1805.] 



The Antiquary. 



527 



the deferf! of Tartary.* The Runic his 

 by fome been lepreferxed as the immediate 

 offspring of the Gothic : hut this appears 

 by no means likely. It was, in izt\, the 

 necromantic dialect of the unconverted 

 S.ixons. Its letters have nothing in com- 

 men with either Roman, Greek, or Go- 

 thic chirafters, whether we confider their 

 frrm, their number, n?mes, or order. 

 Yet if they had their r'A'e in Afia, why do 

 thev not refemble the general chara(Slerof 

 Eaifern letters ? Mr. Thwaites, how- 

 ever, had rtmarktrd a fembinnce of their 

 form in one or two contrsftions of the 

 Saxon. f 



To return from this digrefTlon, writers 

 have not been wanting to compare the 

 Saxon, and throuph it the Engiilli lan- 

 guage, with thePerfiaii; they pronounce 

 a flrong refemblance in the facility and 

 fimpiicity of their form and conftrucliofl ; 

 in their having no difference of terniina- 

 tifins to mark the gender either inl'ubftin- 

 tives or adjeffives ; in referring all inani- 

 mate things to a neuter gender ; and, ge- 

 nerally fpeaking, in their applicati' n of 

 different names to animals of diffeient 

 I'exes : and that the Anglo Saxon has 

 many words in common with the Perfian, 

 is undoubted. t 



Others, with a fuccefs greater in pro- 

 portion to their labour, have confidered 



• See Bifhop Percy's Tranflation or Mal- 

 let's Northern Antiquities, vol. i, p. 371. 



■|- Grammat. Anglof. p. i. Wanley, in 

 a Note on Nicolfon's Hiftorical Library, fays, 

 '• The Saxons, our anceftors, continued the 

 ufe of fhe Runic letters all along ; and fo 

 did the Englilh after the Conqueft, as low as 

 the time of Henry VI. i" but for this laft 

 alfertion vie ft-em to want authority. In an- 

 other note he adds, " When Sir Andrew 

 Fountayne was in Ireland, he met with and 

 brought to London a wooden hand or fceptre 

 of an Irifh or Danifh king, with many Runic 

 letters on it. The Irifh have alfo long had, 

 ano ftiil keep up, the knowledge 0/ a fecret 

 writing which they call Otum, fpecimcns of 

 which I remember to have feen in feveral 

 places, particularly in the Book of Cloyne, 

 where the bottoms of the letters look like 

 Runic " 



J See Cafaubon. de Lingua Anglica vetere 

 five Saxonica, p. 157 Dr. Hickes has 

 flightly mentioned in the Tbcfaurus the 

 ftriking affinity which Dr. Hyde had pointed 

 out to him between the Northern and the 

 Medo-Perfian tongues. The iji.irks of their 

 sgreemcnt are mentioned as very fimilar to 

 thofe which will prefently be fpoken of as 

 exifting between the Saxon and the Greek, 

 with the addition of their conformity in 

 liouble negations. 



the remarkable affinity between the Saxnn 

 and the Gretk.* Among thefe ranks 

 Meric Cafaubon, whofe curious work, 

 already quoted, contains an accurate and 

 free invefiigation of the fubjeft. 



The great features of this affinity he 

 traces not merely in the fimilar fi^und and 

 fenfe rf ladical worc's, but in the general 

 ffroi'Vtue and forma'ion of the languages ; 

 in the decluaicn of their nouns ; in the 

 terminal i(.n of the infinitives of iheir 

 verbs; in the comparifon of their adjec- 

 tives ; in the crmpounding of their 

 words 5 and in the peculiar ufe of iheir 

 articles ?.nd negatives. The conneftion 

 between the Grtek and Erglifli tongues 

 15 difti (51ly fhcwn to exceed the bound.s of 

 common amh.gy. Cafaubon had purdied 

 his inquiries ftill deeper ; but Criarles f. 

 havlrio regarded him with favour, the pa- 

 pers in which he had coniidered the idioms 

 of the two lancfua^es vvL-re loft and de- 

 (froyed in tl^e plunoer and fpprcffion of 

 the times ihu followed. Dr. Clarke, 

 when writing on the ci.nneifion of the 

 Roman, Saxon, and Englifh coins, ad- 

 vanced thedifruffion j not only improving 

 on what Cafaubon had already done, but 

 taking confiderable pains to prove that the 

 pound of the Saxons was taki-n from the 

 Greek ; that their meafiLes of length and 

 capacity had the fame agreement ; and 

 that the way of reckoning fra8ions or 

 parts of quantities has that rem.irkable pe- 

 culiarity which has been frequently ob- 

 ferved as one of the Greek idijiiis. They 

 who for the entertainment of theml'elves or 

 the convey.5nce of knowledge to others, 

 are dtfiioui 'jf following up this affinity 

 ff ill clofer, mud uCe no common care ; for 

 as the origin of words is feldom inquired 

 into till climates or delcents have altered 

 their original flexion, the primitives them- 

 felves, tt may be feared, are fometimes 



* Dr. Clarke has mentioned the principal 

 authors who have either obferved or exercif- 

 ed their ingenuity in tracing this identity of 

 phrafe and diftion. The firft who fpoke of 

 it was the celebrated Henry Stephens, to 

 whom the lovers of Greek are under lafting 

 obligations. But objedts of nobler induftry 

 anrf importance, it is probable, detained him 

 trom the profecution of any further inquiry. 

 Other critics in the Greek and Northern 

 tongues difcufled it incidentally j but Cafau- 

 bon was the only writer to whom any extra- 

 ordinary advances can be attributed. In the 

 Proemium to Profeflbr Ihre's Suio-Gothic- 

 Glofl'ary {1 vol. folio, 1769), the harmony 

 between the Greek and Gothic tongues is 

 traced fuccefsfuHy ; but the ProfefTor doM 

 not feem to have ufcd Cafaubon. 



f i 1 Igft. 



