Page images

towards establishing the fact that the languages to which they belong are only varieties of one original language once spoken by the undivided family. They do more than this: they illustrate the condition in which the people then lived, and thus throw light upon a period and a phase of human existence of which history has no records.

Ar is a Sanskrit root applied to the ploughing or cutting up of the ground. There is nothing very obvious in the sound or shape of the syllable to account for its being employed in this sense. The most zealous advocate of the onomatopoeitic theory would find this root somewhat unmanageable. The fact that various nations inhabiting remote countries have the same sound to express the same idea, is most easily explained on the supposition that they derived it from the same source. In Greek we find ap- (ar-o), and in Latin ar-o, meaning 'I plough.' The agreement of these two with one another is not surprising, for the languages are obviously sisters; but it is somewhat striking that they agree so closely with the Sanskrit. We also find the same identity with the people who occupy the other geographical extreme-the Celts. In Irish ar-aim, in Welsh ar-adu, denote 'to 'plough.' The great northern division of the family, spreading from the Caspian Sea to the German Ocean, have ever been in bitter hostility with those in the south, and yet we find them employing the same word: in Polish, or-ats, 'to plough;' in Lithuanian, ar-ti; in Gothic, ar-yan; in Old German, er-ian. Even we English have a reminiscence of the word in ar-able; but this is borrowed from the Latin, whereas none of those we have quoted before were borrowed from any language. The absence of the verb from our present language is the consequence of the word plough having found greater favour with us, as it has with the Germans. But in Shakspeare's time the word ar (ear) was in use not as a borrowed word, but as a genuine English word. He speaks of ear-ing (ploughing') the sea. In the authorized translation of the Bible made about the same time, this word occurs repeatedly to denote ploughing the ground: to ear his ground and to reap his harvest; the oxen that ear the ground.'

[ocr errors]

A large number of derivatives from the same root might be traced in a similar way through these various languages, evidently not borrowed from one another, but all derived from a common source. Such, for instance, is in Latin ar-vum, a 'ploughed' field, English ear-th, originally doubtless 'ploughed' land. In the same way the words denoting plough, ploughman, ploughshare, etc., have been faithfully preserved by almost all members of the family as heirlooms. If one of them has yielded to the love of novelty, and cast off the old term, as a garment

Aryan, or Indo-European?


out of fashion, the antiquarian may generally find it thrown by in some obscure corner amongst other forgotten materials.

This word, so widely spread and so carefully preserved, teaches us, that in the land where they first dwelt the Indo-European family were employed in agriculture. They did not lead a nomade life, as their neighbours in Central Asia then did and still continue to do, but they tilled the ground and lived upon its produce. Thus one word lifts a large part of the curtain which concealed the condition of our early ancestors from us; for much of their daily life may be understood from the fact that they were agriculturists. There is evidence also that this pursuit was not the exception but the rule amongst them.

And this reminds us that Professor Max Müller, as well as M. Pictet (Les Origines,' etc.), prefers to designate the family by a term derived from the root which we have been examining. A principal reason for this preference is, that the term in question was originally applied to themselves, as a collective name, by the ancestors of the Indo-European family. The term ar-ya, which is a derivative from the root ar, is in later Sanskrit the designation of an agriculturist, a person belonging to the third class; ár-ya, another form of the derivative, is applied to all those of pure caste, and also has the general meaning of 'venerable,' excellent.' The words dryâvarta, ârya-bhúmi, are also used as names of the sacred land of the Brahmins, between the Himâlaya and the Vindhya mountains. Airya, which is the equivalent in the Zend language for the Sanskrit arya, also means 'respectable;' and in the Zend Avesta, the first country created by Ormuzd, is called Airyanem vaêjó. It is there, somewhere about the sources of the Oxus and Jaxartes, that tradition places the earliest home of the Iranian race. The term Iran, too, applied to the country between the Indus and the Tigris, is a later form of the same word. A small tribe in the Caucasus call themselves Iron; and the same root is probably employed in the first part of the words Ire-land and Ir-ish. In the Irish language ar means 'noble,' and in the Greek word aptoroç (ar-istos), it has a similar application.

Was the word Aryan, of which we have remains and reminiscences in these various forms, employed as a name of the entire family of nations before they separated? We confess that to us the evidence does not seem sufficient to justify this conclusion. The Slavic and Teutonic races, a very large proportion of the whole, exhibit no such use of the word. The term Arii, employed by Tacitus, Germ. 43, seems to be of a different origin. The Græco-Italic race, another very large part of the whole, are equally strangers to the name. The words 'Apia, 'Apio,

etc. (Aria, Arioi), were borrowed from the Iranians. In India the name is not applied to the entire people, but to the 'vene'rable,' or in a religious sense to those of pure caste, the 'righteous.' In such a sense as this the term seems to be applied in the passage quoted from the Vêdas. Know thou 'the âryas, O Indra! Be thou the mighty helper of the wor'shippers :''âryas' and 'worshippers' evidently apply to the same persons. Know thou the righteous,' etc., is the purport of the address. In another passage quoted in the Lectures, the âryas, denoting the three superior classes of pure caste, are contrasted with the Sûdras, or the lowest class. But the latter were not of a different race from the former. They also sprang from Brahma, though only from his feet, and would equally have deserved the name if it belonged to the entire race. The word ârya, therefore, in its Indian usage, appears to be applied to a class, and not to a race. Reference is made to the character, and not to the nationality of the people thus named. The statements in the Lectures, moreover, upon this point appear to be irreconcilable. On page 224 we read, the term aryan


originally a national name,' and on page 225, 'This word ârya, 'with a long a, is derived from arya with a short a, and this 'name arya is applied in the later Sanskrit to a Vaisya, or a 'member of the third class. What is called the third class must 'originally have constituted a large majority of the Brahmanic society; for all who were not soldiers or priests were Vaisyas. 'We may well understand, therefore, how a word originally applied to the cultivators of the soil and householders should 'have become a general name for all Aryans.' If it was 'origi'nally a national name,' of which, however, there is no proof, we confess we cannot well understand how, 'originally applied to 'the cultivators of the soil and householders,' it should in time 'have become a general name for all Aryans. Besides, if ârya was employed as a general name of the family in their primitive abode, it could not well be derived from arya, as applied to one of the Brahmanic castes. For the Brahmanic system is of a later date, and was first developed in India. Possibly, ârya was derived from a root with a meaning better suited to its usual application than the root ar, 'to till the ground.' Such compounds as âryâvarta, etc., resemble the word Holy-land, denoting the country of the holy people, the Brahmins, and not the country of a particular nation.

The Irish, and the Iron in the Caucasus, are the only instances in which the term seems to be applied to the entire people by themselves. But these instances are too modern to make it certain that such was their original application. They may have

Aryan, or Indo-European?


had a more restricted meaning at first, and gradually fallen into their present acceptation. And even in regard to Ireland, the old designation of the Island of the Saints,' awakens the suspicion that the people applied the name to their character rather than to their nationality. They called themselves the 'righteous,' or people of a pure race, like the first three classes in India, who also assumed the same name.

Airyanem and Iran, as we have seen, apply to country and not to nation. They denote the holy land created specially by Ormuzd for his devout worshippers. The expression in the arrow-headed inscriptions, 'Irân va Anirân,' which is translated 'Kings of the Aryan and un-Aryan races,' may be interpreted, of the religious and of the irreligious; for he who calls himself 'King of kings' would assume also to be lord of the just and of the unjust. But may the expression not refer to country rather than to people, and be another way of saying, 'Kings of the 'whole earth'—of Iran and of all that is not included in Iran?

Another case, nearly related to this, is the one quoted from Herodotus, who states, vii. 62, that in olden times the Medes 'were by everybody called Arii.' This, he informs us, is their own account. Their recalling the fact in such a manner shows that they regarded it as an honourable appellation, and not as a meaningless national name. In another part of his History (I. 101) he mentions the Magi as forming one of the six Median tribes. Now, the Magi occupied a position something like that of the Levites among the Jews. They were sacred persons, and officiated as priests, both among the Medes and Persians. Still further, in the narrative in the Third Book, of an attempt to set the false Smerdis upon the throne, he states that this Smerdis himself was a Magian. The whole enterprise seems to have been undertaken for the purpose of getting the power into the hands of the Medes, and so of securing the prestige of the Magian religion. All this makes it very probable that the term Arii, by which they said they were called in olden times, denoted the esteem in which they were held as a sacred body. This accords with all the other uses of the word which we have examined.

The expression quoted from the inscriptions of Behistun is perfectly reconcilable with the same view; i.e., that the word is used in a religious and not in a national sense. Ormuzd is there called the god of the Aryans, that is, the god of the righteous. The same explanation applies to the word as employed in forming compound names of persons, such as Ariaramnés. National names are rarely employed in such a way, whilst those which denote moral qualities are of frequent occurrence at the begin

ning of compound proper names. How few amongst us have names of which English, or Saxon, or Norman, forms the first member of a compound, compared with those whose names begin with a term of respect, such as Goodman, Goodchild, Goodenough, etc.

We cannot, therefore, see in the instances given sufficient evidence that in India and Ireland the term Aryan was the oldest name of the race,' or that it was originally a national "name.' It is with diffidence that we dissent in such a matter from Professor Max Müller and Monsieur Pictet. We agree with them that Aryan is a much simpler and more manageable name than the unwieldy compound Indo-European or IndoGermanic. But it is not equally intelligible. The original term, if it ever belonged to our language, has died out from amongst us, and has become familiar to us again only in the form Arian, applied to a religious heresy.

Let us advert to one or two other particulars in which the subject of these Lectures may aid historical researches. The root ar has supplied decisive evidence as to the primitive occupation of the Indo-European family. The question immediately arises, What land was it which they thus cultivated? Where was the hive situated from whence there issued those swarms which, now numbering hundreds of millions, spread over India and Persia, as well as over nearly the whole of Europe and a great part of the New World?

Not one of these different races has preserved any written record of the course of their first migrations. The earliest part in the career of each nation is wrapped in obscurity and confusion. Herodotus and Livy have given a connected account of the early times of Greece and Rome. They were both evidently desirous of tracing the stream of history as near to its source as possible. But the further they go back the less historical they become, and they stop far short of the original dispersion of the family. Modern criticism, moreover, has had to rectify many of their assumptions. The antiquities of Scandinavia and Germany aid us still less in our search. We soon become enveloped in mist and mythology. In all these countries the earliest notions as to whence the people came are either manifestly wrong or darkly mythical. Even Indians and Persians have no historical record of the country to which their common ancestors belonged.

The Science of Language offers its aid; and though at present it may throw but a feeble light into this dark region, yet, when its resources have been exhausted, we may hope that little doubt will remain upon a question now so problematical.

The original words of the language must furnish some intima

« PreviousContinue »