this the objection, too, to stenographic writing known changes of hazardous opinions in the in every newspaper printing-office? And writings of Champollion, we must hesitate at did not "the man of business," in Joe Mil- this free concession to his authority on a ler, who represented things by "one single point unproved. character," create some confusion by charging his customer with a cheese instead of a millstone?

We have endeavoured at this ample length in consideration of his name and talents, to combat the proposition of Doctor Du Ponceau that the Chinese characters represent words, and ideas only through them: and we have considered this in the only two shapes into which it appears to us resolvable--namely. 1. That the Chinese character contains, like alphabetic spelling, the elements

Whilst in the mood of differing so widely from the learned President of the Philosoph. ical Society, we shall remark upon his groundless assumption that

"At the confusion of tongues, the primitive language was forgotten and entirely obliterated from the minds of men, and they were left to their own resources to invent new ones, the decendants of Noah had a difficult task to perform, as at the same time they were dispersed through the different parts of the world."-p. 37. The 9th verse of the 11th ch. of Genesis 2. That the word, or name of a thing, pre-oblivion by the mere term "confounding.” surely does not bear out this obliteration and

of the sound or word.

cedes the idea of it in the mind.

And we have striven to show the contrary of The sequel seems equally extravagant :-both these assertions by the facts-

1. That our groups of letters give the spoken name tangibly, and in succession, to the eye.

2. That the Chinese characters give, not the spoken name, but only the correla. tive sign of the thing to the eye. In the former case we doubt whether, even in the alphabetic system, the mind always takes cognizance of the name or word itself, though presented to it.

In the latter we consider that to affirm it is to beg the question, and to say that the mind thinks in words, and not in ideas: in which case we could never be at a loss for a word, nor forget a name, expressing our

ideas.

"Anxious to make themselves understood, some of them attempted to express the sense of a whole proposition by a single word. Some ancestor of the Delaware Indians, being invited by his neighbor to partake of some food, said, Nschingiwipoma, and made him understand by signs that it meant, 'I do not like to eat with you.' To his mistress he said, Kdahoatel, and that was to say, I love you, to which she doubtingly answered, Mattakdahoaliwi, 'You do not love me.' Thus, by endeavouring to say a great deal at once, a polysynthetic language was formed. which, in the course of time, was regularized by method; for without some method in language, it would be impossible for men to

understand each other.

"In some other country, say in China, or in the country of the Othomi Indians, whether from the difficulty of articulating sounds, or from some other cause, men stuck to syllables, and conveyed their ideas successively, affixing to each a simple or compound articulation, that is to say, a simple elementary vocal sound, or a syllalanguages."—p. 38. were formed monosyllabic

ble. Thus

Noticing that we conceive the passage respecting Clemens of Alexandria to contain a slight error, we may observe, that Williams, in his excellent essay upon hieroglyphics, has proved undeniably that the picture form (to the eye) recalled the sound (to the ear), and that this last corresponded with the similar sound of the thing phonetically represented so that the process in the first part was the was the converse of that in the latter; alto- We are aware that in Esquimaux the few gether showing that in some cases ideas pre- numerals (and we take the strongest case) cedes words, in others that words precede are long polysyllabic terms; the three exideas, and therefore that the two are not in-pressed by thirteen syllables. But will Doc. divisible, as Doctor Du Ponceau's argument tor Du Ponceau take upon himself to say that would make them.

Without detracting from the merits of Champollion the younger, we certainly cannot grant him the blind confidence proposed by our author, when, in a totally unfounded, or at least, unsupported assertion, made by that ardent inquirer, the Doctor takes for granted that the former must have had good grounds for making it. The principle of supposing a thing to exist because we have no proof of it, is new in logic: but from the

these are not compound words, and never were so? Is it not more probable that they were in their origin decomposeable syllables or words, rudely distinguishing, the exact number signified from other objects? Is not such clumsy attempt at distinguishing, the very characteristic of uncivilized races, and even of provincials, though in a less degree? And does not civilization check this redundance of language by symplifying it to single and definite terms? Writing diminishes the

extreme length of words. The Ceylonese | less possitively to affirm with Doctor Du even substitutes conventional signs for letters Ponceau, the reverse of this as respects the and thus the words are reduced to half their Indians, of whose early habits and origin length, as the Esquimaux, &c. might be also. we know nothing whatever. But how can Doctor Du Ponceau imply, It may here be the place to notice the exas originally single words, terms, as above travagant opinion of Voltaire and the earliquoted, clearly decomposeable now? In the er sceptics, followed by Malte-Brun and Iroquios, for instance, are not the words kings the fancy-loving learning of Niebuhr;—an nations, Niyadeyoughwentsyodeashon, Ragh- opinion, too, embraced with modifications seanowanea, respectively compounds of these by the more sober judgment of Von Humseven and ten syllables? And this too, boldt himself, that the American Indians partly from Oriental languages? Are not are a wholly different aboriginal race from the verb Tewakightaghkouh, (I believe,) and that of the old world. It is boldness to an the adjective Tawightaghkone, (believing,) excess which, in the case of men so justly varied forms of Tessightaghkouh, (belief)? distinguished in general for the highest Is not in these, as in the word angel also, mental attributes, we shall certainly not (Karonghyake ghrohnon,) the idea of one presume to characterize, to set up a theory thing obviously deduced from the names, at- wholly presumptive in opposition to estabtributes, &c. of several? Is not this precise- lished facts-facts which no learning can ly analogous to the Chinese Light, signified shake, no hardihood question. The Amerby Sun and Moon? For Iroquois informa- ican tribes of the north invariably refer tion we might well apply to Dr. Du Ponceau; their origin to migrations from the quarters will he allow us to offer an illustration from which form the point of contact between the Chinese combination he declares himself Asia and America: there exists a rude idenignorant of? (See p. 303, 1. 9.) If Pu- tity of many customs amongst them with berty is signified by Fa-shin-teih-she-how, can those of the earliest eastern nations: simiwe not take it loosely as, man, feeling love larity of veneration likewise is preserved in the course of time, becomes creative; or for the very wrecks of certain identical She-urh-ho-yew-sin, as, the possession of names, offices, and feelings it is a fact faith reconciling occurrences, to signify that the names of the oldest tribes, wherever Tranquillity? We may observe, by the way significant in their own language, precisely that were this not the case, still, as combining corresponded to those of Asiatic nations! the same sound in part for the same meaning and wherever the same have no meaning or the American would bear no parallel, even definite etymology in their own tongues, in a spoken tongue, to the written language that etymology may invariably be found, of China, whose similarity of character is not and always on the same principle, in the the representative of identity of idea. Scytho-Tatar languages. Another fact, but too long disregarded, is, that their alphabetic and even grammatical systems in their numbers, deficiencies and excesses, advantages and defects, are intrinsically the same as those of original Asia.

But to return. We find Doctor Du Ponceau further indulging in two very bold, and, we will venture to say, more than sus. picious assertions; first, that the Indians aforesaid never had any songs; and, second, ly, that grammatical forms are rarely borrowed by nations even from their neigh

bours.

If these coincidences are the mere off spring of chance, then all toher coincidences may be equally attributed to it, and there is no such thing as identity. If they are, as may be argued, the result of a mere analagou snature, what proof, or what probability is there, we ask, that those analagous natures are different and not identical?

As to the first of these allegations, we must observe that it contradicts all past and even, to some degree, our every-day experience. In civilized society, where the passions are much under control, emotion constantly breaks out in a prolongation of Is then the sacred and founded record of certain sounds it requires little effort to ar- the Hebrew Scriptures to be doubted or disrange these into tones, or as songs and regarded, in the pure and abstract love of this fact, which we considered more largely a theory which rests on no basis, ends in no in our last October No. ("Arabian Antiqui- conclusion!

ty"), is borne out by a passage to precisely The foregoing remarks on the former exthe same effect quoted by Mr. Davis (in his tend to, and even of necessity include the valuable account of China) from a Chinese second assertion; that nations rarely borwriter. We may add, that as since every row their grammatical forms from each nation of which we can form a tolerable other. How, we would ask, does it happen judgment commenced its literature with then that the totally, or almost totally, differsongs, we have no right to suppose, stilllent languages of America, from North to

south, have but one general grammatical | are our distinguished countryman and travstructure? And can Doctor Du Ponceau eiler, Captain F. W. Beechey, R. N.; and forget that he himself has been one of the a writer in the Canton Register, whose exmost distinguished discoverers of this truth? perience, he declares, has proved the con. Did even the entire obliteration of Babel trary; to say nothing of various other annihilate words, those spoken characters of sinologists, Mr. Davis included, to whose in ideas, and yet leave in existence (what he teresting volumes (vol. ii. p. 147,) we refer asserts to be impossible absurdity) ideas, the reader for the statement generally re without words? For he surely cannot ima ceived.* We shall simply observe that if gine the yet more palpable absurdity of a two nations give different sounds to the same grammatical structure, or arrangement of character, it is clear this cannot express in words surviving the words that compose itself one particular sound only.

it.

Yet, whether or not the signs of ideas represent also and of necessity, equally, the sounds of those ideas-the fact either way, we submit, has no positive connection with its assumed consequence; viz. that nations speaking different languages cannot, as is generally asserted, communicate freely in the Chinese character. We shall give Doctor Du Ponceau's own words.

But we doubt the connection of the two arguments: it is obvious, we apprehend, that whether the Cochin Chinese reads as Ma-qui what the Chinese calls Mo-Kouey, both un. derstand the same thing by it-Devils. In like manner, if the former calls Trai what the latter calls Ko, both receive the same idea from it- Fruit. Consequently, a character is but the element of one fixed sound everywhere, or is the mere conventional sign of two, or of twenty, sounds, it bears but a single sense under every variety of denomi nation; and therefore the question of sense has nothing of necessary dependence upon that of sounds. The form of the Hebrew, Shin, assimilates perfectly, and especially in its ancient shape, (see Giovan Battista Pala tino, Lettera Antica et Moderna, Roma, MDXXXXV.) to that of the Chinese character of a Ship, and nearly approximates to it in sound, yet signifies only Substance. The

"Indeed, it would be necessary that the idioms of the nations in the vicinity of China should bear a great analogy to that of the Chinese, to have made the former adopt, without any alteration, the characters of the latter, so as to be able to read, in their own lan. guage, books written in a different idiom; the structure of both languages, the syntax, the order in which the words are placed, the in versions, the metaphors, should be exactly the same; the particles and signs of relation should always be employed on the same occasion, and put in the same place; all these zigzag line which in some Chinese characters analogies would suppose a complete similari-represents water (shwy), in Egyptian gives ty in the genius of all those languages, and the sound both of s and m, and signifies that would be a phenomenon which the differ- water also. ence between the words would render still more difficult to explain. It will not there fore excite surprise, to find, on examination, that things are not exactly as has been sup; posed, which it will be easy to demonstrate." -p.118.

We consider ourselves to have made out our third allegation, that the assertions of Doctor Du Ponceau are not supported by any proof; for in the passages already quot ed, where there is the greatest appearance of it, there seems to us to be also the greatest failure of argument,

We have left ourselves little room to discuss the propriety of illustrating, as is gene- On the question of the perfect adaptation, rally done, this question of pasigraphy by however of the Chinese characters for a figures or numerals. Different nations, it is system of scientific pasigraphy, we may be true, understand figures alike, though they allowed to express strong doubts; and the name them differently; as the one of En- more so as Mr. Davis, whose attainments in gland is the eek of Persia. But this is only the Chinese tongue no man can dispute, and an imperfect parallel; for the numeral ap- who seems, in the work already referred to, pears but as a fixed quantity always-its to incline to this eligibility, has himself been very principle is isolation, while that of accused of a serious error: but this most words is combination, and the arrangement unjustly. The case serves at least for a of these, as the above quotation shows, may, It will be in the recol and does, vary, while the numeral preserves lection of all, that this learned sinologist has its own meaning without any modification given a translation of the motto upon a porwhatever. celain vessel in his volumes. His translation is seriously impugned by a writer in one of

curious illustration.

The probabilities seem to us decidedly in favour of Doctor Du Ponceau's argument; but the question, as we have already remarked, is one of fact, and the author's opponents and Co.

*Davis' Account of China, 2 vols. Knight

our Indian newspapers, who asserts also that he had shown it to a native Chinese teacher, and that the latter recognized the line in ques tion as the first of a well-known Chinese complet, and supplied the second from me. mory. It is nevertheless but common justice to state, that European scholars who have resided many years in China, agree that Mr. Davis' translation is perfectly correct, and that the Chinaman is decidedly in the wrong, both as to the altered sense of the first line, and its connection with the second. If such difference of opinion can exist as to the meaning of characters, we doubt of their eligibility to the purposes of pasigraphic science universally.

With regard to the relation, whether of affinity or contrast, between the Chinese and Egyptian hieroglyphic systems, notwithstanding the length to which our present paper has run, we must be permitted to make a few observations.

But first, of China, we may incidentally remark, that notwithstanding the perfect adaptation of her characters for stereotype printing, as noticed by Davis, yet the art of printing was not known there till the tenth century after Christ. It is obvious then that she could have had no notion, directly or through intermediate nations in early days, of that Assyrian process, which printed or stereotyped their mystic cuneiform characters upon the bricks of Babylon, &c.; and between which and the transfer of the process to paper, there could otherwise have been but a short interval.

That China was early separated from the rest of mankind we see, if only from this one instance, no reason whatever to doubt; any more than that Egypt was early peopled by, and remained in constant intercourse with other nations. From these facts we may draw a conclusion, essentially distinct, we believe, from any that has ever been offer. ed before; and which, if correct, may go far to explain the causes of difference in the two hieroglyphic systems, as they are vulgarly termed.

perfection of these picture-signs, and the very confined mode of communication they must induce, intermingled at the best with arbitrary or conventional signs. Widely, and in fact universally, as the opinion has been received, of the correctness of the foregoing process in all its stages, we must express our doubts of it to a great extent-i. e. almost entirely, everywhere.

The Chinese writers may be thought decisive on this point, so far as regards their own country; and they do most unquestionably affirm that Pictures led to Picture-writ ing This is the point where our scepticism begins. We would fain examine their evidence, generally and in mass, for the sake of conciseness.

Pictures, say they, led to Picture-writing. There is no clear proof, we think, existing of this; and beyond a few casual efforts we do not believe the assertion. Our doubts refer both to the history and the probability of the fact.

In Morrison's Chinese Dictionary the forms of some picture-writings are given from their native writers. They are but few, and confessedly a secondary invention, by Paoushe. This, therefore, does not advance us one step nearer the truth, unless it can be shown that those specimens are authorines, that they are received as such by the Chinese, and that their authenticity is uncontradicted by authority equal to that which supports it.

The fact entirely rests upon an apparent probability, and as such, would be embraced in general, and without consideration. Yet, as we have already remarked, there are several accounts, all differing, some contradictory of the rest, and some from their very nicety erroneous. The marks on the tortoise's shell, constellations, footprints of animals and birds, are, collectively and variously, stated to have been the origin of characters; either, as some affirm, by direct imitation, or according to others, by sug gesting the idea of written signs. Now this last is itself clearly a distinct process from pictures, and not less so from the diminished, or picture-signs, both these being initative, while that was arbitary; for it is never pretended that the characters were meant to give the idea of footprints merely-they were simply shape or lines applied to and hinting These va

It is consonant with experience to believe that pictures formed the first mode of ex pressing ideas of objects and Mr. Cory, with that distinguished ability for which we have ever given him credit, has successfully applied this fact to the elucidation of the earliest traditions of mankind. It is assert-ideas, without picturing them. ed however everywhere, and in especial for rious forms too were not made at once; but Egypt and China, that Pictures led to Pic successive systems arose for successive inditure. Writing, and that thence arose Charac-viduals. Thus the Tortoise-characters were ters-the signs of China, and the syllabaries of the West. Doctor Du Ponceau, with many others, has justly remarked upon the necessary im

VOL. XXI.

25

invented in the time of Ta yu, and the Hotu, in the time of Fohi, and so forth; but Fohi and Ta-yu were distinct personages by the native accounts, whereas the Ho tu charac

ters are identical with the Tortoise. These luvian letters are all arbitrary, as far as it apfew facts, and there are abundance more, pears.

suffice to show the utter doubt, confusion, But the Phoenicians, it is said, and the contradiction, and ignorance, that reign Celts and the Hebrews also, pictured anithrough the very sources of information, mals, &c. by letters. If so, we agree that and they serve to prove that the early the fact perhaps goes near to subvert our history of writing in China cannot be de- proposition altogether. But we submit that pended on; for of their immense varieties the converse is nearer the truth. Let us ad. of characters-and a single series contains mit as unquestionable fact the instances reabove thirty-one mountain seventy-two; ported on both sides. all, it seems were derived either from others, or from imitation of, not the absolute forms but portions of the forms, of birds, &c. This last source may have given a phonetic basis, now forgotten.

Symbols, according to the most probable data, were the invention of Tsang-hee, in the reign of Hwang-te and previous to this, as Dr. Kidd and Dr. Morrison inform us, i. e. up to the year 2600, B. c., knotted cords were in use, like the Peruvian quipos; in other words, picture-writing was unknown altogether. How then can we credit the Chinese writings, that affirm this to have been the origin of characters? Be it distinctly understood that the term symbols used above, is to be considered as meaning, not imitative forms, but arbitrary signs-such as the bird marks already mentioned, which were succeeded by imitation of objects. As the Tachuen-wan, of Chow, 800, B. c. a whim to carry hieroglyphics to the utmost.

Now as the oldest forms of character known are those of the inscription of Ta-yu, referred to on the banks of the Hoang-ho; and as these are not in the least imitative, what basis is there in history for the picture writing story?

But is this mode really as probable in itself as is considered? We make no question of absolute pictures, as men might draw these for posterity in order that all might understand great or public events; but could natural objects, as sun or moon, a man, a horse, a dog, or a house or tree, &c. convey the ideas of private intercourse, and not distract oftener than illustrate. A mouth and an apple, for instance, might signify eat ing, but also hunger: arbitrary signs then must intervene, the instant pictures changed to picture-writing; and this last could have had scarcely an existence; it must have been an almost absolute nonentity, used perhaps as by the Nabathæans, for pictures, and for symbolical attributes. So on the triumphal pillars of Sesostris, the male or female imitative sign typified valour or cowardice.

The Phoenican Aleph represented an ox. The Celtic tree-alphabet supplied the elements of letters, (as we noticed in one instance among the Chinese). But these, we affirm, formed only an arbitrary or conventional phonetic basis of letters. Thus in the former the cry of the ox gave the sound a, or rather as the Hebrews and Persians pronounce it, o; the name of the birch tree, beit, in the second, and of beth, a house, or a thorn tree, in the third, gave the sound of B, and so on. Natural objects then, by this view, supplied a basis for elementary sounds; for the name of the ox, house, tree, being given in the spoken language first, on the subsequent invention of letters, the letter picturing the object representing a sound or name, was understood by all as itself representing that sound: such as in a former part of this ar ticle we have described as necessarily conventional; but nothing further: and, that ba sis established, the sources fell into oblivion. This clearly then was also different from what is understood by Picture-Writing.

Hence the only original picture-writing, strictly speaking, of which we have proofs, is that of

EGYPT.

We have in remarking on the Chinese system above, intimated a doubt whether the general opinion of picture-writing, as a sys tem to any extent, being derived from pic. tures, be not rather an apparent than a real probability. The transition-state in Egypt is an obvious objection: but is not this an exception, the grounds of which, on exami nation, as differing in circumstance from any other, will strengthen our negation?

All the assertions of ancient authors respecting the invention of writing appear equally vague, as equally grounded on tradi tion alone (Diod. 4. 74): but as the writers we shall here refer to may fairly be consi dered entitled to equal credit, we shall give those assertions the weight of facts, in rela We have seen that the Chinese have no tion to each other; noticing only with Zoeauthentic original picture-writing; the Chal- ga, that, after all, the Greeks and Romans deans clearly had no idea of its original were equally in ignorance on the subject. existence; for in the alphabets preserved The Egyptians, says Tacitus, were the first to us by Ben Washih, the reputed antedi- to express ideas by outward signs; they pic