In the Church of Rome the subject of vows assumes extraordinar}' proportions. "The objects of these en- gagements among Catholics are ver\' various; but they are drawn, for the most part, from what are called the evangelical ' counsels,' in contradistinction to ' ])re- cepts' or 'commands' — the most ordinary subject of vows being the so-called ' evangelical' virtues of pov- erty, chastity, and obedience. Pilgrin>ages, however, acts of abstinence, or other self-mortifications, whether of the body or of the will, special prayers or religious exercises, are frequently made the object of vows; and there is another large class of more material objects, as the building of churches, monasteries, hospitals, and other works of public interest or utility, to which me- diisval Europe was indebted for many of its most mag- nificent memorials of piety and of art. Vows, in the IJoman Church law, are either 'simple' or 'solemn.' The principal difference between them consists in the legal effects of the 'solemn' vow, which, where the sub- ject of such vow is chastity, renders not merely un- lawful, but nidi and void, a marriage subsequently con- tracted. A 'simple'' vow of chastity makes it uidaw- ful to marry, but, excejjt in the Jesuit Society, doe* not invalidate a marriage, if subsequently contracted. Cath- olics acknowledge in the Church a power of dispensing in vows; but this is held to be rather declaratory than remissory, and it is not acknowledged in the case of vows which involve any right of a third party. Bish- ops are held to possess the power of dispensing in simijle vows generally; but the power of dispensing in solemn vows and in certain simple vows — as, for example, that
VOWEL-POINTS
819
VOWEL-POINTS
of absolute and perpetual chastity, and of the greater l)ilgrimages — is reserved to the pope. The practical op- t ration of the canon law regarding vows has evidently been much niodilifd, even in Catholic countries, since the French licvolution, and the subsequent political clianges; but tliis must be understood to regard chiefly tlieir external and ])urely juridical effects. So far as concerns their spiritual obligation, the modern Roman theologj' recognises little, if anj', change" (Chambers). See Wetter und Welte, Kirchcn-Lex. s. v.
Vo'wel-points. At no time was the Hebrew sys- tem of writing merely a writing of the consonants, but from the beginning it had three vowel-signs for the vowels a, i, and u. Of these, however, the first (N) was used only with a commencing sound, and in a conclud- ing sound it was not written, but every consonant was sounded with the <;. jMoreover, in the beginning the a sound was very greatly predominant, and oidy as the language became developed the other vowels became more frequent, t and ii, also e, o, ai, and au. Yet the writing was developed less rapidly than the pronuncia- tion, and thus the vowel-marks "^ and 1 were not applied everywhere, but only in ambiguous forms. As long as Hebrew continued to be spoken, men were content with this simple vocalization, and the precision and certain knowledge of the living language compensated for the defectiveness of the written symb()ls. This can best be seen from the scriptio defectiiKi which so generally ap- pears in the earlier books of the Old Test. But when, after the Exile, literary activity was awakened, and the .Jews turned their attention to reading and writing, the inconvenience of the old vowel designation was felt in proportion as knowledge of the living tongue de- creased. In these circumstances, they endeavored to retain their knowledge of the current pronunciation by a more frequent use of the vowel letters : and the so- called scriptio plena, as it appears in the later books of the Old Test., was used more and more. Thus we read
Tin, aiip, Di?3'i:bx, :5-"i-i for Tn, ujnp, n-^Toabs,
""I, respectively. This orthography is also seen in a greater degree in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in the Talmudical and later Rabbinical language. But so late as the time of the Alexandrian version the vocalization had not attained to its later perfection, and tlierefore in many cases it deviates from that which is now adopted. I. The Orifjin of the Vowel SyMem. — 1. In the Talmud, also, we have no trace of written vowel-signs or accents, as some have supposed, nor does it contain even the in- cipient features of a written vowel system. The for- mulas, so frequently occurring in the Talmud, N"pn bX
■: xbx -s and mcnab ns 'c xnp^b nx "H^,
have often been quoted as a proof that in the time of the Talmud the text of the Scripture had been firmh' settled in respect of the vowels no less than of the con- sonants. But this is a mistake. The first formida, " Read not so, but so," relates solely to fanciful and play- ful changes of words in the text, so that witty applica- tions may be made of them. It furnishes no proof that the Talmud recognises written vowel-marks. The oth- er formula, "A reason for decision according to the Mikra and the Masorah," is used when two Talmudic doctors, disputing, base their different ojiinions on the same word in the text, but according to a different reading of it— the one reading being called N"ip^, the other r'^O'S, Tiie former is the ecclesiastical or canonical reading; the latter ihe apocryphal or assumed one. The opposition between the two recorded in the Tal- mud shows that written vowel-signs were then un- known. Both refer to the vocalization, but in such a way as proves an unvowelled text, affording scope for interpretations deviating from the established pronun- ciation. Another class of passages has been quoted in which certain vowel-signs appear to be mentioned. These are^