320 Report S.A.A. Advancement of Science. 



Sex was a fact of great interest to primitive man, and its distinc- 

 tion in language — gender — appears very early. With the tendency to 

 personification among ancient people, gender, masculine and feminine^ 

 was attributed not only to persons and animals, but also to things, 

 probably in accordance with the popular estimate of their greater or 

 feebler activity. Later, when the difference between the person, who 

 can act, and the thing, which can only be acted upon, became clearer 

 in men's minds, neuter genders made their appearance. We often say 

 a neuter nominative is the same as the accusative, but, to speak cor- 

 rectly, a neuter originally had no nominative case. This is evidenced 

 by the fact that the inflection m, which is the sign of the accusative 

 case in masculine and feminine words, as ]noer^om and puellam, became 

 also the sign of the neuter gender, as in donum. Clearly a close 

 analogy was felt between a person, when the object of an action, 

 and an inanimate thing that had neither motion nor force of its 

 ov/n. 



As regards the primitive conception of the object, I believe we 

 shall not be very far from the facts if we picture mentally to ourselves 

 the effect of a heavy blow which, inflicted on a man, would stun him 

 and paralyse his powers of willing and acting ; or, if inflicted by him, 

 would reduce the erstwhile active body of his victim to the condition 

 of inert matter. 



Any severe shock — even a mental shock — ^may produce this paralys- 

 ing effect. In the Athens of the days of Socrates manners were gentle, 

 and bodily violence did not often occur ; but a public accusation was a 

 thing to be feared. Accusers were common enough and dangerous 

 enough. It is curious that the Greek name for the "objective" case 

 was the " categoric " case, the case of the accusation. And yet how 

 often is a man, when placed in such a situation, robbed of his faculties, 

 and, as it were, stunned. In his encounter with Protagoras, Socrates 

 describes his feelings thus: — 



" Here many of the audience cheered and applauded. And I felt 

 at first giddy and faint as if I had i-eceived a blow from the hand of 

 an expert boxer, when I heard his words and the sound of the 

 cheering." 



The third question concerning the action was — For whom was it 

 done? C'lii bono? — the indirect object, as it is called in English gram- 

 mar — an unfortunate designation that has proved a stumbling-block ti> 

 many generations of school-children. Yet the root idea is clear. A 

 man's voluntary actions are in the great majority of cases done with a 

 purpose, for the benefit or the injury of some person or persons. In 

 childhood and boyhood his actions are mostlj^ self-regarding — in baby- 

 hood entirely so ; but as he grows older his interests extend. He 

 thinks and works for his family, his tribe, his city, his country ; or, 

 if he is actuated by religious feeling, distress and suffering appeal to 

 him no matter where they may be found. 



The Latin name is excellent — Dative, the person to whom it is 

 given, the recipient. In the modern conditions of life one is apt to 

 forget what a large part giving played in the communities of early 



