Page 69 [69]
THE HEBREW LANGUAGE AND COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS...
the Hebrew parallels was the Hebräisch und chaldäisch Grammatik (1523-25,
1531) of Matthaeus Aurogallus (Goldhahn) — as has been pointed out by a
Hungarian scholar, Robert Dan.”! Sylvester referred to ancient, early mediaeval
and contemporary scientific literature such as the Roman rhetors, Cicero and
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus; the Latin grammarians Aulus Gellius; Diomedes;
Donatus and Priscianus; the Byzantine geographical writer Stephanus Byzan¬
tinus; the Italian poet and orator Battista Guarinus; the German polyhistor
and Reformer Philip Melanchthon, the Italian humanist Sulpitius Verulanus
(Giovanni Sulpizio da Veroli), and the English grammarian Guilielmus Lilius
(William Lily). These mentions or notes were not simple references to the
authors; Sylvester was in debate with their point of views. Consequently his
Grammatica was a dynamic part of the grammatical discussion of his era.”*
Nevertheless, the first independent description of the Hungarian language
was produced only seventy years after Sylvester’s Grammatica Hungarolatina
by Albert Szenczi Molnar (1574-1634). This learned Protestant theologian and
linguist studied in Wittenberg, Heidelberg, Strasbourg, Herborn and Altdorf.
He translated the main works of the Calvinist reformation into Hungarian,
compiled a Latin-Hungarian dictionary, corrected and republished the Bible
in Hungarian, and wrote a Hungarian Grammar. At the end of the preface of
his Novae Grammaticae Ungaricae, Szenczi Molnar presented a short descrip¬
tion of the theory of Johannes Goropius (1519-1572) on the certain numbers of
languages.”* By doing so, Szenczi Molnar distanced himself from the contem¬
porary habit of searching for a direct affinity between “vulgar” languages and
Hebrew. Even so, Szenczi Molnar utilized several features of the Hebrew gram¬
mar in his Novae Grammaticae Ungaricae, and referred to the Hebrew language
as it would be a natural point of reference. For example, at the very beginning
of his grammar he used the Hebrew vowel system and some consonants as
first-hand parallels to illustrate the Hungarian phonology.” The Hebrew article
DAN, Robert, Sylvester és a ‘lingua primigenia’, in R. Dan (ed.), Humanizmus, reformdci6, anti¬
trinitarizmus és a héber nyelv Magyarországon, Budapest, Akadémiai, 1973, 40-41.
A detailed analysis of Sylvester’s sources is presented by Istvan Bartok in his “Explanatory Notes”.
See his edition of Sylvester's Grammatica, 119-134.
HEGEDŰS, József, Johannes Sylvester’s Grammatical legacy (1539) and its European background,
Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55 (2008), 41-57.
SzZENCZI MOLNAR, Albert, Novae grammaticae hungaricae succincta methodo comprehensae,
Hannoviae, Thomae Villeriani, 1610, 23-24.
5 Patach, Segol, Chamets and Tsere among the vowels (Ibid., 29-30), Shin, Zayin, Jod, Samech
among the consonants were mentioned (Ibid., 30-31). Concerning the length of the vowels he
writes: “A ffectiones syllabarum in tempore et accentu tant variae et multiplices sunt in haec
lingua, ut omnia Hebraeorum puncta et accentus omnes locum invenrirent, in scriptira nostra
Ungarica si literis Hebraicus uteremur.” Ibid., 35.
67 +