Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Telingan 60 Papuan. 3

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

But we hardly think he has given evidence that these eleven can, on his own theory, comprise the whole human race. Concerning the Kaffirs and other people of Africa (as Congo and the neighbouring regions), also concerning the primitive inhabitants of South America, nothing that we can remember appears in his pages. A map of the world is intended to exhibit, by various colours, his views concerning the dispersion of these eleven races; but, as often happens, the tints are so like one another, and so illexhibited in the very minute patterns, that we can make nothing of it.

Dr. Pickering does not appear to value much the aid of Comparative Grammar in assisting these researches: or, perhaps, rather we should say, that he looked to other minds, especially to a Mr. Hale, to discuss this side of the extensive discussion. Marsden, we believe, was the first to enter on the interesting question of the relation of the Malay and Polynesian languages; and since his day it has become increasingly manifest that the district of Oceanica contains more materials than any other part of the globe for elucidating the vexed problem concerning the diffusion of Man. One broad fact of contrast strikes us as deserving attention. Ever since Marsden, it has been recognized,and, in spite of Crawfurd's objections, the conclusion has been reinforced by Humboldt,-that a single tongue, with only secondary modifications, reaches from Madagascar to Easter Island, through the space of 200 degrees of longitude. Contrast this phenomenon with the infinite multiplicity of languages in North America, where no two neighbouring tribes can understand one another! can only explain this, as implying that in the former case human nations migrated in considerable masses, so as to retain their primitive speech; in the latter, single families plunged into the forest, and became so isolated as to lose all restraint on the tendency to re-invent language, and

We

*This epithet, with him, includes black Brahmins and Arabs, and (here) excludes white Abyssinians.

lose the old stock of words. May not this throw light on the great multiplicity of tongues which have astonished investigators in the region of the Caucasus? Vast mountains, like dense forests, which afford facilities for solitary life to single families, so that a single tribe may break up into ten in the course of a century, must be expected to produce in barbarous ages an immense variety of tongues mutually unintelligible.

The mythology of nations is as liable to change as their language; identity of mythology is, therefore, so much the stronger proof of relationship-except, indeed, where it can be accounted for as a speculation suggested by their physical circumstances. The Tonga islanders plant their gods in an oceanic "island of the blessed," similar to that described by Pindar, and believe earthquakes to be caused by the gigantic god Muwi, the earth-supporter and earthshaker, who, however, does not, like Neptune, strike it with his trident, but, like the Typhos of Pindar, turns on his side when uncomfortable. Once upon a time, the ocean covered all the earth, and the god Tongaloa came down to fish. Having let down from the sky his hook and line, he caught something of immense weight, which resisted his efforts to raise it. Believing that he had hooked an enormous fish, he exerted all his strength: at last his line broke, just as he was heaving his burden above the surface. He had raised a vast mass of rock, the points of which projected above the water, and formed the islands of Tonga.-Compare this with the Greek story of Delos and other islands. Altogether, we are not sure that inquirers make sufficient allowance for the tendency of man to invent like tales under like circumstances. Yet it is not by accident that Mawi is also the name of a Tahitian god (Prichard calls him the Prometheus of the Tahitians);-Mauwi also is the mythical ancestor of the New Zealanders, who, with his brothers, is believed by them to have fished up New Zealand. Maui also appears as the name of an island close to Hawaii; but this, perhaps, is a coincidence which denotes nothing.

It has been known, since the time of Sir William Jones, that many Sanskrit roots enter into the Malay. Marsden showed that the phenomenon existed on a very great scale, and Dr. Leyden remarked that the Sanskrit words are far

purer in the Malay than in the Pali and in any modern Indian languages. Hence it has become a curious problem to decide on the nature of the relationship indicated. Bopp has boldly maintained that the Malay is to an earlier Sanskrit only what the Romance languages are to Latin; but this conclusion is not as yet substantiated, and the theory is more plausible which attributes the Sanskritism of the Malay to an Indian influence proceeding from Java. In all this, a field of wide research appears, where it may be anticipated that the phenomena will be found more and more numerous, and more and more fruitful of results, in proportion to the zeal and accomplishments of the inquirers.

Dr. Pickering subjoins to his work a number of curious and elaborate tables concerning the introduction of various plants and animals into America, the islands of the Pacific,-Equatorial Africa,-Southern Arabia, Hindostan,and Egypt. These last seem to warn us that an element of mere hypothesis enters his tables, and that they are not pure fact of observation or of testimony. Nevertheless, the mass of absolute information in them is great, and we suppose is hardly elsewhere accessible. We look on it as so praiseworthy a zeal in a London bookseller to furnish the English public with the rare scientific works of the United States, that we earnestly hope the reception given to Dr. Pickering's volume by our libraries will encourage similar importations.

ART. III. THE RELATION OF THE THIRD TO THE FIRST TWO GOSPELS.

Jo. Jac. Griesbachii Commentatio quo Marci Evangelium totum a Matthæi et Luce Commentariis decerptum esse monstratur. (Opuscula Academica, Vol. II., ed. Gabler. Jenæ, 1825.)

We may seem to be assuming to ourselves the province of Retrospective reviewers, in calling attention to an article so long before the world, as that of which we have just written the title. But as we intend to controvert the opinion that Mark has epitomized Matthew and Luke, and to claim for him the character of being the earliest of our Lord's biographers, we know not how we could proceed more fairly than by giving our readers notice that we have against us the judgment of one of the most eminent of modern critics of the New Testament. We do not, however, intend to enter into a minute examination of Griesbach's arguments. He has proved, what the inspection of a Harmony is sufficient to show, that nearly the whole of Mark is to be found either in Matthew or Luke; but the more important question, which has been the borrower, he passes over very lightly indeed. He seems almost to have taken it for granted that the shorter Gospel must be an abridgment of the longer. Yet if Mark, with the other Gospels before him, really designed to make an abridgment of them, he entitled himself to small thanks from those into whose hand his work came to the exclusion of the originals. The authors of Abridgments have never held a very high place among literary labourers; but we should be sorry to think that they could plead such a precedent as the Evangelist would in this case have afforded them. Let us conceive of an author sitting down to abridge Matthew, and leaving out the whole of the Sermon on the Mount; or with Luke before him, omitting the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Good Samaritan, and Dives and Lazarus, the raising of the Widow's Son, the cure of the Ten Lepers, and the scene in the house of Simon the Pharisee. Never was parchnent or papyrus more injudiciously

economised. Griesbach has not indeed overlooked the fact that Mark, whom he supposes to be the epitomater of Matthew and Luke, relates the same events as they do, often in a manner the most opposite to that of an epitome, adding minute circumstances to their more general narratives. In replying to the hypothesis of Storr, that Matthew and Luke had the Gospel of Mark before them, and copied from him the passages in which they coincide, he actually argues that this cannot have been the case, because "Mark sometimes surpasses Matthew in the perspicuity and distinctness of his narrative; nay, even is more accurate, and approaches nearer to the truth of facts, so that it is inexplicable why Matthew should in these instances have deserted him, while he elsewhere follows his footsteps." The superiority thus assigned to the non-apostle over the apostle, the second-hand relator over the eye-witness, is extraordinary, and very little accordant with the character of an epitomater. The hypothesis of which it is a necessary part will lose all probability, if we can show, as we trust we shall, that Matthew had a reason for his variations from Mark, in cases where, as Griesbach admits, Mark has related most accurately.

We are not about to discuss the question respecting the origin of the verbal harmony between the three first Gospels. We confess ourselves not satisfied with the original hypothesis of Eichhorn respecting the Urevangelium, nor its modifications by Marsh and others, nor with Mr. Norton's, of an oral tradition, formed by repetitions of the Gospel-history, in the apostolical preaching, and finally consigned to writing.* No doubt, if we can establish the priority of Mark's gospel to the others, it will go far to confirm the opinion that he was copied by his successors. But what we shall endeavour is to show from internal evidence, that his narrative, whenever published, was at least written before the other two, and represents therefore a tradition or recollection of our Lord's actions and teaching nearer to the time of his ministry than either Matthew's or Luke's. In conducting our inquiry, we must deal with the Evangelists as human biographers, not only possessing no supernatural sources of knowledge, nor

* Genuineness of the Gospels, I., p. 239, Ed. 2.

« AnkstesnisTęsti »