These cases are even occasionally identical with those of this last
tongue. The Sclavonic, or Shlave, idioms properly so denominated,
subdivide themselves into two branches, that of the south-west and
that of the west. The first comprises the Russian, the Bulgarian which
furnishes us with the most ancient Shlavic form (approximating very
much to the idiom termed Cyrillic or ecclesiastical, in which are
composed the most ancient monuments of the Christian literature of
this race), the Illyrian, the Serbe or Servian, the Croat, and the Slovine
spoken in Carinthia, in Carniola, a part of Styria, and in a canton
of western Hungary, The Shlavic tongues of the west embrace the
LeTch or Polish, the Tcheq or Bohemian, the Sozab or Wendic (popular
dialect of Lusace), and the Polab,—that has disappeared like the
ancient Prussian, and which was spoken by the Sclavonic tribes who
of yore were spread along both hanks of the lower Elbe.
The Germanic languages attach themselves (we have already said),
more to the Zend and the Persic than to the Sanscrit. The Persic
and Zend are part of a group of tongues that is designated by the
name of Iranian languages. It embraces again many other idioms,
of which several have disappeared. To it are attached notably the
Affghan or Pushtu, the Beloodchi spoken in Beloodckistan, the Kurd,
the Armenian, j ind the Ossete—which seems to he nothing else than
the language of those people known to the ancients by the name of
Albanian, the Aghovhns of Armenian anthors. This narrow bond
between the Germanic and the Iranian languages tells us plainly
whence issued the populations .which spread themselves over central
Europe, and that very likely drove before them the Celts. The
affinity that hinds these Germanic tongues amongst each other, —
that is to say, the ancient Gothic, or dialects of the German properly
so called, to which cling the Flemish and the Butch, the Prison and
the Anglo-Saxon, and lastly the old Icelandic and its younger sisters
the Banish and Swedish—is much closer than that observable between
the Shlavic and amongst the Pelasgic languages. Four traits in common,
as Mr. J a c o b G r im m has noticed, attach them together, viz:
variation of sound, which the Germans call “ ablaut;” metathesis, or
transposition; and finally, the existence of two different forms of
verbs and of nouns, that are denominated “ strong declension or conjugation,”
and “weak declension or conjugation.”
An attentive comparison of the laws of the Sanscrit grammar and
vocalization, with those of German grammar and vocalization, has
revealed some curious analogies which explain those resemblances
that had been, even anciently, perceived between German and
Greek. . d
Celtic languages are known to us, unhappily, only through some
doubtless very degenerate representatives of that powerful family,
viz-, the Gcelic or Welsh, and the Armorican or Bas-breton (which are
in reality no more than dialects of the Kimric tongue), the Irish,
the Erse or Gadhelic idiom spread over the Scottish Highlands, and
the Manx or idiom of the little isle of Man,—not forgetting the lost
Cornish dialect. We hardly know anything of the tongue spoken
of erst by our fathers, the Gauls (Gaulois or Galls)', except that the
small number of words remaining to us suffices to classify it with the
same family. Of all the branches of the Indo-European family this
Celtic is, in fact, the one whose destinies have been the least happy,
and the most confined. Its tongues have come to die along the
shores of the Ocean that opposed an impassable harrier to renewed
emigration of those who spoke them. Invaded by the Latin or
German populations, the Keltic races have lost, for the most part,
the language that distinguished them, withput, on that account,
losing altogether the imprint of their individuality.
The history of the Indo-European languages is, therefore, the surest
guide we can follow in endeavoring to re-eonstruct the order of those
migrations that have peopled Europe. This community of language
that unveils itself beneath an apparent diversity, can it he simply the
effect of a commonality of organization physical and intellectual ?
The inhabitants of Europe,—do they belong solely to what might
he termed the same formation ? It would, if so, become useless to
go searching in Asia for their common cradle. The fact is in itself
but little verisimilar; hut, here are some comparative connections of
another order that come to add themselves to those which languages
have offered us, and to confirm the inductions drawn from the preceding
data.
On studying the mythological traditions contained in the Yedas, as
well as in the most ancient religious monuments of India and Persia,
there has been found a multitude of fables, of beliefs, of surnames of
gods and some sacred rites, some variants of which, slightly altered,
are re-encountered in the legends and myths of antique Greece* of
old Italy, of Germany, Scandinavia, Russia, and even of England.
It is only since a few years that these new analogies have been
brought to light; and the Journal directed by two distinguished
Orientalists of Berlin, MM. T h . A t j f r e c h t and A d a l b e r t K u h n ,
has been the chief vehicle for their exposition. One of the first
Indianists of Germany, M. A l b e r t W e b e r , has also contributed his
portion to this labor of {rapprochement) comparison; of which, in
France, the Baron d ’E c k s t e in learnedly pursues the application.
I have already said that the names of gods met with in Greek and
Latin indicate to us a worship (culte) among the Pelasgi altogether