Lapas attēli

have had the sound of dz. If so, d must have been distinctly heard when Zeta came between two vowels, and the grammarians would hardly have represented it by sd, but rather by ds; as they explained Xi as ks and Psi as ps not as sp: nor would de have interchanged with 8 in Smyrna.

We may not indeed hope that the ancient Greek pronunciation can be exactly reproduced. Were there no other difficulty, our ignorance of Greek accents presents a seemingly impassible obstacle to such an achievement. Was the acute an elevation of pitch, pure and simple, or combined with stress, and if the latter, which of the two was essential and which incidental, or were they both essential? Our uncertainty as respects the circumflex is still greater. The wildest vagaries respecting it have been recently put forward, by Westphal, for example, in his grammar, as grave theories. Stress is all that is essential to accent in modern languages, and when we make anything more than stress essential to Greek accent, and demand for the circumflex some peculiar slide or wave of the voice, or musical elevation of pitch, we are involved in difficulties. The Greek orators, we may be sure, were never trammeled in their inflexions by any such restraints in the expression of passion, nor the musicians in their melodies.

The Germans, as we have seen, are aiming to bring their practice into harmony with their scientific conclusions, and it is only the comparative rigidity of German organs of speech (a want of flexibility to be anticipated in one homogeneous race of men), which prevents about as near an approximation, so far as letters are concerned, to the pronunciation of Plato as to that of Shakspeare and Bacon. The English language in some respects presents the greater obstacles to the German. The average German, after several years residence in America, fails to pronounce then, journal, charm, azure, etc. The American, with greater pliancy of organs, under a skillful teacher, acquires the peculiar sounds of the French, German, Spanish and Italian in a few hours. This flexibility of our vocal organs is readily explained by the composite character of our language and the fusion of races in the English people. Welsh, Ro

mans, Saxons and Norman French have made liberal contributions of sounds as well as of words to the English language. Three of the Indo-European races have met and mingled on English soil, the Celtic, Teutonic, and Græco-Italic, and their vowels and consonants are heard there to-day. A letter so important in the history of Greek as the digamma, sustaining the same relation to u (oo), which the consonantal y holds to the other close vowel, i, is heard in its purest form in our language, while it is known only in special positions, if at all, in Western Europe. The English, like the Greek, is distinguished by the variety of its diphthongs. Four even of its vowels are diphthongal, and exhibit some special analogies with the Greek. Thus the Greek lengthened becomes ei (aee). So in English, a long, final and before liquids, is commonly sounded ace, as name. The Greek o short is lengthened to ou (0-00). So in English oo is heard as the vanishing sound of lo, no, etc. Americans, with their Welsh variety of diphthongs, have greatly the advantage of the scholars of Western Europe in pronouncing a language so rich in diphthongs as the Greek and with such strong diphthongal tendencies.

Is it wise, then, for us, at the present stage of philological science, to rush hastily into a mode of pronunciation long known as Erasmian and continental, but already abandoned by the best German scholars, and which will surely be abandoned in this country as the truths of philology become generally known? Unless we can agree to follow some permanent standard, and put an end to the confusion now resulting from ignorance and misapprehension, it would be far better to adhere to the English method, which can be justified on grounds of its own, independently of any discoveries in philology, and, resting as it does on fixed principles, boasting of an honored parentage and history, and supported by the greatest names in English learning, will always be honorable. If a change must be made, and a new system established, shall it not be a system based on the unchanging truths of philology, and not on a passing German fashion, a system recommended by the analogies existing between the Greek and the English, and worthy to be transmitted to the future scholars of America?




The full title of Darwin's great work is as follows: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Existence."

The whole theme treated by the author is broader, than might be anticipated from the title. While the main force of the argument is expended in the attempt to prove the origination of new species by the gradual modification and differentiation of the offspring of a single species, the author by no means limits the range of the discussion, or the application of his theory, to that simple question. In the principles which he assumes or attempts to establish, in the wide range of facts and analogies which he adduces for proof or illustration, and in the beliefs unreservedly expressed, he covers the whole ground of the theory of the evolution of all existing organic forms from a few simple primitive forms of living existence.

He assumes, as he may legitimately do, that, if one species may diverge into several species, constituting a genus, then may genera diverge into families, and these into orders, and so on. He believes that such has been the history of organized beings on the earth, and anticipates that this view will be more and more confirmed as the knowledge of the organic remains of the past, and of the laws of life, as exhibited in the present, becomes more extensive and accurate. In the last pages of his book he throws out the supposition "that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or less number."

While speaking of creation, as if not dissenting from the prevalent belief, as regards the origin of life, the author expressly declines to treat the subject as a question of science.

He also, in this connection, disparages the doctrine of sponta neous generation. For this he has been blamed by a critic in the "North American Review."

The critic admits, that, as Darwin's theme was the origin of species, and not the origin of life, he did not need to discuss the latter question at all, much less to adopt or reject any theory with regard to it. But he maintains, that, if Darwin adopted any opinion at all on the question, he was bound in consistency to accept the theory of the spontaneous evolution of life from inorganic matter, as the only doctrine at all compatible with his theory of the origin of species.

It must be admitted, moreover, that this theory of the origin of life naturally goes along with, and supplements Darwin's theory of the origin of species, and makes with it a consistent whole. If it could once be proved that life actually originates by spontaneous evolution from inorganic matter, and that species originate by evolution from pre-existing living forms, then might science plausibly claim to have marked for itself a plain path out of the supposed original nebulous chaos of our system, not only into the sublime order of astronomic law, but into the beautiful realm of life and conscious activity.

While Darwin is careful not to set up the claim of having actually proved anything beyond the probable origination of species by natural selection, many of his admirers are less cautious in this respect. Holding that the phenomena, which he passes in review, justify conclusions beyond what he claims, they eagerly seize upon his facts and methods as furnishing at least a provisional solution of the entire problem of living beings on the earth. By such, Darwin's work is valued less for what it proves, than for what it suggests,-less for the actual application of his theory to a wide but circumscribed range of facts, than for its supposed applicability to the entire field of facts and phenomena in regard to life on the earth.

Hence the work of Darwin presents itself to us under two aspects. The first has reference to what he has actually accomplished, or claims to have accomplished. The second regards the position which Darwinism occupies in the thought

and theory of scientific men of kindred pursuits. These two phases of the subject, combined, introduce a third of great interest and importance. I refer to the relation of Darwinism, reinforced by modern materialism, to the question of a personal Creator. I shall endeavor to treat these three points with such brevity as the importance of the subject will allow.


For a full understanding of the subject, it will be necessary to present a brief outline of the multitudinous facts brought forward by Darwin, and of the theory which he bases on those facts. In doing so, I shall not attempt to follow his order of discussion, or even to indicate all the arguments adduced by him, either as direct proof, or in answer to objections. Neither shall I limit myself to the precise facts presented by him, when other facts are at hand, which are better suited to the purposes of illustration.

The first thing which claims our attention in this connection, is the great law of inheritance, by which offspring resemble their parents in their general type and constitution, and often in their individual traits. The general facts covered by this law are too familiar to require specification or illustration at this point.

At first view these facts seem to be at war with the claim set up by Darwin's theory. This law, by which the characteristics of parents descend by inheritance to their offspring, does not seem to favor the theory which asserts the divergence of the descendants of the same pair into distinct species. an even into genera, orders, etc.

But it is to be observed that there is never a perfect resemblance of the offspring to their parents, nor of the individuals sprung from the same parents to each other. Hence, with the general inherited likeness of offspring to their parents, we as uniformly observe particular differences between parents and offspring, and the individual offspring themselves; so that it is not probable that any two plants or animals have ever

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »