Dedication.

TO

LADY HALL OF LLANOVER.

My Lady,

This volume has been published in consequence of the following opinion expressed by Dr. Prichard on an Essay written by the Author for a National Society, in whose proceedings your Ladyship takes a lively interest:

Notwithstanding the deference which I consider due to the sentiments of so eminent an authority, had I committed to the press, without revision, the hastily-written Essay to which he was thus pleased to refer, I might have conformed to the letter, but I should have violated the spirit of this very flattering recommendation. Instead of so doing, I have availed myself of such intervals of leisure as I have been able [pg vi] to command from more imperative engagements in maturing the conclusions embodied in the present volume, of which only a very trifling portion consists of the Essay in which it originated.

Independent of the numerous claims to the respect and esteem of your countrymen, which your Ladyship has earned by the warm attachment you have ever evinced for the literature and institutions and for the welfare of the Cymry, there is no other person to whom I could, with equal justice, have dedicated a volume which has been written in accordance with your Ladyship's suggestion and request. For the same reason, in inscribing these pages to your Ladyship, I have the satisfaction of feeling that they will be received not only with the indulgence required by all works which are the fruit of intervals of professional leisure—but also with that patriotic sympathy which you never fail to extend to all investigations prompted by national feelings and directed to subjects of national interest.

I have the honour to remain,

Your Ladyship's

Very faithful and obedient servant,

THE AUTHOR.

Introduction. On The Connexion Of The Conclusions Of This Work With History, Sacred And Profane, And With The Results Of Science.

Interpretation of the Passage commented on by Grotius. Mr. Lyell's Geological Proofs of the Recent Origin of Man. Grounds of Adelung's Opinion that Central Asia was the Birthplace of the Human Race. Its Central Position and High Elevation. Its Climate. It is the native Country of Domestic Animals. This View consistent with the Scriptural Narrative, and supported by ancient Indian Accounts. “Ararat” of Scripture not in Armenia. Monosyllabic and Polysyllabic Languages. Dr. Prichard on the Origin of different Races. The Dispersion of Mankind probably very rapid. Routes of Diffusion. Basques and Celts. Connexion of the Welsh with Negro Dialects. The Peopling of Islands. The Unity of the Human Species deduced from the Uniformity of the Moral, Mental, and Social Features of civilized and uncivilized Races. Egyptians and Negroes. Ancient Gauls and Modern French. Tendencies to Progression among Races yet uncivilized. The N. A. Indian Tribe the Mandans. Imperfection of Modern Civilization. The Siege of Genoa. The Hottentot Race.

In commenting on a celebrated passage of Scripture, Grotius has adopted, with regard to the primitive language of mankind, the conclusion expressed on the title-page.

“That Language the Hebrews say is the same as theirs—the Syrians say it is the same as theirs. It may be asserted, [pg xiv] with more truth, that the Primitive Language is not extant in a pure state anywhere, but that its remains exist in all languages!”

Of the conclusion thus expressed by this celebrated writer—a conclusion dictated by the intuitive sagacity of a great mind—the facts developed in the following pages will be shown to be confirmatory. All existing languages, when viewed separately, are fragmentary and irregular. But when a wide and extensive comparison is instituted, the “disjecta membra” are found to reunite, and the irregularities to disappear!

Assuming the various languages of the Globe to have been derived from one Original Speech, it will be established that the formation of numerous distinct languages from that one Primitive Tongue admits of a complete explanation, by means of causes of which the agency can be traced within the range of the Historical era. The influence of those causes will be shown within a limited period of time to have produced dialects which display—not a destruction—but a dispersion of the elements of the Parent languages from which they are known to have arisen. In other words, these dialects manifest the same relative features as are exhibited by those languages which were formed anterior to the period of History. The only distinction is, that in the latter case the differences are more numerous and extensive—a result which is obviously a necessary consequence of a longer period of time.

Agreeably to an interpretation which has received very high sanction, the event described in the passage referred to in the title-page cannot be pronounced to have had any considerable share in the production of Human Languages, for, according to eminent authorities,1 the changes thereby [pg xv] caused probably consisted in mere Dialectic differences, not materially affecting the Words or Structure of Language. Moreover (it is inferred) the influence of that event did not extend to the whole Human Race, but merely to that small portion of it who were the ancestors of the Semetic or Syro-Phœnician nations.

In these pages are embodied proofs, from Language, of the two following propositions:—1. That the various nations of our Globe are descended from one Parent Tribe. 2. That the introduction of the Human Species into the system to which it belongs, cannot be referred to an epoch more ancient than the era indicated as the date of that event by our received systems of chronology.

These propositions, of which the Philological evidence is developed in this volume, are supported not only by the testimony of History, Sacred and Profane, but also by the highest Scientific authorities.

In Cuvier's theory of the Earth the date of the origin of our species is discussed, not only on Geological but also on Historical grounds, in a disquisition embracing an immense mass of learning on the subject of the supposed antiquity of the Chinese, Egyptians, and other nations who have laid claim to a very remote origin. These pretensions are rejected, and the date usually assigned to the origin of Man is adopted in this celebrated work.

The same views have been expressed by Mr. Lyell; views which he espouses, not merely as the result of his own reasonings, but of the prevalent conclusions of the highest geological authorities.

“I need not dwell,” he observes, “on the proofs of the low antiquity of our species, for it is not controverted by any experienced geologist; indeed the real difficulty consists in tracing back the signs of man's existence on the earth to that comparatively modern period when species, [pg xvi] now his contemporaries, began to predominate. If there be a difference of opinion respecting the occurrence in certain deposits of the Remains of Man, and his works, it is always in reference to strata confessedly of the most modern order, and it is never pretended that our race co-existed with assemblages of Animals and Plants, of which all or even a great part of the species are extinct. From the concurrent testimony of history and tradition we learn that parts of Europe now the most fertile, and most completely subjected to the dominion of Man, were, less than three thousand years ago, covered with forests, and the abode of wild beasts. The archives of nature are in accordance with historical records, and when we lay bare the most superficial covering of peat we sometimes find therein the canoes of the savage, together with huge antlers of the wild stag, or horns of the wild bull. In caves now open to the day, in various parts of Europe, the bones of large beasts of prey occur in abundance, and they indicate that at periods comparatively modern in the history of the globe the ascendancy of man, if he existed at all, had scarcely been felt by the brutes.”2

(See an analogous argument of Berkeley for the Recent Origin of Man, quoted with approbation by Mr. Lyell, vol. iii. p. 203.)

In what part of the Globe was the Human species first introduced? On this interesting question various opinions have existed, and very opposite theories have been propounded. Sir Humphry Davy3 surmised that this locality must have been somewhere in or near the Tropics, in a climate suited to the tender childhood of the Race. Sir William Jones fixed upon Persia or Iran.4 Adelung has concluded [pg xvii] in favour of a contiguous locality; viz., the regions of the Indus, the borders of Cashmire and Tibet. It may be observed also that his grounds, in some respects, coincide with those adopted by Sir William Jones, who, after alluding to the extensive and, as he conceives, fundamental differences between the Languages of—1, The Persians and Indians, Romans and Greeks, &c.; 2, The Jews, Arabs, &c.; 3, The people of China and Japan; and 4, The Tartars—nations whom, nevertheless, he conceives to have descended from one pair—observes, “If, then, you consider the seats of all the migrating nations as points in a surrounding figure, you will perceive that the several rays, diverging from Iran, may be drawn to them without any intersection; but this will not happen, if you assume as a centre, Arabia or Egypt; India, Tartary, or China: it follows that Iran, or Persia (I contend for the meaning, not the name,) was the central country which we sought.”

Adelung's5 Dissertation on this subject, which, as he states, contains “the only hypothesis in which he has permitted himself to indulge,” is characterized by profound reasoning and graceful illustration. Considering their variety and extent, his proofs seem to be conclusive, especially when dissociated from the opinion which was entertained both by himself and Sir William Jones, viz., that the languages of the nations forming the diverging radii of migration are fundamentally different. Of these languages the original unity will be apparent, from the facts embodied in this work. Adelung's grounds for selecting the Central Asiatic regions of Cashmire and Tibet are—1. Their Geographical position and high elevation, and the direction of their mountains and rivers, which render these countries a natural source for the diffusion of Population over the Globe. 2. Their Climate [pg xviii] and Natural productions. 3. The Ancient Indian accounts which are corroborated by the Scriptural narrative. 4. In these regions is the line which separates from other Asiatic races the nations who exhibit the Mongol or Tartar Physiognomy. 5. The same line separates the Monosyllabic and Polysyllabic Languages. 6. The Astronomical reasonings of Bailly.

Plan Of This Investigation. Lord Bacon's Principles Applicable To Inquiries Into The Origin And Changes Of Human Languages.

The fanciful theories in which even some of the most distinguished writers have deemed themselves at liberty to indulge, when they have entered upon the field of Philological research, have naturally tended to create, among men of calm and dispassionate minds, a general distrust in the results of all inquiries into the origin and early history of human languages. But it must be obvious that the errors into which the first inquirers on this—as on every other—subject have been betrayed is not a fair test of the attention due to Philological investigations. In this, as in every branch of human knowledge, the authenticity of the results must be tested solely with reference to the principles appealed to, and the weight, amount, and consistency of the evidence adduced. In this, as in every other branch of knowledge, the value of those results must depend solely on the interest and importance of the truths which such results may involve.

In the following pages are developed proofs of two leading propositions, viz.:

In this place, the principles appealed to in elucidation of these propositions may be explained with advantage.

These proofs are in no instance founded upon speculation or surmise. They consist in every instance, either of a comparison of terms absolutely identical in sound and sense, or of terms, of which the mutual connexion is equally certain, in accordance with those principles, with respect to which philosophical writers on language are agreed. Terms belonging to two different continents have been compared in those instances only, in which the affinities are of the same nature, as those which have been shown to be characteristic of words belonging to different dialects of the same language, in the writings of Court Ghebelin, Horne Tooke, Adam Smith, Dugald Stewart, Humboldt, and Du Ponceau. These great writers do not belong to the class of Philological speculators, but to that of authorities on the origin and mutations of human tongues.

Hence it follows that the leading doctrine laid down by Lord Bacon as applicable to the investigations of Physical science applies equally in this instance to the researches of [pg 003] the Philologist; I allude to the following fundamental maxim: Experience is the only legitimate guide to Truth; hence an accurate investigation of those facts which are within the limits of our historical knowledge, forms the only admissible basis of deduction, with respect to those facts which are beyond the range of our actual experience.

This principle may be applied in the following manner:

There are certain languages of which the original unity can be proved, either by the extrinsic evidence of history, or by the gradual approximation they display as we ascend from modern to earlier epochs, and compare modern with ancient specimens. We can show, by means of the like evidence, the progressive changes they have undergone, and the nature of the existing differences which have been the result of those changes.

There is another class of languages which came into existence during periods with regard to which we do not possess the light of history; and the only source from which we can draw our conclusions, with respect to the relations that originally existed between them, is the internal evidence afforded by the composition and structure of those languages themselves. History being silent, this is the only clue by which we can determine whether they were originally distinct, or derived from a common source.

But by what rules are we to be guided in the deductions we may form from the mere texture of dialects of the second class?

It will be shown that the existing relations between these two different classes of languages are, and therefore we may infer that the original relations were, the same.

By the adoption of these principles of investigation as regards both: 1, The Resemblances, and also 2, The Differences, which Human Tongues display, the great maxim of Lord Bacon's philosophy will become legitimately applicable to language, and the researches of the Philologist may be directed by the same criteria, and his conclusions vindicated by the same tests as those which apply to the investigations of the inquirer into Physical phenomena.

It is upon these principles that I propose to conduct the inquiry of which the results are embodied in these pages.

Chapter I. On The Evidence Furnished By A Comparison Of Their Languages Of The Original Unity Of The Various Nations Of The Continents Of Asia, Europe, Africa, And America.

The proposition which forms the subject of this Chapter will be supported through the course of this work by the progressive development of a series of various but mutually connected proofs, which—both by their individual force, and by their harmonious combination,—will be found to be conclusive.

But of these proofs there is only one branch which admits of being conveniently adverted to in this place. I allude to the evidence collected in Appendix A, in the form of a “Comparison of the most Common Terms in the African, Asiatic, European and American languages.” This comparison, though composing only a part of the proofs adduced, will be found to involve in itself evidence sufficient to establish the suggested [pg 006] conclusion, Moreover, the evidence therein embodied,—though copious in details, and strictly conforming to the principles laid down by philosophical writers on language, is simple in its nature and results, which may readily be appreciated by inquirers totally unaccustomed to philological investigations. For these reasons, the comparison instituted in Appendix A forms an appropriate subject of examination at the commencement of this work.

Here, however, it must be premised that it will be impossible, without a complete perusal, to form a correct appreciation either of the facts or of the consequences developed in that Appendix. The explanations I shall present in this place must be viewed, therefore, in the light of a general and imperfect outline only. These explanations will be directed to—

I. The Nature,

II. The Results of the Comparison contained in Appendix A.

I. Of the Nature of the Comparison in Appendix A.

The languages of Africa have been chosen as the basis or subject of comparison with which the languages of the other three continents have been collated.

This arrangement has been dictated by a consideration of the comparatively slight attention which has hitherto been paid to the languages of the Central and Southern Regions of Africa; and also by the peculiar physiology of the Negro and Hottentot tribes, which has induced some physiologists to refer the origin of these tribes to Races totally distinct from the other Families of mankind.

The extensive researches of Dr. Prichard have satisfactorily shown that the peculiarities of the Negroes and Hottentots are not permanent nor abruptly marked, but local and evanescent, [pg 007] and that they melt away by nice shades of gradation, corresponding with the minute progressive transitions of climate that are traceable through the various regions of the African continent. Hence the possibility of the identity of the Negro and Hottentot Tribes with the inhabitants of the other three great continents may be clearly inferred. But no evidence has yet been produced calculated to establish this conclusion as a positive truth. This desideratum the aid of philology will be found satisfactorily to supply.

In the North of Africa the physiological difficulties which are encountered in the Middle and South do not exist to the same extent in any instance, and in most instances they can scarcely be said to exist at all. The Berbers—the original population of Morocco and the adjoining countries, the lineal descendants of the ancient Numidians—approach very closely to the Spanish population of the opposite coasts of the Mediterranean; and the Egyptians in the north-east of Africa are much more alike to the contiguous Asiatic nations than they are to the Negro Tribes. Hence it follows that the theory that the Negroes and Southern Africans are distinct Races of men, may be as decisively tested by a comparison of their languages with those of the Northern Africans, as by collating them with the languages of the other continents of the globe.

The mode of comparison adopted in Appendix A, has been dictated by these considerations. Accordingly, I have therein separated the languages of Africa into three divisions, those of: 1, North Africa; 2, Negro-land; 3, South Africa; allotting a separate column to each division; while on the opposite page a separate column is devoted to each of the continents of Asia, Europe, and America. This comparison will serve at once to show the general connexion of the African languages with those of Asia, Europe, and America, and at the same time to demonstrate another proposition of nearly equal [pg 008] interest, viz. the close mutual affinity of the languages of Northern, Tropical, and Southern Africa.

With respect to the particular words selected for comparison, I have chosen the names for the following objects: “Fire, Sun, Day, Eye,22 Moon, Heaven, a Human Being, Man and Woman.” (Homo, Vir, Fœmina, Latin.) The most important parts of the Human Frame, (viz. “The Hand, Arm, Foot, Leg, Ear, Tongue, Head.”) “Water.”

These terms comprise nearly all the specimens of the languages of Africa, which have been collected in “the Mithridates,” of Adelung and Vater. The objects to which these terms have been applied are comparatively few. But for reasons about to be explained, the evidence which may be deduced from the terms themselves is neither scanty nor imperfect, but, on the contrary, very extensive and complete.

The African names for the above-mentioned objects analysed in Appendix A, amount to about 700. The corresponding and analogous terms introduced from the other three Continents are about treble that number.

In determining the mutual relations of different languages, it is obviously not necessary to compare the whole of their component parts. All that is required is a comparison of such portions of each as may be justly viewed in the light of a satisfactory test. That the selected specimens of the languages of Africa are sufficiently numerous for this end is plain. It only remains to be shown that their nature is such as to render them eminently suitable and conclusive.

Now it will be clear from the following considerations, that these specimens are peculiarly calculated to serve as a decisive test of the general composition and structure of languages.

Terms for the Objects above enumerated will be found to include the greatest portion of the primary elements of all languages.23

This proposition may be placed in the clearest light by means even of comparatively modern languages, for both modern and ancient tongues will be found principally to consist of the following elements:

1. The nouns above mentioned. Such nouns are in fact the names of the most familiar and conspicuous objects; of those objects which are common to all ages and countries.

Verbs descriptive of the functions of such objects.

2. Names of Animals and Birds.

3. Names of Rivers, the Ocean, Hills, and Mountains.

4. Words expressive of Mental Qualities and Emotions.

5. Pronouns and other Conventional Grammatical Forms.

1. Now, with the exception of the second, all these five classes of words may be shown to be mere modifications of those of the 1st class.

2. Moreover, as regards even the Second Class, names of Animals and Birds, terms of this description are also in a great number, perhaps in the majority of instances compounds chiefly consisting of terms of the First Class, viz., of the words for the “Members of the Body,” for “Water, Fire,” &c., as in “Red-breast,” “Water-wag tail” (English). Sgyvarn-og “a Hare,” from Sgyvarn “an Ear” (Welsh).

There are, it is true, some terms of this class of a more primitive origin, as they plainly consist of imitations of the characteristic cry or note of the Animal or Bird named, as for example “Cuck-oo” (English); “U-lu-la” (Swedish), “U-lu-l-aka” (Sanscrit), “An Owl.” But then it is plain that words [pg 010] of this kind are for the most part confined in their application to the objects designated and do not enter largely into the composition of languages.

3. Words for “Rivers” and “The Ocean” consist of terms for “Water.”

For example: “The Esk” is from Eask (Irish), and Esseg (Dongolan, North Africa), “Water.” “The Usk” or “Ou-isg,” as the word is pronounced by the Welsh, from Uisge, “Water” (Irish), connected with Eask (Irish). “The Ayr” is identical with A.r. “A River,” also “To flow” (Hebrew), “The Yarrow” with Iaro (Egyptian), and the Hebrew words Ee.a.ou.r Ee.a.r (modifications of A.r, Hebrew). Some able Celtic scholars have attempted to explain the origin of such names as “Ayr and Yarrow,” which are very common as names of rivers in Celtic countries, by means of a Celtic term which means “Gentle,” an explanation very inapplicable in many instances. The error of these writers arises from the assumption they are prone to adopt, that the Celtic is an unchanged language, the truth being that the changes which it can be shown to have undergone in more recent times, form a distinct ground for the conclusion that, long prior to the earliest period to which our most ancient Celtic specimens can be referred, the Celts must have lost many words which their forefathers brought with them from the East.

In the names above noticed, not only the general features, but the finer shades of inflection of the Oriental words reappear.

Numerous examples may be pointed out, of words applied in some languages to “Water” generally, appropriated exclusively, in others to the “Sea or Ocean.” Thus we have Shui in Chinese, and Su in Turkish, “Water.” In the German See, the Anglo Saxon Seo Sae, the English “Sea,” and in other analogous terms to be met with in all the Gothic tongues, we [pg 011] recognize the same term as a word for a “Lake,” or for “The Sea.” Adelung has pointed out the resemblance which in some other instances the Turkish bears to the German. The ancestors of the Turks and Germans, it may be observed, are both traceable to contiguous regions of Northern Asia, the great “High Road of Nations” from China to Europe.

Again, in various dialects of the North American Indians we meet with Oghnacauno, Oneekanoosh, &c. “Water.” In Latin and Greek we find the same term “Ocean-os, Ocean-oio”, &c., applied exclusively to “The Ocean.” (See for other examples Appendix A, p. 77.)

Words for Mountains and Hills are almost universally identical with words for “The Head, The Back, The Breast,” &c. Thus even in the English, in which the first meanings of words are often lost, we have “Ridge” (A Back and A Hill), “Head-land,” “Saddle-back” (the name of a mountain.) In the Principality of Wales, in which a less changed and a less conventional language prevails, the common names for hills, “Cevn, Pen, Vron,” &c., are words for “The Back, The Head, The Breast,” &c., appropriated according to the particular shapes of the hills. The same words, as will appear hereafter, were used as names of mountains in ancient Gaul and Spain, &c.

Jugum, “A Yoke and A Hill,” (Latin,) Cadair Idris, “The chair of Idris,” A Fabulous Giant and Astronomer, (Welsh,) are instances of metaphors of a different kind. But generally names of hills are traceable as above described, and are therefore mere forms of terms belonging to the first class.

4. That terms of this Class, viz.: Words descriptive of the Operations and Emotions of the Mind, consist of metaphors derived from words originally appropriated to physical objects and agencies, has been indisputably proved by the celebrated French writer, Court Ghebelin, and by Horne Tooke, [pg 012] whose researches were applied to the analysis of the English language only. Words appropriated to the members of the Human Frame and their Functions, and other terms of the First CIass, are the chief sources of these metaphorical terms.

This philological maxim was supposed by some of the most eminent of those writers by whom it was established, to furnish an argument in favour of the doctrines of Materialism, as when, for example, the English word “Spirit” was derived from the Latin word for “Breath,” Spiritus. But the premises do not appear to furnish any solid support to the inferences they were thought to favour. The same Consciousness which in this case, and in other similar instances, perceives an analogy, perceives also that the connexion is one of analogy only. The true explanation of the relations which exist between these two classes of words may, I conceive, be derived from the consideration, that though Man is endowed with moral and intellectual, as well as with perceptive, faculties,—inasmuch as the perceptive powers are earliest exercised,—the language of his higher sentiments consists of metaphors thence borrowed. “The Hand,” in like manner, as may be inferred from several examples which occur in the course of this work, has, in many instances, metaphorically given names to some of the less conspicuous bodily organs of perception. At the same time, the soundness of the philological principle developed by Ghebelin and Horne Tooke can not reasonably be disputed. In these pages will be found numerous illustrations of its truth. Moreover it will appear that this principle forms the basis of some of the most convincing proofs—that languages afford—of the common origin of nations very remotely situated from each other, as of the Welsh and English, for example, with the Hebrew, and other ancient Syro-Phœnician nations.

5. As regards Pronouns and other Grammatical Forms.

Pronouns enter very largely into the composition of languages, not merely in a separate form, but also as the source from which the most striking peculiarities of other parts of grammar have been derived. It has been shown by Dr. Prichard that the various inflections which distinguish the different persons of the Verb in the Latin and Sanscrit, and other highly-complicated languages of the same class, are identical with pronouns.

In the works of Horne Tooke and others it has been abundantly shown that Pronouns are merely Nouns, viz. Names of the Human Species, “Man, Woman,” &c. In other words they belong to a section of the terms of the First Class.

Hence it will be manifest that an analysis, completely embracing numerous specimens of nouns of the First Class, virtually embraces also numerous specimens of words of the Four other Classes, which, together with the First, compose the principal elements of Human Language. For it must be observed that—

Finally, a principle must here be stated and applied, which will be more fully illustrated hereafter.

This remark applies even to the terms for the Members of the Human Frame, and other Objects of which the names are included in the First Class of Words,—as appears by abundant illustrations in works of authority and research confined to an investigation of the European languages. But the same truth may be much more clearly and unequivocally demonstrated even by the most cursory examination of more ancient and therefore more primitive tongues, such as the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. The application of this principle will be found to unfold a wide range of facts serving to connect the languages of Africa with those of the other Continents; the same terms, which present themselves as Nouns or Conventional names in the languages of Africa, occurring in a great variety of examples in those of the other continents, unaltered or very slightly changed in sound, fulfilling the functions of the corresponding descriptive terms or verbs. Here it may be remarked that the descriptive or metaphorical character, which originally belonged to nouns, and the various modes in which the same objects are susceptible of description, may be viewed as the source of these numerous names for the same objects. But this is a subject which will be more fully discussed in a subsequent part of this work.

The following examples will serve to illustrate at once the principle last stated, and also another principle before suggested, viz. that “The Hand”24 and its perceptions have metaphorically given names in many instances—not only to the faculties of the Mind,—but also to the other perceptive organs and their functions. For further illustrations, see Appendix A, p. 65, and the subsequent pages.

These examples instructively display the manner in which the Hebrew, which is a language of high antiquity, combines within itself a variety of meanings, which are found only partially preserved in more modern languages. This venerable tongue may be said in these, as in numerous other instances, to confirm, by means of its own intrinsic resources, the results which are deducible from a wide comparison of other languages of which our specimens are more modern.

II. Of the Results of the Comparison, contained in Appendix A.

When the languages of Africa are compared collectively with those of the other three Continents, it will be found:

1. That the names of the most Common Objects, occurring in the various dialects of Africa, may be detected, and as it were restored, in the same or in kindred senses in each of the other three Continents, when all or a considerable portion of their languages are examined.

2. The exceptions to this principle are so insignificant, that the rule, viewed in the light of a philological maxim, may be regarded as universal, especially when it is borne in mind that the specimens we possess of the various languages of Mankind are undoubtedly incomplete.

3. A further remarkable truth is established by Appendix A, viz.:

The resemblances which the African languages display to those of Asia, &c., are as close as those which the Asiatic languages exhibit among themselves; and they are as close as those which the languages termed Indo-European mutually display.

4. What has been stated in the previous explanation of Result 3 applies to the languages of the continent of America as well as to those of Africa.

5. Not only the same words but the same minute transitions which words undergo may be recognized in the Four Continents, and the steps of transition are much more completely traceable when the various Continents form the subject of comparison than when the investigation is confined to one Continent. Compare, for example, (See Appendix A, p. 13,) Ano, “A Day” (Caraibs); Antu, Antú, “The Sun, A Day” (Araucan, South America); Antu, Andru, “A Day” (Madagascar, South Africa); Indra, The Indian “God of Day” (Sanscrit, Asia); Inti, Indi, “The Sun” (South America).

6. It will be seen that in this instance, and in numerous other examples, finer shades of transition are restored by means of a comparison including the Four Continents.

7. As regards the Continent of Africa, by this comparison all its synonymes of the class selected for analysis have, with a few trifling exceptions, been exhausted. As regards the other three Continents, so large a portion, probably the great majority, of these synonymes have been introduced from every region of those continents, that the evidence thus obtained, combined as it is with a complete investigation of the African terms, may be considered as equally conclusive with the proofs which would have been furnished by an exhaustion of the synonymes of all the four continents.

The examination of synonymous terms is the principle which has been pursued by Humboldt, in his work on “The Basque,” and by Du Ponceau in his Treatise on the “Algonquyn Dialects of the North American Indians.” It is the most satisfactory mode of investigating languages, because it involves an explanation of the differences as well as of the resemblances they mutually display.

8. Hence it follows that when all the dialects of each continent are thus compared in the aggregate with those of each of the other three, the very same language is reproduced by the reunion of the “disjecta membra.”

With reference more especially to the third and fourth results above stated, I may here advert to the researches of two philologists of the highest eminence, whose conclusions will not, in the present state of philological knowledge, be disputed,—the German writer Klaproth, and Dr. Prichard: the former has treated of the proofs of affinity observable among the Asiatic languages; the latter has discussed the proofs of mutual resemblance displayed by certain languages usually classed under the term “Indo-European.”

The affinities which present themselves among the different [pg 018] languages of the single continent of Asia, in the following examples, have been selected as evidence of the original connexion of those languages by Klaproth.

Words for “The Sun.”

America.—Coaracy, Curasi, Quarassi (Brazil.)

Africa.—Koara (Bosjesmans.)

South Africa.—Giro (Kanga, Negro-land.)

Though the Zend, Pehlwi, and Persian are three kindred dialects of Persia, it will be observed that the Pehlwi and Persian words in this example, although clearly allied to the corresponding Zend word (Huere), resemble that word less than they do the American and African terms. On the other hand, the next example presents to us American and African words perfectly identical with this term (Huere).

Words for “The Sun” and “Day.”

Asia.—Huere, “The Sun,” (Zend.)

S. America.—Huarassi, “The Sun” and “Day,” (Omaguans.)

Asia.—Eiere,26 “Day,” (Zend.)

Africa.—Iirri, “The Sun,” (Wawu, Negro-land.)

The connexion between the previous words for the Sun and the first of the two following classes of terms for the [pg 019] Moon will be manifest. The origin of the relation which is universally traceable between the names of the two great Heavenly Luminaries will be found fully discussed in Appendix A.

Words for “The Moon.”

Dr. Prichard has clearly proved the connexion of the Welsh and other Celtic dialects with the Sanscrit and other “Indo-European” tongues, a class in which he considers that the Celtic dialects ought therefore to be included. The Welsh and Sanscrit words which occur in Appendix A, p. 11, have already been compared by him in his work on the Celtic Languages. The mutual connexion of these words is clear. But it will be equally manifest that the African terms which occur in the same passage, Appendix A, p. 11, are quite as nearly allied to the Welsh words as are the Sanscrit terms with which those words have been collated by Dr. Prichard. In some instances they are even more so. Compare, for example, “Lloer,” The Moon, (Welsh,) with the African word “Leoure,” The Moon, (from the dialect of the “Fulahs.”)

An examination of the names of some of the principal gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy, and India, by means of a comparison of the languages of all the Four Continents, will be found in a very striking manner to illustrate at once the foregoing philological results, and also the origin of those names, and of the systems of Idolatry to which they belonged.

Hor. Hor-us, “The God of Day,” (Egypt,) already explained.

Indra, The Indian “God of Day,” previously explained.

Surya, The Indian “God of the Sun.” His Orb personified, (Sanscrit.) Osira Osiri, and Serap-is or Sorop-is, (believed to have been the same as Osiri,) “Gods of the Sun,” (Egypt.)

The same change of inflection which is observable when “Surya and Osira” are compared with Sero-p-is, occurs in the following:

Surie, Sorrie, Sorré, Sore, “The Sun,” (Hottentots.)

Sor o h-b, “The Sun,” (Corona Hottentots.)

The same change occurs also in the following:

Z.e.r, “To shine brightly,” Sh. r.-ph, “To burn,” Sh.r-ph eem, “Seraphs,” (Hebrew.)

Auror-a, “The Goddess of The Dawn,” (Latin.)

A.ou.r, “Light, Day-light,” (Hebrew.)

Waōūr, “The Dawn,” (Welsh.)

Or, “Day,” Ar-pi, “The Sun,” (Armenian.)

Wurabe, “Day,” (Nubia.)

Ē-o-us, One of the Horses of the Sun, Ēō-s (Eō, EōA, Accusative,) “The Sun, The Dawn, The Goddess” “of The Dawn,” (Greek.)

Eo o hu, Haou, “Day,” (Egypt.) Uwya Ou, “The Sun,” (Negroes.) Huieiou, “The Sun,” (Caraibs, South America.) A u-ō, “To shine,” (Greek.)

Net-phe, “The Goddess of the Heaven or Firmament,” (Egypt.)

Neth-phe Ne-phe ou, “The Heavens or Heaven,” (Egypt.)

Nev, “Heaven,” (Welsh.) Nebo, “Heaven,” (Selaronian.)

Ērē and Aēr (Greek), “The Goddess of The Heaven or Atmosphere,” “Juno.”

Iru, “Heaven,” (Negroes,) Awyr, “The Sky,” (Welsh,) Aër, (Latin), “Air,” (English.)

Juno (Latin), the same as the last. She was also regarded as “The Mother of the Gods.” (See this name explained by means of Sanscrit and Negro words combined, Appendix A, p. 62.)

Khem, A God of “The Sun,” (Egypt.)

K au m-et, “The Sun,” K au m-ei, “The Moon,” (Greenland.)

C'h.m.n.-ee.n, “Sun Images,” (Hebrew.)

C'h.m, “Hot, Heat,” (Hebrew.)

Ee ph-aist-os (Greek), “Vulcan,” “The God of Fire.”

Aifi, “Fire,” (Sumbava,) Fi (Japan), and Fei (Siam), “Fire,” Epee, “Fire,” (Katabans, North America,) Peez Pioe, “Fire,” (Moxians, South America,) Ee.ph.c'h, and Ph.ou.c'h, “To blow upon,” “Kindle,” “Inflame,” (Hebrew.)

Phoi-b-os (Greek), “The God of the Sun, Phœbus.”

“This word (‘Phoibos’) expresses the brightness and splendour of that luminary.” (Lempriere.)

Pha-ō, “To Shine,” (Greek.)

Ee.ph.ō, “To shine forth,” (Hebrew,) “Brightness, Splendour,” (Chald.) Ee.ph.ph.e, “Very Beautiful,” (Hebrew.)

Phōs, “Light,” (Greek.)

Fosseye, “The Sun,” (“Sereres” Negroes.)

Phōs, “A Star,” (Japan.)

The foregoing are merely examples of the mode in which the names of the Heathen Deities are susceptible of explanation, by means of a general comparison of languages. In the course of this work, the names of nearly all the principal [pg 022] Gods of Egypt, Greece, Italy, and India, will be explained in the same manner.

The North American Indians are not Idolaters. They worship a “Great” and “Good Spirit.” They also believe in an “Evil Spirit.”

A large class of Indian dialects have been analysed by Du Ponceau, a writer whose high philosophical reputation, great candour, and perfect knowledge of the dialects he examined, render his researches eminently deserving of attention. In early youth he was secretary to Court Ghebelin. But though a native of France, he passed the principal part of his life in the United States, in the employment of the Government of that country. His essay on the “Algonquyn Dialects of North America,” was elicited from him at a very advanced period of life by a prize offered in Paris, for which he was the successful competitor. By means of his familiar acquaintance with the languages of the Indian Tribes, it is related that he proved a person, whose narrative at one time excited considerable interest both in this country and in France to be an impostor; Hunter, the author of a work professing to give an authentic account of his captivity among the Indian Tribes. In his treatise on those languages, though for the most part he declines to generalize and professes to wish rather to furnish data for others, Du Ponceau expresses himself nevertheless, decidedly adverse to the views of those writers who conceive the Indian Tribes to be descendants of colonists from the Asiatic continent. The Indians and their languages he views as indigenous products of the American soil. After alluding in general terms of respect to the memory of that celebrated writer, he assails with national vivacity Grotius's conclusion with respect to the primitive language, which forms the motto of this work, quoting from Dante a passage in which it is intimated that the primitive language of Man must have perished at the “General Deluge!”

More ample proofs of the connexion of the dialects examined by Du Ponceau with those of the Old World, occur hereafter. In this place I must confine myself to one remarkable example.

With reference to the names given by the Indians to the great object of their worship, Du Ponceau states the result of his analysis to be that the names of the Supreme Being in all the Indian dialects he has explored, primarily mean “a Spirit.” But there is one instance, he adds, in which he has not been able to verify this conclusion, viz. in that of the dialect of the Abenaki tribe. It is true, he remarks, that “Father Raffles” had made a statement tending to show that in this instance there was no exception to the general rule he (Du Ponceau) had adopted, for, according to Father Raffles, in the dialect of the Abenaki the name of the Supreme Being was Ke tsi Niou esk ou, and these words K etsi “Ni ou eskou,” mean the Great “Spirit or Genius;” while the name of the Evil Being was Matsi “Nioueskou,” and these terms mean the Evil “Spirit or Genius.”

But Du Ponceau intimates that he has not been able by means of his own researches to satisfy himself of the accuracy of Father Raffles's statement, as to the origin of these words, and he adds, “I do not know whence this word ‘Ni oueskou’ comes.” (“Je ne sais pas d'où vient ce mot Nioueskou.”)

Among the specimens he has published of words used in the Iroquois dialects, a class of Indian languages which he has not minutely analysed, Du Ponceau gives “N' iou” as the name of “the Deity.”

Now the following comparison exhibits the remarkable fact that these words “N'iou” and “Nioueskou” may be distinctly and extensively recognized in the languages of the old world, in the very sense which, according to Father Raffles, was the primitive meaning of “Nioueskou” among the Abenaki tribe of Indians, viz., in that of “a Spirit or Genius.” They also reappear in physical meanings, which, according to Horne [pg 024] Tooke's principles, may, à priori, be pronounced to be philologically analogous.

The resemblance of the Indian terms to the European and Asiatic words is as close as the resemblance which exists between such words of the two latter classes as belong to the same languages or to the same group of languages. The variation of inflection between N'ioh and Niou-es kou, may also be restored; compare No- (the root or unchangeable part of “Noos,”) with “No-os Nous,” “The Mind,” (in the nominative case, Greek.) Compare also “Nose,” (English,) with “Nas-ika,” (Sanscrit.)

Hebrew, Indo-European, and American Words applied to the Physical Senses.

Applied to Mental and Physical Objects.

These examples may be concluded with a very remarkable instance of an important word which occurs in every one of the three great divisions of the globe, except America, and is met with in every one of the three regions of Africa.

Words for “Bread.”

Asia.—Buro (Savu Isle, a Malay dialect.)

Africa.—Bouron (Fulahs, North Africa.)

Bourou (Iolofs, Negro-land.)

Bra Bre (Hottentots, South Africa.)

Europe.—Bara (Welsh.) Bro (Norwegian.) Bread (English.) Brod or Brot (German.)

The source of these words seems to be, B.r.e, B.r.ou.th, “Food,” (Hebrew.) In the same language, Lc'h.m, “Bread,” primarily means “Food, To feed.”

Combined with the phenomenon of the absolute identity of the united elements of the languages of the Four Continents, we encounter a wide, and in many instances a total difference, when two individual languages are compared. And this is true not merely of two languages taken from different continents, but it is true also of languages spoken even in contiguous regions of the same continent.

How then are these singular features of general unity combined with individual diversity to be reconciled? Of this problem the investigation will be found in the following pages.

Chapter II. On The Differences Which Distinguish Individual Languages Of The Four Continents.

Section I.

These differences may be explained by Causes now in Operation. The principal causes are, The abandonment by different branches of the same race:

This Section may be considered as confined to an affirmation of the propositions above stated.

Section II.

The Celtic and Gothic Races form the population of North-western and Central Europe.

In those early ages in which the Celtic tribes first came into collision with the Roman legionaries, the Celtic language and race occupied a wide section of Europe, including the British islands, France, the Rhine, the whole of Switzerland, a portion of South-western Germany, and the [pg 027] North of Italy. The Celts were also in possession of some of the fairest regions of the Spanish Peninsula, a country which they shared with Iberian tribes, the ancestors of the Basque nation, of which a remnant still preserves among the fastnesses of the Pyrenean mountains the language, character, and institutions of their warlike forefathers. The existence in those ages of a Celtic population, occupying territories thus extensive, and the identity of their languages with the living tongues still spoken by the Welsh and other Celtic nations, have been placed beyond all doubt by the luminous investigations of Dr. Prichard and Humboldt.

In the present day, the Gothic nations and languages extend over a large section of the area of Europe, including the greatest portion29 of Germany, the whole of Sweden, Norway, and Iceland, the German Cantons of Switzerland, and the British Isles, with the exception of those districts in which dialects of the Celtic are spoken.

Of the common origin of the Celtic and Gothic tongues we possess no direct historical proof, for the sources of these languages reach far higher than the records of history. Nor, as I conceive, is it possible, from a comparison of these languages themselves, to elicit a satisfactory demonstration of their original identity. Instances of partial resemblances may no doubt be pointed out; but it will be found nevertheless that in the most common corresponding terms, the Celtic and Gothic differ almost totally.

The only satisfactory mode of proving the common origin of the Celtic and Gothic seems to be by means of the affinity to the languages of India, Persia, &c., which are displayed by both, even in those very features in which they differ most [pg 028] widely from each other. The following are examples of the union, in the form of Synonymes in the Persian, of corresponding terms, in which the Celtic and Gothic differ totally from each other.

The Persian grammar also combines many European languages:

This tense is very like Latin:

Shou, be thou.
Shou d (sit), let him be.
Shou eem (simus), let us be.
Shou eet (sitis), be ye.
Shou nd, let them be.30

Section III.

That extensive changes have taken place in many Human languages, within a comparatively limited period, is a truth of which the proofs are alike abundant and indisputable. The various dialects that sprang from the Latin after the downfall of the Roman Empire, the emanation of numerous dialects in the Scandinavian Kingdoms from one ancient tongue, “The Danska Tunge” or “Norse,” and finally the successive phases of transition through which the English language itself has passed since the period of the Norman conquest, conspire, with other examples of the same kind, at once to establish the occurrence of such changes, and to exhibit in a striking point of view their extraordinary variety and extent.

In order to account for differences, so characteristic and apparently so fundamental, as many of the languages which are the offspring of these changes display, it has generally been deemed necessary to ascribe them to the agency of a violent disturbing cause. Hence the origin of an opinion that may be regarded as the prevalent one, viz. that these varieties of dialect have been mainly produced by the influence of Foreign invasions and conquests, and the consequent admixture of [pg 030] the Languages of the dominant, with those of vanquished, nations.

The grounds of this conclusion may be appropriately tested—and its fallacy, as I conceive, satisfactorily established—in one single instance, which I have been naturally led to select as involving considerations of peculiar interest to English readers. I allude to the influence which the Norman conquest of England is supposed to have exercised, in the production of those peculiar features, which distinguish the modern language of England from the original Anglo-Saxon tongue.

The share which the Norman conquest may have had in the formation of those peculiarities may be best determined by investigating 1st the immediate, and 2d the remote, consequences of that event.

On the subject of the immediate effects of the Norman conquest, it is highly interesting to observe that Dr. Johnson thus expresses himself in the following remarkable passage:

“About the year 1150 the Saxon began to take a form in which the beginning of the present English may be plainly discovered; this change seems not to have been the effect of the Norman conquest, for very few French words are found to have been introduced in the first Hundred years after it; the language must, therefore, have been altered by causes like those which, notwithstanding the care of writers and societies instituted to obviate them, are even now daily making innovations in every living language. I have exhibited a specimen of the language of this age from the year 1135 to 1140 of the Saxon Chronicle, of which the latter part was apparently written near the time to which it relates.”31

Yet Professor Rask of Copenhagen, a writer of great learning [pg 031] and ability, in alluding to the changes that occurred at this period, attempts to account for them by vaguely attributing them to an infusion of the speech of the “old northern settlers,” (in other words—the Danes,) and to the ascendancy of the Norman French as a court language.32 But the facts are singularly at variance with his conclusions! The sway of the Danish kings had produced, as he admits, no material alteration in the English language, even during its continuance; and how then could it have done so a century after its termination? Nor can the ascendancy of the Norman Court be accepted as a satisfactory explanation of these results, since the changes to be accounted for did not consist in the adoption of Norman words, but in an internal change in the structure and inflections of the original Anglo-Saxon itself, unattended by the introduction of any Foreign admixture.

It is obvious, then, that the conclusion of Professor Rask cannot be regarded as a deduction naturally suggested by the phenomena, with which he was so profoundly conversant, but must be viewed rather as a result of the influence which the popular and generally received opinions on the subject, must have exercised upon his mind. Highly instructive is it to mark in this instance an example of the extent to which even erudite and admirable philologists have frequently been betrayed into inconsistency and error, by the supposed necessity of referring the revolutions which languages have undergone, to some abrupt and violent social revolution, with which, being connected in the order of events, they are also and not unnaturally conceived to be equally connected by the relation of cause and effect!

It may be assumed therefore, agreeably to the views of Dr. Johnson, that the Norman conquest had no immediate effect on the language of the Anglo-Saxons. It remains then [pg 032] to inquire in what manner the influence of that event was felt at a more distant period, viz.: about a century afterwards, during the reigns of John and Richard Cœur de Lion, the period during which the intermingling of the Norman and Saxon races and tongues is believed to have been consummated. During this period also, we possess the guidance of a great master, who has embodied all the philosophy of this subject in a few pathetic words which he has put into the mouth of a jester.33

“Truly,” said Wamba, without stirring from the spot, “I have consulted my legs upon this matter, and they are altogether of opinion, that to carry my gay garments through these sloughs would be an act of unfriendship to my sovereign person and royal wardrobe; wherefore Gurth, I advise thee to call off Fangs, and leave the herd to their destiny, which, whether they meet with bands of travelling soldiers, or of outlaws, or of wandering pilgrims, can be little else than to be converted into Normans before morning to thy no small ease and comfort.”

“The swine turned Normans to my comfort,” quoth Gurth; “expound that to me, Wamba, for my brain is too dull, and my mind too vexed, to read riddles.”

“Why, how call you those grunting brutes running about on their four legs?” demanded Wamba.

“Swine, fool, swine,” said the herd; “every fool knows that.”

“And swine is good Saxon,” said the Jester; “but how call you the sow when she is flayed, and drawn, and quartered, and hung by the heels, like a traitor?”

“Pork,” answered the swineherd.

“I am very glad every fool knows that too,” said Wamba, “and Pork, I think, is good Norman-French; and so when the brute lives, and is in the charge of a Saxon slave, she goes by her Saxon name; but becomes a Norman, and is called Pork, when she is carried to the Castle-hall to feast among the nobles. What dost thou think of this, friend Gurth, ha?”

“It is but too true doctrine, friend Wamba, however it got into thy fool's pate!”

“Nay, I can tell you more,” said Wamba, in the same tone. “There is old Alderman Ox continues to hold his Saxon epithet, while he is under the charge of serfs and bondmen such as thou, but becomes Beef, a fiery French gallant, when he arrives before the worshipful jaws that are destined to consume him. ‘Mynheer Calf,’ too, becomes ‘Monsieur de Veau,’ in the like manner: he is Saxon when he requires tendance, and takes a Norman name when he becomes matter of enjoyment.”

“By St. Dunstan,” answered Gurth, “thou speakest but sad truths; little is left to us but the air we breathe, and that appears to have been reserved with much hesitation, solely for the purpose of enabling us to endure the tasks they lay upon our shoulders. The finest and the fattest is for their board; the loveliest is for their couch; the best and bravest supply their foreign masters with soldiers, and whiten distant lands with their bones, leaving few here who have either the will or the power to protect the unfortunate Saxon!”

The effect of the Norman Conquest was simply to introduce among the Saxon population a certain class of new terms, which—though they were eventually embodied in their language—are still readily distinguishable from the Stock on which they were thus engrafted. But the general structure and composition of the language remained unaffected by any [pg 034] Foreign alloy. The most common verbs, nouns, and grammatical inflections and forms—Horne Tooke's “epea pteroenta” of the English language—remained, and have since continued to be, pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon!

Such was the character of those modifications in the English Tongue that flowed from the Norman Conquest. Partial and peculiar were those changes in their nature—brief, also, was the interval of which they were the result! A period can be fixed, at which it is certain that the dialect of the Norman had ceased to encroach on that of the Anglo-Saxon people. In the age of Chaucer, for example, the Norman and Saxon races had long become undistinguishable, and the languages they spoke had blended into one. Can the same age be fixed upon as an epoch at which the process of transition in the English language had also been arrested? That considerable changes have since occurred will not be disputed—for it is an historical fact which does neither admit of doubt nor discussion. But had all important changes ceased at that time? Can it be said that—in the time of Chaucer—that progressive revolution which has so widely separated the modern English from the original Anglo-Saxon had gone through all its stages? Can it be said that the innovations which have since occurred are few in number, and trifling in point of character, compared to those which belong to earlier periods of our History?

The answer to these inquiries involves a truth that I believe will be found no less startling to the Philologist than to the general reader, in whose mind the changes which the English language has undergone are associated with the violent shock given by the Norman Conquest to Anglo-Saxon institutions. The truth to which I allude—and it is one for which I apprehend few inquirers will be prepared—is this: that the changes which have occurred in the English language since the age of Chaucer are at least equal in importance to [pg 035] those which took place in the antecedent periods of our history. Novel as this conclusion may appear, the proofs are so simple and so conclusive, as to place its accuracy beyond the possibility of doubt.

The features which distinguish different languages from each other are divisible into two classes—Words and Grammatical inflections. In both these features marked differences have arisen between our modern English and its parent Saxon, and to both these classes we must refer in forming our conclusion as to the relative importance of the alterations which have taken place in our language at two different epochs.

1st. The difference in words between the language of Chaucer and our modern English will be sufficiently obvious, from a cursory glance at the venerable remains of that poet. How many terms are there in the pages of the father of English poetry that require the aid of a glossary to render them intelligible even to an educated Englishman! These terms too, be it observed—and it is a reflection highly deserving of the attention of those who may still cling to the impression that the Norman Conquest has been the sole agent of those phases through which the English Tongue has passed—do not consist exclusively of Anglo-Saxon roots, but comprise also a large number of Norman words which have shared the same fate!

2d. Still more striking have been those Changes in the Grammatical forms of the English which may be referred to the last four centuries.

The ancient Saxon was a language of inflections—the modern English is a language of simple forms. Thus, in the Anglo-Saxon the terminations of the Verb were varied in different Persons, as they are in the Latin “Hab-eo, Hab-emus, Hab-ent,” and in the German “Hab-e, Hab-en, Hab-en.” These inflections have, for the most part, progressively disappeared from the English, which expresses the changes of [pg 036] Persons by separate Pronouns, in conjunction with a Root, in most instances unvarying, as “I Have, We Have, They Have.” There is distinct evidence that this change has, in a great measure, perhaps principally, taken place since the time of Chaucer—whose writings, to a great extent, preserve the Anglo-Saxon inflections, such as “They Hav-en,”34 &c., corresponding with the German “Sie Hab-en,” &c.

Slow and almost imperceptible have been the steps in this as in other examples of that revolution of which the progress may be faintly traced in the writings of Spenser, and Shakspeare, and Milton, and even in those of the great modern Masters of the last century. In our own generation it has not been consummated! A striking instance occurs in the old inflection of the third person singular “He Giv-eth,” still partially used in the venerable forms of Scripture. This inflection, now fast passing into oblivion, trifling as it may appear, forms a link which serves to associate the English language not only with the German, but with the Latin and the Sanscrit!35

The Auxiliary Verb may probably be regarded as the most important part of Language. Now it is highly deserving of remark, that in the Anglo-Saxon there existed an Auxiliary Verb, “Beo, or Beonne, To Be,” which has been abandoned in the modern English. This Verb is interesting, not merely from its important functions as a part of Language, but also from its forming a link, as will hereafter appear, between the Anglo-Saxon, the German, the dialects of the English Provinces, and of the Scottish Lowlands. From the English of [pg 037] Literature it has been lost since the days of Chaucer, by whom it is commonly used, as in the following example:

“These two sinnes bin so nigh cosins.”—Person's Tale.

The peculiarities which distinguish the dialects of the English Counties from the language of the higher classes of society are not, as is perhaps generally supposed, the results of the capricious deviation of uncultivated minds from an established standard. On the contrary, they appear clearly for the most part to be various relics or Fragments of Old English or Anglo-Saxon, which the more educated classes have lost. For example, To “axe” (for To ask,) “I conne,” (I can,) expressions used by the peasantry of Shropshire, are words of Saxon origin that occur in Chaucer. In an able work on the peculiarities of the dialect of Lancashire, by Mr. Collier,36 it has been shown with much learning and research that those peculiarities are to be recognized in Chaucer, Spenser, Ben Jonson, and other old English writers. Obsolete Norman, as well as Saxon, words occur in this dialect. Similar inferences with regard to the Lowland Scotch may be drawn from Mr. Jamieson's work on that branch of the Anglo-Saxon.

Some very interesting results will be found to flow from a Comparison of the “Pronunciation” of different English Counties, and of the Lowland Scotch, with that of the educated classes of modern England. One of the most marked differences between the modern English and the German consists in the superior breadth or distinctness which is given in the German to words which are uttered with a comparatively narrow and indistinct sound in Modern English. There is every reason to believe that the Anglo-Saxon Pronunciation [pg 038] was similar to the German, and that the present English mode has been the result of progressive innovation. Of the various dialects of the Anglo-Saxon, the Lowland Scotch, in its pronunciation, as well as in individual words, approaches nearest to the Continental German.37 But, as intimated above, many of the characteristics of German articulation have been preserved also in the Provincial dialects of England. Moreover, it is interesting to observe, that different primitive peculiarities have been preserved in different counties. For example, the English of the educated classes differs from the Continental German, and, as it is believed, from the Anglo-Saxon also,38 in giving a narrow sound to the vowels A and U. Now the Shropshire dialect has preserved the broad A; (“Hair,” for instance, is pronounced “H-ā-r,” as it is by the Germans!) On the other hand, in Lancashire and Cheshire the broad U forms the prominent feature in the dialect of the peasantry; (for example, “Butter” and “Gutter” are pronounced “Bootter” and “Gootter!”)

As already noticed, the Anglo-Saxon Auxiliary Verb forms in numerous instances an important connecting link. Thus the modern English and the modern German Auxiliary Verbs differ totally in the present tense.

But both these Verbs co-exist in the present tense in the old Anglo-Saxon.

Anglo-Saxon39 Verb the source of the English “I am,” and Anglo-Saxon Verb corresponding with the German “Ich bin.”

Indicative Present.

Singular.

Plural.

1, 2, 3, Synd.; 1, 2, 3, Beod & Beo.

Subjunctive Present.

Singular.

1, 2, 3, Sy (Seo); 1, 2, 3, Beo.

Plural.

1, 2, 3, Sy'n; 1, 2, 3, Beon.

Indicative Imperfect.

Singular.

Plural.

1, 2, 3, Weron; 1, 2, 3, Beod.

Infinitive Present.

Wesanne; Beonne.

Participle Active.

Wesende; Beonde.

Participle Past.

Gewesen.

But though the present tense of the Verb “Beo” or “Beonne” does not exist in modern English, it has been preserved in a remarkable manner in the Shropshire and other dialects, in which it runs thus:

The word “Bin” or “Ben” is used by Chaucer for the 1st, 2d, and 3d Persons Plural,40 as in the passage previously quoted: “These two sinnes bin so nigh cosins.” (Person's Tales.)

These are singular but highly instructive examples of the caprices of “the great Innovator!”

Section IV.

The Island of Iceland abounds in diversified features of interest; and its Language, early History, and Institutions, will be found replete with instruction, in connexion with the inquiry pursued in this volume.

As has been previously stated, the Gothic Class of languages are naturally divisible into two great subordinate branches: the Teutonic or German, including the dialects of Germany, the Low Countries, and of Great Britain—and the Scandinavian, including those of the two Scandinavian Peninsulas and Iceland. These two great Divisions of the Languages of the Gothic race are radically the same, but they are supposed to display certain specific differences by which they are distinguished from each other.

Of the Teutonic—one of the most venerable specimens is the Anglo-Saxon, the primitive tongue of the Ancestors of the modern English. More ancient specimens of some of the other Gothic dialects have been preserved, but as these are for the most part mere fragments—while of the Anglo-Saxon literature and language we possess copious Remains—it has been inferred by eminent Scholars that it is in these Remains—to Englishmen so interesting for other reasons—that we may on the whole, perhaps, hope to find the nearest approach to a transcript of the early language of the Teutonic [pg 042] tribes.41 Of all the Scandinavian Languages, on the other hand, the Icelandic—by the general concurrence of the scholars of the North—appears to be the most primitive.

Now in relation to these two Languages, a very interesting proposition has been established by Scandinavian scholars—and though they widely differ as to the cause of the results they discuss—they seem to be agreed with respect to the proposition itself. The Icelandic, they have shown, closely approaches to the Anglo-Saxon in numerous features in which it differs from the languages of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. Moreover it has been pointed out by the writers who first noticed these resemblances, that—in their Literary and Bardic Institutions, as well as in their Language—the Icelanders approach to the Anglo-Saxons. In explanation of these facts, they propose the theory—that in the early ages of their history the Icelanders must have benefited by direct communication and instruction from the Anglo-Saxons.

These views have been fully discussed by Professor Rask, in a Preface prefixed to his Anglo-Saxon Grammar, which contains a valuable body of facts that serve to throw a new light on the history of the Scandinavian Tongues.42 He does not deny the existence of these important common features in the Icelandic and Anglo-Saxon Languages and Remains; nor the absence of the same features as regards the Modern specimens of the Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian; but he maintains, nevertheless, that all these characteristics may be retraced in detail, either in the Ancient or in the Provincial specimens of those three Languages. In the present day the Icelandic differs widely from the Languages of the Mainland of Scandinavia, and those Languages also differ widely among themselves. But originally, he maintains, one [pg 043] common Speech, the ancient Scandinavian, (“Danska Tunge,”) was spoken from the coasts of Greenland to those of Finland, from the Frozen Ocean to the Eider.43 As we ascend into the remoter periods of history we find the languages of Scandinavia gradually approximate to each other, and finally blend into one.44 During the ninth century, and the period immediately succeeding, these tongues were perfectly identical.

Professor Rask's proofs of this proposition may be said to consist of a reunion of the “Disjecta Membra” of the “Danska Tunge,” as found dispersed in the various kingdoms and provinces of the Scandinavian Mainland. Of these proofs I shall offer a few examples.

After observing that the Danish and Norwegian have from various causes become very much alike, he adds that a comparison of the Danish with the Swedish would, for that reason, be more instructive.

“The Swedish has almost from the introduction of Christianity, even during the Calmar union, a.d. 1397, and in the time of Gustavus I., been a distinct tongue; a comparison, therefore, with the Swedish is more to the present purpose.”

He then gives a specimen of an ancient Danish MS. of a date prior to the Reformation, which, “like all MSS. prior” to that event, “differs widely from the present Danish.... It has many inflections now obsolete, but which are to be found only in Old Swedish and Icelandic; many antiquated words and phrases, exempli gratia, then annin,” Icelandic “thann annan.”

He then mentions some words contained in this MS. which are still preserved in “the provinces of Upland, Jutland, and Dalecarlia.”

He next notices an old Swedish document issued by King Magnus Smik, of which he observes: “This, although about a century older, greatly resembles the preceding specimen, and is scarcely distinguishable from the Danish of the same period.... But if we go further back to the language of the old Danish Laws, we there recognize nearly the entire structure of the earliest Swedish, and the Icelandic though not always strictly adhered to, as the language in those unhappy and turbulent times which preceded the Calmar Union, underwent in Denmark what may be termed its fermentation, somewhat earlier than in the other states.”

He then gives a specimen from the Ecclesiastical Laws of Zealand, of which he observes: “The few deviations from the Icelandic bear, for the most part, a strong resemblance to the Swedish.

“But the oldest remains of the Danish language are to be found on our Runic stone monuments, and here at length it perfectly coincides with the earliest Swedish, Norwegian, and Icelandic.

“The Danish is closely allied to the Swedish, and both, in the earliest times, lapse into the Icelandic, which, according to all ancient records, was formerly universal over all the North, and must therefore be considered as the parent of both the modern Scandinavian dialects.”45

On the subject of the differences of dialect in the different provinces of the Northern Kingdoms he says that, “In Norway as well as in Denmark one province terminates its verbs [pg 045] in a, another distinguishes all the three genders, while a third has preserved a vast number of old words and inflections which to the others are unintelligible.”

We have thus a proof that even in the provinces of the same kingdom there are differences of “words, grammar, and inflections.” The difference in the number of genders is a very remarkable one.

The researches of Professor Rask will be found distinctly to warrant the following conclusions. These conclusions are in the nature of results that legitimately flow from his researches; they do not represent the inferences which he himself has thence deduced. With regard both to the languages of England and of his native Scandinavia, this learned writer seems evidently to have been perplexed by the extent and variety of the changes he has described. Hence, in both instances, he has shown an inclination to ascribe to the influence of War and Social disturbance changes which his own researches clearly prove to have been the effects neither of transient nor of local influences, but of causes progressively at work through a series of ages, and embracing large groups of nations and languages in their action.

1. The differences which now exist between the various Scandinavian Languages extend to all those features in which it is possible that one Language, or one Class of Languages, can differ from another; viz. to Words, Grammar, Inflections,46 and to the arrangement of Words in sentences,47 or Idioms.

2. Not only do differences of this nature present themselves in the various Scandinavian Kingdoms—but also in the various [pg 046] Provinces of the same Kingdom, which in many instances are distinguished by the most marked differences in Words, Grammar, &c. Thus the Dialect of Dalecarlia in Sweden is very ancient and distinct, and approaches to the Gothic.48

3. These characteristic features of the various languages and dialects of Scandinavia have arisen progressively during the course of ages.

4. These differences principally consist in the abandonment in one Kingdom or Province of a portion of the Words, Idioms, Grammar, &c. of the Parent Speech—that part of the elements of the Original Tongue which have become obsolete in one dialect having generally been preserved in the dialects of other kingdoms and provinces—which have at the same time generally lost other distinct portions of the Vocabulary, Grammar, &c. of their common Original. In other words, the “Disjecta Membra” of the old Scandinavian, or “Danska Tunge,” when not preserved in the Danish, have been retained for the most part in the Swedish, Icelandic, and Norwegian, or in some of the Provincial dialects of Scandinavia, and vice versâ. In the various provinces in which it was once spoken different portions of the Parent speech have been abandoned or preserved.

5. Hence it follows that the Primitive Language of Scandinavia, or “Danska Tunge,” does not exist in any one—but is dispersed in all its derivative dialects. (Compare the motto from Grotius on the title-page.)

6. It is a necessary consequence of the third and fourth propositions that the more ancient remains of the derivative dialects approach more nearly to the Parent Speech, and—in the ratio of their superior antiquity—unite a greater proportion of the distinctive peculiarities of all the sister-dialects, [pg 047] which, as previously stated, have arisen in consequence of certain portions of the Parent speech having been abandoned in some provinces and retained in others, and vice versâ.

An interesting illustration of this maxim occurs in a passage from Professor Rask's preface already quoted, in which, after giving a specimen of old Danish, which approaches closely to the Icelandic, he adds, “The few deviations from the Icelandic bear for the most part a strong resemblance to the Swedish.” In other words, the older specimens of the Danish unite those peculiarities by which the modern collateral Tongues of Iceland, Denmark, and Sweden are distinguished from each other.

Let it be borne in mind, that the lapse of one thousand years has produced these changes, and the instructive nature of this example will be fully apparent. Of the accuracy of the data on which the previous deductions rest, all doubt must be removed by reference to one remarkable event. It is historically certain that the Island of Iceland is inhabited by a nation descended from emigrants from the opposite Norwegian coast. It is historically certain, also, that previously to the Ninth Century these warlike adventurers had not established themselves on the Icelandic soil. Anterior to that period, therefore, it is self-evident that, inasmuch as the Icelanders had no existence as a nation, the Icelandic Tongue could not have had a separate existence as a language. Yet it is certain that in the present day the Icelandic deviates at least as widely from the language of the adjoining Norwegian Coasts as that language deviates from the other Scandinavian Tongues.

The evidence furnished by Professor Rask and the writers whose views he has combated, will be found, when fairly balanced, distinctly to support a very important Conclusion, contemplated by neither. The facts adduced on both sides conspire to show a rapid approximation of the Teutonic and [pg 048] Scandinavian branches of the Gothic as we ascend into remote ages.

Of this approximation, the features of identity between the Anglo-Saxon and the Icelandic, pointed out by the writers whose views Professor Rask combats, furnish a reasonable presumption, which is converted into positive proof by the evidence collected by Professor Rask himself, that the same features occur in all the ancient, though they do not in the modern, specimens of the Languages of the Scandinavian Peninsulas. It is true, this learned writer, of whose researches I have chiefly availed myself in this Section, maintains that there are some features in which all the Scandinavian differ from the Anglo-Saxon and other Teutonic Dialects, a conclusion, however, but feebly supported by the examples he has adduced, and scarcely reconcilable in any way with the resemblance which the primitive Swedish dialect of Dalecarlia is said to bear to the Gothic. But, assuming the occurrence of some features of difference, even in the earliest specimens we possess, this assumption leaves untouched the proposition that these specimens show a rapid rate of approximation, which, if equally rapid prior to their date, implies that at an era not many ages anterior the identity of the languages of Germany and Scandinavia must have been complete.

Section V.

The origin of the Irish nation, or Gael, forms—for numerous reasons—a highly interesting and important subject of inquiry. Of this Nation the very same theories have been maintained as those which have been adopted in some quarters with respect to the North American Indians, the Negroes, and other branches of the Human Family; viz., that they are of a stock aboriginally inferior and distinct, by nature incapable of the virtues of civilization. Let the views advocated by Pinkerton with respect to the Gaelic race—views received with no slight degree of favour in his time—be compared with the doctrines of many modern writers on the subject of the native African and American Races, and an instructive lesson will be learnt on the force of prejudice and the uniformity of error!

On the other hand, it must be allowed that the opinions which have been generally espoused on the subject of the origin of the Gael by many of the Historians and Scholars of Ireland and of the Highlands of Scotland, can scarcely be said to possess a better claim to the approbation of a calm and dispassionate judgment. Eminently distinguished as the Irish are by Literary genius, there is probably no subject on which their native talent has appeared to less advantage than in the investigation of the early History of their own [pg 050] Country. Fictions the most extravagant, borrowed from the Chronicles of the dark ages, have been credulously adopted by their first Scholars in lieu of those solid truths to which a calm and sober inquiry alone can lead. Thus we find Mr. Moore, at once the Poet and the Historian of Ireland, lending the sanction of his name to the Fable that the Irish are of Spanish origin; and citing, in answer to the more reasonable hypothesis of a British origin, a variety of Irish writers of no mean note, and some Welsh writers also, in favour of the assertions: 1, that the Irish Language is almost totally unlike the Welsh or Ancient British; and 2, that the Welsh is not a Celtic but a Gothic Tongue! There is every reason to conclude that Mr. Moore—unacquainted, probably, with any of the Celtic dialects himself—resorted to those authorities which he might naturally have deemed most deserving of confidence. But this only renders more lamentably conspicuous the credulity, carelessness, and ignorance of those to whose labours he has appealed. The assertions, 1, that the Welsh and Irish are unlike; and 2, that the Welsh is a Gothic dialect, are contradictions of the plainest facts.

Influenced by national feelings Gaelic Scholars have also advanced various other theories, calculated to exhibit the antiquity of their language and race in a favorable point of view. The Gaelic has been maintained to be the Parent, at least in part, of the Latin, the Welsh, &c.; while to the first Colonists of Ireland a Carthaginian or Phœnician origin has been assigned.

These conclusions cannot be sustained. But it is highly probable, notwithstanding, that the proofs on which they have been based will be found, in many instances, to contain the germs of important truths, though blended with an admixture of error. The traces of affinity between the Irish [pg 051] and other ancient languages which have been collected by Gaelic Scholars, may be open in many cases to the same remark, which is clearly applicable to the examples of affinity pointed out by Mr. Catlin between the dialect of the North American Indian tribe the Mandans and the Welsh; viz., these features may consist of clear and genuine traces of a generic, though they may afford no proofs of a specific, affinity of race. There can be no doubt that the Irish preserves many primitive forms which the kindred Celtic of Wales has lost; there can be no doubt also that the Irish approximates to the Latin, to the Greek, and to the Egyptian,49 &c. in many features which the Welsh no longer exhibits. The examples adduced in Appendix A of the connexion of the Irish language with the Hebrew, Egyptian, &c. are sufficient to show that the Irish are a nation of Oriental origin. But on the other hand it must be borne in mind, that inasmuch as the Welsh, Latin, &c., have also preserved primitive forms which the Irish has lost, there is no ground for concluding that the Gaelic is a Parent rather than a Sister of these venerable Tongues; and inasmuch as the evidence of the Eastern origin of the Gael, however unequivocal, is not clearer or closer than the accompanying50 evidence with respect to the Welsh, English, and other European nations, there are no peculiar grounds for referring the first colonization of Ireland to a direct migration from the shores of Palestine or Africa, rather than to the gradual diffusion of population from a central point.

The following comparison presents examples of features in which the Irish approximates to the Gothic and other Languages, at the same time that it differs more or less from the Welsh.

Words in which the Gaelic resembles the Gothic, and other European Languages, more closely than it resembles the Cymraeg or Welsh.

Some of these examples would furnish a more plausible argument to show that the Irish are a Gothic race than any which have been advanced to prove that the Welsh are of Gothic origin! It is singular, for instance, that the Irish terms expressive of the Domestic relations are so near the English as to excite in the first instance a suspicion that they must have been borrowed from the followers of Strongbow! But this impression must be dispelled by the reflection that terms of this class are never borrowed from its conquerors by a nation that continues to retain its primitive language. Moreover, it will be observed, that the Irish, in the instance of these words, approaches much more nearly to the Gothic, [pg 054] Hungarian, and Russian, &c. than it does to the English. Again, the Irish word “Gorm,” To heat or warm, is like the English “Warm.” But, on the other hand, its genuineness is rendered indisputable by its absolute identity with the word 'Gorm' in Persian and Egyptian, (See Appendix A, p. 21.) Finally, the resemblances manifested above by the Irish to the Greek are quite as close as those which the former language displays to the English and other Gothic Tongues. In these examples, therefore, we may recognize proofs not of any partial results or specific connexions, but of the more complete approximation of the European languages as we enlarge our range of inquiry, and obtain more ample specimens of each Class.

But, notwithstanding the occurrence of some features of difference, it is indisputable that there exists a close specific affinity between the Irish and Welsh Languages, which renders the common origin of the nations who speak them evident. The original identity of the Irish and Welsh Languages was established as far back as the commencement of the eighteenth century, by the investigations of the excellent Archæologist, Edward Lhuyd, who spent five years in travelling through the various Celtic regions, and whose comparison of the dialects of Wales, Cornwall, Armorica, the Highlands of Scotland, and the Isle of Man, is not inferior either in soundness of reasoning, or in patient, extensive, and honest research, to the best German works of the present day. But although the writings of Lhuyd may be said to have established the original unity of the Welsh and Irish races, since the publication of his work, a peculiar opinion has been adopted by some learned men with regard to the time of their original separation. Of this opinion, Edward Lhuyd was himself the first advocate; his conclusion was that though the Irish and British Celts were both descendants from one stock, they must have been separated into two [pg 055] distinct Tribes before their arrival in the British Islands. The Gaelic or Irish Tribe he supposes to have preceded the Welsh or British Tribe, by whom he conceives them to have been gradually driven to the West, as the Britons were by the Saxons in subsequent ages. Lhuyd's grounds are as follows:

The most ancient names of Rivers and Mountains in the Island of Britain are very generally composed of terms still preserved in the Welsh or Ancient British Tongue. But there are some remarkable exceptions, and in these instances it frequently happens that the Names may be clearly identified with Words still preserved in the Irish or Gaelic branch of the Celtic. For example, the names of the British rivers, the Usk and the Esk, are particularly noticed by Lhuyd; these names are identical with “Uisge, Eask,” the Irish term for “Water.” This word, he observes, does not exist in the Welsh, and he had looked for it in vain in the sister dialect of Armorica; but, he adds, it is still retained by the Irish or Gaelic. Hence, he suggests that the Irish or Gaelic branch of the Celts must have colonized the Island of Britain before the arrival of the Cymry or Welsh branch, by whom, as he conceives, they were expelled, after having conferred names on the principal localities.

The evidence of language will be found sufficient to show not merely the common origin of the Welsh and Irish, but also to fix a much more recent date for their separation than that which has been assigned by Lhuyd. It will thence appear that the Irish are descendants of Colonists of the Welsh or British race, not of a distinct Celtic sept, and that the commencement of the separate existence of the Irish nation must be referred to a comparatively recent date, propositions of much interest, of which the proofs about to be advanced will probably be deemed to be at once clear and simple.

Lhuyd's reasoning in favour of his theory, that the Irish or Gael existed in Britain as a separate Tribe, prior to the arrival [pg 056] of the Britons who fought against Cæsar, the ancestors of the modern Welsh, is founded on a false analogy not unnatural to a first inquirer.

The proposition that the most important local names in every country for the most part consist of terms belonging to the language of the very first inhabitants, is one of which I conceive the truth will be evident. For a proof of this principle, I may refer to Chalmers'52 admirable analysis of local names in the Lowlands of Scotland, where, in spite of a succession of Conquests, and the utter extinction in that part of Britain of the language of the original inhabitants, viewed as a vernacular dialect, Welsh and other Celtic names are still preserved, after the lapse of ages, for the most prominent features of the country. This result, it may be observed, is one that flows from the very nature of things. Even the most fierce and ruthless invaders are compelled to hold sufficient intercourse with the first population to enable them to learn the proper names of their localities, and these names, from obvious motives of convenience, they almost universally adopt.

Now, had Lhuyd shown that the most ancient Local names in Britain are exclusively Irish, there can be no doubt that, consistently with the principle just noticed, his theory would have been supported by the facts to which he adverts. But the most ancient local names in Britain are not exclusively or principally Irish; in an equal number, perhaps in a majority, of cases they are Welsh.

Moreover, it may be observed that the names of localities in this Island furnish highly instructive evidence, not merely with respect to the different races by whom it has been successively peopled, but also of the order in which they arrived. Thus the names of Rivers and Mountains, and other natural [pg 057] objects, at least of the most conspicuous, are Celtic; the names of the most ancient Towns are Latin, or Latin grafted on British words; more modern Towns and Villages have Saxon appellations; those of more recent origin have frequently Norman designations; and last of all come those places which have names derived from our present English. These various classes of names cannot be nicely distinguished in each particular instance. Of the correctness of the general principle, however, there is no doubt.

But the terms noticed by Lhuyd as significant in the Irish language do not belong to a different class of appellations from those which are obviously of British or Cymraeg origin. The Irish and Cymraeg terms are both found to predominate most in the names of the most ancient Class, viz. in those of Rivers, Mountains, &c., and to be thus applied in conjunction. Hence the natural inference that flows from his facts is not that these names were conferred by two distinct and successive races, but that they were imposed contemporaneously and by the same People!

Further it may be noticed, that if British Topography presents words extant only in the Irish Tongue, Irish Topography also presents names which cannot be explained by means of the Irish, though their meaning is preserved in Welsh; for example: There is a place near the head of a Stream in Roscommon, called “Glan a Modda,” (from Glan, “The bank of a Stream,” Welsh.) There is a place in Wales, called “Glan a Mowdduy.” There is a place called “Glan-gora,” in a Creek at the head of Bantry Bay; and another place in Ireland called “Glan-gort.”

“Ben-heder,” the ancient Irish name for “The Hill of Howth,” interpreted by Mr. Moore “The Hill of Birds.” (Adar, “Birds,” Welsh. The word does not exist in Irish.)

Arran, A mountainous Island. (Arran, a Mountain, Welsh. This word does not exist in Irish,) &c. &c.

Mr. Chalmers in his Caledonia states that the prevalent ancient names of localities in Britain and Ireland are essentially the same.

The conclusions to which these facts legitimately and necessarily lead are, that the British Islands were originally colonized by Settlers, who, at the time of the first occupation of Great Britain and Ireland, spoke one uniform language, in which the Welsh, Irish, and other living Celtic Dialects were combined. We may infer, and I conceive most clearly, that these dialects must be viewed in the light of “Disjecta Membra” of the speech of the old British and Irish Celts, just as the Icelandic, Norwegian, &c. are fragments of the ancient “Danska Tunge,” as noticed in the previous section.

It has been shown by Dr. Prichard that the population of Islands has been derived from the neighbouring Continents, and that the population of the more distant Islands has been derived in like manner from those which are nearer to the common source of migration. It is highly unreasonable to assume that Ireland has formed an exception to this general rule, considering that the common basis of the Irish and ancient British or Welsh languages are confessedly the same, unless it can be proved that the accompanying differences are such as to require the solution Lhuyd has suggested. Here, then, the question arises, are the features of difference between the Welsh and Irish languages more numerous or more fundamental, in relation to the interval of time that has elapsed since the Roman Invasion of Britain, than the varieties of dialect among the Scandinavian nations are in relation to the period that has elapsed since the colonization of Iceland? They are not! It will thence be seen that Lhuyd's theory, as to the remote date of the separation of the Gaelic or Irish from the British or Cymraeg branch of the Celts, is founded on an exaggerated conception [pg 059] of the stability of Human Tongues; and that the abandonment by various septs of different synonymes used conjointly by their common forefathers will satisfactorily account for the differences between the Welsh and Irish, to which he attaches so much weight. It will be perceived, for example, that in the Icelandic, of which the existence commenced in the ninth century, and the Continental Scandinavian from which it then sprang, totally different terms are used for “Water,” the very instance to which Lhuyd especially adverts, as regards the languages of the Welsh and Irish, whom we know to have existed as separate nations in the time of Cæsar eighteen centuries ago!

Another highly instructive test of the correctness of his theory may be derived from the investigations of Lhuyd himself, who, in his comparison of the Welsh and Irish languages, uniformly distinguished the current terms from the obsolete synonymous words that occur only in ancient MSS. This comparison proves distinctly that the Irish and Welsh languages approximate, as we ascend, at a rate which, if as rapid previously as we know it to have been up to the date of the earliest MSS., would imply that these languages must have been identical about the era of the Roman invasion. As the changes which languages undergo in their infancy are more rapid than those which occur at later stages of their growth, it is possible that the unity of these Tongues may be ascribed even to a much later period, an opinion which has been maintained by a very judicious and excellent writer, Mr. Edward Davies, who in his “Claims of Ossian” has published an early specimen of Irish Poetry, which in Language and Style he regards as identical with the most ancient productions of the Welsh Bards. Making every allowance for the irregularity of the changes which occur in Languages, I do not conceive it possible that the Welsh and Irish could have differed very essentially [pg 060] in the time of Cæsar. This leads directly to another conclusion, viz. that the first colonization of Ireland could not have taken place a great many centuries before the Roman invasion. Had such been the case, the differences between the Welsh and Irish Languages must have been proportionately more extensive. In the time of the Romans we learn that an Irish traitor arrived in Britain, who stated that Ireland might be kept in subjection by a single legion, an incident which tends, however slightly, to favour the opinion that the sister Island was at that period but thinly, perhaps because but recently, peopled.

Of the extent of the changes which the Celtic languages have undergone since the first arrival of the Celts in Europe, we possess proofs of far more ancient date than the earliest literary specimens of the living dialects of the Celtic in the Local names of Celtic regions, as preserved in Roman Maps, and in the existing languages of the French, English, and other nations, who occupy countries of which the Celts were the first inhabitants. These names I shall show to consist of three elements: A union of 1, Welsh, Cornish, &c.; 2, Irish, Highland Scotch, &c.; and 3, Terms not extant in any Celtic Tongue, but preserved in the Oriental, Greek, and other languages.

As regards the Names of the 1st and 2d Classes, it will abundantly appear from the ensuing examples that, in the Topographical Nomenclature of Gaul, Britain, and other Celtic regions of Europe,53 words derived from all the various Celtic dialects now extant, occur in a manner that leads distinctly to the inference that these “Disjecta membra” must have simultaneously belonged to the language of the old Celts. Dr. Prichard, who has examined these vestiges of the [pg 061] ancient Celtic Populations of Europe with much ability and success, leans to the opinion that the Cymraeg or Welsh Dialects predominate in these names. But the following examples, which comprise many names derived from the Irish or Gaelic that have not been noticed by Dr. Prichard or by previous writers on this subject, will serve to render it manifest that the ancient Names in Europœa Celtica did, in fact, include all the various living Celtic dialects very equally and harmoniously blended.

How luminous and distinct these proofs of the identity of the ancient with the modern Celtic nations are, will be better understood by a preliminary statement of certain rules, which will serve to give greater precision and perspicuity to the illustrations selected:

1. There can be no doubt that the Romans, in the Celtic, as in other countries conquered by them, modified the native terms by the addition of their own peculiar grammatical inflections, as in “Judæ-i, Britann-i, Sen-ones,” &c. Now it is obvious that in identifying the Celtic terms we must reject these mere Roman inflections.54

2. In many cases the Roman Names cannot be supposed to involve complete transcripts of the Celtic Names; frequently they were doubtless convenient abbreviations of the original names—names consisting of descriptive terms to them unintelligible. According to Mr. Reynolds, the Saxons generally adopted the first syllable only of the Roman or British names they found in this island. According to Bullet, “Vic,” a word of Roman origin for a Village or Town, has, from similar causes, become common as a Proper name in Dauphiné; in modern times we have numerous Villages called “Thorpe,” the name for a Village in Anglo-Saxon and [pg 062] German. In instances of this kind, there can be no doubt that originally the names were descriptive, such as “Long-town,” “Old-town,” &c. Tre or Trev is the common Welsh word for a Town, Village, or residence; it had the same meaning in Cornwall:

A consequence of the names of the gentry of the county having been derived from those of their residences, into which this word commonly entered!

In Wales we have numerous examples of “Tre,” as in “Tre-llwng,” “The Town” of the “Pool,” (i.e. Welshpool,) from an adjoining “Llyn,” or Pool, near Powis Castle; “Tre-lydan,” the Broad Village, or Residence near Welshpool; “Trev-alyn,” near Chester, the Residence on the Stream; the “Alyn,” &c. &c.

Now according to the Roman mode, such a term as Trev-alyn would have been changed into Trev-iri, the designation actually given to the Celts of “Treves,” &c.

The following are analogous examples:

There is a tribe of Brig-antes in Yorkshire, another in Ireland, and a third in the North-east of Spain. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to show that these distant Celtic tribes must have been scions of the same tribe. A much simpler explanation may be given.

By referring to the Roman maps the reader will find a word, “Briga,” in such general use as part of the names of towns as to leave no reasonable doubt that it must have been, like Tre, a Celtic name for a town—now obsolete. Thus in Spain we have, Laco-briga, Meido-briga, Ara-briga, Tala-brica, Augusto-briga, &c. Now the analogous instances already noticed suffice to point out that the occurrence of [pg 063] Brig-antes as a Roman name of Tribes in three Celtic countries, is a natural result of the frequent occurrence of Briga as the first part of the names of Celtic places.

The “Allo-bryg-es.” The name of this warlike tribe, the Celtic inhabitants of Savoy, has also been the source of perplexity, which may be removed in the same manner. This tribe had a town, called by the Romans “Brig-icum,” which was said to be “the only one they had.”55 Now Allo-Bryga may reasonably be identified with Alpo-Briga, the Town of the Alps (Briga being clearly the common base of “Allo-bryg-es,” and “Brig-icum.”)

The names of Celtic communities, as they appear on the Roman Maps, may, I conceive, be proved to have been descriptive of the most prominent natural features of the regions they inhabited, and not of their lineage or descent, as seems to have been often supposed. Thus we have the Mor-ini in Belgium, and the Ar-mor-ici in Gaul on the Sea; we have the Sen-ones on the Seine, the Tamar-ici on the Tamar-is, in Hispania, &c. In the Mountainous regions it will be observed that the names of tribes are derived from the Mountains. In the flat countries they take their names from Rivers or the confluence of Rivers. In the same manner it is highly deserving of remark, that the names of the different French Departments have been derived from precisely the same natural features. Thus in the Hilly countries we have the Departments of the High Alps, “Hautes Alpes;” of the Low Alps, “Basses Alpes;” in the Champaign countries the Departments are named from the Rivers; such as the Seine, the Marne, and the Somme, &c. Many of these French names are literally equivalent to translations of the ancient Gaulish names, as interpreted by means of the Welsh and Irish languages. It is impossible to conceive a [pg 064] more perfect verification of the accuracy of these interpretations!

I may here observe, that as far as we can perceive, the various independent communities of Britain and Gaul mentioned by Cæsar, such as the Edui, the Venetes, &c., did not consist of one clan or sept, they seem rather to have been a combination of several contiguous septs, to whom no appropriate common name could have been given, except one derived from the natural features of the district they occupied.

The durability of local names has been already noticed. Of this truth we possess remarkable proofs in those of localities in France, as preserved by the modern French to the present day. I do not doubt that the present French names are, in many instances, much more faithful transcripts of the original Celtic appellations than those which occur in the Roman Maps are. Thus, for example, Bonomia, a name conferred by the Romans upon Boulogne, and of which the origin has perplexed Antiquarics, may easily be explained as a Roman abbreviation of the word Boulogne itself, of which the Celtic meaning will be shown hereafter to be appropriate and unequivocal. Here it may be noticed, that the Celtic language did not become extinct in Gaul until many centuries after the termination of the Roman sway and the establishment of the Franks in that country. The use of the old Gaulish or Celtic continued until the eighth century, nearly until the time of Charlemagne.56 Now we know that the modern Welsh and Irish, for the most part, continue to use their own primitive names of localities in those cases in which abbreviations or translations have been substituted by the English. There can be no reasonable doubt that the ancient Gauls did the same, and that these names were in use among the inhabitants [pg 065] of each locality at the time of the final subjugation of Gaul by the Franks, by whom, in many instances, these names are more likely to have been adopted than those used by the Romans.

It will also be observed in the course of the following examples, that names of the class about to be noticed, viz., Topographical names of which the elements are not extant in the existing Celtic dialects, but occur in Oriental words, &c., are remarkably well preserved by the modern French. Thus the “Aube,” as pronounced by the French, is identical in sound with the Asiatic terms for Water, and names of Rivers, to which it is allied.

3. By many, perhaps by all those Celtic scholars who have investigated this subject, it has been assumed that the living Celtic dialects may be expected to furnish a complete clue to all the Local Names of ancient Celtic regions. This conclusion, like the theory of Lhuyd above discussed, is founded on an exaggerated idea of the stability of Human Tongues! Neither the Irish nor the Welsh, nor a combination of all the Celtic dialects, will be found to afford a complete solution of the Topographical nomenclature of the ancient Celtic regions of Europe. Names undoubtedly occur in these countries which have been preserved in none of the Celtic tongues, names which I shall indisputably show to be positive transcripts, in many instances, of appropriate terms occurring in the Hebrew and other languages, with which, in other parts of this work, the original Celtic dialects will be proved to have been originally identical. These facts lead to the conclusion that the ancient nomenclature of Celtic countries forms in reality a connecting link between the existing dialects of the Celts and the language of the Oriental stock from which they are descended.

This conclusion, though at variance with the views of many estimable writers, is nevertheless in unison with those anticipations [pg 066] which historical facts legitimately suggest. It is only reasonable to infer that since the period of their first arrival in Europe, the era at which many of these names must have been conferred (see page 10), the Celtic tribes must have lost many words which none of the modern Celtic nations have preserved. The Celts were settled about the sources of the “Ister, and the city,” (perhaps the mountains) “of Pyrene,” even in the time of Herodotus, and how many ages had elapsed since their first arrival is unknown!57

There is a certain Class of terms of which the meaning can reasonably be inferred from their extensive use in combination with other terms, of which the meaning may be considered as ascertained. To this class may be referred the terms immediately following.

Catti, Cassii, Casses, or Cad, seem to have meant a People, Tribe, &c., as in the following examples of the names of Celtic Tribes:

The Abr-in-Catui, in Normandy. The Catti-euch-lani, the people of Cambridgeshire and the adjoining counties. The Cassii, in Hertfordshire. The Bidu-casses, in Normandy. The Tri-casses, a people in Champagne. The Cad-ur-ci, on the Garonne.

The above words seem clearly derivable from the following Welsh words, which are allied to the Hebrew:

Tre, Trev, a Village, Town, or Residence, (Welsh,) a Tribe, (Irish.)58

Trev-iri, the people of Treves. A-Treb-ates, the people about Arras. (For further examples see Dr. Prichard's work.) Trev is a common element in names of places in Wales, as Tre-vecca, Tre-gynnon.

Trigo, to reside, dwell, (Welsh.)

Duro-trig-es, the dwellers on the Water or Sea, the people of Dorsetshire. (Camden.)

Catt uriges. (See Dour.)

Dun-um, a Hill, a Fort or Town, generally on a Hill, (occurs in Welsh and Irish.)

Oxell-dunum, a Hill-fort in Gaul, described by Cæsar. (See numerous instances in Dr. Prichard's work.)

“Castell Din-as Bran,” on a lofty eminence in the Vale of Llangollen, Wales.

Dur, Duvr, Awethur (Welsh), Dour (Cornish), Dur (Armorican), Dovar (Irish, obsolete, but occurs in ancient MSS.) “Water.”

This word, and Ydōr or Hudōr (Greek), and Tschur (Armenian), “Water,” have an obvious affinity. These forms may be traced in the names of Celtic Localities.

“Dour” occurs in the following names of Rivers: Dur, (Hibernia,) Dur-ia Major, “The Doria,” and Duria Minor, (Gallia Cisalpina,) Dur-ius, “The Douro,” and “Dero,” (Hispania,) Dur-anius, “The Dordogne,” (Gallia). In Bucharian Deriâ means “The Sea.”

Ydōr or Hudōr (Greek), Awethur (Welsh), occur in the [pg 068] Rivers “The Adour,”59 Atur-is (Gallia), “The Adder” (Britain), “The Adare” (Ireland.)

“Tschur” (Armenian), occurs in “Stura,” (Gallia Cis.), “The Stour” (Britain), “The Suir” (Britain & Ireland), “The Souro” (Spain, a branch of the Tagus.)

From the frequent recurrence of all these different forms in several Celtic countries thus widely separated, it is plain that they were used conjointly by the early Celts, and represent various transitions of the same word. Thus “Stura” (in Gal. Cis.), flows between the neighbouring streams Duria Major and Duria Minor, &c.

This word “Dour” enters very largely into the names of tribes; it forms singly a natural clue to a great number of names that hitherto have been referred to a complication of Roots. Thus the Roman name for the people of Dorsetshire, Duro-trig-es, i.e. The dwellers on the Water or the Ocean, has been noticed by Camden.

In the preceding, and in several of the following, it will be apparent that the old Celts applied this term to the “Sea or Ocean,” as the Bucharians do, and also to a “River.” At present the Welsh apply the term to Water only, in a restricted sense.

In the South-east of England names abound (applied to places on Rivers or the Sea) in which the two slight variations of Dur and Du-v-r (or Do-v-ar, Irish), still preserved in Welsh, are apparent. Duro-vern-um, “Canterbury,” from Duro, Water, and Vern or Veryn, a Hill. (Compare the name of the “Ar-vern-i,” under Beryn, at p. 78.) The Town was on a Hill by the Stour.

Portus Du-b-r-is or Dub-r-œ, i.e. “Sea Port,” the modern [pg 069] “Do-v-or,” a word which is an echo of the Irish Dovar and the Welsh Du-v-r.

Duro-brivæ, Rochester on the Medway, (Briva or Brivis, the ancient Celtic for a Town.) Duro-levum, Milton on the Thames.

Lan-du-b-r-is, a Portuguese Island. Lan, a Bank of a Stream, or the Sea: also an inclosed Space, (Welsh.)

Tur-ones, the inhabitants of the country at the junction of several streams with the Loire, the neighbourhood of the modern Tours.

Bi-tur-ig-es, from Bi “Two,” Tur or Dour, Water, and trigo, to reside.

There are two tribes of this name in Gaul; the Bituriges Cubi, situated between two of the branches of the Loire, and the Bi-turi-ges Vobisci, between the Garonne and the Sea, at the junction of the Dordogne and the Garonne.

Cat-ur-iges, from Catti, Tribes or People; Dour, Water, and Trigo, to reside; on the Durentia, South-east of France, about Embrun or Eburo-Dunum, which was their principal town. Cad-ur-ci, from Catti, Tribes, and dur.

There is one tribe of this name on the Dordogne, and another contiguously placed on the Garonne.

The mutual support that these interpretations give to each other will be obvious.

The following Irish word for “Water,” which is not extant in the Welsh, may be traced in Celtic regions in its various modifications: Uisge (Irish), “The Usk” (South Britain)—Eask60 (Irish, obsolete), “The Esk” (Scotland), “The Escaut” (North of France), Isca, “The Exe” (South Britain)—Easkong (Irish, obsolete), Axona (Gallia, Belg.), “The Aisne,” Axones, the neighbouring tribe.

Names Of Estuaries, Or Mouths Of Streams.

The terms of this class, which occur in ancient Gaul, &c., consist either of terms still thus applied in the living Celtic dialects, or of compounds of which the elements may be recognized, unchanged, in those dialects. Moreover it will be highly interesting to observe that these terms, for the most part, consist of Metaphors derived respectively from the same sources as the two English words “Estuary” and “Mouth,” and the two Latin words “Æstuarium” and “Os Fluminis.”

One of the principal arguments of those writers who maintain that the separation of the Irish from the other Celtic tribes must have been of remoter date than the first peopling of these islands, is founded on the fact that the Irish use the word In-ver for the Mouth of a Stream, while the Welsh use Ab-ber (spelt Aber); a feeble support for so wide a conclusion, which a correct analysis of these terms, and a comparison of some interesting coincidences in the local names of ancient Gaul will show to be utterly futile! In-ver and Ab-ber are not simple but compound terms, literally corresponding to the Latin expression “Fluminis Æstuarium.” Æstuarium is from Æstuo, “To boil,” a metaphorical term, obviously derived from the agitation of the Waters where two Streams meet, or where a River enters the Sea.

In the first syllable “Inver” and “Ab-ber” differ, but they agree in the last. Both “In” and “Ab,” the first syllables of these terms, occur so often in Celtic regions that there can be no doubt they were both in use among the ancient Celts as words for a River, or Water. The last syllable of these words, Ber or Ver, I shall show to mean an “Estuary.”

“In” occurs in the name of “The Inn,” in the Tyrol, the “Æn-us” of the Romans, and in other instances previously [pg 071] noticed. “An” is a Gaelic or Irish term for “Water,” which is identical in sound and sense with terms of frequent occurrence among the tribes of the American Continent, as in Aouin (Hurons, N. America), Jin Jin (Kolushians, extreme North-west of N. America), Ueni (Maipurians, S. America.)

“Ab” occurs in “The Aube,” in France, &c., a name of which the pronunciation may be considered identical with Ab, “Water,” (Persian.) Ap in Sanscrit, and Ubu Obe in Affghan, mean “Water.” “Obe” occurs in Siberia as the name of a well-known river. In India also the term has been applied to “Rivers;” thus we have in that country the Punj-âb, (the Province of “The Five Rivers,”) an appellation of which the corresponding Celtic terms “Pump-ab” would be almost an echo!

Further it may here be noticed—as an example of the complete identity of the Celtic and Oriental languages when all the “Disjecta Membra” are compared—that this word does not exist in the modern Celtic in the simple form of Ab, but in the derivative form of Avon, which is found in the Roman maps spelt “Abon,” &c. Now this form also occurs in the East. Abinn, “A River,” is given by Klaproth from the language of the inhabitants of the Mountains to the North of Bhagalpur. Apem means “Water,” in Zend, an ancient Persian dialect. Af is “Water,” in Kurdish.

“Berw” is the South Welsh name for the effervescence in the deep receptacle in which a Cataract foams after its fall; it is applied also to the Cataract itself, as “Berw Rhondda,” the fall of the River Rhondda.

Aber, in Cornish, means “a Confluence of Rivers,” also “a Gulf,” “a Whirlpool.”61

In Breton or Armorican Aber means “a confluence of Rivers.” “Dans le diocese de Vannes,” says Bullet, “le mot [pg 072] a encore une autre signification, c'est celle de torrent.” “In the diocese of Vannes this word has still another meaning, viz., that of ‘a Torrent!’ ” Compare Torr-ens (Latin), “Torrent” (English), from Torreo (Latin), “To boil.” “Aber, in a deflected sense,” he says, “has been applied to a Harbour; hence Havre de Grace!”

“It is a curious fact,” says Chalmers, “which we learn from the Charters of the twelfth century, that the Scoto-Irish people substituted Inver for the previous Aber of the Britons. David I. granted to the Monastery of May Inver-In qui fuit Aber-In in Chart May.”62 This remarkable place is at the “Influx of a small stream, called the In, on the coast of Fife. Both appellations are now lost.”

Among the names of ancient Celtic regions we have Abrin-catui, that is (without any change in the word) Aber-In-Catui; the name of a Tribe in Normandy, about Avranches, which is at the mouth of a River now called the See. (Another stream flows into the same Estuary.)

Aber—In—Cattui.

Literally,

“Estuary (of the) River—Tribes or People,” i.e. The Tribes living at the Estuary of the River or Rivers.

The name of the same place will also furnish an example of a corresponding term, primarily meaning “The Mouth,” in the modern Celtic.

Genœ (Welsh), Ganau (Cornish), Gion (Irish), Genu (Armorican), mean “The Mouth.”

The original name of “Avranches,” when the country was first subdued by the Romans, was In-“gena.” Here it is plain “Gena” was synonymous with Aber! The Town was afterwards called Aber-in-Catui by the Romans, who very generally gave the names of the Celtic tribes to their principal Towns.

In D'Anville's Map we find, in the same part of Gaul, Aræ-genu-s given to Bayeux, (the capital of the Bajocasses,) at the mouth of a river now called the “Ayr!”

The following are very striking examples of the occurrence of the same word, Genœ or Ganau:

“Gano-durum” (Dur water) Constance, at the spot where the Rhine issues out of Lake Constance.

“Geneva.” (The Rhone issues here from the Lake, and is immediately afterwards joined by the Arve.)

“Genua” (Genoa). At the mouth of a stream.

“Albium In-gaun-um,” a town to the east of Genoa, where many streams from the Maritime Alps unite in one mouth.

Beal or Bel (Irish), Buel (Manx), “A Mouth.” This is another word, applied in Wales and Ireland, in topographical names, in nearly the same sense as Aber, as in Bala, at the mouth of a lake, North Wales, Bally-shannon, Ireland. This word does not occur either in vernacular Welsh or in the Welsh of old MSS. But in Irish, Beal or Bel is still the common word for “A Mouth.”

We shall find unequivocal proofs that this word also was used by the old Celts of Gaul, as in “Boulogne,” i.e. Bala (Beal, or Buel) Liane, “The mouth of the Liane.” The town is at the mouth of a small stream, of which Bullet, who does not appear to have suspected the derivation, says “La rivière qui passe à Boulogne s'appelle Liane.—The stream that runs by Boulogne is called Liane!” “Liane, Lune,” &c. is a common proper name for a stream in all countries of which the Celts formed the first population. Lliant (Llian-au, plur.) means a stream, a torrent, in Welsh; Llyn, “Water,” in Welsh; and Lean, Irish. Hence “The Lune” in Herefordshire, &c.

A further example of words of this Class occurs in the Latin name of the “Humber.”

This great receptacle of streams was generally called Ab-us; [pg 074] but Ptolomey, in Greek, gives the name more fully, “Abontrus!”63 This word means in Welsh and Irish “The Outlet”, or literally “The Door” of the Rivers. Trus, A Door, (Drous, Welsh, Doros, Irish,) occurs in the same sense in Tura (Sanscrit), Der (Persian). Hence it appears that the Welsh word, which is nearer to the term preserved in this name, has not been borrowed from the English “Door!”

“Aber,” however, was the greatest favorite with the ancient Celts, as with the modern Cymry! It would seem that this word “Aber” was as commonly applied in ancient Gaul, &c. as it still is in Wales, not merely to the mouths of large rivers, but to places situated at those of very small streams!64

Britain.—York, Ebor-acum (Caer Eboranch, Welsh; Ever-wick, Saxon.) Is inclosed for the most part between the Ouse and the Foss, which unite close to the Town! The river Foss separates some parts of the Town from the rest.

Eburo-cass-um (Alnewick), at the mouth of the River Alne, Northumberland. Ever-wick is the name of an adjoining Village on the same river.

Eburo-nes (Belgic. Gaul). About the junction of the Saba and the Mosa. Cæsar states in his account of them that this tribe had no Town.

There was a prince of the Œduans65 in Cæsar's time, named Eporo-dor-ix, apparently from Aber-Dour “Water,” and Rex. The Gaulish chiefs, like those of the Gaelic Scotch, seem to have frequently derived their names from their peculiar territories [pg 075] or patrimonies; in the same manner, for instance, as the chiefs “Lochiel, Glengarry,” &c.

As before intimated, it appears pretty clear that the little nations into which Gaul was divided, such as the Ceno-mani, the Œdui, &c. consisted for the most part of a combination of several distinct septs or clans each under their respective princes. The name of the chief (Eporo-dor-ix) just mentioned may, therefore—and most probably must—have been derived from that of some place no longer capable of being identified, though the country of the Œdui, the source of many rivers, abounds in localities to which it would apply very appropriately!

Gaul.—Eburo-dunum (now Embrun in Dauphiné.) At the confluence of a small stream with the Durance.

Since writing the above I find this town in Hornius' map, marked “Epeb r-o-durû,” i.e. “Mouth of the Water,” (Welsh.)

Eburo-briga, a Town. At the junction of one of the streams that feed the Seine above Sens.

Ebro-lacum. A Town near the source of the Loire; precise situation apparently unknown. But the affinity of “Ebro” to the Celtic “Aber,” and the identity of Lac (um) with Loch66 or Lach, the Gaelic for a Lake or Water, will be obvious.

Avar-icum (Bourges), at the junction of the L'Evrette with the Evre, one of the branches of the Cher.

Switzerland.—Ebro-dunum, “Yverdun,” at the mouth of the river Orbe, that flows there into the Lake of Neuf-chatel.

Spain and Portugal.—Eburo-britz-ium, the modern Alco-baza or Alco-baca, on the Portuguese coast, between the [pg 076] Tagus and the Mondego, and not far from Torres Vedras. This town is at the mouth of the Alcoa river. The modern name, Alco-baca, (“The mouth of the Alcoa,”) is a guarantee of the correctness of the above construction of the ancient name!67

In the North-east of Spain, on the Bay of Biscay, we meet with the word Aber itself in an undisguised form, as we do in Gaul in the word Abr-in-catui.

There is a town, Uxam-aber, on a river called in Roman Maps the Uch-esia.68 This is an unfortunate word for the advocates of the Spanish origin of the Irish, for here we have the Welsh Aber, in lieu of the Gaelic Inver, in the North of Spain—the very district from which the Colony is supposed to have come! Indeed the Local names in the Celtic regions of Spain generally approach much more nearly to the Welsh than to the Irish! This will be seen in some of the following examples.

Glan or Lan, “a Sea shore or Margin,” (Welsh,) not extant in Irish.

Glan a tuia (Glandeves), at the junction of a small stream with the Varus, that separates France and Italy.

Glan-um, on the Puech River, near Embrun.

Cat-a-laun-i. A tribe resident about Chalons on the Seine.

Cat-a-laun-i. “People (of) the river bank.” The name originally given to this town by the Romans was Duro-Cat-a-laun-i, i.e. (The Town of) “the Tribe on the Bank of the River or Water.”

Llanes, a place on the coast of Asturia. (The aspirated Ll of the Spaniards is very like the Welsh Ll, and is most [pg 077] probably a relic of Celtic pronunciation.) Lancia (Ciudad Rodrigo,) Lancia (Guarda.)

Lan-dubr-is. “The Shore or Margin of the Sea or Water,” or a spot inclosed by the Sea.69 An Island, in Latin Maps, on the coast of Portugal.

“The Lan-des,” The well-known arid sandy deserts forming the South-eastern coast of France.

Medio-lan-um.70 Medd, the middle, (Celtic,) and Lan. Towns thus designated seem to have been situated either at the Curve or Winding of a stream, or inclosed between two streams.

I may instance—in Cisalpine.

Gaul. Medio-lan-um, Milan.

Mediolanum (Santones), on the Loire.
(Eburovices Aulerci), Evreux, Normandy.
(Bituriges Cubi), inclosed between two winding streams, which are the sources of the Loire. Bi-tur-iges is from a synonyme, Bi, two, and Dour, Water.

Dôl, “A wind, a bow, a turn, a meander, a dale or mead, through which a river runs,” (Welsh,)71 as in Dol-Vorwyn and Dol-Vorgan, Montgomeryshire, North Wales; “Dôle,” the ancient capital of Franche Compté. (Compare the situation.)

Lut-ecia,72 Paris, seems clearly to have derived its name from its situation among marshes. “Située dans une isle de la Seine environnée de marais profonds, difficiles à traverser, qui communiquent à ce fleuve.” (Bullet, from Strabo.)

Llath-ach, “Mud, Dirt,” (Irish,) Llaith, Moist, (Welsh.)

Lug-dunum or Lau-dunum.73 “Laon,” built on the Summit of a Rock divided into two branches. Lug, from Llech, a [pg 078] Stone. Clog, a detached rock, (Welsh.) Liag, a great Stone. Leagan Kloiche, a Rock, (Irish.)

In the following instances the identity of the Gaulish and other Celtic names with the Welsh is remarkably clear, and will be vividly felt by persons vernacularly familiar with the Welsh language, and the most common local names in Wales.

The “Bretons,” Ar-mor-ici. Ar, “On,” Mor, “the Sea.”

The people of a Hilly Region in the South-east of France, Ar-e-com-ici.

Coum, “a Hollow Circular Valley, or Depression,” (Welsh.) This word is the source of the numerous names of places in England ending in Combe. The Oriental origin of the word is clearly traceable. After describing the great Table-land of Central Asia as extending over the whole of Persia, Ritter adds: “Towards ‘Koom,’ (in Persia,) we find the greatest depression, in the Table-land; here the surface sinks to 2046 feet!”74

There are also the “Com-oni,” above Toulon, and Com-us, “Como,” to which the word is peculiarly appropriate. (Bullet.)

The People of Auvergne. Ar-vern-i, “On the Hills.” Veryn or Beryn is a Hill in Welsh. Thus “Cevn y Beryn,” is the name of a Hill in Montgomeryshire.

By Plutarch the Ar-vern-i are called Ar-ben-i. “This is a very interesting addition to our information. ‘Veryn’ and ‘Ben’ are both synonymes extant in Welsh for ‘a Hill.’ ”

We have the same words repeated in the following instances, joined with Um (Irish), Am (Welsh), “About.” (Compare the Greek Amphi.)

Um-benn i, “The People (living) about the Hills.” A Swiss Tribe.

Um-bran-ici (from Beryn or Bron, Welsh,) a name of the Helvii mountaineers to the South-east of the Cevennes.

In the following names, again, we have Pen or Ben, and Beryn or Bron, alone.

Ben-ones, a Mountain Tribe in Switzerland.

Breun-i, on the borders of Bavaria and the Tyrol.

Bern-enses, the people of Berne, in Switzerland, and also those of Bearne, in the South of France, adjoining the Pyrenees.

A-Pen-inus Mons. Alpes Pen-inæ, the Alps immediately to the South of Geneva. Vallis Pen-ina, the Valley of the Rhone.

The primary sense of Pen, in Welsh, is “the Head.” As observed at page 11, the names for Hills in that language are metaphors from “the Head, the Breast,” &c. Now it is observable that in ancient Celtic Europe a difference of application corresponding to the different primary meanings of the terms is discoverable. Alpes is the general name for the Alps. (Alpes) Pen-inæ, a term derived from the Head, are the lofty and abrupt Alps, as distinguished from Alpes Maritimæ, &c.

In Spain and Portugal. Pena-s da Europa, (North of Spain.) Cape Pena-s, (in the Asturias.) Pen-a Longa, a Town adjoining the long ridge called the Sierra da St. Catherina in Portugal.

Gebenn-a Mons, the Cevenn-es, “South of France.” Cevenn-es, (omitting “es,” French plural,) is identical with Cevn, “a Back,” “a Hill,” as in Cevn y Coed, the name of a hill in Montgomeryshire, (Welsh.)

The Irish Gibhis, “a Valley,” is from the same source. Names of “Valleys and Hills” are generally composed of the same roots. (Similiter the Latin word “Altus” means both “High” and Deep!) A Valley is, in fact, formed by Hills!

These various meanings and inflections are found united in the Hebrew.

Goupp en, a chain of Hills in Switzerland. (Bullet.)

Alp. Dr. Owen Pughe quotes many classical authors to show that the word meant in Gallish a lofty Mountain. In the mountains of Glamorganshire, he adds, it is still used for a craggy summit.

Alp-es. Allo-bryges, from Alp- and (briga).76 Brigi-cum was their only town. To the South-east of the Allobryges were the Hel-v-ii, (Alba their capital.) To the North the Hel-v-etii, (Vod in Welsh, a Residence.) Both names were probably from Al-p.

Nant, (Nan-au, plural,) a Mountain Valley, “a Mountain Stream,” (Welsh.) This word is still in use in Savoy. (See Dr. Prichard's remarks.)77

Nannet-es, a Tribe in Britany, and

Nant-uates, a Tribe occupying the valley of the Rhine below its source.

Nang-ates, the people of Connaught. This is one of numerous [pg 081] instances of local names in Ireland, of which the sense has been lost in the Irish and still preserved in the Welsh.

Cori, or Corrie, means a hollow between hills. A glen or “Cleugh,” a small stream.78 (A word of Celtic origin. Jamieson's Etymological Dict. of the Scottish Language.)

This word appears to be in use both in the Highlands and Lowlands of Scotland; the first a Gaelic, the second originally a Cymraeg district. (See Chalmers's Caledonia.)

Sir Walter Scott has very gracefully introduced this ancient word in the beautiful “Coronach,” or Funeral-song of the Clansman, in the “Lady of the Lake:”

To this passage Sir Walter Scott has added the following note:79 “Corrie or Cori.” The hollow side of the hill where game usually lies!

I conceive a comparison of the following examples will serve to render it indisputable that this term may be accepted as a clue to a great number of the most important topographical names of Gaul and Britain, which have hitherto eluded the researches of Celtic scholars.

The Tri-Cori-i. From Tre and Cori. A tribe who inhabited the modern French Department of the “High Alps,” an Alpine region, the source of numerous streams which feed the Rhone and its branches.

The Petro-Cori-i.80 The inhabitants of the Departments of Dordogne and Correze. Dordogne is thus described by Malte Brun:

“We may pass from the Department of Lot to that of Dordogne by descending the last river which traverses it on the South from East to West. It is also watered by the Ille, the Dronne, the Vezere, and by more than fourteen hundred small rivers and streams. Hills extend along this country in every direction, but with the exception of two vallies, those watered by the Ille and the Dordogne, they bound only narrow passes, almost all of which are desolated by torrents!”

Correze. From the same authority we learn that two thirds of this department consists of a mountainous region, full of “ravines and precipices,” and that its scenery progressively assumes more of this wild and romantic character as you ascend the river Correze, which gives its name to the Department, and to its principal town. Correze is plainly derived from Cori.81

The Cori-tan-i. A British tribe in Derbyshire, &c., from Cori and Tania, an addition frequently made by the Romans to the name of a province or district, as in Aqui-tania, Mauri-tania. Camden expresses himself totally unable to explain this term satisfactorily.

The following are partly composed of ancient Celtic Topographical Names, of which the appropriate meanings have not been preserved82 in the Welsh and Irish, &c., but are found in the Oriental and other languages.

“Eryr-i,” the Welsh name of the Snowdon Mountains. This word has been variously explained by Welsh scholars, as meaning the “Snowy Mountain” (from Eira, “Snow”), the “Eagles' Mountain,” &c. None of these explanations are appropriate. Moreover “Eryr-i” is not the name of a single peak, but of the Snowdon range of mountains! “E.r.r” is a pure Hebrew word, signifying a very high mountain,83 from which “Eryr-i,” the name of the Snowdon range, the highest in South Britain, is a plural regularly formed!

Cimas da Our-ar-as, are high Mountains to the North of Lisbon.

Ban-nau Brycheiniog, “the Brecon Beacons,” lofty hills in Brecknockshire. Ban de la Roche, the celebrated Pastor [pg 084] Oberlin's residence among the Vosges Mountains, in the East of France. Ban, “Lofty,” (Welsh,) Bian, a Hill, (Irish,) Boun-os, a Hill, (Greek,) Ban-k (English), a diminutive.

Bal. “Applied in Wales to Mountains that terminate in a Peak. Balannu, to shoot or spring forth.” (Dr. W. Owen Pughe.) Belan is also applied to Hills, as “Nant y Belan,” near Wynnstay. Bala, Bulund (Persian), Beland (Pehlwi), Bulund (Zend), “High.”

“The Don and the Dune,” Rivers in Scotland. Trev-i don, i.e. “the Town of, or on the River,” a place on the river Tarn, in the South of France. Don, Dun, “Water,” “a River,” (Ossetians, a people of the Caucasus). “The Don” River, in the country of the “Don Cossacks,” who are also considered to be a people of the Caucasus. “Donau” (German), the Danube.

From Ar, “a River, a Stream,” (Hebrew.) “Ar-a,” now “the Ayr,” that enters the sea at Bayeux, (see before, p. 73.) “The Ar-ar,” Gaul. “The Ayr,” Scotland.

From Ee.a.ou.r, “a River, a Stream,” (Hebrew,) a modification of A.r. Wari, “Water,” (Sanscrit.) “The Evre” and “Evrette,” France. “The Wavre,” Belgium. “The Weaver” and “the Wear,” England.

From Ee.a.r (Hebrew), and Iaro, “a River,” (Egyptian,) “The Yarrow,” Scotland. (See p. 10.)

From Ur, “Water,” (Jeniseians, in Siberia,) and Our-on (Greek), terms connected with the previous Hebrew words; “Ur-us,” the Ouse, Britain.

Thus it will be seen that the various inflections of the Hebrew word A.r. have been completely preserved in the names of the different rivers in each of the Celtic countries of Britain and Gaul.

Lamu, “the Sea,” (Tungusian.) Lam, “the Sea,” (Lamutian.) Limnē, a Lake, “Poetically, the Sea, the Ocean, which seems to be the most primitive sense; also anciently, as it would [pg 085] appear, the Estuary of a River,” Schneider (Greek). At the mouths of the rivers that flow into the Black Sea lakes are formed, which are called “Limans.”84 Hence “Leman-us Lacus” in Switzerland.

Lim-ēn, a Haven, (Greek,) connected apparently with the last word, Limnē (Greek). “Lemanæ” vel Portus “Leman-is.” Lyme, in Kent, where Cæsar first landed.

Jura, a long Mountainous ridge in ancient Gaul. Jura, a long Mountainous Island (Scotland). “Jur-jura,” an important chain of Mountains in the North of Africa. Gora (Russian), Ghiri (Sanscrit), a Mountain.

In the foregoing examples Celtic words having an affinity to the Latin frequently occur, employed in a manner that shows they could not have been borrowed by the Celts from the Romans. Thus we have the names Ar-mor-ici, Ebro-lacum, names in which terms like the Latin “Mare” and “Lacus” are naturally blended with other Celtic words which are quite unlike the Latin!

I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages must serve to place beyond all doubt the truth of the propositions illustrated in this Section, viz., that the language of the primitive Celts of Europe and the British Isles originally consisted of a combination of the Welsh and Irish, and other living Celtic dialects, united with many words and forms preserved in none of those dialects, but traceable in the Hebrew, the Greek, and the languages of other ancient and distant nations.

The uniformity that presents itself in the ancient local nomenclature of all the Celtic countries is a very remarkable and instructive feature, of which an adequate conception can be formed only by an examination of the Roman Maps. The identity of names, for example, is found to be as complete [pg 086] when the Roman Maps of Gaul and Britain are compared, as we meet with in examining the Maps of two English Counties! To this rule Ireland, as far as we can judge from the imperfect nature of the information transmitted to us, formed no exception. These facts lead to the inference that the Celts must have diffused themselves, within a comparatively short interval of time, over all the regions of Europe of which the Romans found them in possession! Had the process of diffusion occupied a great many ages, there must have been a commensurate change in the Celtic language, which would have displayed itself in the local names of the more distant regions. But no such difference occurs, the local nomenclature of Britain, for instance, being identical with that of Switzerland and Spain!

Section VI.

The facts developed in the previous Sections obviously present a satisfactory solution of the problem suggested at page 25, viz., whence it has come to pass that languages almost totally different in their present composition could have sprung from one original Tongue? That existing languages have sprung from one source is a proposition of which the proofs have been explained in the same Chapter in which this problem has been suggested. (See Chap. I.)

In the preceding Sections it has been shown, agreeably to the statement contained in Section I., that Languages are exposed to two prominent causes of change; viz., the abandonment by different branches of the same race—1, of different Synonymes; 2, of different meanings of the same Synonyme.

From the facts Historically proved in the previous Sections it will be found to be an indisputable truth, that—assuming their operation to be continued for an adequate period of time,—these [pg 088] two causes are calculated to produce, from one parent Tongue, languages of which the differences are apparently fundamental. For example, if the differences between the Gothic and Celtic languages noticed at page 28,—languages which differ almost totally,—are compared with those which have been proved to have arisen in the last nine hundred years among the various branches of the Scandinavian and the Celtic, it will be seen at once that the latter are of precisely the same nature as the former. The only distinction is that they are fewer in point of number! But on the other hand, it is certain that the same causes of change—acting at the same rate during a previous period of treble that length of time—might have produced between two branches of a common original speech differences equally numerous with those which the Gothic and Celtic exhibit; in other words, differences sufficiently extensive almost entirely to exclude all vestiges of original unity!

But it must be added, that it would be highly erroneous to infer that the rate of change previous to the commencement of the Historical period was the same as it has been since; it must have been much more rapid! Changes of this nature are prompted by the dictates of convenience, which suggest the extinction of superfluous words, and the appropriation of the remainder to distinct though kindred purposes; names for “Water, Rivers, the Sea,” for example, were doubtless in the first instance applied indifferently to all these objects. Now, inasmuch as languages are more redundant in their earlier than they are in their later stages, it is apparent that these changes, of which this redundant character is the source, must be more rapid.

This explanation would fully account for the diversity of structure evinced by the Gothic and Celtic Tongues, which probably differ as widely as any languages of the globe, without referring the commencement of their separation to a [pg 089] more remote date than would be quite consistent with received systems of Chronology. That the Celtic and Gothic were originally one speech, and that the differences which they now display have arisen in this manner, will be evident from Section II. (page 26,) combined with the facts developed in the other Sections of this Chapter.

Difference of Grammatical forms has been supposed to afford proof of a fundamental difference of language. A comparison of those of the languages previously noticed will show this to be a highly erroneous conclusion! The Welsh and Irish differ most widely in their grammars, though the general resemblance of these languages proves their original identity. The German and English also differ very widely, the majority of the Pronouns being unlike. Again, even the modern and the provincial English have different Auxiliary Verbs, &c. &c. These are results of the same principle, viz., the tendency to abandon, or appropriate differently, the various elements of a common parent speech.

Moreover since Pronouns, which are the principal basis of Grammar, are merely different Synonymes for “Man,” or a “Human Being” (see page 13), appropriated to different Persons, the supposition that kindred nations may be expected in all cases to use the same grammatical forms is founded on the gratuitous and highly unreasonable assumption, that the process of appropriating these various Nouns to different Persons must have been complete at a very early period, before the separation of the Human Race into distinct Tribes!

But though the rejection of superfluous Synonymes, and the specific appropriation of the remainder are results of the dictates of convenience, the selection of the particular synonymes which are retained, and the particular mode of application, are results dependent on individual caprice and idiosyncracy. Hence we find, as has been shown in previous [pg 090] Sections, the various branches of the same race adopt and abandon different terms. This feature, which has been traced in the Historical progress of languages, completely explains the phenomenon especially noticed at the close of the First Chapter, viz., the positive identity which we find on the one hand, when the languages of the different Continents are compared in the aggregate, combined on the other with a difference nearly total among individual languages, occurring, in many cases, among the languages of contiguous nations of the same Continent. In each separate tribe there is a tendency to abandon part of the parent speech, but as different tribes generally abandon different parts, probably no portion of the original tongue is lost! Its component parts are dispersed, and not destroyed! There is a complete and perfect analogy between the relation which will be found to prevail between the languages of each continent viewed in the aggregate as one original Tongue—compared with the individual existing languages of the same continent—and the relation shown in the previous Sections to prevail between the ancient “Danska Tunge” and its derivative Scandinavian Tongues—between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English Dialects—between the ancient Celtic and the modern Welsh and Irish!

A recent work on Australia, by Colonel Grey, furnishes an account of the language of that country, so strikingly corroborative of the views developed above with respect to the origin of the various languages of the other four great Divisions of the Globe, that I have been induced especially to advert to Colonel Grey's statement in this Section.

“The arguments which prove that all the Australian dialects have a common root, are:

“1st. A general similarity of sound, and structure of words, in the different portions of Australia, as far as yet ascertained.

“2d. The recurrence of the same word with the same signification; to be traced, in many instances, round the entire continent, but undergoing, of course, in so vast an extent of country, various modifications.

“3d. The same names of natives occurring frequently at totally opposite portions of the continent. Now, in all parts of it which are known to Europeans, it is ascertained that the natives name their children from any remarkable circumstance which may occur soon after their birth; such being the case, an accordance of the names of natives is a proof of a similarity of dialect.

“The chief cause of the misapprehension which has so long existed with regard to the point under consideration is that the language of the aborigines of Australia abounds in synonymes, many of which are, for a time, altogether local; so that, for instance, the inhabitants of a particular district will use one word for water,85 while those of a neighbouring district will apply another, which appears to be a totally different one. But when I found out that in such instances as these both tribes understood the words which either made use of, and merely employed another one, from temporary fashion and caprice, I felt convinced that the language generally spoken to Europeans by the natives of any one small district could not be considered as a fair specimen of the general language of that part of Australia, and therefore in the vocabulary which I compiled in Western Australia, I introduced words collected from a very extensive tract of country.

“Again, in getting the names of the parts of the body, &c. from the natives, many causes of error arise, for they have [pg 092] names for almost every minute portion of the human frame: thus, in asking the name for the arm, one stranger would get the name for the upper arm, another for the lower arm, another for the right arm, another for the left arm, &c.; and it therefore seems most probable that in the earlier stages of the inquiry into the nature of the language of this people, these circumstances contributed mainly to the erroneous conclusion, that languages radically different were spoken in remote parts of the continent.

“One singularity in the dialects spoken by the aborigines in different portions of Australia is, that those of districts widely removed from one another sometimes assimilate very closely, whilst the dialects spoken in the intermediate ones differ considerably from either of them. The same circumstances take place with regard to their rites and customs; but as this appears rather to belong to the question of the means by which this race was distributed over so extensive a tract of country, I will not now enter into it, but merely adduce sufficient evidence to prove that a language radically the same is spoken over the whole continent.

“If, then, we start from Perth, in Western Australia, following the coast in a southerly direction, it will be found that between Perth and King George's Sound a common language is spoken, made up of several dialects, scarcely differing from one another in any material points, and gradually merging into the dialects of these two places, as the two points considered are nearer to one or the other.

“The word for the Sun at Perth is Nganga, whilst at Adelaide it is Tin-dee; but the word used by the natives at Encounter Bay, South Australia, thirty-six miles from Adelaide, is Ngon-ge, and the word used in the southern districts of Western Australia for the Stars is Tiendee; [pg 093] thus, by extending the vocabularies of the two places, the identity of the language is shown.”86

The reader who by a perusal of the previous Sections has learned how rapid are the changes which languages undergo, will not merely conclude, with Colonel Grey, that the population of Australia must be descendants of one Sept, but he will conclude also that the first colonization of that continent must be referred to a comparatively recent date. Australia is nearly as large as the Continent of Europe, and yet we find one language prevail over the whole of its extensive surface! It may be inferred with certainty, from the changes which one thousand years have produced in the European languages, that this fact makes it probable that the date of the origin of the Australian tribes must have been comparatively recent,—makes it impossible that it can have been remote!

In relation more immediately to the conclusions developed in this Section, it remains to be noticed that the trifling incipient differences of dialect in the language of Australia, as described by Colonel Grey, afford a vivid picture of the first phases of that process which, during the course of a series of ages, has given rise to the different languages of the four great Continents of Asia, Europe, Africa, and America!

But how are we to account for the origin of these numerous synonymous terms which abound in all, especially in ancient, languages?

This subject will be discussed in the next Chapter.

Chapter III. On The Origin Of Synonymes.

Section I.

But not only may the dispersion of Synonymes be referred to influences of which the active agency still continues; it will appear that the first Origin of the numerous Synonymes which Human Language presents may also be explained by means of causes still in operation!

Human Language, in its infancy, was descriptive or metaphorical. Nouns, or names of objects, were expressive of some of their dominant or most conspicuous qualities. Hence, inasmuch as in different individuals, and in the same individual at different times, the faculty of Imagination is affected by various characteristics, a great diversity of descriptive terms were generally devised for the same objects, and these, as their primitive metaphorical meanings were insensibly forgotten, gradually lapsed into arbitrary or conventional Nouns. That this is a correct explanation of the origin of a [pg 095] large portion of the Synonymes in which Human Tongues abound, will be apparent from an examination of two venerable Oriental Languages, the Hebrew and the Sanscrit, which indisputably display through their whole structure a metaphorical or pictorial character.

The same truth is confirmed by facts within the range of our actual experience—facts that suggest reflections of high interest!

Several thousand years have passed away since man first became acquainted with the most prominent and familiar of those objects with which he is surrounded. For these objects he has inherited from his remote ancestors names which he learns in infancy, and which relieve him from the task of inventing anew appropriate designations. But though Nature presents no new features, the progress of Science has in modern times revealed a few new substances unknown to our forefathers, which have served at intervals to call forth the exercise of the same inventive powers by which language was originally constructed! Now if we examine the names that were originally conferred on the various chemical substances which have been brought to light in our own and in the last generation, we shall arrive at the instructive result that these names almost wholly consist of descriptive terms, representing either some of their most obvious properties, or the various conclusions formed by different philosophers on the subject of their nature and composition.87 Further, we shall [pg 096] find that many of these new substances gave rise, in the first instance, to numerous descriptive terms! That these terms were for some time used concurrently! That subsequently a portion of them fell into disuse! That finally the remainder gradually lost the descriptive significations at first attached to them, and acquired the character of mere arbitrary or conventional names!

Hence it is evident, and most assuredly it is a result of the highest interest, that the native and permanent tendencies of the Human mind itself distinctly point to the conclusion that language must originally have been descriptive or metaphorical! Hence, also, we derive a vivid illustration of the sameness of those tendencies, as exhibited both in the latest and in the earliest ages of the world, in the trains of thought excited by new objects in the minds of the Philosophers of modern days, and in those of the simple forefathers of the Human Race, whose

As we ascend from Modern into remote ages, Human Language gradually reassumes its Metaphorical character. Moreover, it will appear that the transition may be traced occurring in different classes of words at different epochs: terms for newly-discovered substances or new inventions being descriptive in all languages; terms for the most common and conspicuous objects of nature, on the other hand, not exhibiting this quality, except in the most ancient Tongues; while in specimens of Language belonging to intermediate eras, an intermediate character is observable; terms for less common and less conspicuous natural objects being more generally descriptive than they are in modern Tongues, &c.

The nature and steps of this transition will be more distinctly perceived if viewed retrospectively:

1. Modern Languages.

In such languages as the modern English, French, and German, probably the great majority of terms are conventional, though we meet with numerous names of animals, birds, &c. which are descriptive, as “Black-bird.” In words applied to new inventions or discoveries, a descriptive character is commonly displayed, as in “Rail-road” (Eng.), “Eisen-bahn” (Ger.), “Chemin de fer” (French), i.e. “Iron-way.”

2. Ancient Specimens of the European Languages.

In the oldest written specimens of the Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, &c., the vestiges of a descriptive origin rapidly increase. The names of Animals and Birds are found to be nearly all either descriptive or imitative, and Synonymes are much more numerous in certain classes of words.

The names for “The Sun, The Hand,” &c., and other objects enumerated at page 8, as the first on which appellations must have been conferred by Man, seem to have become purely conventional previously to the date of the earliest Celtic or Saxon MSS. But, on the other hand, a comparison of Languages serves to indicate that in this class of terms also these Tongues were Metaphorical in remote ages prior to the era of History. Thus “Grian,” The Sun, (Irish,) means “A Burner” in Welsh. Again, the Celtic and Gothic races have been too long separated to use the same conventional terms. But they frequently agree in the basis of the descriptive terms, from which the conventional terms are derived. Thus Llygad, “An Eye,” (Welsh,) is totally unlike the English “Eye,” (“Auge,” German;) but it is identical in its root with the English word Look. “Traed,” The Feet, (Celtic,) is unlike “Foot,” but its root is identical with “Tread” (English)! Celtic scholars have often derived the English “Tread” from the Celtic or Welsh “Traed;” but the Verb “Tread” (“Tret-en,” German) is used by all the Gothic nations from the Danube to Iceland!

The Greek and Latin also conspicuously exhibit a more Metaphorical character than the modern tongues of Europe.

3. The Sanscrit and the Hebrew.

It is agreed that in the entire structure of these languages a metaphorical character is displayed; even such words as the names for “The Sun,” &c. are for the most part metaphorical or descriptive.

The truth and extensive application of the principle under discussion will be best understood by a perusal of Appendix A, which contains ample illustrations of the rule that while the conventional significations of words are preserved in one Language, the same words commonly occur in others in kindred metaphorical meanings. In this place, however, may be appropriately introduced one illustration derived from the various Sanscrit words for the Sun. These words, which are all considered to be descriptive or metaphorical, have obviously formed the source of the following Conventional Terms for that Luminary, which occur in Indo-Germanic languages of more modern form:

Different Words for the Sun in Sanscrit, and their distribution in other Indo-Germanic Languages.

Section II.

In its infancy, Language was metaphorical, but it was directly Imitative of surrounding objects at its birth! Hence, as will now be explained, another source of the synonymes in which Human Tongues abound!

Did man derive his language from the direct instruction of his Creator, or from the natural exercise of those faculties with which he has been endowed? For the former opinion no argument, either Scriptural or Philosophical, has ever been advanced. In favour of the latter, proofs deducible from Language, Analogy, and the actual features of the Human Mind, conspire.

In the Hebrew, and other ancient languages, Man's first imitative efforts are distinctly traceable,88 and as we ascend from modern to earlier eras in the history of Human Tongues, and extend our comparison by including within its range a greater number of kindred dialects, we shall find—not only the features of a descriptive or metaphorical character, as [pg 100] already noticed—but also the vestiges of an imitative origin progressively increase. Thus, for example, the English words for two common birds, the “Owl” and the “Crow,” have no other effect on the ear than that of mere arbitrary or conventional terms; they have been too much abbreviated any longer to suggest distinctly the source from which they have sprung. But in the Swedish “Ul-u-la,” and the Sanscrit “Ul-u-ka,” the reiterated screams of “the bird of night” are plainly mimicked, as is the harsh guttural croak of the crow in the German “Krähe!”

Those writers who have espoused, and those who have impugned, the conclusion that language is the natural fruit of the endowments which have been conferred on our species, have, for the most part, mutually assumed that conclusion to be irreconcilable with the common origin of the different nations and languages of the globe. Each ancient sept, they take for granted, must in that case be inferred to have had a distinct origin, and to have invented a distinct language for itself. But there is no necessary connexion between the premises and the conclusion. All nations may have emanated from one parent sept, and all languages may have sprung from one parent tongue, and yet the parent speech may, notwithstanding, have been the product of Man's own native energies in the earliest era of his existence! Our species may have been invested with the faculty of constructing a language adequate to meet all its first wants, and yet that faculty may have been exercised only once!

The conclusion adopted above is supported by the dictates of Analogy, as traceable in the instance of provisions made for wants analogous to those which language is calculated to supply. Destined to pass successively through various phases of civilization, and to push his colonies into every clime and country, Man required and has received, both in his physical and mental constitution, powers of adaptation [pg 101] that enable him to conform to those marvellous changes which are incident to his condition as a Progressive Being. His first infantine feelings are expressed by imitations of surrounding objects, and as his higher moral and intellectual faculties are developed, they find utterance in metaphors derived from the organs of sensation. In those advances which he was mysteriously intended to make from age to age, he would have been fettered and not aided by the gift of an immutable language! His wants in this respect have been more wisely provided for by the power which has evidently been conferred upon him of framing in the first instance a language calculated to express his earliest wants as they successively arose, and of subsequently moulding it to suit the emergencies of his condition.

It was the opinion of Adam Smith that the elements of language consist of Nouns or Names of things. From this opinion, M. Du Ponceau dissents. Nor is this conclusion confirmed by an analysis of languages, which serves to show, on the contrary, that these elements or roots partake less of the character of Nouns or Names of Objects than of that of Verbs or terms descriptive of their actions and qualities. This result appears to be a necessary consequence of the imitative origin of language, for it is only their characteristic sounds or other salient qualities that admit of imitation, it is impossible to copy by the voice the objects themselves! The English word Cuc-koo furnishes an excellent example. This word is now used as a Noun or Name. But it is quite manifest that originally it was a mere imitation of the characteristic cry of the bird, in other words it was descriptive of a single quality or action!

But though they partake of the character of Verbs rather than of that of Nouns, it will, I conceive, appear that the roots or elements of language do not in reality belong to any existing class of grammatical terms. In the Hebrew and the [pg 102] Sanscrit the “Root” is neither a Noun nor a Verb, but the common basis of both. Nor is the application of this maxim confined to ancient languages; it may be shown to apply extensively to modern languages also, as in the following examples, derived from the English:

The previous examples will serve to illustrate at once the proposition they are intended to support, and also the imitative character of the roots or elements of language. This character, it will be observed, does not occur exclusively in terms primarily descriptive of sounds, it is displayed in an equally unequivocal manner in terms descriptive of other physical qualities, as in “Thrust, Burst, Wrest,” &c.

It is obvious that the human voice possesses the power of copying sounds more perfectly than other external impressions. But the attempt at imitation is not more conspicuous than it is in other cases, in which the imitation is necessarily more imperfect. Thus Kōōm, used in Persia and Wales for “a hollow circular valley,” “Coop” (English), are attempts by means of the motion of the lips, &c. to imitate the shapes of the subjects of description.

The evidence furnished by language in support of the proposition [pg 103] suggested above, viz., that its roots or elements do not consist either of Nouns or Verbs, but of sounds which constitute the common basis of both, will be found, I conceive, to derive direct confirmation from an examination of the faculties employed in the formation of language, and the order of their development.

Man is endowed with two faculties of a very different nature, of which language seems to be the joint product, viz., with powers of imitation and powers of reflection. Now the elementary sounds, or roots of language, may be viewed as exclusively the work of the imitative propensity; the steady appropriation of these elements as recognized descriptions of actions and objects seems, on the other hand, to be the result of the progressive growth and of the reiterated subsequent exercise of the functions of Memory and Abstraction. Thus we find infants mimic sounds long before we can suppose their minds to be sufficiently developed permanently to associate such sounds with particular objects; afterwards, as their faculties are gradually unfolded, these imitations are appropriated as names. Accordingly we find that almost all children are in the habit of using a certain number of words thus formed, which are understood and employed by the guardians and companions of their infancy.89 An instructive example of the natural activity of those mental qualities to which language first owed its existence—an activity which is repressed by no other cause than by the maturity of languages in use, which fully meet all the exigencies of the social state!

The vehement gesticulations of uncivilized tribes is another manifestation of the imitative propensity. Nor are the vestiges of its influence among civilized nations altogether confined [pg 104] to the period of childhood. They may be recognized in the marked, though generally unconscious, disposition we feel to select words imitative of the ideas we seek to convey, and in the pleasure we derive from works of imagination, in which the sound is rendered “an echo of the sense,” in conformity to the critical rule of classical antiquity. Of the sublime associations called forth by a happy appeal to the imitative faculty, we possess a fine example in the lines of the great living Poet, which, with a fastidiousness as marvellous as the genius by which they were conceived, he proposed to cancel, as being “Drum and Trumpet lines!”90

The progressive appropriation of elementary sounds or Roots to the various purposes of language, and the consequent development of grammatical forms, remain to be explained.

In the first instance these Roots were, it would seem, employed alike both as Verbs and Nouns, &c.; the requisite distinction, it may be inferred, was made by Signs. In the course of time the Noun was distinguished by characteristic additions identical, as may be proved, with terms for “Man.”

This tendency to personify appears, as Du Ponceau observes, to be “according to nature!” The English word Smith, and the German Schmidt, are nouns of the primitive kind, being mere transcripts of the Root. On the other hand, in the English “Join-er, Break-er,” we have examples of Nouns distinguished as such by a grammatical suffix, “Er,” which, in German, means “He,” and in Turkish means “A Man.” In the Pehlwi, an ancient dialect of Persia, which is intimately connected with the English, and other Gothic languages, we actually find the English word “Man,” used for the same purpose as “Er,” in the above example. Thus we have Ruis-man, “A Head,” (Pehlwi,) Ras (Arabic), and Rosh, “A Head,” (Hebrew,) Lager-man, “The Foot,” (Pehlwi,) Lagyl (Wogul), Leg (English).

The Verb, and its different persons, were distinguished by pronouns, annexed in various modes.91

Finally, it may be noticed, that since all other branches of Human Language have been shown to be derivable from terms originally applied to Material actions and objects, (see pages 11, 12, 13;) and since these have been proved to be products of the imitative faculty, it follows that all the elements of language are ultimately traceable to the same source. There is, however, an important exception.

There is a class of terms, including many of those expressive of domestic relations, which cannot be traced to imitation, but seem to consist of those sounds which are most easy to pronounce. They may, in fact, be viewed as the fruits of the first essays of the organs of articulation.92

It will be perceived that the application of terms from this “Root” was not confined to parents, but was extended to other objects familiar in childhood.

Other examples of the principle just noticed occur in Abba, “Father,” (Hebrew,) Ab-avus, Av-us, and Papa (Latin). These words are clearly traceable to sounds which may be readily pronounced in infancy.

The Hebrew, and some other ancient Oriental tongues, are distinguished by the frequent occurrence of harsh aspirates and gutturals, and of vehement and discordant tones, which, in many instances, are utterly incapable of representation by means of any sounds in use among the nations of modern Europe. Now if language had an imitative origin, and if these ancient Oriental tongues can be viewed as specimens of language near its source, and the European tongues as specimens more altered by time, these features of contrast will be satisfactorily explained. This will be evident from the following considerations.

As Language in its incipient state must have been an imperfect medium of communication, it may be concluded that [pg 107] the auxiliary aid of Signs was commonly resorted to; violent motions of the hands and the feet were probably combined with intonations of the voice, expressive, even to exaggeration, of the ideas intended to be conveyed. Now the influence of this cause was obviously calculated to give to language in its infancy the very qualities which are ascribed to the Hebrew and some other ancient languages, viz., fulness, distinctness, and in some respects extreme harshness.

On the other hand, the natural progress of language will account also for the opposite qualities displayed by the dialects of modern Europe. As Society advanced, the severe features that belonged to Language at its first commencement must have gradually softened down. Words originally intelligible only as imitations of the qualities of objects, or by reason of the signs with which they were accompanied, must have gradually acquired conventional meanings, calculated to render the use of signs and of rough and painful articulations unnecessary. Compare, as examples, the words already noticed, viz., the English word “Crow,” and the German guttural word “Krä-he,” the English “Owl,” and the Swedish and Sanscrit “Ulula,” and “Ulu-ka.”

Many writers on subjects of this nature appear to fall into considerable confusion of thought in the eulogies which they are prone to bestow on those particular languages to which their studies have been chiefly directed. In some instances we find a language extolled for the fulness and clearness of its sounds, while another is eulogized for its softness. These different qualities cannot with consistency be regarded as merits in languages that belong to the same stage of society. A more judicious view of the subject would involve the conclusion to which the previous considerations must give rise, viz., that a full and distinct language is the result of necessity in the infancy of society, and that a soft and abbreviated [pg 108] language is the joint product of the dictates of convenience and taste that influence its later stages.

It is probable that in the features under discussion the ancient Oriental Tongues do not differ from the languages of Europe more widely than the earliest differ from the latest specimens of the latter class of languages. The difference in this respect between the Anglo-Saxon and the modern English has already been noticed. The abbreviated pronunciation of the French, compared to the parent Latin, is another instance of the same kind. The following is an example of similar variations in three Celtic dialects, showing a progressively contracted pronunciation:

The Isle of Man was not occupied by the Irish until the fourth century. Yet the Manx differs from the Irish perhaps even more widely than the Irish differs from the Welsh.

The desire to render language a more rapid and convenient medium of thought may be regarded as the principal source of changes of this nature.

Section III.

It may be objected that if language were in its origin imitative, the identity of the various languages of the globe shown in this work may be accounted for on that principle, without ascribing that important fact to an original unity of race. But an answer to this objection is involved in the following passage from the Mithridates of Adelung and Vater:

“In those instances in which the sound imitated is very definite and invariable, the imitation is so likewise (as in that of the name of the Cuckoo, which is nearly the same in all languages). But this is seldom the case. Generally the natural sound is very variable; hence one people imitates one, and another a different change. A very striking example occurs in the names for Thunder. Distinct as this natural sound is, the impressions which it makes on the ear are very variable, and it has accordingly given rise to a great number of different names, which all betray, nevertheless, their origin in Nature. In my Ancient History of the German Language I have adduced, in proof of this proposition, 353 of these names from the European languages.”

It appears, then, that the principle that language was imitative in its origin does not involve the inference that there is for that reason a tendency in human language to Unity. On the contrary, this principle leads, as has been shown, to the very opposite conclusion. Hence features of affinity displayed by different Tongues must be referred to original unity of race.

Section IV.

The Hebrew and Sanscrit, as pointed out in the previous Sections, display certain features which cannot have long survived the infancy of language. The caprices of custom, the progress of the human mind, and the dictates of convenience, are calculated to efface these features within a limited period of time. Hence it follows, that the existence of language, and of the Species by which it is employed, could not have commenced at an era very remotely anterior to the date of the earliest specimens of these ancient Tongues; for it must be borne in mind that the identity of the Hebrew and the Sanscrit with other Human Tongues having been proved (see Appendix A), the vestiges of recent formation which these two languages display furnish evidence of the recent origin, not only of the ancient nations by whom they were spoken, but also of the Human Race. As previously noticed, no difficulty is felt in accounting for the descriptive character of the scientific names which occur at page 95, on the ground that the substances named have only lately become known to man. The existence in the Sanscrit of numerous descriptive Synonymes for the “Sun” (see page 98), the most conspicuous object in nature, is an example which, as already intimated, must suggest analogous reflections.

Viewed with reference to the lapse of a few centuries, the changes language undergoes are too irregular to furnish a safe test of the date of historical events. But adverting to the progress of the European languages within the last thousand years, we may infer, nevertheless, that the effect of a long interval in producing extensive changes is certain.

Judging from these data, I conceive it may reasonably be concluded that the ancient Hebrew and Sanscrit remains could not have preserved the descriptive or metaphorical character to the same extent as they have done had the Human species been introduced at a period anterior to the date assigned to that event by our received systems of chronology.

Chapter IV. On The Original Identity Of The English, Welsh, Hindoos, And Other Nations Classed As Indo-European With The Jews, Arabians, Etc.

Section I.

Among Orientalists, both in Germany and in this country, an opinion prevails that there is a specific connexion among certain Asiatic and European Nations, which they have accordingly classed together as members of what they term the Indo-European race. The principal Nations included in this class are the Hindoos, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Russians, and other Sclavonic Nations; the English, Germans, and other Gothic Nations; the Irish and Welsh, and other Celtic Nations, have more recently been ranged under the same appellation, in consequence of the researches of Dr. Prichard, M. Pictet, and Dr. Karl Meyer. The advocates [pg 113] of a distinct Indo-European race assume either that there is no connexion, or a comparatively slight one, between the various languages of that race and those of the ancient inhabitants of Judea, Arabia, and other contiguous nations. This theory may be viewed as a modification of a conclusion expressed by Sir William Jones in his Discourse on the Origin and Families of Nations.

“That the first race of Persians and Indians, to whom we may add the Romans and Greeks, the Goths, and the old Egyptians or Ethiops, originally spoke the same language and professed the same popular faith, is capable, in my humble opinion, of incontestible proof; that the Jews and Arabs, the Assyrians or second Persian race, the people who spoke Syriack, and a numerous tribe of Abyssinians, used one primitive dialect wholly distinct from the idiom just mentioned, is, I believe, undisputed, and, I am sure, indisputable.”94

While one class of writers have adopted the views of Sir William Jones, another class have maintained a very opposite opinion, viz. that the Hebrew is connected, not merely as a sister but as a parent, with all the other languages of the globe. The unreasonableness of this opinion, which is totally unsupported by authority, sacred or profane, has been forcibly pointed out by Adelung, who observes, “Of all the Semetic languages the Hebrew is the youngest; the Hebrew nation still slumbered in the loins of their patriarch Abraham at a time when the whole south-west of Asia, even including the eastern banks of the Tigris, was already filled with Semetic95 nations and tongues.”

The proofs of affinity between the Hebrew and other tongues which have been adduced by the writers last referred to, are in many instances perfectly sound and legitimate. But owing to the untenable nature of the proposition with which they are associated, they have had no influence in opposition to the opinions of those celebrated men who have denied the existence of any such affinity between the Hebrew and the Indo-European tongues.

Truth in this, as in many other inquiries, has been lost in the collision of opposite errors! The Hebrew, it is true, is not the Parent Tongue, but on the other hand, notwithstanding the weight that must necessarily be attached to the memorable passage quoted above, and also to the views of recent Orientalists, it can be shown, by evidence too clear and simple to be neutralized by any authority however eminent, that the languages termed Indo-European are as closely connected with the Hebrew as they are among themselves. To these languages, the relation which it bears is that of an ancient collateral, exhibiting many of the features of a parent in consequence of the antiquity of its earliest remains, which contain specimens of Language near to its source. This relation, except as regards the Sanscrit, is strikingly analogous to that which specimens of the Scandinavian dialects near to their common source have been shown to bear to the modern languages of Denmark, Sweden, and Iceland. (See Proposition 6, p. 46.)

As the proofs contained in Appendix A and in other parts of this work, are sufficient to establish that such is the nature of the connexion between the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages, I shall here confine myself to such illustrations as possess an independent interest by reason of the [pg 115] light, they throw on the institutions and condition of ancient nations.

The identity of the Gods of three of the principal Indo-European nations has been shown by Sir William Jones in his luminous and graceful Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India. But in the passage above quoted from the same great writer, the conclusion is conveyed that these Indo-European nations, agreeing among themselves, fundamentally differed with the Jews and other Syro-Phœnician nations in two important points, viz. Religion and Language.

This conclusion will be found to involve many fallacies of a very obvious nature. The Assyrians and other Syro-Phœnician nations were idolaters, though the Jews were not; and even the Jews were constantly lapsing into the idolatrous practices of the surrounding nations. We have no reason for inferring with certainty that the superstitions of the land of Canaan and of other Semetic countries were different from those of the Greeks, Italians, and Indians; the evidence rather favours the contrary supposition. Again, the ancient Egyptians, whom Sir William Jones classes with the Indo-European nations, from Language and Geographical position may reasonably be pronounced to have been more nearly related to the Semetic nations of Palestine and Arabia. Such are the errors even of an “all-accomplished” inquirer in exploring a new field!

That the Jews differed in religion from the nations of Greece, Italy, and India is a proposition which, in a general sense, cannot be disputed. But it will now be shown that this proposition must, nevertheless, be received with two qualifications, which entirely destroy its application as a proof of an aboriginal or remote difference of race, viz. 1. The same conceptions of the Supreme Being as are unfolded in the Hebrew Scriptures may be traced in the attributes of the principal Heathen Deities. 2. The names of the inferior [pg 116] Gods are perfectly preserved in the Hebrew language in appropriate senses, which distinctly indicate the recent origin of the superstitions of which they were the objects. While these inferior divinities appear to have been mere personifications of the powers of nature or of the passions of Man,—in the conceptions of the Creator of all things equally just and sublime,—which rise above this mass of error in the character of the Greek Zeus, the Latin Jupiter, and the Indian Brahma,96 the barrier which is supposed so abruptly to have separated the primitive faith of these nations from that of the patriarchs disappears!

The following analysis of the names of Heathen divinities may be regarded as a continuation of a similar analysis which occurs at page 20. As regards the names and attributes of the Indian Gods, I have availed myself of Sir W. Jones's Dissertation on the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India:

The Gods Of Greece And Italy.

Jupiter, Jov-(is), Jov-(em), “The Supreme Being,” (Latin); Ee.e.v.e or J.ee.v.e, “Jehovah, The Deity,” from E.v.e, “To Be,” (Hebrew.) This name is believed to be expressive of eternal existence.97

Zeus or Zēn (Greek), “The Supreme Being,” the same as Jupiter; Zēn, To Live, Zē, He Lives, Zŏŏs, Living, (Greek.) Esse, “To Be,” (Latin.) Ee.sh.e, “To Be,” A.ce.sh, “A Being,” Ee.sh.sh, “Very old Ancient,” (Heb.)

Juno (Latin), Ērē (Greek), “The Goddess of the Firmament and The Queen and Mother of the Gods.”

Mercur-ius, “The God of Commerce,” (Latin.) M.c.r, “Merchandise, To Sell,” (Heb.) Merx, Mercari (Latin). Market (English.)

Min-erva, The Goddess of Wisdom, (Latin.) Mēn, “The Mind.”

Min-os, “The Supreme Judge in the Infernal Regions,” (Latin & Greek.) M.n.e, “To ordain, adjust, number,” (Heb.)

Aurora (Latin), Ēōs (Greek), “The Goddess of the Dawn.” (See p. 20.)

Phaeton, “Son of Apollo, or The Sun,” (Latin & Greek.) Phaethōn, Shining, (Greek.) Pha.o, To Shine, (Greek.) Ee.ph.o (Heb.) Phaethon in Greek was an epithet applied to “The Sun,” a word for “The Day” and for “The Star Jupiter.” (Compare Phoibos, Fos, &c. p. 21.)

Phos-phor-us (Latin), Phs Phor-os, The Morning Star, (Greek,) from Phero, “To Bear,” and Phōs, Light. The origin of this name will be plain from the last example and from the analogous terms at p. 21. Phōs, “A Star,” (Japan.) Fosseye, “The Sun,” (Sereres, Negroes,) &c. &c.

Arēs, “The God of War,” (Greek.) War (English.) Or, “An Enemy;” O.r.ee.ts, “Formidable, Violent;” O.r.ts, E.r.s, Ee.ou.r.ee.sh, “To break in pieces, demolish,” (Heb.) Eris, “Strife,” (Greek.)

M-ars, Mart-is, M-avors, “The God of War,” (Latin.) M.Or.ts.e, “Violence, Terror,” from O.r.ts with M. formative. (See “Ares,” above.)

Bell-ona, “The Goddess of War.” Bellum, War, (Latin.) Beli, Bela, War, (Welsh.) Beli, Bela, Havoc, Devastation, (Welsh.) B.l.ee, B.l.o (Hebrew.)

Vesta (Latin),98 Hestia (Greek), “The Goddess of Fire.” “Her power was exercised about Altars and Houses.” Hestia also signifies a Hearth. Ee.ts.th, “To Burn, Kindle, To be kindled as fuel,” (Hebrew.)

Ceres, “The Goddess of the Fruits of the Earth,” (Latin.) G.r.sh, “Corn trodden out,” “To spring forth,” Tender, Green, in full Verdure, Vegetables, (Hebrew.) Grass (German & English.)

Harp-yæ (Greek & Latin), “Winged Creatures, the fabulous personifications of Hunger and Rapacity!” (See Æneid 3.)

C'H.r.b, “To Consume, waste.”

C'H.r.b.e, “Desolation,” (Hebrew.)

Harpazo, “To Snatch,” (Greek.)

Morpheus, “The God of Sleep,” (Greek & Latin.) M.r.ph.e, “Slothful,” (Heb.)

An interesting consideration deserves especial notice in this place. On referring to the doubtful and unsatisfactory explanations which have been suggested for many of these names of the Gods of Greece and Italy, both by Cicero and by modern writers, who have relied solely on the intrinsic resources of the Classical languages, the superior clearness and simplicity of the explanations afforded by the aid of the Hebrew will be strikingly apparent.99

The Gods Of India.

Brahma, “The Creator,” (Indian.) B.r.a, “To Create,” applied to the creative act of the Deity in the First Chapter of Genesis, (Hebrew.) Beri or Peri, “To Cause,” Bâr, or Pâr, “A Cause,” (Welsh.)

Siva, “The Destroyer,” (Indian.) Sh.v.a.e, “Desolate;” Sha-e, “To Desolate,” (Heb.)

Vish-nu, “The Preserver or Saviour,” (Ind.) Ee.sh.v.o.e, “Safety, Salvation.” (This root is applied to the Saviour with the prefix M. in M|Ou.sh.oe,“The Messiah.”) Ee.sho, “To save,” (Heb.)

Rama, “A conquering Deity, a great Deliverer,” the same as the Greek Hercules, (Indian.) R.m, “To be lifted up, exalted.” R.m.e, “To throw, cast down,” (Hebrew.)

Cama, “The Indian Cupid.” One of his titles is “Depaca, the Inflamer,” “Love,” (Indian.) Ee.ch.m, “To be lustful,” Ch.m, Ch.m.e, “Heat,” Ch.m.s, “To ravish,” (Hebrew.)

Sur-ya, “A God of the Sun,” (Indian.) See p. 20.

Sat-yavrata, “Saturn” of the Latins. Sat.ya, means “Truth or Probity,” (Indian.) Sh.th, “To set, settle, fix,” (Hence “Sooth,” English, not from “He saith,” as Horne Tooke conceived.) T.z.d.k, “Just,” T.z.d.k.e, “Justice, righteousness,” (Hebrew.)

I shall now advert to some features of considerable interest in the condition of the primitive founders of the European nations, of which language furnishes evidence.

The first emigrants must in many instances have brought with them from the East a knowledge of fermented liquors, as is shown by the following examples:

Wine (English), Vin-um (Latin), Oin-os (Greek), Ee.ee.n (Hebrew), primarily “The expressed juice of the grape,” from Ee.n.e, “To press, squeeze,” (Hebrew.)

Osai, “Cyder, sweet liquor,” (Welsh,) O.s.ee.s, “Wine,” (Hebrew,) from O.s, O.s.s, “To trample”, applied to the Grapes.

M.th.k, “Sweet, sweetness,” (Hebrew.) Metheg-lyn (Welsh,) i.e. M.th.k, “Sweet,” (Hebrew,) and-Lyn, “Liquor,” (Welsh.) Methu, “Wine,” (Greek.) Methou, “Drunk,” (Welsh.) These terms may be regarded as primarily derived from a word expressive “of Honey,” and of the wine made from that particular substance, as in Madhu, “Honey,” (Sanscrit,) “Mead” (English.)

Mêl (Welsh), Mel (Latin), Meli (Greek), “Honey.” Melissa, “A Bee,” (Greek.) Mel-ys, “Sweet,” (Welsh.) Melitos, “Honeyed, placid,” (Greek.) M.l.ts, “To sweeten, to assuage,” (Hebrew.) Melith, “Honey,” (Gothic.)

Writers on subjects of this nature have inferred that in the earliest stage of society the human species subsisted on the spontaneous fruits of the earth or by the chase; the Pastoral state was the next step, and the adoption of agricultural pursuits the last stage in the progress. The Celtic and other European languages furnish very distinct evidence that some of the European nations must have advanced as far as the Pastoral state previously to their migration from the East.

The art of making “Butter” is expressed in the Celtic by a word of which the Oriental origin is clear:

Im,100 “Butter,” (Gaelic.)

c'H.m.a.e, “Butter,” from c'H.m.a, “To agitate, to churn,” (Hebrew.)

As this Celtic word is quite unlike the Latin, its Oriental origin is clear. It also follows that the primitive art it describes could not have been borrowed from the Romans.

The evidence with regard to “Cheese” is doubtful. Caseus (Latin) may be viewed as allied to K.sh.e, “To harden, to stiffen,” (Hebrew.) But as the Hebrew does not present the secondary sense, there is no ground to infer that this art was brought from the east. Nor, considering the resemblance of the Latin Caseus and the Welsh Caws, “Cheese,” can we infer from language, as in the instance of “Butter,” that the Celts did not borrow this process from the Romans, which most probably they did.

The following is a comparison, showing at the same time the identity of the names for some of the most common animals in the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages, and also the interesting fact, which is evident from several of these examples, that many of the prevalent European names for Chattels and Money are identical with Hebrew words for Cattle, Sheep, &c., which form the only wealth of the Pastoral state!

B.k.r, “Cattle,” (Heb.) Pecora, plural of Pec-us, “Cattle,” (Lat.) Hence, Pecunia, “Money,” (Lat.) Buwch, “A cow,” (Welsh.)

R.c.sh, “Cattle, Riches,” (Hebrew.) Reikis, “Riches,” (Gothic.) Riches (English.)

A.l.ph, singular. A.l.ph-eem, plural, “Cattle,” (Heb.) Alav, singular. Alav-oedd, plural, “Cattle, Wealth,” (Welsh.)

“Sheep” (English.) Schaaf (German.) C.sh.b, C.b.sh (Heb.) Sh.e, “A Lamb,” (Heb.)

“Sheep,” Kaora, (Irish.) Cor-lan, “A Sheep-fold,” (Welsh.) C.r, “A Lamb, also a pasture or circuit for cattle,” (Heb.)

“A Horse,” Ashwah Eshuus (Sanscrit.) S.w.s, or [pg 122] S.ou.s,101 (Heb.)—Pferd (German,) Peerdt (Belgian,) in the Hebrew, Ph.r.sh-eem, “Horsemen.”

“Cow” (English.) Go (Sanscrit.) G.o.e, “To low like an ox,” (Hebrew.)

“A Cat,” C'h.th.ou.l, (Hebrew.) Cath (Welsh.) Cat (English.)

“A Monkey,” Kăpi, (Sanscrit.) Kouph (Heb.)

“Goat,” Aix Aig-os, (Greek.) Aja (Sans.) A.k.ou (Heb.) “A name given to the wild goat from its cry.”

“Hog, Swine,” &c., Sukarah (Sans.) Khūk (Persian.) Hog (Eng.) Houch (Welsh.) Hus (Greek.) C'H.z.ee.r (Hebrew.)

“Serpent” (English.) Serpens (Latin.) Sarf (Welsh.) Sh.r.ph (Hebrew.) Serpo, “To Creep,” (Latin.)

“Reptile, Serpent,” &c., Neid-yr, “A Serpent,” (Welsh.) Newt, “A small Lizard,” (English.) N.d.l, “A Reptile,” (Chaldæ.)

“Turtle Dove” (English.) Turtur (Latin.) T.r, T.ou.r (Hebrew.)

The connexion between the Hebrew and the English is remarkably complete, the same words occurring in both languages unchanged in sound and sense! A few examples are subjoined, consisting in many cases of words of pure Anglo-Saxon origin, rarely or never used by the refined classes of society.

N.k.m, To avenge, (Hebrew,) To nick (English.)—N.g.o, To touch, To draw nigh, (Hebrew,) Nudge, Nigh (English.)—B.r, A Son, (Hebrew,) Bairn (L. Scotch,) Brat (English.)—Sh.c.l, To be wise, Wisdom, Cunning, (Hebrew,) Skill (English.)—B.k.sh, To seek, To petition, [pg 123] (Hebrew,) Bhikshati, Beggeth, (Sans.) Beg (English.)—Sh.l.t, A Shield, (Hebrew,) Shield (English,) Shalita, Covered, (Sanscrit,) Shalitra, “Shelter,” (Sanscrit,) Shelter (English,) Shieling (L. Scotch.)—L.b, The Heart, Feeling, Will, (Hebrew,) Liebe, Love, (German,) Lief, Dear, Willingly, (English.)

Colonel Vans Kennedy, to whom we are indebted for a very able work conclusively showing the original identity of the Sanscrit and English and other languages termed Indo-European, is one of the most strenuous opponents of the supposition that a connexion may be shown to exist between these languages and the Hebrew, an idea which he treats as in the highest degree visionary and delusive! In the following, as in some of the previous examples, the instances of resemblance between the Sanscrit and the English which this writer has himself selected are compared with Hebrew words, identical with these terms in sound and sense! In many cases it will be seen that the Hebrew terms are even nearer to the English than the Sanscrit terms are!

Măhătwah (Sans.) Might (Eng.) M.a.d, “Might,” (Heb.)—Rosha, Rāga (Sans.) Rage (Eng.) R.g.z (Heb.)—Kupam, A Receptacle, (Sans.) Coop (Eng.) K.ph.ts, To shut, close up, contract, (Heb.)—Duhitr (Sans.) Daughter (Eng.) Dochter (Scotch.) D.g, To multiply, (Heb.) Tek-os, Progeny; Tek-on, Bringing forth, (Greek.)—Shringa (Sans.) Horn (Eng.) Cornu (Lat.) K.r.n (Heb.)—Āpăt, A Calamity, (Sans.) Ab.ad.n, Destruction, (Heb.)—Bălăwān, Powerful, (Sans.) B.o.l, A Master, to have power, (Heb.) “Baal,” i.e. The Ruler, name of an idol.—Shira, The Head, (Sans.) Sh.r, A Prince, A Ruler, (Heb.)—Ghăshăti (Sans.) Gusheth (Eng.) G.sh.m, To rain, A violent Shower, (Heb.) “Geesers,” Fountains of Hot Water in Iceland.—Grŭshta (Sans.) Grist (Eng.) G.r.s, To break, crush to pieces, Wheat beaten out, (Heb.)—Torati (Sans.) Teareth, Tore, [pg 124] (Eng.) T.r.ph, To tear off, To tear to pieces, (Heb.) Tori (Welsh.)—Diyati (Sans.) Dieth (Eng.) Dee.e, Blackness of colour,102 (Heb.) Dee.ou.a, The Devil, (Syriac.) Dee.ou.v, Ink, (Heb.) Dee, Black, (Welsh.)—Pesati (Sans.) Paceth (Eng.) Psh.o, To pass, a pace, (Heb.)—Rănăti (Sans.) Runneth (Eng.) R.n (Heb.)—Shara (Sans.) Gar. Arrow (Ang.-Sax.) Sh.r.ee.e, A Dart, (Heb.)—Shatati (Sans.) Shutteth; Sheath, (Eng.) S.th.m, To stop up, hide, conceal, S.th.ce.m.e, A Secret, (Heb.) Stum, Dumb, (Ger.)

It must be quite evident that in these examples the affinity in words between the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages is as close as that which exists among those languages themselves. The difference of grammatical forms has been much insisted upon. This ground, where it occurs, has already been proved to afford no evidence of a remote difference of race. (See p. 89.) But in treating of the North American Indian dialects, I shall show that no such grammatical difference does exist in this instance, the Hebrew pronouns, which are the basis of its grammar, being identical with those of the Welsh,103 now considered to be a member of the Indo-European group of tongues.

Chapter V. Identity Of The Egyptians With The Indians, Jews, And Other Branches Of The Human Race.

Section I.

We are indebted to Dr. Prichard104 for a comprehensive and satisfactory demonstration of the resemblance in manners, mythology, and in social and political institutions of the ancient Egyptians and Indians. These Nations agreed in religious and philosophical dogmas, in a superstitious veneration of animals and of the most conspicuous objects of nature, in [pg 126] the system of Castes, and in other features. Dr. Prichard's German translator, the celebrated A. W. Schlegel, has attempted to account for these points of coincidence by the ordinary tendencies of human nature under similar circumstances, a theory which, though maintained with distinguished ability, must be felt to be essentially paradoxical. As Dr. Prichard observes: “No person who fully considers the intimate relation and almost exact parallelism that has been traced between the Egyptians and the Hindoos, will be perfectly satisfied with such a solution in that particular example.”105

Dr. Prichard concludes that these features of resemblance must be ascribed to a common origin. But in the adoption of this conclusion he encounters a formidable difficulty, arising from the consideration that the Egyptian Tongue cannot, according to his views, be identified with the other languages of mankind.

This difficulty, like many others of the same nature, will be found to receive a satisfactory solution from the comparison contained in Appendix A, in which are embodied a greater number of words from the Egyptian than from any other language of the African continent. It will thence be evident that the failure which has attended the attempts of the writers noticed by Dr. Prichard to identify the Egyptian with the Asiatic languages, has arisen from the predominant error of Philological writers,—viz. the expectation of finding in every respect a close and peculiar affinity between the languages of nations, who, though contiguous, must in all probability have been separated in the earliest ages of the world. Hence the unsuccessful issue of those researches of which the object has been to show that the Egyptian is a dialect of the Hebrew. But, notwithstanding the unfavorable [pg 127] result which has necessarily attended investigations conducted on a false basis, it will be seen, nevertheless, that the adoption of a wider range of comparison, agreeably to the principles explained at p. 16 and p. 87, and carried out in Appendix A, serves to render unequivocally manifest the original unity of the Egyptians not only with the Jews and other nations of Asia, but also with those of all the four continents. In this place I shall introduce, in illustration of this proposition, some additional examples, which possess an independent interest in connexion with Dr. Prichard's inquiry into the mythology of the Egyptians, and with the analogous inquiries pursued in the last Chapter of this work.

The Names of most, if not all, of the Egyptian Gods are susceptible of a perfectly unequivocal explanation by means of the Hebrew and the Indo-European languages.106 This will be evident from the following analysis, in which I have availed myself of the account of their names and attributes given by a high authority—Mr. Wilkinson.107

“Neph, Phtah, and Khem,” the first three of the Egyptian Gods noticed below, represent attributes of the Deity.

Kneph, or, more properly, Neph or Nef, “The Spirit of God which moved on the face of the Waters.”108 Nouf, “Spirit.” Nife, “To breathe, to blow.” Nifi, “Inspiration,” (Egypt.) This word, Neph, has been shown to exist in the same and in analogous senses in the Hebrew and Indo-European tongues. It has also been pointed out as occurring in a remarkable instance as a word for a “Spirit,” and also as [pg 128] a name of the “Supreme Being,” among the North American Indians. (See p. 24.109)

Pthah, “The Creative Power that made the World,” styled “The Father of the Gods.”110

Pita, Pitre (Sanscrit,) “A Father.” Phu-o, “Gĭgnō, Produco.” Phu teuō, “Machinor Semĭno.” Pat-er, “A Father,” (Greek.)

Khem, “The Sun.” (See p. 21.)

Rah, “Sun,” “The Material and Visible Orb.” (See App. pp. 2 and 3.)

Ph-Rah, “Ph,” “The,” and Rah, “Sun.” Hence the name “Pharaoh,” applied to the Kings of Egypt.

Amun-Ra, “The splendour and beneficent property of the Sun,” “Jupiter-Ammon” of the classical nations.

The word A.m.n, in Hebrew, implies “nurturing or fostering care, to support, to sustain,” In Egypt there is a verb Amoni “To hold,” and Āmoni “To feed.” Amoun in Hebrew, and Mone in Egypt, mean “A Nurse,” and in Egypt “A Shepherd.”

Amoni, “Patience,” (Egypt.) Amyn-edd “Patience,” Amoun “To defend,” M-ou yn, “Kind,” (Welsh.)

Neith or Maut, “Minerva, called the Mother of the Gods.” Mata (Sanscrit.) Mat-er (Latin.) Maau (Egypt.) A.m.a (Heb.) “A Mother.”

The names of Osiris and Serapis have been explained at p. 20; that of Hor (“Horus,”) in Appendix A, p. 2; that of Io, “The Visible Body of the Moon,”111 in Appendix A, pp. 24-25.

It will be observed that the Egyptian mythology, like that of the Indo-European nations, as noticed in the last section, distinctly combines with Personifications of the powers of nature, views of the attributes and agencies of the Supreme Being which occur in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in the instance of “Neph.” It is remarkable that the same allusion as this name presents, occurs in the Hindoo mythology in Náráyana, one of the names given to Vishnu, the Deity viewed as a preserver or Saviour. Sir William Jones thus explains this term in a quotation from a passage in which Menu, the son of Brahma, begins his address to the Sages who consulted him on the formation of the Universe. “The waters are called nárà, since they are the offspring of Nera, (or I'swara;) and thence was Náráyana named, because his first ayana or moving, was on them!”112

N-Eerooue means “Waters” in Egyptian, from Eiero, “Water,” the plural being formed by N prefix.

Thus it is evident that a comparison of languages in those very instances which are connected with the subject, so far from impugning the conclusion that the mythology of the Hindoos and Egyptians had a common origin, affords irresistible corroborative proofs of the correctness of that opinion. Further, it is apparent in the instance of the Egyptian as of the Indo-European race, that their religious system embodied, in combination with an idolatrous superstructure, the same views of the Supreme Being as are developed in the Pentateuch.

In some of the foregoing instances, the words of which the names of the Egyptian gods are composed have been preserved in the Egyptian itself conjointly with the Hebrew and other languages. But there are also several instances in which these terms have been lost in the Egyptian, though preserved in [pg 130] other tongues. This is a distinct proof that the origin of the Egyptian language is mainly ascribable to the same cause, which has been previously pointed out as the principal source of the gradual divergence of the different dialects of the Celtic and Scandinavian, &c. The Egyptian cannot be said to differ from the Hebrew or the Sanscrit more widely than the Celtic and Gothic differ, though the common origin of the two last may be shown indisputably. At what precise periods the different changes in the Egyptian language took place, we have not as yet the means of fully deciding. But we are not altogether without historical evidence that this language has undergone mutations, analogous to those which have occurred in other tongues. Champollion, to whose genius we are principally indebted for a solution of the Egyptian system of hieroglyphics, was of opinion that the Coptic or modern Egyptian is perfectly identical with the language of the most ancient monuments. But this opinion has been combated with ability and success by Dr. Lepsius, to whom we owe much information with regard to the ancient Egyptian remains, especially the brilliant discovery that the alphabet of Egyptian hieroglyphics, supposed by Champollion to consist of 300, is reducible to thirty letters.113 Dr. Lepsius points out many striking instances of deviation. Thus he notices that Plutarch, in explaining the name of Osiris, whose symbol was The Eye, informs us that the Egyptians called the Eye “Iri,” a word not found in the Coptic, in which “Bal” is the only term used for that organ.

Dr. Lepsius has also produced in illustration of his views several examples, in which he infers from the mode of spelling, that the same terms must have been pronounced in the age of hieroglyphics in a different manner from what they were in the Coptic. The following are instances:

It has been previously shown by a comparison of tongues of which the history can be traced, that language in its infancy appears to have abounded in full and harsh tones and in rough aspirates, which were gradually exchanged for softer and more abbreviated forms during more advanced stages of society. The conformity of these examples to this principle will be obvious, especially when they are compared with the instances of similar changes in the Manx and Irish, &c. noticed at page 108, a comparison which must tend very strongly to confirm the soundness of Dr. Lepsius's conclusions. Since the recent origin of the Hebrew and Sanscrit languages and of the Hebrew and Indian nations have been shown on the one hand, while on the other the identity of the Egyptian with those tongues has also been established, it follows that the origin of the Egyptian nation cannot be referred to a period anterior to that which our received systems of chronology would lead us to adopt as the era of the separation of nations. The harsh and full pronunciation which seems to have characterized the most ancient specimens of the Egyptian language tends strongly to support the same conclusion.

In the previous pages a peculiarly primitive character has been attributed to two ancient languages just adverted to, viz. the Hebrew and the Sanscrit. Both these tongues, it has been observed, display in a higher degree than any other the characteristic features of language near its source. As regards the [pg 132] former of these tongues, the Hebrew, there is an obvious reason for the primitive forms of language it involves in the high antiquity of a portion of its remains, viz. the first Books of Scripture, which are more ancient by many centuries than the poems of Homer, the most venerable literary remains of Europe. It is a remarkable fact that there is every reason to believe that the same explanation will be found to apply in an equal degree to the Sanscrit. According to the opinions of many of the most distinguished Orientalists, it would appear that the earliest Vedas, the oldest mythological books of the Indians, are not less ancient than the Pentateuch. Sir William Jones, whose candour and love of truth were not inferior to his accomplishments, concluded the Vedas to have been written about 1500 years b.c. The soundness of this opinion was at one time much questioned; but it has been confirmed by the sanction of some of the ablest of those who,—with the advantage of more recently accumulated information, have in our time pursued the same path of inquiry—in a manner that serves to place in a striking point of view the vast knowledge and the bold and sagacious judgment of its great author. Ritter, a distinguished German Orientalist, concludes the Vedas to have been collected during the period from 1400 to 1600, b.c.; and Mr. Colebrooke, whose researches are of the highest value, appears to have shown finally that the earliest Vedas were probably written about 1400 years b.c.114 It is highly deserving of notice that these various dates all fall about the time of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, 1490 b.c.

The account given in the Vedas of the early history of the world coincides in its most important features with the Scriptural relation in a manner not to be mistaken. Sir William [pg 133] Jones, struck with these features of resemblance, has intimated an opinion that the Indian account of the Creation, of the Deluge,115 and other events may have been borrowed from the Jewish nation.116 It is remarkable that this opinion will be found to involve a singular anachronism, if we adopt Sir William Jones's own views with respect to the date of the Vedas, viz. that they were written 1500 years b.c. This date is ten years prior to the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, an event from which their national existence and the composition of their earliest scriptures may be said to have commenced.

It is highly improbable in every point of view that the Indians could have borrowed from the Jews some of the most important doctrines of their religious belief. But the coincidences noticed by Sir William Jones and other writers, and the peculiarly vivid and distinct nature of the accounts contained in the Vedas, admit of a more simple and consistent explanation. If, agreeably to the opinions of Mr. Colebrooke, we assume these books to have been compiled about 1400 years b.c., it would follow that they embody a narrative much nearer in point of date to the events they record than any other, with the exception of the Pentateuch.

From the Deluge to 1400 b.c. there was a lapse of 948 years only. Now we have satisfactory evidence that traditions far less calculated to leave a lasting impression have been preserved in many instances among separate tribes with considerable uniformity for a much longer period. Thus we know that the Fairy Tales of the English and Germans, and of the Welsh and Armoricans, agree in their main features, though in both instances there has been a separation for an interval of much greater duration.

Traditions similar to those embodied in the Vedas occur in the classical fable of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in the remains of the Chaldeans, and of other primitive nations. It is only in the Scriptural narrative that we meet with a relation of the first incidents in the history of man unmingled with fables derogatory to the attributes of his Creator. But though clouded with mythological fictions, the remains of many ancient nations impressively display a fresh and vivid reminiscence of the sublime events they record.

Section II.

The Egyptian annals of Manetho seem to convey the inference that there must have been in Egypt a series of thirty dynasties, whose reigns occupied a period of time reaching far beyond the commencement of our received chronology. It appears, however, that in the present age the most eminent writers on the antiquities of Egypt are agreed in rejecting this conclusion. The long dynasties of these chronicles are referred by some writers to repetition, by others to the coexistence of distinct dynasties in different parts of Egypt.

But the same eminent writers who have agreed in repudiating the conclusion that seems to be conveyed by Manetho may be said to be equally unanimous in referring the origin of the Egyptians to a date which, tried by the standard of received chronology, will be found to coincide with the very first age in the history of nations.

“By a comparison of Manetho's work with the Theban table of Eratosthenes,” observes Dr. Prichard,117 “we find satisfactory data for fixing the origin of the Egyptian monarchy as deduced from these documents in the 24th century before our era.”

Other eminent writers on this subject do not perfectly coincide with Dr. Prichard in adopting this precise date. But [pg 136] they all fix on pretty nearly the same time, which, it will be observed, is about the era of the Flood of Scripture, which immediately preceded the diffusion of the human race. In the annexed Table I have introduced a compendious statement of the views of these writers, more especially of the author of a work entitled “A Monumental History of Egypt,” in a form that will exhibit concurrently the principal Chronological facts and the progress of Writing in Egypt. I may observe that Dr. Lepsius is of opinion that Hieroglyphics, which is a mode of conveying ideas by representations of objects without reference to their names, was the source,—(by means of a gradual transition,)—of phonetic characters, which represented their names or words.

According to the author of the Monumental History, previously to the year 1740 b.c., the commencement of the reign of Osirtasen, who is believed to have been the contemporary and patron of Joseph, “we have little to guide us on the Monuments of ancient Egypt.” According to the same writer, he was the first who united Egypt into one kingdom, that country, he maintains, having previously been divided into little unimportant kingdoms.

The arguments of this able writer, however, do not impugn the conclusion, that though the precise date may be uncertain, the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to the first ages of the human race. The condition of the Egyptians in 1740 b.c. implies a prior existence for many ages, of which we have a distinct proof in the visit of (the Patriarch) Abraham two centuries previously.

The marvellous discoveries made in our day by Champollion, Belzoni, and others, may be said to have thrown a new light on the early history not only of Egypt but of the world! Proofs the most startling have been brought to light of the vast political power and high civilization of the Egyptian nation, combined with a knowledge of science in many branches scarcely surpassed in the present and not equalled in the last generation of European nations! In the Egyptian paintings we have the most distinct portraits, representing not only Negroes, Jews, and other neighbouring races, but also of nations whose light complexions, peculiar physiognomy, and equipments, combined as they sometimes are with delineations of the costumes or natural productions of the countries of which they were natives, betoken the inhabitants of more northern latitudes, confirming the account of Tacitus, who states “The Egyptians overran all Libya and Ethiopia, and subdued the Medes and Persians, the Bactrians and Scythians, with the extensive regions inhabited by the [pg 138] Syrians, the Armenians, and the Cappadocians; and by this conquest a tract of country extending from Bithynia on the Pontic Sea to the coast of Syria on the Mediterranean was reduced to subjection.”

The evidence seems to be clear that some of the nations with whom the Egyptian armies fought, may be identified with the principal Asiatic nations still inhabiting the borders of the Caspian.

“On six of the Phonetic Ovals (published by Champollion) are the names of the heads of the various countries conquered by Sesostris. On one appears the generic name of the Scheti (spelt Sh.e.d.te); on the second, the generic name of the sons of Mosech or the Muscovites, spelt precisely as in the Hebrew (M.s.ek); thirdly, the people of Arakan, spelt very nearly as that name is sounded (as, for example, Ar-rk-k-a-n); fourthly, the people of Casan (spelt C-a-s-n); the fifth is probably Susa, but the middle vowel is omitted, and it stands S-se.”119

Casan is a Tartar province, conquered by Russia in the 16th century.

The Scheti, according to Champollion's opinion, were the Scythians of the classical nations, the modern Tartars.120

A conflict between the Egyptians and the Scheti or Scheta forms the subject of one of the most interesting Egyptian battle-pieces, which displays in a striking point of view the high military discipline of the Egyptians. Mr. Wilkinson describes the Scheti “as a nation who had made considerable progress in military tactics, both with respect to manœuvres in the field and the art of fortifying towns, some of which [pg 139] they surrounded with a double fosse. It is worthy of remark, that in these cases the approach to the place led over a bridge; and the sculptures acquainting us with the fact are highly interesting, as they offer us the earliest indication of its use, having been executed in the reign of the great Ramesis, about 1350 years before our era.”

“Their arms were the bow, sword, and spear, and a wicker shield.”

“They had some cavalry, but large masses of infantry with a formidable body of chariots, constituted the principal force of their numerous and well-appointed army; and if from the manner in which they posted their corps-de-reserve we may infer them to have been a people skilled in war, some idea may also be formed of the strength of their army from the numbers composing that division, which amounted to 24,000 men, drawn up in three close phalanxes, consisting each of 8,000.”

Mr. Wilkinson notices three other nations among those who were connected with the Egyptians either as enemies or allies, viz. “The Rebo,” “The Shairetana,” and “The Tok-kari.”

The Rebo were among the most formidable enemies of the Egyptians. They were distinguished by a light complexion, blue eyes, an aquiline nose, and a costume very like that of Persia or Parthia, indicating a northern as well as an Asiatic country; they wore earrings, and their chiefs sometimes tattoed their arms and legs; they appear as the type of Asia in some of the Egyptian drawings. Their chief weapons were a long straight sword, with a sharp point, and a bow. Champollion concluded the Rebo to have been the Parthians.

Mr. Wilkinson expresses himself unable to trace the Shairetana and the Tok-kari; I conceive, however, that their names and other circumstances serve to identify them with the Sogdians or Bucharians and the Turks, whose territories are intermingled. The name of the Tok-kari obviously resembles that of the Turks, and, according to Adelung, the Bucharians, from their dwelling in Towns, &c., are called Sarti, a name resembling that of the Shairetana. The Shairetana and Tok-kari revolted together against the Egyptians, and were again subdued. The Tok-kari used waggons with two solid wheels, and drawn by two oxen, which appear to have been placed in the rear as in the Scythian or Tartar armies. Their women are seen carrying off their children by drawing them into these waggons at the moment of defeat. These are traits characteristic of the Tartar race, of which the Turks are a branch. These nations were occasionally allied with the Egyptians both against the Scheti and the Rebo, which implies that their country was intermediate between that of the Parthians and the Tartars.

The Egyptian illustrations of Scriptural incidents and localities are of the highest interest:

Champollion found a portrait of a Hebrew, with all the features of the race, in a group consisting of the chiefs of thirty conquered nations, whom an Egyptian King is depicted dragging to the feet of the Theban Trinity. The name of the Egyptian King was phonetically written “Shishak,” the name of the Jewish captive was written “Joudaha Melek,” King of Judea or the Jews. (See I. Kings, 14 chap. 25 and 26 v.) This picture, as Mr. Tattam121 observes, may be considered as a commentary on this chapter!

Portraits of Jews are frequent amongst the Egyptian remains. [pg 141] “The costume of these Jews is always the same. They wear their black bushy hair occasionally bound by a red fillet; but sometimes they wear hats not unlike the hats dramatically assigned to the Jews of the dark ages. They wear sandals, the military petticoat or philibeg, a baldric crossing one shoulder, a girdle, to which is attached a short sword or dagger, and when engaged in warlike operations, having the upper part of the body covered with a defensive coat, either of leather or armour, and wearing above the whole a tippet like the cape of a great coat. Independent of Phonetic language a mere glance at their lineaments shows that they are Jews!”122

The early development of the vast political power and high civilization of this extraordinary people corroborates the conclusion, that the origin of the Egyptian nation must be referred to a period sufficiently remote to render it extremely improbable that a close specific resemblance should have continued to exist between their language and those of the countries from which the first population of Egypt may have emigrated. This inference does not militate against the supposition that Egypt may have been first colonized from the contiguous Semetic or Syro-Phœnician regions of Judæa and Arabia.123

The literature of ancient Egypt forms a treasure as yet but imperfectly explored. “We possess,” says Dr. Lepsius, Hieratic MSS. as far back as the flourishing epoch of the eighteenth dynasty, (which began to reign B.C. 1575, i.e. eighty years before the departure of the Israelites,) and it is probable that this style was in use even earlier. We [pg 142] have MSS. on History, Astrology, Magic, “Registres de Comptabilities,” and especially a great quantity of MSS. on Funeral matters.

These remains are probably pregnant with information of the profoundest interest with regard to the early history of mankind! Further inquiries similar to those conducted by Dr. Lepsius with respect to the phases through which the Egyptian Tongue has passed, will probably bring to light numerous proofs of an increasing approximation in its most ancient specimens to the languages of Asia and also to those of the other regions of the continent of Africa. Even in the present state of our knowledge, I may point out that indications are not altogether wanting that the Hebrew and other Semetic Tongues in some respects appear to form a connecting link between the Egyptian and other African languages, on the one hand, and the Sanscrit and other languages, termed Indo-European, on the other. These indications occur not in the words but in the structure of the Semetic Tongues.

In explaining the origin of language, I have noticed that the basis or Root of the Noun and Verb is the same, while the requisite distinction between the different parts of speech is made by appropriate additions, as in the instance of the syllable Er, in Build-er.

It may be inferred that all additions now employed grammatically as prefixes or suffixes were in the first instance used indifferently either before or after the Root. But we find, in this respect, a marked difference between the Indo-European and the Egyptian Tongues. In the former, these grammatical agents are almost invariably placed after, while in the Egyptian they in some instances follow, and in others precede the Root. It will be evident, however, that these grammatical forms themselves are, in numerous important [pg 143] instances, the same in these two Classes of Tongues, and that it is only the order in which they are placed that is different. Thus, in forming the feminine from the masculine, the Egyptians used a prefix, Th, which forms a suffix in the Welsh, as in Son,124 “A Brother,” Th-son, “A Sister,” (Egypt.) Gen-eth, “A Girl,” (Welsh.) Again, the Egyptian plural is formed by prefixing N, as in Phe, Heaven, singular; N Pheou, Heavens, plural, (Egypt.,) while in many of the Indo-European tongues plurals are often formed by subjoining N, as in Ox, Ox-en (Eng.), Ych, Ych-en (Welsh.), &c.

Now in the Hebrew, Chaldee, &c., though suffixes are employed in numerous instances, formative prefixes are also used, though not so generally as in the Egyptian, between which language and the Indo-European tongues the Semetic languages therefore occupy, in this respect, an intermediate place.

There is, I conceive, pretty distinct evidence that these characteristic peculiarities of the three classes of Tongues just adverted to are results of comparatively recent conventional changes. For a proof that the above noticed formative of the plural was at one time prefixed, as well as affixed, in the Indo-European Tongues,—see, as regards the Sanscrit, the word Nara, corresponding with the Egyptian, p. 129;—as regards the Welsh, see Appendix A, p. 38. On the other hand, Dr. Lepsius's researches have furnished me with a decisive example of an approximation in the ancient Egyptian to the Indo-European method. “In the age of Hieroglyphics,” he observes, “the feminine termination Th,” above noticed, “always follows, while in Coptic it always precedes the Noun.”

Changes of this nature may be considered trifling in themselves; [pg 144] but they will be found to afford an explanation, at once simple and comprehensive, of the most striking of those features which separate, by differences supposed to be fundamental, the languages of the Egyptian and Syro-Phœnician races from those of the other families of mankind. In grammatical arrangement the African languages are supposed for the most part to agree with the Egyptian.125

In physiological characteristics it has been very distinctly established, by the interesting researches of Dr. Prichard, that the Egyptian or Coptic race forms a connecting link between the contiguous Asiatic nations and the Negroes of the interior of Africa. It is worthy of remark, that Vater126 notices the projection of the nether jaw, “Unterkiefer,” as a characteristic trait of the Jewish nation! It is observable that this is a point of approximation to the African nations!

“If we may form an idea,” says Dr. Prichard, “of the complexion of the Egyptians from the numerous paintings found in their temples, and in splendidly decorated tombs, in some of which the colours are known to be preserved in a very fresh state, we must conclude that this people were of a red-copper, or light chocolate colour, and that they resembled the reddest of the Fúlah and Kafir tribes now existing in Africa. This colour may be seen in the numerous plates in the ‘Description de l'Egypte,’ and in the coloured figures given by Belzoni. A similar complexion is represented on the heads of the cases made of the sycamore-wood, which answer the purpose of sarcophagi, and in almost all Egyptian figures. This red colour is evidently intended to represent the complexion of the people, and is not put on in the want of a lighter paint, or flesh-colour, for when the limbs or bodies are represented [pg 145] as seen through a thin veil, the tint used resembles the complexion of Europeans. The same shade might have been generally adopted if a darker one had not been preferred, as more truly representing the national complexion of the Egyptian race.127 Female figures are sometimes distinguished by a yellow or tawny colour.”

“Speaking of the Copts, Volney says that they have a yellowish, dusky complexion, neither resembling the Grecian nor Arabian. He adds, that they have a puffed visage, swoln eyes, flat nose, and thick lips, and bear much resemblance to Mulattoes.” I have already cited Baron Larrey's description of the Copts, the principal traits of which are, “a full countenance, a long aperture of the eyelids—‘coupés en amand,’—projecting cheek-bones, dilated nostrils, thick lips, and hair and beard black and crisp. M. Pugnet, an intelligent physician and an ingenious and discriminating writer, has made an attempt to distinguish the Copts, or Qoubtes, as he terms them, into two divisions, those whose ancestry has been intermixed, and partly of Greek and Latin descent, and a class of purely Egyptian origin. He says that nothing is more striking than the contrast between the small and meagre Arabs and the large and fine stature of the Qoubtes. ‘A l'extérieur chêtif et misérable des premières, ceux-ci opposent un air de majesté et de puissance; à la rudesse de leurs traits, une affabilité soutenue; à leur abord inquiet et soucieux, une figure très épanouie.’ ”128

A few further examples of the connexion of the Egyptian with other languages are subjoined. O n h, “A Dwelling,” (Egypt.,) Wohn-ung, Wohn-en (German), Onh, “To live,” (Eg.,) Ōn (Greek.)—Shage, “A Word, a Discourse,” (Eg.,) [pg 146] Sage, Sag-en (German), Say (English). The “Sagas” of the Gothic nations are venerable Oral traditions!—Hinim, “Sleep,” (Eg.,) Heen (Welsh.)—Eshau, “A Sow, or Swine,” (Eg.,) Hus (Greek), Sow (Eng.)—Iri, “To do,” (Eg.,) a formative expressive of Action; Aud-ire, “To hear,” Ire, “To go,” (Lat.)—Ra.ma, “Lofty,” (Eg.,) R.ou.m (Hebrew.)—Phath, “Foot,” (Eg.,) Pes, Ped-is (Lat.), Path (Eng.)—E h e, “An Ox,” Ehēou, “Oxen,” (Eg.,) Ych, Ych-en (Welsh.)—Ma, “A Place,” (Eg.,) Ma (Welsh.)

Chapter VI. On The Chinese Language.

Adelung, like Sir William Jones before him, quite discredits the supposed antiquity of the Chinese Empire and the claims set up by the Chinese to a high and ancient civilization. The Great Wall, said by their historians to have been built 240 years b.c., is not mentioned by early writers, especially Marco Polo, who visited China from the West in 1270. He regards the scientific knowledge of the Chinese as inferior to that of several adjoining nations, and Confucius's morality as nothing better than a medley of sound opinions, such as any man of strong sense might have compiled! The materials of their paper are so frail that it is impossible any of their MSS. can be very ancient, and in the fidelity or [pg 148] knowledge of their Transcribers he places no confidence! Finally, he views the infantine character of their language, a feature in which the Chinese are inferior to the wildest American tribes, as forming in itself a proof of the absence of a high culture, to which, he maintains, it constitutes an almost insuperable obstacle.

On the other hand, unfavorable as its characteristics are to the supposed antiquity and extent of their civilization, he nevertheless considers these very peculiarities of their language in the light of decisive proofs of the high antiquity of the Chinese nation, viewed simply as a distinct branch of the human race.

In the last chapter were discussed the peculiarities of structure which distinguish the Egyptian and Semetic tongues from those of the Indo-European class; peculiarities which were shown to consist, not in a fundamental difference of elements, but simply in various conventional arrangements of the same elements. This explanation will now be proved to apply also to the characteristics which distinguish the Chinese from the principal Asiatic and European languages, with this qualification however, that these characteristics, as contrasted with those of other classes of tongues, imply a separation from a parent stock at a much earlier era in the history of the human species than those which have been noticed in the last chapter, as distinguishing the Indo-European, Semetic, and Egyptian languages respectively.

According to Adelung's lucid analysis, the following are the principal steps by which language is formed. 1. The first words are vowels, or sounds produced simply by the opening of the mouth and the emission of the breath. 2. Next in order are monosyllables, consisting of a vowel and a consonant preceding, as in P-a. 3. Arise monosyllables, formed of a vowel between two or more consonants, [pg 149] as in P-a-p. 4. Lastly are constructed polysyllabic words, formed by a combination into one word of two or more of the monosyllabic terms.

The African, American,129 European, and all the Asiatic languages, with the exception of those spoken in China and the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia, display a consummation of all these four stages. The Chinese exhibits results of the first and second steps of the series only. In other words, the Chinese may be described not simply as a language purely monosyllabic, but as one in which the monosyllables are of the most elementary and infantine character, viz., those which consist of one consonant and a vowel (as in Pa). They have no words which have a second consonant, as in P-a-p.

Having no polysyllables, the Chinese supply their place by a minute variety in their vowel sounds. They have no grammar:130 the same word is at once an adjective, a substantive, and a verb! Affixes and suffixes, such as occur in give, giv-er, gif-t, are unknown. The modifications of meaning these forms convey are expressed either by altering the position of the words or by additional terms. The plural is the same as the singular; though, to avoid obscurity, in extreme cases the clumsy expedient of repetition is resorted to, as in Tschin-tschin, “Man-man” (i.e. Men); or distinct words indicative of number are prefixed, such as Muen, “Many,” Tschung, “All!”

It was the opinion of Adelung that the Chinese language differed not merely in its structure, but in its elements, from the other languages of the human race. He supposed this nation to have sprung from the same stock as those of western [pg 150] Asia. But their speech he conceives to have been constructed after the separation.

The peculiar monosyllabic structure of the Chinese seems to justify the conclusion, that the nations of Europe and western Asia are more nearly allied in descent to the Negro tribes of the interior of Africa and to the Indian tribes of America than they are to the Chinese and the nations of the contiguous countries of the south-west of Asia. But that Adelung's conclusion, that the Chinese is a radically distinct tongue is an erroneous one will now be shown by examples, to which the peculiar structure of that language will only serve to give additional131 force; for while in most of the following examples the words compared are essentially the same, the Chinese monosyllables being identical with Hebrew or European monosyllables, or with terms which partake of that character, in other instances it will be found that the differences which occur have been caused solely by the addition of the characteristic suffixes and affixes of the polysyllabic languages, which are not used in the Chinese! Thus we have Mu, “A Mouse,” (Chin.,) Mū-s, Mu-os, Mu (Greek), the root in the latter being the same as in the former; Fo and Foo Tsin, “A Fa-ther,” (Chin.,) Moo and Moo Tsin, “A Mo-ther,” (Chin.)

I shall commence these examples with the Chinese pronouns, most of which are absolutely identical with those of the polysyllabic languages. This branch of the comparison will serve to place in a striking point of view the erroneous nature of the opinion generally received among philologists, that nations which agree are necessarily more nearly allied than those which differ132 in their grammatical forms, the Chinese being found in this respect to agree in an unequivocal manner [pg 151] with the kindred English and German, in some of those very points in which they mutually differ widely!

Pronouns of the First Person, “I” and “We.”—Ngan, Ngoo Ngo, “I” and “We,” (Chinese.) Iōnga, Egōn, “I,” (Greek.)

Pronouns of the Second Person, “Thou” and “Ye.”—Irr, “Thou” and “Ye,” (Chinese.) Ihr, “Ye,” (German.) Yú, Yŏh, “Thou” and “Ye,” (Chinese.) You, “Ye,” (English.) Yō (Provincial English). Eoh (Anglo-Saxon), “Ye.” Nee, Nai, Nyú, “Thou” and “Ye,” (Chinese.) Ne, “You,” (Mandans, a North American Tribe.)

In these instances the English “You” and the German “Ihr” differ totally. Moreover, in each language separately considered the plural differs altogether from the singular, which in German is expressed by “Du,” and in the English by “Thou.” The Chinese, which uses these terms, “Ihr” and “You,” conjointly and in both numbers, furnishes a satisfactory clue to these anomalies!

Pronouns of the Third Person.—E.e, “He,” “She,” “It,” (Chinese.) E.ee.a, E.v.e, (Hebrew.) He, masculine, (English.) He, feminine, (Welsh.)—Peé, “He,” “She,” “It,” also “That,” (Chinese.) Phe, Ph, “This,” “That,” (Hebrew.) Pha or Pe, the article “The,” (Egypt.)

Specimens of Chinese Words, identical with equivalent Terms in the Languages of Europe and Western Asia, &c.

Keuen, “A Dog,” (Chinese), Kuōn (Greek), Coun (Plural, Welsh), Can-is (Latin).—Ma, “A Horse,” (Chinese), Morin Mantschu), Mä-hre (German), Ma-re (English), Ma-rch (Welsh.)—Mu, “A Mouse,” (Chinese), Mu-s, Mu-os Mu [pg 152] (Greek), Mu-s (Latin.)—Lung,133 “A Wolf,” (Chinese), Lukon (Greek), Lloun-og, “A Fox,” (Welsh.)—Ioanģ, Iong, Io, “A Sheep,” (Chinese), Oin (Greek), Oen, “A Lamb,” (Welsh), Oi, Ai, Yi (Irish.)

Foò “A Father,” Moo “A Mother;” also Foò Tsin “A Father,” and Moó Tsin “A Mother.” Tsin means “A Relation,” (Chinese.) The equivalent terms in the English and other Gothic dialects consist of the Chinese root, and a distinct suffix (answering the purpose of the separate Chinese word Tsin.) Fä-der (Anglo-Saxon), Fa-ther (English), Fa-ter (German), Mo-ther, (English), Mua-ter (Old high German.)134

Nan and Yin, “A Man,” (Chinese.) Ninetz, “Men,” their national name, (Samoieds.) Ninnee Inin, “A Man,” (Algonquyn Dialects of N. America.)

Nan “A Son,” (Chinese,) N.n [Parturio] (Heb.)—Neang, “A young Lady,” (Chinese,) Non (Mantschu,) Nonn-us (Lat.,) Nun, “Tender,” (Chinese.)—Nyu, “A Daughter,” (Chinese,) Nea, Feminine, “Young,” [Juvenis] (Greek,) New (Eng.)—Chan, “To produce, bear,” (Chinese,) Gen-i (Welsh,) Genn-ao (Greek.)—Chuen, “A Boat, or Ship,” (Chinese,) Kahn (Ger.,) Cymba (Latin,) Kumbī (Greek.)

Chuy, “To blow, The Breath,” (Chinese,) Chwa (Welsh.)—Fe, “Fat,” (Chinese), Fe-tt (German,) Fa-t (English.)—Ho, “Fire,” (Chinese,) Ho-t (English.) These words Ho-t and Fe-tt seem to have been regularly formed as past participles from Ho and Fe, the roots preserved in the Chinese.—Hoo, [pg 153] “To escort,” (Chinese,) Hü-ten (Ger.)—Fan, “To subvert, Contrary,” (Chinese,) Ph.n.e, [To turn, turn out] (Hebrew,) Fun, “To divide,” (Chinese,) Fun do, Fin do (Latin.)—Gan, “Favor,” (Chinese,) Gönn-en, Gun-st (German,) Gynn a (Swedish,) c'H.n (Hebrew.)—Gaou, “Proud,” (Chinese,) Ga, Ga.ou.e, Ga.ee.oun (Hebrew) Gang “Lofty,” Ge “The Forehead,” Ke “To rise,” Ka.ou “High,” (Chinese,) Ga-e, “To rise,” (Heb.)—Kang, “More,” (Chinese,) Chwaneg (Welsh.)—Hae, “A large River, The Sea,” (Chinese,) Aa (Icelandic,) Eia (Ang.-Sax.,) Wy (Welsh.)—Heuen, “To explain,” Heaou “To understand,” Heo “To learn,” (Chinese,) c'Hou.e “To show, explain, declare,” (Hebrew,) He-ar (Eng.)—Hwō, “Living,” (Chinese) c'Hee.a, E.ou.e (Hebrew.)—Kwae, “Prompt, active,” (Chinese,) Chwae (Welsh.)—Kia “A Family,” Kiwo “A Nation,” (Chinese,) Kiw (Welsh,) Gou.e (Heb.)—Keen, “To see,”135 (Chinese), Ken (English,) Kee, “And,” (Chinese,) Kai (Greek and Algonquyn Tribes of N. America,) King “To respect,” (Chinese,) Kun-ēō (Greek,) Kwăn, “Fatigued,” (Chin.,) Gwan (Welsh.)—Laou, “Labour,” (Chinese,) La.e (Hebrew), La-bor (Latin.)—Mae, “To buy,” (Chinese,) Emo (Latin.)—Lo, “Green,” (Chinese,) L.c'he, (Hebrew.)—Leo, “Small,” Lu, (Irish,) Low (English.)—Muen, “Many,” (Chinese,) Many (English.)—Yaou Yo, “To will, desire,” (Chinese,) Aeō (Greek,) Aveo (Lat.)—Meen, “To dispose,” (Chinese,) M.n.e (Hebrew.)—Mien, “The Face,” (Chinese,) Mine (French,) Mien (English.)—Pew, “Spotted Tiger,” (Chinese,) Pie [Colour] (English,) Pei, “To receive,” (Chinese,) Piai, “To possess,” (Welsh.)—Pin, “Poor,” Penuria (Latin.)—Sae, “To agitate,” (Chinese,) Sway (English.)—Saou, “A Brush,” (Chinese,) Shoue, “To rub,” (Hebrew.)—Scun, “To inspect,” (Chinese,) Sehen (German.)—Sha, “To [pg 154] kill,” (Chinese,) Sha.e (Hebrew.)—Shen, “Good, Pious,” (Chinese,) Sanctus (Latin,) Shin, “A Spirit, God,” (Chinese.)—Shing, “To ascend,” (Chinese,) Scan-deo (Latin.)—Shwa, “To sport, Play,” (Chinese,) Sho sho (Hebrew,) Soo, “To number,” (Chinese,) Shou e (Hebrew.)—Sung, “To present to,” (Chinese,) Schenk-en (German.)—Sing, “A Star,” (Chinese,) Schein-en, “To shine,” (German,) Sun (English.)—Yun, “Fog, Cloud,” Ying, “Shadow,” Wan, “Evening,” (Chinese,) On.n, “A Cloud, To cloud over,” (Hebrew.)—Wang, “To hope.” (Chinese,) Chwannawg, “Desirous,” (Welsh.)—We, “Taste,” (Chinese,) Chwae-th (Welsh.)

Chapter VII. On The Origin Of The American Tribes.

That the Tribes of the American Continent are descended from the same stock as the Asiatic and European nations is a proposition with respect to which the evidence contained in Appendix A must, I conceive, be felt to be conclusive when combined with Dr. Prichard's proofs that the Physiology of the Human race in different countries is the result of climate and other external agencies. As regards the mental and moral qualities of the native American nations, there seems to be no solid ground for the inference maintained in some [pg 156] quarters that they are a different, because in these respects an inferior, race. It is impossible to peruse Mr. Catlin's living picture of the manners and social habits of the North American Indians without being deeply impressed with the conviction that these Tribes, both intellectually and morally, are as highly gifted by nature as those nations who have inherited the blessings of a refined civilization. That the same remark applies to the more Southern American populations, such as the Mexicans and Peruvians, may be shown by an appeal to numerous considerations. In this place, however, I shall confine my observations to the Septs generally termed North American Indians, the original inhabitants of the United States and the regions in the same latitude. This race of men has been thus described in a celebrated work of fiction, which owes its chief interest to the vivid portraiture it exhibits of Indian life and manners.136

“It is generally believed that the Aborigines of the American continent have had an Asiatic origin. There are many physical as well as moral facts which corroborate this opinion, and some few that would seem to weigh against it.

“The colour of the Indian, the writer believes, is peculiar to himself, and while his cheek-bones have a very striking indication of a Tartar origin, his eyes have not. Climate may have had great influence on the former, but it is difficult to see how it can have produced the substantial difference which exists in the latter. The imagery of the Indian, both in his poetry and his oratory, is Oriental, chastened, and perhaps improved, by the limited range of his practical knowledge. He draws his metaphors from the clouds, the seasons, the birds, the beasts, and the vegetable world. In this, perhaps, he does no more than any other energetic and imaginative race would do, being compelled [pg 157] to set bounds to his fancy by experience; but the North American Indian clothes his ideas in a dress that is so different from that of the African for instance, and so Oriental in itself as to be remarked. His language, too, has the richness and sententious fulness of the Chinese. He will express a phrase in a word, and he will qualify the meaning of an entire sentence by a syllable; he will even convey different significations by the simplest inflections of the voice.

“Philologists who have devoted much time to the study, have said that there were but two or three languages, properly speaking, among all the numerous tribes which formerly occupied the country that now composes the United States. They ascribe the known difficulty one people have in understanding one another to corruptions and dialects.

“The writer remembers to have been present at an interview between two chiefs of the Great Prairies west of the Mississippi, and when an interpreter was in attendance who spoke both their languages. The warriors appeared to be on the most friendly terms, and seemingly conversed much together, yet, according to the account of the interpreter, each was absolutely ignorant of what the other said. They were of hostile tribes, brought together by the influence of the American Government; and it is worthy of remark that a common policy led them both to adopt the same subject. They mutually exhorted each other to be of use in the event of the chance of war throwing either of the parties into the hands of his enemies. Whatever may be the truth, as respects the root and the genius of the Indian tongues, it is quite certain they are now so distinct in their words as to possess most of the disadvantages of strange languages; hence much of the embarrassment that has arisen in learning their histories, and most of the uncertainty which exists in their traditions.”

The traits of character embodied in this passage are not those of an inferior, but of a highly acute and imaginative race!

The Philological objections to the proposition that the North American Tribes are of Asiatic origin have by many writers been regarded as insuperable. Du Ponceau, who has given profound attention to the subject, dwells, 1, On the differences in words among the American languages themselves; 2, On the failure which he imputes to those writers who have attempted to identify the Indians with some one individual Asiatic nation, as the Chinese, the Tartars, or the Jews, &c.; and 3, On the differences in the Grammars of the North American dialects and those of the languages of the Old World, which he treats as a conclusive refutation of all arguments in favour of original unity! Mr. Catlin also lays great stress on the first of these considerations, viz. the great differences he found in the words of the dialects of the Tribes he visited.

To every one of these objections the general principles developed in the previous pages will be found to involve a complete answer. 1. The differences apparently fundamental in the words of American languages may be accounted for in the same manner as similar differences in the languages of the old world (the Gothic and Celtic for example,) have already been explained, viz. by the tendency to abandon different synonymes. 2. That attempts to prove a close specific relation between the North American dialects and any one Asiatic language, such as the Chinese or the Hebrew, should have failed, was to be expected as a consequence of the same tendency. 3. Finally, differences of Grammar have been shown to be fallacious evidence viewed separately and without due regard to other features of language.137 Moreover, it will [pg 159] presently appear clearly that, even as regards the Grammar of the Indian Dialects, Du Ponceau's impressions can be distinctly proved to be erroneous, an extended comparison serving to render manifest the interesting fact that, as respects the elements of Grammar, these dialects perfectly agree with the Asiatic and European languages, while in the mode of combining those elements, they do not differ from those languages more widely than the latter differ among themselves.

If the ancestors of the American Indians emigrated at a remote period from the opposite Asiatic Coasts, we have no right to anticipate in their dialects a complete conformity to any one language of the old world, but general and varying features of resemblance to several. The kindred dialects of the same Continent after the lapse of a considerable time do not exhibit any other kind of resemblance! Now this is the species of relation which the North American Indian dialects actually display when compared to the Languages of the Old World!

The chief examples which I have selected as illustrations of this proposition have been taken from the Algonquyn dialects, the very class examined by Du Ponceau himself, to which I have added a few corroborative instances from those of the tribes of the regions to the west of the Mississippi which have been lately described by Mr. Catlin. The dialects termed Algonquyn by Du Ponceau were formerly spoken by numerous tribes who, though not the sole inhabitants, were originally spread through the whole of the present territory of the United States, including the “Lenni Lenapé,” the “Chippeways,” and other powerful septs.

With regard to this class of Indian Dialects I propose to show: 1. That as regards Words they bear a close resemblance to a great variety of Asiatic and European languages. 2. That their grammatical peculiarities, in like manner, combine [pg 160] those of various languages of the Old World, as in the instance of their Verbs and Pronouns, in which the inflections of the Greek and other Indo-European Tongues are found united with separate Pronouns identical with those common to the Welsh on the one hand and the Hebrew and its kindred Semetic dialects on the other.

Words from the North American Indian Dialects of the Algonquyn Class compared with analogous Terms in Asiatic and European Languages.

Man ittou, “The Deity, a Spirit,” (Ind.,138) Mouno he ka, “Ghosts,” (Mandan,139) Manes, “The Spirits of the Dead,” (Latin,) Manus, “The Mind,” (Sanscrit,) Mēn, “The Mind,” (Greek,) Mens, Ment-is (Latin), Pata-maw-os, “The Deity,” from Pata-maw-an, “To adore,” (Ind.,) Poth-ēmenai, “To seek, or pray to,” (Doric,) for Poth-ein (Greek), Peton, “To worship,” Peta, “A Prayer,” (Old High German,) Bet-en, Bitte (German); see, as to N'iou and Nioueskou, two remarkable words for “The Deity,” (Ind.,) pages 22, 23, 24. For names of the Heavenly Bodies, see Appendix A.

“Father,” Ooch, Oss (Ind.), Ozha (Sclavon.), Otze (Dalmatian), Wosch (Lusatian), Otzie (Bohemian), Nosa (Ind.), Niza, Niesee (Samoieds).

“Mother,” Anna (Ind.), Ana (Turkish), Anya (Hungarian), Nanna (Ind.), Nain140 (Welsh), Ningé (Ind.), Naing (Irish), Nik, Nêkaoui (Ind.), N.k.be141 (Hebrew).

“A Woman,” Panum, Phanem (Ind.), Banen (Cornish), Been (Welsh), Pin, “A Female,” applied to animals, (Chinese.)

“A Girl,” Kan-isswah (Ind.), Gen eez (Pers.), Nunk-shoué, Nunk142 (Ind.), Neang (Chin.), Non (Mantschu).

“Husband,” Nap-é, Nap eem (Ind.), Nub-o, Nuptiæ (Lat.), Nuptials (Eng.)—“Husband,” Weew-ehsa, Wasuk (Ind.), “Wife,” Weewo, Weowika (Ind.), “Marriage,” Wiwaha (Sanscrit), Wife (Eng.)

“A little Child,” Awusk, Awash ish (Ind.), “A Child,” Watsah (Sanscrit), “Young,” Wuski (Ind.), “A Youth,” Was or Gwas (Welsh).

“High,” Hockunk (Ind.), Hoch, Höhe, Hoheit (German), High, Height (Eng.), Hitké143 (Iroquois).

“The Earth,” Hacki, Ki, Ackour (Ind.), Ge (Greek), Ager (Latin), Agr-os (Greek).

“Foot,” Sit (Ind.), St.o, “I stand,” (Latin).

“Good,” Wuilit (Ind.), Wohl (Ger.), Weal, Well, Wealth (Eng.), Ee.o.l, “To profit, benefit,” (Hebrew).

“To fight,” Pachg-amen144 (Ind.), P.g.ee (Heb.), Pug-no (Latin).

“To give,” Mekan (Ind.), M.gn (Hebrew).

“Night,” Nukon (Ind.), Nux (Greek), Nox (Latin), Noc (Polish), Noc (Hungarian).

“Blood,” M'huk, Mokum (Ind.), Mucum, Mucus (Latin).

“Cold,” Kisina (Ind.), Kuisne, “Ice,” (Irish,) K.sh.a, “To harden, stiffen,” “A Cucumber,145 from its cooling properties,” (Hebrew).

“Sleep,” Nipu, Nip-awin, “To sleep,” Nupp (Ind.), Nap (Eng.), Hup-nos (Greek), Nim pamino, “I sleep,” (Ind.), N.m., N.ou.m.e (Hebrew).

“To touch,” Aman damaog-an (Ind.), Man-us (Latin).

“Man,” Nin (Ind.), Ninetz “Men,” (Samoieds,) a diminutive race in the North-east of Asia. The national name they have given to themselves is the above word, Ninetz “Men.”

I shall add a few further illustrations from the specimens of the languages of the Indian Tribes to the West of the United States, which have been published by Mr. Catlin.

“Spirits, Ghosts,” Mouno he ka (Mandan,)—and see above, Manitto, “A Spirit,” (Ind.)—Manes, “The Spirits of the Dead,” (Latin).

“Bad,” Khe cush (Mandan), Kakos (Greek).

“A Bear,” Mah to (Mandan), Matto (Sioux), Medve (Hungarian), Medvid (Sclavonian), Metzwetz (Lusatian), Koonoghk (Riccaree), Chiung (Chinese).

“Dog,” Shonka (Riccaree), Shunah (Sanscrit), Shun (Armenian), A meeteh (Blackfeet), Meda (Taraikai, North-east of Asia), Madaidh (Irish).

“A Raven,” Kaka (Mandan), To kah ka (Riccaree), Kaka (Sanscrit).

“River,” Pass ahah (Mandan). See Appendix A. p. 78.

“Ears,” Ookah nay146 (Tuskaroras), Ucho (Sclavonian), Ochtowaga (Shawannos), Ohto kiss (Blackfeet), Ōta (Greek.) See p. 73, Appendix A.

“Hand,” Onka (Mandan.) See Appendix, page 69. Ohahna (Tuskaroras.) See Appendix, p. 68.

“Head,” Otahra (Tuskaroras), Otri (Ashantees Negroes), Utieri (Aminas Negroes.)

“Nose,” Pahoo (Mandan), Pei Pi (Chinese), Pah.soo (Sioux), Ph.o.e, “To Breathe,” (Hebrew), Phusa-o, “To Breathe,” (Greek.)

Want of space, and the extensive nature of the evidence contained in Appendix A, alone deter me from greatly multiplying these examples.

2. As regards Grammatical forms:

Nothing can be more erroneous than the inference that the North American Indian dialects differ in this respect from those of Asia and Europe. In the previous comparison numerous examples present themselves in which the same words unequivocally exhibit at once both the roots and the inflections of words belonging to the languages termed Indo-European, as in Patam-awan, Patam-awos, Kis-ina, M. huk, Mok-um, Khe-cush, Nimp-amino, &c.!

These are not isolated instances. I do not hesitate to affirm that it may be shown by means of the very terms he has selected for examination, that those North American Indian dialects which Du Ponceau has analyzed, abound in similar examples! That the same remark is true with regard to the dialects of the Western Tribes described by Mr. Catlin, is a proposition which will now be illustrated in a remarkable instance!

Among the tribes with whom he resided this writer has especially noticed a highly interesting sept, the Mandans, in whose dialect he has pointed out a variety of instances of close resemblance to the Welsh, which he has left to the judgment of those who are conversant with that language. On this subject I conceive there cannot be any difference of opinion among those who are vernacularly acquainted with the venerable tongue of the Cymry. Of the Mandan terms selected by Mr. Catlin (which are subjoined below), the majority must be admitted to present plain and unequivocal features of resemblance, or rather of identity, to the equivalent Welsh terms.

Now, it will be seen that of these147 examples of affinity the greater number consist of terms which belong exclusively to the province of Grammar!

By some of our countrymen it has been sanguinely maintained that the descendants of a body of Welsh, who left their country under Prince Madoc in the twelfth century, may be still traced by affinities of language among the North American Indian Tribes. Struck by the resemblances he has detected, Mr. Catlin has been led to favour the same conclusion, and to suggest that the Mandans may probably be shown to be the descendants of the lost Cambrian Colony!

But the examples selected by this writer, however creditable to his accuracy and research, do not tend, as he suggests, to prove the existence of a specific connexion between the Welsh and the Mandans! This will be evident from the words contained in the right-hand column (which have been added by the author of this work). An examination of the whole comparison will serve to show clearly, that though in most of the instances he has noticed the resemblance displayed by the Mandan to the Welsh is a close one, in many of them it displays an equally close affinity to the Latin and Greek, &c., while in some—this North American Indian dialect totally differs from the Welsh tongue, and at the same time agrees with—other languages of the Old World. Many of those examples which precede the Comparison are also illustrations of the principle that the Mandan, like other North American Indian dialects, exhibits a general resemblance to all, and not a specific relation to any one of the Asiatic and European tongues. Thus Khe cush, “Bad,” which is identical with the Greek, but is totally unlike the Welsh, is a Mandan word!

The prevalent theory, that there exists a group of Indo-European languages and nations—peculiarly connected among themselves—peculiarly isolated from others—will, I conceive, be found to be fallacious; and what is highly remarkable, distinct proofs of its fallacy, as will presently be seen, are derivable from the dialects of the North American Tribes!

The writers by whom this theory has been maintained have overlooked, on the one hand, the numerous points of resemblance which connect the Indo-European languages with other Tongues; while, on the other hand, they have also overlooked the numerous points of difference which they mutually display. On a close investigation it will be evident that it is only in the basis of their Grammars that any of the ancient languages of Asia and Europe, even those which are very nearly related, agree; they do not display an identity of Grammatical forms! Compare, for example, the inflections of the Verbs in the Latin and the Greek, and the numerous points of difference which they exhibit in almost every tense, combined with mere partial coincidences. That these remarks are equally true of the relation displayed by the North American Indian dialects compared to those of the Old World will be apparent from the following examples, in which it will be manifest that these dialects in their basis agree with, and in their inflections and details only partially differ from, the Asiatic and European languages!

Present Tense of a Verb in two Dialects of the Algonquyn Class.

It will be observed that the inflections of the Algonquyn Verb, indicative of persons (corresponding to those in Leg-o, Leg-is, Leg-it, Latin), are “Om and Amen.” In another form of the Algonquyn Verb, “Amo” is also used.

These forms, “Om, Amo, Amen,” are the common inflections of the first person in all the Indo-European languages. (See Dr. Prichard on the Eastern Origin of the Celtic Nations, pp. 130, 136.) In the North American Indian dialects it will be seen that they occur in all the three persons. There are instances of the same kind in the Indo-European Tongues for the Doric Greek Infinitive as in Poth-emen-ai, “To desire,” and the Greek Passive Participle as in Tupt-omen-os, Tupt-omen-e, “Struck,” are examples of the application of “Amen or Omen” to any individual of the Human Race, in other words, to all the three persons!

This inflection “Amen” exists in the Tartar dialects in the first person, as in Bol-amen, “I am,” Bol-asin, “Thou art,” &c.

The following are examples of its use for the first person in the Greek:

These examples will serve to illustrate the proposition that in inflections and other grammatical details the North American Indian dialects partially coincide with individual Indo-European languages in the same manner as those languages partially agree among themselves! It remains to be pointed out that where these two groups of tongues differ, the differences are such as time might have produced, and that they have the same basis in common.

“Om, Amo, Amen,” are according to Dr. Prichard, pronouns confused with the verb. It is an interesting fact, that “Amo”153 is actually used as the separate pronoun of the third person “He” in the dialect of the “Blackfeet,” one of the N. American Indian Tribes to the west of the Mississippi visited by Mr. Catlin! Now, as all pronouns were originally154 nouns, names for a “Human Being,” (see p. 13,) words of this class must have been in the first instance applied indifferently to all the three Persons. But in the course of time—1, In some languages different nouns were appropriated to different Persons,—the most common noun being applied to the First; (this accounts for the occurrence of “Amo Om Amen,” probably forms of the most primitive155 noun—in the first Person of the Indo-European languages!)—2, In other tongues supplementary pronouns were used to mark the requisite distinction of Persons, the most common nouns being still used agreeably [pg 169] to previous habit,—(though no longer of practical service)—in combination with the verb; (this is the case in the Algonquyn dialects in which the same inflection is repeated in all the three persons, and the requisite distinction of persons is made by means of pronoun prefixes or supplementary pronouns, a distinction which, in the Greek, &c., is made by varying the final inflections or original pronouns, as in “Tupt-oi-mēn, Tupt-oi-o,” &c.)156

The pronoun prefixes of these North American Indian dialects, which as previously intimated, are common to the Welsh and the Hebrew, and other Semetic tongues remain to be noticed.

Algonquyn Pronoun Prefixes.

(See previous specimens of Algonquyn Verbs.)

N' “I” and “We.”

This is an abbreviated form used in conjunction with the verb as a prefix. The pronoun in full is Ni Nin “I,” Ninou “We.” Both the pronoun itself and the abbreviated form in which it is used as a prefix, occur in the Hebrew in which the latter is used as a suffix!

This Algonquyn pronoun is identical with an Algonquyn word for “A Man,” which, it will be observed, renders the proofs of affinity between the Semetic and Algonquyn dialects in this instance complete.

K', “Thou” and “Ye.”159

This is also an abbreviation, the Pronoun in full is Ki, K-in, K-il, “Thou;” Kin-owa, and Kil-ou, “Ye.”

Du Ponceau notices another grammatical feature in which it is clear, though he was unconscious of that fact, that these North American Indian dialects form a connecting link between the Semetic and Indo-European languages. “We find,” he observes, “many Nouns substantive with M prefixed in such a way as to form an integral part of the words.”

This is a Semetic mode of forming a Noun from a Root! In Latin, Nouns are formed from Roots by the same Letter placed at the end of words, as in Regn-um, a mode of which we have also had an example in the Algonquyn dialects, in the words M'-huk, Mok-um!

Where long intervals of time have elapsed, it is in all cases difficult to discriminate between the proofs of a general and remote, and those of a near and specific relation. Still I conceive the previous examples tend, in some measure, to render it probable that there is a closer affinity between the North American Indians and the inhabitants of Northern Asia and of Europe, especially the Russians, Hungarians, and other nations located in its Northern and Western Regions, than exists between these American Septs and the inhabitants of Southern Asia. Should this proposition be confirmed by further investigation, it will be found to be in unison with Adelung's conclusion, that the route by which the first Colonists of Europe came from Central Asia lay through the Steppes which separate the Chinese and Russian Empires. The Nomade Hordes of these vast plains,—the great “Officina Gentium,”—were probably the parent Septs of all or most of the European nations on the one hand, and of the populations of the North-east of Asia and of the opposite American coasts on the other!

Of the general proposition, that the American Tribes and the Nations of the Old World are descended from the same Parent Stock, I conceive the evidence adduced in the previous pages will be deemed to be conclusive.

Appendix A. Analytical Comparison Of Some Of The Most Important Words In The African Languages With The Analogous Words In The Languages Of Asia, Europe, And America.

This Comparison will serve to show:

1. The connexion between the Languages of the Negro population of the Middle of Africa with those of the races in the North and South of Africa who differ from the Negroes in Physiognomy, Colour, and other Physical qualities.

2. The connexion between the Languages of every part of Africa with those of Asia, Europe, and America.

3. The fundamental identity of the Languages of the four great divisions of the Globe.