Part 5 (1/2)

_as-si_ _es-si_ _es-si_

But here Sanskrit, as far back as its history can be traced, has reduced _assi_ to _asi_; and it would be impossible to suppose that the perfect, or, as they are soanic, forms in Greek and Lithuanian, _es-si_, could first have passed through the mutilated state of the Sanskrit _asi_

The third person is the same in Sanskrit, Greek, and Lithuanian, _as-ti_ or _es-ti_; and, with the loss of the final _i_, we recognize the Latin _est_, Gothic _ist_, and Russian _est'_

The same auxiliary verb can be made to furnish sufficient proof that Latin never could have passed through the Greek, or what used to be called the Pelasgic stage, but that both are independent ular, Latin is less primitive than Greek; for _sum_ stands for _es-um_, _es_ for _es-is_, _est_ for _es-ti_ In the first person plural, too, _sumus_ stands for _es-umus_, the Greek _es-mes_, the Sanskrit _'smas_ The second person _es-tis_, is equal to Greek _es-te_, and more primitive than Sanskrit _stha_ But in the third person plural Latin is ular fored into _santi_ In Greek, the initial _s_ is dropped, and the aeolic _enti_, is finally reduced to _eisi_ The Latin, on the contrary, has kept the radical _s_, and it would be perfectly impossible to derive the Latin _sunt_ from the Greek _eisi_

I need hardly say that the lish, _I am_, _thou art_, _he is_, are only secondary modifications of the same primitive verb We find in Gothic-

_ies the _s_ into _r_, thus giving-

_eom_ for _eorm_, plural _sind_ for _isind_

_eart_ for _ears_, plural _sind_ _is_ for _ist_, plural _sind_

By applying this test to all languages, the founders of coy soon reduced the principal dialects of Europe and Asia to certain fauish different branches, each consisting again of numerous dialects, both ancient and es, however, which as yet have not been reduced to fah there is no reason to doubt that soenealogical classification, it is right to guard froratuitous supposition, that the principle of genealogical classification ical classification is no doubt the most perfect of all classifications, but there are but few branches of physical science in which it can be carried out, except very partially In the science of language, genealogical classification rammatical elee, can be kept up only by a continuous tradition We know that French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese rammatical forms in common, which none of these dialects could have supplied fro, or, so to say, no life, in any one of them The termination of the imperfect _ba_ in Spanish, _va_ in Italian, by which _canto_, I sing, is changed into _cantaba_ and _cantava_, has no separate existence, and no independentin either of these modern dialects

It could not have been formed with the materials supplied by Spanish and Italian It eneration in which this _ba_ had aWe trace it back to Latin _bam_, in _cantabainally an independent auxiliary verb, the salo-Saxon _beoical classification, therefore, applies properly only to decaying languages, to languages in which grah the influence of literary cultivation; in which little new is added, everything old is retained as long as possible, and where e call growth or history is nothing but the progress of phonetic corruption But before languages decay, they have passed through a period of growth; and it seems to have been co that early period, would naturally resist every atteical classification If you remember the manner in which, for instance, the plural was fores examined by us in a former Lecture, you will see that where each dialect may choose its own term expressive of plurality, such as _heap_, _class_, _kind_, _flock_, _cloud_, &c, it would be unreasonable to expect siraround down by phonetic corruption to mere exponents of plurality But, on the other hand, it would by no in Languages inally e case, nu been totally different, the graradually dwindle down could not possibly yield any results if subical classification of such languages is, therefore, from the nature of the case, simply impossible, at least, if such classification is chiefly to be based on graht be supposed, however, that such languages, though differing in their grain by the identity of their radicals or roots No doubt, they will in many instances They will probably have retained their numerals in common, some of their pronouns, and some of the commonest words of every-day life But even here we must not expect too much, nor be surprised if we find even less than we expected You remember how the names for father varied in the numerous Friesian dialects Instead of _frater_, the Latin word for brother, you find _hernis_, the Latin word for fire, you have in French _feu_, in Italian, _fuoco_ nobody would doubt the colish nuh preserved in _Furst_, _prnceps_, prince, is quite different from the German ”Der Erste;” ”the second” is quite different from ”Der Zweite;” and there is no connection between the possessive pronoun _its_, and the Gerer scale in ancient and illiterate languages; and those who have rowth of dialects will be the least surprised that dialects which had the sarammatical framework, but likewise in many of those test-words which are very properly used for discovering the relationshi+p of literary languages How it is possible to say anything about the relationshi+p of such dialects we shall see hereafter For the present, it is sufficient if I have ical classification is not of necessity applicable to all languages; and secondly, why languages, though they cannot be classified genealogically, need not therefore be supposed to have been different fro The assertion so frequently repeated that the iically proves the i but a kind of scientific dog else, has iress of independent research

But let us see no far the genealogical classification of languages has advanced, how many families of human speech have been satisfactorily established Let us reical classification We wished to know the original intention of certain words and gralish, andthat before we could attein of such words as ”I love,” and ”I loved,” we should have to trace them back to their most primitive state

We likewise found, by a reference to the history of the Ro in one dialect had frequently been preserved in a more prihest iical connection by which French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese are held together as the , therefore, with the living language of England, we traced it, without difficulty, to Anglo-Saxon This carries us back to the seventh century after Christ, for it is to that date that Kelish epic, the Beowulf Beyond this we cannot go on English soil But we know that the Saxons, the Angles, and Jutes ca the northern coast of Germany, still speak _Low-German_, or Nieder-Deutsch, which in the harbors of Antwerp, Brelish sailor for a corrupt English dialect The Low-German comprehends many dialects in the north or the lowlands of Germany; but in Germany proper they are hardly ever used for literary purposes The Friesian dialects are Low-German, so are the Dutch and Flemish The Friesian had a literature of its own as early at least as the twelfth century, if not earlier(167) The Dutch, which is still a national and literary language, though confined to a small area, can be traced back to literary documents of the sixteenth century The Flee of the court of Flanders and Brabant, but has since been considerably encroached upon, though not yet extinguished, by the official languages of the kingdoium The oldest literary document of Low-German on the Continent is the Christian epic, the _Heljand_ (Heljand = Heiland, the Healer or Saviour), which is preserved to us in two MSS of the ninth century, and ritten at that time for the benefit of the newly converted Saxons We have traces of a certain amount of literature in Saxon or Low-Geres up to the seventeenth century But little only of that literature has been preserved; and, after the translation of the Bible by Luther into High-German, the fate of Low-Gere of Gerne, the _High-German_ It is spoken in various dialects all over Gerh three periods The present, or New High-Gerh-German period extends froh-German period extends from thence to the seventh century

Thus we see that we can follow the High-German, as well as the Low-German branch of Teutonic speech, back to about the seventh century after Christ

We must not suppose that before that tie spoken by all Gered into two streah and Low There never was a coe; nor is there any evidence to show that there existed at any tie, froh-German and Low-Gerlo-Saxon, Friesian, Flemish, Dutch, and Platt-Deutsch from the ancient Low-German, which is preserved in the continental Saxon of the ninth century All we can say is this, that these various Low-Gerland, Holland, Friesia, and Lower Geres, or, so to say, the sarowth We ence of these dialects becomes more and more decided; but there is no evidence to justify us in ad the historical reality of _one_ prie frorammarians who cannot understand a multiplicity of dialects without a common type They would likewise dee, as the source, not only of the literary Old, Middle, and Modern High-German, but likewise of all the local dialects of Austria, Bavaria, Swabia, and Franconia And they would wish us to believe that, previous to the separation into High and Low Gere, as yet neither High nor Low, but containing the germs of both Such a systerammatical analysis, but it becorammatical abstractions are invested with an historical reality As there were families, clans, confederacies, and tribes, before there was a nation; so there were dialects before there was a language The grammarian who postulates an historical reality for the one primitive type of Teutonic speech, is no better than the historian who believes in a _Francus_, the grandson of Hector, and the supposed ancestor of all the Franks, or in a _Brutus_, the mythical father of all the Britons When the German races descended, one after the other, from the Danube and from the Baltic, to take possession of Italy and the Roman provinces,-when the Goths, the Loundians, each under their own kings, and with their os and customs, settled in Italy, Gaul, and Spain, to act their several parts in the last scene of the Roedy,-we have no reason to suppose that they all spoke one and the same dialect If we possessed any literary documents of those ancient Gerain, soh, others with those of Low, German Nor is this mere conjecture: for it so happens that, by some fortunate accident, the dialect of one at least of those ancient German races has been preserved to us in the Gothic translation of the Bible by Bishop Ulfilas

I must say a feords on this remarkable ard to the date and the principal events in the life of Ulfilas are very contradictory This is partly owing to the fact that Ulfilas was an Arian bishop, and that the accounts which we possess of him come from two opposite sides, fro an estimate of his character it would be necessary to sift this contradictory evidence, it is but fair to suppose that, when dates and simple facts in the life of the Bishop have to be settled, his own friends had better means of information than the orthodox historians It is, therefore, froy and the historical outline of the Bishop's life should be determined

The principal writers to be consulted are Philostorgius, as preserved by Photius, and Auxentius, as preserved by Maximinus in a MS lately discovered by Professor Waitz(169) in the Library at Paris (Supples of Hilarius, the two first books of Ambrosius De fide, and the acts of the Council of Aquileja (381) On theof the acts of the Council of Aquileja, adding remarks of his own in order to sho unfairly Palladius had been treated in that council by Ambrose

He jotted down his own views on the Arian controversy, and on fol 282, seq, he copied an account of Ulfilas written by Auxentius, the bishop of Dorostorum (Silistria on the Danube), a pupil of Ulfilas This is followed again by some dissertations of Maximinus, and on foll 314-327, a treatise addressed to Ambrose by a Semi-arian, a follower of Eusebius, possibly by Prudentius hihtly abbreviated for his own purposes by Maximinus

It is from Auxentius, as copied by Maximinus, that we learn that Ulfilas died at Constantinople, where he had been invited by the emperor to a disputation This could not have been later than the year 381, because, according to the same Auxentius, Ulfilas had been bishop for forty years, and, according to Philostorgius, he had been consecrated by Eusebius Now Eusebius of Nicoius says that Ulfilas was consecrated by ”Eusebius and the bishops ith hireat plausibility to the beginning of the year 341, when Eusebius presided at the Synod of Antioch As Ulfilas was thirty years old at the time of his consecration, he e when he died at Constantinople, his death must have taken place in 381

Professor Waitz fixed the death of Ulfilas in 388, because it is stated by Auxentius that other Arian bishops had come with Ulfilas on his last journey to Constantinople, and had actually obtained the promise of a new council from the emperors, but that the heretical party, _ie_, the Athanasians, succeeded in getting a law published, prohibiting all disputation on the faith, whether in public or private Maximinus, to e this notice, has added ts from the Codex Theodosianus, which he supposed to have reference to this controversy, dated respectively 388 and 386 This shows that Maximinus himself was doubtful as to the exact date Neither of these laws, however, is applicable to the case, as has been fully shown by Dr Bessell They are quotations from the Codex Theodosianus made by Maximinus at his own risk, and made in error If the death of Ulfilas were fixed in 388, the iius, that Ulfilas was consecrated by Eusebius, would have to be surrendered, and we should have to suppose that as late as 388 Theodosius had been in treaty with the Arians, whereas after the year 383, when the last attempt at a reconciliation bad been er shown to the party of Ulfilas and his friends

If, on the contrary, Ulfilas died at Constantinople in 381, he ht well have been called there by the Emperor Theodosius, not to a council, but to a disputation (ad disputationeainst the Psathyropolistae,(170) a new sect of Arians at Constantinople

About the same time, in 380, Sozoain influence with Theodosius He mentions, like Auxentius, that these efforts were defeated, and a law published to forbid disputations on the nature of God This law exists in the Codex Theodosianus, and is dated January 10, 381 But what is most important is, that this law actually revokes a rescript that had been obtained fraudulently by the Arian heretics, thus confir the statement of Auxentius that the emperor had held out to him and his party a promise of a new council

We now return to Ulfilas He was born in 311 His parents, as Philostorgius tells us, were of Cappadocian origin, and had been carried away by the Goths as captives froolthina, near the town of Parnassus It was under Valerian and Gallienus (about 267) that the Goths made this raid from Europe to Asia, Galatia, and Cappadocia, and the Christian captives whom they carried back to the Danube were the first to spread the light of the Gospel aius was himself a Cappadocian, and there is no reason to doubt this statee of Ulfilas Ulfilas was born ah he was able in after-life to speak and write both in Latin and Greek Philostorgius, after speaking of the death of Crispus (326), and before proceeding to the last years of Constantine, says, that ”about that time” Ulfilas led his Goths from beyond the Danube into the Ro persecuted on account of their Christianity Ulfilas was the leader of the faithful flock, and came to Constantine, (not Constantius,) as ambassador This must have been before 337, the year of Constantine's death It ained a victory over the Goths; and though Ulfilas was then only seventeen years of age, this would be no reason for rejecting the testiius, who says that Constantine treated Ulfilas with great respect, and called hi led his faithful flock across the Danube into Msia, hethe Israelites froh the Red Sea It is true that Auxentius institutes the sa that Ulfilas had been received with great honors by Constantius But this refers to what took place after Ulfilas had been for seven years bishop a the Goths, in 348, and does not invalidate the stateius as to the earlier intercourse between Ulfilas and Constantine Sozouishes between the first crossing of the Danube by the Goths, with Ulfilas as their aern or Fritiger, which led to the settlement of the Goths in the Ro crossed the Danube, Ulfilas remained for some time with his Goths, or at Constantinople Auxentius says that he officiated as Lector, and it was only when he had reached the requisite age of thirty, that he was made bishop by Eusebius in 341 He passed the first seven years of his episcopate a thirty-three of his life ”in solo Roer and the Thervingi There is some confusion as to the exact date of the Gothic Exodus, but it is not at all unlikely that Ulfilas acted as their leader on more than one occasion

There is little more to be learnt about Ulfilas from other sources What is said by ecclesiastical historians about the ing from one side to the other, deserves no credit Ulfilas, according to his own confession, was always an Arian (semper sic credidi) Socrates says that Ulfilas was present at the Synod of Constantinople in 360, which ius mentions it The author of the Acts of Nicetas speaks of Ulfilas as present at the Council of Nicaea, in coned his na to confire, ith Theophilus

Ulfilas translated the whole Bible, except the Books of Kings For the Old Testaint; for the New, the Greek text; but not exactly in that forreater part of his work has been lost, and we have only considerable portions of the Gospels, all the genuine Epistles of St Paul, though again not coh Ulfilas belonged to the western Goths, his translation was used by all Gothic tribes, when they advanced into Spain and Italy The Gothic language died out in the ninth century, and after the extinction of the great Gothic eotten

But a MS of the fifth century had been preserved in the Abbey of Werden, and towards the end of the sixteenth century, a man of the name of Arnold Mercator, as in the service of Williarave of Hessia, drew attention to this old parchments of the translation of Ulfilas The MS, known as the Codex Argenteus, was afterwards transferred to Prague, and when Prague was taken in 1648 by Count Konigsmark, he carried this Codex to Upsala in Sweden, where it is still preserved as one of the greatest treasures The parchment is purple, the letters in silver, and the MS bound in solid silver