Chapter XIV: Appendix (2)

13 Dr. Whewell classes the science of language as one of the
palaitiological sciences; but he makes a distinction between
palaitiological sciences treating of material things, for instance,
geology, and others respecting the products which result from man’s
imaginative and social endowments, for instance, comparative
philology. He excludes the latter from the circle of the physical
sciences, properly so called, but he adds: “We began our inquiry
with the trust that any sound views which we should be able to
obtain respecting the nature of truth in the physical sciences, and
the mode of discovering it, must also tend to throw light upon the
nature and prospects of knowledge of all other kinds;—must be useful
to us in moral, political, and philological researches. We stated
this as a confident anticipation; and the evidence of the justice of
our belief already begins to appear. We have seen that biology leads
us to psychology, if we choose to follow the path; and thus the
passage from the material to the immaterial has already unfolded
itself at one point; and we now perceive that there are several
large provinces of speculation which concern subjects belonging to
man’s immaterial nature, and which are governed by the same laws as
sciences altogether physical. It is not our business to dwell on the
prospects which our philosophy thus opens to our contemplation; but
we may allow ourselves, in this last stage of our pilgrimage among
the foundations of the physical sciences, to be cheered and animated
by the ray that thus beams upon us, however dimly, from a higher and
brighter region.”—_Indications of the Creator_, p. 146.

14 Gen. ii. 19.

15 St. Basil was accused by Eunomius of denying Divine Providence,
because he would not admit that God had created the names of all
things, but ascribed the invention of language to the faculties
which God had implanted in man. St. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa in
Cappadocia (331-396), defended St. Basil. “Though God has given to
human nature its faculties,” he writes, “it does not follow that
therefore He produces all the actions which we perform. He has given
us the faculty of building a house and doing any other work; but we
surely are the builders, and not He. In the same manner our faculty
of speaking is the work of Him who has so framed our nature; but the
invention of words for naming each object is the work of our mind.”
See Ladevi-Roche, De l’Origine du Langage: Bordeaux, 1860, p. 14.
Also, Horne Tooke, Diversions of Purley, p. 19.

16 D. Stewart, Works, vol. iii. p. 27.

17 History of Inductive Sciences, vol. iii. p. 531.

18 Names ending in _ic_, are names of classes as distinct from the
names of single languages.

19 Lectures on the English Language, by G. P. Marsh: New York, 1860, p.
263 and 630. These lectures embody the result of much careful
research, and are full of valuable observations.

20 Marsh, p. 532, _note_.

21 Marsh, p. 589.

22 Sir J. Stoddart, Glossology, p. 60.

23 Trench, English Past and Present, p. 114; Marsh, p. 397.

24 As several of my reviewers have found fault with the monk for using
the genitive _neutri_, instead of _neutrius_, I beg to refer to
Priscianus, 1. vi. c. i. and c. vii. The expression _generis
neutrius_, though frequently used by modern editors, has no
authority, I believe, in ancient Latin.

25 Castelvetro, in Horne Tooke, p. 629, _note_.

26 Bopp, Comparative Grammar, § 320. Schleicher, Deutsche Sprache, s.
233.

27 Foucaux, Grammaire Tibetaine, p. 27, and Preface, p. x.

28 Fuchs, Romanische Sprachen, s. 355.

29 Quint., v. 10, 52. Bonâ mente factum, ideo palam; malâ, ideo ex
insidiis.

30 Sanskrit _s_ = Persian _h_; therefore _svasar_ = _hvahar_. This
becomes _chohar_, _chor_, and _cho_. Zend, _qaņha_, acc. _qaņharem_,
Persian, _kháher_. Bopp, Comp. Gram. § 35.

31 Schleicher, Beiträge, b. ii. s. 392: _dci_ = _dŭgti_; gen. _dcere_ =
_dŭgtere_.

_ 32 Hui_ = _hodie_, Ital. _oggi_ and _oggidi_; _jour_ = _diurnum_, from
_dies_.

33 See M. M.’s Letter to Chevalier Bunsen, On the Turanian Languages,
p. 67.

34 See Marsh, p. 678; Sir John Stoddart’s Glossology, s. 31.

35 Glossology, p. 33.

36 Ibid., p. 29.

37 Nea Pandora, 1859, Nos. 227, 229. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende
Sprachforschung, x. s. 190.

38 Grimm, Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, p. 668: Marsh, p. 379.

39 “Some people, who may have been taught to consider the Dorset
dialect as having originated from corruption of the written English,
may not be prepared to hear that it is not only a separate offspring
from the Anglo-Saxon tongue, but purer, and in some cases richer,
than the dialect which is chosen as the national speech.”—Barnes,
_Poems in Dorset Dialect_, Preface, p. xiv.

40 Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache, s. 833.

41 Pliny, vi. 5; Hervas, Catalogo, i. 118.

42 Pliny depends on Timosthenes, whom Strabo declares untrustworthy
(ii. p. 93, ed. Casaub.) Strabo himself says of Dioscurias,
συνέρχεσθαι ἐς αὐτὴν ἐβδομήκοντα, οἱ δὲ καὶ τριακόσια ἔθνη φασίν οἴς
οὐδὲν τῶν ὄντων υέλει (x. p. 498). The last words refer probably to
Timosthenes.

43 Du Ponceau, p. 110.

44 S. F. Waldeck, Lettre à M. Jomard des environs de Palenqué, Amérique
Centrale. (“Il ne pouvait se servir, en 1833, d’un vocabulaire
composé avec beaucoup de soin dix ans auparavant.”)

45 Catalogo, i. 393.

46 Turanian Languages, p. 114.

47 Ibid., p. 233.

48 Turanian Languages, p. 30.

49 Quintilian, ix. 4. “Nam neque Lucilium putant uti eadem (s) ultima,
cum dicit Serenu fuit, et Dignu loco. Quin etiam Cicero in Oratore
plures antiquorum tradit sic locutos.” In some phrases the final _s_
was omitted in conversation; _e.g._ _abin_ for abisne, _viden_ for
videsne, _opu’st_ for opus est, _conabere_ for conaberis.

50 Marsh, Lectures, pp. 133, 368.

51 “There are fewer local peculiarities of form and articulation in our
vast extent of territory (U. S.), than on the comparatively narrow
soil of Great Britain.”—_Marsh_, p. 667.

52 Marsh, Lectures, pp. 181, 590.

53 The Gothic forms _sijum_, _sijuth_, are not organic. They are either
derived by false analogy from the third person plural _sind_, or a
new base _sij_ was derived from the subjunctive _sijau_, Sanskrit
_syâm_.

54 Some excellent statistics on the exact proportion of Saxon and Latin
in various English writers, are to be found in Marsh’s Lectures on
the English Language, p. 120, _seq._ and 181, _seq._

55 “En este estado, que es el primer paso que las naciones dan para
mudar de lengua, estaba quarenta años ha la araucana en las islas de
Chiloue (como he oido á los jesuitas sus misioneros), en donde los
araucanos apénas proferian palabra que no fuese española; mas la
proferian con el artificio y órden de su lengua nativa, llamada
araucana.”—_Hervas, Catalogo_, t. i. p. 16. “Este artificio ha sido
en mi observacion el principal medio de que me he valido para
conocer la afinidad ó diferencia de las lenguas conocidas, y
reducirlas á determinadas classes.”—_Ibid._, p. 23.

56 Colebrooke, Miscellaneous Essays, i. 32. The following verses are
pronounced by Vâch, the goddess of speech, in the 125th hymn of the
10th book of the Rig-Veda: “Even I myself say this (what is) welcome
to Gods and to men: ‘Whom I love, him I make strong, him I make a
Brahman, him a great prophet, him I make wise. For Rudra (the god of
thunder) I bend the bow, to slay the enemy, the hater of the
Brahmans. For the people I make war; I pervade heaven and earth. I
bear the father on the summit of this world; my origin is in the
water in the sea; from thence I go forth among all beings, and touch
this heaven with my height. I myself breathe forth like the wind,
embracing all beings; above this heaven, beyond this earth, such am
I in greatness.’ ” See also Atharva-Veda, iv. 30; xix. 9, 3. Muir,
Sanskrit Texts, part iii. pp. 108, 150.

57 Sir John Stoddart, Glossology, p. 276.

58 The Turks applied the Polish name _Niemiec_ to the Austrians. As
early as Constantinus Porphyrogeneta, cap. 30, Νεμέτζιοι was used
for the German race of the Bavarians. (Pott, Indo-Germ. Sp. s. 44.
Leo, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung, b. ii. s. 258.)
Russian, _njemez’_; Slovenian, _nĕmec_; Bulgarian, _némec_; Polish,
_niemiec_; Lusatian, _njemc_, mean German. Russian, _njemo_,
indistinct; _njemyi_, dumb; Slovenian, _nĕm_, dumb; Bulgarian,
_nêm_, dumb; Polish, _njemy_, dumb; Lusatian, _njemy_, dumb.

59 Leo, Zeitschrift für Vergl. Sprachf. b. ii. s. 252.

60 Humboldt’s Cosmos, vol. ii. p. 141.

61 This shows how difficult it would be to admit that any influence was
exercised by Indian on Greek philosophers. Pyrrhon, if we may
believe Alexander Polyhistor, seems indeed to have accompanied
Alexander on his expedition to India, and one feels tempted to
connect the scepticism of Pyrrhon with the system of Buddhist
philosophy then current in India. But the ignorance of the language
on both sides must have been an insurmountable barrier between the
Greek and the Indian thinkers. (Fragmenta Histor. Græc., ed. Müller,
t. iii. p. 243, _b._; Lasson, Indische Alterthumskande, b. iii. s.
380.)

62 On the supposed travels of Greek philosophers to India, see Lassen,
Indische Alterthumskunde, b. iii. s. 379; Brandis, Handbuch der
Geschichte der Philosophie, b. i. s. 425. The opinion of D. Stewart
and Niebuhr that the Indian philosophers borrowed from the Greeks,
and that of Görres and others that the Greeks borrowed from the
Brahmans, are examined in my Essay on Indian Logic, in Thomson’s
Laws of Thought.

63 See Niebuhr, Vorlesungen über Alte Geschichte, b. i. s. 17.

64 The translation of Mago’s work on agriculture belongs to a later
time. There is no proof that Mago, who wrote twenty-eight books on
agriculture in the Punic language, lived, as Humboldt supposes
(Cosmos, vol. ii. p. 184), 500 B. C. Varro de R. R. i. 1, says: “Hos
nobilitate Mago Carthaginiensis præteriit Pœnica lingua, quod res
dispersas comprehendit libris xxix., quos Cassius Dionysius
Uticensis vertit libris xx., Græca lingua, ac Sextilio prætori
misit: in quæ volumina de Græcis libris eorum quos dixi adjecit non
pauca, et de Magonis dempsit instar librorum viii. Hosce ipsos
utiliter ad vi. libros redegit Diophanes in Bithynia, et misit
Dejotaro regi.” This Cassius Dionysius Uticencis lived about 40 B.
C. The translation into Latin was made at the command of the Senate,
shortly after the third Punic war.

65 Ptolemæus Philadelphus (287-246 B. C.), on the recommendation of his
chief librarian (Demetrius Philaretes), is said to have sent a Jew
of the name of Aristeas, to Jerusalem, to ask the high priest for a
MS. of the Bible, and for seventy interpreters. Others maintain that
the Hellenistic Jews who lived at Alexandria, and who had almost
forgotten their native language, had this translation made for their
own benefit. Certain it is, that about the beginning of the third
century B. C. (285), we find the Hebrew Bible translated into Greek.

66 Plin. xxx. 2. “Sine dubio illa orta in Perside a Zoroastre, ut inter
auctores convenit. Sed unus hic fuerit, an postea et alius, non
satis constat. Eudoxus qui inter sapientiæ sectas clarissimam
utilissimamque eam intelligi voluit, Zoroastrem hunc sex millibus
annorum ante Platonis mortem fuisse prodidit. Sic et Aristoteles.
Hermippus qui de tota ea arte diligentissime scripsit, et vicies
centum millia versuum a Zoroastre condita, indicibus quoque
voluminum ejus positis explanavit, præceptorem a quo institutum
disceret, tradidit Azonacem, ipsum vero quinque millibus annorum
ante Trojanum bellum fuisse.”—“Diogenes Laertius Aristotelem
auctorem facit libri τὸ Μαγικόν. Suidas librum cognovit, dubitat
vero a quo scriptus sit.” See Bunsen’s Egypten, Va, 101.

67 M. M.’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 163.

68 ἄρθρον προτασσόμενον, ἄρθρον ὑποτασσόμενον.

69 Suidas, s. v. Διονύσιος. Διονύσιος Ἀλεξανδρεός, Θρᾷξ δὲ ἀπὸ πατρὸς
τούνομα κληθεὶς, Ἀριστάρχου μαθητὴς, γραμματικὸς ὁς ἐσοφίστευσεν ἐν
Ῥώμη ἐπὶ Πομπηιοῦ τοῦ Μεγάλου.

70 Quintilian, i. 1, 12.

71 See Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, b. i. s. 197. “The Latin alphabet
is the same as the modern alphabet of Sicily; the Etruscan is the
same as the old Attic alphabet. _Epistola_, letter, _charta_, paper,
and _stilus_, are words borrowed from Greek.”—_Mommsen_, b. i. s.
184.

72 Mommsen, Römische Geschichte, b. i. s. 186. _Statera_, the balance,
the Greek στατήρ; _machina_, an engine, μηχανή; _númus_, a silver
coin, νόμος, the Sicilian νοῦμμος; _groma_, measuring-rod, the Greek
γνώμων or γνῶμα: _clathri_, a trellis, a grate, the Greek κλῆθρα,
the native Italian word for lock being _claustra_.

_ 73 Gubernare_, to steer, from κυβεονᾶν; _anchora_, anchor, from
ἀγκῦρα; _prora_, the forepart, from πρῶρα. _Navis_, _remus_,
_velum_, &c., are common Aryan words, not borrowed by the Romans
from the Greeks, and show that the Italians were acquainted with
navigation before the discovery of Italy by the Phocæans.

74 Mommsen, i. 154.

75 Ibid. i. 408.

76 Mommsen, i. 165.

_ 77 Sibylla_, or _sibulla_, is a diminutive of an Italian _sabus_ or
_sabius_, wise; a word which, though not found in classical writers,
must have existed in the Italian dialects. The French _sage_
presupposes an Italian _sabius_, for it cannot be derived either
from _sapiens_ or from _sapius_.—_Diez, Lexicon Etymologicum_, p.
300. _Sapius_ has been preserved in _nesapius_, foolish. _Sibulla_
therefore meant a wise old woman.

78 Mommsen, i. 256.

79 Ibid. i. 425, 444.

80 Ibid. i. 857.

81 Mommsen, i. 902.

82 Mommsen, i. 892.

83 Ibid. i. 843, 194.

84 Ibid. i. 911.

85 Mommsen, ii. 407.

86 Mommsen, ii. 410.

87 Ibid. ii. 408.

88 Ibid. ii. 437, _note_; ii. 430.

89 Zeno died 263; Epicurus died 270; Arcesilaus died 241; Carneades
died 129.

90 Mommsen, ii. 417, 418.

91 Ibid. i. 845.

92 Ibid. ii. 415, 417.

93 Mommsen, ii. 413, 426, 445, 457. Lucius Ælius Stilo wrote a work on
etymology, and an index to Plautus.—_Lersch_, _Die Sprachphilosophie
der Alten_, ii. 111.

94 Lersch, ii. 113, 114, 143.

95 Lersch, iii. 144.

96 Mommsen, iii. 557. 48 B. C.

97 Lersch, ii. 25. Περὶ σημαινόντων, or περὶ φώνης; and περὶ
σημαινομένον, or περὶ πραγμάτων.

98 Beiträge zur Geschichte der Grammatik, von Dr. K. E. A. Schmidt.
Halle, 1859. Uber den Begriff der γενικὴ πτῶσις, s. 320.

99 In the Tibetan languages the rule is, “Adjectives are formed from
substantives by the addition of the genitive sign,” which might be
inverted into, “The genitive is formed from the nominative by the
addition of the adjective sign.” For instance, _shing_, wood; _shing
gi_, of wood, or wooden: _ser_, gold; _ser-gyi_, of gold, or golden:
_mi_, man; _mi-yi_, of man, or human. The same in Garo, where the
sign of the genitive is _ni_, we have; _mánde-ní jak_, the hand of
man, or the human hand; _ambal-ní ketháli_, a wooden knife, or a
knife of wood. In Hindustání the genitive is so clearly an
adjective, that it actually takes the marks of gender according to
the words to which it refers. But how is it in Sanskrit and Greek?
In Sanskrit we may form adjectives by the addition of _tya_.
(Turanian Languages, p. 41, _seq._; Essay on Bengálí, p. 333.) For
instance, _dakshiņâ_, south; _dakshiņâ-tya_, southern. This _tya_ is
clearly a demonstrative pronoun, the same as the Sanskrit _syas_,
_syâ_, _tyad_, this or that. _Tya_ is a pronominal base, and
therefore such adjectives as _dakshiņâ-tya_, southern, or _âp-tya_,
aquatic, from _âp_, water, must have been conceived originally as
“water-there,” or “south-there.” Followed by the terminations of the
nominative singular, which was again an original pronoun, _âptyas_
would mean _âp-tya-s_, _i.e._, water-there-he. Now, it makes little
difference whether I say an aquatic bird or a bird of the water. In
Sanskrit the genitive of water would be, if we take _udaka_,
_udaka-sya_. This _sya_ is the same pronominal base as the adjective
termination _tya_, only that the former takes no sign for the
gender, like the adjective. The genitive _udakasya_ is therefore the
same as an adjective without gender. Now let us look to Greek. We
there form adjectives by σιος, which is the same as the Sanskrit
_tya_ or _sya_. For instance, from δῆμος, people, the Greeks formed
δημόσιος, belonging to the people. Here ος, α, ον, mark the gender.
Leave the gender out, and you get δημοσιο. Now, there is a rule in
Greek that an ς between two vowels, in grammatical terminations, is
elided. Thus the genitive of γένος is not γένεσος, but γένεος, or
γένους; hence δημόσιο would necessarily become δήμοιο. And what is
δήμοιο but the regular Homeric genitive of δῆμος, which in later
Greek was replaced by δήμου? Thus we see that the same principles
which governed the formation of adjectives and genitives in Tibetan,
in Garo, and Hindustání, were at work in the primitive stages of
Sanskrit and Greek; and we perceive how accurately the real power of
the genitive was determined by the ancient Greek grammarians, who
called it the general or predicative case, whereas the Romans
spoiled the term by wrongly translating it into _genitivus_.

100 See M. M.’s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 158.

101 The following and some other notes were kindly sent to me by the
first Chinese scholar in Europe, M. Stanislas Julien, Membre de
l’Institut.

The Chinese do not decline their substantives, but they indicate the
cases distinctly—

A. By means of particles.
B. By means of position.

1. The nominative or the subject of a sentence is always placed at
the beginning.

2. The genitive may be marked—

(_a_) By the particle _tchi_ placed between the two nouns, of which
the first is in the genitive, the second in the nominative. Example,
_jin tchi kiun_ (hominum princeps, literally, man, sign of the
genitive, prince.)

(_b_) By position, placing the word which is in the genitive first,
and the word which is in the nominative second. Ex. _koue_ (kingdom)
_jin_ (man) _i.e._, a man of the kingdom.

3. The dative may be expressed—

(_a_) By the preposition _yu_, to. Ex. _sse_ (to give) _yen_ (money)
_yu_ (to) _jin_ (man).

(_b_) By position, placing first the verb, then the word which
stands in the dative, lastly, the word which stands in the
accusative. Ex. _yu_ (to give) _jin_ (to a man) _pe_ (white) _yu_
(jade), _hoang_ (yellow) _kin_ (metal), _i.e._, gold.

4. The accusative is either left without any mark, for instance,
_pao_ (to protect) _min_ (the people), or it is preceded by certain
words which had originally a more tangible meaning, but gradually
dwindled away into mere signs of the accusative. [These were first
discovered and correctly explained by M. Stanislas Julien in his
Vindiciæ Philologicæ in Linguam Sinicam, Paris, 1830.] The particles
most frequently used for this purpose by modern writers are _pa_ and
_tsiang_, to grasp, to take. Ex. _pa_ (taking) _tchoung-jin_ (crowd
of men) _t’eou_ (secretly) _k’an_ (he looked) _i.e._, he looked
secretly at the crowd of men (hominum turbam furtim aspiciebat). In
the more ancient Chinese (_Kouwen_) the words used for the same
purpose are _i_ (to employ, etc.), _iu_, _iu_, _hou_. Ex. _i_
(employing) _jin_ (mankind) _t’sun_ (he preserves) _sin_ (in the
heart), _i.e._, humanitatem conservat corde. _I_ (taking) _tchi_
(right) _wêï_ (to make) _k’iŏ_ (crooked), _i.e._, rectum facere
curvum. _Pao_ (to protect) _hou_ (sign of accus.) _min_ (the
people).

5. The ablative is expressed—

(_a_) By means of prepositions, such as _thsong_, _yeou_, _tsen_,
_hou_. Ex. _thsong_ (ex) _thien_ (cœlo) _laï_ (venire); _te_
(obtinere) _hou_ (ab) _thien_ (cœlo).

(_b_) By means of position, so that the word in the ablative is
placed before the verb. Ex. _thien_ (heaven) _hiang-tchi_
(descended, _tchi_ being the relative particle or sign of the
genitive) _tsaï_ (calamities), _i.e._, the calamities which Heaven
sends to men.

6. The instrumental is expressed—

(_a_) By the preposition _yu_, with. Ex. _yu_ (with) _kien_ (the
sword) _cha_ (to kill) _jin_ (a man).

(_b_) By position, the substantive which stands in the instrumental
case being placed before the verb, which is followed again by the
noun in the accusative. Ex. _i_ (by hanging) _cha_ (he killed)
_tchi_ (him).

7. The locative may be expressed by simply placing the noun before
the verb. Ex. _si_ (in the East or East) _yeou_ (there is)
_suo-tou-po_ (a sthúpa); or by prepositions as described in the
text.

The adjective is always placed before the substantive to which it
belongs. Ex. _meï jin_, a beautiful woman.

The adverb is generally followed by a particle which produces the
same effect as _e_ in bene, or _ter_ in celeriter. Ex. _cho-jen_, in
silence, silently; _ngeou-jen_, perchance; _kiu-jen_, with fear.

Sometimes an adjective becomes an adverb through position. Ex.
_chen_, good; but _chen ko_, to sing well.

102 See some criticisms on this division in Marsh’s Lectures on the
English Language, p. 48.

103 “Goddspell onn Ennglissh nemmnedd iss
God word, annd god tiþennde,
God errnde,” &c.—_Ormulum_, pref. 157.

“And beode þer godes godd-spel.”—_Layamon_, iii. 182, v. 29, 507.

104 Diez, Lexicon Comparativum. Columella, vii. 8.

105 Strabo, viii. p. 833. Τὴν μὲν Ἰάδα τῇ παλαιᾷ Ἀτθίδι τὴν αὐτὴν φαμέν,
τὴν δὲ Δωρίδα τῇ Αἰολίδι.

106 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 barbarous tongue (βάρβαρον τὴν γλῶσσαν
ἱέντες). He has, therefore, to admit that the Attic race, being
originally Pelasgic, unlearnt its language (τὸ Ἀττικὸν ἔθνος ἐὸν
Πελασγικόν, ἅμα τῇ μεταβόλη τῇ ἐς Ἕλληνας, καὶ τὴν γλῶσσαν
μετέμαθε). See Diefenbach, Origines Europææ, p. 59. Dionysius 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
βαρβαρόφωνοι 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 βαρβαροφωνεῖν, _i.e._, κακῶς
ἑλληνίζειν, and Καριστὶ λαλαεῖν, καρίζειν καὶ βαρβαρίζειν. But the
same Strabo says that the Karians were formerly called Λέλεγεs (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. p. 321); part of
it to Thessalians (ibid.).

The _Thracians_ are called by Herodotus (v. 3) the greatest people
after 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 botanical names collected by
Dioskorides, and these, as interpreted by Grimm, 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 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 Pannonians, the Dalmatians, and the
Dardanians (from whom the Dardanelles were called), are all spoken
of as Illyrians. (Diefenbach, Origines Europææ, 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.

107 Albert, Count of Bollstädten, or, as he is more generally called,
Albertus Magnus, the pioneer of modern physical science, wrote: “God
has given to man His spirit, and with it also intellect, that man
might use it for to know God. And God is known through the soul and
by faith from the Bible, through the intellect from nature.” And
again: “It is to the praise and glory of God, and for the benefit of
our brethren, that we study the nature of created things. In all of
them, not only in the harmonious formation of every single creature,
but likewise in the variety of different forms, we can and we ought
to admire the majesty and wisdom of God.”

108 These are the last words in Kepler’s “Harmony of the World,” “Thou
who by the light of nature hast kindled in us the longing after the
light of Thy grace, in order to raise us to the light of Thy glory,
thanks to Thee, Creator and Lord, that Thou lettest me rejoice in
Thy works. Lo, I have done the work of my life with that power of
intellect which Thou hast given. I have recorded to men the glory of
Thy works, as far as my mind could comprehend their infinite
majesty. My senses were awake to search as far as I could, with
purity and faithfulness. If I, a worm before thine eyes, and born in
the bonds of sin, have brought forth anything that is unworthy of
Thy counsels, inspire me with Thy spirit, that I may correct it. If,
by the wonderful beauty of Thy works, I have been led into boldness,
if I have sought my own honor among men as I advanced in the work
which was destined to Thine honor, pardon me in kindness and
charity, and by Thy grace grant that my teaching may be to Thy
glory, and the welfare of all men. Praise ye the Lord, ye heavenly
Harmonies, and ye that understand the new harmonies, praise the
Lord. Praise God, O my soul, as long as I live. From Him, through
Him, and in Him is all, the material as well as the spiritual—all
that we know and all that we know not yet—for there is much to do
that is yet undone.”

These words are all the more remarkable, because written by a man
who was persecuted by theologians as a heretic, but who nevertheless
was not ashamed to profess himself a Christian.

I end with an extract from one of the most distinguished of living
naturalists:—“The antiquarian recognizes at once the workings of
intelligence in the remains of an ancient civilization. He may fail
to ascertain their age correctly, he may remain doubtful as to the
order in which they were successively constructed, but the character
of the whole tells him they are works of art, and that men like
himself originated these relics of by-gone ages. So shall the
intelligent naturalist read at once in the pictures which nature
presents to him, the works of a higher Intelligence; he shall
recognize in the minute perforated cells of the coniferæ, which
differ so wonderfully from those of other plants, the hieroglyphics
of a peculiar age; in their needle-like leaves, the escutcheon of a
peculiar dynasty; in their repeated appearance under most
diversified circumstances, a thoughtful and thought-eliciting
adaptation. He beholds, indeed, the works of a being _thinking_ like
himself, but he feels, at the same time, that he stands as much
below the Supreme Intelligence, in wisdom, power, and goodness, as
the works of art are inferior to the wonders of nature. Let
naturalists look at the world under such impressions, and evidence
will pour in upon us that all creatures are expressions of the
thoughts of Him whom we know, love, and adore unseen.”

109 Rom. i. 20.

110 Hervas (Catalogo, i. 37) mentions the following works, published
during the sixteenth century, bearing on the science of
language:—“Introductio in Chaldaicam Linguam, Siriacam, atque
Armenicam, et decem alias Linguas,” a Theseo Ambrosio. Papiæ, 1539,
4to. “De Ratione communi omnium Linguarum et Litterarum
Commentarius,” a Theodoro Bibliandro. Tiguri, 1548, 4to. It contains
the Lord’s Prayer in fourteen languages. Bibliander derives Welsh
and Cornish from Greek, Greek having been carried there from
Marseilles, through France. He states that Armenian differs little
from Chaldee, and cites Postel, who derived the Turks from the
Armenians, because Turkish was spoken in Armenia. He treats the
Persians as descendants of Shem, and connects their language with
Syriac and Hebrew. Servian and Georgian are, according to him,
dialects of Greek.

Other works on language published during the sixteenth century
are:—“Perion. Dialogorum de Linguæ Gallicæ origine ejusque cum Græca
cognatione, libri quatuor.” Parisiis, 1554. He says that as French
is not mentioned among the seventy-two languages which sprang from
the Tower of Babel, it must be derived from Greek. He quotes Cæsar
(de Bello Gallico, vi. 14) to prove that the Druids spoke Greek, and
then derives from it the modern French language!

The works of Henri Estienne (1528-1598) stand on a much sounder
basis. He has been unjustly accused of having derived French from
Greek. See his “Traicté de la Conformité du Langage français avec le
grec;” about 1566. It contains chiefly syntactical and grammatical
remarks, and its object is to show that modes of expression in
Greek, which sound anomalous and difficult, can be rendered easy by
a comparison of analogous expressions in French.

The Lord’s Prayer was published in 1548 in fourteen languages, by
Bibliander; in 1591 in twenty-six languages, by Roccha (“Bibliotheca
Apostolica Vaticana,” a fratre Angelo Roccha: Romæ, 1591, 4to.); in
1592 in forty languages, by Megiserus (“Specimen XL. Linguarum et
Dialectorum ab Hieronymo Megisero à diversis auctoribus collectarum
quibus Oratio Dominica est expressa:” Francofurti, 1592); in 1593,
in fifty languages, by the same author (“Oratio Dominica L. diversis
linguis,” cura H. Megiseri: Francofurti, 1593, 8vo.).

111 At the beginning of the seventeenth century was published “Trésor de
l’Histoire des Langues de cet Univers,” par Claude Duret; seconde
edition: Iverdon, 1619, 4to. Hervas says that Duret repeats the
mistakes of Postel, Bibliander, and other writers of the sixteenth
century.

Before Duret came Estienne Guichard, “l’Harmonie Etymologique des
Langues Hebraique, Chaldaique, Syriaque—Greque—Latine, Françoise,
Italienne, Espagnole—Allemande, Flamende, Anglaise, &c.:” Paris,
1606.

Hervas only knows the second edition, Paris, 1618, and thinks the
first was published in 1608. The title of his book shows that
Guichard distinguished between four classes of languages, which we
should now call the Semitic, the Hellenic, Italic, and Teutonic: he
derives, however, Greek from Hebrew.