PHILOLOGY.

Philology is compounded of the two Greek words φιλos and λoγos∙ and imports the desire of investigating the properties and affections of words. The sages of Greece were, in the most ancient times, denominated σοφοι, that is, wise men. Pythagorus renounced this pompous appellation, and assumed the more humble title of φιλοσοφοs, that is, a lover of wise men. The learned Greeks were afterwards called philosophers; and in process of time, in imitation of this epithet, the word pliilologer was adopted, to import a man deeply versed in languages, etymology, and antiquities. Hence the term philology, which denotes the science that we propose briefly to discuss in the following article.

Although philology, in its original import, denoted only the study of words and language, it gradually acquired a much more extensive, and at the same time a much more useful, as well as more exalted, signification. It comprehended the study of grammar, criticism, etymology, the interpretation of ancient authors, antiquities; and, in a word, every thing relating to ancient manners, laws, religion, government, and language. In this enlarged sense of the word, philology becomes a science of the greatest utility; it opens a wide field of intellectual investigation, and indeed calls for a more intense exertion of industry, and multifarious erudition, than most of those departments of literature which custom has dignified with more high-sounding names. It is indeed apparent, that, without the aid of philological studies, it is impossible upon many occasions, to develope the origin of nations; to trace their primary frame and constitution; to discover their manners, customs, laws, religion, government, language, progress in arts and arms; or to learn by what men and what measures the most celebrated states of antiquity rose into grandeur and consideration. The study of history, so eminently useful to the legislator, the divine, the military man, the lawyer, the philosopher, and the private gentleman who wishes to employ his learned leisure in a manner honourable and improving to himself, and useful to his country, will contribute very little towards enlightening the mind without the aid of philological researches. For these reasons we shall endeavour to explain the various branches of that useful science as fully⅛ and intelligibly as the nature of the present undertaking will permit.

Most of the branches of philology have already been treated of under the heads of Grammar and Language. But there still remains ône part, which has either been slightly touched upon, or totally omitted, under the foregoing topics; we mean, the nature and complexion of most of the oriental tongues, as also some of the radical dialects of the languages of the west. As we would willingly gratify our readers of every description to the utmost of our power, we shall endeavour in this place to communicate to them as much information upon that subject as the extent of our reading, and the limits prescribed for a single article, will permit.

Before entering upon this subject, however, we must observe, that it is not our intention to fill our pages with a tedious, uninteresting, catalogue of barbarous languages, spoken by savage and inconsiderable tribes, of which little, or perhaps nothing, more is known than barely their names. Such an enumeration would swell the article without communicating one single new idea to the reader’s antecedent stock. We shall therefore confine our inquiries to such languages as have been used by considerable states and societies, and which of consequence have acquired a high degree of celebrity in the regions of the east.

What was the antediluvian language, or whether it was divided into a variety of dialects as at this day, can only be determined by the rules of analogy; and these will lead us to believe, that whatever might have been the primitive language of mankind, if human nature was then constituted as it is at present, a great variety of dialects must of necessity have sprung up in the space of nearly two thousand years. If we adopt the Mosaic account of the antediluvian events, we must' admit that for several ages the descendants of Cain lived separated from those of Seth. Their manner of life, their religious ceremonies, their laws, their form of government, were probably different, and these circumstances would of course produce a variety in their language. The posterity of Cain were an inventive race. They found out thfe arts of metallurgy, music, and some think of weaving; and in all probability many other things conducive to the ease and the accommodation of life were the produce of their ingenuity. A people of this character must have paid no small regard to their words and modes of expression. Wherever music is cultivated, language will naturally be improved and refined. When new inventions are introduced, a new race of words and phrases of necessity spring up, corresponding to the recent stock of ideas to be intimated. Besides, amongst an inven-tiverace of people,new words would be continually fabricated, in order to supply the deficiencies of the primitive language, which was probably scanty in its vocabulary, and its phraseology unpolished. The Cainites, then, amongst their other improvements, cannot well be supposed to have neglected the cultivation of language.

Many conjectures have been hazarded both by ancient and modern authors respecting the origin of writing; an art which is nearly connected with that of speaking. According to Pliny,^[1. Nat. Hist. lib. vii. cap. 56. ] “the Assyrian letters had always existed; some imagined that letters had been invented by the Egyptian Mercury; others ascribed the honour of the invention to the Syrians.” The truth seems to be, that letters were an antediluvian invention, preserved amongst the Chaldeans or Assyrians, who were the immediate descendants of Noah, and inhabited those very regions in the neighbourhood of which the ark rested, and where that patriarch afterwards fixed his residence. The circumstance, we think, affords a strong presumption that the use of letters was known before the deluge, and transmitted to the Assyrians and Chaldeans by Noah their progenitor, or at least by their immediate ancestors of his family. If, then, the art of writing was an antediluvian invention, we think that in all probability it originated amongst the posterity of Cain.

The descendants of Seth, according to the oriental tradition, were chiefly addicted to agriculture and the tending of cattle. They devoted a great part of their time to the exercises of piety and devotion. From this circumstance they came to be distinguished by the title of the sons of God. ^[2. From this passage (Gen. vi. 2.) misunderstood, originated the absurd idea of the connection between angels and mortal women. (See Josephus, Antiq. Jud. lib. i. cap. 4∙ and Eusebius, Chron. lib. i.) The Fathers of the church, almost without exception, adopted this foolish notion. (See also Philo-Jud. p. 198, edit. Turn. Ptris, 1552.) ]
[7:17:355]

According to this description, the Sethites were a simple,^[3. The orientals, however, affirm, that Seth, whom they call Εdris, was the inventor of astronomy. ] unimproved race of people till they mingled with the race of Cain; after which period they at once adopted the improvements and the vices of that wicked family.

It is not, probable, however, that all the descendants of Seth, without exception, mingled with the Cainites. That family of which Noah was descended had not incorporated with the race of Cain. According to the sacred historian, it was lineally descended from Seth, and had preserved the worship of the true God, when, it is probable, the greatest part of mankind had apostatised and become idolaters.^[4. We think it highly probable that idolatry was established before the deluge, because it prevailed almost immediately after that catastrophe. See Polytheism. ] Along with the true religion, the progenitors of Noah had preserved that simplicity of manners and equability of character which had distinguished their remote ancestors. Agriculture and the rearing of cattle had been their favourite occupations. Accordingly we learn, that the patriarch Noah, immediately after the -deluge, became a husbandman, and “planted a vineyard.” The chosen patriarchs, who doubtless imitated their pious ancestors, were shepherds, and employed in the rearing and tending of cattle. Indeed there are strong presumptions thajt the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Syrians, Canaanites, and Arabians, in the earliest ages followed the same profession.

From this deduction, we imagine, it is at least probable, that the ancestors of Noah persisted in the observance of the same simplicity of manners which had been handed down from Adam to Seth, and from him to Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and from this last to Noah himself. According both to scripture and tradition, innovations were the province of the Cainites, whilst the descendants of Seth adhered to the primitive and truly patriarchal institutions.

If these premises are allowed the merit of probability, we may justly infer that the language of Noah, whatever it was, differed very little from that of Adam;^[5. For some conjectures respecting the language first communicated to Adam, see the article on Language, and also Schuckford’s Connect, vol. i. lib. ii. p, 111, et seq. ] and that if it is possible to ascertain the language of the former, that of the latter will of course be discovered. We shall then proceed to throw together a few observations relating to the language of Noah, and leave our readers to judge for themselves. We believe it will be superfluous to suggest, that our intention in the course of this deduction is, if possible, to trace the origin and antiquity of the Hebrew tongue; and to try to discover whether that language, or any of its sister dialects, may claim the honour of being the original language of mankind.

Whatever may have been the dialect of Noah and his family, that same dialect, according to the Mosaic account, must have obtained, without any alteration, until the era of the building of the tower of Babel. Upon this occasion a dreadful convulsion took place; the language of mankind was confounded, and men were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth.

How far this catastrophe^[6. Josephus and the Fathers of the church tell us, that the number of languages produced by the confusion of tongues was seventy-two; but this is a mere rabbinical legend. ] extended, it is not the business of the present inquiry to determine. But one thing is certain beyond all controversy, namely, that the languages of all the nations which settled near the centre of population were but slightly affected by its influence. A very judicious writer has observed,^[7. Strabo. ... ] s that three thousand years afterwards, the inhabitants of those countries exhibited a very strong resemblance of cognation, “in their language, manner of living, and the lineaments of their bodies.” At the same time he observes, that “the resemblance in all those particulars was most remarkable amongst the inhabitants of Mesopotamia.” This observation, with respect to language, will, we doubt not, be vouched by every one of our readers who has acquired even a superficial knowledge of the languages current in those countries at a very early period.

It appears, then, that the languages of the Armenians, Syrians, Assyrians, Arabians, and probably of the Chanaanim, did not suffer materially by the confusion of tongues. This observation may, we imagine, be extended to many of the dialects spoken by the people who settled in those countries not far distant from the region where the sacred historian has fixed the original seat of mankind after the deluge.^[8. The language of the Medes, Persians, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, very much resembled each other in their original complexion; and all had a strong affinity to the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, &c. (See. Walton’s Prolegomena, Gale’s Court of the Genthes, vol. i. lib. i. ch. 11, p. 70, et seq.; Bochart, Phaleg and Chanaan, pass.) To these we may add the Greek language, as will appear more fully below. ] The inference then is, that if Noah and his family snoke the original language of Adam, as they most probably did, the judgment which effected the confusion of tongues did not produce any considerable alteration in the language of such of the descendants of Noah as settled near the region where that patriarch had fixed his residence after he quitted the^ark.

But supposing the changes of language produced by the catastrophe at the building of the tower as considerable as has ever been imagined, it does not, after all, appear certain, that all mankind, without exception, were engaged in this impious project. If this assertion should be well-founded, the consequence would be, that there was a chosen race who did not engage in that enterprise. If there was such a family, society, or body of men, it must follow, that this family, society, or body of men, retained the language of its great ancestor without change or variation. That such a family did actuallyexist, is highly probable, for the following reasons.

L We think there is reason to believe that Ham, upon the heavy curse denounced upon him by his father,^[9. Gen. ix. 25. ] retired from his brethren, and fixed his residence elsewhere. Accordingly we find his descendants scattered far and wide, at a very great distance from the Gordyaean mountains, where the ark is generally supposed to have rested immediately after the Flood. Some of them we find in Chaldaea, others in Arabia Felix, others in Ethiopia,^[10. Josephus informs us, that all the nations of Asia called the Ethiopians Cushim, (lib. i. cap. 7.) ] others in Canaan, and others in Egypt; and, finally, multitudes were scattered over all the coast of Africa. Between these countries were planted many colonies of Shemites, in Elam, Assyria, Syria, Arabia, &c. We find, at the same time, the descendants of Shem and Japhet settled, in a great degree, contiguous to each other. This dispersion of the Hamites, irregular as it is, can scarcely, we think, have been accidental; it must have been owing to some uncommon cause, and none seems more probable than that assigned above. If, then, the descendants of Ham separated early, and took different routes, as from their posterior situations it appears they did, they could not all be present at the building of the tower.

2. It is not probable that the descendants of Shem were engaged in this undertaking, since we find that they were not scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth. The children of Shem were Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram.^[11. Gen. X. 22. ] Elam settled near the mouth of the river Tigris, in the country which, by the Gentile writers, was called Ely- [7:17:356] mais. Above him, on the same river, lay the demesne of Ashur, on the western side. In like manner, upon the same river, above him, was situated Aram, who possessed the country of Aramea; and opposite to him was Arphaxad, or Arbaces, or Arbaches, whose country was denominated Arphachites. Lud, as some think, settled in Lydia, amongst the sons of Japhet; but this opinion seems to be without foundation.^[12. The ancient name of Lydia was Maeonia. (See Strabo Cαsaub. lib. xiii. p. 586, chap. 7. Rhod. 577.) The Lydians were celebrated for inventing games; on which account they were nicknamed by the Aeolian Greeks Αυ3n, Lydi or Ludi, from the Hebrew word lutz, ludere, illudere, deridere. We find (Ezek. xxvii. 10.) the men of Elam and the men of Lud joined in the defence of Tyre; which seems to intimate, that the Elamites and Ludim were neighbours. If this was actually the case, then Lud settled in the same quarter with his brothers. ] Here, then, there is a dispersion, but such as must have originated from the nature of the thing. The four, or rather the five brothers, all settled contiguously, without being scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. Besides, there was no confusion of language amongst these tribes, who continued to use one and the same tongue through many succeeding generations.

From these circumstances it appears, that the posterity of Shem were not involved in the guilt of the builders of the tower, and consequently did not undergo their punishment. If then the language of the Shemites was not confounded upon the erection of the tower, the presumption is, that they retained the language of Noah, which, in all probability, was that of Adam. Some dialectical differences would in process of time creep in, but the radical fabric of the language would remain unaltered.

3. The posterity of Shem appear in general to have followed the pastoral life. They imitated the style of living adopted by the antediluvian posterity of Seth. No sooner had Noah descended from the ark, than he became lsh ha Adarnah, “ a man of the earth,” that is, a husbandman, and planted a vineyard. We find that some ages afterwards, Laban the Syrian had flocks and herds; and that the chief wealth of the patriarch Abraham and his children consisted in their flocks and herds. Even his Gentile descendants, the’ Ishmaelites and Midianites, seem to have followed the same occupation. But people of this profession are seldom given to changes. Their wants are few, and consequently they are under few or no temptations to deviate from the beaten track. This circumstance renders it probable that the language of Noah, the same with that of Adam, was preserv-edwith little variation amongst the descendants of Arphaxad down to Abraham.

We have observed above, that Flam, upon the curse denounced against him by his father, very probably left the society of his other brothers, and emigrated elsewhere, as Cain had done in the antediluvian world. There is a tradition still current in the east, and which was adopted by many of the Christian fathers,^[13. Epiphan. (vo½ i. p. 5. ibid. p. 709.) where our learned readers will observe some palpable errors about Rhinocorura, &c. (Eusebius, Chron. p. 10. Syncellus, p. 89. Cedrenus Chron. Pasch. &c.) ] that Noah, in the nine hundredth and thirtieth year of his life, by divine appointment, did, in the most formal manner, divide the whole terraqueous globe amongst his three sons, obliging them that they would take an oath to stand by the decision. Upon this happened a migration at the birth of Peleg, that is, about three centuries after the Flood. It is affirmed that Nimrod the arch rebel disregarded this partition, and encroached upon the territory of Ashur, which occasioned the first war after the deluge.

The Greeks had acquired some idea of this partition, which they supposed to have been between Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto.^[14. Callimach. Hym. Hom. Iliad, lib. xv. ] Plato seems to have heard of it;^[15. Critias, vol. iii. p. 109. Serr. Apollodorus mentions a time when the gods respectively selected particular cities and regions, which they were to take under their peculiar protection. ] “ for,” says he, “the gods of old obtained the dominion of the whole earth, according to their different allotments; and this was effected without any contention, for they took possession of their several provinces in a fair and amicable way, by lot.” Josephus,^[16. Αntiq. Jud. lib. i. c. 5∙ ] in, his account of the dispersion of mankind, plainly insinuates a divine destination; and Philo-Judaeus^[17. Lib χ. p. 236. Turn. Paris, 1552. We have a plain allusion to this distribution in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 7.) “When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people, according to the number of the children of Israel; for the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.” From this passage it appears, that the whole was arranged by the appointment of God, and that the land of Canaan was expressly reserved for the children of Israel. St. Paul (Acts xvii. 16.) speaks of this divine arrangement, “God made of one blood all nations of men, that dwell on the face of the earth; andde-termined the bounds of their habitation.” ] was of the same opinion before him.

In consequence of this arrangement, the sons of Shem possessed themselves of the countries mentioned in the pre-cedingpages; the posterity of Japhethad spread themselves towards the north and west; but the Hamites, who had separated from their brethren in consequence of the curse, not choosing to retire to their quarters, which were indeed very distant from the place where the ark rested,^[18. The ark, according to the most probable accounts, rested upon Mount Ararat in Armenia. ] seized upon the land of Canaan. Perhaps, too, it might be suggested by some malicious spirits, that the aged patriarch was dealing partially when he assigned to Ham and his posterity a quarter of the world to inhabit, not only remote from the centre of population, but likewise sequestered from the rest of mankind.^[19. We thi⅛k it by no means improbable that Noah, well knowing the wickedness of the family of Ham, and especially their inclination to the idolatry of the antediluvians, might actually intend to separate them from the rest of mankind. ]

But be this as it may, the children of Ham removed eastward, and at length descending from the Carduchean or Gordyaean mountains, directed their course westward, and arrived at the plains of Shinar, which had been possessed by the Ashurim ever since the era of the first migration at the birth of Peleg. The sacred historian informs us, that the whole earth was of one language and of one speech; that in journeying from the east, they lighted upon the plain of Shinar, and dwelt there. In this passage we find no particular people specified; but as we find Nimrod, one of the descendants of Ham, settled in that country, we may be sure that they were the offspring of that patriarch. It would not, we think, be easy to assign a reason how one branch of the family of Ham came to plant itself in the midst of the sons of Shem by any other means but by violence.

It is indeed generally supposed, that Nimrod, at the head of a body of the children of Ham, made war upon Ashur, and drove him out of the country of Shinar, and there laid the foundation of that kingdom, the beginning of which was Babel; that this chief, supported by all the Cushites, and a great number of apostates from the families of Shem and Japhet who had joined him, refused to submit to the divine ordinance by the mouth of Noah, with respect to the partition of the earth; and that he and his adherents were the people who erected the celebrated tower, in consequence of a resolution which they had formed to keep together, without[7:17:357] repairing to the quarters assigned them by the determination of Heaven. This was the crime which brought down the judgment of the Almighty upon them, by which they were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth. The main body of the children of Shem and Japhet were not engaged in this impious undertaking; their language, therefore, was not confounded, nor were they themselves scattered abroad. Their habitations were contiguous, those of the Shemites towards the centre of Asia; the dwellings of Japhet were extended towards the north and north-west; and the languages of both these families continued for many ages without the least variation, except what time, climate, laws, religion, new inventions, arts, sciences, and commerce, will produce in every tongue in a succession of years.

The general opinion then was, that none but the progeny of Ham and their associates were present at the build ing of the tower, and that they only suffered by the judgmentconsequent upon that attempt.^[20. Some learned men have imagined that this confusion of language, was only a temporary failure of pronunciation, which was afterwards removed. This they are led to conclude, from the agreement of the languages of these people in after times. ] There are even amongst the pagans some allusions to the division of the world amongst the three sons of Noah. Many of the learned have imagined that this patriarch was Saturn, and that his three sons were Jupiter, Neptune, and Pluto, as has been observed above.

Berosus, in his history of the Babylonians, informs us, that Noah, at the foot of Mount Baris or Luban, where the ark rested, gave his children their last instructions, and then vanished out of sight.^[21. Euseb. Chrοη, ] ® It is now generally believed that the Xisuthrus of Berosus was Noah. Eupolemus, another heathen writer, tells us, “that the city Babel was first founded, and afterwards the celebrated tower; both which were built by some of those people who escaped the deluge. They were the same with those who in after times were exhibited under the name of giants. The tower was at length ruined by the hand of the Almighty, and those giants were scattered over the whole earth.”^[22. Euseb. Proep. Evangel, lib. ix. ] This quotation plainly intimates, that according to the opinion of the author, only the rascally mob of the Hamites, and their apostate associates, were engaged in this daring enterprise.

Indeed, it can never be supposed that Shem, if he was alive at that period, as he certainly was, would co-operate in such an absurd and impious undertaking. That devout patriarch, we think, would rather employ his influence and authority to divert his descendants from an attempt which he knew was undertaken in contradiction to an express ordinance of Heaven; and it is surely very improbable that Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, and Aram, would join that impious confederacy, in opposition to the remonstrances of their father.

The building of the tower, according to the most probable chronology, was undertaken at a period so late, that all mankind could not possibly have concurred in the enterprise.

Many of the fathers were of opinion, that Noah settled in Armenia, the country where the ark rested; and that his descendants did not leave that region for five generations,^[23. Epiph. Hoeres. lib. i. ] or during the space of659 years. By this period the human race must have been so amazingly multiplied, that the plains of Shinar could not have contained them. According to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint version, Peleg was born in the 134th year of his father Eber. Even admitting the vulgar opinion, that the tower had begun to be built, and the dispersion consequent upon thateventmust have taken place at this era, the human race would have been by much too numerous to have universally concurred in one common design.

From these circumstances, we hope it appears that the whole mass of mankind was not engaged in building the tower of Babel; that the language of all the human race was not confounded upon that occasion; and that the dispersion reached only to a combination of Hamites, and of the most profligate part of the two other families, who had joined their wicked confederacy.

We have pursued this argument to considerable length, because some have inferred, from the difference in languages existing at this day, that mankind cannot have sprung from two individuals; because from the connection still existing amongst languages, some have been bold enough to question the fact, though plainly recorded in sacred history; and lastly, because we imagine that some of our readers, who do not pretend to peruse the writings of the learned, may be gratified by seeing the various opinions respecting the confusion of tongues, and the dispersion of mankind, collected into one mass, equally brief, we hope, and intelligible. And this view of these opinions, with the foundations on which they respectively rest, we think may suffice to prove, that the language of Noah was for some ages preserved, unmixed, amongst the descendants of both Shem and Japhet.

To gratify still further such of our curious readers as may not have access to more ample information, we shall in this place exhibit a brief detail of the circumstances which attended this fatal attempt. The people engaged in it have been held up as a profligate race. The Almighty himself denominates them “the children of men” which is the very appellation by which the antediluvian sinners were characterised; the sons of God saw the daughters of men, &c. Their design in raising this edifice was, “ to make them a name, and to prevent their being scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” ^[24. Gen. chap. xi. ]

Whatever resolution the rest of mankind might take, they had determined to maintain themselves on that spot. The tower was intended as a centre of union, and perhaps as a fortress of defence. Such a stupendous fabric, they imagined, would immortalize their memory, and transmit the name of their confederacy with distinction to future ages.^[25. Many foolish and absurd notions have been entertained concerning this structure-Some have imagined that they meant to take shelter there in case of a second deluge; others, that it was intended for idolatrous purposes; others, that it was to be employed as an observatory. Its dimensions have likewise been most extravagantly magnified. Indeed Strabo, lib· 16, mentions a tower of immense size remaining at Babylon in his time, the dimensions of which were a stadium every way. This, however, seems to have been the remains of the temple of Bel or Belus. ] The design plainly intimates, that there was only a party concerned in the undertaking, since, had all mankind been engaged in it, the purpose would have been foolish and futile. Again, they intended, by making themselves a name, to prevent their being scattered abroad upon the face of the earth. This was an act of rebellion in direct contradiction to the divine appointment, which constituted their crime, and brought down the judgment of Heaven upon their guilty heads. But the consequence of the confusion of languages was, that the projectors left off building, and were actually scattered abroad, contrary to their intention.

Abydenus, in his Assyrian Annals, records, that the tower was carried up to heaven; but that the gods ruined it by storms and whirlwinds, and overthrew it upon the heads of those who were employed in the work, and that the ruins of it were called Babylon. ^[26. See the Greek original of this quotation, Euseb. Cluron. lib. i. p. 73. ] A Before this there was but one language subsisting amongst men; but now there [7:17:358]arose πdλυ0pηφωvη, a manifold speech ; and he adds, that a “war soon after broke out between Titan^[27. This war was probably carried on between the leaders of the Hamites and Ashur upon their invasion. ] and Kronos.”^[28. Theoph. αd Αniol. lib. ii. page 107, ed. Paris, 1636. ] The Sybilline oracles give much the same account of this early and important transaction.

Justin^[29. Philip, lib. xviii. cap. 3. ] informs us, that the Phoenicians who built Tyre, were driven from Assyria by an earthquake. These Phoenicians were the descendants of Mizraim the youngest son of Ham; they were, we think, confederates in building the tower, and were driven away by the catastrophe that ensued. Many other allusions to the dispersion of this branch of the family occur in pagan authors, but the limits to be observed in an inquiry of this nature oblige us to omit them, on the whole, we think it probable that the country of Shinar lay desolate for some time after this revolution; for the dread of the judgment inflicted upon the original inhabitants would deter men from settling in that inauspicious region. At last, however, a new colony arrived, and Babel, or Babylon, became the capital of a flourishing kingdom.

Our readers, we believe, will expect that we should say something of Nimrod the mighty hunter, who is generally thought to have been deeply concerned in the transactions of this period. According to most authors, both ancient and modern, this patriarch was the leader of the confederates who erected the tower, and the chief instigator to that enterprise. But if the tower was built at the birth of Phe-leg, according to the Hebrew computation, that chief was either a child,^[30. Bochart, Phaleg. lib. i. cap. 10. ] or rather not born at that period.^[31. Gen. X. 8, 9. “This man began to be a giant upon the earth; he was the giant hunter before the Lord God.—As Nymbrod the giant hunter before the Lord.” ] The Seventy have pronounced him a giant, as well as a huntsman. They have translated the Hebrew word Gebur, which generally signifies strong, mighty, by the word γιγαr, giant; an idea which we imagine those translators borrowed from the Greeks. The antediluvian giants are called Nephelim and Rephaim, but never Geburim. The Rabbinical writers, who justly hated the Babylonians, readily adopted this idea;^[32. See Mr. Bryant’s Analysis, vol. iii. p. 38, et seq. ] and the Fathers of the church, and the Byzantine historians, have universally followed them. He has been called Nimrod, Nebrod, Nymbroth, Nebroth, and Nebris. Not a few have made him the first Bacchus, and compounded his name of Bar, a son, and Cush, that is the son of Cush. Some have imagined that he was the Orion of the pagans, whose shade is so nobly described by Homer.^[33. Odys, lib, i. verse 571. ] But the etymology of this last name implies something honourable, and very unsuitable to the idea of the tyrant Nimrod.^[34. Orion is compounded of the Hebrew Or, “light,” and ion, ∙ t one of the names of the sun and Orion was probably one of the names of that luminary. ] It must be observed, however, that we find nothing in Scripture to warrant the supposition of his having been a tyrant; so far from it, that some have deemed him a benefactor to mankind.^[35. See Shuckford’s Connect, vol. i. lib. 3. p. 179, 180. Also the authors of the Uhivcr. Hist. vol. i. ]

The beginning of this prince’s kingdom was Babel. Eusebius gives us first^[36. Chron∙ lib. i. p. 14. ] a catalogue of six kings of the Chaldeans, and then another of five kings of Arabian extraction, who reigned in Chaldaea after them. This might naturally enough happen, since it appears that the inhabitants of those parts of Arabia which are adjacent to Chaldaea were actually Cushites, of the same family with the Babylonians.^[37. Gen. x. Ezek. xxvii. ] # The Cushites, however, were at last subdued, perhaps partly expelled Chaldaea by the Chasiaim, who probably claimed that territory as the patrimony of their progenitors. That the Chasidim were neither Cushites, nor indeed Hamites, is obvious from the name. The Hebrews, and indeed all the Orientals,^[38. Joseph. Ant. lib. 1. cap. 6. ] denominated both the people who inhabited Arabia, Cusliim, and also the Ethiopians who sprung from the last-mentioned people. Had the later inhabitants of Chaldaea been the descendants of Cush, the Jewish writers would have called them Cushim. We find they called the Phoenicians Chanaanim, the Syrians Aramim, the Egyptians Mizraim, the Greeks Jonim, and so on. The Chasidim, therefore, or modem inhabitants of Chaldaea, were positively descended of one Chesed or Chased; but who this family-chief was, it is not easy to determine. The only person of that name whom we meet with in early times, is the fourth son of Nahor,^[39. Gen. xxii. 22. ] the brother of Abraham; and some have been of opinion that the Chaldeans were the progeny of this same Chesed. This appears to us highly probable, because both Abram and Nahor were^[40. Gen.xt. 28. ] natives o 4 Ur of the Chasidim. The former, we know, in consequence of the divine command, removed to Haran, afterwards Charrae ; but the latter remained in Ur, where his family multiplied, and, in process of time, became masters of the country which they called the land of the Chasidim, from Chesed or Chased, the name of their ancestor. This account is the more probable, as we find the other branches of Nahor’s family settled in the same neighbourhood.^[41. Huz gave name to the country of Job; Elihu, one of Job’s friends, was a Buzite of the kindred of Ram or Aram, another of the sons of Nahor. Aram, whose posterity planted Syria Cava, was the grandson of Nahor by Kemuel. Hence it appears probable that Jeb himself was a descendant of Nahor by Huz his first born. ]

How the Greeks came to denominate these people Xαλ-δaiot, Chaldaei, is a question rather difficult to be resolved; but we know that they always affected to distinguish people and places by names derived from their own language. They knew a rugged, erratic nation^[42. See Eüstat. in Dion. Perieg. v. 768. Strabo, lib. xii. p. 543. Casaub. As the Chalybes were famous for manufacturing iron, so were they celebrated for making^the choicest pieces of armour. They excelled in making *λ<Cα,w, or coats of mail, or brigandínes, used by the bravest of the Persian horsemen. Bochart (Phaleg. lib. iii. cap. 12 and 13) has proved that the word Cheliba signifies »‘scales of brass or steel·” From the word Cheliba, the Greeks formed their X≈λuftf, Chalybes. Xenophon ( Cyrop. lib. iii. p. 43, Steph.) represents the Chaldeans, who inhabited a mountainous country bordering upon Armenia, as a very fierce and warlike people. In page 107, we have an example of their rapacious character; and in lib. iv. p. 192, Hen. Steph, we have an account of their bravery and of their arnχs. Another instance of their rapacity occurs in their plundering the cattle of Job- ] on the banks of the Thermodoon, in the territory of Pontus, bordering on Armenia the Less. These, in ancient times, were called Alybes or Calybes, because they were much employed in forging and polishing iron. Their neighbours, at length, gave them the name of Chald or Caled, which imports, in the Armenian dialect, fierce, hardy, robust. This title the Greeks adopted, and out of it formed the word Xαλδαιoι, Or Chaldeans.

The Mosaic history informs us,^[43. A dispute has arisen about the sense of verse 10, chap. x. « Out of that land went forth Ashur, and builded Nineveh.” Some approve our translation, which we think is just; others, considering that the inspired writer had been speaking of Nimrod and the beginning of his kingdom, are of opinion that it should be translated, “And out of this land He. (that is Nimrod,) went into Ashur and builded Ninei veh.” This they make a military expedition) and a violent irruption into the territory of Ashur. ] that Ashur went out of the land of Shinar, and built Nineveh and several other considerable cities. One of the successors of Ashur was [7:17:359]the celebrated Ninus, who first broke the peace of the world,^[44. Justin, lib. i. cap. i. ] made war upon his neighbours, and obliged them by force of arms to become his subjects, and pay tribute. Some authors make him the immediate successor of Ashur, and the builder of Nineveh. This we think is not probable; and Eusebius, as we have observed above, gives a list of six Arabian princes who reigned in Babylon. These we take to have been the immediate successors of Nimrod, called Arabians, because these people were Cushites. Ninus might be reputed the first king of the Assyrians, because he figured beyond his predecessors; and he might pass for the builder of Nineveh, because he greatly enlarged and beautified that city. We therefore imagine, that Ninus was the fifth or sixth in succession after Ashur.

Ninus, according to Diodorus Siculus,^[45. Lib. ii. ] made an alliance with Ariaeus king of the Arabians, and conquered the Babylonians. This event, in our opinion, put an end to the empire of the Hamites or Cushim in Shinar or Babylonia. The author observes, that the Babylon which figured afterwards did not then exist. This fact is confirmed by the prophet Isaiah:^[46. Chap, xxiii. 13. ] “Behold the land of the Chasidim; this people was not till Ashur founded it for them that dwell in the wilderness. They set up the towers thereof,” &c. After Babylonia was subdued by the Assyrians under Ninus, the capital was either destroyed by that conqueror or deserted by the inhabitants. At length it was re-built by some one or other of the Assyrian monarchs, who collected the roving Chasidim, and obliged them to settle in the new city. These were subject to the Assyrian empire till the reign of Sardanapalus, when both the Medes and Babylonians rebelled against that effeminate prince.

The Chasidim were celebrated by all antiquity for their proficiency in astronomy, astrology, magic, and curious sciences. Ur or Orchoe was a kind of university for those branches of learning.^[47. Ur or Orchoe was situated between Nisibis and Corduena. (See Ammianus Marcellinus, Expeditio Juliana, lib. xv.) It lay not far from the river Tigris. Strabo, (lib. xvi. p. 739.) tells us that the Chaldean philosophers were divided into different sects; the Orcheni, the Borsipenni, and several others. Diodorus Siculus likewise, (lib. ii. p. 82. Steph.) gives an exact detail of the functions, profession, and establishment of the Chaldeans, to which we must refer our curious readers. ] Such was their reputation in those studies, that over a great part of Asia and Europe a Chaldean and an astrologer were synonymous terms. These sciences, according to the tradition of the Orientals, had been invented by Seth, whom they called Edris ; and had been cultivated by his descendants downwards to Noah, by whom they were transmitted to Shem, who conveyed them to Arphaxad and his posterity. To us it appears probable, that the religious sentiments transmitted from Noah through the line of Shem, were kept alive in the family of Arphaxad, and so handed down to the families of Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Nahor II. and Haran, &c. The Jewish rabbin, and all the Persian and Mahommedan writers, make Abraham contemporary with Nimrod; who, say they, persecuted him most cruelly for adhering to the true religion. That these two patriarchs were contemporary is very improbable, since Nimrod was the third generation after Noah, and Abraham the tenth. Abraham has been invested by the rabbinical writers with every department of learning. According to them, he transported from Charrae into Chanaan, astronomy, astrology, mathematics, geography, magic, alphabetical writing, &c.

After the Babylonish captivity, when the Jews were dispersed over all the east, and began to make proselytes of the gate amongst the Pagans, wonderful things were reported of Abraham with respect to his acquirements in human erudition, as well as his supereminence in virtue and piety. These legendary tales were believed by the proselytes, and by them retailed to their connections and acquaintances. But certainly the holy man was either not deeply versed in human sciences, or he did not deem them of importance enough to be communicated to his posterity; since the Jews are, on all hands, acknowledged to have made little progress in these improvements. To think of raising the fame of Abraham, by classing him with the philosophers, betrays an extreme defect in judgment. He is entitled to praise of a higher kind; for he excelled in piety, was the father of the faithful, the root of the Messiah, and the friend of God. Before these, all other titles vanish away. Such of our readers, however, as have leisure enough, and at the same time learning enough to enable them to consult the rabbinical legends, will be furnished with a full and ample detail of his imaginary exploits and adventures. Others, who are either not willing or not qualified to peruse the writings of the rabbin, may consult Dr. Hyde^[48. De Religione Veterum Persarum, chap. ii. ] and the authors of the Universal History,^[49. Vol. i. ] ® where they will find materials sufficient to gratify their curiosity. We shall only observe, in addition to what we have already said, that the Persians, Chaldeans, and Arabians, pretended that their religion was that of Abraham; that honourable mention is made of him in the Koran; and that the name of Abraham or Ibrahim was celebrated all over the east.

In the progress of this disquisition, we have seen that the language of Noah was, in all probability, the same or nearly the same with that of Adam. Additions and improvements might be introduced, but still the radical stamina of the language remained unchanged. It has likewise, we hope, appeared, that the confusion of language at the building of the tower of Babel was only partial, and affected none but the rebellious crew of the race of Ham, and the apostate part of the families of Shem and Japhct. We have concluded, that the main body of the race of Shem, at least, were not dispersed nor was their language confounded; and that consequently the descendants of that patriarch continued to speak their paternal dialect or the uncorrupted language of Noah. To these arguments we may take the liberty to add another, which is, that in all probability the worship of the true God was preserved in the line of Arphaxad, after the generality of the other sects had lapsed into idolatry. Out of this family was taken Abraham, in whose line the true religion was to be preserved. Whether Abraham was an idolater when he dwelt in Chaldaea, the Scripture does not inform us, though it seems to be evident that his father was. One thing, however, is certain, namely, that Jehovah appeared to him, and pronounced a blessing upon him before he left Ur of the Chaldees.^[50. Compare Gen. xii. 2 with Acts vii. 4. ] This circumstance no doubt indicates, that the patriarch had made uncommon advances in piety and virtue, even prior to his emigration. The progenitors of his family had been distinguished by adhering to the true religion-About this time, however, they began to degenerate, and to adopt the Zabaism of their apostate neighbours. It was then that Abraham was commanded by Heaven to “leave his kindred and his father’s house, and to travel into a land which was to be shown him.” The Almighty intended that the true religion should be preserved in his line, and therefore removed him from a country and kindred, by the influence of whose bad example his religious principles might be endangered. His family had only of late apostatized; until that period they had preserved both the language and the religion of their venerable ancestors.

But however much Abraham might differ from the other [7:17:360]branches of his family in his religious sentiments, his language was certainly in unison with theirs. The consequence of this unquestionable position is, that the language which he carried with him into Chanaan was exactly the same with that of his family which he relinquished when he began his peregrinations. But if this be true, it will follow, that the language afterwards denominated Hebrew, and that of the Chasidim or Chaldeans, were originally one and the same. This position, we think, will not be controverted. There is then an end of the dispute concerning the original language of mankind. We have advanced some presumptive proofs in the preceding pages, that the language of Adam was transmitted to Noah, and that the dialect of the latter was preserved in the line of Arphaxad downwards to the family of Abraham; and it now appears that the Hebrew and Chaldaic were originally spoken by the same family, and of course essentially indenti-eal, and were actually the first language upon earth, according to the Mosaic history. Numberless additions, alterations, improvements, we acknowledge, were introduced in the course of two thousand years; but still the original stamina of the language were unchanged. Our readers will please to observe that the Orientals are not a people given to change; and that this character, in the earliest ages, was still more prevalent than at present. This assertion, we presume, needs no proof.

In confirmation of these presumptive arguments, we may add the popular one which is commonly urged upon this occasion, namely, that the names of antediluvian persons and places mentioned by the sacred historian, are generally of Hebrew original, and significant in that language. Some of them, we acknowledge, are not so; but in this case it ought to be remembered, that a very small part of that language now exists, and that probably the radicals from which these words are descended are amongst the number of those which have long been lost.

sect. i. the Hebrew language.

Having thus proved the priority of the Hebrew to every other language that has been spoken by men, we shall now proceed to consider its nature and genius; from which it will appear still more evidently to be an original language, neither improved nor debased by foreign idioms. The words of which it is composed are short, and admit of very little flexion. The names of places are descriptive of their nature, situation, accidental circumstances, &c. Its compounds are few, and inartificially joined together. In it we find few of those artificial affixes which distinguish the other cognate dialects; such as the Chaldean, Syrian, Arabian, and Phoenician. We find in it no traces of improvement from the age of Moses to the era of the Babylonian captivity. The age of David and Solomon was the golden period of the Hebrew tongue; and yet, in our opinion, it would puzzle a critic of the nicest acumen to discover much improvement even during that happy era. In fact, the Jews were by no means an inventive people. We hear nothing of their progress in literary pursuits; nor do they appear to have been industrious in borrowing from their neighbours. The laws and statutes communicated by Moses were the principal objects of their studies. These they were commanded to contemplate day and night; and in these they were to place their chief delight. The consequence of this command was, that little or no regard could be paid to taste, or any other subject of philosophical investigation. Every unimproved language abounds in figurative expressions borrowed from sensible objects. This is in a peculiar manner the characteristic of the language in question; of which it would be superfluous to produce instances, as the fact must be obvious even to the attentive reader of the English Bible.

In the course of this argument, we think it ought to be observed, and we deem it an observation of the greatest importance, that if we compare the other languages which have claimed the prize of originality from the Hebrew with that dialect, we shall quickly be convinced that the latter has a just title to the preference. The writers who have treated this subject, generally bring into competition the Hebrew, Chaldean, Syrian, and Arabian; and some one or other of these has commonly been thought the original language of mankind. The arguments for the Syrian and Arabian are altogether futile. The numerous improvements superinduced upon these languages, evidently prove that they could not have been the original language. In all cognate dialects, etymologists hold it as a maxim, that the least improved is likely to be the most ancient.

We have observed above, that the language of Abraham and that of the Chesedim or Chaldeans were originally the same; and we are persuaded, that if an able critic should take the pains to examine strictly these two languages, and to take from each what may reasonably be supposed to have been improvements or additions since the age of Abraham, he would find intrinsic evidence sufficient to convince him of the truth of this position. There appear still in the Chaldean tongue great numbers of words the same with the Hebrew,^[51. Most of the Chaldean names mentioned in Scripture are pure Hebrew words compounded; such as Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuzuradan, Rabshakch, Rabmag, Belshazzar, Rabsaris, Nahar, Maìahtha, Phrat or Pharad, Barosus, Carchειnish, Ur, Cutha, Heb. Cush, &c. All these words, and a multitude of others which we could mention, approach so near the Hebrew dialect, that their original is discernible at first sight. Most of these are compounds, which the limits prescribed us will not allow us to analyse and explain. ] perhaps as many as mankind had occasion for in the most early ages; and much greater numbers would probably be found if both languages had come down to us entire. The construction of the two languages is indeed somewhat different; but this difference arises chiefly from the superior improvement of the Chaldean. Whilst the Hebrew language was in a manner stationary, the Chaldean underwent progressive improvements; was mellowed by antitheses, rendered sonorous by the disposition of vocal sounds, and acquired a copiousness by compounds, and a majesty by affixes and prefixes. In process of time, however, the difference became so great, that the Israelites did not understand the Chaldean language at the era of-the Babylonish captivity. This much the prophet intimates,^[52. Isaiah xxxiii. 19. ] when he promises the pious Jews protection “from a fierce people; a people of a deeper speech than they could perceive; of a stammering tongue, that they could not understand.”

The priority of the Chaldean tongue is indeed contended for by very learned writers. Camden calls it the mother of all languages;^[53. Brit. ] and most of the Fathers were of the same opinion. Amira^[54. Pra>f. ad Gram. Syr. ] has made a collection of arguments, not inconsiderable in favour of it; and Myriceus^[55. Proer. ad Gram. Chald. ] after him, did the same. Erpenius,^[56. Oratio de Lingua Hebτ. xii. ] ® in his Oration on the Hebrew tongue, thought the argument for it and the Chaldean so equal, that he did not choose to take upon him to determine the question.

Many circumstances, however, concur to make us assign the priority to the Hebrew, or rather to make us believe that it has suffered fewest of those changes to which every living tongue is more or less liable. If we strip this language of every thing obviously adventitious, we shall find it extremely simple and primitive. 1. Every thing masoretical, supposing the vowels and points essential,^[57. The futility of these points will be proved in the following part of this section. ] was certainly[7:17:361] unknown in its original character. 2. All the prefixed and affixed letters were added time after time, to give more compass and precision to the language. 3. The various voices, moods, tenses, numbers, and persons of verbs, were posterior improvements; for in that tongue, nothing at first appeared but the indeclinable radix. 4. In the same manner, the few adjectives which occur in the language, and the numbers and regimen of nouns, were not from the beginning. 5. Most of the Hebrew nouns are derived from verbs, indeed many of them are written with the very same letters. This rule, however, is not general; for verbs are oftch derived from nouns, and even some from prepositions. 6. All the verbs of that language, at least all that originally belonged to it, uniformly consist of three letters, and seem to have been at first pronounced as monosyllables. If we anatomize the Hebrew language in this manner, we shall reduce it to very great simplicity; we shall confine it to a few names of things, persons, and actions; we shall make all its words monosyllables, and give it the true characters of an original language. If at the same time we reflect on the small number of radical words in that dialect,^[58. The radical words in the Hebrew language, as it now stands, are about five hundred. ] we shall be more and more convinced of its originality.

It will not be expected that we should enter into a minute discussion of the grammatical peculiarities of this ancient language. For these we must refer our readers to the numerous and elaborate grammars of that tongue, which are everywhere easily to be found. We shall only make a few strictures, which naturally present themselves, before we dismiss the subject.

The generality of writers who have maintained the superior antiquity of the Hebrew language, have at the same time contended that all other languages of Asia, and most of those of Europe, have been derived from that tongue as their source and matrix. For our own part we are of opinion, that perhaps all the languages in the eastern part of the globe were coeval with it, and were originally one and the same; and that the differences which afterwards distinguished them sprung from climate, caprice, inventions, religions, commerce, conquests, and other accidental causes, which will occur to our intelligent readers. We have endeavoured to prove, in the preceding pages, that all mankind were not concerned in the building of the fatal tower, nor affected by the punishment consequent upon that attempt; and we now add, that even that punishment was only temporary, since we find, that those very Hamites or Cushim, who are allowed to have been affected by it, did certainly afterwards recover the former organization of their tongue, and differed not more from the original standard than the descendants of Japhet and Shem.

The Jewish rabbin have pretended to ascertain the number of languages generated by the vengeance of Heaven at the building of Babel. They tell us that mankind was divided into seventy nations and seventy languages, and that each of these nations had its tutelar or guardian angel. This fabulous legend is founded on the number of the progeny of Jacob at the time when that patriarch and his family went down into Egypt· Others attribute its origin to the number of the sons and grandsons of Noah, who are enumerated in Genesis.

The Fathers^[59. Clemens Alexandr. Slταm. Eusebius, Chrοη. lib. i. Epiphan. Hoeres. August. &c. ] of the church make the languages at the confusion amount to seventy-two; which number they complete by adding Cainan and Elishah, according to the Septuagint, who are not mentioned in the Hebrew text. This opinion, they conceive, is supported by the words of Moses, where he says,^[60. Deut, xxxii. 8. ] that “when the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the tribes of Israel.” That is, say they, he divided them into seventy-two nations, which was the number of the children of Israel when they came into Egypt. The Targum of Ben-Uzziel plainly favours this interpretation; but the Jerusalem Targum intimates that the number of nations was only twelve, according to the number of the tribes of Israel. This passage, however, seems to refer to the tribes of the Chanaanim, and imports, that the Almighty assigned to the different septs of that family such a tract of land as he knew would make a sufficient inheritance for the children of Israel.^[61. Pacanini Episcop. Bercun. apud The ron. in Catalogο Epist. 22. ] Others have increased the different languages of the dispersion to a hundred and twenty; but the general opinion has fixed them at seventy or seventy-two. Our readers need scarcely be put in mind that these opinions are futile and absurd, being founded neither in Scripture, profane history, nor common sense. At the same time, it must not be omitted, that according to Horus Apollo,^[62. page, 25 Hoesch. ] ® the Egyptians held, that the world was divided into seventy-two habitable regions; and that, in consequence of this tradition, they made the cynocephalus the emblem of the world, because that in the space of seventy-two days that animal pines away and dies.

It has been made a question, whether the Hebrew language was denominated from Heber the progenitor of Abraham, or from a word which in that tongue imports over, beyond. Most of the Christian fathers, prior to St. Origen, believed that both the Gentile name Hebrew, and the name .of the language, were derived from the name of the patriarch; but that learned man imagined, that Abraham was called the Hebrew, not because he was a descendant of Heber, but because he was a transfluvianus, or from beyond the river Euphrates. The learned Bochart^[63. Phaleg. lib. i. c. 15. ] β has strained hard to prove the former position; but to us his arguments do not appear decisive. We are rather inclined to believe, that Abraham was called Cliibri, or Hebrew, from the situation of the country whence he emigrated when he came to the country of Chanaan; and that in process of time that word became a Gentile appellation, and was afterwards applied to his posterity often by way of reproach,^[64. The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. The Philistines (Samuel i,. passim) always call the Israelites Hebrews by vfay of reproach. ] much in the same manner as we say a Northlander, a Norman, a Tramontane, and the like.

Here we may be indulged an observation, namely, that Abraham, a Hebrew, lived amongst the Chaldeans, travelled amongst the Chanaanites, sojourned amongst the Philistines, lived some time in Egypt, and in all appearance conversed with all those nations without any apparent difficulty. This circumstance plainly proves, that all these nations at that time spoke nearly the same language. The nations had not yet begun to improve their respective dialects, nor to deviate in any great measure from the monosyllablic idiom of the Hebrews. With respect to the language of Chanaan, afterwards the Phoenician, its similarity to the Hebrew is obvious from the names of gods, men, cities, mountains, rivers, and the like, which are the very same in both tongues, as might be shown in numberless cases, were this a proper place for etymological researches.

Before we dismiss this part of our subject, we would wish to gratify our unlearned readers with a brief account of the the Hebrew letters, and of the Masoretical points which have in a manner been ingrafted on these letters. In the course of this deduction, we shall endeavour to follow such authors as are allowed to have handled that matter with the greatest acuteness, learning, and perspicuity. If upon [7:17:362]any occasion, we should be tempted to hazard a conjecture of our own, it is cheerfully submitted to the candour of the public.

Much has been written, and numberless hypotheses proposed, with a view to investigate the origin of alphabetical writing. To give even an abridged account of all these, would fill many volumes. The most plausible, in our opinion, is that which supposes that the primary characters employed by men were the figures of material objects, analogous to those of the Mexicans, so often mentioned by the authors who have written the history of that people at the era of the Spanish invasion of their country. As this plan was too much circumscribed to be generally useful, hieroglyphical figures were in process of time invented as subsidiaries to this contracted orthography. In this scheme, we imagine, the process was somewhat more extensive. A lion might be sketched, to import fierceness or valour; an ox, to denote strength; a stag, to signify swiftness; a hare, to intimate timorousness, &c.

The next step in this process would naturally extend to the inventing and appropriating of a few arbitrary characters, for representing abstract ideas, and other relations, which could not be well ascertained by the methods above mentioned. These arbitrary signs might readily acquire a currency by compact, as money and medals do over a great part of the world. Upon this plan we imagine the ancient Chinese formed their language.

But neither the picture nor the hieroglyphic, nor the method of denoting ideas by arbitrary characters appropriated by compact, could ever have arrived at such perfection as to answer all the purposes of ideal communication. The grand desideratum then would be to fabricate characters to represent simple sounds, and to reduce these characters to so small a number as to be easily learned and preserved in the memory. In this attempt the Chinese have notoriously failed; their letters, or rather their characters, are so numerous, that few, if airy, of their most learned and industrious authors, have been able to learn and retain the whole catalogue. Indeed those people are not able to conceive how any combinations of twenty or thirty characters should be competent to answer all the purposes of written language.

Many different nations have claimed the honour of this invention. The Greeks ascribed it to the Phoenicians, and used the word φoιυeκιζeiv, ^[65. Hesych. ] x to act -the Phoenician, in the same sense, with ⅛αγιvωσκeii', to read ; and consequently the poet^[66. Lucan. ] ascribes the invention to the same ingenious people. The Greeks borrowed their letters from the Phoenicians, and of course looked up to them as the inventors.

Others have attributed the invention to the Egyptians. That people ascribed every useful and ingenious invention to their Thoth, or Mercury Trismegistus. Plato seems to have believed this tradition,^[67. See Phoedrus, p. 1240; and also Phd∙ p. 374. ] and pretends to record a dispute between the king of Egypt who then reigned and this personage, with respect to the influence which the art of al-phabeticwritingmight possibly have upon the improvements of mankind in science and the liberal arts. Diodorus the Sicilian^[68. Bibl. lib. î. p∙ 10. Steph. ] gives a similar history of the same invention, but carries it back to the reign of Osiris.

Pliny informs us,^[69. Nat. Hist. lib. viì. c. 46. ] that Gellius attributed letters to the same Egyptian Mercury, and others to the Syrians; but that for “his part, he thought that the Assyrian letters were eternal.” That learned Roman, then, imagined, that the Assyrian letters had existed at a period prior to all the records of history, which in fact was the case. By the Assyrian letters, he must mean the Chaldaic, and by the Syrian probably the Hebrew. The earliest Greek historians generally confound the Jews with the Syrians. Herodotus, enumerating the people who had learned circumcision from the Egyptians, mentions the Syrians of Palestine;^[70. Lib. ii. c. 104. ] and elsewhere he tells us, that Necho beat the Syrians, and took Cadytis, a large and populous city belonging to that people.^[71. Ibid, c∙ 159. ] Hence it is evident that the Syrian alphabet, or the Syrian letters, were the same with the Hebrew. That the Assyrian or Chaldaic and Hebrew languages were the same, has, we conceive, been fully proved already; that their letters were the same in the original structure, can scarcely be controverted.

These letters were, we think, antediluvian; whether, to use the expression of Plato, they were dictated by some god, or fabricated by some man divinely inspired. As this opinion may admit some dispute, we shall take the liberty to subjoin our reasons for entertaining it.

1. It appears that the era of this invention is involved in impenetrable obscurity. ' Had an invention of such capital importance to mankind been made in the postdiluvian ages, we imagine the author would have been commemorated in the historical annals of the country where he lived.^[72. It is true, the Egyptians attribute the invention to their Thoth, and the Phoenicians to their Hercules, or Melicerta or Baal; but these were only imaginary personages. ]

2. The art of writing in alphabetical characters, according to the sacred records, was practised at so early a period, that there was not a long enough interval between that and the deluge to give birth to this noble invention. If we consider the state of the world during some ages after that disastrous event, we shall quickly be convinced that little respite could be found from the labour and industry indispensably requisite to provide the necessaries, and only a few of the conveniencies of life. Such a state of things was certainly most unfavourable to the invention of those arts and improvements which contribute nothing towards procuring the accommodations of life. The consequence is obvious.

Moses has recorded the history of the creation, and a few of the capital transactions of the antediluvian world, the birth, the age, the death, of the lineal descendants of Seth. He has preserved the dimensions of the ark, the duration of the universal deluge, its effects upon man and all terrestrial animals, the population of the world by the posterity of Noah, the age, &c. of the patriarchs of the line of Shem, from which his own ancestors had sprung. To this he has subjoined the petty occurrences which diversified the lives of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants. Whence did the historian derive his information? We believe few of our readers will be so enthusiastic as to imagine that the author received it from divine inspiration. Tradition is a fallible guide; and in many cases the accounts are so minutely precise, as to defy the power of that species of conveyance. The inspired author must certainly have extracted his abridgment from written memoirs, or histories of the transactions of his ancestors regularly transmitted from the most early periods. These annals he probably abridged, as Ezra did afterwards the history of the kings of Israel. Supposing this to be the case, as it most certainly was, the art of writing in alphabetical letters must have been known and practised many ages before Moses. It has indeed been pretended, that the Jewish decalogue, inscribed upon two tables of stone, was the very first specimen of alphabetical writing. But the arguments produced in proof of this notion are lame and inconclusive.^[73. The most ingenious and plausible of those arguments which have fallen under our observation, is given by Mr. Johnson, vicar of Cranbrook, a writer of great learning and piety, who flourished in the beginning of the eighteenth century, and whose works deserve to be more generally known than we have reason to think they are. After endeavouring to prove that alphabetical writing was not practised before the era of Moses, and expatiating upon the difficulty of the invention, this excellent scholar attempts to show, that the original Hebrew alphabet was actually communicated to the Jewish legislator at the same time with the two tables of the law. “I know not,” says he, “any just cause why the law should be written by God, or by an angel at his command, except it were for want of a man that could well perform this part. This could give no addition of authority to the law, especially after it had been published in that astonishing and miraculous manner at Mount Sinai. The true writing of the original was indeed perfectly adjusted, and precisely ascertained to all future ages, by God’s giving a copy of it under his own hand; but this, I conceive, had been done altogether as effectually by God’s dictating every word to Moses, had he been capable of performing the office of an amanuensis.” The learned writer goes on to suppose, that it was for the purpose of teaching Moses the alphabet, that God detained him forty days in the Mount; and thence he concludes, that the Decalogue was the first writing in alphabetical characters, and that these characters were a divine, and not a human invention. It is always rash, if not something worse, to conceive reasons not assigned by God himself, for any particular transaction of his with those men whom he from time to time inspired with heavenly wisdom. That it was not for the purpose of teaching Moses the alphabet that God detained him forty days in the Mount, when he gave him the two tables of the law, seems evident from his detaining him just as many days when he gave him the second tables after the first were broken. If the legislator of the Jews had not been sufficiently instructed in the art of reading during his first stay in the Mount, he would have been detained longer; and it is not conceivable, that though in a fit of pious passion he was so far thrown off his guard as to break the two tables, his mind was so totally unhinged by the idolatry of his countrymen, as to forget completely an art which, by the supposition, the Supreme Being had spent forty daysva teaching him. “But if Moses could, at his first ascent into the Mount, perform the office of an amanuensis, why are the original tables said to have been written by the finger of God, and not by him who wrote the second?” We pretend not to say why they were written by God rather than man; but we think there is sufficient evidence, that by whomsoever they were written, the characters employed were of human invention. The Hebrew alphabet, without the Masoretic points, is confessedly defective; and every man who is in any degree acquainted with the language, and is not under the influence of inveterate prejudice, will readily admit that those points are no improvement. But we cannot, without impiety, suppose an art invented by infinite wisdom, to fall short of the utmost perfection of which it is capable. An alphabet communicated to man by God, would undoubtedly have been free both from defects and from redundancies; it would have bad a distinct character for every simple sound, and been at least as perfect as the Greek or the Roman. But we need not fill our pages with reasonings of this kind against the hypothesis maintained by Mr. Johnson. We know that “Moses wrote all the words of the Lord,” that is, the substance of all that had been delivered, in Exod. xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, before he was called up into the Mount to receive the tables of stone; nay, that he had long before been commanded by God himself, to “write in a book” an account of the victory obtained over Amalek, (Exod. xvii. 14.) All this, indeed, the learned writer was aware of; and to reconcile it with his hypothesis, he frames another, more improbable than even that which it is meant to support. “It is not unreasonable,” says he, “to believe that God had written these tables of stone, and put them in Mount Horeb, from the time that by his angel he had there first appeared to Moses; and that, therefore, all the time after, whilst he kept Jethro’s sheep thereabouts, he had free access to those tables, and perused them at discretion.” But if belief should rest upon evidence, we beg leave to reply, that to believe all this would be in the highest degree unreasonable; for there is not a single hint in the Scripture of the tables having been written at so'early a period, or upon such an occasion, as God’s first appearance to Moses in the burning bush. We know how reluctant Moses was to go upon the embassy to which he was then appointed; and it is strange, we think passing strange, that when he records so faithfully his own backwardness, and the means made use of by God to reconcile him to the arduous undertaking, he should make no mention of these important tables, if at that period he had known any thing of their existence. Besides all this, is it not wonderful, that, if Moses had been practising the art of writing, as our author supposes, from the time of the burning bush to the giving of the law, he should then have stood in need of forty days teaching from God, to enable him to read with ease the first tables, and of other forty, to enable him to write the second? This gives such a mean view of the natural capacity of the Hebrew legislator, as renders the hypothesis which implies it wholly incredible. (See a Collection of Discourses, in two vols. by the Rev. John Johnson, vicar of Cranbrook in Kent.) ] Had that been the case, some [7:17:363] notice must have been taken .of so palpable a circumstance. Möses wrote out his history, his laws, and his memoirs; and it appears plainly from the text, that all the learned amongst his countrymen could read them. Writing was then no novel invention in the age of the Jewish legislator, but current and generally known at that era.

The patriarch Job lived at an earlier period. In the book of the same name we find many allusions to the art of writing, and some passages which plainly prove its existence. This shews that alphabetical characters were not confined to the chosen seed, since Job was in all probability a descendant of Huz, the eldest son of Nahor,^[74. Gen. xxii. 20, &c. ] the brother of Abraham. From this circumstance, we think we may fairly conclude, that the art of writing was known and practised in the family of Terah the father of Abraham.

3. There was certainly a tradition amongst the Jews in the age of Josephus, that writing was an antediluvian invention.^[75. Antiq. Jud. lib. i. c. 3. ] That historian pretends, that the descendants of Seth erected two pillars, the one of stone and the other of brick, and inscribed upon them their astronomical observations and other improvements. This legend shows that there did exist such an opinion in regard to the antiquity of the art of writing.

I 4. There must have been a tradition to the same purpose amongst the Chaldeans, since the writers who have copied from Berosus, the celebrated Chaldean historian,^[76. Apollodorus, Alexander Polyhistor, Abydenus. (See Syncellus, cap. 39, et seq. Euseb. Chron. lib. i. p. 3.) ] speak of phabetical writing as an art well known amongst the antediluvians. According to them, Oannes the Chaldean legislator gave bis disciples an insight into letters and science. This person also wrote concerning the generation of mankind, of their different pursuits, of civil polity, and other matters. Immediatelybefore the deluge, say they, the god Kronos appeared to Sisuthrus or Xisuthrus, and commanded him to commit to writing the beginning, improvement, and conclusion of all things down to the present time, and to bury these accounts securely in the temple of the Sun at Sep-para. All these traditions may be deemed fabulous in the main; but still they evince that such an opinion was current, and that although the use of letters was not indeed eternal,^[77. Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. vii. p. 413. Ex quo apparet octernus literarum usus. ] it was, however, prior to all the records of history; and of course, we think, an antediluvian discovery.

This original alphabet, whatever it was, and however con- ’ structed, was, we think, preserved in the family of .Noah, ι and from it conveyed down to succeeding generations. If I we can then discover the original Hebrew alphabet, we shall be able to investigate the primary species of letters expressive of those articulate sounds by which man is in a great measure distinguished from the brute creation. Whatever might be the nature of that alphabet, we may be convinced that the ancient Jews deemed it sacred, and therefore preserved it pure and unmixed until the Babylonian captivity. If, then, any monuments are still extant inscribed with letters prior to that event, we may rest assured that these are the remains of the original alphabet.

There have, from time to time, been dug up at Jerusalem, and other parts of Judea, coins and medals, and medallions, inscribed with letters of a form very different from those square letters in which the Hebrew Scriptures are now written. When the Samaritan Pentateuch was discovered,^[78. The celebrated Archbishop Usher was the first who brought the Samaritan Pentateuch into Europe. In a letter to Ludovicus Capelins “he acknowledges, that the frequent mention be had seen made of it by some authors, would, not suffer him to be at rest till he had procured five or six copies of it from Palestine and Syria.” ] it evidently appeared that the inscriptions on those medals and coins were drawn in genuine Samaritan characters. The learned Abbé Barthélèmi, in his dissertation[7:17:364]^[79. Mémoires de lAcadémie des Inscript. ] “on the two medals of Antigonus, king of Judea, one of the later Asmonean princes, proves that all the inscriptions on the coins and medals of Jonathan and Simon Maccabeus, and also on his, were invariably in the Samaritan character down to the fortieth year before the Christian era.”

It were very easy to prove, from the Misna and Jerusalem Talmud, that the Scriptures publicly read in the synagogues to the end of the second century were written in the Samaritan character, we mean in the same character with the Pentateuch in question. As the ancient Hebrew, however, ceased to be the vulgar language of the Jews after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the copies of the Bible, especially in private hands, were accompanied with a Chaldaic paraphrase; and at length the original Hebrew charac-racter fell into disuse, and the Chaldaic was universally adopted.

It now appears that the letters inscribed upon the ancient coins and medals of the Jews, were written in the Samaritan form, and that the Scriptures were written in the very same characters. We shall therefore leave it to our readers to judge whether, considering the implacable hatred which subsisted between these two nations, it be likely that the one copied from the other; or at least that the Jews preferred to the beautiful letters used by their ancestors, the rude and inelegant characters of their most detested rivals. If, then, the inscriptions on the coins and medals were actually in the characters of the Samaritan Pentateuch (and it is absurd to suppose that the Jews borrowed them from the Samaritans,) the consequence plainly is, that the letters of the inscriptions were those of the original Hebrew alphabet, coeval with that language, which we venture to maintain was the first upon earth.

It may, perhaps, be thought rather superfluous to mention, that the Samaritan colonists, whom the kings of Assyria planted in the cities of Samaria,^[80. Kings xvii. 24. “And the king of Assyria bröught men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avah, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria.” Babylon and Cuthah, and Avah. were neighbouring cities, and undoubtedly both spoke and wrote in the Chaldaic style. The natives of Hamath spoke the Syriac, which at that time differed very little from the Chaldaic. ] were natives of countries where the Chaldaic letters were current, and who were probably ignorant of the Hebrew language and characters. When those colonists embraced the Jewish religion, they procured a copy of the Hebrew Pentateuch written in its native character, which, from superstition, they preserved inviolate as they received it; and from it were successively copied the others which were current in Syria and Palestine when Archbishop Usher procured his.

From the reasons above explained, then, we hope it will be obvious, that if the Hebrew alphabet, as it appears in the Samaritan Pentateuch, was not the primitive one, it was at least that in which the Holy Scriptures were first committed to writing.

Scaliger has inferred, from a passage in Eusebius,^[81. Chron. in anno, 740. ] and another in St. Jerome,^[82. Praf∙ i∙ Reg. ] that Ezra, when he reformed the Jewish church, transcribed the Scriptures from the ancient characters of the Hebrews into the square letters of the Chaldeans. This, he thinks, was done for the use of those Jews who, being born during the captivity, knew no other alphabet than thatofthe people amongst whom they had been educated. This account of the matter, though probable in itself, and supported by passages from both Talmuds, has been attacked by Buxtorf with great learning and no less acrimony. Scaliger, however, has been followed by a crowd of learned men,^[83. Casaubon, Grotius, Vossius, Bochart, Morin, Brerewood, Walton, Prideaux, Huet, and Lewis Capel, always a sworn enemy to Buxtorf. All these have maintained the same ground with Scaliger; how truly, appears above. ] whose opinion is now pretty generally espoused by the sacred critics.

Having said so much concerning the Hebrew alphabet in the preceding pages, we find ourselves laid under a kind of necessity of hazarding a few strictures on the vowels and Masoretic points; the first essential to, and the last an appendage of, that ancient language. The munber of the one, and the nature, antiquity, and necessity of the other, in order to read the language with propriety and with discrimination, have been the subject of much and often illiberal controversy amongst philological writers. To enter into a minute detail of the arguments on either side, would require a complete volume. We shall, therefore, briefly exhibit the state of the controversy, and then venture a few observations, which, in our opinion, ought to determine the question.

The controversy then is, whether the Hebrews used any vowels, or whether the points, which are now called by that name, were substituted instead of them? or if they were, whether they be as old as the time of Moses, or w ere invented by Ezra, or by the Masorites?^[84. The term masorah or massoreth signifies “tradition,” and imports the unwritten canon by which the reading and writing of the sacred books was fixed. ] This controversy has exercised the ingenuity of the most learned critics of the two last centuries, and is still far enough from being determined in the present. The Jews maintain, that these vowel points^[85. These points are fourteen in number, and their figures, names, and effects, may be seen in most Hebrew Grammars. ] were delivered to Moses along with the tables of the law, and consequently hold them as sacred as they do the letters themselves. Many Christian authors who have handled this subject, although they do not affirm their divine original, nor the extravagant antiquity of these points, pretend, however, that they are the only proper vowels in the language, and regulate and ascertain its true pronunciation. Though they differ from the Jews with respect to the origin of these points, they yet allow to them a pretty high antiquity, generally ascribing them to Ezra and the members of the great synagogue.

At length, however, about the middle of the sixteenth century, Elias Levita, a learned German Jew, who then flourished at Rome, discovered the delusion, and made it appear that these appendages had never been in use till after the writing of the Talmuds, about five hundred years after Christ. This innovation raised Elias a multitude of adversaries, both of his own countrymen and Christians. Amongst the latter appeared the two Buxtorfs, the father and the son, who produced some cabbalistical books of great antiquity,^[86. These books are the Bahir, Zahar, and the Kizri. As for the Kizri, the Jews make it about nineteen hundred years old; and the other about a century later. But the fidelity of the Jews in such matters cannot be relied upon. ] at least in the opinion of the Jews, in which mention was expressly made of the points. The Buxtorfs were answered by Capellus and other critics,^[87. Walton, Dupin, and Vossius. ] till Father Morinus,^[88. Dissertation sur la Bible. ] ° having examined all that had been urged on both sides, produced his learned dissertation on that subject; against which there has been nothing replied of any consequence, whilst his work has been universally admired, and his opinion confirmed by those that have beaten the same field after him.

According to this learned father, it plainly appears that [7:17:365]neither Origen, nor St. Jerome, nor even the compilers of the Talmuds, knew any thing of what has been called the vowel points; and yet these books, according to the same author, were not finished till the seventh century. Even the Jewish rabbin who wrote during the eighth and ninth centuries, were not, according to him, in the least acquainted with these points. He adds, that the first vestiges he could trace of them were in the writings of Rabbi Ben Aber chief of the western, and of Rabbi Ben Naphtali, chief of the eastern school, that is, about the middle of the tenth century; so that they can hardly be said to be older than the beginning of that period.

Some learned men^[89. See Buxtorf the father, in Tiber, cap. 5, 6, 7. Buxtorf the son, de Antiq. Punct. p. ii. 11. ] have ascribed the invention of the vowel points in question to the rabbin of the school of Tiberias; which, according to them, flourished about the middle of the second century. This opinion is by no means probable, because it appears plain from history, that before that period all the Jewish seminaries in that province were destroyed, and their heads forced into exile. Some of these had retired into Babylonia, and settled at Sora, Na-herds, and Pombeditha, where they established famous universities. After this era, there remained no more any rabbinical schools in Judea, headed by professors capable of undertaking this difficult operation, nor indeed of sufficient authority to recommend it to general practice, had they been ever so thoroughly qualified for executing it.

Capellus and Father Morin, who contend for the late introduction of the vowel-points, acknowledge that there can certainly be no language without vocal sounds, which are indeed the soul and essence of speech; but they affirm that the Hebrew alphabet actually contains vowel characters, as well as the Greek and the Latin, and the alphabets of modem Europe. These are aleph, he, vau, jod, which they call the matres lectionis, or, if you please, the parents of reading, and to which some, we think very properly, add ain or oin, afin. These, they conclude, perform exactly the same office in Hebrew that their descendants do in Greek. It is indeed agreed, upon all hands, that the Greek alphabet is derived from the Phoenician, which is known to be the same with the Samaritan or Hebrew. This position we shall prove more fully when we come to trace the origin of the Greek tongue. Hitherto the analogy is not only plausible, but the resemblance is precise. The Hebrews and Samaritans employed these vowels exactly in the same manner with the Greeks; and so all was easy and natural.

But the assertors of the Masoretic system maintain that the letters mentioned above are not vowels but consonants or aspirations, or any thing you please except vocal letters. This they endeavour to prove from their use amongst the Arabians, Persians, and other oriental nations. But to us it appears abundantly strange to suppose that the Greeks pronounced beta, gamma, delta, &c. exactly as the Hebrews and the Phoenicians did, and yet at the same time did not adopt their mode of pronunciation with respect to the five letters under consideration. To this argument we think every objection must undoubtedly yield. The Greeks borrowed their letters from the Phoenicians; and these letters were the Hebrew or Samaritan. The Greeks wrote and pronounced all the other letters of their alphabet, except the five in question, in the same manner with their originals of the east;^[90. This is so true, that, according to Hesychius and Suidas, φe∣νιx>ζ∣ιν, to act the Phoenician, signified “to read.” ] and if they did so, it obviously follows that the Greek and oriental office of these letters was the same.

Another objection made to readingtheHebrewwithoutthe aid of the Masoretic vowel points, arises from the consideration, that without these there will be a great number of radical Hebrew words, both nouns and verbs, without any vowel intervening amongst the consonants, which is certainly absurd. But notwithstanding this supposed absurdity, it is a well known fact, that all the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures, used in the Jewish synagogues throughout the world, are written or printed without points. These copies are deemed sacred, and kept in a coffer with the greatest care, in allusion to the ark of the testimony in the tabernacle and temple. The prefect, however, reads the portions of the law and hagiography without any difficulty. The same is done by the remains of the Samaritans at this day. Every oriental scholar knows that the people of these countries look upon consonants as the stamina of words. Accordingly, in writing letters, in dispatches upon business, and all affairs of small moment, the vowels are generally omitted. It is obvious, that in every original language the sound of the vowels is variable and of little importance. Such was the case with the Hebrew tongue. Nor do we think that the natives of the country would find it a matter of much difficulty to learn to read without the help of the vowels. They knew the words before hand, and so might readily enough learn by practice what vowels were to be inserted.

When the Hebrew became a dead language, as it certainly was in a great measure to the vulgar, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, such subsidiaries might we think, have been useful, and of course might possibly have been adopted for the use of the vulgar; but the scribe, the lawyer, and the learned rabbi, probably disdained such beggarly elements. We shall in this place hazard a conjecture, which, to us at least, is altogether new. We imagine that the Phoenicians, who were an inventive and ingenious people, had, prior to the age of Cadmus, who first brought their letters into Greece, adopted the more commodious method of inserting the vowels in their proper places; whereas the Jews, zealously attached to the customs of their ancestors, continued to write and read without them. In this manner the Gephuraci,^[91. Herod, lib. i∙ cap. 5G. ] who were the followers of Cadmus, communicated them to the Iones, their neighbours. We are convinced that the materials of the Greek tongue are to be gleaned up in the east; and upon that ground we have often endeavoured to trace the origin of Greek words in the Hebrew, Phoenician, Chaldean, and Arabian languages. Reading without the vowel points we have seldom failed in our search; but when we followed the method of reading by the Masoretic points, we seldom succeeded; and this, we believe, every man of tolerable erudition who will make the trial, will find by experience to be true. This argument appears to us superior to every objection. Upon this basis, the learned Bochart has erected his etymological fabric, which will be admired by the learned and ingenious as long as philology shall be cultivated by men.

It has been urged by the zealots for the Masoretic system, that the Arabians and Persians employ the vowel points. That they do so at present is readily granted; but whether they did so from the beginning is the question to be resolved. That Arabia was overspread with Jewish exiles at a very early period, is abundantly certain. It was natural for them to retire to a land where they would not hear of war, nor the sound of the trumpet. Accordingly we find that, prior to the age of the Arabian impostor, Arabia swarmed with Jewish settlements. From these Jews, it is highly probable that their neighbours learned the use of the points in question; which in the course of their conquests the Saracens communicated to the Persians.

It has been alleged with great show of reason, that without the vowel points, it is often impossible to develope the genuine[7:17:366] signification of many wordswhich occur frequently in the language, and that many words of differentand&ometimes opposite significations are written with exactly the same consonants. Without the points, then, how are we to know the distinction? In answer to this objection, we beg leave to observe, that, during the first period of a language, it is impossible that there should not occur a number of similar sounds of different significations. This is surely to be attributed to the poverty of the language. When a few terms have been once fabricated, men will rather annex new significations to old terms, than be at the expense of time or thought to invent new ones. This must have been the case with the Hebrew in particular; and indeed no language on earth is without instances of this inconveniency, which, however, in a living tongue, is easily overcome by a difference of accent, tone, gesture, pronunciation; all which, we think, might obviate the difficulty.

From the preceding arguments, we think ourselves authorised to infer that the Masora is a novel system, utterly unknown to the most ancient Jews, and never admitted into those copies of the Scriptures which were deemed most sacred and most authentic by that people.

With respect to the original introduction of the points, we agree with the learned and judicious Dr. Prideaux,^[92. Conned, part i book i. ] who imagines that they were gradually introduced after the Hebrew became a dead language, with a view to facilitate the learning to read that language, more especially amongst the vulgar. By whom they were introduced, cannot, we think, be easily determined; nor is it probable that they were all introduced at once, or by one and the same person. They have been ascribed to Ezra by many, for no other reason that we can discover, but to enhance their authenticity, and because the sentiment is analogous to the other articles of reformation established by that holy priest. If the curious reader should not be satisfied with the preceding detail, we must remit him to Copellus and Morinus, on the one side, and the two Buxtorfs, Schultens, and Dr. James Robertson, formerly professor of oriental languages in the university of Edinburgh, on the other. This learned orientalist, in his dissertation prefixed to his Clavis Pentateuchi, has collected and arranged, with the true spirit of criticism, every thing that has been advanced in favour of the Masoretical system. Si Pergama dextra defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.

St. Origen, who flourished about the beginning of the third century, was a profound Hebrew scholar. He published a most laborious and learned work, which is generally called the Rexapla, because it consisted of six columns, the first of which contained the Hebrew text; the second, the same text, but written in Greek characters; the third column exhibited the version of Aquila; the fourth that of Symmachus; the fifth, the Septuagint; and the sixth, the version of Theodotan. In some fragments of that great work which are still extant, we have a specimen of the manner in which the Hebrew was pronounced in the third century, by which it appears that it was very different from that which results from observing the Masoretical points. The following is an instance copied from the beginning of Genesis.

According to Origen.

YΙNΓΠ = γ b lNΠ ΠNΙ □≡∏ ΠNDt6n NΙ3 JTtfNΙ3 Γ)BΠΙO Dt6n ∏i-∏ □ΙΠΠ , 22"7F W ∙1ΠID !)∏∏ ΠΓPn NV): 1⅛N"'Π*∣ *T∣N λT , □ ’ Π7N ~)QΝ s Ι: □'QΓT ΩB~⅛Z Γ2≈l TiNΠ p DTJ⅛ ⅛ 2i□"O -)iNn-∏N D'Γ⅛

^[93. Brêsitb bara Elóeim eth asamaim oueth aares. Ouaares aietba thôau ouboou ouosekb al pbne theôm ourouê elôeim maraepheth al phne amaim. Ouiòmer elôeim iei ôr ouici or Ouiar elôeim eth aôr khi tôb ouiabdel elôeim ben aôr ouben aôsekh. ] ∙∙ψtfnπ

According to the Masorites.

VΩ⅛ζ τ * 1 . ι Y7*l’J UNI. □Wn DN D^N.NΙB U'glNT3 usrrra cγγ⅛n π∙nι oinπ w - ⅛ W? ra inn nrm NV): ΙiN" ’ ∙Vl VN VT Dλ≠N 1ΩNΙ: CΓ.ΩΠ ’ pB - ⅛ Γ2∙l VNΠ p3 D'≠>N ⅛ZPI ni□" ,, B *T∣NΓΓJΙN DT1⅛

s = Wnu^[94. Bereshith bara Elohim eth ashamajim veeth aaretz. Veaaretz ajetha thoou vaboou, vekhoshek gnal pené theom verouakh clohira merakhepheth gnal pené hammáim. Vaïomer clohim jebi or, vajehi or. Vajare clohim eth aor ki tob vajabedel clohim bein aor oubein hakboshek. ]

Upon the whole, we presume to give it as our opinion, that in the most early periods, the vowels, aleph, he,jod orl yod, vaw or waw, and perhaps oin or ajin, were regularly written wherever they were sounded. This appears to us plain from the practice of the ancient Greeks. It is agreed upon all hands that the Samaritan and Phoenician alphabets were the same; and that the former was originally the same with that of the Jews. The Phoenicians certainly wrote the vowels exactly, for so did the Greeks who copied their alphabet. If the Phoenicians wrote their vowels, so then did the Jews of the age of Cadmus; but as Cadmus was contemporary with some of the earliest judges of Israel, the consequence is evident, namely, that the Jews wrote their vowels as late as the arrival of that stranger in Greece. We ought naturally to judge of the Hebrew by the Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic, its sister dialects. But in ancient times all these languages had their vowels regularly inserted; and why not the Hebrew in the same manner with the rest?

As these first vowels which were coeval with the other letters, often varied in their sound and application, the points, in all appearance, were first invented and employed to ascertain their different sounds in different connections. Other marks might be invented to point out the various tones of voice, like the τoνoι, or accents, with which the vowels were to be enounced, as was done amongst the later Greeks. In process of time, in order to promote celerity of writing, the vowels were omitted, and the points substituted in their place.

Before we conclude our observations on the Hebrew language, we ought perhaps to make an apology for omitting to interlard our details with quotations from the two Talmuds, the Mishna, the Gemara, the Cabbalas, and a multitude of Rabbinical writers who are commonly cited upon such an occasion. We believe we could have quoted almost numberless passages from the two Buxtorfs, Father Morin, Capellus, and other Hebrew critics, with no great trouble to ourselves, and little advantage to the far greater part of our readers. But our opinion is that such a pedantic display of philological erudition would probably have excited the mirth of our learned, and roused the indignation of our unlearned, readers. Our wish is, to gratify readers of both descriptions, by contributing to the edification of one class without disgusting the other. We cannot, however, take leave of the sacred language, without giving a brief detail of those excellencies, which, in our opinion, give it a just claim to superiority over those other tongues which have sometimes contended with it for the prize of antiquity; and of these the following in our apprehension deserve particular notice.

If this language may claim any advantage over its antagonists, with respect to its being rather a mother than a daughter of any of them, it is undoubtedly in consequence of its simplicity, its purity, its energy, its fecundity of expressions and significations. In all these, notwithstanding [7:17:367]its paucity of words, it excels the vast variety of other languages which are its cognate dialects. To these we may add the significancy of the names, both of men and brutes; the nature and properties of the latter of which are more clearly and more fully exhibited by their names in this than in any other tongue hitherto known. Besides, its well authenticated antiquity, and the venerable tone of its writings, surpass any thing left upon record in any other dialect now extant in the world. These extraordinary qualities must excite our admiration under every disadvantage; and from the same circumstance we may infer its incomparable beauty in the age of the Jewish legislator, and what effects it would naturally produce, could we know it now as it was spoken and written in the days of David and Solomon.

As far, however, as we understand it in its present mutilated condition, and are able to judge of its character from the few books which have come down to our time, we plainly perceive that its genius is simple, primitive, natural, and exactly conformable to the character of those uncultivated patriarchs who used it them themselves, and transmitted it to their descendants in its native purity and simplicity. Its words are comparatively few, yet concise and expressive; being derived from a very small number of radicals, without the artificial composition of modern languages. No tongue, ancient or modern, can rival it in the happy and rich fecundity of its verbs, resulting from the variety and significancy of its conjugations; which are so admirably arranged and diversified, that by changing a letter or two of the primitive, they express the various modes of acting, suffering, motion, rest, &c., in so precise and significant a manner, that frequently in one word they convey an idea which, in any other language, would require a tedious paraphrase. These positions might easily be illustrated by numerous examples; but to the Hebrew scholar they would be superfluous, and to the illiterate neither interesting nor entertaining.

To these we may add the monosyllabic tone of the language, which, by a few prefixes and affixes without affecting the radix or root, varies the signification almost at pleasure, whilst the method of affixing the person to the verb exhibits the gender of the object introduced. In the nouns of this language there is no flexion excepting what is necessary to point out the difference of gender and number. Its cases are distinguished by articles, which are merely single letters placed at the beginning of the word. The pronouns are only single letters affixed; and the prepositions are of the same character prefixed to words. Its words follow one another in an easy and natural arrangement, without intricacy or transposition, without suspending the attention or involving the sense by intricate and artificial periods. All these striking and peculiar excellencies combined, plainly demonstrate the beauty, the stability, and the antiquity of this most interesting and remarkable language.

We would not, however, be thought to insinuate that this tongue continued altogether without changes and imperfections. We admit that many of its radical words were lost in a course of ages, and that foreign ones were substituted in their place. The long sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt, and their close connection with that people, even quoad sacra, must have introduced, in to the vulgar dialect at least, a multitude of Egyptian vocables and phrases which have gradually been incorporated with the written language, and in process of time have become part of its essence. In Egypt, the Israelites imbibed those principles of idolatry which nothing less than the final extirpation of their polity could eradicate. If that people, then, were so obstinately attached to the Egyptian idolatry, it is not very probable that they would be averse to adopt the Egyptian language. Besides,’the Scripture informs us, that there departed out of Egypt a mixed multitude; a circumstance which must have infected the Hebrew language with the dialect of Egypt. Hence, as none of the genuine Hebrew radicals exceed three letters, whatever words exceed that number in their radical state may justly be deemed of foreign extraction.

Some Hebrew critics have thought that verbs constitute the radicals of the whole language. But this opinion appears to us to be ill-founded; for although many Hebrew nouns are undoubtedly derived from verbs, we at the same time find numbers of the latter deduced from the former.

Before we conclude what we have to say of the Hebrew tongue, our readers may possibly imagine that we ought to give some account of the Hutchinsonian system, which was at one time so highly in vogue. But as this allegorical scheme of interpretation is now in a great measure exploded, we shall beg leave to refer the curious Hebraist to Mr. Holloway’s Originals, a small book in two volumes octavo, but replete with multifarious erudition, especially in the Hutchinsonian style and character. Eides sit penes autorem.

SECT. II. THEARABIC LANGUAGE.

We shall now proceed to give some account of the Arabian language, which is evidently one of the sister dialects of the ∣ Hebrew. Both, we imagine, were originally the same; the former highly improved and enlarged; the latter, in appearance, retaining its original simplicity and rude aspect, spoken by a people of a genius by no means inventive. In this inquiry, too, as in the former, we shall spare ourselves the trouble of descending to the grammatical minutiae of the tongue; a method which, we are persuaded, would neither gratify our learned nor edify our unlearned readers. To those who are inclined to acquire the first elements of that various, copious, and highly improved tongue, we beg to recommend Erpenii Pudimenta Linguae Arabicae ; Golii Grammatica Arabica ; the Dissertations of Hariri, translated by the elder Schultens; and Mr. Richardson’s Persic and Arabic Grammar.

We have said that the Hebrew and the Arabic are sister dialects, a relation which, as far as we know, has been seldom controverted; but we think there is authentic historical evidence that they were positively one and the same, at a period when the one as well as the other appeared in its infant unadorned simplicity. The following detail will, we hope, fully authenticate the truth of our position.

“Unto Eber,” says the Scripture,^[95. Gen. X. 25. ] “were born two sons. The name of one was Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan,” or rather Yoktan. This last, says the sacred historian, “had thirteen sons; and their dwelling reached from Mesha (Mocha) to Sephar,”^[96. Sephar, in the Septuagint ∑<,p>γα, and in some editions '∑u<pufa∙, hence probably ∑*>p∣φ. Orig. in Job. Jtxii. 14. Φλλ2 <r∣νι∣ ra)νΕρρw. u ‰∣fι∣ρ ∏ι> Αρρ∣×>∣> maι. ] a mount of the east. According to this account, the descendants of Yoktan possessed all the maritime Coasts of Arabia from Mesha (Mocha) to Mount Sephar towards the east of that peninsula. Moses, describing the rivers of paradise, tells us, that one of the branches of that river^[97. Gen. ii. 11. ] “encompassed the whole land of Havilah, where there was great store of gold.” Havilah was the twelfth son ofYoktan, whom the Arabians call Kobtan; and consequently his territory was situated towards the eastern limit of the possessions of the posterity of the youngest son of Eber. Yoktan or Kobtan was too young to be concerned in the building of the tower at Babel; and consequently he retained the language of his family, which was undoubtedly the Hebrew. His descendants must have carried the same language into their respective settlements, where it would be regularly transmitted to succeeding generations. The original language[7:17:368] of all the tribes of the Arabians who inhabit a vast tract of country along the southern shore was, according to this deduction, that of their father Kobtan, in other words, the Hebrew. Indeed, the most learned Arabians of modern times unanimously acknowledged this patriarch as the founder of their language as well as of their nation.

The other districts of Arabia were peopled by the offspring of Abraham. The Ishmaelites, the posterity of that patriarch by Hagar, penetrated into the very centre of the peninsula, where they incorporated, and in process of time became one people with the Kobtanites. Another region was possessed by the children of the same holy man by Che-turah his second wife. The Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Amalekites, and others, who settled in the various regions of Arabia Petraea, were all branches of Abraham’s family, and used the same language with their great progenitor.. The Scripture indeed speaks of people who inhabited the country last mentioned prior to the branches of Abraham’s family; but these, according to the same history, were extirpated by the former. The conclusion then is, if we credit the Mosaic account, that all the inhabitants of the three divisions of Arabia did, in the earliest periods, universally use the Hebrew tongue.

We are sensible that there was a region of Arabia inhabited by the Cushim, or descendants of Cush. This district was situated on the confines of Babylonia. Our translators have confounded this country with the modern Ethiopia, and consequently ascribed the exploits performed by the Arabian Cushim to the Ethiopians. The Arabian kings of Babylon were of those Cushim; but they were conquered and expelled Babylonia by the Chasidim. The latter spoke the Chaldean dialect, as will appear when we come to speak of that of the Abyssin ians. Here the reader is desired to reflect that the Hebrew and Chaldaic are cognate dialects.

The foregoing proofs, deduced from the Mosaic history, will be corroborated by a mass of internal evidence brought forward in succeeding parts of our inquiry.

The Arabic tongue, originally pure Hebrew, was in process of time greatly transformed and altered from its simple unsophisticated state. The Arabians were divided into many different tribes, a circumstance which naturally produced many different dialects. These, however, were by no means of foreign growth. No foreign enemy ever conquered these independent hordes. The Persians, Greeks, and Romans, sometimes attempted to invade their territories; but the roughness of the ground and the scarcity of forage, the penury of water and their natural bravery, always protected them. They were indeed once invaded by the Abyssinians or Ethiopians with some show of success; but these invaders were in a short time expelled the country. Their language, of consequence, was never adulterated with foreign words or exotic phrases and idioms. Whatever augmentations or improvements it received were derived from the genius and industry of the natives, and not from adventitious or imported acquisitions. From this circumstance we may justly infer, that the Arabian tongue was a long time stationary, and of course differed in no considerable degree from its Hebrew archetype. The learned Schultens, in his Commentary on Job, has shown, to the conviction of every candid inquirer, that it is impossible to understand that sublime composition without having recourse to the Arabic idioms. That patriarch was a Chuzite, and his country might be reckoned a part of Arabia. His three friends were actually Arabians, being the descendants of Ishmael and Esau. His country bordered on that of the predatory Chaldeans, who were an Arabian banditti. Hence, when we consider all these circumstances in cumulo, we are strongly inclined to believe that the book of Job was actually written in Arabic, as the language stood at that period; which, according to the most probable opinion, çould not have been later than the age of Moses. The learned are generally agreed that this whole book, the three first chapters excepted, is a poetical composition, replete with the most brilliant and magnificent imagery, the boldest, the justest, and most gorgeous tropes and allusions, and a grandeur of sentiment wholly divine. Whoever has read with any degree of taste, the poetical compositions of the modern Arabians, on divine subjects, will, we flatter ourselves, discover a striking similarity both of diction and sentiment. Be this as it may, we think there is no reason to conclude that the Arabic dialect deviated much from the Hebrew standard prior to the Christian era.

Of those different dialects which prevailed amongst the various tribes amongst which the peninsula of Arabia was divided, the principal were the Hemyaret and the Korcish. Though some of these were tributary to the Tobbas, or Hemyaret sovereign of Arabia Felix, yet they took no great pains to cultivate the language of that province, and of course these people did not thoroughly understand it. As for the independent tribes, they had no temptation to cultivate any other language than their own.

The Koreish tribe was the noblest and the most learned of all the western Arabs; and the kaaba, or square temple of Mecca, was prior to the era of Mohammed solely under their protection. This temple drew annually a great concourse of pilgrims from every Arabian tribe, and indeed from every other country where the Sabian religion prevailed. The language of the Koreish was studied with emulation by almost all the neighbouring tribes. Numbers of the pilgrims were people of the first rank, and possessed all the science peculiar to their country and their age. Great fairs were held during their residence at Mecca, and a variety of gay amusements filled up the intervals of their religious duties. In these entertainments literary compositions bore the highest and most distinguished rank; every man of genius considering not his own reputation alone, but even that of his nation or his tribe, as interested in his Success. Poetry and rhetoric were chiefly esteemed and admired; the former being looked upon as highly ornamental, and the latter as a necessary accomplishment in the education of every leading man. An assembly at a place called Ocadh, had been in consequence established about the end of the sixth century, where all were admitted to a rivalship of genius. The merits of their respective productions were impartially determined by the assembly at large, and the most improved of their poems, written on silk, in characters of gold, were with much solemnity suspended in the temple, as the highest mark of honour which could be conferred on literary merit. These poems were called the Moallabat, suspended, or Modhabebat, golden. Seven of these are still preserved in European libraries.

From this uncommon attention to promote emulation and refine their language, the dialect of the Koreish became the purest, the richest, and the most polite, of all the Arabian idioms. It was studied with a kind of predilection; and about the beginning of the seventh century it was the general language of Arabia, the other dialects being either incorporated with it, or sliding gradually into disuse. By this singular idiomatic union, the Arabic has acquired a prodigious fecundity; whilst the luxuriance of synonymes, and the equivocal or opposite senses of the same or similar words, have furnished their writers with a wonderful power of indulging, in the fullest range, their favourite passion for antithesis and quaint allusion. One instance of this we have in the word veli, which signifies a prince, a friend, and also a slave. This same word, with the change of one letter only, becomes vali, which, without equivocation, imports a sovereign. Examples of this kind occur in almost every page of every Arabic dictionary.

But all these advantages of this incomparable language are merely modern, and do not reach higher than the beginning of the sixth century. Prior to that era s as we have [7:17:369]observed above, a variety of dialects obtained; and as the Arabs were by their situation in a manner sequestered from all the rest of mankind, it may not perhaps be superfluous to inquire briefly into the cause and origin of this instantaneous and universal change.

Duringa course of more than twenty centuries, the Arabians had been shut up within the narrow limits of their own peninsula, and in a great measure secluded from the rest of the world. Their commerce with India was purely mercantile, and little calculated to excite or promote intellectual improvements. They traded with the Egyptians from time immemorial; but since the invasion and usurpation of the pastor kings, every shepherd, that is, every Arabian, was an abomination to the Egyptians. From that quarter, therefore, they could not derive much intellectual improvement. Besides, when an extensive territory is parcelled out amongst a number of petty septs or clans, the feuds and contests which originate from interfering interests and territorial disputes, leave but little time, and less inclination, for the culture of the mind. In these circumstances, the military art alone will be cultivated, and the profession of arms alone will be deemed honourable. Of consequence, we find that, in the general opinion, poetry, rhetoric, and the profession of arms, were the only pursuits cultivated by the people in question. As for the science of war, we are convinced that it was both studied and practised at a very early period; but with regard to the two former, we imagine they were very late acquisitions, and sprung from some circumstance external and adventitious.

The tribe of the Koreish were much engaged in commerce. They exported frankincense, myrrh, cassia, galbanum, and other drugs and spices, to Damascus, Tripoli, Palmyra, and other commercial cities of Syria and its neighbourhood. Upon these occasions the Arabian traders must have become acquainted with the Greek language, and perhaps with the more amusing and affecting parts of the Grecian literature. They might hear of the high renown of Homer and Demosthenes; and it is not impossible that some of them might be able to read their compositions. Every body knows with what unremitting ardour the learned Arabs under the first caliphs, perused and translated the philosophical works of the Grecian sages. The very same spirit might animate their predecessors, although they wanted learning, and perhaps public encouragement, to arouse their exertions. From this quarter, we think, the Arabs may have learned to admire, and then to imitate, the Grecian worthies.

The Ptolemies of Egypt were the professed patrons of commerce as well as of learning. Under these princes all nations were invited to trade with that happy country. The Arabs, now no longer fettered by Egyptian jealousy, carried their precious commodities to Alexandria, where the Grecian literature, though no longer in its meridian splendour, shone however with a clear unfaded lustre. The court of the first Ptolemies was the retreat of all the most celebrated geniuses of Greece and of the age; in a word, Alexandria was the native land of learning and ingenuity. Here the ingenious Arab must have heard the praises of learning incessantly proclaimed, and must have often been present at the public exhibitions of the poets and orators; and even although he did not exactly understand them, he might be charmed with the melody of the diction, and struck with surprise at their effects on the audience. The reader will please to reflect, that the Arabian traders were the first men of the nation, with respect to birth, learning, and fortune. These wise men, to use the language of Scripture, inspired with the natural curiosity of their race, might hear of the celebrated Olympic games, the public recitations before the people there assembled, and the glorious prize bestowed upon the conquerors. Such information might animate them to institute something parallel at Mecca, with a view to improve their language, and at the same time to derive honour and emolument to themselves. The Koreishim might promise themselves the like advantages from the establishment of the fair and assembly at Ocadh, as the natives of Elis derived from the institution of the Olympic games. For these reasons, we conjecture, the literary competitions at the place just mentioned were instituted at so late a period, although the nation had existed more than two thousand years before the establishment of this anniversary. Upon the whole, we are inclined to believe, that the Arabs, notwithstanding all the fine things recorded of them by their own poetical historians, and believed perhaps too easily by those of other countries, were in the days of ignorance like the earliest Romans, latrones et semibarbari. For our part, we think it by no means probable, that a people of that character should, after so long a course of years, have stumbled upon so laudable and so beneficial an institution, without taking the hint from some foreign one of a similar kind. This we acknowledge is only a conjecture, and as such it is submitted to the judgment of the reader.

There were, as has been observed above, two principal dialects of the original Arabic: the Hamyarite, spoken by the genuine Arabs; and the Koreishite, or pure Arabic, which at last became the general language of that people. The former of these inclined' towards the Syriac or Chaldaic; the latter being, according to them, the language of Ishmael, was deeply tinctured with the Hebrew idiom. The oriental writers tell us that Tcrah, the grandfather of Hamyar, was the first whose language deviated from the Syriac to the Arabic. Hence, say they, the Hamyaritic dialect must have approached near to the purity of the Syriac, and consequently must have been more remote from the true genius of the Arabic than that of any of the other tribes. The fact seems to stand thus: The Hamyarites were neighbours to the Chaldeans and Syrians, and consequently were connected with those people by commerce, wars, alliances, and other kinds of intercourse. This circumstance introduced into their language many phrases and idioms from both these nations. That Terah was concerned in adulterating the dialect of the Hamyarites, is a mere oriental legend, fabricated by the Arabs, after they began to peruse the Hebrew Scriptures. The Koreish being situated in the centre of Arabia, were less exposed to intercourse with foreigners, and therefore preserved their language more pure and untainted.

The learned well know, that the Koran was written in the dialect of the Koreish, a circumstance which communicated additional splendour to that branch of the Arabian tongue. It has been proved, that the language of the original inhabitants of Arabia was genuine Hebrew. But upon this supposition a question will arise, namely, whether the Arabians actually preserved their original tongue pure and unsophisticated during a space of about three thousand years, which elapsed between the deluge and birth of Mohammed; or whether, during that period, according to the ordinary course of human affairs, it underwent many changes and deviations from the original standard.

The admirers of that language strenuously maintain the former position; others, who are more moderate in their attachment, are disposed to admit the latter. Chardin observes of the oriental languages in general, that they do not vary and fluctuate with time like the European tongues.^[98. Voyages, vol. iii. p. 43. ] “Ce qu’il y a de plus admirable, dit il, et de plus remarquable, dans ces langues, c’est, qu’elles ne changent point, et n’ont point changé du tout, soit à l’égard de termes, soit à l’égard du tour: rien n’y est, ni nouveau ni vieux, nulle bonne façon de parler n’a cessé d’être en credit. L’Alcoran, par exemple, est aujourdhui, comme il y a mille années, le [7:17:370]modèle delà plus pure,plus courte,et plus eloquente diction.” It is not to our purpose to transcribe the remaining part of the author’s reflection upon this subject. From the above it plainly appears that he concludes, that the Arabian tongue has suffered no change since the publication of the Koran; and at the same time insinuates, that it had continued invariable in its original purity through all ages, from the days of Kobtan to the appearance of that book. Whether both or either of these sentiments be properly authenticated will appear in the sequel.

The learned Dr. Robertson, professor of oriental languages in the university of Edinburgh, informs us that the Arabians, in order to preserve the purity of their language, strictly prohibited their merchants, who were obliged to go abroad for the sake of commerce, all intercourse with strange women. We know not where this injunction is recorded, but certainly it was a most terrible interdict to an amorous son of the desert. If such a prohibition actually existed, we suspect it originated from some other source than the fear of corrupting their language. Be this as it may, however, the Doctor, as well as the great Schultens, is clearly of opinion that the language in question, although divided into a great number of streams and canals, still flowed pure and limpid in its course.

Our readers who are acquainted with the history of the orientals, are already apprised of the steady attachment of those people to ancient customs and institutions. We readily allow, that in the article of language this same predilection is abundantly obvious; but every oriental scholar must confess, that the style of the Koran is at the present day in a manner obsolete, and has become almost a dead language. This fact, we believe, will not be questioned. If the Arabian has deviated so very considerably from the standard of the Koran in little more than one thousand years, and that too after an archetype is ascertained, we may by a parity of reason infer, that much greater deviations must have affected the language in the space of three thousand years. It is universally allowed by such as maintain the unsullied purity of the Arabian tongue, that it was originally the same with the Hebrew, or, in other words, with the ancient Syriac and Chaldaic. Let any one now compare the words, idioms, and phraseology of the Koran with the remains of those three languages, and we think we may venture to affirm that the difference will be palpable. This circumstance, we think, indicates in the strongest terms a remarkable alteration.

The Arabs themselves are agreed, that notwithstanding the amazing fecundity of their language, vast numbers of its radical terms have been irrecoverably lost. But this loss could not be supplied without either fabricating new words, or borrowing them from foreign languages. To the latter method we have seen their aversion, and must therefore conclude that they adopted the former. The Chaldeans, Syrians, and Phoenicians, had made innovations on their language at a very early period, even before conquests were undertaken; and we see no reason to suppose that the Arabs did not innovate as well as their nearest neighbours.

There are, we think, very strong reasons to believe, that Job was an Arabian, and flourished prior to Moses, perhaps as early as Jacob. The style, the genius, and the figurative tone of the composition; the amazing sublimity of the sentiments, the allusions, the pathos, the boldness, the variety and irregularity, and the poetical enthusiasm which pervade the whole poem, strongly breathe the Arabian spirit; indeed the very diction is peculiar to that single book, and differs widely from that of the Psalms and every poetical part of the sacred canon. If we compare this book with Mohammed’s Koran, we shall scarcely find any resemblance of words or phraseology, but a wonderful similarity of figures, enthusiasm, and elevation of sentiments. We are then led to conclude, that the Arabic did actually lose and gain a multitude of vocables between the era of its first establishment amongst the descendants of Joktan and Ishmael, and the birth of the impostor.

The art of writing was introduced amongst the Arabs at a very late period. Without the assistance of this art, one would think it altogether impossible to preserve any language in its primaeval purity and simplicity. As the curious reader may here expect some account of the Arabic characters: the following detail is the most probable one we have been able to collect on the subject.

It is generally agreed, that the art of writing was known amongst the Hamyarites or Homerites at a very early period.^[99. I Pococke’s Specim. Hist. Arab. ] These people were sovereigns of Arabia during a course of many years. The character of their graphic system was somewhat perplexed and confused. It was called al Mosnad, from the mutual connection of the letters. The alphabet of these people resembled that of the Hebrews both in the number and order of the letters, and was called abgad Jιeviz, ^[100. Id. ibid. ] ’ from the first ten letters of the Hebrew alphabet, artificially thrown together. “And this word,” says the learned Chardin^[101. Vol. iii. p. 153. ] “a, b, g, d, is formed of the four letters which were heretofore the first in the Arabian language, as they are still in that of the Hebrews.” The same traveller is positive that these were the ancient characters of the Arabs; that they differed from the Cuphic letters, which were afterwards introduced; and that they were also furnished with vowel points. These, we imagine, were the first sketches of the Chaldaic characters, which probably the Hamyarites retained in their pristine unpolished form, after they had been polished and reduced to a more elegant size by the original inventors.

Monuments bearing inscriptions in these characters are, they tell us, still to be seen in several places of Arabia. Some were engraved upon rocks; and to these we think it probable that the patriarch Job alludes in those passages where he seems to intimate an inclination to have his sufferings recorded in a book, and graven in the rock forever. All the Arabians agree, that the dialect of the Hamyarites inclined towards the Syriac or Chaldaic. This we have imputed to the connection of that people with the Chaldeans, who lived in their neighbourhood. If the Hamyaritic dialect was infected with the Syriac or Chaldaic, there can be no doubt that they derived their letters from the same quarter.

We conclude, then, that the Hamyarites knew the art of writing from the earliest antiquity, and that the letters they employed were the rude Chaldaic in their unimproved state.^[102. Pococke, Orat. de Ling. Arab. ] Some of the Arabians do indeed hold, that Ishmael was the first author of letters, but that his characters were rude and indistinct, without any interval between letters or words, and that these were adopted by Kedar and his other children. This tradition, however, has met with little credit.

With respect to the highly polished Koreishites, it is agreed on all hands, that they were unacquainted with the use of letters until a few years before the birth of Mahommed. But two difficulties here present themselves. The first is, how the Koreishite dialect, without the art of writing, happened to excel all the other dialects of the Arabic tongue, assisted by that art, which is apparently so necessary for preserving a language in its original purity. The second is, we think, still greater, namely, how the Koreish came to learn that most useful art at so late a period as the sixth century. It is a well known fact, that ever after the Babylonian captivity Arabia swarmed with Jewish villages, in [7:17:371]which the art of writing was generally known; and almost at the beginning of the Christian era, multitudes of Christians retired to the same country, in order to avoid the persecutions which they suffered in the Roman empire. In these circumstances, we think it rather strange, that the Koreishites, highly polished and acute as they were, never thought of embracing the opportunity of learning an art so usefùl. These two problems we leave to be solved by our more learned readers.

But however they be solved, it is universally acknowledged, that the Koreish were ignorant of letters till a few years before the birth of their prophet. Ebn Chalican,^[103. See this whole detail in Dr. Pococke’s Specim. Hist-Arab. p. 250. et seq. ] one of their most celebrated historians, informs us, that Mora-mer the son of Morra, an Anbarian, or native of Anbaris, a city of Irak,^[104. Irak, Babylonia, from Erech one of the cities built by Nimrod. The Arabians have generally restored the ancient names of places. Thus with them Tyre is Tzur, Sidon Seyd, Egypt Mezri, &c. ] first invented alphabetical characters, and taught his countrymen to use them, and that from the latter this noble invention was derived by the Koreishites. These letters, though neither beautiful nor convenient, were long used by the Arabs. They were denominated Cuphic, from Cupha, acity of Irak. In these characters the original copy of the Koran was written. They were probably the original clumsy characters which were retained by the vulgar, after the beautiful square Chaldaic letters had been invented, and probably used by priests, philosophers, and the learned in general. These letters are often at this day used by the Arabs for the titles of books and public inscriptions.

Abauli the son of Mocla,^[105. Robertson. Clavis Pentateuch, pp. 35, 36. ] about three hundred years after the death of Mohammed, found out a more elegant and more expeditious character. This invention of Abauli was afterwards carried to perfection by Ebn Bowla, who died in the year of the Hegira 413, when Kader was caliph of Bagdad. This character, with little variation, obtains at the present day. As we think this article of some importance, we shall, for the sake of our unlearned readers, transcribe an excellent account of the whole matter from the very learned Schultens.

The Cuphic character, says he, which had been brought from the region of the Chaldeans to the province of Hejaz, and to Mecca its capital, in the age of Mohammed, was employed by the Koreishites, and in it the Koran was first written. But as this character was rude and clumsy, in consequence of its size, and ill calculated for expedition, Abauli Ebn Mocla devised a more elegant and expeditious one. This person was visir to Arradius, the forty-first caliph, who began to reign in the year of the Hegira 322. Accordingly, in the tenth century, under this emperor of the Saracens, the form of the Arabian alphabet underwent a change; and the former clumsy embarrassed character was made to give way to the polished, easy, and expeditious type. Regarding this expedition alone, the author of the invention left very few vowel characters; and as the Hebrew manner of writing admits five long ones and five short in different shapes, he taught how to express all the vowels, both long and short, suitably to the genius of the language, by three, or rather by two, small points, without any danger of a mistake, an abbreviation truly deserving applause and admiration; for by placing a very small line above he expressed a, and e ; and by placing the same below Y he meant to intimate i only. To the other short ones, o and u, he assigned a small waw above. In order to represent the long ones, he called in the matres lectionis, the “quiescent letters κ, 1, ' so that phata with clif intimated a ando long, that is, kametz and cholern ; jod placed after kefram became tzeri and chirek long. Waw annexed to darnma made schurek.

In this passage, the great orientalist acknowledges that the visir above mentioned, who carried the Arabian alphabet to the pinnacle of perfection, invented and annexed the vowel points for the sake of ease and expedition in writing; from which we may infer, that prior to the tenth century the Arabians had no vowel points, and consequently either read without vowels, or contented themselves with the matres lectionis above mentioned.

The design of the author of the invention, in fabricating these points, was confessedly ease and expedition in writing; a circumstance which furnishes a strong presumption that the Hebrew vowel-points were devised and annexed at some late period for the very same purposes. Some, indeed, have gone so far as to affirm that the Arabians were the original fabricators of the vowel-points. “The Arabians,”^[106. Dissertation on the Origin of Languages· ] says the learned Dr. Gregory Sharp, “were the original authors of the vowel-points. They invented three, called fatha, and damma, and kefra ; but these were not in use till several years after Mohammed; for it is certain that the first copies of the Koran were without them. The rabbis stole them from the Arabs.” This, however, is carrying the matter too far, since it is certain that the Jews were acquainted with the points in question long before the period above mentioned.

Though it is not our intention to enter into a minute detail of the peculiarities of this noble language, we cannot omit observing one thing, which indeed belongs to grammar, but is not generally taken notice ofby the Arabic grammarians. The roots of verbs in this dialect arc universally triliteral; so that the composition of the twenty-eight Arabian letters would give near twenty-two thousand elements of the language. This circumstance demonstrates the surprising extent of it. For although great numbers of its roots are irrecoverably lost, and some perhaps were never in use; yet if, without reckoning quadriliterals, we suppose ten thousand of them to exist, and each of them to admit only five variations, one with another, in forming derivative nouns, the whole language would then consist of fifty thousand words, each of which may receive a multitude of changes by the rules of grammar.

Again, the Arabic idiom seems to abhor the composition of words, and invariably expresses very complex ideas by circumlocution; so that if a compound word be found in any dialect of that language, we may at once pronounce it of foreign extraction. This is indeed a distinguishing feature in the structure of the Arabic, aswcll as in thatofsome of its sister dialects, and has, in our opinion, contributed not a little to the amazing fecundity of that language; for since every ingredient in the composition of a complex idea requires a word to express it, as many words became necessary to complete the language as there were simple ideas to be intimated by discourse. Were all the compounds of the Greek language to be dissolved, as probably once they were, the vocables of that tongue would infinitely exceed their present number.

The Arabic authors boast most unconscionably of the richness and variety of their language. No human understanding, say they, is capacious enough to comprehend all its treasures. Inspiration alone can qualify one for exhausting its sources.^[107. Pococke’s Specim. ] Ebn Chalawalb, a most renowned grammarian of theirs, has spent a whole volume upon the various names of the lion, which amount to five hundred; and another on the names of the serpent, which make up two hundred. Mohammed al Firancabodius affirms that he wrote a book on the usefulness and different denominations of honey, in which he enumerates eighty of them; and after all, he assures us that he was still far from having exhausted his subject. To excel in a language so amazingly copious, was certainly a proof of uncommon capacity, and considered as [7:17:372]no mean talent even amongst theKoreishites. Hence Mohammed, when some people were expressing their admiration of the eloquence of the Koran, told them that he had been taught by the angel Gabriel the language of Ishmael, which had fallen into desuetude.

In a language so richly replenished with the choicestand most energetic terms, both oratory and poetry were cultivated with ease. All the difficulty consisted in making a choice amongst words and phrases equally elegant. We may compare one of those poets or orators to a young gentleman, of a taste highly refined, walking into a repository where a profusion of the richest and most elegant dresses are piled up in wild confusion. The beau is here distressed with variety; but to be able to choose the most handsome and most becoming, he must have received from nature a superior good taste, and must likewise have cultivated it by assiduous industry, and by associating with the most genteel company.

The orations of the Arabians were of two kinds, metrical and prosaic. The former they compared to pearls set in gold, and the latter to loose ones. They were ambitious of excelling in both; and whoever did so, was highly distinguished. His success in either of those departments was thought to confer honour, not only on his family, but even on his tribe. In their poems were preserved the genealogies of their families, the privileges of their tribes, the memory of their heroes, the exploits of their ancestors, the propriety of their language, the magnificence of banquets, the generosity of their wealthy chiefs and great men, &c. After all, we cannot avoid being of the unpopular opinion, that this mighty parade of eloquence and poetry did not reach backwards above two centuries before the birth of Mohammed, as it certainly vanished at the era of the propagation of his religious institutions. The two succeeding centuries were the reigns of superstition and bloodshed. The voice of the muses is seldom heard amidst the din of arms.

The ancient Arabs, at whatever time poetry began to be in request amongst them, did not at first write poems of considerable length. They only expressed themselves in metre occasionally, in acute rather than harmonious strains. The Proverbs of Solomon, and the book of Ecclesiastes, seem to have been composedin this species of versification. The prosody of the Arabs was never digested into rules till sometime after the death of Mohammed; and this is said to have been done by Al Kbalti al Farabidi, who lived in the reign of the caliph Haroun al Raschid.

After so many encomiums on the copiousness of the Arabic tongue, one class of our readers may possibly expect that we should subjoin a brief detail of its genius and character; and this we shall do with all possible brevity.

All the primary or radical words of the language are composed of different combinations of consonants by triads ; so that the various combinations and conjunctions of radicals make more than ten thousand, even without including those which may arise from the meeting of gutteral letters. From this quality of the language has flowed that stability of the dialect which has preserved it pure and entire for so many thousand years, and secured it from those changes and that fluctuation to which most other tongues are subject.

Perhaps notwithstanding its copiousness and variety, no other language can vie with the one in question in point of perspicuity and precision. It is possessed of a brevity and rotundity which, amidst the greatest variety, enables it to express with clearness and energy what could not be expressed in any other tongue without tedious circumlocutions. To this purpose we shall beg leave to transcribe a passage from Bishop Pococke’s oration on the Arabic language. As we imagine thatfew ofthose readers who will have the curiosity to peruse this article can be unacquainted with the Latin tongue, we shall give it as it stands in the original without a translation :—

“Neque in nulla certe laudis parte, mira illa qua, non solum verborum in significando, perspicuitate, sed in prolatione, elegantiae et dulcedini caverunt, sedulitas; quoque, non solum accurata, inter literas ex significata proportione, sensus vel intensione, vel remissione, prout res postulaverit, literarum appositione, subductione, vel juxta organorum, rationem prospexerunt; sed et ne quid delicatulis auribus ingratum, ne quid horridum, aut ασvμφωvov, reperiatur, effecerunt. Hoc in genere est, quod nuspiam in verbo aliquo, genuinae apud Arabes originis, concurrunt, non intercedente vocalis alicujus motione consonantes, cum vel tres, vel plures, aliis in linguis frequenter collidantur. Immo neque, si adsint, quae asperitati remedio sint, vocales, quas libet temere tamen committunt consonantes; sed ita rei natura postulat, ut concurrere debeant illa, quae se invicem, sine asperitatis inductione consequi, et inter se connecti non possint; illi vel situs, vel literarum mutatione, eas abjiciendo, inserendo, emolliendo, aliisve quibus possent modis, remedia quaerunt; adeo ab omni, quod vel absonum, vel dissonum est, abhorrent. Quod si nobis secus videntur, et asperius sonare ab Arabibus prolata, illud auribus nostris, et usui, non linguae imputandum, nec mollius illis sonare nostra, quam eorum nobis censendum. Quin et gutturalium, quae nobis maxima asperitatis causa videntur, absentiam, ut magnum in lingua Graeca defectum, arguunt Arabes.”

The learned Dr. Hunt, professor of the Hebrew and Arabic languages at Oxford, was of the same opinion with the very learned prelate, part of whose oration we have transcribed above, with respect to the delicacy and elegance of the Arabian language: “Nusquam, mihi credite, inquit ille, auribus magis parcitur quam in Arabia; nulla lingua a κα-κoφωvia, alienior quam Arabica. Quamquam enim nonnullae ejus literae minus fortasse suaviter, immo durius etiam sonuerint, ita tamen Arabes eas temperarunt cum lenibus, duras cum mollibus, graves cum acutis miscendo, voces inde non minus auribus jucundae, quam pronunciatu faciles confecerint, totique sermoni miram sonorum tam dulcedinem quam varietatem addiderint. Quod quidem orationis modu-landae studium in Corano adeo manifestum est, ut primi Is-lamismi oppugnatores eum librum magica ideo arte scriptum dixerint. Non auribus tantum gratus est Arabismus, sed et animi conceptibus exprlmwqdis aptus, sonos suos sententiis semper accommodans, et felici verborum junctura eorum naturam depingens.”

To these we might add quotations from Erpenius’s oration on the same subject, from Golins, Schultens, Hottinger, Bochart, and Sir William Jones; besides a whole cloud of oriental witnesses, whose extravagant encomiums would astonish rather than edify the greater part of our readers. These panegyrics may perhaps be in some measure hyperbolical; but in general we believe them to be pretty well founded. At the same time we are convinced that the Arabic, however melodious in the ears of a native, sounds harsh and unharmonious in that of an European.

When we consider the richness and variety of the Arabic tongue we are led to conclude, that to acquire a tolerable degree of skill in its idioms, is a more difficult task than is generally imagined; at least some people who have with facility enough acquired a knowledge of the Greek and Latin, and likewise of the more fashionable modern languages have found it so. Be this as it may, however, there are two classes of men who, in our opinion, cannot handsomely dispense with the knowledge of a tongue almost universal; the gentleman, who is to be employed in the political transactions of the most respectable mercantile company upon earth, in the eastern parts of the world; and the divine, who applies himself to investigate the true import of the sacred oracles. Without this, the former will often find himself embarrassed in both his civil and mercantile negociations; and the latter will often grope in the dark, when a moderate acquaintance with that tongue would make all sunshine around him.
[7:17:373]

Bochart, Hottlnger, Schultens, Pococke, Hunt, Robertson, and others, have taken wonderful pains, and lavi sh ed a profusion of learning, in proving the affinity and dialectical cognation between the Hebrew and Arabic. Much of this labour, we think, might have been spared. We presume to affirm, that no person tolerably versed in both languages can read a single paragraph of the Arabic version of the New Testament, or indeed of the Koran itself, without being convinced of the truth of this position. It is but stripping the latter of its adventitious frippery, and the kindred features will immediately appear.

The learned professors of the university of Leyden were the first who entered upon the career of Arabian learning. To them the European students are principally indebted for what knowledge of that language they have hitherto been able to attain. Though several Italians have contributed their endeavours, yet the fruit of their labours has been rendered almost useless by more commodious and more accurate works printed in Holland.

The palm of glory, in this branch of literature, is due to Golius, whose works are equally profound and elegant; so perspicuous in method, that they may always be consulted without fatigue, and read without languor. Erpenius’s excellent grammar, and his memorable dictionary, will enable the student to explain the history of Timur by Ibn Arab-shah. If he has once mastered that sublime work, he will understand the learned Arabic better than most of the Kha-tabs of Constantinople or of Mecca.

The Arabian language, however, notwithstanding all its boasted perfections, has undoubtedly shared the fate of other living languages; it has gradually undergone such considerable alterations, that the Arabic spoken and written in the age of Mohammed may be now regarded as a dead language. It is indeed so widely different from the modern language of Arabia, that it is taught and studied in the college of Mecca just as the Latin is at Rome.

The dialect of the Highlands of Yemen is said to have the nearest analogy to the language of the Koran, because these Highlanders have little intercourse with strangers. The old Arabic is throughout all the east, like the Latin in Europe, a learned tongue, taught in colleges, and only to be acquired by the perusal of the best authors.

SECT. III. OF THE CHALDAIC, PHOENICIAN, AND EGYPTIAN LANGUAGES. l

As there is a very strict connection and dialectical analogy amongst these languages, wehave arranged them all under one section; especially since what is observed relating to one of them may, without the least straining, be extended to them all. We shall begin with the Chaldaic.

The Chaldeans, or Chasidim, as they are always called in Scripture, were the descendants of Chesed the son of Nahor, the brother of Abraham. The descendants of this patriarch drove the Cushim or Arabians out of Babylonia, and possessed themselves of that country at a very early period. As these Chasidim or Chaldeans were the posterity of Nahor, the descendant of Heber, they undoubtedly spoke the original Hebrew tongue as well as the other branches of that family. But being an ingenious and inventive people, they seem to have polished their language with much care and delicacy of taste.

The only genuine remains of the ancient Chaldaic language are to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures; and these are contained in two hundred and sixty-eight verses, of which we have two hundred in Daniel, reaching from verse 4th, chapter 2d, to chapter 8th exclusive; in Ezra sixty-seven, viz. in chapter 4th, seventeen verses, in chapter oth, the same number, in chapter 6th, eighteen verses, and in chapter 7th, fifteen; in Jeremiah, chapter 10th, there is extant only one verse. From these fragments, compared with the Hebrew, it plainly appears, that the difference between that language and the Chaldaic is scarcely equal to that between the Doric and Ionic dialects of the Greek.

Whatever might have been the form of the most ancient Chaldaic letters, it is generally known that the beautiful square characters, in which the Hebrew Scriptures began to be written after the age of Ezra, were current amongst them at an era prior to the Babylonian captivity. Those elegant characters were probably the invention of the Chaldean academies, which were established in various parts of that extensive and fertile country.

The Chaldean declensions and conjugations differ so little from the Hebrew modifications, that it would be almost superfluous to dwell upon them in this section. The most effectual way to acquire an idea of the ancient Chaldaic, is to decompose the names confessedly of that dialect, which occur in many places of Scripture. By this method of proceeding, its beautiful structure and expressive energy will be readily comprehended even by the most illiterate class of readers. At the same time, we must observe, that the Chaldaic and the ancient Syriac bore so near a resemblance to each other, that they have generally been classed under one head.

The first Chaldaic word which occurs in the Old Testament is BARA, creavit. This word has all along been assigned to the language under consideration; for what reason, we confess we are not able to discover. The greater part of the Hebrew tongue is now lost. The words bar, α son, and BARA, creavit, or rather filiavit, may probably be of that number. Another Scriptural word which is often quoted, and always ascribed either to the Syriac or Chaldaic, is igaror jegar sahadutha,νAnch signifies a mountain of witnesses. Every body knows, that when Jacob and Laban made their compact, the latter denominated the heap of stones reared upon that occasion in this manner; whilst the former called it Galcxd, as we now write and pronounce it. This pronunciation, however, does not appear to us altogether genuine. The word is probably compounded of bi, gal, cumulus, a heap, and *∣y, chad, aeternitas, seculum, eternity, an age; so that 1Γ⅛i, galchad, or galaad as it came to be written afterwards, signified an everlasting heap. Laban then had respect to the end for which the monument was erected; but Jacob alluded to its duration. It appears, however, upon this and every other occasion, when Chaldaic words are mentioned, that κ, a, was a favourite letter both with the Syrians and Chaldeans. We may likewise observe, that the same people always changed the Hebrew W, shin, into n, than, in order to avoid the serpentine sound of that consonant.

The Chaldaic names of gods, men, places, &c. which occur in Scripture, appear to be no other than Hebrew polished and improved. Eel, Belus in Latin, is evidently byĭ, Baal, or we think rather Bechel. The Phoenicians, and sometimes the Hebrews, used it to signify the Most High. The Chaldeans used their word Bel for the same purpose; and because this word originally imported the High One, they dignified their first monarch with that name. They denominated their capital city Ba-Bel, which imports the Temple of Bel, and afterwards Babylon, which intimates the abode or dwelling of our lord the sun. Nebo was a name of the moon amongst the Babylonians, being derived from the Hebrew xn5, nabak, vaticinari, to prophecy. Azer was the planet Mars, from Ι2N, Azer or Ezur, accinxit, to gird, alluding to the girding on of arms. Ahad was an Assyrian name of the sun,^[108. Aferoδ. lib. i. c, 23. ] being a word deduced from the Hebrew τyx ahad, unus, one. Netzur was the name of an Arabian idol,^[109. Pococke, ⅛ecizw∙ Hist. Arab. ] which often occurs in the composition of Babylonian names. In Arabic it signifies an eagle. We [7:17:374]think, however, that the word is the Hebrew Ι2i3, natzar, custodivit, servavit, to keep, to preserve. To these names of deities many more might be added, which the nature of our design will not allow us to mention.

Almost all the Chaldean proper names which occur either in sacred or profane history are evidently of Hebrew original, or cognate with that language. We shall subjoin a few examples. Nabonassar is evidently compounded of Nabo and nazur, both Hebrew words. Nabopollazar is made up of Nabo-Pul, the same with Bel, and Azer or Az or, above explained. Belesis is made of Bel and NWX', Esha, signifying fire. Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Belteshazzar, Neriglissar, Nebuzaradan, Rabmag, Rabsaris, Nergal Share-zer, Rabshakch, Ezarhaddon, Merodach, Evil-Merodach, and numberless others, are so manifestly reducible to Hebrew vocables, when decomposed, that any oriental scholar will readily distinguish them.

Names of places in the Chaldaic are likewise so nearly akin to Hebrew, that nothing but the dialectical tone separates them. Thus Ur of the Chaldeans is actually -∣ΙN, light, that city being sacred to the sun; Sippora is plainly the Hebrew word Zipporah ; Carchemish, a city on the Euphrates, is evidently compounded of Kir or Kar, a city, and Chemosh, a name of the sun. In short, every Chaldaic or old Syriac word now extant, betray their Hebrew original without any difficulty. As for their dialectical differences, these may be discovered by consulting the Chaldaic grammars and lexicos.

We now proceed to the consideration of the Phoenician language, which is known to have been that of the ancient Canaanites. That this was one of the original dialects, and consequently a cognate of the Hebrew, is universally acknowledged. Instead therefore of endeavouring to prove this position, we may refer our readers to the works of the learned Bochart, where that author has in a manner demonstrated this point, by deriving almost all the names of the Phoenician colonies from the Hebrew, upon the supposition that the dialect of those people was closely connected with that tongue. St. Augustin, in his treatise de Civitate Dei, has observed, that even in his time many of the vulgar in the neighbourhood of Carthage and Hippo spoke a dialect of the old Punic which nearly resembled the Hebrew. Procopius, (de Bello Gothico ) informs us, that even in his days there existed in Africa a pillar with this inscription in Hebrew: “We flee from the face of Joshua the robber, the son of Nun.” The names of all the ancient cities built by the Carthagenians upon the coast of Africa are easily reducible to a Hebrew original. The Carthagenian names of persons mentioned in the Greek and Latin history, such as Himilco, Hamilcar, Asdrubal, Hannibal, Hanno, Dido, Anno or Hanno, Sophonisba, Gisgo, Maherbal, Adherbal, and others, all indicate a Hebrew extraction.

The Greeks borrowed a great part of their religious worship from the people of whose language we are treating; and consequently, the names of most of their gods are Phoenician. Almost every one of these is actually Hebrew, as might easily be shown. The names of persons and places mentioned in the fragments of Sanchoniathon, preserved by Eusebius, are all of Hebrew complexion. The names mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures of places which belonged to the Canaanites prior to the invasion of the Israelites under Joshua, are as much Hebrew as those which were afterwards substituted in their stead. The Punic scene in Plautus has been analysed by Bochart and several other learned men, by whom the language has been clearly proved to be deduced from the Hebrew, with some dialectical variations.

The island of Melita, now Malta, was inhabited by a colony of Phoenicians many ages before the Moors took possession of it. Amongst the vulgar of that island many Purtic vocables are current to this day, all which may be readily traced up to the Hebrew source. To these we may add many inscriptions on stones, coins, medals, and the like, which are certainly Phoenician, and as certainly of Hebrew extraction. We have thrown together these few hints without pursuing them to any great length, as we deemed it unnecessary to dwell long on a point so hackneyed and so generally acknowledged.

Before we proceed to treat of the ancient language of the Ethiopians, we find ourselves obliged to hazard a few strictures touching the origin of that ancientnation. Ifwe can once settle that single point, the discovery will open an avenue to their primitive dialect, the point about which we are chiefly concerned in the present discussion.

In the section concerning the Hebrew language, we were led often to mention the patriarch Cush the eldest son of Ham. The posterity of this family chief, under his son Nimrod, possessed themselves of Shinar, which was afterwards denominated Chaldaea. These were probably the Arabians whose kings, according to Eusebius, Africanus, and other ancient chronologers, reigned in Babylon during several successive generations. They were the Cushim or Cushites, whom the learned Mr. Bryant has conducted over a great part of the world, and to whose industry and ingenuity he has ascribed almost all the inventions, arts, scien* ces, laws, policy, religions, and governments, which distinguished mankind in the earliest ages.

In process of time, the posterity of Chasid or Chesed, called Chasdim or Chasidim, in the east, and Chaldeans in the west, drove out the Cushim, and seized upon their country. The Cushim retired westward, and spread themselves over that part of Arabia situated towards the south-east. They probably extended themselves over all the eastern part of that peninsula, from the sea to the wilderness between Arabia and Syria, and they were the Ethiopians mentioned in Scripture, by a very unpardonable inadvertency of our translators. Such, then, in our opinion, were the primitive Cushim.

Josephus informs us, that all the Asiatics called the Ethiopians of Africa by the name of Cushim. ^[110. Αntiq∙ Judaic, lib. i. c 7. ] This denomination was not given them without good reason; it imports at least, that they were deemed the descendants of Cush, because it was the constant practice of the orientals in the early ages to denominate nations and tribes from the name of their great patriarch or founder. The name Cushim must then have been given to the Ethiopians, from a persuasion that they were the progeny of the son of Ham who bore that name. By what route, however, the Cushim penetrated into that region of Africa which was called by that name, it may be taken for granted that they were the descendants of Cush above mentioned.

It has been observed above, that the posterity of Cush possessed the country of Shinar or Chaldaea at a very early period, but were expelled by the Chasidim or Chaldeans. Upon this catastrophe, or perhaps somewhat later, a colony from the fugitive Cushim transported themselves from the south and south-east coast of Arabia over the sea which lies between that country and Ethiopia. However imperfect the art of navigation might be in that age, the distance was so small that they might easily enough make a voyage across that narrow sea in open boats, or perhaps in canoes. But however that may have been, it cannot be doubted that the tribes on both sides of that branch of the sea were kindred nations.

If, then, both the northern and southern Cushim sprung from the same stock, there can be no doubt that both spoke the same language. The language of the Babylonian Cushim was Chaldaic, and consequently that of the Ethiopian [7:17:375] Cushim was the same. We may therefore rest assured, that whatever changes the Ethiopian dialect may have undergone in the course of three thousand years, it was originally either Chaldaic, or at least a branch of that language. ScaJiger informs us, that the Ethiopians call themselves Chaldeans; and this, says he, not without reason, because of the many sacred and profane books which are extant amongst them, the most elegant and most beautiful are written in a style resembling that of the Chaldean or Assyrian. Marianus Victorius, who was the first that reduced the Ethiopic tongue to the rules of grammar, tells us, in his Prooemium, that the Ethiopians call their tongue Chaldaic; that it springs from the Babylonian, and is very like the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic; and at the same time, he concludes, that this language may be easily learned by those who are masters of the Hebrew. The learned Bochart, and Bishop Walton in his Prolegomena, are clearly of the same opinion.

The vulgar letters of the Ethiopians, according to Diodorus Siculus, were the same with the sacred characters^[111. Lib. iii. p. 101, Steph. ] of the Egyptians.^[112. We find the same observation confirmed by Heliodorus (iEthiopica, lib. χ. p. 476.) “The royal letters of the Ethiopians,” says he, “were the sacred characters of the Egyptians.” Cassiodorus likewise assures us, “that the letters inscribed upon the Egyptian obelisks were Chaldean.” But recent discoveries have refuted these and other similar statements. ] From this account, if the Sicilian maybe trusted, the sacred letters of these people, concerning which so many vague conjectures have been formed, were actually Chaldaic. To carry on this investigation a little farther, we may observe, that Sir William Jones seems to have proved, by very plausible arguments, that the Sanscrit characters were deduced from the Chaldaic. This circumstance affords a presumption that the Ethiopian Cushim were likewise concerned with the Egyptians; who, as is remarked in the section concerning the Sanscrit, probably introduced the religion of the Brahmans into Hindostan. This is advanced as a conjecture only; and yet when we consider the affinity between the Egyptian and the Gentoo religions, we are strongly inclined to believe that this surmise may one day be verified by undeniable facts.

The original Ethiopians were a highly civilized people; and their laws, their institutions, and especially their religion, were celebrated far and wide. Homer talks in raptures of the piety of the Ethiopians, and sends his gods every now and then to revel twelve days with that devout people. The Sicilian produces a number of very specious arguments to prove that these two nations originally sprung from the same stock. He mentions a similarity of features, of manners, of customs, of laws, of letters, of the fabrication of statues, and of religion, as evidences of the relation between these two neighbouring nations. There was, as everybody knows, a communion, in regard to sacred rites, between the two countries. The Egyptians sent annually a deputation of their priests, fùrnished with the portable statues of their gods, to visit the fanes of the devout Ethiopians. Upon this occasion, a solemn religious banquet was prepared, which lasted twelve days, and of which the priests of both nations were partakers. It was a kind of sacramental institution, we imagine, by which both parties publicly avouched their agreement in the ceremonies of their religion respectively. These observations plainly show, that the most ancient Ethiopians were a people highly civilized; indeed so much, that the Egyptians were at one time contented to be their scholars. The tone of their language was certainly the same with that of the Chaldeans or Arabian Cushim, from whom they are descended. We know not whether there are any books in the ancient Ethiopic now extant; so that it is not easy to produce instances of its coincidence with the Chaldaic. But Diogenes Laertius^[113. Lib. ix∙ p. 461. Causaubon. ] informs us, that Thrasyllus, in his catalogue of the books composed by Democritus, mentions one, nepι rωv lv Mepοτ; lepωv γραμμάτων, concerning the sacred letters in the island of Meroe;^[114. Where the capital of Ethiopia was situated. ] and another concerning the sacred letters in Babylon. Had these books survived the ravages of time, they would, in this age of research and curiosity, have determined not only the point under our consideration, but likewise the affinity of sacred rites amongst the Chaldeans, Ethiopians, and Egyptians.

We have now shown that the Ethiopians were a colony of Cushites; that the Cushites were originally sovereigns of Shinar or Chaldea, and consequently spoke either Chaldaic, or a dialect of that tongue; that their colonists must have used the samelanguage; and that the ancient Ethiopians were a people highly polished, and celebrated in the most early ages on account of their virtue and piety. It has likewise appeared that the common letters of that people were the sacred characters of the Egyptians. These letters, we imagine, were the Cuphic; for some account of which see the section on the Arabic. When they were discarded, and the modern letters substituted in their room, cannot be determined; nor is it, we apprehend, a matter of much importance. We shall therefore drop that part of the subject, and refer our curious and inquisitive readers to the very learned Job Ludolf’s excellent grammar and dictionary of the Abyssinian or Geez tongue,^[115. A very learned German, who published a grammar and dictionary of the Geez in folio. ] where they will find every thing worth knowing on that subject. We shall endeavour to gratify our readers with a very brief account of the modern Ethiopic or Abyssinian tongue; for which we are principally indebted to that learned, indefatigable, and adventurous traveller, Bruce; who, by his observations on that country, which he made in person, often at the hazard of his life, has discovered, as it were, a new world both to Europe and Asia.

The most ancient language of Ethiopia, which we shall now call by its modern name of Abyssinia, was, according to that gentleman, the Geez, which was spoken by the ancient Cushite shepherds. This, we should think, approaches nearest to the old Chaldaic. Upon a revolution in Habesh, the court resided many years in the province of Amhara, where the people spoke a different language, or at least a very different dialect of the same language. During this interval, the Geez, or language of the shepherds, was dropped, and retained only in writing, as a dead language; the sacred Scriptures being in that tongue only saved it from going into disuse. This dialect is exceedingly harsh and unharmonious. It is full of the letters, D and T, on which an accent is put that nearly resembles stammering. Considering the small extent of sea which divides this country from Arabia, we need not wonder that it has great affinity with the Arabic. It is not difficult to be acquired by those who understand any other of the oriental languages; and as the roots of many Hebrew words are only to be found here, it seems to be absolutely necessary to all those who wish to obtain a critical skill in that language.

The Ethiopic alphabet consists of twenty-six letters, each of which, by a virgula or point annexed, varies its sound in such a manner as that those twenty-six form as it were sixty-two distinct letters. At first they had only twenty-five of these original letters, the Latin P being wanting; so that they were obliged to substitute another letter in its place. Paulus, for example, they call Taulus, Aulus, or Caulus, and Petros they pronounced Ketros. At last they substituted T, and added this to the end of their alphabet; giving it the force of P, though it was really a repetition of an old character, rather than the invention of a new one. Besides these, there are twenty others of the nature of diph [7:17:376]thongs; though some of them are probably not of the same antiquity with the letters of the alphabet, but have been invented by the scribes in later times for the sake of convenience.

The Amharic, during the long banishment of the royal family in Shoa, became the language of the court, and seven new characters were of necessity added to answer the pronunciation of this new language; but no book was ever written in any other language than Geez. There is an old law in the country, handed down by tradition, that whoever shall attempt to translate the Holy Scripture into Amharic, or any other language, his throat shall be cut after the manner in which they kill sheep, his family sold to slavery, and his house razed to the ground.

Before we leave this subject, we may further observe, that all the ancients, both poets and historians, talk of a double race of Ethiopians; one in India, and another in Africa. "What can have given rise to this opinion, it is not easy to discover. Perhaps the swarthy complexion of both people may have led them to entertain this opinion. Eusebius indeed informs us,^[116. Chron. p. 12. ] that “a numerous colony of people emigrated from the banks of the Indus, and, crossing the ocean, fixed their residence in the country now called Ethiopia.” For our part, we are rather inclined to believe, that the original Ethiopians transported themselves into India, and there perhaps co-operated with the Egyptians in digging the excavations, and framing the statues, some of which are still to be seen in that country, and which we have mentioned in another section of this article. The Greeks called those people kiew¶es,Aethiopes, we believe from their sun-burned countenances; but indeed they were very little acquainted either with the country or its inhabitants.

The most ancient name of Egypt was Mizraim, and consequently the Arabians still call it Mesri. It was likewise distinguished by other names, such as Oceana, Aeria, &c. It appears from the sacred historian, that it was inhabited by the descendants of Mizraim, the second son of Ham. Mizraim had several sons, who, according to the Scriptural account, settled respectively in that country. If we trust to the sacred records, there will be little difficulty in ascertaining the language of the Mizraim. It will appear to have been one of the sister dialects of the Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic, and Chaldaic. But the origin of the Egyptian people, their language, religion, laws, and institutions, have been so warped and confounded, both by their own historians and by those of other countries, that one ⅛ scarcely able to determine what to believe or what to reject. Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Ptolemy, and most other ancient geographers and historians, are universally agreed, that Egypt, at least that part of it called the Delta, was overflown by the sea, and consequently uninhabitable for many centuries after the dispersion of mankind. When we consider the low situation of the Delta, and the violent current of the tide from the coast of Phoenicia and Palestine towards that shore, we would be almost tempted to adopt this hypothesis; but the sacred records avouch the contrary. According to them, Egypt was a populous, rich, and flourishing kingdom, as early as the age of Abraham. But if Lower Egypt had been a stagnant marsh at any time after the general deluge, it could scarcely have been drained, cleared, cultivated, and stocked with inhabitants, as early as the days of Abraham.

Diodorus Siculus, however, is positive that the Egyptians were a colony of Ethiopians,^[117. Lib. xiii. passim. ] and this he endeavours to prove by the similarity of features, customs, laws, and religious ceremonies, between the two nations. That there was a constant intercourse of good offices between these two branches of the Hamites, cannot be questioned; and that they nearly resembled each other in many respects, is too evident to admit of contradiction. The excavations, originally dug out of the solid rocks of porphyry and marble, in which the natives resided before the plains were drained, have been observed by many judicious travellers,^[118. See Bruce’s Travels, vol. i. ] who, having visited that region in modern times, are generally of opinion that the land has gained nothing on the sea since the period when Herodotus wrote his description of that country; and from this circumstance we may conclude, that the idea of the inundation of the Delta is not founded in fact.^[119. Mr. Bruce, Dr. Shaw, Bishop Pococke, Savary, Volney, &c. ]

But even admitting that the Egyptian Delta has acquired nothing from the sea since the age of Herodotus to the present, it certainly does not follow that the region in question was never overflowed; since there are in many parts of the globe, large tracts of land, certainly once covered with sea, which have continued to this day in the very same situation in which they were two thousand years ago. The decision of this point, however, we leave to the judgment of our readers.

We have already hinted our opinion of the nature of the Egyptian language; but because Egypt is generally thought to have been the native land of hieroglyphics, and because many are of opinion that hieroglyphical characters were prior to alphabetical, we shall hazard a few conjectures respecting that species of writing.

The end of speech, in general, is to enable men to communicate their thoughts and conceptions to one another when present; and the use of writing is to perform the same office when people are at so great a distance that vocal sounds cannot mutually reach them. Hieroglyphics are said to have been invented to supply this defect.^[120. It is necessary here to remind our readers, that this article was originally written long before any insight had been obtained into the real nature of the Egyptian methods of writing, by means of the discoveries of Young, Champollion, and others; and that consequently, in as far as relates to the subject of hieroglyphics, many of the author’s opinions and conclusions would, in the actual state of our knowledge, require important modifications. But having been induced to reprint it, in consequence of the great learning, research, and ingenuity it displays, we have not conceived it necessary to expunge this defective portion of it; deeming it suíficient to refer the reader for the most recent information to the article Hieroglyphics, and believing that it would even be interesting to compare the opinions entertained by the most learned men of the last generation, with the results which have been obtained from more auspicious and fortunate investigations, in our own day. ] The most ancient languages were everywhere full of tropes and figures borrowed from sensible objects. As in that stage of society men have not learned to abstract and generalize, all their ideas are borrowed from such objects as most forcibly strike their senses. This circumstance would naturally suggest to savages the idea of conveying their sentiments to each other, when absent, by delineations of corporeal objects. Thus, if a savage asked a loan of his friend’s horse, he might find means to have conveyed to him the figure of that animal; and so of other things. This was the very lowest species of graphic communication, and has been styled picture-writing.

But necessity would soon impel our savage correspondents to fabricate a method more extensively useful, which would likewise be suggested by the constant use of the metaphorical mode of speech. Some savage leader, more sagacious than the vulgar herd, would observe that certain sensible objects were fitted, according to the rules of analogy, to represent certain human passions, and even some abstract ideas; and this notion would readily enough be adopted by the many as a new improvement. In this case a horn might [7:17:377]be the emblem oζ power, a sword of bravery, a lion of fury, a fox of cunning, a serpent of malice, and so on. By and by artificial signs might be contrived to express such ideas as could not readily be denotedby bodily objects; and thismight be called symbolical writing. Such was the foundation of the Chinese characters; and hence the prodigious number of characters of which the written language of that people is composed. Farther they could not proceed, notwithstanding their boasted inventive powers; and farther, we believe, no nation ever did proceed, who had once upon a time no other characters but hieroglyphics. The Mexicans had arrived at the very lowest stage of hicroglyphical writing, but had not taken one step towards alphabetical. The Hurons employed hieroglyphical symbols, but never entertained a single idea of alphabetical. Hieroglyphical characters arc the images of objects conveyed to the mind by the organs of vision; alphabetical are arbitrary artificial marks of sound, accommodated by compact to convey to the mind the ideas of objects by the organs of hearing. In a word, we think that there is not the least analogy between these two species to conductus from the one to the other; andwc are therefore of opinion, that hieroglyphical characters were never the vulgar channels of conveyance amongst civilized people.

We know that in this point we differ from many learned, judicious, and ingenious writers, some of whom have taken much pains to investigate the intermediate stages through which the fabricators of characters must have passed in their progress from hieroglyphical to alphabetical writing. These authors have adopted a plan analogous to Bishop Wilkins’ project of an artificial language. In this theory, we own, we were led to suspect that they supposed all mankind were once upon a time savages, and were left to hammer out words, as well as characters, by necessity, ingenuity, experience, or accident. For our part, we have endeavoured to prove, in the section on the Hebrew language, that alphabetical writing was an antediluvian invention; and we have now to state it as our opinion, that amongst all those nations which settled near the centre of civilization, hieroglyphics were comparatively a modern fabrication.

The Orientals are, at this day, extravagantly devoted to allegory and fiction. Plain unadorned truth has to them no charms. Hence that extravagant medley of fables and romance with which all antiquity is replete, and by which all ancient history is disfigured and corrupted. Every doctrine of religion, every precept of morality, was tendered to mankind in parables and proverbs. Hence Scripture speaks of understanding a proverb, the words of the wise, and their dark sayings. The eastern sages involved their maxims in this enigmatical dress for several reasons. They wished to fix the attention of their disciples, to assist their memory, to gratify their allegorical taste, to sharpen their wit and exercise their judgment, and sometimes perhaps to display their own acuteness, ingenuity, and invention. It was amongst the ancients an universal opinion, that the most sacred arcana of religion, morality, and the sublime sciences, were not to be communicated to the uninitiated rabble. For this reason every thing sacred was involved in allegorical mystery.

Here, then, we ought to look for the origin of hieroglyphical or picture-writing amongst the civilized nations of the East. They did not employ that species of writing because they were ignorant of alphabetical characters, but because they thought fit to conceal the most important heads of their doctrines under hieroglyphical figures. The Egyptian priests were most celebrated for their skill in devising those emblematical representations; but other nations likewise employ ed them. We learn from the fragments of Berosus the Chaldean historian, preserved by Syncellus and Alexander Polyhistor, that the walls of the temple of Belus at Babylon were covered all over with such emblematical paintings. These characters were called iepoι, because they were chiefly employed to represent sacred objects; and γλυ<∕>tκα, because they were originally carved or engraved. Their name points to their original use.^[121. Instead of pursuing these observations, which the nature of our design will not permit, we must refer our readers to Herodotus, lib. ii. Diodorus Sic. lib. i. Strabo, lib. xvii. Plut. Isis et Osiris; and amongst the Christian fathers to Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata, and Eusebius Pr<ερaratio Evangelii, but chiefly to Horus Apollo’s Hicroglyphica∙ ]

From the above deduction we would conclude, that this species of writing was an adventitious mode in Egypt, peculiar to the priests, and employed chiefly to exhibit things sacred; and that amongst all civilized people it did not supersede the use of alphabetical characters, nor did the use of the latter originate from the former. When alphabetical letters were invented, if indeed they were a human invention, they were antecedent to the other in use and in extent. The Egyptian priests alone knew the true import of those sacred symbols; and communicated that knowledge first to their own children from generation to generation, then to the initiated, and last of all to the grandees of the nation, all of whom were indeed initiated. The hieroglyphics of Egypt were not then the symbols of any sacred occult language, but signs invented by the priests, and prophets or wise men, in order to represent their deities, the attributes and perfections of their gods, the mysteries of their religion, and many other circumstances relating to objects of importance, which were deemed either too sacred or too important to be imparted to the vulgar.

The Egyptians ascribed the invention of letters to a person whom they called Thoth, Theuth or Thyoth, ^[122. Eusebius, 1'roep F.oang. ] the Greeks , Ερμηs, and the Romans Mercurius. Plato calls him a god, or a godlike man;^[123. pkoedrus. ] Diodorus makes him privy counsellor to Osiris;^[124. Lib. i∙ ] Sanchoniathon connects him with the Phoenician Kronos or Saturn.^[125. Prop Evang. ] To this Mercury the Egyptians ascribe the invention of all the arts and sciences. He was probably some very eminent inventive genius, who flourished during the first ages of the Egyptian monarchy, and who perhaps taught the rude savages the art of writing.

According to Diodorus Siculus, the Egyptians had two kinds of letters;^[126. Lib. i. ] the one sacred, the other common. The former the priests taught their own children, the latter all learned promiscuously. In the sacred characters the rites and ceremonies of their religion were couched; the other sort of writing was accommodated to the ordinary business of life. Clemens Alexandrinus mentions three different styles of writ-ingemployedby the Egyptians.^[127. Stromata, lib. V. ] “The pupils, who were instructed by the Egyptians, first learned the order and arrangement of the Egyptian letters, which is called epistolographic, that is, the manner of writing letters; next, the hieratic character, which the sacred scribes employed; lastly, the hieroglyphic character, one part of which is expressed by the first elements, and is called cyriologic or capital, and the other symbolic. Of the symbolic kind, one part explains properly by imitation; and the other is written tropically, that is, in tropes and figures; and a third by certain enigmatical expressions. Accordingly, when we intend to write the word sun, we describe a circle; and when the moon, the figure of the planet appearing horned, conformably to the appearance of that luminary after the change.” In this passage we have an excellent description of the three different modes of writing used by the Egyptians; the common, the sacred, and the hieroglyphic. The last Clemens describes according to its three divisions, in exact conformity to our preceding observations.

By the description above translated, it plainly appears, [7:17:378]that the sacred characters of the Egyptians were entirely different from the hieroglyphic; and by this consideration we are in a great measure justified, in supposing, as we have all along done, that the sacred letters of the Egyptians were actually the Chaldaic. The inscriptions on the obelisks mentioned by Cassiodorus, so often quoted, were certainly engraved in the sacred characters; but if the sacred characters were Chaldaic, the sacred language was probably the same.

The Egyptians pretended that the Babylonians derived from them the knowledge of the arts and sciences; whilst, on the other hand, the Babylonians maintained, that the Egyptians had been tutored by them. The fact is, they both spoke the same language, used the same religious rites, and had applied with equal success to astrology, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, and the other sciences; hence there had arisen between the two nations a rivalship, which laid the foundation of these opposite pretensions. The most faithful specimen of the vulgar language of the Egyptians, is, we believe, still preserved in the Coptic, which, however, is so replete with Grecisms, that it must be difficult to trace it out.

Under the Ptolemies, the Greek was the language of the court, and consequently must have diffused itself over a great part of the country. Hence, much of the Coptic consists of Greek words, diversified only by their terminations, declensions, and conjugations. To be convinced of the truth of this, the learned and curious reader need only consult Christian Scholtz’s Egyptian and Coptic grammar and dictionary, corrected and published by Godfred Woide, Oxford, 1788.

The Egyptians and Phoenicians were in a manner cousins-german, and consequently must have spoken the same language; that is, one of the sister dialects of the Hebrew, Chaldean, Arabian, Cushite, and others. This is not a mere conjecture; it maybe realized by almost numberless examples. It is true, that when Joseph’s brethren went down to Egypt, and that ruler deigned to converse with them, they could not understand the Egyptian idiom which he spoke; nor would he, had he been actually an Egyptian, have understood themwithout an interpreter. Theonlyconclusionfrom this circumstance is, that by the time in question the Egyptian had deviated considerably from the original language of mankind. The Irish and Welch, every body knows, are only different dialects of the Celtic tongue; and yet experience proves, that a native of Ireland and another of Wales, cannot well comprehend each other’s language, nor converse intelligibly without an interpreter. The Gaelic spoken in the Highlands of Scotland, and the Irish, are known to be both branches of the old Celtic; yet a Scotch Highlander and an Irishman can scarcely understand each other’s speech. By a parity of reason, a Hebrew and an Egyptian might, in the age of Joseph, speak only different dialects of the same original tongue, and yet find it difficult to understand each other. The fact seems to be, the Hebrew dialect had been in a manner stationary, from the migration of Abraham to that period; whereas the Egyptian, being spoken by a powerful, civilized, and highly cultivated people, must have received many improvements, perhaps additions, in the course of nearly two centuries.

The descendants of Canaan and of Mizraim were strictly connected in their religious ceremonies. They worshipped the same objects, namely, the host of Heaven; they mourned for Osiris and Adonis in concert; they carried on a joint commerce, and, as we think, spoke the same language. We may therefore conclude, that their vulgar letters were nearly the same, both in form, in disposition, and in number. Their original number was probably sixteen, viz. five vowels, six mutes, simple and middle, four liquids, and the solitary σ. With these, it is likely, was joined a mark of aspiration, or an h, such as we have in the Roman alphabet, and find on some Greek monuments. Cadmus was originally an Egyptian; andthatleader brought a new set of letters into Greece. These are generally deemed Phoenician. But they were nearly the same with the ancient Pelasgic, as will be shown in the section on the Greek language. The latter, we think, were from Egypt, and consequently the former must have been from the same region. Danaus, Perseus, Lelex, and others were of Egyptian extraction; and they too adopted the Cadmean characters, without substituting any of their own.

The Jonim or Ionians, emigrated from Gaza, an Egyptian colony; and their letters are known to have differed very little from those of Cadmus and the Pelasgians. The conclusion therefore is, that the vulgar Egyptian letters were the same with the Phoenician.

We arc abundantly sensible that there are found upon Egyptian monuments characters altogether different from those which we have here been describing. At what time, by what people, and to what language these letters belonged, we will not pretend to determine. The Ethiopians, the Chaldeans, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Saracens, have at different times been sovereigns of that unhappy country; and other nations, whose memory is now buried in oblivion, may have erected monuments, and covered them with inscriptions composed of words taken from different languages, and whimsically devised, with a view to perplex the curious antiquaries of future ages. Some of these are composed of hieroglyphics intermingled with alphabetical characters, artificially disarranged, in order to render them unintelligible; but we do not pretend to develope such texts, because the most inquisitive and sagacious antiquaries are not yet agreed as to their purport and signification.^[128. This, though no longer applicable, was strictly true at the time when the above article was written. ]

We shall now proceed to show, that most part of thenames of persons and places which have been conveyed down to us, may, in general, be reduced to a Hebrew, Phoenician, Syrian, or Chaldean original. As the first of these languages is most generally known, we shall therefore employ it as our arch-type or standard, and begin with those terms which occur in Scripture.

The word Pharaoh, the title of the melech or king of Egypt, is, we think, compounded of two terms, which plainly discover a Hebrew original. According to an oriental tradition, the first who assumed this title was the sovereign of the Hyeshos or Royal Shepherds, a race of people from Arabia and Phoenicia. At an early period they conquered Egypt, and kept possession of that country for several centuries. They gloried in the title of υκσοι or υκουσοι, which according to Josephus, f contra Apion.) signifies royal shepherds. The word Pharaoh, seems to be compounded of 12 Phar, a bullock, and rryΙ, Rachah, to feed; hence we think it ought to be written ny*ιs, Pharachah. ^[129. This, we think, is a mistake. The word written Ρhαrαοlι in Hebrew, was written Phra in Egyptian, and is composed of Ra, signifying the sun, and the ordinary prefix Ph, signifying of or from; so that Phra, or, by the insertion of a vowel, Phara, means of the sun, or descended of the sun. Hence the word Pharaoh is not a proper name, but a generic term applicable to all the kings of Egypt, from the time of Rhameses to the extinction of the last dynasty of native sovereigns. ] The name given to Joseph is evidently of kin with the Hebrew; for zaphnath differs very little from the Hebrew verb tzaphan, which signifies to hide, to keep secret, and paneah or phaneah, signifies much the same with the Hebrew phanah, aspexit; so that the name actually intimates one who sees hidden tilings, which was certainly the very idea the prince intended to be conveyed by giving him that name.^[130. For the true explanation of this name, Zaphnathpaneah, see the section of the article Hieroglyphics, which treats of the Coptic language. ]
[7:17:379]

Potiphar or Poupherah, the name of Joseph’s father-in-law, has likewise a dialectical affinity with the Hebrew idiom. In that language patah signifies to open, to explain, which was one part of the sacerdotal office, and phar imports a bullock.^[131. The fact is, Ροtiphar, in Egyptian Puti-phré, means priest of the sun, from puti, priest, and ra or re, the sun, with the prefix ph, signifying of. ] Potiphar was then priest of the bullock, that is, the ox, apis, sacred to the sun. ^[132. The Septuagirit, (Gen. xli. 45, 50,) translate On by ] This person was priest or prince of On, which, according to Cyrillus on Hosea, was an Egyptian name of that luminary. The Hebrew word hon or chon, signifies power, wealth, sufficiency; a very proper epithet for the Sun, who was thought to bestow those blessings. The name of Joseph’s wife was Asenath, or As-nath, compounded of ishalι, a woman, and Naith or Neith, an Egyptian name of Minerva, a votary of Mincrva.

Almost all the names of cities belonging to Egypt which are mentioned in Scripture are evidently Hebrew. To be satisfied as to this position, the curious reader may consult Jamieson’s Spicilegia, an excellent book, though very little known. The names of most of the Egyptian deities are significant in the Hebrew tongue; and in that dialect these names appear to have been imposed with great judgment and propriety, all of them plainly indicating some office assigned them, or pointing to some peculiar attribute. We shall produce a few instances.

Osiris was the great divinity of Egypt, and he was certainly the Sun. The Egyptians gave their deities a variety of names in allusion to their various offices and attributes. Jablonski has in a manner wearied himself with tracing the signification of this name. In Hebrew we have oshir, to grow rich, to be enriched. The sun may be called the great enricher of nature, and therefore might properly be called by a name alluding to that quality. Isis was both the moon and the earth, lshah is the Hebrew word for woman, and Horus Apollo assigns this very derivation. Anubis was one of the names of Mercury amongst the Egyptians, and he was always represented with the head of a dog. He accompanied Isis in her peregrinations in quest of Osiris, and frightened away the wild beasts from attacking the princess. In Hebrew, nubak signifies to bark. Here then the analogy is, we think, evident. Many Egyptian names begin with Can, such as Canobus, Canopus, &c. The Hebrew word caken or cohen, in Syriac con or chon, intimates both a prince and a priest. Ob or aub, in Hebrew, imports a bottle, a flaggon, any thing round and prominent like the human belly. In the language of Egypt it was often applied to the sun, in allusion to his rotundity. In the temple of Jupiter Ammon or Amon, in the desert of Libya, there was a statue of the god representing the navel of the human body, which was probably framed in allusion to this fancy. Hence the Pythoness, or people who, according to the Scripture, had familiar spirits, were said to prophecy by the inspiration of Ob, as the Delphic priestess did by that of Apollo. Again, many Egyptian names end with siris, as Busiris, Calasiris, Termosi-ris. This termination is no doubt a cognate of the Hebrew and Chaldean sar or zar, signifying a prince, or grandee. The river Nile in the Ethiopian dialectis denominated Siris; that is, we believe, the king of rivers. The same stream seems to derive the name by which it is generally known, from the Hebrew nehel, a valley, or a torrent running down a valley. The same river was often called oceanus, a word composed of og, oc, or och, which signifies a king, a leader, and the Hebrew oin, a fountain; so that the word imports the king of fountains. The Hebrews always denominated the land of Egypt the land of Mizraim; and the Egyptians themselves, in later times, appear to have called it ’Αίγυπτον, Aegyptus, which some think is compounded of at, signifying in Hebrew an island, a country, a province, and Copt or Cupt, a famous city in that country.^[133. For the true mythology of , A,yuττij, Aegyptus, seethe article Egypt, sub initio. ]

From these specimens, we hopeitwill appear that the Egyptian language in the more early ages was one of those dialects into which that of the descendants of the postdiluvian patriarchs was divided, and perhaps subdivided, a few centuries after the deluge. Amongst all these, we believe, such an affinity will be found, as plainly demonstrates that they originally sprung from one common stock. Besides, we might easily follow the Egyptian language into Greece, and there trace a great number of Egyptian terms transplanted into Greek; a task, however, which the nature of this inquiry will not permit. If our learned readers should incline to know more of the affinity of the Egyptian tongue with the others so often mentioned, they may consult Bochart’s Chanaan, Walton’s Prolegomena, Gebelin’s Monde Primitif, Jamieson’s Spicilegia, and other works.

sect. IV. OF THE PERSIAN LANGUAGE.

The Persian language is divided into the ancient and modern. The former of these is now very imperfectly known; the latter is one of the most expressive, and at the same time one of the most highly polished, in the world. In treating of this language, we shall, in compliance with the plan we have all along followed, begin with the ancient.

When Mohammed was born, and Anushiravan, whom he calls the just king, sat on the throne of Persia, two languages were generally prevalent in that empire.^[134. The modems call the empire of Persia Jran, a name unknown to the ancients, ] The one called Deree, was the dialect of the court, being only a refined and elegant branch of the Parsec, so called from the province of which Shiraz is now the capital; and the other, being that of the learned, in which most books were composed, had received the name of Pahlavi, either from the heroes who spoke it in former times, or from paklu, a tract of land which included some considerable cities of Iran. The ruder dialects of both were spoken by the rustics of several provinces; and many of these distinct idioms were vernacular, as happens in every kingdom of considerable extent. Besides the Parsee and Pahlavi, a very ancient and abstruse tongue was known to the priests and philosophers, called the language of the Zend, because a book on religious and moral duties which they held sacred, and which bore that name, had been written in it; whilst the Pazend or commentary on that work was composed in Pahlavi, as a more popular dialect. The letters of this book were called zend, and the language avesta.

The Zend and the old Pahlavi are now almost extinct in Iran, and very few even of the Guebres can read it; whilst theParsee remaining almost pure in the Shah-namch, has, by the intermixture of Arabic words, and many imperceptible changes, now become a new language, exquisitely polished by a series of fine writers both in prose and verse, analogous to the different idioms gradually formed in Europe after the subversion of the Roman empire.

The learned and indefatigable Sir William Jones is confident that the Parsee abounds with Sanscrit words, which have undergone no other change than such as may be observed in the numerous dialects of India; that many Persian imperatives are the roots of Sanscrit verbs; and that even the moods and tenses of the Persian verb substantive, which is the model of all the rest, are deducible from the Sanscrit by an easy and obvious analogy. From all this he infers that theParsee, like the various idiomatic dialects, is derived from the language of the Brahmins. But the conclusion is, [7:17:380]we imagine, not altogether just, since by the same train of reasoning we may infer that the Sanscrit is derived from the Parsee. The same learned gentleman adds, that the multitude of compounds in the Persian language proves that it is not of Arabian but Indian origin. This is undoubtedly true; but though the Parsee is not of Arabian, it does not necessarily follow that it is of Sanscrit origin. It might with the same propriety, and with an equal show of reason, be concluded, that the Greek language is descended of the Sanscrit, because it too abounds with compounds. We may then rest assured, that neither the one nor the other argument adduced by the ingenious president proves that the Parsee is a descendant of the Sanscrit.

The same illustrious scholar assures us, that the Zend bears a strong resemblance to the Sanscrit; which, however, it might do without being actually derived from it, since we believe every oriental scholar will find that all the languages from the Mediterranean to the utmost coast of Hindustan exhibit very strong indications of a common origin. The Parsee, however, not being the original dialect of Iran or Persia, we shall not pursue it farther at present, but proceed to give some account of the Pahlavi, which was probably the primitive language of the country. We have observed, above, that the Pazend or commentary on the Zend was composed for the use of the vulgar in the Pahlavi, which, according to Sir William Jones, was a dialect of the Chaldaic; an assertion of which he exhibits the following proof.

From the nature of the Chaldean tongue, most wordsended in the first long vowel, like shemaiá, heaven; and that very word, unaltered in a single letter, we find in the Pazend, together with lailiá, night, meya, water, nirá, fire, matra, rain, and a multitude of others, all Arabic or Hebrew, with a Chaldean termination. In like manner, zamar, by a beautiful metaphor from pruning trees, means in Hebrew to compose verses, and thence, by an easy transition, to sing them; but in Pahlavi we find the verb zamaruniten, to sing, with its forms zarnaraunemi, I sing, and zamzunid, he sang, the verbal terminations of the Persian being added to the Chaldaic root. All these words are integral parts of the language, and not adventitious like the Arabic nouns and verbals engrafted on the modern Persian.

From this reasoning it plainly appears, firstly, thatPahlavi was the ancient language of Persia; and, secondly, that the ancient Persian was a cognate dialect of the Chaldean, Hebrew, Arabic, Phoenician, &c. Μ. Anquetil has annexed to his translation of the Zendavesta two vocabularies in Zend and Pahlavi, which he found in an approved collection of Ra-wayat or traditional pieces in modern Persian. His vocabulary of the Pahlavi strongly confirms this opinion concerning the Chaldaic origin of that language. But with respect to the Zend, it abounded with numbers of pure Sanscrit words, to such a degree, indeed, that six or sèven words in ten belonged to that language.

From this deduction it would appear, that the oldest languages of Persia were Chaldaic and Sanscrit, and that when they had ceased to be vernacular, the Pahlavi and Zend were deduced from them respectively, and the Parsee either from the Zend, or immediately from the dialect of the Brahmins; but all had perhaps a mixture of the Tartarian, for the best lexicoraphers assert, that numberless words in ancient Persian are taken from the Cimmerians. With respect to the last of these, we cannot help being of opinion, that colonies of people from the neighbourhood of Persia had transported themselves into Crim Tartary, and perhaps into Europe, and that these colonists brought along with them those terms which still occur in their dialect. Emigrants from the same region must have found their way into Scandinavia, since numberless Persian words are still current in those regions. Perhaps Odin and his followers emigrated from the neighbourhood of Media and Persia, and brought with them the dialect of the nations from whose country they had taken their departure.

With respect to the Zend, it might well be considered as a dialectof the Sanscrit; it wasprobably a sacred language, and if so, concealed from the vulgar, and reserved for the offices of religion. If Zoroastres, or Zaratusht as the Orientals call him, travelled into Egypt, and was initiated in the mysteries of the Egyptian religion, as some pretend that he was, he might have been instructed in the sacred dialect of that people by the priests under whom he studied; and when he returned into Persia, and became the apostle of a new religion, he might have composed the volume of his laws and religious institutions in the sacred language of his Egyptian tutors. This language then became that of the Magi, who concealed it carefully from the knowledge of the uninitiated, as the priests did in Egypt and the Brahmins in Hindustan.

In the section on the Sanscrit language, we shall give a detail of a number of particulars, which to us seem to furnish a presumption that the language in question was imported from Egypt into Hindustan. We confess there are not sufficient data to improve these presumptions into absolute certainty; but we hope the time is not very distant when the members of the Asiatic Society will discover abundant materials to ascertain the truth of this position. We are the rather inclined to adopt this hypothesis, when we consider the character of Zoroastres in connection with that of the Egyptian Cohens and of the Indian Brahmins. ∙.

If this opinion should one day prove to be well-founded, we believe that the coincidence between the language of the Zend and the Sanscrit will be easily accounted for, without making the Hindus masters of Iran or Persia, and then driving them back to the shores of the Ganges. That the nations of Turan or Scythia did actually overrun that country, and make themselves masters of a considerable part of it at different times, is vouched by the records and traditions of the Persians themselves; and upon those occasions a number of Tartarian words might be introduced into the country, and acquire a currency amongst the inhabitants. Butas the annals of ancient Persia have long since been destroyed, it is impossible to ascertain either the extent or duration of these irruptions; indeed the nature of our design does not call for or admit such investigation.

In order to corroborate the cognation between the Chaldaic and the Pahlavi languages, we shall subjoin a few arguments derived from the Mosaic history, and the other writings of the Old Testament. These, we believe, will be admitted as irrefragable proofs of the position above advanced, by such as admit the authenticity of the sacred records.

Elam is generally allowed to have been the progenitor of the Persians. This patriarch was the eldest son of Shem who was the son of Noah; and according to the Mosaic account, his posterity settled in the neighbourhood of the descendants of Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram, the other sons of Shem. The country where they settled was denominated Ely mais, ^[135. Sirabo i lib· ii. ] as late as the beginning of the Christian era; and this name was retained until the Saracens conquered and took possession of that country. If such was the case, then the Elamites or Persians must have spoken a dialect of the primary language, which, in the first section of this article, we proved to have been the Hebrew.

When the four eastern monarchs invaded the five cities of the plain in Canaan,^[136. Gen. xiv. ] Chedorlaomer king of Elam was at the head of the confederacy; Amraphel king of Shinar, that is, of Babylon or Chaldea, was one of the allies; Arioch king of Elasar was another; and Tidal, king of some scattered nations in the same neighbourhood, was the fourth. That Chedorlaomer was the principal in this expedition, is obvious from the historian’s detail of the second, where that prince [7:17:381]is placed first, and the rest are named “the kings that were with him.” This passage likewise demonstrates, that Elam, Shinar, and Elasar, lay contiguous, and were engaged in the same cause. Wherever the country in question is mentioned in Scripture prior to the era of Daniel and Ezra, it is always under the name of Elam. To go about to prove this would be superfluous.

According to Xenophon,^[137. Cyropaεdia, lib. i. ] the Persians knew nothing of horsemanship before the age of Cyrus; but the same historian informs us, that after that monarch had introduced the practice of fighting on horseback, they became so fond of it, that no man of rank would deign to fight on foot. Here it ought to be considered, that this historian was now writing a moral, military, and political romance, and therefore introduced this anecdote, in order to exalt the character of his hero; so that we are not to suppose that the people in question were unacquainted with the art of equitation until that period.

The very name Phars or Pharas is certainly of Hebrew origin, and alludes to the skill that people professed in horsemanship. The original seems to be pharsah, ungula, a hoof; and in the Arabic pharas intimates a horse, and pha-ris a horseman. Consequently the people were denominated Parsai, and the country Pars, because they were trained from their infancy to ride the great horse, which indeed they deemed their greatest honour. This name was perhaps at first imposed upon them by the neighbouring nations, and in process of time became their common gentile appellation. Mithras is generally known to have been the chief divinity of the Persians; a name which is plainly derived from mi-ther, great. We find in Strabo the Persian god Amanus, which is plainly a cognate of liamah, the sun or fire. Hence we believe comes hamarim, the hearths or chapels, where the fire sacred to the sun was always kept burning, and which the Greeks called Πυpα0αα, or fire temples. Herodotus^[138. Lib. ix. cap. 85. ] mentions a custom amongst the Persians, according to which, when they came to engage an enemy, they cast a rope with a kind of gin at the end of it on their enemy, and by this means endeavoured to entangle and draw him into their power. The people of Persia who employed this net or gin were called Sargates, from sarags, sherag, or serig, a word which in Hebrew, Arabic, and Chaldaic, signifies to hamper or entangle; and hence perhaps the Greek word 2αρyαvη, a basket or net. Sar or zar in Hebrew, Phoenician, and Syriac, signifies a lord, a prince; and hence we have the initial syllable of the far-famed Zartusht or Zoroaster. In a word, most of the Persian names that occur in the Grecian histories, notwithstanding the scandalous manner in which they have been disguised and metamorphosed by the Greeks, may still with a little skill and industry be traced back to a Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, or Phoenician origin. In the books of Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, we find a number of Persian names which are all of a Hebrew or a Chaldaic complexion. But to investigate these at much greater length would be foreign to the design of the present article; though, if the curious reader should incline to be more fully satisfied respecting this point, he may consult Bochart’s Ckanaan, D’Herbelot’s Bibliothèque Orientale, and Walton’s Prolegomena.

It thus appears, that the Pahlavi is a remnant of the old Persian, and that the latter is a cognate branch of the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Phoenician. We have likewise produced some presumptive proofs that the Zend was copied from the sacred language of the Egyptians; and shall now endeavour to explain by what changes and revolutions the language first mentioned arrived at its present summit of beauty and perfection.

We have already observed, that the Scythians, whom the old Persians called ∑ακ<u, Sacae, and whom the modern Persians call Turan, often invaded and overran Persia at a verÿ early period. The consequence was, an infusion of Scythian or Tartarian terms, with which that language was early impregnated. This in all probability occasioned the first deviation from the original standard. The conquest of Alexander, and the dominion of his successors, must, one would imagine, have introducedan inundation of Greek words. That event, however, seems to have affected the language in no considerable degree, at least very few Grecian terms occur in the modern Persian.

The empire of the Arsacidoe or Parthians, we apprehend, produced a very important alteration in the ancient Persian. They were a demi-Scythian tribe; and as they conquered the Persians, retained the dominion of Persia during several centuries, and actually incorporated with the natives, their language must necessarily have given a deep tincture to the original dialect of the Persians. Sir William Jones has observed, that the letters of the inscriptions at Istakhar or Persepolis bear some resemblance to the old Runic letters of the Scandinavians. Those inscriptions we conceive to have been Parthian; and, as the Parthians were a Tartarian clan, we think this conjecture maybe admitted till another more plausible is discovered. The Persians, it is true, did once more recover the empire, and under them began the reign of the Deree and Parsee tongues; the former consisting of the old Persian and Parthian highly polished; the latter of the same languages in their uncultivated vernacular dress. In this situation the Persian language remained till the invasion of the Saracens in 636, when these barbarians overran and settled in that fine country; demolished every monument of antiquity, records, temples, palaces, and every remain of ancient superstition; massacred or expelled the ministers of the Magian idolatry; and introduced a language, which though not entirely new, yet differed widely from the old exemplar.

But before we proceed to give some brief account of the modern Persian, we must take the liberty of hazarding one conjecture, which perhaps the adepts in the modern Persian may not be very well disposed to admit. In the modern language we find the ancient Persian names wonderfully distorted and deflected from that form under which they appear in Scripture, as well as in Ctesias, Megasthencs, and the Greek authors. From this it has been inferred, that not only the Greeks, but even the sacred historians of the Jews, have changed and metamorphosed them most unnicreifully, in order to accommodate them to the standard of their own language. As to the Greeks, we know that this was their constant practice, but we cannot believe as much of the Hebrews,who, we make no doubt, wrote and pronounced the names of the Persian monarchs and governors of that nation nearly in the same manner with the native Persians. It is manifest, beyond all possibility of contradiction, that they altered neither the Tyrian and Phoenician names of persons and places when they had occasion to mention them, nor those of the Egyptians when any such occurred in their writings. The Babylonian and Chaldean names which are mentioned in the Old Testament vary in nothing from the Chaldean original. But no reason can be assigned why they should have transformed the Persian names more than the others. On the contrary, in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, we find the Persian names faithfully preserved throughout.

The fact, we imagine, is this. Our modern admirers of the Persian have borrowed their names of the ancient kings and heroes of that country from romances and fabulous legends of more modern date and composition. The archives of Persia were destroyed by the Saracens; and nothing of importance was written in that country till two centuries after the era ofMohammed. What succeeded was all pure fiction and romance. The authors of those entertaining compositions[7:17:382] either forged names of heroes to answer their purpose, or laid hold of such as were celebrated in the ballads of their country, or preserved by vulgar tradition. The names were no doubt very different from those of the ancient kings and heroes of Persia; and probably many of them had undergone considerable changes during the continuance of the Parthian empire. Upon this foundation has the learned Mr. Richardson erected a very irregular fabric, which, to use his own expression, seems to be built upon pillars of ice. He has taken much pains to invalidate the credit of the Grecian histories of the Persian empire, by drawing up in battle array against their records legions of romantic writers, who were not born till near a thousand years after the events had taken place; and, to complete the improbability, who lived two hundred years after all the chronicles of the Medes and Persians had been finally destroyed by the fury of the Saracens.

After the decisive victory obtained over the Persians at Kadessa, their ancient government was overturned, their religion proscribed, their laws trampled under foot, and their civil transactions disturbed by the forcible introduction of the lunar for the solar kalendar; whilst, at the same time, their language became almost overwhelmed by an inundation of Arabic words, which, from that period, religion, authority, and fashion, incorporated with their idiom.

From the seventh till the tenth century the Persian tongue, now impregnated with Arabic words, appears to have laboured under much discouragement and neglect. Bagdad, built by Almansor, became, soon after the year 762, the chief residence of the caliphs, and the general resort of the learned and ambitious from every quarter of the empire. At length the accession of the Buyah princes to the Persian throne marked in the tenth century the memorable epoch of the revival of Persian learning. About the year 977 the throne of Persia was filled by the great Azaduddawla, who first assumed the title of Sultan, afterwards generally adopted by eastern princes. He was born in Ispahan, and had a strong attachment to his native kingdom. His court, whether at Bagdad or in the capital of Persia, was the standard of taste and the favourite residence of genius. The native dialect of the prince was particularly distinguished, and soon became the general language of composition in almost every branch of polite learning. From the end of the tenth till the beginning of the fifteenth century may be considered as the most flourishing period of Persian literature. The epic poet Firdousi, in his romantic history of the Persian kings and heroes, displays an imagination and smoothness of numbers hardly inferior to Homer. The whole fanciful range of Persian enchantment he has interwoven in his poems, which abound with the noblest efforts of genius. This bard has stamped a dignity on the monsters and fictions of the East, equal to that which the prince of epic poetry has given to the mythology of ancient Greece. His language may at the same time be considered as the most refined dialect of the ancient Persian, the Arabic being introduced with a very sparing hand; whilst Sadi, Jami, Hafiz, and other succeeding writers, in prose as well as verse, have blended in their works the Arabic without reserve, gaining perhaps in the nervous luxuriance of the one language what may seem to have been lost in the softer delicacy of the other. Hence Ebn Fekreddin Anju, in the preface to the dictionary called Farhang Jehanguiri, says, that the Deree and the Arabic idioms were the languages of heaven; God communicating to the angels his milder mandates in the delicate accents of the first, whilst his stern commands were delivered in the rapid accents of the last.

For nearly three hundred years the literary fire of the Persians seems indeed to have been almost extinguished, since, during that time, hardly any thing of that people which deserves attention has appeared in Europe. Enough, however, has already been produced, to inspire us with a very high opinion of the genius of the East. In taste, the orientals are undoubtedly inferior to the best writers of modern Europe; but in invention and sublimity, they are excelled, perhaps equalled, by none. The Persians affect a rhetorical luxuriance, which to a European wears the air of unnecessary redundance. If to these leading distinctions we add a peculiar tone of imagery, of metaphor, and of allusion, derived from the difference of government, manners, temperament, and such natural objects as characterise Asia from Europe, we shall see, at one view, the great points of variation between the writers of the east and the west. Amongst the oriental historians, philosophers, rhetoricians, and poets, many will be found who would do honour to any age or people; whilst their romances, their tales, and their fables, stand upon a ground which Europeans have not yet been able to reach.

We shall now annex a few observations on the genius of that noble language; though it is our opinion that the province of the philologist is to investigate the origin, progress, and final improvement of a language, without descending to its grammatical minutiae or peculiar idiomatic distinctions. We have already observed, that the language under consideration is partly Arabic and partly Persian, though the latter generally has the ascendant. The former is nervous, impetuous, and masculine; the latter is flowing, soft, and luxuriant. Wherever the Arabic letters do not readily incorporate with the Persian, they are either changed into others or thrown away. Their letters are the Arabic with little variation, these being found more commodious and expeditious than the old letters of the Deree and Parsee. Their alphabet consists of thirty-two letters, which, like the Arabic, are read from right to left (their form and order will be learned from any grammar of that language). The letters are divided as usual into vowels and consonants. The Arabic characters, like those of the Europeans, are written in a variety of different hands; but the Persians write their poetical works in the Talick, which answers to the most elegant of our Italic hands.

There is a great resemblance between the Persian and English languages in the facility and simplicity of their form and construction; the former, as well as the latter, has no difference of terminations to mark the gender either in substantives or adjectives; all inanimate things are neuter; and animals of different sexes have either different names, or are distinguished by the words ner, male, and made, female. Sometimes indeed a word is made feminine, after the manner of the Arabians, by having an affix annexed to it.

The Persian substantives have but one variation of case, which is formed by adding a syllable to the nominative in both numbers, and answers often to the dative, but generally to the accusative case in other languages. The other cases are expressed for the most part by particles placed before the nominative. The Persians have two numbers, singular and plural, the latter being formed by adding a syllable to the former. The Persian adjectives admit of no variation except in the degrees of comparison. The comparative is formed by adding ter, and the superlative by adding terin to the positive. The Persians have active and neuter verbs like other nations; but many of their verbs have both an active and neuter sense, which can be determined only by the construction. Those verbs have properly but one conjugation, and but three changes of tense, the imperative, the aorist, and the preterite; all the other tenses being formed by the help of particles or of auxiliary verbs. The passive voice is formed by adding the tenses of the substantive verb to the participle of the active.

In the ancient language of Persia there were few or no irregularities. The imperative, which is often irregular in the modern Persian, was anciently formed from the infinitive, by rejecting the termination ceden. Originally all [7:17:383]infinitives ended in den, till the Arabs introduced their harsh consonants before that syllable, which obliged the Persians, who always affected a sweetness of pronunciation, to change the old termination of some verbs into ten, and by degrees the original infinitive grew quite obsolete; yet they still retain the ancient imperative, and the aorists which were formed from it. This little irregularity is the. only anomalous part of the Persian language, which, nevertheless, far surpasses in simplicity all other languages ancient or modern.^[139. With respect to the more minute and intricate parts of this language, as well as its derivations, compositions, and constructions, we must refer our readers to Mininskie’s Institutiones Linguae Turcica, cum rudimentis parallelis Linguarum Arab, et Pers; Sir William Jones’s Persian Grammar; Mr. Richardson’s Arabian and Persian Dictionary; D’Herbelot’s Bibliothèque Orientale; and Dr-Hyde de Beligione veterum Persarum. Our readers, who would penetrate into the innermost recesses of the Persian history, colonies, antiquities, connections, dialects, may consult the last mentioned author, especially chap, xxxv, entitled, Be Persia et Persarum nominibus, et de moderna atque veteriUngua Persica, ejusque dialectis. In the preceding inquiry we have followed other authors, whose accounts appeared to us more natural, and much less embarrassing. ]

In conclusion, we shall only take the liberty to remind our readers of the vast utility of the Arabian and Persian languages. Numberless events are preserved in the writings of the orientals which were never heard of in Europe, and must have for ever lain concealed from the knowledge of its inhabitants, had not these two tongues been studied and understood by the natives of this quarter of the globe. Many of those events have been transmitted to posterity in poems and legendary tales like the Runic fragments of Scandinavia, the romances of Spain, or the heroic ballads of our own country. Such materials as these, we imagine, may have suggested to Firdausi, the celebrated heroic poet of Persia, many of the adventures of his Shahnamxh ; which, like Homer when stript of the machinery of supernatural beings, is supposed to contain a great deal of true history, and a most undoubted picture of the superstition and manners of the times. The knowledge of these two languages has laid open to Europe all the treasures of oriental learning, and has enriched the minds of Britons with Indian science as much as the produce of the regions has increased their wealth and enervated their constitution.

Before we conclude this section, we shall, in order to render our inquiry the more complete, subjoin a few remarks on the nature of Persian poetry. The modern Persians borrowed from the Arabs their poetical measures, which are exceedingly various and complicated, consisting of nineteen different kinds; but the most common of them are the iambic or trochaic measures, and a metre that chiefly consists of those compounded feet which the ancients called , Eπt- τριτovs, being composed of iambics and spondees alternately. In lyric poetry their verses generally consist of twelve or sixteen syllables; they sometimes, but seldom, consist of fourteen. Some of their lyric verses contain thirteen syllables; but the most common Persian verse is composed of eleven; and in this measure are written all their great poems, whether upon heroic or moral subjects, as the works of Firdausi and Jami, the Bostar of Sadi, and the Mesnavi of Gelaleddin. This species of verse answers to our common heroic rhyme, which was brought to so high a degree of perfection by Pope. The study of the Persian poetry is so much the more necessary, as there are few books or even letters written in that language, which are not interspersed with fragments of poetry. As to their prosody, nothing can be more easy or simple; and hence when the student can read prose easily, he will with a little attention read poetry with equal facility.

SECT. V. SANSCRIT AND BENGALESE LANGUAGES.

The Sanscrit, although one of the most ancient languages in the world, was little known even in Asia until about the middle of the preceding century. Since that period, by the indefatigable industry of the learned and ingenious Sir William Jones, and the other worthy members of that society of which he had the honour to be president, this noble and ancient language was at length brought to light; and from it vast treasures of oriental knowledge have been communicated both to Europe and Asia; knowledge which, without the exertions of the establishment in question, must have lain concealed from the researches of mankind to the end of the world. In this section we propose to give to our readers such an account of that language as the limits of the present article, and the helps we have been able to procure, shall permit.

The Sanscrit language has for many centuries lain concealed in the hands of the Brahmins of Hindustan. It is by them deemed sacred, and is consequently confined solely to the offices of religion. Its name importe the perfect language, or, according to the eastern style, the language of perfection; and we believe no language ever spoken by man is more justly entitled to that high character.

The grand source of Indian literature, and the parent of almost every dialect from the Persian gulf to the China seas, is the Sanscrit; a language of the most venerable and most remote antiquity, which, though latterly shut up in the libraries of the Brahmins, and appropriated solely to the records of their religion, appears to have been current over most of the oriental world. Accordingly, traces of its original extent may be discovered in almost every district of Asia. Those who are acquainted with that language have often found the similitude of Sanscrit words to those of Persian and Arabic, and even of Latin and Greek; and that not in technical and metaphorical terms, which refined arts and improved manners might have occasionally introduced, but in the main ground-work of language, in monosyllables, the names of numbers, and appellations of such things as would be first discriminated on the immediate dawn of civilization.

The ancient coins of many different and distant kingdoms of Asia are stamped with Sanscrit characters, and mostly contain allusions to the old Sanscrit mythology. Besides, in the names of persons and places, of titles and dignities, which are open to general notice, even to the farthest limits of Asia, may be found manifest traces of the Sanscrit. The scanty remains of Coptic antiquities afford but little scope for comparison between that idiom and this primitive tongue; yet there still exists sufficient ground to conjecture, that, at a very early period, a correspondence did subsist between these two nations. The Hindus pretend, that the Egyptians frequented their country as disciples, not as instructors; that they came to seek that liberal education and those sciences in Hindustan, which none of their own countrymen had sufficient knowledge to impart The validity of this claim we may perhaps examine hereafter.

But although numberless changes and revolutions have from time to time convulsed Hindustan, that part of it which lies between the Indus and the Ganges still preserves this language whole and inviolate. Here they still offer a thousand books to the perusal of the curious; many of which have been religiously handed down from the earliest periods of human society.

The fundamental part of the Sanscrit language is divided into three classes: Dhaat, or roots of verbs, which some call primitive elements; Shubd, or original nouns; and Evya, or particles. The latter are indeclinable, as in all other languages; but the words comprehended in the two former classes must be prepared by certain additions and inflexions [7:17:384]to fit them for a place in composition. And here it is that the art of the grammarian has found room to expand itself, and to employ all the powers of refinement. Not a syllable, not a letter, can be added or altered but by regimen; not the most trifling variation of the sense, in the minutest subdivision of declension or conjugation, can be effected without the application of several rules; all the different forms for every change of gender, number, case, person, tense, mood, or degree, are methodically arranged for the assistance of the memory, according to an unerring scale. The number of the radical or elementary parts is about seven hundred; and to these, as to the verbs of other languages, a very plentiful stock of verbal nouns owes its origin; but the latter are not thought to exceed those of the Greek either in quantity or variety.

To the triple source of words above mentioned, every term of truly Indian origin may be traced by a laborious and critical analysis. All such terms as are thoroughly proved to bear no relation to any one of the Sanscrit roots, are considered as the production of some remote and foreign idiom, subsequently ingrafted upon the main stock; and it is conjectured, that a judicious investigation of this principle would throw a new light upon the first invention of many arts and sciences, and open a fresh mine of philological discoveries. We shall now proceed to give as exact an account of the constituent parts of this language as the nature of our design will permit.

The Sanscrit language is very copious and nervous. The first of these qualities arises in a great measure from the vast number of compound words with which it is almost overstocked. “The Sanscrit,” says Sir William Jones, “like the Greek, Persian, and German, delights in compounds; but to a much higher degree, and indeed to such excess, that I could produce words of more than twenty syllables; not formed ludicrously like that by which the buffoon in Aristophanes describes a feast, but with perfect seriousness, on the most solemn occasions, and in the most elegant works.” But the style of its best authors is wonderfully concise. In the regularity of its etymology it far exceeds the Greek and Arabic; and, like them, it has a prodigious number of derivatives from each primary root. The grammatical rules are also numerous and difficult, though there are not many anomalies. As one instance of the truth of this assertion, it may be observed, that there are seven declensions of nouns, all used in the singular, the dual, and the plural numbers, and all of them differently formed, according as they terminate with a consonant, with a*long or a short vowel; and again, different also as they are of different genders. Not a nominative case can be formed to any one of these nouns without the application of at least four rules, which vary likewise with each particular difference of the nouns, as above stated; and to this it may be added, that every word in the language maybe used through all the seven declensions, which is a full proof of the difficulty of the idiom.

The Sanscrit grammars are called Beeākerun, and ofthese there are many composed by different authors; some too abstruse even for the comprehension of the Brahmins, and others too prolix to be ever used as references. One of the shortest, named the Sarasootee, contains between two and three hundred pages, and was compiled byAnoŏbhõōtēē Seroopĕ-nām Achārige, with a conciseness that can scarcely be paralleled in any other language.

The Sanscrit alphabet contains fifty letters; and it is one boast of the Brahmins, that it exceeds all other alphabets in this respect. But it must be observed, that as of their thirty-four consonants, nearly half carry combined sounds, and that six of their vowels are merely the correspondent long ones to as many which are short, the advantage seems to be little more than fanciful. Besides these, they have a number of characters which Mr. Halhed calls connected vowels, but which have not been explained by the learned president of the Asiatic Society.

The Sanscrit character used in Upper Hindustan is said to be the same original letter which was first delivered to the people by Brahma, and is now called Diewnaguτ, or the language of angels, which shows the high opinion that theBrah-mins have entertained of that character. Their consonants and vowels are wonderfully, perhaps whimsically, modified and diversified; but to enumerate them, in this place, would contribute very little either to the entertainment or instruction of our readers. All these distinctions are marked in the Beids, ^[140. The books which contain the religion of the Brahmins. ] l and must be modulated accordingly, so that they produce all the effect of a laboured recitative; but by an attention to the music of the chant, the sense of the passage recited equally escapes the reader and the audience. It is remarkable, that the Jews in their synagogues chant the Pentateuch in the same kind of melody; and it is supposed that this usage has descended to them from the remotest ages.

The Sanscrit poetry comprehends a very great variety of different metres, of which the most common are these, viz. 1. The munnce hurrench chhund, or line of twelve or nineteen syllables, which is scanned by three syllables in a foot; and the most approved foot is the anapaest. 2. The cabee chhund, or line of eleven syllables. 3. The anushtofe chhund, or line of eight syllables. Sanscrit poems are generally composed in stanzas of four lines, called ashlogues, which are regular or irregular. The most common ashlogue is that of the anŭsh-tofe chhund, or regular stanza of eight syllables in the line. In this measure the greatest part of the Mahabārat is composed. The rhyme in this kind of stanza should be alternate; but the poets do not seem to be very nice in the observance of a strict correspondence in the sounds of the terminating syllables, provided the feet of the verse are accurately disposed. This short anushtofe ashlogue is generally written by two verses in one line, with a pause between; so that the whole assumes the form of a long distich. The irregular stanza is constantly called anyāchhund, of whatever kind of irregularity it may happen to consist. It is most commonly compounded of the long line cābee chhund and the short anushtofe chhund alternately; in which form it bears some resemblance to the most common lyric measure of the English poetry.

Perhaps our readers may feel some curiosity to be informed as to the origin of this oriental tongue. Ifwe believe the Brahmins themselves, it was coeval with the race of man, as we have already observed towards the beginning of this section. The Brahmins, however, are not the only people who ascribe a kind of eternity to their own particular dialect. We find that the Sanscrit in its primitive destination was appropriated to the offices of religion. It is indeed pretended, that all the other dialects spoken in Hindustan were emanations from that fountain, to which they might be traced back by a skilful etymologist. But this, we think, is an argument of no great consequence, since we believe that all the languages of Europe may, by the same process, be deduced from any one of those current in that quarter of the globe. By a parity of reason, all the different dialects of Hindustan may be referred to the language in question. Indeed, if we admit the authority of the Mosaic history, all languages whatsoever are derived from that of the first man. It is allowed that the language under consideration is impregnated with Persian, Chaldaic, Phoenician, Greek, and even Latin idioms. This, we think, affords a presumption that the Sanscrit was one of those original dialects which were gradually produced amongst the descendants of Noah, in proportion as they gradually receded from the centre of population. What branch or branches of that family emigrated to Hindustan, it is not easy to determine. That they were a party of the descendants of Shem is most [7:17:385]probable, because the other septs of his posterity settled in that neighbourhood. The result then is, that the Hindus were a colony consisting of the descendants of the patriarch Shem.

It appears, however, by almost numberless monuments of antiquity still extant, that at a very early period a different race of men had obtained settlements in that country. It is now generally admitted, that colonies of Egyptians had peopled a considerable part of Hindustan. Numberless traces of their religion occur everywhere in those regions. The learned president himself is indeed positive, that vestiges of these sacerdotal wanderers may be found in India, China, Japan, Tibet, and many parts of Tartary. Those colonists, it is well known, were zealous in propagating their religious ceremonies wherever they resided, and wherever they travelled. There is at the same time even at this day a striking resemblance between thesacredritesofthe vulgar Hindus andthose of the ancientEgyptians. The prodigious statues of Salsette and Elephanta fabricated in the Egyptian style; the vast excavations hewn out of the rock in the former; the woolly hair of the statues, their distorted attitudes, their grotesque appearances, their triple heads, and various other configurations; all plainly indicate a foreign origin. These phenomena suit no other people upon earth so exactly as the sons ofMizraim. The Egyptian priests used a sacred character, which none knew but themselves; none were allowed to learn except their children and the elite of the initiated. All these features mark an exact parallel with the Brahmins of the Hindus. Add to this, that the dress, diet, lustrations, and other rites of both sects, bore an exact resemblance to each other. Sir William Jones has justly observed, that the letters of the Sanscrit, stripped of all adventitious appendages, are really the square Chaldaic characters. We learn from Cassiodorus the following particulars: « The height of the obelisks is equal to that of the circus; now the higher is dedicated to the sun, and the lower to the moon, where the sacred rites of the ancients are intimated by Chaldaic signatures by way of letters.”^[141. Lib. iii. epist. ii. et 51. ] Here then it is plain that the sacred letters of the Egyptians were Chaldaic, and it is allowed that those of the Brahmins were of the same complexion; which affords another presumption in favour of the identity of the Sanscrit with those just mentioned.

That the Egyptians had at a very early period penetrated into Hindustan, is universally admitted. Osiris, their celebrated monarch and deity, according to their mythology, conducted an army into that country, and taught the natives agriculture, laws, religion, and the culture of the vine. He is said to have at the same time left colonies of priests, as a kind of missionaries, to instruct the people in the ceremonies of religion. Sesostris, another Egyptian potentate, likewise overran Hindustan with an army, and taught the natives many useful arts and sciences. When the Shepherd Kings invaded and conquered Egypt, it is probablethat numbers of the priests, in order to avoid the fury of the merciless invaders, who demolished the temples and persecuted the ministers of religion, left their native country, and transported themselves into India. These, we should think, were the authors both of the language and religion of the Brahmins. This dialect, as imported by the Egyptians, was probably of the same contexture with the sacred language of that people, as it appeared many ages afterwards. The Indians, who have always been an inventive and industrious race of men, in process of time cultivated, improved, diversified, and constructed that language with such care and assiduity, that it gradually arrived at the high degree of perfection in which it at present appears.

Had the learned president of the Asiatic Society, when he instituted a comparison between the deities of Hindustan on the one side, and those of Greece and Italy on the other, examined the analogybetween the gods ofHindustan and those of Egypt, we think he would have performed a piece of service still more eminent.^[142. See that gentleman’s discourse, Asiatic Researches, vol. i. ] Having first demonstrated the similarity between the divinities of India and Egypt, he might then have proceeded to investigate the resemblance of the Egyptian and Phoenician with those of Greece and Rome. By this process a chain would have been formed which would have enabled his readers to comprehend at one view the identity of the Zabian worship wherever it had been established, in the different regions of the earth.

It will be objected to this hypothesis that all the dialects of Hindustan being clearly reducible to the Sanscrit, it is altogether impossible that it could ever have been a foreign language. But to this we answer, that at the early period when this event is supposed to have taken place, the language of the posterity of the sons of Noah had not deviated considerably from the primitive standard, and consequently the language of the Egyptians and the Hindus was nearly the same. The Sanscrit was gradually improved. The language of the vulgar, as is always the case, became more and more different from the original archetype; but it still retained sucha near resemblance to the mother-tongue asprov-ed its kindred extraction.

To the preceding account of the Sanscrit language we shall annex a few strictures on the language of Bengal; which we believe is derived from the other, and is in most common use in the southern parts of Hindustan.

Though most of the ancient oriental tongues are read from right to left, like the Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Arabic, yet such as properly belong to the whole continent of India proceed from left to right like those of Europe. The Arabic, Persian, and others, are the grand sources whence the former method has been derived; but with these, the numerous original dialects of Hindustan have not the smallest connection or resemblance. The great number of letters, the complex mode of combination, and the difficulty of pronunciation, are considerable impediments to the study of the Bengal language; and the carelessness and ignorance of the people, no less than the inaccuracy of their characters, aggravate these inconveniences. Many of their characters are spurious; and these, by long use and the hurry of business, are now almost naturalized in the language.

The Bengal alphabet, like that of the Sanscrit, from which it is derived, consists of fifty letters, the form, order, and sound of which, may be learned from Mr. Halhed’s grammar of the Bengal language. The vowels are divided into long and short, the latter of which are often omitted in writing. Most of the oriental languages are constructed upon the same principle, with respect to the omission of the short vowel. The Hebrews had no sign to express it before the invention of the Masoretic points; in Arabic it is rarely inserted unless upon very solemn occasions, as in the Koran; and in the modem Persian it is universally omitted. To all the consonants in the Sanscrit, however, the short vowel is an invariable appendage, and is never signified by any diacritical mark; but where the construction requires that the vowel should be dropped, a particular stroke is set under the letter. It is in vain to pretend, in a sketch like this, to detail the sound and pronunciation of these letters; this must be acquired by the ear and by practice.

In the Bengal language, there are three genders, as in Greek, Arabic, &c. The authors of this threefold division of genders, with respect to their precedence, appear to have considered the neuter as a kind of residuum resulting from the two others, and as less worthy or less comprehensive than either (see the section on the Greek.) The terminations usually applied upon this occasion are aa for the masculine, and ee for the feminine. In Sanscrit, as in Greek and Latin, the names of all things inanimate have different genders, [7:17:386]founded on vague and incomprehensible distinctions: and this is also the case with the Bengal.

A Sanscrit noun, on its first formation from the general root, exists equally independent of case as of gender. It is neither nominative,nor genitive, nor accusative; noris it impressed with any of those modifications which mark the relation and connection between the several members of a sentence. In this state it is called an imperfect or crude noun. To make a nominative of a word, the termination must be changed and a new form supplied. Thus we see, that, in the Sanscrit at least, the nominative has an equal right with any other inflection to be called a case. Every Sanscrit noun has seven cases, exclusive of the vocative, and therefore comprehends two more than even those of the Latin. Mr. Halhed details all the varieties of these with great accuracy, and to his grammar therefore we must refer our readers. The Bengal has only four cases besides the vocative; and in this respect it is much inferior to the other.

It would be difficult to account for the variety of words which have been allotted to the class of pronouns by European grammarians. The first and second person are chiefly worthy of observation; these two would seem to be confined to rational and conversable beings only. The third supplies the place of every object in nature; where it must necessarily be endued with a capacity of shifting its gender respectively as it shifts the subject; and hence it is in Sanscrit frequently denominated an adjective. One of the demonstratives hie or ille usually serves for this purpose; and generally the latter, which in Arabic has no other name than dhemeer el ghaayb, “ the pronoun of the absentee,” for whose name it is a substitute.

In most languages where the verb has a separate inflection to each person, that inflection is sufficient to ascertain the personality; but in Bengal compositions, though the first and second persons occur very frequently, nothing is more rare than the usage of the pronoun of the third; and names of persons are inserted with a constant and disgusting repetition, to avoid, as it should seem, the application of the words he and she. The second person is always ranked before the first, and the third before the second. The personal pronouns have seven cases, which are varied in a very irregular manner. Leaving these to the Benga-han grammar, we shall proceed to the verb.

The Sanscrit, the Arabic, the Greek, and the Latin verbs, are furnished with a set of inflections and terminations so comprehensive and complete, that by their form alone they can express all the different distinctions both of persons and time. Three separate qualities in them are perfectly blended and united. Thus by their root they denote a particular act, and by their inflection both point out the time when it takes place and the number of the agents. In Persian, as in English, the verb admits only of two forms, one for the present tense and one for the aorist; and it is observable, that whilst the past tense is provided for by a peculiar inflection, the future is generally supplied by an additional word conveying only the idea of time, without any other influence on the act implied by the principal verb. It is also frequently necessary that the different state of the action, as perfect or imperfect, be further ascertained in each of the tenses, past, present, and future. This also, in the learned languages, is performed by variations of inflections, for which other verbs and other particles are applied in the modern tongues of Europe and Persia.

Every Sanscrit verb has a form equivalent to the middle voice of the Greek, used throughout all the tenses with a reflective sense, and the former is even the most extensive of the two in its use and office. For, in Greek, the reflective çan only be adopted intransitively when the action of the verb descends to no extraneous subject; but in Sanscrit, the verb is both reciprocal and transitive at the same time.

Neither the Sanscrit, nor the Bengalese, nor the Hindustance, have any word precisely answering to the sense of the verb I have, and consequently the idea is always expressed by est mihi ; and of course there is no auxiliary form in the Bengal verb corresponding to I have written, but the sense is conveyed in another mode. The very substantive, in all languages, is defective and irregular, and therefore the Sanscrit calls it a semi-verb. It is curious to observe that the present tense of this verb, both in Greek and Latin, and also in the Persian, appears plainly to be derived from the Sanscrit. In the Bengalese, this verb has but two distinctions of time, the present and the past; the terminations of the several persons of which serve as a model for those of the same tense in all other verbs respectively.

Verbs of the Bengal language may be divided into three classes, which are distinguished by their penultimate letter. The simple and most common form has an open consonant immediately preceding the final letter of the infinitive. The second is composed of those words the final letter of which is preceded by another vowel or open consonant going before it. The third consists entirely of causals derived from verbs of the first and second conjugations. The reader will easily conceive the impossibility of prosecuting this subject to any greater length; we shall therefore conclude with a few remarks collected from the grammar so often mentioned, which, we apprehend, may prove more amusing, if not more instructing.

The Greek verbs in μι are formed exactly upon the same principle with the Sanscrit conjugations, even in the minutest particulars. Instances of this are produced in many verbs, which from a root form a new verb by adding the syllable mi, and doubling the first consonant. This mode furnishes another presumption of the Egyptian origin of the Sanscrit. Many Greeks travelled into Egypt; many Egyptian colonies settled in Greece; and by one or other of these channels the foregoing innovation might have been introduced into the Greek language. To form the past tense, the Sanscrit applies a syllabic augment, as is done in the Greek; but the future has for its characteristic a letter analogous to that of the same tense in the Greek, and it omits the reduplication of the first consonant. It may be added that the reduplication of the first consonant, is not constantly applied to the present tense of the Sanscrit any more than to that of the Greek verb.

The natural simplicity and elegance of many of the Asiatic languages are greatly debased and corrupted by the continual abuse of auxiliary verbs; and this inconvenience has evidently affected the Persian, the Hindu, and the Bengalese idioms. The infinitives of verbs in the Sanscrit and Bengalese are always used as substantive nouns. Every body knows that the same mode of arrangement very often occurs in the Greek. In the Sanscrit language, as in the Greek, there are forms of infinitives and of participles comprehensive of time; and there are also other branches of the verb which seem to resemble the gerunds and supines of the Latin.

All the terms which serve to qualify, to distinguish, or to augment, either substance or action, are classed by the Sanscrit grammarians under one head; and the word used to express it literally signifies increase or addition. According to their arrangement, a simple sentence consists of three members; and the agent, the action, the subject, which, in a grammatical sense, are reduced to two, the noun and the verb. They have a particular word to specify such words as amplify the noun which imports quality, and answers to our adjectives or epithets. Such as are applied to denote relation or connection, are intimated by another term which may be translated preposition.

The adjectives in Bengalese have no distinction of gender or number; but in Sanscrit these words preserve the distinction of gender, as in the Greek and Latin. Preposi∙
[7:17:387]

fions are substitutes for cases, which could not have been extended to the number necessary for expressing all the several relations and predicaments in which a noun may be found, without causing too much embarrassment in the form of a declension. They are too few in the Greek language, a circumstance which occasions much inconvenience. The Latin is less polished than the Greek, and consequently bears a much nearer resemblance to the Sanscrit, both in words, inflections, and terminations.

The learned are now convinced that the use of numerical figures was first derived from India. Indeed the antiquity of their application in that country far exceeds the powers of investigation. All the numerals in Sanscrit have different forms for the different genders, as in Arabic. There appears to be a strong probability that the European method of computation was derived from India, as it is much the same with the Sanscrit, although we think the Europeans learned it from the Arabians. The Bengalese merchants compute the largest sums by fours ; a custom evidently derived from the original mode of computing by the fingers.

The Sanscrit language, amongst other advantages, has a great variety in the mode of arrangement; and the words are so knit and compacted together, that every sentence appears like one complete word. When two or more words come together in regimine, the last of them only has the termination of a case; the others are known by their position; and the whole sentence, so connected, forms but one compound word, which is called a foot.

SECT. VI. OF THE CHINESE LANGUAGE.

The Chinese, according to the most authentic accounts, are a people of great antiquity. Their situation was such, as, even in the earliest ages of the world, in a great measure secured them from hostile invasion. Their little commerce with the rest of mankind excluded them from the knowledge of those improvements which a mutual emulation had often generated amongst other nations, who were situated in such a manner, with relation to each other, as served to promote a mutual intercourse and correspondence. As China is a large and fertile country, producing all the necessaries, conveniencies, and even luxuries of life, its inhabitants were not under the necessity of looking abroad for the two former, nor exposed to the temptation of engaging in foreign commerce, in order to procure the latter. Perfectly satisfied with the articles which their own country produced, they applied themselves entirely to the practice of agriculture and other arts connected with that profession; and their frugality, which they retain even to this day, taught them the lesson of being contented with little; consequently though their population was almost incredible, the produce of their soil proved abundantly sufficient to yield them a subsistence. Their inventions were their own; and as they borrowed nothing from other people, they gradually began to despise the rest of mankind, and, like the ancient Egyptians, branded them with the epithet of barbarians.

This people had at a very early period made amazing proficiency in the mechanical arts. But their progress in the liberal sciences, according to the latest and indeed the most probable accounts, was by no means proportioned. In mathematics, geometry, and astronomy, their knowledge was contemptible; and in ethics, or moral philosophy, the complexion of their laws and customs proves their skill to have been truly superficial. At present they value themselves very highly upon their oratorial talents; and yet of all languages spoken by any civilized people, theirs is confessedly the least improved. To what this untoward defect is owing, the learned have not yet been able to determine.

The language of the Chinese is totally different from the idioms of all other nations, and bears very strong marks of an original tongue. All its words are monosyllabic, and their compositions and derivations are altogether unknown. Their nouns and verbs admit of no flexions; in short, every thing relating to their idiom is peculiar, and incapable of being compared with any other dialect that is spoken by any civilized people. Most barbarous languages exhibit something which resembles an attempt towards those diacritical modifications of speech; whereas the Chinese, after a space of four thousand years, have not advanced one step beyond the very first elements of ideal communication. This circumstance, we think, is a plain demonstration that they did not emigrate from that region where the primitive race of mankind is thought to have fixed its residence. Some have imagined, we believe with good reason, that they are a Tartarian race, which, breaking off from the main bodyofthatnume-rous and widely-extended people, directed their march towards the south-east, where, falling in with delightful and fertile plains which their posterity now inhabit, they found themselves accommodated so much to their liking, that they dropped all desire of changing their habitations. The country of China is, indeed, so environed with mountains, deserts, and seas, that it would have been difficult for men in the primitive state to have emigrated into any of the neighbouring regions. Thus secluded from the rest of makind, the Chinese were, in all probability, left to the strength of their own inventive powers to fabricate a language, as well as the other arts and improvements necessary for the support and convenience of life.

It is indeed obvious that their vocabulary, when they emigrated from Tartary, was neither ample nor properly accommodated to answer the purposes of the mutual conveyance of ideas. Withthis slender stock,however, theyseem to have been satisfied; for it does not appear that any additions were afterwards made to that which had been originally imported. Instead of framing a new class of terms by compounding the primitive ones; instead of diversifying them by inflections, or multiplying them by derivatives, as is done in every other language; they chose rather to retain their primitive words, and, by a great variety of modifications introduced upon their orthography or pronunciation, to accommodate them to a corresponding variety of significations. were it possible to scrutinize all the Tartarian dialects, and to reduce them to their primitive monosyllabic character, perhaps the original language of the Chinese might be investigated and ascertained. We know that attempts have been made to compare it with some of the other Asiatic languages, especially the Hebrew; but the task proved unsuccessful, and no primeval identity has been discovered. Before this comparison could be instituted with the most distant prospect of success, the language last mentioned must be stripped of all its adventitious qualities; and not only so, but it must be reduced to the monosyllabic form, and then contrasted with the Chinese monosyllables, an undertaking which we are persuaded would not be readily executed. After all, we are ’ convinced that no resemblance of any importance would be discovered.

The Chinese language must then, in our opinion, have been a Tartarian dialect, as the people themselves were colonists from Tartary. We have observed above, that this people have not hitherto found out the art of composition of words; a circumstance which is the more surprising, when we consider that, in the characters which form their written language, they employ many compositions. For example, the character by which they represent misfortune, is composed of one hieroglyphic which represents a house, and another which denotes fire ; because the greatest misfortune that can befal a man is to have his house burned. With respect to the language which they use in speech, though they very often employ many words to express one thing, yet they never-run them together into one word, making certain changes upon them that they may incorporate them more conveniently, but always preserve them entire and unaltered.
[7:17:388]

The whole number of words in the Chinese language does not exceed twelve hundred; and the nouns are only three hundred and twenty-six. It must certainly appear surprising, that a people whose manners arc so highly polished and refined, should be able to express so many things as must of necessity be required in such a course of life by so small a number of words, and these too monosyllables. The difficulties which attend this singular mode must be felt at almost every instapt; circumstances which, according to the ordinary course of things, should have induced them to attempt both an augmentation of the number of their words, and an extension of those which they had by composition and derivation. We learn from Duhalde that the Chinese have two different dialects: the one vulgar, which is spoken by the common people, and varies according to the different provinces; the other, called ↑he Mandarin language, which is current only amongst the learned.^[143. History of China, vol. ii. ] The latter is properly that which was formerly spoken at court in the province of Kiang∙nan, and gradually spread amongst the polite people in the other provinces. Accordingly, this language is spoken with more elegance in the provinces adjoining to Kiang-nan, than in any other part of the kingdom. By slow degrees it was introduced into all parts of the empire, and consequently became the universal language.

It then appears that the modern language of China was originally the court dialect, and utterly unknown to the bulk of the people. From this circumstance we think it may fairly be concluded that the dialect in question was deemed the royal tongue, and had been fabricated on purpose to distinguish it from the vulgar dialects. We learn from Heliodorus, that the Ethiopians had a royal language which was the same with the sacred idiom of the Egyptians.^[144. Ethìopica, lib. vi. ] This Mandarin tongue was originally an artificial dialect fabricated with a view to enhance the majesty of the court, and to raise its very style and diction above that of the rest of mankind. The Chinese, a wonderfully inventive people, might actually contrive a language of that complexion, with an intention to render it obscure and enigmatical.^[145. An attempt of this nature, amongst a people like the Chinese, is by no means improbable; nor is its success less probable. For a proof of this, we need only refer to Bishop Wilkins’s Artificial Language, and Psalmanazar’s Dictionary of the language of Formosa. ] Such a plan would excite their admiration, and would at the same time greatly exceed their comprehension. In process of time, when the Chinese empire was extended, the Mandarins who had been brought up at court, and understood nothing of the provincial dialects, found it convenient to have the most eminent persons in every province taught the language employed by themselves, in order to qualify them for transacting the affairs of government in a language which both parties understood. By this means the royal dialect descended to the vulgar, and in process of time became universal. The Tartar dialect formerly in use vanished; only a few vestiges of it remained, which gradually incorporating with the royal language, occasioned the variation of provincial tongues above mentioned.

We are therefore clearly of opinion, that the modern language of the Chinese was deduced from the original Mandarin, or court dialect, and that this last was an artificial speech fabricated by the skill and ingenuity of that most remarkable people. The learned have long held it as the primary dialect, because, say they, it bears all the marks of an original and unimproved language. In our opinion, nothing appears more ingeniously artificial. It is universally allowed that, in its structure, arrangement, idioms, and phraseology, it resembles no other language. Is not every learned man now convinced that all the Asiatic languages yet known, discover unequivocal symptoms of their cognation and family resemblance? The Ethiopians, Chaldeans, Arabians, Persians, Egyptians, Hebrews, Phoenicians, the Brahmins, Bengalese, the Hindus bordering upon China, all speak only different dialects of one language, varying from the original in dialect only, some in a greater, some in a lesser degree. Why then should the Chinese alone stand altogether insulated and unallied?

The languages of the north all possess congenial features. The Tartar or Tatar dialects of every clan, of every canton, of every denomination, exhibit the most palpable proofs of a near affinity. The Gothic andSclavonian dialects, which pervade a great part of Europe and some parts of Asia, are obviously brethren, and may easily be traced up to an Asiatic original. Even some of the American jargon dialects contain words which clearly indicate an Asiatic or European original. Our readers, we flatter ourselves, will agree with us, that had the language of the Chinese been the original language, a resemblance must have still existed between it and its descendants. If it had originated from any other language, it would have retained some characteristic features of its parent archetype. But as neither of these is to be found in the fabric of the language under consideration, the conclusion must be, that it is a language entirely different from all other tongues; that it is constructed upon different principles, descended from different parents, and framed by different artists.

The Chinese themselves have a common and immemorial tradition, that their language was framed by Yαo, their first emperor, to whom they attribute the invention of every thing curious, useful, and ornamental. Traditional history, when it is ancient, uniform, and universal, is generally well founded; and, upon this occasion we think the tradition above mentioned may be fairly admitted as a collateral evidence.

The paucity of vocables contained in this singular language, vi e consider as another presumption of its artificial contexture. The Chinese Onomathetae would find it an arduous task to devise a great number of new terms, and would therefore rest satisfied with the smallest number possible. In other languages we find the same economy was observed. Rather than fabricate new words, men chose sometimes to adapt old words to new, and, upon some occasions, even to contrary significations. To spare themselves the trouble of coining new terms, they contrived to join several old ones into one; whence arose a numerous race of compounds. Derivatives too were fabricated to answer the same purpose. By this process, instead of creating new vocables, old ones were compounded, diversified, deflected, ramified, metamorphosed, and tortured into a thousand different shapes.^[146. See Kennedy on the Origin and Formation of Languages; Klaproth, Asia Polyglotta, and especially the very learned tract by the same author on the Chinese language; also the works of President de Guignes. ]

The Greek is deservedly esteemed a very rich and copious language; yet its radical words have been curiously traced by learned men, who, after the most laborious and exact scrutiny, have found that they do not amount to more than three hundred. The Sanscrit language is highly compounded ∙, its radical terms, however, are very few in number. Upon the whole, we think we may conclude, that the more any language abounds in compounds and derivatives, the smaller will be the number of its radical terms. The Arabic admits of no composition, and consequently its words have been multiplied almost in infinitum ; the Sanscrit, the Persian, and the Greek, abound with compounds, and we find their radicals are few in proportion.

There are, we think, three different methods which maybe employed in order to enrich and extend the range of a language. 1st, By fabricating a multitude of words; the plan which has been pursued by the Arabs. 2d, By framing[7:17:389] a multitude of compounds and derivatives; the artifice • employed by the Greeks, and the authors of the Sanscrit. ,, 3d, By varying the signification of words without enlarging their number; the method practised by the Chinese and their colonists. The Arabians, we conceive, have shown the most fertile and inventive genius, since they have enriched their language by actually creating a new and a most numerous race of words. The fabricators of the Sanscrit and the collectors of the Greek have exhibited art, but comparatively little fertility of genius. Leaving, therefore, the Arabians, as in justice we ought, masters of the field in the contest relating to the formation of language, we may dispose the Greek and Sanscrit on the one side, and the Chinese on the other; and having made this arrangement, we may attempt to discover on which side the larger proportion of genius and invention seems to rest.

The Greek and Sanscrit (for we have selected them as being the most highly compounded) exhibit a great deal of art in modifying, arranging, and diversifying their compounds and derivatives, in such a manner as to qualify them for intimating complex ideas; but the Chinese have performed the same office by the help of a race of monosyllabic notes, simple, inflexible, invariable, and at the same time few in number. The question then comes to be, whether more art is displayed in new-modelling old words by means of declensions, compounds, and derivatives; or in devising a plan according to which monosyllabic radical terms, absolutely invariable, should, by a particular modification of sound, be made to answer all the purposes performed by the other. The latter appears to us much more ingeniously artificial. The former resembles a complicated machine composed of a vast number of parts, congenial indeed, but loosely connected; the latter may be compared to a simple, uniform engine, easily managed, and having all its parts properly adjusted. Let us now see in what manner the people in question managed their monosyllabic notes, so as to qualify them for answering all the purposes of speech.

Although the number of words in the Chinese language does not amount to above twelve hundred, yet that small number of vocables, by their artificial management, is sufficient to enable them to express themselves with ease and perspicuity upon every subject. Without multiplying words, the sense is varied almost in infinitum by the variety of the accents, inflections, tones, aspirations, and other changes of the voice and enunciation; circumstances which make those who do not thoroughly understand the language frequently mistake one word for another. This will appear obvious by an example. The word teov pronounced slowly, drawing out the v and raising the voice, signifies a lord or master. If it be pronounced with an even tone, lengthening the v, it signifies a hog. When it is pronounced quickly and lightly, it imports a kitchen. If it be pronounced in a strong and masculine tone, growing weaker towards the end, it signifies sLcolUrnn.

By the same economy, the syllable po, according to the various accents, and the different modes of pronoun dation, has eleven different significations. It signifies glass, to boil, to winnow rice, wise or liberal, to prepare, an old woman, to break or cleave, inclined, a very little, to water, a slave or captive. From these examples, and from almost numberless others which might be adduced, it is abundantly evident that this language, which at first sight appears so poor and confined, in consequence of the small number of the monosyllables of which it is composed, is notwithstanding very copious, rich, and expressive. Again, the same word joined to various others, imports a great many different things; for example, mow, when alone, signifies a tree, wood, but when joined with anotherword,ithasmany other significations. Mou leoo, imports wood prepared for building; mou lαη signifies bars, or wooden grates; mou hia, a box; mou sang, a chest of drawers; mou tsiang, a carpenter; mou cul, a mushroom; mou nu, a sort of small orange; mou sing, the planet Jupiter; mou mien, cotton. This word may be joined to several others, and has as many different significations as it has different combinations.

Thus the Chinese, by a different arrangement of their monosyllables, can compose a regular and elegant discourse, and communicate all their ideas with energy and precision; nay even with gracefulness and propriety. In these qualities they are not excelled either by the Europeans or Asiatics, who use alphabetical letters. In fine, the Chinese so naturally distinguish the tones of the same monosyllable, that they comprehend the sense of it, without exercising the least reflection on the various accents by which it is determined.

We must not, however, imagine, as some authors have related, that this people cant in speaking, and make a sort of music which is very disagreeable to the ear; the various tones are pronounced so curiously, that strangers find it difficult to perceive their difference even in the province of Kiang-nan, where the-accent is more perfect than in any other. The nature of it may be conceived by the guttural pronunciation in the Spanish language, and by the different tones which are used in the French and Italian. These tones are almost imperceptible; yet they have different meanings, a circumstance which gave rise to the proverb, that the tone is everything.

If the fineness and delicacy of their tones are such as to be scarcely perceptible to a stranger, we must suppose that they do not rise high, but only by small intervals; so that the music of their language must somewhat resemble the music of the birds, which is within a small compass, but nevertheless of great variety of notes. Hence it follows, that strangers will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to learn this language; more especially if they have not a delicate ear and a flexible voice, and also much practice. The great difference then between the Chinese and Greek accents consists in this, that the Greeks had but two accents, the grave and acute, distinguished by a large interval, and that not very exactly marked; for the acute, although it never rises above a fifth higher than the grave, did not always rise so high, and was sometimes pitched lower according to the voice of the speaker. The Chinese must have many more accents, and the intervals between them must be much smaller, and much more carefully marked; for otherwise it would be impossible to distinguish them. At the same time, their language must be much more musical than the Greek, and perhaps more so than any language ought to be; though this has becomes necessary for the purposes above mentioned. Duhalde is positive that notwithstanding the perpetual variation of accents in the Chinese tongue, andthe almost imperceptible intervals between these tones, their enunciation does not resemble singing. Many people, however, who have resided in China, are equally positive that the tone in which they utter their words does actually resemble canting ; and this, when we consider the almost imperceptible intervals by which they are perpetually raising and lowering the pitch of their voice, appears to us highly probable.

As the people of whose language we are treating at present communicate a variety of different significations to their monosyllabic terms by means of varied accentuation, so they employ quantity for the very same purpose. By lengthening or shortening the vowels of their words, they employ them to signify very different things; and they perform the same thing by giving their words different aspirations, as likewise by sounding them with different degrees of roughness and smoothness, and even sometimes by the different motion, posture, or attitude, with which their enunciation is accompanied. By these methods of diversifying their monosyllables, says Duhalde, they make three hundred and thirty of them serve all the purposes of language, and these [7:17:390]too not much varied in their termination; since all the words in that language either terminate with a vowel or with the consonant n, sometimes with the consonant g annexed.

From this account, we think it is evident that the Chinese, by a wonderful exertion of ingenuity, do, by different tones and prosodical modifications, by means of a very inconsiderable number of invariable radicals, actually perform all that the most polished nations have been able to achieve by their compounds, derivatives, &c. diversified by declensions, conjugations, and flexions of every kind; circumstances which, in our opinion, reflect the greatest honour on their inventive powers.

With respect to the grammar of this language, as it admits of no flexions, all their words being indeclinable, their cases and tenses are, therefore, formed by particles. They have no idea of genders; and even the distinction of numbers, which in almost all other languages, however unimproved, is marked by a particular word, is in the Chinese indicated only by a particle. They have no more than the three simple tenses, namely, the past, present, future; and for want of different terminations, the same word stands either for the verb or the verbal substantive, the adjective or the substantive derived from it, according to its position in the sentence. The Chinese language being composed of monosyllables, and these indeclinable, can scarcely be reduced to grammatical rules. We shall, however, attempt to lay before our readers as much of the texture of that singular dialect as may enable them to form some vague idea of its genius and constitution; beginning with the letters, and proceeding regularly to the remaining parts as they naturally succeed each other.

The art of joining the Chinese monosyllables together is extremly difficult, and requires a very long and laborious course of study. As they have only figures by which they can express their thoughts, and have no accents in writing to vary the pronunciation, they are obliged to employ as many different figures or characters as there are different tones, which give an equal number of different significations to the same word. Besides some single characters signify two or three words, and sometimes even a whole period. For example, to write these words, good morrow, Sir, instead of joining the characters which signify good and morrow with that of Sir, a different character must be used, and this character alone expresses these three words; a circumstance which greatly contributes to multiply the Chinese characters.

This method of joining the monosyllables is indeed sufficient for writing so as to be understood; but it is deemed trifling, and is used only by the vulgar. The style which is employed, in order to shine in composition, is quite different from that which is used in conversation, though the words are in reality the same. In writings of that species, a man of letters must use more elegant phrases, and more lofty expressions, and the whole must be dignified with tropes and figures which are not in general use, but in a peculiar manner adapted to the nature of the subject in question. The characters of Cochin-china, of Tong-king, and of Japan, are the same with those of the Chinese, and signify the same things; though, in speaking, these nations do not express themselves in the same manner. The language of conversation is therefore very different, and they are not able to understand each other; whilst, at the same time, they understand each other’s written language, and have all their books in common.

The learned must not only be acquainted with the characters which are employed in the common affairs of life, but must also understand their various combinations, and the numerous and multiform dispositions and arrangements which of several simple strokes make the compound characters. The number of theircharacters amounts to about eighty thousand; and the man who knows the greatest number of them is of course the most learned. From this circumstance we may conclude, that many years must be employed to acquire the knowledge of such a prodigious number of characters, to distinguish them when they are compounded, and to remember their shape and import. After all, a person who understands ten thousand characters may express himself with tolerable propriety in this language, and may be able to read and understand a great number of books. The generality of their learned men do not understand above fifteen or twenty thousand, and few of their doctors have attained to the knowledge of above forty thousand. This prodigious number of characters is collected in their great vocabulary called Hai-pien. They have radical letters, which show the origin of words, and enable them to find out those which are derived from them; for instance, the characters of mountains, trees, man, the earth, ahorse, under which must be sought all that belongs to mountains, trees, man, &c. In this search one must learn to distinguish in every word those strokes or figures which are above, beneath, on the sides, or in the body of the radical figure.

Clemens Alexandrinus (see the section on the Chaldaic language) informs us, that the Egyptians employed three sorts of characters: The first was called the cpistolographic which was used in writing letters; the second was denominated hieratic, and peculiar to the sacerdotal order; the last formed the hieroglyphical, which was appropriated to monumental inscriptions and other public memorials. This mode of representation was twofold. One, and the most simple, was performed by describing the picture of the object which they intended to represent, or at least one that resembled it pretty nearly; as when they exhibited the sun by a circle and the moon by a crescent. The other was properly symbolic; as when they marked eternity by a serpent with the emblem of life, and the air by a man clothed in an azure robe studded with stars.

The Chinese, in all probability, had the same variety of characters. In the beginning of their monarchy, they communicated their ideas by drawing on paper the images of the objects they intended to express; that is, they drew the figure of a bird, a mountain, a tree, waving lines, to indicate birds, mountains, forests, rivers, and so on. There were, however, to be communicated an infinite number of ideas, the objects of which do not fall under the cognizance of the senses; such as the soul, the thoughts, the passions, beauty, deformity, virtues, vices, the actions of men and other animals. This inconvenience obliged them to alter their original mode of writing, which was too confined to answer that purpose, to introduce characters of a more simple nature, and to invent others to express those things which are the objects of our senses.

These modern characters are, however, truly hieroglyphical, since they are composed of simple letters which retain the signification of the primitive characters. The original character for the sun was a circle thus©; and this they called ga. They now represent that luminary by the figure |ΞΞ|» to which they still give the original name. But human institutions having annexed to these last-framed characters the very same ideas indicated by the original signs, the consequence is, that every Chinese letter is actually significant, and that it still retains its significancy, though connected with others. Accordingly the word tsai, which imports misfortune, or calamity, is composed of the letter mien, a house, and the letter ho, fire; so that the symbolical character for misfortune is the figure of a house on fire. The Chinese characters, then, are not simple letters without any signification, like those of the Europeans and of other Asiatics; but when they are joined together, they are so many ideagraphic signs, which represent or express thoughts.

Upon the whole, the original characters of the Chinese were real pictures; the next improvement was the introduction of the symbolical character; whilst the third and [7:17:391]last stage was the present mode, in which artificial signs have been fabricated, to represent such thoughts or ideas as could not be represented by one or other of the methods above described. Duhalde (vol. ii. p. 400, et seq.) has furnished us with rules for pronouncing the Chinese vowels and consonants; a piece of information which, as it would be of little consequence to our readers, we shall therefore pass over, and proceed to give a brief account of the Chinese grammar. As the whole language is composed of monosyllables, and these indeclinable, its grammatical structure must be simple and obvious; we shall, therefore, only mention what to us appears singular and important.

In the Chinese language there is no diversity of genders or cases, and consequently no declensions. Very often the noun is not distinguished from the verb; and the same word which in one situation is a substantive, may in another become an adjective, and even a verb. The adjective always goes before the substantive; but if it follow it, it becomes a substantive. The cases and numbers are known only by the composition. The plural number is distinguished by the particle men, which is common to all nouns; but when the noun is preceded by some word which signifies number, the particle men is not annexed. The Chinese genitive, both singular and plural, when it comes after nouns, is often made by ti ; and there is no other case in that language. The same particle is sometimes placed after pronouns, as if they were derivatives. The comparative degree is formed by adding the particle keng, which is always placed before the noun, and signifies much. The particle to is sometimes used, and likewise imports much. The Chinese have only three personal pronouns, nqo, I, ni, thou, and ta, he; and these become plural by adding the syllable men. They are made possessive by adding the syllable ti, as nqo ti, mine, ni ti, thine, ta ti, his. The patronymics are formed by putting the name of the city, country, or the like, after the pronoun; and chon is the relative pronoun who, what, which. Chinese verbs have only three tenses; the preterperfect, the present, and the future. When there is no particle added to the verb, it is the present; the preterperfect is made by adding the particle leao ; and to distinguish the future tense they use the particle tsiang or hoei ; these being all the varieties incident to their verbs. The Chinese language has no words which are properly adverbs; they only become so by custom, or by the place which they occupy in discourse. They are often obliged to employ several words to express the adverbs of other languages. They have none which are demonstrative, or proper for calling or exhorting; but in their stead they are obliged to use nouns and verbs.

Perhaps our readers may wish to know the Chinese numerals, and imagine that they bear a resemblance to those of the European or other Asiatic dialects. In this supposition, however, they will find themselves disappointed. The numerals are as follow:— y, one; cut, two; san, three; sace, four; ou, five; lou, six; tsi, seven; po, eight; kieou, nine; che, ten; che y, eleven; cut che, twelve; san che, thirteen; ρe, one hundred; cut pe, two hundred; y tsien, one thousand; y ouan, one thousand; che ouan, twenty thousand; cut ouan, one hundred thousand; che ouan, two hundred thousand; ypeouan one million. There are a great many particles proper to numbers in the Chinese language, which are frequently used, and in a way peculiar to it; for every numeral has a particle importing the object to which it is attached. Thus co is used for man, and y co for a woman; hoei is used for illustrious men; tche or tchi is used for ships, dogs, hens; ηιey is used for pearls and precious things; pen is used for books; teng is appropriated to oxen and cows; too is used for letters and little bundles of paper; oo is employed for corn and pulse. Those distinctions indicate a language manufactured on purpose to be employed by people who were too high and too haughty to converse with the vulgar.

The style of the Chinese, in their elaborate compositions, is mysterious, concise, and allegorical, after the manner of the orientals. It is often obscure to those who do not understand the language thoroughly; and it requires a considerable degree of skill to avoid mistakes in reading an author of elegance and sublimity. Their writers express a great deal in few words; and their expressions are lively, full of spirit, intermingled with bold comparisons and lofty metaphors. They affect to insert in their compositions many sentences borrowed from their five canonical books; and as they compare their books to pictures, so they liken these quotations to the five principal colours employed in painting; and in this their eloquence chiefly consists. They prefer a beautiful character to the most finished picture; and nothing is more common than to see a single page covered with old characters (if they happen to be fair and elegant) sold at a very high price. They honour their characters in the most common books; and when they happen to light by chance upon a printed leaf, they gather it up with the greatest care and respect.

In China there are three varieties of language; that of the common people, that of the people of fashion, and that employed in writing books. Though the first is not so elegant as either of the other two, it is not however inferior to our European languages; notwithstanding those who are but superficially acquainted with the Chinese may imagine it uncouth and barbarous. This low and rude language is pronounced and written many different ways, as is generally the case in other countries. But a more polished, and at the same time a much more energetic, language, is employed in an almost infinite number of novels; some perhaps true, but many more the vehicles of fiction. These are replete with livelydescriptions, characters highly finished, morality, variety, wit, and vivacity, in such a degree as to equal in purity and politeness the most celebrated authors of Europe. This was the language of the Mandarins; but though exquisitely beautiful in its kind, it was still inferior to the language of books. This last might be styled the hyper - sublime; and of it there are several degrees and intervals before an author can arrive at what is called the language of the king. This mode of writing cannot be well understood without looking upon the letters; but when understood, it appears easy and flowing. Each thought is generally expressed in four or six characters; nothing occurs that can offend the nicest ear; and the variety of the accents with which it is pronounced produces a soft and harmonious sound.

The difference between the king and their other books consists in the difference of the subjects upon which they are written. Those of the former arc always grand and sublime, and of course the style is noble and elevated. Those of the latter approach nearer to the common affairs and events of life, and are of consequence detailed in the Mandarin tongue. In writing on sublime subjects no punctuation is used. As these compositions are intended for the learned only, the author leaves to the reader to determine where the sense is complete; and those who are well skilled in the language readily find it out.

The copiousness of the Chinese language is in a great measure owing to the multitude of its characters. It is likewise occasioned, in some degree, by the difference of their signification, as also by the artificial method of conjunction, which is performed most commonly by uniting the characters two and two, frequently three and three, and sometimes four and four.

Their books are very numerous and bulky, and of course exceedingly cumbrous. A dictionary of their language was compiled in the eighteenth century. It consisted of ninety-five large volumes; and an appendix was annexed of twenty-five volumes. Their other books are voluminous in pro,· portion. The Chinese, one may say, are a nation of learned men. Few people of rank neglect the belles lettres: for [7:17:392]ignorance in a man of any degree of eminence is deemed an indelible stain on his character.^[147. For their manner of writing, the implements with which they write, and the materials upon which they draw their characters, we must refer our readers to the article Writing. It would, we believe, afford our readers considerable pleasure, could we discover and explain the reasons which have hitherto prevented the Chinese from adopting the letters employed from time immemorial by the other nations of Europe and Asia. ]

The Chinese have ever looked upon themselves as greatly superior to the rest of mankind. In ancient times they entertained such contemptible notions of foreigners, that they scorned to have any further commerce with them than to receive their homage. They were indeed, at a very early period, highly revered by the Indians, Persians, and Tartars; and in consequence of this veneration, they looked upon themselves as the favourites of Heaven. They imagined that they were situated in the middle of the earth, in a kind of paradise, in order to give laws to the rest of mankind. Other men they looked upon with contempt and disdain, deeming them deformed in body and defective in mind, cast out into the remote corners of the world as the dross and refuse of nature. They boasted that they themselves alone had received from God rational souls and beautiful bodies, in order to qualify them for being sovereigns of the species.

Such are the sentiments of the Chinese; and with such sentiments it is by no means surprising that their improvements in language, in writing, and other appendages of the belles lettres, have not been proportioned to their progress in mechanics. When people are once fully persuaded that they have already arrived at the summit of perfection, it is natural for them to sit down contented, and to solace themselves with the idea of their own superior attainments. The Chinese had early entertained an exalted opinion of their own superiority to the rest of mankind; and therefore imagined that they had already carried their inventions to the ne plus ultra of perfection. The consequence was, that they could make no exertions to carry them higher.

The Chinese, for the space of three thousand years, had almost no intercourse with the rest of mankind. This was the consequence of their insulated situation. They of course compared themselves with themselves; and finding that they excelled all their barbarian neighbours, they readily entertained an opinion that they excelled all the rest of mankind in an equal proportion. This conceit at once stifled the emotions of ambition, and deprived them of all opportunities of learning what was going forward in other parts of the world. They despised every other nation. People are little disposed to imitate those whom they despise; and this perhaps may be one reason why they are at this day so averse to adopt the inventions of Europeans.

A superstitious attachment to the customs of the ancients is the general character of the Asiatic nations. This is evidently a kind of diacritical feature amongst the Chinese. The institutions of Fold are looked up to amongst them with the same veneration as those of Thoth were amongst the Egyptians. Amongst the latter, there was a law which made it capital to introduce any innovation into the arts of music, painting, or statuary, as instituted by that legislator. We hear of no such law amongst the former; but custom established, and that invariably, for a space of three thousand years, might operate as forcibly amongst them as a positive law did amongst the people first mentioned. An attachment to ancient customs is often more powerful and more coercive than any law which can be promulgated and enforced by mere human authority. These circumstances, we think, may be assigned as the impediments to the progress of the Chinese in the belles lettres, and perhaps in the cultivation of the sciences.

Though the language of the Chinese is confessedly different from all other known languages in its character and construction, it nevertheless contains a great number of words evidently of the same origin with those which occur in other dialects, used by people, who, accordingto the natural course of things, could never have been connected with that remote country. As an appropriate conclusion to this section, we shall produce here a few of these coincidencies.

1. China, or, as the orientals write it, Sin, is perhaps the Latin sinus, the bosom, the heart, the middle. The Chinese actually imagine that their country is situated in the very middle of the earth, and consequently call it Cham, the middle, the heart, a denomination which exactly suits their opinion. 2. Tu, in Chinese, intimates every thing that falls under the cognizance of the senses, every thing that strikes the sight; in Latin, tueor. 3. Ta, a table, a a plank, a figure that renders every thing sensible; secondly, to see, to look upon, to appear; Greek ταv rava, whence reivω, tendo. 4. Tue, to examine attentively, to inspect carefully. 5. Tui, the most apparent, chief, principal, first; secondly, lightning, thunder. 6. Teu, a sign by which we know one, letter of acknowledgment. All these ideas are contained in the Hebrew 1Γ), thu, signum, which we believe has produced the Egyptian tkeuth, the god or godlike man who invented letters, geometry, music, and astronomy. 7. Tai, a dye, a theatre; Greek of old, 0eαω, then 0eaoμaι, to see, to look. 8. Tam, Latin tantum, so much. 9∙ Tan, land, country, region, a syllable annexed to the end of a great number of words, thus, Aqui tan, Aquitania, a land o. water; Mauri tan, Mauritania, the land of the Moors. The orientals prefix s, and hence Farsi stan, Farsistan, the land or country of the Persians; Chusi stan, Chusistan, the country of Chuz; Turque stan, Turquestan, the land of the Turks. 10. Ti, a chief, an emperor, a title of dignity; whence the Greek τι,ω, to honour, and also the word di, bright, glorious; ∆w, Jupiter, ∆ιov, divine, the Latin Dius, now Deus, God, and Divus, with the digamma Aeolicurn inserted, the CelticZh⅞zα, &c. It signified originally bright, glorious, and was an epithet of the sun. 11. Tum, Latin turneο, toswell. 12. Liven,to love; Hebrew ≥ t ),leb, the heart; Latin libet. This word pervades all the dialects of the Gothic tongue, still retaining either the same or a nearly analogous signification. 13. Li, letters; Latin, lino, to daub, as the Chinese actually do in forming their letters. 14. Lo, to contain, that which contains; Celtic, log; French, loge, logis, loger. 15. Lim, a rule; hence the Latin, linea, a fine. 16. Su, with; Greek, σw, with; Celtic, cyn, cym ; Latin, cum, con, &c. 17. Xim, very high, elevated, sacred, perfect; Latin, eximius. 18. Sin, the heart; Persian, Sin, the heart. 19∙ Sien, chief, first; Celtic, can, c¢an, san, the head; metaphorically, the chief, the first, the principal; Thibet, sen, or ken, great, elevated; Arabic, same, to be elevated or raised. 20. Sim, or Sing, a constellation, a star, an element; Hebrew, shem ; Greek, σημeuw, σημα , , Latin, signum. 21. Sie, a man of learning; Goth. Sax. Engh, see, to see, seer. 22. Cent, a priest; Hebrew, cohen; Syriac, con; Egyptian, can, cun. 23 Quin, a king; Celtic, ken, kend, head, chief; Gothic, koanig ; Germ. Flem. Engh, king, also queen. 24. Hu, a door; Goth. Germ. Engh, hus, hausen, house. 25. Min, a river; Welch, men, the water of a river; Latin, manο, to flow, and perhaps arnaenus, pleasant. 26. Hen, hatred; Greek, aivοτ, cruel, horrible, odious. 27. Kiven, a dog; Greek, κvωv, the same. 28. Ven, beauty; Latin, Venus, venustas ; Iceland. Swed. wen, pleasant; Scotch, winsome. 29∙ Han, the soul, breath; Greek, àveµos ; Latin, anima, animus.

To these instances of the analogy between the Chinese language and those of the other people uf Asia and Europe [7:17:393]many more might be added; but the preceding, it is hoped, will serve as a specimen, which is all that can be expected in an inquiry such as the present.^[148. See the article China in this work, particularly the portion of it which treats of the Chinese language. ]

SECT. VII. OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE.

Before we enter upon the consideration of the essential and constituent parts of this noble language, we must beg leave to settle a few preliminaries, which, we trust, will serve to throw some light upon many points that will come under our consideration in the course of the following disquisition.

The Greeks, according to the most authentic accounts, were descended of Javan or Jon, the fourth son of Japhet, the eldest son of the patriarch Noah. The Scriptures of old, and all the orientals to this day, call the Greeks Jonim, or Jaunam, or Javenoth. We have already observed, in the beginning of the article concerning the Hebrew language, that only a few of the descendants of Ham, and the most profligate of the posterity of Shem and Japhet, were concerned in building the tower of Babel. We shall not now resume the arguments then collected in support of that position, but proceed to investigate the character of that branch of the posterity of Javan which inhabited Greece and the neighbouring regions.

At what period the colonists arrived in these parts cannot be certainly determined; nor is it of any great importance in the question before us. That they carried along with them into their new settlements the language of Noah and his family, is, we think, a point which cannot be controverted. We have endeavoured to prove that the Hebrew, or at least one or other of its sister-dialects, was the primeval language of mankind. The Hebrew, then, or one of its cognate branches, was the original dialect of the Jonim or Greeks.

But however this may be, before these people make their appearance in profane history, their language appears to have deviated very widely from this original archetype. By what means, at what period, and in what length of time this change was introduced, is, we believe, a matter not easy to be elucidated. That it was progressive, is abundantly certain from the rules both of analogy and of reason.

The colonies, which traversed a large tract of country before they arrived at their destined settlements, must have struggled with numberless difficulties in the course of their peregrinations. The earth, during the period which immediately succeeded the universal deluge, must have been covered with forests, and intersected with swamps, lakes, rivers, and numberless other impediments. As the necessaries, and a few of the conveniencies of life, will always engross the first cares of mankind, the procuring of these comforts will, of necessity, exclude all concern about arts and sciences which are unconnected with such primary pursuits. Hence we think it probable, that most of those colonies that migrated to a very great distance from the plains of Shinar, which are believed to have been the original seat of mankind, in a great measure neglected the practice of the polite but unnecessary modes of civilization, which their ancestors were acquainted with and practised before the era of their migration. Certain it is, that those nations which continued to reside in the neighbourhood of that centre of civilization, always appear in a cultivated state; whilst, at the same time, the colonists who removed to a considerable distance appear to have sunk into barbarism, at a period more early than the annals of profane history can reach. This appears to have been the situation of the primary inhabitants of Greece. Their own historians, the most partial to their own countrymen that can well be imagined, exhibit a very unpromising picture of their earliest progenitors. Diodorus Siculus, in delineating the character of the original men, sketches his outline, we believe, from the first inhabitants of Greece.^[149. Lib. i∙ ] He represents them as absolute savages, going out in small parties to make war upon the wild beasts of the field, which, according to him, kept them in continual alarm. “Necessity obliged them to band together for their mutual security; they had not sagacity enough to distinguish between the wholesome and poisonous vegetables; nor had they skill enough to lay up and preserve the fruits of autumn for their subsistence during the winter.” The scholiast on Pindar describes the situation of the inhabitants of Peloponnesus in the following manner:^[150. Python, ode 4. ] “Now some have affirmed that the nymphs, who officiated in performing the sacred writes, were called Melissae. Of these Mnaseas of Patara gives the following account. They prevailed upon men to relinquish the abominable practice of eating raw flesh torn from living animals, and persuaded them to use the fruits of trees for food. Melissa, one of them, having discovered bee-hives, ate of the honey-combs, mingled the honey with water for drink, and taught the other nymphs to use the same beverage. She called bees Mε-λιπσαι, Melissae, from her own name, and bestowed much care on the management of them. These things,” says he, “happened in Peloponnesus; nor is the temple of Ceres honoured without nymphs, because they first pointed out the mode of living on the fruits of the earth, and put an end to the barbarous practice of feeding on human flesh. The same ladies, too, from a sense of decency, invented garments made of the bark of trees.”

Hecataeus the Milesian, treating of the Peloponnesians, affirms,^[151. Strabo, lib. vii. ] “that before the arrival of the Hellenes, a race of barbarians inhabited that region; and that almost all Greece was, in ancient times, inhabited by barbarians.^[152. Id. lib. i. ] “In the earliest times,” says Pausanias, “barbarians inhabited most part of the country called Hellasl ’^[153. The Greeks borrowed this contemptuous epithet from the Egyptians. See Herod. lib. ii cap. 158∙ ] ^ The original Greeks, if we may believe an author of deep research and superior ingenuity,^[154. Plin. Hist. Nat. ] were strangers to all the most useful inventions of life. Even the use of fire was unknown till it was found out and communicated by Prometheus, who is believed to have been one of the first civilizers of mankind. Hence Aeschylus introduces Prometheus commemorating the benefits which he had conferred upon mankind by his inventions,^[155. Prometh, verse 441. ] in a strain that indicates the uncultivated state of the world prior to the age in which he flourished.

“Of the human race

Now hear the tale, how foolish erst they were: I taught them thought and exercise of reason: If aught they saw before, they saw in vain.

Hearing, they heard not; all was shapeless dreams For a long space of time, at random mixt In wild confusion: for they neither knew Tile-cover’d houses standing in the sun, Nor timber-work; but, like the earth-bred ant, They lodg’d in sunless caves dug under ground: No certain sign had they of winter cold, Nor of the tìow’ry spring, or summer store, But blindly managed all; till I them taught What time the stars appear, what time they set, Hard to be scan’d: then arithmetic rare, That queen of arts, by dint of patient thought Descry’d, I taught them ,∙ and how vocal sounds From letters join’d arose.”

This character, although applied to mankind in general, was in reality that of the most ancient Greeks. These for [7:17:394]bidding features had been transmitted to the poet by tradition as those of his ancestors; but he was a Greek, and consequently imputes them to all mankind without distinction.

Phoroneus, the son and successor of Inachus,^[156. Plato. ] is said to have civilized the Argives, and taught them the use of some new inventions. This circumstance raised his character so high among the savage aborigines of the country, that succeeding ages deemed him the first of men.^[157. Pausanias, lib. viii. c. ι. ] Pelasgus obtained a similar character, because he taught the Arcadians to live upon the fruit of the fagus, to build sheds to shelter them from the cold, and to make garments of the skins of swine.

But what most clearly demonstrates the unpolished character of the ancient Greeks is, the extravagant honours lavished by them upon the inventors of useful and ingenious arts. Most of these persons were advanced to divine honours, and became the objects of religious worship to succeeding generations. The family of the Titans affords a most striking instance of this species of adulation. Jupiter, Juno, Mars, Apollo, Venus, Diana, and others, were sprung of this family. By the useful inventions which these persons communicated to the uncultivated nations of Greece, they obtained such lasting and extravagant honours, that they jostled out the sidereal divinities of the country, and possessed their high rank as long as Paganism prevailed in those regions. To these clear testimonies of the savage character of the original Greeks, others almost without number might be added; but those produced in the preceding part of this inquiry will, we trust, satisfy every candid reader as to the truth of the position advanced.

Whilst matters were in this situation with respect to the primitive Jonim or Greeks, a new colony arrived in those parts, which in a few years considerably changed the face of affairs. The people who composed this colony were called Pelasgi ; concerning whose origin, country, character, and adventures, much has been written, and many different opinions have been held by the learned. It is not our province to enter into a detail of their arguments and systems; and we shall content ourselves with informing our readers, that, according to one opinion, they were natives either of Egypt or of Phoenicia, whilst according to another, and that perhaps the most generally received, they were of Thracian, or, in other words, of Gothic origin. See the article Pelasgians.

In a very able dissertation upon this subject, it has been proved by many plausible arguments, that this people could not be descendants of the Egyptians nor Phoenicians. The author maintains, that the Pelasgians were a great and numerous tribe; that they overspread all the coast of Asia Minor from Mount Mycale to Troas; that they were at one time masters of nearly all the Asiatic and Grecian islands; that they overran Greece andmanyofthe neighbouring countries; and that all this they effected in less than half a century. These facts he appears to have proved from Homer, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias, and other Greek authors of approved authenticity. He shows, that they were a civilized race of men, and that they were well acquainted with military affairs, legislation, agriculture, navigation, architecture, letters, &c. He insists, that Phoenicia could not at any given period have furnished such a numerous body of emigrants, even supposing that the whole nation had emigrated, leaving their native country a desert. He believes that this event took place before the invasion of Caanan by the Israelites, and that consequently the Pelasgic migration was not occasioned by that catastrophe. He has shown, we think, by very probable arguments, that the Egyptians in the earliest ages were averse to foreign expeditions, especially by sea; that in fact they hated navigation, and, besides, could be under no temptation to emigrate; and that, whilst they had accustomed themselves to live on small matters, their country was exceedingly fertile and easily cultivated. It appears from Herodotus, that the Pelasgians were not acquainted with the religion of the Zabians, which, he conceives, could not have been the case had they emigrated from either of these countries. He makes it appear, that Herodotus is mistaken when he supposes that the deities of Greece were derived from Egypt. He demonstrates, that the names of the greater part of those divinities are of Phoenician extraction; and this opinion he establishes by a very plausible etymological deduction. He asserts, that if the Pelasgians had been natives of either of the countries above mentioned, it would be absurd to suppose them to have been ignorant of the names and the religious rites of their respective nations. He shows, that the Egyptian and Phoenician colonies, which afterwards settled in Greece, were enemies of the Pelasgians, and either subdued or expelled them the country; which, he imagines, would scarcely have been the case had both parties sprung from the same ancestors. And, having settled these points, he concludes, that the people in question were the progeny of the Arabian shepherds, who, at a very early period, invaded and subdued both Lower and Upper Egypt, and after possessing that country for about a century and a half, were conquered by Amenophis king of Upper Egypt, who drove them out of the country; upon which the fugitives retired to Palestine, where Manetho the Egyptian historian loses sight of them, and either through malice or ignorance confounds them with the Israelites. This writer supposes that these fugitives gradually directed their course towards the western and north-western coasts of Asia Minor, whence they passed over to Greece. Such are the arguments by which the author of the dissertation above referred to supports his hypothesis, and, as we think, proves a negative against the opinion that the Pelasgians were natives ofEgypt or Phoenicia.^[158. If our readers should wish to know more of this subject, they may consult Gebelin’s Preliminary Discourse to his Greek Dictionary, Lord Monboddo’s Inquiry into the Origin and Progress of Language, vol. i. towards the end, and Mr. Bryant’s Analysis of Ancient Mythology, passim. ]

Butbe this as itmay, nothing seems more certain than that the Pelasgians were the first people who in some degree civilized the savages of ancient Greece. It is not our business at present to enumerate the many useful inventions which they communicated to the Greeks, at that time worse than barbarians. We deem it absolutely necessary, however, as an introduction to our subject, to hazard a few conjectures on the language and letters of those adventurers; a point strictly connected with the subject which is about to come under consideration.

Whether we suppose the Pelasgians to have been the offspring of the Phoenicians, Egyptians, or Arabian shepherds, it will make little difference as to their language; because every man of learning and research is convinced that those three nations, especially at the early period in question, spoke a dialect of the Hebrew. The Pelasgians, then, must have spoken a dialectof thatlanguage when they arrived in Greece. Perhaps it might have undergone several changes, and acquired some new modifications, during the many years which had passed since they began to be a separate nation, and in the course of numerous peregrinations. Some monuments still extant prove this fact beyond all contradiction. As these people incorporated with the aborigines of Greece, the remains of the original language of mankind, or at least as much of it as had been retained by them, gradually coalesced with that of the new settlers. From this, we think, it is obvious, that prior to the arrival of the new colonists from the East, the language now current amongst the two united tribes must have been a dialect of the Phoenician, Arabian, or Hebrew. Butbe this as it may, Herodotus^[159. < Lib. i. cap. 59. ] affirms that the [7:17:395]Pelasgians in his time spoke a barbarous language, quite unintelligible to the modern Greeks.

The reason of this difference between the language of the Hellenes or Greeks in the age of Herodotus, and that of the remains of the Pelasgians at that period, may easily be conjectured. Previously to the era of that historian, the Greek language had, from time to time, undergone many changes, and received vast improvements; whereas, on the contrary, that of the remnant of the Pelasgians, who were now reduced to a very low state, had remained stationary, and was then just in the same predicament in which it had been a century after their arrival in the country.

Since the Pelasgians, as was above observed, were a people highly civilized and well instructed in the various arts at that time known in the eastern world, they must have been skilled in agriculture, architecture, music, and other arts.^[160. The Arcadians, who were a Pelasgian tribe, were highly celebrated for their skill in music, an art which they introduced into Italy. See Dion. Halicaτ. lib. i. ] The presumption then is that they could not be unacquainted with alphabetical writing. This most useful art was well known in the countries from which they emigrated; and of course it is impossible to imagine that they did not export it as well as the others above mentioned. Diodorus Siculus imagines^[161. Lib. iii. ] that the Pelasgians knew not the use of alphabetical letters, but that they received them from Cadmus and his Phoenician followers; and that these letters were afterwards called Pelasgic, because the Pelasgians were the first people of Greece who adopted them. But this account must be placed to the score of national vanity, since soon afterwards he acknowledges that Linus wrote the exploits of the first Bacchus and several other romantic fables in Pelasgian characters;^[162. Ibid. ] and that Orpheus, and Pronapides the master of Homer, employed the same kind of letters. Zenobius likewise informs us that Cadmus slew Linus for teaching characters different from his.^[163. Dr. Gregory Sharp’s Strictures on the Greek Language. ] These letters could be none other than the Pelasgic.^[164. See Plate CCGCIX. ]

Pausanias, in his Attics, relates, that he himself saw an inscription upon the tomb of Coraebus, who lived at the time when Crotopus, who was contemporary with Deucalion, reigned as king of the Argives.^[165. Lib. i. cap. 49. ] ® This inscription then was prior to the arrival of Cadmus; and consequently letters were known in Greece before they were introduced by that chief. It likewise appears from Herodotus himself, that the Ionians were in possession of alphabetical characters before the landing of the Phoenicians. “For,” says he, “the Ionians having received letters from the Phoenicians, changing the figure and sound of some of them, ranged them with their own, and in this manner continued to use them afterwards.”^[166. Lib. i. c. 58. ] If, then, the Ionians ranged the Phoenician characters with their own, it is obvious that they had alphabetical characters of their own.^[167. The Athenians were originally called Ionians. ]

Besides these historical proofs of the existence of Pelasgian characters, monuments bearing inscriptions in the same letters have been discovered in several parts of Greece and Italy, which place this point beyond the reach of controversy. What these characters were may easily be determined. As the Pelasgians emigrated from Arabia, the presumption is that their letters were Phoenician. They are said by Dr. Swinton to have been only thirteen in number, whereas the Phoenician alphabet consists of sixteen. The three additional letters were probably invented by the latter people after the Pelasgians had left the countries of the East. The Phoenician letters imported by the Pelasgians were, no doubt, of a very coarse and clumsy contexture, unfavourable to expedition in writing, and unpleasant to the sight. Besides, the Phoenician characters had not as yet received their names; and accordingly the Romans, who derived their letters from the Arcadian Pelasgians,^[168. Livii, lib-i. c. 7. ] had no names for theirs. The probability is, that prior to this era the Pelasgian letters had not been distinguished by names. These were of course no other than the original letters of the Phoenicians in their first uncouth and irregular form; and for this reason they easily gave way to the Cadmean, which were more beautiful, more regular, and better adapted for expedition.

Hitherto we have seen the Pelasgians and the Ionim incorporated, living under the same laws, speaking the same language, and using the same letters. But another nation, and one too of great extent and populousness, had at an early period taken possession of a considerable part of the country afterwards distinguished by the name of Hellas or Greece. The Thracians, according to the father of Grecian history, were a great and mighty nation, indeed inferior to none except the Indians.^[169. Herod lib v. c∙ 3. ] This people, at a very early period, had extended their conquests over all the northern parts of that country. They were, in ancient times, a learned and polished nation. From them, in succeeding ages, the Greeks derived many useful and ornamental sciences. Orpheus the musician, the legislator, the poet, the philosopher, and the divine, is known to have been of Thracian extraction.^[170. Orpheus seems to be compounded of two oriental words, or, light, and phi, the mouth; though some deduce it from the Arabian arif, a learned man. ] Thamyris and Linus were his disciples, and were highly respected amongst the Greeks for their learning and ingenuity. That this people spoke the same language with the Greeks, is abundantly evident from the connection between the latter and these old Thracian bards. ' The Thracian language, then, whatever it was, contributed in a great proportion towards forming that of the Greeks. From the remains of the Thracian dialect there appears to have been a very strong resemblance between it and the Chaldaic. This position we could readily support by the most plausible etymological deductions, did the limits prescribed us in this article admit of such a discussion. It appears, however, that the Thracians, the Getae, and theDaci orDavi, spoke nearly the same language.^[171. Strabo, lib· i∙ and vii. ] The Goths, so much celebrated in the annals of the lower empire, were the descendants of the Getae and Daci, and consequently must have retained the dialect of their ancestors. The reader, therefore, must not be surprised, if in tracing the materials of which the Greek language is composed, we should sometimes have recourse to the remains of the Gothic.

We have now discovered three branches of the Greek language; that of the Ionim or Aborigines, that of the Pelasgic tribes, and that of the Thracians. These three, we imagine, were only different dialects of the very same original tongue. This assertion might easily be proved by the comparison of a great number of words taken from the two last, were this a proper place for such a discussion.

Some centuries after the arrival of the Pelasgians, Cadmus, an Egyptian by birth,^[172. Joseph Scaliger’s account of the origin of the Ionic letters. Eusebius, Chronicon. ] and a sojourner in Phoenicia, arrived in Boeotia with a multitude of followers; and this chief with his countrymen introduced letters and several other useful improvements into the country in question. As these immigrants were natives of Phoenicia and its environs, their alphabet was that of their native country, consisting of sixteen letter’s. That the Phoenician alphabet was nearly the same with the Samaritan and Hebrew, has so often and so clearly been demonstrated by the learned that it would be altogether superfluous to insist upon it in the presentinquiry. The Phoenicians, as is generally known, wrote from right to left, and the old Grecian characters, inverted, exactly resemble the Phoenician.
[7:17:396]

The names of the Cadmean characters are Syrian,^[173. Scaliger ] which shows the close resemblance between that language and the Phoenician. They stand thus, viz. alpha, beta, gamla, delta, &c. The Syrians used to add a to the Hebrew words; hence alph becomes alpha, beth, bethaor beta,andsoon. In the Cadmean alphabet we find the vowel letters, which is an infallible proof that such was the practice of the Phoenicians in the age of Cadmus; and this circumstance also furnishes a presumption that the Jews did the same at the period in question. After all, it is evident that the oldest Greek letters, which are written from right to left, differ very little from those of the Pelasgians. The four double letters θ, φ, ξ, χ, are said to have been added by Palamedes about twenty years before the war of Troy. Simonides is generally supposed to have added the letters ζ, η, ψ, though it appears by ancient inscriptions that these letters were used before the days of Palamedes and Simonides.

In the year 1456 seven brazen tables were discovered at Eugubium, now Gobbio, a city of Umbria in the Apennines, five of which were written in Pelasgian or Etruscan characters, and two in Latin. The first of these tables is believed to have been composed about one hundred and sixty-eight years after the taking of Troy, or twelve hundred and six years before Christ. By comparing the inscription on these tables with the old Ionic characters, the curious have been enabled to discover the resemblance. The old Ionic character written from right to lcft continued in general use for several centuries. It was composed of the Cadmean and Pelasgian characters, with some valuations of form, position, and sound. The Athenians continued to use this character till the year of Rome 350. The old Ionic was gradually improved into the new, and this quickly became the reigning mode. But after the old Ionic was laid aside, the (βουστροφηδόν) Bustrophedon, came into practice, which goes backwards and forwards as the ox does when ploughing.^[174. Pausan. lib. viii∙ cap. 17. ] They carried the line forward from the left, and then backward to the right. The words were all placed close together, and few small letters were used before the fourth century. Such of our readers as wish to know more of letters and alphabets, may consult Chishul, Morton, Postellus, Montfaucon, Gebelin, Astle, and others. For our own part we are chiefly concerned at present with the Phoenician and Cadmean systems; and on these perhaps we may have dwelt too long.

Having now, we hope, sufficiently proved that the Greek alphabet was derived from the Phoenician, in order to convince our readers of the certainty of our position, as it were by ocular demonstration, we shall annex a scheme of both alphabets, to which we shall at the same time subjoin some strictures upon such letters of the Greek alphabet as admit of any ambiguity in their nature and application.

A, alpha, had two sounds, the one broad like a in the English word all; the other slender, as e va end, spend, defend. The Hebrews certainly used it so, because they had no other letter to express that sound; the Arabs actually call the first of their alphabet clif ; and they as well as the Phoenicians employ that letter to express both the sound of A and E promiscuously. The Greeks call their letter E e-φι ∖ ov, that is E slender, which seems to have been introduced to supply the place of A slender. H, eta, was originally the mark of the spiritus asper, and no doubt answered to the Hebrew rτ. It is still retained in that capacity in the word Heκατov, and in other with the spiritus asper beginning books, chapters, sections, &c. E originally marked both the sound of ^E<φiKov and Hτα; that is, it was sometimes sounded short, as at present, and sometimes long, where it is now supplied by H. As it was found convenient to distinguish these two different quantities of sound by different letters, they adopted H, the former spiritus asper, to denote the long sound of E, and substituted the present spiritus asper ['] in its place. I, iota, is the Hebrew or Phoenician jod or god. It appears to have originally served the purpose both of iota and ypsilon. It had two different sounds; the one broad and full, the other weak and slender. The latter had the sound of the modern ύψιλον. That this was actually the case, appears from several monumental Inscriptions; and upon this depends the valuation of some cases of the demonstrative pronoun and of the second declension. 0, omicron, or small o, in the original Greek had three different sounds. It sounded o short, as at present; and likewise o long, now denoted by Ω or large 0. It likewise marked the sound of the improper diphthong ου, sounded like the English diphthong oo. The Ω was taken from the Phoenician wau or V. Y, ypsilon, we have observed before, was adopted to supply a mark for the sound of I slender. 7.,zeta,\& compounded of δ and s. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, however, informs us, that this letter should be pronounced σδ, according to the Doric plan, θ, theta, was not known in the old Greek. It is compounded of τ and the spiritus asper, both which were of old written separately, thus TH. S, xi, is compounded of γs, κs, χs. These letters, too, were originally written separately. Φ, phi. This letter is compounded of /3, π, and the spiritus asper ; thus, BH, PH. X, chi, like the foregoing, is compounded of γ, κ, and the spiritus asper as above. Ψ, psi, like some of the rest, is made up of βs, ¶-s, which, teo, were originally written in separate characters.

These observations are thrown together purely for the use of students who may not choose to inquire into the minutiae ; and we regret that the nature of the work does not permit us to extend our researches to greater length. Every language, we believe, was originally composed of inflexible words; and the variations which now distinguish nouns and verbs were the effects of progressive improvements. What might have been the state of the Greek language with respect to these variations in its original form, it is not now possible to discover. That it was rude and irregular, will not, we imagine, be controverted. One of the first attempts towards forming the variations, now denominated declensions and conjugations, would probably be made upon the demonstrative article and the substantive verb. This observation will be found to hold good in most polished languages. In the Greek tongue, it was evidently the method employed.

The original Greek article was imported from the East. It was the Hebrew or Phoenician rr ha. This particle sometimes signifies one, and sometimes it answers to our demonstrative the; and both in its adverbial and demonstrative capacity it imports demonstration. In the earliest stages of the two oriental languages, however, it was probably written apart, as ha-melech, the king; but in process of time it came to be joined with the following word, as Hamrnelech. From this we think the Greek article was deduced; and it is still retained in the Doric dialect in its pristine character. The difference between ho and ha in the eastern language is nothing. Here then we have the articles ó masculine, and ά feminine. Upon these several changes were superinduced, to render them more useful for the purposes of language; but for such changes we know of no archetype.

The Greeks then having adopted the Hebrew, or Phoenician, or Chaldaic article lia, and changed it into hο for the masculine, seem to have arranged its variations in the following manner :—
[table]
[7:17:397]

In the earliest stages of the Greek language, ι and υ were sounded in the same manner, or nearly so, as was observed above. The accusative was at first like the nominative; but for distinction’s sake it was made to terminate in v, which letter was likewise adopted to characterise the genitive plural; and s was annexed to the dative plural, to distinguish it from the dative singular. The radical word was still without inflexion. When the article was inflected in this manner, the process stood as follows. We take λογοί as an example.
[table]

In this arrangement our readers will observe, that at the time under consideration, ω was not yet introduced; and therefore opικpov or little o was the same letter in the genitive plural as in the accusative singular; but in the latter case it was sounded long by way of distinction.

The article ha, which is still retained in the Doric dialect, was varied as follows :—
[table]

These variations differ somewhat from those of the masculine type; and they were no doubt made for the sake of distinction, as is usual in such cases. We shall now give an example of the feminine as it must have stood before variations were introduced, and for this purpose shall employ upn.
[table]

Afterwards, when the Chaldean article da was adopted for the neuter gender, the letter *; or d was changed into τ, and prefixed to it; and then the Greeks, who, in their declension of adjectives, always followed the neuter gender, began to prefix it to the oblique cases.

In this manner, we think, the Greek nouns stood originally; the only change made being that upon the article. At length, instead of prefixing that word, and expressing it by itself, they found it convenient to affix a fragment of it to the noun, and so to pronounce both with more expedition. Thus, όί-λογ e. g. became λογ-ós·, òv λoγ became λoγ òv, and of course λoγo; and λoγoυ, &c. The spiritus asper, or rough breathing, was thrown away, in order to facilitate the coalition. Nouns of the neuter gender were distinguished by using υ instead of $·; and in oriental words the Greeks often change? into v, and vice versa. In this case the Greeks seem to have copied from an eastern archetype. In Hebrew we find an arrangement exactly similar. To supply the place of the pronouns possessive, fragments of the personals were affixed. Thus, the Hebrews wrote ben-i, my son, instead of ben-ani, and debir-ηu, our words, instead of debir-anu. The persons of their verbs were formed in the same manner. In this way, in our opinion, the variations of the first and second declensions were produced.

After a very considerable number of their nouns were arranged under these two classes, there remained an almost indefinite number of others which could not conveniently be brought under these arrangements, because their terminations did not readily coalesce with the articles above mentioned. These, like nouns of the neuter gender, were in a manner secluded from the society of the two other classifications; and it is probable that they for a long time continued indeclinable. At last, however, an effort was made to reduce them into a class as well as the others. All these excluded nouns originally terminated with sigma, as appears from the genitives as they stand at present. By observing this case, then, we will be readily conducted to the termination of the pristine word or root. The genitive always ends in os, which termination is formed by inserting o between the radical word and?. By throwing out o we have the ancient nominative. Thus, r l’craν, genitive r Γιτavos ; leaving out o we have r Γιτavs, the original inflexible termination. Aητω, genitive Aητoos ; throw out o and you have Aητos. ∏αλλαs, genitive ∏aλλaδoy; take away o and there remains πaλλaδs. Op-vis, genitive Opvιθos ; by throwing out o we have Opviôs. Αναξ, genitive Avaκτos, Avaκτs. Kparos, genitive Kpareos, Kparns", originally Kparos, because primarily ε had the sound of η, as was observed above. Mελt, genitive Mελwos, Meaιτy. Eιδof, genitive Etδεos∙, Etδεs∙, the old noun. In short, the genitive is always formed by inserting o immediately before j, which is always the termination of the nominative; and by this rule, we may easily discover the noun as it existed in its original form.

The dative of this declension was closed with ι ascriptum; the same thing occurred in that of the second, namely, t subscriptum. The accusative commonly terminate with a ; but was originally ended with v. The Romans imitated the Aeolic dialect, and they commonly ended it with ern or im. The Greeks perhaps in this imitated their progenitors, for a was their favourite vowel. The nominative plural ended in εj, which nearly resembles the English plural, and was probably borrowed from the Thracians. The genitive plural in all the declensions ends in a>v ; the dative ends in σι, the σ being inserted to distinguish it from the dative singular. When a strong consonant, which would not easily coalesce with s, comes immediately before it, that consonant is thrown out to avoid a harsh or difficult sound. The result then is; the cases of nouns of the first and second declensions consist of the radical word with fragments of the articles annexed, and these were the first classifications of nouns. The other nouns were left out for some time, and might be denominated neuters; but at length they too were classified, and their variations formed as above. In this process the Greeks deviated from the oriental plan; for the people of the East always declined their nouns by particles prefixed. Whether the Greeks were gainers by this new process, we will not pretend positively to determine. We are inclined to imagine, however, that they lost as much in perspicuity as they gained in variety.

It is generally believed that the Greeks have no ablative; but to this opinion we cannot assent. It is true, that the dative, and what we would call the ablative, are always the same; yet we think there is no more reason to believe that the latter is wanting in Greek, than that the ablative plural is wanting in Latin, because in that language both these cases are always alike.

In the eastern languages there are only two genders, analogous to the established, order of nature, where all animals are either male or female. But as the people of the East are, to this day, strongly addicted to personification, they ranged all objects of which they had occasion to speak, whether animate or inanimate, under one or other of these two classes. Hence arose what is now called the masculine and feminine genders. The orientals knew nothing whatever of a neuter gender, because all objects were comprehended under the two foregoing classes. The Phoenician feminine was formed from the masculine,by adding fix, ah. In this the Greeks in many cases imitated them. The Greeks and Latins left a vast number of substantives, like a kind of outcasts, without reducing them to any gender; and this proceeding gave rise to the neuter gender, which imports, that such substantives were of neither gender; a circumstance which has the appearance of a defect, or rather a blemish, in both. Sometimes, too, they made words neuter, which, according to the analogy of grammar, ought to have been either masculine or ferai-nine[7:17:398]; and again, they ranged words under the masculine or feminine, which by the same rule ought to have been neuter. In short, the doctrine of generical distribution seems to have been very little regarded by the fabricators of both tongues. The beauty which arises from variety seems to have been their only object.

The use of the article in the Greek language is, we think, rather indeterminate, being often prefixed to proper names, where there is no need of demonstration or generical distinction. On the contrary, it is often omitted in cases where both the one and the other seem to require its assistance. In short, in some cases it seems to be a mere expletive. Though both Lord Monboddo and Mr. Harris have treated of this part of speech, neither the one nor the other has ascertained its proper use.^[175. See Origin and, Progress of Language, vol. ii∙ p∙ 53. Hermes, p. 214, ei seq. ] We know not any objection to the early use of articles amongst the Greeks so plausible as the total neglect of them amongst the Romans. But it ought to be considered, that after the flexions had been introduced, the use of the article was in a great measure neglected. Accordingly, Lord Monboddo observes that it is very seldom used as such by Homer, but commonly instead of the relative pronoun ós, η, <5. Thus it would appear, that at the time when the Roman language was reduced to the Grecian standard, the article was not commonly used by the Greeks; and consequently the Latins never employed it. There can be no doubt that the pronoun who, in the northern languages, is the same with the Greek 6, and the Hebrew hua. This amongst the northern nations is always a relative, which affords a presumption that the Greeks originally used the article in the same manner as we do at present. The fact is, that the articles having once got into vogue, were often positively used as mere expletives to fill up a gap; and, on the other hand, when there was no occasion for pointing out an object, fully determined by the tenor of the discourse, it was often omitted.

In forming adjectives, they followed the same plan that they had done with substantives. Their great effort was to make their adjectives agree with their substantives in gender, in number, and in case. This arrangement improved the harmony of speech; and nothing could be more natural than to make the word expressing the quality correspond with the subject to which it belonged. As adjectives denote qualities, and are thus susceptible of degrees, nature taught them to invent marks for expressing the difference of these degrees. The qualities may exceed or fall below each other by almost numberless proportions; it was, however, found convenient to restrict such increments and decrements to two denominations. The positive is, properly speaking, no degree of comparison at all; therefore we need only point out the formation of the comparative and superlative. The former is generally thought to have been fabricated, by first adding the Hebrew wordin', excellent, to the positive, and then affixing the Greek termination os ; and the latter, by affixing the Syrian word tath and the syllablè or, in the same manner.

Every nation, even the most uncivilized, must have early acquired the notion of number. Numerical characters and names are the same in many different languages. These terms were discovered, and in use, long before grammar attained to any perfection; and therefore they remain either inflexible or irregular. The first way of computing amongst the Greeks was by the letters of the alphabet; so that A signified one, and Ω twenty-four ; in this manner the rhapsodies of Homer are numbered; and so are the divisions of some of the Psalms, as is generally known. But a more artificial plan of computation was obviously necessary. They therefore divided the letters of the alphabet into decades or tens, from A to I — 10. To express the number 6, they inserted r; so that by this means the first decade amounted to 10. In the next decade every letter increased by tens, and so P denoted 100. In this decade they inserted 4 κoππα = 90. In the third, every letter rose by 100; so that ≈) ) σαwrt =≈ 900. By inserting these three Phoenician characters they made their alphabet amount to 900. To^express chiliads or thousands, they began with the letters of the alphabet as before; and to make the distinction, they placed a dot under each character, as the units, tens, hundreds, were distinguished by an acute accent over them.

But in monumental inscriptions, and also in public instruments, a larger and more lasting numerical character was fabricated. They began with I, and repeated that letter till they arrived at ∏ = 5. This is the first letter of πεvτε,five. They then proceeded, by repeating I till they came to 10 Δ, the first letter of δeκα, 10. Then they repeated Δ over and over, so that four ∆ = 40. To express 50, they inclosed Δ in a sort of open square ∣∆; = 50, ∣H∣= 500, ∣m∣ = 50,000, &c. Often, however, Xsignifies 1000, and then we have διs Χίλιοι, 2000; τpis Xιλιot, 3000; and so of the rest.

The term pronoun signifies a word employed instead of a noun or name; and indeed the personal pronouns are really such. This needs no explication. The pronoun of the first person is one of those words which have continued invariable in all languages; and the other personals are of the same character. The relatives, possessives, demonstratives, and gentiles, are generally derived from these, as may be discerned by a very moderate adept in the language. Our readers will therefore, we hope, easily dispense with our dwelling upon this part of speech.

In most ancient languages, verbs, according to the order of nature, have only three tenses or times, namely, the past, the present, and the future. The intermediate tenses were the invention of more refined ages. The Greek, in the most early periods of their language, had no other tenses than those above mentioned. The manner of forming these we shall endeavour to point out, without touching upon the nature of the rest, since an idea of them may be acquired from any common grammar.

It has already been observed, that the flexion of nouns of the first and second declensions are formed by annexing fragments of the articles to the radical words; and that the variation of the tenses was produced by joining the substantive verb, according to the same analogy. Every Greek verb was originally an inflexible biliteral, triliteral, quadriliteral or dissyllabic radix; and the variations were formed, a long while afterwards, in the manner above intimated.

The Greeks derived their substantive or auxiliary verb, from the Phoenician or Chaldean verb TT'FT, fait, which verb, taking away the gentle aspiration from both beginning and end, actually became «. This form the Greeks brought along with them from the East, and manufactured after their own manner, which appears to have been thus:
[table]

We here place oσι in the third person plural, because for many centuries oμικρov supplied the sound of the diphthong oυ. By these variations it will appear that the radical verb was rendered capable of inflection. We have observed that Greek verbs were a collection of biliteral, triliteral, or quadriliteral, radical words. The following may serve as examples: τι, λeγ, Map, τυπ, <pαv, rav, pan, ∆aμ, ∆ηλ, ∆xικ. These radicals are taken at random; and we believe that a student of Greek, by adding the terminations, will readily find them to be all significant verbs. With these radicals, then, and the substantive verb, the present and future tenses were formed.

But it is now generally admitted that the modern was not [7:17:399]the original present tense of the verb. The second, or Attic future, appears evidently to have been the most ancient present. When the language was improved, or rather in the course of being improved, a new present was invented, derived indeed from the former, but differing widely from it in its appearance and complexion. Upon this occasion, the old present was degraded, and instead of intimating what was doing at present, was made to import what was immediately to be done hereafter. By this means, γραφeω, contracted in γpaφω, lam writing, came to intimate, I am just going to write. This change was probably made for the sakeof enriching the language,andgivingvaricty and energy. Thus, τvπeα> contracted τυπω became τυπτω, τικω, τικτω, &c. Accordingto this theory, we find, thatsuch verbs as havenow no second future retain their original form, only the circumflex has been removed in order to accommodate them to the general standard. Grammarians have chosen the three characteristic letters of active verbs from the present, first future, and perfect: but the true characteristic of the original verb was that of the present second future. Many verbs are now destitute of this tense, because since the invention of the new present, the former one has fallen into disuse.

Let us now take the verb aevω. dico in order to make a trial; and let us write the radix and the auxiliary, first separately, and then in conjunction. Thus, λ∈γ-eω, λeγ-ees, λeγ-ee, ~keγ-eομey, aey-eer∈, λeγ-eoσι. Then we shall have Contracted aeyω, aey∈⅛, aey∈ι, ~keγουμey, λeγeιτe, λeγoυσι. Here, we believe, every thing is self-evident. The English of this would be, “Saying, I am, saying thou art, saying he is,” &c. At first the radix and the auxiliary were pronounced separately, as we do our auxiliary verbs in English, and would have been written in the same manner if words had been then distinguished in writing.

The present first future occupied the same place which it now does, and concurred in its turn to complete the future in conjunction with the radix or root. That the substantive verb was inflected in the manner above explained, is obvious from its future middle eσομαι, and also from the future of the Latin verb sum, which was of old eso, esis, &c. Verbs in λω, μω, vω, pω, often take σω in the first future.^[176. See Foed. Cret. αp. Marrn. Oxon. lib. 87∙ ] Verbs in λω and pω assume σ by analogy, as κ∈λλω, κe ∖ σω, Eurip. Hecub. V. 1057. κeλσαι, Hom. Odyss. X. V. 511. reaλω, reaσω, Unde riKσοv, II. X.v.707∙ οpω.οpσομey, Pind. Nem. Cd. 9∙Duθdec.2. reipω, repoti, Theoc. Idyll. 22. v.63. In fine, the Aeolic dialect after the liquids often inserted σ.

It must be observed, that the Greeks, in order to accelerate the pronunciation, always throw out the ∈ and o, except in verbs ending in αω, ∈ω, oω, where they generally change them into η and ω. When the last letter of the radix can coalesce with σ after ∈ is thrown out, they transform it, so as to answer that purpose; but if not, they sometimes throw it out. We shall once more take λeγω as an example:

^keγ-eσω, ^keγ-eoeLS, λeγ-∈σα, &C·

Throwing out e, it would stand as λeγ-σω, λ∈γ-σeis , , λeγ-σer, and by changing γy into ξ it becomes λ∈ξω. ∆θ and σ cannot coalesce with σ, therefore they are thrown out. Thus, Aδω, first future aσω ; πληθω, first future πλησω ; avυτω, avυσω, and the like.

These are the general rules with respect to the formation of the present and future of active verbs in the earliest stages of the Greek language. The limits prescribed to us will not allow us to pursue these conjectures; but the reader may, if he thinks proper, carry them a great way. The preterite tense falls next under consideration. If we may trust to analogy, this, as well as the other two, must have owed its confirmation to the radix of the verb, and some other word fitted to eke out its terminations. It has been thought by some critics, that this addition was taken from the He brew word תית; and we should be of the same opinion were it not that another auxiliary presents itself nearer home, and appears much more congruous to such a purpose. Perhaps, indeed, the people from whom we suppose it to have been borrowed, derived it from the eastern nations. We have already observed, that the Thracians were masters of a great part of Greece in the most remote ages. At that time they were a polite and learned people; and from them a considerable part of the Greek language was derived. If, therefore, we should find a word in their language employed for the same purpose, and accommodated to coalesce with the radical verb, we would feel ourselves very much inclined to prefer such a word.

The word ha pervades many different languages as an auxiliary verb. From it we have the Italian ho, the Spanish he, the French ai; and in one shape or other it appears in all the German and Scandinavian dialects. It is the Gothic auxiliary; and, we believe, it forms the termination of the perfect active of the first conjugation in the Latin tongue. For there am is the radix of amo, which has in the preterite am-avi, amavi, and in the preterperfect am-hav-eram, amaveram, compounded of am, hav, and eram, the imperfect of the indicative of the substantive verb. This process, in the formation of the preterite of Latin verbs, will scarcely be questioned, and forms certainly a presumptive proof that the Greeks pursued the same course. From this verb is likewise derived the Latin habeo, by changing v and b, which are indeed the same letter. Our readers, after this detail, will not be surprised if we should now hazard a conjecture, and declare it to be our opinion, that this same Gothic auxiliary ha is actually the additional part of the preterite of Greek verbs, indeed that part upon which the conjugation depends.

In forming this combination between the radix and the auxiliary, the Greeks were obliged to employ several devices. As often as the last letter of the radix could not unite with the aspirate in ha, they metamorphosed it into one of the double letters, which are capable of coalescing with it. In the verb λeγω, γ was changed into χ ; thus λ∈γ ha became λeγα, τυπτω preterite τυπ ha, was combined into τνφα. In verbs having a radix which would not admit of this conjunction, they hardened the h into κ, as in τιω, preterite τι-κα, άκου-κα. Many other ways were contrived to facilitate this re-union; but these are detailed in every Greek grammar, and so need not be mentioned. What has been said with respect to this configuration, we offer as a pure conjecture, without the most remote intention of obtruding it upon our readers.

If it be admitted, that the auxiliary ha formed the conjugating termination of the active verb amongst the Greeks, it will likewise beadmitted, that the radical verb and the other formed originally two distinct words, and that, according to this scheme, the preterite would proceed thus: λeγ ha, said I have ; λeγ has, said thou hast ; λεγ he, said he hath, and so on. This process appears to us rational, elegant, and advantageous. The pluperfect was not then invented, and therefore it does not come under our consideration. The other tenses were all deduced from those described; and in forming these intermediate distinctive tenses, we believe that both critics and grammarians, and perhaps philosophers too, were employed. See the article Grammar.

The eastern nations have diversified their verbs, by affixing fragments of the personal pronouns to the radix, by which means they gained only the advantage of exhibiting the genders of the persons engaged in being, acting, and suffering; but a perpetual repetition of these became unavoidable. The Greeks, by their artificial combination of the radix with the two auxiliaries, avoided the necessity of repeating their personal pronouns, as we and the other modern inhabitants[7:17:400] of Europe are now obliged to do; and at the same time, by diversifying the terminations of their nouns and verbs, they wonderfully improved the beauty and harmony of their language. The arrangement above insisted on is so very different from that of the orientals, and so entirely Gothic, that we think there can be no doubt of the Greeks having borrowed this device from the Thracians. Every person who is moderately acquainted with the Greek language will, upon examination, discover a wonderful coincidence between the structure, idioms, and phraseology, of the English and the Greek; and so many congenial features must engender a strong suspicion that there once subsisted a pretty intimate relation between them.

In the preceding deduction, we have found ourselves obliged once more to differ from the very learned author of the Origin and Progress of Language. As we took the liberty to question his originality of the Greek language, and at the same time presumed to attack the goodly structure raised by philosophers, critics, and grammarians; so we now totally differ from that learned writer respecting his theory of the creation of verbs out of the inhabile matter of αω, eω, &c. This whole fabric, in our opinion, leans upon an insecure foundation. The apparatus of intermediate tenses, of augments, derivation of tenses, with their formation, participles, idiomatical constructions, and other essentials or appendages, we omit, as not coming within the scope of this disquisition.

The derivation and formation of the middle and passive voices, would certainly afford matter of curious speculation; but the labour necessary to investigate this connection would greatly overbalance anybenefittobe expected from the exposition of it. However,in order to complete our plan,we shall subjoin a few strictures respecting the formation of the middle voice, which, in our opinion, was immediately formed from the active. We have already seen, that the active voice, in its original state, was formed by annexing fragments of the substantive or auxiliary verb to the radix. The same economy has been observed in fabricating the flexible parts of the verb of the “middle voice. To demonstrate this, we shall first conjugate the present tense of the auxiliary passive upon the principles above laid down.

Present, Eo∕xαι, eeσαι, eετat, eομeβα, eeσθe, eουτaι. Such was the passive present of the auxiliary. We shall now take our example from the verb τυπτω ; second future τwr-eομaι, struck I am, τυπ-eeoaι, struck thou art, rvn-eeraι, struck he is, &C. contracted τυπουμaι, τvπη, τυπeιτaι. The conjunction and formation here are obvious. Perhaps, in the second person, σ was inserted, which, however, is thrown out in the process of the persons. The future middle is clearly formed, by affixing the future-passive of the verb εω, only as η was introduced into the language for ε long, it was generally^[177. We say generally, because in verbs ending in ∣⅛⅛ the t is sometimes retained, as τtλtω-rι>.t<rω, ucxui-àgara. ] substituted instead of that vowel in verbs ending in aω and ω, and ω for o in verbs ending in oω; the two vowels ε and o being originally long as well as short, till η was adopted to denote the long sound of the former, and ω that of the latter. In many verbs, before the conjunction of the radix and auxiliary, e was thrown out. Thus, rvn-eσομaι, became τυφομaι, λeγ-eσομaι, λtξομaι, &C.

The preterite was deduced from that of the active by a very slight variation, so trifling, indeed, that it need not be mentioned; only we may observe, that the aspirate h is never retained in this tense, which originally seems to have been the only distinguishing character by which that tense of the middle voice differed from the same tense of the active.

From the strict analogy between the mode of forming the three primary tenses of the active and middle voice, we are led to suspect that what is now the middle was originally the passive voice. The immediate formation of the former, by annexing the passive auxiliary, is obvious. The middle voice still partakes of the passive signification, since it has sometimes a passive, though more frequentlyan active sense. There are several parts of the present passive quite analogous to the same tenses in the middle ∙, and, lastly, it is the common progress, in the course of improvement, to proceed step by step, and by approximation. What is most simple and easy is the first object, then succeeds what is only a little more difficult, and so on until we arrive at the last stage, when human ingenuity can proceed no farther. Now, it will readily be admitted, that the passive voice is much more embarrassed and intricate in its texture than the middle; and, therefore, the former should have been posterior in the order of time to the latter.

We are very well aware, that the learned Kuster, and indeed many other moderns, deeply skilled in the origin, progress, and structure, of the Greek language, have thought otherwise. The general opinion has been, that the Greek middle voice answered exactly to the Hebrew conjugation hithpahel, and in its pristine signification imported a recipro-cality, or when the agent acts upon itself. But for our part, we only intended a few hints upon the subject, which our learned readers may pursue, approve, or reject, at pleasure.

Next, if we might pretend to investigate the formation of the passive voice, we should imagine that the modern present was formed from the ancient one, by inserting such letters as were found necessary for beauty, variety, and energy; the first future from the second future middle of the verb τιβημι, once 3εω. This future is βησομαι, and, joined to the radix, always occupies that place, τι-θησομaι, re ∖ eθησομaι, φXeχβησομaι, τυφθησομaι, and so of the rest; but whether μaι, σaι, raι, which occur so frequently as the terminations of the middle and passive voices, are fragments of some obsolete verb, we will not pretend to determine. From verbs in aω, eω, οω, υω, are formed verbs in μι ; which in the present, imperfect, and second aorist, as it is called, have only a different form, by assuming μι with a long vowel preceding it, in the present active, which vowel is preserved in each person singular. This collection of irregular verbs seems to be formed from the verb uμι, which in some dialects might be ημι. Indeed the imperfect ηv, ηs, η, seems to imply as much; but in this we cannot venture to be positive.

In the whole of this analysis of the formation of verbs, we have only laid down what appears to us most plausible. That metaphysical critics maydiscover inaccuracies in the preceding detail we make no doubt; but our candid readers will doubtless reflect, that no language was ever fabricated by philosophers, and that the elements of speech were hammered out by peasants, perhaps even by savages. Critics have created a philosophy of language, we admit, and have a thousand times discovered wonderful acuteness and ingenuity in the mechanism of words and sentences, where the original onomathetae never apprehended any, and which possibly never existed except in their own imagination. If our more enlightened readers should find any thing in the preceding detail worthy their attention, so much the better; but if the contrary should happen, we presume they will adhere to the hackneyed system. We have all along neglected the dual number, because it regularly follows the type of the other numbers.

Before we take leave of this subject, however, we must use the freedom to subjoin an observation or two respecting the consequences of the practice of new-modelling the present, and of course the imperfect, tenses of verbs. First, after this arrangement had been made, the Greeks commonly retained all the other tenses exactly as they had stood connected with the primitive verb. This needs no example. Secondly, they often collected the tenses of verbs, the present and imperfect of which were now obsolete, in order to supply this defect. Thus we have φtρω, δισιω, lveγκa, ηvοχa, Thirdly, they often formed the present and imperfect tenses without any other [7:17:401]tenses annexed; and the poets in particular seem to have fabricated these two tenses at pleasure.

But if this procedure was convenient for the poets, it was certainly most incommodious with respect to the vulgar, as well as to all foreigners who had an inclination to learn the language. The vulgar, some ages after Homer and Hesiod, must have found it as difficult to understand their poems as our people do to comprehend those of Chaucer and Spenser. By this disposition, too, the etymology ofverbs was almost entirely confounded. The present second future being, as has been observed, the ancient present, the attention of the curious etymologist was naturally diverted to the modem present, where it was utterly impossible to discover the radical word. A few examples will elucidate this point: ren>ω, to stretch, to extend, old present ταvω. Tap is the radix, which at once appears to be a Persian word signifying a large tract of country. ^ΑencQ Mauritania, theland of the Mauri, Aquitania, Britannia; and with the letters prefixed, Hindu-stan, Chusi-stan, Turque-stan. The obsolete verb <5πω, whence δπτομαι,, is evidently derived from op, an Egyptian name of the moon; φan>ω, second future φavω, to show, from the Egyptian word phan or pan, a name of the sun; τυπτω, future second τυ%ω, τυτr being obviously the offspring of SΓ^∣, thaph, a drum or timbrel, from beating or striking. In such etymological researches, the student must be careful to turn the Ionic η into the Doric a ; because the Dorians came latest from the coast of Palestine, and consequently retained the largest share of the Phoenician dialect. Thus, γηθeω, to rejoice, turning η into a becomes yaθeω. This word, throwing away the termination, becomes gath, plainly signifying a wine press. ^[178. Hence it came to signify rejoicing, from the mirth and revelry attending the treading of the vine-press. ] It is likewise to be observed, that the Aeolians often changed a into v, as σvρξ instead of σαρξ, &c.

Itis not our intention to enter at length into the arrangement and peculiar construction of the Greek language. There is one point, however, which Ave cannot well pass over in silence. As that tongue is destitute of those words which the Latins call gerunds, to supply this defect they employ the infinitive with the article prefixed: thus, Ely to dvaι, aυτουs φikovs, in order to their being friends ; άττο του lλeσθaι aυτουs Bα-σtaea, from their having elected a king ; ’ Eκ του αποφevyew αυτουs èa ms πολeos, from their flying Out of the City. In these phrases the infinitive is said to assume the nature of a substantive noun, agreeing with the article before it, exactly as if it were a noun of the neuter gender. Idioms of this kind occur in our own tongue; only with us the verb, instead of being expressed in the infinitive, is turned into the participle. According to this arrangement, the first of the preceding phrases, which, according to the Greek, would stand toward to be friends, in English is, in order to their being friends. This anomaly, then, if indeed it be such, is of no manner of consequence. The French, if we are not mistaken, would express it in the very same manner with the Greek, that is, pour être amis.

From treating of verbs, we should naturally proceed to the consideration of adverbs, which are so denominated, because they are generally the concomitants of verbs. Every thing relating to that part of speech, in the Greek tongue, may be seen in the Port Royal or any other Greek grammar. Instead, therefore, of dwelling upon this exhausted topic, we shall hazard a conjecture upon a point to which the critics in the Greek language, as far as we know, have not hitherto adverted.

The most elegant and most admired writers of Greece, and especially Homer, and after him Hesiod, abound with small particles, which appear to us pure expletives, created as it were to promote harmony, or fill up a blank without sense or signification. How these expletive particles should abound in that language beyond any other, is a matter which it does not seem easy to account for. It has been said by the Zoiluses, that if you extract these nonentities from the poems of that bard, qui solus meruit dici poeta, a magnum inane, a mighty blank would remain behind. We would willingly do justice to that pigmy race of words, and at the same time vindicate the prince of poets from such a groundless imputation. Plato likewise, the prince of philosophers, has often been accused of too frequently employing these superfluous auxiliaries.

The particles in question were no doubt imported from the East. It would be ridiculous to imagine that any description of men, however enthusiastically fond they might be of harmonious numbers, would sit down on purpose to fabricate a race of monosyllables purely to eke out their verses, mere sounds without significance. In the first place, it may be observed, that there is a very strict connection amongst the particles of all cognate languages. To this we may add, that the not understanding the nature, relations, significations, and original import of those seemingly unimportant terms, has occasioned not only great uncertainty, but numberless errors in translating the ancient languages into the modem. The Greek language in particular loses a considerable part of its beauty, elegance, variety, and energy, when these adverbial particles with which it is replete are not thoroughly comprehended. An exact translation of these small words, in appearance insignificant, would throw new light not only upon Homer and Hesiod, but even upon poets of a much posterior date. Particles, which are generally treated as mere expletives, would often be found energetically significant. It is, however, altogether impossible to succeed in this attempt without a competent skill in the Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabian, Persian, and ancient Gothic languages.

We shall here take the liberty to mention a few of those particles which are most familiar to us, one or other of which occur in almost every line of Homer, and which we believe are either not understood at all, or misunderstood. Such are ∆α, 8η, μey, ηvτοι, μαv, -ye, eρι, apa, pa, yουv. ∆a is nothing else but the Chaldaic particle 8a, the parent of the English the. It likewise signifies by turns, or in your turn, ∆η is the same word in the Ionic dialect; μev is a particle of the Hebrew affirmative l≈κ, amen, fides, veritas. Mαv is a kind of oath by the moon, called mana, almost over all the East, and hence Dorice μava ; ye, an oath by yea, that is, the earth ; apa, another oath by the same element, probably from the oriental word of the same import; pa is a fragment of apa mentioned before; yουv, of yea, the earth; οv or ωv, an Egyptian name of the sun; and ωs, as, a particle which pervades all the dialects of the Gothic language. In this manner we believe all these small words which occur so frequently in the Greek tongue, and which have hitherto been held as inexplicable, may easily be rendered in significant terms; and were this done, we believe they would add both beauty and energy to the clauses in which they stand. But this discussion must be left to more accomplished hellenists.

We need not explain the nature of prepositions, because we are convinced that few -people will take the trouble to peruse this disquisition who are not already acquainted with their import in language. The Greek prepositions, which are eighteen in number, need not be enumerated here. Most of them might easily be shown to be particles, or fragments deduced from oriental or Gothic words. The use of these words is to connect together terms in discourse, and to show the relation between them. In languages where, as in English, all these relations are expressed without any change on the termination of the nouns to which they are prefixed, the process is natural and easy. The whole is performed by juxtaposition. But in the Greek and Latin tongues, this effect is produced, partly by prefixing prepositions and partly by varying the terminations of nouns. Had the Greeks been able to intimate all these relations by varying the terminations, [7:17:402]or had they multiplied their prepositions to such a number as would have enabled them to express these relations without the casual variations, as the northern languages have done; in either case their language would have been less embarrassing than it is in its present state. According to the present aιτangement, both prepositions and the casual valuations are used promiscuously to answer that purpose, a method which appears to be not altogether uniform. Though this plan might occasion little embarrassment to natives, it must, in our opinion, have proved somewhat perplexing to foreigners. In the case of the latter, the difficulty would be when to adopt the one and when the other expedient.

Another inconvenience arises from the exceedingly small number of prepositions in that language, which indeed bear no adequate proportion to the great variety of relations they are appropriated to express. This deficiency obliged them frequently to employ the same preposition to denote different relations. For instance, e⅛ι intimates, 1st, upon, as <⅛t τοv ∖ ι,θου, upon the stone ; and then it takes the genitive. 2d, It denotes near upon, as iiti τω λι0ω; and then it governs the dative. 3d, The same preposition signifies motion towards, as e⅛eσεv ετrι τοv ∖ tθοv, he fell upon the stone. In these instances the same preposition intimates three different relations; and, which is still more embarrassing, each of these requires a different case. The difficulty in this instance is so considerable, that even the most accurate of the Greek writers themselves often either forget or neglect the true application. Many examples of this might be produced, did the limits assigned us admit of such illustrations. Every man who has carefully perused the Grecian authors will readily furnish himself with examples.

Again, some prepositions indicating different relations, arc nevertheless prefixed to the same case. Thus, ιl∙ signifies from, as, ’ Eκ ∆ιos αρχομeθα, from Jupiter we begin; aπ èµov βιov,from my life, or my course of 'life ; προ τωv ovρωv, before the doors ; πpο vικηs εγκωμίου, an encomium before the victory ; Ùvtc άγαβωυ aποδι8οvaι κaκa, to render evil for Qood; avτι σοv, against you. In these examples, and indeed every where, the propositions employed intimate different relations, and yet are prefixed to the same cases. Sometimes the same preposition would seem to assume two opposite significations, as appears from the preposition <ivrι just mentioned, which intimates both for, instead of, and against or opposite to.

What has been observed with respect to the prepositions above mentioned, the reader will readily enough apply to κατα, μera, 8ιa, nepι. These incongruities certainly imply something irregular, and appear to intimate that those anomalies were so deeply incorporated with the constitution of • the language, that the subsequent improvers found it im-oossible to correct them. Indeed, to prefix a preposition to a case already distinguished by the affixed termination, appears to us a superfluity at least, if not an absurdity; for certainly it would have been more natural to have said εκ Zevs apχομeθa, than εκ ∆ιοs apχομe0a, Some very learned men, who have inquired into the origin of language, have been of opinion that prepositions formed the last invented species of words. If this opinion be well founded, we may suppose(andwe think thatsuch a supposition is not altogether improbable) that the casual terminations of the Greek language were first affixed to the radix, in the manner above exhibited; and that prepositions were afterwards fabricated and prefixed to the cases already in use.

The syntax or construction of the Greek language does not, according to our plan, come within the compass of our present inquiry. This the curious Greek student will easily acquire, by applying to the grammars composed for that purpose. We have already hazarded a few conjectures respecting the formation of the most important and most distinguished classes of words into which it has been divided by the most able grammarians, without, however, descending to the minutiae of the language. But as prepositions are the chief materials with which its other words, especially ι verbs, are compounded, we shall briefly consider the order in which they probably advanced in this process of composition.

Complex ideas are compounded of a certain number or collection of simple ones. Of those complex notions, some contain a greater and others a smaller number of simple conceptions. In language, then, there are two ways of expressing such complex ideas; either by coining a word to express every simple idea separately, according to the order in which they stand in the mind; or by trying to combine two or more simple terms into one, and by this method to intimate one complex idea by one single word. The Arabians, notwithstanding all the boasted excellencies of their language, have never arrived at the art of compounding their words, in order to answer this noble purpose; and the sister dialects are but slenderly provided with this species of words. The Greeks, of all other nations, excepting perhaps those who spake the Sanscrit language, are unrivalled in the number, variety, propriety, elegance, energy, and expression of their compound terms. The Greeks, like the Arabians, in the earliest stages of their language, had only a collection of disjointed radical words, consisting of the jargons of the aboriginal Greeks, of the Pelasgi, Thracians, and others. How these words were arranged and constructed, we have no data remaining upon which we can found a critical investigation. We must therefore remain satisfied with such probable conjectures as the nature of the case, and the analogy of the language, seem to suggest.

The prepositions were originally placed before the nouns, the relations of which they pointed out. For example, let us take the ξυυaπeθυησκerοτοις aλλοιs, he died along with the rest, or he died out of hand along with the others. These words were arranged thus; arreθvησκerο σvυ τοις dλλois, and à¶o-ovnσκov ovv τoις aλλois. In this manner the parts of every compound word were placed separately, at least as much as other words which had no connection.

The first compound words of the Greek language were those of the radical nouns with the article, and the radical part of the substantive or auxiliary verb. The success of this ex-perimentencouragedthem to attemptthe same thing in other words. By this noble invention they found themselves able to express, in one word, with ease and significancy, what in other languages, and formerly in their own, ' required a tedious ambages or circumlocution. In process of time, as their language was gradually mellowed, they increased the number of their compounds, until, in this respect, the Greek infinitely excelled all its parent dialects. In this process they were careful to unite such letters as not only prevented asperity and difficulty of pronunciation, but even promoted harmony and elegance. But this was the labour of posterior ages.

The Greeks were entirely ignorant of the derivation or etymology of their language. For proof of this we need only consult Plato’s Cratylus, Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Demetrius Phalereus, Longinus, and others. But in deducing patronymics, abstracts, possessives, gentiles, diminutives, verbals, and the like, from radicals of every kind, they have shown the greatest art and dexterity. Examples of this occur almost in every page of every Greek author. But this extended no farther than their own language; every foreign language was an abomination to the Greeks.

The original materials of the Greek tongue were undoubtedly rough and discordant, as we have above described them. They had been collected from different quarters, they were the produce of different countries, and had been imported at very distant periods. It would therefore be an entertaining, if not an instructive, speculation, if it were possible to discover by what men and by what means, this wonderful fabric was founded, erected, and carried to perfection. The writers of Greece afford us no light on this [7:17:403]matter. Foreigners were unacquainted with that originally insignificant canton. Every thing beyond Homer is buried in eternal oblivion. Orpheus is indeed reported to have composed poems; but these were soon obliterated by the hand of time. The verses which have been ascribed to that philosophical hero are none of his.^[179. Pausanias, lib. i. cap 22. ] Linus wrote, in the Pelasgic dialect, the achievements of the first Bacchus; Thamyris the Thracian was also the author of verses; and Pronapides the master of Homer was a celebrated poet. But the works of these bards did not long survive; and it is a certain fact that the Greek tongue was highly polished even more early than the age in which these worthies flourished. Homer, no doubt, imitated their productions, and some are of opinion that he borrowed liberally from them. The Greeks knew no more of the original character of their language, than of the original character and complexion of their progenitors. They allowed, indeed, that their language was originally barbarous and uncouth; but by what means or by what persons it was polished, enriched, and finally arranged, remained to them an impenetrable secret.

Wehavealreadydemonstrated that the Ionim or aborigines of Greece were a race of barbarians; that consequently their language, or rather their jargon, was of the same contexture. The Pelasgians found both the people and their speech in this uncultivated state. These people arrived in Greece about the year before Christ 1760. It was then that the language of Greece began to be cultivated. Before the age of Homer the work seems to have been completed. Nothing of consequence was afterwards added to the original stock; on the contrary, not a few varieties were deducted from the Homeric treasure. The Pelasgians, as was said before, arrived in Greece 1760 b. c. Homer is thought to have been born in 1041 B.c.; consequently the cultivation of the Greek tongue was completed in a period of about seven hundred years. Butupon the supposition that Orpheus, Linus, Thamyris, and others, wrote long before Homer, as they certainly did, that language had arrived nearly at the standard of perfection two centuries before; and by this computation the period of its progress towards its stationary point is reduced to five hundred years. But as the Pelasgians were a colony of foreigners, we ought to allow them one century at least to settle and incorporate with the natives, and to communicate their language, laws, manners, and habits, to the aborigines of the country. By this deduction we shall reduce the term of cultivation to less than four centuries.

During this period Greece was furiously agitated by tumults and insurrections. That country was divided into a number of independent states, which were perpetually engaged in quarrels and competitions. The profession of arms was absolutely necessary for the protection and preservation of the state; and the man of conduct and prowess was not only honoured as a demi-god, but his exploits were transmitted with eclat to posterity. The Greek tongue was then rough and unpolished; because, like the ancient Romans, the bravest men were more disposed to act than to speak. Every language will take its colour from the temper and character of those who employ it; and had it not been owing to one class of men, the Greek tongue would have continued to the era of Homer as rude as it had been a century after the arrival of the Pelasgians.

There has appeared amongst barbarous or half civilized people a description of men whose profession it has been to frequent the houses or palaces of the great, in order to celebrate their achievements, or those of their ancestors, in the sublimest strains of heroic poetry. Accordingly, we find that the Germans had their bards, the Gauls their fads, the Scandinavians their scalds, and the Irish their fileas, all retained for that very purpose. They lived with their chieftains or patrons, attended them to battle, were witnesses of their heroic deeds, animated them with martial strains, and celebrated their prowess, if they proved victorious; or, if they fell, raised the song of woe, and chanted the mournful dirge over their sepulchres. These bards were always both poets and musicians. Their persons were held sacred and inviolable. They attended public entertainments, and appeared in all national conventions. The chief of them were employed in the temples of the gods; and the less illustrious, like our minstrels of old, strolled about from place to place, and exercised their functions wherever they found encouragement.

Amongst the ancient Greeks there was a numerous tribe of men of the very same description who were at once poets and musicians, and whose office it was to celebrate the praises of the great, and to transmit their exploits to posterity with the most exaggerated encomiums. These poetical vagrants were styled Aoιδoι, or songsters. Some of them lived in the houses of great men; whilst others, less skilful or less fortunate, strolled about the country in the manner above described. The more illustrious of these Aotδot, who were retained in the temples of the gods, were certainly the firstimproversofthelanguageoftheGreeks. Amongst the Hebrews we find that the first poetical compositions were hymns in honour of Jehovah; and amongst the pagans the same practice was established. In Greece, when all was confusion and devastation, the temples of the gods were held sacred and inviolable. There the Aoιδoι improved their talents, and formed religious anthems upon those very models which their progenitors had chanted in the East.

The language of the Greeks being yet rugged and unmellowed, their first care was to render it softer and more flexible. They enriched it with terms suited to the offices of religion; and these, we imagine, were chiefly imported from the East. Homer every where mentions a distinction between the language of gods and men. The language of gods imports the oriental terms retained in the temples, and used in treating of the ceremonies of religion; the language of men intimates the ordinary civil dialect which sprung from the mixed dialects of the country. The priests no doubt concurred in promoting the noble and important purpose. From this source the strolling Aotδoι drew the rudiments of their art; and from these songsters, again, the vulgar deduced the elements of a polished style.

To the Aoιδot of the superior order we would venture to ascribe those changes mentioned in the preceding part of this inquiry, by which the Greek tongue acquired that variety and flexibility, from which it has in a great measure derived that ease, beauty, and versatility, by which it now surpasses most other languages. The diversity of its terminations furnishes a most charming variety, whilst at the same time the sense is communicated to the reader or hearer by the relation between them. By this economy the poet and the orator are left at liberty to arrange their phrases in that order which may be most soothing to the ear, and best adapted to make a lasting impression on the mind.

Few colonies have emigrated from any civilized country without a detachment of priests in their train. The supreme powers, whoever they were, have always been worshipped with music and dancing. The Hebrews, Phoenicians, and Egyptians, delighted in these musical and jocund festivals. The priests who attended the Ionians, Dorians, Aeolians, Thebans, Athenians, &c. from the East, introduced into Greece that exquisite taste, and those delicate musical feelings, which distinguish the Greeks from all the neighbouring nations. Hence the numerous progeny of onomatapoeas, by which the Greek language is invested with the power of expressing almost every passion of the human soul, in such terms as oblige it to feel and actually to assimilate to the passion it would excite. Numberless instances of this occur in every [7:17:404]page of Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, Sophocles, Euripides, and even of Aristophanes; but to quote instances would be to insult the student of Greek.

Every body knows that the practice of writing in verse was antecedent to the epoch of prosaic composition. Here, then, the Aoιδot and the ministers of religion chiefly displayed their skill and discernment. By a judicious mixture of short and long syllables, by a junction of consonants which naturally slide into each other, and by a careful attention to the rhythm, or harmony resulting from the combination of the syllables of the whole line, they completed the metrical tone of the verse, guided by that delicacy of musical feeling of which they were possessed before rules of prosody were known amongst men.

Much liberty was certainly used in transposing letters, in varying terminations, and also in annexing prefixes and affixes, both to nouns and other kinds of words where such adjuncts were possible; and upon this occasion we think it probable, that those particles of which we have already spoken were inserted like filling stones thrust in to stop the gaps or chinks of a building. Verses were then clumsy and irregular, as the quantity of vowels was not duly ascertained, and the collision of heterogeneous consonants not always avoided. Probably these primitive verses differed as widely from the finished strains of Homer and his successors, as those ofChaucer and Spencer do from the smooth and polished lines of Dryden and Pope.

The poetical compositions of the earliest Greeks were not, we think, in the hexameter style. As they were chiefly calculated for religious services, we imagine they resembled the Hebrew iambics preserved in the song of Aaron and Miriam, Deborah and Barak, Psalms, Proverbs, &c. which were indeed calculated for the same purpose. Archilochus perhaps imitated these, though the model upon which he formed his iambics was not generally known. The later dramatic poets appear to have copied from the same archetypes. Hexameters, it is probable, were invented by Orpheus, Linus, Thamyris, Musaeus, and their contemporaries. The first of these travelled into Egypt, where he might learn the hexameter measure from the people of that country, who used to bewail Maneros and Osiris in elegiac strains. This species of metre was first consecrated to theology, and the most profound sciences of moral and natural philosophy; but at length it was employed to celebrate the exploits of kings and heroes.

Res gestas regumque, ducumque, et fortia bella, Quo scribi possent numero monstravit Homerus.

We have hazarded a conjecture above, importing that the earliest poetical compositions of the Greeks were consecrated to the service of the gods. We shall now produce a few facts, which will furnish at least a presumptive evidence of the probability of this conjecture.

Orpheus commences his poem with ancient chaos, its transformations and changes, and pursues it through its various revolutions. He then goes on to describe the offspring of Saturn, that is time, the aether, love, and light. In short, his whole poem is said to have been an oriental allegory, calculated to inspire mankind with the fear of the gods, and to deter them from murder, and rapine, and unnatural lusts. Musaeus was the favourite scholar of Orpheus, nay perhaps his son. He composed prophecies and hymns, and wrote sacred instructions, which he addressed to his own son. He prescribed atonements and lustrations; but his great work was a Theogony, or History of the Creation. Melampus brought from Egypt into Greece the mysteries of Proserpine. He wrote the whole lfistory of the disasters of the gods. This seer is mentioned by Homer himself. Olen came from Lycia, and composed the first hymn which was sung in Delos at their solemnities; he probably emigrated from Patara a city of Lycia, where Aj)ollo had a celebrated temple and oracle. The Hyperborean damsels used to visit Delos, where they chaunted sacred hymns in honour of the Delian god. To these we may add the great Homer himself, if indeed the hymns commonly annexed to the Odyssey are his composition. Hesiod’s Theogony is too well known to require any description. From these instances it appears, that the origin of the poetry of Greece is to be found in the temples; and that there, its measure, numbers, rhythm, and other appendages, were originally fabricated.

The Grecian poets, however, enjoyed another advantage which that class of writers have seldom possessed, and which arose from the different dialects into which their language was divided. All these dialects were adopted indifferently by the prince of poets; a circumstance which enabled him to take advantage of any word from any dialect, provided it suited his purpose. This, at the same time that it rendered his versification easy, diffused an agreeable variety over his composition. He even accommodated words from Macedonia, Epirus, and Illyricum, to the purposes of his versification. Besides, the laws of quantity were not then clearly ascertained; and this circumstance afforded him another convenience. Succeeding poets did not enjoy these advantages, and consequently have been more circumscribed both in their diction and their numbers.

The Greek language, as is generally known, was divided into many different dialects. Every sept, or petty canton, had some peculiar forms of speech which distinguished it from the others. There were, however, four different dialetical variations which predominated overall the others; namely, the Attic, Ionic, Aeolic, and Doric. These four dialetical distinctions originated from the different countries in the East whence the tribes respectively emigrated. The Attics consisted, first, of the barbarous aborigines; secondly, of an adventitious colony of Egyptian Saites; thirdly, a branch of Ionians from the coast of Palestine. These last formed the old Ionian dialect, from which sprung the Attic and the modern Ionic. The Aeolians emigrated from a different quarter of the same coast, the inhabitants of which were a remnant of the old Canaanites, and consequently different in dialect from the two first-mentioned colonies. The Dorians sprang from an unpolished race of purple-fishers on the same coast, and consequently spoke a dialect coarser and more rustic than any of the rest. These four nations emigrated from different regions; a circumstance which, in our opinion, laid the foundation of the different dialects by which they were afterwards distinguished.

It is impossible in this short sketch to exhibit an exact view of the distinguishing features of each dialect. Such an analysis would carry us far beyond the limits assigned to the present article. For entire satisfaction on this head, we must refer the Grecian student to Mattaire’s Grecae Lingua Dialecti, where he will find every thing necessary to qualify him for understanding that subject; and, in the meantime, we shall content ourselves with the few following observations.

The Athenians being an active, brisk, volatile race, delighted in contractions. Their style was most exquisitely polished. The most celebrated authors who wrote in that dialect were, Plato, Thucydides, Xenophon, Demosthenes, and the other orators; Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Menander, Diphilus, with the other comic and tragic poets. That dialect was either ancient or modern. The ancient Attic was the same with the Ionic.

The Ionic, as we have already said, was the ancient Attic; but when that nation emigrated from Attica and settled on the coast of Asia Minor, they mingled with the Carians and Pelasgians, and of course adopted a number of their terms. They were an indolent, luxurious, and dissolute people; and hence their style was easy and flowing, but verbose, redundant, and without nerve or vigour. This however, is the leading style in Homer; and after him a prodigious number of [7:17:405] writers on every subject employed the same dialect, such as Herodotus of Halicarnassus the celebrated historian; Ctesias of Cnidus the historian of Persia and India; Hecataeus of Miletus; Megasthenes the historian, who lived under Seleucus Nicator; Hippocrates the celebrated physician of Coos; Hellanicus the historian often mentioned with honour by Polybius; Anacreon of Teia, Alcaeus, Sappho of Lesbos, excellent poets; Pherecydes Syrus the philosopher, and a multitude of other persons of the same profession, whom it would be superfluous to mention on the present occasion.

The Aeolic and the Doric were originally cognate dialects. When the Dorians invaded Peloponnesus, and settled in that peninsula, they incorporated with theAEolians, and their two dialects, blended into one, produced the newDoric. The original Dorians inhabited a rugged mountainous region about Ossa and Pindus, and spoke a rough unpolished language similar to the soil which they inhabited. Andreas Schottus,in his Observations onPoctry (lib.ii. cap.50) proves from an old manuscript of Theocritus, that there were two dialects of the Doric tongue, the one ancient and the other modem; that this poet employed Ionic and the modern Doric; that the old Doric dialect was rough and cumbrous; but that Theocritus adopted the new as being softer and more mellow. A prodigious number of poets and philosophers wrote in this dialect, such as Epicharmus the poet; Ibycus the poet of Rhegium; Corinna the poetess of Thespis, or Thebes, or Corinth, who bore away the prize of poetry rom Pindar; Erynna a poetess of Lesbos; Moschus the poet of Syracuse; Sappho the poetess of Mitylene; Pindar of Thebes, the prince of all lyric poets; Archimedes of Syracuse, the renowned mathematician, and almost all the Pythagorean philosophers. Few historians wrote in that dialect; or if they did, their works have not fallen into our hands. Most of the hymns chanted in temples of the gods were composed in Doric; a circumstance which evinces the antiquity of that dialect, and which, at the same time, proves its affinity to the oriental standard.

After the Greek tongue had been thoroughly polished by the steps which we have endeavoured to trace in the preceding pages, conscious of the superior excellency of their own language, the Greeks, in the pride of their hearts, stigmatised every nation which did not employ their language with the contemptuous title of barbarians. Such was the delicacy of their pampered ears, that they could not endure the untutored voice of the people whom they called βαpβαp-oφωvoι. This extreme delicacy produced three very pernicious effects. First, it induced them to metamorphose and sometimes even to mangle, foreign names, in order to reduce their sound to the Grecian standard; and, secondly, it prevented their learning the languages of the East, the knowledge of which would have opened to them an avenue to the records, annals, antiquities, laws, and customs, of the people of those countries, in comparison of whom the Greeks themselves were of yesterday, and knew nothing. By this unlucky bias, not only they, but even we who derive all the little knowledge of antiquity which we possess through the channel of their writings, have suffered an irreparable injury. By their transformation of oriental names they have in a manner stopped the channel of communication between the histories of Europe and Asia. This appears evident from the fragments of Ctesias’s Persian history, from Herodotus, Xenophon, and all the other Grecian writers who have occasion to mention the intercourse between the Greeks and the Persians. The same absurd prejudice deprived them of all knowledge of the etymology of their own language, without which it was impossible for them to understand thoroughly its words, phraseology, and idioms. We have mentioned above the Cratylus of Plato. In that dialogue, the divine philosopher endeavours to investigate the etymology ofonly a few Greek words; but his deductions are absolutely childish, and little superior to the random conjectures of a school-boy. Varro, the most learned of all the Romans,has not been more successful. Both stumbled on’ the very threshold of that useful science; and a scholar of very moderate proficiency in our days knows more of the origin of these two noble languages, than the greatest adepts amongst the natives did in theirs. By prefixes, affixes, transpositions of letters, and new conjunctions of vowels and consonants for the sake of the music and rhythm, they have so disguised their words, that it is now almost impossible to develope their original. As a proof of this, we remember to have seen in the hands of a private person a manuscript, in which the first twelve verses of the Iliad are carefully analysed; and it appears to our satisfaction, that almost every word may be, and actually is traced back to a Hebrew, Phoenician, Chaldean, or ./Egyptian original. And we are convinced that the same process will hold good in the like number of verses taken from any of the most celebrated poets of Greece. This investigation was chiefly conducted by reducing the words to their original invariable state, which was done by stripping them of prefixes, affixes, and other adventitious elements.

These imperfections, however, are counterbalanced by numberless excellencies; and we arc certainly much more indebted to that incomparable people for the information they have transmitted to us through the medium of their writings, than injured by them in not conveying to themselves and to us more authentic and more ample communications of ancient events and occurrences. Without fatiguing our readers with superfluous ecomiums on a language which has long ago been extolled perhaps to an extravagant degree by the labours of men of the greatest capacity and the most refined taste, we shall now proceed to make a few observations on spirits and accents, which, being rather appendages than essentials of the language, we have on purpose reserved for the last place.

Every word in the Greek language beginning with a vowel is marked with a spirit or breathing; and this aspiration is double, namely, lenis et asper, the gentle, and rough or aspirated. The gentle accent, though always marked, is not now pronounced, though in the earliest periods of the language it was undoubtedly enounced, although very softly. Both these aspirations were imported from the East. They were actually the Hebrew ∏ he and rr heth. The former denoted the spiritus lenis, the latter the spiritus asper. The Hebrew prefixed ha or he to words beginning with a vowel, and of course the Greeks followed their example. This people appears to have delighted in aspirates; and consequently the letter í is, some think, rather too often affixed to the terminations of their words. Every word beginning with p had the aspirate joined to ρ, probably with the design of rendering the aspiration still rougher.

The Greek accents are three in number; the acute, the grave, and the circumflex. The acute raises and sharpens the voice; the grave depresses and flattens it; the circumflex first raises and sharpens the voice, and then depresses and flattens it. It is obviously composed of the other two. The learned author of the Origin and Progress of Langειage has taken much pains to prove that these accents were actually musical notes, invented and accommodated to raise, depress, and suspend the voice, according to a scale of musical proportions. It is scarcely possible, we think, for a modern Greek scholar to comprehend distinctly the ancient theory of accents. These the native Greeks learned from their infancy, and that with such accuracy, that even the vulgar amongst the Athenians would have hissed an actor off the stage or an orator off the pulpitum, on account of a few mistakes in the enunciation of these notes.

The elevations, depressions, and suspensions of the voice upon certain syllables, must have made their language sound in the cars of foreigners somewhat like recitative, or something nearly resembling cant. But the little variety of these [7:17:406]syllabic tones, and the voice not resting upon them, but running them on without interruption, sufficiently distinguished them from music or cant. Be that as it may, we think it highly probable, that the wonderful effects produced by the harangues of the orators of Greece on the enraptured minds of their hearers, were in a great measure owing to the artificial musical tones by which their syllables were so happily diversified. To this purpose we shall take the liberty to transcribe a passage from Dionysius of Halicarnassus De Structura Orationis, which we find translated by the author of the Origin and Progress of Language, (vol. ii. part ii. chap. 7, p∙ 381.) “Rhetorical composition is a kind of music, differing only from song or instrumental music, in the degree, not in the kind; for in this composition the words have melody, rythm, variety, or change, and what is proper or becoming; so that in it, as well as in music, the ear is delighted with the melody, moved by the rythm, is fond of variety, and desires with all these what is proper and suitable. The difference, therefore, is only one of greater and less.”

With respect to accents, it may be observed that only one syllable of a word is capable of receiving the acute accent, however many there be in the word. It was thought that the raising the tone upon more than one syllable of the word, would have made the pronunciation too various and complicated, and too like chanting. The grave accent always takes place when the acute is wanting. It accords with the level of the discourse; whereas the acute raises the voice above it. The circumflex accent being composed of the other two is always placed over a long syllable, because it is impossible first to elevate the voice and then to depress it upon a short one. Indeed amongst the Greeks a long syllable was pronounced like two short ones; and we apprehend it was sometimes written so, especially in later times. It is perfectly obvious from two learned Greek authors, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Aristoxenus, that the Greek accents were actually musical notes; and that these tones did not consist of loud and low, or simply elevating and depressing the voice, but that they were uttered in such a manner as to produce a melodious rythm in discourse. In a word, the acute accent might be placed upon any syllable before the antepenult, and it rose to a fifth in the diatonic scale of music, whilst the grave fell to the third below it. The circumflex was regulated according to the measure of both, the acute always preceding. The grave accent is never marked except over the last syllable. When no accent is marked, there the grave always takes place. Some words are called enclitics. These have no accent expressed, but throw it back upon the preceding word. The circumflex, when the last syllable is short, is often found over the penult, but never over any other syllable except the last or the last but one.

The ancient Greeks had no accentual marks. These modifications of voice they learned by practice from their infancy; and we are assured by good authority, that in pronunciation they observe them to this day. The accentual marks are said to have been invented by a celebrated grammarian, Aristophanes of Byzantium, keeper of the Alexandrian library under Ptolemy Philopater, and by Epiphanes, who is also supposed to have invented punctuation. Accentual marks, however, were not in common use till about the seventh century; at which time they are found in manuscripts.^[180. If the curious reader should wish to enter more deeply into the theory of accents, we must refer him to Origin of Language, vol. ii. lib. 2. passim; and to Mr. Foster’s Essay on the different Nature of Accent and Quantity. ]

Such, in general, are the observations which we conceived that the nature of our design obliged us to make on the origin and progress of the Greek language. Some of our more learned readers may perhaps blame us for not interspersing the whole disquisition with quotations from the most celebrated writers in the language which has been the object of our researches; and we are well aware that this is the general practice in such cases. The books were before us, and we might have transcribed from them more quotations than the nature of an article of this kind would permit. In the first part there were no books in that language to quote from, because the Greeks knew nothing of their own origin, nor of that of their language, and consequently have recorded nothing but dreams and fictions in reference to that subject. Even when we had made considerable progress in our inquiry, the nature of the plan we had adopted excluded in a great measure the use of quotations. When we drew near the conclusion, we imagined that our learned readers would naturally have recourse to the passages alluded to without our information, and that the unlearned would not trouble themselves about the matter. The Greek student who intends to penetrate into the depths of this excellent language, will endeavour to be thoroughly acquainted with the books mentioned below.^[181. Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics, and his book De Interpretatione, especially with Ammonius’s Commentary· Ammonius was a native of Alexandria, and by far the most acute of all the ancient grammarians. Dionysius of Halicarnassus De Structura Orationis, where, amidst abundance of curious and interesting observations, will be found the true pronunciation of the Greek letters. Demetrius Phalereus De Elocutione; a short essay indeed, but replete with instruction concerning the proper arrangement of words and members in sentences. Longinus, the prince of critics, whose remains are above commendation. Theodorus Gaza and the other refugees from Constantinople, who found an hospitable reception from the munificent family of the Medici, and whose learned labours in their native language once more revived learning and good taste in Europe. These, with some other critics of less celebrity, but equal utility, will unfold all the treasures of Grecian erudition, without however disclosing the source from which they flowed. To the above authors may be added a few celebrated moderns, such as Μ. Fourmont the Elder, Μ. Gebelin, Abbé Pezron, Salmasius, and especially the learned and industrious Lord Monboddo. ]

We shall now subjoin a brief account of the vast extent of the Greek language even before the Macedonian empire was erected; at which period it became in a manner general, much more so, indeed, than ever the Latin language could accomplish notwithstanding the vast extent of the Roman empire.

Greece, originally Hellas, was a region of<but small extent, and yet sent out numerous colonies into different pails of the world. These colonies carried along with them their native language, and industriously diffused it wherever they formed a settlement. The Ionians, Aeolians, and Dorians, possessed themselves of all the west, and north-west coast of the Lesser Asia and the adjacent islands; and there even the barbarians learned the polished language of Greece. The Greek colonies extended themselves along the southern coast of the Euxine Sea as far as Sinope, now Trebizond, and all the way from the western coast of Asia Minor; and though many cities of barbarians lay between, the Greek tongue was understood and generally spoken by people of rank and fashion. There were also Greek cities on the northern coast of the Euxine Sea to the very eastern point, and perhaps beyond even those limits; likewise in the Taurica Chersonesus, or Crim Tartary; and even to the mouth of the Danube, the straits of Caffa, &c. In the neighbourhood of all these colonies, the Greek language was carefully propagated amongst the barbarians, who carried on commerce with the Greeks.

A great part of the south of Italy was planted with Greek cities upon both coasts, so that the country was denominated Magna Graecia; and here the Greek tongue universally prevailed. In Sicily it was in a manner vernacular. The Io[7:17:407]nians had sent a colony into Egypt in the reign of Psammetichus; and a Greek settlement had been formed in Cyrenia many ages before. The Phocians had built Massilia or Marseilles as early as the reign of Cyrus the Great, where some remains of the Greek language are still to be discovered. Caesar tells us, that in the camp of Helvetii registers were found in Greek letters. Perhaps no language ever had so extensive a diffusion, where it was not propagated by the law of conquest.

The Greek tongue, at this day, is confined within very narrow limits. It is spoken in Greece itself, except in Epirus or Albania, and the western parts of Macedonia. It is likewise spoken in the Grecian and Asiatic islands, in Candia or Crete, in some parts of the coast of Asia Minor, and in Cyprus; but in all these regions, it is much corrupted and degenerated. As a specimen, we shall insert a modern Greek song, and the advertisement of a quack medicine, which, with other plunder, was brought by the Russians from Chocsim or Chotzim in 1772.
MI δυσικιαις πολεμώ μι βάσανα ως το λεμο Είμαι καί κεντινεύω, και να χαθώ κοντεύω
Στο πελαγος των συμφυξών με επίκίνδυνον καιgδν
Μ’ αvε l αxς ολuθoixς σφοδgaς και εναντίας.
Με κύματα πολλών καί μων raφαν'ι αναςενασμων. Θάλασσα φaοκομενη i πόλλα αγgιομενη, "0πa αφξιζι και φησα γε σαγανάκια πεοισσά Σύνεφα σκοτισμένα καί κατασυγχισμενα i Και να φανη μια σωτηξια, να ιδχν τά μάτιά μαςεξια. Τλιχα νεgα να ευgω i κασχα και δει/ ηξεύοώ.
Ν* agaζω και δεν ημποgoj γιατι λιμενα δεν ⅛οgω.
Μ’ άτελitiσιαν ⅜gεχω οτα αgαενα πχ εχω.
Π2 με αύτα καν να πνυγώ η σελαμετινα εύγώ, Kai τxτα αν βαςαξaν, εμποgaν να με φύλαξαν.
With dire misfortunes, pains, and woes,
O’erwhelm’d, ingulph’d, I struggling fight;
O’er my frail bark proud billows close,
To plunge her deep in lasting night.
Rough seas of ills incessant roar,
Fierce winds adverse, with bowling blast,
Heave surge on surge· Ah, far from shore
My found’ring skiff shall sink at last.
Involv’d in low’ring darksome clouds,
’Mid sultry fogs, I pant for breath;
Huge foaming billows rend my shrouds,
While yawning gulfs extend beneath.
From bursting clouds loud thunders rolμ
And deaf ’ ning peals terrific spread;
Red lightnings dart from pole to pole,
And burst o’er my devoted head.
When shall the friendly dawning rays
Guide me to pleasures once possest;
And breezy gales, o’er peaceful seas, Waft to some port of endless rest?
In dark despair, with tempests tost,
I veer my sail from side to side.
Conduct me, Heav’n! to yon fair coast, Or plunge me in the ’whelming tide.

BAΛΣAMON ΤΗΣ 'IEPOYΣAΛHM, AΠO TAIΣ, KAI NOYPIAIΣ, KAI ΠAΛEAIΣ PETZETAIΣ.

ΤΟΥΤΟ το μπαλσαμον ωφελεί εις τδ αδύνατον ζομαχι, καί βοr l Der την χονευσιν δυναμώνει την καgδιαν. συκώνει ολας τας εμ- %άξε/$ της κο ∣ 7jας ωφελεί εις την ζενωσιν καί βηχα παλαιδν. , Iargευει τας εσωτεgικας πληγας τx ίηθας, καί τ2 πνεΰμονος ηγουν πλεμόνια, κινεί τα καταμηνια των γυναικών. ’Εις τας εζωτεξικας πληγας πgεπει να βάζεται με το ξανθό πόσον εις παλαιας. Οσον κal ειονεας 9 καθώς είναι η οπαθιαις i και μαχαιgιαις i καί αλλα κοψίματα ιατξευει καθελογης Φιςολα, καί ολας τας βgομεgας πληγας οπχ εφθασαν εις τδ κοκαλον §αυμάσιως, ωφελεί" εις τα, αυτια οπa τgεχουν εμπυον νά ςαζεται δυο η τgεiς κάμπας ηχούν ζαλαγματίας μεζαμπάκι βgεμμενον εις αυτδ, βάνεται εις ταςπλη-γωμενας δοντοκοιλιαις καί γελούν , ατgευθη. καί ακομι δυναμώνει τα οδοντια οπα κινούν ται δε γελούν να πεσουν’ βοηθοί και απδ την πανάκλαν.

'H δοσις εσωτεοικώς ας είναι δεκα 5; καί δώδεκα κομπας εις ολίγον κgασ'ι i i; καί νεgov, τδ κάθε ταχύ καί βξάδυ. ας τδ μετα- χειgιζεται, κ ⅛ l εzwz ^αυμαΛον μετην δοκιμην βεζαιωμενον. ’ Aληθες βάλσαμον ra Βασιλεια.

Instead of giving a literal and bald translation of this advertisement, which runs exactly in the style of other quack bills, it may be sufficient to observe, that the medicine recommended is said, when taken inwardly, to raise the spirits, remove costiveness and inveterate coughs; to cure pains of the breast and stomach-aches; to assist respiration, and remove certain female obstructions. When applied externally, it cures wounds and sores, whether old or fresh, removes ringing of the ears, fastens the teeth when loose, and strengthens the gums. All this, and much more, it is said to do in a wonderful manner; and is declared to be the true royal balsam of Jerusalem, and an universal specific.

It is indeed next to a miracle that so many monuments of Grecian literature are still to be found amongst men. Notwithstanding the burning of the famous library of Alexandria, and the almost numberless wars, massacres, and devastations, which have from time to time in a manner desolated those countries where the Greek once flourished; we are told that there still remain about three thousand books written in that language.

We shall now conclude this section with a brief detail of the most distinguished stages and variations through which this noble tongue passed from the age of Homer till the taking of Constantinople, in the year 1453, a period of more than two thousand years.

Homer gave the Greek poetry its colour and consistency, and enriched, as well as harmonized, the language. From the coincidence of epithets and cadence in Homer and Hesiod, it appears that the Greek heroic verse was formed spontaneously, by the old Aotδoι, a sort of improvisatori ; and that Homer and his early followers adopted their versification. The Iliad and Odyssey have much of the air of extempore compositions; an epithet is never wanting to fill up a verse; and a set of expressions are mechanically annexed to such ideas as were of frequent recurrence. Hence that copiousness and profusion of words in the old Greek bard, which forms such a contrast to the condensed and laboured composition of Virgil.

The Greek prose was of a more difficult structure; and it may be distributed into different styles or degrees of purity. Of the prose authors now extant, the first and best style is that of Herodotus in the natural, and of Plato in the florid or mixed kind, of Xenophon in the pure and simple, of Thucydides and Demosthenes in the austere style. Nothing, perhaps, is so conducive to form a good taste in composition as the study of these writers.

The style of Polybius forms a new epoch in the history of the Greek language. It was the idiotic or popular manner of expression, especially amongst military men, in his time, that is, about the 150th Olympiad. It became the model of succeeding writers, by introducing a simple unstudied expression, and by emancipating them from the anxious labour of the old Greeks respecting the cadence and choice of words. The style of the New Testament, being plain and popular, frequently resembles that of Polybius, as has been fully shown by Raphelius, and by Kirchmaier.^[182. De Parallclismo Novi Testamenti et Polybii, 1725. ]
[7:17:408]

Before this historian, the Alexandrian Jews had formed a new or Hellenistic style, resulting from the expression of oriental ideas and idioms in Greek words, after that language had lost of its purity, in proportion as it gained in general use, by the conquests of Alexander. The Hellenistic is the language of the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, the New Testament, and partly of Philo and Josephus. This mixture in the style of the evangelists and apostles, is one credential of the authenticity of the best of all books, a book which could not have been written except by Jewish authors in the first century.^[183. See the fine remarks of Bishop Warburton, Doctrine of Grace, book i. ch. 8—10. ] Critics lose their labour in attempting to adjust the Scripture-Greek to the standard of Atticism.

The diction of the Greek historians, and geographers of the Augustan age, is formed on that of Polybius, but improved and modernized, like the English of the present age, as compared with that of Clarendon or Bacon. More perspicuous than refined, it was well suited to such compilations as were then written by men of letters, such as Dionysius, Diodorus, and Strabo, without much experience or any eminent rank in public life.

The ecclesiastical style was cultivated in the Christian schools of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; it was rank and luxuriant, full of oriental idioms, and formed in a great measure on the Septuagint version. Such for instance, is the style of Eusebius. After him, the best Christian writers polished their compositions in the schools of rhetoric under the later sophists. Hence the popular and flowing purity of St. Chrysostom, who has more good sense than Plato, and perhaps as many good words.

On the Greek of the Byzantine empire, there is an excellent dissertation by Ducange, de Causis corruptae Graecitatis, prefixed to his glossary, together with Portius’s Grammar of the modern Greek. This last stage of the Greek language presents a miserable picture of Turkish barbarism; and, what is most surprising, there is no city of Greece where the language is more different from the ancient than at Athens; the reason of which seems to be, that that city has long been inhabited by a mixed multitude of different nations.

In a word, the Greeks have left the most durable monuments of human wisdom, fortitude, magnificence, and ingenuity, in their improvement of every art and science, and in the finest writings upon every subject necessary, profitable, elegant, or entertaining. They have furnished the brightest examples of every virtue and accomplishment, natural or acquired, political, moral, or military. They excelled in mathematics and philosophy; in all the forms of government, in architecture, navigation, commerce, war; as orators, poets, and historians, they stand yet unrivalled, and are likely to remain so for ever; nor are they less to be admired for the exercises and amusements they invented, and brought to perfection, in the institution of their public games, their theatres, and sports.

Let us further observe, that in vain will our readers look for these admired excellencies in any of the best translations from the Greek; they may indeed communicate some knowledge of what the originals contain; they may present the reader with propositions, characters, and events; but allowing them to be more faithful and more accurate than they really are, or can well be, still they are no better than copies, in which the spirit and lustre of the originals are almost totally lost. The mind may be instructed, but will not be enchanted; the picture may bear some faint resemblance, and if painted by a masterly hand may give pleasure; but who would be satisfied with the canvass, when he may possess the real object? who would prefer a piece of coloured glass to a diamond? It is not possible to preserve the beauties of the original in a translation. The powers of the Greek vastly exceed those of any other tongue. Whatever the Greeks describe is always felt, and almost seen; motion and music are in every tone, enthusiasm and enchantment possess the mind.

Graiis ingenium, Graiis dedit ore rotundo, Musa loqui.

sect. viii. of the latin language.

This language, like every other spoken by barbarians, was in its beginning rough and uncultivated. What people the Romans were, is a point as to which antiquarians are not yet agreed. In their own opinion they were sprung from the Trojans;^[184. Titus Livius, lib. i. cap. 1, &c. ] Dionysius of Halicarnassus derives them from the Greeks;^[185. Antiq. Rom. lib. i. ] and Plutarch informs us^[186. Vita Romul. ] that some people imagined they were sprung from the Pelasgians. The fact is, they were a mixture of people collected out of Latium and the adjacent parts, whom a variety of accidents had induced or compelled to establish themselves in that mountainous region, in order to secure their own property, and plunder that of their neighbours. They were in all probability composed of Arcadians, Sabines, Latins, Hetruscans, Umbrians, Oscans, Pelasgians, and others; and if so, their language must have been a mixture of the different dialects peculiar to all these discordant tribes.

The Latin language ought then to be a commingled mass of the Arcadian, that is, the Aeolian Greek,^[187. Strabo, lib. v. Dionysius Halicarnasseus, Antiq. lib. i. ] the Pelasgic, Hetruscan, and Celtic dialects. But these jarring elements, like the people to whom they respectively belonged, gradually incorporated, and produced what was afterwards called the Latin tongue.

The Arcadians were a Pelasgian tribe,^[188. Strabo et Herodotus. ] and consequently spoke a dialect of that ancient Greek produced by the coalition of this tribe with the savage aborigines of Greece. This dialect was the ground-work of the Latin. Every scholar allows, that the Aeolian Greek, which was strongly tinctured with the Pelasgic, constituted the model upon which the Latin language was formed. From this deduction it appears, that the Latin tongue is much more ancient than the modern Greek; and of course we may add, that the Greek, as it stood before it was thoroughly polished, bore a very near resemblance to that language. Hence it may be concluded, that the knowledge of the Latin language is necessary in order to understand the Greek. Let us not then expect to find the real ingredients of the Greek tongue in the academic groves of Athens, or in Smyrna, or in Rhodope, or in Haemus; but let us seek for them on the banks of the Tiber, and on the fields of Laurentum.

A very considerable part of the Latin tongue was derived from the Hetruscan. That people were the masters of the Romans in every thing sacred. From them they learned the ceremonies of religion, the method of arranging games and public festivals, the art of divination, the interpretation of omens, the method of lustrations, expiations, &c. It would, we believe, be easy to prove, that the Pelasgians^[189. Thucydides, lib. vi. ] andHetruscans^[190. The Hetrusci were variously denominated by the Greeks and Romans. The former called them Tυζ rnvo , which was their true name, for they actually emigrated from Tarshish, or the western coast of Asia Minor, and consequently Herodotus everywhere calls them r Γυξ-σ> t v0 . The Aeolians changed a into u ; hence in that dialect they were called Tvpr∏νβι, from Tarsus. The Romans styled them Tusci, probably from the Greek verb 3υω, sacrifico alluding to the skill which that people professed in the ceremonies of religion. They called their country Hetruria, we think from the Chaldaic word heretum, a magician or sorcerer; a name deduced from their skill in divination, ι ] were the same race of people; and if this was the case, their languages must have differed in dialect only.

The Umbrian or the Celtic enters deeply into the composition of the Latin tongue. In proof of this, we need only [7:17:409]refer to Pelloutier, Bullet’s Mémoires de la Langue Celtic partie premiere, Abbé Pezron’s Origin of Ancient Nations, and other works of a similar kind. Whether the old Celtic differed essentially from the Pelasgic and Hetruscan, would be a matter of curious investigation, were this a proper subject for the present article.

The Latin abounds with oriental words, especially Hebrew, Chaldaic, and Persian. These are certainly remains of the Pelasgian and Hetruscan tongues, spoken originally by people who emigrated from regions where such words formed parts of the vernacular language. The Greeks, in polishing their language, gradually distorted and disfigured vast numbers of the rough eastern terms, which formed a very great part of it, as we have already shown in tire preceding section.

The Romans, of less delicate organs, left them in their natural state, and their natural air readily betrays their original. We had collected a large list of Latin words still current in the East; but we find that Thomassin^[191. Glossary. ] and Oge-rius,^[192. Groeea et Latina lingua Hebraizantes, Venice 1763. If these books are not at hand, Dr. Littleton’s Dictionary will, in a great mea-βure, supply their place. ] and especially Μ. Gebelin, in his excellent Latin Dictionary, have rendered that labour superfluous.

In this language, too, there are not a few Gothic terms. How these found their way into the Latin, it is not easy to discover, unless, as Pelloutier supposes, the Celtic and Gothic languages were originally the same; or perhaps it may be conjectured, that such words formed part of a primitive language, which was at one time universal.

There are, besides, in the Latin a great number of obsolete Greek words, which were in process of time obliterated, and others substituted in their stead; so that, upon the whole, we are persuaded, that the most effectual method for distinguishing the difference between the early and modern Greek, would be to compare the ancient Latin with the more recent, especially as there existed very little difference between the ancient Greek and Latin in the earliest periods. But however this may be, it is certain that the Roman letters were the same with the ancient Greek. Forrnae literis Latinis quae veterrimis Graecorum, says Tacitus,^[193. Tacitus, Anal. lib. i. ] whilst Pliny^[194. Nat. Hist. lib. vii. cap. 58. ] states the same thing, and for the truth of his assertion appeals to a monument extant in his own time. These old Greek letters were no other than the Pelasgian, which we have shown from Diodorus Siculus to have been prior to the Cadmean.^[195. For the figure of these letters, see Astle, Postellus, Montfaucon, (Paloegraphia Grceca,J Μ. Gebelin, and others. ]

That the Latins borrowed the scheme of their declensions from the Greeks, is evident from the exact resemblance of the terminations of the cases throughout the three similar declensions. In nouns of the first declension, the resemblance is too palpable to stand in need of illustration. In the second, the Greek genitive is oι ; but in Latin the o is thrown out, and the termination becomes i. In the section on the Greek language, we have observed, that the sounds of i and V differed very little; therefore the Latins used t instead of V. The Latin dative ends in o, which is the Greek dative, throwing away t subscriptum, which was but faintly sounded in that language. No genuine Greek word ended in μ or m. The Hellenes seem to have abhorred that bellowing liquid ;' it is certain, however, that they imported it from the East, as well as the other letters, and that they employed it in every other capacity, except in that of closing words. In the termination of flexions, they changed into ν.

The Latins retained m, which had been imported to them as a terminating letter at an era before the Greek language had undergone its last refinement. Hence the Latin accusative in um, instead of the Greek in ov. The vocative case, we imagine, was in this declension originally like the nominative. The Latins have no dual number, because, in our opinion, the Aeolic dialect, from which they copied, had none. It would no doubt, be a violent stretch of etymological exertion, to derive either the Latin genitive plural of the second declension from the same case of the Greek, or that of the latter from the former; we therefore leave this anomaly, without pretending to account for its original formation. The third declensions in both languages are so exactly parallel, that it would be superfluous to compare them. But even here the dative plural is another anomaly, and we think a very disagreeable one, which we leave to the conjectures of more profound etymologists. For the other peculiarities of Latin nouns, as they are nearly similar to those of the Greek, we must beg leave to refer our readers to that section.

The Latins have no articles, which is certainly a defect in their language. The Pelasgic, from which they copied, had not adopted that word in the demonstrative sense. Homer indeed seldom uses it; and the probability is, that the more early Greeks used it less frequently, at least in the sense above mentioned. Thus in Latin, when I say, video hominem, it is impossible to find out by the bare words whether the word hominem intimates a man, or the man, whereas in Greek it would be βλeπω άνθρωπον, I see a man, βλeπω τον άνθρωπον, I see the man. Hence the first expression is indefinite, and the second definite.

The substantive verb sum in Latin seems to be formed partly from the Greek and partly not. Some of the persons of the present tense have a near resemblance to the Greek verb εω or èiµi, whilst others vary widely from that archetype. The imperfect praeterite and praeterperfect have nothing in common with the Greek verb, and cannot, we think, be forced into an alliance with it. The future ero, was of old eso, and is indeed genuine Greek. Upon the whole, in our apprehension, the Latin substantive verb more nearly resembles the Persian verb hesten than that of any other language with which we are acquainted.

» From what exemplar the Latin verbs were derived, it is by no means easy to ascertain. We know that attempts have been made to deduce them all from the Aeolic Greek, and that the Romans themselves were extremely fond of this chimera; but the almost numberless irregularities, both in the formation and conjugation of their verbs, induce us to believe that only a part of them were formed upon that model. We are inclined to think that the terminations in bam, bas, bat, bamus, &c. were produced by their union with a fragment of some obsolete verb, which is now wholly lost. In the verb amo, for instance we are sure that the radix am is the Hebrew word mother ; but how am-abam, am~abo, amarem were fabricated, and connected with the radical am, is not so easily determined. That Latin verbs, as well as the Greek, are composed of an inflexible radix and another flexible verb, cannot be doubted; but what this flexible auxiliary was, cannot now be clearly ascertained. It is not altogether improbable that such parts of the verbs as deviate from the Greek archetype were supplied by fragments of the verb ha, which pervades all the branches of the Gothic language, and has, we conceive produced the Latin verb habeo. When the Greeks began to etymologise, they seldom overpassed the verge of their own language; and the Latins pursued nearly the same course. If their own language presented a plausible etymology, they embraced it; if not, they immediately had recourse to the Greek; and this was the ne plus ultra, of their etymological researches. Cicero, tìuintillian, Festus, and even Varro, the most learned of all the Romans, stop here; all beyond is either doubt or impenetrable darkness. Their opinion above mentioned[7:17:410] we offer only as a conjecture; as to the decision we leave it to more able critics.

The want of aorists or indefinite tenses seems to us to be a palpable defect in the Latin language. The use of these amongst the Greeks entitled the writer to express the specific variations of time with more accuracy and precision than the Latins, who never attempted to specify them by any other tenses but the imperfect and pluperfect. Indeed we should imagine, that both the Greeks and Latins were much inferior to the English in this respect. The Latin word lego, for example, may be translated into English three different ways; as, 1 read, I do read, and I am reading.

The Latins, in reducing their verbs to four conjugations, formed their inflexions in a very irregular manner. Numbers of the first class inflect their praeterite and supine like those of the second; thus, domο, instead of giving avi and atum, has ui and itum, like monui and monitum. Again, not a few verbs of the third conjugation have ivi and itum, as if they belonged to the fourth; e. g. peto, petivi, petitum. Then, some verbs have io in the present, ivi in the praeterite, and itum in the supine, whilst, contrary to the rules of analogy, they in reality belong to the third; such are cupio, cupivi, cupitum, cupere, and others. Some verbs of the second conjugation have their praeterite and supine as if they belonged to the third; thus, juoco, jussi, jussum,jubere, and augeo, auxi, auctum, augere. Some verbs, which are actually of the fourth conjugation, have their praeterite and supine as if they were of the third; thus, sentio, sensi, sensum, sentire, and haurio, hausi, haustum, haurire. If these are not manifest irregularities, we cannot say what deserves the name. The fact seems to stand thus. The Romans were originally a banditti of robbers, bankrupts, runaway slaves, shepherds, husbandmen, and peasants of the most unpolished character. They were engaged in perpetual broils and quarrels at home, and seldom enjoyed repose abroad. Their profession was robbery and plunder. Like old Ishmael, their hands were against every man, and every man’s hand was against them. In such a state of society no time was left for cultivating the sciences. Accordingly, the arts of war and government were their sole profession. This is so true, that their own poet has characterized them in the following manner :—

Excudent alii spirantia mollius aera, Credo equidem: vivos ducent de marmore vultus; Orabunt causas melius; coelique meatus Describent radio, et surgentia sidera dicent s Tu regere imperio populo», Romane, memento: Hae tibi erunt artes: pacisque imponere morem, Parcere subjectis, et debellare superbos.

Another blemish in the Latin language is occasioned by its wanting a participle of the praeterite sense in the active voice. This defect is perpetually felt, and is the cause of an awkward circumlocution wherever it happens to present itself. Thus, Imperator, cum transiiset flumen, aciem instruxit ; the general having crossed the river drew up his army. Here cum transiiset flumen is a manifest circumlocution, which is at once avoided in the Greek ó hγeμων nepaσας τοv ποτaμοv, κ. τ. λ. This must always prove an incumbrance in the case of active intransitive verbs. But when active deponent verbs occur, it is easily avoided. Thus, Caesar cohortatus milites, praelii committendi signum dedit ; Caesar having encouraged the soldiers, gave the signal for joining battle. Another palpable defect in this language arises from the want of a participle of the present passive. This again must be productive of inconvenience upon many occasions, as will be obvious to every Latin student.

The two supines are universally allowed to be substantive nouns of the fourth declension. How these assumed the nature of verbs it is not easy to determine. When they are placed after verbs or nouns, the matter is attended with no difficulty; but how they should acquire an active signification, and take the case of the verb with which they are connected, is not so easily accounted for, and certainly implies a stretch of prerogative. The Latin gerunds form another unnatural anomaly. Every scholar knows that these words are nothing but the neuters of the participles in dus of the future passive. The fabricators of the Latin language, however, elevated them from their primary condition, giving them upon many occasions an active signification. In this case we must have recourse to the

Si volet usus, Quem penes arbitrium est, et jus et norma loquendi.

Another inconvenience, which is perhaps more severelyfelt than any of the preceding, arises from the want of the use of the present participle of the verb sum. Every body knows what a convenience is derived from the frequent use of the participle ωv in Greek; and indeed it appears to us somewhat surprising that the Latins neglected to introduce the participle ens into their language. In this we believe they were singular. Here again a circumlocution becomes necessary. In such a case as the following, “The senate being at Rome, passed a decree,” instead of saying senatus ens Romae, legem tulit, we arc obliged to say cum senatus Romae esset, legem tulit. If the words ens or existens had been adopted, as in the Greek, this odious circumlocution would have been avoided. Many other defects of a similar kind will occur to every person who shall choose to search for them, and these, too, in the most approved classical authors.

If anyone will take the trouble to compare the structure of the Greek and the Latin languages, he may very soon be convinced that their characteristic features are extremely different. The genius of the former appears easy and natura!; whereas that of the latter, notwithstanding the united efforts of the poets, orators, and philosophers, who wrote in it, still bears the marks of violence and restraint. Hence it appears that the Latin language was pressed into the service, and compelled almost against its peculiar genius to bend to the laws of the Grecian model. Take a sentence of Hebrew, Chaldaic, Arabian, or Persian, and try to translate it into Greek withoutregarding the arrangement of thewords, and you will find it no difficult task; but make the same trial with respect to the Latin, and you will probably discover that the attempt is attended with considerable difficulty. To translate Greek into English is not a laborious task; the texture of the two languages is so congenial, that the words and phrases, and even the idiomatic expressions, naturally slide into each other. But with the Latin the case is quite otherwise; and before elegant English can be produced, one must deviate considerably from the original. Should we attempt to translate a piece of English into Greek, and at the same time into Latin, the translation of the former would be attended with much less difficulty than that of the latter, supposing the translator to be equally skilled in both languages.

This incongruity seems to spring from the following cause. Before any man of considerable abilities, either in the capacity of a poet, grammarian, or rhetorician, appeared at Rome, the language had acquired a strong and inflexible tone, too stubborn to be exactly moulded according to the Grecian standard. After a language has continued several centuries without receiving a new polish, it becomes like a fidl grown tree, incapable of being bent to the purposes of the mechanic. For this reason, it is highly probable, that the language in question could not be forced into a complete assimilation with the Greek. But notwithstanding all these obstructions, in process of time it arrived at such an exalted pitch of perfection, as to rival, perhaps to excel, all the other European languages, Greek only excepted. Had men possessingthe taste,judgment, and industry of Ennius, Plautus, Terence, Cicero, and the worthies of the Augustan age, appeared in the early stages of the Roman commonwealth, their language would have been thoroughly reduced to the [7:17:411]Grecian archetype, and thetwo dialects might have improved each other by a rivalship between the nations who employed them.

Without pretending to encumber our readers with a pompous and elaborate account of the beauties of that imperial language, which have been detailed by writers almost without number, we shall endeavour to lay before them as briefly as possible its pristine character, the steps by which it gradually rose to perfection, the period when it arrived at the summit of its excellence, and the means by which it rapidly degenerated until it was finally lost amongst the very people to whom it bad owed its birth.

We have observed already, that the Latin was originally a colluvies of all the languages spoken by the vagrant people who composed the first elements of that republic. The prevailing dialects were the Pelasgian or Etruscan, which we conceive to have been the same; and the Celtic, which was undoubtedly the aboriginal idiom of Italy. Hencethe primarydialect of the Romans was composed of discordant materials, which in our opinion never acquired a natural and congenial union. The Pelasgian or Etruscan part of it retained a strong tincture of the oriental style. But the Celtic portion appears to have been the prevalent one, since we find that most of the names of places, especially in the middle and northern parts of Italy, are actually of Celtic origin.^[196. For proof of this our readers may consult Abbé Pezron, Pelloutier, Bullet’s Mémoires, Gebelin, Proer. Diet. Lat. and many others. ] It is clear therefore that the dialect of the first Romans was composed of the languages above mentioned. Who those first Romans were, it is impossible to determine with any degree of certainty; indeed the Roman historians afford us as little information upon the subject, as their etymologists do respecting the origin of their language. Their most celebrated writers upon this point were Aelius Gallus, Quintus Cornificius, Nonius Marcellus, Festus, and some others of less note. At the head of these we ought to place Terentius Varro, whom Cicero styles the most learned of all the Romans. But from such writers we need expect no light. Their etymologies are generally childish and futile. Of the language of the most ancient Romans we can only reason by analogy; and by that rule we can discover nothing more than what has already been advanced.

We may rest assured that the dual number, the articles, the participle above mentioned, the aorists, and the whole middle voice, never appeared in the Latin language; and for this reason that they were not current in those languages from which it was derived, at least at the time when it was first fabricated. Besides all this, many circumstances concur to make it highly probable that, in the earliest period of the language, very few inflexions were introduced. First, when the Pelasgians left Greece, the Greek language itself was not fully polished. Secondly, the Arcadians were never thoroughly civilized. They were a rustic pastoral people, and minded little the refinements of a civilized state; consequently the language which they brought into Italy at that era must have been of a coarse and irregular contexture. Thirdly, when the Thessalian Pelasgians arrived inItalyabout the time of Deucalion, the Greek language itself was rude and barbarous;^[197. Dionysius Halicarnasseus, lib· i∙ ] and, whichisof Stillmore consequence, if we may credit Herodotus quoted in the former section, the Greek people had never adopted the Hellenic tongue. Hence it appears, that the part of the Latin language derived from the Pelasgian or Etruscan must have taken a deep tincture from the oriental tongue. If we may judge of the Celtic of that age by the Celtic of the present, the same character must likewise have distinguished its structure.

From these circumstances, we think it appears that the earliest language of the Romans was but very little diversified by means of inflections. It nearly resembled the oriental exemplar, and consequently differed widely from the modern Latin. The effect of this was, that the modern Romans could not understand the language of their early progenitors. Polybius,^[198. See his History, lib. iii. sub initio. ] speaking of the earliest treaty between the Romans and Carthaginians, makes the following observation: “Believe me,” says he, “the Roman language has undergone so many changes since that time to the present, that even those who are most deeply skilled in the science of antiquities cannot understand the words of that treaty except with the greatest difficulty.”^[199. This treaty, according to the same historian, was concluded in the consulship of Lucius Junius Brutus and Marcus Valerius, twenty-eight years before Xerxes made his descent upon Greece. ] From this source, then, has flowed that great number of oriental words with which the Latin language is impregnated. Being originally inflexible, they were not disguised as they now are with prefixes, affixes, metatheses, syncopes, antitheses, and the like, but plain and unadorned in their natural dress.

After the Romans had become acquainted with the Aeolian Greeks, who gradually seized upon both coasts of Italy towards the south, which they called Magna Graecia, they began to affect a Grecian air, and to torture their language into a foreign contexture. It appears, however, that at first the Grecian attire had rather an awkward appearance, and that several marks of violence were easily discerned. The most ancient specimen of this kind that we can recollect consists of the remains of the Twelve Tables. Here every thing is rude and of a clumsy cast; for although by this time considerable progress had been made in refinement, and the language of Rome had begun to appear in a Grecian uniform, still those changes were not altogether natural. Soon afterwards appeared Marcus Fabius Pictor and Sisenna, historians often quoted by Livy, but whose works have long since been irrecoverably lost. The Fasti Capitolini are frequently mentioned; but they too perished in the burning of the Capitol during the civil wars between Marius and Sylla. If those monuments had escaped the ravages of time, we should have been able to mark the progress of the Latin language from stage to stage, and to ascertain with the greatest accuracy its gradual configuration in the course of its progress towards the Grecian standard. We must therefore abandon the attempt to trace the Latin during those rude and barbarous periods, and descend to others which are better known and more characteristically marked. The latter, commenced when

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes Intulit agresti Latio.

In this period flourished Ennius, who wrote in eighteen books, a Roman history in hexameter verse, which he called Annals, the greater part of which is now unhappily lost. He likewise translated Euhemerus de Origine Deorum, a work often mentioned by the Christian fathers in their disputes with the Pagans, and which is sometimes quoted by Cicero. Then followed Caius Lucilius the famous satirist, and a number of other writers, such as Accius, Valerius, Aedituus, Alpinus, whose fragments were published by the Stephens, at Paris, in 1564. All these imitated the writers of Greece or translated from them. By their perseverance and active exertions, the spirit of the Greek authors was transfused into the Latin language, and its structure accommodated to the Grecian standard.

Plautus and Terence, by translating into their own language, the comedies of Menander and Diphilus taught the Latin muses to breathe their inspirations in Attic Greek. To speak that language was then the fashion of the times, [7:17:412] as it is now with us to chatter French. Greek tutors were retained in every reputable family; and many Romans of the first rank were equally qualified to speak or write both in Greek and in Latin. The original jargon of Latium had now become obsolete and unintelligible; and even Cato the Ancient condescended to learn the Greek language at the age of eighty.

To pretend to enumerate the various, and we may add inimitable, examples of the Augustan or golden age of the Roman language, would be an insult to the understanding of our readers. We shall only take the liberty to translate a few lines from an able and excellent historian,^[200. Velleius Paterculus, lib. i cap. uU. ] who, had his honesty been equal to his judgment, might have rivalled the most celebrated writers of his country. Having observed that the Greek authors, who excelled in every province of literature, had all made their appearance nearly about the same time, and within a very short space of one another, he adds: “Nor was this circumstance more conspicuous amongst the Greeks than amongst the Romans; for unless we go back to the rough and unpolished times, which deserve commendation only on account of their invention, the Roman tragedy is confined to Accius and the period when he flourished. The charming wit of Latin elegance was brought to light by Cecilius, Terentius, and Afranius, nearly in the same age. As for our historians if we except Cato and some old obscure writers, they were all confined to a period of about eighty years; so neither has our stock of poets extended to a great space either backwards, or forwards. But the energy of the bar, and the finished beauty of prose eloquence, setting aside the same Cato (by the leave of Crassus, Scipio, Laelius, the Gracchi, Fannins, and Ser. Galba, be it spoken), broke out all at once under Tully the prince of his profession; so that one can now be delighted with none before him, and admire none except such as have either seen that orator or been seen by him.”

From this quotation it evidently appears, that the Romans themselves were convinced of the short duration of the golden age of their language. According to the most judicious critics, it commenced with the era of Cicero’s oratorical productions, and terminated with the reign of Tiberius, or rather, perhaps, it did not reach beyond the middle of that prince’s reign. It is generally believed that eloquence, and with it every thing liberal, elevated, and manly, was banished from Rome by the despotism of the Caesars. But we imagine that the transition was too instantaneous to have been entirely produced by that cause. Despotism was firmly established amongst the Romans about the middle of the reign of Augustus; and yet that period produced such a group of learned men as never perhaps adorned any other nation in so short a space of time. Despotism, we acknowledge, might have affected the eloquence of the bar, the noble and important objects which had animated the republican orators being now no more; but this circumstance could not affect poetry, history, philosophy, and jurisprudence. The style employed upon these subjects did not feel the fettersof despotism. The reign of Louis XIV. was the golden age of the French language; and we think that age produced a race of learned men, in every department superior in number and equal in genius to the literati who flourished under the noble and envied constitution of Britain during the same period, although the latter is likewise said to have been the golden age of this country. The British Islands, we conceive, still enjoy as much liberty as ever; yet we believe there are few persons who will affirm, that the writers of the present day are equal either in style or in genius to that noble group who flourished from the middle of the reign of Charles I. to the middle of the reign of George II.

In the East the same observation seems to hold true. The Persians have long groaned under the Mohammedan yoke; and yet every oriental scholar will allow, that in that country, and under the most galling tyranny, the most amazing productions of taste, genius, and industry, that ever dignified human nature, have been exhibited. Under the Arabian caliphs, the successors of Mohammed, appeared writers of a most sublime genius, although despotism was never more cruelly exercised than under those fanatics. The revival of letters in Italy during the fourteenth century, was chiefly promoted and cherished by the petty despots of that country. We cannot therefore be persuaded that the despotism of the Caesars banished eloquence and learning from Rome. Longinus indeed has attributed this misfortune to the cause lust stated, and tells us, that it is liberty which is formed to nurse the sentiments of great geniuses, to push forward the propensity of contest, to inspire them with the generous ambition of being the first in the first rank. But when Longinus wrote this, he did not reflect that he himself was a striking instance of the unsoundness of his own observation.

As to science, the fact is undoubtedly on the other side. That Seneca was superior to Cicero in philosophy, cannot be reasonably contradicted. The latter had read, and actually abridged, the whole mass of Grecian philosophy; but this displayed his reading rather than his learning. The former had addicted himself to the Stoic sect; and though he does not write with the same flow of eloquence as Tully, he thinks more deeply and reasons more closely. Pliny⅛ Natural History is indeed a wonderful collection, and contains more useful knowledge than all the writings of the Augustan age condensed into one mass. The historical annals of Tacitus, if inferior to Livy in elegance of style and majesty of diction, are much superior in arrangement and in vigour of composition. In short, we discover in these productions a deep insight into human nature, an extensive knowledge of the true science of government, a penetration which no dissimulation could escape, together with a sincere attachment to truth respecting both events and characters; nor is he inferior in the majesty, energy, and propriety of his harangues, wherever an equal opportunity presents itself. Quintilian, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Petronius Arbiter, and Juvenal deserve high commendation, and are not inferior to their immediate predecessors. We think there is good reason to conclude, that the loss of liberty amongst the Romans did not produce the extinction of eloquence, science, elevation of sentiment, or refinement of taste. The circumstances which chiefly contributed to produce that revolution were of a different description.

Velleius Paterculus whom we have already quoted assigns some very plausible and judicious reasons for the catastrophe in question. “Emulation,” says he “is the nurse of genius; and one while envy, and another admiration fires imitation. According to the laws of nature, that which is pursued with the greatest ardour mounts to the top; but to be stationary in perfection is a difficult matter; and by the same analogy, that which cannot move forward must go backward. As at the outset we are animated to overtake those whom we deem before us, so when we despair of being able to overtake or to pass by them, our ardour languishes together with our hope; what it cannot overtake it ceases to pursue, and leaving the subject as already engrossed by another, it looks out for some new one upon which to exert itself. That by which we find that we are not able to acquire eminence we speedily relinquish, and try to discover some object elsewhere upon which to employ our intellectual powers. The consequence is, that frequent and variable transitions from subject to subject prove a great obstacle to the attainment of perfection in any profession.”

This was perhaps the case with the Romans. The he·
[7:17:413]

roes of the Augustan age had borne away the prize of eloquence, history, poetry, and elegant literature; and their successors despaired of being able to equal, much less to surpass them, in any of these pursuits. They were therefore placed under the necessity of striking out a new path by which they might hope to arrive at eminence. Consequently Seneca introduced the stile coupe, as the French call it; that is, a short, sparkling, figurative diction, abounding with antitheses, quaintnesses, witticisms, and embellished with meretricious ornaments r 3 ** r hereas the style of the Augustan age was natural, simple, solid, unaffected, and properly adapted to the nature of the subject as well as to the sentiments of the author.

The historian Sallust laid the foundation of the unnatural style here mentioned. Notwithstanding all the excellencies of that celebrated author, he everywhere exhibits an affectation of antiquity, an antithetical cast, an air of austerity, an accuracy, exactness, and regularity, the very opposite of that air dégage which nature displays in her most finished efforts. His words and his clauses seem to be adjusted exactly according to number, weight, and measure, without either excess or defect. Valleius Paterculus imitated this writer; and, as is generally the case with imitators, succeeded best in those points where his archetype had failed most egregiously. Tacitus, however excellent in other respects, deviated from the Augustan exemplars, and is thought to have imitated Sallust; but affecting brevity to excess, he often falls into obscurity. The other contemporary writers employ a cognate style; and because they have deviated from the Augustan standard, their works are held in less estimation, and are thought to beaι∙ about them marks of degeneracy. This degeneracy, however, did not spring from the despotic government under which these authors lived, but from the affectation of singularity into which they were betrayed by an eager though fruitless desire of signalizing themselves in the new mode, as their predecessors had done in the old.

But the mischiefs of this rage for innovation did not reach their sentiments, as it had done their style; for in that point we think they were so far from falling below the measure of the writers of the former age, that in many instances they appear to have surpassed them. With respect to sentiment and mental exertions, the authors in question preserved their vigour, till luxury and effeminacy, the consequence of power and opulence, enervated both the bodies and the minds of the Romans. The contagion soon became universal; and a listlessness, or intellectual torpor, the usual concomitant of luxury, spread an indolence over the mental faculties, which rendered them not only averse to, but even incapable of, industry and perseverance. This lethargic disposition of mind seems to have commenced towards the conclusion of the silver age; that is, about the end of the reign of Hadrian. It was then that the Roman eagle began to stoop, and that, in arts as well as in arms, the genius of Rome showed symptoms of decline.

As the Roman genius began, about this period, to decline, so the style of the silver age became gradually vitiated with barbarisms and exotic forms of speech. The multitudes of barbarians who flocked to Rome from all parts of the empire; the ambassadors of foreign princes,and often theprinces themselves, with their attendants; the prodigious numbers of slaves who were entertained in all the considerable families of the capital, and throughout Italy; the frequent commerce which the Roman armies upon the frontiers carried on with the barbarians; all concurred to vitiate the Latin language, and to interlard it with foreign words and idioms. In such circumstances, it was impossible for that or any other form of speech to continue pure and untainted. But this vitiated character both of style and of sentiment became more and more prevalent, in proportion as it descended from the reign of Hadrian towards the era of the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople. Then succeeded the iron age, when the Roman language became absolutely rude and barbarous.

Towards the close of the silver, however, and during the whole course of what is called the brazen age, there appeared many writers of no contemptible talents. The most remarkable was Seneca the stoic, the master of Nero, whose character both as a man and a writer is discussed with great accuracy by the noble author of the Characteristics, a work to which our readers are referred. About the same time lived Persius the satirist, the friend and disciple of the stoic Cornutus, to whose precepts he did honour by his virtuous life; whilst by his works, though few, he showed an early proficiency in the science of morals.

Under the mild government of Hadrian and the Antonines lived Aulus Gellius, or, as some call him, Agellius; an entertaining writer in the miscellaneous way, and well skilled in criticism and antiquity. His works contain several valuable fragments of philosophy, which are indeed the most curious part of them. With Aulus Gellius we may rank Macrobius; not because he was a contemporary, for he is supposed to have lived under Honorius and Theodosius, but from his close resemblance in the character of writer. His works, like those of Gellius, are miscellaneous, being filled with mythology and ancient literature, intermixed with some philosophy. In the same age with Aulus Gellius flourished Apuleius of Madaura in Africa; a Platonic writer, whose matter in general far exceeds in merit his perplexed and affected style, which is but too conformable to the false rhetoric of the age in which he lived.

Boethius was descended from one of the noblest of the Roman families, and was consul in the beginning of the sixth century. He wrote many philosophical works; but his ethical work on the Consolation of Philosophy deserves great encomiums, both for the matter and the style, in which last respect, he approaches the purity of a far better age than his own. By command of Theodoric the king of the Goths this great and good man suffered death; and with him the Latin language, and the last remains of Roman dignity, may be said to have sunk in the western world. There were, besides, a goodly number both of poets and historians who flourished during this period, such as Silius Italicus, Claudian, Ausonius, and others, for a list of whom the reader may consult Fabricii Bibliotheca Latina. A number of ecclesiastical writers, some of whom deserve great commendation, also flourished about the same period. The chief of these is Lactantius, who has been deservedly dignified with the proud title of the Christian Cicero.

The Roman authors amount to a very small number in comparison of the Greek. At the same time, when we consider the extent and duration of the Roman empire, we are surprised to find so few writers of character and reputation in so vast a field, and think we have good reason to agree with the prince of Roman poets in the sentiment which has been already quoted.

Upon the whole, the Latin language deserves our attention beyond any other ancient tongue now extant. The grandeur of the people by whom it was spoken; the high genius of its writers; the empire which it still maintains amongst ourselves; the necessity we are under of learning it in order to obtain access to almost all the sciences, nay even to the knowledge of our own laws, judicial proceedings, and charters; all these circumstances, and many others too numerous to be detailed, render the acquisition of that imperial and universal language in a peculiar manner at once improving and interesting. Spoken by the conquerors of the ancient nations, it partakes of all their revolutions, and bears continually th eir impression. Strong and nervous whilst they were employed in nothing but battles and carnage, it thundered in the camps, and made the proudest people to tremble, and the most despotic monarchs to bend their stubborn [7:17:414]necks to the yoke. Copious and majestic, it became the learned language of Europe, when the Romans, weary of battles, inclined to vie with the Greeks in science and refinement; and by its lustre it caused to disappear the jargon of savages which disputed with it the possession of that quarter of the globe. After having controlled by its eloquence, and humanized byits laws, all those tribes, it became the language of religion; and it will continue to be studied and esteemed as long as good sense and classical taste remain in the world.

SECT. IX. CELTIC, GOTIÏIC, AND SCLAVONIAN LANGUAGES.

§ 1. Of th e Celtic Language. In treating of the origin of the Latin language, we observed that a great part of it had been derived from the Celtic. We shall now endeavour to give some account of the origin and extent of that ancient language, leaving the minutiae to grammars and dictionaries, as we have done with respect to the other dialects which have fallen under our consideration. The object of this treatise is to discuss questions in philology alone, not to enter into grammatical details, or lexicoraphical explanations.

The descendants of Japhet having peopled the western parts of Asia, at length entered Europe. Some broke into that quarter of the globe by the north, and others found means to cross the Danube near its mouth. Their posterity gradually ascended towards the source of that river; but afterwards they advanced to the banks of the Rhine, which they passed and thence spread themselves as far as the Alps and the Pyrenees.

These people, were, in all probability, composed of different families; allofthem,however,spoke the same language; their manners and customs bore a near resemblance; and there was no variety amongst them except that difference which climate always introduces. A ccordingly, they were all known, in the more early times, by the general name of Celto-scythae. In process of time, becoming exceedingly numerous, they were divided into several nations, which were distinguished by different names and territorial appellations. Those who inhabited that large country which is bounded by the ocean, the Mediterranean, the Rhine, the Alps, and the Pyrenees, were denominated Gauls or Celts. This people multiplied so prodigiously in the space of a few centuries, that the fertile regions which they then occupied could not afford them the means of subsistence. Some of them now passed over into Britain; others crossed the Pyrenees, and formed settlements in the northern parts of Spain. Even the formidable barrier of the Alps could not impede the progress of the Gauls. They made their way into Italy, and colonized those parts which lie at the foot of these mountains, whence they extended themselves towards the centre of that rich country.

By this time thcGreekshadlandcdon the south-eastern coast of Italy, and founded numerous colonies in those parts. The two nations having each apparently a redundant population, and always planting colonies in the course of their progress, at length met about the middle of the country. This central region was at that period called Latium; and here the two nations formed one society, which was called the Latin people. The languages of both nations were blended together; and hence, according to some, the Latin is a mixture of Greek and of Celtic.

As the Gauls were a brave and numerous people, they certainly maintained themselves in their pristine possessions, uninvaded and unconquered, until their civil animosities and domestic quarrels exposed them as a prey to those very Romans whom they had so often defeated, and sometimes driven to the brink of destruction. They were not a people addicted to commerce; and upon the whole, considering their situation both in their primary seats and afterwards in Italy, they had little temptation or opportunity to intermingle with foreigners. Their language, therefore, must have remained unmixed with foreign idioms. Such as it was when they settled in Gaul, such it must have continued until the Roman conquests. If therefore there is one primitive language now existing, it must be found in the remains of the Gaulic or Celtic. It is not, then, surprising, that some very learned men, upon discovering the coincidenccof great numbers of words in some of the Greek dialects with other words in the Celtic, have been inclined to establish a strict affinity between these languages. The ancient Pelasgic and the Celtic must at least have nearly resembled each other; admitting only a dialectical difference, and that discrimination which climate and a long period of time must always produce.

Some writers have thought that the Gauls lost the use of their native language soon after their country was conquered by the Romans; but Μ. Bullet, in his Mémoires de la Langue Celtique, has proved almost to demonstration, that the vulgar amongst this people continued to speak it several centuries after that period. When a great and populous nation has for many ages employed a vernacular idiom, nothing can ever make them entirely relinquish the use cf it, and adopt unmixed that of their conquerors.

Many learned men, amongst whom is the lexicorapher above mentioned, have shown that all the local names in the north of Italy are actually of Celtic extraction. These names generally point out or describe some circumstances relating to the physical character of the situation; such as exposure, eminence, lowness, moistness, dryness, coldness, heat, and the like. This is a very characteristic feature of an original language; and in the Celtic it is so prominent, that the Erse names of places all over Scotland, are, even to the present day, peculiarly distinguished by this quality. We have heard a gentleman, who was well skilled in that dialect of the Celtic still spoken in the Highlands of Scotland, propose to lay a bet at very great odds, that if anyone should pronounce the name of any village, mountain, river, gentleman’s seat, or other place, in the old Scottish dialect, he would be able, by its very name, to give a pretty exact description of its local situation.

To discover the real sources from which the Celtic language was derived, we must have recourse to various expedients. In the first place, we must consult the Greek and Latin authors, who have preserved some Gaulic or Celtic terms in their writings. Secondly, we must have recourse to the Welsh and Basse Bretagne dialects, in which-, indeed, there are many new words, though these are easily distinguishable from the primitive stock. Thirdly, if we w ould trace another source of the Celtic, we must converse with the country people and peasants, who live at a distance from cities, in those countries where this was once the vernacular tongue. We have been credibly informed, that a Highland gentleman crossing the Alps on his way to Italy, accidentally met with an old woman, a native of those parts, who spoke a language so nearly akin to his native Erse, that he could understand her with little difficulty; and that she, on the other hand, understood most of his words. That an event of this nature should actually take place is by no means surprising, when we consider that the dialect spoken in the Highlands of Scotland is perhaps the most genuine remnant of the Celtic now existing, and at the same time reflect that there may be remote cantons amongst those wild and inaccessible mountains, the Alps, where some remains of that tongue may still be preserved. Fourthly, we have said that the most genuine remains of the Gaelic tongue are to be found in the Highlands of Scotland. The reason of this is obvious. The Scottish Highlanders are the unmixed unconquered posterity of the ancient Britons, into whose barren domains the Romans never penetrated; not, we imagine, because they were not able, since they subdued both North and South Wales, equally inaccessible, but because they found no inducement either to excite their ambition or provoke their avarice. Amidst all the revolutions which from time to time shook and convulsed Albion, these mountainous regions were [7:17:415]left to their primitive lords, who, though like their southern progenitors, hospitable in the extreme, did not suffer strangers to reside long amongst them. Their language, accordingly, remained unmixed, and in a great measure continues so even unto this day, especially in the most remote parts and unfrequented islands.

The Norwegians subdued the western islands of Scotland, at a time when the Scottish monarchy was still in its minority; and the same people erected a kind of principality over them, of which the Isle of Man was the capital. But though they maintained the sovereignty of these islands for some centuries, built many forts, which they strengthened with garrisons, and were the lawgivers and administrators of justice amongst the natives, yet we have been informed by the most respectable authority, that there is not at this day a single term of the Norse or Danish language to be found in use amongst these islanders. This fact demonstrates the superstitious attachment with which they adhered to their vernacular dialect.

The Welsh dialect cannot, we should think, be pure and unsophisticated. The Silures were conquered by the Romans, to whom they were actually subject for the space of three centuries. During this period a multitude of Italian exotics must have been transplanted into their language; and indeed many of them are discernible at this day. Their long commerce with their English neighbours and conquerors has also adulterated their language, so that a great part of it is now of an English complexion. The Irish is still spoken by a large portion of the native population of Ireland. The historians of that country have brought the Milesian race from the confines of Asia, through a variety of adventures, to people an island extra anni solisque vias. But however much this genealogical fable may please the people for whom it was fabricated, we may still suspect that the Irish are of Celtic extraction, and that their forefathers emigrated from the western coast of Britain at a period anterior to all historical or even traditional annals. Ireland was once the native land of saints; and the principal actors on this sacred stage were Romanists, deeply tinctured with the superstition of the times. They pretended to improve the language of the natives; and whatever their success may have been, they improved it in such a manner as to make it deviate very considerably from the original Celtic; so that it is not in Ireland that we are to look for the genuine characters of the language which we are now considering.

Though, in our opinion, the Hibernian dialect differs considerably from the original Celtic, yet some very ingenious essays have been published by the learned and laborious members of Antiquarian Society of Dublin, in which the coincidence of that idiom with some of the oriental dialects, has been supported by very plausible arguments. Ina dissertation published in the year 1772, the authors have exhibited a collection οCPunicoMaltese words compared with words of the same import in Irish, and it must be allowed that in these the resemblance is palpable. In the same dissertation they have compared the celebrated Punic scene in Plautus with its translation into the Irish, and shown that the words in the two languages are surprisingly similar. If these criticisms are well founded, they tend to prove that the Celtic is coeval and congenial with the most ancient languages of the East; a conclusion which we think highly probable. But however this maybe, the Danes and Norwegians formed settlements in Ireland; and the English have long been the sovereigns of that island. These circumstances must have affected the vernacular idiom of the natives, and not to mention the necessity which the people were under of adopting the language of the conquerors in law, in sciences, and in the offices of religion, they must have contributed much to impair its original purity.

The inhabitants of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are the descendants of those Britons who fled from the power of the Romans, and sheltered themselves amongst the rocks and fastnesses of those rugged mountains and sequestered glens. They preferred the wastes and wilds of the north, with liberty and independence, to the pleasant and fertile valleys of the south, where plenty was embittered by slavery. They no doubt carried their language along with them, and that language was a branch of the Celtic. With them, probably, fled a number of the druidical priests,^[201. The probability here assumed cannot very easily be admitted, because we have little else than conjecture to guide us, Mr. Malcolm Laing, in his Dissertation on Ossian, has shown that the opinion expressed in the text is altogether unsupported by any thing deserving the name of evidence; be even contends, that the probability is strongly the other way; and those ancient remains, which have so often been appealed to, as favouring the opinion in question, are considered as of Runic, not Druidical origin. Besides, in the traditional superstitions of the Highlands, there is nothing as far as we kuow, accords with the account given by Caesar of the religious rites practised by the British Druids· ] who unquestionably knew their native dialect in all its beauties and varieties. In process of time these fugitives formed a regular government, elected a king, and became a considerable state. They were sequestered by their situation from the rest of the world. Without commerce, without agriculture, without the mechanical arts, and without objects of ambition or emulation, they addicted themselves wholly to the pastoral life as their business, and to hunting and fishing as their diversion. This people were not distinguished by an innovating genius; and consequently their language must have remained in the same state in which they received it from their ancestors. They received it genuine Celtic, and such they preserved it.

When the Scots had become masters of the low country, and their kings with a great part of the nobility embraced the Saxon manners, and adopted the Saxon language, the genuine Caledonians still tenaciously retained their native dialect, dress, manners, clanships, and feudal customs, and never cordially assimilated with their southern neighbours. Their language, therefore, could not be polluted with words or idioms borrowed from a people whom they hated and despised. Indeed, it is plain from the whole tenor of the Scottish history, that neither Caledonian chiefs, nor their vassals were ever steadily attached to the royal family after they fixed their residence in the low country, and became Sassenach, as the Highlanders called them by way of reproach. Indeed, the commerce between them and those of the south, till about a century and a half ago, was only transient and accidental; nor was their native dialect in any material degree affected by this casual intercourse.

Their language, however, did not degenerate, because there existed amongst them a description of men whose profession obliged them to guard against that misfortune. Every chief retained in his family a bard or poet laureate, whose province it was to compose poems in honour of his lord, to commemorate the glorious exploits of his ancestors, and to record the genealogy and connections of the family; in a word, to amuse and entertain the chief and his guests at all public entertainments, and upon all solemn occasions. These professors of the poetical art used to contend with each other; and the chiefs of families often assembled their respective bards, and encouraged them by considerable premiums to exert their poetical talents. The victor was rewarded and honoured; and the chief deemed it an honour to himself to entertain a bal’d who excelled his brethren in song. The ancient Gauls, as we learn from Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Tacitus, Lucan, and others, entertained persons of that profession; and certainly the ancient Britons did the same. The bards were highly revered; their persons were deemed sacred; and they were always rewarded with salaries in lands or in cattle. The members of this tuneful fraternity must [7:17:416]have watched over their vernacular dialect with the greatest care and anxiety; because in their compositions no word was to be lost, and as many as possible gained.

The use of letters was not known amongst the ancient Cel~ tae ; indeed their druidical clergy forbade the use of them. All their religious rites, their philosophical dogmas, their moral precepts, and their political maxims, were composed in verses which their pupils were obliged to commit to memory. Accordingly letters were unknown to the Caledonian Scots, till they learned them either from their southern neighbours, or from the Romans. The Irish, indeed, pretend to have letters of a very ancient date; but the Highlanders of the country in question make no claim to the use of that invention. Their bards, therefore, committed every thing to memory; and consequently the words of their language must have been faithfully preserved.

In order to exhibit the genius of the Celtic in as striking a light as the nature of our present design will permit, we shall lay before our readers a very short sketch or outline of the Gaelic or Caledonian dialect as it now stands; which, we trust, will go a great way to convince them that the latter is the genuine offspring of the other. In doing this we shall borrow many hints from the work of a gentleman^[202. The writer here referred to is Mr. Grant, whose Essays contain much curious information on the subject of which this section treats. ] whose learning seems to have equalled his zeal for his native language, which, in compliance with the modern practice, we shall for the future distinguish by the name of Gaelic.

The Gaelic, then, is not as far as we know derived from any other language, being obviously reducible to its own roots. Its combinations are formed of simple words of a known signification; and these words arc resolvable into the simplest combinations of vowels and consonants, and even into simple sounds. In such a language we may expect that some traces will be found of the ideas and notions of mankindlivingin astate of primitive simplicity; and if so,a monument is still preserved of the original manners of the Celtic race whilst as yet under the guidance of simple nature, without any artificial restraint or control.

The sudden sensations of heat and cold, and bodily pain, are expressed by articulate sounds, which, however, are not used in this language to denote heat, cold, or bodily pain. A sudden sensation of heat is denoted by an articulate exclamation hait; of cold, by id; of bodily pain, by oich. All these sounds may be called interjections, being parts of speech which discover that the mind is affected by some passion. Few of the improved languages of Europe present so great a variety of sounds which instantaneously convey notice of a particular passion, of bodily pain or mental feeling.

The pronouns he and she are expressed by the simple sounds e and ⅛ and these again are the marks of the masculine and feminine genders; for the neuter gender isquiteunknown in the Gaelic. The compositions of rude and barbarous ages are universally found to approach to the style and numbers of poetry; and this too is a distinguishing character of the Gaelic. The means of subsistence must always be the principal concern of an uncultivated people. Accordingly ed or eid is used upon the discovery of any animal of prey or game, and is meant to give notice to the hunting companion to be in readiness to seize the animal; and hence edo to eat in Latin, ed in Irish, signifying cattle, and edal in Scotch, literally signifying the offspring or generation of cattle. Coed or cued, a share or portion of any subject of property, is literally common food; faced, hunting, literally gathering of food; edra, the time of the morning when cattle are brought home from pasture to be milked, literally meal-time. These are words importing the simplicity of a primitive state, and are common in the Gaelic idiom. Traces of imitative language may alsobe found in all countries.

The word used for cow in the Gaelic language is bo, plainly in imitation of the lowing of that animal.

In joining together original roots in the progress of improving language and rendering it more copious, its combinations discover an admirable justness and precision of thought, which one would scarcely have expected to find in an uncultivated dialect. Upon examination, however, it will be discovered that the Gaelic language, in its combinations of words, specifies with accuracy the known qualities, and expresses with precision the nature and properties which were attributed to the object denominated. An, for instance, appears to have been a word of frequent use in this language, and seems to have been originally a name applied indefinitely to any object. According to Bullet, it was employed to signify a planet; and hence the sun had the name of grian, which is a compound of gri, hot, and an a planet. Re signifies originally and radically division. The changes of the moon and the variety of her phases were early employed to indicate the divisions of time. The present name for the moon is gculach, a word derived from her whiteness of colour. To these we might add a vast number more, the signification of which precisely indicates their shape, colour, effects, or other accidents. Many of these would be found exactly similar to Greek and Latin words of the same sound and signification. In order to satisfy our curious readers, we shall annex a few, though some of them may perhaps be questionable.

The Venus of the Latins is supposed to be a compound of ben and jus, which literally signify the first woman, the letter b in Gaelic being softened into v. Eδαp and dδαp signify food. These words are compounded of the Gaelic words ed or eid and ar, the former simply denoting food, and the latter ploughed land ; and they are the roots of the Greek and Latin words eδω, edo ; apoω, aro. Εδρα, which signifies a seat, has also an evident reference to food. It is compounded of two Gaelic words ed and ira, which literally signify mealtime. Eδι>α, which signifies the presents that a bridegroom made to his bride, is a compound of two Gaelic words ed and ηa or nuah, literally signifying raw food. From ar there are many Greek derivatives. Αρουρα signifies ploughedland, and also a crop of corn; and àpros means bread. In Gaelic a crop of corn and bread are expressed by arbhar, which is commonly pronounced arar and aran, both being equally derivatives of the root ar. So the Greek and Latin words apoτοs, arabilis, arable; aporpov, aratrum, a plough; apornρ, arator, a ploughman; and many others, are evidently derived from the same source. From this coincidence, however, we are not orepared to maintain that either the Greek or the Latin languages were derived from the Gaelic; we are rather inclined to think that these are remains of a primeval tongue, which are still retained in all the three, and we produce them upon the present occasion as presumptions that the Gaelic is an original, un derived language, and of course the most pure and unadulterated relic of the Celtic now existing.^[203. If our readers should incline to know more of this subject, they may consult Pezron’s Oriyin of Anaent Nations, Bullet’s Mémoires de la Langue Celtique, Parson’s Rem. of Japhet, and Gebelin’s Monde Primitif. ]

When the Celtic language was generally spoken throughout Europe, it seems to have been amazingly copious. By consulting Bullet’s Mémoires, it will be seen that its names for the common and various objects of nature were very numerous. The words denoting water, river, wood, forest, mountain, lake, and other natural objects, were most precisely accommodated to specify each modification and variety, with such peculiar exactness that even the Greek, withall its boasted idiomatical precision and copiousness, has not been able to equal it. The appearances which diversify the visible face of animated nature, arrest the attention of men in an uncultivated state. Unaccustomed to thought and abstract reasoning, their minds expandandexcreisetheirpowers [7:17:417]upon sensible objects, and of course mark every minute and almost imperceptible distinction with an accuracy which to us seems impossible. It therefore appears to us, that the Celtic formed one of the dialects of the primitive language; thatanciently it overspread byfar thegreatest partofEurope; and that the Gaelic now spoken in the northern parts of Scotland and the adjacent islands is the purest and most unmixed relic of that language anywhere existing at the present time.

We would willingly refer our readers to some well arranged Gaelic grammar; but in point of fact we know of none which deserves particular recommendation. That by Dr. Stewart, however, is the best of its class, and considering the difficulty of the undertaking, it must be regarded as a creditable performance, notwithstanding its deficiency in philosophical precision, and simplicity of arrangement. The Dictionary of the Highland Society, in two volumes quarto, and that by Dr. Armstrong, in one volume of the same size, though neither of them, perhaps, what could in all respects be desired, must, nevertheless, afford great facilities to the student of Gaelic.^[204. The Dictionary of the Highland Society is executed with great ability to the extent of between two-thirds and three-fourths of the whole; but the subsequent portion betrays that it had fallen into inferior hands; and some of the Latin definitions are such as can scarcely fail to astonish the accurate scholars of the Continent. The death of Mr. Maclachlan, of Aberdeen, the original conductor, proved a great calamity to the work. Equally eminent as a classical, oriental, and Celtic scholar, and profoundly learned in philology, his place could not be supplied; and though occasional assistance was obtained from men equally conversant with Latin and with Celtic, such as the late Rev. Mr. Macdonald of Crieff, the elegant author of the Pliingaleis, yet the master mind was removed, and the work suffered in consequence. Still, with all its acknowledged defects, it is a valuable present to the philologist as well as the scholar, and does honour to the liberal and patriotic spirit of the National Association under whose auspices it was brought out. ] These works, together with the excellent translation of both the Old and New Testaments into Gaelic, which was long a great desideratum amongst the Highlanders, many of whom are still unacquainted with English, will contribute to preserve their ancient tongue, and to disseminate the knowledge of the truth amongst the natives of the mountains.

Every assistance towards acquiring the knowledge of a language which was once diffused over a great part of Europe, is certainly an acceptable present to the public. The antiquary, who is desirous of tracing the affinity of languages, and who wishes to mark the migrations of different races, ought to apply himself to the study of its remaining branches; and, if we are not mistaken, he will soon be convinced, that they all breathe a spirit congenial to the manners and sentiments of people who are just entering upon the first stage of improvement and civilization.

Perhaps it may be expected, that, before we conclude this short sketch of the Celtic language, we should give some account of the origin of the words Gaul and Gal, the two names by which this people were distinguished by the Greeks and Romans. Mr. Macpherson imagines, that the appellation of Celt is an adjective derived from Gael, the aboriginal name of the inhabitants of ancient Gaul. For our part, we can see no connection whatever between Gael and Kelt, nor do we think that the latter is an adjective. We believe that this people called themselves Gael and not Gael; and there is little room for doubt that Caledonia, that is, Cal-don or Cal-dun, was an ancient name of the mountainous parts of Scotland.

Though many different opinions have been advanced respecting the etymology of this word, we imagine that none is so probable as that which supposes that it is compounded of the two Celtic words, Cal or Kal, that is, Gal or Gaul, and dun, which signifies a hill or mountain. Upon this ground, the Caledones will import the Gauls of the mountains, or which is the same, the Highland Gauls. The Irish and Highlanders reciprocally denominate themselves Cael, Gael, or Gauls. They also distinguish themselves, as the Welsh originally did, and as the Welsh distinguish them both at present, by the appellation of Guidhill, Guethel, and Gathel. The intermediate th, they say, is left quiescent in the pronunciation, as it is in many words of the British language, so that Gathel would immediately be formed into Gael; and Gathel is actually sounded like G⅛eZboth by the Irish and by the Highlanders. The appellation of Gathel, therefore, say they, was originally the same with Gael, and the parent of it. The quiescent letters in the British are frequently transferred from the middle to the conclusion of the word; by which means Gathel is changed into Galath, Galat, Galt, and Celt. It is true, that the Gael of the continent are universally denominated Galatae and Celtaeby the Grecians,and Gallt and Gallta↑iy the Irish. The appellations, therefore, of Gathel-i, Galli, Gallat-ae, Calet-es, An-calit-es, and Celt-ae, are all one and the same denomination, only varied by the astonishing ductility of the Celtic, and disguised by the alterations ever incident to a language which has for ages been merely oral.^[205. We must caution our readers, however, not to confound Gael with Gal or Gall, which, in the Celtic, signifies a stranger. ]

It may perhaps appear presumptuous in us to differ from two such respectable authorities as Macpherson and Whitaker; but we must, nevertheless, acknowledge, that neither the one nor the other appears to us to be well founded in his views. Besides, they convey no idea of the signification of the words, though in the Celtic language these must have been significant. The name Cael, the same with Gal, was probably given them in the East from the Greek καλ, which in many oriental languages denotes fair ; and γαλατία may be easily derived from γdλ or γαλαθ, Gal or Galath ; a denomination which might be given them by their neighbours, in allusion to their fair complexion.

§ 2.— Of the Gothic Language.

The Celtic and Gothic languages at one period divided Europe between them. Both were of equal antiquity, both originated in Asia, and both were dialects of the original language of mankind. The Celtic, however, was first imported into Europe. The Gauls or Celts had penetrated farthest towards the west, a circumstance which plainly intimates the priority of their arrival. In the population of countries, it may be held as a maxim, that the colonies who first emigrated were generally impelled by succeeding emigrants; and that consequently the most early were pushed forward to the parts most distant. The Celts, then, having overspread the most western parts of Europe, must have been the first who established themselves in those regions.

The Goths and Getae were the same race of people, according to Procopius^[206. De Bello Gothico lib i. c∙ 2. ]; and Strabo informs us, that they spoke the same language with the Thracians, from whose confines they had spread themselves northward as far as the western banks of the Danube.^[207. Lib. ii. cap. 23. ] Vopiscus, in the History of Probus, tells us, that this emperor obliged “the Thracians, and all the Getic tribes, either to surrender or accept of his friendship,” an expression which indicates, that the Thracians and the Getic tribes were deemed the same race of people.^[208. Lib. vii. p. 295; ibid. p. 305, Casaubon. From this passage it appears, that the Greeks were of opinion that the Getae were Thracians. Pliny (Nat. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 11.) mentions a tribe of the Getae called Gaudoe. ] From this deduction then, it is clear, that the Getae and Thracians were brethren, andspokethe same language ;— and that their laws, manners, customs, and religious tenets, were the same, might easily be shewn, were this the proper [7:17:418]place for such an inquiry. The Thracian language, as might be démonstrated from names of persons, offices, places, and customs, amongst the people who spoke it, was nearly related to the Chaldaic and other oriental languages.

The Goths arc thought to have been the descendants of Tiras, one of the sons of Japhet, and consequently must have preserved the speech of the Noachic family. The Gothic language abounds with Pahlavi, or old Persian words, which are no doubt remains of the primitive dialect of mankind. The Thracians peopled a considerable part of the northern coast of Asia Minor; and consequently we meet with many names of cities, mountains, rivers, and other objects in those parts, exactly corresponding with many names in Europe, evidently imposed by our Gothic progenitors. These any person tolerably acquainted with the remains of the Gothic language, will be able to trace with little difficulty.

We learn from Herodotus,^[209. Lib. iv. passim. ] that Darius in his expedition against the wandering Scythians who lived on the other side of the Ister or Danube, subdued in his progress the Getae; and in the same passage the historian informs us, that this people held the immortality of the human soul, and were the bravest and justest of all the Thracians. After this period, we find them mentioned familiarly by almost every Greek writer; for, in the comedies of that nation, Geta is a common name for a slave. The Getae then occupied all that large tract of country which extended from the confines of Thrace to the banks of the Danube; they were a brave and virtuous people, who spoke the same language as the Thracians, with whom they are often confounded both by the Greek and the Roman historians. But the name of Goths is not by any means so ancient. It was utterly unknown to the ancient Greeks and Romans. The first time that the name Goth is mentioned is in the reign of the emperor Decius, about the year of Christ 250. About that period they had burst out of Getia, and rushing like a torrent into the empire, laid waste every thing with fire and sword. The name of their leader or king was Cneva ; andDecius,in endeavouring to expel them from Thrace, was vanquished and slain.

After this irruption, we find them frequently mentioned by the Latin authors under the namcof G⅛i<≡or Gothi, though the Greeks generally denominate them Scythae. Torfaeus tells us, that get and got are in reality the same word, and according to him, anciently denoted a soldier.^[210. History of Norway, lib· i. ] Got in Icelandic signifies a horse or horseman, and gata a wanderer; and this was perhaps the import of the term Geta, because the Getae were originally an unsettled and vagrant people. As nations generally assume to themselves some high and auspicious denomination, it may be presumed that the Goths did the same. We may therefore be satisfied, thatthe Getae assumed the Icelandic name above mentioned as their national one; or perhaps, that, notwithstanding their Greek denomination, they from the beginning called themselves Gots or Goths.

The original seat of the Goths was the country now called Little Tartary, into which they had extended themselves from the frontiers of Thrace. This country was called Little Scythia by the Greek writers; and it was the station whence those innumerable swarms advanced, which, in conjunction with the Alani and other barbarous tribes, at length overran and subverted the western empire. One part of the Gothic nation was allowed by Constantine to settle in Moesia. Before the year 420 of our era, most of the Gothic nations who had settled within the limits of the Roman empire had been converted to the Christian faith; but, unhappily, the greater part of the apostles by whom they had been proselytized were Arians; and this proved fatal to many of the orthodox Christians, whom the Arian Goths persecuted with unrelenting cruelty.

About the year 367, Ulphilas, bishop of the Moesian Goths, translated the New Testament into the language of that peo ple. The remains of this translation furnish a genuine, and at the same time a venerable, monument of the ancient Gothic dialect. Of that valuable translation no more is now extant than the four Gospels, and another fragment containing part of the epistle to the Romans. The Gospels have been repeatedly published since the first edition by Junius which appeared in the year 1665. There have also been discovered other fragments of the Gothic language which the curious reader may find in Lye’s notes to his edition of the Gothic Gospels. The fragment of the Epistle to the Romans was discovered in the library at Wolfenbuttle, and published by Knitel arch-deacon of Wolfenbuttle, as has been fully explained in another article of this work (Palimpsests). Prior to the age of Ulphilas, the Goths were ignorant of the use of alphabetical characters. But that bishop fabricated for them an alphabet, which consists of a medley of Greek and Roman letters, though rather inclining to the former.

The Gothic alphabet is composed of twenty-five letters. Junius has carefully analyzed these letters, and pointed out their powers and sounds, in the alphabet prefixed to his Glossarium Gothicum. They were long retained in all the European languages which acknowledged the Gothic as the source whence they had been derived, and which will be enumerated in the sequel.

What kind of language the ancient Gothic really was, may be inferredfrom the fragments above mentioned; but in what respects it agrees with the oriental tongues, or differs from them, is not easy to ascertain with precision. In the section on the Greek, we have observed that a considerable part of that language must have been derived from the Thracian, which, according to Strabo, was the same with the Getic or Gothic; and we are convinced that the Thracian language will, on comparison, be found analogous to the Chaldaic or Syriac. The German, which is a genuine descendant of the Gothic, is full of Persian words; and the old Persian or Pahlavi appears to have been a dialect of the Chaldaic. Junius, in his treatise on the Gothic alphabet, remarks that a very considerable part of the Gothic language is borrowed from the most ancient Greek; but, perhaps, it would have been nearer the truth, if he had reversed this observation, and stated that the ancient Greek was in a great measure derived from the Gothic.

The learned Ihre in his Glossarium Suio-Gothieum, and Wachter in his excellent German and Latin Dictionary, remark the coincidence of Gothic and German words with oriental nouns of a similar sound and the same signification. In the old Saxon, which is another ramification from theGothic stem, numberless terms of the very same complexion appear. Hence it appears that the Gothic in its original and unmixed state as spoken by the ancient Getae, was a dialect of the primeval language, which the sons of Tiras had brought with them from the plains of Shinar, Armenia, or some other region, where “the world’s grey fathers” had fixed their residence.

The Thracian tribes, in all probability, first took possession of those parts of Asia Minor which stretch towards the east; and thence crossing the Hellespont, they spread themselves northward. Strabo supposes that they first settled in the regions to the north of this strait, and thence transported numerous colonies into Asia Minor. The reverse was probably the case; but be this as it may, it is universally agreed, that both sides of the Hellespont were at one time peopled with Thracians.

In Asia Minor we meet with the city Perga, which, throwing away the a, is Perg. But in every tongue descended from the Gothic, the word Berg signifies a rock, and metaphorically a town or burgh, because towns were originally built upon rocks for the sake of defence. Hence likewise Pergamus, the fort or citadel of Troy. Beira, in Thracian,signified [7:17:419]a city; whilst the Chaldaic and Hebrew word Peer imports a well, and is possibly the original of the Gothic word beer, ale. In ancient times, especially in the East, it was customary to build cities in the neighbourhood of fountains. The ancients called the Phrygians Bpvy«, Bryges, or Bruges, a name which is obviously of Gothic origin. Thjndymus, the name of a city sacred to Cybele, is compounded of two Gothic words dun and durn, both signifying a height or an eminence, and hence a town or an inclosure. The word tros seems to be the Gothic word trosh, signifying brave, valiant. The words fader, rnader, dochter, brader, are so obviously Persian, that almost every etymologist has assigned them to that language.

Many fiitile etymologies have been given of the sacred name God, which is in reality the Persian word Choda, commonly applied by them to their Hormuzd or Oromasdes. The Persian bad or bod signifies a city; and the same word in Gothic imports a house, a mansion, an abode. Band, in Persian, is a strait place; in Gothic, it signifies to bend. Heim or ham, a house, is generally known to be of Persian origin. Much critical skill has been displayed in tracing the etymology of the Scotch and old English word Yule or Christmas. Yule, derived from iul, was a festival in honour of the sun, which was originally celebrated at the winter solstice. Wick or wich is a Gothic term still preserved in many names of towns; it signifies a narrow corner, or small strip of land jutting into the sea, or into a lake or river; hence the Latin vicus, and Greek φοικοs. In Spanish we have many old Gothic words, and amongst the rest hijo, a son, the same with the Greek iâoj. In some places of Scotland we call any thing that is little, or small, wee, originally spelled wi, which if we mistake not, is formed from the very same word.

These examples we have thrown together, without any regard to order, being persuaded that almost every word of the language, which is truly Gothic, may with a little pains and judgment be traced to some oriental root or cognate term. We may observe in passing, that many Gothic nouns end in α, like the Chaldaic and Syriac; that their substantive verb very much resembles that of the Persian, Greek, and Latin; and that their active and auxiliary verb has,furnished the common preterperfect tense of Greek verbs in the active voice. That verb is haban, but was originally ha, as the common people pronounce itatthis day, especiallyin the north of Scotland, and amongst the Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, and Icelanders.

Leaving the inferior arrangementsof this ancient language to grammarians and lexicoraphers, we shall now proceed to inquire what modern tongues have been derived from it as their source, and which of them makes the nearest approach to its simplicity and rusticity. We have already observed that the Goths, formerly Getae, were possessed of a vast extent of country, reaching from the frontiers of Thrace to the banks of the Ister or Danube. We have also seen that a colony of them settled in Moesia under Constantine II.; after which they spread themselves throughout Dacia, and thence passed into Germany. All these countries were situated in Such a manner, that the progress of population was commensurate with the natural course of emigration. From Germany they extended themselves into Scandinavia, that is, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. All the ancient Edda, Sagas, and Chronicles, shew that the Goths arrived in Scandinaviaby this route, without, however, fixing the era of that event with any tolerable degree of accuracy. BytheGermans, the ancients most probably understood all the nations eastward, westward, and northward, reaching from the Danube on the south to the extremity of Scandinavia in the northern ocean, and from the Rhine and German ocean on the west, to the river Chronus or Niemen on the east. But all the nations included within these limits spoke one or other of the Gothic dialects, some approaching nearer, and others deviating farther from, the parent language.

TheFrancic is plainly a dialect of the Teutonic, Tudesque, or old German; and the Gospels of Ulphilas bear such a resemblance to the Francic, fragments of which are preserved in the early French historians, that some learned men have pronounced these gospels part of an old Francic version; but others of equal respectability have refuted this opinion, both from history and a comparison of the dialects. Schilter has given us several specimens of the Tudesque or old German in the seventh century, which evidently prove that the Gothic of Ulphilas is the same language; and Wachter’s learned glossary of the ancient German confirms the position of Schilter. Ihre, after hesitating whether the Gospels of Ul-philasbear most resemblance to the Germanor Scandinavian dialect of the Gothic, declares at last in favour of the former. The Anglo-Saxon is also known to be a venerable dialect of the Tudesque; and is so intimately connected with the gospels, that some valuable works on this subject are wholly built upon that supposition.

The Icelandic is the most ancient relic of the Scandinavian. It begins with Arius Frode in the eleventh century, and is a dialect of the German. The remains we have of it are more modern by four centuries than those of the German; and they are also more polished. The words are shortened, not only because they are more modern than the German, but because the Icelandic was polished by a long succession of poets and historians almost equal to that which does so much honour to Greece and Rome. Hence the Icelandic, being a more polished language than the German, has less affinity with the parent Gothic. The Swedish is more nearly related to the Icelandic than either the Danish or Norwegian. That the Swedish is the daughter of the Gothic, hasbeen very clearly shewn by Ihre, in his Glossarium Suio-Gothicum. There is, therefore, no manner of doubt as to the identity of the Gothic, preserved in Ulphilas and other ancient remains, with the German and Scandinavian tongue. The modern German, resembles the Gothic Gospels more than the present Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish, and has certainly more ancientstamrwa. Itsresemblance to the Asiatic tongues, in harshness and inflexible thickness of sound, is likewise very apparent.^[211. It is a pity that the learned author of this treatise did not pursue the ingenious and profound thought which here suggested itself to his mind. If he had done so, he would, beyond all question, have anticipated the continental philologists in the discovery of a new principle of classifying languages, and more particularly in separating from the mass that great family which has been so aptly denominated Indo-European. But all the elements of the new classification are to be found in the present treatise. The affinity of the Greek and the Gothic, the parentage of the old German, and the oriental origin of both, are as distinctly intimated as in any of the works of Klaproth or his contemporaries; and if the author had known Sanscrit, he would, at the first glance, have anticipated the most important discovery which has rewarded the philological research of the nineteenth century. ]

Busbequius shews that the peasantry of Crim Tartary, who are remains of the ancient Goths, speak a language almost German. These peasants were no doubt descendants of the ancient Goths, who remained in their native country after the others had emigrated. It is therefore apparent from the whole of this investigation, that the Gothic was introduced into Europe from the East, and that it is probably a dialect of the language originally spoken by the founders of human society.

§ 3.— Of the Sclavonian Language.

There is another language which pervades a considerable part of Europe, and which, like the Gothic, seems to have originated in the East. The language we allude to is the Sclavonic or rather Slavonic, which prevails to a great extent in the eastern parts of this division of the globe. It is spoken by the Dalmatians, by the inhabitants of the Danubian provinces, [7:17:420]by the Pôles, Bohemians, and Russians. The word slab, that is, slave, whence the French word esclave, and our word slave, signifies noble, illustrious; but because in the lower ages of the Roman empire, vast multitudes of this people were spread over all Europe in the quality of slaves, that word came to denote the servile tribe by way of distinction, in the same manner as the words Geta, Davus, and Syrus, did amongst the Greeks at a more early period.

The Slavi dwelt originally upon the banks of the Borysthenes, now called the Dnieper or Nieper. They were one of the tribes of the European Sarmatians, who in ancient times inhabited an immense tract of country, bounded on the west by the Vistula, and on the south-east by the Euxine or Black Sea, the Bosphorus Cimmerius, the Palus Maeotis, and the Tanais or Don, which divides Europe from Asia. In this vast tract of country 7 , there dwelt aboriginally many considerable tribes. To enumerate these, however, would not much edify our readers; andweshall only inform them, that amongst the Sarmatian clans were the Roxolani, now the Russians, and likewise the Slavi, who dwelt near the Borysthenes. The Slavi gradually advanced towards the Danube; and in the reign of Justinian having passed that river, they made themselves masters ofthat portion of Illyricum which lies between the Drave and the Save, and is to this day called Sclavonia. By degrees these barbarians overran Dalmatia, Liburnia, the western parts of Macedonia, and Epirus; and on the east they extended their conquests to the western bank of the Danube, where that river falls into the Euxine. In all these countries the Sclavonian was deeply impregnated with the Greek; which indeed was a matter of course, as the barbarian invaders settled in these regions, and mingled with the aborigines, who spoke a corrupt dialect of the Greek language.

The Poles are the genuine descendants of the ancient Sarmatians,^[212. This appears by their character, their laws, their manners, their form of government, their military equipage, their impetuosity, their aristocratic splendour. ] and consequently speak a dialect of the language of that race, though much adulterated with Latin words, in consequence of the attachment this people have long professed to the Roman tongue. The Silesians andBohemians have corrupted their dialects in a similar manner. In these countries, then, we are not to search for the genuine remainsof the ancient Sarmatian.

The modern Russians, formerly called Rhoxani or Roxolani, are the posterity of the Sarmatae, and constitute a branch of the Slavi. They inhabit a part of the country which that people possessed before they fell into the Roman provinces; they also speak the same language, and wear the very same dress. If then the Slavi are Sarmatae, the Russians must of course be the descendants of the same people. They were long a sequestered people, and consequently altogether unconnected with the other nations of Europe. They were unacquainted with commerce, inhospitable to strangers, tenacious of ancient usages, averse to improvements of every kind, wonderfully proud of their imaginary importance, and, in a word, a race of men just one degree above absolute barbarism. A people of this character are, for the most part, enemies to innovations; and if we may believe the Russian historians, no nation was ever more averse to changes than their own. From the ninth century, at which era they embraced Christianity, it does not appear that they moved one step forward towards civilization, until Peter the Great, little more than a century ago, compelled them by his despotic authority to adopt the manners and customs of their more polished neighbours.

We may then conclude, that, during the period in question, the Russians made as little change in their language as they appear to have done in their dress, habits, and manner of living. Whatever language they spoke in the ninth century, the same they employed at the beginning of the eighteenth. They were, indeed, according to Appian, once conquered by Diophantus, a general of Mithridates; but that conquest was for a moment only. They were likewise invaded, and their country was overrun, by the great Timur or Tamerlane; but this invasion proved like a torrent from the mountains, which spreads devastation far and wide whilst it rages, but makes little alteration on the face of the country. We find, likewise, that upon some occasions they made incursions upon the frontiers of the Roman empire; but we hear of no permanent settlements formed by them in the countries which they overran. Upon the whole, the Russians, with respect to their language, were in nearly the same predicament with the Highlanders and Islanders of Scotland, who, according to the general opinion, have preserved the Celtic dialect pure and entire, solely from their never having mingled with foreigners.

From this deduction we may infer two things; first, that the Russian language is the genuine Sclavonian; and, secondly, that the latter is the same, or nearly the same, with the ancient Sarmatian. In the Russian, there are found a great number of words resembling, both in sound and signification, the old simple roots of the Greek; its grammatical genius is nearly the same; and we are informed by the very best authority, that there exists in this language a translation of Epictetus, in which there are whole pages, both in the original and the translation, without one single transposition. Μ. Léveque, who published a translation of a history of Russia, was so entirely convinced of the strict analogy between the ancient Greek and the modern Russian, that he became positive as to the former having been derived from the latter. Μ. Fréret, a very learned French academician, also adopted the same opinion. We are persuaded, however, that this opinion is ill-founded, and rather conceive, that these coincidences arise from the relics of the primitive language of mankind, vestiges of which, we believe, are to be found almost in every tongue now extant.

It is, however, we admit, exceedingly difficult to render a reason for the syntaxical analogy of the two languages, without admitting the truth of the one or other of the hypotheses mentioned. We have examined with some care a goodly number of Russian words, and compared them with Greek words of the same signification; but we have not found such a resemblance as we consider necessary to support the position above advanced. We have indeed discovered a very strong resemblance between the former and many oriental words, especially Hebrew, Chaldaic, and old Persian, of which we could produce several instances, did the nature of our present inquiry admit such a deviation. Everybody knows that the Sarmatians were divided into two great nations, the Asiatic and the European. The former extended very far to the eastward, behind the mountain Caucasus, the northern shore of the Euxine Sea, and probably derived their language from the original form of speech long before the Greek language existed. But this, in comparison with the Hebrew, Phoenician, Egyptian, Arabian, and Chaldean, was but of yesterday. The Greek, most learned men are now convinced, was a late composition of many different dialects, incorporated with the jargon of the aboriginal Ionim or Greeks. The Sarmatian, on the contrary, was the language of a great and populous nation, civilized, in all appearance, long before the Greeks began to emerge from a state of barbarism. We are, therefore, by no means disposed to allow, either that the Greek is derived from the Russian, or that the Russian is derived from the Greek. We believe there is just the same reason for this conclusion, that the Abbé Pezron and Μ. Gebelin pretend to have discovered, for supporting their position that the Greek is derived from the Celtic. Certain it is, that the resemblance amongst the oriental languages, of which we conceive the Sarmatian to [7:17:421]have been one, is so palpable, that any person of moderate capacity who is perfectly master of one, will find but little difficulty in acquiring any other. If, therefore, the coincidence between the Greek and Russian should actually exist, we think this circumstance will not authenticate the supposition, that either of the two is derived from the other.

In the course of this argument, our readers will be pleased to observe, that we all along suppose, that the Sclavonian, of which we think the Russian is the most genuine remain, is the same with the old Sarmatian. We shall now take the liberty to hazard a conjecture with respect to the syntaxical coincidence of that language with the Greek; for we acknowledge that we are not so profoundly versed in the Russian dialect of the Sclavonian as to pretend to pronounce a definitive sentence.

As the Russians were a generation of savages, there is no probability that they were acquainted with the use of letters and alphabetical writing until they acquired that art by intercourse with their neighbours. It is certain that few nations had made less proficiency in the fine arts; and there is little appearance of their having learned this art previously to their conversion to Christianity. It appears, indeed, that the Slavi, who settled in Dalmatia, Illyria, and Liburnia, had no alphabetical characters till these were furnished with them by St. Jerome. The Servian character, which very nearly resembles the Greek, was invented by St. Cyril; and on this account the language written in that character is denominated Chiurilizza. But these Sclavonic tribes knew nothing of alphabetical writing prior to the era of their conversion; and the Moesian Goths were in the same condition till their bishop Ulphilas fabricated for them a set of letters. If, then, the Slavi and Goths, who resided in the neighbourhood of the Greeks and Romans, had not learned alphabetical writing prior to the era of their conversion to Christianity, it follows, a fortiori, that the Russians, who lived at a great distance from these nations, knew nothing of this useful art antecedent to the period of their embracing the Christian faith.

The Russians pretend that they were converted by St. Andrew; but this is known to be a fable. Christianity was first introduced amongst them in the reign of the grand duke Woladimir, who having married the daughter of the Greek emperor, Basilius, became her convert about the year 989. About this period they were taught the knowledge of letters by the Grecian missionaries, who were employed in teaching them the elements of the Christian doctrines. Their alphabet consists of thirty-one letters, with a few obsolete additional ones; and these characters resemble so exactly those of the Greeks that there can be no doubt of their being copied from them. It is true, the shape of several has been somewhat altered, and a few barbarous characters have been intermingled. The Russian liturgy, as every body knows, was copied from that of the Greeks; and the best specimen of the old Russian is to be found in the church offices for Easter, which are in the very words of Chrysostom, who is called by his name 7Λαto ustii, or golden-mouthed. The power of the clergy in Russia was excessive; and their influence was, no doubt, proportioned to their power. The first race of clergy in that country were undoubtedly Greeks, because we know how active and industrious that people were in propagating their language as well as their religion. The offices of religion might at first be written and pronounced in the Greek language, but it would soon be found expedient to have them translated into Russian; and the persons employed in this work must have been Greeks, who understood both languages.

As it is confessedly impossible that a people so dull and inattentive as the Russians originally were, could ever have fabricated a language so artificially constructed as their present dialect; and as it is obvious, that, until Christianity was introduced amongst them by the Greeks, they could have no correspondence with that people; it must appear surprising by what means their language came to be fashioned so exactly according to the Greek model. We have observed above, that the Russian letters must have been invented and introduced into that country by the Greek missionaries; and we think it probable, that these apostles, at the same time that they taught them a new religion, likewise introduced a change into the idiom of their language. The influence of these ghostly teachers over a nation of savages must have been almost boundless, the force of their precepts and example almost uncontrollable. But if the rude and savage converts accepted a new religion from the hands of Grecian apostles, they might with equal submission adopt improvements in their language. Such of the natives as were admitted to the sacerdotal function must have learned the Greek language, in order to qualify them for performing the offices of their religion; and a predilection for that language would be the immediate consequence. Hence the natives, who had been admitted into holy orders, would co-operate with their Grecian masters in improving the dialect of the country, which, prior to the period above mentioned, must have greatly deviated from the original standard of the Sarmatian language.

Upon this occasion the Grecian apostles, in conjunction with their Russian disciples, probably reduced the language of the country to a resemblance with the idiom of the Greek. They retained the radical terms as they found them, but by a variety of flections, conjugations, derivations, compositions, and other modifications, transformed them into the Grecian air and apparel. They must have begun with the offices of the church; and amongst a nation of newly converted savages, the language of the religion they had been induced to adopt, would quickly obtain a very extensive circulation. When the Grecian garniture was introduced into the church, the laity would in process of time assume a similar dress. The fabric of the Greek declensions, conjugations, and inflections, might be grafted upon Russian stocks without affecting the radical parts of the language. If the dialect in question, like most others of a very ancient date, laboured under a penury of words, such a device would contribute exceedingly to supply that defect. By this expedient the Greek language itself had been enlarged from about three hundred radical terms to the prodigious number of words of which it now consists.

The Latin language, in its original constitution, differed widely from the Greek; but notwithstanding this incongruity, the improvers of the former have pressed it into a very strict agreement with the latter. This, we think, was a still more difficult task, because the genius of the Latin differs in a much greater degree than that of the Russian does from the genius of the Greek. We know that the Gothic language and all its descendants are, in their essential character, much more in unison with the Greek than they are with the Latin. The Spanish, Italian, and French, have cudgelled many of their Gothic, Teutonic, and Celtic verbs, into a kind of conjugations, imitating or rather aping those of the Latin. The Persians have also formed most elegant and energetic dcelensions and conjugations, upon inflexible roots borrowed from the Pahlavi and Deree, and even from Tartarian originals.

Upon the grounds above mentioned we now take the liberty to hazard the following conjectures, which we cheerfully submit to the cognizance of more enlightened philologists, viz. 1. That the Sarmatian was a dialect of the original language of mankind; 2. That the Sclavonian was a dialect of the Sarmatian; 3. That the Russian is the most genuine and unsophisticated relict of the Sclavonian and Sarmatian; 4. That the Russians had no alphabetical characters prior to the era of the introduction of Christianity, that is, towards the end of the tenth century; 5. That they were converted by Grecian missionaries; 6. That these missionaries[7:17:422] formed their present letters from those of Greece, and, in conjunction with the more enlightened natives, reduced the original and unimproved Russian to its present resemblance to the Grecian standard.

The Russian language, like most others, contains eight parts of speech. Its nouns have three genders, masculine, feminine, and neuter; and it has also a common gender for nouns, intimating both sexes. It has only two numbers, singular and plural. Its cases are seven, nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, and prepositive. These cases, however, are not formed by varying the termination, as in Greek and Latin, but generally by placing a vowel after the word, as, we imagine, was the original practice of the Greeks. Thus in Russian, pυκ, ruk, the hand; nominative, pυκ-α, the hand; genitive, pυκ-N'of the hand.^[213. See Charpentier, Eléments de la Langue Russe. ] Nouns substantive are reduced to four declensions, but adjectives constitute a fifth. The latter agree with their substantives in case, gender, and number; and they have three degrees of comparison, as is common in other languages, viz. the positive, comparative, and superlative. The comparative is formed from the feminine of the nominative singular of the positive, by changing a into te, that is, are in English; and the superlative is formed by prefixing npe, pre, before the positive. These rules are general; with regard to the exceptions, recourse must be had to a Russian grammar.

The numeral adjectives in Russian have like the rest three genders, and they are declined accordingly. Their pronouns have nothing peculiar, being divided and arranged in the same manner as in other languages. Verbs in the Russian language are comprehended under two conjugations. The moods are only three; the indicative, the imperative, and the infinitive. The subjunctive is formed by placing a particle before the indicative, and its tenses are eightin number; the present, the imperfect, the preterite simple, the preterite compound, the pluperfect, the future indeterminate, the future simple, the future compound. The verbs have their numbers and persons as in other languages. To enter into a detail of the manner of conjugating Russian verbs would neither be consistent with our plan, nor of much consequence to our readers. The remaining parts of speech differ in nothing from those of other languages. The syntax of Russian nearly resembles thatoftheGreekand Latin. But all these accidents must be learned from a grammar of the language. We could have wished to be able to gratify our readers with a more authentic account of the origin of the Sclavonic language; but this we find impossible, owing to the want of materials relating to the state of the ancient Sarmatae. Towards the era of the subversion of the western empire, the nations who inhabited the countries in question were so blended and confounded with each other, and with Huns and other Scythian or Tartar tribes, that the most acute antiquarian would find it impossible to investigate their respective dialects, or even to fix their original residence and extraction.

We have selected the Russian as the most genuine branch of the old Sclavonic, and to this preference we were determined by the reasons above mentioned. We are not sufficiently acquainted with the idiom of the Russian language to be able to compare it with those of the East; but were such a comparison made we are persuaded that the radical materials of which it is composed would be found to have been of oriental origin. The word Tsar, for example, is probably the Phoenician and Chaldean Sar, or Zar, a prince, or grandee. Diodorus Siculus calls the queen of the Massagetae, who, according to Ctesias, cut off the head of Cyrus, Zarina; which still continues to be the national title of the empress of all the Russias. Herodotus calls the same princess Tomyris, which is the very name of the celebrated Timur or Tamerlane the conqueror of Asia. The former seems to have been the title, and the latter the proper name, of the queen of the Massagetae. In the old Persian or Pahlavi, the word gard signifies a city. In Russian, gorod or grad intimates the very same idea; andhence Constantinople in old Russian iscalled Tsargrad or Tsargorod. These are only a few specimens; but skilful etymologists might, we believe, discover a great number more.

The Sclavonian language is spoken in Epirus, in the western part of Macedonia, in Bosnia, Servia, Bulgaria, in part of Thrace, in Dalmatia, and Croatia, in Poland, Bohemia, Russia, and Mingrelia, and hence it is frequently used in the seraglio at Constantinople. Many of the great men of Turkey understand it, and frequently use it; and all the janizaries who had been stationed in garrisons on the Turkish frontiers in Europe, formerly used it in their ordinary intercourse. The Hungarians, however, and the natives of Wallachia, speak a different language, one which bears evident marks of Tartarian origin, in short a dialect of that language which was spoken by the original Huns. Upon the whole, the Sclavonic is one of the most widely spread languages in Europe, and even extends far into Asia.

SECT. X. MODERN LANGUAGES.

If the different dialects of the various nations which now inhabit the earth, be called languages, the number will be truly great; and vain would be the ambition of that man who should attempt to acquire them, however imperfectly. But there are four, which maybe considered as original or motherlanguages, and which seem to have given birth to all that are now spoken in Europe. These are the Latin, the Celtic, the Gothic, and the Sclavonic. Let it not, however, be imagined, from the term original applied to these languages, that we believe them to have come down to us, without any alteration. We have repeatedly declared our opinion, that there is but one truly original language, from which all others are derivatives variously modified. The four languages just mentioned are original only as being the immediate parents of those which are now spoken in Europe.

Thus, from the Latin came, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the French, and the Italian. From the Celtic came, the Erse or Gaelic of the Highlands of Scotland, the Welsh, the Irish, and the Basse Bretagne. From the Gothic came, the German, the Low Saxon or Low German, the Dutch, the English, in which almost all the noun-substantives are German, and many of the verbs French or Latin, and which is enriched .with the spoils of all other languages, including the Danish, the Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic.

From the Sclavonian came, the Polish, the Lithuanian or Lettish, the Bohemian, Transylvanian, Moravian, and the modern Vandalian,as it is still spoken in Lusatia and other parts; the Croatian, the Russian or Muscovite, which, as we have seen, is the purest dialect of this language; the language of the Calmucks and Cossacks; with thirty-two different dialects of nations who inhabit the north-eastern parts of Europe and Asia, and who are descended from the Tartars and Hunno-Scythians. There are polyglott tables containing not only the alphabets, but also the principal or distinctive characteristics of all these languages.

The languages which are at present spoken generally in Asia are, the Turkish and Tartarian, with their different dialects; the Persian, the Georgian or Iberian, the Albanian or Circassian, the Armenian, the modern Indian, the Formosan, the Hindustance, the Malabarian, the Warugian, the Tamu-licor Damulic, the modern Arabic, the Tongussian, the Mongolian, the language of the Nigarian or Akar Nigarian, the Grusinic or Grusinian, the Chinese, and the Japanese. Here, however, we have only enumerated those Asiatic languages of which we have some knowledge in Europe, and even alphabets, grammars, or other books capable of giving us some information concerning them. But in those vast regions and the [7:17:423]adjacent islands, there are doubtless other languages and dialects, of which no distinct account has yet been obtained.

The principal languages of Africa are, the modern Egyptian, the language of the kingdom of Fez, the Moroccan, and the jargons of those savage nations who inhabit the central regions of that great continent. The people on the coast of Barbary speak a corrupt dialect of the Arabic. To these may beaddedthe Chilhic language, otherwise called Tamazeght ; the Nigritian, and that of Guinea; the Abyssinian, and the language of the Hottentots and Caffres.

(o. o. o. o.)

The number of languages which distinguish the different native tribes of America, appears to be still more considerable in that continent than in Africa, where, according to the researches of Seetzen and Vater, there are above a hundred and forty. In this respect, America resembles the Caucasus, Italy previous to the conquest of the Romans, and Asia Minor, when that country contained the Cilicians of Semitic origin, the Phrygians of Thracian or Gothic extraction, the Lydians, and the Celts. Many circumstances contributed to produce the amazing variety of American dialects, but the principal undoubtedly was the absence of all communication between the different native tribes, occasioned partly by their own condition of life, and partly by the nature and configuration of the country they inhabited. But when it is asserted that several hundreds of languages are found in a continent the whole population of which is scarcely equal to that of France, it should be kept in view that we regard as different all those languages which bear the same affinity to each other, not as the German and Dutch, or the Italian and Spanish, but as the Danish and the German, the Chaldaic and the Arabic, the Greek and the Latin. It is a great mistake to suppose, as some have done, that these languages are all separate and independent, having no points of relation, analogy, or resemblance. In proportion as we penetrate into the labyrinth of the American idioms, we discover that several are susceptible of being classed by families; whilst a still greater number remain insulated like the Basque amongst the European, and the Japanese amongst Asiatic languages. This separation, however, may be only apparent; for it may be presumed that languages which appear to admit of no ethnographical classification, have some affinity, either with other languages which have for a long time been extinct, or with the idioms of nations which have never yet been visited by travellers. The greater number of the American languages, even such as exhibit the same differences from each other as the languages of Teutonic origin, the Celtic, and the Sclavonian, bear a certain analogy in the whole of their organization or structure; particularly in the complication of their grammatical forms, in the modification of the verb according to the nature of its syntactical construction, and in the number of particles employed additively either as affixes or as suffixes. Such an uniform tendency of idioms betrays, if not a community of origin, at least a great analogy in the intellectual dispositions of the American tribes from the Arctic regions to the Straits of Magelhaens.^[214. The natives of America may be divided into two great classes. To the first belong the Esquimaux of Greenland, Labrador, and Hudson’s Bay, and the inhabitants of Behring’s Straits, Alaska, and Prince William’s Sound. The eastern and western branches of this family are united by close similarity of language, though separated by a distance of eight hundred leagues; and the inhabitants of the north-east of Asia are believed to be of the same stock. The second race is dispersed over the various regions of the continent, from the northern parts to the southern extremity. They are larger in size, more warlike, more taciturn, and also differ considerably from the northern class in the colour of their skin, which, according to Humboldt, has been but slightly affected, in either class, by climate or other external circumstances. ]

Investigations made with scrupulous exactness, by following a method which had not previously been employed in etymological pursuits have proved that there are but few words which are common in the vocabularies of the New and Old World. In eighty-three American languages, examined by Barton and Vater, one hundred and seventy words have been found, the roots of which appear to be the same; and that tLis analogy is not accidental may be inferred from the circumstance that it does not rest merely on imitative harmony, or that conformity in the organs which produces almost a perfect identity in the first sounds articulated by children. Of the hundred and seventy words which are common to the two continents, three-fifths resemble the Mantchoo, the Tongouss, the Mongul, and the Samoyed; and two-fifths resemble the Celtic and Finnish, the Coptic and the Congo languages. These words have been discovered by comparing the whole of the American languages with the whole of those of the Old World; for as yet we are not acquainted with any American idiom, which appears to have an exclusive correspondence with any of the Asiatic, African, or European languages. Much has been said by some learned writers, respecting the pretended poverty of all the American languages, and the extreme imperfection of their numerical system; but, in the absence of well-authenticated facts, all such statements should be received with caution, being rather deductions from a preconceived theory, than theresult of actual investigation. Besides, several idioms which now form the speech of barbarous nations, appear to be the wrecks of languages, once rich, flexible, and belonging to a far more cultivated state of society. Whether the primitive condition of the human race was rude and brutalised, or whether the savage hordes which still exist are descended from nations, whose intellectual faculties, and the languages which reflect them, were equally developed, is a question into which we cannot at present enter. We shall only observe, that the little we know of the history of the Americans, tends to prove that the tribes, whose migrations have been directed from the north to the south, whilst yet dwelling in the arctic regions, employed various idioms, which are now found under the torrid zone; and from this we may by analogy conclude, that the multiplication of languages is a very ancient phenomenon. Perhaps those which we call American belong no more to America than the Magyar or Hungarian, and the Tschoud or Finnish belongs to Europe. It is doubtless true that the comparison between the idioms of the two continents has hitherto led to no important conclusion. But we may nevertheless indulge the hope that this study will become more productive, when a greater number of materials shall have been accumulated to exercise the sagacity of the learned. At present many languages exist in America, and in central and eastern Asia, the mechanism of which is as much unknown to us as that of the Tyrhenian, the Oscan, the Umbrian, and the Sabine.

It was our original intention to conclude this article with some general remarks on the modern languages of Europe, particularly the French, the Italian, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, on the one hand, and on the German and English, on the other. But the length to which it has already extended, and the facility of access to works containing ample information respecting the genius and structure of these languages, render it inexpedient to enter into details which are more or less within the reach of almost every well-informed reader.