original roots would have been sufficient. But, had even other words denoting new and unknown objects become necessary, the impossibility of assimilating them to the peculiar genius of their own language must have prevented them from availing themselves of such new ideas, and from thus augmenting and improving their own barren and inflexible tongue. The peculiarity, also, of such a structure of language renders the composition of words incompatible with the principles of its formation, and thus deprives it of that resource which has contributed so much to the richness of other languages without their being indebted to foreign assistance. An attentive consideration, consequently, of Arabic and its cognate dialects will, I think, evince that the simplicity and philosophical precision of its formation are merely apparent; and that, so far from its structure deserving praise, to it alone must be ascribed the inflexible uniformity, and the want of variety and copiousness of expression, which have been at all times the distinguishing characteristics of the Arabic language. The same remarks apply to Hebrew, which, both in its words and its grammatical structure, bears so intimate an affinity to Arabic, as to render it highly probable that they are both merely dialects of that language which was spoken by the race of men by whom Arabia and Syria was originally peopled. But the imperfect state in which Hebrew has been preserved, and the impenetrable obscurity which conceals the early history of the world, preclude the possibility of determining the origin from which such Hebrew words as do not exist in Arabic have been derived. They conform, however, in every respect, to the genius of this language; and they may, therefore, with much probability, be considered as terms which may have become obsolete in it, or as belonging to that dialect of the parent tongue which was at first spoken in Palestine or Canaan. Were, therefore, history entirely silent, the peculiar structure of the Arabic and Hebrew would alone prove that they never could have * It is universally admitted that the roots of many Hebrew words, now lost, may still be found in Arabic. + I mean, of course, Syria in its largest extent. With the Syriac language I am not acquainted; but its intimate affinity with Hebrew and Arabic has never been disputed. been the origin of the other languages of the world. But tradition and history sufficiently show that from the particular nature and position of the countries which they inhabited, and from their peculiar mode of life, neither the Hebrews nor Arabs had ever at any time such a communication with other nations as could ever have effected the introduction into their languages of Hebrew or Arabic words. To this conclusion Phenicia forms no objection; for, if the Phenician language was, as it is generally supposed, an Arabic or Hebrew dialect, the nonexistence in Greek of Arabic or Hebrew words* proves that the introduction of letters into Greece by Cadmus (if such an event ever happened) operated no change in the language of the country, and all chronologists place the foundation of Carthage posterior to Homer. The colonies of Carthage, therefore, were not established until long after the Greek language was fully formed, and there is every reason to believe that Sanscrit existed in its present state prior to the navigations of the Phenicians; and thus, the only means by which other languages might have been affected by an Arabic dialect, were not in operation until these languages had received such a fixed form and such a currency as must have prevented the admission of foreign terms. In the existing languages, also, of the countries to which the navigations of the Phenicians were directed, and in which the colonies of Carthage were established, no vestige of an Arabic dialect can now be found. It must, therefore, necessarily follow, that that portion. of Asia, which comprises Arabia and Syria, was peopled, or at least inhabited from time immemorial, by a distinct race of men, who spoke a language peculiar to themselves; and that this language, with its cognate dialects, has been at all times confined to these countries, and that it never has extended its influence beyond their limits, except to a small part of Africa. I am aware that it has been asserted (See F. Von Schlegel, Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, p. 74.) that the Greek contains more Arabic words than is generally supposed, but, until these words are produced, and their identity established, I must doubt the correctness of this assertion; for I have never been able to discover any such identical terms. The Arabic words in Spanish must be attributed to the conquest of that country by the Arabs, until the contrary is proved. F 34 CHAP. IV. THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES OF BABYLONIA, ASSYRIA, AND EGYPT. IF I have succeeded in showing that Arabic* could not have been the origin of the other languages of the world, it necessarily follows, that the country in which it ceased to be spoken must have been conterminous to one in which another distinct language prevailed. To the east of Arabia, therefore, the first country where an original tongue can at this day be found is Persia. But between these two countries, and also extending along the northern boundaries of Arabia and Syria, is interposed that region which is bounded on the west by the Euphrates, and on the east at present by the Tigris, but in early times by Mons Zagros. Here was the seat of the Assyrian empire, and it would, therefore, be desirable to ascertain what was the language which was spoken by the subjects of Belus and Ninus. But the primeval history of this country is involved in the utmost obscurity, and it has been so often conquered as to render it extremely doubtful whether any trace of its ancient language still exists. Ancient history, however, both sacred and profane, attests that the first monarchies were established in Babylonia and Assyria. But a difference of opinion prevails respecting the manner in which Genesis x. 11. ought to be understood; and the learned have not yet. determined whether it ought to be translated, “Out of this land went Ashur and built Nineveh ;" or, "he (Nimrod) went out of this land into Ashur and built Nineveh." If the last be adopted, and the word "Ashur" be understood as denoting a country and not a man, there * For the sake of brevity I shall in future comprise under the general term Arabic the Hebrew, Syriac, and other cognate dialects. The German literati have adopted the term Semitic for this family of languages; but this term seems improper, as it involves an hypothesis and may, therefore, exert an influence on reasoning without its being observed, and the same objection applies to the use of the term Hebrew. will be found no mention in the Mosaic account of the origin of the Assyrian empire. At the same time the memoirs on this subject inserted in the Histoire de l'Académie des Inscriptions, all written with great fulness and great learning, merely prove that the more carefully the passages relating to it, that are contained in ancient authors, are collected and examined, the greater is the uncertainty which is produced. But it sufficiently appears from them that the only data, entirely free from doubt, from which a conclusion can now be deduced, are the following: - Herodotus states that the Assyrian empire was subverted after it had ruled Upper Asia for 520 years and Diodorus Siculus, on the authority of Ctesias, relates that thirty generations of kings, from Ninus to Sardanapalus (both inclusive), reigned in succession, sons succeeding to fathers, until the revolt of the Medes, which took place after the Assyrian empire had continued for upwards of 1360 years.† The other passages of ancient authors which have been preserved are merely quotations made by later writers from works no longer extant, and consequently there are no means of determining how far they may have been faithfully extracted, or the degree of credit to which they may be entitled.‡ ; Volumes have been written on the above two passages, but I shall merely repeat the observation, that the number of generations given by Ctesias is perfectly incompatible with the number of years, as each king would, on an average, have reigned forty-five years, a period which is quite irreconcilable to experience and the common course of nature. But these generations apply accurately to the duration of the Assyrian Herodotus, lib. i. c. 91. + Diodorus Siculus, lib. i. c. 21. See, however, on this subject, a Mémoire by M. Treret and the Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions, vol. v. p. 331.; but he observes in a following Mémoire, “La connaissance que nous avons aujourd'hui de l'ancienne histoire, est presqu'entièrement fondée sur diverses citations, que nous trouvons répandues dans les écrits de l'antiquité. ... Mais, comme ces fragmens laissent souvent des vuides entr'eux; que plusieurs sont obscurs, et paroîssent opposés les uns aux autres, ou avec des histoires dont la suite entière nous est connue, il ne suffit pas de déterminer en général le degré d'autorité des écrivains dont on employe les fragmens; il faut encore souvent les interpréter, et les supplier par des conjectures, et des hypothèses, qui ne tirent leur force que de leur probabilité, et de leur liaison avec le reste de l'histoire." Ibid. vol. vi. p. 147. empire mentioned by Herodotus, as each king's reign would then, on an average, have continued for only seventeen or eighteen years, which is perfectly consistent with probability. I am, therefore, surprised that most writers have contented themselves with adopting either one or other of these accounts, and with arranging their systems accordingly: for, if it be once admitted, as most consonant with probability, that Herodotus and Ctesias both intend the same dynasty, it is only further requisite to suppose that Ctesias, not possessing any information respecting the prior kingdom of Babylon, has confounded with it that of Nineveh, and has ascribed the establishment of the former to the actual founders of the latter. It would, then, merely follow, that the history of the Babylonians had irretrievably perished previous to the time of the first Grecian writer, and that when Herodotus mentions Assyrians he means those of Nineveh only. But the simple circumstance of a monarchy having existed in Babylonia 800 years before it was conquered by Ninus is a fact that might be easily remembered; and it is, also, one that would have flattered the pride of the conqueror; as nothing could be a more convincing proof of his greatness and power, than the conquest of a kingdom which had flourished for so many ages. To this supposition the only objection is the silence of Herodotus. But all his works have not reached posterity; and other ancient writers have expressly ascribed the foundation of the Babylonian monarchy not to Ninus, but to Belus, whose memory was long preserved by his name having been given to that remarkable tower in Babylon which has been so often described. Though, therefore, ancient history does not furnish sufficient proof that Babylon was once a powerful and independent monarchy; yet it does not in any manner contradict such a supposition, but, on the contrary, records many circumstances which, when combined, depose strongly in its support. Nothing, certainly, can be more probable, than that Babylon might, from small beginnings, have succeeded in extending its authority over the whole of that tract of country which is bounded on the east by the Mons Zagros, on the |