resident in Cambridge, only one was opposed to all reform, the remainder, including six head-masters, either already using the new pronunciation or being willing to adopt it if adopted in the Universities. With the final consideration and adoption of the scheme arose the question of its introduction into practical teaching. This question was obviously twofold: part relating to Cambridge, and part to the outer world. The reformed pronunciation, it was clear, could be introduced into Cambridge without much difficulty. A committee was accordingly appointed, and subsequently enlarged, so as to be representative of the whole University, for that purpose. They have communicated with all the classical professors and lecturers of the University asking them to use the pronunciation of Latin recommended in the scheme in their teaching, and to report any difficulties that they find in using it to the committee. Without being too sanguine, we may say that the reformed pronunciation of Latin will be generally, if not universally, adopted throughout Cambridge in the Michaelmas term. The other question was one of considerably greater difficulty, and importance. Cambridge, although ready and willing to set her own house in order, and undesirous of seeing a genuine movement in favour of reform pass again into inertia, could not take upon herself singlehanded the introduction of the new pronunciation throughout the country. Proposals for cooperation were made to Oxford, and responded to in a like spirit. The Oxford Philological Society, having considered The Pronunciation of Latin in the Augustan Period, have passed two resolutions, one expressing their general agreement with the views proposed, and another their opinion that it is generally desirable that the scheme should be adopted in practice, and singling out certain points as specially important. The agreement of the two Societies, which will no doubt have further practical issues, is the greatest step which has hitherto been gained. But that there are difficulties still in the way, some real and some imaginary, cannot be gainsaid; and with these, so far as they concern the scheme' itself, we now propose to deal. It is frequently, if silently, assumed, that Latin pronunciation is not sufficiently ascertained to admit of the promulgation of a scheme. This view is based upon an error. Undoubtedly there are disputed points within its range. But they are comparatively few and unimportant; and no body of scholars, however chosen, who understood the question, could draw up a scheme which would differ

in general effect and essential particulars from the present one. Another fallacy hardly less mischievous is the assumption that we should begin with the whole of the changes at once. No such change can be made all at once. With the best intentions it is impossible to change the whole of our pronunciation suddenly. But the ideal should be always kept in view, and fresh advances continually made. To come to details, we see that a very large proportion of the difficulty of the reformed pronunciation arises not from the fact that we do not possess the equivalent sounds in English; but from the fact that the Latin letter has usually a different value in English. This is the case with ă, ā, ī, u, u, c, s final, th, ph (see below), i consonant (j), u consonant (v). To take one or two examples, it is just as easy to us to pronounce res as race as to pronounce it reeze, to pronounce was as walce as to pronounce it vass; but the analogy of English spelling suggests the other pronunciation. The whole difficulty arises from not treating Latin as French or German, that is as a foreign language in which the native pronunciation of the letters is to be discarded. If Latin were a spoken language, no one would think of pronouncing nūnus nainus, any more than of pronouncing ane ain. Next come the sounds which can be easily learnt from French, several of the vowels, the rolled r (also in Scotch), the dentals t, d, n, 1, 8. That the tongue did touch the teeth in the Latin sounds is certain; and there is no difficulty in making it do so. But as the acoustic difference between the English and Latin sounds is not great, it is not a point that need be insisted on at first. The vowels of maximus (maxumus) and zythum are found in French and German. But that they should be given in Latin at present is perhaps too much to expect. The aspirates ch, th, ph, if it be found too difficult to pronounce them as k, t, p, followed by h, should at least be given by k, t, p. The point of the scheme which involves most doubt and difficulty is that of final -m, and its discussion has been properly placed in a footnote. It is perhaps beyond hope that a pitch accent will be heard on English lips, but the hammering English accent might be so far mitigated as to allow the post-accentual syllables to have their proper length. The desirability of giving the quantities is admitted on all hands; but to do so properly requires some patience and practice. sum up all that really can be matter of doubt is the exact pronunciation of certain vowels (é, ō, i, y), the precise value of u con

To

sonant which is in any case very nearly rendered by English w, perhaps also that of the diphthongs ae, oe, and final m. In all other cases the correct representative is either actually an English sound, and this in the

great majority of the sounds, or one which is actually taught in our schools to the classes that are learning French.

J. P. POSTGATE.

Δῆμος, λαός.

Δήμος

22):

There are other political terms which are conspicuous by their absence from the New Testament. Δήμος occurs only four times in the New Testament. The LXX. never use it except for a subdivision of the people, after the analogy of the Attic 'demes.' Δημηγορείν in the New Testament means to address a multitude, but not in a constitutional assembly; thus Acts xii. 21: ὁ Ἡρώδης . . . ἐδημηγόρει πρὸς αὐτούς. occurs in the same passage (Acts xii. ὁ δὲ δῆμος ἐπεφώνει, Θεοῦ φωνή, κ.τ.λ. Also in Acts xvii. 5 : καὶ ἐπιστάντες τῇ οἰκίᾳ Ἰάσονος ἐζήτουν αὐτοὺς προαγαγεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, -in both texts it means multitude, or rabble. It is twice used in the narrative of the Ephesian riot (Acts xix. 30, 33): Παύλου δὲ βουλομένου εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν δῆμον, ὁ δὲ ̓Αλέξανδρος . . . ἤθελεν ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ δήμῳ. We are however expressly told that this was a tumult (στάσις, συστροφή and not an ἔννομος ἐκκλησία, vv. 40, 39), and it only receives the name of ἐκκλησία at its orderly and formal dismissal: καὶ ταῦτα εἰπών (sc. ὁ γραμματεύς) ἀπέλυσε τὴν ἐκκλησίαν (ν. 41). We cannot be mistaken in supposing that one reason why the Jews avoided the word Suos as a name of the 'people of God' was because the term had been discredited by the decline of Greek freedom, and the idea of democracy could not survive in a political atmosphere wherein despotism prevailed. Moreover δῆμος was a term at once too technical, and too strictly civic to designate the members not so much of a city as of a nation. The word λaós was just the word required. It had very noble associations in the past history of Greek life. It was a great word with Homer. Though rarely found in old Attic prose, it is a favourite with the poets. It was familiar to Attic ears in the herald's formula Ακούετε λέῳ, and was perpetuated in social life through names like Λαοδίκη, ̓Αγησίλαος, which will always be found to carry a certain dignity with them. It was used by Plato and again by

Polybius; but it was reserved for Jewish lips to give the word a sacred significance and a world-wide currency.

Ἔθνος.

Ἔθνος, the correlative of λαός in the mouth of Hellenistic Jews, was a word that never had any importance as a political term until after Alexander. It was when Hellenism pushed on eastward, and the policy of Alexander and his successors founded cities as outposts of trade and civilisation, that the contrast was felt and expressed between πόλεις and ἔθνη. Hellenic life found its normal type in the πόλις, and barbarians who lived κατὰ κώμας or in some less organised form were ἔθνη Droysen has illustrated this in his Hellenismus (iii. 1, p. 31-32). He cites e.g. Arrian, Indica, 40 : Σουσίοις δὲ πρόσοικοι ὅτι εἰσὶν οἱ Οὔξιοι, λέλεκταί μοι· κατάπερ Μάρδοι μὲν Πέρσησι προσεχέες οἰκέουσι, λῃσταὶ καὶ οὗτοι, Κοσσαῖοι δὲ Μήδοισι. καὶ ταῦτα πάντα τὰ ἔθνεα ἡμέ ρωσεν ̓Αλέξανδρος καὶ πόλιας ἐπέκτισε τοῦ μὴ νομάδας ἔτι εἶναι, ἀλλὰ ἀρυτῆρας καὶ γῆς ἐργάτας, κ.τ.λ. So in the great Smyrna inscription (at Oxford, C.I.G. 3137, line 11): ἔγραψεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς βασιλεῖς καὶ τοὺς δυνάστας καὶ τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ ἔθνη. So Teles apud Stob. vol. ii. p. 66 (Teubner text) ĕvio δέ γε καὶ φρουροῦσι τὰς πόλεις παρὰ βασιλεῦσι καὶ ἔθνη πιστεύονται κ.τ.λ. (are employed by kings to garrison the cities or are put in charge of peoples). In Polybius vii. 9, πόλεις καὶ ἔθνη are contrasted repeatedly, and we have also βασιλέων καὶ πόλεων καὶ ἐθνέων. At the same time because ἔθνος was thus opposed to rolus it was used not seldom for 'a district united by a federal league.' Polybius xxvii. 2: τὸ δὲ Βοιωτῶν ἔθνος ἐπὶ πολὺν χρόνον συντετηρηκὸς τὴν κοινὴν συμπο κατελύθη καὶ διεσκορπίσθη κατὰ πόλεις. At a later date I find vos used for the inhabitants of a Roman province (επαρ χεία) : instances may be found in the passages cited by Marquardt, Röm. Alt. iv. p. 374 note, and in Wood's Inscriptions from the

λιτείαν

So

Odeum (Ephesus), No. 1. These various uses of Ovos in the Gentile world are exactly reproduced in its employment by the LXX. and the New Testament. Usually it describes the pagan world, outside the Jewish Church. Yet it does occasionally stand for the λαός itself: τοῦ ἔθνους τοῦ Ἰουδαίων (Acts x. 22). In Acts xxiv. 3, 10 the shade of meaning is ambiguous, and may refer less to the nationality of the Jews than to their grouping into a Roman province; but verse It is decisive : ἐλεημοσύνας ποιήσων εἰς τὸ έθνος μου. So also in Acts xxvi. 4, xxviii. 19, and elsewhere in St. Luke and St. John.

Ἐκκλησία.

Next we must notice the names of public assemblies in the New Testament,—¿KKAnoia, συναγωγή, βουλευτής, γερουσία, συνέδριον.

Concerning the all-important word KKAŋoía I merely observe in passing that we must banish from our minds all remembrance

of its etymology from ex-Kaλéσa (however correct in itself), inasmuch as the ikkλnoía always and everywhere in Greece was the reverse of an exclusive assembly. Indeed it was the most inclusive word in existence

for a constitutional assembly, embracing all free citizens of full age, excluding only aliens, females and arpo. This is worth remembering in view of comments like that of St. Augustine (In Ep. Rom. Inch. Expos. T. iii. Pt. ii. p. 925): Ecclesia ex vocatione appellata,''-a form of comment which I have met with occasionally in modern Calvinist manuals (comp. Pearson On the Creed, Art. ix. ch. 1, § 3 note, where his good sense and good scholarship do not fail him). The Christian KKλnoía, if it is to be true to the political origin of its name, must include all those who are enfranchised by Baptism unless they be excommunicate.

Συναγωγή.

Evvaywyn in the LXX. is nearly synonymous with ekkλŋoía, see the phrase Lev. viii. 3: πᾶσαν τὴν συναγωγὴν ἐκκλησίασον ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου : so Numb. xx. 8; Josh. xviii. 1, etc. In old Attic ovvaywyn was used of the convening of a board: ovvaγωγῆς δὲ τῶν λογιστῶν ἡ βουλὴ αὐτοκράτωρ ἔστω (Manual, No. 37): similarly ἐν τῷ πρώτα συννόμῳ συναγωγᾷ τῶν συνέδρων, i.. of the senate of Andania (Andania decree, Dittenberger, Syll. No. 388, line 49: 1st cent. B.C.). In the 'Will of Epikteta' (2nd or 3rd cent. B.C. C.I.G. 2448) ovvaywyn denotes the 'assembling' of the Oiagos or corporation founded by the bequest. In C.I.G. 3069 συναγωγή denotes a θίασος of Attalists (Teos)

of the 2nd cent. B.C. The word therefore before its adoption by the Jews, had formerly a perfectly neutral sense of 'convening' an assembly, with a tendency as time went on to become appropriated to the assembling of a sacred brotherhood. Once only in the New Testament is συναγωγή used (if then) of a Christian assembly, in James ii. 2, and then it refers to Jewish Christians. 'ETLOaywyn occurs twice in the New Testament, in Heb. x. 25 of the assembling of the Church on earth, in 2 Thess. ii. 1 of the reunion of the Church in glory.

Βουλη

The word Bouλn has a very slight hold upon the LXX.; they never use it in a technical sense : e.g. Ps. i. 5 : ἐν βουλῇ Sikaiwv 1 Macc. xiv. 22, in what purports to be a letter from Sparta, rà eipnμéva év taîs βουλαῖς τοῦ δήμου (!!). The title βουλευτής occurs twice in a colourless sense in Job iii.

14; xii. 17: and Dr. Field (on Acts ii. 24)

notices that the translator of Job aimed at an artificial classicalism. In the New Testament Bový signifies counsel, never council. In St. Mark xv. 43 Joseph of Arimatheia is

styled everynov Boudeurns: St. Luke (xxiii. 50) says of him βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων. In both passages the word appears to denote membership of the Sanhedrin ; but both SS. Mark and Luke are writing for Gentile readers. Otherwise βουλή and βουλευτής were not technical terms among the Jews for their Sanhedrin, although we find in Josephus, Bell. J. ii. 17 § 1 : οἵ τε ἄρχοντες καὶ οἱ βου λevrai and Ant. xx. 1 § 2, in an edict of Claudius : Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν ἄρχουσι βουλῇ δήμῳ Ἰουδαίων παντὶ ἔθνει.

Γερουσία, πρεσβύτεροι, συνέδριον.

Why then this omission of Bový and Bouleurs, terms which designate the most important feature in Greek civic life? And why in their place do we find γερουσία, συνέδριον, πρεσβύτεροι

Fully to answer this question would take us too far away from our present object into the details of Greek political antiquities. It is enough to say that the βουλή, organised after the Attic model, was the key stone of old Greek democracy. And as such, it was naturally no favourite with the despotisms that succeeded Alexander. Antigonus and Demetrius were the last potentates who affected to be partial to democracy. From their downfall at Ipsus B.C. 301, we may date the destruction of free government in Greek cities. At Ephesus we know from

2737a.

3197. Smyrna, temp. Hadrian.
2905. Priene, B.C. 135.

Mommsen's Marmor Ancyranum, iv. 17, temp. Augusti.

Hicks, Manual, 200, Miletus, B.C. 135.
C.I.A. ii. 424, Attica, 2nd cent. B.C.
Δογματίζειν is also found :

τà doyμаτiolévтa of Senatus consulta, Astypalaea, B.C. 105, C.I. 2485.

Soyμario to decree (honours), of a Greek decree of Cyme, temp. Augusti, C.I.G. 3524. δογματίζω in a decree of a θίασος (Naples, late) C.I.G. 5785.

Side by side with this political use of δόγμα, δογματίζω was their philosophical use for the placita philosophorum, which needs no illustration from me.

The words are used literally by St. Luke, ii. 1, Acts xvii. 7, of the decrees of the Emperor; and in Acts xvi. 4, of the decrees of the Council at Jerusalem. St. Paul used the words in a figurative sense, Eph. ii. 15; Col. ii. 14. And he invents a new and startling meaning for doyμatiłw, doyμatičeσ0e-'decree ridden,' Col. ii. 20. The general idea conveyed by the word was a positive ordinance, emanating from a distant and unquestionable authority.

Let me add a word or two concerning the document issued by the Council at Jerusalem. It is interesting to note how it conforms in various particulars to the usual type of Greek public documents. It is a letter, introducing to the notice of the readers a formal decree; though the decree is not appended to the letter as was usually the case (cp. e.g. No. 200 of my Manual), but is worked into the latter portion of the Epistle itself. I observe the following points of resemblance to regular Greek documents:

1. The salutation xaipew etc., only found besides in the New Testament in St. Luke's preface, in Lysias's letter, and the opening of St. James's Epistle.

2. The closing farewell: ppwofe (in Acts xxiii. 30 omitted).

3. The preamble
preamble commencing with

Επειδή.

4. The formal word doge, bis, vv. 25, 28.

5. The sending of envoys to deliver the

decree, and to say the same by word of mouth.

I may remark on two points of interpretation in this document.

1. γενομένοις ὁμοθυμαδόν is only a strong expression for 'assembled all together' (so Acts v. 12; xii. 20). The decree is not the manifesto of a cabal or a faction, but a decree of the entire Church convened together.

2. That rà avrá must mean the same as the contents of the decree following' is made absolutely certain by a comparison of a common formula in Greek decrees: let me cite an example from a recently published decree of Priene in acknowledgment of a decree brought by an envoy from Alexandria Troas : ἐπελθὼν δὲ καὶ Νικασαγόρας ἐπί τε τὴν βουλὴν καὶ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀκουλούθως διελέγη τοῖς ἐν τῷ ψηφίσματι κατακεχωρισμένοις. Οr this from a letter of Lysimachus to Priene : [οἱ παρ' ὑμῶν πρὸς ἡμᾶς πρεσβευταὶ ̓Αντισθένης καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ . τ]ό τε ψήφισμα [ἀπεδόσαν] ἡμῖν καὶ αὐτοὶ . . . . διελέγησαν παραπλησίως τοῖς ἐν τῷ [ψηφίσματι γεγραμμένοις, ἐμφανίζοντες K.T.A. Instances of this kind I might multiply to any extent.

Διαλέγεσθαι.

Let me add that there is a large group of words employed in the New Testament which though not confined in secular Greek to the language of politics, yet were so frequently and systematically employed in public documents, that probably their precise shade of meaning can better be determined from inscriptions than from any other source.

Such a word is διαλέγεσθαι, διαλεγῆναι, Stalexa, which occurs in the last two quotations. In these instances, and many more of the same type, diaλéyoμat has not the sense of arguing or of conversing, but means primarily to address an assembly,ora king. In the New Testament, with the exception of St. Mark ix. 34, it always is used of addressing, preaching, lecturing, and these instances are all from the Acts.

υιοθεσία, ὑοθεσία.

I may note that in Greece, before the Roman Conquest, the custom of adoption had become frequent. In public documents, phrases like the following are of common occurrence (I quote from a Rhodian decree of the 2nd century B.C.): Eipavioκos Kaλλιξείνου καθ' ὑοθ[ε]σίαν δὲ Νικασιδάμου. When St. Paul employs the word violeơía in his

1 Greek Inscriptions in the British Museum, part iii. section 1, Nos. 419, 402.

2 Ibid. No. 403, line 2.