men of Jerusalem) to make such a mistake? But as to the other expressions quoted, why did not St. Mark say simply: 'λéya avrų Διανοίχθητι,' instead of ' λέγει αὐτῷ ἐφφαθά, ὃ ¿σTi AlavoixOnTi'? Only two explanations seem easy, either that Jesus himself did not use Aramaic except on particular occasions, or that St. Mark's informant (according to early tradition, Peter), spoke Greek, and only preserved the original Aramaic in these two cases of wonder-working' words which we may suppose had strongly impressed themselves on his memory.

A quite different question is that relating to the Aramaic words occurring in the narrative. Of these Prof. Neubauer gives a heterogeneous list. Some are proper names such as Bethesda, Golgotha, Satanas, Beelzebul, and from these it is clear that no inference can be drawn. What again can we infer from such words as Rabbi, or Messias, words used to the present day by Jews whatever their vernacular may be ! Kopẞáv, again, which is as much Hebrew as Aramaic, is a technical legal term as much as habeas corpus, cestuique, and other phrases in use amongst ourselves. But what does Mr. Neubauer mean by including in his list words which occur in the LXX., and which therefore formed part of the vocabulary of every Greek-speaking Jew? Such are ráoxa, oikepa (actually quoted from the LXX., Luke i. 15), yéevva (Josh. xviii. 16, yalevva). The last may indeed be reckoned a proper name. Certainly yéevva owes its clipped form to its use by Greek-speaking people. What these really prove is the use of the LXX. ; how they can be supposed to support the view that the users did not speak Greek, it is hard to see. Φαρισαῖος does not occur in the LXX., but it is a word which would of necessity be adopted by Greek-speaking Jews, having, like yéevva, no possible equivalent in Greek. Its form is completely Greek.

What

Pfannkuche's list (followed by a very recent writer) includes in addition xáprns, and the Latin words λεγεών, σπεκουλάτωρ, σουδάριον, κολωνία. Now χάρτης is found in Greek authorities (Plato Comicus and Inscrr.; see Liddell and Scott); σovdápiov, in the Doric form σwdápiov, occurs in a writer of the fifth century B.C. (Hermippus). These examples show how little value is to be attached to the supposed non-occurrence of a word outside the Greek Testament. But as to 'legio' or speculator,' why could not a Greekspeaking Jew pick up these words directly from the Romans as easily as one ignorant of Greek Colonia,' found only in Acts xvi. 12, is said to be borrowed from the

Aramaic, as if forsooth even a Jew, not to say a Gentile (as the author of the Acts was) residing for a time in a Roman colony, could not know or use the word except through Aramaic. Can anything be added to this absurdity? Yes, there is one thing more; there is absolutely no proof that these words were in use in Aramaic before the Gospels and Acts were written. Mr. Neubauer does not include these Latin words in his list. The only expression that seems to us of any weight in the question is papàv åbá which curiously enough occurs in an epistle to Greeks in Europe. It may perhaps be compared to our use of 'Kyrie eleison.' There is, however, nothing to connect it with the Jews of Palestine.

The postulate that the Gospels are translations whether in whole or in part is sufficiently bold. Three of them are on all sides admitted to have been written in Greek ; and as to the first Gospel, even those who accept the tradition that St. Matthew wrote originally in Hebrew, yet generally feel compelled to admit that the existing gospel which bears his name is not a translation. Indeed this may be regarded as proved by the language of Jerome, the only one of our authorities who had seen or could read the supposed original. And if, as is usually held, the Epistle of St. James was written in Greek, this is a most weighty circumstance, since St. James appears never to have left Jerusalem. Bishop Wordsworth, indeed, in an essay in the present volume suggests the theory that this epistle was originally written in Aramaic, and reminds us that a similar hypothesis has been maintained with respect to the Epistle to the Hebrews. It would be of more consequence, however, if he could state that this hypothesis had been accepted, instead of being generally rejected. But now if the first gospel (to say nothing of the others) and one or two important epistles had been written in Aramaic, we have to answer the question, 'How was it that the Syrian churches in the second century entirely neglected or forgot these originals, and adopted into their Canon translations from the Greek?' The fact that some of the Apocryphal books were originally written in Hebrew appears rather unfavourable than otherwise to Prof. Neubauer's view. For the early and complete loss of the originals shows that, although the writers preferred to use Hebrew (or Aramaic), the readers preferred Greek.

Mr. Neubauer names Bernhardy as stating that the Greek spoken by the Asiatic peoples was a mere jargon. He has apparently bor

rowed the reference from Böhl, who cites Bernhardy's Grundriss der [zur Böhl] Griechischen Litteratur, p. 492 (fourth edition, p. 505). Bernhardy's remark in the place cited has no reference to Palestine, for his judgment about which he remits his reader to another place. Speaking in p. 492 of the spread of Hellenic speech after Alexander's conquests from Asia Minor even as far as the interior of the Persian empire, where hitherto few colonies existed, but where there was now a complete military occupation, he quotes Niebuhr (Kleine philol. Schriften, ii. 198), to the effect that where whole masses adopt the language of their rulers, they do so in the form easiest in themselves and thus arises a 'jargon.' His observations about Palestine are on p. 519 (533, fourth edition) where he says that although for a long period

since Antiochus Epiphanes Palestine had been filled with a Greek population [differing in this from the places spoken of before], it was not till the time of Herod that a taste was acquired for Greek and Roman culture, adding that it is clear from passages in Rabbinical writers cited by Tholuck (Brief an d. Hebräer, 1850, p. 113 ff.): dass Griechisch als feine Sprache des Umgangs galt; die Gelehrten kannten diese Sprache, schätzten sie sogar vor dem Aramäischen.' It is on the whole clear that the arguments of Pfannkuche and Mr. Neubauer require sifting and revision before they can produce conviction. The reader would find it interesting to compare their reasoning with that of Dr. Roberts in his Discussions on the Gospels, 2nd ed., 1864. T. K. ABBOTT.

PROF. SONNENSCHEIN's paper in the last number of the Classical Review seems to call for some remarks from the inculpated grammarians. I am partially absolved in a note, but still have something to say on the points brought forward.

I agree with the writer on the first two points: that is to say, I hold that the Indicative in the protasis of a Conditional sentence does not imply reality, and that the Present Subjunctive in the protasis does not imply possibility. I long ago spoke so definitely on this matter in the preface to my Grammar, ii. pp. xcix., c., and in (the passage quoted by the Professor) § 1497 that I can only express my pleasure at our having come to the same view. But when he speaks of the Present Subjunctive in such sentences as expressing 'so natural an idea as a supposition referring to the future and accompanied by reserve,' I think he forgets that 'reserve' is really expressed by the use of a conditional particle. The difference between si hoc dicis, erras and si hoc dicas, erres is that the Indicative leaves it undecided whether 'you are saying it' or not, the Subjunctive marks at once that 'you are not saying it.' The Subjunctive implies thought as opposed to fact, and in such sentences by a secondary contrast it implies not fact. Neither Subjunctive nor Indicative implies any anticipation of future action, or any further caution or reserve than is inherent in every Conditional sentence.

The third opinion which Prof. Sonnenschein combats is 'that the Imperfect Subjunctive refers primarily to the past.' If he had said that it does not refer to the future (except, in reported speech, to the relatively future) I should have agreed with him and much that he says might be used in support of this second proposition. I believe si hoc diceret erraret is often supposed to correspond to our English 'if he should say this, he would be wrong,' and to the ordinary use of the Greek Optative, and I agree with Prof. Sonnenschein in holding this view to be wrong. But his own proposition is more doubtful. He appears to me to confound two very different things-an equal number of instances and an equal legitimacy of use. I agree that in the majority of instances the Imperfect Subjunctive in the protasis (and I add in the apodosis also) of Conditional sentences refers to what he calls present time, but except in this statistical sense I do not think that it refers primarily' to the present.

The fact is, present time is a mere limit between past and future (see my § 1455), and has no duration of itself. The grammarian may say with the moralist, fugit hora: hoc quod loquor inde est. The Imper

fect Subjunctive is used in these sentences, when you contemplate the present as the resultant of the past, and the Present Subjunctive is used when you contemplate the

6

present as the starting point of the future. But the Imperfect is also in conditional, as well as in other, sentences used of a continuous state, contemporaneous with some past action or time; and this use is every hit as good Latin as its use of the present time. I never dreamt of implying, as Prof. Sonnenschein seems to think, by my statement in § 1530 c that I put the reference to the present and to the past on the same footing' in point of frequency of use (I well knew the case to be otherwise), but I did mean to imply that they were both perfectly legitimate. And I can see nothing at all strange in Cicero's pointed. expression Nunc quemadmodum audiar sentio, at tunc si dicerem non audirer (Cic. Clu. 29, § 80). I do not know Priem's paper to which Prof. Sonnenschein refers, but I find in Etzler (Sprach-Erörterungen, 1826, p. 189) sufficient instances from one book of Cicero

to prove all that I want. See Verr. iii. § 32 faceres...posset; 65 fieret...concederes; 115 ageretur...postularent; 129 perpeterere...pertinerent. Where there is nothing illogical or unnatural in the use, a few instances from a writer like Cicero are sufficient to establish its correctness. Murder does not cease to be a crime because it is less frequent than theft.

Such translations as si hoc faceret, erraret 'if he had been doing this, he would have been erring,' are no doubt awkward, but they are used simply for technical purposes to point out the difference between Latin Imperfects and Pluperfects. Had he done

this, he would be wrong' is better English. 'If he did this' would serve equally for si faceret and si faciebat, perhaps even for si fecisset. The first sentence quoted by Prof. Sonnenschein of an Imperfect where all reference to the past is absolutely excluded' (p. 128) si iudex non esses, te potissimum petere oporteret (Cic. Verr. iv. § 70), I should

There is some danger in looking, as Prof. Sonnenschein tries to do (p. 124), exclusively at the protasis. The protasis after all is only a dependent sentence-grammatically, though not logically, dependent on the apodosis, and consequently, so far as the two are correlated, liable to be affected by its principal. I have found this consideration useful in classifying conditional usages, and venture to refer Prof. Sonnenschein in his 'further investigation' of some instances given on p. 127 to my §§ 1566-1570.

After what I have said above I will only say on Prof. Sonnenschein's fourth head that I have no hesitation in not referring to the future the instances he mentious

at the end of his paper. But his reference to Madvig, § 347 b suggests to me to note here a curious vacillation in that great scholar's treatment of this question. In the first edition of his Latin Grammar we read 'Was jetzt oder in der Zukunft stattfinden würde, oder (gegen die Wirklichkeit) als stattfindend vorausgesetzt wird, wird durch das linperfectum bezeichnet.' In the third edition (1857), which is obviously for many purposes still the standard, the words oder in der Zukunft' are left out. In the fourth and last (improved and abridged') edition, 1867, he, as I think, wrongly reinserts these words, and omits all reference to the use of the Imperfect in reference to the past (note 2 to § 347, ed. 3). I have great difficulty in believing this reinsertion to have been deliberate.

H. J. ROBY.

Homeri Iliadis Carmina, edidit A. RZACH. Pars prior, 1886; pars altera, 1887. Mk. 1.25.. Homeri Odyssca. Scholarum in usum edidit P. CAUER. Pars prior, 1886, Mk. 1.20; pars altera, 1887, Mk. 1.20.

Homeri Hymni Epigrammata Batrachomyomachia, edidit E. ABEL. 1887. Mk. 1.80.

RZACH and Cauer are entirely dependent upon La Roche for the MSS., as every editor must be until the new critical edition by Ludwich, which I am glad to see that Cauer promises in his preface, sets

Both

the diplomatic evidence on a firm basis. editors give texts which embody the more certain results of recent criticism. Both for instance write ὁμοιίοο πτολέμοιο, ήδα for ἠῶ in the fifth foot, ἦos for ews as a trochee; but while Rzach has Kóλos with Nauck, Cauer retains koîλos. Neither writes the F, but Rzach follows Nauck in omitting ν ἐφελκυστικόν when followed by a word beginning with F, Cauer more consistently retains it. Rzach contents himself with a brief preface of a couple of pages, but Cauer has an interesting introduction explaining the prin ciples which he has followed; attention may be

particularly called to his remarks on the vexed question of e and n in forms like Oeins, Onns. He follows Aristarchos in writing long e as n in all cases before e and i sounds, and before o and a sounds when it comes from a; but as e when it arises from e and stands before o and a sounds; thus Kaтabeloμev, ἐπιβήσμεν, θήῃς, χέρεια, χέρες. He thus agrees with Mr. Monro (Hom. Grammar p. 318) in holding that 'the long vowel of E-stems, such as en- daun- etc, was not originally the same sound as the Ionic n which represents older a,' and that the two were differently affected by the phonetic influence of the following vowel.

Abel's edition of the Homeric hymns is a real advance, as it is a complete recension of the text based on a much needed new collation of the MSS., and entirely supplants Baumeister's praiseworthy but now antiquated work. It thus stands side by side with Gemoll's excellent edition, which appeared almost simultaneously, but late enough for the addition of a critical appendix in which Abel's readings are recorded. Gemoll is thus fuller in his apparatus, as he not only incorporates Abel's work, but gives throughout the readings of the Paris class' of MSS. which Abel deliberately omits as worthless. Abel however is more convenient for practical use, at least for those who decline the aid of Gemoll's excellent and original commentary.-W. LEAF.

Der Dialect der homerischen Gedichte: von Dr. J. VAN LEEUWEN, Jr. und M. B. MENDES DA COSTA, aus dem Holländischen übersetzt von Dr. E. MEHLER. Leipzig. Teubner. 1886. 8vo. pp. 158. Mk. 2.40. THIS little book-the work of two Dutch scholars, now translated into Gerinan-gives a useful summary of Homeric accidence, with especial reference to the progress which has been made of late towards recovering the original forms of the dialect. This work, as is well known, may be, and has been, carried on in more than one way. We may approach it, with H. L. Ahrens and G. Curtius, from the vantage-ground of comparative Indo-European grammar; or we may confine ourselves, as Bekker did in the last generation, and as Cobet and Nauck still do, to the use of comparison within the field of the Greek language. The latter is the method chiefly followed in the book before us, the authors of which are thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Cobet's criticism, and inclined to look with some distrust upon facts which lie beyond a strictly Hellenic horizon. The two methods, indeed, do not necessarily come into conflict: for all true conclusions (as Aristotle said) are harmonious. The restoration of the digamma, to take the most prominent example, may be accomplished (1) by comparing Greek with other languages which have preserved a labial spirant: or (2) by studying the metrical facts of Homer. But neither process gives such complete and certain results that we can afford to be satisfied with it alone. And in any case it is unscientific not to avail ourselves to the full of two sources of evidence which by their entire independence are peculiarly fitted to correct and supplement each other.

A few examples will show the nature of the preference shown by our authors for purely Greek analogies.

1. The loss of the augment in Homer, they say (p. 68), must be regarded as aphaeresis and accordingly in the example of a restored primitive text given at the end of the book they write 'τεῦχε, καλέσσατο, and so on. They add that the omission of the augment in such a verb as ayw can also perhaps' be regarded as an aphaeresis. This last kind of aphaeresis' is quite without parallel in Greek, or indeed in any language: yet it must be admitted unless the authors

consent to leave forms like tye for hye out of their theory. But the real objection surely is that the use of forms without augment is common to the oldest Greek and the oldest Sanscrit.

2. The Perfects in à (-pa and xa) are said to be probably derived from those in -κa, by k passing into h (p. 80). No evidence is given of this phonetic change ever having taken place in Greek. The fact that Perfects in -xa appear earlier than those which aspirate a radical or (giving -pa, -xa), is far from proving that the latter are to be derived from the former at least this would be the opinion of students of comparative grammar.

3. The treatment of the form deídw (p. 83) is an interesting example of conflict between the two methods. From a Greek point of view it seems to be present, and as such it stands alone, and deserves all the epithets, unheard of,' 'impossible,''inconceivable,' which are wont to be applied to an anomaly. On the other hand deídia, which also occurs in our texts, is supported as a perfect by other forms, δε ίδιε, δειδιμεν δεδίασι, δειδιότες, με. Hence Cobet and Nauck unhesitatingly change δείδω iuto δείδια. But comparative grammarians point out that dédFia is not correctly formed from a root &F.. The true form, as their more exact analysis shows, is dédFoia, which might becoine dédFoa, and so dédFw, deídw. Accordingly, instead of turning δείδω into δείδια or δέδρια, they turn δείδια into dédFoa or deidw.

4. We may add to this list the assumption of such forms as FFade, *FFide (for evade, eloide). It may be too much to maintain that a double digamma is impossible; but certainly there is no trace of the corresponding labial of other languages, such as Latin or Sanscrit, being either pronounced or written as a double letter.

5. In the list of digammated words given by our authors (p. 28), we find Foápwv and Fús. They have overlooked an interesting paper by L. Meyer (K. Z. xxiii. p. 49 ff.), in which he shows that F never remains in Homer before o or w. And in the case of these two forms the independent evidence of the F is of the slightest.

It will be understood that the objections on which we have been insisting apply rather to the school of philology which this book represents than to the work itself. Its merits, on the other hand, are of a solid and useful kind. Readers will find in it the best results of an important vein of enquiry-that which seeks to purify the Homeric text from the corruption and modernisation that it must have undergone during the centuries when written copies were few and diplomatic criticism had not begun. This is an inquiry which was set in motion by Bentley, and is evidently by no means exhausted.-D. B. MONRO.

The Metamorphoses of Ovid. Books XIII. aud XIV. Edited by CHARLES SIMMONS, M. A. Macmillau. 4s. 6d.

THIS is a scholarly edition of two of the books of the Metamorphoses, best suited for school reading. The introduction deals with the design of the poem, and justly dwells upon the consummate art with which Ovid has woven into one harmonious whole a web of stories entirely disconnected, save by the one recurring incident of a metamorphosis. Mr. Simmons has conscientiously studied most modern editions; though those of Loers (1843) and Magnus (1885) might have been consulted. The notes are marked by a good knowledge of the author, accuracy, and genuine poetic feeling; and are well calculated to stimulate interest. Particularly good are those on invidiosus (XIII. 414), the relation of gener and socer (ib. 509), Ovid's fondness for substantives in -men (ib 778), and the Sibyl's

cave (XIV. 104). Grammatical points are often happily handled, e.g. zeugma (XIII. 632), and ‘adjectival substantives' (XIV. 362); but the grammatical matter seems to me a trifle in excess. Thus the frequent illustration of Latin from Greek idiom is superfluous, and sometimes misleading, e.g. XIII. 508, maxima rerum, the gen. is partitive, and Conington's notion of a local gen. should not be revived; and the note on the coordinate relative with infin. (XIV. 226) is unnecessary, as the usage has not been neglected by the grammars,' see Madvig, § 402 a and b, Roby § 1781. Omissions are few, though iamdudum with imperat. 'immediately' (XIII. 457), the rare mi for mihi (ib. 503, cp. IX. 191), and the almost certainly right reading revulsum (XIV. 181), might have been noticed. In the following places I differ from the editor: XIII. 114, cur spolieris crit should not be translated, there will be cause for spoiling you,' for the preceding quod forms the subject; cp. inf. 527, F. ii. 629; XIII. 165, arma is surely simply the shield and spear brought by Ulysses; XIII. 277, nonus in officio ='ninth in offering his service,' not 'in loyalty'; XIII. 338, conferat is not hypothetical but deliberative; XIII. 356, moderatior Aiax = not 'a wiser' but the less presumptuous Ajax'; XIII. 451, plus quam femina virgo, 'virgo expresses the age [were there then no old maids ?] femina the sex.' Rather, the offering demanded was not merely a woman, but the maiden Polyxena; XIII. 718, subiectis pennis means not 'sudden (new-created) wings,' but 'wings put beneath,' i.e. attached to them; XIV. 133, the indirect patuisset = a direct fut. pf. indic., and similarly line 141, paterer = a fut. simple in direct speech; carina may have originally meant 'hull' (XIV. 534), but surely it means 'keel' in XIV. 552, 'mediisque carina subdita navigiis spinae mutatur in usum'; Cyclop is incorrectly printed for Cyclops (pp. 31, 47, 158, 162, 167). What authority is there for naming Ovid's friend M. Junius Brutus (p. xi.)?

But, leaving these minutiae, the work as a whole is excellent, and strongly to be recommended. A most interesting feature is a number of remarks, mainly critical, by Mr. R. Ellis, in which he quotes the readings of four Bodleian MSS. Of these the best is Can. 7, which often preserves the right reading where the Marcianus is wrong. Mr. Ellis contributes many acute conjectures; the best perhaps are timidi haut audacis (XIV. 671), and est locus ulterius (XIV. 489); but Clarius subit, hicque (XIV. 612) seems to me open to doubt on grounds of euphony; see Madvig on de Fin. v. 40, Haupt, Opusc. iii. 510.

S. G. OWEN.

Eléments de Grammaire Latine (d'après Lhomond), par GEORGES EDON, Paris: Belin, 1886, 16th edition. 360 pp., small 8vo. 2 frs.

THE name of Lhomond has an old world ring about it, and from a book which 'demeure entièrement conforme au plan de Lhomond' one must not expect modern ideas on the teaching of grammar. 'Si veut l'indicatif devant le présent et le parfait; le subjonctif devant l'imparfait et le plus-que-parfait.'

Le régime du verbe passif se met à l'ablatif avec a ou ab, quand' etc. The term Que retranché for accusative with the infinitive, which has died so hard in France, is in this edition at last given up with a sigh of regret in favour of Proposition Infinitive. The rubric Mots interrogatifs entre deux verbes' only partially gives place to Interrogation Indirecte. In a word, there is no trace of an attempt to base Syntax on the analysis of the sentence, or to insist on an intelligent grasp of principle. The method is purely empirical. On the other hand the

book has merits of a practical kind. The construction of impersonal verbs, for instance, may be found without hunting through all the cases. In general the arrangement may be said to aim at following the order of a French pupil's ideas. The Accidence is laudably unencumbered with philology. Nous nous sommes bien gardés de compliquer l'étude de la déclinaison et de la conjugaison latines, pour la satisfaction toute gratuite d'en faire une exposition plus savante.' In the third declension we find, instead of the monstrous array of paradigms given in some English grammars, only three-soror, corpus, avis: two more (securis, cubile) are added in a Supplément aux Décli naisons, which forms part of the body of the book. Better examples might have been perhaps chosen, but the limitation of number is entirely commendable. Accipio is conjugated in full. The treatment of verb-nouns is unsatisfactory, but in accordance with French practice: En avec le participe présent veut le verbe latin au gérondif en do.'-Following the Syntax is a third part-Méthode pour exprimer les Gallicismes: a fourth part gives a short sketch of Metre, Prosody and Accentuation.-E. A. S. Grammaire Latine par SALOMON REINACH, Paris; Delagrave; 1886. 358 pp., large 8vo. 5 frs. THE author has aimed at producing a grammar more suitable for schools and colleges than what he calls the dictionnaires grammaticaux' of GuardiaWierzcyski and Madvig (Theil's_translation)—the only books hitherto available for advanced pupils in France. To treat grammar in a manner à la fois élémentaire et scientifique' is an exceedingly difficult task; and the author has done well to put his science and his elementary instruction in different parts of his book. An Appendix discusses such questions as 'Place du Latin dans la famille Aryenne,' Phonétique Latine,' 'Théorie comparée de la Déclinaison,' etc., and shows that the author is fully abreast of modern philological science; in the body of the book he has wisely decided to be practical. In the declension of nouns we hear nothing about vowel and consonant stems; the terminations are added to the radical or thème-a form obtained by rejecting the termination of the Genitive Singular.

That this is the best way of treating the subject for beginners appears to be the result at which experienced teachers in Germany too have generally arrived. The verbal forms are divided thus: am-o, am-abam, am-avi, am-aturus. Here the author distinctly goes too far. It is really more practical, as well as more correct, to recognise three themes as a basis of the verb forms: leg-, leg-, lect-. Would it not be also more practical to follow the Germans in discarding the time-honoured amo in favour of some verb like laudo, which admits of sharper distinction of meaning between its imperfect and perfect tenses? It is strange that in England amabam with its meaningless translation 'I was loving' should have kept its place so long.

The Syntax is based on a plan which the author owes to Thurot, his former teacher. It is introduced by a 'Coup d'œil sur la Syntaxe,'-a brief résumé of elementary rules for turning French into Latin. Then follow I. Syntaxe de Co-ordination, II. Syntaxe de Subordination. Under the first head are treated the Concords, Cases, the Adjective, the Pronoun, (including, strangely, the Relative), the Adverb, Voices, and Tenses, together with a few words on Moods. Under the second head comes Thurot's classification of 'Propositions' as A. Indépendantes (Indicatives, Volitives, Optatives, Délibératives, Problématiques, Concessives, Désidératives): B. Dépendantes (Complétives i.e. clauses introduced by ut, ne, quominus, quin, and dependent questions; Causales,