The view given in implication or statement of the origin of language itself, and of a great diversity of tongues, bears in its substantial import unquestionable marks of probability, and is entitled to its own intrinsic weight as an historical testimony to facts against which it is impossible for any counter historical statements to be arrayed. We hazard little in adding, that a more likely or a more credible account has not been propounded by science or philosophy. Hence the authority of the Bible, entire and unimpaired, enforces the view on our acceptance. Encouragement, however, has been given to the opinion that the Biblical account of the origin of speech and the multiplication of languages is in disagreement with, if it is not positively contradicted by, the results of modern investigations conducted by scholars independent of theological prepossessions. Entertaining a different conviction, we are called on to lay before the reader an outline of our reasons. In doing so, we shall bear in mind another conviction we entertain, namely, that the human race sprung originally from one pair (see MAN).

In regard to the origin and multiplication of languages, we are in a more favourable condition than if our object was to reproduce the primæval condition of social life or any of the arts; for though, apart from the brief notices supplied by the Book of Genesis, we have no historical information, yet we possess in speech as it now is-in all its multitudinous variety, its broken and mingled character-relics of the past, and monuments from even the earliest periods; since speech in its very nature, while it admits of manifold modifications, permanently retains certain great qualities which it transmits from age to age. In these relics and monuments, which to some extent resemble ruins, are the materials that must be studied by those who would ascend to the earliest manifestations of the faculty of intercommunication by means of intelligible sounds; and in these materials the experienced and skilful inquirer finds grounds for trustworthy conclusions, no less than the geologist, who from the, at first sight, interminable confusion of rocks, mountains, sand, and gravel, succeeds, by means of care and skill, in constructing a science that unfolds the process by which the hills were raised, the valleys sunk, and the rivers set in motion.

According to some, language was given to man by God; according to others, it was a human invention. If the first pair were, as it seems necessary to suppose, created with the faculties of ordinary adults, then it is consistent to hold that they were gifted not merely with the power of speech, but with means and resources for its immediate exercise. Unless, however, we close our eyes to all scientific inquiry, we cannot deny

that what was thus revealed or taught was by no means a perfect whole. It is, indeed, clear that the gift was improved by men, and, as a germ, developed and brought by degrees into a variety of forms. 'Modern philology,' says Bunsen (Egypten's Stelle Enleit, 11), has proved that the diverse conditions in which language is now found, arose by degrees and by virtue of intrinsic laws.' The sole question, then, at issue is one of degree. Admit a Creator, you admit that the faculty of speech is divine in its source. The exercise of that faculty, which could be perfected only in the lapse of ages, must to some extent have been contemporaneous with the gift of man's powers.

Speech, in the proper sense of the termconsidered, that is, as the articulate utter. ance of thoughts and feelings-is peculiar to human beings. This peculiarity seems to have more forcibly struck the attention of reflecting minds in the earlier ages; and hence Homer, finding in speech the grand external distinction of man in opposition to the brute, repeatedly characterises human beings as those who use articulate sounds. Speech not only distinguishes man from the irrational creation, but it proves the identity of the several portions of the human race. The faculty is universal. How low soever a tribe may be, its members still give articulate utterance to thoughts and feelings, and thus by two marked features of their existence, namely, the faculty of thinking and the faculty of language, claim kindred with the higher orders of mankind. It is the union of these two faculties which forms what is essential in man. Instinct approaching to reason there may be in the elephant, but the elephant is dumb. Sounds resembling articulate words some birds may be taught to utter, but they are mere sounds, representing no corresponding mental states. Man alone both thinks and speaks. Hence all are men who think and speak-the Bushman no less than the European. And this distinctive peculiarity is one of the greatest consequence, for it involves the elements out of which have been developed all that ennobles our race and lays open before us an endless carcer. It is a peculiarity not of degree, but kind; for though within its own limits it admits of manifold variations, it is divided by a broad sharp line from mere animal qualities. The bleat of the sheep and the roar of the lion, significative as they may be of certain rude and vague sensations, want both articulation and intelligence. In comparison with these united powers of reason and language, of small importance as establishing diversities between different races of men, are varieties of bodily conformation What, comparatively, does it matter whether the forehead be perpendi. cular or receding, or the occiput be more or

less broad, if in any two cases they are tenanted by a mind of similar generic capabilities? Let the skin in one case be black and in another fair-the heart beneath has the same affections, and those affections are guided by the same intellect. The red Indian mother loves her child with a passion as warm, and perhaps nearly as wise, as that which is felt towards her babe by an English peeress.

The faculty of speech has, however, manifested itself under various modifications, giving rise to what are termed languages, dialects, and patois. These terms have reference to artificial diversities of two kinds: I. diversities of origin or blood; II. diversities of numbers. Nations dissimilar in origin speak different tongues. These tongues are themselves spoken, with some diversity, by portions of a particular nation, so giving rise to dialects; and of these portions smaller divisions, varying one from another and from the mother tongue, are found to use what are called patois, or provincial dialects. The diversities which arise in the tongue of the same nation are known to be mainly owing to peculiar local influences-lowlanders or highlanders? agricultural or maritime people? manufacturing or commercial? poor or wealthy? near to or remote from great centres of civilisation? sundered from or exposed to foreign influences? actual culture, climate, soil. From diversities of this kind, the common language of a country undergoes such modifications as often prove unintelligible to an untrained ear, and, even when put into print, defy any but an experienced linguist to interpret their meaning. The Lancashire dialect' as found in 'Tim Bobbin,' especially as spoken by an unrefined native, wou d bear, even to a professional teacher of the English tongue, but few distinct resemblances to the elocution of Kemble and the style of Johnson. It has been affirmed and denied that all the languages in the world hold one to another, and to a common unknown primitive language, the relations that the dialects and patois of, for instance, England have in common, and in regard to the pure mother tongue. In other words, what are termed different languages may also be denominated varieties of one common language, arising from the very diverse influences through which human beings have been led. What was this as sumed primitive language there are no means of determining. It is obvions that speech, as it exactly corresponds with ideas, must from the earliest ages have been subject to variations. In the first family, individuals would have a different nomenclature in proportion as they gained a wider experience and found necessity for new forms of utter

culture appeared. When Cain was sent forth a wanderer on the earth, he could not fail to acquire thoughts and employ terms that were peculiar to himself and his asscciates. It will easily be seen that the causes of diversity were both diverse and innume. rable. Hence diverse languages must have arisen; and in the multitude now in existence there is nothing to discredit the supposition that they all sprung from a common stock. It is equally clear that the common stock could not have been large, and that the number and diversity of the causes which have combined to produce dissimilarity are so great, and have been so long in operation, that it must be difficult to trace, with full and satisfactory evidence, these ramifications to the one original trunk. Yet something of the kind may be done, so as to illustrate, from scientific grounds, the statements and implications of the Bible that human beings are one, not only in nature, but also in parentage. If, indeed, languages are found so dissimilar in character that they cannot be classed together nor referred to a common source, then some support arises to the doctrine that several pairs of human beings were originally created, and became the progenitors of different races of human kind. But if languages, in the midst of very great and numerous diversities, are found to run into certain groups, and these groups exhibit traces of a common origin, then they at least offer no contradiction to the lesson of the Bible regarding the derivation of all men from Adam and Eve: nay, rather, they afford au evidence of the clearlyasserted fact.

In order to employ languages in the explanation of great historical problems, and specifically for illustrating facts stated in the Bible, an accurate, minute, and full acquaintance with the vocabularies and genius of all that have been and are still spoken, is indispensable. Such a knowledge is not yet attainable, and therefore any undertaking of the kind can be attended with only partial success. Still, much progress in the study of comparative philology has already been made, and results have been acquired which have a direct and favourable bearing on the point. When the invention of the compass, and the naval enterprise that ensued, first laid open to Europeans the different parts of the globe, there was in the course of a few ages disclosed a multitude of tongues, whose variety seemed to bid defiance to the utmost skill of classification, and in time concurred with other causes to produce a confirmed scepticism in regard to much of the Biblical history. Time and reflection brought a calmer state of mind and a less incorrect decision. The lists of words in foreign and dissimilar modern languages which travellers had collected, were carefully

studied, especially by learued Germans, and it was ere long found that most of the known tongues formed themselves into groups, the members of which were severally related one to another. After a few attempts of less consequence, the Spanish Jesuit, Lorenzo Hervas, in the fifth volume of his Encyclopedia (1778-7), published a comparative Lexicon, wherein he compared together 63 words, denoting objects of prime necessity, as found in 154 languages; made known 55 yet unmentioned American tongues, and gave the Lord's Prayer in 307 different dialects, adding valuable information respecting what may be termed the geography of languages. Adelung, both in fulness and judgment, surpassed his predecessors in a work that he named Mithridates (1806-17), which exhibited the Lord's Prayer, in nearly 500 languages and dialects. Much, however, remained to be accomplished, especially in learning first the essential character of each tongue, and then in reducing on sound principles diverse tongues into classes and families. In this important task good service has been rendered by Bopp in his great work, Vergleichende Grammatik (1833-1843; see, translated from this, 'A Comparative Grammar,' &c., by Eastwick, 1845); Balbi (Atias Ethnographique); W. von Humboldt (die Kawi-Sprache, 1836), and others. As a result of their inquiries, it is found that languages may be arranged under the following Leads: I. The Shemitic (from Shem), comprising the ancient Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and even the Abyssinian in Ethiopia. The grammatical peculiarity of this class consists in its roots being dissyllables, the absence of compounds, and of modifications in meaning effected by prefixes and affixes. Pronouns placed before or after the root form the tenses of the verb, and prepositions hold the place of cases in substantives, except that the genitive is indicated by the union of the governing with the governed word. II. The Indo-Germanic class comprises a far greater number of members; the chief of which are the Sanscrit, or the ancient sacred language of Hindostan, the Persian, the German, and kindred tongues, including the English; the Sclavonian, the Greek, and the Latin, together with the Romance languages, or rather dialects, such as the Spanish and Portuguese. Its right to be entered in this class has by Bopp and others been successfully asserted on behalf of the Celtic. Thus with the exception of the small stem, the Finnish in the north (between which, however, and the Indo-European points of contact have recently been found) and the Hungarian in the south, all the languages of Europe, as well as several in Asia, as far as India, are shown to belong to one great family. This class is distinguished from

others in the abundance of its grammatica: forms and its power of making compounds, by means of which it excels in well-constructed sentences composed of several members. Opposed to this is, III., a class of monosyllabic languages, destitute of all grammatical forms and connections, found in Eastern Asia. In its normal condition, this class has only words of one syllable, determining by position the mutual relation and import of its terms, and seeking to make up for its poverty in words by manifold accents. The Chinese tongue is the purest and most complete type of this family; to which belong also the languages spoken beyond the Ganges, as well the language of Thibet, and probably the languages of Corea and Japan. IV. The languages of the peoples scattered over the Southern Ocean, if we except the unknown tongues of New Holland and those spoken in the interior of the Malay Archipelago, belong to one and the same family. V. The languages spoken in the north of Upper Asia are very little known; but Schott, after AbelRemusat had directed attention to the logi cal relationship of the Mandshoo (the most cultivated dialect of the Tonguese), Mongolisch, and East Turkish, exhibited in a number of common words, and especially in their grammatical character, the intimate relationship of these languages of Upper Asia, namely, the Turkish - Tartar, Mongolish, Tonguese, and Finnish; and the time may not be far distant when there may be found here a wide extent of the world occupied by many nations speaking one mother tongue, though the varieties of it may be less closely allied than are the Indo-Germanic languages. VI. An immense district of very many different tongues is presented by America. Though as yet we do not possess an accurate acquaintance with each and every one of them, yet William von Humboldt, who possessed on this point a greater amount of information than any other European, has found in them a common character, which he terms 'incorporation,' or the blending together in one word of several parts of a proposition. Even in Africa, among the Negroes, where the languages as well as the people are known only by fragments, it has been ascertained that the languages of the Eastern coast, from Mozambique to Caffraria, coincide in many roots with the languages of the nations on the Western coast in Congo, Loango, and Angola. Also among the tribes of Northern Africa, from the Canary isles to the oasis of Siwa, has one family of tongues been discovered.

Languages, regarded in their fundamental peculiarities, thus arrange themselves into certain large groups. They at the same time afford evidence that a confusion of

tongues once took place. As in geology, so in our present subject, we see a primary formation leading to certain classifications, and a secondary, which exhibits these as broken, intermingled, and thrown together in the dispersion of men over the face of the world. Amidst these confused materials are also found a number of the same or similar roots, which appear to belong to the united human family before the ages when the separate grammatical peculiarities of languages were developed. The French traveller of the last century, De la Condamine, remarked, 'The words Abba, Baba or Papa, and Mama, which with slight variations seem to have come from the ancient Eastern tongues into the European, are common to a great number of American tribes, whose languages are otherwise very dissimilar.' He meets the objection that these are the first natural words of a child, and so establish no historical relationship of languages, by the question, why then these words are not in different languages exchanged one with another, so that the father is called Mama and the mother Papa? Indeed, these two words, which must have been among the first that were used, are found in nearly all tongues. Besides father' and 'mother,' 'God' represents a universal con. ception, and accordingly, under slight variations, derivable from a common form, our English word God' may be found in many and most distantly-seated nations and tribes. Not to adduce other single words, we find a very strong argument for the original re. latedness of languages in the similarity of pronouns and numerals, which express the most simple and the earliest ideas. In the roots of the personal pronouns as found in the American, Indo-Germanic, Shemitic, and other languages, there is the greatest resemblance (comp. Bopp's Verwandtschaft der Malayisch-Polynesischen Sprachen mit d. IndoGermanischen; Berlin, 1840). Moreover, in their internal structure, languages do not stand so broadly opposed to each other as at first may appear. What they have in common is greater and more important than that in which they differ. In their very essence, all written languages are expressive of either sounds or ideas, and all the sounds employed are articulate. These fundamental qualities are universal, while it is only an accident that some languages have a more or less complex or perfect system of grammatical structure, or vary in the number of syllables of which their words are composed. These varieties probably represent diverse ages and diverse states of culture and lingestic developments, rather than original and irreconcileable principles of diversity arising from organic peculiarities or specific differences in origin. In confirmation of this view, it may be added, that

W. von Humboldt has shown die KawiSprache) that all languages may be traced back to monosyllabic roots, and also that the languages with their present fulness of grammatical forms,-as the Sanscrit with its abundance of inflections, the Shemitic with its dissyllabic roots, the Chinese with its monosyllables and entire absence of inflections, were originally not so foreign to each other, but that they appeared without the clothing now peculiar to them, in the same nakedness, like the Chinese. Indeed, what Lepsius, in regard to the Hebrew writing, and particularly the Devanagari alphabet of the Sanscrit, has established, namely, that originally words were consonantal sounds to which vowels adhered, and that through the different formation of the vowel sounds, aided by accents, the various forms of words in different languages arose, is interesting and important in its bearing on the opinions here set forth.

The mutual relationship of the great families of tongues has received acknowledgment from modern linguists. Many of them agree that the Shemitic and the Indo-Germanic are very nearly related to each other. This Gescuius has laboured to establish. Bopp (die Verwandtsch. d. Malayisch-Polyn. Sprachen mit, &c., 1841), following the steps of W. von Humboldt, has shown the original connection of the Malay-Polynesian family of tongues, or those of the South-Sea islands, with the Sanscrit, not only in individual words, but especially in the agreement of the pronouns and numerals. He says, 'As the Romance idioms arose, so, I think, the Malay-Polynesian languages were formed out of the ruius of the Sanscrit.' In regard to the Tartar languages, or those of Upper Asia, Klaproth, in his Asia Polyglotta, discovered many Indo-Germanic roots in the Turkish, Mongolian, and especially in the Mandshoo. Schott also finds in the Tartar tongues roots resembling such as are IndoGermanic. On the other side, these languages, in their vocabularies and their internal character, appear connected with the monosyllabic family of Eastern Asiatic tongues. These last, moreover, while related in words to the languages of Upper Asia, are in the same way also related to the Indo-Germanic. In regard to the tongues of Africa, Lepsius and Bunsen have shown the connection of the Coptic, or old Egyp tian, with the Shemitic and even the IndoGermanic. The Indo-Germanic and Shemitic numerals, even in minute particulars, agree,' says Lepsius,' with the Egyptian sys

tem.

The numeral figures appear to me to have gone from Egypt to India, whence they were got by the Arabians, among whom they are called Indian, as we call them Arabic because we obtained them from the natives of Arabia.' Bunsen, in summing

up results (Egypten's Stelle, i. 515), remarks, 'We have no hesitation in saying that the inquiries hitherto made, as well as the division of languages, lead to the decision that the religion and the speech of the Egyptians have their roots in primæval Asia, in the Armenio-Caucasian country. This district, more nearly defined, is an old Aramaic, and connected with the primæval kingdom of Babylon. The hieroglyphics of Egypt also are a fixed point, at which the primæval Aramaan race came to a stand.' Benfey (Das Verhaltniss der Egyptischen Sprache zum Semit. S. 1844), has also lately established, in a grammatical point of view, the near relationship of the Coptic with the Shemitic. Moreover, Prichard is of opinion that the Negro tongues of Southern Africa stand in organic connection with the Coptic.

The American languages, as we have above seen, have their peculiar character in their internal structure. Our knowledge of them is too limited to afford means for a full comparison of them with other tongues. Yet it is known that the roots of their pronouns agree with the same parts of speech in other countries. Barton and Vater found in 83 American languages investigated by them, 137 roots which appear in Asiatic and European tongues, and in those of the Mandshoos, Mongolians, Celts, and Basques. By these linguistic traces Malte-Brun endeavoured to prove that colonies from the old world had settled in different districts of America.

We have thus shown how the languages of the earth, so far as they are yet known, by no means disprove, but go some way to establish, an original connection of races, or of those who were the progenitors and founders of the earliest families of men. This original unity has been supported by scholars of eminence. The learned Alexander von Humboldt, to whom we owe so much valuable information regarding the languages and the monuments of America, has these words-'However insulated certain languages may at first appear, how extraordinary soever their caprices and their dialects, all have an analogy one with another, and their numerous relations will be perceived the more, in proportion as the philosophic history of nations and the study of languages shall approach perfection.' On this subject an important testimony has been borne by the Academy of Petersburg in the fifth volume of its Memoirs. learned body, probably in part influenced by the Count Goulianoff, who is an enthusiast for the unity of languages, declared that all languages ought to be considered as dialects of one now lost. Of the same school is Klaproth, who in his great work, Asia Polyglotta, while he does not conceal his disbelief of the Mosaic accounts of the dispersion

This

of the human race, maintains that the universal affinity of languages is surrounded with so striking a light, that all ought to regard it as completely established. This affinity, he adds, appears explicable only on the hypothesis which admits that the fragments of a primitive speech still exist in all the tongues of the ancient and modern world. Frederick Schlegel, in his Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, declares himself in favour of the original unity of all languages. In his latest work he retains the same opinion. The eloquent and learned Herder asserts, 'The alphabets of nations present a striking relationship; which is of such a nature, that on a thorough investigation they appear properly only one alphabet.' The same writer, after characterising the Biblical account of the confusion of tongues as a poetic fragment in the oriental style, states, As the human race is a progressive whole, whose parts are intimately bound together, so languages form a whole, marked by unity and proceeding from a common origin. It is extremely probable that the human race and its language go back to a common stock--to a first man, and not to several progenitors dispersed in different parts of the world.' Wiseman thus reviews the effects of the modern study of languages on the Biblical narrative as to their origin: The first movement of this science was more fit to occasion alarm than confidence, so much the more because the chain seemed broken by which all languages were of old held to be united together. With further progress, inquirers began to discover affinities where they were least expected. Then by degrees several languages were found to form themselves into groups and pass into families acknowledged to have a common origin. New researches then gradually reduced the number of independent languages, and consequently extended the domain of the great masses. At last a new kind of investigations succeeded in establishing extraordinary affi nities between these families. These affinities are found in the character and essence of each tongue, in such a manner that no one of them could ever have existed without those elements that constitute the resem blance. Now this excludes a mutual interchange of borrowed materials between these languages. Moreover, these characters could not have been produced in any one by an independent process, and the radical differences which divide these tongues forbid us to consider them as offshoots one of another. We are then brought to these conclusions: on one side these languages must originally have been united in a single one, from which they drew the common elements essential to them all; and, on the other, the separation which has destroyed in them other elements of resemblance not less important,