"discovered the key" to the Himyaritic alphabet by the hypothesis, that the inscription of Hissn Ghurâb is the original of the Arabic lines with which he has attempted to identify it. The full extent to which his theory involves errors in palaeography it has not been necessary to our purpose to exhibit. It might be shown, that his alphabet embraces errors besides those here noticed, into which he was led by the supposition which has been proved to be false. Yet we would not imply, that Forster's alphabet of the Himyaritic is wholly erroneous. In some points he has simply followed Roediger, according to his own declaration;25 and in certain others he happens to agree with Gesenius, or Roediger, or with both. So far as these coincide with each other we do not hesitate to say, that he differs from them to his disadvantage; in cases where they disagree, his uncritical judgment can be allowed to have no weight to turn the scale. Most of the instances in which he differs, where they agree, and some in which he differs from both, where they are at variance with each other, have come under consideration in the course of the preceding criticism. We cannot conclude without alluding to Mr. Forster's pretence of antiquity for the inscription before us. He speaks of it as perhaps the most ancient monument in the world," and again, as "belonging to the primitive period of the world," and this he does without hinting, so far as we have discovered, any other reason for the bold assertion than that, as he would have it, the name of Aws or Uz, is found in a small inscription engraved upon the rock, below that which we have been considering, and referring to it, according to his opinion;-thus presenting a coincidence with the narrative respecting the discovery by Muawîyeh's viceroy of an inscription on the walls of "a castle of Ad," on the supposition, (which has, however, been proved to be erroneous,) that the inscription said to have been seen by Abdurrahman is the same which Wellsted found at Hissn Ghurâb. This reasoning is to persuade us, it would seem, that we have here "a monument whose antiquity bids defiance to criticism,” reaching back to " within 500 years of the flood,"27 in spite of Wellsted's information indicating the present good state of preservation of the characters, though engraved on the exposed face of a sea-bound cliff, and notwithstanding a very natural skepticism with regard to the historical accuracy of the Mohammedan geneaology: "Ad, the 28 S. Ibid. II. 348, 404. 25 S. Hist. Geogr. of A. 11. 335. 27 S. Ibid. II. 364. 1845.] Antiquity of Inscription not proved. 259 son of Aws, the son of Aram, the son of Shem, the son of Noah." Here is truly a large demand upon our credulity! But the foundation of the whole is a fiction light as air; for the name of Aws does not so much as occur in the small inscription, as is sufficiently proved by the fact, that one of the perpendicular punctuation-marks is taken by Forster as the middle element of the word which he there reads.28 Presuming, however, upon a sufficiency of credulity and blindness in his reader, Forster summons him, upon this, to observe that the name Hûd cannot be a Mohammedan corruption of the patriarchal name Heber, as some have supposed, inasmuch as we find it in this "monument of the primitive period of the world." The real opinion of the learned respecting this name is, that Mohammed borrowed it from the Jews, among whom traces of it first appear at a comparatively modern period. Now supposing with Forster that it occurs in the inscription of Hissn Ghurâb, though we have seen that this is not the case, would it not be rather an argument for the post-Mohammedan date of the inscription, since to say the least, it is more probable that this name came into use among the Arabs, after the time of Mohammed, than that the inscription in which it is believed to occur, is so ancient as supposed, on the ground just stated? Another application made by Forster of the assumed antiquity of this monument is intimated in the following passages, taken from the Dedication of his work to the Archbishop of Canterbury: "But it is not the antiquity of these monuments which constitutes their true value; it is the precious central truths of revealed religion which they record, and which they have handed down from the first ages of the post-diluvian world, that raise them above all price. Viewed in this aspect they strike at the It is "The language of Forster on the discovery, as he believed, of the name of Aws on the rock of Hissn Ghurâb, cannot fail to excite the merriment of the reader who has fairly examined his scheme. "This latter line" he says "revealed at once the awful antiquity of the whole of these inscriptions, Aws (after the name of their forefather, Aws, or Uz, the grandson of Shem, and great-grandson of Noah) being the primitive patronymic of the famous lost tribe of Ad! equally impossible to express or forget the feelings of awful interest, and solemn emotion, with which I now found myself penetrating into the 'cunabula gentium;' conversing, as it were, with the immediate descendants of Shem and Noah, not through the doubtful medium of ancient history, or the dim light of oriental tradition, but in their own records of their own annals, "graven with an iron pen, and lead, in the rock for ever!" Hist. Geogr. of Arab. II. 372. very root of skepticism, and leave not even his own hollow ground beneath the feet of the unbeliever." "We now may know, in their own hand writing, what the earliest post-diluvian men and nations thought and felt and believed, not merely about this life, but about God, about religion, about "miracles, the resurrection and the life to come."29 He refers to the latter half of the seventh line of the inscription, which he reads: "And we proclaimed our belief in miracles, in the resurrection, in the return into the nostrils of the breath of life." But the three points of faith here specified are neither an iota more nor less than the cardinal points of Mohammedan doctrine; and who, not being prepossessed with a certain opinion, would hesitate whether to refer an inscription, found in Arabia, and supposed to contain such a specification of religious belief, to an age subsequent to Mohammed, or to derive from it, on the ground alleged in favor of its primitive antiquity, a "contemporary" evidence "of patriarchal faith, and primeval revelation ?"30 For ourselves, we will not venture to express any opinion, as yet, respecting the age of the Himyaritic inscriptions, though we believe that something may be inferred, on this point, from the relation to each other of the Himyaritic and Ethiopic alphabets, even if no date should be discovered in any of the inscriptions. ARTICLE III. A SKETCH OF GERMAN PHILOSOPHY. [On the basis of an Article in the Halle " Allgemeine LiteraturZeitung," October, 1843, Nos. 182, 183, 184.] By Rev. Henry B. Smith, West Amesbury, Mass. INTRODUCTION. [The following Article is rather a paraphrase than a translation of the original. Much matter also from other sources which seemed necessary to the elucidation of some of the positions has been incorporated into it. The paragraphs upon some of the re * S. Hist. Geogr. of Arab. I. Dedic. XI. 30 S. Ibid. ibid. XV. 1845.] Introduction. 261 sults of the Hegelian system, and a general statement of Schelling's new scheme, were condensed from an essay by professor Bachmann of Jena in the " Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung" of that university for the month of December, 1843. The chief addition, however, is an analysis or summary of Hegel's System from the German Conversations-Lexikon," which occupies several pages, and is a free and full paraphrase of the original. A literal rendering, word for word, of a mere abstract of an abstruse German system could only mislead the reader, and give a most unfair view of the system itself. The present Article does not pretend to be anything more than a very general and cursory view of the subject. The title of the original was "New Schellingism," and the body of it will be found to refer to the old and the new schemes of this philosopher. In connection with this it gives a sketch of the leading opinions of the other philosophers, and of the course of philosophical inquiry in Germany. Upon the whole it is perhaps as clear an account as can be found within the same compass. It is chiefly open to objection in its depreciation of Schelling, and the correctness of the author's statement of all of Schelling's views, especially of his later system, would be questioned by the adherents of this remarkable man. Many are asking, what is German Philosophy? And it is easier to ask the question than to answer it. Some seem to imagine it a mere mass of fantastic conceits-and call it mysticism. But a German smiles when he hears the clear-headed Kant called a mystic. Others seem to think it a certain something whose only possible use is to raise a broad laugh on the faces of all sensible men, women and children-a farrago of words and nonsense. A few it may be are looking to German speculations as the means of giving them a higher and more comprehensive system than they have been able elsewhere to find; of solving some of the questions and problems which are forcing themselves upon their minds. Many, the most, regard it with unmingled aversion and distrust. Perhaps it may be found upon a closer examination of the subject that none of these parties and opinions are wholly correct. It may be that German philosophy and mysticism are two entirely distinct things. It may be that there are some things in the German schemes which are intelligible; that though he may be a bold man who would venture to assert that he understands everything that the Germans have taught, yet that he is still bolder who will undertake to say that it is all or chiefly an VOL. II. No. 6. 23 unmeaning collection of mere words. Every one is inclined to laugh at the strange sounds of a foreign language, but this is no evidence that the language does not mean something, that it is strange sounds and nothing else. Those again who expect to see the enigmas of life solved, and the difficulties and contradictions of science explained in the German schools, are assuredly going into the very thick of the conflict, to find peace. German philosophy is as yet militant, is not yet triumphant. In some of its later forms it is undeniably opposed to the whole spirit and faith of Christianity. It can hardly be doubted that the tendencies of many individual philosophers, if not of whole schools, are pantheistic, that they give us a universal idea instead of a personal God; and a system of vague philosophical speculations instead of a divine Redeemer. It cannot be doubted that the fiercest assault which Christianity has ever experienced, both in its history and in its doctrines, is that to which it is now exposed in the country of Luther and the Reformation. Many present the alternative-Christianity or philosophy; as one author has expressed it" Christ or Spinoza." Whether it be necessary to accept the alternative or not; what Christian can doubt that it is not Christianity which will be last abandoned? In Germany itself within the few past years the protest against a pantheistic philosophy has waxed loud, and the revival of an intelligent and earnest love of Christianity is most marked and most auspicious. To say that this philosophy is false and pantheistic is one thing; to say that it is absurd and ridiculous is quite another thing. With all its apparent strangeness, it may be that it has stronger affinities with some theological and philosophical tendencies of the American mind than we at present dream of. It may be that we shall laugh at its supposed absurdities, and so be indifferent to the real dangers with which it threatens us. Revolutionary democratic opinions, and foul-mouthed blasphemy have sprung into being in the midst of a German pantheistic school. A like democracy and a like infidelity amongst ourselves are fast finding out their connections with certain German speculations. Is it then the part of wisdom for those who first present us with a view of these schemes to seek out only their deformities? Perchance others and the opponents of our faith may also read and see that they are colossal and comprehensive; that they give into their hands, ready forged, some of their strongest weapons of attack.] |