صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Welsford, Henry, Mithridates Minor; or, an Essay on Language. 8vo. London. Longman.

Xenophon's Anabasis. Books I. to III. From the Text of Bornemann. By J. A. Phillips. New Ed. by G. D. Wheeler. 12mo, bd.

Xenophon's Expedition of Cyrus into Upper Asia. From the Text of Schneider, with English Notes. By the Rev. John White. 12mo, bound.

WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONTINENT.

'Appavog 'Atefávěpov 'Avdflaats. Emend. et explicat. C. G. Krüger.
Vol. II. 8vo. Berlin. 5s. 6d.
Bibliotheca Classica Latina. Vol. III. C. Julii Caesaris Opera. Vol. I.
Commentarii de Bello Gallico, in usum Scholar. Ed. G. A. Koch.
Edit. stereot. 8vo. Leipzig. 1s.
Caspari, C., Grammatica Arabica in usum Scholar. Academicarum.
Acced. brevis Chrestomathia ex codd. MSS. Concinnata. Pars II.
8vo. Lipsiae. 3s.6d.
Duentzer, H., de Zenodoti Studiis Homericis. 8vo. Gottingae. 5s.
Euripidis Tragoediae, cum fragmentis. Versio Latina, tom. II. 16mo.
Leyden. 4s. 6d.
Fables de Babrius, traduites en Français par M. Sommer, avec le
texte Grec en regard, revu par M. Theobald Fix. 12mo. Paris. 3s.
Gerhard, E., Ueber die Kunst der Phoenicier. Seven plates. Berlin. 7s.
Gromatici Veteres, ex recens. C. Lachmanni. 8vo. Berlin. With 40
plates. 14s.
Hesiodi Opera et Dies. Ed.D. T. van Lennep. 8vo. Amstel. 7s.
Histoire Romaine de Dion Cassius, traduite en Français, avec des Notes
critiques, historiques, etc. etc., par E. Gros, tom. II. Paris. 8vo. 10s.
M. Valerii Probi in Virgilii Bucolica et Georgica Commentarius.
Acced. Scholiorum Veronensium et Aspri Quaestionum Virgilia-
narum Fragmenta. Ed. H. Keel. Halae. 8 maj. 3s.
Madvig, T. N., Bemerkungen, iiber einige Puncte der Griech. Wort-
fügunglehre. 8vo. Göttingen. 2s.
Mnaseae Patarensis Fragmenta. Colligit et Comment. Instruxit E.
Mehler. 8vo. Lugdun. Bat. 4s.
Procli Commentarius in Platonis Timaeum, Graece. Recensebat C. E.
Chr. Schneider. 8vo. Vratislaviae, 1847, 16s.
Q. Horatii Flacci Opera. In usum Scholarum. Edidit, Comment. et
Varietate Lectionis Instruxit H. Düntzer. 8vo. Brunsvigae.
Schleicher, D. A., Zur Vergleichenden Sprachengeschichte. 8vo.
Bonn. 5s.
Schneidewin, F. W., die Homerischen Hymnen auf Apollon. 8vo.
Götting. 1s. 6d.
Unger, o De C. Walgii Rufi Poematis Commentatio. 8vo. Halle.
10s. 6d.

THE

CLASSICAL MUSEUM.

XXIV.
ON THE INTRUSIVE ELEMENTS OF LATIN.

THOSE who are aware how vigorously, and with what extensive erudition, the prevalent opinion, that Latin has been infected by a barbaric element, is impugned by Prichard, in his Physical History of Man," will not think it superfluous to reinvestigate the whole subject. To this end the present paper will be devoted, in the hope of attaining some more definite results, which will be fixed points of knowledge for farther progress.

Before entering on the details which concern the Latin language, it will not be away from the mark to consider the 3 priori state of the case. Assuming that the early migrations of the human race by land outstripped the colonies which could arrive by sea, a peninsula like Italy must have been first peopled from the north, and we shall find its oldest inhabitants (either in difficult mountain regions, or) on its farthest soil. So judging, we should count the Sicanians to be the oldest nation of Italy, because they are the oldest of Sicily, its natural extremity. The Sicanians, we are positively informed by Thucydides, were Iberians, which agrees with the old opinion, that the Iberian” race was the first occupant of Spain also: but on this no stress will be here laid. Next in antiquity to the Sicanians may seem to have been the QEnotrians, or Italians. Concerning these, a conjectural interpretation of a passage which professes to explain the name Italia,” would suggest that they spoke a Celtic language, namely, if they called bulls Italus or Vitalus. For in Welsh also Bittolw8 means a bull, not a calf; so that, as we cannot volunteer to suppose that the OEnotrians and the Welsh, after alike receiving the word from the Latins, fell into the very same blunder, the presumption is, that the Latins adopted from an OEnotrian people the Celtic word Bittolws or Witolus, and altered its meaning to a calf. Now, if the OEnotrians were Celts, it will agree with the opinion of the ancients, that the Celts were the second people that entered Spain, and overpowered the Iberians; and, in the flux of nations, the Iberians make the first wave, the Celts the second. Nevertheless, on this also, it would be absurd to build any conclusion. Because different writers seem to confuse Siculians with OEnotrians, it has been inferred that the two were the same people. They may have been so; but no deductions ought to be drawn from so uncertain an opinion. Others tell us that Siculians were Pelasgians, but this is uninstructive to a historian of Italy. Of more importance would it be to a historian of Greece to be able to prove that Pelasgians were Siculians,” for of the Siculians we do know some trustworthy facts. We know that mutuum, lepus, patina, carcer, cubitus, gelu, catinus, campus, mepotes, were all Siculian words, and that Valentos was with them the genitive case of Wales—(Valens.) We also learn from what appears positive testimony, that the Siculians entered Italy from the north, and spread southward, a branch of them having at one time occupied Latium, where they were conquered, but not expelled. It cannot, therefore, surprise us to find such identities between the Siculian and the Latin tongues. Whether the Oscan race entered Italy before or after the Siculians, cannot be known. They may have possessed the Highlands, and the Siculians simultaneously the eastern coast, and Latium on the west. At any rate, they at length overwhelmed the Siculians in Italy, drove part of the race into Sicily, and suppressed their name everywhere. That the Aborigines (so called) who conquered the Siculians in Latium, were Oscans, has been probably conjectured, though it cannot be proved. The north and northeast of Italy was overspread time out of mind by Umbrians, a people whom a late and uncertain tradition pronounced to be Celts, whether from the similarity of their name to Ambrones, or from a dim feeling that whatever was most ancient in Italy ought to be Celtic. If, however, the sole” authority of Zenodotus of Troezen sufficed to prove what Lepsius holds as a certain truth, that the Sabines were a branch of the Umbrians, in the course of this paper reasons might appear for thinking that they were really Celts. The Eugubine Tables are assumed to be written in the Umbrian language; and the words which have been probably interpreted appear to be generally both Latin and Celtic. Such are piquier (= picus,) duva (= duo,) triia (= tres), buw (=boves,) vitluv (= vitulos,) purca (= porca.) The grammatical forms, however, suggest a far closer resemblance to the Oscans, to whom the Umbrians are probably a kindred nation. Whatever theory we form concerning the relation of Sabines

* As I am about to differ from Dr. Prichard's results, it is more particularly incumbent upon me to state how highly I am indebted to his luminous and comprehensive work, wrought out as it is from original sources, and combined with a full consideration of the views of modern scholars. English students, I fear, need to be informed (for they cannot guess by the title of the work,) how vast a mass of erudition is contained concerning the ancient as

well as modern nations of Europe in his

third volume, which peculiarly concerns our present inquiries.

* That the Iberians were the oldest inhabitants, is doubted by great authorities, Humboldt and Niebuhr. Prichard adheres to the ancient view. What prepossesses me in its favour is, the literature and considerable cultivation of the Turdetanians, and other Iberian tribes, which implies long and fixed possession of the soil.

*The passage of Varro is often quoted:

certain Pelasgians were Siculians. The “Graecia enim antiqua, (ut scribit Ti

first argument is less cogent than it

maeus,) tauros vocabant iraxoss, a quo-
rum multitudine et pulchritudine et foetu
vitulorum Italiam dixerunt.” The con-
nection of Timaeus with Sicily, and of
iraxe, with Italy, makes me think that
his fact was simply this, The old Greeks
of Italy said ira A3; for raveos, and his
inference was, that it was an old word of
Greece Proper.
* The arguments are two-fold: 1.
The Italiots called their serfs Pelasgians.
These serfs must have been CEnotrians,
which means Siculians. Therefore Sicu-
lians were Pelasgians. 2. Pausanias
was told at Athens that the Tyrsene
Pelasgians who had dwelt in Attica were
Siculians. A hill near Athens, called
Siculia, confirms the fact. Therefore,

seems. Slaves are not of the race of the
Slavi, nor were the natives of America
Indians, nor are the gipsies Egyptians,
(nor yet Bohemians.) There is no end
of the possible illustration of this topic.
As for the second argument, any one
who wishes to reject it has only to in-
sist that the hill Siculia, by accounting
for the origin of the idea, that those
Pelasgians were Siculians,—nullifies the
testimony. None of the characteristic
words of the Pelasgians, as Larissa, Ar-
gos, are known to us as Siculian, or as
Latin; yet the Pelasgians may have
been the same people as the Siculians.
Only, if they were, then it is utterly im-
possible for the unconquered Attic or
Arcadian people ever to have been Pe-
lasgians. A Siculian, like a Roman, was
incurably barbarous to a Greek. How
can Siculians have “ripened” into
Ionians? a thing which no Dorian race
ever did.
* Dionysius tells us, that he said the
Sabines ič 'Oageway gained the new
name of Sabines after their migration.
That they should have been confounded

with Umbrians by the neighbour people,
while they dwelt on Umbrian soil, is so
much a thing of course that this state-
ment (which I believe is confirmed by
no one,) will not stand against a single
real fact. That the Eugubine Tables are
pure Umbrian, what is our guarantee?
One race has overlain another there as
elsewhere in the south.

« السابقةمتابعة »