Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

tion, thereby forbidding the true spirit of the language to show itself untrammelled. In this respect the Anglo-Saxon is much more fortunate. For although a great part of its literature is found in translations, poetry, original prose, and paraphrase are extant to sufficiently display the more remarkable peculiarities of its idiom, as well as its richness and copiousness.

It has been generally supposed that the Moeso-Gothic was the prevalent High-German of the day. But there are strong reasons for doubting this. The remarkable difference between the Moeso-Gothic, and the oldest relic of the other High-German dialects, a difference not merely to be accounted for by the supposed changes, and abbreviations which any language might undergo in the space of three hundred and fifty years— proves that the time when the High-German divided itself into dialects was far earlier than the days of Ulphilas. A comparison of the Lord's Prayer in Moeso-Gothic, and Allemannic of 720, will show the truth of our assertion.

Gothic. Atta unsar, thu in himinam. Weihnai namo Allemannic. Fatter unseer, thu pist in Himele. Wihi Namun Quimai thiudinassus theins. Wairthai wilja theins, swe in deinan; Chweme Werde willo din, so in

thein.

Rihi

din;

himina, jah ana airthai. Hlaif unsarana thana sinteinan gif uns Himile, sosa in Erdu; Proath unseer emezhic kip uns himmadaga. Jah aflet uns thatei skulans sijaima, swaswe jah weis

Oblaz uns

sculdi unseero, SO

wir

Ja ni briggais uns in fraistubnjai.
Enti ni firletti unsih in Khorunka ;

hiutu;
afletam thaim skulam unsaraim.
oblazen Skuldikem uns;
Ah lausei uns af thamma ubilin.
Uzz erlosi unsih fona
Ubile.t

On the other hand it is asserted by some, that the MoesoGothic is a mixture of High and Low German, with some foreign, perhaps Thracian words. Adelung and his supporters, acknowledged when they classed it under the head of HighGerman (Hoch-Deutsch) languages, that it was in many respects closely connected with the Low-German (Platt-Deutsch ;) and the introduction of all strange words is accounted for by the

Fadur is legitimate Gothic. See Castiglione's Ulphil. Goth. Vers. ad Corinth. Sec. p. VI. and 79.

Adelung's Mithridates, Vol. II. p. 185 and 194.

Encycl. Americana. Art. German Language.

supposed emigrations beyond the Baltic, and by the intercourse with the Suiones already there. In which case, as Count Castiglione remarks, it would follow that the Suio-Gothic approaches nearer to the Moeso-Gothic than any other Teutonic language, which does not happen. It was the opinion of Fulda, in which the Count concurs, that the Gothic did not obtain its foreign words from any German race, nor indeed that the Gothic belongs to any peculiar German dialect, inasmuch as it is impossible to decide to which class of languages it makes the nearest approach. And this he thinks may have happened in one of two ways. Either the Gothic, as the Latin afterwards, became the mother of many cognate languages, and although many words are lost, the present language is perceptible in each by numerous relics; or, on the contrary, the Gothic language may have been formed from the juncture of many Gothic tribes!*

both of the former rank the MoesoBut Balbi, and the

There is still another theory opposed to ones, supported by Balbi, and others, who Gothic among the Scandinavian languages. class of comparative philologists to which he belongs, have been contented to seek for mere verbal coincidences without taking into consideration the grammatical structure of a language. Yet, the most unphilosophical observer cannot fail to perceive that if the inflection and syntactical arrangement of two languages be wholly different, although the roots of their words be the same, they can claim no nearer relationship than that of issuing from the same stock at some remote age. If indeed the forms of words in the Moeso-Gothic place it under the head of the Scandinavian languages, (which we very much doubt,) a moment's comparison of the grammatical changes and the structure of sentences in the Moeso-Gothic, and any Scandinavian dialect will convince us that the genius of the one is widely different from that of the other.

What then is the Moeso-Gothic, and what are its relations to the other Teutonic languages?

From the unabbreviated form in which the language exists, we are inclined to think that it is much older than has been generally supposed. Why may it not have stood in the same relation to the spoken Gothic, as the Sanskrit to the spoken dialects

Ulphil. Goth. Vers. ad Cor. II. Ded. p. iv-v.

† Atlas Ethnographique. Tab. XIII.

VOL. XII. No. 32.

40

of India? In its grammatical inflections it stands aside from all the Germanic languages now known ; it has a dual; and like the Scandinavian languages, a passive voice. The regularity, and indeed, the perfection, of its structure entitle it to a much higher regard than the Anglo-Saxon; and it is absurd to suppose that this order and beauty were obtained from a mixture of the dialects of all the Gothic tribes. Besides, no philological principles yet discovered can support an opinion thus contravening all known facts in the formation of languages. Who could have decided from what particular idiom the phrases to be employed should be selected? Ulphilas, certainly, could not have had the presumption to invent an alphabet, and then to make a language. to suit if he did, he was certainly the most successful of experimenters, and no wonder that his language is a puzzle to philologists!

The only position, then, with regard to the Moeso-Gothic, which seems in any degree tenable, is that of Count Castiglione; viz. that the Gothic was the parent of the Germanic languages. There is no word in the Gothic, which may not be found in some of the Teutonic, that is, Germanic and Scandinavian languages. It bears, too, evident marks of having flourished previous to the time when the Low and High German dialects arose the peculiarities of enunciation, which distinguish these classes, are not observable—or at least they did not find their way into the Gothic writings, and not until the exact epoch is known when the Gothic was exclusively used throughout the North of Europe, can any calculation be made of the antiquity of these dialects.

But there can be no uncertainty with regard to the value of the Moeso-Gothic language as preserved in the code of Ulphilas. In the precision, multiplicity, and freedom of form both of conjugation and declension, it equals if it does not surpass the Greek it bears an equal impress of antiquity,-its changes are equally regular-its facility of compounding is equally wonderful, having a formative power almost unappreciable except by a German scholar. The copiousness and richness of its vocabulary, with its remarkable capability for expressing nice shades. of meaning, peculiarly adapted it to the purposes of translation. But we labor under a great disadvantage in possessing the Gothic only in the form of a translation, as it is impossible to judge so fully of the whole force of the language as an original composition would have placed it in our power. In a transla

tion, violence is done both to the original and the language into which the translation is made. The multiplicity of synonymes, the taste and consistency of metaphor, and the varieties in the forms of phraseology, traits particularly showing the genius of a language, and always manifest in every original production, cannot be brought forward in the language into which the translation is made. Yet all this does not deteriorate from the worth of the Moeso-Gothic as a philosophic language. One of the most valuable links in the chain of Indo-Germanic languages, it develops important principles, and its value for grammatical reference cannot be too highly appreciated.

Very little has as yet been done towards the cultivation of this interesting language, and, indeed, many educated men are not aware of its existence in a separate form. In the general awakening which seems to be taking place throughout our land with regard to the northern languages, we hope that the MoesoGothic will receive its due share of attention. While the Anglo-Saxon, the mother of our own native tongue is cultivated, may her elder sister not be neglected!

ARTICLE IV.

INQUIRY RESPECTING THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS OF THE SAME; WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO MR. NORTON'S VIEW OF THESE SUBJECTS AS EXHIBITED IN HIS TREATISE ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE GOSPELS.

By M. Stuart, Prof. Sac. Lit. Theol. Sem. Andover.

§ 7. Introductory Remarks.

In the preceding number of this Miscellany I have examined at length the position, that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and that our present canonical Matthew is only a Greek translation of the original. It is possible, indeed, that this position is true; but the sum of the evidence before us, when thoroughly examined, seems to render it highly improbable.

Mr. Norton, who rejects the first two chapters of our canonical Matthew because he deems them to be an interpolation, has prepared the way for the introduction of this opinion, by maintaining that the Original Gospel of Matthew was in Hebrew. He had his reasons for so doing. The state of the testimony before us, in regard to the two chapters in question, is such as makes the case desperate for those who impugn their genuineness, if the Greek Matthew is to be relied on as the source of evidence. This we shall see in the sequel. Consequently, if there be any room for suspicion as to the Genuineness of Matthew I. II., it must be sought for in the Hebrew editions of this Gospel. Now as the church has never heard any thing of these since about the beginning of the fifth century, excepting a few fragments that some of the fathers have preserved, conjecture has room apparently for a wide range; and at any rate it is freed from the danger of being overthrown by positive evidence drawn from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. It is not until we come down to the times of Epiphanius, near the close of the fourth century, that we can find more than some four or five extracts from the Jewish Gospel, which enable us to form any decisive judgment as to its internal state or condition.

Mr. Norton uses very freely the liberty which this state of things seems to afford him. He tells us (p. liii.), that Matthew I. II. was at first a separate composition-an Evangelium Infantiae published by some curious inquirer into the early history of the Saviour; and that this, from its seemingly obvious congruity with the history of Jesus's public life as given us by Matthew, i. e. from its supplementary nature, was first written separately on the same Ms. with the Gospel, and finally incorporated with it. In that state the Greek translator found his Ms. or Mss. to be, and he rendered the whole into the Greek language, as belonging to one and the same author.

But what are the facts on which this very important deduction or proposition is built? Mr. Norton has not told us what they are; at least he has given us no external evidence whatever of a historical nature. No voice of antiquity is raised in favour of such an opinion. No hint of this kind any where appears. The two chapters under examination were indeed omitted, as Epiphanius avers, in the Gospel of the Ebionites. But instead of an intimation that there was any good reason for

« VorigeDoorgaan »