« PreviousContinue »
ogy, that is to say the origin, of the French payer, the English to pay, if we did not consult the dictionary of the cognate dialects, such as Italian and Spanish. Here we find that to pay is expressed in Italian by pagare, in Spanish by pagar, whereas in Provençal we actually find the two forms pagar and payar. Now pagar clearly points back to Latin pacare, which means to pacify, to appease. To appease a creditor meant to
pay him; in the same manner as une quittance, a quity tance or receipt, was originally quietantia, a quieting, from quietus, quiet.
If, therefore, we wish to follow up our researches, – if, not satisfied with having traced an English word back to Gothic, we want to know what it was at a still earlier period of its growth, — we must determine whether there are any languages that stand to Gothic in the same relation in which Italian and Spanish stand to French; we must restore, as far as possible, the genealogical tree of the various families of human speech. In doing this we enter on the second or classificatory stage of our science ; for genealogy, where it is applicable, is the most perfect forın of classification.
Before we proceed to examine the results which have been obtained by the recent labors of Schlegel, Humboldt, Bopp, Burnouf, Pott, Benfey, Prichard, Grimm, Kuhn, Curtius, and others in this branch of the science of language, it will be well to glance at what had been achieved before their time in the classification of the numberless dialects of mankind.
The Greeks never thought of applying the principle of classification to the varieties of human speech. They only distinguished between Greek on one side,
and all other languages on the other, comprehended under the convenient name of “Barbarous.” They succeeded, indeed, in classifying four of their own dialects with tolerable correctness, but they applied the term “ barbarous” so promiscuously to the other more distant relatives of Greek, (the dialects of the Pelasgians, Carians, Macedonians, Thracians, and Illyrians,) that, for the purposes of scientific classification, it is almost impossible to make any use of the statements of ancient writers about these so-called barbarous idioms.2
1 Strabo, viii. p. 833. Την μεν Ιάδα τη παλαιά 'Ατθίδι την αυτήν φαμέν, την δε Δωρίδα τη Αίολίδι. .
2 Herodotus (vii. 94, 509) gives Pelasgi as the old name of the Æolians and of the Ionians in the Peloponnesus and the islands. Nevertheless he argues (i. 57), from the dialect spoken in his time by the Pelasgi of the towns of Kreston, Plakia, and Skylake, that the old Pelasgi spoke a barbarvus tongue (Bap3apov TÌM yawooav iévteS). He has, therefore, to admit that the Attic race, being originally Pelasgic, unlearnt its language (TÒ
'Αττικόν έθνος εόν Πελασγικόν, άμα τη μεταβολη τη ες "Έλληνας, και την + yhwogav ueréuade). See Diefenbach, Origines Europææ, p. 59. Diony
sius of Halicarnassus (i. 17) avoids this difficulty by declaring the Pelasgi to have been from the beginning a Hellenic race. This however, is merely his own theory. The Karians are called Bappupoowvol by Homer (II. v. 867); but Strabo (xiv. 662) takes particular care to show that they are not therefore to be considered as βάρβαροι. . He distinguishes between βαρβαροφωνείν, 1. 6. κακώς έλληνίζειν, and Καριστι λαλείν, καρίζειν και Bapapišelv. But the same Strabo says that the Karians were formerly called Akneyes (xii. p. 572); and these, together with Pelasgians and Kaukones, are reckoned by him (vii. p. 321) as the earlier barbarous inhabitants of Hellas. Again he (vii. p. 321), as well as Aristotle and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (i. 17), considers the Locrians as descendants of the Leleges, though they would hardly call the Locrians barbarians.
The Macedonians are mentioned by Strabo (x. p. 460) together with “the other Hellenes.” Demosthenes speaks of Alexander as a barbarian; Isokrates as a Heraclide. To judge from a few extant words, Macedonian might have been a Greek dialect. (Diefenbach, Orig. Europ. p. 62.) Justine (vii. 1) says of the Macedonians,“ Populus Pelasgi, regio Pæonia dicebatur.” There was a tradition that the country occupied by the Macedonians belonged formerly to Thracians or Pierians (Thuc. ii. 99; Strabo, vii. D. 321); part of it to Thessalians (ibid.).
Plato, indeed, in his Cratylus (c. 36), throws out a hint that the Greeks might have received their own words from the barbarians, the barbarians being older than the Greeks. But he was not able to see the full bearing of this remark. He only points out that some words, such as the names of fire, water, and dog, were the same in Phrygian and Greek; and he supposes that the Greeks borrowed them from the Phrygians (c. 26). The idea that the Greek language and that of the barbarians could have had a common source never entered his mind. It is strange that even so comprehensive a mind as that of Aristotle should have failed to perceive in languages some of that law and order which he tried to discover in every realm of nature. As Aristotle, however, did not attempt this, we need not wonder that it was not attempted by any one else for the next two thousand years. The Romans, in all scien, tific matters, were merely the parrots of the Greeks.
The Thracians are called by Herodotus (v. 3) the greatest people after 7
the Indians. They are distinguished by Strabo from Illyrians (Diefenbach, p. 65), from Celts (ibid.), and from Scythians (Thuc. ii. 96). What we know of their language rests on a statement of Strabo (vii. 303, 305), that the Thracians spoke the same language as the Getæ, and the Getæ the same as the Dacians. We possess fragments of Dacian speech in the bo
tanical names collected by Dioskorides, and these, as interpreted by Grimm, y are clearly Aryan, though not Greek. The Dacians are called barbarians by Strabo, together with Illyrians and Epirotes. (Strabo, vii. p. 321.)
The Illyrians were barbarians in the eyes of the Greeks. They are now considered as an independent branch of the Aryan family. Herodotus
refers the Veneti to the Illyrians (i. 196); and the Veneti, according 1 to Polybius (ii. 17), who knew them, spoke a language different from
that of the Celts. He adds that they were an old race, and in their manner and dress like the Celts. Hence many writers have mistaken them for Celts, neglecting the criterion of language, on which Polybius lays such proper stress. The Illyrians were a widely extended race; the Pan
nonians, the Dalmatians, and the Dardanians (from whom the Dardanelles 7 were called), are all spoken of as Illyrians. (Diefenbach, Origines Euro
pææ, pp. 74, 75.) It is lost labor to try to extract anything positive from the statements of the Greeks and Romans on the race and the language of their barbarian neighbors.
Having themselves been called barbarians, they soon learnt to apply the same name to all other nations, except, of course, to their masters, the Greeks. Now barbarian is one of those lazy expressions which seem to say everything but in reality say nothing. It was applied as recklessly as the word heretic during the Middle Ages. If the Romans had not received this convenient name of barbarian ready made for them, they would have treated their neighbors, the Celts and Germans, with more respect and sympathy : they would, at all events, have looked at them with a more discriminating eye. And, if they had done so, they would have discovered, in spite of outward differences, that these barbarians were, after all, not very
distant cousins. There was as much similarity be? tween the language of Cæsar and the barbarians
against whom he fought in Gaul and Germany as there was between his language and that of Homer. A man of Cæsar's sagacity would have seen this, if he had not been blinded by traditional phraseology. I am not exaggerating. For let us look at one instance only. If we take a verb of such constant occurrence as to have, we shall find the paradigms almost identical in Latin and Gothic:
I have in Latin is habeo, in Gothic haba.
habant. It surely required a certain amount of blindness, or rather of deafness, not to perceive such similarity, and
that blindness or deafness arose, I believe, entirely from the single word barbarian. Not till that word barbarian was struck out of the dictionary of mankind, and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognized, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science. This change was effected by Christianity. To the Hindu, every man not twiceborn was a Mlechha ; to the Greek, every man not speaking Greek was a barbarian ; to the Jew, every person not circumcised was a Gentile ; to the Mohammedan, every man not believing in the prophet is a Giaur or Kaffir. It was Christianity which first broke down the barriers between Jew and Gentile, between Greek and barbarian, between the white and the black. Humanity is a word which you look for in vain in Plato or Aristotle; the idea of mankind as one family, as the children of one God, is an idea of Christian growth; and the science of mankind, and of the languages of mankind, is a science which, without Christianity, would never have sprung into life.
When people had been taught to look upon all men as brethren, then, and then only, did the variety of human speech present itself as a problem that called for a solution in the eyes of thoughtful observers ; and I, therefore, date the real beginning of the science of language from the first day of Pentecost. After that day of cloven tongues a new light is spreading over the world, and objects rise into view which had been hidden from the eyes of the nations of antiquity. Old words assume a new meaning, old problems a new interest, old sciences a new purpose. The common origin of mankind, the differences of race and language, the susceptibility of