Chapter VIII: Preface (8)

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 word _Caucasian_ would have been correct, but inconvenient. It is already _mis_-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--his _data_ on 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 his _ex-professo_ studies 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.

ON THE TUSHI LANGUAGE.

READ
BEFORE 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, entitled _Versuch 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 his _Asia 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.

The _data_ consist 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 its _grammar_. In respect to the vocabularies, the _Asia Polyglotta_ gives 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, and a 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 European _savans_ in 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 nearly _mono_-syllabic as to be with fitness designated _pauro_-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.

_Nominative_ so ḥo o.
_Genitive_ sai ḥai ox̣u.
---- ---- ---- oụx.
---- ---- ---- ọxuin.
_Dative_ son ḥon ọxun.
---- sona ---- oụxna.
_Instructive_ as aḥ ọxus.
---- asa aḥa oxuse.
---- ---- ---- oụxse.
_Affective_ sox ḥox ọxux.
_Allative_ sogo ḥogo ọxugo.
---- ---- ---- oụxgo.
_Elative_ soxi ḥoxi oụxxi.
---- ---- ---- ọxxi (?).
_Comitative_ soci ḥoci ọxuci.
---- ---- ---- oụxci.
---- ---- ---- ọxci (?).
_Terminative_ sogomci ḥogomci oụxgomci.
_Adessive_ sogoh ḥogoḥ oụxgoḥ.
_Ablative_ sogredah ḥogredah oụxgore.
---- ---- ---- oụxgoredah.

PLURAL. WE. YE. THEY.
______^________
| |
_Nominative_ wai 'txo su obi.
_Genitive_ wai 'txai ṡui ọxri.
_Dative_ wain 'txon ṡun ọxarn.
---- ---- ---- suna ----
_Instructive_ wai a'txo aiṡ ọxar.
---- ---- ---- aṡi ọxra.
_Affective_ waix 'txox ṡux ọxarx.
_Allative_ waigo 'txogo ṡugo ọxargo.
_Illative_ wailo 'txolo ṡulo ọxarlo.
_Elative_ waixi 'tzoxi ṡuxi ọxarxi.
_Comitative_ waici 'txoci ṡuci ọxarci.
_Adessive_ waigoh 'txogoh ṡugoḥ ọxargoḥ.
_Inessive(c.)_ wailoh 'txoloḥ ṡuloḥ ọxarloḥ.
_Ablative(c.)_ waigre 'txogre ṡugre ọxargore.
---- ---- ---- ---- ọxardah.
_Elative(c.)_ wailre 'txolre ṡulre oḥarlore.
_Conversive_ waigoih 'txogoih ṡugoih oḥargoih.

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. cha duihre.
2. ṡi silǵe.
3. ̣xo ̣xalǵe.
4. ahew dhewloǵe.
5. ṗxi pxilǵe.
6. jeṫx jeixloǵe.
7. worl worloǵe.
8. barl barloġe.
9. iss issloġe.
10. itt ittloġe.
11. cha-itt cha-ittloġe.
12. si-itt si-ittloġe.
19. tqeexç iqeẹxcloġe.
20. tqa tqalġe.

This as a word the author connects with the word _tqo_ = _also_, _overagain_ (_auch_, _wiederum_), as if it were 10 doubled, which it most likely is. In like manner _tqeexç_ is _one 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 _-i_ and _-si_, the latter = _is_ in Tshetshents. The suffixes _-ne_ and _-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 is _ḥe_ or _ḥ_; that of the conjunctive _ḷe_ or _ḷ_.

The tenses are--

(1.) Present, formed by adding _-a_ or _-u_ to the root: _i. e._ to the imperative form, and changing the vowel.

(2.) Imperfect, by adding _-r_ to the present.

(3.) Aorist, formed by the addition of _-r_ to 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 forms _xet_ = _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 appending the 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_; as _dago_ = _eat_, _dagu-in_ = _eating_.

The participle of the preterite ends in _-no_; as _xa[c.]e_ = _hear_, _xa[c.]-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 ḥaṫxleen _w_a = _the prophet is_, ḥaṫxleensi _b_a = _the prophets are_, waṡo _w_a = _the brother is_, waṡar _b_a = _the brothers are_.

Again--naw _j_a = _the ship is_, nawr _j_a = _the ships are_; bstiuno _j_a = _the wife is_, bstee _d_a = _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 word _naw_ is considered feminine--feminine and inanimate. This, however, is grammatical rather than natural, sex--"das weibliche Geschlecht wird bey _unbelebten_ Gegenständen auch im Plural durch _j-_, bei _belebten_ durch _a_ ausgedrückt." 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 or Tshetshents (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 the _Asia Polyglotta_ have 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 of _s_ for the first person singular, the _s'_ in the second person plural should be noticed. So should the _b_ and _r_ in the Circassian u-_b_a_rt_; both of which are plural elements in the Tushi also.

Finally (as a point of general philology), the double forms of the Tushi plurals _wai_ and _ṭxo_ suggest 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.

ON THE NAME AND NATION OF THE DACIAN
KING DECEBALUS, WITH NOTICES
OF THE AGATHYRSI AND ALANI.

READ
BEFORE 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 being _picti_.

The same epithet is applied to the _Geloni_; 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 century A. D., and that in an account relating to Dacia and Pannonia, the _medium_ has, probably, been different from that through which Herodotus, amongst the Greek colonies of the Black Sea, obtained _his_ accounts. The details of this difference of _medium_ are 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 of _medium_ is 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. They are specially called _Akatiri Hunni_. Jornandes' form is _Acatziri_.

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 the _Akatziri_ of Priscus are the descendants of the _Agathyrsi_ of 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 the _Agathyrsi_, and ancestors of the _Akatziri_ may 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 in _European_ history. Where does it appear? In the history of the _Turks_. 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. The _cumulative_ character of the evidence in all matters of this kind should be borne in mind, and the value of small facts measured by the extent to 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 that _Decebalus was an Agathyrsan because the Agathyrsans were Turks_, and that the _Agathyrsans 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 the _Agathyrsi_ were 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 the _Acatziri_ are _Agathyrsi_ is, not his, but Zeuss'.--(See _Die Deutschen and die Nachbarstämme, v. Bulgari_, p. 714.)

If _Agathyrs-_ be _Akatzir-_ 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 as _Khazar_, a denomination for an undoubtedly Turk tribe which occurs for the first time in Theophanes:--Τοῦρκοι ἀπὸ τῆς ἐώας οὓς Χαζάρους ὀνομάζουσιν. This is A. 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 of _pictus_; or rather, suppose the word _pictus_ to be the Latin translation of _Agathyrs-_ (_Akatzir-_): what would the probable consequence be? Even this, that wherever there was a _painted_ (or _tattooed_) 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 form the subject of another paper. In the present, the author hazards a fresh observation--an observation on a population often associated with the Agathyrsi, viz. the _Geloni_. Seeing that we have such forms as _Unni_ (the Greek form is Οὖννοι, not Οὗννοι) and _Chuni_ ( = _Huns_); _Arpi_ and _Carpi_; _Attuarii_ and _Chattuari_, &c.; and seeing the affinity between the sounds of _g_ and _k_; he believes that the word _Geloni_ may take another form and begin with a vowel (_Elôni_, _Alôni_). Seeing that their locality is nearly that of the _Alani_ of a latter period; seeing that the middle syllable in Alani (in one writer at least) is long--ἀλκήεντες Ἀλαῦνοι; seeing that Herodotus, who mentions the _Geloni_, 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, or _vice versâ_. He deduces something more from this root _l--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, as Γέλωνοι, Ἄλαυνοι, Ἄλανοι, and another in -ες, as Γέλωνες, Ἄλαυνες, Ἄλανες,--possible, and even probable, modifications of the original name, whatever that was. Now, name for name, Αλανες comes very near Ελληνες; and in this similarity may lie the explanation of the statement of Herodotus as to the existence of certain _Scythian Greeks_ (ἑλληνες Σκυθαι)--iv. 17. 108.

If so these _Scythian Greeks_ were _Alans_.

The exception, indicated a few lines above, to the fact of only one author mentioning both _Geloni_ and _Alani_, is to be found in Ammianus Marcellinus (xxxi. 2. 13. 14). The passage is too long to quote. It is clear, however, that whilst his _Alani_ are spoken of from his own knowledge, his _Geloni_ are brought in from his book-learning, _i. e._ from Herodotus.

NOTES.

NOTE 1.

_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's _Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography vv. ~Hunni~, ~Scythia~, and ~Sarmatia~_.

NOTE 2.

_The details suggested by this line of criticism &c._--These are to the effect that in the word _Agathyrsi_ we get an early Turk gloss, of which the history is somewhat curious. It exists, at the present moment in England, having come _via_ Hungary. It exists in Siberia, on the very frontier of the America.

It is the English word _Hussar_ = _Khazar_. Here we have it in its abbreviated form.

It is the Siberian word Yukahir, Yukazhir, or Yukadzhir.

The "_native_ name of the Yukahiri of Siberia is _Andon Domni_. The Koriaks call them _Atal_. Their other neighbours are the Turk Yakuts. Hence it is probable that it is to the Yakut language that the term Yukahir (also _Yukadzhir_) is referrible. If so, its probable meaning is the same as the Koriak _Atal_, which means _spotted_. 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 called _Tshapodzhir_--but _not_ by themselves. By whom? By no one so probably as by the Yakuts. Why? Because they tattoo themselves. If so, it is probable that _Yukadzhir_ and _Tshapodzhir_ are 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, meaning _spotted_, _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 word _Agathyrsi_, 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 the _picti_ Agathyrsi; and it is submitted to the reader that the one term is the translation of the other--the words _Agathyrs_ (also _Akatzir_), _Yukadzhir_, and _Tshapodzhir_, being one and the same."--From the author's _Native Races of the Russian Empire_.

ON THE LANGUAGE OF LANCASHIRE,
UNDER THE ROMANS.

READ
BEFORE 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]

[Footnote 13: Eastern Origin of the Celtic Languages, p. 8.]

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 the _Saxon_ conquest 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]

[Footnote 14: English Language, First Edition, p. 68.]

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 correct some 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, _anterior_ to 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 effected _their_ conquest--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 its _non_-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 be _Britons_. 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 the _analogies_, 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 strong _primâ facie_ evidence 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; and _vice 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 was _early_, 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 is _nil_, 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 Illyricum have 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 its _minimum_, 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 it _in 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]

[Footnote 15: _Hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 1._]

That the Latin here is the Latin of Ecclesiastical, rather than 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 only _four_, is conclusive--"Omnes nationes et provincias Brittanniæ, quæ in _quatuor_ linguas, id est Brittonum, Pictorum, Scottorum et Anglorum divisæ sunt, in ditione accepit."[16]

[Footnote 16: _Eccl. Hist._ iii, 6.]

It is the first of these two statements of Beda's that the following extract from Wintoun is founded on.

_Cronykil_, I. xiii, 39.

Of Langagis in Bretayne sere
I fynd that sum tym fyf thare were:
Of Brettys fyrst, and Inglis syne,
Peycht, and Scot, and syne Latyne.
Bot, of the Peychtis, is ferly,
That ar wndon sá hályly,
That nowthir remanande ar Language,
Næ' succession of Lynage:
Swá of thare antiqwytè
Is lyk bot fabyl for to be.

But the Latin of the scriptures may have been the Latin of common life as well. Scarcely. The change from the written to the spoken language was too great for this. What the latter would have been we can infer. It would have been something like the following "Pro Deo amur et pro Xristian poblo et nostro commun salvament d'ist di en avant, in quant Deus savir et poder me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo, et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si com om per dreit son fradre salvar dist, in o quid il me altresi fazet: et ab Ludher nul plaid nunquam prindrai uni, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit."

This is the oath of the Emperors Karl and Ludwig, sons of Charlemagne, as it was sworn by the former in A. D. 842. It is later in date than the time of Beda by about a century; being in the Lingua Rustica of France. Nevertheless, it is a fair specimen of the difference between the spoken languages of the countries that had once been Roman Provinces and the written Latin. Indeed, it was not Latin, but Romance; and, in like manner, any vernacular form of speech, used in Britain but of Roman origin, would have been Romance also.

The conclusion which the present notice suggests is--

That the testimony of authors tells neither way.

That the presumptions in favour of the Latin which are raised by the cases of Gaul, Spain, Rhætia, and Dacia, are anything but conclusive.

That the inferences from the earliest as well as the latest data as to the condition of _English_ Britain, the inferences from the Angle conquest, and the inferences from the present language of Wales, are decidedly against the Latin.

I may, perhaps, be allowed to conclude by a reference to a paper already alluded to, as having been laid before the present Society, by Mr. Wright. This is to the effect, that the Latin reigned paramount not only in England, but in Wales also, under the Roman dominion; the present Welsh being of recent introduction from Armorica.

That the population was heterogeneous is certain, the Roman Legionaries being, to a great extent, other than Roman. It is also certain that there was, within the island, at an early period, no inconsiderable amount of Teutonic blood. It is certain, too, that the name _Briton_ had different applications at different times.

If so, the difference between Mr. Wright and myself, in respect to the homogeneousness or heterogeneousness of the Britannic population, is only a matter of degree.

In respect to the particular fact, as to whether the British or Latin language was the vernacular form of speech, we differ more decidedly. That the British was unwritten and uncultivated is true; so that the exclusive use of the Latin for inscriptions is only what we expect. The negative fact that no British name has been found inscribed, I by no means undervalue.

The _preponderance_, however, of a Non-British population, and the use of the Latin as the _vernacular_ language, are doctrines, which the few undoubted facts of our early history impugn rather than verify.

The main difficulty which Mr. Wright's hypothesis meets--and it _does_ meet it--lies in the fact of the similarity between the Welsh and Armorican being too great for anything but a comparatively recent separation to account for. Nevertheless, even this portion of what may be called the Armorican hypothesis, is by no means incompatible with the doctrine of the present paper. The Celtic of Armorica may as easily have displaced the _older_ Celtic of Britain (from which, by hypothesis, it notably differed) as it is supposed to have displaced the Latin.

I do not imagine this to have been the case; indeed I can see reasons against it, arising out of the application of Mr. Wright's own line of criticism.

I think it by no means unlikely that the argument which gives us the annihilation of the British of the British Isles, may also give us that of the Gallic of Gaul. Why should Armorica have been more Celtic than Wales? Yet, if it were not so, whence came the Armorican of Wales? I throw out these objections for the sake of stimulating criticism, rather than with the view of settling a by no means easy question.

KELÆNONESIA.

The dates of the four papers on this part of the world shew that the first preceded the earliest of the other three by as much as four years; a fact that must be borne in mind when the philological ethnography of New Guinea and the islands to the south and east of it is under notice. The vocabularies of each of the authors illustrated in papers 2 and. 3, more than doubled our previous data--Jukes' illustrating the language of islands between New Guinea and Australia, Macgillivray's those of the Louisiade Archipelago.

That there was a hypothesis at the bottom of No. 1 is evident. Neither is there much doubt as to the fact of that hypothesis being wrong.

I held in 1843 that, all over Oceania, there was an older population of ruder manners, and darker colour than the Malays, the proper Polynesians, and the populations allied to them; that, in proportion as these latter overspread the several islands of their present occupancy the aborigines were driven towards the interior; that in Australia, Tasmania, New Guinea &c. the original black race remained unmolested.

This view led to two presumptions;--both inaccurate;

1. That the ruder tribes were, _as such_, likely to be Negrito;

2. That the Negrito tongues would be allied to each other.

The view, held by me now, will be given in a future notice.

ON THE NEGRITO LANGUAGES.

READ
BEFORE THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY.

FEBRUARY 10, 1843.

By the term Negrito is meant those tribes of the Asiatic and Australian islands, who, in one or more of their physical characters, depart from the type of the nations in their neighbourhood and approach that of the African. The word is more comprehensive than Arafura, Andaman, or Papuan, and less comprehensive than Negro.

Of the Negrito localities the most western are--

_The Andaman Islands._--A Vocabulary, collected by Lieutenant R. H. Colebrooke, appears in the Asiatic Researches, vol. iv. p. 410. The native name is Mineopie. An historical notice of them appears as early as the ninth century, in the Travels of the Two Arabians, translated by Renaudot.

_The Nicobar and Carnicobar Islands._--In the largest of these it is stated that, in the interior, blacks are to be found. The current assertion concerning the language of the rest of these islands is, that the Carnicobar is Peguan, and the Nicobar Malay.--Asiatic Researches, iii. 303.

_Malacca._--The Samangs of the interior are Negrito. For the single Vocabulary of their language, see Crawfurd's Indian Archipelago, or Klaproth's Nouveau Journal Asiatique, xii. 239, where Crawfurd's Vocabulary is reprinted without acknowledgement. The Orang Benua are _not_ Negrito; neither are the Jokong Negrito. For thirty words in the latter language, see Thomas Raffles in Asiatic Researches, xii. 109. In this list twelve words are shown by Raffles to be Malay, and Humboldt states the same of two more. The other sixteen may or may not be of Negrito origin. The Samangs are the Orang Udai.--Humboldt, _Über die Kawi-Sprache_.

_Sumatra._--The Battas of Sumatra are Malay, not Negrito (Marsden's Sumatra, p. 203, and Rienzi's Oceanie, vol. i.). The Sumatran of Parkinson's Journal (p. 198) is the Arabic of Acheen. The true Negritos of Sumatra seem to be,

1. The _Orang Cooboo_.--These are stated to be pretty numerous between Palembang and Jambee.--Marsden's Sumatra, p. 35.

2. _The Orang Googoo_,--who are described by the Sumatrans of Laboon as being more Orang Utang than man.--Marsden's Sumatra, p. 35. Specimens of the Orang Googoo (Gougon) Rienzi states to have seen. He says that they come from Palembang and Menangcaboo, and he calls them Pithecomorphi.

For an historical notice as early as 960 A. D., probably referring to the Blacks of Sumatra, see Klaproth in Nouveau Journal Asiatique, xii. 239.

_Borneo._--The Biajuk of Borneo is not Negrito but Malay (Crawfurd's Indian Archipelago); neither are the Dyacks Negrito. The statement of Marsden and Leyden is, that the Dyacks are _whiter_ than the rest of the natives of Borneo; and the remark of more than one voyager is, that the Dyacks of Borneo look like South Sea Islanders in the midst of a darker population. Are the Marut, Idongs, Tidongs, or Tirungs of the north of Borneo Negrito? In Rienzi's Oceanie there is a Borneo Vocabulary which is headed Dyack, Marut and Idaan, the three terms being treated as synonyms. Of this Vocabulary all the words are Malay. That there are Negritos in Borneo is most probable, but of their language we possess but one word, _apün_, father[17] (and that more than doubtful); whilst of their name we know nothing; and in respect to their locality, we have only the statement of Kollf, that in the north of Borneo Blacks are to be found on the Keeneebaloo mountain; a statement, however, slightly modified by the fact of his calling them Idaans or Maruts (see Earl's translation of the Voyage of the Doorga, p. 417). Compare the name Idaan in Borneo, with the name Orang Udai, applied to certain rude tribes in Malacca.

[Footnote 17: Mithr. i. 598.]

_The Sooloo Islands._--There are positive statements that the Sooloos contain Negritos. They also contain Malays; as may be seen in a Sooloo vocabulary in Rienzi's Oceanie, vol. i.