« PředchozíPokračovat »
enough of the paupers, and radicals, and reformers of Eng. land. But as to us, and the great body of the nation which thinks with us, it is a proceeding without the colour of justice or the shadow of apology-and is not a less flagrant indication of impatience or bad humour, than the marvellous assumption which runs through the whole argument, that it is an unpardonable insult and an injury to find any fault with anything in America, must necessarily proceed from national spite and animosity, and affords, whether true or false, sufficient reason for endeavouring to excite a corresponding animosity against our nation. Such, however, is the scope and plan of Mr W.'s whole work. Whenever he thinks that his country has been erroneously accused, he points out the error with sufficient keenness and asperity ;-but when he is aware that the imputation is just and unanswerable, instead of joining his rebuke or regret to those of her foreign censors, he turns fiercely and vindictively on the parallel infirmities of this country-as if those also had not been marked with reprobation, and without admitting that the censure was merited, or hoping that it might work amendment, complains in the bitterest terms of malignity, and rouses his country to revenge !
Which, then, we would ask, is the most fair and reasonable, or which the most truly patriotic ?-We, who, admitting our own manifold faults and corruptions, testifying loudly against them, and feeling grateful to any foreign auxiliary who will help us to reason, to rail, or to shame our countrymen out of them, are willing occasionally to lend a similar assistance to others, and speak freely and fairly of what appear to us to be the faults and errors, as well as the virtues and merits, of all who
may way affected by our observations ;-or Mr Walsh, who will admit no faults in his own country, and no good qualities in ourssets down the more extensive of our domestic crimes to their corresponding objects abroad, to the score of national rancour and partiality; and can find no better use for their mutual admonitions, which should lead to mutual amendment or generous emulation, than to improve them into occasions of mutual animosity and deliberate hatred ?
This extreme impatience, even of merited blame from the mouth of a stranger--this still more extraordinary abstinence from any hint or acknowledgment of error on the part of her intelligent defender, is a trait too remarkable not to call for some observation ;-and we think we can see in it one of the worst and most unfortunate consequences of a republican government. It is the misfortune of Sovereigns in general, that
be in any
they are fed with flattery till they loathe the wholesome truth, and come to resent, as the bitterest of all offences, any insinuation of their errors, or intimation of their dangers. But of all sovereigns, the Sovereign People is most obnoxious to this corruption, and most fatally injured by its prevalence. In America, everything depends on their suffrages, and their favour and support; and accordingly it would appear, that they are pampered with constant adulation, from the rival suitors for their favour so that no one will venture to tell them of their faults: and moralists, even of the austere character of Mr W., dare not venture to whisper a syllable to their prejudice. It is thus, and thus only, that we can account for the strange sensitiveness which seems to prevail among them on the lightest sound of disapprobation, and for the acrimony with which, what would pass anywhere else for very mild admonitions, are repelled and resented. It is obvious, however, that nothing can be so injurious to the character either of an individual or a nation, as this constant cockering of praise; and that the want of any native censor, makes it more a duty for the moralists of other countries to take them under their charge, and let them know now and then what other people say of them.
We are anxious to part with Mr W. in good humour;-but we must say that we rather wish he would not go on with the work he has begun-at least if it is to be pursued in the spirit which breathes in this. Nor is it so much to his polemic and vindictive tone that we object, as this tendency to adulation, this passionate vapouring rhetorical style of amplifying and exaggerating the felicities of his country. In point of talent and knowledge and industry, we have no doubt that he is eminently qualified for the task -(though we must tell him that he does not write so well now as when he left England) --but no man will ever write a book of authority on the institutions and resources of his country, who does not add some of the virtues of a Censor to those of a Patriot-or rather, who does not feel, that the noblest, as well as the most difficult part of patriotism, is that which prefers his country's good to its favour, and is more directed to reform its vices, than to cherish the pride of its virtues. With foreign nations, too, this tone of fondness and self-admiration is always suspected, and most commonly ridiculous—while the calm and steady claims of merit that are interspersed with acknowledgments of faults, are sure to obtain credit, and to raise the estimation both of the writer and of his country.
And now we must at length close this very long article, the yery length and earnestness of which, we hope, will go some way to satisfy our American brethren of the importance we attach to their good opinion, and the anxiety we feel to prevent any national repulsion from being aggravated by a misapprehension of our sentiments, or rather of those of that great body of the English nation of which we are here the organ. In what we have now written, there may be much that requires explanation-and much, we fear, that is liable to misconstruction.The spirit in which it is written, however, cannot, we think, be misunderstood. We cannot descend to little cavils and altercations; and have no leisure to maintain a controversy about words and phrases. We have an unfeigned respect and affection for the free people of America ; and we mean honestly to pledge ourselves for that of the better part of our own country. We are very proud of the extensive circulation of our Journal in that great country, and the importance that is there attached to it. But we should be undeserving of this favour, if we could submit to seek it by any mean practices, either of flattery or of dissimulation; and feel persuaded that we shall not only best deserve, but most surely obtain, the confidence and respect of Mr W. and his countrymen, by speaking freely what we sincerely think of them,--and treating them exactly as we treat that nation to which we are here accused of being too favourable.
ART. VII. 1. Franz Bopp über das Conjugations System der San
skritsprache in vergleichung mit jenem der Griechischen, Lateinischen, Persischen et Germanischen sprache ; nebst episoden des Ramayan et Mahabharat in genauen metrischen ubersetzungen aus dem original texte, et einigen abschnitten aus dem
Vedas. Frankfurt am Mayn. 2. Nalus, Carmen Sanscriticum e Mahábhárato, edidit, Latine
vertit, et Adnotationibus illustravit Franciscus Bopp. Londini, 1819.
contributed to restore the text, explain the allusions, and elucidate the philosophy, of the writers of ancient Europe, have at last begun to direct their attention to those of India. Mr Frederick Schlegel was the first, who, in an Essay on the language and philosophy of the Indians, indicated to his countrymen the sources of unexplored truths concealed in that distant region, and the important discoveries to which they might probably lead, in tracing the affiliation of nations, the progress
of science, and the transactions of that mysterious period which precedes all history, but that of one remarkable family. Mr Schlegel's Essay, composed with that ability which has procured both for him and his brother a high rank amongst the literati of the Continent, excited the attention of the studious, and the patronage of the great. The former began to study Sanscrit through the medium of the slender resources furnished by the English press: And amongst the latter, the King of Bavaria sent two of his subjects, to seek, in Paris and London, the necessary aid of Indian manuscripts. The two works before us prove the discernment which selected their author, as well as the liberal thirst for knowledge which prompted that monarch to encourage a pursuit, which even commercial jealousy herself could not attribute to a political motive, in a sovereign whose States are situated like those of Bavaria.
We should sooner have called the attention of our readers to the curious and instructive publication which stands at the head of this article, had we not despaired of rendering a grammatical disquisition interesting to the general reader. Some of our readers may possibly wish that we had persevered in that commendable diffidence.
Sir William Jones had, many years ago, indicated in a general way the remarkable affinity of the antient languages of the East and West. His untimely death deprived the world of the proofs of many of his opinions, which his learning and ability would have enabled him to produce with a copiousness of illustration which cannot now be supplied. In our review of that truly admirable work, the Sanscrit Grammar of Mr Wilkins, we very inadequately remedied this deficiency, by a list of words having the same signification in Sanscrit, Persic, Latin and German; and subjoined a few remarks on the similarity of their inflexions. It is to the latter object, and to the verbs exclusively, that our author has confined himself in the present work. In fact, isolated words are readily transplanted from one nation to another, without in the slightest degree affecting either the genius or the mechanism of the language which adopts them. The Phenician voyagers, and their colonies, have left traces of Hebraic origin, where the entire structure of the languages proves them to be completely exotic.
The object of the work before us is not merely to point out the analogy between the languages mentioned, but also to discover, by comparison, the origin and primitive signification of their grammatical forms. We shall briefly enumerate a few of the many subjects here examined and elucidated.
1st, The same Persons are denoted, in all these languages, by
the same letters. The root Seb has the same signification in
colunt. The present tense is composed of the root, the sign of the conjugation, and the sign of the
person. The latter is, M for the first, S for the second, and T for the third person. M, in these languages, is the characteristic letter of Me, the person who speaks. The S of the second is only preserved in the Greek pronoun. The T of the third is derived from the pronoun tad' in Sanscrit, the Greek 78To, the English that. Our readers cannot fail to be struck with the recurrence of the same inflections in the same order, in the middle voice of the Sanscrit and Greek, and in the active voices of the Sanscrit and Latin.
2dly, The first preterite is formed, in Sanscrit, by prefixing A to the root, as the imperfect in Greek is by the augment. Thus, the first person is in Sanscrit asevam, in Greek cicor. The Latin imperfect is formed by a different process, which is thus explained by our author; and we give it, because even this variation abounds in singular coincidences. Two roots in Sanscrit serve to denote existence, as' and · bhu;' whence asti and bhavati, he is;
est and fuit, in Latin; ast and bud, in Persian; is and be, in English. The former of these roots is defective in all these languages, and requires its deficiencies to be supplied from the root bhu, in Latin fi. The Romans had neither the sound of the aspirated B, nor a letter to represent it. In Latin, therefore, it is generally changed to F; thus, bhrátaras becomes fratres, &c. The first preterite of bhu in the first person, is abhavam, whence our author is disposed to derive col-ebam.
3dly, The characteristic of the second preterite in Sanscrit, and of the perfect in Greek, is the reduplication of the first consonant of the root; and the same rules subsist in both languages for the substitution of simple for compound consonants. Thus,
he delighted,' is in Sanscrittatarpa,' in Greek Tetepa, the root having the same signification in both languages. Traces of the same reduplication exist in Latin, as dedit, stetit, from the Sanscrit roots "da,' and 'stha;' whence dadati, and tishtati, he gives, and he stands. But the roots which are reduplicated