Imágenes de páginas

24. and xi. 1. That the words under examination are of a character similar to these glosses is manifest. But the greatest objection to the genuineness of the words is the meaning they give. “Now Hagar is the name of Mount Sinai, in Arabia.” For what purpose this notice that the name of the bond-woman, and of Mount Sinai were the same? The Apostle is, according to every interpretation given of the passage, comparing Hagar to the law or dispensation promulgated from Mount Sinai, not to Sinai itself. It would seem then to be the merest trifling to notice the identity of these names. For the reasons mentioned, and others, some as Bentley, Kuster, have maintained that the words are a gloss, and ought to be thrown out of the text. Koppe remarks, that the reading then would be elegant, and that this solution of the difficulty would be worthy of adoption, if there were only absolute need of it. His own solution does not prove the absence of this necessity, and let the reader judge for himself how much the considerations offered, prove its existence.

Whatever meaning can be deduced from the words, sup. posing them genuine, appears to me, nearly or quite as relevant to the interpretation of the passage which has been given as to any other. To that of the "double sense,” it can have no relevancy whatever. For, as has been just seen, Hagar is the symbol, not of Sinai, but of the Sinaitic covenant, and the coincidence of name, was not only originally untrue, but was not at all necessary to her being actually a type. Perhaps on the German or on Borger's plan, the propriety or relevancy of such a reference to the coincidence of name, might be less questioned than on the present one. But it has been remarked that in parables and allegories, circumstances were introduced to finish out or to enliven a picture, and influenced the choice of terms, which are not in the explanation, to be granted all that importance which they apparently sustain. Of how much weight then against the interpretation given, is the objection, that, admitting it, the words “dò yang Ayas," &c. have very little object or relevancy?

[ocr errors]


Grammaire Arabe, à l'usage des élèves de l'école spéciale

des langues Orientales vivantes; avec figures. Par M. le Buron Silvestre de Sacy. Seconde édition, corrigée et augmentée, à laquelle on a joint un Traité de la Prosodie et de la Métrique des Arabes. Paris, imprimé par autorisation du Roi, à l'imprimerie Royale, 1831. 2y. 8vo. pp. 608. 697.

Every dabbler in bibliography knows the difference between the republican and loyal copies of the London Polyglott. On grounds somewhat analogous, this may be called the Royal edition of De Sacy's Grammar, in contradistinction from the Imperial one of 1810. There is something amusing in the political mutations of the learned Baron's title-pages. If we recollect aright, the library, whose exhaustless stores afforded the materials of his Notices et Extraits,' assumes in three successive volumes of that work, the epithets National, Imperial, and Royal, none of which is indeed too lofty for so noble a collection.

To the eye, this new edition of the Grammaire Arabe differs from the old, in nothing so much as the whiteness of the paper. The Arabic type appears to be the same. The bulk of both the volumes is indeed enlarged, a circumstance which led us to expect more alteration than we found upon inspection. We are, in truth, surprised to find that twenty years of unremitted and perhaps exclusive application to this branch of study, have produced so little change in the contents and character of this repository. Every step of our comparison reminded us, that what we were examining was not the product of the German steam-mill. A German author seems to think a reprint a dishonour. It is not enough that he can represent his work as enlarged, corrected, and improved. Unless the talismanic term umgearbeitet can be added, his soul remains unsatisfied. This vice, if such it be, without all controversy leans to virtue's side. It generates a habit of dissatisfaction with the least defect or error, which cannot fail to stimulate the author and maintain his watchful

Like every thing else, however, it may be perverted; and it is. With all its salutary influence, it has had no small


No. IV.-3 Z



share in giving rise to that almost puerile dislike of what is permanent, and that frantic fondness for up-rooting, overhauling, and down-pulling, which, deny it as they may, makes the mass of German writers legitimate objects of a little friendly ridicule with foreigners of sense.

When weary, however, of this artificial chaos, we need only cross the Rhine to be at the antipodes. In France all is stereotyped, religion, politics, and dress excepted. Especially is this the case with writers of the old régime. While the German seems to adopt the principle that nothing must remain which can be changed, Frenchmen of this class seem to act upon the rule, that nothing must be changed which can remain.

Of this characteristic difference, which is not meant to be applied with rigour, we are constantly reminded in pursuing our comparison between the two editions of the work before us. The frame-work of the Grammar stands unaltered. The terminology has undergone no change, except by the addition of technical terms from the native grammars. The work, considered as a whole, is what it was, upon its first appearance. Indeed, some closeness of inspection is required to discern the slighter touches which do really distinguish it. Here and there a word is either added or omitted, a collocation is rendered more euphonic, two paragraphs are blended into one, or the reverse. In German phrase, it is an überarbeitung, not an umarbeitung. A very few parts seem to be re-written, those, for instance, on the conjugations and tenses of the verbs, and, in a less degree, those on the prepositions and the syntax of the pronouns. The matter absolutely new, with one exception which we shall recur to, consists of sentences and parts of sentences, with here and there a paragraph entire, scattered throughout both volumes.

Next to the quantity of matter added, we are struck with the character of the additions. Here again we are reminded of the Germans by the contrast. The same new facts which De Sacy simply adds to his previous details, as so many details in one long catalogue, a German, moderately national and lively, would have made the basis of a span-new theory, conflicting with, and possibly demolishing, the one that figured in the first edition. We do not say that either course is, in its essence, wrong. In essence, both are right. But in degree, both verge upon extremes. While we smile at the nimble self-complacency, with which two facts are sometimes wrought into a theory, with a train of exceptions and anom


[ocr errors]

alies behind it, like the tail of a bird of paradise, we must admit, that a mere detail of crude particulars, with no attempt to classify them, if not quite so ludicrous, is equally pernicious. The latter description is, however, very far from being applicable to De Sacy's work. He is not, indeed, a philosophical grammarian, in the modern sense. He meddles very little with the rationale of the changes he describes, and still less with that sort of etymology, so highly prized in Germany, which, not contented with mere root-digging, descends into the bowels of the earth, and professes to rake up the primordial elements of speech, the very roots of roots. The cool assurance, with which some recent quacks in this department describe explicitly the stages of the process which elaborated language, ought to shame some of their betters who set them the example. This, if any thing, must make Gesenius sick of his absurd attempts to designate the age of every book and every sentence in the Hebrew Scriptures, by professional inspection, and to decide without appeal what is “spät," "aramäisch," “makkabäisch," or "unächt," in the oracles of God. In this sort of philosophy, De Sacy seems to have made no proficiency. His speculative powers appear to have been spent upon the nomenclature of his system. Under some strange misconception, he has taken endless pains to make the technicalities of this extensive work conformable, in all points, to a system of logic published by himself, and entitled Principles of General Grammar. This, we think, is more useless in itself than the German subtilties. The philosophy of things is something above the philosophy of names.

This elaborate and novel terminology we regard as the greatest blemish of the Grammaire Arabe. Evil has arisen, we admit, from the transfer of the technics of Greek and Latin Grammar to the eastern languages, but even they are better than this substitute, or rather this appendage, for De Sacy employs both. The terms of Latin etymology and syntax, though in a great degree inapplicable, we must still prefer to the learned Baron's complémens logiques,” “rapports d'annexion,” “propositions volitives,” and “propositions qui font fonction de terms circonstantiels d’état.' terminology, such as it is, comprises, we believe, all that the courtesy of criticism enables us to designate philosophy in this important work. The principle on which it is con

[ocr errors]

** This

* See the Title of Ch. 29. t. 2, p. 383, 2 edit.

structed, is that of stating the phenomena of the language, under proper heads, with such explanations as are necessary to render them intelligible. In this way the book was originally written. In this way the additions have been made at present. They are mere specifications furnished by the author's reading, with scarcely an attempt to incorporate them with the previous matter, any further than by juxtaposition. This plan, whatever be its intrinsic merits, is carried out with faithfulness and skill. And after all that petty theorists may say, it is vastly easier to blow up a bubble from the soap and water of a little quack philosophy, than to exhibit a complicated mass of facts, in methodical detail, so as to be intelligible. This our author has accomplished. We can recollect no work of similar extent, in which the same plan has been followed up with such perspicuous accuracy. The comparative merits of the plan itself may well be questioned, and it must be owned, that there is a pervading tendency to push the leading principle too far, so far as almost to confirm Professor Lee's assertion, that “the Grammaire Arabe presents scarcely any thing more than an elaborate collection of examples, arranged under particular heads.”

This quotation tempts us to incur the guilt of a digression, by adverting to the article from which it is extracted. As a curious specimen of literary controversy, as well as on account of the author's reputation, and the importance of the subject, it deserves attention. The Baron de Sacy, it appears, inserted in the Journal des Savans, some three years since, an extensive notice of Lee's Hebrew Grammar, published two years earlier. This notice we have never read, but we gather from Professor Lee's reply, that De Sacy, as might have been anticipated, undertook to controvert the leading principles maintained by his contemporary. A reply to this review, by Lee himself, appeared in the last two num. bers of the London Classical Journal. The first thing in it that attracts attention, is the total want of ceremony, not to say of courtesy, with which the writer speaks of his oppo

To one who recollects the standing of the parties in the public eye, the following expressions must, to say the least, seem strange.

“ As to the term recommended by M. de Sacy, I cannot help considering it a perfect absurdity.” Classical Journal,


Vol. 40, p. 2.

« AnteriorContinuar »