to our linguistic branch was not established, — I refer to the Malay-Polynesian. I think it is now universally acknowledged by philologists that these languages have nothing in common with the Sanskritic languages, but Bopp was under the impression that they stood in a daughterly relation to the Sanskrit, and attempted to establish this relationship in the same way as he had that of the Indo-European languages in his Comparative Grammar, so far, that is, as was permitted by the character of these tongues, which "have undergone a total dissolution of their original structure". Here, also, he formed no tables of phonetic correspondence, but compared words which seemed to him identical (e. g. numbers), and tried to account for the phonetic changes in each separate instance. His method was naturally more arbitrary here, where he had to work with an entirely antagonistic material, than within the Indo-European domain. As an example, I will take the word po, which has the meaning "night". BOPP says in regard to it (Ueber die Verwandtschaft der malayisch-polynesischen Sprachen mit den indisch-europäischen, Abh. der Berl. Akad., 1840, page 172):

"The usual appellation of 'night' in the South Sea languages, i. e. in the New Zealand, Tahiti and Hawaian tongues, is po, which, echo-like, reproduces only the last syllable of the Sanskrit kṣapas, kṣapo."

Now there is another word bo "day", which, as he says on page 218, might have been derived from the Sanskrit divas, divo. "But if", BOPP continues, "there should prove to be a connection between the Tongan bo and the above-mentioned po, which in the South Sea languages signifies 'night', we should be obliged to give up connecting this po with the Sanskrit kṣapas, and to assume that this po has lost an epithet which in the Tongan language changes 'day' to 'night', and characterizes the latter as 'black' or 'dark day'."

After what I have said of BOPP's relation to phonetics, it is not necessary to occupy ourselves any further with such vagaries, as it will be clear from the preceding that the failure of this undertaking in the field of the Malay-Polynesian does not manifest a constitutional blemish in linguistic

science as a whole, but simply a lack in Bopp's method, which was subsequently supplied.

Yet it was very natural that BOPP's ideas concerning phonetic change and phonetic laws should be rather latitudinarian. BOPP was no natural philosopher, but a philologist, who was occupied with grammars his whole life long. To a natural philosopher, it is true, the idea that a law can have exceptions at will is ridiculous or repugnant; but this view was quite common in philological theory and practice. In all grammars the mass of "irregular" words was at least as great as that of the "regular" ones, and a rule without exceptions actually excited suspicion. Such traditional opinions, indeed, only die out in the course of generations.

What Bopp achieved, as already remarked, was the establishment of an independent theory concerning the origin of inflection, and the scientific demonstration of the original community of the Indo-European languages.

Now that we have introduced the reader to BOPP's labors in both fields, we are able to declare briefly and comprehensively what mental peculiarity is especially prominent in the writings of this great scholar.

When we hear that a single individual has treated comparatively the Sanskrit, Old Persian, Zend, Armenian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, Slavonic and Germanic languages, and has even passed on beyond this immense field to the languages of the South Sea, we are easily inclined to ascribe to him an unusual, nay, an extraordinary amount of learning. But on a nearer examination we readily see that learning is not really a quality which is especially characteristic of BOPP. He certainly learned a great deal in the course of an industrious life, but he was not one of the men whose learning appals us, as is the case with A. W. v. SCHLEGEL. He possessed (from a philological point of view) but scanty knowledge of many languages in the elucidation of which he acquired immortal honor, as for example the Slavonic and Celtic; and with regard to

certain traditional details, as for instance the rules of Latin grammar, he was occasionally more indifferent than could be desired. For example, he had no objection to giving his Sanskrit dictionary the title: "Glossarium sanscritum a Franzisco Bopp", and preferred to construe postquam with the pluperfect! Whatever did not seem to him to contribute to the explanation of forms and the comprehension of the primitive condition of language was comparatively indifferent to him.

Nor is it wholly correct that BOPP, as is often asserted, invented the method of linguistic comparison. BOPP is incomparable in his power of recognizing the former unity of what has been separated, but he has introduced no methodic art which could be learned from him in turn. Indeed, his weak point lies on just this methodic side, as has been shown

above.

BOPP's greatness consists in something else, something which is independent of learning and method, namely, in what we call genius. His Comparative Grammar is based upon a series of discoveries which were not due to learning and experience, but to a gift of nature which we cannot analyze. Of course I do not mean to say that BOPP was not greatly indebted to his learning and his logical mind, but simply that a happy intuition plays a much more important part with him than with other distinguished philologists, as for instance with AUGUST SCHLEICHER.

CHAPTER II.

BOPP'S CONTEMPORARIES AND SUCCESSORS DOWN
TO AUGUST SCHLEICHER.

BOPP was independent, but not solitary in his department. At the same period WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT, AUGUST WILHELM VON SCHLEGEL and JACOB GRIMM were working in

closely adjoining fields. I will try to estimate the influence which these men exerted on the science of which BOPP was the founder.

Of WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT, BOPP never speaks without an expression of reverence. It will suffice to quote the words with which he closes the preface to the second part of the Comparative Grammar:

"As to this idea [regarding the declension of adjectives], which has already been touched upon elsewhere, I have had the happiness of learning the favorable judgment, above all precious to me, of my lamented patron W. v. HUMBOLDT, in whom philology has recently lost its fairest ornament. While still overwhelmed by grief at this severe loss, I cannot refrain from here paying the tribute of most heartfelt reverence and admiration to the renowned memory of this great man, since I have been deeply impressed by his brilliant writings in the field of philosophical and historical linguistic research, as well as by the instructive and delightful intercourse I had with him, both in person and by letter."

Yet I cannot discover that W. v. HUMBOLDT exerted any considerable influence upon BOPP. HUMBOLDT's many-sided nature, with its capacity for uniting and reconciling the most endless variety of conceptions and aspirations, was not adapt ́ed to change the current of a mind of such great and simple power as BOPP's. There is nothing more difficult than to clearly define in what the influence consists which HUMBOLDT exerted upon Indo-European linguistic research. It is not easy within this domain to point to a field where he was pioneer, to definitely name a theory which he established, to mention a mode of view which can be wholly traced to him; yet not only BOPP, but also other representatives of the science, as POTT, SCHLEICHER and CURTIUS, acknowledge themselves HUMBOLDT's grateful pupils. To the question, how HUMBOLDT influenced these men, I think we must answer: chiefly through the totality of his own being. His lofty and disinterested love of truth; his endeavor not to lose the whole from sight while considering details, nor details while considering the whole, and thus to avoid the dangers of specialism as well as those of the previous universal grammar; the just balance of his judg

ment; his broad mental culture, and his noble humanity, all these qualities have a strengthening and elevating effect upon any other scholar who approaches WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT, and this sort of influence I think HUMBOLDT will still retain for a long time to come, and will continue to exert even upon those who can make nothing of his theories.

Posterity has taken a less friendly position in relation to AUGUST WILHELM VON SCHLEGEL than toward WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT. I think it is not sufficiently known outside of philological circles that the translator of Shakespeare was also the founder of Sanskrit philology. A. W. V. SCHLEGEL was in his forty-eighth year when he began to occupy himself with Sanskrit, but his admirable industry, and a gift he had of familiarizing himself with new subjects, which had been strengthened by practice in many directions, made him in a short time master of the vast difficulties which then stood in the way of the study of Indian literature. With admiration we see how rightly he at once defined the tasks which were to be accomplished:

"If the study of Indian literature is to thrive", he says in the Indische Bibliothek, 1, page 22, "the principles of classical philology must be applied to it, and that, too, with the most scientific acuteness. It is in vain to object that the learned Brahmans possess the knowledge of their old books through unbroken transmission; that for them Sanskrit is still a living language, and that accordingly we should go to school to them alone. With the Greeks the case was the same before the destruction of Constantinople; the knowledge of a Laskaris, of a Demetrius Chalkondylas, in regard to the ancient literature of their race, was certainly of value; yet the scholars of the West did well not to confine themselves to it. However, the acquaintance with Latin literature, which had never wholly died out, gave a tolerable preparation in Europe for the reading of Greek. Here, on the contrary, we come into a completely new circle of ideas. We must learn to understand the written monuments of India both as Brahmans and as European critics. The Homeric questions of today were not more foreign to those learned Greeks than the investigations regarding the origin of the Indian religion and legislation, the