nothing would seem more probable than the existence of a primitive language. Moses, also, relates that such actually prevailed during the earlier ages of the world, but he, at the same time, expressly declares that this uniformity of speech was destroyed by a miracle. If, consequently, the authority of Moses be admitted as proving the one point, it must be considered of equal validity with respect to the other; because no other works now exist with which the narration of Moses might be compared, and by means of which any errors that may have occurred in it might be corrected. The whole, therefore, of the Book of Genesis must be held to be authentic, or the whole must be rejected; and that argument can deserve no attention which rests on a partial admission and a partial rejection of the contents of this book.

But the following verses of the eleventh chapter of Genesis prove, beyond the power of controversy to dispute, that the primitive language of mankind was totally destroyed.

Verse 1. "And the whole earth was of one language and one speech."

V. 6. "And the Lord said, Behold the people is one, and they have all one language."

V. 7. "Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.”

V. 9. "Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth."

In the tenth chapter, also, of Genesis occur these verses ; —

V. 5." But these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." V. 20. "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries and in their nations.”

V. 31. "These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations."*

As there is not the slightest ambiguity in the original Hebrew, I cannot understand why the commentators on the Bible and other writers attempt to qualify or invalidate the positive testimony of these texts, and to retain the language of Adam and Eve in the family of Shem; for, though the language of mankind was confounded, it is not said that the

So far, therefore, as the authority of the Book of Genesis is admitted, it must, at the same time, be admitted that the primitive speech of mankind was abolished, and various distinct languages created by the same power by whom the former was originally communicated to mankind.

99

Of this opinion was Sir William Jones, who has observed, "that the language of Noah is lost irretrievably ;" yet he has endeavoured to establish" that the inhabitants of Asia, and, consequently, as it might be proved, of the whole earth, sprang from three branches of one stem." But in conducting this argument Sir William Jones has not been able to avoid inconsistency and self-contradiction. For in his fourth Anniversary Discourse he remarks, -"But a further comparison between the two languages (Sanscrit and Arabic) is here unnecessary; since in whatever light we view them, they seem totally distinct, and must have been invented by two different races of men.' In the fifth Discourse" If the ground work of the Western Turkish, when separated from the Persian and Arabic with which it is embellished, be a branch of the lost Oghuzian tongue, I can assert, with confidence, that it has not the least resemblance either to Arabic or Sanscrit, and must have been invented by a race of men wholly distinct from the Arabs or Hindus." In his sixth Discourse," But without having recourse to other arguments, the composition of words in which the genius of the Persian delights, and which that of the Arabic abhors, is a decisive proof that the Parsi sprang from an Indian It hence It hence appears that the languages of the three branches of one stem, the Sanscrit, Arabic, and Tartar have not the slightest affinity to each other, and differ so much that they must have been invented by distinct races of men.

and not an Arabic stock."

It is, therefore, impossible to reconcile Sir William Jones's conclusion with the premises from which it has been deduced; because, as he

knowledge which men at the time possessed was in any manner affected, and, consequently, the effect of this miracle extended no further than the causing this knowledge to be handed down to posterity, not in one single language, but in a variety of different dialects.

is perfectly correct in asserting that no resemblance exists between these languages, it must be obvious that dissimilar effects could not proceed from one and the same cause. If the Hindus, Arabs, and Tartars spoke the same language three thousand years ago, as Sir William Jones supposes, their ancestors, when they migrated from their native country, must either have preserved their mother-tongue, or adopted that of the country into which they migrated. In the latter case, other languages, besides this supposed primitive one, must have been in existence; and it is directly contrary to the Mosaic history to imagine that the world remained without people and without languages until a migration took place from Iran in the twelfth century before the Christian æra. In the other case, it is impossible that any material difference could have arisen between the Sanscrit and the Arabic; for, there is every reason to believe, that the former was a written language at the time of this supposed migration, and it is incontestable that Arabia was never conquered or occupied by a foreign race within the last three thousand years. Had, therefore, the Arabs and Hindus ever spoken the same tongue, no conceivable cause can be assigned for these two languages having become so radically dissimilar. They might have been considerably affected by the dialects of the countries into which these migrations are supposed to have proceeded, but they would have preserved the greatest part of the words of the parent language, and an indisputable resemblance in their grammatical

structure.

Similar remarks apply to the influence over the languages of Asia and Europe which some writers ascribe to migrations of Scythians. The earliest existing accounts, at the same time, of this people describe them as rude and unlettered, living in various independent tribes, and not united into one nation, and perfectly unacquainted with the learning and arts of civilized society. For Herodotus characterises the Scythians as the most ignorant of men, and every subsequent description of them fully confirms this remark of Sir W. Jones. first enquiry concerning the languages and letters of the Tartars presents us with a deplorable void, or with a prospect as barren and as

" Our

dreary as that of their own deserts. The Tartars in general had no literature; (in this point all authorities appear to concur), the Turcs had no letters; the Huns, according to Procopius, had not even heard of them." To derive, therefore, from the scanty and imperfect dialects of such a people the language of Homer or of the sacred books of the Hindus must be obviously so inconsistent with probability as to render the conjecture unworthy of the least credit.

If, however, no affinity exists between Arabic, Sanscrit, and Tartar, and if all existing languages bear less or more relation to one or other of these tongues,* the non-existence of a primitive language seems sufficiently established. But the apparent simplicity resulting from the derivation of all languages from one common origin, and particularly a mistaken opinion that the Mosaic account of the creation of mankind would receive confirmation from proving that this common origin was Hebrew, have led several writers into etymological researches, which, so far from producing conviction, have merely cast ridicule on the object of their studies. It cannot, however, be denied that cognate and identical terms occur in some languages, and the only error, therefore, of such writers consists in attempting to draw an universal conclusion from particular premises. But the attempt is equally hopeless in philology as in reasoning, and hence arises a complete disregard of every principle of language and pretended etymologies, which cannot be better described than in the words of Sir William Jones. But I beg leave, as a philologer, to enter my protest against conjectural etymology in historical researches, and principally against the licentiousness of etymologists in transposing and inserting letters, in substituting at pleasure any consonant for

Such is the conclusion of Sir W. Jones, as explained in his Ninth Anniversary Discourse. But with respect to the Tartar, M. Klaproth observes, "Les Kalmouks sont une branche de la grande race Mongole. Plusieurs savans, même dans des temps modernes, ont presque toujours confondu cette race avec les tribus turques (tatares); mais elle en differe totalement par la langue et par la physionomie.-Voyage au Caucase, vol. i. p. 68.

As, however, the Mongol language bears no affinity to Sanscrit or Arabic, its distinct existence does not affect the argument, but only adds one more to the number of original languages.

another of the same order, and in totally disregarding the vowels: for such permutations few radical words would be more convenient than cus or cush, since dentals being changed for dentals, and palatials for palatials, it instantly becomes coot, goose, and by transposition, duck, all water birds, and evidently symbolical; it next is the goat worshipped in Egypt, and, by a Metathesis, the dog adored is an emblem of Sirius, or more obviously, a cat, not the domestic animal, but a sort of ship, and the catos or great sea-fish of the Dorians.” *

But the most singular manner of explaining the origin of language is contained in the posthumous work of the late Professor A. Murray. "The nations" (observes Dr. Murray), "from the confines of China to the Atlantic ocean, from Novaya Zemlia to Africa, speak different dialects of a language, of which the Teutonic is the simplest form existing." To prove this position, he proceeds to state that the elements of all languages may be resolved into these nine syllables, ag or wag, bag, dwag, gwag, or cwag, lag, or hlag, mag, nag, or hnag, rag or hrag, and swag. — " These nine words (he adds) are the foundations of language, on which an edifice has been erected of a more wonderful and useful kind, than any which have exercised human ingenuity.” †— But he remarks with justice, "that taste and philosophy will receive with aversion these rude syllables ;" and had he not been misled by a favorite hypothesis the slightest reflection must have convinced him that such words could never have been "the base of that medium, through which Homer, and Milton, and Newton have delighted or illumined mankind." For it must be obvious that if Ag had upwards of two hundred significations (as ascribed to it by Dr. Murray,) it must have been perfectly impossible for the person addressed to understand in what sense the speaker intended to use it, and consequently that such words could never have fulfilled the purposes of speech. Dr. Murray, also, states that each of these words is a verb and name for a species of action, consequently, according to the principles of all languages, these words were incapable of being compounded together; and thus, what

* Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. i. p. 139.

+ Murray's History of the European Languages, p. 28. et seq.