Part 9

One of the mechanical inconveniences arising from the use of the signs of quantity is this--when a long syllable is accented, two signs fall upon it. To remedy this, the work before us considers that the stress is to be laid on the syllable _preceding the accent_. Yet, if an accent mean anything, it means that the stress fall on the syllable which it stands _over_.

A few remarks upon words like _Pīeridæ_, where the accent was omitted.--Here two short syllables come between two long ones. No accent, however, is placed over either. Evidently, quantity and accent are so far supposed to coincide, that the accentuation of a short vowel is supposed to make it look like a long one. It is a matter of fact, that if, on a word like _Cassiŏpe_, we lay an accent on the last syllable but one, we shock the ears of scholars, especially metrical ones. Does it, however, lengthen the vowel? The editors of the work in question seem to think that it does, and, much more consistent than scholars in general, hesitate to throw it back upon the preceding syllable, which is short also. Metrists have no such objection; their practice being to say _Cassíope_ without detriment to the vowel. The entomologists, then, are the more consistent.

They are, however, more consistent than they need be. If an accent is wanted, it may fall on the shortest of all possible syllables. Granting, however, that _Cassiópe_ (whether the _o_ be sounded as in _nōte_ or _nŏt)_ is repugnant to metre, and _Cassíope_ to theory, what is their remedy? It is certainly true that _Cássiope_ is pronounceable. Pope writes--

"Like twinkling stars the _miscellanies_ o'er."

No man reads this _miscéllanies_; few read it _míscellánies_. The mass say _mis´cellanies_. Doing this, they make the word a quadrisyllable; for less than this would fall short of the demands of the metre. They also utter a word which makes _Cas´siope_ possible. Is _Cássiope_, however, the sound? Probably not. And here authors must speak for themselves:--

"Take, _e. g._, _Cassiope_ and _Corticea_: in words like the former of these, in which the last syllable is long, there is no greater difficulty of pronunciation in laying the stress upon the first syllable than upon the second."

True! but this implies that we say _Cássiopé_. Is _-e_, however, one bit the longer for being accented, or can it bear one iota more of accent for being long? No. Take _-at_ from _peat_, and _-t_ from _pet_, and the result is _pe_--just as long or just as short in one case as the other.

The same power of accenting the first syllable is "particularly the case in those words in which the vowel _i_ can assume the power of _y_. Latin scholars are divided as to the proper accentuation of _mulieres_, _Tulliola_, and others: though custom is in favour of _mulíeres_, _mul´ieres_ appears to be more correct." Be it so. Let _mulieres_ be _múlyeres_. What becomes, however, of the fourth syllable? The word is no quadrisyllable at all. What is meant is this:--not that certain quadrisyllables with two short vowels in the middle are difficult to accentuate, but that they are certain words of which it is difficult to say whether they are trisyllables or quadrisyllables.

For all practical purposes, however, words like _Cassiope_ are quadrisyllables. They are, in the way of metre, choriambics; and a choriambic is a quadrisyllable foot. They were pronounced _Cassíope_, &c., by English writers of Latin verses--when Latin verses were written well.

Let the pronunciation which was good enough for Vincent Bourne and the contributors to the Musæ Etonenses be good enough for the entomologists, and all that they will then have to do is not to pronounce _cratægum_ like _stratagem_, _cardamines_ like _Theramenes_, and _vice versâ_. Against this, accent will ensure them--accent single-handed and without any sign of quantity--_Cardamínes_, _Therámenes_, _cratæ´gum_, _strátagem_.

V.

CHRONOLOGICA.

ON THE MEANING OF THE WORD ΣΑΡΟΣ.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY. APRIL 11, 1845.

The words σάρος and _sarus_ are the Greek and Latin forms of a certain term used in the oldest Babylonian chronology, the meaning of which is hitherto undetermined. In the opinion of the present writer, the _sarus_ is a period of 4 years and 340 days.

In the way of direct external evidence as to the value of the epoch in question, we have, with the exception of an unsatisfactory passage in Suidas, at the hands of the ancient historians and according to the current interpretations, only the two following statements:--

1. That each _sarus_ consisted of 3600 years (ἔτη).

2. That the first ten kings of Babylon reigned 120 _sari_, equal to 432,000 years; or on an average 43,200 years apiece.

With _data_ of this sort, we must either abandon the chronology altogether, or else change the power of the word _year_. The first of these alternatives was adopted by Cicero and Pliny, and doubtless other of the ancients--_contemnamus etiam Babylonios et eos qui e Caucaso cœli signa observantes numeris et motubus stellarum cursus persequuntur; condemnemus inquam hos aut stultitiæ aut vanitatis aut impudentiæ qui_ CCCCLXX _millia annorum, ut ipsi dicunt, monumentis comprehensa continent_.--_Cic. de Divinat._, from Cory's _Ancient Fragments_. Again--_e diverso Epigenes apud Babylonios_ DCCXX _annorum observationes siderum coctilibus laterculis inscriptas docet, gravis auctor in primis: qui minimum Berosus et Critodemus_ CCCCLXXX _annorum_.--Pliny, vii. 56. On the other hand, to alter the value of the word ἔτος or _annus_ has been the resource of at least one modern philologist.

Now if we treat the question by what may be called the _tentative_ method, the first step in our inquiry will be to find some division of time which shall, at once, be _natural_ in itself, and also short enough to make 10 _sari_ possible parts of an average human life. For this, even a _day_ will be too long. _Twelve hours_, however, or half a νυχθήμερον, will give us possible results.

Taking this view therefore, and leaving out of the account the 29th of February, the words ἔτος and _annus_ mean, not a year, but the 730th part of one; 3600 of which make a _sarus_. In other words, a _sarus_ = 1800 day-times and 1800 night-times, or 3600 half νυχθήμερα, or 4 years+340 days.

The texts to which the present hypothesis applies are certain passages in Eusebius and Syncellus. These are founded upon the writings of Alexander Polyhistor, Apollodorus, Berosus, and Abydenus. From hence we learn the length of the ten reigns alluded to above, viz. 120 _sari_ or 591 years and odd days. _Reigns_ of this period are just possible. It is suggested, however, that the _reign_ and _life_ are dealt with as synonymous; or at any rate, that some period beyond that during which each king sat singly on his throne has been recorded.

The method in question led the late Professor Rask to a different power for the word _sarus_. In his _Ældste Hebraiske Tidregnung_ he writes as follows: "The meaning of the so-called _sari_ has been impossible for me to discover. The ancients explain it differently. Dr. Ludw. Ideler, in his _Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie_, i. 207, considers it to mean some lunar period; without however defining it, and without sufficient closeness to enable us to reduce the 120 _sari_, attributed to the ten ancient kings, to any probable number of real years. I should almost believe that the _sarus_ was a year of 23 months, so that the 120 _sari_ meant 240 natural years." _p._ 32. Now Rask's hypothesis has the advantage of leaving the meaning of the word _reign_ as we find it. On the other hand, it blinks the question of ἔτη or _anni_ as the parts of a _sarus_. Each doctrine, however, is equally hypothetical; the value of the _sarus_, in the present state of our inquiry, resting solely upon the circumstance of its giving a plausible result from plausible assumptions. The _data_ through which the present writer asserts for his explanation the proper amount of probability are contained in two passages hitherto unapplied.

1. From Eusebius--_is_ (Berosus) sarum _ex annis 3600 conflat. Addit etiam nescio quem_ nerum _ac_ sosum: nerum _ait 600 annis constare, sosum annis 60. Sic ille de veterum more annos computat._--Translation of the Armenian Eusebius, p. 5, from _Fragmenta Historicorum Græcorum_, p. 439: Paris, 1841.

2. Berosus--σάρος δέ ἐστιν ἕξακόσια καὶ τρισχίλια ἔτη, νῖ ρος δὲ ἕξακόσια, σώσσος ἑξήκοντα.--From Cory's _Ancient Fragments_.

Now the assumed value of the word translated _year_ (viz. 12 hours), in its application to the passages just quoted, gives for the powers of the three terms three divisions of time as natural as could be expected under the circumstances.

1. Σώσσος.--The _sosus_ = 30 days and 30 nights, or 12 hours × 60, or a month of 30 days, μὴν τριακονθήμερος. Aristotle writes--ἡ μὴν Λακωνικὴ ἕκτον μέρος τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν ἡμέραι ἑξήκοντα.--From Scaliger, _De Emendatione Temporum_, p. 23. Other evidence occurs in the same page.

2. Νῆρος.--The _nerus_ = 10 _sosi_ or months=the old Roman year of that duration.

3. Σάρος.--The _sarus_ = 6 _neri_ or 60 months of 30 days each; that is, five proper years within 25 days. This would be a cycle or _annus magnus_.

All these divisions are probable. Against that of 12 hours no objection lies except its inconvenient shortness. The month of 30 days is pre-eminently natural. The year of 10 months was common in early times. In favour of the _sarus_ of five years (or nearly so) there are two facts:--

1. It is the multiple of the _sosus_ by 10, and of the _nerus_ by 6.

2. It represents the period when the natural year of 12 months coincides for the first time with the artificial one of 10; since 60 months = 6 years of 10 months and 5 of 12.

The historical application of these numbers is considered to lie beyond the pale of the present inquiry.

In Suidas we meet an application of the principle recognised by Rask, viz. the assumption of some period of which the _sarus_ is a fraction. Such at least is the probable view of the following interpretation: ΣΆΡΟΙ--μέτρον καὶ ἁριθμὸς παρὰ Χαλδαίοις, οἳ γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, οἳ γίγνονται ιε´ ἔνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἕξ.--From Cory's _Ancient Fragments_[3].

[Footnote 3: This gloss in some MSS. is filled up thus:--

Σάροι. μέτρον καὶ ἀριθμος παρὰ Χαλδαίοις. ὁι γὰρ ρκ´ σάροι ποιοῦσιν ἐνιαυτοὺς βσκβ´, κατὰ τὴν τῶν Χαλδαίων ψῆφον, εἴπερ ὁ σάρος ποιεῖ μῆνας σεληνιακῶν σκβ´, ὁὶ γίνονται ιε´ ἐνιαυτοὶ καὶ μῆνες ἥξ.]

In Josephus we find the recognition of an _annus magnus_ containing as many ἔτη as the _nerus_ did: ἔπειτα καὶ δι' ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν εὐχρηστίαν ὧν ἐπενόουν ἀστρολόγιας καὶ γεωμὲτριας πλέον ζῇν τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς παρασχεῖν ἅπερ οὐκ ἧν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτοῖς προειπεῖν ζήσασιν ἑξακοσίους ἐνιαυτούς· διὰ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὁμέγας ἐνιαυτὸς πληροῦται.--_Antiq._ i. 3.

The following doctrine is a suggestion, viz. that in the word _sosus_ we have the Hebrew שֵש = six. If this be true, it is probable that the _sosus_ itself was only a secondary division, or some other period multiplied by six. Such would be a period of five days, or ten ἔׁτη (so-called). With this view we get two probabilities, viz. a subdivision of the month, and the alternation of the numbers 6 and 10 throughout; _i. e._ from the ἔτος[4] (or 12 hours) to the _sarus_ (or five years).

[Footnote 4: In the course of the evening it was stated, that even by writers quoted by Syncellus ἔτος had been translated _day_; and a reference was made to an article in the Cambridge Philological Museum _On the Days of the Week_, for the opinion of Bailly in modern, and of Annianus and Panodorus in ancient times: ταῦτα ἔτη ἡμέρας ἐλογίσαντο στοχαστικῶς.--p. 40, vol. i. See also p. 42.]

* * * * *

After the reading of this paper, a long discussion followed on the question, how far the _sarus_ could be considered as belonging to historical chronology. The Chairman (Professor Wilson) thought there could be no doubt that the same principles which regulated the mythological periods of the Hindoos prevailed also in the Babylonian computations, although there might be some variety in their application.

1. A _mahayuga_ or great age of the Hindoos, comprising the four successive _yugas_ or ages, consists of 4,320,000 years.

2. These years being divided by 360, the number of days in the Indian lunar year, give 12,000 periods.

3. By casting off two additional cyphers, these numbers are reduced respectively to 432,000 and 120, the numbers of the years of the _saroi_ of the ten Babylonian kings, whilst in the numbers 12,360 and 3600 we have the coincidence of other elements of the computation.

VI.

BIBLIOGRAPHICA.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF THE WORKS ON THE PROVINCIALISMS OF HOLLAND FROM PAPERS BY VAN DEN BERGH AND HETTEMA IN THE _TAALKUNDIG MAGAZIJN_.

READ BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

Van den Bergh, _Taal. Mag._ ii. 2. 193-210.

GRONINGEN.--Laurman, _Proeve van kleine taalkundige bijdragen tot beter kennis van den tongval in de Provincie Groningen_.--Groningen 1822.

J. Sonius Swaagman, _Comment: de dialecto Groningana, etc.: una cum serie vocabulorum, Groninganis propriorum_.--Groning. 1827.

_Zaamenspraak tusschen Pijter en Jaap dij malkáár op de weg ontmuiten boeten St ntilpoorte._--Groninger Maandscrift, No. 1. Also in Laurman's _Proeve_.

_Nieuwe Schuitpraatjes._--By the same author, 1836.

_List van Groningsche Woorden._--By A. Complementary to the works of Laurman and Swaagman. With notes by A. de Jager.--Taalkundig Magazijn, second part, third number, pp. 331--334.

_Groninsch Taaleigen door._--J. A. (the author of the preceding list). Taalkundig Magazijn, iv. 4. pp. 657--690.

_Raize na Do de Cock._--Known to Van den Bergh only through the newspapers.

Subdialects indicated by J. A. as existing, (_a_) on the Friesland frontier, (_b_) in the Fens.

L. Van Bolhuis.--Collection of Groningen and Ommeland words not found in Halma's Lexicon; with notes by Clignett, Steenwinkel, and Malnoe. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

OVER-IJSEL.--J. H. Halbertsma, _Proeve van een Woorden boekje van het Overijselsch_.--Overijsselschen Almanak voor Oudheid en Letteren, 1836.

M. Winhoff, _Landrecht var Auerissel, tweeee druk, met veele_ (philological as well as other) _aanteckeningen door J. A. Chalmot_.--Campen, 1782.

T. W. Van Marle, _Samensprôke tusschen en snaak zoo as as der gelukkig néèt in te menigte zint en en heeren-krecht déè gien boe of ba zê, op de markt te Dêventer van vergange vrijdag_.--Overijselschen Almanak, &c. _ut supra_.

_Over de Twenthsche Vocalen en Klankwijzigingen, door J. H. Behrens._--Taalkundig Magazijn, iii. 3. pp. 332-390. 1839.

_Twenther Brutfteleed._--Overijsselschen Almanak.

Dumbar the Younger (?).--Three lists of words and phrases used principally at Deventer. MS. In the library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Drawings of twelve Overijssel Towns. Above and beneath each a copy of verses in the respective dialects. MS. of the seventeenth century. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

GELDERLAND.--H. I. Swaving, _Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden_.--Taalkundig Magazijn, i. 4. pp. 305.

_Ibid._--_Ibid._ ii. 1. pp. 76-80.

_Opmerkingen omtrent den Gelderschen Tongval._--_Ibid._ ii. 4. pp. 398-426. The fourth section is devoted to some peculiarities from the neighbourhood of Zutphen.

N. C. Kist, _Over de ver wisslingvan zedetijke en zinnelijke Hoedanigheden in sommige Betuwsche Idiotismen_.--Nieuwe Werken der Maatsch. van Nederl. Letterkund. iii. 2. 1834.

_Staaltje van Graafschapsche landtal.--Proeve van Taalkundipe Opmerkingen en Bedenkingen, door_ T. G. C. Kalckhoff.--Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen for June 1826.

Appendix to the above.--_Ibid._ October 1826.

_Het Zeumerroaisel_: a poem. 1834?--Known to Van den Bergh only through the newspapers. Believed to have been published in 1834.

_Et Schaassen-riejen, en praotparticken tussen Harmen en Barteld._--Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1835. Zutphen Dialect.

_De Öskeskermios._--Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Over Veluwe.

_Hoe Meister Maorten baordman baos Joosten en schat deevinden._--Geldersche Volks-Almanak, 1836. Dialect of Lijm.

_Opgave van eenige in Gelderland gebruikelijke woorden ae._--H. I. Swaving.--Taalk. Mag. iv. 4. pp. 307-330.

_Aanteekeningen ter verbetering en uitbreiding der opmerkingen omtrent den Geldersehen Tongval._--Taal. Mag. iii. 1. pp. 39-80.

A. Van den Bergh.--Words from the provincial dialects of the Veluwen; with additions by H. T. Folmer.--MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Handbook, containing the explanation and etymology of several obscure and antiquated words, &c. occurring in the Gelderland and other neighbouring Law-books.--By J. C. C. V. H[asselt].--MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

HOLLAND.--_Scheeps-praat, ten overlijden van Prins Maurits van Orange._--Huygens Korenbloemem, B. viii. Also in Lulofs Nederlandsche Spraakkunst, p. 351; in the Vaderlandsche Spreekwoorden door Sprenger van Eyk, p. 17, and (with three superadded couplets) in the Mnemosyne, part x. p. 76.

_Brederoos Kluchten._--Chiefly in the Low Amsterdam (_plat Amsterdamsch_) dialect.

Hooft, _Warenar met den pot_.

Suffr. Sixtinus.--_Gerard van Velsen._ Amst. 1687.

Bilderdijk, _Over een oud Amsterdamsch Volksdeuntjen_.--Vaderlandsche Letteroefeningen, 1808. Reprinted, with an appendix, at Leyden 1824.

Bilderdijk, _Rowbeklag; in gemeen Zamen Amsterdamschen tongval_.--Najaarsbladen, part i.

Gebel, _Scheviningsch Visscherslied_.--Almanak voor Blijgeestigen.

1. _Boertige Samenspraak, ter heilgroete bij een huwelijk._

2. _Samenspraak over de harddraverij te Valkenburg en aan heet Haagsche Schouw._

3. _Boertige Samenspraak tusschen Heeip en Jan-buur._--These three last-named poems occur in Gedichten van J. Le Francq van Berkhey, in parts i. 221, ii. 180, ii. 257 respectively.

_Tuist tusschen Achilles en Agamemnon. Schiutpraatje van eenen boer; of luimige vertaling van het 1^{e} Boek der Ilias_, by J. E. Van Varelen.--Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

The same by H. W. and B. F. Tydeman in the Mnemosyne, part iv. Dordrecht, 1824.

_Noordhollandsch Taaleigen, door_ Nicolas Beets.--Taalk. Magaz. iii. 4. pp. 510--516, and iv. 3. pp. 365-372.

List of words and phrases used by the Katwijk Fishermen.--MS. Library of the Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Dictionary of the North-Holland Dialect; chiefly collected by Agge Roskan Kool.--MS. _Ibid._

ZEALAND.--_Gedicht op't innemen van sommige schansen en de sterke stad Hulst, &c._ 1642. Le Jeune; Volkszangen, p. 190.

_Brief van eene Zuidbevelandsche Boerin, aan haren Zoon, dienende bij de Zeeuwsche landelijke Schutterij._ Zeeuwsche Volks-Almanak, 1836.

_Over het Zeeuwsche Taaleigen_, door Mr. A. F. Sifflé,--Taalkundig Magazijn i. 2. 169--171.

Notes upon the same, by Van A. D, J[ager].--_Ibid._ p. 175--177.

_Taalkundige Aanteekeningen_, door Mr. J. H. Hoefft.--Ibid. 1. 3. 248--256.

Collection of words used in Walcheren.--MS. Library of Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

Collection of words used in States-Flanders.--MS. _Ibid._

NORTH BRABANT.--J. H. Hoefft, _Proeve van Bredaasch taaleigen, &c._--Breda 1836.

J. L. Verster, Words used in the Mayoralty of Bosch.--MS. Library of Maatschappij van Nederlandsche Letterkunde.

JEWISH.--_Khootje, Waar binje? hof Conferensje hop de vertrekkie van de Colleesje hin de Poortoegeesche Koffy' uyssie, hover de gemasqwerde bal ontmaskert._--Amsterd.

_Lehrrhede hower de vrauwen_, door Raphael Noenes Karwalje, Hopper Rhabbijn te Presburg; in Wibmer, de Onpartijdige.--Amst. 1820, p. 244.

NEGRO[5].--_New Testament._--Copenhagen, 1781, and Barby, 1802.

_The Psalms._--Barby, 1802.

[Footnote 5: From _Taal. Mag._ iii. 4. 500. In the 86th number of the Quarterly Review we find extracts from a New Testament for the use of the Negroes of Guiana, in the Talkee-takee dialect. In this there is a large infusion of Dutch, although the basis of the language is English.]

VII.

GEOGRAPHICA.

ON THE EXISTENCE OF A NATION BEARING THE NAME OF _SERES_ OR A COUNTRY CALLED _SERICA_ OR _TERRA SERICA_.

FROM THE CLASSICAL MUSEUM OF 1846. VOL. 3.

The following train of thought presented itself to the writer upon the perusal of Mr. James Yates's learned and interesting work entitled Textrinum Antiquorum or an account of the art of weaving among the ancients. With scarcely a single exception the facts and references are supplied from that work so that to the author of the present paper nothing belongs beyond the reasoning that he has applied to them.

This statement is made once for all for the sake of saving a multiplicity of recurring references.

The negative assertions as well as the positive ones are also made upon the full faith in the exhaustive learning of the writer in question.

Now the conviction that is come to is this, that no tribe, nation or country ever existed which can be shewn to have borne, either in the vernacular or in any neighbouring language, the name Seres, Serica, or Terra Serica or any equivalent term, a conclusion that may save some trouble to the inquirers into ancient geography.

The nation called Seres has never had a specific existence under that name. Whence then originated the frequent indications of such a nation recurring in the writings of the ancients? The doctrine, founded upon the facts of Mr. Yates and laid down as a proposition; is as follows.--

That the name under which the article _silk_ was introduced to the Greeks and Romans wore the appearance of a Gentile adjective and that the imaginary root of the accredited adjective passed for the substantive name of a nation. Thus, in the original form _seric_, the _-ic_ had the appearance of being an adjectival termination, as in _Medic-us Persic-us_ &c.; whilst _ser-_ was treated as the substantive name of a nation or people from whence the article in question (i. e. the _seric_ article) was derived. The _Seres_ therefore were the hypothetical producers of the article that bore their name (_seric_). Whether this view involves more improbabilities than the current one will be seen from the forthcoming observations.--

1. In the first place the crude form _seric_ was neither Latin nor Greek, so that the _-ic_ could not be adjectival.

2. Neither was it in the simpler form _ser-_ that the term was introduced into the classical languages so that the adjectival _-ic_ might be appended afterwards.--

3. The name in question whatever might have been its remote origin was introduced into Greece from the Semitic tongues (probably the Phoenician) and was the word שריק in Isaiah XIX. 9. where the יק (the _-ic_) is not an adjectival appendage but a radical part of the word. And here it may be well to indicate that, except under the improbable supposition that the Hebrew name was borrowed from the Greek or Latin, it is a matter of indifference whether the word in question was indigenous to the Semitic Languages or introduced from abroad, and also that is a matter of indifference whether silk was known in the time of the Old Testament or not. It is sufficient if a term afterwards applied to that article was Hebrew at the time of Isaiah. Of any connection between the substance called שריק and a nation called Seres there is in the Semitic tongues no trace. The foundation of the present scepticism originated in the observation that the supposed national existence of the Seres coincided with the introduction of the term _seric_ into languages where _ic-_ was an adjectival affix.--