and some speculative contributions to Comparative Philology. Herodotus already quotes certain Scythian, Median, and Egyptian glosses, which are not without interest and importance to modern students, and give additional proof of the far-sighted wisdom of the father of history, whose attention nothing escaped that might aid man in reading the history of his race. The three great philosophers of Greece faintly felt and expressed their ideas of the life that dwells in words. The Hermogenes of Socrates contains many suggestions and thoughts, which show that the author's great mind saw more in speech than a mere accident, and in words than a mechanical contrivance. It is well known that he more than once refers to the plausible presumption, that words of his own tongue had already in his time been altered for the sake of greater beauty of sound, and that he even points out many a curious word or form for which he claims barbarian descent, thus dimly foreshadowing two of the great principles which rule the decay of all languages. Plato's speculations rise higher; in his Cratylus he approaches the loftiest problems of the philosophy of language, and recognizes God as author of the great work, for the execution of which He employs agents, as the architect of a house draws its design, and arranges its plan, but leaves the rest to inferior workmen. His question, on what the opóris of words might be founded, is one that still engages modern science, and the ridicule he casts on the sciolists and pretenders of his age, might readily and beneficially be applied to the same class of men in our day. The great Stagyrite bestows even greater attention on inquiries about the nature of language generally, and develops the connection between categories and grammatical

relations in a manner that modern philologists might profitably imitate in their own researches. He acknowledges and proves

great principle, that language is the immediate production and expression of thought, and furnishes the first, yet unshaken foundation of our grammatical system. That none of these great men possessed an etymological knowledge of his own mother tongue, and thought not of comparing it with others, was the unavoidable consequence of the general tendency of that age, and the narrow patriotism of their race. Epicurus furthered the cause but little, by his definition of language as the "representation of outward objects," and the attempt made by the Stoics to form a theory of the Greek verb, remained imperfect and unprofitable.

Cæsar, rightly conceiving that every thing patriotic was dignified, and that to polish and illustrate his native tongue was a service of real patriotism, speculated on the philosophy of language, and actually wrote a work on the grammar and orthoepy of the Latin. In fact, he and Cicero may be said to have been the only Romans of distinction of their age, who applied themselves with genuine love of their country to the task of purifying and ennobling their mother tongue, though they labored under the disadvantage that it was already then declining and neglected, from the high appreciation in which Greek literature began to be held. Lucretius gave perhaps even greater attention and deeper thought to the subject; still he is satisfied with the explanation “that nature teaches man the different sounds of a language, and necessity instructs him how to designate by name all that exists." The whole series of Alexandrians, not excepting even Apollonius Discolus, present as the result of their labors

EARLY VOCABULARIES.

51

and meditations little more than the corpse of ancient science, well preserved and embalmed in formularies and epitomes, without the breath of life. To the Byzantine age we owe that complicated fabric of grammatical terms and definitions which still maintain their injurious supremacy in school-rooms and college halls. The profound erudition of Varro is seriously impaired by the strange fancies and absurd etymologies which he has in common with most Roman grammarians down to Pompeius Festus; well-known Priscian and Donatus also have done little more than hand down to our generations the unimproved system of their forefathers. All these men lacked the spirit of lexicographic inquiry and scientific speculation.

No progress was made until that memorable epoch when the human mind seemed to awake from long slumber, and when the splendor of Greek learning and philosophy electrified, as it were, the most eminent men of western Europe, as the rays of the rising sun first gild the loftiest peaks of mountain ranges. The great adversary of Erasmus, Julius Cæsar Scaliger, showed in his investigations of the Latin language the great progress that science had made in the mean time. Soon after, the first attempt was made to collect a vocabulary of barbarous, unwritten tongues, an effort important in itself, and interesting as the only instance of linguistic research (Schildberger's collection of Paternosters excepted) that was made for more than two hundred years. Antonio Pigafetta, an Italian by birth, collected the first list of words intended for comparison as well as for mere information. Charles V. had given him leave to accompany Magalhaens (Magellan) in his adventurous expedition in search of a western passage to the Molucca Islands. He followed the in

trepid sailor from sea to sea, and was wounded in the Philippines in defending his noble but unfortunate friend. In 1522 he returned, with only seventeen companions, but bringing with him two valuable manuscripts. The one was a faithful journal, originally presented to the Emperor, and then, at the request of his patron, Clement VII., extended into a larger work, of which one copy was burnt at Rome, whilst the only other copy has lately been discovered and repeatedly published. Not less important is the second manuscript, his vocabulary. It contains apparently a list of words taken from the languages of those tribes and nations through which he had travelled, but is complete only in the idioms spoken in the Philippines and Moluccas; its remarkable correctness has given it, of late, new value and importance.

A rare and curious book by Andreas de Poça on the ancient language of Spain appeared about fifty years later, and has recently attracted great attention, because it mentions first that mysterious Basque dialect which is so intimately connected with the fame of the elder Humboldt. Interesting already as the first work printed on the renowned press of Bilbao, it contains more information on the subject of Spanish dialects and a clearer insight into the philosophy of language than the age and the land in which it appeared would lead us to expect.

Valuable within its self-imposed limits is the great work of Du Cange, more familiar even to the historian than to the philologist. Proving his wisdom by his modesty, the noble author evinces almost marvellous industry, combined with an erudition rare even in those days of profound learning and indefatigable research. Under the unassuming title of glossaries to the later

BACON AND LOCKE.

53

Greek and Roman writers, he furnished the learned of his time with the most valuable addition to their knowledge of classic philology, and gave new life to a science which then was of great practical importance. Scarcely less valuable, though equally limited, is the work of the Abbé Lorenzo Hervas, whose renowned "Catalogue of Tongues" and "Arithmetic of Nations" form an important part of his "Saggio dell' Universo." The almost unlimited correspondence of the Spanish Jesuit with his missionary brethren of the Propaganda, furnished ample material for this large and remarkable work, though its usefulness is much impaired by the author's disinclination to accompany the simple quotations with an explanation, or to communicate the results of a comparison between them. Both Hervas and his successor, William Marsden, must, therefore, be regarded as mere collectors.

In vain do we even look to the great father of English philosophy for more than a general acknowledgment of the importance to be attached to a philosophic study of language. Bacon, it is true, in his De Augmentis Scientiarum, seems to be alive to the mysterious nature of language and its intimate connection with the mind of man; but that is all he says, and then he turns his attention to truths more apparent and principles more attractive. Better hopes might have been cherished upon the strength of the suggestions which Locke's Human Understanding contains on the subject. "The consideration of ideas and words," he says, as the great instrument of knowledge, makes a not despicable part of their contemplation to him who would take a view of human knowledge in the whole extent of it; and perhaps if they were distinctly weighed and duly considered,

66