vian tribes. Runic inscriptions have been found in Tartary,* which fact will not appear strange when we learn that the family of Gothic nations once occupied large tracts of Tartary, that some of its branches inhabited Transoxana, and were found even as far as the Altai mountains. They were well known to the people of Eastern Asia who could not fail to be struck by the singularity of their language, their light hair, blue eyes, and white complexions; traits particularly remarkable in the midst of men dark-colored, with brown eyes and dark hair, who have in the end occupied their place. The distinguished orientalist, M. Abel-Remusat, from whose valuable researches the above is taken, adds, "the facts which I have collected on these points are so numerous and so positively set forth in the Chinese writers, that no doubt can remain."+ Death prevented him from publishing these proofs. But the learned geographer, professor Ritter of Berlin, has since solved all difficulties, by proving that the Chinese writers refer frequently to nomadic races, having blue eyes and red hair, and that they relate, that in the second century (B. C. 177) before Christ, a portion of one of these tribes, having been driven. westward by the Hiong-nu, inhabited the shores of Lake Bhalkush, and the river Ili, under the name of U-sun or U-siun ;‡ afterwards, probably during the fourth century, they emigrated southward. Five other races are mentioned by the Chinese annalists, as having blue eyes and red hair: viz., the Schu-le or Khin-scha; the Khute, west of the U-sun; the Ting-ling, north of the U-sun, and west of lake Baikal; the Kian-kuan or Hakas, on the Yenesei; and the Alan or Yan-thsai, north of the Caspian Sea.|| We regret that our limits forbid us to enter more deeply upon this highly interesting subject. But to return to the Runic letters. In an ode quoted by Bartholin, the poet ascribes their invention to Odin: "The letters which the great ancient traced out; which the gods com * Mallet's Northern Antiquities. Vol. I. p. 312. note. Recherches sur les Langues Tartares. Prelim. p. xliv. and xlv. Wiseman's Lectures, p. 101. Am. Ed. Called Hieou-siun by the older, and Ou-siun by the later Chinese writers. An etymologist might perhaps imagine that he has here discovered the original form of the word Suiones. § Ritter's Erdkunde, Vol. II. Part 1. p. 194. and 431—7. || Ib. p. 434. ¶ Edda Isl. p. 649. posed; which Odin the sovereign of the gods engraved." This is equivalent to a declaration that they had been so long in use that their origin was unknown. The attempt indeed has been made to prove that the ancient Germans had no written alphabet, but the passage in Tacitus* on which the assertion is founded, is now decided to have been misunderstood. It is at least certain that they were extensively in use among the heathen nations in the north of Europe. That they were not derived from the Roman alphabet, as has been supposed by some, is shown by their difference of formation, and by the smaller number (sixteen) of the Runic letters, which likewise is a proof of their great antiquity, and perhaps too, of their eastern origin. Runic staves are mentioned by Venantius Fortunatus, a Latin poet of the sixth century: Barbara fraxineis pingatur Runa tabellis Quodque Papyrus agit, virgula plana valet.† If then Runic characters were in use, among any of the German tribes, from their close connection, and the identity or similarity of their customs, it may safely be inferred that they were known and in use among the Goths. But the Goths were likewise acquainted with the Greek and Latin alphabets. After the Gothic settlement of Dacia and Moesia, the new inhabitants were in habits of constant and intimate intercourse with the Greeks and Romans. MSS. and epistles in both these languages were within the reach of the more intelligent. Knowing then that the learned Ulphilas was acquainted with the Runic, Greek and Roman alphabets, it would be natural to suppose that he would have made use of them in the formation of a new alphabet. This would have been probable, even if every vestige of the language and alphabet had been lost. Let us then compare the Moeso-Gothic characters with the Runic, Greek, and Latin alphabets, and from the points of agreement, and difference, we shall be able to decide how far Ulphilas was indebted to them, and what is original with himself. Ulphilas, then, drew from the Greeks the forms of g (c), 1, p, u (y), and x. From the Latin were borrowed u (qu), h, g (g and j), d. The forms common to both languages are e, * Germ. 19. † Lib. VII. epig. 18. Vid. Wormii Literat. Runic. p. 7. z, k, m, n, o. These conclusions are formed from a careful examination of the letters in use among the Greeks and Romans from the first to the sixth century.* From the Runic was taken the character u. The letters common to the Latin, Greek, and Runic are a, b, i, r, s, t, f. He invented 4, th, and O, hw, or took them from an old Germanic alphabet now lost.† The word invention, as used by the Greek historians must merely signify an adoption by Ulphilas of other alphabets for the written Moeso-Gothic. The Greeks had probably never heard of the Gothic alphabet until brought among them by Ulphilas. The introducer at once became the inventor.‡ These Gothic characters after the fall of the western empire were extensively used throughout Europe, but were thrown aside soon after the French adopted the Roman letters. At a meeting of the synod, held in Lyons in 1091, the Spaniards totally abolished their use. The voice of history unanimously proclaims Ulphilas to be the translator of the Scriptures into his own tongue. One historian states that the book of Kings, (which then included the two books of Samuel,) was omitted because its nature was such as to excite the fierce and warlike passions of the Goths. But the books of Moses, Joshua, and Judges are open to the same objection. And the other historians are always particular in speaking of τὰς θείας γραφάς, ἱερὰς βίβλους, divinas scripturas. The time occupied in translation has been variously stated, many supposing it to have been the work of twenty years, from 360 to 380. But Socrates intimates,** and the language of the version proves, that it was done after the Goths settled in Moesia. If then the death of Ulphilas took place in 379, as is generally believed, the task must have been accomplished be * See Baumlein's Tables at the end of his Untersuchungen. The Greek appears to have been the ground work: eighteen letters are common to the two alphabets. The connection of the Goths with the Greeks was more intimate than with the Romans. Mallet's Northern Antiquities, Vol. I. p. 311. § Priestley's Lect. on Theory of Languages, etc. p. 41. Philostorgius. Hist. Eccl. II. 5. This question is definitely settled by the discoveries of Maio. ** L. IV. c. 33. tween 376, the year of emigration beyond the Danube, and that year. Industrious and learned, a perfect master of his own language, though no grammatical treatises probably existed, he found little difficulty in expressing exactly the sense of the original. It was long a matter of dispute whether the translation was made from the Greek or Latin; but the question is now pretty generally decided in favor of the Greek. We shall briefly sum up the arguments for the latter belief. 1. The orthography observed. EI= 1: T before I and K=N. 2. The etymological care. Ulphilas took the greatest pains to render as literally as possible the sense of the Greek, particularly in accordance with the etymology. Thus he translates πάντων ὁλοκαυτωμάτων, ALLAIM THAIM ALLBRUNS. TIM, Mark 12: 33. Examples of this nature are to be met with on every page.* * 3. It is to be observed that the order and language of the Greek text was most scrupulously followed as far as the Gothic idiom would allow. The translator frequently uses the article sa, so, thata, to correspond with the Greek article, and places it in the same relative position. An instance of this is found in Mark 15: 39, ὁ ἄνθρωπος οὗτος υἱὸς ἦν Θεοῦ, sa manna sa sunus was goths. The article is likewise often omitted, where it is wanting in the original, as 9ɛov ɛiμɩ viòs, goths im sunus.† In many passages the Gothic remains faithful to the Greek, when ail Latin versions leave it ; e. g. οἱ ἄνθρωποι οἱ ποιμένες it; oi oi is rendered in Gothic by jah thai mans thai hairdjos; not any, even of the Codices in Blanchini, have viri pastores. In order to show how closely the Gothic follows the Greek, we select at random a part of the parable of the sower, and give it below in both languages, with a literal Latin translation. Greek. Εξῆλθεν ὁ σπείρων τοῦ σπεῖραι τὸν σπόρον αὐτοῦ· καὶ fraiwa seinamma. jah Gothic. Urranu saiands du saian 4. The mistakes made. The translator in Matt. 27: 52, read κειμένων for κεκειμημένων : in Luke 7: 25, τροφη for τρυ qn. See also Luke 3: 14. John 16: 6. Matt. 8: 9.* 5. It is easy to see that the translation was made from a MS. of the Constantinopolitan recension, though there seem cases in which Ulphilas does not follow Lucian. We have not room to bring passages into actual juxta-position, but by turning to Hug, p. 296-7, the inquirer cannot fail to satisfy himself. The version of Ulphilas was not long allowed to remain without corruption. In the MSS. one of the Latin versions is sometimes found written side by side with the Gothic ;† and when the texts differed, the Gothic was altered so as to agree with the Latin, though perhaps at times merely for the purpose of making the line and verses of each to correspond. When not actually brought together collations were made, and marginal notes inserted, which were afterwards incorporated into the text. Many therefore are the corruptions which exist in a text intended as an exact translation of the Lucianian recension. And this also accounts for the error into which some learned men have fallen in supposing the Gothic version to be founded on the Latin. There is but one voice among the learned as to the value of this translation. It precedes the version of Jerome, and must be preferred to that by the critics of the New Testament. It adds another to the glorious links of the chain which binds all nations together in unity of faith, proving that the doctrines of the christian religion were not founded on human wisdom, but were established by divine authority. Every new version discovered adds still greater weight to the integrity and purity of * Compare with these passages the Cod. Brixianus. See Hug's Introd. p. 295—6, and Zahn's Ulphilas, p. 30 for other examples. Vide Fragments of Epist. to Romans. Hug Introd. p. 297. |