words "filiae pater non merenti feci"; though the literal meaning of these words is the opposite of 10696 of the same volume, "coniugi bene merenti fecit," it is intended to convey a similar idea. Again, in VI, 2, 6686, we find "fecit libes animo," and in VI, 4, Fasc. I, "titulum tibi feci libenter," but the meaning is not the opposite of the "dolens posuit" of XI, 557

Though the writer of the epitaph under consideration has perhaps expressed himself awkwardly and with too great brevity, yet he used language whose meaning could hardly be misunderstood by his fellow-countrymen who were familiar with the usual brevity employed in epitaphs. The meaning appears perfectly clear to us when we compare the language here used with similar expressions which set forth the same thought more fully. C. I. L. VIII, Supp. I, 13134, is an epitaph inscribed by the wife in honor of her husband. The last sentence is as follows: "Sed ago superis gratias, quod, dum e[g]o viver[em], nil voluptatibus meis negavit, quia et ipsa meruera (m)." In C. I. L. VI, 4, Fasc. I, 29186, the husband returns thanks to his wife, "cui semper gratias." Here the verb is omitted. In VI, 2, 14537, the form of expression used is, "ago memoriae vestrae gratias." X, 1, 3162, is a fragmentary inscription which according to the restoration. of Mommsen, and there can be little doubt with regard to the general correctness of his interpretation, reads as follows: "cui ma[ritus] in die [funeris pia men]te grat[ias di]cit.”

The epitaph we are considering differs from these last quoted simply in omitting some such expression as "memoriae tuae" or "pia menta," or some clause stating the reason for rendering thanks which would remove all obscurity even in the outward form. Other epitaphs of similar import might be added, but those already quoted are doubtless sufficient in number to remove any doubt with regard to the meaning which the writer intended to convey. We must accordingly acknowledge that this epitaph was intended as a genuine tribute of love and that its tone is far more pleasing than that of IX, 5813, "quod fas non fuit monimentum feci: quod inprecabo (or increpabo) superos et iferos." These two

epitaphs illustrate the two views presented by Seneca (Ad Marciam de Consolatione XII, 1), and the one under discussion displays that attitude for which he expresses his preference: "Si confessa fueris percepisse magnas voluptates, oportet te non de eo quod detractum est queri, sed de eo gratias agere quod contigit."

III. On the Accent of Certain Enclitic Combinations in

Greek.

BY PROF. FRANCIS G. ALLINSON,

BROWN UNIVERSITY.

JACOB WACKERNAGEL, who has done so much for our knowledge of Greek accent, contributed in a Baseler Programm for 1893 certain "Beiträge zur Lehre vom Griechischen Akzent." While Hirt in his recent (1895) Handbuch des Indogermanischen Akzents accepts some of Wackernagel's contentions, he rejects his ingenious explanation of the retraction of the accent in eywye, etc., and attempts to include this also under a new and, as it will perhaps seem to many, artificial formula which he uses to explain the shift of accent like that in unτηp and μnтpós. Hirt's formula (p. 32) is: "Ruht der Ton auf einer langen Ultima, so wird der Akzent zurückgezogen," e.g. vos as against Skr. vasnás. He therefore assumes that an original *ey and *ěμo were thus preserved in the case of the nom. and dat. of eywye. Wackernagel's contention (Beitr. p. 20) was that the retracted accent of the stem euo- is older than the oxytone épos; that therefore eμorye is older than époí; that eywye (although eyó corresponded to Skr. ahám, accent and all), developing on a combination later than eμoye, adapted its accent to the latter, while euéye is explained away by assuming its development from *μéye and a prothetic ε. As Hirt (p. 33) remarks, this is 'schön ausgedacht,' but is not convincing. But neither do I feel convinced of the value of Hirt's general formula, and consequently do not accept his incidental settlement of this point. The explanation previously (1891) suggested by me in a foot-note to p. 50, A. J. P. Vol. XII., is, I still think, as plausible as any. In arguing there against Professor B. I. Wheeler's brilliant

theory of a 'Dactylic paroxytone law' there is pointed out the behavior of the accent in active oxytone compounds with trochaic endings like κυνηγός, μελοποιός, etc., and recessive compounds like ἀντίφωνος, etc. Here we find that the alternative is strict, either oxytone or proparoxytone-not even properispomenon is resorted to except in certain categories which doubtless have their own explanation. There was also drawn into connection with this the most striking deviation in Greek from the so-called Three Morae Law.' In such a sentence, for example, as οἱ δ' ἄνθρωποι ἐμπίπτουσιν ἔξωθεν, there occurs in three of the five words this skipping of the long penult in violation of the 'three morae' principle. Whatever may be the ultimate explanation of all these phenomena, it does not seem to me that we can as yet go back of a simple repugnance of the language to accenting the penult in words. ending with this trochaic cadence.2

In the words in question we find : —

that is, where the genitive already gave a properispomenon, no change was made; but, as changing the nom. and dat. into properispomena was evidently out of the question, the accent was retracted and we find the familiar type of proparoxytone with trochaic cadence. The accusative èuéye, again, gave no difficulty; the tribrach endings, as I have shown in the article cited, fare alike with the dactyls as far as paroxytonesis is

1 I venture still to call it a theory,' although Hirt, following Brugmann's weighty authority, speaks of it as 'eine Entdeckung.' But inasmuch as Hirt (p. 28) says that Wheeler has no phonetic explanation to offer further than 'die Neigung der Sprache . . . dem Hochton eine lange Silbe immer vorauszuschicken,' it would seem safer, however enticing this law may appear, still to reserve final assent. I have shown (1.c.) that Brugmann's essentially modified statement (i.e. bloss an die Kürze der vorletzten Silbe sich anknüpfend'; see Wheeler, p. 61, note) is consistent with facts about tribrach and other endings; these, on the other hand, so obstinately contradict Wheeler's 'Dactylic Law' as to leave, in my judgment, the burden of proof still upon the shoulders of its adherents.

2 Another explanation, which reduces the penult to one and one-half morae, is advanced by Hirt (p. 37), but not with any very great confidence.

concerned.

pyrrhics.

The point in common is that they are both

Hirt assumes an *eyw and *epot as preserved in the enclitic combination, and that eye and époí were accented anew after the analogy of ἐμέ.

The lack of agreement between such types as Grk. eidos and Skr. vedas (Bloomfield, A. J. P. IX. p. 25, which is quoted with approval by Hirt) shows, it might also be urged, how inexorable was the tendency to avoid paroxytonesis in trochaic endings, and this much is plain whether it be attributed with Bloomfield to the recessive tendency or otherwise explained with Hirt. À propos of μnrnp-or Hirt's theoretical * μητήρ — μητρός may be mentioned the curious accent of the compound Δημήτηρ, Δήμητρος, where the accent refuses to remain oxytone or to follow the position of that of the nominative and to become properispomenon *Anunτpos in the genitive.1

Doubtless it would be more satisfactory if we could establish a survival of a more ancient *eyw and eμo, than it is to fall back thus upon this unexplained tendency to favor a certain cadence. There are other trochaic combinations of enclitics, indeed, that apparently conquer this repugnance and show paroxytone accent, - καίτοι, ἤτοι, τοιγάρτοι, τοίνυν, καίπερ, ὥσπερ, ἤπερ, ὥστε, εἴθε, and εἴτε. These forms are difficult to explain. It may be claimed that the momentum of a common word like κaí is such as to forbid the change of accent in the new and temporary combination with the enclitic, and perhaps this is a sufficient explanation. In none of them, moreover, except Toyápтoi, would recession beyond the long penult be possible. It is a temptation, however, to try to explain some, at least, of these on other grounds.

The recent but now generally accepted-explanation of the accent of (properispomenon) oikot (nom.) as compared with (paroxytone) oйkot (loc.) and with the long quantity of the ultima in the opt. mood, by calling in the undertone, drawled (schleifender) accent from the Lithuanian, suggests

1 Bopp, Accentuationssystem, p. 20.