« PreviousContinue »
couth. While cordially admitting the merits of each rival sect, he concurred with none, but was the common censor and opponent of all. His own opinions on church government coincided with the later judgment, or, as it should be rather said, with the concessions of Archbishop Usher. They adjusted the whole of that interminable dispute to their mutual satisfaction at a conserence which did not last above half an hour; for each of them was too devoutly intent on the great objects of Christianity to differ with each other very widely as to mere ritual observances. The contentions by which our forefathers were agitated on these subjects, have now happily subsided into a speculative and comparatively uninteresting debate. They produced their best, and perhaps their only desirable result, in diffusing through the Church, and amongst the people of England, an indestructible conviction of the folly of attempting to coerce the human mind into a servitude to any system or profession of belief; or of endeavouring to produce amongst men any real uniformity of opinion on subjects beyond the cognisance of the bodily senses, and of daily observation. They have taught us all to acknowledge in practice, though some may yet deny in theory, that as long as men are permitted to avow the truth, the inherent diversities of their understandings, and of their circumstances, must impel them to the acknowledgment of corresponding variations of judgment, on all questions which touch the mysteries of the present or of the future lise. If no man laboured more, or with less success, to induce mankind to think alike on these topics, no one ever exerted himself more zealously, or more effectually, than did Richard Baxter, both by his life and his writings, to divert the world from those petty disputes which falsely assume the garb of religious zeal, to those eternal and momentous truths, in the knowledge, the love, and the practice of which, the essence of religion consists.
One word respecting the edition of his works, to which we referred in the outset. For the reason already mentioned, we have stuck to our long-revered folios, without reading so much as a page of their diminutive representatives, and can therefore report nothing about them. But after diligently and repeatedly reading the two introductory volumes by Mr Orme, we rejoice in the opportunity of bearing testimony to the merits of a learned, modest, and laborious writer, who is now, however, beyond the reach of human praise or censure. He has done every thing for Baxter's memory which could be accomplished by a skilful abridgment of his autobiography, and a careful analysis of the theological library of which he was the author ; aided by an acquaintance with the theological literature of the seventeenth century, such as no map but himself has exhibited, and which it mar safely be conjectured no other man possesses. Had Mr. Orme been a member of the Established Church, and had he chosen a topic more in harmony with the studies of that learned body, his literary abilities would have been far more correctly estimated, and more widely celebrated. We fear that they who dissent from her communion, and who are therefore excluded from her universities and her literary circles, are not to expect for their writings the same toleration which is so firmly secured for their persons and their ministry. Let them not, however, be dejected. Let them take for examples those whom they have selected as teachers; and learning from Richard Baxter to live and to write, they will either achieve his celebrity, or will be content, as he was, to labour without any other recompense than the tranquillity of his own conscience, the love of the people’among whom he dwelt, and the approbation of the Master to whom every hour of his life, and every page of his books were alike devoted.
ART. VIII.--A Dictionary of the Anglo-Saxon Language ;
with a Preface on the Origin and Connexion of the Germanic Tongues, a Map of Languages, and the Essentials of Anglo-Saxon Grammar. By Rev. T. BoswoRTH, LL.D. 8vo. London : 1838.
This work will be highly acceptable to Anglo-Saxon scholars; T
nor are these the only persons to whom it is likely to prove of value. There are, or at all events soon will be many, by no means ambitious of achieving the fame of profound Anglo-Saxon scholarship, to whose library a Saxon and English Lexicon of moderate size and reasonable price will be a welcome addition. As this may appear a somewhat paradoxical opinion, we crave leave to offer our reasons in support of it, before we proceed to estimate the merits of Dr Bosworth's Dictionary, as compared with any previous work of a similar kind.
Profound Anglo-Saxon scholarship has ever been, and in all probability ever will be, a very rare commodity in the market of letters. Indeed, a profound knowledge of any dead language will always be a rarity, if it can reward our industry only by a literature so scanty and so rude as that of the Anglo-Saxons ; and it may therefore seem, at first sight, unreasonable to expect any considerable patronage for a work like the present, as for a Dictionary of some dialect of Kamschatka or Madagascar. Still, if we mistake not, the day is not far distant when it will be considered disgraceful to a well-bred Englishman-utterly disgraceful to a man who makes the slightest pretensions to scholarship-to be ignorant, as multitudes (otherwise well informed now are of the history and structure of the English tongue; and above all, of the precise relations of modern English to that ancient dialect of the great Teutonic family, which has ever been, and still is, incomparably the most important element in its composition.*
Now, a competent knowledge of these subjects, though something very different from extensive Anglo-Saxon scholarship, and though attained with comparatively little trouble, must necessarily involve some attention to the ancient language. Of the extent to which the Anglo-Saxon modifies the structure and grammatical peculiarities of modern English, and in which it contributes to its vocabulary, those who have paid no attention to the subject are little aware. Nor, indeed, has the subject ever been treated with the fulness it deserves. We shall make no apology, theresore, for the following attempt to determine with some approach to precision, the proportions in which the different elements of our language are mingled; and especially the degree in which the Anglo-Saxon predominates over the rest.
We must premise, that when we speak of English words derived from Anglo-Saxon or Latin, or any other language, we mean immediately derived. We make this remark because there are many words derived, historically speaking, from the Anglo-Saxon, which, from their strong resemblance to words of the same meaning in the Latin, might be supposed to have had a classical origin. We are far enough from denying—what the researches of modern philology have clearly proved that there is a close connexion amongst all those languages out of which our own has been sormed; that is, between the classical and Teutonic : pay, that the still subsisting resemblances amongst languages far more dissimilar than these, justify us in believing that they all had a common origin. If this be the case, it is by no means surprising that there should often be a strong resemblance between words, where there has been no derivation of the one from the other. Two branches of a trce may be perfectly independent of one another, though both must ultimately come from a common root; and there are other ties of consanguinity besides that be
* We are glad to perceive that the University of London includes amongst the subjects of the Matriculation Examination,-The grammatical structure and peculiarities of the English Language.'
tween parent and child. Where there is a strong family likeness between two individuals, we may infer connexion of some kind; but if they are of the same age, no one suspects them to be father and son. This seems to us a sufficient account of those resemblances between Latin and the Teutonic languages, which induced Mr Gilchrist to form his extravagant hypothesis as to the immediate derivation of the latter languages from the Latin. The resemblances in question are far too limited and partial to justify such a supposition; while they are just as extensive as might be expected on the supposition that all languages had a commom origin. Horne Tooke has committed an error of precisely the same kind, in deducing many of our particles immediately from nouns and verbs in the Anglo-Saxon; that is, he has assumed resemblance in form and meaning, as a sufficient ground for inferring derivation. He has too often conducted his reasoning as though the Anglo-Saxon were an underived language, instead of regarding it (like every other which now exists, or of which history affords us any trace), as formed of the materials of a yet older language, wrought into a new form and assuming a new development. Thus, for example, he deduces the preposition from, from the Anglo-Saxon noun frum,' beginning. Assuming that his account of the meaning of the preposition is correct, which we think very likely, it is surely improbable that the one word was derived immediately from the other; since we find the word fram a preposition (as nearly as possible like our word) in the Anglo
Saxon throughout the whole period of its history. As far as we • know, it is as old as frum. Does it not seem, therefore, probable,
that both words have come down to us from a remoter age, and a more ancient dialect from a root of a similar meaning to that of both words? They may very probably have had the same pedigree---perhaps the same parentage--but can hardly be parent and offspring. 29
We refer, then, all such words to the Anglo-Saxon as have been immediately derived from it, whatever their resemblance to Latin words; and all such words to the Latin as have been immediately derived from it, whatever their resemblance to Anglo-Saxon words, which became obsolete when that language was converted into English.
The bulk of the English language is derived from AngloSaxon, Latin, Greek, and French. Of these languages the Anglo-Saxon holds by far the most important place, whether we regard the mere number of its contributions-a most fallacious criterion in estimating the value of any element of a compound language-or, (which is a sounder one, the sorts of words with which it has furnished us. It is very possible that, in a compound language like ours, the element which is the least important in weight and bulk, may exert the most powerful influence ;tending more than any other, to determine its character and to impart to it its vigour--entering into all its most idiomatic constructions, forming a part of the most familiar and frequently recurring forms of speech, and serving to express all the most ordinary thoughts and feelings.
The English language consists of about thirty-eight thousand words. This includes, of course, not only radical words, but all derivatives, except the preterites and participles of verbs; to which must be added some few terms which, though set down in the dictionaries, are either obsolete or have never ceased to be considered foreign. Of these, about twenty-three thousand, or nearly five-eighths, are of Anglo-Saxon origin. The majority of the rest, in what proportions we cannot say, are Latin and Greek ; Latin, however, has the larger share.
Assuming that this calculation is accurate, for which we will not vouch, or that it approximates to accuracy, which we are quite ready to affirm, it will be seen that the Anglo-Saxon, even if we look at the mere number of words it has contributed, is our principal source of strength. Nay, were we to found our calculations upon the passages which Sharon Turner has adduced from a series of our most popular writers, and in which he has discriminated, by italics, the words of Anglo-Saxon from those of foreigo origin, we should inler a much greater preponderance of the Anglo-Saxon element. Mr Turner has not set down in figures the numbers of the two classes of words contained in any of these passages. Sir James Mackintosh analysed three or four of them. We shall now give an analysis of the whole. The passages in question are from the Bible, Shakspeare, Milton, Cowley, Thomson, Addison, Spenser, Locke, Pope, Young, Swift, Robertson, Hume, Gibbon and Johnson. In five verses out of Genesis, containing one hundred and thirty words, there are only five not Saxon. In as many verses out of the Gospel of St John, containing seventy-four words, there are only two not Saxon. Of the remaining passages, that from Shakspeare contains eightyone words; of these, the words not Saxon, are thirteen; that from Milton, ninety; not Saxon, sixteen; that from Cowley, seventy-six; not Saxon, ten; that from Thomson seventyeight; not Saxon, fourteen; that from Addison seventy-nine; not Saxon, fifteen; that from Spenser seventy-two; not Saxon, fourteen; that from Locke ninety-four; not Saxon, twenty; that from Pope eighty-four; not Saxon, twenty-eight; that from Young ninety-six ; not Saxon, twenty-one; that from Swist eighty-seven; in which nine only are not Saxon; that from Ro