Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 110, December 6, 1851: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.Various
History
Notes and Queries, Vol. IV, Number 110, December 6, 1851: A Medium of Inter-communication for Literary Men, Artists, Antiquaries, Genealogists, etc.
Various
Questions and answers -- Periodicals
_The Word Ἀδελφὸς_ (Vol. iv., p. 339.).--Your correspondent,
the Rev. T. R. BROWN, is right in acquiescing in the ordinary derivation
of ἀδελφὸς from ἀ and δέλφυς, but wrong, as I think, in
endeavouring to find cognate forms in the Indo-Germanic
languages. The fact is, that the word is solely and peculiarly Greek.
The Sanscrit word for brother is, as every body knows, _bhratri_ (Latin,
_frater_, &c.); and that this form was not entirely unknown to the
Hellenic races, is evidenced by their use of φράτρα, or
φράτρη, in various senses, all of which may easily be reduced
to the one common idea of brotherhood. How it happened that the word
φρατὴρ was lost in Greek, and ἀδελφὸς substituted,
we think we can satisfactorily explain, and, if so, the elucidation will
make clearer an interesting point in Greek manners. It appears that
they, in common with some Eastern nations, looked upon the relationship
between brothers of the same mother as much closer in blood than that in
which the brothers were related through the father alone; and hence the
well-known law forbidding ἀδελφοὶ ὁμομητρίοι _alone_ to
marry. In the same manner we find Abraham (Gen. xx. 12.) using a similar
excuse for marrying Sarah:
"And yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my
father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my
wife."
It is not difficult, therefore, to understand how this notion prevailing
among the Greeks, might lead them to frame a new word from ἀ
and δέλφυς, to express the uterine relation of brothers, which
would soon in common use supplant the older Indo-German term φρατὴρ.
For further reasons which may have influenced the dropping of
the word φρατὴρ, I would refer to a learned article on
"Comparative Philology" in the last number of the _Edinburgh Review_, by
Dr. Max Müller.
With regard to the derivations suggested by MR. BROWN from the Hebrew,
Arabic, &c., I think I am justified in laying down as a rule that no
apparent similarity between words in the Semitic and Asian families can
be used to establish a real identity, the two classes of language being
radically and fundamentally distinct.
J. B.
_Finger Pillories_ (Vol. iv., p. 315.).--Meeting recently with a person
who, although illiterate, is somewhat rich in oral tradition and local
folk lore, I inquired if he had ever seen such a thing as that described
by MR. LAWRENCE. He replied that he had not, but that he had frequently
heard of these "stocks," as he called them, and that he believed they
were used in "earlier days" for the purpose of inflicting _penance_ upon
those parishioners who absented themselves from mass for any lengthened
period. My informant illustrated his explanation with a "traditionary"
anecdote (too fabulous to trouble you with), which had been the means of
imparting the above to him. Whether correct or not, however, I must
leave others to determine.
J. B. COLMAN.
[Will our correspondent favour us with the tradition to which he
refers?]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account