The principles of this school are (1) that all changes of sound, so far as they are mechanical, are under the operation of laws that admit of no exception, and (2) that the principle of analogy, which plays an important part in the life of modern languages, must be unreservedly recognised as having been at work from the very earliest times. The first of these principles has been opposed by the later followers of Benfey, especially in the periodical Fick edited by A. Bezzenberger of Königsberg'.-One of the representatives of the New School, August Fick, formerly professor at Breslau, and the author of a 'Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Germanic languages', produced an excellent work on the formation of Greek names of persons (1894), showing that originally all names of persons among the Indo-Germanic peoples were compound words formed from two roots, and that from these compound words names including a single root were formed either from the first or the second of the two elements. The names thus resulting were Kosen-namen, or 'names of endearment". The principles of the New School are set forth in H. Paul's 'Principles of the History of Language', and far more fully in Karl Brugmann's 'Grundriss of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-Germanic Languages". An estimate of the movement has been given in the above-mentioned 'Introduction' by B. Delbrück, the author of a 'Comparative Syntax of the Indo-Germanic Languages' (1893 f). L. Lange Among the workers in this field who have already passed away was Ludwig Lange (1825-1885), professor at Leipzig from 1871. Twenty years previously he had given a lecture at Göttingen, in which he had insisted on the importance of the historic method of investigation, and had illustrated it by the use of the prepositions in Sanskrit and Greek". 1 Beiträge zur Kunde der indogerm. Sprachen. 1870-2; ed. 3, 1874-6; ed. 4, 1891 f. * Bursian, ii 999. ♦ Eng. adaptation by II. A. Strong, 1888. See also Paul's Grundriss, i (1891 etc.). * 1886 f (E. T. 1888 f); ed. 2, 1897f; 'Short Comparative Grammar', 1904. 6 Biogr. Jahrb. 1886, 31–61. 7 Bursian, ii 1001. Benary The first to attempt to set forth the history of sounds in Latin, in the light of the new science of language, was Albert Agathon Benary (1807-1860)1. Abundant materials for the historic grammar of the Latin language were subsequently supplied by the researches of Ritschl, Mommsen and others, on Plautus, on the early Roman inscriptions, and on the remains of the old Italic languages. These materials were applied with considerable acumen and independence, and with constant regard to the results of the comparative study of language, in the investigation of the changes of the Latin consonants and vowels by Wilhelm Corssen (18201875). Born at Bremen, he studied in Berlin (1840-4), and was a master at Schulpforta (1846-66), living afterwards in Berlin, and, from 1870, in Rome. His principal work was on the 'Pronunciation, Vocalisation, and Accentuation of the Latin language", a work dealing with the orthography, pronunciation, and prosody of Latin in connexion with the old Italic dialects, and in the light of comparative philology3. It was partly supplemented by the work on the vocalisation of vulgar Latin published in 1866-8 by Hugo Schuchardt (b. 1842), formerly professor at Graz. Corssen The general results of Comparative Philology were incorporated in Kühner's larger Latin Grammar, and, more systematically, by Heinrich Schweizer-Sidler, in his outline of the elements and forms of Latin for schools (1869), and by Alois Vaniček (18251883), formerly professor at Prag, in his elementary Latin Grammar (1873), and his Etymological Dictionary of the Latin language (1874), followed by his Greek and Latin Etymological Dictionary (1877). A Comparative Dictionary of Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, and German, published at Vienna in 1873 by Sebastian Zehetmayr, was expanded in 1879 into a comprehensive etymological Dictionary of all the Indo-Germanic languages. A Greek Etymological Dictionary has since been published by Prellwitz". 1 Die römische Lautlehre, sprachvergleichend dargestellt (Berlin, 1837). 2 1858-9; ed. 2, 1868-70. For his other works, see p. 142 f supra. 3 On Corssen, cp. Ascoli's Kritische Studien, p. ix (Delbrück, 41). 4 p. 202 supra. 6 Bursian, ii 1003-6. Biogr. Jahrb. 1884, 56 f. 7 Göttingen, ed. 2, 1905. CHAPTER XXXIV. ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND HISTORIANS. Karl Otfried Down to the time of Winckelmann and Heyne the investigation of the political, social, religious, and artistic life of the ancients had occupied a subordinate position in comparison with the study of the Greek and Latin languages. The new impulse then given had been carried forward by Niebuhr' and by Boeckh', while, among their immediate successors, the most brilliant and versatile, and the most widely influential, was Karl Otfried3 Müller (1797—1840). Born at the Silesian town of Brieg, he studied at Breslau, where the perusal of Niebuhr's 'History of Rome' prompted him to concentrate his energies on historical subjects. In Berlin, under the influence of Boeckh (1816-7), he acquired a new interest in the history of Greece, and it was to Boeckh that he owed the earliest successes of his literary and academic career. He began by publishing a monograph on the ancient and modern history of Aegina. Part of this work was on the Aeginetan Marbles, which had been discovered in 1811', and had recently been purchased (in 1812) by Ludwig, the Crown Prince of Bavaria. At that time Müller's sole authority for these works was a description by the sculptor, J. M. Wagner, with criticisms on the style by F. W. J. Schelling 1 p. 77 f supra. 2 p. 95 f supra. 3 His original name was simply Karl. To distinguish himself from the many Karl Müllers, he added the name of Gottfried, which, on Buttman's advice, he changed to Otfried in 1817 (after the publication of his first work). The form Ottfried is incorrect. ♦ Aeginetarum liber; scripsit Carolus Mueller, Silesius (1817). 5 By Cockerell and Foster, in conjunction with Haller von Hallerstein, and Linckh. Cp. Michaelis, Die archäologischen Entdeckungen (1906), 31 f. (1817). It was not until his appointment to a Chair of Classical Alterthumswissenschaft at Göttingen in the summer of 1819 that he was able to study some of the actual remains of ancient art at Dresden. At Göttingen in 1820 he gave a course of lectures on Archaeology and the History of Art; two years later he enlarged his knowledge by visiting the collections in Paris and London, and he continued lecturing on the above subjects with ever increasing success until the end of the summer-term of 1839. In September of that year he left for Italy and Greece, and on the first day of August, 1840, he died at Athens of a fever contracted while he was copying the inscriptions on the wall of the Peribolos at Delphi. A marble monument marks the spot where he was buried on the hill of Colonos. At Göttingen he lectured repeatedly on Mythology and the History of Religion, on Greek Antiquities, Latin Literature, and Comparative Grammar, and also on Classical authors, such as Pindar, Aeschylus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Tacitus, Persius and Juvenal. His early work on Aegina was followed, three years later, by that on Orchomenos and the Minyae'1; in 1824, by the two volumes of the Dorians'; in the next year, by his Prolegomena to a scientific Mythology '; and, in 1828, by his 'Etruscans '4. Five years later, he published his edition of the Eumenides, with a German rendering and with two Dissertations, (1) on the representation of the play, (2) on its purport and composition. In the preface to this work, he was prompted by Hermann's attack on Dissen's Pindar to describe Hermann as 'the distinguished scholar, who has long been promising us an edition of Aeschylus, and who is ready to attack all who write on that poet before proving that he possesses a clear conception of the connexion of thought and the plan of a single play, or indeed of any work of ancient poetry’7. While Müller poured contempt on the professional scholars of the day, he added that another race of men had already arisen, men who were asking the old world deeper questions than could be answered by any mere Notengelehrsamkeit. Hermann naturally protested, pointing out that Müller's attitude was 'mistaken' as well as 'presumptuous'. This review, severe as it was, did not prevent the just recognition of Müller's Eumenides as a distinctly useful edition. The editor had set special store by his translation, and the accuracy of that portion of the work was not contested by his great opponent, while the first of the two dissertations certainly threw new light on the Greek theatre and led to further research on that subject. 1 18442. 1877 ed. Deecke. Opusc. vi. 3-69. 2 E. T. 1830. 3 E. T., Leitch. E. T. ed. 2, 1853. 7 ib. vi (2) 12; Müller and Donaldson's Gr. Lit. 1 xxiv; Bursian, ii 675. |