66 change from cen-ta-re* to con-ta-re is one which it is not necessary to dwell upon at any length. Plautus says votare, where most authors prefer vetare. Again, in one of our recent papers, we traced mora delay," through a form mona (=μov-n) to a base men- (=μer of μιμνω ί.ε. μι-μεν-ω). We would add to this that in English also we write almost indifferently, accountant and accomptant. The usual course, we believe, is to deduce compter from computa-re, but we think the u would in that case have been retained, as in reputer, &c. 66 Still to adhere to roots ending in n, we will take the verb senti-o. Now Zumpt, in p. 180, has the line," Sentio, sensi, sensum, sentire, feel, think." Here we have a third instance of the evil we complain of. Sensi and sensum might well attach themselves to a root sen-, whereas from sentio should have proceeded sentivi and sentitum. From the same primitive root sen- come with all regularity the adverb sen- sim the frequentative ad-sen-ta-ri, and the substantive sen-ti-s a thorn." In the German language we have the primitive word still existing in sinn, "feeling, sense." The word sentis, which occurs it is true only in the sense of " a thorn," probably at first meant "feeling," and then the formation of the secondary verb is explained, as it will agree with the familiar cases of leni-re, molli-re, fini-re, tussi-re, vesti-re, parti-ri, sorti ri, denti-re, arti-re, from the several nouns leni-s, molli-s, fini-s, tussi-s, vesti-s, parti-s (old form of pars, whence ac. partim), sorti-s (old form of sors), denti-s (old form of dens), arti-s (old form of ars). Nay, we also claim cense-re as virtually of similar formation. The participle censītus and substantive censitor evidently imply a verb censiIt is much in the same way that we find the presents eo queo, and nequeo in connection with other forms that belong pretty decisively to the fourth conjugation. So the Greeks got into the habit of using woλE-WB where analogy from πολι-ς would have required πολι-ος. Now cen-siis precisely the form that would arise in the attempt to create a substantive by the addition of the suffix ti- to a base cen-. The advantage of fixing the eye on the essential part of a word is nowhere more marked than in considering the family of words of which men- is the founder. From this come men- tion-, men- ti- (nom. menti-s, afterwards mens), menti-ri, the perf. me-min-i, the compounds commin-isc-i, re-min-isc-i, com-men-to-, com-men-ta-ri, &c., and by a slight change mem-or (for men or). Now Lünemann under comminiscor is perfectly silent as to etymology, as though the word were an original root. Equally silent is he under mentior. But with the word memini he gives us the following extraordinary information:-(" Perfect of the obsolete verb memino, Greek μéμvw, μváw, I figure to my mind, i e. place before me: hence in the perf., &c.")† Again under mentio, he refers us to memini as a parent, while mens is said to be of Greek origin, and an equivalent for μévos. The gender alone should have prevented such an μένος. * A verb KeyTα-w appears to have existed in Greek. See Stephens' Thesaurus, by Valpy. † In the original: Měmini, isse (Perf. vom veralteten Verbum memino, griechisch μéμvw, uváw, ich vergegenwärtige meiner Seele, i. e. stelle mir vor: daher im Perf.), &c. Oddly enough, as if to discredit this doctrine, Messrs. Liddell and Scott give, as the first meaning of uevos, “force, strength of body." Only under their second 66 assertion, even if the author forgot that in mens, mentis, the t is a letter not to be neglected. Had μevog been precisely represented in the Latin language, it would have been by a neuter noun menus, meneris, just as yevoç is by genus, generis. Besides this the noun gens is by Lünemann* himself correctly deduced from gen- of gigno (= gi-gen-o). An early sense of the obsolete verb men- was probably "to mind," i.e. carefully notice." Those who complain of bad memories will be generally found to have failed in the first requisite, i.e. giving their mind to the object they would wish to recollect. On the other hand, memini," I have minded," "I did notice," is well adapted to denote "I recollect." But how could Lünemann fail to perceive that memini owes its first syllable like peμvnμai solely to the ordinary principle of a reduplication in the perfect; and how could he imagine such a syllable as uɛ to be admissible in the imperfect tenses, when the veriest beginner in Greek is aware that reduplication never enters the imperfect tenses except with the vowel : as in μιμνω, γιγνομαι, ίστημι, τίθημι, πιμπλημι, πιπτω, &ο.? The very sight of such impossible verbs as memino and μɛμvw is offensive to the eye of a philologer. If our view about the origin of mentiri be correct, of course its first signification must have been" to invent" like comminisci; and vices are often denoted by a euphemism. The greater part, if not all that has been just said, has been anticipated by others. Indeed the substance is admitted by Lünemann himself under the head, "Reminiscor, i (re and *meniscor or miniscor, from the old verbum meno memini mentum, whence the still existing words mens, mentio, &c. are derived)”—a passage which is sadly at variance with the etymological remarks given under the other derivatives of the stem men-. In the case of the base gen-, it is wholly unnecessary for lexicographers to appeal to the Greek language. This root is as thoroughly Latin as it is Greek; and it seems the more ludicrous to find Lünemann commencing the article gens with the parenthesis: (von yévw oder yiyvw), when the very article which precedes this in his own lexicon tells us that gen-o was actually used by three Latin writers. It will be difficult to find equal authority for the Greek yévw. But again he is inconsistent with himself. Under genitabilis, genitalis, genitivus, genitor, genitura, genius, he is not afraid to refer to this obsolete verb gen-o as the parent; yet again under genus he flies to the Greek for aid. Of course we do not deny that the Greek yevos and the Latin genus are equivalents, but this admission must not be construed into the supposition that the Romans imported their word genus from Greece. There are some derivations from this root gen-, which have been too frequently cast upon the wide world as orphans; viz. gemma, germen, and germanus. The first of these is without etymological remark in main division does the idea of "mind" make its appearance. In this however, we cannot but think they are wrong. And indeed, though μevos is marked in their lexicon in capitals, so as in a manner to imply that it is a primitive, yet they end with telling us that it is akin to the Latin mens, our mind. * On turning to Mr. Riddle's Dictionary we find the old error re-appearing. For once he leaves his guide, Lünemann, and gives us, "Gens, tis, f. (contracted from genus)." Lünemann, and he commits what appears to us a grave error in giving to the notion of "a jewel" precedence over the other notion of a "bud." The word, as signifying a bud or germ, may well be expressed by a derivative from gen-" produce or cause to grow," such as gen-ima or gen-ma; and such a word would by the usual law of assi milation soon pass into gemma, much as the Latin anima has become in French âme. Germen also is a form not unlikely to flow by a slight letterchange, already mentioned in this paper, from gen-i-men; and from germen would be formed an adjective germin-anus, which containing two consecutive syllables of a nasal sound, in and an, would naturally be compressed into germanus. Of such a formation we have an all but parallel in humanus* for homĭn-anus, from homŏn(n. homo). The meaning suits well, for fratres germani will now signify "brothers of the same stock or family," in opposition to fratres patrueles, or fratres through a paternal uncle, which we express by first cousins. Lünemann is again silent on the origin of germanus ; but under germen we find the remark that the word is deduced from gero, which he tells us originally signified "produce" (zeugen). This strange translation of gero is repeated under the article gero, with the additional information that this verb is "from yew i.e. yɛivw, with an inserted r." Now we are satisfied with the old doctrine that gero has for its meaning "to carry" with the notion commonly superadded that the carrying is nct of a momentary, but rather an habitual, or at least continued character; in other words we believe it to correspond in sense (and indeed also in form) to our English verb wear. Such a passage as terra gerit herbas from Tibullus will not lead us away from our preconceived opinion, because the words readily admit the translation," the earth wears or is clothed with plants." Virgil, for instance, has the phrases terra se gramine vestit, and olea vestire Taburnum. But independently of our objection to the translation which Lünemann assigns as the primitive sense of gero, and independently of our hesitation about his Greek verb yew, we must protest against his doctrine of ther being an inserted letter (mit eingeschaltetem r). We admit that there are valid cases of inserted letters, for example that a p will insert itself after an m, if a t or s follow, as in temptare, contemptus, sumpsit, hiemps (so MSS.), Thompson. We admit also the insertion in a similar manner of a b after an m, if an r or 7 follow, as in μeonμßpia for μɛonμɛpia, in the French nombre for numero, combler from cumulare, the Spanish nombre, lumbre from nomine, lumine, and English ramble from roam; we also admit that a d will insert itself after an n, if an r follow as avopos for avepos, and the French viendrai, vendre-di for venir-ai and veneris-dies, and the Scotch name Hendricks. But in all these cases the insertion arises from a natural affinity of the labial letters p and 6 with an m, and of the dental d with an n. There is no such excuse for the alleged interpolation of a foreign r in gero. CLAUDIUS. * Thus the difference in quantity between humanus and homo is explained. ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT. No. I. We have not hitherto wearied our readers with the dissertations on this question. We would now speak upon it very temperately, and as little as possible in a way to excite discussion. There is one form of answer, however, which we should gladly receive, viz.: a citation of the opinions of practical men, whose names carry some weight with them, and who have had experience in the education of numbers. It is desirable for those engaged in school instruction to know what are, and what are not, justifiable resources of discipline. It is a question which is sure to propose itself to every master who is unrestricted and free to choose his own plan of coercion: it is one, therefore, which should not be evaded in a journal professedly devoted to educational purposes. The movement against corporal punishment on the part of the public, (for schoolmasters themselves have had, we suspect, a co mparatively small share in it,) has been by no means a temperate one; indeed, the fire of some of the disputants has been one of the best proofs of their own assertion, that "besides other objections, there are many men who are not fit to be trusted with the power of corporal chastisement." There has been a great deal more feeling and will, than reasoning or discussion upon the matter. Such sentences as these have been quite common in the mouths of parents-" No schoolmaster shall beat a child of mine." "Let him teach them well or ill, I am determined at least that he shall not strike them." A schoolmaster of our acquaintance, to whose establishment a father had brought three sons, was asked as a preliminary, whether he ever used the rod or cane: he replied, "Yes." "Well, sir," was the reply, "then I cannot entrust them to you, sir; should even a father strike a son, I consider the son would be perfectly justified in striking his father." This is an extravagant case, but we can vouch for its truth. We ourselves were told by a parent, that if a master dared to strike one of his sons, his next step would be, himself to go and horsewhip the schoolmaster. The famous John Erigena, one of "Those who first broke the universal gloom, Sons of the morning," was, we are told, murdered by his school-boys. In the present day, it appears that parents might perhaps be found who would save their children this trouble. We allege such cases as at least a proof of the violence and wilfulness which have thrown their weight into the scale that perhaps now preponderates. Arnold viewed the prevalent aversion to corporal chastisement as a very inauspicious phase of popular feeling. In answer,' "In answer," says his biographer," to an argument used in a liberal journal, that corporal punishment was even for moral offences, and for boys of young age, degrading," he replied with characteristic emphasis "I know well of what feeling this is the expression; it originates in that proud notion of personal independence which is neither reasonable nor Christian, but essentially barbarian. It visited Europe with all the curses of the age of chivalry, and is now threatening us with those of Jacobinism. At an age when it is almost impossible to find a true manly sense of the degradation of guilt, or faults, where is the wisdom of encouraging a fantastic sense of the degradation of personal correction.”—Arnold's Life and Correspondence, Vol. I. p. 115. It is evident that, in this opinion at least, Arnold did not sympathize with the political party which claimed him. But we must not mislead our readers into supposing that this aversion to the rod, though so prevalent in the present day, is peculiar to it we shall hereafter take occasion to show that, on this subject, there has always been much variance both of practice and opinion. Plato,* whose circumstances were to be sure widely different from those of a modern schoolmaster, was an advocate of the milder system, at least, in the disciplining of the intellectuals. The Roman schoolmasters, who appear to have been more systematic trainers of youth, with specified subjects of instruction, and who had to deal, not, like the Greek philosophers, with choice, inquiring disciples; but, like ourselves, with a herd of boys, good, bad, and indifferent, appear to have been unable to follow the advice of Plato, if we are to take the testimony of Horace,† or that more terrible description of Ausonius.‡ St. Augustin was brought up on the soothing system; whilst the illustrious Alcuing thanks the fathers of York Minster, to use his own words, for "bringing me to the perfect age of manhood by the discipline of paternal castigation." Erasmus, who we know had no taste for martyrdom of any kind, and who probably had not been subjected to like severity, stood pitying the scholars who were suffering the flagellations of Lilly, the famous schoolmaster of St. Paul's, under the inspection of Dean Colet;|| whilst his fellow reformer, Luther,¶ had known what it was to be beaten by his mother till the blood came, for stealing a hazelnut, and flogged subsequently by his master for school faults fifteen times** a day; yet, without being led, even by this brutality, to draw any general inference against corporal punishment, to talk maudlin in after years about an aggrieved and unappreciated or * Μὴ τοίνυν βία εἶπον ὦ ἄρισε τους παῖδας ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασι ἀλλα παίζοντας τρεφε ἵνα καὶ μᾶλλον οιος τ' ᾖς καθορᾷν ἐφ ὁ ἕκασος πεφυκε (the words are put into the mouth of Socrates).-Plato, Rep. ii. † Horace refers, as it were quite casually, and with much apparent good-nature, to this characteristic of his old masters. Non equidem insector, delendave carmina Livî Tu quoque ne metuas quamvis schola verbere multo Ausonius, Idyll. iv. 14. § Turner's Anglo Saxons, B. VII. vol. iii., who says of the Saxons, "That they used personal castigation in their education is frequently intimated." Erasmus de Pueris Instituendis Op. vol. i.-Tytler's Henry VIII. **"It is right," said Luther, relating this fact; "it is right to punish children; but at the same time we must love them."-D'Aubigne's Reformation, vol. i. p. 145. |