qus-in=aud-ioqus-am=aud-imusqus-is=aud-isqus-ut`=aud-itisqus-i=aud-itqus-inc`=aud-iunt.
The addition of the sound ofthelpsto form the Irôn preterite. I sayhelps, because if we compare the forms-ko-t-on=I made, with the rootkan, or the formfé-qus-t-on=I heard, with the rootqus, we see, at once, that the addition oftis only apartof an inflection.
Beyond this, the tenses become complicated; and that because they are evidently formed by the agglutination of separate words; the so-called imperfect being undoubtedly formed by affixing the preterite form of the wordto make. The perfect and future seem to be similarly formed, dele from the auxiliary=be; as may be collected from the following paradigms.
Plural—Present,st-am, st-ut, i-st-i=sumus,estis,sunt.Singular—Preterite,u-t-an, u-t-as, u-d-i=fui,fuisti,fuit.Singular—Future,u-gín-an, u-gín-as, u-gén-i=ero,eris,erit.Imperativefau=esto.
Root, k`an=make.Preterite,=s-k`o-t-on,[10]s-k`o-t-ai, s-k`o-t-a=feci,fecisti,fecit.
Root, kus=hear.
Sing.Plural.Present,1. qus-inqus-am.2. qus-isqus-ut`3. qus-iqus-inc`.Imperfect,1. qus-ga-k`o-t-onqus-ga-k`o-t-am2. qus-ga-k`o-t-aiqus-ga-k`o-t-al`3. qus-ga-k`o-t-aqus-ga-k`o-t-oiPerfect,1. fé-qus-t-onfé-qus-t-am2. fé-qus-t-aifé-qus-t-al`3. fé-qus-t-afé-qus-t-oiFuture,1. bai-qus-g'in-anbai-qus-g'i-stam2. bai-qus-g'in-asbai-qus-g'i-stut`3. bai-qus-g'én-ibai-qus-g'i-sti
Sing.Plural.Present,1. qus-onqus-am2. qus-aiqus-at`3. qus-aiqus-oiImperfect,1. qus-ga-k`an-onqus-ga-k`an-am2. qus-ga-k`an-aiqus-ga-k`an-ai`3. qus-ga-k`an-aqus-ga-k`an-oi
1. ——bai-qus-am2. bai-qusbai-qus-ut`3. bai-qus-abai-qus-oi
Participles, qus-ag, qus-gond, qus-in-ag.
In the Absné dialectab=father,ácĕ=horse;ab ácĕ=father's horse, (verbally,father horse). Here position does the work of an inflection.
The use of prepositions is as limited as that of inflections,sara s-ab ácĕ ist`apI my-father horse give, orgiving am;abna amus`w izbt=wood bear see-did=I saw a bear in the wood;awinĕ wi as`wkĕ=(in)house two doors;ácĕ sis`lit=(on)horse mount I-did.
Hence, declension begins with the formation of the plural number. This consists in the addition of the syllablek`wa.
Acĕ=horse;ácĕ-k`wa=horses.Atsla=tree;astla-k`wa=trees.Awinĕ=house;awinĕ-k`wa=houses.
In the pronouns there is as little inflection as in the substantives and adjectives,i. e.there are no forms corresponding tomihi,nobis, &c.
1. When the pronoun signifies possession, it takes an inseparable form, is incorporated with the substantive that agrees with it, and iss-for the first,w-for the second, andi-for the third, person singular. Then for the plural it ish-for the first person,s`-for the second,r-for the third:ab=father;
S-ab=my father;h-ab=our father.W-ab=thy father;s`-ab=your father.T-ab=his (her) father;r-ab=their father.
2. When the pronoun is governed by a verb, it is similarly incorporated.
3. Hence, the only inseparable form of the personal pronoun is to be found when it governs the verb. In this case the forms are:
Sa-ra=IHa-ra=weWa-ra=thouS`a-ru=yeUi=heU-bart`=they.
Insa-ra,wa-ra,ha-ra,s`a-ra, the-rais non radical. The wordu-bart`is a compound.
The ordinal=firstisachani. This seems formed fromaka=one.
The ordinal=secondisagi. This seems unconnected with the wordwi-=two; just as in English,secondhas no etymological connection withtwo.
The remaining ordinals are formed, by affixing-nto, and (in some case) prefixing-a; as
Cardinals.Ordinals.3,Chi-ba[11]A-chi-nto4,P`s`i-baA-p`s`i-nto5,Chu-baA-chu-nto6,F-baF-into7,Bis`-baBs-into8,Aa-baA-a-nto9,S`-baS`b-into10,S`wa-baSw-ento.
In the Absné verbs the distinction of time is the only distinction denoted by any approach to the character of an inflection; and here the change has so thoroughly the appearance of having been effected by the addition of some separate and independent words, that it is doubtful whether any of the following forms can be considered as true inflections.
Root, C'wis`l=ride
1.Present,C'wis`l-ap=I ride[12]=equito.2.Present,C'wis`l-oit=I am riding.Imperfect,C'wis`l-an=equitabam.Perfect,C'wis`l-it=equitavi.Plusquamperfect,C'wis`l-chén=equitaveram.Future,C'wis`l-as`t=equitabo.
The person and number is shown by the pronoun. And here must be noticed a complication. The pronoun appears in two forms:—
1st. In full,sara,wara&c.
2nd. As an inseparable prefix; the radical letter being prefixed and incorporated with the verb. It cannot, however, be said that this is a true inflexion.
1.Sing.1.sara s-c'wisl-oit=I ride2.wara u-c'wisl-oit=thou ridest3.ui i-c'wisl-oit=he rides.2.Plur.1.hara ha-c'wisl-oit=we ride2.s`ara s`-c'wisl-oit=ye ride3.ubart r-c'wisl-oit=they ride
In respect to the name of the class under notice I suggested in 1850 the term Dioscurian from the ancient Dioscurias. There it was that the chief commerce between the Greeks and Romans, and the natives of the Caucasian range took place. According to Pliny, it was carried on by thirty interpreters, so numerous were the languages. The great multiplicity of mutually unintelligible tongues is still one of the characteristics of the parts in question. To have used the wordCaucasianwould have been correct, but inconvenient. It is alreadymis-applied in another sense,i. e., for the sake of denoting the so-called Caucasian race, consisting, or said to consist, of Jews, Greeks, Circassians, Scotchmen, ancient Romans, and other heterogeneous elements.
In his paper on the Mongolian Affinities of the Caucasians, published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (1853) Mr. Hodgson has both confirmed and developed the doctrine here indicated—hisdataon the side of Caucasus being those of the Asia Polyglotta, but those on the side of Tibet and China being vastly augmented; and that, to a great extent, through his own efforts and researches.
Upon the evidence of Mr. Hodgson I lay more than ordinary value; not merely on the strength of his acumen and acquirements in general, but from the fact of hisex-professostudies as a naturalist leading him to over-value rather than under-value those differences of physical conformation that (to take extreme forms) contrast the Georgian and Circassian noble with the Chinese; or Tibetan labourer. Nevertheless, his evidence is decided.
READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,FEBRUARY THE 15TH. 1858.
So little light has been thrown upon the languages of Caucasus, that a publication of the year 1856, entitledVersuch über die Thusch-Sprache, by A. Schieffner, may be allowed to stand as a text for a short commentary.
The Tushi is a language belonging to the least known of the five classes into which Klaproth, in hisAsia Polyglotta, distributes the languages of Caucasus: viz. (1.) the Georgian. (2.) the Osset or Iron. (3.) the Lesgian. (4.) the Mizhdzhedzhi. And (5.) the Tsherkess or Circassian. It is to the fourth of these that the Tushi belongs; the particular district in which it is spoken being that of Tzowa, where it is in contact with the Georgian of Georgia; from which, as well as from the Russian, it has adopted several words.
Thedataconsist in communications from a native of the district, Georg Ziskorow, with whom the author came in contact at St. Petersburg. They have supplied a grammatical sketch, a short lexicon, and some specimens in the way of composition, consisting of translations of portions of the Gospels, and two short tales of an Arabic or Persian rather than a truly native character. They are accompanied by a German translation.
Taking the groups as we find them in Klaproth, we may ask what amount of illustration each has received in respect to itsgrammar. In respect to the vocabularies, theAsia Polyglottagives us specimens of them all.
The Georgian has long been known through the grammar of Maggi, published upwards of two centuries ago. The researches of Rosen on its several dialects are quite recent. Of the Iron there is a copious dictionary by Sjögren, anda short sketch of its grammar by Rosen. The alphabet is Russian, with additions. Rosen has also given a grammatical sketch of the Circassian: This, however, as well as his notice of the Osset, is exceedingly brief. Of the Lesgian we have no grammar at all; and of the Mizhdzhedzhi, or Tshetshent group, the first grammatical sketch is the one before us.
The alphabet is the ordinary Roman modified; the work being addressed to the Russians rather than the natives, and to the Europeansavansin general rather than to the Russians. Otherwise the Georgian alphabet might have been used with advantage; for it is especially stated that the Georgian and Tushi sound-systems are alike. The modifications to which our own alphabet has been subjected, are those that Castrèn has made in his Samoyed grammar and lexicon. So that we may say that it is in Castrèn's Samoyed mode of writing that Schieffner's Tushi grammar and lexicon are exhibited.
In respect to the general relations of the language, the evidence of the work under notice is confirmatory (though not absolutely) of the views to which the present writer has committed himself, viz.—(1.) that the languages of Caucasus in general are so nearlymono-syllabic as to be with fitness designatedpauro-syllabic; (2.) that the distinction drawn by Klaproth between the Mizhdzhedzhi and Lesgian groups is untenable; both belonging to the same class, a fact by which the philologic ethnography of Caucasus is,pro tanto, simplified. Upon the first of these points Schieffner writes, that the avoidance of polysyllabic forms has introduced all manner of abbreviations in the language; upon the second, that the little he has seen of the Lesgian grammar induces him to connect it with the Tshetshents. It should be added, however, that in respect to its monosyllabic character, he maintains that the shortness of many of its words is due to a secondary process; so that the older form of the language was more polysyllabic than the present.
Of the chief details, the formation of the cases of the nouns comes first. The declension of the personal pronouns is as follows. With a slight modification it is that of the ordinary substantive as well.
SINGULAR.I.THOU.HE.Nominativesoḥoo.Genitivesaiḥaiox̣u.——————oux̣.——————ox̣uin.Dativesonḥonox̣un.——sona——oux̣na.Instructiveasaḥox̣us.——asaaḥaoxuse.——————oux̣se.Affectivesoxḥoxox̣ux.Allativesogoḥogoox̣ugo.——————oux̣go.Elativesoxiḥoxioux̣xi.——————ox̣xi (?).Comitativesociḥociox̣uci.——————oux̣ci.——————ox̣ci (?).Terminativesogomciḥogomcioux̣gomci.Adessivesogohḥogoḥoux̣goḥ.Ablativesogredahḥogredahoux̣gore.——————oux̣goredah.PLURAL.WE.YE.THEY.Nominativewai'txosuobi.Genitivewai'txaiṡuiox̣ri.Dativewain'txonṡunox̣arn.——————suna——Instructivewaia'txoaiṡox̣ar.——————aṡiox̣ra.Affectivewaix'txoxṡuxox̣arx.Allativewaigo'txogoṡugoox̣argo.Illativewailo'txoloṡuloox̣arlo.Elativewaixi'tzoxiṡuxiox̣arxi.Comitativewaici'txociṡuciox̣arci.Adessivewaigoh'txogohṡugoḥox̣argoḥ.Inessive(c.)wailoh'txoloḥṡuloḥox̣arloḥ.Ablative(c.)waigre'txogreṡugreox̣argore.————————ox̣ardah.Elative(c.)wailre'txolreṡulreoḥarlore.Conversivewaigoih'txogoihṡugoihoḥargoih.
That some of these forms are no true inflexions, but appended prepositions; is speedily stated in the text. If so, it is probable that, in another author or in a different dialect, the number of cases will vary. At any rate, the agglutinate character of the language is indicated. The numerals are—
CARDINAL.ORDINAL.1.chaduihre.2.ṡisilǵe.3.x̣ox̣alǵe.4.ahewdhewloǵe.5.ṗxipxilǵe.6.jeṫxjeixloǵe.7.worlworloǵe.8.barlbarloġe.9.ississloġe.10.ittittloġe.11.cha-ittcha-ittloġe.12.si-ittsi-ittloġe.19.tqeexçiqeex̣cloġe.20.tqatqalġe.
This as a word the author connects with the wordtqo=also,overagain(auch,wiederum), as if it were 10 doubled, which it most likely is. In like mannertqeexçisone from twenty=undeviginti:—
100 =ṗxauztqa = 5 × 20.200 =içatatq = 10 × 20.300 =ṗxiiæatq = 12 × 20.400 =tqauziq = 20 × 20.500 =tqauziġ ṗxauztqa = 20 × 20 + 100.1000 =sac tqauziqa icaiqa = 2 × 400 + 200.
The commonest signs of the plural number are-iand-si, the latter=isin Tshetshents. The suffixes-neand-bi, the latter of which is found in Lesgian, is stated to be Georgian in origin. No reason, however, against its being native is given.
In verbs, the simplest form is (as usual) the imperative. Add to this-a, and you have the infinitive. The sign of the conditional isḥeorḥ; that of the conjunctiveḷeorḷ.
The tenses are—
(1.) Present, formed by adding-aor-uto the root:i. e.to the imperative form, and changing the vowel.
(2.) Imperfect, by adding-rto the present.
(3.) Aorist, formed by the addition of-rto the
(4.) Perfect; the formation of which is not expressly given, but which is said to differ from the present in not changing the vowel. However, we have the formsxet=find,xeṫi=found; (perf.)xetin=found(aorist). From the participle of the perfect is formed the
(5.) Pluperfect by adding-r.
(6.) The future is either the same as the present, or a modification of it.
I give the names of those moods and tenses as I find them. The language of the Latin grammar has, probably, been too closely imitated.
The first and second persons are formed by appendingthe pronouns either in the nominative or the instructive form. That an oblique form of the pronoun should appear in the personal inflexion of verbs is no more than what the researches of the late Mr. Garnett, with which we are all so familiar, have taught us to expect. At the same time, the extent to which the instructive and nominative forms are alike must be borne in mind. Let either be appended; and, when so appended, undergo (under certain conditions) certain modifications, and a double origin is simulated. That this is the case in the instances of the work under notice is by no means asserted. The possibility of its being so is suggested.
The participle of the present tense is formed in-in; asdago=eat,dagu-in=eating.
The participle of the preterite ends in-no; asxac̣e=hear,xac̣-no=heard.
There are auxiliary verbs, and no small amount of euphonic changes; of which one, more especially, deserves notice. It is connected with the gender of nouns. When certain words (adjectives or the so-called verb substantive) follow certain substantives, they change their initial. Thus ḥaṫxleenwa=the prophet is, ḥaṫxleensiba=the prophets are, waṡowa=the brother is, waṡarba=the brothers are.
Again—nawja=the ship is, nawrja=the ships are; bstiunoja=the wife is, bsteeda=the wives are.
This is said to indicate gender, but how do we know what gender is? The words themselves have neither form nor inflexion which indicates it. Say that instead of gender it means sex,i. e.that the changes in question are regulated by natural rather than grammatical characters. We still find that the wordnawis considered feminine—feminine and inanimate. This, however, is grammatical rather than natural, sex—"das weibliche Geschlecht wird beyunbelebtenGegenständen auch im Plural durchj-, beibelebtendurchaausgedrückt." Then follow the examples just given. How, however, do we know that these words are feminine? It is submitted that the explanation of this very interesting initial change has yet to be given. It recalls, however, to our memory the practice of more languages than one, the Keltic, the Woloff, the Kafre, and several other African tongues, wherein the change is initial, though not always on the same principle.
So, also, the division of objects into animate and inanimate recalls to our mind some African, and numerous American, tongues.
Such is the notice of the first of the Mizhdzhedzhi orTshetshents (we may say Lesgian) forms of speech of which the grammatical structure has been investigated; a notice which suggests the question concerning its affinities and classification.
The declension points to the Ugrian, or Fin, class of languages; with which not only the Tshetshents, but all the other languages of Caucasus have long been known to have miscellaneous affinities. The resemblance, however, may be more apparent than real. The so-called cases may be combinations of substantives and prepositions rather than true inflexions, and the terminology may be more Ugrian in form than in reality. Even if the powers of the cases be the same, it will not prove much. Two languages expressing a given number of the relations that two nouns may bear to each other will, generally, express the same. Cases are genitive, dative and the like all the world over—and that independent of any philological affinity between the languages in which they occur. The extent to which they are also Caritive, Adessive and the like has yet to be investigated.
The Ugrian affinities, then, of the Tshetshents are indirect; it being the languages of its immediate neighbourhood with which it is more immediately connected. In the way of vocabularies the lists of theAsia Polyglottahave long been competent to show this. In the way of grammar the evidence is, still, far from complete. The Georgian, to which Maggi gives no more than six cases, has a far scantier declension than the Tushi, at least as it appears here. The Circassian, according to Rosen, is still poorer.
In the verbs the general likeness is greater.
In the pronouns, however, the most definite similarity is to be found; as may be seen from the following forms in the Circassian:—
Ab=father.
1.S-ab=my father.2.H-ab=our father.W-ab=thy father.S'-ab=your father.L-ab=his father.S-ab=their father.
To which add—
Sa-ra=I.Ha-ra=we.Wa-ra=thou.S'a-ra=ye.Ui=he.U-bart=they.
The amount of likeness here is considerable. Over and above the use ofsfor the first person singular, thes'in thesecond person plural should be noticed. So should thebandrin the Circassian u-bart; both of which are plural elements in the Tushi also.
Finally (as a point of general philology), the double forms of the Tushi pluralswaiandtx̣osuggest the likelihood of their being exclusive and inclusive; one denoting the speaker but not the person spoken to, the other both the person spoken to and the person who speaks; plurals of this kind being well known to be common in many of the ruder languages.
READBEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY,APRIL 17TH 1854.
The text of Herodotus places the Agathyrsi in Transylvania (there or thereabouts). (See F. W. Newman On Scythia and the surrounding Countries, according to Herodotus, Philological Society's Proceedings, vol. i. p. 77.)
The subsequent authors speak of them as a people who painted (tattooed?) their bodies; the usual epithet beingpicti.
The same epithet is applied to theGeloni; also a population of the Scythia of Herodotus.
For accurate knowledge the locality of the Agathyrsans was too remote—too remote until, at least, the date of the Dacian wars; but the Dacian wars are, themselves, eminently imperfect in their details, and unsatisfactory in respect to the authorities for them.
There is every reason, then, for a nation in the locality of the Agathyrsi remaining obscure—in the same predicament (say) with the Hyperborei, or with the occupants of Thule.
But there is no reason for supposing the obliteration of the people so called; nor yet for supposing a loss of its name, whether native or otherwise.
Hence, when we get the details of Dacia we may reasonably look out for Agathyrsi.
How far must we expect to find their name unmodified? This depends upon the population through whom the classical writers, whether Latin or Greek, derived it. Now it is submitted, that if we find a notice of them in the fifth centuryA. D., and that in an account relating to Dacia andPannonia, themediumhas, probably, been different from that through which Herodotus, amongst the Greek colonies of the Black Sea, obtainedhisaccounts. The details of this difference ofmediumare not very important, and the discussion of them would be episodical to the present paper, if not irrelevant. It is enough to remark, that a difference ofmediumis probable; and, as a consequence thereof, a difference in the form of the name.
This is preliminary and introductory to the notice of the following passage of Priscus, to whom we owe the account of one of the embassies to Attila—Ὁ πρεσβύτερος ἧρχε τῶν Ἀκατζίρων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἐθνῶν νεμομένων τὴν πρὸς τὸν Πόντον Σκυθικέν. Another form (also in Priscus) isἈκατίροι. They are specially calledAkatiri Hunni. Jornandes' form isAcatziri.
Place for place, this gives us the Agathyrsi of Herodotus as near as can be expected; and, name for name it does the same: the inference being that theAkatziriof Priscus are the descendants of theAgathyrsiof Herodotus. Of course, evidence of any kind to the migration, extinction, or change of name on the part of the population in question would invalidate this view. Such evidence, however, has not been produced, nor has the present writer succeeded in finding, though he has sought for it.
Descendants then of theAgathyrsi, and ancestors of theAkatzirimay have formed part of the population of Dacia when Domitian and Trajan fought against Decebalus; a part that may have been large or small, weak or powerful, homogeneous with the rest of Dacia or different from it. Assuming it to have been different, it may still have supplied soldiers—even leaders. Decebalus himself may as easily have belonged to the Agathyrsan part of Dacia as to any other. A very little evidence will turn the balance in so obscure a point as the present.
Now, no German and no Slavonic dialects give us either the meaning of the name Decebalus or any name like it. It stands alone inEuropeanhistory. Where does it appear? In the history of theTurks. The first known king of the Turks bears the same name as the last of the Dacians.Dizabulus(Διζαβούλος) was that khan of the Turks of Tartary to whom Justinian sent an embassy when the Avars invaded the Eastern empire.
This (as is freely admitted) is a small fact, if taken alone; but this should not be done. Thecumulativecharacter of the evidence in all matters of this kind should be borne in mind, and the value of small facts measured by the extentto which they stand alone, or are strengthened by the coincidence of others. In the latter case they assume importance in proportion to the mutual support they give each other; the value of any two being always more than double that of either taken singly.
On the other hand, each must rest on some separate substantive evidence of its own. To say thatDecebalus was an Agathyrsan because the Agathyrsans were Turks, and that theAgathyrsans were Turks because Decebalus was one of them, is illegitimate. There must be some special evidence in each case, little or much.
Now the evidence that theAgathyrsiwere Turks lies in the extent to which (a) they were Scythians (Skoloti), and (b) the Scythians (Skoloti) were Turks;—neither of which facts is either universally admitted or universally denied. The present writer, however, holds the Turk character of the Agathyrsi on grounds wholly independent of anything in the present paper; indeed, the suggestion that theAcatziriareAgathyrsiis, not his, but Zeuss'.—(SeeDie Deutschen and die Nachbarstämme, v. Bulgari, p. 714.)
IfAgathyrs-beAkatzir-in some older, what is the latter word in any newer form?—for such there probably is. Word for word, it is probably the same asKhazar, a denomination for an undoubtedly Turk tribe which occurs for the first time in Theophanes:—Τοῦρκοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐώας οὓς Χαζάρους ὀνομάζουσιν. This isA. D.626. Whether, however, the same populations were denoted is uncertain. There are certain difficulties in the supposition that they were absolutely identical.
It is not, however, necessary that they should be so. There might be more than one division of a great stock, like the Turk so called. Nay, they might have been populations other than Turk so designated, provided only that there were some Turk population in their neighbourhood so to call them. More than this. The word may be current at the present moment, though, of course, in a modified form. Suppose it to have been the Turk translation ofpictus; or rather, suppose the wordpictusto be the Latin translation ofAgathyrs-(Akatzir-): what would the probable consequence be? Even this, that wherever there was apainted(ortattooed) population in the neighbourhood of any member of the great Turk stock, the name, or something like it, might arise. Be it so. If the members of the same Turk stock lay wide apart, the corresponding painted or tattooed populations lying wide apart also might take the same name.
The details suggested by this line of criticism may formthe subject of another paper. In the present, the author hazards a fresh observation—an observation on a population often associated with the Agathyrsi, viz. theGeloni. Seeing that we have such forms asUnni(the Greek form isΟὖννοι, notΟὗννοι) andChuni(=Huns);ArpiandCarpi;AttuariiandChattuari, &c.; and seeing the affinity between the sounds ofgandk; he believes that the wordGelonimay take another form and begin with a vowel (Elôni,Alôni). Seeing that their locality is nearly that of theAlaniof a latter period; seeing that the middle syllable in Alani (in one writer at least) is long—ἀλκήεντες Ἀλαῦνοι; seeing that Herodotus, who mentions theGeloni, knows no Alani, whereas the authors who describe the Alani make (with one exception about to be noticed) no mention of the Geloni, he identifies the two populations, Geloni and Alani, orvice versâ. He deduces something more from this rootl—n(λ—ν). Let the name for the Alans have reached the Greeks of the Euxine through two different dialects of some interjacent language; let the form it took in Greek have been parisyllabic in one case, whereas it was imparisyllabic in the other, and we have two plurals, one in -οι, asΓέλωνοι, Ἄλαυνοι, Ἄλανοι, and another in -ες, asΓέλωνες, Ἄλαυνες, Ἄλανες,—possible, and even probable, modifications of the original name, whatever that was. Now, name for name,Αλανεςcomes very nearΕλληνες; and in this similarity may lie the explanation of the statement of Herodotus as to the existence of certainScythian Greeks(ἑλληνες Σκυθαι)—iv. 17. 108.
If so theseScythian GreekswereAlans.
The exception, indicated a few lines above, to the fact of only one author mentioning bothGeloniandAlani, is to be found in Ammianus Marcellinus (xxxi. 2. 13. 14). The passage is too long to quote. It is clear, however, that whilst hisAlaniare spoken of from his own knowledge, hisGeloniare brought in from his book-learning,i. e.from Herodotus.
Evidence of any kind to the migration, extinction or change of name on the part of the populations in question would invalidate this view. Such evidence has not been produced &c.—The fuller consideration of the question involved in this statement is to be found in Dr. W. Smith'sDictionary of Greek and Roman Geography vv.Hunni,Scythia, andSarmatia.
The details suggested by this line of criticism &c.—These are to the effect that in the wordAgathyrsiwe get an early Turk gloss, of which the history is somewhat curious. It exists, at the present moment in England, having comeviaHungary. It exists in Siberia, on the very frontier of the America.
It is the English wordHussar=Khazar. Here we have it in its abbreviated form.
It is the Siberian word Yukahir, Yukazhir, or Yukadzhir.
The "nativename of the Yukahiri of Siberia isAndon Domni. The Koriaks call themAtal. Their other neighbours are the Turk Yakuts. Hence it is probable that it is to the Yakut language that the term Yukahir (alsoYukadzhir) is referrible. If so, its probable meaning is the same as the KoriakAtal, which meansspotted. It applies to the Yukahiri from their spotted deerskin dresses.
Now, south of these same Yakuts, who are supposed to call the Andon Domni by the name Yukahiri (or Yukadzhiri), live a tribe of Tungusians. These are calledTshapodzhir—butnotby themselves. By whom? By no one so probably as by the Yakuts. Why? Because they tattoo themselves. If so, it is probable thatYukadzhirandTshapodzhirare one and the same word; at any rate, a likely meaning in a likely language has been claimed for it.
Let it, then, be considered as a Turk word, meaningspotted,tattooed,painted,—provisionally. It may appear in any part of the Turk area, provided only, that some nation to which one of the three preceding adjectives applies be found in its neighbourhood. It may appear, too, in any state of any Turk form of speech. But there are Turk forms of speech as far distant from the Lena and Tunguska as Syria or Constantinople; and there are Turk glosses as old as Herodotus. One of these the present writer believes to be the wordAgathyrsi, being provided with special evidence to shew that the nation so called were either themselves Turks or on a Turk frontier. Now, the Agathyrsi are called thepictiAgathyrsi; and it is submitted to the reader that the one term is the translation of the other—the wordsAgathyrs(alsoAkatzir),Yukadzhir, andTshapodzhir, being one and the same."—From the author'sNative Races of the Russian Empire.
READBEFORE THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE.8TH JANUARY, 1857.
In the present paper, advantage is taken of the local character of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, to make the name of the county serve as a special text for a general subject. What applies to Lancashire applies to any county in Roman England.
The doctrine is as follows—that in Lancashire particularly, and in England in general, the predominant language for the first five centuries of our era was not Latin but British.
The writer is so far from laying this down as a novelty, that he is by no means certain, that it may not be almost a truism. He is by no means certain, that there is a single one of those to whom he addresses himself, who may now hold, or even have held, the opposite opinion. He is fully aware that excellent authorities have maintained both sides of the question. He is only doubtful as to the extent to which the one doctrine may preponderate over the other.
If the question were to be settled by an appeal to the history of the more influential opinions concerning it, we should find that, in a reference to the earliest and the latest of our recent investigators, Dr. Prichard would maintain one side of the question, Mr. Wright another. The paper of the latter, having been printed in the Transactions of the Society, is only alluded to. The opinion of Dr. Prichard is conveyed in the following extract—"The use of languages really cognate must be allowed to furnish a proof, or at least a strong presumption, of kindred race. Exceptions may indeed, under very peculiar circumstances, occur to the inference founded on this ground. For example, the French language is likely to be the permanent idiom of the negro people of St. Domingo, though the latter are principally of African descent. Slaves imported from various districts in Africa, having no common idiom, have adopted that of their masters. But conquest, or even captivity, under different circumstances, has scarcely ever exterminated the native idiom of any people, unless after many ages of subjection; and even then, vestiges have perhaps always remained of its existence. In Britain, the native idiom was nowhere superseded by the Roman, though the island was held in subjection upwards of three centuries. In Spain and in Gaul, several centuries of Latin domination, and fifteen under German and other modern dynasties, have proved insufficient entirely to obliterate the ancient dialects, which were spoken by the native people before the Roman conquest. Even the Gypsies, who have wandered in small companies over Europe for some ages, still preserve their original language in a form that can be everywhere recognised."[13]
Upon the whole, I think that the current opinion is in favour of the language of Roman Britain having been Latin; at any rate I am sure that, before I went very closely into the subject, my own views were, at least, in that direction. "What the present language of England would have been, had the Norman conquest never taken place, the analogy of Holland, Denmark, and many other countries enables us to determine. It would have been as it is at present. What it would have been had theSaxonconquest never taken place, is a question wherein there is far more speculation. Of France, of Italy, of Wallachia, and of the Spanish Peninsula, the analogies all point the same way. They indicate that the original Celtic would have been superseded by the Latin of the Conquerors, and consequently that our language, in its later stages, would have been neither British nor Gaelic, but Roman. Upon these analogies, however, we may refine. Italy was from the beginning, Roman; the Spanish Peninsula was invaded full early; no ocean divided Gaul from Rome; and the war against the ancestors of the Wallachians was a war of extermination."[14]
In these preliminary remarks we find a sufficient reason for going specially into the question; not, however, as discoverers of any new truth, nor as those who would correctsome general error, but rather, in a judicial frame of mind, and with the intention of asking, first, how far the actual evidence is (either way) conclusive; next, which way (supposing it to be inconclusive) the presumption lies; and thirdly, what follows in the way of inference from each of the opposing views.
What are the statements of the classical writers,subsequent to the reduction of Britain, to the effect that the Romans, when they conquered a Province, established their language? I know of none. I know of none, indeed,anteriorto the Britannic conquest. I insert, however, the limitation, because in case such exist, it is necessary to remember that they would not be conclusive. The practice may have changed in the interval.
Is there anything approaching such a statement? There is a passage in Seneca to the effect "that where the Roman conquers there he settles."
But he conquered Britain. Therefore he established his language. Add to this that where he established his own language, there the native tongue became obliterated. Therefore the British died off.
If so, the Angles—when they effectedtheirconquest—must have displaced, by their own English, a Latin rather than a British, form of speech.
But is this the legitimate inference from the passage in question? No. On the contrary, it is a conclusion by no means warranted by the premises. Nevertheless, as far as external testimony is concerned, there are no better premises to be found.
But there is another element in our reasoning. In four large districts at least,—in the Spanish Peninsula, in France, in the Grisons, and in the Danubian Principalities—the present language is a derivative from the Latin, which was, undoubtedly and undeniably, introduced by the Roman conquest. From such clear and known instances, the reasoning to the obscure and unknown is a legitimate analogy, and the inference is that Britain was what Gallia, Rhætia, Hispania, and Dacia were.
In this we have a second reason for the fact that there are many who, with Arnold, hold, that except in the particular case of Greece, the Roman world, in general, at the date of the break-up of the Empire, was Latin in respect to its language. At any rate, Britannia is reasonably supposed to be in the same category with Dacia—a country conquered later.
On the other hand, however, there are the following considerations.
I. In the first place the Angle conquest was gradual; so gradual as to give us an insight into the character of the population that was conquered. Was this (in language) Latin? There is no evidence of its having been so. But is there evidence of its having been British? A little. How much, will be considered in the sequel.
II. In the next place the Angle conquest was (and is) incomplete; inasmuch as certain remains of the earlier and non-Angle population still exist. Are these Latin? Decidedly not; but on the contrary British,—witness the present Britons of Wales, and the all but British Cornish-men, who are now British in blood, and until the last century were, more or less, British in language as well.
But this is not all. There was a third district which was slow to become Angle, viz.: part of the mountain district of Cumberland and Westmoreland. What was this before it was Angle? Not Roman but British.
Again—there was a time when Monmouthshire, with (no doubt) some portion of the adjoining counties, was in the same category in respect to itsnon-Angle character with Wales. What was it in respect to language? Not Roman but British.
Again—mutatis mutandis. Devonshire was to Cornwall as Monmouth to Wales. Was it Roman? No—but, on the contrary, British.
Now say, for the sake of argument, that Cornwall, Wales, and Cumberland were never Roman at all, and consequently, that they prove nothing in the question as to the introduction of the Latin language. But can we say, for even the sake of argument, that Devon and Monmouth were never Roman? Was not, on the contrary, Devon at least, exceedingly Roman, as is shewn by the importance of Isca Danmoniorum, or Exeter.
Or, say that the present population of Wales is no representative of the ancient occupants of that part of Britain, but, on the contrary, descended from certain immigrants from the more eastern and less mountainous parts of England. I do not hold this doctrine. Admitting it, however, for the sake of argument—whence came the present Welsh, if it came not from a part of England where British, rather than Latin, was spoken? There must have been British somewhere; and probably British to the exclusion of Latin.
The story of St. Guthlac of Croyland is well-known. It runs to the effect that being disturbed, one night, by a horrid howling, he was seriously alarmed, thinking that the howlers might beBritons. Upon looking-out, however, he discovered that they were only devils—whereby he was comforted, the Briton being the worse of the two. Now the later we make this apocryphal story, the more it tells in favor of there having been Britons in Lincolnshire, long after the Angle conquest. Yet Lincolnshire (except so far as it was Dane,) must have been one of the most Angle portions of England. In France, Spain, Portugal, the Grisons, Wallachia or Moldavia, such devils as those of St. Guthlac would have been Romans.
As the argument, then, stands at present, we have traces of the British as opposed to the Angle, but no traces of the Latin in similar opposition.
Let us now look at theanalogies, viz: Spain, (including Portugal,) France, Switzerland and the Danubian Principalities; in all of which we have had an aboriginal population and a Roman conquest, in all of which, too, we have had a third conquest subsequent to that by Rome—even as in Britain we have had the triple series of (A) native Britains, (B) Roman conquerors, (C) Angles.
What do we find? In all but Switzerland, remains of the original tongue; in all, without exception, remains of the language of the population that conquered the Romans; in all, without exception, something Roman.
In Britain we find nothing Roman; but, on the contrary, only the original tongue and the language of the third population.
I submit that this is strongprimâ facieevidence in favour of the Latin having never been the general language of Britain. If it were so, the area of the Angle conquest must have exactly coincided with the area of the Latin language. Is this probable? I admit that it is anything but highly improbable. The same practicable character of the English parts of Britain (as opposed to the Welsh, Cornish, and Cumbrian) which made the conquest of a certain portion of the Island easy to the Romans as against the Britons, may have made it easy for the Angles as against the Romans; andvice versa, the impracticable character of Wales, Cornwall, and Cumberland, that protected the Britons against their first invaders, may have done the same for them against the second. If so, the two areas of foreign conquest would coincide. I by no means undervalue this argument.
It is almost unnecessary to say that the exact conditions under which Britain was reduced were not those of any other Roman Province.
In respect to Spain, the Roman occupancy wasearly, having begun long before that of Northern and Central Gaul, having begun during the Punic wars, and having become sufficiently settled by the time of Augustus to command the attention of Strabo on the strength of the civilization it had developed. In Spain, then, there was priority in point of time to account for any extraordinary amount of Roman influences.
Gaul, with the exception of the earlier acquisitions in the Narbonensis, was the conquest of one of the most thorough-going of conquerors. The number of enemies that Cæsar slaughtered has been put at 1,000,000. Without knowing the grounds of this calculation, we may safely say that his campaigns were eminently of a destructive character.
The conquerors of the Breuni, Genauni, and similar occupants of those parts of Switzerland where the Rumonsch Language (of Latin origin) is now spoken, were men of similar energy. Neither Drusus nor Tiberius spared an enemy who opposed. Both were men who would "make a solitude and call it peace."
That Trajan's conquest of Dacia was of a similar radical and thorough-going character is nearly certain.
Now, the evidence that the conquests of the remaining provinces were like those of the provinces just noted, is by no means strong. At the same time, it must be admitted that the analogy established by four such countries as Gaul, Spain, Switzerland, and Moldo-Wallachia is cogent. What was the extent to which Africa, Pannonia, Illyricum, Thrace, and the Mœsias were Romanized? Of Asia? I say nothing. It was sufficiently Greek to have been in the same category with Greece itself, and in Greece itself we know that no attempts were made upon the language.
Africa was Latin in its literature; and, at a later period, pre-eminently Latin in its Christianity. But the evidence that the vernacular language was Latin isnil, and the presumptions unfavourable. The Berber tongue of the present native tribes of the whole district between Egypt and the Atlantic is certainly of high antiquity; it being a well-known fact, that in it, several of the names in the geography of classical Africa are significant. Now this is spread over the country indifferently. Neither does it show any notable signs of Latin intermixture. Neither is there trace, or shadow of trace, of any form of speech of Latin origin throughout the whole of Tunis, Tripoli, Algiers or Morocco.
In Pannonia and Illyricum, the same absence of any language of Latin origin is manifest. Pannonia and Illyricumhave had more than an average amount of subsequent conquerors and occupants—Goths, Huns, Avars, Bulgarians, Slavonians, Hungarians, Germans. That the Slovak, however, in the north, and the Dalmatian forms of the Servian in the south, represent the native languages is generally admitted—now, if not long ago. These, then, have survived. Why not, then, the Latin if it ever took root?
In respect to Thrace, it is just possible that it may have been, in its towns at least, sufficiently Greek to have been in the same category with Greece proper. I say that this is just possible. In reality, however, it was more likely to be contrasted with Greece than to be classed with it. One thing, however, is certain, viz.:—that the country district round Constantinople was never a district in which Latin was vernacular. Had it been so, the fact could hardly have been unnoticed, or without influence on the unequivocally Greek Metropolis of the Eastern Empire.
If the doctrine that Thrace may have been sufficiently Greek to forbid the introduction of the Latin be doubtful, the notion that the Mœsias were so is untenable. Yet the Latin never seems to have been vernacular in either of them. Had it been so, it would probably have held its ground, especially in the impracticable mountains and forests of Upper Mœsia or the modern Servia. Yet where is there a trace of it? Of all the Roman Provinces, Servia or Upper Mœsia seems to be the one wherein the evidence of a displacement of the native, and a development of a Latin form of speech, is at itsminimum, and the instance of Servia is the one upon which the analogous case of Britain best rests.
The insufficiency of the current reasons in favour of the modern Servian being of recent introduction have been considered by me elsewhere.
Now comes the notice of a text which always commands the attention of the ethnological philologue, when he is engaged upon the Angle period of our island's history. It refers to the middle of the eighth century, the era of the Venerable Beda, from whose writings it is taken. I give itin extenso. It runs "Hæc in presenti, juxta numerum librorum quibus lex divina scripta est, quinque gentium linguis, unam eandemque summæ veritatis et veræ sublimitatis scientiam scrutatur et confitetur; Anglorum, videlicet, Brittonum, Scottorum, Pictorum et Latinorum quæ meditatione scripturarum, cæteris omnibus est facta communis".[15]
That the Latin here is the Latin of Ecclesiastical, ratherthan Imperial, Rome, the Latin of the Scriptures rather than classical writers, the Latin of a written book rather than a Lingua Rustica, is implied by the context.
Should this, however, be doubted, the following passage, which makes the languages of Britain onlyfour, is conclusive—"Omnes nationes et provincias Brittanniæ, quæ inquatuorlinguas, id est Brittonum, Pictorum, Scottorum et Anglorum divisæ sunt, in ditione accepit."[16]
It is the first of these two statements of Beda's that the following extract from Wintoun is founded on.
Cronykil,I.xiii, 39.