1851. 'Amamini.' 31 fore, even if he takes no interest but in Greek and Latin, will discover in the 'Comparative Grammar' the most useful information on the verb of these two languages. It is true that, after studying this work, he will not find himself a better hand at composing hexameters in the language of Homer, or writing essays in the style of Cicero. But, as astronomers admit it to be useful to know the construction of the instruments, and even the nature of the materials of which they are made, before they use them for observing, classical scholars also will find that the time has not been wasted which they may bestow on the analysis of language and the elements of which it is composed. If we conjugate the Latin passive, I am loved, amor, amaris, amatur, amamur, amamini, amantur, it is easy to observe that amamini steps out of all analogy with the other passive persons. Nothing but the circumstance that former grammarians did not trouble themselves at all with the foundation of lingual pheñomena, and that the relation between the Greek and Latin was not systematically and scientifically traced out, can account for the fact that the form amamini had so long found its place in the paradigms, without raising the question how and whence it came there. Professor Bopp, in 1816, was the first to bring the form under discussion in his Conjugations- System;' and he shows there that amamini is a passive participle in the masculine nominative plural, and that amamini for amamini estis is explained by the analogous form of the Greek perfect, τετυμμένοι εἰσί. The Latin suffix is minu-s, and corresponds to the Greek μevos, and Sanskrit mân-as. From the fact, however that these participles in Latin are thrust aside in ordinary practice, mini has, in the second person plural, where it has continued as if petrified, assumed the character of a verbal termination; and thus, also, after losing the consciousness of its nominal nature, has renounced its distinction of gender, and its appendage estis. If we found amamine for the feminine, and amamina for the neuter, we should be spared the trouble of seeking an explanation for amamini, inasmuch as it would partly be afforded by the language itself. There are several objections which might be raised against this explanation by classical scholars. The first is, that if amamini be a passive participle in the masculine plural, one should expect amamina and amamina with feminine and neuter substantives. This objection is met by a reference to the Sanskrit, where similar periphrastic forms of the future equally retain the masculine terminations, although they are followed by feminines and neuters. Another objection is, that this peculiar termination of the passive and medial participle exists as mâna in Sanskrit, μevos in Greek, ma in Lithuanian, and manas in Old Prussian, but never occurs in Latin. Against this Professor Bopp points out the Latin alu-m'nus and Vertum'nus, which evidently belong to these participial formations, but have lost the i. The i, however, has been preserved in terminus, 'frontier,' if we consider it as expressing that which is over'stepped,' and identify its root with the Sanskrit tar (Lat. trans). Femina, too (as giving birth, and therefore having a middle sense), has been recognised as a formation belonging to the same category, the root being fe, from which, also, fe-tus, fe-tura, fe-cundus. The third and most weighty objection is the Imperative amaminor. For, if amamini be the plural of a participle, it would be impossible to append to it the r of the passive. However, this objection, too, can be removed. Amaminor is nothing but the older form of amamini, and the final or is the old termination of the plural, which we have in the Eugubian Tables, where subator occurs, for the Latin subacti, screhitor for scripti. Further, the singulars of the second masculine declension in the Umbrian end in o; and we find orto for ortus, subato for subactus. Now, in accordance with this singular form in o, there are extant, also, in Latin, singular imperatives in mino, namely, famino in Festus, præfamino in Cato, and fruimino in an inscription, is eum agrum nei habeto nei 'fruimino,' he shall neither have nor use this field.' Amaminor, therefore, is the regular old plural of amamino; and this archaic form has been preserved in the imperative, while amamini became fixed as the second person plural in the present. 6 We hope that we have not wearied out the patience of our readers, by giving this one instance, out of many, in proof how much advantage Classical Philology might derive from Comparative Philology. Professor Bopp's Grammar is not a work for Oriental scholars only. The Grammar itself supplies all the knowledge that is needed, in order to understand what is taken in it from the Oriental languages. The principles of the Sanskrit, as the groundwork and connecting bond of the comparison, are exhibited in some detail, and, for the Zend larguage, there is even more than is needed. By a transcription in Roman characters, a translation and analysis, the examples taken from the Sanskrit and Zend are as intelligible as those derived from Gothic and Slavonic. Classical scholars (to use the word in its present restricted sense) may therefore study the work without difficulty; and they will find it a rich mine for their own researches. It is, of course, not to be expected that comparative grammar will ever be introduced into schools and it would be injurious to the effects of education to exchange a thorough knowledge of Greek and Latin for 1851. Historical Results of Comparative Philology. 33 a less accurate acquaintance with many languages. But it is one thing to learn a language, another to teach it, i. e. to describe its mechanism and organisation. The learner may confine himself within the strictest limits, and forbear to look beyond the narrowest boundaries of the subject of his study: the teacher's glance, on the contrary, must pass beyond the narrow limits of the language which he has to explain, and command at least a general view of the historical growth of the forms of human speech. Comparative Philology, however, is not confined, in its results, to the organisation and history of languages, but it sheds also a new light over the history of nations. If it is once recognised that the Latin stands to the Greek not in the relation of a daughter, but of a sister, it follows that the historical relation of Italy and Greece, particularly with regard to the oldest times, will have to be viewed in the same light.* Instead of looking to Greece for the elements of Italian civilisation,—to Egypt and Phenicia for what made Greece what she was, our eyes will be directed to those parts of the world where language preserves to us the traces of the early migrations of the Arian tribes. If it can be proved that the words for many of the arts belonging to an early state of civilisation are the same in Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and German, it follows that the Arian nations knew these arts before they separated, and that they carried the germs of civilisation from a common centre on one side into India, and, on the other side, into Asia Minor, Greece, Italy, and the rest of Europe. The conclusions which Niebuhr attempted to draw from the fact that the words for a house, a field, a plough, ploughing, wine, oil, milk, swine, sheep, apples, and others relating to agriculture and the gentler ways of life, agree in Latin and 'Greek, while the Latin words for all objects pertaining to war or the chase are utterly alien from the Greek'†, are altogether invalid in the eyes of Comparative Philologists. Professor Lassen was the first to show it in his Article on the Eugubinian Inscriptions. Niebuhr thought he could prove by this ingenious observation, that the Sicelians, a peaceful Greek colony, had been conquered by the Cascans or the warlike inhabitants of Italy. First of all, it would be very unlikely that the Sice * This point has well been illustrated in a small but very interesting essay, 'On the results of Comparative Philology in reference to Classical Scholarship,' by Dr. G. Curtius, lately translated into English. † Niebuhr, History of Rome, i. 83. Rhenish Museum for 1833, p. 361. seq. lians should have had no names for martial, and the Cascans no words for agricultural occupations before they came into contact with each other. Secondly, the observation which Niebuhr made with regard to Latin and Greek, applies with equal force to all Indo-european languages. They all exhibit the most striking coincidences in words expressive of the first peaceful occupations of mankind, while the terms connected with chase and war are mostly peculiar to each. There is no reason, therefore, why these words which the Greeks and Romans have in common, should be called a Greek element in Latin. Since the same words occur in all the Indo-european languages, they can. only be considered as a common Arian element, that is to say, as words which existed before the Arian family was broken up. Many of these words have even preserved a more primitive form in Latin than in Greek. We could hardly imagine that ovis should be taken from oïs, if we see that the original form of this word is avis in Sanskrit, awis in Lithuanian, and eovu in Anglo-saxon. The Latin pecus is much nearer to Sanskrit pas'u, Prussian pecku, and Gothic faihu, than to the Greek Tŵυ; nor could we call the Latin canis a derivative from the Greek Kúwv, if we see how much more closely the Latin word resembles the Sanskrit s'van, and the Sclavonic kon'. Besides some of the so-called martial Cascan words are not peculiar to Latin, and though they do not occur in Greek, they are found either in Sanskrit, or in other Arian dialects, as, for instance, ensis, which is the Sanskrit asis, a sword; scutum which is the Lithuanian skyda, a shield, and is derived from the same root from which we have the Greek σKUTOS, a hide; for scutum means originally a dressed or tanned hide, the material which was used by the ancients for making shields. But while in this case Comparative Philology must discountenance the historical conclusions which were drawn from too partial evidence, it enables us on the other hand to reconstruct on a firmer basis the oldest history of the whole Arian family, that is to say, on the evidence derived from an accurate and systematic comparison of all Indo-european languages. There are words which form, so to speak, the common heirloom of the Arian family. These old relics are to be found among the tribes now settled in India, as well as among the nations of Europe, that is, among races who have had no lasting intercourse with one another since they first started from the common centre of mankind. If properly decyphered, these words might be made to furnish historical documents for times when neither Greece nor India were peopled by the Arians,when neither Greek nor Sanskrit existed as separate languages, 1851. Vestiges of Language. 35 -for times previous to Homer, the Zendavesta, and the Veda. For this primeval period, which is far beyond the reach of written history, single words, which have been scattered all over the earth like Sibylline leaves, if carefully gathered as historical documents, and decyphered by the help of Comparative Philology, may still be found to contain the faint traces of the earliest civilisation of the human race. The process by which these obliterated traces can be brought out and construed into historical evidence, does not form part of Comparative Grammar; and it would lead us too far to enter fully into a subject which, as yet, has remained almost untouched. One instance of the curious results which may thus be obtained, will suffice. It is a question of deep interest to know whether any religious ideas can be discovered among the wandering tribes at that early period of history, when the mythology of the Arian nations-not yet separated-was following the impulse of its gradual development. Questions of this kind have usually been answered in a very vague manner, or according to theories which rested on preconceived notions, but not on facts. In the absence of all other historical documents, we can deduce such facts from language only; and we shall see how far Comparative Philology is able to supply them. There are three words in the modern languages of Europe, which express the idea of God,—one belonging to the Romance dialects, the other to the Teutonic, the third to the Sclavonic family. From an historical point of view, these words must be looked upon not as modern productions, but as the most ancient relics of language. It has been very truly observed that the modern nations of Europe are the oldest nations of the world. Their history, if more deeply investigated, if considered as the result and natural consequence of all previous history, discloses to our eyes a picture, where, behind the living foreground of the present generation, we see all the former stages in the progress of the human race arranged in true perspective, so as to form together one uninterrupted whole. Wherever we look around us, we are living among the ruins of a by-gone world; and if we attempt to read in History the biography of the human race, the ancient world forms but the prelude, with the interesting scenes of our childhood and youth, while each successive century brings us nearer to what may be called our manhood or old age. As in the life of the individual the experience of later years is everywhere interwoven with the early impressions of childhood, the Historian sees the image of the earlier ages of the world's history reflected in that of his own time. And, if he endeavours to trace the aggregate experience of the present day to its first C |