PREFACE. THE following pages are offered as a Manual for the study of Philology. A sufficient number of facts has now been established to admit of analysis and arrangement, and to take the subject out of the hands of the mere collector and antiquarian; and I propose here to treat it as a young Science, in the full and literal meaning of the word. Of course, many works with this view have already appeared ; but, for the greater part, they have been confined to a particular class of idioms, and been written in a foreign language. The present treatise comprises the whole IndoEuropean family, according to the latest German writers, Bopp and Pott; but its principal object is to illustrate the affinity of every idiom in Europe, and to approach towards a nearer acquaintance with the early history of our quarter of the world. In a syllabus of the history of so many nations and languages, it was impossible to verify the accuracy of all my authorities; it is, therefore, pardonable, if I have retailed one or two old errors: but, on all original points, I am in duty bound to consider myself amenable to the court of criticism; and would invite particular attention to my new view of the origin of the Tuscans, which I wish to be considered as the principal feature of the work. On this subject I have drawn my authorities from a very unusual source: my reasons for doing so will be best explained by giving one or two extracts from Niebuhr on the Origin and Early History of Rome. Concerning the settlement of Æneas in Italy, Niebuhr says: "By this combination of evidence I think I have established the correctness of the view, that the Trojan legend was not brought into Latium by Greek literature, but must be considered as home-sprung; and when I have added, that in spite of this it has not the least historical truth, nor even the slightest historical importance, I should wish to quit the subject" (vol. i. p. 186). His second volume begins thus: "It was one of the main objects of the first volume to prove that the story of Rome, under the kings, was altogether without historical foundation." With respect to Servius Tullius, the Mastarna of the Tuscan annals, he says: "The Etruscan story, if it had come to us immediately and authentically from the old Etruscan annals, could not be gainsaid, but would be irreconcilable with all the rest of Roman history; nor would it lead to any results" (vol. i. p. 377). And, lastly, of the war with Porsenna he says, "not a single incident can pass for his torical" (vol. i. p. 542). In short, the whole of Tuscan history is involved in the greatest obscurity; which was caused, according to Niebuhr, by the careful destruction of all the Tuscan annals by the Romans themselves, to conceal the disgrace of the Tuscan conquest. If such is the state of early Roman history after the labours even of a Niebuhr, we are surely justified in applying to any source, however extraordinary, in the hope of gleaning some historical truths. Now the Rabbis entertain very peculiar opinions on the origin of Rome; but these hitherto have either been entirely overlooked or treated with contempt. One author says that their statements set at defiance all authentic history and accurate chronology; whilst another tells us he is startled by assertions which nothing else confirms. But, granting for the present the justice of these decisions, are they at all worse than the sentence which Niebuhr has passed on the commonly received history, that we should be deterred from searching critically into the Rabbinical statements. It is well known that the Old Testament contains several prophecies concerning Rome, in which the Rabbis of all ages have taken a deep interest, as they connect their own destiny with the fate of Rome. Thus R. Kimchi says: "When Rome shall be laid waste, there shall be redemption to Israel." If we consider the greatness of the interests involved in the point, and the very early period at which their literature flourished, it is certainly no unreasonable supposition that they had the means, as well as the inclination, to make themselves acquainted with the antiquities of Rome; though the sure foundation of truth, in their case as well as in others, has been sadly overlaid with a fanciful superstructure of modern legends. I have confronted the Rabbinical with the Classical statements, and leave the result to the judgment of the reader; if it does not produce immediate conviction, it will at least command serious attention. For my own part, I have been startled by coincidences which confirm the accuracy of the Rabbinical sources; but I shall not speak confidently, for Niebuhr has said on the subject of the Tuscans, "If any body pretends that he is able to decide with confidence in questions of such obscurity, let none listen to him" (vol. i. p. 380). I give below a list of the works which I have constantly used on the general subject of this Manual; of course I have consulted a great many others, to which I have made the proper references in the particular divisions of my Treatise; but the writers here mentioned were my principal guides, and it is to these works of the respective authors, that reference is made when the writers are mentioned only by name. I must also acknowledge my obligations to the periodical literature of the day, which contains many learned dissertations relating to my subject; and would mention with particular respect, the archæological and philological papers in the Quarterly Review. |