darwin and modern science-第158节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


；　places；　and　common　objects　was　then；　as　it　has　always　been　since；　a　matter　of　interest　to　mankind。　　And　in　every　age　the　common　man　has　regarded　himself　as　competent　without　special　training　to　explain　by　inspection　（if　one　may　use　a　mathematical　phrase）　the　meaning　of　any　words　that　attracted　his　attention。　　Out　of　this　amateur　etymologising　has　sprung　a　great　amount　of　false　history；　a　kind　of　historical　mythology　invented　to　explain　familiar　names。　　A　single　example　will　illustrate　the　tendency。　　According　to　the　local　legend　the　ancestor　of　the　Earl　of　Errolla　husbandman　who　stayed　the　flight　of　his　countrymen　in　the　battle　of　Luncarty　and　won　the　victory　over　the　Danes　by　the　help　of　the　yoke　of　his　oxenexhausted　with　the　fray　uttered　the　exclamation　〃Hoch　heigh！〃　　The　grateful　king　about　to　ennoble　the　victorious　ploughman　at　once　replied：

〃Hoch　heigh！　said　ye　And　Hay　shall　ye　be。〃

The　Norman　origin　of　the　name　Hay　is　well…known；　and　the　battle　of　Luncarty　long　preceded　the　appearance　of　Normans　in　Scotland；　but　the　legend　nevertheless　persists。

Though　the　earliest　European　treatise　on　philological　questions　which　is　now　extantthe　〃Cratylus〃　of　Plato；as　might　be　expected　from　its　authorship；　contains　some　acute　thinking　and　some　shrewd　guesses；　yet　the　work　as　a　whole　is　infantine　in　its　handling　of　language；　and　it　has　been　doubted　whether　Plato　was　more　than　half　serious　in　some　of　the　suggestions　which　he　puts　forward。　　（For　an　account　of　the　〃Cratylus〃　with　references　to　other　literature　see　Sandys'　〃History　of　Classical　Scholarship〃；　I。　page　92　ff。；　Cambridge；　1903。）　　In　the　hands　of　the　Romans　things　were　worse　even　than　they　had　been　in　the　hands　of　Plato　and　his　Greek　successors。　　The　lack　of　success　on　the　part　of　Varro　and　later　Roman　writers　may　have　been　partly　due　to　the　fact　that；　from　the　etymological　point　of　view；　Latin　is　a　much　more　difficult　language　than　Greek；　it　is　by　no　means　so　closely　connected　with　Greek　as　the　ancients　imagined；　and　they　had　no　knowledge　of　the　Celtic　languages　from　which；　on　some　sides　at　least；　much　greater　light　on　the　history　of　the　Latin　language　might　have　been　obtained。　　Roman　civilisation　was　a　late　development　compared　with　Greek；　and　its　records　dating　earlier　than　300　B。C。a　period　when　the　best　of　Greek　literature　was　already　in　existenceare　very　few　and　scanty。　　Varro　it　is　true　was　much　more　of　an　antiquary　than　Plato；　but　his　extant　works　seem　to　show　that　he　was　rather　a　〃dungeon　of　learning〃　than　an　original　thinker。

A　scientific　knowledge　of　language　can　be　obtained　only　by　comparison　of　different　languages　of　the　same　family　and　the　contrasting　of　their　characteristics　with　those　of　another　family　or　other　families。　　It　never　occurred　to　the　Greeks　that　any　foreign　language　was　worthy　of　serious　study。　　Herodotus　and　other　travellers　and　antiquaries　indeed　picked　up　individual　words　from　various　languages；　either　as　being　necessary　in　communication　with　the　inhabitants　of　the　countries　where　they　sojourned；　or　because　of　some　point　which　interested　them　personally。　　Plato　and　others　noticed　the　similarity　of　some　Phrygian　words　to　Greek；　but　no　systematic　comparison　seems　ever　to　have　been　instituted。

In　the　Middle　Ages　the　treatment　of　language　was　in　a　sense　more　historical。　　The　Middle　Ages　started　with　the　hypothesis；　derived　from　the　book　of　Genesis；　that　in　the　early　world　all　men　were　of　one　language　and　of　one　speech。　　Though　on　the　same　authority　they　believed　that　the　plain　of　Shinar　has　seen　that　confusion　of　tongues　whence　sprang　all　the　languages　upon　earth；　they　seem　to　have　considered　that　the　words　of　each　separate　language　were　nevertheless　derived　from　this　original　tongue。　　And　as　Hebrew　was　the　language　of　the　Chosen　People；　it　was　naturally　assumed　that　this　original　tongue　was　Hebrew。　　Hence　we　find　Dante　declaring　in　his　treatise　on　the　Vulgar　Tongue　（Dante　〃de　Vulgari　Eloquio〃；　I。　4。）　that　the　first　word　man　uttered　in　Paradise　must　have　been　〃El；〃　the　Hebrew　name　of　his　Maker；　while　as　a　result　of　the　fall　of　Adam；　the　first　utterance　of　every　child　now　born　into　this　world　of　sin　and　misery　is　〃heu；〃　Alas！　　After　the　splendidly　engraved　bronze　plates　containing；　as　we　now　know；　ritual　regulations　for　certain　cults；　were　discovered　in　1444　at　the　town　of　Gubbio；　in　Umbria；　they　were　declared；　by　some　authorities；　to　be　written　in　excellent　Hebrew。　　The　study　of　them　has　been　the　fascination　and　the　despair　of　many　a　philologist。　　Thanks　to　the　devoted　labours　of　numerous　scholars；　mainly　in　the　last　sixty　years；　the　general　drift　of　these　inscriptions　is　now　known。　　They　are　the　only　important　records　of　the　ancient　Umbrian　language；　which　was　related　closely　to　that　of　the　Samnites　and；　though　not　so　closely；　to　that　of　the　Romans　on　the　other　side　of　the　Apennines。　　Yet　less　than　twenty　years　ago　a　book　was　published　in　Germany；　which　boasts　itself　the　home　of　Comparative　Philology；　wherein　the　German　origin　of　the　Umbrian　language　was　no　less　solemnly　demonstrated　than　had　been　its　Celtic　origin　by　Sir　William　Betham　in　1842。

It　is　good　that　the　study　of　language　should　be　historical；　but　the　first　requisite　is　that　the　history　should　be　sound。　　How　little　had　been　learnt　of　the　true　history　of　language　a　century　ago　may　be　seen　from　a　little　book　by　Stephen　Weston　first　published　in　1802　and　several　times　reprinted；　where　accidental　assonance　is　considered　sufficient　to　establish　connection。　　Is　there　not　a　word　〃bad〃　in　English　and　a　word　〃bad〃　in　Persian　which　mean　the　same　thing？　　Clearly　therefore　Persian　and　English　must　be　connected。　　The　conclusion　is　true；　but　it　is　drawn　from　erroneous　premises。　　As　stated；　this　identity　has　no　more　value　than　the　similar　assonance　between　the　English　〃cover〃　and　the　Hebrew　〃kophar〃；　where　the　history　of　〃cover〃　as　coming　through　French　from　a　Latin　〃co…operire〃　was　even　in　1802　well…known　to　many。　　To　this　day；　in　spite　of　recent　elaborate　attempts　（Most　recently　in　H。　Moller's　〃Semitisch　und　Indogermanisch〃；　Erster　Teil；　Kopenhagen；　1907。）　to　establish　connection　between　the　Indo…　Germanic　and　the　Semitic　families　of　languages；　there　is　no　satisfactory　evidence　of　such　relation　between　these　families。　　This　is　not　to　deny　the　possibility　of　such　a　connection　at　a　very　early　period；　it　is　merely　to　say　that　through　the　lapse　of　long　ages　all　trustworthy　record　of　such　relationship；　if　it　ever　existed；　has　been；　so　far　as　present　knowledge　extends；　obliterated。

But　while　Stephen　Weston　was　publishing；　with　much　public　approval；　his　collection　of　amusing　similarities　between　languagessimilarities　which　proved　nothingthe　key　to　the　historical　study　of　at　least　one　family　of　languages　had　already　been　found　by　a　learned　Englishman　in　a　distant　land。　　In　1783　Sir　William　Jones　had　been　sent　out　as　a　judge　in　the　supreme　court　of　judicature　in　Bengal。　　While　still　a　young　man　at　Oxford　he　was　noted　as　a　linguist；　his　reputation　as　a　Persian　scholar　had　preceded　him　to　the　East。　　In　the　intervals　of　his　professional　duties　he　made　a　careful　study　of　the　language　which　was　held　sacred　by　the　natives　of　the　country　in　which　he　was　living。　　He　was　mainly　instrumental　in　establishing　a　society　for　the　investigation　of　language　and　related　subjects。　　He　was　himself　the　first　president　of　the　society；　and　in　the　〃third　anniversary　discourse〃　delivered　on　February　2；　1786；　he　made　the　following　observations：　　〃The　Sanscrit　language；　whatever　be　its　antiquity；　is　of　a　wonderful　structure；　more　perfect　than　the　GREEK；　more　copious　than　the　LATIN；　and　more　exquisitely　refined　than　either；　yet　bearing　to　both　of　them　a　stronger　affinity；　both　in　the　roots　of　verbs　and　in　the　forms　of　grammar；　than　could　possibly　have　been　produced　by　accident；　so　strong　indeed；　that　no　philologer　could　examine　them　all　three；　without　believing　them　to　have　sprung　from　some　common　source；　which；　perhaps；　no　longer　exists：　　there　is　a　similar　reason；　though　not　quite　so　forcible；　for　supposing　that　both　the　Gothick　and　the　Celtick；　though　blended　with　a　very　different　idiom；　had　the　same　origin　with　the　Sanscrit；　and　the　old　Persian　might　be　added　to　the　same　family；　if　this　was　the　place　for　discussing　any　question　concerning　the　antiquities　of　Persia。〃　　（〃Asiatic　Researches〃；　I。　page　422；　〃Works　of　Sir　W。　Jones〃；　I。　page　26；　London；　1799。）

No　such　epoch…making　discovery　was　probably　ever　announced　with　less　flourish　of　trumpets。　　Though　Sir　William　Jones　lived　for　eight　years　more　and　delivered　other　anniversary　discourses；　he　added　nothing　of　importance　to　this　utterance。　　He　had　neither　the　time　nor　the　health　that　was　needed　for　the　prosecution　of　so　arduous　an　undertaking。

But　the　good　seed　did　not　fall　upon　stony　ground。　　The　news　was　speedily　conveyed　to　Europe。　　By　a　happy　chance；　the　sudden　renewal　of　war　between　France　and　England　in　1803　gave　Friedrich　Schlegel　the　opportunity　of　learning　Sanscrit　from　Alexander　Hamilton；　an　Englishman　who；　like　many　others；　was　confined　in　Paris　during　the　long　struggle　with　Napoleon。　　The　influence　of　Schlegel　was　not　altogether　for　good　in　the　history　of　this　research；　but　he　was　inspiring。　　Not　upon　him　but　upon　Franz　Bopp；　a　struggling　German　student　who　sp