the beautiful sigma of the heavens. On the Artemisia papyrus 4 in Vienna, which may still be regarded as the oldest 5 Greek inscribed papyrus (ca. 300 B.C.), the letter assumes an angular form <. This crescent-shaped sigma persisted without essential modification for more than a thousand years. Inscriptions, however, contemporary with the oldest papyri, as well as those of earlier and later date, regularly 6 give us the four-bar Ionic form (<).

Sigma lunatum is usually explained as derived from the Ionic sigma by successive simplifications, due, first, to a rounding of the exterior angles, and, secondly, either to a merging of the outer curves thus obtained into one long

1 Cf. Blass, Griechische Paläographie (I. Müller, Handbuch 12), pp. 304 ff. 2 So at least Suidas (Ptolemy Chennus ?).

3 Mývn kaldv oúpa voû véov oiyua, ap. Walz, Rhet. Graeci, III. 651 (Anon. Epit. Rhet.). Bergk suggests that vén should be read, 'verbis audacius traiectis' (P. L. G. 114. p. 516). Of course véov does not mean “a new form of sigma.'

4 Facsimile in Palaeographical Society, II. pl. 141, and in part in Thompson, Handbook of Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 118. Cf. Blass, Philologus, XLI. p. 746 f.

5 Thompson, loc., p. 118. Mahaffy places slightly earlier than the Artemisia papyrus some scraps from Gurob, in which the Labors of Heracles seem to be described (Petrie Papyri, pp. 52 ff., and table of alphabets opposite p. 64). Wattenbach speaks of this alphabet as about the same age as the Artemisia papyrus (Anleitung zur Griechischen Paläographie, 3d ed., p. 9). Cf. Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 30, note.

6 Sporadically sigma lunatum appears on the stones from the fourth century B.C. onward: cf. Larfeld, Griech. Epi raphik (I. Müller, Handbuch 12) p. 535.

sweeping crescent (with or without an attempt to preserve a trace of the entering angle), or to a discarding of one of the curves. This derivation may be illustrated as follows:

*+ -+ -+

It is the purpose of this paper to show that the more probable derivation of sigma lunatum is from the three-bar Attic letter >, of which it was an earlier cursive form. Or:

s →& +* +0 The evidence upon which this theory is based is drawn in large part from the Athenian vase inscriptions of the fifth and fourth centuries B.C. In palaeographical questions of this sort the evidence of the vases has been too little employed. The vase inscriptions stand midway between epigraphical and palaeographical monuments, sharing the qualities of cach : between these two stools they fall to the ground. The neglect of them is due in part also to the inadequate character of much of our information concerning the true forms of letters on the vases. Editors of catalogues of vase collections, and other writers on the subject, are frequently satisfied with giving only a few representative forms, from fonts of printed type, and not exact facsimiles from which alone safe inferences can be drawn. The tables of facsimiles, however, in Jahn's Munich catalogue and in Heydemann's Naples catalogue, and the carefully executed facsimiles in Furtwängler's model Berlin catalogue, are happy exceptions. In these facsimiles, in a few others in recent periodical publications, as well as on the vases themselves (in the Boston collection), I have found what appear to me sufficient data for determining the question.

The inquiry is interesting as throwing some new light on the probable forms of the letters used in the autograph manuscripts of the great writers of the fifth century B.C.

My contention, then, is in brief that sigma lunatum is a cursive form of the three-bar Attic s. It is important, before proceeding further, to define what we here mean by a 'cursive' letter, since there are two classes of forms to which the term might be applied.

1 Blass, Griech. Paläographie, p. 304.

There are two classes of cursive forms, which we may designate respectively as normal cursives, and as casual cursives. The former are the shapes that letters regularly assume, when one writes currente calamo. As contrasted with the engraved 'print' form, they are commonly uniform and rounded, instead of angular. The latter, the 'casual' cursives, are the irregular forms into which, in hasty writing, the set, engraved, or print letters are thrown. When in an epigraphic monument — an Athenian decree, for example

— we find a rounded form of a letter, instead of the more usual angular form, in the midst of carefully cut letters retained in the angular form, we may safely assume that this rounded letter is a 'normal' cursive imported into the epigraphical alphabet from the script. Such an occurrence may be used as a test of the normal cursive letters. Inscriptions of all sorts furnish excellent examples of both kinds of cursives. The same letter, at a given date, may have then three distinct kinds of form : (1) the regular epigraphic, monumental form, which may or may not differ from (2) its normal cursive form; (3) one or more casual cursive forms. Thus, for the Ionic sigma we have: (1) < ; (2) , as I shall later seek to show; and (3) {, E, etc. For Attic sigma we have: (1) S; (2) < or C; and (3) S, S, h, etc.

Of course we must assume that the normal cursive originated in a casual cursive which convenience in writing had made a typical form. For convenience, in the remaining part of this discussion, the word cursive, when used alone, will be employed in the sense of the 'normal' form. And in the application of this criterion to vase inscriptions the utmost caution must be exercised.

That there were true cursive letters in the Old Attic alphabet, or in fact much before the beginning of the fourth century B.C., in short, that there was a script hand differing from the monumental hand in the fifth century, has been either

« ПредишнаНапред »