תמונות בעמוד

tive cases, and whether these syllables had originally any distinct meaning by themselves ? On these points, however, Mr. Dunbar is totally silent, nor does he even take into consideration the great probability that, in the formation of language, the noun must have been invented long before the pronoun, and that in the interval some means would undoubtedly have been discovered for indicating the particular relation, that the noun bore to the words with which, in a sentence, it was placed in construction. The only difficulties, therefore, which required solution were what those means might be, which were adopted for this purpose by different people ; and, as the inflexions of nouns used by the Greeks and Romans, are well known, what was originally the real nature of these inflexions? But, if Mr. Dunbar has “by long and laborious inquiry obtained some fixed principles, which appear to pervade all languages, and applied these to the structure in particular, of the Greek and Latin”-he has unaccountably omitted to insert these speculations in the present work.

Of the manner, also, in which the tenses of the verb, in its different moods, were formed, Mr. Dunbar's opinion is equally singular; for he remarks, in p. 146—“ My own opinion is, that the word constituting, according to the language of Horne Tooke, the differential circumstance added to the definition of a noun, or what in reality constitutes the verb, is no other than the verb of motion in different forms. The Greek verbs ew and all appear to have been originally the same, and the primary idea affixed to them to have been motion, self-motion ; and that from this primary idea was inferred the notion of existence : for I imagine it may be considered as an undoubted fact, that existence, as well as several other qualities in bodies, can only be inferred from motion. By degrees the two ideas came to be separated ; and the same verb was used in one of its forms to denote motion, and in the other vitality or existence, as indicated by motion, although, in several instances, after the distinction was made, they were convertible”-and in p. 304: “ It may now probably be asked how it was likely that a verb indicating motion, would be formed at so early period of the language, as must be supposed from its combination with other words to denote action ? " I answer that it is apparent from all experience, that the motion of bodies would be among the first things to attract the notice even of the most careless and ignorant savage.” As usual, however, this is not the question, but how the savage happened to be so good a metaphysician, as to infer existence from motion, and hence to employ the same verb to express these two ideas, and in consequence to form it by the different tenses of other verbs. But, as in the case of the inflexions of nouns, the conjecture that the tenses of verbs have been formed by adding to the root the tenses of the verb of motion explains nothing; for it still remains to account for the manner, in which the tenses of this verb were themselves originally invented. In all languages, also, which have an affinity with the Greek, the verb of motion is both defective and irregular, and what conclusions, therefore, can with any justice be deduced from it with respect to the primitive process, by which the numerous tenses of the Greek verb were first formed ?

FROM these remarks it will perhaps appear, that Mr. Dunbar has entirely overlooked the question proposed in the first sentence of his preface, in which he very justly observes—“ It has long been a subject of discussion among philologists, and also among philosophers, who made the theory of language their study, how to account for the cases of nouns and the terminations of verbs.”—For were it admitted that the pronouns, not only of the Greek and Latin languages, but also of the Teutonic, were employed to form their cases,” and that the tenses of verbs were formed by adding to the root the tenses of the verb of motion ; still the question would recur in what manner were the cases of the pronouns and the tenses of the verb of motion themselves originally formed ? Considering these to be the simplest forms in which the cases and tenses appear in Greek and Latin, no progress whatever is made in ascertaining the reasons, which induced the Greeks and Romans to employ for these inflexions one termination in preference to another; or the process of thinking, by which they were led to modify so variously the meaning of the primitive word by the mere change, or addition of one or more syllables.

JUDGING, therefore, from this work, it appears too evident, that Mr. Dunbar's acquaintance with philology is much too limited, and his notions with respect to the formation of language much too vague and indeterminate, to admit of his forming any correct opinion with respect to the originality or derivative nature of any particular language. But notwithstanding these defects, and his ignorance of the Sanscrit language, Mr. Dunbar observes in his preface_“The disquisition in the Appendix, respecting the derivation of Sanscrit from the Greek, may appear to some, under the influence of ancient prejudices, to rest too little on historical evidence, and too much on verbal analysis. But where, I would ask, is the evidence to be found to establish the superior antiquity of the Sanscrit over the Greek ? The opinion of those, who give the preference to the Sanscrit, rests, in a great measure, upon the absurd claims of the Brahmins, and upon no authentic documents whatever. In such a state of doubt and uncertainty, the dispute, I imagine, must be decided, if it ever can be decided, by a comparison of the structure of the two languages, and an inquiry into the origin of their respective terminations. These appear to me to be all in favor of the Greek, and go far, with other circumstances enumerated in the Appendix, to determine the question.”--But in discussing this subject, Mr. Dunbar falls into the same mistake, which pervades the rest of his work. For, instead of adducing any new arguments, to eyince that Sanscrit was derived from Greek, he merely points out the striking similarity, that exists between a number of Greek and Sanscrit inflexions; and for an explanation of the cause, which produced this similarity, contents himself with adopting the absurd conjecture of Mr. Dugald Stewart, that the Brahmins formed their sacred language from the Greek, a knowledge of which had been diffused in India by the Greeks of Bactria.

In adopting this opinion, however, Mr. Dunbar has not adverted to the simple circumstance, that India comprises an extent of twelve hundred thousand square miles, and contains upwards of one hundred millions of inhabitants, and that, consequently, before such an hypothesis could assume even a plausible appearance,

it was indispensable to prove, that the e eks possessed so large a portion of this extensive country, as would have afforded them an opportunity of diffusing a knowledge of their language amongst its inhabitants. But on this point M. de St. Croix remarks—« J'ai dit que la province des Parapomisades etoit bornée a l'Est par le fleuve Cophes, qui la separoit de l'Inde. Depuis ce fleuve jusqu 'a l’Indus, tout le pays etait habité par plusieurs peuples, qui au rapport d'Arrien, avoient d'abord été soumis aux Assyriens, ensuite avoient payé tribut a Cyrus, et se trouvoient peut etre dans une certaine dependance a l'egard de Darius, puisqu'ils envoyérent des troupes à la bataille d'Arbeles; mais il ne parait neanmoins qu'ils fussent des provinces de l'empire de Perse, lorsqu' Alexandre entra dans leur pays. Ils se defendirent meme long-temps contre ce conquerant, qui enfin les subjugua; et placa chez euz des colonies, dont la memoire, suivant plusieurs auteurs orientaux, se conserve encore dans la contrée. Alexandre fit de tout ce pays un gouvernment, auquel Arrien donne le nom d'Inde, ou Indiens en deça de l'Indus, et que j'ai rendu, dans ma carte par celui d'Indiensciterieurs: le gouvernment, fut confié au satrape des Parapomisades, comme en etant voisin.”

" De toute la partie au dela de l'Indus, qui etoit composée d'ungrand nombre d'états particuliers, Alexandre fit une satrapic particuliere, que j'ai appelée des Indiens-ulterieurs. Cette satrapic finissoit a peu prés a l'embouchure de l'Acesines dans l'Indus, et il la confia a Porus, avec le titre de roi, en mettant aupres de lui Philippe fils de Machate, comme commandant des troupes. Dans la suite, ayant appris, que Philippe avoit ete assassiné par les troupes etrangeres, il nomma provisoirement, pour avoir soin de la contrée Taxile et Eudeme, quien conserverent le gouvernment apres sa mort,"

“ Toute la partie meridionale de l'Indus, qui etoit egalement composée de plusieurs etats particulars, et que j'ai appelée Indemaritime, forma une autre satrapie, qui fut confieé a Python fils d'Agenor, et surlaquelle Alexandre donna encore a son beau-pere Oxyarte, un leger droit de surveillance. Cette satrapie comprenoit toutes les côtes de l'Inde, et j'ai lieu de croire qu'elle renfermoit encore le pays des Arabites."

[ocr errors]

From this account, which is fully supported by references to ancient authors, it will be obvious, that the conquests of Alexander in India were of the most transient nature ; and that when he withdrew his troops, after their mutiny on the banks of the Hyphasis, the government of the country immediately reverted to its native princes; who may have professed a nominal subjection to Alexander, and his immediate successor Seleucus Nicator. The authority, therefore, on which Mr. Stewart makes the following remarks, as he has not thought proper to quote it, seems more than questionable" The measures, however, which he (Alexander) had taken for the security of his conquests, had been so well concerted, that India quietly submitted to Pytho, the son of Agenor, and afterwards to Seleucus, who successively obtained dominion over that part of Asia. During the reign of Seleucus, which terminated forty-two years after Alexander's death, the Macedonian power and possessions in India remained unimpaired.”+ Mr. Stewart might as well have reconciled the contradiction, which appears in this paragraph, between the general expression of India, and the subsequent one of possessions in India. But he himself adds" After the death of Seleucus, the Syrian monarchs seem to have lost their Indian possessions. But the Greeks continued to maintain an intercourse with India, and even to extend their dominions in that quarter—[in the preceding sentenee these dominions are said to have been lost !] This intercourse was carried on from the kingdom of Bactriana, originally subject to Seleucus, but wrested from his son or grandson about sixty nine years after the death of Alexander, and erected into an independent state. From the very imperfect gleanings, which we are able to collect from ancient authors, we learn that the commerce of Bactriana with India was great : that they (who?) penetrated far into the interior; and that the conquests of its kings in that country were more extensive, than those of Alexander himself."

The assertion, however, in this passage, that the Greeks continued to maintain an intercourse with India, rests on no ground whatever; for there is not the slightest indication in ancient authors, that the Greeks ever maintained any intercourse with India. But if Mr. Stewart merely intended to apply the name of Greeks to the subjects of the Bactrian kings, he ought in the first place to have proved, that the inhabitants of Bactria sixty-nine years after Alexander's death were actually Greeks. of this, however,

Examen Critique des Historiens d'Alexandre, p. 846.
+ Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind, Vol. III. p. 107.


there is not a shadow of proof, and on the contrary, Arrian, the only ancient author who mentions the circumstance, distinctly states Εκ Βακτρων δε εζηκοντος του ηρος, αναλαβων [Αλεξανδρος] την κρατιαν προυχωρει ως επι Ινδους, Αμυνταν απολιπων εν τη χωρα των Βακτριων, και ουν αυτω ιππεας μεν τρισχιλιους και πεντακοσιους, mesous de leuplous. In the beginning of spring Alexander having assembled his army, proceeded from Bactria to India, leaving in the country of the Bactrians, Amyntas, with 3,500 horse and 10,000 foot."* But he does not say that this detachment consisted of Greeks; and it is highly improbable that Alexander would have weakened his small army, when undertaking the conquest of India, by leaving behind him so large a body of his Macedonian and Grecian troops. There is, consequently, no evidence that a Grecian colony was ever established in Bactria, or that Amyntas had any Greeks under his command, except perhaps a few officers and a small bodyguard. Lieutenant-Colonel Kennedy, also, has remarked – The next event of any consequence connected with Persia, which is mentioned by Diodorus, is the war, which took place between Eu. menes and Antigonus, seven or eight years after the death of Alexander. This contest was decided in favor of Antigonus by a battle fought in Fars between two armies, the one consisting of 42,000, and the other of 33,000 men. But what requires particular remark is the troops, of which the army of Eumenes was composed. Diodorus mentions that Peucestas, who had long governed Persia, and had endeared himself to the people by adopting their dress, led 20,000 Persian archers and slingers, 3000 men of other tribes, armed and disciplined in the Macedonian manner, and only six hundred Greek and Thracian horse. He does not particularize, whether the troops of the other governors were natives or Greeks; but it may be justly inferred, that, if so distinguished a character as Peucestas, who was so much more conveniently situated for receiving men from Greece, had only a small body-guard of Europeans, the other governors, who were more remotely situated, were not likely to have a greater number of Greeks under their command.”+

But such objections as these have never occurred to Mr. Dunbar, for he observes ; “I have been the more particular in these observations respecting the augment of verbs, because upon them (it ?) I found a principal argument, that the Sanscrit was borrowed from the Greek, and not the Greek from the Sanscrit.” If the Sanscrit language was, in its terminations, actually founded upon the Greek, it must have been chiefly upon the Doric dialect; because, by far the greater part of Alexander's army, and, of course, the followers of his camp, spoke that dialect, with a

Expeditio Alexandri, Lib. IV. cap. 22. + Transactions of the Bombay Literary Society, Vol. III. p. 12.

« הקודםהמשך »