seen a Chinese treatise on the grammar of verb to hear is represented by an Ear and a the spoken idiom. The reason is obvious. Door. Now, if the sound or name of the The Chinese affect to ascribe every thing to two objects represented gave the name of their system of writing, which they would the third, the characters might be said to rehave us believe to be an admirable philosophical invention, independent of, and unconnected with the language, which they consider only as the oral expression of the characters, while the reverse is the exact truth. That a vain, ignorant nation should entertain such notions, is not at all to be wondered at; but that grave and learned European phiiologists should adopt them without reflection is truly astonishing."-pp. xvii. xviii.

present the word (or third name) intended : but this is as little the case in the Chinese as in the English; and if bird-mouth could in any shape convey the meaning of song, would it not be in the association of ideas or combination of attributes, rather than in the sound of a word? By the same association of ideas, Man and Desert might represent a Hermit to an English eye or sense, but Man-Mountain, so efficient for this end Without stopping to combat what we cannot but consider as farther fallacies, it is to a Chinese, to a Briton, and probably an evident that, in any case, the non-connection American also, would but recall Captain between characters and words is a defect Samuel Gulliver in Lilliput-and why? Beoriginating in a state of barbarism. The cause the imaginative association of Swift Chinese do not pretend to have had an al- forms an integral and sole portion of our phabet previously, and to have rejected this ideas in this combination, to the exclusion of for their present characters: but it is clear that conventional combination accepted in that the acceptance of a sign for one sound, the Celestial Empire, and which we acquire as shan, a hill, and of a totally different sign but subsequently. for the similar sound of shang, above, must have been conventional, and was used because no nearer or more satisfactory medium presented itself, to mark corresponding. ly to the eye their similarity to the ear.Our alphabet, which does this, is consequently essentially different in nature from the Chinese character system; and yet Doctor Du Ponceau has not hesitated to declare that the two represent words in one and the same manner!

Speaking of the fifth class of the Chinese characters, which combines two or more to represent a word, our author, guessing that Dr. Morrison's definition, "association of ideas in compounding the characters," is but a translation of the Chinese definition, adds,

"We take the liberty to define it thus:The association or combining of several words in their appropriate characters to represent another word.' Thus we combine the letters of our alphabet to give them a meaning which, separately, they have not. The Chinese combine their significant characters to give to the groups thus formed a meaning which none of them possess separately. The meaning is in the words to which the characters are applied, and that meaning they only hint at by the association of other words represented by their appropriate signs."-p. xix.

This seems to us the strongest possible case of a petitio principii--and let the reader judge for himself. The characters expressing the Sun and Moon stand for Light: those of Man and Mountain signify Hermit; a Bird and a Mouth express Song; and the

An idea is simply an apprehensory im

* Doctor Du Ponceau can scarcely object to the explantions of his learned countryman, Doctor Webster, whose very complete and elaborate Dictionary, rejecting the false brilliance of compendious and antithetic definitions, is careful to give the complete sense of each term. We quote part of the three definitions of character, idea,

and word.

"Character, n. (L. character; Fr. caractère; Sp. caracter; It, carattere ; Gr. xaçaxтho, from the verb xapacow, xaparro, to scrape, cut, engrave. "1. A mark made by cutting or engraving, as on stone, metal, or other hard material; hence, a mark or figure made with a pen or style, on paper or other material used to contain writing; a letter, or figure used to form words, and communicate ideas, Characters are: literal, as the letters of an alphabet; numeral, as the arithmetical figures; emblematical or symbolical, which express things or ideas, and abbreviations.

"2. A mark or figure, made by stamping or impression, as on coins.

3. The manner of writing; the peculiar form of letters used by a particular person, &c. "Idea, n. (L. idea; Fr. idée; Gr. idia, from sid, to see; L. video.)

"1. Literally, that which is seen. Hence, that which is held or comprehended by the unform, image, model of any thing in the mind; derstanding or intellectual faculties.

"2. In popular use idea signifies notion, conception, thought, opinion, and even purpose or intention.

"3. Image, in the mind.

"4. An opinion; a proposition, &c.

Word, n. [Sax. pond or pŷnd; G. wort; D. woord; Dan. and Sw. ord; Sans. wartha. This

word is probably the participle of a root in Br, and radically the same as L. verbum; Ir, abairim, to speak. A word is that which is uttered or thrown out.

nation of articulate and vocal sounds, uttered by "1. An articulate or vocal sound, or a combithe human voice, and by custom expressing an

As to the sixth and last class of characters we need merely observe, that since the Chinese admit these to be phonetic, they are capable of recognizing the connection between form and sound: and since they thus distinguish this class from the rest, it is, probably, because a difference exists between those and these; the former being an exception to the latter. This obvious consideration seems to have been wholly overlooked by our author, who goes on to consider the phonetic system as applied to foreign words and names, a part of his argument also. Yet Phonetic characters lose their sense necessarily when assuming syllabic sounds.

pression; a perception conveying intelligence place. A lover therefore says, “I hang the to the mind; and we express the subject of snake at the end of the falcon's bridge on the that intelligence by a word rather than the gallows of the shield"-this gives the idea it intelligence itself. The subject, or thing it seems of "I put a ring on thy finger!" self then, furnishes the idea (or intelligence); and this creates the name or word. Now if the Chinese character is not a picture, but a sign substituting a picture, it recalls primarily but the thing it represents; and the name of that thing it recalls only collaterally, or by its connection with it. The process in this case is the sign, the thing signified by it, and then the name. With us, it is, 1st the alphabetic combination representing, 2nd the name, and through this, 3rd, the thing named a converse process to the former, we submit. If we take jih and yue, Sun and Moon, how will any combination of these names make the sound, or spoken word, ming, Light? How, then, shall we obtain this last but by the impression of the common attri. bute of those two planets? And does not, therefore, the name come through the idea in this instance ? Is not, in fact, the application of a fresh word instead of the two, compound, terms, creating a word for the result of that compound, i. e. for the new idea?

"It very often happens that those combinations are mere enigmas, and present no definite idea to the mind, and sometimes one entirely contrary to its object; but they serve the purpose, precisely as our groups of letters when they represent different sounds from those attached to the separate characters."p. xx.

We do not see that this fact helps the Doctor's argument, or has anything to do with it pro or contrà. The idea resulting from these enigmas arises from the impression their enigmatical objects convey by jux. taposition, whether through similarity or contrast; and this result being simply conventional, the consequence that follows assimilates to our own system, which is purely one of rules. We shall offer in illustration a singular instance of the Norsemen's enigmatical mode of conveying ideas pictorially by words. A snake is the symbol of a circle, which is the form of a ring the hand is the bridge that carries the falcon--the end of that bridge is the finger-the gallows on which a shield is hung must be the arm-and to hang is to

idea or ideas; a single component part of humam speech or language.

"A., in English, is a word; but few words consist of one letter only. Most words consist of two or more letters, as go, do, shall, called monosyllables; or of two or more syllables, as honor, goodness, amiable.

"2. The letter or letters, written or printed, which represent a sound or combination of sounds, &c."

The Chinese have other modes of employing their characters to represent the sounds but they are not included in the above six of words or proper names of foreign origin; classes. They are fully explained in the following dissertation, in which I have endeavoured to prove that the Chinese system of writing is essentially phonetic, because the characters represent words, and words are sounds; and because, if not connected with those sounds, they would present to the mind no idea whatever.”—pp. xxi. xxii.

The argument or rather illustration by our usual numerical figures, though amply sufficient for all the purposes to which it is generally applied, is met by our learned author in a way that shows him, we strongly suspect, to have little considered this portion of the question. We shall recur to it hereafter, and probably in the course of the present article.

It is but just to give the author's own words as to the second object of his publication, and his summary of the views that actuate

the whole.

"Another object of this publication is, to discover what ground there is for the popular notion that several nations entirely ignorant of each other's oral language, communicate with each other in writing by means of the Chinese characters. As it regards nations whose languages, like the Japanese, are polysyllabic, and have inflections and grammatical forms, I think I have sufficiently proved that it is impossible that they should understand the Chinese writing, unless they have learned the Chinese language, though they may not be in the habit of speaking it. But it may be otherwise with respect to those nations whose languages are monosyllabic, and formed on the same model with the Chinese, and who have adopted the same system of writing. It cannot be denied, that to a certain extent, that is to say, as far as words,

having the same meaning in both languages, I would not wish it supposed,that a man of his are represented by the same characters, they confessed talents, judgment, and acquiremay so far, but no farther, communicate with ments, will go wrong generally and upon an each other in writing. How far that can be the case, can only be shown by a comparison enlarged scale; but that his error lies in the of their languages, and of the manner in misapplication of general principles to a which they make use of their written signs." particular case. The following passage from his first section, will illustrate, we conceive, both his general acuteness and the particular error:

-p. xxiv.

On the whole, by the publication of this book, I have had in view to establish the following propositions:

"When in the last century the Chinese language, through the writings of the Catholic missionaries, became known to the learn

"1. That the Chinese system of writing is not, as has been supposed, ideographic; that its characters do not represent ideas, but words, and therefore I have called it lexigru-ed of Europe, great astonishment was exphic.

"2. That ideographic writing is a creature of the imagination, and cannot exist, but for very limited purposes, which do not entitle it to the name of writing.

"3. That among men endowed with the gift of speech, all writing must be a direct representation of the spoken language, and cannot present ideas to the mind abstracted from

it.

"4. That all writing, as far as we know, represents language in some of its elements, which are words, syllables,and simple sounds. In the first case it is lexigraphic, in the second syllabic, and in the third alphabetical or elementary.

"5. That the lexigraphic system of the Chinese cannot be applied to a polysyllabic language, having inflections and grammatical forms; and that there is no example of its being so applied, unless partially or occasionally, or as a special elliptical and enigmatical mode of communication, limited in its uses; but not as a general system of writing intended for common use.

"6. That it may be applied to a monosyllabic language, formed on the model of the Chinese; but that it will necessarily receive modifications and alterations, which will prosignifications of the characters between different languages, however similar in their original structure; and therefore,

duce material differences in the value and

cited by its simple, ungrammatical structure, by its complicated graphic system, and by the small number of its monosyllables, compared with the immense quantity of the characters employed in writing. Every new and extraordinary object must, with the mass of mankind, be a monster or a miracle; the latter was preferred. Admiration succeeded surprise, and then imagination did its work. The Chinese writing was called hieroglyphic, ideographic, and said to represent ideas en tirely independent of speech. It was almost exclusively considered as the language, and the spoken words were called its pronuncia. tion, as as if they were only a secondary mode of communicating ideas, and dependent upon the ocular method. At last, it was said that the Chinese characters were read and understood as in China, by nations entirely ignorant of the spoken idiom. In short those visible signs were held up by enthusiasts as a model for an universal language which should reach the mind through the eyes, without the aid of articulate sounds.”—p. 7.

In the course of his argument our inge. nious author has occasion to touch upou various opinions of previous writers. He is especially severe upon the Quarterly and Edinburgh Reviews; the former, for imagining "that a language was made and words invented for the purpose" of giving a pro. nunciation to the characters after they were framed; and the latter for stating that

7. That nations, whose languages like the Japanese, and as is said, the Loo-chooan, are polysyllabic, and have inflections and grammatical forms, although they may employ "The Chinese have for ages employed a Chinese characters in their alphabet, cannot multitude of ideagraphic (sic) characters, depossibly understand Chinese books and ma- rived by composition and otherwise from a nuscripts, unless they have learned the Chi limited number of elementary pictures or renese language; and that if those nations presentations of external objects called keys, whose languages are monosyllabic, and who without making the least step towards an use the Chinese characters, lexigraphically, alphabet.' And further: "The Egyptians can understand Chinese writings without seem likewise to have remained contented knowing the language, it can only be to a with their hieroglyphic system, or at least limited extent, which it is one of the objects not to have advanced a step beyond it.'"of this publication to ascertain.

"Although strongly impressed with the conviction of the truth of these propositions, it is nevertheless with great deference that I submit them to the judgment of the learned."-pp. xxxi. xxxii.

In differing widely, as we regret to do, from Doctor Du Ponceau's opinion, we

p. 17.

Our periodical brethren are sufficiently able, and we doubt not willing to defend their own opinions, and we shall not therefore undertake so gratuitous a task farther than by observing that the opinion of the Edinburgh Review here quoted, is that of all sinolo. gists, and that the non-progression of the

Egyptians beyond a certain point arose, in all probability, from the reluctance of their priestly scribes to simplify their system for the vulgar, as well as from the (in part at least) contemporary existence of an alphabetic system, applicable of course to the commoner purposes of life. The hypothesis of the Quarterly is also less startling than might be supposed at a first glance; for though it is not possible to believe speech itself discovered after writing, yet this is not the sense of the passage, as the Doctor's quotation might induce us to suppose; nor could the able journal in question have fallen, by any possibility, into such an absurdity; but that a system of spoken sounds, that is to say, monosyllables, as contradistinguished from polysyllabic words, should have been simplified from words of existing languages expressly to meet the exigencies of this artificial Chinese character is surely no extravagant theory, and scarcely, if at all, less credible than the opinion enter. tained by many of the artificial construction of the Sanscrit language.

With regard to the opinions of Remusat, Fourmont, and Adelung, we must be permitted here to observe of the first, that the inference he draws respecting Fourmont's reputed assertion is, for aught we can see, altogether gratuitous and unfounded. The statement of the latter that the Chinese characters were anterior to the words, by no ineans bears out, as our immediate argument has shown, M. Remusat's apparent conclusion that Fourmont considered Speech itself subsequent to Writing. The profound learning and careful investigations of Fourmont have most materially smoothed the path of Chinese literature for subsequent scholars; and the seriously recorded opinion of such a man,-viz. that the Chinese writing was the invention of philosophers, who subsequently communicated it to the nation at large, is not to be lightly sneered down by the far humbler authority of Marshman, yet.

must have attended, toties quoties, any other system in its formation. Will any scholar doubt that the Sanscrit or the Abyssinian grammatical systems bear evident marks of being formed by design? The former especially rejecting so many accidental imperfections and redundancies of other tongues, and completing, evidently by design, the auxiliary tenses, left imperfect in all other tongues-and could its wonderful. precision have been the work of a single mind? Whence came Hermesian, Secret, Masonic, and Cypher Alphabets? How worse than idle or childish then to sneer at the idea of " sages in deep divan," which could only be incomprehensible to a writer so superficial as Marshman often proved; and he, after all, offered nothing better or more satisfactory.

We are far from wishing to detract from the real merits of Doctor Marshman, who lived long enough, we believe, to retract some material errors, and whose Clavis Sinica may be considered the most complete popular view of the Chinese language. Still less would we desire to lessen the justly-earned fame of M. de Rémusat, whose name as a scholar can be emulated but by few. Still the truth must be admitted, that on several occasions, where means perhaps of due examination were wanting, he tried to supply their place by theories,* ingenious indeed, and learned, but hastily adopted and superficial to a degree not easily conceivable in a linguist of such undoubted talents, erudition, and research and on this point he forms the strongest possible contrast with his great rival Silvestre de Sacy.

Of Adelung who lived, unfortunately for his own fame, at a time when philology was yet in its infancy, but to whom that nascent science owes so much for his invaluable, though imperfect work, the Mithridates;of him we must be permitted to observe that, wide as was the extent of his own knowledge of tongues, yet the universal nature of his scheme was beyond the ac

"We can hardly imagine," says Dr. Marsh-complishment of any single faculty; and

man, "that while most of the languages, formed on the alphabetic plan, bear evident marks of being formed rather by accident than design, a number of Chinese sages should have sat in deep divan, in order to select certain objects as the basis of the imitative system; yet we shall find that these elements include most of the objects of sense, which are remarkably obvious, few being omitted which from their form or frequent use might be likely to attract notice."-p. 11.

The difficulties pointed out by this last writer as attending the formation, or more probably, selection of the 214 characters

that consequently he was often reduced to quote the opinions of others, not always the best authorities, on points to which his own researches had not extended; and that therefore many, thus unavoidable, errors are mixed up in his account of the connection and grammatical structure of languages. Like all other sinologists, however, he is of the opinion assailed by Doctor Du Ponceau, as the following passage from his work evinces distinctly:

* For one instance see Foreign Quarterly Review, Oct. 1836, David's Turkish Grammar.

"It differs from all others in this; that it neither consists of natural or symbolic hieroglyphics, nor of an alphabet of syllables or letters, but represents whole ideas, each idea being expressed by its own appropriate sign, without being connected with speech. It speaks to the eyes as the arithmetical figures of Europe, which every one understands, and pronounces after his own manner. Thus it may be learned, without knowing a word of the language."

But we must return to our author; and extract a specimen of his reasoning:

Had Doctor Du Ponceau previous to discussing the subject defined the meaning of syllable and word, it would have saved the confusion that everywhere embarrasses the reader throughout his argument. Now there are obviously two kinds of syllables referred to above, and the distinction between them is unnoticed. What we generally understand by the term syllable is, a sound created by a vowel, or by the combination of a consonant and a vowel-and such a syllable, generally speaking, has no meaning with us-it is but a part of a word. "The Chinese language with a few ex- The Chinese syllable, on the contrary, is ceptions that do not at all bear upon my ar- usually a complete word, and is expressed gument, is essentially monosyllabic. I do in writing, not by a letter or combination of not mean that by the junction of its compo- letters, but by an arbitrary sign; therefore, nent monosyllables polysyllabic words cannot be formed; but I think I may safely say, it does not form the sound by combining its that, with few exceptions, every syllable is own several elements into one, but merely significant, and constitutes what we call a represents the combination already formed. word. These syllables may be united in In our alphabetic system, p, e, would form speech, as in welcome, welfare, household, or pe, and the two letters would in any other in the French word bienfait; or they may be combination each bear always its own proseparated, as in well done, well made, bad work, or in the French phrase, C'est bien fait. per sound. In the syllabary system, (AbysThe difference does not appear in the rapi. sinian, for instance,) pe would always remain dity of speech, we are only aware of it by pe, for it knows no division of syllables into the typographical arrangement of the sylla-letters; but in the Chinese or character bles. It is therefore of no consequence system, pe combined with another sign whether the Chinese language, as spoken, be would lose entirely the sound of pe, and the called monosyllabic or polysyllabic, but it is second sign its own proper sound also, and important to know that every one of its syl- the combination of these two signs would lables is a word, and as each character re-represent a third monosyllable possessing presents a syllable, which is called its pro- not one sound in common with either of its nunciation, it necessarily follows that each character represents a word."-pp. 18, 19. component signs. Thus the monosyllable This opening is immediately followed by she, urh, ho, yew, and sin, in Chinese; and wei is composed of the five monosyllables, this curious nonsequitur: unless connecting is not this wholly different from the inwith, is representing. stances quoted where welcome. wel-fare, "It is not true, therefore, that the Chinese house-hold, bien fait, combine the sound as characters are unconnected with sounds, un-well as sense of the components. less it should be contended that a syllable Doctor Du Ponceau seems also to have is not a sound."-p. 19.

One great pervading defect of our author's argument is, as we have mentioned before. the want of definition, and here we conceive the defect to be very obvious; but before entering at large upon this point, we will quote the completion of the paragraph:

overlooked the difference of conventional forms, as primary and secondary. Of the primary are Letters: it is obvious that in selecting one to represent the sound of B and another of G, we (or our forefathers) did this conventionally, granting a basis, that a system may be formed from it. This conventional understanding has not every"But the syllabic alphabets of Japan and Armenian, Georgian, Pelasgic, Runic, and where existed the same, for the Ethiopic, of Citra-Gangetic India have never been considered otherwise than as the representaother systems often use one particular letter tion of sounds, and it has never been pretend- as a different sound in the several languaed they were not phonetic. A syllable, in- ges: thus the English U in the Armenian deed, may by analysis be reduced to more expresses S; in the Ethiopic syllabary Hoi: simple elements; but though composed of the Egyptian e, was the old Persian a; the those elements, it is still a reverberation of Zend kh, is the Egyptian S; the Gothic th the human voice, produced at once and in the is the Greek psi; &c. Yet wherever one same breath by the organs of speech. If,

then, syllables are sounds, monosyllabic particular alphabet was known and used, words are so likewise; and the characters the U, e, kh, or , of that alphabet retained which represent them cannot be said not to its sound, however combined; and thus U be connected with them as such."-p. 19. and G. form the first syllable of ugly; of