« 上一頁繼續 »
afterwards written AEVE, and then AEYE,'must at first have been written ΔΕFΣ or ΔΙΕΣ. But the genitive and dative of ΔIFΣ could have been no other than Alfos and alfi, which, when the Digamma was dropped, became Adds and sis. Hence also we see the reason why Aids and sit came to be the genitive and dative of Exós. In like manner Nil, ropas, ropi, was originally NIFE, NIFOE, NIFI : Nix, nivis, nivi. Κατήλιψ, κατήλιφος, κατήλιφι was originally KATEAIFE, KATEAIFOE, KATEAIFI.
And even iQ., though now considered as an adverb, was a dative, of which IFE was the nominative: for io. must at first have been written IFI. Or rather, if we may judge from Iliad, A. 38. the nominative was FIFA and the dative FiFi. For that line of Homer must have been originally written KIAAANTEZAOEANTENEAOI OTEFIFIFANAELETE."
The next in order is the inscription, known by the name of the Elean inscription, in which the Digamma occurs not less than seven times in ten lines. This inscription, says our author,
“ Is of very great importance in the history of the Polic Digamma. It was not only found in a country, where we know that the Digamma was constantly used, but it further exemplifies the application of the Digamma to words, of which we had no evidence before. We know, that in various instances, where the other Greeks used the aspirate H, the Æolians used f. But the Eolians did not always use F, where the other Greeks used H. That the Pelasgi, who brought letters into Latium, used both 1 and F, appears from the Latin alphabet, which contains both of those letters. It appears likewise from various Latin words, which corres. pond with the Greek. Though they wrote FOV and Foi (that is, ou and oi) in the sense of sui and sibi, and fox in the sense of suus, yet they must have written the article with H. If they had not written HoJ and HAI, the Latins would not have written HI and HAE. If the Pelasgi had not expressed the later forms, üga, aicí, ws, &c. by HOPA, HAIPEO, HE POE, &c. the Latins would not have written HORA, HAEREO, HEROS, &c. We could not therefore be certain that 'Erns, for instance, even if aspirated, was written by the Æolians FETAE. But that it was so written, now appears from the Elean inscription. With respect to non-aspirated words, our chief dependance has hitherto been on the corresponding Latin words. If Latin words, beginning with F or V, have Greek words corresponding to them, which begin with a vowel, ve may conclude that the Pelasgi, who brought letters into Latium, used in such cases their F. Hence we infer, that is was written FIE, cizos TOIKOE, &c. But for words, which have no corresponding words in Latin, we want Greek authority: and this Greek authority has hitherto been very sparingly afforded. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, (lib. i. c. 20.) has given us two such examples, i veš and dring, of which one only is applicable to the poems
of Homer; for årę does not there admit the F. But the Elean inscription, in addition to the authority which it affords for tns, (sometimes written étas) affords authority that šros, émos, and égayon, were written with F. In the second line we find EKATONFETEA: and in the third and fourth lines AITEFEITOLAITETAPron. The corrections, therefore, which have been proposed in the versification of Homer, receive from this inscription a very remarkable and very unexpected confirmation. Among the words, to which Heyne, in his edition of Homer, has in the marginal emendations prefixed F, on the ground, that the metre required it, we find all the four words étus, iros, émos, and grou. Again, this inscription confirms the opinion, that words, now beginning with an aspirated 'P, began in the old folic with iP, though the later Æolians, according to the Greek grammarians, began such words with BP. For førere is here very distinctly engraved FPATPA. Further, the Elean inscription shows, that the ancient name of Elis was Faalz. Lastly, the Elean inscription shows, that where the rafiner is now used, F was frequently used by the ancient Æolians. For we find TOIPFAAETOISKAITOILEFAOIOI!, which would now be written Tots 'Hasios rai tos Eycolors. Instead, therefore, of the present or. thography EYA, the Eleans used EFA.”
Other curious inscriptions are mentioned by Dr. Marsh, and many particulars ingeniously pointed out concerning them ; but we cannot now notice them. We are sorry to be obliged to resist an inclination we feel to give to our readers a passage, in which he accounts for the character s being used to denote the number 6, by referring it to the Digamma.
The fourth chapter is the most important in the book. Its object is—to determine the original Pelasgic pronunciation of the Digamma, The opinions of eminent men upon this subject are various and discordant; and when Dr. Marsh comes forward to assert, that F was pronounced like the Latin F, he has to enter the lists with many distinguished scholars both ancient and modern. We cannot do better, than let him explain in his own words the course of argument by which he purposes to attain
“ As the Greek f corresponds to the Latin I', both in form and in alphabetic order, (it having been the sixth letter in both alphabets,) the inference which naturally presents itself, is, that the two letters agreed also in sound. The letters of one alphabet admit of three analogies in reference to the letters of another. They may agree in form; they may agree in alphabetic order ; they may agree in sound. Now when the two first analogies take place, the presumption is, (unless reasons can be given to the contrary) that the third also was not wanting. If the atins bori wed their F from the Greek F, and assigned to it the sixth place in their alphabet, because it had the sixth place in the Greek, it is not pro
hable that they pronounced it in any other way, than that in which they heard the Greeks pronounce it. We must conclude, therefore, that the Greek F corresponded in all respects to the Latin F. And this inference is confirmed by the circumstance, that the very letter, namely the Latin V, to which the Greek F is supposed to have corresponded, agreed in all its analogies with another lettet of the Greek alphabet; analogies, which could not hold good in respect to two letters."
Here we find, that it is the object of the author to prove, in the first place, that an entire correspondence subsisted between the Greek r and the Latin V. We omit his demonstration, and give only the inference he deduces from it.
« Since then the Latin V was analogous to the Greek V in all its various relations, it could be only so far analogous to any other letter of the Greek alphabet, as the Greek v itself was analogous to that letter. We must conclude, therefore, that the Latin V, as well as the Greek V, had a cognate sound with the Greek r, but so far differed from it, as the one was fenòr, the other derú. What then shall we conclude, with respect to the analogy of the Greek F to the Latin F, which was likewise ducj? No other inference remains, than that the correspondence between them was entire. We have seen that the Greek v corresponds to the Latin V, in order, form, and sound. We know also, that the Greek F corresponded to the Latin F, in order and in form. Consequently they must have corresponded in the only remaining analogy, that of sound. For, if this third analogy of the Greek F be referred to the Latin V, we interfere with the analogy, which this same Latin V has been shown to bear in all its relations to another letter. We must conclude, therefore, that there was a perfect analogy between the Greek F and the Latin F, as there was between the Greek v and the Latin V. In this manner the two alphabets preserve their harmony: whereas if we refer a letter, which is ncarly at the head of one alphabet, to a letter which is nearly at the bottom of the other, and moreover to a letter which has a very different formi, the harmony of the two alphabets is totally destroyed."
To prove that the Latin F is the proper representative of the
reek F, as well in its application, as in its form and alphabetic order, he gives a list of Latin words derived from the Greek, and beginning with F. These examples are written first according to the present Greek form, then according to the old Æolic or Pelasgic form, and thirdly according to the Latin form. In the writing of these he tells us he has observed the five following rules.
First, “ That whenever a word, now beginning with o in Greek, begins with F in Latin, that same word was written likewise with f by those Pelasgi, who brought letters into Latium.”
Secondly, “ That whenever Greek words, now beginning with
a rowel, whether aspirated or not, have F prefixed to them in Latin, those same words had F prefixed to them by the Pelasgi, who brought letters into Latium.”
Thirdly, “ That where Greek words now begin with an aspirated 'P, and have words corresponding to them in Latin beginning with FR, those words originally began with FP likewise in Greek, the aspirate being nothing but a substitution for the F.”
Fourthly, “ That wherever Greek words, now beginning either with B or with o, begin in Latin with F, those same words began likewise with F among the Pelasgi, who brought letters into Latium.”
Fifthly, “ As the long 2 was invented long after the time, when the Pelasgi brought letters into Latium, and I was then used, not as a vowel but an aspirate, we must substitute o for , and either A or E for H, as the analogy of the Æolic dialect may require, in representing Greek words according to the Pelasgic orthography.
We will transcribe the first six as a specimen :
TAMA. Deuting, FPATEP, FRATER. Φηγός, , FAΓΟΣ, , FAGVS. Dua, FVO, FVO.
póznis, FƏAIE, FOLLIS. “ These examples," he observes, “ are sufficient to show that the Latin F was the proper representative of the Greek F. And hence we may infer, that, in those cases where V is used, the V is merely a substitute for the Latin F, which, though naturally hard in reference to V, acquires in certain cases a softer sound than at other times, and thus becomes more easily exchanged. When the Latin F was followed by the consonants 1, r, or the vowels a, o, u, it preserved the hard sound, which naturally belongs to it, and consequently was not so liable to be changed. Thus in Flamma, Fluo, Frango, Frigco, Fama, Fagus, Follis, Folium, Fuga, Fumus, and others of the same description, the F was not converted into V. But before the vowels e and i, the F acquired a softer sound, and accordingly was often, though not always, changed into V. Hence Festa, felia, Festis, Fis, Finum, &c. as written according to the Greek form, from which they were taken, became l'esta, Velia, Vestis, Vis, Vinum, &c. On the other hand, in Fera, Fero, Firmus, Filius, &c. the F remained. But when F was placed be. tween two vowels, it necessarily acquired a softer sound : and in such cases it appears to have been always changed into V. Hence ofis, ofum, &c. became ovis, ovum, &c. On a similar principle to that, which changed F into V, when F was so placed as to lose a portion of its natural hardness, V was sometimes changed into F, when it was so placed, as to lose a portion of its natural softness."
Dawes, in his Miscellanea Critica, has selected passages from Terentianus Maurus, Marius Victorinus, and Priscian, tending to prove that the Latin V corresponded with the Digamma. It is impossible for us to give a jūst idea of the ability with
which Dr. Marsh resists the force which the talents of this ce. tebrated critic, under the cover of classical authority, must ever communicate to the arguments he adduces. In our opinion, all difficulties are surmounted, and the author's case clearly made out.
Nor do those arguments which rest upon Greek authority, and have been brought to prove that F is properly represented by the Greek diphthong ov, experience a happier fate. By the skill of their new antagonist, these critics are reduced either to the necessity of giving up the point, or to the absurdity of making the Greek consonant f equivalent not only to or, but also to E, to 0, to r, to n and to Er. We conclude with a quotation from the 5th section of this chapter, which seems to us both striking and convincing.
« There remains only one more notion, which it is necessary to confute, in order to vindicate to the Greek F its genuine pronun. ciation. I am aware, that I have to combat a very common opinion, when I deny, that the Greek F was pronounced like the English W. It is, however, an opinion so improbable even in itself, and independently of the arguments which may be alleged against it, that we may justly wonder how such a notion could prevail. The more circumstance, that the Æolians used it before i', show's th:1t they could not have pronounced it as the English pronounce W. That the Æolians did begin many of their words with Fr appears from the examples, which have been already given vef Latin words beginning with FR, which have Greek words corresponding to them now beginning with an aspirated 'P. And the existence of such words has been lately placed beyond the possibility of doubt by the word FTATPA on the Elean tablet. If in this word we pronounce the Greek F like the Latin F, as in Frater, we pronounce a sound in which there is rothing harsh or inharmonious. But if, in giving to thic Greek F the broad and coarse sound of the English W, we pronounce FPATPA as an Englishman would pronounce WRATRA, we pronounce a sound so offensive to the ear, that no Greek could have endured it. Nor must we forget, that the Æolians, who alone retained the use of F, were noted in particular for their aversion to all liarsh sounds. The very tahlet, on which featPA occurs, affords a proof of this assertion. Though we know that the other Greeks anciently wrote HËKATON, we find in this inscription EKATON, without an aspirate.' The very article before FPATPA is also without an aspirate. We find not HA I PATPA but A FPATPA. And in the relative the aspirate is avoided by the substitution of T for H. The nominative plural ai is on the Elean tablet not Hor, but Toi. Nor is the connexion of F with r the only case, in which its pronunciation like W would be intolerable. Indeed, if the Æolians suppressed the aspirate in HEKATON, it is iucredible that they should have pronounced