He says [1827], "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 Phoenicians, 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,' 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 xaλkós, brass, from p (chalak) to divide; xpuσós, gold, from 777 (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 2 (caph), the hand; as of cupio, to desire, in (guph), 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 god is this the name? 2 This verb means to cut into or on. 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 Benfey, 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. His 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. As for our own vernacular etymology, since our language is wholly secondary in its origin and, so, mixed and modern in its structure, more copious materials, and those for the most part of inherent value, have been gathered by Webster and preceding lexicographers, without the aid of comparative philology, than could be done in any other language. But while in certain directions and on certain sides of the language, much labor has been well bestowed in making collections of classical and Teutonic correspondences, as well as of those in the various Romanic languages, with English words, here all the effort bestowed or designed to be, has ceased. The facts, established or supposed to be, have not been afterwards selected and arranged and compacted together within the bonds of any true comprehensive scientific system. No phonetic principles have been developed, serving to ascertain or eclaircise all that large and best class of etymological facts, which are a little removed from immediate discovery, and so constitute, when found, the satisfying reward of successful scientific research. It is therefore but a mere chaos of etymologies that English lexicography yet furnishes; a jumble of true things and false, more like the extended ruins of some huge edifice than like a structure built with jealous care, to stand high and strong, in its appointed place. Under the princely tread of the new philology, multitudes of before valued resemblances in English etymology are at once trampled down as mere stubble. Much of such a romantic style of etymologizing as that with which Horne Tooke amused himself and his readers, in his "Diversions of Perley," disappears at once in the light of modern scholarship, as would mere elegant frost-work before a bright sun. The etymological treasures which Webster gathered together, with such scholarly industry and delight, excite our admiration at the breadth of his research and the luminous accuracy of his judgment, under the false and feeble light of his day. But the fountains of his learning were not drawn from the heights of comparative philology. The salt of the Indo-European element is not in them, and they cannot retain their virtue. Nothing can make amends for this fatal deficiency but their perfect renovation. It was in 1828, five years before Bopp began to scatter the light of his great discoveries, over the study of the various languages of the civilized world, that Webster published his large dictionary; and when in 1840 he issued a new and last edition improved by himself, the additions designed to be made, as stated by him, did not embrace at all the results of the new philology. "The improvements," he says, "consist chiefly in the addition of several thousand words to the vocabulary, the division of words into syllables, and the correction of definitions in several of the sciences; as well as the introduction of many phrases from foreign languages and of many foreign terms used in books of music." And what of all the wonderful researches and results of the last quarter of a century, serving to revolutionize all lexicography, all classical study, and the whole science of language? Watchman on the towers of American philology, what of the night? We wait for an answer after twelve years have come and gone to the great observer, and only echo answers, what! The Semitic element, to which, according to the fashion of the times, he gave in 1828 such false prominence in the department of etymology, still retains its authority or rather its place unimpaired in 1840. And neither at first nor at last was any order of relation indicated or conceived to exist, between the different correspondences of words, which are strung together as carelessly as were ever beads by a child upon a string. Some recent hand has undertaken to introduce the Sanscrit somehow into this unmethodized group of 1 As a specimen of the utterly unphilological aspect of the Sanscrit additions made to Webster's dictionary, witness the following facts, taken at random and only as samples, of multitudes of the same sort. The Sanscrit equivalent is placed sometimes, between the Latin and Armenian (as in the word navy); sometimes, between the Russian and Hebrew (vid. to bear); and at other times, between the Persian and Malay (name), and between the Hindû and Persian (new); the Swedish and Latin (stand); the Swedish and Persian (state); the Irish and Greek (brow); the Greek and Zend (mead); the Persian and Russian (mother); the Russian and Persian (no); the Armenian and Persian (seven); the Greek and Hebrew (sir), and between the Danish and Welsh (luck), and so on ad infinitum. The Sanscrit, besides being thus thrown in as a makeweight, among a mere disjointed mass of other etymologies, is introduced only in a very partial, meagre VOL. XV. No. 58 36 etymologies, but not in a way to throw any light upon them, or to draw them together around any common point of crystallization, or even of central preparation for it. The new comer from India, instead of being treated as a prince royal in his own lawful dominions, is here dishonored actually although not designedly, in the position assigned to him, as if a mere bantling, that must be taken care of in some way, and so is left by the way-side to be taken care of by others. There is no science or organific law prevailing in the series of connections and citations exhibited, nor can there be at any time without an entire reorganization of the materials now employed, as well as their very great enlargement. The structure, therefore, which Webster built so industriously, must erelong be inevitably razed to the ground, as entirely inadequate to the more exact and vast scholarship of succeeding generations; or be so built over and around with higher and better forms of lexical research, as to disappear itself wholly from the view. The scholarship of our country, now so destitute of any strong traces of such a fact, will soon become so lofty in its type, so broad in its demands, and so irradiated with the highest light of the age, as to require a style of lexicography that shall embrace in it a full view of all the vast array of scientific results, developed by comparative philology. All honor to the man who shall way, compared with its real claims; and it is always placed last or among the last, instead of first and here, as before, in all sorts of laughable combinations; as, after the Irish and Slavonic (night); the Hebrew and Arabic (mix); the Danish and Russian (nail), etc. Could a more perfect wizard's potion be prepared with which to steep the thoughts of a young student of English etymology in "utter forgetfulness" of his work and of its benefits? How does it remind one of the song of the three witches about the caldron in Macbeth: "Black spirits and white, The reader is cautioned to observe that the criticism here made lies not at all against the taste or scholarship of the annotator. The Sanscrit cannot be introduced by any one into the etymology of this dictionary, without a complete reorganization of its materials, in any way that will make the result anything but a piece of miserable philological patchwork. |