qui temtabat vincere, victus erubesceret, et qui temtabantur, victores gauderent. Ubi et post multorum servorum et ancillarum Cristi gloriosum martyrium, imminente vehementer ipsa persecutione, conpletis septem annis tantummodo in episkopatum, supradictus sanctissimus vir beatus Ulfila cum grandi populo confessorum de varbarico pulsus, in solo Romanie a thu[n]c beate memorie Constantio principe honorifice est susceptus, ut sicuti Deus per Moysem de potentia et violentia Faraonis et Egyptorum po[pulum s]uum l[iberav]it [et rubrum] mare transire fecit et sibi servire providit, ita et per sepe dictum Deus confessores sancti filii sui unigeniti de varbarico liberavit et per Danubium transire fecit, et in montibus secundum sanctorum imitationem sibi servire de[crevit] . eo populo in solo Romaniæ, ubi sine illis septem annis triginta et tribus annis veritatem predicavit, ut et in hoc quorum sanctorum imitator erat [similis esset], quod quadraginta annorum spatium et tempus ut multos . . . . re et a[nn]orum

e vita.' . . 'Qu[i] c[um] precepto imperiali, conpletis quadraginta annis, ad Constantinopolitanam urbem ad disputationem .. ie... [p] . t. stas perrexit, et eundo in

contra p

abat, et inge e

to docerent et contestasupradictam [ci]vitatem,

rent[ur] recogitato et im de statu concilii, ne arguerentur miseris miserabiliores, proprio judicio damnati et perpetuo supplicio plectendi, statim cœpit infirmari; qua in infirmitate susceptus est ad similitudine Elisei prophete. Considerare modo oportet meritum viri, qui ad hoc duce Domino obit Constantinopolim, immo vero Cristianopolim, ut sanctus et immaculatus sacerdos Cristi a sanctis et consacerdotibus, a dignis dignus digne [per] tantum multitudinem cristianorum pro meritis [suis] mire et gloriose honoraretur.'-(Bessell, p. 37.)

'Unde et cum sancto Hulfila ceterisque consortibus ad alium comitatum Constantinopolim venissent, ibique etiam et imperatores adissent, adque eis promissum fuisset conci[li]um, ut sanctus Aux[en]tius exposuit, [a]gnita promiss[io]ne prefati pr[e]positi heretic[i] omnibus viribu[s] institerunt u[t] lex daretur q[ua] concilium pro[hi]beret, sed nec p[ri]vatim in domo [nec] in publico, vel i[n] quolibet loco di[s]putatio de fide haberetur, sic[ut] textus indicat [le]gis, etc.'-(Waitz, p. 23; Bessell, p. 15.)

THE

CHAPTER VIII.

THE SEMITIC FAMILY.

Comparative Study of the Semitic Language.

HE Science of Language owes its origin almost entirely to the study of the Aryan languages, one might almost say, to the study of Sanskrit. The more correct views on the origin and growth of language, on the true nature of grammatical elements, on the possible changes of letters, and on the historical development of the meaning of words, are all the work of the nineteenth century, and may be claimed, in the first instance, as the discoveries of Sanskrit scholars.

But similar discoveries had been attempted by scholars of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, within the narrower sphere of the Semitic languages. That the constituent elements of Hebrew were triliteral roots, that the grammatical terminations were mostly pronominal, that certain consonants were interchangeable, while others were not, all this was known before the rise of Comparative Philology in Europe. Nevertheless, it was the new spirit which animated the schools of Bopp, Pott, and Grimm, which soon began to react powerfully on Semitic students, and in our own time has led to a comparative study of Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic, very different from that of former generations.

For the purpose of illustrating the general principles of the Science of Language the Aryan languages may still be considered as the most useful, and I need hardly add that from the nature of my own special studies, I was led to depend mainly on the evidence supplied by them in support of the linguistic theories which I wished to establish. But as it is impossible to avoid reference to the Semitic, if only in order to contrast them with the Aryan languages, and as a certain knowledge of what I called the Turanian languages seems almost indispensable to enable us to understand the only possible antecedents of Aryan grammar, a short survey of the Semitic, and what I called the Turanian languages will be useful, before we proceed further.

Division of the Semitic Family.

The Semitic family has been divided into three branches: the Aramaic, the Hebraic, and the Arabic;1 or into two, the Northern, comprising the Aramaic and Hebraic, and the Southern the Arabic.

Aramaic.

The language of Aram, which formerly was represented chiefly by Syriac and Chaldee, has now received an older representative in the language of Assyria and Babylon, so far as it has been recovered and deciphered in the cuneiform inscriptions. The grammatical structure of this ancient language is clearly Semitic, but it displays no peculiarities which

1 Histoire générale et Système comparé des Langues sémitiques, par Ernest Renan.

would connect it more closely with Aramaic than with the other Semitic languages. Geographically, however, the ancient language of Mesopotamia may for the present be called Aramaic. The date also of the most ancient of these inscriptions is still a matter of controversy. If some of them go back, as some scholars maintain, to 4000 B.C., they would represent the very oldest remnants of Semitic speech, and almost any deviations of the later Aramaic dialects might be accounted for by mere growth and decay.

If that ancient Semitic literature was itself preceded, as seems now very generally, though not yet universally, admitted, by another civilisation, not Semitic, and known by the name of Sumero-Accadian, this would open to us an insight into a past more distant even than that which is claimed for the oldest Egyptian and Chinese literature. It may be so, but as yet neither the language, nor the ideas conveyed by it, give the impression of so very remote an antiquity.1 Much, no doubt, has been achieved in deciphering these cuneiform inscriptions, and every year brings new and important results. But this very fact shows how dangerous it would be to look upon every new discovery as final, and to arrange and rearrange the history and chronology of the East in accordance with the latest conjectures, based on the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions.2

Chaldee and Syriac.

The language spoken in historical times in the

1 See Gifford Lectures, p. 305.

2 See Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, 1887, p. 413.

ancient kingdoms of Babylon and Nineveh is called Aramaic. It spread from thence into Syria and Palestine. Owing to the political and literary ascendency of these countries, Aramaic seems for a time to have become a kind of lingua franca, asserting its influence over Persia, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and even Arabia.

The language spoken by Abraham and his people, before they emigrated to Canaan, was probably Aramaic. Laban must have spoken the same dialect, and the name which he gave to the heap of stones that was to be a witness between him and Jacob (Jegar-sahadutha) is Syriac, whereas Galeed, the name by which Jacob called it, is Hebrew.1

It has been usual to distinguish between Aramaic as used by the Jews, and Aramaic as used in later times by Christian writers. The former was called Chaldee, the latter Syriac. It may be true that the name Chaldee owes its origin to the mistaken notion of its having been introduced into Palestine by the Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity. But the name has now been too long in possession to make it advisable to replace it by a new name, such as Western Aramaic.

The Jewish Chaldee2 shows itself first in some of the books of the Old Testament, such as the book of Ezra and the book of the Prophet Daniel. Afterwards we find it employed in the Targums or Chaldee

3

See Quatremère, Mémoire sur les Nabatéens, p. 139.

2 Renan, pp. 214 seq.: Le chaldéen biblique serait un dialecte araméen légèrement hébraisé.

Arabic, tarjam, to explain: Dragoman, Arabic, tarjamân.