Greek language, yet conceives that it never superseded the ancient language of the country, which he calls Coptic, but rather, that both existed contemporaneously in Egypt.* This opinion of the learned father, however, has been completely demolished by the following sentence from his antagonist, Isaac Voss: "Simon is utterly mistaken in the opinion he has put forth, since the very name of Coptic was unknown until the Arabs gained possession of Egypt. The language itself is sufficient to prove that it is a compound of Greek and Arabic."+ It may be worth while to present a fact or two in support of Vossius's assertion. The first point worthy of observation is, that the Coptic idiom is nothing else but degenerate Greek mixed with Arabic. I repeat it, degenerate Greek, for most words in the Coptic vocabulary are derived from Greece. With few exceptions their vocables savor of Hellenism, (Enriouòr redolent,) and the letters of their alphabet in name, figure, and power, are all but identical with the Greek, as the following scheme will show : Simonius Hist. Critiq. du N. T. chap. 16. + Vossius ad iter. P. Sim. Objecti. Resp. p. 350. And a great many more of the same kind scattered up and down in the Coptic Lexicon. But, admitting these exceptions, Simon would have the basis of the language to be Egyptian. We challenge him, however, to tell us what or what was the nature of that other language, the traces of which Simon has so clearly discovered in the Coptic tongue, as also to give us the rule by which he discovers this or the other word to be Egyptian. He certainly has no ancient authority upon which he can fall back, and, if candid, must confess his ignorance. The ancients maintain the silence of the grave upon the subject. This Kircher is honest enough to own in the following words: "But should any one ask, what was the ancient language of the Egyptians, I can more easily present him with opinions than with facts, for there is positively not one author who presents himself as my guide amid the darkness of antiquity. On this subject the ancient writers have neither seen with their eyes, nor spoken with their tongues." But even were we disposed to grant that the words which Simon calls Egyptian are, in fact, Egyptian, (which many certainly are not,) he gains little by the concession. It was perfectly natural that, when the Egyptians adopted the Greek language, they should retain some terms from their old familiar tongue, and hand them down to posterity; just as it was natural for Latin, and Hebrew, and Samaritan words to find their way also into the Coptic. For the Latin it is easy to account. The Egyptians would adopt them where they fell under Roman rule, although Greek was still the staple material of the common speech. The Samaritan and Hebrew present no greater difficulty, for these the Egyptians would occasionally borrow, in order to veil under the secrecy of a foreign nomenclature the dogmata of their religion from the apprehension of the vulgar. The same motive which led to the invention of their mystic characters, the hieroglyphics, might operate here, as well as the common superstition of the East, which attached an indescribable virtue to foreign and untranslated words. The ancient oracle of the Chaldeans, published and translated by Psellus may be usefully consulted for information upon this point. In sup Kircher in Prod. Copt. c. 5. p. 123. port of what has been just alleged, we may add that those Chaldean words are to be found in the Coptic books and Lexicon. The second point worthy of notice in answer to Simon is, that the Arabians did not pass beyond their own confines until the seventh century of the Christian era. They were distinguished, indeed, by an ancient lineage, but had passed their time, up to that period, in a peaceful obscurity. Then, at length, bursting forth from their deserts, under the command of Omar I. they invaded Jerusalem, Syria, and Egypt, and gained unnumbered triumphs in Asia, and in extensive regions of Africa and Europe. From these premises we may conclude that the Coptic owns no parent source but Greek, and that it became a distinct dialect only after the irruption of the Arabs into Egypt. For the Greek language and literature, which struck their roots so deeply into the Egyptian mind under the Ptolemies, prevailed down to the seventh century. But when the Arabs entered the country, it underwent a process of change and deterioration so as to form an entirely new dialect. The change, I repeat, was deterioration, not destruction, for either through the rapidity of their conquests, or the few immigrants that settled in the country, the Arabs left the Greek tongue to form the chief element in the new compound. Thus, the Egyptians, combining the language of their conquerors with their own, formed the Coptic from the union of the two; just as the occupation of Syria by the Persians issued in the formation of the Aramæan or Syriac, from the fusion of the Greek, Persian, and Arabic. The Syriac is the tongue in which, up to this day, the books of the Maronites and Nestorians are composed. Nor did it happen otherwise in Judea and other lands. The same period witnessed the extinction of the pure Greek language and literature throughout the entire East. Then, and not before, was the name Coptic formed, which is nothing more than a corruption. of Aynios or Alvaros, and which, by a barbarous contraction, becomes Kóntos. Nothing can be more incorrect, then, than the statement of Simon, that the inhabitants of Egypt under the Ptolemies spoke both languages, Greek and Coptic. The more correct representation is, that Coptic itself owes its origin to a depravation of the Greek of comparatively modern date. PROPOSITION III.-That the Syrians, from Seleucus Nicator, spoke Greek. After Alexander had seized upon Syria, he established several Grecian colonies there. From that event may be dated the commencement of the Hellenism, (Elyriauov,) which afterwards obtained so universally in that region. When Alexander died, his vast empire was split up and divided amongst his generals. Syria fell to the lot of Laomedon of Mitylene, who hastened to take possession of it with a large army of Greeks.* But as, in the same partition of the empire, Seleucus Nicator obtained the supreme command of the Macedonian troops, he succeeded, after many a hard-fought battle, in securing Syria for himself. Fixing his residence in the country, he labored with all his might to introduce the Greek language and laws, or rather to confirm them in their hold upon the people. He raised Greek cities in every direction. Sixteen of these were called Antioch, ('Arrozɛía,) from his father and his son. Six were called Laodicea, (Aaodinsia,) from his mother. Nine had their name from himself, Seleucia, (λerxía,) and four were named after his two wives, namely, three Apamea, ('Anαuɛía,) and one Stratonice, (roarovízn.) To other cities he gave Greek or Macedonian names, either in commemoration of some exploit of his own, or in honor of Alexander the Great. Hence it is that so many towns with Greek or Macedonian names are found in Syria and other countries that border on the Mediterranean. Vaillant, whom we have already quoted more than once, furnishes a long list of them. In these cities he located numbers of Macedonian and other Greek inhabitants. Strabo informs us that, with a view to deepen the Grecian character of the city, five thousand three hundred Athenians and Macedonians were transferred from Antigone, where Antigonus had placed them, to Antioch. Thus, into Syria and especially into Lower Syria, or Palestine, to which my remarks chiefly apply, was the Greek language borne, in the first place through the sovereignty of Alexander, next through that of Seleucus, and finally through that of the succeeding kings. The Greek colonies established among the conquered people, secured the wide diffusion and general adoption of the language and institutions of Greece. The Greek names for the year and months were universally received, and only Greek money circulated. Their coins were called æra Seleucida, from the name of their Arrianus apud Photium, Diodorus Sic. lib. 8, Bibl. Hist. lib. x. cod. 92. Vaillant in Seleucid. Imp. p. 12. |