Euscarra—Basque not Irish—Sanscrit and Tartar Dialects—A Vowel
Language—Popular Poetry—The Basques—Their Persons—Basque Women.
I now entered upon the year 1838, perhaps the most eventful of all those
which I passed in Spain. The _despacho_ still continued open, with a
somewhat increasing sale. Having at this time little of particular
moment with which to occupy myself, I committed to the press two works,
which for some time past had been in the course of preparation. These
were the Gospel of St. Luke in the Spanish gypsy and the Euscarra
languages. {111a}
With respect to the gypsy Gospel, I have little to say, having already
spoken of it in a former work; {111b} it was translated by myself,
together with the greater part of the New Testament, during my long
intercourse with the Spanish gypsies. Concerning the Luke in Euscarra,
however, it will be as well to be more particular, and to avail myself of
the present opportunity to say a few words concerning the language in
which it was written, and the people for whom it was intended.
The Euscarra, then, is the proper term for a certain speech or language,
supposed to have been at one time prevalent throughout Spain, but which
is at present confined to certain districts, both on the French and
Spanish side of the Pyrenees, which are laved by the waters of the
Cantabrian Gulf, or Bay of Biscay. This language is commonly known as
the Basque, or Biscayan, which words are mere modifications of the word
Euscarra, the consonant B having been prefixed for the sake of euphony.
Much that is vague, erroneous, and hypothetical has been said and written
concerning this tongue. The Basques assert that it was not only the
original language of Spain, but also of the world, and that from it all
other languages are derived; but the Basques are a very ignorant people,
and know nothing of the philosophy of language. Very little importance,
therefore, need be attached to any opinion of theirs on such a subject.
A few amongst them, however, who affect some degree of learning, contend
that it is neither more nor less than a dialect of the Phœnician, and
that the Basques are the descendants of a Phœnician colony, established
at the foot of the Pyrenees at a very remote period. Of this theory, or
rather conjecture, as it is unsubstantiated by the slightest proof, it is
needless to take further notice than to observe that, provided the
Phœnician language, as many of the _truly learned_ have supposed, and
almost proved, was a dialect of the Hebrew, or closely allied to it, it
were as unreasonable to suppose that the Basque is derived from it as
that the Kamschatkan and Cherokee are dialects of the Greek and Latin.
There is, however, another opinion with respect to the Basque which
deserves more especial notice, from the circumstance of its being
extensively entertained amongst the _literati_ of various countries of
Europe, more especially England. I allude to the Celtic origin of this
tongue, and its close connexion with the most cultivated of all the
Celtic dialects—the Irish. People who pretend to be well conversant with
the subject, have even gone so far as to assert, that so little
difference exists between the Basque and Irish tongues, that individuals
of the two nations, when they meet together, find no difficulty in
understanding each other, with no other means of communication than their
respective languages; in a word, that there is scarcely a greater
difference between the two than between the French and the Spanish
Basque. Such similarity, however, though so strongly insisted upon, by
no means exists in fact; and perhaps in the whole of Europe it would be
difficult to discover two languages which exhibit fewer points of mutual
resemblance than the Basque and Irish.
The Irish, like most other European languages, is a dialect of the
Sanscrit, a _remote_ one, as may well be supposed; the corner of the
western world in which it is still preserved being, of all countries in
Europe, the most distant from the proper home of the parent tongue. It
is still, however, a dialect of that venerable and most original speech,
not so closely resembling it, it is true, as the English, Danish, and
those which belong to what is called the Gothic family, and far less than
those of the Sclavonian; for the nearer we approach to the East, in equal
degree the assimilation of languages to this parent stock becomes more
clear and distinct; but still a dialect, agreeing with the Sanscrit in
structure, in the arrangement of words, and in many instances in the
words themselves, which, however modified, may still be recognized as
Sanscrit. But what is the Basque, and to what family does it properly
pertain?
To two great Asiatic languages all the dialects spoken at present in
Europe may be traced. These two, if not now spoken, still exist in
books, and are, moreover, the languages of two of the principal religions
of the East. I allude to the Tibetian and Sanscrit—the sacred languages
of the followers of Buddh and Bramah. These tongues, though they possess
many words in common, which is easily to be accounted for by their close
proximity, are properly distinct, being widely different in structure.
In what this difference consists, I have neither time nor inclination to
state; suffice it to say, that the Celtic, Gothic, and Sclavonian
dialects in Europe belong to the Sanscrit family, even as in the East the
Persian, and to a less degree the Arabic, Hebrew, etc.; {114} whilst to
the Tibetian or Tartar family in Asia pertain the Mandchou and Mongolian,
the Calmuc and the Turkish of the Caspian sea; and in Europe, the
Hungarian and the Basque _partially_.
Indeed, this latter language is a strange anomaly, so that upon the whole
it is less difficult to say what it is not, than what it is. It abounds
with Sanscrit words to such a degree that its surface seems strewn with
them. Yet would it be wrong to term it a Sanscrit dialect, for in the
collocation of these words the Tartar form is most decidedly observable.
A considerable proportion of Tartar words is likewise to be found in this
language, though perhaps not in equal numbers to the terms derived from
the Sanscrit. Of these Tartar etymons I shall at present content myself
with citing one, though, if necessary, it were easy to adduce hundreds.
This word is _Jauna_, or, as it is pronounced, _Khauna_—a word in
constant use amongst the Basques, and which is the _Khan_ of the Mongols
and Mandchous, and of the same signification—_Lord_.
Having closely examined the subject in all its various bearings, and
having weighed what is to be said on one side against what is to be
advanced on the other, I am inclined to rank the Basque rather amongst
the Tartar than the Sanscrit dialects. Whoever should have an
opportunity of comparing the enunciation of the Basques and Tartars
would, from that alone, even if he understood them not, come to the
conclusion that their respective languages were formed on the same
principles. In both occur periods seemingly interminable, during which
the voice gradually ascends to a climax, and then gradually sinks down.
I have spoken of the surprising number of Sanscrit words contained in the
Basque language, specimens of some of which will be found below. It is
remarkable enough, that in the greater part of the derivatives from the
Sanscrit, the Basque has dropped the initial consonant, so that the word
commences with a vowel. The Basque, indeed, may be said to be almost a
vowel language, the number of consonants employed being comparatively
few; perhaps eight words out of ten commence and terminate with a vowel,
owing to which it is a language to the highest degree soft and melodious,
far excelling in this respect any other language in Europe, not even
excepting the Italian. Here follow a few specimens of Basque words with
the Sanscrit roots in juxtaposition:—
BASQUE. SANSCRIT.
Ardoa {116a} Sandhána _Wine_.
Arratsa Ratri _Night_.
Beguia Akshi _Eye_.
Choria Chiria {116a} _Bird_.
Chacurra Cucura _Dog_.
Erreguiña Rani _Queen_.
{116a}
Icusi Iksha _To see_.
Iru Treya _Three_.
Jan (Khan) Khana _To eat_.
Uria {116a} Puri _City_.
Urruti Dura _Far_.
Such is the tongue in which I brought out Saint Luke’s Gospel at Madrid.
The translation I procured originally from a Basque physician of the name
of Oteiza. {116b} Previous to being sent to the press, the version had
lain nearly two years in my possession, during which time, and
particularly during my travels, I lost no opportunity of submitting it to
the inspection of those who were considered competent scholars in the
Euscarra. It did not entirely please me; but it was in vain to seek for
a better translation.
In my early youth I had obtained a slight acquaintance with the Euscarra,
as it exists in books. This acquaintance I considerably increased during
my stay in Spain, and, by occasionally mingling with Basques, was enabled
to understand the spoken language to a certain extent, and even to speak
it, but always with considerable hesitation; for to speak Basque, even
tolerably, it is necessary to have lived in the country from a very early
period. So great are the difficulties attending it, and so strange are
its peculiarities, that it is very rare to find a foreigner possessed of
any considerable skill in the oral language, and the Spaniards consider
the obstacles so formidable that they have a proverb to the effect that
Satan once lived seven years in Biscay, and then departed, finding
himself unable either to understand or to make himself understood.
There are few inducements to the study of this language. In the first
place, the acquisition of it is by no means necessary even to those who
reside in the countries where it is spoken, the Spanish being generally
understood throughout the Basque provinces pertaining to Spain, and the
French in those pertaining to France.
In the second place, neither dialect is in possession of any peculiar
literature capable of repaying the toil of the student. There are
various books extant both in French and Spanish Basque, {117} but these
consist entirely of Popish devotion, and are for the most part
translations.
It will, perhaps, here be asked whether the Basques do not possess
popular poetry, like most other nations, however small and
inconsiderable. They have certainly no lack of songs, ballads, and
stanzas, but of a character by no means entitled to the appellation of
poetry. I have noted down from recitation, a considerable portion of
what they call their poetry, but the only tolerable specimen of verse
which I ever discovered amongst them was the following stanza, which,
after all, is not entitled to very high praise:—
“Ichasoa urac aundi,
Estu ondoric agueri—
Pasaco ninsaqueni andic
Maitea icustea gatic.” {118a}
_i.e._ “The waters of the sea are vast, and their bottom cannot be seen;
but over them I will pass, that I may behold my love.”
The Basques are a singing rather than a poetical people. Notwithstanding
the facility with which their tongue lends itself to the composition of
verse, they have never produced among them a poet with the slightest
pretensions to reputation; but their voices are singularly sweet, and
they are known to excel in musical composition. It is the opinion of a
certain author, the Abbé D’Iharce, {118b} who has written about them,
that they derived the name _Cantabri_, by which they are known to the
Romans, from _Khantor-ber_, signifying sweet singers. They possess much
music of their own, some of which is said to be exceedingly ancient. Of
this music specimens were published at Donostian (San Sebastian) in the
year 1826, edited by a certain Juan Ignacio Iztueta. {118c} These
consist of wild and thrilling marches, to the sound of which it is
believed that the ancient Basques were in the habit of descending from
their mountains to combat with the Romans, and subsequently with the
Moors. Whilst listening to them it is easy to suppose one’s self in the
close vicinity of some desperate encounter. We seem to hear the charge
of cavalry on the sounding plain, the clash of swords, and the rushing of
men down the gorges of hills. This music is accompanied with words, but
such words! Nothing can be imagined more stupid, commonplace, and
uninteresting. So far from being martial, they relate to everyday
incidents, and appear to have no connexion whatever with the music. They
are evidently of modern date.
In person the Basques are of the middle size, and are active and
athletic. They are in general of fair complexions and handsome features,
and in appearance bear no slight resemblance to certain Tartar tribes of
the Caucasus. Their bravery is unquestionable, and they are considered
as the best soldiery belonging to the Spanish crown: a fact highly
corroborative of the supposition that they are of Tartar origin, the
Tartars being of all races the most warlike, and amongst whom the most
remarkable conquerors have been produced. They are faithful and honest,
and capable of much disinterested attachment; kind and hospitable to
strangers; all of which points are far from being at variance with the
Tartar character. But they are somewhat dull, and their capacities are
by no means of a high order, and in these respects they again resemble
the Tartars.
No people on earth are prouder than the Basques, but theirs is a kind of
republican pride. They have no nobility amongst them, and no one will
acknowledge a superior. The poorest carman is as proud as the governor
of Tolosa. “He is more powerful than I,” he will say, “but I am of as
good blood; perhaps hereafter I may become a governor myself.” They
abhor servitude, at least out of their own country; and though
circumstances frequently oblige them to seek masters, it is very rare to
find them filling the places of common domestics; they are stewards,
secretaries, accountants, etc. True it is, that it was my own fortune to
obtain a Basque domestic; but then he always treated me more as an equal
than a master, would sit down in my presence, give me his advice unasked,
and enter into conversation with me at all times and occasions. Did I
check him? Certainly not! For in that case he would have left me, and a
more faithful creature I never knew. His fate was a mournful one, as
will appear in the sequel.
I have said that the Basques abhor servitude, and are rarely to be found
serving as domestics amongst the Spaniards. I allude, however, merely to
the males. The females, on the contrary, have no objection whatever to
enter houses as servants. Women, indeed, amongst the Basques are not
looked upon with all the esteem which they deserve, and are considered as
fitted for little else than to perform menial offices, even as in the
East, where they are viewed in the light of servants and slaves. The
Basque females differ widely in character from the men; they are quick
and vivacious, and have in general much more talent. They are famous for
their skill as cooks, and in most respectable houses of Madrid a Biscayan
female may be found in the kitchen, queen supreme of the culinary
department. {120}