UNDER the term PHILOLOGY, some comprehend universal literature; so that each one may there include whatever he thinks proper; as grammar, rhetoric, poetry, antiquities, history, criticism, the interpretation of authors, &c. This seems to be not only making an abuse of words, but creating confusion in those matters where too much regularity and precision cannot be observed. The term philology is composed of the Greek words \(\gamma\eta\) and \(\lambda\epsilon\gamma\alpha\tau\alpha\), which imply "a love or study of languages." It appears, therefore, that philology is nothing more than a general knowledge of languages, of the natural and figurative signification of their words and phrases, and, in short, of all that relates to expression in the different dialects of nations, as well ancient as modern.
As, in treating of GRAMMAR, we have given those general rules which are applicable to all possible languages; we shall here confine our observation to the languages themselves, and to those general ideas which philology offers, without leading our readers thro' all the paths of an immense labyrinth.
Languages in general may be divided into,
1. Ancient languages; which are those that have become extinct with the people who spoke them, or have been so altered and disfigured that they no longer resemble the languages which were spoken by those people.
2. Oriental languages; the study of which is necessary in order to the understanding of the text of the holy scriptures, especially the Old Testament.
3. Learned languages; which are those that are indispensably necessary in the study of erudition, and particularly literature; which, while there were people in the world who made them their common language, were called living; but as no nation now makes use of them, they are called dead languages, and are therefore to be learned from books or in schools.
4. Modern languages; in which are distinguished, firstly, the common languages of the European nations; and secondly, the languages of the people who inhabit the three other parts of the world. Sect. I. Ancient languages.
I. Of the languages that were spoken by the first inhabitants of the world, till the destruction of the tower of Babel, there are not now the least traces remaining; though some zealous theologians pretend that it was the Hebrew as it is found in the Bible, or at least the ancient Chaldean: but all this is mere conjecture; and it is certain, on the contrary, that every vestige of those languages has been totally destroyed by time. The ancient languages that have been in use in the different parts of the world since that period, and the knowledge of which, more or less imperfect, has come down to us, are,
1. The Chaldean. 2. The Syriac and Estrangetic, 3. The Arabic, 4. Coptic or ancient Egyptian. 5. Ancient Ethiopian. 6. Ancient Indian. 7. Ancient Phoenician, which is also called the Ionic Phoenician. 8. Punic or Carthaginian. 9. Scythian, and the Scythian of the Huns. 10. Cyrillic. 11. Glagolitic. 12. Braminian or Brachmanian. 13. Æolian or Æolic. 14. Jacobitian. 15. Celtic. 16. Saracen. 17. Ancient Esclavonian. 18. Gothic. 19. Hetruvian; of which the Maronites, Nestorians, and sometimes the Jacobites, made use. 20. Hieroglyphic. 21. Runic. 22. Ancient Vandalian. 23. Ancient Germanic.
And perhaps some others that may be known to philologists. To these may be added,
25. The different alphabets, idioms, and methods of speaking and writing in the middle age.
Philology is therefore employed in making learned researches, not only into these languages, but into many others, which we shall enumerate in the course of this article. It prefers rules, lays down precepts, points out principles, furnishes etymologies, and makes all the necessary remarks for the understanding and attainment of every known language. It shows the use that may be made of each particular language; in what country, and by what people, it has been spoken; and explains, as far as is possible, all the obscurities and ambiguities that attend the study of each language.
When the alphabet of a language is once discovered and well understood, we may easily attain, or at least with much less difficulty, the knowledge of the rest. Beside numberless philological works, with which each library is crowded, they have, in Germany, a small treatise that is very curious and very instructive, intitled, "The new A.B.C. in a hundred languages:" or, "Fundamental instructions for teaching the youngest scholars not only German, Latin, French, and Italian, but also the oriental and other languages, as well as the pronunciation and knowledge of these different languages." Leipzig, published by Gessner, 1743. In this book are contained the alphabets and first elements of a hundred different languages, as well ancient as modern. This work was reprinted in 1740, and very considerably augmented, under the title of, "The master of the oriental and occidental languages." To this has been added the Lord's prayer, in two hundred languages ancient and modern, in the characters proper to each, with the dialect or manner of pronouncing the prayer; which contributes greatly to facilitate the attaining an idea of these languages. The author of this equally curious and instructive book is M. John Frederic Frits; and he was assisted by the Danish missionary Schults of Hall. The successors of Homann of Nurenburg have also published four geographic-philological maps, designed by Godfrey Henfel, which bear the following titles: 1. Europa polyglotta, linguarum genealogiam exhibens, una cum litteris scribendique modis omnium gentium; 2. Asia; 3. Africa, with the same title: and, 4. America, cum supplementis polyglottis. The four parts of the world are engraved and coloured on these maps; but in every country, instead of the names of its cities and provinces, is seen the beginning of the Lord's prayer, in the characters used in that country; so that, with a single glance of the eye, we see all the languages that are in use in all parts of the known world. These maps are highly curious, and have doubtless cost the inventors immense labour.
Books which teach the particular rules of a language called grammars, rudiments, &c.; and those that contain the words and phrases, dictionaries, lexicons, lexical manuals, vocabularies, &c. Philology shews the manner in which these books are to be made, and the precautions that are to be observed to render them instructive and agreeable; the method of treating synonymous terms, the gradations that are among words seemingly synonymous, and many other like matters. It shews also the reciprocal influence which the genius and manners of a people have on their language; and their language on their general method of thinking; their manners, urbanity, and refinement.
But as it is impossible to perceive all the force and elegance of the various allusions, metaphors, and comparisons in a language, especially in an ancient language, if we are not properly instructed in their manners, customs, ceremonies, laws, arts, sciences, and professions, and other peculiarities of the nation by whom they have been used, and whose natural idiom they formed, Philology, in order to know the true origin, etymology, and signification of the words, terms, and phrases of a language, amounts to the most distant ages, and, employing all the aids it can receive from literature, it makes use of antiquities, numismatics, and diplomatics, in fixing the meaning of each term and mode of expression, and by these means renders languages and authors intelligible, clear, and agreeable.
These languages, which are no longer in common use, can only be learned by books or manuscripts. But as these have come down to us by the means of copying, they have consequently been frequently mutilated, altered, diminished and disfigured, by those who who have copied them; the text, in general, or at least many passages of these books and manuscripts, is unintelligible at the first reading. From hence there has arisen in modern Europe a particular science, that is called the Criticism of Languages, which makes a part of philology, and is employed, 1. In examining the authenticity and truth of the text; 2. In discovering and pointing out the means of correcting the text; 3. In restoring such passages as have been altered, omitted, or mutilated; 4. In explaining the true sense of the text; and, 5. In establishing a language by these means in its full primitive perfection, and making it perfectly intelligible to modern times. The celebrated M. le Clerc has given us an admirable work on this subject, intitled Ars Critica, in which he explains, with equal genius and solidity, the rules of sound philological criticism.
That which is of the greatest use in understanding and interpreting an obscure or imperfect passage, or an unintelligible word or phrase, is confrontation. The best confrontation is that which is made by comparing an author, book, or manuscript, with itself; by examining if the same word, matter, or phrase, is not repeated elsewhere, or in equivalent expressions. This is the most certain method, and produces an authentic interpretation. The second method is to confront a writer with his contemporaries of the same nation; and the third consists in comparing him with other authors who have written at different times, and in the same language.
Sect. II. Oriental Languages.
Though most of the languages we have enumerated in the preceding section, and many of those we shall mention in the fourth, have been, or are still, in use in the eastern countries, we here understand, however, by the term oriental, those only which are essentially necessary to the understanding, and interpreting, in an exegetical manner, the holy writings, especially those of the Old Testament; and for this restriction of the term we have the authority of a great number of learned men, who by the oriental languages understand only the Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, Arabic, and Coptic: to which we shall add the Samaritan, Rabbinic, and Talmudic. These eight languages merit a more particular examen, as they serve to establish the foundations of the Christian religion, and make a considerable part of the study of a theologian.
1. The Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldean, respectively claim the right of seniority: each of them has its advocates; and the point is not easy to be decided. Most zealous divines are inclined to favour the Hebrew; and there are some of them who pretend that it was the language in which God talked with Adam in paradise, and that the saints will make use of it in heaven in those places which they will eternally offer to the Almighty. These doctors seem to be as certain with regard to what is passed as what is to come. Some philologists give the priority to the Arabic, and others to the Chaldean. This difference is the more difficult to be reconciled, as Moses was not born till 2464 years after the creation, and in Egypt; that is to say, 700 years after the destruction of the tower of Babel, when all languages were mixed and confounded; for we have no proofs, nor even any account, that the Hebrew was exempted, and preserved its purity amidst the general confusion. There is not, moreover, at this time, any work of antiquity existing that is wrote in Hebrew, except the Old Testament; and of that there are even some parts in Chaldaic; and words of that and other languages are to be found dispersed in different parts of it.
There is one more remark we must here make. The first time we find the word Hebrew in the Bible, is in the 13th verse of the 14th chapter of Genesis; and it is manifest that Abraham and his descendants took that name from the patriarch Heber, the son of Salah, and third grandfather of Abraham: it is therefore evident, that in the time of Abraham this name was that of a family, and not of a people who had a separate language. We are therefore to suppose, that Abraham, and the patriarchs after him, spoke the customary language of the country where they lived: that this language changed by degrees, as all living languages have done and ever will do: that Jacob and his sons having passed into Egypt, they and their descendents, under the name of the Children of Israel, did not preserve the language of their fathers in all its purity; but that they mixed with it many expressions borrowed from foreign languages, and especially from the Egyptian and Coptic; that Moses wrote in the Hebrew language, as the children of Israel then spoke it: that the other books of the Old Testament were wrote still later; and that it is almost impossible for this language to have been preserved without any alteration.
As we have no Hebrew but what is contained in the Holy Bible, this language must naturally be deficient of many words; not only because all the ancient languages, but especially those of the first ages, were not so copious as the modern; but there were in those times fewer objects to be named; and the sacred authors moreover had not occasion to treat on all subjects. The Hebrew language, however, is susceptible of all the ornaments of diction, and is very expressive. It is not, beside, so difficult to learn as some have imagined. The style of the Psalms, of the book of Job, and of all that is written in a poetical manner, is the most difficult to understand. That of Isaiah is noble and elegant, worthy of an author who was of the house of David, and the nephew and grandson of a king. But, notwithstanding all the labours of the learned for so many centuries, we are very far from having a perfect knowledge of the Hebrew language: this inconvenience is the greater, as it gives occasion to many imperfect translations, which disfigure the true sense of the original text; and, what is still more, they have founded, on these passages wrong interpreted, a belief of events that have never arrived in the manner predicted; and even sometimes religious dogmas.
The Hebrew language had originally no vowels. They are marked in the massorets by points under the consonants. This language is written and read from the left to the right: it has thirteen letters, which grammarians divide into guttural, palatice, dental, labial, and gingival. They now distinguish only five vowels in Hebrew, which are the same as ours, a, e, i, o, u. But they divide each vowel into two or three; Oriental three; as long, short, shortest. The articles, pronouns, &c. are placed after the substantive; and the same word is sometimes substantive, adjective, and verb. The punctuation and accent are the objects that require the greatest attention in the Hebrew language: they count near forty accents; and there are many whose use is still unknown. They serve in general to distinguish, 1. The period and its members, as the points do in other languages; 2. To determine the quantity of syllables; and, 3. To mark the tone that is to be observed in chanting them. Nineteen of these accents are also called, by grammarians, definitivi or accentus regii; and the others conjunctivi, servii, or ministrari. There is, properly speaking, only one conjugation in this language, which is of itself simple, but is varied in each verb by seven or eight different manners, that form in fact so many different conjugations, and give a great number of expressions, to represent by one word the various modifications of a verb. These are the principal characteristics of the Hebrew, as we find it in the Holy Scriptures; and which, taken all together, forms a very regular and analogous language.
II. The Chaldean is that which was spoken in Chaldea. Some say that it is a dialect derived from the Hebrew, and others that the Hebrew is a dialect of the Chaldean. This language has twenty-five letters; the forms of which are very different from the Hebrew. It is in like manner wrote from the left to the right.
The Syriac is also considered as a dialect of the Hebrew. It has twenty-two letters, which have the same names with the Hebrew, but are of very different forms.
The Arabic, or the language of the Arabians, is in like manner a dialect of the Hebrew. It has twenty-eight letters, the names of which have a good deal of resemblance to the Hebrew; but their characters are also very different.
The Coptic is the ancient language of the Egyptians, but mixed in process of time with much of the Greek. We have already laid, in the preceding section, that the late M. de la Crofe has in a manner re-established this language, when we scarce knew more than the name of it; and that he has composed a Coptic grammar and dictionary. F. Kircher, it is true, had before published a Coptic vocabulary and kind of grammar, but very incomplete. There are thirty-two letters in its alphabet, but the characters are almost entirely Greek. There has been no book found in this language but translations of the Holy Scriptures, or ecclesiastic offices, &c.
III. The Samaritan is another dialect of the Hebrew. The Samaritans were Jews, and their city Samaria was in Judea. They followed the law of Moses with more rigour, more after the letter than the Hebrews. There is a Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch, which differs indeed but little from that of the Jews in Hebrew: but it is written in different characters, that are commonly called Samaritan; and which Origen, St Jerom, and many other writers, as well ancient as modern, suppose to be the first letters of the Hebrews. There are also medals that are called Samaritan; they have Hebrew inscriptions, in characters different from those of our Hebrew Bible, and which are called square Hebrew. For a further account of the Samaritan language, consult M. Simon in his customs and ceremonies of the Jews, Eduardi Bernhardi Lexicon Samaritanum, F. Kircher, M. Buxtorff, M. de Spanheim, F. Morin, M. Walton, and a great number of other writers.
IV. The Rabbinic, or the Hebrew of the Rabbins, is the language of which they have made use in their works. The body of it is composed of Hebrew and Chaldaic, with divers alterations in the words of those two languages, whose significations they have much extended. They have likewise borrowed greatly from the Arabic. The rest is composed of words taken for the most part from the Greek, with some from the Latin, and others from various modern languages, especially that of the country in which each rabbin lived. For we should remember here, that after the return from the last captivity, they spoke scarce any pure Hebrew at Jerusalem and in Judea, but Greek mixed with some Hebraic expressions: the Romans afterward entering Palestine, and becoming conquerors of that country, spoke their own language there; and at last the Jewish nation was totally dispersed. We shall only add, that the Rabbinic is a very copious language; and that there is scarce any part of science of which the Rabbins have not treated, but always with an enthusiasm that is natural to them: there have been among them even poets and orators.
V. The Talmudic is another dialect or particular idiom of the Hebrew, in which the Talmud, or the book composed by the Jews, that contains all the explications of their law, is written. This language differs greatly from the pure Hebrew. M. Buxtorff has composed a Chaldaic, Talmudic, and Rabbinic dictionary. We have also a work of the emperor Constantine, intitled Clavis Talmudica; and one of Otto, called Vitae doctorum mifnicorum; beside several others.
Sect III. Of those Languages that are called dead.
Languages in general, properly speaking, form no science that can enrich the mind with real knowledge, but are to be considered as introductions to the sciences; as keys that open to us the sanctuaries of erudition. In order to attain the knowledge of antiquity in its full extent, the knowledge of those languages that were then in use is of great utility: and properly to judge of modern nations, it is almost indispensably necessary to be acquainted with the principal languages which are now used in the world. There are two languages, however, which are called learned by way of eminence, and those are the Greek and the Latin. The former of these not only enables us to read the masterly productions of genius of ancient Greece, but also to form a true judgment of all its antiquities, and of its different ages, which form the most entertaining and interesting periods for the sciences and polite arts of all ancient times. The latter affords us the means of understanding the original texts of all the admirable works of the most celebrated Latin authors, and of becoming acquainted with the city, republic, and monarchy of Rome, as if we had been present with them; and of forming a solid judgment of those precious Roman antiquities of every kind that are still remaining among us. But that which has given the Latin an advantage even over the Greek itself, that has rendered it indispensible to every man of letters, and has made it the basis of erudition, is, that during the middle age, and in general in all modern times, the learned of all Europe have made it their common and universal language; so that the Latin forms, if we may use the expression, the natural language of the sciences.
I. All that is written in Greek cannot be properly said to be in the same language; for we should carefully distinguish,
(1.) The ancient or literal Greek: an admirable language, in which are written the works of Xenophon, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Sophocles, &c., works that have preserved this language in all its purity, and that will make it, with themselves, immortal. There are, however, several idioms or dialects in this tongue, among which four are reckoned principal; and these are, 1. The Attic, which is the most esteemed; 2. The Ionic; 3. The Æolic; and, 4. The Doric; which was a kind of rustic dialect, and in which are written eclogues, idyls, and other pastorals. We must observe by the way, that all these four dialects are to be found in Homer, and produce an odd effect in a heroic poem, notwithstanding the universal approbation that is given to this poet. The Greek language is very copious in words, and its inflexions are as various as they are simple in most modern languages. It has three numbers; the singular, dual, and plural; and many tenses in its verbs, which afford great variety of expression. The use of the participles of the aorist, and of the preterite, and of compound words, which are very numerous in this language, give it force and brevity, without in the least diminishing its perspicuity. Proper names have also a meaning in this as in the oriental languages; and the learned there find likewise the character of their origin. The dialect itself, or the pronunciation, is sonorous, soft, harmonious, and delightful: in a word, the Greek is the language of a polite nation, that had a taste for all the arts and sciences.
(2) The Greek of the middle age. The ancient Greek ended at the time that Constantinople became the capital of the Roman empire; though there were after that time several works, and some by the fathers of the church, which were wrote in Greek, and with sufficient purity: but as theology, law, civil and military policy, the alteration of customs and manners, &c., introduced successively a great number of words that were before unknown, these novelties by degrees altered and corrupted the language. The natural elegance of the ancient Greek was no longer to be found. Those men of exalted genius, who constantly give a true beauty to a language, were no more. And what could be expected from a barbarous age, and from authors that were even below a moderate capacity?
(3.) The modern or vulgar Greek. It commenced at the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, and is the language that is now commonly spoke in Greece, without any regard to improvement. The wretched state to which the Greeks are reduced by the Turks, renders them indolent, and, by a necessary consequence, ignorant. The policy of the Ottoman Porte does not permit its subjects to apply themselves to study; and that same spirit which has destroyed the finest monuments of antiquity, which has made, of columns of porphyry and granite, balls for their cannon, has caused the decadency and total destruction of the sciences. The principal difference between the ancient and vulgar Greek consists in the terminations of their nouns, pronouns, verbs, and other parts of speech. There are also in the modern many words that are not to be found in the ancient Greek; particles that appear to be expletives, and which custom alone has introduced to distinguish certain tenses of their verbs; names of employments and dignities unknown to the ancient Grecians, and a great number of words taken from modern tongues; which altogether form a spurious language, a kind of jargon. There is a glossary of this language composed by du Cange.
(4.) The Greek of the New Testament. The Greek of the Evangelists and Apostles is very different from that of Thucydides, Xenophon, and Demosthenes. At the time of the birth of our Saviour, Greek was commonly spoken in Judea; for after the last captivity, the people no longer understood Hebrew: their Greek, however, was corrupted; mixed with a great number of Hebraisms; with words and terms that related to the worship, to the laws, policy, manners, and customs of the Jews; by which means it became a vulgar language, a provincial and rude dialect, in comparison of the ancient or literal Greek. He that understands the New Testament, will not in consequence understand Homer. It may appear surprising, that Josephus, the Jewish historian, who lived at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, about 40 years after the death of Christ, should be able to write Greek with so much purity and elegance: but he was at once a courtier, a minister, a general, and a man of letters; had studied the Greek language, and had spoken it at the court of Vespasian in Rome. For the same reason, St Paul also wrote better Greek than the Evangelists and other Apostles.
From all that has been said, it is apparent how much utility attends the study of the Greek tongue, and how much reason the English have for applying themselves to it from their early youth. There are, moreover, in modern languages, an infinity of terms in the arts and sciences, as most of those in astronomy, mathematics, physic, anatomy, botany, and the names of many machines, instruments, and other modern inventions, that are either altogether Greek, or derived from it; which renders this language in a manner indispensable to a man of real learning. We cannot, lafily, determine if modern nations pronounce the Greek language in the manner that the ancient inhabitants of Greece did; but it is very probable, that if Demothenes or Arilites were now to come upon the earth, they would be very far from understanding what our learned men should say to them in Greek.
II. The Latin is the second of those languages that are called dead. It was first spoke in Latium, afterwards at Rome; and by means of the Latin church, and of the labours of the learned, has come down to us. The Latin is not an original tongue; but is formed of the Greek, and especially of the Æolian dialect, and of many words taken from the languages of the Oscei, the Hetrurians, and several other ancient nations. nations of Italy. It has had different periods of improvement and decay, which form its different ages.
1. The first age comprehends the ancient Latin that was spoke in Latium, and cultivated at Rome from its first foundation, under the reigns of its kings, and in the first ages of its republic. At the beginning, the Latin tongue was, so to say, inclosed within the walls of Rome; for the Romans did not commonly permit the use of it to their neighbours, or the people they conquered; but when they came to perceive how necessary it was for facilitating their commerce, that the Latin tongue should be spoken everywhere, and that all nations in subjection to their empire should be united by one common language, they then obliged those they conquered to adopt their language. It is easy to conceive what must have been the original language of a set of freebooters, without manners, and without arts or sciences; this jargon must before have been necessarily mixed with the language of the Sabines, from whom they stole their wives, and with those of several other foreign nations whom they had conquered, or who were incorporated with their republic. But in proportion as the Romans became polished, their language became refined. There are but very few works of the first age now remaining; among which are reckoned those of Ennius, &c.
2. The second age of the Latin language began about the time of Cæsar, and ended with Tiberius. This is what is called the Augustan age, which was perhaps of all others the most brilliant. A period at which it should seem as if the greatest men, and the immortal authors, had met together upon the earth, in order to write the Latin language in its utmost purity and perfection. This age, and the language of this age, are so well known, and we have so great a number of works produced at this period, as makes it unnecessary for us to say anything further of it here.
3. The third age begins with the reign of Tiberius. Seneca seems to have contributed not a little to have deprived the Latin language of its energy and dignity, and to have substituted the little tricks of style in its stead, and sometimes those childish expressions which the Italians call concetti. Even Tacitus appears not to have been quite free from these faults; for his concise and sententious style is not that of the golden age; nor likewise is that of the poet Lucian.
4. The fourth age of the Latin tongue is that of the remainder of the middle age, and the first centuries of modern times; during which this language fell by degrees into so great a decadency, that it became nothing better than a barbarous jargon. It is to the style of these times that is given the name of low Latin; and in fact it was so corrupted, altered, and mixed with foreign expressions, that M. du Cange has formed a voluminous glossary, which contains those words and phrases only that are used in the Low Latin, and which we should not be able to understand without such helps. What indeed could be expected from this language, at a time when the barbarians had taken possession of all Europe, but especially of Italy; when the empire of the East was governed by idiots; when there was a total corruption of morals; when the arts and sciences were in a manner annihilated; when the priests and monks were the only men of letters, and were at the same time the most ignorant and futile mortals in the world. Under these times of darkness, we must therefore rank that Latin which is called lingua ecclesiastica, and which we cannot read without disgust.
5. The fifth and last age of the Latin tongue is that which began with the 16th century, and was that of Leo X. Charles V. Francis I. Henry VIII. of England, &c. A happy period, and ever memorable for the restoration of letters, of arts and sciences, of manners, and of the powers of the human mind, which till then seemed to have remained in a perpetual stupor. It is necessary to remember here, that the art of printing was not invented till about the year 1441; and that the manuscripts of the ancient Greek and Latin authors were become extremely scarce, and highly valuable; so that but few private persons were able to procure them, and to study the Latin of the Augustan age. But since that time we have had many Latin works, as well in verse as prose, in a style that we cannot sufficiently admire, and which, though not altogether so pure and elegant as those of the golden age, yet are not much inferior.
There are, however, in the Latin, and in all dead languages, two great inconveniences which continually attend them with regard to modern ages. The first consists in the pronunciation. As to what concerns the Latin, each nation pronounces it after the manner of its own language, and each of them imagines their pronunciation to be the best. It may be proved, however, by many arguments, that no man now upon earth pronounces Latin in the same manner as did Horace and Cicero. The second inconvenience is the deficiency of the Latin language with regard to us, as it has not terms whereby to express those inventions and discoveries of every kind that have been made since the existence of the Roman empire. There are no Latin words for any of the furniture that surrounds us, for three-fourths of the dishes that come upon our tables, for the dress we wear, for our instruments of war and navigation, for civil and military employments, and, in a word, for all our daily occupations. It is droll enough to hear our authors call a cannon bombardia; a peruke, capitamentum; and a button of our cloaths, globulus, &c. Whoever shall doubt the propriety of this observation, need only read the essays that some able Latinists have made in our days to write gazettes in that language, and they will there see the pains those writers have taken, and the ill success they have had. We shall say no more of a language which every scholar learns from his infancy, which is taught over all Europe in schools and colleges, and of which there are grammars, dictionaries, and other instructive books without number.
Sect. IV. Modern Languages.
If we call all the different dialects of the various nations that now inhabit the known earth, languages, the number is truly great; and vain would be his ambition who should attempt to learn them, though but imperfectly. We will begin with naming the principal of them: There are three which may be called original, or mother-languages, and which seem to have given birth to all that are now spoken in Europe. These are the Latin, German, and Slavonian. From Modern Languages
Sect. IV.
Modern the Latin are derived the languages of all those nations which inhabit the southern and most western countries of this part of the world. From the German, all those of the nations that inhabit the centre and the northern regions; and from the Slavonian, all the languages of the people who dwell in the most eastern part of Europe. The Slavonian is extended even to Asia, and is spoken from the Adriatic sea to the northern ocean, and almost from the Caspian sea to Saxony. But it must not be imagined from the term original, which is given to these languages, that they have come down to us from the confusion at Babel without any alteration. No; we have already shown, in the preceding section, of what languages the Latin was formed. With regard to the German, it may be very justly supposed to have been the ancient language of the inhabitants of Germany, as the names of their divinities and heroes (Mann, Erta, Hermann, &c. appellative names; which still signify "man, earth, chief of an army," &c.) seem to confirm that opinion. But it is indubitable, that the ancient German has been mixed and corrupted by the languages of those northern nations which in the fourth century deluged Europe; and who, when they penetrated Italy and Africa, did not merely pass through Germany as an army that marches in regular order, but remained there a considerable time, and mixed with the natives of the country. All these Scythian or Celtic people acquired likewise in Germany the name of Allamand, or "Germans;" some were called Goths, that is, "good;" others Quader, or "bad;" others Huns, or "dogs;" others Normans, or "men from the north;" and so of the rest. And those nations were from that time known and distinguished by these denominations.
I. With regard to the Slavonian, it is supposed to be in part the ancient language of the Celts or Scythians, mixed with some particular dialects of different eastern nations. But be that as it may, these three languages appear to have produced the following modern tongues:
From the Latin came, 1. The Portuguese. 2. Spanish. 3. French. 4. Italian.
From the German or Allamand, 5. The modern German; which so little resembles the ancient, that it is with difficulty we read the authors of the 14th century. 6. The low Saxon or low German. 7. The Dutch. 8. The English; in which almost all the noun-substantives are German, and many of the verbs French, Latin, &c. and which is enriched with the spoils of all other languages. 9. The Danish. 10. The Norwegian. 11. Swedish. 12. Dalecarlian. 13. Laplandish.
From the Slavonian, 14. The Polonese, with a mixture of the ancient Sarmatian. 15. The Lithuanian. 16. Bohemian. 17. Hungarian. 18. Transylvanian. 19. Moravian. 20. The modern Vandalian, as it is still spoken in Lusatia, Prussian Vandalia, &c. 21. The Croatian. 22. The Russian or Muscovite. 23. The language of the Calmacs and Cossacks. 24. Thirty-two different dialects of nations who inhabit the north-eastern parts of Europe and Asia, and who are descended from the Tartars and Huno-Scythians. There are polyglott tables which contain not only the alphabets, but also the principal distinctive characters of all these languages.
To all these may be added, 25. The modern Greek, or that which is now spoken in Greece. 26. The modern Hebrew, or vulgar language of the Jews, which is also called the German Hebrew, &c. And, 27. The jargon that is called Lingua Franca.
II. The common languages of Asia are, 28. The Turkish and Tartarian, with their different dialects. 29. The Persian. 30. The Georgian or Iberian. 31. The Colchic or Mingralian. 32. The Albanian or Circassian. 33. The Armenian. 34. The language of the Jews in Persia, Media, and Babylon. 35. The modern Indian. 36. The Formosian. 37. The Indostanic. 38. The Malabarian. 39. The Warungian. 40. The Talmulic or Damulic. 41. The modern Arabic. 42. The Tangutian. 43. The Mungalic. 44. The language of Balabandu, and the Nigarian or Akar Nigarian. 45. The Gruñnic or Grusinian. 46. The Chinese. 47. The Japoneze.
These languages are spoke by the Greek Christians in Asia, under the patriarch of Constantinople.
The Danish missionaries who go to Tranquebar, print books at Hall in these languages.
We have enumerated here those Asiatic languages only of which we have some knowledge in Europe, and even alphabets, grammars, or other books that can give us information concerning them. There are doubtless other tongues and dialects in those vast regions and adjacent islands; but of these we are not able to give any account.
III. The principal languages of Africa are, 48. The modern Egyptian. 49. The Fetuitic, or the language of the kingdom of Fétu. 50. The Moroccan; and, 51. The jargons of those savage nations who inhabit the desert and burning regions. The people on the coast of Barbary speak a kind of Turkish. To these may be added the Chillic language, otherwise called Tamazeght; the Negritan, and that of Guinea. IV. The languages of the American nations are but little known in Europe. Every one of these, tho' distant but a few days journey from each other, have their particular language or rather jargon. The languages of the Mexicans and Peruvians seem to be the most regular and polished. There is also one called Poconchi or Pocomana, that is used in the bay of Honduras and toward Guntilal, the words and rules of which are most known to us. The languages of North America are in general the Algonhie, Appalachian, Mohogic, Savanahamic, Virginie, and Mexican; and in South America, the Peruvian, Carabaic, the language of Chili, the Cairic, the Tucumanian, and the languages used in Paraguay, Brazil, and Guiana.
V. We have already said, that it would be a vain and senseless undertaking for a man of letters to attempt the study of all these languages, and to make his head an universal dictionary of languages; but it would be still more absurd in us to attempt the analysis of them in this place: some general reflections therefore must here suffice. Among the modern languages of Europe, the French seems to merit great attention; as it is elegant and pleasing in itself; as it is become so general, we may travel from one end of Europe to the other without scarce having any occasion for an interpreter; and as in it are to be found excellent works of every kind, both in verse and prose, useful and agreeable. There are, besides, grammars and dictionaries of this language which give us every information concerning it, and very able masters who teach it; especially such as come from those parts of France where it is spoke correctly; for with all its advantages, the French language has this inconvenience, that it is pronounced scarce anywhere purely but at Paris and on the banks of the Loire. The language of the court, of the great world, and of men of letters, is moreover very different from that of the common people; and the French tongue, in general, is subject to great alteration and novelty. What pity it is, that the style of the great Corneille, and that of Moliere, should already begin to be obsolete, and that it will be but a little time before the inimitable chefs d'oeuvres of those men of sublime genius will be no longer seen on the stage! The most modern style of the French, moreover, does not seem to be the best. We are inclined to think, that too much concision, the epigrammatic point, the antithesis, the paradox, the sententious expression, &c. diminish its force; and that by becoming more polished and refined, it loses much of its energy.
VI. The German and Italian languages merit like-