Produced by ellinora, John Campbell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}, for example 5^e or 2^{me}.
Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
[Illustration: (Logo of the American Geographical Society of New York)]
THE FRONTIERS OF
LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY
IN EUROPE
BY
LEON DOMINIAN
[Illustration: (Colophon of the publisher)]
PUBLISHED FOR
THE AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY
OF NEW YORK
BY
HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
1917
COPYRIGHT, 1917,
BY
THE AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK
THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS
RAHWAY, N. J.
To my Alma Mater
Robert College of Constantinople
PREFACE
This book is submitted as a study in applied geography. Its
preparation grew out of a desire to trace the connection existing
between linguistic areas in Europe and the subdivision of the
continent into nations. The endeavor has been made to show that
language exerts a strong formative influence on nationality
because words express thoughts and ideals. But underlying the
currents of national feeling, or of speech, is found the persistent
action of the land, or geography, which like the recurrent motif
of an operatic composition prevails from beginning to end of
the orchestration and endows it with unity of theme. Upon these
foundations, linguistic frontiers deserve recognition as the
symbol of the divide between distinct sets of economic and social
conditions.
The attention bestowed on the Turkish area has been determined by
the bearing of the Turkish situation on European international
affairs and in the earnest belief that the application of
geographical knowledge could provide an acceptable settlement of
the Eastern Question. Never has it been realized better than at the
present time that an ill-adjusted boundary is a hatching-oven for
war. A scientific boundary, on the other hand, prepares the way for
permanent goodwill between peoples.
My effort has been directed to confine the work to a presentation
of facts, as I have felt that the solution of the boundary problems
involved could not be reached satisfactorily by individual opinion.
Should these pages afford a working basis, or prove suggestive,
in the settlement of European boundary conflicts, I shall feel
compensated for the time and labor bestowed on the collection of
the material herein contained.
My thanks are due to the American Geographical Society for the
liberal spirit displayed in promoting my efforts and particularly
for the colored maps which illustrate the text. I am under
special obligations to Councilor Madison Grant of the Society
for new views and a better insight into the significance of
race in European history. To Dr. Isaiah Bowman, Director of the
Society, the extent of my debt would be difficult to estimate,
as his interest in my work has been unfailing in spite of the
pressure of his many duties. I owe him many alterations and
suggestions which have greatly improved the text. Neither can I
allow the volume to go to press without thanking the American
Oriental Society and the Geographical Society of Philadelphia
for the reproduction of portions of my articles printed in their
publications. Acknowledgment of important criticism on two articles
forming the nucleus of the present volume and published in Vol. 47
of the Bulletin of The American Geographical Society is also due
to Professors Palmer, Le Compte and Seymour of Yale as well as to
Professors Gottheil and Jordan of Columbia. Many friends, whose
work has helped mine, I have never seen. To them also I extend
thanks.
LEON DOMINIAN.
THE AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY,
New York.
SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR ILLUSTRATIONS
Figs. 1, 4, 23, 24, P. L. M. Railways of France.
Figs. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, Swiss Federal Railroads.
Figs. 36, 37, American Scandinavian Review.
Figs. 40, 42, 46, Travel.
Figs. 45, 56, 58, Messrs. Sébah & Joaillier, Constantinople.
Figs. 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, Photos by Dr. E. Banks.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
INTRODUCTION xiii
I. THE FOUNDATIONS 1
II. THE BOUNDARIES OF FRENCH AND GERMANIC LANGUAGES IN
BELGIUM AND LUXEMBURG 19
III. THE FRANCO-GERMAN LINGUISTIC BOUNDARY IN ALSACE-LORRAINE
AND SWITZERLAND 35
IV. BORDERLANDS OF ITALIAN LANGUAGE 59
V. SCANDINAVIAN AND BALTIC LANGUAGES 93
VI. THE AREA OF POLISH SPEECH 111
VII. BOHEMIAN, MORAVIAN AND SLOVAKIAN 141
VIII. THE LANDS OF HUNGARIAN AND RUMANIAN LANGUAGES 154
IX. THE BALKAN PENINSULA AND ITS SERBIAN INHABITANTS 174
X. LANGUAGE PROBLEMS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA 192
XI. THE GEOGRAPHICAL CASE OF TURKEY 221
XII. THE PEOPLES OF TURKEY 271
XIII. SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS 314
APPENDIX A. GERMAN SETTLEMENTS IN RUSSIA 343
APPENDIX B. THE BALKAN STATES BEFORE AND AFTER THE WARS
OF 1912-1913 345
APPENDIX C. CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN EUROPE 346
APPENDIX D. A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 348
APPENDIX E. KEY TO PLACE NAMES 357
INDEX 367
LIST OF PLATES
I. The Franco-Flemish linguistic boundary 22
II. The Franco-German linguistic boundary in
Alsace-Lorraine 46
III. Austria-Hungary and parts of southeastern Europe
showing languages 82
IV. The area of Polish speech 118
V. Railroads In Turkey showing their connections and
extensions 248
VI. European spheres of influence and territorial claims
in Turkey 266
VII. Part of Asiatic Turkey showing distribution of peoples 274
VIII. Distribution of Armenians in Turkish Armenia 294
IX. Part of Europe showing languages having political
significance 334
INTRODUCTION
BY MADISON GRANT
Mr. Dominian’s book on “The Frontiers of Language and Nationality”
is the logical outcome of the articles written by him in 1915
in the Bulletin of the American Geographical Society under the
titles of “Linguistic Areas in Europe: Their Boundaries and
Political Significance” and “The Peoples of Northern and Central
Asiatic Turkey.” In the present work the problems arising from the
distribution of main European languages and from their relation to
political boundaries are discussed with clearness and brilliancy.
The text embodies a vast collection of facts and data laboriously
collected by the author, who has applied to the subject his
familiarity with Eastern languages, as well as an impartial vision
which is hard to find in these days when our judgments are so
warped by the tragedy of the Great War.
The difficulty of depicting conditions geographically in colors
or with symbols is of necessity very great. The peasants who form
the majority of the population of most European states often speak
a different language or dialect from that of the educated upper
classes, and such lines of linguistic cleavage frequently represent
lines of race distinction as well. For example, in Transylvania the
language of about sixty per cent of the inhabitants is Rumanian,
while the literary, military and land-owning classes speak either
Magyar or German, and these Hungarians and Saxons, in addition
to forming everywhere the ruling class, are gathered together in
many places in compact communities. A similar condition of affairs
exists along the eastern boundary of the German Empire, except that
here the speech of the peasants is Polish and that of the dominant
classes German.
The preparation of the maps which accompany this volume has been a
task of peculiar difficulty. It is an easy matter to show by colors
the language spoken by actual majorities, but such a delineation
frequently fails to indicate the true literary language of the
nation. Mr. Dominian’s solution of these difficulties has been a
very successful one, and the resultant maps are really of great
value, especially where they deal with little-known frontiers and
obscure lines of demarcation, such as the eastern and western
frontiers of the German Empire.
In spite of exceptions, language gives us the best lines for the
boundaries of political units whenever those frontiers conform
to marked topographical features such as mountain systems. In
many cases where the boundaries of language and nationality
coincide they are found to lie along the crest of mountains
or a well-defined watershed, often along the base of plateaus
or elevated districts, and very seldom along rivers. But the
boundaries of nationality and of language, when they do coincide,
seldom correspond with those of race, and political boundaries are
more transitory and shifting than those of either language or race.
There are a few nations in Europe, chiefly small states, which
are composed of sharply contrasted languages and races, such as
Belgium, where the lowlands are inhabited by Flemish-speaking
Teutons, and the uplands by French-speaking Alpines. Belgium is
an artificial political unit of modern creation, and consequently
highly unstable. The Belgian upper classes are bilingual, a
condition which precedes a change of language, and unless Flanders
becomes united to Holland or Germany it is more than probable that
French speech will ultimately predominate there also.
Among the Celtic-speaking peoples, we have in the highlands of
Scotland, in the mountains of Wales, in western Ireland and in the
interior of Brittany, remnants of two distinct forms of Celtic
speech. These diverse populations have, in common, only their
Celtic speech, and are not related, one to the other, by race. As a
matter of fact, the Scotch, the Welsh and the Bretons are excellent
representatives of the three most divergent races of Europe. The
Armorican-speaking Bretons are Alpine by race, the Cymric-speaking
Welshmen are Mediterranean, while the Gaelic-speaking Scots are
Nordic. In short, there is today neither a Celtic race nor any
recognizable remnant of it. If one of these three peoples be
Celtic in bodily characters, the other two must of necessity not
be Celtic, and furthermore, if we designate any one of the three
as Celtic by race, we must include in that term other distant
populations which by no stretch of the imagination can be so
regarded.
The literary revival of some Celtic dialects may be interesting,
but it will only serve to keep the Celtic-speaking populations
still more out of touch with the march of modern progress. In the
long run the fate of Erse, Gaelic, Cymric and Armorican is certain.
They will be engulfed by the French language on the continent, and
by the English speech in the British Isles, just as Cornish and
Manx have become extinct within a century.
In eastern Europe, the Slavic tongue of Bohemia and Moravia, known
as Czech, was fifty years ago on the point of utter collapse, but
the literary revival of Bohemia has been successful because it
had for support on the east a solid mass of Slavic speech and the
political power of Pan-Slavism, and in consequence was able to hold
its own against the encroaching German. These Slavic dialects all
through eastern Europe and the minor tongues elsewhere are greatly
handicapped by the lack of books, newspapers and good literary
forms. In the case of Erse and Cymric the difficulties of the
spelling are an almost insuperable obstacle. The French language
in Quebec and the various languages spoken among newly arrived
immigrants in the United States will ultimately meet the same fate,
since a few million illiterate and poverty-stricken habitants of
Canada and a few million laborers in the United States must in the
long run inevitably succumb to the overwhelming power of the world
language of the English people.
Although race taken in its modern scientific meaning--the actual
physical character of man--originally implied a common origin,
it has today little or nothing to do with either nationality or
language, since nearly all the great nations of Europe are composed
of various proportions of two and sometimes all three of the
primary European races. The population of England owes its blood
to the Mediterranean and to the more recent Nordic race. Germany
is composed of a combination of Nordic and Alpine, Italy of a
mixture of Alpine and Mediterranean, while France unites within
her boundaries the Nordic in the north, the Mediterranean in the
south and the Alpine in the center. Spain and Portugal, however,
are overwhelmingly of Mediterranean blood, while the Scandinavian
races are purely Nordic. Thus it is quite evident that nationality
and language are independent of race, and in fact the meaning of
the word “race” as used not only by the man in the street, but
also by the historian, is based on the spoken language. So far as
race is concerned in its scientific sense, there exists no such
thing as a “Latin,” a “Celtic,” a “German,” a “Slavic,” or even an
“Aryan” or “Caucasian” race. These are linguistic terms, and are
not correlated to bodily characters.
Throughout Europe, as pointed out by Mr. Dominian, there is,
however, a close correspondence between topographical and
geological land features, on the one hand, and the extent and
spread of language on the other. A similar close connection
has been noted between geographical features and race. Man’s
topographical surroundings are among the most potent elements
of environment, and have operated powerfully in the selection
and development of man, but they do not transform or change one
race into another. We have now discarded the old conception that
blondness has anything to do with latitude, or altitude. Where two
distinct races compete in a given environment, it generally happens
that one or the other is better adapted to its surroundings, and
that race tends to increase at the expense of its rival, with
the result that one ultimately replaces the other. The races of
Europe were originally adjusted to a certain fixed habitat, and
when through conquest or commercial expansion they moved out of
their native surroundings into unfamiliar ground, they tended
to disappear. In short, race supplies the raw material, and
environment is the molding force, or to use another simile, “the
oak tree and the poplar tree are both wood, but the one can be
polished by rubbing, while the other cannot.” In other words,
the Greek genius and Hellenic culture were not created by the
irregularity and broken configuration of Greece, and if the Greeks
had been transplanted at an early time to Arabia, it is hardly
conceivable that the world would have seen classic civilization
in its most typical form. On the other hand, we have no reason to
believe that if the Arabs had settled in Greece, they would have
produced either Homer or the Parthenon. If England had remained
exclusively in the hands of its original Mediterranean inhabitants,
and if the Teutonic Nordics had not conquered it, or even if the
Nordic Normans had not reinforced the Saxon strain, it is more
than probable that the British Empire would not have achieved its
triumphs.
Geographical situation, conditions of soil and of climate, mountain
barriers, navigable rivers and abundant seaports have a powerful,
even a controlling environmental influence on the raw material
supplied by heredity, but in the last analysis it is race that
manifests itself by characteristic achievement.
The prevailing lack of race consciousness in Europe compels us to
disregard it as a basis for nationality. In the existing nations,
races are generally scattered unevenly throughout the map, and are
nearly always grouped in classes, as originally race was the basis
of all class, caste and social distinctions. Race therefore being
not available as a test of nationality, we are compelled to resort
to language. As a matter of fact, language is the essential factor
in the creation of national unity, because national aspirations
find their best expression through a national language.
At the close of the Great European War the question of national
boundaries will undoubtedly come to the front and the data
collected and set forth in this book will be useful to a thorough
understanding of the problems involved. There is reason to
believe that if, at the termination of the Franco-Prussian war,
the international boundary in Alsace-Lorraine had been run in
conformity with the linguistic facts, much of the bitter animosity
of later years might have been avoided. Similar problems will press
for solution during the next few years, and if a permanent peace
is to be assured neither the Allies nor the Central Empires can
afford to create new Alsace-Lorraine or Schleswig-Holstein problems
by disregarding national aspirations as expressed and measured by a
common language or literature.
In the Balkan states the difficulty of finding any political
boundaries that in any way correspond to race or language has
heretofore been insuperable, but when the Congress of the Nations
convenes, whether this year or next, or the year after, every
member of it should be familiar with all facts that bear on the
case, and above all with the meaning of such facts, and there
exists today no book which covers these questions so fully, so
accurately and so impartially as Mr. Leon Dominian’s “Frontiers of
Language and Nationality.”
THE FRONTIERS OF LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY IN EUROPE
CHAPTER I
THE FOUNDATIONS
The site of populous cities and of trim little towns was once wild
waste or sunless woodland. Our rude forefathers, wandering upon
uninhabited tracts, converted them into fair fields and domains
which their descendants rounded out eventually into nations.
Humanity has prospered and today we often think of countries in
terms of their characteristic landscape and scenery. But the
thought naturally suggested by the name France or England is that
of a nation whose people speak French or English. To separate the
idea of language from that of nationality is rarely possible.
To say that a man’s accent betrays his nationality is another way
of stating that every language has a home of its own upon the
surface of the earth. A word or an accent will thrive or wither
like a tree according to region. In the earliest forms of Aryan
languages, words for fish or sea appear to be wanting--a want which
points to inland origins. The natives of the scorching equatorial
lowlands have no word for ice in their dialects. A further glimpse
into the past is required for a proper estimate of these facts.
Man’s conquest of a region is achieved in two distinct stages. The
first settlers rarely accomplish more than a material hold. Their
task is exclusively that of exacting sustenance from the soil.
Intellectual possession is taken at a later stage. The land then
becomes a source of inspiration to its dwellers. Having provided
for his material wants, man is now able to cultivate ideals and
give free rein to his artistic propensities. Instead of brooding in
gloomy anxiety over future support or becoming desperate through
sheer want he is able to bestow a leisure hour on a favorite
recreation. In both of these stages, his thoughts and the words
used for their utterance are in harmony with their surroundings.
We therefore turn to the land for intimate acquaintance with man
and his culture. His very character is shaped in the mold of his
habitual haunt. And language is little more than the expression
of his character. The earnest Scotchman and the steadfast Swede,
both hardened by the schooling of a vigorous climate, contrast
strikingly with the impulsive Andalusian or the fitful Sicilian
trained to laxity and carelessness in the midst of plenty. The
revengeful Corsican is the native of an unblest island, while the
Russian, bred in the vast and monotonous steppe, cannot avoid
injecting a strain of melancholy into the literary treasures which
he contributes to the human brotherhood.
The emotional ties which bind man to his country or to his mother
tongue are the same because they are rooted in the past. A citizen
of any country is conscious of his nationality whenever he realizes
that he has a common origin with his compatriots. Language is
merely the outward form of this feeling. But without its unifying
influence national solidarity cannot be perfected.
The growth of modern European nations and the spread of their
languages have been parallel developments. This parallelism
is founded on the material ties no less than on the spiritual
affinity which bind men to the earth. To furnish evidence of this
relationship lies within the province of geography. Historical
testimony is also at hand to show that political and linguistic
frontiers have tended to coincide during the past two centuries,
except where artificial measures have been brought into play.
Broadly it may be submitted that the advance of civilization in
most countries has been marked by the progress of nationality,
while nationality itself has been consolidated by identity of
speech.
Language areas, in common with many other facts of geography,
have been largely determined by the character of the surface or
climate. Occurrences such as the extension of Polish speech to the
Carpathian barrier or the restriction of Flemish to the lowland
of northwestern central Europe, are not the work of mere chance.
An investigation of linguistic boundaries, therefore, implies
recognition of the selective influence of surface features. But
the influence of region upon expansion or confinement of language
is far from absolute. The part played by economic factors will be
shown in the following pages to have been of prime importance.
Considered as political boundaries, linguistic lines of cleavage
have two-fold importance. They are sanctioned by national
aspirations and they conform to a notable degree with physical
features. Every linguistic area considered in these pages bears
evidence of relation between language and its natural environment.
A basis of delimitation is therefore provided by nature. Eastern
extension of French to the Vosges, confinement of Czech to a
plateau inclosed by mountains, uniformity of language in open
plains and river basins, all are examples of the evidence provided
by geography for statesmen engaged in the task of revising
boundaries.
Europe may be aptly regarded as a vast field of settlement where
the native element has, again and again, been swamped by successive
flows of immigrants proceeding from every point of the compass.
The wanderings of these invaders have been directed, in part, into
channels provided by the main mountain ranges of Eurasia. Valleys
or plains which favored expansion of nationality were, at the same
time, the avenues through which languages spread. The barrier
boundary of the Mediterranean basin contains a number of important
breaches on the north[1] which facilitated the mingling of the
Nordic race with Mediterranean men after it had mixed with Alpine
peoples. Within historic times men of Celtic speech have been
driven westward by Teutons, who also pressed Slavs in the opposite
direction. The consequence is that few Frenchmen or Germans of our
day can lay claim to racial purity. Northern France is perhaps
more Teutonic than southern Germany, while eastern Germany is,
in many places, more Slavic than Russia. To ascribe political
significance to race is therefore as difficult today as it was when
Roman citizenship meant infinitely more in comparison.
Nationality, however, an artificial product derived from racial
raw material, confers distinctiveness based on history. It is the
cultivated plant, blossoming on racial soil and fertilized by
historical association. In the words of Ossian: “It is the voice of
years that have gone; they roll before me with all their deeds.”
Men alone cannot constitute nationality. A nation is the joint
product of men and ideas. A heritage of ideals and traditions held
in common and accumulated during centuries becomes, in time, the
creation of the land to which it is confined.
Language, the medium in which is expressed successful achievement
or hardship shared in common, acquires therefore cementing
qualities. It is the bridge between the past and the present. Its
value as the cohesive power of nationality is superseded, in rare
instances, by ideals similarly based on community of tradition,
hope, or in some cases religion. In speech or writing, words give
life to the emotion which nationality stirs in the heart or to the
reasoning which it awakens in the mind.
The distinction between the conceptions of race, language and
nationality should, at the very outset, be clearly established.
Race deals with man both as a physical creature and as a being
endowed with spiritual qualities. Tall, blond men constitute a race
distinct from their fellows who combine stockiness and brunetness.
The basis of differentiation in this case is anatomical. Hence,
to talk of an English or Persian race is erroneous. Every nation
contains people endowed with widely different physiques, owing
to the extensive intermingling of races which has taken place in
the course of the million years during which the earth has been
inhabited. To be precise, our conception of racial differences must
conform to classifications recognized by modern anthropologists.
We shall therefore consider the Mediterranean, Alpine and Nordic
races--to mention only those composed of white men--and we shall
find that they all blend in European nationalities.
[Illustration:
FIG. 1--View of the “route d’Italie” or road to Italy at the
extreme southeastern border of France and well inside the small
area of Italian language lying within the French political
boundary.]
Take, as an example, the racial elements entering into the
composition of French nationality. The dominating type, in northern
France, belongs to the tall, narrow-headed Nordic race, with blue
eyes and fair hair. Frenchmen with these characteristics are
descendants of Franks and Gauls who settled in the northern plains
of the Paris basin. In Brittany and the Massif Central, however, a
round-headed and dark type, short and stockily built, is scattered
over the two main piles of Archean mountains which still remain
exposed to view. In the Aquitaine basin, as well as in the Lower
Rhone valley, the narrow-headed Mediterranean race, with dark eyes
and hair, is everywhere evident in the short, brunet inhabitants.
Ripley adheres to the racial segregation of European man in
the three groups enumerated above. But a further reduction can
be established on a purely geographical basis, with the result
that Europeans may be classed primarily either as highlanders or
lowlanders. Anthropological classification fits admirably in this
dual distinction, since the inhabitants of European mountain lands
belong to the round-head type while the dwellers of the depressions
north and south of the central uplifts have long heads.
From the conception of race we attain that of people by considering
the second as derived from the mingling of the first. Intercourse
between the three great races of Europe has always existed as a
result of migratory movements. The impulse to wander, however much
it differed in each known instance, can usually be traced to a
single determining cause, definable as the quest after comfort.
This was the motive which led men of the Nordic race to abandon
their uncomfortable habitat in the north. The same feeling was
experienced by Alpine mountaineers as they descended towards
attractive lowlands north and south of their rough mountain homes.
Nordics moving to the south and Alpines crowding toward the lowland
converged upon one another. No meeting of human beings, in the
entire history of mankind, has been fraught with consequences of
wider reach than the contact between members of these, the two
hardiest races which the world has produced. European nationalities
and Aryan languages were born in those momentous meetings. The
zone of contact extended from the northwestern, lowland fringe of
continental Europe to the saucer-shaped land of Polesia. Along the
depressed margin of western Europe a heavy flow of Mediterranean
men, moving constantly northward, introduced a third element in
the racial constituents of French and British populations. Each
of the three races contributed a characteristic share of physical
and moral traits to the spirit of nationality in Europe. The
Nordics left the impress of their northern vigor wherever they
passed. Their native restlessness, the joint product of cold
weather and a hard life, became converted into a magnificent
spirit of enterprise whenever it blended with Alpine hardiness
or Mediterranean ambition. The Alpines, often considered as the
intellectual type, also imparted the virility of highland physiques
as they migrated to the lowland. Last, but not least, Mediterranean
men contributed the softness of their native character as well as
the fine qualities due to a keen artistic sense. The fusion of the
three races was accompanied by the creation of the three great
groups of European peoples, known as Celts, Teutons and Slavs. The
differentiation of these peoples from the fused group occurred at
an early period and was probably in full swing towards the close of
the Neolithic.
We are thus led to picture the early home of Celtic dialects on
territory now falling under French, Dutch and German rule. It is
not unlikely that England and Ireland are areas of expansion of
this language. Eastward, it is known that the Celtic territory
extended at least as far as the Elbe. Beyond, in the same
direction, an ever widening wedge of Teutonic area interposed
itself between Celts and Slavs. The prehistoric home of the
Teutons will be found in the region around the western extremity
of the Baltic Sea. It comprised southern Sweden, Jutland, the
German Baltic coast to the Oder and the Baltic islands as far
as Gothland. The Slav’s original homeland had its site on an
imperfectly drained lake-bed extending westward from the middle
Dnieper valley to the Niemen and Priepet marshland.
[Illustration:
_Copyright by Brown Bros._
FIG. 2--Schwarzwald scenery. A region of transitional dialects
between High and Low German.]
From east to west on the Eurasian land mass the three main forms
of language occupy strictly geographical settings. Monosyllabic
Chinese lies rigid and lifeless within its barriers of high
mountains and vast seas. The static condition of Chinese
civilization is reflected in the changeless form of its language.
A new idea requires a new word and a corresponding symbol. In
the wild and wide-stretching steppes of Siberia, communication
of thought or feeling is maintained through the medium of
agglutinative forms of speech. Grammatically, this marks an
improvement over the monosyllabic language. In the case considered
here it expresses the restlessness and mobility of steppe life. At
the same time inferiority of civilization is revealed by poverty
of ideas and consequently of words. In the west, however, whether
we consider western Asia or Europe, we deal with the world’s best
nursery of civilization. In those regions are found the highly
inflected and flexible languages of the Aryan and Semitic families.
The grammar of these languages--a mere adaptation to superior
requirements of order and method--renders them particularly
responsive to the constant improvement in thought which
characterizes western countries.
Aryan languages are spoken all the way from northern India to
Europe’s westernmost confines. This territory comprises the
western extension of the central belt of high Eurasian mountains
together with its fringing lowlands. In its elevated portion it is
the domain of the Alpine race and of the Nordic in its depressed
northern border. On the other hand, that portion of the northern
Eurasian grasslands which extends into Europe forms part of the
area of Uralo-Altaic languages. It is sometimes contended that the
original home of Aryan languages was situated in northern Europe,
where full-blooded northerners now speak languages belonging to
this family. But the weight of evidence in favor of a central
European origin will seem almost decisive when we remember that
culture and civilization have invariably proceeded from temperate
regions. The Aryans issued at first from the contact of northern
European lowlanders with the highlanders of central Europe,
subsequently mingled with the inhabitants of the Mediterranean
basin. As they migrated southward they must have changed
continually in race. Every absorption of southern elements tended
to modify their racial characteristics. A given type therefore
corresponds to a definite period and place. The vagueness conveyed
by the term Aryan, whether applied to language or people, is to be
explained by the inherent instability of the subject.
A theoretical representation of the operation of this change may be
offered by assuming that NA is the offspring of the first Nordic
N having come in contact with an Alpine A. The tendency for NA is
to migrate southwards. His offspring may be represented as NAA
as the likelihood is that NA will have taken an Alpine wife to
himself. This is the prelude to a long series of generations to
each of which an A strain is added. At the same time the steadily
maintained migration of Nordics in a southerly direction towards
and beyond the territory occupied by the Alpines tends to bring
new N strains to the mixed product. At a given stage contact
with Mediterranean races becomes established and the process of
obliterating Nordic traits is intensified.
We thus see that as the northern invaders pressed southward they
became more or less absorbed in the indigenous populations. Their
physique changed and their individuality vanished. However great
the strength of the invaders, they could bring relatively few women
in their train. This was especially true whenever they operated in
a mountainous country. The passes through which their advance was
made were open only to the more vigorous in the bands of fighting
men or adventurers.
At the end of the Neolithic, about 5,000 years ago,[2] Europe
was the home of a type of man physically similar to any average
European of our day. This type is the product of long-continued
contact between the original human product of Europe, Asia and
Africa. The dawn of history finds him speaking Celtic in western
central Europe. An immense variety of dialects must then have
been spoken on the continent, since intercourse was slight. Their
fusion into modern languages has been the work of centuries. Out
of the linguistic sifting of the past two millenniums, three great
groups of languages have emerged: the Romanic, Germanic and Slavic,
distributed over Europe from west to east. In these three groups
French, German and Russian occupy respectively the leading rank.
The distinction between the languages spoken in northern and
southern France was highly marked in early medieval days. The
langue d’oïl in use north of a line starting at the mouth of the
Gironde River and passing through Angoulême, L’Isle-Jourdain and
Roanne eventually acquired ascendancy over the langue d’oc spoken
to the south.[3] The dialect of this northern language which
prevailed in Ile-de-France was the precursor of modern French. It
spread rapidly throughout the country after the acquisition of
Aquitaine by French kings and the consolidation of France by the
annexation of Burgundian lands. The French of Paris thus became a
national language whose linguistic and literary prestige is still
strongly felt over the rest of the country.
The Roman conquest of Gaul brought Latin to the country because the
civilization of the south was superior. At the time of the coming
of the Franks, the Latinized Gaulish language was taken up by the
conquerors because it also was the symbol of superior intellectual
development. The conversion of barbarian invaders to Christianity
helped to maintain Latinized forms of speech. The Latin of the
Romans was modified, however, by the different local dialects. Thus
the patois of langue d’oc and of langue d’oïl acquired resemblance
through the leavening influence of Latin.
[Illustration:
FIG. 3--Sketch map of France showing mountain areas and basins.]
As long as southern France exercised a preponderating influence
in national affairs, the langue d’oc occupied the first place in
the country. In the eleventh century it was spoken by the leading
classes in the north, as well as by the masses in the south. Such,
at least, is the testimony of manuscripts of this period. But with
the passing of power into the hands of northern Frenchmen, the
langue d’oïl came into wider use, until one of its patois gave
rise to the French which was subsequently to become the medium of
expression for the genius of Molière and the notable host of his
literary countrymen.
[Illustration:
FIG. 4--St. Seine l’Abbaye near Dijon lies in the area of langue
d’oïl. The fair land of Burgundy, of which the view is typical,
has been open to northern invasions on the northwest and the
northeast.]
[Illustration:
FIG. 5--A farmhouse in the Black Forest, a typical habitation in
districts in which High German is spoken.]
Between the langue d’oc and the langue d’oïl the difference was
that of north and south. The southern idioms expressed feeling
and harmony, hence they were preferred by poets. The troubadours
favored them exclusively during the Middle Ages. The “parlers”
of the north, on the other hand, were endowed with the staying
qualities of lucidity, order and precision. The beauty of modern
French, as well as the attraction it exerts on cultivated minds, is
due to its well-balanced blend of northern and southern elements.
French of our day is the shrine in which the treasured remains
of earlier centuries are still preserved. In it the sunshine of
the south pierces with its warm rays the severity of northern
earnestness. No other European language can boast of an equally
happy composition. In this respect it is a true mirror of the
French mind as well as of French nationality.
As spoken at present, French is derived in direct line from a
sub-dialect of the Picard patois formerly spoken in Paris and
Pontoise and which spread throughout all Ile-de-France. This
province may be aptly described as the bottom of the bowl-shaped
area of northern France. It owes its geographical distinctiveness
to the convergence of a number of important valleys which empty
the products of their fertility into the Paris basin lying in its
very center. Five of these irregular furrows, the Seine, Loing,
Yonne, Marne and Oise, radiate outwardly from the low-lying Paris
center. The ebb and flow of national power and language sped its
alternate course along their channels until, from being the heart,
Paris, always inseparable from its language, became also the head
of France.
[Illustration:
FIG. 6--Part of France showing the contact between “langue d’oc”
and “langue d’oïl” countries. The shaded area represents the
“langue d’oïl” or northern language. “Langue d’oc” prevailed in
the unruled area. Between these two regions a transitional zone,
shown by broken ruling, intervened, in which a mixture of the two
languages was spoken.]
The Frankish dukedom founded on such a site grew naturally into
a kingdom. And along with the establishment of a royal court,
the language of the region acquired part of the kingly prestige.
Herein we find the explanation of the derivation of the name
French from that of Frankish as well as of the language from the
local sub-dialect of the Picard patois. Already in the thirteenth
century, from this magnificently situated base as a center, both
language and nation had absorbed additional territory by a process
of steady outward growth. It was French unity in the early making.
As early as the twelfth century, no northern nobleman dared appear
at the French court without having previously acquired familiarity
with its language and manners. The precious literary monuments of
this century show that this court language was already known as
“François.” A hundred years later, about 1260, French had acquired
so much polish and importance that we find Italian writers using
it in preference to their own dialects. So in 1298, Marco Polo,
a Venetian, gives out the first account of his eastern travels
in French, while Brunetto Latini, who was Dante’s tutor, writes
his Tesoreto in the same language, explaining his preference by
remarking that French “est plus délitaubles languages et plus
communs que moult d’autres.”[4]
German was to become the language of central Europe. Interposed
between the territories of Romanic and Slavic languages, the area
of German speech occupies a magnificently commanding position.
Originally the language spoken west of the Elbe and Saale rivers,
it had advanced considerably to the east in the first century of
the Christian era. The imposition of Teutonic language on Slavic
populations is one of the results of this ancient expansion of
Germanic peoples. During the past thousand years very little change
in the distribution of the main German dialects is believed to have
taken place.
Modern German is generally divided into three sub-branches,
Low, High and Middle German. Low German, Niederdeutsch or
Plattdeutsch,[5] the language of the plain, is restricted to the
extensive northern lowland. Dialects spoken in the northeastern
corner of Rhenish Prussia, Holstein, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg
and Prussia enter into its composition. High German, Oberdeutsch
or Hochdeutsch, is the German of the highland. It comprises the
Bavarian, Swabian and Alemannic dialects of Bavaria, Württemberg
and Baden. Its use as the literary language of all German-speaking
people became well established in the Middle Ages. Luther’s
translation of the Bible written in Saxonian dialect, a combination
of High and Middle German, contributed no mean share to the
diffusion of the language. Its use has been favored by Germany’s
most noted writers since the seventeenth century. Schools and
newspapers tend to convert it eventually into the only speech that
will survive within German boundaries.
A fact of special importance can be traced among the causes leading
to the supplanting of Low German, the language of the German
plain, by High German as the national tongue. The superiority of
the highland dialect is due to its greater assimilation of Celtic
words. This civilizing influence of Celtic culture is by no means
a modern development in Germany. In the proto-historic period it
was mainly through contact with the Celts that the Teutons became
civilized. This intellectual dependence of the Germans is revealed
for the period about 300 B.C. by the then existing civilization,
which was entirely Celtic. The history that spans the intervening
years naturally brings to mind the influence which French language
has always had in Germany. Voltaire’s sojourn at the Prussian court
does not rank among forgotten episodes and it was not so long ago
that Leibnitz had to resort to French or Latin as the medium of his
written expression.
The transition from the northern plain of Germany to the high
central regions is represented, on the surface, by a zone of
intermediate uplands in Saxony, Lusatia and Silesia. This area
is characterized linguistically by a transitional form of speech
between Low and High German.[6] The similarity, however, of this
midland German to High German is observable to the extent to which
the rising land over which it is distributed presents analogy to
the mountainous region towards which it trends. The transitional
dialects include East, Middle and Rheno-Franconian, as well as
Thuringian. They occur in the middle Rhineland, the banks of the
Moselle, Hesse, Thuringia and Saxony.
A bird’s-eye view of the area of German speech shows that the
language prevails wherever a well-defined type of dwelling is
found. This representative habitation consists of a frame house
with an entrance in the middle of one of its long sides. The hearth
generally faces the threshold. Barns and outlying buildings do not
connect with the main house, but form with it the sides of an open
inner yard. German houses can furthermore be subdivided into three
distinct sub-types which correspond to the linguistic divisions of
Low, Middle and High German. The Saxon sub-type, which rarely rises
above a single story, prevails in the northern lowlands, while the
Bavarian sub-type dots the mountain districts which resound to High
German. Between the two an intermediate sub-type of construction
exists in the zone of Middle German.
[Illustration:
FIG. 7--Sketch map showing relative position of the three main
areas in which the dialects of German language are grouped.]
Russian language while Slavic, and as such Indo-European, is at
the same time the transition speech between the Indo-European and
Uralo-Altaic groups. Its inflections connect it with the western
group. But the dominant use of vowels bears impress of the strong
influence exerted by Asia in the formation of the language. The
very consonants in Russian are liquid and softened so as to shade
insensibly into vowels. These are characteristics of Turkish and
Finnish. The singular charm with which the melodious sounds of
the Russian language greet a stranger’s ears is derived from this
Asiatic strain. In spirit also the fundamental fatalism of Russians
increases in the eastern sections of the country. The trait can
hardly be characterized as Slavic. In the case of the Poles or
Bohemians, it gives place to buoyant hopefulness which helps to
color life and the world in roseate hues. The fatalism of the
Russian is a relic of past habitat in the interminable steppes of
central Eurasia. The Turks whose former roaming ground was the
same are also imbued with this spirit. It is the sophism of the
level land. No matter how far the horseman urged his mount, the
same monotony met his gaze. No effort on his part could ever change
the prospect.
As late as the twelfth century the peoples of the basin of the
Volga spoke purely Tatar dialects. The wide and open steppes of
Siberia, extending without break into eastern Europe, poured the
overflow of their populations into the valleys of the Russian
rivers which flow into the Black Sea. The great Russian cities
of the borderland between Europe and Asia were either founded or
Slavicized after the eleventh century. About that time the Slavic
dialects of the Vistula and the Dnieper began to blend with the
Asiatic languages of the Oka, Kliasma and Volga valleys. Modern
Russian, a mixture of Slavic and Tatar or Mongolian words, was born
of this blending. In a broader sense it is the expression of the
union of Europe and Asia to create a Russian nation, for Russia is
the product of the ancient Russ or Ruthenian principalities and
the old Muscovite states. The former were Slav and lay in Europe.
The latter were Tatar and belonged physically to Asia. As a nation
the Russia of our time sprang into existence at the end of the
seventeenth century. Prior to that period, its western section is
known to history as the land of Russ or Ruthenia. Its eastern part
was Muscovy. Through the union of the eastern and western sections
the Russian Empire of modern times came into being. No literary
monuments antedate the birth of its nationality.
In Russia the Slav who is free from Asiatic contamination is rarely
met east of the 35th meridian. A line from Lake Ladoga to Lake
Ilmen and along this meridian to the mouth of the Dnieper forms the
divide between the Russians of Europe and of Asia. The parting of
the waters belonging respectively to the Don and the Dnieper is,
from a racial standpoint, the boundary between the two groups. The
Tatar in the Russian appears east of this frontier. The Oriental
customs which permeate Russian life, the Tatar words of the Russian
language, all begin to assume intensity east of this dividing
line, while to the west the spirit of the vast stretch of
north Asiatic steppes disappears. Thus the commonly accepted Ural
frontier of European and Asiatic Russia is unwarranted in the light
of ethnic facts. The inhabitants of the Volga lands are essentially
Asiatics among whom the numerically inferior Slav element has
become dominant.
[Illustration:
FIG. 8--This group of Russian officers conveys an idea of the
excessive racial mingling in Russia. Alpine and Tatar features
can be recognized as dominant.]
[Illustration:
_Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_
FIG. 9--The heart of Moscow with the buildings of the Kremlin in
the background.]
Asia’s linguistic contribution to Europe is the gift of its
unwooded steppelands. The immense tract of monotonous country
extending west of the Altai Mountains to Europe is the home of a
family of languages known as the Uralo-Altaic. Among these the
highly vocalic branch of Finno-Ugrian traveled west with the
nomadic herdsmen who used it. In Europe it acquired the polish
which brought it to the forms recognized respectively as Finnish
or Suomi and Hungarian. Both enjoy the distinction of being the
most cultivated of the great northern Asiatic family of languages.
The case of Finnish is especially remarkable owing to its high
development without loss of its original agglutinative character.
The picture of this linguistic evolution can be painted only with
the colors of geography. The well-defined individuality of the
Hungarian Puszta has its counterpart in the Siberian steppe region.
The one is the reproduction of the other in small--a miniature.
Both consist of undulating land, devoid of mountains or hills, and
covered by deep sand. In Finland too a remarkably level stretch
of granite land, marked by gentle swelling, lies under a sandy
glacial mantle. The two European regions have only one advantage
over their Asiatic type. They are better watered. The furthest
penetration of Eurasian lowlands into Europe is obtained through
them. The approach to Hungary is made without a break, through
the valley of the Danube. To Finland access is equally easy once
the Urals are crossed. That this range proved no obstacle to the
westerly spread of central Asiatic peoples is indicated by their
presence west of its axis and their settlement in the Volga valley
prior to Slav inroads. But neither in lake-dotted Finnish lands
nor within the limited and mountain-hedged area of Hungary could
the Asiatic invaders find room for expansion or nomadism. From
herdsmen they became farmers. The change is the dawn of their
history as a European nation, and of the development of every
manifestation of their culture. A more advanced language became the
measure of the increasingly complex character of their needs--that
is to say, of higher civilization. The whole story, traced from
its origin, illustrates the superior civilizing power vested in
European geography. In the sterile steppes of the northern half
of Asia man led an easier life than in the cramped regions of
diversified Europe. On the broad flatlands of the east he roamed
with little thought of the morrow and without incentive to improve
his condition. In the west he was spurred to activity by the very
limitations of his homeland.
In our day about seventy different languages are spoken in Russia.
In this fact is found a serious drawback to effective national
unity. Fortunately the spread of the dialects belonging to the
Slavic group of languages is steady. The thorough Slavicization of
the peoples of the basin of the Volga is not yet ended, but Great
Russian is gradually uprooting the native Uralo-Altaic tongues.
It is also imposing itself upon Asiatic languages in Caucasia and
Transcaspian territory. Wherever there has been a thorough blending
of dialects into Russian, nationality has sprung into existence.
Elsewhere unity is in process of formation. The problem before
the governing class consists in hastening the assimilation of the
different elements to the original Slavic nucleus. Not until this
consummation has taken place will the country have developed its
full strength. And the measure of progress will be indicated by the
growing replacement of the numerous dialects by a single national
language.
Looking back over the stormy centuries during which French, German
and Russian nationalities were elaborated, we behold the formative
influence of language everywhere. Aspirations which precede the
period of free and unfettered national life give way to achievement
when national hopes are crowned. This we shall find in greater
detail in the succeeding chapters.
[Illustration:
_Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_
FIG. 10--View of Nizhni-Novgorod and the Fair across the Oka
River.]
[Illustration:
_Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_
FIG. 11--Plain of the Dnieper at Kiev.]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] E. C. Semple: The Barrier Boundary of the Mediterranean Basin
and Its Northern Breaches as Factors in History, _Ann. Assoc. Amer.
Geogr._, Vol. 5, 1915, pp. 27-59.
[2] The Neolithic lasted longer north of the Alps.
[3] The dialects or patois spoken today in France all fall under
one of these two languages. They can be classified as follows:
LANGUE D’OC
_Patois_ _Spoken in the Departments of_
Languedocian Gard, Hérault, Pyrénées-Orientales, Aude, Ariège,
Haute-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne, Tarn, Aveyron,
Lot, Tarn-et-Garonne.
Provençal Drôme, Vaucluse, Bouches-du-Rhône, Hautes- and
Basses-Alpes, Var.
Dauphinois Isère.
Lyonnais Rhône, Ain, Saône-et-Loire.
Auvergnat Allier, Loire, Haute-Loire, Ardèche, Lozère,
Puy-de-Dôme, Cantal.
Limousin Corrèze, Haute-Vienne, Creuse, Indre, Cher, Vienne,
Dordogne,
Charente, Charente-Inférieure, Indre-et-Loire.
Gascon Gironde, Landes, Hautes-Pyrénées, Basses-Pyrénées,
Gers.
LANGUE D’OÏL
Norman Normandie, Bretagne, Perche, Maine, Anjou, Poitou,
Saintonge.
Picard Picardie, Ile-de-France, Artois, Flandre, Hainaut,
Lower Maine, Thiérache, Rethelois.
Burgundian Nivernais, Berry, Orléanais, Lower Bourbonnais,
part of Ile-de-France, Champagne, Lorraine,
Franche-Comté.
[4] The terminal _s_, a distinctly Latin form, is seen to persist
in this early stage of the language.
[5] Niederdeutsch is derived directly from Old Saxon, the language
which enters into the composition of the Anglo-Saxon current in
England at the time of the Norman Conquest.
[6] Cf. Sheets 12a, Europe, Flusz-Gebirgskarte, and 12c, Europa,
Sprachen- und Völkerkarte, both 1:12,000,000, in Debes: Handatlas.