While the Indo-European family has thus been extending its homes and increasing its relations, other languages, scarcely yet redeemed from barbarism, are found to be governed by the same law, and to exhibit among themselves an unquestionable family likeness. "In Africa, the dialects whereof have been comparatively but little studied, every new research displays connexions between tribes extended over vast tracts and often separated by intermediate nations. In the North, between the languages spoken by the Berbers and Tuariks, from the Canaries to the Oasis of Sieva; in Central Africa, between the dialects of the Felatahs and Foulas, who occupy nearly the whole interior; in the South, among the tribes across the whole continent, from Caffraria and Mozambique to the Atlantic Ocean."Vol. i. p. 62. Such are the great facts, so numerous, so minute, so diversified, ranging through the whole of time since the Deluge, spread over all lands, yet all so explicit and accordant in their testimony, which prove that many nations and tribes, covering vast tracts of country, and not unfrequently widely separated, are as only one people; and that as many languages thus compose, after all, but one group, so these groups are included in some wider generalization. Having thus seen that languages, in their present state, though at first view independent, are in reality related, it becomes a further most interesting subject of inquiry, whether they have ever been in closer connexion than at present. Two methods of investigation have been pursued by modern ethnographers, dividing them into two schools, which are designated by Dr. Wiseman, the lexical and the grammatical. Those who pursue the lexical method of comparison, seek the affinity of languages in their words; while those who belong to the grammatical school compare languages by means of their grammar. The former, to borrow an expression from Klaproth, consider words to be the stuff or matter of language, and grainmar only its fashioning or form. In Germany, Von Hammer, and perhaps Frederic Schlegel, may be enrolled among the members of this school; but its chief members are to be found in France, England, and Russia; of these it is sufficient to name Klaproth, Balbi, Abel-Rémusat, and the younger Adelung. The second opinion has its principal supporters in Germany; W. A. von Schlegel, and the late Baron W. von Humboldt, being among its most distinguished chiefs. W. A. von Schlegel has strongly denounced the principles of the lexical school. "Viri docti," he says, "in eo præcipuè peccare mihi videntur, quod ad similitudinem nonnullarum dictionum qualemcumque animum advertant, diversitatem rationis grammaticæ et universæ indolis plane non curant. In origine ignota linguarum exploranda, ante omnia respici debet ratio grammatica. Hæc enim à majoribus ad posteros propagatur; separari autem à lingua cui ingenita est nequit, aut seorsum populis ita tradi ut verba linguæ vernaculæ retineant, formulas loquendi peregrinas recipiant." Dr. Wiseman, having stated the principles of these two schools, proceeds to advance certain considerations calculated to narrow the difference between them. "Nothing," he in the first place observes, " is more common than to find in very judicious writers, the idea that there is in language a tendency to develope and improve themselves."-P. 73. Thus Horne Tooke would lead us back to a time when every auxiliary verb had its real meaning, and when every conjunction was an imperative. In like manner, by analyzing the conjugational system of the Semitic languages, especially the Hebrew, we can resolve it into the mere addition of pronouns to the simple elementary form of the verb. We can discover in their words the traces of monosyllabic roots, instead of the dissyllabic roots they now present. From these and similar phenomena in other languages, many learned men, among whom may be mentioned Adelung, Klaproth, Michaelis, Genesius, have concluded that languages have acquired their present state by a gradual development from some more simple state during an extended course of years. Dr. Wiseman strongly dissents from this conclusion : "From this opinion, which I confess I once held, I must totally dissent; for hitherto the experience of several thousand years does not afford us a single example of spontaneous development in any speech. At whatever period we meet a language, we find it complete as to its essential and characteristic qualities. It may receive a finer polish, a greater copiousness, a more varied construction; but its specific distinctives, its vital principle, its soul, if I may so call it, appears fully formed, and can change no more. "If an alteration does take place, it is only by the springing up of a new language, phenix-like, from the ashes of another; and even where this succession has happened, -as in that of Italian to Latin, and of English to AngloSaxon, there is a veil of secresy thrown over the change; the language seems to spin a web of mystery round itself, and to enter into the chrysalis state; and we see it no more, till it emerges, sometimes more, sometimes less beautiful, but always fully fashioned, and no farther mutable. And even there, we shall see that the former condition held already within itself the parts and organs ready moulded, which were one day to give shape and life to the succeeding state. "The two languages which I have just mentioned, are as perfect, as to their essential features, or rather their personality and principle of identity, in the oldest as in the latest writers. Of Dante, or the Guidos, I need not speak; but our Chaucer, too, assuredly found in his native tongue, as fully-stringed, and as sweetly-attuned an instrument whereon to sing his lay, as Wordsworth himself could desire. So it is with the Hebrew. In the writings of Moses, and in the earlier fragments incorporated into Genesis, the essential structure of the language is complete, and apparently incapable, in spite of its manifest imperfection, of any farther improvement. The ancient Egyptian, as written in hieroglyphics upon the oldest monuments, and in the Coptic of the Liturgy, after an interval of three thousand years, has been established by Lepsius to be identical. The same will be observed upon comparing the oldest with the latest Greek or Latin writers. The case of the last is particularly striking, if we consider the opportunit of improvement afforded it it by coming in contact with the former. But though the conquest of Greece brought into rude Latium sculpture and painting, poesy and history, art and science; though it rounded the forms of its periods, and gave new suppleness and energy to its language, yet it did not add a tense or declension to its grammar, a particle to its lexicon, or a letter to its alphabet." - Pp. 74-76. This opinion of Dr. Wiseman is confirmed by the judgment of William von Humboldt, who, in a letter to M. Abel-Rémusat, says: "Je ne regarde pas les formes grammaticales comme les fruits des progrès qu'une nation fait dans l'analyse de la pensée, mais plutôt comme un résultat de la manière dont une nation considère et traite sa langue." And again: "Je suis pénétré de la conviction qu'il ne faut pas méconnaître cette force vraiment divine que recèlent les facultés humaines, ce génie créateur des nations, surtout dans l'état primitif, où toutes les idées, et même les facultés de l'âme, empruntent une force plus vive de la nouveauté des impressions, où l'homme peut pressentier des combinaisons aux quelles il ne serait jamais arrivé par la marche lente et progressive de l'expérience. Ce génie créateur peut franchir les limites qui semblent prescrites au reste des mortels, et s'il est impossible de retracer sa marche, sa présence vivifiante n'en est pas moins manifeste. Plutôt que de renoncer dans l'explication de l'origine des langues, à l'influence de cette cause puissante et prémière, et de leur assigner à toutes une marche uniforme et mécanique, qui les traînerait pas à pas depuis le commencement le plus grossier jusqu'à leur perfectionnement, j'embrasserais l'opinion de ceux qui rapportent l'origine des langues à une révélation immédiate de la divinité. Ils reconnaissent aux moins l'étincelle divine qui luit à travers tous les idiomes, même les plus imparfaits, et les moins cultivés." Regarding the grammatical structure of a language not merely as its outward form, but as its most essential element, Dr. Wiseman controverts Schlegel's opinion, that under no circumstances can a language undergo change; and maintains, that under the pressure of peculiar influences, a language may be so changed, as that its words shall belong to one class, and its grammar to another. Thus, as Schlegel himself allows, Anglo-Saxon lost its grammar by the Norman Conquest. Thus, Italian has sprung out of Latin, more by the adoption of a new grammatical system, than by any change of words. Sir William Jones has observed with regard to the ancient Pehlevi or Pahlavi, that the words are Semitic, but the grammar IndoEuropean. "Were I to offer an opinion," says Mr. Crawfurd, respecting the history of the Karvi, (a language of the Indian Archipelago,) I should say that it is Sanscrit, deprived of its inflexions, and having, in their room, the prepositions and auxiliary verbs of the vernacular dialects of Java." Abel-Rémusat has found that the Tartar languages have departed from the criginal type of their grammatical construction. And, once more: the Amharic language, which at first was supposed to be a dialect of the Gheez, (Abyssinian,) and then to be Semitic, is now alleged, by the most recent inquirers, to be of African pedigree, and only to have imitated Semitic inflexions. 66 Guided by these and other facts of a similar nature, Dr. Wiseman is led to lay down the following rule for examining verbal affinities ; so as not to lose the good of the lexical method, while coming nearer to the severer requisitions of the grammatical school : "This rule is, not to take words belonging to one or two languages in different families, and, from their resemblance, which may be accidental or communicated, draw inferences referable to the entire families to which they respectively belong; but to compare together words of simple import and primary necessity, which run through the entire families, and, consequently, are (if I may so express myself,) aboriginal therein." P. 88. By means of this rule, Dr. Wiseman succeeds in tracing a closer grammatical connexion between the Indo-European and Semitic languages than has as yet been detected. We must refer our readers to his own pages for some copious passages from certain letters, 1835 and 1836, of Dr. Lepsius; who has closely applied himself to the study of Coptic, with a view to discover its relations with other languages, seeing that it has hitherto been considered an isolated and independent tongue. The conclusion to which these investigations have led is, "That the ancient Egyptian, now fully identified with the Coptic, is no longer to be considered an insulated language, void of connexion with those around it; but presents very extraordinary points of contact with the IndoEuropean and Semitic families; not, indeed, sufficiently distinct to make it enter into either class, but yet sufficiently definite and rooted in the essential constitution of the language, to prevent their being considered accidental, or a later engrafting thereupon. "The effects of this intermediary character, according to Lepsius' expression, is to group together, in a very remarkable harmony, this cycle of languages; so that instead of any longer considering the Indo-European and Semitic as completely insulated families, or being compelled to find a few verbal coincidences between them, we may now consider them as linked together, both by points of actual contact, and by the interposition of the Coptic, in an affinity grounded on the essential structure and most necessary forms of the three."P. 101. Thus far we have pursued our course among the languages of the Old World. But here a long train of civilization, which, even if migratory, has left visible traces of its influence in every country it has visited, must have done much towards the assimilation of forms and the amalgamation of dialects. Let us, then, cross the Atlantic, and extend our inquiries to the native languages of the Western Hemisphere. The number of dialects spoken by the natives of America is so great as almost to exceed belief. Indeed many persons did refuse to give credit to Humboldt's reports on this subject when they were first published. It appeared to them to be utterly inconsistent with the scriptural narrative of the lineal descent of the whole human race from a single pair, that such numerous insignificant tribes should have migrated so far, and should each speak a language of its own, wholly unintelligible to its neighbours. And while believers in revelation the one hand, rejected Humboldt's account, unbelievers, on the hand, did not hesitate to assert that America had an aboriginal population of its own, independent of that of the eastern world. To meet this objection, the defenders of religion had recourse to various hypotheses with regard to the source from which America had received her population, and the means by which the inhabitants of more eastern regions had been transported thither. "Campomanes patronized the Carthaginians, Kircher and Huet the Egyptians, De Guignes the Huns, Sir William Jones the Indians, and many American antiquaries the ten tribes of Israel."-P. 121. Ethnography has grappled with this problem. Smith-Barton was the first who made any progress in the attempt to trace an analogy between the American dialects and the languages of northern and eastern Asia. The subject was carried on by Vater in his Mithridates. Malte-Brun attempted a further step in advance, and endeavoured to establish what he calls a geographical connexion between the American and Asiatic languages. "After a minute investigation, his conclusions are these :-that tribes connected with the Finnish, Ostiack, Permian, and Caucasian families, passing along the borders of the Frozen Ocean, and crossing over Behring's Straits, spread themselves in very different directions towards Greenland and Chili; that others, allied to the Japanese, Chinese, and Kowrilians, proceeding along the coast, penetrated to Mexico; and that another colony, related to the Tungooses, Mantcheous, and Mongols, passed along the mountain-tracts of both continents, and reached the same destination. Besides these, he supposes several smaller emigrations to have borne over a certain number of Malay, Javanese, and African words." - P. 123. We must not lay much stress on these conclusions. The resemblances between American and Asiatic languages, from which they are drawn, are too slight for this purpose; and the above-mentioned migrations are not supposed, even by the authors themselves, to do more than add to a population already existing. "But there are conclusions drawn by ethnographical science from the obser vation both of general and local phenomena, which bear most materially upon this point, and have completely removed all the difficulties arising from the multiplicity of American languages. "And, first, the examination of the structure pervading all the American languages has left no room to doubt that they all form one individual family, closely knitted together in all its parts by the most essential of all ties-grammatical analogy. This analogy is not of a vague, indefinite kind, but complex in the extreme, and affecting the most necessary and essential parts of grammar; for it consists chiefly in the peculiar methods of modifying conjugationally the meanings and relations of verbs by the insertion of syllables; and this form led the late W. von Humboldt to give the American languages family name, as forming their conjugation by what he called agglutination." P. 125. a Nor is this analogy partial. It extends over both North and South America, binding together the languages of the most civilized nations and of the most barbarous tribes, impressing a family character on the tongues spoken under the Torrid and the Arctic zones. "Secondly, the more attention is paid to the study of the American languages, the more they are found subject to the laws of other families, inasmuch as this one great family tends every day to subdivide itself into large groups, |