whole the Indo-European languages diverged from the more trary theory either. See Jolly, Geschichte des infinitivs, etc., pp. 271-83. We think much weight is due to Fick's observation that, if Schmidt's doctrine were consistent with truth, it would be hardly intelligible that we do not find forms of Aryan languages really intermediate between Asiatic and European Aryan. Fick, who, as we have just noticed, does not sufficiently appreciate the arguments of his opponent, denies that SlavoLithuanian and Greek can be considered as intermediate between Indo-Iranic and Teutonic, Italic, Keltic, observing further that not only Lithu-Slavonic and Hellenic possess in no less measure than any other Aryan language of Europe words belonging to the fundamental European Aryan, but also the development of the sounds and e is greater in Slavonic and Greek than in the other languages of the European section, of which we have seen that, according to Fick, such development is a characteristic of great importance. He therefore proceeds to investigate whether other languages can be found which closely unite the Aryan of Asia with the European. Such languages would seem, for geographical reasons, to be necessarily presented to us towards the north by Scythians and Sauromatians, towards the south by Phrygians and Thracians. But, as far as we know, the first spoke a language purely Iranic, the second Europeans even in their languages. To this observation Schmidt replies that the last word has not yet been spoken on such languages, nor were has the possibility been excluded that other languages, which have disappeared without leaving traces of themselves, stood, as Fick insists, between the Asiatic Aryan and the European. Not only in the sphere of languages, we add, but in the whole world how many intermediate species have not been lost! It is well to observe meanwhile that Schmidt's doctrine has just been confirmed by Hübschmann's studies in Armenian (Über die stellung des armenischen im kreise der indo-germanischen sprachen, in the Zeitschr. f. vgl. sprachforsch., xxiii. 5-49). The phonological and morphological analysis of Armenian induced Hübschmann to conclude that it stands intermediate between Iranic and Slavo-Lithuanian. The attempt has been made to oppose to Schmidt's theory also historical arguments, against which he defended it with the observation that "history in no place shows an unforeseen and permanent severance of continuity between the various parts of one and the same people which previously had always had a single language, but, on the contrary, everywhere constantly increasing differentiations ("differenzierungen") of dialects within the limits of a language the continuity of which remains in no way interrupted." If there were really severances, we are bound to believe these to have been preceded by dialectic distinctions: that appears, according to our author, from the history of the Teutonic, the Lithuanian, the Indo-Iranic languages, the Greek dialects and the Neo-Latin languages. primitive type in proportion to their distance from the east: two Aryan languages bordering upon one another have 184 always some feature common to them alone. There were not at first well defined boundaries between language and language in the field of the Aryan languages: two forms of the primitive Indo-European, however great was the interval between them, were united by intermediate forms without interruption. Later this complete continuity was destroyed by the mastery which, for reasons of various nature, not unfrequently one Aryan dialect gained over other cognate dialects which became lost. From what we have said it is plainly evident that Schmidt's doctrine of the relations between the Aryan languages has not, like that of Schleicher, Lottner and Fick, a genealogical, but in fact a geographical character: its symbol cannot be a tree representing the supposed successive divisions of the Indo-European stock, but rather a "wave which spreads in concentric circles ever thinner in proportion to their distance from the centre," or even "an oblique plane inclined from Sanscrit to Keltic in an uninterrupted line."1 Such is J. Schmidt's doctrine with regard to the affinity existing between the languages of Aryan stock: such the gravest objections which have been raised against it, and the answers of the author. From the critical exposition which we have given of them, although in a very compendious form as befits this book, the result appears to us to be, that the most important among the arguments adduced by Schmidt, especially moreover the phonological argument which was the first we noticed, cannot be regarded as refuted so completely that Schmidt's theory has not the right to be considered at least as worthy of respect as the contrary doctrine. To pronounce a decisive opinion, if that will ever be possible, on such a question we must have a Europe to a chain, the two extremities of which touch Asia. 1 Ebel (quoted by Schmidt) compared the Aryan languages of more complete investigation of the characteristics common to two or more Indo-European languages, among which should be especially noticed the manifestly new formations which appear to be identical or similar in some of them. We With these reflections we conclude the second and last part of the present book. It appears from the former, as from this, that during the last decade has been continued with lively and persistent laboriousness the wonderful work of the preceding fifty years, at one time by new researches over the ground already explored, at another investigating portions not yet essayed, almost always with correct method and not unfrequently with very considerable success. must not, however, conceal the fact, that the highest problems of Aryan philology cannot yet be regarded as solved. But the conquests it has so rapidly made in the realm of truth are undoubted pledges of more splendid future triumphs. Effective instruments of victory will be found especially in the accurate examination of the Vedic dialect, the investigation of the linguistic stocks most akin to the Aryan, the study of the sciences which are most closely allied to the science of language, especially of certain portions of physiology and true psychology, the fidelity to that strict method to which modern philology owes so much, and against which it has not rebelled and cannot rebel with impunity, and that pure and foreseeing love of the truth, which dissuades us with equal force from blind faith in the results of past investigations and the inconsiderate passion for unripe innovations. 185 ALPHABETICAL INDEX OF AUTHORS QUOTED. Albrecht, p. 160. Apollonios Dyscolos, 164-5. Ascoli, 1-10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 30, 43, 63, 84, 97, 118, 152, 191. Aufrecht, 166. Autenrieth, 158-9. Baudry, 33-9. Bazzigher, 3. Benfey, 3, 33-4, 55, 82, 99, 100, 133, Bergaigne, 99, 105, 113, 114, 133, Bopp. 1, 36, 37, 50, 82-4, 88-9, 91, Bréal, 9, 50, 82, 176. Brücke, 10. Brugman, 28, 53, 132-3, 142-3. Chaignet, 138-9. Chalmers, 71, 72. Charisius, 159. Chavée, 60-2. Corssen, 29, 31-2, 33, 33-9, 131. Darwin, 129. Delbrück, 26, 28, 99, 100, 101, 105, Delitzsch, 39, 41, 42, 43, 43-4, 63-4, 65-7, 153. Diez, 1, 38, 153. Douse, 17-8, 173. Ebel, 60, 185, 196. Ludwig, 82, 97-114, 140, 144, 160-1. Meyer G., 141-2, 144. Meyer L., 191. Miklosich, 153. Misteli, 33. Mullach, 39. Müller F., 30-1, 40, 46, 62-3, 77, Müller M., 12, 41, 82, 108, 115, 116, Nöldeke, 64. Oppert, 22-3. Scherer W., 32, 54, 74-82, 108, 185. Schleicher, 2, 9, 16, 18, 30, 33, 40, 41, 52, 62, 64, 82, 95, 100, 125, Schmidt J., 14-6, 17,22,24, 26-9,175, Schweizer-Sidler, 3, 9, 115, 118, 145, 154, 155, 158. Siecke, 159. Sievers, 4, 18, 28, 32. Sophocles, 39. Spiegel, 23, 178. Steinthal, 75, 80-1, 103, 114, 115, 118, 119, 121, 122, 126, 129, Osthoff, 28. Pauli, 178. Pezzi, 29, 38, 40, 41, 90, 103, 106, Ulfilas, 176. Pictet, 176, 177-8. 125, 127, 133, 177. Pott, 1, 41, 48, 51, 53, 125. Weber, 177. Weihrich, 130-2. Priscian, 38, 162. Raabe, 153. Raumer, 40-3, 44, 64-5. Régnier, 154. Reinisch, 46. Renan, 40, 41, 62, 125, 181, 182. Weil, 33. Westphal, 82-97. Whitney, 3, 125, 191. Wilhelm, 144. Windisch, 9-10, 16, 49, 52, 56, 154, 164-6, 167-70, 193. Wolzogen, 178, 179. |