22 Wisconsin Academy of ScienccSj Arts, and Letters. 



military order "Attention!" Proceeding circumspectly, I next say 

 "John!", from which, vocative my hearer learns that what I am yet to 

 say will be directed to him; that it is time to put on his thinking cap. 

 My warning, now double, being both general and personal, answers to 

 the specialized "Attention, Company A!" I next ejaculate "Razor!", 

 thereby indicating that what I am to say will concern that tool of the 

 barber's art. So, too, in military practice, a considerate captain might 

 amplify the ordinary "Attention, Company A!" by hinting the general 

 nature of the order about to follow. The barber is now aware that I 

 am going to talk — to him — about a razor. He is amply prepared for the 

 statement "You have a new razor". I mas'- look with some confidence 

 for an immediate answer. 



Of all such preliminaries I invite especial attention only to the last,, 

 the one which advertises the coming topic, the precursory or prodromie 

 theme-namer, the colloquial "mise en scene.". The import of this may 

 be expressed by the sentence "Razor is to be talked of" or "I am going 

 to talk of a razor". But economy or brevity commonly reduces the 

 sentence to a phrase or even a single word, as for instance, "Speaking of 

 razors", "apropos of razors", or merely "Razor'". Such reduction of 

 course establishes no sentential fellowship between the precursory 

 theme-namer and the utterance which follows. That is, "Speaking of a 

 razor" has nothing more to do with "You have a new razor" than did 

 "I am going to talk of a razor". Yet, just as weaker men of old became 

 the vassals of feudal superiors; just as words of scanty meaning, volume 

 or importance join their betters as proclitics or enclitics; so also the 

 mutilated sentence, or say the residuary phrase, unites itself with its 

 unimpaired neighbor. 



The same is true of a single residuary word. Thus the sentence "I 

 am going to speak of Zachaeus", used as a preliminary namer of my 

 coming topic, may be reduced to the single word "Zachaeus". This 

 word, unable thus alone to functionate as a sentence, formally allies 

 itself to the following sentence, producing "Zachaeus he did climb 

 etc." The alliance is not however structural; for, given "he" as oc- 

 cupant of the subject-place, no other place remains for "Zachaeus". In 

 fact "he" is "Zachaeus", which is but saying that "Zachaeus" is already 

 in the only place that "Zachaeus" can occupy. It seems therefore just 

 to say that in "Zachaeus he did climb, etc." the presence of "Zachaeus"^ 

 is purely adventitious; that the word is properly a mere residuum of a 

 prior sentence. 



The different relations of a principal to the sentence containing its 

 proxy may be illustrated as follows: 



(1) "Zachaeus saw Ms Lord." The principal is in the proxy's sen- 

 tence and of it. 



(2) "Zachaeus hr saw his Lord." The principal is in the proxy's 

 sentence but not of it. 



