distinct languages, he will be the better enabled to form an opinion respecting the justness of the remarks contained in the following

pages.

The origin and affinity of languages ascend far beyond the times of which any information has been preserved by ancient writers. But it seems undeniable that, with respect to the origin and early state of nations, the credibility of the accounts given by different authors must depend on their relative antiquity; and it is impossible to understand how Zonaras, in the twelfth century after Christ, could be as well acquainted with the ancient situation of the world as Herodotus, who flourished 450 years before Christ. The incorrectness, therefore, of the following remarks of Mr. Bryant must be self evident:

"It may be said that the writers to whom I chiefly appeal are, in great measure, dry and artless, without any grace and ornament to recommend them. They were, likewise, posterior to the Helladians; consequently, farther removed from the times of which they treat. To the first objection I answer, that the most dry and artless historians are, in general, the most authentic. They who colour and embellish have the least regard for the truth. In respect to priority, it is a specious claim; but attended with no validity. When a gradual darkness has been overspreading the world, it requires as much time to emerge from the cloud, as there passed when we were sinking into it so that they who come later may enjoy a greater portion of light, than those who preceded them by ages. Besides, it is to be considered, that the writers to whom I chiefly appeal, lived in parts of the world which gave them great advantages. The whole theology of Greece was derived from the East. We cannot, therefore, but in reason suppose, that Clemens of Alexandria, Eusebius of Cæsarea, Tatianus of Assyria, Lucianus of Samosata, Cyril of Jerusalem, Porphyry of

Syria, Proclus of Lycia, Philo of Biblus, Strabo of Amasa, Pausanias of Cappadocia, Eratosthenes of Cyrene, must know more upon this subject than any native Helladian. The like may be said of Diodorus, Josephus, Cedrenus, Syncellus, Zonaras, Eustathius; and numberless more. These had the archives of ancient* temples, to which they could apply and had traditions more genuine than ever reached Greece. And though they were posterior theirselves, they appeal to authors far prior to any Helladians: and their works are crowded with extracts from the most curious and the most ancient† histories. Such were the writings of Sanchoniathon, Berosus, Nicholaus Damascenus, Mocus, Mnaseas, Hieronymus Egyptius, Apion, Manethon: from whom Abydenus, Apollodorus, Asclepiades, Artapanus, Philastrius, borrowed largely. We are beholden to Clemens ‡ and Eusebius, for many evidences from writers, long since lost; even Eustathius and Tzetzes have resources, which are now no more."§. On the contrary, the justness of the following observations of Lord Bolingbroke can scarcely be contested: "There is a fourth class, of much less use than these, but of much greater name. Men of the first rank in learning, and

to whom the whole tribe of scholars bow with reverence. A man must be as indifferent as I am to common censure or approbation, to avow a thorough contempt for the whole business of these learned lives; for all the researches into antiquity, for all the systems of chronology and history, that we owe to the immense labours of a Scaliger, a Bochart, a Petavius, an Usher, and even a Marsham. The

"See Philo Biblius apud Euseb. Præf. Evang. 1. i. c. 10. p. 32. He mentions applying to a great number of authors, in Phenicia.

66

“ + Πολλην εξερεύνησαμενος ύλην, ουχι την παρ' Έλλησι. — Philo, apud Euseb. Praf. Evang., 1. i. c. ix. p. 32.

"Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., 1. i. p. 356."

Analysis of Ancient Mythology, vol. i. p. 146. et seq.

a

X

same materials are common to them all; but these materials are few, and there is a moral impossibility that they should ever have more. They have combined these into every form that can be given to them they have supposed, they have guessed, they have joined disjointed passages of different authors, and broken traditions of uncertain originals, of various people, and of centuries remote from one another as well as from ours. In short, that they might leave no liberty untaken, even a wild fantastical similitude of sounds has served to prop up a system. As the materials they have are few, so are the very best and such as pass for authentic extremely precarious; as some of these learned persons themselves confess. Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and George the monk opened the principal sources of all this science; but they corrupted the waters. point of view was to make profane history and chronology agree with sacred; though the latter chronology is very far from being established with the clearness and certainty necessary to make it a rule. For this purpose, the ancient monuments that these writers conveyed to posterity, were digested by them according to the system they were to maintain: and none of these monuments were delivered down in their original form, and genuine purity. The dynasties of Manetho, for instance, are broken to pieces by Eusebius, and such fragments of them as suited his design are stuck into his work. We have, we know, no more of them. The Codex Alexandrinus we owe to George the monk. We have no other authority for it."*

Their

It is not, however, necessary for the object of this work, to enter into any discussion respecting ancient chronology: for I conceive that the poems of Homer are a fixed point in the history of all languages cognate with the Greek; and, consequently, in tracing their

Bolingbroke's Letters on the Study and Use of History, p. 6. et seq.

affinity or the locality of the people who spoke them, it is not requisite to carry the research farther than two or three centuries beyond the time when Homer flourished. It is, also, precisely at this period that the traditional and historical notices preserved by ancient writers begin to assume a degree of credibility which entitles them to every attention. But in combining together these notices, and in drawing conclusions from them, I have confined myself to such as are contained in Homer, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Pliny; but the authors on which I have principally depended are Herodotus and Strabo. Both these authors, I observe, are held in little or no estimation by the writers whose hypotheses I am under the necessity of refuting: but, after a most attentive examination of the works of Herodotus and Strabo, I cannot understand on what grounds their authority can with any reason be questioned. At least before the accounts given by the most ancient historian now extant are thus disregarded, and those of such a writer as Justin received in preference, some sufficient cause ought to be assigned for adopting so singular a mode of weighing historical evidence. I presume, however, that the only solid grounds on which belief in human testimony can rest are the witness's discernment, judgment, and knowledge of the subject attested; and, as it cannot be denied that Strabo* and Herodotus possessed these qualifications in an eminent degree, it must necessarily follow that they are the safest guides for determining, as far as it was then known, the actual state of the world 500 years B. C., and its subsequent changes.

* Strabo flourished about A. D. 20; but the great attention and judgment with which he had consulted writers more ancient than himself, and had compared their accounts with what had actually come under his own observation, are evident in every page of his work.

I have thus endeavoured to conduct the etymological and historical discussions contained in these RESEARCHES on principles which appear to me to be incontrovertible: but I am well aware that the execution of a work is seldom, if ever, of equal excellence as the plan intended; and I cannot, therefore, flatter myself that I have been able to avoid altogether the faults which I have observed and condemned in others. If, however, my reasoning and conclusions meet not with approbation, it will, perhaps, be admitted that I have contributed considerably to the further improvement of philology, not only by the new data which I have produced, but by condensing into a small compass the various opinions hitherto published respecting the origin and affinity of languages. But should any person be inclined to apply to this work the severe rules of criticism which seem to prevail at this day, I beg that, before he proceeds to judgment and execution, he will consider whether these words of Plutarch do not apply equally to philological as to historical researches, and, if so, whether they do not present a sufficient excuse for any errors or defects that may be found in the following pages: Τῳ μεντοι συνταξιν ὑποβεβλημένῳ, και ἱστοριαν εξ ου προχειρων ουδ' οικείων, αλλα ξενων τε των πολλων και διεσπαρμένων εν ἑτεροις συνιούσαν αναγνωσμάτων, τῳ οντι χρη πρωτον ὑπαρχειν και μαλιστα την πολιν ευδοκιμον και φιλοκαλον και πολυανθρωπον, ὡς βιβλιων τε παντοδαπων αφθονιαν εχων, και όσα τους γράφοντας διαφευγοντα σωτηρια μνημης επιφανεστέραν είληφε πιστιν, ὑπολαμβάνων ακοη και διαπυνθανόμενος, μη πολλων μηδ' αναγκαίων ενδεες αποδιδοίη το εργον· ἡμεις μικραν οικουμεν πολιν.

BOMBAY, 15th January, 1827.