seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; but we have none older in the British Museum."

I would add that Dr. Lightfoot has kindly examined for me the only one of the MEMPHITIC manuscripts in the British Museum containing the Acts, or at least the only one accessible at the time, viz. Orient. 424, and states that "the reading is clearly τοῦ κυρίου.”

POSTSCRIPT.

On p. 322, note, the manuscript of the Speculum published by Cardinal Mai is spoken of as "perhaps the oldest copy that contains the famous passage 1 John v. 7." I have not yet had the opportunity of examining Ziegler's Italafragmente der Paulinischen Briefe nebst Bruchstücken einer vorhieronymianischen Uebersetzung d. ersten Johannesbriefes aus Pergamentblättern der ehemaligen Freisinger Stiftsbibliothek (Marburg, 1876), but in the Theol. Literaturblatt for Jan. 15, 1876 there is an interesting notice of the volume by Dr. Reusch, who states that the Freising manuscript mentioned in the title just given contains the disputed passage in the following form (supplying the gaps):

"et spiritus est testimonium, quia spiritus est veritas. Quoniam tres sunt qui testificantur in terra: spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et tres sunt qui testificantur in caelo: Pater et Verbum et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt."

As this Freising fragment of the Old Latin version (containing 1 John iii. 8-v. 21) is said to be "of the seventh century at the latest," it is probably entitled to the distinction of being the oldest Latin copy in which the Three Heavenly Witnesses have yet appeared. The La Cava manuscript of the Vulgate, which, like the Speculum, contains the spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans, is, indeed, referred by Cardinal Mai to the seventh century; but Tischendorf assigns it to the eighth, and Ziegler, as the result of a special investigation, would place it even later.

In regard to the authorship of the Speculum, the opinion expressed above (p. 322), and in the American edition of Orme's Memoir of the Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses (pp. 187, 188), is confirmed by Ziegler, who remarks, as quoted and endorsed by Dr. Reusch, that "the Speculum is not by Augustine, but by an unknown, probably African author; and that it is not even certain

whether he took this verse with the Heavenly Witnesses from a manuscript of the Bible, or added it himself; at any rate, the citation in the Speculum is of no more importance than that in Vigilius." As the passage was quoted by Vigilius Thapsensis (cir. 484) and by Fulgentius (507-533), we need not be surprised to find it in a Latin мs. of the sixth century.

ARTICLE VI.

RELATIONS OF THE ARYAN AND SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

BY REV. JAMES F. MCCURDY, PRINCETON, N.J.

11. CRITERIA OF RELATIONSHIP.

IN passing now from the more critical to the more constructive portion of our Essay, it will be well to throw some light on the nature of the task before us, by exhibiting the more obvious points of contrast between the two families of speech.1 Bringing thus into view the distinguishing features of each idiom, we shall be the more able to propound the conditions of a just investigation, and to establish the true criteria of evidence as to their relations.

In every language, or group of languages, there are three elements, whose peculiarities determine its special character, and help in different degrees towards its classification. These are, its sounds, its structural principles, and the contents of its vocabulary. In the case before us the numerous points of dissimilarity seem at first sight radical and indicative of a diverse origin, while the points of agreement appear accidental and superficial.

As regards the first element, the sounds of the respective languages, great divergence is apparent among the dentals, in which the Semitic family has developed a strong tendency to multiply sibilant and lisping sounds, and a wider differ

1 Comp. Ewald, Ausführliches Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache (8th ed.), 1870, p. 26 ff.; Renan, Histoire générale des langues Sémitiques (4th ed.), 1863, p. 18 ff., 454 ff.; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, p. 300 ff.

ence still among the gutturals, in which the same family exhibits an astonishing variety of phonetic expression.

On examining the roots and the general structure of the words, we are at once struck by the strange and unique principles that control the Semitic dialects. While in the Aryan family, roots may consist of only a single (vowel) sound, or of one or more consonants accompanying or grouped about a vowel, it is an almost invariable Semitic law, that the roots of nouns and verbs, so far as the analysis of living forms can testify, are based upon three consonantal sounds. As to Semitic words in actual speech, we see exemplified as universally the peculiar principle that the vowels are used to express subordinate, modified, or accessory notions, while the consonants, which form the framework of the word, embody its fundamental idea. Again, this family has only to a small extent the habit or capacity of compounding words, a circumstance which tended to multiply the number of its roots, while the Aryan languages, having developed that principle largely, were enabled to economize their original stock. Further, the more strictly grammatical features of the two idioms appear to be no less radically divergent. Renan characterizes the Semitic grammar as a sort of architectural and geometrical structure, as contrasted with the latitude and flexibility that mark the inflections and syntax of Aryan speech. In the Semitic verb there is a great variety of forms ("species," quasi conjugations) to express modifications of its general notion, which represent chiefly simple subjective conditions, e.g. causative, declarative, desiderative forms; while in its tenses, which are few, the more metaphysical idea of time is vague and indeterminate, and in those dialects which in a more reflective stage in the history of the race, attained to greater precision in expression, could only be definitely indicated by the help of limiting words. In the same way its moods are also few and entirely foreign in typical structure to those of the Aryan languages. With regard to its noun, the original absence of case-inflections, and the formal modification before a limiting noun, called the con

struct state, are among the obvious peculiarities. The objective suffixes of verbs, and the possessive suffixes of nouns, are further important Semitic characteristics.

Within the sphere of the lexicon we are not led, immediately at least, to unmistakable marks of radical affinity. If the stock of roots in the respective vocabularies was originally the same, the scientific evidence of the fact does not lie on the surface.

The leading differences between the two families being thus indicated, the character of the problem to be solved becomes more intelligible. The following mode of procedure in the discussion suggests itself to us as the most natural and serviceable. After a glance at the sounds of the two systems of speech, we shall first take up their grammatical features; because, in general, they are the surest tests of linguistic relationship, and because, in this special case, they are the elements which are most strikingly divergent. After estimating the results of this inquiry, it will be necessary to decide whether any other criteria have a right to be admitted,whether, on general linguistic principles, we are at liberty to introduce other kinds of evidence, which at present it is becoming the fashion to decry. We shall then have to see whether a presumption of identity of origin may not be raised through the consideration of analogies between the most common and essential elements of speech, such as the pronouns, numerals, and certain terms of ordinary life. We shall then examine the main contents of the vocabularies, and attempt to compare the verbal roots of the two families. This will involve a discussion of the question as to what constitutes the ultimate roots and fixes the limits of the true analysis of actual forms. It will finally be in place to offer a general estimate of the extent and nature of the early relations of the two systems now so divergent.

We must first, however, state in general terms what is expected to be accomplished through the discussion. After the results of the history of the inquiry given in the former Article, it would seem presumptuous and idle for us to hope to

present a comparative system of the two forms of speech. Nor do we even expect to reach the very highest kind of certainty in our conclusions. It is in only one of the great groups of languages that linguistic science has secured rigorous demonstration of principles and practical results in the province of the lexicon as well as in that of the grammar. Outside of the mutually related facts of the members of the Indo-European family, comparison is still more or less tentative, and its achievements are of various degrees of worth. What we hope to do is to show, upon proper linguistic evidence, the extreme probability, perhaps amounting to moral certainty, of the original identity of the two families, and to draw a few inferences as to the range of their primitive common stock of ideas. The discussion is also intended to be a practical protest against the theories of those, who in a most unscientific spirit, wish to discourage, upon professedly scientific principles, any effort towards the assimilation of the two systems, because no attempt is likely to result in the construction of a comparative grammar worthy to stand by the side of Bopp's monumental work.

First, then, we shall make a few observations upon the sounds that form the elements of Semitic and Aryan words. It is not customary with those who maintain the radical separation of the two families to lay much stress upon the striking difference in the contents of their respective alphabets. As a general principle, to do so would be to appeal to an unsound canon of comparison. The influence of climate, food, mode of life, and other external conditions, upon the organs of speech, even among communities which are distinguished only by dialectical differences, is extensive and familiar; and it may very readily be believed that through the course of ages, and after long separation under different skies, each of the branches of an originally identical language might naturally have developed certain sounds quite unknown to the phonology of the other. It has lately been urged, however,

1 The Semitic dialects form, of course, a well-established family; but no comparative system of its dialects has yet been produced.