« 이전계속 »
ing the dictates of our best information and our own conscience, we acknowledge in others the right to do the same.
The author has not touched on the connexion of his researches with the Mexican nation, except in one paragraph, (p. 252): a connexion briefly noticed by Niebuhr in two or three passages of the commencement of his Roman History. Nor has he mentioned the connexion between the Basque (Armorican) and some of the North-American languages, discovered by Professor Vater. The open temples, the pyramids, the human sacrifices, the comparatively exact chronology of 18 months of 20 days each, with periodical intercalations for five days and six hours, are notable circumstances among the Mexicans. So are their new fires at the commencement of secular periods, and the immense Peruvian walls. (Niebuhr, vol. i. pp. 119, 215.)
A friend has furnished us with the following strange connexion between the eastern languages and the isles of the Pacific Ocean ; which, he says, was first suggested in the lectures of Professor Vater.
Tatooing. NIDOW (tatoophet): does not occur as a verb. It is found twice only in the holy scriptures, and always in the same structure, expression and law. Exod. xiii. 16. Deut. vi. 8. Deut. xi. 18. The two latter are mere repetitions of the former sentence. And they shall be as frontlets (or remembrances) between thy eyes.
The versions are various. The Syriac version is *1721 (doohhrono) memorial or remembrance. The Chaldee version on (tipheleen) from bon (tophal) to adhere. The LXX. Symmachus and Theodotion, render it, Exod. xii. 6, by araneumov, im moveable. As a noun feminine plural noun (frontlets,) or scrolls of parchment with portions of the law written upon them, which the Jews were enjoined to bind on their foreheads, as Matt. xxiii. 5, 23.
Niebuhr in his Description de l'Arabie, p. 55, speaking of the head-dress of the Arabs in Yemen, and particularly of their outermost cap, says, “I have seen upon those which my friends have shewn me, the words La allah illa allah Mahomoud resoul allah. There is no other God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet.”
Of the recent translations some have followed the Syriac, (Memorial) and some the Chaldee and Greek (frontlets.) But as no one knows the origin of this word, the interpretations cannot be uniform.
We find (Lev. xix. 28) that Moses prohibited marking or stigmatizing: referring either to those made on the body in mourning
for the dead, or to such as were practised by the heathens on an idolatrous account, which is generally known under the expression tatooing ; it is therefore likely that the two laws (Deut. vi. 13, and Lev. xix. 28) refer to the same practice; and Moses used the same Indian word tatoophet nooio and the meaning of the text (Deut. vi. 13) is, “and they shall be for a tatooing between thy eyes:" that is, "you shall not actually mark your God in the skin itself, but wear a parchment between your eyes instead of tatooing.
What chiefly marks this word as foreign and a barbarism, is its strange and uncertain formation; so as even the word 1777 hoio to be, which precedes it, adopts in Ex. x. 3, 16, the singular; and in Deut. vi. 13, the plural number. The word itself is given in the feminine plural, and yet the above verb is rendered in the masculine. The Rabbins form this word from two different languages, in one of which shall be oo (tat) two; and ne (phas) in the other language, (two) which is plainly absurd and unintelligible. The word in question is not reducible, by any legitimate grammatical analysis, to any known root in Hebrew, Chaldee or Arabic.
Burckhardt says, tatooing on the cheek, is practised at Mekka.
The result of our present investigation, we must express in the words of Niebuhr. (Rom. Hist. v. i. ch. 21, Summary.) “ No man is able to trace to their [precise) sources, the streams of the existing generations, and races of mankind : still less to survey the chasm which separates the order to which we and history belong, from one of earlier date. It is the creed of all popular traditions, received and cherished even by the philosophers of Greece, that an elder generation had perished. *** The opinion which ascribes to giants the walls composed of huge rough masses of rock, of the pretended Cyclopean cities from Prenesti to Alba in the country of the Maisi, where the pillars of the city gates consist of single blocks of stone, and assigns to the same race the building of the walls of Tirgus. Such an opinion is the expression of an unsophisticated mind. It resembles that of the people in our Frisian districts, who are persuaded that they see the words of giants in the colossal altars which are found in greater or less state of preservation, in every place where our ancestors once inhabited. We must altogether exclude those nations with which our history is conversant in Latium, from any share in works that require the efforts of a numerous population, compelled in a state of vassalage to excute the commands of their sacred masters; and we must ascribe them to a period antecedent to all history: but such
efforts they do not surpass. The Etruscan walls are scarcely less stupendous. The raising and transporting of the obelisks hewn out of the rocks, is an undertaking still more gigantic and defying to our mechanical powers. The Peruvian walls are nearly as enormous as the pretended Cyclopean. Thus it is most probable that these immortal works belonged to the utterly forgotten progenitors of the present generation; and compared with whose architecture, that of the Romans was utterly insignificant. Nations, of a period in which the Greek authors of the Augustan age, as well as the philosophers of the last century, discerned only a horde of speechless savages on the young and uncultivated earth. Thus also the drains from the Lake Copias cut through thirty stadia of solid rock, and the cleaning out of which, surpassed the strength of Beotians in the time of Alexander, assuredly were the work of a people antecedent to the Greeks."* To this we may add as instances the Cloacæ of Rome, and the Temple at Ellora.
But all these accumulations of savage strength, are inconsistent with the mathematical and astronomical knowledge of our lost people ; who, as we think, possessed knowledge of much higher acquisition. The modern geological observations on fossil remains and the temperature of the earth, would have left M. Baillie and his followers to enlarge their boundaries as far as Siberia, where we know with certainty that tropical plants and tropical animals lived and died on the banks of every river.
The subject is too curious to be dropped. Much remains yet to be done. We thank Mr. Higgins for his very learned, very interesting, and very amusing contributions toward this investigation.
• The very curious and magnificent introduction with the plates accompanying it, prefixed by Mr. Higgins to his work now under review, is the best commentary and illustration of this passage in Niebuhr.
MONOLOGUE IN THE PENULUS OF PLAUTUS.-Act. 5. Sce. 1.
Plautus, the dramatic author, was a native of a town in Umbria. le died one hundred and eighty-four years before Christ. Carthage was utterly destroyed one hundred and forty-six years before our era, and thirty eight years after the death of Plautus.
The plot of this play is as follows: A young Carthaginian, (Agarastocles) kidnapped from Carthage, is carried to Calydonia in Etolia, and sold as a slave to an old man, who adopts him, dies, and bequeaths to him all his property. This young man is in love with a young woman, who, with her sister and her nurse were also forcibly taken away, and sold to a person of bad character of Calydonia. The young man institutes a suit against the person who had bought these girls, who are suspected to be of a reputable Carthaginian family. Their father Hanno, a Carthaginian, who had sought them almost every where, arrives at Calydonia, and stopping before the house of Agarastocles, makes the following apostrophe or soliloquy in the Punic language.
It does not appear whether Plautus wrote it in the Punic or in the common Latin character. From the difficulty of accommodating the verbal sounds of one language to those of another, and from frequent transcribing by persons ignorant of the language and the meaning of the Punic, the words are manifestly confounded ; and, in
many instances, it is very difficult to distinguish them. There are sixteen lines in this soliloquy; of which, the first ten have been converted into Hebrew by Bochart, (Phaleg. ch. 2,) and the last six he suspects to be a Lybian repetition, but does not attempt to translate them. We give the Punic Words according to the edition followed by Bochart, and again after the edition of Mocenigus 1482, followed by Vallancey. We have consulted an Elzevir of 1652, and the edition of Frider. Hen. Bothe. Berlin, 1810. The Elzevir differs in a few words from Mocenigus, but Bothe adopts the arrangement of the words which Bochart had adapted to the Hebrew character.
THE PUNIC MONOLOGUE,
The same from Mocenigus' edition of Plautus.
(Hitherto, Bochart has rendered into Hebrew.)
These six are regarded as a Libyan repetition. There are about a dozen more lines, or parts of lines, interspersed in the dialogue; all of which, (as well as the six lines above copied) are rendered into Irish by Vallancey; whose version, (Anno, 1781, in the Collectanea Hibernica, No. 8,) of the foregoing six lines, agrees in the general sense, but by no means literally, with the Latin version of Bothe. We have not thought it necessary to give the passage as spelt in the Elzevir edition, for the slight variances are sufficiently accounted for, from the causes we have assigned: nor have we deemed it necessary to exhibit any specimen beyond the continuous ten lines of whose Pupic character no one doubts. In his Annotations, vol. iv. p. 598, Bothe says, he has followed the manner of writing the Punic, adopted by D. I. I. Bellerman of Berlin ; which was published in three tracts in 1806, 1807 and 1808 : be has also adopted the German translation of the 16 lines by Bellerman. He has also copied, in the German language, some observations of Bellerman on the connexion between the Hebrew, Phænician, Canaanite and Carthaginian languages. To us, the remarks of Pellerman are ingenious conjectures only, void of proof. There are no authorities cited to confirm his view of the connexion between the Hebrew, Phænician and Canaanite; a connexion whereof we entertain no doubts, but the question is, as to the extent. Writers perpetually forget that they
. have no claim to be believed for any assertion borrowed from others, unless the original authority be cited. Mr. Charles Fox used sadly to complain of this--so did Mosheim. “Ut enim fidem ejus nemo facile in dubium vocaverit, illi tamen qui solidæ student eruditioni, fontes rerum sibi merito cupiunt diligenter monstrari : quos, si res ita ferat consulere queant, ad omnem animi, tam suis quam aliorum dubitationem eximendam.' Io. Laur. Mosheim, Dissertationum ad Historiam Ecclesiasticam pertinentium. 2 v. Altmavia, 1733—in Geddes' Martyr. Protest.
The following is the Hebrew translation of the first ten lines of this Soliloquy, by Bochart. The objection to it is, that the Phænician is more allied to the Samaritan than to the Hebrew; and, secondly, that