« AnteriorContinuar »
thing as it is. Freund represents the best development, as a whole, of Latin lexicography, hitherto; Passow, as improved by Rost and others, that of Greek; and Webster, that of English. These all performed great labors, and achieved great results; and their names will ever stand high on the list of man's benefactors. But on none of them had the splendid orb of modern philology risen in its strength. It was in 1833 that Bopp began to publish that great work, his Comparative grammar, which in the department of language, like Bacon's Novum Organon in that of physical science, lighted the world on the way to a new era. And yet Freund, whose eyes actually beheld the rising dawn of comparative philology, the only one of the three lexicographers mentioned, whose feet stood, consciously, upon the margia of the new order of linguistic researches and results, had just closed his long labors, at this very time, and, in January, 1834, wrote his preface to his finished1 work, by way of better introducing it to the world. In the following few words, he discloses the true attitude of his mind, viz.: "the question of the origin of the Latin language, is beginning to be far more involved, than many are willing to believe. Germanism is opposing the Sanscrit, with powerful weapons, and urges its claims to be the origin of Latin. The author therefore feels that he would be called overhasty, if he allowed the Sanscrit or the German element to have the predominance in his work." In the light of the present hour, how strange, even to ridiculousness, seems this language. It is by such strong high waymarks, standing up in the past, that we can best realize how great progress has been made, during the last quarter of a century, as in everything else, so also in the elements and processes of classical study. To dress, now, Latin lexicography in the etymology of Freund's day, when such a man as he thought that it was quite as likely as not that the Latin was but a child of the German, that had been lost in other days, but was now found again,
1 The first volume was published in 1834, but the work was not completed till 1845. —Eds.
would be like undertaking to dress a full grown man, of our day, in the clothes of some petty underling that lived half a century ago. Our lexical Latin etymology wears, therefore, to one whose eye is open to the charms and claims of Indo-European philology, the most grotesque Lilliputian dimensions; casting the reproach of its dwarfishness and deformity upon the whole aspect of the lexicography into which it is introduced. In Freund's day, Doderlein's star was in the ascendant, in etymology, who published his Lateinische synonyme and etymologiecn in 1826. He derived the Latin immediately from the Greek, so far as he could either find or devise any similarity between them. And many and great were the tortuosities of his inventive genius in working its way through such a labyrinthine experiment. The Latin and the Greek are sister languages, the Latin being the elder sister of the two, and having, in its form and face and character, much more resemblance to their still elder sister the Sanscrit, and so to their common parent, than the Greek. Of what greater absurdity, therefore, could an etymologist be guilty, than that of undertaking to represent the Latin, the elder sister, as the daughter of the Greek, the younger sister? With much labor in so false a direction, Dilderlein succeeded in building up, in his various works, a vast pile of learned and ingenious, but false and worthless, novelties and blunders; a remarkable specimen of a patient, vigorous, enthusiastic scholar, industriously misspending all his days. There was great elaboration in the argument of his life, but it was developed, throughout, from entirely wrong premises. Through Freund's deference to his false views, he has been permitted to perpetuate the blight of his errors, through this generation and perhaps through another, upon the scholarship of other lands than his own, where the light of better minds has sufficed to supersede forever the false glare of his philological misconceptions. To Freund we must give, however, the credit of having uttered his deep sense of the want of a true etymology. He says that " a scientific exhibition of the genealogy of words is needed, but hitherto  has not been formed into a separate department, of the general science of language, as it ought to be. In time there must and will, without doubt, be found a genealogy of words, which shall take its place, as a science, by the side of lexicography." But in the few correspondences of the Latin with the Greek which Freund ventured to indicate, how narrow was the prospect that he opened, of their really wide and wonderful relations! And what an utter want of any system for its facts, and of any solution for its difficulties. In this period of well nigh universal darkness in philology, but twenty-five years ago, the field of classical etymology, was a favorite hunting ground for every sort of linguistic vagary, by all kinds of scholastic pretenders, who kept ever doubling, again and again, upon their own tracks, and ended all their toils only in making game of themselves to every intelligent beholder. Many, like Doderlein, derived the Latin from the Greek. Schwenck published, in 1827, an etymological Latin dictionary, in German, deriving the Latin from the Greek, for the most part; but sometimes also from the German. But, while its references to the Greek are somewhat copious, they have no scientific basis, and are all empirical, and many of them far-fetched and false. Valpy also published, in English, a Latin etymological dictionary, in the same spirit and with the same faults as Schwenck. "It will be said," he says, " that there are numerous words which we cannot show to be taken from the Greek. Doubtless it is so, although the number of such words is constantly decreasing." For works based on such fundamentally wrong ideas, both of these dictionaries possess much scholarly merit.
Others, like Jiikel, in his "germanische ursprung der lateinischen Sprache" (in 1830), undertook, like one hunting for eggs among ashes, to find the origin of the Latin in the old Gothic; others still, like the great Gesenius, derived it, very largely, from the Hebrew. Nork, accordingly, prepared a Latin dictionary on this basis; and to one, whose philological views are full enough to enable him to appreciate the real quality of the book, it is full of all humorous elements. A brief quotation will show, at once, his position. He says , "the relationship of the Hebrew with the Greek and Latin, cannot be denied, for the following reasons, namely: because the Tuscans, like the Carthaginians, claimed derivation from the inhabitants of Tyre; and also the Hebrews, the neighbors of the Phcenicians, like the Greeks, had constructed their language out of Egyptian elements, while the Egyptians themselves, but colonists from Meroe, had been, with the Ethiopians, emigrants from India; and hence their agreement in language, culture, and philosophy. Hence it comes that almost all the names of the Greek and Tuscan gods can be deciphered only through the Hebrew (as Dido,1 Hecate, Minerva, Venus, etc.). But also other words in those languages have rewarded the search for their origin, only when made in the Hebrew, as ^aX*o?, brass, from P?n (chalak) to divide; %pva6s, gold, from yyi (charats),* to dig out, a name which, applying to every metal, came to be affixed, par excellence, to gold. So also the root of capio, to take, is found in C]3 (caph), the hand; as of cupio, to desire, in ~" (gup/t), the body, and hence desire," etc. What a mass of misstatements and misconceptions! Is it any wonder, that such a book never saw a second edition, or that its author warned his readers to be careful not to belong to a class who had sworn to any previous master? On principles like these, one might derive any language from any other, and change the order of their sequence one to the other, ad libitum, forwards and backwards, upside down and downside up, and still always preserve, unimpaired, the same wonderful beauty of connection.
In Greek lexicography, Passow is of the greatest merit in everything but that inner presence of the true etymological element, which informs a dictionary with so much of its higher light and beauty. He lived and labored, as a lexicographer, earlier still than Freund, having published the first edition of his dictionary, in different parts, between the years 1818 and 1824. The new edition of Passow by Rost and others, was begun twenty years ago; and, though
1 Of what i:od is this the name?
much enlarged and improved through this long course of years, was begun and has been finished without the introduction of that one savory element of philology so necessary to the new and improved taste of the modern scholar. Pape's Greek lexicon, prepared more recently, comes under the same condemnation in reference to its supply of any etymological stores, for meeting the cravings of those desiring more philological knowledge. Kaltschmidt's comparative and etymological Greek dictionary, published in 1839, is an approximation, in both spirit and form, to what is wanted, but much below in quality. It is not, like the works of Grimm and Bopp and Pott and the leaders in the new philology, vast and profound, but is often fanciful and feeble, and therefore very generally unreliable; as unsatisfactory commonly in its conclusions as Ben fey, of whom, in this relation, he constantly reminds an investigator; who, while being a fine Sanscrit scholar, is yet quite a visionary and indifferent etymologist. Eichhoff is Kaltschmidt's oracle; and, in so far as he follows Eichhoff, he is always respectable, and in many cases valuable, as a leader; but there is so much chaff mingled with the wheat, in his lexicon, that for a beginner in Greek philology, he is more dangerous than useful. Ilis dictionary was probably, in its day, equal to the most advanced scholarship of the times; and, if so, it serves to show, in a striking manner, how much progress has been made in the short interval between. No adequate work, therefore, has yet appeared in Latin or Greek lexicography, in the department of etymology. The light, in which our present generation of classical students is walking, is, like that of the fixed stars, which are so far from us that the light which we are now receiving from them, actually left the orbs themselves whole centuries ago, the light shed from the best scholarship that prevailed a quarter of a century since, instead of the light of the foremost minds, that are leading the scholarship of our day. And the wonder is, while there is so much bright beautiful light on the mountain tops of the classical world, that it creeps down so slowly into the vast circumference of the vales below.