FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691  
692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706   707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   >>   >|  
erses of a Chinese princess, who laments that she had been condemned by her parents to a distant exile, under a Barbarian husband; who complains that sour milk was her only drink, raw flesh her only food, a tent her only palace; and who expresses, in a strain of pathetic simplicity, the natural wish, that she were transformed into a bird, to fly back to her dear country; the object of her tender and perpetual regret. [37] [Footnote 27: M. de Guignes (tom. ii. p. 1--124) has given the original history of the ancient Hiong-nou, or Huns. The Chinese geography of their country (tom. i. part. p. lv.--lxiii.) seems to comprise a part of their conquests. * Note: The theory of De Guignes on the early history of the Huns is, in general, rejected by modern writers. De Guignes advanced no valid proof of the identity of the Hioung-nou of the Chinese writers with the Huns, except the similarity of name. Schlozer, (Allgemeine Nordische Geschichte, p. 252,) Klaproth, (Tableaux Historiques de l'Asie, p. 246,) St. Martin, iv. 61, and A. Remusat, (Recherches sur les Langues Tartares, D. P. xlvi, and p. 328; though in the latter passage he considers the theory of De Guignes not absolutely disproved,) concur in considering the Huns as belonging to the Finnish stock, distinct from the Moguls the Mandscheus, and the Turks. The Hiong-nou, according to Klaproth, were Turks. The names of the Hunnish chiefs could not be pronounced by a Turk; and, according to the same author, the Hioung-nou, which is explained in Chinese as detestable slaves, as early as the year 91 J. C., were dispersed by the Chinese, and assumed the name of Yue-po or Yue-pan. M. St. Martin does not consider it impossible that the appellation of Hioung-nou may have belonged to the Huns. But all agree in considering the Madjar or Magyar of modern Hungary the descendants of the Huns. Their language (compare Gibbon, c. lv. n. 22) is nearly related to the Lapponian and Vogoul. The noble forms of the modern Hungarians, so strongly contrasted with the hideous pictures which the fears and the hatred of the Romans give of the Huns, M. Klaproth accounts for by the intermingling with other races, Turkish and Slavonian. The present state of the question is thus stated in the last edition of Malte Brun, and a new and ingenious hypothesis suggested to resolve all the difficulties of the question. Were the Huns Finns? This obscure question has not been debated till very recently, and is ye
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691  
692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706   707   708   709   710   711   712   713   714   715   716   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Chinese

 

Guignes

 

modern

 

question

 

Klaproth

 

Hioung

 
history
 

writers

 
Martin
 

theory


country

 
assumed
 
dispersed
 
debated
 

obscure

 
belonged
 

difficulties

 
resolve
 

impossible

 

appellation


Hunnish
 

Mandscheus

 

recently

 

Moguls

 

chiefs

 

explained

 

detestable

 

slaves

 
suggested
 

author


pronounced

 

Vogoul

 

Lapponian

 

Slavonian

 

Turkish

 

distinct

 

related

 

intermingling

 
Hungarians
 
contrasted

hideous
 

pictures

 
strongly
 
accounts
 

Romans

 
present
 

descendants

 

Hungary

 

Madjar

 
Magyar