In the Annals of Oriental Literature, (Part i. June, 1820,) the very first article, (pp. 1-65.) is this:

Analytical Comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic Languages, showing the original identity of their grammatical structure. By F. Bopp.

This Analytical Comparison, justly so called, (but never continued beyond the first number,) embraces the verbs and participles only. It is admirable as far as it goes; but dwelling perhaps too long in detail, its effect is rather lost in the multitude of small particulars. The reader, new to such a subject, (and who is not?) requires to be refreshed every now and then by stopping at short stages where he may be invited to recapitulate and review what is already done.

We could have wished also, for reasons which will appear by and by, that the author had proceeded in the same acute manner to illustrate the similitude of the nouns and pronouns in Sanscrit and Greek. He deserves our best thanks, however, for the light which he has so far thrown on the comparative anatomy of those tongues; and we shall be most happy to profit, when we know where and how, by the continuance of his labors in a field of such curious and instructive discovery.

For the present, let us frankly and briefly confess what is one definite object at least of these suggested inquiries. We are devotedly attached to the language and literature of Athens: our old friend Dr. Parr, the Nestor of Greece, was hardly more so. And it struck us at an early period of life, that the whole rationale of Greek syntax hinged, and must of necessity hinge, on the analysis and signification, when discovered, of the several Greek cases.

Here, we still think, lies the Gordian knot of Grammar. It has been distantly touched-it has been clumsily cut: has it ever yet been fairly untied and developed? To speak plainly, then, we want to know the constituent parts of a Greek case so called. Shall we look for "metaphysical aid," and investigate in the genitive, dative, and accusative cases, "the three chief circumstances of relation or connexion in human life, possession, interchange, and action?" That has been done with the most pleasing ingenuity (sixty years ago) by Professor Moor of Glasgow, in his Introductory Essay on the Greek Prepositions.

If dissatisfied with abstract and logical bases for this grammatical structure, shall we venture to fix a "local habitation" for the name? May we not then suppose, that since of all relations the first and most striking are those of sensible objects, the material world in this, as in other departments, lent its language to the moral? Or, to declare at once what we honestly believe, let our own hypothesis, under that modest name, be avowed without farther excuse or apology.

The Greek NOMINATIVE case, then, was the noun itself, not

in its crude state, (according to the phrase of Sanscrit grammar,) but combined with the simple pronoun, he, she, or it.

The GENITIVE case was the noun so formed, with a word besides, or part of a word, indicating the local term of, or from: The DATIVE, in like manner, with some indication of in, or at: And the ACCUSATIVE, with some final syllable signifying to. This scheme for the primitive formation of the cases, (drawn up in a brief essay five-and-twenty years ago, and communicated to a few eminent scholars, but never printed,) if taken as a whole, and particularly in the simple elements so distinctly stated, we believe to be entirely original. That in parts, some approaches have been made to it, though much too loosely to touch the matter to the quick, must be candidly acknowleged; and may, indeed, be fairly urged, as preluding to its discovery, and now favoring its truth, in the very same degree. We do not intend at present to bring forward in detail the grammatical facts which support this hypothesis: but the nature of the argument will be seen in a few specimens.

In the parisyllabic declensions, then, y and olxos, compared with Sounos and Souλn, sufficiently show the pronouns, he and she, in the NOMINATIVE. Оipavóðev, an old form of the GENITIVE, with ovpavó 0, (from ovpavóo,) for the DATIVE, may serve to illustrate those cases as part of the system. And as old forms of the ACCUSATIVE, let πεδίονδε, οἴκαδε, χαμάζε, οὐρα voce, be produced to complete the set.

On attempting to carry this idea into the third or imparisyllabic declension, we had to encounter an evident change in the pronoun concerned, and found the difficulties increase accordingly. Yet in that declension, supposing, as we do, the local term ( or i) to be the original ending always of the dative case, and knowing the forms es and as in Greek (with as in Sanscrit) to indicate plurality, we could not but discern a strong agreement with our wishes, in the dative plural of kúwy for instance :

N. KUv-es, dogs:

D. Kuv—eσ—ɩv, in dogs:

prolonged into κύνεσσιν, or shortened into κυσί.

Our main strength, however, lies, till the Sanscrit be farther examined, in the singular agreement betwixt the prepositions of the Greek language and the cases which go along with them. Thus: the prepositions άπò and éž, év, and eis, are the constant companions of the genitive, dative, and accusative, respectively. This, we say, is exactly as it ought to be for our hypothesis: nothing could possibly answer it better.

Again, whenever a preposition is of a nature to go with three different cases, if the local relations, from or of, in or at, and to, can be clearly seen, the cases also are seen with those very distinctions. We have been amused, indeed, to remark how very nearly some ingenious men have caught at once the master-key

to the causes of Greek syntax from correctly translating the following sentence in the Anabasis of Xenophon:

Ταῦτα εἶπεν· οἱ δὲ στρατιώται οἵ τε αὐτοῦ ἐκείνον, καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι, ταῦτα ἀκούσαντες, ὅτι οὐ φαίη παρὰ Βασιλέα πορεύεσθαι, ἐπήνεσαν παρὰ δὲ Ξενίου καὶ Πασίωνος πλείους ἢ δισχίλιοι, λαβόντες τὰ ὅπλα καὶ τὰ σκευοφόρα, ἐστρατοπεδεύσαντο παρὰ Κλεάρχῳ.

Of course the translation below (need we stop to prove that Tapà is the English word, side?) is intended to exemplify analytically our theory of the cases:

παρὰ Ξενίου,

παρὰ Κλεάρχῳ, παρὰ Βασιλέα, from-side-Xenias, at-side-Clearchus, to-side-the-King. Herman, in his acute, profound, invaluable essay De Ellipsi et Pleonasmo, (1808, Berlin; 1813, Oxford,) by the light of that very preposition, strikes out the general meaning of the cases, but without breathing a hint of their material origin. (pp. 135-164.)

“Ilapà est apud, eaque significatio manet, sive Tapà σoì, sive παρὰ σὲ, sive παρὰ σοῦ dicatur: sed casuum diversitas facit, ut παρὰ ooì habeatur id, quod est apud te; mapà σè, quod accedat ad te; Tapà σou, quod veniat a te: id quod simili modo Galli dicunt, de chez toi."

Let us now hope that we have succeeded in showing, by specimen, at least, the deep and essential connexion of the Greek cases, rightly analysed, with the principles of Greek syntax. We have rendered it probable, also, that certain terms of local meaning exist in the combination of elements which form the Greek cases. Exactly to develope the constituent parts of the noun in all three declensions, if we must speak the truth honestly, is quite out of our power. Whether that task be itself possible, we dare not pronounce. But if the Greek language be immediately derived from the Sanscrit, which we believe on the authorities quoted in an earlier part of this article, to the Sanscrit some critical master of both languages must go

"I pede fausto, Docte sermones utriusque linguæ !"

and, from the comparative anatomy of the two, elicit the structure of the less perfect, which at present stands in much need of illustration.

By way of postscript, and as an encouragement to our hopes, we copy from Wilkins's Grammar, (pp. 36, 37,) the following account of the eight cases in Sanscrit :

1. The nominative. 2. The accusative. 8. The vocative.

3. The implementive case, having the force of the sign by or with.

4. The proper dative case, with the sign to.

5. The ablative case, with the sign from.

6. The proper genitive or possessive case, with the sign of or belonging to.

7. The locative case, with the sign in or on.

"Quis referet nobis victor, quid possit oriri,
Quid nequeat; finita potestas denique quoique
Quanam sit ratione atque alte terminus hærens ?"

R.S. Y.

THE THEOLOGY OF THE PRIMITIVE GREEKS.

THE Iliad and Odyssey, acquiring no little interest from their antiquity, and deriving a high poetical worth from the vigor of conception, and the simple propriety and force of expression which they invariably exhibit, are yet more valuable, as furnishing a history of the transactions to which they have reference, and as affording plentiful, though scattered information, relative to the state of opinion and practice in those early times. The fidelity of Homer, as an historical poet, we shall not here investigate at large; two remarks will suffice.-First, it is undeniable that as far as regards the substance of historical facts, mentioned as having occurred at or about the time of the Trojan war, these two great Homeric poems either discountenance or openly repudiate the fabulous accounts current in later periods. And secondly, it was necessary for the bard, in the primitive times of Greece, to relate the debates of Olympus, and specify the proceedings of the imaginary deities, to confirm his countrymen in the opinion that he was assisted by a particular goddess; an opinion to which he was indebted for much of his honor and distinction. These two remarks combined, especially if displayed in all their various bearings, form an unanswerable argument in favor of the veracity of Homer, as respects the substance of the accounts he gives, of what were to him recent transactions. But this is not the only, or the most important deduction, from these considerations; in conjunction with internal evidence of the most formidable nature, they invest likewise the information which Homer supplies on the antiquities of primitive Greece, with an authority commanding and decisive.

The theology of the primitive Greeks is a subject highly interesting in itself, and one, a thorough knowlege of which is necessary to a proper comprehension of the Iliad and Odyssey: their religious notions, affecting and communicating a peculiar character to almost every transaction. Their deities were a

+

race of superior immortal men. That they were possessed of
bodies, must be evident to every one who has perused a single
book of either of the Homeric poems. Repeatedly is mention
made of the faces, hands, arms, feet, &c. of the several imagined
divinities; and the connexion of these expressions forbids us to
interpret them otherwise than literally. Nay, we even find
Minerva continually celebrated for the penetration of her eye,
Juno for the fairness of her arms, whilst Jupiter is distinguished
as possessing a majestic dignity of countenance. And as they
had bodies, so they had bodily wants and requisitions; sleep
was thought necessary to recruit their wasted strength, and a
constant supply of provision was indispensable to their comfort-
able existence: though, it is true, their corporal powers were
greater than those of the human race,-their corporal functions
were more ably discharged, and they were capable of enduring
fatigue, and of sustaining the want of sleep and provisions, to a
far greater extent than mankind. And even their superiority in
these respects arose, as also did the immortality of their bodies,
from the sustenance they partook of-ambrosia and nectar: if
reduced to the food of mortals, their divinity was at an end; and
if destitute of nourishment for a long space of time, death en-
sued. These positions are strongly supported; innumerable
are the
passages which may be adduced in confirmation of them;
but we shall confine ourselves to two:

ῥέε δ' ἄμβροτον αἷμα θεοῖο,
Ιχώρ, οἷός πές τε ῥέει μακάρεσσι θεοῖσιν.
Οὐ γὰρ σῖτον ἔδουσ ̓, οὐ πίνουσ ̓ αἴθοπα οἶνον·
Τούνεκ' ἀναίμονες εἰσι, καὶ ἀθάνατοι καλέονται.

II. E. vss. 339 sqq.

Τλῆ μὲν "Αρης, ὅτε μιν Ωτος, κρατερός τ' ̓Εφιάλτης,
Παῖδες ̓Αλωνος, δῆσαν κρατερῷ ἐνὶ δεσμῷ.

Χαλκέῳ δ' ἐν κεράμῳ δέδετο τρισκαίδεκα μῆνας·

Καί νύ κεν ἔνθ ̓ ἀπόλοιτο "Αρης, ατος πολέμοιο, κ. τ. λ.
Il. E. vss. 385 sqq.

As it regards the intellectual faculties of the supposed deities, they were also a superior race of human beings. Endued with different tastes, possessed of different degrees of ability, and of capacities formed for different pursuits, all were imperfect in reference to the extent of their knowlege and comprehension, though with respect to their particular branches of knowlege, each was thought to have attained the highest degree of proficiency.

Their moral properties and conduct have little of excellence. Tainted with all the corruptions of the unregenerate human

1